OvermodWhat I really think is that the initial 'alternatives' have been chosen with something other than 220 mph effectiveness in mind.
Perhaps you are right. But if the 220 mph effectiveness is not all that important the advantage over the Shoreline is diminished.
John WRWell then, Bob, can you suggest why the FRA is suggesting a high speed line go through central Massachusetts and Connecticut?
Perhaps because they are extraordinarily masochistic. Or have the typical Federal approach of throwing enormous sums of money at problems that have better solutions...
Seriously, of course, they're considering the 'second spine' routes in Connecticut because that's where the existing business is, or is perceived to be. And perhaps because there are incremental advantages when implementing the spine in stages. The advantage of a Long Island routing is either in the 'bridge-line' operation end-to-end, or in 'yet to come' development and improvement. (And, more cynically, people yet to move to a region are not yet effective voters there...)
For all I know, there is a detailed engineering pre-analysis of routes that show it's more cost-effective to build HSR 'inland' (perhaps it would be better semantics to say "less non-cost-effective") or that there are serious objections to an Orient Point route (most notably, that there might be danger to sub operations out of New London, certainly with a bridge and perhaps with a tunnel). I'd expect all kinds of NIMBY action from LI North Shore communities and property owners, who would have to put up with all the construction inconvenience and then noise and so forth, for very little gain to them directly.
I don't think there has been proper consideration for how the Connecticut spine proposals are going to get into the New York area. I don't see any particular possibility of following the old 'inland' approach of getting onto the Hudson line/Empire Corridor and then running south via a high-speed bridge at Spuyten Duyvil ... to come into NYP facing the wrong direction. As noted, avoiding the New York metropolitan area is fundamentally a non-starter even if we treat high-speed service from Boston to points south of New York as a 'separate' line from New York service to the same points, or do something like renovating the Lackawanna Cutoff to meet a new HSR spine going around north and west of the metropolitan area (perhaps serving Stewart Airport, but that's another story for another post...)
What I really think is that the initial 'alternatives' have been chosen with something other than 220 mph effectiveness in mind. Much the same approach that ruled out any possibility of high-speed airport access by rail in Memphis.... more a question of 'how many people will you serve for the billions you're going to spend' -- and how many of the people in the communities along the line will see benefit from it.
OvermodAnd even a quick look at the map of central Connecticut (or central Massachusetts, if you want to be extraordinarily masochistic) will tell you the lay of the land...
Well then, Bob, can you suggest why the FRA is suggesting a high speed line go through central Massachusetts and Connecticut?
John
You're missing a lot. Consider at 220 mph that the vertical curve needs continuous transition, much the same as a horizontal curve. First into the grade, at the bottom, then again to go over the top. Has to be something like modified-trapezoid over the top as there can't be any 'jerk' reversal. Remember that the restoring force remains gravity, with its constant effective acceleration, while the horizontal distance covered in unit time becomes very very long at the higher speed. (For an analogy, look at the issues involved in nap-of-the-earth flying, and the accelerations and potential discomfort involved...)
On a relatively long grade, there's room for both these transitions as well as the 'continuous' section. Shorter grades can't get the transitions done. Shorter transitions don't change effective ROW altitude very much -- hence the effect is not too different from a full viaduct.
One formula for determining average radius of vertical curve is (V^2)/127a, where V is in km/h, a is in (usually decimal fractions of) G, and R is in m. A general figure for 'comfortable' max perceived acceleration is about 0.05G. Which makes the effective radius, for the metric equivalent of 220 mph, almost 20 km.
RME
[deleted double post]
Overmod,
I do not see why lots of vertical curves (an undulating profile) should be a problem for HSR. Rate of change in the VC would need to be limited of course. The trains are short and fast. No need to worry about slack run in and run out. Simply adjust power in response to the grade.
What am I missing?
Mac
John WR 1 & 2. We are talking about a high speed line capable of 220 miles per hours. This means abut 65 minutes Boston to New York. Of course, the average speed would be slower but the maximum time Boston to New York should be at most 2 hours. A regional train with a 30 minute head start would never catch it. But you might have the regional an hour head start and have them meet in New Haven.
1 & 2. We are talking about a high speed line capable of 220 miles per hours. This means abut 65 minutes Boston to New York. Of course, the average speed would be slower but the maximum time Boston to New York should be at most 2 hours. A regional train with a 30 minute head start would never catch it. But you might have the regional an hour head start and have them meet in New Haven.
