Expanding Some Exisitng Amtrak Routes Along the NEC?

[west point]

Request clarification. 9 car limit at BOS Why ? Is it a covered service facility limit and if so can facility be lengthened ?

Daily inspection. for western LD trains where are these inspections performed ? or for that matter any eastern ?

 

[jis]

I believe all eastern LD trains are inspected at the end of their runs.

The western LD trains have those lengthy stops enroute for inspections, e.g. Albuquerque for the SWC. I saw two gentlemen inspecting the running gear carefully in each car whilw we were stopped at Albuquerque. I believe the CZ gets it at Denver. Not sure about the other western LDs. SAS would seem to be it for the Sunset. For the EBSpokane appears to be too far from Chicago, so there is a second inspection point somewhere between Spokane and Chicago.

Anyhow, if all that is needed is providing single seat rides between upstate New york and the NEC, it might be easier to reinstate a run through from the Empire Corridor to Washington DC. It will be a pain changing engines at Penn Station. but at least it is within the realm of possibilities, unlike the idea involving train inspection and what not at Penn Station.

 

[Anderson]

For the EB, I could see maybe MSP and SPK being the points?

Thirdrail7:

(1) On the inspection, what about doing it at PHL, HAR, or ALB? HAR might be the most workable (IIRC it's one of the few stations that really has extra tracks to work with), but all seem doable if you need to in a pinch.

(2) I'll work out a balancing vision shortly. Even if the idea is a total dud, I do owe you that much as part of this exercise. I'll also address the WTC bit as well.

jis: Oh, I'm well aware of some of the workability issues with that idea...though again, putting an idea together and sorting out why it won't work isn't exactly a bad thing.

 

[jis]

Maybe Amtrak needs to get some of these things:

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/passenger/single-view/view/algerian-electro-diesel-multiple-unit-contract-signed.html

except they need to be high floor and 200kph capable in both modes.

But I know, this country is also allergic to articulated sets even though they may provide a better overall experience to the riders. Afterall the riders are always secondary.

 

[xyzzy]

The general problem with lengthening LD trains is that their timekeeping relative to schedule gets even worse. Consider the Crescent. The good old days when heads would roll at Southern Railway if anyone delayed the train are long gone. NS struggles to keep the train within an hour of schedule. (As I write this, 19 is 73 mins late in south Mississippi and 20 is 85 mins late in west Georgia.) Extend these trains and the likelihood of a tie-up somewhere along the route increases proportionately. Ridership between intermediate cities then crashes because the trains are so unpredictable. Likewise for Miami-Boston or even Washington-LA run with Superliners. One could say, that's not the way it ought to be -- and you'd be right. But let's be realists.

 

[Anderson]

Ok, for the reverse a couple of things jump out...most notably that mornings are a pain in the arse to deal with (evenings are comparatively easily). What I would do is push the Meteor later by a shade: Right now the timetable has it leave Richmond at 0435. With the present 2:04 runtime into Washington, it theoretically should arrive at about 0639 (and based on experience you can knock about ten minutes off of that on a good day; your earliest feasible arrival is therefore basically 0630). The timetable north of RVR is mostly a suggestion (a loose one at that)...so other than a vague handle on runtimes I'm sort of ignoring that for right now.

Anyhow...I mention moving the Meteor later. What I would WANT to do is move the Crescent earlier, but that risks sandbagging traffic out of NOL (0700 is already getting touchy IMHO). I'm going to put an example together of both.

(1) Meteor Later:
Meteor should depart RVR at about 0715 instead of 0435. This would put it at Union Station no earlier than 0900, which would put it on the tail end of the morning rush (the timetable, assuming 2:04 RVR-WAS, would put it into Union Station right after VRE312 and VRE332, with no Amtrak trains to follow until AMT174 at 0944 and AMT020 at 0953). In theory, I'd have the resulting train depart at sometime around 1030 (after the Crescent has had time to clear the station, albeit possibly "chasing" the Crescent up the NEC). I'd throw in a rather large timetable pad at either Stamford, New Haven (where it would arrive off-peak; a 1030 departure from WAS would put it into NHV between 1530 and 1600; STM has platforms that can be worked with (I wouldn't dare touch NYP with a pad), or PHL (which could also work and you'd be even further off-peak). PHL is probably the most promising if you need extra padding. You'd probably end up arriving in BOS after the evening rush anyway.

