I JUST CAN'T BELIEVE IT!

That really takes the cake. And who thought this little weirdness up? Some office guy who had an idea for a pet project...

Sheesh--I keep telling people that I don't particularly trust governments when it comes to this-----OY.

Henry---it does make one want to pull their hair out don't it?

On the other hand, if people discover that 110 is faster than 79, and you don't enter another dimension or something, they may just decide that it should be expanded.  Before you know it, you're all the way from Rochester to Buffalo, then to Syracuse, Albany, and voila!, you're in NYC.

Considering that NYC was four tracks all the way through there, adding a third track shouldn't be a stretch.  Some of the cities might be a problem, but...

Here is a rather detailed article on the subject, and it is followed by about 90 interesting comments from readers.

 

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20100223/NEWS01/2230318/High-speed-rail-plans-for-New-York-take-shape

I'm taking this article at its face value--I can't judge its ridiculousness unless I know the full story. Is this stretch an area of slow speed now, or where it would be impossible to upgrade the current right-of-way? I was taken by the words about the new track leaving the CSX route, then rejoining it. That could mean that it stays parallel, or that it strays a bit, perhaps easing a few curves. We already know that true high-speed rail, or even 110-mph trains, don't work well on track that they have to share with freights, and CSX believes that it needs its own tracks for its own freights on this route. So there could be sound reasoning and planning behind this stretch. The most preposterous thing is the short length. But if they can demonstrate even a two-minute savings over 11 miles, and point out that you could get an hour's savings over the entire route, or even more if you don't have to decelerate and accelerate every 11 miles to go on the old track, there might be something they could parlay into more money and more track. I'd just let it play out, and see what happens.

The longest of journeys begin with the first step.

The biggest of projects begin with the first dollar.

My point is that NY has already laid the ground work for being in the HSR game.  This piece of track in hundreds of miles away from where the work has been done, where the State has proven its committment. This same money now put to building existing track to the next level or to extend existing high speed track would be a better use of the money than rehabilitating a piece of weed grown track where the 110 mph is a "so what" rather than an extension of what is.  Its just I don't think this is an intellegent and useful application of monies at this location.  This piece of track is so out of place that it will not prove what they want to prove; it will actually be a 5 minute push of air rather than a reach of a train.  Just doesn't make sense in the fabirc of what has already been done.  NY is far beyond the first step and has used many dollars since the first, they are much further along to waste the time, money, and effort on this.

If one is to get HSR off the ground one should do the dang thing where it already is either being accomplished or at least where one would see results thereby.

I'm still not sure what the logic is to place it where it will be -----

Absolutely rediculous.

That's all I can say...

So for $58 mil., they lay 11 miles of higher speed track in the existing former 4 track ROW.  As that is $5.25 mil. per mile, that is a lot cheaper than the $50 mil. per mile of HSR in California.  Lots of folks have been talking incrementalism, and I guess that is what this is.  Not sure what it will prove when finished, but at least it shouldn't take long!

At first blush the location rather mystified me. I would have expected a location somewhere from Schenectady - NYP. On second thought is all that route is already above 79 MPH? It would be helpful to have the present allowable speeds on this section of CSX rail?. Also any google maps?

This location may be a good choice. The branching of the shorter WS bypass line just east of Churchville may give the AMTRAK trains better access to Rochester by not getting tangled up in CSX freights. Also the east end Churchville location would tie in at some future time where the WS route could give a bypass route of Rochester. 

The statement that this is a test track is a puzzel. I certainly hope that there are no at  grade crossings for this HSR segment that are mentioned that CSX encounters for this 11 mile project.

It strikes me that the only "test" possible in this 11 mile segment is how quickly a P42 can get up to 110 mph from whatever the switch speed is going to be. 

tree68

if people discover that 110 is faster than 79, and you don't enter another dimension or something

But think of the tourism dollars. 

Transdimensional travel for the price of a train ticket!
Visit new and exotic locations!
See creatures unimagined by humans!
Experience strange realities from the comfort of your coach!
Wonder at the marvelous subtleties of Creation!

 

And who knows, you might even discover a place where the politicians do not have their heads up their respective butts.

It just smacks of the great American passtimes of mass debating and reinventing the wheel!  Anything that takes away from moving forward to meet the demands of yesterday and the needs of tomorrow.

This 11 mile segment is so far removed from locations of reality, offers so little proof of viability.  It just appears to be a feel good track game so that somebody can point to it and say, "see!".  No, New York is beyond this stage of proving anything, put the money in building upon what has been done.  We know that a 11 mile long 110 mile per hour track will cut 5 minutes, that's proof enough to take that same money to bring existing route track up to 110 or start laying the track west from end of 110 mph track along the Hudson.  This is not piece meal construction but piece meal wasting of money and effort.

Love the 'another dimension' comment.     Wouldn't that be funny ?  

Glorified amusement park ride ? 

NY's version of West Virginia's Congressman Harley Staggers at work here ? 

If you can find the application and justification for this project on-line someplace, that might start to provide some insight into the logic and rationale - if there even is any, other than 'ear-marks' and 'pork-barrel' politics as usual, etc. 

- Paul North. 

It seems so weird that I'm wondering who was trying to get re-elected there----pet project here we come----

blownout cylinder

"It seems so weird that I'm wondering who was trying to get re-elected there----pet project here we come----"

To quote another poster: OY! VEY!   Another headshaking moment!

   One has to wonder which stakeholder in this affair has what to gain, or ax to grind? 

Is this area where the construction of the 11 mile segment is to be built, part of the former NYCentral's  multi tracked speedway arcoss western NY?      Out where the big,fast locomotives(Mohawks,Niagras, Hudsons) and their trains used to play? 

Oh give me a home where to Buffalo they roam and the skies are not sunny a day!  Yes!  But still a waste as what it is going to be built to prove is already proven and accepted by NY so put the money in the next step by actually building for real on top of what has started.  With this step we must wait probably 5-10 years to be built, 5-10 years to observe and another 5-10 years to debate and talk more.  Build now and be 30 years ahead!!!

I think this is a good idea. Here's why:

1. get off you butt

2. shut up

....

...uh... oops. wrong thread.

No, I really do think this is a good idea.

Really

What it tests is whether a single 110 mph passenger track can be integrated successfully into an existing double track mainline, sharing ROW and train dispatching. This is the supposed model for 110 mph service elsewhere. Plop a high speed track alongside the existing, high traffic frt ROW and tie it in for meet and passes. Are there dispatching issues that need to be looked at? How smooth, operationally are the entry and exits? Will the frt RR be tempted to occasionally use the new track?(say a derailment on their double track that didn't foul the passenger track) What would the cost and charges be? What level of oversight does the passenger train authority need on the train dispatching system? Can we get the frt RR to do the track and signal inspections needed - how, when, who? How will that work out? How are we going to do the billing? Are we doing cab signal or some other form of PTC (I'd guess cab signal)? Then, there are always things nobody thought of - all the more reason to try it out on a limited basis.

If this works out, a few hundred million year build out CP169 to Buffalo in a few years. Not too much of a strech - even for NY!

This is introducing molasses into a small running stream!  Or rounding off the corners of a box so that it will roll easier.  This project is aimed at proving what is already known. Billions of dollars and 30 years to be wasted!  We know trains can go 250 and more miles per hour.  We know such a system needs a certain quality of substructure and track as well as as rolling stock built to a certain standard. We know how it can and cannot integrate into an existing system.  This is all standared knowledge in the transportation field.  Why can't we accept what has been done and move on, why do we have to set ourselves back 50 years and take another 30 years to prove what already has been proven!  We have already gotten to a point where the next step is 110 track...in fact there is some in New York south of Albany and a lot over in nearby New England along the Boston-New York Corridor and again west (south) of New York in New Jersey on the NY-D.C. Corridor!  Two plus two equals four, we ain't gonna change facts but we've got to build up from them. This is regressive railroading!  This is regressive society!  This is catering to the lowest common denomenater of politics and society!  This is a good example of how this country lacks real leadership and real conviction.  We sit on our laurals and talk about building on dreams and fancies but close our eyes and our minds when those dreams and fancies are proven to be viable.  So we talk more, take more surveys, run more tests, then talk more and run even more surveys and retake the same old tests!  It not only costs us time and money but also stature and placement in the world!  We are not world leaders but we are giving the future over others. 

blue streak 1

Schenectady - NYP. On second thought is all that route is already above 79 MPH?

