future electrification routes?

25Hz wrote:I say electrify HBG-CHI, NYP-ALB-TOR and ALB-BOS, and why not the surfliner route, change engines at buffalo for LSL, and at ALB for adirondack.

If you electrified hbg-chi, NS could use electrics and save a few bucks on fuel purchases.

If you electrify NYP-ALB-TOR, you eliminate the need for diesel into NYP on the empire line, and MNRR could use M8's and beyond for as far up the line as they want.

Not sure about california, but seems like some existing and soon to come services could utilize it.

Why on earth ALB-BOS?

Greg Moore wrote:

25Hz wrote:I say electrify HBG-CHI, NYP-ALB-TOR and ALB-BOS, and why not the surfliner route, change engines at buffalo for LSL, and at ALB for adirondack.

If you electrified hbg-chi, NS could use electrics and save a few bucks on fuel purchases.

If you electrify NYP-ALB-TOR, you eliminate the need for diesel into NYP on the empire line, and MNRR could use M8's and beyond for as far up the line as they want.

Not sure about california, but seems like some existing and soon to come services could utilize it.

Why on earth ALB-BOS?

WOR-BOS...yes, I could see that driven by the MBTA for the Worcester Line. Service density will be fat enough to support it given the saturation Framingham and Worcester schedules and future likelihood of a Route 128 short-turn akin to the Fairmount Line. The overlapping service patterns would support the investment, and if Amtrak buys true dual modes for some future loco purchase they could easily piggyback onto it and cover the Inland Route on-wire WSH-NHV + WOR-BOS and on-diesel NHV-WOR. Although it wouldn't be their project...the T's the one that's got the cost/benefit advantages for eventually initiating such a project. Wouldn't interfere with the freight either since there's no overheight jobs left east of Framingham, no autoracks left on the ex-autorack route from Westborough-Framingham, and only a handful of overhead bridges in double-stack territory west of Framingham. If anything has to have its clearances upped from 22' to 24-25' or whatever it takes for DS-under-wires, nearly all affected structures can be solved with a trackbed undercut.

I highly doubt WOR-SPR is possible to electrify because of the sheer quantity of overhead structures that would have to have their clearances padded for DS-under-wires. With the traffic levels and no commuter rail...pass. Improving speeds on the Springfield Line and inside MBTA territory, then using true duals to bridge the diesel gap is plenty good enough. It is not like there are going to be many intermediate stations between Springfield and Worcester on an Inland. At most Palmer. And despite the occasional hallucinations of MA's governor, there will NEVER be T commuter rail to Springfield upping the frequencies above the maximum-most Amtrak trips per day anyone's envisioning. Springfield is not a Boston commuter market; once every 2-1/2 hrs. on an Amtrak pretty much fits the need.

And forget ever about SPR-ALB. Still more dozens of DS-under-wire clearances to square including the State Line Tunnel, zero commuter rail possibility, zero plausible intermediate stop additions except maybe Chatham, hardly any speed advantage because the Berkshires are the Berkshires. In your wildest dreams, could you ever envision more than a half-dozen passenger movements per day on this stretch? Even if a BOS-ALB shuttle?



As for the Springfield Line, I agree. Eventually. But they've got to drop a cool $250M thereabouts zapping the grade crossing clusters in Wallingford and Meriden with a mass separation effort first. Eliminating those speed restrictions matters more to the line's performance and capacity than wires if you're looking at a future where it's going to be supersaturated with commuter rail and multiple Amtrak routings. Wires don't matter until they do their homework and grade separate all public crossings south of Hartford (HFD-SPR is least-concern since nearly all those crossings are Hudson-esque tiny ones abutting the river). Then, absolutely I agree with electrifying. The dual-modes will make great time on the Inlands with such a small diesel gap, and shave more time off the Vermonter/Montrealer where SPR-south is the only place the speeds can really increase a couple gears.




