That conductor is wrong, as is Wikipedia (which isn't surprising for Wiki).
Specs can be found here; about halfway down the page.
Future of the Acela Express
- Thread starter ALC Rail Writer
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
Green Maned Lion
Engineer
Because it is. The sets are dying. The less than 10 year old Acela sets are structurally and mechanically in worse shape than the 35 year old Amfleets! They are expensive to maintain, unreliable pieces of junk and they aren't going to be running that service forever. A while back I was talking to some people at NARP and the word out of Amtrak is when the next round of corridor equipment comes in, they will replace the Acelas, and the Acelas will run out the last 5-10 years of their 20-25 year life running down the Broadway as Keystones, their cafe cars removed.
The Amfleets, on the other hand, will probably continue operating Northeast Regional service for atleast another 15 years. Which is good, because they are damned good cars.
ALC Rail Writer
Engineer
Question is, when will that happen. They don't seem interested in using stimulus monies for NEC cars
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Notwithstanding all the huffing and puffing on this matter from various corners ranging from Gunn to certain unnamed NARP folks, I suspect that the Acelas will be running at least another 10 years. I suspect that the next gen NEC equipment will simultaneously replace both Acelas and Amfleet Is on the corridor. Acelas because they will become too expensive to operate and Amfleet Is because they will become too quaint to operate on premier service
- well they already are but what can one do when you have no money for anything? Afterall the P70s and MP54s also operated on and on and on way past their prime to a point where they were truly quaint.OK, now falling back on old D&D metaphors, I am putting on my double charmed chain-mail before posting this :lol:
ALC Rail Writer
Engineer
Then what is the point of keeping the Acelas. If we spend money to upgrade parts of the corridor to 150 so the Acela can reach top speed a little bit more often then there is no real future thinking?Notwithstanding all the huffing and puffing on this matter from various corners ranging from Gunn to certain unnamed NARP folks, I suspect that the Acelas will be running at least another 10 years. I suspect that the next gen NEC equipment will simultaneously replace both Acelas and Amfleet Is on the corridor. Acelas because they will become too expensive to operate and Amfleet Is because they will become too quaint to operate on premier service
OK, now falling back on old D&D metaphors, I am putting on my double charmed chain-mail before posting this :lol:
And if we upgrade sections to 220 in anticipation of faster future trains-- then we effectively outmode the Acela
Well the point is that you don't thrown away an 8 year old train, especially when you still owe money on it and have no suitable replacement, much less the money to order a replacement.Then what is the point of keeping the Acelas. If we spend money to upgrade parts of the corridor to 150 so the Acela can reach top speed a little bit more often then there is no real future thinking?Notwithstanding all the huffing and puffing on this matter from various corners ranging from Gunn to certain unnamed NARP folks, I suspect that the Acelas will be running at least another 10 years. I suspect that the next gen NEC equipment will simultaneously replace both Acelas and Amfleet Is on the corridor. Acelas because they will become too expensive to operate and Amfleet Is because they will become too quaint to operate on premier service
OK, now falling back on old D&D metaphors, I am putting on my double charmed chain-mail before posting this :lol:
And if we upgrade sections to 220 in anticipation of faster future trains-- then we effectively outmode the Acela
As for improvements to the corridor, any improvements will still benefit Acela at least marginally. And any improvements done that would allow for higher speeds than Acela can do, still need to be done regardless of whether Acela can use them or not. Otherwise we're doing the same thing that we did with Acela, buying an expensive train that can't ever reach its top speed since the track work isn't done.
Of course as has been discussed many times here, there are very few places on the NEC that can ever be rebuilt to allow 220 MPH trains. That's going to require an entirely new alignment. It might be possible to raise speeds above 150 for certain stretches, my guess maybe 175 or slightly better, but again most of the miles on the NEC are not capable of being pushed to 200 and higher.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Where is the money to buy anything to replace them with? What do we do just stop the service and call it a day?
Again, time for reality check. I really doubt that anything on the current alignment will get upgraded for 220mph.
Let us pull out an envelope and scratch a few numbers on it to see how things fall out....
There is a sum total of the current 33.9 miles and the following additional segments that can be pushed upto 150mph, with a little bit of help from FRA in relaxing their underbalance rules on curves:
Mansfield - Rt 128 12miles
With signaling/ACSES upgrade and CT catenary south of New York we can get:
County - Ham 23 miles
Morris - Torresdale 16 miles
Trainer - Landlith 10 miles
Ragan - Prince 30 miles
Halethorp - Landover a little less than 20 miles with several breaks in between
There will be speed restriction lower than 150 between these segments. So even if one could bump up the max allowed speed to 220 in these segments, typically at enormous cost one might add, it is going to be nothing like the TGV or Shinkansen. The problem is one does not get straight shot high speed run over long distances, which is what gives the high average speeds on the true HSRs. And still they will have to run at pokey speeds through most cities, and arm wrestling with enormous volumes of commuter traffic. along most of the corridor. One will be doing a lot of speeding up and slowing down.
The real issue is that for all our troubles to get all these segments upto 150mph we will get a net running time reduction of around 5 mins vs. 135mph in all those segments. The real problem in the NEC is not the top speed, as much as is the frequent and inconvenient speed restrictions that one faces. Amtrak has actually taken the reasonable step of trying to mitigate the worst offenders, e.g. CP Shell, the Baltimore Tunnels etc. the best they can with limited funds. But even then events seem to overtake their good intentions. They put down a good quality railroad in CT only to have Shore Line East setup operations with boarding platforms only on one side of the double track railroad thus requiring trains to cross over from one side to the other all the time, which has negative effect on running times.
Given all this my suspicion is that we won't ever get anything running regularly at over 300kph (186mph) if that on the current NEC alignment. If we are able to get the roughly potentially 150 miles capable of taking 150mph to 186mph, and that is a big if, then we save another 12 minutes. How much is that worth?
So frankly, from a speed perspective, I would not worry too much about outmoding the Acela on the NEC for its effective lifetime which is another 10 to 15 years. Of course if someone comes up with 40 billion dollars to do a completely new alignment that is substantially in tunnels and/or on viaducts like the Shinkansen is, I might reconsider this stance that I am taking here.
I read somewhere that NEC could be"fixed" for $5 billion. i.e. that was Amtrak's wish list. Any idea what that might entail?
Anyway, how much would it cost to fix: 1. Catenary. 2. Baltimore tunnels 3. Wiggly track in Connecticut?
Having captured over 60% of the market over airlines it has certainly been a commercial success.
Anyway, how much would it cost to fix: 1. Catenary. 2. Baltimore tunnels 3. Wiggly track in Connecticut?
Having captured over 60% of the market over airlines it has certainly been a commercial success.
Joel N. Weber II
Engineer
I think the Baltimore tunnel improvements would be worthwhile even if we do eventually build a completely new alignment.
I'm thinking with a completely new alignment to New York City, and beyond there to Boston and to ALB and Montreal, and another completely new alignment roughly along the Crescent route, and another completely new alignment from DC to Pittsburgh and beyond, it would be nice if all the intercity HSR trains to / from the DC area could perhaps stop at Reagan National Airport, L'Enfant, Union Station, BWI, stations for transfering to the Baltimore Metro and the main branch of Baltimore Light Rail, and then Baltimore Penn Station. To make that work, there'd need to be two express tracks plus two local tracks along the NEC from DC to Baltimore so that the commuter trains making all the local stops wouldn't delay the HSR trains making limited stops. And much of the point of the Baltimore tunnel projects is to upgrade to quad track.
I'm thinking with a completely new alignment to New York City, and beyond there to Boston and to ALB and Montreal, and another completely new alignment roughly along the Crescent route, and another completely new alignment from DC to Pittsburgh and beyond, it would be nice if all the intercity HSR trains to / from the DC area could perhaps stop at Reagan National Airport, L'Enfant, Union Station, BWI, stations for transfering to the Baltimore Metro and the main branch of Baltimore Light Rail, and then Baltimore Penn Station. To make that work, there'd need to be two express tracks plus two local tracks along the NEC from DC to Baltimore so that the commuter trains making all the local stops wouldn't delay the HSR trains making limited stops. And much of the point of the Baltimore tunnel projects is to upgrade to quad track.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Really? Any cites? The plans that I am aware of that are currently funded and undergoing final design appear to be two tracks. It will be a long time before we will need more than 24tph capacity on that route, and 2 tracks is more than sufficient for 24tph, even at speed. It is a completely new and straighter alignment BTW.
T
Tim M
Guest
Does anyone know the expected useful lifespan of the existing Acela rollingstock equipment?
When I say "useful lifespan" let me get more technical... I mean, when it's depreciated in value sufficiently to a point where maintenance becomes a fundamental burden on operations costs and a one-time capital investment is considered feasible and worthwile.
Are we looking at 2030, 2040, 2050???? What's the approximate timeframe? A source citation in your answer would be very helpful.
Thank you.
When I say "useful lifespan" let me get more technical... I mean, when it's depreciated in value sufficiently to a point where maintenance becomes a fundamental burden on operations costs and a one-time capital investment is considered feasible and worthwile.
Are we looking at 2030, 2040, 2050???? What's the approximate timeframe? A source citation in your answer would be very helpful.
Thank you.
As mentioned, the Acela's max rated speed is 165 mph. It was officially clocked at 168.8 mph during testing near Kingston, RI.
The speed record for the Northeast Corridor was set many years ago by the UA Turbo Train at 171 mph. Here's a brief clip of the train on its record breaking run at Princeton Junction, NJ:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txXChdhrvtk
The speed record for the Northeast Corridor was set many years ago by the UA Turbo Train at 171 mph. Here's a brief clip of the train on its record breaking run at Princeton Junction, NJ:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txXChdhrvtk
Last edited by a moderator:
Green Maned Lion
Engineer
Amtrak is talking about moving them to Keystone service in about 7-8 years time and scrapping them in about 15.
mucomix
Service Attendant
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=awxB3UV_I3qo
I saw this today and thought it could be of interest with in a Acela topic. Someday I will go east on a trip and I will give the Acela a try. I end up going west in that I’m always up for the erosion tour. I hope it is not to OT I just put it in the first Acela topic I came by.
I saw this today and thought it could be of interest with in a Acela topic. Someday I will go east on a trip and I will give the Acela a try. I end up going west in that I’m always up for the erosion tour. I hope it is not to OT I just put it in the first Acela topic I came by.
Have you heard this from a credible source? Any idea what they want to replace them with?
Green Maned Lion
Engineer
Edit: realized my source might not like me disclosing their identity. But yes, my source is credible.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd be interested in what Amtrak has in mind to replace the Acela.
Green Maned Lion
Engineer
If you want my guess, which is a pure guess and not backed by a source, I'd say an EMU utilizing some method of light-alloy construction to keep the weight in the range of sanity. I'd also expect it to use tightlock couplers for easier adjustability. Its certainly what I'd do if I was running Amtrak and it makes the most sense. I think the Acela has taught them some lessons and that they might have learned enough from them to be more intelligent in the next order of high-speed sets.
battalion51
Engineer
I personally don't buy the EMU idea. If you look at modern railroading, both in the U.S. and abroad, the trend for High Speed Rail is not to EMU. For the most part there are articulated trainsets either with articulated power (like the Acelas) or matched power (like the Cascades). I think Metroliners are the classic example of an attempt at HSR with EMUs that failed. With EMUs each car acts like a locomotive and is therefore subject to more maintenance and having to meet locomotive standards, whereas you don't have that issue with locomotive/power car driven trains. Why Metro North, META and LIRR continue to use EMUs rather than locomotive hauled trains for the majority of their electric fleet is beyond me, but I don't think you'll see Amtrak taking a page out of their books any time soon.
As far as the Acelas going to Keystone, another thing I highly doubt. The trainsets will be just past 15 years old at that point, and I think Amtrak will be hard pressed to get the government to put up the money for a new high speed fleet, unless Joe Biden is President. The Acelas, if maintained correctly (which may be a stretch), should be able to at least match the lifespan of the Metroliner fleet.
As far as the Acelas going to Keystone, another thing I highly doubt. The trainsets will be just past 15 years old at that point, and I think Amtrak will be hard pressed to get the government to put up the money for a new high speed fleet, unless Joe Biden is President. The Acelas, if maintained correctly (which may be a stretch), should be able to at least match the lifespan of the Metroliner fleet.
Actually, if you look abroad, I think the trend is towards EMU. The newest German ICE model, the ICE3, as is the latest French high-speed train, the AGV, and the latest Spanish one, the AVE Class 103 (which appears to be based on the ICE3).
Extrapolating the future from the current generation of American trains like Acela and the Cascades, which have significant shortcomings, and using examples of past EMU trains, like the Metroliners and MN/NJT/LIRR, is hardly a valid exercise in logic.
Green Maned Lion
Engineer
The Metroliners didn't last much more than 15 years. I think they were gone by the mid 80s. The cars lasted on, sure. They still are used as cab-cars- on the Keystones, primarily. A service carried on called "Metroliner" but the original EMU units were gone pretty quick.
As Jackal said, the trend is towards EMU. And in any case, the uniquely curvey layout of the Northeast Corridor places more advantage on the side of EMUs, which are exceptionally fast accelerators, versus powercar-and-coaches trains. Want proof? Stand in Newark Penn some day and watch an ancient Arrow III blow the doors off an Acela roaring out of the station. Its not even close- the Arrow is at track speed before clearing the platform heading north, and almost there heading south.
Note: to shut up JIS's guaranteed rebuttal, I am going to stipulate that my definition of EMU in this instance is the American style of all cars having powered axles.
"As far as the Acelas going to Keystone, another thing I highly doubt. The trainsets will be just past 15 years old at that point, and I think Amtrak will be hard pressed to get the government to put up the money for a new high speed fleet..."
[My first attempt to post here, so please excuse the expected mess-up!]
I don't see a big political problem replacing the Acela equipment on the NEC. Everyone is a bit, uh, disappointed with the Acela, so the desire for an improvement is a given. Everyone also knows that, without pouring in the bucks like bailing out a bankrupt Wall Street house, you won't get much 150+ mph running. The political cover for the needed replacement will be to fold it into a larger order for equipment for other routes that will be electrified and running at 110 to 150 mph. The Chicago-Detroit route, D.C.-Richmond, Cleveland-Cincinnati, perhaps a dozen candidates could come along by then.
And of course, the Boston-NYC-D.C. route could use MORE equipment, not just newer trains.
In fact, all this discussion about shaving 3 or 6 minutes off the timetable here or there, reminds me: The simplest way to cut trip time NYC-D.C. would be to offer departures on the half hour. (My second meeting cancelled and I show up in the station at 15 past a departure, now I get to wait around for 45 minutes.)
I've read that it can't be done because the NEC is already so chock full of trains (Acelas, Regional, Keystones, long distance trains, and hundreds of commuter trains) that Amtrak can't squeeze even one more Acela run into the schedule, much less a dozen.
That claim got rebutted by another expert saying there's plenty of capacity on the NEC south of Newark. In that case, when Jersey Transit diverts traffic to the new tunnel and Manhattan station, some slots should be freed up out of Penn Station.
Then Amtrak would need almost twice as many cars to operate an Acela-successor with half-hour frequencies. In that case, ordering all-new replacement cars would not cause a big stir at all.
[My first attempt to post here, so please excuse the expected mess-up!]
I don't see a big political problem replacing the Acela equipment on the NEC. Everyone is a bit, uh, disappointed with the Acela, so the desire for an improvement is a given. Everyone also knows that, without pouring in the bucks like bailing out a bankrupt Wall Street house, you won't get much 150+ mph running. The political cover for the needed replacement will be to fold it into a larger order for equipment for other routes that will be electrified and running at 110 to 150 mph. The Chicago-Detroit route, D.C.-Richmond, Cleveland-Cincinnati, perhaps a dozen candidates could come along by then.
And of course, the Boston-NYC-D.C. route could use MORE equipment, not just newer trains.
In fact, all this discussion about shaving 3 or 6 minutes off the timetable here or there, reminds me: The simplest way to cut trip time NYC-D.C. would be to offer departures on the half hour. (My second meeting cancelled and I show up in the station at 15 past a departure, now I get to wait around for 45 minutes.)
I've read that it can't be done because the NEC is already so chock full of trains (Acelas, Regional, Keystones, long distance trains, and hundreds of commuter trains) that Amtrak can't squeeze even one more Acela run into the schedule, much less a dozen.
That claim got rebutted by another expert saying there's plenty of capacity on the NEC south of Newark. In that case, when Jersey Transit diverts traffic to the new tunnel and Manhattan station, some slots should be freed up out of Penn Station.
Then Amtrak would need almost twice as many cars to operate an Acela-successor with half-hour frequencies. In that case, ordering all-new replacement cars would not cause a big stir at all.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
But that is not what the current breed of HS trains have. They do have distributed power but only a few have all cars having powered axles. It is just not worth the cost, since you can get the necessary tractive effort using fewer powered axles. The goal is afterall to get the optimum number of axles powered to get the necessary tractive effort at all speeds.
I agree that they will have distributed power. I also agree that they will have EMU capability, i.e. more than one unit will be able to be connected together to operate as a single set. If the US can actually grow up to be able to use Scharfenberg couplers effectively they will even be able to start as a single train from a core city and then be split on the way to proceed to multiple destinations, which is a common practice in France and Japan to make better use of track capacity.
On the matter of EMU, notwithstanding GML's valiant attempt, just having distributed power in a train set does not make it an EMU which BTW expands to Electric Multiple Unit). For it to be EMU it has to be able to operate as a single train operated from the front cab, when multiple ones of them are connected together.
Last edited by a moderator:
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Amtrak and NJT have actually negotiated two additional slots for Amtrak per hour into NYP, and it is possible that one of those could be sued for the service on the half hour.
Taking that into account NJT in the net is not going to divert any additional train from NYP to the new station. It will continue to use the 19 or so slots that it currently has in NYP. The additional slots in the new station will be for additional trains from additional lines that will be connected into the new station.
I agree that finding capacity for one additional train per hour NYP-WAS should not be a problem, specially after all the high speed crossovers are in place in NJ and NJT starts running its outer zone expresses at 125mph.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
