Expanding Some Exisitng Amtrak Routes Along the NEC?

[neroden]

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.

I doubt that; through running does eliminate a lot of the need for terminal tracks and layovers.

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.

Does that include the extra cost of the relocated railyard, or is that additional hundreds of millions? Oy.
Then repeat on the North side...

A North/South Rail Link is probably several billion dollars,

Cheap.

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).

This is probably the primary issue. The catenary should be put up over the MBTA lines *anyway*, regardless of whether NSRL is built, but if you throw that cost into the NSRL cost, then it looks very expensive.

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.

Nobody's proposed a diesel tunnel; the grades require electrification.

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.

NRSL per se would probably be comparable price to the GLX, assuming that Central Station is omitted, South Station is dug cut-and-cover under the Fort Point Channel, and North Station is built cut-and-cover under the parking lot.
But it doesn't make sense without the electrification of the system, so I suppose we have to wait until the MBTA starts taking electrification seriously. :sigh:

 

[west point]

Believe that the south coast expansion is planned to be electrified ? But the best thing that needs electrification is the Fairmont line from Readville - Southhampton . That five the ability to have two electrified routes Readville - Boston South station

 

[Palmetto]

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....

I'm not sure that's entirely true. There is a plan to expand South Station to accomodate more trains. I agree, though, that running through South Station is going to free up a lot of space if it ever happens. And there's still the issue of bridge openings imposed by the Coast Guard in CT. I think we're maxed out there, so unless the restrictions are relaxed, any more trains will have to run via SPG, it seems.

 

[jis]

They could run via SPG only after CSX has either been beaten into submission or bought out between Worcester and Springfield. Given the huge intermodal center that they have constructed near Worcester, they will probably charge a pretty penny either way.

 

[afigg]

They could run via SPG only after CSX has either been beaten into submission or bought out between Worcester and Springfield. Given the huge intermodal center that they have constructed near Worcester, they will probably charge a pretty penny either way.

Or MA pays for a second track from WOR to SPG, additional interlockings, and upgrading the entire segment to class IV track. In return, CSX between 3 to 8 additional daily passenger trains each way, depending on the extent of the investments. That is what the Northern New England Intercity Rail Initiative study is narrowing the alternatives down to. The cost estimate in the June 25, 2015 presentation for the core upgrade of the Second Mainline track restoration from WOR to SPG is $122 to $139 million plus $19 million for a second platform at WOR. Which is something MA could afford to pay for with a contribution from CT and a NEC funding pool. It is the signal and track upgrade package for faster speeds in MA and VT that get costly.

The question is, if MassDOT pays for WOR-SPG upgrades in return for, say 5 additional daily trains over that segment, would the state have any interest in allowing Amtrak to utilize one of those slots for a Silver LD Train to/from Florida? That could frequently be 2-3 hours late on the northbound leg? I suspect not. With a limited number of slots, I think the state would select Inland Route Regionals, a BOS-MTR train, and a NHV-SPG-BOS corridor service over an LD train.

 

[jis]

On the NEC Regionals will always trump LD trains for use of any additional capacity. The demand is enormous and state funding tends to favor shorter distance travel. If after meeting local demand any capacity is left then oen might talk about considering LD trains. That is life.

 

[neroden]

They could run via SPG only after CSX has either been beaten into submission or bought out between Worcester and Springfield. Given the huge intermodal center that they have constructed near Worcester, they will probably charge a pretty penny either way.

In the long run there's enough room in this part of corridor for four tracks -- it isn't like the super-narrow corridor within Boston.
It would be sensible to buy out CSX's title to the land, leaving them with freight rights and responsibilities, with pre-determined provisions which require specific increases in freight capacity in order to increase passenger traffic to specified levels. All such increases could be done logistically, so effectively getting CSX's demands nailed down in advance and paying a fixed price now would benefit MassDOT.

 

[jis]

They could run via SPG only after CSX has either been beaten into submission or bought out between Worcester and Springfield. Given the huge intermodal center that they have constructed near Worcester, they will probably charge a pretty penny either way.

In the long run there's enough room in this part of corridor for four tracks -- it isn't like the super-narrow corridor within Boston.
It would be sensible to buy out CSX's title to the land, leaving them with freight rights and responsibilities, with pre-determined provisions which require specific increases in freight capacity in order to increase passenger traffic to specified levels. All such increases could be done logistically, so effectively getting CSX's demands nailed down in advance and paying a fixed price now would benefit MassDOT.

I agree that this would be the best way to do it. They may be ready to sell for the right price given that they can get maybe a track or two of their won on the wide right of way to their intermodal center.

Incidentally, they are trying to sell all of their remaining property around Miami to the county or the state. Tri-Rail needs part of it for the proposed East-West service, but CSX is trying to sell all of it all the way to Homestead as a package.

At this rate maybe CSX will sell all of its property in central and southern Florida to the state, and just keep the property north of Auberndale and Deland only. I am surprised sort of that they retained Deland to JAX. I guess the state was unwilling to pony up the money to buy that out.

Maybe Virginia can work towards convincing CSX to lease or sell the Virginia Avenue to Richmond Main Street minus Acca Yard to the state, sort of like the deal that NY struck with them. Unfortunately the amount of freight traffic on that route may hinder such a plan.

 

[Thirdrail7]

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.

West Point:

The limit is not so much in the station or the yard storage track. It involves the actual S&I building where they Service and Inspect the train. It has a nine car limit in the winter since that is all that can fit with the building secured. Expanding it is possible but would be quite costly for the amount of time you'd utilize it.

 

[Anderson]

They could run via SPG only after CSX has either been beaten into submission or bought out between Worcester and Springfield. Given the huge intermodal center that they have constructed near Worcester, they will probably charge a pretty penny either way.

In the long run there's enough room in this part of corridor for four tracks -- it isn't like the super-narrow corridor within Boston.
It would be sensible to buy out CSX's title to the land, leaving them with freight rights and responsibilities, with pre-determined provisions which require specific increases in freight capacity in order to increase passenger traffic to specified levels. All such increases could be done logistically, so effectively getting CSX's demands nailed down in advance and paying a fixed price now would benefit MassDOT.

I agree that this would be the best way to do it. They may be ready to sell for the right price given that they can get maybe a track or two of their won on the wide right of way to their intermodal center.

Incidentally, they are trying to sell all of their remaining property around Miami to the county or the state. Tri-Rail needs part of it for the proposed East-West service, but CSX is trying to sell all of it all the way to Homestead as a package.

At this rate maybe CSX will sell all of its property in central and southern Florida to the state, and just keep the property north of Auberndale and Deland only. I am surprised sort of that they retained Deland to JAX. I guess the state was unwilling to pony up the money to buy that out.

Maybe Virginia can work towards convincing CSX to lease or sell the Virginia Avenue to Richmond Main Street minus Acca Yard to the state, sort of like the deal that NY struck with them. Unfortunately the amount of freight traffic on that route may hinder such a plan.

I was wondering about Jacksonville-Orlando (which does seem like a workable corridor, to be fair)...Deland seemed like an odd place to cut the purchase, though I guess the state didn't see any reason to buy tracks north of there that they wouldn't use much.

In Virginia, the problem is that the RF&P is a bottleneck for CSX as things stand (as far as I can tell, at least) given the lack of a separate north-south line through Virginia (the next north-south lines run through eastern TN into Kentucky...that's one hell of a detour to get to NJ or NY).

 

[jis]

The only solution in VA may be to try to widen the current ROW, perhaps at great cost, so as to be able to put 4 or more tracks down it to provide enough capacity for both freight and passenger.

A setup that is something like the old IC out of Chicago sharing freight and LD passenger ROW with IC Electric (now Metra Electric) suburban service would probably be the way to go, if at all feasible.

The other technique used by the Japanese , Indians and others in other parts of the world, that will probably not be allowed here, is to simply build the passenger railroad tracks on an elevated structure right above the freight tracks on the same ROW and keep the two clearly separated otherwise.

 

[west point]

An how is there going to be a 4 track ROW thru Fredericksburg ?

 

[jis]

An how is there going to be a 4 track ROW thru Fredericksburg ?

There isn't, unless an elevated structure is built, which of course will most likely not be allowed. So we are doomed

 

[west point]

Thirdrail7: Is the 9 car limit a chicken and egg situation. Was the S&I built just 9 cars long because of the 9 limit of the shorter platforms ? It may have been the 9 car was all that Amtrak management thought would normally be needed for the future there by saving construction costs ?. Now the combination of much higher demand for both MBTA and Amtrak is pushing the envelope for longer platforms that are limited by tower 1's ( BOS ) to be moved west.

That in turn puts pressure on New Haven & NYP to go to the expense of adding cars to meet demand especially south of NYP. The longer trains at BOS during peak demand times can only handle so many more passengers. The history of the 39 train limit needs reminding to all of us.

 

[neroden]

The only solution in VA may be to try to widen the current ROW, perhaps at great cost, so as to be able to put 4 or more tracks down it to provide enough capacity for both freight and passenger.

Given the coastal/swampy terrain, and the pretty narrow ROW, I'm afraid it would be great cost. It's not like Worcester-Springfield MA, where there's oodles of room and solid ground. Or Schenectady-Erie, which actually used to be quad-track, and would be pretty cheap to re-quad-track if CSX weren't being asses about it. (The only section which was never quad-track is the bypass around Syracuse, since the passenger tracks took a different, now-demolished route through downtown.)

A setup that is something like the old IC out of Chicago sharing freight and LD passenger ROW with IC Electric (now Metra Electric) suburban service would probably be the way to go, if at all feasible.

 

[afigg]

An how is there going to be a 4 track ROW thru Fredericksburg ?

