Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hi, I am Adithya. I really appreciate the history of PRR and NY Central railroads. I would like to know if faster train service connecting all major upstate cities is possible and economically viable in the near future.
This is not advocating for new train service, it involves trying to improve upon service that already exists. Is it economically viable to purchase more modern tilting DMU sets for the Empire Service which can reach speeds of up to 140 mph. In other words, I am talking about a diesel version of the Acela, since it is impossible to electrify the water level route due to harsh weather conditions in winter and double stack freights. The rohr turboliner was an amazing piece of equipment, but is now extinct unfortunately . Its time we try out a new type of DMU, similar to the diesel powered Talgo train sets or Voyager sets used in Europe capable of hitting 130 MPH. Additionally, track work must be done to accommodate these high speeds. It is a cost intensive project. However, on the whole, I feel that the water level route is worth investing in for faster, more reliable, and more modern passenger trains. This route has seen high ridership for several years, and modernization is the only step that needs to be taken to enhance ridership levels even further. After a decade of support, this line might be able to break even financially.
There have been so many changes to passenger service on the former NYC mainline across upstate New York that one hardly knows where to start. I have a 1946 Official Guide that shows a parallel to the Pennsylvania Railroad services of the time -- perhaps 15-20 departures in each direction; that was down to perhaps 5-10 departures (fewer the further west from Albany you go), by the Mid-Sixties, and further reduced upon the inception of Amtrak in 1971,
And in those times, the service had healthy feeders -- perhaps the busiest was the West Shore (also NYC operated) service between Weehawken, NJ and Albany via Kingston, Catskill and the Hudson's "left coast", but the Boston and Albany, the Delaware and Hudson, and New England roads like the Rutland and the Boston and Maine also served as tributaries.
Few people today are aware that the West Shore (officially, New York, West Shore and Buffalo) also had its own line across the state's Albany-Buffalo corridor. It began as a competitive thrust by the Pennsylvania Railroad, during the same years NYC's William H Vanderbilt was pushing a line across Pennsylvania over what came to be the right-of-way of the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Both ideas were scaled back after a discreet meeting on the yacht of PRR President Roberts, called by none other than J P Morgan himself, but much of the West Shore's alternate route was already completed by that time, and retained.
Until the mid-Fifties, the entire NYC between Albany and Buffalo was a four-track railroad, (including a freight bypass around Rochester) controlled by lineside signal towers, but by 1958, the entire system was remote (CTC) - controlled. The Central ran impressive advertising plugging the change with specific examples in major magazines, but the planned synchronicity never seemed to materialize, possibly because all the major Eastern carriers were in difficult financial straits by the time.
So today we have a double-track railroad, supporting only 3-4 daily departures, but heavily-congested by freight trains from NYC, Penn-Central and Conrail successor CSX, the volume of which has increased by perhaps 50%, since the railroads began recapturing freight traffic after 1985.
The point I'd like to raise here is that there are large sections of right-of-way, some of them on separate grades, and some simply parallel to the former NYC, with two of the four tracks removed. This situation helps to mitigate one of the largest obstacles to a true High Speed Rail (HSR) system, but with fuel prices stabilizing and other alternatives emerging, I expect some time to pass before economics favor this idea.
And finally, a personal tale.
I always wanted to be a railroader, but a childhood spinal deformity and less-than-perfect vision made that a longshot. The passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act in the early Nineties finally gave me a shot, but I was into my forties by that time, and the job is physically demanding.
But in the late summer of 1996,I found myself working as part of the crew of a self-propelled Sperry Rail Service detector car, which tests underlying rails for cracks and other defects using low-voltage, high-amperage induction current and ultrasound. The crew lives on the car, and conditions could be likened to Navy sea-duty -- paradise for a railroad buff, but highly confining, and since phased out in favor of Hy-Rail trucks.
By Friday of the third week, which happened to be my forty-seventh birthday, it had become evident that I wasn't going to be retained, but my two companions had been sympathetic and had a little send-off planned.
We had been working a lightly-trafficked line between Syracuse and Montreal via Watertown, but the last few days we worked eastward from Syracuse and Utica. that last afternoon found us between Utica and Herkimer, The welded, rather than jointed rail, allowed us to test at somewhat higher speeds, and since the "host" railroad is obligated to supply oversight via a qualified engineer at all times, the "rookie" on the Sperry crew (little ME) actually handles the throttle and brakes.
So on that last afternoon of September 20, 1996, I found myself moving along the same route that once hosted the famous 20th Century Limited, and a whole lot of history over 160-plus years. Bittersweet, but an experience few rail buffs are privileged to get. Thank you, Sperry Rail Service, for three great weeks on Detector Car 130.
Hi, I am Adithya. I really appreciate the history of PRR and NY Central railroads. I would like to know if faster train service connecting all major upstate cities is possible and economically viable in the near future.
This is not advocating for new train service, it involves trying to improve upon service that already exists. Is it economically viable to purchase more modern tilting DMU sets for the Empire Service which can reach speeds of up to 140 mph. In other words, I am talking about a diesel version of the Acela, since it is impossible to electrify the water level route due to harsh weather conditions in winter and double stack freights. The rohr turboliner was an amazing piece of equipment, but is now extinct unfortunately . Its time we try out a new type of DMU, similar to the diesel powered Talgo train sets or Voyager sets used in Europe capable of hitting 130 MPH. Additionally, track work must be done to accommodate these high speeds. It is a cost intensive project. However, on the whole, I feel that the water level route is worth investing in for faster, more reliable, and more modern passenger trains. This route has seen high ridership for several years, and modernization is the only step that needs to be taken to enhance ridership levels even further. After a decade of support, this line might be able to break even financially.
There isn't nearly the demand, and adding that sort of capital expense will make it harder, not easier, for the line to break even. Plus the FRA is going to make things slower, not faster, after the Bronx derailment.
There isn't nearly the demand, and adding that sort of capital expense will make it harder, not easier, for the line to break even. Plus the FRA is going to make things slower, not faster, after the Bronx derailment.
Agreed. I'm a big fan of Upstate development, but I think this one may be a non-starter. If there's going to be investment in high-speed rail anywhere in our region, it will be on the Northeast Corridor between DC, NYC, and Boston, in terms of an expansion of/improvement to Acela service. That's where the demand and population is.
The first summer that I moved to New York I took the Empire Service from here in the City to Niagara Falls. Very scenic journey and quite memorable, but I remember the train being largely empty, especially north of Albany. As you can see at this map U.S. Passenger Rail Ridership | Brookings Institution, the route is a big money loser for Amtrak.
I'm also a big fan of high speed rail, but we have to do it where it works - between large urban metropolises such as New York and Boston, or Los Angeles and San Francisco - where there is sufficient demand.
Agreed. I'm a big fan of Upstate development, but I think this one may be a non-starter. If there's going to be investment in high-speed rail anywhere in our region, it will be on the Northeast Corridor between DC, NYC, and Boston, in terms of an expansion of/improvement to Acela service. That's where the demand and population is.
The first summer that I moved to New York I took the Empire Service from here in the City to Niagara Falls. Very scenic journey and quite memorable, but I remember the train being largely empty, especially north of Albany. As you can see at this map U.S. Passenger Rail Ridership | Brookings Institution, the route is a big money loser for Amtrak.
I'm also a big fan of high speed rail, but we have to do it where it works - between large urban metropolises such as New York and Boston, or Los Angeles and San Francisco - where there is sufficient demand.
But doesn't Upstate NY population density along the Eire canal support rail. The thruway is quite crowded in the summer (more than it was before) and I keep thinking that train would be a good alternative. Downside is that its too slow. Increasing service speeds and modernizing equipment is the right way to increase ridership along this line. Many people refuse to use it because of low speed and infrequent service.
But doesn't Upstate NY population density along the Eire canal support rail. The thruway is quite crowded in the summer (more than it was before) and I keep thinking that train would be a good alternative. Downside is that its too slow. Increasing service speeds and modernizing equipment is the right way to increase ridership along this line. Many people refuse to use it because of low speed and infrequent service.
Where do you think people are traveling that intercity rail would be good? Even if a person was willing to travel by train from A to B odds are they would need a car to get to C where their meeting is located.
Much easier to take the car and go directly to C and avoid the middleman all together....
Traveling City to City works for DC - NY because the time is the same as or less than the time it takes to drive without the driving / parking hassles associated at either end. Also once you are in the city odd are you are attending a meeting their so bus/subway/walk gets you to the final location.
I've ridden the train from Utica or Syracuse to the city a few times. As has been said until you get to Albany it's basically empty.
Upstate is a car culture. We have the cars so it would be silly to take a train. We can catch a metro north train in 3 hours drive
^^^
Quote:
Originally Posted by VA Yankee
Where do you think people are traveling that intercity rail would be good? Even if a person was willing to travel by train from A to B odds are they would need a car to get to C where their meeting is located.
Much easier to take the car and go directly to C and avoid the middleman all together....
Traveling City to City works for DC - NY because the time is the same as or less than the time it takes to drive without the driving / parking hassles associated at either end. Also once you are in the city odd are you are attending a meeting their so bus/subway/walk gets you to the final location.
The distances aren't long enough and the population density is not high enough in the upstate area to justify high speed rail. Also, upstate cities don't have well organized intra-city transit, and some of the rail stations, like the one in Buffalo, are located out in the suburbs.
Buffalo and Rochester are 70 miles apart, and Buffalo and Syracuse about 140 miles. Buffalo and Albany are about 280.
The Buffalo/Rochester route would be useless for HSR: how much time are you really going to save, particularly when you have to drive to a station, catch a train, catch a bus to Rochester which might or might not be easy to do.
Buffalo/Syracuse might be do-able but there's not the ridership to justify both local trains to Rochester and then Syracuse and expresses to Syracuse. An express could get you from Buffalo to Syracuse in a little more than an hour, but stopping in Rochester would compromise the HSR by increasing the travel time.
The Buffalo/Albany route would be ideal for an express route. It would cut a 5-6 hour drive down to about 2.5 hours but the problem is that stops in Rochester and Syracuse would compromise the speed, and there's not enough ridership to justify both express and local service.
Taking the train from Buffalo to NYC is minimally nine hours without adding in driving to get to the Buffalo station. If you live a couple of hours from Buffalo as I do, you're making that trip 11 hours, whereas if I just get into my car and head east on I-86, I can be in NYC in less than 7 hours.
What many people from Upstate do to go into NYC is drive to Albany or Hudson or the last stop on the Metro North route, park their cars and take the train into the city.
Out of the Upstate NY cities, Syracuse may be the best equipped, if it could bring back OnTrack and due to the location of the train station. OnTrack could connect Downtown Syracuse and Syracuse University to the train station. It would be great to expand to the airport or have Rapid Transit Bus connect the airport and transportation center.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Its time we try out a new type of DMU, similar to the diesel powered Talgo train sets or Voyager sets used in Europe capable of hitting 130 MPH. Additionally, track work must be done to accommodate these high speeds. It is a cost intensive project. However, on the whole, I feel that the water level route is worth investing in for faster, more reliable, and more modern passenger trains. This route has seen high ridership for several years, and modernization is the only step that needs to be taken to enhance ridership levels even further. After a decade of support, this line might be able to break even financially.
) actually handles the throttle and brakes.
