A reformulated new NEC plan with defined phases and a lower price tag:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20120709_Amtrak_s_high-speed_Northeast_Corridor_plan_at__151_billion.html
Hoping Amtrak will post more details later today on their web site. But, from how it seems in the article, this makes more sense than their previous $170B do-it-all-at-once proposal. Amtrak needs to make this kind of thing their core competency.
-----oops! The original plan was $117B, not 170, so new plan is more, not less. Still, it has rational, integrated steps.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I know there are professional psychologists on this board, but unless you are one of them please keep your opinions about "sanity" to yourself. The rest of us have opinions abut Amtrak that are quite different from yours, and from the standpoint of a national transportation system, of public goods, they are quite a bit more sane than yours, in my layman psychologist's opinion.
Philiadelphia enquirer has an article.
USA ARTICLE
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/07/amtrak-plan-philly-to-nyc-in-37-minutes/1?csp=34news
AMTRAK news release click on below then click on NEC improved RAIL PLAN.
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&p=1237608345018&cid=1237608337144
DwightBranch I know there are professional psychologists on this board, but unless you are one of them please keep your opinions about "sanity" to yourself. The rest of us have opinions abut Amtrak that are quite different from yours, and from the standpoint of a national transportation system, of public goods, they are quite a bit more sane than yours, in my layman psychologist's opinion.
OK. I fixed it. it's objective now.
But, I am a professional railroad manager, so I guess that gives me the right to pass judgment on Amtrak's actions, no? Should I call your credentials into question? I'd rather not.
oltmannd DwightBranch: I know there are professional psychologists on this board, but unless you are one of them please keep your opinions about "sanity" to yourself. The rest of us have opinions abut Amtrak that are quite different from yours, and from the standpoint of a national transportation system, of public goods, they are quite a bit more sane than yours, in my layman psychologist's opinion. But, I am a professional railroad manager, so I guess that gives me the right to pass judgment on Amtrak's actions, no? Should I call your credentials into question? I'd rather not.
DwightBranch: I know there are professional psychologists on this board, but unless you are one of them please keep your opinions about "sanity" to yourself. The rest of us have opinions abut Amtrak that are quite different from yours, and from the standpoint of a national transportation system, of public goods, they are quite a bit more sane than yours, in my layman psychologist's opinion.
Your "credentials" apply to whatever narrow field it is you professionally manage, nothing more. They do NOT make you an expert on how our national transportation system, or even our rail passenger system, should be structured. And we don't know if you are even good at it, I have known plenty of managers who, shall we say, are not the brightest bulbs.
As for my credentials, I am a professor of Political Economy and have a PhD related to Political Economy. I wouldn't claim that those facts make me an "expert" on national transportation policy either, but then I am humble enough not to try to tell everyone that they are "insane" to disagree with me.
BTW, now that I see you changed your titled to "rational thinking": my doctoral dissertation is a critique of "rational choice" theory in the social sciences, I sort of can claim credentials on theories of rationality.
The article stirs several thoughts:
1. Why does the country need a 220 mph passenger railroad in the NEC or anywhere else for that matter? With a top speed of 160 mph, as I understand it, the running time from Philadelphia to New York will be cut to 62 minutes, with a corresponding cut, presumably, in the Washington to New York market. The Acela competes favorably against commercial air. If we can believe Amtrak's numbers, it has the lion's share of the rail/air market today.
2. Stretching out the investment makes sense, but it also increases the risk of getting the revenue, cost, and ridership projections wrong. Seriously wrong! The proponents of the California High Speed railway project have had to revise all three number sets several times. Their estimate of the cost, even after the recent pull back, is nearly double the original cost.
3. "Amtrak says the costs of building the new rail system would be offset by 40,000 construction jobs a year for 25 years, 22,000 new permanent jobs, and increased revenue and productivity for East Coast employers." I would like to see the studies that came up with these figures. Ultimately, the cost of the 40,000 construction jobs will be capitalized. An investor owned business would have to earn a return on the capital investment as well as cover the operating costs. The numbers for a variety of high speed projects as reported by the GAO, as well as my review of several overseas operator's financial statements, shows that there is little likelihood of recapturing the capital costs through the fare box. Moreover, developing the correlation statistics to prove a relationship between improved passenger rail in the NEC and a corporation's financial results attributable to higher productivity would be a huge challenge.
4. Each year I download the President's proposed budget from the OMB and place the key numbers in a spreadsheet. Based on my experience in corporate planning, amongst other things, I don't believe that one can project data for more than five years with any degree of accuracy. Each year I test the variance between the five year numbers. That is to say, how much did the five year projections change between 2010 and 2011, for example. I have been doing this for seven years. The median variance is 18 to 22 per cent from one year to the next for the rolling five year blocks, which says amongst other things that the OMB, with its small army of economists, accountants, etc., cannot get it very accurate for more than one year let along 28 years, which is the time frame for some of the projections as per the Philadelphia Inquirer article.
5, No, I am not anti-passenger rail. If I were I would not participate in these forums. I am for improving corridor services where feasible, as long as there is a clear way forward to pay for it. I question the need to go 220 mph, especially given the incremental cost to achieve these super high speeds. If one needs to go really, really fast, there are jet airplanes. I also question the assumptions that are presented by various interested parties on how the projects will be funded. In a nation with a federal, state, and local debt of more than $19 trillion, we ought to be paying some serious attention to this issue.
Come on guys, the "sanity" bit of Don's was just a figure of speech. In any case, speaking as one of the several psychologists on these forums, it's actually a legal term, not a clinical one.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm Come on guys, the "sanity" bit of Don's was just a figure of speech. In any case, speaking as one of the several psychologists on these forums, it's actually a legal term, not a clinical one.
Right, and keep our monitor in mind, who lately has begun to weary of our passenger conversations between midnight and 1 a.m.
AMTRAK ISSUED A NEW VISION REPORT FOR A MORE DETAILED REPORT THAN THE NEWS RELEASE.
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&p=1237608345018&cid=1241245669222
click on vision report ( 1st item )
Now to sam1 points.
Sam1 The article stirs several thoughts: 1. Why does the country need a 220 mph passenger railroad in the NEC or anywhere else for that matter? With a top speed of 160 mph, as I understand it, the running time from Philadelphia to New York will be cut to 62 minutes, with a corresponding cut, presumably, in the Washington to New York market. The Acela competes favorably against commercial air. If we can believe Amtrak's numbers, it has the lion's share of the rail/air market today. 2. Stretching out the investment makes sense, but it also increases the risk of getting the revenue, cost, and ridership projections wrong. Seriously wrong! The proponents of the California High Speed railway project have had to revise all three number sets several times. Their estimate of the cost, even after the recent pull back, is nearly double the original cost. 3. "Amtrak says the costs of building the new rail system would be offset by 40,000 construction jobs a year for 25 years, 22,000 new permanent jobs, and increased revenue and productivity for East Coast employers." I would like to see the studies that came up with these figures. Ultimately, the cost of the 40,000 construction jobs will be capitalized. 4. , I don't believe that one can project data for more than five years with any degree of accuracy. 5, No, I am not anti-passenger rail. If I were I would not participate in these forums. I am for improving corridors services where feasible, along as there is a clear way forward to pay for it. I question why we need to go 220 mph. If one needs to go really, really fast, there are jet airplanes. I also question the assumptions that are presented by various interested parties on how the projects will be funded. In a nation with a federal, state, and local debt of more than $19 trillion, we ought to be paying some serious attention to this issue.
3. "Amtrak says the costs of building the new rail system would be offset by 40,000 construction jobs a year for 25 years, 22,000 new permanent jobs, and increased revenue and productivity for East Coast employers." I would like to see the studies that came up with these figures. Ultimately, the cost of the 40,000 construction jobs will be capitalized.
4. , I don't believe that one can project data for more than five years with any degree of accuracy.
5, No, I am not anti-passenger rail. If I were I would not participate in these forums. I am for improving corridors services where feasible, along as there is a clear way forward to pay for it. I question why we need to go 220 mph. If one needs to go really, really fast, there are jet airplanes. I also question the assumptions that are presented by various interested parties on how the projects will be funded. In a nation with a federal, state, and local debt of more than $19 trillion, we ought to be paying some serious attention to this issue.
1. I also have doubts about the 220 mph vs 160 mph. However we may be limiting HSR to just the NEC. The new vision report denotes that WASH union station will get a new lower level with at least 6 - 8 tracks that will be expandable to the Southeast HSR Then maybe the 220 mph will eventually be feasible. Sam The cut to 62 minutes is the present appropriation of upgrading the NEC to 160 from just New Brunswick to Trenton. More time will be shaved with the upgrades from Secacus - New Brunswick ( source 2012 vision report ) scheduled for completion 2025 ?.
2. Agree with your streching post. Ridership could continue rising at the 1 - 2 % rate or it could explode. That requires almost yearly updating of the vision report.
3. Construction jobs ? our only guide would be present highway construction jobs that occurr and that can be influenced greatly by the speed of the construction contract. Permanment jobs ? ind it hard to believe that AMTRAK would hire that many extra people. E ven ancillary jobs such as food vendors, taxi drivers etc would get to that number. Again depends on how many persons decide to ride AMTRAK.
4. agree -- see my #2 reply.
5. Unless an expansion beyond the NEC is contemplated the 220 mph seems wasted. If a BOS - NYP - PHL - PIT - CLE - CHI 220 mph might make sense but even the French and China do not seem to be going for these speeds. I question power required and maintenance issues.
I do like the phased approach in the report whic has many transition points as each phase is complete ( ex Hartford , PHL ETC ) (25+ LOCATIONS)
What makes this rational is that you don't HAVE to do any of the 220 mph new alignment. The project is phased in steps. If you get to 2030 and you are going 160 mph and capacity on the transportation network in the northeast is acceptable, then you can push the 220 stuff out or off the table.
The jobs pitch for any project is a red herring. You always want to get a project done for the least amount of material and labor. You want to make jobs? You can pay guys to dig ditches and then fill them back in again and pay them for it. It's only good if the jobs you create provide the maximum good for the bucks.
Looks like they are modernizing the existing corridor first, adding capacity to the pinch points and hitting the slow spots. Each piece can rise and fall on it's own when they go make their pitch for capital money.
I also think it's good to have the end-game sketched out so the pieces you build along the way can fit together.
Imagine if California had thought this way about their HSR project....
dakotafred schlimm: Come on guys, the "sanity" bit of Don's was just a figure of speech. In any case, speaking as one of the several psychologists on these forums, it's actually a legal term, not a clinical one. Right, and keep our monitor in mind, who lately has begun to weary of our passenger conversations between midnight and 1 a.m.
schlimm: Come on guys, the "sanity" bit of Don's was just a figure of speech. In any case, speaking as one of the several psychologists on these forums, it's actually a legal term, not a clinical one.
As long as a discussion stays "cool" and each contribution actually adds to the issue, there is no reason for a moderator to step in.
Now on topic:
Even in Europe, HSR in excess of 200 mph is not implemented, when there is no need for it. When DB revamped the line from Hamburg to Berlin, they decided to lower the standards down to 125 mph, as the difference in traveling time were negligible (< 10 minutes). The savings were considerable.
When the line was opened in 1846, traveling time between those two cities was about 9 hrs. By 1914, the time was down to 2 hrs. 15 minutes. The introduction of "high speed" diesel cars in the 1930´s resulted in a cut down by 30 minutes. Today´s ICE trains do the 180 mile jump in about 100 minutes.
On a side note, some of the discussions about passenger service and HSR remind me of arguments exchanged during the childhood days of railroads. When the king of Prussia was asked to grant state financing a line from Berlin to Potsdam (his summer residency), he turned the request down with the words, " Don´t see a necessity to be in Potsdam an hour earlier".
oltmannd What makes this rational is that you don't HAVE to do any of the 220 mph new alignment. The project is phased in steps. If you get to 2030 and you are going 160 mph and capacity on the transportation network in the northeast is acceptable, then you can push the 220 stuff out or off the table. Looks like they are modernizing the existing corridor first, adding capacity to the pinch points and hitting the slow spots. Each piece can rise and fall on it's own when they go make their pitch for capital money. I also think it's good to have the end-game sketched out so the pieces you build along the way can fit together. Imagine if California had thought this way about their HSR project....
DON; You state so much better my thoughts. The use of each piece to go together was an eye opener from when I read the 2010 report. Filling in one leg at a time makes sense and allows the planners to see how much ridership gains if any will happen with the next.
It appears that changing routing to Hartford - Providence - Boston is a better idea ?
since the brunswick - trenton upgrade is already in the works the first piece is now started.
I would like to see an item by item breakdown of the costs but I believe the primary costs of the project to be the price tag on the expensive capacity improvements vs the higher speeds. Namely the two new tunnels into NY as well as expanding the number of tracks. Last I heard (and this is probably wrong), 30% of NEC track capacity was other operators besides Amtrak (Freight and Commuter). That capacity constraint was keeping Amtrak ticket prices high in some markets. So I think Amtrak should break down the costs more so folks can see how many Billions go for what part of the investment.
Oh and one more comment. Higher Speeds does mean higher capacity on the track. So it should be outlined where on the NEC the trains are slowed to below 110 mph and why they are slowed below that speed limit AND more importantly if those areas will be addressed first. Pretty sure the NEC trains are not flying across all the bridges at 120 mph because some of those bridges are ancient and should have been replaced decades ago.
I read the Amtrak news release and scanned thru the 2012 Vision Report, and noted that they will make electrical improvements including constant tension cat. I didn't see anything on changing from 25 Hz to 60 Hz. Is that going to happen?
MidlandMike I read the Amtrak news release and scanned thru the 2012 Vision Report, and noted that they will make electrical improvements including constant tension cat. I didn't see anything on changing from 25 Hz to 60 Hz. Is that going to happen?
that question was not answered to my satisfaction. IMHO there certainly should be consideration to do that. All the 25 Hz comes from PRR construction. There would be power savings from not having to run rotary converters or solid state converters. another benefit would be that power conversion transformers are much heavier for 25 Hz and dual frequency rather than just 60 Hz transformers. for the last few years all new AMTRAK power supply and 138 kv to 12 kv transformers are dual frequency. The transformers on AMTRAK motors are dual frequency. ALPs & most EMU's on NJ TRANSIT are dual frequency. SEPTA'S motors unknown & Silverliner - 4s are unknown but silverliner - 5s are dual frequency.
It is unknown if SEPTA's motors are dual frequency or just 25 Hz.
MN RR M-8s are supposedly 60 Hz only ( also DC third rail capable ).
The reason these 2 frequencys work so well is the CAT voltage for 25 Hz is 12 Kv and 60 Hz is 12.5 Kv. Some of the above equipment that can use 12.5 kv 60 Hz have center tapped transformers for that voltage and can be end tapped for 25 kv 60 Hz. The CAT itself needs no modification since its voltage capacity is almost 14 kv.
Problems for conversion to 60 Hz for AMTRAK are many. many circuit breakers and many transformers cannot handle the 60 Hz. the PRR signal system is powered by using frequency multipliers to double & redouble 25 Hz to 100 Hz . Maybe rotary converters can provide 25 Hz to the frequency multipliers ? AMTRAK is insalling 60 Hz back up commercial power supplies to the signalI system but that is going to take some time. when PRR built the electrical system they installed most station services for 25 Hz. How much has been converted to commercial power is unknown
Another problem may be that the cab signal system may not work on 60 Hz CAT?
Conversion to 25kv would probably only be between certain stations. NYP, sunnyside yard, PHL, BAL, WASH , Ivy city yard would probably not be converted. even the open areas cannot be converted to 25kv until the constant tension CAT is installed with 25kv capabilities. The above locations have clearance problems probably preventing conversion to 25kv.
since SEPTA is also 25 Hz ( RDG rr picked 25 to go with PRR ) some co-ordination with them will be required and they will have to make many of the above changes. ALL SEPTA power comes from frequency converters located at their one power house at Wayne junction. I have no idea if SEPTA has started preliminary conversion work ?
MARC motors are dual frequency.
where on nec AMTRAK would start converting to 60 Hz is anyone's guess.
Blue Streak, Metro North (NH) and NJT have already converted to 60 Hz. Did things happen during those conversions to scare Amtrak off?
MidlandMike Blue Streak, Metro North (NH) and NJT have already converted to 60 Hz. Did things happen during those conversions to scare Amtrak off?
No -- MN RR conversion occurred during a ridership lull where they converted their rolling stock over a 2 week period. Had some gliches but were pushed to change due to COS COB 25Hz power station way past service life.
NJ TRANSIT. -- converted DC Lackwanna system CAT ( many weekends ) and all new power stations added. Henry can tell us how long it took? Many of NJ EMUs require a switch thrown on the outside to operate 25 or 60 Hz. Manhatten direct trains change on the fly as well as ersey shore trains. Trenton trains are all 25 Hz
I came across an interesting paper that deals with the electrical system conversion topic, and touches on the NEC.
http://www.ltrc.lsu.edu/TRB_82/TRB2003-001318.pdf
It seems that while conversion from 25 Hz to 60 Hz would eliminate the inefficiency of the converters, increasing the frequency also increases the reactance with a corresponding voltage drop across the line. Simplification has its costs.
MidlandMike http://www.ltrc.lsu.edu/TRB_82/TRB2003-001318.pdf It seems that while conversion from 25 Hz to 60 Hz would eliminate the inefficiency of the converters, increasing the frequency also increases the reactance with a corresponding voltage drop across the line. Simplification has its costs.
The above paper is dated Nov 2002. I have no argument with its conclusions as of 2002. However several technological changes have come about in the past 10 years. MNRR building of the M-8s to operate dual mode at a reduction in weights vs the older Ms. Inverters, rectifiers, and transformers constructed todday weigh much less than 10 years ago. Remember AC traction freight locomotives were not even offered 10 years ago.
The reactance problem has been reduced the past few years. Most motors today are capacitance wound to give a zero power factor.
It appears that a gradual conversion of the NEC would be the best. Power required to run all the traffic by 2030 leads to a major power demand increase. A gradual conversion is indicated with the 25 Hz equipment retired from service at one location moved to another still using 25 Hz.
The order to convert needs very much thought. The 2012 vision report gives some guidance. Since AMTRAK wants to have 4 roun trip ACELA trips an hour between NYP - PHL ( on to WASH ). + regional trips and NJ Transit trips during rush hour. That would seem to indicate the NYP - PHL segment will need more addditional power than other segments. why spend all that money on 25 Hz equipment when 60 Hz may actually cost less ? Brings up many questions ?
blue streak 1 MidlandMike: http://www.ltrc.lsu.edu/TRB_82/TRB2003-001318.pdf It seems that while conversion from 25 Hz to 60 Hz would eliminate the inefficiency of the converters, increasing the frequency also increases the reactance with a corresponding voltage drop across the line. Simplification has its costs. The reactance problem has been reduced the past few years. Most motors today are capacitance wound to give a zero power factor. ...
MidlandMike: http://www.ltrc.lsu.edu/TRB_82/TRB2003-001318.pdf It seems that while conversion from 25 Hz to 60 Hz would eliminate the inefficiency of the converters, increasing the frequency also increases the reactance with a corresponding voltage drop across the line. Simplification has its costs.
The reactance problem has been reduced the past few years. Most motors today are capacitance wound to give a zero power factor. ...
I probably should have specified inductive reactance, causing resistance to current flow in the cat wire .
1. I see reference to motors. The motors are the same for all three types of operaton, 25Hz or 60Hz, 12,000-12,500V or 25,000V (the latter only with 60Hz.) The differences are in the transformer arrangement and the electroncs and the control. The older equipment did use dc motors (beginning with the washboards and the jets and first silverliners, before that it was ac commutator motors than indeed could run either on dc or 25Hz ac but not 60Hz), today M8 and all new equipment use ac Hystoresis non-synchronous (slip) slanted bar ac motors, but there is a dc "rail". In otherwords, the ac traction power is first converted to dc, and then converted back to ac at the appropriate frequency for the motor rotational speed. As far as I know, the M8's cannot operate on 25Hz, because it was decided that the transformers necessary for that operation were too big and too heavy. All NJT mu cars after the very first can operate on 25Hz or 60Hz, but the transformer tap changes that are necessary apparently require manual switches to be thrown, one on the roof and one under the car! So some NJT mu's are setup for 60Hz operation and run exclusively out of Hoboken, with midtown direct handled by loco-pulled-pushed consists. Others are setup for 25Hz operaton and run Pernn Station (sunnyside) - Trenton. All Amtrrak and NJT electric locomotives can handle all three ac power systems and switch at speed.
2. I don't know the power system on the Long Branch electrification. If it is 60Hz, that would be that loco-push-pulls are normal there and not mu's.
3. None of Amtrak's or NJT's electric power can run on 600V DC third rail. The LIRR, MetroNorth and Amtrak diesel-electric-electrics run diesel or 600C DC third rail, but no ac (except the motors themselves). The new NJT diesel-electric-electrics do not have third rail capability and are for ac operation in the electric mode, for all three ac power systems like NJT's electric locomotives
4. Modern diesels also use ac motors. But again the frequency always depends on the rotational speed of the motors. Again. the power from the diesel-driven alternator is converted to dc and then back to ac at the appropriate frequency.
Dave K; good explanation--- the only thing some readers may not understand is that the lower the frequency the more iron that is needed in a transformer thence the reason they are heavier. That is the reason 25 Hz transformers can accept 60 Hz but a transformer built exclusively for 60 Hz cannot accept 25 Hz. trivia -- if power systems had to start over today they would prefer 100 Hz for even better transformer use. This is one reason that modern transport aircraft use 400 Hz. Also the motors are much smaller at 400 Hz as they can run at higher speeds than the 1800 / 3600 rpm limit of 60 Hz motors..
daveklepper ... 2. I don't know the power system on the Long Branch electrification. If it is 60Hz, that would be that loco-push-pulls are normal there and not mu's. ...
...
2. I don't know the power system on the Long Branch electrification. If it is 60Hz, that would be that loco-push-pulls are normal there and not mu's. ...
The North Jersey Coast Line starts out with the NEC electrical system, but changes to 25 Kv 60 Hz at Matawan, according to a detailed wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Jersey_Coast_Line
media criticism of cost
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/16/amtraks-151-billion-high-speed-rail-plan-are-there-cheaper-options/
Along with what seem to be some constructive ideas?
So mu's cannot run to Long Branch, only loco hauled and pushed trains. Good explanaition abouit the transformers. For a given amount of power handling, assuming divided coils can be series or parallel, the weight and amount of iron for a 30Hz transformer would be double that of a 60Hz transformer, so 25Hz would be more than double! There have been advances in special alloys to reduce transformer wieght in general, and these find use in power supplies for comunications and navigration equipment on military aircraft, but these steel alloys are very very expensive.
At one time I designed transformers for Mystic Transformer Co. in Winchester, MA, commuting from my MIT dorm room via bike and B&M. The text book I used was written by Ruben Lee. I'd have to get a new copy and reeducate myself if I were to begin such work now.
The 2pm open platform wood gate Lowell train from North Station had my Raleigh bike on either the front platform behind the road-switcher or the rear platform as a regular fixture three times a week.
blue streak 1 media criticism of cost http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/16/amtraks-151-billion-high-speed-rail-plan-are-there-cheaper-options/
The media seems to have one of two reactions to rail passenger plans:
If you tweak the system for incremental increases in speed, they say it's not true High Speed Rail;
And if you announce a plan for true HSR, they say it's too expensive and you could tweak it for less.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.