# Richmond, VA - Gimme the skinny....



## Philzy (Mar 18, 2009)

Alright, so what is the plan for Richmond, VA and their different stations exactly? I figured that one of you educated (most likely local) types could prob give me the 411. We have two operational stations in Richmond: the I guess orginal one build in 1907 at Main Street, another at Staples Mill Rd and the third and bestest (yes, bestest) <_< most beautiful one IMHO is the Broad Street Station (Union Station) which has been transformed into a local museum.

As a child I remember my mom taking me to the Museum and the first words out of my mouth when we walked in was “what a perfect place for a train station,” go figure.  Now, I was doing a little reading up on Richmond seeing if I could see if there was any news.

Apparently there is some but nothing in detail. Twice there is a mention of moving all Amtrak operations back to Main Street (source, source), alas nothing in concrete just a mention of it and keep going. Apparently trains go west before/after main street resulting in some trains not going to both stations? I didn’t follow that one, maybe I’m thinking backwards?

I found a page (and since lost it) talking about a problem of Henrico county not wanting to give up Staples Mill rd station and working on some type of inter-model facility. Gonna get flamed for this I’m sure but would it make sense to go back to using the Broad Street Union Station if you’re gonna do this? It too seems somewhat centrally located and if I remember correctly there is not need to back in or out as the trains can circle in and out? There is still plenty of land for that to be used as an intermodal station as well, yes, no? benefits of one station over another one?

In addition there is still a lot of mention over the net about the SEHSR, I’ll do a whole ‘nother thread on that one tho. Apparently Richmond is planned to be the terminus not DC?

Now VRE apparently has a shuttle bus from the station in Richmond to Fredericksburg(source)? There is a mention on Wiki of possible VRE extension to Richmond but no more information, maybe I overlooked this? Anyone have any data on this?

Oh, and lastly! Can someone find me a diagram of the Main Street Station? I found here that it says it’s the only tri level railroad track? Anyone care to elaborate? There are three tracks on top of each other? Or some tracks three stories above stuff? Would love to gobble up some info about this… :huh:

Thanks guys!


----------



## Rafi (Mar 18, 2009)

I have a feeling this could be a long post... I'll try to be succinct...

The state of VA has officially decided that Main Street will be the hub of all passenger train operations in Richmond in the long run. Right now, only Regional trains heading east to Newport News service Main Street station (2 a day, except for Friday when there are 3) because serious track work needs to be completed for trains to head south out of Main Street station. Even the Newport News trains spend a half hour just to get between Staples Mill and Main Street thanks to a packed Acca yard and what is essentially a one-track railroad right now.

The fate of Staples Mill is up in the air right now, but Henrico obviously wants to keep it. The real fight that affects if Staples Mill will remain, however, is not over the station's existence, but more over how Richmond/Virginia/CSX/Amtrak can improve the current bottleneck of service between Staples Mill and Main Street Stations. One proposal has all passenger service diverging off of the CSX line at Doswell, VA (north of Ashland) onto the Buckingham Branch line to Main Street station which would bypass Ashland and Staples Mill stations entirely. Neither Ashland or Henrico are too keen on this idea. Amtrak maintains that the current CSX route is the best bet when you consider the passenger loss by losing those two stations and the considerable track upgrades that would be necessary on the Buckingham Branch route. The alternative is to pump a lot of investment in creating some new dedicated passenger tracks on the east side of Acca yard (I think, could be mistaken--someone correct me if I am, obviously) and to double track the entire main line down to Main Street station. Not sure on the timeframe for either of the above projects.

Now... Broad Street Station is another matter entirely. Yes, I agree, it's a fantastic station and one of the most unique and noteworthy stations in the country. The reason for its noteworthiness is also the reason we won't easily see passenger service there in the foreseeable future, in my opinion.

Bill Haithcoat (I think it's Bill) is much more of an expert on how this worked, but here's the short version...

If you look at an overhead view of Broad Street station, you'll see that it sits off of the main line and is not parallel to the main line. You can also make out what was once a full loop behind the station. Aw heck... it'll be easier if I just show you...







Now, this may be confusing at first, so let me start by explaining that Broad Street Station was designed such that all trains at platform level were positioned the SAME WAY REGARDLESS OF DIRECTION OF TRAVEL. This made for a very smart looking operation, but my understanding is that it also aided in baggage handling, as all of the baggage cars were lined up and bags could be transferred easily that way. It also made for a very efficient method to dispatch trains back onto the mainline in the proper direction by using the loop track.

As things stand now, Broad Street station has had it east/south half of the loop taken away and parking lots and office buildings now occupying the space needed. Any train into or out of the station now has to back in or out of the main line, which doesn't make for a very fast station dwell time.

While you didn't specifically ask, you may also be curious to know that Virginia has committed to an additional Richmond (Staples Mill) to New York (and possibly boston) round trip to begin by this December. An eventual extension to Newport News is planned, and Amtrak/CSX/Virginia are looking at adding some additional track capacity east of Main Street Station to extend service there in the meantime while the Newport News extension track upgrades are in progress.

-Rafi


----------



## AlanB (Mar 19, 2009)

The other issue not mentioned by Rafi however is, that the tracks from Main Street headed to Newport News are just fine, but it's my understanding that the tracks across the river that head south to reconnect with the CSX mainline to Florida are not in good shape and require extensive work before passenger service can be restored to that route.

And one cannot eliminate Staple Mills until those tracks are fixed up, as eliminating Staple Mills would eliminate all service to Richmond by the Silver trains and the Palmetto, as they can't get to Main Street at present.


----------



## jphjaxfl (Mar 19, 2009)

Main Street Station in Richmond was used by Seaboard Airline trains from the North to Florida as well as Chesapeake and Ohio trains from the west to Newport News. Broad Street Station was used by Atlantic Coast Line trains from the north to Florida. Hull Street Station in Richomd was used by the Southern Railway. After 1967 when Seaboard Airline and Atlantic Coast Line merged into Seaboard Coastline, all trains from the north to Florida were moved to Broad Street. After Amtrak started in 1971, Broad Street Station was used until Staples Mill Station was built.

C&O trains continued to use Main Street Station. After Amtrak started, the Newport News branch of the George Washington later the Cardinal continued to use Main Street Station until it was discontinued. Alan is correct. There never was a connection from Main Street Station to the former Atlantic Coast Line route that Amtrak uses south of Richmond so the former SAL line would need to be rehabed from Richmond south and maybe a new connection built at Petersburg.


----------



## PRR 60 (Mar 19, 2009)

One interesting piece of trivia concerning Broad Street Station is that the station architect - John Russell Pope - also designed the Jefferson Memorial in Washington DC. See if you can see a family resemblence.

