Trains.com

Is RAILnet-21 the Future of Amtrak? Will Private Investment in the NEC Spur Competition?

5624 views
43 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    September 2011
  • 6,449 posts
Posted by MidlandMike on Friday, September 18, 2020 9:28 PM

Overmod
I suspect current equipment on the Springfield line is rigged for cab control, and in all probability what you would see on an extended Keystone train would be something like a converted-Metroliner cab on one end, ...

As I recall, the Keystone service is already oprating this way, engine and cab-control car (although electric).  This is needed since the train reverses direction midway at 30th St Station.  As you say, no need for dual cab engines here.

  • Member since
    August 2006
  • From: Matthews NC
  • 363 posts
Posted by matthewsaggie on Friday, September 18, 2020 9:19 PM

Change at Jamaica.

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Friday, September 18, 2020 4:49 PM

What is the aversion to a cross-platform, coordinated change of trains to get to those less-frequented endpoints? It's done in Europe all the time. The insistence on a one-seat service increases complexity and cost. 

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, September 18, 2020 3:11 PM

SD60MAC9500
Plenty of genesis locos are and will be retired. Add a second cab and swapping the primemover/gen combo for transformer/rectifier/inverter combo should be an easy conversion.

Three problems with this: Many of the Genesis locomotives being retired are DC, not AC drive; the whole point of the conversion is to make them both diesel and electric, not to make a sort of ACS-64lite; it would be difficult to package a second cab other than by completely replacing the radiator compartment which would involve a potload of other mechanical changes, and if the second cab is true S-580 probably overstress the monocoque in the center.

I suspect current equipment on the Springfield line is rigged for cab control, and in all probability what you would see on an extended Keystone train would be something like a converted-Metroliner cab on one end, eith any 'multiples' of power needed for longer trains added to the opposite end rather than obligate top-and-tail (as in some of the Midwest corridors).  In any case there would be no need for a bidirectional engine conversion as there would be little advantage in dropping HEP power to run the locomotive around the train at Springfield.

One possibility might be to repower with something like a modular QSK95 on a sled, optimized to run sans EGR or DPF with proportional use of SCR for all NO reduction at the higher peak temps for higher compression ratio, and updated generator; this has a lower required overhead height where the pan for dual-mode-lite could go.  It should not be difficult to source uprated motors to match, say, what's stock for the Chargers, and you then have a perfectly adequate 110mph locomotive that can handle a Springfield (or Atlantic City or Northampton or B&A turn to Boston or any other long-distance one-seat-ride service that begins, ends, or uses unelectrified trackage) effectively.

I would add that option 2 on such a mechanical rebuild -- which would involve using the P32 dual-mode shoes and voltage-to-voltage transversion to DC-link instead of 11/12.5/25kV AC) is also possible if you do about a mile of third-rail installation west of Bergen Hill.  That has the additional advantage (if there is the real point in it that some see) of giving runthrough from anywhere north of Baltimore onto the LIRR on either the electrified or unelectrified trackage.
 

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Sterling Heights, Michigan
  • 1,691 posts
Posted by SD60MAC9500 on Friday, September 18, 2020 12:33 PM
 

Overmod

 

 
charlie hebdo
Look to getting a design from Siemens, rather than some homegrown variety. 

 

Give Siemens the specs from the Conrail dual-mode lite program in the early '80s and say 'make variants of this modular to plug into the DC link of existing AC-drive designs.

 

There is no need to reinvent the wheel or build Starships or full six-million-dollar-plus dual modes that only governments can afford.  Electrify the engines you have, to do the job the way you're familiar with, and use only the additional capacity those engines can source.  Or if you want the advantages of hybrid consists using battery-electrics, put the catenary (or third-rail) means on the nominally electric unit and make connections to feed the others as needed.

The possibilities for NEC-capable trains that can run on unwired continuation (or in wire outages) are more than just a turn to Hartford or Springfield...

 

Plenty of genesis locos are and will be retired. Add a second cab and swapping the primemover/gen combo for transformer/rectifier/inverter combo should be an easy conversion.

 
Rahhhhhhhhh!!!!
  • Member since
    September 2011
  • 6,449 posts
Posted by MidlandMike on Thursday, September 17, 2020 9:26 PM

CSSHEGEWISCH

Don't know about Philly but I don't think that diesels are allowed in the East River and Hudson River tunnels.

 

I assumed they would use th 3rd rail equiped diesels in NYP.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, September 17, 2020 2:41 PM

charlie hebdo
Look to getting a design from Siemens, rather than some homegrown variety. 

