Pony up for the NEC infrastructure

Both the 150 MPH stretches, one in Rhode Island and one in Massachusetts
are very legit, good straight sections of track with the track, signals, wire
and equipment all good for 150 MPH. There is no good reason to down-
grade it to something else just because other sections of the railroad are
not good for 150 MPH running.
On the New Haven Railroad years ago, we always said that west of New
Haven we had the power to go fast and east of New Haven we had the
railroad to go fast but we did not have both in any location.
Today, at least between New Haven and Boston, we finally have both, it
needs to be used to the fullest extant possible.
Noel Weaver

Well. I was just starting my professional career at the beginning of the Northeast Corridor Improvement Project (NECIP) in 1977. A total of about $1.75 billion was spent on the infrastructure between WAS and BOS. But, as noted, we've got a long ways yet to go.

Interestingly, before NECIP there were high speed trains. I rode a non-stop Metroliner from WAS to NYP in 2:30 in 1969, and a UA Turbo from Back Bay to Grand Central in 3:35 (just a few minutes longer than today's Acela Express timing).

What's remarkable to me about the past 35 years is how little has been accomplished by way of speeding up train service, despite all the money spent.

The original plan, in the mid-1960s, was to run the high-speed corridor from New Haven up through Putnam, CT on the "inland route", missing Providence (and the three problematical movable bridges). But that plan would have missed Providence, home of a certain Senator called Claiborne Pell. So we're stuck with a slow, curvy railroad pretending to be a high speed line. Electrification of that railroad was almost certainly a waste of money.

How fast were the UA Turbos allowed to go in revenue service. Or, perhaps I should ask, how fast did they go?

Regarding Ms. Bly's comment:

What's remarkable to me about the past 35 years is how little has been accomplished by way of speeding up train service, despite all the money spent

I will concur that save the Acela "Disneyland ride" pn either side of Providence, the maximum train speed has been increased little. There has been some improvement over the New Haven West End where 'back in my day' the maximum speed was 70mph. Today, some portions within NY are 90. Speed on the PRR conventional trains today is 105 o better; at start of NECIP it was 80.

However, for the entire Corridor. the STB/ICC Average Train Speed statistic can only be markedly improved. That 'stat" is derived by dividing Train Miles by Train Hours. "Third Grade' example of such would be a given line ran 240 Train-Miles in 4 Train-Hours; ergo ATS 60mph.

First off, Rhode Island and especially Providence is a big market for
Amtrak and there is nothing inland to compare.
The electrification funds were well spent, the speeds throughout eastern
Connecticut have been increased big time. During my time on the New
Haven Railroad, the top speed anywhere was 79 MPH (the 90 east of
Boston Switch was history). Much of the areas along the shore in
Connecticut was less than the 79 mentioned above and the diesels used
were not noted for acceleration from slow downs even if it was a 70 MPH
curve.
Today with Amtrak, we have speeds in Connecticut of as high as 125 MPH,
quite a difference I thank we would all agree. In addition with the superior
acceleration of electric powered trains, a slowdown could be recovered
quite quickly.
It is because of the improvements that running times of as little as one
hour and twenty two minutes are possible from Providence to New Haven
and one hour and sixteen minutes from New Haven to Providence.
The electrification is an even better deal with the high price of fuel oil today.
Anybody with any knowledge of railroading would be well aware of the
superiority of electric motive power for this type of operation.
The biggest problem with the running time between New York and Boston
occurs in the Connecticut owned and New York owned stretch between
New Haven and New Rochelle. This will get better if and when the
necessary funds are found to make the needed improvements to this line.
If a decision had been made to route the NEC over some sort of an
inland route, the intermediate market would have been little or non-
existant for the most part. The construction costs would have been
astronomical and the results probably not much different than there is
right now. There would have been all sorts of problems with nimby's and
property as well. It would have taken many years to build an inland
route suitable for high speed passenger trains. In the meantime, what
would rail travelers do who wanted dependable railroad transportation
in this area?
The reason that the New Haven originally ran their passenger trains over
the Shore Line through New London and Providence was the intermediate
market offered in eastern Connecticut and Rhode Island.
As to the question about the UAC turbo trains, they were pure junk and
were not capable of going even the track speeds at times. An E-8 with
five cars would make just as good time as the UAC turbo would and offer
a better ride to boot. There has never been a train that would equal any
of the Amtrak trains on this line so far as speed and running times are
concerned.
Noel Weaver

First off, Rhode Island and especially Providence is a big market for
Amtrak and there is nothing inland to compare.

