VA rail APPROVED

[Philzy]

The new extension of the Northeast Corridor to Charlottesville and Lynchburg cleared its last hurdles receiving the final funding as can be read here in this article. Service should start around October 1st!

I’m curious, with the increase in service in Charlottesville will they raise the platform height to meet the car door height or at least like 6 inches to a foot up so that they don’t need that silly step stool? Off subject but how many station that aren’t in the NEC have platforms that are the height of the railcars doors?

Onto other interesting news… well sort of.

Interestingly enough… there is always someone who isn’t happy… You can’t please them all. In this article Shen Valley / Harrisonburg VA conservative (shocker there ain’t it?) state senator Mark Obenshain is criticizing the new Virginia train service. Mind you he only makes mention of the Lynchburg line extension. Not of the Richmond line extension which is getting quite a bit more funding…I made a happy comment to the article of course…

 

[battalion51]

I wouldn't hold your breath on raising platform heights. There's a lot more to building a platform than just slapping down six inches of concrete. :lol:

 

[AlanB]

Off subject but how many station that aren’t in the NEC have platforms that are the height of the railcars doors?

Only on the Keystone line and the Empire Corridor will you find some high level platforms, otherwise all other stations that Amtrak serves have low level platforms. And if the station is served by Superliner cars, it can't ever have high level platforms.

 

[volkris]

In this article Shen Valley / Harrisonburg VA conservative (shocker there ain’t it?) state senator Mark Obenshain is criticizing the new Virginia train service. Mind you he only makes mention of the Lynchburg line extension. Not of the Richmond line extension which is getting quite a bit more funding…I made a happy comment to the article of course…

It doesn't sound like he's criticizing the train service so much as criticizing reallocation of funds away from road upkeep to pay for it. Sounds like a pretty reasonable criticism to me: if you can't afford the current service, maybe it's not the right time to be promising new ones.

 

[wayman]

The new extension of the Northeast Corridor to Charlottesville and Lynchburg cleared its last hurdles receiving the final funding as can be read here in this article. Service should start around October 1st!

Thanks for keeping us all up to date on these developments over the past month, philzy!

That article calls this the "Piedmont service" twice, though it doesn't outright say "this is what it will be officially called". I'd be happy with this name for the state-service trains (at least, the ones going CVS-LYH and maybe continuing to ROA someday). If one of them ever becomes LD by linking through Tennessee, it should get an individual name, but Piedmont Service is a fine regional name.

It actually has a transportation connection recent enough that anyone over 30 from central Virginia will immediately recognize it: the only airline serving Lynchburg used to be Piedmont Airlines. Before it was bought by US Airways in 1987, everything in Lynchburg Regional Airport, all the planes serving it, etc, had Piedmont paint and logos. Nowadays, while it's technically still Piedmont Airlines (operating as a carrier owned by US Airways Express) everything is painted US Air; the Piedmont colors and logo haven't been seen in Lynchburg for twenty years.

I'm sure the train will have absolutely no outward resemblance at all to the airline, but just sharing the name will remind folks of the days of yore when flying was a little more comfortable and pleasant--it has positive travel associations for many Lynchburgers.

 

[the_traveler]

I’m curious, with the increase in service in Charlottesville will they raise the platform height to meet the car door height or at least like 6 inches to a foot up so that they don’t need that silly step stool?

IF they raise the platform at CVS and IF the Cardinal ever reverts to using Superliner cars - what then? :huh: Passengers could not get off - without climbing UP! (OK - the Cardinal and Crescent use 2 different tracks on 2 different sides of the station at CVS!)

 

[jis]

That article calls this the "Piedmont service" twice, though it doesn't outright say "this is what it will be officially called". I'd be happy with this name for the state-service trains (at least, the ones going CVS-LYH and maybe continuing to ROA someday). If one of them ever becomes LD by linking through Tennessee, it should get an individual name, but Piedmont Service is a fine regional name.

Could be a bit confusing with the Raleigh - Charlotte train already called the Piedmont.

 

[AlanB]

In this article Shen Valley / Harrisonburg VA conservative (shocker there ain’t it?) state senator Mark Obenshain is criticizing the new Virginia train service. Mind you he only makes mention of the Lynchburg line extension. Not of the Richmond line extension which is getting quite a bit more funding…I made a happy comment to the article of course…

It doesn't sound like he's criticizing the train service so much as criticizing reallocation of funds away from road upkeep to pay for it. Sounds like a pretty reasonable criticism to me: if you can't afford the current service, maybe it's not the right time to be promising new ones.

