I JUST CAN'T BELIEVE IT!

[HarveyK400]

oltmannd

Yup. That's actual. There are few 6" superelevated curves, too. There are only a couple thru freight trains a day on the Hudson Line, though.

NS has quite a bit of 5" super-elevation on the ex-Sou mainline between Charlotte and Atlanta. It's there primarily to keep the intermodal trains rolling along at 60 mph for some decent stretches.

 

Incredible.  Are their any findings on comfort, train-handling, wear, and maintenance costs?

[oltmannd]

HarveyK400

Is it true as I read recently that cab signaling would be needed in addition to PTC for more than 79 mph?

No. Any form of PTC by itself should be good enough. But, PTC is at least 5 years off. You can do cab signalling right now and get >79 mph. All Amtrak locomotives are equipped. Putting it in on the 3rd track would be a pretty straightforward thing to do.

BTW, virtually all NS road locos and a good chunk of CSX's fleet are cab signal equipped (NS has the whole Pittsburgh Line and CSX has the RF&P and Boston Line equipped)

[oltmannd]

HarveyK400

oltmannd

Just did a little looking at the Hudson Line track charts. A one degree curve with 5-1/2" superelevation is good for 110 mph passenger. Looking at the Chicago Line, it looks like there are lots of good stretches with 1 degree curves or less

 

5.5" cant is awfully high with mixed traffic - is that actual?  3.5" cant with a 5" deficiency waiver would do it too going the other way.

Yup. That's actual. There are few 6" superelevated curves, too. There are only a couple thru freight trains a day on the Hudson Line, though.

NS has quite a bit of 5" super-elevation on the ex-Sou mainline between Charlotte and Atlanta. It's there primarily to keep the intermodal trains rolling along at 60 mph for some decent stretches.

[HarveyK400]

oltmannd

Just did a little looking at the Hudson Line track charts. A one degree curve with 5-1/2" superelevation is good for 110 mph passenger. Looking at the Chicago Line, it looks like there are lots of good stretches with 1 degree curves or less

 

5.5" cant is awfully high with mixed traffic - is that actual?  3.5" cant with a 5" deficiency waiver would do it too going the other way.

[HarveyK400]

Paul_D_North_Jr

....

CP 382 is at the west end of CHILI, where the West Shore Branch connects on the south, and the 'NCS' joins into Track 001 from the north - altogether, 4 tracks go to 2 tracks here, and then there's a 'universal crossover' just to the west.  Proceeding westwardly towards CHURCHVILLE is the big 'S-curve' that Don mentioned above - the first appears to be [blurry print is hard to read] 0 deg. 49 mins. to the left/ south with 1 inch superelevation, and the next appears to be 0 deg. 48 mins. to the right/ north, also with 1 inch superelevation.  There's then about 1/2 mile of tangent, then at MP 386/ Black Creek in CHURCHVILLE is another shorter single curve of 0 deg. 49 mins. to the left/ south with 1 inch superelevation.  After that the line is pretty much tangent westwardly through BERGEN at MP 386 to another 'universal cross-over' at CP 393 approaching SOUTH BYRON, although there are a couple of short curves along the way that are so shallow they did not even need any superelevation (0 inches).  So as Don stated, the limits of this project will likely be at those 2 existing interlockings.

....

 

Even more interesting that 110 mph may be more practical than I thought.  The cant for the 0-deg 49-min curves could be raised to 2" resulting in 4.69" underbalance (cant deficiency) for 110 mph passenger with a 5" waiver and 0.01" overbalance for 60 mph freight.  The 1" cant would be good for 100 mph. 

The 1.5-deg curves around Batavia might impose an 85 mph passenger limit with 3" cant resulting in 0.66" cant deficiency for 60 mph freight.

Is it true as I read recently that cab signaling would be needed in addition to PTC for more than 79 mph?

[HarveyK400]

henry6

First, the news story on TRAINS NEWSWIRE 2/23/10:

ALBANY, N.Y. — New York officials are planning an 11-mile high speed rail test track in the western part of the state parallel to CSX's Albany-Buffalo, N.Y., main line, the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle [N.Y.] has reported. Funds will come from $58 million received as part of the high speed rail development portion of last year's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Eight daily Amtrak trains currently use the CSX line between Albany and Buffalo, and operate at speeds of 79 mph. The 11-mile test track will diverge from CSX near Churchville and reconnect near Byron, N.Y. Current Amtrak trains will use the line at 110 mph, the return to CSX tracks and conventional speeds at either end. The track would only shave a few minutes off schedules, as trains could only travel at 110 mph for about five minutes.

Ann Perdue, New York Department of Transportation's high speed intercity passenger rail manager, said the track will show federal officials the state is serious about faster trains. "Once we get more credibility, when they see that we are doing something meaningful, it will be easier to get money," she said.

CSX spokesman Bob Sullivan said it's premature to discuss selling right-of-way for the line.

I know you all understand that I am all for government helping in transportation matters and that I know it has happened from the very beginning.  BUT HERE I AM GOING AGAINST MYSELF!  This is ludicrous at best and goes down hill from there.  Why?  NY has already showed its mettle in high speed rail with work done and desire shown with Amtrak trackage from Schenectady east to virtually New York City limits.  Why spend this money for this project?  It is a total waste!!!  New York has already proven itself as being both in favor and in need of HSR of some kind so why waste this money for a five minute ride when they can do much better on longer segments already in place?  It would probably be cheaper to do it elsewhere, but that's my opinion.  I just feel this expenditure is uneccessary here, that the money can be better spent to increase speeds on already dedicated trackage.  I even agree with Bucyrus on the fact that HSR has to be introduced and implimented piece by piece rather than having the whole Lionel set put in place at once!!!  This is a waste of time, of energy, of money.  New York, like other states, are further ahead than this in the need and commitment to higher speed and HSR passenger service.  Plus there are areas of the State which need service...any kind of service, rather than be ignored. (Yeah, that's part of my position, I want passenger service where I live.  But I do understand the overall push for some kind of HSR program, too.  This just seems a diversion of funds and attention to the real approaches needed toward all passenger rail service in the Empire State!)

 

I'm puzzled too.  Aerial photos show the few curves on the existing line to be in the 1-degree range; so 110 mph would be feasible with 3.50" cant, 4.70" passenger cant deficiency, and 1.06" overbalance for freight.  What's to be gained to offset the considerable costs of land acquisition, grading a new route, and added grade crossings?

BTW the idea that a freight could be overtaken and passed on an 11-mile section doesn't take into account the speed reductions and recovery for 60-80 mph crossovers, the passenger following two blocks behind as the signal clears from yellow to green, and the freight has already traveled 1.9 of 11 miles and will encounter a yellow approach in 7.1 miles.  The passing section would need to be another 4 miles longer with a 110 mph limit, and still longer if trains otherwise are limited to 79 mph. Crossovers every 15 miles or a third track every other 15 miles along the route without the bypass would be needed if the Empire Corridor was improved for 110 mph service.  Incidentally, freight easily could be run at 70 mph, but this lengthens the passing sections.

The overtake costs 3.2 minutes with 60 mph crossovers.  What's left unsaid is that the passenger could be following the freight for up to 15 miles and losing almost another 7 minutes before the overtake without slowing the freight.

60-90-60    2.0 mi     1.6 min

90             0.4 mi     0.3 min

60             1.9 mi     1.9 min

60-110-60  4.7 mi      3.1 min

110           4.8 mi      2.6 min

60             1.7 mi     1.7 min

60-109       3.8 mi     2.5 min

               19.3 mi   13.7 min 

                             

[oltmannd]

Just did a little looking at the Hudson Line track charts. A one degree curve with 5-1/2" superelevation is good for 110 mph passenger. Looking at the Chicago Line, it looks like there are lots of good stretches with 1 degree curves or less

[BNSFwatcher]

A lot of the NYC was 2MT, east of Schenectady, especially over 'Albany Hill' and some stretches along the Hudson.  The ROW, and infrastructure (read:  bridges) is still in situ to the west and should be servicable.  CSX/Amtrak operate over bridges built at the same time.  One problem would be having passenger stations (e.g.:  Utica) on the 'wrong side' of the tracks.  Maybe rebuild the 'north mains' to modern freight standards and, later, upgrade the 'south mains'.  That, unfortunately, would take a while.  Dunno about the NIMBYs (cities).  You'd think they would welcome any improvements, but...

Hays

[oltmannd]

Paul_D_North_Jr

The 1999 ConRail Albany Divsion Maintenance Program and Track Chart [CAUTION - it's 372 pages, approx. 24.2 MB in size, so it takes a while to download] can be found at -

 http://www.multimodalways.org/docs/railroads/companies/CR/CR%20Track%20Charts/CR%20Albany%20Track%20Chart%201999.pdf 

Thanks!

[BNSFwatcher]

I would vote, if asked, to restore the entire route, (Albany, or wherever it resumed) to Buffalo to 4MT.  Disclaimer:  I don't hold any CSX shares.  I think it could be easily done, but the New York Thruway Authority (which was mandated to have been transformed into a toll-free highway many years ago, but that's a minor problem!) might object!  Last time thru, I didn't notice any encumberances to restoration, and I was traveling with a very knowledgable area dispatcher.  Funny situation, though.  He was riding backwards and would call every bridge, road crossing, switch, and feature on the line, well before they passed by the window of "Late Shore Limited".  I was totally impressed!  I hope he still has a job!!!  Yar!  Eleven miles ain't going to prove anything, except the power of the 'boondoggle'.

Hays

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

oltmannd

  [snip]  If you go from Chili Jct west to just short of Batavia along the existing NYC mainline ROW - that makes sense. The ROW is 4 tracks wide with the existing track scrunched on the south side, if I remember right. The eastern 2/3 of this is nearly arrow straight with a big S curve (maybe 1-1/2 deg) to the west, then straight to Batavia.

I thought I had an old Conrail track chart. I don't. I'll have to see if I have an old ETT to see where the existing interlockings are. Makes the most sense to tie into these. (I DID find that I have some NEC track charts, though...) 

The 1999 ConRail Albany Divsion Maintenance Program and Track Chart [CAUTION - it's 372 pages, approx. 24.2 MB in size, so it takes a while to download] can be found at -

 http://www.multimodalways.org/docs/railroads/companies/CR/CR%20Track%20Charts/CR%20Albany%20Track%20Chart%201999.pdf 

This area is on the Chicago Line's Track Chart pages 17 and 18, which are pages ''64 and 65 of 372'' in the 'PDF' format version, and sure enough, it shows the following:

CP 382 is at the west end of CHILI, where the West Shore Branch connects on the south, and the 'NCS' joins into Track 001 from the north - altogether, 4 tracks go to 2 tracks here, and then there's a 'universal crossover' just to the west.  Proceeding westwardly towards CHURCHVILLE is the big 'S-curve' that Don mentioned above - the first appears to be [blurry print is hard to read] 0 deg. 49 mins. to the left/ south with 1 inch superelevation, and the next appears to be 0 deg. 48 mins. to the right/ north, also with 1 inch superelevation.  There's then about 1/2 mile of tangent, then at MP 386/ Black Creek in CHURCHVILLE is another shorter single curve of 0 deg. 49 mins. to the left/ south with 1 inch superelevation.  After that the line is pretty much tangent westwardly through BERGEN at MP 386 to another 'universal cross-over' at CP 393 approaching SOUTH BYRON, although there are a couple of short curves along the way that are so shallow they did not even need any superelevation (0 inches).  So as Don stated, the limits of this project will likely be at those 2 existing interlockings.

The same territory is shown in the 1999 Employee Time Table for the Albany Division as the Chicago Line on page A-22 - page 24 of 96 of the 'PDF' format version, approx. 4.83 MB in size, at - 

 http://www.multimodalways.org/docs/railroads/companies/CR/CR%20ETTs/CR%20ETT%20Albany%20%237%201-15-1999.pdf 

That doesn't add too much more information, except that it shows the existing 3rd track/ siding east of CP 382 as being a 'Controlled Siding' that is 10,100 ft. long.  Interestingly, about 9 miles further west from the proposed end of this project, at CP 402 / Batavia, is another 10,100 ft. [??? - that's what it says, despite the MP's saying that it's more like 20,000 ft. = 4 miles instead] long controlled siding that is shown as going through to CP 406.  Along the way are a few more curves in the 1 to 1-1/2 degree range as Don noted above.  So with this project and perhaps a similar additional 9-mile extension to the west to Batavia, a total of about 26 miles of 3rd track could be made available, with the middle 20 miles being good for the 110 MPH.

For future reference, the various index pages that led to these are at -

 Railroad Archives at -

 http://www.multimodalways.org/archives/rrs/rrs.html 

Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) Archives at -

 http://www.multimodalways.org/archives/rrs/CR/CR.html  at -

Conrail Archives - Maintenance Program and Track Charts

 http://www.multimodalways.org/archives/rrs/CR/CR%20Track%20Charts/CR%20Track%20Charts.html 

and

Conrail Archives - Employee Timetables at -

 http://www.multimodalways.org/archives/rrs/CR/CR%20ETTs/CR%20ETTs.html 

- Paul North. 

 

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

blue streak 1

  [snip] I have not had any of luck in finding NY's proposal for this award. If any one does plese let us know.

From new airplane manfacturing and entering them into service. Test flights find the unexpected both to verify calculated performance and operational test flights to locate any unexpected daily operational problems. They are unexpected because something does always pop up. Also there will be others that do not appear on this test portion.  

See below.

Agree - very much so.  The guys with technical experience seem pretty near unanimous on this.  henry6, didn't you ever do a 'test market' or 'focus group' for an advertising campaign or similar for a new product, service, or customer, even though you'd done the same things many time before for others ?  This is of like kind, it seems to me. 

oltmannd

 [snip]  If you go from Chili Jct west to just short of Batavia along the existing NYC mainline ROW - that makes sense. The ROW is 4 tracks wide with the existing track scrunched on the south side, if I remember right. The eastern 2/3 of this is nearly arrow straight with a big S curve (maybe 1-1/2 deg) to the west, then straight to Batavia.

I thought I had an old Conrail track chart. I don't. [snip] 

I think that's it, Don.  After some wandering on the World Wide Web over lunchtime here, I was able to find the documents linked below.  Note that the ''Track 1a'' and ''Track 4'' designations refer not to track numbers as we would know them, but instead to the project's funding status under the Recovery Act's criteria and administrative process. 

With a little more time, I might be able to find a track chart of this area 'on-line' (isn't it just amazing that we can do that now ? )

Here's the link to the subject grant application - Project Location Map and Application Form Track 1a–Final Design (FD)/Construction & Track 4–FY 2009 Appropriations Projects for EW‐20 - 3rd Track from CP 382—CP393, FD/Construction Project Name: NY EW-20 1A-EmpireW-Ph 1 3rd Tk 382-393, which consists of  22 pages, approx. 1.00 MB in size -

 https://www.nysdot.gov/recovery/repository/NY_EW-20_FRA_application.pdf 

This is the link to the January 28, 2010 letter to Mr. Stanley Gee of NYSDOT notifying the state of the award - but here, note that at the bottom of page 2, this project appears to be identified as ''HSR2009000150; Empire Corridor West - Phase 1 3rd Track Mileposts 382-392; Track 1a'' -

 https://www.nysdot.gov/recovery/repository/NYGee.pdf 

Here are some other general links on the NYSDOT website that were useful to me in finding this:

Rail (FRA) Program: Nation-wide Discretionary Grant Program for High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR)

https://www.nysdot.gov/recovery/sponsors/rail

And this is the link to list of New York State's Funding Round 1 Rail Project Final Applications -

https://www.nysdot.gov/recovery/sponsors/rail/final 

- Paul North.

 

[oltmannd]

Paul_D_North_Jr

 From the Original Post back at the top of Page 1 of 3 of this thread:

henry6

First, the news story on TRAINS NEWSWIRE 2/23/10:

[snip] The 11-mile test track will diverge from CSX near Churchville and reconnect near Byron, N.Y. [snip] 

Now this gets a little 'curiouser and curiouser', as Alice said in Wonderland.  I thought this would have been merely re-installing a track on a portion of the former West Shore RR's R-O-W that paralleled but was separate from the former NYC - now CSX - main tracks, as it often was in the western part of NY.  And sure enough, according to my copy of SPV's Railroad Atlas for this area, about 3 miles east of Churchville - which itself is about 15 miles southwest of Rochester - is 'Chili Jct.', where the former WS - and still active - 'straight-line' bypass to the south of Rochester rejoins the active main line that swings north to go through town, and then back south again. 

The dashed line indicates that the former WS then essentially crossed the CSX main at Chili Jct. - i.e., as the WS went to the west, it diverged from the main to the north and went west through Churchville, which is about 1 mile north of the CSX main, and then continued about 10 more miles to Byron.

