For all those correcting me on the pronunciation of Ronkonkoma, we have one in California not far from here and I'm used to saying it our way. Also, in regards to Manchester, NH, that is an obscure 17th century border dispute most people are unaware of.
Manchester NH is close to Windham NH and connected by a former rail line (now a trail and they built the airport on top of it too). NH would be happy with any speed rail through Manchester faster than the 5mph coal trains.
I was thinking it might need a stop in New London as well. Although, it will never happen because Connecticut coastal residents are dead set against. They still talk about it. The 2h 30m option would still be nice, though, for $27B.
@@LucidStewI am a Long islander currently living in ronkonkoma, but have lived in the San Fernando Valley (during the infancy of Metrolink) AND in Stony Brook, NY. The initial LI route through SB made me chuckle often, due to the well-to-do ,bucolic, communities it would have to run through. The revised route through Ronk produces less improbability chuckles, partly due to the fact that the Hicksville to Ronk segment was double tracked in the last decade, overcoming NIMBY opposition. However, the segment that extends the current Hempstead branch further east seems improbable also. On the more realistic side, I'd LOVE to see when (& if) Brightline West actually starts dirt-pushing on the ROW. Good luck.
I agree, especially since the NEC stations you lose are all near to NYC anyway. If you added services that took hybrid routes you might be able to make NIMBYs happier.
@@exerosis5758 I wouldn't assume any abandonment of routes. Amtrak's goal is to double ridership by 2040, so they really kind of need twice the throughput between major destinations.
That average speed of 80 mph for the Acela electric train is not much faster than the average speed of 77 mph for the diesel Brightline train from West Palm to Orlando.
Commenting on this again because I had a crazy ride…. Someone was on the tracks north of Philadelphia and we braked very hard to stop, train turned off for 30 seconds and then restarted… conductor confirmed we had a trespasser and they had to do brake checks before we could move again.
@@p1xel1115 Yes, on the NEC the Acela's average speed from Boston to DC is 69-70 mph because from Boston to NYC the average speed is 60 mph but from NYC to DC the average speed goes up to 79-80 mph.
@@fasdaVT Maybe the faster train gives more ridership. But hypothetically, if we use the same amount of money to shove $25 from the ticket price, won't it generate even more ridership?
@@onetwothreeabcNo, it won't. You don't have the capacity to move that extra ridership right now. If you have faster trains (more round trips per day) and more service, you can move more people.
@@onetwothreeabc The load factor on Northeast Regional during peak times is pretty dang high, likewise Acela is full during peak times. Are you saying rush hour trains aren't sometimes standing room only?
I think there should definitely be a downtown Philadelphia station at Jefferson to serve express high speed trains whilst regional trans can serve the existing 30th street station
@@fasdaVT There already is one. In fact, the underground concourses stretch from 18th Street to 7th Street! And they run North almost all the way to Arch Street and South to Spruce Street (four blocks). And yes, I've walked their entire length. They get a bit labyrinthine at times, and can be narrow and/or not handicapped accessible-the result of having been built by many different organizations over a roughly 80 year time frame. That said, the section between Market East (never Jefferson!) and 8th Street is generally relatively new (*only* 40 years old!) and mostly quite wide. There are a couple of very small staircases that could be ramped over, and better wayfinding would DEFINITELY be appreciated, but its quite the easy walk. And that section is air-conditioned too!
It seems I'm not the only commentor currently watching this on the Acela! You make a great point regarding the diminishing returns of rerouting rail around major stations where you're already slowing down anyway. I'd still look into smoothing the Frankford curve (as you do touch upon in your video). Ive heard if you look closely at the street layout in that area, you can see the land that was originally intended to be used by the PRR to one day straighten that curve
Great video. Boo-boos: Your photo of Reading Terminal in Philly is actually the old Broad Street Station of the PPR which along with the platforms and viaduct was demolished in the early 1950s, replaced by the 1930's Suburban Station with its underground approach from 30th Street Station, and by the office towers of the Penn Center build over the site of the old station and platforms. Also, you referred to Manchester, Conn as Manchester, New Hampshire :D
Great work as always. NEC south of NYC probs needs to come to the realization that it’s very near its final form once the current projects get built. Unless there’s a breakthrough on tunneling costs, that Philly tunnel ain’t happening. Some version of straightening the Maryland curves might be possible, but difficult. North of NYC though: I’m still a fan of LIHSRR using the Hempstead branch to Farmingdale. Wasn’t expecting you to go all the way out to Riverhead. I would turn after Ronkonkoma near the Brookhaven National Lab and hook up to the NEC at New Haven. More specifically, I would create an Immersed tube rail and road tunnel for HSR and I-91 so tolls could help cover the costs. Then Hartford to Worcester + Boston via I-84 and Framingham Line (or even expanded Fitchburg line). Regional still connects to Springfield. Massachusetts has been mulling an “East-west” rail connection, so this could hopefully link the projects.
The best location for a Philadelphia station is 30th Street. It would save billions. The best place for a tunnel would be under north Philadelphia to create a highspeed curve that eases back into the Corridor past Frankford Junction. Between Chester and Eastwick your alignment is spot on except that if you move the curve in Essington a little farther east, you'd be going over or through parking lots. North of Eastwick station it is a straight shot into 30th Street if one follows an older alignment. The current SEPTA route took a cheaper but slower option in order to hit the approach into the upper section of 30th Street. Cost or time saving by missing the city altogether doesn't make sense in the context of one of the 10 largest population centers in the US and one of the densest. Taking a short commuter train from South Jersey to downtown might make sense to some people, but it may not make sense to someone coming from West of the city. Furthermore, I'm allows for a seamless connection with your Philly to Pittsburgh route. Almost all of the regional transit options are centered on 30th Street. By the time you've added in the secondary costs of reorienting everything to the Jersey suburbs, it isn't worth doing.
What about going underground on the main line somewhere around Gray's Ferry, then meet up with 30th street underground, then similar to the video through Frankford Junction?
@@LucidStew I think tunneling to avoid the turns just to avoid the curves around Grays Ferry and Zoo Interlocking are a bit overkill since the train more or less immediately enters yard space then enters the station platform coming from either direction. I lived in South Korea for a few years, and the KTX trains had to slow entering Seoul merely due to yard space around the two stations, so this isn't without precedent. Further, if 30th Street Station needed to expand by lengthening platforms, doing so by expanding south is likely the best option. For a tunnel to avoid Frankford Junction I would continue the line northeast until around 5th and second streets then tunnel under the Juniata neighborhood until it links up with the corridor again north of Frankford Junction. This would be shorter and cheaper than trying to tunnel under Center City. North along 95 and the Delaware river, there are a few kinks, but land use adjacent to the tracks is poor. The high speed portion of the right of ways could be straightened without affecting any residences or business districts (a few junk yards). For all this you get a downtown station that is connected to the region and a transfer to Harrisburg and Pittsburgh with less land acquisition. If you've never been to Philadelphia, I highly recommend the trip!
So, I live in Philly, and think W. Passyunk Ave would be better off as a subway line that connects with the BSL. Reading Terminal isn’t the worst spot for a new, underground station, in terms of what places it’s near, but it’s probably a nightmare trying to tunnel around there, especially anywhere near city hall (the foundations are MASSIVE) Personally speaking, maybe replacing I-95 between the Walt Whitman and Betsy Ross isn’t the worst idea (because I-95 in PA is genuinely a kinda redundant route and Center City doesn’t need to be cut off from the river like that) and while we’re on it, I’m also just gonna mention my pipe dream of a tunnel under the Delaware River connecting the Center City Commuter Tunnel with restored passenger service in South Jersey which, in conjunction with the “Swampoodle Connection” (a name that’s hard to forget lol) would allow for 1 seat rides from the PA suburbs to the Jersey Shore. How this interacts with high speed rail (including possible connections to Atlantic City, which is just a low hanging fruit for high speed rail from what I’m told) could be interesting if somehow it’s worth using that tunnel and then going up the median of the NJ Turnpike and then reconnecting with the NEC shortly before Newark Penn
10 % rule in general is my fix. 10% of all state and federal dollars spent on highways must go to trains. Not saying you have to cut any projects, but if you spend 1 billion on a highway this year, you need to add 100 million to the superior train budget. This gets us off this highways are free mindset and guarantees more funding for the superior transit mode. Then apply that to the 10% slowest portions of track already existing. Even the most local boring trains could all run so much faster if we just spent time addressing the most absurdly slow sections. Survey the 10% worst areas and prioritize them with projects until we alleviate that 10% For your long island width issue, why not do what many subways do, either dig or build up one line to go over the other line, thus saving a lot of width space.
45 minutes could be saved by fixing the extreme schedule padding and lower than geometric speed limits from NYC to New Haven on the current ROW. That would be nearly free and should be the #1 option to start with.
I talk some about NEC Commission plans to cut 22 mins from NYC-New Haven in the first video. This is largely accomplished by electrical upgrades and speed increases in the existing ROW.
It’d be really cool for the Acela to go straight through center city but i think the same benefit can be gotten from grade separating the two lines that branch off the NEC (chestnut hill west and the Atlantic City line) and realigning the curve on Frankford junction. Going to 30th st is half the fun of taking the train lol.
If you're planning to use the harlem line at all you got to stop in white plains, it's population looks relatively small, but it acts as a hub for all of westchesters bus lines and many folks commute into white plains. Plus theres a decent amount of land around the current station that's just parking and such which could be expanded for a bigger station, and theres a ton of new developemnt in downtown white plains.
