# Why Acela in the NEC?



## Galls (Nov 13, 2007)

I remember how big of a deal bringing High Speed Rail to my beloved city was, But yesterday when I was booking a trip to either Phily or Boston I noticed that Acela had no notable time improvement over regional trains. Of course the perceived image of Acela has helped the NEC become an alternative to shuttles, but isn't it a complete waste to operate those trains here?

I also understand it is the only thoroughly electrified portion of the national grid, in which case wasn't it a waste of money to buy them?


----------



## Penn Central (Nov 13, 2007)

The Acelas were bought for political reasons more than anything. Getting funding for new equipment is difficult, it is much easier if it is supported by high-speed hype. Amtrak nedds to retire all of the 40+ year old Amfleet I's that run daily on the Regionals, and the Acelas are the first step in doing so. As for speed, the presently decaying infastucture on the NEC cannot support anything much faster than what the Regionals do now, now matter what fancy trainsets are brought in.


----------



## sechs (Nov 13, 2007)

Galls said:


> Acela had no notable time improvement over regional trains.


A half hour is not notable? Some of the businessmen who take the Acela might beg to differ.


----------



## Galls (Nov 13, 2007)

sechs said:


> Galls said:
> 
> 
> > Acela had no notable time improvement over regional trains.
> ...



I am such and while clearly not a universal sampling, to me 30 minutes is not such a large difference when it is a days worth of travel anyway.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 13, 2007)

Galls said:


> Of course the perceived image of Acela has helped the NEC become an alternative to shuttles, but isn't it a complete waste to operate those trains here?


The NEC has always been an alternative to the airline shuttles, even before Acela. For years Amtrak owned a little more than 50% of the market between NY and DC, typically averaging around 52% to 53%. That means that the other 47% to 48% was divided between the airlines and the bus companies. That position was slipping a bit prior to Acela's introduction, dropped further when Acela was sidelined, but it has now come back and once again Amtrak owns more than 50% of the travel market between NY & DC. Between Philly and NY, Amtrak owns an even larger percentage.

Acela has helped to start cutting into the market between NY & Boston, but at this point Amtrak still has a way to go. I'm not sure if they even own 20% of the market yet.

On the other hand, the improvements brought about by Acela, have helped to improve travel for anyone riding on any train between NY & Boston, with the advent of electrification east of New Haven. Now both Regional trains and Acela benefit from that project to electrify east of New Haven.



Galls said:


> I also understand it is the only thoroughly electrified portion of the national grid, in which case wasn't it a waste of money to buy them?


Part of the point of Acela, was to prove that we could actually have high speed trains here in the US and that people would actually ride them and therefore get increased funding to expand high-speed service beyone the corridor. Unfortunately due in part to some poor planning and implimentation, in part due to those opposed to Amtrak, critics have seized upon some of the failures of Acela as the battle cry to prevent expansion of high-speed service and for that matter all Amtrak service.

But it was hardly a waste of money. The current regional trains are now over 30 years old, these cars will soon need to be replaced with new equipment. Whether that equipment is more Acela trains or something else is probably only just starting to be debated. But in the meantime Acela is easing some of the burden on the Amfleet equipment, and perhaps more importantly it is bringing people back to ride the train and helping to increase ridership. And as I mentioned above, the entire project for Acela improved overall service for anyone riding between Boston and DC.


----------



## BobWeaver (Nov 13, 2007)

Also keep in mind that business travelers may have to make multiple city stops over the course of one of their traveling days, so a 20 minute savings between WAS and PHL, 30 between WAS and NYP, and 75 between WAS and BOS can be highly advantageous to the business traveler's maximum utilization of his/her time.


----------



## battalion51 (Nov 13, 2007)

As the age old saying goes, time is money. There are a fair number of business travelers that will have meetings in two or three cities in a given day, and those minutes Acela shaves means more time they can be productive, or with family. The ammenities Acela brings to the table are also invaluable to many business travelers. Having things like electrical outlets at every seat, almost continuous Cell Phone service, and for First Class passengers complimentary food service is huge. The fact that these trains run on the hour or half hour (for the most part) and go downtown to downtown is huge. Nothing like an hour cab ride from LaGuardia to downtown Manahattan in rush hour...


----------



## meatpuff (Nov 14, 2007)

battalion51 said:


> As the age old saying goes, time is money. There are a fair number of business travelers that will have meetings in two or three cities in a given day, and those minutes Acela shaves means more time they can be productive, or with family. The ammenities Acela brings to the table are also invaluable to many business travelers. Having things like electrical outlets at every seat, almost continuous Cell Phone service, and for First Class passengers complimentary food service is huge. The fact that these trains run on the hour or half hour (for the most part) and go downtown to downtown is huge. Nothing like an hour cab ride from LaGuardia to downtown Manahattan in rush hour...


One other thing is that the Acelas are MUCH nicer inside. Appearances matter, especially if you're charging a premium price for a premium product over available alternatives (i.e. bus). Particularly if you're trying to sell to the business traveler; price doesn't matter much to him oftentimes. Even the lowest class on Acela is nicer than first class on an airliner, and you've got them on convenience, so Acela is working, even with high ticket prices. And of course they kept the Metroliners around to grab the lower end of the market. Amtrak's biggest goals are to put butts in seats and grow revenues, not improve railroad operations for its own sake, so they're pleased for now until they get the capital to actually raise speeds.


----------



## VentureForth (Nov 14, 2007)

So have Acela trainsets increased in number? When did the last new trainset enter service? Interesting thing about the original Shinkansen is that all trainsets (local or super express) used the same rolling stock. Nowadays, that's similar, but there are better chances of getting a nicer trainset on a super express than on the locals. Now, the locals on the Shinkansen (Japanese Bullet Train) are still express compared to the regular local service, but it's all on a dedicated ROW and it's all uniform equipment, signalling, and service.

They just really need to update the trainsets to all Acela type cars, rebuild the infrastructure to 100% state of repair from DC to Boston.

One of the problems (perceived perhaps) is the sharing of the ROW with the Amtrak sleepers and freight. Since these are diesels, I contend that they probably get in the way some. Some of the NEC is tri- or quad-tracked. Keep two powered, and two unpowered.

See? I solved all of Amtraks' problems in 10 minutes.


----------



## PRR 60 (Nov 14, 2007)

There are 20 Acela trainsets with 16 required to cover the weekday schedule. That leaves four for maintenance or as available backup. My understanding is that Amtrak is targeting having 17 sets in service weekdays. That could possibly mean the addition of two more limited-stop express trains (northbound morning and southbound evening). The later is my guess, not based on any hard facts.

The problem with NEC capacity is the sheer number of trains operated by Amtrak and the commuter agencies. Almost all trains on the NEC are electric powered including the NEC portion of the overnight trains. Freight is relegated to off hours or is operated at Amtrak's convenience. Neither Amtrak's long distance services nor freight are really major capacity issues on the NEC.


----------



## battalion51 (Nov 14, 2007)

VentureForth said:


> So have Acela trainsets increased in number? When did the last new trainset enter service? Interesting thing about the original Shinkansen is that all trainsets (local or super express) used the same rolling stock. Nowadays, that's similar, but there are better chances of getting a nicer trainset on a super express than on the locals. Now, the locals on the Shinkansen (Japanese Bullet Train) are still express compared to the regular local service, but it's all on a dedicated ROW and it's all uniform equipment, signalling, and service.
> They just really need to update the trainsets to all Acela type cars, rebuild the infrastructure to 100% state of repair from DC to Boston.
> 
> One of the problems (perceived perhaps) is the sharing of the ROW with the Amtrak sleepers and freight. Since these are diesels, I contend that they probably get in the way some. Some of the NEC is tri- or quad-tracked. Keep two powered, and two unpowered.
> ...


Well if you can convince Congress to throw a fraction as much money at Amtrak as they do at Iraq, we wouldn't have these problems. Amtrak's problem isn't the drive, or the recognition of problems, it's the lack of money to do anything about these problems. The Intercity trains while they do run slower, don't really create that many issues for Dispatchers. IC trains run at 110 MPH, Regionals at 125 MPH, and Acelas at 135-150 (135 on the South End). So there is a little speed differential, but not enough that the tracks need to be segregated. It's much smarter to keep the blocking open and run things on what track you need to, not tie your hands. IC trains also generally run with the same electrics that Regionals run with. Freight is also generally running at night, so they are out of the way.


----------



## George Harris (Nov 14, 2007)

No matter what they do with trainsets, no matter what they do with track quality, and no matter what they do with electrification, true high speed is not coming to the northeast until they have a new alignment with large radius curves and wider track centers. They have at this point squeezed just about all they can out of the existing 18 whenever alignment and 12 point something track centers. It is not running 150 mph on the south end that will get you shorter run times, at least by more than a couple of minutes, it will be turning Zoo Interlocking from 30 mph to 90 mph (not really possible) getting a new straight line through Baltimore instead of a series of 30 to 50 mph segments complete with too-small tunnels, etc.

