Status of NER Extensions within VA

[Anderson]

If I could cycle back to the Virginia stuff for a moment, a math problem is starting to come to mind. South of WAS, I count the following with SEHSR, Hampton Roads, etc:

-9 SEHSR to CLT

-6 NER to NFK

-3 NER to NPN

-3 LD trains to SAV/MIA

That comes to 21 trains each way through RVR, or 42 trains on the old RF&P main from Amtrak. Then, we add:

-7 VRE to Fredericksburg

Now, we're at 28 each way/56 total...on the RF&P to Fredericksburg. Between ALX and WAS, we then add the following:

-2 LD (the Crescent and the Cardinal)

-2 NER (the Lynchburger and the TDX, or two TDX frequencies)

-8 VRE

That's another (12*2) 24 trains under currently extant plans, or 80 total assuming that nothing whatsoever gets added to the existing plans, from WAS-ALX. At what point does this segment simply get bought out and/or a parallel track get installed WAS-ALX? Also, how much traffic is CSXT going to take on the RF&P main before they want the traffic moved to another line? 42 trains per day is a lot, and this assumes no increases in VRE service.

The other thought that's coming to mind is that we're getting four-tier service:

-Super-local: The VRE commuter lines, where applicable

-Local: NE Regional trains with Woodbridge, Quantico, etc.

-Express: NE Regional trains only stopping RVM-RVR-Fredericksburg-ALX-WAS

-Super-Express: Not stopping in Fredericksburg

 

[PaulM]

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.

I can't help but question this since I just walked across the tracks of the BNSF main line at Princeton, Il to board the WB Illinois Zephyr. It's also routine at Kewanee, Galesburg, Mt. Pleasant, and probably a lot more stations out here.

My personal opinion: it's stuff like this that give worthy regulations a bad name. Why not require a stairway and bridge for crossing streets, especially those with a lot of traffic?

 

[Anderson]

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.

I can't help but question this since I just walked across the tracks of the BNSF main line at Princeton, Il to board the WB Illinois Zephyr. It's also routine at Kewanee, Galesburg, Mt. Pleasant, and probably a lot more stations out here.

My personal opinion: it's stuff like this that give worthy regulations a bad name. Why not require a stairway and bridge for crossing streets, especially those with a lot of traffic?

Most of those stations are grandfathered. The same thing happens in Osceola, for example.

 

[afigg]

If I could cycle back to the Virginia stuff for a moment, a math problem is starting to come to mind. South of WAS, I count the following with SEHSR, Hampton Roads, etc:

...

That's another (12*2) 24 trains under currently extant plans, or 80 total assuming that nothing whatsoever gets added to the existing plans, from WAS-ALX. At what point does this segment simply get bought out and/or a parallel track get installed WAS-ALX? Also, how much traffic is CSXT going to take on the RF&P main before they want the traffic moved to another line? 42 trains per day is a lot, and this assumes no increases in VRE service.

The tentative plan is to expand to 4 tracks from just south of the Potomac river in Arlington through the Alexandria station to AF interlocking. One of the HSIPR selected stimulus projects is a $2.9 million awarded to the DC DOT for Preliminary Engineering and NEPA study of replacing the Long Bridge across the Potomac river and the track upgrades & modifications down to Alexandria. This would have to be a joint study with DC, Virginia, Amtrak, VRE, and CSX. However, this study has still not shown up on the list of obligated HSIPR projects, even after the flood of project obligations in the past week. Don't know what is going on with it, because the WAS Union Station to AF Interlocking section is a critical choke point for VRE, Amtrak, and CSX operations and forms the foundation of any serious Southeast HSR corridor project connecting to the NEC at Union Station.

One alternative that I think might work would be to add a 4th track on the DC side through L'Enfant Plaza, build a 2 track bridge next to the CSX Long Bridge for passenger trains, and run 4 tracks to AF interlocking with 2 tracks dedicated for VRE/Amtrak use and 2 for CSX to separate the freight and passenger trains operations south of Alexandria.

 

[Anderson]

If I could cycle back to the Virginia stuff for a moment, a math problem is starting to come to mind. South of WAS, I count the following with SEHSR, Hampton Roads, etc:

...

That's another (12*2) 24 trains under currently extant plans, or 80 total assuming that nothing whatsoever gets added to the existing plans, from WAS-ALX. At what point does this segment simply get bought out and/or a parallel track get installed WAS-ALX? Also, how much traffic is CSXT going to take on the RF&P main before they want the traffic moved to another line? 42 trains per day is a lot, and this assumes no increases in VRE service.

The tentative plan is to expand to 4 tracks from just south of the Potomac river in Arlington through the Alexandria station to AF interlocking. One of the HSIPR selected stimulus projects is a $2.9 million awarded to the DC DOT for Preliminary Engineering and NEPA study of replacing the Long Bridge across the Potomac river and the track upgrades & modifications down to Alexandria. This would have to be a joint study with DC, Virginia, Amtrak, VRE, and CSX. However, this study has still not shown up on the list of obligated HSIPR projects, even after the flood of project obligations in the past week. Don't know what is going on with it, because the WAS Union Station to AF Interlocking section is a critical choke point for VRE, Amtrak, and CSX operations and forms the foundation of any serious Southeast HSR corridor project connecting to the NEC at Union Station.

One alternative that I think might work would be to add a 4th track on the DC side through L'Enfant Plaza, build a 2 track bridge next to the CSX Long Bridge for passenger trains, and run 4 tracks to AF interlocking with 2 tracks dedicated for VRE/Amtrak use and 2 for CSX to separate the freight and passenger trains operations south of Alexandria.

Alright, I pulled up the maps in the area. Basically, I think you're right...but it's a bit interesting on the Alexandria side: You have three "full" tracks, a deteriorated fourth on the west side of the alignment, and what looks like a convertible rail trail on the east side. It also seems that going into Alexandria, at least, the RoW and bridges were all set up to handle four tracks plus an occasional siding, but things were cut to three tracks. So you don't need new RoW at least (and looking over that map, I can still see signs of the old, massive freight yards that existed in the form of three massive bridges over Four Mile Run...it seems that everything between US1 and the RF&P mainline was freight yard at one time). Heck, even the signal systems are still structured for four tracks, and there's also apparently some additional RoW on the east side between the RF&P Main and the Metrorail line in a lot of places, and you're clear through at least the NS/CSX interchange by the beltway.

I think one of the bigger jams is going to be shooting the new tracks in under the George Washington Parkway and through the park...unless I miss my guess, L'Enfant Plaza-Crystal City is a long-standing bottleneck in the system going back to the "old days"...but there also seems to be substantial separation of trackage once you hit the DC side of things. Looking at building placement...is there still RoW in Washington, DC proper to work with? It looks like you have a fourth track remnant on the north/west side of things (and in some places an actual fourth, though you'll have to knock a structure down between 6th and 7th streets)

 

[jis]

I think one of the bigger jams is going to be shooting the new tracks in under the George Washington Parkway and through the park...unless I miss my guess, L'Enfant Plaza-Crystal City is a long-standing bottleneck in the system going back to the "old days"...but there also seems to be substantial separation of trackage once you hit the DC side of things. Looking at building placement...is there still RoW in Washington, DC proper to work with? It looks like you have a fourth track remnant on the north/west side of things (and in some places an actual fourth, though you'll have to knock a structure down between 6th and 7th streets)

I have been given to understand that there indeed is space in the ROW for a fourth track between CP Virginia to the Long Bridge. There is also a plan to replace the Long bridge by a 4 track bridge, though nothing of that is funded at present AFAIK.

 

[George Harris]

I think one of the bigger jams is going to be shooting the new tracks in under the George Washington Parkway and through the park...unless I miss my guess, L'Enfant Plaza-Crystal City is a long-standing bottleneck in the system going back to the "old days"...but there also seems to be substantial separation of trackage once you hit the DC side of things. Looking at building placement...is there still RoW in Washington, DC proper to work with? It looks like you have a fourth track remnant on the north/west side of things (and in some places an actual fourth, though you'll have to knock a structure down between 6th and 7th streets)

I have been given to understand that there indeed is space in the ROW for a fourth track between CP Virginia to the Long Bridge. There is also a plan to replace the Long bridge by a 4 track bridge, though nothing of that is funded at present AFAIK.