I don't think that reallocation is the correct word to be using here. It's not like someone came along after the budget was approved and said "let's take away X dollars to run Amtrak instead of doing these things." All the projects were in one big pot that when stirred found many other road items were approved, even though certain road things were not approved, as well as funding for Amtrak being approved. That's monies being allocated, not reallocated.

Besides, the Congressman didn't even do his math. He brings up the closing of rest areas that cost $12 Million annually and suggests that by some miracle taking away the $25 M divided over three years was somehow going to pay for three years of rest areas at $36 M for the same three year period.

And rest areas don't move people. They make it nicer to travel, but they don't move people anywhere. The point of spending this money is to move people.

 

[George Harris]

I’m curious, with the increase in service in Charlottesville will they raise the platform height to meet the car door height or at least like 6 inches to a foot up so that they don’t need that silly step stool? Off subject but how many station that aren’t in the NEC have platforms that are the height of the railcars doors?

Not going to happen. We are going from one each way to two each way a day on these tracks. Up as late as 1962 there were 8 daily passenger trains each way on these tracks. To go more than 8 inches above top of rail raises clearance issues. For the Northeast corridor there are alternatives for the high/wide freight that do not exist here.

 

[BobWeaver]

That article calls this the "Piedmont service" twice, though it doesn't outright say "this is what it will be officially called". I'd be happy with this name for the state-service trains (at least, the ones going CVS-LYH and maybe continuing to ROA someday). If one of them ever becomes LD by linking through Tennessee, it should get an individual name, but Piedmont Service is a fine regional name.

Could be a bit confusing with the Raleigh - Charlotte train already called the Piedmont.

I thought the same thing. Although, neither of the trains will have a common station, so perhaps it won't be that confusing in the end.

 

[jis]

I thought the same thing. Although, neither of the trains will have a common station, so perhaps it won't be that confusing in the end.

True. There is at least one example.... Capitol Corridor in California and Capitol Limited between Washington DC and Chicago.

 

[p&sr]

There is at least one example.... Capitol Corridor in California and Capitol Limited between Washington DC and Chicago.

Maybe having the Rocky Mountains between them helps us keep them straight?

 

[Philzy]

I’m curious, with the increase in service in Charlottesville will they raise the platform height to meet the car door height or at least like 6 inches to a foot up so that they don’t need that silly step stool?

IF they raise the platform at CVS and IF the Cardinal ever reverts to using Superliner cars - what then? :huh: Passengers could not get off - without climbing UP! (OK - the Cardinal and Crescent use 2 different tracks on 2 different sides of the station at CVS!)

This I too had thought of but I was asking more about the platform the NEC and Crescent would operate on which is the North-South platform with the Norfolk Southern tracks versus the East-West platform (which runs paralelle with West Main Street in Cville) which operates on the CSX tracks.

Not going to happen. We are going from one each way to two each way a day on these tracks. Up as late as 1962 there were 8 daily passenger trains each way on these tracks. To go more than 8 inches above top of rail raises clearance issues. For the Northeast corridor there are alternatives for the high/wide freight that do not exist here.

Sadly i figured this would prob be the case, maybe with an increase in ridership they'll put a platform on the other NS track?

 

[volkris]

I don't think that reallocation is the correct word to be using here.

It depends on which way you do the math, but the end result is the same: less money is going into maintenance of existing highway infrastructure and more into beginning new train service. Do the accounting however you want, but it's a reasonable observation.

Besides, the Congressman didn't even do his math. He brings up the closing of rest areas that cost $12 Million annually and suggests that by some miracle taking away the $25 M divided over three years was somehow going to pay for three years of rest areas at $36 M for the same three year period.

He made no such claim. He pointed out that highway funding was experiencing significant underfunding while this train service was taking a significant new expenditure. It's fine to disagree with the guy, but let's be clear about what we're disagreeing with.

And rest areas don't move people. They make it nicer to travel, but they don't move people anywhere. The point of spending this money is to move people.

It's not quite that simple. Rest areas DO plan an important part in highway infrastructure and are not just convenient luxuries, as the even the pro-train person interviewed recognized.

I can't help but notice the similarities between this and funding of rail over the past decade: we complain when funding is cut for maintenance of rail, noting that such cuts are actually step backwards and not just failing to grow the system, especially as highways are improved and extended. Well, here's the same thing happening in the other direction, and it's questionable for the exact same reasons.

 

[AlanB]

I don't think that reallocation is the correct word to be using here.

It depends on which way you do the math, but the end result is the same: less money is going into maintenance of existing highway infrastructure and more into beginning new train service. Do the accounting however you want, but it's a reasonable observation.

I'm not arguing that less money is going into the highway's, I fully concur with that. It is true. But again, reallocation implies that money originally marked for the highways was taken away from same and instead given to the trains. That did not happen here. Highways and trains, along with many other transportation items, competed for the limited dollars and this is how the nickels and dimes fell out.

Besides, the Congressman didn't even do his math. He brings up the closing of rest areas that cost $12 Million annually and suggests that by some miracle taking away the $25 M divided over three years was somehow going to pay for three years of rest areas at $36 M for the same three year period.

He made no such claim. He pointed out that highway funding was experiencing significant underfunding while this train service was taking a significant new expenditure. It's fine to disagree with the guy, but let's be clear about what we're disagreeing with.

I beg to disagree, from the article:

He suggested that the state could instead spend money on rest areas — VDOT has proposed closing 25 of them to save $12 million per year.

The "he" being the Congressman.

And rest areas don't move people. They make it nicer to travel, but they don't move people anywhere. The point of spending this money is to move people.

It's not quite that simple. Rest areas DO plan an important part in highway infrastructure and are not just convenient luxuries, as the even the pro-train person interviewed recognized.

I can't help but notice the similarities between this and funding of rail over the past decade: we complain when funding is cut for maintenance of rail, noting that such cuts are actually step backwards and not just failing to grow the system, especially as highways are improved and extended. Well, here's the same thing happening in the other direction, and it's questionable for the exact same reasons.

Well considering that for years we have funded things at such a disparate rates, maybe it is time for a bit of a turn around. And then there is the fact that for years RR's paid a tax on the diesel fuel that they purchased, with all those monies going into the HTF to help in part fund their competition.

Now I'm not suggesting that we abandon our highways by any means. But I for one do think that it's time to start leveling the playing field at least a bit, even if that bit is to the detriment of the highways. Especially since long term, funding rail would be less expensive than contiuing to try and expand and maintain our highways.

 

[volkris]

He suggested that the state could instead spend money on rest areas — VDOT has proposed closing 25 of them to save $12 million per year.

The "he" being the Congressman.

Right. The state could instead spend this money on rest areas. Did he say that it would be enough money to keep all of the rest areas open? Did he say that this shift in funding would make up for the $12 million? No. He only said that the money could be used there instead, which leaves the door wide open for a position wherein additional money would be needed to completely maintain the current level of service.

The guy's math, as presented in the article, is fine.

Now I'm not suggesting that we abandon our highways by any means. But I for one do think that it's time to start leveling the playing field at least a bit, even if that bit is to the detriment of the highways. Especially since long term, funding rail would be less expensive than contiuing to try and expand and maintain our highways.

Based only on what's presented in the article, it's not even clear that the congressman would entirely disagree with you. He might be open to an orderly, planned roll back of our reliance on the highway system assuming that in the long term rail could live up to its promised cost effectiveness. It sounds like his main problem is in how this is handled, with a sudden budget cut to maintanence and arguably critical services in one area against the creation of new service in another.

Maybe he is an anti-rail kind of guy--I wouldn't be surprised to find out that he was--but I believe he raises valid points that are dismissed all too quickly in this forum.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Off subject but how many station that aren’t in the NEC have platforms that are the height of the railcars doors?

Only on the Keystone line and the Empire Corridor will you find some high level platforms, otherwise all other stations that Amtrak serves have low level platforms.

I thought the Downeaster route wasn't considered part of the NEC and does have at least one station with full length high level platforms.

And if the station is served by Superliner cars, it can't ever have high level platforms.

Doesn't WAS have a mix of high level and low platforms, and have both Acela Express service which requires the high platforms and the Capitol Limited which uses Superliners and isn't compatible with high platforms?

 

[battalion51]

The Downeaster does indeed have stations with high platforms. Besides North Station, a number of the stations have modified high platforms unlike any others in the NEC. There is a special bridge plate that has to be used in order to use these platforms as seen here:

These platform designs reduce the clearance issue that are prevalent in the NEC for freight trains. As for high level platforms, you are correct, WAS does have a mixture of high and low level platforms. I think the point that was trying to be made was that at small stations like CVS and LYH it's not practical to have high level platforms because they can be/are served by trains that use Superliners.

 

[SouthernServesTheSouth]

The sad thing about the Virginia highway maintenance issue is that the GOP members of the Virginia legislature fought any increase of the fuel tax, actually any tax increases. The proposed increase (01 cent I think) would not have been a big deal for anyone. Especially with $3.50 per gal gas at the time. I am sure it would have helped with the maintenance issue. I guess it is the American Way to fight tax increases while blindly shelling out more and more for increased junk food prices.

