Status of NER Extensions within VA

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.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Anderson

Engineer
Joined
Nov 16, 2010
Messages
10,408
Location
Virginia
Since the Virginia DRPT has been silent as of late, I was wondering what the status/timetable was for:

A) Extending the train to Norfolk? I think this is about two years off, but I don't recall for certain (I've seen 2013 as the most likely date, and I know there are infrastructure issues here), and of course there's always room for things to get stalled.

B) Extending a third train to Newport News? Here, I haven't heard anything, but every document I've seen shows that it's in the works, and if it's functionally more or less a matter of where the trains "sleep" at night (and where you have the crew based/commissary facilities located), then it would seem to make sense to move everything down the Peninsula, trains turning in the middle of the day notwithstanding. I know at least two trains overnight at the Richmond station, and from the timetables it looks like three of them do.

Also, on extending the train, is there any word on which train would most likely be extended? My best guess would be 83(93)/84 (86 leaves way too early...6:00 out of RVR would translate roughly into 4:00 out of NPN, while 85 would be putting folks into NPN about 11 at night, which is probably a hair too late; 174 isn't bad, but a 5 AM departure from NPN would probably be a bit much).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You mentioned "NPN" - which I would guess is Newport News. But the question was on extending a train to Norfolk. Right?

*I am a little disappointed that they don't start this service sooner, there is a switch in place already to switch an Amtrak train (by backing down the hill to the NS main) at Collier Yard in Petersburg. But I think they are actually building a curve - with a through switch, to transition from the "A" Line (CSX - former SCL) over to the Eastbound NS (former N & W). to Norfolk.

But maybe the delay is in Norfolk, getting into a suitable station, etc...
 
Here's a quick update:

ROANOKE:

Virginia has shown increased interest in extending the Lynchburg train to Roanoke thanks to the very successful launch of the SmartWay Shuttle that connects to the train in Lynchburg and makes stops in Bedford, Roanoke, and Blacksburg. There's still no money allocated for track improvements that NS is currently insisting on, however. Beyond that, politicians from Virginia (I think it was the Bristol mayor, but I could be mistaken) have had meetings with politicians from Tennessee (I believe it was the Knoxville mayor) about creating a train between the two states. The conventional wisdom is that the train would run from Chattanooga or Knoxville to Bristol, and then on east to Roanoke and possibly Lynchburg. Of course, they're just talks, and nothing more. That's what we know publicly. One can surmise that VA, Amtrak, and NS are all working things out behind the scenes for going to Roanoke from Lynchburg initially, however.

NORFOLK:

Track work is quickly progressing on the connecting track at Collier to get Amtrak trains from CSX to NS on their way to Norfolk. Completion is set for 2012, and the official word is that train service is set to launch in 2013, but I've heard rumblings that it may start sooner given the quick progress. Note that new station facilities in Suffolk and Norfolk still have yet to be built.

NEWPORT NEWS:

I haven't heard any new info on extending one of the current Richmond trains to NPN, other than CSX is insisting on track improvements. I don't know if work has begun there.

Rafi
 
NORFOLK:

Track work is quickly progressing on the connecting track at Collier to get Amtrak trains from CSX to NS on their way to Norfolk. Completion is set for 2012, and the official word is that train service is set to launch in 2013, but I've heard rumblings that it may start sooner given the quick progress. Note that new station facilities in Suffolk and Norfolk still have yet to be built.
There is a Virginia DRPT status summary page on the Norfolk service extension which was updated for September: http://www.drpt.virginia.gov/activities/norfolk.aspx

As background for other readers in this forum, Virginia is spending $87 million of state money on track improvements, new and restored tracks, and a new station in Norfolk to provide Amtrak service to Norfolk. Because of the very slow speeds and bottlenecks to access the Richmond Main Street Station, the Norfolk trains will at the start will stay west of downtown Richmond, go to Petersburg, and then through new connecting tracks, go to Norfolk. VA is also paying for tracks to be restored between Suffolk and Norfolk for the passenger trains to use. The long term plan is for the trains to Norfolk to run through Richmond's Main Street Station but that won't happen until the RVR to Main Street Station and south across the river segment is upgraded. That could be some years without sustained federal funding for HSIPR.

One interesting aspect of the new service is that the Norfolk Amtrak station will be at Harbor Park, adjacent or shared with the new The Tide light rail station. That means Norfolk service at the start will provide a direct connection to The Tide local rail transit line, which is something that not many cities in the east can claim outside of the major cities of the NEC. The Tide route is only 7.3 miles long, but the reports are that early ridership has greatly exceeded the official projections, so that helps build support for quicker expansion of the The Tide LRT system.

NEWPORT NEWS:

I haven't heard any new info on extending one of the current Richmond trains to NPN, other than CSX is insisting on track improvements. I don't know if work has begun there.
With the growth in coal exports and coal train traffic, CSX may be even more reluctant to add additional Amtrak trains to NPN without a lot of track capacity improvements. Much of the available Virginia rail funding is getting spent on the Norfolk extension for the next several years. With limited prospects for significant federal funding for intercity passenger rail for the next several years, Virginia might have to in several years choose spending it's limited funds between service extension to Roanoke or track & trip time improvements in Richmond down to NPN.
 
