Florida HSR Funds Sought

[jis]

One question: With CA, how long will this make the HSR segment (or segments) in total?

20 additional miles. So add that to whatever it was before this.

 

[Anderson]

One question: With CA, how long will this make the HSR segment (or segments) in total?

20 additional miles. So add that to whatever it was before this.

Found it: 110 miles before, 130 miles now.

Also...I like what I'm seeing in the Northern Lights report, as long as they run the train to the Amtrak hub in MSP and shoot right by the Casino...nice use of the money there.

 

[afigg]

Getting back to this thread, the FRA put up a new table listing all the redirected projects announced today with some info about each project. There are now 3 documents for the original awards, the FY10 awards and "March 2011 (Redireced ARRA and FY2010)" which can be found at http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/passenger/2325.shtml . This is getting rather complicated. :help: :lol:

Regardless of the messy process of getting to the current allocation of funds, even if there is no more HSIPR funding in the next several years, we will see improvements in almost all of Amtrak's current corridor services, new rolling stock, and the critical PE & EIS groundwork done on a number of projects that will be ready to move to construction in 2-4 years when money does become available.

 

[jis]

So the Travelers KIN is getting two high level platforms and an additional platform track together with a high speed interlocking! Looks like they are getting ready to extend MBTA service to Kingston, doesn't it?

BTW, on the Harold bypass track, apparently the Eastbound bypass was already funded in ESA. It is the Westbound bypass that was not, and is now fully funded.

One of my colleagues from NJ-ARP was present at the NY Penn Station announcement and had the opportunity to pick the brains of a few present, including Boardman.

Incidentally, something that I had possibly not reported here before - After the Amtrak sessions at TransAction 2011 in Atlantic City I had a chance to talk to Drew Galloway who is in-charge of NEC Capital Projects for about 20 mins. We discussed the Newark - Philadelphia segment at length. He said that this is the segment where you can get the maximum bang for the buck in terms of true service improvement, not just speed improvement. I got some details about what he had just presented. Apparently if full funding became available they plan to do Constant Tension catenary on all four tracks, so I expect New Brunswick to Morris to get CT catenary in the next 4 years. Saw some diagrams of what it might look like too.

For going higher speed than 160mph there will be track center issues. I.e. they will have to basically reconstruct the segments with much higher track center spacing. Some areas have enough space in the ROW to do this, others don't. What is so special about 160? It is the division point between Class 8 and Class 9.

For the upgrade between New Brunswick and Morris very little additional work is needed on the tracks. They are already Class 8. All old non-moving frog switches at the interlockings will be replaced by higher speed moving frog switches. The CF that is Fair interlocking will be cleaned up and replaced with high speed turnouts thus allowing higher speed entry into Trenton platform tracks and Class 8 speeds through Trenton station on 2 and 3. Also high density short block signaling will be put in place similar to what exists now between Newark and New York. So those crawls into Trenton (and eventually into Metropark, though not in this funding round) will be a thing of the past.

In addition A interlocking in New York Penn Station will be realigned to increase speeds through it. That is part of this current grant.

As you can see I am truly excited about it. Having a whole series of trains averaging 98 to 110mph through NJ is going to be absolutely thrilling! And it will be fun watching the construction while it takes place, though a little inconvenient for a few years for travelers at times.

 

[Steve4031]

This will truly be exciting in the midwest too. I am glad the NEC corridor is getting these much needed improvements too.

Now if we can only get the Englewood flyover completed, and the 30 miles to porter upgraded, then the Michigan corridor will be off to a good start.

I was also impressed with the news that there are plans to replace the bridge across the Mississippi at St. Louis. Which routing is this? I know there are two routes into STL, but don't remember how the names of the bridges correspond.

 

[jis]

Merchant's Bridge is the one North of St. Louis. It is not the one visible from the Arch to the south of Eads Bridge. Trains that go over Merchants Bridge go through the tunnel under the Arch park.

The other one is McArthur Bridge, which is closer to downtown.

 

[Eric S]

It is interesting that MO is planning the replacement of Merchants Bridge (which, as you mention, is the one north of downtown, and currently used much less often by Amtrak) as most Amtrak service currently uses MacArthur Bridge. I understand that either bridge can be used at any given time based upon traffic.

