# Amtrak HSR Chief Departing



## PRR 60 (Nov 1, 2011)

From the Philadelphia Inquirer, 11/1/11:



> As part of a reorganization of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor planning efforts, the railroad's high-speed rail chief is leaving. Al Engel, a Philadelphia engineer who was named vice president of high-speed rail in September 2010, will leave Amtrak next month "to pursue other opportunities," Amtrak said in a statement Tuesday.


The full story is HERE.


----------



## NE933 (Nov 1, 2011)

I don't agree that building a brand new right of way is do-able. It would cost plenty and alot of the benefits of 38 min. NY - Phil are based on assumptions. For what it entails, how bout we get the new Baltimore tunnels, new Hackensack River (Portal Bridges), new Hudson tunnels, Harold Interlocking bypass, and perhaps a way off MetroNorth? Also, let's replace the Chesapeake River bridges - all three of them, and do something about all the slow running around Zoo and the rest of Philadelphia? Finally, replace the freakin' turnouts that lay on wood with those that attached to concrete, and get the constant tension catenary up or at least install extra poles so that the wire stays in place while running 185mph Acela II's?

All this will cost alot less than the grandiose wet dream of building new double tracks. I mean, how would you get the trains onto them without first slowing down?!! Renew what we got already and make it work!!


----------



## jis (Nov 1, 2011)

NE933 said:


> I don't agree that building a brand new right of way is do-able. It would cost plenty and alot of the benefits of 38 min. NY - Phil are based on assumptions. For what it entails, how bout we get the new Baltimore tunnels, new Hackensack River (Portal Bridges), new Hudson tunnels, Harold Interlocking bypass, and perhaps a way off MetroNorth? Also, let's replace the Chesapeake River bridges - all three of them, and do something about all the slow running around Zoo and the rest of Philadelphia? Finally, replace the freakin' turnouts that lay on wood with those that attached to concrete, and get the constant tension catenary up or at least install extra poles so that the wire stays in place while running 185mph Acela II's?
> 
> All this will cost alot less than the grandiose wet dream of building new double tracks. I mean, how would you get the trains onto them without first slowing down?!! Renew what we got already and make it work!!


Keep dreaming about 185mph Acela II on the current right of way. Won't happen.

How do you get off Metro North without new double track right of way, which you said is not doable?


----------



## Anderson (Nov 1, 2011)

If you can get most of the WAS-NYP track outside the cities proper up to 150 MPH, you_ can_ knock a schedule under 2:30. Heck, the Penn Central managed to get a WAS-NYP Metroliner down to 2:30 pre-Amtrak (mind you, by only stopping at Baltimore along the way, but it demonstrates the capabilities of the tracks without major improvements), so getting the ride down in the lower two hour range should be manageable, primarily with a combination of CTC, bridge replacements, and possibly some tunnel-related fixes.

Now, two thoughts come to mind:

1) Could some (obviously non-Acela) Regional traffic be redirected over the Inland Route to avert the 39 train/day limit on the Shore Line?

2) Could a Regional and an Acela be "doubled up" in a slot in Metro North territory? i.e. A Regional basically "chases" an Acela from NYP to New Haven, and then the Acela "takes off" while the Regional either runs through the rest of CT and RI at a slower pace _or_ the Regional runs off on the Inland Route?


----------



## afigg (Nov 1, 2011)

Anderson said:


> If you can get most of the WAS-NYP track outside the cities proper up to 150 MPH, you_ can_ knock a schedule under 2:30. Heck, the Penn Central managed to get a WAS-NYP Metroliner down to 2:30 pre-Amtrak (mind you, by only stopping at Baltimore along the way, but it demonstrates the capabilities of the tracks without major improvements), so getting the ride down in the lower two hour range should be manageable, primarily with a combination of CTC, bridge replacements, and possibly some tunnel-related fixes.


The NEC Master Infrastructure Plan calls for 2:20 WAS-NYP trip times by 2030 for NEC upgrades for Acela type service. Replace the bridges, replace the B&P tunnel, new Hudson River tunnels, adding 3rd and 4th tracks between WAS and WIL, and so on. The Next Gen NEC with 220 mph speeds calls for 1:30 WAS to NYP times and 2 hours for NYP to BOS.

My opinion is that given the spacing between the cities, 220 mph is too much to shoot for and too expensive. Dump the tunnel under Philly and a 12 miles tunnel under NYC ideas. Instead aim for more modest upgrades to achieve 2 hours WAS-NYP and 186 mph /300 kph class trains. Do some hard analysis on the alternatives & costs it would take to get to 3:00, 2:45 or 2:30 NYP to BOS. The 2:30 would presumably take an entirely new ROW through CT which would be seriously expensive.

2 hours WAS-NYP and 2:45 NYP-BOS for 5 hours WAS-BOS should get pretty good business, especially with what oil and fuel prices are likely to be for the airlines in 10 to 20 years.



Anderson said:


> Now, two thoughts come to mind:
> 
> 1) Could some (obviously non-Acela) Regional traffic be redirected over the Inland Route to avert the 39 train/day limit on the Shore Line?
> 
> 2) Could a Regional and an Acela be "doubled up" in a slot in Metro North territory? i.e. A Regional basically "chases" an Acela from NYP to New Haven, and then the Acela "takes off" while the Regional either runs through the rest of CT and RI at a slower pace _or_ the Regional runs off on the Inland Route?


yes, Regionals could be redirected over the Inland Route to get around the 39 train/day limit on the Shore Line. That is part of the reasoning for the plan 3 Inland Route Regionals in the New England Rail Vision plan besides providing service to Hartford, Springfield MA and Worcester. But it would be much slower, even after upgrades, without serious bucks. Amtrak is looking to upgrade the 39 train limit anyway.

Double up 2 trains in a slot? Only if one is coupled to the other and controlled by a single engineer. The reason for blocks is to provide enough spacing between trains for emergency or quick stops. When Metro-North is finished upgrading the catenary and signals for the New Haven line, that is supposed to provide capacity for additional traffic, although MNRR is doing it for more commuter trains to NYG and NYP.


----------



## NE933 (Nov 1, 2011)

jis said:


> Keep dreaming about 185mph Acela II on the current right of way. Won't happen.
> 
> How do you get off Metro North without new double track right of way, which you said is not doable?


Well, we can add a steering wheel or lay an HO model track and hope it can hold 700 tons of real train...

8-D...

Ok, all joking aside (c'mon, gotta laugh!), I intended to say that new right of way is not needed NY to Washington, except for the Baltimore tunnels, which is supposed to have a new, smoother crescent shaped alignment. As for NY to Boston especially on the Metro North part, I'd have to question is there any alignment of old factories, open fields, open lots, that can be purchased by Amtrak to be made into a new right of way for all of it's trains, so as to avoid the never ending slowness and dispatching conflicts with MN? Maybe allow MN a reciprocal arrangement on this new right of way to get some of it's own trains on to it as a good neighbor policy, so that Amtrak can still have access to the original line?

Finally I want to know what impediments or natural obstacles did the surveyors of the predecessor New Haven RR see that let them to select such an awful alignment? Were they like, on drugs or something?


----------



## Trogdor (Nov 1, 2011)

NE933 said:


> Finally I want to know what impediments or natural obstacles did the surveyors of the predecessor New Haven RR see that let them to select such an awful alignment? Were they like, on drugs or something?


Back when "high-speed" trains went 50 mph, having absolutely tangent track wasn't really necessary. Plus, I'm assuming that they wanted to build the railroads where the people were. It wasn't about getting from New York to Boston as fast as possible. The population was probably largely along the coast lines back then, so it made sense for the railroad to follow the coast.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 1, 2011)

Trogdor said:


> so it made sense for the railroad to follow the coast.


Following the coast also ensured no serious grades to climb, something that all RR's tried to avoid back then. Still do to a large extent even today, however today we build bridges & tunnels to help defeat the grades.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 2, 2011)

NE933 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Keep dreaming about 185mph Acela II on the current right of way. Won't happen.
> ...


There are actually, IIRC, some old partial alignments that could be acquired...but you'd still have to link them together. One suggestion that comes to mind is the alignment that's partly Airline State Park in either CT, RI, or MA.

As to the slot question I posed earlier: I wasn't sure if by "slots" Amtrak was limited to X number of _scheduling _slots (i.e. if Amtrak ran 2-3 sections of a train in rapid-fire succession they could use a slot even if the trains were never in the same block) or effectively hard-limited in the number of blocks they could occupy at any given time. Now, if Amtrak absolutely _had_ to, they could probably run a "double train" to New Haven and split it there by simply coupling two trains together for the duration...but such would not be an exercise in either efficient use of equipment or of train speeds.

Another question, then: How many more cars can Amtrak stick on its Regionals north of NYP before severe platform problems start arising?


----------



## Trogdor (Nov 2, 2011)

Slots generally refers to the number of movements. So, having two trains one right behind the other is still two slots.


----------



## jis (Nov 2, 2011)

Anderson said:


> As to the slot question I posed earlier: I wasn't sure if by "slots" Amtrak was limited to X number of _scheduling _slots (i.e. if Amtrak ran 2-3 sections of a train in rapid-fire succession they could use a slot even if the trains were never in the same block) or effectively hard-limited in the number of blocks they could occupy at any given time. Now, if Amtrak absolutely _had_ to, they could probably run a "double train" to New Haven and split it there by simply coupling two trains together for the duration...but such would not be an exercise in either efficient use of equipment or of train speeds.


Slots are timetable slots represented by a single line in a timetable diagram, which can be occupied notionally by an single train. It has nothing to do with actual blocks per se. Typical timetable slots on busy line have a leeway of a few minutes each side, so the only way to fit two trains into one is to couple them together.



> Another question, then: How many more cars can Amtrak stick on its Regionals north of NYP before severe platform problems start arising?


Most major stations can handle upto 12 cars at least on some platforms I think.


----------



## jis (Nov 2, 2011)

AlanB said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> > so it made sense for the railroad to follow the coast.
> ...


Actually on HSR line grades of 5% are not uncommon, that would be considered a severe mountain railroad in classic railroading. But such grades cause hardly a blip in speeds on HSR since the trains have such phenomenal power to weight ration, well except in the US to some extent.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 2, 2011)

jis said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > As to the slot question I posed earlier: I wasn't sure if by "slots" Amtrak was limited to X number of _scheduling _slots (i.e. if Amtrak ran 2-3 sections of a train in rapid-fire succession they could use a slot even if the trains were never in the same block) or effectively hard-limited in the number of blocks they could occupy at any given time. Now, if Amtrak absolutely _had_ to, they could probably run a "double train" to New Haven and split it there by simply coupling two trains together for the duration...but such would not be an exercise in either efficient use of equipment or of train speeds.
> ...


And coupling a Regional to an Acela or vice versa is not an option, as you'd have to operate the combined train at very low speed due to the nature of the Acela couplers under the nose cones.


----------



## jis (Nov 2, 2011)

AlanB said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Anderson said:
> ...


Correct. There is no way no how such an idea can be made to work. heck even two Acelas cannot be hooked up together to run as a single train, thanks to bombardier goofup. This sort of thing is done regularly in Europe, but somehow this capability was lost in translation while the ideas flew across the pond.


----------



## afigg (Nov 2, 2011)

jis said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Another question, then: How many more cars can Amtrak stick on its Regionals north of NYP before severe platform problems start arising?
> ...


There are some stations that the Regionals stop at on the NEC in CT that have 8 or 9 car long high level platforms. There are also the stations that have low level platforms, generally shorter, that the Regionals stop at on a limited basis. I'll to check Richard E. Green's maps to see which stations have less than 10 car long high level platforms. The NE Regionals are now frequently running with 8 car long consists plus the locomotive from what I have observed (6 coach, 1 café, 1 business class car). Adding extra cars means having people move through the train to disembark.

If Amtrak is already not requiring it, the minimum length should be 10 cars long for stations that are getting upgraded to high level platforms or stations when the high level platforms are rebuilt to allow for 10 coach/café car trains with no special handling stops. The Keystone East is getting mostly 500' long platforms or 6 cars long. Which could be a mistake in the long run.


----------



## jis (Nov 2, 2011)

By major stations I meant Stamford, New Haven, Providence. Rt. 128 and Back Bay (but I could be wrong). The ridership at other stations is small enough for them to be manageable with only part of the train platforming. Heck even NJT manages to deal with not all cars platforming at all stations.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 2, 2011)

afigg said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Anderson said:
> ...


Well, in a crunch Amtrak could revise policy slightly and put the Yum-Yum Car at one end of the train. It'd stink royally for folks at the other end who'd have to march through a dozen cars to get lunch (though you could simply try to put as much short-haul traffic at that end as possible), but it's a way to jam an extra car in there.

One thing that _could_ be done is locking off a few cars to traffic for one station (i.e. "No passengers for New Haven in the two rear cars" or "No passengers for Route 128 in the front car"). It would be a headache, but it could be done.


----------



## George Harris (Nov 2, 2011)

jis said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Trogdor said:
> ...


JIS: In all seriousness, if you have any examples this steep, or anything abouve 3.5%, I would appreciate knowing about them, particularly with the how long.

Here is what I know on the subject:

The longest sustained grade on any high speed line in the world that I know about is a 23 mile long grade of 3.0% on one of the Shinkansen lines. It is also mostly in tunnel. The standard for maximum grade on the Shinkansen lines is 2.50%, but up to 3.50% is permissible “if necessitated by topography” with some restrictions, but these restrictions do not include total length on the grade.

The French allow grades of up to 3.5% on lines where only TGV trains operate, however, the maximum change in elevation in any 10 km (6.2 miles) segment cannot exceed an average grade of 2.50%. They have no grade of even 2.5% that is over 10 miles long.

On the Frankfort-Cologne line there is a short grade of 4.0%, length unknown but thought to be about 3 miles. German standards require grades of over 1.25% on high speed lines to be on concrete slab type track.

The Chinese high speed lines have grades of up to 2.9%, but those known are short. It has been stated that there is one grade of 2.5% that is about 9 miles long, but I do not know where.

The Taiwan High Speed Railway has one grade of 3.5% that is about 1.2 km long. The longest sustained climb is approximately 12 km at an average grade of 1.6% with the maximum being 2.5%.


----------



## jis (Nov 3, 2011)

George Harris said:


> JIS: In all seriousness, if you have any examples this steep, or anything abouve 3.5%, I would appreciate knowing about them, particularly with the how long.


I yield to your more precise knowledge in this area.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 3, 2011)

Anderson said:


> One thing that _could_ be done is locking off a few cars to traffic for one station (i.e. "No passengers for New Haven in the two rear cars" or "No passengers for Route 128 in the front car"). It would be a headache, but it could be done.


MARC does this all the time on the Penn Line, as Seabrook and Bowie State have platforms that are shorter than most trains. It's a bit of a hassle, but it's well announced and they have tried to work toward some consistency (i.e., Seabrook is always the last 3 cars). It isn't perfect, there was a person who pulled the e-brake as they were about to get carried past Bowie State because they were in the wrong car, but for the most part it works.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 3, 2011)

Ryan said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > One thing that _could_ be done is locking off a few cars to traffic for one station (i.e. "No passengers for New Haven in the two rear cars" or "No passengers for Route 128 in the front car"). It would be a headache, but it could be done.
> ...


Well, Amtrak has one edge...the conductor comes through and takes tickets (at least, as a rule), and with the trips involved on Amtrak running longer, there should be time for the ticket-taking to happen and if someone is in the wrong car, to tell them "Sorry, this car doesn't stop at Stamford."

Of course, it also hit me that a one-car overhang isn't a big deal...LD trains often only have boarding/disembarkation every two cars (on Viewliners...on Superliners, it's often only one car that "opens up", meaning that some folks have to scramble through a car to get to their exit). Six-car overhangs, on the other hand...


----------



## jis (Nov 3, 2011)

Anderson said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Anderson said:
> ...


On the NEC you want as many cars as possible to platform and have all doors open to keep dwell time under within reasonable limits. That is the biggest problem that NJT has on rush hour trains, is that the dwell times become unacceptably long. And part of the problem is poorly designed rolling stock that NJT uses which does not help passenger flow to or from the doors at all.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 3, 2011)

Anderson said:


> Well, Amtrak has one edge...the conductor comes through and takes tickets (at least, as a rule), and with the trips involved on Amtrak running longer, there should be time for the ticket-taking to happen and if someone is in the wrong car, to tell them "Sorry, this car doesn't stop at Stamford."


MARC does the same thing - they even check tickets at the door for people embarking at NCR (the second stop on the line and the stop before Seabrook, so in theory everyone is personally notified (not that it does a lick of good to some of the more dense folks).



jis said:


> On the NEC you want as many cars as possible to platform and have all doors open to keep dwell time under within reasonable limits. That is the biggest problem that NJT has on rush hour trains, is that the dwell times become unacceptably long. And part of the problem is poorly designed rolling stock that NJT uses which does not help passenger flow to or from the doors at all.


Indeed, MARC runs into the same issues at those two stations (and having to open the traps and deal with the low level platforms at Halethorp (for now) and West Baltimore.


----------

