Currently, Acelas stop at Wilmington, DE. However, I noticed the curvature of the freight bypass was much more favorable with possible restriction of only 110 mph. Would express Acelas bypassing Wilmington be desirable?
Easing curves would entail a new passenger track and high bridge over the downstream Cristina River, bypassing the existing swing bridge. There does not seem to be any commercial marine use beyond the upstream swing bridge; so a low level fixed bridge may be acceptable at this river crossing.
HarveyK400Currently, Acelas stop at Wilmington, DE. However, I noticed the curvature of the freight bypass was much more favorable with possible restriction of only 110 mph. Would express Acelas bypassing Wilmington be desirable? Easing curves would entail a new passenger track and high bridge over the downstream Cristina River, bypassing the existing swing bridge. There does not seem to be any commercial marine use beyond the upstream swing bridge; so a low level fixed bridge may be acceptable at this river crossing.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
HarveyK400 Currently, Acelas stop at Wilmington, DE. However, I noticed the curvature of the freight bypass was much more favorable with possible restriction of only 110 mph. Would express Acelas bypassing Wilmington be desirable? Easing curves would entail a new passenger track and high bridge over the downstream Cristina River, bypassing the existing swing bridge. There does not seem to be any commercial marine use beyond the upstream swing bridge; so a low level fixed bridge may be acceptable at this river crossing.
In one sense, the existing passenger (NEC) right-of-way does bypass Wilmington. It was constructed by the Pennsylvania Railroad [Long Live the Keystone!!] not only to elevate passenger service above street traffic in downtown Wilmington but also to bypass the freight yard on Wilmington's north side (the name of which I forget) so that freight traffic does not foul passenger train moves through town.
What you are suggesting is, in effect, a bypass of a bypass. Since all (or maybe almost all -- there used to be a Washington-Philly- NYC train that kept rolling) passenger trains through Wilmington stop there anyway, it is difficult to justify the capital expense for an asset that would add so little to schedules.
(Personally, I believe much better use of capital for the NEC would be to straighten out kinks in New England, where the time/speed tradeoff would be more favorable, but that's another story.)
Finally, and presumably at the behest of our esteemed vice president, the Wilmington station is slated for a multi-million dollar refurbishing that no doubt will include everything but slot machines and a floor show. To bring your proposal into existence would necessarily nix the federal largesse directed to the Veep's home state, after much hoo-haw and hoopla, which probably means it could never happen.
[Addendum by edit] Another place, or more accurately, places to blow the wad that a Wilmington bypass plus new station would require would be to daylight the Virginia Avenue (SW) Tunnel in DC and re-boring a passenger tunnel under Baltimore, eliminating two overhead clearance restrictions that would permit bi-level passenger cars to traverse the line. Then, maybe you could run the Auto Train clear up to North Jersey...
billioHarveyK400 Currently, Acelas stop at Wilmington, DE. However, I noticed the curvature of the freight bypass was much more favorable with possible restriction of only 110 mph. Would express Acelas bypassing Wilmington be desirable? Easing curves would entail a new passenger track and high bridge over the downstream Cristina River, bypassing the existing swing bridge. There does not seem to be any commercial marine use beyond the upstream swing bridge; so a low level fixed bridge may be acceptable at this river crossing. I wonder too whether the "double bypass" would be justified for a few Acelas. This just looked like an opportunity with very low impact. I haven't run across anything on the New Haven end other than crossing Long Island Sound; but I can just hear the sailors wail at that! In one sense, the existing passenger (NEC) right-of-way does bypass Wilmington. It was constructed by the Pennsylvania Railroad [Long Live the Keystone!!] not only to elevate passenger service above street traffic in downtown Wilmington but also to bypass the freight yard on Wilmington's north side (the name of which I forget) so that freight traffic does not foul passenger train moves through town. What you are suggesting is, in effect, a bypass of a bypass. Since all (or maybe almost all -- there used to be a Washington-Philly- NYC train that kept rolling) passenger trains through Wilmington stop there anyway, it is difficult to justify the capital expense for an asset that would add so little to schedules. (Personally, I believe much better use of capital for the NEC would be to straighten out kinks in New England, where the time/speed tradeoff would be more favorable, but that's another story.) Finally, and presumably at the behest of our esteemed vice president, the Wilmington station is slated for a multi-million dollar refurbishing that no doubt will include everything but slot machines and a floor show. To bring your proposal into existence would necessarily nix the federal largesse directed to the Veep's home state, after much hoo-haw and hoopla, which probably means it could never happen.
I wonder too whether the "double bypass" would be justified for a few Acelas. This just looked like an opportunity with very low impact.
I haven't run across anything on the New Haven end other than crossing Long Island Sound; but I can just hear the sailors wail at that!
HarveyK400 HarveyK400 I haven't run across anything on the New Haven end other than crossing Long Island Sound; but I can just hear the sailors wail at that!
HarveyK400 I haven't run across anything on the New Haven end other than crossing Long Island Sound; but I can just hear the sailors wail at that!
