How hard to get 90 MPH on the Atlantic Coast Services?

shop deals on amazon
Advertise with us
Shop deals on ebay
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
VentureForth

VentureForth

Engineer
Joined
Jan 23, 2007
Messages
6,441
Location
West Melbourne, FL
OK - my GPS showed a pretty consistent 82.5 MPH on the Star as we were making up time from Savannah to Richmond. There were only about one or two rough spots, and it got me thinking - that's only 7.5 MPH from 90 MPH. If all that is needed to upgrade from 79 to 90 is cab signals, why not? Amtrak already has the technology for the P42s, so I guess all that is needed is trackside installation. I'm sure it's expensive... But man, that would do wonders.

Gotta fix that one spot somewhere in Virginia where we smacked a switch point or frog. That almost hurt.
 
VentureForth said:
OK - my GPS showed a pretty consistent 82.5 MPH on the Star as we were making up time from Savannah to Richmond. There were only about one or two rough spots, and it got me thinking - that's only 7.5 MPH from 90 MPH. If all that is needed to upgrade from 79 to 90 is cab signals, why not? Amtrak already has the technology for the P42s, so I guess all that is needed is trackside installation. I'm sure it's expensive... But man, that would do wonders.
Gotta fix that one spot somewhere in Virginia where we smacked a switch point or frog. That almost hurt.
Click to expand...
What's a "switch point or frog"??? :unsure:
 
Grandma B said:
VentureForth said:
OK - my GPS showed a pretty consistent 82.5 MPH on the Star as we were making up time from Savannah to Richmond. There were only about one or two rough spots, and it got me thinking - that's only 7.5 MPH from 90 MPH. If all that is needed to upgrade from 79 to 90 is cab signals, why not? Amtrak already has the technology for the P42s, so I guess all that is needed is trackside installation. I'm sure it's expensive... But man, that would do wonders.
Gotta fix that one spot somewhere in Virginia where we smacked a switch point or frog. That almost hurt.
Click to expand...
What's a "switch point or frog"??? :unsure:
Click to expand...
See this LINK.
 
Why stop at 90? With cab signals and straight railroad 110 should definitely be attainable. At least 100 through a lot of areas would speed up the times a lot.
 
MrFSS said:
Grandma B said:
VentureForth said:
OK - my GPS showed a pretty consistent 82.5 MPH on the Star as we were making up time from Savannah to Richmond. There were only about one or two rough spots, and it got me thinking - that's only 7.5 MPH from 90 MPH. If all that is needed to upgrade from 79 to 90 is cab signals, why not? Amtrak already has the technology for the P42s, so I guess all that is needed is trackside installation. I'm sure it's expensive... But man, that would do wonders.
Gotta fix that one spot somewhere in Virginia where we smacked a switch point or frog. That almost hurt.
Click to expand...
What's a "switch point or frog"??? :unsure:
Click to expand...
See this LINK.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the link. :) OK on the switch point. Is a human responsible for changing the desired track for an approaching train or is it done via computer technology?

"The frog is designed to ensure the wheel crosses the gap in the rail without "dropping" into the gap; the wheel and rail profile ensures that the wheel is always supported by at least one rail. To ensure that the wheels follow the appropriate flangeway, a check-rail is installed inside the rail opposite the frog". Are these frogs checked periodically?

So when passengers are all of a sudden jerked side to side, does that mean that we're switching tracks?
 
Grandma B said:
MrFSS said:
Grandma B said:
VentureForth said:
OK - my GPS showed a pretty consistent 82.5 MPH on the Star as we were making up time from Savannah to Richmond. There were only about one or two rough spots, and it got me thinking - that's only 7.5 MPH from 90 MPH. If all that is needed to upgrade from 79 to 90 is cab signals, why not? Amtrak already has the technology for the P42s, so I guess all that is needed is trackside installation. I'm sure it's expensive... But man, that would do wonders.
Gotta fix that one spot somewhere in Virginia where we smacked a switch point or frog. That almost hurt.
Click to expand...
What's a "switch point or frog"??? :unsure:
Click to expand...
See this LINK.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the link. :) OK on the switch point. Is a human responsible for changing the desired track for an approaching train or is it done via computer technology?

"The frog is designed to ensure the wheel crosses the gap in the rail without "dropping" into the gap; the wheel and rail profile ensures that the wheel is always supported by at least one rail. To ensure that the wheels follow the appropriate flangeway, a check-rail is installed inside the rail opposite the frog". Are these frogs checked periodically?

So when passengers are all of a sudden jerked side to side, does that mean that we're switching tracks?
Click to expand...
That's typically the case. There are high speed turn outs and ones that have a sharper radius that you'd never want to take at faster than 10 MPH. Other than that, most rail now is continuously welded. Even in NM where they actually have some 79 MPH segmented track (about 50 yards of track with a joiner bolting them together), you rarely feel the rail unless there is a switch.
 
I think I recall a TRAINS magazine from the 50's which either stated that they could make 100 mph,legal, or that they were trying to get it so.
 
VentureForth said:
If all that is needed to upgrade from 79 to 90 is cab signals, why not? Amtrak already has the technology for the P42s, so I guess all that is needed is trackside installation. I'm sure it's expensive... But man, that would do wonders.
Click to expand...
There's a real cost benefit analysis needed there. I occasionally read about places where (say) five million dollars is spent on a track project and the increase in speed shaves ten minutes off of the travel time. Really, was it worth it?

Yes, in these cases there may be more to the story, that the expense was needed to maintain track and move toward even higher speed in the future, but often articles only mention expensive upgrades and slight increases in performance.
 
volkris said:
VentureForth said:
If all that is needed to upgrade from 79 to 90 is cab signals, why not? Amtrak already has the technology for the P42s, so I guess all that is needed is trackside installation. I'm sure it's expensive... But man, that would do wonders.
Click to expand...
There's a real cost benefit analysis needed there. I occasionally read about places where (say) five million dollars is spent on a track project and the increase in speed shaves ten minutes off of the travel time. Really, was it worth it?

Yes, in these cases there may be more to the story, that the expense was needed to maintain track and move toward even higher speed in the future, but often articles only mention expensive upgrades and slight increases in performance.
Click to expand...
Maybe so. But it just seems like if we can safely go 82.5..... Is there really a safety issue to take it to 90 MPH? Now, I will say that there were several un-gated crossings that we went over. Perhaps this is a roadblock. I don't know. Maybe the issue is how much more dangerous it is to hit something at 90 than it is at 79.
 
In years past, 90 mph was permitted on much of the former Atlantic Coast Line main between Richmond and Jacksonville. The track improvements necessary are probably relatively minor. The cost of the signal sytem requirements won't be. There is also the issue that to go above 90 mph ALL road crossings must have four quandrant gates so that it borders on impossible to run around the gate. Sorry, are not allowed to put up gates stout enough to stop the gate crashers.

Because there is an unavoidable impact at an standard turnout frog, these are high maintenance areas. Over time the bunce tends to increase until they are tamped up tight. There are two designs of closed frogs. The most common, in the US and maybe Canada, but unknown elsewhere, is the spring frog. In this frog the main track is given a gap-free path, but the diverging track the wheel has to push against a spring to open the flangeway path for its move. Usually they are only found on slow speed turnouts, but Caltrain uses these things all the way up to number 20 turnouts and allows 50 mph through the spring side. For high speed turnouts, there is a movable frog design where the frog point is thrown with a switch machine, or multiple switch machines. These things are called either "Swing Nose Crossings" or "Movable Point Frogs" depending upon which version of English (US or UK) you are using. If the speed through the turnout side is 60 mph or higher, these are the things you will usually find. Turnouts with allowed speed on the turnout side up to 125 mph have been built with these things. For very high speed tracks, no turnouts with fixed frogs are allowed.

The problem with high speed trains on many existing lines in the US is not increasing the maximum speed nearly as much as it is increasing the speeds in areas where the trains now have to run slowly. That is particularly true in the Northeast Corridor where just about all the speed that can be squeezed out of the existing alignment has been squeezed.
 
It's not as simple as putting some new equipment alongside the track. You need to ensure that your class 4 track now meets class 5 standards. This could mean some major track work depending on things. It would certainly mean that you'd have to re-time the current signals and have to put signals at every unsignaled crossing. The bigger issue is that I believe that every freight train that operates within that section of track must be led by a loco with cab signals. This would be a major expense that the freight Co's didn't want and for years told Amtrak that they would have to pay for it.

Now with the new law passed last fall in the wake of the Metrolink collision, they will have to do just that. Although I believe that the Fed is going to help out with some of the funding.

The easy part is Amtrak, since the P42's already have cab signals, so there is no need to outfit them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
AlanB said:
The easy part is Amtrak, since the P42's already have cab signals, so there is no need to outfit them.
Click to expand...
They will probably need an additional module added to their electronic cabinet for the specific PTC system that is installed on that line.

I think the most significant added cost is in periodic (more frequent) maintenance that is necessary to keep the track at FRA 5.
 
George Harris said:
jis said:
I think the most significant added cost is in periodic (more frequent) maintenance that is necessary to keep the track at FRA 5.
Click to expand...
If CSX is still allowing some of their premier freight trains to run 70 mph, the line must be at Class 5 now.
Click to expand...
Knowing CSX they probably aren't precisely for that reason ;) But more seriously I don't know. If basic track is already Class 5 then within 5 years we should expect to see 90mph for Amtrak as PTC gets deployed I should think. There is still the minor issue of retiming grade crossing gate circuits and such.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like current cab signal systems meet the new government standards. So just stick with what's out there now in places like the Springfield line, the RF&P, and the B&A.
 
So, If George is right about the alignment, Alan is right about the cab signals (someone else said only SWC P42s had in cab signalling, which I am sure is wrong), Jinshu is right about maintenance, then all it would take is some tapering, tamping, and more CSX in cab signals, I don't even see 5 years to get Class 5 except CSX not wanting it.

Yeah - Class 6 is a HUGE leap. Sont expect that for a while.
 
Unless you're speaking in rail fan jargon and considering other factors, your math is way off. Even if 11 seconds were true, then it would only take a bit over 5 miles to gain a minute... But if you figure comparing 80 to 110, you'll be traveling 30 more miles in an hour. That breaks down to .5 more miles per minute. So if you're doing 80, you're travelling 1.333 miles per minute and 110 is 1.833 miles per minute. If I wanted to travel only 4.5 miles, it would take me 3.4 minutes at 80mph and 2.4 minutes at 110mph so you've already gained a minute. While gaining 1 minute per 4.5 miles might not seem like a lot, add that up over a 1000 mile trip and you'll get to your destination a lot sooner.
 
VentureForth said:
So, If George is right about the alignment, Alan is right about the cab signals (someone else said only SWC P42s had in cab signalling, which I am sure is wrong), Jinshu is right about maintenance, then all it would take is some tapering, tamping, and more CSX in cab signals, I don't even see 5 years to get Class 5 except CSX not wanting it.
Yeah - Class 6 is a HUGE leap. Sont expect that for a while.
Click to expand...
Don't the regionals already run 90mph from WAS to Richmond and Newport News? I know CSX has cab signaling in that area, the track is in good condition and many crossings have quad-gates.
 
Crescent ATN & TCL said:
VentureForth said:
So, If George is right about the alignment, Alan is right about the cab signals (someone else said only SWC P42s had in cab signalling, which I am sure is wrong), Jinshu is right about maintenance, then all it would take is some tapering, tamping, and more CSX in cab signals, I don't even see 5 years to get Class 5 except CSX not wanting it.
Yeah - Class 6 is a HUGE leap. Sont expect that for a while.
Click to expand...
Don't the regionals already run 90mph from WAS to Richmond and Newport News? I know CSX has cab signaling in that area, the track is in good condition and many crossings have quad-gates.
Click to expand...
not so sure about that. For a long time the RF&P (which is the Washington to Richmond section) had a speed limit of 70 mph despite having all the signal goodies. Simple reason: There are a number of curves, particularly south of Fredericksburg of a radius and location such that a maximum speed above 70 mph would be relatively meaningless. St to Richmond ot Newport news: (ex C&O), so far as I know 79 mph and no more with things as they are despite being fairly straight.
 
Far from it. Speeds on the RF&P are actually only 70 MPH. Don't ask me why it's that way, but that's how it is. The same goes for the B&A, cab signals and speeds are only 60 MPH.
 
I'm pretty sure it was that way even before the Children invested in CSX.

I'm sure that they're not helping with getting things improved though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top