Draft of 2013 VA Statewide Rail Plan

[The Davy Crockett]

Here is a link to the draft copy of the 2013 Virginia Statewide Rail Plan.

Have fun! h34r:

Just on small tidbit to whet your appetite...

I guess upon reflection it is no surprise, but did you know that currently over 2/3 of CSX's capacity between Washington and Richmond is used for pax rail operations?

 

[Anderson]

On the Richmond/DC bit: Not really a surprise, particularly between ALX and WAS (where you have a huge number of frequencies of Amtrak+VRE trains running). If I had to guess, CSX is basically shut down from about 7-9 AM NB. Just for the heck of it, a consolidated VRE/Amtrak timetable for a couple of selected stops shared by both:

Northbound Train Schedule
V322 V300 V302 V324 V304 A098 V326 V306 V328 V308 A086 V330 V310 V332 V312 A174 A020 A084
RVR **** **** **** **** **** 0435 **** **** **** **** 0600 **** **** **** **** 0710 **** 0800
FBG **** 0505 0515 **** 0540 **** **** 0605 **** 0630 0700 **** 0715 **** 0740 0810 **** 0858
MSS 0511 **** **** 0551 **** **** 0621 **** 0647 **** **** 0726 **** 0756 **** **** 0835 ****
ALX 0552 0607 0624 0634 0649 0655 0702 0712 0728 0738 0747 0808 0832 0837 0855 0914 0932 0950
WAS 0618 0629 0652 0700 0714 0721 0730 0737 0755 0804 0815 0835 0847 0905 0909 0944 0953 1015

A176 A094 A092 A080 A050 A090 A066
RVR **** 1104 1230 1412 **** 1725 1900
FBG **** 1204 **** 1512 **** **** 1957
MSS 1019 **** **** **** 1646 **** ****
ALX 1105 1300 1440 1606 1730 1910 2051
WAS 1120 1335 1514 1637 1806 1957 2120
Note the density of service: From 6:50 or so in the morning until just after 9 AM, there's really not much letup: 13 trains in just over 130 minutes. In that time, the longest gap between passenger trains is 20 minutes (0815-0835), followed by two 18-minute gaps (0737-0755 and 0847-0905). Honestly, those three gaps are probably the only ones long enough to pack a freight through NB. And yes, I included the Cardinal for completeness.

Edit: Ok, have a base post in so I can work more up at will. On the state rail plan:
(1) Just a bit of a point for snickering, but seeing VA stations served by the "Cardinal/Hoosier State" amuses me.

(2) Probably the most interesting info for me is on pages 3-17 and 3-18 (station on/offs). Aside from a brief bit of comedy (six Palmetto passengers O/D at Quantico...I think that was during one of those partial service suspensions where other trains have stops added), an interesting observation is that if you divide the traffic at Richmond by eight and treat the Silvers as one train rather than two, you get a rough division of Richmond's traffic.

-A lot of this is down to the Meteor's times, particularly NB (let's face it, you have to be almost masochistic to choose a 4:25 AM arrival into Richmond if you've got other options). On the other hand, I'm almost .1% of the ridership on that particular frequency...good God, when did I actually become a measurable share of an LD train's ridership?!?

-The Cardinal's ridership in CVS (and indeed the 29.8% of the Cardinal's ridership in VA) would seem to make a case for VA "Hoosier Stating" the Cardinal at least as far as Staunton. My best guess (based at least in part on the Card's PIP) is that the Cardinal actually produces a respectable portion of that business to/from the NEC as reverse-peak business.

--It would probably generate a lot more if it could get decent, reliable OTP.

-Also interesting on CVS: The Regional is "only" 2/3 of the business.

-Elsewhere, the note on total ridership on the LYH/CVS route is interesting (190k in FY11 between the Regional and the Crescent, it seems).

-On PTB: The lack of a morning train NB (that isn't the insanely early Meteor, at least) has probably suppressed ridership a bit here. I actually expect the Norfolk train to generate a respectable amount of ridership here 2-3 years out.

(3) Moving onto funding and schedules:
-I'm not surprised by the long timeframe to get the additional trains into Norfolk, but that really is a bummer.

-The I-64 corridor numbers are aggravatingly vague (it says "round trips" but doesn't specify a number).

--The Phase I-Capital funding...I'm going to have to ask about that. I'm not sure if that's "capital charges" (my best guess) or if it's some equipment purchase.

-The services in the western part of the state do make me snicker (just because of how hilariously low the operating subsidies over years are compared to what we're used to seeing...there are corridors that would run through $2m vanish in six weeks, not six years).

-One thing I'm not quite clear on is whether or not the funding from earlier this year is accounted for. As best I can tell, it is NOT accounted for, since the $948m listed on page 5-1 would come out to around $35m/yr (not to mention the after-the-fact way that funding is mentioned in 5.3.1). Page 5-4 notes that they're dealing with an out-of-date SYIP.

-For what should be obvious reasons, I find the operating deficit estimates to be a bit high, at least based on ridership in the state. Unless you include the VRE in the totals, it seems like Amtrak Virginia isn't going to need a subsidy for a very long time unless CSX/NS manage to pull a fortune out of the state. This goes for both the long-term estimates and the individual project estimates.

-Finally, SEHSR looks like a morass. It seems like a poor use of state-only funding considering the other alternatives (notwithstanding RVR-WAS improvements helping other things)

 

[Anderson]

Ok, just as a follow-up, I cannot for the life of me figure out where what portion of the money from this year is going. So that may or may not be paying for a decent amount of stuff in the mix there.

 

[The Davy Crockett]

Ok, just as a follow-up, I cannot for the life of me figure out where what portion of the money from this year is going.

The bureaucrats have done their job well then!

 

[afigg]

-One thing I'm not quite clear on is whether or not the funding from earlier this year is accounted for. As best I can tell, it is NOT accounted for, since the $948m listed on page 5-1 would come out to around $35m/yr (not to mention the after-the-fact way that funding is mentioned in 5.3.1). Page 5-4 notes that they're dealing with an out-of-date SYIP.

I was wondering when the VA State Rail Plan would be released, because it was supposed to be released early this year. If this Draft plan does not include the new Intercity Passenger Rail Operating and Capital Fund revenue stream from the state sales tax (have not really read the draft yet), then they must have decided to go ahead and release the draft with the intent of revising it to include the new funding and schedules in the Final draft. The revised FY2014 Six Year Improvement Plan with the faster expansion to 3 trains to Norfolk was issued at the end of June. Takes time to incorporate all that into a major planning document like this.

There is a lot of info to be gleaned on what projects are funded in the SYIP document posted on the finance page of the VA DRPT website. The FY2014 SYIP shows on page 75 that VA DRPT has $54 million for passenger rail in FY2014 that has not been allocated to any projects (because Roanoke extension spending does not ramp up until next year).

 

[Anderson]

A couple of thoughts on the SYIP:
(1) The posted losses for FY15 (I use FY15 because of the pre/post PRIIA numbers issue...FY14 for VA corresponds to July-13 through June-14 IIRC) run up one hell of a lot higher than Amtrak's MPRs. That's going to be a sincere question I have to raise at some point, since Amtrak shows all three routes in the black at the moment. That said, it does look like the losses get "held back" a bit for FY15 vs. FY14 due to some variables (Norfolk ramp-up, for example). Still, it's one heck of a drop to see the routes post a $7.7m contribution before their capital charge per the September 2012 Monthly Performance Report and then see them expected to post a $5.4-5.5m loss next year before capital charges. I'm going to blame differing accounting practices between Amtrak's pre-PRIIA stuff and what VA was actually able to work out "on the ground" with the seat charges north of WAS.
-Alternatively, it's quite possible that (as usual) fairly conservative assumptions are being used on the service costs versus revenues.
-In general, I do expect a modest ramp-up in ridership on the Norfolk trains as both times improve, people "get used" to the new service, and as it gets a "proper" station.

(2) Granted, the numbers are fuzzier further out because until this year VA wasn't expecting this much money to work with (no, really...this is a massive sum of money for any state to have secured, especially considering that this isn't a state with a massive pre-existing set of services to support), but it's still almost surreal to see a state with over $100 million in the rail budget awaiting allocation.
-The placeholder figure for funding growth is about 4%. Extrapolating this out into the '20s offers a /lot/ of money that can be used. Assuming 3.8% growth, the cumulative funding available through FY25 is $706.25m, of which only about a third has been allocated. The amount available through the 25-year time horizon of the state rail plan is...dizzying would be an understatement. Assuming a 3.8% growth rate, it's $2.179bn.

(3) On the service extensions, it looks like Roanoke should get a train by sometime in late 2016, maybe a little bit sooner (remember, FYs and CYs don't line up). Norfolk should get the other two trains in sometime in late 2017, though it does seem plausible that one might be extended sooner than the others. Still, this is a very nice schedule.

(4) Considering the sheer mass of money available, even assuming limited outside funding (i.e. minimal TIGER funds or equivalents, no national HSR program actually gets going, etc.), it seems like VA could fund quite a bit off of either "just" this cash or this cash plus whatever could be secured with RRIF financing backed up by this funding. $50m/yr can get you quite a bit in the short term.

(5) I know the budget bill put in an additional slug of money into a Mass Transit Fund. I'm not 100% sure of the parameters of this fund, nor am I sure whether VRE funding would come from the Mass Transit pot or the IPROC pot.
-There also seems to be a good deal of "outside" money running around under the Rail Enhancement Program/Fund up a few pages. My best understanding is that the Rail Enhancement Fund is a separate pot of money from IPROC, but which is also available for freight, intercity, and/or commuter rail projects. Or, to put it another way, there's even more money running around.

(6) Finally, looking at the budgeting...I'm honestly pulling my hair out at how long the RVR-WAS 90 MPH study is estimated to take (until FY19 to conclude the Tier II EIS, though the Preliminary Engineering study is concurrent with this...so that's /something/). Of course, poking around at an application for that, I get this report:
http://www.drpt.virginia.gov/news/files/VA%20-%20SEHSR%20-%20RIC-WAS%20Segment%20-%20Application%20Form.pdf
(A) Interesting...apparently the max speed is, in fact, 69 MPH along the RF&P. More interesting is that apparently, the VRE folks are limited to 60 MPH. Can anyone confirm or deny this?
(B) It's also interesting to see CSX funding part of the 90 MPH MAS study (5% of the funding, or 1/4 of the non-federal match).
© However...even more fascinating is that on page five, the project lists 30 present frequencies. This would include the 9 Amtrak trains RVR-WAS (18) and 12 VRE frequencies FBG-WAS (VRE trains 300-313, save two...no idea if two of those got added relatively recently or not). Under the plan, Amtrak will get up to 32 frequencies (i.e. 16 round-trips, an increase of 7/day), with the other 32 frequencies noted presumably going to ramp up VRE service (something which does seem rather inevitable in the long run), likely including reverse-peak. Note that these figures (and most other notes, save a figure on page six) exclude trains running on the NS corridor, just those continuing down the RF&P.
-Note that 16 round-trips includes:
--9 to Hampton Roads
--4 to Charlotte
--3 LD (Star, Meteor, Palmetto)
Presumably the Auto Train is ignored in these proposals, since the 9+4+3 adds up to other reports I've seen.

 

[Nathanael]

I guess upon reflection it is no surprise, but did you know that currently over 2/3 of CSX's capacity between Washington and Richmond is used for pax rail operations?

To me, it raises the question of why Viriginia sold its 20% interest in the RF&P (which it got from Conrail IIRC) to CSX. It would have made more sense to buy the rest of it *from* CSX. But I guess in the 1980s and early 1990s Virginia state government wasn't thinking clearly about rail.

 

[Nathanael]

-Finally, SEHSR looks like a morass. It seems like a poor use of state-only funding considering the other alternatives (notwithstanding RVR-WAS improvements helping other things)

SEHSR is a North-Carolina-driven project. Unfortunately this is the problem with this "state-based" system for funding passenger rail. The project needs lots and lots of work in Virginia, but it primarily benefits North Carolina, so it doesn't happen. This is the sort of idiocy you get from a lack of national thinking. The "generally agreed division" seems to have been that North Carolina will take care of Petersburg, VA southward, while Virginia will handle Petersburg to Richmond Main St and Richmond Main St to DC.

Virginia, however, has not really been making much of an effort to deal with the capacity improvements or the speed improvements needed from Petersburg to Richmond or Richmond to DC.

(6) Finally, looking at the budgeting...I'm honestly pulling my hair out at how long the RVR-WAS 90 MPH study is estimated to take (until FY19 to conclude the Tier II EIS, though the Preliminary Engineering study is concurrent with this...so that's /something/).

Mmm-hmm.

(A) Interesting...apparently the max speed is, in fact, 69 MPH along the RF&P. More interesting is that apparently, the VRE folks are limited to 60 MPH. Can anyone confirm or deny this?

I've read this before in multiple places. I believe it. I'm not sure what is limiting VRE's speeds; it could be the old passenger cars. Though I believe that CSX runs its freights at 60 MPH along the line and it may have demanded that VRE "stay in slot".
With existing speed limits of 69 mph, there is a reason that the 90 mph improvements would be a big deal on the RF&P.

Given the scale of the projects involved, it would probably be cheaper for Virginia to build its own pair of tracks from DC to Richmond than it will be to keep paying CSX for improvements over and over again. It's also worth looking at the future flood maps: certain parts of the RF&P are at severe flood risk and should be bypassed.

 

[Anderson]

I guess upon reflection it is no surprise, but did you know that currently over 2/3 of CSX's capacity between Washington and Richmond is used for pax rail operations?

To me, it raises the question of why Viriginia sold its 20% interest in the RF&P (which it got from Conrail IIRC) to CSX. It would have made more sense to buy the rest of it *from* CSX. But I guess in the 1980s and early 1990s Virginia state government wasn't thinking clearly about rail.

There was a passing report at the time on...well, what we're talking about now (90 MPH MAS, hourly service, etc.). However, this was at the same time as VA threw together a report on 150 MPH rail service on the Peninsula, something that made zero sense in any comprehensive context at the time. It's not that VA wasn't thinking about rail...they really just weren't thinking, period. Of course, I say that and...well, if CSX wound up with the other 80% it's likely that would have just been a mess and CSX might have been able to pressure a buy-out on some terms regardless.

I agree that it might be cheaper for VA to put in its own tracks (there's been a $1.8bn project for that floating around for a while from what I can tell), but that has its own issues: Where do you put it in? What do you have to bulldoze to make it work? How do you get through Quantico? Do you share ROW territory anywhere (maybe around a few stations)? Do you end up moving the VRE stuff over and migrate all of that infrastructure to new stations? And so on.

 

[George Harris]

69 mph? I thought the RR&P speed limit was 70 mph and had been for years. Their current signal system would allow 90 mph. the main problem with getting more speed out of the RF&P is curvature. Particular south of Fredericksburg the RF&P has a lot of curves that will keep the speed down.

 

[afigg]

I agree that it might be cheaper for VA to put in its own tracks (there's been a $1.8bn project for that floating around for a while from what I can tell), but that has its own issues: Where do you put it in? What do you have to bulldoze to make it work? How do you get through Quantico? Do you share ROW territory anywhere (maybe around a few stations)? Do you end up moving the VRE stuff over and migrate all of that infrastructure to new stations? And so on.

I'm looking at the track diagrams for the 3rd track project from Arkendale to Powell's Creek which were available on the VRE website when they had it on there for bids. The diagrams show the CSX ROW, which varies considerably in width, but is easily wide enough to accommodate 4 tracks through that 11 mile segment, including Quantico. The platforms at the Quantico stations are well inside the ROW. The ROW is pinched in a couple of locations by road bridges over the tracks which are noted in the document as requiring modification for the 3rd track. My guess is that the plan is to modify the bridges just enough to accommodate the 3rd track as a complete rebuild to make room for a 4 track line is out of scope of the funding.

The plan has been for a while to build 4 tracks from the Long Bridge through Alexandria station to at least AF interlocking. The ROW is wide enough to handle it. The alternatives for the Long Bridge Study included a number of variations on a 4 track bridge replacement with 2 passenger tracks and 2 freight tracks. Replace the Long Bridge and have dedicated 2 passenger tracks from the First St tunnels through L'Enfant to AF interlocking.

In the draft plan, there is this comment from CSX:

CSX comment: CSX advocates the future separation of passenger and freight operations, particularly if passenger trains are expected to operate at speeds inconsistent with freight rail operations. CSX allows passenger trains to operate at speeds up to 79 miles per hour. At 90 miles per hour, however, passenger and freight operations must be separated to permit safe operations of both services. Short of separating the two types of operations, CSX is also a proponent of locating passenger stations on sidings, so that stopped trains do not interfere with freight trains operating on the mainline.

So perhaps the thinking on the plan for the 3rd track from ALX to Richmond is evolving to a long term concept to separate VRE/Amtrak operations from freight by building a 4 track line to Fredericksburg. 2 of the tracks for passenger trains which would be VRE and the state's responsibility to maintain. CSX leases that portion of the ROW for a nice annual payment. Yes, the VRE stations and platforms would have to be moved or rebuilt, but that is no biggie. Rebuilding overpass road bridges to make room for the 4 tracks would be more expensive. Between Fredericksburg and Richmond would be TBD. All speculative however. The nearer term focus is likely to be on building a 3rd track from Franconia to Fredericksburg, 4th track in ALX, and replacing or supplementing the Long Bridge which will be an expensive project.

 

[afigg]

(2) Granted, the numbers are fuzzier further out because until this year VA wasn't expecting this much money to work with (no, really...this is a massive sum of money for any state to have secured, especially considering that this isn't a state with a massive pre-existing set of services to support), but it's still almost surreal to see a state with over $100 million in the rail budget awaiting allocation.

Have to keep it in perspective. A $100 million unallocated in the state road & highway budget is one or two medium to small scale road improvement or bridge projects. Still, VA DRPT has a nice annual steady revenue stream to work with. And with so little of that funding needed to cover the operating subsidies, they can put almost all of it into capital improvement projects.

(4) Considering the sheer mass of money available, even assuming limited outside funding (i.e. minimal TIGER funds or equivalents, no national HSR program actually gets going, etc.), it seems like VA could fund quite a bit off of either "just" this cash or this cash plus whatever could be secured with RRIF financing backed up by this funding. $50m/yr can get you quite a bit in the short term.

If the TIGER grant program continues, VA DRPT is a good position to submit applications where the state will provide greater than the minimum 20% state contribution, say a 50% match, which would improve the chances of getting selected and effectively double their money for a specific project.

(5) I know the budget bill put in an additional slug of money into a Mass Transit Fund. I'm not 100% sure of the parameters of this fund, nor am I sure whether VRE funding would come from the Mass Transit pot or the IPROC pot.-There also seems to be a good deal of "outside" money running around under the Rail Enhancement Program/Fund up a few pages.

The FY2014 budget report shows the Mass Transit Fund capital projects going to buy a lot of buses. There are several transit projects in No VA other than the Silver Line, the Columbia Pike Streetcar and the Crystal Austral City to Potomac Yards transitway (to be a BRT line for the present). But I think the state contribution for those are or will come out of other parts of the state transportation budget. There are multiple parts to and players & boards in the state transportation spending which I don't pretend to come close to understanding how they all fit together.

PS. Spellchecker changed a mis-spelled Crystal to Austral (!)

 

[Anderson]

That's true on perspective...but considering that most states' budgets are effectively zero for rail (or that the DRPT's budget is still well under $1bn for everything all told), it's a lot of money for this sort of thing. Of course, there are also some incidental projects (*coughparkingcough*) that could help out at several stations (anyone who's been to RVR lately can attest to the fact that the station there is getting swamped, and it's not the only station in this position).

As to the Mass Transit Fund...I'm not surprised. I think there are probably more than a few "quick fixes" that'll happen in the next year or two there (i.e. more buses, added operating support). And of course, there's also The Tide getting extended to the Oceanfront and the Broad Street project in Richmond which will likely get at least some money out of that pot as time goes on.

As you noted, a state match of 50% (or that match being a mix of state and local support) would make some projects more likely to get federal support. The other thing is that the state can promise operating support with more security now. There was some discussion that you've got a lot of projects where the issue isn't capital expenditures (which can be hashed out), it's securing operating support for the system that kills the project. Obviously, some of that has to be local...but a state match of 10-20% can make a BIG difference in whether a plan is considered to be financially sustainable.