Yes. From west of Schenectady (CP-169) to Poughkeepsie is all >79 mph right now, with much of it 110 mph. There are a few 110 mph grade crossing on this route - so they wouldn't be show stoppers, necessarily.

OK, now I see how this would be helpful a little better. I'm with Don on this one - ''One test is worth a thousand opinions'' [from an EMD guy, maybe Bruce Meyer].

So it would function as a 3rd track, being essentially a very high-speed passing siding, available only to or mainly for passenger trains - kind of like the railroad version of an HOV = High Occupancy Vehicle lane, or similar to the shorter and steeper alignments up certain mountain grades that the faster and higher HP/ton trains such as intermodals use to get around slower trains, such as coal trains or drags. 

So one scenario would be that an AMTK is following a CSX - both at say 60 MPH = 88 ft./ sec. on this portion of the 'Water Level Route' - and getting yellow blocks, approaching this 11-mile stretch.  Then the AMTK diverges onto its 'fast track' - maybe it has to cross over the opposite direction main first, depending on direction - and pulls out the stops and accelerates to the 110 MPH = 161 ft./ sec.  The rear of the CSX train will cover that 11 miles in 11 minutes; the front of the AMTK will cover the same distance in about 6 minutes, plus something more for acceleration up to and deceleration back down from that speed.  So, at the end of the 6 minutes, the AMTK will have traveled the 11 miles, but the rear of the CSX will have covered only 6 miles.  Hence, the front of the AMTK will have gained 5 miles on the rear of the CSX.  That's seems like it might be enough of a margin to allow for acceleration and deceleration of the AMTK, the length of the CSX train - 1 to 2 miles, the length of the AMTK train - 0.1 to 0.2 miles or so, separation distances at the beginning and end of the maneuvers, cross-overs from the opposite main, etc.  Yeah - it makes some sense now.

- Paul North. 

I think the reason this is being done is because the fed is only offering a measly $58,000,000, and this is all the state can come up with to spend it.  “We are doing it to show the federal government that we are serious.”  This is childlike. 

It will be fun to watch the money disappear way before the eleven miles of track gets built.  I think it might show the public something quite different than how exciting it is to go 110 mph.

Paul_D_North_Jr

So it would function as a 3rd track, being essentially a very high-speed passing siding, available only to or mainly for passenger trains - kind of like the railroad version of an HOV = High Occupancy Vehicle lane, or similar to the shorter and steeper alignments up certain mountain grades that the faster and higher HP/ton trains such as intermodals use to get around slower trains, such as coal trains or drags. 

So one scenario would be that an AMTK is following a CSX - both at say 60 MPH = 88 ft./ sec. on this portion of the 'Water Level Route' - and getting yellow blocks, approaching this 11-mile stretch.  Then the AMTK diverges onto its 'fast track' - maybe it has to cross over the opposite direction main first, depending on direction - and pulls out the stops and accelerates to the 110 MPH = 161 ft./ sec.  The rear of the CSX train will cover that 11 miles in 11 minutes; the front of the AMTK will cover the same distance in about 6 minutes, plus something more for acceleration up to and deceleration back down from that speed.  So, at the end of the 6 minutes, the AMTK will have traveled the 11 miles, but the rear of the CSX will have covered only 6 miles. 

And, maybe we try out some of the loooong, 80 mph, moveable frog turnouts at each end to see how well they hold up to high traffic, heavy haul freight trains. (Amtrak has some on the NEC, but they see scant frt traffic)

If this approach pans out, it will be very useful for much of the midwest and Ohio corridors, and perhaps a few places in the south, as well, where there is good existing alignment for 110 mph operation along existing high usage freight routes.

This isn't being done anywhere in the world, that I know of.

I have a "Vision for High-Speed Rail in America" map that I pulled off the internet some time ago that shows the different proposed high speed rail lines; it shows a line going from NYC to Albany to Buffalo, so I don't see what the surprise is in all this?? There's another potential line from Chicago to Cleveland, I would imagine if both are implemented eventually they would join up for a NY-Chicago high speed line.

Bucyrus

fed is only offering a measly $58,000,000

Gee, it's not too often I see the phrases "$58 million" and "measley" in the same sentence.

