200MPH+ on the NEC: Is it practical?

[KLiL905]

This is something I've been thinking about for quite a while now and I wanted to see what other people thought about this. It has to do with the Northeast Corridor and Amtrak's long-term plans of turning it into a true high speed rail line with a top speed of about 220mph or somewhere around that. Basically, upgrading it to where you can run trains as fast as the high speed trains in Europe and Asia. I've heard about these plans ever since I was a kid but recently, as in like 2 years ago, I've come to question weather these goals would be achievable for the Northeast Corridor. There's no denying that the route is a hogde podge of old and new infrastructure, from concrete ties laid as far back as the 80s and as late as the 2000s, to catenary gantries that are 90 years old, to bridges and viaducts that are well over 100 years old like Canton Viaduct which (fun fact) opened two years prior to the death of James Madison, one of the Founding Fathers. Of course, some of these pieces have been maintained better than others but the point still stands. And while replacing old track, bridges and tunnels can increase speeds, I dont know if it would be enough to have trains run at 200mph. If you look at high speed rail lines that were upgraded conventional rail lines similar to the NEC in other countries, most of them have a top speed of 150 to 160mph, like Cologne to Aachen High Speed Railway in Germany which opened back in the 1840s. With anything going faster than that running on a brand new rail alignment dedicated to faster trains. Because on those upgraded high speed lines, you aren't just running fast trains. You also have slower regional, commuter and freight trains sharing the tracks which would make running at faster speeds borderline dangerous. You don't see slower commuter trains running on the LGV Atlantique route for example. Its because of this that I feel like the Northeast Corridor will never be able to host speeds higher than 150 or 160, because it doesn't matter how much you upgrade the existing right of way to modern standards. You will still be dealing with slower trains, and there is a limit to how far you can push the speed limits on an existing right of way before you have no other choice then to build a new railroad. And I honestly, I think that's okay. Sure, 125 and 150 is nothing compared to 220mph, but its definitely better than the 79mph top speed 90% of the trains in this country are limited to. Even in Europe and Asia, that's a reasonable top speed for a majority of upgraded higher speed rail lines over there. The Northeast Corridor doesn't need to have a top speed of 200+mph to be good. Its this reason why I'm glad that the top of speed of the Avelia (once it enters service) will be 160mph which I think is a reasonable top speed given the limitations the NEC presents.

But this is just what I think. This is just based on what I have seen with other rail lines similar to the NEC and building said route in Trainz Railroad Simulator. I just wanted to see what others thought about this

 

[MARC Rider]

Have American contractors ever successfully built rail lines in the US that are suitable for 200 mph?

Does the Northeast Corridor really need to run at 200 mph? Even with its current limitations, it's very successful now, maybe the only rail line in the US that has a significant percentage of the transportation market in its area. It might be better to spend money to speed up travel times by eliminating sharp curves (hi Frankford Jct.!) and traffic bottlenecks. Even at the current speeds, trains stop every 30 minutes (20-40 miles) or so, so even if it has a top speed of 200 mph, the trains aren't going to be going that fast most of the time.

 

[Septa9739]

I think there is no practical way to get the NEC up to modern standard HSR. NIMBYism, cost, and lack of political will are serious obstacles. You’d essentially need to build a whole new railroad through the densest, most expensive swath of the country and it would only serve the densest largest cities. That doesn’t work well with American land use, which is less dense than most of the world, and would be fought tooth and nail. Alon Levy (with whom I disagree greatly on many areas) I think makes an excellent point in that the best way to speed up the NEC is to eliminate slow zones in and around stations (think Zoo Interlocking, or the approach to Washington.) The next best thing is to straighten easy or extreme curves, but chasing 220 will result in millions in studies that go nowhere and should have been spent getting a minute here or 2 minutes there.

 

[Bostontoallpoints]

