Report from IEEE NEC HSR Meeting

[jis]

Al Fazio who was the originally scheduled speaker got held up in meetings at HQ. He was substituted by two speakers - Jim Buechler, Program Director for NEC HSR Program and Theresa Impostato, Director of System Safety, and we got two presentations instead of one.

I. First Jim presented Al's slides, which were substantially the same as presented at TransAction. But off slide in Q&A we got a lot of information about current state which I summarize below:

1. High Speed tests to characterize the behavior of train and track for the purposes of certifying the Acela sets for 160mph commercial operation have been carried out in NJ, DE, MD, MA and RI over the last two weeks. There have been no attempts to create any speed records. It has been a carefully orchestrated set of tests as needed for the certification program.

Two weeks back test were in NJ (County to Ham 160mph), DE/MD (Ragan to Prince 169.2mph). Last week tests were up north and at speed upto 170mph. Last night tests were back in NJ with a goal of upto 170mph. Apparently even though FRA requires 165, Amtrak will be testing upto 170.

2. The new substation at Ham for which design was ready is moving ahead with contract letting this month. Design work on the Adams substation is proceeding. Design work is also going on apace for the Metuchen converter station. Equipment/technology choice will be made in the near future as contracts are finalized.

3. They are facing considerable problem with the "Buy American" stipulation since the following equipment is not manufactured in US any more:

a. High speed catenary cables

b. HV catenary mounting systems

c. High speed switches

d. Frequency Converters

They are trying to work out a combination of special case manufacturing in the US and waivers, both of which are increasing the overall cost of the project and causing potential delays.

4. Track centers will be increased at Delco and Adams to 15' at the interlocking to accommodate high speed crossovers. Track center at Midway will be increased to 13' to accommodate new higher speed crossovers.

5. For electrification some 1200 to 1300 new masts will be installed. All foundation work to be done in 2013, together with some mast installation. A large proportion of them will have solid crossbeams connecting masts on two sides of the RoW to form a solid suspension portal for the OHE. Span length will be some 200' to 230', which is shorter than it is now.. Some existing masts will also be used. 30% of the existing masts require non-trivial foundation repair work. Catenary will look like standard European CT constructions on HSRs, similar to what is found in the new electrification east of New Haven. However, the actual design is in the process of being finalized.

6. 2013 will be mostly foundation prep work and very little track work. Starting 2014, for each construction season of 10 months (2014 - 2017), one track will be taken out of service for the period to upgrade track, do switch replacements and install new catenary, starting with track 1 in 2014. There will be some schedule impact, details of which are being worked now using simulations. There will not be any general service outage through the whole process, and schedule impacts will be kept to a minimum.

II. Then Theresa gave a very comprehensive presentation of how the safety case is being worked to (a) get certification for 160mph operation of Tier II Acelas and (b) work being done towards getting the most out of mixed operation of Tier I, Tier II and Tier III on the NEC. FRA pparently has agree that because of the nature of the NEC, general rules will not apply. There will be special rules specified for the NEC with separate safety case for NEC operations.

1. The basic speed tests will be concluded this year. Early next year they will start full PTC (ACSES + Radio) tests certifying the PTC for 160mph ops.

2. Once that is achieved it is very likely that speeds in MA and RI will be upped to 160 mph sometime in the second half of 2013.

3. MIL-STD-882 is being used for the Hazard Analysis aspect of the Safety Case.

4. There will be no more acquisition of Tier II equipment beyond the proposed 40 car acquisition for Acelas. All further HS acquisition will be Tier III equipment which will be basically off the shelf European (UIC compliant) equipment with very minor modifications for meeting FRA Tier III regs. So odd ly enough Tier III buff strnegth will potentially be less than even Tier I buff strength, but they will have much more sophisticated Crash Energy Management System.

5. The project to allow freight PTC equipped equipment to operate under ACSES based PTC with special radio overlay to interface with them is coming along well.

6. The exact test and certification areas for 160mph at present are:

a. DE/MD Bacon[MP 51.0] - Ragan[MP 29.7]

b. NJ Ham[MP 55.7] - County[MP 32.8]

c. RI MP 151.3 - MP 180.5

d. MA Mansfield [MP 190.5] - Transfer[MP 218.3]

Of these currently there is no funding in place to upgrade catenary in segment (a) above. Segments ( c ) and (d) will get the higher speed as early as late 2013 upon completion of PTC certification. Segment (b) will get it in 2017, upon completion of infrastructure upgrades.

7. Infrastructure upgrades following the same technique as used in the first NJ segment will first be applied to Morris to Holmes (between Trenton and Philly) in PA and County to Lincoln in NJ increasing speed but not necessarily all the way to 160, as funds become available.

8. Tier III specification and operating procedures for NEC development work is proceeding apace. No Tier III equipment can be ordered until this work is completed.

 

[PRR 60]

Al Fazio who was the originally scheduled speaker got held up in meetings at HQ. He was substituted by two speakers - Jim Buechler, Program Director for NEC HSR Program and Theresa Impostato, Director of System Safety, and we got two presentations instead of one.

...

3. They are facing considerable problem with the "Buy American" stipulation since the following equipment is not manufactured in US any more:

a. High speed catenary cables

b. HV catenary mounting systems

c. High speed switches

d. Frequency Converters

They are trying to work out a combination of special case manufacturing in the US and waivers, both of which are increasing the overall cost of the project and causing potential delays.

...

I'm thinking that 138kV power transformers are also an issue. I'm not aware of any domestic source of high voltage transformers.

...

5. For electrification some 1200 to 1300 new masts will be installed. All foundation work to be done in 2013, together with some mast installation. A large proportion of them will have solid crossbeams connecting masts on two sides of the RoW to form a solid suspension portal for the OHE. Span length will be some 200' to 230', which is shorter than it is now.. Some existing masts will also be used. 30% of the existing masts require non-trivial foundation repair work. Catenary will look like standard European CT constructions on HSRs, similar to what is found in the new electrification east of New Haven. However, the actual design is in the process of being finalized.

...

That is actually not much different than the existing catenary support system where the spans average 225 feet. One problem is that the existing structures were designed using methodologies and load application assumptions that are not generally recognized today. When conventional structural analysis programs are used to investigate the existing structures, the results show they fail. Now, 75 years of real world experience says they are OK, and there are a few of us who know how those structures work and can do the calcs, but when additional conductors or loads are applied for new construction, it is often not possible to prove the structures adequate.

1300 structures x about $100k each = $130 million. That's a big hunk of the budget right there.

 

[jis]

That is actually not much different than the existing catenary support system where the spans average 225 feet. One problem is that the existing structures were designed using methodologies and load application assumptions that are not generally recognized today. When conventional structural analysis programs are used to investigate the existing structures, the results show they fail. Now, 75 years of real world experience says they are OK, and there are a few of us who know how those structures work and can do the calcs, but when additional conductors or loads are applied for new construction, it is often not possible to prove the structures adequate.

1300 structures x about $100k each = $130 million. That's a big hunk of the budget right there.

There was this other discussion that I did not mention about whether they will place the new posts farther from the track to make room for future track center spreading. That determination is to be made by the end of this year when the Volpe Center studies on what the absolute minimum acceptable is for 220mph is completed. For now the 15' stipulated by FRA for California is not backed up by much concrete study in the US. The Europeans themselves are all over the place in terms of what they stipulate, and they do not stipulate anything for classic line adaptation for such speeds since they don't have any. Their specs are all for green field.

On the whole the Tiers I, II and III intermingled operation and the safety case for that is going to be complex and will be worth watching closely. At least now I know who to talk to when I need to find out what is going on.

On the $130 million, they figure they have to spend about half of that anyway to shore up the current infrastructure if they figured out a way to use it. And additionally they will need to put cross beams across each post pair, since they will not accept cross hangers to hang the catenary from anymore. So you are looking at $80 to $100 million minimum anyway. But the issue of future track center comes up complicating matters. The other complicating factor is that the posts also carry HT lines above, which makes their replacement more expensive than if they just had to carry electrification OHE. So initially they may just move the OHE to new posts and leave the old posts in place for now carrying the HT lines. These are all possibilities that they have to take into consideration when putting together the plan. They expect to have the electrification modification plans done by the end of the year so that they can let contracts to start foundation work next year's construction season.

 

[afigg]

Thanks for posting the summary of the presentation.

3. They are facing considerable problem with the "Buy American" stipulation since the following equipment is not manufactured in US any more:

a. High speed catenary cables

b. HV catenary mounting systems

c. High speed switches

d. Frequency Converters

They are trying to work out a combination of special case manufacturing in the US and waivers, both of which are increasing the overall cost of the project and causing potential delays.

That is something to be concerned about. Getting waivers could get political. I can see it now in a political campaign: " My opponent voted for a bill with 100% Buy American requirements but with loopholes. My bill will have a 110% Buy American Clause!"

6. The exact test and certification areas for 160mph at present are:

a. DE/MD Bacon[MP 51.0] - Ragan[MP 29.7]

b. NJ Ham[MP 55.7] - County[MP 32.8]

c. RI MP 151.3 - MP 180.5

d. MA Mansfield [MP 190.5] - Transfer[MP 218.3]

Of these currently there is no funding in place to upgrade catenary in segment (a) above. Segments ( c ) and (d) will get the higher speed as early as late 2013 upon completion of PTC certification. Segment (b) will get it in 2017, upon completion of infrastructure upgrades.

I expect railfans will take the Acela just for the 160 mph if that gets approved and of course the Amtrak PR department will milk the 160 mph segment for every ounce of positive publicity they can.

Wonder the estimated cost is upgrading the Bacon to Ragan segment? If the speed is 150 to 160 mph through the Newark DE station, that will be another spot for videos of Acelas blasting through on the center tracks.

 

[Anderson]

I think it might be possible to dodge some of that with some sort of "conditional waiver". Of course, I also wouldn't be surprised if they manage to attract a builder at some extra cost...the order would be for about 40 sets, right? That's enough to get some economies of scale, and if DX/XW manages to, in some universe, expand beyond their initial line (and/or CAHSR actually works out and/or JR Central's project happens), that could easily provide demand for another 40 sets or so. Would orders for 80 sets worth of equipment be worth a factory in the US?

 

[PRR 60]

I think it might be possible to dodge some of that with some sort of "conditional waiver". Of course, I also wouldn't be surprised if they manage to attract a builder at some extra cost...the order would be for about 40 sets, right? That's enough to get some economies of scale, and if DX/XW manages to, in some universe, expand beyond their initial line (and/or CAHSR actually works out and/or JR Central's project happens), that could easily provide demand for another 40 sets or so. Would orders for 80 sets worth of equipment be worth a factory in the US?

Sets? Sets of what?

 

[Anderson]

I think it might be possible to dodge some of that with some sort of "conditional waiver". Of course, I also wouldn't be surprised if they manage to attract a builder at some extra cost...the order would be for about 40 sets, right? That's enough to get some economies of scale, and if DX/XW manages to, in some universe, expand beyond their initial line (and/or CAHSR actually works out and/or JR Central's project happens), that could easily provide demand for another 40 sets or so. Would orders for 80 sets worth of equipment be worth a factory in the US?

Sets? Sets of what?

HSR equipment.

And on the one hand, I got mixed up on subjects; on the other hand, with multiple projects in the mix, the NEC at least isn't an "isolate" and it might be possible to get a domestic manufacturer.

 

[PRR 60]

I think it might be possible to dodge some of that with some sort of "conditional waiver". Of course, I also wouldn't be surprised if they manage to attract a builder at some extra cost...the order would be for about 40 sets, right? That's enough to get some economies of scale, and if DX/XW manages to, in some universe, expand beyond their initial line (and/or CAHSR actually works out and/or JR Central's project happens), that could easily provide demand for another 40 sets or so. Would orders for 80 sets worth of equipment be worth a factory in the US?

Sets? Sets of what?

HSR equipment.

And on the one hand, I got mixed up on subjects; on the other hand, with multiple projects in the mix, the NEC at least isn't an "isolate" and it might be possible to get a domestic manufacturer.

OK. Since this is about the infrastructure stuff, you had me confused. That is not that difficult!

 

[Paulus]

I think it might be possible to dodge some of that with some sort of "conditional waiver". Of course, I also wouldn't be surprised if they manage to attract a builder at some extra cost...the order would be for about 40 sets, right? That's enough to get some economies of scale, and if DX/XW manages to, in some universe, expand beyond their initial line (and/or CAHSR actually works out and/or JR Central's project happens), that could easily provide demand for another 40 sets or so. Would orders for 80 sets worth of equipment be worth a factory in the US?

Certainly, that's about $2.5 billion of business, more than enough to attract a domestic factory (especially in the hopes of future business as well). You could do it independently of CAHSR and XpressWest though by combining the Amfleet replacement with the Acela replacement. Switch out all NEC trains to high speed sets with service differentiation based on number of stops (and possibly with some different train interiors; some outfitted 1st/Business and others Business/Coach, though I'd prefer for all Business/Coach).

I think it might be possible to dodge some of that with some sort of "conditional waiver". Of course, I also wouldn't be surprised if they manage to attract a builder at some extra cost...the order would be for about 40 sets, right? That's enough to get some economies of scale, and if DX/XW manages to, in some universe, expand beyond their initial line (and/or CAHSR actually works out and/or JR Central's project happens), that could easily provide demand for another 40 sets or so. Would orders for 80 sets worth of equipment be worth a factory in the US?

Sets? Sets of what?

High speed train sets.

 

[PRR 60]

I think it might be possible to dodge some of that with some sort of "conditional waiver". Of course, I also wouldn't be surprised if they manage to attract a builder at some extra cost...the order would be for about 40 sets, right? That's enough to get some economies of scale, and if DX/XW manages to, in some universe, expand beyond their initial line (and/or CAHSR actually works out and/or JR Central's project happens), that could easily provide demand for another 40 sets or so. Would orders for 80 sets worth of equipment be worth a factory in the US?

Certainly, that's about $2.5 billion of business, more than enough to attract a domestic factory (especially in the hopes of future business as well). You could do it independently of CAHSR and XpressWest though by combining the Amfleet replacement with the Acela replacement. Switch out all NEC trains to high speed sets with service differentiation based on number of stops (and possibly with some different train interiors; some outfitted 1st/Business and others Business/Coach, though I'd prefer for all Business/Coach).

I think it might be possible to dodge some of that with some sort of "conditional waiver". Of course, I also wouldn't be surprised if they manage to attract a builder at some extra cost...the order would be for about 40 sets, right? That's enough to get some economies of scale, and if DX/XW manages to, in some universe, expand beyond their initial line (and/or CAHSR actually works out and/or JR Central's project happens), that could easily provide demand for another 40 sets or so. Would orders for 80 sets worth of equipment be worth a factory in the US?

Sets? Sets of what?

High speed train sets.

The domestic content issues referenced by jis in this topic is about components related to the NJ infrastructure project, not trainsets.

 

[Anderson]

Yeah, I realized that after the fact...but note that the issue with the NJ project would seem, in the long run, to be a hurdle for CAHSR (and Lord only knows whether DX/XW will run into a similar hurdle since there, the deal is a loan instead of a grant).

 

[Nathanael]

"d. Frequency Converters"

Uhhh, how about switching the NEC over to 60Hz as has been planned for a long time?

 

[Anthony]

"d. Frequency Converters"

Uhhh, how about switching the NEC over to 60Hz as has been planned for a long time?

Uhhh, how about registering as a member here so the forum staff can stop approving every single one of your posts each time?

 

[George Harris]

There was this other discussion that I did not mention about whether they will place the new posts farther from the track to make room for future track center spreading. That determination is to be made by the end of this year when the Volpe Center studies on what the absolute minimum acceptable is for 220mph is completed. For now the 15' stipulated by FRA for California is not backed up by much concrete study in the US. The Europeans themselves are all over the place in terms of what they stipulate, and they do not stipulate anything for classic line adaptation for such speeds since they don't have any. Their specs are all for green field.

For CAHSR the standard is 16.50 feet, which can be seen on a lot of the on-line typical sections. That is a rough approximation of 5 meters, which is exactly 16.40 feet.

Common numbers used in other places have been 4.3 meters = 14.11 feet, in Taiwan, 4.5 meters = 14.76 feet, 4.7 meters = 16.40. When it comes to existing tracks, 4 meters down is the norm. Four meters is 13.12 feet.

For perspective, track centers on much of the US railroad system are 13 feet to 13.50 feet, but no one builds them that close now. The usual is no less than 14 feet, with most at 15 feet or wider. Right of way avavilable, the preference in the west is 20 to 25 feet. My understanding is that quite a bit of the Northeast corridor is at somewhere in the 12.5 to 12.75 feet range.

 

[AlanB]

Uhhh, how about switching the NEC over to 60Hz as has been planned for a long time?

That plan died a while ago, back when Amtrak built the new solid state Richmond converter plant. Richmond, which opened around 2002 or so, supplies 180 MW of the total 354 MW capacity of the various stations along the NEC. No one is going to throw away a 10-year-old multi-Million dollar plant that supplies more than half the power to the NEC any time soon to convert to 60Hz.

 

[Acela150]

"d. Frequency Converters"

Uhhh, how about switching the NEC over to 60Hz as has been planned for a long time?

Uhhh, how about registering as a member here so the forum staff can stop approving every single one of your posts each time?

Seconded, there are already enough guests posts and someone that uses the forum on the regular basis as a guest please be considerate and join our forum. There is no charge. And you will have much more then you do now as a guest.

 

[PRR 60]

"d. Frequency Converters"

Uhhh, how about switching the NEC over to 60Hz as has been planned for a long time?

That plan died 30 years ago. The cost of converting the entire system to 60Hz far, far exceeded the cost of retaining and renewing 25Hz supply, transmission and distribution.

 

[jis]

I think it might be possible to dodge some of that with some sort of "conditional waiver". Of course, I also wouldn't be surprised if they manage to attract a builder at some extra cost...the order would be for about 40 sets, right? That's enough to get some economies of scale, and if DX/XW manages to, in some universe, expand beyond their initial line (and/or CAHSR actually works out and/or JR Central's project happens), that could easily provide demand for another 40 sets or so. Would orders for 80 sets worth of equipment be worth a factory in the US?

Certainly, that's about $2.5 billion of business, more than enough to attract a domestic factory (especially in the hopes of future business as well). You could do it independently of CAHSR and XpressWest though by combining the Amfleet replacement with the Acela replacement. Switch out all NEC trains to high speed sets with service differentiation based on number of stops (and possibly with some different train interiors; some outfitted 1st/Business and others Business/Coach, though I'd prefer for all Business/Coach).

That is not what is planned at present. The Acela II order will not be before the end of the decade as it looks now. It will take them at least upto 2017 or so to settle the safety case issues and finalize Tier III waiver rules for the NEC. Without those Tier III trains will not be allowed to operate at more than 125mph when mixed with Tier I (Regional, MNRR, MBTA, Shore Line East, NJT, MARC, SEPTA and VRE), Tier II (Acela) sets, which means they will mostly be stuck running at 125 mph on the corridor while Acelas whiz by them at 160mph. The beating that Amtrak will take in the press should that come to pass, itself would be sufficient reason to not go there. Hence nothing before 2017.

 

[jis]

Yeah, I realized that after the fact...but note that the issue with the NJ project would seem, in the long run, to be a hurdle for CAHSR (and Lord only knows whether DX/XW will run into a similar hurdle since there, the deal is a loan instead of a grant).

It will be a relatively minor issue for CAHSR because they will have very significant exclusive RoW, unlike on the NEC. I have no clue what DX/XW will do. From what I understood CAHSR does not consider it a big enough problem to be working with Amtrak on addressing the issue of mixing I and III as energetically as Amtrak is. Of course they do not have the problem of mixing II and III which throws an extra complexity in the safety case for the NEC.

Incidentally, FRA is also yet to spell out exactly what an "exclusive RoW" is in the vicinity of other tracks. They have a pretty good idea what it is in the middle of nowhere with nothing else around, but then who doesn't?

Actually I really enjoyed the sidebar chat that I had with the lady who gave the talk on the Safety Case. Got an appreciation of how complex the issues involved are technically as well as politically.

 

[jis]

There was this other discussion that I did not mention about whether they will place the new posts farther from the track to make room for future track center spreading. That determination is to be made by the end of this year when the Volpe Center studies on what the absolute minimum acceptable is for 220mph is completed. For now the 15' stipulated by FRA for California is not backed up by much concrete study in the US. The Europeans themselves are all over the place in terms of what they stipulate, and they do not stipulate anything for classic line adaptation for such speeds since they don't have any. Their specs are all for green field.

For CAHSR the standard is 16.50 feet, which can be seen on a lot of the on-line typical sections. That is a rough approximation of 5 meters, which is exactly 16.40 feet.

Common numbers used in other places have been 4.3 meters = 14.11 feet, in Taiwan, 4.5 meters = 14.76 feet, 4.7 meters = 16.40. When it comes to existing tracks, 4 meters down is the norm. Four meters is 13.12 feet.

For perspective, track centers on much of the US railroad system are 13 feet to 13.50 feet, but no one builds them that close now. The usual is no less than 14 feet, with most at 15 feet or wider. Right of way avavilable, the preference in the west is 20 to 25 feet. My understanding is that quite a bit of the Northeast corridor is at somewhere in the 12.5 to 12.75 feet range.

George. Thanks! As usual very good info.

Track centers in NJ at present are 12' to 12.5'. Volpe research suggests that aerodynamic issues are manageable at 12.3'. Greater problem as far as safety case goes has to do with interference due to derailment or shifted load in freight. One significant possibility being considered is temporal separation of freight on NEC to address it partly, though the general derailment interference issue is not wholly addressed. In any case the whole thing is about mitigation and probabilities. So we'll see where it all goes. It sounded very much like they will settle for something like 13' to 14' at the end of the day on existing RoW. That in and of itself will take considerable amount of wetland mitigation apparently given where a lot of the current RoW is. And then there are other odd problems like communicationc able easments along the Row that could need to be moved etc.

 

[Paulus]

I think it might be possible to dodge some of that with some sort of "conditional waiver". Of course, I also wouldn't be surprised if they manage to attract a builder at some extra cost...the order would be for about 40 sets, right? That's enough to get some economies of scale, and if DX/XW manages to, in some universe, expand beyond their initial line (and/or CAHSR actually works out and/or JR Central's project happens), that could easily provide demand for another 40 sets or so. Would orders for 80 sets worth of equipment be worth a factory in the US?

Certainly, that's about $2.5 billion of business, more than enough to attract a domestic factory (especially in the hopes of future business as well). You could do it independently of CAHSR and XpressWest though by combining the Amfleet replacement with the Acela replacement. Switch out all NEC trains to high speed sets with service differentiation based on number of stops (and possibly with some different train interiors; some outfitted 1st/Business and others Business/Coach, though I'd prefer for all Business/Coach).

That is not what is planned at present.

I'm aware that that's not what is planned, it was a suggestion on how to change the current plans to get the economy of scale and domestic manufacturing with only the NEC. Right now the Amfleet I is supposed to be replaced over the 2018-2028 timeframe while the NextGen HSR plans want 12 high speed sets in 2020 and another 32 in 2025 (which are highly overpriced in the current planning). Push back the Amfleet replacement program a couple of years, which is easily doable, and combine with the Tier III HST purchase (so instead of a loco-hauled NERegional, you gradually Acelafy the entire NEC). You get a large enough order for economies of scale and to make domestic manufacturing worthwhile without having to do joint purchase orders with CAHSR or XpressWest (which would be iffy anyhow due to different platform heights).

 

[George Harris]

There was this other discussion that I did not mention about whether they will place the new posts farther from the track to make room for future track center spreading. That determination is to be made by the end of this year when the Volpe Center studies on what the absolute minimum acceptable is for 220mph is completed. For now the 15' stipulated by FRA for California is not backed up by much concrete study in the US. The Europeans themselves are all over the place in terms of what they stipulate, and they do not stipulate anything for classic line adaptation for such speeds since they don't have any. Their specs are all for green field.

For CAHSR the standard is 16.50 feet, which can be seen on a lot of the on-line typical sections. That is a rough approximation of 5 meters, which is exactly 16.40 feet.

Common numbers used in other places have been 4.3 meters = 14.11 feet, in Taiwan, 4.5 meters = 14.76 feet, 4.7 meters = 16.40. When it comes to existing tracks, 4 meters down is the norm. Four meters is 13.12 feet.

For perspective, track centers on much of the US railroad system are 13 feet to 13.50 feet, but no one builds them that close now. The usual is no less than 14 feet, with most at 15 feet or wider. Right of way avavilable, the preference in the west is 20 to 25 feet. My understanding is that quite a bit of the Northeast corridor is at somewhere in the 12.5 to 12.75 feet range.

George. Thanks! As usual very good info.

Track centers in NJ at present are 12' to 12.5'. Volpe research suggests that aerodynamic issues are manageable at 12.3'. Greater problem as far as safety case goes has to do with interference due to derailment or shifted load in freight. One significant possibility being considered is temporal separation of freight on NEC to address it partly, though the general derailment interference issue is not wholly addressed. In any case the whole thing is about mitigation and probabilities. So we'll see where it all goes. It sounded very much like they will settle for something like 13' to 14' at the end of the day on existing RoW. That in and of itself will take considerable amount of wetland mitigation apparently given where a lot of the current RoW is. And then there are other odd problems like communicationc able easments along the Row that could need to be moved etc.

To have built at 12 feet at any time is simply nuts. To give a prespective, the various freight car "Plates" are all 10'-8", which usually means about 10 feet over the body. The Amtrak clearance diagram is 10'-6", presumably over grab irons, and 10'-0" over what I suspect as being the body. The Dynamic Outlne, in otherword the limit of sway, etc. is 11'-4". That doesn't leave much air between trains. Think of the standard highway lane as being 12 feet wide and the maximum truck width without permits as being 8'-6".

Here is a paper showing 5 meter track centers on the high speed lines in China: http://www.egr.msu.edu/~hunan2/_doc/c9.pdf

My own opinion is that if you have to start moving tracks out at all to get decent track centers you have to move so many things that you might as well go ahead and get good spacing, not just barely to get away with what you want to do right now.

 

[jis]

To have built at 12 feet at any time is simply nuts. To give a prespective, the various freight car "Plates" are all 10'-8", which usually means about 10 feet over the body. The Amtrak clearance diagram is 10'-6", presumably over grab irons, and 10'-0" over what I suspect as being the body. The Dynamic Outlne, in otherword the limit of sway, etc. is 11'-4". That doesn't leave much air between trains. Think of the standard highway lane as being 12 feet wide and the maximum truck width without permits as being 8'-6".

Here is a paper showing 5 meter track centers on the high speed lines in China: http://www.egr.msu.edu/~hunan2/_doc/c9.pdf

My own opinion is that if you have to start moving tracks out at all to get decent track centers you have to move so many things that you might as well go ahead and get good spacing, not just barely to get away with what you want to do right now.

Good point. Anyway they got what they got, and they have the resources such as they are. They will have to figure out what to do within those constraints, and hopefully they will be competent enough this time not to get taken to the cleaners by the contractors, like they were with the New Haven - Boston upgrades. But then again, it is PB helping them project manage this one. So the next act of the opera begins

 

[NE933]

and hopefully they will be competent enough this time not to get taken to the cleaners by the contractors, like they were with the New Haven - Boston upgrades.

Would you kindly explain about what happen during the electrification project? I've never understood it completely, bits of piecemeal info about contractor overpayments and the use of bad quality materials. But since I seldom hear of catenary failures New Haven to Boston, I don't get it.

 

[jis]

The biggest problem was huge cost overrun and major schedule slippage..... Both caused by very poor project management. Indeed the last bits of the original project was finally completed last year, or was it early this year, the electrification of the third track into Boston.