We're still not in Everett Dirksen's territory, though . . .

oltmannd

  And, maybe we try out some of the loooong, 80 mph, moveable frog turnouts at each end to see how well they hold up to high traffic, heavy haul freight trains. (Amtrak has some on the NEC, but they see scant frt traffic) [snip]

Like the one in the photo linked below ?  Which is stated to be good for 200 KMPH = 135 mph (HSR advocates and aficionados - don't read the rest of the caption, unless you want to cry . . .   )

  http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=240339 

- Paul North.

wjstix

I have a "Vision for High-Speed Rail in America" map that I pulled off the internet some time ago that shows the different proposed high speed rail lines; it shows a line going from NYC to Albany to Buffalo, so I don't see what the surprise is in all this?? There's another potential line from Chicago to Cleveland, I would imagine if both are implemented eventually they would join up for a NY-Chicago high speed line.

...or even leave the Cleveland - Buffalo piece at 79 mph if there isn't the justification to do the improvment (or it's just way down on the list...). You could still have Chicago to Buffalo and NY to Cleveland trains that would be reasonable fast.

Paul_D_North_Jr

OK, now I see how this would be helpful a little better. I'm with Don on this one - ''One test is worth a thousand opinions'' [from an EMD guy, maybe Bruce Meyer].

So it would function as a 3rd track, being essentially a very high-speed passing siding, available only to or mainly for passenger trains - kind of like the railroad version of an HOV = High Occupancy Vehicle lane, or similar to the shorter and steeper alignments up certain mountain grades that the faster and higher HP/ton trains such as intermodals use to get around slower trains, such as coal trains or drags. 

So one scenario would be that an AMTK is following a CSX - both at say 60 MPH = 88 ft./ sec. on this portion of the 'Water Level Route' - and getting yellow blocks, approaching this 11-mile stretch.  Then the AMTK diverges onto its 'fast track' - maybe it has to cross over the opposite direction main first, depending on direction - and pulls out the stops and accelerates to the 110 MPH = 161 ft./ sec.  The rear of the CSX train will cover that 11 miles in 11 minutes; the front of the AMTK will cover the same distance in about 6 minutes, plus something more for acceleration up to and deceleration back down from that speed.  So, at the end of the 6 minutes, the AMTK will have traveled the 11 miles, but the rear of the CSX will have covered only 6 miles.  Hence, the front of the AMTK will have gained 5 miles on the rear of the CSX.  That's seems like it might be enough of a margin to allow for acceleration and deceleration of the AMTK, the length of the CSX train - 1 to 2 miles, the length of the AMTK train - 0.1 to 0.2 miles or so, separation distances at the beginning and end of the maneuvers, cross-overs from the opposite main, etc.  Yeah - it makes some sense now.

- Paul North. 

Paul North and Don Oltmannd  I am with you on this. After reviewing the NC/VA DOT's proposed Richmond - Petersburg - Raleigh MSR rail line the similarities are very revealing. 

1. This will give CSX a route to compare the operation of MSR  that will be like the  WASH - Richmond - Petersburg (planned to be at least 3 tracks WASH - PTB for almost all miles.

a.  Dispatching options can be tried out .

b.  The various options for diverging freight at Churchville can be tried out especially if the new track is on the south side of the present tracks.

c.  If not all grade crossings eliminated the those effects also studied in a high freight area ( Probably 4 quadrant gates any remaining) .

d.  PTC tests in and out.

e.  Universal cross overs at 5 mile point.

f.  the various combinations will be as many as all partys can come up with. 

2. There are 5 mile intervals for cross overs on the RIC - Petersburg 3 track operation planned .

3. PTB - Norlinda has plans for 5 mile sidings about every 10 miles (actually equal time distances). I have no idea if CSX in their transfer document has negotiated for any freight train rights over the route either regular or possible deversions.

4. Norlinda - Raleigh will have a second track added in some places for it to be double track sidings of 5 or 10 miles with single track segments of 5 or 10 miles. 

5.  Last 10 miles to Raleifgh 2nd track.

So I can see many test options that will be tried.

Since this track will be eventually be part of a NYP - Buffalo MSR route there is the possibility of CAT being added sometime in future for further testing with either motors or dual mode locos.