seacoast wrote:My question, is to what extent commuter rail can be sped up, from an average of 45 mph, to something closer to 65 mph. What are the key impediments, and to would this help speed alleviate impediments to longer-distance and higher-speed service? I know that Joe McGee of the Business Council of Fairfield County has been pushing the idea of 30 30 30. Meaning reducing the times between Stamford and NY, Stamford and New Haven, and New Haven to Hartford, to 30 minutes as key for the state.
I would say it's still state-of-repair that makes the most difference, simply because that is still such an extremely deep bucket to fill. And it's not so much a matter of raw speeds--45 to 65, or whatever--as it is further stabilizing the service reliability to chop out more variability in the schedules. There's still some inefficiency fudge factor baked into the commuter schedule for the physical condition of the line...not the sort of thing you can time with a 1-on-1 overtake, but which still adds up one pinprick at a time over the course of a service day. The constant-tension catenary made a big difference for that, as no longer having constant little bouncing-wire brownouts onboard trains saves countless brake applications across the whole schedule that add up over time. Every vertical/lateral bounce over shot bridge joints that gets smoothed out with an overpass replacement, every lumpy water-breached stretch of trackbed substrate that gets fixed by new/better culverts, and so on. Think all the little blips like that projected across a full day's schedule on all 4 tracks, and what regular old SGR labor does to collectively tighten those bolts.
Then consider the remaining 3 unfunded movable bridges...especially Cos Cob, which accounts for 50% of the total openings of all five New Haven Line movables. A fast-moving, adjustable-height lift bridge with thin rigid decks reduces the schedule impact on the most-congested New Rochelle-Stamford portion of the line on all 4 tracks and induces way fewer openings.
Consider what lengthening all platforms to a uniform 10 cars does to MNRR dwell times at rush where some extremely packed trains do overspill the platforms on a daily basis. CDOT only has two 6-car platforms left to lengthen before the Stamford/New Caanan mainline stops are all buffed out. They've got several more shorties to the east to pick off: Rowayton (6 cars), East Norwalk (4), Green's Farms (6), Southport (4), Fairfield (6), Stratford (4), Milford (westbound: 4). Those are all short by big enough margins that the local dwells make make tangible difference in schedule variability for the GCT expresses. Trim that dwell fat everywhere and the slotting of expresses on that most-congested New Rochelle-Stamford stretch is easier to manage. Trim it on the east-of-Stamford locals and you won't have service increases on the branchlines, and SLE + Hartford Line to Bridgeport gumming the locals up en route to Stamford.
It's a whole lot of baby steps like that. And we still don't know how much they matter because the Commission never took the NEC Infrastructure Improvements Master Plan data as a baseline, much less revised it upwards for more aggressive SGR investment, before embarking on its empire-building scheme chucking such large chunks of the NEC aside. We don't have traffic modeling of what a 100% bolt-tightened New Haven Line can or can't do because they weren't interested in seeing that; it would've defeated their political leverage game. They aren't saying New Haven Line congestion is what breaks the whole NEC BOS-WSH, full-stop...because then they'd need to focus on the Fairfield bypass first and not drop the LIRR + cross-Sound tunnel option so quickly from consideration. Their actions don't reflect some pervasive fear that the whole project is going to die between New Rochelle and Stamford if they don't build an entirely separate railroad. On the contrary, we've been led to believe the more traffic-diffuse Shoreline is what's going to ruin it for everybody if they don't get all the eminent domain they want on that Old Saybrook bypass.