henry6 The Northeast Corridor trackage is about 49.48% commuter and 49.49% Amtrak. Although there is freight useage it is so minimal at this time it is almost negligable.
The Northeast Corridor trackage is about 49.48% commuter and 49.49% Amtrak. Although there is freight useage it is so minimal at this time it is almost negligable.
Not between Davis and Bayview, it isn't!
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
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.
Maglev Our nations's ability to deliver high-quality passenger transportation is only limited by our attitude, not curves or power sources. Q:"Who on this planet is operating turbos? Why?" A: All the airlines, because they are lightweight and reliable. There has been no improvement in NEC express service because we have a bad attitude about an aging train with an ugly name. In comparison, Japan had 180 two-coach sets for opening day of the Tokyo - Osaka Shinkansen on October 1, 1964; by 1977, there were 2,352. The condition of the NEC is shameful.
Our nations's ability to deliver high-quality passenger transportation is only limited by our attitude, not curves or power sources.
Q:"Who on this planet is operating turbos? Why?"
A: All the airlines, because they are lightweight and reliable.
There has been no improvement in NEC express service because we have a bad attitude about an aging train with an ugly name. In comparison, Japan had 180 two-coach sets for opening day of the Tokyo - Osaka Shinkansen on October 1, 1964; by 1977, there were 2,352. The condition of the NEC is shameful.
The ability to deliver high speed rail in this country is more a function of the money our representatives in governement are willing to spend. It don't come cheap, or even moderately expensive.
The airlines use turbines as a thrust engine, not a torque engine, and run for long periods at near the maximum RPM. Not feasable for railroad operation. And can you imagine being in the lower level of GCT when a turbine engine comes in. I worked 20 years on the flight line at McGuire AFB, and you wear ear protection ALL the time. And that was outside where the sound didn't echo as much.
Unlike European or Japanese passenger runs, the North East Corridor shares the track with freight trains, even though most of the mileage is owned by Amtrak or commuter agencies. Not a suituation that's conducive to true HSR, or one that's likely to end soon.
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
Question : Who on this planet is operating turbines now?? If so why? If not why?
Paul Milenkoovic:
When the original RTL's were upgraded with a Turmo 12 (1608 HP) replacing the Turmo III (1139 hp) on one power car and leaving the Turmo 3 on the other Power Car, the intent was to use both turbines for acceleration and then shut the smaller one down. This kept the Turmo 12 at or about full power and so improved fuel consumption. Tests confirmed that this was viable on the Albany-NYC service. Typically, the enginemen were nervous about restarting the Turmo III so it was left at idle. Not as good as planned but still an improvement. Thermal cycling must always be considered but this can be managed. The RTL III's have a TM1200 (1608 hp) in each power car, either of which can handle the train by itself. Both can be used to accelerate if desired, particularly if you are reaching for speeds above 125 mph.
I'm all for recuperation but it would be better to use it on both turbines to equalize the service times. As I have mentioned previously, a recuperated TM1600 was developed to direct drive a 2000 kw permanent magnet alternator. It's specific fuel consumption matched a good diesel over the useful speed range. Unfortunately, the builder chose to get out of the industrial turbine business.
Honeywell also did a paper study of recuperating the 5000 hp TF50. This showed similar results. Makes you mouth water.
Jerry pier
al-in-chgo I guess this is close enough to be on-topic: Does the Acela actually "tilt" when it goes around curves? Like the Pendolino or like the Swedish prototype, for lack of the exact specs Acela's "grandfather"? I know the curves impose their own speed limitation but any tilting would tend to speed up the schedule at least a little, wouldn't it? And reduce the passengers' attempts to steer the train with the muscles of their diaphragm?
I guess this is close enough to be on-topic: Does the Acela actually "tilt" when it goes around curves? Like the Pendolino or like the Swedish prototype, for lack of the exact specs Acela's "grandfather"?
I know the curves impose their own speed limitation but any tilting would tend to speed up the schedule at least a little, wouldn't it? And reduce the passengers' attempts to steer the train with the muscles of their diaphragm?
