Why Acela in the NEC?

[Corridor Conductor]

The Acela service created a market that did not exist between Boston and New york; the business traveler. Those folks did not ride our trains before electrification and Acela, which was developed as a system. Regiopnal service benefitted, but the ridership that uses Acela does not usually choose Rgional service. New markets are developing because of the Acela. Bos to Stamford is very strong; as is Stamford to points south of Penn Station. The Amfleet coaches are awful. The toilets stink and the vestibules fill with snow. The A. C. units can overflow onto passengers and their luggage in summer. The corridor needs more new equipment, beyond the Acela trains. I don't care what it is as long as it is safe comfortable and reliabl

Acela Conductor

 

[stonesfan]

The Acela service created a market that did not exist between Boston and New york; the business traveler. Those folks did not ride our trains before electrification and Acela, which was developed as a system. Regiopnal service benefitted, but the ridership that uses Acela does not usually choose Rgional service. New markets are developing because of the Acela. Bos to Stamford is very strong; as is Stamford to points south of Penn Station. The Amfleet coaches are awful. The toilets stink and the vestibules fill with snow. The A. C. units can overflow onto passengers and their luggage in summer. The corridor needs more new equipment, beyond the Acela trains. I don't care what it is as long as it is safe comfortable and reliablAcela Conductor

Out of interest, do you think there is any 'deliberate' run down of the Amfleet coaches to convince passengers to use Acela? Its heavily denied here of course, but our Mk3 coaches (an equivilent of the Amfleet, and the best coach ever designed in the UK) were in an absolutely revolting state before being replaced by the brand new pendolinos. Customers were quite taken by the new trains at first, purely because they were clean and in full working order.

 

[Corridor Conductor]

The Acela service created a market that did not exist between Boston and New york; the business traveler. Those folks did not ride our trains before electrification and Acela, which was developed as a system. Regiopnal service benefitted, but the ridership that uses Acela does not usually choose Rgional service. New markets are developing because of the Acela. Bos to Stamford is very strong; as is Stamford to points south of Penn Station. The Amfleet coaches are awful. The toilets stink and the vestibules fill with snow. The A. C. units can overflow onto passengers and their luggage in summer. The corridor needs more new equipment, beyond the Acela trains. I don't care what it is as long as it is safe comfortable and reliablAcela Conductor

Out of interest, do you think there is any 'deliberate' run down of the Amfleet coaches to convince passengers to use Acela? Its heavily denied here of course, but our Mk3 coaches (an equivilent of the Amfleet, and the best coach ever designed in the UK) were in an absolutely revolting state before being replaced by the brand new pendolinos. Customers were quite taken by the new trains at first, purely because they were clean and in full working order.

Amfleet cars are 30+ years old. They are obsolete. I do not believe we have a car builder capable of rebuilding the Amfleets. The in-house Keystone did not solve the problems I addressed in my first entry. I think the original door design was defective. It Snow infiltration has been a problem for may, many years. The toilets are still inadequate. NEW equipment is the answer.

Amtrak Corridor Conductor

 

[stonesfan]

Amfleet cars are 30+ years old. They are obsolete. I do not believe we have a car builder capable of rebuilding the Amfleets. The in-house Keystone did not solve the problems I addressed in my first entry. I think the original door design was defective. It Snow infiltration has been a problem for may, many years. The toilets are still inadequate. NEW equipment is the answer.Amtrak Corridor Conductor

Our Mk3's, whether loco hauled or as part of an Intercity 125 rake are also 30+ years old! But some train operating companies have really looked after them, and most passengers would guestimate they are new carriages. If you ever come to the UK, take the Highland Chieften from Kings Cross to Inverness (IC125 mk3 only) and you will see what I mean. They will be going on for another 15+ years yet. Unbelievable really. The ones which are shagged, as I explained, were neglected for 3 or 4 years and now need a full refurb on mechanics and interior before they are put to use elsewhere.

