John,
0. Providence would not be part of a new HSR line out of Boston. The line would enter Rhode Island at Woonsocket, a small city (pop. about 41,000) on the northern border of the state, and then turn west or south west. I don't mean to suggest that the Shore Line would be abandoned. However, with a new line it is quite possible the Shore Line would have fewer trains. And Acelas might be reconsidered.
You also point to the fact that Metro North limits Amtrak to 2 trains per hour on the track that it owns. I was unaware of that restriction. But the proposals for the new HSR would enter the Northeast Corridor on those Metro North Tracks. The entry point is around New Rochelle. So the total number of trains would not be increased.
1. Your point about Hartford is unclear. Do you mean more people would travel between Hartford and New York than do now? If so, why? More to the point, we would cut off that section of the New York Metropolitan Area that extends to between New Haven and New London.
2. What is HrSR? I agree that the Shoreline as it stands will never be true high speed rail.
3. By "upgrading" I didn't mean curve elimination. I meant the current rails were installed in the 70's and could need improvement. And yes, there are some old draw bridges.
4. I would not propose actually rebuilding the Shoreline.
5. New Catenary. I agree.
6. We agree. But the one think I will say for a new inland route is that the area along the Shoreline is so developed that any real improvement of that route would not only be extremely expensive; it would also be certain to arouse strong public protests for about every reason we can think of.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of my points.
John
John I toook the liberty to number your points and address each one.
John WR 1. An inland route would cut out what is in fact a big chunk of the New York Metropolitan Area. 2. On the Shore Line we have modern high speed rails in place. 3. At most they need upgrading. 4. On an inland route we must build it from scratch. 5. We also have an almost new state of the art catenary from New Haven to Boston. 6. Given the current investment we have in the Shoreline Route I think it will be many years at best before we see a new inland route. John
1. An inland route would cut out what is in fact a big chunk of the New York Metropolitan Area.
2. On the Shore Line we have modern high speed rails in place.
3. At most they need upgrading.
4. On an inland route we must build it from scratch.
5. We also have an almost new state of the art catenary from New Haven to Boston.
6. Given the current investment we have in the Shoreline Route I think it will be many years at best before we see a new inland route.
I agree, Mike, that the inland route would pick up Hartord. I doubt Danbury and Waterbury would be stops on a new high speed rail line. But, and it is an important but, and you point it out. The new inland spine would be shorter and straighter than the present Shoreline. And that fact is what I think drives the experts opinion. We have two choices. One is short and straight; the other is long and curvy. Which do we choose?
First of all, the planners themselves choose part of the long and curvy route, the part that passes through New York City. There are now 4 East River Tunnels and yet even with those 4 tunnels trains have to slow down to get into Penn Station. If short and straight were really a compelling logic the new inland route would also have to bypass Manhattan. That has been done before; it could be done again. But it was abandoned before because, all things considered, the long curvy route was better.
Why is it better? First, most of southern New England's population is along the shore. Yes, there are some inland cities but most people live along the shore. You argue Hartford is bigger than New Haven. But is it bigger than New Haven and Providence and New London and Bridgeport? I haven't looked up the numbers but I suspect it isn't. Beyond that the boundary of the New York Metropolitan Area is now somewhere east of New Haven. I don't know just where but Connecticut operates commuter service as far east as New London. An inland route would cut out what is in fact a big chunk of the New York Metropolitan Area.
Then there is the cost. On the Shore Line we modern high speed rails in place. At most they need upgrading. On an inland route we must build it from scratch. We also have an almost new state of the art catenary from New Haven to Boston. Given the current investment we have in the Shoreline Route I think it will be many years at best before we see a new inland route.
The inland HSR route NYC-BOS would be shorter, and would serve Hartford which is bigger than New Haven, and would also serve Danbury, Waterbury, etc. I think the FRA has done their homework.
John WR The curves in the shore line restrict train speeds. Just as the tunnels in and out of New York restrict train speeds and always will, even if they are enlarged.
The curves in the shore line restrict train speeds. Just as the tunnels in and out of New York restrict train speeds and always will, even if they are enlarged.
It's a given that curves will be straightened for HSR. I imagine there will be a fair amount of new alignment and tunnels on the Shore Line to create a line that can be operated at truly high speed. Compare with the mainline along the Mediterranean from Marseille in France into Italy. Rocky, hilly coast. The old line hugged the shore and was awesomely picturesque. Just not high speed. The new line is in and out of tunnels, often spending more time in tunnels than daylight, and is much straighter. But the key is that it still serves the same population centers. Just a lot faster.
As for HSR tunnels, the German ICE doesn't slow down one bit going in and out of tunnels. I've been on it going 175mph down the line, over bridges and through tunnels. There is no reason that the new HSR tunnels from Connecticut to Long Island to Manhattan and into New Jersey should slow down the trains below the appropriate speeds for the area, especially considering a station stop on Long Island and one on Manhattan. They should still be able to do a top speed of at least 100mph between those 2 stations that are just minutes from each other.
oltmanndFor John. A new spine that bypasses the #1 passenger rail market in the nation? That aught to be the anchor for it!
I thought you would find the idea of bypassing New York pretty bizarre, Don. Although President Taft did like the fast service between Boston and Washington. But this is 2013, not 1913. I think bypassing all of southern New England except for Boston makes no more sense than bypassing New York does. The planners are wrong on this one.
CJtrainguyBut a high speed passenger line out there? That is reached by connectors from Manhattan? Makes no sense whatsoever.
Actually I agree with you. But New England centers of population are mostly along the coast and have been since we were colonies. The "second spine" would abandon all of southern New England. That makes as much sense as abandoning New York would make. Providence is New England's second largest city. New London, New Haven and Bridgeport are significant cities in their own right.
The second spine would abandon these cities because the Shore Line from Boston to New York does just what it says for most of its length. It runs along the shore from south of Providence to the southern border of Connecticut. The curves in the shore line restrict train speeds. Just as the tunnels in and out of New York restrict train speeds and always will, even if they are enlarged. Yet this is where the people are and where the trains must run.
An inland route that runs around New York would provide really fast service between Boston and Washington. But few would wind up riding it.
for CJ (though I think the track capacity thing can be sharp-shooted using RTC and other capacity models)
For John. A new spine that bypasses the #1 passenger rail market in the nation? That aught to be the anchor for it!
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
If the goal is a second, in-land route to complement NEC, then crossing the Hudson somewhere around Poughkeepsie and the Tappan Zee Bridge and then going through western NJ is a good idea. A freight line there might make sense to bypass the entire NYC metro area. But a high speed passenger line out there? That is reached by connectors from Manhattan? Makes no sense whatsoever. JFK, Newark and LaGuardia airports are all closer to where the people are than that. The time gained with high speed trains is then more than wasted on getting to the high speed station from the metro area. And I would rather suspect that most people traveling from New York to Philly, Washington, DC or Boston want a one-seat ride. The idea of having to change trains at some junction on the high speed line will not attract droves of travelers.
The currently floated idea of bringing a new high speed line in to Long Island with another New York station there is actually great in that the railroad goes where the people are. Based on what I see when I travel along NEC, it should be 6 tracks most of the way: 2 for rapid transit (NJT et al), 2 for regionals and freight and 2 for true high speed. I can't speak to the population density distribution in Connecticut and Massachusetts, but between New York and Washington DC, the people are in the corridor covered by the current NEC and I-95 and that's where a new high speed line needs to be as well, to serve Washington DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia and New York well.
oltmanndIt's nice to see the FRA's effort dovetailing fairly well with Amtrak's proposal(s).
If the FRA were really serious about a second northeast "spine" for rail travel that new track would cross the Hudson between Poughkeepsie and the Tappan Zee Bridge, bypass Manhattan and go down the west side of New Jersey rejoining the current Northeast Corridor at Trenton. This is similar to the route of the old Federal Express before the Hell Gate Bridge was built. For a New York stop New Jersey Transit's Morris and Essex Line could be upgraded and extended west to intersect the new spine with shuttle trains going back and forth or even running between New York and Boston. Washington traffic would be better served with a connection at Trenton. If the FRA were really serious.
Paul MilenkovicSo, some of us are in favor of dragging an errant passenger with a limb trapped in a door so as to maintain a train schedule?
Happened to me on NYCTA, #1 line at 116th. Getting off, not on; crowd kept me from getting quickly to the door with my large briefcase in tow. I got out with the doors closing; the briefcase, with my hand on the handle, didn't. Conductor promptly accelerated the train down the platform, with me frantically rotating my wrist to get enough slack on the tendons to let go.
Upshot of the story: Went to 96th on the following train, transferred to the express, and caught that train. The conductor actually had the gall to ask me 'how could this possibly be YOUR briefcase'!
At least they were not those original Victorian automatic doors with screw jacks; those would have broken my wrist if not amputated the hand!
Isn't there a story in one of those railroad history books about a woman with child being left on a German platform by the Saphir, circa early '70s? And the Shin Kansen were notorious for programmed stop length, and when it was up *off they went*... so not a new thing. Part of the issue (tongue in cheek here) is how the passenger got his or her hand in there, and what their purpose is. I'd call Homeland Security on some of those guys for 'interfering with operation of a railroad' (or whatever statute the mayor of Kingston violated...) ;-}
John WRBut I think there are some other parts of Amtrak that are pretty important to, particularly on the west coast and around Chicago.
Certainly, and they are worthy of the effort the states are putting in. But, the NEC is in a class of it's own.
It's nice to see the FRA's effort dovetailing fairly well with Amtrak's proposal(s). As long as they can come up with a good, results based, phased plan the focuses on the benefits and costs, we actually might see stuff start to get funded. I just hope they don't go off into the ditch and start to think of it as a "jobs program" or "national pride" issue.
Don,
I agree some of the personal comments in the article are irrelevant.
I have lives most of my life on the northeast corridor line and it is where most of my train riding is done. But I think there are some other parts of Amtrak that are pretty important to, particularly on the west coast and around Chicago. For all of that the northeast corridor has been pretty important to us going back to the days when we were still British colonies. I don't expect that importance to change.
