• Cuomo proposed High Speed System in NY

  • 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

  • 109 posts
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8
  by Tadman
 
mtuandrew wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 9:59 am Triple doors would definitely be nice, Tad. Doesn’t MNRR already own some Shoreliners that could be rebuilt to Amtrak Horizon standard? I’ve been advocating a rebuild program to make surplus Comets/Shoreliners/BTC-CTC cars into intercity equipment
110% this works. Look what the surfliners did for California riders, and they're nothing revolutionary. It's basically the concept of a Budd Hi-level or Superliner coach with huge doors and stairs for high volumes of passenger turnover. The Hi-Level is a heavily modified 1930's single level design. It works so well.
mtuandrew wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 9:59 am Assuming NYSDOT has learned from the DE/DM-30 and the Turbo program, anyway.
At best, we can hope that they've learned for the time being. I follow the John Kenneth Galbraith line of thinking here - they learn the lesson hard with something like DE/DM, curb bad habits for a decade or so, then the bad habits start creeping back in because "things have changed" and "we don't make those kinds of mistakes anymore" and then BOOOOMMMMMMMMM disaster strikes again.

Galbraith's work deals with economics and monetary policy, and his above work was with regard to credit standards loosening. But it applies to human behavior in any transactions. TLDR we forget our mistakes or rationalize our behavior in a cycle.
  by Ridgefielder
 
electricron wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 9:54 am
rcthompson04 wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 7:03 am MNRR is a state created creature. Failure to get on board can be dealt with by legislative action if needed.
MNRR services 87 million passengers yearly, Amtrak services 30-31 million passengers yearly "nationally".
In New York, MNRR is the bigger dog - not Amtrak!
FYI, just to put Amtrak position in New York properly, LIRR services 89 million passengers yearly and NJT services 87 million rail passengers yearly, MTA subway services 1680 million passengers yearly.
That places Amtrak into 5th place by a large margin.
So glad someone pointed that out. As a Westchester resident and daily MN commuter I find this attitude that MN is somehow an "obstacle" to be strong-armed by Amtrak to be both bewildering and infuriating. There are anywhere from 5-10x as many MN passengers riding the New Haven and Hudson lines every day than there are Amtrak passengers. They, rightfully, should have priority.
mtuandrew wrote:Triple doors would definitely be nice, Tad. Doesn’t MNRR already own some Shoreliners that could be rebuilt to Amtrak Horizon standard? I’ve been advocating a rebuild program to make surplus Comets/Shoreliners/BTC-CTC cars into intercity equipment for a few years now. Beyond the inside improvements, wrap them in New York State Flag navy blue. No one else has cars that color, and they’d be unmistakable in a positive sense.
A navy blue Shoreliner would look an awful lot like old CN equipment that ran on VIA in the '80's-90's. Anyway I don't think MN has any surplus equipment right now, and won't for some time. Would make more sense to get something new off-the-shelf from Siemens IMHO.
  by ryanch
 
Tadman wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 9:14 am I'll never forget a few years ago reading that a Connecticut commuter was admiring a NH-painted Gennie. The conductor told her that it was a 70 year old paint job. The commuter then asked why they were running 70yo trains. TLDR, the riders have no freaking clue as long as it's clean, on time, has wifi... etc.
He should have told her the car was newer, but they had pulled the paint from an older car and reapplied it.
  by Riverduckexpress
 
Ridgefielder wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 12:47 pm
electricron wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 9:54 am
rcthompson04 wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 7:03 am MNRR is a state created creature. Failure to get on board can be dealt with by legislative action if needed.
MNRR services 87 million passengers yearly, Amtrak services 30-31 million passengers yearly "nationally".
In New York, MNRR is the bigger dog - not Amtrak!
FYI, just to put Amtrak position in New York properly, LIRR services 89 million passengers yearly and NJT services 87 million rail passengers yearly, MTA subway services 1680 million passengers yearly.
That places Amtrak into 5th place by a large margin.
So glad someone pointed that out. As a Westchester resident and daily MN commuter I find this attitude that MN is somehow an "obstacle" to be strong-armed by Amtrak to be both bewildering and infuriating. There are anywhere from 5-10x as many MN passengers riding the New Haven and Hudson lines every day than there are Amtrak passengers. They, rightfully, should have priority.
That's not an unreasonable position but it sure speaks to the state of US intercity rail that our one premium high-speed (in air quotes) service is hamstrung by commuter rail. Just pretty dismal to think that Acela and this hypothetical Empire HSR will seemingly be forever stuck to ~80-90 MPH MAS and restricted frequency along a good ~55-60 mile segments of their routes short of spending billions on imaginary new ROWs (though granted the Acela has other restrictions on its frequency as well).
  by SouthernRailway
 
