What are the official speed limits in the corridor?

[jis]

I think they would make a damn site better return on overall investment if they sold the Jet Train to a museum and then built the new line with normal electrification to the same standard as the Channel Tunnel Rail Link capable of carrying 200mph service, and put a bunch of Eurostar derivative, which already fit within the British loading gauge on it. That would probably be a too obvious and low risk a proposition for Sir Eddington's legacy. Would not involve any re-invention of the wheel or anything else that he could lay a claim to fame on. Who knows, why people decide to do what they do?

But then again they are talking about Jet Train and Maglev as the two choices, so it is more likely than not that they are out smoking something strong. Just IMHO of course

BTW as far as causing damage to track, while admittedly Acelas cause way less damage than anything else in the US, they do cause way more damage than any run of the mill 180 - 200mph high speed trainset that runs in Europe today.

 

[George Harris]

I believe if you take the number of track miles from NYP to WAS, figure out how long it would take to cover that number of miles at 135 MPH and at 150 MPH, and calculate the difference, it's less than 10 minutes. In practice, upgrading the catenary and signal system wouldn't even provide that much speed improvement if the areas that don't currently reach 135 MPH were unchanged.
I think if real money is going to be spent on speed improvements for the whole route, it would be worth setting a higher target (maybe 200 MPH).

I also wonder if building new tunnels near Baltimore would end up being cheaper and more effective at shaving minutes off the trip than replacing hundreds of miles of catenary.

If maybe 75% of Washington - New York is straight enough to benefit, then we have 75% of 225 miles = 169 miles (no point in carrying the decimals.)

at 135 mph, this distance would be covered in 75 minutes 7 seconds

at 150 mph, this distance would be covered in 67 minutes 36 seconds, a saving of 7 minutes 31 seconds

at 200 mph, this distance would be covered in 50 minutes 42 seconds, a saving of 24 minutes 25 seconds over 135 mph, but this time saving is not real for two reasons:

1. The possibility that all current 135 mph territory is good for 200 mph is nil.

2. A goodly bit of the higher speed territory will be consumed in speeding up and slowing down due to the need to be slower in adjacent areas.

As to the Baltimore tunnels: We would be looking at a cost of billions.

Let us say that we have 10 miles that currently is good for a average of about 50 mph (a guess on my part), time 12 minutes if no stop

If it became 9.5 miles mostly in tunnel good for 150 mph, then the time would be 3 minutes 48 seconds if no stop, a saving of 8 minutes and 12 seconds

However, since most trains stop in Baltimore, the saving will be less by some 2 ot 4 minutes.

Also any straightening through Baltimore would not go throught the current station. Its location and orientation of tracks simply do not match any reasonable straighter line through the city. So, add the cost of a new major city station to the equation.

 

[Chafford1]

This was the only recent article I could find that you didn't need an account or be living in the UK to access:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/s...ticle788742.ece

As far as the track wear both the Acela's and the JetTrain cause less damage than a loco-cars-loco consist of conventional Amtrak equipment would at top speed, i.e P-42, Business Car, Café, 4 Amfleets-P-42 at 110mph or AEM-7, Business class, Café, 4 Amfleets,AEM-7 at 125mph.

They are not planning to sell the JetTrain or Acela in their current forms to any company in the UK. Both designs in will weigh considerably less in their European version, they will use lighter metals, remove the extra reinforcing to meet FRA tier-II, and essentially cut and lighten every component on board while bringing them up to European standards. There is talk that the trainsets could become articulated in the European version cutting out a considerable amount of weight, if they are articulated traction motors may be placed through out the trainsets increasing traction and acceleration. The JetTrain turbine is going to be used in the diesel version, basically Bombardier is looking for a way to use the technology it invested in the US that has yet to make a return because all of the passenger rail agencies in North America are too cash strapped to purchase the JetTrain. All VIA and Amtrak have been able to afford are orders of cars to be used in currently existing services and have had no money to institute new higher speed services. They are hoping to finally make a return on their investment in Europe. All of this is still going through the bidding process so nothing is official.

I think this was the only article published on this topic. Bearing in mind Bombardier and Siemens are making a joint bid for the (UK) Intercity Express Programme, and the emphasis the British Government is placing on reducing CO2 emissions, I would have thought an MTU diesel engine would be the sensible choice. There's also a rumour that Siemens are considering a version of the Velaro, especially now that the British Transport Department has asked for costings for a 250 km/h (155mph) electric variant.

