Amtrak Downeaster Discussion Thread

Any discussion of raising Downeaster speeds above 79 MPH is a non-starter
while PAR owns District #2. Even getting to 79MPH on some portions of the
route required an analysis by Amtrak geometry equipment, after PAR stated
that 132 LB rail would be required and the Downeaster line had been rebuilt
with 115 LB CWR. Even with a new owner, I do not see speeds over 79 MPH.
It should be noted that the speed limit on the MBTA from the MA/NH state
line to Boston is 60 MPH, with numerous restrictions below that.

Regarding smaller consists on some trains, that is also a non-starter, Amtrak's
policy seldom changes the size on consists on multiple trains on given routes.
The four busiest trains on the DE are #680, #682, #685 and #687. One train set
serves two of these trains and the other two sets are used on the other two.
Weekend ridership largely depends on sporting or other large public events
in Boston year round, and summer travel to Maine. Train #691, the first
train of the day to Maine on weekends, was sold out on some days last summer.

electricron wrote:Stadler DMU FLIRT trains can run in multiple units, adding another set to an existing set is possible to make a larger train. Increase speed of the Siemens or GE locomotive doesn’t gain much on a speed limited corridor. As for increase reliability, each Stadler DMU power car has two independent power trains compared to a sole power train in each traditional locomotive. If ran in multiple units, another dual power train power car would be added to the train.

NNEPRA does not want to run equipment that is unique to their service. Crew size and start time has a relationship to the equipment. The efficiency that NNEPRA seeks is achieved through using Amtrak's standard fleet, avoiding making changes to consists (which in the winter can be very problematic) and not having more than one crew start per day per trainset. The real opportunity is going to be the sixth roundtrip which may help smooth out some of the issues with "peak" trains by splitting the ridership across the schedule (which would also allow for ridership growth).

For those who haven't seen it yet here is a fantastic video done by TrainRiders Northeast very own Bill Lord for our 2017 Annual Meeting: https://youtu.be/dj8x38Xg5qQ

We are extremely grateful to Bill for all of his hard work on this production.

Dick H wrote:Any discussion of raising Downeaster speeds above 79 MPH is a non-starter
while PAR owns District #2. Even getting to 79MPH on some portions of the
route required an analysis by Amtrak geometry equipment, after PAR stated
that 132 LB rail would be required and the Downeaster line had been rebuilt
with 115 LB CWR. Even with a new owner, I do not see speeds over 79 MPH.
It should be noted that the speed limit on the MBTA from the MA/NH state
line to Boston is 60 MPH, with numerous restrictions below that.

The kicker to exceeding 79mph is in the signal system - not the track. Speeds in excess of 79 mph require cab signalling, that's why the speed is limited to 79mph which is 1mph below the maximum allowed speed on class IV track (good for 80mph). Pan Am will not pay for the upgrades and it is beyond what NNEPRA can fund because Pan Am would insist NNEPRA also equip their entire fleet of locomotives for cab signals should they be installed on the line.

Also, segments of the MBTA's Lowell Line that the Downeaster traverses have a limit of 70mph.

...It is also having a lot of success providing service to Maine residents as well.

To reiterate:

* of all Cumberland County residents, only an average 26 board the DE in Maine daily...
* lower ridership Portland-east in FY17 vs pre-extension FY14...
* an average of 5 boardings per (westbound) train at Freeport and 14/train at Brunswick...

A lot of success? Y'all set a really low bar!

Dick H wrote:Any discussion of raising Downeaster speeds above 79 MPH is a non-starter
while PAR owns District #2.

This was once clearly the case. I'm not sure it's true anymore. Even the required rail weight is not necessarily more than 115lb.

Trinnau wrote:... it is beyond what NNEPRA can fund because Pan Am would insist NNEPRA also equip their entire fleet of locomotives for cab signals should they be installed on the line.

Also not necessarily true due in part to Pan Am being required to equip the engines with PTC in order to run to Ayer (via MBTA). Although many would rightly say PTC ≠ cab signals there is some debate about whether or not that is really the case.

east point wrote:

DutchRailnut wrote:not unless states involved are willing to buy them, non of current Chargers are Amtrak owned .

