LD on downward path

[neroden]

One theme that is constant throughout this forum is how convenient Amtrak

travel is, especially comparing to the airlines.

Well, there are many things that make Amtrak REALLY INCONVENIENT,

that nobody wants to talk about.

None of your complaints about stations apply to any of the stations I go to. Syracuse is a smaller station -- it has checked luggage, a comfortable-enough waiting room, with two fast food places in the building.
Yeah, I am told that there are some stations which are in terrible condition and don't have checked luggage... but that's rarer and rarer as stations get redone by the local governments. I've never actually encountered any of them personally (and frankly I don't intend to).

 

[neroden]

Given the likely federal funding siituation facing Amtrak over the next 2+ years against the many outstanding capital project needs, I think the odds are small that Amtrak will buy any additional Viewliners from CAF beyond the 130 car order.

You may be correct. However, Amtrak should buy more, and if they don't, they're fools.
In terms of return on investment, if Amtrak is doing its analyses at all competently, the top priorities are:

1 - Gateway, which Amtrak *cannot* fund and will have to get special appropriations for

2 - Acela II, which is probably going to get an RRIF loan

3 - point-of-sale tracking for F&B, which is well in progress

4 - more Viewliners

Everything else under Amtrak's control is of substantially lower value. Yes, even replacing the NEC catenary.

 

[neroden]

Of course Amtrak would benefit from the higher frequencies on the high

traffic sections, but there seems to be no spare equipment left, so it won't

happen any time soon.

However, Amtrak could have released some equipment redeploying a

few of its LD routes. For example,

Unfortunately the Western routes which one might consider removing equipment from are Superliner routes -- and the Eastern routes which urgently need rolling stock added, can't take Superliners because they won't fit through the tunnels. So basically that doesn't work!

 

[Anderson]

Of course Amtrak would benefit from the higher frequencies on the high

traffic sections, but there seems to be no spare equipment left, so it won't

happen any time soon.

However, Amtrak could have released some equipment redeploying a

few of its LD routes. For example,

Unfortunately the Western routes which one might consider removing equipment from are Superliner routes -- and the Eastern routes which urgently need rolling stock added, can't take Superliners because they won't fit through the tunnels. So basically that doesn't work!

If Amtrak could pull more Viewliners out, they could convert at least one or two trains back to single-level status (at least on the sleeper side). With that being said, this is the biggest issue with the split fleet: It's impossible to actually help the entire system with a single order (you need two orders, inherently more expensive to start with). Now, if Amtrak could somehow at least slap a 20-30 sleeper order onto the back end of the multi-state bilevel order that would be nice (and should cost somewhere in the vein of $100m, assuming a partial upcharge for having to run a new car design) and it would relieve the (seasonally exaggerated) capacity jams on the western routes.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

This came this close to happening till Amtrak's negotiator blew it with UP and brought on a ridiculous demand for huge amounts of money to do this on UP's part!

The two or three folks who have perpetuated this extremely vague claim in the past have never once been able to name or identify whoever supposedly created the rift, what they did to cause it, or why a company as large as Union Pacific felt the need to throw a two year long tantrum over it. Unless more information is forthcoming I'd say it's time to put this unsubstantiated rumor to rest and refrain from endlessly regurgitating it.

 

[jis]

There are also capacity issues on the tracks. Penn Station is crowded, but the Hudson Tunnels are rationed. If free Viewliners started popping up like mushrooms in Elmira, you still couldn't get more long distance trains heading south out of NYC, not even the always-desired day train to Atlanta. Oh, and if the day train to Atlanta made it into New Jersey, it couldn't cross into Virginia until the Potomac Long Bridge is expanded. We all like to see more trains NYC-Chicago, an extended Pennsylvanian or a Broadway Ltd.

That is way overstating the capacity shortage issues, and the claims made are essentially untrue in general. As long as you keep the new trains away from the two commission hours in the morning and the evening, it would be quite possible to find slots for them into and out of Penn Station, and as long as you keep them away from the rush hour into or out of WAS from the south, there would be no problem finding slots for them on the Long Bridge and between RO and AF and beyond.
Specifically, the Hudson Tunnels are rationed (slot restricted 24 slots/hr) 7am to 9am inbound and two hours in the evening outbound on weekdays. On weekends they are rationed (slot restricted 8 slots per hour in each direction) due to single tracking, but Amtrak has adequate slots to add a few more trains here and there. In both cases it is NJT that is maxed out, not Amtrak.

