Why not more focus on NYP-BOS?

scratchy wrote:

east point wrote:3 tracks ? Only near New Haven. However all the bridge replacements will cause one or more locations to be just 2 tracks while the other 2 tracks will be out of service to build replacement bridges. Real choke points the first being the Walk bridge.

I thought NH was three track most of the route until the 50s?

Here's how approximately how it breaks down west of New Haven (apologies for not citing the correct tower names/SS #s/CP #s):

-Harold-Bowery Bay: currently 2 tracks, so far as I know was built as 2 tracks.
-Bowery Bay-Port Morris (over the Hell Gate Bridge): currently 3 tracks, 2 wired. As built was 4 tracks, all four wired.
-Port Morris-Pelham Parkway: currently 3 tracks, 2 wired. As built was 6 tracks, all wired. 2 tracks removed in the 1930's. Another removed in the 70s/80s.
-Pelham Parkway-New Rochelle: currently 2 tracks, both wired. As built was 6 tracks, all wired. 2 tracks removed in the 1930's, 2 more in the 70s/80s.
-New Rochelle-Pine Brook: 4 tracks, all wired, as built configuration.
-Pine Brook-Port Chester: 4 tracks, all wired. As built was 6 tracks, all wired- 4 NYNH&H, 2 NYW&B. NYW&B tracks & wire removed ca. 1938.
-Port Chester-Devon: 4 tracks, all wired. Line quad-tracked ca. 1893.
-Devon-West Haven: 3 tracks, all wired. Fourth track removed early '80s.
-West Haven-New Haven: 4 tracks, all wired.

East of New Haven I'm more hazy on. I know most the Shoreline in Connecticut was always 2 tracks, and the same goes for the line in Rhode Island as far as Kingston Jct.

Not exactly:
Pelham Bay - New Rochelle Junction had four tracks after 1 and 2 were removed in the early 30's. Tracks 3 and 2 were removed by the New Haven in the 1960's, 3 first then 2.
New Rochelle - Port Chester was built without the two tracks for the NYW&B and these were added as the NYW&B was extended to Port Chester.
New Haven to Westerly was built as 2 tracks with signaled sidings Guilford to East River, Westbrook to Old Saybrook and Groton to Midway or Palmers Cove. By signalled sidings I mean they had ABS rules and cab signal rules in effect on them. There were a couple more sidings but I don't recall whether they were signaled or not. Westerly - Bradford had three tracks of which two were ABS and cab signals the center track was TCS and cab signals. Bradford to Kingston was 2 tracks. Kingston - Davisville was three tracks with the same set up as Westerly - Bradford. Cranford had a long siding in each direction and I believe they were signaled as well. Providence - Boston Switch had four tracks all fully signaled but in the NHRR period Cranston - Boston Switch did not have cab signals. Readville - SS-185 (Chickering) was 2 main passenger tracks fully equipped with ABS and cab signals, track four had ABS and cab signals but speeds were much lower than 1 and 2. Track 3 or I should say 5 was a yard track between Forest Hills and Readville and not used by passenger trains except in emergency and between Boston and Forest Hills was operated as the Needham Branch. This is from memory, I do not have an employee timetable at this location.
Noel Weaver

Jeff Smith wrote:Although MNRR's running time is kinda sorta OT, it does illustrate that MNRR territory is a bottleneck because the slower running times makes it difficult to mix in higher speed traffic. Notwithstanding improving MNRR's running times, the addition of several stations on the east end of the main line (Metro, West Haven, Devon temporary, and soon potentially Orange and Barnum) does indeed slow things up for everyone, Amtrak included. I'm sure SLE has a similar effect east of New Haven, although not nearly as bad.

I don't know what Bridgeport ridership is for Amtrak, but I'd ditch that station.

Hi Jeff, my name is Mike. I've been a reader of these forums for a long time and only recently started posting again. (I did post a few times back in 2009 or 10).

Anyway, I'm just wondering if ditching Bridgeport would save much time. It's between two curves, and I believe I've read that the southern curve around Harbor Yard ballpark is the sharpest turn on the whole NH Line. Even if trains ran through they definitively couldn't go very fast. On the other hand Bridgeport only has side platforms. Do you think keeping the Regionals on the center tracks would save a lot of time because of the avoided switches? Maybe it would simplify operations?

Disclaimer: Bridgeport is my home Amtrak station, so I have vested interest in keeping it open!

Mr. Metzger, I trust you are aware of the two fatal incidents that occurred on the Jenkins Curve during the New Haven Railroad era (1912 and 1955).That was during an era when the only train control was lineside signals.

Metzger wrote: Hi Jeff, my name is Mike. I've been a reader of these forums for a long time and only recently started posting again. (I did post a few times back in 2009 or 10).

Anyway, I'm just wondering if ditching Bridgeport would save much time. It's between two curves, and I believe I've read that the southern curve around Harbor Yard ballpark is the sharpest turn on the whole NH Line. Even if trains ran through they definitively couldn't go very fast. On the other hand Bridgeport only has side platforms. Do you think keeping the Regionals on the center tracks would save a lot of time because of the avoided switches? Maybe it would simplify operations?

Disclaimer: Bridgeport is my home Amtrak station, so I have vested interest in keeping it open!

Apparently, there are sufficient boardings, and the size of the city, dictate that it keeps its stop (although I believe like New Rochelle, not every regional stops there). A potential plan is with the potential building of "Barnum" station in East Bridgeport, closer to the Waterbury line, with an island platform or even a stub track for the branch, is to move Amtrak there. It's discussed in MNRR: Bridgeport - Potential New Barnum Station

Check the more recent posts for developments.

I've seen different stories about that, and of course, one can argue whether Amtrak SHOULD or WOULD move there. Your point is right about slowing through Bridgeport anyway; the same argument applies to New Rochelle and its Amtrak stop.

And WELCOME BACK by the way!

Jeff Smith wrote: And WELCOME BACK by the way!

Thanks! It's good to be back. And yeah, the Barnum station idea is interesting. I was all for it as an East Norwalk/Greens Farm style minor neighborhood stop but then they started talking about making that B-port's main station. Strange considering you'd lose the ferry and all the bus connections, not to mention the value of just being downtown. Anyway, to bring it back to the main point of the thread, I think the whole fact that we're having this discussion about the details of B-port station shows that Metro-North really sets the agenda here. Amtrak's options are kind of limited...

Metzger wrote: Thanks! It's good to be back. And yeah, the Barnum station idea is interesting. I was all for it as an East Norwalk/Greens Farm style minor neighborhood stop but then they started talking about making that B-port's main station. Strange considering you'd lose the ferry and all the bus connections, not to mention the value of just being downtown. Anyway, to bring it back to the main point of the thread, I think the whole fact that we're having this discussion about the details of B-port station shows that Metro-North really sets the agenda here. Amtrak's options are kind of limited...

The Barnum station "idea" has moved beyond that as CT received a $10 million TIGER 2015 grant towards the design and construction of the new station in east Bridgeport. In the 2015 TIGER grant announcement, the total project cost for the new station is stated as $146 million, so the TIGER grant is only a small part of the funding package. The description in the announcement for the Barnum station:

This TIGER grant will provide funding to construct a new commuter rail station, which will serve the Metro North Railroad on the east side of Bridgeport, Connecticut. The project includes widening the existing tracks to accommodate two center island platforms, constructing an underpass tunnel to provide platform access, and modifying roadways.

This is a pretty big station project as the tracks will have to be moved to make room for 2 center island platforms. When the award was announced, it was indicated that Amtrak would stop at the new station (the island platforms would allow Amtrak trains to stay on the center tracks obviously), which would only make sense if Amtrak drops the current Bridgeport stop.

This whole conversation about NYP-BOS is ignoring the effect of the proposal from Gov. Malloy last fall to spend $3.9 million to upgrade the NHV line to entirely 4 tracks (which is not a big deal with only one shortish 3 track segment to fill in), add express service frequencies with 15 minutes faster trip times for the express trains between NHV and NY, replace/rebuild the 4 movable bridges on the badly need to fix list, and so on. The upgrades for express MNRR trains would clearly benefit Amtrak and would likely allow Amtrak to trim NYP-BOS times by 15 to 20 minutes over the NHV segment alone given just how slow parts of the NHV line are for Amtrak. Gov. Malloy's press release touting the benefits of his $3.9 billion proposal: Gov. Malloy Releases Economic Impact Numbers of Modernizing the New Haven Line.

The projected cost for the B&P Tunnel replacement in Baltimore is now up to $4 billion. Which would cut NYP-WAS trip times by around 2 and 1/2 minutes. A necessary project as the current B&P tunnel analysis is apparently concluding that the tunnel has to be replaced soon or else, no southern NEC. Anyway the NHV line modernization and bridge replacement is in the same cost range as the B&P tunnel replacement.

As long as that Coast Guard requirement is in place,and the "Watercraft" have preference over Rail Traffic,
there will be a train limit east of NHV on the eastern NEC,after the Springfield line upgrades are done,
along with some agreement with CSX to allow more "inland route" traffic Springfield-Worcester/MBTA
would be the best bet for more Regional Service trains to BOS.

