Why is NEC NYP to New Haven so slow?

Hi;
I took a trip on the Vermonter from NYP to Essex Jct/Burlington VT where I went to run the Vt City Marathon on Sunday 28th.
The train between NYP and New Haven was very slow, mostly not exceeding 40mph or so, and slowing to 10mph and stopping a lot, despite the apparent lack of traffic.
After the loco switch (which I don't understand the need for with the multi-mode locos Amtrak owns) at New Haven, the ride improved, with more "normal" speed runs. That said, there were still unexplainable slowing and stopping more frequently that I would expect, seeing no other traffic on the line.Train would be moving along at 50+ mph, then slow fairly quickly to 25 or slower, and often to 10mph and creep along for several minutes, then resume [track] speed again.

So what's up? construction/MOW, bad signals, or "permanetn" slow-orders due to poor track condition?

And, why do they still need to swap out the locos at New Haven? The Empire service trains don't have to do any loco swapping when coming into Croton Yard, going from diesel to 3rd rail electric, and I thought Amtrak owned locos that were 3-mode; Diesel, catenary electric, and 3rd rail electric.

CP

From New Rochelle to New Haven is under MN Dispatch,there's plenty of trackwork yet to be done and installing ACSES gear needed to
meet the PTC mandate might be part of the speed issues.
Amtrak has a limited amount of P32DM's for the Empire service trains,and New Haven was the end of the Catenary ages ago,
so swapping an ACS-64 for a P-42 is still done here for the Vermonter
While at rare times a P-32 might work to Rutland,they swap power at Albany normally.
Amtrak has shown no interest in the BBD built ALP45DP that NJT uses.

Reasons

http://web.mta.info/mnr/html/catenary2017.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.walkbridgect.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The New Haven Line is running a total of 250 trains on rhe average weekday and the line badly needs a huge amont of repairs and restoration work. Between New York and Boston it is the slowest stretch of track with a lot of speed restrictions for bridges, curves and other operating restrictions. It would not be practical to bring the DM's to New Haven with only two or three trains each way changing power there today. In addition running diesels under 75 miles of wire is a total waste.
Noel Weaver

Based on my Amtrak NEC travel experiences between BOS and NYP over the past few decades, MN has been performing a lot of catenary/track/bridge/signal upgrade/maintenance work especially on the longer Connecticut portion of the line. Tracks are routinely taken out of service for extended multi-week periods constricting the available capacity for the large # of daily Amtrak and MN trains. If Amtrak trains arrive at the entrance points to MN's NEC track (New Rochelle nb and New Haven sb) at their scheduled time, my understanding is that MN dispatching will keep to the published Amtrak schedule as best they can. But if Amtrak trains, including Acelas, miss their schedule window, then all bets are off as MN dispatching will ensure their commuter operations run as close to schedule as possible often at the expense of Amtrak time-keeping. When a Regional or Acela shows up late to MN's doorstep, it's not unusual for Amtrak trains to follow all-stops MN locals for a goodly portion of the ride. But this makes sense as MN carries way more passengers between New Haven and New Rochelle and tries to ensure commuters get to/from work each day on a dependable schedule.

Another minor issue for Acelas is their MAS is limited to 79mph (I may be mistaken here) and their tilting is disabled given their cars are too wide to tilt on the curvy line's narrow track separation.

One day MN restoration activity should be largely finished making all tracks available for use more of the time.

Yes, New Haven-New Rochelle can be slow, but Amtrak NEC schedules currently allow for a certain amount of built-in delay over that part of the route. And aside from all the factors noted above, it should be noted that the former New Haven mainline is now carrying more traffic than ever before in its roughly 175 year history, adding to the dispatching challenge when tracks are out of service for essential maintenance and upgrading.

johnpbarlow wrote:Another minor issue for Acelas is their MAS is limited to 79mph (I may be mistaken here) and their tilting is disabled given their cars are too wide to tilt on the curvy line's narrow track separation.

That would be incorrect, the no title restriction was lifted several years ago. This is still a non factor on Metro North because the max speed for all trains on the New Haven line is 80 MPH.

Since everyone ignored the other half of your statement while explaining why the run from New Rochelle to New Haven sucks, once you got past New Haven and the diesel got swapped onto the consist, you went onto the Springfield line which is subject to a ton of trackwork since they're bringing commuter rail to the line in about another six months or so. That line is also not fully double tracked either.

See the following threads:
viewtopic.php?f=67&t=58401
viewtopic.php?f=46&t=156555

8th Notch wrote:

johnpbarlow wrote:Another minor issue for Acelas is their MAS is limited to 79mph (I may be mistaken here) and their tilting is disabled given their cars are too wide to tilt on the curvy line's narrow track separation.

That would be incorrect, the no title restriction was lifted several years ago. This is still a non factor on Metro North because the max speed for all trains on the New Haven line is 80 MPH.

OK, so I was almost right for the wrong reason! Covfefe!

CPSK wrote: I thought Amtrak owned locos that were 3-mode; Diesel, catenary electric, and 3rd rail electric.

There's no such beast on Amtrak (if anywhere.) Amtrak's dual modes have only ever been diesel and third rail and P32 is the only active variety. (or gas turbine and third rail, but that's another story )

The Vermonter is stuck with an engine change and New Haven is the logical spot to do it.

CPSK wrote:The Empire service trains don't have to do any loco swapping when coming into Croton Yard, going from diesel to 3rd rail electric

I believe the P32 switches modes (elec/diesel) just a few miles out of Penn Station. Moreover, many (all?) Empire trains going beyond Albany swap locomotives at ALB.

I ride the NEC 2-4 times per month and have been much frustrated over the number of seemingly permanent slow orders (I think EVERY bridge between NRO and NHV has a 20 mph slow order these days - proven this past Memorial Day with no work crews and/or commuter train interference) and times where Amtrak trains are forced to follow MN trains for some distance. Much of it can be attributed to several miles of track out of service at one place, and another OOS track further down the line. It seems like they never stop working at multiple places along the line...not even in the winter! (Un)Fortunately, there's enough slop in the schedules for both Amtrak and Metro North that the slow orders and work areas still allow for mostly on-time arrivals and departures.

Now if I could ONLY get them to put train 148 on track 1 or 2 at NHV and put the Acela that stops just before 148 is about to leave. Just about every time, the departing Acela to Boston will delay 148 3-5 minutes as it has to cross over 148's route to get to the shore line. I have little doubt that 'brilliant' dispatching such as described happens all over the NEC...or maybe it's just the MN dispatchers.

I've had the same question, my mine is different. Mine is:

"Why in the world isn't North America's busiest passenger rail line upgraded to allow 160 mph operation?"

Given the huge numbers of users of this line, I'd have thought that NY and CT would have felt it worth the investment to upgrade the line to high-speed status; at least 125 mph operations. The UK has commuter trains that fast, I believe.

We're studying it.

SouthernRailway wrote: I've had the same question, my mine is different. Mine is:
"Why in the world isn't North America's busiest passenger rail line upgraded to allow 160 mph operation?"

Because (a) the public money that would be required gets far, far, far into fantasyland figures, (b) the right-of-way can't be straightened or relocated because it runs through some of the most expensive real estate in the country and even if the necessary billions showed up the potentially displaced NIMBYs would kill it with endless lawsuits, and (c) as a practical matter you can't run the commuter trains which comprise the overwhelming majority of moves on the line any faster when they need to make frequent stops.

What does need to be done is to catch up with years of deferred maintenance, which is what's happening now within the constraints of keeping hundreds of trains moving.

Thanks guys;
You have satisfied my curiosity. The fact that it took me over 9 hours to get from NYP to Essex Jct Vt was not a problem. The train was only 20 min late going up and I think a bit less coming down.
Last time I rode the Vermonter, it had to do that reverse at Palmer, so it was probably even slower. Again, I wasn't in any kind of hurry. But on that last trip, which was in summer, I was able to take the Burlington - Port Kent ferry across the lake and get the Adirondack for the trip home. It (The Dak) was a lot faster, and was able to run into NYP without a power swap.
Unfortunately, the ferry doesn't start running for another week or so. The lake was completely clear between Burlington and Port Kent (so far as I could see from Burlington's Battery Park), but schedules are schedules. Besides, it might still be pretty cold out on the lake this early - even without ice.

CP