The next few years

[Green Maned Lion]

I make it to be smoke and mirrors. It's just a PB money siphoning scam.

 

[afigg]

Forgive my lack of TMA... what's "BRT"?

Adding to the responses on Bus Rapid Transit. The concept is a transit route service or line, that instead of streetcars or light rail, uses buses. Ideally has a dedicated right of way through all or part of the route, level boarding at bus stops, more frequent service than typical city bus routes. The problem is that most BRT proposal and plans that have been announced with great fanfare in the US have ended up getting cut back to where they are barely an improvement over a regular street running bus service. BRT is long topic outside of the scope of this thread, though.

However, one proposed BRT line that has relevance to Amtrak stations is the Richmond Broad Street Rapid Transit line. I had not realized that the Richmond BRT had gotten as far in the planning as it has until I saw a viewgraph about it in another VA transit study presentation. The proposed schedule calls for service beginning in 2017, although that given that they are still working on federal funding and the environmental assessments, that is a very optimistic schedule.

The relevance to Amtrak is that the proposed BRT line would include stops at both Richmond Staples Mill and Main Street stations and downtown. It would allow people to take Amtrak to RVR, then get downtown, or take Amtrak to RVM and later take the bus to RVR for the wider range of Amtrak trains there. What could be pushing this project along is the service to Norfolk, which of course, does not go through Main Street Station. Link to a map of the proposed route. Put this on the might happen by 2018 list for BRT to RVR and RVM.

 

[afigg]

Between the TIGER grants, local governments seeking to upgrade their train station or build intermodal stations, Amtrak's ADA compliance funding to fix up platforms and station access, we have likely overlooked a number of station projects in this thread.

mid-2015: Birmingham AL Intermodal station

As of FY2013. Amtrak had completed designs for HLPs at Jacksonville FL, Tampa, Savannah GA according to the ADA compliance update to Congress. Don't know what the schedule is for those stations to get HLPs, but Amtrak did get $50 million for ADA in the FY2014 appropriations.

What other stations are to get significant upgrades or likely to in the next 3-4 years that have not been listed so far?

 

[Richmond]

The relevance to Amtrak is that the proposed BRT line would include stops at both Richmond Staples Mill and Main Street stations and downtown. It would allow people to take Amtrak to RVR, then get downtown, or take Amtrak to RVM and later take the bus to RVR for the wider range of Amtrak trains there.

The bus won't stop at RVR, which is not right at Staples Mill and Broad, but on Staples Mill Road about a mile or so north of Broad.

But it would be nice to have a separate shuttle, though, connecting RVM and RVR for all departures and arrivals, considering that of the 20+ daily trains that stop at RVR, only 4 of those stop at RVM.

 

[afigg]

The relevance to Amtrak is that the proposed BRT line would include stops at both Richmond Staples Mill and Main Street stations and downtown. It would allow people to take Amtrak to RVR, then get downtown, or take Amtrak to RVM and later take the bus to RVR for the wider range of Amtrak trains there.

The bus won't stop at RVR, which is not right at Staples Mill and Broad, but on Staples Mill Road about a mile or so north of Broad.

But it would be nice to have a separate shuttle, though, connecting RVM and RVR for all departures and arrivals, considering that of the 20+ daily trains that stop at RVR, only 4 of those stop at RVM.

My bad. I saw the route map with Staples Mill and figured that of course the proposed BRT line would stop at the Amtrak station. Having connecting transit stops is what well designed transit systems have. Oh well. OTOH, if there is a bus corridor with stations running not that far from RVR, it should not be that difficult to add a bus service that heads off the corridor on the northern end to RVR and back. Anyway, if the proposed Richmond BRT line is built, at least RVM will be on the BRT route.

 

[afigg]

In NEC station upgrade news, Amtrak has posted a Request for Letters of Interest to its procurement portal site for the Kingston RI 3rd Track and high level platform project. So that project is finally moving ahead. The request says that Amtrak expects to award the construction contract in the 3rd or 4th quarter of 2014 and that the maximum construction duration is 30 months. Which would have the station project completed by the 1st or 2nd quarter of 2017. The first half of 2017 is shaping up to be a busy period for improvements and new equipment coming on-line.

Excerpts from the request:

"This Project consists of a new Third Track to be constructed between Mile Post (MP) 157 (proposed Liberty Interlocking) and Mile Post 159 (existing Kingston Interlocking). Amtrak Force Account personnel will be responsible for constructing the track, signal and overhead catenary wire systems. A third party contractor shall be responsible for the civil grading work for Track 3 within 2” of the proposed bottom of concrete tie elevation, catenary foundations, retaining walls, drainage, erosion control, catenary foundation demolition, protective bridge barriers, two new high level platforms, and modification to the existing overhead head-house vestibule at the stairs on both track platforms including elevator modifications."

"The Project requires maintenance and protection of existing adjacent Amtrak utilities as well as other utilities during construction. This Project will require close coordination with adjacent ongoing projects by Amtrak force account crews as well as other projects. The Project work has numerous physical constraints as well as limited access points along a narrow active “high speed” railroad right of way accommodating trains operating in excess of one-hundred fifty miles-per-hour (150 MPH)."

 

[neroden]

Revised for my own entertainment.

I've left out the NEC projects and the Piedmont projects, as well as nearly everything done by the MBTA, mainly because I have no good grasp on their schedules. I haven't included California HSR or All Aboard Florida, deliberately, as their projected dates don't seem reliable. I know I'm missing some Surfliner and San Joaqin improvements. I'm probably missing some other stuff too.

2014:

(June 14: St. Paul Union Depot gets urban rail line)

July: Grand Rapids new station opens

July 12: Denver Union Station building reopens

August: Dearborn new station opens

August: Blaine WA Customs Siding supposed to be finished

September: current (at-grade) Tower 55 project finishes in Ft. Worth

December: Englewood Flyover finishes

"winter": Mt Vernon siding in WA supposed to be finished

"late": Anaheim new train station ("ARTIC") supposed to open

"late": Raleigh Union Station supposed to start construction

as soon as eminent domain proceedings finish: Troy MI station opens

December: Rochester station supposed to start construction

End of year: last chance for Raton Pass route

Supposedly spring: West Detroit Connection Track project to start (it didn't)

Indiana Gateway projects start construction

Viewliner IIs continue delivery

NY major trackwork starts

MI major trackwork continues

Moline trackwork starts

Niagara Falls station supposed to start construction (if bids work out)

Metrolink expects to complete PTC implementation

(Chicago Central Loop bus lanes for local buses expected in front of Union Station)

Milwaukee station platform construction supposed to start

Last Keystone grade crossing supposed to close

2015:

"first quarter": Vermonter reroute

December: Springfield MA Union Station

December: Moline service

"late": Rockford service

December 31: PTC deadline -- Amtrak, Metrolink, BNSF, SEPTA expected to meet deadline

Miami Central Station supposed to open

Birmingham AL station supposed to open

ACS-64 deliveries supposed to finish

Schenectady station supposed to start construction

Point Defiance Bypass supposed to start construction

Tacoma Trestle supposed to start construction

Seattle King St. Station track improvements supposed to start construction

(Kansas City Streetcar opens connecting to KC Union Station)

(Expo Line Phase II opens in LA connecting Santa Monica to LA Union Station)

2016:

Probable early: SW Chief relocates to Transcon

"June": Bilevel corridor car "pilot car" delivery supposed to start

"fall": 125 mph corridor diesel deliveries supposed to start (seems unlikely)

"fall": WA Toteff siding extension supposed to open

"end of": NH-H-S commuter rail in Connecticut supposed to open

Rochester station supposed to open

Niagara Falls station supposed to open

Viewliner deliveries supposed to finish

(Denver Union Station gets three more connecting urban rail lines)

(Sunrail Phase II opens and construction on those tracks finally finishes)

Exton PA high platforms supposed to open

2017:

"mid": 125 mph corridor diesel deliveries supposed to finish

NY Trackwork supposed to be finished

MI Trackwork supposed to be finished

Schenectady station supposed to open

Point Defiance Bypass supposed to open

Tacoma Trestle replacement supposed to open

Seattle King St. Station track improvements supposed to open

WA "Kelso Martins Bluff new siding" and "Kelso to Longview Junction third main" supposed to open

Roanoke VA service supposed to start

Raleigh Union Station supposed to open to train service

Vermont Western Corridor year for opening if no more federal funding is received, according to the state department of transportation in 2012

Deadline for ARRA-funded improvements (such as a whole lot of Piedmont improvements as well as much of what's listed above)

2018:

Bilevel corridor car deliveries supposed to finish

Funded but AFAICT indefinitely delayed:

Waterloo IN new platform

West Detroit Junction work

relocation of Texas Eagle to Trinity Railway Express line

 

[leemell]

2015 the Van Nuys second (between tracks) platform begins construction. Includes repositioning tracks and providing tunnel access to trains for passengers. Funding is in hand.

 

[afigg]

Revised for my own entertainment.

I've left out the NEC projects and the Piedmont projects, as well as nearly everything done by the MBTA, mainly because I have no good grasp on their schedules. I haven't included California HSR or All Aboard Florida, deliberately, as their projected dates don't seem reliable. I know I'm missing some Surfliner and San Joaqin improvements. I'm probably missing some other stuff too.

If you want to figure out the schedule for the various Piedmont projects, NC DOT has a railroad projects status page. However, don't know how up to date the individual project summaries are.

If we are including the eastern Keystone in the non-NEC project list, the station replacement projects for Middletown, Downingtown, and maybe Coatesville PA appear to moving ahead now that PennDOT has more funds to draw on.

 

[Eric S]

Thanks for taking the time and effort to put this together originally and now to update it. I was actually just thinking about this topic a day or two ago and debating whether to dig it up and see if anything had changed.

 

[jis]

A few insertions that would be worthwhile into neorden's list:

2015

- NJT will also meet eh PTC deadline according to current projections.

2017

- Completion of Amtrak's NEC NJ HSR project between New Brunswick and Morrisville. Aclea speeds go up to 160mph on that segment and also likely in most of the current 150mph segments up north.

- NY Penn Station A interlocking ladder track realignment complete relieving some congestion. Incidentally, also by then there will be no daylight left between the Hudson/Empire tunnels and Penn Station. IT would have been fully covered up for building above. More air rights lease money for Amtrak!

 

[PRR 60]

A few insertions that would be worthwhile into neorden's list:

2015

- NJT will also meet eh PTC deadline according to current projections.

2017

- Completion of Amtrak's NEC NJ HSR project between New Brunswick and Morrisville. Aclea speeds go up to 160mph on that segment and also likely in most of the current 150mph segments up north.

- NY Penn Station A interlocking ladder track realignment complete relieving some congestion. Incidentally, also by then there will be no daylight left between the Hudson/Empire tunnels and Penn Station. IT would have been fully covered up for building above. More air rights lease money for Amtrak!

Are you sure about the Acela speed going to 160? I've heard rumblings that they are going to keep the existing Acela sets at 150 and wait for the Acela II's for 160. Maybe they came to the conclusion that the effort needed to force the existing sets to 160 was not worth the couple of extra seconds gained? (about 30 seconds difference in NJ - about the same in RI & MA)

 

[Amtrak172]

Is Amtrak really planning on sticking with the Acela brand for new NEC high speed trains?

Amtrak172

 

[Ryan]

That decision won't likely come for quite some time.

