VA Releases SEHSR Recommendations

[Ashland Train Enthusiast]

Ideally, one could conceive of diverting all freight to a double tracked BBRR between Doswell and Richmond, but the real show stopper there is the difficulty of access to Acca Yard, which is absolute necessity for CSX. The only plausible solution is to provide access to Acca from the South with a northward connection from BBRR to the Acca to Main Street route, and that gets the freights into Acca facing the wrong way. Consequently, a somewhat more local use of part of the BBRR ROW to provide an Eastern Bypass for Ashland may be a more practical alternative to consider. Don't know what the local politics around that would be.

I'd agree with this as an ideal approach, however think it's a non-starter with CSX for the reasons identified. What I'd be interested to see is the impact for a partial BBRR eastern bypass; I'd wonder about the magnitude of impacts south of town though, as the tracks only get further apart after Ashland, and the point of closest geographic approach unfortunately would go straight through the Hanover airport. I'd be interested in also seeing with an alignment that partially uses the median of I-95 looks like, as I've seen some folks' here propose some back-of-the-envelope mappings using that and some existing utility easements to develop an eastern bypass with very little property impacts. Of course, understanding if that's even possible from an engineering perspective or cost perspective is a whole different animal.

I would hate to see the character of downtown Ashland fade away due to a mainline track expansion, but I also really do want to see more trains serve Ashland (remember that it is a college town and therefore ridership will grow unfailingly if passenger trains are added).

This is the Catch 22 that I think the town has struggled with throughout this entire project. They don't want to completely bypass all rail traffic (a la a full eastern bypass on the BBRR), but at the same time, don't want a full through-town approach. I'm hoping that there's an answer out there that can meet both objectives, while at the same time minimizing impacts to the surrounding community, but that part, putting it all together to identify the best option, remains to be seen.

 

[west point]

How to get Ashland's attention. Propose to keep CSX thru town and build the western 2 track by pass just for passenger trains. Wouldn't happen but proposal ????

 

[jis]

How to get Ashland's attention. Propose to keep CSX thru town and build the western 2 track by pass just for passenger trains. Wouldn't happen but proposal ????

Clearly you have not been paying attention to the discussion. Otherwise you would have already known that this is a non starter and will get no ones attention other than to throw it out. Ashland is fully engaged in the process. Really their lack of attention is not the problem.

 

[Palmland]

I guess I'm having a hard time with the need for 3 tracks through Ashland and leaving the new station in the middle of town. Yes, as an RMC graduate I'm biased and want to maintain the integrity of that really unique community and college. But consider that the BNSF has no trouble handling close to 100 trains a day on their double track transcon through northern NM and AZ. Most of those are 70 mph intermodal. They run like streetcars through Winslow and Flagstaff. In fact, maintaining the two track alignment is one of the proposed options - 5A according to the document referenced above.

I do understand a 70 mph freight is not the same as a HSR passenger train, but all this expense and turmoil for maybe a five mlle stretch of track? There is plenty of green field property just south of Ashland and the traffic would not disrupt the town as much as the current location. Put the high level platform station there with plenty of parking. It would seem that a third track on both ends of town with crossovers would have minimal impact on the proposed frequency and speed of the passenger trains. This would also require closing and securing the right of way through town (underpass for England St.) to minimize any speed restriction.

Put I am glad VA DOT recognized the many issues involved here and has stated further review is needed. This makes sense as they state the Fredericksburg to Washington portion is their current priority.

 

[neroden]

Yup. Calling it something like "Reliable, Frequent, Faster Rail" and explaining what it means would be better than using the term "High Speed". Use of the term "High Speed" for anything below 150mph maximum allowed speed, should be banned. Consequently "High Speed Rail" would immediately imply electrified system too.

As for elevated systems, in many parts of the world it has been found that elevated systems that are built supported by single pillar holding up a well architected concrete structure fifty to sixty feet above ground with adequate noise suppression built in, even atop main thoroughfares is found quite acceptable in most placed. But such have been used for purely passenger systems. Trying to use such for Plate H and K freights with umpteen flat wheels is a different kettle of fish altogether.

