• AMTRAK NEC: Springfield Shuttle/Regional/Valley Flyer

  • 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

  • 2176 posts
  • 1
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 146
  by twropr
 
I understand the four-day VERMONTER bustitution is due to a bridge at Bernardston being replaced. Is this overhead or undergrade?
Is there a slow order over the bridge?
Thanks!
Andy
  by lordsigma12345
 
twropr wrote:I understand the four-day VERMONTER bustitution is due to a bridge at Bernardston being replaced. Is this overhead or undergrade?
Is there a slow order over the bridge?
Thanks!
Andy
I'm not sure which bridge it is. There were two bridges in Northampton that were being bid out for repairs soon but I haven't actually heard which bridge on the line they're going to be working on this weekend - CTDOT has not been specific on that and I haven't seen any info released on the Mass side. Does anyone know which one it is?
  by Ken W2KB
 
Arlington wrote:"We ran/run without PTC" is not a winning liability/insurance strategy.

Seat belts went from novelty to optional to mandatory, and so has PTC.
Agreed. If I were legal counsel advising Amtrak senior management I believe that I would state that operating without what is perceived to be the current state of the art safety system operational significantly exposes Amtrak to much higher levels of damages were an accident to occur that would have likely been prevented by PTC, with the definite possibility of punitive as well as compensatory damages being awarded by a jury.
  by lordsigma12345
 
I think it would be prudent for Amtrak to invest/look into some other type of "PTC-lite" system that could address some of the remaining risks of operating on PTC exempt routes - for instance perhaps a GPS based system to help enforce speed reductions. Some of the key accident types that PTC is designed to mitigate are less or non issues on the exempt track. For example the Vermonter runs in totally dark territory north of White River Junction, but every train that runs on the White River Junction to St. Albans segment has control of the entire route with no other trains running at overlapping times. This essentially eliminates the problem of train collisions which covers a large part of what PTC defends against. Essentially the two remaining principle risks that PTC would mitigate are accidents caused by missing or ignoring speed limits or restrictions and accidents caused by a misaligned switch. Something or a combination of things that exclusively target these two risks could be a good PTC alternative for exempt tracks.
  by Ryand-Smith
 
lordsigma12345 wrote:I think it would be prudent for Amtrak to invest/look into some other type of "PTC-lite" system that could address some of the remaining risks of operating on PTC exempt routes - for instance perhaps a GPS based system to help enforce speed reductions. Some of the key accident types that PTC is designed to mitigate are less or non issues on the exempt track. For example the Vermonter runs in totally dark territory north of White River Junction, but every train that runs on the White River Junction to St. Albans segment has control of the entire route with no other trains running at overlapping times. This essentially eliminates the problem of train collisions which covers a large part of what PTC defends against. Essentially the two remaining principle risks that PTC would mitigate are accidents caused by missing or ignoring speed limits or restrictions and accidents caused by a misaligned switch. Something or a combination of things that exclusively target these two risks could be a good PTC alternative for exempt tracks.
Isn't pulse cab signaling an option and provides protection, speed control that is good enough for trains in some areas?
  by lordsigma12345
 
I was thinking of something you could use for dark areas and CTC areas without any form of cab signals. Some sort of independent GPS thing that could go in the locomotives that would just track where the train is and know where the speed limits and switches are and could slow the train as needed.
  by lordsigma12345
 
Rode 417/412 tonight for a pizza dinner in New Haven. The shuttle cars now have the new seat cushions/carpets. First time I’ve had that on here.
  by DutchRailnut
 
asull85 wrote:For what it's worth, ACSES is being considered for the Conn River between Springfield and Greenfield.
considered or mandated ?
  by Backshophoss
 
Amtrak IS installing ACSES New Haven-Springfield,unknown if the No Cab Signal agreement on former B&M lines applies on this MassDOT owned trackage.
Figure on PAR/PAS to fight any PTC install on the Conn River Line.
MassDOT might install a cab signalless version of ACSES II that MBTA is installing on all lines out of North Station.
  by lordsigma12345
 
