Passenger Trains > MARC/VRE to study through-running

Perhaps Amazon HQ2 will be the catalyst--this has been a long-term "wish list" item.

https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2019/04/12/a-marc-train-to-hq2-a-vre-train-to-baltimore-this.html

Paul Wilson
Arlington, VA

The VRE fleet cannot do high level platforms. So the Brunswick line is the only place they could go. VRE sold their 13 bi-level cars that could handle high level platfroms to MARC. 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/19 08:03 by joemvcnj.

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The VRE fleet cannot do high level platforms. So
> the Brunswick line is the only place they could
> go.


Wrong, they can simply lower the platform height at the Baltimore station for the Camden Line.  VRE's 2 diesel lines with low level platforms because of freight would match up with MARC's 2 diesel lines with mostly low level platforms because of freight.  A very logical and doable improvement to service, if the funding can be secured.

The Brunswick Line would likely be the more expensive upgrade for through running, since it is currently a one-way rush hour line that CSX would require more track capacity expansion for bi-directional.  Though some probably also required on the Camden Line for any increase in the number of trains.  Perhaps initially just a select few MARC trains would be extended south to say Alexandria, and maybe a few VRE trains fill existing Camden Line slots.

darkcloud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> joemvcnj Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The VRE fleet cannot do high level platforms.
> So
> > the Brunswick line is the only place they could
> > go.
>
>
> Wrong, they can simply lower the platform height
> at the Baltimore station for the Camden Line. 
> VRE's 2 diesel lines with low level platforms
> because of freight would match up with MARC's 2
> diesel lines with mostly low level platforms
> because of freight.  A very logical and doable
> improvement to service, if the funding can be
> secured.

Realistically speaking, they are not going to regress to low level platforms. There are also ADA issues, like "full length - level-boarding", which they have achieved, but would now have to backtrack and stay legal. No eastern commuter railroad as ever gone back and re-lowered their platforms. 

> The Brunswick Line would likely be the more
> expensive upgrade for through running, since it is
> currently a one-way rush hour line that CSX would
> require more track capacity expansion for
> bi-directional.  Though some probably also
> required on the Camden Line for any increase in
> the number of trains.  Perhaps initially just a
> select few MARC trains would be extended south to
> say Alexandria, and maybe a few VRE trains fill
> existing Camden Line slots.

At Alexandria, what then ? Sit there and lay up until time to go back ? Ask CSK about that. 

The reverse peak market could be BWI Airport, but that is out of the question. I could see Crystal City stop as a MARC destination for the airport.
 



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/19 10:30 by joemvcnj.

This trial balloon gets lofted from time to time, and the idea has always ended up in the "too hard" pile due to relative lack of interest in either state. In addition to equipment compatibility, there are capacity issues at the Long Bridge. DDOT is the lead agency on a slow-moving study for Long Bridge replacement.

Paul Wilson
Arlington, VA



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/19 10:34 by Dcmcrider.

Need a lot of origin-destination market analysis too see if it's worth it and where they could do it. Some people are driving, others are creative with a combo of commuter rail and Metro. But Metro gets you to job locations that either commuter railroad can never do, like Pentagon City. There's also the issue of CSX and NS allowing more reverser peak service. There is none on the Brunswick line anymore. If they had such, they could save a train set and ease up on the storage heachache at WUT and Ivy City. 

Too bad VRE couldn't simply add-on to MARC car orders indefinitely. The 13 original bi-levels were identical to MARC's, but VRE got hooked on Gallery cars, possibly from leasing Metra equipment for many years, though MARC had some of those too, which are gone now. Now even Metra is having 2nd thoughts on getting Gallery cars forever. 

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> At Alexandria, what then ? Sit there and lay up
> until time to go back ? Ask CSK about that. 
>

The NS "horn track" and "north pass track" could be used to turn back MARC trains and stay out of CSX's way. NS's former Southern Rwy yard at Alexandria is mostly empty these days.

CSX employee timetable showing AF. Connecting trains off NS can access either #1 or #3 track.

Paul Wilson
Arlington, VA

---

Wrong again, reduced height platforms can be built at Camden that can meet level boarding requirements.  There's also the option to acquire different cars orDMU's.  These planners aren't idiots, there are possibilities and solutions and these studies are designed to specify what options are available, their potential costs, the pro's and con's, etc.  It says right there in the article that the platform issue will be looked into.

The article also notes the Long Bridge issue.  It's a holdup for a lot of VA proposals and thus a big regional priority, and as a result has been moving through the planning pipeline for a long time.  It almost certainly will get built at some point, just a question of the timing and specifics of the funding.

I am quite certain the planners can figure out where to extend to and where to turn/store equipment if the run-through proposal moves far enough in the process.  VA has already done much of the planning necessary to add the Long Bridge and the tracks required south of there, in order to expand Amtrak service in VA's corridors and VRE to all day bi-directional service.  The planners aren't idiots, this doesn't happen in a vacuum, despite all the "It can't possibly be done" excuses tossed out by outside observers.  They've already looked at various expansion ideas for VRE, including through running with MARC, and have an idea of what infrastructure and equipment would be required.  This latest study will just be another step in the process.  All of this is laid out in previous studies that can easily be Googled.

 

In the scale of government contracting, a $100,000 study is going to be pretty basic.

Maybe we could take all the contributions on this thread, put a nice cover on it, and make some money

I'm waiting for darkcloud to say "Wrong again."

Such a pleasant and persuasive discourse.

In Europe there is across-the-platform transfer that is used every day multiple times.

So, in Washington, DC on a lower level paired track MARC pulls in one track, and VRE pulls in across the platform.  Each train then reverses on its own railroad.  It would use only one paired track at a time, giving Amtrak plenty of room to operate.  It would not be all trains connecting, but it could certainly make the connection five times per day, giving them a start to see how the market responds, without HUGE investment. 

Nothing wrong with timed, cross platform transfers. LIRR has been doing it at Jamaica for 110 years.   
Thru-running does not solve getting between MD and VA to popular locations like Pentagon, Bethesda, BWI, which minimizes the benefits 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/19 17:14 by joemvcnj.

While it would be nice for a one seat ride on commuter trains from Baltimore to Fredricksburg, that won't be happening anytime soon. Basically, both commuter rail companies would have to merge, making a change in title of the company.

There are some good examples of commuter rail companies that do timed transfers. For example, there are timed transfers at New Haven between Shore Line East and Metro North trains and most of the time, it's ok. The same thing goes with the Ctrail Hartford Line trains although sometimes, that doesn't go along so well when it can, even if MNR is running late.

As for the LIRR; yes, when you are traveling within the LIRR system, there are plenty of timed transfers and that's very important as NYP can't hold every single LIRR train. When Eastside Access opens up, if it doesn't matter which Midtown hub you need to travel to, then time transfers won't matter much as either way, you will be able to take a train that ends up in Manhattan. When you are heading to Brooklyn, especially outside of peak hours and on weekends, then there will probably be numerous timed transfers.

Being able to have frequent LIRR service to NYP also benefits people who might be connecting to NJT and Amtrak trains there, although I would probably not consider that timed transfers since there is no guareneed connections between LIRR and NJT and Amtrak trains. Some lines like the Pt. Washington, the Pt. Jefferson Line west of Huntington, and Babylon Line provide service at least every 30 minutes during off peak hours and on weekends making it possible to provide almost guarenteed connections between trains.

In terms of Long Bridge, the short-term solution could be just make existing trains extensions of each other, there seem to be a number of reverse-peak trains, mostly on the MARC Penn side.

MattW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In terms of Long Bridge, the short-term solution
> could be just make existing trains extensions of
> each other, there seem to be a number of
> reverse-peak trains, mostly on the MARC Penn side.

I don't know if MARC still operates dead head trains in the afternoon rush, but they used to run a lot of Baltimore to DC Penn Line empties.  Return as a load.

The Penn line is precisely where they can't run gallery cars due to high level platforms and Baltimore tunnels. Superliners won't clear them.

Posted from Android

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Penn line is precisely where they can't run
> gallery cars due to high level platforms and
> Baltimore tunnels. Superliners won't clear them.
>
> Posted from Android

Unless it's the MARC equipment that runs through. It would be lopsided from an equipment utilization perspective I admit, but MARC is the only agency that has a line with all day bidirectional service. Send a MARC train through DC in the afternoon as a reverse peak (Baltimore to DC) to Peak (DC to Frdericksburg/Manassas) train that lays over in Virginia at night to form a Peak to Reverse Peak run through train in the morning.

It comes down to how much if anything in capital investment are they willing to pay. They could probably now find a MARC Brunswick train to send to a siding someplace in Virginia and come back to DC, and do the reverse in the PM. Anything else means seeing if there is a market, capital money,  more operating subsides, and Class I willingness to grant slots. You would still have to dwell in Washington for 15-20 minutes for egress, ingress, and schedule recovery time. Those platforms are not efficient.