Weighing the Advantages of improving CP216 at New Rochelle

I thought this might be an interesting/stimulating topic about the NEC.

Aside from the supposed 25mph crawl space near Bridgeport, CT (That I have not personally experienced), it seems that CP216 (For those unfamiliar with CP216, it is where Amtrak and Metro north meet, near New Rochelle. It's a major interlocking that Amtrak trains much snake through all the time) just seems to be a hindrance to trains on the NEC operating north of New York City, costing Amtrak precious minutes.

I've noticed that Metro-North's path over the junction has a more forgiving path than Amtrak does. MNRR trains look like they can pass through CP216 at 50-60MPH if they wanted to but Amtrak has to crawl through there at about 25MPH or below (the limit could be a bit higher I'm not sure, it seems like 25 to me).

Picture this. By some miracle, the government says, "We'll give you whatever money you need to improve the NEC". On the agenda, among other things such as maintenance, tackling the CP216 issue is at the top of the list. How would you re-configure the tracks to configuration in which trains can operate through the junction at higher speeds such as 65MPH or higher?

Before you even get to that point, is it worth the project? How much time would it save NEC trains if they no longer have to crawl through CP216? For trains traveling between Boston, MA and Washington, D.C/Virginia does 10 - 15 minutes really make a difference?

As for the track configuration, (based on photographic memory) it will be a challenge because of the close proximity of I95 to the West and the houses along with a Golf course to the East. The only solution I would see is increasing the gradient South of CP216 and creating a 1 track fly-over and joining it with the express track that currently exists (I think, there should be 4 tracks through New Rochelle, 3 of which platform). The fly-over would cross over the two NB track. Then maybe less than a mile north of that I would install cross-overs (At grade of course). The flyover would obviously be for trains traveling through New Rochelle. Those stopping at New Rochelle will most likely have to snake through the area much like they do now.

One strategy that I think this improvement will help with is allowing trains to make up for lost time from other areas granted that there are no tie-ups with Metro-North. Rather than update the timetables, let them remain the same; this way on-time performance should improve (I would think).

I personally think the improvement would save about 10 to 15 minutes. I don't know however; if 10 to 15 minutes would be worth the investment in improving the interlocking at CP216.


Looking forward to seeing what ideas you guys have!

Since many trains are making a stop at NCR anyways and there's a Dead Catenary Section right at the Amtrak post and that Amtrak trains usually have to wait for MNRR traffic on any of the 4 tracks, building a flying jct there would be money best spent elsewhere.

If I had to build something there I would build a pair of duck-unders. One comming up on the current 5 track, the other starting in the interlocking area east of the station.

There's been talk in the past of flyovers at New Rochelle and realigning switches so Amtrak could come through at faster speeds. What's missing, of course, is the Big M - money!

Right before New Rochelle, eastbound Amtraks can do 100, so having to slow to 15 mph is a big nuisance. Also, Metro-North has been known to give its trains priority. I once sat at New Rochelle 15 minutes on a westbound Acela as two eastbound Metro North trains passed by.

Does anybody have a track diagram or interlocking diagram of CP126? I've searched the web but cannot find one. I've only been through there by train a couple of times, and it is difficult to really get into the discussion without seeing how things are actually laid out at present...

Well, you know there's the four Metro-North tracks curving through the interlocking; the two tracks to Penn Station split off mid-curve in about the manner you'd expect, except that there are one or two movable-point diamonds (MN track 4, and maybe 2?). I assume the curve has minimal superelevation, so MN speed is lower than it otherwise would be.

One poster hoped to save 10-15 minutes at Shell. No matter what they do, that will never happen.

PRRTechFan wrote:Does anybody have a track diagram or interlocking diagram of CP126? I've searched the web but cannot find one. I've only been through there by train a couple of times, and it is difficult to really get into the discussion without seeing how things are actually laid out at present...

Not track diagrams per se, but I did find some interesting photos on a Library of Congress website:

Shell Interlocking Circuit Breaker Gantry & Substation. New Rochelle, Westchester Co., NY. Sec. 4207, MP 19.10. <br>HAER, NY,31-NEYO,167-38
Shell Interlocking Circuit Breaker Gantry & Substation. New Rochelle, Westchester Co., NY. Sec. 4207, MP 19.10. <br>HAER, NY,31-NEYO,167-39
Shell Interlocking Circuit Breaker Gantry & Substation. New Rochelle, Westchester Co., NY. Sec. 4207, MP 19.10. <br>HAER, NY,31-NEYO,167-40
Shell Interlocking Tower. New Rochelle, Westchester Co., NY. Sec. 9108, MP 16.20. <br>HAER, NY,31-NEYO,167-41
Shell Interlocking Tower. New Rochelle, Westchester Co., NY. Sec. 9108, MP 16.20. <br>HAER, NY,31-NEYO,167-42
Shell Interlocking Tower. New Rochelle, Westchester Co., NY. Sec. 9108, MP 16.20. <br>HAER, NY,31-NEYO,167-43
Shell Interlocking Tower. New Rochelle, Westchester Co., NY. Sec. 9108, MP 16.20. <br>HAER, NY,31-NEYO,167-44

Also, through the LoC search engine, I found an architectural / historical report on the Shell tower. Unfortunately, their search engine doesn't seem to let me get "permanent" URLs. On the other hand, if you go to http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/index.html and enter "new york new haven shell" in the Search box, the first result will likely be named "New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad, Shell In, New Haven Milepost 16, approximately 100 feel east, New Rochelle, Westchester County, NY" (in the Built in America collection). That entry has a number of closeups of the Shell tower, as well as a brief history and rough sketch of the interlocking itself.