It may make great press to say we are now able to run 150 mph or faster, but the real time saving will be when they can say we no longer have any speed restricted sections under 90 mph (or pick some other fairly good number.)


----------



## JimInVa (Nov 16, 2007)

sechs said:


> Galls said:
> 
> 
> > Acela had no notable time improvement over regional trains.
> ...


Me too, and it makes a huge difference to me. I go between DC and NY two or sometimes three times a week. I've compared the door-to-door time with the shuttle service into and out of LaGuardia, and while the flight time is, obviously, much faster, in total travel time Acela usually wins. And that half hour difference between the regional and Acela: that's the difference between me catching the last commuter train home or making my wife drive 48 miles (24 each way) to pick me up at the end of the subway line in northern VA.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Nov 18, 2007)

If Acela trainsets were to be used for all the Regional trains, there are some unresolved questions with how the semi-permanently-coupled trainsets which have electric locomotives are going to travel all the way to Newport News. Either Amtrak would have to decide they can deal with attaching diesels to an Acela trainset in Washington DC, or the tracks to Newport News would need to be electrified, or they'd need to have passengers change trains in DC. Or maybe some of the new future trainsets could have dual mode locomotives.

And if the North-South Rail Link gets built in Boston, it might make sense to merge the Regional with the Downeaster, at which point the same issue with tracks that are not electrified comes up.

Additionally, switching to Acela trainsets might put an end to Amtrak's ability to haul privately owned cars on the NEC.

I believe I came across a news article somewhere claiming that Amtrak could easily fill more seats on the Boston to New York segment of the Acela Express if they had more Acela coaches for the existing trains; that might be a good place for Amtrak to start if it wants to buy more Acela equipment.

And while in some ways it would be nice to have more Acela Express trainsets so that there could be more Boston to New York trips each day, I believe the Wikipedia article claims the Shore Line East makes a limited number of trips to New London because the Coast Guard doesn't want the bridge over the Connecticut River closed too often. I imagine that bridge would also be an issue limiting the number of Acela Express trips that can happen each day. I do wonder if building a new, higher bridge there would allow the bridge to only be opened for taller boats and if that might allow for more frequent train service.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 19, 2007)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> I believe I came across a news article somewhere claiming that Amtrak could easily fill more seats on the Boston to New York segment of the Acela Express if they had more Acela coaches for the existing trains; that might be a good place for Amtrak to start if it wants to buy more Acela equipment.


Amtrak could probably fill more seats between NY & DC if they had them also. As for Boston, right now the easy answer would be to just run more Acela trainsets to Boston. Right now there are less trains to/from Boston simply because the demmand isn't really there for more service. Amtrak would need to cut off at least another half an hour in runtime, before they can truly start to compete with the air shuttles.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> And while in some ways it would be nice to have more Acela Express trainsets so that there could be more Boston to New York trips each day, I believe the Wikipedia article claims the Shore Line East makes a limited number of trips to New London because the Coast Guard doesn't want the bridge over the Connecticut River closed too often. I imagine that bridge would also be an issue limiting the number of Acela Express trips that can happen each day. I do wonder if building a new, higher bridge there would allow the bridge to only be opened for taller boats and if that might allow for more frequent train service.


Shore Line East indeed cannot run many trains to New London because of the bridge constraints. And while it is the Coast Guard that is ordering that the bridge not be closed more than X times per day, it is mainly due to complaints from the rich people who want to sail their yachts back and forth from the many bays. It's not in the interests of commerce or national security that the bridges can't remain closed for longer periods. It's so those with money can inconvience the traveling public. :angry:


----------



## George Harris (Nov 19, 2007)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> And while in some ways it would be nice to have more Acela Express trainsets so that there could be more Boston to New York trips each day, I believe the Wikipedia article claims the Shore Line East makes a limited number of trips to New London because the Coast Guard doesn't want the bridge over the Connecticut River closed too often. I imagine that bridge would also be an issue limiting the number of Acela Express trips that can happen each day. I do wonder if building a new, higher bridge there would allow the bridge to only be opened for taller boats and if that might allow for more frequent train service.


It is the Thames (not the one in England) at New London. The Connecticut River is further west. But it is true that it is the pleasure boaters, not the military or serious transportation needs that has lead to the restrictions on closed time for the drawbridges. In fact, I am not sure that the Thames bridge was the one most at issue. If anybody has a few billion dollars lying around, about half to buy off the NIMBY's then we could have a faster alignment with high level bridges. To be truly useful, this work would have to include Conn DOT's track west of New Haven.


----------



## battalion51 (Nov 19, 2007)

I personally think that had they used the Air Line a lot of these issues would be non-existent. The Air Line (while with steeper grades than the Shore Line) is a much more direct route to Boston, and the Acelas would be much more competitive. We also wouldn't have the garbage of these bridge restrictions in place.

But since we are stuck with the situation we're in, if MassDOT and CDOT ever get the money together to upgrade the CSX Boston Sub and Springfield Line some Regionals could be shifted to that line and open up those slots on the Shore Line for more Acelas to run, if the scheduling works out right for the trainsets.


----------



## sechs (Nov 19, 2007)

Given the chance to do Acela again, I think that they'd do it differently. This is to say that it is more likely that something will replace these trainsets than that new Acela rolling stock will be purchased.


----------



## battalion51 (Nov 19, 2007)

I'd agree with that. I think they would probably go for something more like the Talgos, where the power can be detached, and it seems like they manipulate their trainsets a little bit more than the Acelas.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Nov 20, 2007)

> > And while in some ways it would be nice to have more Acela Express trainsets so that there could be more Boston to New York trips each day, I believe the Wikipedia article claims the Shore Line East makes a limited number of trips to New London because the Coast Guard doesn't want the bridge over the Connecticut River closed too often. I imagine that bridge would also be an issue limiting the number of Acela Express trips that can happen each day. I do wonder if building a new, higher bridge there would allow the bridge to only be opened for taller boats and if that might allow for more frequent train service.
> 
> 
> It is the Thames (not the one in England) at New London.


New London's station is on the west side of the Thames, and I don't believe Shore Line East would need to cross the Thames river, unless it does so to reach a wye. However, I don't know how the signaling is set up, and whether it's possible to pull into the station with the bridge open.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 20, 2007)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> > > And while in some ways it would be nice to have more Acela Express trainsets so that there could be more Boston to New York trips each day, I believe the Wikipedia article claims the Shore Line East makes a limited number of trips to New London because the Coast Guard doesn't want the bridge over the Connecticut River closed too often. I imagine that bridge would also be an issue limiting the number of Acela Express trips that can happen each day. I do wonder if building a new, higher bridge there would allow the bridge to only be opened for taller boats and if that might allow for more frequent train service.
> >
> >
> > It is the Thames (not the one in England) at New London.
> ...


That is correct, Shore Line East doesn't need to cross the Thames to reach the New London Station. And IIRC they have cab cars, so no need to wye the trains.

The limiting bridge in this case is indeed the one across the Connecticut River, which is why most Shore Line East trains end at Old Saybrook the last stop before crossing the CT river. In fact prior to the current Acela schedule, Shore Line East used to operate one more train to New London than it currently does. Amtrak stole that slot for another Acela Express run.


----------



## battalion51 (Nov 20, 2007)

SLE uses diesels and Cab Cars, so there's no need to wye the trains.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Dec 30, 2007)

battalion51 said:


> I personally think that had they used the Air Line a lot of these issues would be non-existent. The Air Line (while with steeper grades than the Shore Line) is a much more direct route to Boston, and the Acelas would be much more competitive. We also wouldn't have the garbage of these bridge restrictions in place.
> But since we are stuck with the situation we're in, if MassDOT and CDOT ever get the money together to upgrade the CSX Boston Sub and Springfield Line some Regionals could be shifted to that line and open up those slots on the Shore Line for more Acelas to run, if the scheduling works out right for the trainsets.


There has certainly been talk of Massachusetts buying the Framingham to Worcester tracks from CSX, and maybe upgrading that to double track. I'm not sure if the plan is for CSX to continue to own the Worcester to Springfield segment, and running express trains on CSX tracks is probably an oxymoron, but I imagine that once Massachusetts figures out how to buy tracks from CSX once, buying more later wouldn't be especially difficult if money can be found.

And I assume that the whole New Haven to Springfield to Boston route would need electrification for Amtrak to run trains on it well.

Other than that, are there any issues preventing the Acela and Regional trains from running on that route?

Does the Springfield station have high level platforms?


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Dec 30, 2007)

Other than that, are there any issues preventing the Acela and Regional trains from running on that route? ??

No high level platforms at 90% of stations, no Electrification, single track, to many freights, not properly signalled.


----------



## stonesfan (Dec 30, 2007)

From my limited experience of the NE corridor, the Acela is a reasonable improvement over what it replaced. Obviously the timesaving would be far superior if the section between Boston and NY went in a straight line for more than 10ft at a time! And of course the catenery on the southern sections seems to hamper high speed potential too. It really does look like it was put up in the Victorian age. However, overall, its opened a few eyes, and with some serious investment in the infrastructure, could yet prove to be a winner. If all that was sorted out, I believe it would save another hour between DC and Boston?

