DeggestyHave the redcaps at NYP been laid off? My wife and I were helped by one last April. He took us and our baggage up from where we had come in from Rennselaer and down to where we left for Washington. (There is no checked baggage on the Empire Service, either.)
Sorry, I was referring to Redcaps for taking my bags away from me to a baggage car. Not an option for most points south on the NEC from/to NYP. I'm told there is no checked baggage because the 50-year-old baggage cars cannot go as fast as the trains need to go, and perhaps the passengers didn't complain enough about it.
blue streak 1Harvey a few answers but not to all I'll use Amtrak as a source HarveyK400 I missed any reference to a specific top speed capability for a high-speed diesel locomotive. Is any consideration being given to non-electric transition services where up to 150 mph might be achieved before electrification on incremental fully closed route segments of 10-15 miles length? It makes little sense to invest in electrification before some degree of relocation may need to be undertaken for high-speed curve easement and grade separation. (The Chicago-Carbondale-New Orleans route has about 29 miles of fully grade-separated right-of-way where trains could run at speeds above 125 mph with comparatively minor improvements.) Some hints only. the problem of a high speed diesel is its slow acceleration due to the gearing.The slow acceleration you refer to was due typically to the great disparity in horsepower, not gearing. That's still true to some extent. Even so, a pair of 4,000 hp diesel or gas turbines should get an 8-car train up to 150 in 10 miles or less.Would a light-weight, high-speed, non-electrified locomotive be a compatible platform with adequate adhesion for long-distance, regional, and contract suburban services? Same answer about acceleration. A diesel locomotive is another assumption given the alternative for a gas turbine.The price of diesel just hit $3.10 a gallon and Jet fuel stays in lockstep. Gas turbine jus uses too much fuel compared with dieselWe had quite a discussion previously about the competitive efficiency of a recuperating gas turbine.
Harvey a few answers but not to all I'll use Amtrak as a source
HarveyK400 I missed any reference to a specific top speed capability for a high-speed diesel locomotive. Is any consideration being given to non-electric transition services where up to 150 mph might be achieved before electrification on incremental fully closed route segments of 10-15 miles length? It makes little sense to invest in electrification before some degree of relocation may need to be undertaken for high-speed curve easement and grade separation. (The Chicago-Carbondale-New Orleans route has about 29 miles of fully grade-separated right-of-way where trains could run at speeds above 125 mph with comparatively minor improvements.) Some hints only. the problem of a high speed diesel is its slow acceleration due to the gearing.The slow acceleration you refer to was due typically to the great disparity in horsepower, not gearing. That's still true to some extent. Even so, a pair of 4,000 hp diesel or gas turbines should get an 8-car train up to 150 in 10 miles or less.Would a light-weight, high-speed, non-electrified locomotive be a compatible platform with adequate adhesion for long-distance, regional, and contract suburban services? Same answer about acceleration. A diesel locomotive is another assumption given the alternative for a gas turbine.The price of diesel just hit $3.10 a gallon and Jet fuel stays in lockstep. Gas turbine jus uses too much fuel compared with dieselWe had quite a discussion previously about the competitive efficiency of a recuperating gas turbine.
I missed any reference to a specific top speed capability for a high-speed diesel locomotive.
HarveyK400 I missed any reference to a specific top speed capability for a high-speed diesel locomotive. Does this imply a 110 or 125 mph limit for bi-level and single-level long-distance and regional corridor trains? No. Proposed specifications for single levels is 150 and Bi-levels 125 (California cars are already 125) Is there an implied performance criteria for acceleration of trains of a certain number of bi-level and single-level cars within a certain distance? How would the resulting energy consumption compare with an OTR bus or a Toyota Prius? Unknown Is any consideration being given to non-electric transition services where up to 150 mph might be achieved before electrification on incremental fully closed route segments of 10-15 miles length? It makes little sense to invest in electrification before some degree of relocation may need to be undertaken for high-speed curve easement and grade separation. (The Chicago-Carbondale-New Orleans route has about 29 miles of fully grade-separated right-of-way where trains could run at speeds above 125 mph with comparatively minor improvements.) Some hints only. the problem of a high speed diesel is its slow acceleration due to the gearing. Assuming a non-electrified Acela-type or Talgo train for transitional and incremental non-NEC regional high-speed corridor development, how would the resulting energy consumption for 150 mph service compare with an OTR bus or a Toyota Prius? Unknown Would a light-weight, high-speed, non-electrified locomotive be a compatible platform with adequate adhesion for long-distance, regional, and contract suburban services? Same answer about acceleration. A diesel locomotive is another assumption given the alternative for a gas turbine.The price of diesel just hit $3.10 a gallon and Jet fuel stays in lockstep. Gas turbine jus uses too much fuel compared with diesel
One of the concepts of the future I've always had...and it is in my mind only...is motors on the axels of the cars fed by a diesel generator as in a cab or motor car or from a wire or third rail. Not like a commuter or subway car but a better suspended and appurtuned vehicle. I think there are some trains like that in Europe but the heavy guage needed here prohibits even thinking about them!
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.
What is the source for the claim that sleeping car space is generally sold out? I have booked sleeping car space on four trains (Texas Eagle (2) and California Zephyr (2) over the past three months. I did not have any difficulty getting space. Moreover, I was able to get an upper level roomette each time.
For FY09 the ridership in sleeping cars was down 1.3 per cent from FY08, whilst sleeper revenues were off 1.2 per cent. For YTD FY10 sleeping car ridership was up 3.4 per cent whilst revenues were off 3.3 per cent from FY09. For the Texas Eagle, which is the train serving my area; sleeping car ridership was up one per cent whilst sleeping car revenues were down 5.9 per cent. Accordingly, through the first four months of FY10, sleeping car occupancy on the Eagle was not significantly different from the FY09 occupancy levels.
The Eagle normally carries one sleeping car that 21 have rooms for sale. If it sells out, Amtrak has eight roomettes in the transition sleeping car that it sells. Thus, Amtrak has 29 rooms in the regular and transition sleepers on each Eagle set. At noon three sets of the Eagle are on the road, whilst the fourth is one hour and 45 minutes from its departure from Chicago. The space in all four sets, which totals 116 accommodations, has been sold or is available for sale. Most sales on the day of departure would be last minute walk-ups or upgrades. For the year, assuming that the sleeping car space on the Eagle is constant, the train has 42,340 spaces available for sale.
In FY09 30,408 passengers occupied at least one sleeping car accommodation on the Eagle. Assuming that only one passenger occupied each accommodation, which is unrealistic, the average occupancy rate would have been 71.8 per cent. But I know from experience (four trips this year as well as at least two trips every year for decades) that many of the rooms are occupied by more than one passenger. Assuming that the average occupancy rate is 1.5 passengers per room, which appears reasonable, the number of required spaces would have been 20,272, and the average occupancy rate would have been 47.8 per cent, which is close to the overall occupancy rate for Amtrak but slightly below the FY10 to date rate for the Eagle.
Clearly, there are periods, i.e. holidays, popular vacation periods, etc., when Amtrak's sleeping car accommodations are sold out. But if the Eagle is reflective of the system, it does not happen frequently.
