North East Corridor (NEC) speeds, new stations and state of repair

[Fenway]

I took the Acela Express from Philadelphia to New Haven last Dec. 10. It was nice to turn on the Speedometer App on my smartphone, and see that the train went over 150 mph, north of Trenton. However, the app also showed my history, where I had clocked the Thalys high speed train from Brussels to Paris last October at 218 mph. Took just over an hour and twenty minutes from Brussels to Paris. That same trip, when I first took it in 1986 took almost 5 hours.

London St-Pancras to Paris Gare du Nord covers 214 miles in 2 hours and 20 minutes

The issue is New Haven to New Rochelle and there is no easy solution if indeed there is one.

In September 2018 while working for the NHL Bruins I took an overnight train from Beijing to Shenzhen that took around 9 hours - the distance was similar to going from Boston to Tampa

 

[Fenway]

London St-Pancras to Paris Gare du Nord covers 214 miles in 2 hours and 20 minutes

The issue is New Haven to New Rochelle and there is no easy solution if indeed there is one.

I think most of us can agree that the Achilles Heel of the NEC is the 56-mile stretch of track owned by Metro-North between New Rochelle and New Haven. Nothing is more frustrating than being on the Acela doing 59 mph and watching the traffic on I-95 moving faster. The 10 miles between NYP and Newark is another choke point and frankly, it is a near miracle that service runs as well as it does.

The State of Connecticut's major priority is the commuter service between New Haven and New York and that won't change. But 46 minutes to travel 39 miles between New Haven and Stamford in 2023 just boggles the mind.

The State of Connecticut is well aware of all the issues

Connecticut State Rail Plan (2022-2026) September 2022

Everything is further complicated by the fragile infrastructure approaching New York City.

The holy grail has always been 3 hours from South Station to NYP but we are stuck at 3h 40 m.

Is there a realistic fix?

 

[dlerach]

Is there a realistic fix? That's a question many people have been asking for a long time, without easy answers. If the New Haven Line is the NEC's Achilles Heel, then the portion of the line between Stamford and New Haven is the Achilles Tendon of the Achilles Heel. Between NYP and Stamford there are multiple challenges, yes, but many of them are fixable without carving out an entirely new alignment, but between Stamford and New Haven you have, among other challenges, the sharp curves around Darien and Norton Heights that would require knocking down entire neighborhoods or multiple miles of tunneling to improve, the 45-mph WALK bridge (whose alignment through South Norwalk is basically impossible to improve), and the 30-mph Jenkin's Curve just south of Bridgeport (basically impossible to rectify without either knocking down downtown Bridgeport or tunneling under the downtown and Bridgeport harbor). The portion between New York and Stamford, though, can be improved with a few projects, and could make Amtrak competitive and enable 2.5-3 hr New York-Boston travel times.

In the Bronx, sharp curves at Hunts Point Ave.-Bruckner Blvd. and Westchester Ave.-Bronx River can be eased to 1.6° with a few takings (one of these would involve replacing Starlight Park). There's also an S-Curve near Morris Park further north in the Bronx, but it can be eased with minimal takings to 1.6° (mostly parking lots) and isn't fatally slow in its current form. The Pelham Bay Bridge needs to be replaced and its curvature should be reduced to 1°, but this is planned anyway with the Metro-North Penn Station Access Project. With those improvements and a re-alignment to 2° near CP Gate in Queens, the entire Hell Gate line would be good for 100-110 mph for Acelas, excepting the sharp curve on the Hell Gate Bridge.

