DOCSLIB.ORG

Northeast Corridor New York to Philadelphia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Northeast Corridor New York to Philadelphia Northeast Corridor New York to Philadelphia 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................2 2 A HISTORY..............................................................................................3 3 ROLLING STOCK......................................................................................4 3.1 EMD AEM-7 Electric Locomotive .......................................................................................4 3.2 Amtrak Amfleet Coaches .................................................................................................5 4 SCENARIOS.............................................................................................6 4.1 Go Newark....................................................................................................................6 4.2 New Jersey Trenton .......................................................................................................6 4.3 Spirit or Transportation ..................................................................................................6 4.4 The Big Apple................................................................................................................6 4.5 Early Clocker.................................................................................................................7 4.6 Evening Clocker.............................................................................................................7 4.7 Northeast Regional ........................................................................................................7 4.8 The Keystone ................................................................................................................7 5 USING THE NEC TRAINS IN CUSTOM SCENARIOS .....................................8 RailSimulator.com 1 Introduction The Northeast Corridor (NEC), the only premier high speed line in America, links Boston to Washington DC passing through New Haven, New York, Newark, Trenton, Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore – a total of 363 miles. The section represented is the 90 mile section between New York Pennsylvania Station and Philadelphia 30 th Street Station. RailSimulator.com 2 A History Started during the 1830s, the NEC was not 'formed' until 1893 when the Pennsylvania Railroad (PRR) acquired the Old Colony Railroad, which included the Washington to New York section. The New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad (NYNH&H) owned the lines linking New York to Boston. These lines were then known as the Philadelphia to Washington Main Line, the Philadelphia to New York Main Line and the Shore Line. In 1905 the PRR built New York Pennsylvania Station to serve the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR). This station opened to PRR with third rail powered locomotives in 1910. However due to the intervention of World War 1, the line from Philadelphia to Trenton was not electrified until mid 1930. Electric services between New York and New Brunswick began late in 1932 with the remaining section between New Brunswick and Trenton being completed early in 1933, facilitating a fully electrified intercity line between New York, Philadelphia and beyond to Wilmington. In 1968 the PRR and New York Central Railroad merged to form Penn Central Transportation. In 1969 the NYNH&H was amalgamated, bringing the Washington to Boston corridor under the control of one company. By 1971 all New York to Boston trains were rerouted from New York Grand Central through New York Pennsylvania Station. On May 1, 1971 Amtrak took over the running of Intercity services and in 1973 the Regional Rail Reorganization Act allowed Amtrak to purchase the Northeast Corridor. Penn Central Transportation declared bankruptcy in 1976, being taken over by Conrail who were granted full trackage rights for the entire line. When broken up in 1999, these rights were passed over to Norfolk Southern Railway in the south and CSX Transportation in the north. Also in 1976, the US Congress authorised the Northeast Corridor Improvement Project allowing a full overhaul of the track and signalling infrastructure between Washington and Boston. The introduction of Centralised Electrification and Traffic Control (CETC) was facilitated at Philadelphia, New York and Boston. These improvements allowed more trains to run faster and closer together and set the travel time goals of 2 and a half hours between