coupled pairs of Acela Express trainsets

[Joel N. Weber II]

Let's hypothetically assume that the issues with coupling one Acela trainset to another could be resolved to the point where they could be run together at 150 MPH, to allow for longer Acela trains without needing longer maintenance facilities. (I've previously suggested that a possible way to do this might be to order 20 new Acela trainsets, similar to the existing 20, but with a better coupler design on the power cars, and then trade power cars between the old and new trainsets so that each of the 40 trainsets would have one old power car that can be coupled to a P42 for low speed operation, and a new power car that could be coupled to another Acela trainset for high speed operation.)

What problems would come up with trying to operate double length trains with the existing infrastructure?

In particular, would there be enough yard space for overnight/weekend storage of the 20 additional trainsets? (I assume Boston would have to store 4 or so, and each of New York City and DC would have to store 8 or so.)

And what about platform length? It looks like 6 Acela passenger cars plus a power car are about 580 feet, so the length from the first passenger car to the last passenger car on a double length trainset would be about 1160 feet. IIRC, the typical length used when someone wants to build a maximum length platform in the NEC is currently 1050 feet. Would simply not opening the door at the front of the first car and the back of the last car be a viable option? Would lengthening the platforms to 1200 or 1300 feet be practical?

 

[Cho Cho Charlie]

If one is going to make new, longer, Acela trainsets, why not have a special car in the middle which would have a double door vestibule, thru which, all passengers would enter/exit? This way, train length vs platform length would not be relevant?

Well, maybe not quite in the middle, but between first class and business class cars?

 

[Green Maned Lion]

If one is going to make new, longer, Acela trainsets, why not have a special car in the middle which would have a double door vestibule, thru which, all passengers would enter/exit? This way, train length vs platform length would not be relevant?
Well, maybe not quite in the middle, but between first class and business class cars?

God forbid. Dwell times in stations would add another hour to the train's run time with this idea.

 

[AlanB]

This entire concept is a useless and wasteful idea. Ridership will never demmand that many seats, and if it does, it would be better to have half hourly service rather than hourly service.

At most, Amtrak should buy some extra cars and lengthen the existing sets. It would be far cheaper, far less wasteful, and cause less problems with platform lengths, block lengths, control cables, and other potential things.

Coupling two sets together is a waste of power. The current sets are already badly overpowered, now we'd be doubling that.

 

[Guest_TransAtlantic_*]

I beg to differ with the above posts - for a nonstop train from NYP to WAS, it would work beautifully. The trainsets would be coupled at NYP, after arriving from, say, Albany and Boston (making regular stops along the way), then run as an express to WAS, the uncoupling at WAS so they could separately continue to Richmond and perhaps another station. See how it works? That's how they do it in Europe...

 

[battalion51]

The only plausible reason I can come up with where this could possibly be a good idea is if there were some giant event where you want/need to move a large number of people into and out of an NEC city. If you wanted to do something like this for a major event like an Inauguration this would be a good idea. On a daily basis this probably would be pretty wasteful.

 

[Neil_M]

I beg to differ with the above posts - for a nonstop train from NYP to WAS, it would work beautifully. The trainsets would be coupled at NYP, after arriving from, say, Albany and Boston (making regular stops along the way), then run as an express to WAS, the uncoupling at WAS so they could separately continue to Richmond and perhaps another station. See how it works? That's how they do it in Europe...

That would be a good idea, although some on here would spend more time arguing what train name to give a train that splits en route like that......

 

[jis]

That would be a good idea, although some on here would spend more time arguing what train name to give a train that splits en route like that......

The more legitimate issue to deal with would be to figure out how to fund electrification of routes like New York - Albany etc., which would be necessary for running such service

Also, anything that requires too much shunting around in NYP is probably a non-starter, not because it cannot be physically done, but because of the psychology of those that operate NYP.

 

[Neil_M]

That would be a good idea, although some on here would spend more time arguing what train name to give a train that splits en route like that......

The more legitimate issue to deal with would be to figure out how to fund electrification of routes like New York - Albany etc., which would be necessary for running such service

Also, anything that requires too much shunting around in NYP is probably a non-starter, not because it cannot be physically done, but because of the psychology of those that operate NYP.

Coupling or uncoupling a pair of TGVs or ICEs takes a minute or two at most.

 

[VentureForth]

If one is going to make new, longer, Acela trainsets, why not have a special car in the middle which would have a double door vestibule, thru which, all passengers would enter/exit? This way, train length vs platform length would not be relevant?
Well, maybe not quite in the middle, but between first class and business class cars?

God forbid. Dwell times in stations would add another hour to the train's run time with this idea.

I'll have to agree with GML here. You really need to spread out the passengers on the platform to make it efficient to deboard and board a train. It would be too much of a bottleneck to have everyone get out the same doors and board through the same doors - not to even mention the congestion inside the train prior to arriving at a station.

