I did some reaserch to back me up on this
Suppose an Acela express train is going to Boston from DC. it takes the train 6 hours and 45 minutes to go the distance to Boston-South Station. the information doesn;t match up but it is 392 miles from Washington DC to Boston, MA. according to the speed calculations, the average speed is
Obviously the actual speed of these things can get up to 150. Station stops are not excluded from the time (i think) if this is true, then Amtrak really needs to step up their game.
The next time you travel from D.C. to Boston I suggest you calculate your travel speed by car...it will be a lot slower than 57 mph and your body will be really beat up after such a long car trip. Now, let's say you make the trip by air...you will need to travel from (say) downtown D.C. to National Airport...get there one hour (minimum) before your flight time, fly about one hour to Boston, traverse the airport terminal and then take a cab or rental car (adding more time still) to downtown Boston and all this will likely take you about four and a half hours and that's assuming you don't run into traffic on the way from Logan airport to downtown Boston which could add another half hour to an hour to your trip...good luck with that.
No, I don't think Acela is so much of the joke you make it out to be...try the alternatives and THEN comment from experience...not simply from conjecture please.
Railman as someone that had to make a PU and Delivery one time in the DC area and Boston one time in my OTR days. Sorry I wish I could have put my BUTT on a train that day. It took me 10 hours to go from Alexandriea VA to Boston MA with a load of Buttwiper Beer. Never again I had massive traffic in the NYC area the NJ turnpike was a suicide drive every freking mile it seemed. Let alone the GW Bridge that day. So do not tell me it is a joke.
Railman, you very effectively and pointedly define the problem with dealing with transprtation issues. Like most people, you don't fully understand the business of movement, now matter whether passenger or freight, no matter what the mode of transportation. A bus which tries to match a 60 mile per hour schedule often has to travel at speeds up to 80 or more to achieve that. A 30 mile drive to work on two lane roads and in traffic could take you up to an hour and a half, on a freeway at rush hour, at least 45 minutes. And a commuter train over a 35 mile trek with frequent starts and stops and dwell times can extend a 70 to 90 mph track to a two hour ride. You have also effecitively and pointedly define the folly of discussin HSR. We don't have a defnition only wild and wide eyed speeds hovering maybe as fast as 250 miles an hour but not comprehending what HSR really is or can be. Is it worth going 250 miles per hour with stops every 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 or whatever miles between stops? Is it efficienct and effective? Can a train actually achieve 250 mph between stations? at what cost? at what efficieny? Airlines have planes so big today they have to employ feeder lines not only because the plane won't fit on most of the runways but also because it costs too much to land and take off, uses too much fuel, Being able to go fast for the sake of going fast is not a good way to approach transportation. How long does it take you to drive from home to shopping? school or work? If its about one to three miles, it could be as long as 10 or 15 minutes which could mean 20 miles per hour at best while the speed limit is 30? 65? So Acela at 56.7 miles with acceleration, decelleration, station dwell time, actual time and milage to be able to do 150mph, is doing pretty good...find another train in the US that does 392 miles in 7 hours...and try driving the same Washington to Boston in that time in your car.
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.
Let me echo what Jim says!
If Acela were such a joke, it (and the rest of Amtrak's schedules) would not have the majority of the public-transportation business--beating out air transport--in these corridors. That's fact, and I don't think these people are being stupid.
As someone who has driven portions of this trip (including getting out of Washington and attempting to get into NYC from New Jersey), I know how the backups are--all day long. If you attempt to avoid NYC traffic while driving from Washington or Boston, you'll put on a few extra miles, maybe raising your average speed but wasting those miles in the process, and probably not gaining much in time.
