https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/amtrak-acela-nonstop-trnd/index.html
"Faster than ever"? The Metroliners of 1969 did it in two hours and 30 minutes and that was 50 years ago. Anderson is touting this as a great accomplishment under his leadership.
Yes, but... it's sure shorter than three hours!
Something interesting to me is that with German-style stop discipline this timing should easily allow 'two hours and 59 civilized minutes' with intermediate stops at Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Baltimore. That would bring back Metroliners with a bang!
Of course, the older trains tore themselves and the track up trying to run at the speeds that 2h30' involved, so it's not entirely fair to invoke the MP85 'experience' as a workable precedent. On the other hand ... if this trick works with the older Acela equipment twice a day, imagine the fun when the Avelia Liberty sets start coming on board...
The actual "news" in this announcement, though, has nothing to do with New York to Washington: it's in the 'second route' starting in 2020. If it goes via the Empire Connection, it may take considerable congestion off the Shore Line as the wirework etc. proceeds ... and from what I saw driving my daughter up the Connecticut Turnpike a month ago, that's a lot of work. (Also some presumable fun with engine change in the NYP yard, but that's another story; it might be highly interesting to see pantograph-equipped dual-modes in that service...)
My suspicion is that the 'second route' will go by way of New Haven/Hartford on the 'new' Springfield track ... but it's going to be interesting either way.
Yeah, there was a 2:30 Metroliner for a short while. I think it was tried again with AEM7 powered "Metroliner Service", maybe 2:40 then?
Things are different now. Engineers can't "cheat" on speed. It was pretty common back in the early Metroliner era. I remember seeing 127 through Princeton Jct in 1969. GG1 hauled trains that were allowed 80 by TT often ran into the mid 90s.
There is also more traffic on the NEC these days, particularly south of Phila and through the North River tunnels.
So, maybe 2:35 for 135mph Acela isn't so terrible, if it is reliable.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
We can hope so. The new equipment is lighter, so should have more rapidly acceleration and deceleration, which would speed up dwell time with stops, even if Amtrak continues with excessively long times at stations.
oltmanndI remember seeing 127 through Princeton Jct in 1969.
Over the crossovers??? Ee-YOW!
Of course there was the premise there would be a 150mph railroad to match the 150mph trains, and lots of money was earmarked for that -- it just never got particularly well-allocated or wisely spent. The Carter initiative for '150mph' that had the politically-compromised minority setaside percentage was one classic example. It's hard to imagine that all the work I saw done, or thought I saw getting done, in those years didn't make much difference.
We have now gotten to the point where significant stretches of the Corridor are far better built than in the late '60s or perhaps even the latter '80s where some very interesting 'cowboy' running could be observed before Gatesie brought down the boom. In particular I have seen some suggestive speedometer pictures from the Acelas that were tested between Trenton and New Brunswick not that long ago. A couple of special trips per day might become fast, indeed, even if the structural bottlenecks on the route aren't eliminated until much later.
Is it true that when PC offered the non stop that the city of Baltimore sued to require it to stop at BAL Penn? And then CR started stopping there and a few other stations?
No schedules are ever the equal of 'running time'. There is always elements of slop built into any schedule.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Remember in the past that engineers could exceed the max speed limits with little or no consequence. Today no way !
blue streak 1 Remember in the past that engineers could exceed the max speed limits with little or no consequence. Today no way !
Exactly. And yet someone who from his vast claimed experience should know that, ridicules the new timing. Just a humbug.
charlie hebdo blue streak 1 Remember in the past that engineers could exceed the max speed limits with little or no consequence. Today no way ! Exactly. And yet someone who from his vast claimed experience should know that, ridicules the new timing. Just a humbug.
Are you looking to 'engage' chuck?
BackshopOne engineer claims that he never went faster than the speed limit.
This engineer claims that.
Overmod The actual "news" in this announcement, though, has nothing to do with New York to Washington: it's in the 'second route' starting in 2020. If it goes via the Empire Connection, it may take considerable congestion off the Shore Line as the wirework etc. proceeds ... and from what I saw driving my daughter up the Connecticut Turnpike a month ago, that's a lot of work. (Also some presumable fun with engine change in the NYP yard, but that's another story; it might be highly interesting to see pantograph-equipped dual-modes in that service...) My suspicion is that the 'second route' will go by way of New Haven/Hartford on the 'new' Springfield track ... but it's going to be interesting either way.
I don’t think they really mean a new route in the sense of a different line, say via Springfield. Note that the CNN reporter also refers to the New York-Washington nonstop as a “new direct route.” The media don’t always get rail terminology right. More likely what Amtrak said is that there will be a new express service on the New York-Boston leg of the NEC.
BaltACD No schedules are ever the equal of 'running time'. There is always elements of slop built into any schedule.
Johnny
On the New York City to Boston 'high speed route' do not forget to factor in the albatross. Metro-North.
Deggesty BaltACD No schedules are ever the equal of 'running time'. There is always elements of slop built into any schedule. Doesn't "padding" sound beter than "slop?"
Doesn't "padding" sound beter than "slop?"
Depends upon the Engineer! Some need all the slop, some don't need any padding.
Well, the Metroliner 2:30 trip was also a non-stop train.