(2) Crescent Earlier:
I'm ignoring the obvious issues with moving the NOL departure earlier; I recognize those as a near-fatal flaw here (though the better timing ATL-WAS would be a major, major plus). Let's just assume that you have a second train for that or something. In this case I'd move the Crescent's arrival into WAS back about 2:45 (so about 0708, though I'm sure there's padding in there), aiming to get both into the station reasonably close to one another. I'm actually not opposed to moving both trains a little bit earlier still (another 15 minutes or so), with the main sections going up the corridor on the heels of one another. The main risk here, from what I can tell, would be a delay cascade putting the Boston sections into BOS near rush hour...and I'm not sure how BOS compares to WAS or NYP in terms of rush-hour jams.

 

[Triley]

Ok, for the reverse a couple of things jump out...most notably that mornings are a pain in the arse to deal with (evenings are comparatively easily). What I would do is push the Meteor later by a shade: Right now the timetable has it leave Richmond at 0435. With the present 2:04 runtime into Washington, it theoretically should arrive at about 0639 (and based on experience you can knock about ten minutes off of that on a good day; your earliest feasible arrival is therefore basically 0630). The timetable north of RVR is mostly a suggestion (a loose one at that)...so other than a vague handle on runtimes I'm sort of ignoring that for right now.

Anyhow...I mention moving the Meteor later. What I would WANT to do is move the Crescent earlier, but that risks sandbagging traffic out of NOL (0700 is already getting touchy IMHO). I'm going to put an example together of both.

(1) Meteor Later:

Meteor should depart RVR at about 0715 instead of 0435. This would put it at Union Station no earlier than 0900, which would put it on the tail end of the morning rush (the timetable, assuming 2:04 RVR-WAS, would put it into Union Station right after VRE312 and VRE332, with no Amtrak trains to follow until AMT174 at 0944 and AMT020 at 0953). In theory, I'd have the resulting train depart at sometime around 1030 (after the Crescent has had time to clear the station, albeit possibly "chasing" the Crescent up the NEC). I'd throw in a rather large timetable pad at either Stamford, New Haven (where it would arrive off-peak; a 1030 departure from WAS would put it into NHV between 1530 and 1600; STM has platforms that can be worked with (I wouldn't dare touch NYP with a pad), or PHL (which could also work and you'd be even further off-peak). PHL is probably the most promising if you need extra padding. You'd probably end up arriving in BOS after the evening rush anyway.

(2) Crescent Earlier:

I'm ignoring the obvious issues with moving the NOL departure earlier; I recognize those as a near-fatal flaw here (though the better timing ATL-WAS would be a major, major plus). Let's just assume that you have a second train for that or something. In this case I'd move the Crescent's arrival into WAS back about 2:45 (so about 0708, though I'm sure there's padding in there), aiming to get both into the station reasonably close to one another. I'm actually not opposed to moving both trains a little bit earlier still (another 15 minutes or so), with the main sections going up the corridor on the heels of one another. The main risk here, from what I can tell, would be a delay cascade putting the Boston sections into BOS near rush hour...and I'm not sure how BOS compares to WAS or NYP in terms of rush-hour jams.

1 - I wouldn't expect padding at STM, as the station is owned by MetroNorth, and I doubt that they would want any of our trains sitting there any longer than needed. NHV would be a better chance, I'd think.

2 - Boston during rush hour? Dear lord. Instead of backing trains down almost an hour in advance, they're lucky to come over 30-40 minutes in advance. And trains don't sit in the situation long at all when they arrive, before being backed down to the yard. In the late afternoon/evening the yard crew is usually onboard within 5-10 minutes of arrival, and pushing Aramark to hurry, so the train can be pulled ASAP.

 

[Thirdrail7]

Request clarification. 9 car limit at BOS Why ? Is it a covered service facility limit and if so can facility be lengthened ?

Daily inspection. for western LD trains where are these inspections performed ? or for that matter any eastern ?

Their S&I can't handle it since it only holds 9 cars. This isn't a big deal in the summer when you can leave the doors open. In the winter, the open doors allowed the weather to wreak havoc on the innards of the facility....multiple times. As such, they instituted a 9 car limit in the facility.

I believe all eastern LD trains are inspected at the end of their runs.

The western LD trains have those lengthy stops enroute for inspections, e.g. Albuquerque for the SWC. I saw two gentlemen inspecting the running gear carefully in each car whilw we were stopped at Albuquerque. I believe the CZ gets it at Denver. Not sure about the other western LDs. SAS would seem to be it for the Sunset. For the EBSpokane appears to be too far from Chicago, so there is a second inspection point somewhere between Spokane and Chicago.

Spot on, except it is MOT for the Empire Builder.

For the EB, I could see maybe MSP and SPK being the points?