What is the plan for the NE Corridor? Will the new coaches simply be direct replacements for the Amfleet hauled by HHP8s or my beloved AEM7s? Or do you think a new build Acela will be used? And do you think a new build Acela would put pressure on the govt etc to sort the poorer parts of the NEC out?

 

[George Harris]

Amfleet cars are 30+ years old. They are obsolete. I do not believe we have a car builder capable of rebuilding the Amfleets. The in-house Keystone did not solve the problems I addressed in my first entry. I think the original door design was defective. It Snow infiltration has been a problem for may, many years. The toilets are still inadequate. NEW equipment is the answer.Amtrak Corridor Conductor

There have been recent rebuilds of over 50 year old RDC's that appear to be quite successful. It is not the age as such, but the ease of maintenance and level of maintenance that has been given.

 

[GG-1]

Aloha

Hope I don't upset anyone but I have always wondered what would result if the same design concepts that led to the design of the GG-1 were applied to modern materials would be, maybe a GG-2

 

[Dutchrailnut]

Aloha
Hope I don't upset anyone but I have always wondered what would result if the same design concepts that led to the design of the GG-1 were applied to modern materials would be, maybe a GG-2

The GG-1 was great for its time, but it would never work these days, the BLET would never accept a cab like a GG-1 with no sight and a snoz obstructing the view. It would need a fireman and technology wise the thing was a dynosaur.

Todays GG-1 is called a AEM-7 or ALP 46, it runs on two high speed trucks and can run at 135 mph. the GG-1 was limmited to 100 mph.

Noise levels in a GG-1 approached OSHA condemnation levels.

 

[Chafford1]

From my limited experience of the NE corridor, the Acela is a reasonable improvement over what it replaced. Obviously the timesaving would be far superior if the section between Boston and NY went in a straight line for more than 10ft at a time! And of course the catenery on the southern sections seems to hamper high speed potential too. It really does look like it was put up in the Victorian age. However, overall, its opened a few eyes, and with some serious investment in the infrastructure, could yet prove to be a winner. If all that was sorted out, I believe it would save another hour between DC and Boston?
The Acela is a far better train than the tilting 320 seat 'pendolinos' that we have had foisted upon on us. The have replaced 400 seat 110mph loco hauled trains which were comfortable and ran most of the route at 100/110mph. The Pendo's have an increased top speed of 125mph, but are uncomfortable, claustraphobic and suffer from failures too often. Saving the odd 5 minutes here and there is no compensation for a comfy seat or even getting a seat in the first place.

This thread just confirms that however good the train is, it's the infrastructure that makes a significant difference to improvement in journey times.

For example, on the West Coast Mainline in England which is being upgraded at a cost of £8billion, the fastest London Birmingham (approx 120 miles) journey time has been reduced from 1 hour 41 minutes to 1 hour 21 minutes with a further reduction to 1 hour 12 minutes in 2009. For London - Manchester (approx 200 miles), from 2 hours 41 minutes to 2 hours 5 minutes.

Your second class seat may be cramped, but if it offers you a service every 20 minutes (which will happen next year) and gets you there more quickly, you are more likely to use it. Since the Pendolinos were introduced, rail's percentage of London - Manchester passengers compared to air has already increased from 40% to over 60%.

The same would undoubtedly happen if the NEC was upgraded to 150mph running throughout and Amtrak offered a more frequent Acela service.

 

[AlanB]

Since the Pendolinos were introduced, rail's percentage of London - Manchester passengers compared to air has already increased from 40% to over 60%.
The same would undoubtedly happen if the NEC was upgraded to 150mph running throughout and Amtrak offered a more frequent Acela service.

While what you say is true for the NY to Boston side of things, even without 150 MPH running NY to WAS, Amtrak already owns 53% of the travel market between those two cities. The other 47% is divided between several airlines and buses. Amtrak owns an even higher percentage in the NY to Philly market. On weekdays there is hourly service each way between NY & DC, with at least one Acela and one regional in each direction.

 

[wayman]

Aloha
Hope I don't upset anyone but I have always wondered what would result if the same design concepts that led to the design of the GG-1 were applied to modern materials would be, maybe a GG-2

The GG-1 was great for its time, but it would never work these days, the BLET would never accept a cab like a GG-1 with no sight and a snoz obstructing the view. It would need a fireman and technology wise the thing was a dynosaur.

Todays GG-1 is called a AEM-7 or ALP 46, it runs on two high speed trucks and can run at 135 mph. the GG-1 was limmited to 100 mph.

Noise levels in a GG-1 approached OSHA condemnation levels.

Sure, the GG-1 was a huge technical achievement for the 1930s while it would fail to meet the 2000s' standards. But the other great thing about the GG-1 was their incredible longevity--they were in mainline service for fifty years, and only retired due to frame cracks/metal fatigue as I understand it. Are today's engines designed with that sort of longevity in mind? (I honestly don't know; maybe they are, but I didn't have that impression.)

The cab-in-the-middle was a safety feature (initiated with the GG-1's predecessor the P-5, after a grade crossing collision with the apple truck which killed the engine crew; P-5s were originally boxcabs, redesigned/rebuilt to have center cabs). Wouldn't that still be a safety feature over the AEM-7 et alia design? The GG-1 engine crew survived (without major injury, even) the collision with Washington Union Station. I would think cab conditions could be redesigned to conform to modern BLET standards, and that the issue of the snoz could be minimized with a couple of well-placed high-resolution cameras and monitors (in addition to the views the engineer and fireman do have, which couldn't have been undriveably bad...).

Of course, the elimination of level grade crossings is a much sounder safety feature for this sort of thing! But you can't eliminate Washington Union Station :lol:

 

[battalion51]

I'm not so sure that the AEM-7's won't come close to meeting the GG-1s. They were introduced in 1980, and got major overhauls after 20-25 years of mainline service. With the amount of money Amtrak has invested in these engine I'm guessing they'll last another 20-25 years, giving the GG-1 a run for its money.

 

[AlanB]

Of course, the elimination of level grade crossings is a much sounder safety feature for this sort of thing! But you can't eliminate Washington Union Station :lol:

Hmm, I'm not so sure about that. It would seem that someone did try to eliminate WUS yesterday. Apparently there was a fire in the food court that forced the evacuation of the entire station.

AP via The Washington Post on-line, 1/1:

DC's Union Station Evacuated After Fire
WASHINGTON -- A small fire in a basement food court forced the evacuation of Union Station on Tuesday, delaying the departure of several trains but injuring no one.

A fryer used to prepare french fries caught fire Tuesday afternoon, filling the area with smoke, said D.C. fire department spokesman Alan Etter. . . .

Continue.

 

[stonesfan]

Chafford1 those savings in time are correct, although do recall they are theoretical figures, as due to the extra congestion on the WCML, reliabilty of these savings is pretty poor! And don't forget that between 1990-1993(when I had my few years at Euston), and probably any other time pre WCML upgrade when timings were slackened somewhat the London to Birmingham run was often achieved in 1hr 28 minutes! I think the fastest official class 87/90 diagram was 1hr 35 mins. This was a service that no longer runs that was RA Birmingham International.

I'm not sure about timekeeping on the NE Corridor, but you can assume if you fill it up with more trains, timekeeping will suffer if the infrastructure is not improved massively.

The average speed acheived by the Acela is around 78mph? This isnt bad and is comparible with what the Pendolino currently achieves between London and Birmingham with a top speed of 125mph, a few stops and a few speed restrictions here and there. But considering the Acela does a reasonable portion of its journey at 135mph, a small section at 150, there are clearly some major speed restrictions being applied!

But my main point is, I'm not sure whether Americans would be prepared to suffer poor quality and cramped seating, even if journey times were improved on the NEC?

 

[Chafford1]

Chafford1 those savings in time are correct, although do recall they are theoretical figures, as due to the extra congestion on the WCML, reliabilty of these savings is pretty poor! And don't forget that between 1990-1993(when I had my few years at Euston), and probably any other time pre WCML upgrade when timings were slackened somewhat the London to Birmingham run was often achieved in 1hr 28 minutes! I think the fastest official class 87/90 diagram was 1hr 35 mins. This was a service that no longer runs that was RA Birmingham International.
I'm not sure about timekeeping on the NE Corridor, but you can assume if you fill it up with more trains, timekeeping will suffer if the infrastructure is not improved massively.

The average speed acheived by the Acela is around 78mph? This isnt bad and is comparible with what the Pendolino currently achieves between London and Birmingham with a top speed of 125mph, a few stops and a few speed restrictions here and there. But considering the Acela does a reasonable portion of its journey at 135mph, a small section at 150, there are clearly some major speed restrictions being applied!

But my main point is, I'm not sure whether Americans would be prepared to suffer poor quality and cramped seating, even if journey times were improved on the NEC?

They probably wouldn't unless they were prepared to go First Class and pay through the nose! The Acela fares certainly look cheaper - $140 -$187 for the 453 mile Boston-Washington trip compared with £120 ($240) for a second class ticket for the 401 mile London-Glasgow trip.

You're probably right about the Pendolino timings - the 1hr 12 minutes London -Birmingham run (113 miles) if it is achieved should mean an 94.17mph average speed. The original plan envisaged a 118mph average and 140mph top speed.

The 2009 London - Glasgow time for the Pendolino of 4hrs 10minutes for the 401 mile run means an average speed of 96.24mph.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

As far as I can tell on the Boston to New York City trip, the bus vs train split happens with people who want cheap and who don't care much about the other details taking the buses, and people who want a pleasant experience who don't care so much about money taking the trains. If Amtrak wanted to put in more crowded seats, they might have trouble filling them unless they're priced competitively with the various Chinatown bus services. And I think that would end up leaving Amtrak with less revenue per coach than they currently get.

 

[Guest_Chafford1_*]

Joel

If the Acela experience lives up to the video, then it must be a very pleasant experience!

http://www.amtrak.com/acela/acelaFlash/whyAcelaDemo.html

The challenge must be though to reduce that 6hour 30minutes time for the Boston -Washington run (443 miles). Are there any planned upgrades that will reduce the timings?

 

[stonesfan]

Who would you say Acela's customers generally are?

Businessmen on expenses? Tourists? Commuters?

And what are its usual loadings?

My one trip on an Acela from Boston to NY, on the 1115 from Boston saw the train about 50% loaded. The return on the Metroliner, a late afternoon departure from NY was about 90% full, although clearly with more commuters.

And if its customers are more orientated towards business, what are the chances of big business contributing financially to achieve infrastructure upgrades to ensure its subjects get a faster journey? Or is it a similair situation to the UK, where Huge companies bemoan the transport links between its areas of operation, but seldom contribute to actually help do something about it?

As far as I can tell on the Boston to New York City trip, the bus vs train split happens with people who want cheap and who don't care much about the other details taking the buses, and people who want a pleasant experience who don't care so much about money taking the trains. If Amtrak wanted to put in more crowded seats, they might have trouble filling them unless they're priced competitively with the various Chinatown bus services. And I think that would end up leaving Amtrak with less revenue per coach than they currently get.

 

[battalion51]

The Acela most definitely primarily is used by Business folks on expense accounts. Amtrak's primere NEC trains (Metroliner of yesteryear and Acela today) have always been geared towards this market. To these folks they have a few things they look for when they travel:

• Speed (length of trip)
  
• On time performance
  
• Convienence (location and departure time)
  
• Comfort and amenities
  
• Ability to do their work
  

This is why Acelas are outfitted with things like hourly departures, reduced travel times, downtown to downtown service, power outlets, upgraded food service, and conference tables.