Jim, the fact that Railman hasn't taken the alternatives is evident, but I suspect that he hasn't ridden the Acela trains, either. You need only be looking out the windows (left side on the northbound runs) and seeing the cars along the expressway...they're not doing too badly if you look at their progress on the road, but you are passing them like they're in a parking lot! That side of the track is also where the mileposts are on the old PRR. If you can catch two mile markers on the Interstate that are only 28 seconds or so apart, you're probably fleeing the cops, whether you realize it or not. Yet even the non-Acela trains can do this for mile after mile (yes, I timed them, and taught my daughters to do it, too), and you don't have to have a white-knuckle grip on the steering wheel, or even your armrests while it's happening!
And consider this: Amtrak and others know that the Northeast Corridor has problems. They're addressing these problems as rapidly as finances permit. I know that they've recently replaced one of the problem drawbridges in Connecticut. Constant-tension catenary will make higher speeds doable. And there are plans to improve the New York terminal, the tunnels under the Hudson needed to access them, the tunnels in Baltimore that slow everything to 30 m.p.h. (I doubt that you can drive through there without slowing down that far, either).
And finally, consider that the Northeast Corridor is the only transportation mode that has room for improvement. You might be able to add lanes to some of the roads in this area, but I doubt that that will increase speed limits or shorten the travel time in any meaningful manner. And an improvement in air travel will probably result in another security search or charging more for whatever used-to-be "perks" are left.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
Mr. Railman I did some reaserch to back me up on this Suppose an Acela express train is going to Boston from DC. it takes the train 6 hours and 45 minutes to go the distance to Boston-South Station. the information doesn;t match up but it is 392 miles from Washington DC to Boston, MA. according to the speed calculations, the average speed is 56.7 miles per hour. Obviously the actual speed of these things can get up to 150. Station stops are not excluded from the time (i think) if this is true, then Amtrak really needs to step up their game.
I believe that it is approximately 457 rail miles from Washington (Union Station) to Boston (South Station), i.e. 225 miles from Washington to New York and 232 miles from New York (Penn Station) to Boston.
Once again, it is important to get the facts.
1. The distance from Washington Union Station to Boston South Station is actually 458.6 miles (from a PRR timetable, Amtrak's doesn't show the distance).
2. Acela takes 6h 40 m, so the average speed, including the 11 intermediate stops) is 68.75 mph.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
edbenton Railman as someone that had to make a PU and Delivery one time in the DC area and Boston one time in my OTR days. Sorry I wish I could have put my BUTT on a train that day. It took me 10 hours to go from Alexandriea VA to Boston MA with a load of Buttwiper Beer. Never again I had massive traffic in the NYC area the NJ turnpike was a suicide drive every freking mile it seemed. Let alone the GW Bridge that day. So do not tell me it is a joke.
And no one hassled you about what was logged. NJ Turnpike, I wish they would restrict cars to the inner lanes Traffic on the George Washington Bridge and the Cross Bronx Expressway is always bad irregardless of the time of day. Lets see New England Thruway, Amtrak's and Metro Norths best advertisement, right next to the highway watch the trains fly by. Connecticut Turnpike, as bad as NJ or NY all the way to New Haven.(At least I can watch the trains fly by)
Travel by train and enjoy the ride. (or put in an Amtrak ad)
Also to Ed Benton did you ever look at the example of how to log on the back of JK Keller Logs?
Thx IGN
3. There are many stretches on the NEC where the speed limit is considerably less than 150 mph, although improvements are coming, so overall average speed should increase.
4. Perhaps some Acelas should make fewer stops. That would increase speed as well.
5. henry6 doesn't seem to place much value on speed, but the NE Regionals, with a lower top speed, take over 8 hours for the same run. (One hour and 15-20 minutes longer)
Schlimm! Schlimm! Schlimm! I do know the value of speed and appreciate it very much. I also know and understand the value of the price of speed. The statement and opening post of this thread underscores my concern: people don't know the definition of HSR, the value of HSR, and have no idea of what they expect from it. Railman seems to think that a 600 mile ride on a 150 mph railroad should be done in four hours, and a lot of other people believe that, too But that ain't what a 150 mph roadbed gives you. Terrain, curvature, clearances, grade crossings, number of trains, number of stops, and the list goes on are factors that have to work together or otherwise be dealt with. Is it worth the cost to go 150 MPH or 200 mph or 500 mph? Maybe, maybe not. If you have a 600 mile railroad but only 100 miles of track and only one spot of a continuous 20 miles segment could support 150 mph is it worth building the whole road and all the equipment when only 1/6 of the track will allow the full speed? If you can run a train end to end, a full 600 miles, at full 150 or 300 mph, are there enough people willing to ride every train to make the investment worth while? Or do you have to stop every so often to pick up or discharge passengers and cut the use of the full available track speed? What I am saying about speed is that it has to be measured against availability, practical usablity, and marketablity and not just have a speedway built for the sake of building a speedway. We've got to measure our expectations against our applications and know what we have to buy for what application and where it has to be or can be used. I'm not against speed, I just want to be sure we all know what we are talking about, what we want, what we expect, what is our return, and what we are prepared to pay for it.
schlimm Once again, it is important to get the facts. 1. The distance from Washington Union Station to Boston South Station is actually 458.6 miles (from a PRR timetable, Amtrak's doesn't show the distance). 2. Acela takes 6h 40 m, so the average speed, including the 11 intermediate stops) is 68.75 mph.
Depends on which schedule you are looking at. My 1953 PRR schedule shows 458.6 miles from Boston to New York. But Amtrak's current schedule for the Silver Service shows the distance from Boston to Washington as 456 miles, with 231 miles from South Station to New York. Importantly, the differences are immaterial. Whether the calculations are made on 458.6 miles or 456 miles or 457 miles the outcome is basically the same.
sam1: I wasn't disputing your numbers (I didn't see your post until after I had entered mine). Rather, it was the highly inaccurate figure from "Mr. Railman" in his rant about the Acela service.
henry6 Railman, you very effectively and pointedly define the problem with dealing with transprtation issues. Like most people, you don't fully understand the business of movement, now matter whether passenger or freight, no matter what the mode of transportation. A bus which tries to match a 60 mile per hour schedule often has to travel at speeds up to 80 or more to achieve that. A 30 mile drive to work on two lane roads and in traffic could take you up to an hour and a half, on a freeway at rush hour, at least 45 minutes. And a commuter train over a 35 mile trek with frequent starts and stops and dwell times can extend a 70 to 90 mph track to a two hour ride. You have also effecitively and pointedly define the folly of discussin HSR. We don't have a defnition only wild and wide eyed speeds hovering maybe as fast as 250 miles an hour but not comprehending what HSR really is or can be. Is it worth going 250 miles per hour with stops every 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 or whatever miles between stops? Is it efficienct and effective? Can a train actually achieve 250 mph between stations? at what cost? at what efficieny? Airlines have planes so big today they have to employ feeder lines not only because the plane won't fit on most of the runways but also because it costs too much to land and take off, uses too much fuel, Being able to go fast for the sake of going fast is not a good way to approach transportation. How long does it take you to drive from home to shopping? school or work? If its about one to three miles, it could be as long as 10 or 15 minutes which could mean 20 miles per hour at best while the speed limit is 30? 65? So Acela at 56.7 miles with acceleration, decelleration, station dwell time, actual time and milage to be able to do 150mph, is doing pretty good...find another train in the US that does 392 miles in 7 hours...and try driving the same Washington to Boston in that time in your car.
For a similar analysis from another time:
http://books.google.com/
[4/25/11: Edited to shorten URL]
Well now. You make valid point. Tell ya the truth, I just found this on a site from a Google Search.
narig01 edbenton: Railman as someone that had to make a PU and Delivery one time in the DC area and Boston one time in my OTR days. Sorry I wish I could have put my BUTT on a train that day. It took me 10 hours to go from Alexandriea VA to Boston MA with a load of Buttwiper Beer. Never again I had massive traffic in the NYC area the NJ turnpike was a suicide drive every freking mile it seemed. Let alone the GW Bridge that day. So do not tell me it is a joke. And no one hassled you about what was logged. NJ Turnpike, I wish they would restrict cars to the inner lanes Traffic on the George Washington Bridge and the Cross Bronx Expressway is always bad irregardless of the time of day. Lets see New England Thruway, Amtrak's and Metro Norths best advertisement, right next to the highway watch the trains fly by. Connecticut Turnpike, as bad as NJ or NY all the way to New Haven.(At least I can watch the trains fly by) Travel by train and enjoy the ride. (or put in an Amtrak ad) Also to Ed Benton did you ever look at the example of how to log on the back of JK Keller Logs? Thx IGN
edbenton: Railman as someone that had to make a PU and Delivery one time in the DC area and Boston one time in my OTR days. Sorry I wish I could have put my BUTT on a train that day. It took me 10 hours to go from Alexandriea VA to Boston MA with a load of Buttwiper Beer. Never again I had massive traffic in the NYC area the NJ turnpike was a suicide drive every freking mile it seemed. Let alone the GW Bridge that day. So do not tell me it is a joke.
Slight problem called an Electronic E log in that truck. Truck had a Black Box that when it was above a certain speed it showed Me Driving I was abale to stay above that speed that freaking day. Bossman was trying them out on certain trucks. I left the company very quickly after that. when I could show that I could have made it there on paper matching the tickets on the Pikes and Bridges in less than 7 hours however it took 10 hours of drive time to make it there.
The best part of 70mph as an average isn't too bad at all, maybe not brilliant, but actually over a non-dedicated track going through a series of major population centres (eg NYC and Philadelphia) which have complicated rail network and slow sections, most railways in Europe would be pretty pleased. Getting higher speeds from old track alignments costs a lot of money (everyone knows) and causes a lot of disruption (something many forget).
To get quicker there are two usual strategies
1. Speed up the slow bits (if you do the maths trains get much quicker when 20mph become 50mph than they do when 120mph becomes 150mph)
2. Build a new track round the slow bits.
You'll all know better than me whether speeding up Hell Gate Bridge to the Hudson Tunnels by 10mph is feasible; you'll know whether an extra 20mph on the approaches to 30th St Station is feasible. Because if you want to speed up the North East Corridor on its existing tracks that is what you'll have to do.If it is feasible the value can be high - a good, though slightly extreme example from the UK was turning Peterborough, a 20mph station not served by many trains (ie even the non-stop ones had to slow down) into a 100mph plus station was really good value.
PS - Assume US does not have detailed track maps with mileages easily available as per http://www.trackmaps.co.uk/shopimage/web_image_files/BK05-MAP16_web_image.jpg (part of a UK wide series) or the Schweers + Wall series on Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Italy and Slovenia as per http://www.schweers-wall.de/html/eisenbahnatlas.html. The latter's in German (and of course in kilometres) but the principle's the same..
Just for some historic perspective I looked into some old timetables to see how the classics of yesteryear would compare.
According to a 1965 New York Central tt, the Twentieth Century Limited ran from New York to Chicago in 16 hours flat. The distance was 960.7 miles, averaging 60 mph.. Pennsy's Broadway Limited ran on the same schedule, but having a slightly shorter route (907.7 miles) its average speed was 56.73 mph. That is pretty good performance. Even though the Acela is faster, the difference isn't a quantum leap in speed.
Then there was the more leisurely Erie Limited, running its 998.7 miles in 23 hrs, 25 min. With all its station stops and a top speed of 70, it managed an average of 42.7 mph. Again, not bad.
You are all proving the perceptions vs the realities of speed mean HSR is an illusion, a dream, a political buzz word unless expectations are stated and actual results calculated. Again, I am not opposed to speed, but warn that we must understand what it really is and what it really will do and what it will really cost agains expectations and executions.
As for speeding up the Hell Gate Bridge Route...I am sure the track speed is ok but comeing down off the bridge into an interlocking with the LIRR and Sunnyside Yard leads, then into the East River tunnel, means speeds aren't going to be picke up much if at all.
