Shuster " NEC just to state of good repair "

[blue streak 1]

Shuster wants NEC just to state of goood repair not go high speed.  Have some comments but await yours.

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/amtrak/news/Shuster-Focus-NEC-investment-on-state-of-good-repair-not-highspeed-rail--36459

 

[John WR]

Streak,  

As I read Progressive Railroading, Bill Schuster did not quite she we should not build high speed rail.  He did say we should first put the line "in a state of good repair."  

In my view, we do need the new North River Tunnels.  However, I suppose he excludes that since that is a new project and unrelated to repairing what we have.  It should include replacing the catenary with a constant tension system especially between New York and Washington.   But I'm sure he would defer a new inland route between Boston and New York.  

If I were in Joe Boardman's shoes I would take him at his word and do all of the necessary catenary and track work on the existing line.  And I would also replace the equipment that is no longer economic to repair.  That is not a perfect solution but it would be a real step forward for Amtrak.

And, from a political perspective, it is proposed by a Republican member of the House.  Politics does change.  If we can get this from a conservative Republican House we can pursue the new line when the political climate changes.

John

[schlimm]

Federal funding for Amtrak's Northeast Corridor (NEC) service should focus on a state-of-good repair strategy rather than on high-speed rail, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) said in a statement issued after a subcommittee hearing held late last week..  

"Across the country I have seen the need to fix our nation's ports, bridges, tunnels and rails so we can have a more efficient and reliable transportation network in the future," said Shuster, who participated in the hearing. "However, we recognize that we do not have unlimited funds, so we need to focus on what makes sense and prioritize investment in infrastructure that we know is achievable. High-speed rail, while great in theory, is not realistic given the NEC's immediate need for state-of-good repair improvements."

Sounds like he is saying exactly what Blue Streak said Shuster said.

[daveklepper]

And I happen to agree with him.   I would go further and say that choke points should also be addressed, and the two additional Hudson Rover tunnels are a major step.   flyovers at Shell (much more economical east of the N. R. station, with track 5 used for most Penn Station service).   track realignment and platforms at New London.   Constant tension catenary everywhere on the NEC.

[schlimm]

Just a question, Dave Klepper:  I'm somewhat puzzled as to why so many forum contributors seem opposed to HSR?   I can understand the motives of those who oppose any government passenger rail, but there are a number who support Amtrak, especially the long distance trains, yet, like you, seem at best lukewarm about HSR. 

[henry6]

You didn't address the question to me...but here's my two cents anyway.  There are several reasons I am sort of against, or sound like I'm against, HSR.  Foremost is that it is undefined in the minds of too many people.  They think speed in romantic and daring terms or political terms rather than practical operating terms.  The question has be be raised before a rail goes down: is the cost worth it?  To be able to move at a high rate of speed means nothing if you can't do if for long distances instead of barely attaining it then having to do a station stop.  PTC may be a better answer than a 250mph railroad.  Also: what is high speed and to who?  100 MPH is still fast in many minds and is 21mph faster than the 79mph restriction most passenger trains often run under.  So what is gained?  PR? Pride? My only real admonition is to apply speed practically: be able to run more trains to increase capacity, be cost efficient to both the opreator and the rider, provide a reasonable return on investment, be environmentally safe and fuel efficient.  I don't think it should be done just for the sake of doing it.  Especially when there is a lot of contemporary routes, track, equipment, signaling, etc. that has not been maximized.

 

 

[blue streak 1]

henry6

 To be able to move at a high rate of speed means nothing if you can't do if for long distances instead of barely attaining it then having to do a station stop.  PTC may be a better answer than a 250mph railroad.  Also: what is high speed and to who?  100 MPH is still fast in many minds and is 21mph faster than the 79mph restriction most passenger trains often run under.  So what is gained?  PR? Pride? My only real admonition is to apply speed practically: be able to run more trains to increase capacity, be cost efficient to both the opreator and the rider, 

Henry has the right idea.   With PTC going into place many routes will be able to operate at 90 - 100 MPH where track alignments will allow.  All our posters keep bringing up 79 MPH and that may be a moot point.  Now maybe the FRA can be persuaded to only allow passenger speeds of 90 MPH on class 4 track and 110 MPH on class 5 track where alignments allow.  When reading the NC DOT site about the CLT - Raleigh - Petersburg route they anticipate 90 MPH over their ROW where alignments allow and 110 north of Norlina.

My main thought is just getting the NEC up to a state of good repair will knock off schedule times  at

1.  Portal bridge

2.  Elizabeth's  "S" curves,

3. South of Trenton to PHL

4. Baltimore B&P tunnel

5.  The thrree restricted draw bridges in Maryland.

6.  CAT rebuilding to constant tension eliminating very cold & very hot days with -slower orders which now are built into the Amtrak schedules.

It is only a matter of eliminating the permanent slow orderrs not going 220 MPH.  NYP - WASH non stop at 110 MPH average speed only take 2:05  (  Not enough demandin near future).  One stop 2:10, 2 stops 2:14 etc .  Some improvements with avg speeds of 125 &140 MPH ?.

Remember Connecticut DOT is rebuilding all its MNRR CAT to constant tension so that does not enter into this thread.

[oltmannd]

blue streak 1

My main thought is just getting the NEC up to a state of good repair will knock off schedule times  at

1.  Portal bridge

2.  Elizabeth's  "S" curves,

3. South of Trenton to PHL

4. Baltimore B&P tunnel

5.  The thrree restricted draw bridges in Maryland.

6.  CAT rebuilding to constant tension eliminating very cold & very hot days with -slower orders which now are built into the Amtrak schedules.

I agree that these are the kinds of things that can get done under the "state of good repair" umbrella.  

The messy, loud and frustrating part will come when it comes time to build (or not build) a new spine (or parts of one).

[oltmannd]

John WR

And, from a political perspective, it is proposed by a Republican member of the House.  Politics does change.  If we can get this from a conservative Republican House we can pursue the new line when the political climate changes.

Yes.  This is mostly a "good news" story.

[schlimm]

blue streak 1

henry6

 To be able to move at a high rate of speed means nothing if you can't do if for long distances instead of barely attaining it then having to do a station stop.  PTC may be a better answer than a 250mph railroad.  Also: what is high speed and to who?  100 MPH is still fast in many minds and is 21mph faster than the 79mph restriction most passenger trains often run under.  So what is gained?  PR? Pride? My only real admonition is to apply speed practically: be able to run more trains to increase capacity, be cost efficient to both the opreator and the rider, 

Henry has the right idea.   With PTC going into place many routes will be able to operate at 90 - 100 MPH where track alignments will allow.  All our posters keep bringing up 79 MPH and that may be a moot point.  Now maybe the FRA can be persuaded to only allow passenger speeds of 90 MPH on class 4 track and 110 MPH on class 5 track where alignments allow.  When reading the NC DOT site about the CLT - Raleigh - Petersburg route they anticipate 90 MPH over their ROW where alignments allow and 110 north of Norlina.

I'm not sure we need to emulate the SNCF's speeds.  As Don said on his blog (and here) a gradual approach by increasing sustained speeds more like the DB might be best.  henry is far off base, though, in thinking the ICE's there get up to speed only briefly between stops.  First of all, the top trains should have relatively few stops between major points.  Second, the typical top speed in Germany 's dedicated track is 280 kmh (175), although the limit is at least 300..  But mostly, from my observations, they seem to go around 230-260 (143-162) on most tracks.  Third, their ICE's accelerate VERY quickly b/c they are lighter than our overweight ACELA'S.   It isn't about national pride but making times between places competitive with flying.  so really we are only talking about  getting most of he RoW up to the speed (160 mph) promised by the Metrolners ~45 years ago?

[blue streak 1]

schlimm

.  Third, their ICE's accelerate VERY quickly b/c they are lighter than our overweight ACELA'S.   It isn't about national pride but making times between places competitive with flying.  so really we are only talking about  getting most of he RoW up to the speed (160 mph) promised by the Metrolners ~45 years ago?

I may be wrong but the faster European acceleration is due to many of the train sets in Europe that are powered by many axels just like Metroliners were.  Acelas are loco powered at each end.   So the European method  provides more HP per train set but less HP on each powered axel.  Smaller motors on each axel provide an inherently smoother ride and less damage to the  track , ROW and switches, frogs, etc.  

When Acela-2s are finally delivered I would expect them to also be multiple powered axels.   Is the still a definition of an EMU?

[schlimm]

blue streak 1

schlimm

.  Third, their ICE's accelerate VERY quickly b/c they are lighter than our overweight ACELA'S.   It isn't about national pride but making times between places competitive with flying.  so really we are only talking about  getting most of he RoW up to the speed (160 mph) promised by the Metrolners ~45 years ago?

I may be wrong but the faster European acceleration is due to many of the train sets in Europe that are powered by many axels just like Metroliners were.  Acelas are loco powered at each end.   So the European method  provides more HP per train set but less HP on each powered axel.  Smaller motors on each axel provide an inherently smoother ride and less damage to the  track , ROW and switches, frogs, etc.  

When Acela-2s are finally delivered I would expect them to also be multiple powered axels.   Is the still a definition of an EMU?

You are correct.  I don't know about the SNCF but the German ICE-1s (first HSRs) were loco powered at each end.  ICE-2s and ICE-3s are EMUs.    Most ICE-1s have a limit of 155 mph, except on the Nuremberg-Ingolstadt fast track where they can manage 174.  The acceleration is slower than the others as well, although better than Acela because they are lighter (ICE-1 = 849 T for 14 car train 2 locos vs Acela = ?).  The others' top speeds are 199, but are generally limited to 174.