Ran into some interesting information this morning over at Railway Age. A company called Ameristar Rail is proposing to fund expansion of the NEC. Whilst providing some competition in the Northeast with through service and changes to train schedules. This includes stops providing better connections and possibly code sharing ticket rides it appears.
The next piece information comes form something called RAILnet-21 which proposes to split Amtrak into two federally controlled entities. Sounds like a legit plan. Me personally I believe Amtrak from it’s beginings should have been an investment tool for the Class 1’s. A program akin to the Short Line 45G tax credit. Let the private operators handle the network providing them incentives to develop greater capacity RoW to handle multi-speed traffic.
The Railway Age article talks about making more run-thru trains at NY Penn. Don’t most of the trains from DC go thru to Boston? The Empire service terminates at NYP, so continuing on to Ronkonkoma would make it run-thru, but it’s the only one I can think of.
In addition there would be hourly Ronkonkoma-Alexandria run throughs and Keystones would run through to Springfield MA. I don’t know where they envision servicing the trains in Ronkonkoma, land acquisition would likely be pricey. With the (pre-covid) popularity of the LIRR “Cannonball” Friday trains, it seemed to me this would be a good addition to Amtrak NEC service. I seem to recall reading that Pennsy once ran through sleepers on the LIRR.
A number of the proposed routes would put a lot of diesel on the NEC. The Harrisburg-Springfield replacement of the Keystone service would end electric service to Harrisburg. Also, are diesels allowed in the downtown Phily terminal tunnel?
I don’t think so, but I also don’t think anything that is a continuation of NEC to Keystone (Harrisburg via the old main line) service would go through the tunnel to what used to be Suburban Square. There certainly was diesel operation into 30th Street from time to time.
As noted, getting through the New York tunnels is the more critical issue here. Very theoretically the ‘least-cost’ solution would be to acquire some of the third-rail dual-modes for the enhanced Harrisburg-to-Springfield trains and slightly extend the existing third rail in the North River tunnels out past the portal again to give quick enough transition to and from diesel without stopping. The ‘next best’ alternative would be to run electric from Harrisburg up to end of the wire on the Springfield line north of New Haven and then use dedicated pool diesels for the relatively short (~60 miles) north to where the ex-B&A goes across.
Reading between the lines, the patronage on the Springfield trains had been growing faster than expected, leading to somewhat unwanted discussions about more trains. The proposed run-through makes greater sense in that it provides those trains as well as increasing the possibility of direct one-seat rides from Harrisburg and the communities east to Philadelphia as well as all those other sources along the NEC north of New Haven. The catch is that there is neither money nor time for electrifying the newly-double-tracked line yet… although option 3 would be just that: to strategically electrify those 60 miles with constant-tension cat in preparation for enhanced ‘commuter’ traffic to Boston if any of those strange proposals to get the ‘second service’ going ever get built.
Give Siemens the specs from the Conrail dual-mode lite program in the early '80s and say 'make variants of this modular to plug into the DC link of existing AC-drive designs.
There is no need to reinvent the wheel or build Starships or full six-million-dollar-plus dual modes that only governments can afford. Electrify the engines you have, to do the job the way you’re familiar with, and use only the additional capacity those engines can source. Or if you want the advantages of hybrid consists using battery-electrics, put the catenary (or third-rail) means on the nominally electric unit and make connections to feed the others as needed.
The possibilities for NEC-capable trains that can run on unwired continuation (or in wire outages) are more than just a turn to Hartford or Springfield…
Plenty of genesis locos are and will be retired. Add a second cab and swapping the primemover/gen combo for transformer/rectifier/inverter combo should be an easy conversion.
Three problems with this: Many of the Genesis locomotives being retired are DC, not AC drive; the whole point of the conversion is to make them both diesel and electric, not to make a sort of ACS-64lite; it would be difficult to package a second cab other than by completely replacing the radiator compartment which would involve a potload of other mechanical changes, and if the second cab is true S-580 probably overstress the monocoque in the center.
I suspect current equipment on the Springfield line is rigged for cab control, and in all probability what you would see on an extended Keystone train would be something like a converted-Metroliner cab on one end, eith any ‘multiples’ of power needed for longer trains added to the opposite end rather than obligate top-and-tail (as in some of the Midwest corridors). In any case there would be no need for a bidirectional engine conversion as there would be little advantage in dropping HEP power to run the locomotive around the train at Springfield.
One possibility might be to repower with something like a modular QSK95 on a sled, optimized to run sans EGR or DPF with proportional use of SCR for all NO reduction at the higher peak temps for higher compression ratio, and updated generator; this has a lower required overhead height where the pan for dual-mode-lite could go. It should not be difficult to source uprated motors to match, say, what’s stock for the Chargers, and you then have a perfectly adequate 110mph locomotive that can handle a Springfield (or Atlantic City or Northampton or B&A turn to Boston or any other long-distance one-seat-ride service that begins, ends, or uses unelectrified trackage) effectively.
I would add that option 2 on such a mechanical rebuild – which would involve using th
What is the aversion to a cross-platform, coordinated change of trains to get to those less-frequented endpoints? It’s done in Europe all the time. The insistence on a one-seat service increases complexity and cost.
As I recall, the Keystone service is already oprating this way, engine and cab-control car (although electric). This is needed since the train reverses direction midway at 30th St Station. As you say, no need for dual cab engines here.
A one-seat ride can be a major selling point. In 1953, Chicago Aurora & Elgin cut back its service from Wells St Terminal in the Loop to Forest Park due to construction of the Congress Expressway. Although excellent connections with the “L” were provided, ridership fell off considerably.
I do all the time when it saves enough money to justify any inconvenience; I get scads more flyer miles out of the practice as well. Much of the issue getting between what might be greatly separated gates can be avoided by requesting assistance from those electric carts most terminals have.
The issue in all these proposals is to have one trainset do the job of several in separate circulation, not add trains to congested parts of the NEC. The Harrisburg-to-Springfield train, for example, does the job of one Keystone service train, then one New York to New Haven train’s worth of service, then a New Haven to Springfield train (either ‘in place of’ or supplementing capacity for the existing service on that line). This is little different from the idea of an LD train as serving all the demand between intermediate destination pairs in the target direction as it goes, ‘at no additional charge’.
Note that ch said ‘coordinated’. This means something a bit different in Europe, where the norm is reliable across-the-platform connection with minimal dwell and passengers requiring no luggage assistance. If there is no ease in going between the trains, or any difficulty finding a seat for the ongoing trip, or confusion in boarding – then as noted customers will dislike the situation, and it may easily tip them into using a different mode if either the expectation or the experience involves such details.
There is a complicating factor of sorts in many European examples, though: transfer between trains is often effectively one-way due to necessarily short pathed dwell times. Unless you amend the schedule both to have ‘slack’ at certain stations and an extended planned dwell there, you will not have passengers able to go ‘both ways’ between trains. (The usual practice is, I