coupled pairs of Acela Express trainsets

[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?

Also are the tracks going south out of WAS on a grade? It seemed as though they coupled the airhose and HEP cables on the Crescent then let the consist roll into the engines, or was it just from the slack being let out?

 

[AlanB]

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?

As I mentioned before, at NYP part of the time spent there is to allow for recovery time if needed. Additionally, both the cafe and the first class galley are restocked during the layover. That process ties up two of the doors while crews roll the carts in and out. Hence the reason for holding back pax at the gate. They wait until everyone's off, exchange the food carts, then load the train with the new pax and go.

Works quite nicely. Five minutes to unload pax, five to restock, five to load up. If the train is late, then they have to squish things together a bit.

 

[AlanB]

Also are the tracks going south out of WAS on a grade? It seemed as though they coupled the airhose and HEP cables on the Crescent then let the consist roll into the engines, or was it just from the slack being let out?

The lower level tracks at WAS, which are the ones that connect to the south, are indeed on a downhill grade to the tunnel under DC.

However, one can't connect the hoses until the engine is coupled to the train. Additionally in addition to it probably being a very bad idea to let the cars roll forward with no easy way to stop them, it would probably violate a bunch of rules too.

My guess is that you felt them testing that the coupling was solid. Occasionally when the engine pulls forward they find out that one of the couplers didn't close properly and the engine moves forward without the train. Better to test for that before you connect the cables and rip out the 480 when the train goes to leave the station.

 

[wrjensen]

This an issue the airlines have be fighting for years( 380 vs 777) . Do you run one large train or 2 trains on a relatively close schedule? Until the NEC is reaching Capacity issues there would be no need for a larger train. I know in Japan they went to longer trains because the lines were reaching their capacity. We know the Union would not allow Amtrak to run a longer train with less crew, they might even require more staff.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Also are the tracks going south out of WAS on a grade? It seemed as though they coupled the airhose and HEP cables on the Crescent then let the consist roll into the engines, or was it just from the slack being let out?

Additionally in addition to it probably being a very bad idea to let the cars roll forward with no easy way to stop them, it would probably violate a bunch of rules too.

My guess is that you felt them testing that the coupling was solid. Occasionally when the engine pulls forward they find out that one of the couplers didn't close properly and the engine moves forward without the train. Better to test for that before you connect the cables and rip out the 480 when the train goes to leave the station.

Adding to your addition of an addition-- (sorry Alan, I couldn't resist, you'll forgive? )

I don't see what is wrong with the current system-- especially considering the aging Acelas are limited as to what they currently add to the corridor with their speed. Much of their gains on the TT come from limited stops. You could easily run a standard 9-10 car NEC train with the same stops as the Acela (or fewer) and have a competitive schedule, especially on the NYP-WAS segment.

Of course this brings with it some branding issues... I mean, the Acelas re-branded some of the Amtrak service (to the point that Amtrak tried to name everything in the corridor 'Acela' something. Now they'd demonstrate that for a knock in service you could get there with reasonable time difference on a dirty old Amfleet? (Not insulting Amfleets, just demonstrating the inane juxtaposition in the average Acela 'elitist'.)

Those wishing to rant about how much potential the Acelas have, please note the bolding over 'currently' indicating they may have future ability that can bring them life-blood.

 

[tp49]

Would coupling Acela sets require there to be crew mwmbers on the tracks to do so? If it would then it would limit what tracks at NYP the Acelas could use because IIRC tracks from 13 t0 21 all have 3d rail so the LIRR can use them. As some NEC trains use tracks all the way up to 16 then Acelas would be limited only to tracks without the 3d rail. Otherwise they's have to constantly have to cut power to the 3d rail to couple the trainsets which would have some effect on LIRR operations.

 

[VentureForth]

This an issue the airlines have be fighting for years( 380 vs 777) . Do you run one large train or 2 trains on a relatively close schedule? Until the NEC is reaching Capacity issues there would be no need for a larger train. I know in Japan they went to longer trains because the lines were reaching their capacity. We know the Union would not allow Amtrak to run a longer train with less crew, they might even require more staff.