Several items before Chargers on Downeaster.
1. Amtrak would have to buy some and operate them out of Albany
2. Install CSX Cab signaling and ACSES.
3. NNE either buy some or amend their operating agreement to run Chargers.
4. Enough Chargers to assign them to Downeasters.

PRIAA already clears up some of this. Unlike the West Coast/Midwest procurements where both coaches and power go under state ownership, on the East Coast operational realities muddy up the picture.

For the Amfleet-replacement coach mega-order the NY/VT Empire pool, the PA Keystone pool, and the NNEPRA pool will all go under state ownership just like the Midwest/West coach orders. Virginia and CT/MA, however, will remain tethered to the Northeast Regional national coach fleet by necessity of all their state-sponsored routes being actual or de facto inseparable extensions of Regional trains run off the same equipment bases. VA, CT, and MA will continue to pay in fees for use of the national fleet as they do today, and won't get to do wholly-customized state livery (though VA can go above-and-beyond and buy custom-configuration coaches to augment its Regionals if they really want to).

For the power order, only the Empire pool (whether it's just dual-modes or engine-swapped duals + straight-diesels) is going to be state-owned because all other East Coast state-sponsored routes either have an outright dependency on the nationally-owned Sprinter fleet for NEC/Keystone-running or are shackled to national engine-change points @ WSH, NHV, or ALB to gain access to their diesels. Everybody outside of the Empire continues to pay into the national fleet just like today. Those pay-in states don't have any control over what power gets cycled to them. NNEPRA therefore gets whatever the Lake Shore Ltd.'s predominant ALB-based diesel power is, whether that's P42's indefinitely or a future changeover to the national-option Chargers. (Keep that in mind when trying to match future paint jobs!) Any which way, DE power will match what signaling tech ALB pool is equipped for: cab signals, ACSES II (with or without cabs), and I-ETMS for CSX & CP freight territory.


It'll make for an interesting transition point. The national Charger options could start getting drained as early as this year...but because Albany pool is dependent on the NYSDOT order of dual-modes scraping the non-LD Empire trains off the national diesel fleet for engine changes, ALB is probably going to be the last major all-P42 holdout on the system in a full fleet replacement scenario. Meaning, the NHV-based Springfield Shuttles may get minty-fresh Chargers years sooner than the Downeaster does. On the flipside, the coach order being stacked LD's + NE Regionals first means the statie orders come last in sequence. Virginia and the CT/MA Shuttles, being pay-ins to the national fleet, will get the new cars soonest on their routes while the Keystone, Empire, and NNEPRA are stuck with the Amfleets until 400+ units into the manufacturing batch. Meaning, those new nat'l Chargers populating the Eastern equipment bases may be tasked with pulling old crap for several years until statie coach deliveries catch up.


NNEPRA can of course exercise its rights within PRIAA to go above-and-beyond the call and order its own self-owned power or custom cars...so long as they're willing to take on all maintenance for them. But that would be foolhardy, because their only practical means of amassing enough equipment to expand DE service is to go through the conventional channels with Amtrak service & support, and to spend their above-and-beyond resources buying more quantities of conventional-configuration coaches rather than paying a customization premium to do special liveries or do special-everything like NCDOT does.

Trinnau wrote:

Dick H wrote:Any discussion of raising Downeaster speeds above 79 MPH is a non-starter
while PAR owns District #2. Even getting to 79MPH on some portions of the
route required an analysis by Amtrak geometry equipment, after PAR stated
that 132 LB rail would be required and the Downeaster line had been rebuilt
with 115 LB CWR. Even with a new owner, I do not see speeds over 79 MPH.
It should be noted that the speed limit on the MBTA from the MA/NH state
line to Boston is 60 MPH, with numerous restrictions below that.

The kicker to exceeding 79mph is in the signal system - not the track. Speeds in excess of 79 mph require cab signalling, that's why the speed is limited to 79mph which is 1mph below the maximum allowed speed on class IV track (good for 80mph). Pan Am will not pay for the upgrades and it is beyond what NNEPRA can fund because Pan Am would insist NNEPRA also equip their entire fleet of locomotives for cab signals should they be installed on the line.

Also, segments of the MBTA's Lowell Line that the Downeaster traverses have a limit of 70mph.

PTC gets around the 79 MPH limit. That's how you get 110 on the cab-less Michigan Line. So the B&M-residue blanket ban on northside cab signals would not necessarily impede efforts to get...say...the Lowell Line uprated to Class 5 south of Wilmington on the one stretch of track that realistically could benefit enough parties to make going higher-speed a worthwhile future investment. Most of the Western Route isn't straight enough to top 79 even in perfect operating conditions, so signaling doesn't really factor on most of the trip. It's enough of a struggle just keeping up with state-of-repair at its incumbent track class, and putting the freight landlord's feet to the fire to stop impeding things.

IIRC...the Lowell Line's asynchronous northbound vs. soundbound speed limits are finally supposed to be fixed upon conclusion of some rail replacement work. That threw up a tougher-than-average challenge to keeping all manner of schedules balanced. The 70 MPH MAS is more signal system than geometry-induced; the CTC they've got there is aging and not intrinsically all that flexible. PTC installation isn't modding the base layer of signals, so unfortunately signal renewal between Medford Hillside (end of Green Line Extension project limits) and Wilmington is still going to be a large-cost (if ultimately necessary) item. Today they can't even whack the painful speed restriction at the West Medford crossing pair and eliminate the staffed crossing tender position there by installing DTMF switches and queue-dumping road signals because of what the T says is lack of suitable communications cable on the ROW for rigging up that setup. Hopefully the presence of all-new fiber optic signal plant installed for the Green Line construction less than a mile south will finally allow for some action on the crossing restriction, but the West Medford crossing saga is wholly indicative of all the old cruft needing renewal on the NH Main to get it firing on all cylinders for everyone...but especially the intercity schedules.


Zippier acceleration with a Charger leading the consist may help *a little*, but as in the prior post the DE is shackled to the Albany national pool so Maine is a pay-in...not ownership...state for its power as a necessity of the way Eastern power has to be triaged. So they don't have any decision-making control over when/if they get new power. But even a Charger's not going to make noticeable difference in the schedule so long as PAR + MBTA traffic interference requires maximal padding and staying on top of Western Route speedos remains a year-to-year challenge. That king-size HEP capacity will certainly help performance as DE consists get longer, but new power isn't actually going to result in 1 minute's net reduction in travel times if the Albany diesel fleet flipped entirely from P42's to Chargers in another 2 years gifting the DE the latest/greatest toys. The acceleration gains (which are indeed quantifiable) still aren't enough to overpower the noise from traffic interference and subpar track conditions dragging it all back to par. The only way to solve that is the same old bucket list of costly chores we've known from Day 1: stay ahead of state-of-repair attrition on the corridor, invest in commuter rail improvements addressed square at the Lowell & Haverhill Lines' service inefficiencies, keep PAR under constant pressure to curb their own notorious slop-ops, and hope like hell that when PAR is inevitably sold their next owners value running a vastly tighter ship than the current regime.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:NNEPRA can of course exercise its rights within PRIAA to go above-and-beyond the call and order its own self-owned power or custom cars...so long as they're willing to take on all maintenance for them. But that would be foolhardy, because their only practical means of amassing enough equipment to expand DE service is to go through the conventional channels with Amtrak service & support, and to spend their above-and-beyond resources buying more quantities of conventional-configuration coaches rather than paying a customization premium to do special liveries or do special-everything like NCDOT does.

I agree with everything except for this. I think NNEPRA has options if they buy their own equipment for maintenance in state. It is a potentially compelling reason to own equipment because the maintenance may cost significantly less. I am of course assuming they would be buying Siemens products and using a local vendor for maintenance with Siemens support.

As always, "subject to cost benefit analysis".

Theoretically, Maine should have a lower cost of living and also lower wage rates than say MA or NY or CT or MD. Though a small shop is theoretically less efficient than a large one. NNEPRA is probably dependent on Fed grants or loans for capital costs. Is Amtrak charging rates that take into account how depreciated (old) the equipment is? Maybe Maine can get some grants that Amtrak cannot get or isn't willing to passthru, that would make a new Siemens "brightline" train cheaper than Am-rent.

EXTREMELY unlikely that NNEPRA would find any cost benefit whatsoever to maintaining their own equipment given how small the DE's fleet is. The pooled scale of S&S on the PRIAA orders nets a Total Cost of Ownership that's extremely hard to beat. Even if Maine cut a separate S&S deal with Siemens it's improbable that they'd see the savings passed down to them like a Siemens S&S deal that served a half-dozen states at once and pooled >60 locomotives and/or 100+ coaches through traditional AMTK maint bases. Not to mention Brunswick MOW isn't set up for heavy maintenance, so it's either gulp hard and have PAR-Waterville do the really big rolling stock jobs (how about "NO!") or chew costs by rotating all stock out-of-state for anything more than most routine of repairs and inspections. NCDOT really isn't a good comparison here, because the ingredients just aren't there in Maine with any of the incumbent rail companies doing in-state business to set up a "one-stop-shopping" vendor agreement like the Piedmont corridor has for both rolling stock and lineside maintenance. And Maine is too much smaller and more constrained a state than North Carolina for amassing large capital resources, so transitioning into that setup from present arrangements is prohibitively difficult for them (even in PAR-less "neutral" conditions with who else they have to deal with on the corridor).

The difference in scale traveling with the PRIAA pack vs. outside it is dramatic enough that a separate cost analysis isn't going to turn up any eureka moments pointing in the direction of pulling an NCDOT. NNEPRA's never given any indication that they aren't fully simpatico with this stance. TRNE officials going off-script in front of a hot mic at a community meeting that one-off time or two about unicorn rolling stock...somewhat different story over the years. But those verbal excursions came from folks who almost certainly didn't do any deep-diving into the math of what it exactly entails logistically to "pull an NCDOT". NNEPRA has been very consistent that the PRIAA ordering defaults and safety-in-numbers are the best way to maximize their rolling stock scale, and I'd be shocked if anything changed with that attitude between now and when the statie options on the Amfleet replacement are up for the taking. After all, they've had a seat at the table for drawing up those 500 pages of East Coast coach specs and working the committees for what kind of S&S contracts they'd ideally like to see in the vendor bid packages. If there were any substantial dissatisfaction with how those well-laid plans came together or concerns that the bigger Eastern states were overrulling NNEPRA's concerns, we would have known that years ago because that dissatisfaction would've shown up in the PRIAA meeting minutes and comment rolls. On the contrary...they seem very bullish and wholly sympatico with the other states about the leverage the coach order defaults give them. There'd be smoke years and years before fire if they had any serious inclination to break away from the pack.

FWIW: the P42s have been very, very reliable, and have taken everything the Downeaster has thrown at them. It's hard to imagine that any brand new locomotive would be so much more reliable as to make a noticeable difference.

If we look back at the various problems the Downeaster service has experienced over the years (by "problems" I mean issues that have lasted for more than a day), not one of them has been related to the P42s. We've had all kinds of issues related to tracks, signals, weather, The T... "We've got 99 problems but the Gennies ain't one." They're tough and dependable.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:PTC gets around the 79 MPH limit. That's how you get 110 on the cab-less Michigan Line. So the B&M-residue blanket ban on northside cab signals would not necessarily impede efforts to get...say...the Lowell Line uprated to Class 5 south of Wilmington on the one stretch of track that realistically could benefit enough parties to make going higher-speed a worthwhile future investment. Most of the Western Route isn't straight enough to top 79 even in perfect operating conditions, so signaling doesn't really factor on most of the trip. It's enough of a struggle just keeping up with state-of-repair at its incumbent track class, and putting the freight landlord's feet to the fire to stop impeding things.

To be clear, there are several systems which quantify as "PTC" and the ITCS system installed in Michigan has it's own type-approval for PTC and authorization for 110mph operation. In looking at the brief on Alstom's website, it appears to be a system that incorporates a form of cab signalling and PTC features. Likely why the FRA approved it for 110.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:IIRC...the Lowell Line's asynchronous northbound vs. soundbound speed limits are finally supposed to be fixed upon conclusion of some rail replacement work. That threw up a tougher-than-average challenge to keeping all manner of schedules balanced. The 70 MPH MAS is more signal system than geometry-induced; the CTC they've got there is aging and not intrinsically all that flexible. PTC installation isn't modding the base layer of signals, so unfortunately signal renewal between Medford Hillside (end of Green Line Extension project limits) and Wilmington is still going to be a large-cost (if ultimately necessary) item. Today they can't even whack the painful speed restriction at the West Medford crossing pair and eliminate the staffed crossing tender position there by installing DTMF switches and queue-dumping road signals because of what the T says is lack of suitable communications cable on the ROW for rigging up that setup. Hopefully the presence of all-new fiber optic signal plant installed for the Green Line construction less than a mile south will finally allow for some action on the crossing restriction, but the West Medford crossing saga is wholly indicative of all the old cruft needing renewal on the NH Main to get it firing on all cylinders for everyone...but especially the intercity schedules.