Thanks a bunch. My understanding is that the "no action" option wasn't to speed service to NPN, but to still add a third frequency (you can get a train pretty full with only two per day, and the official report projects substantial net revenue per passenger with the addition of a third daily train...and with the local money being shunted, as I understand it, into a new train station near Bland and I-64 because the interchange that was planned for there got axed while the appropriation remained, I suspect the numbers on NPN-RVR may get bumped even higher), and that functionally speaking, the question was "Where do we dump the extra six trains?"

Bear in mind that the Virginia Peninsula is close to a half-million person market with a more-than-sufficient tourist market to tap into (to say nothing of the academic offerings), so as I understand it the odds are that 66/67 and the daytime counterpart trains will always remain "over here" because of the trouble that Hampton Roads causes. In the "long run" (i.e. 20-30 years), there's talk of getting some sort of mass transit rail connection across the water and a couple of commuter rail lines in (as I understand it, there's at least some plan to do that over the "dedicated" Amtrak rail line.

The only improvements I've noticed would be an upgrade of the Harpersville Road grade crossing (they redid the concrete and I think they replaced the ties)...how wide is the RoW in the Peninsula subdivision? I know it's at least double-tracked, but I can't tell if there's room for a third track within the alignment (I suspect that they pulled up the second track and let the buffer go far enough back that you couldn't tell), or just a few sidings (on one side or on both) under a double-track situation.

As to The Tide, that's going to be an interesting situation. They have some decent bus interchanges, but it's not much in terms of being a "system" at this point...the line basically serves as an oddball commuter spoke going into downtown Norfolk, and I'll be interested to see what happens if they can extend it out towards either NAS Oceana or Norfolk Naval Station.

I do have to ask if those tracks are in any way, shape, or form either passenger rail compatible or if they could be made so at a reasonable cost...because at the very least, you've got a guaranteed interchange, but (and I'll be banging this pot as long as I live) getting folks as close to the oceanfront as possible on that single-seat connection (or at least on a train with full luggage bins) has got to be a winner for Amtrak if they can make it happen. Of course, I'm also wondering the opposite (if you slap wires up, can you run those vehicles on "heavy" rail tracks in a pinch? I know NJ Transit has some lines that are like that) in regards to some underused spurs.

I'm really glad to hear that there's a shot that the Norfolk service can begin soon. I'm going to try and be on the first train out of town when that happens.

Edit: Ok, it just struck me...can somebody tell me if there are any plans going along with the TDX that won't likely make it into a revenue disaster (i.e. substantial enough track improvements to get the average speed over the route into "respectable" range)? Mind you, if they have a stop not too far from Pigeon Forge that might help (that is a decent-sized tourist trapdestination, but is this going to likely be a "dead end" train to Chattanooga, or is Tennessee planning anything more? The VA/NC plans seem to be pretty concrete (if still developing...but the working group itself is a very good sign for everything there), but this is the first I've heard of even serious discussions to run the train past Bristol (it makes sense; I was wondering what genius had thought "Let's run a train to Bristol! That's a sure success!" up as a plan). If it's paired with a train from Chattanooga (or Knoxville) to Atlanta, then you at least have a decent picture to look at (i.e. that one could take the train to Chattanooga and then switch, for example). Also, is the planned eastern terminus of the TDX Richmond or Hampton Roads? If it's Richmond, I'll be trying to talk up Hampton Roads...it's another link into the region that would interchange with SEHSR, and it would offer a one-seat link westbound to another major market (c'mon, it's a 90-120 minute extension roughly double the ridership base...this should be a no-brainer even if the timing is less than ideal).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks a bunch. My understanding is that the "no action" option wasn't to speed service to NPN, but to still add a third frequency (you can get a train pretty full with only two per day, and the official report projects substantial net revenue per passenger with the addition of a third daily train...and with the local money being shunted, as I understand it, into a new train station near Bland and I-64 because the interchange that was planned for there got axed while the appropriation remained, I suspect the numbers on NPN-RVR may get bumped even higher), and that functionally speaking, the question was "Where do we dump the extra six trains?"
My understanding is that, in true CSX fashion, the improvements they want to the peninsula line are entirely capacity-related and have nothing to do with speed to NPN (although that would likely be improved as a byproduct). I know that CSX was requiring either a Y or a long siding (can't recall which) to be built by the airport, and that is obviously no small undertaking.

As to The Tide[...]I do have to ask if those tracks are in any way, shape, or form either passenger rail compatible or if they could be made so at a reasonable cost...because at the very least, you've got a guaranteed interchange, but (and I'll be banging this pot as long as I live) getting folks as close to the oceanfront as possible on that single-seat connection (or at least on a train with full luggage bins) has got to be a winner for Amtrak if they can make it happen. Of course, I'm also wondering the opposite (if you slap wires up, can you run those vehicles on "heavy" rail tracks in a pinch? I know NJ Transit has some lines that are like that) in regards to some underused spurs.
FRA prohibits light rail equipment from operating on the same ROW as heavy equipment at the same time without serious safety measures in place to guard against a collision. For this reason, and thanks to an FRA waiver, the Baltimore Light Rail was only open to NS quarry trains during the wee hours of the morning, and that practice has long since stopped (and the waiver has expired). Austin's Light Rail operates on freight ROW, but it took YEARS for them to find a safety system that worked, and it cost millions and millions of dollars. Even then, the heavy rail trains run only when the light rail is shut down (mid-day hours and overnight). The Tide would have to look at something similar if they wanted to host Amtrak trains on their track. In other words, don't hold your breath.