The Boston to Washington time and average speed don't really mean that much - not much ridership on that OD pair. The train really serves two markets: NYC south and NYC to Boston. The train's market share in these markets shows that it's a formidable competitor to the available alternatives.
Wanna make it better? Have $117B laying around you don't know what to do with? That's the price tag for a new, HSR NEC that Amtrak is proposing. That's "only" $390 for every man, woman and child in the US...
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
"+1" to Don's post above - couldn't have said it better myself - both paragraphs, too !
It would be interesting to see a list of running time improvement projects for/ from the existing NorthEast Corridor's alignment and location, ranked in order of the most time gained per $ - or more accurately, $Million or even $Billion - involved. Such a list much already exist someplace . . .
- Paul North.
The discussion of Acela here, coupled with the concept of HSR, and the complains elsewhere about the slowness of the internet (problems aside) I find all of the same ilk: speed today vs whatever yesterday. On land 200 -300 years ago, a walk was the way to travel with a trotting horse or oxen a wee bit better; riding the waters with the current was fast until the train came along; then the automobile allowed everyone a 15 mph clip while the iron horse and the car grew to speeds close to 100 mph; the commercial airplane flew in in excess of 100 mph to several hundreds of miles per hour. So we look for ways to trim minutes and second from a trip. Likewise, that walk of two to three hundreds of years ago carried the mails which had replaced the likes of smoke signals and drums...how long did it take the cannon to relay the marking of the opening of the Erie Canal?...and gave way to the stage coaches and the pony express; this was followed by the telegraph, the telephone, radio/tv, internet, which meant you could type a message push send and within seconds we are communicating huge amounts of information around the world. And now we are mincing minute fractions of seconds to the point we virtually expect a reply the microsecond we push send. We have to slow down and look at what speed is, what it can and does accomplish, and both the cost and price against the return. How impatient I am to push "post" but less so to receive the rebukes.
It's all known as progress. There is an continual acceleration of change as time passes. The reality is that few people (outside of these forums) would regard a real rail service that can cut the time between major metro areas to under 4 hours for a distance of 400 miles as a fantasy. Such a service is more than competitive with air and takes pressure off the roads. But I guess there are some who prefer to slow down.
Paul_D_North_Jr "+1" to Don's post above - couldn't have said it better myself - both paragraphs, too ! It would be interesting to see a list of running time improvement projects for/ from the existing NorthEast Corridor's alignment and location, ranked in order of the most time gained per $ - or more accurately, $Million or even $Billion - involved. Such a list much already exist someplace . . . - Paul North.
Amtrak does not directly provide those figures however under the Amtrak reports the NEC improvement plan lists both costs and minutes saved. Maybe some one will do the math.
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&p=1237608345018&cid=1241245669222
However I would like to see these figures go a step further. Why not passenger minutes saved per dollar spent? If I spend $10M to gain 10 minutes for just one train instead of 10 trains which is the better money spent? The Amtrak request to upgrade the NEC from the west portal of the north river tunnels to south of Trenton appears to follow my premise? something like 13 minutes savings for a heck of alot of passengers including all the NJ Transit commuters into NYP.
Several restrictions.
1. Not everyone is going to travel the whole distance.
2. How do you factor in the additional passengers attracted?
3. There would be a need to have number of passengers for each trip leg.
The need to upgrade the slow orders more than gaining top speed is paramount IMHO. Slow orders also waste energy speeding up and slowing down.
One observation: In Europe the station throats are usually much higher speeds than here in the USA. Someone mentioned a station in the UK as an example. Again very well spent money? Getting in and out of the station seems like a no-brainer?
It is a matter of time saved not speed that comes in at the end of the dday.
Got to run.
It was me that mentioned station throats - and the Peterborough example illustrates a good few points.