This is something I've been thinking about for quite a while now and I wanted to see what other people thought about this. It has to do with the Northeast Corridor and Amtrak's long-term plans of turning it into a true high speed rail line with a top speed of about 220mph or somewhere around that. Basically, upgrading it to where you can run trains as fast as the high speed trains in Europe and Asia. I've heard about these plans ever since I was a kid but recently, as in like 2 years ago, I've come to question weather these goals would be achievable for the Northeast Corridor. There's no denying that the route is a hogde podge of old and new infrastructure, from concrete ties laid as far back as the 80s and as late as the 2000s, to catenary gantries that are 90 years old, to bridges and viaducts that are well over 100 years old like Canton Viaduct which (fun fact) opened two years prior to the death of James Madison, one of the Founding Fathers. Of course, some of these pieces have been maintained better than others but the point still stands. And while replacing old track, bridges and tunnels can increase speeds, I dont know if it would be enough to have trains run at 200mph. If you look at high speed rail lines that were upgraded conventional rail lines similar to the NEC in other countries, most of them have a top speed of 150 to 160mph, like Cologne to Aachen High Speed Railway in Germany which opened back in the 1840s. With anything going faster than that running on a brand new rail alignment dedicated to faster trains. Because on those upgraded high speed lines, you aren't just running fast trains. You also have slower regional, commuter and freight trains sharing the tracks which would make running at faster speeds borderline dangerous. You don't see slower commuter trains running on the LGV Atlantique route for example. Its because of this that I feel like the Northeast Corridor will never be able to host speeds higher than 150 or 160, because it doesn't matter how much you upgrade the existing right of way to modern standards. You will still be dealing with slower trains, and there is a limit to how far you can push the speed limits on an existing right of way before you have no other choice then to build a new railroad. And I honestly, I think that's okay. Sure, 125 and 150 is nothing compared to 220mph, but its definitely better than the 79mph top speed 90% of the trains in this country are limited to. Even in Europe and Asia, that's a reasonable top speed for a majority of upgraded higher speed rail lines over there. The Northeast Corridor doesn't need to have a top speed of 200+mph to be good. Its this reason why I'm glad that the top of speed of the Avelia (once it enters service) will be 160mph which I think is a reasonable top speed given the limitations the NEC presents.

But this is just what I think. This is just based on what I have seen with other rail lines similar to the NEC and building said route in Trainz Railroad Simulator. I just wanted to see what others thought about this

Everything I have seen so far to achieve 200 mph means spending 100's of $billions which result in saving 25 minutes of travel time. I think money would be better spent on expanding rail in the rest of the country.

 

[dlagrua]

To have an effective 200 mph route, some long direct straight runs on the NEC would be required. The NEC has limited places where this can occur. Also with many stations on the route, slowing from 200 mph to an appropriate speed to enter a station would take significant time and slow the average speed. . Given the cost and the limitations, I don't see this happening anytime soon.

 

[jis]

Even on the straight stretches that exist on the NEC the track center distance is grossly insufficient to operate at 200mph, or even 186mph. Increasing track center distance without losing capacity will require acquisition of extremely expensive property and re-electrification of the segment ground up since the current electrification infrastructure will get in the way. The return on investment would be so low that it would be hard to justify the expenditure even on the straight segments.

 

[west point]

The too narrow track centers becomes a non starter. To do that would either mean reducing NEC to 3 tracks or expending mega bucks to widen ROW and completely revising CAT. No way no how. More expensive than a separate new 2 track HSR.

 

[KLiL905]

Everything I have seen so far to achieve 200 mph means spending 100's of $billions which result in saving 25 minutes of travel time. I think money would be better spent on expanding rail in the rest of the country.

Travel times didn't come to my mind but you and everyone here do bring up a good point. That and not funneling any funding Amtrak gets into the Northeast Corridor. Like I get its their money maker but...maybe sharing it wouldnt hurt ^^;

 

[KLiL905]

Even on the straight stretches that exist on the NEC the track center distance is grossly insufficient to operate at 200mph, or even 186mph. Increasing track center distance without losing capacity will require acquisition of extremely expensive property and re-electrification of the segment ground up since the current electrification infrastructure will get in the way. The return on investment would be so low that it would be hard to justify the expenditure even on the straight segments.

Now that you mention it, the width between the tracks on high speed rail lines I've seen are much larger than those on conventional railways, especially on the Northeast Corridor (outside a few instances I noticed when building it in trainz lol). Is there any reason for why that is?

 

[jis]

Now that you mention it, the width between the tracks on high speed rail lines I've seen are much larger than those on conventional railways, especially on the Northeast Corridor (outside a few instances I noticed when building it in trainz lol). Is there any reason for why that is?

Aerodynamics. At higher speed the train produces a much more potent wake. There has to be sufficient space between passing trains for the wake pressure front not to be strong enough to derail one or both trains, or cause other severe damage.

 

[Touchdowntom9]

I agree with the consensus here.

Long time NJ->NY commuter who just spent a week traveling Italy via train and experiencing 200+ mph.
The 200mph+ is great, but its brief and any slow down nukes the entire benefit. The costs are also huge. The real priority needs to be always staying above 100mph from Wash to Boston at all costs. In the event of any slow downs, it needs to be planned out (ie the curve right outside the Hudson tunnels in Sec is rated for ~75mph which is fine because its 90mph limit through Secaucus station and (soon) portal north bridge too anyway.

Build the Wilmington station cutoff for the express, eliminate the Elizabeth curve, super elevate/tunnel/straighten out the Metuchen/Metropark curves. Pull every lever you can to speed up the curves, and if you break things and cause issues with NIMBYs or freight operators in the process, tell them to pound sand and adjust. These should be the top priorities of the rail network because as someone who lives near one of maybe 3 areas that support 150+mph (Princeton Junction), its much more important so get rid of the 60mph areas than adding 150 areas. Sure the low hanging fruit should be grabbed (upgrading speeds across Princeton junction was the right call but poorly executed), but I am more interested in traveling at 100mph non stop into Penn St than I am hitting 150 before slamming the brakes down to 60 for Elizabeth and 40 for Newark Penn.

Lastly, one issue that impacts trip time is that there is no sense of urgency with Amtrak trains. We spend billions to save a minute or two, but if focused on training the Amtrak staff to run their station stop procedures like an elite commuter agency would, they would save 1,2,3,4+ minutes per stop without changing a darn thing to infrastructure. Sure passengers have large suitcases, but having the staff announce and show on screen notifications to tell them to get up and ready a min or two ahead of time can mitigate this. Fly in and out of stations--I've clocked most stops at Trenton or Newark Penn and they average 3-5 minutes of time where the doors are open. That can be cut to 30-45 seconds EASILY.

 

[Touchdowntom9]

Lastly, this is a political issue, but Amtrak needs to be given ownership and dispatch authority over the entire NEC. You really see this as an issue north of NYC where Metro North overloads and overbooks their tracks, has terrible delays and then sticks Amtrak trains behind their own. At minimum, Amtrak should have dispatch authority or it should be a 3rd party (Brightline style system). Will be much easier to get jobs done with Amtrak's vision of the NEC than Metro north clogging up that artery with a few more trains per hour. NJT/Amtrak's relationship is the way it should be.

 

[KLiL905]

Aerodynamics. At higher speed the train produces a much more potent wake. There has to be sufficient space between passing trains for the wake pressure front not to be strong enough to derail one or both trains, or cause other severe damage.

Ah I see! That explains it..

Might explain why the track spacing on the double track sections of the Lincoln Corridor (I dont know the actual name subdivision) are that wide, even though the top speed is 110. Just guessing here

 

[KLiL905]

Lastly, this is a political issue, but Amtrak needs to be given ownership and dispatch authority over the entire NEC. You really see this as an issue north of NYC where Metro North overloads and overbooks their tracks, has terrible delays and then sticks Amtrak trains behind their own. At minimum, Amtrak should have dispatch authority or it should be a 3rd party (Brightline style system). Will be much easier to get jobs done with Amtrak's vision of the NEC than Metro north clogging up that artery with a few more trains per hour. NJT/Amtrak's relationship is the way it should be.

I agree. In general, the New York to New Haven section would be a way faster and possibly more up to date infrastructure wise if not for Metro North. Its a sore thumb compared to the rest of the Corridor

 

[jis]

Ah I see! That explains it..

Might explain why the track spacing on the double track sections of the Lincoln Corridor (I dont know the actual name subdivision) are that wide, even though the top speed is 110. Just guessing here

Generally newly double tracked segments are built with much larger track spacing by default assuming space is available. I don't think Lincoln Corridor is necessarily the way it is for 110mph, for which the track spacing on the NEC is fine.But, if space is available it is better to lay the tracks with larger spacing than the minimum safe on.

 

[west point]

The problem with MNRR is not going away any time soon. It becomes the problem of all the movable bridges that have to be replaced. The Walk bridge being down to 3 main tracks most of the time and it will have 1 - 2 months several times of only 2 tracks available. Multiply that for 5 -6 bridges so expect only semi reliability until maybe year 2050.

That makes it hard when unplanned closures of remaining active tracks will happen.

 

[Tlcooper44]

In my opinion, the way to improve the NEC lies more with things like frequency and reliability (alongside a rather sizable repair backlog) rather than speed - and it would be better to increase lower speeds than top speeds.

As several others have outlined, achieving higher than our current tops speeds will require massive amounts of money, time and political will.