There isn't, unless an elevated structure is built, which of course will most likely not be allowed. So we are doomed

There was a study a few years back on building a frieght bypass route around Fredericksburg for CSX. IIRC,it was part of a larger concept study on building a bypass route around the DC city core for CSX. So if a 2 track line for freight trains split off of a bypass route east of Fredericksburg, then the 2 tracks through Fredericksburg would become passenger rail only tracks. But the price estimate and the amount of land that would have to be taken via eminent domain was large enough that the study did not get any follow-up.

There is room I think on the south side of the 2 tracks through the Fredericksburg station for a 3rd track, although one or two buildings might have to be removed (or moved) and it would presumably be rather expensive to squeeze in a 3rd track along with a new bridge across the river.

 

[Anderson]

An how is there going to be a 4 track ROW thru Fredericksburg ?

There isn't, unless an elevated structure is built, which of course will most likely not be allowed. So we are doomed

Actually, the state is willing to pursue freight bypasses for Fredericksburg and Ashland (per the SEHSR studies). Most of the rest of the ROW is four tracks (give or take a bit). The issue, as I think I noted somewhere else, is that CSX tends to want separate tracks with substantial separation between the passenger and freight tracks (rather than trying to integrate the expansions and milk the pax tracks for extra capacity and/or tracks that can be used if a freight locomotive dies at a bad spot). Also, I think the state is actually looking at it possibly being a passenger bypass at Ashland (since most passenger trains skip Ashland and there are some stiff speed cuts there).

 

[jis]

Just build a high Jersey Barrier between CSX tracks and passenger tracks which is just strong enough to contain all their Crashes, Smashes and eXplosions to their side. That has got be much cheaper than acquiring a whole lot of additional real estate

 

[Bob Dylan]

You could call it the Trump Wall!

 

[jis]

Or the Snow Wall commemorating a famous past CEO of CSX

 

[PRR 60]

Just build a high Jersey Barrier between CSX tracks and passenger tracks which is just strong enough to contain all their Crashes, Smashes and eXplosions to their side. That has got be much cheaper than acquiring a whole lot of additional real estate

The primary reason for requesting the substantial separation is to isolate the maintenance operations so as to permit either the passenger or freight tracks to be worked without fouling the other operation. Working a track separated from an in-service track with normal spacing requires the open track to be flagger protected and, sometimes, speed restricted. Moving equipment in and out may require taking the other track out of service. Additionally, if the plan is to operate the passenger trains at speeds in excess of 79mph, it becomes a safety issue for work taking place less than 10 feet away. CSX would like to be able to take out tracks for extended periods and position work equipment and position workers without the need to protect, restrict or otherwise accommodate the passenger operations.
It is interesting how a false impression of today's CSX operational safety continues to be propagated even in the face of clear FRA statistics that indicate the contrary.

 

[jis]

A wall would take care of that problem too

 

[PRR 60]

A wall would take care of that problem too

Actually, it makes it worse. Safety requires a minimum horizontal clearance from centerline of track to an obstruction of at least 12 feet (in many states, more). Placing a longitudinal wall next to a track with less than 12 feet of clearance to center provides no escape area on that side of the track. Even if they could somehow sweet-talk the regulatory people into making an exception (in my experience, not likely), I'm certain that neither CSX nor whatever authority would be operating the passenger tracks would want that kind of safety hazard built into multiple miles of track.

 

[jis]

Who says that you just stick a wall without moving track centers. The point is, even if you have to get an additional few feet to accommodate the protective structure, that is way less than the distance demanding by CSX and hence most likely overall cheaper. Indeed if it is merely to protect track gangs probably a simple sturdy chain link fence would be sufficient and would require maybe a foot or twoo of addition space between the freight and the passenger tracks.

Of course what CSX's actual motivation is will determine whether such solutions will be acceptable or not.

BTW, the original discussion about protective walls started with a much more expensive proposition of elevating the passengers tracks right over the freight tracks in the same ROW, which was countered by someone saying that freight derailments will cause such structures to collapse. The way to protect against that is to build protective deflecting structure at least by each structure that supports the superstructure. it is not rocket science. Such things have been built many times over. it has nothing to do with CSX's safety record. it has more to do with simple engineering prudence.

 

[Thirdrail7]

Thirdrail7: Is the 9 car limit a chicken and egg situation. Was the S&I built just 9 cars long because of the 9 limit of the shorter platforms ? It may have been the 9 car was all that Amtrak management thought would normally be needed for the future there by saving construction costs ?. Now the combination of much higher demand for both MBTA and Amtrak is pushing the envelope for longer platforms that are limited by tower 1's ( BOS ) to be moved west.

That in turn puts pressure on New Haven & NYP to go to the expense of adding cars to meet demand especially south of NYP. The longer trains at BOS during peak demand times can only handle so many more passengers. The history of the 39 train limit needs reminding to all of us.

This S&I was built quite a long time ago. At the time, Boston didn't have as many starts and most of the New England train split at NHV. As such, you didn't really need a facility that would routinely handle 10 cars because even if you had a big train, you could double up on the adjacent track and loop the later trains if necessary.

Boston has and still continues to accommodate trains that exceed 9 cars...except in the winter.