electricron wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:25 am He is the Governor. Instead of making a political campaign proposal, why doesn't he introduce legislation in the State Legislature? Talk is talk, doing is doing; taking real concrete actions will always be more powerful than just talk.
Because (1) when his type actually does stuff, they mess it up, and (2) they wouldn't get reelected to office if problems had been solved earlier (they need problems in order to have something to campaign on).
  by electricron
 
Riverduckexpress wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 5:25 pm That's not an unreasonable position but it sure speaks to the state of US intercity rail that our one premium high-speed (in air quotes) service is hamstrung by commuter rail. Just pretty dismal to think that Acela and this hypothetical Empire HSR will seemingly be forever stuck to ~80-90 MPH MAS and restricted frequency along a good ~55-60 mile segments of their routes short of spending billions on imaginary new ROWs (though granted the Acela has other restrictions on its frequency as well).
There is a solution to eliminate commuter rail restrictions, run the intercity trains at much higher speeds on a different railroad corridor. It would not be cheap. Take HS1 in the UK as an example, they initially ran the Eurostar trains to Waterloo Station in London using old, slow tracks. But they built an entirely new railroad corridor to St. Pancras Station as quickly as they could. Using the older tracks was just a temporary solution. They rebuilt or refurbished St. Pancras as well.

At some point in time, if we are really serious about building a real HSR line on the east coast of the USA, a dedicated HSR line will have to be built. If not a brand new dedicated corridor, at least on dedicated tracks within, under, or over an existing corridor.
  by Greg Moore
 
I mostly agree, The problem at least with ALB-NYP is the current route is pretty much the best one (moving to the other side of the river complicates things, including now having to get into NYP further south and you eliminate several major stops.)

But the bigger problem in the US... way too much NIMBYism and costs.

Shame really.
Now for going west, probably could find decent routes, but not cheaply. But heck, get it down to 3 hours, and my kid would probably come home from college far more often.
  by Tadman
 
ryanch wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 2:48 pm
Tadman wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 9:14 am I'll never forget a few years ago reading that a Connecticut commuter was admiring a NH-painted Gennie. The conductor told her that it was a 70 year old paint job. The commuter then asked why they were running 70yo trains. TLDR, the riders have no freaking clue as long as it's clean, on time, has wifi... etc.
He should have told her the car was newer, but they had pulled the paint from an older car and reapplied it.
The point isn't about what really happened, the point is that the average rider has mental priorities, and the history or paint isn't in the top 100. It's getting to work or home, accomplishing something there, paying the mortgage, and going to book club, gym, golf course, pizza with the kids...

If the train is repeatedly late, the professional goals get delayed, which makes it harder to ensure the mortgage is paid and the fun stuff on Friday/Saturday is enjoyed.

When I'm on a train to Detroit or Milwaukee for work, I generally don't even known if we're being pulled by a P42 or Charger. I've got my laptop open and I'm trying to ensure a connection is made. And we all know I care a lot more than the average passenger.
  by electricron
 
electricron wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 7:36 pm There is a solution to eliminate commuter rail restrictions, run the intercity trains at much higher speeds on a different railroad corridor. It would not be cheap. Take HS1 in the UK as an example, they initially ran the Eurostar trains to Waterloo Station in London using old, slow tracks. But they built an entirely new railroad corridor to St. Pancras Station as quickly as they could. Using the older tracks was just a temporary solution. They rebuilt or refurbished St. Pancras as well.

At some point in time, if we are really serious about building a real HSR line on the east coast of the USA, a dedicated HSR line will have to be built. If not a brand new dedicated corridor, at least on dedicated tracks within, under, or over an existing corridor.
I wish to add to may earlier response on why a dedicated corridor is needed. Once the passenger trains exceeds 79 mph some sort of cab signaling is needed, positive train controls or not. Amtrak has over 414 road locomotives in its roster, how many of them do you think actually have cab signaling installed? Per Wiki
18 Dash 8-32BWH > No cab signals
8 GP38H-3 > No cab signals
13 P40DC > No cab signals
186 P42DC > No cab signals
17 F59PHI > No cab signals
6 F59PH > No cab signals
18 P32AC-DM > May have cab signals?
62 Charger SC-44 > No cab signals?
67 Sprinter ACS-64 > Have cab signals
20 Acela trainsets > Have cab signals
I estimate 87 out of 414 Amtrak locomotives have cab signaling, around 21%. That means almost 4 out of 5 locomotives do not.
How many out of tens of thousands freight locomotives in the USA do you think have cab signaling? I suggest the answer is far fewer than 21%, far fewer than 10%, far fewer than 1%.
Where are all these higher speed passenger service advocates going to find the cash to install cab signaling on all the freight locomotives across the country? Please, do not confuse the two, positive train control is not the same thing as cab signaling.
  by Tadman
 
PTC and cab signals are not the same thing but I was told by a manager at a commuter operation that PTC can take the place of cab signals with regard to the >79mph requirement for cab signals. That doesn't mean PTC is cab signals, just that it fulfills the in-cab mission above 79mph in the eyes of the FRA.

This was told to me at a time when the carrier was considering cab signals to increase MAS, but it was a grey area when PTC was still in the legislative process, around 2008. The carrier has just revamped the signals on most of the line but was holding off on cab signals in case PTC were to be required by law, which it was shortly afterward. The carrier did not feel that cab signals were a prudent investment if PTC were to be required, because for the sake of MAS >79, it was redundant.
  by WhartonAndNorthern
 
Tadman wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:47 am PTC and cab signals are not the same thing but I was told by a manager at a commuter operation that PTC can take the place of cab signals with regard to the <79mph requirement for cab signals. That doesn't mean PTC is cab signals, just that it fulfills the in-cab mission above 79mph in the eyes of the FRA.

This was told to me at a time when the carrier was considering cab signals to increase MAS, but it was a grey area when PTC was still in the legislative process, around 2008. The carrier has just revamped the signals on most of the line but was holding off on cab signals in case PTC were to be required by law, which it was shortly afterward. The carrier did not feel that cab signals were a prudent investment if PTC were to be required, because for the sake of MAS >79, it was redundant.
PTC can substitute for cab signals/automatic train control/automatic train stop for the 79 mph requirement. It can also substitute for the automatic block signal requirement for the 59 mph speed requirements if the carrier implements a rolling-block GPS-based PTC system. However, the PTC system must be certified for that purpose and for those speeds. Illinois upgraded the Lincoln corridor to 110 mph track, but the FRA has yet to certify the PTC system for 110 mph operations.

Additionally, just because a line has PTC, it still needs the higher track class, may need curve eliminations and may need changes to the signal system to accommodate longer stopping distances from higher speed. Such changes may include longer signal blocks (get the Approach before Stop further back) or a progression of signals (get a few non-clear signals such as Approach Limited, Approach Medium, Advanced Approach, etc. before the Approach signal).
The RF&P has had cab signals for years and now has PTC overlayed on top of the cab signal system. It's still 70 mph max. The A Line has PTC now (in the distant past it had train stop) but it's still a 79 mph line.
  by ryanch
 
Tadman wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:28 am
ryanch wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 2:48 pm
Tadman wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 9:14 am I'll never forget a few years ago reading that a Connecticut commuter was admiring a NH-painted Gennie. The conductor told her that it was a 70 year old paint job. The commuter then asked why they were running 70yo trains. TLDR, the riders have no freaking clue as long as it's clean, on time, has wifi... etc.
He should have told her the car was newer, but they had pulled the paint from an older car and reapplied it.
The point isn't about what really happened, the point is that the average rider has mental priorities -- getting to work or home, accomplishing something there, paying the mortgage, and going to book club, gym, golf course, pizza with the kids...

If the train is repeatedly late, the professional goals get delayed, which makes it harder to ensure the mortgage is paid and the fun stuff on Friday/Saturday is enjoyed.
I know, and it's an important point. I was just making a joke. Sorry if you felt I trivialized your point.

Thoroughly agree that old cars can be fine, and that reasonably fast, on-time service much more important than superfast, especially if schedule isn't met.
  by SRich
 
electricron wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:26 am
electricron wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 7:36 pm There is a solution to eliminate commuter rail restrictions, run the intercity trains at much higher speeds on a different railroad corridor. It would not be cheap. Take HS1 in the UK as an example, they initially ran the Eurostar trains to Waterloo Station in London using old, slow tracks. But they built an entirely new railroad corridor to St. Pancras Station as quickly as they could. Using the older tracks was just a temporary solution. They rebuilt or refurbished St. Pancras as well.

At some point in time, if we are really serious about building a real HSR line on the east coast of the USA, a dedicated HSR line will have to be built. If not a brand new dedicated corridor, at least on dedicated tracks within, under, or over an existing corridor.
I wish to add to may earlier response on why a dedicated corridor is needed. Once the passenger trains exceeds 79 mph some sort of cab signaling is needed, positive train controls or not. Amtrak has over 414 road locomotives in its roster, how many of them do you think actually have cab signaling installed? Per Wiki
18 Dash 8-32BWH > No cab signals
8 GP38H-3 > No cab signals
13 P40DC > No cab signals
186 P42DC > No cab signals
17 F59PHI > No cab signals
6 F59PH > No cab signals
18 P32AC-DM > May have cab signals?
62 Charger SC-44 > No cab signals?
67 Sprinter ACS-64 > Have cab signals
20 Acela trainsets > Have cab signals
I estimate 87 out of 414 Amtrak locomotives have cab signaling, around 21%. That means almost 4 out of 5 locomotives do not.
How many out of tens of thousands freight locomotives in the USA do you think have cab signaling? I suggest the answer is far fewer than 21%, far fewer than 10%, far fewer than 1%.
Where are all these higher speed passenger service advocates going to find the cash to install cab signaling on all the freight locomotives across the country? Please, do not confuse the two, positive train control is not the same thing as cab signaling.
P32AC-DM have cab signals. If not they can not run on empire corridor (MNRR portion). Many P42 DC also have cabsignals. They need that so they can run on the NEC. Parts of the NEC have no wayside signals(except interlocking signals and approach) but only cabsignals.

And the new Amtrak owned SC-44 has also cabsignals for the NEC portion. I don't know for sure but its likely that a few P40DC also have cab signals.
  by Tadman
 
ryanch wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2020 1:33 pm
Tadman wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:28 am
ryanch wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 2:48 pm
Tadman wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 9:14 am I'll never forget a few years ago reading that a Connecticut commuter was admiring a NH-painted Gennie. The conductor told her that it was a 70 year old paint job. The commuter then asked why they were running 70yo trains. TLDR, the riders have no freaking clue as long as it's clean, on time, has wifi... etc.
He should have told her the car was newer, but they had pulled the paint from an older car and reapplied it.
The point isn't about what really happened, the point is that the average rider has mental priorities -- getting to work or home, accomplishing something there, paying the mortgage, and going to book club, gym, golf course, pizza with the kids...

If the train is repeatedly late, the professional goals get delayed, which makes it harder to ensure the mortgage is paid and the fun stuff on Friday/Saturday is enjoyed.
I know, and it's an important point. I was just making a joke. Sorry if you felt I trivialized your point.

Thoroughly agree that old cars can be fine, and that reasonably fast, on-time service much more important than superfast, especially if schedule isn't met.

We cool
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8