The problem with the New Haven Line between New Rochelle and Stamford, even more than the curves and the flat junction at SHELL Interlocking, is how busy and congested the line is. There is a solution, though, that could help Metro-North and Amtrak. Today the New Haven Line has four tracks, but it was built for six from New Rochelle to Stamford. (The fifth and sixth track were used by the New York, Westchester, & Boston during its existence from Larchmont-Port Chester). I-95 has encroached on the six-track ROW in Larchmont, which will require some unpleasant takings to restore, but if Amtrak had its own dedicated two tracks, it could dramatically increases service levels and increase speeds (many Metro North trains terminate in Stamford, so the line between Stamford and New Haven sees less traffic). The alignment is not the ex-PRR and has a few 2° curves in addition to a few painfully tight twists and turns (around which Amtrak should construct bypasses on I-95), but Amtrak could offer service that is unimaginable today sharing trackage with MNRR. Giving Amtrak its own two tracks also eliminates the problem at SHELL, where a dive-under or jump-over for Hell Gate trains has proven extremely difficult to construct. If an extra station track were built at New Rochelle (it currently has 5), Amtrak could use the two southernmost tracks of the 6-track ROW, eliminating the need to cross MNRR trackage. Amtrak should also use that project to ease the S-curve on the Hell Gate line leading to Shell (this would require taking about 20 properties). Routing Amtrak on the southernmost tracks would require moving station platforms at Larchmont, Mamaroneck, and Rye, but hey, nobody said this was going to be easy.

Once past Rye, 3 sharp curves remain at Port Chester, Greenwich, and Cos Cob. To bypass the Port Chester curve, Amtrak would have to construct a bypass following I-95 to Greenwich. Once past the Greenwich S-Curve, there is ample room for a flying junction for Amtrak trains to transition back to the central express tracks of the 6-track ROW. At that point the only impediment to nonstop 100-mph running to Stamford is the Cos Cob Bridge, which sits between two sharp curves. Replacing the bridge with twin curved, 3-track spans would allow 100-mph speeds and continue Amtrak's segregation from MNRR traffic.

So... is this fixable? Yes, but it would be a herculean project to even improve the half of the line that is easier to fix! For what it's worth, Amtrak's published plans have been even more aggressive, planning to construct an entirely separate 2-track ROW following I-95 between New Rochelle and Stamford. We shall see what of any of this comes to pass, but although many say the meek shall inherit the Earth, I have always believed that the world (or at least internet forum posts) belongs to the bold.

 

[John819]

If you look at the MNR segment on Google Earth you will see that almost any expansion of the ROW will involve taking property at exorbitant northeast prices. However, within the current ROW there are improvements to be made.

First would be bridge replacement. The issue that arises there (as shown by the Walk Bridge project) is coordination with boat traffic, both commercial and recreational. Anything that would restrict navigation at the Cos Cob bridge would be opposed by a huge contingent of boaters, who have megabucks to spend to buy political interference.

Second would be the Shell interlocking. There is not much room to expand, but you could probably improve the track layout between New Rochelle and Larchmont and between Pelham and New Rochelle so that Track 4 is basically reserved for Amtrak service.

Finally, although much of the six track ROW is gone (and it only ran from Larchmont to Port Chester), it may be possible to add a fifth track, again reserved for Amtrak service. Note that in addition to properties encroaching on the original ROW, there are a good number of highway bridges that have been built to the current ROW, and these would need replacement.

The good news is that for once the state and Amtrak are aligned is seeking improvements here, so something may be done.

 

[Fenway]

The good news is that for once the state and Amtrak are aligned is seeking improvements here, so something may be done.

That is encouraging.

Connecticut made some baffling decisions in the 50s when the Connecticut Turnpike was designed and the New Haven RR was a mess. Most of today's issues stem from how badly the NH was managed.

I think back to 1987 when WCVB-TV in Boston had a race between Boston and New York - one reporter flew, one drove and one took Amtrak. I have posted these videos before but I feel they are worth looking at again.







If you did that today the plane would still win but with extra security at airports not so much. Acela and driving a coin flip.

It still scares me that my fastest trip on transit between Boston and NY was back in 2001 on a Chinatown bus - Left Boston Chinatown at 5:05 PM on a Monday evening and arrived on Canal St in Manhattan at 7:55 PM

 

[Anderson]

I mean, at that point how would LIRR to Ronkonkoma and then a tunnel under the Long Island Sound to New Haven compare? A trade of a somewhat-more-expensive project with (potentially) less NIMBY issues in CT (as well as adding some additional intermediate pairs) has seemed like a proposition worth considering to my mind for a while (and all the moreso if the solution from NHV-BOS ends up being a significantly inland routing - then you basically get an "X" at NHV with four sets of routings and city pairs, with transfers at NHV).

 

[Anderson]

That is encouraging.

Connecticut made some baffling decisions in the 50s when the Connecticut Turnpike was designed and the New Haven RR was a mess. Most of today's issues stem from how badly the NH was managed.

I think back to 1987 when WCVB-TV in Boston had a race between Boston and New York - one reporter flew, one drove and one took Amtrak. I have posted these videos before but I feel they are worth looking at again.







If you did that today the plane would still win but with extra security at airports not so much. Acela and driving a coin flip.

It still scares me that my fastest trip on transit between Boston and NY was back in 2001 on a Chinatown bus - Left Boston Chinatown at 5:05 PM on a Monday evening and arrived on Canal St in Manhattan at 7:55 PM

Going LGA-downtown can still be both time consuming and expensive, so it's going to depend a bit on traffic and a bit on how much time you allow for security, etc. I agree that the plane is likely to win, but I also agree that it would probably be closer now than it was then (arriving at the airport <30 minutes before departure would be an exercise in insanity).

That having been said - Peter should have come in second, but it looks like he got demoralized at the end. Also, I can't blame him for not taking the subway in the 80s, but there's a good chance that taking the E-train and then walking would have given him the edge vs taking a taxi. Today he would probably be in a comfortable second place - I'll link the late 1987 timetable below [1], but he was on train 171/161, timetabled at either 4:25 (Mon-Sat) or 4:30 (Sun). Obviously, we've knocked the better part of an hour off of that with the faster Acelas (the fastest one SB, 2155, comes in at 3:32; while the fastest one NB, 2150, comes in at 3:37; but timetables in the 3:40-3:45 range are more common) and the lack of an engine change at NHV for direct trains.

[I admit that I'm a little bit surprised they took 95 instead of the Merritt Parkway, at least since that's how I get routed quite often, but...well, let's talk about how much fun that road is in a midcentury land yacht.]

[1] The Museum of Railway Timetables (timetables.org)

 

[Fenway]

Going LGA-downtown can still be both time consuming and expensive, so it's going to depend a bit on traffic and a bit on how much time you allow for security, etc. I agree that the plane is likely to win, but I also agree that it would probably be closer now than it was then (arriving at the airport <30 minutes before departure would be an exercise in insanity).

That having been said - Peter should have come in second, but it looks like he got demoralized at the end. Also, I can't blame him for not taking the subway in the 80s, but there's a good chance that taking the E-train and then walking would have given him the edge vs taking a taxi. Today he would probably be in a comfortable second place - I'll link the late 1987 timetable below [1], but he was on train 171/161, timetabled at either 4:25 (Mon-Sat) or 4:30 (Sun). Obviously, we've knocked the better part of an hour off of that with the faster Acelas (the fastest one SB, 2155, comes in at 3:32; while the fastest one NB, 2150, comes in at 3:37; but timetables in the 3:40-3:45 range are more common) and the lack of an engine change at NHV for direct trains.

[I admit that I'm a little bit surprised they took 95 instead of the Merritt Parkway, at least since that's how I get routed quite often, but...well, let's talk about how much fun that road is in a midcentury land yacht.]

[1] The Museum of Railway Timetables (timetables.org)

Back then I ALWAYS took the Wilbur Cross/Merritt instead of I-95 but the Sikorsky Bridge was not for the faint of heart.

Trying to describe what the Eastern Shuttle was like in the 60s into the mid-80s is next to impossible to explain to younger people today. You could arrive at Logan and get a boarding pass FIVE MINUTES before departure from a vending machine and pay for the flight in the air and Eastern would roll out a second section even if it only was for one passenger. It happened to me once when I was on a second section with 2 others and we were all flying youth fare.

 

[John819]

Back in the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad days trains like the Mayflower made the New Haven to GCT run in slightly more than one hour and 20 minutes.

