Possible future expansion of Amtrak electrifications system wide

[Overmod]

CMStPnP

I think they should find an alternative to water as coolant but I have no clue how Bill Gates thinks liquid sodium is safer than water. 

You'd actually use a eutectic of potassium and sodium, as on some Russian reactors (the term is NaK, from the chemical symbols for the two elements).  Pure sodium metal freezes near the boiling point of water, well above the ambient temperature of many parts of even a primary loop; in my opinion it makes sense to preserve the ability to circulate coolant through a full circuit, especially if ECCS involves liquid metal, as it almost certainly would in those designs.

This is an old reference, but not obsolete:

https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=AKW5QadOgr8uI6i4T6PoNVjRWP-p1BsTTHGoa_nJo-59WL63YelgjFCxFM04GbHPIcPlRNryuEQQ8xTMb6oS1-8xXj7zmd-YJcTBN5CQDeCiinKtHKweZSIshLFotYDywn9yaUtvbJi3IsmFTsx6oSjxqsEX6_uKqbG7GDz6xldblKBcPmX__Y8XTkHrO_phpw2N96Y6mkB-cnoyFfM2p3WisUgzdaNyit5LJk6qEIyUFpN-fC4FLmL2T_9YPXO96uL3lT35SySg

I have considered supercritical CO2 an interesting coolant for a number of prospective cycles, but it seems to be underrepresented in modern designs.  Note that increases in LNG production, whether for natural-gas fuel or blue-hydrogen production, also leverage helium extraction.

Had billg continued to run Microsoft the way it was organized at the time the original Mac unit was founded, it is quite possible the company would have become a major 'force' without all the legal profiting.  I confess I've never much cared for Ballmer or his priorities, just as I never much cared for Gassee or Sculley -- although it does have to be said that BeOS has hands-down the best default menu and window-title bar color...

[Erik_Mag]

CMStPnP

I think they should find an alternative to water as coolant but I have no clue how Bill Gates thinks liquid sodium is safer than water.

The most successful power reactors that did not use water as a coolant were the British MAGNOX and AGR designs which used CO2. Helium cooled reactors have a checkered operational history, though have a good safety record.

One distinct advantage of water cooling is that the reactor will shut with a significant loss in pressure. The most important safety requirement is keeping enough water on hand for cooling the core as about 6 per cent of the power is generated by radioactive decay of the fission products.

Having followed the development of personal computers since before the January 1975 issue of Popular Electronics, Bill Gates success has stemmed more from his legal knowledge than technical ability.

[CMStPnP]

JPS1

The best source of dependable electric energy is nuclear. 

I think they should find an alternative to water as coolant but I have no clue how Bill Gates thinks liquid sodium is safer than water.    As it is flammable when exposed to air or water, you really would needed dependable seals and fail safes even with liquid sodium as a coolant.     Bill Gates innovation sounds smart on the surface but a little digging on the internet and you'll find he doesn't think things through before he proposes them.    Granted Breeder Reactors already use liquid Sodium as a coolant but nobody thinks of a Breeder Reactor as "safe" either.

[Gramp]

I vote for modern tech nuclear, too. 

[Erik_Mag]

JPS1

 

The best source of dependable electric energy is nuclear.

 

No argument from me on that, Cal 1978 MSNE. Using nuclear for baseload, roof top solar for daytime peaks and some energy storage is what I think would be the most environmentally friendly form of "no carbon" electric power. The  amount of electric energy produced per ton of steel and per ton of concrete is much higher for nuclear than wind.

[blue streak 1]

Here are cites that the NEC includes

Several branch lines are part of the NEC in several contexts, including being subject to capital planning and cost allocation provisions of Section 11306 of the FAST Act and Section 212 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA), codified at 49 U.S.C. § 24904 and § 24905. Some statutory and other definitions of the NEC also include the New York, NY-Albany line (Hudson Line ) and the linebetween Washington, DC and Richmond, Va.

You can see this yourself by going to this link and look on page 23.  Also look at the map just below that paragraph that shows Amtrak extent of what they consider the  NEC.

Amtrak General and Legislative Annual Report & FY2022 Grant Request

 

[blue streak 1]

Here are sections 11306 and 11307 of the fast act

(Sec. 11306) Directs the Commission to develop:

• a capital investment plan for the Northeast Corridor main line between Boston, Massachusetts, and the Virginia Avenue interlocking in the District of Columbia, and the Northeast Corridor branch lines connecting to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Springfield, Massachusetts, and Spuyten Duyvil, New York; and
• a Northeast Corridor service development plan, updated at least once every 10 years.

