Status of NER Extensions within VA

[Texan Eagle]

Service to Christiansburg would be 19 different kinds of awesome. A short extension to Blacksburg Transit's Two Town Trolley (I recall taking the bus through the hart of C-burg when I was there (1997-2001), but the schedule now looks like it only goes to the NRV Mall/Wal-Mart), and you've got a huge market. I recall hearing (not sure if the "real" stats are available anywhere that after Virginia (obviously) and Maryland, then next largest state sending kids to VT was New Jersey, so the train would have a great market for people traveling that far. I'd take the train over driving down for football games in a heartbeat (provided that lodging can be found somewhere near where the BT operates - these days I seem to be staying in Salem more than anywhere else).

Yes, Blacksburg Transit's Two Town Trolley route now runs only upto NRV Mall/Wal-mart but recently they have added an on-demand shuttle service that would take you anywhere in Christiansburg if you book in advance, and it accepts Virginia Tech ID for fare-free travel for students and faculty just like the other routes, and costs the same 50 cents for everyone else. While I was there, this shuttle service quickly became popular among students to get to the I-81 Park & Ride where the newly introduced Knoxville-Washington route of Megabus makes a stop. Similarly, the shuttle can take folks to the Christiansburg train depot too and I am fairly confident it would be a big hit if times are right. When I first joined Tech in 2009, the public transport out of Blacksburg was virtually zero, the only option being the SmartWay shuttle to Roanoke and transfer to Greyhound to DC, a journey that took me 11 hours, which I could have done in 4.5 hours driving, more so now that almost entire I-81 from Roanoke to DC area is upgraded to 70 mph. The Megabus does Christiansburg to Washington run in 4.5 hours and is very popular among students, and an Amtrak train right from Christiansburg all the way up NE corridor would get plenty patronage. Of course if it is departing C'burg at 5am, there would neither be Blacksburg Transit nor the shuttle to reach the train depot, and I can't predict how that'd affect train patronage, but I am sure things can be worked out.

 

[Ryan]

Don't forget the Home Ride buses (http://www.homeride.com/) - I used them when I was there, although I remember the fares being a HECK of a lot cheaper 10 years ago.

 

[Texan Eagle]

Don't forget the Home Ride buses (http://www.homeride.com/) - I used them when I was there, although I remember the fares being a HECK of a lot cheaper 10 years ago.

Oh yes, totally forgot about the Homeride bus, since nobody I know has talked about taking it in the last year or so after Megabus started from C'burg. Why pay $120-odd if Megabus can take you there for $20 roundtrip (yes, they do have that low fares some days!). I wonder what would be a hypothetical Christiansburg-Washington Amtrak fare!

 

[Anderson]

Also, in that case I'm thinking that the current schedule was probably a case of accidental brilliance (move LYH to 5 AM and watch at least half of the traffic there vanish, which would probably eradicate at least half, if not close to all, of the profits on the line).

The counter argument to that (which I sort of, but not entirely agree with), is that what would be lost in Lynchburg, would be gained twice over in Charlottesville and Culpeper with people who want to make day trips to DC and people who want to get to New York by noonish.

Rafi

I'm of mixed opinions on that. I think that if you run a train out of Roanoke/C'burg, it has to have a later start time than the current schedule would allow for...but I wouldn't be opposed to slotting the Lynchburger in earlier if you had a later train to pick up business further south. The problem with Culpeper is:

1) If you really want an early in/late out train, you've got the Crescent;

2) Culpeper is close enough to Fredericksburg (with 6 or 7 trains a day) that I don't know how many folks you'll actually steal going north who won't just opt for more convenience half an hour away; and

3) On its own, Culpeper isn't a big city, and it's on the edge of a small cluster of stations surrounding DC (I count 8 in NoVA/north-central Virginia...basically, north of Charlottesville/Ashland).

Basically, the question is whether you're running a DC commuter line to Charlottesville or providing access for most of SW Virginia. You really can't do both effectively.

 

[The Davy Crockett]

2) Culpeper is close enough to Fredericksburg (with 6 or 7 trains a day) that I don't know how many folks you'll actually steal going north who won't just opt for more convenience half an hour away; and

I think you meant that Culpeper is close enough to Manassas, not Fredericksburg.

 

[Anderson]

2) Culpeper is close enough to Fredericksburg (with 6 or 7 trains a day) that I don't know how many folks you'll actually steal going north who won't just opt for more convenience half an hour away; and

I think you meant that Culpeper is close enough to Manassas, not Fredericksburg.

Actually, they're about the same length. The key is that Manassas is on the same line (WAS-CVS) while Fredericksburg is on the other line in VA, which has a lot more service (5 Regionals plus the Carolinian).

