$745 million obligated for 2 NEC Projects

[afigg]

Maybe you should send Secretary LaHood an e-mail about that. I don't think he likes to let such details get in the way of a good press release.

If he has a chat with the folks at FRA who work for him, he can hear it from the proverbial horse's mouth

The Secretary of Transportation does not write his own press releases. He is not going to stick in a 186 mph number out of the blue. Good grief, do people here really think the process of issuing official press releases that have time to make the rounds for the upper level staff to check off on them is that sloppy?? The 186 mph number is included in a Amtrak press release that was posted today about the hiring of KPMG and others firms for the 220 MPH Next Gen NEC to "assist in developing the business and financial plan for the project, including maximizing private investment opportunities."

The end of the press release discusses the award of the $450 million to improve the current NEC and as an important first step in the proposed Gateway project. Quoting from the AMTRAK press release:

"The $450 million project will improve a 24-mile section of the NEC in New Jersey with electrical and track upgrades to allow for an initial increase in operating speeds up to 160 mph (from 135 mph) and can support 186 mph with the acquisition of a new train set. In addition, the project will upgrade track switches at the western entrance to New York Penn Station to reduce congestion. Pre-construction activities will be underway in 2011 with some construction occurring in 2012."

So, for whatever reason, Amtrak believes that the Acela II will be able to operate at up to 186 mph on the 24 mile segment. It may be wishful thinking, but Amtrak is willing to state it publicly.

The Amtrak news release is at http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobkey=id&blobwhere=1249230950489&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=Content-disposition&blobheadervalue1=attachment;filename=Amtrak_ATK-11-113_AmtrakSelectsKPMG.pdf

 

[jis]

So, for whatever reason, Amtrak believes that the Acela II will be able to operate at up to 186 mph on the 24 mile segment. It may be wishful thinking, but Amtrak is willing to state it publicly.

The Amtrak news release is at http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobkey=id&blobwhere=1249230950489&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=Content-disposition&blobheadervalue1=attachment;filename=Amtrak_ATK-11-113_AmtrakSelectsKPMG.pdf

It would appear that the individual that wrote the press release thinks so. Apparently Amtrak's press release writers don't bother to fact check their press releases with their own project managers, since those guys know very well that Acela II or not nothing will run above 160mph with current track centers. Well theoretically they could, by taking the two adjacent tracks out of service as the higher speed train passes by, but that would not be particularly practical. A railfan like thing to do maybe, but not a practical day to day operation.

Or maybe they are setting up to blame FRA for its intransigence on this matter, never mind issues of Physics and Engineering.

 

[afigg]

Update on more project obligations for NEC projects. There was a US DOT press release posted on Friday, September 15, that the $22 million of Florida HSR funds re-allocated to Maryland for the Preliminary Engineering and environmental studies for the Susquehanna River bridge replacement has been obligated.

Several excerpts from the press release (http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2011/fra2311.html)

"U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today announced $22 million for the Maryland Department of Transportation to complete preliminary engineering and environmental work for replacement and expansion of the Susquehanna River Bridge on Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor (NEC) that stretches from Boston, MA to Washington, DC."

"The 105 year-old Susquehanna River Bridge is a major rail chokepoint for passengers traveling along the NEC and requires significant and constant maintenance. Replacement and expansion of the bridge is a key component to the region’s long term plans to drastically expand capacity, and improve reliability and on-time performance for high-speed and regional trains."

The PE and EIS for replacing the Susquehanna river bridge can't be done in isolation. It has to be part of the overall planning for improvements and Amtrak & MARC requirements analysis for the entire Baltimore to Newark, DE section along with the plans for replacing the Bush and Gunpowder river bridges. Since this is will be a PE and EIS process, that means there will be several rounds of public presentations and comments. Possibly even a website for the bridge replacement study. Will be interesting to see in 2-3 years or whenever the final PE and EIS reports are completed what the cost figures will be for replacing the bridge. Not going to be inexpensive.

 

[George Harris]

"The 105 year-old Susquehanna River Bridge . . . .

The PE and EIS for replacing the Susquehanna river bridge can't be done in isolation. It has to be part of the overall planning for improvements and Amtrak & MARC requirements analysis for the entire Baltimore to Newark, DE section along with the plans for replacing the Bush and Gunpowder river bridges.

This is all actually long overdue, and hopefully will include work to increase speeds significantly. I think all these are drawbridges. They should be replaced with bridges that are high enough to eliminate the drawspans. The need for the flat grades disappeared with the Pennsy's electrification in the 1930's.

Why the strange sounding limit of 186 mph? It is because it is 300 km/h with is somewhat of a magic number for a speed limit in the high speed railway world. Otherwise there is no rationale for the limit because the steps in the FRA standards are 160 to and 200 mph.

There is an FRA report on the subject on the aerodynamics of high speed trains, it is DOT/FRA/ORD-99/11, Assessment of Potential Aerodynamic Effects of on Personnel and Equipment in Proximity to High-Speed Train Operations. Put that in a search and it should be near the top of the list.

 

[jis]

Indeed, it is the FRA that decrees wider track spacing above 160mph. It says nothing about 186 mph in particular. FRA's pairing regarding speeds higher than 200mph for the moment apparently is that they have to be treated as special cases. Which really is not that different for anything above 125 mph, since a lot o case by case vertigo atoms have to be obtained for such speed anyway.

 

[George Harris]

"The 105 year-old Susquehanna River Bridge. . . .

