Myself included! A transcon runs very close by (with Amtrak and commuter service). It's nice hearing the trains go by, although I know some neighbors don't love it.
How much would it cost Amtrak to build its own tracks/right of way in areas where it gets a lot of pax?
- Thread starter MIrailfan
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
An unfortunate case study is the attempt to build a simple siding in Glenview to accommodate additional Hiawatha trips. The opposition to that was fierce, and it has apparently succeeded in halting that project. I am sure where the frequency increase stands at this point.
Actually, our political system is set up so that a minority of voters can impose their will on the rest of us. I recently read a book on the 1920s that pointed out that in 1919, a majority of Americans opposed Prohibition, but guess what happened?
And many people don't want change in their neighborhood, but it happens, nevertheless.
Indeed, there are other, more powerful forces that keep rail infrastructure as a minor transportation form in this country.
I believe that track cost for a new route would be $1 million per mile and that is after you acquire the real estate. IMO, this whole "Corridor route expansion plan" by Amtrak won't go very far. We will probably see minor improvements on existing routes but new routes may be a stretch. Many of the freight railroads tracks are already filled to capacity so where will Amtrak run these new corridor routes and who is going to get the frieght railroads to agree? What we may see are new corridor routes by private railroads as what is going on in Florida right now.
neroden
Engineer
There is plenty of room to reinstate the third and fourth track on most of the Empire Corridor right of way (for example).
west point
Engineer
Where to start ?
It would seem that getting separate tracks would be WASH <> Richmond. With 2 silvers, Palmetto, Carolinian, Auto train, 2 Norfolk,, 2 Newport, = 9 trains a day one way. .Crescent and Roanoke to ALX.
Then you have VRE 8 to Spotsylvania and 9 to Manassas.
That gives 56 a day to / from Alexandria. , 34 <> Spotsylvania : 20 <> Richmond. Then you have the number of freight trains for CSX and NS.
These numbers are impressive. The next route which is Empire service does not even come close does not even come close. There are already plans to make the WASH - ALEXANDRA separate 2 main tracks with the hold up being a second 2 track Long bridge.
VRE and Amtrak both want to add trips so the line from ALX to Spotsylvania is way in line for the separate 2 main tracks. Manassas as I understand is already 2 main tracks with freight trains but NS does not have much freight traffic.
The west coast routes have some similar numbers but many are already 2 main tracks. Sound transit is even getting some locations with 3 main tracks.
Then you have the CHI - STL HrSR mess that is an example of what happens when not enough though is given to project. that is what happens when freight shares track and the freight RR diverts many trains onto that track without consequences.
It would seem that getting separate tracks would be WASH <> Richmond. With 2 silvers, Palmetto, Carolinian, Auto train, 2 Norfolk,, 2 Newport, = 9 trains a day one way. .Crescent and Roanoke to ALX.
Then you have VRE 8 to Spotsylvania and 9 to Manassas.
That gives 56 a day to / from Alexandria. , 34 <> Spotsylvania : 20 <> Richmond. Then you have the number of freight trains for CSX and NS.
These numbers are impressive. The next route which is Empire service does not even come close does not even come close. There are already plans to make the WASH - ALEXANDRA separate 2 main tracks with the hold up being a second 2 track Long bridge.
VRE and Amtrak both want to add trips so the line from ALX to Spotsylvania is way in line for the separate 2 main tracks. Manassas as I understand is already 2 main tracks with freight trains but NS does not have much freight traffic.
The west coast routes have some similar numbers but many are already 2 main tracks. Sound transit is even getting some locations with 3 main tracks.
Then you have the CHI - STL HrSR mess that is an example of what happens when not enough though is given to project. that is what happens when freight shares track and the freight RR diverts many trains onto that track without consequences.
cirdan
Engineer
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2011
- Messages
- 3,655
Isn't this a glass half full versus half empty thing?
On the one hand we are told the freight railroads are running at or beyond capacity and thus cannot handle any additional passenger trains.
On the other hand there is no case for additional tracks because they wouldn't have enough usage.
Am I the only one to see a logical catch here?
It seems to me there must be a case for a smart compromise here. Add additional tracks that are owned and dispatched by Amtrak but that freights can run on in such a manner that they don't get in Amtrak's way, but can still help pay for the infrastructure.
Possibly even using ROW that was once double track but has since been reduced to single. Amtrak could eminent domain the disused half of it and thus avoid legal battles with tens of thousands of individual landowners.
Unlikely to ever happen, I know, but just as a thought.
At an estimated cost of $1 million per mile, it is unlikely that we will see very much new Amtrak owned track but in Florida the private Brightline is laying miles of it. We have traveled the West quite a bit and from what I see the track mainlines out there are already loaded to capacity. On a recent visit to Winslow, AZ the BNSF mainline was in the rear of our hotel. A train passed every 10 minutes. When Amtrak talks expansion even on "corridor lines" there is hardly a mention of their plan to acquire track or track rights. Am I missing something?
I believe many variations of your idea have been suggested here before.
20th Century Rider
Engineer
Look no further than the California High Speed Rail conundrum wallowing in endless delays, costs for land acquisition, and more... and projections keep changing as actual 'doable optimism' fades.
To build a new rail line from scratch will take more than a decade. Environmental reviews, lawsuits, land acquisition, construction.
Adding (or restoring) trackage next to existing lines is far more practical. Amtrak owns or controls the additional trackage, and the freights can operate on it so long as Amtrak gets full priority.
Adding (or restoring) trackage next to existing lines is far more practical. Amtrak owns or controls the additional trackage, and the freights can operate on it so long as Amtrak gets full priority.
cirdan
Engineer
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2011
- Messages
- 3,655
I think the problem with California is that there isn't really the buy-in any more. These projects typically outlast several legislatures and governors. They are almost inter-generational projects in that regard. California went from having a governor who was very supportive to one who is lukewarm at best.
Projects like this should not be the subjects of political ping-pong but need broad support on all levels of government so that they continue to be fully supported even when legislatures and governors change.
They're primarily using existing rights of way owned by the Florida East Coast Railway. They successfully got local municipalities to cover just under $1m in grade crossing improvements.
Absent an existing and cooperative underutilized ROW, the Brightline plan isn't viable.
No. The plan talks extensively about freight railroads giving passenger rail priority, along with giving the STB new and faster authority to compel priority and improve OTP.
That plan is good in its intention but may be a stretch in its implementation. Many of the freight mainlines are already overloaded. From what I saw in Arizona two weeks ago was a complete logjam on the BNSF mainline. It appeared that BNSF was not even able to prioritize in own freight trains let alone Amtrak. Passenger rail prioritiy has been an issue for a long time and while the freight railroads are already obligated to provide it , sporadic compliance is what we often see. In the end big business always wins over politics.
cirdan
Engineer
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2011
- Messages
- 3,655
Brightline West is going to be all on new ROW, from what I've understood.
Having said that, so are parts of the Brightline extension to Orlando airport.
Ditto much of the proposed Tampa line.
cirdan
Engineer
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2011
- Messages
- 3,655
But a totally logjammed main line cannot be in the interest of business either. It prevents growth and even causes existing shippers to look for alternatives.
There might be conditions under which the railroad would happily pay for more capacity. This is why the transcons for example are being progressively upgraded with additional tracks.
Now if Amtrak could get into the game and offer to pick up some of those costs in return for some level of say in dispatching. Maybe the railroad can keep the slow freights that don't mind the logjam on the old line and pay a bit more for fast freights to use the faster new line.
Scroll back a few years and a lot of TIGER funds were used to upgrade NS's Crescent Corridor. So it's not as if railroads say no to government money. Now if that could have been done a little more smartly, Amtrak could have had some more privileges written into the contract.
They're leasing the parts to Victorville from CalTrans at a bargain $850k/year. How Brightline plans to get to Los Angeles proper is still far from decided, but will probably involve tying into California HSR.
George Harris
Engineer
Not sure of what you are specifically talking about, but if it is the Greensboro to Charlotte segment, the state of North Carolina owns that piece of railroad and NS simply operates over it on long term lease, so the state had a little more than the average amount of leverage on what was done there.
Latest posts
-
-
-
Connecticut Inland Route and Albany - Boston Corridor (Compass Service)
- Latest: AmtrakMaineiac
-
-
-
-
