Railroad Forums 

  • Where would $2b do the most good?

  • 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

 #1537542  by Alex M
 
Unless you build tracks 35 ft. from the centerline of the existing RF&P sub, CSX will balk at electrification for anything over 90 MPH.
 #1537543  by SRich
 
Alex M wrote: Tue Mar 24, 2020 7:46 am Unless you build tracks 35 ft. from the centerline of the existing RF&P sub, CSX will balk at electrification for anything over 90 MPH.
Even when the electrification is high enough for double stack trains?
 #1537545  by MattW
 
Who said Acela to Richmond has to be at high speed? Just having a one-seat ride on a modern, clean, trainset would undoubtedly boost ridership. Heck, if it were possible (and please don't jump in and tell me all the reasons it isn't, I know them), putting a diesel on the front of an Acela set and running to Richmond would provide a major boost even with the engine addition/subtraction time in DC just due to the one-seat ride.
 #1537548  by Tadman
 
MattW wrote: Tue Mar 24, 2020 8:44 am Who said Acela to Richmond has to be at high speed? Just having a one-seat ride on a modern, clean, trainset would undoubtedly boost ridership. Heck, if it were possible (and please don't jump in and tell me all the reasons it isn't, I know them), putting a diesel on the front of an Acela set and running to Richmond would provide a major boost even with the engine addition/subtraction time in DC just due to the one-seat ride.
I'd drop the one-seat ride and just have a modern-looking train. In many countries there are frequent connections - try reserving between some bigger city pairs in Germany, you can get 2-3 connections. One cross-platform in DC would save quite a bit of time on the motor change. Especially if they do something cool like opening all the doors, which Amtrak is sometimes loath to do on corridor trains.
 #1537551  by Jeff Smith
 
mtuandrew wrote: Mon Mar 23, 2020 3:59 pm
Tadman wrote: Mon Mar 23, 2020 8:17 am Here's an idea that wouldn't take even 10% - build out good wifi on all corridor trains. Invest in top notch stuff with high speed and large bandwidth. Perhaps use the same stuff the airlines use. Then charge for it. Get at least part of the money back.

The notion that everybody should have free wifi that can do anything is a fool's errand, because now the first ten guys on the train stream netflix, the rest of us get squat, and it's no more attractive than it was before wifi.

Also, Amtrak currently treats wifi as an expense like everything else. That means wifi gets in line behind all the other non-safety expenses for repair and upgrade.

If it were a profit center, even a minimal one, they'd assign a few dedicated guys to the system and it would work well. And it would be a genuine feature to attract riders.
Add a decent coffee bar/bar car to each train while you’re at it. If it means spending $50m to rebuild your Horizons, Amfleets, and Superliner cafes (also to spec such a setup on the Viaggios) and giving up some business class seating in order to sell $6 lattes, $10 draft beers, and $15 mixed drinks, even staffing an extra cafe attendant you’ll still come out way ahead in total profits.
Music to my adjunct instructor for military entrepreneurship transition program ears! Revenue Drivers is what it's all about.

Yes, charge for WiFi "Premium Access". The only places I know with free WiFi in the travel industry are hotels, and that often depends on frequent guest status. On planes, it's almost always extra. Amtrak could build Guest Rewards status into that offering.

For Andrew's suggestion, how about some automation? Tad's been moaning about cafe car attendant breaks LOL; why not vending machines? For coffees, cokes, snacks, etc. Allow the attendant to concentrate on more lucrative items.

European trains, at least back in my time, had snack and beverage carts that went up and down aisles.
 #1537555  by bdawe
 
Alex M wrote: Tue Mar 24, 2020 7:46 am Unless you build tracks 35 ft. from the centerline of the existing RF&P sub, CSX will balk at electrification for anything over 90 MPH.
Unless they wrote that into the contract selling half the RoW to Virginia, I don't see why that balking matters more than any other abutting neighbour
 #1537563  by Alex M
 
At the risk of sounding redundant, I noted previously where two CSX employees were killed when an Amtrak regional going north from union station struck them while their train was setting out a car that triggered a defect detector. At that point the two lines are in close proximity, hence one good reason for a 35 ft separation if passenger trains are going over 90 MPH.
 #1537566  by Jeff Smith
 
That's a fair point, but as tragic as that event was, wasn't it more of a failure to follow procedures? Would a fence stop that? FRA or another responsible agency hasn't mandated a separation of ROW between passenger (heavy) and freight as far as I know. That's been more of a freight concern in territory which they dispatch.
 #1537570  by MattW
 
That's what I was thinking, but I don't want to cross into victim blaming. Unless there's a fence between all tracks, couldn't the same happen even in passenger-only territory? Or do they establish something like a slow-speed work zone when switching on adjacent tracks?
 #1537572  by bdawe
 
Amtrak manages to work on their own tracks, why can't CSX work around them? Perhaps it's not the most sensible thing to burn 35 feet of the right of way because of a single accident or a training deficiency. Organize better!
 #1537586  by Tadman
 
Yeah the 35 foot thing is nuts. Think about it this way: Somehow the Acela has never clipped an MBTA passenger on a platform at 150mph, nor has it clipped another train at 200-300mph closing speed. Maybe the solution is better speed restrictions, maybe strict 20mph + horn in work area 24/7 until the project is over. I don't know, but I do know the CSX example is a tragic example of fubar procedure.
 #1537590  by dgvrengineer
 
If I remember correctly, the CSX incident wasn't in a work zone. It seems to me it was a Conductor and a trainee walking an emergency application or fixing a broken knuckle. Most railroads have rules against walking in the gage or even too close to an active track unless you are a track inspector.
 #1537627  by Tadman
 
I think you're right, something of that nature.

And that would've been valuable in this PTC morass. A "train in distress" function. Press a button (or automatically actuated by air dump) and the PTC system limits all nearby trains to 25mph. Could've been the most valuable thing on PTC
 #1537632  by Jeff Smith
 
Just to be clear, I'm not blaming victims. People make mistakes all the time, whether in cars on the road, crossing a street, etc. It's tragic. A function such as Tad suggests isn't a bad idea.
 #1537643  by mtuandrew
 
Tadman wrote: Wed Mar 25, 2020 10:00 am I think you're right, something of that nature.

And that would've been valuable in this PTC morass. A "train in distress" function. Press a button (or automatically actuated by air dump) and the PTC system limits all nearby trains to 25mph. Could've been the most valuable thing on PTC
Coming back to the $2b question, wouldn’t it be nice if Amtrak had both ACSES and I-ETMS installed on all its power, and had standardized I-ETMS installed on the Michigan, Illinois, Downeaster, and Raton Pass NM lines (with whatever mods were needed for 110 mph service)? I don’t know what’s on the Springfield or Hudson lines but apparently it’s sufficient for Amtrak.