Always bugs me when they start out using age as a reason for replacing something. It is not age as such. It is the condition that is the issue. There are plenty of railroad bridges out there that are older than this one for which there are no replacement plans. If the bridge has the structural capacity and clearances necessary for current railroad loadings, there is not need to even talk about replacement unless maintenance has been neglected to the point that the structure is beyond repair, or it has other inadequacies, such as pier movements, alignment issues preventing higher speeds, which is likely the case here, or such stuff as the need for greater clearances for the river channel or whatever else the bridge is crossing. Replacement of a drawbridge with a higher elevation span is also sometimes done.

The Mississippi River bridge that the C Z uses is being replaced because there is the need/desire to have a wider navigation span and structural inadequacy.

 

[afigg]

"The 105 year-old Susquehanna River Bridge. . . .

Always bugs me when they start out using age as a reason for replacing something. It is not age as such. It is the condition that is the issue. There are plenty of railroad bridges out there that are older than this one for which there are no replacement plans. If the bridge has the structural capacity and clearances necessary for current railroad loadings, there is not need to even talk about replacement unless maintenance has been neglected to the point that the structure is beyond repair, or it has other inadequacies, such as pier movements, alignment issues preventing higher speeds, which is likely the case here, or such stuff as the need for greater clearances for the river channel or whatever else the bridge is crossing. Replacement of a drawbridge with a higher elevation span is also sometimes done.

It is a press release. The key to a news release is to go for the easy to understand hook and not put out 5 or 6 paragraphs or a long description on the condition of the bridge, that it is a draw or swing bridge, and the need for increasing capacity and speeds for future growth.

At 105 years old, given that this is just the start of the PE and EIS process, the Susquehanna river bridge is likely to get to 115 years old before it is operationally replaced. The bridge was fixed up in 2005 to 2007 to extend it's lifespan by 20-25 years according to the wikipedia entry. It is also one of the major bridges on the NEC at over 4100' long. Amtrak runs at a decent 90 mph speed on the Susquehanna River bridge which is pretty good for a 105 year old bridge built back in the days of steam locomotives, but the speeds on either side of the bridge are 125 and 130 mph so trains have to slow down and then speed back up.

That said, a major reason to replace the Susquehanna River bridge along with the Bush and Gunpowder River bridges are all 2 track movable bridges on a long WIL to BAL segment which is a mix of 2,3,4 tracks that restrict capacity on the NEC. MARC, the Maryland commuter rail system, wants to go to 7 day a week service and extend service northward to Newark, Delaware where it would connect to the southern most stop on SEPTA. To achieve that and provide capacity growth for Amtrak, the NEC will have to expand to 3 or 4 tracks between Newark DE and Baltimore along with working in speed improvements. Whether the replacement for the Susquehanna river is 3 or 4 tracks along with clearance height is going a major part of the PE, alternatives and cost analysis for the now funded engineering design study.

 

[B&Ofan]

Incidentally they finally managed to complete the New Haven - Boston electrification as originally planned, with the completion of electrification of the third track through the Southwest Corridor Trench in Boston this year!

That explains it! I took the Acela to NYC the week before last and was a little surprised to see us platform at BBY on track 3! I suspect the completion of the work was done so the tie replacement project (defective concrete ties) would not be a complete scheduling disaster.

 

[afigg]

The FRA has been busy in the past week obligating more HSIPR selected projects. Figure I should put this here rather than start a new thread, even though several of these are not on the NEC but are spurs off of it or in the case of Downeaster, a T ride to the North Station. Close enough.

US Dot Press Release - $83 million for New England! - http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2011/fra2411.html

"U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today announced $82.7 million to improve high-speed and intercity passenger rail in Rhode Island, Maine, Connecticut and Vermont. The dollars will provide needed upgrades to the Northeast Corridor, Connecticut’s New Haven – Springfield line, Maine’s Downeaster route and the Vermonter service."

The obligated projects are

-$26.2 million for the design and construction of a electrified 3rd track on the NEC and a new platform (high level platforms) for the Kingston RI station. This has been discussed as a several minute time saver because it clears a congestion point for Regionals stopping at Kingston while Acelas are passing through. There is also $3 million for PE and EIS studies for improvements to the Providence RI station.

-$30 million to CT for more double tracking and grade crossing improvements on the New Haven to Springfield MA line. This gives CT $70 million total in stimulus funds while $120.9 million of FY2010 awarded grants are yet to be obligated. But the stimulus grants have the clock ticking on them for work to start while the FY10 funds have a longer window.

-$20.8 million to Northern New Passenger Rail Authority (NNEPRA) for the Downeaster route for double track and signal upgrades in MA on the MBTA owned tracks.

-$2.7 million to VT for a 16 mile extension of the improved signal and train control technology for the Vermonter route. This is in addition to the $50 million VT is using to fix up 190 miles of track for the Vermonter. If there was a reserve amount left in that $50 million, it may be getting used up repairing the damage from Irene.

I think all the stimulus funded grants for the NEC are now obligated. There is the $13.2 million project in Delaware for 1.5 miles of 3rd track from Ragan to yard interlocking but that is a FY10 project. So there will be some progress on the NEC over the next 3-4 years.

 

[00?]

How is the bypass through Harold going to run? Elevated, grade level, underground? How are the other tracks going to clear it?

 

[jis]

AFAICT both bypasses are using additional space available in existing duck-unders. The westbound uses the duckunder used by the lead coming in from Sunnyside yard to get track 2 across under track 4, and the eastbound is going to use the duckunder used by the lead into Sunnyside heading towards the loop to get track 3 across under track 1. But we'll see as things progress a little further.