# Amtrak to issue RFI for Acela II in early 2013



## jis (Dec 13, 2012)

From _Amtrak_:



> _FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE_
> 
> December 13, 2012
> 
> ...


----------



## Paulus (Dec 13, 2012)

It's not a spoof. And I swear, if they try and do this before Tier III, everyone needs to be fired.


----------



## MikeM (Dec 13, 2012)

Ok, stupid question -- what's "Tier III"


----------



## jis (Dec 13, 2012)

Paulus said:


> It's not a spoof. And I swear, if they try and do this before Tier III, everyone needs to be fired.


Thanks for finding the definitive published version.

They won't do it before Tier III. They have been on record stating they will not order any more Tier II equipment, well at least the Chief Engineer of the NEC HSR Project has said so in an open session at the last TransAction in Atlantic City earlier this year.

Tier III is the new buff strength and other related safety standard for operation above 125mph and above 160mph. It is targeted to enable purchase of more or less off the shelf UIC compliant rolling stock with cosmetic changes for oepration in the US.

The current Tier III draft rules state that Tier III trains cannot operate mixed with Tier II trains in general above 125mph.

However, FRA has also said that special rules will be developed to allow such mixed operations on the NEC. So the important thing is that Acela IIs happen after those special rules become available. Without those rules, either the current Acelas will have to operate lmited to 125mph, or the new ones will have to remain restricted to 125mph.

It will likely involves stricter positive separation, more strict than is specified for run of the mill PTC, is the current speculation.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 13, 2012)

Here's a decent primer:

http://www.apta.com/...equirements.pdf

Holy-HSR-Batman!



jis said:


> Tier III is the new buff strength and other related safety standard for operation above* 1125mph* and above 160mph.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Dec 13, 2012)

a RFI means nothing, once they issue a RFP and go for actual purchase we will be 5 years down road.

Actuallly producing the sets will put us around 2019/20.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 13, 2012)

An RFI doesn't mean nothing, it's the first step in the process.


----------



## transit54 (Dec 13, 2012)

jis said:


> Tier III is the new buff strength and other related safety standard for operation above 125mph and above 160mph. It is targeted to enable purchase of more or less off the shelf UIC compliant rolling stock with cosmetic changes for oepration in the US.


So essentially is tier III rolling back some of the requirements to have heavily reinforced trainsets that tier II required? Amtrak will be able to procure lighter-weight trainsets?


----------



## jis (Dec 13, 2012)

transit54 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Tier III is the new buff strength and other related safety standard for operation above 125mph and above 160mph. It is targeted to enable purchase of more or less off the shelf UIC compliant rolling stock with cosmetic changes for oepration in the US.
> ...


That is the general idea. even the denizens at FRA now acknowledge that Tier II was a bit over the top, and although they don;t say it.... borne out of lack of experience with high speed operations and inability to admit to that fact.


----------



## afigg (Dec 13, 2012)

jis said:


> That is the general idea. even the denizens at FRA now acknowledge that Tier II was a bit over the top, and although they don;t say it.... borne out of lack of experience with high speed operations and inability to admit to that fact.


Interesting times. If Amtrak can buy something close to an off the shelf lighter weight HSR trainsets, that should save a ton of money, reduce the testing and development time. Of course, the trainsets would have to built in the US, which then limits the market to companies that have viable HSR trainsets to offer and an established manufacturing plant in the US. I can't see Amtrak going for a proposal that is based on starting a new manufacturing plant from scratch. Too much risk. So who would be the candidate companies for an Acela II? How much of an issue would the dual 25 and 60 Hz power source requirement be for existing product lines?

With regards to using lighter EMU HSR trainsets, better acceleration (and handling) characteristics could cut trip time a bit given the many speed changes on the NEC.

With a pro-HSR administration, I think the odds are that Amtrak and Boardman are aiming at placing an order and getting the funding all in place (low interest RRIF loans providing much of the funds) before the end of Obama's second term. The administration and LaHood may be leaning on the FRA to speed up the process to establish the Tier III regulations and guidelines.

There is also Xpress West off in the wings who could be looking in the next several years at placing orders for 300 km/h trainsets. I would not be surprised if, after the "fiscal cliff" and debt limit food fights are over, the administration and the FRA announces a $5+ billion RRIF loan to Xpress West for the Victorville to Las Vegas line. The administration can use the $35 billion RRIF program as leverage to advance HSR if the Republican controlled House is not going to cooperate.


----------



## jis (Dec 13, 2012)

Siemens has informally stated that they are ready to offer the Valero should there be interest, and would even assemble in US plant. I am sure there would be others too. 60Hz should not be a big issue, as PRR can confirm. BTW Valeros have even been delivered in Russian Broad Gauge.

(null)


----------



## Karl1459 (Dec 13, 2012)

Dutchrailnut said:


> a RFI means nothing, once they issue a RFP and go for actual purchase we will be 5 years down road.
> 
> Actuallly producing the sets will put us around 2019/20.





Ryan said:


> An RFI doesn't mean nothing, it's the first step in the process.


an RFI means nothing or an RFI doesn't mean nothing ????

Ah the ways English can be misused by us Americans.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Dec 14, 2012)

Newer, faster, cheaper, and more standarized HSR. What's not to like? I also like the idea of moving forward now instead of much later. Maybe losing those forty odd Acela cars was a blessing in disguise. Or maybe it was simply a matter of helping to build a concensus that it's time for all new sets. If an RFI doesn't meaning anything, then I guess neither does an RFP. It's not like either one is any sort of guarantee that the project is moving forward. As we've already seen, even a signed contract apparently doesn't mean squat if you're a "pro-business" governor who is opposed to passenger rail.


----------



## cirdan (Dec 14, 2012)

afigg said:


> Interesting times. If Amtrak can buy something close to an off the shelf lighter weight HSR trainsets, that should save a ton of money, reduce the testing and development time. Of course, the trainsets would have to built in the US, which then limits the market to companies that have viable HSR trainsets to offer and an established manufacturing plant in the US. I can't see Amtrak going for a proposal that is based on starting a new manufacturing plant from scratch. Too much risk. So who would be the candidate companies for an Acela II? How much of an issue would the dual 25 and 60 Hz power source requirement be for existing product lines?


Dual voltage is no problem to modern off-the-shelf solutions. Modern power electronics are very flexible in that regard. Some European HSR can handle four different electrical systems.

As for eligible companies, remember that any company with the know-how, but not currently having sufficient manufacturing capacity in the US can always partner up with a US company and form a partnership or allow them to produce under license. As ASEA did with the AEM7s for example.


----------



## VT Hokie (Dec 14, 2012)

jis said:


> Siemens has informally stated that they are ready to offer the Valero should there be interest, and would even assemble in US plant. I am sure there would be others too. 60Hz should not be a big issue, as PRR can confirm. BTW Valeros have even been delivered in Russian Broad Gauge.
> 
> (null)


That would be awesome! I assume the design could be adapted to include active tilt. Having traveled aboard numerous high speed trains throughout Europe, the ICE 3 was definitely my favorite!


----------



## Steve4031 (Dec 14, 2012)

I like those valeros. They look like the ICE trains in Germany.


----------



## jis (Dec 15, 2012)

Steve4031 said:


> I like those valeros. They look like the ICE trains in Germany.


That is not just by chance either. Valeros have evolved from the ICE.


----------



## Guest (Dec 15, 2012)

Here are some facts to ponder:

The New Haven Railroad had a *freight* train 1st Advanced BO-1, the “Jet”, which guaranteed delivery from Boston to Chicago in 24 hours. Fifty years later Amtrak’s *Lake Shore Limited* takes almost 22 hours from Boston to Chicago.

The Merchants Limited the New Haven's crack express, *with diesel power *,in 1963 would cover the distance from New York to Boston *in 3 hours and 55 minutes.* The Acela Express, in the same time slot and far from it’s proposed goal of 3 hours, covers the distance in *3 hours and 40 minutes* and does not stop at New Haven as did the Merchants Limited.

*Forty nine years* have passed and countless millions (perhaps billions) spent in track improvements and wire installation and the resulting time cut from the schedule is *15 minutes*! Is this considered progress? High speed trains have come and gone. The New Haven’s two forays into HST’s proved to be futile on the existing roadbed just as Amtrak‘s is today. Europe and Japan were bombed in to rubble in WW II and the Marshall Plan rebuilt their infrastructures with an eye on the future. The railroads were built as straight as the geography allowed. The NEC infrastructure dates from the 1800’s taking a circuitous route between industries.

*The only way to achieve a 'true' high speed railroad is with a dedicated infrastructure and given real estate values in the crowded northeast it would prove to be cost prohibitive.*

The Supersonic Transport (SST) the fastest commercial transportation in the world ceased operation after 30 years because it was not financially viable.

I don't think the traveling public is in_* that *_much of a hurry. Good, frequent, dependable service can be achieved for a lot less taxpayer money.


----------



## jis (Dec 15, 2012)

Acela Express does not stop at New Haven?


----------



## Guest (Dec 15, 2012)

jis said:


> Acela Express does not stop at New Haven?


That is correct. At the time of the comparison train #2168 left NY @ 5:OOPM and arrived Boston @8:40 PM. The new schedule for #2168 has added 3 minutes to the running time because it now stops @ New Haven. So now the Acela express has bested the time of the 1963 era Merchants Limited by only *12 minutes.*

Progress???


----------



## Paulus (Dec 15, 2012)

How many more trains are on the NEC however? More trains with the same infrastructure will lead to slower schedules (and of course there is the question of how often that train ran on time). As for rebuilding the railroads as straight as possible, I'm rather doubting that since the TGV was not built until the late 1970s, opening in 1981, and operates on legacy track next to freight for portions of its route while the ICE generally runs on legacy track. What we really need is the FRA to allow us to take greater advantage of tilting as well as better organization of the NEC and cooperation between the various agencies.


----------



## jis (Dec 15, 2012)

Guest said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Acela Express does not stop at New Haven?
> ...


And the overall point being made is what? Resurrect the New Haven to run the NEC North?


----------



## Guest (Dec 15, 2012)

jis said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


 I'll ignore the sarcasm for now. The overall point is the high speed rail cannot be possible on the NEC between Boston and New York without a dedicated infrastructure. The Acela will fail as did the TurboTrain,the Rohr, the LRC, the Daniel Webster, the John Quincy Adams, the Roger Williams and the Comet. How many times will it be tried before this fact is realized? Amtrak is fraught with unfulfilled predictions. _*The Acela Express has never fulfilled the prediction of three hour service between Boston and New York.*_

I made a comparison to the New Haven to show that virtually no progress has been made in the last 50 years.

Is the overall point clear to you now 'jis'?


----------



## jis (Dec 15, 2012)

Not really. But let's let it be. The fact is that trains have not been sped up as much as was claimed. But to state from that that Acelas have been a complete failure is not completely tenable either. But as I said, since we apparently don;t even agree on what constitutes success or failure, I don't think a fruitful conversation is possible. Afterall I don;t even believe that the Turboliners failed in any way shape or form. It may be that some have unrealistic expectations and are frustrated when those are not met.


----------



## afigg (Dec 15, 2012)

Guest said:


> The Merchants Limited the New Haven's crack express, *with diesel power *,in 1963 would cover the distance from New York to Boston *in 3 hours and 55 minutes.* The Acela Express, in the same time slot and far from it’s proposed goal of 3 hours, covers the distance in *3 hours and 40 minutes* and does not stop at New Haven as did the Merchants Limited.


Many of the Acelas had a NYP-BOS trip time of 3:30 several years ago. The trip times are currently slower mostly AFAIK because of the 2 tracking segment for bridge and catenary replacement on the New Haven Line in CT, although there may be additional padding added due to work on the Shore Line East. Yes, 3:30 for NYP-BOS is still well short of the long ago set goal of 3 hours, but it is an improvement.

In another year or two, the bridge replacement/refurbishment causing the two tracking. and, IIRC, the constant tension catenary installation for the New Haven line is supposed to completed by 2017. Add in the 4th track for the West Haven station, new Niantic River movable bridge. and completion of other Shore Line East projects. the Acela should get to a faster than 3:30 NYP-BOS schedule. It may take another 4-5 years though. Progress on the NYP-BOS segment has come along _slowly_, but it has taken place.


----------



## Guest (Dec 15, 2012)

jis said:


> Not really. But let's let it be. The fact is that trains have not been sped up as much as was claimed. But to state from that that Acelas have been a complete failure is not completely tenable either. But as I said, since we apparently don;t even agree on what constitutes success or failure, I don't think a fruitful conversation is possible. Afterall I don;t even believe that the Turboliners failed in any way shape or form. It may be that some have unrealistic expectations and are frustrated when those are not met.


Not clear? Turboliners a success? Where are they then? I don't know what you consider a failure but when high speed trains don't go high speed they are failures. Amtrak promised three hour service for Boston to New York in 1999. It didn't/hasn't happened. That is what is called *FAILURE. *However given your failure to comprehend these points I agree with you in that further conversation with you would be futile.


----------



## Guest (Dec 15, 2012)




----------



## Anderson (Dec 15, 2012)

Well, IIRC, part of the problem has been the intransigence of CT with respect to either adding capacity or raising speeds on the part of the NEC that they own. That's not Amtrak's fault, and though perhaps they should have foreseen it, I can also see that being a major surprise. One would have thought that getting folks from Stamford to Philly and Boston faster would've been on their list, but apparently not.

The Acela has achieved its stated goals (roughly) where Amtrak controls the tracks and has been able to put in the needed improvements, even if the timetables have been halting. Where Amtrak doesn't control things, it has failed because of third-party interference.

As a side-note, this is why I've generally liked the Long Island HSR plan...it puts a plausible total bypass of CT-controlled tracks on the long-term agenda.


----------



## afigg (Dec 16, 2012)

Guest said:


> Not clear? Turboliners a success? Where are they then? I don't know what you consider a failure but when high speed trains don't go high speed they are failures. Amtrak promised three hour service for Boston to New York in 1999. It didn't/hasn't happened. That is what is called *FAILURE. *However given your failure to comprehend these points I agree with you in that further conversation with you would be futile.


The Acela has been a significant success for both the WAS-NYP and NYP-BOS markets by measures of revenue and ridership despite not reaching the trip time goals of 2:30 NYP-WAS and 3:00 NYP-BOS called for as far back as the late 1970s. The major problem with the NYP-BOS segment is that many of the upgrades called for in the 1994 NEC Transportation Plan (available on the FRA website) have still not been done. Some of the remaining 1994 recommended upgrades are finally getting done: Niantic River bridge opened this fall, CDOT is a few years away from replacing the catenary on the NHV line, 4th track is getting added at west New Haven (although there is still going to be a 3 track segment), electrified 3rd track near Boston, HSIPR funding for a flyover at Harold interlocking.

Some of the 1994 recommendations are still in to be dome someday category: replacing the CT River and Pelham bridges, CDOT to replace/refurb the remaining bridges on the NHV line. Some of the 1994 recommendations for grade crossing seperations appear to be dead due to local opposition. The failure to reach a 3:00 NYP-BOS time is not with the Acela, but with the lack of sustained funding for NEC track, bridge, signal upgrades and modernization after the late 1990s.

The 2010 NEC Infrastructure plan calls for 3:08 NYP-BOS trip time, unfortunately by 2030 indicating that is at fast as Amtrak thinks they can achieve within the constraints of the ROW and possible funding. I would like to see the NEC Future study and planning process come up with projects that would allow a 3:00 NYP-BOS trip time, but they may not do that..Would be nice in an Acela II era to finally reach a 3 hour BOS-NYP and a 2:15 WAS-NYP time for a 5 and 1/2 hour end to end NEC trip time. Someday perhaps.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 16, 2012)

afigg said:


> The Acela has been a significant success for both the WAS-NYP and NYP-BOS markets by measures of revenue and ridership despite not reaching the trip time goals of 2:30 NYP-WAS and 3:00 NYP-BOS called for as far back as the late 1970s.


Absolutely agreed. How anyone can look at the money that the Acela is bringing in and call it a "failure" is beyond me.


----------



## jis (Dec 16, 2012)

Guest said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Not really. But let's let it be. The fact is that trains have not been sped up as much as was claimed. But to state from that that Acelas have been a complete failure is not completely tenable either. But as I said, since we apparently don;t even agree on what constitutes success or failure, I don't think a fruitful conversation is possible. Afterall I don;t even believe that the Turboliners failed in any way shape or form. It may be that some have unrealistic expectations and are frustrated when those are not met.
> ...





Ryan said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> > The Acela has been a significant success for both the WAS-NYP and NYP-BOS markets by measures of revenue and ridership despite not reaching the trip time goals of 2:30 NYP-WAS and 3:00 NYP-BOS called for as far back as the late 1970s.
> ...


As I said, at least for me it is difficult to have a reasoned discussion with someone who claims that Acela is an unqualified failure. Additionally even in the case of the Turboliners, except for the last bit of greasing the palms of friends exercise by the then Governor of New York, which many knew was going to lead to no good, and hence expectations were low to zero, they worked fine for the purpose for which they were built and acquired for almost 30 years, heck even beyond when they were taken almost completely out of service in their country of origin. Calling that an unqualified failure takes a certain level of disconnection from reality or unrealistic expectation of what constitutes success IMHO. The last rebuild was indeed a failure, but as has become apparent, its purpose was to fatten Super Steel. If by chance they actually operated at the upgraded speed that would have been an added bonus I suppose. 

There is no attempt to deny the fact that the NYP-BOS 3:00 goals was not reached and that was a failure, but one that is for the time being and as it turns out of relatively small consequence. Except for railfans, that cannot possibly be the only reason for an expensive project. The overall pluses and minuses need to be considered for a balanced analysis. Moreover there are pieces of the original plan that were not put in place due to cost which are still available as options to consider that would get pretty close to the original 3:00 goal. Of course again just my opinion, and no amount of unreasoned shouting is going to change that.


