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

[TheCrescent]

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

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

 

[Cal]

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

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

 

[John from RI]

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

 

[MARC Rider]

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

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

 

[John Santos]

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

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

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

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

Are the rails or catenary incapable of supporting higher speed?

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

 

[George Harris]

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

It is quite curvey.

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

too true

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

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

Are the rails or catenary incapable of supporting higher speed?

Rails not at all. Catenary, not certain.

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

Should not be happening.

 

[BlackDiamond]

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

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

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

Are the rails or catenary incapable of supporting higher speed?

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

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

 

[mfastx]

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

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

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

 

[Tlcooper44]

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

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

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

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

 

[jis]

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

 

[George Harris]

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

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

 

[jis]

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

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

 

[John819]

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

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

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

 

[MARC Rider]

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

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

 

[MARC Rider]

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

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

 

[TheCrescent]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[MARC Rider]

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

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

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

 

[Tlcooper44]

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

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

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

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

 

[west point]

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

 

[TheCrescent]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Cal]

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

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

 

[joelkfla]

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

Morocco is in Africa.

 

[Cal]

Morocco is in Africa.

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

 

[John819]

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

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

 

[MARC Rider]

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

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