Right now one of the problems on the New Haven to New Rochelle run on Metro North is the large number of speed restrictions, both those from Metro North and the "temporary" speed restrictions imposed by the FRA after several MN incidents (derailments / collisions). I am surprised that the TSRs from the FRA are still in place after five years. I guess "temporary" has a different meaning to the DC bureaucrats.

 

[jis]

I mean, at that point how would LIRR to Ronkonkoma and then a tunnel under the Long Island Sound to New Haven compare? A trade of a somewhat-more-expensive project with (potentially) less NIMBY issues in CT (as well as adding some additional intermediate pairs) has seemed like a proposition worth considering to my mind for a while (and all the moreso if the solution from NHV-BOS ends up being a significantly inland routing - then you basically get an "X" at NHV with four sets of routings and city pairs, with transfers at NHV).

I'm sure the NIMBYs on Long Island will oblige by adequately substituting for the NIMBYs in Connecticut.

In any case that is one of the alignments that was considered in the Tier I EIS for the NEC Spine and one that was not selected. It is worthwhile reading the Tier I EIS cover to cover

NEC FUTURE: Tier 1 Final EIS

 

[daybeers]

I'm not sure of the best way to alleviate the issues NYP-NHV, but I definitely think the former Inland Route (NHV-HFD-SPG-WOR-BOS) needs to be restored, as well as a new bypass from HFD to PVD to avoid the congestion, curves, and flood risk in SE CT.

 

[Anderson]

I'm not sure of the best way to alleviate the issues NYP-NHV, but I definitely think the former Inland Route (NHV-HFD-SPG-WOR-BOS) needs to be restored, as well as a new bypass from HFD to PVD to avoid the congestion, curves, and flood risk in SE CT.

I generally agree, though I think there's a case (as was indicated in one of the 16 NEC Future options) to possibly "shave" the route off short of Springfield by roughly following I-84 out of Hartford and up to Worcester (or at least cut around the east side so you're not stuck navigating "yet another city"). If you go with the I-84 option, I don't think it is unreasonable to pair that with high-frequency service from Springfield on the other lines to connect to it (and/or to run as a spur service).

 

[west point]

I mean, at that point how would LIRR to Ronkonkoma and then a tunnel under the Long Island Sound to New Haven compare?

What would save a large amount of time if the shore line is followed to BOS is for that tunnel end up on the east side of NEW Haven. Just look at the present horse shoe track layout from the west side at New Haven station and the east side of New Haven city track.

 

[Fenway]

Decisions were made over a century ago

The poobahs back then did not embrace Hartford with a ROW to either Providence or Boston and 50 years ago scuttled I-86 which would have connected Hartford and Providence.

An educated guess is the Harvard/Yale connection made New Haven the focal point - whatever.

In theory, building a new high-speed ROW from Providence to Stamford via Hartford might be the best solution but the cost would be astronomical, just look at the cost overruns in rural California building out the high-speed line there.

 

[AmtrakMaineiac]

The poobahs back then did not embrace Hartford with a ROW to either Providence or Boston and 50 years ago scuttled I-86 which would have connected Hartford and Providence.

Actually it was I-84 that was supposed to continue on to Providence, with I-86 being the upgraded former Route 15 that ran from Hartford to the Mass state line. This was eventually rebuilt and became I-84 when the plan to extend I-84 to Providence was dropped. I drove that route at least once a year between Eastern PA where I lived and the Boston area where my parents lived between 1970 and 2001 when I relocated to New England.

Getting back to trains I would be very surprised if a major project like a new alignment between New Haven and Boston ever happens due to cost and the desirability of serving Providence which is a major city. I would rather see emphasis on continuing to build up the existing ROW plus the Inland Route.

 

[cocojacoby]

I'm sure the NIMBYs on Long Island will oblige by adequately substituting for the NIMBYs in Connecticut.