Broad Street Station






Jefferson Memorial


----------



## Bill Haithcoat (Mar 19, 2009)

Rafi said:


> I have a feeling this could be a long post... I'll try to be succinct...
> The state of VA has officially decided that Main Street will be the hub of all passenger train operations in Richmond in the long run. Right now, only Regional trains heading east to Newport News service Main Street station (2 a day, except for Friday when there are 3) because serious track work needs to be completed for trains to head south out of Main Street station. Even the Newport News trains spend a half hour just to get between Staples Mill and Main Street thanks to a packed Acca yard and what is essentially a one-track railroad right now.
> 
> The fate of Staples Mill is up in the air right now, but Henrico obviously wants to keep it. The real fight that affects if Staples Mill will remain, however, is not over the station's existence, but more over how Richmond/Virginia/CSX/Amtrak can improve the current bottleneck of service between Staples Mill and Main Street Stations. One proposal has all passenger service diverging off of the CSX line at Doswell, VA (north of Ashland) onto the Buckingham Branch line to Main Street station which would bypass Ashland and Staples Mill stations entirely. Neither Ashland or Henrico are too keen on this idea. Amtrak maintains that the current CSX route is the best bet when you consider the passenger loss by losing those two stations and the considerable track upgrades that would be necessary on the Buckingham Branch route. The alternative is to pump a lot of investment in creating some new dedicated passenger tracks on the east side of Acca yard (I think, could be mistaken--someone correct me if I am, obviously) and to double track the entire main line down to Main Street station. Not sure on the timeframe for either of the above projects.
> ...



Thanks for the mention Rafi but I am not an expert on Richmond.

You may be thinking of posts I have written on Chattanooga or BIrmingham or Atlanta or some other city.All I know is that Richmond railroading has an illustrous history of great ACL and Seaboard trains to Florida and some other trains on other railroads.

It is a fascinating subject,but I am no authority.

I know the Broad Station is especially photogenic and that memorable shots have been made showing the East Coast Champion and other trains leaving from it.


----------



## wayman (Mar 19, 2009)

Philzy said:


> Oh, and lastly! Can someone find me a diagram of the Main Street Station? I found here that it says it’s the only tri level railroad track? Anyone care to elaborate? There are three tracks on top of each other? Or some tracks three stories above stuff? Would love to gobble up some info about this… :huh:


So far as I know, the famous Richmond Triple Crossing is not directly related to any of the passenger stations. It's just that three railroads go through town in different directions and it was convenient for them to all cross at the same spot. The Southern got there first, and forty years later the Seaboard and C&O built bridges in exactly the same spot. Here's a great article on the history of the triple crossing, which mentions



> If three trains ever passed at the crossing by coincidence--and the odds are they haven't--there were no photographers on hand. But three times since 1900 the railroads have undertaken the troublesome project of "posing" three trains at the crossing.
> Three old steam engines chugged onto the crossing for the first picture in 1911. Then in 1926, when railroad officials had partly forgotten how much trouble it was, three more locomotives were photographed at the crossing.


The article is undated on the website, but it must be an article from the 1940s or so, since the article is about the third-ever staged photograph, which features an E-unit and a K-3; the article describes the photo (and the process of staging it) in great detail, but doesn't actually include the photo  Fortunately, I found it elsewhere on the web  :






And here's the 1926 staged photo (which was included in that article):






Perhaps in the fifty-plus years since that newspaper article three trains have run at the same time through the crossing (and some railfan photographer has been lucky enough to see it)? I found a Youtube video from 2006 that shows all three levels in use within 20 minutes of each other, but not quite simultaneously.

In Philadelphia it's always a treat to see Silverliners go under the High Line when there's a CSX freight up there, and even that two-level crossing isn't all too common.


----------



## Philzy (Mar 19, 2009)

a ha! I knew you guys would have some input! Awesome read, you guys a are a wealth of knowledge!

Rafi thanks for the diagram, I had kinda figured that since a build up around the area might result in broad street not having the same ability as it once did before. Can't be any worse than backing into Tampa tho... what a nightmare that seems to be everytime I take the train there...that is for another thread tho...

Is there anywhere published online the master plan for the intermodel facility designed into the main street station? I've been looking online with various key words searchs and coming up with zilch?

So, onto another question VRE- if they do actually make an extension down to Richmond finally, which station(s) would they use?


----------



## Rafi (Mar 19, 2009)

Philzy said:


> So, onto another question VRE- if they do actually make an extension down to Richmond finally, which station(s) would they use?


They haven't even gotten that far in planning yet, and frankly, I don't think the topic is even on their near-term radar. The only thing VRE is looking at as of right now is a possible branch off of the Manassas line to Gainesville and Haymarket. So as for which station VRE would serve, my bet is that the Staples Mill debate will be long settled before VRE arrives in Richmond, and if Staples Mill is still there as an option, then I would assume it would be the first (and maybe only) stop, followed by Main Street.

-Rafi


----------



## Rafi (Mar 19, 2009)

wayman said:


> Perhaps in the fifty-plus years since that newspaper article three trains have run at the same time through the crossing (and some railfan photographer has been lucky enough to see it)? I found a Youtube video from 2006 that shows all three levels in use within 20 minutes of each other, but not quite simultaneously.


Nice review, Will. I would add that any and all Richmond railfans that go to the annual Easter Parade on Monument Avenue should keep an eye open for a lady vendor who sells colorized B&W photographs, a large number of which are Richmond-rail related. Three of them are the infamous Triple Crossing Photos which she hand-colors. I have all three framed and on the wall-great conversation piece for railfans and non-railfans alike.

Rafi


----------



## Rafi (Mar 19, 2009)

Bill Haithcoat said:


> Thanks for the mention Rafi but I am not an expert on Richmond.
> You may be thinking of posts I have written on Chattanooga or BIrmingham or Atlanta or some other city.All I know is that Richmond railroading has an illustrous history of great ACL and Seaboard trains to Florida and some other trains on other railroads.
> 
> It is a fascinating subject,but I am no authority.
> ...


Well, shoot. Sorry for calling you out there, Bill. I could have sworn it was at least someone on the AU forum that told me about Broad St Station, though. Maybe it was George? Ah well.

Rafi


----------



## Bill Haithcoat (Mar 19, 2009)

Rafi said:


> Bill Haithcoat said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the mention Rafi but I am not an expert on Richmond.
> ...


Rafi, if you can handle a little historical trivia I offer this: for some of it winter seasons the ACL Florida Special handled a sleeper dome car from Richmond to Miami. If could not operate north of Richmond for the obvious clearance reasons.

