VA Releases SEHSR Recommendations

Virginia just released its recommendations for Richmond-Washington improvements. There's good news (lots of it) and a little bit of bad news. The good news:
-The plan includes 100% triple-tracking from Long Bridge down to south of Washington (though in Richmond, by technicality it's split over the S-line and A-line). At a bare minimum, this gets us the capacity for ten additional round-trips (2 to Lynchburg, 4 to Hampton Roads [plus some others being extended; total is 9x daily], and 4 to North Carolina). The extra capacity SHOULD be good for some additional trains (e.g. Daily Cardinal) since alongside Long Bridge it gets four tracks from CP Virginia to the RF&P/Southern interchange. Basically we'll have more-or-less an entire track to play with alongside significant use of other tracks for passing.
--Notably, this covers basically the entire state (there's enough capacity to cover added service on all presently-served lines save the Cardinal west of CVS), so the odds of a political collapse are probably limited. The fact that VRE probaly gets something substantial out of this should make that more remote as well.
-They went with plans to improve both RVR and RVM and to have most or all trains serve both stations (e.g. it's possible that one or two trains might skip one or the other, but all trains would be routed via the S-line). Included in this is a rebuild of the platforms at Richmond Staples Mill (featuring a "commuter station-style" bridge so that four tracks are accessible at any given time from the station rather than having pax crossing the sidings make only one track usable). RVM would also have two tracks on each side of the station as well.
-This should be good for the 90-90-90 plan (90% OTP, 90 minutes Richmond-Washington, and 90 MPH service).

The bad news:
-Original estimate from 2009 was $1.8bn or so. New cost estimate is about $5bn, depending on some loose ends on various options. Some of this is inflation, some is because of environmental issues along the Potomac, and some is because of how much stuff in Richmond got rolled in.
-Ashland is a total mess. Basically, Ashland/Hanover County were for the project and then decided they wanted to fight it at the last minute. With that said, there's a very real chance of either some NIMBY roadkill or a fairly "interesting" solution (elevated additional tracks or a tunnel).

http://dc2rvarail.com/about/recommendations

Edit: Just an amusing realization, but due to being a run-through station instead of a terminal, under the full implementation of this plan plus a daily Cardinal ALX might have the most daily arrivals/departures of any station off the NEC proper (22 daily trains, meaning 44 departures). Chicago has "only" about 28-30 (going in numerous directions), but they all originate/terminate. The closest competitor is Martinez, CA (which is right on top of it, with 15 Capitol Corridor trains, 5 San Joaquins, plus the Starlight and Zephyr for a total of 44 departures) followed by Emeryville (which drops one arrival/departure since the Zephyr terminates there). Richmond and Fredericksburg would be chasing close behind at 34 and probably about 30 (presuming that a few LD trains continue to skip FBG).

I can't find any details on the actual recommendations in the Richmond area. (I was hoping for a cost breakdown of the pieces. How much, for instance, is the James River Bridge.)

There's a bit more detail in the presentation at the bottom of that page, but not a true breakdown of costs. The Main Street Station diagram with the new tracks and platforms is interesting. http://dc2rvarail.com/index.php/download_file/view/220/318/

The diagram is nothing new to us: That's been in the proposed RVM overhaul for a while, more or less. RVM is "quirky" because it's an all-elevated station (I honestly cannot think of another one off the top of my head aside from Brightline's Miami station) which is positioned between two diverging lines. Whereas RVR could arguably get away with two functioning tracks (e.g. not one working and one frequently blocked by pedestrian traffic), RVM has to have at least three, and arguably four, tracks for the proposed service (they could get away without a second track on the C&O side of things, but I suspect CSX wants a second track there so they can run what coal traffic would remain on that section of their route through even if an Amtrak train is using the station; on the SAL side of things, the proposed service frequency is just too massive to not have two tracks lest this turn into a bottleneck). What's interesting to me is that RVR retains a low-level platform alongside the level-boarding platform. My best guess is that's an accommodation for possible commuter services (or anything else which might use bilevels, such as the Capitol Star proposal), but it does sort-of stand out to me. In that context, my best guess is that it would be mainly used for "overflow" situations (e.g. when 3-4 trains might "pile up" in the station).

One stand-out point: With this project, depending on the exact nature of the agreement between VA and CSX regarding use of the third/fourth track, we might actually have passenger trains with "pure priority" on a continuous track from either BOS or NRO (depending on how we look at the Connecticut tracks) all the way to RGH or CLT (depending on how we look at the NC-owned tracks). If (big if, granted) that works out, that's up to somewhere around 900-935 miles of relatively open access. My understanding is that covering the cost of the full third track plus the Long Bridge should make it hard for CSX to demand much more for additional Amtrak/VRE service because of the net added capacity.

Anderson said:

The bad news:

-Ashland is a total mess. Basically, Ashland/Hanover County were for the project and then decided they wanted to fight it at the last minute. With that said, there's a very real chance of either some NIMBY roadkill or a fairly "interesting" solution (elevated additional tracks or a tunnel).

Click to expand...

As someone who lives in the affected area surrounding Ashland, and who is and has been a huge supporter for this project at a Macro level, I want to call out that the Ashland situation is much more nuanced than calling it "NIMBY roadkill," which might sound good to someone far removed with a 30k foot view of the entire project but not at a micro level to understand the individual impact of the project. I think it's good that there's an openness for further analysis and research, as sometimes the best solution from an impact standpoint isn't the same as one looking at purely as a matter of dollars and cents.

~ ATE

Anderson said:

The diagram is nothing new to us: That's been in the proposed RVM overhaul for a while, more or less. RVM is "quirky" because it's an all-elevated station (I honestly cannot think of another one off the top of my head aside from Brightline's Miami station) which is positioned between two diverging lines. Whereas RVR could arguably get away with two functioning tracks (e.g. not one working and one frequently blocked by pedestrian traffic), RVM has to have at least three, and arguably four, tracks for the proposed service (they could get away without a second track on the C&O side of things, but I suspect CSX wants a second track there so they can run what coal traffic would remain on that section of their route through even if an Amtrak train is using the station; on the SAL side of things, the proposed service frequency is just too massive to not have two tracks lest this turn into a bottleneck). What's interesting to me is that RVR retains a low-level platform alongside the level-boarding platform. My best guess is that's an accommodation for possible commuter services (or anything else which might use bilevels, such as the Capitol Star proposal), but it does sort-of stand out to me. In that context, my best guess is that it would be mainly used for "overflow" situations (e.g. when 3-4 trains might "pile up" in the station).

Click to expand...

An interesting question raised by this: what about high level platforms at RVM? With the current federal standards, I really don't see the government funding the construction of a *two new platform tracks for passenger rail purposes*, intended to be served by high-platform trains, with low level platforms. Recall the result of the Roanoke station. The exceptions to the level-boarding-platform rule are explicitly for *existing* freight tracks. Building brand new tracks with brand new non-level-boarding platforms would be considered active discrimination against the disabled, and so it should be.

I expect they'll be required to build them.

But I also expect that CSX will want to have some tracks which don't have them. And then there's the way the headhouse is laid out... is it possible to make the center platform high-level without massive reconstruction of the building, which is historic?... For that matter, how to arrange the outer platforms and vertical access to them? And....

...anyway, I'm thinking we may see some serious redesigns on the Richmond Main Street situation before this is all over.

However, unfortunately, the other thing which the report gives is a preferred order of construction. And it's strictly north to south. So it's going to be years before anything gets done in Richmond and by then they will have to redo the studies anyway. :-(

The interesting battle is still at Ashland. Now Ashland after categorically opposing the use of the BBRR fearing loss of passenger service, wants some trains to be diverted over BBRR to avoid the issue of third track, never mind that rehabilitating the BBRR will actually cost more than the proposed upgrade of the RF&P. For some reason they don't like a diversion track around the urban area of Ashland, which is really not that large and is less expensive, than rebuilding all of C&O from Doswell to Richmond Main Street on its twisty turny low speed alignment.

