I know that NY state's plans for HSR have been discussed various places, but I couldn't find a thread for it. Here's a critic who finds the high-speed rail options not high speed enough. I leave it to the local experts to comment.
Upstate New York High Speed Rail
- Thread starter CHamilton
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
Northeastern292
Service Attendant
DON'T. GET. ME. STARTED.
This is my plan (or ideas):
-reopen Buffalo Central Terminal as an intermodal facility with both low and high level platforms: would allow for an extended Lakeshore West line between Buffalo and Toronto. The 1929 BCT would remain as a meeting place and a brand new concourse would be the actual station facility. The poor
-a dedicated right of way between Buffalo and Rochester for high speed trains, electrified and with ability to support 160mph+ trains, even if trains at first only travel 125mph. Section is already congested as hell. Allow for infill stations in Batavia and commuter stations. Future plans could include a Buffalo-Rochester shuttle train.
-a dedicated Empire Service fleet including 20 Bombardier ALP45-DP locomotives (which would allow for 125mph speeds on the dedicated, electrified Empire Corridor and third rail for GCT and Penn Station and ten trainsets (Two for the Adirondack, including dedicated Viewcoaches in D&H colors, same for the two ALP45-DPs for the Adirondack; two for the Ethan Allen Express; two for the Maple Leaf and four for the NY-Niagara Falls trains. Coaches would be equipped with traps for low level platforms. Additional trainsets could be purchased for the NY-Albany runs. CDOT could pitch in for ALP45-DPs as well.
-track improvements on the 79mph section of the corridor, including cab signaling, PTC and four track expansion. (Alt 110 covers this)
-funding for studies in regards to Buffalo and Albany area commuter rail systems (Albany's would double as a connector for NY-Albany trains, for the “last mile”.)
-funding for Southern Tier service, with pressure for restoring the Lackawanna Cutoff, which would be federally funded (or funded by the three states).
-Station improvements and signal upgrades
-Reconfiguring the Upper Hudson Line for potential MNRR service to Northern Dutchess County and adding high level platforms to the station at Kingston-Rhinecliff. (Personally, I dislike high level platforms, but they're sort of necessary, especially for commuter rail ops).
Some other things (the grammatics might be screwey as I cutted this and pasted it from a draft speech I plan to give next week in Poughkeepsie).
1) Amtrak doesn't have a diesel that can do 125, although I wish. My requirement for a new Amtrak diesel for the NE would be a beefed up, more economical ALP45-DP (which I've heard isn't as economical to operate than a dedicated diesel or electric locomotive). Extending catenary out to Spyuten Duyvil (stopping short of the bridge linking the Empire Connector to the would allow more operational flexibility.
2) To do electric without dedicated track on CSX's lines isn't happening. Catenary would effectively not allow for triple stack container-equipped trains and in some cases might cause an issue with dome cars (however I've seen photos of the Capital Limited in DC in electrified territory, so it could be feasible)
3) I'd like to see a combination of ITCS and cab signals, if possible.
4) BCT MUST be taken into consideration for a potential HSR deal. CTRC has done a fantastic job with limited resources and having CTRC lead a rebuilding effort for BCT on behalf of NYSDOT would look good as a public-private partnership. Depew, although not bad, has its limitations.
5) I know NYSDOT has nearly $1 billion from the feds from all the states that rejected HSR funds, but the only way this will truly get off the ground is with a transportation bond issue. If it's put up to voters in 2017 (this year's out because the Dems are proposing a $2 billion bond for smart schools, which I am somewhat in favor of for numerous reasons) it'll be 12 years since the one in '05. NYS doesn't have a good track record for bond propositions: two of them failed in the 70s which put a ton of mass transit projects on hold or killed them.
I read the DEIS, and I'll say the Alt 110 is the best bang for the buck, but I would want an Alt 110+, which does not preclude the possibility of 125mph+ speeds in the future. I'm hoping that Governor Cuomo's focus on Upstate (sans the SAFE Act) will if not reverse Upstate's population loss, at least stop it. Upstate NY no longer has intra-upstate flights like it did in the '80 and even a few years back when CommutAir had it's Albany hub. If you build it, they will come. (Cuomo also needs to learn that he's not, and never will be and should NEVER aspire to be Robert Moses!)
Question to NYSDOT: Would choosing one of the build choices preclude in the future a step-up, for instance if the DOT chooses Alt 110, would it be possible, let's say, twenty-five years from now say “Let's build Alt 125”.
This is my plan (or ideas):
-reopen Buffalo Central Terminal as an intermodal facility with both low and high level platforms: would allow for an extended Lakeshore West line between Buffalo and Toronto. The 1929 BCT would remain as a meeting place and a brand new concourse would be the actual station facility. The poor
-a dedicated right of way between Buffalo and Rochester for high speed trains, electrified and with ability to support 160mph+ trains, even if trains at first only travel 125mph. Section is already congested as hell. Allow for infill stations in Batavia and commuter stations. Future plans could include a Buffalo-Rochester shuttle train.
-a dedicated Empire Service fleet including 20 Bombardier ALP45-DP locomotives (which would allow for 125mph speeds on the dedicated, electrified Empire Corridor and third rail for GCT and Penn Station and ten trainsets (Two for the Adirondack, including dedicated Viewcoaches in D&H colors, same for the two ALP45-DPs for the Adirondack; two for the Ethan Allen Express; two for the Maple Leaf and four for the NY-Niagara Falls trains. Coaches would be equipped with traps for low level platforms. Additional trainsets could be purchased for the NY-Albany runs. CDOT could pitch in for ALP45-DPs as well.
-track improvements on the 79mph section of the corridor, including cab signaling, PTC and four track expansion. (Alt 110 covers this)
-funding for studies in regards to Buffalo and Albany area commuter rail systems (Albany's would double as a connector for NY-Albany trains, for the “last mile”.)
-funding for Southern Tier service, with pressure for restoring the Lackawanna Cutoff, which would be federally funded (or funded by the three states).
-Station improvements and signal upgrades
-Reconfiguring the Upper Hudson Line for potential MNRR service to Northern Dutchess County and adding high level platforms to the station at Kingston-Rhinecliff. (Personally, I dislike high level platforms, but they're sort of necessary, especially for commuter rail ops).
Some other things (the grammatics might be screwey as I cutted this and pasted it from a draft speech I plan to give next week in Poughkeepsie).
1) Amtrak doesn't have a diesel that can do 125, although I wish. My requirement for a new Amtrak diesel for the NE would be a beefed up, more economical ALP45-DP (which I've heard isn't as economical to operate than a dedicated diesel or electric locomotive). Extending catenary out to Spyuten Duyvil (stopping short of the bridge linking the Empire Connector to the would allow more operational flexibility.
2) To do electric without dedicated track on CSX's lines isn't happening. Catenary would effectively not allow for triple stack container-equipped trains and in some cases might cause an issue with dome cars (however I've seen photos of the Capital Limited in DC in electrified territory, so it could be feasible)
3) I'd like to see a combination of ITCS and cab signals, if possible.
4) BCT MUST be taken into consideration for a potential HSR deal. CTRC has done a fantastic job with limited resources and having CTRC lead a rebuilding effort for BCT on behalf of NYSDOT would look good as a public-private partnership. Depew, although not bad, has its limitations.
5) I know NYSDOT has nearly $1 billion from the feds from all the states that rejected HSR funds, but the only way this will truly get off the ground is with a transportation bond issue. If it's put up to voters in 2017 (this year's out because the Dems are proposing a $2 billion bond for smart schools, which I am somewhat in favor of for numerous reasons) it'll be 12 years since the one in '05. NYS doesn't have a good track record for bond propositions: two of them failed in the 70s which put a ton of mass transit projects on hold or killed them.
I read the DEIS, and I'll say the Alt 110 is the best bang for the buck, but I would want an Alt 110+, which does not preclude the possibility of 125mph+ speeds in the future. I'm hoping that Governor Cuomo's focus on Upstate (sans the SAFE Act) will if not reverse Upstate's population loss, at least stop it. Upstate NY no longer has intra-upstate flights like it did in the '80 and even a few years back when CommutAir had it's Albany hub. If you build it, they will come. (Cuomo also needs to learn that he's not, and never will be and should NEVER aspire to be Robert Moses!)
Question to NYSDOT: Would choosing one of the build choices preclude in the future a step-up, for instance if the DOT chooses Alt 110, would it be possible, let's say, twenty-five years from now say “Let's build Alt 125”.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
It is amazing how quickly the discussion in the comments section proceeds into la la land. 
Of course choosing something now does not preclude doing something else 25 years from now. These EISs have an effective lifetime by themselves of something like 10 years maybe. At the end of the day, unless the necessary money can be found, all of this is fantasy anyway.
Of course choosing something now does not preclude doing something else 25 years from now. These EISs have an effective lifetime by themselves of something like 10 years maybe. At the end of the day, unless the necessary money can be found, all of this is fantasy anyway.
MattW
Conductor
Triple-stack containers??? I don't think any railroad is going to run triple-stack containers any time soon and double stacks operate just fine under catenary on the existing NEC and its electrified branches.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Yeah the triple stack container is just la la land from a different angle IMHO. And double stacks and triple auto racks Plates H and K run fine under standard catenary on the NEC.
Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
Last edited by a moderator:
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Also, I will first have to see an ALP45DP get certified to operate at 125mph before I'd start planning on using one of those exceedingly expensive things to operate reliably at 125mph without significantly increasing track maintenance cost. They have not been certified to operate at 125mph on the NEC and their ever getting certified for that is currently in doubt.
Northeastern292
Service Attendant
That's another thing too. I'm hoping this isn't Bombardier stretching themselves too thin. Except for the P32AC-DMs, which are not native on overhead wire, the ALP45DPs are native on both. But I have a feeling that a next generation ALP45-DP would do better.
Eventually, it's not a matter of if a dedicated right of way is built, but when. Of course I prefer a dedicated right of way, but even some of Alt 90A is needed for Alt 125. I'd say build Alt 110, and hopefully in 25 years when the economy is stronger and ridership is up, we'll revisit the corridor.
We've been working on this since before I was born. But once the train to Buffalo is more reliable, you'll see stronger ridership, even on the Albany-NY stretch, which is getting another four trains a day under Alt 90B and Alt 110. And Buffalo Central Terminal is all part of the puzzle.
Then again, I'm an eternal optimist.
Northeastern292
Service Attendant
From my blog:
On Wednesday March 12th, I took a day trip to Poughkeepsie to view and give feedback at the New York State DOT's open house. To make a long story short, it was a success, even though I didn't quite network to the extent I wanted.
Additional information is at https://www.dot.ny.gov/empire-corridor
On Wednesday March 12th, I took a day trip to Poughkeepsie to view and give feedback at the New York State DOT's open house. To make a long story short, it was a success, even though I didn't quite network to the extent I wanted.
Additional information is at https://www.dot.ny.gov/empire-corridor
George Harris
Engineer
People seem to always forget curve straightening. Look at the alignment of the track following the Hudson River. Regardless of what you do with the speed limit you are not getting a more time reduction without quite a bit of alignment revision. If you are making any moves track to track, high speed turnouts and crossovers are also needful so that significant slow downs and speed ups do not add to your run time. Getting qualified engines and equipment is the cheap part. It is the track and civil works that eats the money. There were a lot of railroads that were buying 100 mph capable equipment in the 30's to 50's but very few that had places where they could stretch out and run that fast. And even whent they did, the AT&SF with many miles that allowed 100 mph according to the rule books still could not manage an end to end average of 60 mph between Chicago and Los Angeles. Why? Curves, grades, station stops, etc. I say "according to the rule books" because train crews were well known in those days for stretching the speed limits when they were behind schedule. This was winked at by the management because everyone in the company wanted to see their top trains run on time and they had confidence in their crews. Remember, in those days crew districts were short and the engineers on the top passenger trains were at the top of the seniority roster and knew their territories like the back of their hands, so they knew exactly how far they could safely stretch the rules.
I do not know what is meant by "not native to overhead wire" That is a complete non-issue for diesel power. It is done in many parts of the world as well as quite a lot on the Northeast Corridor going all the way back to the beginning of its electrication by the Pennsy. Well, in those early days it was actually coal burning steam locomotives running under the overhead wire.
Due to stability and high center of gravity issues we are not getting much if any higher than the 20'-2" high Plate H for double stack cars. With that an overhead wire of something on the order of 22'-6" works fine and is well within the capabilities of current pantographs. If we want to go higher above the rail, the use of the Confederate 5'-0" inch gage or better the 5'-6" Indian Broad Gauge would be virtually necessary, and even that seems highly unlikely to permit a third container. It just might allow the containers to be on flat cars instead of well cars. There is a practical maximum relationship between center of gravity height of the load and rail center to center spacing.
I do not know what is meant by "not native to overhead wire" That is a complete non-issue for diesel power. It is done in many parts of the world as well as quite a lot on the Northeast Corridor going all the way back to the beginning of its electrication by the Pennsy. Well, in those early days it was actually coal burning steam locomotives running under the overhead wire.
Due to stability and high center of gravity issues we are not getting much if any higher than the 20'-2" high Plate H for double stack cars. With that an overhead wire of something on the order of 22'-6" works fine and is well within the capabilities of current pantographs. If we want to go higher above the rail, the use of the Confederate 5'-0" inch gage or better the 5'-6" Indian Broad Gauge would be virtually necessary, and even that seems highly unlikely to permit a third container. It just might allow the containers to be on flat cars instead of well cars. There is a practical maximum relationship between center of gravity height of the load and rail center to center spacing.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Catenary with clearance to allow operation of Plates H and K under it is really a complete non-issue. Such exists for example all the way from Wilmington (Yard) to just north of Baltimore (Bayview), and quite regularly triple auto racks and double stacks operate on that segment under catenary. And naturally every piece of electric equipment on the NEC is capable of operating on that segment. One of the current 135mph segments slated to be upgraded to 160mph (Ragan to Prince) is also in that segment.
India is developing freight corridors along which they will be operating double stacks on flats (rather than on wells). And this will be all under catenary, and of course 5'6" Broad Gauge. Catenary is somewhere north of 26' high. The pantographs are a sight to behold, and god forbid if any of those trains by chance sneak onto the regular network. There will be fireworks and mayhem in general.
India is developing freight corridors along which they will be operating double stacks on flats (rather than on wells). And this will be all under catenary, and of course 5'6" Broad Gauge. Catenary is somewhere north of 26' high. The pantographs are a sight to behold, and god forbid if any of those trains by chance sneak onto the regular network. There will be fireworks and mayhem in general.
George Harris
Engineer
Yes, I will admit to reading something about this, so I was not really be original in what I said. The extra space between rails does do good things for the stability of high freights. If I remember right, then Indian system in general does not have very high overhead clearance, so yes could be a real disaster if one of these high freights got detoured. If I remember right the allowed axle load on the general system is not that high either. However, it could be with good structural analysis it is likely that it could be raised. There are a lot of bridges on the US railroad system that are carrying loads far beyond those for wich they were designed. This is not being done by wild guess, but after through structural analysis.
Way back when I was first in this railroad game heard stories from people in the company I was working for of a detoured freight over a line that had not had clearance improvements. Seems that a couple of tri-level auto racks became bi-levels with associated large areas covered by scrap metal that had been new automobiles. There other comment on outoracks and piggyback, this being years before container trains, was that if the South had not lost the Civil War we would be better off because our rails would be further apart.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
How far can they extend the Amtrak California Capitol Corridor?
- Latest: Metra Electric Rider