Interestingly, in Japan, they put in a couple of bi-level coaches with the 100-series Shinkansen on the Tokaido line. They've since removed all bi-levels off of the Southern route (even before they completely got rid of the 100-series trainsets). They've also removed all diners to maximize (up to I think 1300 pax) capacity. They will even overbook the train and allow people to stand.

There are some other Shinkansen trains that are bi-level, like the E1 & E4 series used on the Tohoku and Joetsu lines, but they are shorter in length (12 cars, 8 cars respectively) vs 16 coaches on most of the Southwestern route trains. In fact, there used to be first class compartments that were also eliminated to accomodate the need for capacity, with that service still used on less congested lines.

 

[jis]

They will even overbook the train and allow people to stand.

What do you mean overbook? Except for the Nozomis, the Shinkansens always have had unreserved cars in them and you can just buy an open ticket unassigned to any specific train and just get onto any of the unreserved cars. So they have no way of knowing whether they are overbooking a particular train or not. OTOH in the reserved cars there are only seated passengers. They not reserve standing space

Now how I wish Amtrak could pull such off instead of artificially restricting capacity on all trains. {Flame Bait alert!!} I guess that is the difference between when one is really in the business of transporting gobs of people and being the token high speed service in a country.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Those wishing to rant about how much potential the Acelas have, please note the bolding over 'currently' indicating they may have future ability that can bring them life-blood.

The Acelas have no potential. They are the wrong equipment for high speed use on our NEC system. Through Connecticut, NJTs Arrows (assuming they were set up for handling that frequency) could do as well or better than Acela can. And these are 30 year old cars.

What we should have purchased, and what no doubt will be purchased in the future, were EMUs in the American definition of EMU- that is, an electric train with powered axles on all or most cars. They are vastly superior in acceleration to a power-car-coach train like the Acela. With the curvature of the Corridor, acceleration outweighs top speed.

The Acelas themselves are overweight, over powered, poorly built junk. 12,000 horsepower to move 6 coaches? Puh-lease. We move the 10-car Silver Meteor along with as little as 7,000.

 

[Dutchrailnut]

Would coupling Acela sets require there to be crew mwmbers on the tracks to do so? If it would then it would limit what tracks at NYP the Acelas could use because IIRC tracks from 13 t0 21 all have 3d rail so the LIRR can use them. As some NEC trains use tracks all the way up to 16 then Acelas would be limited only to tracks without the 3d rail. Otherwise they's have to constantly have to cut power to the 3d rail to couple the trainsets which would have some effect on LIRR operations.

power to third rail does not get cut when MNCR or LIRR workers couple up equipment or hang hoses, so why would it be a problem for NJT or Amtrak.

 

[wrjensen]

The Acelas themselves are overweight

Wasn't extra weight added to meet the FRA requirements because of the 4 grade crossing on the NEC? If they could get rid of the 4 grade crossing in CT this would not be a Issue? (I bet the FRA will find something else.)

 

[tp49]

Would coupling Acela sets require there to be crew mwmbers on the tracks to do so? If it would then it would limit what tracks at NYP the Acelas could use because IIRC tracks from 13 t0 21 all have 3d rail so the LIRR can use them. As some NEC trains use tracks all the way up to 16 then Acelas would be limited only to tracks without the 3d rail. Otherwise they's have to constantly have to cut power to the 3d rail to couple the trainsets which would have some effect on LIRR operations.

power to third rail does not get cut when MNCR or LIRR workers couple up equipment or hang hoses, so why would it be a problem for NJT or Amtrak.

I was thinking about tracks where the set up looks like platform, track, 3d rail, 3d rail, track, platform. Was thinking that if someone had to be on the trackbed that it would pose a potential issue if they were working in the station on tracks laid out like that.

