Amtrak: The Road to Recovery

I think the Acela would be used on the big HSR line, but the Northeast regional would still be going through Stamford and Providence. My biggest potential flaw is the tunnel under Long Island Sound. The cost of that would be gargantuan.

No the acela would remain the same but a new service would be on the new line, either that or the regionals get upgraded to the rolling stock that the current acela uses while the new line gets the acela with better trains.

The cost of the tunnel would be indirectly offset over a period of time from the economic benefits to the cities along it's route, specifically Worcester and Hartford which would now have fast, frequent, and reliable service to new york and Boston, plus the fact that JFK is now less than 2 hours from most of southern new england.How much does penndesign estimate that tbe tunnel would cost anyway?
 
I think the Acela would be used on the big HSR line, but the Northeast regional would still be going through Stamford and Providence. My biggest potential flaw is the tunnel under Long Island Sound. The cost of that would be gargantuan.

The route I've heard thrown around is from NYC, heading north through White Plains to Danbury, then on to Springfield and east into Boston. Would need a lot of new track but no madly expensive trans-Sound tunnel.
 
It's actually just Providence and Stamford freaking out that they won't be on the NEC anymore, which is false since they would still have regional and acela service.

Not really Providence - go north of there to Pawtucket/Central Falls, which in OTL had commuter rail service until 1981 (and Woonsocket via the Franklin Line before that for a while during the 1970s). If both of those communities retain commuter rail service in TTL, that would be a godsend. Extend the Woonsocket service to Slatersville, and you'd give me a wet dream.
 
And one last bit on this - if you REALLY want to trick shot this, have the Rock Island merge or do a deal with the CMNW or EL. The Rock Island and CMNW would be almost an end-to-end merger, and the Rock Island's strengths in the lower Midwest, particularly its lines to Denver, Houston and Santa Fe, could be a huge benefit for them. The coal boom out of the Power River Basin will help CMNW do well in the 1980s (though BN and UP will fight them for that) and an alliance with the Rock Island and EL gives what looks like a Y for a system shape, with New York, Seattle and Denver on the far corners. When I did Transport America, I arranged a fairly similar system called the Railroad Alliance, which might be an option here too.

I'd love to see it, but I can't even begin to imagine how to get the ICC to allow it, or keep the other roads from going completely insane at the prospect of a true transcontinental forming that way. At least Conrail in Transport America had the advantage of being public; I suppose that that's the one way it COULD happen - the transcontinental is seen as a counterbalance to "socialist" Conrail dominating the northeast.
 
Not really Providence - go north of there to Pawtucket/Central Falls, which in OTL had commuter rail service until 1981 (and Woonsocket via the Franklin Line before that for a while during the 1970s). If both of those communities retain commuter rail service in TTL, that would be a godsend. Extend the Woonsocket service to Slatersville, and you'd give me a wet dream.

Do you want to be the one to suggest to Amtrak that they should take a 90 degree turn in Hartford? And if they decided to send it through Franklin I would go totally NIMBY all over them. In my opinion though, Worcester needs the benefits more than Providence does.
 
The route I've heard thrown around is from NYC, heading north through White Plains to Danbury, then on to Springfield and east into Boston. Would need a lot of new track but no madly expensive trans-Sound tunnel.

That's amtraks proposal, which actually goes through hartford, Providence, and waterbury then up the mbta providence line into boston. This route would also require tunneling through the hills of Connecticut since hsr needs to be almost completely flat to run right.
 
Do you want to be the one to suggest to Amtrak that they should take a 90 degree turn in Hartford? And if they decided to send it through Franklin I would go totally NIMBY all over them. In my opinion though, Worcester needs the benefits more than Providence does.

I wasn't suggesting Woonsocket and Slatersville (as well as Pawtucket/Central Falls, which historically IS part of the NEC main line) for the HSR, no way. I'm suggesting it for regular commuter rail - like how it used to be. The HSR would obviously go Hartford-Springfield-Worcester-Boston South Station-Boston Logan Airport, IMO, anyway.
 
I wasn't suggesting Woonsocket and Slatersville (as well as Pawtucket/Central Falls, which historically IS part of the NEC main line) for the HSR, no way. I'm suggesting it for regular commuter rail - like how it used to be. The HSR would obviously go Hartford-Springfield-Worcester-Boston South Station-Boston Logan Airport, IMO, anyway.

Oh ok. I must have read it wrong. I completely agree with you in that case.
 
Oh ok. I must have read it wrong. I completely agree with you in that case.

Definitely.

Here's something sad - for the longest time, there used to be service all the way to Pascoag from Woonsocket, then that stopped in the early 20th century. The only rump of that now is the P&W's Slatersville branch, which is now freight-only.
 

Devvy

Donor
Well, considering that large chunks of the Water Level Route was for a while four tracks in OTL I would suspect that quadrupling it wouldn't be too much of a massive challenge, and the Water Level Route's very nature was that of a flat road, and along the Hudson you could simply have Amtrak take over the East Shore Route that they run on IOTL, as it was not a major freight route but is a major passenger one IOTL. This allows Conrail to use the West Shore route which runs directly to the Jersey docks and is easier to hook into their operations. This is also the better route for hooking to Grand Central Station and your proposed line to JFK, which I noticed starts in Brooklyn. It's easy to get to Grand Central from there, but without the connection to Penn Station you won't get far on that one. If I were you and you could find a way of doing it, I'd build a direct line between Grand Central and Penn, as the Empire Connection is a nasty roundabout route. The downside here is a need to rebuild the Poughkeepsie Bridge as a consequence, or figure out another way of routing freight traffic over the Hudson at some other point.

<snip - Penn Central HSR stuff>

I've been looking at that. I agree with you on the WLR stuff...for a GCT-Penn link, that's going to be pretty expensive. Would probably have steep gradients on the Penn side, as the new line would have to be under Penn, then rise up rapidly in order to use the existing North River Tunnels. Unless we use the opportunity to add another set of tunnels underneath the Hudson - which would be preferable, but makes it even more expensive.

As for new and dedicated HSR in the north east for the full length, that's not going to happen in this TL to be frank.. Far too expensive to be justifiable, especially if we can speed up certain areas of the route (primarily the commuter-run areas) and try to straighten up a few areas of the Providence - New Haven section. The tunnel under Long Island Sound will be absurdly expensive considering the varying depth, not to mention gaining the right-of-way across Long Island which will be expensive and hugely delayed due to law suits. Either that or you tunnel across Long Island, and it's even more stupidly expensive, has lower speed limits due to air pressures, and some people still moan about the potential for "vibrations" or something. Woooooo!

A large part of the point of Amtrak controlling the commuter services, is an integrated services approach, with the express trains getting a high priority for on time despatching, and important areas of track not being a priority for speed upgrades (ie. Metro North).

Now, granted that this doesn't take into consideration infrastructure speed limits (ie. New Haven-Providence curvy line, or speed limits elsewhere), this is roughly what I'm working from for aims.

http://www.braithwaites.org/aht/amtrak/planning/acela-timings.xls

Try messing around with the option areas in grey to see how it affects the timings. Almost all the timings in that are rounded up, and are roughly 3-4 minutes longer then the accurate calculations make to give some buffer room (no pun intended!).

It was only in making that .xls that I realised I work on spreadsheets far too much at work :)

All fair points, but Bureaucomancer is right about the Pittsburgh-Harrisburg sector being the one where electrification could be very useful. The Reading Lines doesn't really go beyond Harrisburg in any meaningful way. One potential option for Amtrak for a route might be the old Lehigh Valley, as it runs from New York to Buffalo, and the route is shorter (though rather hillier) than the Water Level Route. This would require extensive rebuilding across Pennsylvania, however, though the routes from Perth Amboy, NJ, to Allentown, PA and Wilkes-Barre, PA to Ithaca, NY, remain in use today.

Interesting.

Duly noted again, cheers.

Please have them electrify the new haven to Boston line earlier. I love trains and will be reading this.

In progress - Amtrak are working on this now :)

It's actually just Providence and Stamford freaking out that they won't be on the NEC anymore, which is false since they would still have regional and acela service.

Well that's a legitimate viewpoint from Stamford/Providence's PoV. They are on a high speed route at the moment, and aren't small cities being at least around a million in the metropolitan area at least, and are looking at losing proper high speed express services from their cities. Economic interests in the cities would probably stand to lose out, at the expense of Hartford, New Haven etc etc. An ironic twist on the NIMBY front!

EDIT:

No the acela would remain the same but a new service would be on the new line, either that or the regionals get upgraded to the rolling stock that the current acela uses while the new line gets the acela with better trains.

The cost of the tunnel would be indirectly offset over a period of time from the economic benefits to the cities along it's route, specifically Worcester and Hartford which would now have fast, frequent, and reliable service to new york and Boston, plus the fact that JFK is now less than 2 hours from most of southern new england.How much does penndesign estimate that tbe tunnel would cost anyway?

Sourced from Wikipedia:

In January 2008, this idea re-entered public discussion when developer Vincent Polimeni proposed building a privately financed, tolled tunnel between Oyster Bay, Long Island and Rye, Westchester County, featuring two tubes carrying three lanes of traffic each and a third tube for maintenance and emergency access. The route would connect Route 135 (Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway) on Long Island to Interstate 287 in Westchester County. It would cost $10 billion and would not be completed until at least 2025. The proposed tunnel would be 16 to 18 miles (29 km) long, making it the world's longest highway tunnel, longer than the Lærdalstunnelen in Norway.
 
Last edited:
It's expensive. Trying to build a sixteen-mile tunnel under Long Island sound would be enormously expensive, and the thought is that you can rebuild the NEC to such a degree that it can do the same job without the enormous cost of going over or under Long Island Sound. That is a legitimate concern, IMO. It also completely bypasses Providence, which isn't real smart, and would require new infrastructure through Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens, all of which is also going to cost big $$$.

a sixteen mile undersea tunnel is a civil engineering feat approaching that of the Channel Tunnel - which although it's not quite twice the length ...

the mid 1970s aborted attempt at a Channel Tunnel was realistic from a engineering point of view so depending on the underlying geology ...
 

Devvy

Donor
a sixteen mile undersea tunnel is a civil engineering feat approaching that of the Channel Tunnel - which although it's not quite twice the length ...

the mid 1970s aborted attempt at a Channel Tunnel was realistic from a engineering point of view so depending on the underlying geology ...

Channel Tunnel costs were roughly US$6.5 billion (converted at £1=$1.4, rate in 1985 when the cost of £4.6billion was calculated).

So a comparable Long Island Sound tunnel might be somewhere around $4.5billion (in 1985) if it's half the length. That's a huge amount - consider what other benefits Amtrak in OTL (or this TL) could make with that money! $4.5billion in 1985 is worth somewhere around $11-12billion today I think.
 
Oh good another railways timeline, one to watch even if it is a bit harder to follow being set in the US. I'm assuming that The 12:08 service to... has reached its final destination or been indefinitely delayed? IIRC aside from some tidying up, possible Oyster card type schemes and HS2 a decade or two in the future you'd taken it pretty much up to the modern day so not much left to do, that and you could of just gotten tired of it/been casting around for new inspiration. :)
 
Channel Tunnel costs were roughly US$6.5 billion (converted at £1=$1.4, rate in 1985 when the cost of £4.6billion was calculated).

So a comparable Long Island Sound tunnel might be somewhere around $4.5billion (in 1985) if it's half the length. That's a huge amount - consider what other benefits Amtrak in OTL (or this TL) could make with that money! $4.5billion in 1985 is worth somewhere around $11-12billion today I think.

Thanks for the numbers.
 

Devvy

Donor
Oh good another railways timeline, one to watch even if it is a bit harder to follow being set in the US. I'm assuming that The 12:08 service to... has reached its final destination or been indefinitely delayed? IIRC aside from some tidying up, possible Oyster card type schemes and HS2 a decade or two in the future you'd taken it pretty much up to the modern day so not much left to do, that and you could of just gotten tired of it/been casting around for new inspiration. :)

Yep...12:08 is on indefinite postponement at the moment. Probably won't come back to it, although I'd like to overhaul it with a v2.0 at some point (that's way down the list of things to do though so don't hold your breath!). And as you say, it had probably gone as far as it could do, I was running out of semi-interesting things to write about in the 1990s.

Thanks for the numbers.

Nps :)
 

Devvy

Donor
1978-1980

aem7.jpg

New AEM7 hauled trains were a great success for years to come

The middle section of the 1970s had been a time of great change for Amtrak. Out went it's 'Rainbow' formations, consisting of rag tag coaches, and in started coming new coaching stock and new locomotives. This was a time of modernisation and renovation, as Amtrak sought to create the basis for sustainable operations.