For that reason and others, some would say that the FLorida Special was the finest of the NYC- FLA trains during the streamliner era. Back in the heayvweight days it would have tough competition from Seaboard's Orange Blossom Special.


----------



## battalion51 (Mar 19, 2009)

If this is a repeat, I apologize. It seems like a big role that Staple Mills plays in the Amtrak world is the fact that it's the layover point for at least a few trips. Cleaning crews, mechanical guys, and the T&E crew bases are all based out of Staple Mills. If it were eliminated, all those facilities would have to be moved, if it's even feasible to move them.


----------



## KayBee (Mar 19, 2009)

Philzy said:


> Oh, and lastly! Can someone find me a diagram of the Main Street Station? I found here that it says it’s the only tri level railroad track? Anyone care to elaborate? There are three tracks on top of each other? Or some tracks three stories above stuff? Would love to gobble up some info about this… :huh:


Overhead view of the famous triple crossing

If you pan to the right (north) you will shortly see Richmond Main Street Station

The track curving away to the east is the old C&O line heading to Williamsburg and Newport News. The track heading under Interstate 95 to the south is the old Seabord Air Line route to Raleigh and points south (that is before CSX ripped the track out between Petersburg and Norlina) :angry: .


----------



## gdj (Mar 21, 2009)

battalion51 said:


> If this is a repeat, I apologize. It seems like a big role that Staple Mills plays in the Amtrak world is the fact that it's the layover point for at least a few trips. Cleaning crews, mechanical guys, and the T&E crew bases are all based out of Staple Mills. If it were eliminated, all those facilities would have to be moved, if it's even feasible to move them.


There is another thing that seems to get lost in the discussion about Staples Mill Road. To the average person from the suburbs here in Richmond, downtown is a place to be avoided. As beautiful as Main St Station is, that area is viewed as an unsafe area that also floods. I will leave my car overnight on an open parking lot in the "Bottom" about the same time pigs fly. I believe that eliminating Staples Mill Road Station would actually wind up decreasing ridership in Richmond. Also, Staples Mill Road is much easier to drive to than Main St Station.


----------



## Rafi (Mar 21, 2009)

gdj said:


> There is another thing that seems to get lost in the discussion about Staples Mill Road. To the average person from the suburbs here in Richmond, downtown is a place to be avoided. As beautiful as Main St Station is, that area is viewed as an unsafe area that also floods. I will leave my car overnight on an open parking lot in the "Bottom" about the same time pigs fly. I believe that eliminating Staples Mill Road Station would actually wind up decreasing ridership in Richmond. Also, Staples Mill Road is much easier to drive to than Main St Station.


While I understand your point and agree with you that it will be a hard pill to swallow for Richmonders to congregate at Main St Station, Amtrak's and Virginia's response is that a serious upsurge in station foot traffic on a consistent basis throughout the day and night almost always decreases the crime and vagrancy in the area and is always accompanied by a surge in police patrols. The very same topic was raised at the VARP meeting two weeks ago and the Amtrak manager who was there reiterated this point and gave out some examples of other cities that had made a similar leap.

As for flooding, my understanding is that the (ugly) flood wall erected in the 60's pretty much keeps that activity to a minimum, but even so, the planned parking structure for Main Street Station is elevated, I believe.

That said, I don't think Staples Mill is going anywhere soon, and if Amtrak plays it right, they'll keep both stations open after Main St becomes the hub at least for a few years. I think you'll see West Enders using Staples Mill almost exclusively, but the data indicates that Main Street will be a major, major station in terms of ridership from the downtown area and the fan.

Rafi


----------



## volkris (Mar 21, 2009)

gdj said:


> There is another thing that seems to get lost in the discussion about Staples Mill Road. To the average person from the suburbs here in Richmond, downtown is a place to be avoided. As beautiful as Main St Station is, that area is viewed as an unsafe area that also floods. I will leave my car overnight on an open parking lot in the "Bottom" about the same time pigs fly. I believe that eliminating Staples Mill Road Station would actually wind up decreasing ridership in Richmond. Also, Staples Mill Road is much easier to drive to than Main St Station.


Based on the political gumflapping I hear, they'd like/plan for expanded service at Main St. Station to include connections to new city transportation. It seems reasonable that service bringing people from suburbs to the area would be able to serve both the station and the Bottom at the same time.


----------



## George Harris (Mar 21, 2009)

A few quickies, skipping the quotes that I am answering:

SAL moved their trains into Broad Street before the SAL+ACL merger. After all, RF&P handled both lines trains north of Richmond. But, pre merger, they returned to the SAL track and went right by Main Street Station on their way to Florida. Only after the merger and the building of the connection south of Petersburg did the ex-SAL passenger trains move to the ACL line going south through Petersburg.

There is a connection between the former SAL main and the former ACL main some 10 to 12 miles south of Main Street Station, but that 10 miles is now slow, I think 25 mph or so. Even when it was the main line, the SAL time between Richmond and Petersburg was slower than the ACL time. To run through Main Street will add a few minutes to the minimum run time possible for the Florida trains.

The Triple crossing is very close to Main Street Station, but only the SAL track, the middle level, accessed the station.


----------



## Philzy (Mar 24, 2009)

volkris said:


> gdj said:
> 
> 
> > There is another thing that seems to get lost in the discussion about Staples Mill Road. To the average person from the suburbs here in Richmond, downtown is a place to be avoided. As beautiful as Main St Station is, that area is viewed as an unsafe area that also floods. I will leave my car overnight on an open parking lot in the "Bottom" about the same time pigs fly. I believe that eliminating Staples Mill Road Station would actually wind up decreasing ridership in Richmond. Also, Staples Mill Road is much easier to drive to than Main St Station.
> ...


It seems that a lot of cities are realizing that by creating a "inter-model" transportation hub of sorts in these areas they can actually help boost the area's economy. I think the best and smartest one I heard was some time back (I wish I could remember which city) about using space in old stations for the police force which pushes the "oddballs" and needy people that might otherwise cause people to avoid these areas, might make people like *gdj* a little more comfotable with leaving one's car unattended for an extended period?


----------



## p&sr (Mar 24, 2009)

George Harris said:


> The Triple crossing is very close to Main Street Station, but only the SAL track, the middle level, accessed the station.


Taking Amtrak from Richmond's Main Street Station towards Newport News, does it go through the Triple Crossing? Or close enough to see it?


----------



## jis (Apr 5, 2009)

AlanB said:


> The other issue not mentioned by Rafi however is, that the tracks from Main Street headed to Newport News are just fine, but it's my understanding that the tracks across the river that head south to reconnect with the CSX mainline to Florida are not in good shape and require extensive work before passenger service can be restored to that route.
> And one cannot eliminate Staple Mills until those tracks are fixed up, as eliminating Staple Mills would eliminate all service to Richmond by the Silver trains and the Palmetto, as they can't get to Main Street at present.


