Here's a link to a discussion published in the New York Times yesterday about the proposed high speed rail project in California:
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/01/26/does-california-need-high-speed-rail/california-wants-high-speed-rail-but-may-not-need-it
Pennsylvania HSR advocates for restoration of rail passenger service. Opportunities to restore rail passenger service together with higher speeds exist (90 - 110mph). The building block of restoring rail passenger service is the foundation for high speed rail (125 mph ++).
California as the USA needs high speed rail.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Friday, January 27, 2012
A 1% SOLUTION - Financing Electrification, Increased Capacity, Higher Speed USA RR's
So, what is 1% of annual IMPORT OF GOODS AND SERVICES AND INCOME PAYMENTS for the USA?
For 2010 it was two trillion and eight hundred thirty five billion dollars.*
1%. One per cent.
A one per cent tariff would generate 28 billion dollars a year.
In exchange for the 1% the world invests in pax americana.
America could do a lot of things with 1%. America would create a national defense non-oil based transportation system, increase rail speed and capacity to create a logical proportion of ton miles performed between highway and rail, and higher speed rail and capacity would allow for a more efficient method to make passenger miles.
*See: http://www.bea.gov/international/index.htm#bop. Click on "U.S. International Transactions, 1960 to present for an excel file. (Note: 2008 saw a high of $3.2 trillion.)
For 2010 it was two trillion and eight hundred thirty five billion dollars.*
1%. One per cent.
A one per cent tariff would generate 28 billion dollars a year.
In exchange for the 1% the world invests in pax americana.
America could do a lot of things with 1%. America would create a national defense non-oil based transportation system, increase rail speed and capacity to create a logical proportion of ton miles performed between highway and rail, and higher speed rail and capacity would allow for a more efficient method to make passenger miles.
*See: http://www.bea.gov/international/index.htm#bop. Click on "U.S. International Transactions, 1960 to present for an excel file. (Note: 2008 saw a high of $3.2 trillion.)
Paying for Electrification and Increased Rail Capacity
Creating a parallel non-oil based transportation needs to be built.
It needs to be built for national defense.
It needs to be built for economic growth.
It needs to be built for re-balancing the trade deficit.
How can it be financed?
"Countries facing balance of payment difficulty may apply import restrictions under provisions in the GATT 1994 agreement and under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)." SEE World Trade Organization website for details : http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/bop_e/bop_e.htm
Alan Drake in "A Citizen's Guide to an Oil Free Economy," notes the following:
"World Trade Organization (WTO) rules allow a nation with a long term structural trade deficit (And the USA certainly qualifies!) to place a unilateral tariff on all "non-essential" imports so long as the proceeds from the tariff are used exclusively to reduce the structural trade deficit and there is no preferential treatment in the application of the tariff."
"Oil imports are a major part of the "long term structural trade deficit" of the United States of America. This plan (electrification) will reduce US oil imports by substantial amounts. Therefore, a substantial fraction of the governmental costs to implement this plan could be financed by a 1% to 2% tariff on a broad range of imports."
"The initial reaction from foreign governments may not be positive, but our diplomats can assure them that this new tariff:
1.) is according to WTO rules. In fact, this is precisely why this exemption exists.
2.) will be effective in reducing US competition for available oil exports, which is very much in the self interest of oil importers and even oil exporters.
3.) will be effective in reducing US carbon emissions, which is in everyone's interest."
And furthermore, it is the only politically possible way that the US will do anything meaningful about either oil consumption or Climate Change. Thus, it is in their enlightened self interest to not object to the US financing part of the program with a broad but small tariff on imports. And, if the tariff is implemented according to WTO rules, they have no other recourse under international law."
See Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas - USA, Alan S. Drake:
www.aspousa.org/index.php/2010/10/a-citizens-guide-to-an-oil-free-economy-chapt-1/
It needs to be built for national defense.
It needs to be built for economic growth.
It needs to be built for re-balancing the trade deficit.
How can it be financed?
"Countries facing balance of payment difficulty may apply import restrictions under provisions in the GATT 1994 agreement and under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)." SEE World Trade Organization website for details : http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/bop_e/bop_e.htm
Alan Drake in "A Citizen's Guide to an Oil Free Economy," notes the following:
"World Trade Organization (WTO) rules allow a nation with a long term structural trade deficit (And the USA certainly qualifies!) to place a unilateral tariff on all "non-essential" imports so long as the proceeds from the tariff are used exclusively to reduce the structural trade deficit and there is no preferential treatment in the application of the tariff."
"Oil imports are a major part of the "long term structural trade deficit" of the United States of America. This plan (electrification) will reduce US oil imports by substantial amounts. Therefore, a substantial fraction of the governmental costs to implement this plan could be financed by a 1% to 2% tariff on a broad range of imports."
"The initial reaction from foreign governments may not be positive, but our diplomats can assure them that this new tariff:
1.) is according to WTO rules. In fact, this is precisely why this exemption exists.
2.) will be effective in reducing US competition for available oil exports, which is very much in the self interest of oil importers and even oil exporters.
3.) will be effective in reducing US carbon emissions, which is in everyone's interest."
And furthermore, it is the only politically possible way that the US will do anything meaningful about either oil consumption or Climate Change. Thus, it is in their enlightened self interest to not object to the US financing part of the program with a broad but small tariff on imports. And, if the tariff is implemented according to WTO rules, they have no other recourse under international law."
See Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas - USA, Alan S. Drake:
www.aspousa.org/index.php/2010/10/a-citizens-guide-to-an-oil-free-economy-chapt-1/
Trade Deficit Reduction and Transportation Fuel
Since a major portion of the trade deficit is due to importing crude oil or refined petroleum fuel,
changes in consumption would correct that contribution to the trade deficit.
The problem with discussions about limiting transportation fuel consumption is that the discussion focuses upon the existing highway based transport system. CNG for trucks and cars. Electric automobiles.
Different fuels do not address future capacity for highway and rail.
The disproportionate percentage of ton miles performed by highway versus rail needs to be addressed.
The approach to follow is to electrify the USA rail system and increase rail capacity AND at the same time address different fuels for highway vehicles.
Below is a 2007 article from the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization. It summarizes the trade deficit problem but fails to address the imbalance between highway and rail capacity"
"An old saying suggests that “killing two birds with one stone” is the height of efficiency. Pressuring China to re-set the yuan to a higher value and cut subsides has not helped to lower the US trade deficit. Instead, the US could take immediate action regarding one major import, suggests Bruce Stokes. “Net US outlays for imported oil and natural gas exceed the nation’s trade balance with China, so cutting energy use … could significantly reduce the deficit,” Stokes writes. US consumers have plenty of room to make gains in fuel efficiency, by adopting patterns of use in other developed nations. Driving small vehicles, turning off unneeded lights, carpooling with friends – conserving energy in any way possible – could be a major strategy for achieving energy independence and economic security. – YaleGlobal
Cut Fuel Use and the Trade Deficit'
'Bruce Stokes
National Journal, 14 September 2007
ASPEN, Colo.—The U.S. trade deficit is likely to reach $750 billion this year.
And the imbalance with China may account for about a third of that total. So it is little wonder that trade critics in Washington are pressuring Beijing to appreciate its currency and cut its industrial subsidies. To date, however, these efforts have failed to trim the Chinese surpluses.'
'Curbing the trade deficit requires a new tack: reducing U.S. dependence on foreign fossil fuels and making energy conservation the new trade policy. Net U.S. outlays for imported oil and natural gas exceed the nation’s trade imbalance with China, so cutting energy use—on the highway and in our homes and factories—could significantly lower the trade deficit.'
'So far this year, the United States has spent $106 billion to buy foreign oil and $15.6 billion to import natural gas.'
'By volume, oil imports are down about 2 percent compared with 2005, but natural-gas imports are up 9 percent. Moreover, imported natural gas, which now accounts for only 3 percent of U.S. natural-gas consumption, is expected to supply 17 percent by 2030. U.S. independence on imported petroleum is likely to be as great in 2030 as it is today, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.'
'The nation’s leaders have wasted years squabbling over whether to increase domestic oil supplies, principally whether to drill in the Alaskan wilderness. But at a recent seminar in Aspen, Diana Farrell, director of the McKinsey Global Institute think tank, said that any rethinking of energy policy must start with the recognition that “the demand side of the energy equation is just as important as the supply side.”'
'It is a lesson that Americans have yet to learn. Per capita oil consumption in the United States is one and a half times the usage in Japan and more than twice that in
Germany. And, Farrell noted, “it still takes 37 percent more gas to drive a mile in the United States than it does in Europe.”'
'This efficiency gap may only widen. Fuel economy is likely to improve by only 0.5 percent a year in the United States through 2020, according to McKinsey. In Japan and Europe, it will improve by 0.8 percent per year. Even worse, the United States is expected to improve the efficiency of residential energy use by only 0.2 percent a year in that period, while Europe will gain by 1 percent a year and Japan by 1.5 percent annually.'
'The United States could take steps to keep up with the competition. McKinsey’s research indicates that by using available technologies Americans could lower annual energy demand by 0.3 percent a year through 2020. A third of the savings could come at home, through high-efficiency heating and cooling systems, better insulation, and other measures. Higher energy prices would also spur conservation. Americans, on average, pay only 6.1 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity. Germans pay the equivalent
of 8.4 cents and the Japanese pay 12 cents, rates that spur more energy-saving technologies and behaviors.'
'Fewer gas-guzzling cars and trucks would help the equation, of course. If the U.S. could match the planned European and Japanese fuel-efficiency standards, Americans could save 4 million barrels of imported oil per day, cutting projected oil imports by one-fifth.'
'Farrell cautioned, however, “You can’t get there from here with market technologies, mechanisms alone.” She sees the need for more conservation regulation, an idea that Washington lawmakers have long avoided.'
'The Senate recently voted to increase fuel-economy standards for cars and light trucks by 2020. The 0.3 percent House should follow suit. Utilities must become more efficient as well.2020. State utility commissions still reward power companies for increased sales, but California ties allowable profits to the amount of energy a utility saves.
That regulatory reform, combined with higher prices, has made California almost as energy efficient as Western Europe.'
'Reining in the trade deficit will take a multiyear, multi-pronged effort that is too important to be left to trade policy makers alone. The trade initiatives with the highest
payoffs may prove to be adding more insulation to American homes and putting more hybrids on American highways. Conservation should be the new trade policy.'
Source:National Journal
Rights:© National Journal Group, Inc.
Copyright © 2012 Yale Center for the Study of Globalization
changes in consumption would correct that contribution to the trade deficit.
The problem with discussions about limiting transportation fuel consumption is that the discussion focuses upon the existing highway based transport system. CNG for trucks and cars. Electric automobiles.
Different fuels do not address future capacity for highway and rail.
The disproportionate percentage of ton miles performed by highway versus rail needs to be addressed.
The approach to follow is to electrify the USA rail system and increase rail capacity AND at the same time address different fuels for highway vehicles.
Below is a 2007 article from the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization. It summarizes the trade deficit problem but fails to address the imbalance between highway and rail capacity"
"An old saying suggests that “killing two birds with one stone” is the height of efficiency. Pressuring China to re-set the yuan to a higher value and cut subsides has not helped to lower the US trade deficit. Instead, the US could take immediate action regarding one major import, suggests Bruce Stokes. “Net US outlays for imported oil and natural gas exceed the nation’s trade balance with China, so cutting energy use … could significantly reduce the deficit,” Stokes writes. US consumers have plenty of room to make gains in fuel efficiency, by adopting patterns of use in other developed nations. Driving small vehicles, turning off unneeded lights, carpooling with friends – conserving energy in any way possible – could be a major strategy for achieving energy independence and economic security. – YaleGlobal
Cut Fuel Use and the Trade Deficit'
'Bruce Stokes
National Journal, 14 September 2007
ASPEN, Colo.—The U.S. trade deficit is likely to reach $750 billion this year.
And the imbalance with China may account for about a third of that total. So it is little wonder that trade critics in Washington are pressuring Beijing to appreciate its currency and cut its industrial subsidies. To date, however, these efforts have failed to trim the Chinese surpluses.'
'Curbing the trade deficit requires a new tack: reducing U.S. dependence on foreign fossil fuels and making energy conservation the new trade policy. Net U.S. outlays for imported oil and natural gas exceed the nation’s trade imbalance with China, so cutting energy use—on the highway and in our homes and factories—could significantly lower the trade deficit.'
'So far this year, the United States has spent $106 billion to buy foreign oil and $15.6 billion to import natural gas.'
'By volume, oil imports are down about 2 percent compared with 2005, but natural-gas imports are up 9 percent. Moreover, imported natural gas, which now accounts for only 3 percent of U.S. natural-gas consumption, is expected to supply 17 percent by 2030. U.S. independence on imported petroleum is likely to be as great in 2030 as it is today, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.'
'The nation’s leaders have wasted years squabbling over whether to increase domestic oil supplies, principally whether to drill in the Alaskan wilderness. But at a recent seminar in Aspen, Diana Farrell, director of the McKinsey Global Institute think tank, said that any rethinking of energy policy must start with the recognition that “the demand side of the energy equation is just as important as the supply side.”'
'It is a lesson that Americans have yet to learn. Per capita oil consumption in the United States is one and a half times the usage in Japan and more than twice that in
Germany. And, Farrell noted, “it still takes 37 percent more gas to drive a mile in the United States than it does in Europe.”'
'This efficiency gap may only widen. Fuel economy is likely to improve by only 0.5 percent a year in the United States through 2020, according to McKinsey. In Japan and Europe, it will improve by 0.8 percent per year. Even worse, the United States is expected to improve the efficiency of residential energy use by only 0.2 percent a year in that period, while Europe will gain by 1 percent a year and Japan by 1.5 percent annually.'
'The United States could take steps to keep up with the competition. McKinsey’s research indicates that by using available technologies Americans could lower annual energy demand by 0.3 percent a year through 2020. A third of the savings could come at home, through high-efficiency heating and cooling systems, better insulation, and other measures. Higher energy prices would also spur conservation. Americans, on average, pay only 6.1 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity. Germans pay the equivalent
of 8.4 cents and the Japanese pay 12 cents, rates that spur more energy-saving technologies and behaviors.'
'Fewer gas-guzzling cars and trucks would help the equation, of course. If the U.S. could match the planned European and Japanese fuel-efficiency standards, Americans could save 4 million barrels of imported oil per day, cutting projected oil imports by one-fifth.'
'Farrell cautioned, however, “You can’t get there from here with market technologies, mechanisms alone.” She sees the need for more conservation regulation, an idea that Washington lawmakers have long avoided.'
'The Senate recently voted to increase fuel-economy standards for cars and light trucks by 2020. The 0.3 percent House should follow suit. Utilities must become more efficient as well.2020. State utility commissions still reward power companies for increased sales, but California ties allowable profits to the amount of energy a utility saves.
That regulatory reform, combined with higher prices, has made California almost as energy efficient as Western Europe.'
'Reining in the trade deficit will take a multiyear, multi-pronged effort that is too important to be left to trade policy makers alone. The trade initiatives with the highest
payoffs may prove to be adding more insulation to American homes and putting more hybrids on American highways. Conservation should be the new trade policy.'
Source:National Journal
Rights:© National Journal Group, Inc.
Copyright © 2012 Yale Center for the Study of Globalization
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Airport Location Cleveland to Pittsburgh to Harrisburg to Philadelphia
Higher speed restored rail passenger service has been the topic of this blog. How does the location of airports alone the line from Cleveland to Pittsburgh to Harrisburg to Philadelphia.
At Cleveland the RTA's Red line rail passenger service serves the Cleveland Hopkins International Airport. Via Terminal Tower Station, RTA serves the Lakefront Amtrak station at Cleveland.
The Cleveland to Youngstown line is within 10 miles of the Youngstown - Warren Regional Airport.
If access to Pittsburgh remains on the CSX beyond the Beaver River Valley the line in the vicinity of Coraopolis, Pennsylvania is within 4 miles of the Pittsburgh International Airport.
The John Murtha Johnstown - Cambria County Airport is within 4 miles of the NS Pittsburgh to Harrisburg line, the Keystone Corridor West.
The Harrisburg International Airport is adjacent to the Keystone Corridor East line owned by Amtrak.
Planning is underway to relocate the Amtrak station serving Middletown, Pennsylvania near the Harrisburg International Airport. See: http://www.planthekeystone.com/middletown.html.
The Philadelphia International Airport has service from Amtrak's Philadelphia 30th Street Station.
Suppose a 90 average mph higher speed railroad existed from Cleveland to Philadelphia. as noted, there are 4 international airports located along the line. Two airports, Youngstown Warren and John Murtha Johnstown Cambria County have runway lengths and capability to support the largest aircraft currently being flown. What opportunities for dedicated airline rail passenger cars, for that matter trains, exist for the proposed higher speed rail service?
At Cleveland the RTA's Red line rail passenger service serves the Cleveland Hopkins International Airport. Via Terminal Tower Station, RTA serves the Lakefront Amtrak station at Cleveland.
The Cleveland to Youngstown line is within 10 miles of the Youngstown - Warren Regional Airport.
If access to Pittsburgh remains on the CSX beyond the Beaver River Valley the line in the vicinity of Coraopolis, Pennsylvania is within 4 miles of the Pittsburgh International Airport.
The John Murtha Johnstown - Cambria County Airport is within 4 miles of the NS Pittsburgh to Harrisburg line, the Keystone Corridor West.
The Harrisburg International Airport is adjacent to the Keystone Corridor East line owned by Amtrak.
Planning is underway to relocate the Amtrak station serving Middletown, Pennsylvania near the Harrisburg International Airport. See: http://www.planthekeystone.com/middletown.html.
The Philadelphia International Airport has service from Amtrak's Philadelphia 30th Street Station.
Suppose a 90 average mph higher speed railroad existed from Cleveland to Philadelphia. as noted, there are 4 international airports located along the line. Two airports, Youngstown Warren and John Murtha Johnstown Cambria County have runway lengths and capability to support the largest aircraft currently being flown. What opportunities for dedicated airline rail passenger cars, for that matter trains, exist for the proposed higher speed rail service?
Maybe It's Bigger Than the Keystone State
A true transportation plan for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania should consider the the disproportionate reliance upon rubbers tires, concrete and asphalt. The whole look at Pittsburgh to Harrisburg is part of examining a need for reinventing the steel wheel upon a steel rail.
What becomes clear is that reinventing the steel wheel upon the steel rail is more than just Pittsburgh to Harrisburg. After all, Pittsburgh is the eastern end of the Great Lakes Megaregion. Restoration of rail passenger service to Pittsburgh does not end at Pittsburgh. Restoration of rail passenger service from Pittsburgh to Cleveland is probably more immediately important for Pittsburgh than Pittsburgh to Harrisburg.
Two rail routes exist to restore rail passenger service from Pittsburgh to Harrisburg. One is the former PRR line from Cleveland, Ohio through Alliance, Ohio to Pittsburgh. It is largely in a rural part of Ohio, missing Youngstown, Ohio and Warren, Ohio. The other route is a combination of Norfolk Southern and CSX from Cleveland to Youngstown to Pittsburgh.
The second rail route from Cleveland to Youngstown to Pittsburgh obviously serves a more populous area. Its grades and distance is less than the Alliance route.
Today for Cleveland-Youngstown-Pittsburgh, the question becomes how to make the transition from the Norfolk Southern to the CSX? Where should the connections occur to achieve Youngstown and Pittsburgh from Cleveland? As the line is former PRR owned by NS from Cleveland to Ravenna, Ohio, one logical connection is to simply restore a connection that once existed there between the PRR and the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. The connection between the NS and CSX can be made at Ravenna. CSX tracks then serve Youngstown and Pittsburgh. But the problem becomes how to transition back to the NS from the CSX east of Youngstown? The CSX and NS are on opposite sides of the Beaver River from Wampum, Pennsylvania to New Brighton, Pennsylvania. A connection from the CSX to the NS could be constructed in the Beaver River Valley. the most advantageous seems to be in the vicinity of Wampum where the NS crosses over CSX.
The problem with rejoining the NS line from the somewhere in the Beaver River Valley is that it will require passenger operations to pass the Conway yard on the way to Pittsburgh. The Conway yard when built in the early 1950's was the largest classification yard in the USA. It is still a very large operation. It is not unusual to observe freight trains held on the mainline awaiting authority to enter the Conway yard. Getting a passenger train past Conway is a potential bottleneck.
An alternative route to Pittsburgh from Youngstown might be to stay upon CSX through the Beaver Valley and alongside the Ohio River to NS bridge across Brunot Island gaining access on the north shore of the Ohio with the NS mainline into the Pittsburgh Amtrak Station. That route would avoid potential delays passing Conway yard.
Accomplishing Cleveland to Youngstown to Pittsburgh under the current Federal DOT state by state approach would be a very difficult planning effort. Two states will have to be involved. Add to that, two freight railroads most interested in their freight operations and the potential restored rail passenger service might have to interfering with freight operations.
Here is an interesting discussion of the history and operations at Ravenna, Ohio:
http://akronrrclub.wordpress.com/ohio-railfan-hotspots/railfan-hot-spots-ravenna/
What becomes clear is that reinventing the steel wheel upon the steel rail is more than just Pittsburgh to Harrisburg. After all, Pittsburgh is the eastern end of the Great Lakes Megaregion. Restoration of rail passenger service to Pittsburgh does not end at Pittsburgh. Restoration of rail passenger service from Pittsburgh to Cleveland is probably more immediately important for Pittsburgh than Pittsburgh to Harrisburg.
Two rail routes exist to restore rail passenger service from Pittsburgh to Harrisburg. One is the former PRR line from Cleveland, Ohio through Alliance, Ohio to Pittsburgh. It is largely in a rural part of Ohio, missing Youngstown, Ohio and Warren, Ohio. The other route is a combination of Norfolk Southern and CSX from Cleveland to Youngstown to Pittsburgh.
The second rail route from Cleveland to Youngstown to Pittsburgh obviously serves a more populous area. Its grades and distance is less than the Alliance route.
Today for Cleveland-Youngstown-Pittsburgh, the question becomes how to make the transition from the Norfolk Southern to the CSX? Where should the connections occur to achieve Youngstown and Pittsburgh from Cleveland? As the line is former PRR owned by NS from Cleveland to Ravenna, Ohio, one logical connection is to simply restore a connection that once existed there between the PRR and the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. The connection between the NS and CSX can be made at Ravenna. CSX tracks then serve Youngstown and Pittsburgh. But the problem becomes how to transition back to the NS from the CSX east of Youngstown? The CSX and NS are on opposite sides of the Beaver River from Wampum, Pennsylvania to New Brighton, Pennsylvania. A connection from the CSX to the NS could be constructed in the Beaver River Valley. the most advantageous seems to be in the vicinity of Wampum where the NS crosses over CSX.
The problem with rejoining the NS line from the somewhere in the Beaver River Valley is that it will require passenger operations to pass the Conway yard on the way to Pittsburgh. The Conway yard when built in the early 1950's was the largest classification yard in the USA. It is still a very large operation. It is not unusual to observe freight trains held on the mainline awaiting authority to enter the Conway yard. Getting a passenger train past Conway is a potential bottleneck.
An alternative route to Pittsburgh from Youngstown might be to stay upon CSX through the Beaver Valley and alongside the Ohio River to NS bridge across Brunot Island gaining access on the north shore of the Ohio with the NS mainline into the Pittsburgh Amtrak Station. That route would avoid potential delays passing Conway yard.
Accomplishing Cleveland to Youngstown to Pittsburgh under the current Federal DOT state by state approach would be a very difficult planning effort. Two states will have to be involved. Add to that, two freight railroads most interested in their freight operations and the potential restored rail passenger service might have to interfering with freight operations.
Here is an interesting discussion of the history and operations at Ravenna, Ohio:
http://akronrrclub.wordpress.com/ohio-railfan-hotspots/railfan-hot-spots-ravenna/
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Cost Estimates - Pittsburgh to Harrisburg
Here are some sources for estimated costs:
What might the addition of a third dedicated track the length of the Pittsburgh to Harrisburg line be per mile?
Looking at the "National Rail Freight Infrastructure Capacity and Investment Study," prepared for the Association of American Railroads by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. in 2007, Table A.7 "Hierarchy of Archetypical Rail-Freight Corridors," " Unit Cost to Upgrade Lines," provides a cost estimate. An existing 2 track line to add a 3rd track with signal systems such as central traffic control or traffic control system would cost $4,400,000 a mile. Within that estimate is the assumption that existing bridges would have to be widened. Drainage systems would have to be enlarged. So, the estmate for aa right of way already built for four tracks but reduced to two tracks would likely be less than $4,400,000 a mile.
The University of Pennsylvania's School of Design in 2010 published, "Making High Speed Rail Work in the Northeast Megaregion - Shaping the Future Through Strategic Transportation Investments." Their project was an effort to update the existing Northeast Corridor in order to support line haul speeds of 160 mph a true high speed rail operation. The study's cost appendix for new right of way construction at grade with two tracks would be $2,069,156 a mile. Signaling would be $1,761,830 a mile assuming the soon to be required automatic traffic control system. Required fiber optic communications would be $1,457,152 a mile. For the Pittsburgh to Harrisburg line the communications and signalling system exists. It would not be new construction as the Penn Design study addresses. Their estimate for new construction for two tracks with a new signalling system would be $3,830,986 a mile.
The Woodside Consulting Group prepared in 2005 a study entitled "Keystone West Passenger Train Study" for the Norfolk Southern and PennDOT. In volume 2 of the study an attachment "N" describes the cost to build a new track at the Pittsburgh station enabling freight trains to pass standing passenger trains there. At page 8 there is a break out of costs. Track work, signal work, grading and tamping of ballast were estimated to be $3,230,000 for 4,150 lineal feet of track. 4,150 is close to .79 of a 5,280 foot mile. That estimate would mean a total of $778.31 a foot for a price per mile of $4,109,477.
The average of the three studies is $4,113,000 a mile. For the 254 miles, the total would be about $1,044,702,000.
Electrification costs: Returning to the Penn Design study, their estimate was $900,785 a mile for traction power supply plus $1, 679,699 a mile for traction power distribution. Their estimate was for two tracks. So, it could be assumed that a total single track mile for traction power supply and traction power distribution would be about 1,740,635 a mile.
Electrifying a single track 254 miles would add $442,121,290 about to the project cost. That would be a total cost of about $1,486,823,290 for Pittsburgh to Harrisburg at an average cost per mile of $5,853,635.
Higher speed operations as proposed for Pittsburgh to Harrisburg would not require complete grade separations as needed for actual high speed rail operations. Should overcrossings or undercrossing by roads be considered, Penn Design provided an estimate that for this blog is rounded to $9,000,000 for each grade separated crossing that might be built. The rounded estimate is for what the Penn Design study characterized as a "suburban" crossing.
What might the addition of a third dedicated track the length of the Pittsburgh to Harrisburg line be per mile?
Looking at the "National Rail Freight Infrastructure Capacity and Investment Study," prepared for the Association of American Railroads by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. in 2007, Table A.7 "Hierarchy of Archetypical Rail-Freight Corridors," " Unit Cost to Upgrade Lines," provides a cost estimate. An existing 2 track line to add a 3rd track with signal systems such as central traffic control or traffic control system would cost $4,400,000 a mile. Within that estimate is the assumption that existing bridges would have to be widened. Drainage systems would have to be enlarged. So, the estmate for aa right of way already built for four tracks but reduced to two tracks would likely be less than $4,400,000 a mile.
The University of Pennsylvania's School of Design in 2010 published, "Making High Speed Rail Work in the Northeast Megaregion - Shaping the Future Through Strategic Transportation Investments." Their project was an effort to update the existing Northeast Corridor in order to support line haul speeds of 160 mph a true high speed rail operation. The study's cost appendix for new right of way construction at grade with two tracks would be $2,069,156 a mile. Signaling would be $1,761,830 a mile assuming the soon to be required automatic traffic control system. Required fiber optic communications would be $1,457,152 a mile. For the Pittsburgh to Harrisburg line the communications and signalling system exists. It would not be new construction as the Penn Design study addresses. Their estimate for new construction for two tracks with a new signalling system would be $3,830,986 a mile.
The Woodside Consulting Group prepared in 2005 a study entitled "Keystone West Passenger Train Study" for the Norfolk Southern and PennDOT. In volume 2 of the study an attachment "N" describes the cost to build a new track at the Pittsburgh station enabling freight trains to pass standing passenger trains there. At page 8 there is a break out of costs. Track work, signal work, grading and tamping of ballast were estimated to be $3,230,000 for 4,150 lineal feet of track. 4,150 is close to .79 of a 5,280 foot mile. That estimate would mean a total of $778.31 a foot for a price per mile of $4,109,477.
The average of the three studies is $4,113,000 a mile. For the 254 miles, the total would be about $1,044,702,000.
Electrification costs: Returning to the Penn Design study, their estimate was $900,785 a mile for traction power supply plus $1, 679,699 a mile for traction power distribution. Their estimate was for two tracks. So, it could be assumed that a total single track mile for traction power supply and traction power distribution would be about 1,740,635 a mile.
Electrifying a single track 254 miles would add $442,121,290 about to the project cost. That would be a total cost of about $1,486,823,290 for Pittsburgh to Harrisburg at an average cost per mile of $5,853,635.
Higher speed operations as proposed for Pittsburgh to Harrisburg would not require complete grade separations as needed for actual high speed rail operations. Should overcrossings or undercrossing by roads be considered, Penn Design provided an estimate that for this blog is rounded to $9,000,000 for each grade separated crossing that might be built. The rounded estimate is for what the Penn Design study characterized as a "suburban" crossing.
Dual Mode Locomotive - Bombadier ALP45DP
Click on the image to enlarge. Information from Bombardier:
The ALP45DP is being built for application upon New Jersey Transit. Its an expensive locomotive. Its expense must be balanced in consideration of its probable useful service being mutiple decades long together with the economies inherent to straight electric operation together with the flexibility of operating beyond overhead wires in non-electrified territory as a diesel locomotive.
Ideally the American railroad system should be electrified. First, doing so would provide the nation with a non-oil dependent transportation system. This would be a new piece of armor in national defense.
In the process of electrifying the railroad system, a dual mode locomotive would allow interim seamless operation from electrified to non-electrified tracks or in the reverse, non-electrified to electrified territory.
For example, as the Pittsburgh to Harrisburg line might be electrified, as the electrification process proceeds, the dual mode locomotive could take advantage of electrified power for greater portions of the trip.
What's Best Route Pittsburgh to Washington, D.C?
Pittsburgh's air passenger air service has become a shadow of what it once was. In comparison with rail passenger service, at the shadow is perceivable.
Restoration of rail passenger service with enhanced speeds will be competitive with point to point, ultimate trip beginning to end times with air service to Philadelphia and New York City. This could be accomplished in stages.
Pendular suspended equipment such as that manufactured by the Talgo organization could be the first step. It would allow for higher speeds on the existing right of way. The higher speed capable with Talgo equipment on the existing right of way will require adjustments to grade crossings. Either enhanced crossing protection or new overpasses or underpasses will be required for full exploitation without changes to the right of way. Consideration would have to be made for exchanging electric locomotives for diesel locomotives at Harrisburg.
The benefit of higher speeds on the existing right of way from Pittsburgh to Washington via the CSX could be exploited using Talgo on the CSX. But, the CSX is now a freight railroad. The CSX route supports one train a day each way from Chicago to Washington via Pittsburgh. However, its right of way was never a multiple track right of way as the Pittsburgh to Harrisburg line was. There is no opportunity to add dedicated passenger rail capacity to the right of way. This is particularly true at single track tunnels along the line as the famous Sand Patch grade and tunnel near Hyndman, Pennsylvania.
Options for restored rail passenger service on the CSX line given current and future freight business are limited.
Alternatively, Washington, D.C. can be reached via the PRR line now owned by the NS from Enola on the west side of the Susquehanna River from Harrisburg to Perryville, Maryland. At Perryville connection with Amtrak's Northeast Corridor is made. The towers and overhead cross members built in the 1930's to carry the electrified catenary to provide power to electric locomotives still exists.
The line alongside the Susquehanna River from Enola to Perryville was an electrified freight line. The PRR moved passenger trains between what is now the Northeast Corridor by a line from Baltimore through York to Harrisburg. It was originally the Northern Central Railroad that was later absorbed into the PRR. The line no longer exists. From a 1952 schedule, the PRR was able to operate trains over it's 83 mile length in 120 minutes.
If the Enola, Pennsylvania to Perryville, Maryland line were to be used to connect to the Northeast Corridor, it would add about 26 miles to the trip to Baltimore from Harrisburg. With higher speeds, the trip could be accomplished in with an 80 minute schedule.
As discussed earlier, an initial restoration of rail service frequency from Harrisburg to Lewistown, Pennsylvania could be facilitated using dual mode locomotives capable of operating beyond the end of electrification. Likewise, dual capable locomotives could be the motive power from Harrisburg to Perryville. At Perryville a seamless transition cold be made to overhead electrical power to Baltimore and Washington. Ideally electrification would be restored using the existing 1930's electrification infrastructure.
A significant percentage of the PSU student body resides in the Washington, D.C. and Baltimore metropolitan area. They would be served by restoring rail passenger service at least to Lewsitown.
Returning to Pittsburgh to Washington, as discussed Talgo equipped trains could achieve a 3 hour 50 minute schedule Pittsburgh to Harrisburg. An 80 minute schedule from Harrisburg to Baltimore via Perryville is plausible. The best current time by Amtrak from Baltimore to Washington, D.C. is 30 minutes. There would be an additional 1 hour and 50 minutes from Harrisburg to Washington, D.C.
Total time from Pittsburgh to Washington would be 5 hours 50 minutes.
The Amtrak schedule over CSX for the Capitol Limited from Washington to Pittsburgh is 7 hours 43 minutes. The 1952 schedule for the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad over the same route was 7 hours 45 minutes. The difference was that in 1952 the passenger station used the Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad station at Smithfield Street.
Mapquest computes a 4 hour 40 minute drive time from Amtrak Station, Pittsburgh to Amtrak Station Washington, D.C.
Restoration of rail passenger service with enhanced speeds will be competitive with point to point, ultimate trip beginning to end times with air service to Philadelphia and New York City. This could be accomplished in stages.
Pendular suspended equipment such as that manufactured by the Talgo organization could be the first step. It would allow for higher speeds on the existing right of way. The higher speed capable with Talgo equipment on the existing right of way will require adjustments to grade crossings. Either enhanced crossing protection or new overpasses or underpasses will be required for full exploitation without changes to the right of way. Consideration would have to be made for exchanging electric locomotives for diesel locomotives at Harrisburg.
The benefit of higher speeds on the existing right of way from Pittsburgh to Washington via the CSX could be exploited using Talgo on the CSX. But, the CSX is now a freight railroad. The CSX route supports one train a day each way from Chicago to Washington via Pittsburgh. However, its right of way was never a multiple track right of way as the Pittsburgh to Harrisburg line was. There is no opportunity to add dedicated passenger rail capacity to the right of way. This is particularly true at single track tunnels along the line as the famous Sand Patch grade and tunnel near Hyndman, Pennsylvania.
Options for restored rail passenger service on the CSX line given current and future freight business are limited.
Alternatively, Washington, D.C. can be reached via the PRR line now owned by the NS from Enola on the west side of the Susquehanna River from Harrisburg to Perryville, Maryland. At Perryville connection with Amtrak's Northeast Corridor is made. The towers and overhead cross members built in the 1930's to carry the electrified catenary to provide power to electric locomotives still exists.
The line alongside the Susquehanna River from Enola to Perryville was an electrified freight line. The PRR moved passenger trains between what is now the Northeast Corridor by a line from Baltimore through York to Harrisburg. It was originally the Northern Central Railroad that was later absorbed into the PRR. The line no longer exists. From a 1952 schedule, the PRR was able to operate trains over it's 83 mile length in 120 minutes.
If the Enola, Pennsylvania to Perryville, Maryland line were to be used to connect to the Northeast Corridor, it would add about 26 miles to the trip to Baltimore from Harrisburg. With higher speeds, the trip could be accomplished in with an 80 minute schedule.
As discussed earlier, an initial restoration of rail service frequency from Harrisburg to Lewistown, Pennsylvania could be facilitated using dual mode locomotives capable of operating beyond the end of electrification. Likewise, dual capable locomotives could be the motive power from Harrisburg to Perryville. At Perryville a seamless transition cold be made to overhead electrical power to Baltimore and Washington. Ideally electrification would be restored using the existing 1930's electrification infrastructure.
A significant percentage of the PSU student body resides in the Washington, D.C. and Baltimore metropolitan area. They would be served by restoring rail passenger service at least to Lewsitown.
Returning to Pittsburgh to Washington, as discussed Talgo equipped trains could achieve a 3 hour 50 minute schedule Pittsburgh to Harrisburg. An 80 minute schedule from Harrisburg to Baltimore via Perryville is plausible. The best current time by Amtrak from Baltimore to Washington, D.C. is 30 minutes. There would be an additional 1 hour and 50 minutes from Harrisburg to Washington, D.C.
Total time from Pittsburgh to Washington would be 5 hours 50 minutes.
The Amtrak schedule over CSX for the Capitol Limited from Washington to Pittsburgh is 7 hours 43 minutes. The 1952 schedule for the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad over the same route was 7 hours 45 minutes. The difference was that in 1952 the passenger station used the Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad station at Smithfield Street.
Mapquest computes a 4 hour 40 minute drive time from Amtrak Station, Pittsburgh to Amtrak Station Washington, D.C.
Pittsburgh Station - Some Thoughts
The integration of restored passenger service upon a railroad that is now a freight railroad creates capacity problems for the freight railroad. The current location of the passenger station, now owned by Amtrak, at Pittsburgh is within two blocks of where all the Pennsylvania Railroad passengers stations were located since 1855. Its location is convenient to the center of the city.
The Pitttsburgh Amtrak Station is located in the upper right of the photograph at milepost 353. The large roof structure over the tacks of the Pittsburgh to Harrisburg line are easily seen. Current canopy structure dates to 1947.
The former Pennsylvania Railroad office structure above the station is now the Pennsylvanian which was converted to apartments in the 1980's. The grand station building fell on hard times when it was rehabilitated into apartments in the 1980's
The station has an enviable proximity to the Greyhound station, the bus way and the T subway facility. All are adjacent to the facility. The T is noted by the dotted white line in the lower portion of the photograph. The Bus Way is a limited access highway dedicated to bus operation. It's right of way is a portion of the former four track PRR mainline. It along with the T are remarkable public transit assets.
Their location overcomes the "final mile" problem. Long distance passenger train passengers have options for the final mile of their journey.
The blue line outlines the 10 degree curve that leads from the passenger station to the bridge crossing the Allegheny River out of sight to the upper left of the photograph. The severe curve allows Norfolk Southern freight trains to operate at 10 mph. The PRR passenger train speed through the curve was designated as 30 mph. However, it is difficult to believe that any passenger train might have ever operated over such a curve at that speed.
The Pittsburgh PRR passenger station was the point where passenger tracks diverged to the west. The Pittsburgh to Harrisburg line in blue crossed the Allegheny River to eventually reach Chicago. This blog has been addressing the Pittsburgh to Harrisburg portion of the Chicago to New York City PRR line. Restoring rail passenger service upon what was once a line that shared freight traffic with passenger traffic on a shared right of way with dedicated tracks for freight and passenger was nick named the "broad way" as it required 4 tracks. Also diverging from Pittsburgh to thesouth side of the station were the tracks that led to St. Louis. Those tracks crossed the Monongahela River over the "Panhandle" bridge. Southwest of the city, the line on its way west crossed through the northern panhandle of West Virginia before making its way across the Ohio River to cross Ohio to Columbus to Indianapolis to St. Louis.
The decline after WW II of the PRR's business and profitability led to the Penn Central merger and bankruptcy in 1968. In turn the Consolidated Railroad Corporation was created by Congress to reorganize the railroad industry in the northeast and midwest in 1976. In order to maximize asset utilization all west bound freight traffic was concentrated upon the line to Chicago. Sections of the Panhandle route were sold to short line operators. Sections were retained. It was no longer a continuous line to St. Louis. The Panhandle right of way then became available for the the development of the T subway. In dotted white lines above the loop and storage tracks for T equipment is adjacent to the station.
The passenger track shelters of the 1898 passenger station were removed to allow for construction of Interstate 576 above them.
The original 1898 train shed that preceded the 1947 train canopies of today. Large train shed structures such as this were an inherent part of passenger stations in the age of steam locomotives. They sheltered passengers as well as allowed for ventilation of coal smoke.
If rail passenger service were to be restored to the Pittsburgh to Harrisburg line at some point the station location may need to be reconsidered. Adequate space exists between the station and 21st Street for redesign and reconfiguration of the station facility when and if it might need to be undertaken. The Pittsburgh Amtrak station is located at milepost 353.
Just 
East of the Pittsburgh station (Milepost 353) at milepost 347.8 the Pittsburgh to Harrisburg line has a connection with what the PRR named the Brilliant Branch. It is in the vicinity of 5th Avenue and Hamilton Avenue. The branch connects the Pittsburgh to Harrisburg line with the Conemaugh line. The Conemaugh line was built by the PRR to provide an alternative freight line from New Florence, Pennsylvania, west of Johnstown to the Northside of Pittsburgh where the Conemaugh line rejoined the PRR mainline at Federal Street. The Brilliant Branch goes north to cross the Allegheny River connecting with the Conemaugh line at Aspinwall, Pennsylvania. It remains as a freight route that avoids the Pittsburgh station. As at the station, the severe curves (white) from the Pittsburgh to Harrisburg line (blue) can support a 10 mph speed.
Just as the curvature from the milepost 347.8 connection with the Pittsburgh to Harrisburg line in the vicinity of 5th Avenue and Kelly Avenue has severe curvature, so to does the connection with Conemaugh line at Aspinwall. Corrective curvatuure at both ends of the 1.8 mile Brilliant branch could sustain 30 mph freight speed instead of 10 mph. This a freight bypass that planners could consider. The potential for moving freight to 30 mph here rather than facing the 10 degree constriction at the passenger station curve argues for a new alignment.
