I know we discussed this earlier in the forum but just found this youtube video. Look at all this yard running leaving St. Paul Union Depot and the total train congestion there as well (Amtrak is late and not leaving at it’s assigned time).
I think it underscores once again that before any HSR implementation this is going to have to be fixed in part with a seperated and higher speed passenger main. Looks like there are space limitations in some parts here. On the train blocking Amtraks departure. I don’t think that is the host railroads fault, Amtrak is late and additionally there is kind of a lack of crossovers between the two lines…then further out the second former Milwaukee main is torn up…which one could argue was a shortsighted decision on the part of CP.
Clearly the access to stations in larger cities needs improvement in terms of routing and sustained speed, whether the trains are conventional, HrSR or actual HSR. BTW, I am not aware of any serious proponents of HSR for routes much more than 500 miles, much less transcontinental services here.
IMO you are on the correct track. It is getting the slow sections eliminated. A first thought that the upgrading of Newark - Trenton was too expensive but the condition of the CAT support poles requires that they be replaced before a major failure.
But the curves at Elizabeth and Frankford Junction - North PHL certainly need mitigating to reduce travel times. The CAT upgrading will only save about 2 minutes but the curves upgrading will save about 7 minutes.
The problems at MSP certainly show these slow area problems. Agree that just one round trip a day makes one wonder about the financial viability of improvements probably a flyover or two. But in the future if there are more trips then there definitely needs mitigations.
One place that appears to be proceeding to last mile(s) improvements is LAX Union station. Although the present throat is speedier than most the ability for all trains to not have to back out which will save 5 - 10 minutes.
This is a good topic. For fun, when I am on one of those duty, Interstate-only car trips, I clock my miles per hour start to stop, as if I were a passenger train.
I try for an average 60 mph. It is very revealing how much running you have to do at 79 mph (my fudge on the N.D. Interstate speed limit of 75 mph) to make up for those gas/bathroom/sandwich stops!
I think it underscores once again that before any HSR implementation this is going to have to be fixed in part with a seperated and higher speed passenger main. Looks like there are space limitations in some parts here. On the train blocking Amtraks departure. I don’t think that is the host railroads fault, Amtrak is late and additionally there is kind of a lack of crossovers between the two lines…then further out the second former Milwaukee main is torn up…which one could argue was a shortsighted decision on the part of CP.
IMO you are on the correct track. It is getting the slow sections eliminated. A first thought that the upgrading of Newark - Trenton was too expensive but the condition of the CAT support poles requires that they be replaced before a major failure.
But the curves at Elizabeth and Frankford Junction - North PHL certainly need mitigating to reduce travel times. The CAT upgrading will only save about 2 minutes but the curves upgrading will save about 7 minutes.
The problems at MSP certainly show these slow area problems. Agree that just one round trip a day makes one wonder about the financial viability of improvements probably a flyover or two. But in the future if there are more trips then there definitely needs mitigations.
One place that appears to be proceeding to last mile(s) improvements is LAX Union station. Although the prese
Meanwhile, at the other end of the Empire Builder line…the former SP&S line from Vancouver east must have about a hundred grade crossings in the first twenty five miles, mostly residential driveways with crossbucks. Good luck speeding that up.
[quote user=“BaltACD”]
blue streak 1
CMStPnP
I think it underscores once again that before any HSR implementation this is going to have to be fixed in part with a seperated and higher speed passenger main. Looks like there are space limitations in some parts here. On the train blocking Amtraks departure. I don’t think that is the host railroads fault, Amtrak is late and additionally there is kind of a lack of crossovers between the two lines…then further out the second former Milwaukee main is torn up…which one could argue was a shortsighted decision on the part of CP.
IMO you are on the correct track. It is getting the slow sections eliminated. A first thought that the upgrading of Newark - Trenton was too expensive but the condition of the CAT support poles requires that they be replaced before a major failure.
But the curves at Elizabeth and Frankford Junction - North PHL certainly need mitigating to reduce travel times. The CAT upgrading will only save about 2 minutes but the curves upgrading will save about 7 minutes.
Check out the average speed of the Southwest Chief, Chicago to Kansas City…Compare it to the Empire Builder, Milwaukee to St. Paul. 10+ mph difference approx. Looks like from that there are probably a lot more restrictive speeds on CP than BNSF…or could it all me the METRA portion has three tracks on one and only two on the other?