Requires Amtrak and each state and public transportation entity that owns infrastructure providing intercity rail passenger transportation on the Northeast Corridor to develop an asset management system and develop, and update as necessary, a Northeast Corridor asset management plan.

(Sec. 11307) Directs DOT to implement a pilot program for the competitive selection of a rail carrier or rail carriers owning infrastructure over which Amtrak operates a long-distance route, a state (or group of states), or state-supported joint powers authority or other sub-state governance entity providing intercity rail passenger transportation over such long-distance routes in lieu of Amtrak to operate three long-distance routes.

 

[blue streak 1]

Certainly the NEC is not going to be carbon free but the hydroelectric at Safe Harbor is.  Although it only generates a portion Amtrak needs at 25 Hz  who knows what can be planned by 2030 ?.  Unlikely but Might even be a partial conversion to 60 Hz on the NEC south end ?  What if Amtrak requires the freight trains on its tracks to use some form of electric insteas of diesel locos ?  As I understand it much of the 60 Hz converted to 25 is hydro ?

a. Since when has Amtrak not considered the NYP - Albany part of the NEC. This report among others does. 1.  Amtrak owns the west side access from NYP past the Spuyten Duyvil bridge ( which Amtrak rehabed in the past ) to the intersection of MNRR Hudson division .  From Poukeepsie north thru Albany thru schenectady to Hoffmans Amtrak has a long term lease from CSX.  Amtrak is already improving the signaling by eliminateing pole lines among other items.

Now if Amtrak plans to electrify any of that to Albany I have no idea neither will any one else.

b.  Amtrak certainly has rehabbed parts of the line to Harrisburg but no further.  Again Amtrak calls it part of the NEC.

2. I agree that until MBTA takes over Woochester to Springfield it will not be electrified but in the longer run who knows if MBTA's long term plans will hold up to electrification. MBTA's long range plans call for major electrification projects.  For New Haven to Springfield electrification is very iffy until the Hartford station mess is solved.  Also the 2nd main track is finished from Hartford to Springfield then maybe that line would be electrified especially if BOS - Springfield is electrified.  Remember New Haven -Springfield is owned by Amtrak.

[JPS1]

True!  A significant number of coal-fired power plants have been mothballed since 2014.  My former employer has shut down approximately 60 percent of its coal-fired generators.

 

I ran a search against the EPA’s databases.  The latest numbers, as cited by the president, are for 2014.  They are, admittedly, old.  However, I suspect the country comparative percentages are relatively unchanged. 

 

The EPA figures include cement production. 

 

Some of the reduction in emissions from the shuttered coal fired power plants has been offset by the increase in gas-fired steam electric stations and by American’s mania for big pick-ups and SUVs.  Texans have gone whole hog for four door, gas guzzling pick-ups and hug SUVs. 

 

The best source of dependable electric energy is nuclear.  During the recent Texas winter storm, our plant hummed along without missing a beat.  Oh, Unit 1 of the South Texas project had to shut down to replace a feed water pump, but it was up and running in a relatively short period of time.  Our nuclear station, which contained two of our 77 generators at the time I retired, was online an average of 93 percent of the time.  It beat every other form of generation hands down. 

[Gramp]

Planting a trillion trees seems a wiser action to take rather than trying to track slippery CO2 numbers. 

[Erik_Mag]

The 2014 data does not reflect the replacement of coal fired power plants with natural gas fired power plants that have taken place since then along with a minor reduction in CO2 production due to the increase of wind and solar generated electricity. Also note that cement production is a significant source of CO2.

For trips over 200 miles, i.e. where 200+ MPH speeds have a benefit, I would think electric airliners would be more energy efficient than very high speed rail as the air drag at 25,000' at a given speed is a bit more than a third (1/e) of the drag at sea level.

The real joker in the deck with respect to electrification is where to get a source of dependable electric power.

[JPS1]

Gramp

 In his State of the Union address, Biden said US produces 15% of the world's carbon emissions, that even if the US did it perfectly, the reduction by the US wouldn't matter. 

It appears that Biden was drawing on EPA data for 2014, which is the latest world-wide data available.  As one might imagine, gathering this information is a large and timely undertaking. 

 

According to the data, the U.S. was responsible for 15 percent of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and some industrial processes.  China topped the list at 30 percent, followed by the U.S. at 15 percent, European Union – 28 at 9 percent, and India at 7 percent.  All the other countries contributed approximately 39 percent. 

