AFAIK, the Massachusetts bridge clearance standard is (and has been for the last few decades) Plate H assuming that electrification will never be used on freight / commuter rail.
Yes. It is 20'-2" high. (Maybe 20'-3" I am giving this from memory.) Generally, the railroads want 23'-0" clear above the top of rail with anything new. I think that will likely be height of wire they would want.
Indeed, the changes are significant,and also one must remember the funds needed to get there are also significant.
And you are unlikely to see high platforms next to the RF&P main tracks. No way is CSX (or any other freight carrier) going to be willing to go along with car floor level platfroms close enough to the track to satisfy ADA gap requirements ( less than or equal to 3 inches) between platform and edge of doorway opening.
But if they reopen the main street station train shed (where, from the pictures I've seen, passengers used to board) they could have the platforms there.
There are ways. In true high speed systems for the most part trains do not make intermediate stops on the main line anyway. There is a station platform track that turns out ahead of the station location, goes past the platform and then turns back into the main line track. This surves two important purposes:
I'd been under the impression that building a handful of high level platforms, and even new sidings for them, is dirt cheap compared to electrifying 117 miles of mainline track.
I'm a little skeptical that's the best approach, though. The fundamental problem with that is that you typically end up with a station in the middle of nowhere.
If you're going to all the expense of adding a siding and electrifying it, is avoiding full length high level platforms really a major cost savings? I believe the plan for T F Green Airport Station is that it will be on a non-electrified siding, and money has been cited as a concern with electrification there.
Is Main Street Station's train shed the building north of E Main St and south of E Broad Street that takes up just about all of the width between the tracks on the two sides? If so, it looks to me like that building is only about 300-400 feet long, which makes it shorter than, say, an Acela trainset (which with cars about 87.5 feet long, is about 525 feet not including the locomotives).
The big downside to this is that you have to spend time doing a break test when connecting and disconnecting the switcher, so you add significant delays.
If through revenue trains were going to come back to Broad Street Station, there's no reason why trains would always have to be same direction at the station itself in the future, AFAIK. If you only have to connect the south/east side of the loop to the mainline in one direction, that should make the problem slightly less impossible.
That might depend on what you think the minimum curve radius is and how easy taking parking lots for rail use is. I suspect if you insist on a minimum curve radius of 500' (which is very roughly what the curve between Back Bay and South Station is, judging from the satelite photos) you do need to demolish at least one building, but with 200' it's probably possible to not demolish any buildings if a train heading south out of the platform track ends up pointed north on the mainline.
I'm not really sure why Amtrak would need to test the crew about when they go on break, I'm sure that most of them would know. :lol: :lol:
The air is already on the poor side and since they wouldn't be adding that many trains to the schedule going south, you won't be adding that many more diesels than already pass through.
I agree that Broad Street Station would make a fantastic High Speed Rail station stop candidate; it's off the main line, high platform construction would be easy to imagine there, and the station is built for heavy train and foot traffic. That said, if we really look at it realistically, it's just not going to happen without a major push from the Virginia government (you're talking about 5 grade crossings that have to be dealt with, you're talking about wiping out entire parking lots for buildings that you'd be dodging (and I don't think you can dodge all of those buildings unless you're talking Narrow Gauge--JOKING), and you're talking about severely impacting--if not shutting down--the Science Museum of Virginia. Couple that with the fact that Virginia has identified Main Street Station as the new hub, and Broad Street's just out of the question. That said, I WOULD like to see Broad Street get some more train traffic in the form of excursions or a dinner train. It's too beautiful of a station to turn its back to railroads entirely.
Right, it's the big silver thing that dwarfs the station it's attached to in overhead pictures.
Why complicate life unnecessarily? I am sure overall it would be easier and more cost effective to install catenary or space lacking, ceiling rails in the Capitol hill Tunnel that depending on shenanigans suggested using switchers and what nots.
Is that who owns the two big buildings in the block to the east of the station? If so, I'd think the taxpayers giving them a new building or two to replace the existing ones that happen to be in the way of where the tracks should go would be something that could be spun in a positive light of modernizing the museum or something. There are few museums that don't like getting new buildings. A parking garage could be thrown in to replace some of the lost space in the parking lots, too.
Interesting point George. Is the track inside the tunnel on ballast or is it ballastless on the tunnel floor. If not the latter then there would possibly be 6+ inches to gain that way. Would be interesting to see what the study says about this matter. Afterall VRE also runs gallery cars on this route so sufficient clearance with electrification would be important. However, if you look at the situation in NYP, my suspicion is that they could do a 11kV electrification with as little as 1.5' clearance from train top to tunnel ceiling, perhaps a little less if ceiling rails are used with insulating sheets lining the ceiling.
