Amtrak Downeaster Discussion Thread

[Red Wing]

The Downeaster coaches are set up with half the seats facing one way
and the other half facing the other way.

But with a wye in Brunswick and Boston then the potential new wye in Portland you would never have to run in push pull so all seats could face forward.

[Trinnau]

But with a wye in Brunswick and Boston then the potential new wye in Portland you would never have to run in push pull so all seats could face forward.

You're missing something here. An eastbound Downeaster currently departs Boston engine first, pulls into Portland engine first, then backs down to the mainline and pulls into Brunswick engine first. The cabbage almost always leads heading west (unless they have double-engines). Again, the only difference is the reverse move into the station at Portland.

The intent of the wye in Portland is to eliminate the backup move for through trains to Brunswick. This would in fact turn the train mid-trip, so the rear of the train leaving Boston would become the head end Portland to Brunswick.

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

They really can't handle all that traffic without another siding?

The schedule puts two trains on one track at the same time. Inevitablele conflict ensues. As noted in other discussions the schedule is based on MBTA track slots so I doubt there's much room for changes that would avoid this conflict. Plenty of room for debate and discussion of course but my impression is that this is a legitimate problem that is framed by their operating constraints.

Whoa, whoa. We don't even have our post- Haverhill Line track project MBTA slots sketched out in crayon yet. Because very soon after that project is done the North Station drawbridge rehab project starts and introduces a whole new set of temporary northside schedule constraints. What conditions is NNEPRA basing this conclusion on that there's no "room for changes that would avoid this conflict", when the T itself is another project dependency away from tweaking its own DE-impacting schedules permanently? And arguably TWO projects away from having a real-deal final Haverhill slotting when you figure that they still have to go fishing for a Bradford layover replacement despite NH canceling the Plaistow extension. NNEPRA is making a lot of blanket assumptions that today's schedule will be every day's future schedule to justify spending $10M on Royal. That is empirically not true.

They can have all the documents and string charts they they want. It's all based on a spurious assumption they never followed-up on, because apparently it's too darn hard to do math for factors two degrees of separation from their own navels. It is their job to make these inquiries, because they're too small a state to rely on blanket assumptions when seeking other people's money. How do they expect to get future fed investments of similar size if they won't go to that much effort? And how would they frame the answer to (<--) this question to federal officials who have to evaluate a pile of grant apps.

[Red Wing]

You're missing something here. An eastbound Downeaster currently departs Boston engine first, pulls into Portland engine first, then backs down to the mainline and pulls into Brunswick engine first. The cabbage almost always leads heading west (unless they have double-engines). Again, the only difference is the reverse move into the station at Portland.

The intent of the wye in Portland is to eliminate the backup move for through trains to Brunswick. This would in fact turn the train mid-trip, so the rear of the train leaving Boston would become the head end Portland to Brunswick.

After reading the engineering study I see that is what they are doing. I still propose they run the Downeaster as the Vermonter is run through Springfield and St. Albans. I am also interested in knowing what is faster backing the train up or changing cabs. Bet backing up wins.

[Rockingham Racer]

You're missing something here. An eastbound Downeaster currently departs Boston engine first, pulls into Portland engine first, then backs down to the mainline and pulls into Brunswick engine first. The cabbage almost always leads heading west (unless they have double-engines). Again, the only difference is the reverse move into the station at Portland.

The intent of the wye in Portland is to eliminate the backup move for through trains to Brunswick. This would in fact turn the train mid-trip, so the rear of the train leaving Boston would become the head end Portland to Brunswick.

After reading the engineering study I see that is what they are doing. I still propose they run the Downeaster as the Vermonter is run through Springfield and St. Albans. I am also interested in knowing what is faster backing the train up or changing cabs. Bet backing up wins.

Depends on how fast the engineer can run.

[Trinnau]

The Downeasters operating through to Brunswick are scheduled for 10 minutes in Portland. That's sufficient time to change ends. They'd probably be able to shave minutes off the Freeport-to-Portland time.

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

The Downeasters operating through to Brunswick are scheduled for 10 minutes in Portland. That's sufficient time to change ends. They'd probably be able to shave minutes off the Freeport-to-Portland time.

Vermonter has a 15-17 minute layover at Springfield for staging the backup. Vermonter + Springfield NE Regionals have 12 minute layover at New Haven for the engine swap. Vermonter has 15-minute layover at Penn just for the ridership overchurn. All Empire trains (incl. EAE, Adirondack, excluding the Lake Shore Limited mash-up) pause for 15 every time at Albany for the engine swap. The Keystone lays over at 30th St. for 15 minutes for the ends change.

That's the going-rate layover for an equipment turn in revenue service, done for routes all in and around the Northeast since the dawn of Amtrak if not the dawn of diesel power, in cities far larger and more mission-critical than Portland. Portland layover is already the best-case for the whole eastern seaboard. There aren't theoretical savings in a perfect world to be had in NNEPRA's string charts, because Amtrak S.O.P. says to bake in a default 10-15 min. for any such unorthodox station movements. And NNEPRA is basing their whole $10M case for a wye leg that somehow 10 minutes is improvable when any form of movement that isn't straight-in/straight-out gets slapped with the automatic Amtrak-default 10-15 layover. Not one second will be saved in the real world. Not one.

And all this despite not having any clue whether their next station site is even going to stay on the Mountain stub or move to the mainline.

[MEC407]

And all this despite not having any clue whether their next station site is even going to stay on the Mountain stub or move to the mainline.

They've been quite clear about the station staying at Thompson's Point. They did a study, looked at two or three other locations, and TP came out on top. The study report was posted either here or in the Portland passenger stations thread.

[Station Aficionado]

This is the study on the NNEPRA website, although it dates from 2011. It clearly says Thompson's point is the best alternative. Is there any evidence of a change of heart since then?

[MEC407]

No evidence at all.

[Trinnau]

The Downeasters operating through to Brunswick are scheduled for 10 minutes in Portland. That's sufficient time to change ends. They'd probably be able to shave minutes off the Freeport-to-Portland time.

Vermonter has a 15-17 minute layover at Springfield for staging the backup. Vermonter + Springfield NE Regionals have 12 minute layover at New Haven for the engine swap. Vermonter has 15-minute layover at Penn just for the ridership overchurn. All Empire trains (incl. EAE, Adirondack, excluding the Lake Shore Limited mash-up) pause for 15 every time at Albany for the engine swap. The Keystone lays over at 30th St. for 15 minutes for the ends change.

That's the going-rate layover for an equipment turn in revenue service, done for routes all in and around the Northeast since the dawn of Amtrak if not the dawn of diesel power, in cities far larger and more mission-critical than Portland. Portland layover is already the best-case for the whole eastern seaboard. There aren't theoretical savings in a perfect world to be had in NNEPRA's string charts, because Amtrak S.O.P. says to bake in a default 10-15 min. for any such unorthodox station movements. And NNEPRA is basing their whole $10M case for a wye leg that somehow 10 minutes is improvable when any form of movement that isn't straight-in/straight-out gets slapped with the automatic Amtrak-default 10-15 layover. Not one second will be saved in the real world. Not one.

And all this despite not having any clue whether their next station site is even going to stay on the Mountain stub or move to the mainline.

I think you actually just made NNEPRA's point for the wye.

The Downeaster is 10 minutes on the platform at PTC. Meaning that 10 minutes has nothing to do with the current reverse move. If you're saying Amtrak bakes in 10 minutes default for such a move, that is in the transit time between Portland and Freeport, which is currently 30 minutes by schedule. So taking out the 10-minute "baked in" back up move by restoring the wye saves 10 minutes, probably minus a minute or two of run time. They already have the 10 minutes on the schedule at PTC which would accommodate swapping ends. So $10million saves 10 minutes every train.

[gokeefe]

And all this despite not having any clue whether their next station site is even going to stay on the Mountain stub or move to the mainline.

They've been quite clear about the station staying at Thompson's Point. They did a study, looked at two or three other locations, and TP came out on top. The study report was posted either here or in the Portland passenger stations thread.

Thank you MEC407 for the response. I didn't even get around to addressing it. I completely agree, it's going to be at Thompson's Point and there has been no reason whatsoever to believe otherwise.

[gokeefe]

Depends on how fast the engineer can run.

You've been here long enough so you probably know but for those who don't ... the engineer does not changes ends under the current procedure he (or she ... ) stays in the leading end of the train and one of the conductors rides in the tail end as it backs down the track from the Portland station. The conductor riding in the rear verifies all signals clear onto the Freight Main Line and the engineer is then able to simply flip a couple of levers and roll forward through the switch once it is aligned (which doesn't seem to take long at all).

The move is still problematic for its own reasons especially as the schedule of frequencies for passenger trains increases.

[Dick H]

I rode the dome car round trip between Dover and Portland yesterday on 683/686.
I would say about 80% of the seats in the dome were taken in both directions, which
would figure out to 48 of the 60 seats taken. The conductor did warn all riders in
the dome, that they would have to depart the dome ahead of the stop at their
destination, (other than Portland), as the average dwell time at the stations of
30 seconds would not allow time to depart the dome and walk through either one
or two coaches to detain, before the train departed.

On the return trip, an attendant from the café car went through the dome car
taking orders for goodies and delivering them. Also, of note was how well the
six wheel trucks on the dome smoothed over the ride through the switches.

Hopefully, the dome will make a return visit to the DE in 2017.

[Allouette]

The Vermonter doesn't get 15 minutes in Springfield to "change ends". The timetable pull-in/back-out or vice versa is not reflected in the station dwell time. The extended time is a legacy of changing crews at Springfield, and really has nothing to to with whether the train runs through (as it did in the "Palmer see-saw" days) or operates as it does today.