Amtrak: The Road to Recovery

Devvy the other thing to consider with the HST is that it and the the XPT are built to a broadly UK 'air' gauge rather some of the rather larger UIC gauges in use elsewhere

also in comparing the HST to Acela you are looking at 25 years of difference, a comparison with the class 390 Pendolino is probably fairer

as the Mk3 is effectively 2 generations behind the latest on BR rails ( the Pendo and the HS1 Javelins representing the current state of the art in the absence of the IEPs/ Hitachi Super express ) the intermediate generation being the Mk4s hauled by Class 91 on the east coast ...

The crash worthiness of the mk4 has been tested 'for real' thanks to Gary Hart and his Land Rover at Great Heck in 2001

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Heck_Rail_Crash ( includes links to both ORR and HA crash reports )
 
An Acela coach (no engines or anything), weighs more then a BR Class 43 (that's the Intercity 125 power car) - that's crazy! Despite the Acela having the benefits of modern technology, being built roughly 25 years later. Extra weight means more wear and tear on both train and track, makes acceleration a lot slower - and deceleration a lot slower. It also makes the train a lot more expensive to buy, as it has to be custom designed for the US network rather then modifications to an existing design. And it also means the train has to draw more power to accelerate the train.

To be fair, there are at least four different properly high-speed train families I can think of in use worldwide (excluding Acela for the moment): TGV-derived vehicles, Pendolino-derived vehicles, ICE-derived vehicles, and Shinkansen-derived vehicles. Each of the countries of France, Italy, Germany, and Japan obvious has/had different conditions and developed trainsets designed specifically for those conditions, eg. the very early development of the British infrastructure and a reluctance to wholesale supplant it as France and Japan did led to the development of tilt-trains with the APT, so it's not particularly surprising that the United States might have its own native train designs. After all, the United States is quite different from most other HSR countries in some respects.

Which is not particularly to defend the design of the Acelas (I'm not an engineer and can't evaluate that), but merely to defend the US having its own peculiar native trainsets for HSR.
 
I am taking a cross-country train trip and am posting from Chicago's Union Station as we type.

This thread and its irony are much appreciated. Good so far, too, I await more reading material for when I head off. :D
 
A fascinating story- as a big big fan of train transport I'll be watching this closely! Here's to a train revival! Subscribed (if I know how).

But yes, a major retardant on train transport in this country is the sheer weight of these trains- thankfully the FRA is revising its regulations in the near future.
 

Devvy

Donor
Devvy the other thing to consider with the HST is that it and the the XPT are built to a broadly UK 'air' gauge rather some of the rather larger UIC gauges in use elsewhere

also in comparing the HST to Acela you are looking at 25 years of difference, a comparison with the class 390 Pendolino is probably fairer

Yep, the gauge is bigger in the US. But the slightly wider and taller trains aren't going to add that much weight. The Acela is a good train, except for it's weight as it's built to be a battering ram. The fact that the power car is 50% heavier then a 25yr old train (despite having modern lighter materials available) - and that the Class 43 HST power car is a diesel engine which is going to add a lot of weight, and it's amazing.

I'm not saying it should be as light as a feather and be powered by rainbows, but surely we can agree that the weight of the train is at least a bit crazy? :)

To be fair, there are at least four different properly high-speed train families I can think of in use worldwide (excluding Acela for the moment): TGV-derived vehicles, Pendolino-derived vehicles, ICE-derived vehicles, and Shinkansen-derived vehicles. Each of the countries of France, Italy, Germany, and Japan obvious has/had different conditions and developed trainsets designed specifically for those conditions, eg. the very early development of the British infrastructure and a reluctance to wholesale supplant it as France and Japan did led to the development of tilt-trains with the APT, so it's not particularly surprising that the United States might have its own native train designs. After all, the United States is quite different from most other HSR countries in some respects.

Which is not particularly to defend the design of the Acelas (I'm not an engineer and can't evaluate that), but merely to defend the US having its own peculiar native trainsets for HSR.

I perfectly agree with you. OTL, there are pressing needs and requirements in the US, and even those aside, there is nothing wrong with the US designing it's own trains. As mentioned, Acela is a pretty good train - high top speed, dual electric sources (11kV or 25kV through the pantograph), seems comfortable inside. But it's weight make it a nightmare to maintain, slower to accelerate, amongst other things. Designing a train to withstand a collision with a freight train isn't the best solution; it's making sure the collision doesn't happen in the first place.

I saw the point put something like this somewhere online; can you imagine what would happen if we required planes to be able to survive crashing into the ground. Because planes *do* crash. We don't require it, because it's an absurd idea (crashes happen very rarely), and would make ticket prices sky rocket, and airport fees rocket (due to the runways needing to be twice as long for the slow acceleration of the plane).

But anyway. That's it about the Acela weight....I'm going to leave that subject or we'll derail the thread (b'dum tsch!).
 
Yep, the gauge is bigger in the US.

Just adding my £0:02, the track gauge in North American is the standard 4ft 8 1/2 in, which is the same as the railways of Europe. The loading gauge, which refers to the highest, widest and to an extent longest a Locomotive or Rolling stock can be, is a lot bigger in the USA. I don't have specifics, but the tallest a locomotive in Britain can be is 13ft, 1in as opposed to between 15-16ft for there American counter parts.

Next time your at a station in the UK and service passes, consider this, the roof of that Locomotive will just reach the headlamp of a North American Machine.
 
Weighing in a bit late on this fast-developing thread but, if I may toss in a few random comments?
  • Chicago-Milwaukee Route: If Amtrak is going to take over commuter operations, too, I'd suggest that they acquire the Chicago & North Western's lake shore route. The Milwaukee Road's line was/is too far inland to serve most of the population and suburban services ran/run as far north as Kenosha, anyway, I'd think a 2 hour time Chicago/Milwaukee would be possible with minimal work.
    Chicago Union Station As a Through Station: The perennial problem with this is that almost all RR lines approach Chicago from the south. Only trains on the former C&NW and CMStP&P (now merged ITTL to the CM&NW) approach the city from the north. Almost all the western lines actually come into Chicago from south of the downtown. CUS as a through station isn't impossible-but it's moe than just removing bumper posts.
  • Superliners Under Catenary: I think we're OK with the clearences, since autorack cars and other "excess height" cars operated under wires with no problem. The restrictions on Superliners are stations with tight tunnel clearances-Washington, D.C. and New York (both Grand Central and Penn Station) for sure, Baltimore maybe.
This is going to be quite an Amwank and I'll enjoy reading future installments. But, one thing I'd like to point out was that Amtrak was formed to fail. Passenger losses were a big part of what came to be referred to in some circles as "the northeastern railroad problem" and, to get around the Interstate Commerce Commission, which was reluctant to allow discontinuance of services, the general idea was for the government to take the whole mess off the industry's hands, operate the remainder in a sort of status quo for a few years, decide it wasn't worth the money (remember, until Clinton, the Nixon administration was the last to balance the federal budget) and then shut it down. (President Nixon did not support the legislation and only let it become law without his signature.) Amtak's first major locomotive purchases, SDP45's, were adapted from freight locomotives-this was seen as an advantage because they would require minimal reconversion for freight work once Amtrak shut down and its assets were sold off.
 

Devvy

Donor
Just before I nip off to work, here are some thoughts back (comments are always welcome)! :)

Chicago-Milwaukee Route: If Amtrak is going to take over commuter operations, too, I'd suggest that they acquire the Chicago & North Western's lake shore route. The Milwaukee Road's line was/is too far inland to serve most of the population and suburban services ran/run as far north as Kenosha, anyway, I'd think a 2 hour time Chicago/Milwaukee would be possible with minimal work.

I did look seriously at the C&NW route, but the thing that pushed me away was that as far as I could tell, it terminates at Ogilvie - a terminus station, rather then Union. I'm trying to concentrate all (or as many as possible) services on Union so that Amtrak has to a) maintain only one major station, and b) has all/most trains running on it's own infrastructure at least close to the centre. This means a) owning the tracks is good value for money, and b) it can easily speed up the services. Thoughts were (for commuter rail) using the Milwaukee Road route from Union north, then branching off onto freight railroads (subject to agreement) to serve individual towns etc. Obviously express services will stay on the "Amtrak Main Lines" for their whole journey.

Chicago Union Station As a Through Station: The perennial problem with this is that almost all RR lines approach Chicago from the south. Only trains on the former C&NW and CMStP&P (now merged ITTL to the CM&NW) approach the city from the north. Almost all the western lines actually come into Chicago from south of the downtown. CUS as a through station isn't impossible-but it's moe than just removing bumper posts.

I'll fully admit a lack of intimate knowledge here, but from what I can judge on Google Maps, routes from Indianapolis & Fort Wayne would come into the south of the station, with routes from Minneapolis/Milwaukee from the north of the station? And station diagrams make it seem that the separate ends of the tracks are not that far from each other, with only general amenities between, and plenty of room. Some services will still terminate at Union, hence keeping some terminal platforms for north and south, but making a load through running would improve efficiency no end.

Superliners Under Catenary: I think we're OK with the clearences, since autorack cars and other "excess height" cars operated under wires with no problem. The restrictions on Superliners are stations with tight tunnel clearances-Washington, D.C. and New York (both Grand Central and Penn Station) for sure, Baltimore maybe.

This is my weakest area of knowledge; thanks for the comments.

This is going to be quite an Amwank and I'll enjoy reading future installments. But, one thing I'd like to point out was that Amtrak was formed to fail. Passenger losses were a big part of what came to be referred to in some circles as "the northeastern railroad problem" and, to get around the Interstate Commerce Commission, which was reluctant to allow discontinuance of services, the general idea was for the government to take the whole mess off the industry's hands, operate the remainder in a sort of status quo for a few years, decide it wasn't worth the money (remember, until Clinton, the Nixon administration was the last to balance the federal budget) and then shut it down. (President Nixon did not support the legislation and only let it become law without his signature.) Amtak's first major locomotive purchases, SDP45's, were adapted from freight locomotives-this was seen as an advantage because they would require minimal reconversion for freight work once Amtrak shut down and its assets were sold off.

While it will be at least a slight Amtrak-wank, I don't want it to end up as a full wank. I deliberately noted Nixon's late blooming environmental swing as one of the reasons for setting up Amtrak better (ie. not to fail as you pointed out!) - other then that I'm not sure how else to really get Amtrak going on a sure first foot. As we say at work..."crap in, crap out". If you set something up in a crap manner, don't be surprised when the results come out crap, as per OTL! :) (That's not to say Amtrak is poor, but as you note, Amtrak was kind of set up to fail in OTL, and it was no surprise that Amtrak then couldn't turn itself around) We desperately need Amtrak to be set up in a reasonably fair manner to have the ability to semi-succeed later in life.

While Amtrak will burn through money in the 1970s...new coaches, electric locomotives, diesel locomotives, I don't want it to be too far over the top of what happened in OTL. I'm planning on long-distance services to initially suffer in the 70s, as Amtrak focusses on the NEC and Mid-West.
 
I did look seriously at the C&NW route, but the thing that pushed me away was that as far as I could tell, it terminates at Ogilvie - a terminus station, rather then Union. I'm trying to concentrate all (or as many as possible) services on Union so that Amtrak has to a) maintain only one major station, and b) has all/most trains running on it's own infrastructure at least close to the centre. This means a) owning the tracks is good value for money, and b) it can easily speed up the services. Thoughts were (for commuter rail) using the Milwaukee Road route from Union north, then branching off onto freight railroads (subject to agreement) to serve individual towns etc. Obviously express services will stay on the "Amtrak Main Lines" for their whole journey.

