• Amtrak Downeaster Discussion Thread

  • 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

  • 9190 posts
  • 1
  • 607
  • 608
  • 609
  • 610
  • 611
  • 613
  by markhb
 
I noticed today that at least one of the engines on the Downeaster has what appears to be a 50th Anniversary logo on the side. Has anyone gotten pictures yet?
  by MEC407
 
AMTK 46. Here's a recent photo from RR Picture Archives:

http://rrpicturearchives.net/showPictur ... id=5489794
  by markhb
 
MEC407 wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 7:46 am AMTK 46. Here's a recent photo from RR Picture Archives:

http://rrpicturearchives.net/showPictur ... id=5489794
Awesome! Thanks!
  by markhb
 
Did anyone happen to listen to today's BoD meeting? Was there anything of interest discussed?
  by codasd
 
In the CSXT STB filing for the purchase of PAR it in mentioned that 'CSXT plans to install Positive Train Control (“PTC”) (I-ETMS) on the PAR System line segment north of the Massachusetts/New Hampshire State line to Brunswick, ME, which hosts the Amtrak Downeaster service described above. The PTC installation and funding responsibility will be coordinated with Amtrak. MBTA has installed PTC (ATC-ACSES)...' Since this is not a federally mandated requirement what would the CSXT impetus be for this move? Will they be able to reduce signaling requirements or be able to increase speeds on the Downeaster and their freight trains? I have seen that BNSF is installing PTC on freight only lines so it appears that there is some technological benefits that must produce saving or better reliability.
  by markhb
 
codasd wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 10:33 pm In the CSXT STB filing for the purchase of PAR it in mentioned that 'CSXT plans to install Positive Train Control (“PTC”) (I-ETMS) on the PAR System line segment north of the Massachusetts/New Hampshire State line to Brunswick, ME, which hosts the Amtrak Downeaster service described above. The PTC installation and funding responsibility will be coordinated with Amtrak. MBTA has installed PTC (ATC-ACSES)...' Since this is not a federally mandated requirement what would the CSXT impetus be for this move? Will they be able to reduce signaling requirements or be able to increase speeds on the Downeaster and their freight trains? I have seen that BNSF is installing PTC on freight only lines so it appears that there is some technological benefits that must produce saving or better reliability.
I believe that all Class I's are legally required to install PTC on lines shared with passenger trains. However, there are others here far more knowledgeable than I am so I would defer to them.
Last edited by markhb on Tue Mar 23, 2021 7:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
  by nomis
 
Correct, PanAM the Class II could stay under the federal threshold of 12 passenger trains a day (with a signal system) and be grandfathered in before requiring PTC, but a Class I does not have that stipulation & must install PTC for passenger use.
  by Rockingham Racer
 
I'm wondering how nice CSX will play with NNEPRA. They just might demand all sorts of capacity improvements between Plaistow and Rigby.
  by MEC407
 
Am I remembering correctly that some capacity improvements are already in progress, like restoring double track between Wells and North Berwick?

If so, what improvements would CSX want/need in addition to that one?
  by Rockingham Racer
 
I am not sure, but they did ask for the moon to run two Amtrak round trips between New Orleans and Mobile. Most observers feel that that is way over the top. I can't find the exact asking price right now.
  by budd6209
 
Did any one listen to TrainRiders virtual meeting on zoom. They were planning on talking about simplified trip from the Downeaster stations to New York City's revitalized Penn Station in New York City. At North Station, you would cross the platform to an awaiting Amtrak Regional train, thus eliminating the challenging and time-consuming subway commute to South Station (or the costly taxi ride). And of course, the trip to Maine, New Hampshire & Massachusetts from the Big Apple would be equally accommodating.
  by Arborwayfan
 
That sounds nice for the hypothetical POR-NYP (or Wells-New Haven) passengers but it'd be a whole lot cheaper to run a really nice bus with a good luggage section and free redcaps between North Station and South Station (if only capital money could be used to set up an endowment to support future operations, because the shuttle would have essentially no capital costs vs upgrading the Grand Jct) AND diverting some NEC trains, even if they were new Inland Route trains as opposed to existing Shore Line trains, to North Station would make things more complicated for the Boston passengers -- which station do I go to? Which one has the next train to NY?
  by Trinnau
 
This is nothing new, it's called "inland route" service and used to exist before. New York to Boston via New Haven-Springfield-Worcester. There is a rather lengthy thread on the topic in this forum.

There are a lot of hurdles to overcome to make it happen, several of them in just changing from BOS to BON.
  by charlesriverbranch
 
Why would the Grand Junction need upgrading?
  by Red Wing
 
Because you would go at a snails pace through Cambridge.
  • 1
  • 607
  • 608
  • 609
  • 610
  • 611
  • 613