However, if Hitachi win the contract, we may see the hybrid battery-diesel engine incorporated in the diesel version of IEP:

http://www.railwaygazette.com/features_vie...real_world.html

 

[AlanB]

I believe if you take the number of track miles from NYP to WAS, figure out how long it would take to cover that number of miles at 135 MPH and at 150 MPH, and calculate the difference, it's less than 10 minutes. In practice, upgrading the catenary and signal system wouldn't even provide that much speed improvement if the areas that don't currently reach 135 MPH were unchanged.

George dealt with the time vs speed questions above quite nicely, so I won't go into that area.

However, even if there might not be a huge time savings for Acela by fixing the catenary, Acela and Amtrak, as well as NJT, SEPTA, and MARC would still benefit from spending that money.

First of course Acela would shave a few minutes off of run time, making it still more competative with the shuttles.

But secondly and perhaps more importantly, by having constant tension catenary RR west of Penn, you would avoid problems with sagging catenary during the heat of the summer. This problem often requires Amtrak to run all trains, there own and others, at slower speeds to prevent hauling the cat down. I believe that it also helps in the winter when the wire if more brittle thanks to the cold temps.

Bottom line if they were going to be spending a few billion to install new cat just for a less than 10 minute time savings for Acela, it probably wouldn't be worth it. But since the catenary system is very old and in need of updating, as well as the benefits gained by positive tension cat, that does make it worth the money IMHO.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I'd suggest replacing it with constant tension on a need replacement basis. I know that about 2 months ago, a screwy pan ripped down a wire on the North Jersey Coast line.

 

[AlanB]

I'd suggest replacing it with constant tension on a need replacement basis. I know that about 2 months ago, a screwy pan ripped down a wire on the North Jersey Coast line.

It's needed now. Remember that the cat structure is on average 75 years old on the NEC west of NYP. Metro North is even now currently working to rewire their entire mainline with constant tension, as well as updating the underlying infrastructure. The project has been ongoing for several years now and I suspect that they've still got a few more years of work. If I had to guess, I'd say that maybe 2/3rds of the road has been completed.

Dutchrailnut may have better numbers than I do, but nonetheless MN is working on this because not only is it needed work, the benefits far outweigh just keeping what's there standing.

And it's not like they can just say, oh we ripped down 50 feet of wire today on track 1, let's put constant tension back up on that stretch. It's far more complicated than that, unfortunately.

 

[George Harris]

With or without speed increases, the catenary needs replacing. I am wondering if the contact wire has been replaced piece by piece over the years. Otherwise, I would expect that there is a lot smaller cross section of copper than there was to begin with.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I have a woeful lack of knowledge about catenary wiring. Can anyone link me to a place I might learn more about it?

 

[MrFSS]

This LINK might get you started.

 

[AlanB]

I have a woeful lack of knowledge about catenary wiring. Can anyone link me to a place I might learn more about it?

The first thing to know is, never touch it or go near it. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[PRR 60]

With or without speed increases, the catenary needs replacing. I am wondering if the contact wire has been replaced piece by piece over the years. Otherwise, I would expect that there is a lot smaller cross section of copper than there was to begin with.

The mainline contact (trolley) wire was replaced in the 1960's with a heavier bronze wire to accommodate the larger electric freight locomotives that were being introduced at that time. Also, there is a section of constant tension catenary in New Jersey on tracks 2 & 3 installed for the Acela test program.

The existing catenary is not the only speed limiting element of the NYC-WAS former PRR corridor. The signal system is also not capable of 150mph operation.

 

[George Harris]

We tend to think of the New York to Washington line as always a racetrack. It wasn't. Before the metroliners the maximum speed limit was 80 mph. For the classic old premier train like the Congressional Limited, the under 4 hour time that was more or less standard was achieved by fewer stops and being given absolute priority over all else. The speed limit was still 80 mph.

 

[PRR 60]

We tend to think of the New York to Washington line as always a racetrack. It wasn't. Before the metroliners the maximum speed limit was 80 mph. For the classic old premier train like the Congressional Limited, the under 4 hour time that was more or less standard was achieved by fewer stops and being given absolute priority over all else. The speed limit was still 80 mph.

You are correct. And it was not until the later years that the PRR line even got welded rail.
I used to coerce my poor father to take me up to Princeton Junction (from Philadelphia) to watch the Washington-bound Afternoon Congressional come through at speed. Experiencing a GG-1 led train of matched stainless cars fly by at 80mph on that straight-away was pretty impressive. Today even the ho-hum NJT's do 80.

I was at Princeton Junction once to watch the Congressional and much to my chagrin, the train stopped. Seems the then governor of New Jersey, Robert Meyner, had an appointment in DC and the PRR stopped the Congressional just to pick him up. Even in the early 1960's, power had privilege.

 

[GG-1]

This LINK might get you started.

Mahalo

For obvious reasons I am a "juice" junky. I have never seen that site, it is well done. I now have it bookmarked.

Aloha

 

[jackal]

This LINK might get you started.

Mahalo

For obvious reasons I am a "juice" junky. I have never seen that site, it is well done. I now have it bookmarked.

Aloha

Never seen Wikipedia? It's the world's greatest site! (Well, after this and FlyerTalk, of course...) And the best thing: if you find a mistake, or if you think you have something to contribute, go to the top of the page, click "Edit," and you can add a sentence, a paragraph, or rewrite the entire article!

 

[PRR 60]

This LINK might get you started.

Lots of good, general information there, but it was written from a European perspective. The data regarding Amtrak is thin and in some aspects inaccurate.

 

[jackal]

This LINK might get you started.

Lots of good, general information there, but it was written from a European perspective. The data regarding Amtrak is thin and in some aspects inaccurate.

I've found that many Wikipedia articles on railroads appear to have a British focus. In fact, I was involved in a debate awhile back about the "railway signalling" article and how to restructure it (and other articles on signaling/methods of operation) for a more worldwide (i.e. U.S.!) focus. I basically wrote the article on Centralized Traffic Control and then used that information, along with parts of other articles (on timetable and train order, Rule 251, etc.), to create an overview of North American signaling/methods of operation. However, it appears that User:Signalhead removed my entire section a few months and a few hundred edits ago, claiming it was duplicated elsewhere and that consensus for deleting it was on the article's discussion page, but I don't see any such discussion.

In any case, I sort of like how the article turned out (it reads much better and is better-organized now than it was then), so I'm not too bitter, but if you want to look:

Current article

Article as of my last edit to it

Direct link to the section I added

In any case, if anyone here has experience with American railroad electricifcation, please feel free to add to that article and help keep the U.S. fairly represented on Wikipedia! (Seriously, that's the beauty of Wikipedia--it's all about you! There's no paid editors to blame--if an article is lacking, step up to the plate and fix it!)

Edit: Hey, cool! My section wasn't deleted--it was moved to a new article (someone deemed it worth making its own article!)--North American railway signaling. That article links to another one I started and wrote--Direct Traffic Control, featuring a picture I took with my cell phone camera on my way up to Fairbanks a few years ago...

 

[GG-1]

This LINK might get you started.

For obvious reasons I am a "juice" junky. I have never seen that site, it is well done. I now have it bookmarked.

Never seen Wikipedia? It's the world's greatest site! (Well, after this and FlyerTalk, of course...) And the best thing: if you find a mistake, or if you think you have something to contribute, go to the top of the page, click "Edit," and you can add a sentence, a paragraph, or rewrite the entire article!

Not seen that section

Aloha

 

[jis]

Also, there is a section of constant tension catenary in New Jersey on tracks 2 & 3 installed for the Acela test program.

Only on track 3 between PJC and Hamilton (closer to Hamilton). It is a two mile section and AFAIR it was installed way before the Acela program came into being. It uses fixtures that look very similar to what is used on the ECML (East Coast Main Line) (Kings Cross - Edinburgh) electrification in the UK.

 

[George Harris]

Also, there is a section of constant tension catenary in New Jersey on tracks 2 & 3 installed for the Acela test program.

Only on track 3 between PJC and Hamilton (closer to Hamilton). It is a two mile section and AFAIR it was installed way before the Acela program came into being. It uses fixtures that look very similar to what is used on the ECML (East Coast Main Line) (Kings Cross - Edinburgh) electrification in the UK.

No surprise with that. Constant tension catenary was a British invention so far as I know. It is one of these lovely things that is both cheaper and better than the system that went before.