 

[AlanB]

It is interesting that MO is planning the replacement of Merchants Bridge (which, as you mention, is the one north of downtown, and currently used much less often by Amtrak) as most Amtrak service currently uses MacArthur Bridge. I understand that either bridge can be used at any given time based upon traffic.

My guess is that you'll see a dramatic change in how many times Amtrak uses the MacArthur Bridge once the Merchants Bridge is replaced.

Which is kind of sad, since MacArthur provides a much more picturesque entry to St. Louis.

 

[Anderson]

It may be a matter of cost...it might be cheaper to replace one and simply redirect Amtrak traffic accordingly than to replace the other one.

The emphasis on upgrading a lot of things one or two steps is the right way to go. I'll say that I'd rather have seen new/upgraded rolling stock on more routes to relieve strain elsewhere (perhaps buying some Acela-IIs so you can run Acela-Is as new Regional cars and shuffle some Regional cars into other services) than funding some of the reports or miscellaneous projects, but all in all it's a pretty decent set of equipment. 'course, I'd also rather have seen some beefing up of the Superliner fleet, but that's just me.

 

[jis]

It may be a matter of cost...it might be cheaper to replace one and simply redirect Amtrak traffic accordingly than to replace the other one.

The emphasis on upgrading a lot of things one or two steps is the right way to go. I'll say that I'd rather have seen new/upgraded rolling stock on more routes to relieve strain elsewhere (perhaps buying some Acela-IIs so you can run Acela-Is as new Regional cars and shuffle some Regional cars into other services) than funding some of the reports or miscellaneous projects, but all in all it's a pretty decent set of equipment. 'course, I'd also rather have seen some beefing up of the Superliner fleet, but that's just me.

I don't think Acela Is will get used for Regional service because it will cause a huge brand confusion and it will dilute the Acela brand thus reducing the flexibility to charge higher for Acela service. Acelas are getting two additional cars per consist and they will remain in Acela Service. Eventually when Acela IIs are acquired they will either be for augmenting Acela Service or they will create a third higher tier brand and service.

Regionals will remain 125 mph Tier I trains and they will get the new single level Corridor Cars when they arrive. They will continue to be loco hauled service, but with availability of new cab cars they will become push-pull.

This is sort of similar to the Tokaido Shinkansen where there are three levels of service - fastest - Nozomi, fast - Hikari, and milk run - Kodama.

As for Superliner fleet, Boardman in his speech to NARP last week said quite clearly that there will be no further LD equipment order until Congress states what the policy is regarding LD trains and provides funding for the same. Just reporting, so don't shoot the messenger. OTOH he also said that any equipment purchase that can be reasonably financed against net positive revenue streams are fair game. It will be a straight business decision on those.

 

[Eric S]

It is interesting that MO is planning the replacement of Merchants Bridge (which, as you mention, is the one north of downtown, and currently used much less often by Amtrak) as most Amtrak service currently uses MacArthur Bridge. I understand that either bridge can be used at any given time based upon traffic.

My guess is that you'll see a dramatic change in how many times Amtrak uses the MacArthur Bridge once the Merchants Bridge is replaced.

Which is kind of sad, since MacArthur provides a much more picturesque entry to St. Louis.

Agree completely.

 

[Anderson]

It may be a matter of cost...it might be cheaper to replace one and simply redirect Amtrak traffic accordingly than to replace the other one.

The emphasis on upgrading a lot of things one or two steps is the right way to go. I'll say that I'd rather have seen new/upgraded rolling stock on more routes to relieve strain elsewhere (perhaps buying some Acela-IIs so you can run Acela-Is as new Regional cars and shuffle some Regional cars into other services) than funding some of the reports or miscellaneous projects, but all in all it's a pretty decent set of equipment. 'course, I'd also rather have seen some beefing up of the Superliner fleet, but that's just me.

I don't think Acela Is will get used for Regional service because it will cause a huge brand confusion and it will dilute the Acela brand thus reducing the flexibility to charge higher for Acela service. Acelas are getting two additional cars per consist and they will remain in Acela Service. Eventually when Acela IIs are acquired they will either be for augmenting Acela Service or they will create a third higher tier brand and service.