In the Mid-West, consolidation continued. The rationalisation of central stations continued, with the closure of LaSalle station. The Rock Island (Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad) had continued running passenger trains themselves privately, figuring it would be more financially agreeable to do so, but in the end The Rock still fell to bankuptcy. Amtrak took over the remnants of The Rock's passenger services, including the tracks themselves for running the passenger routes on. One of the first things that Amtrak would do would be to utilise the link from the Rock suburban service on to Amtrak's route heading into Union station, resulting in the closure of the LaSalle station. The land was sold to the metropolitan authorities, resulting in the relocation of the Chicago Stock Exchange to LaSalle's former location. The relationship between Chicago and Amtrak had grown over the 1970s, with the introduction of grants from Illinois State to Amtrak (in this respect, legally "Amtrak Illinois", which would own the freehold and maintain most of the infrastructure within the State of Illinois) for the operation and improvement of suburban services within Illinois, which resulted in further purchases of Amtrak's reliable F40PH locomotives from General Motors along with many Superliner coaches for use.

Further improvement works bore fruit when the renovated Chicago Union station reopened, with 8 through tracks now through the former central plaza area that used to lie between the tracks. There would be 4 tracks for suburban services, and 4 tracks for express services through the station, and with the opening and joining of suburban services, it suddenly became easy to travel across Chicago city centre. Now locomotive movements and driver changes would only need doing at the city limits resulting in a lot of time saving. It was a similar picture for Amtrak's express services; travel from Minneapolis & Milwaukee to Indianapolis & Cincinnati.

Switching to the North East Corridor however, and huge changes were occuring. In late 1978, the first new AEM7 locomotives were coming online. The first batch would be dual-electric powered (capable of utilising both 11kV and 25kV @ 60Hz) for immediate service as far as Boston, and running south to Washington DC while the electric supplies were re-engineered to supply 25kV instead. The use of 11kV had been the preferred choice of Amtrak's predecessor "Pennsylvania Railroad", but it was widely viewed now as supplying insufficient power for modern trains. As AEM7 locomotives started hauling services from Boston to New York, the UAC Turboliners were retired from service, becoming unreliable - especially in the face of Amtrak's other trustworthy diesel traction. In combination with the electrification works on the NEC, significant resignalling of the route was conducted at the same time, to allow trains to run faster, as well as more of them (particularly important through New York Penn Station and the approaching tunnels).

And all that, occurred at the same time as the opening (in early 1980, slightly delayed by NEC improvement works) of the New York Rail Link. Amtrak's express services along the NEC would now been divided into 3 routes:
- Washington DC to New York JFK Airport
- Boston South to New York JFK Airport
- Washington DC to Boston South

A further addition was that the services running to/from JFK Airport would be equipped with dedicated baggage cars (in reality refurbished Amfleet coaches with roll-up doors for quick loading) to convey checked-in baggage at Amtrak stations. Pan-Am staff ran what looked like airport check-in desks in Washington DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, New Haven, Providence & Boston in the end, allowing departing passengers to check in their luggage at their local station and then travel to the airport. At the airport, they could then walk straight through to departures with no further action, with their baggage being transferred to the airport by Amtrak personnel and handed over to Pan-Am staff at JFK station.

Arriving passengers had been a little more difficult to accommodate due to problems with US Customs. In the end, a compromise had been worked out, allowing close integration for arriving passengers. Passengers landing at the JFK Worldport would pass through immigration, and then collect their bags from a special baggage collection hall where Amtrak-bound bags would be sent. They would then pass through US Customs with their bags, and Amtrak would then relieve the passengers of their baggage and convey them to the destination station. This allowed passengers to quickly pass through the airport and board a train swiftly to get to their destination. It was an experimental model, that would prove to be highly successful. "Remote check-ins", as Pan-Am referred to airline check-in at Amtrak stations, soared rapidly in the first year, with significant numbers of passengers from New York, Philadelphia, Newark and New Haven using the facilities, attracted by the integrated operation as well as the modern & comfortable Amtrak trains taking them to & from the airport. Pan-Am ended up treating Amtrak services in effect as Pan-Am flights which happened to be operated by someone else, with baggage & airline passengers destined for an IATA code designated for the station.

Elsewhere. 1979 also saw the initiation of Amtrak California, another Amtrak entity to centralise and take over operations in California in agreement with the State of California (and subsidised by), after Southern Pacific announced their intention to withdraw from passenger operations. Amtrak operated a few trains along the entire Californian coast, and several commuter rail operations, primarily based on San Francisco & Los Angeles. The operation was tactical on many fronts. First amongst these was the aim to integrate operations and compete in the densely populated State of California. Amtrak also had a eye on possibly replicating it's partnership with Pan-Am from San Francisco airport, serving the wider Californian area. San Francisco Airport was already located adjacent to the main line into San Francisco from the south, and therefore had easy connection possibilities into San Francisco 4th & King, San Hose and potentially the Oakland side of the San Francisco Bay.

sanq.jpg

The San Joaquin, one of the services to be brought into Amtrak California

-------------------------------
Notes: Amtrak investment beginning to show now. AEM7 locomotive power coupled with Amfleet coaches whizzing up and down the NEC, running to destinations further north then New York as electrification comes online (first to New Haven, then to Boston, and finally the branch to Springfield). Expect train times to fall, and passengers to flock to the Amtrak NEC services as a result of the quick journies offered and it's integration with Pan-Am. I couldn't think of any better way to handle international arrivals needing to go through US Customs then that quoted. I did think about domestic arrivals, but at the time Pan-Am is still an international-only carrier right? Also note that the electrification will be 25kV all the way along the NEC - should allow for quicker acceleration then the 11kV that exists OTL Washington DC - New York which isn't as powerful.

On a side note, it's goodbye to the UAC Turbotrains. They've lasted longer they did OTL in this TL, but they're waiting for the scrapper now.

I'm starting to plot out the commuter rail services in Boston at the moment, so a roundup of that will be coming up in the next chapter.
 
Well done so far, but you may wish to move the TurboTrains to the Midwest, where Amtrak's routes have not been electrified yet, or use them on the West Coast. Alternately (remembering that they are only ten years old at this point) you may wish to sell them on to VIA Rail in Canada and either slow down or butterfly the LRC program altogether.

What's going on in the Midwest, anyways? Did you buy the ex-freight lines for Amtrak usage, and how are they coming along?
 
C'mon, TheMann, those LRCs are amazing. Could there have been improvements? Absolutely - no train model is perfect (as the MBTA unfortunately discovered years ago when they purchased a set of Breda light-rail vehicles for the Green Line, only to have them act up so much that the older Kinki Sharyo trainsets that the Breda trainsets were supposed to replace were still in use - and still are). [BTW, TheMann, check your PM box.]

Now, Devvy, as for commuter rail in Boston - well, seeing as it's close to me (for obvious reasons, as I live within a couple of blocks from an MBTA Commuter Rail station and expanding commuter rail in Rhode Island has become a big issue over the past couple of decades), I'd definitely be interested in what happens there. Particularly if service to Woonsocket and Pawtucket/Central Falls is retained. There's also the possibility of filling in a gap between the Providence and Kingston Amtrak stations - not TF Green Airport (then Hillsgrove Airport) as it hadn't had that big expansion yet, so that's out of the picture, but somewhere between Cranston and North Kingstown, for sure. Pawtuxet Village, perhaps (if that's on the main line) or a revival of Wickford Junction earlier than OTL?
 
Also just thinking - there was a former branch line of the main line that led to Narragansett Pier, which is located around here (there are loads of places there which I know where they are - that's basically "downtown" Narragansett). You could turn that into local summer service, particularly for the beach traffic - which, let me be honest, is ATROCIOUS during the summer, as you get traffic jams from cars trying to make it down to Galilee or Point Judith. So placing a commuter rail stop at Narragansett would just be absolutely perfect.
 
C'mon, TheMann, those LRCs are amazing. Could there have been improvements? Absolutely - no train model is perfect (as the MBTA unfortunately discovered years ago when they purchased a set of Breda light-rail vehicles for the Green Line, only to have them act up so much that the older Kinki Sharyo trainsets that the Breda trainsets were supposed to replace were still in use - and still are).

The problem with the LRC was that its powered by what amount to diesel freight locomotive power units, and the vehicles themselves are enormously heavy and cause considerable wear on the track, which is why they never could do any better on times than the Turboliners did. I'd want to butterfly the LRC in favor of something better, personally, using the advancements in design from the LRC and using gas turbine power and taller height for additional room, which on an LRC is kinda lacking.
 
Top