Multi-tracking

Great food for thought here, thanks for the responses. My main purpose in posting this was to get opinions on whether Amtrac's ridership would grow with both more rapid transit times and improved reliability meeting scheduled times. Adding trackage just seemed a logical way to do those two things.

I don't think speed is as important as frequency and reliability in attracting service. I did see a note in the EIS for improving Richmond to Washington frequencies: for planning purposes it takes about 30 miles for a passenger train to overtake a freight train in the same direction if the overtaken train is not to be stopped.

TheOneKEA wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 9:04 am With the availability of the Northeast Corridor for intercity weekend services and the existing project on the books to widen the Corridor between Halethorpe, MD and Severn, MD...

On the same topic, there are some other 2-track segments of the NEC.

In particular NWK-NYP (though the new Portal Bridge and Gateway Tunnels would address this), and NYP-New
Rochelle north of Harold/Sunnyside. This segment is also expected to see additional traffic with Metro-North's
Penn Station Access direct service.

John_Perkowski wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 10:23 am The historic CB&Q between North Kansas City and Lincoln NE is now a busy piece of railroad. BNSF has been adding sidings, but bluntly, double tracking is the right approach.

Doesn’t the road to double track start at multiple sidings, which you incrementally expand and connect? That seems to be how it happened in Illinois.

R36 Combine Coach wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 5:55 pm

TheOneKEA wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 9:04 am With the availability of the Northeast Corridor for intercity weekend services and the existing project on the books to widen the Corridor between Halethorpe, MD and Severn, MD...

On the same topic, there are some other 2-track segments of the NEC.

In particular NWK-NYP (though the new Portal Bridge and Gateway Tunnels would address this), and NYP-New
Rochelle north of Harold/Sunnyside. This segment is also expected to see additional traffic with Metro-North's
Penn Station Access direct service.

I think the overall plan for New Rochelle-Harold includes at least one more track and a number of additional interlockings for just that reason. No way of doing it with just what's there now.

R36 Combine Coach wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 5:55 pm On the same topic, there are some other 2-track segments of the NEC.

In particular NWK-NYP (though the new Portal Bridge and Gateway Tunnels would address this), and NYP-New
Rochelle north of Harold/Sunnyside. This segment is also expected to see additional traffic with Metro-North's
Penn Station Access direct service.

NYP - Pelham Bay Draw will have added tracks for the MNRR service.

TheOneKEA wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 9:04 am The Maryland Department of Transportation and CSX have also been going back and forth for a long time about the expansion of passenger services on the Baltimore Division’s Capital Subdivision and Meteopolitan Subdivision. CSX insists that the existing service pattern will not be allowed to expand unless each double-track route is triple tracked, and wants MDOT to pay for it.

The Met Sub would be impossible to triple track without a LOT of very expensive ROW acquisition south and east of Clarksburg, MD. The Capital Sub would be slightly less impossible, and a small part of it in the vicinity of the Jessup Auto Terminal is already triple track. But the entire route wouldn’t be triple track anyway because of the presence of the Thomas Viaduct and the highly constrained ROW north of Dorsey, MD. Redoubling the Old Main Line Subdivision between Relay, MD and Adamstown, MD isn’t a good solution either because it serves a much different set of freight routings than the Capital and Met Subs.

With the availability of the Northeast Corridor for intercity weekend services and the existing project on the books to widen the Corridor between Halethorpe, MD and Severn, MD, I suspect that it will be a very long time before the Capital Sub is widened to any great extent.

Given past traffic patterns for two decades, I think it's overdue. MARC has trouble even with it's current service due to freight interference on a regular basis. Expansion to three-track service was in the cards back in 2007.

The thing though is around DC, to keep going south you need to hit Met to Capital (QN/F tower) to Alexandria, which involves blocking track around Riverdale. Put a flyover in that wye so freight can not block two tracks moving onto that wye and you free up capacity there for MARC to get through.

Take that, plus the push to four-track down past BWI and to the GROVE interlock (although I'd go further to BOWIE) as well as the station expansion onto Track 1 at New Carrolton, and you'll free up a lot of track flexibility.

At the end of the day, if you got passenger traffic, you need at least one track for it. Double tracks let you snake the passenger train around freight. Triple track helps on congested freight lines. Quad track only helps if you got the flexibility built in as well, and marks where you start getting diminishing returns.

The original post mentioned the NS Harrisburg Line’s Reading to Philadelphia segment. Most of that is double track except some tunnels and a few miles approaching Reading.

rcthompson04 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 7:16 pm The original post mentioned the NS Harrisburg Line’s Reading to Philadelphia segment. Most of that is double track except some tunnels and a few miles approaching Reading.

W
It's because NS has the line through downtown as the westbound track, and the eastbound bypasses it entirely. If the new Amtrak service happens, it'll need to be rebuilt at least so freight can pass while at station.

scratchyX1 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 10:39 pm It's because NS has the line through downtown as the westbound track, and the eastbound bypasses it entirely. If the new Amtrak service happens, it'll need to be rebuilt at least so freight can pass while at station.

The Harrisburg side would need that. The Philadephia side would have a CSX hand-off before getting to ZOO interlock and you'll need to add interlocks there just to stop at the station.

Not only that, it's single track from Belmont to Zoo (until the railroads get over the PSR fad there will be freight trains that can't fit between the two), and that simply is not compatible with frequent scheduled passenger service over the same track. Since that entire stretch is within Fairmount Park I see no chance of adding a second track, and if you can't run at least 6 or 7 trains a day between Reading and Philadelphia it's not worth spending the money to even start it.

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 8:53 am Given past traffic patterns for two decades, I think it's overdue. MARC has trouble even with its current service due to freight interference on a regular basis. Expansion to three-track service was in the cards back in 2007.

The thing though is around DC, to keep going south you need to hit Met to Capital (QN/F tower) to Alexandria, which involves blocking track around Riverdale. Put a flyover in that wye so freight can not block two tracks moving onto that wye and you free up capacity there for MARC to get through.

I peeked at some aerial views of the formation in Riverdale and it looks like either a flyover or a diveunder would be feasible to get traffic to and from the diverging track on the south side of the wye. My rough guess is that a flyover or diveunder track would diverge at a brand new interlocking immediately past the DC boundary, to ensure the shallowest possible gradients for trains coming off the Landover Sub.

Because of the Riverdale level crossing’s presence and a total guess that closing it would be unpopular, I think the easiest conceptual plan for a flyover or diveunder to the diverging track on the north side of the wye would be to extend the existing third track through Riverdale station, have it switch sides around Lafayette Avenue and then extend through a rebuilt College Park station to the existing interlocking at Greenbelt station.

It’s not clear to me from the aerial views if there’s enough horizontal distance on either side of the wye for a flyover or a diveunder, so this is all a total guess on how a grade separation could be achieved.

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 8:53 am Take that, plus the push to four-track down past BWI and to the GROVE interlock (although I'd go further to BOWIE) as well as the station expansion onto Track 1 at New Carrolton, and you'll free up a lot of track flexibility.

I agree completely with this. However I suspect that the next four-tracking project will likely end just south of the DFW Sullivan MOW yard, because of the expense of reconstruction at Odenton station. There’s already a stub interlocking there for the yard lead so expanding it temporarily to provide an end for Track A seems very plausible.

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 8:53 am At the end of the day, if you got passenger traffic, you need at least one track for it. Double tracks let you snake the passenger train around freight. Triple track helps on congested freight lines. Quad track only helps if you got the flexibility built in as well, and marks where you start getting diminishing returns.

The entire Northeast Corridor would benefit hugely from being four tracks from HANSON to BRIDGE. In my opinion, the only part of the Capital Sub that would likely benefit from being four tracks is the segment from Dorsey MARC station to Savage MARC station, to allow through CSX freights and MARC trains to be dispatched around any trains entering or exiting the Jessup Auto Terminal.

TheOneKEA wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 4:54 pm I agree completely with this. However I suspect that the next four-tracking project will likely end just south of the DFW Sullivan MOW yard, because of the expense of reconstruction at Odenton station. There’s already a stub interlocking there for the yard lead so expanding it temporarily to provide an end for Track A seems very plausible.

For just widening, the existing northbound platform would need to be moved back, which is relatively cheap in comparison to the alternative (which I would go for): Move the north-bound platform not only back, but more north and shift track 1 over to create an island platform. Odenton is a busy station and is well worth having express MARC service (BAL-BWI-ODN-NCR-WAS), and with the existing tunnel that will need a new entrance at the mid-point...

TheOneKEA wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 9:04 am The Maryland Department of Transportation and CSX have also been going back and forth for a long time about the expansion of passenger services on the Baltimore Division’s Capital Subdivision and Meteopolitan Subdivision. CSX insists that the existing service pattern will not be allowed to expand unless each double-track route is triple tracked, and wants MDOT to pay for it.

The Met Sub would be impossible to triple track without a LOT of very expensive ROW acquisition south and east of Clarksburg, MD. The Capital Sub would be slightly less impossible, and a small part of it in the vicinity of the Jessup Auto Terminal is already triple track. But the entire route wouldn’t be triple track anyway because of the presence of the Thomas Viaduct and the highly constrained ROW north of Dorsey, MD. Redoubling the Old Main Line Subdivision between Relay, MD and Adamstown, MD isn’t a good solution either because it serves a much different set of freight routings than the Capital and Met Subs.

With the availability of the Northeast Corridor for intercity weekend services and the existing project on the books to widen the Corridor between Halethorpe, MD and Severn, MD, I suspect that it will be a very long time before the Capital Sub is widened to any great extent.

A flyover for westbound traffic coming off the alexandria branch to the Capital , with a third track south through hyattsville would be a must.
And north of Dorsey, CSX still owns property through the Brewery for the Thomas cut off.
I'm not sure how it would fit around the Harbor tunnelway, but building a new station on brewery grounds, and have a passenger cut off, would likely save about 15 minutes of time. Since it would be passenger only, the grade could be 2% or more, with a shuttle to the halethrope station, as a virtual transfer station.

Even better: Connect two tracks with a fly-over to the Amtrak NEC between Dorsey and Halethorpe. You'll need another flyover and rebuilt track to get to Carrol Park and the MARC repair shop at Riverside... but hey, you get a transfer point.