Trail Proposal: Great Pennsylvania Passage

The Great Allegheny Passage (GAP) is perhaps the best known long distance bike trail, connecting Washington, DC with Pittsburgh, PA. Why not replicate this success with a trail connecting Philadelphia with Pittsburgh, a Great Pennsylvania Passage (GPP)?

The GAP is a collection of smaller rail trail projects linked together almost with no miles on the streets. It is why it attracts all types of cyclists, not just the strong and fearless riders, and why it is considered a gold standard of long-distance cycling. Similarly, there are a number of shorter trails east of Pittsburgh and north of Philadelphia for the GPP to follow. The longest, the D&L Trail, connects Bristol (northeast of Philadelphia) to Allentown and beyond, largely following an old canal towpath. Similarly, the Red Creek Valley Trail runs 41.8 miles east from the Allegheny River towards Brookville.

Totaling 534 miles, the GPP would run through across north-central Pennsylvania, passing by the geographic center of the state near Bellefonte, before turning south to follow to Delaware River. The route would follow railroad right of way or canal towpath, much of which already exists or planned for trail conversion. The longest on-road section would be 7.2 miles of low-stress streets near Bellefonte. Other on-road sections would be low-stress local streets or include a cycletrack or protected bike lanes on higher stress roads.

David S. Ammerman Trail 

The trail is 47% complete, approximately 251 miles. However, some sections may need upgrades such as the D&L Trail which follows an old towpath and is in many places, just a single track through the grass. The Snow Shoe Trail was designed for ATVs and may need some grading upgrades to for bikes. Other sections are part of planned rail trails such as the Erie to Pittsburgh Trail and the Delaware River Trail or are being assessed by local governments for rail trail suitability. Some sections would follow active railroads such as the idled Kiski Junction Railroad. The Five Bridges Trail is awaiting grant funding with the goal of connecting to the Redbank Creek Trail. The GPP would also connect to other long-distance trails including the East Coast Greenway, the GAP, the Erie-Pittsburgh Trail, and the future D&L Trail extension to Wilkes-Barrie. Unique features of the trail could include a shared Kiskiminetas River rail bridge with the idled Kiski Junction Railroad, similar to Chicago’s Cherry Avenue Bridge and a switchback railroad line near Snow Shoe.

For lodging, there are eight campgrounds relatively close to the trail although all but one is an RV park. Poe Paddy State Park appears to have a pretty campground. The GPP passes through more than 50 communities, some of which have commercial lodging options. As the trail is built out, there is ample opportunity for homestays through sites such as Airbnb or VRBO, especially as many communities are economically depressed.

Even though there are a lot of small communities, the GPP would also pass through remote areas along creeks and rivers. The Redbank Valley, the Five Bridges Trail, parts along Anderson Creek, and Poe Paddy State Park are all relatively remote. North of Jim Thorpe, the only development is railroad tracks. Along the Delaware River north of Morrisville, development is primarily homes and farms.

Building out the GPP will take time and funding but the economic benefits across 50 small-town Pennsylvania towns could pay that back. Knitting existing trail construction efforts together, the GPP could be the next GAP and rival the soon to be completed Empire State Trail. Build the Great Pennsylvania Passage!

Reviewing Portland (OR)’s Central City in Motion Plan

Last November, the City of Portland (OR) approved an innovative plan to dramatically improve the downtown bike network and bus routes. While Portland’s reputation as a cycling city lost some of its luster, this plan will boost the city back to the head of the peloton.

One of the vexing problems of riding in American cities is that few have low-stress downtown bike networks. Ironically, that is where low-stress infrastructure is needed most. With a plethora of buses, delivery trucks and ridershares, regular bike lanes simply do not cut it because they are blocked far too often. Therefore, only a small percentage of potential cyclists will ever ride downtown.

In recent years, cycling’s modeshare gains have started to flatline or slightly decline because we have maxed out that pool. Portland’s bike modeshare has followed this pattern, growing until about 6% and then barely budging for four years at 6.5%. Looking at Portland’s bike to work rates by neighborhood, downtown neighborhoods hover around the city average, unlike some of the lower stress neighborhoods just beyond the central city where rates are 3-4 times the city average. That matches with my own experience, riding downtown was much more stressful than riding in the neighborhoods. How do cities start growing again?

A few years ago, I listened to a presentation by some Vancouver (BC) planners. While Vancouver had built miles of neighborhood greenways and other low-stress infrastructure in residential areas, their bike modeshare gains were not as dramatic as they had hoped. It was only after Vancouver began building a downtown protected bike lane network that modeshare began to take off and nearly doubled in four years. While Vancouver’s has built carbon copies of Dutch-style protected bike lanes, its downtown network is still relatively small. But it has provided the keystone towards attracting the interested but concerned cyclist, boosting its cycling rates in a dramatic way.

Portland’s Central City in Motion plans to create a similar downtown low-stress bike network. A disconnected 1.8 miles in downtown will become 7.1 miles of protected bike lanes. The Eastbank and Lloyd District will get 8.9 miles of protected bike lanes. While Portland’s current protected bike lanes have only temporary protection (flexiposts or planters), the plan upgrades that protection with concrete curbs and new lanes will be concrete protected.

The new lanes will be well-connected to the existing low-stress network. The bridges, Waterfront Park Trail, and the Springwater Trail will all link up with protected bike lanes. Neighborhood greenways also get connections in Northwest, Salmon St, and Harrison St. A few new lanes are not protected though, 11th St and 12th St are both buffered lanes which is odd because if a street has sufficient width for a buffer, there is enough space for a protected bike lane. Unfortunately, the Portland Fire Department requires 20' of unobstructed width on a street which inhibits road diets from two lanes into one lane and that may be at play here.

When people find that their jobs and homes are connected by low-stress routes, bike commuting becomes much more appealing to many more people. Watch for that 17,000 commuters to double and Portland to edge out a dramatic lead among bike commuting cities!

Bikepacking the Pine Creek Rail Trail

In late October, my wife and I decided to bikepack the Pine Creek Rail Trail in northern Pennsylvania. While the trail had its quirks, we had a blast and will definitely be back.

Day 1

Neither of us are morning people. We originally planned to drop our car off at noon but arrived closer to four. Pine Creek Outfiitters’ was out rescuing a bike which had blown out its wheel sidewall and we had to wait a little bit until they returned. We finally hit the trail around 4:30 pm, leaving us two hours of light to ride 24 miles in the late fall. This also meant we missed some of the more scenic parts of Pine Creek canyon in the dark. As a boy scout, I learned that hiking in the dark was only an option in times of extreme necessity. But watching Adventure Archives, I saw how the guys used LEDs to light up my boy scout preconceptions. Rail trails are especially easy to navigate at night and we had little trouble on this trail too.

I highly recommend Pine Creek Outfitters’ shuttle your car service. Leave a key with them and for $130, they will drive your car to the start. They also rent bikes, boats, and have other services. Their store is fully stocked with camping supplies and camping food. The convenience of driving your car to the starting point (the Outfitters’ store is just 15 minutes away) and driving it away from the end point is hard to beat.

Camping

Unlike the Greenbrier Rail Trail, free permits are required for campsites along Pine Creek. Two state agencies issue two different permits over the phone and via email (they cannot issue one for the other). There are also several RV parks right off the trail which offer amenities such as showers. There are a few B&B’s along the trail or nearby.

Our first night at Hoffman campground has took a bit of effort to find in the dark because it was a small spur trail marked by a small sign. Fortunately, we were the only ones, having our pick of the 8-10 sites in a small field, surrounding an outhouse. There were poles to store food on, picnic tables at each site, and a canopy shelter with more picnic tables underneath (great bike storage when raining). The water pump was out of order. The noise of Pine Creek filled the night although occasionally permeated by sounds from nearby homes (the campground was adjacent to a small hamlet). However, that noise was quickly drowned out by torrential rain which had sprinkled on us intermittently as we pedaled in. Unfortunately, my old North Face tent began to leak as the waterproof lining along the seams did not do well in long-term storage. My attempts at applying new sealant were overrun by damp droplets falling onto our sleeping bags.

Day 2

Our second day was about 34 miles. Compared to the Greenbrier, there are more homes, hamlets and corner stores. We stopped at a gas station right next to the trail to bolster our sweat and soda supplies. While more people means more amenities, it also means more grade crossings. Unfortunately at every single grade crossing, an engineer decided to put up two staggered gates which by design, slows cyclists to slalom through before crossing every rural road or driveway. It is old thinking that cyclists need some kind of warning before a grade crossing, some use stop signs, others use gates, and a few use slaloms such as these. While no vehicle could access the trail without a gate key, slaloming with a load of gear and clipless shoes was not safe. Bikes with trailers would have to slow to a crawl. The Dutch have begun removing bollards on cycle paths because they found many more cyclists were injured by bollards than the occasional errant car. I strongly suggest removing gates at all crossings, perhaps replacing them with plastic bollards. Someone will eventually sue over an injury and I suspect that design does not align with current best practices at FHWA, NACTO or even AASHTO.

The highlight of our second day was lunch at the Waterville Tavern, located just off of the trail in Waterville. The bar and restaurant served a delicious meal to celebrate passing the halfway point. Waterville has an unusually large, new playground for a town of its size. We got to explore it a bit more than expected due to an unexpected trail closure. A guy flipped his kayak in Pine Creek and ended up on a small island. That required an entire squad of rescuers and a platoon of vehicles including an ambulance, fire truck, and several personal vehicles. There was no safe detour and much to my consternation, the crews decided that people on bikes could not even walk by. Fortunately, the only injury was a few bruised egos and eventually, we were allowed to follow the vehicles until they left the trail. Our last campsite was less than 2 miles away.

Our last campsite at Bonnell Flats was a disappointment. Located a few minutes walk away from the water pump and outhouse, the five sites were in a small field but with plenty of tree cover. They each had picnic tables. Unfortunately, they are located on a creek bend and a state highway partially surrounds the bend on the other side of the creek. There was also a hill so we listened to trucks accelerate loudly up the hill all night. Despite the tree cover, the sites felt open and exposed. Little wonder the boy scout camp sold the property to the state (none of the buildings remain). Perhaps moving the sites back towards the trail would reduce noise. Unfortunately, there were few other options close the southern terminus.

Day 3

Our last day was a short bike ride to Jersey Shore, the trail terminus, which is nothing like the infamous television show, not being in New Jersey or along the ocean. Our car was waiting in the parking lot. I rode the last 2 miles to current trail end in town and circled back to the car. We enjoyed a hearty breakfast in the Shore Line Diner.

I preferred Greenbrier’s trailside campsites to Pine Creek’s trailside campgrounds because while many of the former were remote and quiet, many of the latter were close to roads, hamlets, or even had drive-up access. Tiadaghton was the first campground we passed. It was pretty and remote which also meant it was popular, but we will probably stay there next time anyways. Another campground, Tombs Flats, was car-oriented and had little tree cover, just a field with a paved driveway in each site. It also lacked water. Another campground in Black Walnut Bottom had plenty of shade but was close to the road, swampy and very buggy.

Overall, I recommend the Pine Creek Rail Trail for its beauty and amenities. I prefer the quiet, remote trailside sites along the Greenbrier. Pine Creek’s larger campgrounds were not busy enough for permits anyways (except Tiadaghton). The car shuttle was icing on the cake and I wish more outfitters offered one. 

Russian Metro Systems

While Russian Metro stations are internationally reknowned for their beauty, the systems themselves are highly-efficient and cleverly-planned. A key theme is simplicity, proving that when it comes to metro systems, less is best. More Moscow and St. Petersburg photos.

Frequency and network operations

One noticeable feature of Russian metro maps are the lack of spur lines. Just two lines in Moscow shares tracks (Lines 8A and 11) and Line 4 splits into two spur lines. Every other line has their own tracks. This simple set-up provides several benefits. First, delays on one line do not cascade to other lines. Similarly, maintenance delays or closures also only impact one line at a time. Second, train frequencies can be much higher when trains on one line do not have to sync with other lines. For example, San Francisco’s BART has four lines feeding into one line and can run about 24 trains per hour. But Moscow Metro can run 30-40 trains per hour because trains can follow each other more closely. New York City Subway can run about 40 trains per hour but on four tracks rather than two and with lower on-time performance. While Moscow's set-up increases the chances of a transfer, the higher frequencies offset the transfer time penalty because waiting times are much shorter. Therefore, travel times are reduced. That reduction is especially important in Moscow which while densely populated, is a very large, spread out city. Not incidentally, Moscow Metro is the busiest system outside of Asia.

Station design and crowd control

Given Moscow’s busy status, triple vault stations separate waiting passengers from passengers transferring to other parts of the station, moving crowds much more smoothly than Washington Metro or New York City Subway. At most of the busier, older stations, there are three vaults separated by supporting columns. Two vaults hold tracks and side platforms. People wait for trains in these vaults. The third vault is between them and is used to transfer to other trains or egress/exit the station. Entrances are often at each end of the third vault. Other times, stairs descend into the third vault from an alternative entrance or another metro line. People’s movements are separated from people standing still, a genius idea that Moscow Metro planners figured out in the 1930’s.

Station spacing

Compared to older US subway systems such as Boston, New York City and Philadelphia, Russian Metro stations are relatively far apart. San Francisco’s BART is probably the closest match in the US, as it functions as a hybrid subway and commuter rail system. As a result, Russian systems have high average speeds (25mph in Moscow versus about 12mph in New York City). While this means that getting places takes less time, unless your destination is close to the station, the last mile may require a longer walk, tram or bus ride, or taxi. Since Moscow is an enormously spread out city, the wide station spacing works fairly well. In St. Petersburg, the green line has even longer station spacing because city officials never added the infill stations which means that some stops are 4-5 minutes apart.

Expansion

Unlike most US cities, Moscow, St. Petersburg and other Russian cities are still expanding their metro systems. Moscow is planning its largest and fastest expansion including a 70 km third circle line. Nine stations opened in 2018 and 13 will open in 2019, the most ever. Washington Metro will open six in 2020 (maybe) and Los Angeles will open three by 2023 and four by 2025-2026 (maybe). Our largest system, New York City, plans to open zero. Only China has more ambitious subway expansion plans.

Fares

Moscow had a single fare structure since its inception but recently introduced discounts for buying more trips at a time. Alas, Metro officials perceive their new structure as leading to lost revenue so some options may go away. Moscow Metro uses a paper/cardboard farecard with a smart chip called a Troika card while St. Petersburg still uses tokens!

Escalators

Stalin wanted Moscow’s stations to serve as bomb shelters and required tunnels built deep below the surface. St. Petersburg is built on islands and swamps so deep stations were the only option. Escalators are the essential link to the surface and have to be reliable because without them, the metro station is unusable. Russian escalators have operators typically seated in booths at the base of the escalator and are notorious for announcements asking people to stand on the left. Pure speculation but I think those attendants follow a set escalator operating plan to ensure they remain in working order. Outside of peak hours, 1-2 are typically shut down to save electricity and reduce wear and tear. In contrast, Washington Metro’s operating plan merely flips a switch until the escalator breaks again (again, pure speculation). In addition, the escalator design promotes reliability and longevity. For example, many escalators have plastic steps instead of metal ones to reduce weight which reduces wear and tear on the components. Going back to station depth, escalator speeds are 2-3 times faster than Washington Metro’s which discourages walking. When a horde of people step onto the escalator at once, people stand on both sides, which allows more people onto the escalator at a time, reducing the bottleneck at the base.  

Accessibility problems

While Russian metro systems surpass the US in many areas, they utterly fail at handicapped accessibility. A few stations have been retrofitted with elevators. Many have stairs in addition to escalators. While many stairs have ramps bolted onto them, they are too steep for all but the most physically fit wheelchair user and I never saw anyone use one. Between Russia’s aging population and many military veterans, elevators and useable ramps are dearly needed. While there are serious physical barriers, one nice feature is the use of male annoucers for trains inbound to the city central and female ones outbound from the city, an instant orientation cue for visually impaired riders. 

Overall, Russian metro systems are highly efficient, functional, and well-regarded by their citizens for more than just their beauty. Unfortunately, many of their best features and lessons are lost on US subway system operators and planners.t 

Russian Railways Museum

Trains are an integral part of Russian life. The new Russian Railways (RZD) Museum is a living monument to trains, and the roles they played under the Czar, Soviet Union and the Russian Federation. 

Adjacent to the Baltiysky Railway Station and Baltiyskaya Metro Station in St. Petersburg, the RZD Museum opened in November 2017. Many locomotives are on display as well as a number of multiple unit trainsets (self-powered railcars) and rolling stock (railcars). The museum is housed in an 1857 depot (roundhouse) of the Peterhof Railway. While most depots in the US are round and include a turntable outside, this one is U shaped although it includes two small turntables inside to protect workers from winter weather. Some trains are displayed outside. Similar to the Udvar Hazy Museum and Steamtown USA, there is an overhead walkway to provide a different view of the locomotives and rolling stock.

The museum had electronic displays which described the locomotives in Russian but also had a button to select an English translation. There also neat white figurines which stories and photos were projected onto (only in Russian). More photos and details available here. 

My father-in-law bought me an extra ticket to use the train driver simulator. I only saw children driving but it was still a lot of fun. Russian trains have different horns for grade crossings and stations, the former is the standard loud horn and the latter is a higher pitched whistle-like horn. Sounding the correct horns would encourage various cars and people to move off of the tracks. Failure to do so would result in the windshield cracking. The electric locomotive simulator was very similar to the Siemens Cities Sprinter locomotive cab I saw in Amtrak’s Ivy City yard. There is space for families to cluster behind and laugh at the driver’s mistakes. 

Differences from foreign railways

Russian loading gauge (dimensions in which locomotives and rolling stock fit) is far more generous than in the US and Europe, presumably due to lack of tunnels and wider track gauge (4'11 27/32" versus 4’8 1/2” in the US and Europe). Therefore, locomotives are as tall as 17’, taller than the largest US locomotive, the Union Pacific’s Big Boy (16’ 2 1⁄2”). This allows for a large gap between the locomotive drivers (large wheels) and the boiler, a unique feature. All of the Russian steam locomotives were enormous!

There is a common myth that the Czar chose a wider track gauge to prevent European armies from using its railways. However, American consultant George Washington Whistler recommended a 5’ gauge when constructing Russia’s first railways in the 1840’s which was the standard in the US at the time. The difference with European lines was not considered important because the Russian network would not connect anyways. In times of war, it was relatively simple to adjust the gauge as invading armies would simply nail new holes into the wooden track ties. In fact, the Nazi’s did this when invading Russia and then the Red Army put it back when they pushed the Nazi’s back. From the 1960’s to the 1990’s, the Soviet Union reduced the tolerances of the 5’ gauge its present 4'11 27/32". This difference is small enough that the high-speed Allegro train from Helsinki, Finland (5’ gauge) to St. Petersburg does not need to adjust its wheels when crossing the border. In contrast, the Moscow-Berlin Talgo trainsets use an automatic gauge charger (takes 20 minutes) while other routes to Central and Western Europe (such as Warsaw, Paris, Nice) all require several hours to change bogies (wheels) from Russian to standard gauge.

Foreign expertise

While the Soviet Union had a reputation for self-reliance, I was surprised to find a number of US-built locomotives and reliance on foreign technology and consultants for some parts of the railway.

In 1915, the war had dramatically increased railway traffic and new locomotives were necessary. The railway ministry ordered 400 locomotives from US and Canadian manufacturers. The first locomotive, a YeS Class, arrived dismantled in Vladivostok in October 1915, and were assembled by Chinese contractors in Harbin, China which was a major stop on the Russian owned East-China Railway (a Russian-built shortcut line to Vladivostok for Trans-Siberian trains). The initial locomotives had problems with spare parts (incompatible with domestic spare parts) and were designed to burn energy-dense anthracite coal rather than less-energy dense Siberian coal. Future orders were renegotiated to account for those issues and in November 1916, the railway ministry ordered 40 each from the Baldwin Locomotive Company and the American Locomotive Company (ALCO). Named Class YeN, they had a subscript in their name, “F” for Philadelphia (F replaces ph in the Cyrillic alphabet) and “S” for Schenectady, to designate where each company was based. Additional locomotives were ordered after the US entered the way in 1917, However, when the Russian Revolution had disposed the Czarist government and withdrawn from the war, the deal was terminated but because the Czar’s government had made a 20% down payment, 100 locomotives were to be delivered and the remaining order was canceled.

The Nazi invasion of Russia decimated the Soviet railways and as the Nazi’s were driven back, there was an immediate need for new locomotives. In 1943, Stalin allowed the USSR railway ministry to acquire up to 2,000 locomotives from the US under the Lend Lease Act. Two options, used class YeL locomotives which had already been delivered during WW1 or the Decapod locomotive (Class ShA) were considered and ultimately, about 200 Class ShA were delivered via the Arctic convoy route to Murmansk. 

Many Russian rail lines have electric overhead catenary. Even the Trans-Siberian Railway is electrified although it took 73 years and electrification was only completed in 2002. Like in the US, the first electrified lines went through mountain passes where steep grades and curves such as the Suram Pass on the Trans-Caucasian Line. The Soviet Union acquired 8 GE Boxcab and 6 Brown Boveri (Italy) electric locomotives and trialed them on the Suram Pass. Railway workers found the GE design performed better and acquired design documents for domestic manufacturing. From 1932-1934, 21 SsM-14 locomotives were manufactured and were used until 1974. The locomotives bear a strong resemblance to the Boxcab locomotives used in Montreal until 1995. The museum’s SsM-14 came from Perm.

War

Some of the more interesting rolling stock was military-related. Railway guns were used with limited success in WW1, serving more as a terror weapon against civilians rather than a vital part of military objectives. Given the limited mobility and network of railway tracks in war time, their use was constrained. The TMK-3-12 railway gun was originally designed in 1907 for the Russian navy in response to problems identified in the Russo-Japanese War. The three TMK-3-12 railway guns were built using guns from the sunken Russian navy ship, Imperatritsa Mariya, in 1938 because no large guns were built from 1917 until the 1930’s.

 

The RT-23 Molodets missile train was developed in the late 1980’s to launch ICBM’s from a mobile platform. While more difficult to detect as the missile hides in a railcar which looks like a refrigerator car, satellites would merely have to look along railway tracks in warmer climates (snow could block tracks in cooler ones). The last missile train was withdrawn in 2005.

Should you find yourself in St. Petersburg, the Russian Railway Museum should not be missed. Look out Steamtown, the Russians are coming!

Sapsan Review

I rode Russia’s Sapsan high-speed train from Moscow to Chudovo. While an enjoyable experience, it is surprisingly similar to Amtrak’s Acela and the legacy track infrastructure means that Sapsan runs mostly below its top speed. 

We arrived early at Leningradsky Station and waited in the Daily Bread chain. After a little travelers sickness, we moved to the platform. While there is security, large scanners low to the floor make it easy to put bags through. Metal detectors are used for people but only require emptying pockets onto a small table before proceeding. Therefore, the security check lacked a line and was quick and painless. We walked to coach three where a train stewardess checked our passports and found seats 25 & 26. Alas, they lacked a full window. The seats were spacious but did not recline (broken?) and were a little firm after an hour. While there is a café car with very limited seating, airplane style food carts also come by offering tea and other Russian essentials for purchase. Russian Railways (RZD) has a nice magazine with Sapsan timetables and some English translations for a few articles. We bought our tickets online for about $100 USD each (Moscow-Chudovo round-trip). After entering your car and seat number and last four digits of your passport number, the wifi was relatively fast and functional.

The Sapsan (peregrine falcon) began running between Moscow and St. Petersburg almost a decade ago. Running on a largely legacy double track railway, the train gets its speed primarily from priority dispatching rather than track upgrades. We only hit 245kmph for a short section and the rest of the journey hovered around 200 and in a few places, 220kmph. I could feel the train on some of the corners, another testament to legacy track. For the first 6 kilometers from Moscow, the train only tops 90-100kmph and then 145kmph for the next 40 kilometers. The train slowed to 95kmph through Tver and 160kmph through Vyshny Volochyok. Open Railway Map shows most of the speed limits on the line. The train took about a minute to hit 95kmph. From 0 to 200kmph, it took about 3.25 minutes in about 6.5km.

The train also saves time by stopping at a few stations for only one minute. Our train stopped at Bologoe and Chudovo (where we got off). The fastest train is a nonstop early morning run (3h30m) while the slowest makes five stops (4h4m). While there are 14 roundtrips between Moscow and St. Petersburg, one more train runs between Nizhny Novgorod, Moscow and St. Petersburg in 8h15m. Sapsan has replaced almost all-day trains except for one, the Nevsky Express, which runs nonstop in 4h5m, just a minute slower than Sapsan, using a 200kmph locomotive and up to 13 cars. That train is reminiscent of Amtrak old Metroliner service in its later years. The other passenger trains are overnight sleeper train and take twice as long, about 8 hours, including the famous Red Arrow. On my last visit to Veliky Novgorod, the overnight train from Moscow through off my jetlagged internal body clock, hence a day train this trip. For Veliky Novgorod service via Chudovo, one of the trains was recently retimed to meet a local train from Petrozavodsk and RZD has several connecting bus options on their website. However, we took a cab with my father in-law which took about 1h30m.

 

While there are some planned upgrades, the previous plan for a dedicated Moscow-St. Petersburg high speed line has been canceled in favor of a Moscow-Kazan route. Further upgrades such as a third track along its entire length would probably reduce travel time to 3 hours or less. Adding track capacity in Moscow would also allow the train to hit at least 125mph earlier. RZD reports nearly 100% occupancy and plans to add an 11^th car and additional trainsets to increase capacity. Some trainsets are already combined to increase capacity. With the Kazan project delayed and economically questionable, upgrading the Sapsan’s route is probably the best investment RZD could make.

The Sapsan is a neat service and I would recommend it for traveling between Moscow, St. Petersburg, and all points in between. Upgrading some of the slow sections and allowing Sapsan to take full advantage of capabilities would make the service even more attractive and profitable.