R
Railfan1001
Guest
Why is it that trains are limited to 79mph on the majority of trackage that amtrak runs on.
That's probably a question for the Rail Rookie! :lol:Why is it that trains are limited to 79mph on the majority of trackage that amtrak runs on.
Its all found hereWhy is it that trains are limited to 79mph on the majority of trackage that amtrak runs on.
In short, any speeds higher than 79 mph requires additional equipment to run the train, such as (correct me if I'm wrong) cab signaling, positive train control, etc, and since the freight railroads can't haul anything faster than 70 mph, an improvement to allow higher passenger train speeds wouldn't really do much for their investment.Why is it that trains are limited to 79mph on the majority of trackage that amtrak runs on.
Thanks so much that was very helpfulIn short, any speeds higher than 79 mph requires additional equipment to run the train, such as (correct me if I'm wrong) cab signaling, positive train control, etc, and since the freight railroads can't haul anything faster than 70 mph, an improvement to allow higher passenger train speeds wouldn't really do much for their investment.Why is it that trains are limited to 79mph on the majority of trackage that amtrak runs on.
Paragraph (d) is the specific answer to the specific question asked, but I threw in the rest because it explains several other things, like why the Vermonter is limited to 59 mph north of White River Junction and why the Sunset Limited, when it ran east of New Orleans was limited to 59 mph between Flomaton AL and Tallahassee FL. These lines have no signals.Sec. 236.0, Applicability, minimum requirements, and civil penalties.
( a ) Except as provided in paragraph ( b ) of this section, this part applies to railroads that operate on standard gage track which is part of the general railroad system of transportation.
( b ) This part does not apply to rail rapid transit operations conducted over track that is used exclusively for that purpose and that is not part of the general system of railroad transportation.
( c ) Where a passenger train is operated at a speed of 60 or more miles per hour, or a freight train is operated at a speed of 50 or more miles per hour, a block signal system complying with the provisions of this part shall be installed or a manual block system shall be placed permanently in effect which shall conform to the following conditions:
(1) A passenger train shall not be admitted to a block occupied by another train except under flag protection;
(2) No train shall be admitted to a block occupied by a passenger train except under flag protection;
(3) No train shall be admitted to a block occupied by an opposing train except under flag protection; and
(4) A freight train, including a work train, may be authorized to follow a freight train, including a work train, into a block but the following train must proceed prepared to stop within one-half the range of vision but not exceeding 20 miles per hour.
( d ) Where any train is operated at a speed of 80 or more miles per hour, an automatic cab signal, automatic train stop or automatic train control system complying with the provisions of this part shall be installed.
The Rail tracks Wikipedia article indicates that 80 MPH is the speed limit for freight on class 5 track.In short, any speeds higher than 79 mph requires additional equipment to run the train, such as (correct me if I'm wrong) cab signaling, positive train control, etc, and since the freight railroads can't haul anything faster than 70 mph, an improvement to allow higher passenger train speeds wouldn't really do much for their investment.
I thought the 70/75mph top for freight was because of the lower-quality bearings used, back when Amtrak ran express service they ran boxcars and road railers at 90mph. It would seem like raising freight speeds on intermodals and roadrailers would be a great marketing point for the railroads on time-sensitive freight such as UPS, and other express shipping customers.The Rail tracks Wikipedia article indicates that 80 MPH is the speed limit for freight on class 5 track.In short, any speeds higher than 79 mph requires additional equipment to run the train, such as (correct me if I'm wrong) cab signaling, positive train control, etc, and since the freight railroads can't haul anything faster than 70 mph, an improvement to allow higher passenger train speeds wouldn't really do much for their investment.
(Freight trains operated at speeds that take advantage of the speeds allowed by class 6 and higher have to meet the weight restrictions for passenger trains, so I believe this means that heavy freight trains are limited to 80 MPH.)
I think what it boils down to is that the difference between 79 MPH and 80 MPH is almost irrelavant compared to the cost of installing cab signaling or automatic train stop along some track, and these technologies are not really worth investing in just for the benefit of passenger trains for track that sees one passenger train a day in each direction.
First I suspect that the new car carriers introduced about two year ago are cabable of going fast than 70 MPH.Not to mention the AutoTrain could finally exceed 70mph.