 

[The Davy Crockett]

2) Culpeper is close enough to Fredericksburg (with 6 or 7 trains a day) that I don't know how many folks you'll actually steal going north who won't just opt for more convenience half an hour away; and

I think you meant that Culpeper is close enough to Manassas, not Fredericksburg.

Actually, they're about the same length. The key is that Manassas is on the same line (WAS-CVS) while Fredericksburg is on the other line in VA, which has a lot more service (5 Regionals plus the Carolinian).

Okay, I see what your saying. I live in ALX and there is no real direct way to get to Culpeper from here, but my inclination is to go through Manassas. Fredericksburg is ESE from Culpeper, which I think is counterintuitive when thinking of heading north from Culpeper. I did a Google map search and was surprised that, according to it anyway, it is basically the same distance and travel time - about 50 to 55 minutes from Culpeper to Manassas or Fredericksburg. The main difference, in terms of travel time for people going north, is that Fredericksburg to WAS is a 15 to 20 minute longer ride on the rails than from Manassas. (From VRE timetables)

 

[Anderson]

2) Culpeper is close enough to Fredericksburg (with 6 or 7 trains a day) that I don't know how many folks you'll actually steal going north who won't just opt for more convenience half an hour away; and

I think you meant that Culpeper is close enough to Manassas, not Fredericksburg.

Actually, they're about the same length. The key is that Manassas is on the same line (WAS-CVS) while Fredericksburg is on the other line in VA, which has a lot more service (5 Regionals plus the Carolinian).

Okay, I see what your saying. I live in ALX and there is no real direct way to get to Culpeper from here, but my inclination is to go through Manassas. Fredericksburg is ESE from Culpeper, which I think is counterintuitive when thinking of heading north from Culpeper. I did a Google map search and was surprised that, according to it anyway, it is basically the same distance and travel time - about 50 to 55 minutes from Culpeper to Manassas or Fredericksburg. The main difference, in terms of travel time for people going north, is that Fredericksburg to WAS is a 15 to 20 minute longer ride on the rails than from Manassas. (From VRE timetables)

True...and both cities do have VRE lines into DC. Going further north (Baltimore, Philly, and NYC), though, my gut is that train frequency is going to dominate over an issue of 15 minutes either way (and the VRE is a clumsy way to get to WAS outside of the morning rush...I don't know why there's not at least a single contra-wise train running [i.e. south in the morning, north in the evening] to save a trainset and/or stretch an extra frequency out in the main direction...in the evening, for example, 301 could turn in time to become 307).

 

[gdj]

*sighs*

Why, oh why, did we not buy the RF&P when we had the chance? Honestly, at least with that one section (which has 22 Amtrak trains and about 30 VRE trains per day) ought to be bought out by the state so they can be done with it. By all means, deal with CSX further south, but the Union Station access probably needs to just be bought out with it to get that tooth pulled. At least once you hit the NS split, it's not quite as bad for one section (you're down to 9 and 15 on the CSX line and 2 and 16 on the NS line), but even that is going to get bad if the 9-trains-to-Hampton-Roads-and-9-more-to-Raleigh SEHSR plan ever comes to pass.

Also, in that case I'm thinking that the current schedule was probably a case of accidental brilliance (move LYH to 5 AM and watch at least half of the traffic there vanish, which would probably eradicate at least half, if not close to all, of the profits on the line).

s

The shame of it is that up until the Wilder administration, the state employees retirement fund was the largest stockholder in the RF&P. If I recall they were the majority stockholder. The Governor worked a land swap for the railroad with CSX. I sure would have been easier with the government negotiating with itself.

Gary

 

[Rafi]

2) Culpeper is close enough to Fredericksburg (with 6 or 7 trains a day) that I don't know how many folks you'll actually steal going north who won't just opt for more convenience half an hour away; and

I think you meant that Culpeper is close enough to Manassas, not Fredericksburg.

Actually, they're about the same length. The key is that Manassas is on the same line (WAS-CVS) while Fredericksburg is on the other line in VA, which has a lot more service (5 Regionals plus the Carolinian).

Okay, I see what your saying. I live in ALX and there is no real direct way to get to Culpeper from here, but my inclination is to go through Manassas. Fredericksburg is ESE from Culpeper, which I think is counterintuitive when thinking of heading north from Culpeper. I did a Google map search and was surprised that, according to it anyway, it is basically the same distance and travel time - about 50 to 55 minutes from Culpeper to Manassas or Fredericksburg. The main difference, in terms of travel time for people going north, is that Fredericksburg to WAS is a 15 to 20 minute longer ride on the rails than from Manassas. (From VRE timetables)

True...and both cities do have VRE lines into DC. Going further north (Baltimore, Philly, and NYC), though, my gut is that train frequency is going to dominate over an issue of 15 minutes either way (and the VRE is a clumsy way to get to WAS outside of the morning rush...I don't know why there's not at least a single contra-wise train running [i.e. south in the morning, north in the evening] to save a trainset and/or stretch an extra frequency out in the main direction...in the evening, for example, 301 could turn in time to become 307).

