MattW
Conductor
So you're saying that if MNRR wanted to run 125mph trainsets, they couldn't? Aren't the Alp46as that NJT is taking delivery of (finished?) capable of 125mph (even if they aren't run that fast yet)?
What is a reasonable distance for commuter rail?
- Thread starter Shawn Ryu
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
Shawn Ryu
Conductor
I dont think they can.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Of course anyone is free to think anything, but the fact is that ALP-46As are capable of running at 125mph. They are intended to do so after the MLVs are certified for 125mph. Other Regional agencies like MARC already run at 125mph. NJT's dual powered ALP-45DPs are also going to be capable of operating at 125mph in electric mode.
Shawn Ryu
Conductor
My commute is about 1,100 miles and about 4 hours door to door. Of course I do this only about once a week and I'm probably far from the ordinary commuter.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
As has been mentioned before currently NJT does not run trains at 125mph. However, NJT specifically ordered it with 125mph capability, which would suggest that they are not lying when they say they intend to use it at that speed on the NEC, specially for outer zone NEC expresses. Notwithstanding that MARC, a much smaller regional agency than NJT, already operates at 125mph.
If you define "commuter service" to be a service that at most travels 90 miles and does not travel at too high a speed, and is operated only by regional agencies, then by definition that is what is commuter service. However, most people do not define commuter service that way, nor in practice do they restrict commuter service within those parameters.
Ryan
Court Jester
Shawn Ryu
Conductor
As far as I know MARC does not run over 200 MPH, none of the lines and pretty sure neither Matinsburg nor Perryville is over 100 miles away from DC.
I never even said commuter rail had any specific definition. I am just saying, regional transit agencies are not capable of building high speed rails nor do they need to. Even with high speed lines hardly anyone is going to commute from 200 miles away.
I never even said commuter rail had any specific definition. I am just saying, regional transit agencies are not capable of building high speed rails nor do they need to. Even with high speed lines hardly anyone is going to commute from 200 miles away.
Ryan
Court Jester
It's easy to win an argument when you change the definitions to suit you.
MARC runs 125 MPH and over 80 miles, which you've claimed earlier in the thread.
MARC runs 125 MPH and over 80 miles, which you've claimed earlier in the thread.
Shawn Ryu
Conductor
Never said anything about that. I knew MARC ran fast commuter trains but they still dont serve areas outside 100 mile radius.
Or 90.
Even with 125 mph trains they arent going to be consistently that velocity.
Last edited by a moderator:
Who ever said anything about 200 mph?
Perhaps they aren't. But in the very opening of this thread, you cited LIRR routes that are 100 miles long, yet said that commuter trains shouldn't run that distance.
Now, who ever said anything about commuting from 200 miles away? In one post you wondered if a Springfield (I'm assuming Massachusetts, though you didn't specify)-Boston commuter line was feasible. That's just shy of 100 miles. There are already 100-mile-long commuter routes in this country, as you pointed out in the opening post.
Now that numerous people (including yourself, in your very first post, ironically) have contradicted your ideas, you're trying to change your stance just so you can be "right" with your argument.
Quite frankly, I'm not sure what the purpose of this thread is. But, I think we can safely say that nobody would commute 100,000,000 miles per day, and no commuter agency would ever get funding to build HSR line capable of running 6,375 mph. But if we find any people that do, or any trains that can run that fast, we won't count them because they don't count for the purposes of the argument I'm making.
Shawn Ryu
Conductor
Im not trying to argue anything. And I am going with the definition of high speed rail as anything that goes over 200 million, now this naturally means Acela is not a high speed rail, but I am also assuming US will eventually build one.
Just wondering if the idea of commuter train from Boston to Springfield is plausible. I mean if ran by your regular MBTA diesel locomotive, will people find it convenient in terms of time to get to Boston or to arrive to Springfield from Boston?
Now I admit I may have contradicted my post saying 90 mile commute or higher sounds pretty uncommon but it does happen, I know that part.
