• Acela II (Avelia Liberty): Design, Production, Delivery, Acceptance

  • 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

  by STrRedWolf
 
hxa wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:38 am A random guess from someone with a different background:

For passengers, what really matters are not high-speed trains, but high-speed services instead. For scheduled hourly services like Acela, saving a few minutes by raising the MAS is irrelevant as passengers are supposed to show up at stations a quarter or so earlier than scheduled departure time anyway. There are, however. high-frequency high-speed services like the Japanese Shinkansen system. The system operates so frequently that whenever a passenger arrives at the station, he/she will be able to board a high-speed train within just a few minutes. Only at this service level will the increase in MAS make a real difference.
My question on that take is how they recover from a breakdown on the line. Many of the lines are shared with multiple companies as well, and I wonder how they all coordinate that and what happens when one train breaks down between stations.
  by John_Perkowski
 
STrRedWolf wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 8:45 pm
My question on that take is how they recover from a breakdown on the line. Many of the lines are shared with multiple companies as well, and I wonder how they all coordinate that and what happens when one train breaks down between stations.
One of the reasons PRR and later PC had 4 tracks was if something happened to a passenger train, follow ons could jump on the freight track, leapfrog, and return to the passenger track.

IIRC Amtrak tore out two tracks.
  by scratchyX1
 
John_Perkowski wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 12:13 am
STrRedWolf wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 8:45 pm
My question on that take is how they recover from a breakdown on the line. Many of the lines are shared with multiple companies as well, and I wonder how they all coordinate that and what happens when one train breaks down between stations.
One of the reasons PRR and later PC had 4 tracks was if something happened to a passenger train, follow ons could jump on the freight track, leapfrog, and return to the passenger track.

IIRC Amtrak tore out two tracks.
Why were the tracks removed? To reduce cost of maintenance?
  by jamoldover
 
John_Perkowski wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 12:13 am
STrRedWolf wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 8:45 pm
My question on that take is how they recover from a breakdown on the line. Many of the lines are shared with multiple companies as well, and I wonder how they all coordinate that and what happens when one train breaks down between stations.
One of the reasons PRR and later PC had 4 tracks was if something happened to a passenger train, follow ons could jump on the freight track, leapfrog, and return to the passenger track.

IIRC Amtrak tore out two tracks.
One of the other reasons they had four tracks was that bi-directional CTC wasn't in use, and you couldn't run trains "wrong main" without a large amount of hassle. Amtrak's removal of two tracks as part of installing bi-directional signalling provided significant savings in terms of maintenance costs (and property taxes), and didn't significantly hurt the capabilities of the line to recover if there was a problem since trains could now be run "wrong main" without having to operate as though they were in manual block territory.
  by rohr turbo
 
John_Perkowski wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 12:13 am IIRC Amtrak tore out two tracks.
jamoldover wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 2:01 pm ...provided significant savings in terms of maintenance costs (and property taxes),
Please provide some evidence that a) Amtrak removed two tracks from the NEC (for significant mileage), and b) Amtrak pays property tax. Either would be surprising to me.

(I'm aware MetroNorth removed 1 track in Milford, and PRR removed Keystone tracks; neither is Amtrak.)
  by ExCon90
 
Count me among those who are wondering where Amtrak took out tracks on the NEC. The two middle tracks (2 and 3) between Newark and Trenton were reverse-signaled as far back as the 1950's and later between Trenton and Philadelphia, I think still in PRR days. North East to Principio (between Newark (DE) and Perryville (now BACON and PRINCE), were 2 tracks (I think with reverse signaling) in 1963 and looked as though there had never been more; certainly the catenary poles installed at the time of electrification left no room for more than 2 tracks. (I have an idea that one track may have been removed for a short distance just south of Havre de Grace, leaving the present 3 tracks). I believe that the whole NEC is now reverse-signaled on all main tracks, done after conveyance to Amtrak. I recall that the PRR took one track out of service between Parkesburg and Lancaster during 1961 (leaving 3 then) and later removed it, and other trackage followed long before Amtrak took over.
  by west point
 
The only reduction to 2 main tracks is the keystone route?

As someone stated it is not how fast you can go but how you go fast. ie. 160MPH with NEC slow sections as low as 50 MPH is not as efficient as 140 MPH with no slow sections. Get rid of the slow sections to at least 125 - 140 or 150 then total schedule time will be reduced. Also, that actually will lower electrical consumption not having so many acceleration locations.

Will save crew costs. for example, crew making 3 one-way trips NYP <> WASH can then make 2 round trips and be home every day of making trips. No layover casts. Of course, that will not be available for all crew.
  by ExCon90
 
I would say the best thing to do in the short term (where there's room) is install higher-speed turnouts at interlockings, such as they already have at SWIFT and other places. If they did that at HOLLY it would speed up the SEPTA trains to the benefit of all traffic. High-speed turnouts at ISELIN and MENLO would enable more trains to stop at Metropark without "dragging the line" as they mosey along at 45 mph (for two miles?) in approach to the interlockings. (That's assuming they haven't already done that; I haven't been up there in a while). I've been viewing some head-end videos of Germany, Switzerland, and the UK, and they've done a lot of that since the days I was there.
  by John_Perkowski
 
I lived in then W Germany in the 80s.

Deutsche Bundesbahn already had their locomotive hauled, standard passenger car InterCity trains running at up to 160 kmph (100mph) and in some stretches 200 kmph.

When DB was ready to bring ICE (remember it? It competed for the Acela contract) online, they built new trackage… 200kmph now, 250kmph later. It’s dedicated line.

I rode their 2d generation equipment in 2018. DB has long since cracked the code.
Image
Image
  by hxa
 
ExCon90 wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:51 pm High-speed turnouts at ISELIN and MENLO would enable more trains to stop at Metropark without "dragging the line" as they mosey along at 45 mph (for two miles?) in approach to the interlockings.
Per https://www.regulations.gov/document/FRA-2020-0097-0001 , ISELIN and MENLO are equipped with #20 turnouts, and those at MENLO with movable point frogs. These turnouts are considered "high-speed" enough as trains making diverge moves will stop at Metropark anyway. If such trains are indeed forced to "mosey along at 45 mph for two miles", it's the overlaying signalling system - rather than turnout themselves - to be blamed, and needs a reconfiguration. And this is underway.
  by west point
 
Higher speed turnouts require more space from points to points. Then it will require a series of steps to implement higher speed turnouts especially a universal one.
1. If there is not enough room for longer higher speed turnout it will require moving either 1 or 2 new signal bridges,
2. That may require a new signal bungalow or more. Wiring up a signal bungalow is not an easy task. Example the new signal bungalow at the MNRR bungalow at the WALK bridge replacement has taken over a year +.
3. Then when the new signal bridge and bungalow are placed into service requires testing
4. Each time the higher speed turnouts are placed into service requires changing the wiring.
5. if only one new signal bridge, then Amtrak can only start installing at the new signal bridge starting with an outside track to the adjacent bridge,
  by Pensyfan19
 
photobug56 wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 12:29 am If you've got 4 tracks, freight and passengers and a busy corridor, it's insane, IMHO, to remove any of those tracks.
Absolutely agreed. Such is the case with the infamous Paoli station redesign: an island platform in the middle of the two express tracks, with the express tracks abruptly ending on the east side, and then reforming on the west side before turning into three tracks until Thorndale where it becomes two to Harrisburg (and then three to Pittsburgh due to Conrail pulling one of the tracks in the 80s). Such a reduction in space prevents provisions for future commuter or intercity rail expansion and frequency increases, as railroads will now have to construct a new track. Other examples of needless track reductions include the New York Central's and Illinois Central's main lines which used to see at least two or four tracks in regions that currently have one.

But back on the topic of the Avelia, how many trainsets are built? I believe I saw a photo a few days ago of a set with the cab number 2108 being towed by a diesel under a lot of trees.
  by ExCon90
 
I think the feeling was that no trains will be going through Paoli without stopping so there's nothing to be gained by providing a through track ("back in the day" there were a lot of freight movements through there, but that's all going via Reading now and for the foreseeable future), and a third passenger track would require another platform, with all necessary stairways, escalators, and elevators. The PRR handled Paoli locals, through trains to and from the west, and freights with 2 platforms plus 2 through tracks, and not even the Broadway skipped Paoli*. So the new arrangement has the same number of platform faces as the old one with the advantage of being one island platform instead of two side platforms with four tracks in between. As for the two center tracks ending short of the platform, all trains will be slowing down for the station stop anyway. In the case of a local and an express arriving simultaneously, that can be handled through scheduling -- and on-time performance, but that's a whole 'nother subject.

* In fact, from about 1935 to 1938 everything going west of Paoli changed engines there from electric to steam and vice versa -- that must have been something to see.
  • 1
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 86