Speaking as a part-time Culpeper resident, I think I can speak with some confidence on the state of Amtrak there.

Fredericksburg and Manassas are not viable alternative stations to Culpeper, plain and simple. On a map they may look close, but, really, you're just going to drive to where you need to go if you're only other option is to drive to one of those cities. Fredericksburg is a nightmare to get in and out of. Plan for an hour to an hour and a half. Manassas requires a somewhat slow, circuitous route by car. Plan at least an hour.

I can guarantee that people who would otherwise take later service out of Culpeper are not going to inconvenience themselves by going to Fredericksburg or Manassas to catch a different train. The only way anything like that ever happens is if someone wants to go on a Silver down south, in which case they will drive to Richmond or Charlottesville to catch a Cardinal thru bus on the appropriate days.

There is a demonstrated need for "reverse" service as well, with trains headed south in the morning and north in the evening, especially given the college crowds in both C-ville and L-burg. The current focus is getting a daily Cardinal at the very least to help with that a bit (albeit without a Lynchburg stop).

Rafi

 

[Anderson]

Rafi,

I agree, and that's why I think three daily services may ultimately be in the cards (one timed for CVS-WAS "commuter" service leaving about 6:00 or 7:00 from there, and ideally being put through to WAS in the same "slot" as the 6:00 or 7:00 Regional out of RVR) other one timed to get Roanoke and Lynchburg folks at a sane hour, and then one "reverse" service leaving CVS about 5:00 PM and getting into NYP about 11:00). Note that all of the trains would probably go from Roanoke or C'burg onward, but the timing would primarily be for the above stuff northbound (and timed similarly southbound...I'm thinking that one would leave NYP around 6:00 AM and pull into CVS around noon, unless you for some reason wanted to simply pull a set out of WAS at like 6:00 AM, run it south, and then turn it as the afternoon train, and the other two would be timed to leave WAS at about 5 PM and 7/8 PM, with the former targeted at "commuter" traffic for WAS and the latter at folks returning from NYP/PHL).

My point was more that Culpeper isn't going to generate enough traffic on its own to make for a major stop. It figures into the picture, yes, but not in the way that Charlottesville does...and while it might be a good extension for the Manassas line at some point in the near future (and I'd go ahead and move on that in the very near future if possible), I don't think the market is there yet.

 

[afigg]

There were a number of interesting posts in this thread that I never did get around to responding to, but I agree that given the success of the "Lynchburger", that when they extend the service to Roanoke, the plan should be to increase service to 2 trains a day shortly afterwards. Adding the population of Roanoke and Virginia Tech to the current train stops, the demand will be there to support at least 2 trains a day. If Norfolk is going to get 3 daily trains with 2 trains running to Newport News, Roanoke should get at least 2.

Of course, Amtrak will need new single level equipment to support all these trains. Also, VA will have to get started on upgrading the track capacity and speeds in Northern VA to DC section with the Long Bridge replacement, four tracks on the Virginia side down to at least AF interlocking as part of Southeast HSR corridor and VRE upgrade projects.

Meanwhile, the FRA and US DOT put out a news release today announcing that the $44 million granted to VA has been obligated for the preliminary engineering and NEPA work for the DC to Richmond corridor. NC got $4 million signed off on to complete the PE and NEPA for the Richmond to Raleigh part of the SE HSR corridor. News release is at http://www.fra.dot.gov/roa/press_releases/fp_FRA%2028-11.shtml

I have not seen any word in a while on what the status is of the $75 million awarded a year and a half ago for the 3rd track from Arkendale to Powell's creek on the RF&P. Could be waiting on an EIS to be completed. Or CSX and the FRA are still nowhere on an agreement.

 

[AlanB]

Of course, Amtrak will need new single level equipment to support all these trains. Also, VA will have to get started on upgrading the track capacity and speeds in Northern VA to DC section with the Long Bridge replacement, four tracks on the Virginia side down to at least AF interlocking as part of Southeast HSR corridor and VRE upgrade projects.

While I suspect that Amtrak probably already has other plans for the cars; keep in mind that with the new cars in the mid-west coming in the next few years, that will will free up a bunch of single level cars.

 

[Anderson]

There were a number of interesting posts in this thread that I never did get around to responding to, but I agree that given the success of the "Lynchburger", that when they extend the service to Roanoke, the plan should be to increase service to 2 trains a day shortly afterwards. Adding the population of Roanoke and Virginia Tech to the current train stops, the demand will be there to support at least 2 trains a day. If Norfolk is going to get 3 daily trains with 2 trains running to Newport News, Roanoke should get at least 2.

Of course, Amtrak will need new single level equipment to support all these trains. Also, VA will have to get started on upgrading the track capacity and speeds in Northern VA to DC section with the Long Bridge replacement, four tracks on the Virginia side down to at least AF interlocking as part of Southeast HSR corridor and VRE upgrade projects.

Meanwhile, the FRA and US DOT put out a news release today announcing that the $44 million granted to VA has been obligated for the preliminary engineering and NEPA work for the DC to Richmond corridor. NC got $4 million signed off on to complete the PE and NEPA for the Richmond to Raleigh part of the SE HSR corridor. News release is at http://www.fra.dot.g...A%2028-11.shtml

I have not seen any word in a while on what the status is of the $75 million awarded a year and a half ago for the 3rd track from Arkendale to Powell's creek on the RF&P. Could be waiting on an EIS to be completed. Or CSX and the FRA are still nowhere on an agreement.

The situation with CSX is a bit of a mess from what I can tell; part of the problem is that there's too much single-track territory. When I went up to DC, we got stuck in the freight yard east of Richmond due to the southbound Night Owl getting delayed. We were on the siding for about 20 minutes...basically, I think we were parked there from when they got out of RVR until they passed us. This is a problem...particularly since IIRC the plan is to route all of these trains through RVM eventually, which would either take the RVR-RVM segment offline for freight traffic for much of the day, or require re-tracking at least some of the segment.

As to the frequency count, here's my best guess as to what happened: The "Richmond Route" in the Amtrak Virginia files was supposed to go NPN-RVR-WAS, but CSX got in the way and caused it to be cut to a stub of the planned route that runs RVR-WAS. This line isn't turning the profit that's projected to show up with an extension to NPN, but it's still taking the revenue estimates out to the woodshed (the July 2011 report just came out last week, and I think got posted on their website over the weekend...even if the Richmond route only equals its August/September 2010 revenue this year, it'll still come in about $310,000 above where it was pegged to...and while that may still require a subsidy, it does seem to be on track to making enough money to cover operations as well).

Now, whether the plan is to run that train out to Norfolk or still to run it down to Newport News, I don't know. All of the latest plans still imply a third train to Newport News, but Norfolk Southern suddenly getting interested in the train to Norfolk may have shuffled priorities. I do know that if the whole six-trains-to-Norfolk plan comes to pass, we're going to need at least three extra Regionals to Richmond (and probably four, accounting for the third to Newport News). But I think that the plan is, for the moment, to get that one train extended to Norfolk and then to move the Regionals "sleeping" in Richmond to Norfolk ASAP...but that's not planned as an "immediate" thing because nobody knows when that's actually going to happen and because the negotiations with Norfolk Southern haven't hammered out time slots just yet (they haven't even finished the new tracks, so I suspect that someone considers it premature to put things into a timetable without so much as a test run with a geometry car, let alone setting lots of cash aside for it).

As to Lynchburg/Roanoke, that route cries out for three trains a day (two north and one south in the morning, and vice-versa in the afternoon/evening) to cover both the Charlottesville "commuter" market and the Lynchburg/Roanoke market. Sorry, Charlie, but you can't serve the Charlottesville-DC market and the Roanoke market with the same timetable northbound no matter how much you want to...the 3-4 hour lag there just makes it impossible, as well as likely forcing any Roanoke-Boston through train to some bad timing on one end or the other on sheer journey length issues (that would start seriously challenging the Palmetto for "longest trip without a dining car"; simply extending from Roanoke to C'burg might technically push the Roanoke train into the LD train list).

Actually, that raises a serious question: If a Northeast Regional keeps getting extended such that it breaks 750 miles, what does that train's classification become? I'm asking not only because of Roanoke, but because once you start talking about extensions to Bristol and/or Knoxville, trains that cut at NYP (always the preferred northern terminus) start approaching 750 miles (do remember that the Carolinian's Charlotte-NYP routing is only 46 miles and a bad reroute off of qualifying). A related question: If a state really wanted an LD service to be extended/expanded/improved, could they "do a deal" with Amtrak to pay for some cars to be added (i.e. adding CHI-MSP cars on the Empire Builder)? I know that's primarily relating to routes not discussed here, but I felt like asking because it starts getting relevant with some "corridors" that are being punted around by VA and TN.

