Green Maned Lion
Engineer
I make it to be smoke and mirrors. It's just a PB money siphoning scam.
Adding to the responses on Bus Rapid Transit. The concept is a transit route service or line, that instead of streetcars or light rail, uses buses. Ideally has a dedicated right of way through all or part of the route, level boarding at bus stops, more frequent service than typical city bus routes. The problem is that most BRT proposal and plans that have been announced with great fanfare in the US have ended up getting cut back to where they are barely an improvement over a regular street running bus service. BRT is long topic outside of the scope of this thread, though.Forgive my lack of TMA... what's "BRT"?
The bus won't stop at RVR, which is not right at Staples Mill and Broad, but on Staples Mill Road about a mile or so north of Broad.The relevance to Amtrak is that the proposed BRT line would include stops at both Richmond Staples Mill and Main Street stations and downtown. It would allow people to take Amtrak to RVR, then get downtown, or take Amtrak to RVM and later take the bus to RVR for the wider range of Amtrak trains there.
My bad. I saw the route map with Staples Mill and figured that of course the proposed BRT line would stop at the Amtrak station. Having connecting transit stops is what well designed transit systems have. Oh well. OTOH, if there is a bus corridor with stations running not that far from RVR, it should not be that difficult to add a bus service that heads off the corridor on the northern end to RVR and back. Anyway, if the proposed Richmond BRT line is built, at least RVM will be on the BRT route.The bus won't stop at RVR, which is not right at Staples Mill and Broad, but on Staples Mill Road about a mile or so north of Broad.The relevance to Amtrak is that the proposed BRT line would include stops at both Richmond Staples Mill and Main Street stations and downtown. It would allow people to take Amtrak to RVR, then get downtown, or take Amtrak to RVM and later take the bus to RVR for the wider range of Amtrak trains there.
But it would be nice to have a separate shuttle, though, connecting RVM and RVR for all departures and arrivals, considering that of the 20+ daily trains that stop at RVR, only 4 of those stop at RVM.
If you want to figure out the schedule for the various Piedmont projects, NC DOT has a railroad projects status page. However, don't know how up to date the individual project summaries are.Revised for my own entertainment.
I've left out the NEC projects and the Piedmont projects, as well as nearly everything done by the MBTA, mainly because I have no good grasp on their schedules. I haven't included California HSR or All Aboard Florida, deliberately, as their projected dates don't seem reliable. I know I'm missing some Surfliner and San Joaqin improvements. I'm probably missing some other stuff too.
Are you sure about the Acela speed going to 160? I've heard rumblings that they are going to keep the existing Acela sets at 150 and wait for the Acela II's for 160. Maybe they came to the conclusion that the effort needed to force the existing sets to 160 was not worth the couple of extra seconds gained? (about 30 seconds difference in NJ - about the same in RI & MA)A few insertions that would be worthwhile into neorden's list:
2015
- NJT will also meet eh PTC deadline according to current projections.
2017
- Completion of Amtrak's NEC NJ HSR project between New Brunswick and Morrisville. Aclea speeds go up to 160mph on that segment and also likely in most of the current 150mph segments up north.
- NY Penn Station A interlocking ladder track realignment complete relieving some congestion. Incidentally, also by then there will be no daylight left between the Hudson/Empire tunnels and Penn Station. IT would have been fully covered up for building above. More air rights lease money for Amtrak!
Haven't heard that from any reliable source even as recently as a month back. But of course anything could change, since it ultimately depends on FRA more than anything else. In addition, in general, no I am never sure about anything that I say about Amtrak. So why should this be any different?Are you sure about the Acela speed going to 160? I've heard rumblings that they are going to keep the existing Acela sets at 150 and wait for the Acela II's for 160. Maybe they came to the conclusion that the effort needed to force the existing sets to 160 was not worth the couple of extra seconds gained? (about 30 seconds difference in NJ - about the same in RI & MA)
Minor change: the Expo Line will connect Santa Monica to Downtown LA, not Union Station and it's expected to open in early 2016.(Expo Line Phase II opens in LA connecting Santa Monica to LA Union Station)
There is no official word, but the Acela has been a hugely successful service for Amtrak. The Acela generated 25% of Amtrak's ticket revenues in FY12 with only 10.6% of the total ridership. The Acela has become a established brand name, to the point where I read a political article a couple of months ago that used the term "Acela corridor" as a shorthand for the NYC to DC political, media, financial class that reside in and travel between DC and NYC.Is Amtrak really planning on sticking with the Acela brand for new NEC high speed trains?
Amtrak172
If for some reason they couldn't get a waiver for the Acela IIs that doesn't involve a lot of weight, I shudder to ask this...but at that point, why not just do a large "retread" order for a bunch of Acela I-compatible equipment? I ask only because the point of the new equipment is, of course, to be able to go faster and/or burn less power by being lighter alongside being cheaper to acquire by being "off the shelf". Having to add a bunch of weight would defeat all those points.Haven't heard that from any reliable source even as recently as a month back. But of course anything could change, since it ultimately depends on FRA more than anything else. In addition, in general, no I am never sure about anything that I say about Amtrak. So why should this be any different?Are you sure about the Acela speed going to 160? I've heard rumblings that they are going to keep the existing Acela sets at 150 and wait for the Acela II's for 160. Maybe they came to the conclusion that the effort needed to force the existing sets to 160 was not worth the couple of extra seconds gained? (about 30 seconds difference in NJ - about the same in RI & MA)
Actually even for Acela IIs I have not heard that a final safety case for 160 or even 150 to operate Tier III equipment commingled with Tier I and II equipment above 125mph has been approved. That requires a special waiver or a rule change from FRA. So it is at present not a given that Tier III Acala IIs will be allowed to operate above 125mph either. But all the safety case work is in the works, in a manner of speaking. It would be kind of silly to buy shiny new equipment capable of operating at 160 mph that is not allowed to operate above 125mph IMHO. So we'll have to wait and see what happens. I would expect this issue to be resolved with a waiver, which hopefully does not involve adding a few tons of weight to the cars.
I just would like to know what is it that Parsons Brinckerhoff has done or done to you that has caused you to have a vendetta against them? I ask as a multiple year employee of them and a person that regards them as one of if not the best companies both professionally and ethically in the rail transportation engineering business.I make it to be smoke and mirrors. It's just a PB money siphoning scam.
The FRA should just change the damn rule. These "tank" rules are stupid once PTC has been implemented. The rules are actually stupid even now; they require cars which are less safe than modern standards, rather than cars with crumple zone designs, because the rules are based on totally obsolete theories of crash energy.Actually even for Acela IIs I have not heard that a final safety case for 160 or even 150 to operate Tier III equipment commingled with Tier I and II equipment above 125mph has been approved. That requires a special waiver or a rule change from FRA.
God, can't the FRA just change the rules already, a change is years or even decades overdue. It should not require a waiver to use off-the-shelf equipment rather than less-safe equipment. But we live in a third-world country, so it does.I would expect this issue to be resolved with a waiver, which hopefully does not involve adding a few tons of weight to the cars.
If this is a THIRD world country, then why is it called the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. by definition, the united states can not be described by anything other than FIRST WORLD, defined as the UNITED STATES and her ALLIES. The THIRD world is only countries not allied with either the USSR or the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.The FRA should just change the damn rule. These "tank" rules are stupid once PTC has been implemented. The rules are actually stupid even now; they require cars which are less safe than modern standards, rather than cars with crumple zone designs, because the rules are based on totally obsolete theories of crash energy.Actually even for Acela IIs I have not heard that a final safety case for 160 or even 150 to operate Tier III equipment commingled with Tier I and II equipment above 125mph has been approved. That requires a special waiver or a rule change from FRA.
A bunch of these rules were reactions to the refusal of the private railroads to implement Automatic Train Stop back in the 1940s and earlier. So now that PTC is *required*, I would hope that the rules would be changed to remove the stupid rules with respect to trains which always run with PTC active.
Repeat: the FRA crash safety rules are S-T-U-P-I-D, and copying nearly any set of European or Asian rules would be an improvement.
God, can't the FRA just change the rules already, a change is years or even decades overdue. It should not require a waiver to use off-the-shelf equipment rather than less-safe equipment. But we live in a third-world country, so it does.I would expect this issue to be resolved with a waiver, which hopefully does not involve adding a few tons of weight to the cars.
If the FRA is STILL unwilling to change the rules after PTC is implemented, the FRA should have its rulemaking authority revoked and the existing rules should be abolished. Sometimes to make progress you have to destroy institutions.
The English language has moved on in the quarter century since the Cold War ended; First and Third world now have entirely different meanings (and Second World has gone kaput).If this is a THIRD world country, then why is it called the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. by definition, the united states can not be described by anything other than FIRST WORLD, defined as the UNITED STATES and her ALLIES. The THIRD world is only countries not allied with either the USSR or the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Enter your email address to join: