|
|
| Would a second Keystone corridor do well? (1321379) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
| (1321380) | |
Re: Would a second Keystone corridor do well? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Oct 29 11:03:22 2014, in response to Would a second Keystone corridor do well?, posted by shiznit1987 on Wed Oct 29 10:55:34 2014. Given Amtrak's nature, the government can never admit anything would "do well" for it.It'd be preferable if the CNJ corridor was in one piece all the way to Allentown, because in that way, you could have a higher-speed passenger corridor alongside the Lehigh Line freight corridor at least for that distance; and if NS got help expanding the former Reading lines on that corridor, then it'd be more palatable to run that high speed (110 mph, although the FRA still defines "high speed" as starting at 90 mph). And of course, there's no room in Penn Station NY for more trains; even if there were, Amtrak would not be convinced to use ALP-45DPs. Harrisburg's former Pennsylvania RR station has but one platform available to the former Reading lines; the old RDG station in that city is now the post office. |
|
|
| (1321384) | |
Re: Would a second Keystone corridor do well? |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Oct 29 11:36:59 2014, in response to Would a second Keystone corridor do well?, posted by shiznit1987 on Wed Oct 29 10:55:34 2014. AMTK will run whatever trains on whatever route that the STATE PAYS THEM TO DO SO, Assuming that the State has appropriate trackage rights for that route, and does the required signaling and ROW maintenance (in conjunction with the owner-railroad) etc. etc.Short of that, No, AMTK will not ever consider any such operation on its own hook. ROAR |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1321387) | |
Re: Would a second Keystone corridor do well? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Oct 29 11:50:36 2014, in response to Re: Would a second Keystone corridor do well?, posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Oct 29 11:36:59 2014. "Required" in what way? If the trains run at 79 mph, no upgrades are required, especially when the track is Class 4 at least. |
|
|
| (1321396) | |
Re: Would a second Keystone corridor do well? |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Oct 29 12:38:58 2014, in response to Re: Would a second Keystone corridor do well?, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Oct 29 11:03:22 2014. Lack of space at PSY is the main barrier to any new or expanded rail service. NJ in general needs a massive expansion of its commuter rail network as exhibited by the overwhelmed XBL and PABT, but it can't be done without an entirely new terminal in NYC. |
|
|
| (1321397) | |
Re: Would a second Keystone corridor do well? |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Oct 29 12:42:10 2014, in response to Would a second Keystone corridor do well?, posted by shiznit1987 on Wed Oct 29 10:55:34 2014. I've been pushing that one for some time, but as Olog mentioned, there's really no space on the NYC end for it. |
|
|
| (1321399) | |
Re: Would a second Keystone corridor do well? |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Oct 29 12:48:52 2014, in response to Re: Would a second Keystone corridor do well?, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Oct 29 11:50:36 2014. Maybe some of the tracks that they want to use is not up to class 4.LION nose knot the ROW. ROAR |
|
|
| (1321400) | |
Re: Would a second Keystone corridor do well? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Oct 29 13:00:24 2014, in response to Re: Would a second Keystone corridor do well?, posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Oct 29 12:48:52 2014. Since the freights run faster than 40 miles per hour, I'd say it's at least Class 4. |
|
|
| (1321437) | |
Re: Would a second Keystone corridor do well? |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Wed Oct 29 17:17:26 2014, in response to Re: Would a second Keystone corridor do well?, posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Oct 29 12:42:10 2014. What about at Hoboken? How much spare capacity does PATH have? |
|
|
| (1321458) | |
Re: Would a second Keystone corridor do well? |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Oct 29 18:47:50 2014, in response to Re: Would a second Keystone corridor do well?, posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Oct 29 11:36:59 2014. Track use fees west of P-Burg would be very expensive. NJT has no rights west of there, so would have to pay market rates to NS, not incremental rates as Amtrak does. NS would demand a ransom for capacity expansion west of Bound Brook to whoever is willing to pay for it. I don't see Penn DOT the least bit interested. |
|
|
| (1321460) | |
Re: Would a second Keystone corridor do well? |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Oct 29 18:48:59 2014, in response to Re: Would a second Keystone corridor do well?, posted by 3-9 on Wed Oct 29 17:17:26 2014. PATH is under utilized at Hoboken, especially on the WTC line, thanks to NJT pulling much of their service and longer trains out. |
|
|
| (1321497) | |
Re: Would a second Keystone corridor do well? |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Oct 29 20:47:38 2014, in response to Re: Would a second Keystone corridor do well?, posted by Joe V on Wed Oct 29 18:48:59 2014. So Hoboken has capacity to spare? |
|
|
| (1321687) | |
Re: Would a second Keystone corridor do well? |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Oct 30 18:25:24 2014, in response to Re: Would a second Keystone corridor do well?, posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Oct 29 20:47:38 2014. Yes |
|
|
| (1321720) | |
Re: Would a second Keystone corridor do well? |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Oct 30 20:59:47 2014, in response to Re: Would a second Keystone corridor do well?, posted by Joe V on Thu Oct 30 18:25:24 2014. How many TPH spare capacity would you say? And then in that case, PATH really has spare room HOB-33rd and HOB-WTC? Because, to be honest, no amount of bus terminal expansion is going to solve the problem of crushing highway traffic on the Jersey end. Jersey at some point is going to have to invest in expanding its rail network and those trains are going to have to go somewhere. |
|
|