In any case that is one of the alignments that was considered in the Tier I EIS for the NEC Spine and one that was not selected. It is worthwhile reading the Tier I EIS cover to cover

NEC FUTURE: Tier 1 Final EIS

Although there was enormous and understandable objection to bringing the line through Old Lyme (maybe even on an obtrusive viaduct?), they never tried any other options like splitting the bypass in half and compromising by eliminating the western half and proposing only building the eastern half. Trying to slice through Old Lyme was pretty dumb but going east from New London to Rhode Island it was to be built mostly along the I-95 highway. Yes, there was some opposition in Rhode Island but nothing like that in western Connecticut. Building only the eastern half would have eliminated most of the drawbridge issues and also avoided most of the slowest curviest parts of the line. They didn't even try to make concessions and possibly succeed by working on just that half. They made an improbable proposal and then just gave up.

 

[dlerach]

Although there was enormous and understandable objection to bringing the line through Old Lyme (maybe even on an obtrusive viaduct?), they never tried any other options like splitting the bypass in half and compromising by eliminating the western half and proposing only building the eastern half. Trying to slice through Old Lyme was pretty dumb but going east from New London to Rhode Island it was to be built mostly along the I-95 highway. Yes, there was some opposition in Rhode Island but nothing like that in western Connecticut. Building only the eastern half would have eliminated most of the drawbridge issues and also avoided most of the slowest curviest parts of the line. They didn't even try to make concessions and possibly succeed by working on just that half. They made an improbable proposal and then just gave up.

View attachment 31049

The curviest and slowest portions of the line, though, are west of the Thames River (Old Saybrook-New London). New London's trackage, which would be replaced by the western portion of the bypass, has numerous sharp curves and impossible-to-remove grade crossings that limit trains to 25 mph. Also, I have to admit a bit of incredulity at claims that Amtrak would be "slicing through" Old Lyme, as the ROW would be following the 8-lane I-95--not exactly a small bucolic road!

The CT I-95 bypass is ambitious compared many of the other alignment improvements that could be done on the NEC, and perhaps New London is the wart on the NEC's back that we will all have to accept.

 

[cocojacoby]

The curviest and slowest portions of the line, though, are west of the Thames River (Old Saybrook-New London). New London's trackage, which would be replaced by the western portion of the bypass, has numerous sharp curves and impossible-to-remove grade crossings that limit trains to 25 mph. Also, I have to admit a bit of incredulity at claims that Amtrak would be "slicing through" Old Lyme, as the ROW would be following the 8-lane I-95--not exactly a small bucolic road!

The CT I-95 bypass is ambitious compared many of the other alignment improvements that could be done on the NEC, and perhaps New London is the wart on the NEC's back that we will all have to accept.

I can't find the renderings that I remember from the plan but as far as I remember the tracks were going to pretty much slice through Old Lyme on a viaduct. Here are a couple of excerpts from related articles:

OLD LYME, CT – U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. and a pair of lawmakers promised to tie themselves to the tracks if a proposal for a rail route through the center of Old Lyme is approved as is, according to media reports.

The document further said the bypass through Old Lyme — whether it is a tunnel, or the aerial structure that originally was proposed but later dropped due to public comments — would threaten historic landmarks and art institutions.

A fast track to ruin? Amtrak opponents fear high-speed plans

This quaint shoreline community, proud of its role as a nursery of American Impressionist art, fears the destruction of its heritage if a federal proposal to someday run an East Coast high-speed rail line through its historic center becomes reality.

nj1015.com

 

[UserNameRequired]

Back in the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad days trains like the Mayflower made the New Haven to GCT run in slightly more than one hour and 20 minutes.

Right now one of the problems on the New Haven to New Rochelle run on Metro North is the large number of speed restrictions, both those from Metro North and the "temporary" speed restrictions imposed by the FRA after several MN incidents (derailments / collisions). I am surprised that the TSRs from the FRA are still in place after five years. I guess "temporary" has a different meaning to the DC bureaucrats.

For an example of what Temporary means to DC bureaucrats, there has been a Temporary Flight Restriction over Disneyworld and Disneyland for over 20 years… and counting…

 

[NES28]

I generally agree, though I think there's a case (as was indicated in one of the 16 NEC Future options) to possibly "shave" the route off short of Springfield by roughly following I-84 out of Hartford and up to Worcester (or at least cut around the east side so you're not stuck navigating "yet another city"). If you go with the I-84 option, I don't think it is unreasonable to pair that with high-frequency service from Springfield on the other lines to connect to it (and/or to run as a spur service).