Just wondering if the idea of commuter train from Boston to Springfield is plausible. I mean if ran by your regular MBTA diesel locomotive, will people find it convenient in terms of time to get to Boston or to arrive to Springfield from Boston?
Now I admit I may have contradicted my post saying 90 mile commute or higher sounds pretty uncommon but it does happen, I know that part.
Ryan
Court Jester
Then perhaps you should have started a thread asking that question, rather than spend 37 posts playing word games.
Shawn Ryu
Conductor
Maybe, but someone brought up TGV so...
George Harris
Engineer
OooooKayyyy: On this basis, the Shinkansen sytem is not high speed rail. In general they top out at 270 km/h = 168 mph. The original TGV trains topped out at 300 km/h = 186 mph. Only in the last few years has anybody gone to running 350 km/h = 217 km/h. Forget the well publicised TGV run in April 2007 that got up to 574.8 km/h = 357.2 mph. Lots of planning and special features. Also lots of instrumentation and analysis. If you wnat the results, you would find that it would be easier to get the secrets of the French Atomic Bomb easier.
Using the 200 mph as a basis, then the Shinkansen is not high speed rail. The first TGV was not high speed rail. We are off into the land of nonsense now. This is playing Calvinball.
The Japanese truly are the grandfathers of modern day high speed technology, theory, and operation, and yet you are creating a definition that shuts them out of the game. I think it is time to adjust theory based on known reality, not ignore known reality where it disagrees with theory. By the way, that thought process is not unique. There is a lot of it in most fields, even where the theory can easily be disproven experimentally.
Shawn Ryu
Conductor
Really? 168? Never knew that.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Goes over 200 million what? Assuming you meant 200mph, why did you choose 200mph and not 186mph which is the speed at which most of the world's current HSR systems top out? Why not 150mph? Because you want to make sure that Acela is not HSR? Or is there another cogent reason? It seems like you just try to pick up random numbers out of thin air and then carry on arguing about them, and mid-discussion you change the numbers and the discussion. That is not a very constructive way of having a purposeful discussion I am afraid.
You can see a five page worth of discussion of this very subject on railroad.net here. Go knock yourself out
Green Maned Lion
Engineer
NJ Transit and the MTA both operate with a level of funding that, if proportioned to current route miles, would allow Amtrak to run all the long distance rail routes various people have been dreaming about for the past 40 years. Actually, forget the proportioning thing. They could still do it without that. The idea that commuter rail is underfunded for excessive capital projects is... misguided. I'll just say three words to counter that: East Side Access.
I make my living building office chairs out of car seats and then selling them on Saturday and Sunday at the Englishtown Auction Sales flea market 20 miles or so from my home. I have several friends there that commute to this as their only place of business from places as far away as Williamsport, 205 miles away.
That Williamsport gal gets up at 3 in the morning to get there by 7:30 in the morning, works from 7:30 until about 4:00, and drives back. I will, hopefully, be moving out soon, and I'm looking to buy a home in the Hazleton/Bloomsburg area- its the rust belt, land is cheap, and I need a lot of land for my manufacturing business. I'll be commuting 140 miles to work, twice a week.
If there was a rail line that would take me from Hazleton to Englishtown (even with connections) when I don't have new product to hall, you can bet your arse I'd use it!
rrdude
Engineer
You can bet your arse that if true HSR was available for a commuter run of 200, hell, even 300 miles, I would be the first to use it. But it would have to be true HSR, which sometimes, is counter to "commuter rail". But it could logistically be done, economically? Well, that's another question........
rrdude
Engineer
Thank you, you have made my night. "Good Night, and Good Luck"
acelafan
Conductor
Maybe we are getting hung up in the definition of commuter rail. Boston is a natural destination being the largest city, but passengers may use a proposed Springfield extension to travel to Worcester or other intermediate stations on the way to Boston. Or, people in Worcester could take the MBTA train to Springfield and then connect to Amtrak's service to Hartford or other places in Connecticut. Right now, people living in between Worcester or Springfield have to drive to one of the two cities to take an Amtrak intercity train; the MBTA extension to Springfield would provide an alternative option to driving and potentially gain other riders in central and western Massachusetts, especially if there was any sort of coordination of schedules between the agencies.
