HarveyK400While high-capacity double-deck cars may be more efficient and desirable on some NEC runs, wouldn't single-level cars allow additional trains that are more than half full, a decent load, for more frequent services or serve new markets such as Norfolk, Roanoke, Delmar Peninsula, Eastern Pensylvania, Long Island, or Cape Cod?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
HarveyK400If all NEC trains are reserved, then I have to wonder what the numbers are of refused or diverted reservation requests by train.oltmannd ...There are few Amtrak standees because Amtrak service on the NEC is all reserved.
If all NEC trains are reserved, then I have to wonder what the numbers are of refused or diverted reservation requests by train.
oltmannd ...There are few Amtrak standees because Amtrak service on the NEC is all reserved.
...There are few Amtrak standees because Amtrak service on the NEC is all reserved.
schlimmFrom what I've read, they share much engineering as well as a similar appearance. And we are not talking only about ride, but the ambiance. Not very pleasant to be confined to one.
From what I've read, they share much engineering as well as a similar appearance. And we are not talking only about ride, but the ambiance. Not very pleasant to be confined to one.
oltmanndHarveyK400Why should the NEC get new equipment because it better suits the needs of the service while the Midwest and elsewhere are obliged to accept less-than-appropriate hand-me-downs just because they are "serviceable? Because it is, overall, a more optimum solution and better use of taxpayer money. The combined traffic into Penn Sta and Union Sta have outgrown their design. The only way to keep up with the growth without spending billions for new and/or expanded stations (which might happen anyway) is to shoe-horn more people into the trains. The commuter agencies have already gone to bi-levels at both locations. There are few Amtrak standees because Amtrak service on the NEC is all reserved. Amfleet held down Metroliner service for over 20 years at 125 mph quite nicely. There is nothing wrong with rebuilt Amfleet. Have you ridden a fresh, Amfleet Capstone car? Hardly a "hand me down"!
HarveyK400Why should the NEC get new equipment because it better suits the needs of the service while the Midwest and elsewhere are obliged to accept less-than-appropriate hand-me-downs just because they are "serviceable?
Oltmannd: Your reference to passenger capacity per train ft is a very good example of what is needed. The new equipment is needed now. For example one regular MARC southbound this morning filled up at BWI and an extra section had to be sent out from BAL to pick up passengers at BWI and points south. I do not know if the full train was a bi-level or singl level cars. I do know that MARC does not have enough bi-levels to run all Penn line trains bi-level.
To answer HarveyK400. NYP has only one track that can park a 14 car train and several that can park a 13 car train including one motor. The WASH union station tracks have capacitys of 12 - 15 cars because PRR extended WASH concourse by taking 2-1/2 car lengths from every track on the upper level. The lower level has much longer platforms and that was why in the late 40 - 60s ACL, SAL, C&O, SOU all had additional cars added in WASH for their trains south. SOU Cresent would sometimes add 6 cars.
Oltmannd - agree that the extension of platforms will be very expensive. You did omitt BAL which is not very long either. Do not know Metropark, Wilmington, DE, New Carrolton, BWI, Aberdeen...--. Newark, PHL both over 20 cars. Trenton 18+ ?. The lengthning of platforms vs additional tracks (PHL - WASH 4 track) including more platforms for those tracks will take a very sharp pencil to compare construction costs. Many French TGV station platforms have been lengthened to 20 cars plus 4 power cars.(allows 2 complete TGV sets to be coupled together and operated as one train.
The ride on Capstone Amfleet cars is very comfortable had to know that they were rebuilds -- other Passengers thought them new and and didn't break their bubble. They are rated at 135MPH but run at 125 however if any heritage cars train limited to 110MPH.
60
blue streak 1Oltmannd - agree that the extension of platforms will be very expensive. You did omitt BAL which is not very long either. Do not know Metropark, Wilmington, DE, New Carrolton, BWI, Aberdeen...--. Newark, PHL both over 20 cars. Trenton 18+ ?. The lengthning of platforms vs additional tracks (PHL - WASH 4 track) including more platforms for those tracks will take a very sharp pencil to compare construction costs.
My understanding is that a push-pull Amfleet 10-car train with 2 "motors" would fit the major NEC station platforms and provide zippy service. If demand exceeded that capacity (600+), a second section or additional frequency (1/2 hr?) would need at least 6 cars dividing the load and remaining fairly profitable (400+). I don't deny that some bi-levels are warranted; but wholesale replacement of Amfleet on the NEC doesn't seem to be a sound investment.