Regionals will remain 125 mph Tier I trains and they will get the new single level Corridor Cars when they arrive. They will continue to be loco hauled service, but with availability of new cab cars they will become push-pull.

This is sort of similar to the Tokaido Shinkansen where there are three levels of service - fastest - Nozomi, fast - Hikari, and milk run - Kodama.

As for Superliner fleet, Boardman in his speech to NARP last week said quite clearly that there will be no further LD equipment order until Congress states what the policy is regarding LD trains and provides funding for the same. Just reporting, so don't shoot the messenger. OTOH he also said that any equipment purchase that can be reasonably financed against net positive revenue streams are fair game. It will be a straight business decision on those.

I'd been wondering what the plan was on those; I knew about the "add two cars" decision (as we've discussed before, capacity is a major limiting factor on the Acela). Of course, I honestly don't quite see room for three levels of service on the current alignment...running anything under 110-125 doesn't make sense, you've got the current cap of 150-160...and there's nowhere to stick in 200 MPH trains without an absurdly expensive new alignment, which IMHO would be a waste of money at this stage unless you're also going to somehow rope in additional markets. That said, if the "top" brand fights on quality of service as well as speed (and again, unless you start cutting stops you're really at a point of diminishing returns without new alignments, and I can't really see the justification without adding something significant to the rider base)...do we start calling those cars the "Merchants Fleet"?

Back to the Acela-I fleet: The speculation I'd heard, of shifting them into Regional service, suggests that what might instead happen is a marginal upgrade for the Acela-II service and a marginal downgrade for the Acela-I service. Ironically, I think offering guaranteed connections to trains outbound from WAS and NYP with the "downgraded" service might make them attractive to a lot of folks...but again, having two high-level services that aren't terribly different from one another risks cannibalization of the market.

 

[afigg]

I'd been wondering what the plan was on those; I knew about the "add two cars" decision (as we've discussed before, capacity is a major limiting factor on the Acela). Of course, I honestly don't quite see room for three levels of service on the current alignment...running anything under 110-125 doesn't make sense, you've got the current cap of 150-160...and there's nowhere to stick in 200 MPH trains without an absurdly expensive new alignment, which IMHO would be a waste of money at this stage unless you're also going to somehow rope in additional markets. That said, if the "top" brand fights on quality of service as well as speed (and again, unless you start cutting stops you're really at a point of diminishing returns without new alignments, and I can't really see the justification without adding something significant to the rider base)...do we start calling those cars the "Merchants Fleet"?

Back to the Acela-I fleet: The speculation I'd heard, of shifting them into Regional service, suggests that what might instead happen is a marginal upgrade for the Acela-II service and a marginal downgrade for the Acela-I service. Ironically, I think offering guaranteed connections to trains outbound from WAS and NYP with the "downgraded" service might make them attractive to a lot of folks...but again, having two high-level services that aren't terribly different from one another risks cannibalization of the market.

I don't think Amtrak would create a split between the current Acela and new Acela II service. The Amtrak Fleet Strategy plan calls for the current Acelas to be retired by 2023 by which time they will be over 20 years old and have a lot of miles on them. The Acela IIs are not expected to start delivery until 2017 and that is an optimistic schedule. Even if the new Acela IIs can run at 220 mph, I seriously doubt even the proposed first 220 mph section in NJ would be in service before the current Acelas are retired. No, Amtrak will stick with a 2 tier system because it works - the 125 mph Northeast Regionals, Keystones, and corridor & LD trains that operate beyond the NEC and the premium Acela NEC service.

Personally, I am in the camp of rather see the funding spent over the next 8-10 years to bring the current NEC up to a state of good repair with 150-160 mph speeds over more segments, replace the old tunnels and bridges, 2 new tunnels under the Hudson, track & catenary upgrades from NYP to WAS in section by section, expand capacity with 3rd and 4th tracks, fix the slow bottlenecks and curves, and get serious about ROW re-alignments in selected segments in eastern CT. Achieve a goal of 2:15 (or less) Acela trip time from WAS-NYP and do what it takes to achieve 2:45 Acela BOS-NYP. The costs in the Northeast of building the 220 mph sections has the potential to drain the available funding from other HSR and improved passenger rail projects outside of the NEC. Get the current NEC in much better condition, then if the support is still there, get started on building the selected 220 mph sections.

 

[afigg]

With the two original grant rounds (ARRA and FY10) and 2 rounds of redirecting the funds, it gets complicated how much each state and corridor ended up with. I decided to pull up the various award lists and sum up what the NEC and the directly connecting corridors got out of the $10.1 billion. Would have been better if the Portal bridge replacement, Gateway & Pelham bridge PE, the Keystone East, and BWI Airport station 4th track had all been fully funded, but maybe next time. The bottom line is that the NEC is getting a lot more funding than was in the cards 2.5 years ago.

Besides the HSIPR grants, Amtrak got $1.3 billion in the stimulus which was used for a range of projects including NEC related projects: Niantic river bridge replacement, Wilmington Station renovation, power system fixes, ROW improvements, Amfleet wreck repairs.

Anyway, of the $8 billion of stimulus funding and $2.1 billion of FY2010 funding for High Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) that after the original awards and 2 rounds of redirections due to OH, WI & FL governors returning the funds, the NEC and the connecting corridors got the following amounts below after the dust settled. Well, we hope the dust has settled.

NEC: $950.5 million total

$38.5 million stimulus to NJ for Portal Bridge replacement final design and engineering.

$60 million stimulus to MD for completion of PE for B&P tunnel replacement.

$1.2 million stimulus to RI for 3rd track and station platform PE at Kingston station.

$13.3 million FY10 to DE for 1.5 miles of 3rd track from Ragan to Yard interlockings south of Wilmington.

$32.5 million FY10 to MA for PE of Boston South Station expansion.

$10 million FY10 joint NEC planning and NEC Commission.

$450 million FL HSR redirection to Amtrak for New Brunswick to Trenton improvements.

$22 million FL HSR redirection to MD for Susquehanna Bridge replacement completion of PE work.

$295 million FL HSR redirection to NY for Harold Interlocking bypass & Sunnyside yard access improvements.

$25 million FL HSR redirection to RI for 1.5 miles of 3rd track, high speed interlocking, and new high level platforms at Kingston station.

$3 million FL HSR redirection to RI for completion of PE for overhaul of Providence station.

Other corridors connecting to the NEC:

New Haven to Springfield: $191 million total (plus up to $286 million of CT state bond funding).

$40 million stimulus grant to CT to double track part of NHV-SPG corridor.

$120.9 million FY10 grant to CT for NHV-SPG corridor.

$30 million FL HSR redirection to CT for NHV to SPG corridor.

Also:

$72.8 million stimulus and OH &WI redirection to MA for Knowledge corridor track restoration.

$52.7 million stimulus and OH &WI redirection to VT for Vermonter route track upgrades.

Empire Corridor: $243.9 million total

$157.3 million total stimulus and OH &WI redirection grants for 2nd track Albany-Schenectady, high-speed 3rd track section, grade crossing improvements.

$28.5 million FY10 grants to NY for 3 projects.

$58.1 million FL HSR redirection grants to NY for completion of Albany-Rensselaer station 4th track, new Schenectady station, and signal system improvements along Hudson line.

Keystone East: $66 million total

$26 million stimulus grant to PA to close 3 grade crossings, PE for reconfiguration of several interlockings.

$40 million FL HSR redirection grant to PA for State interlocking segment improvements.

South of DC to Richmond:

$2.9 million stimulus grant to DC for Long Bridge replacement for PE study.

$75 million stimulus grant to VA for 3rd track from Arkendale to Powell’s Creek on the RF&P.

$45.5 million FY10 grant to VA for completion of PE and NEPA for DC to Richmond section of the SE HSR.