The Acela is a far better train than the tilting 320 seat 'pendolinos' that we have had foisted upon on us. The have replaced 400 seat 110mph loco hauled trains which were comfortable and ran most of the route at 100/110mph. The Pendo's have an increased top speed of 125mph, but are uncomfortable, claustraphobic and suffer from failures too often. Saving the odd 5 minutes here and there is no compensation for a comfy seat or even getting a seat in the first place.


----------



## Corridor Conductor (Dec 31, 2007)

The Acela service created a market that did not exist between Boston and New york; the business traveler. Those folks did not ride our trains before electrification and Acela, which was developed as a system. Regiopnal service benefitted, but the ridership that uses Acela does not usually choose Rgional service. New markets are developing because of the Acela. Bos to Stamford is very strong; as is Stamford to points south of Penn Station. The Amfleet coaches are awful. The toilets stink and the vestibules fill with snow. The A. C. units can overflow onto passengers and their luggage in summer. The corridor needs more new equipment, beyond the Acela trains. I don't care what it is as long as it is safe comfortable and reliabl

Acela Conductor


----------



## stonesfan (Dec 31, 2007)

Corridor Conductor said:


> The Acela service created a market that did not exist between Boston and New york; the business traveler. Those folks did not ride our trains before electrification and Acela, which was developed as a system. Regiopnal service benefitted, but the ridership that uses Acela does not usually choose Rgional service. New markets are developing because of the Acela. Bos to Stamford is very strong; as is Stamford to points south of Penn Station. The Amfleet coaches are awful. The toilets stink and the vestibules fill with snow. The A. C. units can overflow onto passengers and their luggage in summer. The corridor needs more new equipment, beyond the Acela trains. I don't care what it is as long as it is safe comfortable and reliablAcela Conductor


Out of interest, do you think there is any 'deliberate' run down of the Amfleet coaches to convince passengers to use Acela? Its heavily denied here of course, but our Mk3 coaches (an equivilent of the Amfleet, and the best coach ever designed in the UK) were in an absolutely revolting state before being replaced by the brand new pendolinos. Customers were quite taken by the new trains at first, purely because they were clean and in full working order.


----------



## Corridor Conductor (Dec 31, 2007)

stonesfan said:


> Corridor Conductor said:
> 
> 
> > The Acela service created a market that did not exist between Boston and New york; the business traveler. Those folks did not ride our trains before electrification and Acela, which was developed as a system. Regiopnal service benefitted, but the ridership that uses Acela does not usually choose Rgional service. New markets are developing because of the Acela. Bos to Stamford is very strong; as is Stamford to points south of Penn Station. The Amfleet coaches are awful. The toilets stink and the vestibules fill with snow. The A. C. units can overflow onto passengers and their luggage in summer. The corridor needs more new equipment, beyond the Acela trains. I don't care what it is as long as it is safe comfortable and reliablAcela Conductor
> ...


Amfleet cars are 30+ years old. They are obsolete. I do not believe we have a car builder capable of rebuilding the Amfleets. The in-house Keystone did not solve the problems I addressed in my first entry. I think the original door design was defective. It Snow infiltration has been a problem for may, many years. The toilets are still inadequate. NEW equipment is the answer.

Amtrak Corridor Conductor


----------



## stonesfan (Dec 31, 2007)

Corridor Conductor said:


> Amfleet cars are 30+ years old. They are obsolete. I do not believe we have a car builder capable of rebuilding the Amfleets. The in-house Keystone did not solve the problems I addressed in my first entry. I think the original door design was defective. It Snow infiltration has been a problem for may, many years. The toilets are still inadequate. NEW equipment is the answer.Amtrak Corridor Conductor


Our Mk3's, whether loco hauled or as part of an Intercity 125 rake are also 30+ years old! But some train operating companies have really looked after them, and most passengers would guestimate they are new carriages. If you ever come to the UK, take the Highland Chieften from Kings Cross to Inverness (IC125 mk3 only) and you will see what I mean. They will be going on for another 15+ years yet. Unbelievable really. The ones which are shagged, as I explained, were neglected for 3 or 4 years and now need a full refurb on mechanics and interior before they are put to use elsewhere.

What is the plan for the NE Corridor? Will the new coaches simply be direct replacements for the Amfleet hauled by HHP8s or my beloved AEM7s? Or do you think a new build Acela will be used? And do you think a new build Acela would put pressure on the govt etc to sort the poorer parts of the NEC out?


----------



## George Harris (Dec 31, 2007)

Corridor Conductor said:


> Amfleet cars are 30+ years old. They are obsolete. I do not believe we have a car builder capable of rebuilding the Amfleets. The in-house Keystone did not solve the problems I addressed in my first entry. I think the original door design was defective. It Snow infiltration has been a problem for may, many years. The toilets are still inadequate. NEW equipment is the answer.Amtrak Corridor Conductor


There have been recent rebuilds of over 50 year old RDC's that appear to be quite successful. It is not the age as such, but the ease of maintenance and level of maintenance that has been given.


----------



## GG-1 (Dec 31, 2007)

Aloha

Hope I don't upset anyone but I have always wondered what would result if the same design concepts that led to the design of the GG-1 were applied to modern materials would be, maybe a GG-2


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Dec 31, 2007)

GG-1 said:


> Aloha
> Hope I don't upset anyone but I have always wondered what would result if the same design concepts that led to the design of the GG-1 were applied to modern materials would be, maybe a GG-2


The GG-1 was great for its time, but it would never work these days, the BLET would never accept a cab like a GG-1 with no sight and a snoz obstructing the view. It would need a fireman and technology wise the thing was a dynosaur.

Todays GG-1 is called a AEM-7 or ALP 46, it runs on two high speed trucks and can run at 135 mph. the GG-1 was limmited to 100 mph.

Noise levels in a GG-1 approached OSHA condemnation levels.


----------



## Chafford1 (Jan 2, 2008)

stonesfan said:


> From my limited experience of the NE corridor, the Acela is a reasonable improvement over what it replaced. Obviously the timesaving would be far superior if the section between Boston and NY went in a straight line for more than 10ft at a time! And of course the catenery on the southern sections seems to hamper high speed potential too. It really does look like it was put up in the Victorian age. However, overall, its opened a few eyes, and with some serious investment in the infrastructure, could yet prove to be a winner. If all that was sorted out, I believe it would save another hour between DC and Boston?
> The Acela is a far better train than the tilting 320 seat 'pendolinos' that we have had foisted upon on us. The have replaced 400 seat 110mph loco hauled trains which were comfortable and ran most of the route at 100/110mph. The Pendo's have an increased top speed of 125mph, but are uncomfortable, claustraphobic and suffer from failures too often. Saving the odd 5 minutes here and there is no compensation for a comfy seat or even getting a seat in the first place.


This thread just confirms that however good the train is, it's the infrastructure that makes a significant difference to improvement in journey times.

For example, on the West Coast Mainline in England which is being upgraded at a cost of £8billion, the fastest London Birmingham (approx 120 miles) journey time has been reduced from 1 hour 41 minutes to 1 hour 21 minutes with a further reduction to 1 hour 12 minutes in 2009. For London - Manchester (approx 200 miles), from 2 hours 41 minutes to 2 hours 5 minutes.

Your second class seat may be cramped, but if it offers you a service every 20 minutes (which will happen next year) and gets you there more quickly, you are more likely to use it. Since the Pendolinos were introduced, rail's percentage of London - Manchester passengers compared to air has already increased from 40% to over 60%.

The same would undoubtedly happen if the NEC was upgraded to 150mph running throughout and Amtrak offered a more frequent Acela service.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 2, 2008)

Chafford1 said:


> Since the Pendolinos were introduced, rail's percentage of London - Manchester passengers compared to air has already increased from 40% to over 60%.
> The same would undoubtedly happen if the NEC was upgraded to 150mph running throughout and Amtrak offered a more frequent Acela service.


While what you say is true for the NY to Boston side of things, even without 150 MPH running NY to WAS, Amtrak already owns 53% of the travel market between those two cities. The other 47% is divided between several airlines and buses. Amtrak owns an even higher percentage in the NY to Philly market. On weekdays there is hourly service each way between NY & DC, with at least one Acela and one regional in each direction.


----------



## wayman (Jan 2, 2008)

Dutchrailnut said:


> GG-1 said:
> 
> 
> > Aloha
> ...


Sure, the GG-1 was a huge technical achievement for the 1930s while it would fail to meet the 2000s' standards. But the other great thing about the GG-1 was their incredible longevity--they were in mainline service for fifty years, and only retired due to frame cracks/metal fatigue as I understand it. Are today's engines designed with that sort of longevity in mind? (I honestly don't know; maybe they are, but I didn't have that impression.)

The cab-in-the-middle was a safety feature (initiated with the GG-1's predecessor the P-5, after a grade crossing collision with the apple truck which killed the engine crew; P-5s were originally boxcabs, redesigned/rebuilt to have center cabs). Wouldn't that still be a safety feature over the AEM-7 et alia design? The GG-1 engine crew survived (without major injury, even) the collision with Washington Union Station. I would think cab conditions could be redesigned to conform to modern BLET standards, and that the issue of the snoz could be minimized with a couple of well-placed high-resolution cameras and monitors (in addition to the views the engineer and fireman do have, which couldn't have been undriveably bad...).

Of course, the elimination of level grade crossings is a much sounder safety feature for this sort of thing! But you can't eliminate Washington Union Station :lol:


----------



## battalion51 (Jan 2, 2008)

I'm not so sure that the AEM-7's won't come close to meeting the GG-1s. They were introduced in 1980, and got major overhauls after 20-25 years of mainline service. With the amount of money Amtrak has invested in these engine I'm guessing they'll last another 20-25 years, giving the GG-1 a run for its money.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 2, 2008)

wayman said:


> Of course, the elimination of level grade crossings is a much sounder safety feature for this sort of thing! But you can't eliminate Washington Union Station :lol:


Hmm, I'm not so sure about that. It would seem that someone did try to eliminate WUS yesterday. Apparently there was a fire in the food court that forced the evacuation of the entire station.

*AP via **The Washington Post** on-line, 1/1:*



> DC's Union Station Evacuated After Fire
> WASHINGTON -- A small fire in a basement food court forced the evacuation of Union Station on Tuesday, delaying the departure of several trains but injuring no one.
> 
> A fryer used to prepare french fries caught fire Tuesday afternoon, filling the area with smoke, said D.C. fire department spokesman Alan Etter. . . .


*Continue.*


----------



## stonesfan (Jan 2, 2008)

Chafford1 those savings in time are correct, although do recall they are theoretical figures, as due to the extra congestion on the WCML, reliabilty of these savings is pretty poor! And don't forget that between 1990-1993(when I had my few years at Euston), and probably any other time pre WCML upgrade when timings were slackened somewhat the London to Birmingham run was often achieved in 1hr 28 minutes! I think the fastest _official_ class 87/90 diagram was 1hr 35 mins. This was a service that no longer runs that was RA Birmingham International.

I'm not sure about timekeeping on the NE Corridor, but you can assume if you fill it up with more trains, timekeeping will suffer if the infrastructure is not improved massively.

The average speed acheived by the Acela is around 78mph? This isnt bad and is comparible with what the Pendolino currently achieves between London and Birmingham with a top speed of 125mph, a few stops and a few speed restrictions here and there. But considering the Acela does a reasonable portion of its journey at 135mph, a small section at 150, there are clearly some major speed restrictions being applied!

But my main point is, I'm not sure whether Americans would be prepared to suffer poor quality and cramped seating, even if journey times were improved on the NEC?


----------



## Chafford1 (Jan 2, 2008)

stonesfan said:


> Chafford1 those savings in time are correct, although do recall they are theoretical figures, as due to the extra congestion on the WCML, reliabilty of these savings is pretty poor! And don't forget that between 1990-1993(when I had my few years at Euston), and probably any other time pre WCML upgrade when timings were slackened somewhat the London to Birmingham run was often achieved in 1hr 28 minutes! I think the fastest _official_ class 87/90 diagram was 1hr 35 mins. This was a service that no longer runs that was RA Birmingham International.
> I'm not sure about timekeeping on the NE Corridor, but you can assume if you fill it up with more trains, timekeeping will suffer if the infrastructure is not improved massively.
> 
> The average speed acheived by the Acela is around 78mph? This isnt bad and is comparible with what the Pendolino currently achieves between London and Birmingham with a top speed of 125mph, a few stops and a few speed restrictions here and there. But considering the Acela does a reasonable portion of its journey at 135mph, a small section at 150, there are clearly some major speed restrictions being applied!
> ...


They probably wouldn't unless they were prepared to go First Class and pay through the nose! The Acela fares certainly look cheaper - $140 -$187 for the 453 mile Boston-Washington trip compared with £120 ($240) for a second class ticket for the 401 mile London-Glasgow trip.

You're probably right about the Pendolino timings - the 1hr 12 minutes London -Birmingham run (113 miles) *if it is achieved *should mean an 94.17mph average speed. The original plan envisaged a 118mph average and 140mph top speed.

The 2009 London - Glasgow time for the Pendolino of 4hrs 10minutes for the 401 mile run means an average speed of 96.24mph.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 2, 2008)

As far as I can tell on the Boston to New York City trip, the bus vs train split happens with people who want cheap and who don't care much about the other details taking the buses, and people who want a pleasant experience who don't care so much about money taking the trains. If Amtrak wanted to put in more crowded seats, they might have trouble filling them unless they're priced competitively with the various Chinatown bus services. And I think that would end up leaving Amtrak with less revenue per coach than they currently get.


----------



## Guest_Chafford1_* (Jan 2, 2008)

Joel

If the Acela experience lives up to the video, then it must be a very pleasant experience!

http://www.amtrak.com/acela/acelaFlash/whyAcelaDemo.html

The challenge must be though to reduce that 6hour 30minutes time for the Boston -Washington run (443 miles). Are there any planned upgrades that will reduce the timings?


----------



## stonesfan (Jan 2, 2008)

Who would you say Acela's customers generally are?

Businessmen on expenses? Tourists? Commuters?

And what are its usual loadings?

My one trip on an Acela from Boston to NY, on the 1115 from Boston saw the train about 50% loaded. The return on the Metroliner, a late afternoon departure from NY was about 90% full, although clearly with more commuters.

And if its customers are more orientated towards business, what are the chances of big business contributing financially to achieve infrastructure upgrades to ensure its subjects get a faster journey? Or is it a similair situation to the UK, where Huge companies bemoan the transport links between its areas of operation, but seldom contribute to actually help do something about it?



Joel N. Weber II said:


> As far as I can tell on the Boston to New York City trip, the bus vs train split happens with people who want cheap and who don't care much about the other details taking the buses, and people who want a pleasant experience who don't care so much about money taking the trains. If Amtrak wanted to put in more crowded seats, they might have trouble filling them unless they're priced competitively with the various Chinatown bus services. And I think that would end up leaving Amtrak with less revenue per coach than they currently get.


----------



## battalion51 (Jan 2, 2008)

The Acela most definitely primarily is used by Business folks on expense accounts. Amtrak's primere NEC trains (Metroliner of yesteryear and Acela today) have always been geared towards this market. To these folks they have a few things they look for when they travel:


Speed (length of trip)

On time performance

Convienence (location and departure time)

Comfort and amenities

Ability to do their work

This is why Acelas are outfitted with things like hourly departures, reduced travel times, downtown to downtown service, power outlets, upgraded food service, and conference tables.

NBC Nightly News did a story a few months ago about folks using the Acela service, obviously with most of them being business travelers. One woman they interviewed was a lawyer on her way to New Jersey for Depo. She was saying that she and others she knows will take a morning Acela to do business, and return home same day to be with family and their own bed. This is good for business because it means that there are no hotel stays required, per diems, etc., and it's good for workers because it means they can be with family. So while many may appear to be commuters, I don't know many that would have the money to use Acela as their daily ride to work, or be dumb enough to live far enough away that they would have to.


----------



## George Harris (Jan 2, 2008)

stonesfan said:


> what are the chances of big business contributing financially to achieve infrastructure upgrades to ensure its subjects get a faster journey?


Nill, none, not a chance, you got to be kidding to even ask.



> Or is it a similair situation to the UK, where Huge companies bemoan the transport links between its areas of operation, but seldom contribute to actually help do something about it


Yes, if not more so. 



> The challenge must be though to reduce that 6hour 30minutes time for the Boston -Washington run (443 miles). Are there any planned upgrades that will reduce the timings?


At this point, none worth mentioning. All the easy and most of the not so easy things have been done. Any more time savings require huge costs that are unlikely to be funded by any politician of any type, regardless of what words come out of their mouths.


----------



## stonesfan (Jan 3, 2008)

I guess it gets to the point where you have to question how much it is worth pouring money into a 100+ year old alignment, when a completely new high speed line, of which would drastically cut time than simply chip away at it could be built for not an awful lot more?

Maybe Acela is simply a solid stop gap until the powers that be see sense and start from scratch? In the next decade or so several Governments are going to have some seriously hard decisions to make as their country grinds to a halt.

Apart from Mainland Europe and Japan, most of us (including the UK) are stuck with 'classic' railways. Slowly but surely getting overcrowded, having to run a mixture of freights, stoppers, semi-fasts and high speed trains over the same metals and not really getting anywhere fast! Our very own West Coast Main Line (very similair to the NEC) has more of a bias towards 125mph express trains these days, but obviously passengers have lost some of their 'local' services, and this has caused some real annoyance amongst those communities affected. Theres been a lot of anger amongst travellers who now only see high speed trains thundering through their platforms, full of businessmen on expenses. And their once half hourly service to the next town has now become hourly.

Ultimately, an INTEGRATED transport system will need seperate new lines for high speed travel. And this will probably include the NEC.


----------



## Chafford1 (Jan 3, 2008)

stonesfan said:


> I guess it gets to the point where you have to question how much it is worth pouring money into a 100+ year old alignment, when a completely new high speed line, of which would drastically cut time than simply chip away at it could be built for not an awful lot more?
> Ultimately, an INTEGRATED transport system will need seperate new lines for high speed travel. And this will probably include the NEC.


I agree. However there must be *some* potential for improvement over the existing 443 mile route if a 150mph train can only average 68.15mph for a 6.5 hour journey. What percentage of the route is run at 125mph or over?


----------



## George Harris (Jan 3, 2008)

Chafford1 said:


> stonesfan said:
> 
> 
> > I guess it gets to the point where you have to question how much it is worth pouring money into a 100+ year old alignment, when a completely new high speed line, of which would drastically cut time than simply chip away at it could be built for not an awful lot more?
> ...


First, to build a completely new line paralleling this line in the crowded northeast is simply not going to happen. Even if a reasonable route could be found, nobodly alive to day would still be here by the time all the legal challenges had worked their way through the court system.

100+ years old does not necessarily equal bad. South of New York a lot of the line is quite straight and could be operated faster, but would require some significant work, including:

Replace the overhead system. The existing overhead is used as the excuse for the present 135 mph speed limit south of Washington. Much of the system is functionalally obsolete. The replacement does not have to be married to changing the existing 25 cycle 11,000 volt system to 60 cycle 25,000 volts. These are two separate issues.

Increase the track centers. Much of the track is at 13'-0" spacing or closer. I have heard numbers as low as 12'-8" My opinion is that this has to be just barely inside safe limits. Spacing should be 15'-0" or greater in my opinion even at 135 mph, and I would think 16'-6" if you want to run over that up to say about 200 mph or higher. When we get to 200 plus we are in the unknowns where some seriousl aerodynamic studies are needed.

The thing is that you are into the area of small improvements in time when you raise the top limits. For example:

50 miles at 135 mph = 22min13sec

50 miles at 180 mph = 16min40sec

A complete reworking of over 50 miles thereby saves you 5min33sec. It has to be over 50 miles, because that is 50 miles at maximum, so acceleration to and braking from must be outside the 50 mile section. If the 50 miles at faster speed is not continuous, the time saved will be less, if the sections are short, much less.

But, if you take something like Baltimore, which has about 10 miles with speeds in the 30 to 80 mph range, over which the average speed probably is not over 50 mph, and straighten it out to the point that you be going 150 mph plus except for the station stop, let us say that the average speed with stop and start, not counting dwell time is:

Now: 10 miles at 50 mph = 12min00sec

Straight: 9 miles at 110 mph = 4min55sec

You have saved 7min05sec.

But, to do either of these would put you in the Billions of dollars cost range.

On the north end, the low level draw bridges should really be replaced with higher level fixed bridges, which will improve timekeeping and allow more trains without inconveniencing the weekend admirals.


----------



## GG-1 (Jan 3, 2008)

Aloha

I think my point about the GG-1 being redesigned to a GG-2 was not understood. :unsure: What I was thinking was, apply the parameters that led to the GG-1 and modern material and electronics to the safety needs for a new American motor.

I maybe wrong, but the AEM7 is a 90 mph motor. The G's geared for freight were 90mph. the Passenger gearing was 100mph, but were noted for running faster. One with a burned out motor on one axle was noted in a Trains article that the G was not going to be beat by some foreign made AEM7, which all of today's units were built in Sweden.

I have a video tape on the G where a camera was mounted under the body as the unit ts traveling at 100mph (noted in the commentary). The old uneven track and the flexing/ movement of the wheels are quite apparent. In order to get the Acella speed up, the tracks needed upgrading for 150mph running, that is only 25mph faster than a G's fastest speed on the unimproved track.

I do not in vision a new design G to look the same, as the car body would be enclosing considerable different components, but what I see is a motor/truck arrangement with the tracking ability that was so good that permitted running at speeds at least twice as fast as the tracks were designed for.

I just get irritated that American designers/workers no longer are the best in the world, It's high time our country gets it act together and move into this century and the future (d-- I just got political :huh: ).

Mahalo

Eric aka GG-1


----------



## GG-1 (Jan 3, 2008)

wayman said:


> Dutchrailnut said:
> 
> 
> > GG-1 said:
> ...



Aloha

Although the metal fatigue and cracking, was an issue the major killer of the G was the PCB's in the transformer


----------



## stonesfan (Jan 3, 2008)

Two questions:

1st for George Harris.

What kind of dispensation does the Acela have over the regionals on curved track, where I presume the tilt system takes over? For a rough idea, I know our Tilting Pendolinos usually have a 25mph increase over curve based speed restrictions. Are the Acelas working at their maximum tilting capacity or are there any restrictions in place due to clearance on the Northern sections?

And 2nd for GG-1.

What are the chances of a GG-1 being brought back to running condition and being main line certified for use on special workings? I always saw this loco as being an icon of American railways just as much as your average classic diesel loco from the 50s and 60s.


----------



## GG-1 (Jan 3, 2008)

stonesfan said:


> Two questions:
> 1st for George Harris.
> 
> And 2nd for GG-1.
> ...


Aloha

None, unless some Tillionaire (is there one) got interested. To start you would have to cut the body apart to get the transformer out. The ones currently preserved all had the oil drained and filled with sand, The PCB in the transformer oil is so toxic to people and the environment. Just changing the transformer would then affect the rest of the electrical system. This is part why I would like to see a modern G design.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 3, 2008)

GG-1 said:


> I maybe wrong, but the AEM7 is a 90 mph motor. The G's geared for freight were 90mph. the Passenger gearing was 100mph, but were noted for running faster. One with a burned out motor on one axle was noted in a Trains article that the G was not going to be beat by some foreign made AEM7, which all of today's units were built in Sweden.


Eric,

The AEM-7 is a 125 MPH motor and routinely pulls the regionals at that speed when on straightaways.


----------



## PRR 60 (Jan 3, 2008)

The AEM-7's were a Swedish design and used some Swedish parts, but were built in the USA by the Electro-Motive Division of General Motors. The "A" of "AEM" is for Swedish electrical manufacturer ASEA, and the "EM" is for Electro-Motive.

By every objective measure the AEM-7 is a huge improvement over the GG-1. They are faster, much more powerful, and less than half the weight.


----------



## George Harris (Jan 3, 2008)

stonesfan said:


> Two questions:
> 1st for George Harris.
> 
> What kind of dispensation does the Acela have over the regionals on curved track, where I presume the tilt system takes over? For a rough idea, I know our Tilting Pendolinos usually have a 25mph increase over curve based speed restrictions. Are the Acelas working at their maximum tilting capacity or are there any restrictions in place due to clearance on the Northern sections?


Someone else will have to answer the details here. I do not know. I have never even seen an Acela in the flesh, having left the northeast before they began running. My understanding is that the tilt can not be used between New Haven and New York because of very close track centers. There are likely other areas as well, maybe a lot of them, since most of the northeast corridor has track spacing that would be considered substandard based on the current practices of any railroad in the country. I would be very surprised if the allowed difference would be as much as 25 mph.


----------



## GG-1 (Jan 3, 2008)

PRR 60 said:


> The AEM-7's were a Swedish design and used some Swedish parts, but were built in the USA by the Electro-Motive Division of General Motors. The "A" of "AEM" is for Swedish electrical manufacturer ASEA, and the "EM" is for Electro-Motive.


Aloha

I thank you and Alan for correcting me about the manufacture and speed of the AEM7



> By every objective measure the AEM-7 is a huge improvement over the GG-1. They are faster, much more powerful, and less than half the weight.


Does the AEM7 develop 6000 continuous and 9000 peak hp. that is the rating for the G? What I do like about the AEM7 is they are dependable motors moving lots of people on rails,

Mahalo


----------



## AlanB (Jan 3, 2008)

George Harris said:


> stonesfan said:
> 
> 
> > Two questions:
> ...


I'm not the best expert on this, so if someone knows better please feel free to correct me.

That said, I seem to recall that Acela was originally designed for a maximum 6 degree cant. Due to the close track centers, Amtrak had to restrict the system to a maximum 4 degree cant. I could be wrong on the number of degrees, but I'm pretty sure that the difference between the designed and actual is 2 degrees.

In any event Acela runs with the tilt on basically for the entire run, other than when on Metro North territory. The only time that the tilt goes off normally outside of MN territory, is when the train speed drops below 5 MPH or so. Otherwise the distinctive whine from the tilt mechanism is quite audible during the entire ride.

Regarding the difference in speed, it can't be all that great since the running times aren't all the different between the regionals and the Acela's, when one backs out the extra stops that the regionals make. Going back to look at older schedules, a Metroliner making the same number of stops as an Acela between NYP and WAS only had a running time 10 minutes longer than the Acela did. And the Metroliner's top speed was 125 MPH, compared to Acela's top speed of 135 MPH.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 3, 2008)

GG-1 said:


> Does the AEM7 develop 6000 continuous and 9000 peak hp. that is the rating for the G? What I do like about the AEM7 is they are dependable motors moving lots of people on rails, Mahalo


I'm guessing here to say that it's peak hp, but I honestly don't know. All I can say is that OTOL reports the AEM-7's hp as 7,000. But I don't know if that's continous, peak, or both.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 3, 2008)

George Harris said:


> 100+ years old does not necessarily equal bad. South of New York a lot of the line is quite straight and could be operated faster, but would require some significant work, including:
> Replace the overhead system. The existing overhead is used as the excuse for the present 135 mph speed limit south of Washington. Much of the system is functionalally obsolete. The replacement does not have to be married to changing the existing 25 cycle 11,000 volt system to 60 cycle 25,000 volts. These are two separate issues.
> 
> Increase the track centers. Much of the track is at 13'-0" spacing or closer. I have heard numbers as low as 12'-8" My opinion is that this has to be just barely inside safe limits. Spacing should be 15'-0" or greater in my opinion even at 135 mph, and I would think 16'-6" if you want to run over that up to say about 200 mph or higher. When we get to 200 plus we are in the unknowns where some seriousl aerodynamic studies are needed.


What routine maintenance happens on this track and overhead power system? Don't the ties and the rails have a finite life? Would it be possible to move some of the tracks over a couple feet while replacing parts of the tracks, or is there some system for inspection that only replaces lengths of a couple hundred feet at a time? (I'm also thinking of how, in Massachusetts, the policy is that when highway bridges over tracks happen to be rebuilt, they're built with 21' clearance to allow double stack container cars. The system isn't really compatible with such tall cars yet, because about 1/6 of the bridges are still too low, but that will eventually address the issue without incurring a huge cost all at once.)



George Harris said:


> On the north end, the low level draw bridges should really be replaced with higher level fixed bridges, which will improve timekeeping and allow more trains without inconveniencing the weekend admirals.


How much will that cost? (I assume it's cheaper than saving five minutes on the southern part of the trip?)


----------



## PRR 60 (Jan 3, 2008)

GG-1 said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> > The AEM-7's were a Swedish design and used some Swedish parts, but were built in the USA by the Electro-Motive Division of General Motors. The "A" of "AEM" is for Swedish electrical manufacturer ASEA, and the "EM" is for Electro-Motive.
> ...


The GG-1 had a continuous rating of 4620hp and a short-term maximum rating of 8500hp at about 65mph. The AEM-7 continous rating is about 5000hp with a short-term maximum rating of 7000hp. Those numbers are somewhat higher with the 20 or so AC traction rebuilds.

The demise of the GG-1 can be attribited to many factors, but it all comes down to age and outdated design. The PCB issue, in and of itself, could have been remediated. But the units were already 40 years old and were literally falling apart. The issues, in no particular order, were:

- The PCB-laden transformers

- Increasing serious cracking of the frames and body

- Inability to be converted to permit multiple voltage and frequency supply power

- Inadequate speed to permit use as a replacement for the Budd Metroliner EMU's

- Designed for steam heat passenger cars

The GE E60 was originally to be the replacement for the GG-1, but that did not work out. The AEM-7 did.

The last Amtrak GG-1 was retired in 1981. The last GG-1 in revenue service was retired by NJ Transit in 1983.

Check out the following American Society of Mechanical Engineers paper for some good info on the GG-1:

ASME GG-1


----------



## wayman (Jan 4, 2008)

battalion51 said:


> So while many may appear to be commuters, I don't know many that would have the money to use Acela as their daily ride to work, or be dumb enough to live far enough away that they would have to.


I do know of one guy who lives in Wilmington, works in Washington, and commutes on Acela....


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 4, 2008)

wayman said:


> I do know of one guy who lives in Wilmington, works in Washington, and commutes on Acela....


But I was under the impression that senators only show up at work in Washington something very roughly like half the number of days of the year that the average American worker shows up at his/her job, and that there's an expectation that senators will spend some time in their home state talking with the lobbyists employed by the largest businesses in their state, or something like that. That's not quite the same as commuting to work every single day.

Also, do you have clear evidence that on days when the senate has been in session and is going to be in session the next day, he tends to go home to Deleware and then comes back to Washington the next day? It seems like a hotel room wouldn't be any more expensive than the Acela trip in that case...


----------



## wayman (Jan 4, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> But I was under the impression that senators only show up at work in Washington something very roughly like half the number of days of the year that the average American worker shows up at his/her job, and that there's an expectation that senators will spend some time in their home state talking with the lobbyists employed by the largest businesses in their state, or something like that. That's not quite the same as commuting to work every single day.


True, but it's a huge difference over maintaining a second residence inside the Beltway, which almost every congressman/senator does. And commuting on the order of 50-100 days a year for that distance, by Acela, is certainly noteworthy.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> Also, do you have clear evidence that on days when the senate has been in session and is going to be in session the next day, he tends to go home to Deleware and then comes back to Washington the next day? It seems like a hotel room wouldn't be any more expensive than the Acela trip in that case...


I don't have "clear evidence", but I've read multiple articles which state clearly (and which quote Biden as saying) that he goes home every night to Delaware to be with his family, a commitment he made as a single father to young children after the death of his wife decades ago, and has kept since. Given that the Acela isn't likely to be *more* expensive than a senator-worthy hotel room inside the Beltway, I'd believe him (and don't see his choice to be unreasonable). It certainly wouldn't work for any Senator not from Philadelphia, Wilmington, Baltimore, or NoVa/Richmond (by Regional) and maybe Charlottesville (Crescent), though.


----------



## wayman (Jan 4, 2008)

JimInVa said:


> ... while the flight time is, obviously, much faster, in total travel time Acela usually wins.


The "which is faster, airplane or train" question has been around a lot longer than I thought, I discovered yesterday! The best train photograph I've seen in quite a while:


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 5, 2008)

I wonder when that photograph was taken. I believe the current FAA rules require something like 500 feet above ground level as the minimum altitude except during takeoff/landing/cropdusting/airshows under certain conditions (and lately with the growth of cell towers etc there are some very good reasons to not violate that rule), and that photograph gives the impression that the plane wasn't much more than 20-50 feet above the ground. And finding a currentish small airplane that can do significantly better than 80mph is not terribly difficult.


----------



## wayman (Jan 5, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> I wonder when that photograph was taken. I believe the current FAA rules require something like 500 feet above ground level as the minimum altitude except during takeoff/landing/cropdusting/airshows under certain conditions (and lately with the growth of cell towers etc there are some very good reasons to not violate that rule), and that photograph gives the impression that the plane wasn't much more than 20-50 feet above the ground. And finding a currentish small airplane that can do significantly better than 80mph is not terribly difficult.


1931. There weren't so many rules then! Also, stunts like this would sort of fall into the "airshow" category, I think. Railroads did lots of crazy things back then, like tug-a-war games where two locomotives would each try to drag the other one across a bridge.

It's amazing to think that in 1931, 80 mph was considered slow for a passenger train at top speed. Nowadays, 79's the upper limit in most places!


----------



## George Harris (Jan 5, 2008)

wayman said:


> 1931. There weren't so many rules then! Also, stunts like this would sort of fall into the "airshow" category, I think. Railroads did lots of crazy things back then, like tug-a-war games where two locomotives would each try to drag the other one across a bridge.


It was a far, far, far, *far* less regulated world. My father, single and adverturesome in the late 1920's obtained a pilots license at about the age of 20. My mother talked about him taking her up when they were dating, this would be late 1930's, and doing loops and acrobatics over the Memphis riverfront. That would be in sight of downtown. But then the Stearman biplanes that were the primary training aircraft in WW2 had a top speed of about 75 mph (don't remember exactly) and a stall speed of under 40 mph. The only instrumentation was a level bubble and a compass. No radio. He instructed primary in WW2, and later flew transport, being considered overage for combat. They did their instruction from cow pastures, literally. I asked him once what the base airport they used (Jackson TN) had for navigation aids at the time, and his answer was, "a wind sock."


----------



## stonesfan (Jan 5, 2008)

That race between aircraft, boat and train was indeed nothing more than 'entertainment' to be broadcast at cinemas. There was a slightly serious aspect of showing the World how fast a steam locomotive can run though. I've got the movie clip of that little escapade somewhere, and if I can get it onto my PC, I'll upload it onto youtube for your viewing pleasure.

Re the line speeds, the 1930s was famous, or maybe infamous, for the LMS and LNER to race each other to Scotland. There was little regard given to safety, and passenger comfort was not really seen as a concern! It was all about getting there first. The sheer effort that the driver and fireman had to put in was immense. I believe though that there were very, very few accidents as a result of speeding. Drivers were trusted to use their knowledge and almost set their own speed limits.

I would imagine Acela could acheive BS -DC in under5 hours if the same laws were applied. And I'm being serious!