Edit: Well, I think I just brainstormed how to get a through train from Roanoke/Bristol to Boston, but it ain't pretty: I think you'd seriously have to look at splitting the Twilight Shoreliner/Night Owl at WAS and running a section that way, or otherwise managing a through-ticketed cross-platform connection at WAS. The daylight scheduling is just toxic at the endpoints for such a long route (for Roanoke, you're either going have to depart by 6 AM or arrive after 8:30 PM...sorry, but such a long trip is simply better suited to overnight travel...let's not even think about the eldritch horror that a Boston-to-Bristol daylight train would be).

 

[trainviews]

As to Lynchburg/Roanoke, that route cries out for three trains a day (two north and one south in the morning, and vice-versa in the afternoon/evening) to cover both the Charlottesville "commuter" market and the Lynchburg/Roanoke market. Sorry, Charlie, but you can't serve the Charlottesville-DC market and the Roanoke market with the same timetable northbound no matter how much you want to...the 3-4 hour lag there just makes it impossible, as well as likely forcing any Roanoke-Boston through train to some bad timing on one end or the other on sheer journey length issues (that would start seriously challenging the Palmetto for "longest trip without a dining car"; simply extending from Roanoke to C'burg might technically push the Roanoke train into the LD train list).

I agree that an extension to Roanoke will require a second/earlier northbound morning train suited for attractive departures from CVS.

For the reverse train I think it would make more sense to run a daytime Crescent WAS-ATL, than running it to Roanoke and terminating there. It would be serving Charlottesville and Lynchburg for the morning traffic coming from DC, would hit Charlotte in time to connect with the midday Piedmont and still make it into Atlanta at a good time in the early evening. All three things go for the reverse direction too. On top it would relieve the crowded Crescent overnighter, supply Charlotte with a second (and faster) daytrain to DC to supplement the Carolinian and a connection to Atlanta that doesn't run in the middle of the night. The connection of three major metropolitian areas and a string of midsized ones should make this very feasible.

Whether it makes sense to run it all the way to NYP is questionable. In order to keep attractive times in DC and Atlanta it will have very early departures/very late arrivals here, but I think the former is more important. Maybe it can be hooked onto one of the few odd hour trains already running on the NEC or it should just terminate at DC.

This of course leaves out Roanoke. First I think the market for the Crescent route is larger. Secondly, if the TDX ever gets running that would run through Lynchburg to Roanoke and a morning train from Richmond could probably be made to connect with a daytime Crescent, so passengers from DC could change at Lynchburg.

But on the other hand - the chance of getting a state supported daytime Crescent is close to zero, however feasible, and the reason can be summed up in two words: South Carolina

 

[Anderson]

As to Lynchburg/Roanoke, that route cries out for three trains a day (two north and one south in the morning, and vice-versa in the afternoon/evening) to cover both the Charlottesville "commuter" market and the Lynchburg/Roanoke market. Sorry, Charlie, but you can't serve the Charlottesville-DC market and the Roanoke market with the same timetable northbound no matter how much you want to...the 3-4 hour lag there just makes it impossible, as well as likely forcing any Roanoke-Boston through train to some bad timing on one end or the other on sheer journey length issues (that would start seriously challenging the Palmetto for "longest trip without a dining car"; simply extending from Roanoke to C'burg might technically push the Roanoke train into the LD train list).

I agree that an extension to Roanoke will require a second/earlier northbound morning train suited for attractive departures from CVS.

For the reverse train I think it would make more sense to run a daytime Crescent WAS-ATL, than running it to Roanoke and terminating there. It would be serving Charlottesville and Lynchburg for the morning traffic coming from DC, would hit Charlotte in time to connect with the midday Piedmont and still make it into Atlanta at a good time in the early evening. All three things go for the reverse direction too. On top it would relieve the crowded Crescent overnighter, supply Charlotte with a second (and faster) daytrain to DC to supplement the Carolinian and a connection to Atlanta that doesn't run in the middle of the night. The connection of three major metropolitian areas and a string of midsized ones should make this very feasible.

Whether it makes sense to run it all the way to NYP is questionable. In order to keep attractive times in DC and Atlanta it will have very early departures/very late arrivals here, but I think the former is more important. Maybe it can be hooked onto one of the few odd hour trains already running on the NEC or it should just terminate at DC.

This of course leaves out Roanoke. First I think the market for the Crescent route is larger. Secondly, if the TDX ever gets running that would run through Lynchburg to Roanoke and a morning train from Richmond could probably be made to connect with a daytime Crescent, so passengers from DC could change at Lynchburg.

