Ten years ago (May 1999 issue), Trains had an extensive article on the upcoming new Acela train (“Amtrak’s Extreme Machine”). The article mentions the extra width of the cars to offer wider seats and aisles which will limit speed on certain curves. It mentions the 90 MPH speed restriction on Metro North. It talks about the planned signal system and the new electrification. It mentions many plusses and minuses but said nothing is going to prohibit the three-hour performance requirement for the Boston – New York segment.
However, when the train finally did start to run in the fall of 2000 the Acela took 3 hours and 28 minutes to cover the 231 miles. Since then there have been millions of dollars spent and many improvement projects completed (not sure of the timeline but examples are: new high-speed crossovers, Thames River Bridge replacement, Stamford Station redesign with high speed passing track, New Rochelle redesign, third freight track in Rhode Island, fourth track added in Attleboro, new crossties, etc., etc., etc.). So lots of money spent and lots of big improvements.
Now nine years and millions of dollars later these improvements have resulted in an Acela schedule which is actually L-O-N-G-E-R! What is wrong with this picture? A three hour schedule would require an average speed of only 77 MPH! Amtrak has made many incremental infrastructure improvements, but none of them has resulted in any incremental performance improvement. Why is it that the Acela hasn’t benefited from any of these expensive projects? Is Amtrak really capable of providing high-speed rail or is it time to find another solution?
But Boston, in America passenger train progress is measured by whether or not a train runs. Then you count the years from its beginning to measure the finer points of progress. If the public uses the train and the politicians and big business operators don't scuttle it, then that's progress!
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
"Is Amtrak really capable of providing high-speed rail or is it time to find another solution?"
What's the other solution?
The best solution would be to foster a competitive market environment where only the best service providers would survive. Unfortunately, given the dismal economics of passenger rail, no investors will put their money or the money of their stockholders into passenger rail. So a competitive solution is probably not in the cards.
As long as there is only one service provider, i.e. Amtrak for most intercity trains and state or local agencies for commuter rail, the service provider has no strong incentives to do things better, faster, cheaper, which is the key for better service.
One way to improve the situation would be to have the tracks in the U.S. owned by one organization, preferably a private operator, and open them up to anyone who wants to run a train on them and can meet the operating standards. Unfortunately, the government does not have the money to motive anyone to buy the rights-of-way; the government would have to at least subsidize the transition, and the freight railroads would never allow it to happen.
So we are stuck with Amtrak, at least for now, and there is little in the way of constructive alternatives on the horizon.
When the big push was on to electrify New Haven to Boston, a series of test runs were made by the FRA and CONEG (Coalalition of Northeastern Governors) with various non-electric trains, some with tilt and some without. These tests and simulations by FRA and independent contractors showed that the many curves (equivalent to 10 full circles) would define the schedule. This work also showed that a gas turbine powered train similar to the RTLIII's presently parked in Bear, DE, would match an electrified train within one or two minutes. Electrification had more Congressional and emotional support and this triumphed over good engineering sense.
Jerry Pier
We had a similar problem here in California with the HSR program here. Almost until the very end of the decision making process. Mag-Lev with speeds of 350 mph was in the running until Caltrain and several of the communities along San Francisco Bay voted it down in favor of the conventional rail 220 mph system. Cost was twelve billion difference.
Al - -in - Stockton
Maybe if the proposed possible extension of electrification of the NEC to Richmond happens we may see Acela service all the way to Richmond. --- But don't hold your breath.
Boston's original question is a great one! We keep dumping (who knows how) many hundred millions into "improving" the NEC but it is not reflected in the schedules. The Acelas are stuck with a run time of just short of 3:40 on the New York/Boston run, which is an average speed of about 65 mph.
There has to be a lesson here that is applicable to the Administration's effort to create several "high.speed" corridors.
Ok. What are we going to do? Ideally a true high speed railroad would need seperated, dedicated right of way. Between Boston and D.C., where are we to find new property for such a plant? Or where do we put the commuter and local congestion? While it is easy to blame private freight railroads for not carrying the ball (passenger trains) it cannot be overlooked that they need plant for thier product which likewise cannot be choked with passenger trains. Where do you put a new, high speed right of way?
Also, I fear there are other factors than economics and congestion here. I also fear there are lawyers/insureres purveying fear to our politicians and business leaders that should such high speed rail develop the liabilities would be great. Again we must ask how does it get done elsewhere?
So: land and liability are really our stumbling blocks. What do we do?
BostonTrainGuy Ten years ago (May 1999 issue), Trains had an extensive article on the upcoming new Acela train (“Amtrak’s Extreme Machine”). The article mentions the extra width of the cars to offer wider seats and aisles which will limit speed on certain curves. It mentions the 90 MPH speed restriction on Metro North. It talks about the planned signal system and the new electrification. It mentions many plusses and minuses but said nothing is going to prohibit the three-hour performance requirement for the Boston – New York segment. However, when the train finally did start to run in the fall of 2000 the Acela took 3 hours and 28 minutes to cover the 231 miles. Since then there have been millions of dollars spent and many improvement projects completed (not sure of the timeline but examples are: new high-speed crossovers, Thames River Bridge replacement, Stamford Station redesign with high speed passing track, New Rochelle redesign, third freight track in Rhode Island, fourth track added in Attleboro, new crossties, etc., etc., etc.). So lots of money spent and lots of big improvements. Now nine years and millions of dollars later these improvements have resulted in an Acela schedule which is actually L-O-N-G-E-R! What is wrong with this picture? A three hour schedule would require an average speed of only 77 MPH! Amtrak has made many incremental infrastructure improvements, but none of them has resulted in any incremental performance improvement. Why is it that the Acela hasn’t benefited from any of these expensive projects? Is Amtrak really capable of providing high-speed rail or is it time to find another solution?
Not lots of money by rail standards.
The thrid track in Rhode Island was so the P&W could run daylight freight service to Quanset Point Industrial Park without getting in the way of Passenger service. The bridge at New London was old and tired, it still leads to a reverse curve at the ferry dock and raillroad station with very low approch speeds. From Westerly Rohde Island through New London is the series of Grade Crossings that require speed restrictions (and yet an Acela still hit a car killing 3 people). The New Rochelle changes did help a lot.
Where the money is needed would be to raise the speed restriction south of New York. The replacement of the 70 year old PRR Catenary and the replacement of defective ties throughout the Corridor. Route 128 Station to the Rhode Island line (Boston Switch) and Warwick to Westerly RI is still the only area of full speed (150 mph).
The 20 Acela train sets have made people, here in the northeast, turn back to rail for ontime, nearly delay proof, travel.
Don U. TCA 73-5735
Boston:: Lets see almost all the money for the electrification came from the Congressional AMTRAK dedicated funds. Beside the obvious items of CAT; new signaling (acses), track upgrades (anyone know the PC times that we can compare NH - BOS NE regional is now about 2:30?). The new Haven - NYP is limited because of the MN problems ( a whole another set of items) There are the 20 - 30 some roads that went over that segment that had to be raised or eliminated; The grade crossings that were either eliminated by over/underpasses or completely closed; bridge upgrades to eliminate open deck spans; South station necessary improvements; Providence station moved; new South station maintenance facility; etc. Now the draw spans that are at the end of their useful life. The point is that on any route first you fix a route closing item then you get rid of the slowest segments first (less deceleration and acceleration time). That is the way you speed up any route. Now once those route closing problems (example: the Conn river draw) are in a state of good repair then finally maybe some route straightenings and permanent slows can be addressed.
There ar presently 156 route miles from New Haven - BOS.Acela schedules about 2:10. it will be impossible to cut that time to under 1:30. If the old NH route central Conn were reinstated maybe with no stops 1:20 time. Incrementally if one new realignment / speed up projec was started every other year covering about 15 miles ($100M +) then there would be a slow reduction in transit times in 20 yrs. The NC DOT model of incremental tiime reduction seems to placate the public. As far as longer times for Acela you have a much more satisfied public when your on time is above 90%. One late train kills a lot of good will (look at what happens to the non commuter trains when their on time dips to 50% or less.
Jerry Pier When the big push was on to electrify New Haven to Boston, a series of test runs were made by the FRA and CONEG (Coalalition of Northeastern Governors) with various non-electric trains, some with tilt and some without. These tests and simulations by FRA and independent contractors showed that the many curves (equivalent to 10 full circles) would define the schedule. This work also showed that a gas turbine powered train similar to the RTLIII's presently parked in Bear, DE, would match an electrified train within one or two minutes. Electrification had more Congressional and emotional support and this triumphed over good engineering sense. Jerry Pier
For this I blame the advocacy community as much as the gub'mint, and this is some of the reason I respond in rebuttal to some of the more glib pronouncements on these pages.
When TurboTrain designer Alan Cripe died in the late 1990's, NARP noted his passing in their newsletter with a remark to the effect that he had been an obstacle to the electrification north of New Haven on account of his continued promotion of turbine trains. NARP could have honored him on hearing of his death by reminding people about his role in the United Aircraft TurboTrain and its part in the Northeast Corridor Demonstration project that set the stage in its own way for Amtrak and the continuation of passenger service to this date, but they chose to be snarky about this opposition to a pet project supported by NARP.
With respect to the testing of tilt trains, what was the verdict on that highly-curved route with respect to conventional vs passive tilt such as TurboTrain and Talgo vs active tilt such as LRC, Pendolino, and the like? The Acela is supposed to tilt, and my understanding is that it does tilt, but owing to clearance reasons it is limited to the amount of tilt of the passive systems such as Talgo. Do they tilt the Acela, and does it help their schedule any, and it would their schedule be better if they had worked out the loading gauge so they could do full tilt?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
blue streak 1 Boston:: Lets see almost all the money for the electrification came from the Congressional AMTRAK dedicated funds. Beside the obvious items of CAT; new signaling (acses), track upgrades (anyone know the PC times that we can compare NH - BOS NE regional is now about 2:30?). The new Haven - NYP is limited because of the MN problems ( a whole another set of items) There are the 20 - 30 some roads that went over that segment that had to be raised or eliminated; The grade crossings that were either eliminated by over/underpasses or completely closed; bridge upgrades to eliminate open deck spans; South station necessary improvements; Providence station moved; new South station maintenance facility; etc. Now the draw spans that are at the end of their useful life. The point is that on any route first you fix a route closing item then you get rid of the slowest segments first (less deceleration and acceleration time). That is the way you speed up any route. Now once those route closing problems (example: the Conn river draw) are in a state of good repair then finally maybe some route straightenings and permanent slows can be addressed. There ar presently 156 route miles from New Haven - BOS.Acela schedules about 2:10. it will be impossible to cut that time to under 1:30. If the old NH route central Conn were reinstated maybe with no stops 1:20 time. Incrementally if one new realignment / speed up projec was started every other year covering about 15 miles ($100M +) then there would be a slow reduction in transit times in 20 yrs. The NC DOT model of incremental tiime reduction seems to placate the public. As far as longer times for Acela you have a much more satisfied public when your on time is above 90%. One late train kills a lot of good will (look at what happens to the non commuter trains when their on time dips to 50% or less.
In 1955 The Senator was carded for 2 hours and 43 minutes from Boston to New Haven, with 4 hours and 20 minutes from Boston to New York. Of course, in 1955 the train would have been in the hands of the New Haven from Boston to New York.
The Catenary issue strikes me as a major impediment to increasing speeds on the NEC..After all the new catenary from New Haven North is designed specifically for HSR with the pulley/ballast system to maintain tension in varied wind conditions.South of NH the older NY,NH& H and PRR catenary is not built to anything like those specs, replacing it would be quite expensive. I have not looked into what the Stimulus Bill will do for the NEC, does anyone know if Amtrak is planning an upgrade?
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
The stimulus bill does not talk at all about upgrading any catenary for higher speeds.
Still, that's a lot of money for a measly 15 mph speed boost in three or four tiny sections, don't you think?
As for loading guage concerns with respect to tilting of Acela, that was an urban myth pushed by the anti-Amtrak political community.
Unfortunately the Metro-North stupidity is real.
I have been trying to get the speed performance specification figures for the New Rochelle - New Haven upgrade of MN"s/CONN DOT's CAT that is now being replaced. Anyone know how much is completed? Once that upgrade is finished there MAY be an increase in speed on that segment. It is my understanding that the old NH CAT is the limiting speed especially on very hot or very cold days. If the performance of the new CAT is better then maybe a few minutes can be shaved south west of New Haven.
Actually isn't it probably the best that turbos were not used for the Acelas as the enviromental and oil conservation people would now be yelling for its replacement with electric traction.?
Also no upgrades of CAT yet south of NYP just necessary repair. Until the electrical distribution problems are solved south of NYP the AMTRAK total load on the PRR 11Kv 25 HZ system cannot be increased. Now the stimulus bill is probably going to solve those problems by Mar 30, 2011.
I was riding on Metro-North between New Haven and NY just the other day, and I have a couple comments (and questions) to ask...
For one, the track was a bit curvy. We were held to 60 MPH most of the way, and even the Acela couldn't do much better than 90 if it was allowed.
Also, the MU's seemed to be riding a bit rough. I saw several high-speed crossovers (without frogs; there's a second set of points in place of the frog) but there were a lot of standard switches all over the place which didn't help to make the ride glassy-smooth. And the MU sets (the older M3s, I think; no M7s here!) were showing their age and use.
Here's my question about that. Are the MU sets well maintained with good springs, and does the Acela ride better? If the MUs have old springs, their riding characteristics can be explained. They are run hard at high speeds, many hours a day, and could definetely be a bit worn. The Acela probably runs a lot smoother.
While the Acela is definetely held back to some degree, I don't think that line could be increased to anything above 125...
The impediments to a true HSR route on the NEC is the fact that route was laid out in the 19th century by surveyors on horseback who could barely comprehend speeds of 40 MPH let alone 200 MPH. For the job they were asked to do, they did it very well, for the job that we want to call HSR it was done not at all.
As I am sure many of us have discovered over the years in our own lives....it costs many times more to retrofit something to a 'new or enhanced' purpose than it would have cost to design the item to the purpose on initial construction. Anything and everything that is done to the NEC is a retrofit. To straightne the curvy alignment for true HSR service would cost into the tens of billions, both for land aquisition and construction. Don't forget, for the most part civilization has built upto the property lines of the existing route, any change of alignment will require land aquisition....maybe, with all the motgage defaults and reduced real estate prices, now would be the time to begin a land aquisition project.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Sam1 In 1955 The Senator was carded for 2 hours and 43 minutes from Boston to New Haven, with 4 hours and 20 minutes from Boston to New York. Of course, in 1955 the train would have been in the hands of the New Haven from Boston to New York.
Earlier, the current schedule was stated as 3 hours 40 minutes from NY to Boston. So, in 54 years the schedule is better by 40 minutes, or about a 15% improvement. Not too bad. Or maybe the parameters of the debate haven't been set out clearly.
Evidently, there was some hype when the project was announced: 3 hours between Boston and New York. Is the critical argument that 3 hours is practical, but not attained because of Amtrak stupidity, or is it simply the contrast between dream and reality? Do I remember that the original 3-1/2 hour Acela schedule was an express that turned out not to be as popular as multi-stop trains?
DMUinCT Where the money is needed would be to raise the speed restriction south of New York. The replacement of the 70 year old PRR Catenary and the replacement of defective ties throughout the Corridor.
Where the money is needed would be to raise the speed restriction south of New York. The replacement of the 70 year old PRR Catenary and the replacement of defective ties throughout the Corridor.
If I were on the Congressional committee considering authorizing money for the cat upgrade and the tie project, I would be asking precisely what run time reductions will occur if these items are accomplished, on what kind of a timetable, and who in Amtrak management is going to be held responsible should those targets be missed.
If I was having a bad day, I might point out that the tie project is necessary because Amtrak did not have sufficient quality control measures in place to prevent the installation of defective ties the last time we paid for that.
Tiesenhausen Sam1 In 1955 The Senator was carded for 2 hours and 43 minutes from Boston to New Haven, with 4 hours and 20 minutes from Boston to New York. Of course, in 1955 the train would have been in the hands of the New Haven from Boston to New York. Earlier, the current schedule was stated as 3 hours 40 minutes from NY to Boston. So, in 54 years the schedule is better by 40 minutes, or about a 15% improvement. Not too bad. Or maybe the parameters of the debate haven't been set out clearly. Evidently, there was some hype when the project was announced: 3 hours between Boston and New York. Is the critical argument that 3 hours is practical, but not attained because of Amtrak stupidity, or is it simply the contrast between dream and reality? Do I remember that the original 3-1/2 hour Acela schedule was an express that turned out not to be as popular as multi-stop trains?
The current timetable has the southbound Acela schedule from South Sta to NYP at 3:30 or 3:35 for most trains. The northbound trains appear to have an additional 7 minutes of padding.
The amazing thing to me is the number of trains being operated on the north end of the NEC. Early Amtrak, there were perhaps a dozen each way. Now there are 10 departures from Boston before lunch alone.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd The amazing thing to me is the number of trains being operated on the north end of the NEC. Early Amtrak, there were perhaps a dozen each way. Now there are 10 departures from Boston before lunch alone.
RE: The impediments to a true HSR route on the NEC is the fact that route was laid out in the 19th century by surveyors on horseback who could barely comprehend speeds of 40 MPH let alone 200 MPH. For the job they were asked to do, they did it very well, for the job that we want to call HSR it was done not at all.
You might be surprized. I have a copy of the original NEC plan from Amtrak which shows consistant and surprisingly high speeds between Boston and New Haven.
RE: The thrid track in Rhode Island was so the P&W could run daylight freight service to Quanset Point Industrial Park without getting in the way of Passenger service.
Right, to keep them out of the way of the Acela which according to this plan travels between Providence and Davisville at 80 - 150 MPH (except for a very short 65 MPH curve just before the Cranston crossovers).
RE: The bridge at New London was old and tired, it still leads to a reverse curve at the ferry dock and raillroad station with very low approch speeds.
The listed speed over the Thames River Bridge is 65 MPH! The curve is 50 MPH and the station is listed at 35 MPH.
RE: From Westerly Rohde Island through New London is the series of Grade Crossings that require speed restrictions (and yet an Acela still hit a car killing 3 people).
The plan shows 70 - 90 MPH through the crossings in Connecticut and 110 MPH is the maximum speed allowable for a public grade crossing. Didn't that accident happen at the grade crossings west of New London? Miner's Lane (aka East Neck Road)? That's not a very high speed section and I believe it has four quadrant gates. I have to say some people just do stupid things when it comes to grade crossings. Anyway all NEC grade crossings are under the allowable 110 MPH speed restriction.
Again, to travel 3 hours between Boston and New York you would need to average 76.33 miles per hour based on 229 miles which this plan shows (for some reason it's listed at 231 miles in Amtrak's schedule). Most speeds on this plan are well over that and a few very short stretches (e.g., curves and stations) are listed at under 76 MPH.
Answering your questions in order:
1. The trains tested were an F40 Locomotive with Amfleet coaches, Talgo passive tilt, LRC active tilt, RTG II Turboliners and RTL Turboliners. Tests were run at cant deficiencies of 4, 6 and 8 inches for all trains. (See note below)The LRC was also run at 9” cant deficiency Test runs were from Boston to New Haven.
2. Results show all trains can run at cant deficiencies above the FRA 3 inch limit (In Europe, 125 mph trains run at 6 inches of cant deficiency without passenger complaint.) The LRC successfully eliminates lateral accelerations on long curves but the Talgo performed better on entrance and exit from curves. Of the trains without tilt, Amfleet and RTL were equal but the RTG was significantly poorer.
3. Acela uses an upgrade of the LRC tilt system. In that the tests showed that passenger comfort did not suffer particularly at cant efficiencies up to 7 inches, changing the clearances for high tilt would not likely improve the schedule
Note.
Cant deficiency is measured as the inches of tilt above the super-elevation of the track. It has everything to do with comfort and nothing to do with safety. If nothing but high speed passenger trains were running on the line, super-elevations (banking) could be increased, obviating the need for tilt, The joint use of the route for freight trains defines the super elevation
To the best of my knowledge, the practice is to use the tilt system only if it is active on all cars, Reliability on a per car basis is 99% but in a 10 car trains this amounts to a 10% failure rate so a schedule based on tilt performance would only be met 90% of the time or, put another way, one train out of ten would be late.
Jerry (and all),
I'm curious if Amtrak ever considered dual mode turbo/electric trainsets? O.C I'm aware that the United Aircraft turbotrains (and possibly the later trainsets?) could operate on 3rd rail power into Grand Central but what about Turbine plus pantograph? That way the trainsets could operate the length of the corridor..
I haven't found any old ridership numbers other than overall ones. My recollection from riding in the 70s and 80s is that pre-Amfleet trains ran about 8 cars of 60 seat coaches and post-Amfleet ran 8 or 9 cars (same as now) of 80 seat coaches. The Boston to NYP load factor was roughly 50% on the trains I rode. The trains filled up at NYP, generally. Fares, from the early 70s to now have outstripped inflation by a good bit, too.
Amtrak has an aversioin to gas turbines so if anyone ever suggested such a thing, continuity of employment would involved. A dual mode with catenary and gas turbine electric capability would increase locomotive weight by the turbine alternator unit and the fuel tanks. A scheme some of us thought of was to have a gas turbine electric (no pantograph) in trail from Boston to Penn Station and then use gas turbine power in the lead from Penn Station to WDC (letting the trailing electic locomotive push the train until exiting the tunnels). This would get around the performance limiting antique 25 Htz catenary and gain both time and reliability.The Bombardier Jet Train is ideally suited to the gas turbine task. The Acela's are over-powered anyway so it sounds like a winner, at least to me. .
A number of years ago, FRA estimated that replacing the 25 Htz system would cost at least 1 Billion dollars and upgrading the 60 Htz section from New Haven to Penn Station would cost a similar amount. This isn't a very sexy program so funding could be hard to find. The dual mode solution could be quicker and less costly
Discussions in various other threads have long suggested that dual-mode isn't all that it's cracked up to be. Note that both the FL9's and the P32's operate as straight electrics only when they aren't in the open air. LIRR experimented with dual-mode gas-turbine electric MU cars in the early 1970's and they were all converted to straight electrics after a while.
I was alway intrigued by the idea of running the Rohr Turbos from DC to Albany, running on 3rd rail under the Hudson. I have no idea if the 3rd rail is still in place in the tubes. It was there originally when the DD1s did their thing and apparently was still in place in the late 50's when the PRR did a test trip from NYP down the NY&LB with FL9s.
I thought it would be nice, natrual market extension to dovetail some of the DC to NYP trains with the NYP to Albany-Rensselaer trains.
As for a true dual mode, the advent of AC traction makes that much more practical than with DC traction. It seems to me that having either a transformer or a gas turbine/generator feed a DC buss is a much simpler thing than having the primary propulsion control system act on transformer tap switches or generator excitation directly.
Yes, the third rail does extend through the Hudson River Tunnel but barely. But aside from that, why run Rhor's to NYP where they have to reverse to go to D.C. Why not Albany to NJ via the River Line to the Corridor? There would be a need to probably double track the River Line, but it was back in NYC days anyway, so the space is there with a few exceptions. Such a service could serve the upcoming Stewart's Air Field in Newburgh, NY as well as the rest of the west bank of the Hudson, avoid NYC and NYP using Newark, NJ as the NYC area stop while not having to reverse direction. It might be an interesting marketing opportunity for Amtrak as well as helping CSX, Amtrak, NJT, the states of NY and NJ and the Port Authority with some of thier capacity problems along the way!
henry6 Yes, the third rail does extend through the Hudson River Tunnel but barely. But aside from that, why run Rhor's to NYP where they have to reverse to go to D.C. Why not Albany to NJ via the River Line to the Corridor? There would be a need to probably double track the River Line, but it was back in NYC days anyway, so the space is there with a few exceptions. Such a service could serve the upcoming Stewart's Air Field in Newburgh, NY as well as the rest of the west bank of the Hudson, avoid NYC and NYP using Newark, NJ as the NYC area stop while not having to reverse direction. It might be an interesting marketing opportunity for Amtrak as well as helping CSX, Amtrak, NJT, the states of NY and NJ and the Port Authority with some of thier capacity problems along the way!
Even double tracked, the River Line would be SLOOOWWW! There still is too much freight, even if double tracked, to snake passenger trains through and around. And, I don't think the alignment is nearly as good as the Hudson Line. Also, Newburgh not withstanding, the bulk of the population south of Albany is on the eastern shore of the Hudson.
I was thinking the market wasn't so much Capitol District to the NEC south, but NEC south to the Westchester and Duchess Co. area.
Your proposal would work OK for new service - Newburgh to Hoboken commuter service might be a good thing! But I was thinking about re-arranging existing service - same trains on each route, just dovetail them and run thru.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.