The speeds have been matched for over a year now, the rail was done in 2016, and the GLX project will provide new signalling all the way to Winchester. With Tufts going in a new location that whole segment needs to be re-blocked. With Crawford and Wilbur being newer that just leaves Winchester and Wilmington (and a handful of ABS signals in between). Basically, anywhere you see a searchlight is old, anywhere you see a type-G is new. And I think you're misunderstanding the West Medford situation a bit. The T could absolutely authorize higher speeds there today (particularly north/outbound), but the city would scream. That's the problem with being a state agency, the speed is set in the interest of being a good neighbor. This is a political problme, not an infrastructure one. Also, DTMF doesn't help without holding signals because otherwise you run the risk of blowing through the crossing at speed without activating the warning system.

If Maine were to purchase/lease DMUs to equipped the Downeaster fleet, low numbers of rolling stock shouldn’t be a problem. DCTA has 11 Stadler GTWs, equivalent to 5 1/2 FLIRTs, CapMetroRail has 10 GTWs, equivalent to 5 FLIRTs, eBart has 8 GTWs, equivalent to 4 FLIRTs, TexRail will have 8 FLIRTs, and Redlands will have 3 FLIRTs. There’s no reason why Maine couldn’t maintain 4 to 8 FLIRTs themselves.
The diesels in most DMUs are small enough to be swapped out and shipped to vendors for rebuilding. The same for the electric motors, and the motor controllers. SMART just replaced by rebuilding all the diesels in their 10 DMU fleet by swapping them out. Even if Maine decided to use traditional locomotive and coach trains, they could contract with MBTA instead of with Amtrak to maintain a state owned rolling stock. The diesels in DMUs aren’t that much larger than diesels in semi trucks or buses. I’m sure there is someone within Maine that could maintain the diesels, including rebuilding them and rewinding the propulsion motors.

electricron wrote:If Maine were to purchase/lease DMUs to equipped the Downeaster fleet, low numbers of rolling stock shouldn’t be a problem. DCTA has 11 Stadler GTWs, equivalent to 5 1/2 FLIRTs, CapMetroRail has 10 GTWs, equivalent to 5 FLIRTs, eBart has 8 GTWs, equivalent to 4 FLIRTs, TexRail will have 8 FLIRTs, and Redlands will have 3 FLIRTs. There’s no reason why Maine couldn’t maintain 4 to 8 FLIRTs themselves.
The diesels in most DMUs are small enough to be swapped out and shipped to vendors for rebuilding. The same for the electric motors, and the motor controllers. SMART just replaced by rebuilding all the diesels in their 10 DMU fleet by swapping them out. Even if Maine decided to use traditional locomotive and coach trains, they could contract with MBTA instead of with Amtrak to maintain a state owned rolling stock. The diesels in DMUs aren’t that much larger than diesels in semi trucks or buses. I’m sure there is someone within Maine that could maintain the diesels, including rebuilding them and rewinding the propulsion motors.

Maine is NOT going to purchase DMU's. Not. Ever. This is fantasy.

There is no place on the Eastern seaboard set up to maintain them and any vendor S&S contracts are going to come at piss-poor price because of that logistical hurdle. Maybe if the MBTA adopted DMU's like they considered a couple years ago there'd be a shotgun marriage in Boston at a new built-to-task facility to handle that work...but the T didn't move on that RFP. And their CR Future study is likely going to prioritize introduction of electrics over another stab at DMU's as best first use of funds for next-gen rolling stock, so that window is pretty well closed for the near/medium future. Not to mention PAR wields an awfully big stick on whether those are going to be allowed on their railroad without a bunch of artificial hurdles placed in NNEPRA's way to discourage unorthodox rolling stock. Plus the MBTA is going to nag its way into the conversation concerning movements around BET layover and their own crew qualifications when the DE sets have to be moved around from nook-to-cranny. Other bigger railroads are enough of a problem as is for NNEPRA's limited reach. Outright hostility from their primary host road, and mild skepticism/annoyance from the other one they share a layover with are pretty much fatal blockers to going off-script with DMU's. NNEPRA's risk-averse enough to never drop that one on the unsuspecting partners they're wholly reliant on for traffic cooperation.

