"Acela II" to be capable of 180 mph

morris&essex4ever wrote:Since the NEC won't have it's speeds upped to 180 mph by 2015, it would only make sense that these trains operate where they can reach their max speed(Florida HSR).

Trains and track should be designed together, as a single machine. If a track is stand-alone the trains should be lightweight.

Otto Vondrak wrote:Discuss the equipment. Discuss the technology. Ignore politics.

In this day and age, the politics has an important impact on the future of rail travel.
Perhaps a dedicated board for political discussion is warranted?

Amtrak should lobby the FRA to not only let them run at 180 on shared trackage, but also to take an approach of ACSES or apocalypse proof trains, not both. Considering that the entire NEC will have ACSES in 2015, that's not an issue.

Infrastructure is key here. There needs to be funding on the Amtrak side to work with Metro-North to eliminate a lot of speed restrictions, like old bridges. What incentive does MN have to speed up a 15mph bridge that's near a station anyways? None. Their trains don't go very fast anyways, it's Amtrak that really gets screwed over.

Next, they need to get passenger diesels off the NEC and get commuter gear up into the 100+ range, 110 or 125 where possible.

The Acela II needs to be lighter weight, tilt farther, and have much faster acceleration. Although double decker would look good capacity wise, it would pretty much eliminate tilt, so I think single level is the way to go here. The trains should be longer as well, since the current trains just don't have much capacity.

I don't think more trains should be Acela-like trainsets, it doesn't make sense financially, especially with the speed and power of the ACS-64 coming around soon enough.

They should also standardize the stops. There's random Acelas that stop in New London, some don't stop in New Haven, they should just make up their freaking minds and run with it. New London is a pretty obvious stop to do, since the train is practically crawling there anyways.

I think Amtrak should seriously pursue the $117B new NEC, as that is critical to the future of the NEC areas. However, that wouldn't necessarily mean the end of Acela-like service going on the New Haven and Shore Lines, as there are still cities that would want fast service there. If the alignments could support it, I'd love to see 225mph running, which is the top end for steel rail trains. I think the 200 mark would be another mark like 150 is today, giving a big "wow" factor, even though it might shave two minutes off of the schedule as opposed to, say, 180.

Another question: for a dedicated HSR ROW, what is the trainset being separated from? Just freight, or also non tier-II compliant passenger?

Amtrak should lobby the FRA to not only let them run at 180 on shared trackage

You still want to make this impractical move that no other railroad across the world would do? Forget it. The block length required would mean a lot fewer trains running on the railroad, but it would be utterly unsafe no matter what; besides, the curves would prohibit such running.

Infrastructure is key here. There needs to be funding on the Amtrak side to work with Metro-North to eliminate a lot of speed restrictions, like old bridges

No, that goes beyond infrastructure into rolling stock. Amtrak would also need the money not only to install, but also to maintain cab signaling and ACSES on all of Metro-North's trains, on the property of Metro-North Railroad and the Connecticut Department of Transportation. There's also the matter (apparently) of track centers on the former Shore Line; those are still apparently too narrow to allow a 10' 4"-wide train to run with active tilt switched on alongside 10' 6"-wide commuter trains and 10' 8"-wide freight cars.

Next, they need to get passenger diesels off the NEC and get commuter gear up into the 100+ range, 110 or 125 where possible

Oh come on. Not only do you want an exorbitant expense with no benefit (commuter trains are always going to have average speeds just above the 40-mph range at their fastest, sometimes approaching 50 mph on expresses), but you want to upgrade all tracks on the NEC to FRA Class 9 track and ban diesel trains that need to get to other lines that connect to the NEC, thus canceling their service? Goodbye all of MBTA service besides the Providence line, Metro-North's Danbury and Waterbury branches, and even NJT's North Jersey Coast Line and Raritan Valley Line (even though their trains are certified for 100 mph). And what about Amtrak long-distance trains that change from electric to diesel at Philadelphia then run diesel through Washington Union Station?

I think Amtrak should seriously pursue the $117B new NEC, as that is critical to the future of the NEC areas

It's absolutely not critical, and at that price, the costs are way overblown ($260 million per mile is unprecedented, and twenty times the cost of LGVs in France, never mind ten times the cost of California HSR). The NEC can still be upgraded to have tilt trains achieve triple-digit average speeds.

Another question: for a dedicated HSR ROW, what is the trainset being separated from? Just freight, or also non tier-II compliant passenger?

Dedicated high-speed rights of way are just that: nothing else but high-speed trains run on them. Also FYI, they are intended for non-tilting trains.

Acelas already have a lot of space in front of them. If there isn't enough space at some point, they just don't get the speed restriction up to 180.

There are two problems with your argument about MN. First of all, they will have ACSES for the 2015 PTC mandate, so that's taken care of, and secondly, I'm not saying they should magically do 180 on the New Haven Line. That's ridiculous. However, they should be able to get into the triple digits on some straight sections, not 75, and rebuild bridges to remove speed restrictions, some of which take Acela down to a crawl. If Acela could blast through the bridges at 70 or 80, that would save a TON of time over the current very slow speeds. This is currently the slowest portion of Acela's whole run, and modest speed improvements to eke out as much as possible from the current alignment are needed in order to keep Acela moving through this area. It would also sort of benefit MN, as the M-8's can run 100mph, and it would definitely benefit the NE Regional trains.

The tilt issue is on the New Haven line, not the Shore Line. I think they could probably push a bit more speed even where they can't tilt, AFAIK, it is purely a passenger thing, and has nothing to do with the engineering of the train and track itself. It probably still wouldn't be as bad as the NYC subway curving and twisting even with some more speed in non-tilt sections.

You are totally distorting what I said about passenger diesels. Most sections wouldn't be good for 125, but the equipment should be good for 110 or 125, where it is possible to run at those speeds. In most areas, there are a lot of stations, but at least they could open the electrics wide until they have to slam on the brakes for the next station. Also, the electrics accelerate a lot faster than diesels, so they keep a schedule that is less different than Acela's and NE Regional's (although still quite different).

The only MBTA line that runs on the NEC and in diesel territory are trains to Stoughton (other than parts of the Providence line that need to be electrified). The other South lines split off just after Back Bay, and half of the MBTA system is North. Either the track to Stoughton could be electrified, or they could run diesels just for those trains. My point is not that any diesel should ever touch the NEC, but that trains that run only on the NEC should be utilizing the electric infrastructure, since they are the ones that have the most time to mess up schedules for other trains. Another point where diesels run, but is out of the control of Amtrak are the Danbury Line runs to GCT, which run diesel over the New Haven Line. However, those are in MN territory, are capable of 110 operation, and run Express after they platform at SoNo. Note I said "where possible". That means MBTA Providence Line, SLE, and MARC Penn Line (which is half and half).

The Amtrak trains that switch to diesel at Philadelphia are doing so because they don't have enough electrics. That's going to end when the ACS-64's come in.

You're not going to hit the same time performance as the new alignment would by just revamping the NEC, and there is a significant amount of congestion on the NEC that would be eased by taking the fastest of the fast trains off of the NEC and onto their own tracks, part of which will justify building the new line.

Acelas already have a lot of space in front of them

Not enough to even attempt the kind of speeds that you get only on dedicated high-speed railroads. The Acela is not that kind of train.

There are two problems with your argument about MN. First of all, they will have ACSES for the 2015 PTC mandate, so that's taken care of, and secondly, I'm not saying they should magically do 180 on the New Haven Line. That's ridiculous. However, they should be able to get into the triple digits on some straight sections, not 75, and rebuild bridges to remove speed restrictions, some of which take Acela down to a crawl. If Acela could blast through the bridges at 70 or 80, that would save a TON of time over the current very slow speeds. This is currently the slowest portion of Acela's whole run, and modest speed improvements to eke out as much as possible from the current alignment are needed in order to keep Acela moving through this area. It would also sort of benefit MN, as the M-8's can run 100mph, and it would definitely benefit the NE Regional trains

No, that's all a pipe dream. The 2015 PTC mandate does not mean that Metro-North will necessarily use ACSES, and it certainly does not mean that Metro-North or Connecticut DOT will ever think of building Class 8 track on their property (don't even think of Class 9 track), or adjust their track centers, to accommodate Amtrak. No flaws in my argument because of those matters. Besides, how are you going to relocate Jenkins Curve?

And frankly, it's not the slowest or curviest of the NEC. Have a look at the Shore Line east of Old Saybrook and through New London, in Amtrak-owned territory.

You are totally distorting what I said about passenger diesels. Most sections wouldn't be good for 125, but the equipment should be good for 110 or 125, where it is possible to run at those speeds. In most areas, there are a lot of stations, but at least they could open the electrics wide until they have to slam on the brakes for the next station. Also, the electrics accelerate a lot faster than diesels, so they keep a schedule that is less different than Acela's and NE Regional's (although still quite different)

That's another unnecessary expense. NJ Transit's cars are certified for 100 mph, SEPTA's for 80 mph, Metro-North's for 90 mph; it's a waste of public funds to certify them for faster speeds or operate them that fast, even for rush-hour expresses. And "opening the electrics wide" only to "slam on the brakes for the next station"? Great way to increase wear and tear, as well as increase passenger discomfort.

Going to explain what to do with the Empire Corridor (they run dual-mode diesels right into New York Penn Station) and Metro-North's New Haven Line branches (the Danbury and Waterbury branches also use dual-mode diesels during rush-hour service into Grand Central Terminal, where they need to operate on third rail)?

Electric motors don't accelerate too much faster than diesel-hauled trains; the starting tractive effort is very similar. The difference is high-end horsepower, and commuter trains aren't the most concerned with top speed.

The only MBTA line that runs on the NEC and in diesel territory are trains to Stoughton (other than parts of the Providence line that need to be electrified). The other South lines split off just after Back Bay, and half of the MBTA system is North. Either the track to Stoughton could be electrified, or they could run diesels just for those trains. My point is not that any diesel should ever touch the NEC, but that trains that run only on the NEC should be utilizing the electric infrastructure, since they are the ones that have the most time to mess up schedules for other trains. Another point where diesels run, but is out of the control of Amtrak are the Danbury Line runs to GCT, which run diesel over the New Haven Line. However, those are in MN territory, are capable of 110 operation, and run Express after they platform at SoNo. Note I said "where possible". That means MBTA Providence Line, SLE, and MARC Penn Line (which is half and half)

No, the diesels do not "mess up the schedule" for the electric trains. When it comes to the P32AC-DMs, only the locomotives are certified for 110 mph, not the cars, and you're still acting like Metro-North's going to build Class 8 track.

Elsewhere in the world, there is also extensive diesel operation through electrified territory. If the matter of SLE and MBTA continuing diesel operation in territory that is totally electrified, I remind you that that territory has only been electrified for a decade thus far and for the states of Connecticut and Massachusetts to scramble to buy specialized rolling stock may be asking too much. Same goes for MARC, especially in the case where flexibility may be necessary — diesels can run under the wire on the Penn Line, but electrics can't run on the Camden and Brunswick lines.

The Amtrak trains that switch to diesel at Philadelphia are doing so because they don't have enough electrics. That's going to end when the ACS-64s come in

No, that's not why they do it. Philadelphia is where the lines to Washington and Pittsburgh split; keeping crews at Harrisburg and Washington (two locations) instead of at just Philadelphia (one location that can service all of the trains in question) would be the greater expense. Don't expect that to change when ACS-64s show up; besides, those motors are going to replace some of Amtrak's present electric motive power rather than augment the present fleet.

You're not going to hit the same time performance as the new alignment would by just revamping the NEC, and there is a significant amount of congestion on the NEC that would be eased by taking the fastest of the fast trains off of the NEC and onto their own tracks, part of which will justify building the new line

Augmenting the Northeast Corridor to the degree it can be can result in triple-digit average speeds even approaching 110-120 mph. The expense of building a parallel NEC just to increase average speeds to 135 mph, over such a short distance, is anything but worth it.

180mph isn't that much faster than 150mph on the few straightaways where it can handle it.

They are using ACSES. You're totally missing my point. My point is that they need to get the existing trackage back up to 90, and where there are straightaways, for some faster speeds. Yes, the federal government/ Amtrak is going to have to put money into it, because MN tops out at 110, not 125 like Amtrak, and realistically doesn't have much use for anything faster than 80 or 90. Going along with getting the track back up to 90 is to rebuild bridges that now have severe speed restrictions on them, well blow 75, which require Acela to slow down and lose a ton of time. I'm not suggesting they move the track centers around or anything like that, rather just get the existing track alignment up to snuff for the max speeds that it could run. Also, a slightly narrower Acela could tilt on that line.

The Shore Line has higher average speeds than the New Haven line, and by quite a bit. A lot of the speed restrictions are 70, with the normal speeds at 90+, while the New Haven Line tops out at 75 this side of the NY line. New London is the only major bottleneck, and there's nothing that can be done, as it's a pair of hairpin turns with a bunch of grade crossings in the middle.

