NEC All Station Stop Service

[east point]

The changes coming because of the increased number of Acela trainsets are undeniable. There cannot be the same number of regional trains going forward.

That is an assumption that cannot be made yet. We have no idea wat Amtrak's plans are and we have no idea the amount of passenger demand. There is no way to know if enough new traffic will fill the expanded Acela-2 services or may not ! Amtrak could always cut the number of NJT trains to fill the lost NJT slots with more Amtrak trains ?

[CTRailfan]

That is an assumption that cannot be made yet. We have no idea wat Amtrak's plans are and we have no idea the amount of passenger demand. There is no way to know if enough new traffic will fill the expanded Acela-2 services or may not ! Amtrak could always cut the number of NJT trains to fill the lost NJT slots with more Amtrak trains ?

I believe they are limited by the red tape BS about bridge closings timetable North of Old Saybrook, but they could send more Regionals up to Springfield, eventually extending to the Inland NEC route to meet back up at Back Bay and South Station. If the schedules are too hard to keep going up to SPG, they could always terminate them at NHV, but that seems like a waste if it's possible to continue to SPG. The population density in CT is up I-91, and there are significant populated areas in Springfield and Worcester that are currently underserved by Amtrak.

[gokeefe]

The changes coming because of the increased number of Acela trainsets are undeniable. There cannot be the same number of regional trains going forward.

That is an assumption that cannot be made yet. We have no idea wat Amtrak's plans are and we have no idea the amount of passenger demand. There is no way to know if enough new traffic will fill the expanded Acela-2 services or may not ! Amtrak could always cut the number of NJT trains to fill the lost NJT slots with more Amtrak trains ?

Amtrak has been quite open about their plans. The new equipment will permit Acela service on 30 minute headways NYP-WAS (both directions of course) and 1 hour headways NYP-BOS. That level of service is what the new equipment purchase not only allows but also expects because otherwise they leave equipment idle.

Slots NYP-BOS are constricted for two big reasons, CT bridges and Metro North Railroad scheduling.

I don't know if Amtrak would or would not plan to eliminate NJT slots. That seems extremely unlikely in general as NJTs service levels determine NJs contributions to the NEC.

With regards to utilization there are very clear indications that there is unmet passenger demand for Acela. The nearly perpetual sellout status of certain trains along with close to flat levels of growth combined with increasing revenues are clear indications that there is a deep untapped well of demand for premium service.

[east point]

Slots NYP-BOS are constricted for two big reasons, CT bridges and Metro North Railroad scheduling.

I don't know if Amtrak would or would not plan to eliminate NJT slots. That seems extremely unlikely in general as NJTs service levels determine NJs contributions to the NEC.

I do not live near the BOS - NYP line. As such I have heard statements that the 39 CT train limit is about to expire, Is subject to new negotiations, or is still a hard and fast limit. What is the actual truth ?
Now MNRR scheduling is another different problem . The Walk Bridge replacement and future additional bridge replacements will constrain slots for the foreseeable future ( 2050 ? ) That is because each of the bridge replacements will limit tracks available across the old bridge to 3 and for several months several times just 2 tracks. If and how MNRR assigns dispatchers to cover each bridge tracks will probably determine how well traffic goes across the old bridges that have replacements under construction. MNRR has stated it wants to add more trains once more equipment becomes available ( M-9s ? ) which does complicate matters for Amtrak.

If Amtrak started removing some NJT trains thru Hudson river tunnels it probably would be that passenger revenue would exceed the lost NJT revenue. Remember there was not a problem until NJT started the Mid=town direct trains some that would go back to Hoboken. Now that would put more problems onto PATH that is having major capacity problems that PATH is trying to mitigate by improving signaling to allow shorter train intervals and making Grove Street capable to handle 9 car trains and eventually 10 car trains.

[TheOneKEA]

How much of a capacity constraint would an all-station-stop service introduce between WAS and WIL? The absence of a fourth track between Landover and West Baltimore, the restrictions of the B&P Tunnel, and the two-track alignment between GUNPOW and GRACE could be a significant challenge for weekday dispatching.

Will Amtrak force the Maryland MTA to exclusively use ACS-64s for all services in MD, weekday and weekend, when this service pattern is inaugurated?

[ryanch]

Can you explain the implications of using all Aces vs using other locomotives?

[TheOneKEA]

Can you explain the implications of using all Aces vs using other locomotives?

The MTA uses a variety of power on the Penn Line services: ACS-64s, HHP-8s, MP36s (either one or two), and occasionally their new SC-44s. MP36s are most commonly seen on the short four-car single-level trains or on the short bi-level trains. The longer/more heavily loaded trains will either have two MP36s, an HHP-8 or an ACS-64.

All of this variety in power means that the MARC services will have different acceleration curves, different top speeds and different dynamic/regen braking abilities, which in turn may affect how they keep time when dispatched. If Amtrak required that MTA use electric locos only in general, or ACS-64s in particular, the trains would have much less variety in performance and could theoretically keep time more consistently.

Someone like STRRedWolf can explain better, since they ride the Penn Line regularly and have a much better understanding of the dispatch and train performance than I do.