As Anderson says, eventually there might be a cut and cover tunnel in their future down the RF&P corridor right down the middle of town. I cannot see anyone agrreing to an elevated track through the middle of Ashland.

Very nice report on the report!

Anderson said:

Virginia just released its recommendations for Richmond-Washington improvements.

-The plan includes 100% triple-tracking from Long Bridge down to south of Washington did you mean to say Richmond? or Petersburg? or Raleigh? or I'm lost somewhere south of the Potomac Long Bridge! (though in Richmond, by technicality it's split over the S-line and A-line). At a bare minimum, this gets us the capacity for ten additional round-trips (2 to Lynchburg/Roanoke?, 4 to Hampton Roads [plus some others being extended; total is 9x daily], and 4 to North Carolina). The extra capacity SHOULD be good for some additional trains (e.g. Daily Cardinal) since alongside Long Bridge it gets four tracks from CP Virginia to the RF&P/Southern interchange. lacking the institutional memory of the top commenters here, I don't know where or what CP Virginia is, or where the RF&P met the Southern.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your help clearing things up for me.

Ashland Train Enthusiast said:

Anderson said:

The bad news:

-Ashland is a total mess. Basically, Ashland/Hanover County were for the project and then decided they wanted to fight it at the last minute. With that said, there's a very real chance of either some NIMBY roadkill or a fairly "interesting" solution (elevated additional tracks or a tunnel).

Click to expand...

As someone who lives in the affected area surrounding Ashland, and who is and has been a huge supporter for this project at a Macro level, I want to call out that the Ashland situation is much more nuanced than calling it "NIMBY roadkill," which might sound good to someone far removed with a 30k foot view of the entire project but not at a micro level to understand the individual impact of the project. I think it's good that there's an openness for further analysis and research, as sometimes the best solution from an impact standpoint isn't the same as one looking at purely as a matter of dollars and cents.

~ ATE

Click to expand...

Would you care to enlighten us? What is the up close and personal view...other than 4 main line tracks barrelling through the (remaining) front porches in the middle of your downtown, of course? ^_^

So, realistically, given the recommended *order of construction*, we're going to see the Northern Virginia stuff done first; then we will wait for the Long Bridge and do Arlington along with it; and then we will see another round of studies because it will have been so long that these studies will be stale. OK, they might get through Fredericksburg before the studies are stale.

neroden said:

Anderson said:

The diagram is nothing new to us: That's been in the proposed RVM overhaul for a while . . .

Click to expand...

. . . unfortunately, the other thing which the report gives is a preferred order of construction. And it's strictly north to south.

Click to expand...

C'mon, Neroden, there's really no better way to do it.

The Potomac Long Bridge is the mother of choke-points (at least, this side of South of the Lake) for most of Amtrak's single-level Eastern trains. Unclogging it will improve OTP and schedules for the Cardinal, the Crescent, the Silver Meteor and Silver Star, the Palmetto, the Carolinian, the Amtrak Virginia trains, and the VRE commuter service -- as well as others to be named later.

A few miles to the south of the Long Bridge, the Cardinal, Crescent, the Lynchburg/Roanoke trains take a different route. along with a few VRE trains.

But volume remains heavy on the RF&P. The VRE trains don't much go beyond Fredericksburg, The Richmond and Tidewater trains keep the line busy down to Richmond.

The congestion between Richmond and Petersburg is getting work already.

The restored route to Raleigh is being budgeted, tho if the sale has been completed somebody here should have shouted louder. Then construction begins. At some point Amfleet replacements magically appear and there's enuff equipment to run more trains to Raleigh. But only four? I was recalling plans for 6 or 8 rains here. :-(

Anyway, sure seems like the appropriate order of work is north to south.

Hey, not complaining, but it does mean we can basically ignore whatever they're saying about Ashland or Richmond. Though it probably is worth pointing out to the right parties in Virginia that the current Richmond plans are not ADA compliant and will *have* to be changed, just so they don't do something stupid like hire engineers to make a final design based on them.

neroden said:

Hey, not complaining, but it does mean we can basically ignore whatever they're saying about Ashland or Richmond.

Click to expand...

Ashland will be the last, until everybody caves in and digs the tunnel past the college campus, thru downtown, and past the remaining historic homes with porches.

Putting Ashland and Richmond last will bring down the cost (to that point), closer to the old estimate, much less than $5 Billion. The final couple of Billion won't be a problem for the guys in the capitol in Richmond now. It will be a problem for those elected to take their places in a few years.

WoodyinNYC said:

Ashland will be the last, until everybody caves in and digs the tunnel past the college campus, thru downtown, and past the remaining historic homes with porches.

Click to expand...

Pricey. I hate to lose the completely straight alignment through Ashland. As long as you're running diesels, though, a tunnel needs ventilation. And fitting a three or four track tunnel with ventilation in is gonna be a pain.

Are the outside tracks at RVM going to be exclusive freight ? If so might explain some mitigation of high level platforms there for inside tracks ?

If there still will be trains terminating at RVM what will happen ? Is it correct that the stub end tracks at RVM have been removed and those track locations now have other functions ?

This report really does not cover any of the Petersburg - Raleigh HSR ( HrSR ? )

(1) RVM is going to be a mess. Basically you have a car crash in terms of the platforms between historic preservation, ADA requirements, and host railroad demands. However, here's how I see it playing out:
-West side (ex-SAL) will end up being high-level. Under the plans there should be no non-local freight on that line.

-East side (ex-C&O) will be mixed in some form: The platform by the building will end up being low-level (to accommodate freight traffic demands, and on account of it potentially not needing to be rebuilt), possibly with a mini-high platform, while the other platform will be high-level; this should be enough to balance ADA concerns. Note that on the rebuilt-at-present platform there's room for ramps to a high-level platform if need be, too. Standard doctrine in this case would be to use the high-level platform if at all possible and resort to the low platform in the event of a traffic jam of some sort.

It's also possible that the building-side platforms end up being all low-level (to accommodate possible bilevel use, since there's been a long-running dream to extend VRE or something in that vein to Richmond) while the outer platforms become high-level.

(2) The stub-end tracks around RVM are right now part of a parking lot. Long gone from active use.

(3) This report does not cover anything south of Richmond-area work. That's a separate report. Technically there are three chunks of this project: WAS-RVM, RVM-RGH, and RGH-CLT.

(4) @AshlandTrainEnthusiast: The issue is that there was a dramatic knee-jerk against the project without any real allowance for alternatives (e.g. folks came out against both the third track in downtown and the western bypass). Basically, to someone from "down the tracks" in Newport News it looks like a tea party anti-rail blowup (and indeed, as far as I can tell, it's been harnessed by those folks, so I'll admit that more than a few of us are engaging in a bit of guilt by association).

(5) It's basically north-to-south since FBG-ALX can be used (and funded) by both VRE and the state and that's a pretty cut-and-dried portion (if VRE were to ditch the Haymarket extension in favor of more service to Broad Run, that could go a long way towards paying for everything from FBG on up). The Arlington portion can proceed once a build option is picked for Long Bridge, but you can't well place the tracks leading to the bridge without knowing where the bridge is going to go. Basically, it is the logical course. Also, nothing says that we'll complete each segment before proceeding...multiple segments might easily be under various stages of engineering and construction at the same time.

neroden said:

WoodyinNYC said:

Ashland will be the last, until everybody caves in and digs the tunnel past the college campus, thru downtown, and past the remaining historic homes with porches.

Click to expand...