But on the other hand - the chance of getting a state supported daytime Crescent is close to zero, however feasible, and the reason can be summed up in two words: South Carolina

Well, I think the odds of terminating it at WAS are pretty slim because of potential ATL-PHL and ATL-NYP business. I agree that it would need to be an odd-hour train (hooking it in as a "split" of 66/67 might make sense, and though the NYP time would be all sorts of awful, you'd get an 8 AM out of ATL). Doing so would also definitely qualify it as an LD train if Amtrak wanted to go that route and had VA, NC, and GA playing ball with supplements while permitting them to run it as a loophole around SC. Shame it'd be cafe-only on that routing, but I think that's swallowable. The other option would be to hook into 198 (essentially, 7 AM out of ATL, 9 PM into WAS). Southbound, 151 would be the counterpart (8:15 out of WAS, 10 PM into ATL)...both would be lousy, plain and simple.

There's one "hidden" benefit of cutting the train at WAS: Superliners (under any name) are an option from WAS southbound, so a double-level train could be used on a WAS-ATL revived "Southern Piedmont" (Southern ran a train, the Piedmont Limited, as a daylight WAS-ATL train well into the 70s; it has no relation to the NC train by that name). I'm not sure how wedded Amtrak is to "all eastern trains shall terminate at NYP", but that would be an option (and you'd still have 66/67 for a link even in a pinch).

Though it would be blowing off a midsized market, it is a shame that such a train couldn't be run through SC without stopping. Frankly, I see GA as the main issue: If VA, NC, and GA got on board, I think the train could be put through with or without SC's support (since I think you could make a solid case for both NC and GA that a CLT-ATL link would be worth picking up SC's tab). The main problem is that GA hasn't gotten on board with rail in any meaningful way lately, meaning that you're probably looking at stubbing the route at CLT. Even still, though, running a NYP-CLT train down Norfolk Southern's route doesn't seem like the worst idea in the world (I don't see Greensboro-Lynchburg meriting anymore than this, but this isn't a bad idea), and it would offer another set of daylight connections into both NC and the NEC. The biggest problem I see with this is the SEHSR project: If that keeps moving ahead, you're going to have a tough time convincing a lot of folks that running another train into NC by another route makes sense; if it ceases getting funding or gets badly bogged down in EIS lawsuits, though, I think that VA and NC might be able to put something together (particularly, as you said, if a full blown TDX gets going west out of RVM/RVR).

I guess the question is whether running something by daylight out to Bristol/Knoxville from WAS as part of the TDX project takes off. If it does, that's your morning train out of WAS and down to Roanoke; if not, you have to pull something together that runs north. Of course, the problem with the TDX transfer you suggested is, well, forcing a transfer.

 

[afigg]

But on the other hand - the chance of getting a state supported daytime Crescent is close to zero, however feasible, and the reason can be summed up in two words: South Carolina

No, the key state would be Georgia. For example, Maine provides state funding for the Downeaster although the train has stations in NH (and the North Station in Boston). Vermont provides the funding for the Vermonter which leaves the NEC at New Haven and runs through central CT and MA. NC provides the state funding support for the Carolinian which goes from NYP to Charlotte, NC passing through Virginia after it leaves the NEC. It is the state at the end of the route that matters, not so much the states in-between on the route.

If North Carolina and Georgia were to agree to support a day time Crescent, SC would not a significant factor. Or, if Georgia decided to support a daytime Crescent on it's own because NC's interest is in the Southeast HSR corridor route. If the SE HSR corridor is built with the new route from Petersburg to Raleigh over the S-line with WAS to Charlotte trip times faster than the Crescent route, the next logical phase would be extension of one or more SE HSR trains to Atlanta. But this is getting way beyond the scope of the discussion on the expansion of train services in VA to WAS.

 

[Anderson]

Pardon the pun, but extending this discussion in the other direction, might it become necessary to terminate some trains at PHL (or WAS, though PHL adds a bunch of city pairs that WAS leaves off) rather than NYP? I'm asking because while NYP is an obvious source of lots of revenue, it's also basically at capacity right now with no signs of extra capacity going in. Also, PHL would allow at least some trains to be turned and run twice (say, PHL-NFK and then NFK-PHL or vice-versa). Capacity on the NYP-PHL (and particularly NYP-NWK) segment is probably just going to have to come from adding cars to trains...which presents its own issues when the trains get long enough, but alas...

Additionally, looking at SEHSR, assuming that you ran at least some through service, having at least one train in the evening terminate (and one in the morning originate) in PHL/WAS might be necessary simply because of the travel times involved (WAS-CLT isn't going to take less than 6 hours under any plan...which means that NYP-CLT isn't likely to get under 9 hours even if you could run the SEHSR trains at Acela speeds).

