Amtrak Cascades expansion to new corridors

[zephyr17]

Well afterall it was WSDOT at the urging of FRA that canned the Talgo VIs. So it is not exactly Amtrak’s doing. Most likely none of this would have happened if WSDOT did not throughly screw up the Point Defiance Bypass project culminating in the derailment. Admittedly Amtrak tagged aling inexplicably too.

Agree that WSDOT bore a great deal of responsibility for the accident in 2017. The NTSB does, too.

The NTSB strongly recommended retirement of the Talgo VIs following the crash, given that they failed in exactly the area that they were FRA non compliant and operating under a waiver. When that came out there was also some local pressure to retire them, too.l There was some element of never letting a crisis go to waste in it, though, as WSDOT was heartily sick of dealing with Talgo.

However, that is all in the past by a number of years and it is Amtrak's inability to maintain and provide equipment that lies at the root of the current shortage. WSDOT bears no responsibility for Amtrak's decisions around maintenance force layoffs that are at the root of their equipment issues. That is the proximate cause of the current issues, not the Nisqually wreck.

 

[GDRRiley]

Agree that WSDOT bore a great deal of responsibility for the accident in 2017. The NTSB does, too.

Its nearly all on WSDOT for being a "higher" speed bypass why would you end it with a 40mph curve.

Amtrak needs to get their shops sorted and get cars back into service, theres dozens of stored horizons and superliners which are needed.

 

[zephyr17]

Its nearly all on WSDOT for being a "higher" speed bypass why would you end it with a 40mph curve.

Amtrak needs to get their shops sorted and get cars back into service, theres dozens of stored horizons and superliners which are needed.

The NTSB didn't call out WSDOT for having a 30 mph (not 40) curve. They were basically called out for lack of safety culture and poor management. And the ever popular lack of PTC, which the local media made much more of a fuss over than the NTSB did.

There are lots of places along the Cascades line with speed restricted curves, including other 30 mph ones, it is a curvy line. That curve was just one more. While the Point Defiance was touted as "faster" that was because it was shorter. It was never designed or intended as a HrSR line (speeds of 80-110). It was and is a wholly conventional rail line with a top speed of 79. It was also not on a new alignment, but relaid new rail on an old, existing line (the ex NP Prairie Line). It was only higher speed in that a line that had been allowed to degrade to a 10 mph FRA excepted/Class 1 industrial lead was rebuilt to Class 4 standards. The only people who thought it was "high speed" were members of the Lakewood City Council who didn't want relatively frequent 79 mph trains through grade crossings in their town where there had been only the occasional slow, 10 mph freight, and tried to stop it.

The entire purpose of the line was to add capacity, not decrease travel time. BNSF would not allow more than four Cascades trains each way over the Point Defiance line due single track segments there. WSDOT chose to acquire and rebuild the Prairie Line rather than fund capacity improvements on Point Defiance, at least partly because of geographical constraints on the Point Defiance line.

Today 8 passenger trains safely navigate that curve every day, hopefully with more to come. The curve is still there and will remain for the foreseeable future.

 

[GDRRiley]

The NTSB didn't call out WSDOT for having a 30 mph (not 40) curve. They were basically called out for lack of safety culture and poor management. And the ever popular lack of PTC, which the local media made much more of a fuss over than the NTSB did.

I'm aware they didn't call them out.
2017 was a year of crashes that would have been avoided if PTC had been rolled out.

There are lots of places along the Cascades line with speed restricted curves, including other 30 mph ones, it is a curvy line. That curve was just one more. While the Point Defiance was touted as "faster" that was because it was shorter. It was never designed or intended as a HrSR line (speeds of 80-110). It was and is a wholly conventional rail line with a top speed of 79. It was also not on a new alignment, but relaid new rail on a old, existing line (the ex NP Prairie Line). It was only higher speed in that a line that had been allowed to degrade to a 10 mph FRA excepted/Class 1 industrial lead was rebuilt to Class 4 standards. The only people who thought it was "high speed" were members of the Lakewood City Council who didn't want relatively frequent 79 mph trains through grade crossings in their town where there had been only slow, 10 mph freights, and tried to stop it.

Yes there but given you are upgrading track and talking about high speed or at least higher speed in the near term not planning for 110mph seems foolish, they cut costs to not make the line ready to be upgraded to 110mph and spent the money on expanding freeways

It was in their list of plans in the early 2000s as part of speeding up services but was pushed down the list by other projects because the state didn't commit more of its own money to them.

 

[zephyr17]

they cut costs to not make the line ready to be upgraded to 110mph

Yes, they did reduce immediate costs significantly by not realigning and rebuilding the I 5 overpasses. Not investing tens of millions to allow the Cascades to possibly operate 110 on one small segment in the future when the rest of the line is likely to remain a curvy Class 4 under BNSF ownership seems prudent to me.

