Quick Note: Report on Electrification and Medium-Speed Rail Upgrades
Nolan Hicks has wrapped up nearly a year of work at Marron on a proposal called Momentum, to upgrade mainline rail in the United States with electrification, high platforms, and additional tracks where needed, short of high-speed rail. The aim is to build low- or perhaps medium-speed rail; the proposed trip times are New York-Albany in 2:05 (averaging 109 km/h) and New York-Buffalo in 5:38 to 5:46 (averaging 123 km/h). The concept is supposed to be used US-wide, but the greatest focus is on New York State, where the plan devotes a section to Network West, that is New York-Buffalo, and another to Network East, that is the LIRR, in anticipation of the upcoming state budget debate.
The costs of this plan are high. Nolan projects $33-35.6 billion for New York-Buffalo, entirely on existing track. The reasoning is that his cost estimation is based on looking at comparable American projects, and there aren’t a lot of such upgrades in the US, so he’s forced to use the few that do exist. A second track on single-track line is costed cheaply with references to various existing projects (in Michigan, Massachusetts, etc.), but third and fourth tracks on a double-track line like the Water Level Route are costed at $30 million/km, based on a proposal in the built-up area of Chicago to Michigan City.
In effect, the benefits are a good way of seeing what upgrades to best American industry practices would do. The idea, as with the costing, is to justify everything with current or past American plans, and the sections on the history of studies looking at electrification projects are indispensable. This covers both intercity and regional rail upgrades, and we’ve used some of the numbers in the drafts at ETA to argue, as Nolan does, against third rail extensions and in favor of catenary on the LIRR and Metro-North.
(Update 4-3: and now the full proposal is out, see here.)
Pedestrian Observations 
The Empire Corridor Final EIS with its ALT 90B has an estimated cost of only $8 billion and achieves most of the same, cutting another hour or so off from ALT90B would cost three times as much, so where does the $33-35.6 billion come from? And electrification is pie-in-the-sky because CSX says no, same with Virginia with DC-Richmond. Who is going to force CSX to yield? NYSDOT tried that in wanting 110 MPH when it legally agreed to 90 MPH in its agreement with CSX, and it delayed the EIS for years. Over $30 billion for 5.5-to-6 hours to Buffalo???
See if NYPERS can buy enough CSX to get the attention of the BOD. i think CSX can be persuaded to also cooperate in VA if various PERS groups put in cash. IINM the present CSX-VRE deal for a third main track came with some real estate tax concession.
About multi tracking the Water Level Route east from Chicago; it did not go to Michigan City–that was the NYC;s Michigan Central whereas the Water Level Route properly applies to the former LS&MS (also NYC). That was the 4 track mainline through South Bend, Elkhart and on to Toledo. Which brings up another option. Between Chicago and South Bend it is possible to add more main tracks along the CSS&SB which nominally connects with the Water Level Route very close to the current Amtrak station.
$30 million/km for quad-tracking the route, as I said. Then the electrification is costed at $14m/km, basically Caltrain (technically Caltrain minus things that are costed elsewhere like CBOSS and rolling stock).
Getting approval for four track grade crossing would be difficult. If it’s going to require a lot of grade separations might as well go for full fledged high speed rail.
I always pay attention whenever I go lobbying:
NYC to Albany is 3 hours by bus.
PLEASE
The claim in the linked ETA report that third rail is more expensive than catenary is utterly baffling to me, as it goes against everything I know, the actions of transit agencies, and basic logic. It appears to be based on comparing two studies done by different people, which presumably made different assumptions due to the different context. If catenary was cheaper than third rail no one would be complaining about the British rail regulator’s decision to effectively block all extensions of mainline third rail electrification! Nor would most new metros around the world use third rail electrification.
It depends on which railfan gets woozy over what. In 1912. It’s not 1912 anymore.
Most new metros around the world do not in fact use third rail – China and India are almost entirely on catenary, and are between them a majority of route-km built in the 21st century. Seoul and Istanbul, the most prolific builders outside China and India, are mostly catenary as well.
To say that China and India are almost entirely on catenary is dishonest, as there are many new systems in both countries that use third rail. In addition, many new systems outside those countries also use third rail. Here is a list of every new metro system (i.e. excluding new lines on older systems) in the past decade that use third rail:
Agra Metro (India)
Ahmedabad Metro (India)
Doha Metro (Qatar)
Gimpo Goldline (South Korea)
Hanoi Metro (Vietnam)
Jabodebek LRT (Indonesia)
Jakarta LRT (Indonesia)
Jinhua Rail Transit (China)
Kanpur Metro (India)
Kochi Metro (India)
Lagos Rail Mass Transit Blue Line (Nigeria)
Lahore Metro (Pakistan)
Palembang LRT (Indonesia)
Pune Metro Line 3 (India)
Qingdao Metro (China)
Riyadh Metro (Saudi Arabia)
Skyline (USA)
Taichung MRT (Taiwan)
Taoyuan Metro (Taiwan)
Thessaloniki Metro (Greece)
This is excluding the systems using overhead DC electrification (very popular in China, and third rail DC and overhead DC systems combined definitely outnumber overhead AC systems), which should by your logic also be more expensive than overhead AC electrification. Overhead AC electrification is pretty much confined to India – while there are some lines in China that use it they are completely outnumbered by DC lines.
Why are systems with stations within sight of each other pertinent? Besides it not being 1912 anymore, and electrical physics being a very very cruel mistress there’s mechanical physics too. Third rail has serious problems above mediocre, for intercity service, speeds.
If you want to argue that overhead electrification is better performance-wise than third rail electrification go ahead – though I doubt very much that on the now-unelectrified LIRR branches trains would have to outperform those on the UK’s large and fast third rail network.
My point was specifically about Levy’s claims about the capital cost of third rail electrification compared to overhead AC electrification.
It’s not 1912 anymore. Trains go faster than 60 mph and the LIRR is very very straight.
Three new metros in Asia built with Japanese ODA (Jakarta, Dhaka, and Ho Chi Minh City) use overhead catenary.
DC overhead catenary, which by Levy’s “logic” should be more expensive than AC electrification.
It’s quite obviously that dc overhead is more expensive than ac overhead. There’s a reason the Russians switched entirely to AC. Meanwhile underground for a metro transformer spacing is a lot less relevant than clearance.
Again, if DC overhead is more expensive than AC overhead, why do so many new systems use it?
If DC is so fabulous why are thousands of kilometers of high speed and not-so-high-speed rail being built with high voltage AC?
AC vs DC overhead looks like a trade off between power losses in the substation and power losses on board the train/additional weight of AC/DC conversion.
Let’s get this right, AC has lower power losses on the wires as it can use a higher voltage, DC has lower weight and complexity on the train as you don’t need AC/DC converters on board.
AC is better for high speed rail as you need fewer substations due to the higher voltage.
Not only is not 1912 anymore it’s not 1992 anymore. The motors on the train don’t use DC. They get connected to a sophisticated inverter that adjusts the voltage and frequency, something polyphase, depending on the situation, to make the spinny parts spin more reliably than DC motors. I’m sure you are thinking Αυτά μου φαίνονται αλαμπουρνέζικα.
@adirondacker12800 the motors are three phase AC so you do AC-DC-AC.
Polyphase. there are applications where it makes sense to use six or twelve phases. Whether or not that has been done on railroads – who cares? The vast majority of new route miles/kilometers are 25kV AC.
The ban on third rail stops infill electrification e.g. Hurst Green to Uckfield.
Also it needs controlling to make sure the non electrified lines get done before the third rail ones are converted.
For new mainline electrification it’s difficult to argue you wouldn’t use 25kV AC for performance reasons if nothing else. And third rail very much tops out at 100mph and even that is dicey.
Also there are a bunch of reasons given on https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/which-is-better-and-why-over-head-or-third-rail-electrification.167594/
As Matthew Hutton says, I think its a tradeoff. High-voltage catenary requires relatively large clearances and more on-train equipment, making it less suitable for subways where space constrants push toward the tunnels and trains being as small as possible. Third rail, which must use lower voltage due to lack of clearances, is less efficient transmitting power over long distances and has problems working at high speeds. This doesn’t matter for subway systems, where the high levels of traffic mean that trains will operate close together, requiring close substation spacing regardless of whether catenary or third rail is chosen. But on a commuter rail line, if trains operate every 10 minutes and have an average speed of 30mph, then trains will be spaced 5 miles apart. This relatively low train density means that on a catenary based system means that substations can be spaced fairly far apart– according to wikipedia SEPTA’s 12kv system has them spaced every 8-10 miles, and a 24kV system could space them twice as wide. LIRR third rail substations are on average only 2 miles apart. This means that if the outer edges of the LIRR were electrified with this system the substations would be more closely spaced than the trains were, meaning that instead of having a relatively constant level of power substations would sit idle and then have a sudden surge in power demand when a train entered their segment of track.
Is deeply deeply fascinated by the 63rd Street Tunnel. There is no reason why the rest of metro New York should be constrained by it and certainly not the rest of North America.
Alon:
When will Marron release the actual study?
One wonders if the people proposing electrification of freight with overhead wire, might perhaps permit third rail in yards. Lifting containers on and off through catenary?????
One wonders if random blog commenters being the first humans since the Dawn of Civilization to stumble upon perplexingly esoteric and inconvenient facts (containers through the catenary! Tunnelling through, perhaps, bear with me, compactified extra dimensions!?!?) might perhaps permit an inkling of Beyond Standard Model physics.
Or one could just look at how this is actually done, elsewhere, right here, right now, on Planet Earth.
Or not. It doesn’t matter.
Alon, you might update to link to the released document https://transitcosts.com/wp-content/uploads/Momentum-V2a3-Ch1-12.pdf
I’ve have to say I found it a tiresome and somewhat embarrassing read. (But I also know how hard it is to put together anything, anything at all, so, yay to “Momementum”, yeah, yay for publishing anything that isn’t purely insane rambling.)
To me it all just reads as: Pennsylvania Rail Road, Pennsylvania Rail Road, Pennsylvania Rail Road, UK, Pennsylvania Rail Road, Pennsylvania Rail Road, Pennsylvania Rail Road, UK, Pennsylvania Rail Road, Pennsylvania Rail Road, Caltrain, Pennsylvania Rail Road, Pennsylvania Rail Road, Pennsylvania Rail Road, UK, Pennsylvania Rail Road.
Here’s to the glorious future where the Metro North Commuter Rail Road of 2040 reclaims the glory that was the Pennsylvania Rail Road of 1940, through Momentum and despite frankly weird off-topic axe-grinding un-edited disparagement of buses and low headways and “Different transit modes, different motivations”!
Electrification at $6.6M-$44M/mile? Just for catenary and traction power substations? The report uses $22-27M for its package calculations.
Say it ain’t so…
This doesn’t square with the TransitMatters electrification report from 2021, which lists several projects in its calculation of the average, from $2.2M/mile (to $14M/mile (Caltrain). Even escalated for inflation, $22M per mile?
I’m in CT, and CTDOT is doing an electrification study of the Danbury and Waterbury branches of the New Haven Line, and the Springfield-New Haven Line. I wrote to the project manager and my state legislators urging them to keep the consultant slop in check and linking to the TransitMatters report. (My rep & senator wrote back, the project manager didn’t.)
Alon has written in the past about how terrible CT is at passenger rail – the 60 coaches that cost as much as locomotives is evidence – and I’m afraid whoever they’ve employed to do the study is gonna bloat this up so much it’ll never get built in my lifetime.
I think the New Haven-Springfield Line (on which Hartford Line services are run) are a perfect opportunity for electrification. In my ideal world, they’d just use M8s for electrified commuter service and Amtrak would run NERs to Springfield without the engine change. I’ve been on that train (I’m in Hartford County), and it’s a pain in the ass. It would instantly shave off 20-30 min to points south. Such a service concept would not require a full up yard – maybe a layover facility – Hartford’s got plenty of room north of the city, and a kind of underused rail yard just north of downtown. The line is in the process (partially complete, funded for much of the rest) of being fully double-tracked and signaled. Stations are done.
The only snag I can think of is Hartford Union Station. It needs to be relocated/reconstructed, and it’s gonna be a doozy. The station structure can’t support two loaded tracks, and reconstructing in place would involve unacceptable (to me) service disruptions. CTDOT is also doing a study to replace it, but they already did a study 10 years ago to analyze alternatives, and none of the press has reported which one they’re proceeding to for detailed cost estimates. In my opinion there’s only 1 real alternative anyway, which is to relocate the station north of I-84 at ground level. In any case, an electrification project and station relocation would have to go hand in hand.
Maybe I should reach out to the Transportation Committee chairs instead….
The politicians need to know the truth for sure.
In the US politicians only care if you live in their district. You can write the chair of the transportation committee, but they will just forward you letter unopened (or at least unread depending on how hard you make it to figure out where you live – if they can’t figure that out it goes in the trash) to your representative. At the state level you can sometimes get your representative to talk to the chair on your behalf, but that is questionable (at national level they won’t have time). Write your congressperson for sure – every letter is at the least put into a pile and any pile the size of any pile that gets large enough gets reported (this is why those form letters organizations want you to send matter – because you sent the same form as everyone else the organization’s official letter will be read.
Remember that votes matter in the end. Money and letters are both proxies for voters, but if you can bring the votes you are more important than those.
I think this is a simplification.
If you have no relationship with a particular representative then it works as you describe. If you do have a relationship then essentially there are no rules.
But yeah best to write to your personal representative and build a relationship with them and let them take some credit for passing it on.
There are many exceptions. Most of us are not the exception. If you are a professor at Harvard your letters are likely to be read by the congressperson (not just a staffer) even if in a different district. If you are personal friends your letters are read. If you encounter the congressperson in public they like to talk and generally won’t ask where you are from (may not apply in D.C. though – they get approached too much there).
They are ordering something that can operate on diesel until things get wired up in 2070.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_Venture#Amtrak_Northeast_Corridor
If they work.
Chargers are not particularly reliable in cold weather or snow, and as diesel-electrics they operate at a lower top speed and acceleration than electric locomotives and EMUs. VIA Rail’s and IDOT’s Chargers are hovering around 65% availability, last I checked.
Lastly, this diesel-electric-APV combo is a new one, and according to some extremely reliable sources on Reddit (kidding), Siemens appears to be moving the transformer cabinet back into the locomotive from the APV. Either way, this trainset is bound to have some teething problems.
It’s a step in the right direction, but a halting, half-measured one.
They could just give up like they did with Springfield to Boston and everyone can drive to New Haven or Boston.