Amtrak Expansion Plan

That is correct. In the Virginia project it also may open up the ability to electrify. This is something they have to have in order to move forward on SEHSR.

Assuming that CSX continues to own the line, I don't think they will want NY State to electrify the Water Level route. In terms of speed and capacity improvements for the Empire Corridor west of ALB, I would be okay with adding a second track from just west of Schenectady to Hoffmans. The stretch of the Water Level Route west of Hoffmans-add as much third track as possible and if that fourth track is needed in some areas, add it. The Amtrak ride from NYP to many towns past the Capitol District takes a little too long. It would be great to have as much of the Water Level route west of Schenectady good for 110 mph. It's straight as an arrow in many spots. I hope that after Amtrak retires their P32AC-DMs and P42s, they will order enough dual mode motive power so that way, every corridor train as well as long daytime train serving ALB doesn't have to undergo engine changes there. Just pull into ALB to drop off passengers, change the crew, and pick up passengers heading north and west, and then be on the way in 10 minutes or even a little less. The engine changes for 63, 64, 68, and 69 take a bit too long at ALB.

Amtrak used to operate at 110 MPH between Hoffmans and Schenectady? Is that no longer the case?

Pensyfan19 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 10:38 am
1. I think Amtrak is planning on moving to the Brightline Jacksonville station (Union Station) once it is built.

The Jacksonville Terminal is south of the connection that turns Amtrak trains west and onto their existing route. It is possible but would require a time consuming backup move.

I don't know of Amtrak's thoughts on the project but it certainly would be easy for anything newly routed down the FEC. It's great that the old station survives.

I probably should have said FOUR stations in Miami in my previous post. There is a proposed Port of Miami station going to be built for cruise passengers.

This is totally unnecessary in my opinion since passengers getting off the train will still have to board a bus to get to their terminals (the port is huge). It would be just as easy to board a bus at Miami Central and take the very short ride over the bridge to the terminals. This also will complicate scheduling with some trains going to Miami Central and others to the Port. It could be confusing for the public and a waste of money. If you could walk to your ship from the train like in Skagway, it would be awesome but you can't especially with lots of luggage.

And unfortunately none of these four Miami stations provide any kind of interoperation. It IS a mess.

Yes but the Port of Miami will be for VirginTrainsUSA Brightline, not Amtrak. I don't think too many of those trains would be serving the cruise terminal anyway and at the end of the day, it probably makes sense not to have that very short spur to the cruise terminal. Setting up shuttles and car services from Miami Central Terminal to the cruise port is probably a little better and cheaper.

Back to Amtrak, it would have been great for Amtrak to run to the MIC. It probably would have involved having to replace the NW 25th Street grade crossing just north of there with an overpass or underpass. That would probably involve having to move that one way street that runs along the right of way that connects NW 37th Ave with NW 25th St or just get rid of it althogether. It is one way to begin with. Had these changes been done a while ago, Amtrak passengers stepping off their trains in Miami would be dropped off at a major transportation hub there they can just take the Metrorail and many local bus routes if they don't want to take taxi, Uber, Lyft, or can't get a ride. The present Miami Amshack, located in Hialeah, doesn't have many bus routes nearby.

njt/mnrrbuff wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 9:19 pm Assuming that CSX continues to own the line, I don't think they will want NY State to electrify the Water Level route.

If there were ridership demand this route would be a natural choice for Amtrak to pursue the same strategy as they did in Virginia. Setup two additional tracks next to CSX. That being said it is not my impression that the ridership levels are the same. Plenty of trains though. Can anyone confirm the comparative ridership levels of ALB - BFX/BUF and WAS - RVR/RVM?

gokeefe wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 10:37 am

njt/mnrrbuff wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 9:19 pm Assuming that CSX continues to own the line, I don't think they will want NY State to electrify the Water Level route.

If there were ridership demand this route would be a natural choice for Amtrak to pursue the same strategy as they did in Virginia. Setup two additional tracks next to CSX. That being said it is not my impression that the ridership levels are the same. Plenty of trains though. Can anyone confirm the comparative ridership levels of ALB - BFX/BUF and WAS - RVR/RVM?

Rail Passenger's Association ridership reports:
https://www.railpassengers.org/tools-in ... tatistics/

The various routes are listed under "Routes":

Empire is listed under "Maple Leaf": https://www.railpassengers.org/site/ass ... 52/15a.pdf
VA Service/Richmond: https://www.railpassengers.org/site/ass ... 483/51.pdf
VA Service/Newport News: https://www.railpassengers.org/site/ass ... 481/47.pdf
VA Service/Norfolk: https://www.railpassengers.org/site/ass ... 482/50.pdf

I could see electrification up to Albany, but west of Albany? And they'd need MNRR and FRA buy in below CH for catenary, and third rail is NOT going away because you can't string catenary into GCT through the tunnels. So you'd be duplicating territory, or at least a couple of tracks just for Amtrak. But really, it's not necessary. 90 B would be a huge improvement, better train sets a la Brightline, if not Brightline itself as operator (LD"s remain with Amtrak).

gokeefe wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 8:38 pm That is correct. In the Virginia project it also may open up the ability to electrify. This is something they have to have in order to move forward on SEHSR.

Electrification as far as Richmond would be the culmination, making for a virtually seamless NEC with the exception of the recently debated NPN/NFK lines .

gokeefe wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 10:37 am

njt/mnrrbuff wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 9:19 pm Assuming that CSX continues to own the line, I don't think they will want NY State to electrify the Water Level route.

If there were ridership demand this route would be a natural choice for Amtrak to pursue the same strategy as they did in Virginia. Setup two additional tracks next to CSX. That being said it is not my impression that the ridership levels are the same. Plenty of trains though. Can anyone confirm the comparative ridership levels of ALB - BFX/BUF and WAS - RVR/RVM?

Amtrak already dispatches south of Albany; I'm not sure about the ownership. CSX rarely runs daylight trains anymore due to MNRR traffic. I'm not sure how many trains... I think it may only be one train in either direction. If broke NYS could buy the line, I think they'd find CSX a willing seller. I''m unsure if CSX has any clearance issues that would prohibit electrification either. The biggest issue is the MNRR segment below CH, and the Empire Connection at Spuyten Dyvil and into NYP. Also, I don't know if CN (D&H?)? still retains freight rights.

Thanks, everyone, for answering Tad’s questions to me before I got back

gokeefe wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 8:38 pm That is correct. In the Virginia project it also may open up the ability to electrify. This is something they have to have in order to move forward on SEHSR.

Why do they need to electrify for anything under 125 mph when diesels are in service running at 125 in America daily? (MARC Penn Line) As far as I’m concerned, electrification is important more for volume than velocity assuming you’re talking about <125 mph (200 km/h.) If Virginia does go ahead with 20/direction/day to either half of the Tidewater, plus 10/direction/day to North Carolina, plus however many trains normally go WAS-RVR/RVM, electrification and at least some power-change-at-Richmond is a must. Otherwise, unless we push beyond a ceiling of 20/direction/day over the RF&P, it’s kind of a bust to invest that much in a fixed power distribution network right now. If diesel goes dramatically back up in price, biofuel is a fairly price-stable proven alternative and potentially a cleaner fuel emissions-wise.

mtuandrew wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 5:40 pm Thanks, everyone, for answering Tad’s questions to me before I got back

gokeefe wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 8:38 pm That is correct. In the Virginia project it also may open up the ability to electrify. This is something they have to have in order to move forward on SEHSR.

Why do they need to electrify for anything under 125 mph when diesels are in service running at 125 in America daily?

You're welcome!