Might I suggest using the C&NW freight bypass that leaves the lake shore line at Evanston and passes through the C&NW/CMStP&P (again, now CM&NW) junction at Mayfair. This would be a relatively quick & easy way to move long distance trains onto the Milwaukee's route to the north end tracks at Union.

Making CUS a through station is going to be difficult. Firstly, the area between the tracks, beneath the councourse, is the baggage room-all open space that will have to be completely rebuilt to pass tracks overhead. What complicates this is that the original concourse building was demolished and replaced in 1969. But...push the planning for that back to post 1971 and you can kill two birds with one stone.

Ae you planning on relocating all former C&NW services to Union, including all commuter services? I'd advise against that-the North Western's commuter traffic would overwhelm Union's capacity, even as a through station.
 
Devvy said:
stringent FRA rules about passenger trains on freight networks in OTL. They have to be stupidly strong (built like a battering ram) to withstand collisions with freight trains
Which raises the obvious question: what about passenger trains on networks not shared with freight? Presumably lighter, which also means faster accel/decel, which means shorter trip times...:cool:

There are also issues with signals, tho: for really fast trains, on par with TGV, you need in-car signals. Better braking is almost mandatory, too. (Automatic brakes like TGV or the German high-speeds use would be good.) Better rails to reduce the tendency to derail (the "slot" type developed for Nozomi) would be good. New FRA regs to allow tighter turns & higher speeds seem necessary; new regs to avoid some of the stupidity would be good.
 
Which raises the obvious question: what about passenger trains on networks not shared with freight? Presumably lighter, which also means faster accel/decel, which means shorter trip times...:cool:

There are also issues with signals, tho: for really fast trains, on par with TGV, you need in-car signals. Better braking is almost mandatory, too. (Automatic brakes like TGV or the German high-speeds use would be good.) Better rails to reduce the tendency to derail (the "slot" type developed for Nozomi) would be good. New FRA regs to allow tighter turns & higher speeds seem necessary; new regs to avoid some of the stupidity would be good.

You don't need to be FRA compliant if there is no mixing with conventional service, but if you mix at all you need to be compliant to the maximum possible speed of the train (irrespective of the speeds mixed traffic actually occurs in), hence Acela. As for in cab signals, the limit is about 125 for conventional lineside, but at this point the FRA buff strength stuff is what is really holding us back. That said, things seem to be getting better OTL, and it was honestly a lot easier to get around this stuff before the 90s.
 
Bureaucromancer said:
You don't need to be FRA compliant if there is no mixing with conventional service, but if you mix at all you need to be compliant to the maximum possible speed of the train (irrespective of the speeds mixed traffic actually occurs in), hence Acela.
That's what I suspected. That's good for all-passenger operations, then.:cool:
Bureaucromancer said:
As for in cab signals, the limit is about 125 for conventional lineside
I had the impression it was less. Even that would be a big improvement, if it can be sustained. I had the impression there was also a limit on track straightness: curves naturally require slowing, but also because the regs don't allow the curves to be as tight in the U.S. as in Europe, even at the same consist speed. And the tightness influences the amount of car-lean...which was, AIUI, a headache for the APT.
Devvy said:
in the UK, people will commute into London happily for 60-90 minutes on the train, let alone transfer time from the London terminus onwards. Just a 60 minute commuter train trip could be quite a long distance
This sounds good, but consider: 60-90min @even 200kph... Doesn't that just encourage urban sprawl?:eek::eek: Which is a bad thing...:eek:
 
I had the impression it was less. Even that would be a big improvement, if it can be sustained. I had the impression there was also a limit on track straightness: curves naturally require slowing, but also because the regs don't allow the curves to be as tight in the U.S. as in Europe, even at the same consist speed. And the tightness influences the amount of car-lean...which was, AIUI, a headache for the APT.

The UK has lineside signals and runs at 125, so it's definitely possible ;)
 
truth is life said:
the FRA limit is lower
That comes as no surprise.:rolleyes: Speed limits are routinely lower than the engineering allows on streets & highways; why should rail be different?:rolleyes:
 

Devvy

Donor
Might I suggest using the C&NW freight bypass that leaves the lake shore line at Evanston and passes through the C&NW/CMStP&P (again, now CM&NW) junction at Mayfair. This would be a relatively quick & easy way to move long distance trains onto the Milwaukee's route to the north end tracks at Union.

Making CUS a through station is going to be difficult. Firstly, the area between the tracks, beneath the councourse, is the baggage room-all open space that will have to be completely rebuilt to pass tracks overhead. What complicates this is that the original concourse building was demolished and replaced in 1969. But...push the planning for that back to post 1971 and you can kill two birds with one stone.

Ae you planning on relocating all former C&NW services to Union, including all commuter services? I'd advise against that-the North Western's commuter traffic would overwhelm Union's capacity, even as a through station.

Well...it's already written down as "canon" so I'll leave it there (Chicago Union redevelopment that is). While the rate of trains per hour would probably be capable of running through Chicago Union, there's no way the station could handle the passenger load as you say. At the very least, don't expect LaSalle to remain open after the Rock hands the passenger service over in a few years.

You don't need to be FRA compliant if there is no mixing with conventional service, but if you mix at all you need to be compliant to the maximum possible speed of the train (irrespective of the speeds mixed traffic actually occurs in), hence Acela. As for in cab signals, the limit is about 125 for conventional lineside, but at this point the FRA buff strength stuff is what is really holding us back. That said, things seem to be getting better OTL, and it was honestly a lot easier to get around this stuff before the 90s.

OTL, apparently Caltrain is electrifying their stretch of track from San Fran to San Jose, and the FRA have allowed them to ignore the mandated buffering strengths on the basis that crash testing has shown that "normal" EMUs offer just as good crash survivability or something relative to "bank vault on wheels" style trains. So the FRA is becoming a little bit more flexible.

I had the impression it was less. Even that would be a big improvement, if it can be sustained. I had the impression there was also a limit on track straightness: curves naturally require slowing, but also because the regs don't allow the curves to be as tight in the U.S. as in Europe, even at the same consist speed. And the tightness influences the amount of car-lean...which was, AIUI, a headache for the APT.

This sounds good, but consider: 60-90min @even 200kph... Doesn't that just encourage urban sprawl?:eek::eek: Which is a bad thing...:eek:

Well the tracks are much straighter in the US anyway - the New York - Boston is the only large exception to that as it hugs the coastline. As for urban sprawl, there's a difference between "car urban sprawl" which is build everywhere, and "transit-orientated urban sprawl" where people build in congregations around stations. I don't see that much wrong with the latter; I'm a firm believer that give people (including Americans) a decent public transport system, and they will use it.

However, the FRA limit is lower...79 mph, I believe. (In this case, I do somewhat doubt that merely escaping from mixed consists will allow you to escape their grasp).

The FRA actually allow speeds above 79mph if the track is fitted with one of the following:
- In-cab signalling
- Automatic train stop
- Automatic train control

Automatic train stop isn't particularly challenging - either technically or financially; it can be quite a simple system that offers a significant amount of protection. Most of the system is track side, and therefore you can make the trains compatible, and then just deploy it in the areas where you want higher then 79mph operations. I'm actually planning to address signalling and related things later on.

Part 3 (1975-1978) coming up later this evening when I have some time (evening activities first!).
 

Devvy

Donor
1975-1978

f40ph.jpg

The new diesel locomotive for Amtrak

It was 1975 when the first batches of Amtrak's new diesel locomotive (the memorably named "F40PH") started to arrive. These locomotives had been ordered in large numbers to replace Amtrak's old locomotives, and provide some fast and efficient motive power for Amtrak's non-electrified routes - which consisted of almost all routes outside the North East Corridor. The locomotive would prove to be wildly popular for Amtrak, as it's reasonable top speed of 110mph and high power of 3,200bhp meant that it was equally at ease hauling long distance services and hauling commuter services.