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jan 5, 2008)

Arn't we getting way way way off topic ??? h34r: h34r: h34r:


----------



## wayman (Jan 5, 2008)

stonesfan said:


> Re the line speeds, the 1930s was famous, or maybe infamous, for the LMS and LNER to race each other to Scotland. There was little regard given to safety, and passenger comfort was not really seen as a concern! It was all about getting there first. The sheer effort that the driver and fireman had to put in was immense. I believe though that there were very, very few accidents as a result of speeding. Drivers were trusted to use their knowledge and almost set their own speed limits.
> I would imagine Acela could acheive BS -DC in under5 hours if the same laws were applied. And I'm being serious!


Well, to pull things slightly more towards topic... we had our races on this side of the pond, too, between the PRR and NYC, New York to Chicago. Slightly more regard for safety, perhaps, and I think a lot more for comfort (though that was as much Pullman as the railroads). But it was still all about making the run in under 20 hours... under 19 hours... under 18 hours... pushing for 17 hours... the trains timed to enter the "racetrack" parallel main lines into Chicago at almost the same time... The drive for improvement seemed much, much stronger when there was another railroad to compete with.

And now the Lake Shore is scheduled for 20 hours, and tends to take, well, 22 would be a kind estimate I imagine. Even 17 hours on that route wouldn't put Amtrak in competition with the airlines (whereas the PRR and NYC were actually vying for the fastest route of any sort connecting the cities). Two competing railroads probably is unachievable (and would be uneffective) now. But this makes me wonder:

Many of America's great steps forward were the result of competition, and there are really two different goals--speed and comfort--and one of these Amtrak already has a tremendous upper hand in (while in the NEC, speed is not terrible either). How much would playing up their big leg up on the airlines benefit them if they ran a marketing campaign specifically focusing on that competition, actually directly comparing air versus rail in the NEC? I don't get the sense they've ever tried that. The PRR and NYC very directly advertised competitively, on both aspects (ie, "The Water Level Route"--NYC had to, having 50 extra miles to their route and no electrification for a big speed boost on the eastern end). Other railroads did the same, playing up comfort over speed (ie, C&O's "Sleep Like a Kitten, Arrive Fresh as a Daisy"). It worked then. I think it could work now.


----------



## Chafford1 (Jan 5, 2008)

stonesfan said:


> Re the line speeds, the 1930s was famous, or maybe infamous, for the LMS and LNER to race each other to Scotland. There was little regard given to safety, and passenger comfort was not really seen as a concern! It was all about getting there first. The sheer effort that the driver and fireman had to put in was immense. I believe though that there were very, very few accidents as a result of speeding. Drivers were trusted to use their knowledge and almost set their own speed limits.


Still off-topic! Not sure the comments about comfort are fair, but certainly the case that speed limits were interpeted liberally! The LNER East Coast line limit was 90mph when the high speed services were introduced in 1935. However on the inaugural run, a maximum speed of 112mph was reached - the driver claimed the speedo on his A4 Pacific only indicated 90!! On this run, the train covered 27 miles in 15 minutes at an average speed of 108mph!

The run was recorded (incorrectly indicating a maximum of 'only' 104mph)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=P2jEM0_gkKg&...feature=related

And in case Acela fans are suffering from withdrawal symptoms:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-SXsBBltrOQ


----------



## Guest (Aug 7, 2008)

I agree with VentureForth on the trainsets for all NEC services. Thinking (very) long term, the entire eastern seaboard could be electrified from BOS to MIA, with real high speed track and tilting trainsets. EMU's are moe efficient than locomotive hauled trains, and I read somewhere Shinkansen's (EMU) cosume 50% less energy than TGV/Acela(Power Cars). The trainsets could have maybe 350-400 seats/ 8 cars-10 cars w/ day compartments, business class, and coach class with a cafe. No matter what, Amtrak needs new equip.. There is hope w/ the Train Cars Act!


----------



## George Harris (Aug 7, 2008)

Example, the 12 car Shinkansen trainset used in Taiwan: 965 seats. No compartments. 11 cars at 3+2 seating and one premium car with 2+2 seating. (the cars are 11'-2" wide.)

One primary reason for the lower energy consumption of the Shinkansen is running on an alignment with no speed restrictions. Therefore, they accelerate out of the station to the top speed they will run and stay there until needing to brake for the next stop. The Northeast corridor on the other hand is an almost continuous series of speed up - brake - speed up - brake between actual stops due the the multiple speed restrictions on the alignment.


----------



## Rafi (Aug 7, 2008)

Guest said:


> I agree with VentureForth on the trainsets for all NEC services. Thinking (very) long term, the entire eastern seaboard could be electrified from BOS to MIA, with real high speed track and tilting trainsets. EMU's are moe efficient than locomotive hauled trains, and I read somewhere Shinkansen's (EMU) cosume 50% less energy than TGV/Acela(Power Cars). The trainsets could have maybe 350-400 seats/ 8 cars-10 cars w/ day compartments, business class, and coach class with a cafe. No matter what, Amtrak needs new equip.. There is hope w/ the Train Cars Act!


Amen to that, man. I realize it's pie in the sky talk to an extent (heck, what isn't these days, short of pondering minor timetable changes and track work detours), but on cool, sunny weekend days, as I daydream walking the dog, it's not too hard to imagine High Speed running up and down the eastern seaboard from DC to Atlanta and from DC to Miami.

And to be honest, there's more to be optimistic about recently than there has been in recent years, to be sure. At just the last NARP Regional meeting in Baltimore this past April, the head of the FRA relayed his fervent hope for just such a high speed rail network along the east coast. Then again, we're all preaching to the choir, I suppose, when we really need to be focusing on preaching to our friends, neighbors, and importantly, congressmen.

Rafi


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Aug 7, 2008)

Guest said:


> I agree with VentureForth on the trainsets for all NEC services. Thinking (very) long term, the entire eastern seaboard could be electrified from BOS to MIA, with real high speed track and tilting trainsets. EMU's are moe efficient than locomotive hauled trains, and I read somewhere Shinkansen's (EMU) cosume 50% less energy than TGV/Acela(Power Cars). The trainsets could have maybe 350-400 seats/ 8 cars-10 cars w/ day compartments, business class, and coach class with a cafe. No matter what, Amtrak needs new equip.. There is hope w/ the Train Cars Act!


EMUs probably also mean that the coaches now have to meet locomotive inspection requirements. On the other hand, with the way the Acela coaches are attached to the locomotives, I think locomotive maintenance effectively requires pulling the whole trainset out of service. (I think I read somewhere that the TGV has articulated, semi permanently coupled sets of coaches, but there are traditional couplers attaching the locomotive to the rest of the trainset.)


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Aug 7, 2008)

Rafi said:


> At just the last NARP Regional meeting in Baltimore this past April, the head of the FRA relayed his fervent hope for just such a high speed rail network along the east coast.


Did he have anything to say about what Congress has been saying about this idea? There is an FRA loan program, but I don't think it's currently big enough to pay for something like this...

And did he say anything about what specific route they have in mind?


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2008)

Adding to my previous post, maybe the new 180+ MPH trainsets (Acela+, Acela NG)could operate some Acela premium services from WAS/NYP-MIA only stopping in major cities. The high speed locals using the same trainsets (NE / SE Regionals?) could feed High speed Acela services @ major cities. The Japanese Kodama(Local) stops @ all stations and feeds passegers to Hikari(faster) and Nozomi(fastest) for example.

The Silver Meteor Star, Palmetto etc. could be the slower high speed services, and Acela would be the American Nozomi.

What about even some nonstop Acela services between WAS and severval Florida Cities?

Also, the high speed routes in FL could, from Jacksonville serve Pensacola, ATL, FL East Coast, Central FL(ORL) and TPA w/ connections to Gulf Coast Corridor. Service would be hourly or more. It will take political will, and $$$$. We Could do it though. Good luck to CAHSR


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Aug 8, 2008)

I think the logical thing to do with high speed routes is to look at the census data and identify the biggest primary census areas (probably 2 million plus people, or 1.6 million plus people if you want to include places like Las Vegas and Salt Lake City so that you can get all the way across the country), find ones within 500 miles or so of each other, and start building high speed track between them. (If you're sure you know how to build track faster than 300 km/h, distances slightly longer than that can probably also work well, which is important for being able to get high speed rail to Denver and from Sacramento to Portland, OR.)

If you do that, Miami to Orlando to Atlanta to Charlotte to DC looks like a very sensible route. I think initially, you'd want the express trains stopping in all of those cities. If you start finding that the number of tickets sold between some city pairs justify separate trains that skip some of those stops, then you add trains that skip some of those stops, and until then you may not even bother to build high speed bypass track around those cities.

Between Atlanta and Charlotte, there should also be a spur to Greenville. Greenville's population doesn't really justify large amounts of track just for Greenville, but Greenville is almost on the way anyway, and service to Greenville would probably help secure the votes of another state's senators.


----------



## George Harris (Aug 8, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> EMUs probably also mean that the coaches now have to meet locomotive inspection requirements.


 Yes 


> (I think I read somewhere that the TGV has articulated, semi permanently coupled sets of coaches, but there are traditional couplers attaching the locomotive to the rest of the trainset.)


 and their standard couplers could not be used in the US as they are outlawed by the Railway Safety Appliance Act of 1895 in that they require a man to step between the cars to put the link over the hook and tighten the screw. (They are the standard UIC "hook and screw" which is essentially a minor modification of the 19th century link and pin.)