But Byron is about 5 miles north of the CSX main at that point, specifically at a place on the CSX main that is shown and labeled as ''South Byron''.  So if the 110 MPH line literally runs between the named towns and follows the old WS, it's going the long-way around to the north, and introducing artificial mileage or 'circuitry' - and so it won't actually gain much of anything on the running times of trains that stay on the NYC main.  Otherwise - and this may make more sense - it will be just a 3rd track closely parallel to the NYC /CSX main.  But why not then mention South Byron instead ?  And why were not Bergen and West Bergen also mentioned, as they are also along the CSX main between Churchville and South Byron ?  Very confusing, I think.   

- Paul North. 

 

Forget the old West Shore east of Chili. There was a huge ruckus a few years ago when CSX started running a few more trains that way - and bypassing downtown Rochester makes not sense. If you go from Chili Jct west to just short of Batavia along the existing NYC mainline ROW - that makes sense. The ROW is 4 tracks wide with the existing track scrunched on the south side, if I remember right. The eastern 2/3 of this is nearly arrow straight with a big S curve (maybe 1-1/2 deg) to the west, then straight to Batavia.

I thought I had an old Conrail track chart. I don't. I'll have to see if I have an old ETT to see where the existing interlockings are. Makes the most sense to tie into these. (I DID find that I have some NEC track charts, though...)

[henry6]

Paul_D_North_Jr

Wow - what a coincidence !   And wouldn't you like to see that J3a trying to do 110 MPH with a passenger train though here today ?

- Paul North. 

And it probably did...well, at least it probably reached the Century mark anyway..

I still think there are better stretches of track to try this on...the entire NYC main from NY to Buffalo was 4 track but now only has two, so there is plenty of room on the right of way for a third track which would actually work into the system better.  But I am still puzzled by what they think they are going to learn that they don't already know.  It's just BS pumped up with hot air and supported by egos!

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Wow - what a coincidence !   And wouldn't you like to see that J3a trying to do 110 MPH with a passenger train though here today ?

'Chili' - pronounced like 'Chi-town' at the far end of that line, or ''shy - lye'', or like the group that sang the song ''Oh Girl'' in 1972 - the ''Chi-Lites ''(pronounced "Shy-Lites") ?  (See - http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=3418 )

- Paul North. 

[oltmannd]

Hey! My avatar of the J3a Hudson was taken by my father at Chili Jct. (pronounced "chi - lie" long i sounds on each syllable)

[blownout cylinder]

Paul: That might be dependant on what "near" actually refers to here----

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

 From the Original Post back at the top of Page 1 of 3 of this thread:

henry6

First, the news story on TRAINS NEWSWIRE 2/23/10:

[snip] The 11-mile test track will diverge from CSX near Churchville and reconnect near Byron, N.Y. [snip] 

Now this gets a little 'curiouser and curiouser', as Alice said in Wonderland.  I thought this would have been merely re-installing a track on a portion of the former West Shore RR's R-O-W that paralleled but was separate from the former NYC - now CSX - main tracks, as it often was in the western part of NY.  And sure enough, according to my copy of SPV's Railroad Atlas for this area, about 3 miles east of Churchville - which itself is about 15 miles southwest of Rochester - is 'Chili Jct.', where the former WS - and still active - 'straight-line' bypass to the south of Rochester rejoins the active main line that swings north to go through town, and then back south again. 

The dashed line indicates that the former WS then essentially crossed the CSX main at Chili Jct. - i.e., as the WS went to the west, it diverged from the main to the north and went west through Churchville, which is about 1 mile north of the CSX main, and then continued about 10 more miles to Byron.

But Byron is about 5 miles north of the CSX main at that point, specifically at a place on the CSX main that is shown and labeled as ''South Byron''.  So if the 110 MPH line literally runs between the named towns and follows the old WS, it's going the long-way around to the north, and introducing artificial mileage or 'circuitry' - and so it won't actually gain much of anything on the running times of trains that stay on the NYC main.  Otherwise - and this may make more sense - it will be just a 3rd track closely parallel to the NYC /CSX main.  But why not then mention South Byron instead ?  And why were not Bergen and West Bergen also mentioned, as they are also along the CSX main between Churchville and South Byron ?  Very confusing, I think.   

- Paul North. 

 

[blue streak 1]

henry6

But again I state that both NY and the USA have already had track, substructure, operations, etc. aat 110 mph; that this excercise is redundent, uneccessary, wasteful, and time consuming.  CSX knows what 110 track is like and how to integrate, so does Amtrak, NYDOT, Federal DOT, and all others.  Plus they have computer programs to tackle what hasn't been done.  This is a wasteful excercise in political BS, plain and simple!