Thirdrail7:

(1) On the inspection, what about doing it at PHL, HAR, or ALB? HAR might be the most workable (IIRC it's one of the few stations that really has extra tracks to work with), but all seem doable if you need to in a pinch.

(2) I'll work out a balancing vision shortly. Even if the idea is a total dud, I do owe you that much as part of this exercise. I'll also address the WTC bit as well.

jis: Oh, I'm well aware of some of the workability issues with that idea...though again, putting an idea together and sorting out why it won't work isn't exactly a bad thing.

I would go with Philadelphia. It has station platforms with pits so you can do a proper undercarriage inspection. Additionally, unlike HAR it has an actual engine house. This should come in handy because I am unclear about what happened to the P32 when the LSL arrived in NYP and you put the electric on the other end. I assumed it was cut off in NYP?

 

[xyzzy]

98 frequently runs late, and when it does it hits the VRE rush hour and gets delayed even further. Shifting the schedule for a 9 a.m. arrival in DC makes good sense, but then the problem is that 98 and 92 will be leaving MIA about the same time.

As for 20, I don't think there is any enthusiasm to shift the NOL departure earlier. When 19 is late arriving the night before, there is already stress in getting the trainset ready for departure as 20. Besides, an earlier departure would just further depress NOL outbound ridership.

 

[Thirdrail7]

Ok, for the reverse a couple of things jump out...most notably that mornings are a pain in the arse to deal with (evenings are comparatively easily). What I would do is push the Meteor later by a shade: Right now the timetable has it leave Richmond at 0435. With the present 2:04 runtime into Washington, it theoretically should arrive at about 0639 (and based on experience you can knock about ten minutes off of that on a good day; your earliest feasible arrival is therefore basically 0630). The timetable north of RVR is mostly a suggestion (a loose one at that)...so other than a vague handle on runtimes I'm sort of ignoring that for right now.

Anyhow...I mention moving the Meteor later. What I would WANT to do is move the Crescent earlier, but that risks sandbagging traffic out of NOL (0700 is already getting touchy IMHO). I'm going to put an example together of both.

(1) Meteor Later:

Meteor should depart RVR at about 0715 instead of 0435. This would put it at Union Station no earlier than 0900, which would put it on the tail end of the morning rush (the timetable, assuming 2:04 RVR-WAS, would put it into Union Station right after VRE312 and VRE332, with no Amtrak trains to follow until AMT174 at 0944 and AMT020 at 0953). In theory, I'd have the resulting train depart at sometime around 1030 (after the Crescent has had time to clear the station, albeit possibly "chasing" the Crescent up the NEC). I'd throw in a rather large timetable pad at either Stamford, New Haven (where it would arrive off-peak; a 1030 departure from WAS would put it into NHV between 1530 and 1600; STM has platforms that can be worked with (I wouldn't dare touch NYP with a pad), or PHL (which could also work and you'd be even further off-peak). PHL is probably the most promising if you need extra padding. You'd probably end up arriving in BOS after the evening rush anyway.

If 98 leaves at 0715 hrs, it would actually follow 174 at RVR and be minutes ahead of the Auto Pain. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't run 98 around him so he'd arrive WAS closer to the 0944hrs period. While this helps meet 20, you also have to deal with 111 and the MARC train which arrive in the lower level and may not have moved, 89 which arrives at 0925hrs with 79 and 51 (three days a week) approaching the area. By the time you perform all of the work on this equipment, I'm pretty sure 84 would also add to the congestion. it would get nasty if 89 was late on a day with 51 operating.

(2) Crescent Earlier:

I'm ignoring the obvious issues with moving the NOL departure earlier; I recognize those as a near-fatal flaw here (though the better timing ATL-WAS would be a major, major plus). Let's just assume that you have a second train for that or something. In this case I'd move the Crescent's arrival into WAS back about 2:45 (so about 0708, though I'm sure there's padding in there), aiming to get both into the station reasonably close to one another. I'm actually not opposed to moving both trains a little bit earlier still (another 15 minutes or so), with the main sections going up the corridor on the heels of one another. The main risk here, from what I can tell, would be a delay cascade putting the Boston sections into BOS near rush hour...and I'm not sure how BOS compares to WAS or NYP in terms of rush-hour jams.

This works better than pushing back 98. Assuming the VREs continue to use the 1 track through the lower level and 172 leaves on time, you have more flexibility.

The problem that I still think needs addressing is what is the plan if the trains don't meet? What happens if 20 and 98 are hours apart? How would you combine them?

 

[Ryan]

They run one of the MARC trains downstairs in the morning?

Does the ~3:30 Penn Line departure still leave from down there? It's been many years since I've caught that one. Need to leave work early one day to catch it.

