henry6 wrote: oltmannd wrote: henry6 wrote: In effect you are not subsidizing sleeper patrons as they pay a premium price which covers the service above the regular fare. The same with dining cars, meals are priced to cover costs. Nope. Not true. Especially food service. http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?file=/data/pdfdocs/CR-2005-068.pdfAmtrak's own Inspector General says that it costs $2 for every $1 of food served. OK. But still as I mentioned, what would be the cost in lost traffic if meals were not provided? Its a judgment/marketing call. But it may be the cost of doing business, too, and be recovered somewhere elese in the service. You didn't say about sleeping car costs, but I believe that is why you pay extra for it: to cover the costs. It may or may not be a profit center.
oltmannd wrote: henry6 wrote: In effect you are not subsidizing sleeper patrons as they pay a premium price which covers the service above the regular fare. The same with dining cars, meals are priced to cover costs. Nope. Not true. Especially food service. http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?file=/data/pdfdocs/CR-2005-068.pdfAmtrak's own Inspector General says that it costs $2 for every $1 of food served.
henry6 wrote: In effect you are not subsidizing sleeper patrons as they pay a premium price which covers the service above the regular fare. The same with dining cars, meals are priced to cover costs.
In effect you are not subsidizing sleeper patrons as they pay a premium price which covers the service above the regular fare. The same with dining cars, meals are priced to cover costs.
Nope. Not true. Especially food service. http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?file=/data/pdfdocs/CR-2005-068.pdf
Amtrak's own Inspector General says that it costs $2 for every $1 of food served.
OK. But still as I mentioned, what would be the cost in lost traffic if meals were not provided? Its a judgment/marketing call. But it may be the cost of doing business, too, and be recovered somewhere elese in the service. You didn't say about sleeping car costs, but I believe that is why you pay extra for it: to cover the costs. It may or may not be a profit center.
You are making the NARP argument, but they never have any survey or data to back up their claim. My anecdotal evidence suggests this is grasping at straws.
I suppose on the western trains it may be a bit different, but on the east coast trains, the coach passengers don't use the diner much. It's pretty much all sleeper passengers. Last time I rode the Crescent, I was the only coach passenger in the diner for dinner and breakfast. So, you can lump the cost of sleepers and diners together or split them apart, it still equals red ink.
Amtrak should have some hard data, but I don't know if they've shared it. But, given that diner-lite is happening, I suspect Amtrak didn't have the ammo to keep the status quo.
I'll put it another way. Who needs a diner more? A guy who gets on the Lake Shore at 9 PM and gets off at 3PM or a guy who gets on the Maple Leaf at 7 AM and gets off at 10 PM? Which train has the diner? Which train does not? Why?
Might the Crescent do better as a pair of day trains out of Atlanta? One to New Orleans and one to NY? It moves through some pretty high density territory in the dead of night. The growth in population has occurred mostly in the 30 years that Amtrak has run the train. Amtrak has not added stops to accomodate new population centers, not dropped withering flag stops on the route. (The train stops in Toccoa - population a couple K, but not the north Atlanta suburbs - population >1M) It is exactly as the Southern ran it in 1979.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
110 mph is easy for Chicago-Saint Louis; but only compounds the problems with growing peak suburban services and the need for more frequent peak Hiawatha service. As it is, 79-mph Hiawathas catch up with Metra trains and limit line capacity. The Hiawathas #330 and #339 are scheduled for 10 and 5 additional minutes despite no additional stops. How much of these differences are allowances for running around and not passing a Metra train at a station is not readily apparent. The basic 92-minute schedule allows 5 minutes padding for an unhindered trip. 110-mph Hiawathas would expand the size of the service window that is needed, reducing capacity for Metra without major investment in adding a third main. Adding a third track takes more than some grading and drainage; there are bridges, signals and crossovers, more grade separations just for safety for rising train volume, and relocating crossing signals and outbound platforms and shelters. While $270 million for triple-tracking affords some benefit for expanding Metra express services, the prime beneficiary would be an expanded, faster Hiawatha service. In addition, the Hiawatha already is faster than the auto throughout most of the day. Where the train begins to lose competitiveness is in the time waiting for a departure or early arrival, and in arrivals too late and departures too early for the purpose of the travel. The current Hiawatha schedule mitigates this with relatively convenient schedules to serve time-sensitive mid-morning, mid-day, early afternoon, and late afternoon markets.
Two things. One is that faster-than-driving may not be fast enough. For most people, the train is a leg of an intermodal trip, and while more frequent trains may compensate for slower travel time, there is the time loss of the intermodal interface to consider. Also, a faster train may enable work travel patterns that aren't even considered with cars and unavailable by plane. A two hour Madison-Chicago travel time would be a rough daily commute, but, say, some lawyer need to be in a Chicago office a couple times a week and in Madison the rest of the time, that sort of thing would become possible. Madison would become a kind of satellite to the Chicago business center.
On the other hand, I am kind of getting the point that a 2-hour Madison-Chicago travel time is a Midwest High Speed Rail Association talking point -- maybe the reality is closer to 2 1/2 hours.
The second point: I see the merits of a reliable 79 MPH service over vague promises of 110 MPH. But if 110 MPH goes by the wayside, what have we been talking about all of these years about the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative? Is this whole thing a crock on account of traffic saturation of Metra commuter trains? Will corridor trains require a separate right-of-way from both the freight trains and the commuter trains? What does this say about the claims of rail offering a capacity advantage over highways? It seems as capacity-constrained as anything else -- the current Hiawatha is offering the seat capacity of a tenth of a freeway lane in each direction as it is.
So are you telling me that I have been making a fool of myself these past years, standing in front of a literature table telling passers by "One hour Madison-Milwaukee, two hours Madison-Chicago" all of these years? That on account of commuter train congestion, this is all a fantasy?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Living in the west one or two new corridors have been created that are quite successful. The Sacramento to San Jose service is one and the Vancouver - Eugene is the other. San Diego - Los Angeles was already there and has since been expanded north up the coast. The other highly successful California corridor is the San Joaquins between Oakland and Bakersfield with bus feeders to southern California and Las Vegas. The latter will serve as a feeder for the proposed HSR if it gets built.
Not counting the CZ daily service should be provided to Reno from Oakland. There is never enough seats on the CZ available for Sacramento - Reno or Oakland - Reno passengers. Either that or a couple of extra coaches added to the CZ just between Reno - Oakland.
Additional services needed are direct Los Angeles - Phoenix service (Not the present Bus Connection)
Seattle - Ellensburg - Yakima - Tri Cities connecting with the East and Westbound Empire Builder to and from Portland. This old Northern Pacific route would solve a major transportation problem for that area. This should be handled solely by the State of Washington.The westbound train could connect in Seattle with the Empire Builder going east and the eastbound could connect with the Portland section of the Empire Builder requiring two sets of equipment. It would give residents of the Tri Cities direct access to Seattle something that has been needed for a long time.
Of course Los Angeles and Las Vegas needs to be connected by daily trains. I-15 has reached the saturation point on weekends and weekdays are now extremely busy as well.
A daylight train connecting Redding with Sacramento is overdue now and needs to be addressed in the near future. The Coast Starlight carries very few of these passengers do to the ungodly hour both NB and SB operate. With the Coast Starlight operating at or near capacity more of the shorthaul passengers are being turned away in favor of those traveling longer segments.
Being a frequent rider of the Pioneer when it was in service it is sorely missed by the passengers who boarded at Pendleton, La Grande and smaller communites in Oregon and Boise and the other Idaho towns.
Those people in southern Montana have been screaming for rail service for sometime now and a Spokane - Livingston - Billings route is definitely needed. I would suggest from Billlings it turn south and serve Gillette, Cheyenne, and Denver. This could operate as a feeder to the CZ and Empire Builder.
Another route that needs to be addressed is a Houston - Dallas - Denver service. All three cities are continuing to grow except for the present housing crisis that will probably last another couple of years.
A future route could also connect El Paso with Albuquerque and Denver. All three cities are growth areas in the west.
Someone ealier mentioned a Minneapolis- St Paul -Kansas City route. If that route becomes reality why not extend it south to Dallas and Houston. It would be a modern Twin Star Rocket.
There is no direct Kansas City - Denver service, why not extend the Missouri Mules from St. Louis to Denver. Or operate a connection from the LA - CHI trains from Lamar.
It almost begins to sound as if Denver becomes a hub city for Amtrak in the west wiith the proposals I have suggested. And that is probably as it should be.
Al - in - Stockton
Paul Milenkovic wrote: 110 mph is easy for Chicago-Saint Louis; but only compounds the problems with growing peak suburban services and the need for more frequent peak Hiawatha service. As it is, 79-mph Hiawathas catch up with Metra trains and limit line capacity. The Hiawathas #330 and #339 are scheduled for 10 and 5 additional minutes despite no additional stops. How much of these differences are allowances for running around and not passing a Metra train at a station is not readily apparent. The basic 92-minute schedule allows 5 minutes padding for an unhindered trip. 110-mph Hiawathas would expand the size of the service window that is needed, reducing capacity for Metra without major investment in adding a third main. Adding a third track takes more than some grading and drainage; there are bridges, signals and crossovers, more grade separations just for safety for rising train volume, and relocating crossing signals and outbound platforms and shelters. While $270 million for triple-tracking affords some benefit for expanding Metra express services, the prime beneficiary would be an expanded, faster Hiawatha service. In addition, the Hiawatha already is faster than the auto throughout most of the day. Where the train begins to lose competitiveness is in the time waiting for a departure or early arrival, and in arrivals too late and departures too early for the purpose of the travel. The current Hiawatha schedule mitigates this with relatively convenient schedules to serve time-sensitive mid-morning, mid-day, early afternoon, and late afternoon markets. Two things. One is that faster-than-driving may not be fast enough. For most people, the train is a leg of an intermodal trip, and while more frequent trains may compensate for slower travel time, there is the time loss of the intermodal interface to consider. Also, a faster train may enable work travel patterns that aren't even considered with cars and unavailable by plane. A two hour Madison-Chicago travel time would be a rough daily commute, but, say, some lawyer need to be in a Chicago office a couple times a week and in Madison the rest of the time, that sort of thing would become possible. Madison would become a kind of satellite to the Chicago business center. On the other hand, I am kind of getting the point that a 2-hour Madison-Chicago travel time is a Midwest High Speed Rail Association talking point -- maybe the reality is closer to 2 1/2 hours.The second point: I see the merits of a reliable 79 MPH service over vague promises of 110 MPH. But if 110 MPH goes by the wayside, what have we been talking about all of these years about the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative? Is this whole thing a crock on account of traffic saturation of Metra commuter trains? Will corridor trains require a separate right-of-way from both the freight trains and the commuter trains? What does this say about the claims of rail offering a capacity advantage over highways? It seems as capacity-constrained as anything else -- the current Hiawatha is offering the seat capacity of a tenth of a freeway lane in each direction as it is. So are you telling me that I have been making a fool of myself these past years, standing in front of a literature table telling passers by "One hour Madison-Milwaukee, two hours Madison-Chicago" all of these years? That on account of commuter train congestion, this is all a fantasy?
I think you could follow the NC model. Start with 79 mph service with a plan to improve running time incrementally. NC has the advantage of actually owning the ROW - which gives them great leaverage with NS in getting the work done. They've been pretty aggressive in removing equalateral turnouts and replacing them with #20s so that they can run through them at 79. They've also added some 2nd track back in spots and added signalling/CTC to the portion east of Raleigh as well as improved the superelevation in spots to raise some curve speeds.
The route is part of the SEHSR initiative which plans connection Charlotte with the NEC with speeds up to 110 mph. NS is friendly toward 90 mph on existing track, but 110 will require a new track on existing ROW. But, since NC owns the route, perhaps these rules are merely guidlines in this case.
You can likely keep capacity up for Metra, CP and Amtrak on the double track with some targeted additions of track. Some 3rd track for passing sidings in spots that avoid adding bridges and/or some platform tracks for Metra that would allow overtaking moves.
HarveyK400 wrote:The UP recently restored the second main track in western Iowa, eliminating any need for a joint line.
I'm aware of the UP having the double track back in place between Denison and Missouri Valley BUT if a paired track arrangement between the UP and the CN could be established between Denison and Council Bluffs it would add that much more capacity in western Iowa. As it is right now the CN runs about one train a day each way between Council Bluffs and Tara/Ft. Dodge. A lot of work would have to be done on the CN's mainline as well to get it up to the lofty UP standards but it would be well worth it.
I agree as much as anybody here that Amtrak's real strength lies in the short to medium-distance corridors. Towards that end, here are the corridors that need to be developed, IMHO:
(1) Cheyenne - Denver - CSprings - Pueblo/La Junta/Trinidad (to connect w/Southwest Chief)
(2) Twin Cities - Kansas City (likely over UP's "Spine Line" mainline)
(3) Los Angeles - Las Vegas
(4a) Chicago - Quad Cities - Iowa City - Des Moines - Omaha (via IAIS)
OR
(4b) Chicago - Clinton - Cedar Rapids - Ames/Boone - Omaha (via UP)
To add, Acela Speed:
South of New York, it's the condition of the 1930 Catenary (Over Head Wire System) that limits the speed to 135mph. The track is OK except for the defective tie replacement in NJ. Amtrak was testing 145 mph to see if it was safe, I did not hear the results. When and if Amtrak gets the money thay plan to replace the Catenary with the "constance tension" type.
New Haven into New York, most of the track is owned by the commuter railroad which is replacing the 1914 Catenary with a better but not "state of the art" system. Fine for there trains but no help to the Acela.
North of New Haven it's all new, state of the art, constance tension Catenary.
Don U. TCA 73-5735
Los Angeles Rams Guy wrote: HarveyK400 wrote:The UP recently restored the second main track in western Iowa, eliminating any need for a joint line.I'm aware of the UP having the double track back in place between Denison and Missouri Valley BUT if a paired track arrangement between the UP and the CN could be established between Denison and Council Bluffs it would add that much more capacity in western Iowa. As it is right now the CN runs about one train a day each way between Council Bluffs and Tara/Ft. Dodge. A lot of work would have to be done on the CN's mainline as well to get it up to the lofty UP standards but it would be well worth it. I agree as much as anybody here that Amtrak's real strength lies in the short to medium-distance corridors. Towards that end, here are the corridors that need to be developed, IMHO:(1) Cheyenne - Denver - CSprings - Pueblo/La Junta/Trinidad (to connect w/Southwest Chief)(2) Twin Cities - Kansas City (likely over UP's "Spine Line" mainline)(3) Los Angeles - Las Vegas(4a) Chicago - Quad Cities - Iowa City - Des Moines - Omaha (via IAIS)OR(4b) Chicago - Clinton - Cedar Rapids - Ames/Boone - Omaha (via UP)
I'd be surprised if any of these have as good a cost/benefit ratio of the corridors east of the Mississippi that have been discussed. Mostly lack of population along the route. And, the rural interstates west of the Miss aren't projected to be grid locked any time soon. I 95, 85, 75, 81, 70, 80 and 90 in the east are all pretty much full, right now, and grid locked on holidays.
For example, Cincinnati, Columbus, Cleveland would be cheap to build out (flat, straight, exisiting ROW was originally double track), it's shorter, and the major cities are all 1M+. 40% of North America's population lives within 500 miles of Harrisburg PA. This territory is the fertile ground for corridor development, especially when you consider that the NEC can provide a good anchor for expansion.
Take out CA and TX and Chicagoland and there's not much left to provide anchor cities.
Denver is nice sized, but Cheyenne and Pueblo aren't all that large. You could make a good case for Ft. Collins to Colo. Springs commuter rail, though.
Building out to Las Vegas over Cajon to serve the weekend peak of "tourists" to Las Vegas seems to be a bad idea to me. Let the casinos figure out how to fuel their growth and leave my wallet out of it!
Chicago to Omaha vs. Chicago to Nashville?
Twin Cities to KC vs. Chicago to KC or Chicago to Twin Cities or Chicago to Detroit or Chicago to Pittsburgh?
There is a place for dreams and possibilities to inspire. Fools are dreamers that ignore realities; and there is a fine line between romanticism.
Madison-Milwaukee only has CP freight to deal with east of Watertown, and then probably with no intermediate stops and a pure point-to-point operation. Would more riders be gained with intermediate stops or lost with the additional time for stops?
At 110 mph, a non-stop train might make the run between Milwaukee and Chicago in a hour, but at what cost in comparison to service along the corridor and accommodation for CP and Metra?
I always seem to be arguing against the dreams of the MHSRA because they are single-minded and overlook the equally valid opportunities for utilizing existing assets and the high cost for limited utilization of improvements to meet peak demand. One problem for me is justifying a window for even 79-mph Amtrak trains carrying 400 passengers as opposed to one or two Metras carrying 1,400 each. Which one would take more cars off the Edens and Kennedy?
Moving people from one place to another, as in Commuter Rail in Commuter Coaches, can not be compaired to Amtrack.
Maybe this is where the mission of Amtrak gets blurred. There only success is the Acela running the Northeast Corridor. Lets not debate "Success".
The Acela moves people as on an Airliner, not as low cost mass transet.
This is the interior of an Acela, First Cass is 1-2 seating, Business Class is 2-2, there is no Coach Class. Note the big Windows, the Overhead Cargo Bins, the Guide lights alone the carpet on the floor, the Window Curtains, each seat with its own overhead Reading Light (as in an Airliner), fold down Tables, Foot Rests, this is a Class Act.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
True.
Acela, Every Hour, each way, yes, good service. Add to that "Regional Service" in The Corridor, hauling Coaches and making local stops, you have service saturation.
Speed? 90mph is Good, much of it at 135mph is Great, short runs at 150mph is For Show.
Commuter Note: Boston's MBTA runs most of there lines, locomotive hauled, at 80mph, Metro-North from New Haven into New York City, with MU cars, is 90mph territory.
Commuter can be compared to Amtrak. Back in 1970 I rode the Metroliner for the first time from New York to Philadelphia and returned late on Silverliners and changing at Trenton. For basic transportation there was little difference for all the cost in re-inventing the EMU. Granted, some travelers are more time-sensitive; but I've thought that running Silverliners non-stop might have done the trick.
What is bemusing to me is that Amtrak operates the Acelas as an exploitive premium-fare service with a capacity under 300 passengers. I'm glad they're making money on it, but the Acelas take up space that could move three times as many passengers into Manhattan.
Acelas also exploit sunk investment in the 4 and 6-track Broad Way built by the Pennsylvania Railroad south of Newark. I've always wondered how the NEC can be successful with its high costs despite high ridership and the premium fares. Even so, whatever espoused profitability has not brought an investment in catenary modernization.
For me, the workhorses are the Regionals.
HarveyK400 wrote: Commuter can be compared to Amtrak. Back in 1970 I rode the Metroliner for the first time from New York to Philadelphia and returned late on Silverliners and changing at Trenton. For basic transportation there was little difference for all the cost in re-inventing the EMU. Granted, some travelers are more time-sensitive; but I've thought that running Silverliners non-stop might have done the trick.
Didn't they essentialy do this anyway? Amtrak for some time had run Philly-New York trains, traditionally on the hour, hence the name clockers, with leased NJ Transit electric cars. I did wonder when I was young why they didn't just give those cars upgraded interiors and have them on the metroliner runs
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
HarveyK400 wrote: ...Amtrak operates the Acelas as an exploitive premium-fare service with a capacity under 300 passengers. I'm glad they're making money on it, but the Acelas take up space that could move three times as many passengers into Manhattan....I've always wondered how the NEC can be successful with its high costs despite high ridership and the premium fares. Even so, whatever espoused profitability has not brought an investment in catenary modernization.
...Amtrak operates the Acelas as an exploitive premium-fare service with a capacity under 300 passengers. I'm glad they're making money on it, but the Acelas take up space that could move three times as many passengers into Manhattan.
...I've always wondered how the NEC can be successful with its high costs despite high ridership and the premium fares. Even so, whatever espoused profitability has not brought an investment in catenary modernization.
The NEC, which includes the Acelas, the regional trains, and the special trains, is not profitable. For FY 2007, which is the latest audited fiscal year, the NEC covered its operating expenses and contributed $258.3 million to interest and depreciation.
A conservative estimate of the interest and depreciation attributable to the NEC is $276.3 million, which means the NEC realized a fully allocated loss of $18 million in FY 2007. This assumes the per cent of interest and depreciation allocated to the NEC is the same as the per cent of NEC revenues to total operating revenues. This is a very conservative estimate and probably under states the loss. If 70 per cent of the interest and depreciation was attributed to the NEC, the loss would have been $128.5 million, and 80 per cent would have resulted in a loss of $183.7 million.
gardendance wrote: HarveyK400 wrote: Commuter can be compared to Amtrak. Back in 1970 I rode the Metroliner for the first time from New York to Philadelphia and returned late on Silverliners and changing at Trenton. For basic transportation there was little difference for all the cost in re-inventing the EMU. Granted, some travelers are more time-sensitive; but I've thought that running Silverliners non-stop might have done the trick.Didn't they essentialy do this anyway? Amtrak for some time had run Philly-New York trains, traditionally on the hour, hence the name clockers, with leased NJ Transit electric cars. I did wonder when I was young why they didn't just give those cars upgraded interiors and have them on the metroliner runs
I don't remember Clockers running NJDOT MUs. They were always loco hauled coaches that I can remember. Amtrak did use Silverliner for Harrisburg service early on, with service just a hair slower than the new, upgraded Keystone service - 1:40 if I remember right. Amtrak also ran some Arrows on an early morning Phila to DC train and tried a Harrisburg/Downingtown to NYP Metroliner at one point, as well. Neither of these proved very sucessful.
gardendance wrote:Amtrak for some time had run Philly-New York trains, traditionally on the hour, hence the name clockers, with leased NJ Transit electric cars. I did wonder when I was young why they didn't just give those cars upgraded interiors and have them on the metroliner runs
oltmannd wrote:I don't remember Clockers running NJDOT MUs.
Nor do I. Amtrak never scheduled hourly NY-Phila trains, with any equipment; they were known to borrow NJT equipment for holiday crowds, but I'm guessing they never needed Arrows the rest of the year.
timz wrote: gardendance wrote:Amtrak for some time had run Philly-New York trains, traditionally on the hour, hence the name clockers, with leased NJ Transit electric cars. I did wonder when I was young why they didn't just give those cars upgraded interiors and have them on the metroliner runs oltmannd wrote:I don't remember Clockers running NJDOT MUs.Nor do I. Amtrak never scheduled hourly NY-Phila trains, with any equipment; they were known to borrow NJT equipment for holiday crowds, but I'm guessing they never needed Arrows the rest of the year.
The Clockers in the Amtrak era were just morning and evening Philly - NY commuter trains. They were long, usually 10 or more cars and pulled by a G or E60 and made all the Amtrak stops (Trenton, PJ, New Brunswick, Metropark, Newark and Penn) , typically filling up in Central Jersey (which is why Amtrak called it quits and handed the time slots over to NJT.)
A lot of us wondered that! Given the Metroliners lousy ride and poor reliability, some Arrow/Silverlliners with some carpeting and reclining seats at 100 mph might have a better solution.
Actually, 100 mph Silverliners were the prototype for the Metroliner.
Senator Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island sponsored legislation for a Federal project on what became known as the Northeast Corridor Demonstration Project or simply the Pell Plan.
The last effort at some kind of new train equipment to try to turn around the decline in passenger ridership took place in the late to mid 1950's, largely after what is generally known as "lightweight", "streamliner", or "Heritage fleet" had been purchased. These were the 1950's Talgos, Train-X, RDC Hotrod (the locomotive-cab Roger Williams) and the GM Aerotrain. After the railroads gave up on their own experimental trains from the late 50s, the government had a go of its own on such experimental trains. The idea behind the "demonstration" is that the government had deeper pockets to invent a new kind of train and work the kinks out. The other idea was this would not be a government takeover of passenger trains, rather, government seed money for something that would help the railroads out. Kind of like government subsidies for the SST program -- the airlines would still have to purchase and make a profit operating SST's, but the government would subsidize their development.
The Demonstration Program had three components: a lighweight pendulum-banking turbine-powered train for north of New Haven, a high speed electric train based on EMU cars for NY-DC, and an auto ferry for DC to Florida. Only the first two components got implemented as the TurboTrain and the Metroliner. The auto ferry was supposed to be an enclosed, windowed and airconditioned auto carrier where passengers would ride in their own cars, leaving their cars to use rest rooms, cafe-lounge cars, and the like. The private Auto Train corporation took over where the government left off, but they changed the plan to placing passengers in dome cars and valet parking of their autos in those end-loading double-deck CN auto boxcars, a kind of fully-enclosed freight auto rack.
One can argue about the merits of the ride-in-your-own-car vs let-Auto-Train-park-it-for-you-in-an-auto-rack, but people were once serious about the ride-in-your-own-car mode. Part of my father's work paper's I have rescued from the squirrels breaking into the garage is a document listing the lengths of 1960's vintage autos on GATX stationary. This was part of the RRollway project to have an HSR auto ferry for a specially-contructed wide-gauge line, where people would drive their cars into side-loading bays on the auto ferry. GATX was serious about wanting to know how long cars were, because they needed to make the train wide enough.
The TurboTrain, with its exotic suspension and third-rail shoes for access to Grand Central, was pretty much a reprise of the New Haven Train-X and Talgo a mere 10 year earlier. In fact, the NY-Boston segment was Alan Cripe's motor train design from his days at the C&O (there are some drawings of it in the Trains "Who Shot the Passenger Train" article). The only major change was the turbine engines -- the guided axles, the elevated cabs, the clamshell doors for joining trainsets in multiple were all there in the C&O's version of one of the Talgo-style 1950s trains that never got built.
The NY-DC segment was to be EMU, and the US DOT tested a 4-car set of Silverliners with changed traction motor gear ratios for 100 MPH+ speed. They set a record of something north of 150 MPH with that test train. Trains, of course, had a short column about that test train back in the day, and more was written in the railroad trade magazines. The Trains account was that the Silverliners took their time accelerating to 150 MPH, but the idea was to test whether they rode and tracked OK at that speed, and they had all of the chart recorders and gear to test this.
Once they proved that off-the-shelf EMUs could be the basis for the Metroliner, they set out designing the Metroliner for real. They increased the amount of HP to boost the acceleration. What people forget is that while there have been numerous records set of high-speed running, trains tend to be heavy (think FRA buff-strength safety regs), and when you take acceleration (and braking) from those high speeds, the average speed can be considerably less. A lot of the HSR train sets in those other places in the world would be considered lightweight trains that don't meet FRA regs, and the Acela, which is considerably heavier than any of those trains, is the closest thing to an HSR trainset that could be operated here without special waivers.
Anyway, they set an acceleration requirement, and I remember reading somewhere that they spec'ed to maintain 1 MPH/s acceleration up to 150 MPH. The other spec was a top speed of 160 MPH. Now, once Metroliners went in service, their top speed was first increased and later decreased, but 160 MPH was a fantasy dream that Harvey K talks about. My poppa, who worked for GATX and had connections to the engineering community in "high-speed ground transportation" as they called it back in the day, told me that the Japanese Bullet Train topped out at 150 MPH, so the American train had to do it one better by maxing out at 160 MPH.
It was "national pride" of "beating the Japanese at their own game" pure and simple, in other words unadulterated jingoism, and it resulted in this stupid spec of 160 MPH top speed that had consequences throughout the Metroliner design, and maybe you know why I get all bothered about people who post on this forum about the "national disgrace" that they operate faster trains in some foreign land than they do here.
The consequence was that the Metroliners added power, which added weight, which required more power, which added more weight, and the Metroliners were these 90-ton bricks with 2500 HP continuous rating. Besides being heavy, they were also a lot of heavy-duty electrical equipment crammed into a small space, and they were carbarn queens.
The one thing the Paul Reistrup Amtrak did right was to purchase Amfleet, essentially the last-forever stainless-steel carbodies of the Metroliner but without the troublesome MU propulsions systems, and to purchase those off-the-shelf wheel-slip-controlled 8000 HP Swedish locomotives -- the AEM-7s, and stick 4 Amfleet cars behind an AEM-7 and call it a Metroliner. This was done without the hoopla and jingoism of the Metroliner, and it perhaps saved the NEC and saved Amtrak.
The Acela trains were what computer guru Edward Brooks of the Mythical Man Month fame called "The Second System Effect." The Metroliners were the first go-around at national pride to have at least one high-speed train in the US, and the Acela was the second. The problem with second systems according to Brooks, and he is mainly speaking of computer software but it applies elsewhere, is that you have learned certain things from the first system, or at least you think you have learned certain things, and you have a long wishlist of new things you want to do. Your thinking was "the first system was just a dry run, just a test article, and this time we are going to do it the right way", and the second system becomes this over-spec'ed. over-promised, over-hyped disaster.
Don Oltmann has commented on Congress passing a law "Thou shalt travel by train from NY-DC in 3 Hrs 0 Min and thou shalt not take 5 minutes longer", with this leading to 12,000 HP on a 6-car train, with a tilting system with clearance problems or perhaps Metro North problems or some kind of concerns, with double the weight of the TGV train sets it was patterned after, and thermal cracking in what are already oversized and complex brakes, and so on. Instead of calling it a Second System Effect, it can be called a Bridge Too Far effect, where the British sacrificed an entire paratrooper division holding a bridge beyond where their land army could realistically reach in an ambitious plan to win WW-II before Christmas.
Harvey K's comments about MWHSRA dreaming and the realities of Metra schedules on track capacity tie into the biggest problems with the NEC. "They" have been promising some kind of 150 MPH operation on the NEC for years and years when for a variety of technical reasons, 120 MPH is a practical top running speed. In so doing, they have burnt through budgets overdesigning trains for the higher speeds and burdening them with technical problems, and this was done with the original Metroliners and done with the Acela. Also, the speed capability has long been over-hyped compared with what is realistically achievable.
We can go on and on about how true HSR is achievable in the US were it not for the "lack of political will" or the squeamishness of taxpayers and the callowness of Members of Congress we don't like. On the other hand, the advocacy community has had some role in the hype and the expectations.
I have suspected from looking at the Amtrak schedule that 110 MPH on the Hiawatha means something closer to 1 Hr 15 Min than the promised 1 Hr, and yes 15 min isn't much, but if this Midwest Regional Rail Initiative thing ever happens, I see it going down the same road of the NEC of over-hype and over-promise and over-spec, and public disappointment in the reality, followed by the public accepting the trains the way they are and making use of them, in the process dampening enthusiasm for repeating that experiment elsewhere.
Congress, FRA, Amtrak, all have their reasons for doing what they do, but I hope there are enough railroad-savy people in the advocacy community to advocate for some realistic goals.
Station tracks may add to line capacity in the sense that fast and slow trains can share a line and reduce the time window each needs to occupy a section of track by dividing the the line into sections. Such a strategy improves utilization; but is increasingly limited as traffic approaches the line's actual capacity.
The cost for such utilization is in delay to passengers on trains being overtaken and passed at a station adding at least a minute to the schedule with ideal timing. Chances are 1-2 more minutes will be lost ensuring the overtaking train is following closely or the overtaken train is waiting to avoid delaying the faster train.
I speak from personal experiences riding the Garfield Park L waiting for the 'Aurora & Elgin to pass at Laramie and watching as an Intercity passed a DB local south of Bonn.
As an aside, the City and CTA are considering a similar operation for an airport express service between the airports and downtown. Airport trains would pass local trains on the two-track line. The project is on hold now. After spending and appropriating over $200 million for a station and connection barely long enough for a 400-foot, 8-car train, there is no tunnel between the Blue (Dearborn St) and Red (State St) subways. Kinda reminds me of the long-delayed 2nd Av Line in New York.
Now we're back into that "Gray Area", at least in the Northeast Corridor.
Should Amtrak, as in Regional Service provider, have the mission of taking the load off a clogged Interstate 95 and its feeders?
OR, Should it be trying to attract Airline Passengers with the Acela, thus cutting "short haul" airline flights that are congesting the East Coast Airports?
We start with a "state of the art" double track, electrified, main line from Boston to the Rhode Island line. Owned by Massachusetts, operated by Amtrak for Amtrak and the MBTA.
Amtrak owns the electrified double track line in Rhode Island and eastern Connecticut. Rhode Island has added a third, freight only, track for about half the distance in there State. Double track electrified continues to New Haven.
South (west) of New Haven it's a three track main line to Bridgeport and then four tracks to New Rochelle owned by the Metro-North Commuter Railroad and operated at 90mph. At New Rochelle, the four track commuter line heads for Grand Central. Amtrak cuts off to there double track main line over the Hell Gate Bridge to Penn Station.
On the North End, the "Bottleneck" between Amtrak and Commuter Service is Boston to Providence (MBTA) and New Haven to New Rochelle (Metro-North).
Expansion of Interstate 95 is impossible, land cost. New or expanded Airports, not likely. Double Tracking, Tripple Tracking the Northeast Corridor, only possible in a few outlying areas.
We are in trouble!!!!
I didn't know or remember that the Silverliners were the basis for the Metoliners. My recollection is that consultants got a lot of money for development, especially if they had a head start. This would seem to be another case of profiteering being the impetus for public projects.
Second, you have it right about the responsibility as well as the vision rail advocates should present to the public.
Additional tracks for 110-mph Hiawatha service, even 150 mph in places, is hard to justify for only during dense peak commuter operations. The $300-400 million this would take is what MHSRA is asking to expand and improve service in Illinois. Should Wisconsin do the grade-separation and other improvements between Sturtveant and Milwaukee Airport for 150 mph, or make route improvements for either a 79-mph or 110-mph Milwaukee-Madison-La Crosse leg of a Twin Cities Corridor? These are choices of enhancement versus expansion.
Would enhancement or expansion be more relevant to the public and warrant a priority for funding with limited resources? Would a reduction in travel time attract more riders and be more relevant than expanding service?
Rick Harnish thinks this is a good time to press for 220-mph trains in the Midwest, particularly from Chicago to Saint Louis and to Michigan and Ohio. I question how viable and responsible this could be.
I am skeptical whether the ridership would support the investment for a Saint Louis HSR line. Providing 110-mph service seems doable and appropriate. Electrification may be the next step before crossing elimination and grade separation between stops for speeds up to 150 mph. 150 mph is reasonably achievable with diesel and gas turbine power as well.
oltmannd wrote:I don't remember Clockers running NJDOT MUs. They were always loco hauled coaches that I can remember. Amtrak did use Silverliner for Harrisburg service early on, with service just a hair slower than the new, upgraded Keystone service - 1:40 if I remember right. Amtrak also ran some Arrows on an early morning Phila to DC train and tried a Harrisburg/Downingtown to NYP Metroliner at one point, as well. Neither of these proved very sucessful.
timz wrote: oltmannd wrote:I don't remember Clockers running NJDOT MUs.Nor do I. Amtrak never scheduled hourly NY-Phila trains, with any equipment; they were known to borrow NJT equipment for holiday crowds, but I'm guessing they never needed Arrows the rest of the year.
I'll certainly defer to anyone who has actual data, I just remember seeing and riding a bunch of NJTransit MU's, which we called Arrows as opposed to SEPTA Silverliners, on Philly to New York local runs, stopping for example at North Philly, listed in the schedules as clockers. I rode them at least once on a non holiday weekend.
I also rode Philly-Harrisburg and Philly-Washington with NJ Transit MU's on Amtrak schedules. The Washington trip was in the late 1970's, I can see how it was not succesfull for passenger loads, but I succesfully stood in the cab doorway and held the door open for as close to a cab ride Philly-DC as I'm ever likely to get. My return was via the last National Limited westbound run on the Columbia and Port Deposit to Harrisburg, a Pennsylvania pinstripe repainted GG1 pulling in this case enhancing the forward view out of the front coach.
I didn't see them, but I have heard about the somewhere on the Harrisburg line (Downingtown, Coatesville, Paoli, something like that) to New York run using the Amtrak Metroliner MU's, as well as one that went to DC, although I could be fuzzy, that might have been locomotive hauled listed in the schedule as a metroliner.
I also remember an engineer telling me there was a metroliner schedule that used the freight bypass Highline around Philly 30th St. It's hard for me to believe that that would have been faster than going through 30th St, but maybe that's why they didn't do it anymore.
By the way, Paul Milenkovic, ordinarilly I cringe when I see long posts, they often have a lot of manure and little entertainment or educational value, but your post Sep 11, 9:09 PM is one of the most fun I've read for a while.
HarveyK400 wrote: Additional tracks for 110-mph Hiawatha service, even 150 mph in places, is hard to justify for only during dense peak commuter operations. The $300-400 million this would take is what MHSRA is asking to expand and improve service in Illinois. Should Wisconsin do the grade-separation and other improvements between Sturtveant and Milwaukee Airport for 150 mph, or make route improvements for either a 79-mph or 110-mph Milwaukee-Madison-La Crosse leg of a Twin Cities Corridor? These are choices of enhancement versus expansion.
When you talk about service between Milwaukee and La Crosse this is where the idea of public/private partnerships would definitely come into play. The CPRS mainline would ideally have to be double-tracked (the way it should have been left in the first place) and brought up to Class V standards (90 mph) which I think is more than doable. After all, predecessor Milwaukee Road ran their Hiawatha passenger trains in excess of that many, many years ago.
Of course, the real problem is the question of actually going through Madison or keeping the service on the mainline through Portage. From strictly a cost standpoint, I would opt for the latter.
gardendance wrote: oltmannd wrote:I don't remember Clockers running NJDOT MUs. They were always loco hauled coaches that I can remember. Amtrak did use Silverliner for Harrisburg service early on, with service just a hair slower than the new, upgraded Keystone service - 1:40 if I remember right. Amtrak also ran some Arrows on an early morning Phila to DC train and tried a Harrisburg/Downingtown to NYP Metroliner at one point, as well. Neither of these proved very sucessful. timz wrote: oltmannd wrote:I don't remember Clockers running NJDOT MUs.Nor do I. Amtrak never scheduled hourly NY-Phila trains, with any equipment; they were known to borrow NJT equipment for holiday crowds, but I'm guessing they never needed Arrows the rest of the year.I'll certainly defer to anyone who has actual data, I just remember seeing and riding a bunch of NJTransit MU's, which we called Arrows as opposed to SEPTA Silverliners, on Philly to New York local runs, stopping for example at North Philly, listed in the schedules as clockers. I rode them at least once on a non holiday weekend.I also rode Philly-Harrisburg and Philly-Washington with NJ Transit MU's on Amtrak schedules. The Washington trip was in the late 1970's, I can see how it was not succesfull for passenger loads, but I succesfully stood in the cab doorway and held the door open for as close to a cab ride Philly-DC as I'm ever likely to get. My return was via the last National Limited westbound run on the Columbia and Port Deposit to Harrisburg, a Pennsylvania pinstripe repainted GG1 pulling in this case enhancing the forward view out of the front coach.I didn't see them, but I have heard about the somewhere on the Harrisburg line (Downingtown, Coatesville, Paoli, something like that) to New York run using the Amtrak Metroliner MU's, as well as one that went to DC, although I could be fuzzy, that might have been locomotive hauled listed in the schedule as a metroliner.I also remember an engineer telling me there was a metroliner schedule that used the freight bypass Highline around Philly 30th St. It's hard for me to believe that that would have been faster than going through 30th St, but maybe that's why they didn't do it anymore.By the way, Paul Milenkovic, ordinarilly I cringe when I see long posts, they often have a lot of manure and little entertainment or educational value, but your post Sep 11, 9:09 PM is one of the most fun I've read for a while.
The Phila to DC train was called the "Chesapeake", I believe. The Main Line to NYP Metroliner was probably AEM7-Amfleet, but I'm not too sure. Amtrak did run a couple Harrisburg trains into 30th St and then on to NYP (like some of the Keystones today) with the rebuilt Metroliners for a while, giving them one last hurrah at high speed. They were still pretty rough riding, even on concrete ties....
Metroliner on the highline? Sounds like typical RR rumor, to me!
gardendance wrote:I also rode Philly-Harrisburg and Philly-Washington with NJ Transit MU's on Amtrak schedules.
Oops-- you're right, the Chesapeake did use MUs for at least part of its life (which was 1978-83 as I recall).
While I question the viability, a proposal was made years ago for a deep "roller-coaster" tunnel for a high-speed rail or Maglev Between New York and Washington. Backing away from that extreme, perhaps underground sections could be built to bypass problematic curves.
Sections of underground tunnels and underwater tubes could be built along Long Island Sound and across the bays and inlets. This could shorten the New York - Boston line and reduce curvature. Connections might be made at New Haven and Providence. This might be less expensive than the dislocation resulting from extensive curve easement.
I doubt it would be practical unless justifiable for emergency access and escape; but it would be nice if the tracks surfaced occasionally for a quick scenic view of the shore. As it is, I'm writing as a hurricane with a substantial storm surge is hitting Texas. I'm guessing such tunnel portals would need to be 20-25 feet above the spring tide.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
oltmannd wrote: Metroliner on the highline? Sounds like typical RR rumor, to me!
The story behind the story:
I was on a Delaware Valley Association of Railway Passengers demonstration trip, diessel hauled Amfleet Philly to the Vanity Fair outlet mall just west of Reading, Shillington PA, autumn 1997 or thereabouts . The trip originated at 30th St lower level. Once upon a time trains could have gone straight north out of 30th St, but connecting tracks to the freight lines have since been severed, so we went south to Arsenal junction, changed ends.
Then we went north, entered the highline, the elevated freight bypass, approximately 31st and a half St. The guy on the trip who's a railroad engineer, an aquaintance of mine for about 20 years, mentioned the metroliner which he said had been in the schedule at one time. I didn't drill him any further about how true it was, I think he said the reason was rush hour congestion. Now that doesn't really say if it was desire to speed the metroliner, or desire not to slow down other 30th St trains. Although I assume speed limits on the highline are lower than those through 30th St, there are a lot less switches, so a lot less possible opposing trains once one gets on the highline.
henry6 wrote:To have a fast train just to see how fast you can go is akin to a 6 year old with his Lionel transormer opened all the way!
To have a fast train just to see how fast you can go is akin to a 6 year old with his Lionel transormer opened all the way!
I'm 49 years old, is it ok for me to open the transformer all the way, or does that lower my effective age?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.