Projected New NEC Routing Through CT

Does anyone have more exact detail on the planned NEC "Inland Route" option between New York and Boston? The PDF map on the Amtrak website isn't very detailed about the actual alignment (it almost reminds me of one of those 19th Century maps of the Boston & NY Air Line ).

In particular, I'm curious as to the proposed alingment between New Rochelle and Hartford. I'm assuming that NRO-Brewster would use the New Haven main to Port Chester, and then the median of I-684. Would Brewster-Danbury-Waterbury-Hartford be mostly on the I-84 alignment, or would it use the Maybrook Line from Brewster to Hawleyville, the old NY&NE alignment over Towantic Summit (abandoned in sections between 1938 and the late '40s) to Waterbury, and the Highland Line from Waterbury to Hartford via New Britain?

I have trouble thinking any sort of rail equipment would be able to negotiate the grade on I-84 between Southbury and Oxford climbing out of the Housatonic Valley, and between Southington and Cheshire where you climb up into the highlands-- but I may be wrong.

Apologies in advance if this is repeating a topic already discussed, but I couldn't find anything specific in the threads.

It's not going to happen.

i would be interested in prosposed routings as well . there possibly has been mention in other threads in the amtrak forum , but noone seems sure what is proposed , and everyone seems to have their own pet route .

David Benton wrote:i would be interested in prosposed routings as well . there possibly has been mention in other threads in the amtrak forum , but noone seems sure what is proposed , and everyone seems to have their own pet route .

It's so unlikely to be funded, that it doesn't really matter one way or another. There was speculation that part of the route would follow a 19th century right of way for a planned by never built railroad. If you use the search function, a poster even found tax maps which clearly show the land purchased for a right of way, but never utilized as such.

It's worth noting that an inland route has many disadvantages, such as missing major areas of population, and necessitating a ludicrously expensive tunnel into NYP. After the 2nd Avenue Subway debacle of the last five decades, I don't think anyone believe that 12 mile tunnel under Manhattan is going to happen.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:

David Benton wrote:i would be interested in prosposed routings as well . there possibly has been mention in other threads in the amtrak forum , but noone seems sure what is proposed , and everyone seems to have their own pet route .

It's so unlikely to be funded, that it doesn't really matter one way or another. There was speculation that part of the route would follow a 19th century right of way for a planned by never built railroad. If you use the search function, a poster even found tax maps which clearly show the land purchased for a right of way, but never utilized as such.

It's worth noting that an inland route has many disadvantages, such as missing major areas of population, and necessitating a ludicrously expensive tunnel into NYP. After the 2nd Avenue Subway debacle of the last five decades, I don't think anyone believe that 12 mile tunnel under Manhattan is going to happen.

I agree the plan in Manhattan seems unrealistic at best; however some of the other parts in Westchester and Connecticut might not be that absurd. Linking Boston and Hartford makes a lot of sense and is probably going to happen one way or another some day. In fact, if (and this is totally hypothetical) Amtrak or another entity were to take an incremental approach to the project this would probably be the easiest part to accomplish, by restoring the old New Haven Midland Route to Boston via Willimantic, Putnam and Blackstone, and electrifying the Springfield Line between Hartford and New Haven.

Not really sure the inland route through Connecticut would miss that much population. You basically substitute Danbury for Stamford, Waterbury for Bridgeport, and Hartford for New Haven.

Really though I was curious as to whether anyone had seen more detailed studies of the routing, not whether or not we thought it was going to get funded by Washington or anyone else.

The Sept. 2010 Amtrak NEC vision statement doc just outlines the possible routings. Nothing's agreed upon, and the only one that was ever studied was an old study of re-use of the Air Line with revised routing through Willimantic. These are the ones as I understand them, with engineering/ops + ridership pros & cons:

-----------------------------------

West leg
-- **PREFERRED ROUTING** - MNRR Harlem Line to Brewster (speed upgrade, switch to overhead instead of 3rd rail) --> Beacon Line to Newton (refurbish, restoration of 2nd track from historic inland route) --> new ROW to Waterbury (old route partially obliterated by I-84 construction in the 50's...some of it is trailed, some of it outright gone and probably rebuilt adjacent to 84) --> Highland Line to New Britain (restoration of full 2nd track from historic inland route, likely tunneling for 1/2 mile through downtown Bristol to eliminate the hairpin curves for a straight routing...very likely to be full 80 MPH CDOT commuter rail by this point) --> New Britain Secondary to Newington (likely to be restored for CDOT, even if the idiotic and hopefully killed busway has to get ripped out for it) --> Springfield Line to Hartford.
Pros: This was the historic cross-state ROW and has the ROW capacity and (relative) straightness to work. Not a burdensome number of grade crossings. Harlem Line junctions in the right place and can be tri-tracked without too much difficulty to handle the traffic. MNRR can handle swap of 3rd rail to overhead on existing fleet. Max ridership levels and new Amtrak riders. Max congestion mitigation by following I-84. Will get heavy commuter rail use the whole length.
Cons: Newtown-Waterbury gap a hugely expensive fill, likely lots of citizen opposition...this is the high-potential dealbreaker. Downtown Bristol tunnel necessary...expensive, citizen opposition likely. Harlem Line would have to switch to overhead wire from 3rd rail to get HSR-like speeds...very expensive.

-- **NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE** - NH Line --> Waterbury Branch --> Highland --> NB Secondary --> Hartford
Pros: Much cheaper. Existing infrastructure alternative if Newtown-Waterbury a no-go; short downtown Bristol straightening the only excursion off existing ROW's. Skips a lot of shoreline congestion.
Cons: Still has to deal with New Haven line. Waterbury Branch has more limited expansion capacity and slower speeds than the west-east routing, may require straightening or relocation around Route 8 to get speeds up (more expensive). Still have to straighten out downtown Bristol. High ridership, but not as much relief as linking Waterbury, Danbury, and the Harlem Line because laid on top of all-existing service to Waterbury.

-- Dual route: as above via NH Line, with traffic split on new routing via JFK Airport, various LIRR lines, and tunnel under Long Island Sound.
Pros: Splits congestion onto existing CR lines. Brings Amtrak to largest airport in Northeast.
Cons: Long Island Crossing a non-starter...was proposed time and again on this routing for highways, and costs never washed. Congestion still significant because of NH Line and LIRR use. LIRR would have to be equipped with overhead, which is more difficult than on MNRR.

-- LIRR -- > Long Island Sound crossing to New Haven --> Springfield Line
Pros: Springfield Line existing, straighter, has expansion room to handle traffic and near-HSR speeds. Avoids entire NH Line. Slightly better Sound crossing route than Bridgeport. Max total ridership potential of all routings (not as much all-new Amtrak riders as west-east route). Links MNRR/CDOT and LIRR for thru service.
Cons: Sound crossing a non-starter unless paired with revival of the oft-proposed I-91 to I-495 interstate crossing...which itself has been ruled a non-starter each time. LIRR congestion and speeds not significantly better than NH Line. Switch to overhead much more problematic for 3rd-rail exclusive LIRR...may have to retain both modes at great expense.

-----------------------------------

East Leg
-- **STUDIED ROUTING** - Hartford --> Vernon on historical inland route --> Re-routed straight HSR ROW bypassing twisty Bolton Notch portion on state land acquired for long-proposed I-384 Willimantic extension (maybe along highway if it gets yet another revival) --> Willimantic --> restored Air Line to Blackstone, MA --> small re-route on P&W mainline to Woonsocket, RI --> restored B&P trestle back to MA --> MBTA Franklin Line
Pros: Recycles historic Air Line high-speed ROW. Utilizes mostly low-traffic active or landbanked ROW's. Re-route on I-384 land easier than most other all-new ROW's because state already has had multiple EIS's performed every decade when the highway gets revived. Could potentially be built simultaneous with highway.
Cons: Misses all population centers between Hartford and Boston...low commuter rail utilization and probably none whatsoever Willimantic-Woonsocket. New ROW still a community opposition problem because of all the highway spats. Franklin Line can't be expanded beyond 2-track, and still has to merge with NEC for an unexpandable congested stretch in Boston.

-- **NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE** - Springfield Line --> B&A to Worcester & Boston
Pros: 100% existing Amtrak, already used for inland Regionals. No ROW acquisition, B&A has almost no grade crossings, and last 4 will be long gone by then. Easily expandable ROW's (Springfield Line can go 3-track, B&A 2-track to Worcester, 3-track inside of Worcester on existing ROW's) to handle congestion. Affordable...speed upgrades and electrification only. Springfield line likely to get HSR speed upgrade before inland NEC built. B&A a future HSR upgrade in its own right as Albany/Empire Corridor connection. Can be done no-build if all other routings get shot down, including West routing. Heavy commuter rail usage NYC-New Haven, New Haven-Springfield, Worcester-Boston. No intermixing in Boston with NEC. Hits max number of large cities. Can/will continue to be used as roundabout lower-speed routing anyway even with a more direct inland route built.
Cons: Out-of-way routing means no time savings from NEC. No relief whatsoever from NH Line congestion if West leg gets killed too. Very heavy freight traffic may limit speeds Springfield-Worcester where ROW is max 2 track. B&A very twisty Springfield-Worcester...curve eliminations and bypasses not easy to do because of hills, unlikely to top 115 MPH west of Worcester except for short stretches.

-- Hartford --> Vernon on historic west-east route --> new ROW on I-84 median to Sturbridge --> Charlton Depot on MA-owned conservation land for long-canceled I-84 extension --> B&A to Worcester-Boston
Pros: I-84 Highest-speed ROW segment in entire northeast...150+ MPH sustained possible. Joins 2 largest east-leg metro areas with probable 30-minute travel times. No land acquisition...active ROW's + extremely over-wide I-84 + state land in MA. No structural relocation of bridges required. Joins B&A at spot where it straightens out for higher speed and has full room for 3-track to Boston to bypass freight and MBTA congestion. Easy environmental permiting on I-84 since carriageway was 100% reconstructed/regraded in 1980's. No community opposition on I-84, very sparse population Sturbridge-Charlton. Hartford-Worcester commuter rail potential. Huge I-84/Mass Pike traffic relief. Highest-revenue new freight potential, linking NECR to Worcester double-stack interchange with all 3 regional Class I's & II's.
Cons: New ROW considerably more expensive than existing. 1 3/4-mile long tunnel bore required in Tolland where I-84 on too-steep a grade for acceptable speeds; 1 potential shorter tunnel also in Tolland. Some EIS risk on MA conservation land (I-84 extension never got far enough in 60's to tackle wetlands).

-----------------------------------

Of these the officially-preferred pure west-east NYC routing is the only one that totally bypasses NEC congestion and can do near (but probably not true) HSR speeds while tying together a lot of dense population and getting max commuter rail utilization. The Sound crossings are utter nonstarters, and any of the no/minimal-build options on the NH Line are half solutions. This one's also by far the most expensive and fraught-with-peril option on community opposition. If it ever gets built I would expect it to be the utter last phase of Amtrak's whole 30-year NEC corridor vision.

Of the east leg ones the I-84 route has the max capacity and speed upside and would be biggest bang for bringing a significant stretch of honest-to-God "true" HSR to the NEC. Attractive because of the land ownership, untapped B&A capacity, big freight upside, and linking Hartford, Worcester, and Boston in proximity they've never had before. Also outright encourages growth on the Springfield line and B&A-to-Empire Corridor to fill out the radial NEC network. But if the U.S. just doesn't commit enough to considering "true" new-ROW HSR akin to how it did with the Interstates, then even a pretty reasonable-risk one like this is going to be a tough sell. Of other routes Air Line has decent speeds and full ROW availability but misses Worcester and nearly all population between Hartford-Boston, doesn't get the commuter rail utilization to really offset the electrification and track maint costs, has less expansion capacity, and doesn't cut travel times so dramatically that Hartford-Boston get dramatically closer-aligned. Capital costs nice, but operating costs not as much. The Springfield/no-build alternative already exists as low-speed, will probably exist as high-speed in its own right independent of anything else, can serve as the interim route for both east and west legs until they're connected. That's the fallback if nothing else can get done. Population linkage and utilization would be very good...so good it would be its own tertiary route even with a new bypass. But travel times would be no better at all because of the out-of-way mileage involved. At least it's likely to happen regardless of iffy U.S. commitment.

-----------------------------------

Now, before johnwayne jumps down our throats again with more condescension...remember that this is just a vision statement. They're stating a future goal on the public record and establishing the shortlist of routings to poke around with gingerly for future study. It's not a financial commitment. Initial studies, if they happen, are a trivial expense. None of it has to happen. None of it will happen if the country isn't willing. But first step to doing anything ever is to state your objective in plain English. And that's what this is. It's not fantasy daydreaming. It's stating an objective and the what's/where's/why's of it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Very interesting, thanks. This is what I was looking for.

Is the former NH Maybrook Line from Hawleyville to Derby via Botsford simply too roundabout for consideration as an alternative?

FWIW I would think that any Waterbury-Danbury routing would likely also require a tunnel in the Southbury-Oxford area. Here is a 1904 USGS map showing the NY&NE alignment- looks like you climb ca. 600' from the river at Sandy Hook to the top of the grade at Towantic.

http://historical.mytopo.com/getImage.a ... g&state=CT

Ridgefielder wrote:Very interesting, thanks. This is what I was looking for.

Is the former NH Maybrook Line from Hawleyville to Derby via Botsford simply too roundabout for consideration as an alternative?

FWIW I would think that any Waterbury-Danbury routing would likely also require a tunnel in the Southbury-Oxford area. Here is a 1904 USGS map showing the NY&NE alignment- looks like you climb ca. 600' from the river at Sandy Hook to the top of the grade at Towantic.

http://historical.mytopo.com/getImage.a ... g&state=CT

The full Maybrook routing is pretty useless for HSR. A 20-mile detour southeast from Newtown on curvy track, then requires back-tracking 3/4 of the way back up the Waterbury line to get on-alignment. That adds so much travel time it would be slower than running concurrent on the NH Line to Milford. You'd still have to so all the Waterbury line straightening on limited capacity, plus a fair amount of Maybrook straightening. And there'd be no CR potential (outside of maybe supplemental Danbury service via Brewster) because it cuts in the wrong direction against the MNRR's whole CT traffic distribution, parallels no highways (or ever-planned highways), and hits a (relative) population gap. NH Line to Waterbury as a no-build would trump this option.

In fact, if the preferred alternative Newtown-Waterbury segment were restored I could easily see this whole SE dive of the Maybrook outright abandoned because the freight's so negligible and MNRR would never use it for anything connecting. The Beacon Line purchase--for purposes of 50-year timescales--was really all about getting possession of the ROW to Newtown and having it in-hand for the full Newtown-Waterbury restoration option.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote: West leg
-- **PREFERRED ROUTING** - MNRR Harlem Line to Brewster (speed upgrade, switch to overhead instead of 3rd rail) --> Beacon Line to Newton (refurbish, restoration of 2nd track from historic inland route) --> new ROW to Waterbury (old route partially obliterated by I-84 construction in the 50's...some of it is trailed, some of it outright gone and probably rebuilt adjacent to 84) --> Highland Line to New Britain (restoration of full 2nd track from historic inland route, likely tunneling for 1/2 mile through downtown Bristol to eliminate the hairpin curves for a straight routing...very likely to be full 80 MPH CDOT commuter rail by this point) --> New Britain Secondary to Newington (likely to be restored for CDOT, even if the idiotic and hopefully killed busway has to get ripped out for it) --> Springfield Line to Hartford.
Pros: This was the historic cross-state ROW and has the ROW capacity and (relative) straightness to work. Not a burdensome number of grade crossings. Harlem Line junctions in the right place and can be tri-tracked without too much difficulty to handle the traffic. MNRR can handle swap of 3rd rail to overhead on existing fleet. Max ridership levels and new Amtrak riders. Max congestion mitigation by following I-84. Will get heavy commuter rail use the whole length.
Cons: Newtown-Waterbury gap a hugely expensive fill, likely lots of citizen opposition...this is the high-potential dealbreaker. Downtown Bristol tunnel necessary...expensive, citizen opposition likely. Harlem Line would have to switch to overhead wire from 3rd rail to get HSR-like speeds...very expensive.

I was thinking about this, and I have to say I'm surprised that entire Harlem line would be the preferred routing, for two reasons.

First, the lower Harlem is already a very congested railroad. South of North White Plains the line is basically at capacity, as I understand it, even with the recent addition of a third main track for several miles through Bronxville and Tuckahoe. There is little or no room on the ROW for expansion without taking of land-- and the real estate abbutting this line through Lower Westchester is some of the priciest in the United States. Not to metion the fact that the people inhabiting said RE most definitely have the means to make themselves heard should they (as is likely) oppose such things as the construction of catenary and 100mph+ trains operating through their town.