NJT's ALP-46a's and ML's are good for 125, they just haven't been certified that high yet, and MN's P32's and Bomb cars are good for 110.

Full throttle or full brake is often much how significant sections of commuter line and subways run now. I'm sure its just mechanically wonderful on the equipment.

Empire Corridor doesn't run on the NEC for one thing, but what you've ignored twice now, is that I said WHERE POSSIBLE. There are places that have to have diesels coming in off of non-electrified lines, but where they stay on the NEC, they should be electric.

Electrics are more powerful, and accelerate a lot faster.

What about "but is out of control of Amtrak" didn't you get? I'm saying electrify MBTA Providence.

The "flexibility" argument is really bull, as they need a certain number of sets for certain lines, so they should just figure it out and assign the electric sets where they can run. It's not like there isn't tons of other captive equipment around, like NJT diesels can't run to NYP, and their electrics can't go where there's no wire. They seem to manage.

CT and MA should have gotten with the program on day 1 when the line was electrified to electrify their trains. It's really unacceptable to be running big, dirty noisy diesels through town when the line has 25kV electrification.

I get the impression that Amtrak has gone almost 100% electric on the Keystone corridor, and is trying to on the NEC. They already switch a lot of locos out at WAS, they had to pull back because of loco shortages.

The alternate alignment would eliminate a ton of speed restrictions and bring the average running speed way up, in addition to reducing the distance quite a bit (84 is basically a straight line from NYC to Boston). You're not going to get 2:45 running times out of the current NEC, you'd be amazingly lucky to squish out 3 hours with as many track and bridge improvements as are possible on the current ROW with a super-express that had near perfect signals all the way...

Other than CP217 to just shy of Harrison the New Haven portion of MNCR has never been 90 mph.
When ACSES is implemented by 2015 the speeds will stay just as they are now.
The cost of raising speed is not worth it as max gain is only around 6 minutes.
There are way to many unavoidable speed restrictions and no money even in federal pot to elliminate all bridges and curves.

DutchRailnut wrote:Other than CP217 to just shy of Harrison the New Haven portion of MNCR has never been 90 mph.
When ACSES is implemented by 2015 the speeds will stay just as they are now.
The cost of raising speed is not worth it as max gain is only around 6 minutes.
There are way to many unavoidable speed restrictions and no money even in federal pot to elliminate all bridges and curves.

A lot of the speed restrictions didn't exist before, it's just that no one properly maintained the infrastructure, and now it's crumbling, and there's a bunch of additional speed restrictions. I can't blame MN for not caring, especially given that a lot of the bridges are near stations that the trains stop at anyways.

What was the MAS during the New Haven years? I thought it was 90 where there weren't speed restrictions from NHV to New Rochelle?

I know the speeds will stay the same (go down since they won't be able to speed) when ACSES is put in place in 2015, but my point to Amtrakowitz is that lack of PTC wouldn't be limiting speed on the New Haven Line if there are any straightaways capable of high-speed operation in the future.

In New Haven days the speeds were 60 and 70 mph.
The Bridges you can't raise speeds due to harmonics in bridge structure.
And no one has money for 4 new bridges
all current permanent speed restrictions have existed since New Haven days.
Devon draw.
Peck bridge Improved to 45 mph
Jenkins curve.
Saga Bridge
Walk bridge
CosCob bridge
Stateline curve
Harrison S curve
only one drasticly improved is CP216 upgraded from 10 mph to 45 mph for Amtrak, but with loss of flexibilty, hell gate line now only accesible from tracks 2 and 4.

What were they actually running at? I'd have a hard time believing that even the mighty EP-5's didn't go faster than 70 this side of the state line.

So you're saying even the New Haven creepy-crawled over the bridges? I've heard of a number of them getting de-rated over the years, and into their current condition...

Rich Green's track map shows a set of crossovers that would allow either Hell Gate Line track to access any of the four main tracks at New Rochelle.

Rich Green is not a railroad authority and his maps are close but not always correct.
as for Mighty EP-5 the top speed was 75 mph

DutchRailnut wrote:Rich Green is not a railroad authority and his maps are close but not always correct.
as for Mighty EP-5 the top speed was 75 mph

The satellite images show the same series of crossovers to get to any track from the Hell Gate line.

not at CP216 unless they are old Satelite images.
only tracks 2 and 4 or crossover at CP217.
track 1 and 3 have no switches at CP216 or signals.