More trains over the Shore Line are not impossible. Each time Amtrak swaps out a bridge, it is made more reliable and given additional clearance when closed. The former makes both locals and the Coast Guard more tolerant of closings for trains because there's less chance it will stick closed; the latter means that fewer boats even require an opening. Niantic, for example, went from 11.5 feet to 16 feet vertical clearance when closed - and also from 45 to 100 feet horizontal clearance when opened. The means some of the smaller fishing boats and pleasure craft in the harbor can get in and out even while trains are passing, and that two-way boat traffic is possible when it's open. I believe that Amtrak also finagled some local goodwill by paying for repairs to an adjacent hurricane-damaged boardwalk as part of the project - and this allowed for several additional SLE trains to be added.


The Connecticut River Bridge replacement will maintain or increase clearance and channel width, eliminate some speed restrictions, and be vastly more reliable than the current bridge.

We need some history. When the original agreement was agreed to by Amtrak how many trains a day ? How was the agreement arrived at ? What is the history of added service ?
Some posters think that Amtrak agreed to 39 trains because Amtrak would never run that many trains any truth ?

From the 2007 Shore Line East expansion report:

The additional train traffic over the moveable bridges would require agreement from
Amtrak, the DEP, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Maritime Trade’s Association, and possibly
re-opening the Coastal Environmental Impact Statement. The Movable Bridge
Operating and Capital Improvement Plan (Operating Plan) between Amtrak and the
DEP allows 2 SLE trains and 39 Amtrak trains daily over the Amtrak-owned movable
railroad bridges crossing the Connecticut, Niantic, Thames, Mystic, and Shaws Cove
bridges. Operation of additional SLE trains across the bridges would require Coast
Guard and DEP approval.

The 2014 Environmental Assessment for the CT River bridge replacement said there were 38 Amtrak, 12 SLE, and 6 P&W (mostly operated at night and thus not limited in the agreement) trains using that bridge. Thames and Mystic don't get SLE service currently; the Thames also gets some NECR action if I recall.

Although there are many more passenger (commuter) trains operated on ex-NYNH&H tracks between NYC amd New Haven, is the overall density greater now than say 1960 when freight activity is considered?

NECR does not cross the Thames.
P&W does, normally 1 round trip daily (at night).

Lee

Saugatuck wrote:Although there are many more passenger (commuter) trains operated on ex-NYNH&H tracks between NYC amd New Haven, is the overall density greater now than say 1960 when freight activity is considered?

Yes, due to the significant increase in commuter train frequency. In 1964, for example, the NH scheduled five symbol freights each way in and out of its New York terminals (Oak Point and Bay Ridge). Add extras and locals and you still have an average of maybe seven or eight freights each way, many of which ran at night. Weekday commuter service in the mid-1960s was (very) roughly hourly off-peak locals to New Haven and to Stamford plus of course additional trains at rush hours. Metro North now runs half-hourly base service to New Haven and Stamford plus vast numbers of additional peak period trains. I suspect that if someone had the energy to go through the timetables and add up the total number of NH commuter trains out of Grand Central in the mid-1960s versus the number that Metro North runs today, that number now is close to twice what it was back then. The loss of a few freight trains since NH days is a minimal part of the overall congestion issue.

Not only freight trains both day and night but mail and express (M and E) trains as well. A good number of the M and E trains did not carry passengers but they were listed in the employee timetable and generally carried a combo or rider coach for the train crew. We also had a lot of trains that ran mostly for M and E but also carried passengers, a lot of them served no purpose in carrying passengers and one of the first things Penn Central did when they took over was to remove these particular trains from the passenger timetables and ran them only for M and E. Both the New Haven and the Pennsylvania had some hacks that could run at passenger train speeds and some of these M and E trains carried a passenger hack instead of a rider coach. This meant that even at night time when one could expect many fewer trains there was a decent number of trains. Back in the mid to late 1950's I used to hand out in one of the towers at Bridgeport and just watch the overnight parade. I made out some logs of them but unfortunately they got trashed many years ago, boy do I wish I saved them today. Of course the reason the freight trains are no longer on the former New Haven is due mostly to the loss of the major industries that used these trains, they are simply gone and will never return. Compared to today not only were there somewhat fewer trains but today's operation are more concentrated away from the overnight hours with the only genuine overnight trains being Amtark 66 and 67. Granted commuter trains did not depart from Grand Central during the wee hours for the most part but today instead of a train every hour or two between the two rush hours and weekends today you have half hourly service to Stamford and for much of the day to New Haven as well and also there is more Amtrak service than the New Haven had during the day. It has made a drastic change in the operations especially between New Haven and New York. Even with the millions of dollars that have been spent here the railroad still needs a huge amount of work and money to put it in shape even for the existing traffic to say nothing of additional traffic that is likely in the future. It is all about MONEY, MONEY and more MONEY. States involved are you listening?
Noel Weaver