State Subsidies to Amtrak

[transit54]

The Governor here, despite having some shades of Teabag around his ears, is at least tepidly supportive of the idea of increased rail service between the two ends of the state.

My entire reasoning behind suggesting this route for improvement is that relative to new HSR proposals the costs would be lower. Other than the approaches on either side of Horseshoe Curve, much of the line could run at higher speed than the current 79mph limit. Indeed in 1956, the Broadway Limited was able to do the run from Pittsburgh to Harrisburg in 4 hours 40 minutes as opposed to the 6 hours it takes Amtrak today over the same ROW.

If there is an interest at the state level in expanding service to Pittsburgh and reducing the time in transit, the state of PA should make an application for federal funds to do so, while allocating some state level funds for the project, also. They should also be prepared to pick up the increased operating subsidy for the additional trips. There's nothing stopping anyone from doing this. But it has to come from the State. If the people of PA don't want it, they're not going to get it.

I live in a state that has twice the population of just the city of Pittsburgh and has a budget that's a fraction of most other states. Yet we manage to fund two Amtrak trains a day and have actively and successfully lobbied for improvements to our rail infrastructure - even when we had a Republican governor who was at best lukewarm about rail (he tried to cut the Ethan Allen during his last term). If we can do it, any state can. But the state needs to lead. Amtrak is not going to come banging on anyone's door to expand service there - they just don't have the internal funding to do so.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

My entire reasoning behind suggesting this route for improvement is that relative to new HSR proposals the costs would be lower. Other than the approaches on either side of Horseshoe Curve, much of the line could run at higher speed than the current 79mph limit. Indeed in 1956, the Broadway Limited was able to do the run from Pittsburgh to Harrisburg in 4 hours 40 minutes as opposed to the 6 hours it takes Amtrak today over the same ROW.

Actually the cost of adding a track will not be as low as you are imagining. And how many stops did the Broadway Limited have between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg (AFAIK in 1958 the only stop was Altoona)? What priority was it given? What was its official maximum allowed speed? Was it substantially more than 80mph? If not, does the fact that now the max speed is 79 mph have a significant effect? Isn't a large proportion of the additional time accounted for by additional stops and padding to account for freight interference?

Also, why would this route cost less to add an additional track than the CSX Water Level route with a much easier alignment, which actually serves many more cities and towns with overall higher population?

Lots of questions....

Adding the 3rd track would be for Amtrak to avoid freight interference more than is possible today. But still, adding a 3rd track to an already graded ROW is still cheaper than creating an entirely new ROW. Much of the ROW between Johnstown and Pittsburgh even already has the ballast there... as it looks like they removed the center and one outer track. Yes, there are additional station stops, but they all have minimal dwell time. We were back up to speed in just a few minutes.

 

[jis]

My entire reasoning behind suggesting this route for improvement is that relative to new HSR proposals the costs would be lower. Other than the approaches on either side of Horseshoe Curve, much of the line could run at higher speed than the current 79mph limit. Indeed in 1956, the Broadway Limited was able to do the run from Pittsburgh to Harrisburg in 4 hours 40 minutes as opposed to the 6 hours it takes Amtrak today over the same ROW.

Actually the cost of adding a track will not be as low as you are imagining. And how many stops did the Broadway Limited have between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg (AFAIK in 1958 the only stop was Altoona)? What priority was it given? What was its official maximum allowed speed? Was it substantially more than 80mph? If not, does the fact that now the max speed is 79 mph have a significant effect? Isn't a large proportion of the additional time accounted for by additional stops and padding to account for freight interference?

Also, why would this route cost less to add an additional track than the CSX Water Level route with a much easier alignment, which actually serves many more cities and towns with overall higher population?

Lots of questions....

Adding the 3rd track would be for Amtrak to avoid freight interference more than is possible today. But still, adding a 3rd track to an already graded ROW is still cheaper than creating an entirely new ROW. Much of the ROW between Johnstown and Pittsburgh even already has the ballast there... as it looks like they removed the center and one outer track. Yes, there are additional station stops, but they all have minimal dwell time. We were back up to speed in just a few minutes.

I am OK as long as Pennsylvania has its skin in the game. Otherwise I'd rather have that money spent somewhere else where the state is willing to put its skin in the game, say in VA and NC where there is a graded ROW with a few curve improvements that is awaiting funding with a complete EIS in place.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

My entire reasoning behind suggesting this route for improvement is that relative to new HSR proposals the costs would be lower. Other than the approaches on either side of Horseshoe Curve, much of the line could run at higher speed than the current 79mph limit. Indeed in 1956, the Broadway Limited was able to do the run from Pittsburgh to Harrisburg in 4 hours 40 minutes as opposed to the 6 hours it takes Amtrak today over the same ROW.

Actually the cost of adding a track will not be as low as you are imagining. And how many stops did the Broadway Limited have between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg (AFAIK in 1958 the only stop was Altoona)? What priority was it given? What was its official maximum allowed speed? Was it substantially more than 80mph? If not, does the fact that now the max speed is 79 mph have a significant effect? Isn't a large proportion of the additional time accounted for by additional stops and padding to account for freight interference?

Also, why would this route cost less to add an additional track than the CSX Water Level route with a much easier alignment, which actually serves many more cities and towns with overall higher population?

Lots of questions....

Adding the 3rd track would be for Amtrak to avoid freight interference more than is possible today. But still, adding a 3rd track to an already graded ROW is still cheaper than creating an entirely new ROW. Much of the ROW between Johnstown and Pittsburgh even already has the ballast there... as it looks like they removed the center and one outer track. Yes, there are additional station stops, but they all have minimal dwell time. We were back up to speed in just a few minutes.

I am OK as long as Pennsylvania has its skin in the game. Otherwise I'd rather have that money spent somewhere else where the state is willing to put its skin in the game, say in VA and NC where there is a graded ROW with a few curve improvements that is awaiting funding with a complete EIS in place.

Which is why I suggest raising Turnpike tolls slightly (PA still has control over Turnpike toll rates), to subsidize the train. Giving people who run between Pittsburgh and Philly another alternative to the would also reduce (or put off a little longer) the need for capacity increases on the Turnpike. Half a cent per mile would mean an additional $1.50 end to end.

As for Interstate 80, that should be tolled as well. It's wider and about as expensive to maintain as the turnpike is.The Anti-Rail crowd claims that automobiles pay "user fees" for roads through taxes. Let's see what they say when they get an actual user fee.

 

[jis]

Which is why I suggest raising Turnpike tolls slightly (PA still has control over Turnpike toll rates), to subsidize the train. Giving people who run between Pittsburgh and Philly another alternative to the would also reduce (or put off a little longer) the need for capacity increases on the Turnpike. Half a cent per mile would mean an additional $1.50 end to end.

It would not be cost effective for just one or three more trains. The bottom line issue will be how much turnpike traffic will you be able to transfer to the new rail service at 100-110mph given the distance penalty that the PRR route faces.

As for Interstate 80, that should be tolled as well. It's wider and about as expensive to maintain as the turnpike is.The Anti-Rail crowd claims that automobiles pay "user fees" for roads through taxes. Let's see what they say when they get an actual user fee.

Interstate 80 cannot be tolled without the permission of the feds and they have refused to permit such so far. The original terms of funding of its construction by the fed disallows placing tolls on it.

 

[afigg]

The Governor here, despite having some shades of Teabag around his ears, is at least tepidly supportive of the idea of increased rail service between the two ends of the state.

My entire reasoning behind suggesting this route for improvement is that relative to new HSR proposals the costs would be lower. Other than the approaches on either side of Horseshoe Curve, much of the line could run at higher speed than the current 79mph limit. Indeed in 1956, the Broadway Limited was able to do the run from Pittsburgh to Harrisburg in 4 hours 40 minutes as opposed to the 6 hours it takes Amtrak today over the same ROW.

The current HAR-PGH run times for the Pennsylvanian just under 5-1/2 hours, not 6. The question is how much would it cost to reduce that by 30, 45 or 60 minutes over the current old PRR route? The state does have some general high level studies & planning information documents for the state rail plan which were published last year, IIRC, which can be found at http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Internet/Bureaus/pdBRF.nsf/RailFreightHomepage?OpenFrameSet&frame=main&src=RailPlan2035?OpenForm. In Appendix 6, there is this on the issues of improvements:

"For example, currently, the western segment of the Keystone Corridor is served by Amtrak's Pennsylvanian Service operating one round trip per day with a travel time between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg of 5 hours, 29 minutes. Automobile travel time between the same locations is approximately 2 hours less than by train; thus, ridership growth is hindered due to the lack of modal competitiveness. The railroad line from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh is part of Norfolk Southern's Pittsburgh Line, which consists of a double-track configuration within a right-of-way that could accommodate more tracks. This segment is heavily used for freight rail operating at varying speeds, which necessitates frequent crossovers by passenger rail service and limits the ability to schedule additional passenger rail service. The line west of Harrisburg is not electrified, prohibiting the extension of the Keystone Service’s all-electric trains directly to Pittsburgh. Improvements being contemplated to facilitate improved passenger service from Pittsburgh to Harrisburg include: possible full electrification, construction of additional passenger-only tracks, major interlocking improvements, concrete tie installation, and rolling stock acquisition. PennDOT will be undertaking a comprehensive study to examine the infrastructure needs in the western portion of the corridor to support additional passenger service."

So how to improve the corridor is being looked at with the funded Keystone west study, but don't kid yourself that it is going to be by any means low cost. The real issue whether it could be justified if the trip times can't be made at least somewhat competitive with driving times. However, skimming the report, it does discuss how much US Airways has cut flights to Pittsburgh, so that should play into the public and political process of building support for better rail service to/from Pittsburgh.

 

[afigg]

If there is an interest at the state level in expanding service to Pittsburgh and reducing the time in transit, the state of PA should make an application for federal funds to do so, while allocating some state level funds for the project, also. They should also be prepared to pick up the increased operating subsidy for the additional trips. There's nothing stopping anyone from doing this. But it has to come from the State. If the people of PA don't want it, they're not going to get it.

I live in a state that has twice the population of just the city of Pittsburgh and has a budget that's a fraction of most other states. Yet we manage to fund two Amtrak trains a day and have actively and successfully lobbied for improvements to our rail infrastructure - even when we had a Republican governor who was at best lukewarm about rail (he tried to cut the Ethan Allen during his last term). If we can do it, any state can. But the state needs to lead. Amtrak is not going to come banging on anyone's door to expand service there - they just don't have the internal funding to do so.

The population of the Pittsburgh metropolitan area is 2.356 million, the urban area is listed as 1.753 million. Vermont has around 625 thousand. Sorry, the Pittsburgh area is bigger in population.

As for state support, PA has put considerable support and funding into Amtrak service. The state put up $140 million a few years ago to restore electrified service to and improve the Keystone train service. PA provides an annual subsidy for the 13-14 daily round trip Keystone trains between Harrisburg and NYP. As a result, the Keystone trains have seen steady growth in ridership in recent years.

PA submitted a $248 million dollar application for the returned Florida HSR funds to reduce Harrisburg to Philly trip times by 20 minutes with $73 million in state matching funding. The state matching is going to improve 3 stations on the route (new station in Middletown, upgrade/rebuild Mount Joy, Coatesville, all to get high level platforms), so it may be a bit of a stretch to qualify as pure state matching. PA is obviously focusing on improving the eastern Keystone corridor first which makes sense to me. As I wrote earlier in this thread, get the Harrisburg to Philly corridor up to 125+ mph speeds with high level platforms at all the stations - or at least in the works with respect to the stations. That should build public and political support for improved service to Pitt.

 

[jis]

I agree on those points with afigg

 

[transit54]

The population of the Pittsburgh metropolitan area is 2.356 million, the urban area is listed as 1.753 million. Vermont has around 625 thousand. Sorry, the Pittsburgh area is bigger in population.

Yeah, I used just the city proper population, but the metro/urban makes more sense in this case. What I was trying to get at is that there's a much larger concentration of population to take advantage of the service in Pittsburgh, as you aptly illustrate with the above numbers.

As for state support, PA has put considerable support and funding into Amtrak service.

No disagreement there. The extent of my point was that if additional service is desired, it's the state's responsibility to lead. As you point out, PA has a strong track record of doing this in the past and hopefully will continue to do so in the future. Out of curiosity, has the political makeup of PA government changed substantially since that time?

 

[TVRM610]

As I wrote earlier in this thread, get the Harrisburg to Philly corridor up to 125+ mph speeds with high level platforms at all the stations - or at least in the works with respect to the stations. That should build public and political support for improved service to Pitt.

What exactly is going to build this public and political support? A whole 15 mph difference in a few areas and 3 new/improved stations?

I'm all for improvements in general, but I don't see the point of bumping this line up to 125, the new high-level platforms will probably save more time. Extending electrification and higher speeds to Pittsburgh makes more sense to me. Of course, the costs are going to be ALOT higher for that I know.

 

[afigg]

What exactly is going to build this public and political support? A whole 15 mph difference in a few areas and 3 new/improved stations?

I'm all for improvements in general, but I don't see the point of bumping this line up to 125, the new high-level platforms will probably save more time. Extending electrification and higher speeds to Pittsburgh makes more sense to me. Of course, the costs are going to be ALOT higher for that I know.

The proposed improvements would reduce Harrisburg trip to Philly trip times by 20 minutes with the express trains down to 75 minutes to cover the 105 miles. Significantly faster than driving which is not something that many other high speed corridor projects can achieve for $248 million. The plans are to upgrade all the Amtrak station stops on the eastern Keystone with 500' long high level platforms and replace or fix up all the stations, many of which are not in good shape. With almost 1.3 million passengers taking the Keystone trains in FY10, faster trip times and much improved stations should boost ridership even higher. Information on the proposed improvements and the plans for the corridor can be found at http://www.planthekeystone.com/highspeedrail.html.

 

[cirdan]

As I wrote earlier in this thread, get the Harrisburg to Philly corridor up to 125+ mph speeds with high level platforms at all the stations - or at least in the works with respect to the stations. That should build public and political support for improved service to Pitt.

What exactly is going to build this public and political support? A whole 15 mph difference in a few areas and 3 new/improved stations?

I'm all for improvements in general, but I don't see the point of bumping this line up to 125, the new high-level platforms will probably save more time. Extending electrification and higher speeds to Pittsburgh makes more sense to me. Of course, the costs are going to be ALOT higher for that I know.

I can't imagine electrification being at all an attractive proposition as long as there continues to be only a single train a day (unless maybe NS seems some use for the electrification, but I don't think so somehow).

The first priority should be getting more trains (a bit in the same way VA and NC have been doing). What use is a single fast train if it doesn't run at a time that is practical to you? There should be trains at different times of day and this means at least three daily trains. Giving passengers that choice in terms of whan they want to travel will do miles more in terms of growing patronage than shaving some minutes off the schedule.

It may surprise you to hear that Swiss railways are actually very succesful and have a high market share on some key routes on which the train is actually notably slower than driving. Time alone is not the only factor that influences people's choices.

 

[jis]

I can't imagine electrification being at all an attractive proposition as long as there continues to be only a single train a day (unless maybe NS seems some use for the electrification, but I don't think so somehow).

I agree. Electrification is pointless unless we are talking way more frequent than hourly service. For that matter HSR is pointless too if only 1 or 3 trains per day is what one plans to run.

 

[TVRM610]

The proposed improvements would reduce Harrisburg trip to Philly trip times by 20 minutes with the express trains down to 75 minutes to cover the 105 miles.

Yes, I imagine the platform station improvement would greatly reduce the trip times. I'm all for that.

How much of the trip time is being reduced by bumping the speed up to 125 (up from the current 110)? I'm not sure what improvements are needed to go from Class 6 to Class 7, but I'm pretty sure they are not cheap to either build or maintain.

 

[TVRM610]

I can't imagine electrification being at all an attractive proposition as long as there continues to be only a single train a day (unless maybe NS seems some use for the electrification, but I don't think so somehow).

I agree. Electrification is pointless unless we are talking way more frequent than hourly service. For that matter HSR is pointless too if only 1 or 3 trains per day is what one plans to run.

jis - so the keystone corridor was pointless? Trains only run once every 60-90 minutes in each direction. They would have to add several trains to even get up to "hourly" service, let alone "way more frequent than hourly" as you say is needed for the electrification to have a point.

 

[PRR 60]

I agree. Electrification is pointless unless we are talking way more frequent than hourly service. For that matter HSR is pointless too if only 1 or 3 trains per day is what one plans to run.

jis - so the keystone corridor was pointless? Trains only run once every 60-90 minutes in each direction. They would have to add several trains to even get up to "hourly" service, let alone "way more frequent than hourly" as you say is needed for the electrification to have a point.

The Keystone electrification has been in place since the days of the PRR. Justifying the use of existing electrification for a lower frequency service is a lot different than trying to justify building new electrification for that same level of service. If the Keystone corridor had not had the wires, structures and substations in place, I doubt that spending hundreds of millions to electrify the corridor could have been justified for today's service.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

Again I'm not saying these improvements between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh can be picked up at the Dollar Store, but they will still be substantially cheaper than an entirely new ROW in say... Central Florida.

I'm also not even proposing 125mph service. The P42s are rated for 110mph. Run them at 110mph with the exception of the Altoona area and Amtrak could potentially cut 45 minutes to an hour off the trip between PGH and HAR.

I agree with everyone above that more Pennsylvanian service should be added if NOTHING else, but I also think that instead of running all the way to NYP, it should terminate at PHL and offer connecting service via the Keystone at HAR or Regional at PHL.

Harrisburg has a lot of potential as a hub station as well.

 

[TVRM610]

The Keystone electrification has been in place since the days of the PRR. Justifying the use of existing electrification for a lower frequency service is a lot different than trying to justify building new electrification for that same level of service. If the Keystone corridor had not had the wires, structures and substations in place, I doubt that spending hundreds of millions to electrify the corridor could have been justified for today's service.

While you are correct of course that the Keystone line to harrisburg had the infrastructure in place for electrification, that doesn't mean that extending that same infrastructure isn't "justifiable."

"A $750000 grant from the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program has been awarded to the US state of Pennsylvania to study a proposed extension of Amtrak's Keystone Corridor from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh with dedicated electrified tracks."

The truth is, that extending the electrified keystone track all the way to Pittsburgh is being studied, I personally think it's a great idea.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

the killer will be the tunnels, which I don't think are tall enough for electrification.

 

[jis]

Again I'm not saying these improvements between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh can be picked up at the Dollar Store, but they will still be substantially cheaper than an entirely new ROW in say... Central Florida.

I'm also not even proposing 125mph service. The P42s are rated for 110mph. Run them at 110mph with the exception of the Altoona area and Amtrak could potentially cut 45 minutes to an hour off the trip between PGH and HAR.

I agree with everyone above that more Pennsylvanian service should be added if NOTHING else, but I also think that instead of running all the way to NYP, it should terminate at PHL and offer connecting service via the Keystone at HAR or Regional at PHL.

Harrisburg has a lot of potential as a hub station as well.

I actually agree with you on this being a very good first step of which quite a bit can be achieved provided NS can be got on board. The only caveat is that the old PRR route probably has only as much 30% of it as potential 110mph territory, perhaps 40% with tilting equipment.

A quick BotE (Back of the Envelope) calculation shows that if the entire route could be run at 80mph one could get a Harrisburg to Pittsburgh time of around 3:10. Considering the the Broadway Limited in its heyday used to do it in about 4:15 to 4:30 suggests that you cannot really run that kind of speed on that line even with full priority. Again at 110 all the way gives something like 2:15. Very generously using the same ratio between ideal and reality as for 80mph we get 3:10, which would be a huge improvement. More realistically it will be something around 4:00 or so because not all of the row that is OK for 80mph is OK for 110mph, but still it would be a significant improvement.