[njtmnrrbuff]

Anything could happen in terms of what would replace the Amfleets as well as what, in Amtrak's inventory, would run on the all stations stop service on Amtrak NEC trains. Amtrak presently has close to 70 Sprinters in revenue service. Amtrak lends MARC, I think one of the Sprinters. Overall MARC is a diesel operation, even on the Penn Line. The MP36 units are used on the shorter trains probably because of acceleration issues with longer trains. The SC-44 units do get around the system and there are probably many of them. They are great for the NEC, given that they can get up to 125 mph and can accelerate well.

I know that Amtrak has been looking into buying MUs and/or locomotive hauled sets. It could go either way. MUs would work good on the Amtrak NEC local stops. Locomotives would work fine too. Given that Amtrak has so many Sprinters that aren't old and work fine, I think it would be best for them to not order EMUs. I would order Siemens locomotive hauled coaches, cafes, and cab cars.

[NIMBYkiller]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Morris Park in The Bronx. With the advent of Metro North service to NYP, it's one of several stations planned for The Bronx. I can see a business case being made specifically for Morris Park because of the multiple hospitals there, even if it is super close to New Rochelle. I'd even say MAYBE drop New Rochelle for Morris Park.

Secaucus is annoyingly a very good addition given the connections to Hoboken division NJT service that can't access NYP or Newark Penn. Annoying because it's right outside NYC, but still logistically a good one.

Sunnyside, despite all the new jobs in Queens Plaza, is a quick enough back track on the E train from NYP. And if the station were to ever get built, Metro North service there could easily provide the needed connection. If it were further from NYP I'd say it has merit, but it's plenty accessible as it stands.

[STrRedWolf]

How much of a capacity constraint would an all-station-stop service introduce between WAS and WIL? The absence of a fourth track between Landover and West Baltimore, the restrictions of the B&P Tunnel, and the two-track alignment between GUNPOW and GRACE could be a significant challenge for weekday dispatching.

Will Amtrak force the Maryland MTA to exclusively use ACS-64s for all services in MD, weekday and weekend, when this service pattern is inaugurated?

They can't. The 2010 overheat "accident" produced an agreement that requires Amtrak station a diesel at Odenton, which is a GP40WH-2 (MARC 68). Plus, in the event of a power outage on the catenary, having a bloody powerful diesel nearby is a damn good idea.

Also, take a look at MARC's engine fleet. Six HHP-8's, 26 MP36's (which max out at 100 mph), 8 SC-44's (which are much faster and are tested to haul a 6 double-stack consist), the GP40WH-2 (MARC 68 on rescue duty), and a newly acquired GP40PH-2 from NJ Transit (MARC 4145). Amtrak says "electric only" and MARC's going to throw a fit when they can't haul heavy Penn Line traffic up on just those six HHP-8's (and that's assuming it's a good day and none are broken).

So no, it makes absolutely no sense for Amtrak to force all electric service WAS-to-WIL, unless Amtrak is willing to electrify bits of CSX lines and make MARC go fully electric.

[STrRedWolf]

I just remembered... I actually wrote a bit of flash fiction relating to this. The situation was that the NEC between WAS and WIL got so bad that you were better off with diesel service stopping at all MARC and SEPTA stops until you hit WIL and could offload to SEPTA (long-distance service would switch to electric in PHL).

I'll spare you the story (it's part of a collection that was written as part of No Novel November). Instead, let us indulge into a mental exercise. The goal is 20 minute headways WAS-WIL. The constraints:

• MUST USE MARC DIESEL EQUIPMENT AND CARS. Amtrak long-distance diesel service switches in PHL but falls under rules below.
• Must make all stops. Station stops are block boundaries, and your signals are track crew with radios.
• 79 MPH limit (Rule 556)
• Two track service. All other tracks are OOS. Switches are hand-set.

Looking at MARC's current Penn Line schedule, we can safely assume all stop service at current speeds (100 mph from my own measurements) is roughly two hours to Perryville. Wilmington is another 20 minutes away, with Newark splitting that. If we cut the speed down to 80 mph, it's very likely we get to Wilmington in about 3 hours.

20 minute service needs 3 train sets per hour in a single direction. 18 train sets total in push-pull. If you double-up the MP36's and use the SC-44's, that'll leave MARC with 12 engines for Camden and Brunswick line service (14 if you use the GP40's). If you give them 6 double-level car consists (MARC III and IV), it's going to leave 3 of those left for other service (on top of the 54 single-level MARC II's).

Brunswick line needs 9 consists for regular service and is rush service, rush direction (3 on restricted). Camden Line needs 11 for the day, but can turn some consists back (4 restricted). Those numbers are for a single direction.

Without doing some explicit scheduling of consists, everything looks to lean very possible... but 20 min NEC service is the limit.

[RRspatch]

Can you explain the implications of using all Aces vs using other locomotives?

