I was doing that tourist thing in Mystic, Connecticut of seaport fame when the railroad crossing gates activated. I pulled into the parking lot of the Mystic Amtrak station so as to watch the train – I thought it might stop at the station – but it was an express train and an Acela consist. Didn’t position myself to get any photos, but at least I got to see an Acela for the first time.
The train raises a number of questions. The first thing I noticed was that there was a long wait once the crossing gates were down for the train to come by, and this was Amtrak’s fastest train. I am sure that experts have looked at this from every angle, and far be it for railfans to suggest whether the gates should be down less time. For the gates down so long without a train raises the temptation to (illegally) run the gates. For the gates down a shorter time, there is a bigger chance of someone getting “caught” in the crossing. There are engineering “trades” for everything, and I am curious regarding how the gate dwell time is decided. The train didn’t go past the station all that fast, by the way.
One reason the Acela didn’t zip past Mystic at 100-per is that the station is on a reasonably sharp curve, and you could really see the Acela lean into that curve. Now I know that part of the lean is whatever super elevation is on the track, and the remainder of the lean is the hydraulic banking system, but this raises a couple more questions.
We have had tilting trains before going through Mystic, which it seems has a sharp curve in a location accessible to photos, i.e. the train station, and express trains not stopping. The Pullman Standard Train-X equipment in the late 50’s on the New Haven followed by the TurboTrain on Penn Central in the early 70’s had passive tilt, the LRC was tested on this route by Amtrak, the active-tilt Acela currently runs on the Shore Line, and there has been non-tilting “conventional” equipment.
I definitely do not have the technical answers but these factors may be relevant:
Acela travels between Boston and New York in about three and a half hours an improvement of half an hour over previous trains (and 45 minutes quicker than Northeast Regionals between new York and Boston).
Between New York and Boston the Acela Express has up to a 37% share of the combined train and air market.
Tilting enables passengers to ride more comfortably on curved sections of track faster than would otherwise be possible, by leaning into the bend. Metro-North Railroad restricts tilting on the segment of track north of New York owned by them. While the system was originally designed for a 6.8° tilt, the cars were redesigned 4 inches wider to accommodate wider seats and aisles that reduced allowable tilt to a more modest 4.2° to fit within the clearance constraints of the existing tracks.
If you had been at the Kingston RI station, you might have observed the Acela passing through at 150 mph. The only part of the NEC where the Acela currently runs at 150 mph is in RI and MA. The Regionals hit 125 mph on those same segments, because they are now powered by electric locomotives from New Haven to Boston.
Yes, much of the Shore Line East route is still slow, though the Acela and Regionals do hit 100 mph on portions of it. By electrifying the NEC from New Haven to Boston, Amtrak did away with a large number of daily engine changes and now has improved trip times for both classes of service, the Acela and the NE Regionals.
As for the gate timing, it should be a quad gate at Mystic as there are now 11 remaining grade crossings on the NEC, all in the stretch from just west of New London to Mystic. All of them, other than the crossings in New London near the station (where the trains are going slow anyway), should have quad gates to prevent people from attempting to drive around the gates. If people in Mystic are unhappy with how long the gates are down, I’m sure Amtrak would be happy to dust off the NECIP plans for separating the grade crossing next to the Mystic train station that was rejected by the locals back then. Of course, Amtrak would ask the locals and CT DOT to pick up much of the tab for the bridge that was to provide the grade separation west of the current grade crossing.
With regards to photos of the Acela tilting, there are many such photos on the net.
As for the question of value of the ride, the answer is in the figures: people do pay to ride and traffic has increased so that trains have been added. Also, if it didn’t make money, attract a goodly number of passengers, in the time it has been in service, it would have been abandoned by now.
As for the grade crossing time…I wonder if it is set for the trains stopping distance as much as its arrival at the crossing.
Presumably the up to a 37% share of the combined train and air market came from a Wikipedia posting, which references a March 21, 2008 WIRED article. The quote from the article; “An Amtrak rep says Acela’s market share on the busy route grew from 36 percent in 2006 to 41 per cent last year.” It does not say that the Acela’s have a 37 or 41 per cent of the Boston to New York end point market.
Coupled with the map presented, I suspect the claim the market is the total market between Boston and New York, which amongst other stops would include Providence and New Haven. Both of these stops are significant markets for the train, but they are not significant air markets to and from New York. This is especially true for New Haven.
Amtrak is cherry picking market data to toute the impact of its trains on NEC travel. Amongst other things it overlooks buses, which I suspect are a significant presence in the NEC. Reportedly Megabus is doing well in the New York to Washington market. Equally important, although I have not been able to find the numbers for the NEC, I wonder what per cent of the intercity travel market Amtrak enjoys when automobiles are thrown into the equation. The travel market is not just trains and planes.
Wikipedia along with several other sources claim that the Acela is profitable. That is incorrect. Based on Amtrak’s numbers, which by the way have not been presented for more than a year because Amtrak is supposedly trying to figure out how to roll depreciation, interest, and unallocated costs into its route costs, the Acela is not profitable when the capital costs, which are substantial, are rolled into the equation.
Why electrify the Shore Line? No alternative with a reasonable timeline, I suspect. If you wanted to do the “inland” route via Springfield, you wind up having to deal with Conrail over how, who and where east of Springfield. If you try to resurrect the old NH “airline”, you’d wind up in NIMBY-land in short order. Just doing catenary and raising speed on the Shoreline waded pretty deeply into the NIMBY swamp (NIMBY-land? NIMBY swamp? I need to keep my metaphors straight!).
The route really isn’t THAT bad. There is a lot of straight, fast running east of Mystic. The intolerable cruelty is west of NH. 90 mph and no tilt is a schedule killer. Every other problem with the NEC north end pales in comparison to this.
The little bit of tilt that Acela is allowed probably isn’t worth what it cost, but that’s due in part to “he said/she said” inexcusable problem of the 4" too wide equipment.
If I were the king of Amtrak and I was given a mandate to improve the NEC running times, my wish list would probably be:
Move track centers on curves 4" and push for more underbalance from FRA to get Acelas going “full tilt”…NOW!
Constant tension cat on south end - as fast as I could steal the money.
New HSR alignment Shell to NH. First step, guestimate the $$$ and find the funding. Nobody will really pay any attention to lines on a map until you have the bulldozer idling.
I’d also start looking very closely at ripping out the coded track circuit based signal system (ACSES) and replacing it with freight industry standard PTC equipment and develop floating blocks to increase capacity on the line and reduce delays.
With respect to crossing gates, I was there at Amtrak Station, Mystic, CT only to watch one train. From the angle of having pulled into the station parking lot, I saw only one gate arm protecting the side of the crossing I was on. It could have been one of those “barrier” gates that resists vehicles from crashing through, but if it were a “quad” gate that blocked off both entry and exit from the crossing, I think I would have noticed that and remarked upon it.
Does anyone even use a “quad” gate that blocks both sides to prevent “gate running.” As I said, everything has engineering trades, and a quad gate could potentially trap someone inside the crossing, and you can think of the law suits.
As to the long gate dwell time, I am not complaining about it as I wanted to watch the train, and I don’t know of anyone who lives there complaining about it. I was simply pointing out that the dwell time is one of the engineering design parameters affecting safety that also has a tradeoff associated with it. The dwell time seemed long enough, and the train speed slow enough, that if there was some kind of detection system that the engine driver could stop a train in time to avoid a crash. But as Mystic Station is on a rather sharp curve, the driver probably doesn’t have a clear sight line and would have to rely on some remote detection. Or maybe the long dwell time is a safety feature in that if someone gets stuck on the crossing, they have time to evacuate their vehicle and live, even if a crash is not avoided?
As to photos of the Acela tilting, I see lots of photos of the Acela on the Web, but I can’t turn up any face-on shots of Acela on a curve that clearly shows the combined track super elevation and train banking system tilt. When I searched Google for “Acela Tilt Photos”, one of the first sites to turn up was right here. Funny thing that Google, you ask a question and it points you to the Web board where you asked that same question.
Center city to center city Boston to NY and NY to Boston all three are probably about the same elapsed time with Acela maybe having the time edge and the bus the price edge. But bus has the most problems of lost time because of highway congestion especially at the two ends thus not meeting its schedule and not being as reliable. After Acela, Northeast Regional trains are not that much slower. The trains offer metro stops in CT with MNRR connections to GCT; I’m not sure of bus accomodation, and planes better not. Buses do have a closer to home pick up in Boston…more community or suburban points, which trains do not. All three (or four) services price themselves for their percieved market and all seem to be thusly successful. Rail does have room for expansion of services with more trains to be added as well as more cars on the Regionals. Planes and buses are more restricted as airways are croweded and while more buses can be added (sections of runs?) congestion can conusme them. More highways cannot be built. But faster tracks with faster train can.
Paul, the Acela power cars do not tilt, only the passenger cars do. An “active” tilt system is employed. The amount of tilt is determined by onboard electronics. Of course, the entire train leans into the superelevated curve. The active tilt is turned off while on MNRR territory.
According to the Amtrak ETT, the public crossing at MP 132.3, Broadway Extension, is a “smart crossing” with 4 quadrant gates and a vehicle detection system is installed, interconnected with the cab signal system and can downgrade the cab signals if a vehicle is stopped on the crossing.
In the process of looking for Amtrak’s latest operating data on the NEC, i came across this. Probably debatable truth in the view of some posters, but ya never can tell:
“According to U.S. Department of Energy data, Amtrak is almost 14 percent more efficient than domestic airline travel and 31 percent more efficient than auto travel on a per-passenger-mile basis.”
Figures listed are from 2009 and refer to BTUs used per passenger mile.
Energy Efficiency Data Source: U.S. Department of Energy Oak Ridge National Laboratory Data on Fuel Efficiency - Transportation Energy Data Book (Edition 30), Table 2.12
“Year-to-date ridership between Boston and Newark is down significantly (-31%) as a result of JetBlue beginning service in this market in May 2011, and the subsequent drop in prices on the existing market’s carriers. Acela ridership in the endpoint markets of NY-DC (+3%) and NY-Boston (+3%) performed slightly better than the rest of the route in April FY12.”
“Northeast Regional travel in the endpoint market of NY-Boston (+18%) was strong in March. However, the southend endpoint market of NY-DC was +1% vs last April. The top markets through New York including Boston-Philadelphia (+81%) and Philadelphia-Providence (+92%) were up significantly due to a drop in airline service.”
[Specific data on route operating expense versus operating revenue still not available due to financial system conversion]
Paul: The speed restrictions are definitely a problem. MN RR is certainly a culprit. Maybe once all the substandard bridges are replaced a long term program of maybe 5 -10 miles every 3 - 4 years to eliminate all speed restrictions in a segment would be appropriate ??
The speed restrictions in CT are due to the many curves of the tracks, the bottlenecks, the tight spacing of the tracks on the New Haven Line portion, and many other factors. The bridges, especially the many movable bridges, are only part of it. To “eliminate all speed restrictions” on the New Haven line and Shore Line East would require straightening out the ROW, which would require massive and hugely expensive taking of private property. Which is politically impossible. The best that can be done is selected curve reductions or straightening of the route in short segments where it can be done. Another alternative in eastern CT is to resurrect the idea of a bypass or realignment of the NEC to follow the I-95 ROW from the CT River to west of Mystic and then reconnect to the current NEC before Westerly or elsewhere in RI.
The 2010 Next Gen NEC concept document route skipped the New Haven Line entirely with a proposed new route through the middle of CT - north from NYC, then through Danbury, Hartford, and through NE CT. This was a first draft concept proposal, not an engineering study. The problem is that selecting an entirely new route through CT will take 20 years of feasibility, engineering, environmental studies with numerous contentious public meetings.
There are improvements in the plans for CT. The Niantic River replacement bridge should go into service this fall which will allow for 90 mph speeds across the bridge segment rather than the 60 mph for the current bridge. The replacement of the catenary on the New Haven Line is projected to be done by 2017. The 2010 NEC Master Infrastructure Plan called for N
A lot of people look at flat maps of the East and New England and literally or physically draw straight lines from place to place. What they don’t realize is that while not 5000+ ft high Rockey Mountains, even the frequent 100 foot high coastal area and up to 2, 3, and sometimes 4 thousand ft. high hills are packed together so that valleys are often tight and twisting. CT is a great example of almost this entire description except the hills aren’t much over 2000 feet but the narrow valleys seperating them are virtual curves and over short distances 360 degrees is possible. Add to that that when the railroads were built, property acquisitions for ROW’s added to the curvatures. To go back almost 200 years to “straighten” things out is not only politically impossible but also probably civilly impossible’ and perhaps even physically, and definitey financially, impossible. The answers to progress and speed will have to be found in the track and the trains rather than in the terrain.
A common railfan legend is that NH tracks are spaced closely. I’m guessing 90%? 95%? 98%? of the RR has plenty of room, but there are one or two bad spots. None of us has a clue where they are, or how tight they are; too bad the local fans have never been curious enough to look for them.
I think the primary reason for the many turns on the NH Shore route is because the original engineering placed it very close to the coast, but had it swinging inland, to avoid inlets or cross them at a narrower point then going straight, and then back close again. That route does so a lot, but not primarily to avoid hills.
I think Paul might have misunderstood what I said a while back…or I said it poorly. The six inches is the max superelevation of the track allowed. Amtrak has lots of 6" superelevation, but anything over 4" is very rare in the freight world. Four inches will get you balance at 60 mph on a two degree curve.
Sorry Don, you are among the most technically savy persons around here and any technical detail I remember for someplace I assume to have come from you.
Yes, there is the superelevation and then there is the “unbalance” or the “cant deficiency.” Both can be measured in units of inches, and doing a simple calculation on a calculator with trig functions, inches of superelevation on standard gauge of 4’8 1/2" is about the same as angle in degrees. Also, to an initial rough approximation without getting into all of the trig functions, the superelevation and the cant deficiency in either degrees or inches add.
For example, if the track is banked (superelevated) by 6" and if the Acela is permitted 7" of cant deficiency in rounding a curve, you have a total of 6+7 = 13 inches to plug into formulas for how fast you can go around the curve. If the Acela tilts no more than 4 degrees, that 4 degrees roughly takes 4" off the 7" cant deficiency to leave 3" in the ca