The only current problem keeping us from being able to add a few more trains is lack of rolling stock, and not track capacity on the NEC. There are plenty of slots available most of the day. It is just a matter of doing careful scheduling.

 

[VentureForth]

Edit again: Why is the Cap Limited Superliners? Lack of Viewliners?

Pretty much.

This is just me thinking, but I thought the preference across the system was Superliners unless they serve NYP and can't fit in the Hudson tunnel.

Does the approach into BOS or BON have similar restrictions?

 

[Paulus]

I believe BOS is technically doable for Superliners, but the clearance is so tight that operationally it isn't workable.

 

[jis]

I believe BOS is technically doable for Superliners, but the clearance is so tight that operationally it isn't workable.

The high level platforms would be a bit awkward too. Boston is not designed for Superliner use.

 

[FormerOBS]

I believe a dome car was operated into Boston at least once & the close overhead clearance was so close that it made everybody quite nervous. If they set up a regular operation of very tall cars into BOS, they would have to be very careful every time they did any trackwork in some low-clearance areas approaching the station. I have been told that raising the track by an inch or two could mean ripping a roof off! The other problem is the use of high-level platforms at BOS, cited above.

Tom

 

[neroden]

Amtrak is installing high-level platforms at Schenectady, Syracuse (already in place), Rochester, and Niagara Falls, NY. Presumably any rebuild of either Buffalo station (or of Amsterdam or Rome) will also have high-level platforms. The "high level boarding zone" is expanding, not contracting.

 

[Anderson]

Amtrak is installing high-level platforms at Schenectady, Syracuse (already in place), Rochester, and Niagara Falls, NY. Presumably any rebuild of either Buffalo station (or of Amsterdam or Rome) will also have high-level platforms. The "high level boarding zone" is expanding, not contracting.

True. The only thing holding back such a rebuild from expanding south at the moment is probably funding (you've got some trains still discharging onto hard shoulders), though commuter rail ops are also going to get in the way as well. CSX might also be dragging their feet, but that's always a question mark.

 

[neroden]

In Rochester, CSX basically demanded a full four-track configuration (two passenger tracks with platform, two freight tracks without). Which is a pretty reasonable demand, actually. This might be what CSX demands for high platforms in other areas too. Though the low-boarding commuter rail operations like VRE are clearly a big issue.

Raleigh NC is getting high platforms, so yeah, expanding south.

 

[afigg]

In Rochester, CSX basically demanded a full four-track configuration (two passenger tracks with platform, two freight tracks without). Which is a pretty reasonable demand, actually. This might be what CSX demands for high platforms in other areas too. Though the low-boarding commuter rail operations like VRE are clearly a big issue.

Raleigh NC is getting high platforms, so yeah, expanding south.

In the 2012 ADA compliance report to Congress, Savannah, Jacksonville, Tampa were to get high level platforms (HLPs). In the 2013 report, due to "budget constraints" (sequestration and management problems as flagged in the OIG report), the design work for Tampa and Jacksonville was postponed but completed for the Savannah station. It may take a few years as $50 million a year for station ADA compliance is not adequate when spread over 500+ stations across the US, but there will be HLPs showing up at multiple stations south of WAS.

I don't know what the plans are for Pitttsburgh to Harrisburg with regards to HLPs with the eastern Keystone going all HLP. But when discussing routes for Superliners and bi-level cars, it should be recognized that BUF (or really CLE), PGH, WAS will be the permanent maximum eastern extent of Superliner/bi-level possible operating zones. South of WAS will be complicated with low level commuter coach cars versus single level cars run by Amtrak and All Aboard Florida. AAF is likely to be only HLPs from Jacksonville to Miami over the FEC. Fine for Amtrak Amfleets, not for any future ideas of running Superliners from NOL to JAX down to Miami over the FEC.