----------



## Guest (Dec 16, 2012)

Success in the manner of revenue and ridership? P.T. Barnum stated that "there is a sucker born every minute". No where does it apply better than the Acela and it's now departed predecessors. Revenue and ridership are up. The traveling public is blinded by the glitz and glitter of the shiny new train which gives the illusion of high speed. The majority of the weekday riders are business persons on the company expense account so cost is not a factor. The casual traveler and those with families, after the initial awe at the shiny faux speedster, are wising up to the fact that the Acela express is not going to get you to your destination much faster (only because they make less stops) than the regional service which is considerably less money(remember the SST?).

All the conjecture in the above posts is not going to mask the fact that the Acela express is not doing what it was predicted to do ergo it is a failure.True successful high speed rail needs a dedicated infrastructure.

I suspect that most of the posters here are railfans, which is a nice hobby, and they too are awed by the hi-tech faux speedster and cannot see from a practical standpoint the shortcomings of high speed in the NEC.


----------



## Trogdor (Dec 16, 2012)

Guest said:


> I suspect that most of the posters here are railfans, which is a nice hobby, and they too are awed by the hi-tech faux speedster and cannot see from a practical standpoint the shortcomings of high speed in the NEC.


Actually, I'd say most of the posters (on this thread, anyway) are taking the practical approach that this is not an all-or-nothing situation, and that this project has had some failures, and some successes, and that it needs to be viewed on the whole.

Notwithstanding PR from a decade or two ago, we have to look at what has been achieved. For one, it has boosted rail's appeal overall. As much as you may be cynical, the fact is that Amtrak (thanks in no small part to Acela) now dominates the intercity travel market between DC and New York. The old Metroliners/Northeast Direct/Congressional Limted/Corridor Toenail Clipper/whatever service did not. Airlines have had to retreat from this market. Additionally, Amtrak has made inroads on the New York-Boston route, with much higher ridership and market share than they had pre-Acela.

One thing I find ironic/contradictory about your argument is that you keep referring to the SST. The SST, in its one commercially popular form (Concorde), did considerably cut travel times. But in the end, it didn't generate enough interest (other than the few businessfolks on expense accounts that you deride; which only accounted for a sliver of a percentage of the overall market). So, if a slower trip winds up being more successful (and in the case of transatlantic flying, you're talking 6 hours vs 3), what's with the whining about a 3.5 hour trip vs a 3 hour trip? I guess air travel is a *FAILURE* because we're not all flying SSTs like they predicted we would be back in the 70s.


----------



## Nathanael (Dec 16, 2012)

I think this sums up the issue:



afigg said:


> The major problem with the NYP-BOS segment is that many of the upgrades called for in the 1994 NEC Transportation Plan (available on the FRA website) have still not been done.


3 hours NY-Boston? Well, if the 1994 plan upgrades are *ever finished*, we might actually see that. You can't blame Acela for not achieving the goal when the required track upgrades were *simply not done*.



> Some of the 1994 recommendations are still in to be dome someday category: replacing the CT River and Pelham bridges, CDOT to replace/refurb the remaining bridges on the NHV line. Some of the 1994 recommendations for grade crossing seperations appear to be dead due to local opposition. The failure to reach a 3:00 NYP-BOS time is not with the Acela, but with the lack of sustained funding for NEC track, bridge, signal upgrades and modernization after the late 1990s.


And isn't it interesting to look at who was occupying the office of the Presidency "after the late 1990s" ended. It seems clear that success or failure is driven by whether we elect politicians who will support success or politicians like G.W. Bush who are pro-failure.


----------



## Guest (Dec 16, 2012)

Trogdor said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect that most of the posters here are railfans, which is a nice hobby, and they too are awed by the hi-tech faux speedster and cannot see from a practical standpoint the shortcomings of high speed in the NEC.
> ...


I derided business folks? Please point out where.

I stand by my statements and will also state that Amtrak's ridership boost was/is by default. The outdated Interstate system particularly I-95 and skyrocketing fuel prices drove folks to seek an alternate form of transport.

Who is "whining" about a three hour trip? I am stating a fact. If I am "whining" about anything it is the wasteful expenditure of taxpayer dollars on a system that was based on unfulfilled promises. The SST failed because it proved not to be cost efficient just as an outlay for a dedicated infrastructure in the heavily populated northeast would be.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 16, 2012)

Guest said:


> I suspect that most of the posters here are railfans, which is a nice hobby, and they too are awed by the hi-tech faux speedster and cannot see from a practical standpoint the shortcomings of high speed in the NEC.[/sub][/size]


Your thoughts on the posters here are about as accurate as your thoughts on the Acela.


----------



## PRR 60 (Dec 16, 2012)

The project to install catenary between New Haven and Boston went 167% over budget - from the original estimate of $300 million to a final cost of $800 million. The extra $500 million that had to be diverted to finish the electrification project killed the most of the proposed ancillary NEC work, and even the possible addition of four Acela trainsets under the contracted options. That, and not politics, is the reason that much of the proposed Acela enhancement work was not completed.


----------



## Anderson (Dec 16, 2012)

Guest said:


> Success in the manner of revenue and ridership? P.T. Barnum stated that "there is a sucker born every minute". No where does it apply better than the Acela and it's now departed predecessors. Revenue and ridership are up. The traveling public is blinded by the glitz and glitter of the shiny new train which gives the illusion of high speed. The majority of the weekday riders are business persons on the company expense account so cost is not a factor. The casual traveler and those with families, after the initial awe at the shiny faux speedster, are wising up to the fact that the Acela express is not going to get you to your destination much faster (only because they make less stops) than the regional service which is considerably less money(remember the SST?).
> 
> All the conjecture in the above posts is not going to mask the fact that the Acela express is not doing what it was predicted to do ergo it is a failure.True successful high speed rail needs a dedicated infrastructure.
> 
> I suspect that most of the posters here are railfans, which is a nice hobby, and they too are awed by the hi-tech faux speedster and cannot see from a practical standpoint the shortcomings of high speed in the NEC.


When you consider the sheer mass of revenue that the Acela has been bringing in, I don't think it is fair at all to say that folks are "wising up" to it. Yes, ridership is flat...because the peak frequencies are slam full and you can only force folks so far off into the "shoulder hours" before they look at flying or taking a Regional. Yes, it's flat...but it has only flattened out after per-passenger revenue has risen to levels that would have been unimaginable ten years ago.

In FY05, the Acelas were bringing in an average of about $115 per rider. Now, it's over $150 per rider. So ridership is flat because you can only do so much with a given amount of equipment before you run out of capacity, and that has driven average fares on the Acela up in a fairly steady march (and caused it to spike harder in FY08 and FY11, and dip more softly in FY09). Peak Acela fares are running over $250 for some markets...and the trains are selling out, so people are paying that. First Class is netting another $100...you've got trains where folks might pay nearly $400 for a one-way ticket...and those seats are selling. Yes, there's increasing spillover onto the Regionals because fares are so high...but the seats are still selling.

The Acela may not have been a technical success, but financially it has been a smash hit. There's a reason that Amtrak is looking to add sets just as they were looking to add cars to the existing set. Look over Amtrak's monthly and annual reports and you'll see how this has played out.


----------



## Trogdor (Dec 16, 2012)

Guest said:


> I derided business folks? Please point out where.


It was inferred from your implication that those riding Acela are "suckers" for paying the high fares just because the trains look fancy.


----------



## Guest (Dec 16, 2012)

Trogdor said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > I derided business folks? Please point out where.
> ...


Why would the business people be suckers? They didn't pay, their company did.


----------



## Trogdor (Dec 16, 2012)

Guest said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> > Guest said:
> ...


Then what was the purpose of the following statement?



Guest said:


> Success in the manner of revenue and ridership? P.T. Barnum stated that "there is a sucker born every minute". No where does it apply better than the Acela and it's now departed predecessors.


----------



## Guest (Dec 16, 2012)

Ryan said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect that most of the posters here are railfans, which is a nice hobby, and they too are awed by the hi-tech faux speedster and cannot see from a practical standpoint the shortcomings of high speed in the NEC.[/sub][/size]
> ...


 Ryan, you have been taking smarmy (a la Paul Lynde) potshots at me since I began posting here and I'm very close to telling you to GFY. That being said everything I have stated here is from first hand experience. Perhaps I should invite you to come along and see the 'operation' up close and personal so that I may drive my point(s) home demonstratively. You said you did not work for a railroad yet you have a railroad signature (the MARC locomotive) which leads me to believe that you are in fact a railroad buff ergo you are one who is awed by the hi-tech faux speedster. I equate you with someone who speaks of the horrors of combat yet was never in the miltary.


----------



## Berliner (Dec 16, 2012)

I'm OK with the idea of not extending current trainsets (I understand that some intermediate platforms would have to be lengthened to handle longer sets). But I hope they remember to increase capacity by running double-set trains. With additional electrification, youl could have, for example, single trains coming from Boston and Albany, joining at NYP, then running (probably as a non-stop/express) to WAS as a double set, and either turning around or splitting to go further (VA or PA or wherever). Increased speeds would make such a nonstop even more desireable, as it would be impossible to go between NYC and D.C. faster via plane than via train. It's really the point of HSR - get planes out of the sky for shorter distances.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 16, 2012)

Trogdor said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > Trogdor said:
> ...



(I think he's talking about us, Trogdor)



Guest said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Guest said:
> ...


Go right ahead! Given your non-reality based posts in this thread so far, I'm afraid it won't carry as much weight as you would hope.



> That being said everything I have stated here is from first hand experience. Perhaps I should invite you to come along and see the 'operation' up close and personal so that I may drive my point(s) home demonstratively. You said you did not work for a railroad yet you have a railroad signature (the MARC locomotive) which leads me to believe that you are in fact a railroad buff ergo you are one who is awed by the hi-tech faux speedster.


Hey, wait a second! Are you the guest that ranted endlessly about the safety defect that never got fixed, but wouldn't actually provide any details? I suspect that you picture us as a bunch of drooling foamers that get positively starry eyed when a Real Railroader shows up and hints at insider information. Sadly, you couldn't be farther from the truth (again). I don't know why you have an axe to grind with your employer, but if you're really that bitter, you should quite and find your job that makes you happy. Anonymously ranting about them on the internet doesn't do any good (at least until the management .

Did the Acela fulfill every marketing promise made when it was rolled out? Of course not. Does that mean that it's a failure? Of course not. But keep on grinding that axe, and shooting ad homs at everyone that dares disagree with a Real Railroader. I'll get you far.



> I equate you with someone who speaks of the horrors of combat yet was never in the miltary.


7 Years worth. I know what I'm talking about there, too.


----------



## PRR 60 (Dec 17, 2012)

_After an overnight cooling off period, this topic has been reopened for discussion of the proposed RFI for new high-speed trainsets._

_The somewhat related discussion of the relative success of the existing Acela trainsets and service has run its course. Each side has had multiple opportunities to express opinions, and express opinions about the other side’s opinions. The “discussion” degraded to repetitious posts and insults. That won’t fly here, and any further posts like that will be deleted._


----------



## leemell (Dec 17, 2012)

PRR 60 said:


> _After an overnight cooling off period, this topic has been reopened for discussion of the proposed RFI for new high-speed trainsets._
> 
> _The somewhat related discussion of the relative success of the existing Acela trainsets and service has run its course. Each side has had multiple opportunities to express opinions, and express opinions about the other side’s opinions. The “discussion” degraded to repetitious posts and insults. That won’t fly here, and any further posts like that will be deleted._



Just to be clear here, many of the people posting here have an excellent understanding of the issues involved in engineering, designing, building, testing, operating and financing (they are engineers (me and others) and many other professions) for large projects, systems, and transportation hardware, so an RFI for new trainsets and the implications are real discussions. Many are military veterans (me among others). These are not a pack of foamers with no expertise.

Moderators: please feel free to delete, but I thought it was important for new or unfamiliar people to understand something of their conversationalists.


----------



## Guest (Dec 19, 2012)

leemell said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> > _After an overnight cooling off period, this topic has been reopened for discussion of the proposed RFI for new high-speed trainsets._
> ...


Yes it is important for unfamiliar people to understand something of their conversationalists. Some on here place no credence in any of my posts because of my refusal to post a resume so to speak. You may have an excellent understanding of the issues of engineering,designing, building etc. but I have extensive understanding of operating in real time these 'creations' and I stand by my statements on high speed in the NEC which have been stated in this thread. What the manufacturers have made in 'theory' I have put in to 'practice' and without a dedicated infrastructure true high speed ain't happenin'.

Foamers? No, that term is poster Ryan's which he used in a post where he snarkily calls me a "_real railroader". _ 

Well,I am a locomotive engineer on the NEC with quite a good bit of experience and I tried to impart a view from the inside to you folks and most of what I have receieved in return are potshots. It's an accurate view from the inside take or leave it.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 19, 2012)

Guest said:


> without a dedicated infrastructure true high speed ain't happenin'.


I don't think that you'll find anyone here that would disagree with that.

However, that doesn't mean that Acela is a failure by any rational measure.


----------



## leemell (Dec 20, 2012)

Guest said:


> leemell said:
> 
> 
> > PRR 60 said:
> ...


Just to be clear one point, I have 10+ years of experience in operations experience of some of the most complex systems in the world. I have been both "at the point of the spear" and an operations engineer.


----------



## Guest (Dec 20, 2012)

leemell said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > leemell said:
> ...


An impressive resume. Complex systems are just that complex systems and they are not needed on the NEC. THe GG-1 was not a complicated system and was more than adequate for both freight and passenger application. An AEM-7 with 6 coaches and an engineer with extensive and intimate knowledge of the territory( a rarity of late) can accomplish the same running time as the Acela with all it's bells and whistles. I'm willing to bet were the GG-1 still around it might be accomplished with those also.

By "point of the spear" do you mean you have experience as a locomotive engineer?


----------



## NE933 (Dec 20, 2012)

Guest said:


> An AEM-7 with 6 coaches and an engineer with extensive and intimate knowledge of the territory( a rarity of late) can accomplish the same running time as the Acela with all it's bells and whistles.


Probably can, if you floor it and let it fly at it's true maximum of 150mph, and that might be straining.

If I can inject some peace in this, Acela the project, true, did fail to make 3 hrs. Boston to NY. But there are some caviats, some points to be remembered: one being that my very first trip on one we made Boston to NY in 3:15 (it was New Years' Eve so the tracks were almost empty), pretty good compared to 3:35 usual running times. Yes it's not 3:00, but you must contemplate the work that a 3:00 running time required and is only now starting to bear fruit, like the Connecticut bridge replacement, and the God-awful Metro North catenary and track renewal. The slowness of MetroNorth's replacement of catenary with constant tension has rightfully caused many here to believe they are doing the slowness on purpose, probably to penalize Amtrak for perception of not paying enough, or supposedly for their way of handling projects in tandem with MetroNorth. The Shell flyover, which later got changed to just plain Shell interlocking renewal, did not go over well. Similarly, Amtrak itself has not redone any of its catenary south of NYC into constant tension, save the test section at Princeton Jct., NJ, so trains are slower than they should be. Who to lay blame for lack of money (Iraq? Long distance trains? Congress? the polka dotted snail of Zog?) shall be in the realms of debates that have surface on AU before, and in the future.

So, Guest and Ryan and everyone else, the Acela turned out to be a pretty good train, albeit one that needs plenty of babying to stay running, but it needed lots of modifications after some scary moments (cracked trucks and brake rotors), and of course it would take the curves faster at a higher cant deficiency if them extra 4 inches were not there. In otherwords, the shortcomings of Acela has less to do with Acela and more to do with the origins of how the trains were designed and built. Hopefully with this next go around, we will have taken each of these and learned to avoid them in the new design.

If all the old bridges in Connecticut and at Harold Interlocking were replaced, and if MetroNorth got it's projects finished, and gave Amtrak a clear railroad, I am certain an Acela can make NY - Boston in 3:05. And really, Guest, you can't frown on a deviation from plan that is only five minutes.


----------



## George Harris (Dec 20, 2012)

I have always felt that the cracked trucks, brake rotor problems and such like were due primarily to a builder that did not understand the railroad on which their trainsets would be operated. They were built for a railroad that was such that you could leave you start point, gitty up and go and run full speed until you needed to slow down for your next stop. That is not the northeast corridor. Here we have a railroad that was built to be a 75 yo 80 mph line where practical and slower where not, so when you are trying to go faster you are all but constantly accelerating and braking to squeeze as much speed out as possible. This wears out trucks and propulsion equipment a lot faster than steady speed running.

By now we have reached the point of diminishing returns on investment in the NEC. We are talking big bucks for small improvements in run time. Yes, full constant tension catenary would be nice on the south end, but think of this: If you could take 100 miles that can currently be run at 125 mph and run them at 160 mph instead, that would only save 10.5 minutes, less time required in acceleration and braking, so to be meaningful, it would need to be all in one to two chunks not a lot of short here and there segments. That sort of thing cannot even be found on the north end, and the south end is already better in run time, so to do so would be less critical. You could probably save the same 10 minutes, if not more, by developing a straight shot through Baltimore, but here we are truly talking about megabucks.

Yes, a lot need done between new York and New Haven, but it will take a lot more than catenary to make any real difference. The line is simply too stinking crooked.


----------



## Guest (Dec 20, 2012)

If, if, if there are too many ifs. Wouldn't it have been prudent to do the research ahead of time? They did not and the result is a cluster^#!*

*DEDICATED INFRASTRUCTURE *is the only answer to allow these trains to perform as designed.


----------



## Paulus (Dec 20, 2012)

Guest said:


> If, if, if there are too many ifs. Wouldn't it have been prudent to do the research ahead of time? They did not and the result is a cluster^#!*
> 
> *DEDICATED INFRASTRUCTURE *is the only answer to allow these trains to perform as designed.


Do you happen to have anything meaningful to add or is it just complaints that things weren't done the way you think is proper or irrelevant observations that 60 years ago, with significantly less traffic on the lines and infrastructure that hadn't suffered major neglect, a whopping two trains a day, carrying far fewer passengers and making fewer stops, met the Acela's timing?


----------



## TimePeace (Dec 20, 2012)

Is a locomotive engineer the same as an infrastructure engineer? Just wondering...

I have no dog in this fight. I do suggest that it is the nature of posts that causes lack of credibility rather than guest status or member status...

And as is often mentioned... it helps everyone to become a member: after all, I can post anything I want as "Guest_Guest*" too... so can anyone. Why not let everyone know it is one voice.


----------



## George Harris (Dec 20, 2012)

Guest said:


> If, if, if there are too many ifs. Wouldn't it have been prudent to do the research ahead of time? They did not and the result is a cluster^#!*
> 
> *DEDICATED INFRASTRUCTURE *is the only answer to allow these trains to perform as designed.


Yes, there was not sufficient research. However, reality says the equipment manufacturer should be building trains for the railroad that they will run on, not for the railroad as they would like it to be. They are the ones who should have done the research, not Amtrak. That was the primary problem. Amtrak did not have "Dedicated Infrastructure" then, which should have been obvious to all, and we will not in the forseeable future unless someone drops a trillion or so onto Amtrak and designates it for the NEC. And, by the way, there is already the feeling that the NEC gets favored treatment while all else Amtrak gets the unwanted stepchild treatment.


----------



## NE933 (Dec 20, 2012)

Guest said:


> If, if, if there are too many ifs. Wouldn't it have been prudent to do the research ahead of time? They did not and the result is a cluster^#!*
> 
> *DEDICATED INFRASTRUCTURE *is the only answer to allow these trains to perform as designed.


There are lots of hurdles to this: money, of course, but also where's the straight right of way on which to build this infrastructure? Do you possess the leaderships skills to convince people and businesses to move out of the way and if not to litigate quickly to completion? Ya better, because those are just a few things necessary to get straight dedicated track. Amtrak is given a hard time just to perform safety projects, like replacing a century old bridge. Want to tell them yacht owners they can't go fishing or have adulterous sex on the ocean while the wives and husbands aren't looking, just so Amtrak can safely replace a bridge? If you're the one who'll do this, or whomever, be prepared to stock up on your psych meds because brain will melt down when the energy is shot back.

BTW, does anyone know WHY the Pennsy needed an S-curve at Elizabeth? What were the surveyors possible trying to avoid with this kink in the tracks?


----------



## Guest (Dec 20, 2012)

Paulus said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > If, if, if there are too many ifs. Wouldn't it have been prudent to do the research ahead of time? They did not and the result is a cluster^#!*
> ...


Another poster with a fiber deficiency 

OK Paulus what issues/statements that I have touched on do you find meaningless? We can discuss them one by one. Let's start by discussing my "irrelevant observations" and your less traffic, neglected infrastructure,two trains a day(?), fewer passengers etc.

As a side note the "60 years ago" statement? I have been working on what is now the NEC for a goodly portion of that 60 years. The floor is yours.


----------



## Guest (Dec 20, 2012)

NE933 said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > If, if, if there are too many ifs. Wouldn't it have been prudent to do the research ahead of time? They did not and the result is a cluster^#!*
> ...


I have posted previously that to build a dedicated infrastructure given the real estate values here in the northeast would render that venture cost prohibitive.

You folks here on quick to go on the attack I see. You have the home field advantage so if you want to set the tone I'm perfectly willing to play.


----------



## Paulus (Dec 20, 2012)

Guest said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> > Guest said:
> ...


Quite regular, but thank you for your concern about my health.



> OK Paulus what issues/statements that I have touched on do you find meaningless? We can discuss them one by one. Let's start by discussing my "irrelevant observations" and your less traffic, neglected infrastructure,two trains a day(?), fewer passengers etc.
> 
> As a side note the "60 years ago" statement? I have been working on what is now the NEC for a goodly portion of that 60 years. The floor is yours.


You have, unless you're some other random guest, complained that Acela is a "horrible failure" because it doesn't quite meet all the initial time expectations (despite, as mentioned by others, that not all the infrastructure work necessary was done due to cost overruns on electrification) and because the Merchants Limited had a similar schedule time.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 20, 2012)

I'm still left wondering what any of this has to do with the Acela II.

Are they going to be a failure out of the gate if they never get a dedicated ROW to run on?


----------



## Guest (Dec 20, 2012)

Paulus said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > Paulus said:
> ...


Thirty years ago Amtrak predicted 3 hour service BOS- NYP and 2hour 30 minute service NYP-WAS. This has never happened due to lack of and poor planning, shortsightedness and underestimated costs.In 50 years it has only bested the running time of the Merchants Limited by 12 minutes. Billions invested in the Corridor Improvement Project and 12 minutes is all that was saved? What else can you call it but a failure.


----------



## Guest (Dec 20, 2012)

Ryan said:


> I'm still left wondering what any of this has to do with the Acela II.
> 
> Are they going to be a failure out of the gate if they never get a dedicated ROW to run on?


Exactly. Acela I and all it's 'high speed' predecessors couldn't get it done so what makes you think Acela II will?


----------



## Paulus (Dec 20, 2012)

Guest said:


> Thirty years ago Amtrak predicted 3 hour service BOS- NYP and 2hour 30 minute service NYP-WAS. This has never happened due to lack of and poor planning, shortsightedness and underestimated costs.In 50 years it has only bested the running time of the Merchants Limited by 12 minutes. Billions invested in the Corridor Improvement Project and 12 minutes is all that was saved? What else can you call it but a failure.


As has been mentioned, a significant portion of the required infrastructure has not been completed. While the Acela does not meet the promised 3 hours between Boston and New York, it is 23 minutes faster than the Turboservice which existed on A-Day and it has proven to be a significant financial success (the Merchants Limited, by that time, took 4.5 hours). Perhaps more importantly, there exists more Acela Express trains BOS-NYP than existed trains period BOS-NYP on A-Day (10 v 8). An additional 9 NERegionals also run with times of 4:00-4:15 (with the exception of 67 at 4:45), substantially faster than all trains except the Turboservice.

Could the upgrades have been better managed? Quite probably. But to call Acela a failure because other upgrades went over budget and were not completed is absolutely absurd.


----------



## NE933 (Dec 20, 2012)

Guest said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still left wondering what any of this has to do with the Acela II.
> ...


Brain alchemy. A tornado in my head is going to pick you off from whereever you are and bring to the ethereal womb where trains, rails, schedules, and the like are born, which is in God's and other men's minds. Your arteries and veins shall exchange the blood that beats thru the hearts train creators and the like; and in return you'll inject some of your source blessing back to them. In this divine region the charter of our destiny of humans and trains will weave into a comet like streak that will cause the minds of human creators to build the Acela II you and I salivate for. And I have some additional conditions of my own, namely many railcars for long distances, namely the Superliner III's many have been eager to get, and Viewliner II's, so that a NY to Florida train can fly at 125mph (something not legally done before on the NEC) on one track, and a 170mph Acela overtakes it. Both arrive in Philly, passengers are happy with the trains they are on.

You do care about happiness, don't you GG? Without that all of this is pointless, we might as well inject a lethal mojo of tranquilizers and booze.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 21, 2012)

Guest said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still left wondering what any of this has to do with the Acela II.
> ...


At the risk of trying to keep this on topic and not rehash the Acela I debate, do you have any actual productive suggestions or is your repertoire limited to just talking trash about your employer? Since a new dedicated High Speed ROW is pretty much a pipe dream, just do nothing on an Acela follow on, retire the current Acela? Would you replace them with something, or just suffer the loss of capacity? How do you think that whatever course of action you're advocating for is going to impact the revenue brought in by your employer (and what do you think that would do to your job security)?


----------



## Guest (Dec 21, 2012)

Paulus said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > Thirty years ago Amtrak predicted 3 hour service BOS- NYP and 2hour 30 minute service NYP-WAS. This has never happened due to lack of and poor planning, shortsightedness and underestimated costs.In 50 years it has only bested the running time of the Merchants Limited by 12 minutes. Billions invested in the Corridor Improvement Project and 12 minutes is all that was saved? What else can you call it but a failure.
> ...


Your information is flawed.

Infrastructure? Other than eliminating the many curves there would be minimal time saved by bridge replacement etc.

Turbo service a success? Where is it? If something is successful you go with it don't you?

Merchants Limited 4.5 hours is incorrect. In 1963 the running time was 3hours 55minutes wiith an engine change in New Haven

More trains today? Did your research show that the New Haven ran through and local freight interspersed with passenger service?

Traffic density? Amtrak cannot take credit for the increase. Skyrocketing fuel prices and an outdated Interstate system are responsible for the public seeking an alternate form of transportation.

Poor planning is the reasons the upgrades you speak of were not completed and over budget.

Absurd? That applies to your definition of failure.



Ryan said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan said:
> ...


 No trash talking here I'm just telling it like it is. I would replace the Acela with updated equipment and provide frequent and dependable service. Folks are not in that much of a hurry for transportation that cost more with minimal time saved over the regular cheaper service. The demise of the Supersonic Transport proves that.
Now let me say a word about your 'attitude'. I have tried to be respectful and civil and because I post what you don't want to hear about the Acela Express you reply in a sarcastic tone to my posts. That being said it leads me to believe that you are one who stands near the roadbed sporting 'wood' when the faux speedster roars by.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 21, 2012)

Guest said:


> Now let me say a word about your 'attitude'. I have tried to be respectful and civil and because I post what you don't want to hear about the Acela Express you reply in a sarcastic tone to my posts. That being said it leads me to believe that you are one who stands near the roadbed sporting 'wood' when the faux speedster roars by.





Guest said:


> I suspect that most of the posters here are railfans, which is a nice hobby, and they too are awed by the hi-tech faux speedster and cannot see from a practical standpoint the shortcomings of high speed in the NEC.





> which leads me to believe that you are in fact a railroad buff ergo you are one who is awed by the hi-tech faux speedster. I equate you with someone who speaks of the horrors of combat yet was never in the miltary.





Guest said:


> Another poster with a fiber deficiency


If that's what passes for "respectful and civil", your views on that are about as screwed up as your views on what constitutes failure.

No sarcasm here, just a genuine desire to see if you have a point beyond badmouthing your employer anonymously on the internet.

Edit: My original question still stands. Will you consider the Acela II a failure if it never gets a dedicated ROW to run on, but provides the same financial results as the Acela I?


----------



## AlanB (Dec 21, 2012)

Guest said:


> Traffic density? Amtrak cannot take credit for the increase. Skyrocketing fuel prices and an outdated Interstate system are responsible for the public seeking an alternate form of transportation.


Sorry, but NO!

You might be able to claim that for Amtrak in general; but it doesn't wash for Acela. First off, most Acela passengers weren't drivers on I-95 before Acela. They were fliers who moved to Acela. This is why Amtrak's market share has gone up and the airlines market share has gone down.

Second, the proof is in the pudding as they say. Fuel prices really spiked to current levels with the big run up to the $4+ gallon of gas that occurred in the summer of 2008. So if fuel was a major reason for increasing ridership on Acela, we'd have a major jump in ridership from 2007 to date. However, we don't! In fiscal 2007 Acela carried 3,191,321 rides. As of fiscal 2012, Acela had only increased to 3,395,354, a minuscule 200K increase.

Now if you told me that fuel costs had helped the Regional's, that I'd buy. Regional's went from 6,836,646 in 2007 to 8,014,175, and increase of 1.78 million riders.

Acela's growth on the other hand came much earlier and before $3 & $4 gas hit us. Back in 2003 Acela only carried 2,363,454 passengers. It's growth had very little to do with fuel prices or I-95.

So while perhaps you can declare Acela a failure because it didn't live up to it's speed promises; it is most certainly a success when it comes to attracting ridership. People are willing to pay for it and its slight speed advantage over the Regionals. If they weren't, then either prices on Acela would be going down and they're not or ridership would be going down and its not.


----------



## Guest (Dec 21, 2012)

Ryan said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > Now let me say a word about your 'attitude'. I have tried to be respectful and civil and because I post what you don't want to hear about the Acela Express you reply in a sarcastic tone to my posts. That being said it leads me to believe that you are one who stands near the roadbed sporting 'wood' when the faux speedster roars by.
> ...


_*What you have failed to show are your posts that elicited those responses. *_

I am not badmouthing my employer when I speak the truth.

As far as your original question if you can't shake the romance of the rails and see the picture realistically there is nothing I can say that will satisfy you. You consider my views (from the inside I might add) screwed up because I don't contribute to the love fest.

The Acela Express I II III IV etc. will not succeed, it will be force fed to the traveling public until someone in Congress wises up. It doesn't do what it was designed to do and it won't on the the existing "ROW".

As far as a money maker I'll be from Missouri on that one.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 21, 2012)

There are plenty of people that don't "contribute to the love fest" whose views are perfectly welcomed here.

Both the existing Acela and future Acela were designed primarily _to make money for Amtrak_. Acela I is knocking the ball out of the park, and I expect Acela II to do the same, regardless of where or how fast it runs.

But at the end of the day, I think that PRR 60 said all that needed to be said on the topic.



PRR 60 said:


> _The somewhat related discussion of the relative success of the existing Acela trainsets and service has run its course. Each side has had multiple opportunities to express opinions, and express opinions about the other side’s opinions._


----------



## leemell (Dec 21, 2012)

Guest said:


> Folks are not in that much of a hurry for transportation that cost more with minimal time saved over the regular cheaper service. The demise of the Supersonic Transport proves that.


You are quite wrong about that. The SST never got built, the US government pulled the funding. The Concorde never failed to have very high load factors and good profitably, until the end of it's service when load factors dropped disastrously for all premium air service. What caused the British and French airlines to end the service was that it was economic, the costs were too high to operate this airplane even with premium pricing, it was at the end of it's service life and maintenance costs were climbing precipitously. .


----------



## Trogdor (Dec 21, 2012)

Guest said:


> Folks are not in that much of a hurry for transportation that cost more with minimal time saved over the regular cheaper service. The demise of the Supersonic Transport proves that.


Going around in circles here, but why are you complaining about Acela and the inability to improve trip times when you say right here that people wouldn't care about saving a little bit of time (using the SST as an example, when it cut trip times on the routes it did serve by half, and what we're talking about with Acela is maybe a 10-15% improvement over current trip times).

If Acela failed to meet original trip time goals (and reasons why are a separate issue), but instead manages to meet travelers' needs in other ways, then is it really a failure?

Passengers seem happy with it. Enough so that they've left the airlines in droves on the air shuttle routes, and caused the airlines to significantly downgauge capacity on those routes.


----------



## Guest (Dec 22, 2012)

leemell said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > Folks are not in that much of a hurry for transportation that cost more with minimal time saved over the regular cheaper service. The demise of the Supersonic Transport proves that.
> ...


The SST never got built??? What were the British and French flying? Acela I is at the end of it's service life is it not? Why purchase Acela II when the same speeds, excepting the 150mph short spurt here and there, can be achieved with standard equipment at far less cost? All of you admit it has not achieved high speed status so why bother buying a new one? The bells, whistles and gadgets can be installed on standard coaches.


----------



## Guest (Dec 22, 2012)

AlanB said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > Traffic density? Amtrak cannot take credit for the increase. Skyrocketing fuel prices and an outdated Interstate system are responsible for the public seeking an alternate form of transportation.
> ...


Alan, most of the folks who ride the Acela Monday through Friday are business people who do not care about the fare. They are on an expense account and the enjoy all the little perks that blind folks to the fact that the Acela is not much faster than the regionals. The weekend travelers are folks who ride the train for fun. Familes who are curious about the sleek new shiny train, railfans and the general public. Excepting the railfans very few return opting instead for the cheaper regionals.


----------



## leemell (Dec 22, 2012)

Guest said:


> leemell said:
> 
> 
> > Guest said:
> ...


Do you not remember that the SST was a US project that did not get built. The design elected was by Lockheed but cancelled. The Concorde was a British/French competitor not the SST.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 22, 2012)

Guest said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Guest said:
> ...


None of that however changes the fact that you claimed Acela's ridership is because of fuel prices and highway conditions. That is simply not true.

Further, I've been on plenty of sold out Acela's on Saturday & Sunday, and between NYP & BOS no less! Just did so on December 8th, where both FC & BC were sold out on 2253. So it's not just business people as they don't travel in large numbers on a Saturday.

Like it or not, Acela may have failed in the speed/promised running time area, but it is a huge success with the public. So again, while Acela may have many flaws from a railroad side of things, from the passenger's perspective (and not the doe eyed railfan's perspective) it is a success. And the passenger's do matter!


----------



## Guest (Dec 22, 2012)

leemell said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > Folks are not in that much of a hurry for transportation that cost more with minimal time saved over the regular cheaper service. The demise of the Supersonic Transport proves that.
> ...





Guest said:


> leemell said:
> 
> 
> > Guest said:
> ...





leemell said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > leemell said:
> ...


I'm not quite sure what you consider an SST but perhaps this link will clarify it for you.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_transportYes I remember when the U.S. plan for an SST was cancelled. Wise decision wouldn't you say?


----------



## Guest (Dec 22, 2012)

AlanB said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


I still stand by that statement. I remember when I-95 was completed. That signaled(pardon the pun) the beginning of the end for the NY.NH.&H R.R. However I-95 has now driven the business (excepting freight) back to the former NY.NH.& H. due to the increase in population density and the subsequent overcrowding of our highway system. What you see on the weekends after Thanksgiving are families traveling to see the Christmas displays and Radio City Music Hall etc. Those folks either splurge once a year to ride the shiny faux speedster or have not yet wised up to the fact that they could travel on the regional for a lot less money and a little more time.

Now I have a question for all of you on this thread.

Do you consider it a waste of taxpayer money to purchase Acela II when the same speeds, excepting the 150mph short spurt here and there, can be achieved with standard equipment at far less cost?

All of you admit it has not achieved high speed status so why bother buying a new one? The bells, whistles and gadgets can be installed on standard coaches.


----------



## NE933 (Dec 22, 2012)

Well, isn't it because Acela II is supposed to hit 180mph, and I assume it will be narrower so it will be allowed to tilt in more territory so thus sustain higher speeds?

I don't think a separate right of way will start in this decade, and likely not the next either. Which means you and me will be dead by the time a new one carries the first revenue train. Therefore, we get serious about improving what we got. None of this 110mph limit b.s. through Union/Rahway interlocking, that's a fairly straight railroad that with new catenary can easily allow for 135mph or some such. I know this because I saw the X2000 fly past close to that speed back in 1993 during revenue testing.

In the area of Trenton station it is bracketed by turnouts on old wooden ties which if renewed with concrete high speed ones, would or should boost the speed from the current 110mph limit to 125. There are two curves, one fore one aft, of the station that are gentle low radius that a tilting HST ought to have no problem with this.

Of course these are just a couple of examples of treasures close to the surface that never came to full fruition. There are oodles of others, namely the five miles east of 30 st Philadelphia station, with jointed rail and busted up turnouts, even the runs that run up to the Sckuykill River bridge as well as the North Phil. station. What Amtrak is waiting for, the cows to come home, I guess. The impact of speeds in this area I shall argue is worse than the conditions of Baltimore B & P tunnels. At least those are fairly smooth and direct in alignment. With CSX and NS demonstrating in real life that existing tunnels can be enlarged and redone with new lining, a short distance of tight curves is not as bad as the conditions in Phiily Pennsylvania; BUT, i'm not a civil engineer, so I say that with considerable room for deference to someone out there who knows both areas well enough to render a report that compares the conditions of both thorough enough to make a type of judgement an entity like Amtrak shall need to rely on in making a decision of where to allocate limited resources.

There are so many worn out turnouts/switches, prematurely broken concrete ties, and bad catenary that all cuts into high speeds of both Acela and Amfleet alike. Also there are commuter trains, NJT for example, whose recent capital purchases are that of a horse's behind. They bought multi decker cars that are heavy and not eough MU's, and spent millions/billions/willions on things like Seacauses Transfer, built right at the mouth of the most heavily used tunnel in the U.S. if not the world, clogging up the works for all trains, NJT and Amtrak, rolling towards Penn Station. What this has to do with slow Acelas? This: a Metroliner in the 1980's was scheduled NY Penn to Newark, NJ in twelve minutes, usually arriving ahead of time in ten. Today an Acela needs fifeteen. NJT's own express trains require ten or more minutes to make the time from Trenton to NY Penn than in the recent 90's. No one understand that to benefit the most by running trains at greater speeds, on time, ya gotta get it over and off the railroad QUICKLY, not dilly dallying with silly Seacaucus station that Hoboken route can easily handle, and just had a multi million dollar tunnel rehab of it's own over ten years ago, and to take that traffic and funnel it onto an already congested line requiring new tunnels and Portal bridge of its own.

And finally, GG, I know and feel your frustration, (hand on my broken heart), and we are tired of hearing the if's, should's, would's, maybe's, to the point of nausea. Where we (you and me, that is,) part separate ways is the need for a new right of way. It's a lot of money and alot of time before such of what amounts to several long concrete bridges of 100 miles in length has never been done here, and yes it ought to get started at some point, but in my opinion California is better for something like that because they have squat right now as far as high speed tracks. Here in the Northeaset we have a line that exists but is in awful bad shape, and i'm willing to bet hypothetically that if all the decades of neglect were reversed by a disciplined renewal, a CLOSE to two hour running time NY to DC is withing reach.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 22, 2012)

Guest said:


> I still stand by that statement. I remember when I-95 was completed. That signaled(pardon the pun) the beginning of the end for the NY.NH.&H R.R. However I-95 has now driven the business (excepting freight) back to the former NY.NH.& H. due to the increase in population density and the subsequent overcrowding of our highway system. What you see on the weekends after Thanksgiving are families traveling to see the Christmas displays and Radio City Music Hall etc. Those folks either splurge once a year to ride the shiny faux speedster or have not yet wised up to the fact that they could travel on the regional for a lot less money and a little more time.


Well first, crowds on a few weekends after Thanksgiving aren't giving Acela its sales numbers. Second, the volume of people traveling from points north to NYC just for the lights and such is rather low. Most families aren't going to blow the dough for such a trip on any Amtrak service, much less Acela. Finally, even if a few are booking Acela, it could well be due to the fact that on many weekends so many people pick the Regional's that they're in a higher price bucket than the Acela's.



Guest said:


> Do you consider it a waste of taxpayer money to purchase Acela II when the same speeds, excepting the 150mph short spurt here and there, can be achieved with standard equipment at far less cost?


But even excepting the 150 MPH zones, and potential 160 MPH zones coming soon, you still can't achieve the same speeds. Even if you programmed Acela's computers to only allow a top speed of 125 MPH, Acela will still beat any Regional train making the same number of stops. I grant that it won't be by a wide margin, but in this world where speed matters, even a couple of minutes could mean the difference in the market share for Amtrak.



Guest said:


> All of you admit it has not achieved high speed status so why bother buying a new one? The bells, whistles and gadgets can be installed on standard coaches.


If one's going to put all the bells & whistles in, then you might as well build Acela II since your costs are going to be about the same.


----------



## Guest (Dec 22, 2012)

NE933 said:


> Well, isn't it because Acela II is supposed to hit 180mph, and I assume it will be narrower so it will be allowed to tilt in more territory so thus sustain higher speeds?
> 
> I don't think a separate right of way will start in this decade, and likely not the next either. Which means you and me will be dead by the time a new one carries the first revenue train. Therefore, we get serious about improving what we got. None of this 110mph limit b.s. through Union/Rahway interlocking, that's a fairly straight railroad that with new catenary can easily allow for 135mph or some such. I know this because I saw the X2000 fly past close to that speed back in 1993 during revenue testing.
> 
> ...


NE 933, no we did not part ways I posted that in order to have true high speed rail it would require a dedicated infrastructure which I said would be cost prohibitive given the real estate values here in the crowded northeast. At no time did I state that I personally was in favor on a dedicated "ROW". I am not.


----------



## Guest (Dec 22, 2012)

AlanB said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > I still stand by that statement. I remember when I-95 was completed. That signaled(pardon the pun) the beginning of the end for the NY.NH.&H R.R. However I-95 has now driven the business (excepting freight) back to the former NY.NH.& H. due to the increase in population density and the subsequent overcrowding of our highway system. What you see on the weekends after Thanksgiving are families traveling to see the Christmas displays and Radio City Music Hall etc. Those folks either splurge once a year to ride the shiny faux speedster or have not yet wised up to the fact that they could travel on the regional for a lot less money and a little more time.
> ...


Could you post the source for the numbers and stats you are posting?

I also stand by my statement that an AEM-7 with 6 cars can equal the Acela running time NYP-BOS.

I strongly disagree that any refit of present equipment would cost the same as purchasing the Acela II.

I have another question followed by another question.

What happens to an Acela train when it incurs a 3 inch flat spot on a wheel?

What happens to a Regional train when it incurs a 3 inch fla spot on a wheel?


----------



## AlanB (Dec 22, 2012)

Guest said:


> Could you post the source for the numbers and stats you are posting?


The Acela & Regional ridership numbers come from the Amtrak Monthly reports started under David Gunn. You can only find about the last years on Amtrak's site now. I however have saved the reports on my computer since they first started issuing them. Some of them however can still be found on the Internet history sites.



Guest said:


> I also stand by my statement that an AEM-7 with 6 cars can equal the Acela running time NYP-BOS.


Not possible! First; an Acela, which we all know is over powered can accelerate faster than any AEM pulling 6 cars can. Next, if you have access to one, pull out the rule book for the NEC. You find that when an Acela's tilt fails, in addition to traveling slower than norm on the 150 MPH stretches, that it's top speeds through curves are lower than when tilt is enabled. Same thing happens out in Washington/Oregon where a conventional set replacing a Talgo set cannot match the schedule because of slower speeds through curves.

Put those two things together and while we're not talking about hours here, probably only a few minutes, there is NO way that an AEM-7 pulling six cars can match an Acela that's been restricted to the same top speed.



Guest said:


> I strongly disagree that any refit of present equipment would cost the same as purchasing the Acela II.


Well if we're talking about refitting the current Acela's, then yes, I do agree that would cost less than buying new ones. However, that doesn't fix the problem of Amtrak needing more capacity on the Acela trainsets.



Guest said:


> I have another question followed by another question.
> What happens to an Acela train when it incurs a 3 inch flat spot on a wheel?
> 
> What happens to a Regional train when it incurs a 3 inch fla spot on a wheel?


Well I'm assuming that you're alluding to the issue that an Acela trainset would have to be taken out of service vs. the Regional just dropping the car and maybe picking up a replacement.

One reason that Amtrak should be looking at options other than fixed consists for Acela II.

Look, I'm not saying that Acela doesn't have its issues and problems. It has many! This much is clear to anyone who has paid attention to things over the last 12 years. The idea that there are things that can bring the entire computer system onboard crashing down to the point that someone must drive a hundred miles with a laptop just to reboot things so that the train can be moved is ludicrous. The fact that the train weighs more than a Sherman tank is also crazy. Again, I'm not saying that Acela is this wonderful, glorious thing.

But it is also not the utter failure that you seem to believe. Despite all of its mechanical issues and failure to ever get to 3 hours BOS-NYP; it is clearly a success with the passenger. I'm not sure that Amtrak or anyone fully understands just why it's an success with the pax, but the simple reality is that it is a rousing success. And it is paying for its operating costs, even if it doesn't yet make enough to cover the capital costs.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 22, 2012)

Guest said:


> I have another question followed by another question.
> 
> What happens to an Acela train when it incurs a 3 inch flat spot on a wheel?
> 
> What happens to a Regional train when it incurs a 3 inch fla spot on a wheel?


By the way, while not exactly the same, Amtrak isn't the only one that's done away with the "swap out one car with a problem" concept. For example current NYC subway cars come in fixed groups of 4 or 5, meaning that you have to take out half of the train in your scenario. Granted it's not the entire train like in Acela's case; but it is still a significant part of the consist.

And many trains in Europe are also fixed consists or at least partially fixed consists.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 22, 2012)

WMATA is even going from married pairs to permanent A-B-B-A married quads.


----------



## Guest (Dec 22, 2012)

AlanB said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > Could you post the source for the numbers and stats you are posting?
> ...


Happy birthday.

Amtrak has a history of unfulfilled predictions along with suspect passenger counts and on time reports. What I see in the field is different than what is reported.

An AEM-7 with 6 cars equalling the Acela is not possible? It most certainly is. I made reference to the Merchants Limited of the 50's and 60's being only 12 minutes behind the Acela of the 21st century and that was (in the middle 60s') on a deferred maintenance roadbed. An AEM-7 has far more accelerating power than a pair of FL-9's wouldn't you say? So I'm sure it could eat up those 12 minutes (it has) without a problem.

I was not talking about refitting the Acela I, I was referring to the present fleet of standard equipment.

I am not alluding. It's a fact that you lose the whole train whereas with standard equipment you set out the defective car and continue.


----------



## Guest (Dec 22, 2012)

AlanB said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > I have another question followed by another question.
> ...





Ryan said:


> WMATA is even going from married *pairs* to permanent A-B-B-A married *quads.*


Lose a car you lose the whole train or most of it. Poor concept, unneccesary delays and inconveniences.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 22, 2012)

Guest said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Guest said:
> ...


That's your opinion, and you are most certainly allowed to have that opinion and express it. However, experts around the world disagree with you. They all seem to feel that the benefits outweigh the problems. If they didn't, then RR's around the world would be demanding a return to single cars. They're not!

So while I respect the fact that you work for Amtrak and have some insider knowledge, I'm sorry but I'm going with the experts.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 22, 2012)

Guest said:


> Amtrak has a history of unfulfilled predictions along with suspect passenger counts and on time reports. What I see in the field is different than what is reported.


Amtrak may have had that history; well they probably still do when it comes to predictions. But the Congress critters today send their experts in to pour over the actual accounting numbers and passenger counts just looking to find anything wrong so that they can once again make headlines by claiming something bad against Amtrak. That's led to accurate passenger counts since the David Gunn era.



Guest said:


> An AEM-7 with 6 cars equalling the Acela is not possible? It most certainly is. I made reference to the Merchants Limited of the 50's and 60's being only 12 minutes behind the Acela of the 21st century and that was (in the middle 60s') on a deferred maintenance roadbed. An AEM-7 has far more accelerating power than a pair of FL-9's wouldn't you say? So I'm sure it could eat up those 12 minutes (it has) without a problem.


I don't care about the Merchants Limited. It doesn't exist anymore and the conditions that allowed it to achieve those results don't exist anymore either. The Merchants Limited never operated over Metro North owned tracks. For all I know it was allowed to run faster on those tracks back when the New Haven owned them than Acela is now allowed. That could easily account for the time differences.

The simple fact is that no AEM-7 pulling six car can take a curve on Amtrak's Shoreline as fast as an Acela operating on Shoreline can. That coupled with Acela's better acceleration, 12,000 HP vs. 7,000 HP for an AEM-7, not to mention having more driving axles, means that no AEM-7 can equal Acela.

And again, I'm not talking about an hour's difference here. My best guess is that we're talking maybe 5 minutes maximum, if that. But the fact remains that any Acela will cover the territory faster than an AEM-7 hauling 6 cars all other things being equal.



Guest said:


> I was not talking about refitting the Acela I, I was referring to the present fleet of standard equipment.


Well that solves nothing! We still need the regular equipment for Regional service. Can't throw away Acela without new cars & engines. More engines than Amtrak has on order. So there is no point to refitting the current cars, might as well order the new cars to the Acela standards that we're talking about here, those bells & whistles that is.


----------



## Guest (Dec 22, 2012)

Alan I can see that in fact you are somewhat "doe eyed". When you said you didn't care what the Merchants Limited did 50 years ago which revealed a little known fact ,only 12 minutes slower on a 1950 infrastructure than the Acela and you fail to see that the train doesn't work here for the reasons (many) that I have stated I conclude that you are indeed a member of the love fest. If being an Acela fan unconditionally is your hobby then enjoy by all means . Don't let me burst your bubble.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 22, 2012)

No, I told you why the Merchants Limited is a useless comparison. It had conditions on what today is Metro North territory that did NOT exist at that time. The fact that you choose to ignore that is actually telling. It goes further to prove that you have some beef with your employer and will do anything to bad mouth them. Otherwise you would have accepted that fact. If you've been with Amtrak as long as you claim, then you know what Metro North allows in terms of speed and operating conditions. You would know that the New Haven would have never allowed a crack train like the ML to be dropped in behind a local commuter run. Yet that happens all the time today on MN.

And the fact that you would even make this statement:



Guest said:


> If being an Acela fan unconditionally is your hobby then enjoy by all means .


Further goes to my conclusion that you'll stop at nothing to bad mouth Amtrak. I've more than once stated problems and issues with Acela in this topic in my posts to you and I've agreed with you that it never met its 3 hour goal. So the fact that you would use the word "unconditionally" is ridiculous and clear proof of your bias! Either than or you have no clue what the word unconditional means. If I were an unconditional fan, then I would never have mentioned Acela's many failings. That makes me a conditional fan!


----------



## PRR 60 (Dec 22, 2012)

AlanB said:


> ...If you've been with Amtrak as long as you claim, then you know what Metro North allows in terms of speed and operating conditions. You would know that the New Haven would have never allowed a crack train like the ML to be dropped in behind a local commuter run. Yet that happens all the time today on MN.
> 
> ...


I think the implication that Metro North intentionally mishandles Acela is unfortunate and not correct. The Acela schedule is carefully coordinated with MN. When Acela hits its slot, it typically has clear track absent unusual operating conditions. That fact is reflected by the over 90% on-time rate of Acela north of New York. If Acela were being dropped behind a local commuter train "all the time", the overall on-time rate would suffer. I don't doubt it happens once in a while, but it is not SOP.

As for comparisons with the olden days, the density of train operations between New York and New Haven is far greater now that it ever was pre-Amtrak. The fact that MN is able to handle Acela as well as it does it admirable. Given the number of trains today, I doubt the old New Haven would be able to do better.

Some random thoughts:

The Merchants Limited operated out of Grand Central - arguably a faster route to New Rochelle than the line out of Penn across Hell Gate. Grand Central was the primary destination for New York - Boston O&D travel. The trains in and out of Penn, primarily for through traffic to Philadelphia and Washington, were considerably slower between Boston and New York in part due to making more stops.

it is a fact that line geometry and not trainset speed is the primary factor that has resulted in the Acela schedule between New York and Boston being only marginally faster than the best schedules of fifty years ago. Even Amtrak operated an express service in the early 1990's scheduled at 3hr 59min, including a ten minute dwell at NHV for the power change. The problem is that a curve is a curve, and although Acela tilt helps somewhat, the end result is not that dramatic. The prohibition of tilt on MN is not a critical issue for Acela timing. The fact that Acela can consistently run at about 3hr 30min is pretty good considering the line limitations.

Although the build-out of Acela was sold based on speed, its commercial success is founded on comfort and service. It presented a modern image to travelers who never considered Amtrak modern in any respect. The promised three-hour schedule New York to Boston was, in my opinion, always vaporware, regardless of improvements or lack of same. Amtrak people in the know acknowledge that informally. However, the speed promise provided the political support to get the project built. Speed is sexy. Comfortable seats are not. In the end, it all seemed to turn out OK.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 22, 2012)

PRR 60 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > ...If you've been with Amtrak as long as you claim, then you know what Metro North allows in terms of speed and operating conditions. You would know that the New Haven would have never allowed a crack train like the ML to be dropped in behind a local commuter run. Yet that happens all the time today on MN.
> ...


I wasn't trying to imply that MN intentionally mishandles Acela. Sorry if I gave that impression.

Nonetheless things do happen and Amtrak has to add at least a few minutes to the time card just in case. Sure things happened back in the days of the ML, but back then the New Haven's priority was the ML so if anything got through, it was the ML. And even out of slot, the ML would most likely still have been given priority over commuter; something that MN doesn't do.



PRR 60 said:


> As for comparisons with the olden days, the density of train operations between New York and New Haven is far greater now that it ever was pre-Amtrak. The fact that MN is able to handle Acela as well as it does it admirable. Given the number of trains today, I doubt the old New Haven would be able to do better.


Something that I didn't even consider, traffic density. Thanks, Bill! 