This entire concept is a useless and wasteful idea. Ridership will never demand that many seats, and if it does, it would be better to have half hourly service rather than hourly service.
At most, Amtrak should buy some extra cars and lengthen the existing sets. It would be far cheaper, far less wasteful, and cause less problems with platform lengths, block lengths, control cables, and other potential things.

Coupling two sets together is a waste of power. The current sets are already badly overpowered, now we'd be doubling that.

I was under the impression that the Acela was consistently getting sold out. I think if you build them, they will come. I agree with you that if they build 20 more trainsets, they'd be better off increasing frequency before lengthening trainsets. However, ANY new trainset should be built with the ability to increase capacity.

 

[jis]

Coupling or uncoupling a pair of TGVs or ICEs takes a minute or two at most.

Neil, as I said the problem ain't technical

NJT has Scharfenberg couplers on their Arrow III EMUs but appears to be congenitally incapable of using them to do quick splits and joins at Summit between trains coming from Gladstone and Dover, something that they and their predecessors used to be able to pull of for many years!. When their is sufficient idiocy running rampant.......

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Coupling or uncoupling a pair of TGVs or ICEs takes a minute or two at most.

Neil, as I said the problem ain't technical

NJT has Scharfenberg couplers on their Arrow III EMUs but appears to be congenitally incapable of using them to do quick splits and joins at Summit between trains coming from Gladstone and Dover, something that they and their predecessors used to be able to pull of for many years!. When their is sufficient idiocy running rampant.......

There is truth to what you say, but we all know that at certain times of the day, there is barely enough space in NYP for trains to breathe, let alone perform any kind of switching operation. Also, I'd guess that the Acelas don't have the control modulation, visibility, or smoothness of operation at those kinds of speeds to comfortably perform switching operations- after all, they were never designed with this as a possibility. You'd need some kind of switcher for this operation. Happening in NYP during a remotely busy period? Fuhgeddaboudit.

Maybe in Sunnyside before the train pulls into the station. But the detour delay that would cause wouldn't be worth the trouble.

 

[Neil_M]

Coupling or uncoupling a pair of TGVs or ICEs takes a minute or two at most.

Neil, as I said the problem ain't technical

NJT has Scharfenberg couplers on their Arrow III EMUs but appears to be congenitally incapable of using them to do quick splits and joins at Summit between trains coming from Gladstone and Dover, something that they and their predecessors used to be able to pull of for many years!. When their is sufficient idiocy running rampant.......

There is truth to what you say, but we all know that at certain times of the day, there is barely enough space in NYP for trains to breathe, let alone perform any kind of switching operation. Also, I'd guess that the Acelas don't have the control modulation, visibility, or smoothness of operation at those kinds of speeds to comfortably perform switching operations- after all, they were never designed with this as a possibility. You'd need some kind of switcher for this operation. Happening in NYP during a remotely busy period? Fuhgeddaboudit.

Joining two trains together hardly needs a switcher. Modern couplers are easy to couple, just draw forward a speed around walking pace and bingo. Even American railway luddites could do it.

Ever done it in real life? Its easy.

How on earth do you ever hope to have some kind of modern railway operation when even the simplest of tasks are deemed too difficult?

Just for GML, heres some footage of 2 Thalys TGV sets joining at Brussels. Train arrives from Amsterdam, stops. Few minutes later train arrives from Cologne, stops a few feet short and then draws forward and couples. No messing, no switcher required and all done in the press of a button.

Impossible for the 'greatest nation on earth', allegedly. :lol:

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Joining two trains together hardly needs a switcher. Modern couplers are easy to couple, just draw forward a speed around walking pace and bingo. Even American railway luddites could do it.Ever done it in real life? Its easy.

How on earth do you ever hope to have some kind of modern railway operation when even the simplest of tasks are deemed too difficult?

Just for GML, heres some footage of 2 Thalys TGV sets joining at Brussels. Train arrives from Amsterdam, stops. Few minutes later train arrives from Cologne, stops a few feet short and then draws forward and couples. No messing, no switcher required and all done in the press of a button.

Impossible for the 'greatest nation on earth', allegedly. :lol:

I have never claimed this to be the greatest nation on earth. I might do that some day, but a lot of things would have to change. I have no idea what the greatest nation on earth is. For all I know its some tiny nation in the south Pacific.

That being said, NYP during rush hour is a ballet worthy of the Russian olympic team, and I'd see arguments that even a 2 minute delay somewhere would send the thing reeling.

 

[Neil_M]

That being said, NYP during rush hour is a ballet worthy of the Russian olympic team, and I'd see arguments that even a 2 minute delay somewhere would send the thing reeling.

A quick glance at the timetable shows that most, if not all Acelas stop at NYP for about 15 minutes.

If there was enough joined up thinking going on there, I am sure that 1 or 2 minutes of that 15 could be used to join two trains together, they could even save a minute or two on the sad and lame pantomime that is boarding a train in America, although that might be a step too far really......

Better not complicate things!

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Hey, British Rail isn't any less inane.

 

[Crescent ATN & TCL]

That would be a good idea, although some on here would spend more time arguing what train name to give a train that splits en route like that......

