Expanding Some Exisitng Amtrak Routes Along the NEC?

[west point]

Thirdrail7. had thought that there would be no limit summer just winter limit. Is the S&I one or more than one track ?

 

[Anderson]

A wall would take care of that problem too

Actually, it makes it worse. Safety requires a minimum horizontal clearance from centerline of track to an obstruction of at least 12 feet (in many states, more). Placing a longitudinal wall next to a track with less than 12 feet of clearance to center provides no escape area on that side of the track. Even if they could somehow sweet-talk the regulatory people into making an exception (in my experience, not likely), I'm certain that neither CSX nor whatever authority would be operating the passenger tracks would want that kind of safety hazard built into multiple miles of track.

I've seen reports of CSX wanting:

-50 feet of separation

-30 feet of separation

-30 feet "between track centers"

-25 feet "between track centers"

I forget what "normal" spacing is (and I know that varies somewhat based on various conditions...I want to say 12 feet sounds about right?), but my best guess is that:

(1) 25 feet between centers of spacing sounds like basically wanting about one extra track worth of space between the lines.

(2) 30 feet of separation (as opposed to "between track centers") sounds like wanting two tracks' worth of separation.

(3) 50 feet of separation comes across as wanting 3-4 tracks' worth of separation, and comes off as a "get lost" request.

I think I've tended to see higher numbers more often than low numbers, and of course "separation" as opposed to "between track centers" does matter in this context (since the question of including half a track on each side means that you're looking at a full track's worth of extra separation or not).

 

[jis]

It seems to me that there are a few possible reasons for the demand from CSX:

1. Get lost, we don't want to deal with you. So we will just make abstract demands since it is of course our land and we don;t owe you anything even though we are supposed to have been historically franchised by you with attached conditions of operation. But surely you should not hold us to such trivialities after hundreds of year? (This one should be handled legislatively and administratively to the fullest extent of the laws being enforced or new ones created or clarified)

2. We would not like to get involved in an accident involving passenger trains that is our responsibility in order to limit our exposure. So if passenger trains get separate tracks we would like to keep them far enough away so that when our train derails or crashes there is minimal chance that they will hit a passenger train. Note that this has nothing to do with CSX's safety record. It is plain risk mitigation. They just happen to believe that they do crash often enough to make this a significant risk mitigation factor for the amount of payouts involved in crashes. (This one is addressed by a crash wall)

3. Protection of track gangs from high speed passenger trains whizzing by. (This can be mitigated by a chain link fence)

Any other possible motivations come to mind?

 

[Thirdrail7]

It seems to me that there are two possible reasons for the demand from CSX:

1. Get lost, we don't want to deal with you. So we will just make abstract demands since it is of course our land and we don;t owe you anything even though we are supposed to have been historically franchised by you with attached conditions of operation. But surely you should not hold us to such trivialities after hundreds of year? (This one should be handled legislatively and administratively to the fullest extent of the laws being enforced or new ones created or clarified)

2. We would not like tog et involved in an accident involving passenger trains that is our responsibility in order to limit our exposure. So if passenger trains get separate tracks we would like to keep them far enough away so that when our train derails or crashes there is minimal chance that they will hit a passenger train. Not that this has nothing to do with CSX's safety record. It is plain risk mitigation. They just happen to believe that they do crash often enough to make this a significant risk mitigation factor for the amount of payouts involved in crashes. (This one is addressed by a crash wall)

3. Protection of track gangs from high speed passenger trains whizzing by. (This can be mitigated by a chain link fence)

Any other possible motivations come to mind?

I think that about covers it. Of course, you could use the short version from the RF&P meltdown thread:

That would give them their big separation too as long as they can keep their trains from falling over and damaging structures, which of course may be a hard to meet requirement for them.

This is the problem with CSX. They want room to undermaintain their tracks and routinely derail freight trains off of them. Which is not a reasonable request.

 

[Thirdrail7]

Thirdrail7. had thought that there would be no limit summer just winter limit. Is the S&I one or more than one track ?

As previously indicated, the restriction is in the winter and Boston's S&I has two tracks in addition to the High Speed S&I building.

 

[west point]

Thirdrail. Does it appear the S&I could become longer for longer trains ? 2 trains of up to 15 cars at once in the winter would certainly add to regional capacity although would expect that a possible addition would not be able to add that much capacity 765 ft to what ?

 

[Thirdrail7]

To extend the S&I, you'd basically have to alter Southampton Yard itself. It isn't just a matter of extending the actual building. This was a big part of the decision when the decision was made not to order additional Acela cars. It wasn't a matter of just extending the trains. You had to extend the facilities as well, which means changing interlockings, track configurations, etc.

As such, I don't really see it happening until more movement is made on the new Acela sets. They be a game changer as facilities are altered to accommodate them. I never really saw Boston's plan for the new sets (because I don't really care) but I did see WAS and NYP pie in the sky plans. Since Bos is an anchor for the Acela, I assume there is some sort of similar plan in effect.

 

[Ryan]

Last I saw, the replacement plans were of similar length, so that the facilities didn't need the expansion.

A picture may be worth a thousand words here. These buildings are not going to double in length.

 

[Thirdrail7]

On the NEC-North bit: I don't disagree with adding Acelas, but I'm getting seriously worried that Amtrak has begun to look at "add Acelas" like a D&D player might look at "cast fireball": An all-use solution to the NEC at a bare minimum. Unfortunately, while numerous financial metrics of the Acela are impressive there is a significant niche and justification for adding Regionals, not least of which is not watching Amtrak become utterly unaffordable for folks either unable to get their businesses to spring for the Acela and potentially defecting to bus operators. If Amtrak does this, they're going to over-saturate the region with Acelas [which don't go much faster than Regionals north of NYP] and either pricing will become indistinct between the two (already happening) or quite a bit of traffic is going to get squeezed out. Both might happen if pricing becomes indistinct at too high of a price point, but at a bare minimum the Acela/Regional distinction will become a total muddle up there.

Why is that a bad thing? Well, the Acelas are never going to have much over 400 seats/train in capacity while a 10-car Regional can get to 638 (more if you tinker with the consist and sell seats in a half-cafe instead of having a full cafe). At 11 seats that becomes around 710 and at 12 it becomes either 782 (10 coach cars, 1 BC, 1 cafe) or 762 (10 coach cars, 2 BC/Cafe cars). If pricing distinction falls apart, then those Regionals start earning more than the Acela does on a per-slot basis: If a 700-seat Regional earns $0.50/seat-mile ($350/train-mile) then a 400-seat Acela has to earn $0.875/seat-mile to match (a 75% premium). If the Acela cannot command that premium over the Regional but you end up with similar load factors then the Regional is arguably a better deal for Amtrak. Put more plainly, there are clear situations where Amtrak would do better mass-selling cheaper seats than trying to force an upsell for less seats.

Your summary assumes that there is more coach capacity to be had. It is getting to the point that the only thing left to send above NHV is an Acela set unless you're going to just abandon the ridership and/or hope people will move to the later trains.

There's a slight difference in philosophy between Zone 1 Acelas and Zone 2 Acelas, particularly during off peak and weekend trips. Sometimes, it is not about distinction of services. It is merely moving sheer amounts of people. There have been days where they've sent Acela sets with no up charge into Zone 1 just to deal with the capacity issues. By putting BOS, RTE, and PVD on Acela and saying "make a run for it," you open up seats on a regional for your MYS, KIN, and NLC passengers (as an example.) This is major factor in the winter, when Boston has a "hard" 9 car limit, so 10 and 11 cars aren't even feasible.

So while you are probably spot on with the regional making more the an Acela, without it, you may a significant source of additional revenue and riders?

In application of this post, Amtrak has now added a SAT round trip Acela NYP-BOS with the set originating in BOS terminating at NYP. NYP-BOS leg will be an extension of an existing WAS-NYP trip.

To accommodate these trains, train 147 and train 194 had to alter their schedules to fit into the NYP and Metro-North weekend track profiles.

 

[keelhauled]

HOLY CRAP!!! Amtrak *added* a train? Judging by the comments from the peanut gallery, I didn't know such a thing was possible.

