State Subsidies to Amtrak

[Oldsmoboi]

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.

I did. It wouldn't be a straight line shot of course.

Use the cut at Alexandria but instead of heading north to Tyrone, head south along Route 22

 

[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.

I did. It wouldn't be a straight line shot of course.

Use the cut at Alexandria but instead of heading north to Tyrone, head south along Route 22

How far? And how does it make it to Altoona? by doing a huge loop back from Holidaysburg? Or is there a plan to tunnel across north of Altoona to join the present line? Just bear with me I am trying to get a handle on what is being proposed, before forming an opinion. Or would it perhaps just skip Altoon and being a passenger line use the ROW of the old Holidaysburg to Cresson or thereabout steep climb, or some approximation thereof, to join the present line? Or were you planning to run it along the new 22 alignment all the way to Cresson?

 

[TVRM610]

However, since the freight railroads have come out against 110 mph operations on their lines, NS is not likely to agree to that.

I'm not sure what your statement means. I know CSX doesn't want 110, but that's CSX. Did you hear NS is against 110? UP obviously is not.

Also.. I don't think the proposed idea is to get current tracks up to 110, the idea is to add a 3 rd "Passenger Main" that would be capable of 110 where possible. I'm pretty sure even if the current tracks were good for 110, Amtrak would hardly ever be able to run at that speed since freight is so busy on that line.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

Anyone know how to draw on googlemaps?

There would need to be a new Altoona station (you couldn't skip Altoona politically)

 

[George Harris]

However, since the freight railroads have come out against 110 mph operations on their lines, NS is not likely to agree to that.

I'm not sure what your statement means. I know CSX doesn't want 110, but that's CSX. Did you hear NS is against 110? UP obviously is not.

Also.. I don't think the proposed idea is to get current tracks up to 110, the idea is to add a 3 rd "Passenger Main" that would be capable of 110 where possible. I'm pretty sure even if the current tracks were good for 110, Amtrak would hardly ever be able to run at that speed since freight is so busy on that line.

Haven't looked it up, but if I remember right, NS in essence told the state of North Carolina, nothing above 90 mph, and the state is the owner and NS the leasee of the railroad.

Given the multitudinous curves between Harrisburg and Pittsburg, I would suspect that any increase in speed limit above 90 mph would be near meaningless, and anything above 70 mph would mena very little. What would mean more would be to have a passenger only track or tracks so that the maximum superelevation could be raised to 6 inches from the most likely 4 inch maximum that is normally used where high center of gravity freight cars are operated. I would suggest that someone get their hands on an employee timetable and look at the current list of speed restrictions for curves before getting to excited about higher speed limits.

If a lot of new alignment is to be built to allow 110 mph, why not go whole hog and build it for 200 to 250 mph?

Plus, I have heard that the tunnel rebuilds done a few years back to allow for double stacks were done to just barely so that there is not room for electrification without ANOTHER round of tunnel enlargements. Someone should have looked at what Southern Railway did back in the 1960's in order to get tunnels that would barely pass Plate C large enough to pass piggybacks. (double stacks were not even thought about at that time.) They were enlarged to be 30 feet high above the rail, with the comment being made that they did not want to have to do it again - ever - regardless of what the future might hold, and I suspect that space for electrification was one of their thoughts. Unfortunately that is one of the ideas that got lost in the Sou - N&W merger.

The steeper climb and slow curves west of Altoona can be eliminated by constructing an about 8 mile long tunnel, but that would only be part of what would be needed to get the run time down significantly.

 

[jis]

I agree with your assessment George. I have grave doubts about how much of the ROW is suitable for even 80mph sustained running, specially between Huntingdon and Johnstown.

 

[PRR 60]

Here is a topo map that shows the engineering challenges between Alexandria and Altoona.