As far as platforms are concerned, I don't think Lynchburg will never see Superliners on the Crescent.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

The sad thing about the Virginia highway maintenance issue is that the GOP members of the Virginia legislature fought any increase of the fuel tax, actually any tax increases.

People tend to forget that gas taxes are generally structured to not automatically keep up with inflation, unlike pretty much every other type of tax that's collected. So what you probably really mean is that there were members of the legislature who were opposed to even collecting as much gas tax as has been collected in the past after adjusting for inflation.

 

[volkris]

The sad thing about the Virginia highway maintenance issue is that the GOP members of the Virginia legislature fought any increase of the fuel tax, actually any tax increases.

People tend to forget that gas taxes are generally structured to not automatically keep up with inflation, unlike pretty much every other type of tax that's collected. So what you probably really mean is that there were members of the legislature who were opposed to even collecting as much gas tax as has been collected in the past after adjusting for inflation.

More likely the argument was that with gas prices particularly high it was a bad time to make the fuel even more expensive through a gas tax hike.

It's a reasonable position to take, and the allocation of funds to beginning new transportation helps show that gas tax increases might not have been immediately necessary in the first place.

Again, I'm not saying this is the correct conclusion or even that I agree with it. I'm only saying that it's a fair argument to be made.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

More likely the argument was that with gas prices particularly high it was a bad time to make the fuel even more expensive through a gas tax hike.
It's a reasonable position to take, and the allocation of funds to beginning new transportation helps show that gas tax increases might not have been immediately necessary in the first place.

Again, I'm not saying this is the correct conclusion or even that I agree with it. I'm only saying that it's a fair argument to be made.

Any politician who thinks driving is getting unaffordably expensive such that it's unreasonable to have the gas tax keep up with inflation needs to be putting some real effort into providing alternatives to driving.

 

[Philzy]

The Downeaster does indeed have stations with high platforms. Besides North Station, a number of the stations have modified high platforms unlike any others in the NEC. There is a special bridge plate that has to be used in order to use these platforms as seen here:

These platform designs reduce the clearance issue that are prevalent in the NEC for freight trains. As for high level platforms, you are correct, WAS does have a mixture of high and low level platforms. I think the point that was trying to be made was that at small stations like CVS and LYH it's not practical to have high level platforms because they can be/are served by trains that use Superliners.

While I think the superliners would be great on the Crescent route I'm still holding my breath to see the line electrified and have a high speed train on the route.... It's a pipe dream, but it's mine.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Off subject but how many station that aren’t in the NEC have platforms that are the height of the railcars doors?

If we move off of Amtrak's system, the North Jersey Coast Line (NJTransit), Morristown & Essex Line (Ditto), Montclair-Boonton (Ditto ditto) and Pascack Valley Line (Ditto ditto ditto), as well as all of the Long Island Rail Road and almost all of Metro North, not to mention some of SEPTA, have high-level platforms too.

Do the accounting however you want, but it's a reasonable observation.

It is not a reasonable observation. Spending money on our anachronisms from the bygone era of sustainable personal mobility is an exercise in flawed logic. I suggest we allocate whatever money VA was going to spend on its highways to the more noble pursuit of bulldozing them.

More likely the argument was that with gas prices particularly high it was a bad time to make the fuel even more expensive through a gas tax hike.
It's a reasonable position to take, and the allocation of funds to beginning new transportation helps show that gas tax increases might not have been immediately necessary in the first place.

It is not fair, nor reasonable. It is an act of political salvation, looking to be re-elected by the people who are too stupid to know what they need. Gas prices are never high enough. I propose we double our road tax for cars, add a $1.00 a gallon tax for dedicated Amtrak/Inter-City rail funding, and create a tax on fuel for an educational program on the wastefulness of personal mobility.

 

[volkris]

Do the accounting however you want, but it's a reasonable observation.

It is not a reasonable observation. Spending money on our anachronisms from the bygone era of sustainable personal mobility is an exercise in flawed logic. I suggest we allocate whatever money VA was going to spend on its highways to the more noble pursuit of bulldozing them.

Wow.

The observation is that we're short of funds here and yet there are new funds being spent over there. It IS a reasonable observation. Don't let your... what is that, hatred?... for road travel blind you to what's actually being discussed.

It is not fair, nor reasonable. It is an act of political salvation, looking to be re-elected by the people who are too stupid to know what they need. Gas prices are never high enough. I propose we double our road tax for cars, add a $1.00 a gallon tax for dedicated Amtrak/Inter-City rail funding, and create a tax on fuel for an educational program on the wastefulness of personal mobility.

That's the kind of quote you should add to your signature just to make sure everyone knows where you're coming from ahead of time.