On my journey, the tray tables were defective, letting food and beverages slide into our laps. If these trains were the "prototypes" for a new fleet, that would be okay... but we ordered no more, the plant has closed and all the skilled workers are dispersed.
Jerry Pier oltmanned The Turboliners are double ended. To reverse, the crew just moves from one end to the other. This happens twice on every Schenecady-Penn Station trip Running through to WDC would be no problem operationally but it would require more equipment or a reduction in frequency. The oother problem is that the RTL's, without the catenary speed restriction would probably beat the Acela, a definite no-no. The piece of track between Princeton Jubction and Brunswick used to be good for 160 mph. The RTLIII's could zip along rhere at 125-140 mph. Jerry Pier
oltmanned
The Turboliners are double ended. To reverse, the crew just moves from one end to the other. This happens twice on every Schenecady-Penn Station trip
Running through to WDC would be no problem operationally but it would require more equipment or a reduction in frequency. The oother problem is that the RTL's, without the catenary speed restriction would probably beat the Acela, a definite no-no.
The piece of track between Princeton Jubction and Brunswick used to be good for 160 mph. The RTLIII's could zip along rhere at 125-140 mph.
Jerry Pier
That's how I remember them running in and out of GCT and it's how the Keystone trains must be configured, too. They had 1/2 the seats facing each way. Looks like they don't do this with the Acela. All the pix I can find show all the seats facing one way - they must turn the trains at each end of the run. It would be a pain to have to spin them all, but maybe they do this. Anybody know? Having to turn the trains would be a real headache in NYP and DC acc't the congestion in the East River tunnel and Union Station throat. They must have to turn the Empire trains at Sunnyside now.
For a company that's screaming about equipment shortages, not getting thoses RTLs back running is a criminal waste.
Much as I think that turbines are cool, I am not so sure that turbines would beat electrics on end-to-end schedule keeping, certaining not for limited express trains making intermediate stops and perhaps not even for express trains.
Apart from the arguments of electrics vs motor trains and Global Warming and where-do-you-get-the-fuel-for-electricity, the one advantage of electrics is nearly limitless torque and HP.
Turbines, on the other hand, may not be HP limited on account of weight -- you can get lots of power in a small and relatively lightweight package. They are limited in terms of HP rating so as to not have outrageous part-load fuel consumption. The proposal to use regenerators or recuperators mitigates this effect some at the expense of increased weight and increased package size.
In railroad applications, your "cruise" HP requirements are small compared to what you could use if you could have it for acceleration to restore speed after stops or after slowing for speed restricted zones. The is kind of the opposite of the helicopter or perhaps even ship application where close to max power is required at your cruise speed. Jet airliners, on the other hand, have a takeoff thrust requirement that is multiples of cruise power, much like trains, but jets climb into the thin air at high altitudes to naturally reduce the power output of the engines without throttling them to reduce efficiency.
Again, in the railroad application you can mitigate these in several ways. One is using turbines on lightweight but high speed trains so that the cruise power is a higher fraction of max power. This is one way in that the United Aircraft TurboTrain had an advantage because it used aircraft-style aluminum construction to get lighter weight than most other trains. Having track speed restrictions works against efficiency here, so perhaps the best use of the TurboTrain would have been to run it flat out between NYC and WDC instead of on the speed-restricted NYC-BOS run.
Another way is turning turbines on and off as needed. The RTG/RTL's used a pair of turbines, one in each power car, and at "cruise", one turbine was reduced to idle. Apparently this type of "hot standby" of one turbine used less fuel that keeping both turbines at reduced load, and I am guessing that idling the one turbine was better than simply shutting it off and restarting it -- perhaps because of thermal cycling, perhaps for the convenience of not waiting the full 90 secons to restart it.
On the other hand, why could a turbine not be shut down in cruise, and the crew could push a button to restart that turbine when pulling into a station stop so the turbine would be ready to go at the schedules departure time. One can readily anticipate restarting a turbine 90 seconds in advance of wanting to leave.