HarveyK400 Bluestreak1, The bad news is that you may be close to what will transpire than what seems to be needed from my perspective. 1. Acela capable of 220 mph is still a distant future prospect. Harvey: the reason I said 220 is because of Boardman's statements and the latest report. 220 does seem high especially for the crash resistant requirements and the NEC profiles. What are needed ideally are locomotive and car platforms that support Acela, Regional, and long distance services and evolution over time like auto manufacturing. Absolutely Single and bi-level car types would have limited modularity because of the significantly different number of passengers and and car weight. What I was speaking of was in the use of parts. ex:: Same 2 HVAC units for single level cars and 3 for bi-levels. Reading & overhead lights, outlets, WiFi, Circuit breaker setups, water heaters & coolers, all toilet systems, end door operating systems, seats etc. Even in California, I can't imagine 220 mph corridor trains not sharing tracks to reach metropolitan centers and not being required to conform with FRA regulations. Yes. A single 150 mph, tilting, single-level car type is possible in the East as the temporary solution with some compromises. A lower floor as with early UP Streamliners would reduce the height of the center of gravity. As high speed lines, over 150 mph, come into service, production would make any anticipated modifications for faster trains including traction output. this one I am not so sure. A cross between a tilting Viewliner and early UP Streamliner would result, wide enough for transverse upper and lower berth deluxe bedrooms Unknown Could a narrow Acela version be manufactured; or would restricted tilting be more prudent? Would a narrow Acela need to be reduced to 2+1 seating with the corresponding increase in train length just to maintain capacity, let alone afford an increase; and how would this affect power demand? Are the present Acelas just 4" too wide? If so putting seats closer to the aisles may be OK. Narrower Regional equipment with 2+1 seating, the Amfleet replacement, would jeopardize the already tight capacity situation out of New York City and leave wider long distance cars a limited production orphan.See above still 2 + 2 There is no reason not to make all next-generation trains capable of 150 mph operation out of the box. My reason for this was the present Surfliner designs are already 125 if the trucks can be upgraded easily to 150 then it should be done. Have any idea how much more cant deficiency of a Surfliner vs Amfleet and Talgo there is? On the NEC, a single speed service would reduce the chance of trains being overtaken and the complication that that presents. Will allow incremental development and transition to corridor operation. Will allow interoperability between high speed corridors and conventional line feeders.Yes! Yes Yes A bi-level car already is needed to alleviate current peak demand for Regional services and could be used for Acela as well, albeit with current cant deficiency and tilt limits. I have my doubts that the cost of say a NJ bi-level will balance out the lower costs per available seat of the Amfleet replacements. Peak capacity in and out of New York could be enhanced further by adding coach accommodations and Regional frequency with the Acela schedule. But are all Acelas and Regionals now limited by lack of cars? Acelas can add what # of cars? 4, 5 ? A standardized car may be less costly per seat. Per operating seat mile? Would single-level long distance cars become a more costly limited-run orphan with bi-levels; or would some Regional car production be split?If bi-levels are purchased for the NEC I do not have any idea the demand for single level LD trains. With almost no marketing the LD trains are all increasing in passengers and sleepers as a general rule are sold out. Sleeper demand is probably the biggest unknown. The limit is the Hudson river tunnels that preclude a true bi-level; so no matter how far out no more than 50% of cars to the NY stations could ever higher than the NJ bi-levels. 150 mph also is the practical limit since the limited number of Acelas on the NEC would hardly justify segregated trackage as required by the FRA, even if only for the short segments where the alignment would permit faster running. This FRA limit ( do you have a cite? ) may be raised once ACSES and / or PTC proves out. The NEC from Boston, MA to Petersburg, VA can not support much more than 150 mph which currently is touched only briefly in Rhode Island. Yes but the PRIIA does support higher speeds. Both MN and Amtrak recognizes the limitations that are in place from Providence - New Rochelle - NYP. That said it is not the top speeds (except for bragging rights ) that are important but the elimination of the slow speeds ( ex: bridges, curves, interlockings, RR grade crossings, etc. Then equipment and CAT. Wash - Petersburg may need a new ROW somewhere near Buckinham RR. Many frequent 1-degree curves between New York and Washington would limit speed to 140 mph with full 8 inch cant deficiency and current 4 inch cant. Yes the present study that will go on under the ARRA to reduce times will illuminate these curves with resolutions submitted. Numerous 1.5-degree and 2-degree curves are encountered between Providence, RI and New York that limit trains to 90 mph and 80 mph respectively with 5" cant deficiency. Same as the