As to the VRE/RF&P situation: In the long term, I agree that four tracks is the plan. In the short(er) term, three tracks to FBG would allow CSX one whole track to themselves, passenger ops one track, with a third track to be shared. Considering the nature of present (and likely future) passenger rail traffic flows, it seems likely that the two can work out a "juggling" arrangement that will keep everyone happy for a while. It also seems plausible that you could see "three tracks plus", where you'd start out with three tracks plus a mix of passing sidings as the basis for a fourth track plus some limited shared ops, and then just fill in the gaps as funding permits bridges to be fixed. Right now, for example, the only SB passenger train on the RF&P in the morning is 67, while the only NB trains at anything near peak hours are 80 and 90. If you had a dedicated passenger track, the morning and evening flows would use that track and you'd only have one or two trains to "slot around" going the "wrong way"...something that would probably be enough of an improvement for CSX to be more cooperative on allowing some limited additional reverse flow traffic. And if that track is accompanied by a few passing sidings...well, that's going to be X amount of additional interference removed from CSX's tracks.

Moving onto the FBG-RVR tracks, my best guess there is that you get some added passing sidings and call it a day, or maybe get another three-track mess. The main problem is that from Spotsylvania south to Richmond, I'm hard-pressed to see more than about 40 passenger movements being scheduled at any point in the next 15-25 years, and even getting there would assume that either:
(A) Something unexpected got beefed up at Amtrak; or
(B) A limited VRE extension to Richmond happened.

Edit: I had another thought...it's not that VA isn't moving forward. The problem is that VA's portion is tied up in EIS work and PE work. VA is on board with the project, since WAS-PTB can be justified in the context of service to Richmond and to Hampton Roads. And as far as I can tell, VA definitely wants that project to go forward.

 

[xyzzy]

It's true that NC is the primary advocate for SEHSR defined as Charlotte-Raleigh-Richmond. The definition causes problems in NC politics because skeptics ask, "Who needs a high-speed train between Raleigh and Richmond?"

That said, I can't imagine that NC alone could pay for 110 mph Raleigh-Petersburg. It's even a stretch for NC to pay for 90 mph Charlotte-Raleigh and track capacity for 5x daily service. If budgets remain tight, NC will throw all available money at intrastate service.

From the perspective of Virginians, it's unclear that SEHSR would serve any station between Petersburg and the NC-VA line. Note also that SEHSR would terminate at Richmond Main Street, and there would have to be separate projects to improve trackage from RVM to Acca and beyond. Not much point in 110 mph Raleigh-RVM if you run 20 or 30 mph RVM-RVR.

 

[Anderson]

It's true that NC is the primary advocate for SEHSR defined as Charlotte-Raleigh-Richmond. The definition causes problems in NC politics because skeptics ask, "Who needs a high-speed train between Raleigh and Richmond?"
That said, I can't imagine that NC alone could pay for 110 mph Raleigh-Petersburg. It's even a stretch for NC to pay for 90 mph Charlotte-Raleigh and track capacity for 5x daily service. If budgets remain tight, NC will throw all available money at intrastate service.

From the perspective of Virginians, it's unclear that SEHSR would serve any station between Petersburg and the NC-VA line. Note also that SEHSR would terminate at Richmond Main Street, and there would have to be separate projects to improve trackage from RVM to Acca and beyond. Not much point in 110 mph Raleigh-RVM if you run 20 or 30 mph RVM-RVR.

It's pretty clear that there are plans to fix the RVR-RVM segment, at least per the Hampton Roads study. Even in the "base case", a decent amount of time gets cut off the time for Richmond-Newport News, which indicates at least some improvements there. The fact that the RVR-RVM segment is expected to ultimately serve the Norfolk trains as well (rather than just the two or three Newport News trains) suggests that this will get tackled...probably, however, as part of a more comprehensive Acca Bypass project that covers the S-line from RVR down to where it meets the A-line again.

 

[xyzzy]

What they need is a double-track route between RVR and RVM that's good for 50 mph at least, bidirectionally signaled with an intermediate double crossover. Will be interesting to see what actually gets funded.

SEHSR would rebuild the S-line from the James River bridge to Centralia, add a 3rd track to the A-line between Centralia and the Appomattox River, and add a 2nd track across the Appomattox into Petersburg. The assumption is indeed that all Amtrak trains except the Auto-Train would run through RVM.

 

[jis]

They can build it in stages. Eventually they will need double track. But for current levels of traffic it will be a definite overkill. For now a single track with perhaps one passing siding in the middle should more than suffice. If funds are truly limited even the passing siding can be postponed. They might as well spend the money to get the speed limit upto 80/90mph as far as track class goes, if they can. They could simply extend the RF&P Cab Signal all the way to the A-Line/S-Line junction too, via RVM.

It will just be like it has been between Albany and Schenectady. Yes there will be adverse effect on schedules, but it is better to have access than not to have access at all.At present we are talking of 5 to 7 trains a day each way.

 

[xyzzy]

Agreed, at present 5-7 but SEHSR (if it ever happens) adds 3 in each direction. 16-20 trains a day are too much to run over a single track line.

 

[jis]

Agreed, at present 5-7 but SEHSR (if it ever happens) adds 3 in each direction. 16-20 trains a day are too much to run over a single track line.

8 to 10 trains per day in each direction should be quite manageable with a passing siding or two. However, if a situation arises where further growth is contemplated beyond that then the gaps between the sidings should be filled in.

 

[Anderson]

They can build it in stages. Eventually they will need double track. But for current levels of traffic it will be a definite overkill. For now a single track with perhaps one passing siding in the middle should more than suffice. If funds are truly limited even the passing siding can be postponed. They might as well spend the money to get the speed limit upto 80/90mph as far as track class goes, if they can. They could simply extend the RF&P Cab Signal all the way to the A-Line/S-Line junction too, via RVM.
It will just be like it has been between Albany and Schenectady. Yes there will be adverse effect on schedules, but it is better to have access than not to have access at all.At present we are talking of 5 to 7 trains a day each way.

(1) I'm not sure the alignment from RVR-RVM will support much more than the 50 MPH range, nor that it would be efficient to run trains on that section up towards 90 MPH given the short distance involved. Mind you, I inherently assume that anything taking this route would be making both stops. South of RVM, though, I agree.

(2) RVM does present another issue: Right now, you have two tracks. The east track peels off to go to NPN. The west track continues south. At the moment, the west track does not have passenger service or access. Would the plan be to extend some sort of connection between, at the very least, the east track and the bridge to the south? Connecting the NPN spur to the west track as well would be a mess, but...at higher service levels, I don't see hosting all of those trains on one track. Alternatively, could the headhouse be renovated and set up to allow more service? I'm asking because I'm worried you could get a stack-up of trains if one gets out-of-slot there.

(3) To clarify, at the moment there are nine trains into RVR. That number could, in theory, go up a bit...assuming the full long-term Hampton Roads plans come to fruition, you'd have nine Regionals, 3 LD trains, and the Carolinian (13x daily). SEHSR basically adds three Carolinians, for 16x daily...which is probably close to the max you'd see on that line this side of the late 30s at the earliest. I'd point out that it's plausible Amtrak could choose to keep the three LDs on the A-line, though I don't see them doing this if adding RVM could add any traffic to them, ease transfers, and/or keep the traffic load spread out.

(4) And that brings us to the potential traffic at RVM. At the moment, you're looking at about 35,000 O/D for two trains (or about 17,500/train). Assuming an arithmetic increase with all nine trains going to RVM, that would be around 157,500. Oddly, this actually sounds a bit low to me...all trains going there would likely "invent" a new downtown Norfolk-downtown Richmond market (one that is a bit clunky to work at the moment, as it involves a bus on one end or a cab on the other if you're coming from Norfolk), meaning you'd actually get turnover on trains at RVM rather than having almost all traffic going to/coming from points north. I also suspect a lot of traffic would switch over and cut the load on RVR as they've got more round-trip options out of RVM (since right now, you've likely got a lot of people who choose RVR for both legs since the other option is RVM for one leg and RVR for the other). It's also cheaper to get a cab (and feasible to walk) to RVM from a number of hotels. Such is not the case with RVR.

-Just as an addendum to this point: I don't see RVM supplanting RVR as the primary station for Richmond. It's likely to remain secondary. But I do see it becoming a significant secondary station as opposed to being so far behind...200k for RVM and 400k for RVR seems like a believable distribution of traffic in ten years.

 

[jis]

They can build it in stages. Eventually they will need double track. But for current levels of traffic it will be a definite overkill. For now a single track with perhaps one passing siding in the middle should more than suffice. If funds are truly limited even the passing siding can be postponed. They might as well spend the money to get the speed limit upto 80/90mph as far as track class goes, if they can. They could simply extend the RF&P Cab Signal all the way to the A-Line/S-Line junction too, via RVM.

It will just be like it has been between Albany and Schenectady. Yes there will be adverse effect on schedules, but it is better to have access than not to have access at all.At present we are talking of 5 to 7 trains a day each way.

(1) I'm not sure the alignment from RVR-RVM will support much more than the 50 MPH range, nor that it would be efficient to run trains on that section up towards 90 MPH given the short distance involved. Mind you, I inherently assume that anything taking this route would be making both stops. South of RVM, though, I agree.

Yep. My comment was mostly about RVM and south segment. RVR to RVM will never be able to get above 50/60 if that.

 

[xyzzy]

South of the James, the S-line rebuild would be 79 mph for the 11 miles to Centralia. I believe the plan also calls for 79 mph (except for the Appomattox River bridge) on all three tracks for the 18 miles from Centralia to where the Burgess Cutoff would be restored.

 

[jis]

South of the James, the S-line rebuild would be 79 mph for the 11 miles to Centralia. I believe the plan also calls for 79 mph (except for the Appomattox River bridge) on all three tracks for the 18 miles from Centralia to where the Burgess Cutoff would be restored.

That makes sense, unless one wants to take advantage of PTC to bump it up some. But then CSX is allergic to anything above 79mph, unless it is separate track for the higher speeds from tracks used by its freights.

 

[Anderson]

I might be backwards on this, but I thought CSX was fine with 90 MPH and that it was NS who wanted a cap of 79 MPH? I remember this because it surprised me (as NS tends to be a bit more accommodating). Also, frankly, if VA is going to build separate tracks I have to wonder why they just don't throw down for 110/125 operation wherever possible...especially since I can't even begin to imagine the ridership that getting WAS-RVR under 90 minutes would begin attracting.

 

[afigg]

It's true that NC is the primary advocate for SEHSR defined as Charlotte-Raleigh-Richmond. The definition causes problems in NC politics because skeptics ask, "Who needs a high-speed train between Raleigh and Richmond?"
That said, I can't imagine that NC alone could pay for 110 mph Raleigh-Petersburg. It's even a stretch for NC to pay for 90 mph Charlotte-Raleigh and track capacity for 5x daily service. If budgets remain tight, NC will throw all available money at intrastate service.

From the perspective of Virginians, it's unclear that SEHSR would serve any station between Petersburg and the NC-VA line. Note also that SEHSR would terminate at Richmond Main Street, and there would have to be separate projects to improve trackage from RVM to Acca and beyond. Not much point in 110 mph Raleigh-RVM if you run 20 or 30 mph RVM-RVR.

To be clear, the SEHSR is defined as extending from DC to Charlotte via Richmond and Raleigh. It is simply broken into 3 segments: DC to RVM, RVM to Raleigh (which has a Teir II EIS awaiting a ROD from the FRA), and then Raleigh to Charlotte.

There is a $2.9 million HSIPR grant to DC DOT for the PE and NEPA fpr the Long Bridge replacement study to cover L'Enfant Plaza to Arlington and a $44.3 million HSIPR grant (FY10 funding) to VA DRPT for the Alexandria to Richmond Main Street Station segment. So there is funding to carry the DC to RVM segment through a Tier II EIS. VA is in a position to spend state money on specific track and capacity projects from Alexandria to RVM. For the DC to RVM segment, VA DRPT is likely to prioritize projects that benefit VRE & Amtrak between ALX and Frederickburg (the state has awarded a contract to build a 3rd track from south of Frederickburg to the new VRE Spotsylvania station), RVR to RVM for NPN & eventually NFK trains. The Long Bridge replacement will require a significant federal funding component to happen - which it may get via the FTA.

For the segment south of RVM, there will be an approved FEIS and preliminary design. VA could proceed with specific projects for Sections AA, BB, CC in the FEIS which cover the RVM to Collier Yard segment. DRPT has already allocated $80 million which I believe is mostly going a new bridge across the Appomattox which is the biggest part of the Section CC upgrades. BTW, the price tag estimate for the 11.3 miles of Section AA from the RVM platform to Centralia is $245 million.

The rest of the SEHSR RVM to Raleigh segment over the mostly abandoned S-Line will require a substantial federal passenger rail funding program to happen and who knows when that is going to be.