 

[GG-1]

No surprise with that. Constant tension catenary was a British invention so far as I know. It is one of these lovely things that is both cheaper and better than the system that went before.

Surprised it is cheaper, not surprised it came from Europe, Wire contact at speed is always an issue.

 

[PRR 60]

Also, there is a section of constant tension catenary in New Jersey on tracks 2 & 3 installed for the Acela test program.

Only on track 3 between PJC and Hamilton (closer to Hamilton). It is a two mile section and AFAIR it was installed way before the Acela program came into being. It uses fixtures that look very similar to what is used on the ECML (East Coast Main Line) (Kings Cross - Edinburgh) electrification in the UK.

I was riding on #2 and saw it on #3 and assumed it was on both high speed tracks. Do you think it dates all the way back to the Metroliner testing of the 1960's? The PC Metroliners hit some pretty high speeds in the test program: comparable to Acela. Otherwise, maybe it was a NECIP trial to determine the feasibility of retrofitting constant tension on the old PRR structures. The 1930's vintage PRR structures are generally in decent shape.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

PRR did a pretty good job of building a railroad, I gotta say.

 

[AlanB]

Also, there is a section of constant tension catenary in New Jersey on tracks 2 & 3 installed for the Acela test program.

Only on track 3 between PJC and Hamilton (closer to Hamilton). It is a two mile section and AFAIR it was installed way before the Acela program came into being. It uses fixtures that look very similar to what is used on the ECML (East Coast Main Line) (Kings Cross - Edinburgh) electrification in the UK.

I was riding on #2 and saw it on #3 and assumed it was on both high speed tracks. Do you think it dates all the way back to the Metroliner testing of the 1960's? The PC Metroliners hit some pretty high speeds in the test program: comparable to Acela. Otherwise, maybe it was a NECIP trial to determine the feasibility of retrofitting constant tension on the old PRR structures. The 1930's vintage PRR structures are generally in decent shape.

Well according to the Trains Mag article a few years back on the Super Railroad, that two mile section was installed as a test under the NECIP. They don't state what year it was done, but that project was started in 1976, so I'm guessing that if it wasn't done that year it was done shortly thereafter. The estimate at that time was that it would cost almost a Billion to replace all the cat between NYP and WAS with constant tension. No clue if that included new poles or using the existing poles.

At present Amtrak is replacing the catenary between New Rochelle and the Bronx. I'm not sure if they plan to do so across the Hell Gate Bridge or not. But they are putting in new cat towers for this project.

 

[George Harris]

Well according to the Trains Mag article a few years back on the Super Railroad, that two mile section was installed as a test under the NECIP. They don't state what year it was done, but that project was started in 1976, so I'm guessing that if it wasn't done that year it was done shortly thereafter. The estimate at that time was that it would cost almost a Billion to replace all the cat between NYP and WAS with constant tension. No clue if that included new poles or using the existing poles.
At present Amtrak is replacing the catenary between New Rochelle and the Bronx. I'm not sure if they plan to do so across the Hell Gate Bridge or not. But they are putting in new cat towers for this project.

Probably new poles in their thoughts. At the time I worked briefly on a very small part of one aspect of the NEC (not with my current employer) and it was amazing how little the people I dealt with seemed to know about anything railroad. They had a full set of Valuation Maps and were saying, "What do we need these old things for?" These things are GOLD. They will either show or give you some guidance to everything that is on the railroad or has been. Even if the updating had gotten behind, they were still extremely useful.

More recently, I had an email exchange with a person working for another company that was involved in a project for a railroad, now owned by a government agency, that involved adding a track parallel to an existing one, and in a place where there had been a track in the past. There was a short bridge neede, and the abutments were still in place. Heavy stone construction. There was discussion of reusing them and the higher-ups in this person's company were afraid to do so. I asked if anyone had inspected them to see if they showed signs of failure or distress. The annswers were, yes, and no. My comment was, you should reuse them. Ultimately, so far as I know, they did not.

The normal railroad method is to reuse everything that is possible reusable. It saves a lot of money, and if the current poles, as for the existing catenary can be reused, they certainly should be. Aside from the money, it will save a lot of time and eliminate a lot of hole digging and demolition work close to the tracks. Even if they need some reinforcement or modification, it would still be advisable to reuse the existing poles to the greatest extent possible.