Second-- and I think this is an even bigger issue-- the Harlem only leads into Grand Central Terminal. A move from the Harlem to the Hell Gate Route requires two reverse moves-- one at Woodlawn and another at New Rochelle. While I suppose it would technically be possible to build a wye at New Rochelle to move from EB on the New Haven main to SB on the Hell Gate, there virtually no way to do the same at Woodlawn, since the two lines come into the junction at an acute angle and on different elevations. There would only be two ways to avoid this-- a) terminate the Boston-NY HSR at GCT (unlikely) or b) build a tunnel connecting GCT and Penn (which even if technically possible would be manned-mission-to-Mars expensive.)

Speaking as an armchair civil engineer here, I'd think the following routing would make more sense:

-Harlem River branch to New Rochelle
-New Haven main line to Rye
-I-287 median to I-684
-I-684 to Katonah, NY
-Harlem Division from Katonah to Brewster

To me, this would seem to have several advantages over the lower Harlem. First, and most obviously, you avoid having to build a multi-billion-dollar tunnel under midtown Manhattan, instead making use of the (woefully underutilized) Hell Gate Bridge. You dodge the commuter congestion on the Harlem. Much of the New Haven ROW between New Rochelle and Port Chester actually has room for six tracks, a legacy of the NYW&B. And once the line would leave the current alignment at 287, it would enter some of the most sparsely-populated land within 40 miles of New York City-- so much less potential NIMBY opposition, especially as there is already a 12-lane highway on that route. And taking trackside RE for a Harlem track 3&4 would be a lot easier through Purdy's and Golden's Bridge than through Bronxville and Scarsdale.

Well, none of these have gotten a formal study down to the nitty-gritty so I'm sure that map of the west leg was drawn up from a general feasibility outlook. And probably assumptions of future Penn-GCT connection and more MNRR tracks pre-existing on the line by the time of the build. An I-684 routing would make sense for "true" HSR speeds, but because there's an active line in the vicinity with connections to where the inland route wants to go it was not as much a concern to spec that now on the proposal as it was for the I-84 option on the east half that has no current rail parallel. If land acquisition and retrofitting are that big a deal doing 684 median-running might end up being a near-wash. California's gonna be long-completed by that point with a decade's worth of running time under its belt so they'll have an actual measuring stick to reference for new ROW construction. 684's another expressway that's got a very over-designed wide carriageway with tons of room. Doesn't make a lot of sense because 84 and 287 on either end are so freaking tight and clogged...they must've constructed it for much higher traffic volumes than it ultimately got via other radial highways that were never built.

Couldn't a routing over the Harlem Line use the Empire Connection to Penn rather than going out under the East River? While this would involve a change of ends at Penn it's not like there would be any trains that wouldn't be stopping there for enough time to do so anyway. Also such a routing would spread the cost of electrifying the Empire Connection and the entire route to Albany over more traffic.

Edit: I'm confusing the Harlem and Hudson lines aren't I? If so please disregard.

I do not believe the planners actually envisioned a specific plan that considered "Legacy " rights of way. Could they have been adopting, say,the French model where you use existing routes to enter Cosmopolitan areas and plot entirely new routes through the less populated territory between cities? Remember the strategy envisions keeping existing service so that the new route may not have to hit all of the cities currently served by intercity rail.
Just a thought.

pbj123 wrote:I do not believe the planners actually envisioned a specific plan that considered "Legacy " rights of way. Could they have been adopting, say,the French model where you use existing routes to enter Cosmopolitan areas and plot entirely new routes through the less populated territory between cities? Remember the strategy envisions keeping existing service so that the new route may not have to hit all of the cities currently served by intercity rail.
Just a thought.

Southern New England had one of the most overbuilt rail networks in the world by the first decade of the 20th Century. Between that and the topography it would be tough to find any alignment suitable for rail that is not in some way a legacy-- either operating or partially graded. Remember, in France-- unlike in most of the English-speaking world-- the central government maintained control over the construction of the rail network in the 19th Century, resulting in far fewer duplicate lines than you see in places like the US or the UK.

acquiring land for a new ROW through the affluent suburbs of eastern Mass., using eminent domain - - no. impossible. no sense in even discussing it.

Eliphaz wrote:acquiring land for a new ROW through the affluent suburbs of eastern Mass., using eminent domain - - no. impossible. no sense in even discussing it.

How did they build the highways and freeways ???