# North East Corridor (NEC) speeds, new stations and state of repair



## Free Jaffa (May 2, 2021)

In the 50th Amtrak anniversary press conference POTUS made a reference to only 3 curves between New York and Washington DC that prevent 160mph travel. 

I have suspected that POTUS was miss quoting a report. 

Could someone point me in the right direction as to what the 3 curves refer to?

I think one is the Baltimore tunnel which I think could be one, and i think the portal bridge is a possible one, and one could be the Philadelphia 30th street station, however I recognize I’m pro very wrong, so please have mercy on a new poster.
Feel free to add any discussion on other curves that could increase speed with there removal.


----------



## railiner (May 2, 2021)

Free Jaffa said:


> In the 50th Amtrak anniversary press conference POTUS made a reference to only 3 curves between New York and Washington DC that prevent 160mph travel.
> 
> I have suspected that POTUS was miss quoting a report.
> 
> ...


Welcome to AU!

I am not sure there are only 3 curves that restrict NEC speed below 160 mph, but one other that I recall is the notorious 'S' curve at Elizabeth, of RFK funeral train notoriety (a trespasser was struck and killed).


----------



## west point (May 3, 2021)

What about Frankford junction


----------



## Palmetto (May 3, 2021)

East of New Haven, there are some.


----------



## John Santos (May 3, 2021)

Palmetto said:


> East of New Haven, there are some.


Those aren't between Washington and New York. The two slowest sections are eastern Connecticut, which has many tight curves, and the Mertro North section between NYP and New Haven. I don't know if the MN issues are curves or just low quality of the track maintenance and control systems.


----------



## Cal (May 3, 2021)

The run-time between NYP and Boston is kinda slow. So I'm curious, what would happen to the speed if new tracks were to be built between New Haven and Boston that ran directly to Boston instead of paralleling the coast? I know this will never happen, but I'm curious


----------



## jis (May 3, 2021)

IIRC about 25% - 30% of the NEC spine ROW between New York and Washington DC is capable of being upgraded to 150+mph with upgrade of track and catenary. Even between County and Ham where the NJ HSR project has just been completed, only about half of the distance has been upgraded to 160mph with constant tension catenary. The rest is somewhere between 135mph and 150mph.


----------



## TrackWalker (May 3, 2021)

If anyone can find an Amtrak NEC track profile (track chart) someplace then I may be of help. Contact me.

Traveling at this time with limited net access.


----------



## MARC Rider (May 3, 2021)

John Santos said:


> Those aren't between Washington and New York. The two slowest sections are eastern Connecticut, which has many tight curves, and the Mertro North section between NYP and New Haven. I don't know if the MN issues are curves or just low quality of the track maintenance and control systems.


As others have mentioned, the S curve in Elizabeth NJ, and Frankford Junction, the site of the 188 train wreck. are two places that will never get upgraded for 150 mph operation. Also, don't forget the Zoo interlocking right north of 30th St Sta. in Philly. The approaches and tunnels at Baltimore are another slow spot that isn't going to be fixed for high speed. In fact, the plan I read for the B&P tunnel replacement involves increasing speeds from 35 mph to 50 mph and cutting travel time by two minutes. They'll need to replace some if the old bridges so they don't have to slow down to 80 mph every time they cross a river. They also need to reduce bottlenecks and traffic interference so the trains don't have to keep switching tracks. When they cross over to another track, they seem to always slow down to 80 mph, and sometimes they go even slower, or just stop to wait for traffic to clear. I think fixing the bottlenecks would do more to reduce travel time than spending zillions so that trains can go 180 mph in a few select places.


----------



## jis (May 3, 2021)

The high speed crossover that have been installed over the last decade or so have all been 80mph crossovers.

Don't forget the Metropark - Metuchen curves. They cannot be sped up much on the current alignment. The Phase 1 EIS for HSR had the entire segment from Edison to Newark basically straightened out in a deep tube alignment in most places in the highest speed most expensive alternative. That basically leaves the current alignment alone for use by suburban trains and slower regional trains.

Also do not forget all the curves between Philadelphia and CP Ragan west of Wilmington DE. For that segment also a very expensive new alignment and tunnels + elevated was proposed in the Phase 1 EIS.

Can things be sped up to 160mph, or even 200mph? Of course. Depends on how much money one is willing to spend. As for the current alignment? Remember it was designed for more or less 80 mph originally. It has been stretched to become a reasonable 125mph route, but as further speedups are done the low hanging fruits are fewer and further between for increasing max speeds. But there are still many low hanging fruits for increasing speed limits from very low to medium speed where the bang for the buck in terms of reduction in end to end running times are much larger.

Also for speeding up beyond 160mph, the limits of the current ROW in terms of space available for increasing track center distances is a big problem that people are less aware of.


----------



## west point (May 3, 2021)

Slow sections themselves are only part of the problem It is the slowing before the section and accelerating after wards is actually. 
1. What is the Amtrak requirement to start slowing ? Is it 2 miles ?
2. How long and what distance does it take to accelerate back to 160 /.?
I would like to know the distance and time to cover 1,2,& the slow section. Of course each curve will be different. Then compare that to the time to transit that area.


----------



## west point (May 3, 2021)

Anyone who says never needs to rethink. It is highly improbable at this time for Elizabeth to be straightened. However Frankford has real possibilities as it has been posted that the western side is all industrial some of which is abandoned. However that area may be subject to a super fund site.


----------



## jis (May 3, 2021)

west point said:


> Anyone who says never needs to rethink. It is highly improbable at this time for Elizabeth to be straightened. However Frankford has real possibilities as it has been posted that the western side is all industrial some of which is abandoned. However that area may be subject to a super fund site.


If people read the Level 1 EIS, almost all reasonable alternatives are documented in it.


----------



## railiner (May 4, 2021)

For truly high speed service, they would probably need to do it "China style", by just building an all new line designed for it. It might even be cheaper that way, then doing it by improving in small increments, the almost two century old right of way....


----------



## Palmetto (May 4, 2021)

And does the theoretical, new line HAVE to be downtown? France's TGV calls some major cities' stops TGV, and they are not in the city itself, at all. Valence, is one of them.


----------



## MARC Rider (May 4, 2021)

railiner said:


> For truly high speed service, they would probably need to do it "China style", by just building an all new line designed for it. It might even be cheaper that way, then doing it by improving in small increments, the almost two century old right of way....


Wasn't that one of the plans I say for the NYP - BOS line? It cut across Connecticut, serving Danbury, New Haven, and Norwich (I think), cutting out New Haven and Providence. But the terrain is very hilly and it passes through some of the most expensive real-estate in the world, so I would think that building a new line would cost such a fortune that private capital wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole, and there's no political consensus about the need or desirability for public spending on that scale.


----------



## Cal (May 4, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> Wasn't that one of the plans I say for the NYP - BOS line? It cut across Connecticut, serving Danbury, New Haven, and Norwich (I think), cutting out New Haven and Providence. But the terrain is very hilly and it passes through some of the most expensive real-estate in the world, so I would think that building a new line would cost such a fortune that private capital wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole, and there's no political consensus about the need or desirability for public spending on that scale.


I mean even with the current line, the run-time between BOS and NYP isn't terrible, is it? Just building new track that is capable of higher (or top speeds) the entire way would do a lot.


----------



## VentureForth (May 4, 2021)

Free Jaffa said:


> I think one is the Baltimore tunnel which I think could be one, and i think the portal bridge is a possible one, and one could be the Philadelphia 30th street station



So I wouldn't take stock in station slowdowns. I think every train stops there, so it wouldn't be an issue. I honestly don't know if the non-stop DC-NY Acela is running or not. Even so, all trains would likely slow down in stations. AFAIK, no station platforms on the NEC have barricades on the platform. I know there are some stations where Acela screams at platform. Is it ever 160 MPH? I figure most of the station passings are in non-platformed tracks.

The big one I keep hearing about is the "S" curve at Elizabeth. It is quite disappointing that they seem to be making a greater effort to make some short stretches of track creep up to 165 rather than do what they can on the slowest sections to bring them up to speed. But I'm not an NEC'er so I don't really know what I'm talking about.

What I AM familiar with is Japanese railroads. The original bullet train from Tokyo to Osaka, on the fastest service makes the 345 mile run in 2 hours and 27 minutes. It costs $81.50. The average speed is 141 MPH with 4 intermediate stops. Acela between DC and BOS is 416 miles, and takes 6 hours and 41 minutes with the fastest service. Its costs $192. The average speed is 62 MPH with 9 intermediate stops. The American system is subsidized (primarily to the long distance services) at $1B+ per year. The Japanese system is self sufficient and is even paying off the national rail debt of its predecessor.

So, yeah, lots needs to be done.


----------



## Cal (May 4, 2021)

VentureForth said:


> I know there are some stations where Acela screams at platform. Is it ever 160 MPH? I figure most of the station passings are in non-platformed tracks.


150mph tops I believe


----------



## jis (May 4, 2021)

Free Jaffa said:


> In the 50th Amtrak anniversary press conference POTUS made a reference to only 3 curves between New York and Washington DC that prevent 160mph travel.


POTUS is trying to appear to be knowledgeable. Actually no more that 40% or so can be made 160mph capable without a king's ransom.


> I have suspected that POTUS was miss quoting a report.
> 
> Could someone point me in the right direction as to what the 3 curves refer to?
> 
> ...


Just between New York and Philadelphia off the top of my head without looking at any map, there are:

1. Curve just outside the Hudson tubes. Unlikely the speed limit will ever be increased there.

2. Harrison curve. Unlikely that the speed limit will ever be increased there since almost all trains stop and will continue to stop at Newark.

3. Elizabeth curve. May be sped up 10/15mph. Higher priority is 5th track than straightening the curve at present. Will take significant amount of property acquisition in very high real estate cost area.

4. Metropark-Metuchecn curves. Unlikely to change without spending billions.

5. Torresdale curve. Possible to improve some, but probably not to 160+mph easily.

6. Frankford curve. Unlikely to change without very large sums of money.

7. Zoo curve. Won;t change since most trains stop at Philadelphia anyway. It could be improved some but with relatively large sums of money.

We'll leave south of Philly for another day. Where is @Thirdrail7 when you need him?



Cal said:


> 150mph tops I believe



Those will change to 160mph for Acela 21s.


----------



## MARC Rider (May 4, 2021)

Cal said:


> I mean even with the current line, the run-time between BOS and NYP isn't terrible, is it? Just building new track that is capable of higher (or top speeds) the entire way would do a lot.


It would also be nice if all 4 tracks on the Metro-North section from New Rochelle to New Haven were actually open and operational. Every time I ride, it seems that at least one of the tracks is closed due to trackwork. I've been riding this section off and on for the last 15 years or so. I'd like to know when they'll actually finish the trackwork. Then maybe the trains can go 70 mph the whole distance and possible cut 30 minutes off the run time with no major infrastructure improvements or costly new rolling stock.


----------



## JontyMort (May 4, 2021)

Cal said:


> 150mph tops I believe



The example usually given is Mansfield MA, where the platform is on the through running line. Plenty of Acela runs at full chat on YouTube.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (May 5, 2021)

I also noticed 3 weeks ago on my WAS-BOS Acela trip that we seemed stuck at 80mph for the majority of the first hour northbound outside of NYP, especially past the viaduct.
Is it possible to improve speeds there?

I never felt that the NYP-WAS route was much of a problem (though it never hurts to improve).
The BOS-NYP is ei real offender. A trip that should take somewhere in the realm of 120 minutes is way more, and really struggles to be competitive with other modes that it could knock out otherwise.

From what I understood, any of the major NEC improvements (with regard to speed) won't happen any time soon, and that the northern section is here to stay for the time being.

There was that crazy proposal to reroute the NEC to long island and underneath the sound with a massive tunnel project. That track would continue along an inland route that would connect hartford. I don't know much about that, but it seemed expensive (even more than the possible high speed fixes around New Haven).


----------



## MARC Rider (May 5, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> I also noticed 3 weeks ago on my WAS-BOS Acela trip that we seemed stuck at 80mph for the majority of the first hour northbound outside of NYP, especially past the viaduct.
> Is it possible to improve speeds there?



Stuck at 80 mph between New Rochelle and New Haven? Wow, you were really going fast. If only all the trains would go that fast on that stretch. I've been on Acelas where the average speed is under 50 mph.

As for whether the speeds can be increased, you have to ask Metro-North, who owns that stretch of tracks and runs a very busy commuter service on it.


----------



## jis (May 5, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> Stuck at 80 mph between New Rochelle and New Haven? Wow, you were really going fast. If only all the trains would go that fast on that stretch. I've been on Acelas where the average speed is under 50 mph.
> 
> As for whether the speeds can be increased, you have to ask Metro-North, who owns that stretch of tracks and runs a very busy commuter service on it.


No Metro North does not own that piece of track in the State of Connecticut. ConnDOT does. Metro North maintains and operates it under contract, according to the wishes of ConnDOT with funds provided by ConnDOT.

Yeah, it is mostly 70mph or less in the state of Connecticut. In NY State there used to be a stretch of 90mph, which was reduced to 80mph after collisions and derailments. I don't know if it has been restored to 90mph again.

That ROW might admit maybe 20mph higher in select stretches, but in general it will not have 100pmh service no matter how hard we dream about it, except maybe for a few miles in the extreme eastern end of it near New Haven.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (May 5, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> Stuck at 80 mph between New Rochelle and New Haven? Wow, you were really going fast. If only all the trains would go that fast on that stretch. I've been on Acelas where the average speed is under 50 mph.



I should rephrase. 
I’m not sure what speed we were going, but it felt ever so slightly faster than a commuter train at times. So 80 seemed appropriate.


----------



## JontyMort (May 5, 2021)

jis said:


> That ROW might admit maybe 20mph higher in select stretches, but in general it will not have 100pmh service no matter how hard we dream about it, except maybe for a few miles in the extreme eastern end of it near New Haven.


Is the New Haven main line still quadruple track all the way from New Rochelle to New Haven, and are the tracks paired by direction (I imagine so)?


----------



## jis (May 5, 2021)

JontyMort said:


> Is the New Haven main line still quadruple track all the way from New Rochelle to New Haven, and are the tracks paired by direction (I imagine so)?


They had cut it down to three tracks at the eastern end but were supposed to be working on restoring it to four tracks. I don't know what the status of that is right now. As I recall when they cut it down to three tracks they took the trouble to build the westbound platform of a station on the ROW for the fourth track. So they will have to or have torn that down and rebuilt a platform making way for the restoration of the fourth track. Haven't been that way in a while to see what the current state is.


----------



## John Santos (May 5, 2021)

jis said:


> They had cut it down to three tracks at the eastern end but were supposed to be working on restoring it to four tracks. I don't know what the status of that is tight now. As I recall when they cut it down to three tracks they took the trouble to build the westbound platform of a station on the ROW for the fourth track. So they will have to or have torn that down and rebuilt a platform making way for the restoration of the fourth track. Haven't been that way in a while to see what the current state is.


Many of the station platforms, at both Amtrak and commuter rail stations, have what is clearly a temporary extension built out over the tracks. These are a series of steel platforms, each about 10-15 feet long, extending out from the permanent concrete high-level platforms and supported on a steel scaffolding over the track closest to the platform. The temporary platforms are about a car-length apart, so a train stopping on the second track can line up its doors with them. I'm pretty sure these platforms have moved from side to side and from station to station over the last 15 years or so. I've always assumed they were so they could do track maintenance on the outside tracks while still allowing access to the stations, and as the work was finished, they would move the platforms to the next section of track. At the rate of progress, I would guess they should be done in no more than 20 or 30 years and all 4 tracks will once again be open. Maybe?


----------



## jis (May 5, 2021)

I am not talking of temporary platforms. At Milford the space for the fourth track is where the new platform was placed. They have to tear that down and build a new platform further back to make space for the restoration of the fourth track.

The new station at West Haven is built with four tracks extended from New Haven Yard. Before that three tracks continued all the way to the start of the New Haven Yard.


----------



## west point (May 5, 2021)

Even if the line west of New Haven becomes 4 MT the whole route will not be unimpeded for many years. That is because of the many draw bridge replacements that have to be done. For Example" The Walk bridge now under construction already only has 3 MTs open. What is happening the second track from the north is closed so one of the tower supports for the new lift bridge can be constructed. The other tower support also under construction will be ~ 25 feet north of the present north track. Note this occurring on both sides of the waterway simultaneous . 

Once towers and lift bridge is complete the CAT for north tracks will be removed from the swing bridge. As well the 2 north tracks will have to be closed 2 - 3 months so they can be relocated and raised so they can align with the new lift bridge. Then install CAT connections for the lift bridge. Then the new lift bridge will be set for rail traffic on the 2 north tracks. The new lift bridge will be above the swing bridge's old 2 north tracks.

Then NRR has to do all this all over again for the 2 south tracks building another lift bridge. Then the other 3 antique bridges located elsewhere that need replacing are on the plate. It will depend on how much funding can be acquired and when for their replacement that will determine when all the route from New Rochelle - New Haven becomes a complete non impeded 4 main tracks. Any where from 6 - 40 years.

There are also a few fixed bridges that need replacing that will be much easier.


----------



## JontyMort (May 5, 2021)

jis said:


> I am not talking of temporary platforms. At Milford the space for the fourth track is where the new platform was placed. They have to tear that down and build a new platform further back to make space for the restoration of the fourth track.



The equivalent here in Britain was the ex-LNER east coast electrification in the 1980s. On one section they decided they could reduce four tracks to two in conjunction with the wiring. Guess (1) where they put the masts and (2) how long it took for them to realise that restoration of four tracks would be desirable.


----------



## JontyMort (May 8, 2021)

OK, I was going to stick in my two cents from a European perspective, but will do so on the HSR thread. But first, a question. To what extent is the NEC, in reality, one line or two? My hunch is that it is really “DC to New York” and “Boston to New York” spliced together for (admittedly perfectly good) operational reasons. Is there actually much traffic that does (say) Philadelphia to New Haven, or indeed the full DC to Boston?


----------



## Tlcooper93 (May 8, 2021)

JontyMort said:


> OK, I was going to stick in my two cents from a European perspective, but will do so on the HSR thread. But first, a question. To what extent is the NEC, in reality, one line or two? My hunch is that it is really “DC to New York” and “Boston to New York” spliced together for (admittedly perfectly good) operational reasons. Is there actually much traffic that does (say) Philadelphia to New Haven, or indeed the full DC to Boston?



Yes, there is a sizable amount of traffic that travels through NYC. I do it quite frequently, and each time, many people stay on the train through the 20 minute layover at NYP.

There is a sizable contingent of people traveling from New Jersey destination to places in CT and RI.

There is usually a crew change at NYP but that’s about it. Most trains continue through as if nothing happened. 

If there wasn’t through traffic, why run a sleeper train from BOS-WAS??


----------



## railiner (May 8, 2021)

JontyMort said:


> OK, I was going to stick in my two cents from a European perspective, but will do so on the HSR thread. But first, a question. To what extent is the NEC, in reality, one line or two? My hunch is that it is really “DC to New York” and “Boston to New York” spliced together for (admittedly perfectly good) operational reasons. Is there actually much traffic that does (say) Philadelphia to New Haven, or indeed the full DC to Boston?


Historically, it was two railroads, The Pennsylvania and the New Haven, connecting in New York, when the Hell Gate Bridge opened in 1917. When the successor, Penn Central acquired the New Haven in 1969, it became one railroad, although ownership of portions went to Amtrak, New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts....


----------



## JontyMort (May 8, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> Yes, there is a sizable amount of traffic that travels through NYC. I do it quite frequently, and each time, many people stay on the train through the 20 minute layover at NYP.
> 
> There is a sizable contingent of people traveling from New Jersey destination to places in CT and RI.
> 
> ...





Tlcooper93 said:


> Yes, there is a sizable amount of traffic that travels through NYC. I do it quite frequently, and each time, many people stay on the train through the 20 minute layover at NYP.
> 
> There is a sizable contingent of people traveling from New Jersey destination to places in CT and RI.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the reply. I suppose one might say that 66/67 are special cases, but it’s interesting to see the introduction of sleeping cars.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (May 8, 2021)

JontyMort said:


> Thanks for the reply. I suppose one might say that 66/67 are special cases, but it’s interesting to see the introduction of sleeping cars.



In this case it’s the re-introduction. Sleepers ran the route until 2003. They were pulled, for alleged equipment shortages, and then re-introduced this April.

65-67 are not so much special cases, but rather identical to daytime trains which happen to run at night with a sleepers car in the consist.


----------



## JontyMort (May 8, 2021)

railiner said:


> Historically, it was two railroads, The Pennsylvania and the New Haven, connecting in New York, when the Hell Gate Bridge opened in 1917. When the successor, Penn Central acquired the New Haven in 1969, it became one railroad, although ownership of portions went to Amtrak, New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts....


Yes, that much I did know. The New York Connecting Railroad was a joint venture between the Pennsylvania and the New Haven from the beginning, wasn’t it?

Always amazing to think that the original Pennsylvania Station was built to last till doomsday but actually lasted... about 50 years.


----------



## JontyMort (May 8, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> In this case it’s the re-introduction. Sleepers ran the route until 2003. They were pulled, for alleged equipment shortages, and then re-introduced this April.



...with Viewliner II stock?

Is the LSL likely to get V II by September, do you think?


----------



## Tlcooper93 (May 8, 2021)

JontyMort said:


> ...with Viewliner II stock?
> 
> Is the LSL likely to get V II by September, do you think?



As of now, the only routes running VIIs are the Silver services. Not sure when LSL will get Viewliner IIs. 

I took the BOS-WAS sleeper train the back in April. You can dig around for my review in the forum. The VIs are showing their age.

Pretty short-sighted of Amtrak to order only 20 or so new sleepers. Viewliners are really old, and will need to be replaced.


----------



## jis (May 8, 2021)

If both the Silvers are equipped with VL-IIs that leaves 5 for shop and contingency, which would suggest that at most another train that requires only two consists might get it i(Cardinal or 65/66/67) if Amtrak becomes so bold as to break their apparent 20% shop+contingency rule.


----------



## MARC Rider (May 8, 2021)

JontyMort said:


> OK, I was going to stick in my two cents from a European perspective, but will do so on the HSR thread. But first, a question. To what extent is the NEC, in reality, one line or two? My hunch is that it is really “DC to New York” and “Boston to New York” spliced together for (admittedly perfectly good) operational reasons. Is there actually much traffic that does (say) Philadelphia to New Haven, or indeed the full DC to Boston?


There's some through traffic, but my experience is that when the train arrives in New York, it empties out. Maybe a quarter of the people in the car stay on. And then more people get on and refill the train after the departing passengers clear the platform. It's sometimes that way in Philly, too, although a larger percentage of passengers are riding through Philly.


----------



## MARC Rider (May 8, 2021)

railiner said:


> Historically, it was two railroads, The Pennsylvania and the New Haven, connecting in New York, when the Hell Gate Bridge opened in 1917. When the successor, Penn Central acquired the New Haven in 1969, it became one railroad, although ownership of portions went to Amtrak, New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts....


My recollection is that during the last days of the PRR and Penn Central, they ran about 4 through trains a day between Washington and Boston via Penn Station and the Hell Gate Bridge. The New Haven ran many more trains between New York and Boston out of Grand Central Terminal. So even back in the "good old days" the through traffic was less than the Boston-New York, and Washington-New York traffic.


----------



## jis (May 8, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> My recollection is that during the last days of the PRR and Penn Central, they ran about 4 through trains a day between Washington and Boston via Penn Station and the Hell Gate Bridge. The New Haven ran many more trains between New York and Boston out of Grand Central Terminal. So even back in the "good old days" the through traffic was less than the Boston-New York, and Washington-New York traffic.


Due to operational reasons in New York, now there are no New York originating Regional trains to Boston. All Boston Regional trains originate in Washington DC or further South. There are a few Acelas that originate in New York for Boston, though I don;t know if those still exist in these pandemic days.

But one thing remains the same from back then - change of crew in New York.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (May 8, 2021)

jis said:


> Due to operational reasons in New York, now there are no New York originating Regional trains to Boston. All Boston Regional trains originate in Washington DC or further South. There are a few Acelas that originate in New York for Boston, though I don;t know if those still exist in these pandemic days.
> 
> But one thing remains the same from back then - change of crew in New York.



Theres one or two Acela trains that “terminate” at NYP. I’ve taken one pretty recently.


----------



## jis (May 8, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> Theres one or two Acela trains that “terminate” at NYP. I’ve taken one pretty recently.


Yes and the corresponding north/eastbounds originate in New York.

The key is that the train has to have cabs at both ends since train can be delivered to the platforms of Penn Station from Sunnyside only facing towards Washington DC. They have to reverse direction at Penn Station if arriving from Boston to get to Sunnyside and if departing to Boston they also have to reverse direction at Penn Station after coming in from Sunnyside. That is why only Acelas originate and terminate towards Boston in Penn Station, Regionals don't.


----------



## JontyMort (May 8, 2021)

jis said:


> Yes and the corresponding north/eastbounds originate in New York.
> 
> The key is that the train has to have cabs at both ends since train can be delivered to the platforms of Penn Station from Sunnyside only facing towards Washington DC. They have to reverse direction at Penn Station if arriving from Boston to get to Sunnyside nad if departing to Boston they also have to reverse direction at Penn Station after coming in from Sunnyside. That is why only Acelas originate and termina towarsds Boston in Penn Station, Regionals don't.


In normal times, the exception is that the last “daytime” Regional from Boston - train 179 - terminates at NYP at 1054 pm. Presumably at that time of night there is room/time to run the locomotive round or have some other arrangement to get it back to Sunnyside.

Since the ACS-64s can work in push-pull mode, this particular problem will presumably disappear with the arrival of the new Siemens sets to replace the Amfleets.


----------



## jis (May 8, 2021)

JontyMort said:


> In normal times, the exception is that the last “daytime” Regional from Boston - train 179 - terminates at NYP at 1054 pm. Presumably at that time of night there is room/time to run the locomotive round or have some other arrangement to get it back to Sunnyside.
> 
> Since the ACS-64s can work in push-pull mode, this particular problem will presumably disappear with the arrival of the new Siemens sets to replace the Amfleets.


Good points!

Even previously, there were the New England Expresses that originated and terminated in New York. They were assigned a separate engine at the other end to drag them into and out of Penn Station from/to Sunnyside. They were detached/attached at Penn Station.

Once Amtrak gets double ended train sets from the current RFP, all these issue will go away. It might even be possible to run through trains from Albany towards Washington DC, since reversal at Penn Station will become a non issue.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (May 8, 2021)

JontyMort said:


> In normal times, the exception is that the last “daytime” Regional from Boston - train 179 - terminates at NYP at 1054 pm. Presumably at that time of night there is room/time to run the locomotive round or have some other arrangement to get it back to Sunnyside.
> 
> Since the ACS-64s can work in push-pull mode, this particular problem will presumably disappear with the arrival of the new Siemens sets to replace the Amfleets.



Any idea of a timeline for those Seimens sets? Presumably they will have a higher top speed than Amfleets (hopefully a smoother ride too). Not that it would change times all that much given how much NERs stop. Any idea on whether that order will include sleepers? Doubt it, but i figured I’d ask.

It will be really exciting to see those on the NEC. Hopefully it will remind of all of Railjets in Austria.


----------



## jis (May 8, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> Any idea of a timeline for those Seimens sets? Presumably they will have a higher top speed than Amfleets (hopefully a smoother ride too). Not that it would change times all that much given how much NERs stop. Any idea on whether that order will include sleepers? Doubt it, but i figured I’d ask.


They will have a max speed of 125mph just like the Amfleets.

Not exactly sure about the timeline, but I suspect delivery will probably be between 2024 and 2028 or some such

The order is for replacement of Amfleet Is. No Sleepers.


----------



## JontyMort (May 8, 2021)

jis said:


> Good points!
> 
> Even previously, there were the New England Expresses that originated and terminated in New York. They were assigned a separate engine at the other end to drag them into and out of Penn Station from/to Sunnyside. They were detached/attached at Penn Station.
> 
> Once Amtrak gets double ended train sets from the current RFP, all these issue will go away. It might even be possible to run through trains from Albany towards Washington DC, since reversal at Penn Station will become a non issue.


This method of operation is now - alas! - mostly out of fashion here in Britain, but it will suit the NEC and its Virginia extensions very well. The unit trains get the job done, but at a price - even in electric mode the underfloor motors are a distraction.


----------



## JontyMort (May 8, 2021)

jis said:


> They will have a max speed of 125mph just like the Amfleets.



And to bring the discussion back to the title - constraints on high speed running - whether increasing the top speed of the fastest trains gives value for money depends on whether you are in marketing or operations. Sure, 165 mph is sexy, but on a mixed-traffic line, easing of the worst low-speed constraints - be they pinchpoints or speed restrictions - gives a much greater improvement in overall operating conditions than upping the top speed, because all trains benefit.


----------



## jis (Jun 16, 2021)

Speaking of increasing speed limits in lower speed pinch points, on the NEC Elizabeth S-Curve on tracks 2 and 3 (middle tracks) the speed limits have been raised as follows:

Acela - 80mph
ACS64 with Amfleet, Horizon or Viewliner II - 70mph
NJ Transits and Amtrak with Viewliner I and any other equipment not mentioned above - 55mph
Tracks 1 and 4 (outside tracks) all - 55mph.

These are enforced by ACSES based on equipment type (actually train type)


----------



## jis (Jun 16, 2021)

May require subscription

Amtrak's North East Corridor


----------



## JontyMort (Jun 17, 2021)

jis said:


> Speaking of increasing speed limits in lower speed pinch points, on the NEC Elizabeth S-Curve on tracks 2 and 3 (middle tracks) the speed limits have been raised as follows:
> 
> Acela - 80mph
> ACS64 with Amfleet, Horizon or Viewliner II - 70mph
> ...


What were the previous limits?


----------



## jis (Jun 17, 2021)

JontyMort said:


> What were the previous limits?


45/55


----------



## railiner (Jun 17, 2021)

jis said:


> Speaking of increasing speed limits in lower speed pinch points, on the NEC Elizabeth S-Curve on tracks 2 and 3 (middle tracks) the speed limits have been raised as follows:
> 
> Acela - 80mph
> ACS64 with Amfleet, Horizon or Viewliner II - 70mph
> ...


Curious why the Viewliner II is permitted 15 mph higher speed. Guessing truck design?


----------



## jis (Jun 17, 2021)

railiner said:


> Curious why the Viewliner II is permitted 15 mph higher speed. Guessing truck design?


Both use GSI trucks. There are probably some subtle differences. They have intended to fix whatever is the difference but have not got around to it. Probably has something to do with the Truck mounts, Yaw Dampers or with wheel profile. Not sure.


----------



## JontyMort (Jun 17, 2021)

jis said:


> 45/55


Perfectly illustrating the point that improvements like this are worth far more than top speed. I don’t know how long it takes an Acela to decelerate from 80 to 55 and accelerate back to 80, but it could easily save a minute. The saving in time between 120mph and 150mph is six seconds per mile, so that’s ten miles worth (and 40 miles if considering the improvement from 150 to 160 at 1.5 seconds per mile).


----------



## jis (Jun 17, 2021)

JontyMort said:


> Perfectly illustrating the point that improvements like this are worth far more than top speed. I don’t know how long it takes an Acela to decelerate from 80 to 55 and accelerate back to 80, but it could easily save a minute. The saving in time between 120mph and 150mph is six seconds per mile, so that’s ten miles worth (and 40 miles if considering the improvement from 150 to 160 at 1.5 seconds per mile).


Coming from NY Acelas actually slow down from at least 110 to 80 before entering the curve and then accelerate back to 110 just past Elmora and then 125, exactly at what point I don't recall. It has to slow down again for the Iselin + Metuchen curves at Metropark/Metuchen, unless of course it is one that stops at Metropark.

In any case your core point is well taken.


----------



## George Harris (Jun 17, 2021)

Many years ago the Railway Gazette International had an article titled, "The best way to go fast is to avoid going slow" which make the major points about these slow points. There are many parts of our railroad system that well illustrate this. This is also such ideas as a Nashville Atlanta high speed line are to be polite ridiculous. The current line is both round about and crooked. Before advent of the Metroliner, the Pennsylvania Railroad maximum speed limit was 80 mph if I recall correctly, and that was with the 1920's state of the art signal system, electrification, and multiple tracks. With that they could have a comfortable reliable 4 hour schedule for most trains. That was essentially the PRR concept for many years. Also, with that they had the unwritten philosophy that the speed limits could be treated as suggestions when the top trains got behind schedule. With short crew districts and high seniority people in the cab this was not as crazy as it sounds today. One of their advertizements for their New York Chicago trains for many years was comfort more than speed because their route was something like 50 miles shorter than the New York Central's got them there in the same overall time. (I never understood why neither tried a City of New Orleans style fast day train on this route. If the ICRR could normally fill 10 coaches, and up to 20 on a holiday weekend between Chicago and New Orleans with only Memphis as a significantly sized intermediate point, what could you do between New York and Chicago with much larger intermediate cities?)


----------



## west point (Jun 17, 2021)

A detailed cost benefit analysis needs to be completed for all these slow sections for the route NYP - WASH. Includes curves and any other impediments including CPs.
1. Take each type of equipment and determine how many seconds will be saved by eliminating that slow section. If 160 can be reached then that speed otherwise whatever speed.
2. Take the average number of passenger in each type of equipment that travels the section.
3. Multiply and add it all together to get total average number of passenger hours per some unit of time saved by doing the project.
4. Calculate savings of energy by not slowing,: less rail, CAT, grade, etc wear costs. Less wear and tear on rolling stock as well. Same units of time.
5. Add in total costs to eliminate slow section.
6. Use all these together and start eliminating these slow sections that will benefit the most passenger hours. 

Some obvious slow sections are the curves between Newark and Frankford. Frankford to North PHL, B&P Tunnel, Susquehanna river bridge and the other bridges, Until these cost benefits are really known then where to start first is just subjective. Maybe the Elizabeth curve can be financially viable.?

Then there are the less obvious slow sections. Such as interference points like the NJT overpass, CP relocations, stations, additional tracks especially in MARC territory, Union station track lay out, etc. 

Finally any location that might become a choke point in case of failure has to be moved ahead of line to be considered such as B&P Bore, Long Bridge, and Susquehanna bridge . Of course the biggie the new Hudson river Gateway bores are first.


----------



## cocojacoby (Jun 17, 2021)

JontyMort said:


> What were the previous limits?


And what changed to allow this?


----------



## jis (Jul 19, 2021)

cocojacoby said:


> And what changed to allow this?


Mostly PTC/ACSES II Civil Speed Enforcement at any speed rather than just signal aspect determined speed.


----------



## cocojacoby (Jul 19, 2021)

What if all the curves are more superelevated? With the Acela II capable of running at higher cant than the Acela I, would higher speeds be possible? What are the limitations? Is it the older equipment such as the Amfleets that are the determining factor or is it the occasional freight train?

I would think adding additional flatter tracks for slower trains would be a possible solution and certainly less expensive than a whole new ROW.


----------



## jis (Jul 19, 2021)

cocojacoby said:


> What if all the curves are more superelevated? With the Acela II capable of running at higher cant than the Acela I, would higher speeds be possible? What are the limitations? Is it the older equipment such as the Amfleets that are the determining factor or is it the occasional freight train?


FRA regulations for superelevation. Most curves are at the max already. NEC already has a few exceptions too.


> I would think adding additional flatter tracks for slower trains would be a possible solution and certainly less expensive than a whole new ROW.


Along the NEC where is the real estate for additional tracks going to come from unless it is either additions to the present ROW or new ROW? For other routes, if one wants higher speed, it makes more sense to build new tracks for high speed service rather than for moving slower speed trains off of the less than ideal current ROWs at great cost. Of course where possible separation is a good idea, but is much harder to achieve where possible parallel routes are owned by different companies.

Actually the bigger problem on the NEC is inadequate track center distance and that is again impossible to increase in many place without extremely expensive work as the ROW is constrained by electrification poles. Basically the current electrification will have to be removed ROW expanded in width, tracks moved and then re-electrified.

The maximum capabilities of NEC under various scenarios and the corresponding costs are well known and speed will be increased opportunistically. But the NEC in its current form will never become a 300kph railroad. The goals are better specified in terms of end to end target run times. NY - Washington done in two hours would be basically at the edge of possibilities with very large investment short of new ROW in a lot of tunnels. More realistic would be 2.5 hours or so, which we will get to.

But realistically, other than bragging rights and railfan fomage what exactly is the added return from reducing running time from 3:00 to 2:45 to 2:30? Isn’t some of that incremental money better spent at getting say, the inland route to Boston upgraded, or the spine in Virginia upgraded and electrified? It is all a trade off.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jul 19, 2021)

jis said:


> But realistically, other than bragging rights and railfan fomage what exactly is the added return from reducing running time from 3:00 to 2:45 to 2:30? Isn;t some of that incremental money better spent at getting say, the inland route to Boston upgraded, or the spine in Virginia upgraded and electrified? It is all a trade off.



I’m very curious to learn more about the inland route to Boston (presumably through Worcester and Springfield?)

What would it take to make that happen? What would the timings look like? I know MBTA has painfully slow plans to electrify, but Boston to Springfield is pretty slow (and still partially CSX owned) and congested with lots of grade crossings.

NEC Connect 2035 unfortunately doesn’t seem to say much about it. 

The cost of making it happen would seem staggering to me.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jul 19, 2021)

jis said:


> But the NEC in its current form will never become a 300kph railroad.



I forget where I read it, but was Amtrak full of crap when they said that a goal top speed for the new Acelas was 186 when they finish upgrades, even if just for a small segment?


----------



## jis (Jul 19, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> I forget where I read it, but was Amtrak full of crap when they said that a goal top speed for the new Acelas was 186 when they finish upgrades, even if just for a small segment?


The trains are capable, but not anywhere on the NEC. 160mph is it, unless they get to execute the most expensive of the alternatives in the Tier 1 EIS, an alternative that appears to be pretty much off the table for now.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jul 19, 2021)

jis said:


> The trains are capable, but not anywhere on the NEC. 160mphis it, unless they get to execute the most expensive of the alternatives in the Level 1 EIS, an alternative that appears to be pretty much off the table for now.


Yeah, from what I understand the trains are basically almost TGV level and can go 220, but Amtrak was talking about upgrading to 186 somewhere along the straight ROWs (maybe near providence).

I could be misinformed however.


----------



## jis (Jul 19, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> Yeah, from what I understand the trains are basically almost TGV level and can go 220, but Amtrak was talking about upgrading to 186 somewhere along the straight ROWs (maybe near providence).
> 
> I could be misinformed however.


Given enough money anything is possible. Currently the North East Corridor Commission's plans do not have enough money budgeted in plan to do anything of the sort. Amtrak like many companies has devolved into producing marketing fluff unsupported by any reality from time to time.


----------



## neroden (Jul 21, 2021)

jis said:


> Both use GSI trucks. There are probably some subtle differences. They have intended to fix whatever is the difference but have not got around to it. Probably has something to do with the Truck mounts, Yaw Dampers or with wheel profile. Not sure.


I'm trying to remember, but I think it was just wheel profile; they may just need to be reground and recertified. I could be wrong though.


----------



## JLChicago (Dec 6, 2021)

Palmetto said:


> And does the theoretical, new line HAVE to be downtown? France's TGV calls some major cities' stops TGV, and they are not in the city itself, at all. Valence, is one of them.


I just read recently (sorry can’t recall where) that France is moving away from these greenfield sites. They generate little ridership. Instead they’re planning more connections into the historical network so TGVs can go right into the city center then back out again to the high speed lines. Turns out that’s faster for the rider when you add in taxi/car/bus to the greenfield countryside station.


----------



## NES28 (Mar 26, 2022)

Cal said:


> The run-time between NYP and Boston is kinda slow. So I'm curious, what would happen to the speed if new tracks were to be built between New Haven and Boston that ran directly to Boston instead of paralleling the coast? I know this will never happen, but I'm curious


I think that this is a great idea. It would not require a lot of new right-of-way. The basis would be a pretty direct route between Hartford and Worcester using the alignment of a short line from Hartford and Manchester, I-84 to Sturbridge, MA, the Mass Pike to Auburn, and CSX to Worcester Union Station. Transit Matters has published a plan for greatly upgrading MBTA's Worcester-Boston line. This routing would be much faster than the Shoreline and would provide a much faster route for the East-West Boston-Springfield service as well, bypassing the circuitous route through the Brookfields.


----------



## TheCrescent (Mar 29, 2022)

Cal said:


> I mean even with the current line, the run-time between BOS and NYP isn't terrible, is it? Just building new track that is capable of higher (or top speeds) the entire way would do a lot.



It’s currently around 3:48 on the Acela Express, which is is about the same time as driving. Unacceptable to me.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Mar 29, 2022)

TheCrescent said:


> It’s currently around 3:48 on the Acela Express, which is is about the same time as driving. Unacceptable to me.


Actually, there have been times where it has run 3:30 minutes.
Also, if you’re doing downtown to downtown at 3:48 minutes (at normal daytime times), remind me to never get in a car with you.


----------



## TheCrescent (Mar 29, 2022)

Tlcooper93 said:


> Actually, there have been times were it has run 3:30 minutes.
> Also, if you’re doing downtown to downtown at 3:48 minutes (at normal daytime times), remind me to never get in a car with you.


The Acela was “supposed” to take 3 hours as planned. Google Maps says that driving takes 3:44.


----------



## Cal (Mar 29, 2022)

TheCrescent said:


> The Acela was “supposed” to take 3 hours as planned. Google Maps says that driving takes 3:44.




Me too. Note that it is currently almost 10 PM on the East coast though.


----------



## John from RI (Mar 29, 2022)

Cal said:


> The run-time between NYP and Boston is kinda slow. So I'm curious, what would happen to the speed if new tracks were to be built between New Haven and Boston that ran directly to Boston instead of paralleling the Boston Hartford and Erie was built, a fairly straight line which had station at Woonsocket, RI and then went to Hartford and then to New York. Its name changed to the New York and New England. It operated a famous "White Train" which offered express service. During the Obama Administration there were talk of rerouting Amtrak's New York and Boston service there but nothing ever came of it. By cutting out the Shore Line which is one curve after another in Rhode Island and Connecticut it would make much better time. However, it would miss Providence, the second largest city in New England and also miss New London and New Haven.
> New York and New England Railroad - Wikipedia


----------



## MARC Rider (Mar 30, 2022)

TheCrescent said:


> It’s currently around 3:48 on the Acela Express, which is is about the same time as driving. Unacceptable to me.


They could probably cut at least a half hour off the time if they were able to run consistently at 70 - 75 mph between New Rochelle and New Haven. Fixing that (which requires the help of Metro-North) is probably the first thing they need to do before they start any fancy new route east of New Haven.


----------



## John Santos (Mar 30, 2022)

MARC Rider said:


> They could probably cut at least a half hour off the time if they were able to run consistently at 70 - 75 mph between New Rochelle and New Haven. Fixing that (which requires the help of Metro-North) is probably the first thing they need to do before they start any fancy new route east of New Haven.


Why is that stretch so slow? I've not noticed it being particularly curvy (unlike eastern CT, which follows the coastline closely and is very curvy.)

It is 4 tracks most or all of the way, though they often seem to have one or more tracks blocked off for some never-ending maintenance project.

I recall some issues somewhere that the track-to-track spacing is so close that they need to lock the Acela's tilt mechanism or else there would be danger of collisions. Locking the tilt limits the speed. Is this correct?

Are the rails or catenary incapable of supporting higher speed?

Is it commuter train interference? I.E. the Acela getting stuck behind a much slower Metro-North train? Shouldn't having 4 tracks make this a non-issue?


----------



## George Harris (Mar 30, 2022)

John Santos said:


> Why is that stretch so slow? I've not noticed it being particularly curvy (unlike eastern CT, which follows the coastline closely and is very curvy.)


It is quite curvey.



> It is 4 tracks most or all of the way, though they often seem to have one or more tracks blocked off for some never-ending maintenance project.


too true



> I recall some issues somewhere that the track-to-track spacing is so close that they need to lock the Acela's tilt mechanism or else there would be danger of collisions. Locking the tilt limits the speed. Is this correct?


Very true. I believe track centers to be as little as 12 feet in some areas and probably no more than 12'-6" anywhere. To give a picture of what that means, the standard has been not less than 14 feet for many years, and most multiple track lines, even those doubled late 1800's early 1900's are 13 feet or more. Generally for new high speed lines the design track centers are 15 to 16 feet.



> Are the rails or catenary incapable of supporting higher speed?


Rails not at all. Catenary, not certain.



> Is it commuter train interference? I.E. the Acela getting stuck behind a much slower Metro-North train? Shouldn't having 4 tracks make this a non-issue?


Should not be happening.


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac (Mar 30, 2022)

John Santos said:


> Why is that stretch so slow? I've not noticed it being particularly curvy (unlike eastern CT, which follows the coastline closely and is very curvy.)
> 
> It is 4 tracks most or all of the way, though they often seem to have one or more tracks blocked off for some never-ending maintenance project.
> 
> ...


The track between New Richelle and New Haven is maintained and dispatched by Metro North so it is optimized for commuter service for which high speeds are not necessary. I think that is the primary reason. The never ending tracks out of service has a lot to do with the deferred maintenance going back to the New Haven years. Remember this was the first high voltage AC mainline electrification in the US and much of the equipment even older than the rest of the NEC.


----------



## mfastx (Mar 30, 2022)

TheCrescent said:


> It’s currently around 3:48 on the Acela Express, which is is about the same time as driving. Unacceptable to me.



As others have said it should be 3:30, just bad scheduling/padding. Obviously Metro North tracks are the issue, even modest speed increases through that stretch would be beneficial. 

As for driving, it's about the same assuming no traffic. You'd be lucky to make it in 4:30 driving on a Friday evening though!


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Mar 30, 2022)

TheCrescent said:


> The Acela was “supposed” to take 3 hours as planned. Google Maps says that driving takes 3:44.



I currently have (during the middle of the day - not rush hour) 3:56. For this, I'm assuming a max speed of 75mph (if you want to push the law, that shouldn't count). There is always traffic near downtown Boston and NYC. The fastest I've ever driven the route was beginning at 5am on a saturday, and it took 3:42 minutes; there was no traffic obviously.

The Acela is currently the fastest land route between the two cities, no matter how you slice it. And in terms of scheduled times, its an hour faster than all buses.
There is that new seaplane service however that's toting super fast times.

As others have said, MNRR is the real problem, as it is quite curvy, and the old infrastructure (cat wires) is highly prohibitive on speed (even though it really doesn't need to be). ----- now known to be untrue, reference Jis below -----


----------



## jis (Mar 30, 2022)

MNRR’s catenary is newer than most of what Amtrak has south of New York by many decades and it is also constant tension. There are no speed restrictions because of catenary.


----------



## George Harris (Mar 30, 2022)

jis said:


> MNRR’s catenary is newer than most of what Amtrak has south of New York by many decades and it is also constant tension. There are no speed restrictions because of catenary.


Are you sure about that? I know it is true east (or is it called north) of New Haven, as that was electrified by Amtrak. But the New Haven to New York was originally electrified long ago. How much rebuilding and renewal of this original part, I have no idea. I do understand that the relatively low maximum speed is because alignment geometry makes a higher maximum pointless, and much of it is so curvey you can't even go that fast. As to delays due to the need to recover from the NH&H deferred maintenance, that excuse is so old it should be long dead. What are they using as their current excuse, or is it just general incompetence?


----------



## jis (Mar 30, 2022)

George Harris said:


> Are you sure about that? I know it is true east (or is it called north) of New Haven, as that was electrified by Amtrak. But the New Haven to New York was originally electrified long ago. How much rebuilding and renewal of this original part, I have no idea. I do understand that the relatively low maximum speed is because alignment geometry makes a higher maximum pointless, and much of it is so curvey you can't even go that fast. As to delays due to the need to recover from the NH&H deferred maintenance, that excuse is so old it should be long dead. What are they using as their current excuse, or is it just general incompetence?


Yes. I am sure about that. The entire thing has been replaced lock, stock and barrel by constant tension catenary, and of course also converted to 60 Hz.


----------



## John819 (Mar 30, 2022)

The catenary from New Rochelle to New Haven has been fully updated and that is not a problem. I also understand that they can now tilt the train cars on this portion of the route.

The real problems that require the trains to slow are the 100+ year old bridges with speed limits at Cos Cob, Norwalk (being replaced), and Stratford, along with the sharp curves at Port Chester and Bridgeport (2 of them). Because the areas at these curves are highly developed, it would cost megabucks to straighten them out. Over the next decade or so I expect that the bridges will be replaced as they are way past their life span.

By the way, in the 1960s the running time for an express from New Haven to GCT was about 1:30!


----------



## MARC Rider (Mar 30, 2022)

1. I seem to recall seeing the pulleys and weights indicative of constant tension catenary on my trip over the section earlier this month. Anyway, they install constant-tension catenary even in non-high-speed applications, as it's installed as part of the Baltimore Light Rail, which never exceeds 50 mph.

2. My experience riding that segment in Amtrak trains is that they will run at 70 -75 mph for a while and then slow down to a crawl. Then they'll speed up again for a while. Rinse and repeat. It suggests to me that they're following a commuter train. I've also noticed that since at least 2004, when I started riding this route regularly, that they've always had one or another of the tracks closed off for work. I'm not sure what kind of maintenance requires almost 20 years continual work, but I think if all 4 tracks were available, the express trains could all run faster. By the way, Metro North trains have the same problem -- I once rode one from Bridgeport to Grand Central a few years ago, it was supposed to be an express, but we spent a lot of time crawling along at 40 mph. And one of the tracks was, indeed closed off.


----------



## MARC Rider (Mar 30, 2022)

John819 said:


> Because the areas at these curves are highly developed, it would cost megabucks to straighten them out.


Actually, I would think that it would be more like gigabucks, and maybe terabucks. Megabucks is the cost to put in a couple of ADA-compliant platforms.


----------



## TheCrescent (Mar 30, 2022)

Tlcooper93 said:


> I currently have (during the middle of the day - not rush hour) 3:56. For this, I'm assuming a max speed of 75mph (if you want to push the law, that shouldn't count). There is always traffic near downtown Boston and NYC. The fastest I've ever driven the route was beginning at 5am on a saturday, and it took 3:42 minutes; there was no traffic obviously.
> 
> The Acela is currently the fastest land route between the two cities, no matter how you slice it. And in terms of scheduled times, its an hour faster than all buses.
> There is that new seaplane service however that's toting super fast times.
> ...



It’s ridiculous that the United States’ high-speed rail line averages a speed that’s the same as driving. And if you add going to the station and boarding the train, the total trip time on the Acela is slower than driving.

That’s ridiculous. The US can do better (at least in theory). Even countries such as Morocco and Russia have faster trains.


----------



## MARC Rider (Mar 30, 2022)

TheCrescent said:


> It’s ridiculous that the United States’ high-speed rail line averages a speed that’s the same as driving. And if you add going to the station and boarding the train, the total trip time on the Acela is slower than driving.


That's not true, at least not between Baltimore and New York. The drive is at least 4 hours. Even the Northeast Regional does it in 2 hours 40 minutes, and the Acela does it in 2 hours 20 minutes. One can arrive at the station at any time before departure, in my case, I usually like to get there 2 minutes early, but when I was commuting, I'd sometimes get there about 5 minutes before train time. There is really not need to increase the maximum speed on this route, though clearing up bottlenecks to reduce total travel time would be beneficial.

I'm not sure about this need to always increase maximum speed, just because someone else is doing it. Even the airlines are slowing down their airplanes. It doesn't add that much travel time and it saves a lot of money in reduced fuel consumption, not to mention reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Who needs to fly at 500 mph when 450 mph works perfectly well?


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Mar 30, 2022)

TheCrescent said:


> It’s ridiculous that the United States’ high-speed rail line averages a speed that’s the same as driving. And if you add going to the station and boarding the train, the total trip time on the Acela is slower than driving.
> 
> That’s ridiculous. The US can do better (at least in theory). Even countries such as Morocco and Russia have faster trains.



Except, as I wrote, its not the same as driving. Its notably faster, except for purely traffic-less circumstances.
I take it you don't do a lot of driving in the Boston-NYC area. Traffic is terrible.
My sister makes the drive to NYC from Boston about once a week. She said its only on good days in the early morning or late evening with no traffic that she can do the drive in under 4 hours; thats with no bathroom, gas, or food stops.

In principle, I agree with you. We can do better, but the Acela is actually faster than driving by a decent amount 9/10 times (if you live in the city).


----------



## west point (Mar 30, 2022)

There will not be a full 4 tracks from NRO - New Haven for many years. All the bridge replacements require at kleast one track out of service for track relocation. For example, the Walk bridge replacement will have 2 independent lift bridges requiring tracks to be move outward from present center line of ROW. In fact for at least 60 days work will be down to 2 tracks in service. That 2 tracks operation more than one time.


----------



## TheCrescent (Mar 30, 2022)

MARC Rider said:


> That's not true, at least not between Baltimore and New York. The drive is at least 4 hours. Even the Northeast Regional does it in 2 hours 40 minutes, and the Acela does it in 2 hours 20 minutes. One can arrive at the station at any time before departure, in my case, I usually like to get there 2 minutes early, but when I was commuting, I'd sometimes get there about 5 minutes before train time. There is really not need to increase the maximum speed on this route, though clearing up bottlenecks to reduce total travel time would be beneficial.
> 
> I'm not sure about this need to always increase maximum speed, just because someone else is doing it. Even the airlines are slowing down their airplanes. It doesn't add that much travel time and it saves a lot of money in reduced fuel consumption, not to mention reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Who needs to fly at 500 mph when 450 mph works perfectly well?


The post that I was responding to was about the NY-Boston portion. 

From NY to DC, yes, the Acela is much faster than driving.

Given all of the slow spots, increasing the maximum speed is necessary for the Acela to be competitive with its average trip times.


----------



## Cal (Mar 30, 2022)

TheCrescent said:


> . Even countries such as Morocco and Russia have faster trains.


Forget Russia and Morocco, Africa has a new, I believe high quality, high speed line too! Now, all the power to them, it's absolutely amazing that more countries are getting HSR, but the US is behind.


----------



## joelkfla (Mar 30, 2022)

Cal said:


> Forget Russia and Morocco, Africa has a new, I believe high quality, high speed line too! Now, all the power to them, it's absolutely amazing that more countries are getting HSR, but the US is behind.


Morocco is in Africa.


----------



## Cal (Mar 30, 2022)

joelkfla said:


> Morocco is in Africa.


Obviously I need to re-check my geography. Not quite sure what I thought I was thinking of when I read Morocco then...


----------



## John819 (Mar 30, 2022)

west point said:


> There will not be a full 4 tracks from NRO - New Haven for many years. All the bridge replacements require at kleast one track out of service for track relocation. For example, the Walk bridge replacement will have 2 independent lift bridges requiring tracks to be move outward from present center line of ROW. In fact for at least 60 days work will be down to 2 tracks in service. That 2 tracks operation more than one time.


Operations east of Stamford have significantly fewer MN trains than the New Rochelle-Stamford stretch, especially in non-rush hours. So two track operation will not be devastating there. However, when they get to the Cos Cob bridge, all bets are off!


----------



## MARC Rider (Mar 31, 2022)

TheCrescent said:


> Given all of the slow spots, increasing the maximum speed is necessary for the Acela to be competitive with its average trip times.


Except that it's cheaper and easier to get rid of the slow spots. And, short of a totally devastating World War or alien invasion that demolishes most of Connecticut, I can't imagine that any new right of way can be built to replace the Shore Line.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Mar 31, 2022)

TheCrescent said:


> Given all of the slow spots, increasing the maximum speed is necessary for the Acela to be competitive with its average trip times.



this actually doesn’t check out.
It’s more economical and cheaper to increase slow than increase fast.

the difference between getting the Acela to 165 in a handful of select areas has little to no effect on trip times.

inceasing a spot from 30mph to 80mph makes much more of a difference.

Most top speeds around the world on great HSR services don’t actually top out much higher than an Acela. Indeed, only a handful of Shinkansen and TGV routes do (and Beijing to Shanghai in China). It’s their average speed that’s much better.


----------



## TheCrescent (Mar 31, 2022)

Tlcooper93 said:


> this actually doesn’t check out.
> It’s more economical and cheaper to increase slow than increase fast.
> 
> the different between getting the Acela to 165 in a handful of select areas has little to no effect on trip times.
> ...


While it may be cheaper to get rid of the slow spots, are they all being removed?

No.

Amtrak deals the cards that it has. There are and will be slow spots, and Amtrak can increase top speeds in some areas. So it removes slow spots when possible and increases top speeds when possible.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Mar 31, 2022)

TheCrescent said:


> While it may be cheaper to get rid of the slow spots, are they all being removed?
> 
> No.
> 
> Amtrak deals the cards that it has. There are and will be slow spots, and Amtrak can increase top speeds in some areas. So it removes slow spots when possible and increases top speeds when possible.



You’re gonna need to cite some stuff in order for me to be on board with your argument.


----------



## TheCrescent (Mar 31, 2022)

Tlcooper93 said:


> You’re gonna need to cite some stuff in order for me to be on board with your argument.


No. I don’t do research for others unless I’m paid to do so or unless I’m a member of a volunteer organization that requires it.


----------



## MARC Rider (Mar 31, 2022)

TheCrescent said:


> While it may be cheaper to get rid of the slow spots, are they all being removed?
> 
> No.
> 
> Amtrak deals the cards that it has. There are and will be slow spots, and Amtrak can increase top speeds in some areas. So it removes slow spots when possible and increases top speeds when possible.


So if they can't remove the slow spots, which is cheaper and easier to do, what makes you think that it's likely anyone will do what's needed to do to increase maximum speeds?

Like I said earlier, redoing or replacing the Shore Line through some of the most valuable real estate in America might require the devastation of a World War, an alien invasion, or a Godzilla rampage through Connecticut (that might make a good movie). OK, possibly also a change in our political culture that would increase the willingness to spend the terabucks (or maybe even petabucks) needed for such a public works project. Personally, I'd put my money on an alien invasion or a Godzilla rampage as being more likely.


----------



## mfastx (Mar 31, 2022)

MARC Rider said:


> 1. I seem to recall seeing the pulleys and weights indicative of constant tension catenary on my trip over the section earlier this month. Anyway, they install constant-tension catenary even in non-high-speed applications, as it's installed as part of the Baltimore Light Rail, which never exceeds 50 mph.
> 
> 2. My experience riding that segment in Amtrak trains is that they will run at 70 -75 mph for a while and then slow down to a crawl. Then they'll speed up again for a while. Rinse and repeat. It suggests to me that they're following a commuter train. *I've also noticed that since at least 2004, when I started riding this route regularly, that they've always had one or another of the tracks closed off for work. I'm not sure what kind of maintenance requires almost 20 years continual work, but I think if all 4 tracks were available, the express trains could all run faster.* By the way, Metro North trains have the same problem -- I once rode one from Bridgeport to Grand Central a few years ago, it was supposed to be an express, but we spent a lot of time crawling along at 40 mph. And one of the tracks was, indeed closed off.



This boggles my mind as well. I wonder if all four tracks will ever be in service concurrently in my lifetime lol.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Mar 31, 2022)

TheCrescent said:


> No. I don’t do research for others unless I’m paid to do so or unless I’m a member of a volunteer organization that requires it.


Ahh, then we have proof by vehement assertion. 

Straightening out ROW’s in some of the curviest parts of the NEC could cost upwards of 50 billion, and you still think cranking out a few upper end mph here and there is gonna help?


----------



## dlerach (Mar 31, 2022)

It always seemed an order of magnitude easier to improve the alignment of New Rochelle-Stamford than Stamford-New Haven. Norwalk and Bridgeport both have tremendously difficult curves that would require either tunneling, bypassing, or razing half of each city. The curve just east of Stamford to Darien is also basically impossible to improve without tunneling or razing the neighborhood of Noroton Heights.

New Rochelle-Stamford, on the other hand, presents fewer impediments. There are some curves that need straightening if operating speeds are going to dramatically increase (Harrison, Rye, Port Chester, Greenwich, Cos Cob), but the primary constraint on this section of the NEC is traffic density and congestion. Although traffic is very heavy west of Stamford, and Amtrak often finds itself following slow-moving commuter trains, the NYNH&H built this section of the alignment for 6 tracks instead of today’s 4, (the NYW&B took the space for those two tracks between Larchmont and Port Chester during its period of operation). Since then, the construction of the Connecticut Turnpike/I-95 has encroached on the right-of-way in some areas, but to my eye it is still possible to add two additional tracks with only a bit of imagination and perhaps some minimal takings.

Giving Amtrak two independent tracks west of Stamford would *dramatically* improve reliability and running times, as well as increase capacity for Metro North. Most importantly though, allocating Metro North tracks 1-4 and Amtrak 5-6 could eliminate the need for a flyover at Shell Interlocking, one of the most challenging chokepoints on the whole NEC. Tracks 5-6 could instead shift to the middle of the r-o-w with a flying junction between Port Chester and Greenwich, where there is much more open space.

That just leaves the constraining curves. They could all be reduced to 1° with only one major deviation from the alignment, though they would require takings. 1° curves would allow Northeast Regionals to travel 110 mph and Acela trains to travel 125 mph:

1. Harrison needs its S-curve eased, which would require relocating the Rye Racket Club and taking 1-2 rows of houses on the southwest side of town.
2. The Rye and Port Chester curves are sharp and run through highly-built downtowns, but I-95 offers an almost perfect bypass here (curving onto I-95, though, would require demolishing about 12 houses and placing two tracks of the railroad on an expensive viaduct.)
3. Greenwich’s station lies on an S-curve, which can be corrected again by exiting I-95 with a flying junction onto the current r-o-w just east of the Greenwich station. This requires demolishing the office building directly south of the station.
4. The Cos Cob Bridge currently lies between two sharp curves. Replacing the troublesome bridge with a fixed span on a broad curve would allow 110/125 mph operation.

These improvements are tremendously expensive, yes, but together with minimal improvements to the Hell Gate line, they would allow Amtrak to provide true high speed rail on some 35 miles of railroad with the only speed limit remaining between Penn Station and Stamford the Hell Gate Bridge.


----------



## west point (Mar 31, 2022)

What would it cost to straighten the NEC from North PHL to past Frankford Junction? IMO that would have the best benefit per passenger minutes as that is a very heavy number oof passengers.


----------



## George Harris (Mar 31, 2022)

To cut through all the arm-waving about speed limits and restrictions:
The length of a segment permitting a higher than current maximum speed for the railroad is effectively reduced by the length of track needed for acceleration at the beginning of the segment and the length of track needed for deceleration/braking in approach to the end of the higher speed segment. For a low speed restriction, the reverse is true, in that the effective length of the restriction is increased by the need to slow down for it and speed up from it.

Plus, consider the seconds per mile at 125 mph is 28.8 seconds and for 150 mph is 24 seconds, so each mile you increase saves you 4.8 seconds. BUT, wait a minute, you really can't do that good as when you get to the start of this super high speed section, you have to accelerate to it and then brake to the lower speed at the end of it. And, you have to do these while the full train length is within the higher speed segment. So, if we ignore train length, if the higher speed section is 10 miles long and you take 1/2 mile to accelerate and 1/2 mile to brake, you have reduced run time by something like 45.8 seconds, that is less than one minute, and increased energy consumption significantly to do so. (Aerodynamic train resistance, with is the main component of running resistance at high speed is proportional to the square of the speed. In other words, aerodynamic at 150 mph is 1.44 times the aerodynamic resistance at 125 mph. Thus, for a 20% increase in speed you have a 44% increase in resistance, then add in acceleration energy, which even if partially balanced with use of regenerative brakes, you have an overall increased energy consumption for this near insignificant improvement in run time.)

No let's look at a one mile 30 mph segment that for the same money we can get up to the full 125 mph limit. One mile at 30 mph is 120 seconds. Let's say it takes the same 1/2 mile each end for acceleration and braking, which is probably about right on the braking end and probably short on the acceleration end, you have for this one mile speed restriction two miles that take 166.5 seconds versus 57.6 seconds if the restriction did not exist, so you have reduced run time by 108.9 seconds, in other words, nearly two minutes and by eliminating the braking/acceleration probably reduced overall energy consumption along with it. By the way, unless this is a straight track restriction such as a bridge, but improvements on curves, you would probably have some small reduction in length of line as well.

If my objective is to give the politicians something to brag about, then spend it on the speed limit increase. If my objective is to improve run time then spend it on increasing speed in low speed areas.

Nuff said.


----------



## TheCrescent (Mar 31, 2022)

Tlcooper93 said:


> Ahh, then we have proof by vehement assertion.
> 
> Straightening out ROW’s in some of the curviest parts of the NEC could cost upwards of 50 billion, and you still think cranking out a few upper end mph here and there is gonna help?



Yes, improving speeds in a few stretches to 160 mph may shave a few minutes off total trip times. That helps, particularly when spending billions to straighten curves isn’t going to happen.

As we all know, in some places, modernizing track and catenary just to bring them up to 2020 standards and to increase capacity means that the additional cost to permit 160 mph operation is quite low- e.g., New Jersey track around Princeton. If necessary updates are already being done, why not spend a bit more to get speeds up to 160?


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Mar 31, 2022)

TheCrescent said:


> Yes, improving speeds in a few stretches to 160 mph may shave a few minutes off total trip times. That helps, particularly when spending billions to straighten curves isn’t going to happen.
> 
> As we all know, in some places, modernizing track and catenary just to bring them up to 2020 standards and to increase capacity means that the additional cost to permit 160 mph operation is quite low- e.g., New Jersey track around Princeton. If necessary updates are already being done, why not spend a bit more to get speeds up to 160?


please just refer to George Harris’ post


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Mar 31, 2022)

TheCrescent said:


> Yes, improving speeds in a few stretches to 160 mph may shave a few minutes off total trip times. That helps, particularly when spending billions to straighten curves isn’t going to happen.
> 
> As we all know, in some places, modernizing track and catenary just to bring them up to 2020 standards and to increase capacity means that the additional cost to permit 160 mph operation is quite low- e.g., New Jersey track around Princeton. If necessary updates are already being done, why not spend a bit more to get speeds up to 160?


Wires are not the thing preventing higher speeds around Princeton junction. Tracks have concrete ties and are pretty up to date too.


----------



## George Harris (Mar 31, 2022)

(In answer to a comment/question concerning NY to NH catenary


jis said:


> Yes. I am sure about that. The entire thing has been replaced lock, stock and barrel by constant tension catenary, and of course also converted to 60 Hz.


Thank you. I have not kept up with things in the northeast as much as I did in the past. As a response to someone who made the comment about the constant tension catenary also being used in light rail: Yes. The whole "constant tension" concept simplifies so many things in the operation and maintenance of overhead electrification it comes under "Why didn't we start doing this years ago?" heading. It is to my mind, at least, the only way to go in overhead electrification in almost all, like 99,9%+ of electrifications.


----------



## TheCrescent (Mar 31, 2022)

Tlcooper93 said:


> please just refer to George Harris’ post


I’ve read it.

None of us on this board (as far as I know) is a decision maker about where to spend funds for infrastructure upgrades.

I’m well aware that eliminating slow spots may be more cost-effective and more effective overall in raising average trip times.

But unless and until Amtrak gets sufficient funding to allocate as it thinks best to improve trip times overall, it has limited funds and funding for specific projects.

If all Amtrak has is funding to increase a speed even on a short stretch to 160 mph, but it doesn’t have funding to eliminate a slow stretch, then I for one would be an absolute fool to decline to work to increase the speed to 160.

As is often said, don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If all Amtrak can do is increase a maximum speed to 160, do it, even if slow stretches cannot be eliminated.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Mar 31, 2022)

TheCrescent said:


> I’ve read it.
> 
> None of us on this board (as far as I know) is a decision maker about where to spend funds for infrastructure upgrades.
> 
> ...



Ok, so I don't really understand your point.
We both want to improve trip times on the BOS-NYP (and overall) sections of the Acela route.

It has now been established that the most effective way to do this, both cost-wise and speed wise, is the improve slow sections; yet you are claiming that we should use the most expensive and least effective way of lowering trip times: increasing top speeds. You say there is some amorphous reason than Amtrak ought to do this, without any citations. 

If anything, I'd invert your argument: lets not let perfect (increasing top speeds), be the enemy of the good (slashing trip times economically).

----

for what its worth, I do believe Amtrak is increasing top speeds where it makes sense (Rhode Island).


----------



## TheCrescent (Mar 31, 2022)

Tlcooper93 said:


> Ok, so I don't really understand your point.
> We both want to improve trip times on the BOS-NYP (and overall) sections of the Acela route.
> 
> It has now been established that the most effective way to do this, both cost-wise and speed wise, is the improve slow sections; yet you are claiming that we should use the most expensive and least effective way of lowering trip times: increasing top speeds. You say there is some amorphous reason than Amtrak ought to do this, without any citations.
> ...


My point is this:

Take whatever funds are available and make whatever improvements to infrastructure can be done to improve trip times.

If all that can be done is to improve maximum speeds on short stretches, do it!

Amtrak doesn’t have unlimited funds or unlimited control over what projects can be funded. Just use whatever funds can be obtained for whatever projects can be funded.


----------



## jis (Mar 31, 2022)

I would just gently add a little color to how project funding is decided on the NEC. It is not decided by Amtrak alone. That used to be the case before Congress created the North East Corridor Commission. It is decided by the North East Corridor Commission which is in charge of managing all funding of NEC projects by Congressional decree. It gets funding from the Feds and the States and in consultation with all stake holders, decides on project priorities. There is an enormous list of projects described in excruciating detail, that is publicly available with tentative cost estimates to feed into this decision making process. Of course if Congress designated a specific pot of money for a specific project then it is the Commission's job to make sure that Congress' wish is carried out


----------



## TheCrescent (Mar 31, 2022)

Great post, jis. As anyone who has even a cursory familiarity with how government works knows quite well that legislatures and executives certainly don’t necessarily spend money based on the best use of money, based on objective criteria; they spend it for a range of reasons unrelated to what’s the best use of funds. Thus government spending on railroad infrastructure may have nothing to do with what’s the most cost-effective way to improve the railroad. So Amtrak should take the funds that it can get, for the projects that it can get funded. Even if an outcome in an ideal world would be different.


----------



## George Harris (Mar 31, 2022)

TheCrescent said:


> If all that can be done is to improve maximum speeds on short stretches, do it!


I think you are missing the major point I was trying to make: Improving maximum speeds on short sections" gets you next door to nothing.

If I were to redo my little calcs above using 160 mph instead of 150, then for 160 versus 125 you gain 63 whole seconds in TEN MILES if the speed limit before was 125 mph, and you have an increased power consumption of about 60% per mile to do this. In other words, if you want to save 10 minutes, you have got to have 100 miles of track that is already good for 125 mph that you can raise to 160 mph, and that had better be a near to continuous 100 miles. Also, if you have curves that are good for 125 mph and no more, they would still be good for 125 mph and no more unless you can modify those curves. Dlerach mentioned 1 degree curves as being good for 125 mph under the Acela: Based on the old SE = 0.0007 V^2 D formula, this would indicate a balancing superelevation of 10.93 inches, which is extremely high, so I am not sure that is correct. The usual maximum superelevation is 4 inches on lines carrying high freight cars such as piggyback or double stacks, and 6 inches on lines that either are passenger only or limited to passengers and low center of gravity freight equipment and loads, so, if given 6 inches actual, this leaves an unbalance of near 5 inches. The usual is 3 inches, but with tilting equipment you can do more, so let's assume the Acela can handle 5 inches of unbalance. Churning the SE formula around, this says that for 160 mph operation you must have curves of not greater than 0 degrees 36 minutes. Again, we are dealing with not the direct ratio of speeds but of speed squared. (A one degree curve, chord definition, has a radius of 5,729.51 feet, and a 0d 36m curve has a radius of 9,549.25 feet. Degree of curve is defined as the change in direction over a chord distance of 100 feet.)

I am saying all this to say that realistically if you want to increase run time, you deal with the slow areas, and then maybe think about raising the speed limit. To quote an article on this subject that was in the Railway Gazette International quite a few years ago, "The best way to go fast is to avoid going slow."

Yes, I realize that politicians tend to live in fantasyland on many things and one is virtually everything involving railroads, but none the less we had better be able to understand what the realities are and not go into swooning fits believing what they tell us. The CAHSR is an outstanding of a very good and essentially necessary system that has been turned into a boondoggle by political manipulations. There is a saying that you probably dare not say out loud in current conditions, which is the first exercise in developing any major facility is shoot all the involved politicians.


----------



## TheCrescent (Mar 31, 2022)

George Harris said:


> I think you are missing the major point I was trying to make: Improving maximum speeds on short sections" gets you next door to nothing.
> 
> If I were to redo my little calcs above using 160 mph instead of 150, then for 160 versus 125 you gain 63 whole seconds in TEN MILES if the speed limit before was 125 mph, and you have an increased power consumption of about 60% per mile to do this. In other words, if you want to save 10 minutes, you have got to have 100 miles of track that is already good for 125 mph that you can raise to 160 mph, and that had better be a near to continuous 100 miles. Also, if you have curves that are good for 125 mph and no more, they would still be good for 125 mph and no more unless you can modify those curves. Dlerach mentioned 1 degree curves as being good for 125 mph under the Acela: Based on the old SE = 0.0007 V^2 D formula, this would indicate a balancing superelevation of 10.93 inches, which is extremely high, so I am not sure that is correct. The usual maximum superelevation is 4 inches on lines carrying high freight cars such as piggyback or double stacks, and 6 inches on lines that either are passenger only or limited to passengers and low center of gravity freight equipment and loads, so, if given 6 inches actual, this leaves an unbalance of near 5 inches. The usual is 3 inches, but with tilting equipment you can do more, so let's assume the Acela can handle 5 inches of unbalance. Churning the SE formula around, this says that for 160 mph operation you must have curves of not greater than 0 degrees 36 minutes. Again, we are dealing with not the direct ratio of speeds but of speed squared. (A one degree curve, chord definition, has a radius of 5,729.51 feet, and a 0d 36m curve has a radius of 9,549.25 feet. Degree of curve is defined as the change in direction over a chord distance of 100 feet.)
> 
> ...



No, I’m not missing your point. I understand your point.


----------



## John819 (Mar 31, 2022)

dlerach said:


> It always seemed an order of magnitude easier to improve the alignment of New Rochelle-Stamford than Stamford-New Haven. Norwalk and Bridgeport both have tremendously difficult curves that would require either tunneling, bypassing, or razing half of each city. The curve just east of Stamford to Darien is also basically impossible to improve without tunneling or razing the neighborhood of Noroton Heights.
> 
> New Rochelle-Stamford, on the other hand, presents fewer impediments. There are some curves that need straightening if operating speeds are going to dramatically increase (Harrison, Rye, Port Chester, Greenwich, Cos Cob), but the primary constraint on this section of the NEC is traffic density and congestion. Although traffic is very heavy west of Stamford, and Amtrak often finds itself following slow-moving commuter trains, the NYNH&H built this section of the alignment for 6 tracks instead of today’s 4, (the NYW&B took the space for those two tracks between Larchmont and Port Chester during its period of operation). Since then, the construction of the Connecticut Turnpike/I-95 has encroached on the right-of-way in some areas, but to my eye it is still possible to add two additional tracks with only a bit of imagination and perhaps some minimal takings.
> 
> ...


Sorry, but expanding MN trackage from 4 to 6 is a non-starter. First, you would need to rebuild every station from Portchester to New Rochelle. Second, there are many encroachments into the original 6 track space by buildings and bridges.

The improvements from New Rochelle to NYP for west side access will improve the running time on that stretch of rail.


----------



## joelkfla (Apr 1, 2022)

George Harris said:


> I think you are missing the major point I was trying to make: Improving maximum speeds on short sections" gets you next door to nothing.
> 
> If I were to redo my little calcs above using 160 mph instead of 150, then for 160 versus 125 you gain 63 whole seconds in TEN MILES if the speed limit before was 125 mph, and you have an increased power consumption of about 60% per mile to do this. In other words, if you want to save 10 minutes, you have got to have 100 miles of track that is already good for 125 mph that you can raise to 160 mph, and that had better be a near to continuous 100 miles. Also, if you have curves that are good for 125 mph and no more, they would still be good for 125 mph and no more unless you can modify those curves. Dlerach mentioned 1 degree curves as being good for 125 mph under the Acela: Based on the old SE = 0.0007 V^2 D formula, this would indicate a balancing superelevation of 10.93 inches, which is extremely high, so I am not sure that is correct. The usual maximum superelevation is 4 inches on lines carrying high freight cars such as piggyback or double stacks, and 6 inches on lines that either are passenger only or limited to passengers and low center of gravity freight equipment and loads, so, if given 6 inches actual, this leaves an unbalance of near 5 inches. The usual is 3 inches, but with tilting equipment you can do more, so let's assume the Acela can handle 5 inches of unbalance. Churning the SE formula around, this says that for 160 mph operation you must have curves of not greater than 0 degrees 36 minutes. Again, we are dealing with not the direct ratio of speeds but of speed squared. (A one degree curve, chord definition, has a radius of 5,729.51 feet, and a 0d 36m curve has a radius of 9,549.25 feet. Degree of curve is defined as the change in direction over a chord distance of 100 feet.)
> 
> ...


I gave a "like" for the 1st 4 sentences. The rest was over my head!


----------



## west point (Apr 1, 2022)

Mr. Harris is correct. If Amtrak could bet almost all slow curve sections up to 110 - 120 MPH then NYP <> WASH times could be under 2 hours. With rush hour Acela-2 service ever 1/2 hour and other times 1 hour wonder how many more passengers would ride? Of course it means fix the CAT to constant tension and 120 foot hanger spacing


----------



## TheCrescent (Apr 2, 2022)

DC-NY Acelas are 2:59 to 3:03 these days.

Despite billions of dollars spent on new trains and new infrastructure, trains on this route are no faster than that were 50+ years ago.

depressing.


----------



## melh (Apr 2, 2022)

TheCrescent said:


> DC-NY Acelas are 2:59 to 3:03 these days.
> 
> Despite billions of dollars spent on new trains and new infrastructure, trains on this route are no faster than that were 50+ years ago.
> 
> depressing.



In 1970, the new Penn Central Metroliners made the DC to NY trip in 2 hours; 59 minutes. This IS depressing !


----------



## MARC Rider (Apr 2, 2022)

TheCrescent said:


> DC-NY Acelas are 2:59 to 3:03 these days.
> 
> Despite billions of dollars spent on new trains and new infrastructure, trains on this route are no faster than that were 50+ years ago.
> 
> depressing.


If they hadn't spent the money, I suspect the trains would be slower.

By the way, the Northeast Regional trains ARE a lot faster than the non Metroliner trains were in the Pre Amtrak days. And there are a lot more of them, or at least there were before the Pandemic.


----------



## jis (Apr 2, 2022)

MARC Rider said:


> If they hadn't spent the money, I suspect the trains would be slower.
> 
> By the way, the Northeast Regional trains ARE a lot faster than the non Metroliner trains were in the Pre Amtrak days. And there are a lot more of them, or at least there were before the Pandemic.


Indeed. It is not like there was an alternative that did not involve replacing the rolling stock, rebuilding the infrastructure ground up and catching up on deferred maintenance just to keep things as they were in terms of speed.


----------



## TheCrescent (Apr 2, 2022)

jis said:


> Indeed. It is not like there was an alternative that did not involve replacing the rolling stock, rebilding the infrastructure ground up and catching up on deferred maintenance just to keep things as they were in terms of speed.


Come on. The fact that the fastest train on the route is no faster than 50 years ago does not bother you?


----------



## Cal (Apr 2, 2022)

TheCrescent said:


> Come on. The fact that the fastest train on the route is no faster than 50 years ago does not bother you?


He never said that, but in the situation that the NEC is in it's not surprising.


----------



## TheCrescent (Apr 2, 2022)

Cal said:


> He never said that, but in the situation that the NEC is in it's not surprising.



Yes but enough of “this is how it has to be and just accept it” (not from you, but from plenty of others). For example, “don’t bother increasing the top speeds of trains”, above.

It’s completely unacceptable for Acelas to take over three hours from NY to DC.

It’s completely unacceptable that passenger rail market share outside of the Northeast is negligible (with a few exceptions).

It’s completely unacceptable that Amtrak offers a third-rate onboard product in Eastern long-distance trains and that their market share is negligible.

There’s no accountability for any of this nonsense. Perhaps if there were, we’d have a decent rail system.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Apr 2, 2022)

TheCrescent said:


> Come on. The fact that the fastest train on the route is no faster than 50 years ago does not bother you?





melh said:


> In 1970, the new Penn Central Metroliners made the DC to NY trip in 2 hours; 59 minutes. This IS depressing !





TheCrescent said:


> Yes but enough of “this is how it has to be and just accept it” (not from you, but from plenty of others). For example, “don’t bother increasing the top speeds of trains”, above.
> 
> It’s completely unacceptable for Acelas to take over three hours from NY to DC.
> 
> ...


Speed is not the only metric with which we judge trains.
Does the NYC-DC route _need _to be faster? Not much; maybe a half hour is all that is needed. It has captured quite a share of the travel in between those two cities.
Instead, perhaps ride quality, frequency, and price matter much more than increasing speed.

That said... the NYC to DC Acela route is comparable to Milan-Venice Frecciarossa (The Frecciarossa widely considered the best HSR in Europe) route in speed and distance. You throw around all of this hand-waving exclaiming "unacceptable," but honestly, the NEC provides _mostly_ decent rail service. I think your word _unacceptable _is actually misplaced. Could it be better? Of course. Given the way this country works, and given how little we invest in rail, I'm glad it isn't worse. It's not the Tokaido Shinkansen, but it isn't exactly bad either.

If the 1970's Boston plan to tear down the NEC and replace it with an interstate had gone through, we'd have no real NEC.


----------



## Cal (Apr 2, 2022)

Tlcooper93 said:


> Speed is not the only metric with which we judge trains.
> Does the NYC-DC route _need _to be faster? Not much; maybe a half hour is all that is needed. It has captured quite a share of the travel in between those two cities.
> Instead, perhaps ride quality, frequency, and price matter much more than increasing speed.
> 
> ...


I agree, I would much rather have slower, but nice, comfortable, and frequent trains and service rather than super fast.


----------



## George Harris (Apr 2, 2022)

TheCrescent said:


> DC-NY Acelas are 2:59 to 3:03 these days.
> 
> Despite billions of dollars spent on new trains and new infrastructure, trains on this route are no faster than that were 50+ years ago.
> 
> depressing.


And what would have happened if this money had not been spent? You are also using the wrong basis. Things will not stay status quo without continued maintenance money for track, signals, power systems, and equipment. In its last years of private ownership there was no money for significant work, so it was essentially in a kept together by string, hope and prayer condition just to be able to maintain the pre Metroliner speeds of 80 mph or less.

When this first 3 hour service was first happening 50 years ago, megabucks had already been spent and the speed limit raised considerably. In the Pennsylvania Railroad days, this was an 80 mph maximum railroad with the premier service right at 4 hours. That is still around a 55 mph average and far faster than driving time. In the early Metroliner days when these first 3 hour schedules were used that was by pull out all the stops runs with the most senior of men in the cab, and everyone involved took great pride in running a quality operation. These engineers were guys that knew almost exactly where every bump was tie by tie. Even though not nominally in uniforms, the engineers wore suits and ties. Whether by their own choice or by company policy, they dressed up for the assignment. If behind schedule violations of speed limits were given a wink and a nod by the management that was supposed to enforce them, because they knew the guys in the front end knew exactly where the safe limits were on every piece of track. 

Yes, the Metroliners were heavy compared to most foreign EMU cars, and somewhat power hogs, but they were cutting edge technologically at the time, and the Pennsylvania Railroad had traditionally developed things with an "if it doubt, make it stout" design basis. This is generally a good idea. If the alignment had been available for them to do so, they would have been able to leave the TGV trains in the dust. (Incidentially, if you read about how the TGV managed to achieve the high speed record run they did, you will find that much had been modified both with that one trainset and otherwise in order to make it possible.)


----------



## MARC Rider (Apr 2, 2022)

Just for comparison, here's the timetable for the _Senator_, a Boston-Washington train that I used to joyride when I was in high school. This schedule is from 1955, but I don't think it was running any faster on April 30, 1971.

The Senator - April, 1955 - Streamliner Schedules

Boston - New York was 4:20 (of course, they had to change engines in New Haven.)

New York to Baltimore was 3:05
New York to Washington was 3:45

The trip took a little over 8 hours end-to-end. Average speed was about 55 mph.

Then there's the _Keystone_ - the "tubular train" that did the NYP-WAS run. A schedule from 1956, but it was probably similar in 1970. I used to joyride that one, too, just before they pulled the "tubular" equipment. (Which was a blatant ADA violation, except that there was no ADA at the time.)
The Keystones - July, 1956 - Streamliner Schedules

Two of the trains did the run in 3:55, average speed of ~55 mph, the other two took 4:15 at an average speed of ~57 mph.

Just for comparison, the current Northeast Regional does the NWP - WAS run in about 3:22. And they run hourly (or they did before the pandemic.)


----------



## railiner (Apr 2, 2022)

The Congressionals - December, 1952 - Streamliner Schedules


December 1952 timetable for the Congressionals passenger trains at Streamliner Schedules.



www.streamlinerschedules.com


----------



## railiner (Apr 2, 2022)

The Metroliners - February, 1970 - Streamliner Schedules


February 1970 timetable for the Metroliner passenger trains at Streamliner Schedules.



www.streamlinerschedules.com


----------



## MARC Rider (Apr 2, 2022)

railiner said:


> The Congressionals - December, 1952 - Streamliner Schedules
> 
> 
> December 1952 timetable for the Congressionals passenger trains at Streamliner Schedules.
> ...


One hour 25 minutes, Philadelphia to Baltimore. I believe the current Northeast Regionals (unless they stop in Aberdeen) run it at 1:15 or so.

By the way, by the late 1960s I believe they also had a Mid-Day Congressional.


----------



## west point (Apr 3, 2022)

TheCrescent said:


> Come on. The fact that the fastest train on the route is no faster than 50 years ago does not bother you?



Just remember that speed limits were not enforced very much 50 years ago. Lead foot engineers were not penalized as others have noted the engineers knew exactly what the max limits of each foot were not what the timetable said.

Trmrmber that the PTC speed limits are set by mechanical engineers in the back room using the most conservative figures. Speed limits now are set IMO at twice the distance needed for max braking.


----------



## Cal (Apr 3, 2022)

west point said:


> Just remember that speed limits were not enforced very much 50 years ago. Lead foot engineers were not penalized as others have noted the engineers knew exactly what the max limits of each foot were not what the timetable said.


Wouldn't the official timetable show the schedule if following the speed limit though?


----------



## TheCrescent (Apr 3, 2022)

In searching today’s trains on the Amtrak app, there is one train that does DC to NY in 3:20. Numerous others take over 3:30 and as long as 3:47.

I appreciate that the NEC is very Capital-intensive and requires billions per year in upkeep just to avoid falling apart even more.

The condition of the NEC is a failure of leadership. It’s much more used than any highway or airport (I think- I may be wrong) and is surrounded by tens of millions of affluent voters/users, influential corporations and, above all, seats of government. If any piece of infrastructure has all of the criteria for being improved, this is it.

There’s no excuse that it hasn’t been significantly improved to allow for faster average speeds in over 50 years; if this were a highway or an airport, it would have been.

This failure harms the US overall. If we had 2-hour trip times from NY to DC and Boston, just think of how much less travel time would be wasted and how much more efficient travel would be, which would help the economy.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Apr 3, 2022)

TheCrescent said:


> In searching today’s trains on the Amtrak app, there is one train that does DC to NY in 3:20. Numerous others take over 3:30 and as long as 3:47.
> 
> I appreciate that the NEC is very Capital-intensive and requires billions per year in upkeep just to avoid falling apart even more.
> 
> ...



Though you've changed your tone a little bit throughout this discussion, I'm in complete agreement with what you've just written.
As the most important piece of infrastructure in the country, its unacceptable that it's state of disrepair has come this far (especially places like the Hudson tunnels). That said, with the exception of interstate highways, many crucial pieces of infrastructure flat out suck (not least of which some of our most important airports). JFK, ORD, and ATL all need major improvements. Major bridges and roads are also in pretty poor shape.

Playing the blame game here however, is more complex. There are a host of factors that contributed to our current rail situation, and it includes more than just a failure of leadership. We could have the most pro-rail administration possible in every level of government, but there is even disagreement over what kind of rail should be built. For that matter, the definition of what counts as HSR is so ambiguous in this country and around the world that under some definitions, the Acela in RI (where it is at its fastest), is still not true HSR. This leads to a rejection of any improvement of rail that isn't full on 220+ levitating gardens of peace (I exaggerate, but you get the point). To use your own words, we're essentially letting "perfect" be the enemy of the "good."

This failure of nomenclature, in addition to lack of consistent funding, exclusive and harmful car culture, and the general public's lack of knowledge about what rail is and can be, should also take a considerable portion of blame for the state of the NEC; its not just failure of leadership.


----------



## MARC Rider (Apr 3, 2022)

Tlcooper93 said:


> it's not just failure of leadership.


Absolutely, and it should always be remembered that most leaders just lead the masses to places where the masses want to go anyway.


----------



## jis (Apr 3, 2022)

It seems apparent to me that many participants in this discussion appear to be either unaware of or at least have not read the decisions that have already been made (and the ones that have been kicked down to the Tier 2 EIS process(es) and postponed into a study) about what will be done with the NEC. There is a Record of Decision (ROD) on the Final Tier 1 EIS for the NEC Spine that was published by the FRA a few years back which describes the broad parameters of how NEC will be developed over the next several decades. The info can be found at:



NEC FUTURE: Tier 1 Final EIS



There is an excruciatingly detailed map available showing everything that could be done within the parameters of the ROD if/when money becomes available too.


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac (Apr 3, 2022)

Having ridden the NEC off and on since 1968 I have to say what we have today is much better than it was 55 years ago.

For example back then there were a total of 8 trains each way daily between Boston and New York all Diesel hauled between New Haven and New York. 4 of the trains terminated at Grand Central Terminal, necessitating a trip on the subway to Penn Station if continuing South. Equipment was of varying condition, often dirty windows, sometimes lighting were intermittent or inoperative. Dining was hit or miss depending on whether they had gotten around to stocking the train. Morale was low and it showed in the attitudes of crews although some were great. The only bright spots were the Turbo Service and the Metroliners, the beginning of the renaissance of the NEC.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Apr 3, 2022)

jis said:


> It seems apparent to me that many participants in this discussion appear to be either unaware of or at least have not read the decisions that have already been made (and the ones that have been kicked down to the Tier 2 EIS process(es) and postponed into a study) about what will be done with the NEC. There is a Record of Decision (ROD) on the Final Tier 1 EIS for the NEC Spine that was published by the FRA a few years back which describes the broad parameters of how NEC will be developed over the next several decades. The info can be found at:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for the link Jis. Its been some time since I read that.
Aren't there some components of that read that are outdated, or at least no longer correct? Could be wrong though.


----------



## jis (Apr 3, 2022)

Tlcooper93 said:


> Thanks for the link Jis. Its been some time since I read that.
> Aren't there some components of that read that are outdated, or at least no longer correct? Could be wrong though.


An EIS with a ROD can be superseded only by another EIS with a ROD.

I am not aware of anything that has changed so much as to make any of the proposed goals and elements impossible. Of course without funding nothing will happen. Note that the entire issue of what should be done in Connecticut is punted to a future study, which has yet to be concluded. This was to carve out the uproar about trying to build anything 50 to 100 feet underground under the fat cat's mansions in Connecticut so as to avoid movable bridges across every tiny channel which the same fat cats with boats would not allow to be opened more a than a few times a day! (Somewhat facetiously speaking)

The NEC Commission's 5 year project plan is aligned with this ROD at present.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Apr 3, 2022)

jis said:


> An EIS with a ROD can be superseded only by another EIS with a ROD.
> 
> I am not aware of anything that has changed so much as to make any of the proposed goals and elements impossible. Of course without funding nothing will happen. Note that the entire issue of what should be done in Connecticut is punted to a future study, which has yet to be concluded. This was to carve out the uproar about trying to build anything 50 underground under the fat cat's mansions in Connecticut so as to avoid movable bridges across every tiny channel which the same fat cats with boats would not allow to be opened more a than a few times a day! (Somewhat facetiously speaking)
> 
> The NEC Commission's 5 year project plan is aligned with this ROD at present.



I noticed the South Station Expansion Project is still listed on this report.
As the current air rights project and tower above the tracks is not really part of the official SSEP, do you have any insight into where the actual expansion stands (namely the push from 13 tracks to 20+ tracks)? I know transitmatters is pretty against that expansion, and more for overall electrification and procurement of EMU's to give nearly the same push of trains per hour through the interlocking. Furthermore, it seems the postal facility and MBTA haven't come to an agreement.


----------



## jis (Apr 3, 2022)

Tlcooper93 said:


> I noticed the South Station Expansion Project is still listed on this report.
> As the current air rights project and tower above the tracks is not really part of the official SSEP, do you have any insight into where the actual expansion stands (namely the push from 13 tracks to 20+ tracks)? I know transitmatters is pretty against that expansion, and more for overall electrification and procurement of EMU's to give nearly the same push of trains per hour through the interlocking. Furthermore, it seems the postal facility and MBTA haven't come to an agreement.


As is quite obvious every listed project is not going to happen in any case, since I do not foresee the entire lot getting funded either. And specially where commuter agencies are concerned additional stuff is likely to happen, but generally consistent with the overall direction. Recall that Tier 1 EISs do not allow for construction of anything. It just identifies consistent project segments, each of which requires its own Tier 2 EIS, which can then form the basis for permitting etc. And Tier 2s often discover impossibilities proposed in Tier 1 and make changes that are necessary in the Tier 2.

And these EIS's time out after a while too requiring another one or a supplemental one. The Hudson Tunnel has gone through at least three plus one Supplemental AFAIR, so far. Hopefully current one is the last one.


----------



## George Harris (Apr 4, 2022)

With the following I am done with this discussion.

The "3 hours 50 years ago" between New York and Washington was AFTER considerable money had been spent raising the maximum speed limit from 80 mph to 110 mph, or 125 or whatever. Either way, without alignment changes the difference in practical minimum run time is close to nil. Yes, much money has been spent since, mostly on upgrades that would improve reliability, reduce maintenance effort, modernize much of the 1920's technology to more modern standards. That there has been little to no significant improvement in run time should not be a surprise, as to do so would require megabucks more with each giving at best a few minutes and the most significant resultant of these changes would be improved reliability and elimination of maintenance headaches.

If you want to achieve significantly faster run times, I give you the following example: The Taiwan High Speed Railway. Taipei to Kaohsiung, 210.8 miles, all except the first few miles and the last couple miles on new alignment without speed restrictions between those points. Other than these end areas, the speed limit is 300 km/hr = 186 mph, without any intermediate points having speed restrictions. Most of these end area restrictions are in the 60 to 140 mph range, so they are not really that slow. The one stop express train does this 210 miles in 1 hour 35 minutes. The "local", which has six stops takes two hours flat. The station track layouts at these intermediate stations is such that there is no need to slow for the turnout to the station track. Simply do your braking like going directly into the platform and accelerating directly out of it. By the way, other than a slightly larger vertical difference, the platform offsets meet US ADA requirements.

Other than the end points, none of these stations are in the urban area they serve. Since the line opened in 2007, there has been considerable work done on transit connections between HSR stations and these urban areas. The total length of line is 214.2 miles end of track to end of track. Obviously, the track must extend beyound the terminal stations for some little distance for switching purposes. Of this all but the south about 2 miles are on concrete base track slabs, mostly the Japanese style precast segment type. 37.54 miles is in tunnel or cut and cover underground segments, with the longest two true tunnels being over 4 miles in length, each. 156.92 miles is on bridges and viaducts. Most of the south half of the route is elevated in its entirety, 97.75 miles of continuous structure. The remaining 59.17 miles of viaduct is spread over multiple structures, four of which are over 10 miles long.

Unless and until we find the money and space to build such a facility between New York and Washington DC, we are not going to get much reduction in run time below what we have now.

As to equipment, the Taiwan system uses a slightly modified Shinkansen 700 trainset of 12 cars. This means EMU, except that the end cars are unpowered. My viewpoint on NEC equipment is that we would have been far better off if we had taken lessons learned from the original Metroliner trainsets and built an improved EMU trainset rather than go with the European style end power cars and intervening coaches that we have now.


----------



## jis (Jun 12, 2022)

Just by chance I came across this priceless document comparing the various PTC systems deployed on trackage used by Amtrak trains (other than I-ETMS). It includes a pretty complete description of ACSES and how V-ETMS (i.e. I-ETMS) is overlaid on ACSES trackage.

It actually comes from a stash of documents submitted as part of a case about FCC licensing of 220MHz and 900MHz bandwidth apparently. I have been unable to find an original at FRA yet, but it may be hiding somewhere and accessible from the internet that is yet to be discovered. Thought this might interest some who wish to dig deeper into the evolution of PTC

Amtrak PTCIP July 16 2010 (PDF)

Keep in mind that many details have changed since this was submitted to FRA. Indeed 900MHz is used now. But one can still get a pretty good idea on how Amtrak's various PTC implementations evolved. Amtrak was the first to broadly deploy a compliant PTC system in the US


----------



## west point (Jun 12, 2022)

My take as stated before is ACSES is less vulnerable than any sattelite and / or GPS system. With all the debri left in low orbit the low orbits of communication and GPS low orbit are likely to degrade if debri hits one or more. This is becoming more likely as each new LEO shot looses part of its package. Already the ISS has been moved more than once due to close calls of larger objects. Its the small debri that willl do the deed. And space particlees can also cause problems. James Webb has alread taken a micro meteorite hit. Definitely up front costs and probably maintenance is more for ACSES.


----------



## jis (Jun 12, 2022)

west point said:


> My take as stated before is ACSES is less vulnerable than any sattelite and / or GPS system. With all the debri left in low orbit the low orbits of communication and GPS low orbit are likely to degrade if debri hits one or more. This is becoming more likely as each new LEO shot looses part of its package. Already the ISS has been moved more than once due to close calls of larger objects. Its the small debri that willl do the deed. And space particlees can also cause problems. James Webb has alread taken a micro meteorite hit. Definitely up front costs and probably maintenance is more for ACSES.


Architecturally all PTC systems require a "Location Service" that enables a train and the dispatching system to determine the location of the train. ACSES (and its predecessor systems like TVM430 in France) has track circuits to locate the train for the dispatching system and track mounted transponders to tell the train where it is. I-ETMS, mainly because it is designed to operate on lines often with sparse service for hundreds of miles through the sticks reduces the cost of providing Location Service by using GPS, though there is nothing preventing them from using a hybrid location service should such a need arise.

The bottom line is that if GPS fails then inability to locate a few trains is going to be a problem that will not be among the top ten anyway, and it will take an incredibly large number of satellites to be knocked out at the same time which is statistically unlikely. Actually a good long Solar Storm disrupting radio communication is probably more of a risk than satellites getting knocked out by space junk or hostile missiles, and that will affect ACSES too.


----------



## Touchdowntom9 (Oct 5, 2022)

jis said:


> FRA regulations for superelevation. Most curves are at the max already. NEC already has a few exceptions too.
> 
> Along the NEC where is the real estate for additional tracks going to come from unless it is either additions to the present ROW or new ROW? For other routes, if one wants higher speed, it makes more sense to build new tracks for high speed service rather than for moving slower speed trains off of the less than ideal current ROWs at great cost. Of course where possible separation is a good idea, but is much harder to achieve where possible parallel routes are owned by different companies.
> 
> ...


Sorry to dig up an old post, but didnt the FRA amend their super elevation rules around 2013? Places like the Elizabeth S curve and Metuchen S curve seem like prime locations where you could crank the superelevation and keep the speed limit at or north of 100mph given how those are pretty gentle curves already. Or are you telling me that those curves have already been upgraded in recent years to hit that limit?


----------



## GDRRiley (Oct 5, 2022)

TheCrescent said:


> It’s ridiculous that the United States’ high-speed rail line averages a speed that’s the same as driving. And if you add going to the station and boarding the train, the total trip time on the Acela is slower than driving.


thats what you would expect out of a 125-150mph railway. unless you've got no traffic and very few stops along with no slow points your going to average in the 70-90mph range. maybe 100 with a good EMU and few stops.



Touchdowntom9 said:


> Sorry to dig up an old post, but didnt the FRA amend their super elevation rules around 2013? Places like the Elizabeth S curve and Metuchen S curve seem like prime locations where you could crank the superelevation and keep the speed limit at or north of 100mph given how those are pretty gentle curves already. Or are you telling me that those curves have already been upgraded in recent years to hit that limit?


normally you'll see superevlation on a pax line upto 6in with wavers that can go as high as 7in which isn't the highest we've had in the US a few sections in the northeast used 8in. Which is pretty close to in line with other countries. 
however its unbalanced were FRA really shows how conservative it is, 3in is normal 4 is the limit with wavers vs 5-7in on some lines in Europe.


----------



## MARC Rider (Oct 5, 2022)

TheCrescent said:


> It’s ridiculous that the United States’ high-speed rail line averages a speed that’s the same as driving. And if you add going to the station and boarding the train, the total trip time on the Acela is slower than driving.


What are you talking about? It takes me over 2 hours to drive from Baltimore to Philly, the driving time estimates from Google Maps are nonsense. The Northeast Regional does it in 1:15, The Acela does it in 1:05. Even accounting for driving to the station, it's faster to take the train. This is even more so between Baltimore and New York, especially since it seems that there's always a traffic jam on the GW Bridge or the two tunnels connecting New Jersey to Manhattan. I can't drive to New York faster than 4 hours, and that includes occasional minor violation of speed limits. The Northeast Regional takes me 2:40 to 2:50, and the Aclea takes 2:25. They're certainly fast enough for me to take day trips to New York, something I couldn't do in the good old days of the PRR.


----------



## Acela150 (Oct 6, 2022)

Touchdowntom9 said:


> Sorry to dig up an old post, but didnt the FRA amend their super elevation rules around 2013? Places like the Elizabeth S curve and Metuchen S curve seem like prime locations where you could crank the superelevation and keep the speed limit at or north of 100mph given how those are pretty gentle curves already. Or are you telling me that those curves have already been upgraded in recent years to hit that limit?



The reverse curve at Elizabeth had the speeds increased with the ACSES rollout. But 100? That's a bit much.


----------



## Touchdowntom9 (Oct 6, 2022)

GDRRiley said:


> normally you'll see superevlation on a pax line upto 6in with wavers that can go as high as 7in which isn't the highest we've had in the US a few sections in the northeast used 8in. Which is pretty close to in line with other countries.
> however its unbalanced were FRA really shows how conservative it is, 3in is normal 4 is the limit with wavers vs 5-7in on some lines in Europe.


Sorry, but to clarify are you saying the rules from the FRA are 3 inches maybe 4 inches (with Europe being 5-7 in), or are you saying that the NEC has a bunch of spots with 6-7 inches? Seems to me that the NEC would benefit in a massive way by having 6-7 inches wherever needed in order to keep speed limits at 100-125 for long stretch's rather than having such frequent slowdowns. 

Do you know what Metuchen and Elizabeth are at in terms of super elevation right now? Because if they have room for more super elevation, you should never dip below 90mph once you leave the tunnels from NYP heading to Philly (once the new portal bridge is built)


----------



## jis (Oct 6, 2022)

They don’t have room as far as superelevation goes. They are at max. 

@GDRRiley is talking about underbalance of 3” to 4” not superelevation. NEC already has 6” to 7” superelevation. 

There will be a few places with less than 90mph between Newark and Philly. Between Newark and New York speed limits are determined more by needs of maximizing throughput than minimizing running time of a subset of trains at least until the new tunnels and Portal South bridge is built and the quadruple tracking is completed. Which translates to probably not in my remaining lifetime


----------



## GDRRiley (Oct 6, 2022)

Touchdowntom9 said:


> Sorry, but to clarify are you saying the rules from the FRA are 3 inches maybe 4 inches (with Europe being 5-7 in), or are you saying that the NEC has a bunch of spots with 6-7 inches? Seems to me that the NEC would benefit in a massive way by having 6-7 inches wherever needed in order to keep speed limits at 100-125 for long stretch's rather than having such frequent slowdowns.


yes 3in is the standard for FRA unbalanced superevlation with special approval for 4in. Europe allows that to be 5-7in.


Touchdowntom9 said:


> Do you know what Metuchen and Elizabeth are at in terms of super elevation right now? Because if they have room for more super elevation, you should never dip below 90mph once you leave the tunnels from NYP heading to Philly (once the new portal bridge is built)


I'm not aware of what the NEC has, I'm far more familiar with California and CAHSR



jis said:


> They don’t have room as far as superelevation goes. They are at max.


They could push the FRA to allow 8in but I'm not sure they've got track spacing for that


----------



## Touchdowntom9 (Oct 6, 2022)

GDRRiley said:


> yes 3in is the standard for FRA unbalanced superevlation with special approval for 4in. Europe allows that to be 5-7in.
> 
> I'm not aware of what the NEC has, I'm far more familiar with California and CAHSR
> 
> ...


@GDRRiley and @jis thank you both for clarifying as I clearly was confused between superelevation vs unbalanced superelevation/cant deficiency. 
Really sad that the FRA wont allow a few more inches of unbalance in key areas of the NEC where it would likely be perfectly safe (assuming Europe is correct) and save millions of people lots of minutes on their trips or commutes. Riding NJ transit from Princeton many times a week to nyc, that curve really kills the speed built up to that point and it feels like the curves are being taken far too conservatively (I've noticed we frequently dip to 40-45mph from 100mph). Bumping the top speed to 80 there would still be a huge improvement as the old Arrow IIIs wouldn't even have to slow down. 

As far as I can tell, maximizing every sq inch of the existing infrastructure on the NEC is just as important as the capital projects, bridge replacements, new tunnels, new track etc


----------



## GDRRiley (Oct 6, 2022)

Touchdowntom9 said:


> Really sad that the FRA wont allow a few more inches of unbalance in key areas of the NEC where it would likely be perfectly safe (assuming Europe is correct) and save millions of people lots of minutes on their trips or commutes. Riding NJ transit from Princeton many times a week to nyc, that curve really kills the speed built up to that point and it feels like the curves are being taken far too conservatively (I've noticed we frequently dip to 40-45mph from 100mph). Bumping the top speed to 80 there would still be a huge improvement as the old Arrow IIIs wouldn't even have to slow down.


this table may help. from CASHR TM2.1.2
it also mentions the comparison to Europe and the Shinkansen.


Touchdowntom9 said:


> As far as I can tell, maximizing every sq inch of the existing infrastructure on the NEC is just as important as the capital projects, bridge replacements, new tunnels, new track etc


We just also need to accept in some places acquiring more ROW is a must. The feds didn't care when it came to freeway and freeway expansion even now but its a really hard thing for rail to do.



Spoiler: table


----------



## Bfputtzman (Oct 7, 2022)

GDRRiley said:


> yes 3in is the standard for FRA unbalanced superevlation with special approval for 4in. Europe allows that to be 5-7in.
> 
> I'm not aware of what the NEC has, I'm far more familiar with California and CAHSR
> 
> ...


3” is standard UB for FRA. However, UB exceeding 3” (with no specific limit) is authorized under terms provided in 213.57d - namely car testing and certification. 213.57h(1) clarifies requirements for 3” < UB = < 5” and 213.57h(2) clarifies requirements for UB > 5”. Portions of Amtrak Cascades on BNSF are operated at 5” UB today utilizing standard single level Amtrak cars.

This next bit can use some fact checking: It is my understanding that most single level Amtrak cars are certified to 5” UB and that is an Amtrak design minimum requirement for future equipment. I also understand Amtrak operates some tilt equipment on the NEC at up to 7” UB.

To clarify, inches of super-elevation are in addition to inches of UB above.