above To what higher speed could trains accelerate without excessive energy consumption in the short distances between restrictive curvature? Not much - Curves have to be resolved Some exceptions would require dedicated tracks where Acela utilization already is limited: Elisabeth, NJ - Iselin, NJ with approx 0.5-degree (180 mph) curve west of Rahway: about 8 miles; Brunswick, NJ - Trenton, NJ with 0.5 curve to east of Monmouth Junction: about 20 miles; Harmony Hills, DE east of Newark, DE - Elkton, MD with curve west of Newark: about 10 miles; and Aberdeen, MD - Magnolia, MD with curves: about 11 miles. Yes these are important straight streaches that for each 2 connected with 0.5 degree or less curves will help reduce times 2. In respect to the above, 150 mph and what it takes to reasonably accelerate 10-12 bi-level cars to that speed would determine traction output. For the NEC, one size fits all. I hope that will happen Acelas do not have good streamlining to minimize drag; so the effect of a double-ended electric for next-generation trains is moot. Double ended can you explain? What about HHPs? Single-ended versions from the same platform may be less costly and facilitate turning without time-consuming switching. High speed locomotives usually do not have tilting - there simply isn't room with traction motors. I was thinking that the afore mentioned quill drives may be the answer. Understand there are some in Europe. Anyone any information? 4. Amfleet replacements should be tilting; but also may be bi-level. Good point: With the curvature of present ROWs that is almost a foregone solution 5. A non-electrified corridor would need 150 mph-capable locomotives as well. Do we know that is possible? A non-electrified lower density 150 mph corridor can be achieved incrementally and less expensively with crossing closure and grade separation. Agree: That is one thing that NC DOT is doing but not very aggressive. 7. Modularity would facilitate quick change-out of defective components minimizing down time. Yes 8. The locomotive platform should support both dual mode and hybrid versions. Yes
Bluestreak1,
The bad news is that you may be close to what will transpire than what seems to be needed from my perspective.
1. Acela capable of 220 mph is still a distant future prospect.
Harvey: the reason I said 220 is because of Boardman's statements and the latest report. 220 does seem high especially for the crash resistant requirements and the NEC profiles.
What are needed ideally are locomotive and car platforms that support Acela, Regional, and long distance services and evolution over time like auto manufacturing.
Absolutely
Single and bi-level car types would have limited modularity because of the significantly different number of passengers and and car weight.
What I was speaking of was in the use of parts. ex:: Same 2 HVAC units for single level cars and 3 for bi-levels. Reading & overhead lights, outlets, WiFi, Circuit breaker setups, water heaters & coolers, all toilet systems, end door operating systems, seats etc.
Even in California, I can't imagine 220 mph corridor trains not sharing tracks to reach metropolitan centers and not being required to conform with FRA regulations.
Yes.
A single 150 mph, tilting, single-level car type is possible in the East as the temporary solution with some compromises. A lower floor as with early UP Streamliners would reduce the height of the center of gravity. As high speed lines, over 150 mph, come into service, production would make any anticipated modifications for faster trains including traction output.
this one I am not so sure.
There is no reason not to make all next-generation trains capable of 150 mph operation out of the box.
Will allow incremental development and transition to corridor operation.
A bi-level car already is needed to alleviate current peak demand for Regional services and could be used for Acela as well, albeit with current cant deficiency and tilt limits.
I have my doubts that the cost of say a NJ bi-level will balance out the lower costs per available seat of the Amfleet replacements.
150 mph also is the practical limit since the limited number of Acelas on the NEC would hardly justify segregated trackage as required by the FRA, even if only for the short segments where the alignment would permit faster running.
This FRA limit ( do you have a cite? ) may be raised once ACSES and / or PTC proves out.
The NEC from Boston, MA to Petersburg, VA can not support much more than 150 mph which currently is touched only briefly in Rhode Island.
Yes but the PRIIA does support higher speeds. Both MN and Amtrak recognizes the limitations that are in place from Providence - New Rochelle - NYP. That said it is not the top speeds (except for bragging rights ) that are important but the elimination of the slow speeds ( ex: bridges, curves, interlockings, RR grade crossings, etc. Then equipment and CAT. Wash - Petersburg may need a new ROW somewhere near Buckinham RR.
2. In respect to the above, 150 mph and what it takes to reasonably accelerate 10-12 bi-level cars to that speed would determine traction output. For the NEC, one size fits all.
I hope that will happen
4. Amfleet replacements should be tilting; but also may be bi-level.
Good point: With the curvature of present ROWs that is almost a foregone solution
5. A non-electrified corridor would need 150 mph-capable locomotives as well.
Do we know that is possible?