I know I brought up climate change as a downside to the long island routes but this new tunnel option saves so much time it feels like it’s worth it, assuming that things don’t get to surfliner levels of coastal flooding around greenport
If there were to be a central Philly rail station, I think it would be under market east so the city can try to recreate MSG with the new 6ers arena that no one wants. 30th street is fine enough, especially since you can ride to Center City for free on regional rail, plus they should be reopening the underground connector to the L and trolleys (hopefully soon)
I moved to Eastern CT in the mid 1990's & got my rural house & 5 acres on a creek for a steal because they were still talking about the I-84 interstate between Hartford & Providence, & my house was right on the route, but due to the bad publicity they couldn't get anyone to even look at it, but I worked for the DOT as a civil engineer so knew they were never going to have the $$$ nor be able to get the permits to build it. Now the "Hartford to Providence" route goes right thru my house (just east of Bolton Notch, east of "Manchester NH" lol), so that battle can be fought all over again. The terrain from my area to Providence is very rugged (altho not high in elevation), the high areas are all solid rock, the low areas are all wetlands, much of them forested, white cedar swamp, VERY valuable ecologically & impossible to replicate artificially, much of it along the "Air Line" & "Hartford to Providence" routes (duh they followed the creek/river valleys). The NIMBY's & BANANA's (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) in this area are nearly as vocal as the ones along the coast line, altho not as wealthy / politically connected. The Univ of CT (UCONN) in Storrs/Mansfield had a very organized anti Hartford to Providence highway ultra liberal lobbying group back in the 80's / 90's, they were pro train back then, it'd be interesting to see what they think of an actual HSR route that fills tons of wetlands, takes scarce (in Eastern CT) prime farmland, & takes many rural farms & businesses in an economically depressed area. A station at Willimantic (the town name of Windham) might help, or even an alignment that passes thru UCONN or a sort of Princeton shuttle from WIlli-town. I am over 60 & retired so anything that affects my house will be well past my expiration day. Not something I lose sleep over lol. I think the New Haven - Hartford - Springfield - Worcester route has more Leggs because it serves far more population centers that are more disadvantaged historically / economically / racially. The existing New Haven - New London - Providence does as well & would remain as semi HSR, with minor improvements, basically splitting the NEC into two routes that serve major population centers along each route. Also the New Haven - Hartford - Springfield route is already being upgraded currently as a "regional / commuter" line, double tracking, new signals, & all hi level platform stations are already done south of Hartford & are being worked on from Hartford to Springfield. The downtown Hartford station is a big unknown depending on what happens to the I-84 viaduct. The bridge over the CT river is being ignored for now in the current scheme. MBTA has discussed extending service from Worcester to Springfield (& on to Pittsfield & possibly Albany) but they are pretty cash strapped just to maintain existing infrastructure so I don't see that happening any time soon. That entire inland route would need electrification but could remain at 2 tracks w/3 in places with enough space given that the New Haven - New London - Providence route would remain.
Last I read they were considering demolishing the historic station and placing a new one on the other side of the realigned I-84 from downtown in Hartford, which kind of blew my mind.
@@LucidStew There are a Plethora of proposals for the entire Hartford area, triggered by the need to do SOMETHING about the I-84 viaduct, with a grand scheme to reroute all the highways around Hartford downtown & restore the riverfront. I doubt very much they'd ever demo the existing station, which is very historic, & there are quite a lot of Historic BANANA lobbies in CT (wealthy folks with time on their hands, some with architectural backgrounds). More than likely if the rail route got moved the station would be turned into some sort of development / museum / fancy restaurants / brewpub / etc. I don't think it's in the path of any of the highway alignment proposals, or if it is, not one that is being considered realistically.
There was another Amtrak proposal to use the Harlem Line up to Brewster NY then turn east to hit Danbury & Waterbury then Hartford. There are existing rail lines along this path but they are single track & very curvey & slow, as the terrain is pretty rough, similar to Hartford to Providence. If done in conjunction with the New Haven - Hartford - Springfield - Worcester upgrades, this would be a good "regional semi hi speed rail" proposal that would tie most of the medium sized cities together in the CT/Western MA area with semi hi speed, electrified double track service. But it wouldn't address cutting time off the New York - Boston route at all. I believe this was proposed due to speed & capacity issues on the existing New Haven Line - despite being fully electrified & mostly 4 tracks (Milford will be restored someday), there are plenty of issues - the New Rochelle interlocking is at grade & steep geometrically, there are many locations with sharp curves & bad geometry that can't be fixed as they are in the middle of cities (Bridgeport, Norwalk), there are 5 movable bridges, & it's a highly traffic-ed corridor with many stations. Being that I live here, I personally care more about networking my area via electrified double track regional rail than I do shaving 30 min's off New York - Boston at the cost of 10's to 100's of billions. The benefits of using the train vs flying already exist with current timetables given the time it takes to get to / from airports, go thru security, etc., as the train stations are downtown. I am still in favor of incremental improvements of course.
Stew, utilizing the Hempstead branch of LIRR straight to Farmingdale makes sense. If possible push for Long Island Sound Tunnel at Greenport to RI. under the islands. If you want to make the best times to Boston, definitely the best ROW
I wouldn't do much. Berlin to Munich is about 4 hr min. The drive is 364 miles. So the average speed of the route is about 91 MPH. Meanwhile the NEC from DC to NYC is 2:55 for 226 miles thus about 77 MPH. It isn't a huge difference. Upgrading the Catenary to allow for 160 MPH wherever it is straight enough is the obvious main thing to do. It doesn't require huge disruptions or taking property. The Frederick Douglas tunnel is going to save about 2 minutes so about 78.5 MPH average. 40 Miles at 160 instead of 125 is worth another 4 minutes. That gets it up to 80 MPH. I think you might have gone though how much length could actually go faster really short of a completely new line what Amtrak is doing now and catenary is really all there is to do. Amtrak's fractional share of trips between NYC and DC is already pretty high meaning it is already doing okay. Honestly I think the upgrades to the NE Regional rolling stock will be more impactful in ridership than shaving a few minutes off for Acela. Reliable headways and nice places to sit beat 20 minutes saved.