After taking the Vermonter, I would ask why the train is limited to 9mph on the majority of VT trackage.Why is it that trains are limited to 79mph on the majority of trackage that amtrak runs on.
I'm well aware of those facts. However, if the signaling along the route is upgraded, all of the trains on that route would be able to take advantage of those upgrades, regardless of where along the route the individual trains stop.I'm not quite sure what the "same route as Silver Service" comment was meant for with respect to Auto-Train. It does not stop anywhere to pick up or discharge passengers along the route. The fact that it shares a common route with one or both Silver Service trains (depending where you are on the route) is basically irrelevant, as it does not stop at any of those stations to pick up or drop off passengers. You get on at one end of the route and get off at the other, period. The only stops are for crew changes or fuel, really. You MUST be taking a vehicle along in order to book travel on Auto-Train, and they load vehicles at one end of the route and unload them at the other, no intermediate passenger stops at all.
I hesitate to admit it, but your question drove me to actually open my timetable and pretty much make an audit of train miles traveled vs time taken to see what train, on average is the slowest in Amtrak's system, bumper to bumper, over the entire trip.Is Vermonter the slowest amtrak train, mph ?
Rafi - I think you have way too much time on your hands, or is it a slow news day! :lol: :lol:I hesitate to admit it, but your question drove me to actually open my timetable and pretty much make an audit of train miles traveled vs time taken to see what train, on average is the slowest in Amtrak's system, bumper to bumper, over the entire trip.Is Vermonter the slowest amtrak train, mph ?
I didn't check every single train, but I did try to check every route.
The slowest train that I could find was the Adirondack, which runs NYP-Montreal. Now, realize I COUNTED the dwell time for US/Canadian customs in the average, so that cuts down on its overall average MPH. I came up with 34 MPH for the entire trip as the average.
If you weren't to count the customs dwell time, I suspect that number might go up to 36 or 37 mph.
Here are the next slowest:
Lake Shore Limited Boston Stub: 36 MPH
NEC (New Haven-Springfield): 37 MPH
Texas Eagle (entire run CHI-LAX, including long SAS layover): 39 MPH
Coast Starlight: 39 MPH
Vermonter (St. Albans-NYP ONLY): 39 MPH (note that from St. Albans to Springfield, however, it's averaging 49 MPH!)
And, for those who are interested (and so my time wasn't completely a waste!), here's a complete list of everything I checked, from slowest to fastest; note that the speeds listed (especially for the Acela) are much lower than the top speeds the trains reach during their runs. These are AVERAGE speeds, including dwell time at station stops (except where noted):
Adirondack: 34 MPH
Lake Shore Limited Boston Stub: 36 MPH
NEC (New Haven-Springfield): 37 MPH
Texas Eagle (entire run CHI-LAX, including long SAS layover): 39 MPH
Coast Starlight: 39 MPH
Vermonter (St. Albans-NYP ONLY): 39 MPH
Cascades (Vancouver-Seattle): 40 MPH
Cardinal: 40 MPH
Wolverine: 40 MPH
Blue Water: 40 MPH
Texas Eagle (CHI-San Antonio only): 40 MPH
NEC Overnight: 41 MPH
Sunset Limited (NOL-LAX): 41 MPH
Maple Leaf (counting customs layover): 42 MPH
Capitol Limited: 43 MPH
Pere Marquette: 44 MPH
California Zephyr: 45 MPH
Ethan Allen Express: 45 MPH
NEC (Newport News-Richmond): 45 MPH
NEC (Washington-Newport News): 46 MPH
Pennsylvanian: 46 MPH
Silver Star: 46 MPH
Crescent: 47 MPH
City of New Orleans: 47 MPH
Texas Eagle (San Antonio to LAX only): 47 MPH
Hoosier State: 48 MPH
Downeaster: 48 MPH
Empire Builder (CHI-SEA): 48 MPH
Pacific Surfliner (San Diego-LAX): 48 MPH
Empire Builder (CHI-PDX): 49 MPH
Heartland Flyer: 49 MPH
Auto Train: 49 MPH
Vermonter (entire run): 49 MPH
Cascades (SEA-Eugene): 50 MPH
Silver Meteor: 50 MPH
Lake Shore Limited (NYP-CHI): 50 MPH
Ann Rutledge: 50 MPH
Empire Service (NYP-Niagara Falls): 51 MPH
Southwest Chief: 52 MPH
Average NEC Regional (BOS-NPN): 52 MPH
Palmetto: 56 MPH
Average NEC Regional (BOS-WAS): 58 MPH
Empire Service (NYP-ALB): 60 mph
Keystone: 63 MPH
Lincoln Service: 66 MPH
Average Acela (BOS-WAS): 69 MPH
-Rafi
I'll put it this way: My wife is getting ready for us to go see Sex and the City. I'm delaying. Desperately.Rafi - I think you have way too much time on your hands, or is it a slow news day! :lol: :lol:
You forgot Carolinian.I hesitate to admit it, but your question drove me to actually open my timetable and pretty much make an audit of train miles traveled vs time taken to see what train, on average is the slowest in Amtrak's system, bumper to bumper, over the entire trip.Is Vermonter the slowest amtrak train, mph ?
