Richmond, VA - Gimme the skinny....

[Joel N. Weber II]

As a matter of fact Drew Galloway quipped that in this day and age he cannot imagine why anyone would build a tunnel with less that Plate H clearance, since the cost difference between a Plate H clearance tunnel and something smaller is not that enormous.

AFAIK, the Massachusetts bridge clearance standard is (and has been for the last few decades) Plate H assuming that electrification will never be used on freight / commuter rail.

I can't imagine why new construction would have inadequate clearance for Plate H under catenary these days, though there seem to be plenty of people who think diesel is perfectly adequate for addressing the problems with the vanishing ice at the poles.

 

[George Harris]

Is Plate H double stack freight?

Yes. It is 20'-2" high. (Maybe 20'-3" I am giving this from memory.) Generally, the railroads want 23'-0" clear above the top of rail with anything new. I think that will likely be height of wire they would want.

 

[user 1215]

So much varied conversation up there that I won't attempt to quote.

If Richmond becomes the new DC for Electric terminus, what would that do? Can Richmond handle taking over the diesel-electic crossover? Would other trains that currently term in DC now be continued to Richmond? OR, would only the affected trains be converted to electric in Richmond and the rest of the schedule remain the same? And, if so, would the layover currently in DC on the trains that go through Richmond be eliminated because they'll be laying over longer in Richmond?

AHHHHH!!! QUESTIONS!!!!

 

[Rafi]

Everything at this point is mere speculation, but if I were to take that bait and throw my best educated guess out, it would be this:

-CSX is NOT going to just say, "hey, send all of your Acela and NEC trains on down to Richmond on our tracks" just because WAS-RVR gets electrified. Instead, I think what you'll see at first is a migration of the WAS-RVR trains to electric engines (eliminating the 30 min layover in DC and making it a 10-15 min layover for a crew change). After that, you may start seeing some of the LD trains and/or the NPN trains take their electric engines to RVR and switch to Diesel, but that means new switching crews in Richmond and additional infrastructure to store the equipment. The Acela won't make its way south until new high platforms are constructed at the stations where Amtrak wants to stop, and that's a major expenditure. I don't think you'll see Acela down to Richmond until Main Street becomes the primary hub, but again, that's just conjecture.

Rafi

 

[volkris]

That was one of my questions too: would it be electric to main street station or just to RVR, and if main street station becomes a place to switch over to diesel would that involve reopening and restoring main street's train shed?

I know, there are no answers yet, but the possible changes to the operations in the area are pretty significant.

 

[jis]

That was one of my questions too: would it be electric to main street station or just to RVR, and if main street station becomes a place to switch over to diesel would that involve reopening and restoring main street's train shed?
I know, there are no answers yet, but the possible changes to the operations in the area are pretty significant.

Indeed, the changes are significant,and also one must remember the funds needed to get there are also significant.

I think the most important part of the message that I heard this weekend is that Amtrak will remain on RF&P and will not be moved over to the ex-C&O Doswell Sub.

The rest will happen over time.

 

[user 1215]

Sorry to hijack this thread, but real quick - as long as we're talking about Richmond - does anyone know the cabbie rates out of Staples Mill Rd station?

 

[George Harris]

The Acela won't make its way south until new high platforms are constructed at the stations where Amtrak wants to stop, and that's a major expenditure. I don't think you'll see Acela down to Richmond until Main Street becomes the primary hub, but again, that's just conjecture.
Rafi

And you are unlikely to see high platforms next to the RF&P main tracks. No way is CSX (or any other freight carrier) going to be willing to go along with car floor level platfroms close enough to the track to satisfy ADA gap requirements ( less than or equal to 3 inches) between platform and edge of doorway opening.

 

[volkris]

And you are unlikely to see high platforms next to the RF&P main tracks. No way is CSX (or any other freight carrier) going to be willing to go along with car floor level platfroms close enough to the track to satisfy ADA gap requirements ( less than or equal to 3 inches) between platform and edge of doorway opening.

But if they reopen the main street station train shed (where, from the pictures I've seen, passengers used to board) they could have the platforms there.

Maybe it's for the best that it would be pretty hard to get a station sidled up to a potentially HSR track: it keeps the local stops to a minimum.

 

[George Harris]

And you are unlikely to see high platforms next to the RF&P main tracks. No way is CSX (or any other freight carrier) going to be willing to go along with car floor level platfroms close enough to the track to satisfy ADA gap requirements ( less than or equal to 3 inches) between platform and edge of doorway opening.

But if they reopen the main street station train shed (where, from the pictures I've seen, passengers used to board) they could have the platforms there.

Maybe it's for the best that it would be pretty hard to get a station sidled up to a potentially HSR track: it keeps the local stops to a minimum.

There are ways. In true high speed systems for the most part trains do not make intermediate stops on the main line anyway. There is a station platform track that turns out ahead of the station location, goes past the platform and then turns back into the main line track. This surves two important purposes:

1. The platform is not adjacent to a track where trains will be moving at very high speeds. you cna literally get blown away.

2. A local train can sit a few minutes and be passed by a through train.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

-CSX is NOT going to just say, "hey, send all of your Acela and NEC trains on down to Richmond on our tracks" just because WAS-RVR gets electrified. Instead, I think what you'll see at first is a migration of the WAS-RVR trains to electric engines (eliminating the 30 min layover in DC and making it a 10-15 min layover for a crew change). After that, you may start seeing some of the LD trains and/or the NPN trains take their electric engines to RVR and switch to Diesel, but that means new switching crews in Richmond and additional infrastructure to store the equipment. The Acela won't make its way south until new high platforms are constructed at the stations where Amtrak wants to stop, and that's a major expenditure. I don't think you'll see Acela down to Richmond until Main Street becomes the primary hub, but again, that's just conjecture.

I'd been under the impression that building a handful of high level platforms, and even new sidings for them, is dirt cheap compared to electrifying 117 miles of mainline track.

Is there space at each of the two Richmond stations for adding another track to get a high level platform away from the freight mainline?

The other question is how much capacity CSX thinks those tracks have for more passenger trains.

And what about clearance through the tunnel south of WUS? Was the conclusion that with catenary, there's enough space for Amtrak's single level equipment and anything VRE might want to use, and that having Superliners (which I think are only an issue for the Capitol Limited) be north side only is OK?

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

There are ways. In true high speed systems for the most part trains do not make intermediate stops on the main line anyway. There is a station platform track that turns out ahead of the station location, goes past the platform and then turns back into the main line track. This surves two important purposes:1. The platform is not adjacent to a track where trains will be moving at very high speeds. you cna literally get blown away.

2. A local train can sit a few minutes and be passed by a through train.

I'm a little skeptical that's the best approach, though. The fundamental problem with that is that you typically end up with a station in the middle of nowhere.

I'm inclined to think that a better approach is to upgrade existing tracks within dense metro areas Acela style, and then at the edge of each city, connect those tracks to new true HSR alignments that perhaps simply do not have stops, but do provide connections to the upgraded track at the edge of other cities. Then, on a popular route, each train should go from one major city to one other major city, probably making multiple stops within each major city (especially to try to provide direct transfers to as many rail lines as possible, and perhaps to provide direct connections to airports where this doesn't require significant detours).

I do think there are cases where having a train visit multiple major cities makes sense; on the potential high speed transcon routes, there's really only a major city every two or three hours at 220 MPH anyway, and passenger loadings may not justify separate trains to each of those cities. Also, if places like New York City can have their trains run through, that can be leveraged to allow one seat rides (with the delay of going through New York City) for some minor city pairs that wouldn't justify dedicated trains that didn't also have the side effect of carrying passengers between each of those cities and New York City.