PRR 60 said:


> The Merchants Limited operated out of Grand Central - arguably a faster route to New Rochelle than the line out of Penn across Hell Gate. Grand Central was the primary destination for New York - Boston O&D travel. The trains in and out of Penn, primarily for through traffic to Philadelphia and Washington, were considerably slower between Boston and New York in part due to making more stops.


And some more good info that I didn't even think of, and neither did our guest.



PRR 60 said:


> it is a fact that line geometry and not trainset speed is the primary factor that has resulted in the Acela schedule between New York and Boston being only marginally faster than the best schedules of fifty years ago. Even Amtrak operated an express service in the early 1990's scheduled at 3hr 59min, including a ten minute dwell at NHV for the power change. The problem is that a curve is a curve, and although Acela tilt helps somewhat, the end result is not that dramatic. The prohibition of tilt on MN is not a critical issue for Acela timing. The fact that Acela can consistently run at about 3hr 30min is pretty good considering the line limitations.


Agreed! And I've stressed more than once that having tilt turned on isn't subtracting copious amounts of time from the time card to our guest. But tilt still does mean that all other things being equal, an AEM-7 can't haul 6 cars in exactly the same amount of time as a tilting Acela. Depending on total distance being covered and track geometry issues affecting curve speed limits, we might be talking a matter of seconds or a couple of minutes. But there will be a difference.


----------



## Anderson (Dec 23, 2012)

I've always found the use of sets to be somewhat dubious, but that's more because of capacity increment issues. Basically, I've found accepting the loss of flexibility to be a dubious tradeoff, at least where you don't have gobs of frequencies running (i.e. the every-15-minutes frequencies of many subways or of some European and other international rail lines). In those places, a 20% jump in demand will translate into multiple extra trains. In the US, you either don't have the slots to do that (peak hours on parts of the NEC) or the existing operations aren't enough for the added demand to add a whole new train, and an extra few cars is more appropriate, either on its own or in conjunction with adding a stray train (most of the LD system and a number of corridors, almost all hobbled by the slot issues as well).


----------



## Guest (Dec 23, 2012)

Traffic density? Did any of you consider that the _*NH operated through freight and local freight *_interspersed with their passenger service?

Metro North? Shame on the planners. _*It's convenient for Amtrak to blame MN*_ but MN was a factor they obviously discounted in their planning. If Amtrak is not presented on time at New Haven (westbound) or New Rochelle eastbound MN will then accomodate them as best they can. Amtrak shows up late for the party then whines when they can't get in.

NYP-NH is 3 miles further than GCT-NH and for your information there is Amtrak only traffic on the Hells' Gate line as oppossed to traversing the Hudson and Harlem lines on the GCT - NH route where the traffic density is much thicker.

Badmouth Amtrak? It would seem that way wouldn't it? I am a disappointed employee not a disgruntled employee. Amtrak has taken a perfectly crafted operating system and attempted to re-invent the wheel. In 1983 they assumed operations on the NEC and ever since it has been hit and miss trial and error techniques. Those tactics can be implemented because when they fails they return to the government teat for more funds. Amtrak has a history of hiring supervisors with no experience in the field it supervises. We once had a General Road Foreman who previous in house job was that of a red cap. Poll the supervisors yourselves and check their pedigrees. Where I work is a microcosm of the entire operation.

I could go on and on about Amtrak's shortcomings. It's almost comedic were it not so tragic. What's positive? I'll have to think long and hard about that.

OK we have a high speed "train of the future" trumpeted to make speeds of 150 mph (it does in a very short burst) also trumpeted to provide 3 hour service NYP-BOS ( it does not) also to provide 2 hour 45 minutes service NYP-WAS (it does not). The "Metroliner" operated by Penn Central _*provided*_ 2 hour 30 minute service NYP-WAS.

So I ask you again. If Acela I can't get it done why buy Acela II?


----------



## PRR 60 (Dec 23, 2012)

I



Guest said:


> ...
> 
> OK we have a high speed "train of the future" trumpeted to make speeds of 150 mph (it does in a very short burst) also trumpeted to provide 3 hour service NYP-BOS ( it does not) also to provide 2 hour 45 minutes service NYP-WAS (it does not). The "Metroliner" operated by Penn Central _*provided*_ 2 hour 30 minute service NYP-WAS.
> 
> So I ask you again. If Acela I can't get it done why buy Acela II?


I think you and I have a different definition of "success." For a business, success is drawing paying customers to a product or service, and having those customers add to the bottom line. Acela is doing that. Indeed, Acela is the only Amtrak service that financially approximates a service provided by a private company. Would holding a three-hour schedule between Boston and New York make it more successful? Maybe. But even at 3hr 40min or so, it is competitive with the air shuttles point-to-point, so it still does very well.

Between Washington and New York, Acela is scheduled at 2hr 48min southbound and 2hr 45min northbound (and Acela tend to hit that schedule pretty closely - so far this month the average trip is 2hr 46min). That schedule is ideal for business travel, and the ridership counts reflect it. I doubt that a 2hr 30min schedule would do much better from a ridership and revenue standpoint.

Your mention of the old Penn Central Metroliner once again reminds me of one of my favorite words, "vaporware". The Metroliner 2hr 30min trip between New York and Washington met that description in spades. To paraphrase an old Seinfeld epidode, the PC knew how to _publish_ a schedule. They just did not know how to run trains _on_ the schedule. That trip was a non-stop between Washington and New York, and it was almost always late. In 1969 I worked at a jobsite next to the NEC, and would marvel at how late that thing came by every day. A 2hr 30min schedule does not matter if the train actually takes 2hr 45min day after day after day. Customers quickly get the idea. The 2hr 30min schedule, and the non-stop itself, only lasted a short time.

Quite frankly, Amtrak had a similar problem with Acela. Early on they published great schedules (including a 2hr 29min non-stop trip between New York and Washington), and forgot that they should really try to meet the schedules. Acela's on-time record in the early 2000's was abysmal. Today the schedules are much more realistic, and as a result the on-time rate for Acela is better then 90% (baring hurricanes, of course). Business travelers want to have travel times that are competitive and arrival times that are reliable, and Acela is meeting both those goals.

So, I agree with you that Acela was sold based on pure speed. In that regard, the sales pitch was bogus. If meeting that stated speed goal is the only measure of success, then Acela is a failure. However, there are trainloads of passengers paying extremely high fares who value Acela's comfort, reliability, and the fact that the schedule is competitive point-to-point with the air shuttles. Those 3 million passengers bought over half a billion dollars worth of Acela tickets in FY2012 - fully 25% of Amtrak's total ticket revenue nationwide. By that measure, Acela is a huge commercial success.

As for Acela II, I have a problem with that plan. Acela II will be built to FRA Tier III standards. That standard, as I understand it, will require a dedicated RW for operation in excess of 125mph. Operation on the existing NEC, co-mingled with commuter, some freight, and Amtrak regional traffic, will not allow the speeds currently operated by Acela. I'm not sure I go ahead with buying some very expensive trainsets capable of true high speed unless I know I have a place to operate them. I'm not a believer.


----------



## Anderson (Dec 23, 2012)

PRR: So what you're saying is that the Acela IIs, on account of being built to the next standard, won't even be able to share tracks with Regionals? A _polite_ reaction to that on my part may involve some French, but the best way to put it in my mind is that at that point it ceases to be worth the cost of implementation.

Edit: Ok, I figure I should elaborate a bit more: The cost of segregating HSR operations from Regional/Commuter operations south of NYC is likely to be far, far more than the cost of just buying another batch of Tier II equipment, even though that would be a mess. Likewise, the timetable involved in doing so will be...rather long as well. It just doesn't seem to be worth the sheer cost and effort for the most part, especially since trouble on the NEC-North is likely to block out BOS-WAS traffic to some extent. NHV is about as far up as I think you could make a massive dent, and Stamford may be more realistic. That's still a dent, but it's not BOS-WAS. To do that, you need a completely new alignment. Basically, you're looking at the Next-Gen NEC stuff.

Of course, I also have to wonder if there's even room in the extant alignment NYP-WAS for new tracks. North of NYP, the answer seems to be that you're going to be adding a new routing into the system (whether by upstate CT or by Long Island). There, you can at least point to some incremental additions to Amtrak's served markets and some other options that such plans would make possible (a "Hedgie Bullet" on Long Island, for example, as well as inducing single-seat rides through NYC from places out there). The only way I see major time improvements beyond somewhere in the 2:30 or 2:15 range making any sense there really becomes if you're going to talk about extending high-speed operations south to Richmond or Hampton Roads, and that's such a messy prospect that it's not even funny.


----------



## afigg (Dec 23, 2012)

Guest said:


> Traffic density? Did any of you consider that the _*NH operated through freight and local freight *_interspersed with their passenger service?


I expect that people can dig up historical stats on total train traffic on the New Haven Line back in the 1940s, 50s. Freight traffic has obviously declined, but passenger train traffic has likely greatly increased.



Guest said:


> Metro North? Shame on the planners. _*It's convenient for Amtrak to blame MN*_ but MN was a factor they obviously discounted in their planning. If Amtrak is not presented on time at New Haven (westbound) or New Rochelle eastbound MN will then accomodate them as best they can. Amtrak shows up late for the party then whines when they can't get in.
> 
> NYP-NH is 3 miles further than GCT-NH and for your information there is Amtrak only traffic on the Hells' Gate line as oppossed to traversing the Hudson and Harlem lines on the GCT - NH route where the traffic density is much thicker.


Have Amtrak managers blamed MNRR in any sort of official or unofficial public statement for not meeting the 3 hour NYP-BOS goal? The statements in recent years that I have seen on the topic - which Amtrak appears to generally avoid - have mostly been about the inadequate funding to complete the track, bridge, ROW upgrade projects called for in the early 1990s.

Of course, MNRR has plans to run trains to NYP over the New Rochelle line with 2 or 3 new stations after the East Side Access project is completed. Amtrak has plans to re-aligned the tracks and replace the Pelham Bridge for reuced trip times over the Hell Gate Bridge to New Rochelle segment.



Guest said:


> So I ask you again. If Acela I can't get it done why buy Acela II?


Because the Acela II will make more money for Amtrak? The Acela Is bring in 25% of Amtrak's total ticket revenue with a total revenue of $521 million in FY2012 (September 2012 monthly report) and new operating surplus of $206 million. Buy Acela IIs with more passenger capacity, better configuration, maybe more first class seats (Amtrak does pretty well with those from what I have seen), more comfortable ride (one would hope), somewhat improved trip times by 2017 or 2018 (whenever the Acelas might enter revenue service) and make _more_ money. If Amtrak is supposed to be a business, upgrading a service to make more revenue and a greater operating profit is what they should be doing.

You are arguing that Amtrak can do that on the cheap with 125 mph cars. The evidence says no, they can't. The two tier service strategy - high end Acelas - and medium end Regionals has been very successful for Amtrak. They would be smart to stay with that approach.


----------



## NE933 (Dec 23, 2012)

GG, in the arena of high speed rail on the NEC, two things I think we need. 1st, tell your coworker track maintainers to start making love to the train tracks, to the point of putting on a condom and start loving the rail line. Because that's what Amtrak did in the 80's and got a beautiful high speed railroad in which the AEM7 / Amfleet consists gave the cars and planes and doubters in general hell to pay. 2nd, you, really each one of us, must have faith, coupled to competance. It's hard to see positive in a world like this, heck I'm on a sh*tload of meds to stop me from being swallowed in a personal abyss, and know the hurt all too well. And since you work for the very railraod we love you're aware of plenty of dirty little politics and mind games which steals energy from running our railroad on a close, daily basis. The trick is finding a way to turn that power into something legendary. What that is you gotta figure out. Me? I'm a public servant who never worked for a railroad in my life, yet - post brains, brawn, and a big dose of feeling on AU. Ideas are contagous, and we on Alan's discussion forum wield a Fort Knox of knowlege, vision, and good ole fashioned know how. Your work isn't done, GG, but one thing I'll suggest based on what I read of your postings is you've got to get a mastery of your temper and learn to instead blend the anger of injustice with constructive thinking because one never knows: your ideas and energy might get the desired attention of the right leadership, and one must be on the ready to not just complain, no matter how justified, but HOW to solve the problem! Be aware that sometimes obvious problems must be spoken different ways before a solution appears; case point is the lethal problem of vehicles driving in front of trains. Try to see your fellow rail loving posters as crafting heartfelt attempts to solve the problem of a slower than planned Acela, but also see their points as well. A common thread is the role of bad track; fix that and all of us will be in awe! Thanks for wishing Alan a happy Birthday, and may we all leave 2012 healthy and enter a better 2013!


----------



## Guest (Dec 23, 2012)

I am of the opinion that good frequent,dependable(on time),comparable service can be accomplished with standard equipment on the existing "ROW" at a very significant saving of taxpayer dollars. Simply said the same service that we presently have can be provided a lot cheaper and more efficiently.

The Acela did not/cannot do what it was touted to do. It is a waste of money. The ridership and revenue figures will be the same without the Acela and with the service I described above.

High speed trainsets have come and gone here on the NEC over the years as will the Acela (sounds like a medicinal ointment doesn't it?) 

Temper? No. Frustration? Yes. If you were exposed to the day to day operations here at Amtrak you would be frustrated also.

What do you think should be the parameters for the new hire instructors? How much experience should be required to teach?

How much experience should be required to be promoted from assistant conductor to conductor?


----------



## AlanB (Dec 23, 2012)

Guest said:


> I am of the opinion that good frequent,dependable(on time),comparable service can be accomplished with standard equipment on the existing "ROW" at a very significant saving of taxpayer dollars. Simply said the same service that we presently have can be provided a lot cheaper and more efficiently.
> 
> The Acela did not/cannot do what it was touted to do. It is a waste of money. The ridership and revenue figures will be the same without the Acela and with the service I described above.
> 
> High speed trainsets have come and gone here on the NEC over the years as will the Acela (sounds like a medicinal ointment doesn't it?)


History says that you're wrong; sorry! The Metroliners were losing market share and they were not covering operating costs.

Acela, despite it's failings, changed everything. Once again, it may have failed in some areas, but Acela has succeeded in the customer area and the revenue area.


----------



## afigg (Dec 23, 2012)

Anderson said:


> Of course, I also have to wonder if there's even room in the extant alignment NYP-WAS for new tracks. North of NYP, the answer seems to be that you're going to be adding a new routing into the system (whether by upstate CT or by Long Island). There, you can at least point to some incremental additions to Amtrak's served markets and some other options that such plans would make possible (a "Hedgie Bullet" on Long Island, for example, as well as inducing single-seat rides through NYC from places out there). The only way I see major time improvements beyond somewhere in the 2:30 or 2:15 range making any sense there really becomes if you're going to talk about extending high-speed operations south to Richmond or Hampton Roads, and that's such a messy prospect that it's not even funny.


There is room in the existing NYP-WAS ROW for more tracks south of Wilmington. The plans for the NEC appear to upgrade the entire WIL to WAS segment to almost all 4 tracks, except for 3 tracks through the Wilmington station (would be a major challenge to add a 4th track through or by the station), 3 tracks at the Union tunnels in Baltimore, and 3 tracks leading into WAS from Landover interlocking. But those tracks are in the ROW and would be part of the current NEC with presumably a max speed of 160 mph for the segments identified in the Next Gen NEC Vision V2 document.

If you were asking about where the proposed 220 mph tracks would go, I think we all would be interested in seeing the specifics of where the planners are thinking the dedicated high speed tracks could be located. True HSR south of DC would start with replacing the Long Bridge, 4 tracks to south of Alexandria (2 electrified, 2 for CSX), and then make up your own suggested route to Richmond, Petersburg, then over the SE HSR S-Line route to Raleigh for the main trunk with a HSR branch line to Norfolk. Someday perhaps.


----------



## Guest (Dec 23, 2012)

AlanB said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > I am of the opinion that good frequent,dependable(on time),comparable service can be accomplished with standard equipment on the existing "ROW" at a very significant saving of taxpayer dollars. Simply said the same service that we presently have can be provided a lot cheaper and more efficiently.
> ...


History will prove me right; sorry! Why pay more for something you can get/operate cheaper? Once the public and D.C. wise up it will be bye-bye Acela.


----------



## PRR 60 (Dec 23, 2012)

AlanB said:


> History says that you're wrong; sorry! The Metroliners were losing market share and they were not covering operating costs.
> 
> Acela, despite it's failings, changed everything. Once again, it may have failed in some areas, but Acela has succeeded in the customer area and the revenue area.


Actually, not. The Metroliner Service of the mid and late 1990's was not losing market share.

In fact, it was the success of the Metroliner Service that spawned the Acela. The Metroliners showed that a quality, reliable rail service could compete with the air shuttles. Amtrak took that experience and extended it to what became the Acela program. Acela was not an answer to a failing service. It was a the logical next step from a successful service. Had it not been for the Metroliner and what that service proved, there would not have been an Acela.


----------



## George Harris (Dec 23, 2012)

First, our Guest has his mind completely made up, so we are all wasting out time and keyboard tapping with any reason, logic, or evidence to the contrary.

Second, with the multitude of curves and other points requiring slowing down on the Corridor, pure high power to weight ratio is most important, as that determines you acceleration rate. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs a refreshed understanding of the basic laws of physics. The basic acceleration formula says that the force required equals mass times acceleration, Commonly written F=ma. Put it another was, to get a particular acceleration, you can write it as a=F/m, so to get a higher acceleration, you either reduce weight or increase power.

Third, anyone who has ever seen any pictures of any of these wonderful European high speed train sets post-accident, would not consider the extra strength required by the FRA so dumb. Yes, better design could probably have achieved the increased strength with a lesser weight increase, but the builders/designers would not admit to that under torture, because to do so would be to in part admit that the trains running around in Europe did not have the strength they should and could.

Fourth, meaningful further reduction in run times will require alignment improvements.

To improve the B&P tunnels will be a major expense, and still not do a lot for run time. To add a third or fourth track will require additional tunnels. To get any meaningful reduction in run time through Baltimore would require a new route essentially from one side of the city through the other, and it would miss the current station.