Here's the thing as I see it: There is NO point in going to 220mph trackage if you are stopping every 80 miles or so. The existing service (incrementally improved so you can actually run 135 mph as intended) is just fine for NYP-BOS service that stops in places like New Haven. But it's never going to show the advantages of 'true' HSR.
There is even relatively little point in going to '186 mph' service (which involves much, much more work than 135 mph!) over these relatively short segments, especially if there's constant need for accommodating slower regional service with the high-speed trains.
So there needs to be something cost-effective that makes best use of the actual 'spine' for translating high speed into short overall time. Building a 220-mph railroad across central Connecticut is not exactly a cost-effective proposition -- even though it might be across the Alleghenies (!). HSR is quite capable of climbing peak grades of 8-10% if the vertical curves and track structure are properly engineered -- just how long CAN you be on a grade that steep at 220 mph and not come to the top? (So Allegheny Portage Railroad 2.0, here we come!) What HSR is NOT capable of doing is negotiating lots of little rises and falls: the vertical curvature eats up most of the 'advantage' of building a ruler-straight elevated alignment in the first place. And even a quick look at the map of central Connecticut (or central Massachusetts, if you want to be extraordinarily masochistic) will tell you the lay of the land...
2 & 5. I agree about Metro North trains at intermediate stations. But shouldn't they meet up at New York Penn Station?
Of course they will! Just on different tracks.
I expect the HSR on the Long Island North Shore routing to be substantially at Gateway depth at NYP, which I think puts it considerably lower than what's there already. The logistics indicate (to me) that the 220 mph service will be accessed very much the same as the new LIRR tracks at Grand Central are, and with about as much practical 'interconnectability' between routes.
On the other hand, there is certainly a point in the western-Long-Island approach where the Hell Gate NYCR route can have an approach track to the HSR main. I, personally, would not mingle 135-mph and 220-mph service, but there is no engineering reason why a 135-mph-capable train could not be sent into NYP on an 'advance' schedule, and then follow Gateway out to Meadows or someplace it could be diverted onto the current Corridor tracks again, with the 220 mph train immediately following at the same platform. Since most modern regional-rail stuff is nominally capable of 110 mph, similar logistics may be practical.
OvermodNo point doing a full second spine for any reason OTHER than high speed. Think of it as a 'bridge-line' service between the most important points (Boston-New York without intermediate old-city stops, for instance).
Not only are you correct about the only reason for a second spine being high speed; clearly the FRA sees high speed as the only reason here. But they already have the Boston -- New York business. I think they are looking to compete with airlines for the Boston -- Washington business. And that has implications.
OvermodThere was another alternative, which would run along the north shore of Long Island all the way to the North Fork/Orient Point, and then go across.
Other reports have been written. But this particular one says nothing abouta section of a high speed line from Orient Point to Manhattan.
blue streak 16. What LIRR line(s) would be used for the Long Island route ? Would need either new overhead CAT or dual electric motors. As true HSR train set(s) will probably be distributed powered axels wonder what problems that would cause using third rail ?
A full second spine would be all new ROW - for the most part. That would (should!) include LI. There is no capacity on the LIRR main for more traffic, particularly HSR trains.
Third rail is wholly unsuitable for HSR. Above 100 mph, keeping good shoe contact gets tough. There is cat all the way to Harold, so whatever new alignment was developed, you'd jump off the existing NEC somewhere in Queens.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Overmod No point doing a full second spine for any reason OTHER than high speed. Think of it as a 'bridge-line' service between the most important points (Boston-New York without intermediate old-city stops, for instance). A combination of regional rail and the present high-speed (Acela-style, 135-150 mph with tilt) would serve the intermediate 'legacy' cities on the north shore of the Sound. Not sure Providence needs to be a stop on a 220-mph railroad, as 'close' to Boston as it is ... but the Orient Point route could go through there with relative ease (via the general Watch Hill or Westerly region) if the money were there. Overmod: 1. Actually the second spine will have the future of Regional stops. a Regioonal could depart 30 -45 minutes before the HSR from BOS on the same route. 2. The Regional could stop at Back bay, Rt 128 , the HSR stop at PVD, then stops at future locations to Hartford maybe Willimantic, etc . After Hartford stops at Waterbury, Danbury, White plains, New Rochelle, etc. then connect with the HSR line at NYP + the shore line trains. That is assuming that the NYP Gateway station project expansion is completed.. 3. The intermediate stations can be located either in towns or at outskirts with the land set aside and the towns partially responsible to build stations and station tracks at their leisure. 4. All stations planned should have future signaling and available set outs for the station tracks so a HSR train could pass a Regional. 5. The stops at Hartford Danbury, Waterbury, Cannan, White plains, New Rochelle should be set up for connections to MNRR so persons can arrive quicker to NYP & south. Much less heroic construction required for the Long Island high-speed main than anywhere permissible in Connecticut or Massachusetts, I think. And hadn't we already decided that going south through NYC via New Rochelle posed almost insurmountable technical impediments to true HSR ... without throwing terabucks at just that little stretch? 6. What LIRR line(s) would be used for the Long Island route ? Would need either new overhead CAT or dual electric motors. As true HSR train set(s) will probably be distributed powered axels wonder what problems that would cause using third rail ? 7. Going thru New Eochelle will need Hell Gate route to be expanded back to its original 4 main tracks. Maybe even double decking the bridge to get 6 tracks ?
No point doing a full second spine for any reason OTHER than high speed. Think of it as a 'bridge-line' service between the most important points (Boston-New York without intermediate old-city stops, for instance). A combination of regional rail and the present high-speed (Acela-style, 135-150 mph with tilt) would serve the intermediate 'legacy' cities on the north shore of the Sound. Not sure Providence needs to be a stop on a 220-mph railroad, as 'close' to Boston as it is ... but the Orient Point route could go through there with relative ease (via the general Watch Hill or Westerly region) if the money were there.
Overmod:
1. Actually the second spine will have the future of Regional stops. a Regioonal could depart 30 -45 minutes before the HSR from BOS on the same route.
2. The Regional could stop at Back bay, Rt 128 , the HSR stop at PVD, then stops at future locations to Hartford maybe Willimantic, etc . After Hartford stops at Waterbury, Danbury, White plains, New Rochelle, etc. then connect with the HSR line at NYP + the shore line trains. That is assuming that the NYP Gateway station project expansion is completed..
3. The intermediate stations can be located either in towns or at outskirts with the land set aside and the towns partially responsible to build stations and station tracks at their leisure.
4. All stations planned should have future signaling and available set outs for the station tracks so a HSR train could pass a Regional.
5. The stops at Hartford Danbury, Waterbury, Cannan, White plains, New Rochelle should be set up for connections to MNRR so persons can arrive quicker to NYP & south.
Much less heroic construction required for the Long Island high-speed main than anywhere permissible in Connecticut or Massachusetts, I think. And hadn't we already decided that going south through NYC via New Rochelle posed almost insurmountable technical impediments to true HSR ... without throwing terabucks at just that little stretch?
6. What LIRR line(s) would be used for the Long Island route ? Would need either new overhead CAT or dual electric motors. As true HSR train set(s) will probably be distributed powered axels wonder what problems that would cause using third rail ?
7. Going thru New Eochelle will need Hell Gate route to be expanded back to its original 4 main tracks. Maybe even double decking the bridge to get 6 tracks ?
John WR <snipped> ... Alternative 13 would, from New Rochelle, go to Danbury, Waterbury, Hartford, Providence and then to Boston. Alternative 14 would go to Long Island andcross at New Haven, go on to Hartford and then Boston. Alternative 15 would go to Long Island, cross Long Island Sound at Stamford, go to Danbury, Waterbury, Hartford and Boston.
<snipped> ... Alternative 13 would, from New Rochelle, go to Danbury, Waterbury, Hartford, Providence and then to Boston. Alternative 14 would go to Long Island andcross at New Haven, go on to Hartford and then Boston. Alternative 15 would go to Long Island, cross Long Island Sound at Stamford, go to Danbury, Waterbury, Hartford and Boston.
There was another alternative, which would run along the north shore of Long Island all the way to the North Fork/Orient Point, and then go across. I thought 'shades of Sam Berliner's Orient Point Bridge!' hopping across that little line of islands kinda like Flagler's Key West extension... but it was going to be a tunnel, of course.
They are willing to negotiate how to achieve the second spine but one way or another they must have it and it is only a matter of time until they do ... they have to choose between high speed and high economic growth. And clearly they choose high speed.
We argued a few months ago about putting back a 'second spine' of sorts on the inland route (to paraphrase Dire Straits, "I want my, I want my, I want my NY&NE") to give an alternate route to the Shore Line ... I note we haven't discussed what happens when the next superstorm tracks a bit further east or pulls a good surge in through the mouth of the Sound... but that is never going to be HSR in this lifetime. Even if you use Japanese-Maglev earthworks, and can gin up a Japanese-Maglev style budget...
Might make sense to have one or more new planned developments a la Metropark to liven up the North Shore, too: note that it's even counterflow from NYC in both rush-hour periods...
I just ran across the FRA's report NEC Future.
By way of introduction, the report is rooted in the facts that 1/7 (about 14 1/4 percent) of the population lives in the Northeast Corridor and they produce about 1/5 of the nation's wealth.
There are 15 alternatives. The last 3, 13, 14 and 15, deal with the second spine. All of the alternatives include Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Washington. This is not surprising because these have always been the most important eastern cities. Alternative 13 would, from New Rochelle, go to Danbury, Waterbury, Hartford, Providence and then to Boston. Alternative 14 would go to Long Island andcross at New Haven, go on to Hartford and then Boston. Alternative 15 would go to Long Island, cross Long Island Sound at Stamford, go to Danbury, Waterbury, Hartford and Boston.
The planners want two things. They want to upgrade the Shoreline route as much as possible. But they know that no matter how much they upgrade it they can never make it truly high speed so they want the second spine. A big reason why they want to do this is to capture more of the traffic that begins on one side o New York and continues to the other side. Right now only 9 per cent of all passengers start at one side of New York and go to the other side.
Reading the report it appears to me that the FRA wants the second spine. They are willing to negotiate how to achieve the second spine but one way or another they must have it and it is only a matter of time until they do.
They also provide maps to show where most of the economic growth is expected. As you might expect, it is expected around Boston, New York and Philadelphia. What strikes me is that north of New York the second spine goes into areas of marginal or low growth both on the outside o New York and on the outside of Boston and ignores areas with a lot of growth along the Shoreline. But they have to choose between high speed and high economic growth. And clearly they choose high speed.
John WR No doubt there are speed restrictions on many drawbridges. Many are quite old and were not built for Acelas. And I'm sure the Coast Guard is in charge of bridge operation. However, some coordination may be possible. But Amtrak must be convinced that it looses a lot of business to airlines between Boston and New York and the only way to get that business is to run faster trains. Thus the need for an inland route. Actually, I think such a belief is correct. Its just that it ignores all of the other cities between Boston and New York.
No doubt there are speed restrictions on many drawbridges. Many are quite old and were not built for Acelas. And I'm sure the Coast Guard is in charge of bridge operation. However, some coordination may be possible.
But Amtrak must be convinced that it looses a lot of business to airlines between Boston and New York and the only way to get that business is to run faster trains. Thus the need for an inland route. Actually, I think such a belief is correct. Its just that it ignores all of the other cities between Boston and New York.
John WR Mike, I'm wondering exactly how many drawbridges there are. For the (relatively) high speed trains, which are scheduled, they could all be down at the appropriate times. I agree about the curves. Pretty much we would just have to live with them. Limited stops would bypass stations but not necessarily people. For example a passenger could board at Old Saybrook and change to a high speed train at New Haven. I agree that the FRA and Amtrak favor a new inland route with the proviso that it does not pass up New York Penn Station. Amtrak also favors installing a constant tension catenary between New York and New Haven. If they can get the Congress to fund these changes they probably will go ahead. But I think funding a second inland spine will take a lot of persuasion. John
Mike,
I'm wondering exactly how many drawbridges there are. For the (relatively) high speed trains, which are scheduled, they could all be down at the appropriate times.
I agree about the curves. Pretty much we would just have to live with them.
Limited stops would bypass stations but not necessarily people. For example a passenger could board at Old Saybrook and change to a high speed train at New Haven.
I agree that the FRA and Amtrak favor a new inland route with the proviso that it does not pass up New York Penn Station. Amtrak also favors installing a constant tension catenary between New York and New Haven. If they can get the Congress to fund these changes they probably will go ahead. But I think funding a second inland spine will take a lot of persuasion.
IIRC there are about a dozen drawbridges on the Shoreline. I understand the Coast Guard has final word on their operation. I don't know if they open that often, but I think they are more of a speed restriction at all times.
Because of the curves, even high speed equipment would be restricted to lower speed.
I don't know if they will ever get the money to build an inland route but I know ATK would like to if they could. I may have misspoke about the FRA, as I think at this time it is just one of a number of options for public comment.
Amtrak resolves the tilt changing time in New Haven by showing only the arrival time; not the departure time.
I don't believe the regionals stop for only 2 minutes. I was on one Saturday; it stopped at least 5 minutes. There are just too many people getting off and on to do it in 2 minutes.
a big problem of speeding up from New Rochelle - NH is that the track centers are too close for Acela to use its tilt function. That costs about 20 MPH in slow downs ? Each ACELA stpps in NH to either deactivate its tilt southbound or activate it northbound. No mention has been made about reversing the process at NYP but I would assume it happens. I have no idea how long that switch over takes does anyone know ? Does each car have to be done separately? I cannot believe that it is completed in the same time as electric regionals which are mostly scheduled for just a 2 minute stop.
Thank for the MTA Update, Streak. You are right and the old catenary is being replaced even as we type. It is hard to wrap my head around the idea that MTA is responsible for track in Connecticut. I don't expect there to be high speed rail along this line but a new catenary will still speed things up a bit.
John WR Amtrak also favors installing a constant tension catenary between New York and New Haven. If they can get the Congress to fund these changes they probably will go ahead. But I think funding a second inland spine will take a lot of persuasion. John
Amtrak also favors installing a constant tension catenary between New York and New Haven. If they can get the Congress to fund these changes they probably will go ahead. But I think funding a second inland spine will take a lot of persuasion.
John WR ... Your point about the Shoreline being a regional route is the big issue. Of course a train does not need to stop at every station on the route. And the drawbridges are there too. But the other side of the coin is that this region is almost one continuous city with people all along it. So shall we regard the Shoreline as a regional route connecting a number of discreet cities and smaller places? Or is it a route that is better seen as passing through a long conurbation? John
...
Your point about the Shoreline being a regional route is the big issue. Of course a train does not need to stop at every station on the route. And the drawbridges are there too. But the other side of the coin is that this region is almost one continuous city with people all along it. So shall we regard the Shoreline as a regional route connecting a number of discreet cities and smaller places? Or is it a route that is better seen as passing through a long conurbation?
In the pro's and con's for the Shoreline:
Con's- Slow curves and drawbridges with little room for expansion.
Pro's- Existing route with more continuous population. However, since we are talking about HSR that will make limited stops, much of that population will be bypassed anyway.
Apparently FRA and ATK think that the (Inland) straighter route with fewer stops is the way to go.
MidlandMike oltmanndMerritt parkway alignment? Getting off the shoreline to NJ is a good idea. Don't bypass NYC, though. It seems that the FRA study showed that only 9% of ATK passengers on trains stopping at NYP continue on the train.
oltmanndMerritt parkway alignment? Getting off the shoreline to NJ is a good idea. Don't bypass NYC, though.
It seems that the FRA study showed that only 9% of ATK passengers on trains stopping at NYP continue on the train.
oltmanndDon't bypass NYC, though.
Actually that is close to what I am saying. Except I look at the whole New York Metropolitan Area which extends a long way both north and south of New York City limits.
Just about all eastern cities are old industrial cities. This includes New York City. All of the cities are evolving and re inventing themselves, some more successfully than others. Like Danbury, they are all close to New York City.
Whether or not Providence has enough pull so it would be a stop on a new inland route I don't know. Originally the best route to Worcester was from Providence and the Blackstone Canal connected the cities. That was eclipsed by the Providence and Worcester Railroad which today is a freight short line. There may be space for extra rails. Your point about New Rochelle is well taken and it could well be the reason why Amtrak wants to re-enter the NEC there.
We took the Merritt a lot when I was a kid. As I remember it was kind of curvy and hilly. I'm sure NYC will never be bypassed. It seems that the FRA study showed that only 9% of ATK passengers on trains stopping at NYP continue on the train.
The Shoreline from Bridgeport east tends to be old industrial cities. Hartford is a financial center and Danbury is close enough to NYC to have attracted some corporate headquarters. Providence seems to have enough political pull that Amtrak's HSR shortcut was rerouted there and it seems that the FRA maps also showed it thru Providence, or Worcester as an alternative. The Shoreline with its many stops and drawbridges is more appropriately a regional route.
PS: New Rochelle is where the NEC meets MNRR. If the new HSR takes off at New Rochelle, then it appears they can bypass MNRR completely.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.