I was thinking maybe a few curves between, say, Branford and New London, Connecticut, and between Westerly and Kingston, Rhode Island. As for the Connecticut Gold Coast (Greenwich-New Haven): forget it. Too many well heeled NIMBYs and the cost of land for right-of-way would be prohibitively expensive.
P.S. Color is New Haven orange>>>!
billioto bypass the freight yard on Wilmington's north side (the name of which I forget)
Thanks pal. Couldn't recall the name of that yard.
The fact that a flyover carries the northbound passenger main over the southbound approach to Edgemoor Yard says volumes about how the PRR sought to keep freight traffic out of the way of its NEC passenger trains (Yes, I know, there was no NEC when the PRR was in existence -- the NEC was strictly a creature of USRA/Conrail). Gotta ride the NEC, particularly between Wilmington and Newark to know what I mean.
I believe upstream from the swing bridge is the small boatyard that is home to the Kalmar Nyckel, a replica of a Swedish ship that brought Wilmington's first settlers across the pond. The Kalmar does for Wilmington what the Pride of Baltimore II (like its predecessor, the first Pride of Baltimore, which capsized and sank off Puerto Rico in 1986) does for Baltimore: serve as its city's floating ambassador. Building a fixed low level AMTK bridge next to the NS swing bridge would bottle up the Kalmar Nyckel.
And there are 3 more movable bridges upstream from the Kalmar's boatyard, at 4th St. (2-way), Walnut St. (one way into downtown), and Market St. (one way out of downtown). Those last two bridges flank the Amtrak station, which is on the north side of the Christina.
motor
There are two crossings of the Cristina River on the NS freight bypass. I'm suggesting a low level fixed bridge upstream past downtown and Market St for high speed expresses. A high level bridge would be needed adjacent the necessary low level NS swing span for the downstream crossing. I question whether trains can operate at 125.mph across a movable bridge. Also, I am not familiar with the volume of water traffic; but there doesn't seem to be much commercial use or many marinas upstream of the lower crossing.
One place where money could be spent efficiently would be replacement of caternary in places south of Wilmington where track conditions permit 150 mph runniing but the old caternary won't.
HarveyK400 There are two crossings of the Christina River on the NS freight bypass. I'm suggesting a low level fixed bridge upstream past downtown and Market St for high speed expresses. A high level bridge would be needed adjacent the necessary low level NS swing span for the downstream crossing. I question whether trains can operate at 125.mph across a movable bridge. Also, I am not familiar with the volume of water traffic; but there doesn't seem to be much commercial use or many marinas upstream of the lower crossing.
There are two crossings of the Christina River on the NS freight bypass. I'm suggesting a low level fixed bridge upstream past downtown and Market St for high speed expresses. A high level bridge would be needed adjacent the necessary low level NS swing span for the downstream crossing. I question whether trains can operate at 125.mph across a movable bridge. Also, I am not familiar with the volume of water traffic; but there doesn't seem to be much commercial use or many marinas upstream of the lower crossing.
Acelas would still stop in Wilmington (you think they'd diss the veep's home turf -- and by implication the veep himself -- by not serving it?). Re-read thread 3.
daveklepperOne place where money could be spent efficiently would be replacement of caternary in places south of Wilmington where track conditions permit 150 mph runniing but the old caternary won't.
Only two stretches Between Wilmington and Baltimore seem to have sufficient tangents and curvature that would allow 150-mph running and each save almost a minute:
Another advantage of constant-tension (I think that's the correct terminology) catenary is the reduced effect of heat and cold and the subsequent maintenance and service interruption cost savings.
The South Shore will finish converting its catenary this Fall; and trains are limited to just 79 mph. Wire-related incidents have affected the perception of the South Shore's reliability and discourages some potential riders.
billioHarveyK400 There are two crossings of the Christina River on the NS freight bypass. I'm suggesting a low level fixed bridge upstream past downtown and Market St for high speed expresses. A high level bridge would be needed adjacent the necessary low level NS swing span for the downstream crossing. I question whether trains can operate at 125.mph across a movable bridge. Also, I am not familiar with the volume of water traffic; but there doesn't seem to be much commercial use or many marinas upstream of the lower crossing. Acelas would still stop in Wilmington (you think they'd diss the veep's home turf -- and by implication the veep himself -- by not serving it?). Re-read thread 3.
I may not have been clear that my suggestion for a faster bypass was predicated on whether there is a market for such trains. An evaluation would be made of the demand for service at Wilmington, the impact on other city pair ridership, and overall revenue and cost. My point was that it could be done - not that it should be.
I doubt the VP rides much these days anyway. If it did matter, trains would be put on between Dover, DE (or Salisbury, MD) and Washington, DC.
daveklepper One place where money could be spent efficiently would be replacement of caternary in places south of Wilmington where track conditions permit 150 mph runniing but the old caternary won't.
Dave: have posted a separate thread about why the CAT upgrade will be delayed.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.