Maybe the thing to do (I am sure Jerry has thought of this or proposed it at one time or another) would be to put the regenerator on one of the turbines, to give it max flexibility in power level, and put the second turbine into a start-stop mode. Has anyone thought of a kind of hot standby where the turbine is spinning at a rate below a self-sustained idle, but the turbine blades are kept at temperature to reduce the stresses of thermal cycles?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
I'll admit that I have not read every post in this thread, but might there be a marketing problem? Let's start with the name...
My suggestion for a much-needed revival is Metroliner !!! I feel ashamed to even type that other name being used for NEC express trains. It sounds like a body part upon which I am sitting... the place where you put a furnace... it might actually be able to "accelerate," but so what? 70 mph schedule times is sad... it is not "excellent," the first-class accommodations are mediocre...
CSSHEGEWISCHNote that both the FL9's and the P32's operate as straight electrics only when they aren't in the open air.
Actually that was an operating decision (schedule) because at the time they were designed those units could only take 600V dc and apply it to the traction motors. .. The Dual mode DC units LIRR has also have that deficiency. Todays DC Traction motors use a higher voltage now so you cannot get enough power (slower acceleration and top speed) to the traction motors using third rail 600V. Those locomotives switch to the higher voltages from the locomotive alternator as soon as possible.
AC traction dual or tri-mode mode locomotives.. AC traction locomotive systems can take any voltage (DC from third rail, DC from an alternator, or DC from a transformer rectifier) in and run that DC through the inverters and get any voltage and frequency out. Note: THOSE Inverters are one of the big additional costs of AC traction over DC. Do any of you in the power industry know if those costs are decreasing? Today's EMD and GE use different designs with EMD using two inverters and GE 6 smaller ones. Inverters and AC motors are very reliable so dispatch reliability is improved.
The Dual mode locos mentioned above that NJ Transit is going to buy probably cost alot because 6700HP (max 5300 when full HEP applied) on 4 (?) axels may require the design of new inverters and maybe AC traction motors. Imediately rectifying the AC before any locomotive use enables use of 25Hz or 60Hz with only a transformer tap for each voltage. i.e. if it was 12.5V 25Hz or 60Hz no other item in the loco would be needed
Note: Two Catepillar prime movers 2250HP each. Max speed 100MPH. Max speed from wires 125 MPH. Two inverters.
Sunnyland They've been discussing high speed rail between St. Louis and Chicago for years and nothing has been done. Of course, Amtrak doesn't own the rails out this way and getting the host RR's to sign off on it is no doubt a problem.
They've been discussing high speed rail between St. Louis and Chicago for years and nothing has been done. Of course, Amtrak doesn't own the rails out this way and getting the host RR's to sign
off on it is no doubt a problem.
Al - in - Stockton
Jerry Pier Amtrak has an aversioin to gas turbines so if anyone ever suggested such a thing, continuity of employment would involved. A dual mode with catenary and gas turbine electric capability would increase locomotive weight by the turbine alternator unit and the fuel tanks. A scheme some of us thought of was to have a gas turbine electric (no pantograph) in trail from Boston to Penn Station and then use gas turbine power in the lead from Penn Station to WDC (letting the trailing electic locomotive push the train until exiting the tunnels). This would get around the performance limiting antique 25 Htz catenary and gain both time and reliability.The Bombardier Jet Train is ideally suited to the gas turbine task. The Acela's are over-powered anyway so it sounds like a winner, at least to me. . A number of years ago, FRA estimated that replacing the 25 Htz system would cost at least 1 Billion dollars and upgrading the 60 Htz section from New Haven to Penn Station would cost a similar amount. This isn't a very sexy program so funding could be hard to find. The dual mode solution could be quicker and less costly
Amtrak has an aversioin to gas turbines so if anyone ever suggested such a thing, continuity of employment would involved. A dual mode with catenary and gas turbine electric capability would increase locomotive weight by the turbine alternator unit and the fuel tanks. A scheme some of us thought of was to have a gas turbine electric (no pantograph) in trail from Boston to Penn Station and then use gas turbine power in the lead from Penn Station to WDC (letting the trailing electic locomotive push the train until exiting the tunnels). This would get around the performance limiting antique 25 Htz catenary and gain both time and reliability.The Bombardier Jet Train is ideally suited to the gas turbine task. The Acela's are over-powered anyway so it sounds like a winner, at least to me. .