Ok, it just struck me...can somebody tell me if there are any plans going along with the TDX that won't likely make it into a revenue disaster (i.e. substantial enough track improvements to get the average speed over the route into "respectable" range)? Mind you, if they have a stop not too far from Pigeon Forge that might help (that is a decent-sized tourist trapdestination, but is this going to likely be a "dead end" train to Chattanooga, or is Tennessee planning anything more? The VA/NC plans seem to be pretty concrete (if still developing...but the working group itself is a very good sign for everything there), but this is the first I've heard of even serious discussions to run the train past Bristol (it makes sense; I was wondering what genius had thought "Let's run a train to Bristol! That's a sure success!" up as a plan). If it's paired with a train from Chattanooga (or Knoxville) to Atlanta, then you at least have a decent picture to look at (i.e. that one could take the train to Chattanooga and then switch, for example). Also, is the planned eastern terminus of the TDX Richmond or Hampton Roads? If it's Richmond, I'll be trying to talk up Hampton Roads...it's another link into the region that would interchange with SEHSR, and it would offer a one-seat link westbound to another major market (c'mon, it's a 90-120 minute extension roughly double the ridership base...this should be a no-brainer even if the timing is less than ideal).
Be careful in the terminology... TDX (TransDominion Express) is not what is running to Lynchburg today. In fact, TDX is still a concept that has very little traction as far as a TDX-branded train goes, although it was in many ways the vision for what the DC-Lynchburg Amtrak Regional train ultimately became and will continue to become if it gets extended to Roanoke and beyond.

TDX's original vision had a line running from Bristol to Richmond via Abingdon, Marion, Wytheville, Pulaski, Radford, Christiansburg, Roanoke, Bedford, Lynchburg, Appomattox, and Farmville, and another line from Lynchburg to DC via Charlottesville, Orange, Culpeper, Manassas, and Alexandria. The former line is truly "the local," and is not a fast run west of Roanoke. Compounding things, NS pulled the rails up between Appomattox and Farmville over High Bridge (influenced in no small part by their reluctance at the time to run passenger trains over High Bridge at all; the current regime under Wick Moorman would have most likely been much more open to the notion), blocking service from ever reaching Farmville (and Hampden-Sydney College, my Alma Mater, and Longwood University), and instead having to detour around. The latter line is obviously the vision for what became Amtrak's regional to Lynchburg (minus the stop in Orange, which really sticks in my craw given that the restored station is there and ready to go; platform work is the only major obstacle). Norfolk and the tidewater region was not part of the TDX system map, but it was discussed as an "eventual" option once the Lynchburg-Richmond section was operational. The train that will run to Norfolk via DC and Richmond is, consequently, not really related to TDX. The train to Bristol obviously is influenced by the TDX vision, but not necessarily down to Tennessee. As far as Lynchburg-Richmond (and east) service goes, there is very little (if any) discussion of that right now, despite the TDX vision. To put it in perspective, Charlottesville-Richmond has just about as much support (either in the form of a split Cardinal a la James Whitcomb Riley/George Washington or as a separate train altogether), but the track work required on the Buckingham Branch for almost the entire stretch would cost a huge bundle. Lynchburg-Richmond trackage (NS) is in much better shape, however, yet it's still not being heavily discussed.

The conventional wisdom is that the train will not be competitive in runtime with I-81 west of Roanoke, and it will only compete in terms of thru-travelers coming from the NEC, and in terms of price, if the state subsidy makes it sufficiently cheap compared to gasoline. While it hasn't been articulated, I get the strong sense that Tennessee wants to get a train over the border first as the proverbial foot in the door, and to then work on connecting/extending it to other cities like Nashville and Memphis. That's just my reading of the tea leaves, however.

Rafi
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FRA prohibits light rail equipment from operating on the same ROW as heavy equipment at the same time without serious safety measures in place to guard against a collision. For this reason, and thanks to an FRA waiver, the Baltimore Light Rail was only open to NS quarry trains during the wee hours of the morning, and that practice has long since stopped.
No waiver is required for temporal (not on the same or adjacent tracks at the same time) seperation.

The conventional wisdom is that the train will not be competitive in runtime with I-81 west of Roanoke, and it will only compete in terms of thru-travelers coming from the NEC, and in terms of price, if the state subsidy makes it sufficiently cheap compared to gasoline. While it hasn't been articulated, I get the strong sense that Tennessee wants to get a train over the border first as the proverbial foot in the door, and to then work on connecting/extending it to other cities like Nashville and Memphis. That's just my reading of the tea leaves, however.
Rafi
It is not 'conventional wisdom". it is alignment. The ex southern line between Bristl and Chattanooga, in particular is S-L-O-W. The cclosest it gets to Pidgeon Forge is Knoxville. I would love to see a resoration of the Smoky Mountail Railroad, but that line has long since gone to the point that it is difficult to even find the remnants of the right of way.
 
