• Amtrak NEC Virginia Regional Service

  • 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

  • 432 posts
  • 1
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  by SouthernRailway
 
Gilbert B Norman wrote: Wed Dec 25, 2019 10:43 am
njt/mnrrbuff wrote: Tue Dec 24, 2019 11:50 pmI think in order for our trains to be like European standards, the 28 minute plus layovers at DC must stop.
Mr. NJT/MNR, you couldn't be more correct. "Been there done that" on the OBB approaching Linz (2nd largest Austrian city) and if this were Amtrak, there would be "higgling and piggiling" for maybe 20min or so. But "get 'em off, load 'em up" (even considering what the backpackers are handling), and be gone in two minutes is the standard (even Salzburg; 3rd largest, same story).

But adding new classes of equipment such as self propelled MU's and Dual Mode locomotives, none of which in their limited Amtrak use have produced good results, might not be beneficial. Electrifying the RF&P might prove worthy, even if costly.

Finally, I must question to what extent have the MU "advocates" around here actually ridden the Diesel varietal - here or Overseas?

Joyeux Noel
I’ve ridden DMUs in Scandinavia and didn’t care for them: the whole car shakes due to diesel engine vibrations.

The DC-Richmond line needs to be electrified or at least trains need dual-mode locomotives.

Plus Amtrak’s operations in DC are inefficient: it seems like everything is done one slow step at a time instead of doing them at the same time. For example, why change the locomotive and then put baggage onboard? Whoever is loading baggage could just load it at the same time and then hold off for a moment when the new locomotive is coupled to the consist.
  by mtuandrew
 
Gilbert B Norman wrote: Wed Dec 25, 2019 10:43 amElectrifying the RF&P might prove worthy, even if costly.

Finally, I must question to what extent have the MU "advocates" around here actually ridden the Diesel varietal - here or Overseas?

Joyeux Noel
It might be worth electrification, and I never would have thought it would happen. Hope they can lower the 1st Street Tunnel enough for clearance between wire and gallery/Superliners. Also looking forward to whatever deal they Commonwealth can work out with NS - I could absolutely see a purchase of their line out as far as Manassas for commuter service.

I’ve ridden RDCs before (at about 20 mph on the North Shore Scenic, so that doesn’t really count), Stadlers on the RIVERline (not impressed with noise, but those aren’t really meant as mainline DMUs), and the IC/3 Flexliner when it visited the States years ago (with which I was impressed.) I also got the chance to ride one in England years back, also not impressed with the noise but it was a 1970s model set. Looking forward to trying modern models on the A-Train/Texrail/CapRail (Stadler) and UPX/SMART (Nippon-Sharyo).

And a Merry Christmas to you, Mr. Norman!
  by njtmnrrbuff
 
I don't understand what loading and unloading the baggage car has to do with the time that the engine is switched. It shouldn't. Just after the train comes into the terminal, that is when the baggage should be loaded and unloaded from the baggage car. During an engine change of a southbound train, there are probably times when the engines that are being taken off the train as well as put on will probably have to wait for any other movements coming from the south to clear. Personally, I think the eastern long distance trains that pass though DC should just use dual powered locomotives if possible.
  by gokeefe
 
Gilbert B Norman wrote: Wed Dec 25, 2019 10:43 amFinally, I must question to what extent have the MU "advocates" around here actually ridden the Diesel varietal - here or Overseas?
Checking my memory I thought I had done so on DB or perhaps OBB but I don't think that's the case. I did a roundtrip trip on GWR in the UK in 1998 which I believe was on an HST 125. However this is simply a semi permanently coupled trainset as opposed to a "true" MU with powered axles along the length of the train.

There is a chance I've done diesel MU in Europe but I cannot remember where. It likely would have been in Bavaria on DB but I can't remember any routes in Bavaria that use that type of equipment. Pretty sure they were all trailers or leading cab cars with push-pull power (some diesel and some electric).

I rode the NS (Nederlandse Spoorwegen) commuter trains several times in the late 90s as well but I think these were all push pull service and almost certainly electric.
  by Arlington
 
An NS buyouts deal might require (or aspire to) Virginia buying everything between ALX and Culpeper (on the Southern main line) and Manassas to Front Royal (B-Line).

In exchange NS would ask for the state's help in building what is sometimes called either the Rappahannock cutoff or the Culpepper cut off.

Today crescent corridor freight does a strange circuitous routing into Manassas and back out again. NS would dearly love to have a cut off route (Culpeper to Front Royal) that was both half the distance and free of commuter rail demand.
  by njtmnrrbuff
 
It would be nice for a second track to get added along the parts of the NS Southern Main beyond Manassas and that would help the State and NS enable Amtrak to run more trains to the Blue Ridge Region. That second train to Lynchburg should be extended to Roanoke.
  by mtuandrew
 
Arlington wrote: Wed Dec 25, 2019 5:00 pm An NS buyouts deal might require (or aspire to) Virginia buying everything between ALX and Culpeper (on the Southern main line) and Manassas to Front Royal (B-Line).

In exchange NS would ask for the state's help in building what is sometimes called either the Rappahannock cutoff or the Culpepper cut off.

Today crescent corridor freight does a strange circuitous routing into Manassas and back out again. NS would dearly love to have a cut off route (Culpeper to Front Royal) that was both half the distance and free of commuter rail demand.
I considered that. It sounds like NS has plans ready to go, it would just be up to Virginia to approve and give them power of eminent domain (or take the land itself.)

Not sure Virginia has anywhere near as much use for the line out to Culpeper as they do for the segment up to Manassas. They might be willing to help fund the cutoff but only if they also get a track as far as Orange.
  by Ridgefielder
 
Gilbert B Norman wrote: Wed Dec 25, 2019 10:43 am But adding new classes of equipment such as self propelled MU's and Dual Mode locomotives, none of which in their limited Amtrak use have produced good results, might not be beneficial. Electrifying the RF&P might prove worthy, even if costly.

Finally, I must question to what extent have the MU "advocates" around here actually ridden the Diesel varietal - here or Overseas?

Joyeux Noel
I've ridden both RDC's and the misbeggoten SPV-2000s on MN's Danbury Branch. I can't recall the ride quality as being any better or worse than the loco-hauled Shoreliners.

With regard to electrification-- correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the wire go all the way to Potomac Yard in Alexandria back in PRR days?
  by njtmnrrbuff
 
[quote=Ridgefielder post_id=1529335 time=1577374645 user_id=14733]
[quote="Gilbert B Norman" post_id=<a href="tel:1529271">1529271</a> time=<a href="tel:1577288596">1577288596</a> user_id=256]
But adding new classes of equipment such as self propelled MU's and Dual Mode locomotives, none of which in their limited Amtrak use have produced good results, might not be beneficial. Electrifying the RF&P might prove worthy, even if costly.

Finally, I must question to what extent have the MU "advocates" around here actually ridden the Diesel varietal - here or Overseas?

Joyeux Noel
[/quote]
I've ridden both RDC's and the misbeggoten SPV-2000s on MN's Danbury Branch. I can't recall the ride quality as being any better or worse than the loco-hauled Shoreliners.

With regard to electrification-- correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the wire go all the way to Potomac Yard in Alexandria back in PRR days?
[/quote]

Yes, the electrification did go to Potomac Yard from the East. The PRR ran freight trains under the wire to Potomac Yard where, I think, diesels took over the rest of the runs from there. Today, the old PRR catenary towers and crossbars still stand along the right of way in Downtown DC.
  by mtuandrew
 
Re: PRR’s Potomac Yard, yes it was wired across the Long Bridge, but the tunnel under Capitol Hill was never wired. I don’t think it has the clearance for both wire and Plate F (Superliners and gallery cars.) As far as I know the RF&P itself was never wired whatsoever, and I don’t know whether it has clearance issues that might keep wire from going up someday.
  by Ridgefielder
 
mtuandrew wrote: Thu Dec 26, 2019 12:29 pm Re: PRR’s Potomac Yard, yes it was wired across the Long Bridge, but the tunnel under Capitol Hill was never wired. I don’t think it has the clearance for both wire and Plate F (Superliners and gallery cars.) As far as I know the RF&P itself was never wired whatsoever, and I don’t know whether it has clearance issues that might keep wire from going up someday.
Got it. I forgot the PRR had two routes south through DC.

Wikipedia gives the tunnel height as 17' so-- no, I don't think that's enough to clear Superliners under 12kV wire.
  by Gilbert B Norman
 
According to the AAR's one-time "Quiz on American Railroads" publication, the RF&P was reported to have three (3) miles of electrified railroad. Evidently, the PRR's "end of track" was on the District's side of the Potomac.
  by mtuandrew
 
Gilbert B Norman wrote: Thu Dec 26, 2019 2:27 pm According to the AAR's one-time "Quiz on American Railroads" publication, the RF&P was reported to have three (3) miles of electrified railroad. Evidently, the PRR's "end of track" was on the District's side of the Potomac.
The District (and Maryland) own both sides of the Potomac, up to the low-water mark on the Virginia side. Does that mean PRR owned Long Bridge solely, and RF&P had ownership up to the southern approach?
  by ExCon90
 
Gilbert B Norman wrote: Thu Dec 26, 2019 2:27 pm According to the AAR's one-time "Quiz on American Railroads" publication, the RF&P was reported to have three (3) miles of electrified railroad. Evidently, the PRR's "end of track" was on the District's side of the Potomac.
Yes, the P5a's and GG1's ran through from Enola and Waverly over the original alignment of the Baltimore & Potomac through Anacostia and over the Long Bridge as mentioned by mtuandrew. I think the PRR did own the bridge, but I'll check the PRR Centennial History and see if there's anything specific in there.
  by gokeefe
 
Gilbert B Norman wrote: Thu Dec 26, 2019 2:27 pm According to the AAR's one-time "Quiz on American Railroads" publication, the RF&P was reported to have three (3) miles of electrified railroad. Evidently, the PRR's "end of track" was on the District's side of the Potomac.
Sounds like a billing nightmare for the accounting department if I've ever heard of one.

Mr. Norman, I assume the Pennsy simply used their own ",juice". Do you think there was any kind of special deal for the RF&P, e.g. charging the PRR "rent" on the poles or something like that?
  • 1
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29