 

[Thirdrail7]

They run one of the MARC trains downstairs in the morning?

Does the ~3:30 Penn Line departure still leave from down there? It's been many years since I've caught that one. Need to leave work early one day to catch it.

Quite a bit, particularly if there are delays. There is an afternoon departure but I believe it leaves a little later than 3:30pm.

 

[Anderson]

At that point, I see several options (and which you'd pick would be down to the specifics of the circumstances). One option would be to put the earlier train's equipment on the PV storage track until the later train gets in and cross-honor tickets onto other trains for folks going to places as far up as SPG (SPG-BOS is a tricky proposition, but that subset could either get bustituted or wait for the train). That would at least get it out of the way of most traffic in WAS (that side-track is reasonably long, after all). A second option would be to send the earlier train's equipment out the door and hook the later train's equipment onto a later Regional/Shuttle (which you could probably extend to Boston and deadhead the non-through equipment back to SPG).

 

[Ryan]

They run one of the MARC trains downstairs in the morning?

Does the ~3:30 Penn Line departure still leave from down there? It's been many years since I've caught that one. Need to leave work early one day to catch it.

Quite a bit, particularly if there are delays. There is an afternoon departure but I believe it leaves a little later than 3:30pm.

Thanks - looks like train 426 is @ 3:23 these days. It was at 3:34 when I was working down there the last time, and then migrated to something like 3:28 or 3:29. Now that I'm back down there in a different job, I consider myself lucky to get the 5:10 home.

 

[peconicstation]

There was a point in the 1970's when Amtrak ran one of the Florida trains through to Boston, but it did not last.

Back then the corrder was not electrified past New Haven, hence that train required two engine changes.

Expanded services to Boston itself (which is needed) faces many hurdles including present train volume at South Station (Amtrak and T Commuter Rail), the issue of

bridge opening in SE Connecticut, and projects like New Bedord and Fall River commuter service.

That said, you also have a city with a rapidly growing population, a growing corporate population including many, many, tech firms, and less competition from bus providers like Mega Bus and Bolt Bus. Enhancing Boston service is something that Amtrak needs to deal with.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/boston-population/

Ken

 

[neroden]

Any master plan for improving service in Boston needs to start, unfortunately, with the North-South Rail Link. If the commuter trains were running through, it would free up the needed terminal space at South Station for further-flung service, while also reducing the overcrowding at North Station, and reducing operating costs, while improving service.

Unfortunately, nobody seems to be willing to do it. Probably due to the billions wasted on the Big Dig....

 

[railiner]

Too bad Boston couldn't accomplish the sort of commuter train integration from two systems that Philly succeeded at when they closed the Reading Terminal years ago, and joined the former PC and Reading routes.....

 

[Anderson]

Any master plan for improving service in Boston needs to start, unfortunately, with the North-South Rail Link. If the commuter trains were running through, it would free up the needed terminal space at South Station for further-flung service, while also reducing the overcrowding at North Station, and reducing operating costs, while improving service.

Unfortunately, nobody seems to be willing to do it. Probably due to the billions wasted on the Big Dig....

A BON-BOS connection was actually supposed to be part of the Big Dig. However, it got dropped early on (if I'm remembering what I read on here correctly) due to *ahem* cost issues.

 

[afigg]

Any master plan for improving service in Boston needs to start, unfortunately, with the North-South Rail Link. If the commuter trains were running through, it would free up the needed terminal space at South Station for further-flung service, while also reducing the overcrowding at North Station, and reducing operating costs, while improving service.

Unfortunately, nobody seems to be willing to do it. Probably due to the billions wasted on the Big Dig....

A BON-BOS connection was actually supposed to be part of the Big Dig. However, it got dropped early on (if I'm remembering what I read on here correctly) due to *ahem* cost issues.

If the state had kept the North/South Rail Link in the Big Dig, it would have dug an even deeper financial hole. Hard as that may be to conceive. :huh:

This prompted me to look at the documents for the South Station Expansion Project which seeks to expand BOS from 13 tracks to 20 tracks and 11 platforms. Which would expand capacity at South Station to handle more trains from NYP, via whatever route. What I was wondering is whether there are provisions or guidelines in the South Station expansion project to allow for a future North/South tunnel. The answer in the 2014 DEIR documents appears to be yes, maybe someday in the distant future.

What is interesting is that in the public comment document, there were numerous comments pushing for the North/South Rail Link (the official name for the proposed rail tunnel, abbreviated NSRL). There were comments from the NSRL Project Citizens Advisory Committee; there is also apparently a Mass Legislative North/South Rail Link Caucus. So there are advocates for building the NSRL in Mass.