NBC Nightly News did a story a few months ago about folks using the Acela service, obviously with most of them being business travelers. One woman they interviewed was a lawyer on her way to New Jersey for Depo. She was saying that she and others she knows will take a morning Acela to do business, and return home same day to be with family and their own bed. This is good for business because it means that there are no hotel stays required, per diems, etc., and it's good for workers because it means they can be with family. So while many may appear to be commuters, I don't know many that would have the money to use Acela as their daily ride to work, or be dumb enough to live far enough away that they would have to.

 

[George Harris]

what are the chances of big business contributing financially to achieve infrastructure upgrades to ensure its subjects get a faster journey?

Nill, none, not a chance, you got to be kidding to even ask.

Or is it a similair situation to the UK, where Huge companies bemoan the transport links between its areas of operation, but seldom contribute to actually help do something about it

Yes, if not more so.

The challenge must be though to reduce that 6hour 30minutes time for the Boston -Washington run (443 miles). Are there any planned upgrades that will reduce the timings?

At this point, none worth mentioning. All the easy and most of the not so easy things have been done. Any more time savings require huge costs that are unlikely to be funded by any politician of any type, regardless of what words come out of their mouths.

 

[stonesfan]

I guess it gets to the point where you have to question how much it is worth pouring money into a 100+ year old alignment, when a completely new high speed line, of which would drastically cut time than simply chip away at it could be built for not an awful lot more?

Maybe Acela is simply a solid stop gap until the powers that be see sense and start from scratch? In the next decade or so several Governments are going to have some seriously hard decisions to make as their country grinds to a halt.

Apart from Mainland Europe and Japan, most of us (including the UK) are stuck with 'classic' railways. Slowly but surely getting overcrowded, having to run a mixture of freights, stoppers, semi-fasts and high speed trains over the same metals and not really getting anywhere fast! Our very own West Coast Main Line (very similair to the NEC) has more of a bias towards 125mph express trains these days, but obviously passengers have lost some of their 'local' services, and this has caused some real annoyance amongst those communities affected. Theres been a lot of anger amongst travellers who now only see high speed trains thundering through their platforms, full of businessmen on expenses. And their once half hourly service to the next town has now become hourly.

Ultimately, an INTEGRATED transport system will need seperate new lines for high speed travel. And this will probably include the NEC.

 

[Chafford1]

I guess it gets to the point where you have to question how much it is worth pouring money into a 100+ year old alignment, when a completely new high speed line, of which would drastically cut time than simply chip away at it could be built for not an awful lot more?
Ultimately, an INTEGRATED transport system will need seperate new lines for high speed travel. And this will probably include the NEC.

I agree. However there must be some potential for improvement over the existing 443 mile route if a 150mph train can only average 68.15mph for a 6.5 hour journey. What percentage of the route is run at 125mph or over?

 

[George Harris]

I guess it gets to the point where you have to question how much it is worth pouring money into a 100+ year old alignment, when a completely new high speed line, of which would drastically cut time than simply chip away at it could be built for not an awful lot more?
Ultimately, an INTEGRATED transport system will need seperate new lines for high speed travel. And this will probably include the NEC.

I agree. However there must be some potential for improvement over the existing 443 mile route if a 150mph train can only average 68.15mph for a 6.5 hour journey. What percentage of the route is run at 125mph or over?

First, to build a completely new line paralleling this line in the crowded northeast is simply not going to happen. Even if a reasonable route could be found, nobodly alive to day would still be here by the time all the legal challenges had worked their way through the court system.

100+ years old does not necessarily equal bad. South of New York a lot of the line is quite straight and could be operated faster, but would require some significant work, including:

Replace the overhead system. The existing overhead is used as the excuse for the present 135 mph speed limit south of Washington. Much of the system is functionalally obsolete. The replacement does not have to be married to changing the existing 25 cycle 11,000 volt system to 60 cycle 25,000 volts. These are two separate issues.