The railroad goes over the GW parkway. In the past 12th Street was a low clearance overpass, but it looks to have been replaced.

Yes, Virginia Tower to some point west of 12th St toward the Long Bridge was 4 tracks in the past.

South of the Potomac:

For many years there was a double track passenger main parallel to US 1 with the HUGE Potomac Yard between it and the GW Parkway. At Alexandria station there were two passenger tracks with platforms and two freight tracks east of them with no platforms.

There is a plan in the works to enlarge/rebuild the freight tunnel in DC that runs along/under Virginia Ave (along the Southeast Freeway) to return it to double track and also to provide sufficient clearance for double stacks. The appears to be at least near 90% certain to happen in the near future. It seems that most of the money for this will come from CSX.

 

[xyzzy]

North Carolina wouldn't contribute to a daytime Crescent, either. We already have a daytime Charlotte-NY train and there isn't much push for a faster route via Charlottesville. NCDOT has federal money to make interim improvements to CSX north of Rocky Mount to address bottlenecks there. The only advantage to North Carolinians of a daytime Crescent would be more convenient access to Atlanta, and that's a secondary consideration in this travel market which is very NEC-focused.

My understanding is that double track at a reasonable speed (30 mph minimum) will eventually be installed between Staples Mill and Main St in Richmond. "Eventually" is the operative word.

 

[afigg]

South of the Potomac:

For many years there was a double track passenger main parallel to US 1 with the HUGE Potomac Yard between it and the GW Parkway. At Alexandria station there were two passenger tracks with platforms and two freight tracks east of them with no platforms.

There is a plan in the works to enlarge/rebuild the freight tunnel in DC that runs along/under Virginia Ave (along the Southeast Freeway) to return it to double track and also to provide sufficient clearance for double stacks. The appears to be at least near 90% certain to happen in the near future. It seems that most of the money for this will come from CSX.

CSX plans for replacing the Virginia Avenue tunnel have moved beyond 90% certain. Unless they replace/rebuild the tunnel in DC to provide Plate H clearance for double stack trains, their investment in their National Gateway project raising bridge & tunnel clearances to Baltimore, Pittsburgh, and Ohio is of limited utility (http://www.nationalgateway.org/). CSX was apparently stalling a while on starting the tunnel project to see if they could get more federal funding for it. That did not happen, so CSX announced last spring that they will be spending $160 million of their money to replace the tunnel. I believe VA is contributing $26 million and there is some modest federal funding involved. Since CSX has to work with DC DOT (DDOT) and be in compliance with NEPA laws, CSX had a public outreach session last month for the neighborhoods that will get disrupted by the 2-3 years of construction. DDOT and CSX have a website for the project at http://www.virginiaavenuetunnel.com/. If the formal record of decision is mid-2012, CSX is probably looking at a 2015 completion date for the tunnel project.

The double tracking of the rebuilt Virginia Avenue tunnel would tie into plans for eventually replacing the Long Bridge with a 4 track bridge and 4 tracks - 2 passenger, 2 freight - to south of Alexandria. If the RF&P ROW is wide enough, they should be looking at not just adding a 3rd track to Richmond, but 4 tracking the entire line to Richmond as part of the Southeast HSR project and VRE expansion to 7 day a week service. Separate tracks for passenger service can be electrified without interfering with freight. The problem is that the RF&P line is very curvy for much of the route and goes right through the middle of Ashland. A true HSR line would require splitting off from the RF&P line somewhere south of Woodbridge or Fredericksburg, maybe using the I-95 median strip for some of the route. The support and interest for an aggressive HSR project is not there, so the project will be limited to 3 tracks south of AF Interlocking. Finding the funding to replace the Long Bridge will be a major struggle in itself.

Still a dedicated 2 track passenger line from DC Union station, across the Potomac, through Alexandria station, and to the connection to the NS line could be used as the foundation for a electrified HSR line to Richmond some day.

 

[jis]

North Carolina wouldn't contribute to a daytime Crescent, either. We already have a daytime Charlotte-NY train and there isn't much push for a faster route via Charlottesville. NCDOT has federal money to make interim improvements to CSX north of Rocky Mount to address bottlenecks there. The only advantage to North Carolinians of a daytime Crescent would be more convenient access to Atlanta, and that's a secondary consideration in this travel market which is very NEC-focused.

My understanding is that double track at a reasonable speed (30 mph minimum) will eventually be installed between Staples Mill and Main St in Richmond. "Eventually" is the operative word.

I tend to agree with you. Any daytime train to Atlanta is more likely to happen over the SEHSR rather than over NS, and it will happen only if GA funds it. NC has close to zero incentive to fund such a thing.

 

[KayBee]

South of the Potomac:

For many years there was a double track passenger main parallel to US 1 with the HUGE Potomac Yard between it and the GW Parkway. At Alexandria station there were two passenger tracks with platforms and two freight tracks east of them with no platforms.

There is a plan in the works to enlarge/rebuild the freight tunnel in DC that runs along/under Virginia Ave (along the Southeast Freeway) to return it to double track and also to provide sufficient clearance for double stacks. The appears to be at least near 90% certain to happen in the near future. It seems that most of the money for this will come from CSX.

CSX plans for replacing the Virginia Avenue tunnel have moved beyond 90% certain. Unless they replace/rebuild the tunnel in DC to provide Plate H clearance for double stack trains, their investment in their National Gateway project raising bridge & tunnel clearances to Baltimore, Pittsburgh, and Ohio is of limited utility (http://www.nationalgateway.org/). CSX was apparently stalling a while on starting the tunnel project to see if they could get more federal funding for it. That did not happen, so CSX announced last spring that they will be spending $160 million of their money to replace the tunnel. I believe VA is contributing $26 million and there is some modest federal funding involved. Since CSX has to work with DC DOT (DDOT) and be in compliance with NEPA laws, CSX had a public outreach session last month for the neighborhoods that will get disrupted by the 2-3 years of construction. DDOT and CSX have a website for the project at http://www.virginiaavenuetunnel.com/. If the formal record of decision is mid-2012, CSX is probably looking at a 2015 completion date for the tunnel project.

The double tracking of the rebuilt Virginia Avenue tunnel would tie into plans for eventually replacing the Long Bridge with a 4 track bridge and 4 tracks - 2 passenger, 2 freight - to south of Alexandria. If the RF&P ROW is wide enough, they should be looking at not just adding a 3rd track to Richmond, but 4 tracking the entire line to Richmond as part of the Southeast HSR project and VRE expansion to 7 day a week service. Separate tracks for passenger service can be electrified without interfering with freight. The problem is that the RF&P line is very curvy for much of the route and goes right through the middle of Ashland. A true HSR line would require splitting off from the RF&P line somewhere south of Woodbridge or Fredericksburg, maybe using the I-95 median strip for some of the route. The support and interest for an aggressive HSR project is not there, so the project will be limited to 3 tracks south of AF Interlocking. Finding the funding to replace the Long Bridge will be a major struggle in itself.

Still a dedicated 2 track passenger line from DC Union station, across the Potomac, through Alexandria station, and to the connection to the NS line could be used as the foundation for a electrified HSR line to Richmond some day.

Well, at least there is a study in the right direction: U.S. Department of Transportation Awards North Carolina and Virginia $48 Million to Develop High-Speed Rail Between Raleigh, NC and Washington, DC

Now let the waiting begin. It would be great if our representatives in government could streamline the requirements for studies, DEIS applications, and so on, so the process could be accomplished in less than 20 years.