Pricey. I hate to lose the completely straight alignment through Ashland. As long as you're running diesels, though, a tunnel needs ventilation. And fitting a three or four track tunnel with ventilation in is gonna be a pain.

Click to expand...

Or we build / dig a trench. No need for a true tunnel, just a trench. The side roads could hang over the outer tracks and open space above the center. It been a few years but only a few blocks of downtown are right next to the track area. The house are mostly set back. A few buildings are closer but nothing that has history.

Really would like to know what Ashland issue is, and what there best outcome would be. Are there two groups? One against the bypass plan, one against the downtown plan. Time for the local leaders to step up.

Hmm. So here's a proposal for Ashland.

It looks like everyone on the west side of Center St. has hefty setbacks, excepting a few commercial buildings which have back entrances.

Construction phase I: First close the west side of Center Street and build a two-track cut-and-cover tunnel under its right-of-way. (It may be necessary to remove part of the western track of the existing tracks.) Ashland Amtrak service will temporarily have to be on the deficient eastern platform. Make it deep enough for doublestacks and for future overhead electrification, plus enough height to cover it with a road. Build a new high-level platform, probably just north of or underneath College Avenue, on the outside side.

Construction phase II: Cover this trench with the new Center Street over the western track, leaving openings for diesel exhaust over the eastern track. Relocate Amtrak to the new "underground" station. Relocate CSX to the underground tracks, largely on the eastern track (to avoid the high platform).

Construction phase III: Demolish the existing tracks and lower them down to the same underground grade in a second trench. Close the eastern side of Center Street where necessary. Build a new outside high-level platform on the east track at the new station location, covered by the new east part of Center St.

Operations Phase: Run CSX trains primarily down the middle tracks, mostly exposed to the air, and Amtrak trains down the outside (platform) tracks.

Furture Phase: This would be designed to be fully capped if it's ever electrified.

This could be done biased east just as easily. Trying to do it exactly centered, which would be ideal, while maintaining train traffic and car traffic, means you have to dig three trenches instead of two.

Of course I don't know how many utilities run under Center Street. If we're lucky the utilities run east-west.

Sounds very much like what CSX is doing now with the Virginia Ave tunnel here in DC.

Thirdrail7 said:

Ashland Train Enthusiast said:

Anderson said:

The bad news:

-Ashland is a total mess. Basically, Ashland/Hanover County were for the project and then decided they wanted to fight it at the last minute. With that said, there's a very real chance of either some NIMBY roadkill or a fairly "interesting" solution (elevated additional tracks or a tunnel).

Click to expand...

As someone who lives in the affected area surrounding Ashland, and who is and has been a huge supporter for this project at a Macro level, I want to call out that the Ashland situation is much more nuanced than calling it "NIMBY roadkill," which might sound good to someone far removed with a 30k foot view of the entire project but not at a micro level to understand the individual impact of the project. I think it's good that there's an openness for further analysis and research, as sometimes the best solution from an impact standpoint isn't the same as one looking at purely as a matter of dollars and cents.

~ ATE

Click to expand...

Would you care to enlighten us? What is the up close and personal view...other than 4 main line tracks barrelling through the (remaining) front porches in the middle of your downtown, of course? ^_^

Click to expand...

Sure. My up close and personal view more has to do with the western bypass option, as that's the direct impact to myself and my neighbors, however I can speak to the through-town approach as well. I think the biggest concern here revolves not around the goals of the project (although, as @Anderson called out and I would concur with, there are multiple groups opposing the project around Ashland, some of which have indeed been co-opted by a more tea-party like crowd opposed to any passenger rail; that isn't by any means the only, or even majority view in the area, however they are some of the loudest voices) but the process and transparency in the decision making.

In choosing an option, there was an early rule-out of multiple approaches, including the aforementioned BBRR alignment, a through-town elevated or tunneled route, as well as an eastern bypass along the I-95 median that did not have any element of a cost-benefit analysis shared with those impacted by the go-forward options, either through town or a western bypass. Thus it's hard to tell just exactly how and why the planning group determined that the value of our houses and land stacked up against the costs that they were assigning to these other options, which led to a level of resentment breeding here.