I'm quite sure an arched system would work fine, even for giant, heavy, flat-wheeled freights. And everything built nowadays is quite quiet.

 

[neroden]

The station really really should be downtown. REALLY. You do not serve a college town with a station on the outskirts with "a lot of parking" if you can possibly help it; you serve a college town with a walkable station next to the college.

Whether three tracks are necessary? Probably not really, but CSX doesn't really play nice with passenger trains. If the freight could be diverted around town, three tracks would certainly not be necessary.

 

[Ashland Train Enthusiast]

But consider that the BNSF has no trouble handling close to 100 trains a day on their double track transcon through northern NM and AZ. Most of those are 70 mph intermodal.

This is the biggest issue. Being able to run consistently at 70 MPH is very different than running at 70, then dropping to 35, then back up to 70, with intermittent trains stopping to mess with the dispatcher's cadence. In reading the full initial draft EIS (all 1400+ pages of it are available here: http://www.town.ashland.va.us/DocumentCenter/View/1486),it was indicated that through their operational modeling, a 2 track solution or even a 3 - 2 - 3 approach (3 tracks north and south of town, narrowing down to 2 tracks through town) wouldn't handle the increased capacity expected for both freight and passenger.

Anyway, upgrading the tracks through town would inherently change the character, such as requiring set-backs, fencing, closing all pedestrian crossings, and in the opinion of the Chamber of Commerce, being significantly disruptive to the business climate by dividing the town in two. I think the town at some point will come to grips with having to accept some level of change, either in a reduction of services with a bypass or a change to the nature of the downtown.

~ ATE

 

[Palmland]

Sure a downtown station would be nice for the college and residents of that small town (not to mention us railfans). But with an enrollment of 1400 students the college won't generate a great deal of riders. Unlike my day, when many took the train during holiday breaks, now most have cars and live within a few hours drive. I think the market VDOT has in mind is not Ashland proper but rather the many bedroom communities sprouting up around the perimeter of the northern half of I-295 beltway. For them getting to the station now involves a mile plus drive from the interstate down a two lane city street with stoplights that is often backed up at rush hour. Avoiding that mess would be a plus for commuters as well as those living in town that would have to deal with the increased traffic. i think VDOT has in mind this alternate location in their Ashcake option.

 

[Anderson]

Buckingham Branch was, to my understanding, eliminated due to sheer cost (not unlike the James River bridge proposal down in Hampton Roads was dumped for similar reasoning) alongside limitations of the alignment in terms of speed (if it was to be used for passenger operations) and losing the ability to use RVR (or, for that matter, Broad Street and/or Boulevard). RVM as a stand-alone is not a sufficient facility for over a million pax/year (at that level of service, you need substantial parking; even the 300-space lot planned wouldn't cut it for a station that would be dealing with somewhere close to 3000 pax/day). If it were to be used for freight, the situation would be a total mess since you'd then re-mingle freight and pax operations down by RVM (and the plan has generally trended towards A-line freight/S-line pax). Moreover, when you toss in the Carmel Church station option there seems to be an obvious (if nebulous) plan to develop the RF&P into a "transit-oriented sprawl" corridor.

While the bypass would likely be used by CSX's freights, the bypass is an exchange for running a lot of passenger trains through town. I'd argue that it is constructively building them a replacement route in exchange for the state taking over the through-town route (or at least chewing up a ton of capacity there) rather than "just giving them a new line".

The third track is needed because the rest of the line is being triple-tracked as part of the project. Having a reduced-speed two-track bottleneck somewhere that arguably a lot of passenger trains (and remember, we'd be talking 8-18/day) would stop is a major problem.

Basically the issue, as I see it, is that Ashland is trying to have their cake and eat it too. I do suspect that an elevated line through downtown in the vein of Fredericksburg or the area around RVM would work(-ish); stylistically I'd err towards trying to make it look early 20th century, in line with the character of the town, but Ashland would probably have to accept freights blowing through at 50-60 as part of such a deal. Additionally, if Ashland "wakes up" one morning and has dozens of trains stopping there, that actually starts to raise the specter of Ashland (and Carmel Church) ending up with workable Amtrak-based commuter options into downtown Richmond.

In short, /something/ has to give and either Ashland or Hanover County will likely "lose out" in this. From the standpoint of political reality, if the situation is "A or B", then my guess is that it's easier to roll Ashland (7000 residents and <2800 voters in 2016) than to roll Hanover County if push does come to shove.

And as to your point about DRPT, it's run by wonks, not politicians.

 

[Thirdrail7]

An easy fix is to rebuild Long Bridge, make it four tracks and bring back Potomac Yard!

 

[Ashland Train Enthusiast]

...

Basically the issue, as I see it, is that Ashland is trying to have their cake and eat it too.

...

In short, /something/ has to give and either Ashland or Hanover County will likely "lose out" in this.

Here's some of the latest indicating the direction that the town is leaning, which is being willing to forego all rail service to prevent an at-grade 3rd rail option: http://www.richmond.com/news/local/ashland/article_03f695bd-6efb-5948-b047-cfb8b2954432.html.

Ashland Mayor Jim Foley said in an interview Sunday that, ideally, Ashland would keep its rail service and that the loss of it is something he takes seriously. But if push comes to shove, Foley would support forgoing rail service if that’s what it takes to prevent the addition of a third track in town.

~ ATE

 

[neroden]

Oy. Well, that'll just continue the trend of small towns shrinking and big cities getting bigger.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

So in short Ashland keeps the freight trains, and the passengers trains take the bypass with no service to Ashland direct, but maybe a park and ride location on the outskirts of town.

Way to go...

 

[Anderson]

 

[jis]

So in short Ashland keeps the freight trains, and the passengers trains take the bypass with no service to Ashland direct, but maybe a park and ride location on the outskirts of town.

Way to go...

Looks like that doesn't it? Of course, CSX has no reason to abandon its grandfathered rights through Ashland. It is a ***** tot ry to get to Acca Yard from BBRR.

OTOH, there is also not enough space at Main Street Station to handle the overall projected passenger growth in the Richmond area, hence the desire to keep Stapels mill open too. But again, how do you get to Staples Mill from BBRR? So I do not see a pure BBRR entry into Richmond as viable. There will have to be some Eastern Bypass of Ashland worked out, perhaps along I-95 or something like that, but then joining the CSX main somewhere between Ashland and Staples Mill, even if a single track, to take overflow traffic in a directional fashion.

Frankly, very few Amtrak trains stop at Ashland anyway, so it is not critical that all Amtrak trains run through Ashland. but it would appear to be critical that all run through Staples Mill given the projected growth.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

Frankly, very few Amtrak trains stop at Ashland anyway, so it is not critical that all Amtrak trains run through Ashland. but it would appear to be critical that all run through Staples Mill given the projected growth.

Ok plan "D".

Chicago is prove of the three track plan of freight trains and passengers train can mix.

So with three tracks north and south of Ashland if we eliminate the station stop completely and place higher speed switch on both side of Ashland. How much extra work would it for the dispatcher to keep traffic flowing? Sure it's a few miles of limited capacity, and would be a really big pain when MOW came by, but as long as you don't have any traffic stopping, it should be smooth.

 

[John Bobinyec]

Frankly, very few Amtrak trains stop at Ashland anyway, so it is not critical that all Amtrak trains run through Ashland. but it would appear to be critical that all run through Staples Mill given the projected growth.

Ok plan "D".

Chicago is prove of the three track plan of freight trains and passengers train can mix.

So with three tracks north and south of Ashland if we eliminate the station stop completely and place higher speed switch on both side of Ashland. How much extra work would it for the dispatcher to keep traffic flowing? Sure it's a few miles of limited capacity, and would be a really big pain when MOW came by, but as long as you don't have any traffic stopping, it should be smooth.

Even if the trains could run at high speed through Ashland, what do you do when you have three trains to run through there? It becomes a bottleneck.

The workload on the dispatcher notwithstanding, no extra work by the dispatcher is going to keep more than 2 trains running simultaneously with no delays.

jb

 

[MikefromCrete]

I'm not all that familiar with Ashland, but let me get this straight. Ashland is a quaint little town that happens to have the CSX (ex-RF&P) main line running right down the middle of one its main streets. Upgrading the line to a three-track higher speed line will upset this quaintness. Even with three tracks, it would seem that trains would have to slow down to about 20 mph to navigate the street running. Not exactly 21st Century high speed (or even higher speed) railroading. Most towns would love to get trains off of their streets. Seems like a bypass would be the best bet. Maybe in the medium of I-95 or elevated above the interstate. Put a station with parking at the edge of town. End of debate. Some folks would lose land or buildings to the bypass, but that's life. Progress is some times hurtful to a few, but helps the many. I may be all off on this, but why do Ashlanders think running trains down the middle of one of their streets is an asset? Are they all railfans?

 

[MattW]

The ideal solution would be a cut-and-cover tunnel with underground station - put the whole kit and kaboodle out of sight and mind. Unfortunately, I'm sure the disruption would be intolerable to the town.

 

[neroden]

OTOH, there is also not enough space at Main Street Station to handle the overall projected passenger growth in the Richmond area,

I dispute this. There is certainly enough space. Done properly, you could handle enormous numbers of passengers at Richmond Main Street.
You might have to put huge amounts of money into the station (raise the platforms, possibly even the trainshed, widen the platforms back into the trainshed which has been converted to a mall, extend the platforms the length of the trainshed and beyond, build a parking garage, add extra tracks and platforms, etc.)

But there's plenty of space there. It's surrounded by something like six blocks which are mostly parking or vacant.

Now, it may be *desirable* to have a north suburban station of some sort, but it is complete nonsense to say that it is necessary because there isn't enough "space" at Richmond Main Street.

The BBRR is a crummy passenger route, however, because it's very very twisty. So the CSX route is preferable, even if Amtrak has to build its own tracks on one side of the CSX tracks (which, frankly, I would like).

I honestly think Virginia's been going about things in Richmond in the wrong order.

Step one should be to build the James River Bridge and upgrade the S line so that all trains can run through Richmond Main Street.

Step two, improvements to Richmond Main Street Station to support more passengers on more trains on both routes (Newport News and Petersburg).

Step three, passenger-primary bypass tracks on the east side of the CSX line from Richmond Main Street north past Acca Yard.

Step *four*, a modern north-suburban station, *after* it's clear what the true demand at Main Street is.

Call it the "work your way back from Norfolk" plan, perhaps?

Anyway, instead they built an Acca Bypass for CSX, which will end up being on the wrong side of the yard for Amtrak. Twice.

 

[jis]

OTOH, there is also not enough space at Main Street Station to handle the overall projected passenger growth in the Richmond area,

I dispute this. There is certainly enough space. Done properly, you could handle enormous numbers of passengers at Richmond Main Street.

I suppose you will have to go and argue with the guys who put together the EIS, since I picked it up straight from the EIS. They state this explicitly as one of the reasons for keeping both Staples Mill and Main Street. I really have no dog in the race at all and have zero on the ground familiarity beyond the few trips that I have happened to take there. So i have no specific position beyond what I read in the EIS.

 

[districtRich]

Speaking of Main Street, it looks like they just plan to use only the platforms on the outside of the station. Any idea what they plan to do with the old trainshed space? No terminating tracks? When I was there in September of 2015 it was completely empty inside. Anything in there now since I was there?

 

[Anderson]

Speaking of Main Street, it looks like they just plan to use only the platforms on the outside of the station. Any idea what they plan to do with the old trainshed space? No terminating tracks? When I was there in September of 2015 it was completely empty inside. Anything in there now since I was there?

Visitors Center. Remember, in almost all plans no more than about two trains terminate at RVR, so using the trainshed would be a mess and a half for about 95% of the trains hitting Richmond.

 

[Ngotwalt]

So I guess my question is this: If Ashland is worried about more trains, unsightly row, and loosing passenger trains, why not build a double track bypass around Ashland for freight and keep passenger trains in town?

Nick

 

[jis]

So I guess my question is this: If Ashland is worried about more trains, unsightly row, and loosing passenger trains, why not build a double track bypass around Ashland for freight and keep passenger trains in town?

Nick

The latest kerfuffle is indeed about where the bypass should be built.