The more legitimate issue to deal with would be to figure out how to fund electrification of routes like New York - Albany etc., which would be necessary for running such service

Also, anything that requires too much shunting around in NYP is probably a non-starter, not because it cannot be physically done, but because of the psychology of those that operate NYP.

Coupling or uncoupling a pair of TGVs or ICEs takes a minute or two at most.

Actually most HST's have high speed nose ring couplers that instantaneously lock onto each other and couple all necessary cables together. Once coupled a quick systems check will be all that is required. Until the Acelas are outfitted with this style of coupler doubling up won't happen.

 

[Neil_M]

Hey, British Rail isn't any less inane.

Never said it wasn't (Even though it's not existed for 15 years!) The boarding of trains in the US is a silly, drawn out, time wasting shambles, mainly in the big stations.

 

[AlanB]

That being said, NYP during rush hour is a ballet worthy of the Russian olympic team, and I'd see arguments that even a 2 minute delay somewhere would send the thing reeling.

A quick glance at the timetable shows that most, if not all Acelas stop at NYP for about 15 minutes.

If there was enough joined up thinking going on there, I am sure that 1 or 2 minutes of that 15 could be used to join two trains together, they could even save a minute or two on the sad and lame pantomime that is boarding a train in America, although that might be a step too far really......

Better not complicate things!

Yes, 15 minutes is allowed. But part of that is simply there for padding to get things back on schedule if a train is running late.

However, it's all academic since there is no point of joining/seperating trainsets in NYP. Acela cannot run to Albany without electrification. Therefore there is no need to split/join trains in NYP.

A further complication that would come into play if they ever did electrify to Albany, is that fact that the connection from ALB can only hit tracks 5 through 9. That really narrows the playing field down and complicates scheduling. Additionally, the platforms for 5-6 and 7-8 are amongst the shorter platforms at NYP and it's very unlikely that they could handle a double length Acela. Track 9 probably could, however the switch that would get you to track #9 is about a 1/4 of the way down the platform, effectively cutting off part of the platform.

 

[AlanB]

Hey, British Rail isn't any less inane.

Never said it wasn't (Even though it's not existed for 15 years!) The boarding of trains in the US is a silly, drawn out, time wasting shambles, mainly in the big stations.

Most people complain that NYP only allows 10 minutes for boarding.

 

[haolerider]

Hey, British Rail isn't any less inane.

Never said it wasn't (Even though it's not existed for 15 years!) The boarding of trains in the US is a silly, drawn out, time wasting shambles, mainly in the big stations.

Can you be more specific as to what you consider the problem and where is the time wasted...and also, what is your solution?

 

[Neil_M]

Hey, British Rail isn't any less inane.

Never said it wasn't (Even though it's not existed for 15 years!) The boarding of trains in the US is a silly, drawn out, time wasting shambles, mainly in the big stations.

Most people complain that NYP only allows 10 minutes for boarding.

How much time do exactly you need to get on a train?

If the passengers were on the platform as the train arrived then the boarding shambles would be a lot less.

 

[jis]

That being said, NYP during rush hour is a ballet worthy of the Russian olympic team, and I'd see arguments that even a 2 minute delay somewhere would send the thing reeling.

A quick glance at the timetable shows that most, if not all Acelas stop at NYP for about 15 minutes.

If there was enough joined up thinking going on there, I am sure that 1 or 2 minutes of that 15 could be used to join two trains together, they could even save a minute or two on the sad and lame pantomime that is boarding a train in America, although that might be a step too far really......

Better not complicate things!

JR East manages to split/join two Shinkansens (the Akita and the Morioka) at Morioka in less than 3 minutes. COnsidering how inefficiently NYP is currently managed, there is absolutely no reason that such a quick split/join could not be achieved in Pen Station if world best practices are followed.

 

[AlanB]

Hey, British Rail isn't any less inane.

Never said it wasn't (Even though it's not existed for 15 years!) The boarding of trains in the US is a silly, drawn out, time wasting shambles, mainly in the big stations.

Most people complain that NYP only allows 10 minutes for boarding.

How much time do exactly you need to get on a train?

If the passengers were on the platform as the train arrived then the boarding shambles would be a lot less.

The platforms aren't wide enough to handle two arriving trains worth of passengers, as well as a load of passengers waiting to board one of those two arriving trains. We'd have a major log jam if they tried that at NYP.

 

[Crescent ATN & TCL]

Hey, British Rail isn't any less inane.

Never said it wasn't (Even though it's not existed for 15 years!) The boarding of trains in the US is a silly, drawn out, time wasting shambles, mainly in the big stations.

Most people complain that NYP only allows 10 minutes for boarding.

How much time do exactly you need to get on a train?

If the passengers were on the platform as the train arrived then the boarding shambles would be a lot less.

I agree, waiting until the train arrives, unloads, switches crew etc. then start checking tickets at the gates, then boarding seems like a waste, when all could be done simultaneously. Dwell times at NYP, WAS and other big stations could be cut in half or better. With quick timings for the acela being so important why not take advantage of boarding and loading faster?