Possible Future Improvements - 110+ mph, Electrification...

"Amtrak Joe" has already talked about revitalizing rail travel in America, and his platform explicitly mentions further electrification as a goal. That got me wondering which parts of the Amtrak system would be "next in line" for infrastructure improvements, whether it be electrification or HrSR standards.

Here's the one that really got me thinking: Is there any good reason why the Lake Shore Limited can't run at 110 west of Buffalo? Given the troubles Amtrak has had with the Empire Corridor, I imagine CSX isn't too keen on giving them the go-ahead for higher speeds on the mainline. But like I said, are there any good reasons? Especially if Amtrak have CHI-TOL-CLE pegged as a potential future corridor or are eyeing future service CHI-Fort Wayne-Columbus, these routes are prime 110+ mph territory.

Four corridors come to mind when talking about future electrification.

New Haven to Springfield as an offshoot of the NEC. Line is already owned by Amtrak.

Washington to Richmond. Catenary would have to be 22 feet high to clear CSXT double stacks.

New York to Albany or perhaps Buffalo. The line west of Albany was originally four tracks wide. Let CSXT have the two north tracks and Amtrak the two south tracks. I believe the four track right of way went all the way to Cleveland in the NYC days.

Los Angeles to San Diego. From Fullerton to Hobart Jct the catenary would have to be 22 feet high to clear BNSF double stacks.

Going faster, up to 110 mph, can be accomplished with Charger diesel locomotives.
Going to electrically fueled locomotives is an entirely different issue, arguments for or against depends upon why. There are several underlying reasons, which one to you wish to argue for?

To electrify a rail line, probably the first issue to overcome is cost. Caltrain is spending around $1 billion to electrify a 50 mile line line, around $20 million per mile. A billion dollars here, a billion dollars there, sounds affordable. But Amtrak runs trains over 20,000 miles. At $20 million per mile over 20,000 miles, the product reaches $400,000 million, or if you prefer $400 billion. Amtrak's nominal federal subsidy is $2 billion per year, that $400 billion would eat up 200 years of Amtrak's federal subsidy. I could find a much better use of a $400 billion than wasting it on tracks with 6 to 14 trains per week running on them.

We should look at how many trains will be using the electric catenaries and taking that into account before blanketing the entire country with catenary poles and wires. Like Caltrain, there might be a few lines where doing so makes economic sense - or at least worth the political costs to do so. Caltrain made the political choice to invest not only on catenary poles and wires, they also made the political choice to buy new rolling stock to use them. It also got financial assistance from another railroad agency wishing to run HSR trainsets on their line as well. Without that other railroad agency helping with the costs, Caltrain would probably continue to run their existing diesel locomotives in front of their existing coaches.

Besides having a few financial partners, they also had the train frequencies to make that political and financial decision easier to make. Caltrain runs up to 92 trains per day, easily 500 trains per week, and that is before CHSR trains will be running on that line. 500 trains per week vs 14 trains per week, there is far more trains, about 35 times more, using the catenary there than would be in most of the country Amtrak runs trains on.

So, on the lines suggested earlier in this thread, the only railroad corridor with close to as many passenger trains per week would be the Surfliner route in southern California. For Caltrain, there were just three companies or agencies involved to share the financial burdens, Caltrain, CHSR, and UP. In southern California, there is about twice as many companies and agencies to coordinate, Amtrak, Metrolink, Coaster, CHSR, UP, and BNSF. Good luck satisfying everybody!

I believe improvements will be contingent on the States to pony up for a third to a half.

Maybe the whole Inland Route New Haven-Boston; start with New Haven-Springfield, where there are already frequent trains and where at some point Amtrak and ConnDOT will need new power. Move on to BOS-WOR in combination with electrification of T trains on the NEC. Finally, make electrification WOR-SPG part of the plan for Boston-Springfield passenger service.

How many trains/day over a line make it cheaper to operate the line electrically than by diesel? Is there any number of trains where the combined costs of electrification (say amortized over 20 or 30 years, with interest) + electric locomotives/MUs + electricity is less than the combined costs of diesel locomotives + fuel for the same # of trains? Those would be logical places to electrify. I realize the price of oil makes a difference in these calculations.

RRspatch wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 12:53 am New York to Albany or perhaps Buffalo. The line west of Albany was originally four tracks wide. Let CSXT have the two north tracks and Amtrak the two south tracks. I believe the four track right of way went all the way to Cleveland in the NYC days.

The Metro-North portion is four tracks to Croton. Isn't one track non-electrified and reserved for diesels?

electricron wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 8:59 am Going faster, up to 110 mph, can be accomplished with Charger diesel locomotives.

Is it really as simple as a train with Chargers can run SOB-ERI at 110 while the P42s can't? The LSL already hits 110 south of SDY, so that explanation doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. You've got hundreds of miles of perfectly straight track in Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania just begging to be used for HrSR. Is CSX holding up the infrastructure improvements necessary to reach 110, or will they just not give clearance to Amtrak to run trains that fast on that route?

