daveklepperI suspect that when the Patriot was moved in time to replace the southbound Yankee Clipper, that it had an across-the-platform connection at New Haven with a Springfield - GCT train to preserve a GCT destination for those desisring it and to provide a south of NY connection for passengers from Springfield. Check the timetable, please. Also, did it have a grill car or a diner?
Dave: There were parlor cars, coaches and a dining car for the Patriot. The Patriot arrived in NH at 3:50, departed at 3:58 pm. # 50 from Springfield arrived in NH at 3:53 pm, so a cross platform transfer should have been possible...
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
In the "classic" days, the Merchants did leave both NY and Boston a 5pm, and the Yankee Clipper at 1pm. I suspect that Patriot southbound left at Noon or was an addition to the hourly departures and left at 12:30pm. My trip on the Clipper behind an I-5 with a camp group was southbound in 1948, with of course only 5 miuntes scheduled for the change at New Haven and it probably took 6. My parents lived in Manhattan until Dad's passing in July 1955. I was at MIT 1949-1954. At Bolt Beranek and Newman's Cambridge, MA office 1957-1967, most of my clients were NYC architects, so I got to use the NYNH&H Shore Line a lot. Gerre Dyar, a classmate and fellow railfan still lives in the Harfford area. He had a huge O-gauge layout in his basement. So some trips were via Hartford, either on the "Inland route" or on the Boston Waterbury trains, once riding the articulated Comet. Same fare. Later, the BBN New York office was at 101 Park Avenue, so GCT trains were generally more convenient that Penn. Not if I was going to Princeton or Westfield or a Long Island destination, although I used the Owl a lot in addition to the Merchants.
I suspect that when the Patriot was moved in time to replace the southbound Yankee Clipper, that it had an across-the-platform connection at New Haven with a Springfield - GCT train to preserve a GCT destination for those desisring it and to provide a south of NY connection for passengers from Springfield. Check the timetable, please. Also, did it have a grill car or a diner?
Gerre is very active in the restoration of rail service in Connecticut and some of you may know him.
schlimmIt was the 1967 schedule John posted and it does not contain a Boston - NYC Clipper, just the northbound.
That's true, Schlimm. The Patriot which ran through to Washington left Boston at 1:00 pm. The Yankee Clipper left New York at 1:00 pm for Boston. I suppose they though people who wanted an early afternoon departure from Boston could just ride the Patriot. However, it did use Penn Station while the Clipper used Grand Central.
John
daveklepper If you check the 1957 schedules you will see five minutes for both trains, and longer times for all others. Do you mean to say that by 1967 the Boston - New York Yankee Clipper was discontinued? It is possible.
If you check the 1957 schedules you will see five minutes for both trains, and longer times for all others.
Do you mean to say that by 1967 the Boston - New York Yankee Clipper was discontinued? It is possible.
It was the 1967 schedule John posted and it does not contain a Boston - NYC Clipper, just the northbound.
I do know that by 1967 the Merchants was the only Grand Central New Haven train with a diner. The others had grill cars or no food service car. But some Washington trains also had diners, the Senator in particular.
According to the 4-30-1967 TT John linked, both the Merchants Ltd and Yankee Clipper had coaches and parlor cars; the Clipper had a grill car, while the Merchants had a diner. The Clipper only ran from NYC to BOS. Dwell times in NH were 8 minutes.
As I posted, I timed the Merchants' engine change more than once, and it regularly took only one minute more than the five minutes scheduled for both the Yankee Clipper and the Merchants Limited. But, again, five people were needed for this performance, and such manning was dropped by the time Penn Central took control.
The Yankee Clipper became a coach and parlor train during WWII. When I rode it behind an I-5 in 1948 it was already a coach and parlor train. On that trip, the coaches were the just-delivered 8600-series post-WWII cars with fluted stainless added to basic "American Flyer" design. The parlors, and I rode in one, were the old six-wheel-truck heavyweights. (I was with a returnng camp group, otherwise my parents would not have sprung for my riding first-class.) They were replaced by post-war parlors a year later.
McGinnnis made the Merchants into a coach and parlor train and took off the obs-lounge well before 1967. It did not have a lounge car afterward, but did have both a diner, mostly for parlor car passengers, and a grill car mostly for coach passengers, with freedom for all to use either. After a few years the grille car came off, but the diner and parlors remained into the Amtrak era until the arrival of Amfleet 1.
daveklepperCheck the timetables of the period and you will the scheduled time was five minutes.
http://viewoftheblue.com/photography/timetables/NH43067.pdf
This is the 1967 timetable I found, Dave. You are right. For most trains the scheduled time to change engines was 8 to 10 minutes. I never observed as closely as you did but I do recall going into the station and making a telephone call and having time to get back on the train.
In college I would take the Owl which left Grand Central at 12:40 am and return late that same night. The fare was $9 plus 55¢ to return on my one day ticket.
PS. Do you think it might have been possible that a train coming into New Haven might, just might, have taken a little extra time to change engines, a little more than the scheduled time?
I think the Broadway, rode about six or seven times, took about seven or eight minutes, only a few more than the NH change for the Merchants and Yankee Clipper
Both at Harrisburg and at New Haven, some trains added and/or dropped cars. This added to the station time.
I grew up in Altoona during the fifties. I took the train to New York many times to visit my uncle. At Harrisburg the E7s and E8s were replaced by GG1s to pull the train to New York. I usually rode one of the secondary trains from Altoona to New York, but almost always returned on one of the premium trains, i.e. General, Spirit of St. Louis, The Penn Texas.
I don't recall timing the power change at Harrisburg, but I don't believe it took 20 minutes. As I remember it, especially with respect to the flagship trains, the crews seemed to take pride in their work. I don't remember the power change on the premium trains taking very long. This was especially true if the train was late.
The fares shown in my original post were compared on July 13, 2013. The fare that I chose was booked on July 14th. I traveled on August 27th.
Absent a valid statistical sample of the four fare classes offered by Amtrak on the NEC, taken over at least a year, conclusions about the actual fare spreads are speculative.
Without a valid statistical sample of the travel policies, procedures, and practices governing the travel of people in the NEC, irrespective of the mode of transport, as well as assumptions about the cost of alternative modes of transport, the conclusions are speculative.
A valid statistical sample, drawn over at least a year, of the compensation, employment, productivity, values, etc., of people who chose one of Amtrak’s four classes of service, or selected another mode of transport, would be necessary to draw any valid conclusions about the population as a whole.
Cost and time are only two of the drivers that motivate the choice of transport. Convenience, comfort, dependability, connectivity, source and destination mobility, and status all play a role. Sorting out what is important for each individual or a prototypical individual is a complex process. Isolating the variables is a daunting task. Without access to the profiles of people who choose one of Amtrak’s class of service, as well as those for people who choose an alternative mode of transport, conclusions drawn about their motivation and values are tenuous at best.
I rode the Merchants and other New Haven trains many times between New York and Boston, 1949 - PC takeover in 1970. Most of the time it took exactly six minutes in both directions to change engines at New Haven. Five people were involved. One for siginalling the engineers, usually one of the trainmen or conductor, one local mechanic to handle the couplers, one more to handle the communication cables. one for the steam line, and one for the air hoses. Only a running air-brake test was made, none standing.
Check the timetables of the period and you will the scheduled time was five minutes.
With Penn Central, the number of people was reduced and the itme lengthened. Two people during Amtrak. And a standing airbrake test became mandatory.
Sam1Where are the engineering curves, i.e. data?
I have no idea, but the proof that they are not suffering abnormally fast wear is in how well they hold up over time in heavy service. One of our engineers should know which factor contributes more to wear, on equipment and track, speed or weight? For track, my hunch is weight contributes far more than speed.
schlimm I am confident that German engineers made these calculations in the past. The fact that their ICE's have been in service starting with the first ones in 1989 and the newest in 1999, it would appear they are holding up in terms of wear and tear just fine.
I am confident that German engineers made these calculations in the past. The fact that their ICE's have been in service starting with the first ones in 1989 and the newest in 1999, it would appear they are holding up in terms of wear and tear just fine.
Where are the engineering curves, i.e. data?
John WR Sam1Southwest Airlines unloads and loads a 737-700 at Dallas Love Field in approximately 20 to 25 minutes. Why did it take or does it take Amtrak 20 minutes to change power at New Haven? Could it be because Amtrak is a non-competitive monopoly? Without any imperatives to hustle? Sam, I think it is safe to say that Amtrak's 20 minute engine change time had nothing whatsoever to do with Amtrak being a government monopoly. The New Haven's Merchants Limited, there crack train that took only 4 hours between Boston and New York, took 20 minutes to change engines. The Penn Central's New York and Boston trains also took 20 minutes to change engines. Thus Amtrak took no longer for their engine change than the two prior private railroad companies. Of course Amtrak did make a significant improvement in time but completing the electrification project the New Haven started. By electrifying the rails all the way up to Boston the 20 minute delay to change engines is no longer required; New Haven is simply a station stop on the line. During the early 20th century J. P. Morgan owned a controlling interest in the New Haven. From what I have read he ran the railroad into the ground and the road was never really able to recover from that. That is why electrification was never completed. The original electrification was authorized in a bill signed by Gerald Ford in 1976. However, electrification was delayed and it was not accomplished until 1996. I don't know the degree to which Acela was involved in the decision. John
Sam1Southwest Airlines unloads and loads a 737-700 at Dallas Love Field in approximately 20 to 25 minutes. Why did it take or does it take Amtrak 20 minutes to change power at New Haven? Could it be because Amtrak is a non-competitive monopoly? Without any imperatives to hustle?
Sam,
I think it is safe to say that Amtrak's 20 minute engine change time had nothing whatsoever to do with Amtrak being a government monopoly. The New Haven's Merchants Limited, there crack train that took only 4 hours between Boston and New York, took 20 minutes to change engines. The Penn Central's New York and Boston trains also took 20 minutes to change engines. Thus Amtrak took no longer for their engine change than the two prior private railroad companies.
Of course Amtrak did make a significant improvement in time but completing the electrification project the New Haven started. By electrifying the rails all the way up to Boston the 20 minute delay to change engines is no longer required; New Haven is simply a station stop on the line.
During the early 20th century J. P. Morgan owned a controlling interest in the New Haven. From what I have read he ran the railroad into the ground and the road was never really able to recover from that. That is why electrification was never completed.
The original electrification was authorized in a bill signed by Gerald Ford in 1976. However, electrification was delayed and it was not accomplished until 1996. I don't know the degree to which Acela was involved in the decision.
The central question is why did it take 20 minutes to change power in New Haven. Where is the data that it took the New Haven 20 minutes to change the power for the Merchants Limited?
Part of the problem, I suspect, is neither the New Haven or Amtrak had any competitive pressures to hustle. Or a corporate climate that encourage the employees to hustle. That it took 20 minutes to change the power is a solid argument to privatize passenger rail and introduce competition into the matrix.
schlimm Sam1If a 112,000 lb. truck running 80 mph causes more wear and tear on a highway than a lighter truck running 55 mph, is it also true that a train running 220 mph would cause more wear and tear on rail infrastructure than one running 110 mph? Of course it does, both wear and power consumption (electric). I have no idea about the French system. The Chinese have dropped the top speed on the Beijing-Shanghai line for example, to 1319 km in 5:07 (average 159 mph), the top speed higher, of course, around 200 mph. The German ICE3 trains still run at top speeds of 250-300 kmh (155 - 186 mph) and sustained (average) speeds of up to 135 mph on some routes. But as you can see, those speeds are far above 110 mph. A top speed of 110 -124 mph is attained by many non-HSR trains in Germany.
Sam1If a 112,000 lb. truck running 80 mph causes more wear and tear on a highway than a lighter truck running 55 mph, is it also true that a train running 220 mph would cause more wear and tear on rail infrastructure than one running 110 mph?
Of course it does, both wear and power consumption (electric). I have no idea about the French system. The Chinese have dropped the top speed on the Beijing-Shanghai line for example, to 1319 km in 5:07 (average 159 mph), the top speed higher, of course, around 200 mph. The German ICE3 trains still run at top speeds of 250-300 kmh (155 - 186 mph) and sustained (average) speeds of up to 135 mph on some routes. But as you can see, those speeds are far above 110 mph. A top speed of 110 -124 mph is attained by many non-HSR trains in Germany.