Hudson Line and Richmond have been well-covered. NY State has to vouch for the Hudson. Right now it's their disinterest that makes it not worth Amtrak's while to engage the conversation. And Richmond is a matter of giving CSX enough money. CSX will do anything if you give them enough money. They just won't settle for anything less than the most money they can wring out of a project.


Nothing else except California state-driven initiatives makes sense. Too much diesel territory needs to be pushed up to 110 MPH before the wires even matter, and there isn't enough commuter rail density outside the coasts for raw hourly train frequencies to backstop the costs. Outside of Metra, but Metra territory doesn't string together the Chicago hub like all the NEC + branchline commuter overlap does. Fastest achievable diesel track spread around to more regional destinations is what the middle of the country needs more than one super-duper electrified trunk like CHI-STL. More people can be served by distributing the investment, not concentrating it.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:Nothing else except California state-driven initiatives makes sense. Too much diesel territory needs to be pushed up to 110 MPH before the wires even matter, and there isn't enough commuter rail density outside the coasts for raw hourly train frequencies to backstop the costs. Outside of Metra, but Metra territory doesn't string together the Chicago hub like all the NEC + branchline commuter overlap does. Fastest achievable diesel track spread around to more regional destinations is what the middle of the country needs more than one super-duper electrified trunk like CHI-STL. More people can be served by distributing the investment, not concentrating it.

I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see electrification in the Los Angeles Basin at some point in the not-too-distant future-- not strictly for operational reasons, but out of environmental concerns. That could mean the Santa Barbara-Los Angeles-San Diego corridor gets wired.

My $0.02:

Pensey GG1 wrote: Amtrak-ish lines (all 25kV overhead):
1. MBTA Providence Line. This is an easy one. Throw some wire up in sidings, yards, and the third track, get some electric locos, and it would speed up the trains quite a bit.
2. Shore Line East. Another easy one. A couple of sidings, and they're ready to go.

IMHO, Amtrak should charge the MBTA and SLE more to run diesels than electrics. It's the kick in the nerts that those agencies need to start using already existing wires. Then again, the MBTA might just be giving up on commuter rail - their ridership has been declining for a decade now.

3. NHV-SPG does make sense. The shuttle is relatively irrelevant, but CT is planning lots of commuter rail up there, it would be perfect for electrification.

I'm still at a loss as to how they're spending what they'er spending on and existing rail line and NOT electrifying it...

That said, I say build the traffic a few years, then string wires up. But design for electric.

4. NYP-ALB: A technologically challenging route, since it would require MN to convert their fleet to M-8 style EMUs for that line, it has huge potential benefits. Initially double electrification to C-H could be used with M-8 style cars north of C-H to POK, and Amtrak all overhead. However, it's all under one progressive state that really wants good rail service between the capital and the biggest city in the US.

Nothing technically challenging about it. The idea of an ICE-T derivative with third rail capability....I'm sure Siemens can do it.

5. WAS-Richmond. Including VRE.

Logical.

6. The BNSF Southern Transcon. Few overhead restrictions, a ton of trains, and a really long distance. Perfect formula for freight electrification. It's going to be the first one to go electric. A few bits of additional electrification and Amtrak could run a 100mph train down it as well. Superliners and ACS-64's anyone?

Yeah, have fun getting any freight RR in this country out of the 50's. They'd rather go back to coal than electrify...

1. Eastern end of NJT. They sure run enough trains, and they own their trackage. Not Amtrak though. 25kV.

NJT had plans (i.e., blueprints) to do the entire system until Warrington killed them. Sad.

2. Danbury Branch. That combined with NYP-ALB overhead would put the dual-modes out of business, as there's not enough through traffic from Wassaic to justify their own loco fleet. Not Amtrak though. 25kV.

No reason to use 25kv on Danbury. Wassaic? That's why DMUs exist. Waterbury? Buy cars for the two passengers on the line and call it a day...

3. Everything on LIRR west of probably Yaphank and either Patcheogue or Speonk. Again not Amtrak. 750DC.

Everything west of Riverhead and Speonk. Let's get realistic here. DMU the rest and save a few DMs for the Hamptons(tm).

Port Jeff, Oyster Bay (to Locust Valley - OB itself should have been abandoned years ago) - those lines should have been done 20 years ago.

There's zero reason why any line in the NYC metro with more than a handful of riders, should be operating diesels. The rest should be DMU shuttles.

And finally convert the NEC to 60hz, 12.5kV. Would make life a lot easier.

It's fun talking to EEs about the conversion losses Amtrak has at the frequency changers...

There is no reason that freight lines with stacks can't be electrified, you just need another foot or two of clearance overhead. Stacks run over SEPTA with no problems.

It's a wire. It can be put at whatever height you need it at.

Mackensen wrote:

ngotwalt wrote:I'm surprised no one has mentioned Chicago-Detroit, with its higher speeds, which are getting faster and Amtrak owning much of the line, it would at least logistically be a prime target. A great route for electrification would be the old Illinois Central, except it is electrified at 3000V DC in and around Chicago. But the IC is a fast railroad when the CN isn't running underpowered land barges.
Cheers,
Nick

I can't see Norfolk Southern allowing electrification between Chicago and Porter, and there's no point in electrifying that corridor unless you can do the whole thing. Rebuilding the line east of Kalamazoo will occupy both Amtrak and the state of Michigan for the foreseeable future. If the loose talk about an all-passenger route into Chicago ever materializes then that may be a different matter.

You could use the dual modes NJT is using to get around that problem

Noel Weaver wrote:I don't know where you folks pushing wires think the money is going to come from to accomplish this?????

Same place everyone else gets their money from: magic....

I can't possibly see CSX accepting this between Washington and Richmond and even then you have trains going to Norfolk, Newport News, Charlotte and of course Florida.

Money talks and bullsh**t walks. CSX knows that. Give 'em tax breaks for letting Amtrak run wires, and suddenly, they'll be receptive...

New Haven - Springfield presently does not have enough traffic to justify the expense and even with a major expansion of passenger service the present diesel equipment will do an adequate job.

If by adequate you mean 'slower than anything else except walking'.

Albany is also a no-brainer when it comes to electrifilcation, even though Amtrak controls and operates this trackage it is still basically owned by CSX. Again to Albany the present diesel equipment is adequate for the present level of service and could handle an expansion of service as well with a few more DM locomotives.

You're right. Albany's a no-brainer for electrification. Especially if you can leverage higher curve speeds via tilt (Unbalance on order of 9 inches) equipment. Albany's one of the busiest off-corridor stations out there..

Having said all that the places where electrification might make sense could be San Francisco - san Jose, Calif.

Calrtrain has been studying that since I was in high school. It's not happening any time soon. Nor is cali HSR.

and maybe a few of the commuter lines in Chicago that are not owned by one of the major freight railroads.

Metra is the poster child for electrification.

Diesels today do a good job and are far more flexible when it comes to commuter trains

They're great at being slow, loud, and bad neighbors. None of which are desirable attributes for a commuter line.

One place I think an expansion of electric operations would be very good would be Boston - Providence on the MBTA, a few more running and yard tracks and some equipment would improve this operation big time. IF the State of Massachusetts had elected to build an tunnel linking South Station to North Station then and only then maybe electrification of at least some of the routes north of Boston could have been justified. I am think Boston - Rockport, Boston - Newburyport and maybe Boston - Lowell provided that they do not involve tracks that have major freight use.

The MBTA is a good case for electrification, but I doubt the state cares, look at the ridership trends...

At one time years ago Boston had a good commuter fleet with a lot of BUDD RDC cars, these cars offered more flexibility than the present push/pull equipment does today. Too bad the leadership did not see fit to do a major rebuilding of these cars a few years ago, I think it would have paid off big time if they had.

Rebuilding 50 year old antiques is a losing proposition. Modern DMUs are better in every way (take a GTW 2/6 in Austin or NJ some day).

In short, if the wires or third rail are already there, maintain them and use them to the fullest extent possible but do not add to them at least not in the northeast.

There's virtually no reason any train in the NYC area should be diesel powered, and plenty of reasons why they SHOULDN'T.

red streak 1 wrote:This thread has gone for the simple solutions that omit many items. Electrical power is not just there without building the transmission infrastructure.

6. CAT from NYP to ALBANY is probable but 1st re doubling tracking to MNRR. Then CAT would need to be on all 4 tracks from Spuyen Deville north to the Amtrak section.

I think there is an opportunity here to kill two birds with one stone. There's a definite need for new power sources to NYC. The current plan is to bury a high-powered DC line under the Hudson. (last I heard).

No one wants a ROW for this, hence the "hide it i the river".

But you've got a ROW already, that will need a fraction of the power a large transmission line would provide.

Yes, more complicated than SIMPLY building catenary, but most likely simpler and more politically expedient than building catenary AND a power ROW infrastructure for NYC.
(and since the power is expected to come from Quebec power, nice and carbon free.)

If DMU's are so great please tell me why Tri-Rail is not presently using them. I have not heard anything good about these things from those whom I know from Tri-Rail? No other carrier wants to really be bothered with them either. Budd RDC's served the commutiong public in and around Boston very well for a considerable number of years and served under major weather problems even longer in Canada. They were one of the best pieces of passenger equipment ever designed and built. It is a shame that the Budd Company when they built the SPB that they did not see fit to stick with the proven design and characteristics of the proven RDC of the 50's with appropriate improvements as needed but not a whole re-design that did not work at least did not work well.
Noel Weaver

In this discussion of electrification, it should be noted that there are 2 places in the US not on the east coast where electrified heavy rail is either being built or funded. Both are for commuter systems, so they don't have much utility to Amtrak.

The CalTrain San Jose to San Francisco corridor is to be upgraded to catenary. Funded earlier this year in the CA transportation budget deal.

The other is the Denver FasTracks project. Which is building 4 electrified commuter/regional rail lines on the north side of Denver by 2018, one of them to the Denver airport. The interesting part is that Denver is buying 56 EMU cars based on the SilverLiner V which are to be built/assembled in Philly. The doors on the Denver version appears to be configured for high level platforms only, which makes sense since Denver is building all new stations for the system. Quite impressive how quickly Denver is building out a rail transit system.

Noel Weaver wrote:If DMU's are so great please tell me why Tri-Rail is not presently using them.

Because they bought a piece of junk made by a company that was barely solvent and had virtually no experience building commuter rail cars? Nobody seems to be having any issues with the Stadler cars running in the US right now.

Budd RDC's served the commuting public in and around Boston very well for a considerable number of years and served under major weather problems even longer in Canada.

That's nice. Black and white TVs with tons of vacuum tubes also served the public well back then. Who needs color or those silly new transistors?

Things have changed. Times have changed. Commuter agencies are competing in a world where even a cheap car outperforms, outlasts, outcomforts, and has features beyond a '55 chevy. Today, you need greater comfort, faster (level) boarding, better speeds, better ride, and lower costs. And that's to keep up.

Greg Moore wrote: There's a definite need for new power sources to NYC. The current plan is to bury a high-powered DC line under the Hudson. (last I heard).

The 'need' is a political desire to force Indian Point closed, at any cost. You can't get rid of 33% of NYC's generating capacity without a replacement line from upstate.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:
Right now it's their disinterest that makes it not worth Amtrak's while to engage the conversation.

Today's schedules between Albany and New York are roughly an hour faster than back in the heyday. With roughly half the population of greater Hartford-Springfield Albany has twice the ridership. Springfield is as far from New York City as Albany is. Amtrak is showing some interest, they just leased from Poughkeepsie to Schenectady and are busy with upgrades.

http://www.governor.ny.gov/press/120420 ... nouncement" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Greg Moore wrote:Why on earth ALB-BOS?

The northeast is one of the toughest areas in terms of railroads, because of routes, clearances, and various types of electrification. So here's what I see logically. As part of nationwide freight electrification of high-volume lines, NS electrifies the Crescent Corridor, and the Pensey Mainline, connecting Amtrak to the Harrisburg Line, and then splitting off to the north to North Jersey for stack traffic. Conrail builds and electrifies the cross-harbor freight rail tunnel, with stack clearances into Maspeth. CSX electrifies the water level route to Albany, and in the process connects with passenger electrification from NYC. Note that passenger and freight electrification are technically the same, the differentiation being who uses them the most. Now overhead electrification of the NYC freight connection from the Hudson Line to the Hell Gate Line is easy, and third rail is pulled back to Yankees/153rd. The ALB-POK-NYC route now has no third rail limitations, although it still can't do stacks. Now you've got the CSX line west of the Hudson that has electrified connections on both ends, including to Conrail for the freight tunnel to get stacks into Maspeth, and normal height minus the third rail onto the NY&A. So that route goes electric. Now think east. NHV-SPG goes electric for passenger traffic. MBTA electrifies all of their lines. Now you've got electrification at SPG heading south, and Worcester heading east, and ALB heading west and south. It only makes sense to "connect the dots" and do ALB-Worcester, and then connect Worcester and Providence with electrification to get stacks to Davisville, which can also receive spine, roadrailer, or trailer-in-well-car traffic from North Jersey via Conrail and P&W.

Nasadowsk wrote:IMHO, Amtrak should charge the MBTA and SLE more to run diesels than electrics. It's the kick in the nerts that those agencies need to start using already existing wires. Then again, the MBTA might just be giving up on commuter rail - their ridership has been declining for a decade now.

You're suggesting they be easy on them? They should straight up kick anything that's not electric with some sort of minimum horsepower requirement, say 750hp/car off their railroad (other than freight).

I'm still at a loss as to how they're spending what they'er spending on and existing rail line and NOT electrifying it...

Yeah, you have to wonder. Then again they haven't electrified SLE yet.

Nothing technically challenging about it. The idea of an ICE-T derivative with third rail capability....I'm sure Siemens can do it.

The third rail and overhead is challenging. The long term goal should be to pull the third rail back to Yankees-153rd, clearing the way for freight over to the Hell Gate Line, and bringing down the costs of running double electrification.

Yeah, have fun getting any freight RR in this country out of the 50's. They'd rather go back to coal than electrify...

They're not stupid. It's all about the money. The biggest thing holding them back is the ability to put fuel surcharges on freight. Outlaw that, and make them show one price to the shippers that can't change based on fuel prices, and you're literally billions of dollars closer to electrification.

NJT had plans (i.e., blueprints) to do the entire system until Warrington killed them. Sad.

Sad indeed.

No reason to use 25kv on Danbury. Wassaic? That's why DMUs exist. Waterbury? Buy cars for the two passengers on the line and call it a day...

Danbury gets you direct run-through to GCT. Or are you saying use 12.5kV instead? 25kV is cheaper... Once the Busway boondoggle makes it's epic fail whale splash and gets torn up, extend the Waterbury runs to Hartford and New Haven, and put the Devon transfer station in. Also, if the HSR is built from NYC to Boston on the I-84ish route, then there's a good case for Danbury and Waterbury both being feeders to bring people north.

Everything west of Riverhead and Speonk. Let's get realistic here. DMU the rest and save a few DMs for the Hamptons(tm).

At that point, just dump the diesel locos and DMs entirely. Patcheogue and just east of Ronkonkoma are where their heavy ridership patterns end, but extending to Speonk and Riverhead can't really hurt, you can easily just extend the trains out. And DMUs would allow them to offer far more frequent service on the east end and maybe even compete with the Hampton Jitney for service to Manhattan. The LIRR is just a bizarre operation. They need a lot of improvements, specifically in the speed department. With full eastern electrification, they could do the transfers and run electrified trains to AT, LIC, NYP, and GCT, so the biggest obstacle to faster/more service would be Jamaica itself, so clearly some serious engineering needs to be done there to speed things up. They should also take the old RBB and put a double track LIRR line down one side with a connection to the Atlantic Branch and re-create the loop through to the Far Rockaway Branch, and then use the other two tracks of the old RBB to run NYCTA service from the Queens BLVD line down to JFK and the track. Then they could re-connect the West Hempstead branch to the Hempstead branch, allowing more loop trains, and finally re-activate the old central line from Hempstead to Farmingdale, and use that uni-directionally during each rush for a combination of local service and routing of Babylon-Speonk electrics, in combination with the third track on the Main line, they would have significantly more capacity during rush hour.

There's zero reason why any line in the NYC metro with more than a handful of riders, should be operating diesels. The rest should be DMU shuttles.

Yup. I think Southeast-Wassaic is another DMU candidate by ending through service. I'd electrify the Danbury up to New Milford for run-throughs to GCT and Penn.

It's fun talking to EEs about the conversion losses Amtrak has at the frequency changers...

There's definitely losses, but they're surprisingly efficient.

It's a wire. It can be put at whatever height you need it at.

As long as your pans can reach it. And they can definitely reach over stack cars... You may actually need pans that can reach upwards of 30' to handle some lines that have been built for oversize/overweight loads.

Nasadowsk wrote:They're great at being slow, loud, and bad neighbors. None of which are desirable attributes for a commuter line.

Quite true. Diesel locomotives aren't people-friendly.

There's virtually no reason any train in the NYC area should be diesel powered, and plenty of reasons why they SHOULDN'T.

Exactly. It's a shame how the existing electric infrastructure isn't as well utilized as it could be, partly because of routes without electrification that diverge.

red streak 1 wrote:This thread has gone for the simple solutions that omit many items. Electrical power is not just there without building the transmission infrastructure.
1. A perfect example is Amtrak adding frequency converters on the NYP - PHL line to handle higher power demands_
2. The MNRR failure of the Con Ed feeder .
3. When Amtrak was planning the NHVN - BOS electrification MBTA show no interest in electrifying their BOS - PVD line so Amtrak did not ask for electrical supplies to provide for that service.
4. As well MBTA would not want to operate electric BOS - PVD until the alternate route Amtrak was not interested in electrifying. That is South Hampton - Dorchester - Readville route. That then provides the electrified alternate route to PVD that has been used several times in the past by Diesels.
5. Conn DOT has expressed interest in CAT to north of Hartford at Windson Locks desiring Mass continuing to SPG.
6. CAT from NYP to ALBANY is probable but 1st re doubling tracking to MNRR. Then CAT would need to be on all 4 tracks from Spuyen Deville north to the Amtrak section.
7. WASH - Richmond is possible but Virginia DOT would not want to do it until the 4 tracking is complete the whole way. Otherwise adding new CAT to tracks under construction is much more expensive.

There's no technical reason all of those problems can't be solved. And the Amtrak frequency converter stuff is ridiculous. They need to convert to 60hz. That would get rid of all that extra complication.

Nasadowsk wrote:The 'need' is a political desire to force Indian Point closed, at any cost. You can't get rid of 33% of NYC's generating capacity without a replacement line from upstate.

That sucks. We need more nuclear power. If anything, they should keep Indian Point running. Shoreham was a really sad situation. If we're going to reduce CO2 emissions and maintain our quality of life, we're going to need a lot of new nuclear plants. Oh, and the trains. They run great off nuclear power too.

We're straying way off topic, but the three Indian Point nuclear power reactors are approaching 40 years of service by 2014 to 2016; I don't believe the NRC has allowed any reactor to be license beyond 40 years initially, and only renews them for another 20 years max. That's the NRC regulators, the State regulators, assumingly under the governor's adminstration, may decide to not allow their state's license renewals.

electricron wrote:We're straying way off topic, but the three Indian Point nuclear power reactors are approaching 40 years of service by 2014 to 2016

IIRC, Unit 2 is already operating in the extended period, though without a license because the NRC hasn't made a decision, which they don't have to until they're good and ready to. Due process. NY state really can't do jack about it, it's interstate commerce, and the feds have already ruled (see VT Yankee) that the states can't shut a nuke plant.