The corridor is not overly taxed outside of the Hudson and East River tunnels; and even there, the problem is the coinciding suburban and intercity PM crunch that may affect only 4 weekday Regional trains running hourly. These are supplemented by hourly Acela and Keystone services. Would there be a slot for a half-hour Regional? Worst case is only three or four trains of bi-levels (~40 cars) may be needed, each train having about 900 seats.
Three tracks are needed at Penn Stration for the close Acela, Keystone, and Regional (#173 from Boston) departures beginning at 4:00pm. For most of each hour these tracks would seem to be unoccupied. The weekday Regional departures at 4:25pm (#129) and 5:39pm (#193) could use the same platform as the preceding Acelas; but the 6:20pm (#137 from Boston) would need to arrive at 6:05pm after the Acela departed. The Keystones would need a separate track. One question I have is how long are these trains and their morning counterparts? I didn't look at the morning schedule to see what goes on then; but Penn Station seems to have enough tracks for half-hour service.
HarveyK400My understanding is that a push-pull Amfleet 10-car train with 2 "motors" would fit the major NEC station platforms and provide zippy service. If demand exceeded that capacity (600+), a second section or additional frequency (1/2 hr?) would need at least 6 cars dividing the load and remaining fairly profitable (400+). I don't deny that some bi-levels are warranted; but wholesale replacement of Amfleet on the NEC doesn't seem to be a sound investment. The corridor is not overly taxed outside of the Hudson and East River tunnels; and even there, the problem is the coinciding suburban and intercity PM crunch that may affect only 4 weekday Regional trains running hourly. These are supplemented by hourly Acela and Keystone services. Would there be a slot for a half-hour Regional? Worst case is only three or four trains of bi-levels (~40 cars) may be needed, each train having about 900 seats.Three tracks are needed at Penn Stration for the close Acela, Keystone, and Regional (#173 from Boston) departures beginning at 4:00pm. For most of each hour these tracks would seem to be unoccupied. The weekday Regional departures at 4:25pm (#129) and 5:39pm (#193) could use the same platform as the preceding Acelas; but the 6:20pm (#137 from Boston) would need to arrive at 6:05pm after the Acela departed. The Keystones would need a separate track. One question I have is how long are these trains and their morning counterparts? I didn't look at the morning schedule to see what goes on then; but Penn Station seems to have enough tracks for half-hour service.
blue streak 1The ride on Capstone Amfleet cars is very comfortable had to know that they were rebuilds -- other Passengers thought them new and and didn't break their bubble. They are rated at 135MPH but run at 125 however if any heritage cars train limited to 110MPH.
Now 11 cars makes a nice train! Bi-levels certainly would be needed to handle growth on that run. I'm used to seeing photos of Regionals and Acelas with only 6-8 cars; so I was a little skeptical about the need for bi-levels.
oltmanndblue streak 1The ride on Capstone Amfleet cars is very comfortable had to know that they were rebuilds -- other Passengers thought them new and and didn't break their bubble. They are rated at 135MPH but run at 125 however if any heritage cars train limited to 110MPH.Last time I rode Amtrak on the NEC, it was a morning DC to Penn train out of 30th St a couple of years ago in a Capstone Amfleet car. One HHP8 and 11 coaches. Pretty nice! Even my wife and teenaged kids were impressed.
How I wish there was a simple answer for the NEC congestion problem but it is all interrelated.
1. Longer trains can help but as someone pointed out the longer trains may reduce the capacity of the Hudson east river tunnels by one train per hour because of the longer time for a train to clear each signal point.
2. double deckers will probably weigh more per car.
3. The heavier trains will need more electrical power to maintain speeds. That means that the extra supply lines being installed near Mutchen need to be finished.
4. Longer trains may also need another motor to maintain speeds and acceleration.
5. The additional car for each ACCELA will also need more power.
6. The rebuilding of the two transmission lines from Safe Harbor to ATglen will not be completed until mid 2011 so that is another power shortage location. Also the transformer and relay replacements will not be completed until then.
7. The throat and crossovers at WASH union station may need to be moved. Wasn't there a map published several years ago of the WASH terminal? If not a definite project for a trains map with car capacitys at each location.
8. There is an extreme need for a third and eventually a 4th track from Perryville - BAL - WASh to provide more capacity. Every time there is any problem with track BAL - WASH the whole system slows way down.
9. MARC needs more motors to enable meeting speed and acceleration requirements and more passenger cars
10. And the biggest buggaboo not enough equipment both motors and passenger cars!!
11.Oltmannd and others --- any other items?
blue streak 1How I wish there was a simple answer for the NEC congestion problem but it is all interrelated. 1. Longer trains can help but as someone pointed out the longer trains may reduce the capacity of the Hudson east river tunnels by one train per hour because of the longer time for a train to clear each signal point.Someone is wrong. A 6-car train is about 0.1 mi long, 12 cars 0.2 mi long. The length only has an initial affect on headways; then the time between the rear of one train and the head of the following one remains relatively unchanged assuming block distances are appropriate for the speed. The time needed to clear the terminal throat is probably the most significant. A 6-car train moving through a 0.2-mi terminal throat at 10 mph takes 2.0 min from a standing stop while a 12-car train would take about 2.6 min. As a consequence, you might run 30 6-car trains or "reduce capacity" running only 20 12-car trains. Which would you choose? A lot depends on the berthing location and distance of the last car from the throat. Figuring a default maximum length and the far end of the platform for scheduling purposes, no time is lost. How many short trains are run in the peak at minimum headways anyway? Most are long. Speed is crucial too. 0.4 mi @ 10 mph takes about 2.6 min while 15 mph takes only about 1.8 min.Assuming blocks are 0.4 mi long for 60 mph trains, the theoretical head way for 12-car trains is 1.0 min; a lot closer than out of the terminal. Blocks could be roughly 0.8 mi long and still allow nominal 2 min headways. 2. double deckers will probably weigh more per car.While double-deckers/bi-levels may be heavier cars, the weight per seat is lower; and the weight of a single-level train with comparable capacity may weigh significantly more and have more resistance. 3. The heavier trains will need more electrical power to maintain speeds. That means that the extra supply lines being installed near Mutchen need to be finished.Like a car, more juice is used to accelerate to cruising speed when it can be eased back. Accelerating takes energy to overcome the inertia of a train's mass in addition to rolling resistance and to drag. The latter can be substantial at higher speeds. A heavier train simply will take longer to accelerate than a lighter one with the same locomotive. 4. Longer trains may also need another motor to maintain speeds and acceleration.A longer train may or may not need another motor, eg. electric locomotive, to maintain speed; it may just take more time and distance. How significant is the time savings compared to the cost of the locomotive and consumed power? It also may be hard to promote HSR as energy-efficient with profligate consumption. 5. The additional car for each ACCELA will also need more power.You're assuming acceleration and schedule goals are more significant than cost. For most of the NEC with 125-mph speeds, the slower acceleration with the extra car will result in only a small cumulative effect. I'm sure Amtrak ran a simulation and knows the answer. 6. The rebuilding of the two transmission lines from Safe Harbor to ATglen will not be completed until mid 2011 so that is another power shortage location. Also the transformer and relay replacements will not be completed until then.Amtrak isn't about to get new NEC bi-levels by 2011. 7. The throat and crossovers at WASH union station may need to be moved. Wasn't there a map published several years ago of the WASH terminal? If not a definite project for a trains map with car capacitys at each location. 8. There is an extreme need for a third and eventually a 4th track from Perryville - BAL - WASh to provide more capacity. Every time there is any problem with track BAL - WASH the whole system slows way down. 9. MARC needs more motors to enable meeting speed and acceleration requirements and more passenger cars Same as above. 10. And the biggest buggaboo not enough equipment both motors and passenger cars!!Again, Amtrak should have some idea what the future might hold with population, income, and oil. 11.Oltmannd and others --- any other items?
Someone is wrong. A 6-car train is about 0.1 mi long, 12 cars 0.2 mi long. The length only has an initial affect on headways; then the time between the rear of one train and the head of the following one remains relatively unchanged assuming block distances are appropriate for the speed.
The time needed to clear the terminal throat is probably the most significant. A 6-car train moving through a 0.2-mi terminal throat at 10 mph takes 2.0 min from a standing stop while a 12-car train would take about 2.6 min. As a consequence, you might run 30 6-car trains or "reduce capacity" running only 20 12-car trains. Which would you choose?
A lot depends on the berthing location and distance of the last car from the throat. Figuring a default maximum length and the far end of the platform for scheduling purposes, no time is lost. How many short trains are run in the peak at minimum headways anyway? Most are long. Speed is crucial too. 0.4 mi @ 10 mph takes about 2.6 min while 15 mph takes only about 1.8 min.
Assuming blocks are 0.4 mi long for 60 mph trains, the theoretical head way for 12-car trains is 1.0 min; a lot closer than out of the terminal. Blocks could be roughly 0.8 mi long and still allow nominal 2 min headways.
While double-deckers/bi-levels may be heavier cars, the weight per seat is lower; and the weight of a single-level train with comparable capacity may weigh significantly more and have more resistance.
Like a car, more juice is used to accelerate to cruising speed when it can be eased back. Accelerating takes energy to overcome the inertia of a train's mass in addition to rolling resistance and to drag. The latter can be substantial at higher speeds. A heavier train simply will take longer to accelerate than a lighter one with the same locomotive.
A longer train may or may not need another motor, eg. electric locomotive, to maintain speed; it may just take more time and distance. How significant is the time savings compared to the cost of the locomotive and consumed power? It also may be hard to promote HSR as energy-efficient with profligate consumption.
You're assuming acceleration and schedule goals are more significant than cost. For most of the NEC with 125-mph speeds, the slower acceleration with the extra car will result in only a small cumulative effect. I'm sure Amtrak ran a simulation and knows the answer.
Amtrak isn't about to get new NEC bi-levels by 2011.
Same as above.
Again, Amtrak should have some idea what the future might hold with population, income, and oil.
Harvey: Let us address the power shortage first. There have been 3 - 4 power failures the last couple years. Not know is the frequent reductions in trains (cancellations) or slowing of accelerations or top speeds until the short term problem is addressed. NJ Transit has had several incidents of this. At this time there is not any spare power or reduntancy. To address those problems AMTRAK is expanding the power substation at the NYP coach yard which also feeds NYP. Two additional sets of power conductors are being built to the Metuchen power distribution substation. There is a $1M study to identify the power fluctuations at Metuchen. A brand new converter station is be built along the Harrisburg line to feed the PHL - Meutchen route and substation and 30th St PHL. Septa is building another converter station at I believe somewhere near Wayne junction to reduce reliance on AMTRAK. The two sets of the Atglen - Safe Harbor transmission lines are very unstable. CR let one set go completely bad (NW side I believe) without any maintenance (trees in wires, overgrown ROW after CR abandoned electrification and the route) , broken insulators, deteroriated support poles, etc.). Amtrak has started replacing the out of service lines with ARRA funds first then the other set next of lines. Converter stations are being rebuilt as some converters are beyond their useful life subject to unacceptable levels of failure. The Ivy City substation and transformers are being rebuilt and expanded. Transformers and switchgear are being upgraded and made robust all along the NYP - WASH route.
So lack of power is a real concern.
Lets see ---present capacity at NYP 43 trains/hr. add 6 cars at 80 ft and you get == 20,640 ft. of additional train lengths. == almost 4 miles of train.Using 1/2 mile blocks maybe 1 less per hour. Using 1 mile block lengths that will be maybe 2 less trains. using 2 mile block lengths maybe 4 less trains. Don't you need to measure train front to train front? 12 car train 1/5 mile long? Of course most rush hour trains are 8-10 cars. If 8 cars go to 12 cars then = 13,760 ft. 10 - 12 = 6880 ft. Average figures are probably around 10,000ft.per hour.
I do not assume that. It comes from ETTs and the requirement that MARC has so much HP per trailing tonnage. Marc's train length is limited when they have to substitue a diesel vs electric motor. Also two motors or locoomotives on their rush hour longer trains. RWM has told us that capacity and fluidity is much greater if all trains perform the same way.
A lot depends on the berthing location and distance of the last car from the throat.
Now that is very true. I've observed that at NYP. Track 1 is vacated and then an inbound goes into track 1 as an outbound leaves track 2 then into 2 and out of track 3. and so forth until track 6 is vacated and then there is a cross over as inbound to track 6 and out of track 1. That allows both inbound and outbound to occupy the throat at the ssame time Of course that is a perfect world and any schedule hickup throws that out of line. AMTRAK also throws that out of line because of the effort to allow ACCELA - Regional cross overs and LD trains + empire trains.
Absolutely but it is rebuilding may AMFLEET car and will apply some to the NEC increasing train length and power requirements.
It is very hard for anyone to predict future demand. A prime example is the Lynchburg - Wash route 2-1/2 times ridership between those locations is quite amazing and a preliminary figure I saw for december indicates that it will need no subsidity for Dec from VA. Even with the weather that caused more cancellations than average the Oct - Dec system loads exceeded 2008 which was the previous record. I believe that the NEC is still below but who knows what the future hold with gasoline prediced to be over $3.00 by summer? ( that figure I hold somewhat iffy)
Just because we differ on the effect of train length on headways in no way implies disagreement on your assessment of the NEC electrical distribution system of which I have next to no familiarity. Most of the power problems you mention seem to be of condition. Power operational issues seem to stem more from increased NJDOT and MARC schedules. Lengthening an Amtrak train is a relatively insignificant growth of branches on a tree in a forest of 43 trains.
Increased substation and feeder capacity will be needed if all except Florida trains were upgraded to near-Acela standards for power on the NEC. You also write of the increased track capacity that can sometimes be achieved with faster service.
Hiawathas #330 and #339 are slowed by Metra; but more shorter and quicker trains would occupy more track time. Metra tries to keep the MDN trains to 8 cars; but I expect demand will push that to 10 cars and still longer schedules. Metra has shown little interest in speed in ordering only 3,600 hp locomotives. While not conducive to quicker service, it gets commuters to work and back.
I rather wonder if actual train lengths are taken into account in arriving at the 43-train figure? In one direction only, that comes to an avg of 84 secs/1.4 min apart and bi-directional and avg of 176 sec/2.8 min. A quick look at the NJDOT NEC timetable shows 20 trains 5p-6-p. My earlier postulation for a 12-car train is under the bidirectional average which is a good sign.
I tried to explain how the signaling works, that the terminal throat is the most critical section due to the restricted speed, that it's not the number of blocks; but the number of trains that you even use, and that it's the number of seats as much as the number of trains. We're talking about one train out of 43 that may take 0.3-0.6 min longer to clear the throat depending on the increased length. What NJDOT does is a related but separate matter; again it's the number of seats, not trains.
Berthing is a variable at Penn; but not at a stub terminal like Ogilvie (UP lines) in Chicago where all trains start from the bumping post and the time for the rear car to clear is the same. If trains are centered at the platforms, the effective number of additional cars is halved and it only take 0.1-0.3 min longer.
As far as dogmatic hp/ton "requirements" maintain a certain desired level of service; some pragmatism may be in order where 100-300 more passengers can be accommodated. After all, some flexibility is shown in making intermediate stops. Slower acceleration may add 5-10 minutes to a Regional schedule that seems to allow adjustment without fouling the Acela. A second motor would solve that; but then there is the power issue, and that's still less than half of what an Acela draws on starting and a question of whether the motor (HHP-6/8?) is available.
blue streak 11. Longer trains can help but as someone pointed out the longer trains may reduce the capacity of the Hudson east river tunnels by one train per hour because of the longer time for a train to clear each signal point. Someone is wrong. A 6-car train is about 0.1 mi long, 12 cars 0.2 mi long. The length only has an initial affect on headways; then the time between the rear of one train and the head of the following one remains relatively unchanged assuming block distances are appropriate for the speed. Lets see ---present capacity at NYP 43 trains/hr. add 6 cars at 80 ft and you get == 20,640 ft. of additional train lengths. == almost 4 miles of train.Using 1/2 mile blocks maybe 1 less per hour. Using 1 mile block lengths that will be maybe 2 less trains. using 2 mile block lengths maybe 4 less trains. Don't you need to measure train front to train front? 12 car train 1/5 mile long? Of course most rush hour trains are 8-10 cars. If 8 cars go to 12 cars then = 13,760 ft. 10 - 12 = 6880 ft. Average figures are probably around 10,000ft.per hour. You're assuming acceleration and schedule goals are more significant than cost. For most of the NEC with 125-mph speeds, the slower acceleration with the extra car will result in only a small cumulative effect. I'm sure Amtrak ran a simulation and knows the answer. I do not assume that. It comes from ETTs and the requirement that MARC has so much HP per trailing tonnage. Marc's train length is limited when they have to substitue a diesel vs electric motor. Also two motors or locoomotives on their rush hour longer trains. RWM has told us that capacity and fluidity is much greater if all trains perform the same way. A lot depends on the berthing location and distance of the last car from the throat. Now that is very true. I've observed that at NYP. Track 1 is vacated and then an inbound goes into track 1 as an outbound leaves track 2 then into 2 and out of track 3. and so forth until track 6 is vacated and then there is a cross over as inbound to track 6 and out of track 1. That allows both inbound and outbound to occupy the throat at the ssame time Of course that is a perfect world and any schedule hickup throws that out of line. AMTRAK also throws that out of line because of the effort to allow ACCELA - Regional cross overs and LD trains + empire trains. Amtrak isn't about to get new NEC bi-levels by 2011. Absolutely but it is rebuilding may AMFLEET car and will apply some to the NEC increasing train length and power requirements. Again, Amtrak should have some idea what the future might hold with population, income, and oil. It is very hard for anyone to predict future demand. A prime example is the Lynchburg - Wash route 2-1/2 times ridership between those locations is quite amazing and a preliminary figure I saw for december indicates that it will need no subsidity for Dec from VA. Even with the weather that caused more cancellations than average the Oct - Dec system loads exceeded 2008 which was the previous record. I believe that the NEC is still below but who knows what the future hold with gasoline prediced to be over $3.00 by summer? ( that figure I hold somewhat iffy)
We are both attacking the problem mainly over semantics. But a 12 car train will require twice as much power to accelerate and maintain speed as a 6 car train weights of each car being equal.
. Most of the power problems you mention seem to be of condition. Power operational issues seem to stem more from increased NJDOT and MARC schedules.
The additional trains of NJ Transit, SEPTA, and MARC probably do not pull more power than the 150+ (probably 200+) motors and the MP54s . It amounts to the lack of maintenance by PRR (some) , PC and CR. Many of the historical societys about PRR have mentioned the lack of maintenance and not replacing electrical equipment as it failed but instead placed it out of service reducing capacity.
Lengthening an Amtrak train is a relatively insignificant growth of branches on a tree in a forest of 43 trains.
But if you go from your 6 cars to 12 cars then that train requires twice as much power!
Increased substation and feeder capacity will be needed if all except Florida trains were upgraded to near-Acela standards for power on the NEC.
Actually all the south of WASH trains are scheduled to be upgraded to 135 MPH on the NEC when and if the replacement hertiage baggage and dinning car are replaced with viewliner replacement type cars. The displaced heritage cars may go to other planned 110 MPH trains.
You also write of the increased track capacity that can sometimes be achieved with faster service.
Actually it is the speeding up of the slowest trains on any track that allows following trains to maintain their max authorized speed. ie NJ Transit's EMUs were 100MPH max the last time I was there. Their conventional equipment (pulled by motors) needs at least 125 with fast acceleration from stops.
This slower speed is valid for Metra. If the MKE proposed HSR is implemented there will requirement of at least some third track to allow the HSR to pass the stopped or slower Metras. However there may be enough demand of Glenview - CHI nonstop for Metra to initiate one or more non stops such as MARC runs BAL - WASH.
I rather wonder if actual train lengths are taken into account in arriving at the 43-train figure?
I have wondered the same!
I tried to explain how the signaling works, that the terminal throat is the most critical section due to the restricted speed,
Yes! At one time the west throat of NYP had a speed of 10MPH through the puzzle switches. Last time I was there the speed seemed much higher (maybe 25?)
Berthing is a variable at Penn; but not at a stub terminal like Ogilvie (UP lines) in Chicago where all trains start from the bumping post and the time for the rear car to clear is the same.
Tracks 1-4 are stub end at NYP (do not connect to east river tunnels) and maybe 5 & 6? DH moves from Sunnyside cannot originate from these stub ends so take up some AMTRAK tracks when dead heading in. At one time there was a proposal to lenghten those stub end tracks eastward but I don't know what happened to that proposal. Both LIRR and AMTRAK want to extend platforms eastward but that requires extensions of the east throats and may not be possible until the old water tunnel is replaced by the new one (anyone know?)
As far as dogmatic hp/ton "requirements" maintain a certain desired level of service; some pragmatism may be in order where 100-300 more passengers can be accommodated.
That requirement comes from the Congressional legislation authorizing the money to electrify the NH - BOS seqment requiring certain maximum schedules times on BOS - NYP and NYP - WASH. One reason for the high HP/TON ratio on ACCELAs. Congress has now required AMTRAK to release a study on decreasing time on BOS NYP to 3;00 and 2;00 nyp- WASH. Congress ever be pragmatic ? Not in my lifetime. Read report on AMTRAK'S web site under reports.
After all, some flexibility is shown in making intermediate stops. Slower acceleration may add 5-10 minutes to a Regional schedule that seems to allow adjustment without fouling the Acela. A second motor would solve that; but then there is the power issue, and that's still less than half of what an Acela draws on starting and a question of whether the motor (HHP-6/8?) is available.
That is supposed to be the function of 30th st station where ACCELAs pass stopped regionals to have a clear track ahead. Of course it all depends on flawless time keeping south of 30 st by regionals, SEPTA and MARC on the three track and 2 track seqments.
Trouble is as I am finding out that peak capacity at Penn Station (NJDOT), and perhaps the subway at Washington (VRE), are at capacity and can't handle additional trains in the peaks which is prime time for any new or expanded NEC service. It's a question of numbers of passengers. Despite the loathing for long trains, perhaps service to the Delmar could be a section added to the Keystone as far as Philadelphia and Norfolk added to the Regional to Washington or also separated at Philadelphia (for platforms)?
oltmanndHarveyK400While high-capacity double-deck cars may be more efficient and desirable on some NEC runs, wouldn't single-level cars allow additional trains that are more than half full, a decent load, for more frequent services or serve new markets such as Norfolk, Roanoke, Delmar Peninsula, Eastern Pensylvania, Long Island, or Cape Cod? That sounds reasonable. There are 400+ Amfleet I cars out there. More than enough to go around.
Are we falling behind in the production of the superliners?
Kilowatt-hours will increase for the time for acceleration; but not the instantaneous power. Unless another motor is added, a 6,000 kw locomotive won't draw 12,000 kw just because the train is doubled in answer to my proposal. You may be coming at the problem from the point of the government's performance mandate. The service mandate, for all the good intentions, is overly restrictive and precludes more sensible accommodation without more costly capacity investments.
While all trains may be upgraded for 135 mph, little of the NEC is suited for more than 100 mph with conventional suspension, 4" cant, and 3" cant deficiency/underbalance. The equilibrium for a typical 1-deg NEC curve is 12.36" which would imply 8-1/2" tilt. Is this amount of tilt achievable? Tilting seems unwarranted for Viewliner-type Heritage replacements trained with the current Viewliners.
From what I've gleaned from aerial photo maps and coinciding with the former RF&P 70-mph passenger limit, typical frequent curves are 1.5-deg with occasional exceptions along with street running (what is the relocation status?). This is the CSX A-Line, so I doubt raising the cant to 4" on shared track is an option. At best, 105 mph may be possible based on the NEC for a tilting Acela between Washington and Richmond.
Are baggage cars mandated for all south-of-Washington trains? Seems like more things to go wrong beside being an energy-hog. If other Heritage cars are being reconditioned, why not the useless baggage cars too? What a waste of scarce resources.
This presents a dilemma: the cost of capacity improvements or investment in more powerful trains consuming costly energy? Greater electrical load is one thing to accelerate faster to 100 mph between frequent stops and much more to accelerate to 125 in the same distance. I was more impressed by the 85-mph Silverliner I rode in the early 1970's than the 120-mph Metroliner re-invention.
An express track costs a lot for just 2-4 trains. There is no Metra problem the rest of the day; but CP freight conflicts with different characteristics are another matter and a present concern.
Metra has express trains, even at the expense of a gap in local service to a newly gentrified area of the Northwest Side in the evening peak.
Since #330 and #339 already take 10-15 minutes more than other Hiawathas, I suggested a combined express train for Chicago and Milwaukee commuters making three suburban stops. This would fill out the train, alleviate Metra demand for another express, and allow half-hour peak service without significantly lengthening the present schedule.
blue streak 1We are both attacking the problem mainly over semantics. But a 12 car train will require twice as much power to accelerate and maintain speed as a 6 car train weights of each car being equal. ....Actually all the south of WASH trains are scheduled to be upgraded to 135 MPH on the NEC when and if the replacement hertiage baggage and dinning car are replaced with viewliner replacement type cars. The displaced heritage cars may go to other planned 110 MPH trains. Actually it is the speeding up of the slowest trains on any track that allows following trains to maintain their max authorized speed. ie NJ Transit's EMUs were 100MPH max the last time I was there. Their conventional equipment (pulled by motors) needs at least 125 with fast acceleration from stops. This slower speed is valid for Metra. If the MKE proposed HSR is implemented there will requirement of at least some third track to allow the HSR to pass the stopped or slower Metras. However there may be enough demand of Glenview - CHI nonstop for Metra to initiate one or more non stops such as MARC runs BAL - WASH..... ]
....
]
Awesome! Are we falling behind in the production of the superliners?
I believe the last new Superliners were built in the early 90's, so it isn't a matter of falling behind, it's a matter of stopped production. In several of Amtrak's replies to requests for new or expanded services, they cite lack of serviceable equipment as one of the major stumbling blocks.
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer/Page/1241245669222/1241245669129
Kilowatt-hours will increase for the time for acceleration; but not the instantaneous power. Unless another motor is added, a 6,000 kw locomotive won't draw 12,000 kw just because the train is doubled in answer to my proposal.
Actually a 6000 HP motor has a continous rating of 6000 and maybe a short term higher rating. This is in contrast to a diesel which has a finite HP rating. The HP drawn will be a function of the acceleration rate. The SEPTA and M-8 cars spec out at 3 MPH per second acceleration. AMTRAK unknown. A motor may be limited by adhesion on a long train and not able to make that rate thus the use of a second motor.
You may be coming at the problem from the point of the government's performance mandate. The service mandate, for all the good intentions, is overly restrictive and precludes more sensible accommodation without more costly capacity investments. Exactly where I am coming from.
The above AMTRAK report will highlight how it expects to achieve the following performance criteria.
From what I've gleaned from aerial photo maps and coinciding with the former RF&P 70-mph passenger limit, typical frequent curves are 1.5-deg with occasional exceptions along with street running (what is the relocation status?).
Only preliminary route studies. This is part of the NC/VA HSR route proposal 4 routes studied.
This is the CSX A-Line, so I doubt raising the cant to 4" on shared track is an option. At best, 105 mph may be possible based on the NEC for a tilting Acela between Washington and Richmond.
Isn't the A line the old ACL line that started at RIC MP0 Acadia yard south? Does CSX consider the RF&P now as the A-line?
