In 1970, the new Penn Central Metroliners made the DC to NY trip in 2 hours; 59 minutes. This IS depressing !
North East Corridor (NEC) speeds, new stations and state of repair
- Thread starter Free Jaffa
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
In 1970, the new Penn Central Metroliners made the DC to NY trip in 2 hours; 59 minutes. This IS depressing !
If they hadn't spent the money, I suspect the trains would be slower.
By the way, the Northeast Regional trains ARE a lot faster than the non Metroliner trains were in the Pre Amtrak days. And there are a lot more of them, or at least there were before the Pandemic.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Indeed. It is not like there was an alternative that did not involve replacing the rolling stock, rebuilding the infrastructure ground up and catching up on deferred maintenance just to keep things as they were in terms of speed.
Last edited:
TheCrescent
OBS Chief
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2020
- Messages
- 562
He never said that, but in the situation that the NEC is in it's not surprising.
TheCrescent
OBS Chief
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2020
- Messages
- 562
Yes but enough of “this is how it has to be and just accept it” (not from you, but from plenty of others). For example, “don’t bother increasing the top speeds of trains”, above.
It’s completely unacceptable for Acelas to take over three hours from NY to DC.
It’s completely unacceptable that passenger rail market share outside of the Northeast is negligible (with a few exceptions).
It’s completely unacceptable that Amtrak offers a third-rate onboard product in Eastern long-distance trains and that their market share is negligible.
There’s no accountability for any of this nonsense. Perhaps if there were, we’d have a decent rail system.
Speed is not the only metric with which we judge trains.
Does the NYC-DC route need to be faster? Not much; maybe a half hour is all that is needed. It has captured quite a share of the travel in between those two cities.
Instead, perhaps ride quality, frequency, and price matter much more than increasing speed.
That said... the NYC to DC Acela route is comparable to Milan-Venice Frecciarossa (The Frecciarossa widely considered the best HSR in Europe) route in speed and distance. You throw around all of this hand-waving exclaiming "unacceptable," but honestly, the NEC provides mostly decent rail service. I think your word unacceptable is actually misplaced. Could it be better? Of course. Given the way this country works, and given how little we invest in rail, I'm glad it isn't worse. It's not the Tokaido Shinkansen, but it isn't exactly bad either.
If the 1970's Boston plan to tear down the NEC and replace it with an interstate had gone through, we'd have no real NEC.
Last edited:
I agree, I would much rather have slower, but nice, comfortable, and frequent trains and service rather than super fast.
George Harris
Engineer
And what would have happened if this money had not been spent? You are also using the wrong basis. Things will not stay status quo without continued maintenance money for track, signals, power systems, and equipment. In its last years of private ownership there was no money for significant work, so it was essentially in a kept together by string, hope and prayer condition just to be able to maintain the pre Metroliner speeds of 80 mph or less.
When this first 3 hour service was first happening 50 years ago, megabucks had already been spent and the speed limit raised considerably. In the Pennsylvania Railroad days, this was an 80 mph maximum railroad with the premier service right at 4 hours. That is still around a 55 mph average and far faster than driving time. In the early Metroliner days when these first 3 hour schedules were used that was by pull out all the stops runs with the most senior of men in the cab, and everyone involved took great pride in running a quality operation. These engineers were guys that knew almost exactly where every bump was tie by tie. Even though not nominally in uniforms, the engineers wore suits and ties. Whether by their own choice or by company policy, they dressed up for the assignment. If behind schedule violations of speed limits were given a wink and a nod by the management that was supposed to enforce them, because they knew the guys in the front end knew exactly where the safe limits were on every piece of track.
Yes, the Metroliners were heavy compared to most foreign EMU cars, and somewhat power hogs, but they were cutting edge technologically at the time, and the Pennsylvania Railroad had traditionally developed things with an "if it doubt, make it stout" design basis. This is generally a good idea. If the alignment had been available for them to do so, they would have been able to leave the TGV trains in the dust. (Incidentially, if you read about how the TGV managed to achieve the high speed record run they did, you will find that much had been modified both with that one trainset and otherwise in order to make it possible.)
Just for comparison, here's the timetable for the Senator, a Boston-Washington train that I used to joyride when I was in high school. This schedule is from 1955, but I don't think it was running any faster on April 30, 1971.
The Senator - April, 1955 - Streamliner Schedules
Boston - New York was 4:20 (of course, they had to change engines in New Haven.)
New York to Baltimore was 3:05
New York to Washington was 3:45
The trip took a little over 8 hours end-to-end. Average speed was about 55 mph.
Then there's the Keystone - the "tubular train" that did the NYP-WAS run. A schedule from 1956, but it was probably similar in 1970. I used to joyride that one, too, just before they pulled the "tubular" equipment. (Which was a blatant ADA violation, except that there was no ADA at the time.)
The Keystones - July, 1956 - Streamliner Schedules
Two of the trains did the run in 3:55, average speed of ~55 mph, the other two took 4:15 at an average speed of ~57 mph.
Just for comparison, the current Northeast Regional does the NWP - WAS run in about 3:22. And they run hourly (or they did before the pandemic.)
The Senator - April, 1955 - Streamliner Schedules
Boston - New York was 4:20 (of course, they had to change engines in New Haven.)
New York to Baltimore was 3:05
New York to Washington was 3:45
The trip took a little over 8 hours end-to-end. Average speed was about 55 mph.
Then there's the Keystone - the "tubular train" that did the NYP-WAS run. A schedule from 1956, but it was probably similar in 1970. I used to joyride that one, too, just before they pulled the "tubular" equipment. (Which was a blatant ADA violation, except that there was no ADA at the time.)
The Keystones - July, 1956 - Streamliner Schedules
Two of the trains did the run in 3:55, average speed of ~55 mph, the other two took 4:15 at an average speed of ~57 mph.
Just for comparison, the current Northeast Regional does the NWP - WAS run in about 3:22. And they run hourly (or they did before the pandemic.)
Last edited:
One hour 25 minutes, Philadelphia to Baltimore. I believe the current Northeast Regionals (unless they stop in Aberdeen) run it at 1:15 or so.
By the way, by the late 1960s I believe they also had a Mid-Day Congressional.
west point
Engineer
Just remember that speed limits were not enforced very much 50 years ago. Lead foot engineers were not penalized as others have noted the engineers knew exactly what the max limits of each foot were not what the timetable said.
Trmrmber that the PTC speed limits are set by mechanical engineers in the back room using the most conservative figures. Speed limits now are set IMO at twice the distance needed for max braking.
Wouldn't the official timetable show the schedule if following the speed limit though?
TheCrescent
OBS Chief
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2020
- Messages
- 562
In searching today’s trains on the Amtrak app, there is one train that does DC to NY in 3:20. Numerous others take over 3:30 and as long as 3:47.
I appreciate that the NEC is very Capital-intensive and requires billions per year in upkeep just to avoid falling apart even more.
The condition of the NEC is a failure of leadership. It’s much more used than any highway or airport (I think- I may be wrong) and is surrounded by tens of millions of affluent voters/users, influential corporations and, above all, seats of government. If any piece of infrastructure has all of the criteria for being improved, this is it.
There’s no excuse that it hasn’t been significantly improved to allow for faster average speeds in over 50 years; if this were a highway or an airport, it would have been.
This failure harms the US overall. If we had 2-hour trip times from NY to DC and Boston, just think of how much less travel time would be wasted and how much more efficient travel would be, which would help the economy.
I appreciate that the NEC is very Capital-intensive and requires billions per year in upkeep just to avoid falling apart even more.
The condition of the NEC is a failure of leadership. It’s much more used than any highway or airport (I think- I may be wrong) and is surrounded by tens of millions of affluent voters/users, influential corporations and, above all, seats of government. If any piece of infrastructure has all of the criteria for being improved, this is it.
There’s no excuse that it hasn’t been significantly improved to allow for faster average speeds in over 50 years; if this were a highway or an airport, it would have been.
This failure harms the US overall. If we had 2-hour trip times from NY to DC and Boston, just think of how much less travel time would be wasted and how much more efficient travel would be, which would help the economy.
Though you've changed your tone a little bit throughout this discussion, I'm in complete agreement with what you've just written.
As the most important piece of infrastructure in the country, its unacceptable that it's state of disrepair has come this far (especially places like the Hudson tunnels). That said, with the exception of interstate highways, many crucial pieces of infrastructure flat out suck (not least of which some of our most important airports). JFK, ORD, and ATL all need major improvements. Major bridges and roads are also in pretty poor shape.
Playing the blame game here however, is more complex. There are a host of factors that contributed to our current rail situation, and it includes more than just a failure of leadership. We could have the most pro-rail administration possible in every level of government, but there is even disagreement over what kind of rail should be built. For that matter, the definition of what counts as HSR is so ambiguous in this country and around the world that under some definitions, the Acela in RI (where it is at its fastest), is still not true HSR. This leads to a rejection of any improvement of rail that isn't full on 220+ levitating gardens of peace (I exaggerate, but you get the point). To use your own words, we're essentially letting "perfect" be the enemy of the "good."
This failure of nomenclature, in addition to lack of consistent funding, exclusive and harmful car culture, and the general public's lack of knowledge about what rail is and can be, should also take a considerable portion of blame for the state of the NEC; its not just failure of leadership.
Last edited:
Absolutely, and it should always be remembered that most leaders just lead the masses to places where the masses want to go anyway.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
It seems apparent to me that many participants in this discussion appear to be either unaware of or at least have not read the decisions that have already been made (and the ones that have been kicked down to the Tier 2 EIS process(es) and postponed into a study) about what will be done with the NEC. There is a Record of Decision (ROD) on the Final Tier 1 EIS for the NEC Spine that was published by the FRA a few years back which describes the broad parameters of how NEC will be developed over the next several decades. The info can be found at:
https://www.fra.dot.gov/necfuture/tier1_eis/rod/
There is an excruciatingly detailed map available showing everything that could be done within the parameters of the ROD if/when money becomes available too.
https://www.fra.dot.gov/necfuture/tier1_eis/rod/
There is an excruciatingly detailed map available showing everything that could be done within the parameters of the ROD if/when money becomes available too.
Having ridden the NEC off and on since 1968 I have to say what we have today is much better than it was 55 years ago.
For example back then there were a total of 8 trains each way daily between Boston and New York all Diesel hauled between New Haven and New York. 4 of the trains terminated at Grand Central Terminal, necessitating a trip on the subway to Penn Station if continuing South. Equipment was of varying condition, often dirty windows, sometimes lighting were intermittent or inoperative. Dining was hit or miss depending on whether they had gotten around to stocking the train. Morale was low and it showed in the attitudes of crews although some were great. The only bright spots were the Turbo Service and the Metroliners, the beginning of the renaissance of the NEC.
For example back then there were a total of 8 trains each way daily between Boston and New York all Diesel hauled between New Haven and New York. 4 of the trains terminated at Grand Central Terminal, necessitating a trip on the subway to Penn Station if continuing South. Equipment was of varying condition, often dirty windows, sometimes lighting were intermittent or inoperative. Dining was hit or miss depending on whether they had gotten around to stocking the train. Morale was low and it showed in the attitudes of crews although some were great. The only bright spots were the Turbo Service and the Metroliners, the beginning of the renaissance of the NEC.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
An EIS with a ROD can be superseded only by another EIS with a ROD.
I am not aware of anything that has changed so much as to make any of the proposed goals and elements impossible. Of course without funding nothing will happen. Note that the entire issue of what should be done in Connecticut is punted to a future study, which has yet to be concluded. This was to carve out the uproar about trying to build anything 50 to 100 feet underground under the fat cat's mansions in Connecticut so as to avoid movable bridges across every tiny channel which the same fat cats with boats would not allow to be opened more a than a few times a day! (Somewhat facetiously speaking)
The NEC Commission's 5 year project plan is aligned with this ROD at present.
Last edited:
I noticed the South Station Expansion Project is still listed on this report.
As the current air rights project and tower above the tracks is not really part of the official SSEP, do you have any insight into where the actual expansion stands (namely the push from 13 tracks to 20+ tracks)? I know transitmatters is pretty against that expansion, and more for overall electrification and procurement of EMU's to give nearly the same push of trains per hour through the interlocking. Furthermore, it seems the postal facility and MBTA haven't come to an agreement.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
As is quite obvious every listed project is not going to happen in any case, since I do not foresee the entire lot getting funded either. And specially where commuter agencies are concerned additional stuff is likely to happen, but generally consistent with the overall direction. Recall that Tier 1 EISs do not allow for construction of anything. It just identifies consistent project segments, each of which requires its own Tier 2 EIS, which can then form the basis for permitting etc. And Tier 2s often discover impossibilities proposed in Tier 1 and make changes that are necessary in the Tier 2.
And these EIS's time out after a while too requiring another one or a supplemental one. The Hudson Tunnel has gone through at least three plus one Supplemental AFAIR, so far. Hopefully current one is the last one.
George Harris
Engineer
With the following I am done with this discussion.
The "3 hours 50 years ago" between New York and Washington was AFTER considerable money had been spent raising the maximum speed limit from 80 mph to 110 mph, or 125 or whatever. Either way, without alignment changes the difference in practical minimum run time is close to nil. Yes, much money has been spent since, mostly on upgrades that would improve reliability, reduce maintenance effort, modernize much of the 1920's technology to more modern standards. That there has been little to no significant improvement in run time should not be a surprise, as to do so would require megabucks more with each giving at best a few minutes and the most significant resultant of these changes would be improved reliability and elimination of maintenance headaches.
If you want to achieve significantly faster run times, I give you the following example: The Taiwan High Speed Railway. Taipei to Kaohsiung, 210.8 miles, all except the first few miles and the last couple miles on new alignment without speed restrictions between those points. Other than these end areas, the speed limit is 300 km/hr = 186 mph, without any intermediate points having speed restrictions. Most of these end area restrictions are in the 60 to 140 mph range, so they are not really that slow. The one stop express train does this 210 miles in 1 hour 35 minutes. The "local", which has six stops takes two hours flat. The station track layouts at these intermediate stations is such that there is no need to slow for the turnout to the station track. Simply do your braking like going directly into the platform and accelerating directly out of it. By the way, other than a slightly larger vertical difference, the platform offsets meet US ADA requirements.
Other than the end points, none of these stations are in the urban area they serve. Since the line opened in 2007, there has been considerable work done on transit connections between HSR stations and these urban areas. The total length of line is 214.2 miles end of track to end of track. Obviously, the track must extend beyound the terminal stations for some little distance for switching purposes. Of this all but the south about 2 miles are on concrete base track slabs, mostly the Japanese style precast segment type. 37.54 miles is in tunnel or cut and cover underground segments, with the longest two true tunnels being over 4 miles in length, each. 156.92 miles is on bridges and viaducts. Most of the south half of the route is elevated in its entirety, 97.75 miles of continuous structure. The remaining 59.17 miles of viaduct is spread over multiple structures, four of which are over 10 miles long.
Unless and until we find the money and space to build such a facility between New York and Washington DC, we are not going to get much reduction in run time below what we have now.
As to equipment, the Taiwan system uses a slightly modified Shinkansen 700 trainset of 12 cars. This means EMU, except that the end cars are unpowered. My viewpoint on NEC equipment is that we would have been far better off if we had taken lessons learned from the original Metroliner trainsets and built an improved EMU trainset rather than go with the European style end power cars and intervening coaches that we have now.
The "3 hours 50 years ago" between New York and Washington was AFTER considerable money had been spent raising the maximum speed limit from 80 mph to 110 mph, or 125 or whatever. Either way, without alignment changes the difference in practical minimum run time is close to nil. Yes, much money has been spent since, mostly on upgrades that would improve reliability, reduce maintenance effort, modernize much of the 1920's technology to more modern standards. That there has been little to no significant improvement in run time should not be a surprise, as to do so would require megabucks more with each giving at best a few minutes and the most significant resultant of these changes would be improved reliability and elimination of maintenance headaches.
If you want to achieve significantly faster run times, I give you the following example: The Taiwan High Speed Railway. Taipei to Kaohsiung, 210.8 miles, all except the first few miles and the last couple miles on new alignment without speed restrictions between those points. Other than these end areas, the speed limit is 300 km/hr = 186 mph, without any intermediate points having speed restrictions. Most of these end area restrictions are in the 60 to 140 mph range, so they are not really that slow. The one stop express train does this 210 miles in 1 hour 35 minutes. The "local", which has six stops takes two hours flat. The station track layouts at these intermediate stations is such that there is no need to slow for the turnout to the station track. Simply do your braking like going directly into the platform and accelerating directly out of it. By the way, other than a slightly larger vertical difference, the platform offsets meet US ADA requirements.
Other than the end points, none of these stations are in the urban area they serve. Since the line opened in 2007, there has been considerable work done on transit connections between HSR stations and these urban areas. The total length of line is 214.2 miles end of track to end of track. Obviously, the track must extend beyound the terminal stations for some little distance for switching purposes. Of this all but the south about 2 miles are on concrete base track slabs, mostly the Japanese style precast segment type. 37.54 miles is in tunnel or cut and cover underground segments, with the longest two true tunnels being over 4 miles in length, each. 156.92 miles is on bridges and viaducts. Most of the south half of the route is elevated in its entirety, 97.75 miles of continuous structure. The remaining 59.17 miles of viaduct is spread over multiple structures, four of which are over 10 miles long.
Unless and until we find the money and space to build such a facility between New York and Washington DC, we are not going to get much reduction in run time below what we have now.
As to equipment, the Taiwan system uses a slightly modified Shinkansen 700 trainset of 12 cars. This means EMU, except that the end cars are unpowered. My viewpoint on NEC equipment is that we would have been far better off if we had taken lessons learned from the original Metroliner trainsets and built an improved EMU trainset rather than go with the European style end power cars and intervening coaches that we have now.
Last edited:
