DMUinCT: Those close clearances on the NYNH&H portiions of the NE corridor came from a decision by NH not to go with wider track spacing. I feel that this is one thing that should be addressed if there is an infrastructure improvement plan is instituted to help out the economy. Remember PRR NEC from NYC to WASH does not have these clearance problems (better forethought).
DaveKelpper: You are absolutely right about replacing the PRR style catenary with constant tension for higher speed operation. The Washington - Baltimore - Wilmington line certainly can be speeded up but MARC would probably need all electric motors to enable this speed up. There would be a need to triple and eventually add a fourth track and add a new B&P tunnel west of the Baltimore station and an additional bridge at Gunpow. Remember that train capacity of any line is reduced when various trains speeds are different. One location you failed to mention is Trenton - Newark. This line has good geometry except for the Edison - Menlo Park S curves. These two speed ups would not get the route to two hours but maybe to the 2:29 once promised. and maybe 2:10
For some reason AMTRAK has not done any repairing or upgrading of the present PRR cat. Ex: When the new Newark Airport Station (EWR) was built The two to three miles of relocated, expanded clearance, and new track did not have constant tensioning installed but instead had the old PRR style installed. In contrast NJ Transit in concert with the airport project installed a storage/passing siding at the beginning of the diversion point of the Raritan Valley line from the NEC and installed constant tension cat approximately (?) 1-1/2 miles on both tracks. This was donew even though there had to be some adjustments at the joining of the rebuilt PRR cat. I have not observed whether the new Secaucus Junction station has PRR or constant tension cat installed there. Anyone
A far as the underframe structure is concerned, even in lines of a certain age, it normally holds itself remarkably well. From what I have seen, problems normally arise when infiltrations happen. In terms of track and catenary modernization, maybe one of the good option would have been, especially for the New York to Boston line, new alignments in order to avoid certain spots that even today are the origin for speed restrictions With this, much better times would be achieved, by sustaining a higher speed, and less energy would be used in both accelerating and braking efforts,opening the door for less operational expense and a bigger, more intense utilization of trainsets. Off course one knows tthat what Amtrak deed was the possible job, with the budget and local constraints, wich makes it terrfic considering these last two points. But maybe it would be interresting to analise all the costs of operations, especially the ones related with energy used in braking and acceleratongs efforts. Tipycally, in a line with numerous speed differences, braking energy might account for 40 to 50% of total consumed.
And I agree that New York to Washington needs a facelift, in order to get the whle line upgrade to today’s standards of equipment. Judging by what is being said here, it will be worth the investment, especially if the existing alignement is a good one, allowing for almost off the shelf 150 mph.
But such speed raisings, despite its positiveness, always bring , as it was referred, some capacity problems, retated with the multispeed factor (i.e. much different tains operating at different speeds) : If I had some operational data, such as track diagrams, mileposts, effective distances, minimum block freeing times, grades and traffic needs, I could preform some sort of schedule st
Dave: I forgot to mention the other bridges from Wash - Wilmington. Brandywine creek, Bush River, and the Susquehanna River swing bridge. Anyone know how often it is opened?
Mario: The energy used in braking and re acceleration is probably significant. Another factor is the operational and maintenance costs of the braking. Passwnger car dybamic wear on parts. Brake shoe wear if brakes used along with truck hunting if the braking is not exactly even on each axel… Wheel brake disks wear.Wheel wear both rail contact and flange wear whenever there is hunting. Ballast shifting due to longitudinal braking and acceleration. Extra rail wear when slowing and speeding up. Misalignment problems with switches when changing speeds. Locomotive wheel wear from constant acceleration and brakiing. I don’t believe that these items are ever taken into account when figuring all costs and benefits of upgrading. Bet mudchicken knows of more items.
Well, maybe Amtrak should put some more trains on the Philly to NY/Penn route if it would prefer its D.C. to NYC trains to fill up as opposed to people going less than half that distance (Phila. - NYC).
We took Amtrak from Newark down to Phiadelphia about this time a year ago. It was a Saturday afternoon and we paid the second-highest fares that were in effect that day. It would have cost about the same for the two of us to take a cab that distance (provided cabs are allowed to do interstate runs).
The train was just an ordinary Regional, but ir was stuffy and in need of a good fabric scrubdown. Most of the NJT trains we had been riding the preceding few days felt “deluxe” by comparison.
The nice thing about the NEC is that there are frequent trains and people use them. The drawback is that the line is just congested enough that IMHO Amtrak takes some of its riders a little for granted. If we did it again, we’d probably try to take NJT to Trenton and connect with SEPTA. - a.s
I don’t think Amtrak ever filled the void left by elimination of the Clocker NYP- PHIL trains, so I can understand the capacity limitations on that route. And even five-across seating in a new commuter train feels better than Amfleet cars that are a third of a century old. The “Acelas” should have been prototypes for an entire new fleet…
On the vacation when we took the Acela BOS - WAS, we rode the overnight train WAS-BOS. Rain was falling and the coach was leaking; amazingly, other passengers seemed accustomed to having water fall on their heads and did not change seats. The train ran late for most of the route, but has a “padded” schedule and so we actually waited about 20 minutes in Providence before slipping into our on-time position among the Boston commuter trains.
I rode Amtrak’s “Night Owl” in 1974 WAS-BOS. The smoking car was a genuine Penn Central roach coach with linoleum tile floor, and I got sick off the sandwich I bought in the lounge car.
The clockers were money losers. They filled up at Trenton and PJ on the way north every morning, so they were actually glorified NJ commuter trains. This made for low load factors. The equipment generally made 1 turn a day for a 180 mile RT. Not great utilization.
Amfleet: the Capstone program puts a new “peel and stick” interior in the cars. The are very nice when done. There are still some non-Capstone Amfleet cars running around. They can be a bit grubby. Water dripping inside passenger cars is rarely roof leaks. It’s usually clogged AC condensate run off. It usually drips at the ends of the cars where the evaporators are. Amfleet cars are good, solid all stainless construction. They can be rebuilt indefinitely. They will be around as long their economics hold up - which will likely be many more years.
I agree that Amfleet coaches are great, and they could last forever. But I think they should have been replaced five times over and PERMANENTLY assigned to a civil defense fleet. I was going to make a comment about window size in my above reference to Amfleet vs. commuter coaches. (Wife called me, so I hit “post” and looked later…) I found a web page about NJT’s fleet, and not only are the windows big but their fleet has been rejuvenated five times at least in the past 33 years.
Because of the aged infrastructure’s limited capacity, and lack of expansion, Amfleet will suffice. They are beautiful cars – I was thrilled to ride them when they first appeared. I sat in my Amcoach, in a comfortable reclining Amchair. (The long-distance Amfleet Amcoaches had removable Amrests). A nearby Amcafe served fresh Amsandwiches, and the bathrooms offered gracious Amenities (such as Ampax Ampons). I digress–it is a shame that companies such as Pullman Standard and Amerail have disappeared from the landscape, and their is no pride nor serendipity in the names we give our trains.
I don’t think it’s worth upgrading the catenary between Wilmington and DC. Those sections already run 135 mph. Is it worth it for the extra 15 mph? I think Amtrak already made the right decision.
AG: Its not so much a matter of upgrading the Cat from wilmington to DC that is important is of easing some curves and adding one or two tracks. The amount of commuting over that line was never this much except WWII and the ancilary consequence of adding the two tracks would be new CAT.