The SEHSR process has been ongoing since the Tier I EIS was started in 1999. It is as if we as a nation no longer have the will to get things done! :help:

I was hoping to see this happen during my lifetime :angry2:

 

[Anderson]

KayBee,

You've just nailed my biggest criticism of Obama: While obligating huge sums of money for rail projects and the like, as far as I can tell no effort was made to get any authority to at least cut down the NEPA requirements (getting rid of them entirely would be a bit much, I suspect) for those projects...or anything else. I think this was at least a contributing factor to the stimulus misfiring: The money couldn't get out in a timely manner because so much got tied up in red tape like this, and a respectable share basically went to employing consultants rather than construction workers.

As to the idea of a second train on the NS Mainline during the day, I could see it getting funded as far as Charlotte by VA/NC. The one way I could see a train being run to Atlanta on either route is if ridership north of Charlotte becomes sufficient to make such an option potentially profitable for NC. Basically, NC's bean counters might be able to come out with a study showing possible profitability if you've got something like a million riders per year out of Charlotte without the Atlanta train (given the sheer number of city pairs that would link to Atlanta in the process, if you have a genuinely packed system between Charlotte and Raleigh, let alone Charlotte and Washington/New York, it's possible that you'll get to a point that NC will see dollar signs in a study and go from there). This would go double if TN ended up linking in as well. But that would be 10-25 years down the road, and likely on the long end of that.

 

[xyzzy]

Not a chance. If NCDOT had money to spend on rail beyond Charlotte-Raleigh followed by Raleigh-Richmond -- and they don't -- they'd throw it at Asheville or Wilmington.

 

[Anderson]

Not a chance. If NCDOT had money to spend on rail beyond Charlotte-Raleigh followed by Raleigh-Richmond -- and they don't -- they'd throw it at Asheville or Wilmington.

I'm not so sure, just on sheer bang-for-buck. If the study is favorable enough, it might well become a case of having the route be "nominally" state-supported.

Mind you, I base this on the SEHSR Tier I EIS, but if that pans out, then there should be a decent amount of money sloshing around in the mix. Mind you, we're looking at timeframes of over a decade here...this is not happening tomorrow morning, but a $20 million operating surplus (and I assume that the projected costs include station upkeep and railroad rent) should cover both capital maintenance (that is, major repairs to passenger cars and/or chipping in on new car orders to replace old ones) and allow other routes to be subsidized.

The rub is that I think Raleigh-Charlotte-Atlanta city pairs (and indeed in this context a daylight WAS-ATL train going via Richmond, Raleigh, and Charlotte) would likely generate enough revenue to cover the line's cost (sort of like the Lynchburger). This assumes a lot of things based on the documentation that NCDOT/SEHSR has produced, but in the context of having a lot of city pairs to work with, Raleigh-Atlanta would be no worse than Lynchburg-New York, timing-wise (the total would come out to about eight hours assuming no improvements south of Charlotte). The big thing here is that Atlanta is a massive endpoint market on par with Washington or New York, while Charlotte, Raleigh, etc. are far bigger than the population along the VA segment of the Lynchburger.

 

[trainviews]

Not a chance. If NCDOT had money to spend on rail beyond Charlotte-Raleigh followed by Raleigh-Richmond -- and they don't -- they'd throw it at Asheville or Wilmington.

I'm not so sure, just on sheer bang-for-buck. If the study is favorable enough, it might well become a case of having the route be "nominally" state-supported.

In addition to lower (or no) subsidies, it might also be far cheaper in capital costs. I don't know if there is enough spare capacity on the tracks to Atlanta to put a another train on the tracks without costly upgrades, but for the Asheville route NS has asked for something like 135 million for track improvements (quoted out of memory). So politicians could get it going for far less money.

There has also been little to no action on the Asheville and Wilmington plans for years, and it seems like NC has shifted it's interest to build on the succes of the current services.

And honestly I would say rightly so. Getting a daytime to Atlanta is as some sort of extension or supplement of the current network is a far more feasible route connecting large population centers. I understand that areas like Western NC sometimes feel that they are neglected, but an expensive to start and heavily loss-making to run train will be politically hard to ram through and might not be the best transportation solution for the area, at least in the short to medium term until theres is a more robust network to connect to.