 

[jis]

Pardon the pun, but extending this discussion in the other direction, might it become necessary to terminate some trains at PHL (or WAS, though PHL adds a bunch of city pairs that WAS leaves off) rather than NYP? I'm asking because while NYP is an obvious source of lots of revenue, it's also basically at capacity right now with no signs of extra capacity going in. Also, PHL would allow at least some trains to be turned and run twice (say, PHL-NFK and then NFK-PHL or vice-versa). Capacity on the NYP-PHL (and particularly NYP-NWK) segment is probably just going to have to come from adding cars to trains...which presents its own issues when the trains get long enough, but alas...

Actually NYP is not at capacity except for 2 morning and evening rush hours. Specially after 10am and before 3pm, and again after 7pm it is not even remotely near capacity.

Additionally, looking at SEHSR, assuming that you ran at least some through service, having at least one train in the evening terminate (and one in the morning originate) in PHL/WAS might be necessary simply because of the travel times involved (WAS-CLT isn't going to take less than 6 hours under any plan...which means that NYP-CLT isn't likely to get under 9 hours even if you could run the SEHSR trains at Acela speeds).

Depends on how seriously people want to address trip times spanning electrified and non-electrified territories. For example the Brits are converting their original DMU 200-220kph trains to DEMUs by adding a car with electrical gear and additional seats in it to each set. These are articulated sets. So they can run seamlessly from electrified to non-electrified and then back to electrified using electric traction wherever available. If such equipment were to become available then stop at Washington DC would be 10 mins or less, and clearly WAS to NYP can be done in considerably less than 3 hours once some of the presently planned upgrades and removal of bottlenecks are completed. And most certainly Acela speed trains will be down to 2.5 hours in the near future.

Notwithstanding that, it would make sense to originate some early morning southbound trains at WAS and terminate some late evening incoming from the south at WAS.

 

[Anderson]

Pardon the pun, but extending this discussion in the other direction, might it become necessary to terminate some trains at PHL (or WAS, though PHL adds a bunch of city pairs that WAS leaves off) rather than NYP? I'm asking because while NYP is an obvious source of lots of revenue, it's also basically at capacity right now with no signs of extra capacity going in. Also, PHL would allow at least some trains to be turned and run twice (say, PHL-NFK and then NFK-PHL or vice-versa). Capacity on the NYP-PHL (and particularly NYP-NWK) segment is probably just going to have to come from adding cars to trains...which presents its own issues when the trains get long enough, but alas...

Actually NYP is not at capacity except for 2 morning and evening rush hours. Specially after 10am and before 3pm, and again after 7pm it is not even remotely near capacity.

Additionally, looking at SEHSR, assuming that you ran at least some through service, having at least one train in the evening terminate (and one in the morning originate) in PHL/WAS might be necessary simply because of the travel times involved (WAS-CLT isn't going to take less than 6 hours under any plan...which means that NYP-CLT isn't likely to get under 9 hours even if you could run the SEHSR trains at Acela speeds).

Depends on how seriously people want to address trip times spanning electrified and non-electrified territories. For example the Brits are converting their original DMU 200-220kph trains to DEMUs by adding a car with electrical gear and additional seats in it to each set. These are articulated sets. So they can run seamlessly from electrified to non-electrified and then back to electrified using electric traction wherever available. If such equipment were to become available then stop at Washington DC would be 10 mins or less, and clearly WAS to NYP can be done in considerably less than 3 hours once some of the presently planned upgrades and removal of bottlenecks are completed. And most certainly Acela speed trains will be down to 2.5 hours in the near future.

Notwithstanding that, it would make sense to originate some early morning southbound trains at WAS and terminate some late evening incoming from the south at WAS.

I didn't know that such a thing was practical...though I know that if the 8-car sets are a success and there were a desire to extend the service southwards, adding a ninth (or exchanging the eighth) car for one of those might work. This in turn raises an interesting point: The Norfolk Southern alignment to Norfolk is basically a straight line on the map for about 50 miles, and I don't think there are many grade crossings (or at least, not many that you couldn't more or less close off), so I'm wondering (particularly if NS is at least amenable to the idea; though I know they might need some prodding, the fact that they seem willing to take 110 MPH trains is a good sign) if it might not be fairly simple to "tap lightly" with some improvements here and get the line up to 125 MPH or so on that particular chunk.