Standard railroad operating practices, even without PTC, would have made the curve safe. The most important single factor was that Amtrak/Sound Transit/WSDOT did not provide anything approaching sufficient qualification runs over the new line. The engineer lost situational awareness because he was simply not given the opportunity to properly familiarize himself with the line's characteristics.

Let me ask you this, if there were an old, underutilized freight line that would allow 79 mph operation but with speed restricted curve that would allow the Surfliners to avoid the San Clemente or Del Mar bluffs without tunneling would you take it? Or insist on the higher speed tunnels?

I try not to make the perfect be the enemy of the good myself.

 

[west point]

Do not forget that at one time the curve was not there. WA DOT in its wisdom decided when they were going to change the highway from a regular US highway to intersstate built the bridge as a curve to save money.
IMO WA DOT might have received fed funds to restore the original alignment with a rather robust bridge.

How much did WA DOT pay NP to change the alignment.?

 

[JayPea]

I would welcome a Spokane-Seattle run that would start/end in daylight in Spokane. I have never been too thrilled with the 55 mile drive to and from the Spokane station in the middle of the night.

 

[zephyr17]

Do not forget that at one time the curve was not there. WA DOT in its wisdom decided when they were going to change the highway from a regular US highway to intersstate built the bridge as a curve to save money.
IMO WA DOT might have received fed funds to restore the original alignment with a rather robust bridge.

How much did WA DOT pay NP to change the alignment.?

The bridge over the southbound lanes where the train derailed is the old US 99 bridge and long predated Interstate 5. The one over the northbound lanes was the one built for I5. It is further south and uninvolved in the derailment.

That bridge and alignment has been there since the 1930s or 40s.

The bridge itself isn't curved. The curve is just before the bridge. There has always been a curve in the vicinity as the tracks move from the tangent on the plateau through Lakewood and Ft. Lewis to run south along the bluffs above the Nisqually River so as to avoid a grade down to an unnecessary crossing of the river.

The alignment has little to do with the construction of US 99, even less I 5.

 

[GDRRiley]

Let me ask you this, if there were an old, underutilized freight line that would allow 79 mph operation but with speed restricted curve that would allow the Surfliners to avoid the San Clemente or Del Mar bluffs without tunneling would you take it? Or insist on the higher speed tunnels?

I try not to make the perfect be the enemy of the good myself.

Del mar and San Clemente already have sharp curves so it would likely be faster.

I am very much don't let perfect be the enemy of good but the slowest sections drag down the average speeds a lot and its not like WOSDOT doesn't have money they just chose to spend it on pointless freeway expansions.
While its not high priority fixing curves has long been proposed to increase average speeds

 

[zephyr17]

I am very much don't let perfect be the enemy of good but the slowest sections drag down the average speeds a lot and its not like WOSDOT doesn't have money they just chose to spend it on pointless freeway expansions.

1. There are speed restrictions making it slower than 79 south of there along the bluffs around Nisqually Jct. anyway.
2. What "pointless freeway expansions?" There is a lot of resistance to freeway construction here and the few projects going forward, like connecting 509 west of the airport to I 5 and completing the last leg of 167 freeway between Puyallyup and Fife, which has hung fire for at least 30 years, are very much needed. The 509 project is truncated, it was supposed to go through on its own to Tacoma, but it was reduced to just tying into I 5 instead of ending on surface streets. The only other active projects in Western Washington is the HOT lanes between Renton and Bellevue on 405 and completing a very much needed rebuild of 90 on the east side of Snoqualmie Pass.

Cite a western Washington freeway expansion project you consider pointless.

 

[zephyr17]

Del mar and San Clemente already have sharp curves so it would likely be faster.

You aren't really addressing my hypothetical, which is what if a low cost but less than perfect alternative to tunneling were available to avoid the unstable areas.

I am well aware that there is not actually one, but that is why they call it "hypothetical."

 

[Chris I]

1. There are speed restrictions making it slower than 79 south of there along the bluffs around Nisqually Jct. anyway.
2. What "pointless freeway expansions?" There is a lot of resistance to freeway construction here and the few projects going forward, like connecting 509 west of the airport to I 5 and completing the last leg of 167 freeway between Puyallyup and Fife, which has hung fire for at least 30 years, are very much needed. The 509 project is truncated, it was supposed to go through on its own to Tacoma, but it was reduced to just tying into I 5 instead of ending on surface streets. The only other active projects in Western Washington is the HOT lanes between Renton and Bellevue on 405 and completing a very much needed rebuild of 90 on the east side of Snoqualmie Pass.

Cite a western Washington freeway expansion project you consider pointless.

The North Spokane Corridor may not be entirely pointless, but I don't know if it's the best way to spend $1.5 billion taxpayer dollars:
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/07/11/highway-boondoggles-north-spokane-corridor/
After going billions over budget, the SR99 tunnel through downtown Seattle isn't even getting enough toll revenue to cover maintenance. They could have torn down the viaduct and just improved the surface streets.
https://www.planetizen.com/news/202...evenue-forecasted-tunnel-bertha-built-seattle