 

[SarahZ]

HOLY CRAP!!! Amtrak *added* a train? Judging by the comments from the peanut gallery, I didn't know such a thing was possible.

The Michigan routes add extra trains during Thanksgiving, and they've had some extras during other holidays as well. It happens.

 

[afigg]

HOLY CRAP!!! Amtrak *added* a train? Judging by the comments from the peanut gallery, I didn't know such a thing was possible.

The NYP-BOS train is being added on Saturday, not a weekday. Amtrak currently runs only 11 BOS-NYP trains each way on Saturday, this would make 12. The 39 train restriction om the Shore Line East limits Amtrak to 19 NYP-BOS trains each way on weekdays. On weekends, there are more track work conflicts, so those have to be accommodated.

In the monthly reports, Amtrak adds up the ridership for the entire month. I think it would be interesting to see the long term trends for NEC ridership broken down into weekdays, Saturday, and Sunday. I wouldn't be surprised if ridership was growing a bit faster on weekends than on weekdays due to more people taking Amtrak for leisure and personal trips on the NEC.

 

[Thirdrail7]

Keep a sharp watch for timetable changes in April. Now that the overhaul program is completed, you are likely to see more weekend Acela service on the Shoreline.

 

[Triley]

Keep a sharp watch for timetable changes in April. Now that the overhaul program is completed, you are likely to see more weekend Acela service on the Shoreline.

Too bad the job probably won't go to Boston!

 

[gatelouse]

Keep a sharp watch for timetable changes in April. Now that the overhaul program is completed, you are likely to see more weekend Acela service on the Shoreline.

Looks like an updated weekend Acela schedule is already in Arrow, effective April 8. Between BOS and NYP, re-timed Acela departures on both days, and an extra train on Sunday in each direction.

 

[Skyline]

Welcome to AU, it's always good to have new members join us! And Philly is a great City, we had our Annual 2012 Gathering there.

We've discussed the PHL-CHI direct train topic many times, what is most likely to occur first is the run thru cars from the Pennsy to the Cap Ltd in PGH. This would allow one to have Dinner on the Train and eliminate hanging around the dungeon that is the PGH Station waiting on the Cap.

Once the equipment is available and it can be worked out with the Class I Roads, lots of us think a resumption of the Broadway Ltd. is the ideal way to roll but that is a longer term project!

You'd need a transition car from single level to Superliner if running a thru car tofrom the Pennsy to/from the CL.

 

[Ryan]

That is accounted for in Amtrak's plan to do that.

 

[jis]

And the Cap does have a Trans Dorm. So that is mostly a non issue.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

Keep a sharp watch for timetable changes in April. Now that the overhaul program is completed ...

Looks like an updated weekend Acela schedule is already in Arrow, effective April 8. Between BOS and NYP, re-timed Acela departures on both days, and an extra train on Sunday in each direction.

After more than 100 posts of our favorite fantasy trains, here's great good news from the real world! More capacity, more convenient schedules, more riders, more revenue. It's all good.

Meanwhile Amtrak should be riding the hell out of the Acelas, wear them out before the new Acela IIs arrive. Otherwise we'll have to suffer thru more than 100 posts about, "Why can't they use the old Acelas on the Keystone line." LOL.

 

[Anderson]

Keep a sharp watch for timetable changes in April. Now that the overhaul program is completed, you are likely to see more weekend Acela service on the Shoreline.

Looks like an updated weekend Acela schedule is already in Arrow, effective April 8. Between BOS and NYP, re-timed Acela departures on both days, and an extra train on Sunday in each direction.

I've been noticing creeping additions to the weekend Acela service over the last year or so. I recall there being only 4x daily Acelas WAS-NYP and two NYP-BOS on Saturday (only one of which was a through train). I think it was about 7-9x WAS-NYP and 5x or so NYP-BOS on Sunday, but I'd have to look back to be sure. There's now an extra NYP-BOS r/t on each day as far as I can tell, but no change WAS-NYP.

One interesting bit: There's an 0610 Acela out of BOS on Saturday, but on Sunday the first Acela doesn't depart until 1110.