 

[AlanB]

Would coupling Acela sets require there to be crew mwmbers on the tracks to do so? If it would then it would limit what tracks at NYP the Acelas could use because IIRC tracks from 13 t0 21 all have 3d rail so the LIRR can use them. As some NEC trains use tracks all the way up to 16 then Acelas would be limited only to tracks without the 3d rail. Otherwise they's have to constantly have to cut power to the 3d rail to couple the trainsets which would have some effect on LIRR operations.

power to third rail does not get cut when MNCR or LIRR workers couple up equipment or hang hoses, so why would it be a problem for NJT or Amtrak.

I was thinking about tracks where the set up looks like platform, track, 3d rail, 3d rail, track, platform. Was thinking that if someone had to be on the trackbed that it would pose a potential issue if they were working in the station on tracks laid out like that.

That would pretty much be every track in NYP, except for tracks 1, 18, and 21. Otherwise all other tracks are back to back with at least one other track. Or put another way, 2-3, 4-5, 6-7, 8-9, 10-11, 12-13, 14-15, 16-17, 19-20, are all pairs where you would see platfom, track, track, platform.

 

[VentureForth]

The Acelas themselves are overweight

Wasn't extra weight added to meet the FRA requirements because of the 4 grade crossing on the NEC? If they could get rid of the 4 grade crossing in CT this would not be a Issue? (I bet the FRA will find something else.)

I believe that is the case. There would have to be a major FRA waiver to run a Velaro or Shinkansen type EMU. I, of course, think that should happen immediately. Of course, I think that the Acela should get its own platforms, own set of tracks, and never have an opportunity to rear end a regional. Somehow, I don't think the FRA will budge until the latter is accomplished.

 

[jackal]

Also are the tracks going south out of WAS on a grade? It seemed as though they coupled the airhose and HEP cables on the Crescent then let the consist roll into the engines, or was it just from the slack being let out?

The lower level tracks at WAS, which are the ones that connect to the south, are indeed on a downhill grade to the tunnel under DC.

However, one can't connect the hoses until the engine is coupled to the train. Additionally in addition to it probably being a very bad idea to let the cars roll forward with no easy way to stop them, it would probably violate a bunch of rules too.

My guess is that you felt them testing that the coupling was solid. Occasionally when the engine pulls forward they find out that one of the couplers didn't close properly and the engine moves forward without the train. Better to test for that before you connect the cables and rip out the 480 when the train goes to leave the station.

Don't know about Amtrak, but in most railroading--and certainly the Alaska Railroad--it's standard procedure (and possibly even in the rulebooks--can't recall specifically where) to always do a "stretch" after hooking. My brakeman training instructors taught me to never even think of hooking, stopping, and then stretching as three separate events: EVERY joint is automatically a hook-stretch. The hand signal for moving backwards (decreasing-sized circles with your hands out and up from your shoulders as the couplers get closer) flows directly into the signal for stop (swinging your hands down from above your shoulders down across your chest) which flows directly into the hand signal for stretch (looks like playing an accordion). Over the radio, it was always "one car, half a car, 25 feet, 15 feet, 10 feet, 5 feet, that'll do-stretch." Not even a break between the "that'll do" and the "stretch." After signaling "stretch," the trainman (brakeman or conductor) would watch the coupling to make sure it was secure and even watch for the equipment that had just been coupled to to move an inch or two and would then immediately drop the hand signal to (or radio) "that'll do." Very occasionally, the coupler wouldn't hold (usually due to not bumping together with enough force to drop the pin or very occasionally the lever connecting to the pin lifter [the exact name escapes me at the moment--maybe it's even just "pin lifter"] gets stuck).

Actually, there's a General Order on the Alaska Railroad that actually requires all passenger equipment to be stretched twice after a hook before connecting hoses and cables. Can't speak to Amtrak's rules and procedures, though. I would assume they stretch at least once.