 

[George Harris]

We are talking existing railroad through a heavily populated area, not new line with "middle of no where" stations carrying the name of city somewhere in the same region. For intermediate stations, we would be talking paces like Fredericksburg, primarily, and maybe Quantico. those that are currently primarily commuter stops, such as Woodbridge, etc. would remain low level, but maybe on additional tracks so as to keep the commuter trains out of the way of the faster stuff.

Usually high speed lines run with a combinaiton of "local" and "express" trains. "Local" in quotations in this case as these trains are still really fast. The Taiwan High Speed local trains took 2 hours flat to cover 208 miles and made 6 intermediate stops in that distance. The Express trains made 2, one a suburban Taipei stop, and did the distance in 90 minutes. When done the California High Speed will cover the entire distance between San Francisco and Los Angeles in less than 3 hours. Don't know what is in the operating scheme, but would expect even the faster trains to make between 1 and all 3 of the following stops, San Jose, Fresno, and Bakersfield. "Locals" will have a few more.

Richmond Stations: Main Street probably only needs one freight track, or at most one on each side of the train shed. Don't know how many platform tracks were in the original, but certainly a few on each side. Back when it was the joint Seaboard and Chesapeake and Ohio station, SAL was on the west side and C&O was on the east side. Know nothing about the other one.

Edit: Forgot: Tunnel south out of Washington Union Station. This tunnel just barely clears the Superliners as is without electrification. There is a street overpass shortly south of the south end, so lowering the track may not be an option. Don't know what they are going to do there. I would think a 2 to 3 feet must be found somewhere. This on e will be interesting. Also: 12th street overpass near L"Enfant Plaza only allowed something like 16'-6" clear when these tracks were electrified for the Pennsy freight trains. Do not know what they will do there. Even if CSX has no hope for Plate H, they would surely want to be able to pass the Plate F (17'-0") equipment that clearance that they have now permits.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

those that are currently primarily commuter stops, such as Woodbridge, etc. would remain low level, but maybe on additional tracks so as to keep the commuter trains out of the way of the faster stuff.

If you're going to all the expense of adding a siding and electrifying it, is avoiding full length high level platforms really a major cost savings? I believe the plan for T F Green Airport Station is that it will be on a non-electrified siding, and money has been cited as a concern with electrification there.

 

[Ryan]

Crazy thought that I don't think would work (but am too clueless to know the multiple reasons why).

Forget putting wires up between the platforms at WAS and L'Enfant Plaza. Use a yard switcher to shove the train through the tunnel and under 12th street, then stop, dump the switcher off the tail end, put up the pan, and off to Richmond.

I've seen trains moved like that through the yard in WAS (yard switchers pulling cars back to the yard leaving the electric motor alone closest to the station, and trains with the electric power on the north end being backed into the platforms), but I'd imagine that such a move would be nonlegal with revenue pax onboard?

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

That was one of my questions too: would it be electric to main street station or just to RVR, and if main street station becomes a place to switch over to diesel would that involve reopening and restoring main street's train shed?

Is Main Street Station's train shed the building north of E Main St and south of E Broad Street that takes up just about all of the width between the tracks on the two sides? If so, it looks to me like that building is only about 300-400 feet long, which makes it shorter than, say, an Acela trainset (which with cars about 87.5 feet long, is about 525 feet not including the locomotives).

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Crazy thought that I don't think would work (but am too clueless to know the multiple reasons why).
Forget putting wires up between the platforms at WAS and L'Enfant Plaza. Use a yard switcher to shove the train through the tunnel and under 12th street, then stop, dump the switcher off the tail end, put up the pan, and off to Richmond.

I've seen trains moved like that through the yard in WAS (yard switchers pulling cars back to the yard leaving the electric motor alone closest to the station, and trains with the electric power on the north end being backed into the platforms), but I'd imagine that such a move would be nonlegal with revenue pax onboard?

The big downside to this is that you have to spend time doing a break test when connecting and disconnecting the switcher, so you add significant delays.