I don't think Amtrak plans to run under 125 on the RF&P if they electrified it.

mtuandrew wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 5:40 pm Thanks, everyone, for answering Tad’s questions to me before I got back

gokeefe wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 8:38 pm That is correct. In the Virginia project it also may open up the ability to electrify. This is something they have to have in order to move forward on SEHSR.

Why do they need to electrify for anything under 125 mph when diesels are in service running at 125 in America daily? (MARC Penn Line) As far as I’m concerned, electrification is important more for volume than velocity assuming you’re talking about <125 mph (200 km/h.) If Virginia does go ahead with 20/direction/day to either half of the Tidewater, plus 10/direction/day to North Carolina, plus however many trains normally go WAS-RVR/RVM, electrification and at least some power-change-at-Richmond is a must. Otherwise, unless we push beyond a ceiling of 20/direction/day over the RF&P, it’s kind of a bust to invest that much in a fixed power distribution network right now. If diesel goes dramatically back up in price, biofuel is a fairly price-stable proven alternative and potentially a cleaner fuel emissions-wise.

acceleration, reliability, operating costs, oh and did I say acceleration? Remember, those lower marginal costs make that volume all the more economical to implement

And if you are going to buy it, and string wires, then you can have tied in investments for competitive local services to up-state cities as well as runthrough to on-going GO electrification just over the border

Riverduckexpress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 8:23 pm

NIMBYkiller wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 3:11 am My take on all this meshugaas:
10. NY HSR: Just #U(KING DO IT ALREADY!
-What were studies showing travel time would be along the line?

Here's the full Draft Environment Impact Statement for Empire Corridor HSR. The FRA web site mentions a Final EIS coming in 2019....

Pick your poison:


Short run-down:
Base alternative = Essentially current (from a decade ago) conditions (max speed 79 MPH) plus small projects that have already been done since then/are easily doable, such as improvements to the Albany, Rochester and Niagara stations, and small signal and interlocking improvements here and there.
90A = Max speed 90 MPH, with additional improvements, like a few segments of additional track along the entire line (including south of Albany)
90B = Similar to 90A, but would add a 3rd track to the entire ROW between Schenectady and Buffalo and a 4th track in some areas.
110 = Similar to 90B, but with additional signal, grade crossing, etc. improvements to support 110 MPH running
125 = Would build a new, electrified ROW between Albany and Buffalo (while using the existing ROW between Niagara and Buffalo and between Albany and NYC, and using dual-mode locomotives.) The new ROW would stop at the existing stations in Syracuse and Rochester. However, 'local' service between Albany and Buffalo and the existing ROW would remain largely the same.

They did also look at 125 MPH running on the existing ROW between Albany and Buffalo, but threw it away for being too impractical. They also looked at 160 MPH and 220 MPH running on a new ROW (which would also use a brand-new ROW between Albany and NYC, presumably along I-87) which they also threw away for being too impractical. Funny enough, '90B' is basically what Virginia is doing between Washington D.C. and Richmond, isn't it?

I wonder what exactly made them rule out 125 on the existing ROW as impractical. I understand needing new ROW under that plan in certain sections, but in its entirety?

Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo are the 3 heaviest hitters west of Albany, so travel times to that stretch should be a huge driver in determining what the goals are for the HSR project beyond Albany. Assuming on a long drive like NY to upstate the average person makes a 15 min pit stop, and assuming when flying 1 hour travel to the airport, 1 hour for check in, and 1 hour from the plane to destination, and average speed of the 110mph and 125mph options in the report, the comparisons between train, driving, and approximate time flying are:
NYC to Syracuse: Flying is 4:00, Driving is 4:15, 110mph option is 4:37, 125mph option is 3:47.
NYC to Rochester: Flying is 4:15, Driving is 5:30, 110mph option is 5:52, 125mph option is 4:48,
NYC to Buffalo: Flying is 4:30, Driving is 6:25, 110mph option is 6:56, 125 mph option is 5:41
and for shits and giggles if Ontario would be willing to make similar upgrades on their side of things and you can get rid of the stops between Niagara and Toronto and just do the border procedures at the station
NYC to Toronto: Flying is 4:55, Driving is 8:00, 110mph option is 8:38, 125mph option is 7:04
All the 110mph plan does is get us a much faster slowest travel option (excluding the bus). I'm not sure what people would value convenience at in terms of minutes, but I'd guess you have to be within 30-40 mins for the average person to pick the convenience of the train over the speed of flying. That being said, 125mph is the least that can be done if they want to make any serious in roads into the market share that driving & flying currently hold, and that's just to start. And if you don't like me focusing everything around travel to/from NYC, ridership stats show NYC as the #1 destination for all the stations west of Rome (and probably true for all stations on the Empire in general), so it does matter. Not sure what it is for stops between Toronto and Niagara since I can't find those stats anywhere.

Philly Amtrak Fan wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 11:53 am

gokeefe wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 10:37 am

njt/mnrrbuff wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 9:19 pm Assuming that CSX continues to own the line, I don't think they will want NY State to electrify the Water Level route.

If there were ridership demand this route would be a natural choice for Amtrak to pursue the same strategy as they did in Virginia. Setup two additional tracks next to CSX. That being said it is not my impression that the ridership levels are the same. Plenty of trains though. Can anyone confirm the comparative ridership levels of ALB - BFX/BUF and WAS - RVR/RVM?

Rail Passenger's Association ridership reports:
https://www.railpassengers.org/tools-in ... tatistics/

The various routes are listed under "Routes":

Empire is listed under "Maple Leaf": https://www.railpassengers.org/site/ass ... 52/15a.pdf
VA Service/Richmond: https://www.railpassengers.org/site/ass ... 483/51.pdf
VA Service/Newport News: https://www.railpassengers.org/site/ass ... 481/47.pdf
VA Service/Norfolk: https://www.railpassengers.org/site/ass ... 482/50.pdf

Is there a way to see the actual number of riders headed to each destination from a specific station rather than just seeing what the top 10 list with no actual numbers? I'm curious to know how many people are traveling between certain upstate stations and NYC compared with riders traveling between stations in upstate (and I'd like to be able to do this comparison in general across the network).

Tadman wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 10:20 am

mtuandrew wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 9:46 am

Tadman wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 12:15 pmThat makes the case even stronger for consolidating to one line. Consider the folly of two lines:

To summarize what Wharton said, your plan is penny-wise and pound-foolish and yes, the plan is to send the Norfolk trains through RVM. Also, I haven’t heard any of the Virginia Republicans complaining specifically about the split service (some do complain about Amtrak generally, but that isn’t universal by any means.)

That's your opinion, not fact. And my opinion, based on some real basic facts, is that two routes between two small metro areas at 10x/each is not just foolish, its crazy. There is no precedent for it in anywhere in North America. Amtrak would not even consider using Hoboken despite having a the worst capacity constraint in the country in the failing tunnels coupled with at-capacity NYP. LIRR has moved away from using Flatbush avenue by using dual modes into NYP. It might be different if these trains ran anywhere but between the exact same endpoints.

And 10x/each, I mean cmon, that's more than many commuter routes.

Tadman, You do realize the DM service into NYP accounts for all of 5 trains (1 OB, 2 PJ, 1 Southampton, and 1 Speonk) during the AM peak, right? Not to mention the fact that, being those are all diesel branches and FBA has been electric only since before it would have even mattered, those trains likely ran to LIC before the DMs. So your comparison to LIRR means absolutely nothing. And I'm guessing bdawe is right in that your comparison of Hoboken:NYP and Newport News:Norfolk is apples to oranges. As he said, NYP is far more important than Hoboken which is why there's no point in Amtrak going to Hoboken. The case, from what I understand of the Tidewater region, is not the same for Newport News and Norfolk. But finding which of you is actually right is very simple. What's average load factor does either branch have beyond Richmond? Does 1 branch have significantly higher per-train avg ridership than the other? Do the majority of people getting off at Newport News hop on the thruway connection to Norfolk/VA Beach? Did Newport News branch ridership drop significantly when Norfolk trains were introduced? You answer those questions and you have the answer as to whether it's better to just concentrate everyone on one branch or to operate both. My thinking is that as long as load factors are at acceptable levels, then why not operate both?

Pensyfan19 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 10:38 am

NIMBYkiller wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 3:11 am If they do, Amtrak and Brightline should definitely have a shared station in Jacksonville and if a thru-ticketing agreement could be reached that would only serve to help both companies. Punctuality on the Amtrak side is a concern but assuming Brightline will be running at decent headways missed connections SB aren't the end of the world.

-With GO extending to Niagara Falls, would it be at all possible to operate to Toronto with just 2 Canadian stops (Niagara Falls and Toronto) and immigration formalities done at the station rather than on the train at the border? If so, run all service to Toronto. Better to anchor it down with 2 major cities and have a string of smaller ones between them. If not, how tied in is Central NY with Cleveland and the lakefront communities? More-so than with Toronto?

-Overnight Adirondack. Any way to speed up the day train other than the upcoming immigration process change? Damn shame the ROW via Burlington VT is developed in a key spot just north of the city, it's a MUCH straighter route, easier to upgrade for high speed.

1. I think Amtrak is planning on moving to the Brightline Jacksonville station (Union Station) once it is built.

2. I also heard that GO Transit could be expanding to Buffalo, so that would allow for increased frequency between Buffalo and Niagara Falls, and the possible use of Buffalo Central Terminal. proposed

3. There is currently a proposed privately operated overnight Montreal-Albany sleeper service which is waiting on the ok from CP Rail for trackage rights.

But otherwise I agree on all points made.

-I'd heard about GO to Niagara, but not Buffalo, very interesting, but any service with more than 1 stop on either side of the border is either going to need to stop at the border for everyone to be processed or is going to need immigration at every station on one of the sides of the border and it means those traveling entirely within their own country need to carry travel documents just to prove they don't need to go through immigration (with that in mind how will Amtrak handle Saint Lambert on the Adirondack once immigration is moved to Montreal?). For that reason I'd suggest having GO just run to Niagara Falls NY and having Amtrak serve only Toronto upon departing Niagara Falls NY and offering thru-ticketing for pax trying to reach Ontario points other than Toronto. Amtrak train pulls into Niagara Falls from NY, Ontario bound pax not going to Toronto get off, go through immigration, then board GO. Pax boarding Amtrak at Niagara Falls NY going to Toronto just get on. Train just stops for pick up/drop off then continues hot shot to Toronto and then everyone goes through immigration at Toronto. GO pax headed to their intermediate Ontario points, having cleared immigration at the station in Niagara Falls NY, just get off in ON and walk off into the sunset. Pax traveling entirely within Ontario are unmolested. It's the easiest way to get it all done without having the hold up the entire train at a single choke point.
-Buffalo Central makes zero sense to use unless station track capacity becomes a serious issue and I can't ever envision there being so much service into Buffalo that a 2 track station at Exchange couldn't handle. I know it's a beautiful building and it's a damn shame such a magnificent piece of infrastructure languishes but it is so far off the map that it will never be useful for riders.
-The Montreal-Albany sleeper idea is fatally flawed in that it doesn't reach what is most likely the majority of destinations for Montreal pax without a connection and also the value of the service is diminished in that you're only getting to sleep for a portion of your trip. Nonetheless, as long as it offers a good connection for service south of Albany, it's at least a decent start at an overnight Adirondack. But in a world where speeds are brought up to significantly reduce trip times, you're going to want that train to continue south in order to get a proper nights sleep rather than a half night where you just end up more tired the next day (and that really destroys the value of a sleeper service).