Additionally, while I don't share this view, many of my neighbors and peers are of the opinion that it's a shady way of doing business to leverage the government's power of eminent domain for a for profit company, given that all of the literature we'd been provided indicated that a bypass would be owned by CSX and used by CSX's freights. It thus has come across that many of the decision makers for this project have not only the interest of passenger rail in the commonwealth but also the interest for CSX in mind when evaluating decisions.

This whole process also brought out some of the internal squabbles between the town and county initially, as there's always been a level of friction there (although with town elections and a change-over in the board as well as the election of Commissioner Prichard to the County Board has helped with that). The town initially was dead set on anything through-town, and thus to them, the Western Bypass was the most viable option. This certainly angered those living in the surrounding "Greater Ashland" community, who although we consider ourselves part of Ashland and many folks' own businesses in town, don't have a say directly to the Town Council. When the County stepped in, as initially from as much as I was hearing, they viewed it as primarily a town issue, it was because folks, especially some of the more anti-rail rabble rousers, petitioned them when it was looking like a Western Bypass was becoming more of a reality. That's where you got the catch 22 where the town opposed any through-town options while the county opposed a western bypass. Only recently (really in the past 6 months) have some of the newer members in leadership been able to work together and start working with DPRT to look at this at a regional scale; thus the request to get us where we are now for more time to study the options.

For me personally, what I'd love to see is a more frank evaluation of the larger spectrum of options (specifically a no-build, a 3-2-3 improvement option, elevated, tunnel, 3 tracks through town, eastern bypass via I95 median, and eastern bypass via BB) including costs, help sway the populace here who supports the project in the abstract as to why a specific option is "better" than others. I'll fully admit to having some NIMBY tendencies myself, as a matter of self-preservation (in so much as having just bought the farm where I'm living, while not directly under one of the proposed western bypass alignments currently, I would consider us within the larger "cone of uncertainty"), so being able to evaluate and in some cases challenge the "value" of one choice over the other and have that intelligent discussion would go a long way to ensuring that a decision that provides the greatest benefit with the least impact (so not necessarily the option that provides the maximum benefit) can be achieved.

@Just-Thinking-51, knowing that my above is a bit of a lengthy stream-of-consciousness rambling, to discreetly answer your question, yes, there are multiple groups (more than 2), some opposing a Western Bypass (Families Under the Rail is the big one), and some opposing a through-town street level option (An org run by a town resident named Ian Sutton, and an org that the College started). Until earlier this year, the County was in the bypass opposition camp while the Town was in the through-town opposition camp, however more recently they have started to come together in shared perspective to work to identify a better third alternative.

~ ATE

Thanks for the info, ATE.

I have to ask what you think the reaction would be to an elevated option (either three or preferably four tracks). It would be a hell of a lot cheaper than a tunneled option, just as straight and fast as the existing route, more grade-separated than any bypass. And it would allow Center Street to be put under the railroad, actually widening people's front yards. But it would be a large object casting shadows on the neighboring properties. Some people don't like that.

(An elevated could be built with trusses spanning a full four-lane width, two parking lanes and two driving lanes. The piers would be dropped right in the middle of what are now East and West Center Street. During construction you'd close Center Street except for local access, which would wiggle around the outside of the future piers, and train traffic which would continue running down the existing tracks. After trains are moved to the elevated tracks, the ground-level tracks would be removed and Center Street could become a single street, with the driving lanes where the tracks are now and the parking lanes to the outside of that. The new station could be located right on top of where the existing station is, and Center Street could be diverted to one side of the Depot, on Railroad Avenue, for that block, so people don't have to cross a street to change platforms. Once the piers were all in place, prefabricated manufactured bridge elements could be placed by crane, which is much cheaper than in-place construction; this is made straightforward by the long, straight nature of the alignment. A 2-mile elevated woudn't be cheap but it would be way cheaper than a tunnel, and being completely straight and pretty flat does simplify it a lot.)

neroden said:

I have to ask what you think the reaction would be to an elevated option (either three or preferably four tracks).

Click to expand...

I think the reaction would inherently depend on how it was presented. Dropped in as the "preferred" alternative with no opportunity for feedback or input, I think it would be summarily rejected by folks' who would wonder why the project couldn't just use a "perfectly good" railroad to the east that already has tracks and everything! I think if it was presented smartly along with the other alternatives, and explained why it was the preferred alternative, namely in terms of cost and user impacts, and the benefits it would provide both as it relates to the whole project (see below for an aside thought on that) and to the town (enabling the town to still have trains stop there, which wouldn't be possible with the BB option, while not destroying physical property) would go a long way to ameliorate some of the negative opinions people would have to the impingement on their views. I think if there was an ability to have a more modern design as well to make it more aesthetically pleasing, as opposed to the whole monolithic concrete structures from the 70s, that would make it more palpable.

On the selling aspect, I do concur with some of the feedback and perceptions around how the various benefits of the project were conveyed, and shared this with Emily Stock. She comes across as a solid technical project manager, however her interpersonal charisma I've found lacking, especially in being able to empathize with impacted constituents and "sell" the value of the project. So much is made of this being "High Speed" rail and saving "15 to 20 minutes", when I think a much better case would be made focusing on the other benefits.

Calling it "Fast Frequent Rail" and focusing on the 90-90-90 plan, emphasizing the increased OTP and frequency over the faster speed would, I think, undercut some of the more potent criticism around calling it "High Speed" without actually providing anything near what the rest of the world would think of as "High Speed".

~ ATE

What if the passenger trains continued to go through town like they do now, but the freight trains were to go around town on some existing, albeit upgraded tracks?

jb

Yup. Calling it something like "Reliable, Frequent, Faster Rail" and explaining what it means would be better than using the term "High Speed". Use of the term "High Speed" for anything below 150mph maximum allowed speed, should be banned. Consequently "High Speed Rail" would immediately imply electrified system too.

As for elevated systems, in many parts of the world it has been found that elevated systems that are built supported by single pillar holding up a well architected concrete structure fifty to sixty feet above ground with adequate noise suppression built in, even atop main thoroughfares is found quite acceptable in most placed. But such have been used for purely passenger systems. Trying to use such for Plate H and K freights with umpteen flat wheels is a different kettle of fish altogether.

Ideally, one could conceive of diverting all freight to a double tracked BBRR between Doswell and Richmond, but the real show stopper there is the difficulty of access to Acca Yard, which is absolute necessity for CSX. The only plausible solution is to provide access to Acca from the South with a northward connection from BBRR to the Acca to Main Street route, and that gets the freights into Acca facing the wrong way. Consequently, a somewhat more local use of part of the BBRR ROW to provide an Eastern Bypass for Ashland may be a more practical alternative to consider. Don't know what the local politics around that would be.

How would an Eastern Bypass potentially affect the cost figure of a project like this? I have no connection whatsoever to Virginia but Ashland is a place where I love alighting from a train,walking down the street to buy coffee, relaxing as I watch the RF&P main line pulse with activity, and sometimes watch the Hampden Sydney College Tigers play against the Randolph-Macon Yellow Jackets in one of America's original collegiate football rivalries. I would hate to see the character of downtown Ashland fade away due to a mainline track expansion, but I also really do want to see more trains serve Ashland (remember that it is a college town and therefore ridership will grow unfailingly if passenger trains are added). This is an exciting project overall, and personally I want to see the NEC grow to encompass the entire RF&P mainline in my lifetime. That will never happen of course unless we keep short term goals realistic and bear in mind that the project may not receive much or any federal funding dedication until North Carolina is included in the alignment-improvement strategy.