Washington and New York and 3 hours between New York and Boston. To facilitate this, the successful AEM-7 electric locomotive was introduced. In the late 1990s the Northeast High Speed Rail Improvement Program (NHRIP) was implemented in preparation for the high speed Acela Express service. As a result of this, Amtrak rebuilt a number of bridges, eliminated grade crossings and rebuilt some of the route curves while replacing wooden track ties with concrete ties and continuous welded rail. The Acela Express service commenced December 11, 2000, finally achieving the proposed travel time goals. RailSimulator.com RailWorks – Northeast Corridor – New York to Philadelphia 3 Rolling Stock The following items of rolling stock are provided with the NEC route. 3.1 EMD AEM-7 Electric Locomotive The EMD AEM-7 electric locomotives were produced by the Electro-Motive Division of General Motors between 1978 and 1988. In the mid-1970s Amtrak ordered 26 General Electrics E60 units as a replacement for their famous GG1 electric fleet. The E60s proved unable to safely attain speeds over 90mph and so existing European designs were looked at as alternatives. In 1977 a French CC 21000 numbered X996 and a Swedish Rc4 numbered X995 were trialled. The Swedish design won the day, resulting in 30 AEM-7 units being ordered by Amtrak. The bodies were produced in the US with all other items coming from ASEA in Sweden. Numbered 900, the first unit was delivered and in service in 1979. Between 1980 an 1982, units 901 through 946 went into service. The remaining 7 units were ordered in 1987, entering service the following year. © Copyright RailSimulator.com 2011, all rights reserved Release Version 1.0 Page 4 RailWorks – Northeast Corridor – New York to Philadelphia 3.2 Amtrak Amfleet Coaches The Amcoach is the mainstay of the Amtrak passenger fleet along the line For the long distances traversed by trains on the NEC, passengers can purchase refreshments from the Amcafe unit. © Copyright RailSimulator.com 2011, all rights reserved Release Version 1.0 Page 5 RailWorks – Northeast Corridor – New York to Philadelphia 4 Scenarios 4.1 Go Newark • Date October 2011 • Season Summer • Start Location Newark Penn 4.2 New Jersey Trenton • Date September 2011 • Season Summer • Start Location Trenton 4.3 Spirit or Transportation • Date April 2011 • Season Summer • Start Location Philadelphia 4.4 The Big Apple • Date July 2011 • Season Summer • Start Location New York © Copyright RailSimulator.com 2011, all rights reserved Release Version 1.0 Page 6 RailWorks – Northeast Corridor – New York to Philadelphia 4.5 Early Clocker • Date June 1999 • Rating Hard • Duration 45mins • Season Summer • Start Location Philadelphia Amtrak Clocker stopping service from Philadelphia to New York. Based on the 1999 timetable. 4.6 Evening Clocker • Date July 2000 • Rating Medium • Duration 100mins • Season Summer • Start Location New York Amtrak Clocker Service from New York to Philadelphia. 4.7 Northeast Regional • Date October 2000 • Rating Medium • Duration 140mins • Season Autumn • Start Location Philadelphia Late Friday night Northeast-Direct service from Philadelphia to New York. Todays date is the 13th! Will it be unlucky for you? 4.8 The Keystone • Date July 2000 • Rating Easy • Duration 50mins • Season Summer • Start Location New York A simple Express Passenger service between New York and Philadelphia 30th Street, stopping at Newark. © Copyright RailSimulator.com 2011, all rights reserved Release Version 1.0 Page 7 RailWorks – Northeast Corridor – New York to Philadelphia 5 Using the NEC Trains in Custom Scenarios Before you are able to use the AEM-7 or any other assets supplied in this addon in your own scenarios you must enable it in the object set filters. When you make your own scenarios, only the default object sets are enabled for that route (for example the Kuju/Railsimulator assets for European routes and Kuju/RailsimulatorUS for North American routes). To enable additional object sets (which could be for any downloaded or freeware content) ready for use they must be checked in the object set filter list in the editors. When editing the scenario you wish to add the NEC assets to, click the small blue square on the middle left panel. This opens a new panel on the right hand side of the screen (you may need to move your mose over to the right hand side for the panel to fly out. You can pin it open if you wish). This new panel has a drop down list off providers (usually the company name which produced the add-on) and a list off all products by that provider. The NEC assets are produced by RSC so “RSC” needs to be selected as the provider. The rest of the panel is then populated by all other products made by RSC. To enable the content of the pack for use in this scenario, check the box next to “NorthEastCorridor”. Now the NEC assets will be available in the asset browser list for placement in the scenario. If you want the NEC assets to appear in the browser list for EVERY scenario on a route you must follow the same procedure but be in the World Editor and you can now check the first box. The slight disadvantage of having content enabled for all scenarios on a route, even when that content may not be used, is increased loading times. © Copyright RailSimulator.com 2011, all rights reserved Release Version 1.0 Page 8 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Amtrak's Rights and Relationships with Host Railroads
    Amtrak’s Rights and Relationships with Host Railroads September 21, 2017 Jim Blair –Director Host Railroads Today’s Amtrak System 2| Amtrak Amtrak’s Services • Northeast Corridor (NEC) • 457 miles • Washington‐New York‐Boston Northeast Corridor • 11.9 million riders in FY16 • Long Distance (LD) services • 15 routes • Up to 2,438 miles in length Long • 4.65 million riders in FY16 Distance • State‐supported trains • 29 routes • 19 partner states • Up to 750 miles in length State- • 14.7 million riders in FY16 supported3| Amtrak Amtrak’s Host Railroads Amtrak Route System Track Ownership Excluding Terminal Railroads VANCOUVER SEATTLE Spokane ! MONTREAL PORTLAND ST. PAUL / MINNEAPOLIS Operated ! St. Albans by VIA Rail NECR MDOT TORONTO VTR Rutland ! Port Huron Niagara Falls ! Brunswick Grand Rapids ! ! ! Pan Am MILWAUKEE ! Pontiac Hoffmans Metra Albany ! BOSTON ! CHICAGO ! Springfield Conrail Metro- ! CLEVELAND MBTA SALT LAKE CITY North PITTSBURGH ! ! NEW YORK ! INDIANAPOLIS Harrisburg ! KANSAS CITY ! PHILADELPHIA DENVER ! ! BALTIMORE SACRAMENTO Charlottesville WASHINGTON ST. LOUIS ! Richmond OAKLAND ! Petersburg ! Buckingham ! Newport News Norfolk NMRX Branch ! Oklahoma City ! Bakersfield ! MEMPHIS SCRRA ALBUQUERQUE ! ! LOS ANGELES ATLANTA SCRRA / BNSF / SDN DALLAS ! FT. WORTH SAN DIEGO HOUSTON ! JACKSONVILLE ! NEW ORLEANS SAN ANTONIO Railroads TAMPA! Amtrak (incl. Leased) Norfolk Southern FDOT ! MIAMI Union Pacific Canadian Pacific BNSF Canadian National CSXT Other Railroads 4| Amtrak Amtrak’s Host Railroads ! MONTREAL Amtrak NEC Route System
    [Show full text]
  • GAO-02-398 Intercity Passenger Rail: Amtrak Needs to Improve Its
    United States General Accounting Office Report to the Honorable Ron Wyden GAO U.S. Senate April 2002 INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL Amtrak Needs to Improve Its Decisionmaking Process for Its Route and Service Proposals GAO-02-398 Contents Letter 1 Results in Brief 2 Background 3 Status of the Growth Strategy 6 Amtrak Overestimated Expected Mail and Express Revenue 7 Amtrak Encountered Substantial Difficulties in Expanding Service Over Freight Railroad Tracks 9 Conclusions 13 Recommendation for Executive Action 13 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 13 Scope and Methodology 16 Appendix I Financial Performance of Amtrak’s Routes, Fiscal Year 2001 18 Appendix II Amtrak Route Actions, January 1995 Through December 2001 20 Appendix III Planned Route and Service Actions Included in the Network Growth Strategy 22 Appendix IV Amtrak’s Process for Evaluating Route and Service Proposals 23 Amtrak’s Consideration of Operating Revenue and Direct Costs 23 Consideration of Capital Costs and Other Financial Issues 24 Appendix V Market-Based Network Analysis Models Used to Estimate Ridership, Revenues, and Costs 26 Models Used to Estimate Ridership and Revenue 26 Models Used to Estimate Costs 27 Page i GAO-02-398 Amtrak’s Route and Service Decisionmaking Appendix VI Comments from the National Railroad Passenger Corporation 28 GAO’s Evaluation 37 Tables Table 1: Status of Network Growth Strategy Route and Service Actions, as of December 31, 2001 7 Table 2: Operating Profit (Loss), Operating Ratio, and Profit (Loss) per Passenger of Each Amtrak Route, Fiscal Year 2001, Ranked by Profit (Loss) 18 Table 3: Planned Network Growth Strategy Route and Service Actions 22 Figure Figure 1: Amtrak’s Route System, as of December 2001 4 Page ii GAO-02-398 Amtrak’s Route and Service Decisionmaking United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548 April 12, 2002 The Honorable Ron Wyden United States Senate Dear Senator Wyden: The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is the nation’s intercity passenger rail operator.
    [Show full text]
  • FY20-Fed-State-SOGR-Project-Recipients
    FY 2020 Federal-State Partnership for State of Good Repair Grant Program California — San Diego Next Generation Signaling and Grade Crossing Modernization Up to $9,836,917 North County Transit District Replaces and upgrades obsolete signal, train control, and crossing equipment on a 60-mile section of North County Transit District right-of-way the carrier shares with Amtrak intercity service and freight rail. Brings signal and train control components into a state of good repair, including installing new signal houses, signals, and cabling. Replaces components at more than 15 grade crossings along the corridor. California — Pacific Surfliner Corridor Rehabilitation and Service Reliability Up to $31,800,000 Southern California Regional Rail Authority Rehabilitates track, structures, and grade crossings in Ventura County and northern Los Angeles County on infrastructure used by Amtrak intercity service, Metrolink commuter service, and BNSF freight service. Work for member agency Ventura County Transportation Commission includes track, tie, ballast, and culvert replacements, grade crossing rehabilitation, and tunnel track and structure replacements. Reduces trip times, increases reliability, and improves safety by reducing need for slow orders and conflicts at grade crossings in the corridor. Connecticut — Walk Bridge Replacement Up to $79,700,000 Connecticut Department of Transportation & Amtrak Replaces the Connecticut-owned movable Norwalk River Bridge, built in 1896, with two, independent, two-track, vertical lift rail bridges in Norwalk, Connecticut. Includes associated embankment and retaining wall improvements on the bridge approaches, new catenary structures, and signal system upgrades. The existing bridge is beyond its useful life and prone to malfunctions, especially during opening or closing. The replacement will reduce slow orders, reduce the risk of service disruptions, and improve resiliency to extreme weather events.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2 Existing Conditions Summary
    Final Report New Haven Hartford Springfield Commuter Rail Implementation Study 2 Existing Conditions Chapter 2 Existing Conditions Summary This chapter is a summary of the existing conditions report, necessary for comprehension of the remaining chapters. The entire report can be found in Appendix B of this report. 2.1 Existing Passenger Services on the Line The only existing passenger rail service on the Springfield Line is a regional service operated by Amtrak. Schedules for alternatives in Chapter 3 and the Recommended Action in Chapter 4 include current Amtrak service. Most Amtrak service on the line is shuttle trains, running between Springfield and New Haven, where they connect with other Amtrak Northeast Corridor trains. One round-trip train each day operates through the corridor to Boston to the north and Washington to the south. One round trip train each day operates to and from St. Albans, Vermont from New Haven. The trains also permit connections at New Haven with Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor (Washington to Boston) service, as well as Metro North service to New York, and Shore Line East local commuter service to New London. Departures are spread throughout the day, with trains typically operating at intervals of two to three hours. Springfield line services are designed as extensions of Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor service, and are not scheduled to serve local commuter trips (home to work trips). The Amtrak fare structure was substantially reduced in price since this study began. The original fare structure from November 2002 was shown in the existing conditions report, which can be found in Appendix B.
    [Show full text]
  • General Notice Letter (Gnl) Response
    RUBIN AND RUDMAN LLP COUNSELLORS AT LAW 50 ROWES WHARF • BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02110-3319 TELEPHONE: (6i7)330-7000 • FACSIMILE: (617)4-39-9556 • EMAIL: [email protected] Margaret Van Deusen Direct Dial: (617) 330-7154 E-mail: [email protected] June 26, 2000 BY MESSENGER Richard Haworth United States Environmental Protection Agency Site Evaluation and Response Section II 1 Congress Street Suite 1100 Mail Code HBR Boston, Massachusetts 02114-2023 Re: EPA Notice Letter, Old Colony Railroad Site, East Bridgewater, MA Dear Mr. Haworth: This firm is counsel to the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority ("MBTA") with respect to the above matter. By letter dated June 5, 2000, the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") notified the MBTA of its potential liability regarding the Old Colony Railroad Site in East Bridgewater, MA ("Site") pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a). The letter also informed the MBTA that EPA plans to conduct immediate removal activities involving installation of a perimeter fence, elimination of direct contact with contaminated soils and prevention of off-site migration via soil transport. EPA is asking the MBTA to perform or to finance these activities. Pursuant to conversations with Marcia Lamel, Senior Enforcement Counsel, EPA, the MBTA was given until today to respond to EPA's letter. As discussed below, even though the MBTA does not believe that it is a responsible party at this Site, it is willing to participate in fencing the perimeter of the Site and posting signage. The MBTA is also willing to discuss with EPA covering "hot spots" of contaminated soil on the Site with some sort of synthetic cover.
    [Show full text]
  • NORTHEAST CORRIDOR New York - Washington, DC
    NORTHEAST CORRIDOR New York - Washington, DC September 5, 2017 NEW YORK and WASHINGTON, DC NEW YORK - NEWARK - TRENTON PHILADELPHIA - WILMINGTON BALTIMORE - WASHINGTON, DC and intermediate stations Acela Express,® Reserved Northeast RegionalSM and Keystone Service® THIS TIMETABLE SHOWS ALL AMTRAK SERVICE FROM BOSTON OR SPRINGFIELD TO POINTS NEW YORK THROUGH WASHINGTON, DC. Also see Timetable Form W04 for complete Boston/Springfield to Washington, DC schedules, and Timetable Form W06 for service to Virginia locations. FALL HOLIDAYS Special Thanksgiving timetables for the period, November 20 through 27, 2017, will appear on Amtrak.com shortly and temporarily supersede these schedules. 1-800-USA-RAIL Amtrak.com Amtrak is a registered service mark of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Washington Union Station, 60 Massachusetts Ave. N.E., Washington, DC 20002. NRPC Form W2–Internet only–9/5/17. Schedules subject to change without notice. Depart Depart Depart Depart Depart Arrive Depart Depart Depart Depart Depart Arrive Train Name/Number Frequency New York Newark Newark Intl. Air. Metropark Trenton Philadelphia Philadelphia Wilmington Baltimore BWI New Carrollton Washington Northeast Regional 67 Mo-Fr 3 25A 3 45A —— 4 00A 4 25A 4 52A 5 00A 5 22A 6 10A 6 25A 6 40A 7 00A Northeast Regional 151 Mo-Fr 4 40A R4 57A —— 5 12A 5 35A 6 04A 6 07A 6 28A 7 27A 7 40A D7 59A 8 14A Northeast Regional 111 Mo-Fr 5 30A R5 46A —— 6 00A 6 26A 6 53A 6 55A 7 15A 8 00A 8 15A D8 29A 8 50A Acela Express 2103 Mo-Fr
    [Show full text]
  • Northeast Corridor Chase, Maryland January 4, 1987
    PB88-916301 NATIONAL TRANSPORT SAFETY BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 20594 RAILROAD ACCIDENT REPORT REAR-END COLLISION OF AMTRAK PASSENGER TRAIN 94, THE COLONIAL AND CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION FREIGHT TRAIN ENS-121, ON THE NORTHEAST CORRIDOR CHASE, MARYLAND JANUARY 4, 1987 NTSB/RAR-88/01 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1. Report No. 2.Government Accession No. 3.Recipient's Catalog No. NTSB/RAR-88/01 . PB88-916301 Title and Subtitle Railroad Accident Report^ 5-Report Date Rear-end Collision of'*Amtrak Passenger Train 949 the January 25, 1988 Colonial and Consolidated Rail Corporation Freight -Performing Organization Train ENS-121, on the Northeast Corridor, Code Chase, Maryland, January 4, 1987 -Performing Organization 7. "Author(s) ~~ Report No. Performing Organization Name and Address 10.Work Unit No. National Transportation Safety Board Bureau of Accident Investigation .Contract or Grant No. Washington, D.C. 20594 k3-Type of Report and Period Covered 12.Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Iroad Accident Report lanuary 4, 1987 NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD Washington, D. C. 20594 1*+.Sponsoring Agency Code 15-Supplementary Notes 16 Abstract About 1:16 p.m., eastern standard time, on January 4, 1987, northbound Conrail train ENS -121 departed Bay View yard at Baltimore, Mary1 and, on track 1. The train consisted of three diesel-electric freight locomotive units, all under power and manned by an engineer and a brakeman. Almost simultaneously, northbound Amtrak train 94 departed Pennsylvania Station in Baltimore. Train 94 consisted of two electric locomotive units, nine coaches, and three food service cars. In addition to an engineer, conductor, and three assistant conductors, there were seven Amtrak service employees and about 660 passengers on the train.
    [Show full text]
  • Railroad Postcards Collection 1995.229
    Railroad postcards collection 1995.229 This finding aid was produced using ArchivesSpace on September 14, 2021. Description is written in: English. Describing Archives: A Content Standard Audiovisual Collections PO Box 3630 Wilmington, Delaware 19807 [email protected] URL: http://www.hagley.org/library Railroad postcards collection 1995.229 Table of Contents Summary Information .................................................................................................................................... 4 Historical Note ............................................................................................................................................... 4 Scope and Content ......................................................................................................................................... 5 Administrative Information ............................................................................................................................ 5 Controlled Access Headings .......................................................................................................................... 6 Collection Inventory ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Railroad stations .......................................................................................................................................... 6 Alabama ...................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Reservations PUBLISHED Overview 30 March 2015.Xlsx
    Reservation Country Domestic day train 1st Class 2nd Class Comments Information compulsory € 8,50 n.a. on board only; free newspaper WESTbahn trains possible n.a. € 5,00 via www.westbahn.at Austria ÖBB trains possible € 3,00 online / € 3,50 € 3,00 online / € 3,50 free wifi on rj-trains ÖBB Intercitybus Graz-Klagenfurt recommended € 3,00 online / € 3,50 € 3,00 online / € 3,50 first class includes drinks supplement per single journey. Can be bought in the station, in the train or online: Belgium to/from Brussels National Airport no reservation € 5,00 € 5,00 www.belgianrail.be Bosnia- Regional trains compulsory € 1,50 € 1,50 price depends on distance Herzegovina (ZRS) Bulgaria Express trains compulsory € 0,25 € 0,25 IC Zagreb - Osijek/Varazdin compulsory € 1,00 € 1,00 Croatia ICN Zagreb - Split compulsory € 1,00 € 1,00 IC/EC (domestic journeys) recommended € 2,00 € 2,00 Czech Republic SC SuperCity compulsory € 8,00 € 8,00 includes newspaper and catering in 1st class Denmark InterCity / InterCity Lyn recommended € 4,00 € 4,00 InterCity recommended € 1,84 to €5,63 € 1,36 to € 4,17 Finland price depends on distance Pendolino recommended € 3,55 to € 6,79 € 2,63 to € 5,03 France TGV and Intercités compulsory € 9 to € 18 € 9 to € 18 FYR Macedonia IC 540/541 Skopje-Bitola compulsory € 0,50 € 0,50 EC/IC/ICE possible € 4,50 € 4,50 ICE Sprinter compulsory € 11,50 € 11,50 includes newspapers Germany EC 54/55 Berlin-Gdansk-Gdynia compulsory € 4,50 € 4,50 Berlin-Warszawa Express compulsory € 4,50 € 4,50 Great Britain Long distance trains possible Free Free Greece Inter City compulsory € 7,10 to € 20,30 € 7,10 to € 20,30 price depends on distance EC (domestic jouneys) compulsory € 3,00 € 3,00 Hungary IC compulsory € 3,00 € 3,00 when purchased in Hungary, price may depend on pre-sales and currency exchange rate Ireland IC possible n/a € 5,00 reservations can be made online @ www.irishrail.ie Frecciarossa, Frecciargento, → all compulsory and optional reservations for passholders can be purchased via Trenitalia at compulsory € 10,00 € 10,00 Frecciabianca "Global Pass" fare.
    [Show full text]
  • Intercity High-Speed Railway Systems • Economic Growth and Increased Employment
    Low Carbon Green Growth Roadmap for Asia and the Pacific FACT SHEET If designed well, high-speed railway systems contribute towards: • Improved air quality and lower greenhouse gas emissions4 Intercity high-speed railway systems • Economic growth and increased employment Challenges to using high-speed railway High-speed railway explained • Estimating annual ridership during feasibility stage analysis (and thus returns, including greenhouse gas Definitions of a high-speed railway system vary, but a common one is a rail system designed for maximum train reduction) can be difficult, especially when developments in other transportation modes (air and auto speeds that exceed 200 km per hour for upgraded tracks and 250 km per hour for new tracks. High-speed rail is mobile) are uncertain generally used for intercity transport rather than urban transport. • High investment costs for buying the needed land and building the lines and trains • Long period of construction time and for reaping payback Performance, evaluated Limitations Capacity Approximately 1,000 persons per vehicle. Double-decker trains • High-speed rail lines, once built, are very inflexible. Corridors to be developed must be heavily studied to increase the capacity but also increase drag, and thus increase the determine if the return is likely to be eco-efficient. amount of energy needed. • Increasing train speed requires considerably more electricity. If power is sourced from polluting technologies and/or if load factors are low, high-speed rail can actually exacerbate rather than mitigate Geographical range There is no limit in expanding the line, as long as the demand is high. Generally, high-speed rail can compete with airplane trips of greenhouse gas emissions.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Some Airport-Rail Links Get Built and Others Do Not: the Role of Institutions, Equity and Financing
    Why some airport-rail links get built and others do not: the role of institutions, equity and financing by Julia Nickel S.M. in Engineering Systems- Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2010 Vordiplom in Wirtschaftsingenieurwesen- Universität Karlsruhe, 2007 Submitted to the Department of Political Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Political Science at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY February 2011 © Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2011. All rights reserved. Author . Department of Political Science October 12, 2010 Certified by . Kenneth Oye Associate Professor of Political Science Thesis Supervisor Accepted by . Roger Peterson Arthur and Ruth Sloan Professor of Political Science Chair, Graduate Program Committee 1 Why some airport-rail links get built and others do not: the role of institutions, equity and financing by Julia Nickel Submitted to the Department of Political Science On October 12, 2010, in partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Political Science Abstract The thesis seeks to provide an understanding of reasons for different outcomes of airport ground access projects. Five in-depth case studies (Hongkong, Tokyo-Narita, London- Heathrow, Chicago- O’Hare and Paris-Charles de Gaulle) and eight smaller case studies (Kuala Lumpur, Seoul, Shanghai-Pudong, Bangkok, Beijing, Rome- Fiumicino, Istanbul-Atatürk and Munich- Franz Josef Strauss) are conducted. The thesis builds on existing literature that compares airport-rail links by explicitly considering the influence of the institutional environment of an airport on its ground access situation and by paying special attention to recently opened dedicated airport expresses in Asia.
    [Show full text]
  • Pennvolume1.Pdf
    PENNSYLVANIA STATION REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Executive Summary ............................................................... 1 ES.1 Introduction ................................................................ 1 ES.2 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ......................................... 2 ES.3 Alternatives Considered ....................................................... 2 ES.4 Environmental Impacts ....................................................... 3 ES.4.1 Rail Transportation .................................................... 3 ES.4.2 Vehicular and Pedestrian Traffic .......................................... 3 ES.4.3 Noise .............................................................. 4 ES.4.4 Vibration ........................................................... 4 ES.4.5 Air Quality .......................................................... 4 ES.4.6 Natural Environment ................................................... 4 ES.4.7 Land Use/Socioeconomics ............................................... 4 ES.4.8 Historic and Archeological Resources ...................................... 4 ES.4.9 Environmental Risk Sites ............................................... 5 ES.4.10 Energy/Utilities ...................................................... 5 ES.5 Conclusion Regarding Environmental Impact ...................................... 5 ES.6 Project Documentation Availability .............................................. 5 Chapter 1: Description
    [Show full text]