Acela Express Really Moves!

[Anonymous]

When I went out to visit my family in Rhode Island, I saw the Acela Express pass thorugh the small village of Kingston on Christmas Day. Man, it was moving! 150 miles an hour to be exact, the fastest point on the Northeast Corridor. My stomach felt like it was gonna' blow up before it passed by the station! Does anyone think that all North American standered gauge railroads will be electrified full length in the future and trains like the Acela Express wil run all across the country?[?]

[Anonymous]

Kyle- I hope that is your name, otherwise i look lik a bit of a dolt

Electrification of all RR lines would cost a Fortune

Laying an RR line (RR track) today would cost about 750,000 - 1 million per mile.

Electrifying it wouldn't cost quite as much, but would cost a fair bit.

But it might be done, 150 MPh is fast, and if the advantages exceed the Expendatures, there would be no reason for it not to be done.

However, I do worry, Electric lines to break down frequently, The 2 montains line up here is busted tongiht, has been for that last few days.. somehting somehwere is causing a blocked current.

I like the idea, though.

[Anonymous]

Electrified lines are not only expensive to build, but they are much more expensive and harder to maintain than unelectrified lines.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

I understand there is only an 18 mile stretch of track where the Acela Express can travel at 150 mph, does it pass through Kingston, Rhode Island, or is it in Massachusetts? Overall the Acela Express is not fast. The weekday running time between New York and Boston is 3 -1/2 hours for an average speed of only 66 mph while the average speed between New York and Washington is 81 mph; a little faster, but still no cigar especially when you compare the Acela Express with trains such as the X 2000 in Sweden.

Electrification is extremely expensive both in first cost and in upkeep, but it is often necesary for high speed rail lines, or where lines carry heavy traffic, or during steam days, when they passed through mountainous territory with long tunnels. With the advent of diesels many electrifications in mountainous territories were no longer necesssary so they were close. With the diesel locomotive the power of choice it is doubtful if you will see too many electrified lines

[Anonymous]

Who needs electrification? Bombardier Jet Train can go anywhere!!

The Acelas are nice. They are comfortable and still in good condition and clean!! They also ride nicer and a bit faster from time to time.

[TH&B]

66mph!!! Is that all?!? But then how fast does the Swedish X2000 average, I do know that the x2000 is not the most reliable train and is very often late or cancelled for parts of thier journeys, people are then asked to conect up with local trains.
The jet train is an ok idea, but as much as it is cheaper it will also be slower and weaker then electrics. As mentioned in another post the electrics can deliver higher power for short intervals then thier rating by drawing more "juice" from the wire, this helps when you want to go faster. The turbo's max power will be what the turbo prime mover can deliver. The french TGV was originaly going to be a turbo train but on tests the turbos peaked out at 190mph but the electrics blew way past 200mph even reaching past 300mph now and also accelerate faster. I'm not against the turbo, there should be a role for it on lesser density HS routes or for start up, but I expect that it will be a "pig" compared to the electric engine.

[jchnhtfd]

The highest speed section of the Shore Line is in Rhode Island, the indeed the Acela does move on that piece of track. Much of the rest of the Shore Line has lower limits; in most cases, alignment problems; in some cases stations or junctions. The alignment problems could be solved -- but as Kevin points out, laying new track isn't exactly cheap and Amtrak is a bit short on cash just lately. The other problem, though, with new alignments or other improvements on the Shore Line is that Massachusetts and Connecticut are the home states to NIMBYs. They invented the NIMBY and NIMBYs are alive and well both among the general public and at very high levels in government (e.g. Connecticut's Attorney General). And many of them are lawyers. And drive BMWs or king size SUVs. So... forget changes coming soon.

As for electric vs. self-powered engines, there is no particular engineering reason why a self-powered engine can't go as fast as an electric motor, nor accelerate as fast -- all that is needed is a prime mover on board which can supply as much power as the overhead does. This was, formerly, a big problem since the only really reliable prime movers were diesels, and they are heavy (usually). However, using gas turbine prime movers that problem pretty well vanishes; gas turbines are now reliable and light, and modern alternators aren't all that heavy either. Whether they will accelerate as fast as an electric motor depends entirely on the engineering compromises made in selecting the prime mover; if I were doing it (and I do not work for Bombardier, so I'm not!) I would probably select the prime mover for best efficiency at cruising speed; this would probably result in a prime mover which had a lower short time rating that could be extracted from the overhead. Thus is would not accelerate as fast -- but to characterise it as a 'pig' would be a little like saying that indeed a Mercedes Benz S55 (top speed, if you can find a place to run it, of about 200 mph) is a pig because it won't out accelerate a fuel dragster. True. But it will go as fast, all day, once it gets up there -- and that is mostly what counts!

[Anonymous]

When We ever goet MIDWEST HGIHSPPED RAIL

[TH&B]

If I worked for Bombardier (wich I also don't) I must say I would not choose a prime mover for cruising speed, that is a mistake made many times by loco factories (remember FMs they were like that, worked great at full power, crapped out at anything less, good engins for ships). No when making a train you gotta pick something that idles well. "News flash" trains are not airplanes! Trains spend alot of time sittng around not moving, in stations, at red block signals, at terminals etc. Airplanes don't slow up or pause in mid flight or anything, trains do, even HS trains spend alot of time doing less than cruising speed. And that is where these engines fail, an electric you just turn off and the types of diesels we know can idle for hours even days. The ineffeciency of the turbo won't be when the train is going 150mph , it will be when it is not going at full power.
But like I said it is a cheaper product that will perform less.
I still suport the Bombardier turbo and hope it gets maximum success, it should sound and look good but it won't beat, match or even catch up with electric HSR, you'see.
-By the time anyone here gets a 150mph track alignment and a regular schedualed tubo train, 200+mph regular electric trains will be running in Japan and Germany.

[jchnhtfd]

440cuin -- one of the real beauties of using a gas turbine as the prime mover is when the train is just sitting there (and I agree, they do do that!) -- unless you have to use the prime mover for HEP (like the F40) you can shut it down. Gas turbines start easily (ever listen to an airplane spool up? Doesn't take long!), can generate full power output as soon as they come up to speed, and don't have the cooling systems which diesels need. However, without some rather special engineering the fuel efficiency of a gas turbine is less than that of a diesel, and this is potentially a problem (not as bad as it was years ago, when UP tried them!), although it can be partially overcome by shutting down the prime mover when braking or coasting, as well as when stopped (which you can do).

[daveklepper]

I guess most everybody knows that the Acela's don't run on an exclusive high-speed railroad, but share it with a lot of commuter trains, of eight or nine different operating commuter authorities, and in one case, New Rochelle, NY - New Haven, the commuter authorities (Metro North and Connecticut D. O. T.) own the track, and Metro North does the dispatching (or at least did last I heard). On Metro North tracks, Acela's aren't allowed to use the tilting mechanism because the tracks are too close together. This means major speed restrictions on the many curves. And on both Metro North and Amtrak east of New Haven, there are movable bridges for ship navagation. You don't run 150 or even 125 over them! Then on the otherwise in-better-shape PRR line west of New York, the old catenary won't allow speeds higher than 125, last I heard. Still, NY - Washington is almost an hour faster than NY Boston for the same distance. In the old days, the very fastest NY-Boston trains, the Yankee Clipper and Merchants Limited, did NYGCT -Boston in four hours flat with a five minute schedule engine change at New Haven (no standing brake-test, only a running one). This sometimes was done with I-5 4-6-4 steam Boston-New Haven. The Morning and Afternoon Congressionals did NYPenn-Washington in 3:25 with GG1's. Dave

[Anonymous]

TGV/ICE electric HSR trains average 186 mph, whereas the Jet Train is rated at 150 mph. HSR is costing over $12 million a mile in Florida, from Orlando to Tampa, and up to $20 million a mile projected between Palm Beach and Miami. The big difference in costs relate to the terrain, almost all of the planned HSR between Palm Beach and Miami will be elevated, whereas that is not the case from Orlando to Tampa, which will be mostly grade level.... These numbers are from the Florida HSR website.... Florida has decided to use the Jet Train instead of electricity, saving $3 million a mile.... Florida is also saving a lot of money by using freeway and turnpike real estate.....


As I have posted in the past, a 7 to 8 thousand mile network of HSR could be built for less than $100 billion. This network could consist of extending the NEC to Miami, and branching off the NEC from Philadelphia to Chicago. This is around 2,000 miles. I suggest that both lines be linked to Texas from Chicago and from either Atlanta or Jacksonville. This is around 4,500 miles if the Texas lines include a T connection between Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio near Temple. Another line could be built from Chicago to Atlanta/Jacksonville, and on the west coast between LA and the Bay Area, and from Portland to Vancouver. This is close to 6,000 miles. Several other short lines could be built to Minneapolis, Detroit, Kansas City, Montreal, and Toronto...,

An federal airport and highway spending moratorium of just two years could finance this network....

My map:

http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/DonHSR.jpg

[RudyRockvilleMD]

This is for Dave Klepper. In addition to the moveable span bridges the Northeast Corridor between New Haven and the Connecticut/Rhode Island state line is chock full of curves because the tracks follow the Long Island Sound shore line in many spots; in fact it runs along several beaches between New London and New Haven, and this is the most scenic part of the trip in more ways than one. (heh heh) The total curvature is equivalent to 12 circles.

West of New Haven Amtrak runs into another potential for delay. it has to share Metro North's tracks with its frequent New York-Stamford or New York-New Haven trains. Another potential for delay is at New Rochelle where Amtrak's trains have to cross over the eastbound tracks at grade to get to its line to Penn Station, and while the Metro North dispatchers try to move the Amtrak trains along they still have to allow for delays that are sometimes unavoidable.

You may remember United Aircraft's turbo trains. They made it from Boston to New York Pennsylvania Station in 3:45 so you can see why I am not impressed with the Acela Express's schedule of 3-1/2 hours between New York and Boston under electrification and with only two intermediate stops.

[daveklepper]

I rode the Turbo, both to and from Grand Central and to Penn Station. At one time there was an across the platform connection to a Metroliner at Penn for a total 7:30 Boston - Washington time. The fastest I saw on a Turbo speedometer was 110, and that was between Stamford and Rye going west on 2-track, eastbound express track. The fastest I saw on a Metroliner mu speedometer was 138 mph. I think that was south of Wilmington, southbound. Dave

[Anonymous]

Some of you make sensible accounts of why there's "NO" truely high speed rail service in this country. Yes, it does cost more to build and maintain right of way that's for higher
speed trains, but, it cost much more to build and maintain an airport or a stretch of highway too! Get the facts straight! I work on those high speed trains, so "I" should know! Also, for the gentleman who thinks that that Bombardier "Jet Train" is the real deal, "THINK AGAIN"!! That train is more a piece of junk than the train sets we currently have now. When it was here in DC, many of the engineers assigned to move said you'd have it revved up to almost full power before that thing would even start to crawl. Yes, electricfication "IS" the answer and you'll(we'll) probably come out better in the long run for it. Most of the high speed rail line in the world are electrified, and "THEY'RE WORKING"!! So, don't start thinking demise before we've even explored the possibilities of what might be. The route from Chicago to St. Louis is a prime canidate for a dedicated 'truely' high speed passenger rail line. It's mostly flat country, with very few major cities you would have to serve, and you can build it almost as straight as you want it. So listen up all you real railroaders and rail fans, we need a more balanced transportation agenda from our congress, which "WILL" require high speed rail lines be built in those areas where the market for them will maintain their need of them!

HAPPY RAILROADING!!!

Glenn
A R E A L Railroader...A T R U E American!!

[RudyRockvilleMD]

I forgot to mention this in my reply to Dave Klepper. Back in the mid-to-late 1930's the New Haven, under the management of Howard Palmer, planned to build a straighter line between New Haven and Boston a little further inland from the Connecticut coast which would have produced a line that was free of grade crossings; it would have also bypassed many of the inlets, and reduced the need for as many moveable span bridges. In fact some land was secretly purchased between New Haven and New London. When the Howard Palmer management was ousted from the New Haven by Frederick Dumaine Sr. the Dumaine management sold that land most likely because the New Haven needed the money. Ironically the Connecticut Turnpike, I 95, was partially built on that land.

To reply to gfjwashdc; I am a strong believer in electrification especially for high speed railroads because the locomotives or power cars are not limited to their prime movers, and this is the state of the high speed rail technology now. But let me be the devil's advocate. The Bombardier gas turbine locomotive was built as a demonstrater funded by the Federal Railroad Administration to develop a high speed locomotive that can be used for high speed trains where the lines are not electrified. They might be used to haul trains on lines the high speed lines and then on feeder lineswhere electrification is not economically justifed; this is what's done in Spain with the diesel (not gas turbine powered) Talgo 200's whose top speed is 125 mph.

Most of the high speed rail lines in Europe are electrified because railroad electrifcation is more widespread in Europe. I also agree Chicago - St Louis might be a good market for true high speed rail service, and I define high speed rail as running at an average (not top) speed of 150 mph; Chicago - Detroit, Chicago - Twin Cities, and possible Chicago - Kansas City might be other viable high speed routes

Today more people travel by air than by train, and many more travel by road than by air and train combined. The travelers in both of these groups pay into their respective transportation trust funds through federal and state gasoline taxes, vehicle registration fees, highway tolls, airport passenger facilty fees, and taxes on airline tickets that also contain a security surcharge. The point is travelers using these modes of transportation pay for these facilites through taxes which are user fees. What user fees do railroad passengers pay? None!

[Anonymous]

Here is an interesting cost vs benefits study of high speed passenger rail across America done by the Federal Railroad Administration at this web site.

http://www.fra.dot.gov/Content3.asp?P=1172

It turns out that the best places to build new electrified HSR of 150 mph are in California between LA and San Francisco, the Texas triangle, and the extension of the NEC to Florida thru Atlanta. In the Midwest, Northeast, and along the southern Gulf coast it would be better to upgrade old tracks to 120 mph using either diesels and gas turbines instead.

From what I concluded after reading all of these corridor plans, HSR will cost much less than what I thought..... less than $80 billion..... not $100 billion.....

It seems the faster the trains go, the more benefits are generated....and of course the higher the costs. In zero cases did Maglev become desirable because of its higher costs. Therefore if we want HSR now, we should build electrified 150 mph trains.....

[Anonymous]

Please do not get me wrong! I whole heartedly believe in high speed rail travel. The problem is this country and it's spoiled ways...yes, "SPOILED WAYS!" I've spoken to many older employees and have read an article in a previous Train Special Edition magazine, and it said what really happened to the United States railroads after WWII. Alot had to do with the attitude of the nation at that time and the prosparity that some of us were experiencing during those times. Though the railroads is what really keep this country's fighting machine rolling, the people and the country turned their backs on the railroads. Vital dollars that should have went to the railroads for the years that they were
confiscated...yes, "CONFISCATED" by the government during that national emergency, were diverted and given to the new modes of transportation...your interstate highway system and the airlines. So after all the railroads did for this country, this country spat on them, just like it's doing right now. There should have been "NO REASON" in this world why this country poured trillions of dollars into rebuilding the infrastructures of the former 'axis powers' and not rebuild here in our own backyard. Now, we're way behind the 8 ball and the world is laughing at us. There are 'third world' nations that spend more money on their railroad infrastructure than we do! Does any know that there was
a bill in the Senate, that was to come to vote, that would have provided for over 70 billion
dollars to go to the rail industry for these such improvement?? Guess what happened to that money?? 9-11 happened to that money, and the airlines are still crying they're broke! So, the railroads didn't turn their backs on the country, the country turned their backs on the railroads...period!!


HAPPY RAILROADING!!!

Glenn
The Truth...Hurts!

[JLlamas]

Does anyone know where to find info on the speed limits on the NE Corridor? I've heard conflicting opinions on how fast (slow?) the trains really go.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by jchnhtfd
[ The other problem, though, with new alignments or other improvements on the Shore Line is that Massachusetts and Connecticut are the home states to NIMBYs. They invented the NIMBY and NIMBYs are alive and well both among the general public and at very high levels in government (e.g. Connecticut's Attorney General). And many of them are lawyers. And drive BMWs or king size SUVs. So... forget changes coming soon.

I humbly disagree!
In 1968 my father commuted to New York from our hometown just outside New Haven. He would take a New Haven Budd Car into New Haven, and then switch over to an "express", stopping at Stamford, 125th St, and NYC. In 1969 the NH died and so did the Budd Car. The station in my hometown that had been there disappeared sometime between 1973 and 2003. So did the tower that was there, and the sidings.

I went back in 2003. Now Metro North has not only one "rattler" (the NH used to call the local "The Rocket"- who says railroads have no sense of humor) but two others locals westbound and three locals eastbound in the evening.

The parking lot to the "shed" station was full... of BMW's and SUV's.
High speed rail transport is doable, once people get over the mindset that trains are slow, dirty and dangerous to ride on. I have driven on the Connecticut Turnpike (oops, now it's just I-95) before, during, and after rush hours. I have also been on the LIRR and made the infamous "change in Jamaica". I will take the train before I "enjoy" parking on the Long Island "Expressway" or rediscover the happiness of risking life and limb on "the turnpike".

Sooner or later the folks in the Northeast are going to realize that they ain't got the space to "add another lane" on the highway... that was designed and built almost 50 years ago for a lower level of traffic.

Erik

• Reply
• Edit