There's also a question of whether adding lots more diesel trains through that tunnel will degrade air quality in the tunnel to a point where something expensive would have to be done about it. It is certainly the case that some have expressed concern about the air quality in Back Bay Station due to all the diesel exhaust.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Now, this may be confusing at first, so let me start by explaining that Broad Street Station was designed such that all trains at platform level were positioned the SAME WAY REGARDLESS OF DIRECTION OF TRAVEL. This made for a very smart looking operation, but my understanding is that it also aided in baggage handling, as all of the baggage cars were lined up and bags could be transferred easily that way. It also made for a very efficient method to dispatch trains back onto the mainline in the proper direction by using the loop track.

If through revenue trains were going to come back to Broad Street Station, there's no reason why trains would always have to be same direction at the station itself in the future, AFAIK. If you only have to connect the south/east side of the loop to the mainline in one direction, that should make the problem slightly less impossible.

As things stand now, Broad Street station has had it east/south half of the loop taken away and parking lots and office buildings now occupying the space needed.

That might depend on what you think the minimum curve radius is and how easy taking parking lots for rail use is. I suspect if you insist on a minimum curve radius of 500' (which is very roughly what the curve between Back Bay and South Station is, judging from the satelite photos) you do need to demolish at least one building, but with 200' it's probably possible to not demolish any buildings if a train heading south out of the platform track ends up pointed north on the mainline.

Whether 200' radius curves are a good idea is another question. I believe the California HSR documents claim there's European equipment designed for a minimum curve radius of 493'. But I'm not sure what the downsides would be of demanding that rolling stock be able to deal with 200' radius curves.

I also doubt that buying and demolishing a couple of buildings costs anywhere near as much as electrifying 117 miles of track.

 

[AlanB]

The big downside to this is that you have to spend time doing a break test when connecting and disconnecting the switcher, so you add significant delays.

I'm not really sure why Amtrak would need to test the crew about when they go on break, I'm sure that most of them would know. :lol: :lol:

However, a brake test does indeed slow things down, and that is required anytime you add or subtract cars or locos from a consist.

There's also a question of whether adding lots more diesel trains through that tunnel will degrade air quality in the tunnel to a point where something expensive would have to be done about it. It is certainly the case that some have expressed concern about the air quality in Back Bay Station due to all the diesel exhaust.

The air is already on the poor side and since they wouldn't be adding that many trains to the schedule going south, you won't be adding that many more diesels than already pass through.

 

[Rafi]

If through revenue trains were going to come back to Broad Street Station, there's no reason why trains would always have to be same direction at the station itself in the future, AFAIK. If you only have to connect the south/east side of the loop to the mainline in one direction, that should make the problem slightly less impossible.
That might depend on what you think the minimum curve radius is and how easy taking parking lots for rail use is. I suspect if you insist on a minimum curve radius of 500' (which is very roughly what the curve between Back Bay and South Station is, judging from the satelite photos) you do need to demolish at least one building, but with 200' it's probably possible to not demolish any buildings if a train heading south out of the platform track ends up pointed north on the mainline.

Whether 200' radius curves are a good idea is another question. I believe the California HSR documents claim there's European equipment designed for a minimum curve radius of 493'. But I'm not sure what the downsides would be of demanding that rolling stock be able to deal with 200' radius curves.

I also doubt that buying and demolishing a couple of buildings costs anywhere near as much as electrifying 117 miles of track.

I agree that Broad Street Station would make a fantastic High Speed Rail station stop candidate; it's off the main line, high platform construction would be easy to imagine there, and the station is built for heavy train and foot traffic. That said, if we really look at it realistically, it's just not going to happen without a major push from the Virginia government (you're talking about 5 grade crossings that have to be dealt with, you're talking about wiping out entire parking lots for buildings that you'd be dodging (and I don't think you can dodge all of those buildings unless you're talking Narrow Gauge--JOKING), and you're talking about severely impacting--if not shutting down--the Science Museum of Virginia. Couple that with the fact that Virginia has identified Main Street Station as the new hub, and Broad Street's just out of the question. That said, I WOULD like to see Broad Street get some more train traffic in the form of excursions or a dinner train. It's too beautiful of a station to turn its back to railroads entirely.

Rafi

 

[volkris]

Is Main Street Station's train shed the building north of E Main St and south of E Broad Street that takes up just about all of the width between the tracks on the two sides? If so, it looks to me like that building is only about 300-400 feet long, which makes it shorter than, say, an Acela trainset (which with cars about 87.5 feet long, is about 525 feet not including the locomotives).

Right, it's the big silver thing that dwarfs the station it's attached to in overhead pictures.

It seems long enough to be usable for some things now, but I bet they could extend the whole shed out over E Broad Street if the needed to.

 

[jis]

Forget putting wires up between the platforms at WAS and L'Enfant Plaza. Use a yard switcher to shove the train through the tunnel and under 12th street, then stop, dump the switcher off the tail end, put up the pan, and off to Richmond.

Why complicate life unnecessarily? I am sure overall it would be easier and more cost effective to install catenary or space lacking, ceiling rails in the Capitol hill Tunnel that depending on shenanigans suggested using switchers and what nots.

 

[Ryan]

Based on George's post it sounds like it's neither easier nor cost effective for catenary or ceiling rails. Looks like NO room for superliners in the Cap Tunnel, and only 6 inches to play with under the 12th street overpass, with the configuration not lending itself to lower the rails in either case.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

That said, if we really look at it realistically, it's just not going to happen without a major push from the Virginia government (you're talking about 5 grade crossings that have to be dealt with, you're talking about wiping out entire parking lots for buildings that you'd be dodging (and I don't think you can dodge all of those buildings unless you're talking Narrow Gauge--JOKING), and you're talking about severely impacting--if not shutting down--the Science Museum of Virginia.

Is that who owns the two big buildings in the block to the east of the station? If so, I'd think the taxpayers giving them a new building or two to replace the existing ones that happen to be in the way of where the tracks should go would be something that could be spun in a positive light of modernizing the museum or something. There are few museums that don't like getting new buildings. A parking garage could be thrown in to replace some of the lost space in the parking lots, too.

And would grade separating some of those crossings be possible?

But all that said, if Main Street Station is considered sufficient, it may turn out that none of this is worth doing. And I'm not sure if adding Broad Street Station has great value in terms of potential commuter rail to pedestrian connections.

The other thought I had is that tracks could probably be run down Broad Street from Broad Street Station to Main Street Station (possibly in a cut and cover tunnel), but then I'm not sure if it's practical to build a curve at Main Street Station to get those trains into the trainshed at Main Street Station.

 

[jis]

Tunnel south out of Washington Union Station. This tunnel just barely clears the Superliners as is without electrification. There is a street overpass shortly south of the south end, so lowering the track may not be an option. Don't know what they are going to do there. I would think a 2 to 3 feet must be found somewhere. This on e will be interesting. Also: 12th street overpass near L"Enfant Plaza only allowed something like 16'-6" clear when these tracks were electrified for the Pennsy freight trains. Do not know what they will do there. Even if CSX has no hope for Plate H, they would surely want to be able to pass the Plate F (17'-0") equipment that clearance that they have now permits.

Interesting point George. Is the track inside the tunnel on ballast or is it ballastless on the tunnel floor. If not the latter then there would possibly be 6+ inches to gain that way. Would be interesting to see what the study says about this matter. Afterall VRE also runs gallery cars on this route so sufficient clearance with electrification would be important. However, if you look at the situation in NYP, my suspicion is that they could do a 11kV electrification with as little as 1.5' clearance from train top to tunnel ceiling, perhaps a little less if ceiling rails are used with insulating sheets lining the ceiling.