Deleted
101 total departures west from NY Penn in 1967. Add the CNJ diesel trains at Newark.
In December 2018, 19 NJ Transit departures west from NY Penn between 5:00 and 5:55 PM, plus three Amtrak.
That comes to 1967, 135 trains per track, in 2018, 211/track. But it is not evenly divided by hour. My understanding is that min time between trains in a tube is four minutes or 15 trains/hr. If rush hr is 6:00 AM to 9:30 AM, and 3:30 PM to 7:00 PM or a total of 7 hrs, that would account for 105 trains. In the 6 hrs between rush hours and the 11 hrs overnight, the density is lower. Of course after midnight there are few trains but to do any maintenance requires taking a tunnel OOS. Not much room for any abnormalities or failures. As has been happening. Another thing is the commuter trains today are much more heavily loaded thanks to population growth and higher capacity equipment (multilevel and longer trains). New tubes are needed ASAP.
BaltACDHow many trains are operating on the NEC (NY-WAS) these days as compared to the Metroliner days
20 locals Trenton to Philadelphia; 21 locals Philadelphia to Wilmington; 2 locals Baltimore to Washington.
In December 2018, 51 Amtrak each weekday west from NY Penn, plus the triweekly Cardinal. 160 NJT out of NY, 59 of which split off to the Lackawanna after seven miles.
Add 28 trains at Newark, 26 of which split off to LV/CNJ after two miles. 38 trains split off at Rahway to South Amboy and beyond; 14 trains terminate at Jersey Avenue.
30 SEPTA locals Trenton to Philadelphia, 28 Philadelphia to Marcus Hook or beyond. 27 MARC to Washington from Baltimore or beyond.
Retired PRR engineer. Easy to confuse the nonstops and the multistops, and I have been caught with similar errors on the Forums.
The "200 mph" Acelas were an adaption of an existing European design, and redesigning them for a lower top speed may not have saved much if anything.
I hope we can agree that not much was improved in the NEC, either for the Metroliners or Acela, and that the money spent to put the line in decent shape was appropriate and necessary. And that there was no real improvement in times between Metroliners and Acela.
In the second month of Metroliner operation, southbound between Newark DE and Baltimore, I saw 136 on the numerical digital speedometer. Did you ever run the MUs faster than 125?
Regarding Europe, governments often put the railroad line just outside the built-up towns, whicih then expanded to enclose a relatively straight and level railway alignment. For cities like Paris and London, the railways did not even attempt to penetrate the center, resulting th profusion of stations, and the construction of linking tunnels in the 20th Century and on-going in this one.
Our group here wishes that Newark - Frankford would be the first to get 160MPH Acela service on the inner tracks. That would require the elimination of the Elizabeth "S" curve restrictions. At the same time start eliminating the slow sections along the entire route Frankford - PHL - WASH. That would of course involve the eliminated sections being designed for eventual 160 MPH. That is the least expensive way to decrease the running time NYP <> WASH for all trains.
The CAT of course needs upgrading to Constant tension along the Newark - Frankford section. If the Newark - Frankford section reduces times then that will have the effect of saving the most passenger minutes NYP <> PHL for Acela passengers since that section has the highest passenger density of Amtrak traffic on the NEC. However speeding up south of Frankford will end up saving even more passenger minutes for Regional and LD passengers. Acelas will also benefit.
We would like to see Amtral's figures for the costs of reducing slow sections. As well the passenger minutes saved. Where commuter trains are involved the commuter savings also need inclusion. Since NJ Transit seems to run max speeds of 100 MPH only the Eliabeth curve would save what 1 - 2 minute for slowing and speeding up ? Now if NJT is able to speed up their Newark - Trenton expresses to 125 ?
Upgrading the Frakford - North PHL would save what ??
BaltACDEach year we are retired the better we were and the worse things are today. Been hearing it my entire working life and now my retirement. Age has selective memory.
Very true of some members of every generation in their view of the future.
243129 BaltACD Question - How many trains are operating on the NEC (NY-WAS) these days as compared to the Metroliner days - not just Amtrak but all the commuter agencies that use the NEC. I tend to think there were many fewer commuter trains 40-50 years ago. I understand that before Amtrak obtained ownership of the NEC through freight was was being operated on the trackage. The NEC is Boston to Washington. Commuter service was not much less than it is today( I speak of BOS-NYP, my home division) and yes through freight and local freight was in the mix. The operation ran more smoothly then because there were knowledgeable railroad operations personnel in charge unlike the present day 'supervision'.
BaltACD Question - How many trains are operating on the NEC (NY-WAS) these days as compared to the Metroliner days - not just Amtrak but all the commuter agencies that use the NEC. I tend to think there were many fewer commuter trains 40-50 years ago. I understand that before Amtrak obtained ownership of the NEC through freight was was being operated on the trackage.
Question - How many trains are operating on the NEC (NY-WAS) these days as compared to the Metroliner days - not just Amtrak but all the commuter agencies that use the NEC. I tend to think there were many fewer commuter trains 40-50 years ago. I understand that before Amtrak obtained ownership of the NEC through freight was was being operated on the trackage.
The NEC is Boston to Washington. Commuter service was not much less than it is today( I speak of BOS-NYP, my home division) and yes through freight and local freight was in the mix. The operation ran more smoothly then because there were knowledgeable railroad operations personnel in charge unlike the present day 'supervision'.
The commuter services provided by MARC, SEPTA and NJT between NY-WAS seem much more frequent than they were in prior decades (I don't have facts & figures - just personal observations). I am aware that MARC has added run frequency as well as lenghtened the runs over the past two decades. I don't know what additional service has been provided by SEPTA and NJT over the recent decades - the metro areas of Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia and New York are not getting less densly populated as the years go by so I expect both those agencies have added service.
While not a part of the NEC, VRE did not exist prior to 1990. Now they operate about 24 trains a day both into and out of Washington Union Station.
Each year we are retired the better we were and the worse things are today. Been hearing it my entire working life and now my retirement. Age has selective memory.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
timzI'll check when the one-stop Metroliners ended -- probably 1970?
See if you can flesh out Bruce Goldberg's Metroliner timeline from the June 2006 Trains:
http://trn.trains.com/railroads/2006/06/metroliners-amazing-career
timz 243129 What happened 2018 Acela 2'58" ? Why is Acela slower than it used to be? Dunno. A million broken concrete ties?
243129 What happened 2018 Acela 2'58" ?
Why is Acela slower than it used to be? Dunno. A million broken concrete ties?
So what are your thoughts on the feasibility of true high-speed rail on the NEC?
243129What happened 2018 Acela 2'58" ?
timz Three stops in 1982 http://timetables.org/full.php?group=19821031&item=0010 Weekday Metroliner schedules NY to Washington: 16 Jan 1969 -- one 5-stop schedule 2 hr 59 min 10 Feb 1969 -- two 5-stop, 2-59 2 Apr, 2 June -- one nonstop in 2-30, two 5-stop in 2-59 14 July 69 -- one 1-stop 2-30, two 5-stop 2-59 26 Oct 69 -- one nonstop 2-30, one 3-stop 2-40, four 5-stop 2-59 16 March 70 -- one 2-stop 2-50, one 3-stop 2-50, four 5-stop 2-59 17 May 70 -- one 3-stop 2-50, one 4-stop 2-55, four 5-stop 2-59 24 Aug 70 -- same exc add another 5-stop 25 Oct 70 -- two 4-stop 2-55, five 5-stop 2-59 24 Jan 71 -- two 4-stop 2-55, five 5-stop 3-00 Weekday Acela schedules 29 Apr 2002: one 4-stop 2-39 one 5-stop 2-41 two 6-stop 2-42 seven 6-stop 2-43 four 7-stop 2-46 one 8-stop 2-55
Three stops in 1982
http://timetables.org/full.php?group=19821031&item=0010
Weekday Metroliner schedules NY to Washington:
16 Jan 1969 -- one 5-stop schedule 2 hr 59 min
10 Feb 1969 -- two 5-stop, 2-59
2 Apr, 2 June -- one nonstop in 2-30, two 5-stop in 2-59
14 July 69 -- one 1-stop 2-30, two 5-stop 2-59
26 Oct 69 -- one nonstop 2-30, one 3-stop 2-40, four 5-stop 2-59
16 March 70 -- one 2-stop 2-50, one 3-stop 2-50, four 5-stop 2-59
17 May 70 -- one 3-stop 2-50, one 4-stop 2-55, four 5-stop 2-59
24 Aug 70 -- same exc add another 5-stop
25 Oct 70 -- two 4-stop 2-55, five 5-stop 2-59
24 Jan 71 -- two 4-stop 2-55, five 5-stop 3-00
Weekday Acela schedules 29 Apr 2002:
one 4-stop 2-39
one 5-stop 2-41
two 6-stop 2-42
seven 6-stop 2-43
four 7-stop 2-46
one 8-stop 2-55
What happened 2018 Acela 2'58" ????
Overmod What were the details and stops of the "Metroliner" service trains advertised as "2 hours and 49 civilized minutes" (down from 2:59 civilized in the mid-'70s) in the middle 1980s?
What were the details and stops of the "Metroliner" service trains advertised as "2 hours and 49 civilized minutes" (down from 2:59 civilized in the mid-'70s) in the middle 1980s?
October 31, 1982Express Metroliner(less stops) running time reduced to 2 hours, 49 minutes, and remaining Metroliners all scheduled for under 3 hours, for the first time in several years.
charlie hebdoIf a test train could run at 171 mph in the NEC,then that is HSR
That speed cannot be sustained for any length of time due to geographical constrictions as also would be the case with the140-155 mph speeds you cite.
243129The Acela is only one minute faster.
In July 1971 one Metroliner took 2-55 to Washington with four stops -- all the rest were 3-00 with five stops.
http://timetables.org/full.php?group=19710712&item=0010
I'll check when the one-stop Metroliners ended -- probably 1970?
243129It [the X2000] proved to be useless.
243129he X-2000 designated top speed is 210 km/h (130 mph). It reached 276 km/h (171 mph) during a trial run with double locomotive units in 1993. The maximum speed allowed in regular traffic is 204 km/h (127 mph) for safety reasons – the signal system (and systems like the catenary) are not built for more, and it shares the track with conventional trains; also, most of the lines it uses were built in the mid to late 19th century.
If a test train could run at 171 mph in the NEC,then that is HSR. Perhaps with new FRA regs, the operation could become less conservative and run at 140-155 mph. These days, the newest ICE 4 trains on DB have a top speed of 230 kmh for the 7 car model or 260 kmh for the 12 car model.
timzAcela is a few minutes better. The original Metroliners never did better than 2-59 with five stops -- offhand guess, they never did better than 2-59 with four stops.
One minute is not a few. The 1969 Metroliners were scheduled to suit the businessman with early A.M. departures with two stops(2'40") and no stops (2'30"). The mid day or off-peak made as many as 5 intermediate stops(2'59"). The Acela Express of 2018 completes the journey in 2'58" giving credence to the notion that high-speed rail on the NEC is not feasibile.
timzTimetable limit for original Metroliners was never more than 120 mph. If the engineer ran them at 150 or 200 mph then they'd keep up with Acela.
This I do not understand??? The Acela is only one minute faster.
timz(Fastest train NY to Washington was the X2000-- no contest.)
The X-2000 designated top speed is 210 km/h (130 mph). It reached 276 km/h (171 mph) during a trial run with double locomotive units in 1993. The maximum speed allowed in regular traffic is 204 km/h (127 mph) for safety reasons – the signal system (and systems like the catenary) are not built for more, and it shares the track with conventional trains; also, most of the lines it uses were built in the mid to late 19th century.
It proved to be useless.
BaltACDIn the US, by way of contrast, in many cases railroads built into the wilderness
In the colonies(NEC) settlements came first.
daveklepperwhat track changes were made [betw NY-Washington] for the Acela operation?
The only substantial curve change was the one at MP 117 -- NECIP eliminated a 90 mph curve.
https://goo.gl/maps/axAjG3owWhH2
Circa 1973 Penn Central shifted the Elizabeth curve a few feet, but Metroliners were still limited to 55. One helpful NECIP change was at Holly, eliminating the Metroliner crossover at Hook.
daveklepperI agree there has been no improvemet in speed, NY - Washington, since the original Metroliners.
Timetable limit for original Metroliners was never more than 120 mph. If the engineer ran them at 150 or 200 mph then they'd keep up with Acela.
(Fastest train NY to Washington was the X2000-- no contest.)
daveklepperAlso, I think that Vokler and any experienced rider of European trains after WWII would agree that the original alignments for European main lines were more conducive to speed than those in the USA. Grade crossings were far fewer, fencing was typical, not special, and all this was opposed to the USA practice of getting the track in place and in service as quicly and inexpensively as possible.
In Europe when the railroads came into existance, the cities and towns were well established and whatever rail routes were laid out had to take that reality into account.
In the US, by way of contrast, in many cases railroads built into the wilderness and paid more attention to building climbable grades than to maximum radii curves. Once the railroads were constructed, towns grew up around them and tended to 'hem in' the railroad on the alignments originally laid out.
Also, I think that Vokler and any experienced rider of European trains after WWII would agree that the original alignments for European main lines were more conducive to speed than those in the USA. Grade crossings were far fewer, fencing was typical, not special, and all this was opposed to the USA practice of getting the track in place and in service as quicly and inexpensively as possible.
daveklepperWikapedia is using the fastest timing, the near-non-stops, to describe all. I rode the trains and am giving you first-hand information.
I also have first hand information as I have operated trains on the NEC from the 60's onward.
daveklepperMoney wasted? That is an entirely different matter, because without the money the NEC would not be doing the job it is doing today, both for Amtrak and the commuter authorities.
Where high-speed trainsets are concerned the money has been wasted.
daveklepperThere are some stretches in the NEC where I believe with a proper signal sysem, speeds could be as high as 200mph.
Why so Amtrak could tout 200 mph service? The saving in running time would be negligible due to the short duration of 200 mph. That would be another waste of taxpayer dollars as if there has not been enough already.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.