Steam on the NEC and Keystone Corridor—how viable?

[Rafi]

Suppose just for daydreaming's sake that Amtrak were to look at running a steam excursion on all or part of the NEC and/or Keystone. I know the tunnels into NYP are electric-only, so is there a routing one could take around NYP when heading north, say, to rejoin the NEC on the path to Boston? Are there any other no-steam segments on the NEC?

What about Harrisburg-PHL? Any reason steam couldn't run on that stretch?

I realize water towers are nonexistent, so auxiliary tenders would be a requirement for a longer haul.

Just curious what the viability of such a venture would be if Amtrak were to be interested in promoting something like that for train day, for example.

-Rafi

 

[Walt]

Do steam engines meet EPA emissions standards, for constant passenger use? :unsure:

 

[VT Hokie]

I've seen photos of a 1975 steam excursion on what is now NJ Transit's North Jersey Coast Line. I think the train ran down to Bay Head, but I don't know how far north it ran. (I saw pictures of it in Red Bank and Middletown.) Of course, back then the line was only electrified as far down as South Amboy.

 

[AlanB]

Suppose just for daydreaming's sake that Amtrak were to look at running a steam excursion on all or part of the NEC and/or Keystone. I know the tunnels into NYP are electric-only, so is there a routing one could take around NYP when heading north, say, to rejoin the NEC on the path to Boston? Are there any other no-steam segments on the NEC?
What about Harrisburg-PHL? Any reason steam couldn't run on that stretch?

Rafi,

Technically if Amtrak really wanted to, there is no reason that they couldn't waive the rule of no smoke producing engines in the tunnels and in NYP. And if the reason for such a run were powerful enough, you never know they might just do it.

Otherwise, I'm sure that a diversion around NYP could be planned out, but short of taking the engine over on a car float from NJ to Brooklyn, it would probably be a very long detour. A detour that quite honestly would see you missing most of the NEC north of NYP, unless time was not of the essance and you didn't mind backtracking several hours. I believe, although someone may correct me, that the first operational train bridge over the Hudson River north of NY is almost at Albany. At that point you'd probably want to basically just go straight east to Boston.

As for Harrisburg-Phl, no reason that I can think of. And IIRC, I believe that Strasburg RR has done a few excusrions onto the Keystone Corridor. I'm not sure just how far they ran, or even when the last time they did that was, beyond saying that it was within the last 5 or 6 years.

 

[the_traveler]

I believe, although someone may correct me, that the first operational train bridge over the Hudson River north of NY is almost at Albany.

I believe your right. If I remember correctly through the cobwebs in my brain , the only 2 railroad bridges until downtown Albany over the Hudson are POU (which isn't used and in fact doesn't even have rails or a deck ) and the one you mentioned near Selkirk. From there, you might as well take the CSX tracks to BOS, but then you would miss all of CT and RI.

 

[p&sr]

If I remember correctly through the cobwebs in my brain, the only 2 railroad bridges until downtown Albany over the Hudson are POU (which isn't used and in fact doesn't even have rails or a deck) and the one you mentioned near Selkirk. From there, you might as well take the CSX tracks to BOS, but then you would miss all of CT and RI.

This is confirmed by the "RailRoad Map 3" software.

www.railroadmap.com

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I realize water towers are nonexistent, so auxiliary tenders would be a requirement for a longer haul.

The 7/26/2007 entry here suggests that friendly local fire departments may be an alternative to water towers.

 

[Chatter163]

Steam in New York:

http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan/abandoned/steam-laws.html

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

The laws were written with the assumption that if steam were allowed at all (and railroads didn't bother to electrify), there would be many steam trains per hour. And I think the original concern was smoke interfering with visibility. A single steam train presumably would produce significantly less smoke. Whether that's less by enough, I don't know.

I wonder if doing this on a weekend might allow a single track tunnel to be dedicated to a steam train for several hours, to provide some time to replace the air in that tunnel after the train runs through, or if even on weekends both tunnels to the west are needed.

Alternatively, coupling an electric locomotive for the run through Manhattan might not be a terrible idea. Wikipedia's Electric locomotive article says that starting in 1895, the Baltimore & Ohio railroad was doing that sort of thing for four miles of their track (possibly the track that's now the NEC).

 

[Rafi]

Alternatively, coupling an electric locomotive for the run through Manhattan might not be a terrible idea. Wikipedia's Electric locomotive article says that starting in 1895, the Baltimore & Ohio railroad was doing that sort of thing for four miles of their track (possibly the track that's now the NEC).

You know, I thought about that, but I wonder what would be involved with that. Specifically, do you need to dump the fire in the engine and let off all of the excess steam before going in the tunnel? That of course means you need to re-fire once out of the tunnel and bring the water back up to pressure. That, as I understand, can take hours. Or, do you just stop applying traction and hope that the "idle smoke" is minimal enough to get by?

Rafi

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

You know, when you ask that, I'm finding myself completely perplexed about how the B & O railroad would have ever found that a useful strategy vs just running on steam through the tunnel.

But I really don't know all that much about these details of how steam locomotives really work.