This happened within 3 miles of Sunnyside engine house and resulted in a catastrophic delay. What does this indicate to you folks?
More than 100 passengers stuck on Acela to Boston for hours (wcvb.com)
I'll be highly interested to read a report with technical details of this incident.
I don't know if the picture in that article was taken at the scene, but it makes me wonder if they had trouble finding a way to tow the Acela. The smoke makes me wonder if nincompoops plugged in the HEP with the Acela pans still up -- I notice pointedly that no complaints about light and HVAC are in the story, so it's likely a traction issue of some kind -- unlike the pan story on the 'Acela IIs' which seems to have been "resolved" entirely under the radar of the railfan press, but remains highly technically interesting nonetheless. Isn't 'three miles from Sunnyside enginehouse' right around the fun at Harold?
Onboard staff get kudos for the drinks and snacks. But not explaining the increasing Chinese fire drill to the passengers... for nearly seven hours???,... is even worse than not moving a stalled train off the most congested part of the NEC for that length of time. I have no comment for the record regarding the handling of the smoke issue.
To me, the logical thing would have been to bring out some boards or bridges, and run the 'next' Acela (or other train with compatible door spacing) onto a parallel track adjacent to the train, then transfer as many passengers as wanted to go carefully over the bridges to get them to Penn expediently. Bean counters concerned with modern liability exposure probably throw up their hands in horror at the idea.
OM, I was being generous with 3 miles, actually it is 2.3 by road and less than 2 by rail. The length of that delay is inexcusable. There are yard crews at Sunnyside, send them with a locomotive to tow the Acela to Penn Station (Moynihan) and transfer the passengers. If the Acela cannot be moved there are transfers that can be enacted. A 6 plus hour delay is inexcusable and totally unnecessary. Gross incompetence is still the norm at Amtrak.
Almost 7 hours? Those poor people. Ridiculous.
Look, why don't they just quit foolin' around, dig out the blueprints for the GG1 and just build new ones? I mean really!
Grade F for all Amtrak personnel involved at any level.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Flintlock76 Look, why don't they just quit foolin' around, dig out the blueprints for the GG1 and just build new ones? I mean really!
Good point, they lasted almost 50 years and could run 110MPH or better.
CSSHEGEWISCH Flintlock76 Look, why don't they just quit foolin' around, dig out the blueprints for the GG1 and just build new ones? I mean really! I hope that your proposal was tongue-in-cheek. Manufacturers for castings for the running gear would be difficult to find, the electrical gear is obsolescent, visibility is limited, etc., etc. etc.
If something was made by man once - it CAN be made by man again.
The only question is $$$$$$$$$$$$.
BaltACD CSSHEGEWISCH Flintlock76 Look, why don't they just quit foolin' around, dig out the blueprints for the GG1 and just build new ones? I mean really! I hope that your proposal was tongue-in-cheek. Manufacturers for castings for the running gear would be difficult to find, the electrical gear is obsolescent, visibility is limited, etc., etc. etc. If something was made by man once - it CAN be made by man again. The only question is $$$$$$$$$$$$.
Large castings? Shipyards can do it.
Electrical gear obsolescent? It worked for almost 50 years.
Limited visibility? What the hell, you can't stop on a dime anyway.
I'll take the obsolete POS that works over a high-tech wonder that doesn't.
Of course I was being tongue-in-cheek, but if you've got a piece of modern equipment being designed by engineers who seem more interested in impressing other engineers than they are in building something simple that WORKS you're likely to suffer in the reliability sector. The engineers don't have to maintain, drive, or ride in the thing.
Second choice would be the AEM-7 a dependable and fast locomotive.
You have to remember that the numbers were run back in the late '70s when the option of a rebuilt GG1 was considered. This was for a welded frame with chevron springs on the six driver axles, new main transformer arrangement capable of 60Hz and I think 13,500V, and low-inertia pantographs, with new TMs to get to the 6000hp continuous.
Price was about 4.5M circa 1976. And it was still monstrously too heavy for 120mph Metroliner service with Amfleet consists.
Hence the toasters, which you can laugh at for low starting adhesion and After Dark appearance as a high-speed passenger locomotive... but they proved themselves many times over, even as the true-high=speed HHP-8s came and went...
Did the GG1 rebuild proposal include dynamic braking?
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
SD70DudeDid the GG1 rebuild proposal include dynamic braking?
There were two colossal problems with a 2-C-C-2 locomotive stopping Amfleet trains. One was that the cars couldn't help stop the enormous mass of that locomotive effectively; the other was that the locomotive brakes were tread-only... on shrink-on tires.
The original testing involved the ability to run 10% over the service speed, which is where the 110mph for 100mph service and 120+ for 110mph service came from. I know there was discussion about Metroliner speeds but as Tim Zukas has pointed out, there were never employee timetables with the higher speeds until the AEM-7s came.
Any idea that 110mph sustained would be reached with Gs ended with the tire problem. At that point there was an idea that all future service wheels would have to be one-piece cast (you find this embedded in the ACE3000 patent description IIRC) and this for a quill-drive 57" or larger x 12 got to be a very interesting number.
The AEM-7 solution to the brake issue was quite intelligent: it uses comparatively large drivers and puts the disc-brake rotors in the whole of the wheel center, so the tread heats 'last' and there is no wear of shoes on the wheeltread profile. Blended braking is just the icing on the cake with that.
Well that's just as good, maybe better. At least they tried to deal with the heavy locomotive/light train braking issues.
OvermodPrice was about 4.5M circa 1976. And it was still monstrously too heavy for 120mph Metroliner service with Amfleet consists.
And that's something that has me continuously scratching my head. WHY the obsession with 100mph+ speed? Potential passengers aren't interested in high speed as much as they are in RELIABILITY, as in "Getting there on the advertised" as the old saying went.
Leave when you say you're going to leave, and get there when you say you're going to get there. If passengers want to get there quicker they'll fly anyway and put up with airport hassles.
How much of an advertisement for reliability was that broken-down Acela?
And oh yeah, those toasters were good locomotives. They should have built new ones.
Higher speeds sound cool. It's the same fallacy as building shiny new bridges and highways compared to how boring maintaining your existing infrastructure is.
Flintlock76 And oh yeah, those toasters were good locomotives. They should have built new ones.
The AEM-7 was an existing and proven European locomotive design that was adapted for North American operating conditions and regulations. So is the ACS-64, which has been just as reliable so far.
Flintlock76WHY the obsession with 100mph+ speed?
There was a big push in the Carter Administration to rebuild large parts of the Corridor to 150mph rating. Among other things there was a 10% setaside for minority contractors, to give them a foot in the door in general competition and gaining experience. That was kind and wise in spirit, but turned out to be ill-advised, for a variety of unfortunate reasons that left the work hopelessly incomplete but over budget. There are still many places that require extensive work to reach only middling additional speed.
Keep in mind that in the late '70s, Silverliner commuter trains regularly reached speeds in excess of 100mph south of New Brunswick, even making all stops. There was no question that Amtrak planned to operate at the speeds the Amfleet equipment (derived from Metroliners, with the more 'correct' truck design originally meant to be used on Metroliners). In fact by the time of the Chase wreck, Amtrak was probably operating a great many places at 135+mph with AEM-7s. I was in Princeton Junction station in the fall of 1986, and a three-car train came through there like a thrown knife, faster than I remember seeing any other train move at that distance. There is assuredly a market for sustainable high speed between a number of destination pairs both east and south of NYP...
...oh yeah, those toasters were good locomotives. They should have built new ones.
Flintlock76 Overmod Price was about 4.5M circa 1976. And it was still monstrously too heavy for 120mph Metroliner service with Amfleet consists. And that's something that has me continuously scratching my head. WHY the obsession with 100mph+ speed? Potential passengers aren't interested in high speed as much as they are in RELIABILITY, as in "Getting there on the advertised" as the old saying went. Leave when you say you're going to leave, and get there when you say you're going to get there. If passengers want to get there quicker they'll fly anyway and put up with airport hassles. How much of an advertisement for reliability was that broken-down Acela? And oh yeah, those toasters were good locomotives. They should have built new ones.
Overmod Price was about 4.5M circa 1976. And it was still monstrously too heavy for 120mph Metroliner service with Amfleet consists.
Maybe you should ask the millions of millions of passengers who fly in jetliners?
charlie hebdoMaybe you should ask the millions of millions of passengers who fly in jetliners?
Exactly my point. Anyone who has to be there yesterday isn't going to take the train, depending on distance of course. Anyone who's looking for speed is willing to put up with the cramped conditions of flying and the airport hassles, to say nothing of the prices of airport concessions.
By the way, I loved to fly once, but it's no fun anymore.
Hence my point of the target market for passenger trains is someone who isn't in a rush but wants to be assured of getting where they want to be in a reasonable amount of time and with an assurance of getting there when you tell them you'll be there. Railroads used to pride themselves on that.
I know, I know, another age and time and the days of "The Century MUST get through!" are over, but I hope everyone sees the point I'm trying to make.
Flintlock76 charlie hebdo Maybe you should ask the millions of millions of passengers who fly in jetliners? Exactly my point. Anyone who has to be there yesterday isn't going to take the train, depending on distance of course. Anyone who's looking for speed is willing to put up with the cramped conditions of flying and the airport hassles, to say nothing of the prices of airport concessions. By the way, I loved to fly once, but it's no fun anymore. Hence my point of the target market for passenger trains is someone who isn't in a rush but wants to be assured of getting where they want to be in a reasonable amount of time and with an assurance of getting there when you tell them you'll be there. Railroads used to pride themselves on that. I know, I know, another age and time and the days of "The Century MUST get through!" are over, but I hope everyone sees the point I'm trying to make.
charlie hebdo Maybe you should ask the millions of millions of passengers who fly in jetliners?
