http://american-rails-forums.com/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=2430
Where would they route the line?
Where would they route the line?
Replacing part of the NEC?
- Thread starter StorkNest
- Start date
Gandalf0444
FVRR member
That is very interesting
I would like to see how this goes.
I would like to see how this goes.That is very interesting
Looks like you'll have to extend you NEC Gandalf.
I would think that they could probably still use the ROW of the NEC. When the Pennsy built the line and upraded to electric in the 1920s they built it with 4 tracks or more. Over the years, the PC, Conrail, and other tenants on the line have cut back some areas to two and three tracks.
Why not increase this to 4 or 6 again with the highspeed passenger service on its own tracks on the ROW perhaps in the middle. Any freight service would need to use flyovers or under passes to get to the service on either side.
What's interesting and sad is we had this capacity all along the east coast and over the past 40 to 50 years, we've let them deteriorate into a rust bucket. Take a good look at what's left of many of the former NYC mainlines in Upper State NewYork. What was once a 4-track mainline is now only 2 or fewer tracks. Now they talk about capacity issues and the need to add tracks in. Well if they hadn't removed them in the first place, the problem wouldn't exist today.
John
Why not increase this to 4 or 6 again with the highspeed passenger service on its own tracks on the ROW perhaps in the middle. Any freight service would need to use flyovers or under passes to get to the service on either side.
What's interesting and sad is we had this capacity all along the east coast and over the past 40 to 50 years, we've let them deteriorate into a rust bucket. Take a good look at what's left of many of the former NYC mainlines in Upper State NewYork. What was once a 4-track mainline is now only 2 or fewer tracks. Now they talk about capacity issues and the need to add tracks in. Well if they hadn't removed them in the first place, the problem wouldn't exist today.
John
Gandalf0444
FVRR member
I wouldn't say that every area has room for adding more tracks...(unless the mean south of Penn Station in New York.) Because here in Connecticut the tracks rarely have a RR crossing(I think they only have 2 level crossings) and the rest either have to go under,or over the tracks,with that said it would take to much money and disrupt to much traffic to widen the overpasses/underpasses to accommodate more then the 2 tracks there now.
And the NEC in New Jersey is already pushing the capacity of the ROW with 6 tracks,if they get much wider they will be spilling over into people backyards,not to mention they would have to push all the stations back in NJ to also accommodate the new tracks,back in Connecticut you would not only have to move the stations back,but also clear the land of brush trees,houses,marshes etc. Which is just not feasible,and then the route will become an evil eyesore to the beutiful New England atmosphere....
Yea Iced looks like I should get to work:hehe: Maybe I can beat them to it!
And the NEC in New Jersey is already pushing the capacity of the ROW with 6 tracks,if they get much wider they will be spilling over into people backyards,not to mention they would have to push all the stations back in NJ to also accommodate the new tracks,back in Connecticut you would not only have to move the stations back,but also clear the land of brush trees,houses,marshes etc. Which is just not feasible,and then the route will become an evil eyesore to the beutiful New England atmosphere....
Yea Iced looks like I should get to work:hehe: Maybe I can beat them to it!
I wouldn't say that every area has room for adding more tracks...(unless the mean south of Penn Station in New York.) Because here in Connecticut the tracks rarely have a RR crossing(I think they only have 2 level crossings) and the rest either have to go under,or over the tracks,with that said it would take to much money and disrupt to much traffic to widen the overpasses/underpasses to accommodate more then the 2 tracks there now.
And the NEC in New Jersey is already pushing the capacity of the ROW with 6 tracks,if they get much wider they will be spilling over into people backyards,not to mention they would have to push all the stations back in NJ to also accommodate the new tracks,back in Connecticut you would not only have to move the stations back,but also clear the land of brush trees,houses,marshes etc. Which is just not feasible,and then the route will become an evil eyesore to the beutiful New England atmosphere....
Yea Iced looks like I should get to work:hehe: Maybe I can beat them to it!
Yeah the yuppies and NIMBYs would love this wouldn't they.
The old New Haven was also 4 and 6 tracks wide from New Haven south. The commuter agencies and PennCentral eliminated tracks to save money when the capacity was down. You can see this when you look at overhead pictures of Stamford, and other station areas. The platforms sit where otherr tracks used to be at one time.
In New Jersey there are sections that are quite busy, but they too are missing tracks. You can see where the bridges are there, but they have an access road over them instead of tracks that used to be there. They should put the tracks back. The same through Philadelphia and Maryland on the NEC.
To me this would be the least intrusive way of adding service. Ripping out neighbourhoods for new ROW would be worse.
What's interesting is the old Pennsy and New Haven ran faster than Amtrak does today on the same stretches of track. The NH made the run from Boston to New York in around 3-1/2 hours. This included the engine changes in New Haven. Amtrak has just brought that down to 3-3/4 hours without the changes. Pennsy ran the Broadway Limited in about 3 hours to Washington. Amtrak does the trip in 3-1/2 to 4 hours now.
It's all about efficiency. No matter how fast you run, if you never can get up to speed because of poor scheduling and powerplant maintenance, then you'll never meet the schedule in the first place.
John
Last edited:
Michael_Evans
thread killer
Freight railroads should consider building another track for freight use only right next to the NEC. Similar to P&W's "third rail" project in Rhode Island. I think CSX is considering doing that in New Jersey. That would also eliminate clearance issues because in some parts of the NEC the catenary is low making it impossible to run intermodel trains and high cars. There are many rural areas along the route where more tracks could be added. Then upgrade the express tracks and have all the other commuter railroads use the local tracks. This would allow Amtrak to go much faster. Another solution would be making the NEC like the shinkansen line in Japan where the shinkansen has it's own route seperate from the local and freight lines. The only problem with that is where to put the tracks. Underground maybe? Hey they're electric trains and you would be traveling so fast you couldn't see anything anyway.
Last edited: