Laying of second track has finally started. Track laying has started going north at Cedar CP ( just north of Cedar Hill yard in New Haven ). The track laying machine is similar to one posted from Europe. It lays down concrete ties first then attaches rail to ties. Note that ties are laid down on ballast surface . Then all the ballast that is needed is what goes between and outside of ties. Then surfacing machins can do final work probably destressing rail as work proceeds.
I have heard different stories on how far the double tracking will go. I seems I heard it would be mainly just in CT. How far is the present project to go?
Looks like CT, for now. My tea leaves don’t work well east of Chicago. [:-^]
Found some details in one pop-up:
"Portions of Track 2, which were removed in the 1980’s, will be re-installed generally to the east of the existing Track 1 between Mile Posts (MP) 7 and 17 (North Haven, Wallingford and Meriden), 20 and 31 (Berlin and Newington) and 37 and 43 (Hartford and Windsor) to accommodate the planned increase in train traffic. In addition, a controlled siding will be installed between Mile Posts 37 and 39 (Hartford) to provide a location where passenger trains and freight trains can pass each other.
New interlockings will be installed in North Haven (MP 7.2), Meriden (MP 16.5), Berlin (MP 26.5), and Hartford (MP 37 and MP 39). The switches in the interlockings will allow trains to shift from one track to the other (a.k.a. diverging moves) at speeds up to 45 mph."
But will the speed limite be reaised to 90 Mph again (Presently the speed limit is 80 Mph) ? And in the case of the Schenectady - albany it’s interesting to see that the line is getting only we wood ties, but htere are short sections of that segment where the top speed is 90 or 110 Mph. Will that be in efect in the new track ?
My understanding, which may be highly defective, is that the double-tracking per se extends only to Windsor. Some large percentage of the traffic is expected to be between Hartford and the Corridor, including enough ‘northern suburb’ and perhaps train layover space coverage; my impression was that only one moving train north of roughly Windsor Locks would be needed to serve Springfield even with 17 spaced trains a day (it would work a bit like a shuttle service, with one train arriving with the previous consist ‘still in the station’, and the latter then occupying single track down to Windsor before the next train needed to run north of there.
If the anticipated heavy ‘suburban’ traffic does develop north of Windsor, that would be the time to put in more segments of double main… I would frankly rather put any “double-tracking” money for that segment at present into other rail-infrastructure projects that can use it better – for example, additional consists. I think the second-track ROW is fully reserved against potential encroachment, and leasing an even better TLM in a few years should be easy.
As a note, I am also ASSuming that the purpose of the crossovers is to allow all scheduled trains in both directions to run at reasonable speed around any freight moves that happen to be on the railroad. That does indicate to me (YMMV) that higher average speed and shorter segment times are involved in the project design.
CT department of Transportation is hoping to start New Haven - Springfield service with 17 trains Jan 8, 2018. Wonder how reliable this plan will pan out ?
In reference to previous post CT is allocating another $50.M for another 7.5 miles to close 2 MT gap north of Windsor. + assist funding Enfield - Windsor 4 miles. Additionally for the various stations. That seems to indicated that the intermediate stations listed would not make the Jan 2018 date ?
NHHS Rail Program Team info@nhhsrail.com CTDOT Announces $50 Million in Additional Funding for NHHS Rail Program Funds will Support CTrail Hartford Line Service Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) Commissioner James P. Redeker t
Remember that the issue isn’t the presence of crossovers, it’s the use of relatively high-speed crossovers. That of course doesn’t mean that reason #3 isn’t still significant or even primary, of course, but I think it changes some of the context toward operational issues (one of which, potentially, is of course faster “CTC-like” track switching around sections that are down for maintenance).