Yesterday at the Mid-Atlantic Zone NARP Meeting in Bordentwon NJ, Drew Galloway of Amtrak gave a presentation on NEC Capital Projects. From that presentation we learned that the Washington - Richmond section will officially become part of the NEC.

During Q&A I specifically asked him about Doswell Sub. He categorically said that Amtrak and Virginia DOT have decided not to pursue the Doswell Sub alternative (i.e. rerouting passenger trains off of RF&P at Doswell onto the ex-C&O line to Main Street thus missing Staples mill) and have decided to keep all Amtrak trains on RF&P and thus using Staples Mill. He mentioned that close to a billion dollars will be spent in constructing additional trackage south of Staples Mill to allow passenger trains to bypass Acca yard completely on their way to Main Street station. Only the Auto Train will continue to use its present route. All other trains will go via Main Street station. The connection from Main Street station towards Petersburg will be upgraded and restored for use by all trains bound for destinations south of Richmond.

I also asked him about electrification to Richmond. He said Amtrak is quite serious about it and CSX has no objections as long as it does not interfere with freight operation. A detailed study is taking place. Upon its completion a final cost estimate and go-nogo decision will be made. He did not see any inherent problem in doing an electrification that allows for Plate H clearance. This is apparently a part of the exercise of incorporating Washington - Richmond as part of NEC.

Incidentally, SEHSR then begins from Richmond and connects to Ralaigh using the ROW (substantially) of the old S-Line through Norlina.

It would then stand to reson to upgrade Washington to Richmond to at least 110mph in segments where it is easily done. Haven't heard any plans for removing the crawl through Ashland though.


----------



## volkris (Apr 5, 2009)

jis said:


> I also asked him about electrification to Richmond. He said Amtrak is quite serious about it and CSX has no objections as long as it does not interfere with freight operation. A detailed study is taking place. Upon its completion a final cost estimate and go-nogo decision will be made.


Thanks for the update!

Is there any sort of timeline for the study? Is this posed as an "almost shovel-ready" project, or will it be a three year environmental impact study followed by a wait to see which direction Washington politics turn?


----------



## jis (Apr 5, 2009)

volkris said:


> Is there any sort of timeline for the study? Is this posed as an "almost shovel-ready" project, or will it be a three year environmental impact study followed by a wait to see which direction Washington politics turn?


This study is targeted for completion by the end of this year, is the impression I got. I did not ask whether this project is subject to NEPA, but I would be surprised if it were not. So I do not think it is anywhere near almost shovel ready. But OTOH, my impression is, if pursued aggressively, nor is it 6 years away. But first things first. Need to get the go-nogo decision first based on the study.

BTW a NEPA EIS project should not take 3 years unless NJT is running it  , in which case it could even take 10 years :lol:

Also remember, that electrification is only part of a bigger plan, and there is potential funding from multiple sources both federal and state involved. The other legs of the overall plan are upgrade of Washington Richmond Corridor including completion of 3rd main to Fredricksburg, and upgrade of signaling, Staples Mill - Main Street realignment and upgrade, Main Street to S-Line reconstruction etc. The work at the southern end is likely to be funded out of the SEHSR pool and not NEC extension pool.

Frankly, just knowing that Doswell is off the table for good is reason to celebrate. That cow-path could never be turned into a high speed corridor without realigning it completely at enormous cost. There was applause in the room when we heard that answer.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Apr 5, 2009)

jis said:


> Yesterday at the Mid-Atlantic Zone NARP Meeting in Bordentwon NJ, Drew Galloway of Amtrak gave a presentation on NEC Capital Projects. From that presentation we learned that the Washington - Richmond section will officially become part of the NEC.


So we'd be reverting to a world where not all of the NEC is owned by passenger railroads?



jis said:


> I also asked him about electrification to Richmond. He said Amtrak is quite serious about it and CSX has no objections as long as it does not interfere with freight operation. A detailed study is taking place. Upon its completion a final cost estimate and go-nogo decision will be made. He did not see any inherent problem in doing an electrification that allows for Plate H clearance. This is apparently a part of the exercise of incorporating Washington - Richmond as part of NEC.


Is Plate H double stack freight?

Also, is any of this on the web somewhere other than AU? There seem to be plenty of people in Massachusetts who think there's no value in constructing bridges with double stack freight plus catenary clearance, and I'm wondering if there's some ``see, Virginia thinks this is a good idea'' argument that can be made.


----------



## jis (Apr 5, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Is Plate H double stack freight?


Yes.



> Also, is any of this on the web somewhere other than AU?


Maybe, but I am not aware of it. We got this through Q&A at the meeting. BTW, the new Baltimore Tunnels will be Plate H and electrified too. As a matter of fact Drew Galloway quipped that in this day and age he cannot imagine why anyone would build a tunnel with less that Plate H clearance, since the cost difference between a Plate H clearance tunnel and something smaller is not that enormous.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Apr 5, 2009)

jis said:


> As a matter of fact Drew Galloway quipped that in this day and age he cannot imagine why anyone would build a tunnel with less that Plate H clearance, since the cost difference between a Plate H clearance tunnel and something smaller is not that enormous.


AFAIK, the Massachusetts bridge clearance standard is (and has been for the last few decades) Plate H assuming that electrification will never be used on freight / commuter rail.

I can't imagine why new construction would have inadequate clearance for Plate H under catenary these days, though there seem to be plenty of people who think diesel is perfectly adequate for addressing the problems with the vanishing ice at the poles.


----------



## George Harris (Apr 6, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Is Plate H double stack freight?


Yes. It is 20'-2" high. (Maybe 20'-3" I am giving this from memory.) Generally, the railroads want 23'-0" clear above the top of rail with anything new. I think that will likely be height of wire they would want.


----------



## VentureForth (Apr 6, 2009)

So much varied conversation up there that I won't attempt to quote.

If Richmond becomes the new DC for Electric terminus, what would that do? Can Richmond handle taking over the diesel-electic crossover? Would other trains that currently term in DC now be continued to Richmond? OR, would only the affected trains be converted to electric in Richmond and the rest of the schedule remain the same? And, if so, would the layover currently in DC on the trains that go through Richmond be eliminated because they'll be laying over longer in Richmond?

AHHHHH!!! QUESTIONS!!!!