I appreciate your response. Hopefully, an engineer with a strong rail technical background will be able to quantify some of the variables, i.e. a 10 per cent increase in speed requires X per cent increase in power inputs and causes Y increase in maintenance.
I drive a Toyota Corolla. Going from 65 to 70 mph is a 7.69 per cent increase in speed. The incremental increase in fuel consumption is 9.6 per cent. Presumably are similar curves for trains.
John WR Sam1Why was the NEC infrastructure upgraded? Was it to support the Acela's 150+ mph speeds, or was it to support higher speeds for the NEC regional trains, and the Acela was just an after thought. Immediately or almost immediately after Amtrak began they also began to replace the ties and tracks in the northeast corridor. The old ones were wooden ties and stick rail. The new ones were concrete ties and continuous welded rail. That was done many years before Acela. Between New Haven and Washington the tracks were electrified by the original railroad companies. However, at New Haven trains would have to change engines from electric to diesel and vice versa. The change took about 20 minutes, long enough to run into the New Haven station and make a phone call in the days before cell phones. In the 1990's the tracks were electrified north of New Haven so they must have had Acela in mind. Of course, the Northeast Regional trains also benefited as they no longer had to stop to change engines.
Sam1Why was the NEC infrastructure upgraded? Was it to support the Acela's 150+ mph speeds, or was it to support higher speeds for the NEC regional trains, and the Acela was just an after thought.
Immediately or almost immediately after Amtrak began they also began to replace the ties and tracks in the northeast corridor. The old ones were wooden ties and stick rail. The new ones were concrete ties and continuous welded rail. That was done many years before Acela.
Between New Haven and Washington the tracks were electrified by the original railroad companies. However, at New Haven trains would have to change engines from electric to diesel and vice versa. The change took about 20 minutes, long enough to run into the New Haven station and make a phone call in the days before cell phones. In the 1990's the tracks were electrified north of New Haven so they must have had Acela in mind. Of course, the Northeast Regional trains also benefited as they no longer had to stop to change engines.
The key question is how much of the NEC upgrade was for the Acela and how much of it was for other operations? Without access to Amtrak's books, it is impossible to know.
Southwest Airlines unloads and loads a 737-700 at Dallas Love Field in approximately 20 to 25 minutes. Why did it take or does it take Amtrak 20 minutes to change power at New Haven? Could it be because Amtrak is a non-competitive monopoly? Without any imperatives to hustle?
If the change could have been quicker, say five minutes, would the wires from New Haven to Boston been necessary for better NEC regional train service, i.e ones with a top speed of say 110 mph? Or were they really put up for the Acela? Without access to Amtrak's books we will never know.
"Maybe you or someone else can answer a question regarding the incremental maintenance requirements for high speed rail. Several recent articles in the popular press have stated that some of the world's high speed train operators, i.e. China, France, Germany, etc. have slowed down their trains because of excessive power consumption and wear/tear on the equipment. If tis is true it would suggest that the wear/tear of high speed rail is greater than anticipated."
My comment was not directed at German high speed rail operations exclusively nor did I claim that I was citing an authoritative source. I made it clear that I was reacting to several articles that I had seen in the popular press over a period of time. I confess to not writing down the page number and source of everything that I read.
I was seeking input from Oltmannd or anyone else whether the speed reductions, to the extent that what I read was accurate, could be indicative of the impact of high speed operations on maintenance expense and, therefore, one way to reduce the incremental maintenance expenses was to reduce the speed.
If a 112,000 lb. truck running 80 mph causes more wear and tear on a highway than a 72,000 lb.truck running 55 mph, is it not also true that a train running 220 mph would cause more wear and tear on rail infrastructure than one running 110 mph?
Payne: you have made some points that i've not considered.
A very complicated issue that has been ignored is the feed by final origination and destination.
1. It may be that the faster trains allow a connection to be made to commuter trains to final destination.
2. We have no idea what connections say NJTransit at Newark & NYP are occurring to / from Amtrak.
3. MNRR connections from Hudson & NH lines might be better quantified.
4. VRE & MARC connections are also unknown.
5. If Amtrak could start a limited program of selling a oneway / RT ticket that includes a commuter line maybe a better idea of the potential and if it is worth the effort.. Web & agent reservations would naturally need to be modified.
Ex. buy an Amtrak ticket NYP - BAL and an additional coupon BAL - New Halthorpe on MARC ? There could be no discount with the full MARC BAL - NHA amount to MARC ? Commuter agencies appear not to be able to produce Amtrak tickets although the quick track ticket machines at some locations may be able to produce same ?
The first poster brought up real Consumer behavior that is not fitting the Model of total time savings alone. In honor of Mr. Coase, let’s build a model from the ground up to figure out why the Consumer is behaving this way, as there obviously aren’t enough fans to float Acela ridership. First assume destination Parking OR Cab Fare has an equal Financial Cost and Disutility of Time Value.
As usual, driving an automobile is the real reference point and competition for most people.
Expense Account: Common Carrier vs. Driving analysis:
Most travel departments allow you to compare Driving to a suitable Common Carrier cost and choose the least expensive financial option. So under these circumstances the cost to compare single occupant driving at 3.1 hours to is:
190 miles x $0.565/mile Total IRS cost of driving + Tolls at $27.5 = $135
Therefore a Common Carrier ticket can be up to this amount and be routinely approved by the expense department, certainly mine. Ok, let’s try to find airfare for that amount. Well shoot it isn’t still 1993 so fares at that level are not available. One week out, a non-stop airfare is $320ish for 1 hour timing and a single stop is $120ish for 3 hour timing (which of course is a pricing scheme made up by the airlines to maximize revenue as the non-stop flight is cheaper to operate). But once you add in access to and from the airport, the one-stop airfare is more expensive time and cost wise than driving and there is little productive time. So is the only alternative driving or the motorcoach? Not on this route…
Acela vs. Regional Analysis:
I believe the original posted prices were at the upper end of the difference, probably indicating the last few seats on a nearly sold out Acela in the AM peak. For other times of day, $30 to $75 price differentials are common when comparing Regional + Business Class and Acela (base coach is Business Class). I believe the correct way to evaluate the difference is by using the entire trip time in the denominator, not just the total time difference.
2.3 vs 2.55 hours, 0.25 hour total difference.
$172 vs $144 at 6 AM, $28 Difference
$222 vs $144 at 7 AM, $78 Difference
$197 vs $166 at 8 AM, $31 Difference
But even Acela could take about the same amount of total time as driving once you add transfers to Acela. What is going on?
So if say $50 is the average difference between Regional and Acela, the consumer is saying I value the difference in time at 0.25 hour x $40 (assumed wage rate) x (0.75) = $7 of Total time savings and ($50-$7)/2.30 = $19/hour of added Time Utility during the trip. Since this is probably less than half the wage rate a lot of business people would choose ths, particularly if they have a routine that allows them to bill for the time at 2.5 to 3x wage. So maybe you are just close enough that people are willing to pay $30-40 extra over driving for the extra productivity. They could be expense account people that have struck a deal with management in terms of what is counted as billable, we'll put you on but you have to bill an hour, or private consultants that can make the call themselves. A much greater time utility for the entire trip is generated relative to driving.
Competing with Curbside Motorcoach Carriers (other end of market):
So there still will be some travelers for which financial cost is the absolute priority. Right now the Regional is the only rail option, other than that you have curbside motorcoaches. But could the Financial Cost be even lower and Time Utility be greater? How, by adding more stops to the Regional on the outskirts of the various metro areas served (thus increasing run times but dropping access cost), decreasing the price, increasing the seating density in the standard product, and lengthening consists of the trains. Conversely, you have also market segmented your offerings even further, allowing for more revenue at Acela rates from those willing to choose the current Regional but not this version.
Pardon me, but I really do not know what you are attempting to say. Other than your first comment, which seems pretty tangential, the remainder seems to have almost nothing to do with my post and far more to do with your pet peeves with some "advocacy community" you have encountered. Whatever that may be in Madison, it is not what I subscribe to. The goalposts metaphor was not in response to your previous remarks, in any case.
schlimm I guess it is so. Now Acela, etc. are expected to cover the fixed costs of ROW infrastructure. The goalposts have been moved (not a parable, a metaphorical example).