Agree: That is one thing that NC DOT is doing but not very aggressive.
7. Modularity would facilitate quick change-out of defective components minimizing down time.
Yes
8. The locomotive platform should support both dual mode and hybrid versions.
1. Acela capable of 220 mph is still a distant future prospect. As Sam1 recently pointed out, there's no money; and I would add that state and local governments and school districts are collapsing. Even if money somehow comes available as was done with the WPA, engineering, property acquisition, and construction will take years.
What are needed ideally are locomotive and car platforms that support Acela, Regional, and long distance services and evolution over time like auto manufacturing. Single and bi-level car types would have limited modularity because of the significantly different number of passengers and and car weight. Even in California, I can't imagine 220 mph corridor trains not sharing tracks to reach metropolitan centers and not being required to conform with FRA regulations.
150 mph also is the practical limit since the limited number of Acelas on the NEC would hardly justify segregated trackage as required by the FRA, even if only for the short segments where the alignment would permit faster running. The NEC from Boston, MA to Petersburg, VA can not support much more than 150 mph which currently is touched only briefly in Rhode Island.
Methinks a smaller, lighter (cheaper), lower-CG MU set of Diesels would work for Talgos. A nice little 1,200-1,500 hp engine would work in each unit. Please don't mention "Quill" drive. It reminds me of Michael, the late, unlamented boss of the TWU!
Hays
blue streak 1Would you think that the unsprund weight problem can be solved. One has to wonder if the freight RRs want this for their high speed intermodals?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
It would be tempting to use a 2000 HP V-16 high speed diesel - skid mounted with generator, but the RRs haven't exactly fallen in love with applications of these engines in switchers - I have no idea what the issues are - , so maybe an 8-710 or 6 cyl inline GEVO would be a good solution.
The AEM7s have truck frame mounted motors, so the unsprung weight should be pretty low. I don't know about the HHP8s, but they should be the same as Acela.
Paul Milenkovic The prime requirement for a locomotive for Talgo or other tilt trains is a lower axle load. Another requirement that is almost as important is lower unsprung mass, especially for beyond 79 MPH operation. . Among the various schemes to reduce unsprung mass on powered axles, quill drive is making a comeback in Europe. A third requirement is some manner of aerodynamic match between the locomotive and train cars, and here is where a lower profile locomotive may help. The Talgo consists are supposed to have a locomotive at each end, to meet both the requirements for push-pull operation and grade crossing protection of the train crew and passengers. My thoughts would be to have a lightweight, streamlined-and-faired to match the Talgo, locomotive of about half that HP, one with a not more than 20 ton axle load and with either quill drive (as on the GG-1) or Cardan shaft drive (as on the PCC streetcar and on the Bullet Train) between the traction motors and the wheels. Paul : thank you for pointiing out these items. The Talgo Loco problems are something that needs looking into very much. Maybe the EMD and GE can come up with a Diesel loco of 2000+ HP fewer cylinders based on the present enviorementally friendly designs for each end of the Talgo? Would the smaller prime mover lower weight enough? How much ballast is in present passenger locos and motors? Would you think that the unsprund weight problem can be solved. One has to wonder if the freight RRs want this for their high speed intermodals? Off topic: Could it be this unsprung weight of current freight locos, AEM-7s and HHP-8s is causing the early deteoriation of concrete ties due to the rigid attachment of the rail to the concrete ties? I
The prime requirement for a locomotive for Talgo or other tilt trains is a lower axle load.
Another requirement that is almost as important is lower unsprung mass, especially for beyond 79 MPH operation. . Among the various schemes to reduce unsprung mass on powered axles, quill drive is making a comeback in Europe.
A third requirement is some manner of aerodynamic match between the locomotive and train cars, and here is where a lower profile locomotive may help.
The Talgo consists are supposed to have a locomotive at each end, to meet both the requirements for push-pull operation and grade crossing protection of the train crew and passengers. My thoughts would be to have a lightweight, streamlined-and-faired to match the Talgo, locomotive of about half that HP, one with a not more than 20 ton axle load and with either quill drive (as on the GG-1) or Cardan shaft drive (as on the PCC streetcar and on the Bullet Train) between the traction motors and the wheels.
Paul : thank you for pointiing out these items. The Talgo Loco problems are something that needs looking into very much. Maybe the EMD and GE can come up with a Diesel loco of 2000+ HP fewer cylinders based on the present enviorementally friendly designs for each end of the Talgo? Would the smaller prime mover lower weight enough? How much ballast is in present passenger locos and motors?
Would you think that the unsprund weight problem can be solved. One has to wonder if the freight RRs want this for their high speed intermodals?
Off topic: Could it be this unsprung weight of current freight locos, AEM-7s and HHP-8s is causing the early deteoriation of concrete ties due to the rigid attachment of the rail to the concrete ties? I
The prime requirement for a locomotive for Talgo or other tilt trains is a lower axle load. That the locomotive itself be able to tilt or have a low center of gravity is almost of no consequence. The concern is that the axle load of high HP two-axle trucked (B-B) locomotives, such as the Genesis and especially the F59, which is even heavier, spreads the track when run at high "cant deficiency."
Another requirement that is almost as important is lower unsprung mass, especially for beyond 79 MPH operation. High unsprung mass of nose-hung traction motors and high speeds will tear up the tracks and make operation of the train expensive, long term. Among the various schemes to reduce unsprung mass on powered axles, quill drive is making a comeback in Europe.
A third requirement is some manner of aerodynamic match between the locomotive and train cars, and here is where a lower profile locomotive may help. The swooping fairings on the Cascades Talgo are for styling and are not said to be windtunnel tested. Aerodynamic drag goes with the square of speed and is a major factor for 79 MPH and beyond, especially with respect to fuel consumption that we all care about.
The Talgo consists are supposed to have a locomotive at each end, to meet both the requirements for push-pull operation and grade crossing protection of the train crew and passengers. The Talgo is also lightweight. 4600+ HP at each end would give a 12-unit Talgo consist (equivalent to 6 conventional cars) a lot of acceleration to meet schedules, but 4600+ HP with conventional Diesel-electric technology is a freight locomotive with a 30-35 ton axle load. There may be a fuel economy and track wear-and-tear penalty for that kind of HP.
My thoughts would be to have a lightweight, streamlined-and-faired to match the Talgo, locomotive of about half that HP, one with a not more than 20 ton axle load and with either quill drive (as on the GG-1) or Cardan shaft drive (as on the PCC streetcar and on the Bullet Train) between the traction motors and the wheels.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
fafnir242Is there any hint as to what exactly the AEM7s are going to be replaced with? Has Amtrak been contacting any companies to get some kind of design in the works?
Amtrak has requested preliminary design specs and proposals for the various pieces of rolling stock to manufacturers but no release of the specs have become public. Once the Manufacturers come back with ideas then as soon as money is appropriated then Amtrak will probably issue "request for proposal" for the various items of equipment.
The following is pure speculation of what the performance specifications may be.
1. Acela replacements trains capable of 220 MPH, weigh somewhat less, and narrower to be able to operate with full tilt on MN RR NYP - New Haven.
2. Electric motors capable of 165 - 170 MPH probably 8000+ HP.
3. Single level Amfleet replacements same speed with tilt also.
4. Locomotives capable of 110 (maybe 125 like the UK) with some locos having a low center of Gravity and/or tilt capable to haul Talgos Probably 4600+ HP.
5. Bi-level equipment capable of 125 MPH.
6. Modular design for ease of repair and replacement especially items that do work to specification.
7. Some locomotives may be dual mode like the NJ Transit ALP46s.
If anyone come across the actual preliminary specs publishing them would be greatly appreciated.
.
blue streak 1More information: The Amtrak web site below then select "Amtrak requests funds........................" . The report will provide a good idea of the equipment orders that Amtrak wants to make. One item a constant 100+ passenger cars every year until 2021 then it may fall off. Whole report interesting reading. http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1241267278292 "Amtrak request funds......."
More information: The Amtrak web site below then select "Amtrak requests funds........................" . The report will provide a good idea of the equipment orders that Amtrak wants to make. One item a constant 100+ passenger cars every year until 2021 then it may fall off. Whole report interesting reading.
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1241267278292
"Amtrak request funds......."
Is there any hint as to what exactly the AEM7s are going to be replaced with? Has Amtrak been contacting any companies to get some kind of design in the works?
The information is mostly excerpted from the Strategic Plan and offers few specifics and no new information as far as I could tell.
Higher capacity NEC bi-levels still are absent while most of the corridor capacity goes unused.
When I go to New York, on the "Empire Builder", I check my 'excess baggage' thru to ALB. If/when the "Late Shore Limited" (thanks, CSX!) arrives, I retrieve the baggage and schlepp it to CRT (no checked baggage there, either [not even an Amtrak agent], but at least they have elevators). I have never been charged by 'Red Caps' at CHI, NYP, or even LAX. Even got a motor-cart ride to the "Sunset" in LAX. Of course, a 'tip' is in order.
NYP platforms are narrow, because the PRR spent all the money on the tunnels. No such problem at NYG, which had better engineering, too. The advent of the ubiquitous "Fat Chicks" and "Double-Wides" doesn't help.
As far as the new NJT tunnels go, depth of the excavations is not a problem. Aren't the new (whenever - they have only been 'in-the-works' for twenty years) LIRR tunnels coming in under the lower level? No problem to connect NJT with NYG, except money. There are already two levels under the lower level of GCT (steam tunnels, baggageways, and the power plant), but not many know about that. I think the power plant is below sea level. That Manhattan Schist is tough, impervious stuff!
aegrotatioFor only this reason I wish we had checked baggage on the NEC and redcaps at NYP. Oh well
Johnny
The LIRR platforms are wide to handle rushing commuters who need to move fast in a crowd. The intercity platforms, unfortunately shared with NJ Transit commuters, can just barely fit two people abreast between the column/stairwell and death.
This is one of the not-so-obvious reasons NJ Transit is building their own deep-level station for the ARC tunnel. NYP was not designed for commuters to crowd the intercity platforms especially now that Secaucus Junction is feeding the Northeast Corridor Line.
HarveyK400FWIW that's a looming problem at Union Station in Chicago as well, especially the south end. In the case of stub terminals, the premium is for seats at the one end of the train. The problem could be relieved further either by removing the unused baggage and express platforms and re-spacing the tracks. A gallery level above the platform would allow a second pedestrian stream to the concourse instead of to a plaza level entrance. The baggage and express platforms also could be rebuilt as column-free passenger platforms, removing the old platforms, and re-spacing the tracks. The Metra UP Ogilvie TC and Electric District Millennium Park (Randolph St) stations have auxilliary entrances.
That sounds like a good idea. I wonder what the platform widths are at Union Station, Ogilvie TC, and Penn Station? Compared to platforms in Germany they have always seemed rather narrow, but I do not know the actual dimensions.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
aegrotatio To address the intercity platforms at NYP, they are too skinny, but I believe this is due to the fact that passengers were not expected to lug their own luggage. Since NEC traffic often requires NO CHECKED BAGGAGE we are forced to deal with handling our own baggage at woefully inadequate paltforms. The columns and other protrusions on the platform are a real problem when alighting without redcaps. They are just too small and the columns/stairwells make them worse.For only this reason I wish we had checked baggage on the NEC and redcaps at NYP. Oh well.
To address the intercity platforms at NYP, they are too skinny, but I believe this is due to the fact that passengers were not expected to lug their own luggage. Since NEC traffic often requires NO CHECKED BAGGAGE we are forced to deal with handling our own baggage at woefully inadequate paltforms. The columns and other protrusions on the platform are a real problem when alighting without redcaps. They are just too small and the columns/stairwells make them worse.
For only this reason I wish we had checked baggage on the NEC and redcaps at NYP. Oh well.
oltmanndMy guess is that your guesses are reasonable and the architect didn't get it wrong so much as did the best he could with the space allotted. The platforms aren't so terrible except where they have to squeeze by the stairwells. I think the addition of escalators, the walling in of the stairwells and trying to shoehorn several hundred passengers down one stairwell make matter worse. I suspect it was a much kinder and gentler place in it's original form. There are some nice pix here that show the platforms in their original condition. Look at the space around the stairs. Much better than today, and the area open to the concourse would have a much roomier feel, too. http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/GON004.htm
There are some nice pix here that show the platforms in their original condition. Look at the space around the stairs. Much better than today, and the area open to the concourse would have a much roomier feel, too. http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/GON004.htm
From what everyone is saying, more escalators are needed to intercept and disperse platform access and egress at Penn Station, then there wouldn't be such a crowd pushing past the stairs to get to the one escalator. More escalators would reduce the premium for boarding and sitting in the middle of the trains. Of course this would affect the uses of the next level or two up from the platforms. I need to re-read the Trains article a few months back.
FWIW that's a looming problem at Union Station in Chicago as well, especially the south end. In the case of stub terminals, the premium is for seats at the one end of the train. The problem could be relieved further either by removing the unused baggage and express platforms and re-spacing the tracks. A gallery level above the platform would allow a second pedestrian stream to the concourse instead of to a plaza level entrance. The baggage and express platforms also could be rebuilt as column-free passenger platforms, removing the old platforms, and re-spacing the tracks. The Metra UP Ogilvie TC and Electric District Millennium Park (Randolph St) stations have auxilliary entrances.
HarveyK400 Maybe the platforms at Penn Station were inadequate then as now; and crowding then was prevalent and no one complained? Maybe the [architect] did get it wrong - happens. Maybe the numbers of trains and passengers were fewer and less critical back then?
Maybe the platforms at Penn Station were inadequate then as now; and crowding then was prevalent and no one complained? Maybe the [architect] did get it wrong - happens.
Maybe the numbers of trains and passengers were fewer and less critical back then?
Deggestyaegrotatio I do agree that gallery-style bi-levels are a good fit (like VRE's cars) for tunnels and clearances, I do not agree that the platforms can handle the extra crowding. The Amtrak platforms are stupidly tiny and can hardly handle a sold-out Regional alighting at NYP from WAS. NYP platforms (and egress routes) are horrifyingly inadequate. What shall we do about the plaforms in Penn Station? They were deemed adequate when the station was planned. Have the passengers increased in girth in the last 100 years (the station opened 27 Novemeber 1910). Were the designers stupid? It is true that the agency concerned about access for disabled people have had to make an exception for these platforms since they are not wide enough, in the view of the concerned agency. I have not used Penn Station many times (seven times in and out in forty-one years), so I am not qualified to speak concerning the adequacy of the egress routes
aegrotatio I do agree that gallery-style bi-levels are a good fit (like VRE's cars) for tunnels and clearances, I do not agree that the platforms can handle the extra crowding. The Amtrak platforms are stupidly tiny and can hardly handle a sold-out Regional alighting at NYP from WAS. NYP platforms (and egress routes) are horrifyingly inadequate.
I do agree that gallery-style bi-levels are a good fit (like VRE's cars) for tunnels and clearances, I do not agree that the platforms can handle the extra crowding. The Amtrak platforms are stupidly tiny and can hardly handle a sold-out Regional alighting at NYP from WAS.
NYP platforms (and egress routes) are horrifyingly inadequate.
oltmanndI've ridden on the NJT bilevels and they are surprisingly un-cramped. They are designed like an intermodal well car instead of std construction with a center sill like the gallery cars, so the floor of the bottom deck is only inches off the rail head, not a couple feet. The only drawback I see is that the overhead rack is not sized for carry-on luggage. It would seem cramped if it was. The solution appears to be what they did for the ACES train, that is to put a luggage area at the end of the seating area. Thanks for the first-hand report. Also, isn't the current state of the art for the TGV bi-level seating? If it's good enough for the French, why not us?Exactly! I think Amtrak is remiss in not developing bilevel second-generation trains for the NEC as a first priority. Outside the NEC, we've been left to our own priorities.
Also, isn't the current state of the art for the TGV bi-level seating? If it's good enough for the French, why not us?
Exactly! I think Amtrak is remiss in not developing bilevel second-generation trains for the NEC as a first priority. Outside the NEC, we've been left to our own priorities.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.