Greg Moore wrote:bingo. I'd argue that it should be more aggressive than one or two more cars. maybe standard ten cars with four sets at fourteen as the target. save the amfleets (or their replacements) for routes that go off corridor (ie VA, Pittsburgh, etc). so with ten cars, two first class, one cafe, seven coaches.patcat88 wrote:I think you're making an assumption that's not necessarily true. I agree that the marginal costs of adding passenger space for a train may be lower. Given that, if you took the existing trainsets and added approximately 20% more capacity, you wouldn't necessarily drive up costs 20%. Which means you can in fact lower prices a bit and keep the fairbox ratio the same, while increasing ridership.Suburban Station wrote: ah, I'd shoot for 500 then. they should be the workhorses of the corridor, IMO. everyone should enjoy modern railroading (well, maybe noteveryone, but far more people) not just an excursion for the rich. the only way to do that is to offer more of a product and lower average costs. really start to take advantage of rail's strengths. besides, we aren't magically building higway capacity in the northeast and not even air capacity.The longer/more seats per train, the fewer trains you will run, angering customers. Shorter more frequent trains is an advantage rail has over air. Planes I think have hire per trip costs than trains. Look at the airline industry. We have the 747 and the A380 mega planes, but they aren't used domestically, and the A380 looks like a flop right now. Airlines stick with the 3x3 or 3x2 seat planes. Why? more frequency means happier passengers. We could build 50 car acelas, and run them just twice a day in each direction, same amount of capacity right? But humans aren't freight. You'd quickly find 49 locked off empty cars on your acela train. By the time double deck Acelas (think TGV) are needed, the next generation or 3rd generation acela will have been retired.
No one is really arguing for FEWER Acela runs, especially not Amtrak.
stench707 wrote:Well if the Acelas get retired from NEC service maybe they could move the 20 trainsets to the Harrisburg Line from NYP to Harrisburg via Philly. Don't you think 20 trainsets would cover the Keystone service? If not there could be Keystone Expresses that make limited stops in conjunction with the current regional-type service. If there are low-level platforms then those could be stops they dont stop at or they could be retrofitted with drop down steps or the stations could get some high-levels.currently, this seems like the most likely scenario for at least some of the sets. current Keystone service needs maybe ten sets. If the Keystone East is funded and top speeds are raised to 125 mph it could make some sense. Currently, Harrisburg and Lancaster are the only HLP's but I believe Elizabethtown, currently being renovated, is getting them. Mt. Joy and Middletown arein design phase but hopefully they go with HLP's as well. Paoli is, at some point, supposed to become HLP with center island platforms. that leaves Downingtown, Exton, Ardmore, Coatesville, and Parkesburg. the first three are shared with SEPTA. It's possible Coatesville will be too. that means HLP's could make sense for these locations at some point in the future to make them ADA compliant. Especially if parking is expanded at Exton as planned. In order to use all 20 you'd expect that the line has been electrified to Pittsburgh, as has been hinted at recently, but that will be pending a study that's part of the Keystone HSR submission. If VA electrifies, maybe run ten of them to richmond. If Amtrak electrifies the Springfield line, maybe they could run Harrisburg to Springfield
Any thought regarding this idea?
Davis