There is a railroad alignment that bypasses the Wilmington Station. Looking at a map I suspect it was the Pennsyvania's freight bypass. It is both straighter and shorter than the route through the station. If re-double tracked and electrified it would permit trains not stopping a Wilmington to bypass the station area entirely.


----------



## Paulus (Dec 23, 2012)

George Harris said:


> Third, anyone who has ever seen any pictures of any of these wonderful European high speed train sets post-accident, would not consider the extra strength required by the FRA so dumb. Yes, better design could probably have achieved the increased strength with a lesser weight increase, but the builders/designers would not admit to that under torture, because to do so would be to in part admit that the trains running around in Europe did not have the strength they should and could.


There might be major cosmetic or physical damage, but they perform a hell of a lot better than American equipment when it comes to passenger and crew safety.


----------



## Anderson (Dec 23, 2012)

Well, and I think part of the issue is that we're nowhere _near_ trains skipping Wilmington, or for that matter skipping Trenton or some other stops. The demand isn't quite there to do so on a regular basis, and Amtrak doesn't have the slots (or equipment) to run super-expresses at the peak hours where the demand might exist.


----------



## NE933 (Dec 23, 2012)

Guest is a challenge, unfortunately for me i have a history of being attracted to problem types like this, being one myself, so fate has me locked in. I hope GG does not derive enjoyment of avenging his frustration by causing it in others, for such is the origin of many of mankind's problems; since he (or she) is somebody's son or daughter, trust in his or her capacity to say and do well in life. I believe GG does, for there's a refreshing sense of humor in the remark about Acela sounding like an ointment (David Gunn even once referred to it as another name for a basement). I also hope he picks a better name, something more meaningful that just "Guest", maybe "Traklove" or "GG" or something.

Personal feeliings aside, it is significant that someone out there who works for Amtrak feels strong enough to carry this discussion to now six pages. My beefs with Acela stem from it's first week of service, namely on the 2nd day the only scheduled RT Washington to Boston was cancelled, reportedly because of malfunctioning kitchen equipment. Another issue is the almost non-existant good reason Acela schedules on weekends are up to 15 minutes longer NY to Boston than their M-F counterparts. Unless track maintainers are using sewing needles to keep the rails attached to the ties, the track ought to be fully operational. Note that this anomaly occured even before the present bridge projects in Connecticut.

Then there are the little changes like the toilet flusher turned button, and the much touted beer on tap in the Cafe that went away because they found out beer spills. Duh?! Did the designers get their degrees on dried cow chips or what? These changes must have costed a pretty penny that wiser minds could have put to better use in many of the ideas already mentioned.


----------



## NE933 (Dec 23, 2012)

Guest said:


> History will prove me right; sorry!


Unless your powers run with the divine or sorcery, you have no rightful claim to that exclamation until the time arrives and has past.


----------



## George Harris (Dec 23, 2012)

Paulus said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > Third, anyone who has ever seen any pictures of any of these wonderful European high speed train sets post-accident, would not consider the extra strength required by the FRA so dumb. Yes, better design could probably have achieved the increased strength with a lesser weight increase, but the builders/designers would not admit to that under torture, because to do so would be to in part admit that the trains running around in Europe did not have the strength they should and could.
> ...


NO THEY DON'T. Do some research and you will find out.


----------



## afigg (Dec 23, 2012)

NE933 said:


> Personal feeliings aside, it is significant that someone out there who works for Amtrak feels strong enough to carry this discussion to now six pages. My beefs with Acela stem from it's first week of service, namely on the 2nd day the only scheduled RT Washington to Boston was cancelled, reportedly because of malfunctioning kitchen equipment. Another issue is the almost non-existant good reason Acela schedules on weekends are up to 15 minutes longer NY to Boston than their M-F counterparts. Unless track maintainers are using sewing needles to keep the rails attached to the ties, the track ought to be fully operational. Note that this anomaly occured even before the present bridge projects in Connecticut.


Checking the current Amtrak NYP-BOS schedules, the weekend Acelas have scheduled trip times of 3:37 to 3:43 with the longer times for the only 2 Acelas on Saturday. The weekday trip times are usually ~ 3:37. Not much difference there. If the weekend trip times were longer than weekdays at one point, well, that would probably be due to track work which also may include track work on the Short Line East or RI, MA. The traffic load is lighter on weekends, so that is when a lot of track work with tracks taken out of service is done. The current CDOT bridge project causing 2 tracks to be taken OOS is supposed to be done by early 2014 and the CDOT catenary replacement work is supposed to be completed by 2017. Eventually NYP-BOS Acela scheduled trip times will be back under 3:30.


----------



## George Harris (Dec 23, 2012)

NE933 said:


> Another issue is the almost non-existant good reason Acela schedules on weekends are up to 15 minutes longer NY to Boston than their M-F counterparts. Unless track maintainers are using sewing needles to keep the rails attached to the ties, the track ought to be fully operational. Note that this anomaly occured even before the present bridge projects in Connecticut.


49CFR213 has a whole list of track inspection requirements for all classes of tracks. Most high speed railway systems shut down for a few hours a night. Look at the Shinkansen schedules and you will see nothing between midnight and bout 6:00am. Track is not near as maintenance free as you might imagine.


----------



## afigg (Dec 23, 2012)

George Harris said:


> First, our Guest has his mind completely made up, so we are all wasting out time and keyboard tapping with any reason, logic, or evidence to the contrary.


Agreed.



George Harris said:


> To improve the B&P tunnels will be a major expense, and still not do a lot for run time. To add a third or fourth track will require additional tunnels. To get any meaningful reduction in run time through Baltimore would require a new route essentially from one side of the city through the other, and it would miss the current station.


The current plans for the B&P tunnel are to build the new great circle route 2 track tunnel and once traffic moves to the new tunnel, to close and rehabilitate the existing B&P tunnel. That would provide 4 tracks between Baltimore Penn Station and west Baltimore. I expect Amtrak would mostly use the new tunnel and MARC local traffic would get stuck with the rehabbed old B&P tunnel.

But, yes, to get a significant reduction in trip time through Baltimore would require an entirely new long tunnel and route under Baltimore such as presented in Next Gen NEC Vision plan. Seriously expensive concept though. I don't expect to see it happen.

On the other hand, Senator Barbara Mikulski became Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee this week succeeding Senator Inouye. That is a very powerful position when it comes to protecting and steering project funding to your state. Mikulski is likely to support the major Amtrak NEC projects in MD: B&P Tunnel replacement, Susquehanna Bridge replacement, 4th track & BWI station rebuild, when the funding requests come in. She would also be likely to directly support NEC projects in DE, NJ, NY, CT than the previous Chairmen Inouye of Hawaii, Byrd of WV, or Ted Stevens of AK.


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2012)

Guest above is expressing fairly typical sentiments among Amtrak employess: that is to say, "Change is necessarily bad." It's what keeps Amtrak from being truly successful. Changes are needed, some of which Amtrak could accomplish alone, others of which would require significant government intervention. As a longtime employee, I see a constant need among other employees to pooh-pooh anything that might require a bit of activation of grey matter. It's an attitudinal problem in all departments, and at all levels. And it has to stop, if people really want to stay employed, and want the US to have a world-class rail system (currently it's far from that).


----------



## NE933 (Dec 24, 2012)

George Harris said:


> NE933 said:
> 
> 
> > Another issue is the almost non-existant good reason Acela schedules on weekends are up to 15 minutes longer NY to Boston than their M-F counterparts. Unless track maintainers are using sewing needles to keep the rails attached to the ties, the track ought to be fully operational. Note that this anomaly occured even before the present bridge projects in Connecticut.
> ...


I know it's intense and i don't imagine in any way it isn't.

It sound's like our Acela line should be maintained at night, just as you said the other high speed systems do, since the only train running is the Night Owl, and not do it during daylight hours on weekends.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 24, 2012)

PRR 60 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > History says that you're wrong; sorry! The Metroliners were losing market share and they were not covering operating costs.
> ...


Bill,

I'd have to go digging, if it's even still available, but I recall hearing during the last few years of the Metroliner service pre-Acela that its market share had started to slip a bit. Or perhaps it was Warrington hype.

I do agree that the Metroliner's proved to Amtrak however that people would pay for a premium service.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 24, 2012)

Guest said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Guest said:
> ...


The public has already proven that they will pay for a premium service. Ridership just since 2003 has gone way up!

And Europe proves you wrong too!


----------



## George Harris (Dec 24, 2012)

NE933 said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > NE933 said:
> ...


I am fairly sure a lot of maintenance is currently done at night. Anything that requires closure of a track for more than a couple of hours is done on weekends. Therefore, a little extra time in the weekend schedules.


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2012)

Guest said:


> Guest above is expressing fairly typical sentiments among Amtrak employess: that is to say, "Change is necessarily bad." It's what keeps Amtrak from being truly successful. Changes are needed, some of which Amtrak could accomplish alone, others of which would require significant government intervention. As a longtime employee, I see a constant need among other employees to pooh-pooh anything that might require a bit of activation of grey matter. It's an attitudinal problem in all departments, and at all levels. And it has to stop, if people really want to stay employed, and want the US to have a world-class rail system (currently it's far from that).


 "expressing fairly typical sentiments among Amtrak employess" make that longtime employees and I agree 100%.


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2012)

AlanB said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


To compare Europe's high speed rail to the U.S. attempt seriously erodes , along with your flawed Metroliner stats, your credibility . Europe, as was Japan, was bombed in to rubble during World War II and their infrastrucrures were rebuilt courtesy of SCAP and the Marshall Plan. So Alan, their infrastructure was replaced in the late 1940's with an eye on the future (read straight-er) while the U.S. infrastructure dates back to the mid 1800's and here in the northeast it followed a circuitous (read curves)route to service industries, mills, etc.

So I conclude that high speed rail on the existing "ROW" is a waste of taxpayer dollars.


----------



## Anderson (Dec 24, 2012)

AlanB said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


On the one hand, I think it was probably Warrington hype. On the other hand, it's also possible that there was a dip in market share as airfares bottomed out in the '90s, albeit likely an unsustainable dip as those fuel prices (i.e. $.90 gasoline) weren't going to last beyond the next Mideast crisis.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 24, 2012)

Guest said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Guest said:
> ...


I wasn't trying to compare high speed rail; I was comparing a premium product. Like it or not, Acela is a premium product.

That said, as I've noted before and you continue to ignore, even a matter of a few minutes is important to people. So if Amtrak can make more money by offering a premium product that runs a whopping 10 minutes faster NYP to WAS than the Regional, then I'm all for it. You can think the riders crazy if you like, but that extra revenue helps pay the bills. And that's what matters the most; not whether it realized the promise of 3 hours. Or whether it's a mechanical monstrosity.

It's about revenue! It's about ridership!

And Acela is delivering that. Back in fiscal 2000, which ended September 2000 and 3 months before the first Acela trainset ever turned a wheel, the Metroliners carried 2,408,244 riders and they earned$ 216,350,046 in revenue. That works out to $89.84 average fare per passenger. Last year, fiscal 2012, Acela carried 3,395,354 riders or nearly 1 million more people. Acela earned $508,080,295 or just shy of $300 Million more in revenue. Yes, some of that is simply inflation. That's $149.64 per rider or $60 more per ticket sold in revenue.

That makes Acela more than the utter failure you claim it to be! I admit that I'm a railfan. But I'm also not the foamer that you may think I am. I'm a realist. I know that the truth lies in the middle. You're an extremist! You only see the utter failure because you refuse to look at the big picture. In your world Acela's failure to deliver on 3 hours makes it a failure. Well thankfully it's not the utter failure that you want to believe, because you probably wouldn't have a job anymore if it had been the failure that you believe. I think that the other guest hit the nail on the head. You're just one of those opposed to change.

Acela may not be a rousing success because it didn't meet it's other goals. But it is also not a total & complete failure like you think.


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2012)

AlanB said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


 Would you like to buy a bridge? hboy: 
I am not at all opposed to change but it must sensible change.Ccan't you see that high speed trains on the NEC existing "ROW" are a waste of taxpayer dollars? The "big picture"? I certainly do look at the big picture I was railroading before Amtrak was 'born' and you know something, and I'm not alone in my feelings, they really haven't got it right yet. They are still employing the trial and error hit and miss tactics since their inception. It's tragic what they have done to this (NEC) railroad.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Dec 24, 2012)

As someone who is old enough to have ridden both the Metro Liners and now Acela on the NEC, I have to agree with Alan on this matter! When I first rode the Metroliners between WAS and NYP most of my co-workers still took the Cattle cars, er Eastern Shuttle and couldnt understand why someone would want to ride a train when they could fly? :wacko: This was before the days of cell phones, lap tops, i-pads etc. and it was nice to get away from the cities for awhile and relax in the mostly quite cars (except when the drunks would get out of hand! :giggle: ) I also frequently rode on the old New haven RR between BOS and NYP, mostly in the Club Car/Lounge where Beer was an exhorbirent $1 a Bottle but the ride sure was nice!

Basically there are Three Kinds of People, those who see the Glass as Half Full or Half Empty, and those who see it as Completely Empty!  Think most of us on here, like Alan are Realists, not Apologists for Amtrak, so I just gotta say I think the Poster who has no use for Acelas on the NEC is Full of it!


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2012)

jimhudson said:


> As someone who is old enough to have ridden both the Metro Liners and now Acela on the NEC, I have to agree with Alan on this matter! When I first rode the Metroliners between WAS and NYP most of my co-workers still took the Cattle cars, er Eastern Shuttle and couldnt understand why someone would want to ride a train when they could fly? :wacko: This was before the days of cell phones, lap tops, i-pads etc. and it was nice to get away from the cities for awhile and relax in the mostly quite cars (except when the drunks would get out of hand! :giggle: ) I also frequently rode on the old New haven RR between BOS and NYP, mostly in the Club Car/Lounge where Beer was an exhorbirent $1 a Bottle but the ride sure was nice!
> 
> Basically there are Three Kinds of People, those who see the Glass as Half Full or Half Empty, and those who see it as Completely Empty!  Think most of us on here, like Alan are Realists, not Apologists for Amtrak, so I just gotta say I think the Poster who has no use for Acelas on the NEC is Full of it!


"Full of it"? Are you another miffed railfan? Are you so in love with trains that you are blinded to the fact (or don't care) that the taxpayer is being fleeced for monies to support a high speed rail project that is not high speed?

Read the posts and find where I stated anything that is not true. All of those 'little' amenities you mention which seem to mask the fact that the Acela is not much faster than the Regionals can in fact be fitted to the present fleet of standard equipment at considerably less money than purchasing an Acela II.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Dec 24, 2012)

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, and you are correct about Acela not being worth the Premium Price over a Regional! But most folks whoi ride Acela, especially FC, are VIPs and Wealthy Business Travels that have their expenses paid by the taxpayers! I personally only ride Acela when it is Paid for by someone else, a Regional is fine for me whether Paid or AGR! <_<

As to the "HSR" thing, that's a political Word that the WAS Suits throw around, we will NEVER have 300MPH Trains like the Orient and Europe, it would Bankrupt our Country to build such Real HSR Routes, and there is not the Political Will to fund such a Project even though other Countries such as China are doing it as we speak! I wish it wasnt called HSR either, but a Rose by any Other Name etc.!

I am a Railfan and Amtrak Supporter, but not a Foamer, I would say, since I'm 68 years old, that I have probably traveled many millions of miles on all Forms of Transportation in most of the World, so I do think I am a realist! Amtrak has lots of problems, lots of stuff that can be improved, some of it is,Slowly! You have to know the Cultural in Washington to understand why things work so Slowly and become FUBARd so much! It's actually a Miracle that Amtrak still exists! (It was set up by Nixon to FAIL!!) Im glad we have Amtrak, hope we have it to kick around for many more years, the Alternative is Not Pleasantt to think about! YMMV!!


----------



## Blackwolf (Dec 24, 2012)

*sigh* Semantics aside, *Amtrak is going to purchase Acela II's. *Like it or not. Cup half full/half empty/completely brimming or bone dry. And baring any major forced reconsideration, the new sets are going to be Tier III compliant. I see no end to the argument of failure or not based on one's personal opinion here on this forum or elsewhere.

Call it a waste of money because the NEC is not going to see TGV speeds in the next 30 years if you want to. But Amtrak, the Acela I and II, and rail travel in the Northeast is not going anywhere but toward even more ridership as time goes on.


----------



## Anderson (Dec 24, 2012)

Guest said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> > As someone who is old enough to have ridden both the Metro Liners and now Acela on the NEC, I have to agree with Alan on this matter! When I first rode the Metroliners between WAS and NYP most of my co-workers still took the Cattle cars, er Eastern Shuttle and couldnt understand why someone would want to ride a train when they could fly? :wacko: This was before the days of cell phones, lap tops, i-pads etc. and it was nice to get away from the cities for awhile and relax in the mostly quite cars (except when the drunks would get out of hand! :giggle: ) I also frequently rode on the old New haven RR between BOS and NYP, mostly in the Club Car/Lounge where Beer was an exhorbirent $1 a Bottle but the ride sure was nice!
> ...


Ok, let's see...the Acela turns a profit and cross-subsidizes the rest of the Amtrak system above the rails, and based on my understanding, they were expecting to be able to pay for at _least_ the 40 supplementary cars with added revenue. There's a good chance the Acela IIs will pay for themselves all told. So I think the claim that the Acela is a taxpayer ripoff is dubious.

Maybe, by your insinuation, people are stupid. Maybe the seats on the Acela (which _are_ nicer than those on the Regional, especially in FC) make a differe.nce, too. It may have also been the presence of Wi-Fi (which was _really_ nice heading from DC to Boston one time and which can't have hurt). I don't have hard numbers going back before the Acela was running, so I can't see how well the Acela did vs. the Metroliners in 2000 or 1995. Hell, maybe George Warrington sprinkled the sets with pixie dust! The point is that the shiny, new trains with marginal time improvements sold to folks.

I will say that it's probably better to compare the Acelas to a combo of what the Metroliners actually _achieved_ NYP-WAS on the one hand, and what the New Haven looked like in the late 40s and early 50s on the other (as things rather went to hell by the late 60s even if the timetables didn't keep pace with the decline). But I'd also point out that even before the Acelas, Amtrak did a lot to improve the NEC from the mess that it inherited in the 70s (which was, at least south of NYP, an improvement over what existed in the early 60s).

Another point: If improved speeds improves ridership and revenue, do it. If better seats improves things, do that. If just repainting the equipment improves things, then do _that_. Heck, if putting a couple of Orks in the drivers seat and painting red on the sides improves the operation's performance and attracts riders, then do _that_! It doesn't really matter if the reason the Acela worked was because timekeeping and speeds improved, because the seats were nicer, or because the ad office earned their keep. The Acela worked, and it worked a miracle.


----------



## Anderson (Dec 24, 2012)

Just for reference:


```
Metroliner    Metroliner    Standard    Standard
   Coach        Metroclub    Coach        Parlor
1971    $17.00        $27.40        $13.00        $23.15
1971*    $94.40        $152.00        $72.20        $129.00
2012 S    -------        -------        $49.00        $89.00
2012 L    $145.00        $254.00        $80.00        $120.00
2012 H    $242.00        $351.00        $153.00        $193.00
```
Second row is 1971 adjusted for inflation to 2011 (I don't have data for 2012 yet), and I used the numbers from back in May. Numbers below are the "advance special", the lowest (other) bucket, and the top bucket. Obviously, for 2012, the Acela is substituted for the Metroliner. Bottom line: In real terms, the Acela at low bucket is kicking the Metroliner's butt in terms of yielded fares. At high bucket, you're well over twice the fare.


----------



## George Harris (Dec 24, 2012)

Guest said:


> "Full of it"? Are you another miffed railfan? Are you so in love with trains that you are blinded to the fact (or don't care) that the taxpayer is being fleeced for monies to support a high speed rail project that is not high speed?


If I am understanding correctly, you are saying that the only way to properly do this is to build a completely new railroad. I can think of almost nothing more unrealistic than that. It is simiply not going to happen. If it were seriously proposed to do so, our grandchildren would still be dealing with the various impact statements, studies of this and that, and lawsuits. Cost? You could probably build a new high speed between New York and Chicago or Chicago and Los Angeles cheaper. Where is a sufficiently straight line to be found between Washington, New York, and Boston to be able to run a consistent 150 mph or faster speed. (If you want to go for 150 mph, you might as well go for 250 mph as there will be littile difference in either difficulty of finding the alignment or the cost.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 24, 2012)

Guest said:


> Would you like to buy a bridge? hboy:


As indicated right below my name to the left of my posts, I live in NY City. As a NYC taxpayer, I already own the bridge.

So I deal in facts, like the ones that I post.



Guest said:


> I am not at all opposed to change but it must sensible change.Ccan't you see that high speed trains on the NEC existing "ROW" are a waste of taxpayer dollars?


No, I can't see that because it's not true. Acela was designed to improve speeds on the NEC and to improve revenue and customer satisfaction. While it failed to achieve the original, and probably lofty goals of the first item, it still has improved speeds over the equipment that was running at the time it was conceived. And it has accomplished the second two things. And they are just as important, if not more important than the first. An Acela that makes Boston - New York in 3 hours but runs with fewer passengers and less revenue is not something that we want.or need.

As for wasting taxpayer dollars, consider that the Acela trainsets cost Amtrak $1.2 Billion. Acela since 2003 has made an operating profit of $1.271 Billion 2003 through 2012. While I grant that there are other capital costs, like the slightly higher track standards for the 135 MPH to 150 MPH track sections, that should get charged to Acela, But Acela has technically paid for the trainsets with its operating profits.

Please show me a Superliner coach that has made enough money to cover it's price tag.



Guest said:


> The "big picture"? I certainly do look at the big picture I was railroading before Amtrak was 'born' and you know something, and I'm not alone in my feelings, they really haven't got it right yet. They are still employing the trial and error hit and miss tactics since their inception. It's tragic what they have done to this (NEC) railroad.


I wouldn't argue that Amtrak doesn't have it right. I agree. Amtrak gets many things wrong. Certainly all the monkeying with Acela specs which was partly Amtrak, partly FRA, and partly the consortium didn't help. But they also do get some things right, like for example the fact that they no push more trains through NYP than ever before. But unfortunately they are also being held back by the negativity of those like you. You continue to sit here concerned with only one thing, Acela didn't meet its advertised running times. Ergo, that makes it a colossal failure. And that is wrong! Sorry.

Yes, it didn't meet that goal. But the customers like it and they are willing to pay for it. And that is just as important, if not more important that those speed goals. And it certainly means that while Acela did not perhaps achieve as much success as it might have had they met the speed goals, it does make the train a success.


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2012)

George Harris said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > "Full of it"? Are you another miffed railfan? Are you so in love with trains that you are blinded to the fact (or don't care) that the taxpayer is being fleeced for monies to support a high speed rail project that is not high speed?
> ...


Yes the only way to achieve true high speed rail is to build a dedicated infrastructure. Now point out to me where I say I am in favor of it. I'll wait.


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2012)

AlanB said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > Would you like to buy a bridge? hboy:
> ...


Alan answer me these questions. What is a high speed train supposed to do?

Why have it if it can't perform much better than the service it is replacing? :huh:


----------



## AlanB (Dec 24, 2012)

Guest said:


> Alan answer me these questions. What is a high speed train supposed to do?
> 
> Why have it if it can't perform much better than the service it is replacing? :huh:


Do you even bother to read what gets written? Or do you just keep charging at walls while ignoring everything that has been said?

A high speed train is supposed to attract and carry passengers at higher speeds. Does Acela do that? Yes!

Again, it doesn't manage to do it along the entire ROW at it's highest speed. But it is carrying passengers faster than the conventional trains and it has attracted more business. An empty train going 220 MPH is NOT a successful high speed train.

I'll say this once again, SPEED is not the only consideration here! Maybe in your mind it is because your disappointed that you don't have train to drive at 220 MPH. But that is not what this is about. This train is still a success for Amtrak! It makes money. The Passengers like it. You know those passengers, the ones that pay your salary! That alone makes it better than what it replaced. Meatloaf wrote a song several years back entitled "2 out of 3 ain't bad." Well Acela has hit that mark. It had 3 major goals, higher speeds, more market share, more revenue. It succeeded on the last two and partially failed on the first, since it is higher speed than before but not as high as advertised.


----------



## Trogdor (Dec 25, 2012)

Guest said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > Guest above is expressing fairly typical sentiments among Amtrak employess: that is to say, "Change is necessarily bad." It's what keeps Amtrak from being truly successful. Changes are needed, some of which Amtrak could accomplish alone, others of which would require significant government intervention. As a longtime employee, I see a constant need among other employees to pooh-pooh anything that might require a bit of activation of grey matter. It's an attitudinal problem in all departments, and at all levels. And it has to stop, if people really want to stay employed, and want the US to have a world-class rail system (currently it's far from that).
> ...


So, you're basically agreeing that you're among the people that are preventing Amtrak from becoming truly successful?


----------



## Paulus (Dec 25, 2012)

George Harris said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> > George Harris said:
> ...


I have, and I'd love to see your explanation of why the TGV or other UIC compliant equipment has a far better safety record than American equipment in comparable events. The only terribly bad one for a UIC set was Eschede and quite frankly, you're screwed no matter what in that scenario. I'd also love to see why you think that Caltrain's study, and the resultant FRA waiver, which showed greater safety for UIC equipment is flawed.


----------



## Anderson (Dec 25, 2012)

Paulus said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > Paulus said:
> ...


At least with the Acela, are there any real accidents to compare?


----------



## Guest (Dec 25, 2012)

AlanB said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > Alan answer me these questions. What is a high speed train supposed to do?
> ...


Alan is has now become perfectly obvious that you are so enamored of the Acela Express that you lash out at those who would dare speak against it. The Acela Express has been force fed to the public. Time will, as it has in the past, prove that true high speed (sustained) will not take place on the existing "ROW".

*SPEED IS THE CONSIDERATION when HIGH SPEED is proposed.* What part of that don't you comprehend?

*"Do you even bother to read what gets written?"*

I certainly do it's seems that you do not as you do not realize that the Acela Express is no faster than the trains of 50 and 60 years ago.

*"A high speed train is supposed to attract and carry passengers at higher speeds. Does Acela do that? **Yes!"*

The statement above is evidence of your 'unconditional love' for the Acela as is the unconditional love a dog has for his master. The dog doesn't care about his master's faults, failures or shortcomings he is intensely loyal and protective. Do you see the similarity?

*"Maybe in your mind it is because your disappointed that you don't have train to drive at 220 MPH."*

Let me tell you this Alan I do not become giddy and moist when I "drive" the Acela at 150 mph I've felt more accomplished "driving" a 10,000 ton freight @ 50 mph. It takes infinitely more skill and knowledge. There is no 'device' to assist you in not ripping the train apart. Were their still freight service in my area I would leave this clusterf*** called Amtrak in a heartbeat.

Go back and read my posts for the real time happenings on Amtrak.

Like I said I am a disappointed employee. Amtrak has tried to re-invent the wheel and trashed a perfectly good operation. Billions of dollars and 42 years and they don't have it right yet.

Then again, given your age, along with your suspect stats you probably don't know any better. 

One more time. Acela Express.

Why have it if it can't perform much better than the service it is replacing?


----------



## Ryan (Dec 25, 2012)

Because it does perform much better?


----------



## J-1 3235 (Dec 25, 2012)

I have to stop clicking on this thread..........


----------



## Ryan (Dec 25, 2012)

It's like the Christmas gift that keeps on giving!


----------



## Blackwolf (Dec 25, 2012)

I'll take the lumps of coal over this perpetual 'gift'. At least those are useful!


----------



## George Harris (Dec 25, 2012)

Paulus said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > Paulus said:
> ...


"Chapter and verse" your information.


----------



## NE933 (Dec 25, 2012)

This is penance for our sins. And by the way GG, you're already moist, it's that giddy part that needs work. Do and say something different, wash your hair, give someone a kiss, I don't know. Today is Dec 25 and we supposed to be Merry. Instead I'm with my mother in physical rehab and no friends have visited. A week ago twenty little kids got shot. This is by far the worst Christmas holiday in a looonng time. Would't it be nice to see something uplifting for a change.


----------



## Caesar La Rock (Dec 25, 2012)

Why is this thread still active? What's with the argument? Sheesh guys your making a big deal out of this.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 25, 2012)

Guest said:


> Alan is has now become perfectly obvious that you are so enamored of the Acela Express that you lash out at those who would dare speak against it.


Clearly nothing is obvious to you. My first Amtrak ride ever took place on a Metroliner at 14. Years later when I started riding Amtrak in earnest, most rides were on a Metroliner. I Ride Acela today because it's the only option. While there are things that I like about Acela and that I find superior to the Metroliner, the Metroliner will probably always be my favorite train.



Guest said:


> The Acela Express has been force fed to the public. Time will, as it has in the past, prove that true high speed (sustained) will not take place on the existing "ROW".


Disagree on the first. Don't need time at all to know that "true high speed" will never be possible on the existing ROW. Already know that and others have stated that already in this topic.



Guest said:


> *SPEED IS THE CONSIDERATION when HIGH SPEED is proposed.* What part of that don't you comprehend?


What part of "high speed isn't the only consideration" do you not comprehend?

Yes, it didn't achieve its stated goal of the hours. But it is faster and it does show that we can go faster and most importantly the customer likes it.



Guest said:


> *"Do you even bother to read what gets written?"*
> 
> I certainly do it's seems that you do not as you do not realize that the Acela Express is no faster than the trains of 50 and 60 years ago.


Since we don't have the operating conditions of 50 years ago we don't have an accurate comparison to make.



Guest said:


> *"A high speed train is supposed to attract and carry passengers at higher speeds. Does Acela do that? **Yes!"*
> 
> The statement above is evidence of your 'unconditional love' for the Acela as is the unconditional love a dog has for his master. The dog doesn't care about his master's faults, failures or shortcomings he is intensely loyal and protective. Do you see the similarity?


Your response shows that once again you fail to understand the fact that this is not just about speed. No doubt this is due to your hatred, anger, or whatever it is about Amtrak that causes you to put on your blinders.

See I'm fair. I see both good & bad at Amtrak. You are so blinded that all you can see is bad. In real life there is always good and bad. It is never 100% all bad.



Guest said:


> *"Maybe in your mind it is because your disappointed that you don't have train to drive at 220 MPH."*
> 
> Let me tell you this Alan I do not become giddy and moist when I "drive" the Acela at 150 mph I've felt more accomplished "driving" a 10,000 ton freight @ 50 mph. It takes infinitely more skill and knowledge. There is no 'device' to assist you in not ripping the train apart. Were their still freight service in my area I would leave this clusterf*** called Amtrak in a heartbeat.


Ah, one of those "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence guys". Go read sites like CSX sucks and you'll learn that the freights are no better, and may even be worse.



Guest said:


> Go back and read my posts for the real time happenings on Amtrak.


No point, it's clearly clouded by your anger towards Amtrak.



Guest said:


> Then again, given your age, along with your suspect stats you probably don't know any better.


My stats have been verified in most cases by the GAO and accepted by a hostile Congress. A Congress where certain members would take great delight in catching Amtrak putting out false info. Which is why they constantly send the GAO in to investigate.



Guest said:


> One more time. Acela Express.
> 
> Why have it if it can't perform much better than the service it is replacing?


But it is performing better than the Metroliner service that it replaced. It is faster than the Metroliner, not much, but it is faster. It has a much higher ridership Han the Metroliner. And its revenues far exceed those of the Metroliner.


----------



## leemell (Dec 25, 2012)

Alan, I've had to deal with people like this in my job, there is just no convincing them that there is anything other than their own perception of things that is the truth and feel it is necessary to badmouth their employer. The bad thing is that even if they do a satisfactory job, they poison the well of other employees and that usually hinders any improvement in the organization. With an employee you have option of counseling and without mitigation, termination. Here, it is better just to quit responding. Posting without response is in the end very frustrating and causes the poster to just quit and sometimes leave.


----------



## Anderson (Dec 25, 2012)

Alan,

Why are this clown's posts not just being deleted at this point?


----------



## leemell (Dec 25, 2012)

Anderson said:


> Alan,
> 
> Why are this clown's posts not just being deleted at this point?


And then there is that.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 25, 2012)

leemell said:


> Alan, I've had to deal with people like this in my job, there is just no convincing them that there is anything other than their own perception of things that is the truth and feel it is necessary to badmouth their employer. The bad thing is that even if they do a satisfactory job, they poison the well of other employees and that usually hinders any improvement in the organization. With an employee you have option of counseling and without mitigation, termination. Here, it is better just to quit responding. Posting without response is in the end very frustrating and causes the poster to just quit and sometimes leave.


Was it not your signature that said something to the effect of "Never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"?
If not you, someone did/does, and this is a great example of it.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Dec 25, 2012)

J-1 3235 said:


> I have to stop clicking on this thread..........


I keep telling myself the same thing...but here I am.


----------



## leemell (Dec 25, 2012)

Ryan said:


> leemell said:
> 
> 
> > Alan, I've had to deal with people like this in my job, there is just no convincing them that there is anything other than their own perception of things that is the truth and feel it is necessary to badmouth their employer. The bad thing is that even if they do a satisfactory job, they poison the well of other employees and that usually hinders any improvement in the organization. With an employee you have option of counseling and without mitigation, termination. Here, it is better just to quit responding. Posting without response is in the end very frustrating and causes the poster to just quit and sometimes leave.
> ...


Not me.


----------



## trainviews (Dec 25, 2012)

Guest said:


> To compare Europe's high speed rail to the U.S. attempt seriously erodes , along with your flawed Metroliner stats, your credibility . Europe, as was Japan, was bombed in to rubble during World War II and their infrastrucrures were rebuilt courtesy of SCAP and the Marshall Plan. So Alan, their infrastructure was replaced in the late 1940's with an eye on the future (read straight-er) while the U.S. infrastructure dates back to the mid 1800's and here in the northeast it followed a circuitous (read curves)route to service industries, mills, etc.
> 
> So I conclude that high speed rail on the existing "ROW" is a waste of taxpayer dollars.


Evaluating your knowledge about US railways I will leave to others, but I shure hope that it is better than your knowledge of European rail.

Across Europe damaged railways after the war were largely repaired within a few years. It could only be done that fast, because with few exceptions they were put back in their original 19th century ROW - if not for any other reason then because the majority of them were only broken in spots, and resources at the time did certainly not allow for any more construction than absolutely necessary to get things moving again.

Additionally Marshall aid did not start rolling in until 1948/49, long after all the important lines were back in service.

Finally it is pretty ridiculous to say "Europe" was bombed to rubble, as the level of destruction varied greatly. In countries that had seen bombings, cities were damaged, and with it rail infrastructure there, but not the bulk of the lines in rural areas (Britain), other places had seen little bombing, but heavy fighting in areas with bridges etc blown up (i.e parts of the Netherlands), and others again partisan activity (a.o. France) directed at railroads to stop German troop and supplies movements. And then a few had been neutral and saw no damage at all (Sweden, Spain), Yet it makes no difference at all to whether these countries have high speed rail today - as it did't start to get build until the late '70's. It has solely been a political decision made long after the war to invest in new HSR ROW or to upgrade existing ROW's to about Acela top speed, depending which strategy the different countries have followed.

So to use lack of war damages as an excuse for the lack of HSR in the US is bogus. The difference has been political will.

And by the way - I don't think it is OK to refer to other posters as dogs. But I will state that GG doing so gives the impression of a despicable human being.


----------



## Anderson (Dec 25, 2012)

Well, I think we need to differentiate the ICE services in Germany (which use the prewar RoWs and run at 110/125 MPH, I believe) or the InterCity125 in Britain (which runs at 125 MPH on Victorian-era lines, albeit with some improvements) from HSR services such as the TGV. The former were set up on preexisting routes with improvements, while the latter were set up on new, purpose-designed alignments.


----------



## Guest (Dec 25, 2012)

I was going to respond until I read the last paragraph. Dogs? You call me a despicable human being? That can be done over the internet with no fear of retaliation.

However I fear that I have injected some unwanted reality in to your circle jerk. It seems you all prefer to remain in your fantasyland.

The info below is for Alan B. Alan stated with convicction that the Acela was faster than the Metroliner. Once more his info is flawed.

Continue with your love fest and when I see folks along the way with cameras I'll be able to identify the posters here by the 'wood' they are displaying. :lol:

There is a reason for stereotypes and you folks are one the best.

*Metroliner** (train)*

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Metroliner (Amtrak))

Jump to: navigation, search

For other uses, see Metroliner (disambiguation). _Metroliner_ 



Budd Pennsylvania Railroad

Metroliner electric multiple-unit car circa 1968

before acceptance. All Metroliners, including this

car, entered revenue service wearing Penn

Central identification. Overview Service type Inter-city rail Status Discontinued Locale Northeast Corridor First service 1969 Last service 2006 Successor _Acela Express_ Former operator(s) Penn Central (1969-1971)

Amtrak (1971-2006) Route Start New York City End Washington, DC Distance travelled 226 miles (364 km) *Average journey time* *2 hours 30 minutes (1969)**[1]* Service frequency 6 per day in each direction On-board services Class(es) Business and First Technical Rolling stock


Budd Metroliners (1969-1981)
 

EMD AEM-7s (1981-2006)
 

Amfleet coaches (1981-2006)


Gauge 4 ft 8 1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) Operating speed up to 125 mph (201 km/h) Track owner(s) PC, Amtrak [hide]Route map


Legend​



 0 New York 

 New York New Jersey 

 North River Tunnels 

 10 mi _16 km_ Newark 

 58 mi _93 km_ Trenton 

 New Jersey Pennsylvania 

 91 mi _146 km_ Philadelphia 

 Pennsylvania Delaware 

 116 mi _187 km_ Wilmington http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/BSicon_exGRENZE.svg/20px-BSicon_exGRENZE.svg.png Delaware Maryland http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/BSicon_exHST.svg/20px-BSicon_exHST.svg.png 185 mi _298 km_ Baltimore http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/BSicon_exHST.svg/20px-BSicon_exHST.svg.png 196 mi _315 km_ BWI Airport http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/BSicon_exGRENZE.svg/20px-BSicon_exGRENZE.svg.png Maryland District of Columbia http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3a/BSicon_exKBHFe.svg/20px-BSicon_exKBHFe.svg.png 225 mi _362 km_ Washington

The _*Metroliner*_ was a premium express train service between Washington, D.C., and New York City in the United States from 1969 to 2006.[2][3] It was first operated by Penn Central Transportation, successor to the Pennsylvania Railroad, and later by Amtrak.

Originally operated with self-powered electric multiple unit cars, which were later replaced with locomotive-hauled trainsets due to their vastly decreasing reliability and other issues (such as being demoted to 90 miles per hour in the late 1970s), the train offered reserved business-class and first-class seating.* A trip between New York's **Pennsylvania Station** and Washington, D.C.'s **Union Station** took approximately 2.5 hours.**[4]*


----------



## Guest (Dec 25, 2012)

"Clown" you say Anderson?


----------



## MattW (Dec 25, 2012)

Not sure why I'm getting involved, but if you had bothered to look at the source for that number (little superscript "1") It would have taken you to an historic timetable which shows that the only train that made 2:30 New York to Washington was a non-stop train which made NO stops between New York and Washington. Train 101 which has a similar stopping pattern to most Washington-New York Acelas, made the trip in 2:40. The other trains take 2:59. The fastest Acela I can find between New York and Washington takes 2:45 and adds a stop at Wilmington. Amtrak tried a non-stop limited-stop service with the Acela (I believe this was noted earlier in the topic) and it was a colossal flop because as has been noted repeatedly, the true measure of success for a train is in the ridership, and not speed alone.


----------



## afigg (Dec 25, 2012)

MattW said:


> Amtrak tried this non-stop service with the Acela (I believe this was noted earlier in the topic) and it was a colossal flop because as has been noted repeatedly, the true measure of success for a train is in the ridership, and not speed alone.


Amtrak tried an NYP-WAS express Acela in early 2008 which only stopped in PHL with a scheduled trip time of 2:35.

In regards to the posts above in the thread, the tone is getting rather un-christmasly. This thread may need a timeout. Is it possible to lock out guest posters from this posting in this thread? That would force GGG to sign up under an account name if he wants to continue to argue in this thread.


----------



## MattW (Dec 25, 2012)

Oh yes, thanks for the correction. I should have indicated that I wasn't sure what the times for Amtrak's WAS-PHL-NYP only trains were, my mistake and thanks for the information.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 26, 2012)

Ryan said:


> Was it not your signature that said something to the effect of "Never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"?
> 
> If not you, someone did/does, and this is a great example of it.


Actually that's RmadisonWi's signature.


----------



## Anderson (Dec 26, 2012)

Yes, I say clown. While I recognize that it verges on ad hominem, you haven't bothered to register for an account and you have derailed this thread so far that it isn't even funny. Moreover, your citations of "facts" have been rebutted and/or refuted repeatedly but you persist in them. I'll be the first to admit that I haven't always had my facts straight, but I've also conceded my errors quite frequently as well. You, sir, have been disruptive to the board with both your claims and your histrionics, and you haven't even had the decency to register an account while doing so, suggesting that you simply intend to troll us for a bit and then leave.

As to the Wikipedia article which you quote, let me offer you a link to a record of one of the relevant timetables:

http://www.streamlin...iner197002.html

The upshot is that the 2:30 timing was achieved on one train per day, a "super-express" stopping en route only at Baltimore NB and running non-stop NYP-WAS SB. On the "stopping schedules" akin to what Amtrak runs today, the trip timing was 2:59 on paper. Note that I say "on paper" for a reason: It is very likely that the 2:59 timing was shoehorned in on the timetable for PR reasons (there was a _big_ deal made out of getting the time under 3:00) and that the train frequently ran a few minutes behind. But the 2:30 time was limited to a train that was a non-stop express one way, and close to it the other way (this is the _only_ NYP-WAS train that I can ever recall skipping PHL; even Amtrak didn't try that with the super-express Acela).


----------



## AlanB (Dec 26, 2012)

Guest said:


> It seems you all prefer to remain in your fantasyland.


I understand that this is a very difficult concept for you to understand, seeing as how you are so blinded by your hatred of Amtrak, but I'll try this one last time.

If I were living in fantasyland, and in love with Acela thinking that it can do no wrong, then I would *NOT* be here telling you about some of its flaws. Someone in love would think that everything is rosy. I don't and I have repeatedly told you so in this topic. But alas, your blind hatred seems to prevent you from seeing and understanding this simple fact.



Guest said:


> The info below is for Alan B. Alan stated with convicction that the Acela was faster than the Metroliner. Once more his info is flawed.


And as shown by others, my info was correct. It was your reliance on Wiki that led you to be wrong. Wrong again!


----------



## Ziv (Dec 26, 2012)

This thread has made me wonder about my fervent, five year long support of the Chevy Volt. Maybe my fascination with the idea and its possible/probable positive impact on America's economy blinded me to some of its shortcomings...

One small point in my favor, at least I was 'blindly' FOR something and not against it.


----------



## Trogdor (Dec 26, 2012)

Ryan said:


> Was it not your signature that said something to the effect of "Never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"?
> If not you, someone did/does, and this is a great example of it.


It is tp49's signature.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 26, 2012)

That's who I was thinking of!


----------



## jis (Dec 26, 2012)

PRR 60 said:


> As for Acela II, I have a problem with that plan. Acela II will be built to FRA Tier III standards. That standard, as I understand it, will require a dedicated RW for operation in excess of 125mph. Operation on the existing NEC, co-mingled with commuter, some freight, and Amtrak regional traffic, will not allow the speeds currently operated by Acela. I'm not sure I go ahead with buying some very expensive trainsets capable of true high speed unless I know I have a place to operate them. I'm not a believer.


Bill, this issue is being addressed as part of the safety case. The lady who is handling the safety case development stated at the IEEE Transportation SIG organized meeting a couple of months back that FRA has taken the position that for NEC there will be special rules allowing mixed operation of Tier II and Tier III with positive separation. The rules are being developed with the help of Volpe Center. As to how well or poorly that will work out, who knows? Only time will tell. But it is safe to assume that Amtrak will not be ordering anything until there is a reasonable resolution of this problem which is probably at least a couple or three years away. I have since talked to a gentleman who is the Deputy Chief Engineer of the NEC HSR program. Indeed if you register for a single day of the TransAction conference in Atlantic City, (or even just drop by at an appropriate time), I will be happy to introduce you to him. You can also read the definitive book on the RiverLINE written by him which is available from various book vendors. He claims that the discussions are going well with FRA on this matter. He ought to know since he negotiated the then revolutionary "temporal separation" agreement for the RiverLINE. I haven't had a chance to pick his brain yet. but when I get a chance I will. He is usually very forthcoming and open about such technical things.


----------



## alanh (Dec 26, 2012)

Amtrak needs new hardware to accommodate increased demand and replace worn out equipment, no matter what. So some new trainsets are going to be required, high(er) speed or not. The question is will the Acela IIs manage to make their higher cost worth it in increased fares. As AlanB has pointed out, the Acela I has certainly shown this.

Maybe all the Acela riders are idiots or their employers are, but that still doesn't mean Amtrak shouldn't take their money.  They've had plenty of time since Acela was introduced to "wise up", but the trend has been in the opposite direction. If people are willing to pay for a slight increase in speed and comfort, Amtrak shouldn't be telling them no.

If I'm reading our Guest's posts right, he's saying that barring a new ROW, we should just give up on any higher speeds and just dust off the 1970s blueprints for the AEM-7 and Amfleets. Or perhaps, more realistically, ACS-64s (some already on order) and Viewliner II coaches.

So what's the price premium between a theoretical new-build Regional and an Acela II?


----------



## Paulus (Dec 27, 2012)

alanh said:


> So what's the price premium between a theoretical new-build Regional and an Acela II?


Poland bought 20 ETR 610 New Pendolinos and maintenance for 17 years for $47.61 million each (adjusted for inflation and currency conversion) and NTV purchased 25 11-car AGVs for about $40 million each (also adjusted).

On the low end, an individual railcar costs in the range of $2 million and Amtrak's ACS-64 is about $6.65 million. According to Trenitalia's ETR 610 seating chart, there are 108 first class (2x1) seats (including 2 for disabled passengers), a restaurant with 18 places, and 304 2nd class (2x2) seats. Going off Wiki's Amfleet description, a comparable train would consist of 2 business class cars (with 2x2 seating), a full dinette, and 4 coach cars (total cost $20.65 million). The AGV is rather harder to figure out seating with. My estimate there is 26 seats in first class driver car (2x1 and 2 1x1) and 38 (2x1 and 2 1x1) in normal first class car with 36 and 56 (42 in handicap accessible restroom) respectively in second class (2x2). An 11-car train with a comparable number of first class seats would run a capacity of 102 first class seats (driver, car, car), restaurant, and 252-336 2nd class seats (depending on how many cars were handicap accessible). That's about an equal comparison with the earlier 7 car train.

So capital cost is about twice as much between theoretical new NERegional and a modern top of the line high speed train, but you have significantly better performance, especially for the NERegional schedules which have rather more stops (and thus take advantage of the improved acceleration). On the other hand, Eurostar purchased 10 new e320 Velaro derived trains and is refurbishing the 28 other trains in their fleet for 700 million euros with 894-950 seats per train.


----------



## Guest (Dec 27, 2012)

> * name='Anderson' timestamp='1355527783' post='410819']**I was sorely tempted by the idea of buying some of the seats*[/u] (and given the prices running around, I think they might have done well to just put a batch of the Custom Class seats, at the very least, up for sale individually), but I don't have anywhere to put 70 indefinite crates of stuff. One or two might have made a nice conversation piece (and been worth some money to me), but not dozens upon dozens.


And you say you are not a "foamer"?

You stoop to name calling and accuse me of 'derailing' the thread when in fact I was merely stating the Acela has not lived up to it's hype so why purchase Gen II when Gen I can't get it done. It is a high speed train on a low speed "ROW". You yourselves have admitted that the Acela did not and cannot provide 3 hour service BOS-NYP and sustain high speed on the existing "ROW".Because ridership is up and amenities are provided you consider it a success. If you replaced the Acelas tomorrow with standard equipment fitted with the same amenities which you all get in a lather about the ridership would be the same or perhaps even increase due to the lower fare.

Given that the fellow above is percolating over the defunct Turboliner(which some here deemed a success) seats I can see why all you folks act like you got your teats caught in the wringer when I speak realistically about high speed rail.

I have surfed this site and determined that you are all railfans who are dazzled by the new technology and amenites and cannot think practically in matters concerning your beloved trains.



AlanB said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > It seems you all prefer to remain in your fantasyland.
> ...


Alan my statements concering Amtrak are facts not "hatred". There is little that is positive in the operating department. Talk to anyone with 35 plus years(in the operating department) and they will certainly echo my sentiments.
So Alan if you say I am wrong "again!"and Wiki is wrong please show me where the Acela has bested the Metroliners of 1969 running time of 2 hours 30 minutes NYP-WAS. FYI I operated the Turbos, the Metroliners and Acelas so I am not dependent on Wiki for my information. I posted that link(unlike you) to give credence to my statement. Oh and Alan you do live in fantasyland I've read some of your, and others here, posts on other threads and you guys certainly are in a love fest with trains.


----------



## PRR 60 (Dec 27, 2012)

I beg everyone: please, please, please leave the troll be. It's the same thing over and over and over. He has made his points. Others have made theirs. I don't care anymore. Seriously.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 27, 2012)

Guest said:


> Alan my statements concering Amtrak are facts not "hatred". There is little that is positive in the operating department. Talk to anyone with 35 plus years(in the operating department) and they will certainly echo my sentiments.


No, your failure to understand what other's have repeatedly told you indicates a hatred that has blinded you. You sit here calling all of us foamer's and telling us that we live in fantasyland, yet the only one with blinders on is unfortunately you.

So again, while Acela might be a failure from your operations point of view; that is not all that must be considered here. And the "amenities" that you keep referring to are minor. It's the mere appearance that Acela is faster that is the big attraction. And that cannot be achieved with conventional Tier I equipment, even brand new Tier I equipment cannot achieve that.



Guest said:


> So Alan if you say I am wrong "again!"and Wiki is wrong please show me where the Acela has bested the Metroliners of 1969 running time of 2 hours 30 minutes NYP-WAS. FYI I operated the Turbos, the Metroliners and Acelas so I am not dependent on Wiki for my information. I posted that link(unlike you) to give credence to my statement. Oh and Alan you do live in fantasyland I've read some of your, and others here, posts on other threads and you guys certainly are in a love fest with trains.


Go back and read all the post in between where you posted your Wiki link and this one. Other's already linked you to the information that proves you wrong.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 27, 2012)

PRR 60 said:


> I beg everyone: please, please, please leave the troll be. It's the same thing over and over and over. He has made his points. Others have made theirs. I don't care anymore. Seriously.


Agreed. Ban this joker and lets get on with being dazzled by the new shiny and living in our fantasyland.


----------



## Guest (Dec 28, 2012)

AlanB said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > Alan my statements concering Amtrak are facts not "hatred". There is little that is positive in the operating department. Talk to anyone with 35 plus years(in the operating department) and they will certainly echo my sentiments.
> ...


You stated that the Acela was faster did you not? Show me the proof..
So let me get this straight. I come here and post the reasons why Gen II should not be purchased and I am branded a troll by the moderator who allows the "vested" members to refer to me as a "clown" and sundry other derogatory monikers because my opinion does not conform to that of the "vested" members here? This is a discussion forum is it not? Do I have this right? If one were to scroll back you would find that I countered when attacked.


----------



## jphjaxfl (Dec 28, 2012)

I have a number of business associates that will travel Acela Express on the NEC corridor and will get reimbursed by their Employers because Acela is considered as fast and efficient as flying. These are executives that would not take Amtrak anywhere else except maybe the California corridors. But they would take Acela type trains if they were running on other routes . There is a lot of interest in the proposed FEC service here in Florida by business executives because of the type of service being proposed.


----------



## jebr (Dec 28, 2012)

I'm confused.

If the above-the-rail profits of Acela are roughly equivalent to the cost of the Acela sets, then how has Acela failed in a business sense? Certainly it hasn't achieved its goal running times, but the possibility of doing that in any short-range time frame is unlikely.

The fact that it's basically paying for itself, exposing more people to train travel (and public transit in general,) and leaving a positive impression is a good enough sign of success for me.


----------



## tp49 (Dec 29, 2012)

AlanB said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Was it not your signature that said something to the effect of "Never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"?
> ...


Actually it's mine


----------



## afigg (Dec 29, 2012)

Guest said:


> So let me get this straight. I come here and post the reasons why Gen II should not be purchased and I am branded a troll by the moderator who allows the "vested" members to refer to me as a "clown" and sundry other derogatory monikers because my opinion does not conform to that of the "vested" members here? This is a discussion forum is it not? Do I have this right? If one were to scroll back you would find that I countered when attacked.


I know I am going to regret this, but a life without some regrets is not a life lived. :huh:

I suggest you go back, read your posts and the tone and words in those posts. It is ok to disagree and have differing opinions, but you have been making snide remarks from early on. As for "vested" members, you have been posting as a guest. If you want to contribute or participate in this forum, join as a member. It does not cost anything and you can use any pseudonym you want to protect your day job. Forums such as this allow guest postings as a courtesy for people to post one time questions w/o having to join. Not for someone to make multiple postings over a period of weeks.


----------



## leemell (Dec 29, 2012)

afigg said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > So let me get this straight. I come here and post the reasons why Gen II should not be purchased and I am branded a troll by the moderator who allows the "vested" members to refer to me as a "clown" and sundry other derogatory monikers because my opinion does not conform to that of the "vested" members here? This is a discussion forum is it not? Do I have this right? If one were to scroll back you would find that I countered when attacked.
> ...


Amen, and thank you.


----------