The rub is that I think Raleigh-Charlotte-Atlanta city pairs (and indeed in this context a daylight WAS-ATL train going via Richmond, Raleigh, and Charlotte) would likely generate enough revenue to cover the line's cost (sort of like the Lynchburger). This assumes a lot of things based on the documentation that NCDOT/SEHSR has produced, but in the context of having a lot of city pairs to work with, Raleigh-Atlanta would be no worse than Lynchburg-New York, timing-wise (the total would come out to about eight hours assuming no improvements south of Charlotte). The big thing here is that Atlanta is a massive endpoint market on par with Washington or New York, while Charlotte, Raleigh, etc. are far bigger than the population along the VA segment of the Lynchburger.

Either would be great. Both would connect Charlotte and Atlanta to eachother and DC, but the NS route would leave out Raleigh. On a margin I would prefer the Crescent route though, as it would benefit the current (and rapidly growing) service to Charlottesville and Lynchburg within Virginia with a southbound morning/northbound evening train and would make a new connection from that area southwards. On the SEHSR route the Carolinian already connects Raleigh to DC (in the future probably with more frequencies to come Raleigh and north) and a daytime run on the Crescent route could be made to connect with the midday Piedmont in Charlotte for Atlanta-Raleigh connections. If a decent on time performance could be achieved to make a cross platform connection, that is an adequate solution. Passengers on shorter daytime routes should have less issues with transfers than luggage heavy sleeper and long distance passengers.

But as I say - both options look great, and studies should make clear which one is the better in the overall picture.

(as a side note I think the dynamics at play on the NS route in Virginia is that it serves a couple of medium sized markets with very little transportation alternatives - poorly served and expensive regional airports - and thus generates far more traffic per capita than metropols with large airports, making the difference in potential passengers much smaller than the difference in city size would indicate)

 

[Anderson]

Well, if you could time the Piedmont Limited (sorry, I'm going to use Southern's name for this train) so that it went through either Charlottesville or Lynchburg at a good time to offer a transfer to the Roanoke train, you'd add yet another market (albeit at a reduced ridership level because of the transfer) to the mix. Note that Roanoke is a textbook case of that "smaller city with an expensive airport" phenomenon (I think it's one of the worst in the country in terms of flight costs). Even cut to Charlotte, this wouldn't be a bad routing.

An ideal situation would offer both routes, timed a few hours apart: NS would connect those mid-sized and smaller cities without much in the way of airport traffic in Virginia (including Roanoke with a transfer) to Charlotte and Atlanta, while a largely S-line connection (at its heart, the routing of the old Silver Comet) would add both Raleigh and Richmond (and Hampton Roads with a transfer, and do not underestimate the market down here). I think both would make sense with the context of the various internal connections (i.e. Lynchburg/Charlottesville to the endpoints or cities near the endpoints). You've actually already got the S-line side more or less covered (with the Carolinian), so you'd probably only be looking at either one more train and a schedule shift plus a Piedmont being extended both ways.

Honestly, my suggestion (since we make lots of these on here) would be to time the NS train for the endpoints (i.e. try to peg the WAS timing and CLT/ATL timing the best), and have the S-line train be spaced "to one side". Right now, the NS line Crescent is two hours faster than the current Carolinian between Greensboro and Washington (6 hours versus 8 hours). Some of that may be CSX being a pain, but a lot of it is the added difference (the NS line is about as direct as you can get). Even if SEHSR does eliminate this advantage, it won't do so for quite some time, and I don't think the plan is to get much past parity between the two routes anyway.

Keeping the Carolinian as the train on the S-line routing isn't the most effective, given the late Charlotte timing...but if a second Carolinian eventually enters the picture running at least to WAS (which seems likely in the long run), that might make your connection.

One question on the NS routes would be whether adding stops in Altavista and Reidsville (two smaller cities that Southern still included on the Crescent/Piedmont Limited timetables in 1972...probably worth a few thousand riders per year, but not much more than that) might not be viable. I suspect that the S-line side of things is going to be mostly "stationed out" under existing plans.