I second this recommendation. I, actually, have been promoting this concept for a few years now (to Mass DOT and Officials in Worcester, with surprisingly little success. A couple of refinements: The portion from Worcester to Sturbridge (much of it alongside the Mass Pike) should be shared with a new publicly-owned Boston-Worcester-Springfield passenger-only route that would bypass the circuitous/curvy (slow) portion of the Boston & Albany line between Auburn and Palmer. I certainly would not bypass Worcester, one of the biggest cities in New England and which is now enjoying a renaissance as a result of frequent MBTA commuter rail service to Boston. FRA sandbagged this alternative in the NEC Future EIS process by including the unnecessary construction of a new Boston-Worcester route alongside the Mass Pike. Transit Matters has developed plans for significantly speeding up this segment. NEC Future left the issue of New Haven-Boston unresolved. There has been a lot of attention paid to an alternative that would construct a new Hartford-Providence route. Review of aerial photos of the densely built up area west of Providence makes it apparent that this is not feasible.

 

[Touchdowntom9]

Was riding NJT from Princeton Junction to NYP on the express and noticed we had to slow down between PJ and NB to switch to the express track. We dropped from 100 to nearly 60mph and it took a huge amount of time to regain that speed. My question is why would there only be one switch from track 1 to track 2 between PJ and NB and have it so far from PJ? Wouldn't it make a ton more sense to either add another switch, increase the switch speed to 100mph, or most rationally--move that switch so that its close enough to the station so that you could take it while accelerating away from PJ (ie ~ a mile away so that you would be naturally traveling around 60-70mph and could use the switch without having to interrupt the typical pattern leaving PJ)

I'm curious because that easily took a few min off the travel time for the trip and seemed so pointless, but I realize Amtrak owns the tracks as well. I also mentioned this also because the local trains don't do this, its only the express trains and they are hamstrung by this switch, ironically, while trying to minimize their time headed to NYP

 

[daybeers]

Yeah I've never understood how you can upgrade tracks to support 160 and then still have crossovers limited at less than half.

 

[jis]

Was riding NJT from Princeton Junction to NYP on the express and noticed we had to slow down between PJ and NB to switch to the express track. We dropped from 100 to nearly 60mph and it took a huge amount of time to regain that speed. My question is why would there only be one switch from track 1 to track 2 between PJ and NB and have it so far from PJ? Wouldn't it make a ton more sense to either add another switch, increase the switch speed to 100mph, or most rationally--move that switch so that its close enough to the station so that you could take it while accelerating away from PJ (ie ~ a mile away so that you would be naturally traveling around 60-70mph and could use the switch without having to interrupt the typical pattern leaving PJ)

I'm curious because that easily took a few min off the travel time for the trip and seemed so pointless, but I realize Amtrak owns the tracks as well. I also mentioned this also because the local trains don't do this, its only the express trains and they are hamstrung by this switch, ironically, while trying to minimize their time headed to NYP

There are three crossovers from track 1 to track 2 between Princeton Junction and New Brunswick - Midway, Adams and County, not just one. Crossover speed is the least of the problem. The slow crossovers are at Midway, which is not the normal routing for outer zone NJT expresses. Midway is used only when there is some unusual circumstance preventing the train continuing on track 1 to Adams. Normally they would be crossing over at Adams which is an 80mph crossover. There is no faster crossover on the NEC anywhere. The other possibility of a slow crossover would be if it was delayed all the way to County, because for some reason 2 is not available between Adams and County due perhaps to an Amtrak breathing down the rear end of the NJT on track 2.

Amtrak wants to keep the slow pokey NJT trains off the middle express tracks until one gets past the high speed section. That is why the preferred crossover which in the past was Midway has been moved further east to Adams. NJT does not care too much about reducing a few minutes in running time. If they did they would have ordered EMUs instead of the lumbering push-pulls.