 

The U.S. has approximately 4.2 percent of the world’s population compared to 18.1 percent for China.  The U.S. emits an average of approximately 15.4 tons of co2 per person compared to an average of approximately 7.5 tons per person for China.   Reducing our footprint per person would make a difference.

[BaltACD]

Gramp

In his State of the Union address, Biden said US produces 15% of the world's carbon emissions, that even if the US did it perfectly, the reduction by the US wouldn't matter. 

Everything MATTERS - the longest journey begins with the first step and doesn't end until you 'get there'.  Just because you can't see the end point from the start line is no reason not to undertake the journey.

[Gramp]

In his State of the Union address, Biden said US produces 15% of the world's carbon emissions, that even if the US did it perfectly, the reduction by the US wouldn't matter. 

[LANDON ROWELL]

I would like to see some sort of transfer service from Windsor Locks to Bradely, even if it is just a shuttle bus that operates until after the last train has arrived. If I arrive in Winsdor in the evening, the local car rental facility is closed. Bradley has lot of car rentals available late into the night, if not all night.

[Overmod]

blue streak 1

"All-Electric NEC — Transition all-scheduled intercity and commuter passenger rail service on the NEC main line to electric or other technologically advanced propulsion equipment by the start of FY 2030, with reasonable exceptions. Develop plans, including timelines and funding requirements, to achieve “carbon-free” operations within Amtrak’s NEC territory (making it the first carbonless intercity corridor in the U.S. operated by any mode of transportation) and across the whole of Amtrak’s network."

I find that the paragraph can be considered several ways.

I think the principal effect is political, and "as usual" with Amtrak there is probably much in the fine print that makes it more rhetoric than substantial carbon reduction.

Certainly the corridor will be far from 'carbonless' except in the trivial sense of little actual atmospheric carbon emission at the trains.  Of course to much of the 'intended demographic', who are firm believers in electricity fairies, this in itself is meaningful for "addressing climate change" as it would be for "reducing regional pollution".  It takes a little understanding to recognize the difference.

a.  A LD train on the NEC that is not electric would be the Lake Shore Limited NYP to Albany?

The actual time this train spends on the NEC is trivial, a few hundred yards from the platforms in Penn Station to the access to the Empire Corridor.  Technically much of the service here is with dual-mode (DC third rail and diesel) so electric in the tiny part necessary to satisfy a Time-Life sweepstakes-style legal department...

b.  The Pennsylvanian from PHL to Harrisburg is another as it usually is a P-42.  What do you do have an elctric pull it in front of a P-42?

Again, only incidentally (from just outside 30th St. to North Philadelphia) does this involve the "Northeast Corridor" -- the ex-PRR toward Harrisburg, Pittsburgh, and Chicago is not part of it.  Theoretically this is only 'access' to a service; the same could be said of Atlantic City trains run through over Delair.  

2.  Does the paragraph mean Electrification of New Haven -  Springfield line?

Again, only incidentally on the NEC at the New Haven end... if at all, after the rebuilding.  While I support electrification on the line in principle, it would be secondary to the goal in the paragraph as stated.  Electrification over the B&A to Boston facilitated by an electrified Springfield line is a pipe dream in the near future, even as a distant approximation to a 'second spine' for the north end of the NEC.

3.  MBTA possible using electrification of the Providence/Green airport line?

Again, what is MBTA service off the Corridor supposed to have to do with Amtrak trains?  Likewise...

5.  NJ Transit on way with dual-mode locos.

By definition anything Midtown Direct has to be 'electric' either in the North River Tunnels or prospectively in Gateway, so the issue for any diesel NJT train east of Allied or Lautenberg or whatever it is called now, on the actual NEC, is pretty obvious.  Again, do you count the few hundred feet that the diesel trains use to get up the ramps and to the Allied Junction platforms to be "Amtrak operation" over the Northeast Corridor?  I would not.

6.  SEPTA does not seem to have enough electric equipment yet ?

7.  MARC would be required to operate all Penn line trains with HHPs  That seems very difficult ?

8.  On some Amtrak sites the WASH-Richmond route is considered an extension of the NEC.

Provide links to these sites.  It would be highly interesting to see what their responses to this provision will be.

Could Amtrak even be thinking of electrification of  the tracks of that route the state of Va now owns?

It's only money.  Does the Richmond traffic currently justify the investment? I doubt it.  But this is politically driven, and any technological improvements for "national priorities" would logically require full "national" subsidy if I were a Virginia legislator...

Other technologically advanced equipment is really unknown.

It occurs to me that one of the RPS battery-hybrid "add-in modules" for commuter train service could easily start and operate any of the above trains for the short nominal distances involved -- or be reasonably promoted as being "capable" of doing so and hence as actually regularly doing so, a lie widespread in the plug-in-hybrid automobile world.  Since there are so many prospective advantages for incorporating hybrid capability into diesel commuter operations,  this might be a lovely opportunity to leverage their acquisition and testing on trains that technically 'use the Northeast Corridor' in any part... 

   

 

 

[/quote]

[BaltACD]

Electricity along the NEC is not totally carbon free.  Yes, coal is on the way out, however Natural Gas is still a carbon based fuel.

[blue streak 1]

An indication from the Amtrak annual report of possible electrification.  This is from page 38. 

"All-Electric NEC — Transition all regularly-scheduled intercity and commuter passenger rail service on the NEC main line to electric or other technologically advanced propulsion equipment by the start of FY 2030, with reasonable exceptions. Develop plans, including timelines and funding requirements, to achieve “carbon-free” operations within Amtrak’s NEC territory (making it the first carbonless intercity corridor in the U.S. operated by any mode of transportation) and across the whole of Amtrak’s network."

Here is a link to the whole report-------

Amtrak General and Legislative Annual Report & FY2022 Grant Request

I find that the paragraph can be considered several ways. 

1.  All regularly scheduled LD statement------------

a.  A LD train on the NEC that is not electric would be the Lake Shore Limited NYP to Albany ?

b.  The Pennsylvanian from PHL to Harrisburg is another as it usually is a P-42.  What do you do have an elctric pull it in front of a P-42 ?

2.  Does the paragraph mean Electrification of New Haven -  Springfield line ?

3.  MBTA possible using electrification of the Providence / Green airport line ?

4.  SLE already planned for EMUs.

5.  NJ Transit on way witth dual mode locos.

6.  SEPTA does not seem to have enough electric equipment yet ?

7.  MARC would be required to operate all Penn line trains with HHPs  That seems very difficult ?

8.  On some Amtrak sites the WASH - Richmond route is considered an extension of the NEC. Could Amtrak even be thinking of electrification of  the tracks of that route the state of Va now owns ?   Find that highly unlikely   But ?????????

Other technologically advanced equipment is really unknown.

   

 

[blue streak 1]

I'll address airports.  MEM had several good runways however around Christmas it can become very hectic due to FED EX running extra flights during the daytime.  And you aint seen nothing until you fly there during the night time rush.  

Bradley subject to weather  . the east - West runway has high landing miniums and a high mountain to the west.  the NE - /SW runway much better until the snow and ice gets on runways causing gate hold to airport and delayed departures when E - W runway cannot be used.  Do not know if postal sorting facility on east side of airport is still there but air cargo often delayed from there due to late night weather.

Westchester airport just one E-W runway.  Landing lengths reduced last time there due to hill to south too close to runway.  Hill was supposed to be removed but several million cubic yards to  be moved.

New Haven Tweed ?  Last time ther too short N -_S runway for regular jets.  However that could have changed.

[Gramp]

My recollection of that region is that it is "thickly settled".  Not very conducive to mass transit and very slow going even though the distances aren't great. 

[Overmod]

There is a consideration that is being lost in the sauce in some of the recent discussion.  If we accept that Bradley has a 'natural service area' of the extent implied, we also note that all the 'rail' transit traffic that serves it has to be funnelled, in some way, to Windsor Locks from all directions and all origins or destinations.  That has serious implications for prospective electrification of the Springfield Line (which was an original point of this post) but the feeders from disparate areas to service on the Springfield Line itself, or to Windsor Locks itself, haven't been described or discussed.

 

[Overmod]

rdamon

Clark Howard told many people the benefits of driving from Atlanta, GA to Birmingham, AL to catch a flight on Southwest.   The ability to use rail to get to these airports would increase their use and potentially reduce the need for expansions at any of the ‘NFL’ airports.

I know I'd use it.

We had a regular shuttle-bus service from Memphis to the airport at Little Rock, which featured lower rates not just on budget carriers but more 'major' ones, too.

Likewise we had the promise of airport expansion at Tupelo (and Southwest expressed interest in gate slots there) which would likewise have represented a rail opportunity, albeit combined with 'casino' traffic.

These are anecdotal and not worth much in themselves -- but the Bette Bus usually ran full, and there was plenty of excitement here concerning the prospective long runways in Tunica.