Give Siemens the specs from the Conrail dual-mode lite program in the early '80s and say 'make variants of this modular to plug into the DC link of existing AC-drive designs.

There is no need to reinvent the wheel or build Starships or full six-million-dollar-plus dual modes that only governments can afford.  Electrify the engines you have, to do the job the way you're familiar with, and use only the additional capacity those engines can source.  Or if you want the advantages of hybrid consists using battery-electrics, put the catenary (or third-rail) means on the nominally electric unit and make connections to feed the others as needed.

The possibilities for NEC-capable trains that can run on unwired continuation (or in wire outages) are more than just a turn to Hartford or Springfield...

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Thursday, September 17, 2020 11:07 AM

Electrification should be part of a plan for the future.  Look to getting a design from Siemens, rather than some homegrown variety. 

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, September 17, 2020 10:37 AM

MidlandMike
...are diesels allowed in the downtown Philly terminal tunnel?

I don't think so, but I also don't think anything that is a continuation of NEC to Keystone (Harrisburg via the old main line) service would go through the tunnel to what used to be Suburban Square.  There certainly was diesel operation into 30th Street from time to time.

As noted, getting through the New York tunnels is the more critical issue here.  Very theoretically the 'least-cost' solution would be to acquire some of the third-rail dual-modes for the enhanced Harrisburg-to-Springfield trains and slightly extend the existing third rail in the North River tunnels out past the portal again to give quick enough transition to and from diesel without stopping.  The 'next best' alternative would be to run electric from Harrisburg up to end of the wire on the Springfield line north of New Haven and then use dedicated pool diesels for the relatively short (~60 miles) north to where the ex-B&A goes across.

Reading between the lines, the patronage on the Springfield trains had been growing faster than expected, leading to somewhat unwanted discussions about more trains.  The proposed run-through makes greater sense in that it provides those trains as well as increasing the possibility of direct one-seat rides from Harrisburg and the communities east to Philadelphia as well as all those other sources along the NEC north of New Haven.  The catch is that there is neither money nor time for electrifying the newly-double-tracked line yet... although option 3 would be just that: to strategically electrify those 60 miles with constant-tension cat in preparation for enhanced 'commuter' traffic to Boston if any of those strange proposals to get the 'second service' going ever get built.

 

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Thursday, September 17, 2020 9:59 AM

Don't know about Philly but I don't think that diesels are allowed in the East River and Hudson River tunnels.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    September 2011
  • 6,449 posts
Posted by MidlandMike on Wednesday, September 16, 2020 9:32 PM

A number of the proposed routes would put a lot of diesel on the NEC.  The Harrisburg-Springfield replacement of the Keystone service would end electric service to Harrisburg.  Also, are diesels allowed in the downtown Phily terminal tunnel?

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Tuesday, September 15, 2020 10:59 AM

I wouldn't put much stock in anything written by the author of the article. 

  • Member since
    November 2014
  • 250 posts
Posted by ORNHOO on Monday, September 14, 2020 10:25 PM

In addition there would be hourly Ronkonkoma-Alexandria run throughs and Keystones would run through to Springfield MA. I don't know where they envision servicing the trains in Ronkonkoma, land acquisition would likely be pricey. With the (pre-covid) popularity of the LIRR "Cannonball" Friday trains, it seemed to me this would be a good addition to Amtrak NEC service. I seem to recall reading that Pennsy once ran through sleepers on the LIRR.

  • Member since
    September 2011
  • 6,449 posts
Posted by MidlandMike on Monday, September 14, 2020 8:35 PM

The Railway Age article talks about making more run-thru trains at NY Penn.  Don't most of the trains from DC go thru to Boston?  The Empire service terminates at NYP, so continuing on to Ronkonkoma would make it run-thru, but it's the only one I can think of.

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Sterling Heights, Michigan
  • 1,691 posts
Is RAILnet-21 the Future of Amtrak? Will Private Investment in the NEC Spur Competition?
Posted by SD60MAC9500 on Monday, September 14, 2020 12:43 PM
 

Ran into some interesting information this morning over at Railway Age. A company called Ameristar Rail is proposing to fund expansion of the NEC. Whilst providing some competition in the Northeast with through service and changes to train schedules. This includes stops providing better connections and possibly code sharing ticket rides it appears.

The next piece information comes form something called RAILnet-21 which proposes to split Amtrak into two federally controlled entities. Sounds like a legit plan. Me personally I believe Amtrak from it's beginings should have been an investment tool for the Class 1's. A program akin to the Short Line 45G tax credit. Let the private operators handle the network providing them incentives to develop greater capacity RoW to handle multi-speed traffic. 

 
 
Rahhhhhhhhh!!!!

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy