Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Just a footnote:  IIRC NY Times articles viewable on the web have their associated figures (sketches, maps, pictures) available only on the day of publication, and revert to text only after that.  This has a very illustrative map of the NYC--Boston stretch, where all but the Frankfort curve are located.  So those interested in these locations (living nearby, etc) should look at this link today.

 

Maybe different if you have a subscription.  --Frank

In my misspent youth, I was forced to comment on the rocks of the Connecticut coast eastward from New Haven.  They are highly metamorphosed by heat and horizontal compression in the east to west direction.  As a result, there are hard rock ridges which run with a southerly trend into the Long Island sound.  They are rapidly high away from the coast (New Haven's backdrop is close to a thousand feet high (800?).

The ice age glaciers carved valleys into this terrain.

 

So the inland route of construction is a lot of up and down.  A trip along I-95 will show this, the difficulty of the route, and the many cuts blasted through the rock.  These cuts, per cubic yard, would cost 15 to 20 times the same cut in ordinary earth or decomposed rock.  On Interstates, the desirable maximum grade is 3 percent, and the absolute maximum is 6 percent.  On a railroad, 1 percent is undesirable, 2 percent a problem, and 3 percent a small nightmare.  Less so for passenger trains, of course, but even so these ridges would present a problem.  Finally, new major bridges over the Connecticut and the Thames would be required.

 

Rhode Island is different of course.  It is geologically a basin, fairly flat and the rock in the basin more amenable.

 

I don't see an inland route here for high speed rail in the present funding climate for Amtrak.  The railroad got the coast because they were there before the superhighways, and that is no small blessing.

 

--Frank

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×