----------



## Rafi (Apr 6, 2009)

Everything at this point is mere speculation, but if I were to take that bait and throw my best educated guess out, it would be this:

-CSX is NOT going to just say, "hey, send all of your Acela and NEC trains on down to Richmond on our tracks" just because WAS-RVR gets electrified. Instead, I think what you'll see at first is a migration of the WAS-RVR trains to electric engines (eliminating the 30 min layover in DC and making it a 10-15 min layover for a crew change). After that, you may start seeing some of the LD trains and/or the NPN trains take their electric engines to RVR and switch to Diesel, but that means new switching crews in Richmond and additional infrastructure to store the equipment. The Acela won't make its way south until new high platforms are constructed at the stations where Amtrak wants to stop, and that's a major expenditure. I don't think you'll see Acela down to Richmond until Main Street becomes the primary hub, but again, that's just conjecture.

Rafi


----------



## volkris (Apr 6, 2009)

That was one of my questions too: would it be electric to main street station or just to RVR, and if main street station becomes a place to switch over to diesel would that involve reopening and restoring main street's train shed?

I know, there are no answers yet, but the possible changes to the operations in the area are pretty significant.


----------



## jis (Apr 6, 2009)

volkris said:


> That was one of my questions too: would it be electric to main street station or just to RVR, and if main street station becomes a place to switch over to diesel would that involve reopening and restoring main street's train shed?
> I know, there are no answers yet, but the possible changes to the operations in the area are pretty significant.


Indeed, the changes are significant,and also one must remember the funds needed to get there are also significant.

I think the most important part of the message that I heard this weekend is that Amtrak will remain on RF&P and will not be moved over to the ex-C&O Doswell Sub.

The rest will happen over time.


----------



## VentureForth (Apr 6, 2009)

Sorry to hijack this thread, but real quick - as long as we're talking about Richmond - does anyone know the cabbie rates out of Staples Mill Rd station?


----------



## George Harris (Apr 6, 2009)

Rafi said:


> The Acela won't make its way south until new high platforms are constructed at the stations where Amtrak wants to stop, and that's a major expenditure. I don't think you'll see Acela down to Richmond until Main Street becomes the primary hub, but again, that's just conjecture.
> Rafi


And you are unlikely to see high platforms next to the RF&P main tracks. No way is CSX (or any other freight carrier) going to be willing to go along with car floor level platfroms close enough to the track to satisfy ADA gap requirements ( less than or equal to 3 inches) between platform and edge of doorway opening.


----------



## volkris (Apr 6, 2009)

George Harris said:


> And you are unlikely to see high platforms next to the RF&P main tracks. No way is CSX (or any other freight carrier) going to be willing to go along with car floor level platfroms close enough to the track to satisfy ADA gap requirements ( less than or equal to 3 inches) between platform and edge of doorway opening.


But if they reopen the main street station train shed (where, from the pictures I've seen, passengers used to board) they could have the platforms there.

Maybe it's for the best that it would be pretty hard to get a station sidled up to a potentially HSR track: it keeps the local stops to a minimum.


----------



## George Harris (Apr 6, 2009)

volkris said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > And you are unlikely to see high platforms next to the RF&P main tracks. No way is CSX (or any other freight carrier) going to be willing to go along with car floor level platfroms close enough to the track to satisfy ADA gap requirements ( less than or equal to 3 inches) between platform and edge of doorway opening.
> ...


There are ways. In true high speed systems for the most part trains do not make intermediate stops on the main line anyway. There is a station platform track that turns out ahead of the station location, goes past the platform and then turns back into the main line track. This surves two important purposes:

1. The platform is not adjacent to a track where trains will be moving at very high speeds. you cna literally get blown away.

2. A local train can sit a few minutes and be passed by a through train.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Apr 6, 2009)

Rafi said:


> -CSX is NOT going to just say, "hey, send all of your Acela and NEC trains on down to Richmond on our tracks" just because WAS-RVR gets electrified. Instead, I think what you'll see at first is a migration of the WAS-RVR trains to electric engines (eliminating the 30 min layover in DC and making it a 10-15 min layover for a crew change). After that, you may start seeing some of the LD trains and/or the NPN trains take their electric engines to RVR and switch to Diesel, but that means new switching crews in Richmond and additional infrastructure to store the equipment. The Acela won't make its way south until new high platforms are constructed at the stations where Amtrak wants to stop, and that's a major expenditure. I don't think you'll see Acela down to Richmond until Main Street becomes the primary hub, but again, that's just conjecture.


I'd been under the impression that building a handful of high level platforms, and even new sidings for them, is dirt cheap compared to electrifying 117 miles of mainline track.

Is there space at each of the two Richmond stations for adding another track to get a high level platform away from the freight mainline?

The other question is how much capacity CSX thinks those tracks have for more passenger trains.

And what about clearance through the tunnel south of WUS? Was the conclusion that with catenary, there's enough space for Amtrak's single level equipment and anything VRE might want to use, and that having Superliners (which I think are only an issue for the Capitol Limited) be north side only is OK?


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Apr 6, 2009)

George Harris said:


> There are ways. In true high speed systems for the most part trains do not make intermediate stops on the main line anyway. There is a station platform track that turns out ahead of the station location, goes past the platform and then turns back into the main line track. This surves two important purposes:1. The platform is not adjacent to a track where trains will be moving at very high speeds. you cna literally get blown away.
> 
> 2. A local train can sit a few minutes and be passed by a through train.


I'm a little skeptical that's the best approach, though. The fundamental problem with that is that you typically end up with a station in the middle of nowhere.

I'm inclined to think that a better approach is to upgrade existing tracks within dense metro areas Acela style, and then at the edge of each city, connect those tracks to new true HSR alignments that perhaps simply do not have stops, but do provide connections to the upgraded track at the edge of other cities. Then, on a popular route, each train should go from one major city to one other major city, probably making multiple stops within each major city (especially to try to provide direct transfers to as many rail lines as possible, and perhaps to provide direct connections to airports where this doesn't require significant detours).

I do think there are cases where having a train visit multiple major cities makes sense; on the potential high speed transcon routes, there's really only a major city every two or three hours at 220 MPH anyway, and passenger loadings may not justify separate trains to each of those cities. Also, if places like New York City can have their trains run through, that can be leveraged to allow one seat rides (with the delay of going through New York City) for some minor city pairs that wouldn't justify dedicated trains that didn't also have the side effect of carrying passengers between each of those cities and New York City.


----------



## George Harris (Apr 6, 2009)

We are talking existing railroad through a heavily populated area, not new line with "middle of no where" stations carrying the name of city somewhere in the same region. For intermediate stations, we would be talking paces like Fredericksburg, primarily, and maybe Quantico. those that are currently primarily commuter stops, such as Woodbridge, etc. would remain low level, but maybe on additional tracks so as to keep the commuter trains out of the way of the faster stuff.

Usually high speed lines run with a combinaiton of "local" and "express" trains. "Local" in quotations in this case as these trains are still really fast. The Taiwan High Speed local trains took 2 hours flat to cover 208 miles and made 6 intermediate stops in that distance. The Express trains made 2, one a suburban Taipei stop, and did the distance in 90 minutes. When done the California High Speed will cover the entire distance between San Francisco and Los Angeles in less than 3 hours. Don't know what is in the operating scheme, but would expect even the faster trains to make between 1 and all 3 of the following stops, San Jose, Fresno, and Bakersfield. "Locals" will have a few more.

Richmond Stations: Main Street probably only needs one freight track, or at most one on each side of the train shed. Don't know how many platform tracks were in the original, but certainly a few on each side. Back when it was the joint Seaboard and Chesapeake and Ohio station, SAL was on the west side and C&O was on the east side. Know nothing about the other one.

Edit: Forgot: Tunnel south out of Washington Union Station. This tunnel just barely clears the Superliners as is without electrification. There is a street overpass shortly south of the south end, so lowering the track may not be an option. Don't know what they are going to do there. I would think a 2 to 3 feet must be found somewhere. This on e will be interesting. Also: 12th street overpass near L"Enfant Plaza only allowed something like 16'-6" clear when these tracks were electrified for the Pennsy freight trains. Do not know what they will do there. Even if CSX has no hope for Plate H, they would surely want to be able to pass the Plate F (17'-0") equipment that clearance that they have now permits.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Apr 6, 2009)

George Harris said:


> those that are currently primarily commuter stops, such as Woodbridge, etc. would remain low level, but maybe on additional tracks so as to keep the commuter trains out of the way of the faster stuff.


If you're going to all the expense of adding a siding and electrifying it, is avoiding full length high level platforms really a major cost savings? I believe the plan for T F Green Airport Station is that it will be on a non-electrified siding, and money has been cited as a concern with electrification there.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 6, 2009)

Crazy thought that I don't think would work (but am too clueless to know the multiple reasons why).

Forget putting wires up between the platforms at WAS and L'Enfant Plaza. Use a yard switcher to shove the train through the tunnel and under 12th street, then stop, dump the switcher off the tail end, put up the pan, and off to Richmond.

I've seen trains moved like that through the yard in WAS (yard switchers pulling cars back to the yard leaving the electric motor alone closest to the station, and trains with the electric power on the north end being backed into the platforms), but I'd imagine that such a move would be nonlegal with revenue pax onboard?


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Apr 6, 2009)

volkris said:


> That was one of my questions too: would it be electric to main street station or just to RVR, and if main street station becomes a place to switch over to diesel would that involve reopening and restoring main street's train shed?


Is Main Street Station's train shed the building north of E Main St and south of E Broad Street that takes up just about all of the width between the tracks on the two sides? If so, it looks to me like that building is only about 300-400 feet long, which makes it shorter than, say, an Acela trainset (which with cars about 87.5 feet long, is about 525 feet not including the locomotives).


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Apr 6, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> Crazy thought that I don't think would work (but am too clueless to know the multiple reasons why).
> Forget putting wires up between the platforms at WAS and L'Enfant Plaza. Use a yard switcher to shove the train through the tunnel and under 12th street, then stop, dump the switcher off the tail end, put up the pan, and off to Richmond.
> 
> I've seen trains moved like that through the yard in WAS (yard switchers pulling cars back to the yard leaving the electric motor alone closest to the station, and trains with the electric power on the north end being backed into the platforms), but I'd imagine that such a move would be nonlegal with revenue pax onboard?


The big downside to this is that you have to spend time doing a break test when connecting and disconnecting the switcher, so you add significant delays.

There's also a question of whether adding lots more diesel trains through that tunnel will degrade air quality in the tunnel to a point where something expensive would have to be done about it. It is certainly the case that some have expressed concern about the air quality in Back Bay Station due to all the diesel exhaust.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Apr 6, 2009)

Rafi said:


> Now, this may be confusing at first, so let me start by explaining that Broad Street Station was designed such that all trains at platform level were positioned the SAME WAY REGARDLESS OF DIRECTION OF TRAVEL. This made for a very smart looking operation, but my understanding is that it also aided in baggage handling, as all of the baggage cars were lined up and bags could be transferred easily that way. It also made for a very efficient method to dispatch trains back onto the mainline in the proper direction by using the loop track.


If through revenue trains were going to come back to Broad Street Station, there's no reason why trains would always have to be same direction at the station itself in the future, AFAIK. If you only have to connect the south/east side of the loop to the mainline in one direction, that should make the problem slightly less impossible.



Rafi said:


> As things stand now, Broad Street station has had it east/south half of the loop taken away and parking lots and office buildings now occupying the space needed.


That might depend on what you think the minimum curve radius is and how easy taking parking lots for rail use is. I suspect if you insist on a minimum curve radius of 500' (which is very roughly what the curve between Back Bay and South Station is, judging from the satelite photos) you do need to demolish at least one building, but with 200' it's probably possible to not demolish any buildings if a train heading south out of the platform track ends up pointed north on the mainline.

Whether 200' radius curves are a good idea is another question. I believe the California HSR documents claim there's European equipment designed for a minimum curve radius of 493'. But I'm not sure what the downsides would be of demanding that rolling stock be able to deal with 200' radius curves.

I also doubt that buying and demolishing a couple of buildings costs anywhere near as much as electrifying 117 miles of track.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 7, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> The big downside to this is that you have to spend time doing a break test when connecting and disconnecting the switcher, so you add significant delays.


I'm not really sure why Amtrak would need to test the crew about when they go on break, I'm sure that most of them would know. :lol: :lol:

However, a brake test does indeed slow things down, and that is required anytime you add or subtract cars or locos from a consist.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> There's also a question of whether adding lots more diesel trains through that tunnel will degrade air quality in the tunnel to a point where something expensive would have to be done about it. It is certainly the case that some have expressed concern about the air quality in Back Bay Station due to all the diesel exhaust.


The air is already on the poor side and since they wouldn't be adding that many trains to the schedule going south, you won't be adding that many more diesels than already pass through.


----------



## Rafi (Apr 7, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> If through revenue trains were going to come back to Broad Street Station, there's no reason why trains would always have to be same direction at the station itself in the future, AFAIK. If you only have to connect the south/east side of the loop to the mainline in one direction, that should make the problem slightly less impossible.
> That might depend on what you think the minimum curve radius is and how easy taking parking lots for rail use is. I suspect if you insist on a minimum curve radius of 500' (which is very roughly what the curve between Back Bay and South Station is, judging from the satelite photos) you do need to demolish at least one building, but with 200' it's probably possible to not demolish any buildings if a train heading south out of the platform track ends up pointed north on the mainline.
> 
> Whether 200' radius curves are a good idea is another question. I believe the California HSR documents claim there's European equipment designed for a minimum curve radius of 493'. But I'm not sure what the downsides would be of demanding that rolling stock be able to deal with 200' radius curves.
> ...


I agree that Broad Street Station would make a fantastic High Speed Rail station stop candidate; it's off the main line, high platform construction would be easy to imagine there, and the station is built for heavy train and foot traffic. That said, if we really look at it realistically, it's just not going to happen without a major push from the Virginia government (you're talking about 5 grade crossings that have to be dealt with, you're talking about wiping out entire parking lots for buildings that you'd be dodging (and I don't think you can dodge all of those buildings unless you're talking Narrow Gauge--JOKING), and you're talking about severely impacting--if not shutting down--the Science Museum of Virginia. Couple that with the fact that Virginia has identified Main Street Station as the new hub, and Broad Street's just out of the question. That said, I WOULD like to see Broad Street get some more train traffic in the form of excursions or a dinner train. It's too beautiful of a station to turn its back to railroads entirely.

Rafi


----------



## volkris (Apr 7, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Is Main Street Station's train shed the building north of E Main St and south of E Broad Street that takes up just about all of the width between the tracks on the two sides? If so, it looks to me like that building is only about 300-400 feet long, which makes it shorter than, say, an Acela trainset (which with cars about 87.5 feet long, is about 525 feet not including the locomotives).


Right, it's the big silver thing that dwarfs the station it's attached to in overhead pictures.

It seems long enough to be usable for some things now, but I bet they could extend the whole shed out over E Broad Street if the needed to.


----------



## jis (Apr 7, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> Forget putting wires up between the platforms at WAS and L'Enfant Plaza. Use a yard switcher to shove the train through the tunnel and under 12th street, then stop, dump the switcher off the tail end, put up the pan, and off to Richmond.


Why complicate life unnecessarily? I am sure overall it would be easier and more cost effective to install catenary or space lacking, ceiling rails in the Capitol hill Tunnel that depending on shenanigans suggested using switchers and what nots.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 7, 2009)

Based on George's post it sounds like it's neither easier nor cost effective for catenary or ceiling rails. Looks like NO room for superliners in the Cap Tunnel, and only 6 inches to play with under the 12th street overpass, with the configuration not lending itself to lower the rails in either case.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Apr 7, 2009)

Rafi said:


> That said, if we really look at it realistically, it's just not going to happen without a major push from the Virginia government (you're talking about 5 grade crossings that have to be dealt with, you're talking about wiping out entire parking lots for buildings that you'd be dodging (and I don't think you can dodge all of those buildings unless you're talking Narrow Gauge--JOKING), and you're talking about severely impacting--if not shutting down--the Science Museum of Virginia.


Is that who owns the two big buildings in the block to the east of the station? If so, I'd think the taxpayers giving them a new building or two to replace the existing ones that happen to be in the way of where the tracks should go would be something that could be spun in a positive light of modernizing the museum or something. There are few museums that don't like getting new buildings. A parking garage could be thrown in to replace some of the lost space in the parking lots, too.

And would grade separating some of those crossings be possible?

But all that said, if Main Street Station is considered sufficient, it may turn out that none of this is worth doing. And I'm not sure if adding Broad Street Station has great value in terms of potential commuter rail to pedestrian connections.

The other thought I had is that tracks could probably be run down Broad Street from Broad Street Station to Main Street Station (possibly in a cut and cover tunnel), but then I'm not sure if it's practical to build a curve at Main Street Station to get those trains into the trainshed at Main Street Station.


----------



## jis (Apr 7, 2009)

George Harris said:


> Tunnel south out of Washington Union Station. This tunnel just barely clears the Superliners as is without electrification. There is a street overpass shortly south of the south end, so lowering the track may not be an option. Don't know what they are going to do there. I would think a 2 to 3 feet must be found somewhere. This on e will be interesting. Also: 12th street overpass near L"Enfant Plaza only allowed something like 16'-6" clear when these tracks were electrified for the Pennsy freight trains. Do not know what they will do there. Even if CSX has no hope for Plate H, they would surely want to be able to pass the Plate F (17'-0") equipment that clearance that they have now permits.


Interesting point George. Is the track inside the tunnel on ballast or is it ballastless on the tunnel floor. If not the latter then there would possibly be 6+ inches to gain that way. Would be interesting to see what the study says about this matter. Afterall VRE also runs gallery cars on this route so sufficient clearance with electrification would be important. However, if you look at the situation in NYP, my suspicion is that they could do a 11kV electrification with as little as 1.5' clearance from train top to tunnel ceiling, perhaps a little less if ceiling rails are used with insulating sheets lining the ceiling.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Apr 7, 2009)

jis said:


> Interesting point George. Is the track inside the tunnel on ballast or is it ballastless on the tunnel floor. If not the latter then there would possibly be 6+ inches to gain that way. Would be interesting to see what the study says about this matter. Afterall VRE also runs gallery cars on this route so sufficient clearance with electrification would be important. However, if you look at the situation in NYP, my suspicion is that they could do a 11kV electrification with as little as 1.5' clearance from train top to tunnel ceiling, perhaps a little less if ceiling rails are used with insulating sheets lining the ceiling.


Aside from the problem of modifying the locomotives, is there any reason not to consider 600-800 V catenary? That reduces the required air gap further; if you're approximately at the voltages the traction motors use anyway, the modifications to the locomotives shouldn't require much extra equipment; and the usual argument against such low voltages is that the substations etc become more expensive, but given a choice between expensive substations and expensive tunnel clearance work, the extra costs of the lower voltages may not be so bad.


----------



## George Harris (Apr 7, 2009)

jis said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > Tunnel south out of Washington Union Station. This tunnel just barely clears the Superliners as is without electrification. There is a street overpass shortly south of the south end, so lowering the track may not be an option. Don't know what they are going to do there. I would think a 2 to 3 feet must be found somewhere. This on e will be interesting. Also: 12th street overpass near L"Enfant Plaza only allowed something like 16'-6" clear when these tracks were electrified for the Pennsy freight trains. Do not know what they will do there. Even if CSX has no hope for Plate H, they would surely want to be able to pass the Plate F (17'-0") equipment that clearance that they have now permits.
> ...


I was last there for any length of time 30 years ago and last there at all 12 years ago. Unless it has changed, the track in the tunnel is ballasted, as is the track on the bridge in approach to the tunnel.

Just for information: The superliners are 16'-3" tall and the Chicago and west coast gallery cars are 15'-11" tall. Would assume that VRE's are the same,as I believe that they are Bombardier's standard design.


----------



## KayBee (Apr 7, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Is that who owns the two big buildings in the block to the east of the station? If so, I'd think the taxpayers giving them a new building or two to replace the existing ones that happen to be in the way of where the tracks should go would be something that could be spun in a positive light of modernizing the museum or something. There are few museums that don't like getting new buildings. A parking garage could be thrown in to replace some of the lost space in the parking lots, too.


Actually, Broad Street Station IS the Science Museum. The buildings to the east are the main offices of the Va Department of Transportation.

Rafi, the American Orient Express used to park their train at the Science Museum for the Richmond segment of their "Antebellum South" trip. I wish those days would come again....sigh


----------



## jis (Apr 8, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Aside from the problem of modifying the locomotives, is there any reason not to consider 600-800 V catenary? That reduces the required air gap further; if you're approximately at the voltages the traction motors use anyway, the modifications to the locomotives shouldn't require much extra equipment; and the usual argument against such low voltages is that the substations etc become more expensive, but given a choice between expensive substations and expensive tunnel clearance work, the extra costs of the lower voltages may not be so bad.


Collecting the necessary current at such low voltage will require several pantographs, which is not going to be easy to manage on an already crammed roof of an engine. Also, the motors these days are AC drive which requires variable frequency feed.So it is quite irrelevant what voltage the catenary is. Everything typically gets converted to 3kV or so DC which then feeds the drive alternators. So on the whole getting the voltage down substantially below 10kV will add considerable complication due to the heavy current that will need to be collected from the cat.


----------



## PRR 60 (Apr 8, 2009)

jis said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > Aside from the problem of modifying the locomotives, is there any reason not to consider 600-800 V catenary? That reduces the required air gap further; if you're approximately at the voltages the traction motors use anyway, the modifications to the locomotives shouldn't require much extra equipment; and the usual argument against such low voltages is that the substations etc become more expensive, but given a choice between expensive substations and expensive tunnel clearance work, the extra costs of the lower voltages may not be so bad.
> ...


Not to mention that a typical catenary system itself does not have the current rating to power a train at 600v.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 8, 2009)

PRR 60 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Joel N. Weber II said:
> ...


Bill, would you be so kind as to please explain just what that means to those of us not in the power industry. :unsure:


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Apr 8, 2009)

PRR 60 said:


> Not to mention that a typical catenary system itself does not have the current rating to power a train at 600v.


What is atypical about the catenary the MBTA uses on part of the Blue Line, then? I'm pretty sure that's somewhere around 600V.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Apr 8, 2009)

AlanB said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> > Not to mention that a typical catenary system itself does not have the current rating to power a train at 600v.
> ...


Wattage (ignoring power factor for AC) is proportional to voltage times current. (Current is measured in amps) If you want to apply some particular amount of force to the rails via the traction motors, it's going to require some particular wattage. So if you find the amount of current is too high, you can select a higher voltage to enable the use of a lower current, or vice versa. Higher voltages require thicker insulation; higher currents require thicker conductors. I think lower voltages also tend to lead to greater loss of power (measured in watts) per thousand feet of length of conductor than higher voltages.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 8, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> I think lower voltages also tend to lead to greater loss of power (measured in watts) per thousand feet of length of conductor than higher voltages.


Yes.

This is why power is transmitted over long distances by high voltage, high tension lines. Higher insulation isn't a problem because the cables are uninsulated, and the high voltage reduces the current loss and size of the conductor required.


----------



## jis (Apr 10, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> > Not to mention that a typical catenary system itself does not have the current rating to power a train at 600v.
> ...


I think there are a couple of things that makes it work. First those trains are very light and require relatively less power on the whole to operate. Second the collection of the power is distributed through the train thus reducing the need for high current density in the cat near a single pantograph.

Note that as far as cats or ceiling rails go these are not technically insurmountable problems since one could conceivably stick massive conductors and pantos to do the trick, but it does lead to significant inconveniences in the context of mainline high power non-distributed power operations.


----------



## George Harris (Apr 10, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> but with 200' it's probably possible to not demolish any buildings if a train heading south out of the platform track ends up pointed north on the mainline.
> Whether 200' radius curves are a good idea is another question. I believe the California HSR documents claim there's European equipment designed for a minimum curve radius of 493'. But I'm not sure what the downsides would be of demanding that rolling stock be able to deal with 200' radius curves.


You are simply not going to run current railroad passenger equipment around a curve of 200 feet radius. Building a station approach that is not usable by the current Acela/Amfleet/Viewliner equipment is to put it as politely as possible, stupid.

For general reference: From the Manual of the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Associations (AREMA): "For curves above 13 degrees, the maximum coupler angle is exceeded. . . " 13 degrees is a radius of 441.68 feet.

Yes, there is freight equipment and smaller engines that can go around sharper curves.There have been and still are in some locations railroad branch lines with curves that have radii smaller than 440 feet, but in all cases there will be a set of restrictions on what can operate on these curves.

For curves that approach the 13 degree limit, speed is always limited to 10 mph or less to avoid wheel climb. Also, you will know every time a train goes around it as it will squeal LOUDLY. In new construction, curves of greater than 10 degrees are avoided if at all possible. (10 degrees = 573.69 feet) In industrial and yard trackage, curves of 12 degrees are usually permitted, but no more. (Radius = 478.34 feet)

The Calif HSR, due to one extreme case has a statement that the minimum radius curve will be 500 feet. Obviously, speed will be real slow on that radius of curve. the 493 feet minimum "for some European equipment" is 150 meters rounded up to the neares foot. Again, the train will be moving real slow at that speed. That number is based on the pragmatic reality that the European high speed equipment must be able to operate on tracks built on the original 18 whatever alignment in some places in their home countries.


----------



## orulz (May 8, 2009)

Bringing this old thread back from the dead, the SEHSR has released their plans for the rail alignment between Richmond and Petersburg.

The plans call for a second track over both the James and the Appomattox Rivers, as well as double tracking and renovating the "S" line through Richmond, and triple tracking much of the "A" line.

For those of you who have been keeping track (anyone?) there was some question as to the routing the trains would take through Petersburg. Would they take the old ACL main through Colonial Heights to a station downtown, or stick to the CSX "A" line?

This chart seems to indicate they have decided to stick with the CSX "A" line. That's bad news for the town of Petersburg because their station will remain in a crappy part of town, but good news for SEHSR in general because the CSX alignment will be faster.

Regarding the new bridges (particularly the one over the Appomattox): I hope they do what they did with the new bridge at Possum Point: build the new bridge wide enough for two tracks, so if they ever need to triple track, all they'll need to do is put down rails. When you're talking about infrastructure like major railroad bridges that have a typical lifespan of 100 or 150 years, thinking along those lines is very appropriate.


----------