Henry where in the US is there an operation mixing 110 MPH MSR passenger alongside/sharing with  heavy freight operations? 

Another factor is the ROW is already available which will reduce costs and compact time. The biggest cost will be the redoing of the undergrade of the future track to present standards especially drainage. The need to relocate any utilities  probably will be very minimual, but be advised that any utilities going under the ROW may need upgrading especially those that are not presently encased inside a  medal pipe ( present RR standard ).

Unfortunately MSR is going to be a victim of :  It wasn't invented here and it wasn't invented now. And although this may appear a waste of time and money this route section will certainly be an integrated portion of the NYP - Buffalo MSR so maybe this is just a waste of time.

I have not had any of luck in finding NY's proposal for this award. If any one does plese let us know.

From new airplane manfacturing and entering them into service. Test flights find the unexpected both to verify calculated performance and operational test flights to locate any unexpected daily operational problems. They are unexpected because something does always pop up. Also there will be others that do not appear on this test portion.

 

[oltmannd]

cacole

Who's the member of Congress for this district who pushed the funding through as a pork barrel project ?

 

I'd guess Schumer, but he's a senator...so no pork barrel for him. They don't write spending bills.

[blownout cylinder]

oltmannd

blownout cylinder

That is what gets me. Apparently that route was already known as something of a racetrack at various points of its history and here we are supposedly 'testing'----again

Well, it ain't your grandfather's NYC for starters. Used to be 2 tracks passenger, 2 tracks frt at 80 mph passneger speeds - tower operated. Now, its double track CTC with totally integrated passenger service. The demonstration will to show if a 3rd, integrated passenger track will work as well as we think it will. There's a lot more to this than equipment and track! Railroading just isn't that simple!

aaahh phoooey---you got me there----mumble grumble snuffle snort

[oltmannd]

blownout cylinder

OK---even IF we allow for the possibility of a testing procedure why here?

Any heavy double track RR with CTC and an alignment good for 110 mph will do. Got another one in mind? Cleveland to Chicago would work, but Ohio's money is for 79 mph 3C.

[oltmannd]

blownout cylinder

That is what gets me. Apparently that route was already known as something of a racetrack at various points of its history and here we are supposedly 'testing'----again

Well, it ain't your grandfather's NYC for starters. Used to be 2 tracks passenger, 2 tracks frt at 80 mph passneger speeds - tower operated. Now, its double track CTC with totally integrated passenger service. The demonstration will to show if a 3rd, integrated passenger track will work as well as we think it will. There's a lot more to this than equipment and track! Railroading just isn't that simple!

[henry6]

OK, I'll give in.  Guess we all know why I'm not a politician!

[oltmannd]

henry6

But again I state that both NY and the USA have already had track, substructure, operations, etc. aat 110 mph; that this excercise is redundent, uneccessary, wasteful, and time consuming.  CSX knows what 110 track is like and how to integrate, so does Amtrak, NYDOT, Federal DOT, and all others.  Plus they have computer programs to tackle what hasn't been done.  This is a wasteful excercise in political BS, plain and simple!

The track and equipment are simple - you are right there. The integration most definitely is NOT. Computer simulations, etc, not withstanding. Nowhere, is there a spot in the US with 60+ trains a day at 50-60 mph running on double track where there is an integrated 3rd passenger track. This is not all that simple. Also, assuming the rest of the route gets done, this is not a wasted investment. It means you only have to do the remaining 95% of the route.

[cacole]

Who's the member of Congress for this district who pushed the funding through as a pork barrel project ?

 

[blownout cylinder]

samfp1943

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? 

That is what gets me. Apparently that route was already known as something of a racetrack at various points of its history and here we are supposedly 'testing'----again?

OK---even IF we allow for the possibility of a testing procedure why here?

Big boys playing with bigger toys.

[henry6]

But again I state that both NY and the USA have already had track, substructure, operations, etc. aat 110 mph; that this excercise is redundent, uneccessary, wasteful, and time consuming.  CSX knows what 110 track is like and how to integrate, so does Amtrak, NYDOT, Federal DOT, and all others.  Plus they have computer programs to tackle what hasn't been done.  This is a wasteful excercise in political BS, plain and simple!

[blue streak 1]

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.