Rafi,

Ok, I reviewed the proposal. I associated the TDX with the Richmond branch and assumed some sort of interchange with the Lynchburger rather than a united operation. Still, the Roanoke connection makes sense while I think the Bristol connection is a bit of a long shot as far as making sense...and what George says is borne out when you look at the old Southern timetables from the 40s and 50s. Barring either new alignments or something to improve the service/provide connectivity either further west or further south without a night in a hotel (i.e. some sort of overnight WAS-Nashville/Memphis service or some kind of revived Floridian that at least goes Nashville-Chattanooga-Atlanta-Florida), that route is going to turn into a poster child for "bad rail" unless gas prices start zooming again. A route that is 12 hours at best and with substantial track improvements, and quite probably14-16 when everything is taken into account, to Washington is either an overnight train or a bust.

As to the Newport News issue...now that I've looked at the 2008 report (I only just found it...these things hide in odd places far too much), I'm even more confused than before. My best guess is that when Norfolk Southern's management changed and became so much more amenable to the Norfolk line (both compared to the previous management, as I understand it, not to mention next to CSX), it caused the extension plans to get shuffled around. For the record, I do expect all of the trains that terminate at RVR currently to ultimately terminate in either NPN or NFK; between the added business and the demonstrated popularity of the services, I'd be hard-pressed to see it not happening barring the freights getting in the way.

And on the Smokey Mountain line...where does the Bristol-to-Knoxville/Chattanooga line go? I generally tend to assume that these things parallel the interstates to some extent, but I both know what happens when you assume and know that some alignments got torn up.

Finally...has there been any thought given to a direct CVS-RVR train (i.e. a single-seat service, no matter how aligned)? Not that I necessarily think it would be a winner, but it just comes to mind (yet again) because of the rail alignment (and the Cardinal-RVR bus bridge, too, to be fair).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, the ex-Southern line does approximately parallel I81/I75. However, northeast of Knoxville, the approximation is very general. The railroad is several miles longer than the interstate, not to mention has a lot of 45 mph or therabouts speed limits. There is no such thing as a possible Knoxville - Nashville - Memphis route, unless it is via Chattanooga. The old Tennessee Central is partly gone, about half gone, I think, and also was beyond slow. Hint there was an all night overnight train between Nashville and Knoxiville that was little faster than the Nashville - Chattanooga - Knoxville through sleeper that even required a shuffle between stations in Chattanooga. In addition, the entire Bruceton - Jackson TN - Memphis line used by the City of Memphis and Nashville - Memphis overnight train is gone. Why? Because Nashville - McKenzie TN - Memphis is about the same distance, maybe a little less.
 
To quote Obi-Wan Kenobi, I have a bad feeling about this. Chattanooga-Atlanta? Makes sense. Knoxville-Chattanooga-Atlanta? Might make sense (I'm not sure of the specifics of the line). Ditto Nashville-Chattanooga-Atlanta. But the Roanoke-Knoxville stretch really feels like one of those nightmares that, if it comes to pass, will turn into yet another nightmare for us to have to deal with. Perhaps we can call it the Appalachian Fiscal Nightmare Special.
 
The track from Bristol to Knoxville follows US 11E, then US 11 from Knoxville to Chattanooga. Given the mountainous territory, it's slow.

The old TC line from Nashville to Knoxville still exists from Nashville to Monterey, just east of Cookeville, operated by Nashville & Eastern. From there, the line is abandoned to Rockville. And as said above, it was also very slow. The current track is listed at class 2, which is limited to 30mph passenger.

TDOT did a study back in 2002 which is here. This listed out the current system and potential corridors, and included a study of reconnecting the TC line via a new, somewhat more northerly alignment.
 
Here's a quick update:

ROANOKE:

Virginia has shown increased interest in extending the Lynchburg train to Roanoke thanks to the very successful launch of the SmartWay Shuttle that connects to the train in Lynchburg and makes stops in Bedford, Roanoke, and Blacksburg. There's still no money allocated for track improvements that NS is currently insisting on, however. Beyond that, politicians from Virginia (I think it was the Bristol mayor, but I could be mistaken) have had meetings with politicians from Tennessee (I believe it was the Knoxville mayor) about creating a train between the two states. The conventional wisdom is that the train would run from Chattanooga or Knoxville to Bristol, and then on east to Roanoke and possibly Lynchburg. Of course, they're just talks, and nothing more. That's what we know publicly. One can surmise that VA, Amtrak, and NS are all working things out behind the scenes for going to Roanoke from Lynchburg initially, however.
Is the condition of the NS track between Lynchburg and Roanoke so bad that it'd take two or three years to start one passenger service on it? I went to school to Virginia Tech from 2009 to May 2011 and used to go to Roanoke often for trainspotting and the NS mainline through Roanoke looked like a very busy one with the tracks maintained quite well, also Roanoke has the old station and platforms in place, of course it needs to be revamped but that would probably take a few weeks, not years. So, what exactly are the track improvements that NS wants to be done before allowing passenger service? Just a thought- is this some clever ploy by NS to get its track in better shape using state/Amtrak money when its not really critical, but just a nice thing to have?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here's a quick update:

ROANOKE:

Virginia has shown increased interest in extending the Lynchburg train to Roanoke thanks to the very successful launch of the SmartWay Shuttle that connects to the train in Lynchburg and makes stops in Bedford, Roanoke, and Blacksburg. There's still no money allocated for track improvements that NS is currently insisting on, however. Beyond that, politicians from Virginia (I think it was the Bristol mayor, but I could be mistaken) have had meetings with politicians from Tennessee (I believe it was the Knoxville mayor) about creating a train between the two states. The conventional wisdom is that the train would run from Chattanooga or Knoxville to Bristol, and then on east to Roanoke and possibly Lynchburg. Of course, they're just talks, and nothing more. That's what we know publicly. One can surmise that VA, Amtrak, and NS are all working things out behind the scenes for going to Roanoke from Lynchburg initially, however.
Is the condition of the NS track between Lynchburg and Roanoke so bad that it'd take two or three years to start one passenger service on it? I went to school to Virginia Tech from 2009 to May 2011 and used to go to Roanoke often for trainspotting and the NS mainline through Roanoke looked like a very busy one with the tracks maintained quite well, also Roanoke has the old station and platforms in place, of course it needs to be revamped but that would probably take a few weeks, not years. So, what exactly are the track improvements that NS wants to be done before allowing passenger service? Just a thought- is this some clever ploy by NS to get its track in better shape using state/Amtrak money when its not really critical, but just a nice thing to have?
Well, do consider that the timeframe isn't just for upgrades to the tracks. A couple of stations likely need to be rehabbed (if not rebuilt outright), the upgrades take a few months (at least, and this may include added passing sidings or station sidings), and there are always negotiations about operations and so forth...but most important to all of the delays tends to be those $%#@ EIS reports. One probably has to come out on this since some improvement has to take place, etc. So cue a lengthy period of government-mandated navel gazing. Also, do remember that the RVR-NFK line is taking a couple of years (though there's more involved there).

As to the Tennessee plan...my first impression is "You're passing up on linking Atlanta to Chattanooga now so you can do a Maglev in 30 years? How thick can you be? Put the link in now and see if it flies, and shift the equipment around if the Maglev eventually happens." This appears to be the same brand of planning stupidity that brought us the $2.4 Billion Connection-Free Orlampa Express without any experiment with 2-3 daily trains on the corridor as-is.

My second impression is that centering the system around Chattanooga does make sense, and you could at least in theory do that...and if you put the whole thing in at once, it might be a viable system. However, excluding the Atlanta connection probably neuters the whole proposal (for one thing, according to their plans, an Atlanta connection would theoretically facilitate a through CHI-ATL train; the remaining network might allow a passable NYP-Memphis train, but good grief it would be slow. Taking the Cap to the CONO might well be faster. Moreover, no link to Charlotte or Atlanta ensures:

A) No connection out of the state to the SE;

B) Only one slow connection out to the NE; and

C) Absent some improvements, two dubious connections to Chicago (one being the Kentucky Cardinal route, the other being a link to the CONO...though to be fair, a deal could probably be struck with IL to link a second train and facilitate connections).

Basically, this has got to be the single worst plan for a statewide railroad network that actually makes a go at making a network that I have ever seen. They're leaving a major link out for some pie-in-the-sky long-term plan (this would be the equivalent of not improving the New Haven-Springfield Shuttle because we might get the 220 MPH plan along that alignment), which would almost undoubtedly help out the CR on that line...yeah, I'm going to shut up now before I rant anymore.

===============================

On a more positive note, is there some way we could start stockpiling state proposal links in one place? I've seen VA, TN, and NC now (along with SEHSR and some stuff PA did back in the day)...were there any non-bullet train plans out of FL, or any other substantial (i.e. like the TN report in scope and detail) reports out of other states? And could someone link me to one of the old "actual" TDX studies? I know I saw one at one point (I think it was the 2001 study), but I can't find the link.
 
Is the condition of the NS track between Lynchburg and Roanoke so bad that it'd take two or three years to start one passenger service on it? I went to school to Virginia Tech from 2009 to May 2011 and used to go to Roanoke often for trainspotting and the NS mainline through Roanoke looked like a very busy one with the tracks maintained quite well, also Roanoke has the old station and platforms in place, of course it needs to be revamped but that would probably take a few weeks, not years. So, what exactly are the track improvements that NS wants to be done before allowing passenger service? Just a thought- is this some clever ploy by NS to get its track in better shape using state/Amtrak money when its not really critical, but just a nice thing to have?
The track is fine for the most part. Recent excursion trains on that stretch of track have run right around 60 mph for the entire stretch; I'm not sure if 79 is allowed with the current track, however. Norfolk Southern's concerns are primarily related to track capacity and signal improvements. They want a few more sidings and signal work to support passenger trains, and then they'd be open to hosting the line. I suspect that the Wye at Lynchburg is going to need some serious work as well, as the trains are limited to about 10mph around the double curve and lose some serious time there.