A number of years ago, FRA estimated that replacing the 25 Htz system would cost at least 1 Billion dollars and upgrading the 60 Htz section from New Haven to Penn Station would cost a similar amount. This isn't a very sexy program so funding could be hard to find. The dual mode solution could be quicker and less costly
What made me think of that is that supposedly back in the 90's GE made a presentation to Amtrak (and possibly some of the transit agencies) of a P32 Dual Mode unit with a pantograph rather than third rail shoes..there were, of course, no takers...New Jersey is in the process of designing some dual mode units with Pantographs;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALP-45DP
I see your point about the weight issue..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
henry6 Yes, the third rail does extend through the Hudson River Tunnel but barely. But aside from that, why run Rhor's to NYP where they have to reverse to go to D.C. Why not Albany to NJ via the River Line to the Corridor? There would be a need to probably double track the River Line, but it was back in NYC days anyway, so the space is there with a few exceptions. Such a service could serve the upcoming Stewart's Air Field in Newburgh, NY as well as the rest of the west bank of the Hudson, avoid NYC and NYP using Newark, NJ as the NYC area stop while not having to reverse direction. It might be an interesting marketing opportunity for Amtrak as well as helping CSX, Amtrak, NJT, the states of NY and NJ and the Port Authority with some of thier capacity problems along the way!
Yes, the third rail does extend through the Hudson River Tunnel but barely. But aside from that, why run Rhor's to NYP where they have to reverse to go to D.C. Why not Albany to NJ via the River Line to the Corridor? There would be a need to probably double track the River Line, but it was back in NYC days anyway, so the space is there with a few exceptions. Such a service could serve the upcoming Stewart's Air Field in Newburgh, NY as well as the rest of the west bank of the Hudson, avoid NYC and NYP using Newark, NJ as the NYC area stop while not having to reverse direction. It might be an interesting marketing opportunity for Amtrak as well as helping CSX, Amtrak, NJT, the states of NY and NJ and the Port Authority with some of thier capacity problems along the way!
Even double tracked, the River Line would be SLOOOWWW! There still is too much freight, even if double tracked, to snake passenger trains through and around. And, I don't think the alignment is nearly as good as the Hudson Line. Also, Newburgh not withstanding, the bulk of the population south of Albany is on the eastern shore of the Hudson.
I was thinking the market wasn't so much Capitol District to the NEC south, but NEC south to the Westchester and Duchess Co. area.
Your proposal would work OK for new service - Newburgh to Hoboken commuter service might be a good thing! But I was thinking about re-arranging existing service - same trains on each route, just dovetail them and run thru.
I was alway intrigued by the idea of running the Rohr Turbos from DC to Albany, running on 3rd rail under the Hudson. I have no idea if the 3rd rail is still in place in the tubes. It was there originally when the DD1s did their thing and apparently was still in place in the late 50's when the PRR did a test trip from NYP down the NY&LB with FL9s.
I thought it would be nice, natrual market extension to dovetail some of the DC to NYP trains with the NYP to Albany-Rensselaer trains.
As for a true dual mode, the advent of AC traction makes that much more practical than with DC traction. It seems to me that having either a transformer or a gas turbine/generator feed a DC buss is a much simpler thing than having the primary propulsion control system act on transformer tap switches or generator excitation directly.
Discussions in various other threads have long suggested that dual-mode isn't all that it's cracked up to be. Note that both the FL9's and the P32's operate as straight electrics only when they aren't in the open air. LIRR experimented with dual-mode gas-turbine electric MU cars in the early 1970's and they were all converted to straight electrics after a while.
I haven't found any old ridership numbers other than overall ones. My recollection from riding in the 70s and 80s is that pre-Amfleet trains ran about 8 cars of 60 seat coaches and post-Amfleet ran 8 or 9 cars (same as now) of 80 seat coaches. The Boston to NYP load factor was roughly 50% on the trains I rode. The trains filled up at NYP, generally. Fares, from the early 70s to now have outstripped inflation by a good bit, too.
Jerry (and all),
I'm curious if Amtrak ever considered dual mode turbo/electric trainsets? O.C I'm aware that the United Aircraft turbotrains (and possibly the later trainsets?) could operate on 3rd rail power into Grand Central but what about Turbine plus pantograph? That way the trainsets could operate the length of the corridor..
Answering your questions in order:
1. The trains tested were an F40 Locomotive with Amfleet coaches, Talgo passive tilt, LRC active tilt, RTG II Turboliners and RTL Turboliners. Tests were run at cant deficiencies of 4, 6 and 8 inches for all trains. (See note below)The LRC was also run at 9” cant deficiency Test runs were from Boston to New Haven.
2. Results show all trains can run at cant deficiencies above the FRA 3 inch limit (In Europe, 125 mph trains run at 6 inches of cant deficiency without passenger complaint.) The LRC successfully eliminates lateral accelerations on long curves but the Talgo performed better on entrance and exit from curves. Of the trains without tilt, Amfleet and RTL were equal but the RTG was significantly poorer.
3. Acela uses an upgrade of the LRC tilt system. In that the tests showed that passenger comfort did not suffer particularly at cant efficiencies up to 7 inches, changing the clearances for high tilt would not likely improve the schedule
Note.
Cant deficiency is measured as the inches of tilt above the super-elevation of the track. It has everything to do with comfort and nothing to do with safety. If nothing but high speed passenger trains were running on the line, super-elevations (banking) could be increased, obviating the need for tilt, The joint use of the route for freight trains defines the super elevation
To the best of my knowledge, the practice is to use the tilt system only if it is active on all cars, Reliability on a per car basis is 99% but in a 10 car trains this amounts to a 10% failure rate so a schedule based on tilt performance would only be met 90% of the time or, put another way, one train out of ten would be late.
RE: The impediments to a true HSR route on the NEC is the fact that route was laid out in the 19th century by surveyors on horseback who could barely comprehend speeds of 40 MPH let alone 200 MPH. For the job they were asked to do, they did it very well, for the job that we want to call HSR it was done not at all.
You might be surprized. I have a copy of the original NEC plan from Amtrak which shows consistant and surprisingly high speeds between Boston and New Haven.
RE: The thrid track in Rhode Island was so the P&W could run daylight freight service to Quanset Point Industrial Park without getting in the way of Passenger service.
Right, to keep them out of the way of the Acela which according to this plan travels between Providence and Davisville at 80 - 150 MPH (except for a very short 65 MPH curve just before the Cranston crossovers).
RE: The bridge at New London was old and tired, it still leads to a reverse curve at the ferry dock and raillroad station with very low approch speeds.
The listed speed over the Thames River Bridge is 65 MPH! The curve is 50 MPH and the station is listed at 35 MPH.
RE: From Westerly Rohde Island through New London is the series of Grade Crossings that require speed restrictions (and yet an Acela still hit a car killing 3 people).
The plan shows 70 - 90 MPH through the crossings in Connecticut and 110 MPH is the maximum speed allowable for a public grade crossing. Didn't that accident happen at the grade crossings west of New London? Miner's Lane (aka East Neck Road)? That's not a very high speed section and I believe it has four quadrant gates. I have to say some people just do stupid things when it comes to grade crossings. Anyway all NEC grade crossings are under the allowable 110 MPH speed restriction.
