Railroad Forums 

  • Why is the ride so rough between NYC and DC?

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

 #1509383  by ajl1239
 
On the Northeast Regional -- and I assume the Acela as well (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMt6v7iqd74" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) -- the track between NYC and DC is painfully rough.Whether entering Philadelphia or traveling between BWI and Union Station, you shake so much that it almost feels like a rough rollercoaster.

I've ridden trains all over the world -- including developing countries -- and none (yes, at faster speeds, too) have been as rough as Amtrak between NYC and DC.

What's going on? Why is the track in such poor condition? Why isn't it being properly maintained?

This should be Amtrak's "show piece" line, but it's appalling.
 #1509430  by Safetee
 
While we can be pretty sure that the NEC track is fully compliant with the FRA Track Safety Standards, the difference between the standards and a superior ride quality index is a lot of money.
 #1509451  by Safetee
 
Amtrak has one of the better railway engineering staffs. They have to be good because they get very little to work with.Their inability to match their asian and european counterparts for ride quality control isn't a result of incompetence. It's a result of an environment going back to the beginning of Amtrak that stresses minimal funding with promises for even less in the future.
 #1509475  by CarterB
 
ajl1239 wrote:Maybe yes and maybe no. The cost of infrastructure work is way more expensive in the United States than Europe or Japan.
And more bureaucratic red tape, environmental constraints, tree huggers and so on. What a shame that USA can't have a "world class" rail passenger system, such as many countries in Europe and Asia. Even our regional/commuter systems can't compare to most in Europe. I travel by rail often in Germany, there on an ICE I can get a FULL cup of very hot coffee, and only a slight ripple at 150mph, Try that on ANY train here in USA.
 #1509520  by STrRedWolf
 
I hear 'ya about the BWI to WAS ride on Track 3. It needs a lot of work, especially between BWI and GROVE interlock. At times, I could feel the flatspots on the wheels of the car I was in. I let the conductor know, but I think it was at least a year back. Most of the track work lately has been on Track 1.

Amtrak has pushed back blocking off Track 1 BOWIE to BRIDGE until August now.
 #1509543  by Suburban Station
 
ajl1239 wrote:This is really just about money? Or is it also about the competence of Amtrak?
money. as I understand it, Amtrak does/did not have the staff nor equipment to keep up on ballast/undercutting. you would make such a decision if you weren't sure whether funding would be consistently available. not just from the feds but prior to PRIIA, commuter railroads did not contribute as much to ongoing maintenance either. it takes years to recover once you let it go.
 #1509547  by Train60
 
ajl1239 wrote:money. as I understand it, Amtrak does/did not have the staff nor equipment to keep up on ballast/undercutting. you would make such a decision if you weren't sure whether funding would be consistently available. not just from the feds but prior to PRIIA, commuter railroads did not contribute as much to ongoing maintenance either. it takes years to recover once you let it go.
Keep in mind that Amtrak has $370 million of new MOW equipment on order for the NEC.

REF
https://media.amtrak.com/2018/07/smooth ... customers/
 #1509685  by Engineer Spike
 
I think part of the problem is that Amfleet cars ride like lumber wagons. Too bad Martin Blomberg isn’t still alive. I’m sure he would have been able to design a light, high speed, and comfortable riding truck. He seems to have hit it out of the park while at Pullman and EMD. Hopefully the engineer in charge of the trucks on the successor coach fleet has a good knack at it.
 #1509716  by BandA
 
How much extra wear / damage is done to the rolling stock due to track conditions? Are the track conditions causing slower operation? If the train is bouncing around, is the catanery damaged?
 #1509735  by Arborwayfan
 
And more bureaucratic red tape, environmental constraints, tree huggers and so on. What a shame that USA can't have a "world class" rail passenger system, such as many countries in Europe and Asia.
It does not make sense to blame environmental protection for the US having bad train service. European environmental groups are stronger -- look how many seats their green parties have in different parliaments. Yes, environmental concerns block or raise the price of a particular project here and there, but that's not why we don't have good trains. Our environmental rules and environmental groups (even those you dismiss as tree-huggers) are just as likely to get in the way of any given highway project -- actually more so, because highway projects take more space and at least some environmentalists want to reduce the use of cars. US environmental groups are also one of the strongest voices in the country for better trains. Think of the Conservation Law Foundation trying to get the North-South Rail Link, the Arboway Line, and the Red-Blue connector built in Boston.

I would have a different list of reasons for the difference: Americans act as if driving is a right and building any number of roads is a necessity, and treat flying similarly, but they treat taking trains, buses, streetcars, and other mass transportation as a frill and treat building mass transportation infrastructure as an option. Put another way, a majority of Americans assume that roads and highways are a public proposition of general interest and that gas taxes should be so low that cities and states have to use regular tax revenue to cover most streets and non-interstate roads, while mass transit is special interest proposition that is grudgingly subsidized with lots of complaints that it doesn't make a profit (as if the highways and streets made a profit!). Our laws make it much easier to get big highway projects funded than to get big rail or transit projects funding, and the feds pay a bigger share of highway projects in general.

As a result, we have bad passenger rail and mass transit systems, which in turn encourages more people to think of driving as normal and trains as outmoded, which in turn leads to politics continuing to favor roads over rail.

European countries treat rail as a sensible way for everyone to get around, and most people use it. They fund rail accordingly. Sure, they also build roads, but the balance is more even. To be fair, they also have a lot more dense regions where rail service makes sense, or maybe I mean fewer big empty regions where it's hard to justify a train (there's no Nebraska or Wyoming in Europe, not even in Scandinavia or European Russia).