Amtrak to issue RFI for Acela II in early 2013

[Guest]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[AlanB]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[afigg]

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

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

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

 

[Guest]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[PRR 60]

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

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

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

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

 

[George Harris]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Paulus]

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

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

 

[Anderson]

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

 

[NE933]

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

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

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

 

[NE933]

History will prove me right; sorry!

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

 

[George Harris]

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

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

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

 

[afigg]

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

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

 

[George Harris]

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

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

 

[afigg]

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

Agreed.

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

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

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

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[NE933]

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

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

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

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

 

[AlanB]

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

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

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

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

Bill,

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

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

 

[AlanB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And Europe proves you wrong too!

 

[George Harris]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Guest]

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

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

 

[Guest]

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

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

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

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

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

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

And Europe proves you wrong too!

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

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

 

[Anderson]

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

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

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

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

Bill,

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

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

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

 

[AlanB]

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

And Europe proves you wrong too!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Guest]

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

And Europe proves you wrong too!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Bob Dylan]

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

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