Why not more focus on NYP-BOS?

jonnhrr wrote:unless the state of Massachusetts were to get interested in increased Boston -Worcester - Springfield service. n

The Commonwealth is interested in upgrades to this route, both for running intrastate service from Springfield to Boston, and eventually for trains from Boston to Montreal. Plus MassDOT has expressed interest in Inland Route NEC trains as well.

and the NEC future plan isn't going to do much to help. Some of it is flat out unrealistic, like the Long Island Sound plan. The Inland Route is the way to go, but for the rest of it, they need to restore the Highland to avoid the worst of the commuter congestion on MNRR. Which leaves the decision on how to get from the 84 corridor down to NYP; Harlem or Hudson? And of course, where are you going to get the $$$ for such a long bypass?

Mr. Moore, how many Sleeper routes are there left in Europe?

They are there, but all too many are of the "econosnooze" varietal. HSR, which of course Europe has much (even countries like Austria, which haven't got a true HSR network still put on a show equal to the Regionals) have caused whacking of Sleeper service over there not unlike that over here during the '50's.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:Mr. Moore, how many Sleeper routes are there left in Europe?

They're on the way out, for sure. I think DB is looking to kill off theirs in a few years, though I'm not sure if that affects City Night Line services.

Back this December - January, when I went from Munich to Amsterdam, it was easy - S8 to the airport, KLM Cityhopper to Schiphol, NS to Centraal. Down to Rotterdam for a day, it was NS, though. Interestingly, every local in Amsterdam I told I visited Rotterdam, made a weird face. Is Rotterdam like the Trenton of the Netherlands or something?

Amsterdam to Paris was a no brainer - first class on the Thalys.

HSR, which of course Europe has much (even countries like Austria, which haven't got a true HSR network still put on a show equal to the Regionals) have caused whacking of Sleeper service over there not unlike that over here during the '50's.

Europe has plenty of slow services too. Down to Rotterdam, I took the lowest (?) tier NS service ("Sprinter"), which was a bit over an hour. On the way back, I used my 'fast train supplement' ($4 more!) to get an express, which was locomotive hauled and 160km/h. Paris to Beauvais was about 87km, and an hour and a half on the TER. Speeds were about 100km/h most of the way (or at least felt it), but the train didn't make its first stop for quite a while out of Paris. 25kv system, double decker MUs.

Most interesting though was in 2010 going Berlin to Munich - a few hours of curves that put the New Haven Line to shame. With higher speeds.

Oddly, of all the places in Europe I've been so far, the German rail system was the least reliable - my S Bahn into Munich broke down, and the U Bahn I was on later that day did, too. Last time around, my connection to Hamburg was 15 minutes late.

Back on topic (!), isn't there also a limitation on the number of trains that can be run New Haven to Boston on the coast due to bridges or something like that?

Greg Moore wrote:Mr. Weaver's post makes me depressed to think how much especially the overnight traffic has dropped.

It really is a shame there are no sleepers on that route any more.

I am sorry about that!! Really the service overall is better than it has been for a long, long time. The last few years of the New Haven it was very depressing to ride these trains. During the last years of the New Haven the trains were dirty most of the time, often hot in the summer as AC wasn't properly maintained and cold in the winter because of a balky steam generator. I had to spend more than one trip mostly back in the engine room trying to keep the steam generator running so the paying passengers would at least be fairly comfortable on their trip. One reason we had so many overnight trains some with sleepers was a huge contract to carry US Mail and Railway Express. If it wasn't for the mail and express the New Haven would not have operated the overnight trains they did either. Times have sure changed. Because the daytime service is better than it was even back in the early 1950's I rate Amtrak service today as better than the New Haven operated in let's say 1951 or that period at least between Boston and New York and beyond.
Noel Weaver

Oh definitely I agree during the day it's far better than perhaps ever.
And no, I don't think there's a huge demand for sleeper service, but I think at least returning a car or two to 66/67 would be win.
(honestly, I would almost certainly take such a train at the end of this month. But a coach overnight to Philly doesn't thrill me.)

MNRR between New Haven and GCT takes about two hours running semi-express in CT. Which is too slow for that kind of distance. There must be room to speed that up. And if you speed things up that must increase capacity and reduce interference for Amtrak. From what I read the signal system would have to be improved/adjusted and that is costly and labor-intensive.

Wanting and wishing for something isn't going to make the impossible happen. What's needed to increase Amtrak train speeds slightly is adding another track in the MNRR corridor, from three to four, like what's seen in most of New Jersey. Four tracks allows directional running for high and slow speeds trains in both directions. Will reduce the amount of times the trains slow down to change tracks at switches. As long as MNRR remains at three tracks, Amtrak trains will experience slow downs. And that's before considerations of straightening out curves and replacing lift bridges.
I just don't think it is possible to add another track without impacting the existing three tracks in the corridor. Therefore doing so will be very expensive.

3 tracks ? Only near New Haven. However all the bridge replacements will cause one or more locations to be just 2 tracks while the other 2 tracks will be out of service to build replacement bridges. Real choke points the first being the Walk bridge.

Although MNRR's running time is kinda sorta OT, it does illustrate that MNRR territory is a bottleneck because the slower running times makes it difficult to mix in higher speed traffic. Notwithstanding improving MNRR's running times, the addition of several stations on the east end of the main line (Metro, West Haven, Devon temporary, and soon potentially Orange and Barnum) does indeed slow things up for everyone, Amtrak included. I'm sure SLE has a similar effect east of New Haven, although not nearly as bad.

I don't know what Bridgeport ridership is for Amtrak, but I'd ditch that station.

Jeff Smith wrote:Although MNRR's running time is kinda sorta OT, it does illustrate that MNRR territory is a bottleneck because the slower running times makes it difficult to mix in higher speed traffic. Notwithstanding improving MNRR's running times, the addition of several stations on the east end of the main line (Metro, West Haven, Devon temporary, and soon potentially Orange and Barnum) does indeed slow things up for everyone, Amtrak included. I'm sure SLE has a similar effect east of New Haven, although not nearly as bad.

I don't know what Bridgeport ridership is for Amtrak, but I'd ditch that station.

80k/year at Bridgeport, which makes it #5 for ridership in the state, behind New London at 160k and ahead of Old Saybrook at 60k. It is the most populous city in the state, after all.

Also, given that MNRR averages a station every 2.15 miles between New Haven and New Rochelle, I think the running time is pretty good.

ryanov wrote:

SouthernRailway wrote:(2) it's in a largely upper-income area--meaning that slews of affluent people use the line.

Affluence and low support for mass transit is somewhat common. Don't know how it works in that area,

Most the affluent people moved there because of convenient rail access to Manhattan and/or Stamford. So-- there's pretty high support.

east point wrote:3 tracks ? Only near New Haven. However all the bridge replacements will cause one or more locations to be just 2 tracks while the other 2 tracks will be out of service to build replacement bridges. Real choke points the first being the Walk bridge.

I thought NH was three track most of the route until the 50s?

Ridgefielder wrote:

ryanov wrote:

SouthernRailway wrote:(2) it's in a largely upper-income area--meaning that slews of affluent people use the line.

Affluence and low support for mass transit is somewhat common. Don't know how it works in that area,

Most the affluent people moved there because of convenient rail access to Manhattan and/or Stamford. So-- there's pretty high support.

I've seen a cite in the NYT that, circa 2002, the median (i.e. 50% greater-than, 50% less-than) income of Metro-North riders boarding in Connecticut was $153k. To frame it a little bit differently, roughly a third of Metro-North Connecticut riders are in "the 1%".

Then again, it's the norm for suburbs where commuter rail is the dominant means of rush-hour mass transit, for the median income of residents using mass transit to get to work to be somewhat higher than that of residents driving to work.

scratchy wrote: I thought NH was three track most of the route until the 50s?

Nope. The NH four-tracked its mainline between the New York Central connection in the Bronx (Woodlawn) and New Haven back around the turn of the 19th/20th centuries, and it has remained that way ever since except for the removal of most of the fourth track between Devon and New Haven about 25 years ago. The current capacity crunch is largely due to the fact that Metro North is running more commuter trains over the line than it ever saw in NH days, compounded by temporary track closures due to ongoing construction projects.