The NEW northeast corridor

[bretton88]

Amtrak unveils a new vision for the Northeast

A few thoughts: 1. Wow, this type of ambitious thinking seems out of character for Amtrak. This is a step in the right directions for them.

2. The 40 year time frame is probably a nod to the political climate and making the investor seem more doable.

3. I hope that service can continue on the shoreline. Places like 30th street station could lose their service under this plan.

4. Private funding is not addressed, but with a 1 billion/year profit, some non government funding can probably be obtained.

5. I don't think this will ever happen, but I'll give Amtrak credit for trying.

Have at it folks!

 

[Long Train Runnin']

It would be nice. Although doesn't this go against something they published recently called the NEC master plan?

 

[Guest]

After looking at the schematic diagram, I say "why bother??". It has the same massive flaw as the current Acela: TOO MANY STOPS!!! A feasible high-speed system is dependent upon some version of a hub-and-spoke system! For example, feeder lines into NYC, then NONSTOP service to DC, then other feeders to various VA and MD cities. The idea with high speed is that you keep up those speeds for a fairly extended period (like 1-2 hours, as on the French and German systems), then slowing to the smaller cities, or secondary cities nearby. If you stop every 15 minutes, you are completely WASTING the technology! By the time you get to 200 mph, you're halfway to your destination, and it's time to slow down! It's about as efficient as flying from SFO to Oakland on an L1011...

 

[George Harris]

After looking at the schematic diagram, I say "why bother??". It has the same massive flaw as the current Acela: TOO MANY STOPS!!! A feasible high-speed system is dependent upon some version of a hub-and-spoke system! For example, feeder lines into NYC, then NONSTOP service to DC, then other feeders to various VA and MD cities. The idea with high speed is that you keep up those speeds for a fairly extended period (like 1-2 hours, as on the French and German systems), then slowing to the smaller cities, or secondary cities nearby. If you stop every 15 minutes, you are completely WASTING the technology! By the time you get to 200 mph, you're halfway to your destination, and it's time to slow down! It's about as efficient as flying from SFO to Oakland on an L1011...

Versions of this thought have been tried several times with limited stop Metroliners, and on the west coast with soem limited stop LA to San Diego trains. All these schemes have had one major problem: They were resounding flops when it came to attracting ridership.

 

[Eric S]

After looking at the schematic diagram, I say "why bother??". It has the same massive flaw as the current Acela: TOO MANY STOPS!!! A feasible high-speed system is dependent upon some version of a hub-and-spoke system! For example, feeder lines into NYC, then Nonstop service to DC, then other feeders to various VA and MD cities. The idea with high speed is that you keep up those speeds for a fairly extended period (like 1-2 hours, as on the French and German systems), then slowing to the smaller cities, or secondary cities nearby. If you stop every 15 minutes, you are completely WASTING the technology! By the time you get to 200 mph, you're halfway to your destination, and it's time to slow down! It's about as efficient as flying from SFO to Oakland on an L1011...

Too many stops? The proposal (such as it is) shows a super-express stopping only at Boston-South Station, New York-Grand Central Terminal, New York-Penn Station, Philadelphia-Market East Station, and Washington-Union Station. If anything, that might be too few stops, unless it is just a few trains, with most running as "regular" express trains, adding stops at Baltimore-Charles Center Station and 2-3 others.

 

[afigg]

It would be nice. Although doesn't this go against something they published recently called the NEC master plan?

This is more of a long term vision idea for a new NEC, much more ambitious than the NEC Infrastructure Master Plan. The Master Plan is focused more on fixing existing capacity constraints which are due mainly to the commuter rail systems on the NEC than improving Amtrak run times & service. The Amtrak "vision", which is only 32 pages, can be found on the Amtrak Reports & Documents web-page at http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&p=1237608345018&cid=1241245669222, BTW.

 

[arrow3]

I'm just coming back from a trip to Europe. I rode on the Eurostar between London and Paris and the TGV between Paris and Zurich. It's amazing what they do with their trains over here. Both trains were just fantastic. Not only were they very comfortable, but they were fast. Maximum speed on the Eurostar was 186 mph, and maximum speed on the TGV was 199 mph. Both trains were full and ran according to schedule.

The Eurostar has service about every 30 minutes during peak times, many of them run express with no intermediate stops.

They really invested heavily in their trains and it shows. The Eurostar has dedicated high speed ROW for the entire length. The TGV has a dedicated high speed line for some of the trip (the 200 mph running is for about 1 solid hour outside of Paris, then the speed "slows" to around 125 mph for the rest of the trip.) The TGV made only 3 intermediate stops (major cities) during the 5 hour trip.

It would really be nice to get from NYP to Washington in 1 hour or so. This would also give a lot of competition for the planes and would benefit all. I doubt it will ever happen though.

 

[amamba]

This sounds like a very interesting plan. I would love to see something like this implemented with the ability to still continue to run the shoreline route to connect the shoreline stations through CT/RI with the new system, maybe with the ability to change/connect in NYC.

Run times of 3 hours and 20 minutes from BOS - WAS would be amazing, and just what this country needs to lessen our dependence on air travel.

 

[the_traveler]

I don't see how a high speed train (or any train) can go the 8 to 12 blocks from NYP to NYG!

There is a reason it is called Grand Central TERMINAL! (Meaning the tracks end at the bumper - there are NO thru tracks!

)

 

[MattW]

I don't see how a high speed train (or any train) can go the 8 to 12 blocks from NYP to NYG!

There is a reason it is called Grand Central TERMINAL! (Meaning the tracks end at the bumper - there are NO thru tracks!

)

Sounds like they'd bore a tunnel somehow, someway and connect to something on the lower level (note: I'm unfamiliar with GCT).

While it's interesting, I'm not sure how some of these places would take being bypassed, especially the Connecticut shoreline because unless the local governments do something, I'm sure Amtrak will shift most of its service to its own HSR corridor.

I'm a bit tired, so I'll come up with a more coherent response tomorrow, but the 140mph average speed would be nice nonetheless!

 

[AlanB]

I don't see how a high speed train (or any train) can go the 8 to 12 blocks from NYP to NYG!

There is a reason it is called Grand Central TERMINAL! (Meaning the tracks end at the bumper - there are NO thru tracks!

)

Sounds like they'd bore a tunnel somehow, someway and connect to something on the lower level (note: I'm unfamiliar with GCT).

It would end up being one very interesting tunnel. You've now got 3 levels to Grand Central, with the LIRR level under construction. You've got the station in the way going south; you've got the #7 line in the way going south; you've got the Grand Central Shuttle to Times Square in the way; you've got the #4, 5, & 6 line in the way; the Park Avenue road tunnel in the way; not to mention other various infrastructure like building foundations, gas, water, and power.

Sure, if somehow lots and lots of bucks can be thrown at the problem these things could be dealt with. But it sure won't be easy, it will cause lots of disruptions and problems, and it will cost big bucks.

 

[spacecadet]

It has the same massive flaw as the current Acela: TOO MANY STOPS!!!

They seem to be modeling it on the system in place in Japan, which generally has three levels of service: Nozomi (super express), Hikari (limited express) and Kodama (all stops). Nozomi service on the Tokaido line (which is what the NEC really should be equivalent to) stops only at Osaka, Kyoto, Nagoya, Shin-Yokohama, Shinagawa and Tokyo. Kodama service, in contrast, makes 16 stops on the same route. This system works very well, and nobody can argue that the Tokaido line hasn't had huge economic benefits for Japan. (Other shinkansen routes are much more debatable, but not the original Tokaido line.)

Somebody at Amtrak has clearly been doing their high speed homework. But that doesn't mean any of this will ever get done. Also, I haven't looked closely enough to know whether this is really the right way to do it anyway, but it seems clear to me that converting the NEC to a true high speed line - whatever the most cost-effective way of doing that is, without compromising on the overall goal - would bring economic benefits that would outweigh the costs.

That's one thing that always drives me crazy about these debates. One side always seems to think that we're just throwing all that money away, never to see it again. But the whole point of this is to create more economic activity. It's not just about the profit or lack thereof to the railroad. It's about the economic benefits of more people moving freely from one place to another, and those economic benefits get spread all around the region - to businesses, local governments, towns and people. So really, the overall cost is not the issue. The issue is the difference between the overall cost and the economic benefit to the region. Would this system bring $110 billion worth of benefits to the region over the span of its use? (Including the iterative benefits as it's being constructed.) I don't know, that would have to be looked at. But people shouldn't just freak out when they see that number and think it's all money down the drain. It isn't. The true cost of this can't really be known for certain, although if upgrading the NEC is done right, it really shouldn't cost anything at all in the end.

We have lost the idea in this country that investing means spending money now to make even more money in the future.

 

[jis]

It would end up being one very interesting tunnel. You've now got 3 levels to Grand Central, with the LIRR level under construction. You've got the station in the way going south; you've got the #7 line in the way going south; you've got the Grand Central Shuttle to Times Square in the way; you've got the #4, 5, & 6 line in the way; the Park Avenue road tunnel in the way; not to mention other various infrastructure like building foundations, gas, water, and power.

Sure, if somehow lots and lots of bucks can be thrown at the problem these things could be dealt with. But it sure won't be easy, it will cause lots of disruptions and problems, and it will cost big bucks.

If such is built it will be at least 100' below ground which will be well below the impediments mentioned by Alan. There are several possibilities that have been studied in the context of Alternative G of the ARC Scoping Document. It can be done even at a shallow level connecting to lower level of GCT. I.e. it is technically feasible. As for whether it is financially feasible that is another matter.

 

[Guest]

3. I hope that service can continue on the shoreline. Places like 30th street station could lose their service under this plan.

Maybe I am not reading this correctly, but I not only see 30th Street Station, but I also see the Philly Airport as stops.

 

[dlagrua]

The bottom line is that there is no Republican or Democratic support in Washington for high sppeed rail. All that we hear is a bunch of "hot air" and just enough funding to see that Amtrak survives as a minimalist service. The transportation budget goes to airports and roads. If you can point to 10 politicans that are pro Amtrak that would surprise me.