# Richmond to Raleigh SEHSR Plans



## afigg (Feb 12, 2012)

Virginia DRPT and the Southeast HSR Corridor websites have posted the Draft Recommendation Report Tier II EIS for the Richmond to Raleigh part of the Southeast HSR corridor. The 114 page report can be found at the VA DRPT announcement and the Southeast HSR websites.

The report presents the recommended alternatives and estimated costs for each of 26 segments of the corridor starting at the southern end of the Richmond Main Street station to Petersburg and then over the abandoned S-Line to downtown Raleigh NC. Much of the S-Line route would be straightened with passenger train speeds up to 110 mph. As before, a pretty assertive plan which won't be inexpensive but would leave this section of the SEHSR corridor ready for true HSR higher speeds and electrification.

I don't see a total cost for the project, guess we will have to add up the estimated cost for recommended alternative for each of the 26 sections. Since getting the funds for the entire Richmond to Raleigh corridor will be a major challenge, breaking it into 2 parts might be somewhat easier: 1) the Richmond Main Street Station to Collier yard in Petersburg (sections AA, BB, CC) and 2) the rest of the route to Raleigh. Upgrading the Main Street to Petersburg segment first combined with upgrades in Richmond would allow all the Amtrak trains going to Richmond, Norfolk, and further south to use the Main Street station and get that part of the SEHSR in place. Total estimated costs for the AA, BB, CC sections is $384 million and covers 27.1 miles. Meanwhile purchase the S-line and spend the years needed to build the new Petersburg to Raleigh route which can't be used until the entire corridor is done.

It should be noted that the current SEHSR plans are not true HSR with top speeds of 110 mph and would be Amtrak trains running on it, so this topic could be in the Amtrak forum, but since this is a new H(er)SR route, I put this in the HSR forum.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 12, 2012)

RVR/RVM-Petersburg makes sense in the context of ongoing projects that VA appears committed to internally. The larger project may be a bit of a problem (I don't see VA or NC backing out of SEHSR, but there's a lot of money that would need to come from the federal government to make it happen...money that may not be forthcoming anytime soon), but that part of the project would likely contribute to a profitable rail line...something that I think even diehard Republicans would be hard-pressed to oppose _too_ severely.


----------



## xyzzy (Feb 13, 2012)

Funding is at least 10 years out, probably 20. Personally I'd rather see them first restore the S-line the way it was and then upgrade it later. By the way, the current view is that CSX would run some freight Petersburg-Norlina-Raleigh too.


----------



## George Harris (Feb 13, 2012)

xyzzy said:


> Funding is at least 10 years out, probably 20. Personally I'd rather see them first restore the S-line the way it was and then upgrade it later. By


And, if you do that you will be doing a lot of work twice. Also, "do it later" frequently becomes "never happens". Better to do it the way you want it the first time around.


----------



## jis (Feb 13, 2012)

George Harris said:


> xyzzy said:
> 
> 
> > Funding is at least 10 years out, probably 20. Personally I'd rather see them first restore the S-line the way it was and then upgrade it later. By
> ...


Agreed! That would be a huge mistake. Curve realignments that are necessary should be done from the get go as is planned currently. Folks really need to get out of the "let us restore the first half of 20th century before thinking anything 21st century" mode of thinking, or else we will barely make it back to the 1910s  and get stuck there, since the perceived advantages will turn out to be not persuasive enough to worry about spending more on anything.


----------



## xyzzy (Feb 13, 2012)

By the same logic, North Carolina shouldn't have started intra-state passenger service over 81 miles of dark territory that was effectively 49 mph (that's how the highways crossings were timed at the outset). Years and $100M later -- which goes to show "later" and "never" aren't the same -- North Carolina has progressed to 79 mph on its way to 90 mph, one step at a time.

The notion that passenger service must be a "big bang" doesn't work, at least not everywhere. By the way, all the curve straightening on the S-line -- at several hundred million dollars of incremental cost -- will cut about 20 minutes off a trip that will still take four hours for Raleigh-Washington. Worth it? I don't think so.


----------



## George Harris (Feb 13, 2012)

xyzzy said:


> By the same logic, North Carolina shouldn't have started intra-state passenger service over 81 miles of dark territory that was effectively 49 mph (that's how the highways crossings were timed at the outset). Years and $100M later -- which goes to show "later" and "never" aren't the same -- North Carolina has progressed to 79 mph on its way to 90 mph, one step at a time.


One big difference: North Carolina had a dedicated stream of money to do this. It was the lease payments to the North Carolian Railroad by Southern / norfolk Soouthern. Even this is not the same. Remember, most of Petersburg to Raleigh is abandoned and the track removed. In these areas particularly, to first rebuild the track on the old alignment is to do it twice for little to no savings from doing it in the wrong place to start with.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 13, 2012)

xyzzy said:


> By the same logic, North Carolina shouldn't have started intra-state passenger service over 81 miles of dark territory that was effectively 49 mph (that's how the highways crossings were timed at the outset). Years and $100M later -- which goes to show "later" and "never" aren't the same -- North Carolina has progressed to 79 mph on its way to 90 mph, one step at a time.
> 
> The notion that passenger service must be a "big bang" doesn't work, at least not everywhere. By the way, all the curve straightening on the S-line -- at several hundred million dollars of incremental cost -- will cut about 20 minutes off a trip that will still take four hours for Raleigh-Washington. Worth it? I don't think so.


Worth it in a vacuum? Possibly not. Worth it in the context of likely improvements along the RVR-WAS corridor as well (at least as I understand some of VA's plans)? Yes.


----------



## jis (Feb 14, 2012)

xyzzy said:


> By the same logic, North Carolina shouldn't have started intra-state passenger service over 81 miles of dark territory that was effectively 49 mph (that's how the highways crossings were timed at the outset). Years and $100M later -- which goes to show "later" and "never" aren't the same -- North Carolina has progressed to 79 mph on its way to 90 mph, one step at a time.


But those were over tracks that were already in place. There is a big difference between that and reintroducing service over a right of way where the tracks have been lifted or are in such deteriorated state that they are as good as lifted. When you have to lay tracks anew, you might as well do it right the first time.



> The notion that passenger service must be a "big bang" doesn't work, at least not everywhere. By the way, all the curve straightening on the S-line -- at several hundred million dollars of incremental cost -- will cut about 20 minutes off a trip that will still take four hours for Raleigh-Washington. Worth it? I don't think so.


If there are no usable tracks in place along a proposed route, then by its very nature it has to be a big bang at the point that the track reconstruction completes. Can't run a train until there are usable tracks.

On the 20 mins thing I disagree with you, and your point seemingly flies in the face of your own admonition to carry out stepwise increments in speed. Same argument could have been used to not do anything in NECIP and sit on ones thumbs. Same argument could be used to have North Carolina do nothing incrementally to increase speeds from 49 to 79 to 90 to 110. You don't go from 3 hours to 2.5 hours in a big bang. You do it by saving a few minutes here and a few minutes there if you already have a service running. OTOH when going from 3 hours to 1 hour, it usually involves a big bang of some sort, and that is a separate discussion.

This is the kind of thinking that I characterize as 19th century and does not help the cause of passenger trains. In order to compete and win over riders from highways, the trains must run at least as fast as the cars on the highways that parallel the route. In the absence of highways it was OK for trains to tool along at slow speeds since they faced no competition. Not so anymore. A stray additional train here and a train there can possibly be filled to some extent, but a full fledged network cannot be built using a mode that has consistently inferior end to end times.


----------



## xyzzy (Feb 15, 2012)

George Harris said:


> One big difference: North Carolina had a dedicated stream of money to do this. It was the lease payments to the North Carolian Railroad by Southern / norfolk Soouthern. Even this is not the same. Remember, most of Petersburg to Raleigh is abandoned and the track removed. In these areas particularly, to first rebuild the track on the old alignment is to do it twice for little to no savings from doing it in the wrong place to start with.


No, 90% of the money to improve the NCRR for passenger service came from the NCDOT operating budget as set by the NC General Assembly -- in other words, general tax dollars. NCRR's self-generated cash flow is very modest and has mainly been used to improve other areas of the railroad (east of Selma) that are still freight-only and to replace bridges... important work, but not anything that increased passenger train speed or capacity. Those investments were made with tax dollars.

If SEHSR insists on a billion-dollar investment before running the first train, they'll stay "pure" to HSR principals alright.. and the question will be, is it our children or our grandchilden who will actually see SEHSR come to fruition? It's not like there is a billion dollars just lying around waiting to find its way into SEHSR.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Feb 16, 2012)

Is grade separation part of the plan? Could go a long way to actual HSR formation.