The other consideration is stations at Roanoke and Bedford.

Roanoke's N&W station (now the O Winston Link museum) is not serviceable, according to Amtrak and NS, without serious investment. The center platform at that station, while in tact, sits as an island in active freight territory. That platform is the only platform that the tracks from Lynchburg can access; the station-side platform is only accessible from the Shenandoah line. FRA or NS regulations (not sure which; I haven't verified) require that a stairway and bridge must be installed in order to allow access to the center platform as passengers are not allowed to cross active freight tracks if there is regular revenue passenger service. Then there's the question of where to store trains overnight, if that's what the plan calls for. There's no readily available siding for regular storage at the station right now, and any facility that's made available would have to be outfitted with water and electric hookup. That's not to say that the train can't deadhead from Lynchburg (where the siding and facilities exist), of course.

Instead of using the N&W station, NARP and other advocacy groups are pushing for Roanoke to get a new intermodal terminal in the parking lot that is across from the current Greyhound station. A new building would be constructed that would house both Amtrak and Greyhound, similar to what was just built and opened in St. Louis. The benefits over the old N&W station are a newer facility, infinitely more parking, true intermodal capability, and a much larger waiting room (the N&W station would only have a small waiting room about 10x12 with a shared bathroom since the museum takes up the rest of the station).

Bedford is another matter. The station (now a restaurant) recently burned, but has been rebuilt/restored. The restaurant, however, is staying put, so no station waiting room would be available, and the platform would be adjacent to the station rather than in front of it. I believe alternative sites for Bedford are still being discussed.

Rafi
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Finally...has there been any thought given to a direct CVS-RVR train (i.e. a single-seat service, no matter how aligned)? Not that I necessarily think it would be a winner, but it just comes to mind (yet again) because of the rail alignment (and the Cardinal-RVR bus bridge, too, to be fair).
There's been thought, and while everyone would love to have it, it's just not cost-effective right now. You think west of Roanoke is slow? HAH! Charlottesville-Doswell (just north of Ashland, VA) makes the Bristol route look like the TGV. If you've ever ridden the Cardinal from Charlottesville to Culpeper via Gordonsville and Orange, you have a taste of what the entire route to Richmond is like. Instead of turning north to Orange at Gordonsville as the Cardinal does today, the route continues east to Doswell and then south to Richmond. The stretch between Gordonsville and Doswell is completely jointed rail (not all bad, of course) at a 30 MPH speed limit, with a good portion being 15-25 MPH speed restrictions. Much of the route's signaling is in the dark ages (and some may even be dark territory), it's almost completely single-tracked, and the entire line is in serious need of upgrades if it's going to see regular passenger service. The entire Charlottesville-Richmond route would take upwards of 3 hours to travel. While that's a great excursion on a side-to-side rocking, clickity-clacking 25 MPH train, it's not going to pass muster with the public at large.

Still, if the state were to have to make a choice between seriously upgrading Bristol to Roanoke or seriously upgrading Charlottesville to Richmond, I'd probably go with the latter. It'd be cheaper (I'm guessing, because the ROW is mostly straight and you're not dealing with mountains), and you'd probably get more bang for your buck in patronage.

Regardless, there's very little talk of it actually happening.

Rafi
 
Rafi,

Thanks a bunch for the information on the RVR/CVS section. I've never been on the Cardinal as such, and the last time I took a train out west (to the Greenbrier from Richmond, IIRC...I think it was an "excursion" train of some sort, probably managed by the resort), I was a little kid and I don't remember the details at all (aside from a hazy memory of being in a vestibule sometime near Clifton Forge). It's a shame that's not in the works (adding CVS to the route would be nice, and I suspect I'd be on it a decent amount if the timings were decent), but...oh, well. I do tend to agree on the patronage point (Hampton Roads plus Richmond gives you about 2 million people and change, which is better to plug into things than the 100,000 or so you get around Bristol), though the hangup would probably be that it didn't necessarily plug directly into the NEC (although timing such a train to get folks into transfers at RVR and CVS might work).

As to Roanoke/Bedford: I think a new station would probably work for Roanoke, but Bedford seems to be a sort of footnote to the whole thing.
 
Roanoke's N&W station (now the O Winston Link museum) is not serviceable, according to Amtrak and NS, without serious investment. The center platform at that station, while in tact, sits as an island in active freight territory. That platform is the only platform that the tracks from Lynchburg can access; the station-side platform is only accessible from the Shenandoah line. FRA or NS regulations (not sure which; I haven't verified) require that a stairway and bridge must be installed in order to allow access to the center platform as passengers are not allowed to cross active freight tracks if there is regular revenue passenger service.
Thanks for the info, I did not know about this mandatory bridge/stairs rule. I remember when I last visited Roanoke, there is a pedestrian bridge crossing the tracks right next to the O'Winston Link Museum. You can see it in this satellite image. If somehow stairs can be constructed from this bridge onto the center platform, would that work as a temporary solution until the new intermodal station can come up?