It's absolutely true that the LIRR between Floral Park and Hicksville should be four tracks. They envisioned this sometime in the 19th Century. It is a 100' right-of-way. Leave it to the MTA to build a 3-track version... just completed... for $3-Billion... with no grade separation at Mineola where the Oyster Bay Branch diverges. The old station house there is 100 feet from the nearest track. Trains for Oyster Bay coming from the west cross the 3-trach line at grade WEST of the Mineola station and, stop at the INBOUND platform to pick up outbound passengers. First they should have upgraded and reopened part of the Central RR branch to Hempstead, bypassing Hempstead and meeting with the Ronkonkoma and Montauk branches east of Hicksville. Then they'd have two tracks in addition to the stretch bet. Floral Park and Hicksville to allow space to build the 4-track upgrade there.
The big missing piece in Philadelphia is the massive right of way already cut out for i-95, which doesnt run at ground level but instead on a raised bridge or earthen section ABOVE most of philly. I think there's ways to get creative with that, like digging out some train in the same right of way as the raised highway, or underneath it where need be.
Honestly, for most HSR in North America, where urban real estate is super expensive, it seems to me to be far more worth it straightening the curves in the rural and suburban areas between cities, and using existing low speed right of way in the cities themselves.
@@LucidStew The ridership on the HL has been insane and it would be interesting to get your take on ways to improve it to make it a more like a regional spoke on CTRail.
I love the LIHSRR concept. Honestly if they could do it at that price it seems like a bargain. There's some great places to live out in LI that I've visited but it's the travel time to the city that puts a damper on it. Throw in some HSR and that would do wonders for spreading the population load outward cost effectively. But it seems the powers that be think cars are the better option for the future, not any sort of rail transit.
I think just the connection to Jamaica Station is very powerful given the transit network on the west end of the island. None of those people would ever have to go into Manhattan to catch an express train out of the area.
@@LucidStew absolutely. LIRR At Barclays is a 10 minute walk from my apartment, which is great when I need to get to JFK quickly but for little else. I’d love to take more long weekends out that way if it was just a bit shorter of a travel time to get out there.
I would definitely say the first three are worth it. The New York and New England altered route is probably worth it. The New London bypass route would probably be worth it if they would’ve worked something out with the preservationist of the nature preserve
Instead of the man-counting-money stock video, a semi-truck convoy would be more apropos to the costs. Each trailer can carry about $2 billion in $100 bills both in volume and weight. Perhaps with a big “$$$$$$$” painted on the sides.
use the existing 30th st station and the Septa tracks underground through the 1980s-built commuter tunnel, and then a new connection at north broad to re-connect with the NEC main. The freight line you mentioned is owned by Norfolk Southern now
Frankford Jct curve has been the site of TWO major fatal derailments, once under PRR, and more recently Amtrak (excess speed was the cause) That curve has to be straightened for no other reason than safety.
For a Philly central station- the Macy's to the southeast of City Hall has not renewed their lease, and could easily connect to the City Hall station complex. Additional offices/retail in the Wanamaker building combined with routine Acela service would be transformative!
The straighter NY&NE route skips Providence, also famously, Willimantic: Without a jar, or roll, or antic, Without a stop at Willimantic, The New England Limited takes its way At three o'clock each day, Maids and Matrons, daintily dimited, Ride everyday on the New England Limited; Rain nor snow ne'er stops its flight, It makes New York at nine each night, One half the glories have not been told Of that wonderful train of white and gold Which leaves each day for New York at three Over the N.Y. & N.E. - Rudyard Kipling
Very silly question: are there any quick wins for the NEC that could be done with single-tracking to straighten sections that would otherwise be a nightmare for land acquisition?
Great video! How did you make the 3D Google Earth-y footage of tracking the train running on the tracks? Also is there a chance I can get my hands on the exact formula you used for cost estimation? Just interested in playing around with it.
Thank you! Those renders are using Unreal Engine 5 and streamed Google Maps data. The estimation method is a little complicated to explain, but easy to show. Are you able to join the Discord chat? I can share it there.
My only gripe with this video is the pronunciation of Ronkonkoma and suggesting MacArthur is an Executive airport. It isn’t. Class C airspace with 4 major carriers (JetBlue, SWA, Breeze, Frontier, with more coming)
I think their should be a regional route between New York City and Boston and a High Speed rail route too. NY to New Haven is fine and maybe the Long Island route to Rhode Island too. New Haven to Springfield is fine for regional trains and New Haven to Providence RI too for regional trains.
What if the LIHSRR option turned at Ronkonkoma and used the electric utility ROW, entering the generating station portal you used in your first video and continuing on to New Haven?