I didn't check every single train, but I did try to check every route.
The slowest train that I could find was the Adirondack, which runs NYP-Montreal. Now, realize I COUNTED the dwell time for US/Canadian customs in the average, so that cuts down on its overall average MPH. I came up with 34 MPH for the entire trip as the average.
If you weren't to count the customs dwell time, I suspect that number might go up to 36 or 37 mph.
Here are the next slowest:
Lake Shore Limited Boston Stub: 36 MPH
Cardinal (Culpeper-CHI only; essentially not counting high speed NEC and NS trackage): 37 MPH
NEC (New Haven-Springfield): 37 MPH
Texas Eagle (entire run CHI-LAX, including long SAS layover): 39 MPH
Coast Starlight: 39 MPH
Vermonter (St. Albans-NYP ONLY): 39 MPH (note that from St. Albans to Springfield, however, it's averaging 49 MPH!)
And, for those who are interested (and so my time wasn't completely a waste!), here's a complete list of everything I checked, from slowest to fastest; note that the speeds listed (especially for the Acela) are much lower than the top speeds the trains reach during their runs. These are AVERAGE speeds, including dwell time at station stops (except where noted):
Adirondack: 34 MPH
Lake Shore Limited Boston Stub: 36 MPH
Cardinal (Culpeper-CHI only; essentially not counting high speed NEC and NS trackage): 37 MPH
NEC (New Haven-Springfield): 37 MPH
Texas Eagle (entire run CHI-LAX, including long SAS layover): 39 MPH
Coast Starlight: 39 MPH
Vermonter (St. Albans-NYP ONLY): 39 MPH
Cascades (Vancouver-Seattle): 40 MPH
Cardinal: 40 MPH
Wolverine: 40 MPH
Blue Water: 40 MPH
Texas Eagle (CHI-San Antonio only): 40 MPH
NEC Overnight: 41 MPH
Sunset Limited (NOL-LAX): 41 MPH
Maple Leaf (counting customs layover): 42 MPH
Capitol Limited: 43 MPH
Pere Marquette: 44 MPH
California Zephyr: 45 MPH
Ethan Allen Express: 45 MPH
NEC (Newport News-Richmond): 45 MPH
NEC (Washington-Newport News): 46 MPH
Pennsylvanian: 46 MPH
Silver Star: 46 MPH
Crescent: 47 MPH
City of New Orleans: 47 MPH
Texas Eagle (San Antonio to LAX only): 47 MPH
Hoosier State: 48 MPH
Downeaster: 48 MPH
Empire Builder (CHI-SEA): 48 MPH
Pacific Surfliner (San Diego-LAX): 48 MPH
Empire Builder (CHI-PDX): 49 MPH
Heartland Flyer: 49 MPH
Auto Train: 49 MPH
Vermonter (entire run): 49 MPH
Cascades (SEA-Eugene): 50 MPH
Silver Meteor: 50 MPH
Lake Shore Limited (NYP-CHI): 50 MPH
Ann Rutledge: 50 MPH
Empire Service (NYP-Niagara Falls): 51 MPH
Southwest Chief: 52 MPH
Average NEC Regional (BOS-NPN): 52 MPH
Palmetto: 56 MPH
Average NEC Regional (BOS-WAS): 58 MPH
Hiawatha: 58 MPH
Empire Service (NYP-ALB): 60 mph
Keystone: 63 MPH
Lincoln Service: 66 MPH
Average Acela (BOS-WAS): 69 MPH
-Rafi
:lol: I don't blame you.I'll put it this way: My wife is getting ready for us to go see Sex and the City. I'm delaying. Desperately.Rafi - I think you have way too much time on your hands, or is it a slow news day! :lol: :lol:
Rafi
251 miles divided by 6.166 hours (6:10 minutes) seems to be giving me about 41 MPH, not 49 MPH.Vermonter (St. Albans-NYP ONLY): 39 MPH (note that from St. Albans to Springfield, however, it's averaging 49 MPH!)
We can hope that various MBTA Commuter Rail improvements will improve the eastern portion of this route. Then again, Springfield is very very close to the midpoint in miles, and east of Springfield is about 2:15 and west of Springfield is about 3:15, and even if the MBTA managed to improve things to a point where an hour was shaved off that trip (which is pretty optomistic although I bet a 30-45 minute speed improvement would not be a great technical challenge given sufficient money to allow the LSL stub to run at 110 MPH much of the way), that still wouldn't change the overall feel of how slow that train is. And the MBTA currently doesn't seem to interested in running to Springfield at all, though I suspect given enough money, we could have commuter trains that would do Boston to Springfield in under an hour.Lake Shore Limited Boston Stub: 36 MPH
Well, at least for the Vermonter, there is the time table, and there is actual travel time.I hesitate to admit it, but your question drove me to actually open my timetable and pretty much make an audit of train miles traveled vs time taken to see what train, on average is the slowest in Amtrak's system, bumper to bumper, over the entire trip.Is Vermonter the slowest amtrak train, mph ?
Another thing to consider is the fact that today's high-horsepower locomotives (SD70s, AC4400s, GEVOs, etc.) are limited to 70 mph. I'm not sure if this would mean something as simple as a different gearing replacement on the traction motors, but it's a cost that would have to be incurred. Wishful thinking, but wouldn't it be something if some of the big boys picked up some of those Amtrak P40s in storage, repainted them, and used them for high speed freights!I thought the 70/75mph top for freight was because of the lower-quality bearings used, back when Amtrak ran express service they ran boxcars and road railers at 90mph. It would seem like raising freight speeds on intermodals and roadrailers would be a great marketing point for the railroads on time-sensitive freight such as UPS, and other express shipping customers.The Rail tracks Wikipedia article indicates that 80 MPH is the speed limit for freight on class 5 track.In short, any speeds higher than 79 mph requires additional equipment to run the train, such as (correct me if I'm wrong) cab signaling, positive train control, etc, and since the freight railroads can't haul anything faster than 70 mph, an improvement to allow higher passenger train speeds wouldn't really do much for their investment.
(Freight trains operated at speeds that take advantage of the speeds allowed by class 6 and higher have to meet the weight restrictions for passenger trains, so I believe this means that heavy freight trains are limited to 80 MPH.)
I think what it boils down to is that the difference between 79 MPH and 80 MPH is almost irrelavant compared to the cost of installing cab signaling or automatic train stop along some track, and these technologies are not really worth investing in just for the benefit of passenger trains for track that sees one passenger train a day in each direction.
Trucks would have nothing on a 90mph hot-shot intermodal. Not to mention the AutoTrain could finally exceed 70mph.
I don't think that's necessarily the case with AutoTrain. I think an hour's difference would actually help ridership on that route if it left 30 minutes later and arrived 30 minutes earlier, as it would become more drive-competitive. I also don't think leaving at 4:30 versus 4 would have an effect on the dinner serving either.First I suspect that the new car carriers introduced about two year ago are cabable of going fast than 70 MPH.Not to mention the AutoTrain could finally exceed 70mph.
However, doing so would be useless to the Autotrain. A faster runing time than what they have now would either mean having to drop dinner service since they'd need to leave later, or it would have them arriving too early at the other end, such that breakfast could not be served.
This is one train that won't benefit from a faster running time.