Acela & Amtrak NEC (HSR BOS-NYP-WAS and branches only)

Does anyone know a source where I could find track classes/speed limits for some of our current intercity rail infrastructure? I couldn't find anything searching online. In particular, I'm curious what the track class(es) are from South Station to Worcester Union Station. Is that information available somewhere?
 
That information is generally only available in employee timetables, which for a variety of reasons are not usually made public. I've seen a 2006 MNRR and a 2010 NEC ETT (old enough that no one really minds) on the open internet before (PM me if you want the links), but I've never seen an MBTA ETT.
 
Interesting reform in the new Amtrak Bill

The most significant reform in the bill separates the Northeast Corridor route between Boston, New York and Washington, D.C., from Amtrak's other long-distance routes. That will force Amtrak to reinvest profits from the heavily used route back into the Northeast Corridor to help improve train speeds and passenger service, rather than diverting those profits to help subsidize 15 unprofitable long-distance routes around the country.
Click to expand...

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/03/04/390841422/house-approves-amtrak-funding-rewrites-rules-to-allow-furry-riders

What do you think they will spend the money on?
 
Mongo said:
Interesting reform in the new Amtrak Bill

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/03/04/390841422/house-approves-amtrak-funding-rewrites-rules-to-allow-furry-riders

What do you think they will spend the money on?
Click to expand...
Fairly ordinary upkeep.

Accounting and engineering estimates differ, but whether you call the NEC a $100B asset with a 100 year lifespan or a $40B asset with a 40 year lifespan (start by calling it a blend of these) it is easy to think of $1B a year worth of state-of-good-repair work on the NEC (like bridges, ties, rail, catenary, power) that have mostly been deferred but which we will be better off keeping up with.

Much of the electrification is 80 to 100 years old (built for NY Penn and pushed outward) It all needs redoing--esp the big power converters and all the poles that hold the wires between New Haven & Washington (which are mosly 80 years old)

They can sneak in upgrades as they go to allow for higher speed catenaries and regenerative braking but mostly they need to invest just to keep what they inherited.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, the NEC is kind of a mess just because almost everything is worn out, and what's not worn out needs upgrading. The Acela IIs are never going to be able to cruise at their higher top speed if the whole line isn't gone over with a fine tooth comb.

The new legislation is a MASSIVE step forward to getting this done.
 
There are dozens of bridges that desperately need replacement along the NEC. Desperately! Like as in, they're over 100 years old, speed restricted, and still nearly falling into the drink. If this helps fix all that, more power to 'em.
 
That sounds less than pleasant for people with pet allergies.
 
The EGE said:
That sounds less than pleasant for people with pet allergies.
Click to expand...

What About the mammals who have allergies to Primates -- primates are known to shed a lot of hair and scalp dander -- could be rough for some -- TFPIMC

:)
 
This opens up some nice opportunities for travelling with animals for things such as moving or vacations because it's incredibly cruel to fly with an animal. The only alternative to this point was driving.
 
Jahvon09 said:
I wonder if we'll see something like [TGV speeds c. 350mph]
Click to expand...
Nope. Never on the East Coast, and that's OK.

Density is a two-edged sword: it slows you down due to old, constrained Right-of-Way, but it also allows you to connect a whole lot of markets (passenger $) even if you're not going that fast.

David Gunn repeatedly points out that the NEC's advantage is time (city-center to city-center of some of the richest metros in the world), not speed. Japan's Shinkanen debuted at 130 to 137mph, and indeed Acela I has already taken Amtrak's share of the combined rail-air market from DC to NYC from 37% (before Acela) to 75% (today). They kicked the airplane's butt (cut them by more than 50%), basically, and longer, faster Acela IIs are only going to make it worse for the airlines.

Given big cities close together and air service frustrated by congestion, the train can "win" without super high speeds.

