110 mph operation on the Empire Corridor

Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
D

daybeers

Conductor
Joined
Jan 6, 2016
Messages
1,959
Location
NHV
Hello all! I'm trying to update the Wikipedia articles on the Empire Corridor, including on all of the routes that use it, but I'm a little confused on the operating speeds. I have done lots of googling, but haven't found much. I know the second track between Schenectady and Albany opened this past summer, but I'm not sure the MAS of that. I know south of Albany, trains regularly run at 110, it looks like between milepost 124.3 and 141.1.

Any help would be much appreciated!

P.S. I know this is a lower priority than the other threads, so even though I didn't want to put it here, but I didn't see anywhere else it could go. Mods, please move it if you feel that is necessary.
 
I think this is years in the future for the tracks west of Schenectady. Iirc a 3rd track needs to be built in some areas to alleviate congestion and allow higher speeds.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
 
110 mph between Hudson and Albany, and between Albany and Schenectady. 100 mph from Schenectady west to Pattersonville-Rotterdam Junction, then down to 79 mph.
 
VT Hokie said:
110 mph between Hudson and Albany, and between Albany and Schenectady. 100 mph from Schenectady west to Pattersonville-Rotterdam Junction, then down to 79 mph.
Click to expand...
More precisely 100mph in a few segments between Schenectady and Hoffmans (CP169) where the CSX line from Selkirk is joined.

Rotterdam Jct. is actually on the South bank of the River as is Pattersonville, and Amtrak does not go there.
 
The numerous speed restrictions aside, 110mph between 124.3 and 141.1 as you mentioned. It is also 110mph between mp 149 and mp 156.3 (CP 156).
 
You know, almost 20 miles of 110mph running isn't bad.

As I recall there would be more, but there's at least one grade crossing NYS hasn't been able to close yet.

I must say, I do enjoy me some 110mph running!
 
And to think back in the steam era they were regularly hitting the century mark on those stretches. The New York Central used to be four tracks all the way from Grand Central to Chicago. The two innermost tracks were the passenger mains, with the two outermost being the freight mains.
 
Seaboard92 said:
And to think back in the steam era they were regularly hitting the century mark on those stretches. The New York Central used to be four tracks all the way from Grand Central to Chicago. The two innermost tracks were the passenger mains, with the two outermost being the freight mains.
Click to expand...
No. The railroad around Roa Hook near Bear Mountain was never four track.
 
jis said:
Seaboard92 said:
And to think back in the steam era they were regularly hitting the century mark on those stretches. The New York Central used to be four tracks all the way from Grand Central to Chicago. The two innermost tracks were the passenger mains, with the two outermost being the freight mains.
Click to expand...
No. The railroad around Roa Hook near Bear Mountain was never four track.
Click to expand...
Neither was BN to Spuyten Duyvil.
 
Nor, I believe, were many of the river bridges in Ohio. I lived in the Sandusky area for a few years many years ago and I saw no evidence to suggest that either the Sandusky Bay Bridge between Sandusky and Port Clinton (a movable bridge) or the Huron River bridge in Huron (I believe it used to be movable but is now welded shut) were ever more than two tracks (but definitely a four track right of way in between).

Sent from my iPad using Amtrak Forum
 
The New York Central *was*, in some sense, four tracks all the way from Grand Central to Chicago... but sometimes those four tracks were two separate parallel double-track lines.

Remember, the Hudson Line wasn't the only route out of New York: the Harlem Line was available as well.

And half the trains to Chicago didn't run across Ohio -- they ran on the Canada Southern and Michigan Central.
 
neroden said:
The New York Central *was*, in some sense, four tracks all the way from Grand Central to Chicago... but sometimes those four tracks were two separate parallel double-track lines.

Remember, the Hudson Line wasn't the only route out of New York: the Harlem Line was available as well.

And half the trains to Chicago didn't run across Ohio -- they ran on the Canada Southern and Michigan Central.
Click to expand...
And you could go directly from Philly to Chicago....
 
Metra Electric Rider said:
neroden said:
The New York Central *was*, in some sense, four tracks all the way from Grand Central to Chicago... but sometimes those four tracks were two separate parallel double-track lines.

Remember, the Hudson Line wasn't the only route out of New York: the Harlem Line was available as well.

And half the trains to Chicago didn't run across Ohio -- they ran on the Canada Southern and Michigan Central.
Click to expand...
And you could go directly from Philly to Chicago....
Click to expand...
On four tracks all the way. You just had to find some four tracks traveling on different routes
default_biggrin.png
 

Latest posts

Back
Top