I was thinking that the NEC need more seats per train-foot to keep within the capacity of Penn and Union stations, so bilevels will do what any single level could never do. The frees up Amfleet. Ohio, VA, and NC could use some 79 mph equipment right now or in the very near future for some of their proposals. Amfleet is very serviceable and comfortable up to 110 mph, so it would make great starter train sets for some of the new corridors, particularly those states that will have trouble rounding up their share of the starter money. It would be a stop gap solution.
The issue of capacity at Penn and Union Stations, I assume meaning the platform length, leads me to ask how long? How in the heck are Florida trains handled? Also, what are the lengths of non-Acela corridor trains and the number and proportion of standees?
OH, VA & NC may put up with hand-me-downs as a stop-gap measure; but that won’t justify rebuilding for a significant extension of service life. Why should the NEC get new equipment because it better suits the needs of the service while the Midwest and elsewhere are obliged to accept less-than-appropriate hand-me-downs just because they are “serviceable?” Amfleet also would be “serviceable” on the NEC for which they were intended.
If the proposed Midwestern routes, both new and upgrades of existing are state funded, then taking the refurbished Metroshells is unacceptable. Since they were merely upgrades of Silverliner commuter stock, east coast specific (PRR), and never very well suited for a ride longer than 100 miles or so, perhaps they should remain “at home.”
Because it is, overall, a more optimum solution and better use of taxpayer money. The combined traffic into Penn Sta and Union Sta have outgrown their design. The only way to keep up with the growth without spending billions for new and/or expanded stations (which might happen anyway) is to shoe-horn more people into the trains. The commuter agencies have already gone to bi-levels at both locations. There are few Amtrak standees because Amtrak service on the NEC is all reserved. Amfleet held down Metroliner service for over 20 years at 125 mph quite nicely. There is nothing wrong with rebuilt Amfleet. Have you ridden a fresh, Amfleet Capstone car? Hardly a “hand me down”!
Huh? Explain.
The lineage was through Budd: Silverliner (Pioneer III) > Metroliner > Amfleet. Of course they have changed a good deal over the years but my experience with them in the Midwest was less than great.
HUGE differences! For starters, Amfleet has much, much less unsprung weight. No traction motors! About the only thing the same between a Silverliner/Arrow and a Amfleet car is they were built by Budd. My experience with them in Metroliner service and elsewhere in the east has been pretty good. I’ve ridden them >10,000 miles. I actually measured the ride quality of them on the NEC and compared to Conrail’s business car fleet on class 4 and 5 track. The ride quality was equivalent. If there was no station capacity issue on the NEC, I’d say leave them there, at least until the catenary on the south end is rebuilt, and buy new for elsewhere. But there is, and that changes things.
From what I’ve read, they share much engineering as well as a similar appearance. And we are not talking only about ride, but the ambiance. Not very pleasant to be confined to one.
My experience with Amfleet was pretty good as well. Is this the same as not great, or just the high end of “not great” according to schlimm (that a TV show)? I’ve ridden Amfleet long distance (Cardinal, WAS-CHI; Floridian, OCA-CHI) and on Midwest corridor trains.
The questions I have regarding Amfleet are not only the Midwest low-level boarding and the need for tilting; but the possible costs of rebuilding for ADA and FRA compliance along with replacing components nearing the end of their service life. The stainless steel Amfleet shells should last well beyond the life of a rebuild. Amfleet trucks, designed for at least 120 mph on the NEC, have a more limited life and could be replaced with ones designed or off the shelf for higher speed and with tilting to match the performance of Acela.
Faster trains would reduce the time differential between services and increase effective corridor capacity. Or is it more important to Amtrak to move fewer people at premium fares?
While high-capacity double-deck cars may be more efficient and desirable on some NEC runs, wouldn’t single-level cars allow additional trains that are more than half full, a decent load, for more frequent services or serve new markets such as Norfolk, Roanoke, Delmar Peninsula, Eastern Pensylvania, Long Island, or Cape Cod?
[quote user=“oltmannd”]
HUGE differences! For starters, Amfleet has much, much less unsprung weight. No traction motors! About the only thing the same between a Silverliner/Arrow and a Amfleet car is they were built by Budd. My experience with them in Metroliner service and elsewhere in the east has been pretty good. I’ve ridden them >10,000 miles. I actually measured the ride quality of them on the NEC
If all NEC trains are reserved, then I have to wonder what the numbers are of refused or diverted reservation requests by train.
That sounds reasonable. There are 400+ Amfleet I cars out there. More than enough to go around.
Well, who can know exactly, but Friday afternoon and evening southbound out of Penn would be a likely regular “overcapacity” situation.
The engineering of what? A good guess that the center sill, draft arrangement and general plan for wireways, HVAC ducts, etc would be similar, but none of that really effects how pleasant a car is to ride in. The suspension and braking on Amfleet are very different from Silverliners and Metroliners. The undercar equipment is generally spec’d out by the purchaser, so any similarity between the HVAC on a Silverliner and Amfleet is purely coincidental. “Not pleasant to be confined in”? Why? And, compared to what? An old 44 seat coach, perhaps, but what else that’s out there now?
Oltmannd: Your reference to passenger capacity per train ft is a very good example of what is needed. The new equipment is needed now. For example one regular MARC southbound this morning filled up at BWI and an extra section had to be sent out from BAL to pick up passengers at BWI and points south. I do not know if the full train was a bi-level or singl level cars. I do know that MARC does not have enough bi-levels to run all Penn line trains bi-level.
To answer HarveyK400. NYP has only one track that can park a 14 car train and several that can park a 13 car train including one motor. The WASH union station tracks have capacitys of 12 - 15 cars because PRR extended WASH concourse by taking 2-1/2 car lengths from every track on the upper level. The lower level has much longer platforms and that was why in the late 40 - 60s ACL, SAL, C&O, SOU all had additional cars added in WASH for their trains south. SOU Cresent would sometimes add 6 cars.
Oltmannd - agree that
I not so concerned with getting trains to fit a platforms at intermediate stops because you can always have the passengers move to accommodate which doors are open. Not great - but something that could be managed. At Penn in particular, the issue isn’t that you are running trains that won’t fit at the platforms so much as the shorter your trains are, the more you can double up on the existing platforms. You can fit a DC-NYP Acela and an Keystone on the same platform, for example. The growth of LIRR and even more so, NJT trains into Penn have really put the squeeze on the place. The Phila to DC portion of the NEC is moving more people than it ever did in it’s peak PRR days and the MARC commuter traffic really puts the squeeze on the track capacity between Ivy City and the terminal and the platforms at the terminal.
My understanding is that a push-pull Amfleet 10-car train with 2 “motors” would fit the major NEC station platforms and provide zippy service. If demand exceeded that capacity (600+), a second section or additional frequency (1/2 hr?) would need at least 6 cars dividing the load and remaining fairly profitable (400+). I don’t deny that some bi-levels are warranted; but wholesale replacement of Amfleet on the NEC doesn’t seem to be a sound investment.
The corridor is not overly taxed outside of the Hudson and East River tunnels; and even there, the problem is the coinciding suburban and intercity PM crunch that may affect only 4 weekday Regional trains running hourly. These are supplemented by hourly Acela and Keystone services. Would there be a slot for a half-hour Regional? Worst case is only three or four trains of bi-levels (~40 cars) may be needed, each train having about 900 seats.
Three tracks are needed at Penn Stration for the close Acela, Keystone, and Regional (#173 from Boston) departures beginning at 4:00pm. For most of each hour these tracks would seem to be unoccupied. The weekday Regional departures at 4:25pm (#129) and 5:39pm (#193) could use the same platform as the preceding Acelas; but the 6:20pm (#137 from Boston) would need to arrive at 6:05pm after the Acela departed. The Keystones would need a separate track. One question I have is how long are these trains and their morning counterparts? I didn’t look at the morning schedule to see what goes on then; but Penn Station seems to have enough tracks for half-hour service.
There are no spare slots in morning or evening to run any extra trains thru the Hudson tubes. I think the same is true, or nearly so, of the throat to Union Sta, DC. The near future holds two alternatives. Raise the fares to keep ridership down or increase the number of passengers per train foot. I agree with you that it won’t require a wholesale fleet replac
Last time I rode Amtrak on the NEC, it was a morning DC to Penn train out of 30th St a couple of years ago in a Capstone Amfleet car. One HHP8 and 11 coaches. Pretty nice! Even my wife and teenaged kids were impressed.
Now 11 cars makes a nice train! Bi-levels certainly would be needed to handle growth on that run. I’m used to seeing photos of Regionals and Acelas with only 6-8 cars; so I was a little skeptical about the need for bi-levels.
How I wish there was a simple answer for the NEC congestion problem but it is all interrelated.
-
Longer trains can help but as someone pointed out the longer trains may reduce the capacity of the Hudson east river tunnels by one train per hour because of the longer time for a train to clear each signal point.
-
double deckers will probably weigh more per car.
-
The heavier trains will need more electrical power to maintain speeds. That means that the extra supply lines being installed near Mutchen need to be finished.
-
Longer trains may also need another motor to maintain speeds and acceleration.
-
The additional car for each ACCELA will also need more power.
-
The rebuilding of the two transmission lines from Safe Harbor to ATglen will not be completed until mid 2011 so that is another power shortage location. Also the transformer and relay replacements will not be completed until then.
-
The throat and crossovers at WASH union station may need to be moved. Wasn’t there a map published several years ago of the WASH terminal? If not a definite project for a trains map with car capacitys at each location.
-
There is an extreme need for a third and eventually a 4th track from Perryville - BAL - WASh to provide more capacity. Every time there is any problem with track BAL - WASH the whole system slows way down.
-
MARC needs more motors to enable meeting speed and acceleration requirements and more passenger cars
-
And the biggest buggaboo not enough equipment both motors and passenger cars!!
11.Oltmannd and others — any other items?