Increase the track centers. Much of the track is at 13'-0" spacing or closer. I have heard numbers as low as 12'-8" My opinion is that this has to be just barely inside safe limits. Spacing should be 15'-0" or greater in my opinion even at 135 mph, and I would think 16'-6" if you want to run over that up to say about 200 mph or higher. When we get to 200 plus we are in the unknowns where some seriousl aerodynamic studies are needed.

The thing is that you are into the area of small improvements in time when you raise the top limits. For example:

50 miles at 135 mph = 22min13sec

50 miles at 180 mph = 16min40sec

A complete reworking of over 50 miles thereby saves you 5min33sec. It has to be over 50 miles, because that is 50 miles at maximum, so acceleration to and braking from must be outside the 50 mile section. If the 50 miles at faster speed is not continuous, the time saved will be less, if the sections are short, much less.

But, if you take something like Baltimore, which has about 10 miles with speeds in the 30 to 80 mph range, over which the average speed probably is not over 50 mph, and straighten it out to the point that you be going 150 mph plus except for the station stop, let us say that the average speed with stop and start, not counting dwell time is:

Now: 10 miles at 50 mph = 12min00sec

Straight: 9 miles at 110 mph = 4min55sec

You have saved 7min05sec.

But, to do either of these would put you in the Billions of dollars cost range.

On the north end, the low level draw bridges should really be replaced with higher level fixed bridges, which will improve timekeeping and allow more trains without inconveniencing the weekend admirals.

 

[GG-1]

Aloha

I think my point about the GG-1 being redesigned to a GG-2 was not understood. :unsure: What I was thinking was, apply the parameters that led to the GG-1 and modern material and electronics to the safety needs for a new American motor.

I maybe wrong, but the AEM7 is a 90 mph motor. The G's geared for freight were 90mph. the Passenger gearing was 100mph, but were noted for running faster. One with a burned out motor on one axle was noted in a Trains article that the G was not going to be beat by some foreign made AEM7, which all of today's units were built in Sweden.

I have a video tape on the G where a camera was mounted under the body as the unit ts traveling at 100mph (noted in the commentary). The old uneven track and the flexing/ movement of the wheels are quite apparent. In order to get the Acella speed up, the tracks needed upgrading for 150mph running, that is only 25mph faster than a G's fastest speed on the unimproved track.

I do not in vision a new design G to look the same, as the car body would be enclosing considerable different components, but what I see is a motor/truck arrangement with the tracking ability that was so good that permitted running at speeds at least twice as fast as the tracks were designed for.

I just get irritated that American designers/workers no longer are the best in the world, It's high time our country gets it act together and move into this century and the future (d-- I just got political :huh: ).

Mahalo

Eric aka GG-1

 

[GG-1]

Aloha
Hope I don't upset anyone but I have always wondered what would result if the same design concepts that led to the design of the GG-1 were applied to modern materials would be, maybe a GG-2

Sure, the GG-1 was a huge technical achievement for the 1930s while it would fail to meet the 2000s' standards. But the other great thing about the GG-1 was their incredible longevity--they were in mainline service for fifty years, and only retired due to frame cracks/metal fatigue as I understand it. Are today's engines designed with that sort of longevity in mind? (I honestly don't know; maybe they are, but I didn't have that impression.)

Aloha

Although the metal fatigue and cracking, was an issue the major killer of the G was the PCB's in the transformer

 

[stonesfan]

Two questions:

1st for George Harris.

What kind of dispensation does the Acela have over the regionals on curved track, where I presume the tilt system takes over? For a rough idea, I know our Tilting Pendolinos usually have a 25mph increase over curve based speed restrictions. Are the Acelas working at their maximum tilting capacity or are there any restrictions in place due to clearance on the Northern sections?

And 2nd for GG-1.

What are the chances of a GG-1 being brought back to running condition and being main line certified for use on special workings? I always saw this loco as being an icon of American railways just as much as your average classic diesel loco from the 50s and 60s.