 

[Anderson]

I'd been wondering what the plan was on those; I knew about the "add two cars" decision (as we've discussed before, capacity is a major limiting factor on the Acela). Of course, I honestly don't quite see room for three levels of service on the current alignment...running anything under 110-125 doesn't make sense, you've got the current cap of 150-160...and there's nowhere to stick in 200 MPH trains without an absurdly expensive new alignment, which IMHO would be a waste of money at this stage unless you're also going to somehow rope in additional markets. That said, if the "top" brand fights on quality of service as well as speed (and again, unless you start cutting stops you're really at a point of diminishing returns without new alignments, and I can't really see the justification without adding something significant to the rider base)...do we start calling those cars the "Merchants Fleet"?

Back to the Acela-I fleet: The speculation I'd heard, of shifting them into Regional service, suggests that what might instead happen is a marginal upgrade for the Acela-II service and a marginal downgrade for the Acela-I service. Ironically, I think offering guaranteed connections to trains outbound from WAS and NYP with the "downgraded" service might make them attractive to a lot of folks...but again, having two high-level services that aren't terribly different from one another risks cannibalization of the market.

I don't think Amtrak would create a split between the current Acela and new Acela II service. The Amtrak Fleet Strategy plan calls for the current Acelas to be retired by 2023 by which time they will be over 20 years old and have a lot of miles on them. The Acela IIs are not expected to start delivery until 2017 and that is an optimistic schedule. Even if the new Acela IIs can run at 220 mph, I seriously doubt even the proposed first 220 mph section in NJ would be in service before the current Acelas are retired. No, Amtrak will stick with a 2 tier system because it works - the 125 mph Northeast Regionals, Keystones, and corridor & LD trains that operate beyond the NEC and the premium Acela NEC service.

Personally, I am in the camp of rather see the funding spent over the next 8-10 years to bring the current NEC up to a state of good repair with 150-160 mph speeds over more segments, replace the old tunnels and bridges, 2 new tunnels under the Hudson, track & catenary upgrades from NYP to WAS in section by section, expand capacity with 3rd and 4th tracks, fix the slow bottlenecks and curves, and get serious about ROW re-alignments in selected segments in eastern CT. Achieve a goal of 2:15 (or less) Acela trip time from WAS-NYP and do what it takes to achieve 2:45 Acela BOS-NYP. The costs in the Northeast of building the 220 mph sections has the potential to drain the available funding from other HSR and improved passenger rail projects outside of the NEC. Get the current NEC in much better condition, then if the support is still there, get started on building the selected 220 mph sections.

Amtrak? Voluntarily retire equipment that's less than 50 years old? *falls over in shock*

Sarcasm aside, I wouldn't be surprised to see what you say happen...though my gut says that they'll run those cars until they die. Like I said...given the funding to get a 220 MPH project on the NEC, I'd rather see it used to improve a lot of other routes, add additional alignments in the NEC, or do something to broaden service (even within the NEC). Actually, I'm only inclined to support the 220 MPH stuff if you can hang some pretty decent ornaments on it for elsewhere.

 

[jis]

I agree that until the 220mph HS Vision materializes there will be no third (top) tier service on NEC.The HSR Vision is however based on a 3 tier service operations plan.

BTW, the $10 million that was awarded to NJ for NEC planning was turned over to FRA by NJ so that FRA can do a Program EIS (Tier 1 EIS) for the NEC using that money. The last such was done in the early 70's and events have overtaken it and made it almost irrelevant.

I talked to Drew Galloway and Al Engel about it a few weeks back. It is a program that will be run by the FRA and there will be opportunities for public participation through Citizens Consultative Committees. We from NJ-ARP and other ARPs are keeping a close eye on this development. It will cover both the Amtrak 2030 Infrastructure Plan and will also delve into the 2050 Vision articulated by Amtrak taking current ground realities into account. Among other things it will most likely try to get a first cut sense of what the true high speed alignments would be. Amtrak's vision is more of a "what if" using exemplar alignments only.

 

[Anderson]

jls,

I'd like to see what the various alignments generate as far as travel times, costs, and ridership. Notwithstanding the NYP bottleneck, I do think a secondary alignment north of New York may be necessary given the logjams along the current line...though at the same time, I think I've said that going for a full-blown 220 MPH alignment may be more of an expensive mess than it's worth.