This could be extended to other, perhaps smaller, regional airports, probably with some last-mile regional bus or 'paratransit' where there is inadequate volume to build out rail.

One of the interesting details of the original zunum prospectus was their choice of regional airports to serve -- this would be a guide for long-term transit planning for service involving the kind of small aircraft I was proposing as feeders to HSR.

[rdamon]

Southwest made a great market serving smaller cities. The cities welcomed them with open arms and the major carriers paid little attention.  Look at T.F. Green, Bradley, Islip and others.

 

Clark Howard told many people the benefits of driving from Atlanta, GA to Birmingham, AL to catch a flight on Southwest.

 

The ability to use rail to get to these airports would increase their use and potentially reduce the need for expansions at any of the ‘NFL’ airports.

[charlie hebdo]

Folks from New Haven often use Bradley.  Tweed does not serve nearly as well. 

[Backshop]

MidlandMike

 

 

Backshop

Hartford has nothing to do with the metro NYC airports.  It has its own catchment area.

 

 

People I know who are fans of Southwest AL seem to prefer Hartford (over LaGuardia) for northern NY suburbs (inc. Fairfield).

 

Southwest fans are just weird.  My point was that the Hartford/Springfield area is big and prosperous enough to support their own decent size airport.  The European flights it supported pre-Covid were because of the local community.

[MidlandMike]

Backshop

Hartford has nothing to do with the metro NYC airports.  It has its own catchment area.

People I know who are fans of Southwest AL seem to prefer Hartford (over LaGuardia) for northern NY suburbs (inc. Fairfield).

[Overmod]

Backshop

You don't need to answer every thread posted, especially if it's not an area of your expertise.

Yeah, you're right, particularly since this thread isn't actually about airport traffic at all.  So I'll stick to an area of actual expertise and give you the actual 2017 planning document with their alternatives.

(Note that all these involve the Windsor Locks station, which is only about 3 miles from Bradley.  The Suffield 'spur' (alternative 1) is the one of interest if using CTDOT-compliant equipment, but their numbers for DMUs running this are frankly terrifying, and of course any LRT is utterly incompatible to run anywhere over the Springfield Line.  Meanwhile the longstanding Hartford-regional interest in BRT is a firm alternative for this almost ridiculously short loop, and it would be interesting to see how far the Bradley Flyer has improved its daily numbers in the last 5 years.

Once you've read through it you'll understand why there won't be periodic 'report updates' on the rail alternatives beyond this although folks will keep talking in vague generalities about 'rail at some point'.

[Backshop]

Overmod

 

 

Backshop

It's much bigger than Stewart.

 

 

The whole point of Stewart as the 'fourth airport' lies well in the future, and in fact has if anything gone backward from what was being planned before the Tappan Zee was rebuilt.  What I understood was that it had the land and the expansion capability to become an airport on the operational scale of the three existing New York-area airports; up to the '90s I don't think Bradley enjoyed that, and may still not.

 

Naturally considerable enhancements to Stewart's connectivity would need to occur, not least of which is figuring out how to deal with the bottleneck posed by Moodna Viaduct.  The planning for a direct railroad link via the Tappan Zee was intimately involved with the long-range planning in this respect -- it does not really surprise me that the general-capacity promise of needed capex has not 'evolved' for Stewart as the insurance-driven (and expanding regional) market in the Hartford area has for Bradley.

 

Two points--Stewart has 8% of the traffic of Bradley.  It won't be a major airport in our lifetimes, if ever.

Airport Rankings 2019 | Bureau of Transportation Statistics (bts.gov)

Hartford has nothing to do with the metro NYC airports.  It has its own catchment area.  You don't need to answer every thread posted, especially if it's not an area of your expertise.

[Overmod]

Backshop

It's much bigger than Stewart.

The whole point of Stewart as the 'fourth airport' lies well in the future, and in fact has if anything gone backward from what was being planned before the Tappan Zee was rebuilt.  What I understood was that it had the land and the expansion capability to become an airport on the operational scale of the three existing New York-area airports; up to the '90s I don't think Bradley enjoyed that, and may still not.

Naturally considerable enhancements to Stewart's connectivity would need to occur, not least of which is figuring out how to deal with the bottleneck posed by Moodna Viaduct.  The planning for a direct railroad link via the Tappan Zee was intimately involved with the long-range planning in this respect -- it does not really surprise me that the general-capacity promise of needed capex has not 'evolved' for Stewart as the insurance-driven (and expanding regional) market in the Hartford area has for Bradley.