I wanted to avoid retreading too much material and there were a fair amount of people that wanted to go to the east end of the island. Like I said in the video, the range of possibilities is nearly infinite.
There are a bunch of other routes, all better than the electric utility ROW. There are a few roads running north south that are probably better routes, like Nichols Road, 112 or William Floyd Highway. There are a few options.
Why are you limiting speeds to only 160 mph? The Avelias can go up to 186 mph with tilting, or 220 mph without tilting. They are currently limited to 160 mph by the current CONOPS, but new 186 mph CONOPS could be devised for Tier 2+3 trains in mixed traffic. Or new trains like the Velaro Novo could be bought, which are cheaper (tilting is expensive) and faster accelerating (they're EMUs) and largely make up the difference in tilting by accelerating faster. Also, what numbers are you using for acceleration and lateral acceleration (or superelevation + cant deficiency)?
Because even 160mph is a bit of an ask? That's just the goal. You wanna knock off 30 seconds here and there for the difference between 160 and 186, be my guest. Superelevation and cant is by U.S. standards, but you have to understand that I can't measure every curve with precision and put out a video in 7 days. It's an approximation. Should be +-10% on time. Acceleration is assumed at approximately 0.4 m/s^2, which aligns with several HSR services around the world, but again its not done with tremendous precision lest it take forever to do.
RE the Bypass through environmentally senstive areas. You could "reclaim" the existing route as it abuts the preserve. By taking the homes, you may actually be increasing undeveloped land through a largely rural area.
LIHSRR has a nice ring to it! I love the idea of reviving that line into farmingdale. What are your thoughts on maybe making Huntington to Port Jeff High Speed capable, is it possible?
I heard it is impossible and extremely expensive to build a tunnel in that location. It is extremely deep in this location. But in an ideal solution, it does provide another route into New England. Another idea is to run into LaGuardia Airport. There you have your underwater tunnel into the Bronx. So now you got a train serving an airport. It would reconnect to it routing once in the Bronx. Even Metro North can serve this section. But it would use LIRR right of way until Sunnyside.
@@LucidStew They can easily offer a ferry service connection Everytime a train arrives. And it would connect to another train for points west, east and north.
@@LucidStew How about one of those submerged floating tunnels, where it's essentially a bridge, but submerged in the water column with cables attaching it to the sea floor.. That wouldn't need to be particularly deep, just deep enough so that ships can pass over, and may well be quicker and cheaper than a bored option.
Great video, and you've become my favorite channel on these topics. (sorry citynerd). I think the "island hopping" through and under Fishers Island would be the best rout to get from Long Island back to the mainland. If it was a tunnel it would lessen opposition maybe? I'm not going to mess with you on your pronunciation of Ronkonkoma (lol), but the stop there should be coupled with a new terminal on the Northside of the airport. Also what if the long Island to mainland tunnel had an auto train type service?
Here's the logic on Orient Point. First, you can't get to it on the surface from Greenport. At best you can come back to the surface for a mile. Can't island hop on the surface. With a tunnel, the islands are irrelevant. On Fishers Island, you have maybe 2 1/2 usable surface miles assuming that could possibly be allowed. It is 31 miles in a straight line from Greenport to Rhode Island, so you're looking at 30 miles of tunnel there. It's not a good choice.
@@LucidStew the island hop under the islands, like Fishers, would give you ventilation shafts and emergency exits if that kind of thing was needed. Granted this would be a super long tunnel. I don't know, 30ish miles? Anyway thanks for the reply and all the work you put into these videos.
Love the LIRR route, might actually get some support from the yuppies who complain about the price tag and serving Jamaica on the NEC would be great. If there is a way to avoid that nature preserve reasonably I think it would be worth any additional cost for a damn near 2 hour travel time
no changing trains if you have either a loy of luggage or a big scholl group off on a grasd trip to europe or the west coast. also septa runs to infrequently to be worth counting on you would have to get the subway extended from the stadium via navy yard an thought the airport to meetin the septa commuter line at eddyville. . or it would
I like your proposal for Long Island, but there is one massive flaw, the rails in CT aren't completely owned by Amtrak but instead by the state, and CT would wholly oppose any construction that completely bypasses their major population centers. In addition, with the only other station on the island itself being Riverhead, you will need to construct lots of local transit to connect up Suffolk County to the rail line which would essentially create a light rail system throughout the county. The reason for this is that, while MacArthur Airport does see passenger service, Calverton Airport just to the west of Riverhead would be a perfect candidate to convert into a proper international airport with Europe travel. Either that or an expansion of Francis Gabreski airport just to its south. Or both, functionally turning Riverhead into a large connection hub for travelers. It's also going to be 'expensive' to add overhead catenary power to the entire LIRR main line. The LIRR hasn't electrified the Oyster Bay branch because it is cost-prohibitive. While the connection at Jamaica is certainly warranted, the cost of doing so is rather, neutering. Not only that, presently, NY State is in no position to afford anything as a huge proportion of its wealthy residents have left for parts south, taking with them a large portion of the tax revenues. This is something that would have to be paid for by the Federal Government, and we all know that the opposite of Progress is Congress. I am certainly not opposed to the project, but it is quite...complicated.
That LIHSRR + New London Route would put that line into a top HSR category. Instead of going thru the nature reserve, Wouldn't it be easier to connect into the mainline at Westerly even if it costs 2 minutes?
I don't think so. The western section of that bypass is more expensive and less effective. You'd really need the whole thing. LIHSRR to the NEC mainline at 2h30m NYC-Boston is probably fine. Then NEC Regional could make the same stops it does on the mainline through eastern Connecticut, but also offer direct connections to Long Island, which would end up making the service much more valuable to Connecticut.
Hey Stew I live right by Springfield MA and I'm a huge rail enthusiast. If you're working on any other videos with trains running through Springfield or the Western Mass area, I'd be happy to help with anything you may need. My city of Holyoke used to have an extensive, incredible streetcar network that was torn down a while ago and the entire region is still suffering from a lack of transportation options. I love your videos, keep up the great work!
By the way, there are a lot more places in MA that desperately need to be double tracked and I've tried looking into the possibility, but I don't have the expertise you do and I'm curious how you concluded that there would be sufficient space to double the tracks for the whole Hartford to Boston via Springfield route. Also, how did you get the estimated costs? I make a lot of fantasy transit maps and try to break major construction efforts into phases based on costs, but I have little pricing data to go off of.
For the Springfield line specifically, that used to be double-tracked the whole way. They pulled one out in portions about 30 years ago to save on maintenance costs. But usually I just look at satellite maps and do measurements. My cost estimates aren't anything special. They're based on existing projects. For double-tracking specifically in that area, you can look up the cost for the work on that line that they're doing right now.
It's probably not worth another video, but exactly how unsalvageable is the route between Philly and NYC? What kinds of speeds does it currently get and how many trillion dollars would it take to upgrade significantly?
It's not that bad, its just that its not worth the cost to upgrade it. NYC to Newark, NJ you have the work currently on the books and that's about as good as its going to get. Elizabeth and Metuchen are the two sticking points down to Trenton. To get both up to 160mph, you're probably looking at 8-10 miles of tunnel. ...or you could just go 90mph for 15 miles... Trenton to Frankford Jct. you could get to 160mph, but its similar to New Jersey where anything you decide to do on the surface is going to involve taking out a lot of property for what you get. Then, of course Frankford into 30th St. is the big problem, and that can really only be solved with a tunnel.
@@LucidStew thanks! I live in that area so I'm familiar with how dense it is, but from my experience it's mostly a straight shot so I didn't know where the bottlenecks were.
What software do you use for the rail demos? I can tell you use Google Earth overlays, but not sure what software/simulation you use for the tracks and trains.
@@LucidStew Okay thanks. Is it the Train Sim World game or some plug-in that you downloaded? Sorry for my 20 questions, but I love making hypothetical rail routes on my own and I'm trying to find new and better ways to convey my thinking.
@@LucidStew okay, thank you for the information! I may have to give it a go one of these days. I wonder how long it would take me to draw out a 230 mile route lol.
@@JustinCastleberry117 It has some limitations. My computer generally starts to chug if I do more than about 10 miles. Google maps is also a bit limited because it only tends to have 3D buildings in cities. But if I laid out 230 miles in 10 mile chunks as fast as I could, it would take me a couple of days. In most of the videos that feature this, I'm probably doing 40-50 miles. Add in extras like cameras, cuts, structures, traffic and the time-in goes up very quickly, but super-basic routes are pretty quick.
Could you do a HSR city pair between the New York to Montreal and New York to Toronto via Albany, Syracuse, and Buffalo? I am curious how much improvement upstate New York would need for HSR and if the regional benefit be worth it even if the travel times are on the long side end to end. The trip up the Hudson is on my mind especially because while it is beautiful it seems limiting in terms of how you can improve it
An ideal network for NYS would be the Empire Corridor extended to Toronto, with connections to Cleveland, Montreal, and Springfield by the logical routes. And then add a bunch of local light rail to the upstate cities, and regional rail to connect the rest of upstate to the corridor. Ultimately, as with the rest of the Northeast we have a bunch of mountains that you have to go around or pay an ungodly amount of money in tunnels amd bridges. The NEC has it even worse being sanwiched between the Appalachians and the Atlantic with some very heavy development in that ribbon of available land.
The NEC is such a clusterfuck imo. Look at these insane numbers just to upgrade the lines to pretty crappy HSR. This whole project feels more like a regional rail network improvement, not a HSR corridor. This makes it hard for me to say if it is worth it or not. As a HSR line, no. But as a regional network? Maybe... I think what I would pick is the cheaper options (even if they don't reduce as much time). Save that money to build a brand new 150-200mph HSR line (for hundreds of billions), for a Boston -> NYC -> Philly -> Baltimore -> DC route.
Well, the true high speed second spine is basically a 400 mile long tunnel. 😂 They had that at $260 billion in 2017, which would be about $330 billion now. Everything in the video is only $93 billion. 😁
Well this is what happens when you neglect to upgrade the infrastructure until it’s literally falling apart and causing delays all over the NEC. It’s worth it IMO, but it’s gonna be painful at first.
@@dukeonwheels Technically the "falling apart" funding is already secured. Getting the current right of way back to working order will cost about $105 billion and should be done in the late 2030s.
I think these upgrades show that a new really high speed line isn't going to happen. We would need to go back to 1950s level of eminent domain and lack of environmental reviews (none) to force a route that would be straight enough.
@lindsiria It is, as they say, what it is. You can't ignore the pragmatics but I do understand your sentiment. A line from Boston to NY could be 330 km. The new HSR in Indonesia runs at 360 km/h, so with godlike eminent domain powers and a few hundred billion dollars to spend, you might hope for a travel time not much more than an hour.
You didn’t consider the old Trenton Cutoff around Philadelphia paralleling the PA Turnpike mainline for much of its run? It’s so there, so beautiful, so unused.
On the New London Bypass proposal, how about a version that rejoins the NEC slightly earlier, at the bit where the 2 lines run parallel, thus avoiding the controversial section. The rest of the proposal seems much less controversial and environmentally damaging, and would still represent a substantial improvement in journey times.
One problem is that you're coming into the east of the project at 160mph, while the west end is only about 75mph. If you get rid of the Kenyon portion, you don't get up to 160 until you hit the I-95 part and lose almost 40% of the impact, plus the wear and tear of having to slow down and speed up.
@@davidjackson7281 That is high speed rail from a private company. I support that too! But regional rail would get more cars off the road for a fraction of the cost, because it wouldn't be a premium service. And not everyone requires high speed rail for their travels.
Man it'd be a real kick in the balls to dissconnect a 1,622,520 population metro area from the NEC High Speed rail. Especially considering RI is already one of the fastest sections of the NEC. Removing the Providence stop is a non starter IMO. Its rough man, CT really screwing us over.
im of the opinion that any project unde $500m/minute saved is worth considerin, and at least 15 minutes need to be saved, else spend the money on new service or making existing stuff more reliable
You misunderstood the idea behind the northeast Maryland shortcut, it's not a time saver, it saves capacity, combined with the existing double track NEC, it would allow for more regional and high speed trains. Depending on how constraining it is to current schedules it might very well be worth it. It's a roundabout way of quadtracking in places where there's no room or too much opposition to do it the normal way. I did enjoy the rest of the video, but it does ignore the political sides of the argument. Nimbys in Long Island & Rhode Island combined with cities that would be cut off from the NEC could create such a backlash and even legal obstacles that it might not be worth it. It looks like a great route, but it's not going to be easy.
There's no implication in the video that any part talked about would replace any existing part. These are all discussed as being in addition to what's there now. I do deprioritize politics. This isn't a channel about politics. However, I don't ignore it completely. That's why I tend to stick to existing rights of way and acknowledge things like the Philadelphia Tunnel or New London Bypass being extremely unlikely.
i think the first program to improve service on the nec should get hourly trains. and probaly extend them from new york- hartford i to better use limited capacity at p nyc openstation.
This is one of the few good working train lines in America. It works. Use the money on any other rail line in america thats too slow! America has no thirst for these kinds of projects, just get existing rail fast enough its actually useable! Acela is great compared to any other rail line in america. Waste of time to spend more on acela when it works, get other lines just faster with the money.
I think they could have used more gas-and steam turbines for railroad electrification, maybe even some wind and water turbines! Therefore, it could improve the Railway and Transport infrastructure!..
I would combine the Port Jefferson tunnel + the improved Hartford to Providence I think it would be the most politically palatable as it would give CT and RI goodies as well as most of the leg work to Springfield done which could be the next NE project for MA. It also has the benefit of connecting the 2 cities at all and reduces travel time by an hour between the two cities by car doing a lot for regional integration. Also it avoids southern CT who time and again hate every plan to death. If the whole route goes as fast as the Tokoaido Shinkansen the route only needs to average 130mph.
That is a combination I neglected, but I do appreciate you combining the two videos. Let's see, that's 50 minutes NYC-New Haven, an hour NH to Providence, and Amtrak has Providence-Boston at 40 minutes, so... 2h30m. It's a shame two tunnels is such a terrible idea.
@@LucidStew I would say its more extremely expensive then it is a bad idea. At 2.5 hours its nearly the same amount of time as going to the airports if the traffic is really bad.
Any project on the corridor is bound to be as expensive and overbudget as HS2 over in Olde England... Still worth it though... Especially if you combine with real estate developments to claw some of the costs back... Personally I'd like to see an HSR extension North to Portland and beyond into New Brunswick in the long run... Halifax via St. John and Moncton would also make a great regional HSR connection because those two tiny Maritime Provinces combined have 1.8M and growing... mostly because housing in the east costs a fraction of that in Ontario, BC or even Alberta...
I’m not sure your hypothetical through Rhode Island could work because the row through Cranston is only big enough for a single track and there’s a lot of grade crossings on it also the bridges might be too low for catenaries but I’m not 100% on that
I have the ROW there at 50 ft+, which is wide enough for two tracks. Any necessary work to grade separate is built into the cost estimation. These things aren't in the billions for nothing.
Why would it not be pronounced like the river in England when it was named by English people after the river in England? Pronouncing the 'th' is incorrect.
NYC to Atlanta via the Cumberland valley? Bypasses Philly but stops at Allentown, Harrisburg, Hagerstown, Harrisonburg, Roanoke, Knoxville, Chattanooga maybe. Lmao
Could a third rail pickup be added to the Acela trainsets for operating on the Metro North Railroad tracks? While it would limit top speed , it doesn’t appear that the train would be achieving speed fast enough for it to be an issue.
Yeah, I think so. That's basically what the range is about. Its a lot cheaper to bi-mode some trains. Your 3rd rail limit is about 100mph, but that route isn't that fast.
Hey there, as a Philadelphian and a Northeasterner, I have a few quick notes: 1. For Philly, one of the major problems with the Center City tunnel has long been that it does not provide an adequate connection with the Keystone Corridor. This would create the awkward no bueno option of having two major intercity stations in Philadelphia where there is currently only one. Incidentally, the idea of skipping Philadelphia proposed in the last video is so inane from a ridership standpoint that not only would it get laughed out of the room, it *did* get laughed out of the room. 2. As far as using the Harlem and New Haven lines in New York, while the Harlem Line is 3rd rail, the New Haven Line is actually under wire the whole way along from Woodlawn Junction, which makes things easier. New Rochelle would need a flying junction, but, uh, New Rochelle needs a flying junction *anyway* so there's that. Also, the Harlem Line is in a trench the whole way through the Bronx, so if we wanted to convert the middle two tracks to Amtrak it might actually be *easier* than expected to install catenary (because you can anchor the stays on the trench walls instead of needing space between the tracks to erect masts). 3. A pretty big critique of the Greenport tunnel is that it bypasses New Haven, which suffers from the same ridership problems, albeit on a smaller scale, as bypassing Philadelphia. Remember here that the most important metric isn't dollar spent per mile or minute saved; it's dollar spent per net rider gained. 4. While the Boston & New York Air Line alignment is terrible for passenger traffic, it actually seems to be a strong corridor for *freight* reactivation, which would provide a dedicated, direct freight ROW from Boston to Southern New England & kick freight off the major passenger alignments in the area, freeing up slots for more frequent intercity and regional services along both the NEC and New Haven-Springfield Line. (That said, it does not solve the problem of lack of a dedicated freight line into New York from New Haven, which it would definitely need to work in concert with in order to provide a dedicated New York-Boston NEC freight bypass.)
Well, here was the logic behind running a Philadelphia bypass through New Jersey: 1. You take through traffic off the main line and that allows you to improve service TO Philadelphia. 2. Its fast on the surface. That's probably the only place on the entire I-95 corridor where you could add a significant amount of 200mph capable ROW without half of it being in a tunnel. 3. You improve service in southern New Jersey and increase development there. 4. If you improve travel times enough, you peel off passengers from air travel, specifically between NYC and D.C., but this would also work with Boston as well if NYC-Boston were improved enough. That's potentially a lot of passengers, and again, you'd be able to keep them all OFF the main line through Philadelphia. 5. You have places north of Trenton where you can improve capacity on the main line. You have places south of Wilmington where you can improve capacity on the main line. You don't have many between. 6. In a distant future where electrified trains could be running all the way down to Atlanta, your options don't end at D.C., and that extra through capacity, at speed, from NYC would be that much more valuable.
@@LucidStew The thing is that none of these arguments are really convincing from a ridership perspective. Philadelphia is *the* largest city and hence largest ridership driver between New York and DC, and, while there may be a reasonable argument to be made as the electrified network expands that a separate track pair for the fastest service will need to be built, the tradeoff of sacrificing your 3rd largest ridership generator for some miles of 200 mph track still...doesn't make sense. Ultimately, like Japan's Tokaido corridor, the high population densities and concentration of intermediate stops doesn't actually make 200 mph track feasible in the Northeast Corridor. And in Japan, too, remember that the Chuo Shinkansen--is going to stop at Nagoya!
@@riroo8275 There are nearly 200 flights a day within the corridor that fly over Philadelphia without stopping. That's a capacity of 30,000 seats or roughly 3 times what Acela currently carries on a daily basis. Not a single person on any of those flights has a single interest in stopping in Philadelphia.
Billion per minute gained is interesting but does not tell you about capacity. You may gain zero for track geometry but you gain by not having fast trains waiting behind slow ones. Or even if your trains are full, add some trains and sell more tickets. Of course, improve geometry at sale time could great, if affordable.
Right, you need to infer that somewhat from the area being serviced. $230 million/minute between Hartford and Providence doesn't sound bad, but $900 million/minute between NY Penn and New Rochelle is probably more worthwhile. Also important is the demand that would be induced by speed increases. So Boston and Providence via Long Island is missing that important CT commuter component, but at $400 million/minute, a 2h8m trip on that corridor likely boosts ridership quite a bit. Certainly anyone going directly between NYC and Boston would no longer have a reason to travel through CT if that were the case. Also, at that rate, you're very time competitive with air travel between Boston and NYC when considering airport time, and those routes have a LOT of daily flights.