I think we all know how inflated U.S. infrastructure costs are. If electrification of corridors was done as part of a bigger legislation package, I don't see it being $20 million a mile. NEC North was done for much less. I agree that 110mph operation is separate from electrification but electrifying usually brings track & infrastructure upgrades along with it that allow for higher speeds. Either way, frequencies will increase with electrification. They need to in order to reduce car-dependence so we can have any hope of reaching our climate goals.

I agree electrifying the Springfield Line is low-hanging fruit, as is continuing to Worcester and Boston, partnering with the MBTA. Chicago needs to do the same. No reason why we can't have electrified freight as well.

Perhaps the Commonwealth really wants to put some loot behind its "Virginia is for Train Lovers". It will be intetesting to see what infrastructure improvements will result in acquiring whatever of the RF&P they did from Chessie. Could there be a second span over the Potomac, will the Ashland problem be addressed (sorry Randolph-Macon alums like Mr. Palmland), and how about access to Richmond Main so all trains could use this centrally locsted, and historic, facility?

And finally, electrifying those lines, so that pasing through Wash will be as seamless (90 second stop) as OBB Railjet (higher, not HSR) passing through Salzburg on its way to either Vienna or Munich.

Acquiring the abandoned Seaboard (who knows what got slipped in Chessie's cream when she said to whack it) Petersburg-Norlina can only be thought of as a long range goal (2050?; uh, maybe). First would be a rebuild (might even be starting from scratch) of the Roanoke River bridge and laying FRA Class 6 (110mph) roadway. Then making arrangements with Chessie to operate H(er)SR over the apparently still active. but probably only FRA Class 3 (40mph) Norlina Raleigh. Then electrification so the ACS-64's successors can operate the "four a day" NEC-Raleigh on a 7hr NYP-RGH schedule.

Lastly, regarding Mr. Daybeers immediate final thought? That's a topic for the Class One Forum.

Amtrak is looking into dual-mode locomotives to eliminate the engine change at certain places including Washington D.C. This will definitely be an improvement that will happen much quicker and cheaper than electrification. Any new engine should be capable of 125 mph and this one change will greatly speedup the average speed of many trains.

R36 Combine Coach wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 4:36 pm

RRspatch wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 12:53 am New York to Albany or perhaps Buffalo. The line west of Albany was originally four tracks wide. Let CSXT have the two north tracks and Amtrak the two south tracks. I believe the four track right of way went all the way to Cleveland in the NYC days.

The Metro-North portion is four tracks to Croton. Isn't one track non-electrified and reserved for diesels?

Portions of track one have no third rail. This was account a project from long ago. The intent was to remove track one in its entirety.
I dont see wire along the Hudson in my RR career. Maybe my kids might but I wont be here. One acronym NIMBY

Do not forget that a dual ode would need a lot of HP to operate on the various grades. 4400 HP diesel will not be able to pull more than about 4 cars. The grades and curves will slow down a 12 car Carolinian trying to maintain 125 speeds. The acceleration of the ACS-64s can have short term HP of ~ 8400 to traverse these grades , curves and slow orders.

west point wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:04 am Do not forget that a dual ode would need a lot of HP to operate on the various grades. 4400 HP diesel will not be able to pull more than about 4 cars. The grades and curves will slow down a 12 car Carolinian trying to maintain 125 speeds. The acceleration of the ACS-64s can have short term HP of ~ 8400 to traverse these grades , curves and slow orders.

That begs the question: if you have a dual-mode and a short, high grade which you could otherwise take at speed, could you just electrify that small portion of the route?

I also expect that once Amtrak and Virginia/North Carolina commit to 110+ mph service, they’ll run locomotives front and back.

mtuandrew wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:45 amThat begs the question: if you have a dual-mode and a short, high grade which you could otherwise take at speed, could you just electrify that small portion of the route?

That has always been a thought of mine. Imagine every station stop with CAT for about 2 miles each way. Regeneration for slowing and high intermediate high HP for acceleration out of station. Acceleration out of Richmond Main street station north bound is a good example. Raleigh and any other station overnight storage tracks for a train could have CAT as well .
There is a ig problem with present designs of dual modes, Their weight almost requires a C - C ( 6 axels )for proper weight distribution. The diesel fuel load for the duals is yet to be deterined. Expanded fueling facilities wiould be needed at Newport, Norfolk, Lynchburgh, Roanoke , Raleigh, Richmond ( maybe both stations with none at Main street at present ) , Sppringfield. Maube BOS a dn New Haven ?. But expanded fueling at Sunnyside will be expensive and a continuing extra expense. New Axel loads with a B-B trucks would probably exceed Amtrak NEC desired axel loads even with 42 - 44 inch wheels. Those axel loads cause too much track deteoriation. I believe the desired axel loads are near what the new Acela-2s will have.

Electrifying certain sections is an interesting idea but might not make practical sense. The cost per mile would be very high since there aren't many miles being built. Better to just wait for funding for full electrification as it's difficult to get high-powered catenary just anywhere. You need substations and existing grid capacity first, then a way for the electricity to get there.

I too am hesitant about dual modes on higher grades. Dual modes are extremely complex to design, build, and maintain and come with an immense weight increase that I agree may be more than the NEC likes in order to make it up the steep grades in VA.