<i>Right before New Rochelle, eastbound Amtraks can do 100, so having to slow to 15 mph is a big nuisance. </i>

That 100mph section is roughly 2 miles long, and has a 30mph or so restriction on the other side of it. Most trains can't get anywhere near 100 in that space, and even if they do, they've got to hit the brakes. IIRC, there's a signal ahead of the 15mph that drops you to 40 or so if you're stopping at SHELL before entering.

A few years ago on usenet, an Amtrak engineer posted an excellent description of the trip from NY Penn to New Rochelle, and why it's not going to get any faster without major work.

Nasadowsk wrote:<i>Right before New Rochelle, eastbound Amtraks can do 100, so having to slow to 15 mph is a big nuisance. </i>

That 100mph section is roughly 2 miles long, and has a 30mph or so restriction on the other side of it. Most trains can't get anywhere near 100 in that space, and even if they do, they've got to hit the brakes. IIRC, there's a signal ahead of the 15mph that drops you to 40 or so if you're stopping at SHELL before entering.

A few years ago on usenet, an Amtrak engineer posted an excellent description of the trip from NY Penn to New Rochelle, and why it's not going to get any faster without major work.

If the Amtraks could even maintain 40 in the interlocking that would make a significant difference. They wouldn't have to begin slowing down as far west as the do currently and once past the station they could get up to 90 (permitted speed on the New Haven straightaway from Larchmont to Rye) that much quicker. It might just save a minute or two, but those minutes add up wherever slow track speeds can be improved.

CP216 is the biggest crawl on the NEC east of NYC. I mean yes, 15 is way too slow for diverging mvts. Like Hunter, I wouldn't mind seeing a 45 mph speed if a new interlocking could be built. It would take some time off the schedule as well as improve MN's operations. MN does seem to fly through New Rochelle but that is not cake icing.

Forget about the 100 MPH between CP-216 and Pelham Bay, it is only a
myth. There are three bridges in the area with an 80 MPH restriction on
them and there is a 70 MPH curve at MP 18 which adds to the above.
In addition, there is a dead section in the overhead west of CP-216 which
prevents acceleration for a distance.
In my opinion, the only reason the 100 MPH is shown in the timetable is
for political reasons, to show others that important improvements and
work has been done. Improvements and work have been done in this area but the 100 MPH just does not happen with anything. No ifs, ands or
buts on this one, it just DOESN'T happen.
For the record, the speed permitted for Metro-North trains through CP-216
on a straight move is 30 MPH while Amtrak is allowed only 15 MPH.
This compares with the New Haven Railroad when it was 35 MPH on
straight away moves from GCT through the area and 25 MPH on moves
to/from Penn Station and the Harlem River Branch.
Why the reduced speeds through this area today with all of the work that
has been done, you need to ask Metro-North that, I do not know.
There really is no room in the area for an elevated track(s) to or from the
Amtrak Hell Gate Line to Metro North.
A better alternative in my opinion although again quite expensive would be
to tunnel from a point near the new yard (abandoned for the most part)
at New Rochelle under and past the passenger station to a point east of
CP217 where a realignment of the tracks would need to take place to
merge the Amtrak tracks into the existing four track Metro North line to
continue east.
The existing crossovers could be kept for the few trains that stop at New
Rochelle station and for the rare freight train movements that take place
there.
Unfortunately, in 2004/2005 we are dealing with an physical plant which
was designed over one hundred years ago and changes have not kept up
with the times. Improvements will cost big bucks but are very necessary.
Noel Weaver

I've seen 100, or darn close (above 95 certainly) on my GPS along that stretch aboard the Acela Express.

hsr_fan wrote:I've seen 100, or darn close (above 95 certainly) on my GPS along that stretch aboard the Acela Express.

I have run trains many, many times over that stretch of track in years
past. In my opinion, 100 MPH is not possible nor is 95 MPH.
I knew that piece of railroad very well. The characteristics have not
changed very much since I ran over that line.
Noel Weaver

EdSchweppe, thanks for providing those photos!! They are really helpful.

The arial shots really show how "bad" the trackwork is for the Hellgate Line when merging with the MNRR ROW.

The Hellgate Branch is just that, The New Haven Main line went towards GCT and the allignment was never changed.
MNCR and Amtrak were in progress to reconfigure the interlocking which included a new CP217 and CP215 with CP216 getting 45 mph routing towards the Hellgate branch and MNCR retaining its 30 mph routing towards Pelham.
The flyover was long ago dropped due to lack of realestate.
With MTA and Amtrak both in financial Decline, the improvements do not have a chance of being finished soon.

My understanding is that MNR and AMtrak have reached agreement on a realignment of CP 216 that will give MNR a 40 MPH move and Amtrak a 45 MPH speed through the interlocking. It will not, however, be a flyover.

As to when construction might begin, I was up there last spring and it looked like material was laid out, but there's a lot of work underway on MNR so I don't know if the materials I say were for CP 216 or some other project.

As for the 100 MPH speed, the first time I even noticed the speed limit was on a SB Amtrak train with two AEM7s a few years back. I don't think we hit 100 south of CP 216, but we probably reached 80.