Again, to travel 3 hours between Boston and New York you would need to average 76.33 miles per hour based on 229 miles which this plan shows (for some reason it's listed at 231 miles in Amtrak's schedule). Most speeds on this plan are well over that and a few very short stretches (e.g., curves and stations) are listed at under 76 MPH.
oltmannd The amazing thing to me is the number of trains being operated on the north end of the NEC. Early Amtrak, there were perhaps a dozen each way. Now there are 10 departures from Boston before lunch alone.
The amazing thing to me is the number of trains being operated on the north end of the NEC. Early Amtrak, there were perhaps a dozen each way. Now there are 10 departures from Boston before lunch alone.
Tiesenhausen Sam1 In 1955 The Senator was carded for 2 hours and 43 minutes from Boston to New Haven, with 4 hours and 20 minutes from Boston to New York. Of course, in 1955 the train would have been in the hands of the New Haven from Boston to New York. Earlier, the current schedule was stated as 3 hours 40 minutes from NY to Boston. So, in 54 years the schedule is better by 40 minutes, or about a 15% improvement. Not too bad. Or maybe the parameters of the debate haven't been set out clearly. Evidently, there was some hype when the project was announced: 3 hours between Boston and New York. Is the critical argument that 3 hours is practical, but not attained because of Amtrak stupidity, or is it simply the contrast between dream and reality? Do I remember that the original 3-1/2 hour Acela schedule was an express that turned out not to be as popular as multi-stop trains?
Sam1 In 1955 The Senator was carded for 2 hours and 43 minutes from Boston to New Haven, with 4 hours and 20 minutes from Boston to New York. Of course, in 1955 the train would have been in the hands of the New Haven from Boston to New York.
In 1955 The Senator was carded for 2 hours and 43 minutes from Boston to New Haven, with 4 hours and 20 minutes from Boston to New York. Of course, in 1955 the train would have been in the hands of the New Haven from Boston to New York.
Earlier, the current schedule was stated as 3 hours 40 minutes from NY to Boston. So, in 54 years the schedule is better by 40 minutes, or about a 15% improvement. Not too bad. Or maybe the parameters of the debate haven't been set out clearly.
Evidently, there was some hype when the project was announced: 3 hours between Boston and New York. Is the critical argument that 3 hours is practical, but not attained because of Amtrak stupidity, or is it simply the contrast between dream and reality? Do I remember that the original 3-1/2 hour Acela schedule was an express that turned out not to be as popular as multi-stop trains?
The current timetable has the southbound Acela schedule from South Sta to NYP at 3:30 or 3:35 for most trains. The northbound trains appear to have an additional 7 minutes of padding.
DMUinCT Where the money is needed would be to raise the speed restriction south of New York. The replacement of the 70 year old PRR Catenary and the replacement of defective ties throughout the Corridor.
Where the money is needed would be to raise the speed restriction south of New York. The replacement of the 70 year old PRR Catenary and the replacement of defective ties throughout the Corridor.
If I were on the Congressional committee considering authorizing money for the cat upgrade and the tie project, I would be asking precisely what run time reductions will occur if these items are accomplished, on what kind of a timetable, and who in Amtrak management is going to be held responsible should those targets be missed.
If I was having a bad day, I might point out that the tie project is necessary because Amtrak did not have sufficient quality control measures in place to prevent the installation of defective ties the last time we paid for that.
The impediments to a true HSR route on the NEC is the fact that route was laid out in the 19th century by surveyors on horseback who could barely comprehend speeds of 40 MPH let alone 200 MPH. For the job they were asked to do, they did it very well, for the job that we want to call HSR it was done not at all.
As I am sure many of us have discovered over the years in our own lives....it costs many times more to retrofit something to a 'new or enhanced' purpose than it would have cost to design the item to the purpose on initial construction. Anything and everything that is done to the NEC is a retrofit. To straightne the curvy alignment for true HSR service would cost into the tens of billions, both for land aquisition and construction. Don't forget, for the most part civilization has built upto the property lines of the existing route, any change of alignment will require land aquisition....maybe, with all the motgage defaults and reduced real estate prices, now would be the time to begin a land aquisition project.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.