Assuming that SEHSR happens, I'm guessing that you'd be looking at some sort of extension of the Acela down the main line to Charlotte. One possibility that I like (and that Amtrak might be able to make happen with or without state financial support for it) would be to run one or more of those sets to Norfolk; based on ridership projections and so forth, I think they might be able to make that come in profitably. A nice thing about extending the Acelas south is that the higher-frequency service that Amtrak is trying to make happen on the WAS-NYP segment could be achieved/bolstered by mostly overlapping two service sets (WAS-BOS and CLT-NYP). Adding a stack of destinations on the south side (particularly Richmond, which is on course for a lot of trains to be added over time) would probably bolster ridership assuming that Amtrak could get sufficient preference from CSX and NS to avoid knock-on delays. Considering that at least a moderate amount of the alignment seems set to be either state-owned or Amtrak-owned, paying for some sort of thou-shalt-not-delay preference might well become an option on the remaining segments.

Something of an appendix to this is my understanding of the Richmond train traffic planned: 3 WAS-RVR-NPN, 6 WAS-RVR-NFK, 9 WAS-RVR-CLT, and 3 LD trains (the Silver Star, the Silver Meteor, and the Palmetto)...21 trains per day in each direction as a baseline is a lot, and if the traffic proves to be there for it, I'd see a strong case for putting at least 1-2 Acelas through to Richmond to both get more folks on the Acelas and to shave off higher-revenue passengers. I'd finally note that Richmond is probably as far as a Boston train could go and still make any sense if there were some desire to include it as a single-seat option, even though I know that through-NYP business is rather limited.

 

[Ryan]

It'll be interesting to se how NJT fares with the APL-45DPs. If successful, that would be a nice move for the regionals that leave the electrified territory.

 

[AlanB]

It'll be interesting to se how NJT fares with the APL-45DPs. If successful, that would be a nice move for the regionals that leave the electrified territory.

Without the ARC tunnels it's hard to say if NJT will every use those locos as intended.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

It'll be interesting to se how NJT fares with the APL-45DPs. If successful, that would be a nice move for the regionals that leave the electrified territory.

Without the ARC tunnels it's hard to say if NJT will every use those locos as intended.

At the very least, some NYP long Branch trains will be extended to Bayhead, and some Dover trains to Hackettstown.

 

[AlanB]

It'll be interesting to se how NJT fares with the APL-45DPs. If successful, that would be a nice move for the regionals that leave the electrified territory.

Without the ARC tunnels it's hard to say if NJT will every use those locos as intended.

At the very least, some NYP long Branch trains will be extended to Bayhead, and some Dover trains to Hackettstown.

Well, we can hope that NJT will be that smart. You'll forgive me however please, if I don't hold my breath.

And even then, that wouldn't use all the motors that they brought as intended.

 

[jis]

Going back to the issue of dual mode articulated units..... the only credible proposals for using such in high speed trains that I have seen involve articulated DEMUs. No one in their right mind apparently has proposed using such in a power head + trailers situation, not even the French, who were proponents of such in the first three generations of TGVs. In the AGV they are also moving to distributed power.

The British DEMUs are all powered by small underfloor diesel units providing electrical drive, hence they are easily amenable to the addition of a car with electrical transformation gear and panto which would supply the same electrical drive system in each car that the small diesel generators drive when in non-electrical territory. Basically hook up the power circuit to the DC link for the drive system, and add some additional controls to shut down and start up the diesels on the fly based on demand.

Similar philosophy as in the ALP45DP but completely distributed power.

Incidentally, the Stadler units that are used by the RiverLINE and Austin can be converted to be dual mode relatively easily since their drive system is electric, and even more importantly, they are specifically designed with that conversion capability in mind.

So my guess is that the current Acela technology will not be upto dual mode operation by any simple modification. It will take a completely new generation of trains to enable that.

As for using ALP45DPs by NJT, the following routes will see their use:

1. Dover to NYP via Upper Boonton Line.

2. Hackettstown and Andover to Dover or MSU and thence to NYP

3. Bay Head to Long Branch/NYP

4. Raritan Valley Line. White House/Raritan to NYP.

That will take about half the units ordered.

The other half will be used as straight diesels for the moment, unless they want to go electric for the short distance from West End into Hoboken, reducing fumes in the tunnels.

The availability of that capability also raises the possibility of running regular NJT trains from NYP to ACY as opposed to the ACES trains. Such train could run express NYP to TRE (stops at SEC, NWK, EWR, MET, PJC perhaps) and thence onto ACY making a few stops between Shore and ACY.

As for extended service south of WAS, I suspect they will put together a service pattern which involves some trains terminating in WAS and others running through to NYP or beyond. The pattern will depend on what they discover to be the station pair travel patterns. Hard to figure out what it should be without more concrete info.