On Amtrak's web page: click news;click Amtrak employees AmtrakInk; click March 2009. Mr. Boardman in an interview states he is going to start talks with Virginia and CSX exploring extending electrification to Richmond and how fast he can get more viewliners delivered.
At first I could not believe what I read. 4 trains a day each way does not seem to justify electrification though 2 more each way apears to be in the works within 18 months. Where as the 12 -14 a day NYP to Albany would seem more likely. Is it that New York state has shown an unwilliness to share any stimulus money for that kind of project?
Since Virginia is going to be in on the talks maybe they have expressed some interest in powering VRE on the Fredricksburg line by electric motors. Anyone heard anything?
Another point is the HSR proposal to Raleigh and Charlotte. This would be a boost for that route and could up their standing for that HSR.
A problem for AMTRAK would be locomotive engine servicing. There are no facilities in Richmond and the ability to rotate them for periodic maintenance in Wilmington or Beech Grove would have to be worked out. Maybe reinstate the Cardinal connection RIC - Charlottesville?
CSX:--- Well that's a different matter. Would they want wire over all their tracks? Would they want 23'6" clearance? Would they want the third and fourth tracks installed that they have talked about for their corridor proposal? They would not benefit by using motors on that short leg. Maybe they would consider adding motors to the front of a train however the required brake test would slow down the velocity of those freights. If this electrification goes forward maybe there will be wholesale closing of grade crossings that CSX would naturally like?.How hard is it going to be for CSX to raise their present 70MPH limit on that subdivision?
RWM: was the electrification expansion that you hinted at a couple months ago?
25Kv CAT seems almost a certainy as the NEC's 11Kv can only deliver 1/5 the power for the same size wire and AMTRAK has gotten a lot of experience New Haven - BOS. However it would not surprize me to see 50Kv proposed especially with a 23'6" wire clearance.
Another obvious question. Where would terminate in RIC? Staples Mill, Broad Street (not likely) or Main Street Station?
I wouldn't take this proposal too seriously for the one reason you described, how does CSX feel about stringing 25kV electric cable over its tracks? However, more important is the fact that high speed rail means a top speed of more than 110 mph. Further, at the present time trains between Richmond and Washington cross 7 major bridges, and they run down the middle of the street in Ashland, VA. This means the line will have to be relocated to avoid the bridges and the middle-of-the-street running in Ashland.
blue streak 1 On Amtrak's web page: click news;click Amtrak employees AmtrakInk; click March 2009. Mr. Boardman in an interview states he is going to start talks with Virginia and CSX exploring extending electrification to Richmond and how fast he can get more viewliners delivered. At first I could not believe what I read. 4 trains a day each way does not seem to justify electrification though 2 more each way apears to be in the works within 18 months. Where as the 12 -14 a day NYP to Albany would seem more likely. Is it that New York state has shown an unwilliness to share any stimulus money for that kind of project? Since Virginia is going to be in on the talks maybe they have expressed some interest in powering VRE on the Fredricksburg line by electric motors. Anyone heard anything? Another point is the HSR proposal to Raleigh and Charlotte. This would be a boost for that route and could up their standing for that HSR. A problem for AMTRAK would be locomotive engine servicing. There are no facilities in Richmond and the ability to rotate them for periodic maintenance in Wilmington or Beech Grove would have to be worked out. Maybe reinstate the Cardinal connection RIC - Charlottesville? CSX:--- Well that's a different matter. Would they want wire over all their tracks? Would they want 23'6" clearance? Would they want the third and fourth tracks installed that they have talked about for their corridor proposal? They would not benefit by using motors on that short leg. Maybe they would consider adding motors to the front of a train however the required brake test would slow down the velocity of those freights. If this electrification goes forward maybe there will be wholesale closing of grade crossings that CSX would naturally like?.How hard is it going to be for CSX to raise their present 70MPH limit on that subdivision? RWM: was the electrification expansion that you hinted at a couple months ago? 25Kv CAT seems almost a certainy as the NEC's 11Kv can only deliver 1/5 the power for the same size wire and AMTRAK has gotten a lot of experience New Haven - BOS. However it would not surprize me to see 50Kv proposed especially with a 23'6" wire clearance.
Some VRE trains run as far south as Fredeicksburg, which is not all that far from Richmond. That sounds like a decent enough distance that juicing up a line would really benefit; you engineers can work out the details (and I'd appreciate your doing so whether you agree or not),
If it happens (and electrifying DC/Union to Richmond is a good prospect IMHO), I just hope Amtrak doesn't specify a height for their Superliners that turns out to be too low for bilevs on the VRE. I do not think VRE currently has bilevs, but why exclude the potential of a successful future? Would your twenty-three and a half foot clearance be OK?
RudyRockvilleMDFurther, at the present time trains between Richmond and Washington cross 7 major bridges, and they run down the middle of the street in Ashland, VA. This means the line will have to be relocated to avoid the bridges and the middle-of-the-street running in Ashland.
Rudy: I agree about Ashland. Did't list that problem but it is a big one .. Would the proposal that high speed go to Richmond from either Pleasnt Hill or Doswell to the old C&O route (curve straightening completed of course) to Richmond sound better? Ashland itself? (UGH)! Will the city fathers of Ashland try every way to scuttle that route? Now about bridges. What is the problem with bridges? They have been around for centurys can't get there from here otherwise.
al-in-chgoI just hope Amtrak doesn't specify a height for their Superliners that turns out to be too low for bilevs on the VRE. I do not think VRE currently has bilevs, but why exclude the potential of a successful future? Would your twenty-three and a half foot clearance be OK?
AL: The reason I mentioned 23'6" it is a number who our expert RWM said he wished he always had on all routes. That height would certainly enable maintenance equipment better clearances. The only problem with that height is the tunnel going into WASH from the south.Superliners now go through it. Anyone know its clearance? Who knows ---are Superliners equal to or higher than any bi-levels except the Alask RR cars? Weren't they about 6" higher than Santa Fe's high levels?
The problem with the existing bridges on the ex RF&P is they cross substantially long spans of water, and they are only wide enough to acommodate the two existing tracks; a third, single track bridge adjacent to the new two track bridge over the Quantico Bay is under construction, but I don't know if it is wide enough to acommodate another track so that there are two double track bridges crossing the Quantico Bay down the road. In any event a new dedicated high speed line will have to be built between Washington and Richmond, and if that line is built along the alignment of the existing ex RF&P line new bridges will have to be built over the long water courses to acommodate the high speed line's tracks. The construction of the new bridges will be expensive.
At the present time there are 7 trains each way between Washington and Richmond; this does not include the Auto Train which would probably have to use the existing ex RF&P line anyway because of the load imposed on the tracks by the weight of the auto carriers; moreover it would not pay to electrify the Auto Train if the electrification stops in Richmond because the distance between Lorton and Richmond is short.
If a dedicated, electrified high speed line were constructed between Washington and Richmond the VRE trains could not use it either because they make too many stops, and they might get in the way of the faster running high speed trains.
RudyRockvilleMD If a dedicated, electrified high speed line were constructed between Washington and Richmond the VRE trains could not use it either because they make too many stops, and they might get in the way of the faster running high speed trains.
I'll conceed the extra bridges. It is a necessity anytime more tracks are added that the infrastructure will be added to. (bridges, culverts, etc.). Those are expenses that will be expected. Now the use by VRE stations are a separate issue. The only way for their use of this ROW would to have station tracks so same direction HSR can pass Those that i've seen in California really seem to be of good use. Also you can have high level boarding that would speed VRE up. If you have studied the California HSR proposals this is the way it is planned.
VRE uses bilevel coaches exclusively, but the top level is much smaller than the bottom level. I'm not sure if they fall into your definition of "bilevel," though.
http://vre.org/service/consist.htm
Not so many commuter systems use the "gallery" style of bilevel. That's the kind (like Metra) that has conventional, 2 + 2 seating at lower level, then stairs (one at each end I think) that curl up to an upper level. Most of the seats up there run linear to the coach body. There is a wide open space running most of the length of the car where you can look down and see the commuters below. Of course, this doesn't permit the addition of a great many extra seats up top but it is noticeable.
OTOH "Double-deckers" are used by systems like the New Mexico RailRunner (sp?) and the new Breda equipment for NJT (other series and manufacturers too I'd guess) that have two distinct floors for seating. Typically the "bottom" floor is a step or two or three down from the level at which people board the train, while the upper level is about three-fourths of a flight up from boarding level. With its 2+2 seating, the upper level is very similar to the lower level. I've tried the lower level and it wasn't the least bit claustrophobic to me, which surprised me because I thought I might have been a little spoiled by so much experience riding the "open hole", less space-efficient gallery bilevs here in the Chicago area.
Some people want to call double-decker cars a "tri-level" because entry level into/out of the car calls for a different height of standing, vertically partway in between the upper and lower level. To me that's a meaningless distinction.
I'm sure there's lots of roon to fight but as for me, as of now, "Gallery" and "Double Decker" are good and descriptive terms.
Al, one thing I missed in your post is the height of the car. Are the Gallery Cars shorter in height than true bilevel cars?
al-in-chgo [snips] Some people want to call double-decker cars a "tri-level" because entry level into/out of the car calls for a different height of standing, vertically partway in between the upper and lower level. To me that's a meaningless distinction. I'm sure there's lots of roon to fight but as for me, as of now, "Gallery" and "Double Decker" are good and descriptive terms.
Gee, why not call them "Split-Levels" instead, like the 1950s house design ?
(I've lived in 2 of them for about 33 years total = 2/3 of my life)
Or, around this part of eastern Pennsylvania, a house desing with that kind of entry and then up-or-down to the 2 main floors is often called a "Bi-Level", or sometimes a "Raised Ranch" . . .
- PDN.
Found out Boardman spoke to an audience and mentioned he would like to see WASH - RIC electrification completed in five years and extended to Jacksonville in 10 years.
aegrotatio Al, one thing I missed in your post is the height of the car. Are the Gallery Cars shorter in height than true bilevel cars?
Gallery coaches, both diesel-hauled and MU cars, measure 15' 10" in height.
Re: "Gallery coaches, both diesel-hauled and MU cars, measure 15' 10" in height." - Thanks, Paul!
BTW I've seen pictures of modern commuter rail cars that some people call "diaphragms": the vestibules that connect coaches (and are not customarily trafficked to enter or exit the train since the cars have mid-length doors) are not the same height relative to the roofline of the cars, but slant down toward the actual level of what's necessary to get out on the platform to exit. Trains so configured look a bit like pop-it beads if you use your imagination. Believe the New Mexico Rail Runner is that way.
As for galleries, I'm used to them and like them and I can think of no non-Amtrak bilevs in the Metra (Chicago-area) transit district that don't use them. But I was pleasantly surprised at the height available on the lower level of the double-decker type of rail cars NJT has been running lately. Note that a little extra height is available by locating coach level 1 a few steps down from the mid-coach platforms for exiting and entering; that, along with trimming the overall level 1 height a little, makes for an efficient hight but not overly claustrophobic IMHO; and allows the same or similar height for coach level 2.
IOW if double-deckers really do handle larger loads I would not be opposed to them being phased in here on the Metro lines (recall that even the IC electric is a gallery bilevel setup). - a.s.
blue streak 1 Found out Boardman spoke to an audience and mentioned he would like to see WASH - RIC electrification completed in five years and extended to Jacksonville in 10 years.
Well, who wouldn't . . . provided it's on someone else's dime. - a.s.
VRE's customer bulletin often reminds riders not to place their shoes in such a way that debris would fall upon riders in the lower level.
aegrotatio VRE's customer bulletin often reminds riders not to place their shoes in such a way that debris would fall upon riders in the lower level.
We get the same reminders on Metra, both in the timetables and periodically from the crew. Also, Metra's gallery bi-levels have a seating capacity of 145-162, I'm not sure if the double-deckers used elsewhere have a much greater capacity.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.