Relevant language from agreement between Pan Am and MassDOT:

4.4 Responsibility for Capital Improvements.
(a) In the event that a condition is identified on the Property that prevents the achievement of the Service Outcomes as set forth in Exhibit B of this Agreement and that can be remedied only by capital maintenance, the Commonwealth Parties shall be responsible for such capital maintenance costs that are required to achieve the Service Outcomes.
(b) The Commonwealth Parties' capital maintenance obligations include, but are not limited to, those set forth in Exhibit B to this Agreement.
( c) PAS, in its sole and absolute discretion, may pay additional amounts towards the improvement of the Property, including capital projects and modifications to proposed capital improvements to be constructed by the Commonwealth Parties, provided, however, that any such PAS-initiated capital projects or modifications to proposed Commonwealth Parties-initiated capital projects shall be subject to the written approval of the Commonwealth Parties, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. The Commonwealth Parties shall provide PAS reasonable notification of contemplated Commonwealth Parties-initiated capital projects in order to effectuate the intent of this section.
4.5 PTC.
In the event that positive train control ("PTC") is required on any Rail Operating Property due to the presence of Passenger Service and not solely because of PAS operations, the Commonwealth Parties shall, at their sole cost and expense, provide a PTC system that complies with applicable law and is fully interoperable with the PTC system adopted by the national freight system. In addition, the Commonwealth Parties shall equip at their sole cost and expense up to twenty (20) PAS locomotives with equipment necessary for said locomotives to operate over all PTC equipped Rail Operating Property conforming to the above-referenced national freight system standard.
  by Backshophoss
 
An possibility of another I-ETMS/ACSES II dual system install,I-ETMS for the PAR/PAS locos,Amtrak /"T" West locos installing ACSES II, if it
gets above the 6 Round Trip daily limit.
PAR/PAS needs o maintain a pool of ACSES rigged locos to reach Waterbury Ct and run on Amtrak's Springfield line to Hartford,then on MN rails to reach
Derby Jct(HRRC "interchange") to interchange Ballast Cars with MN at a nearby siding there.
  by mtuandrew
 
lordsigma: yeah, your GPS idea sounds similar to what Mr. O’Keefe and I were talking about in the PTC compliance thread. Kind of an electronic Form D or Track Warrant, using the ACSES or I-ETMS brain to collate data about speed restrictions with the locomotive’s GPS position. It would be out of range of dispatch, but would still automatically follow dispatch’s instructions and stop itself if the crew exceeded those limits.

Something to consider anyway.
  by lordsigma12345
 
mtuandrew wrote:lordsigma: yeah, your GPS idea sounds similar to what Mr. O’Keefe and I were talking about in the PTC compliance thread. Kind of an electronic Form D or Track Warrant, using the ACSES or I-ETMS brain to collate data about speed restrictions with the locomotive’s GPS position. It would be out of range of dispatch, but would still automatically follow dispatch’s instructions and stop itself if the crew exceeded those limits.

Something to consider anyway.
yes something like that sounds good to consider - especially for dark territory where there's really nothing to work with.

Does anyone know how many passenger trains can be added on the CT River Main Line before the number of passenger trains triggers a PTC requirement? As mentioned before, Per the Knowledge Corridor agreement between MassDOT and Pan Am, Pan Am has zero skin in the game on any PTC requirements unless the PTC requirement is caused by an increase their freight operations. If the requirement is due to an increase in the number of passenger trains MassDOT has to pay for everything and also has to fully carry Pan Am along as well on the state's dime - they would have to pay for up to 20 Pan Am locomotives (number up to Pan Am - maximum of 20) to be fully compliant with the PTC system installed and the system chosen would have to be compatible with the PTC systems used on the national freight system which means I-ETMS would have to be included - it does appear they are going to get a bunch of upgraded locomotives from the other issue they have with MBTA in the eastern part of the state so it is unclear how many additional locomotives would actually need to be upgraded for them to maintain their EDPL/PLED trains and whatever local operations they are doing for customers along the line if PTC becomes needed on the Knowledge Corridor.
  • 1
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 146