Amtrak to issue RFI for Acela II in early 2013

[leemell]

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

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

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

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

 

[AlanB]

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 Skyrocketing fuel prices and an outdated Interstate system are responsible for the public seeking an alternate form of transportation.

Sorry, but NO!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Guest]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Guest]

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

Sorry, but NO!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[NE933]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[AlanB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Guest]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Guest]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have another question followed by another question.

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

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

 

[AlanB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[AlanB]

I have another question followed by another question.

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

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

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

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

 

[Ryan]

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

 

[Guest]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy birthday.

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

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

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

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

 

[Guest]

I have another question followed by another question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[AlanB]

I have another question followed by another question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[AlanB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[AlanB]

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

And the fact that you would even make this statement:

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

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

 

[PRR 60]

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

...

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

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

Some random thoughts:

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

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

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

 

[AlanB]

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Anderson]

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

 

[Guest]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[PRR 60]

I

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Anderson]

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

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

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

 

[afigg]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[NE933]

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