If the Worcester-Springfield and Springfield-New Haven corridor is ever truly modernized (electrified?) then I'd argue it could be equally as fast traveling Worcester-Springfield-New Haven as opposed to Worcester-Boston-New Haven.
Commuter rail does more than just provide commuters a ride to work; it is an important link in a unified rail transportation network for all sorts of travelers.
Nexis4Jersey
Service Attendant
Worcester would become the JCT for 2 other lines , the Woonsocket line and the Ayer line which would run limited trains acting as a connector to the Fitchburg line. Worcester would also have a line to New London , i asked Massdot if they like my purposed 2040 plan they said all but 1 line was under review or in there long term state wide plans. Springfield would become the JCT of 2 lines and Amtrak of course , Greenfield line and New Haven - Springfield line. Lawrence would become the JCT of 2 lines the Manchester / Lawrence line and Haverhill line. Boston is a pull for now in Mass , but the other cities will have there turns later this decade and the next. Of course Boston will always be New England's hub.
Pastor Dave
Lead Service Attendant
I'm currently living in the borough of Mt. Pocono, PA - 90 miles from New York Penn Station. We have 10 buses leaving each day for the Port Authority that would arrive before the business day begins. I also hear of the back-ups at the bridges and the tunnels entering Manhattan on the radio.
Unfortunately, much of the track between the Poconos and Manhattan has either been removed or is unserviceable. But, in the long-term, reviving commuter rail for our 90 mile trip would seem to make some sense.
Dollar wise I cannot comment. I am not an economist (some say I'm not much of a pastor either :help: But, a commuter bus pass is $137.50 per week and over the long-haul I think commuter rail could be as cost effective. Then again, I could be wrong.
Unfortunately, much of the track between the Poconos and Manhattan has either been removed or is unserviceable. But, in the long-term, reviving commuter rail for our 90 mile trip would seem to make some sense.
Dollar wise I cannot comment. I am not an economist (some say I'm not much of a pastor either :help: But, a commuter bus pass is $137.50 per week and over the long-haul I think commuter rail could be as cost effective. Then again, I could be wrong.
Dutchrailnut
Conductor
Those 10 buses are less than 4 train cars full, do all buses leave at same time from same location and arrive at same final destination.I'm currently living in the borough of Mt. Pocono, PA - 90 miles from New York Penn Station. We have 10 buses leaving each day for the Port Authority that would arrive before the business day begins. I also hear of the back-ups at the bridges and the tunnels entering Manhattan on the radio.
Unfortunately, much of the track between the Poconos and Manhattan has either been removed or is unserviceable. But, in the long-term, reviving commuter rail for our 90 mile trip would seem to make some sense.
Dollar wise I cannot comment. I am not an economist (some say I'm not much of a pastor either :help: But, a commuter bus pass is $137.50 per week and over the long-haul I think commuter rail could be as cost effective. Then again, I could be wrong.
If railroad had to run 3 different trains on same route each only 2 cars long but with a two man crew the cost already would be more than those few buses.
add to that track maintenance etc and you see than more passengers would be needed.
expect a rail commuter pass for 90 miles to be a bit higher than bus.
as for how long should Commuter distance be, as for railroad it depends if all commuters go end to end or to various locations on same line.
For instance a commute from Old Saybrook to New York may be a bit much, but going from Old Saybrook to Stamford or Bridgeport is very doable, despite the train continouing on to New York with other commuters.
Ryan
Court Jester
Not necessarily, MARC charges $82.50 a week for Perryville to WAS, and $95.00 for Martinsburg to WAS.
It's also a good bet that with higher capacity than the busses, trains would end up carrying more people, so the rest of your comments really don't apply.