This particular meeting is done by the Federal Railroad Administration, not Amtrak.
John WR Do you have a comment to add, Don? At the outset I believed that it is not totally inappropriate to report on a meeting sponsored by the Federal Railroad Administration. I still believe that. John
Do you have a comment to add, Don?
At the outset I believed that it is not totally inappropriate to report on a meeting sponsored by the Federal Railroad Administration. I still believe that.
Comments? Yes!
Being "decades behind" is irrelevant to anything....unless you are into jingoism. There is no "race" here. What works" is the thing.
The "being dragged down the platform" thing seems like it is a comment about the importance of actually running punctual service with no delay as opposed to our LD trains where on time really doesn't matter much at all - within some pretty sloppy bounds.
The NEC is THE most important piece of intercity rail passenger operation in North America by a wide margin. It's about time we got serious about it's future. The FRA and Amtrak are at least barking up the right tree.
Amtrak's refrain seems to have become: "We run a national network, but what I REALLY want to talk about is the NEC". The first part of the statement keeps the political ducks in line, but the second part tells you where the meat and potatoes are!
...and I think Paul M's "righteous indignation" is with tongue planted firmly in cheek....
CJtrainguyHowever, that was back in the old days. The practice for many years now has been to close the doors about 30 seconds prior to departure and once the doors are closed, you can't open them from the outside anymore. So people may try the handle or button but to no avail and the train leaves on time.
Pssst.. Amtrak... "Over there" people open the doors themselves from the outside. You don't need a trainman opening one vestibule, or maybe two, and shoehorning 20 or 30 people with luggage up into the coach.
Perhaps, more money for platforms and less for equipment would help the HrSR push. Station dwell ain't free.
Absolutely try the trains in Europe when there.
I have seen something similar to what was described above in Germany many years ago. It was 1977 and I was on a platform in Cologne as a long distance train was ready to take off. Just then a guy comes running up, opens one of the doors and gets in. The whistle was blown, the flag waved and the train started rolling. The guy is keeping his door open for his friends who are still running to catch up with the train. A railroader up ahead on the platform saw what was happening and waited for the open door to come within reach, at which point her slammed it shut on the guy trying to keep it open. No idea if the guy was injured in the process but the other guys didn' make the train.
However, that was back in the old days. The practice for many years now has been to close the doors about 30 seconds prior to departure and once the doors are closed, you can't open them from the outside anymore. So people may try the handle or button but to no avail and the train leaves on time.
I always find it amazing how a long distance train can stop even in a station like Cologne for just a few minutes and people get on and off and then be on the way again. They know how to do passenger exchange quickly and safely there. And no multiple stops at stations.
Paul Milenkovic "Mannheim, Germany, where he observed: "I swear to God, if the station conductor said ‘leave’ and you were stepping in the train, you were just going to get dragged down the platform." "We are decades behind Europe and Asia," Craig said." So, some of us are in favor of dragging an errant passenger with a limb trapped in a door so as to maintain a train schedule? And the people operating trains in Germany favor such a thing? "Sir Maddog", I think it is time to lock this thread.
"Mannheim, Germany, where he observed: "I swear to God, if the station conductor said ‘leave’ and you were stepping in the train, you were just going to get dragged down the platform."
"We are decades behind Europe and Asia," Craig said."
So, some of us are in favor of dragging an errant passenger with a limb trapped in a door so as to maintain a train schedule?
And the people operating trains in Germany favor such a thing?
"Sir Maddog", I think it is time to lock this thread.
Paul, I think the writer of the article was exercising some misplaced "artistic license." In 45 years of riding trains in Germany, I never witnessed such an incident. Departures on-time, and short dwells in stations, yes, but nothing sacrificing safety or passenger comfort. nor rudeness Next time you are over there, try using the train services. You will be pleasantly surprised.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/04/train_like_a_plane_it_could_be.html#incart_m-rpt-1
[link activated]
Thanks for posting.
"We are decades behind Europe and Asia," Craig said. Same as some of us have been saying here.
Once again the Federal Railroad Administration is trying to build a consensus about high speed rail in the northeast. Reporting in today's Star-Ledger Mike Frassinelli describes 4 levels of improvement: A, addressing the worst "choke points," the Hudson River Tunnels plus the Portal Bridge, which would allow "modest increases in service. B, "Expand service to all markets and provide additional capacity." C, "A major increase in service" which would reach new markets. And D, add a "second spine between Boston and D. C." A workshop to intoroduce these levels was held a few days ago in Newark. Today a kiosk is available at Newark Penn Station for visitors to express their opinions and another kiosk will be set up tomorrow at New York Penn Station. Phil Craig, a retired rail transportation planner, commented "It [the northeast corridor] has been starved by the Pennsylvania Railroad as it approached bankruptcy ... the whole Conrail period. Amtrak is a political whipping boy."
At present the Department of Transportation expects to replace the catenary between New Brunswick and Trenton by 2017. The new catenary would allow speeds up to 160 miles per hour on that part of the line.
The whole article is available by cutting and pasting this link: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/04/train_like_a_plane_it_could_be.html#incart_m-rpt-1
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.