After riding French SNCF I was struck by how much effort SNCF is putting into lengthing train platforms. Any route is limited by the total number of trains that can be handled.I rode from one station in Paris. The train was two complete TGVs. 10 coaches each and two motors each for a total of 24 car lengths. The station platform(s) at all stops had obviously been lengthened (8 or 9 as I recall). This train went to old LYON where the front part proceeded to the spanish border and the rear to Nice. (different routes). Platform lengthing appears cheaper than adding more tracks. There are many limiting platform numbers in the US and I lost my figures but I believe NYP only could take 13 - 14 on tracks 9 and 10. That's why I support THE tunnel but with very long platforms. Probably can't even couple 2 ACELAs together for the trip Bos - Wash.
If you posters could give some figures on the following stations maybe we can target some to lobby lengthing those stations. Please include at least 6 tracks if applicable. We must realize that proper planning by train crews for intermediate stations must be done to prevent double stops. This is post is not considering the lack of equipment that now exists
Boston south station - 14?
Providence - very long
New Haven
Bridgeport
New York Penn
Newark, NJ Penn - long
Trenton
PHL 30thst station - long
Wilmington, De
Baltimore. Md
Washington was shorted two car lengts sometime in the past
Chicago,
Seattle
LAX
In many cases you can measure the platform length from aerial photos.
If we had a theoretical train of 1,000 feet long and platform of 850 feet, it is most likely that the conductor or trainpeople would "herd" the people from the last couple of cars at the end of the train forward. You would want the engine(s) somewhat accessible, but I have seen crews boost themselves into the cab from plain ballasted track.
al:
Yyou forgot about the distance from switches that would foul other tracks (NYP for example) or locations where the bumping post to location where you would foul other tracks. (Chicago Union station all tracks except tks 27 & 28?)
blue streak 1 wrote: al:Yyou forgot about the distance from switches that would foul other tracks (NYP for example) or locations where the bumping post to location where you would foul other tracks. (Chicago Union station all tracks except tks 27 & 28?)
Not exactly. I had assumed a single track or double track with common platform and nothing else coming that way. The general principle holds that if you have too many cars for the platform length, the passengers must walk forward.
This is the reason so many Amtrak employees insist you stay in a certain spot. It's easier to unload 15 people from two or three coaches or the same number from five or six.
Actually, we're in agreement over CUS. As a rule, trainmen wouldn't need to herd people forward unless the train end was, as you say, blocking or fouling the track.
If a train sent out is just too long for Smallburg depot's platform, it is possible to sound the "All Aboard," close the cars and then move on several hundred feet if necessary. Train people don't like doing this, and I don't blame them. Still, better than the recount I read somewhere on these boards about a week ago -- one passenger had to hop down into the ballast to get out. He SHOULD have been moved forward.
In the "olden days," let's say World War II to about the mid 1960s, Santa Fe would create two or even three medium-sized trains out of one super-long train. Same train number, different "Sections." The short platforms of smaller stations was one of the reasons.
I'm sure other roads did it too -- set up separate sections of the same train.
Anybody got more specifics than me?
Why not add bilevel equipement like SNCF and NJ Transit. This gives more capacity with fewer cars (quicker inspections, possible energy savings with reduced drag) and flexibility in using existing equipment on lower density routes or time slots on current schedule (ie. off-peak).
How did the Pennsy/New Haven/Et.Al. (especially during WWII) manage to move more people than Amtrak using same platforms and simple technology (ie. no GPS or current generation signaling systems, etc.)?
Paul F.
As far as the Acela, no steps, High Platform Operation only.
While the Acela has a 6,000 hp locomotive on each end, more cars could still be added (4 axel coaches) if needed. However, with 20 Train Sets they can run hourly service to take care of traffic.
Don U. TCA 73-5735
paulsafety wrote: Why not add bilevel equipement like SNCF and NJ Transit. This gives more capacity with fewer cars (quicker inspections, possible energy savings with reduced drag) and flexibility in using existing equipment on lower density routes or time slots on current schedule (ie. off-peak). Well, if it's good enough for the world's fastest train, it's good enough for me. How did the Pennsy/New Haven/Et.Al. (especially during WWII) manage to move more people than Amtrak using same platforms and simple technology (ie. no GPS or current generation signaling systems, etc.)?I wonder myself sometimes. Perhaps because the trains had more crews per-passenger than Amtrak has now? Lots of "herding" and in WWII people were a little more willing to be herded? Paul F.
Well, if it's good enough for the world's fastest train, it's good enough for me.
I wonder myself sometimes. Perhaps because the trains had more crews per-passenger than Amtrak has now? Lots of "herding" and in WWII people were a little more willing to be herded?
paulsafety wrote: Why not add bilevel equipement like SNCF and NJ Transit. This gives more capacity with fewer cars (quicker inspections, possible energy savings with reduced drag) and flexibility in using existing equipment on lower density routes or time slots on current schedule (ie. off-peak).How did the Pennsy/New Haven/Et.Al. (especially during WWII) manage to move more people than Amtrak using same platforms and simple technology (ie. no GPS or current generation signaling systems, etc.)?Paul F.
What's on the NEC right now isn't much different than what the PRR and NH had. Amtrak added some new cab signal aspects to handle the higher speeds, but nothing that would increase capacity very much.
Are you sure the PRR and NH handled more traffic on the NECin WWII than now?
I suspect that Amtrak is handling the historic high in traffic south of Phila, now.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd wrote: paulsafety wrote: Why not add bilevel equipement like SNCF and NJ Transit. This gives more capacity with fewer cars (quicker inspections, possible energy savings with reduced drag) and flexibility in using existing equipment on lower density routes or time slots on current schedule (ie. off-peak).How did the Pennsy/New Haven/Et.Al. (especially during WWII) manage to move more people than Amtrak using same platforms and simple technology (ie. no GPS or current generation signaling systems, etc.)?Paul F.What's on the NEC right now isn't much different than what the PRR and NH had. Amtrak added some new cab signal aspects to handle the higher speeds, but nothing that would increase capacity very much. Are you sure the PRR and NH handled more traffic on the NECin WWII than now?I suspect that Amtrak is handling the historic high in traffic south of Phila, now.
I have no knowledge of NEC ridership statistics whatsoever. I was merely responding to the original post's assertion that without lengthening platforms, Amtrak is already (or nearly) at it's limits to add any capacity. It just seemed reasonable (but I guess its not reasonable) to assume that some portion of potential passengers are flying and driving rather than using the rail option whereas far fewer (again, an assumption) may have flown or driven during WWI to WWII time periods.
Despite my assumptions about capacity (and the original poster's), why assume that platform lengthening is the ideal path when advances in bilevel equipment design have been pursued in Europe (TGV) and here in the NY metro area (NJT Comet VI)?
Found some research statistics at BTS:
"Amtrak ridership increased 18 percent, between fiscal years 1994 and 2004, from 21.2 million riders to 25.1 million riders [1, 4]. The number of riders in fiscal year 2004, about 68,800 per day on average, was the largest ever on the Amtrak system [2].
In numbers of passengers boarded, the top five Amtrak stations in fiscal year 2004 were New York; Washington, DC; Philadelphia; Chicago; and Newark. Almost 40 percent of all passengers boarded at these stations. Over 79 percent of ridership volume is accounted for by Amtrak's top 50 stations [5] (figure 1-8).
Amtrak ridership is heavily concentrated in the Northeast Corridor from Washington, DC, to Boston and to a lesser extent, along the Pacific coast. Among Amtrak's top 50 stations, 19 are located in areas served by Amtrak's Northeast Corridor service.1 Almost 13.0 million passengers boarded trains at these stations, accounting for almost 52 percent of the entire system's passenger volume in fiscal year 2004. Twenty-one of Amtrak's top 50 stations are located along the Pacific coast. These 21 stations accounted for nearly 18 percent of Amtrak's ridership in fiscal year 2004. The remaining 10 top 50 stations are in Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, and Wisconsin."
Not sure how those stats compare to ridership surge during war years.
AA: double stops
That's ok for intermediate stops but not for O & Ds Boston and Washington. NY penn I have never seen a stop less than 15 minutes. Crew change, brake check (don't know why), catering etc. That is a real restriction. The way Wash track layout is a switcher to retrieve a terminating train on tracks 1-24? has a long inbound and a too long track would tie up all other arrivals and departures.
al-in-chgo wrote: If we had a theoretical train of 1,000 feet long and platform of 850 feet, it is most likely that the conductor or trainpeople would "herd" the people from the last couple of cars at the end of the train forward. You would want the engine(s) somewhat accessible, but I have seen crews boost themselves into the cab from plain ballasted track.
That's how we all have to do it (freight crews), they(Amtrak Engine service crews) can do it too
E. Hunter wrote: al-in-chgo wrote: If we had a theoretical train of 1,000 feet long and platform of 850 feet, it is most likely that the conductor or trainpeople would "herd" the people from the last couple of cars at the end of the train forward. You would want the engine(s) somewhat accessible, but I have seen crews boost themselves into the cab from plain ballasted track. That's how we all have to do it (freight crews), they(Amtrak Engine service crews) can do it too
Thank you. I think this is more on the topic that bluestreak posed.
paulsafety wrote: oltmannd wrote: paulsafety wrote: Why not add bilevel equipement like SNCF and NJ Transit. This gives more capacity with fewer cars (quicker inspections, possible energy savings with reduced drag) and flexibility in using existing equipment on lower density routes or time slots on current schedule (ie. off-peak).How did the Pennsy/New Haven/Et.Al. (especially during WWII) manage to move more people than Amtrak using same platforms and simple technology (ie. no GPS or current generation signaling systems, etc.)?Paul F.What's on the NEC right now isn't much different than what the PRR and NH had. Amtrak added some new cab signal aspects to handle the higher speeds, but nothing that would increase capacity very much. Are you sure the PRR and NH handled more traffic on the NECin WWII than now?I suspect that Amtrak is handling the historic high in traffic south of Phila, now.I have no knowledge of NEC ridership statistics whatsoever. I was merely responding to the original post's assertion that without lengthening platforms, Amtrak is already (or nearly) at it's limits to add any capacity. It just seemed reasonable (but I guess its not reasonable) to assume that some portion of potential passengers are flying and driving rather than using the rail option whereas far fewer (again, an assumption) may have flown or driven during WWI to WWII time periods. Despite my assumptions about capacity (and the original poster's), why assume that platform lengthening is the ideal path when advances in bilevel equipment design have been pursued in Europe (TGV) and here in the NY metro area (NJT Comet VI)?
The population along the NEC has more than doubled since the WWII and people are much more prone to travel, so even with more people driving and flying, the NEC could have more travellers now than WWII.
There was an interesting article in Trains - in the pre-Acela era - that made the case for fewer, longer trains on the NEC, each with multiple classes of travel instead of each class of travel having it's own train type.
agentatascadero wrote:Anyone ever hear of, or experience, double stops? This technique is practiced on a frequent, if not daily basis all across the system. This occured back in the day as well, and even more frequently, as generally consists were longer. And how about triple stops, I've experienced those as well, all it takes is long train, short platform. AA
Certainly, I was surprised one time I rode Amtrak's Pennsylvanian 25+ years ago we had to double stop at several stations even though the train was only 5 cars long.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.