Are baggage cars mandated for all south-of-Washington trains?
Unknown but Cardinal and Lynchburg trains do not carry checked baggage.
Seems like more things to go wrong beside being an energy-hog. If other Heritage cars are being reconditioned, why not the useless baggage cars too? What a waste of scarce resources.
Understand the cost to upgrade would be as much as new shells. The running gear would need redesign (trucks etc) and another bunch of parts not compatible with anything else and still have an old car. Also the heritage cars weigh differently and different center of gravity.
This presents a dilemma: the cost of capacity improvements or investment in more powerful trains consuming costly energy?
Probably both by 2035.
forgot about the CP freights
Chicago commuters would board while Wisconsin commuters would be afforded convenient suburban stops and connections with other trains. One new suburban station was suggested for Gurnee, desired by Wisconsin contacts, and a new stop for Kenosha. Moving the Glenview stop to Lake-Cook would serve another business-employment center desired by Wisconsin, and a stop at Lake Forest may be possible without exceeding capacity for about 650 Metra and 450 Amtrak commuters. Half-hour service may divide current and latent Amtrak demand enough for a 780:360 seating split.Sounds good to me.
AMTRAK link that did not go in last post.
blue streak 1 http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer/Page/1241245669222/1241245669129 Kilowatt-hours will increase for the time for acceleration; but not the instantaneous power. Unless another motor is added, a 6,000 kw locomotive won't draw 12,000 kw just because the train is doubled in answer to my proposal. Actually a 6000 HP motor has a continous rating of 6000 and maybe a short term higher rating. This is in contrast to a diesel which has a finite HP rating. The HP drawn will be a function of the acceleration rate. The SEPTA and M-8 cars spec out at 3 MPH per second acceleration. AMTRAK unknown. A motor may be limited by adhesion on a long train and not able to make that rate thus the use of a second motor. Maintaing any speed will of course depend on the trailing tons requiring a certain KWhr / trailing ton. You may be coming at the problem from the point of the government's performance mandate. The service mandate, for all the good intentions, is overly restrictive and precludes more sensible accommodation without more costly capacity investments. Exactly where I am coming from. While all trains may be upgraded for 135 mph, little of the NEC is suited for more than 100 mph with conventional suspension, 4" cant, and 3" cant deficiency/underbalance. The equilibrium for a typical 1-deg NEC curve is 12.36" which would imply 8-1/2" tilt. Is this amount of tilt achievable? Tilting seems unwarranted for Viewliner-type Heritage replacements trained with the current Viewliners. The above AMTRAK report will highlight how it expects to achieve the following performance criteria. Essentially the report calls for eliminating the S curve around Elizabeth, NJ, replacing Portal Bridge and upgrade Dock. Straightening the track from north east Phl to south of PHL, Bridges in Md including Gunpow, Bush, Susquehanna. Baltimore tunnels. Ivy city approaches. An express track costs a lot for just 2-4 trains. There is no Metra problem the rest of the day; but CP freight conflicts with different characteristics are another matter and a present concern. forgot about the CP freights The AMTRAK report states that express tracks ( 3-4 ) are needed both BOS-NH, West portal of Hudson river tunnels - Dock (newark) and PHL - WASH. There are only two short seqments BOS - WASH without any commuter trains and regional service certainly conflicts at times on those segments.
Maintaing any speed will of course depend on the trailing tons requiring a certain KWhr / trailing ton.
The above AMTRAK report will highlight how it expects to achieve the following performance criteria. Essentially the report calls for eliminating the S curve around Elizabeth, NJ, replacing Portal Bridge and upgrade Dock. Straightening the track from north east Phl to south of PHL, Bridges in Md including Gunpow, Bush, Susquehanna. Baltimore tunnels. Ivy city approaches.
The AMTRAK report states that express tracks ( 3-4 ) are needed both BOS-NH, West portal of Hudson river tunnels - Dock (newark) and PHL - WASH. There are only two short seqments BOS - WASH without any commuter trains and regional service certainly conflicts at times on those segments.
As anyone who has lived on the NE Corridor (PRR/NH) knows, pantographs "on Viagra" are only a temporary thingie. Where overhead crossings occurr, the wire dips down, considerably. Check out some pictures of motors coming from under vehicular bridges. The pans almost touch the roof of the motor! This precludes the use of 'Superliner', and other 'double-deck' cars, to a great extent, unless you are talking about LIRR "Cattle Cars". Superliners won't fit in Penn Station, nor GCT, for that matter. Yar, there is 'overhead' there (only 600 v. DC) but the clearances aren't available. I wouldn't want to be on a 'double-decker' that made contact with 11,000/15,000 v. AC, even 600 v. DC!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.