Getting Avelia Acelas running some time this century would also be nice. Our current equipment is pretty awful.

 

[AmtrakBlue]

In my opinion, the way to improve the NEC lies more with things like frequency and reliability (alongside a rather sizable repair backlog) rather than speed - and it would be better to increase lower speeds than top speeds.

As several others have outlined, achieving higher than our current tops speeds will require massive amounts of money, time and political will.

Getting Avelia Acelas running some time this century would also be nice. Our current equipment is pretty awful.

Just an FYI, for a random Wednesday in January (after the 7th) there are 3 more options between WAS & NYP than there are for the same city pair next Wednesday. 30 next week, 33 in January.
I know Newark, DE is, finally, getting weekday morning trains starting in January. The sb is an existing train that will begin stopping there. The nb one is a new train (though it did run 2 days a week earlier this year).

 

[railiner]

Aerodynamics. At higher speed the train produces a much more potent wake. There has to be sufficient space between passing trains for the wake pressure front not to be strong enough to derail one or both trains, or cause other severe damage.

Indeed...I recall the first time I was on a NEC train and was startled by an opposing Metroliner nearly popping out our windows as it flew past...

 

[Literalman]

In answer to the original question, no, I don't think it's practical to achieve 200 mph on the NEC. I don't agree with TouchdownTom9 about "staying above 100mph from Wash to Boston at all costs"; there are too many locations where those costs would be immense. I do agree with him and just about everyone else that the way to shorten trip times on the NEC is to remedy the areas where trains must go much slower than 100 (Frankford Jct. and the Elizabeth curve were mentioned). Spots such as these create speed restrictions within areas of higher speeds and should be fixable without extraordinary spending.

 

[Tlcooper44]

Just an FYI, for a random Wednesday in January (after the 7th) there are 3 more options between WAS & NYP than there are for the same city pair next Wednesday. 30 next week, 33 in January.
I know Newark, DE is, finally, getting weekday morning trains starting in January. The sb is an existing train that will begin stopping there. The nb one is a new train (though it did run 2 days a week earlier this year).

Glad to hear.

I would love to see the equivalent of half-hourly service across the NEC. I think missing a train should become inconsequential - then it will really become a worthwhile corridor to just about everyone.

 

[west point]

It is a matter of getting rid of most slow sections to at least 100 MPH and primarily 160 MPH. Among others that is Elizabeth curves, Frankford Junction to North PHL, Wilmington, B&P tunnel, The 3 Maryland bridges, Portal north and south bridges, Sawtooth bridge complex, etc..

 

[AmtrakBlue]

Glad to hear.

I would love to see the equivalent of half-hourly service across the NEC. I think missing a train should become inconsequential - then it will really become a worthwhile corridor to just about everyone.

Still training T&E I believe. Takes 18 months for engineers.

 

[BlackDiamond]

Lastly, this is a political issue, but Amtrak needs to be given ownership and dispatch authority over the entire NEC. You really see this as an issue north of NYC where Metro North overloads and overbooks their tracks, has terrible delays and then sticks Amtrak trains behind their own. At minimum, Amtrak should have dispatch authority or it should be a 3rd party (Brightline style system). Will be much easier to get jobs done with Amtrak's vision of the NEC than Metro north clogging up that artery with a few more trains per hour. NJT/Amtrak's relationship is the way it should be.

Unfortunately some of these delays are due to capacity constraints from the rebuilding of movable bridges and other state of good repair efforts that have been ongoing since the state agencies took over from the former NHRR/PC. I don't see that being resolved anytime soon no matter who is dispatching the railroad.

 

[jis]

Unfortunately some of these delays are due to capacity constraints from the rebuilding of movable bridges and other state of good repair efforts that have been ongoing since the state agencies took over from the former NHRR/PC. I don't see that being resolved anytime soon no matter who is dispatching the railroad.

I agree. But even after all SOGR issues are resolved, ownership is not about to change no matter how much we bellyache about it here. State of Connecticut bought it and owns the thing. Just like MTA bought and own a portion of Penn Station. There is no easy way for Amtrak to displace them. These transactions predate the creation of Amtrak.

If Amtrak manages to get funding and clear all objections to be able to build a completely new route which does not use the MNRR or LIRR segment, that would be the only possibility of getting Amtrak off of Metro North, and the chances of that happening are next to nil. It is an option described in the Tier I EIS, and has been abandoned for now. The basic issue is one gets to fight a battle with the resources that you have, not the resources you wished you had.