Passenger

I was riding on Metro-North between New Haven and NY just the other day, and I have a couple comments (and questions) to ask...

For one, the track was a bit curvy. We were held to 60 MPH most of the way, and even the Acela couldn't do much better than 90 if it was allowed.

Also, the MU's seemed to be riding a bit rough. I saw several high-speed crossovers (without frogs; there's a second set of points in place of the frog) but there were a lot of standard switches all over the place which didn't help to make the ride glassy-smooth. And the MU sets (the older M3s, I think; no M7s here!) were showing their age and use.

Here's my question about that. Are the MU sets well maintained with good springs, and does the Acela ride better? If the MUs have old springs, their riding characteristics can be explained. They are run hard at high speeds, many hours a day, and could definetely be a bit worn. The Acela probably runs a lot smoother.

While the Acela is definetely held back to some degree, I don't think that line could be increased to anything above 125...

The impediments to a true HSR route on the NEC is the fact that route was laid out in the 19th century by surveyors on horseback who could barely comprehend speeds of 40 MPH let alone 200 MPH.  For the job they were asked to do, they did it very well, for the job that we want to call HSR it was done not at all. 

As I am sure many of us have discovered over the years in our own lives....it costs many times more to retrofit something to a 'new or enhanced' purpose than it would have cost to design the item to the purpose on initial construction.  Anything and everything that is done to the NEC is a retrofit.  To straightne the curvy alignment for true HSR service would cost into the tens of billions, both for land aquisition and construction.  Don't forget, for the most part civilization has built upto the property lines of the existing route, any change of alignment will require land  aquisition....maybe, with all the motgage defaults and reduced real estate prices, now would be the time to begin a land aquisition project.

Sam1:

In 1955 The Senator was carded for 2 hours and 43 minutes from Boston to New Haven, with 4 hours and 20 minutes from Boston to New York.  Of course, in 1955 the train would have been in the hands of the New Haven from Boston to New York. 

Earlier, the current schedule was stated as 3 hours 40 minutes from NY to Boston. So, in 54 years the schedule is better by 40 minutes, or about a 15% improvement. Not too bad. Or maybe the parameters of the debate haven't been set out clearly.

Evidently, there was some hype when the project was announced: 3 hours between Boston and New York. Is the critical argument that 3 hours is practical, but not attained because of Amtrak stupidity, or is it simply the contrast between dream and reality? Do I remember that the original 3-1/2 hour Acela schedule was an express that turned out not to be as popular as multi-stop trains? 

DMUinCT:

Where the money is needed would be to raise the speed restriction south of New York.  The replacement of the 70 year old PRR Catenary and the replacement of defective ties throughout the Corridor.   

If I were on the Congressional committee considering authorizing money for the cat upgrade and the tie project, I would be asking precisely what run time reductions will occur if these items are accomplished, on what kind of a timetable, and who in Amtrak management is going to be held responsible should those targets be missed.

If I was having a bad day, I might point out that the tie project is necessary because Amtrak did not have sufficient quality control measures in place to prevent the installation of defective ties the last time we paid for that.     

Tiesenhausen:

Sam1:

In 1955 The Senator was carded for 2 hours and 43 minutes from Boston to New Haven, with 4 hours and 20 minutes from Boston to New York.  Of course, in 1955 the train would have been in the hands of the New Haven from Boston to New York. 

Earlier, the current schedule was stated as 3 hours 40 minutes from NY to Boston. So, in 54 years the schedule is better by 40 minutes, or about a 15% improvement. Not too bad. Or maybe the parameters of the debate haven't been set out clearly.

Evidently, there was some hype when the project was announced: 3 hours between Boston and New York. Is the critical argument that 3 hours is practical, but not attained because of Amtrak stupidity, or is it simply the contrast between dream and reality? Do I remember that the original 3-1/2 hour Acela schedule was an express that turned out not to be as popular as multi-stop trains? 

The current timetable has the southbound Acela schedule from South Sta to NYP at 3:30 or 3:35 for most trains.  The northbound trains appear to have an additional 7 minutes of padding.

The amazing thing to me is the number of trains being operated on the north end of the NEC.  Early Amtrak, there were perhaps a dozen each way.  Now there are 10 departures from Boston before lunch alone.

oltmannd:

The amazing thing to me is the number of trains being operated on the north end of the NEC.  Early Amtrak, there were perhaps a dozen each way.  Now there are 10 departures from Boston before lunch alone.

RE: The impediments to a true HSR route on the NEC is the fact that route was laid out in the 19th century by surveyors on horseback who could barely comprehend speeds of 40 MPH let alone 200 MPH.  For the job they were asked to do, they did it very well, for the job that we want to call HSR it was done not at all. 

You might be surprized.  I have a copy of the original NEC plan from Amtrak which shows consistant and surprisingly high speeds between Boston and New Haven.

RE: The thrid track in Rhode Island was so the P&W could run daylight freight service to Quanset Point Industrial Park without getting in the way of Passenger service.

Right, to keep them out of the way of the Acela which according to this plan travels between Providence and Davisville at 80 - 150 MPH (except for a very short 65 MPH curve just before the Cranston crossovers).

RE: The bridge at New London was old and tired, it still leads to a reverse curve at the ferry dock and raillroad station with very low approch speeds.

The listed speed over the Thames River Bridge is 65 MPH!  The curve is 50 MPH and the station is listed at 35 MPH.

RE: From Westerly Rohde Island through New London is the series of Grade Crossings that require speed restrictions (and yet an Acela still hit a car killing 3 people).

The plan shows 70 - 90 MPH through the crossings in Connecticut and 110 MPH is the maximum speed allowable for a public grade crossing.  Didn't that accident happen at the grade crossings west of New London?  Miner's Lane (aka East Neck Road)?  That's not a very high speed section and I believe it has four quadrant gates.  I have to say some people just do stupid things when it comes to grade crossings.  Anyway all NEC grade crossings are under the allowable 110 MPH speed restriction.

Again, to travel 3 hours between Boston and New York you would need to average 76.33 miles per hour based on 229 miles which this plan shows (for some reason it's listed at 231 miles in Amtrak's schedule).  Most speeds on this plan are well over that and a few very short stretches (e.g., curves and stations) are listed at under 76 MPH.

Answering your questions in order:

1.      The trains tested were an F40 Locomotive with Amfleet coaches, Talgo passive tilt, LRC active tilt,  RTG II Turboliners and RTL Turboliners. Tests were run at cant deficiencies of 4, 6 and 8 inches for all trains. (See note below)The LRC was also run at 9” cant deficiency Test runs were from Boston to New Haven.

2.      Results show all trains can run at cant deficiencies above the FRA 3 inch limit  (In Europe, 125 mph trains run at 6 inches of cant deficiency without passenger complaint.) The LRC successfully eliminates lateral accelerations on long curves but the Talgo performed better on entrance and exit from curves. Of the trains without tilt, Amfleet and RTL were equal but the RTG was significantly poorer.

3.      Acela uses an upgrade of the LRC tilt system. In that the tests showed that passenger comfort did not suffer particularly at cant efficiencies up to 7 inches, changing the clearances for high tilt would not likely improve the schedule

Note.

Cant deficiency is measured as the inches of tilt above the super-elevation of the track. It has everything to do with comfort and nothing to do with safety. If nothing but high speed passenger trains were running on the line, super-elevations (banking) could be increased, obviating the need for tilt, The joint use of the route for freight trains defines the super elevation

To the best of my knowledge, the practice is to use the tilt system only if it is active on all cars, Reliability on a per car basis is 99% but in a 10 car trains this amounts to a 10% failure rate so a schedule based on tilt performance would only be met 90% of the time or, put another way, one train out of ten would be late.

Jerry Pier

Jerry (and all),

 I'm curious if Amtrak ever considered dual mode turbo/electric trainsets? O.C I'm aware that the United Aircraft turbotrains (and possibly the later trainsets?) could operate on 3rd rail power into Grand Central but what about Turbine plus pantograph? That way the trainsets could operate the length of the corridor.. 

I haven't found any old ridership numbers other than overall ones.  My recollection from riding in the 70s and 80s is that pre-Amfleet trains ran about 8 cars of 60 seat coaches and post-Amfleet ran 8 or 9 cars (same as now) of 80 seat coaches.  The Boston to NYP load factor was roughly 50% on the trains I rode.  The trains filled up at NYP, generally.  Fares, from the early 70s to now have outstripped inflation by a good bit, too.

Amtrak has an aversioin to gas turbines so if anyone ever suggested such a thing, continuity of employment would involved. A dual mode with catenary and gas turbine electric capability would increase locomotive weight by the turbine alternator unit and the fuel tanks. A scheme some of us thought of was to have a gas turbine electric (no pantograph) in trail from Boston to Penn Station and then use gas turbine power in the lead from Penn Station to WDC (letting the trailing electic locomotive push the train until exiting the tunnels). This would get around the performance limiting antique 25 Htz catenary and gain both time and reliability.The Bombardier Jet Train is ideally suited to the gas turbine task. The Acela's are over-powered anyway so it sounds like a winner, at least to me. .

A number of years ago, FRA estimated that replacing the 25 Htz system would cost at least 1  Billion dollars and upgrading the 60 Htz section from New Haven to Penn Station would cost a similar amount. This isn't a very sexy program so funding could be hard to find. The dual mode solution could be quicker and less costly

Discussions in various other threads have long suggested that dual-mode isn't all that it's cracked up to be.  Note that both the FL9's and the P32's operate as straight electrics only when they aren't in the open air.  LIRR experimented with dual-mode gas-turbine electric MU cars in the early 1970's and they were all converted to straight electrics after a while.

I was alway intrigued by the idea of running the Rohr Turbos from DC to Albany, running on 3rd rail under the Hudson.  I have no idea if the 3rd rail is still in place in the tubes.  It was there originally when the DD1s did their thing and apparently was still in place in the late 50's when the PRR did a test trip from NYP down the NY&LB with FL9s.

I thought it would be nice, natrual market extension to dovetail some of the DC to NYP trains with the NYP to Albany-Rensselaer trains.

As for a true dual mode, the advent of AC traction makes that much more practical than with DC traction.  It seems to me that having either a transformer or a gas turbine/generator feed a DC buss is a much simpler thing than having the primary propulsion control system act on transformer tap switches or generator excitation directly.

Yes, the third rail does extend through the Hudson River Tunnel but barely.  But aside from that, why run Rhor's to NYP where they have to reverse to go to D.C.  Why not Albany to NJ via the River Line to the Corridor?  There would be a need to probably double track the River Line, but it was back in NYC days anyway, so the space is there with a few exceptions.  Such a service could serve the upcoming Stewart's Air Field in Newburgh, NY as well as the rest of the west bank of the Hudson, avoid NYC and NYP using Newark, NJ as the NYC area stop while not having to reverse direction.  It might be an interesting marketing opportunity for Amtrak as well as helping CSX, Amtrak, NJT, the states of NY and NJ and the Port Authority with some of thier capacity problems along the way!

henry6:

Yes, the third rail does extend through the Hudson River Tunnel but barely.  But aside from that, why run Rhor's to NYP where they have to reverse to go to D.C.  Why not Albany to NJ via the River Line to the Corridor?  There would be a need to probably double track the River Line, but it was back in NYC days anyway, so the space is there with a few exceptions.  Such a service could serve the upcoming Stewart's Air Field in Newburgh, NY as well as the rest of the west bank of the Hudson, avoid NYC and NYP using Newark, NJ as the NYC area stop while not having to reverse direction.  It might be an interesting marketing opportunity for Amtrak as well as helping CSX, Amtrak, NJT, the states of NY and NJ and the Port Authority with some of thier capacity problems along the way!

Even double tracked, the River Line would be SLOOOWWW!  There still is too much freight, even if double tracked, to snake passenger trains through and around.  And, I don't think the alignment is nearly as good as the Hudson Line.  Also, Newburgh not withstanding, the bulk of the population south of Albany is on the eastern shore of the Hudson.

I was thinking the market wasn't so much Capitol District to the NEC south, but NEC south to the Westchester and Duchess Co. area.

Your proposal would work OK for new service - Newburgh to Hoboken commuter service might be a good thing!  But I was thinking about re-arranging existing service - same trains on each route, just dovetail them and run thru.