The Conemaugh line connects with the portion of the Pittsburgh to Harrisburg line that the Norfolk Southern calls the Pittsburgh to Crestline line as a part of the Fort Wayne line at Federal Street on the Pittsburgh Northside. The Conemaugh Line is in the upper right portion the photographAs noted earlier the curvature west of the passenger station is limited to a 10 mph speed. This slow speed is the same for the connecting curvature on the Northside. The Pittsburgh station is out of the photo at the lower right.
Looking east of the Pittsburgh station at milepost 351.6 shown is the connection to the CSX line used to connect Pittsburgh with Washington, D.C. Milepost 351.6 is between 28th and 33rd Street overpasses.
The Pittsburgh to Harrisburg line is in blue and the CSX line is in white. The 33rd Street overpass crosses both the CSX and Norfolk Southern Pitsburgh to Harrisburg line. The CSX line is the former B&O line. The CSX line to the right travels through Panther Hollow to connect with the CSX line that is the former Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad. The Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad was built from Connellsville, PA to Pittsburgh and then Youngstown.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
New HSR London to Manchester - 196 Miles Announced Today
High speed rail
| Delivered by: | The Rt Hon Justine Greening MP |
| Publisher: | Department for Transport |
| Delivered date: | 10 January 2012 |
| Type: | Written statement |
| Mode/topic: | Rail, High Speed Rail |
Since becoming Secretary of State for Transport I have taken time to consider all aspects of the consultation proposals and the evidence arising from both consultation responses and further work undertaken or commissioned by my Department and HS2 Ltd. This statement summarises my decisions.
I have decided Britain should embark upon the most significant transport infrastructure project since the building of the motorways by supporting the development and delivery of a new national high speed rail network. By following in the footsteps of the 19th century railway pioneers, the Government is signalling its commitment to providing 21st century infrastructure and connections – laying the groundwork for long-term, sustainable economic growth.
High Speed 2 (HS2) is a scheme to deliver hugely enhanced rail capacity and connectivity between Britain’s major conurbations. It is the largest transport infrastructure investment in the UK for a generation, and, with the exception of High Speed 1 (HS1), is the first major new railway line since the Victorian era.
The HS2 Y network will provide direct, high capacity, high speed links between London, Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester, with intermediate stations in the East Midlands and South Yorkshire. There will also be direct links to Heathrow Airport and to the Continent via the HS1 line. It will form a foundation for a potentially wider high speed network in years to come.
HS2 will be built in two phases to ensure that the benefits of high speed rail are realised at the earliest possible opportunity. The line from London to the West Midlands and the connection to HS1 are expected to open in 2026, followed, in 2032-33, by the onward legs to Manchester and Leeds and the connection to Heathrow. The capital cost at 2011 prices of building the complete Y network is £32.7 billion. At present values, it will generate benefits of up to £47 billion and fare revenues of up to £34 billion over a 60-year period.
The benefits of HS2 will extend beyond the network itself; links to current lines will enable direct trains to run to cities such as Liverpool, Newcastle, Glasgow and Edinburgh and, with long-distance services transferring to the new network, space will be freed up for new commuter, regional and freight services on other lines, opening up new opportunities for Britain's existing railways. Links to key urban transport networks, such as Crossrail, will help to spread the benefits further still.
HS2 is entirely consistent with the Government’s objectives for carbon emissions. Electrified rail is a comparatively low-carbon mode of transport, especially with the continued decarbonisation of the grid. Speed increases power consumption, but also makes HS2 more attractive to those currently flying or driving. The faster journeys on HS2 - Edinburgh and Glasgow will be just 3.5 hours from London - could transfer around 4.5 million journeys per year who might otherwise have travelled by air and 9 million from the roads. HS2 will also create more rail capacity on existing conventional speed lines for freight – removing lorries from our busy trunk roads. HS2 is therefore an important part of transport’s low-carbon future.
In securing these benefits for our country, I am committed to developing a network with the lowest feasible impacts on local communities and the natural environment. I have been mindful that we must safeguard the natural environment as far as possible, both for the benefit of those enjoying our beautiful countryside today and for future generations.
People living along the line of route highlighted particular concerns and provided constructive and thoughtful comments about the London to West Midlands route proposed at consultation. Following careful study by my engineers I can announce a package of alterations to further reduce the route’s impacts. The changes mean that more than half the route will now be mitigated by tunnel or cutting and there will also be a reduction in the impacts on people and communities, ancient woodlands and important heritage sites.
The changes include:
- A longer, continuous tunnel from Little Missenden to the M25 through the Chilterns;
- A new 2.75 mile (4.4 km) bored tunnel along the Northolt Corridor to entirely avoid major works to the Chilterns Line and impacts on local communities in the Ruislip area;
- A longer green tunnel past Chipping Warden and Aston Le Walls, and to curve the route to avoid a cluster of important heritage sites around Edgcote; and,
- A longer green tunnel to significantly reduce impacts around Wendover, and an extension to the green tunnel at South Heath.
- A streamlined purchase scheme to simplify the statutory blight process for property owners;
- A sale and rent back scheme to give homeowners within the safeguarded area more flexibility;
- A streamlined small claims scheme for construction damage which will allow individuals and businesses who are entitled to compensation under existing law to claim it more quickly and simply;
- A package of measures to reinforce confidence in properties above tunnels. Homeowners will be offered before and after surveys, a thorough assessment of the impact of similar tunnels, an explanation of the measures that will be taken to prevent perceptible vibration impacts, financial compensation for the compulsory purchase of subsoil, and a legally binding promise that HS2 will be permanently responsible for resolving any related settlement or subsidence issues; and,
- A refreshed hardship-based property purchase scheme.
In November I announced the Triennial Review of HS2 Ltd, and in making my decision I have accepted the finding that HS2 Ltd is the appropriate body to continue undertaking this work.
Today I have presented to Parliament a full account of my decisions titled High speed rail: Investing in Britain's future – decisions and next steps. My Department has published a series of supporting documents which set out in further detail the basis on which I have reached my decisions. All of this material is available at www.dft.gov.uk/highspeedrail.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Pittsburgh to Harrisburg Realignment - 1 to 51
When I began my observations in July of 2011 of the Pittsburgh to Harrisburg line, I was unsure that much, if anything was possible. The line was built in the 1850's for the Pennsylvania Railroad. To my surprise I discovered that two or so miles in the vicinity of the viaduct across the Conemaugh River near Mineral point have been a railroad right of way since before the Pennsylvania Railroad. That stretch of right of way was originally built for use by the state owned Allegheny Portage Railroad of the 1830's. The Allegheny Portage Railroad name was a wonderful description of what the railroad did. It's purpose was to connect the eastern and western sections of a canal built across Pennsylvania. It made the connection by portaging canal boats across the Allegheny Mountain frontal from Johnstown to Hollidaysburg.
The Pennsylvania Railroad did some slight line adjustments during its ownership. The only significant adjustment was the realignment from from Portage to Lilly around the turn of the 19th to the 20th century. Unlike the original construction, steam powered shovels were available. This section of the line was the original Allegheny Portage Railroad. I recall being shown a photograph of the earth moving project owned by a neighbor when I was growing up. His father had been a civil engineer for the PRR at the time. He described how the work was done by persons who had immigrated from Italy working under difficult conditions.
As a reminder, high speed rail is defined as operations of 125 mph or more. Higher speed rail is defined as speeds up to 110 mph. These observations have been for higher speed rail passenger operations. High speed rail appears to be impractical for the Pittsburgh to Harrisburg line.
An assumption was made that with realignments allowing 110 mph curvature, the tangents into and out of the faster curvature would be capable of 80 to 110 mph speed.
So what might be done for the Pittsburgh to Harrisburg line? Something could be done. Identifying line realignments make it conceivable for higher speed railroad operations up to 110 mph for a 2.5 hour schedule Pittsburgh to Harrisburg. Looking at the earlier posts with a designated number in order, here is a summary:
The Pennsylvania Railroad did some slight line adjustments during its ownership. The only significant adjustment was the realignment from from Portage to Lilly around the turn of the 19th to the 20th century. Unlike the original construction, steam powered shovels were available. This section of the line was the original Allegheny Portage Railroad. I recall being shown a photograph of the earth moving project owned by a neighbor when I was growing up. His father had been a civil engineer for the PRR at the time. He described how the work was done by persons who had immigrated from Italy working under difficult conditions.
As a reminder, high speed rail is defined as operations of 125 mph or more. Higher speed rail is defined as speeds up to 110 mph. These observations have been for higher speed rail passenger operations. High speed rail appears to be impractical for the Pittsburgh to Harrisburg line.
An assumption was made that with realignments allowing 110 mph curvature, the tangents into and out of the faster curvature would be capable of 80 to 110 mph speed.
So what might be done for the Pittsburgh to Harrisburg line? Something could be done. Identifying line realignments make it conceivable for higher speed railroad operations up to 110 mph for a 2.5 hour schedule Pittsburgh to Harrisburg. Looking at the earlier posts with a designated number in order, here is a summary:
- Milepost 353.2 to 348.8 looked at the line beginning the Amtrak Station in Pittsburgh. There was nothing that might be done to increase line speed.
- Milepost 348.8 to 344.5 looked at the line still within the Pittsburgh metro area with little opportunity for change.
- Milepost 344.5 to 342.1 looked at the line still within the Pittsburgh metro area with little opportunity for change.
- Milepost 342.1 to 339.2 could be changed to allow 110 mph by either a deep cut or a tunnel. The value of the affected property from the vicinity of North Braddock to Wilmerding might justify a cut. Alternatively, using a deep cut in the vicinity of East Pittsburgh and Turtle Creek could allow 80 mph operations. The cost benefit of 80 mph per 110 mph as close as this line segment is to the Pittsburgh terminal would be a consideration. As the Port Perry branch joins the Pittsburgh line in the vicinity of Turtle Creek, a flyover a dedicated passenger track might be needed to avoid a conflict between freight and passenger operations. The Port Perry branch crosses the Monongahela River connecting with the Monongahela Branch which then returns to the Pittsburgh mainline west of the Pittsburgh Amtrak station via a bridge crossing the Ohio River over Brunot Island in the vicinity of Sheraden and the Marshall - Shadeland section of Pittsburgh. This route around Pittsburgh is an important freight line taking freight trains into and out of the Conway freight yards further downstream the Ohio River. Because of the ponderously slow freight train speeds, the convergence of freight and passenger operations must be considered at either Turtle Creek or Wilmerding. A flyover might be needed at whatever point might be identified.
- Milepost 338.2 to 336.1 examined a potential opportunity for a 110 mph realignment or a lesser realignment allowing 80 mph in the vicinity of Pitcairn. The 110 mph realignment would require a deep cut or tunnel. A deep cut would affect woodland and residential real estate at a place called Wall, PA. The 80 mph realignment would affect adjacent woodland to the exisitng right of way. Pitcairn was a significant freight yard until the enlargement and modernization of the Conway yard in the 1950's. Dormant for decades, Conrail established an intermodal container facility at the former Pitcairn yard. With the proximity of the Pittsburgh AMtrak station, is an 80 mph or 110 mph realignment the better decision>
- Milepost 329.8 to 327 found a realignment that could allow 110 mph. It would affect residential real estate at Manor and Jeannette and adjacent farmland.
- Milepost 310 to 308.9 found an alignment to could allow 110 mph. Realignment affects residential property at Bradenville.
- Milepost 306.2 to 304.4 found a realignment that could allow 110 mph. The realignment would affect farmland in the vicinity of Derry.
- Milepost 302.3 to 300.8 found a realignment that could allow 110 mph. The realignment would affect farmland and woodland south of Torrance.
- Milepost 300.8 to 288 examined the potential for an entry into the Conemaugh River Valley near Torrnace that could sustain either an 80 mph or 110 mph speed. Once within the Conemaugh River Valley, increased speed at 110 mph would be possible by straightening the right of way using four bridges to cross and recross the Conemaugh River Valley to Florence. Woodlands would be affected. The Conemaugh River watercourse would be affected.
- The post numbered 11 discussed the miles noted in the post numbered 10.
- The post numbered 12 discussed the miles noted in the post numbered 10.
- The post numbered 13 discussed the miles noted in the post numbered 10.
- Milepost 284.6 to 283.8 found a realignment that could allow 110 mph. Affected would be woodland residential property near Seward.
- Milepost 278.7 to 277.3 to 276.2 could allow 110 mph speed. It would require deep cuts or a tunnel through the Johnstown metro area. Residential and industrial property would be affected.
- Milepost 276.2 to 273.3 found a realignment requiring either a tunnel or a deep cut east of Johnstown to the vicinity of East Conemaugh. Woodland property and residential property would be affected.
- Milepost 273 to 269.9 found that from the vicinity of the town East Conemaugh to a point west of Mineral Point, 110 mph could be attained with a new alignment. Five bridges crossing and recrossing the Conemaugh River Valley together with cuts and fills would be required. Woodland property would and the Conemaugh River watercourse would be affected.
- Milepost 269.9 to 266.9 found a realignment near Mineral Point that could allow 80 mph. THe realignment would require cuts and fills plus two bridges. Woodland would be affected.
- Milepost 266.9 to 264.5 found a relaignment in the vicinity of South Fork that could allow 110 mph. Woodland would be affected. Cuts and fills would be required. Four bridges would be needed.
- Milepost 260.5 to 257.1 found an alignment in the vicinity of Portage that could allow 110 mph. Woodland would be affected as well as residential property at Portage. Cuts and fills would be required.
- Milepost 255.8 to 251.2 found an alignment that could allow 110 mph. It would avoid Lilly. Cuts and fills would be required. Woodland would be affected as well as residential property at Cassandra.
- Milepost 240 to the vicinity of milepost 222.2. This section is the Allegheny Mountain frontal. The inherent problems of the line from Gallitzin to Tyrone were reviewed.
- Milepost 240 to the vicinity of milepost 222.2. This section is the Allegheny Mountain frontal. The inherent problems of the line from Gallitzin to Tyrone were reviewed.
- Milepost 240 to the vicinity of milepost 222.2. This section is the Allegheny Mountain frontal. The inherent problems of the line from Gallitzin to Tyrone were reviewed.
- Milepost 240 to the vicinity of milepost 222.2. This section is the Allegheny Mountain frontal. The inherent problems of the line from Gallitzin to Tyrone were reviewed.
- Milepost 240 to the vicinity of milepost 222.2. This section is the Allegheny Mountain frontal. The inherent problems of the line from Gallitzin to Tyrone were reviewed.
- Milepost 250 to 40.666506N78.244739W in the vicinity of milepost 222.2 identified an alignment that could allow 110 mph. It is a straight line from the vicinity of Cresson to the vicinity of Tyrone. It would bypass Altoona altogether. It would require deep cuts and fills. It would eliminate the constrictions and impediments inherent to the existing crossing of the Allegheny frontal. It would cross from the Ohio River watershed to the Chesapeake Bay watershed. For the most part woodland would be affected with some farmland being affected. Some residential property in the vicinity of Tyrone would be affected. This line would make the passage over the Horsehoe Curve into a recreational bicycle trail.
- 40.666506N78.244739W, the end of the proposed Cresson to Tyrone realignment, to milepost 221.2 could allow 110 mph through the Juniata River gap between Brush Mountain to the south and Bald Eagle Mountain to the north just east of Tyrone. The realignment would affect woodland and residential property in the vicinity of Tyrone. Three bridges would be required.
- Milepost 222.2 to milepost 221.2 found a realignment through the Juniata River gap between Brush Mountain to the North and Bald Eagle Mountain to the north just east of Tyrone that could allow 80 mph. This realignment would be made should the Cresson to Tyrone alignment in post 27 might not be built. Alternatively, the realignment could be built in anticipation of future construction Cresson to Tyrone as it would correct a 40 mph speed restriction for passenger trains. An 80 mph speed would allow for efficient transition to 110 mph speed realignments east of milepost 221.2. Woodlands would be affected. Two bridges would be required.
- Milepost 220.7 to milepost 220.2 then milepost 219.3 to milepost 218.8 found an alignment that could allow 110 mph. Three bridges would be required. Cuts and fills would be required. Woodland would be affected in the alignments described near Birmingham.
- Milepost 217.8 to milepost 217 then milepost 216.3 to milepost 214.6 found a realignment that wold allow 110 mph to the west of Spruce Creek. Cuts and fills would affect adjacent woodland. eight bridges would be required to cross and recross the Juniata River watercourse.
- Milepost 209 to 205.5 found an alignment that could allow 110 mph speed. Five bridges would be required to cross and recross the Juniata River watercourse in the vicinity of Petersburg. Woodland would be affected.
- Milepost 204.5 to milepost 199.5 found an alignment to allow 110 mph. The alignment would affect woodland and light industrial property in the vicinity of Huntingdon. Seven bridges would be required as the proposed line would cross and recross the Juniata river watercourse.
- Milepost 196.2 to 192.6 the proposed realignment encounters Jacks Mountain. The two degree curvature would permit 80 mph. Either a deep cut or tunnel would be required. Woodland in the vicinity of Mapleton would be affected. One bridge would be required
- Milepost 184.1 to milepost 182.6 found an alignment east of Newton Hamilton that could allow 110 mph. Two bridges would be required.
- Milepost 181 to milepost 179.5 found an alignment west of McVeytown that would allow 110 mph. The alignment would affect the watercourse of the Juniata River. A bridge or a change to the Juniata Rver watercourse could accommodate the alignment.
- Milepost 179 to milepost 179.5 found an alignment tht would allow 110 mph. This alignment opposite of McVeytown would require a cut and would affect farmland and woodland.
- Milepost 176 to milepost 172.2 found an alignment that would allow 110 mph. Three bridges would be required as the line would cross and recross the Juniata River opposite and in the vicinity of Longfellow (Longfellow is at milepost 173.5. The cuts required would affect farmland.
- Milepost 172 to milepost 170 found an alignment that would allow 110 mph. The alignment in the vicinity of Granville would affect farmland.
- Milepost 172 to milepost 161.9 found an alternative alignment that would allow 110 mph for the line. Farmland some retail and residential property would be affected. Cuts would be required with five bridges as the line would cross and recross the Juniata River. This alignment in the vicinity of Lewistown would require a new location for the Lewistown Amtrak Station. Locating it near 40.575475N77623919W in the vicinity of the current Walmart store would provide efficient access to the limited access Route 322 around Lewistown. Lewistown is about a 50 minute drive to nearby State College and PSU.
- Milepost 157.7 to milepost 157.2 found an alignment west of Denholm that could allow 80 mph. The required cut would affect woodland. Alteratively, milepost 158.5 to milepost 156.9 found an alignment that could allow 110 mph.
- Milepost 156.5 to milepost 153.9 then milepost 153.5 to milepost 152 found an alignment that would allow 110 mph. The alignment would avoid Mifflin. It would require three bridges as it crosses the Juniata River three times. Woodland and industrial property would be affected.
- Milepost 151.to 150.6 found an alignment capable of 110 mph to the east of Port Royal.
- Milepost 151.7 to milepost 148.6 and milepost 148.1 to milepost 147.5 avoids Port Royal by being located across from Port Royal. The realignment in the vicinity of Mexico would allow 110 mph. Two bridges would be required as the alignment would cross the Juniata River twice. The required cut would affect farmland.
- Milepost 143.4 to milepost 141.6 found an alignment that would allow 110 mph. The alignment would be in the vicinity of Thompsontown across the Juniata River. Woodland would be affected by the cut.
- Milepost 141.1 to milepost 137.8 found an alignment that would allow 110 mph. The Juniata River would be crossed four time thus requiring four bridges. Farmland and woodland in the vicinity of Millerstown would be affected.
- Milepost 134 to milepost 124.5 found an alignment that would allow 110 mph. The town of Newport would be avoided. Cuts would affect farmland and woodland. FOur bridges would be required.
- Milepost 120.5 to milepost 118.8 found that a viaduct built over the Susquehanna River watercourse from Duncannon south woudl allow 110 mph. Affected would be the Susquehanna watercourse.
- Milepost 118.8 to milepost 115.6 found an alignment that would allow continuation of the 110 mph capability. A deep cut through Cove Mountain in the vicinity of Kinkora and Cove would affect woodland. Route 11 would be affected.
- Milepost 113.7 to milepost 112 found an alignment near Marysville through a cut in Cove Mountain that would allow 80 mph. Woodland would be affected.
- Milepost 111 to milepost 110.5 and milepost 110 to milepost 109 identified that 2 degree curves as the approaches for the 1902 Rockville bridge across the Susquehanna River would allow 80 mph. A new bridge would likely be the better decision altogether.
Friday, January 6, 2012
Operating Cost Comparsion - Diffferent Modes
I ran across a study back in the 1976's entitled, "U.S. Cargo Transportation Systems Cost and Service Characteristics." I guess the copy I have of it is very rare as a search in the library search site, www.worldcat.org, came up with three libraries! Of course, the U.S. Department of Transportation's library in Washington, D.C. The study compared the cost per ton to move a ton 600 miles.
Identifying an updated study through an internet search was fruitless. So, my comments are based upon the 1976 study.
The costs identified were pickup, linehaul, terminal and delivery. Now, the tools for transporting a ton are lot different today than 1976. Tractor and trailer, locomotive and rolling stock, and aircraft are more efficient tools today. Deregulation had not yet been implemented. But the rough ratios the study demonstrated in comparative costs remain instructive.
Whatever the transport mode, what is being transported must be picked up. Once the ton of something is picked up, the particular mode may or may not move the ton through a terminal. An exception are truckloads moving dock to dock that do not involve a terminal. All modes perform linehaul movement from origin to destination. An intervening terminal maybe required before a destination is made.
The 1976 study identified a ratio of 1:6:35 for rail, truck and linehaul costs. The rail has the linehaul cost advantage.
Terminal and pickup costs were 75% of pickup, linehaul, terminal and delivery total costs for the railroad. For trucking it was 37%. For air carriers it was 60%. But, the railroad linehaul cost being so advantageous meant and means that typically the rail rate is the lesser.
The railroad in 1976 as now has a decided comparative cost advantage in linehaul cost to move a ton.
In many instances the railroad then as now has the ability to meet the truck linehaul speed.
The substantial disadvantage for a railroad is the cost for pickup, terminal and delivery. In 1974 unit trains were not as prevalent as today. Containerization was a shadow of what it is today. Unit trains and containerization have proven to be productive tools. Anything lessening costs for pickup, terminal and delivery benefits the railroad mode.
Not only are the costs of railroad pickup, terminal and delivery real problems, it is the actual time required to perform pickup, terminal sorting and delivery that historically has destroyed any competitive linehaul speeds between railroad and truck.
An exception for the lack of linehaul competitiveness is the application of the dual mode freight vehicle called Roadrailer. A Roadrailer vehicle may convert from highway to railroad to highway quickly. No separate lifting equipment is required. The Roadrailer in rail mode uses a specially designed railroad wheel set that eliminates the need for a railroad car to support and carry the Roadrailer vehicle. Given the inherent linehaul efficiencies of the rail mode, the Norfolk Southern Railroad Company's truck subsidiary, Triple Crown Services, must be making a significant contribution to corporate earnings.
Identifying an updated study through an internet search was fruitless. So, my comments are based upon the 1976 study.
The costs identified were pickup, linehaul, terminal and delivery. Now, the tools for transporting a ton are lot different today than 1976. Tractor and trailer, locomotive and rolling stock, and aircraft are more efficient tools today. Deregulation had not yet been implemented. But the rough ratios the study demonstrated in comparative costs remain instructive.
Whatever the transport mode, what is being transported must be picked up. Once the ton of something is picked up, the particular mode may or may not move the ton through a terminal. An exception are truckloads moving dock to dock that do not involve a terminal. All modes perform linehaul movement from origin to destination. An intervening terminal maybe required before a destination is made.
The 1976 study identified a ratio of 1:6:35 for rail, truck and linehaul costs. The rail has the linehaul cost advantage.
Terminal and pickup costs were 75% of pickup, linehaul, terminal and delivery total costs for the railroad. For trucking it was 37%. For air carriers it was 60%. But, the railroad linehaul cost being so advantageous meant and means that typically the rail rate is the lesser.
The railroad in 1976 as now has a decided comparative cost advantage in linehaul cost to move a ton.
In many instances the railroad then as now has the ability to meet the truck linehaul speed.
The substantial disadvantage for a railroad is the cost for pickup, terminal and delivery. In 1974 unit trains were not as prevalent as today. Containerization was a shadow of what it is today. Unit trains and containerization have proven to be productive tools. Anything lessening costs for pickup, terminal and delivery benefits the railroad mode.
Not only are the costs of railroad pickup, terminal and delivery real problems, it is the actual time required to perform pickup, terminal sorting and delivery that historically has destroyed any competitive linehaul speeds between railroad and truck.
An exception for the lack of linehaul competitiveness is the application of the dual mode freight vehicle called Roadrailer. A Roadrailer vehicle may convert from highway to railroad to highway quickly. No separate lifting equipment is required. The Roadrailer in rail mode uses a specially designed railroad wheel set that eliminates the need for a railroad car to support and carry the Roadrailer vehicle. Given the inherent linehaul efficiencies of the rail mode, the Norfolk Southern Railroad Company's truck subsidiary, Triple Crown Services, must be making a significant contribution to corporate earnings.