On the Inland Route, you have Hartford, pop. 121,578, Springfield, pop. 152,082 and Worcester, pop. 172,648. Providence is the only city on the Shore Line with population > 100,000 at 173,618.

Mr Loco has noted On the Inland Route, you have Hartford, pop. 121,578, Springfield, pop. 152,082 and Worcester, pop. 172,648. Providence is the only city on the Shore Line with population > 100,000 at 173,618.

That's "uh, not exactly" the "Inland Route" the NECIP consultants (as I recall, "The Boozers'} had in mind.

As noted by Ms Bly, their thoughts were to follow the New Haven through Hartford, Willimatic, Putnam, Blackstone, Readville, and then to Boston.

It is my understanding that NECIP had an alternate that would have served Providence (and kept Sen Pell happy, kept him in office so he could send "some of you" to college). That routing would have been over the New Haven serving after Willimantic, Plainfield, Oneco, Warwick, PVD, thence the existing B&P.

I don't think they had in mind to serve Hartford, Springfield and
Worcester. I also think that neither Penn Central nor Conrail would have
allowed any heavy passenger traffic between Springfield and Boston.
If the inland route was so great, the New Haven could have made much
use of it back in the 1920's, 1930's and 1940's. It was not that great, with
grades, little population, many grade crossings and inadequate track with
a huge expense necessary to upgrade the thing.
The Shore Line also serves major business in Providence, Kingston with
the U. of R.I., New London with the military and Old Saybrook with the
resort areas.
There is a lot more to the NEC than just New York and Boston.
Unfortunately, the lack of decent maintenance and just plain old age
dictates that a major project is ahead to replace the problem bridges.
Noel Weaver

The Inland Route was used by the New Haven in the 1930s and 1940s. NY - Boston service was operated jointly with the New York Central and I believe there were 4 - 5 trains daily.

No doubt it was slower, as current Amtrak schedules are today. And, it was plagued by the need to switch cars to/from New York Central trains bound for or orginating in Albany or points west.

Even after the NH-NYC partnership was severed, the New Haven-Springfield segment remained busy. In the 1960s it handled at least a dozen passenger trains each way, several of which ran through to New York and two originated in Montreal.

I don't think the problem was traffic potential. Rather it was the complicated nature of the operation. I doubt it could ever be as fast as the Shore Line, but a 4:00 or 3:45 schedule would enable it to capture significant traffic that now goes to Peter Pan or Bonanza.

Nasadowsk wrote: <i>Another thing, if the sub base at Groton were to be closed, I wonder
how high of a bridge would be required for the remaining boat traffic at
that location. </i>
I'm wondering why they need a drawbridge for submarines

If memory serves, your average submarine sail is a good fifteen to twenty
feet above the top of the hull, which will ride five to ten feet above
the water line. Add in the height above the top of the sail of the radio
mast, flagpole, radar mast, periscope, etc. - not to mention the bridge
crew - and suddenly the thirty feet of vertical clearance that the Thames
drawbridge provides in the down position just isn't enough.

I never served on a boat out of Groton, but I have heard "sea stories"
about particularly gutsy (or impatient) Groton skippers who, rather than
wait for the drawbridge, would partially flood the main ballast tanks and
scoot under the bridge. Such stories should be taken with the proverbial
king-sized grain of salt, as the major difference between fairy tales
and sea stories is the profanity of the introduction ...


The URL for Maptech's copy of the NOAA navigation chart for the Thames at
New London is rather insanely long:
http://mapserver.maptech.com/homepage/i ... 3571788806
&lon=-72.089477169&scale=20000&zoom=50&type=0&height=498&width=498
&icon=0&searchscope=dom&CFID=862701&CFTOKEN=46322250
&scriptfile=http://mapserver.maptech.com/homepage/index.cfm&
bpid=MAP0060030900%2C1%2C1%2C0&latlontype=DMS

Hopefully, though, through the magic of the forum software, this link will get those interested to the chart of which I speak.

