• NEC Future: HSR "High Line", FRA, Amtrak Infrastructure Plan

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

  • 1043 posts
  • 1
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  by cbrett
 
I'm working on a project for school that's comparing the different routings proposed for expanding/upgrading the NEC, does anyone know if there's a GIS shapefile out there with the preferred routing of NEC Future? I emailed them a week ago but still haven't got a response
  by F-line to Dudley via Park
 
There isn't a GIS-mapped routing. Just a couple "Oh, screw it...we'll figure this out later" straight-line MS Paint drawings through Fairfield and New London Counties that they're calling a Preferred Alternative without saying that the map is anything more than a vague suggestion.
  by 35dtmrs92
 
F-line to Dudley via Park wrote: Elizabeth Station in NJ goes from 125 MPH to 55 MPH to 110 MPH in the span of one mile. That's really not a difficult fix, though. The downtown viaduct that contains the station and Elizabeth River crossing is mostly abutted by parkland, parking lots, and the station parking garage so rebuild/realignment is non-destructive and just trades parkland-for-parkland & reconfigs a bunch of poor-value parking parcels. Fix that and everything's tangent from Metropark to Newark Penn and up-rateable to as high a speed as traffic density allows.
From a late 2015 post in the thread "Amtrak livens up the PTC between New York & Philly", apparently the track speed at the Elizabeth curve has been revised up to 75 mi/hr for nontilt trains and 85 for tilt trains. From my armchair, before getting to realignment of that curve, it seems to me that the signal just west of the curve that currently drops eastbound trains to Limited Speed could be revised so it can display Cab Speed (rule 281a). Since an engineer is supposed to default to 60 mi/hr with no speed displayed or with inoperative cab signals, it seems that the combination of engineer training, a Cab Speed aspect and the safety overlay that is PTC would furnish adequate protection for the curve. If applicable, I would hope Amtrak petitions the FRA to make this happen; there is a big difference between being slowed to 45 mi/hr and being slowed to 75 mi/hr.
  by bostontrainguy
 
It's been over three years now and all of the links to the "Fairfield Bypass" have sadly passed away. Apparently this is still an active plan:

https://ctexaminer.com/2021/07/14/a-new ... ouncement/

Does anyone have any new information on this? Since the word "bypass" is a nasty thing nowadays, I was thinking that if this is basically a "realignment" or "straightening" of the ROW, the nomenclature should be made more palatable to the public.

Anyway any maps or recent information on the "New Rochelle to Greens Farms Bypass" would be great to see. Thanks!

UPDATE: I did find this article from 2017 that describes parts of the bypass:

https://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Cr ... 308138.php
  by Gilbert B Norman
 
Mr. Trainguy; in Bostonese (sanitizrd by the site), "forget it".

I'm from there (Greenwich), and trust me, that is where nimby was born.

I can recall my Grandmother (from "back Greenwich") telling of tales how "the (Merritt) Parkway" was going to "rip lovely homes apart". "It was all thanks to that man in the White House (FDR); a traitor to his kind (wonder why they and my just college graduated Mother emigrated to Salzburg in '34; not so wonderous why "they're back" in '38)".

During '54 when the route of "The Thruway" (Connecticut Turnpike, I-95) was being decided, my Mother and Father rushing to Town Meetings (yes, 100K pop Greenwich is incorporated as a Town) "they're going to build it right over our house (in Cos Cob)".

You will NEVER see a major highway, let alone a railroad, built through Fairfield County; much as public benefit would be derived, "get over it".
  by Ridgefielder
 
Gilbert B Norman wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 2:47 pm Mr. Trainguy; in Bostonese (sanitizrd by the site), "forget it".

I'm from there (Greenwich), and trust me, that is where nimby was born.

I can recall my Grandmother (from "back Greenwich") telling of tales how "the (Merritt) Parkway" was going to "rip lovely homes apart". "It was all thanks to that man in the White House (FDR); a traitor to his kind (wonder why they and my just college graduated Mother emigrated to Salzburg in '34; not so wonderous why "they're back" in '38)".

During '54 when the route of "The Thruway" (Connecticut Turnpike, I-95) was being decided, my Mother and Father rushing to Town Meetings (yes, 100K pop Greenwich is incorporated as a Town) "they're going to build it right over our house (in Cos Cob)".

You will NEVER see a major highway, let alone a railroad, built through Fairfield County; much as public benefit would be derived, "get over it".
To be fair-- the geography of Connecticut also makes building an east-west railroad farther inland challenging. You'd need a tremendous amount of cutting/filling/tunneling/viaducts. It's the same problem that bedeviled the 19th century promoters of the Boston & New York Air Line, New York & New England, Hartford & Connecticut Western, etc.

I've always felt like these various bypass plans were lines drawn on a map by people with zero actual knowledge of the terrain.
  by Safetee
 
all of which is why amtrak is a such a big fan of the "inland route" via springfield, worcester, etc. the theory being at least you can get there from here.
  by bostontrainguy
 
Safetee wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 2:05 pm all of which is why amtrak is a such a big fan of the "inland route" via springfield, worcester, etc. the theory being at least you can get there from here.
This "bypass" is between New Rochelle and New Haven which will effect trains if they run via the Inland or the Shoreline.
Last edited by bostontrainguy on Wed Jul 28, 2021 5:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
  by hrsn
 
Mr. Norman,
Of course, both road projects did, in the end, get built. There was a day--and we may see it again--where the NIMBY attitudes of the overprivileged Gold Coast residents were overridden in the name of Public Good.
  by Gilbert B Norman
 
OK volks, I'm sure all concerned now that a "bipartisan deal" has been reached in the Senate to appropriate $1T for infrastructure.

Now we are still a long, LONG, way from enacted legislation, but at least this means that two legislative branches, plus an executive, all want to see something in the $1T range enacted.

Col. Perkowski's 218+51+1 apparently will prevail.

The Times reports that if the T is enacted, Amtrak can expect to be looking at $66B, or 6.6%. No Fair Use quotation as the article only mentions this tangentially.

Now how does it get spent wisely?

I can only hope that the debacle of the Obama ARRA09 legislation is avioded, for so far as I'm concerned, the only tangible result is a rebuilt line (Alton) for the UP to access Chicago ("uh,
not exactly" for a reincarnated Domeliner "City of St. Louis") - and paid for with funds allocated for passenger trains!!

Anything else? feed to throw in the trough for the Consultants.

I'm not sure if $66B, considering the pressures there will be to "spread it around", will be enough for the Gateway Tunnels, which to me is the top priority Amtrak infrastructure project.

But that is why we have a Forum to discuss all sides here with maturity and respect.
  by R&DB
 
#1576947 by Gilbert B Norman
Thu Jul 29, 2021 7:43 am
Mr Norman;
I agree with you on Gateway. But I also fear you are correct there wil be a tendencyto spread it around. Amtrak's highest priority right now is those tunnels and the portal bridge. (Which NJT has already starting on) The NEC is Amtrak's cash cow and if they can get more out of it, wonderful! They need to get the WAS - NYP travel time well below 3 Hours to compete with air.
  by Gilbert B Norman
 
OK, The Times has now posted somewhat more substance regarding Amtrak's POSSIBLE $66B than what was available in the print article I reviewed earlier:

Fair Use:
The deal would inject $66 billion in rail to address Amtrak’s maintenance backlog, along with upgrading the high-traffic Northeast corridor from Washington to Boston (a route frequented by East Coast lawmakers). It would also expand rail service outside the Northeast and mid-Atlantic.
I'd like to caution the advocacy community about having too many "visions of reequipped LD's complete with two levels of Dining service, a truly First Class experience complete with a Luxolounge (Pacific Parlour) and Sightseeing cars for both dancing in their heads", for should I learn of such, Rep. Casten (D-IL6) as well as Dick and Tammy could well be hearing from me.

We don't need a rerun of the Alton/UP "con job" under ARAA09.

disclaimer: author long UNP
Last edited by Gilbert B Norman on Thu Jul 29, 2021 9:09 am, edited 3 times in total.
  • 1
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70