> (If you're sure you know how to build track faster than 300 km/h, distances slightly longer than that can probably also work well, which is important for being able to get high speed rail to Denver and from Sacramento to Portland, OR.)


Not a problem. Can definitely be done.


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2008)

I think MIA-ORL should be on FEC ROW and follow the CSX ROW north of West Palm Beach, with a more gradual curve to the North before the current switch @ Auburndale, FL. MIA-TPA should be on sme route with a more direct turn to the West to TPA. Then the FL east coast should be FEC ROW MIA-JAX and NS between JAX-ATL. @ ATL and JAX connect to SE High Speed Rail. High Speed Rail is doable. It takes politial will and $$.

What do you guys think about the HSR routes in FL and East Coast?

The USA is already far behind Japan and Europe on transportaion. Let's not get further left behind. Contact your Congressional rep. on Rail.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Aug 9, 2008)

The Jacksonville primary census area's population is only about 1.3 million. I think Orlando (almost 2.7 million) to Atlanta (5.6 million) is a better route to focus on for getting between Florida and the rest of the country.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Aug 12, 2008)

George Harris said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > (If you're sure you know how to build track faster than 300 km/h, distances slightly longer than that can probably also work well, which is important for being able to get high speed rail to Denver and from Sacramento to Portland, OR.)
> ...


Related to this, how likely is it that we'll someday see three hours NYP to CHI? Google Maps tells me that "New York City" to "Chicago" is 790 miles (mostly on highways), which suggests that trains with a top speed of 250 MPH won't be able to do that run in three hours, but trains that got up to 300 MPH just outside the New York City area and stayed at 300 MPH until they got to the edge of Chicago would be able to do that in three hours.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 13, 2008)

Personally, Joel, I don't want the world moving that fast.


----------



## frj1983 (Aug 14, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > Joel N. Weber II said:
> ...



Unlikely,

As it would require the building of separate tracks...which I believe you are a proponent of and which I believe will never happen because it's too expensive in the eyes of most people...and most East Coast land (I'm talking Chicago to the Atlantic) has been eaten up in one way or another by developers/owners. Not that I wouldn't mind seeing separate track...I just don't think it's gonna happen!


----------



## VentureForth (Aug 14, 2008)

Any successful high speed rail line will be a new, properly aligned, passenger exclusive ROW. If this were accomplished, crash worthiness wouldn't be required on the locomotive/coach. I believe that the FRA crash regs are only for passenger trains operating on freight ROWs.

A bit more about the Kodama vs Hikari and Nozomi services. Many of the Kodama-only served stations have 'outside' platforms as opposed to 'island' platforms. Between the loading/unloading tracks are a pair of passing tracks that are normal to the alignment of the ROW. In other words, the trains stopping, because they have to slow down anyway, take the turnout and the express trains (whether a Nozomi or Hikari) pass in the center without dropping one kph. Having not been on the NEC, I presume this is similar practice up there.

The Kodama would be equivalent to our Acela. The Hikari would be equivalent to Acela with 1/3 of the stops. The Nozomi would run non stop between BOS and WAS with a stop at NYP and _maybe_ a stop in Baltimore and/or Philly. The NE Regionals' equivalents would be equivalent to the old Tokaido trunk line and would share with the locals.

300 *m*ph may be hard to do in steel wheel. But 185 mph top speed with an average of 150 still ain't bad. That'd be 1:20 between NYP and WAS. 2:40 between BOS and WAS.

BOS - NYP - PHL - BAL - WAS - RVR - RGH - CHL - JAX - ORL - MIA could be done in 10 hours. That's still a VERY long time without a sleeper.

I've also mentioned this before - as the Shinkansen increased its efficiency and speed, they wound up dropping the dining car because no one had time to eat!

I'm still a firm believer that steel wheel is the cheapest, fastest way to move the most people at the highest energy efficiency. Again, I haven't been paid $MILs to do a study on that. Just an opinion.


----------



## planetcadillac (Aug 14, 2008)

In most situations I have never thought it to be in Amtrak's best interests to try to compete with the airplane or any other means in terms of sheer time. It is the same arguments with buying a car. If it was simply a matter of getting from point A to point B we would be driving vehicles Soviet style. But automakers differentiate themselves by offering basically the same go product with a unique feel and experience. We have gotten to the point where air travel was once sheek and gamourous back in the day has become a miserable cattle call for the most part.

I think of how many ship companies used to compete in the transatlantic trade. Cunard says "Getting there is half the fun." The ships were fast but usually not the fastest but the rest added up to alot more in the end.

So with proper infrustructure Amtrak could offer a quick but not necessarily as fast a product as the airline but one that was much nicer and memorable for the price.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Aug 15, 2008)

VentureForth said:


> Any successful high speed rail line will be a new, properly aligned, passenger exclusive ROW. If this were accomplished, crash worthiness wouldn't be required on the locomotive/coach. I believe that the FRA crash regs are only for passenger trains operating on freight ROWs.


Except that it is likely going to be useful to be able to run some of the high speed trains on a mix of high speed track and conventional track. For example, if we were to end up with high speed track that connected to Springfield and Hartford and headed east along the Massachusetts / Connecticut border from there, it would be good to have some trains head into Boston, and others head south to Rhode Island. It may also be desireable to have some of the Boston-bound trains head to Manchester, NH and others to Maine.

Interoperability with conventional track is the real reason I think we should be building our high speed system on rails instead of maglev. (And then there's the price tag. If we don't think we can afford a national high speed rail system, there's no way we should be thinking about maglev anywhere.)


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Aug 15, 2008)

planetcadillac said:


> In most situations I have never thought it to be in Amtrak's best interests to try to compete with the airplane or any other means in terms of sheer time. It is the same arguments with buying a car. If it was simply a matter of getting from point A to point B we would be driving vehicles Soviet style. But automakers differentiate themselves by offering basically the same go product with a unique feel and experience. We have gotten to the point where air travel was once sheek and gamourous back in the day has become a miserable cattle call for the most part.
> I think of how many ship companies used to compete in the transatlantic trade. Cunard says "Getting there is half the fun." The ships were fast but usually not the fastest but the rest added up to alot more in the end.
> 
> So with proper infrustructure Amtrak could offer a quick but not necessarily as fast a product as the airline but one that was much nicer and memorable for the price.


I'm not interested in spending 6 days round trip getting between Los Angeles and Boston. I'd be happy to spend about 24 hours each way on a train with sleepers and a dining car. The only way 24 hours each way is going to happen is if at least 80% or 95% or something of the miles are on high speed (300 km/h plus) track. And I don't see how you're going to convince the majority of taxpayers that they want all that high speed track unless there are trips they can take on it that are competitive in time with the airlines. (Maybe you're not going to convince the majority of taxpayers anyway. But the chances are better with a service that's clearly at least as good as the airplane in every way.)


----------



## VentureForth (Aug 15, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > Any successful high speed rail line will be a new, properly aligned, passenger exclusive ROW. If this were accomplished, crash worthiness wouldn't be required on the locomotive/coach. I believe that the FRA crash regs are only for passenger trains operating on freight ROWs.
> ...


The two original Shinkansen lines are on a completely dedicated track and is not interchangeable with the local trains. The reason for this is at least two fold. First, the Shinkansen is on standard guage. The rest of the trains are meter guage. The second reason is primarily safety and schedule keeping. Both of those reasons require that they not interfere with local traffic. In THIS image, you'll notice that the Shinkansen is on the far right tracks which are completely separated from the rest of the commuter tracks on the same ROW.

Note: Interesting splice in this photo. The Shinkansen are typically 16 cars long, not two!


----------



## George Harris (Aug 15, 2008)

At the time the Shinkansen was first being designed and built the "revealed wisdom", more properly spelled, "wisdumb" in the railroad world was that it was impractical to run narrow gauge trains above 60 mph and 100 mph was pushing the envelope for standard gauge. The Japanese decided to plan for 125 mph anyway. By now it is plainly obvious that even 250 mph is not necessarily "pushing the envelope". As to the idea that narrow gauge is of necessity slower, there are quite a few people in the railroad engineering world that will say nonsense to that one.

By the way the Japanese system is on 3'-6" gauge, that is 1067 mm, not one meter gauge.

The shinkansen is on 4'-8.5" = 1435 mm.

The breakdown between those on 1067 mm and those on a true 1000 mm gauge is more or less as follows:

1067 mm: Japan, Taiwan, Indonesia New Zealand, parts of Australia such as Queensland and Western Australia, South Africa, several other formerly British parts of Africa, Philippines,

1000 mm: Malaysia, Thailand, narrow gauge in India and Bangladesh, Burma, several of the formely French parts of Africa.

Central America is mostly 3'-0"

List incomplete.


----------



## VentureForth (Aug 15, 2008)

I stand corrected. I can count on you to fix my heresey.


----------