However, the MassDOT response was: "At this time, MassDOT believes that many of the capacity expansion objectives associated with the construction of an underground north/south rail connection can be realized by the expansion of South Station for significantly less cost." Having been burned by the Big Dig, I suspect the state transportation planners don't want to have anything to do with digging more long tunnels under the center of Boston for the remainder of their government careers.

But the MassDOT response also states "Nevertheless, the commitment to protecting potential underground connection alternatives remains a goal of the South Station Expansion project." So, in 30 or 40 years when the Big Dig and South Station Expansion projects are paid off...

Edit: posted too soon.

 

[Alexandria Nick]

Wouldn't the Rail Big Dig have had some crazy grades or something weird like that too?

 

[jis]

Big Dig among others things brought in the concept of capping federal funds for a project. NY MTA is the first sufferer from that, in that NY State is having to foot the bill for most of the cost overruns on ESA and SAS. Christie used the specter of the same to cancel ARC, of course using some creative accounting to bloat up the cost numbers beyond reasonable limits to get there too.

So, yeah, I can see the reticence of Mass DOT regarding NSRL at this point in time. They don;t want to touch anything like that with a ten foot barge pole if they can help it, for at least a few decades.

 

[neroden]

However, the MassDOT response was: "At this time, MassDOT believes that many of the capacity expansion objectives associated with the construction of an underground north/south rail connection can be realized by the expansion of South Station for significantly less cost."

Yeah, that was MassDOT's line. It just isn't true, unfortunately. Expanding South Station would (a) cost megabillions, and (b) not do a damn thing about the North Station congestion, which is actually *worse*.

Having been burned by the Big Dig, I suspect the state transportation planners don't want to have anything to do with digging more long tunnels under the center of Boston for the remainder of their government careers.

Time to get different state transportation planners.

Train tunnels are a lot easier than car tunnels. A LOT easier. For one thing, a lot less ventilation is required. For another, the bores are narrower.

I'd keep it simpler by omitting the proposed "Central Station", and only connecting in the Back Bay direction on the south side. Avoids most of the complicated underground flyovers and balances the train counts.

 

[west point]

Have partial answer for the 9 car limit at BOS.

1. South Hampton yard is often full with Amtrak trains and some MBTA layover trains during the day. Part of BOS south station expansion is getting another layover yard closer to BOS as present one is 8.5 miles away. That new one will remove all MBTA trains from South Hampton.

2. At present tracks 3 - 6 limit is 9 cars, tracks 7 - 10 are 12 car, & 1 - 12 7 cars. Expansion will allow 11 - 12 cars all these tracks. That also allows for 1 loco. A quick turn train would require one less car so motor on end will not foul tower 1.

 

[neroden]

*Sigh* The cost of "South Station expansion" is going to approach the cost of the NSRL, but for much less benefit. :-(

 

[afigg]

*Sigh* The cost of "South Station expansion" is going to approach the cost of the NSRL, but for much less benefit. :-(

The South Station expansion and restoration of some of the tracks that were lost in downsizing during the 20th century will have to be done, regardless of whether the NSRL is built. South Station had 28 tracks at one time, it is now down to 13. Checking the MBTA capital budget, there is $200 million allocated in the 5 year for the acquisition of the postal sort facility and clearing of the property. Then, it appears to be another $700 to $900 million (early estimate) to build the new expanded station with a mezzanine and boarding area over the tracks and platforms. Some of the cost will be recovered by new retail and maybe office space to lease.

A North/South Rail Link is probably several billion dollars, even leaving out a center city station which could be seriously expensive. Another factor is that the commuter lines are all diesel powered. If the Boston commuter lines were mostly or all electrified, I think a NSRL might have been built by now (like in Philly). But unless or until MA and the MBTA electrifies much of commuter rail system, either the NSRL has to have ventilation capable of dealing with diesel locomotives or the tunnel is electrified with 3rd rail or catenary and MBTA acquires a set of dual mode locomotives. Either way, the costs add up quickly.

We should not overlook the effects of the BIg Dig on MA and MBTA debt load and on the public. I think the Big Dig was a contributing factor to the public backlash that forced Boston's political leadership to drop the bid for the 2024 Olympic Games. it may be a generation before Bostonians are willing to listen to plans for really big new infrastructure projects, especially anything involving tunnels. Yes, the Green Line Extension is being built, but that is a circa $1.2 billion project, not a multi-billion dollar tunnel project. So the NSRL will likely remain in the discussion and occasional new study stage for 20 or 30 years.