I guess it is so. Now Acela, etc. are expected to cover the fixed costs of ROW infrastructure. The goalposts have been moved (not a parable, a metaphorical example).
"I guess it is so." You don't seem too enthusiastic about the claim that Acela turns a profit on a partial allocation of costs but still is in the red on a full allocation of costs? Do you know differently? Do you have a cost allocation plan, say, that the commuter agencies need to come up with more payments for their "slots" on the NEC? Do you have a traffic model that Acela is paying its way, not only for its variable costs but for its slice of the fix costs?
As to expecting Acela to cover the fixed costs of ROW infrastructure, I don't think I advocated any such thing. I was reasoning counter to the assertion that the Acela should be offering volume discounts to regular or loyal or frequent customers, citing the example of the automotive industry where such discounts were a failed marketing strategy. As to moving goalposts, I am doing no such thing, literally, metaphorically, or in the sense of moral parables.
As to the remark "lose money on every unit but make it up on the volume", that remark was not made by me, that remark was made, and it was made frequently on none else than the pages of Trains Magazine, our generous host of this forum. That remark was offered as dark humor regarding a railroad industry that was in a death spiral of discounting its product to make up for service shortcomings, but sometimes you just can't raise enough money through volume purchases to make discounting viable.
Now that was the David P Morgan Trains, the Trains of years past, the Trains of the archive in the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, a Trains with an editor who openly professed to care enough about 'there still being trains around for enthusiasts to enjoy watching and riding" that this editor offered a "tough love" critique to the railroad industry.
No tough love these days, I guess articles more telling people in the advocacy community the way they like to hear it. It may be selling magazines, but I miss the David P Morgan days.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Deciding Amtrak losses per train is stupid because the whole system has to work within itself and it deemed a service so that one train or one seat does not defeat the whole entity. Plus, Amtrak, being a government agency despite being a corporation, cannot be defined the same as you are defining it here. IT is very complex...a business owned and operated by the Federal Government but not allowed to follow good business practices of investment and allotment of funds like a business but rely on Congressional whims in the form of legislation, allotments, and (Congressional) budgets. In effect there are no answers the way it is set up right now. Congress either has to free Amtrak from it;s reins as it did Conrail or we have to put up with it the way it is. We may have answers and theories but doesn't mean a thing under the way it has to operate now.
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.
I have to take your word about the statistics, Sam, as I don't have the data myself. I do wonder about how people who file joint returns are counted. Are both people considered tax payers even if one has no income?
By the way, Social Security and Medicare Part A (hospital insurance) are not funded by income tax. They are funded by a payroll tax collected under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act. Workers who earn over $50 a quarter are subject to the FICA. Many of these people have incomes too low for income tax. Medicare Part B (medical Insurance) is funded by income tax. I'm not sure about Medicare Part D (prescription drugs).
Sam1Amtrak has lost money every year since its inception. The NEC, assuming that it wears 80 per cent of the depreciation, which may be understated, loses as much per passenger mile as the long distance trains after allocations of its fixed costs. A real business has to recover all of its costs. Not just the operating costs. Given Amtrak's dismal financial record, I would like to see the books before concluding that its Acela service is a good go and discounts contribute positively to its outcomes.
All passenger traffic lives in the "non-real business" world. Therefore, you'd have to see more than Amtrak's books to determine if Acela is worth it or not. What's the cost of the alternatives to Acela? None, even "do nothing", come at zero cost to taxpayers.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Paul MilenkovicOn the other hand, in John Kneiling's times, there were railroad companies that were losing money, not only on their passenger service pre-Amtrak but also on their freight operations, and in Kneilings (unhumble) opinion, railroad management did not have working accounting systems in hand to tell where their money was going, and they were engaged in failed marketing efforts that did not staunch the losses. In other words, they lost money on every car sold, but they were hoping to make it up on the volume.
Penn Central's intermodal marketing scheme! (and perhaps BN's Powder River coal plan, at least at the start)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.