Balt: Many slow sections in urban areas are just result of poor track lay out within present ROW. The past RRs built tracks for steam trains that had no need for HrSR turnouts.
Lookat the benefitsthat are / will be acquired with the upgrade of the slip switches at the west end of NYP from 10 to 20 MPH. ( many NJT and Amtrak passengers ) Slow sections need much examination. IMHO one way is get priority of the cost benefits of eliminating any slow section. How that could be determined may be any of many ways.
First any location that might fail that would terminate trains has to be considered first.
One way would be passenger minutes saved per dollar spent. So a 2 minute time saved over the Portal bridge would mean many passenger minutes saved. The same for Gateway tubes and B&P tunnels. But all routes need to have some improvements. It will be interesting the number of passenger minutes saved / dollar spent by NC DOT’s Raleigh - Charlotte
I was watching a video of an Amtrak backing into the new Denver Union Station 2 years ago. Way too much use of yard trackage, restricted speed, and hand-thrown switches. That stuff adds up. And while places like 30th street/Zoo are a mess due to how much railroad action was there in generations past, this is a lot of new construction (or at least looked new - maybe I’m wrong?). Boggles the mind.
But yeah, these huge (and old) interlockings need to be streamlined so passenger trains can approach/depart the stations at speeds slightly faster than a turtle’s crawl from 10 miles away.
As to Denver, I was astounded two or three years ago, as I stood at the rear and saw that the switches used as we went in were hand-thrown. I said something to the conductor, who was continually telling the engineer what his line of sight was (in number of cars), about the fact that the switches were not remotely controlled–and his reply was non-commital. I thought of Bristol, Virginia-Tennessee, where the switches at the passenger station were remotely controlled (three passenger trains, all with engine change in the days of steam, each way every day). In the glory days of passenger service, there were usually, only three passenger trains that ran through Denver–two on the UP and one Burlington-D&RGW. There were also many other trains that had to be directed to the proper tracks. Perhaps the powers that were did not think the expense remotely control the switches worthwhile?
When the CZ is detoured across Wyoming, it backs into Salt Lake City westbound, and backs out eastbound. I could not tell if the necessary switches were handthrown or not, but I do know that the controller wants to make sure that a train is past the points before making a change.
The higher speed the crossover, the more track length must be alloted for the crossover. Attached link is to engineering drawings for WMATA special trackwork - most of which details #8 switches and crossovers. Most slow speed railroad crossovers are #10’s, higher speed is #20’s and higher.
The examples given by several posters of archaic track and switchwork in urban areas are case studies of why improvements are not going to happen as long as we have a rail system grounded in the 19th century. The freight rails have no incentive to reconfigure. At a minimum, it’s going to require some form of government intervention, using eminent domain powers where necessary.
I am going on memory here but I thought I read the back in to Denver was just temporary because they do not have the funds to address all the signaling and trackwork and intend to fix it later so that Amtrak trains can pull straight in and leave just by pulling straight out.
To be fair, Fort Worth intermodal station had the same issue for ye
The station in Denver is now a stub station–if you head in, you must back out; if you back in, you can head out.
In the early days of Amtrak, the Chicago-Oakland train headed in, the engine was changed and put on what had been the rear (I do not know if the coach seats were turned), and headed for Cheyenne–where the engine was run around to the other end and then left for Laramie and points west. This was the procedure used for the City of Portland when it ran through Denver, and the Portland Rose. When Amtrak began bypassing Cheyenne, using the Borie cutoff (with a station stop at Borie and a bus connection from/to Cheyenne), backing into Denver became the normal procedure.
It is now impossible to run an engine around the train in the station; each track deadends at the platform, which is hi-level.
My error on the City of Portland; you are correct. I just looked at a 1967 Guide, and saw that the Portland Rose did go through Cheyenne–the City of St. Louis bypassed Cheyenne. In 1967, when my wife’s then sister-in-law and one of her sons went from Abuquerque to Boise, they took the Portland Rose from Denver–and they rode backwards to Cheyenne, wondering why.
CoP started running via Denver Jan 1959-- looks like it skipped Cheyenne until 1967-68. Portland Rose skipped Cheyenne in 1/59 but was stopping there in 1961.
I am not sure, but I think it was in 1982 that Amtrak began using the Borie Cutoff and thus bypassing Cheynnne. As long as the train served Cheyenne directly, coach passengers road backwards between Denver and Cheyenne, going both east and west.