----------



## George Harris (Feb 16, 2012)

xyzzy said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > One big difference: North Carolina had a dedicated stream of money to do this. It was the lease payments to the North Carolian Railroad by Southern / norfolk Soouthern. Even this is not the same. Remember, most of Petersburg to Raleigh is abandoned and the track removed. In these areas particularly, to first rebuild the track on the old alignment is to do it twice for little to no savings from doing it in the wrong place to start with.
> ...


I have been following this thing on line from the get-go, and that was not my impression of it. Regardless of source, one thing that was very clear: They did their best to do something only once. If the Richmond to Raleigh line is put back in service on the existing alignment and then the numerous curve reductions applied, a lot of things will be done twice.



> If SEHSR insists on a billion-dollar investment before running the first train, they'll stay "pure" to HSR principals alright.. and the question will be, is it our children or our grandchilden who will actually see SEHSR come to fruition? It's not like there is a billion dollars just lying around waiting to find its way into SEHSR.


----------



## xyzzy (Feb 16, 2012)

I believe the lease payment from NS to NCRR is around $13 million annually. There is an inflation adjustment factor in the contract. The money goes only so far. NCRR also gets some real estate income, but NCRR has its own staff and expenses that are paid off the top before the remaining cash flow can be spent on capital improvements.


----------



## afigg (Feb 16, 2012)

Shawn Ryu said:


> Is grade separation part of the plan? Could go a long way to actual HSR formation.


Yes, in the detailed drafts of the alternate plans for the Richmond to Raleigh segment, the plans called for closing all grade crossings. Pretty ambitious, especially on the Richmond Main Street to Collier yard segment which has crossings that would have to be closed with bridges or by closing off an existing road. Closing all grade crossings on the abandoned S-Line route to be restored to service is likely an easier sell because people there have gotten used to not having to worry about trains coming through, so a plan to make it a sealed corridor with no grade crossing would help sell it to the local communities.

if or when they can get the funding to get started on this segment of the SEHSR corridor, the budget realities may force the planners to accept keeping some grade crossings on the Richmond to Raleigh segment. But if they can build the corridor with only a few grade crossings and a straightened out ROW and tracks, the barrier to a future upgrade to an electrified HSR corridor becomes that much lower. The DC to Richmond segment will remain the biggest obstacle to an electrified HSR line from WAS to Charlotte NC, but if the route south of Richmond is in place for electrification, higher speeds, and only a small number of grade crossings to close, that should make the pitch easier for the upgrades and ROW re-alignments for the DC to Richmond segment.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 17, 2012)

afigg said:


> Shawn Ryu said:
> 
> 
> > Is grade separation part of the plan? Could go a long way to actual HSR formation.
> ...


Well, I think there may be one saving grace on the segment south of RVM: It takes trains a while to get up to speed/to slow down, so if all trains are stopping at RVM (which does seem to be Richmond's objective, as near as I can tell), there's some space to have grade crossings for a few miles south of the station (which is where the main problems would be in closing things off, anyway). It's sort of like Norfolk/Portsmouth in this regard: You've just got too many surface streets running around to _completely_ shut everything off without it getting exceedingly expensive, but on the immediate station approaches you don't _need_ to engineer for 79+, let alone 110-125, because the trains can't get up to speed that quickly.


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Feb 27, 2012)

xyzzy said:


> Funding is at least 10 years out, probably 20. Personally I'd rather see them first restore the S-line the way it was and then upgrade it later. By the way, the current view is that CSX would run some freight Petersburg-Norlina-Raleigh too.


Because Germany restored all of the old pre-1939 lines to run the I.C.E. on.... that makes total sense. :wacko:


----------



## xyzzy (Feb 27, 2012)

Oldsmoboi said:


> Germany restored all of the old pre-1939 lines to run the I.C.E. on


Germany had the money. We don't. Just be prepared for a long, long wait.


----------



## me_little_me (Feb 28, 2012)

Anderson said:


> xyzzy said:
> 
> 
> > By the same logic, North Carolina shouldn't have started intra-state passenger service over 81 miles of dark territory that was effectively 49 mph (that's how the highways crossings were timed at the outset). Years and $100M later -- which goes to show "later" and "never" aren't the same -- North Carolina has progressed to 79 mph on its way to 90 mph, one step at a time.
> ...


And I think (hopefully), that what hasn't been mentioned is that the improvements should not only lead to higher speeds but to higher consistent speed. Having sat in the Carolinian waiting for slow moving freights, I would expect that the improvements would dramatically reduce those. So while the scheduled time may be reduced by 20 minutes, if the worst case time were reduced by hours and the average time reduced by more than the theoretical 20 minutes, that would be a real benefit. One might even see the scheduled times reduced even more than 20 minutes if the slack due to known slowdowns was no longer needed.


----------



## afigg (Mar 16, 2012)

There is a local news article on the stalled status of the $75 million project to build a 3rd track on the RF&P line from Arkendale to Powell's Creek. Rather depressing that VA and the FRA have not even had a meeting since February 2011 on getting a deal signed off on with CSX. A lot of finger pointing. Amtrak and VRE could use the 3rd track to make progress on a 3rd track from Alexandria to Fredericksburg as a first phase of an improved DC to Richmond segment.

One caveat is that this is a Washington Examiner article which is a right tilted newspaper which has frequently posted articles with a critical / waste of money slant for mass and public transit projects (DC Metro Silver Line, Purple Line, streetcars, etc).


----------



## MattW (Mar 16, 2012)

What is this with transit projects collapsing like houses of cards? First the Talgos, then the new slow orders on the NS Michigan line, now the instabilities in the RF&P 3rd track project, and right here in my own backyard, people are trying to shut down a referendum almost because it doesn't deliver trains to their front doors within 2 months!


----------



## Mateo Pateo (Jul 7, 2012)

I saw an article in the News & Observer that Raleigh won a TIGER grant for signal upgrades on their tracks (a pre-req for a new station). Riding the train into Raleigh these days is a mess. The train blocks the street so passengers can't get picked up. You have to get picked up because there is no bus or shuttle or even a sidewalk.

Can someone fill in the steps for me please: Step 1 = signal upgrades, Step 2 = ???, Step 3 = new station (???) THANK YOU!

http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/06/21/2151118/raleigh-gets-21-million-federal.html

Also, is there any ARRA money set aside for this? Was there and it's already been spent?


----------



## afigg (Jul 8, 2012)

I think the newspaper article covers the status reasonably well. AFAIK, the new Raleigh train station was not part of the NC HSIPR ARRA grants, because the plans for the station have only recently come into focus. The plans for the station call for a high level platform serving 2 pullover tracks, with the platform 800' long to accommodate the Silver Star. The city will have to obtain or line up the remainder of the funding for the new station complex.

The links on the right side of the webpage for the Raliegh Passenger Rail Task Force provide information on how the station plans evolved and what they are now. Look at the NCDOT Viaduct Building Assessment presentation to see the specifics on the proposed changes to the track configuration and station.


----------



## xyzzy (Jul 8, 2012)

The Amtrak station was built in 1950 when Raleigh was one-sixth its current size and Southern Railway operated fewer passenger trains through Raleigh than Amtrak does today. Everyone agrees that replacing the current station is urgent. From the perspective of freight, CSX and NS don't like the status quo either, so they're supportive of improvements.

Over the long run, the new facility will be expandable for SEHSR (if it ever happens) or commuter trains within a 50-mile radius (if they ever happen), and it will dovetail with a long-delayed light rail initiative. But the near-term focus is a station that will suffice for 91/92, 79/80, and the Piedmonts -- which will get an additional frequency when the station will allow it.

The list of ARRA projects is at the NCDOT Rail website, www.bytrain.org. Although moneys were allocated, not many projects have started yet. The one I'm anxious to see will add intermediate crossovers on several sections of CSX A-line double track between Rocky Mount and the NC/VA line. This is a highly congested segment that handles 79, 80, 89, 90 at roughly the same time every day.


----------



## jis (Jul 8, 2012)

Not to mention 91, 92, 97, 98 and the Auto Train.


----------



## xyzzy (Jul 8, 2012)

jis said:


> Not to mention 91, 92, 97, 98 and the Auto Train.


Yes it will help them too, but the crunch that NCDOT wants to remedy is the meet points for 79-90, 89-80, and 89-90.


----------