1. Clearing the track and having a high speed through service for non-stop trains is a good thing esp if many trains don't actually stop at the station, as was the case before at Peterbrough which in the 1970s was a relatively small city employing people locally
2. This is less of a good idea when most trains stop at the station. Peterbrough's high speed commuter service to London (created by the high speed trains to London) meant that more trains needed to stop, at which point the through lines were less useful.
3. You have to design the station and signalling correclty. Peterbrough suffers from trains having to slow down for the turnouts to and from the platforms.
4. You could have platforms on the fast tracks, though then you need to be careful to make sure passengers keep back from high speed trains passing
5. Modern trains accelerate and decelerate pretty quickly now, so even if all trains stop the exit (esp) speeds from platforms through turnouts need to reflect this.
6.Cab signalling is the ultimate solution - eg Lille in France where trains head through at 140mph (or so) and others stop at the platforms without too much extra slow running. The cab-signalling makes sure the train heading for the platform turnout slows down (and the brakes go on if the speed exceeds the limit).
Mr. Railman:
How about if you and I start at a hotel in lower Manhattan with two suit cases each. We will leave at the same time and meet at a hotel in down town DC. You fly and I'll travel by Amtrak.
We will then see who gets there first, and who spent the most money. Be sure to count all the point to point transportation, such as rental cars, buses or taxis and all bag fees. Include in the time, all the time spent standing in line at the airport to get strip searched and waiting for your bags.
THEN you can tell us whether or not train travel is a joke.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Cricketer It was me that mentioned station throats - and the Peterborough example illustrates a good few points. 1. Clearing the track and having a high speed through service for non-stop trains is a good thing esp if many trains don't actually stop at the station, as was the case before at Peterbrough which in the 1970s was a relatively small city employing people locally 4. You could have platforms on the fast tracks, though then you need to be careful to make sure passengers keep back from high speed trains passing
If the fast tracks are straight thru with no platform then speed is no problem. A double track HSR can have 80 MPH turn outs in and out of the platforms to allow for slowiing, stopping, and acceleraation. That IMHO is the best way to design any staation whether HSR or conventional rail. No worring about passengers being run over and freight trains not clearing the platform + a fence can isolate station track from main track. This how JPB's OaklaND cOLLISELIUM STATION FOR aMTRAK IS CONSTRUCTED.
Phoebe Vet Mr. Railman: How about if you and I start at a hotel in lower Manhattan with two suit cases each. We will leave at the same time and meet at a hotel in down town DC. You fly and I'll travel by Amtrak. We will then see who gets there first, and who spent the most money. Be sure to count all the point to point transportation, such as rental cars, buses or taxis and all bag fees. Include in the time, all the time spent standing in line at the airport to get strip searched and waiting for your bags. THEN you can tell us whether or not train travel is a joke.
Sounds like a good segment for "The Great Race" although I would not bet on the guy who is flying.
Johnny
There is also a milage difference between Newark and NY...acutal PRR milage was from Exchange Pl. Jersey City. (MP0) to Philadelphia. NYP is MP0 and is calculated only as far as where it intersects or joins the old main line. There is a lot of trackage in the railroad system where lines overlapped onto or used portions of lines mixing up or changing mile post designations...Erie from Harriman to Howels via Middletown or via Campbell Hall had two different milages thun NJT's Port Jervis trains change milages; Denville on the former DL&W has two different milages from Hoboken because the Boonton Line was about 2 miles longer...but the Boonton Line MP is actually wrong today because of the change from DL&W to Erie Greenwood Lake Div with mileposts from JC instead of Hoboken and now tripping across to the former DL&W Montclair Line. which...well, you get my drift. There are literally thousand of misapllied milages because of situations like the above because of abandonmdents, mergers, and other route changes.
Perhaps I should have looked this up before posting my previous post.
Here are numbers from the Amtrak timetable, giving a total distance of 225.2 miles from Penn Station to Washington Union Station:
0.0
New York Penn
8.6
Hudson
7.1
89.2
West Philadelphia
1.5
136.0
Washington
So, the Pennsy charged through passengers for three miles they did not travel–and still went broke.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.