Amtrak to issue RFI for Acela II in early 2013

[Guest]

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

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

 

[Guest]

 

[Anderson]

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

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

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

 

[afigg]

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

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

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

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

 

[Ryan]

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

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

 

[jis]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Guest]

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

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

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

 

[Trogdor]

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

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

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

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

 

[Nathanael]

I think this sums up the issue:

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

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

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

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

 

[Guest]

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

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

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

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

I derided business folks? Please point out where.

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

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

 

[Ryan]

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

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

 

[PRR 60]

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

 

[Anderson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Trogdor]

I derided business folks? Please point out where.

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

 

[Guest]

I derided business folks? Please point out where.

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

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

 

[Trogdor]

I derided business folks? Please point out where.

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

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

Then what was the purpose of the following statement?

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

 

[Guest]

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

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

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

 

[Berliner]

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

 

[Ryan]

I derided business folks? Please point out where.

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

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

Then what was the purpose of the following statement?

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

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

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

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

Ryan, you have been taking smarmy (a la Paul Lynde) potshots at me since I began posting here and I'm very close to telling you to GFY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[PRR 60]

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

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

 

[leemell]

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

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

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

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

 

[Guest]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Ryan]

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

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

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

 

[leemell]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Guest]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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