 

[jis]

Are you sure about the Acela speed going to 160? I've heard rumblings that they are going to keep the existing Acela sets at 150 and wait for the Acela II's for 160. Maybe they came to the conclusion that the effort needed to force the existing sets to 160 was not worth the couple of extra seconds gained? (about 30 seconds difference in NJ - about the same in RI & MA)

Haven't heard that from any reliable source even as recently as a month back. But of course anything could change, since it ultimately depends on FRA more than anything else. In addition, in general, no I am never sure about anything that I say about Amtrak. So why should this be any different?
Actually even for Acela IIs I have not heard that a final safety case for 160 or even 150 to operate Tier III equipment commingled with Tier I and II equipment above 125mph has been approved. That requires a special waiver or a rule change from FRA. So it is at present not a given that Tier III Acala IIs will be allowed to operate above 125mph either. But all the safety case work is in the works, in a manner of speaking. It would be kind of silly to buy shiny new equipment capable of operating at 160 mph that is not allowed to operate above 125mph IMHO. So we'll have to wait and see what happens. I would expect this issue to be resolved with a waiver, which hopefully does not involve adding a few tons of weight to the cars.

 

[rickycourtney]

(Expo Line Phase II opens in LA connecting Santa Monica to LA Union Station)

Minor change: the Expo Line will connect Santa Monica to Downtown LA, not Union Station and it's expected to open in early 2016.

Also of note, the Gold Line Foothill Extension to Azusa is expected to open in early 2016.

 

[afigg]

Is Amtrak really planning on sticking with the Acela brand for new NEC high speed trains?

Amtrak172

There is no official word, but the Acela has been a hugely successful service for Amtrak. The Acela generated 25% of Amtrak's ticket revenues in FY12 with only 10.6% of the total ridership. The Acela has become a established brand name, to the point where I read a political article a couple of months ago that used the term "Acela corridor" as a shorthand for the NYC to DC political, media, financial class that reside in and travel between DC and NYC.

I would be very surprised if Amtrak were not to keep the brand name and call the new HSR trains the Acela IIs to emphasize that they are new even better trains. But then again, there could be new leadership at Amtrak by the time the new trains are ready for revenue service who will want to use a entirely new name just because he can.

 

[Anderson]

Are you sure about the Acela speed going to 160? I've heard rumblings that they are going to keep the existing Acela sets at 150 and wait for the Acela II's for 160. Maybe they came to the conclusion that the effort needed to force the existing sets to 160 was not worth the couple of extra seconds gained? (about 30 seconds difference in NJ - about the same in RI & MA)

Haven't heard that from any reliable source even as recently as a month back. But of course anything could change, since it ultimately depends on FRA more than anything else. In addition, in general, no I am never sure about anything that I say about Amtrak. So why should this be any different?
Actually even for Acela IIs I have not heard that a final safety case for 160 or even 150 to operate Tier III equipment commingled with Tier I and II equipment above 125mph has been approved. That requires a special waiver or a rule change from FRA. So it is at present not a given that Tier III Acala IIs will be allowed to operate above 125mph either. But all the safety case work is in the works, in a manner of speaking. It would be kind of silly to buy shiny new equipment capable of operating at 160 mph that is not allowed to operate above 125mph IMHO. So we'll have to wait and see what happens. I would expect this issue to be resolved with a waiver, which hopefully does not involve adding a few tons of weight to the cars.

If for some reason they couldn't get a waiver for the Acela IIs that doesn't involve a lot of weight, I shudder to ask this...but at that point, why not just do a large "retread" order for a bunch of Acela I-compatible equipment? I ask only because the point of the new equipment is, of course, to be able to go faster and/or burn less power by being lighter alongside being cheaper to acquire by being "off the shelf". Having to add a bunch of weight would defeat all those points.

 

[George Harris]

I make it to be smoke and mirrors. It's just a PB money siphoning scam.

I just would like to know what is it that Parsons Brinckerhoff has done or done to you that has caused you to have a vendetta against them? I ask as a multiple year employee of them and a person that regards them as one of if not the best companies both professionally and ethically in the rail transportation engineering business.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

George, I don't want to get into a long public debate with you about it. You know I hold your professional competence in high regard, even if we disagree on a large number of things. I don't mind doing it privately. To answer your direct question, the answer can be summed up in three letters- A R C.

