Eastern Railroad Discussion > CSX (RF&P) High Speed Rail

Was wondering if anyone saw this post over on Progressive Railroading news from 12/23/14.

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/high_speed_rail/news/Virginia-rail-department-chooses-HDR-for-environmental-study--42983

Seems the state of VA has signed a contract for a three year environmental impact study on the possibility of high speed rail, I will call it higher speed rail since it's within the existing right of way, between Arlington VA and Richmond VA. Maybe by 2030 with lots of money it will happen. Right now it's triple from RO south to north of the Springfield VRE/Amtrak/Metro station, but then south it's only two tracks. I don't even know if the Springfield, Lorton, Woodbridge, Rippon, Quantico, Fredericksburg, dual platform stations could handle a third track being added. Or would they have to go from triple to double and back to triple. Maybe someone knows the distance from platform edge to platform edge and if a third track could be added. I'm pretty sure that VRE wants to make Brooke a dual platform station also. Also what ever happened to "shovel ready" in 2009 triple track from Arkendale interlocking north to Powells creek. Which would need to include Chomawamsic Creek south of the base. Quantico Creek north of the base of course already has a new bridge to handle two tracks, though only one is there, and the old bridge to handle one. In five years I have not seen one bit of dirt move. Who knows where that money went, unless it's still earmarked. But at this point I would think it's gone.
Thoughts / comments?

Rusty
North Stafford VA

From the context I can't tell what "high speed" means to them. But triple track and 90 mph running (all the way to Richmond Main St) would be fine, I think.

Just found this link:
http://www.dc2rvarail.com/
Off:
http://www.drpt.virginia.gov/activities/Rail.aspx

Agreed. Maybe by 2050 the USA will have European style high speed rail on dedicated rights of way that sadly don't connect major business center to major business center. What should be focused on is high 'er' speed rail. Basically looking at a segment like the NEC as a whole and look to improve what is already there. Don't do you much good to have a train that can do 100+ if it has to go through a 20 mph interlocking. Like driving a Porche over cobblestone streets.

Amazingly, 22 years ago I did drawings for a consulting engineer that was doing a study for the Commonwealth of Virginia on high speed rail in the Richmond-Washington Corridor. My memory has faded, but I believe there were two scenarios, 100 and 150 MPH. Under the 150 MPH scenario, you would be amazed at the number of locations where the former RF&P would be totally relocated, or remain for freight operations, with passenger operations totally relocated. The former RF&P is far from straight.

It will never happen!!

Posted from Android

Actually, they've been working between Arkendale and Powells Creek over the summer moving underground utility lines in anticipation of starting to grade for the 3rd track. All attention at this point has been turned to the installation of the 3rd track between Massaponax and Crossroads.

Posted from iPhone

Is the third main going to be owned and maintained by CSXT or tue state of Virginia?

Thank you in advance.

One thing you might consider in your discusion of higher speeds and a third track on the RF&P is this. Twice I have asked a friend who knows this line well and works for a passenger railroad, why the RFP has always been maximum speed of 70mph when it has cab signals and could go 90 mph where conditions permit? The answer is that, as mentioned earlier, it is very curvy, especially on the north end. But the real issue is that most of the RFP is a very old railroad and was not built with easement spirals into the curves. In simple terms, most of it is like building a model RR with snap track. Straight, then a constant radius curve, then straight again. With this, there is no opportunity to gradually increase superelevation into the curve, so a passenger train approaching a curve going 70 has to slow down to the curve speed limit BEFORE it even gets into the curve. Now most of RFP's curves are not super sharp, so some can be taken at 70 or 65 or 60mph.

Amfleet cars, not the best riding passenger cars ever built, ride nice on the RFP at 70 or less; when the same train gets to the NEC and goes 125mph on concrete ties it is like a 'land rocket' as one paying AMTK patron told me some years ago.

As for adding a third track, just follow the route on Google Earth or something else like that. I know from my last ride a lot of it south of Fredericksburg had a deep ditche on the west side. I agree to get higher speeds a new right of way will be needed in many places. I'm not sure if usually conservative Virginia will financially support that big expense.

tp117 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One thing you might consider in your discusion of
> higher speeds and a third track on the RF&P is
> this. Twice I have asked a friend who knows this
> line well and works for a passenger railroad, why
> the RFP has always been maximum speed of 70mph
> when it has cab signals and could go 90 mph where
> conditions permit? The answer is that, as
> mentioned earlier, it is very curvy, especially on
> the north end. But the real issue is that most of
> the RFP is a very old railroad and was not built
> with easement spirals into the curves. In simple
> terms, most of it is like building a model RR with
> snap track. Straight, then a constant radius
> curve, then straight again. With this, there is no
> opportunity to gradually increase superelevation
> into the curve, so a passenger train approaching a
> curve going 70 has to slow down to the curve speed
> limit BEFORE it even gets into the curve. Now most
> of RFP's curves are not super sharp, so some can
> be taken at 70 or 65 or 60mph.
>

Riding the RF&P Sub a few times does make one wonder why, with cab signals already installed, the speed limit couldn't be increased to 90 MPH by simply increasing the superelevation on the curves. Still, if there are not easements into the curves, it would be alot simpler and less expensive to simply realign the spiral into the curves, moving the tracks slightly if needed and boost the superelevation. Might need more frequent tamping and lining for FRA class 5 track, but all of this would have much less cost than what is being proposed. It doesn't seem to make sense to run 79MPH on the NS from Norfolk or CSX from Florence and then have to hold to 70MPH on the RF&P Sub.

BSB

Thanks to all. An enlightened diecussion.

Posted from Android

BigSkyBlue.....I agree with you, but maybe the land is not available in some areas to ease out the curves. But I would suspect the major reason is that CSX owns the right of way, their freight trains only do 50 -60 I think (TT is in my car) and they don't care because they get no advantage out of it. It is politics as usual. Get some Gov't to pay for it and they will find a way. It is the same in Richmond, where CSX rationalized track so much 30 or more years ago that nothing has a decent route thru the city, freight or passenger. Just the installation of one or two crossovers between Main Street Station and Acca Yard would help immensely, but neither CSX, AMTK or anyone else can see the sense of it or find a way to pay for it, and CSX is making millions now.

The speed limit on the RF&P was once 80 MPH. I believe that it was reduced to 70 MPH sometime after the derailment of Train 10/76 at Franconia, VA on 1/27/70. RF&P was aware of one thing. They were a small railroad and costs from derailments, which also extend into the legal realm, are far harder on a small railroad than a large system. When I left the RF&P in 1992, it had some of the best track in the country. That was not the case back in the early 1970s. Between the costs of the track elevation and the liability, I think RF&P never had a desire to return to 80 MPH, even as the track improved, especially if it only benefited Amtrak. Also, I am sure that some speed restrictions for curves were eliminated when the speed was dropped to 70 MPH. I can think of several curves that had a 70 MPH restriction when the maximum was 80 MPH. As for what has happened after CSX took over, I don't have a clue.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/31/14 19:18 by Ex127So.

Ex127So Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The speed limit on the RF&P was once 80 MPH. I
> believe that it was reduced to 70 MPH sometime
> after the derailment of Train 10/76 at Franconia,
> VA on 1/27/70.

Maybe it was a false memory, but I remember riding the RF&P in the summer of 1964. I was timing mileposts and what sticks in my mind is that we hit 90 mph for a while.

According to ETT No. 33, dated 10/27/63, it was 80 MPH. They might have hit 90 MPH, especially between Milford and Guinea, but we won't get into that.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/01/15 11:05 by Ex127So.

Interesting, never knew it was 80mph at one time. I rode it is the sixties and we never went really fast but I had no way to measure. i do not think I have an RFP TT.

Interesting discussion everyone. I wonder if tracks will be laid in the Arkendale area once utility lines are moved. Or if the overall three year study will need to be completed first. As far as who owns the lines. I don't know officially but I would say CSX would own the right of way and VRE, Amtrak and VA would pay for the ability to use that right of way. I suspect that is how it worked with the addition of the third track a few years ago from north of Springfield VRE station north to AF interlocking. As a few years before that, I'm pretty sure, a third rail was laid from AF north to RO. I did find a couple interesting VRE pages:
http://www.vre.org/about/strategic/SystemPlan/VRE%20System%20Plan%20Summary%20Final.pdf
http://www.vre.org/about/strategic/
I did email VRE asking them if the west side platform addition was designed to handle a third track between the rails. One would hope that was planned for, but not sure.
I counted a least thirty curves just looking at google of the RF&P from 95 in the south to north of Quantico base. Maybe high speed or even higher speed train travel might never be possible for the RF&P. But maybe a better use of the tracks could happen. Like adding needed crossovers in the Richmond area. Or getting rid of grade crossings and triple tracking all bridges. I'm sure the CSX dispatcher for the RF&P has lots of 'fun' on a typical weekday handling numerous VRE trains plus Amtrak and freight. Having platforms on both sides of the track would help and of course having a third track would help, even if the trains could not go faster then their existing 70 mph.
Plus I think the Panama Canal is to open in 2016 and I'm sure that will make things interesting for CSX.
If I hear anything else of interest I'll be sure to post. I guess in the decades ahead the RF&P might look a bit different.
Rusty