243129 On the New York City to Boston 'high speed route' do not forget to factor in the albatross. Metro-North.
CSSHEGEWISCH 243129 On the New York City to Boston 'high speed route' do not forget to factor in the albatross. Metro-North. And just what do you propose to minimize interference with suburban trains?
And just what do you propose to minimize interference with suburban trains?
The 'albatross' is Metro-North restricting speed on the little piece of the Corridor they administer, not an issue with train density at different times of day. Personally I don't see any objective engineering reason why the number of true high-speed limited-stop trains Amtrak would run from Boston 'through' to Washington via NYP would interfere dramatically with suburban traffic flow from the Connecticut line to the east approaches to Penn Station... if a good CBTC/PTC system were running, as I thought it was supposed to be. by now.
OvermodPersonally I don't see any objective engineering reason why the number of true high-speed limited-stop trains Amtrak would run from Boston 'through' to Washington via NYP would interfere dramatically with suburban traffic flow from the Connecticut line to the east approaches to Penn Station... if a good CBTC/PTC system were running, as I thought it was supposed to be. by now.
New Rochelle to New Haven is something like 60 miles. The PTC system is likely built on the back of coded cab signals ala PRR/Amtrak/ACSES. Probably impacts capacity a bit. Certainly no help...
oltmannd Overmod Personally I don't see any objective engineering reason why the number of true high-speed limited-stop trains Amtrak would run from Boston 'through' to Washington via NYP would interfere dramatically with suburban traffic flow from the Connecticut line to the east approaches to Penn Station... if a good CBTC/PTC system were running, as I thought it was supposed to be. by now. New Rochelle to New Haven is something like 60 miles. The PTC system is likely built on the back of coded cab signals ala PRR/Amtrak/ACSES. Probably impacts capacity a bit. Certainly no help...
Overmod Personally I don't see any objective engineering reason why the number of true high-speed limited-stop trains Amtrak would run from Boston 'through' to Washington via NYP would interfere dramatically with suburban traffic flow from the Connecticut line to the east approaches to Penn Station... if a good CBTC/PTC system were running, as I thought it was supposed to be. by now.
How many tracks is the mainline? Two? Four? If the latter, why should commuter trains interfere with a nonstop NH to Hell's Gate run?
charlie hebdoHow many tracks is the mainline? Two? Four? If the latter, why should commuter trains interfere with a nonstop NH to Hell's Gate run?
There are 36 trains a day arriving GCT from the NH side between 7 and 9 AM. The schedules are arranges so that the trains make some number of distant stops, then run express the rest of the way in. Lots of overtaking moves. Amtrak trains not only have to fit into this flow, they have to pick their way across to their line to Hell Gate at New Rochelle. (MN runs from NH to New Rochelle, and then on to GCT from there. Amtrak diverges at New Rochelle NY onto their Hell Gate bridge "branch". The Shell interlocking at New Rochelle is "at grade" and is, and has long been, a capacity pinch point.
Even the limited stop, mostly express NH to GCT rush hour trains take 1:50 for a 73 mile trip only 40 mph avg.
CSSHEGEWISCHAnd just what do you propose to minimize interference with suburban trains?
"And just what"? Nothing. It is their railroad and Amtrak is at their mercy.
oltmanndEven the limited stop, mostly express NH to GCT rush hour trains take 1:50 for a 73 mile trip only 40 mph avg.
The 9:06 PM non rush hour train to New Haven 2 hours and six minutes.
charlie hebdo New Rochelle to New Haven is something like 60 miles. The PTC system is likely built on the back of coded cab signals ala PRR/Amtrak/ACSES. Probably impacts capacity a bit. Certainly no help... How many tracks is the mainline? Two? Four? If the latter, why should commuter trains interfere with a nonstop NH to Hell's Gate run?
Unfortunately from New Rochelle to New Haven for the forseeable future ( 2050 ) there will be one or more 2 track pinch points due to the replacement of the 100+ year old draw bridges. Walk bridge is the present one now being replaced.
30 years to replace some bridges? American know-how? AWOL.
charlie hebdo 30 years to replace some bridges? American know-how? AWOL.
CSSHEGEWISCH charlie hebdo 30 years to replace some bridges? American know-how? AWOL. American know-how is still there as the engineering is straightforward. Money and political will are lacking.
I think know-how includes the will to make good things happen and knowing how to find the money. Perhaps what is missing now is a phrase we never/seldom hear anymore - "can do" which used to be a driving principle.
charlie hebdoa phrase we never/seldom hear anymore - "can do" which used to be a driving principle.
You're right. I never hear this these days. It might as well be one of those "forgotten phrases" one hears on Sirius Radio's channel 40's on 4 ("On the next chance you get, try this one out....")
Still, I have been impressed by how fast the new Hudson River bridge at Tarrytown has been constructed, including the removal of the old one. Maybe New York State ought to get the same team working on the long-awaited extension of the 2nd Avenue Subway.
1st CT does not have enough funds to replace all the bridges at once! 2nd if more locations are two track due to constructions then time keeping will go out the window. It is hard enough to schedule trains around one pinch point. Can you imagine scheduling trains around 3 or 4 non equi distance pinch points ?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.