The other commuter rail comparisons are totally irrelevant. As upstart systems they all HAD to make a rolling stock purchase from a starting point of ground zero and sink big prerequisite $$$ into the support facilities, because the service physically wouldn't exist without paying the going rate for those startup costs. The extra support overhead for a first-time service start was completely non-optional, and provided the one-time freedom to cast a wide net for vehicle types. The Downeaster isn't/wasn't ever saddled with that startup-from-absolute-zero overhead because they're a state-sponsored member of a really freaking huge existing Amtrak network, using existing equipment triaged off existing Northeastern equipment bases and existing S&S pooling. A total opt-out of all the pre-existing AMTK network scale will never price out better over riding the wave. Again...the ingredients aren't there for Piedmont-izing the DE with a one-stop-shopping vendor that can defray the cost premium of unicorn rolling stock by bulk-managing ALL logistics on the whole singularly-controlled corridor, lineside and vehicle-side. No companies like that doing business anywhere close to Maine, multiple host RR's, 3 different states of markedly different transpo affinities, and a much smaller and more funding-constrained state needing to run point on behalf of the whole corridor. Those other examples are apples-kumquats comparisons for all their administrative relevance to the DE corridor.

When the starting point is riding the wave on a bootstrap off existing scale, it absolutely does matter the world how big the fleet is before the needle moves in favor of getting off that wave with any divergent customizing. Outside of the partial rump of VTrans that's parasitically attached as pay-in to NYSDOT/Empire pool, Maine is the smallest and most financially-constrained PRIAA state in the country. Safety in numbers is life-and-death for their ability to maximize their $$$ spent on fleet needs. They're very lucky the standard PRIAA configs allow for things like ordering bigger baggage rooms on the NPCU-replacement cab-bag-coach cars at little to no cost premium over the vanilla half-coach/half-bag config. And lucky that the snap-in modularity allows for small-scale livery changes at very minimal cost premium over the vanilla ordering defaults. That's awesome ordering flex for small-fish NNEPRA; they can actually have something resembling organic-Downeaster livery despite a small fleet. Their seat at the PRIAA specs table helped ensure that cheap but meaningful customization was possible within the wholly-orthodox order to open up livery configs that used to require buying unicorn cars at blowout prices and piss-poor S&S scale. Where exactly does this newfound easier pathway to cost-controlled customization-within-orthodoxy somehow encourage...bolder excursions into unicorn-stock land? Huh????



MBTA maintain DE trainsets? The T has its own dire equipment shortage, space shortage, and staffing shortages. How much do BET employees have to scream that from the mountaintops day in, day out on these forums for that to sink in as a hard reality? And AMTK-Southampton is at-capacity with Amtrak already at war with the T over commuter train parking around their yard. DE equipment isn't maintained today at Southampton; it's Albany for power, Beech Grove for cabbages, and Amfleets cycled all up and down the coast. Southampton isn't going to absorb all-new unicorn stock duties it never had before when the increase in rote-conventional Acela and Regional stock in the ongoing/upcoming orders is set to oversaturate them. That bandwidth isn't going to appear out of thin air at existing Eastern New England facilities, so ability to ride the wave with nationally-distributed S&S is a lifesaver. If NNEPRA wants to opt out, NNEPRA has to take on the full cost of creating that facilities bandwidth whole-cloth for its unique rolling stock. Those costs don't have to be engaged at all if they stay fully-embedded inside the East Coast PRIAA coach order. Staggering difference. There aren't enough upsides making total opt-out worth the crushing extra burden of those support prerequisites. Not for a state as funding-limited as Maine. Not when a unicorn fleet of P-P sets or DMU's is going to get hit with the exact same commuter rail and freight interference, same uphill battle against Western Route speedos, same NH Main signaling cruft at little to no schedule improvement because rolling stock wasn't ever one of the route's performance handicaps.