John I toook the liberty to number your points and address each one.
0. It appears that the there has been a lack of study of the report. No where is there any indication that any of the present routes would be abandoed. BOS – PVD is still considered a HrSR line not HSR but would be used for part of the line at first that goes to Hartford. However it would need to be 4 tracks at least with concurrence of MBTA from the Rhode Island - Mass. state line to BOS.
The present 2 train each direction per hour limit appears to be in force for the long future. Normally one ACELA and one Regional per hour is all MNRR allows from New Haven - New Rochelle. That restriction will not satisfy future demand. The new higher capacity Acelas-2s as well as longer regionals will satisfy some capacity needs.
1. There will be demand thru Hartford as Springfield is only about 25 miles south of Springfield, Ma that can be served well by shuttle trains and the planned Conn DOT commuter trains. This
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.
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.
What is HrSR? I agree that the Shoreline as it stands will never be true high speed rail.
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.
I would not propose actually rebuilding the Shoreline.
New Catenary. I agree.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Several points: 1. One reason for the MNRR restriction of 2 trains an hour each way may be an anticipation that the new M-8s will allow for an increase in frequency on the new Haven roue. 2.Once MNRR tries to run some trips to Penn Station AMTRAK can trade New Rochell _- NYP for additional frequencies on the NH section ? 3. FRA does show the future HSR going over Hell Gate to New Rochelle the going north of the Shore line to Hartford. 4. The 9% passengers thru NYP may increase significantly once a HSR line from BOS is working ? It seems that the decrease to under 3 hrs NYP - WASH brought many more passengers to the NEC. Right now it is 3 hrs Hartford - NYP for just over 110 miles on the regionals but if that is reduced to 1 hour ? Then more passengers can go to Trenton, PHL, BAL ? or maybe even WASH ? 5. HSR to Hartford would not make the Springfield - BOS competetive with the shore line.
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.
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: Although Amtrak favors the constant tension CAT they have no imput in it. MNRR at the behest of Conn DOT is continuing the constant tension that has been completed in New York state. I believe that the work has reached Bridgeport ( ? ) . Many times the NH line has a segment between CPs closed for this work Here is the latest from MNRR http://www.mta.info/mnr/html/catenaryupdate.htm
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
At present tthe shore line in 231 miles from BOS - NYP which compares closely to the 226 miles NYP - WASH. The FRA shows the population density ~ ~ 1/2 North of NYP that population is south of NYP. Week day trains south are 38 and north 18 so again about 1/2 north of the south trains.
A. First assumption - 1. There is no speed up on the shore line 2. From BOS - PVD - HFD - NRO - NYP will probably have a HSR mileage of ~ 210 miles. If 3 intermediate stops that route should take 1:55. 3. As I remember the Hartford station had 2 station tracks but has bridgework for 4 tracks. The station needs at least 4 tracks so local passengers from Springfieldcan cross platform to the Acela-2 express. 4. An Acela -1 /2 or regional can leave BOS on the shoreline on the hour. 5. An hour and half later the express can leave by the HSR line for
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
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.
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.
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
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