That said, with a good engineer and switchman, you shouldn't feel the joint unless you're in the immediately adjacent car to the hook (you don't want to move the whole trainset when banging to a hook or over-stretching). It is also possible that you felt the slack run out after air was applied, the airbrakes released (a cut of cars standing alone will be in emergency, since they plug when separating from whatever engine left them there, and reapplying air will release the brakes), and the handbrakes were kicked. Then again, heading down hill, the cars would already be bunched up, meaning there would be no further bunching when air was applied unless the engineer used stretch braking--braking with power applied--to bring the train to a stop (severely discouraged on the ARR due to the additional fuel required but probably widely practiced with commuter operations due to the finer control and faster response times.

Coulda been anything!!

 

[GG-1]

Aloha

In all this discussion of Paired Acela sets I wanted to ask those in favor of this in spite of the mechanical limitations, why would anyone want Power in the middle of a passenger train? Passengers could not move freely about the train so all services must be duplicated. When using more than one power unit, somewhere, within the train is a car that is sometimes pushed or pulled, thereby bucking. So put another pair of motors in the middle now you have two cars bucking.

In my opinion the only way to improve Acela Service with more train capacity, would be more frequent service, like maybe 30 minuet headway during the day.

 

[Neil_M]

why would anyone want Power in the middle of a passenger train? Passengers could not move freely about the train so all services must be duplicated. When using more than one power unit, somewhere, within the train is a car that is sometimes pushed or pulled, thereby bucking. So put another pair of motors in the middle now you have two cars bucking.

Not even noticeable on stuff like TGV or ICEs.

Services like buffet cars are duplicated, true, but at least your coffee won't get spilt from bucking power cars!

 

[jis]

In all this discussion of Paired Acela sets I wanted to ask those in favor of this in spite of the mechanical limitations, why would anyone want Power in the middle of a passenger train? Passengers could not move freely about the train so all services must be duplicated. When using more than one power unit, somewhere, within the train is a car that is sometimes pushed or pulled, thereby bucking. So put another pair of motors in the middle now you have two cars bucking.

One does not necessarily put power cars in the middle of the train. One just puts powered axles in regular cars in the middle of the train. That is how it is in Shinkansens and they work fine.

Sometimes two trains are hooked up together to run as a single train and in that case there are two power cars in the middle of the train. Typically this is done either (a) to get two trains worth of capacity to run through a single schedule slot or (b) to enable tow trains going to two different final destinations to travel on a congested piece of track using a single timetable slot.

As for the bucking thing, frankly I have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe I am completely spoilt by having ridden only well designed and engineered trains

 

[Green Maned Lion]

In all this discussion of Paired Acela sets I wanted to ask those in favor of this in spite of the mechanical limitations, why would anyone want Power in the middle of a passenger train? Passengers could not move freely about the train so all services must be duplicated. When using more than one power unit, somewhere, within the train is a car that is sometimes pushed or pulled, thereby bucking. So put another pair of motors in the middle now you have two cars bucking.

One does not necessarily put power cars in the middle of the train. One just puts powered axles in regular cars in the middle of the train. That is how it is in Shinkansens and they work fine.

Sometimes two trains are hooked up together to run as a single train and in that case there are two power cars in the middle of the train. Typically this is done either (a) to get two trains worth of capacity to run through a single schedule slot or (b) to enable tow trains going to two different final destinations to travel on a congested piece of track using a single timetable slot.

As for the bucking thing, frankly I have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe I am completely spoilt by having ridden only well designed and engineered trains

I can imagine what he is talking about: the kind of shitty jerking you get when a hamfisted engineer (NJT has a ton of these) either don't know how to, or don't care to, properly play with coupling slop so that the train takes up with head snapping jerks from stations and similar jerks stopping in stations.

But Eric, that's an incompetent engineer, 99% of the time. Once in a while on an MU set you get something with a screwy control set up that does things out of sync. Out of the hundreds of rides I've done in the Subway, for instance, I've been on two cars so screwed up.