 

[jis]

I don't know what the plans are for Pitttsburgh to Harrisburg with regards to HLPs with the eastern Keystone going all HLP. But when discussing routes for Superliners and bi-level cars, it should be recognized that BUF (or really CLE), PGH, WAS will be the permanent maximum eastern extent of Superliner/bi-level possible operating zones. South of WAS will be complicated with low level commuter coach cars versus single level cars run by Amtrak and All Aboard Florida. AAF is likely to be only HLPs from Jacksonville to Miami over the FEC. Fine for Amtrak Amfleets, not for any future ideas of running Superliners from NOL to JAX down to Miami over the FEC.

They can always run over CSX to Miami, though I suspect they won't necessarily run beyond Orlando for the same reasons that they were cut back Orlando the last time.

 

[Metra Electric Guest]

Specifically, the Hudson Tunnels are rationed (slot restricted 24 slots/hr) 7am to 9am inbound and two hours in the evening outbound on weekdays. On weekends they are rationed (slot restricted 8 slots per hour in each direction) due to single tracking, but Amtrak has adequate slots to add a few more trains here and there. In both cases it is NJT that is maxed out, not Amtrak.

Could someone explain (briefly) why the Hudson Tunnels are so "limited" - is this due to signals/train control or is there another factor such as the station itself which really limits the capacity? I recently read an article about the construction just adjacent to Penn where they decked over the open air rights and they were very limited in both access and time constraints (like one hour once a week or some such) for certain work involving shutting down power on the NEC, as well as ability to put columns between tracks (totally understandable).

And a stupid crazy ultra expensive idea which just popped into my head, but for the LD corridor trains a four track tunnel through Manhattan at a diagonal from NJ to Queens with a new Amtrak station midway between GCT and Penn turning all of Penn over to commuter/regional trains (oh darn, I guess that means the Empire Corridor has to get catenary).

 

[jis]

Could someone explain (briefly) why the Hudson Tunnels are so "limited" - is this due to signals/train control or is there another factor such as the station itself which really limits the capacity? I recently read an article about the construction just adjacent to Penn where they decked over the open air rights and they were very limited in both access and time constraints (like one hour once a week or some such) for certain work involving shutting down power on the NEC, as well as ability to put columns between tracks (totally understandable).

Basically the current signaling system allows running a 2.5 min headway at 60 mph which has been determined to be the optimal speed for maximized throughput. That is where the number 24 comes from 60 / 2.5 = 24. Mind you that is the best throughput possible while fleeting through. Unfortunately the real throughput is slightly less due to conflicts at A interlocking at the eastern end of the tunnel, effectively reducing it to somewhere between 22 and 23 per hour.
The 8tph in each direction during weekends due to single tracking comes from the rough computation that reversing the direction of the single track, i.e. having the last train in one direction clear the space between Bergen interlocking and A interlocking and then set things up to start the flow in the opposite direction takes about 10 minutes, leaving 20 mins each hour for flow in one direction. 20 / 2.5 is 8. The single tunnel in service runs E->W for 20 mins, 10 mins for reversing, then W->E 20 mins, and then 10 mins for reversing. For all this to work out correctly the 8 trains have to be ready to fleet through at the max throughput once the tunnel is setuop to go in one direction, and then likewise in the other direction.

Work that requires total stoppage is always done in the middle of the night. No planned work requiring total stoppage is done during day time AFAICT.

BTW, the 2.5 mins headway also allows 90 mph running between Bergen and Newark (Rea) except for 60mph speed limit on Portal Bridge. This allows trains to be prepared to fleet eastbound, and for trains to open up bigger gap between them as they depart Bergen westwards. It is actually quite an impressive bit of operation even by general world standards, specially in main line operations. It runs almost likely a densely operated subway system. It is a sight to behold standing on the platform of Secaucus Junction Upper Level.

 

[Metra Electric Guest]

Basically the current signaling system allows running a 2.5 min headway at 60 mph which has been determined to be the optimal speed for maximized throughput. That is where the number 24 comes from 60 / 2.5 = 24. Mind you that is the best throughput possible while fleeting through. Unfortunately the real throughput is slightly less due to conflicts at A interlocking at the eastern end of the tunnel, effectively reducing it to somewhere between 22 and 23 per hour.

Thanks. So the options for more capacity would be additional tunnels or some sort of ato through the tunnels?

 

[Ryan]

More tracks (which means more tunnels).