LI Loco wrote:The Inland Route was used by the New Haven in the 1930s and 1940s. NY - Boston service was operated jointly with the New York Central and I believe there were 4 - 5 trains daily.

No doubt it was slower, as current Amtrak schedules are today. And, it was plagued by the need to switch cars to/from New York Central trains bound for or orginating in Albany or points west.

Even after the NH-NYC partnership was severed, the New Haven-Springfield segment remained busy. In the 1960s it handled at least a dozen passenger trains each way, several of which ran through to New York and two originated in Montreal.

I don't think the problem was traffic potential. Rather it was the complicated nature of the operation. I doubt it could ever be as fast as the Shore Line, but a 4:00 or 3:45 schedule would enable it to capture significant traffic that now goes to Peter Pan or Bonanza.

The inland route was not an effective route between New York and Boston,
it was used more to provide service out of Springfield Line points to
Boston and from New York division points to/from Worcester. Once the
Budd Car was established in 1952 between New London and Worcester,
the through service via Springfield was done away with although you could
still change trains and connect if you wanted to.
The object of high speed service (Acela Express etc) is to provide an
alternative to airport hassel and congestion. There is absolutely no
comparison between Amtrak and ANY bus service.
Speeds between New Haven and Springfield can't even approach the
speeds possible on the Shore Line to Boston. Too many curves, crossings
and other obstacles.

At this point, it'd be really nice if Amtrak would create a plan to upgrade and improve the NEC. Not the vague crap they've been talking about, and not piecemeal replacement of the same stuff. Let's see a migration to 60hz power (at 12kv for now), a replacement of the catenary with constant tension, designed 'out of the box' for 25kv 60hz operation, new CT bridges or tunnels or whatnot that speed service, improve marine traffic, and add system reliability, new interlockings to replace old ones and reflect today's traffic patterns, etc.

And once there's a real, solid, specific plan, go to congress, say "this is what we're going to do for this much money". And when the funding comes in <b>follow through and do it right and on budget</b>.

Seriously - if Amtrak can show an ability to follow through, be on budget and on time, Congress will be a lot more willing to send the money, especially if the operations end of things improve (and let's face it, even on the NEC, Amtrak's ops are sloppy at best). But, 'more of the same' won't work anymore. Read the GAO reports on the NEC. Amtrak can't follow through and finish much. They don't even know the status of some of their projects.

People want to hear success stories (real ones, not some paper pusher's spin on it). The media likes to report them. Congress likes them and likes to be associated with them. Nobody wants the blame, but everyone wants the credit.

At some point, the NEC's going to stop functioning. And when it does, something's going to give. And it's gonna be messy.

is there still a "Inland Route"? or has it been torn up?

what was the distance of mileage on the inland route vers the NEC route

Will the wonders of the web ever cease, Mr. Schweppe?

"Back in my day' or when I was a "Cadet in the Fairfield Navy", such chart was the "1212" and be assured it simply did not "come up' on a monitor.

The Thames can be very treacherous; there are submerged rocks that "are not exactly" well defined on the chart. Also, if you think the idiots are loose behind the wheel, try same at the helm, especially on Yale-Harvard Regatta weekend.

On that latter point, the New Haven once operated "boat trains' along the Norwich & Worcester (Amtrak's Montrealer used the CV on the West side of the River) from which the races (8 oared shells) could be viewed. I understand there has been consideration to reviving the boat trains, but those ideas have come to naught.

Possibly Messrs. Telesha, Nelligan, Weaver, or others can update us on the above.

boyishcolt wrote:is there still a "Inland Route"? or has it been torn up?

what was the distance of mileage on the inland route vers the NEC route

The Inland Route still exists. However, Amtrak only offers through service over this line on weekends. It consists of the old Boston & Albany (CSX) from Boston to Springfield and the former New Haven Springfield main from Springfield to New Haven. You can still use the route on weekdays by a connection at Springfield to/from the "Lake Shore Limited."