 

[neroden]

Ahem. PB has developed a bit of a reputation for, shall we say, political interference in planning; or perhaps rigidity in planning is a better description. And I'm not talking about sensitivity to public opinion, for which Arup has a good reputation, which is flexibility, the opposite of rigidity. I'm talking about sandbagging options which powerful individuals don't want considered. I'm sure that's either way above your pay grade or in a different department, Mr. Harris. But if I had a choice, I certainly wouldn't want to see PB as the prime consultant on an Alternatives Analysis; I wouldn't expect a fair analysis. For later stage engineering, with supervision, PB seems fine.

 

[neroden]

Actually even for Acela IIs I have not heard that a final safety case for 160 or even 150 to operate Tier III equipment commingled with Tier I and II equipment above 125mph has been approved. That requires a special waiver or a rule change from FRA.

The FRA should just change the damn rule. These "tank" rules are stupid once PTC has been implemented. The rules are actually stupid even now; they require cars which are less safe than modern standards, rather than cars with crumple zone designs, because the rules are based on totally obsolete theories of crash energy.

A bunch of these rules were reactions to the refusal of the private railroads to implement Automatic Train Stop back in the 1940s and earlier. So now that PTC is *required*, I would hope that the rules would be changed to remove the stupid rules with respect to trains which always run with PTC active.

Repeat: the FRA crash safety rules are S-T-U-P-I-D, and copying nearly any set of European or Asian rules would be an improvement.

I would expect this issue to be resolved with a waiver, which hopefully does not involve adding a few tons of weight to the cars.

God, can't the FRA just change the rules already, a change is years or even decades overdue. It should not require a waiver to use off-the-shelf equipment rather than less-safe equipment. But we live in a third-world country, so it does.
If the FRA is STILL unwilling to change the rules after PTC is implemented, the FRA should have its rulemaking authority revoked and the existing rules should be abolished. Sometimes to make progress you have to destroy institutions.

 

[CCC]

Actually even for Acela IIs I have not heard that a final safety case for 160 or even 150 to operate Tier III equipment commingled with Tier I and II equipment above 125mph has been approved. That requires a special waiver or a rule change from FRA.

The FRA should just change the damn rule. These "tank" rules are stupid once PTC has been implemented. The rules are actually stupid even now; they require cars which are less safe than modern standards, rather than cars with crumple zone designs, because the rules are based on totally obsolete theories of crash energy.

A bunch of these rules were reactions to the refusal of the private railroads to implement Automatic Train Stop back in the 1940s and earlier. So now that PTC is *required*, I would hope that the rules would be changed to remove the stupid rules with respect to trains which always run with PTC active.

Repeat: the FRA crash safety rules are S-T-U-P-I-D, and copying nearly any set of European or Asian rules would be an improvement.

I would expect this issue to be resolved with a waiver, which hopefully does not involve adding a few tons of weight to the cars.

God, can't the FRA just change the rules already, a change is years or even decades overdue. It should not require a waiver to use off-the-shelf equipment rather than less-safe equipment. But we live in a third-world country, so it does.
If the FRA is STILL unwilling to change the rules after PTC is implemented, the FRA should have its rulemaking authority revoked and the existing rules should be abolished. Sometimes to make progress you have to destroy institutions.

If this is a THIRD world country, then why is it called the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. by definition, the united states can not be described by anything other than FIRST WORLD, defined as the UNITED STATES and her ALLIES. The THIRD world is only countries not allied with either the USSR or the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

 

[Paulus]

If this is a THIRD world country, then why is it called the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. by definition, the united states can not be described by anything other than FIRST WORLD, defined as the UNITED STATES and her ALLIES. The THIRD world is only countries not allied with either the USSR or the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

The English language has moved on in the quarter century since the Cold War ended; First and Third world now have entirely different meanings (and Second World has gone kaput).

 

[neroden]

I tried to maintain the old usages, but I gave up. "Third world" is now a synonym for "underdeveloped".