The most difficult part of it will be getting agreement from NS and paying for maintenance of the track at Class 6 instead of Class 4, and getting cab signaling/PTC capable of handling 110mph installed. All this still is way more achievable than trying to justify electrification at what amount to about $1.5 million per track mile which chalks up again a BotE bill of $750 million, not counting tunnel clearance issues that will have to be handled to clear Plate H and K under the wire inside tunnels.

While you are correct of course that the Keystone line to harrisburg had the infrastructure in place for electrification, that doesn't mean that extending that same infrastructure isn't "justifiable."

Either way it will cost $750+ million irrespective of whether it is new electrification or extension of existing electrification. So I don't see what makes it more justifiable because it is an extension.

"A $750000 grant from the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program has been awarded to the US state of Pennsylvania to study a proposed extension of Amtrak's Keystone Corridor from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh with dedicated electrified tracks."
The truth is, that extending the electrified keystone track all the way to Pittsburgh is being studied, I personally think it's a great idea.

Yup, and me becoming a multi-billionaire so that I could fund it also is a great idea.

Electrification to Pittsburgh has been studied since the 1940s. It would have happened if the dieselization did not take place when it did. At present unless it is part of an overall HSR corridor project I don't see it happening. And an HSR corridor project is different from what Oldsmoboi is talking about. It is probably a $10 billion or more proposition.

Frankly Olds's idea without perhaps requiring the laying of a whole additional track immediately but in an incremental fashion is more likely achievable than an HSR corridor beyond Huntingdon. Laying even a 125mph capable track through those hills is going to cost way more than doing the saem along the RoW of the Water Level Route.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

Again I'm not saying these improvements between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh can be picked up at the Dollar Store, but they will still be substantially cheaper than an entirely new ROW in say... Central Florida.

I'm also not even proposing 125mph service. The P42s are rated for 110mph. Run them at 110mph with the exception of the Altoona area and Amtrak could potentially cut 45 minutes to an hour off the trip between PGH and HAR.

I agree with everyone above that more Pennsylvanian service should be added if NOTHING else, but I also think that instead of running all the way to NYP, it should terminate at PHL and offer connecting service via the Keystone at HAR or Regional at PHL.

Harrisburg has a lot of potential as a hub station as well.

I actually agree with you on this being a very good first step of which quite a bit can be achieved provided NS can be got on board. The only caveat is that the old PRR route probably has only as much 30% of it as potential 110mph territory, perhaps 40% with tilting equipment.

A quick BotE (Back of the Envelope) calculation shows that if the entire route could be run at 80mph one could get a Harrisburg to Pittsburgh time of around 3:10. Considering the the Broadway Limited in its heyday used to do it in about 4:15 to 4:30 suggests that you cannot really run that kind of speed on that line even with full priority. Again at 110 all the way gives something like 2:15. Very generously using the same ratio between ideal and reality as for 80mph we get 3:10, which would be a huge improvement. More realistically it will be something around 4:00 or so because not all of the row that is OK for 80mph is OK for 110mph, but still it would be a significant improvement.

The most difficult part of it will be getting agreement from NS and paying for maintenance of the track at Class 6 instead of Class 4, and getting cab signaling/PTC capable of handling 110mph installed. All this still is way more achievable than trying to justify electrification at what amount to about $1.5 million per track mile which chalks up again a BotE bill of $750 million, not counting tunnel clearance issues that will have to be handled to clear Plate H and K under the wire inside tunnels.

While you are correct of course that the Keystone line to harrisburg had the infrastructure in place for electrification, that doesn't mean that extending that same infrastructure isn't "justifiable."

Either way it will cost $750+ million irrespective of whether it is new electrification or extension of existing electrification. So I don't see what makes it more justifiable because it is an extension.

"A $750000 grant from the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program has been awarded to the US state of Pennsylvania to study a proposed extension of Amtrak's Keystone Corridor from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh with dedicated electrified tracks."
The truth is, that extending the electrified keystone track all the way to Pittsburgh is being studied, I personally think it's a great idea.

Yup, and me becoming a multi-billionaire so that I could fund it also is a great idea.

Electrification to Pittsburgh has been studied since the 1940s. It would have happened if the dieselization did not take place when it did. At present unless it is part of an overall HSR corridor project I don't see it happening. And an HSR corridor project is different from what Oldsmoboi is talking about. It is probably a $10 billion or more proposition.

Frankly Olds's idea without perhaps requiring the laying of a whole additional track immediately but in an incremental fashion is more likely achievable than an HSR corridor beyond Huntingdon. Laying even a 125mph capable track through those hills is going to cost way more than doing the saem along the RoW of the Water Level Route.

4 hours Pittsburgh to Harrisburg is in shooting distance of the drive time with stops/tolls/traffic. Even Googlemaps suggests the drive would take 3:45.

If any new ROW were to be built, one of the easiest improvements would be eliminating the route between Huntington and Altoona that goes through Tyrone and straightening that out.

 

[TVRM610]

Either way it will cost $750+ million irrespective of whether it is new electrification or extension of existing electrification. So I don't see what makes it more justifiable because it is an extension.

I know it's an expensive proposal.

It's more justifiable since it would reduce the time and costs associated with changing motive power; your extending the existing infrastructure, not starting something from scratch. Yes the costs to build the catenary are the same, but your reducing locomotive costs of operating the same level of services. Plus SOME of the existing infrastructure could possibly be used, the power plant closest to Harrisburg for example could potentially be enlarged to power the first portion of Catenary west of Harrisburg as well (i'm pulling that one out of thin air, I have no clue how possible that is in reality.)

Now that electrification only makes sense if your going to run ALOT of trains on that line, but I'm pretty sure that's the whole idea. Long term, I think we are going to see more electric power nation wide.. but that is very long term.

 

[jis]

If any new ROW were to be built, one of the easiest improvements would be eliminating the route between Huntington and Altoona that goes through Tyrone and straightening that out.

heh! Go and take a careful look at a topographic map and then try to guess how much a straight shot ROW from Huntingdon to Altoona would cost and what the ruling gradient would be on it.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

"A $750000 grant from the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program has been awarded to the US state of Pennsylvania to study a proposed extension of Amtrak's Keystone Corridor from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh with dedicated electrified tracks."

I'm sorry if I sound too much like George Harris, but it would be a great idea for the government to pay me $750,000 for a 3 day "study" of electrification. If you can make it happen, I will take the top 50 posters on this forum on a round the country Amtrak trip in first class. (Not to mention pocketing $600,000 or so for myself)

 

[afigg]

"A $750000 grant from the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program has been awarded to the US state of Pennsylvania to study a proposed extension of Amtrak's Keystone Corridor from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh with dedicated electrified tracks."

I'm sorry if I sound too much like George Harris, but it would be a great idea for the government to pay me $750,000 for a 3 day "study" of electrification. If you can make it happen, I will take the top 50 posters on this forum on a round the country Amtrak trip in first class. (Not to mention pocketing $600,000 or so for myself)

Well, you would be required to produce a several hundred page report with a lot of diagrams, tables, and map surveys. Otherwise, the FRA and PA DOT would be likely to demand the $1.5 million back - which is the total funded amount for the study.

I did some googling and found a copy of the 2009 PA application for the western Keystone study at http://www.highspeedrailworks.org/_proposals/pa/PA_Track3_Keystone%20Corridor-%20Keystone%20West.pdf. It is just the official filled in form, I would expect there were a bunch of accompanying appendices that went with it. Ambitious to a fair degree: "The ultimate goal of this planning project is to study the improvements required to extend current Keystone Service west to Pittsburgh, increasing service frequency from one round-trip a day to eight round-trips, and increasing the maximum allowable speed (MAS) to 110 mph, the current MAS for the Keystone Service between Harrisburg, PA and Philadelphia, PA."

and

"Improvements being contemplated to facilitate improved service from Pittsburgh to Harrisburg include: possible full electrification, construction of additional passenger-only tracks, major interlocking improvements, concrete tie installation, and rolling stock acquisition."

However, since the freight railroads have come out against 110 mph operations on their lines, NS is not likely to agree to that. Since the funding for the study was obligated in late January, 2011, the report will likely be released early next year. Then people can complain about it and the project estimated costs - which will probably be in the 100s of millions, if not billions.