Another question is the schedule- currently the Northeast Regional from Lynchburg departs at 7.38am, how much time would a passenger train take to travel from Roanoke to Lynchburg? If the schedule of NE Regional stays the same, would we be looking at something like 6am departure from Roanoke or later? It might help to tweak the schedules a bit, because the argument in favor of having an Amtrak service from Roanoke was that the large student population from Virginia Tech in Blacksburg would be potential passengers, and there is no public transport from Blacksburg to Roanoke so early in the morning as to reach Roanoke in time for a 6am arrival.

One crazy thought- what would it take to extend the Amtrak service beyond Roanoke upto Christiansburg to tap into Virginia Tech traffic?
unsure.gif
 
Roanoke's N&W station (now the O Winston Link museum) is not serviceable, according to Amtrak and NS, without serious investment. The center platform at that station, while in tact, sits as an island in active freight territory. That platform is the only platform that the tracks from Lynchburg can access; the station-side platform is only accessible from the Shenandoah line. FRA or NS regulations (not sure which; I haven't verified) require that a stairway and bridge must be installed in order to allow access to the center platform as passengers are not allowed to cross active freight tracks if there is regular revenue passenger service.
Thanks for the info, I did not know about this mandatory bridge/stairs rule. I remember when I last visited Roanoke, there is a pedestrian bridge crossing the tracks right next to the O'Winston Link Museum. You can see it in this satellite image. If somehow stairs can be constructed from this bridge onto the center platform, would that work as a temporary solution until the new intermodal station can come up?

Another question is the schedule- currently the Northeast Regional from Lynchburg departs at 7.38am, how much time would a passenger train take to travel from Roanoke to Lynchburg? If the schedule of NE Regional stays the same, would we be looking at something like 6am departure from Roanoke or later? It might help to tweak the schedules a bit, because the argument in favor of having an Amtrak service from Roanoke was that the large student population from Virginia Tech in Blacksburg would be potential passengers, and there is no public transport from Blacksburg to Roanoke so early in the morning as to reach Roanoke in time for a 6am arrival.

One crazy thought- what would it take to extend the Amtrak service beyond Roanoke upto Christiansburg to tap into Virginia Tech traffic?
unsure.gif
I'm wondering about the costs/benefits of adding a station further south (that is, Christiansburg would be one stop further down the line) versus just doing a bus (which would be 45 minutes to an hour...far from ideal, mind you, but still workable). I think this would make more sense, at least for now, as a bus-train option...but if it adds enough, I think your biggest problem becomes equipment storage (do you deadhead the equipment? Run it down to Christiansburg and turn it on a schedule?), though you start getting a bad schedule at some point (assuming 6 AM for Roanoke, you'd be looking at about 5 AM or so for Christiansburg, which means that you either have to move the train schedule (and possibly lose business further north due to timing shifts) or otherwise tinker with the line to make it manageable. 7:30 is acceptable as a departure time. 6:30 is passable under the right circumstances. 5:00 is a disaster waiting to happen.

Another option would be to add a frequency...and this is something which might become necessary at some point anyway, given how much business the Lynchburger is pulling in...looking at the Amtrak Virginia report on the matter, the Lynchburger was picking up and dropping off over 100 people per day on average in both LYH and CVS...or, in other words, those two stops were giving you about 200 customers per train per day on average. The route has the highest per-passenger average revenue of any non-LD route...basically, you're running four or five full cars into WAS many days, and adding Roanoke probably risks pushing ridership over the threshold that one train can take (a 7-car consist with five Amfleet-I 72-seat coaches and one 62-seat BC car has a capacity of 422; adding an average of 50 folks from Roanoke is going to put you somewhere close to having 300 folks on the train pulling into WAS on an average day, which means that on a heavier-traffic day the train is going to be sold out at WAS. I know Amtrak doesn't like running super-long trains, but a Roanoke service, if you want to just run one daily train and don't screw up demand with a time shift, might require going to 8 or 9 cars on a semi-regular basis).
 
Thanks for the info, I did not know about this mandatory bridge/stairs rule. I remember when I last visited Roanoke, there is a pedestrian bridge crossing the tracks right next to the O'Winston Link Museum. You can see it in this satellite image. If somehow stairs can be constructed from this bridge onto the center platform, would that work as a temporary solution until the new intermodal station can come up?
The bridge to which you're referring is the access bridge from the Hotel Roanoke to downtown Roanoke. I've often wondered if a stairway and elevator from that bridge down to the center platform would be an easy stopgap until a pedestrian bridge could be built at the old N&W station, but I haven't heard anything concrete on whether or not that's a reasonable concept. It would be a heck of a walk between the station waiting room and the stairway, however.

Another question is the schedule- currently the Northeast Regional from Lynchburg departs at 7.38am, how much time would a passenger train take to travel from Roanoke to Lynchburg? If the schedule of NE Regional stays the same, would we be looking at something like 6am departure from Roanoke or later? It might help to tweak the schedules a bit, because the argument in favor of having an Amtrak service from Roanoke was that the large student population from Virginia Tech in Blacksburg would be potential passengers, and there is no public transport from Blacksburg to Roanoke so early in the morning as to reach Roanoke in time for a 6am arrival.
The runtime between Roanoke and Lynchburg Kemper Street Station, right now, is about an hour and a half at least. It could probably be done in closer to an hour with 79 MPH running on the main line and a faster run through the Lynchburg wye. Keep in mind that padding also needs to be built into the schedule, so in a perfect world, I think the shortest runtime we'd likely see on a timetable would be about 75-85 minutes between the two cities. That's a guestimate. Adjusting the schedule north of Lynchburg is tricky, because you're dealing with four railroads that all have to agree on the slot for their particular time in the spotlight: NS, CSX, Amtrak, Metro North, and Amtrak again (headed north). If I had to guess, we're probably looking at keeping the same existing schedule (basically) and just tacking on a Roanoke leg to either end.

One crazy thought- what would it take to extend the Amtrak service beyond Roanoke upto Christiansburg to tap into Virginia Tech traffic?
unsure.gif
Actually, that's being looked at, but I'm not sure how closely. I've heard that the train servicing facilities in Christiansburg are actually better/freer than those in Roanoke, so that may be the technical terminus of the route when all is said and done with the Roanoke extension. At this point, it's very up in the air from what I can gather.

Rafi
 
Rafi,

Is it possible that a version of the Lynchburger might go into circulation that cuts at NYP? Adding 45 minutes to get to Christiansburg (and I'd wondered if it might not be cheaper to store the train(s) in a smaller city "one stop out", such as Christiansburg) to 85 minutes to get to Roanoke adds basically 2:10 to the trip, which would make it by far the longest NER route (running six hours or so south of WAS vs. NPN's 4 hours and probably about 4:30 for NFK). At some point, you start running out of daylight, and yanking Metro North and CT's DOT restrictions from the mix may well make scheduling easier. By then, you'd have two "main" railroads (NS and Amtrak) and one secondary (CSX, right outside of WAS), so you probably add some wiggle room there.
 
Service to Christiansburg would be 19 different kinds of awesome. A short extension to Blacksburg Transit's Two Town Trolley (I recall taking the bus through the hart of C-burg when I was there (1997-2001), but the schedule now looks like it only goes to the NRV Mall/Wal-Mart), and you've got a huge market. I recall hearing (not sure if the "real" stats are available anywhere that after Virginia (obviously) and Maryland, then next largest state sending kids to VT was New Jersey, so the train would have a great market for people traveling that far. I'd take the train over driving down for football games in a heartbeat (provided that lodging can be found somewhere near where the BT operates - these days I seem to be staying in Salem more than anywhere else).
 
Rafi,

Is it possible that a version of the Lynchburger might go into circulation that cuts at NYP? Adding 45 minutes to get to Christiansburg (and I'd wondered if it might not be cheaper to store the train(s) in a smaller city "one stop out", such as Christiansburg) to 85 minutes to get to Roanoke adds basically 2:10 to the trip, which would make it by far the longest NER route (running six hours or so south of WAS vs. NPN's 4 hours and probably about 4:30 for NFK). At some point, you start running out of daylight, and yanking Metro North and CT's DOT restrictions from the mix may well make scheduling easier. By then, you'd have two "main" railroads (NS and Amtrak) and one secondary (CSX, right outside of WAS), so you probably add some wiggle room there.
Who knows. I don't think they've even gotten that far yet. Right now the state's just figuring out where to get the money for the track improvements that NS wants, then they need to figure out stations. Schedule comes much later. I can tell you that even though CSX plays a minor role in the service, they were the ones responsible for dictating when the current Lynchburg train would run. Initially, Amtrak and NS had agreed on a much earlier time to get people into DC before 9 AM (it was to run up the corridor before the Crescent). CSX apparently stonewalled in timetable negotiations, however, and Amtrak opted for the later (current) timeslot. A huge timetable change for a section of railroad over which the train spends less than 30 minutes.

Rafi
 
*sighs*

Why, oh why, did we not buy the RF&P when we had the chance? Honestly, at least with that one section (which has 22 Amtrak trains and about 30 VRE trains per day) ought to be bought out by the state so they can be done with it. By all means, deal with CSX further south, but the Union Station access probably needs to just be bought out with it to get that tooth pulled. At least once you hit the NS split, it's not quite as bad for one section (you're down to 9 and 15 on the CSX line and 2 and 16 on the NS line), but even that is going to get bad if the 9-trains-to-Hampton-Roads-and-9-more-to-Raleigh SEHSR plan ever comes to pass.

Also, in that case I'm thinking that the current schedule was probably a case of accidental brilliance (move LYH to 5 AM and watch at least half of the traffic there vanish, which would probably eradicate at least half, if not close to all, of the profits on the line).
 
Also, in that case I'm thinking that the current schedule was probably a case of accidental brilliance (move LYH to 5 AM and watch at least half of the traffic there vanish, which would probably eradicate at least half, if not close to all, of the profits on the line).
The counter argument to that (which I sort of, but not entirely agree with), is that what would be lost in Lynchburg, would be gained twice over in Charlottesville and Culpeper with people who want to make day trips to DC and people who want to get to New York by noonish.

Rafi
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top