The "sweet spot" for passenger rail is in populous corridors, 250-400 miles long, depending on speed. If the sustainable is 100+ mph, rail triumphs over the overcrowded airways and definitely the highways.
zWe have to wonder what will be the passenger demand when /"IF" the time from NYP <> PHL's 91 miles can be 45 minutes? That instead of today's 1:12 on AX-1s. Then passengers could plan on using the various commuter and subways on either or both ends to complete their journeys. Might be a lot of day workers using that service?? Maybe just :59 might be enough??
charlie hebdoThe "sweet spot" for passenger rail is in populous corridors, 250-400 miles long, depending on speed. If the sustainable is 100+ mph, rail triumphs over the overcrowded airways and definitely the highways.
I agree!
I'll give you an example. We had a friend who lived in New Jersey who'd come to visit us in Virginia on occasion. Originally he drove, which took about six hours more-or-less. Later, when he was convinced of the reliability of Amtrak service from there to here he took the train. The time was the same, around six hours, but he was spared the driving. Avoiding the drive and the "what if's" involved was more important than any time saved. The six-hour figure was good enough.
For your friend, yes. For me, I'll drive if the train is no faster.
It still amazes me that people think 79 mph is fast enough. My grandmother rode on faster trains and I'm 64 years old. Even my mother (88 years old) recently told me she won't ride Amtrak again. "Too slow" was her exact quote.
This assessment is correct. Midtown to midtown in the 500 mile and under corridors is where Amtrak can compete with the airlines and automobiles. Long-distance trains should be relegated to 'tourist trains' and run only in the summer months.
If non-NEC Amtrak trains could go 79 mph consistently on all parts of their routes where this speed is remotely practical, and not be delayed by freights, slow orders and suspicious dispatching, I'd be happy.
I ride trains to watch the country go by. I don't really want to go any faster than 79, as then it's harder to really take in the scenery.
Still in training.
243129Midtown to midtown in the 500 mile and under corridors is where Amtrak can compete with the airlines and automobiles.
First we have to get the marketing value of perceived high speed 'out of the way'. As Joe pointed out, I think correctly, the actual time value of Acela I over 'what could be achieved with AEM-7s or HHP-8s and Amfleet' in the current corridor turned out to be minimal, particularly when expensive tilt turned out to be impractical on the only sections of the NEC its use would have been meaningful. As Joe also pointed out, much of the theoretical time reductions technically possible with the Acela IIs won't be practically achieved on the 'real' NEC within the equipment lifetime. So much of the money from "HSR" is a marketing issue, not a technical part of this discussion -- and to me, it follows that better amenities in a marginally slower (but perhaps dramatically less expensive) train is a better short-term alternative for enhancing Amtrak patronage and revenue 'from willing sources'.
The optimal corridors for HSR are constrained both by physics and effective politics, in that there is a practical minimum on distances between stations (personally, I consider the practical maximum well over '600 miles' in theory, but only for well-defined sets of destination pairs, and at a cost I don't see worthwhile in my remaining lifetime) and a number of reasons to put most of the line (including much of the city approaches) either 'in the sticks' or heavily grade-separated... ideally in a hole or otherwise hidden from the various impacts, both perceived and actual, with the "ambient environment".
We can note that this already has ruled out Wilmington as a practical stop on a 220mph spine service, although it happily works in 125mph HrSR with you-do-the-math impact on practical Wilmington-to-Washington travel time.
There is also the issue of actual destination-to-destination time for HSR. Most of the time, the convenience of true origin-to-destination combined with 'having mobility at destination' will make actual corridor speed combined with amenities critical as we get into an era of practical autonomous operation... I would never have considered taking Amtrak to Charlottesville at any time in the early '80s, for example, for the simple reason that doing so and having to rent a car to go to and from the house in Keswick would be ridiculously more expensive than the 24-gallon tank of gas in the Eldorado that did the same thing. Much of this problem can be theoretically solved with better coordination of services, and this I think is where much Amtrak research on future service ought to be concentrated, but there is still much more in the proper coordination of true high-speed and high-speed-regional that needs to be done.
Even in high-speed regional (as we have repeatedly discussed with the Hiawatha service and some of the proposed services to the Twin Cities and Green Bay) there are hard limits on the practical overall time saving for very expensive physical improvements. If this were 'one-and-done' line improvements like grade or curve straightening or true grade-crossing risk elimination, it would be one thing, but many of the necessary improvements have a long and sometimes alarming 'tail' of maintenance and operating expenses, failure of which will neatly remove safe achievement of time reduction. In these cases we need to look carefully at the actual benefit of the higher speed vs. putting the capital into things that make an incrementally slower trip popular.
Overmod I'll be highly interested to read a report with technical details of this incident
I'll be highly interested to read a report with technical details of this incident
Who will produce a public report on this?
Lithonia Operator Overmod I'll be highly interested to read a report with technical details of this incident Who will produce a public report on this?
(nudge, nudge, wink, wink, know what I mean?)
Overmod Lithonia Operator Overmod I'll be highly interested to read a report with technical details of this incident Who will produce a public report on this? I was not expecting that there would be one. (nudge, nudge, wink, wink, know what I mean?)
I was not expecting that there would be one.
Not exactly. Are you thinking that details might leak out thru the grapevine?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.