Why is the NE corridor so slow?

[Texan Eagle]

No, I am not smoking anything funny nor is this attempt to mock the other similarly titled thread. I am serious.

I was showing a video from my Acela 150 mph ride to a railfan in India when he pointed out- this is just show-off. Look at the bigger picture. Boston to Washington the Acela Express manages average speed of only around 105 km/hr (68 mph) in spite of allowed maximum speed of 150/135 mph, while the NE Regionals are even slower, managing end to end speed between 94 km/hr (58 mph) and 89 km/hr (56 mph).. (excluding the overnighter that has an even slower schedule on purpose). Compare this with the Delhi-Kolkata corridor of Indian Railways where the premium trains manage end to end average speed of 80-89 km/hr, almost as much as most of the NE Regionals, in spite of maximum speed allowed for the Indian trains being only 130 km/hr (81 mph) while NE Regionals are allowed track speed of 200 km/hr (125 mph).

It took me a while to digest this and I thought some numbers must be wrong, but I checked the Corridor schedules and it seems to be true

So.. how come trains allowed to go up to 125 mph manage to clock only 56-58 mph average speed if elsewhere trains with maximum speed of 81 mph can clock average speeds around 50-55 mph in 150% saturated corridors? What am I missing?

 

[OBS]

Speed restrictions on Metro North is one problem.

 

[cirdan]

No, I am not smoking anything funny nor is this attempt to mock the other similarly titled thread. I am serious.

I was showing a video from my Acela 150 mph ride to a railfan in India when he pointed out- this is just show-off. Look at the bigger picture. Boston to Washington the Acela Express manages average speed of only around 105 km/hr (68 mph) in spite of allowed maximum speed of 150/135 mph, while the NE Regionals are even slower, managing end to end speed between 94 km/hr (58 mph) and 89 km/hr (56 mph).. (excluding the overnighter that has an even slower schedule on purpose). Compare this with the Delhi-Kolkata corridor of Indian Railways where the premium trains manage end to end average speed of 80-89 km/hr, almost as much as most of the NE Regionals, in spite of maximum speed allowed for the Indian trains being only 130 km/hr (81 mph) while NE Regionals are allowed track speed of 200 km/hr (125 mph).

It took me a while to digest this and I thought some numbers must be wrong, but I checked the Corridor schedules and it seems to be true

So.. how come trains allowed to go up to 125 mph manage to clock only 56-58 mph average speed if elsewhere trains with maximum speed of 81 mph can clock average speeds around 50-55 mph in 150% saturated corridors? What am I missing?

It would be interesting to see the internal working timetables of Indian Railways.

I believe most Amtrak schedules have generous recovery time. So possibly the internal working timetables actually have earlier arrival times.

I know in the UK recovery times has crept up over the years in the railroads' battle for better punctuality statistics. Slapping on some extra minutes of recovery is easier than addressing the core problem of why delays occur in the first place, so for lazy managment it's often the easy way out.

And then there is the question of priority. If for example there is a slow train (a commuter train maybe, or an all-stops milk train) and an express coming in behind on the same line. How do you handle the overtaking? Do you schedule the slow train to be well ahead of the fast, creating a lot of recovery margin, and then hold the slow train in the hole for maybe 15 minutes so the fast can thunder past? Or do you sail closer to the wind and hold the slow for maybe only 3 minutes, with the consequential risk that if the slow is slightly late, the express will also have to wait? If you have a lot of margin, the fast train will rarely be delayed by the slow, but the slow will suffer through the long wait and this will press its average speed evern lower. If you reduce the wait time, you increase conflicts with the fast and may have to accept lower punctuality or have to slap on recovery time. So ultimately you have to set priority and ask are you favoring certain trains at the expense of others, or are you trying to be more democratic and saying no train should be unncessariyl disadvanatges to advanage another?

It would be interesting to compare the working graphical timetables of NEC with those of Indian Railways to see if there are differences in philosophy here.

 

[Ryan]

Speed restrictions on Metro North is one problem.

Curves are another.

To get significantly faster, you're talking about plowing a whole new ROW through the most populated area of the country.

 

[VentureForth]

Instead of calculating end points, calculate to one station PRIOR to the end to get rid of a good chunk of padding out of the total average.

 

[jis]

Redacted since the OP first post has been changed to make this post irrelevant.

 

[Texan Eagle]

Leaving comparison with Indian Railway aside, I am curious to know the Amtrak part- why do Acela and NE Regionals manage average speeds that are around just 50% of their allowed top speed? Is it too many stops, too much padding, too much traffic clogging the network or all of it?

Just curious- how do trains in other countries, particularly in Europe fare in terms of average speed/top speed ratio? Not the HSRs running on dedicated right of way, just good express trains running on regular routes.

 

[Ryan]

Leaving comparison with Indian Railway aside, I am curious to know the Amtrak part- why do Acela and NE Regionals manage average speeds that are around just 50% of their allowed top speed? Is it too many stops, too much padding, too much traffic clogging the network or all of it?

Speed restrictions on Metro North is one problem.

Curves are another.

To get significantly faster, you're talking about plowing a whole new ROW through the most populated area of the country.

 

[George Harris]

One statement made years ago in teh Railway Gazette on the subject of high speed operation was, "The best way to go fast is to avoid going slow." That Amtrak cannot aachieve for enough of the length of the Northeast Corridor to achieve a high average speed.

Do not forget that a high maximum speed was not part of either the Pennsylvania's or the New Haven's concept. The Pennsylvania's maximum speed was 80 mph and the New Haven was, I think, 75 mph.

 

[afigg]

Leaving comparison with Indian Railway aside, I am curious to know the Amtrak part- why do Acela and NE Regionals manage average speeds that are around just 50% of their allowed top speed? Is it too many stops, too much padding, too much traffic clogging the network or all of it?

The short answer is that there are many bottlenecks and slow segments on the NEC. Pretty much the entire state of CT for the NYP to BOS run, although there are some 100+ mph zones in eastern CT. On the WAS-NYP, there are well known slow points - B&P tunnel and Baltimore, 2 track segments in DE, the stretch from 30th St through Zoo interlocking and North Philly is not fast, Elizabeth NJ S-curve, 60 mph restrictions on the Portal Bridge to name just a few.

The Acela trip time goals that been stated in NEC planning documents have been to achieve a 2:15 or 2:20 WAS-NYP time and a less aggressive 3:08 for NYP-BOS. Two hours & 15 minutes for WAS-NYP would be a ~100 mph average speed which would be at least respectable - IMO anyway.

For those interested in additional information on what the proposed improvements projects would be, read the 2010 NEC Infrastructure Master Plan and the 2012 update to the Amtrak Vision for the NEC linked to near the top of the Reports & Documents webpage.

 

[amtkstn]

It was not until 1967 when the PRR raised the speed limit from NYC to Washington to 100 MPH.

 

[George Harris]

It was not until 1967 when the PRR raised the speed limit from NYC to Washington to 100 MPH.

And that did not make for any increase in the many slow spots, such as 30 mph through the tunnels in Baltimore, 45 mph over the Susquehanna River bridge (I think) 15 in approach to Washington Union Station, etc., etc.

 

[jis]

One statement made years ago in teh Railway Gazette on the subject of high speed operation was, "The best way to go fast is to avoid going slow." That Amtrak cannot aachieve for enough of the length of the Northeast Corridor to achieve a high average speed.

Do not forget that a high maximum speed was not part of either the Pennsylvania's or the New Haven's concept. The Pennsylvania's maximum speed was 80 mph and the New Haven was, I think, 75 mph.

Another interesting tidbit is that what used to be primarily freight tracks on the NEC are now the high speed tracks. Naturally they have needed considerable massaging to transform their primary targeted use.

Another significant issue specially for stopping trains on the NEC is that the antiquated Cab Signaling System does not provide any distance to target information, so each train that is going to divert from the fast to the slow line for a stop at a station is obliged to run the entire previous block at Approach or Approach Medium speed (depending on the speed of the crossover) as enforced by CSS. And the block lengths have not been adjusted in dogs years to take this into account. So a lot of trains waste a lot of time doodling along at 45mph on track capable of carrying them at much higher speeds for considerable part of the length of the block. For the first time this is getting fixed between New Brunswick and Trenton, to be extend all the way back from New Brunswick to Newark in steps. This will save a few minutes for each train that stops at say Metropark.

 

[Berliner]

Dwell times on European high speed lines can be quite long at "secondary" stations. If you get on at Berlin Hbf headed toward München, your train will sit at the Südkreuz station for 8 minutes or so before joining the main line. They allow for delays in cities. Despite maximum speeds of up to 300 kph on some lines, average speeds on those lines (between stations) tend to be less than 200, partly because of times and distances required to get up to full speed and to decelerate approaching cities' main stations.

 

[Ryan]

Another significant issue specially for stopping trains on the NEC is that the antiquated Cab Signaling System does not provide any distance to target information, so each train that is going to divert from the fast to the slow line for a stop at a station is obliged to run the entire previous block at Approach or Approach Medium speed (depending on the speed of the crossover) as enforced by CSS. And the block lengths have not been adjusted in dogs years to take this into account. So a lot of trains waste a lot of time doodling along at 45mph on track capable of carrying them at much higher speeds for considerable part of the length of the block. For the first time this is getting fixed between New Brunswick and Trenton, to be extend all the way back from New Brunswick to Newark in steps. This will save a few minutes for each train that stops at say Metropark.

How is this being fixed? Just shortening the blocks, or will there be more to it?

 

[jis]

Variable length blocks, shorter blocks near crossover home signals.

Unfortunately because of the way the ACSES overlay has been done, apparently the distance to target information based braking curve cannot override the CSS enforced signal speed limit. That would have been the other way to handle this allowing ACSES equipped equipment to do the more optimum thing, but apparently no cigar.

 

[Guest]

Why are the trains on the NEC so slow?

In answer to your question Texas the culprits are ACSES, poor planning and poor training.

ACSES because the circuitry for speed changes and restrictions is set so far from the changes and restrictions that the engineer is forced to suppress the penalty far from the point of change or restriction. Gone are the days when intimate knowledge of the territory and surroundings allowed for aggressive braking and faster running times.

Poor planning because these so called visionaries failed to factor in the fact that Amtrak does not own nor dispatch the 51 mile stretch between New Haven CT and New Rochelle NY and consequently Metro North trains receive preferential treatment.

Poor training which is obvious to the few remaining veteran railroaders who still work there, because the job has been 'dumbed down' i.e. ACSES tells you the speed, the dispatchers 'tell' you the rules, the road foreman or trainmaster is just a cell phone call away to remedy any situation.

Here are some facts to ponder:

The New Haven Railroad had a freight train 1st Advanced BO-1, the “Jet”, which guaranteed delivery from Boston to Chicago in 24 hours. Fifty years later Amtrak’s Lake Shore Limited takes almost 22 hours from Boston to Chicago.

The Merchants Limited the New Haven's crack express, with diesel power ,in 1963 would cover the distance from New York to Boston in 3 hours and 55 minutes. The Acela Express, in the same time slot and far from it’s proposed goal of 3 hours, covers the distance in 3 hours and 40 minutes and did not stop at New Haven as did the Merchants Limited.

Forty nine years have passed and countless millions (perhaps billions) spent in track improvements and wire installation and the resulting time cut from the schedule is 15 minutes! Is this considered progress? High speed trains have come and gone. The New Haven’s two forays into HST’s proved to be futile on the existing roadbed just as Amtrak‘s is today. Europe and Japan were bombed in to rubble in WW II and the Marshall Plan rebuilt their infrastructures with an eye on the future. The railroads were built as straight as the geography allowed. The NEC infrastructure dates from the 1800’s taking a circuitous route between industries. The only way to achieve a 'true' high speed railroad is with a dedicated infrastructure and given real estate values in the crowded northeast it would prove to be cost prohibitive.

The Supersonic Transport (SST) the fastest commercial transportation in the world ceased operation after 30 years because it was not financially viable.

 

[jis]

But Acela seems to be somewhat more financially viable than apparently the railroad that ran the Merchants Limited ever was, no? Although i will admit that the comparison can never quite be apples to apples.

BTW, how many runs per day did the Merchants Limited have in its heyday? Just looking for info, since I don;t have timetables from them handy. What was the running time of a run of the mill Boston - New York service train?

At the end of the day what is important is whether a service that is found to be useful by its users is provided or not, more so than raw speed.

As for the countless millions, yes there has been some significant well documented waste. but OTOH, it is not like NH actually maintained their railroad in a state of good repair for the last few decades of its operation. Someone had to spend the money to bring it up to good state of repair again, no?

 

[cirdan]

Interesting discussion.

If it is true that the NEC is so slow, why then is it so succesful?

 

[Ryan]

Because its better than the alternatives for enough folks that it can succeed. Of course, if it were faster, there would be even more demand, potentially allowing for higher fares. The big question then becomes "High enough to support the cost of the upgrades"?

Don't know the answer to that one.