----------



## GDRRiley (Oct 7, 2022)

Bfputtzman said:


> 3” is standard UB for FRA. However, UB exceeding 3” (with no specific limit) is authorized under terms provided in 213.57d - namely car testing and certification. 213.57h(1) clarifies requirements for 3” < UB = < 5” and 213.57h(2) clarifies requirements for UB > 5”. Portions of Amtrak Cascades on BNSF are operated at 5” UB today utilizing standard single level Amtrak cars.


has 213.57 been revised sense 2008? my data is all being pulled from CAHSR so if it has then it would make sense its a bit out of date.
tilting should allow you to push higher than 5in UB which means as usual the FRA was pretty conservative when it allowed only 5 on tilting trains


Bfputtzman said:


> This next bit can use some fact checking: It is my understanding that most single level Amtrak cars are certified to 5” UB and that is an Amtrak design minimum requirement for future equipment. I also understand Amtrak operates some tilt equipment on the NEC at up to 7” UB.


I have no idea where you'd find that info, its deep within contracts.


----------



## west point (Oct 7, 2022)

do not forget that NYP - PHL has slower speed. As we all know PHL to Frankford JCT has various solwer sections.


----------



## dlerach (Oct 7, 2022)

I believe that Amfleets are cleared for 5" unbalanced and the Acela is cleared for 7". I've heard as well that the Avelia Liberty could be cleared for 9", but it's my understanding that that testing/certification process is still ongoing.


----------



## joelkfla (Oct 8, 2022)

Can someone explain the difference between superelevated & unbalanced? Thx.


----------



## dlerach (Oct 8, 2022)

The two kind of add up to create the maximum speed that a train can traverse a curve.

Superelevation (also called Cant) refers to the banking of the track through a curve, which allows trains to traverse the curve at greater speed than if it were flat. Superelevation is measured in the inches that the outside rail sits above the inside rail on a curve. Most freight lines (I believe) superelevate up to 4". Amtrak definitely has some 6" curves, and I know that the PRR at times had 7" on the passenger tracks on a few curves between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh. 

If a train goes the "correct" (perfectly balanced) speed through a superelevated curve, passengers will not feel that they are turning at all. Unbalanced superelevation (also called Cant Deficiency) begins when you exceed that "correct" speed. Unbalanced superelevation is measured in inches, as if the curve gained even more superelevation. So a train cleared to run with 5" of unbalanced superelevation can run through a 6" curve as if it were 11". For example, a train with 3" cant deficiency running through a 2° curve with 6" superelevation can go 80 mph, more or less. A train with 7" cant deficiency (the Acela) could take that same curve at 95 mph. If you added another inch of superelevation, the Acela could go 100 mph.


----------



## GDRRiley (Oct 8, 2022)

dlerach said:


> Most freight lines (I believe) superelevate up to 4". Amtrak definitely has some 6" curves, and I know that the PRR at times had 7" on the passenger tracks on a few curves between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh.


yes 4 is the common limit for lines with tall freight.
there were some that pushed 8in


dlerach said:


> If a train goes the "correct" (perfectly balanced) speed through a superelevated curve, passengers will not feel that they are turning at all. Unbalanced superelevation (also called Cant Deficiency) begins when you exceed that "correct" speed. Unbalanced superelevation is measured in inches, as if the curve gained even more superelevation. So a train cleared to run with 5" of unbalanced superelevation can run through a 6" curve as if it were 11". For example, a train with 3" cant deficiency running through a 2° curve with 6" superelevation can go 80 mph, more or less. A train with 7" cant deficiency (the Acela) could take that same curve at 95 mph. If you added another inch of superelevation, the Acela could go 100 mph.


I will also add you typically want a minimum of 1in of unbalanced superelevation for stability.


----------



## Bfputtzman (Oct 9, 2022)

GDRRiley said:


> has 213.57 been revised sense 2008? my data is all being pulled from CAHSR so if it has then it would make sense its a bit out of date.
> tilting should allow you to push higher than 5in UB which means as usual the FRA was pretty conservative when it allowed only 5 on tilting trains


It was revised in 2013: Federal Register :: Request Access



GDRRiley said:


> yes 4 is the common limit for lines with tall freight.
> there were some that pushed 8in
> 
> I will also add you typically want a minimum of 1in of unbalanced superelevation for stability.


Most freight lines actually limit super-elevation to 5-inches but have stated preference for not exceeding 4-inches. This is an excellent report summarizing methodologies, particularly pages 17 - 27: https://dotcms.fra.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2019-12/Superelevation-Guidance_pdfa.pdf

What's not directly stated in the report is that most freight railroads limit super-elevation to essentially be flat (1/2" to 1-1/2") on mainlines in terminal areas as they don't want trains holding or running in/out of yards at low-speed over curves with 3" / 4" / 5" super-elevations. Similar comments for limiting super-elevation in the 3" range toward the tops of long grades where train speeds are slower than the "open running" norm. Being a freight-focused and freight-owned RR system in this country, these issues are at odds with consistent actual high-speed (Class 6+ / 95-mph+) running on a shared network and can generally only be achieved on a shared network where curves are of particularly low-degree (think 1-degree, 30-minutes at most) and/or where freight traffic is already running predominantly "fast" and will be operating within equilibrium at 5-inch super-elevation while the passenger train is operating considerably faster (leveraging 5-inch cant deficiency, the general upper bound for non-tilting equipment). There are plenty of example routes in the flat midwestern states where curvature is limited, and famous named trains operated fast in years past, for example, BNSF's Transcon in IL, MO, and KS where bilevel cars operate today over long stretches at 90-mph using a conservative 3-inch unbalance.

Back to the NEC, I slapped together the attached charts for perspective on maximum speeds by degree-of-curve based on 5-inch cant deficiency or 7-inch cant deficiency and current understanding of Amtrak's limits from the above report. Red shading indicates the curve-speed combination requires super-elevation beyond the 5.5-inch limit referenced, and Gray shading indicates the calculated value is negative or less than 0.5 and therefore requires Amtrak's 0.5-inch minimum super-elevation (again, from the above report). In other words, the Gray & White areas should be "in play" while the Red areas are off limits. This indicates 220-mph can only be achieved on curvature of 0-degrees, 20-minutes or less (which some railroads consider a line swing) and utilizing 4-3/8" super-elevation and tilt equipment leveraging 7-inch cant deficiency/unbalance.

Who knows where to find a track chart (aka track profile) for the NEC?


----------



## jis (Oct 9, 2022)

The main problem on NEC for speeds significantly above 160mph even on straight track is the absurdly small track center distance that is the norm all along the corridor. And fixing that is a hugely expensive proposition that the Tier 1 EIS addresses in one of the so far rejected alternatives.


----------



## Maverickstation (Oct 9, 2022)

Another factor with NEC Speeds are the sections of the road with high frequency services by the regional commuter providers.

On our last Acela trip from Boston to New York, we had some sections of high speed (over 110 mph) running south of Route 128, and then after Providence. Once in Connecticut the running was slow first along the Shore Line east segment owing to curves, and the various movable bridges.

Once we hit the Metro North service area, the running was slower "due to congestion", which makes sense given that although the route south, or east of New Haven, is 4 tracks, you have very frequent Metro North trains, both local and limiteds/expresses that operate 7 days per week.

Ken


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac (Oct 10, 2022)

Maverickstation said:


> Once we hit the Metro North service area, the running was slower "due to congestion", which makes sense given that although the route south, or east of New Haven, is 4 tracks, you have very frequent Metro North trains, both local and limiteds/expresses that operate 7 days per week.


From New Haven to Devon only 3 tracks as track 3 was removed many years ago. Also I'm many places due to ongoing renewal of infrastructure the line is effectively 3 or in some cases only 2 tracks.


----------



## Maverickstation (Oct 10, 2022)

AmtrakMaineiac said:


> From New Haven to Devon only 3 tracks as track 3 was removed many years ago. Also I'm many places due to ongoing renewal of infrastructure the line is effectively 3 or in some cases only 2 tracks.



Plus, you still have about 11 Grade Crossings in Connecticut, which also limit speeds.

It would be curious to know that on the State Owned portions of the NEC such as the segments in
CT, and in Massachusetts (the Commonwealth owns the NEC), how are Amtrak services prioritized.

Ken


----------



## jis (Oct 10, 2022)

Maverickstation said:


> Plus, you still have about 11 Grade Crossings in Connecticut, which also limit speeds.
> 
> It would be curious to know that on the State Owned portions of the NEC such as the segments in
> CT, and in Massachusetts (the Commonwealth owns the NEC), how are Amtrak services prioritized.
> ...


The Massachusetts portion is operated and dispatched by Amtrak, so there should be no issues with Amtrak trains being treated properly.

In CT Amtrak operates and dispatches the portion from Mill River (just outside New Haven) to RI Border, so there should be no problem there either, The rest in CT is operated and dispatched by MNRR (CT border to Mill River (exclusive AFAIR)).


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac (Oct 10, 2022)

jis said:


> The rest in CT is operated and dispatched by MNRR (CT border to Mill River (exclusive AFAIR)).


From Amtrak point of view, MNRR dispatches Mill River to the interlocking just West of New Rochelle, used to be SHELL in the PC days, now it is CP something-or-other. Amtrak trackage railroad West of that (former NY connecting RR) is dispatched by Amtrak.


----------



## jis (Oct 10, 2022)

AmtrakMaineiac said:


> From Amtrak point of view, MNRR dispatches Mill River to the interlocking just West of New Rochelle, used to be SHELL in the PC days, now it is CP something-or-other. Amtrak trackage railroad West of that (former NY connecting RR) is dispatched by Amtrak.


True, but neither Shell (CP216) nor the NY Connecting Railroad have anything to do with Connecticut. The question was about Connecticut.


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac (Oct 10, 2022)

jis said:


> True, but neither Shell (CP216) nor the NY Connecting Railroad have anything to do with Connecticut. The question was about Connecticut.


But my understanding is that CT State Line to CP-216 is also state owned, by the State of NY. The question was about state owned segments such as CT and MA.


----------



## jis (Oct 10, 2022)

AmtrakMaineiac said:


> But my understanding is that CT State Line to CP-216 is also state owned, by the State of NY. The question was about state owned segments such as CT and MA.


Good point!

BTW, IIRC NY Connecting Railroad (CP Harold to old CP Shell(exclusive)) is also owned by Amtrak and not by State of NY.


----------



## Touchdowntom9 (Oct 10, 2022)

west point said:


> do not forget that NYP - PHL has slower speed. As we all know PHL to Frankford JCT has various solwer sections.


Any idea if those are due to track geometry or if they are bottlenecks that could be resolved at some point in the near future?


----------



## dlerach (Oct 10, 2022)

As I understand it, between NYP and PHL the following curves are sharper than .8 degrees:

Portal (2 degrees, 90 mph)
Harrison (3 degrees? 45 mph)
Elizabeth (S-Curve used to be 55 mph? Now something like 80 for Acelas?)
Metropark (1 degree? S-Currve 110 mph)
Metuchen (1 degree? S-Curve 110 mph)
Croydon? (1 degree, 110 mph?)
Torresdale (1 degree S-Curve, 110 mph)
Frankford Junction (4 degrees? S-Curve 50 mph)
North Penn Junction? Just north of N. PHL. (2 degrees?)
Zoo (45 mph due to both track geometry and mandatory diverging moves)

Portal Bridge and Sawtooth Bridges also have 45 mph speed limits. I believe that Dock interlocking (the Passaic River Bridges) also has a speed limit but I'm not sure how it interacts with the geometric restriction just north at Harrison.


----------



## Touchdowntom9 (Oct 11, 2022)

dlerach said:


> As I understand it, between NYP and PHL the following curves are sharper than .8 degrees:
> 
> Portal (2 degrees, 90 mph)
> Harrison (3 degrees? 45 mph)
> ...


When you say Portal, I assume you mean the area immediately before or after the bridge and not the curve right outside the tunnel to NYP? I believe that curve right outside/going into the tunnel is limited to 75mph (according to Train Sim World... clearly the gold standard of accurate sources).
Is the Harrison curve overly cautious? The curve always appears pretty mild and feels like 60mph wouldnt be an issue there at all.


----------



## jis (Oct 11, 2022)

Touchdowntom9 said:


> When you say Portal, I assume you mean the area immediately before or after the bridge and not the curve right outside the tunnel to NYP? I believe that curve right outside/going into the tunnel is limited to 75mph (according to Train Sim World... clearly the gold standard of accurate sources).


Normally that is called the Bergen Curve since it is adjacent to Bergen interlocking.


Touchdowntom9 said:


> Is the Harrison curve overly cautious? The curve always appears pretty mild and feels like 60mph wouldnt be an issue there at all.


Harrison Curve is in the middle of an interlocking, so there are other issues that cause it to have restrictions in addition to the curve itself. Even if it had a high speed limit, a train coming off of or approaching Dock and Newark platform tracks would not be going all that fast there. In general just because a segment of track has a high posted speed does not necessarily mean anyone ever really operates at that speed there because of other issues in adjacent territories.


----------



## dlerach (Oct 11, 2022)

Touchdowntom9 said:


> When you say Portal, I assume you mean the area immediately before or after the bridge and not the curve right outside the tunnel to NYP? I believe that curve right outside/going into the tunnel is limited to 75mph (according to Train Sim World... clearly the gold standard of accurate sources).
> Is the Harrison curve overly cautious? The curve always appears pretty mild and feels like 60mph wouldnt be an issue there at all.


Amtrak Employee Timetable has speeds from western limit of North River Tunnel to Portal Bridge at 90 mph. Admittedly I don't have current ETTs but I imagine not much has changed since my copy. What JJS says about Harrison Curve is correct. I will only add that the geometry there is surprisingly severe because of the yard tracks near what was once Manhattan Transfer. Using Google Earth, I measure the curve as having a 1900 ft. radius, which is basically 3 degrees.


----------



## jis (Oct 11, 2022)

dlerach said:


> Amtrak Employee Timetable has speeds from western limit of North River Tunnel to Portal Bridge at 90 mph. Admittedly I don't have current ETTs but I imagine not much has changed since my copy. What JJS says about Harrison Curve is correct. I will only add that the geometry there is surprisingly severe because of the yard tracks near what was once Manhattan Transfer. Using Google Earth, I measure the curve as having a 1900 ft. radius, which is basically 3 degrees.


Harrison Curve is basically two interlocking one on the back of the other. To the East is Rea Interlocking, the west end of what used to be Manhattan Transfer and in the past was controlled by Hudson. At the west and actually stretching into the curve is Dock interlocking within which Newark Penn Station is located. Dock was one of the last interlockings to be moved under CETC.


----------



## west point (Oct 12, 2022)

Thought Portal bridge is now 60 and North Portal will be 90? 

Appears the listed slow speed sections that could be eliminated are 6. Now we know Frankford to North Penn is a series of curves. By using slowing and accelerations we can roughly approximate that an Acela AX-2 looses at least 2 minutes + the Frankford loses probably 12 minutes. A very WAG could save 20 - 24 minutes Maybe 15 - 20 minutes for a regional. Now what that will do to perceived and actual new passengers is not mine to guess.


----------



## jis (Oct 12, 2022)

I am getting the feeling that we are re-discussing things that have been dealt with in somewhat gory detail in the Tier I EIS.

The Preferred Alternative incidentally is way more aggressive than what we are discussing here. Lots of new ROW which of course may or may not happen. But it gives a good idea of where they feel tinkering around in the current RoW is not cost effective, Unsurprisingly it includes a lot of the RoW between New Brunswick and Newark in NJ. Also unsurprisingly, I would be surprised if quite a bit of what they propose will ever come to pass too.


----------



## Touchdowntom9 (Oct 12, 2022)

west point said:


> Thought Portal bridge is now 60 and North Portal will be 90?
> 
> Appears the listed slow speed sections that could be eliminated are 6. Now we know Frankford to North Penn is a series of curves. By using slowing and accelerations we can roughly approximate that an Acela AX-2 looses at least 2 minutes + the Frankford loses probably 12 minutes. A very WAG could save 20 - 24 minutes Maybe 15 - 20 minutes for a regional. Now what that will do to perceived and actual new passengers is not mine to guess.


What exactly is a WAG? And how exactly would that save so much time?



jis said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Harrison Curve is basically two interlocking one on the back of the other. To the East is Rea Interlocking, the west end of what used to be Manhattan Transfer and in the past was controlled by Hudson. At the west and actually stretching into the curve is Dock interlocking within which Newark Penn Station is located. Dock was one of the last interlockings to be moved under CETC.
> ...



Sorry to be obtuse, but why does an interlocking cause such slowdowns when a train might not be stopping there? I understand there might be traffic but doesnt the multiple tracks/platforms at NwkPenn stop that from bottlenecking? Acela's that don't stop at Newark (which I think should be the standard practice for them) should be able always looking to pass through them as quickly as possible. Moving through Newark at 60/65mph vs 30/35mph is a much cheaper way to save minutes than upgrading PJ-Trenton catenary to 150/160 (although they should do that nonetheless).



dlerach said:


> Amtrak Employee Timetable has speeds from western limit of North River Tunnel to Portal Bridge at 90 mph. Admittedly I don't have current ETTs but I imagine not much has changed since my copy. What JJS says about Harrison Curve is correct. I will only add that the geometry there is surprisingly severe because of the yard tracks near what was once Manhattan Transfer. Using Google Earth, I measure the curve as having a 1900 ft. radius, which is basically 3 degrees.



While I know Alon Levy is not exactly the gold standard for train related knowledge, he seems to believe that with a radius of 500 meters/1600 ft, speeds around 65-70mph could be safely achieved. I assume though that he is wrong here or is he leaving out a bunch of other variables?
(How Fast New York Regional Rail Could Be Part 3)


----------



## dlerach (Oct 12, 2022)

Your second and third questions actually go together a bit. It's very difficult (is it even possible?) to superelevate a portion of track with turnouts/switches on it. Because you need space on each side of a curve for a spiral from maximum superelevation back to flat, Harrison is very limited in how much cant it can support due to the interlockings on each end. As no trains skip Newark (and with the nonstop NYP-WAS Acela one train per day skipped Newark Penn), that penalty is not very severe. Even if the interlockings are addressed, though, I don't think that Dock bridge can support high speeds in its current state. I'm not sure what degree of rehab it would need, but I imagine it wouldn't be trivial.

Addressing your last point: there is a formula to determine a curve's maximum speed, which depends on three variables: cant (superelevation), cant deficiency (unbalanced superelevation) and the degree of curvature.

The sum of the curve's cant and the train's cant deficiency (superelevation and unbalanced superelevation) divided by the product of the degree of curvature and .0007 provides the square of the solution. In other words, perform the above operations and then take the square root. As you wrote above, a curve that is 3°/1900 ft/550 meters would have a maximum speed of 65 mph _assuming_ 6 inches of superelevation and 3 inches of cant deficiency, or 4 inches of superelevation and 5 inches of cant deficiency.


----------



## jis (Dec 15, 2022)

The new station at Pawtucket between Attleboro and Providence, named Pawtucket/Central Falls, will be inaugurated in January 2023.









Opening in January, new Pawtucket/CF train station set in motion two decades ago


PAWTUCKET – Most everyone locally knows that the new Pawtucket/Central Falls Commuter Rail Station has been a long time coming, but some might not realize that a series of steps




www.valleybreeze.com


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac (Dec 15, 2022)

jis said:


> The new station at Pawtucket between Attleboro and Providence, named Pawtucket/Central Falls, will be inaugurated in January 2023.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I imagine this will strictly be an MBTA commuter rail stop.


----------



## jis (Saturday at 10:57 AM)

In the context of NEC infrastructure improvement I found this very interesting document on truck stability studies and monitoring requirements development in the Acela I timeframe:






Vehicle/Track Interaction Safety Standards; High-Speed and High Cant Deficiency Operations, 75 Fed. Reg. 25927 | Casetext


Read the full text of Vehicle/Track Interaction Safety Standards; High-Speed and High Cant Deficiency Operations for free on Casetext.




casetext.com


----------



## cocojacoby (Saturday at 11:36 AM)

jis said:


> In the context of NEC infrastructure improvement I found this very interesting document on truck stability studies and monitoring requirements development in the Acela I timeframe:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There is a lot of information here but one thing that jumped out at me was this statement: "The Task Force recommended that standards for Class 9 track be removed from this subpart and that the maximum allowable speed for Class 8 track be lowered from 160 m.p.h. to 150 m.p.h."

Would this affect Amtrak's 160 mph plans? I believe that the NEC is mostly Class 7 and Class 8 in the few planned 160 mph sections.


----------



## jis (Saturday at 11:39 AM)

cocojacoby said:


> There is a lot of information here but one thing that jumped out at me was this statement: "The Task Force recommended that standards for Class 9 track be removed from this subpart and that the maximum allowable speed for Class 8 track be lowered from 160 m.p.h. to 150 m.p.h."
> 
> Would this affect Amtrak's 160 mph plans? I believe that the NEC is mostly Class 7 and Class 8 in the few planned 160 mph sections.


Remember this was when Acela I was getting deployed.

There is an equivalent study going on right now which is likely to increase the permitted underbalance (which will allow somewhat higher speeds on curves) and will permit 160mph for Acela 21s but not for Acela 1s. That document is under development I suppose and is not available as yet, or at least I have not been able to find it yet.


----------



## Fenway (Sunday at 5:42 AM)

AmtrakMaineiac said:


> I imagine this will strictly be an MBTA commuter rail stop.


Without question 

Basically, the new Pawtucket/CF station will fill in the void of South Attleboro being closed 2 years ago from neglect.

South Attleboro SHOULD have been a viable transit hub but RIPTA claimed for years they could not enter Massachusetts and GATRA offered little service.


----------



## Cal (Sunday at 2:52 PM)

Fenway said:


> Basically, the new Pawtucket/CF station will fill in the void of South Attleboro being closed 2 years ago from neglect.


Yes, however South Attleboro is coming back, so really it's replacing the really old Pawtucket station that hasn't been in use in a long time.


----------



## jis (Sunday at 2:56 PM)

Cal said:


> Yes, however South Attleboro is coming back, so really it's replacing the really old Pawtucket station that hasn't been in use in a long time.


I think Pawtuckett will provide the focal point for connectivity from off NEC RI by bus, which for various internecine bickering between RI and MA, apparently cannot go to South Attleboro.


----------



## CJIMI (Sunday at 3:58 PM)

I took the Acela Express from Philadelphia to New Haven last Dec. 10. It was nice to turn on the Speedometer App on my smartphone, and see that the train went over 150 mph, north of Trenton. However, the app also showed my history, where I had clocked the Thalys high speed train from Brussels to Paris last October at 218 mph. Took just over an hour and twenty minutes from Brussels to Paris. That same trip, when I first took it in 1986 took almost 5 hours.


----------



## Fenway (Tuesday at 4:27 AM)

Cal said:


> Yes, however South Attleboro is coming back, so really it's replacing the really old Pawtucket station that hasn't been in use in a long time.





jis said:


> I think Pawtuckett will provide the focal point for connectivity from off NEC RI by bus, which for various internecine bickering between RI and MA, apparently cannot go to South Attleboro.



When South Attleboro opened in 1990 the late Lou Schwechheimer, GM of the AAA Pawtucket Red Sox, wanted to establish a shuttle that the team would subsidize to make it easier for fans closer to Boston to attend games. He told me RIPTA would love to do it but could not as being self-insured the buses could not enter Massachusetts and GATRA had no interest. 

RIPTA finally offered limited service but it was shocking how neglected the station was. 






South Attleboro | Miles in Transit







milesintransit.com





I have no doubt Pawtucket/CF station will succeed.


----------



## Fenway (Tuesday at 5:03 AM)

CJIMI said:


> I took the Acela Express from Philadelphia to New Haven last Dec. 10. It was nice to turn on the Speedometer App on my smartphone, and see that the train went over 150 mph, north of Trenton. However, the app also showed my history, where I had clocked the Thalys high speed train from Brussels to Paris last October at 218 mph. Took just over an hour and twenty minutes from Brussels to Paris. That same trip, when I first took it in 1986 took almost 5 hours.



London St-Pancras to Paris Gare du Nord covers 214 miles in 2 hours and 20 minutes

The issue is New Haven to New Rochelle and there is no easy solution if indeed there is one. 

In September 2018 while working for the NHL Bruins I took an overnight train from Beijing to Shenzhen that took around 9 hours - the distance was similar to going from Boston to Tampa


----------



## Fenway (Yesterday at 5:24 PM)

Fenway said:


> London St-Pancras to Paris Gare du Nord covers 214 miles in 2 hours and 20 minutes
> 
> The issue is New Haven to New Rochelle and there is no easy solution if indeed there is one.


I think most of us can agree that the Achilles Heel of the NEC is the 56-mile stretch of track owned by Metro-North between New Rochelle and New Haven. Nothing is more frustrating than being on the Acela doing 59 mph and watching the traffic on I-95 moving faster. The 10 miles between NYP and Newark is another choke point and frankly, it is a near miracle that service runs as well as it does. 

The State of Connecticut's major priority is the commuter service between New Haven and New York and that won't change. But 46 minutes to travel 39 miles between New Haven and Stamford in 2023 just boggles the mind. 

The State of Connecticut is well aware of all the issues

*Connecticut State Rail Plan (2022-2026) September 2022*

Everything is further complicated by the fragile infrastructure approaching New York City. 

The holy grail has always been 3 hours from South Station to NYP but we are stuck at 3h 40 m. 

Is there a realistic fix?


----------



## dlerach (Yesterday at 6:04 PM)

Is there a realistic fix? That's a question many people have been asking for a long time, without easy answers. If the New Haven Line is the NEC's Achilles Heel, then the portion of the line between Stamford and New Haven is the Achilles Tendon of the Achilles Heel. Between NYP and Stamford there are multiple challenges, yes, but many of them are fixable without carving out an entirely new alignment, but between Stamford and New Haven you have, among other challenges, the sharp curves around Darien and Norton Heights that would require knocking down entire neighborhoods or multiple miles of tunneling to improve, the 45-mph WALK bridge (whose alignment through South Norwalk is basically impossible to improve), and the 30-mph Jenkin's Curve just south of Bridgeport (basically impossible to rectify without either knocking down downtown Bridgeport or tunneling under the downtown and Bridgeport harbor). The portion between New York and Stamford, though, can be improved with a few projects, and could make Amtrak competitive and enable 2.5-3 hr New York-Boston travel times.

In the Bronx, sharp curves at Hunts Point Ave.-Bruckner Blvd. and Westchester Ave.-Bronx River can be eased to 1.6° with a few takings (one of these would involve replacing Starlight Park). There's also an S-Curve near Morris Park further north in the Bronx, but it can be eased with minimal takings to 1.6° (mostly parking lots) and isn't fatally slow in its current form. The Pelham Bay Bridge needs to be replaced and its curvature should be reduced to 1°, but this is planned anyway with the Metro-North Penn Station Access Project. With those improvements and a re-alignment to 2° near CP Gate in Queens, the entire Hell Gate line would be good for 100-110 mph for Acelas, excepting the sharp curve on the Hell Gate Bridge. 

The problem with the New Haven Line between New Rochelle and Stamford, even more than the curves and the flat junction at SHELL Interlocking, is how busy and congested the line is. There is a solution, though, that could help Metro-North and Amtrak. Today the New Haven Line has four tracks, but it was built for six from New Rochelle to Stamford. (The fifth and sixth track were used by the New York, Westchester, & Boston during its existence from Larchmont-Port Chester). I-95 has encroached on the six-track ROW in Larchmont, which will require some unpleasant takings to restore, but if Amtrak had its own dedicated two tracks, it could dramatically increases service levels and increase speeds (many Metro North trains terminate in Stamford, so the line between Stamford and New Haven sees less traffic). The alignment is not the ex-PRR and has a few 2° curves in addition to a few painfully tight twists and turns (around which Amtrak should construct bypasses on I-95), but Amtrak could offer service that is unimaginable today sharing trackage with MNRR. Giving Amtrak its own two tracks also eliminates the problem at SHELL, where a dive-under or jump-over for Hell Gate trains has proven extremely difficult to construct. If an extra station track were built at New Rochelle (it currently has 5), Amtrak could use the two southernmost tracks of the 6-track ROW, eliminating the need to cross MNRR trackage. Amtrak should also use that project to ease the S-curve on the Hell Gate line leading to Shell (this would require taking about 20 properties). Routing Amtrak on the southernmost tracks would require moving station platforms at Larchmont, Mamaroneck, and Rye, but hey, nobody said this was going to be easy. 

Once past Rye, 3 sharp curves remain at Port Chester, Greenwich, and Cos Cob. To bypass the Port Chester curve, Amtrak would have to construct a bypass following I-95 to Greenwich. Once past the Greenwich S-Curve, there is ample room for a flying junction for Amtrak trains to transition back to the central express tracks of the 6-track ROW. At that point the only impediment to nonstop 100-mph running to Stamford is the Cos Cob Bridge, which sits between two sharp curves. Replacing the bridge with twin curved, 3-track spans would allow 100-mph speeds and continue Amtrak's segregation from MNRR traffic. 

So... is this fixable? Yes, but it would be a herculean project to even improve the half of the line that is easier to fix! For what it's worth, Amtrak's published plans have been even more aggressive, planning to construct an entirely separate 2-track ROW following I-95 between New Rochelle and Stamford. We shall see what of any of this comes to pass, but although many say the meek shall inherit the Earth, I have always believed that the world (or at least internet forum posts) belongs to the bold.


----------



## John819 (Yesterday at 8:45 PM)

If you look at the MNR segment on Google Earth you will see that almost any expansion of the ROW will involve taking property at exorbitant northeast prices. However, within the current ROW there are improvements to be made.

First would be bridge replacement. The issue that arises there (as shown by the Walk Bridge project) is coordination with boat traffic, both commercial and recreational. Anything that would restrict navigation at the Cos Cob bridge would be opposed by a huge contingent of boaters, who have megabucks to spend to buy political interference.

Second would be the Shell interlocking. There is not much room to expand, but you could probably improve the track layout between New Rochelle and Larchmont and between Pelham and New Rochelle so that Track 4 is basically reserved for Amtrak service.

Finally, although much of the six track ROW is gone (and it only ran from Larchmont to Port Chester), it may be possible to add a fifth track, again reserved for Amtrak service. Note that in addition to properties encroaching on the original ROW, there are a good number of highway bridges that have been built to the current ROW, and these would need replacement.

The good news is that for once the state and Amtrak are aligned is seeking improvements here, so something may be done.


----------



## Fenway (Today at 2:39 AM)

John819 said:


> The good news is that for once the state and Amtrak are aligned is seeking improvements here, so something may be done.


That is encouraging.

Connecticut made some baffling decisions in the 50s when the Connecticut Turnpike was designed and the New Haven RR was a mess. Most of today's issues stem from how badly the NH was managed. 

I think back to 1987 when WCVB-TV in Boston had a race between Boston and New York - one reporter flew, one drove and one took Amtrak. I have posted these videos before but I feel they are worth looking at again. 







If you did that today the plane would still win but with extra security at airports not so much. Acela and driving a coin flip. 

It still scares me that my fastest trip on transit between Boston and NY was back in 2001 on a Chinatown bus - Left Boston Chinatown at 5:05 PM on a Monday evening and arrived on Canal St in Manhattan at 7:55 PM


----------



## Anderson (Today at 2:58 AM)

I mean, at that point how would LIRR to Ronkonkoma and then a tunnel under the Long Island Sound to New Haven compare? A trade of a somewhat-more-expensive project with (potentially) less NIMBY issues in CT (as well as adding some additional intermediate pairs) has seemed like a proposition worth considering to my mind for a while (and all the moreso if the solution from NHV-BOS ends up being a significantly inland routing - then you basically get an "X" at NHV with four sets of routings and city pairs, with transfers at NHV).


----------



## Anderson (Today at 3:43 AM)

Fenway said:


> That is encouraging.
> 
> Connecticut made some baffling decisions in the 50s when the Connecticut Turnpike was designed and the New Haven RR was a mess. Most of today's issues stem from how badly the NH was managed.
> 
> ...



Going LGA-downtown can still be both time consuming and expensive, so it's going to depend a bit on traffic and a bit on how much time you allow for security, etc. I agree that the plane is likely to win, but I also agree that it would probably be closer now than it was then (arriving at the airport <30 minutes before departure would be an exercise in insanity).

That having been said - Peter _should_ have come in second, but it looks like he got demoralized at the end. Also, I can't blame him for not taking the subway in the 80s, but there's a good chance that taking the E-train and then walking would have given him the edge vs taking a taxi. Today he would probably be in a comfortable second place - I'll link the late 1987 timetable below [1], but he was on train 171/161, timetabled at either 4:25 (Mon-Sat) or 4:30 (Sun). Obviously, we've knocked the better part of an hour off of that with the faster Acelas (the fastest one SB, 2155, comes in at 3:32; while the fastest one NB, 2150, comes in at 3:37; but timetables in the 3:40-3:45 range are more common) and the lack of an engine change at NHV for direct trains.

[I admit that I'm a little bit surprised they took 95 instead of the Merritt Parkway, at least since that's how I get routed quite often, but...well, let's talk about how much fun _that _road is in a midcentury land yacht.]

[1] The Museum of Railway Timetables (timetables.org)


----------



## Fenway (Today at 4:36 AM)

Anderson said:


> Going LGA-downtown can still be both time consuming and expensive, so it's going to depend a bit on traffic and a bit on how much time you allow for security, etc. I agree that the plane is likely to win, but I also agree that it would probably be closer now than it was then (arriving at the airport <30 minutes before departure would be an exercise in insanity).
> 
> That having been said - Peter _should_ have come in second, but it looks like he got demoralized at the end. Also, I can't blame him for not taking the subway in the 80s, but there's a good chance that taking the E-train and then walking would have given him the edge vs taking a taxi. Today he would probably be in a comfortable second place - I'll link the late 1987 timetable below [1], but he was on train 171/161, timetabled at either 4:25 (Mon-Sat) or 4:30 (Sun). Obviously, we've knocked the better part of an hour off of that with the faster Acelas (the fastest one SB, 2155, comes in at 3:32; while the fastest one NB, 2150, comes in at 3:37; but timetables in the 3:40-3:45 range are more common) and the lack of an engine change at NHV for direct trains.
> 
> ...



Back then I ALWAYS took the Wilbur Cross/Merritt instead of I-95 but the Sikorsky Bridge was not for the faint of heart. 

Trying to describe what the Eastern Shuttle was like in the 60s into the mid-80s is next to impossible to explain to younger people today. You could arrive at Logan and get a boarding pass FIVE MINUTES before departure from a vending machine and pay for the flight in the air and Eastern would roll out a second section even if it only was for one passenger. It happened to me once when I was on a second section with 2 others and we were all flying youth fare.


----------



## John819 (Today at 9:18 AM)

Back in the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad days trains like the Mayflower made the New Haven to GCT run in slightly more than one hour and 20 minutes.

Right now one of the problems on the New Haven to New Rochelle run on Metro North is the large number of speed restrictions, both those from Metro North and the "temporary" speed restrictions imposed by the FRA after several MN incidents (derailments / collisions). I am surprised that the TSRs from the FRA are still in place after five years. I guess "temporary" has a different meaning to the DC bureaucrats.


----------



## jis (Today at 10:04 AM)

Anderson said:


> I mean, at that point how would LIRR to Ronkonkoma and then a tunnel under the Long Island Sound to New Haven compare? A trade of a somewhat-more-expensive project with (potentially) less NIMBY issues in CT (as well as adding some additional intermediate pairs) has seemed like a proposition worth considering to my mind for a while (and all the moreso if the solution from NHV-BOS ends up being a significantly inland routing - then you basically get an "X" at NHV with four sets of routings and city pairs, with transfers at NHV).


I'm sure the NIMBYs on Long Island will oblige by adequately substituting for the NIMBYs in Connecticut.

In any case that is one of the alignments that was considered in the Tier I EIS for the NEC Spine and one that was not selected. It is worthwhile reading the Tier I EIS cover to cover 



NEC FUTURE: Tier 1 Final EIS


----------



## daybeers (Today at 2:34 PM)

I'm not sure of the best way to alleviate the issues NYP-NHV, but I definitely think the former Inland Route (NHV-HFD-SPG-WOR-BOS) needs to be restored, as well as a new bypass from HFD to PVD to avoid the congestion, curves, and flood risk in SE CT.


----------