The MTA uses a variety of power on the Penn Line services: ACS-64s, HHP-8s, MP36s (either one or two), and occasionally their new SC-44s. MP36s are most commonly seen on the short four-car single-level trains or on the short bi-level trains. The longer/more heavily loaded trains will either have two MP36s, an HHP-8 or an ACS-64.

All of this variety in power means that the MARC services will have different acceleration curves, different top speeds and different dynamic/regen braking abilities, which in turn may affect how they keep time when dispatched. If Amtrak required that MTA use electric locos only in general, or ACS-64s in particular, the trains would have much less variety in performance and could theoretically keep time more consistently.

Someone like STRRedWolf can explain better, since they ride the Penn Line regularly and have a much better understanding of the dispatch and train performance than I do.

I remain convinced, looking back at my CETC1 and CETC2 dispatching days, that Amtrak told MARC to continue using electrics on the Penn line. If MARC went all diesel, which I think was their original plan, Amtrak would have forced them to lengthen schedules (more trainsets/crews) or perhaps even cut service to avoid delays to Amtrak trains. Why else would MARC order new Charger diesels and then turn around and rebuild the HHP's?

The biggest bottle neck right now is between Baltimore and New Carrollton. A fourth track is needed between Winans and Carroll/Hanson with Amtrak on the two center tracks and MARC on the two outer tracks. I've heard of proposals to run ACELA's on half hour frequencies once the new train sets are all in service. Remembering my CETC1 days I can't wait to see how well this works out between Washington and Baltimore.

[STrRedWolf]

I remain convinced, looking back at my CETC1 and CETC2 dispatching days, that Amtrak told MARC to continue using electrics on the Penn line. If MARC went all diesel, which I think was their original plan, Amtrak would have forced them to lengthen schedules (more trainsets/crews) or perhaps even cut service to avoid delays to Amtrak trains. Why else would MARC order new Charger diesels and then turn around and rebuild the HHP's?

The biggest bottle neck right now is between Baltimore and New Carrollton. A fourth track is needed between Winans and Carroll/Hanson with Amtrak on the two center tracks and MARC on the two outer tracks. I've heard of proposals to run ACELA's on half hour frequencies once the new train sets are all in service. Remembering my CETC1 days I can't wait to see how well this works out between Washington and Baltimore.

The only reason why MARC is rebuilding the HHP-8's is because Bombardier got the maintenance contract from MARC, thus able to get access to fix all the issues the hippos have.

I'm with you on the four tracks, but it needs to be straight-up WAS to BAL. Previous studies done by Amtrak and MARC together said so, with New Carrolton, Odenton, and BWI being stations that get express service. The first step is the 30 MPH MAS B&P Tunnels.

[gokeefe]

Secaucus is annoyingly a very good addition given the connections to Hoboken division NJT service that can't access NYP or Newark Penn. Annoying because it's right outside NYC, but still logistically a good one.

You lose time but these stations have such high volumes of passengers that I think it's impossible to let let them go completely. This isn't North Philadelphia these statons (Seacaucus, New Rochelle etc) individually easily have ridership levels equal to Amtrak's largest terminals elsewhere in the country.

[TheOneKEA]

How much of a capacity constraint would an all-station-stop service introduce between WAS and WIL? The absence of a fourth track between Landover and West Baltimore, the restrictions of the B&P Tunnel, and the two-track alignment between GUNPOW and GRACE could be a significant challenge for weekday dispatching.

Will Amtrak force the Maryland MTA to exclusively use ACS-64s for all services in MD, weekday and weekend, when this service pattern is inaugurated?

They can't. The 2010 overheat "accident" produced an agreement that requires Amtrak station a diesel at Odenton, which is a GP40WH-2 (MARC 68). Plus, in the event of a power outage on the catenary, having a bloody powerful diesel nearby is a damn good idea.

Also, take a look at MARC's engine fleet. Six HHP-8's, 26 MP36's (which max out at 100 mph), 8 SC-44's (which are much faster and are tested to haul a 6 double-stack consist), the GP40WH-2 (MARC 68 on rescue duty), and a newly acquired GP40PH-2 from NJ Transit (MARC 4145). Amtrak says "electric only" and MARC's going to throw a fit when they can't haul heavy Penn Line traffic up on just those six HHP-8's (and that's assuming it's a good day and none are broken).

So no, it makes absolutely no sense for Amtrak to force all electric service WAS-to-WIL, unless Amtrak is willing to electrify bits of CSX lines and make MARC go fully electric.

I agree with everything you said. The reason why I even floated the idea was because of comments up thread which implied that the combination of the all-station-stop regionals, the semi-fast Acelas and the express Acelas would consume any spare track and dispatch capacity on the entire NEC. Some of the posts also implied that there would be a lot more multiple-unit trains running on the NEC, which I perceived to mean that the ACS-64 fleet utilization might change when the new service pattern is inaugurated.

I still think that putting two MP36s on the front of the heavy five-car and six-car Penn Line trains, instead of one SC-44, HHP-8 or ACS-64, is highly suspect, and would love to be convinced otherwise. I also think the nine-car train will eventually begin appearing regularly on the weekend services. I for one will be very interested to see how MARC adapts its rostering as Amtrak services expand.