It was also in the final weeks of 1975 that "Conrail" (as the Consolidated Railroad Corporation had become known) published their "Final System Plan" - in essence a map of those freight lines it wished to retain, with the rest being disposed off in any manner (although Amtrak had first choice). It had also agreed that Amtrak would be allowed to take on many miles of tracks under the contracted proviso that Conrail would be allowed trackage rights. Conrail hoped that Amtrak would in effect maintain the tracks for them. For the main lines, Amtrak managed to take hold of the ex-Pennsylvania Railroad line from Philadelphia - Harrisburg and some extensions for it's Newark commuter rail. Amtrak also took on large swathes of the commuter rail network, particularly around Boston, New York City, Newark & Chicago, along with smaller segments around Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington. Although Amtrak had eyes for the ex-New York Central Railroad's Water Level Route from New York City to Buffalo, it was not something Conrail was ready to hand over, being a core part of their network. Realistically, it's doubtful in hindsight whether it would of been advantageous for Amtrak; it would of been a significant undertaking to modernise it for passenger traffic and a lot to maintain it despite there not being a huge potential market on it. Amtrak did come to an agreement to investigate re-quadrupling the line in the future though, so it could be shared between freight and passenger traffic.

It was right at the end of 1975 however, that Amtrak would drop one of it's biggest piece of news for the decade, that involved 3 players.
- Pan-American World Airways, commonly known as "Pan-Am". Pan-Am were an ailing airline, struggling to compete due to their lack of a domestic network in the US to act as a feeder network into it's main international routes. It was hamstrung by it's reputation and it's legal inability to act domestically within the USA, with competitors loathe to willingly accept changes in the status quo.
- New York State, or more precisely Long Island. New York JFK Airport is an incredibly busy airport, but is situated out on Long Island. The lack of public transport to the airport caused frequent jams on Van Wyck Expressway and Grand Central Parkway, causing frustration for Long Island residents.
- Amtrak, the passenger rail operator, who was looking for further means to maximise the amount of people using it's trains, and therefore increase revenue.

What was proposed was a new rail link, from Penn Station (with a chord to face Boston as well), sharing the Long Island Railroad right-of-way (but not it's tracks) and then using the former Rockaway Beach Branch to access JFK Airport, where it would then run underneath the runways and terminate in an underground station with direct links into Pan-Am's Worldport at the airport - and most importantly integrated baggage systems. The original idea, which would in later years be looked back on with admiration at such forward thinking, was that people could check in for their flight at New York Penn Station, check their baggage in, which would be conveyed directly into the baggage systems at Pan-Am's Worldport. Pan-Am passengers would then catch their train to JFK and walk straight through for international departures.

Amtrak quickly built on this; it foresaw an opportunity to not just allow check in at New York Penn, but all the other major stations along the North East Corridor; New York Penn, Newark Penn, Philadelphia 30th, Baltimore Penn & Washington Union station. Baggage could also be conveyed in reverse, if an agreement with US Customs for a customs zone at each of the 5 stations after people had collected their luggage could be reached. The idea won the swift approval of all 3 parties, with New York State agreeing to fund part of the plan as part of it's anti-congestion plans. Pan-Am would largely fund the airport station works, with Amtrak picking up the rest. The result for Pan-Am would be to gain a huge catchment area for it's flights from JFK Airport, crucial at such a financially woeful time in the airline's history, and for Amtrak to gain all those extra passengers; Amtrak would even allow Pan-Am to retail tickets on their behalf. The parties involved planned for the "JFK Air Rail Link" to open in 1980.

All this was set against the background of President Ford's signing in of the "North East Corridor Renovation Plan", in 1976 (cruelly derided as a "NECRomancy Plan" by opponents of the day who saw it as trying do magically bring a relic from another time back to life). After Amtrak's hard lobbying to Congress for funds to renovate the North East Corridor, Congress had bundled funding for Amtrak together with Conrail in order to re-signal most of the line to allow faster trains and better utilisation, as well as full electrification. The section from New York to Boston would be electrified with overhead cables at 25kV @ 60Hz, with the stretch from New York to Washington updated to the same electricity standard. The package also came with the funding for the investment into electric locomotives which Amtrak had been researching. In return, the Act stipulated firm goals for Amtrak; to offer transit from Washington to New York in 2:40 and New York to Boston in 3:40. Amtrak borrowed money as well in order to fund track maintenance in order to make the North East Corridor as fast as it could manage.

After Amtrak's studies into electric traction, it was decided to order EMD AEM7 locomotives. These were mostly as powerful as the ex-PRR GG1 electric locomotives that Amtrak were now relying on to haul Budd Metroliners on the Washington DC - Amtrak stretch, but significantly lighter, resulting in a very high horsepower-to-weight ratio. The locomotives had a top speed of 125mph, and the light but powerful factor meant it was quick accelerator - very important on the North East Corridor with plenty of stations.

In the Mid-West, Amtrak's alterations to Chicago Union were bearing fruit by the start of 1978, with the through platforms coming into usage. This made a huge difference when combined with the new F40PH locomotives. Now trains could pull into Chicago from their point of departure, and leave 2-3 minutes later to continue on to their destination instead of sitting in Chicago for a length of time while locomotives were swapped around, refueled. Due to the longer distance to Detroit and Cleveland, it had been decided that Minneapolis - Milwaukee - Chicago services would be merged with Chicago - Indianapolis - Cincinnati / Lousiville services and run with the new F40PH locomotives and new Amfleet passenger coaches. Turboliners - the first generation batch and a second generation that had been delivered in 1976/1977 would remain in service to Detroit & Cleveland on that route due to the greater ease of turning the train round at it's terminal points - simply walk to the other end of the train!

panam.jpg

Pan-Am World Airways, Amtrak's new partner, at the JFK Worldport

----------------------
Notes: The Pan-Am / Amtrak link up is the biggest butterfly so far. Amtrak desperately wants to spur additional usage of it's trains. Pan-Am desperately wants a feeder network into it's hub at JFK. Long Island is experiencing large congestion due to airport traffic. There's no new right-of-way needed (although LIRR is reduced to 4 tracks from 6 through Woodside station). Amtrak will have it's work cut out from 1975-1980 as pretty much all it's efforts go into NEC improvement:
- The JFK Rail Link (right-of-way exists, Pan-Am largely paying for the airport station, Amtrak largely paying for approach work with some New York funding)
- Electrification from New York to Boston (project actually signed into law by Ford in 1976, project later withdrawn due to Reagan cuts to Amtrak), with conversion to 25kV on the Washington DC to New York section
- Resignalling (the entire NEC converted to colour light signalling slowly but sure - resignalling occured OTL anyway in the late 1970s)
Just explaining that to try and show it's not a complete Amtrak-wank :)

We'll see how far that gets over the next few chapters. Other butterflies: larger areas of commuter rail passed to Amtrak from Conrail. Reading Railroad was largely ignored by Conrail (as you can see on the OTL FSP), so that's a nice snatch for Amtrak. Around 1980 I'm thinking of doing a sweep across the commuter rail operations to see where they serve.

Here's a quick map of the JFK link I knocked up to show the route:

jfklink.jpg

Red: Existing NEC
Upper Purple: Alignment shared with LIRR
Light Blue: Abandoned alignment
Lower Purple: Alignment shared with NYC Subway
Grey: New alignment in tunnels underneath runway and station at Worldport
Black: The JFK-Boston link; tentatively using the Bay Ridge Branch. Rest of Bay Ridge Branch maybe converted to Amtrak commuter line for NYC in future.

As ever, feedback/corrections welcome!
 
Last edited:
Top