Instead NJT agreed to move their trains out of the way of Amtrak higher speed service and keep them on the side tracks until close to Jersey Avenue. The side tracks 1 and 4 incidentally are 125mph rated, but NJT trains are not. The center tracks 2 and 3 are 150/160mph rated between CP Ham (Hamilton) and CP Adams/Delco just west of Jersey Avenue. It makes no sense to have 150 mph Acelas and 125 mph Regionals slowed down by placing100mph trains ahead of them.

The reason that NJT outer zone expresses are moved to the middle tracks around County is to allow them to pass the stopping mid-zone trains. Amtrak has tried to convince NJT to increase the speed of their outer zone expresses to 125mph, but to no avail so far. So Amtrak just keeps NJT trains out of the way of Amtrak trains since they cannot seamlessly merge into the stream. This causes NJT trains to be held and delayed at the merge points. NJT seems to neither be interested nor have support of the NJ politicians to do anything to improve the situation at least for now.

 

[Touchdowntom9]

There are three crossovers from track 1 to track 2 between Princeton Junction and New Brunswick - Midway, Adams and County, not just one. Crossover speed is the least of the problem. The slow crossovers are at Midway, which is not the normal routing for outer zone NJT expresses. Midway is used only when there is some unusual circumstance preventing the train continuing on track 1 to Adams. Normally they would be crossing over at Adams which is an 80mph crossover. There is no faster crossover on the NEC anywhere. The other possibility of a slow crossover would be if it was delayed all the way to County, because for some reason 2 is not available between Adams and County due perhaps to an Amtrak breathing down the rear end of the NJT on track 2.

Amtrak wants to keep the slow pokey NJT trains off the middle express tracks until one gets past the high speed section. That is why the preferred crossover which in the past was Midway has been moved further east to Adams. NJT does not care too much about reducing a few minutes in running time. If they did they would have ordered EMUs instead of the lumbering push-pulls.

Instead NJT agreed to move their trains out of the way of Amtrak higher speed service and keep them on the side tracks until close to Jersey Avenue. The side tracks 1 and 4 incidentally are 125mph rated, but NJT trains are not. The center tracks 2 and 3 are 150/160mph rated between CP Ham (Hamilton) and CP Adams/Delco just west of Jersey Avenue. It makes no sense to have them and 125 mph Regionals slowed down by placing100mph trains ahead of them.

The reason that NJT outer zone expresses are moved to the middle tracks around County is to allow them to pass the stopping mid-zone trains. Amtrak has tried to convince NJT to increase the speed of their outer zone expresses to 125mph, but to no avail so far. So Amtrak just keeps NJT trains out of the way of Amtrak trains since they cannot seamlessly merge into the stream. This causes NJT trains to be held and delayed at the merge points. NJT seems to neither be interested nor have support of the NJ politicians to do anything to improve the situation at least for now.

Are the tracks all owned by Amtrak, or just the express tracks? And are the outer tracks actually rated for different speeds than the express tracks or is it mostly the equipment that is the issue there?

 

[jis]

Are the tracks all owned by Amtrak, or just the express tracks? And are the outer tracks actually rated for different speeds than the express tracks or is it mostly the equipment that is the issue there?

Every track of the NEC spine between New York and Washington DC is owned and dispatched by Amtrak. NJT is a tenant.

Between Elmora (South Elezabeth) and County just past New Brunswick, except where there is civil speed limit, Tracks 1 & 4 (outer tracks) are 110mph and tracks 2 & 3 (middle tracks) are 125mph.. From County to Ham (Hamilton) the outer tracks are 125mph and the inner tracks are 150mph except for a stretch of 135/140mph on a very shallow curve and a portion yet to receive constant tension catenary.

Equipment is still an issue since NJT seems not to be able to operate their trains at 125mph even though they are supposed to be certifiable. But of course maintenance costs are higher to keep them thus certified, which may be an issue. Amtrak Regionals are 125mph capable and Acela 1st Gen are 150mph capable and actually do operate at 150mph in NJ.