Nicholas.Spies@CMU-CS-H.arpa (08/02/85)
A few years ago I recall that some money was put aside for a study on a high-speed railroad line between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. I was wondering if the results of this feasability study have been made public and what the conclusions were. As it now stands, this scenic route is only serviced by two trains a day; the Broadway limited, the through train from NY to Chicago, and the Pennsylvanian, funded at least in part by the State of PA. It would seem that the terrain would limit the speed, at least along the present right-of-way. Were new tunnels contemplated? (I understand that some of the tunnels on the PA turnpike [now all upgraded] were originally built for RR use many years ago.) If you can spare the time, and board at odd times, there is no better way of travelling between the centers of these two great PA cities. In Philly, the connection between 30th Street Station and the Reading Terminal (12th Street) has been completed, allowing local train connections from Doylestown to Coatesville. The first portion of the Pittsburgh subway system was recently completed, and when a spur line is completed there will be a subway station at PA station (also near intercity bus connections). This gives direct access to public transport East and South of the city along unobstructed routes. Considering that a cab costs ~$30 from downtown Pittsburgh to airport, with
lucas@cmu-psy-a.arpa (pete lucas) (09/01/85)
The study of a high-speed Philadelphia-Pittsburgh line is very much alive and appears to be moving along nicely. The commission's ridership estimates were very favorable and the project has just received a substantial grant from the Budd company and the German government to study the feasibility of using German mag-lev technology on the route. The prospect of such a line is really pretty exciting. It would represent the fulfillment of the 50 year old Pennsy vision of an electrified route from New York to Pittsburgh. If actually built, it would quite possibly serve as a catalyst for the completion of a high speed corridor west to Chicago. There already exists a consortium of states along this route to study such a project, although I haven't heard much from them recently. The Pittsburgh Press opposes the plan, citing the fact that the commission's ridership estimates were several times greater than that served by the present airline traffic between the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. This, of course, ignores one or two additional sources of ridership, such as the intercity airline traffic between these cities and Harrisburg, Altoona, and Johnstown, as well as passengers originating elsewhere on the NE corridor, for which there are already good connections to Philadelphia. This is not to mention the random traveller who currently *drives* between these cities and who might be tempted to forgo the pleasures of the Pennsylvania Turnpike given a reasonable alternative.
drockwel@CSNET-SH.ARPA (Dennis Rockwell) (09/02/85)
Regarding the thoughts about using maglev between Philly and Pittsburgh, why not just (big word, "just") upgrade the current right-of-way to the standards now in effect for the Northeast Corridor (now AMTRAK owned and maintained) and thus have off-the-shelf 110+ MPH service that doesn't use incompatible (and unproven in hard usage) track and rolling stock? This option must be cheaper than making a whole new right-of-way through some pretty pricey real estate. Installation and maintenance (always something to beware of these days, being the first thing ignored when profits aren't high enough) of a conventional catenary system *must* be cheaper than maglev. The Pennsy "Main Line" is already electrified (albeit not up the Corridor standards) as far as Harrisburg; that's about 1/3 of the distance (am I close?). Forcing NY-Pittsburgh riders to change trains at Philly (or Harrisburg) doesn't seem like an attractive proposition. Moving a cut of coaches from one locomotive to another at Philly seems much more reasonable. I do realize the the maglev promises higher speeds than conventional rail will (probably) ever attain. It's also true that the Pennsy could and often did deliver roughly equivalent service to that which AMTRAK now provides in the Corridor and out to Harrisburg 40 years ago using GG1s on the point. Don't get me wrong, I really like the idea of maglev; however, the economy is very variable, and a system that can use already field-proven that we know how to maintain (and already have the facilities and expertise to do so!) appears to be a sounder economic decision. We don't want another expensive botch like the Concorde, do we? Dennis Rockwell Electric Locomotive Fan (esp. the GG1 and AEM7) That ought to start up some discussion!
drockwel@CSNET-SH.ARPA (Dennis Rockwell) (09/03/85)
From: David.Black@cmu-cs-a.ARPA Date: Sun, 1 Sep 85 21:34 EDT Subject: Re: Philly-Pittsburgh train Gee, Dennis...when was the last time you rode Amtrak between Phila. and Pittsburgh?? If recently, then you're familiar with one major reason that line is not suitable for a NEC-style upgrading; excessive curvature. [ ... ] Heavy sigh. That's what I was afraid of; I've only ridden as far as Harrisburg. This is the same reason that electrification isn't being seriously considered for New Haven-Boston. At least that's pretty flat. On top of this, west of Harrisburg, the ex-Pennsy route is one of Conrail's most heavily used freight lines; the freights will knock that delicate passenger alignment and superelevation all out of whack on a daily basis [ ... ] Yup -- I saw the Trains article. Being generally unfamiliar with western PA, I didn't know there was that much freight traffic there, but I should've been able to figure it out. This is sounds like one of the places where the railroad is a clear win over truck traffic, due to topography and tonnage. [ ... ] plus a new line on new alignment between there and Pittsburgh. What sort of real estate congestion is there out that way? How much trouble would there be obtaining the rights-of-way? Is there a radically different route available which might be longer, but straighter and flatter (along some valley -- don't lots of them run NW through that region?) that didn't totally ignore where people want to go? The French TGV lines are built this way; use existing alignments where practical, particularly for city entries, and bypass hopelessly curved areas with new lines on straighter but more hilly alignments. Needless to say, this won't be cheap. Yeah! Boston used the same methods already for new rights-of-way -- one for the MBTA Green Line Riverside branch (formerly Boston & Albany, now Boeing LTV/PCC streetcar), another for the Mass Pike! The latter still carries a couple of tracks and was recently relaid with welded rail. The Washington Metro also does this in several directions out from DC. TGV does do well on grades; but yes, it won't be cheap. I don't remember anything in the NEC Trains article on the grades in the corridor. Did the later article on the AEM7 mention it? Dennis