We'll also see that tunneling a few miles to new stations under downtown Baltimore and Philly is a cheaper way to reduce door-to-door travel times than would be building and maintaining many many miles of new track between cities.

Eliminating a 20 minute cab ride from BAL Penn or PHL 30th Street to people's true destination at the Inner Harbor or at Center City (or easy transit connections there too) is a bigger winner than going faster in between.

Except for a possible HFD-PVD shortcut, and maybe an LIRR-to-New Haven Sound Crossing, there isn't going to be a call for long stretches of new track, and speeds will never need to get past, say, 180mph (France's TGV debuted at 170mph and that first line now runs at 190mph...and is profitable)

The new, lighter, Acela II trains will print money even if they only rarely get to 165mph (in central NJ, in RI/MA and maybe, one day, on improved lines in northeast Maryland)
 
Last edited:
It's also not really efficient, barring some amazing innovation in aerodynamics, to go much above 200-220 mph at ground level, as China has learned.

Average speed is more important than top speed, anyway. That's all about consistency, consistency, consistency -- track maintenance, good geometry, good station locations, signalling, reliability, proper engineering etc. Incremental improvements over time, not a giant leap. And it does seem that Amtrak is headed that way with the NEC, as best they can manage.
 
Matthew said:
It's also not really efficient, barring some amazing innovation in aerodynamics, to go much above 200-220 mph at ground level, as China has learned.
Click to expand...
For those not following China HSR, Matthew is pointing out that China cut the speeds of its trains pretty much across the board, finding that the last 15% of speed on almost any class of train wasn't worth the costs in safety and extra energy. This included the Beijing-Shanghai line, designed for 350kph to 380kph (217 to 236mph), which was dialed back to 300kph to 320kph (186 to 199mph--the TGV's top speed, and for now, about as fast as people think a train needs to go).

But both the French and the Chinese are using these speeds to beat the airlines in considerably longer (China) or thinner (provincial-to-Paris) than the NEC (which is dense like Japan). China's Beijing-Shanghai line is 1300+ kms long (about New York to Atlanta). Yes, to beat air there, you have to strive for really high speeds. But in the 450 miles from DC to Boston, air and road are mostly hampered by congestion, not travel speed.

Getting Acela II to 165mph and doing so faster (acceleration of new lightweight trainsets) and for longer stretches (catenary replacement), is going to be plenty competitive.

California, with an all new route, is still gunning for 220mph, at least in the farmland (desert) of the Central Valley.
 
Last edited:
It makes sense to go 220 in the empty spaces of the Central Valley where possible, but even there, the route 99 alignment goes through many built-up areas that are going to be very, very unhappy about 220 mph trains wooshing by.

In Japan, they have worked very hard on noise mitigation, which may also be one of the other reasons that they do not use Chinese-style speeds. The planned Chuo maglev will run something like 70% underground, which is crazy. It's also not due to be completed for another 20 years or so... and they need it ASAP... the Tokaido Shinkansen is at capacity with a HSR train running every 2-3 minutes already.
 
^^^^Consistent speed really is the key. Averaging just 90 mph its only 2 hours from South Station to Penn Station. Makes it seem easier to achieve.
 
tocoto said:
^^^^Consistent speed really is the key. Averaging just 90 mph its only 2 hours from South Station to Penn Station. Makes it seem easier to achieve.
Click to expand...

Tocoto -- Exactly -- and the best way to achieve high average speed is not to stop very often

So the rule should be only make an intermediate stop if it is over 1 hour from a major stop -- hence no stops at: Rt-128, Providence, Stamford, New Haven, Metro Park, Wilmington, or, Baltimore

The best express run would then leave South Station, stop at Back Bay, hit typical running speed and then not stop until Penn Station, leave NYC and run non-stop to 30th St in Philly and then run non-stop until the end at Union Station in DC
 
There is very little time penalty to stop at Back Bay. S. Station to BBY is speed limited so making a stop in a busy business area makes a lot of sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top