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

Tallguy said:
I, for one, will miss that sleek, Budd fuselage!
Click to expand...
Understandable. Kinda like Queen Elizabeth, the only British Monarch most have ever known, the Budds (Metroliner/Amfleet I/Amfleet II) are the only NEC intercity train most of us have ever known (the Acela being a different thing altogether)

I will only kinda of miss them, the way I miss the skylight on a 1972 Oldsmobile Vistacruiser. To reveal my age, my first train trip was in 1970 (as a kindergartner) on the Penn Central BAL-PHL partly to ride the then-new Metroliner, and we probably drove to BAL Penn Station in a 1969 Olds Vistacruiser. Vistacruiser was synonymous with Station Wagon and I loved it dearly, but then came the 1978 Mercury Marquis with leather, power windows, and quadraphonic 8-track...

I think we won't miss the Budds once they're fully out of sight.

Railfans have noted that these new windows are about 2x as tall as the Budds' making it a lot easier to look out without making a special effort to do so. Legend has it that the Budds had the slit windows to make it harder for kids throwing rocks at trains to hit a window, which, if true, is a very 1960s reason to do anything.
 
Last edited:
In essence, you can at least FEEL like you're riding on the new Acela, especially in Business Class because the setup looks exactly the same!!!! Coach also! But I'd ride in Business Class to get that little extra elbow & leg room!!!! I'm spoiled!! But notice that these new cars have practically the same shape as the Ventures, except like the Ventures, the will also feature their own locos at each end. Hah!! :)
 
Last edited:
Also, another question has popped up. Will Business Cass users also get to use the Acela First Class Lounges at the stations that have them? It will be nice to know this when booking a trip on the Airo trains. :)
 
Jahvon09 said:
In essence, you can at least FEEL like you're riding on the new Acela, especially in Business Class because the setup looks exactly the same!!!! Coach also! But I'd ride in Business Class to get that little extra elbow & leg room!!!! I'm spoiled!! But notice that these new cars have practically the same shape as the Ventures, except like the Ventures, the will also feature their own locos at each end. Hah!! :)
Click to expand...

As a clarification, the new trainsets do not have locomotives on each end. One end will have an ALC-42E Charger diesel adjacent to an auxiliary power car with a pantograph, which will feed electricity from the overhead on the NEC to the Charger's traction motors. (I think the auxiliary power car may also have powered trucks.) The other end is just a cab car, not a locomotive, but with a full-width cab that's styled very similarly to the Amtrak Charger's nose end.

Jahvon09 said:
Also, another question has popped up. Will Business Cass users also get to use the Acela First Class Lounges at the stations that have them? It will be nice to know this when booking a trip on the Airo trains. :)
Click to expand...

One imagines not. These are equipment upgrades for the Northeast Regionals. It is interesting that the Business Class configuration appears to have gone to 2-1 (IIRC, only the overnight Regionals have 2-1 business, because they use the half-cafe club cars). That said, while this Business Class represents a better premium option for the Regionals, the Metropolitan Lounges/ClubAcelas have only ever been for First Class travel (with sleepers regarded as equivalent to first class). I think it unlikely that Amtrak would want to open the lounges to the Regional passengers at all.
 
This has nothing to do with Amtrak infrastructure (at least, in the traditional sense of "infrastructure" that this forum is passionate about), but it's been bugging me for a while, so I feel compelled to note it. Some years ago, walking in downtown Westerly, I noticed the Amtrak bridge had the mileage to Penn Station merely scrawled in chalk on the side of the bridge. (You can see the white label-box thingy where it's scrawled, here)

Then, a few weeks ago, at the Smith St. bridge in Providence, I noticed the same thing--the mileage to Penn Station, again merely scrawled in chalk. (You can see the white label-box thingy where it's scrawled, here)

This is vital information for emergency response apparatus in case some horrible catastrophe occurs--right? So, why are these mileages merely scrawled in chalk, totally unprotected? Or, is the reasoning that, if they WERE encased in some protective structure, then vandals would notice them and attempt to deface them?

OR: maybe, in the era of hyper-sophisticated digital mapping, these chalk scrawls are now purely "ornamental," a relic from the analog age (i.e., pre-1990 or so), since all emergency responders have the mileages of the train bridges encoded in their portable telecomm devices? Curious...
 
DBM said:
This has nothing to do with Amtrak infrastructure (at least, in the traditional sense of "infrastructure" that this forum is passionate about), but it's been bugging me for a while, so I feel compelled to note it. Some years ago, walking in downtown Westerly, I noticed the Amtrak bridge had the mileage to Penn Station merely scrawled in chalk on the side of the bridge. (You can see the white label-box thingy where it's scrawled, here)

Then, a few weeks ago, at the Smith St. bridge in Providence, I noticed the same thing--the mileage to Penn Station, again merely scrawled in chalk. (You can see the white label-box thingy where it's scrawled, here)

This is vital information for emergency response apparatus in case some horrible catastrophe occurs--right? So, why are these mileages merely scrawled in chalk, totally unprotected? Or, is the reasoning that, if they WERE encased in some protective structure, then vandals would notice them and attempt to deface them?

OR: maybe, in the era of hyper-sophisticated digital mapping, these chalk scrawls are now purely "ornamental," a relic from the analog age (i.e., pre-1990 or so), since all emergency responders have the mileages of the train bridges encoded in their portable telecomm devices? Curious...
Click to expand...
That's the official NEC milepost on Amtrak (retained from the NYNH&H days, so north-of-Penn goes by Penn). Therefore all ROW structures like bridges are number-catalogued by their milepost. Obscure detail, but it's of somewhat importance for Amtrak record-keeping.

As for why it's in chalk...probably some work crew long ago was doing something with the structure and needed to placemark it with the internal reference.
 
Last edited:
F-Line to Dudley said:
That's the official NEC milepost on Amtrak (retained from the NYNH&H days, so north-of-Penn goes by Penn). Therefore all ROW structures like bridges are number-catalogued by their milepost. Obscure detail, but it's of somewhat importance for Amtrak record-keeping.

As for why it's in chalk...probably some work crew long ago was doing something with the structure and needed to placemark it with the internal reference.
Click to expand...

Yep, that must be it! Thanks as always. I assume, given that I've seen the mileage chalked x2 now on Amtrak bridges in RI, that many of the Amtrak bridges along the I-95 corridor from South Station to Penn Station would also have it... wish I had the time to take a brief trip to document it all. I love how esoteric the mileages are, like ancient graffiti or hieroglyphics--assuming, that is, that 99.9% of the general public is clueless as to what they signify.
 
Just noticed the mention of mileposts used on Amtrak's NE Corridor. An interesting fact about those mileposts is that it is measured from New York's Grand Central Station. The distance to Penn Station is about five miles longer than those mile monuments.
 
BostonBoy said:
Just noticed the mention of mileposts used on Amtrak's NE Corridor. An interesting fact about those mileposts is that it is measured from New York's Grand Central Station. The distance to Penn Station is about five miles longer than those mile monuments.
Click to expand...
This would make sense because the New Haven RR would have laid down these miles.

It may be that the miles are actually from the NHRR's Harlem River terminal (built at a time when the NY Central had a monopoly on service on the Island of Manhatan).

Later, partnered with both the NY Central and the Pennsy, NHRR served both GCT (just like MNRR still does via New Rochelle and 125th st) and served NYP and points south via the Hell Gate (which could easily be the source of "five miles longer" to New York) as seen in this 1940 map:
CTR_2_New_Haven_map.jpg
 
Last edited:
Arlington said:
This would make sense because the New Haven RR would have laid down these miles.

It may be that the miles are actually from the NHRR's Harlem River terminal (built at a time when the NY Central had a monopoly on service on the Island of Manhatan).

Later, partnered with both the NY Central and the Pennsy, NHRR served both GCT (just like MNRR still does via New Rochelle and 125th st) and served NYP and points south via the Hell Gate (which could easily be the source of "five miles longer" to New York) as seen in this 1940 map:
CTR_2_New_Haven_map.jpg
Click to expand...
Arlington said:
This would make sense because the New Haven RR would have laid down these miles.

It may be that the miles are actually from the NHRR's Harlem River terminal (built at a time when the NY Central had a monopoly on service on the Island of Manhatan).

Later, partnered with both the NY Central and the Pennsy, NHRR served both GCT (just like MNRR still does via New Rochelle and 125th st) and served NYP and points south via the Hell Gate (which could easily be the source of "five miles longer" to New York) as seen in this 1940 map:
CTR_2_New_Haven_map.jpg
Click to expand...
Arlington said:
This would make sense because the New Haven RR would have laid down these miles.

It may be that the miles are actually from the NHRR's Harlem River terminal (built at a time when the NY Central had a monopoly on service on the Island of Manhatan).

Later, partnered with both the NY Central and the Pennsy, NHRR served both GCT (just like MNRR still does via New Rochelle and 125th st) and served NYP and points south via the Hell Gate (which could easily be the source of "five miles longer" to New York) as seen in this 1940 map:
CTR_2_New_Haven_map.jpg
Click to expand...
 
So I recently came across this thing, and I really don't know what to think of it - I'm putting it here because NY Penn is the center of the Amtrak NEC universe, even as this isn't strictly a Amtrak thing, it would probably affect its operations. Apparently, a advocacy group called RethinkNYC has a series of proposals to revamp NYC area rail stations, the cornerstone of which appears to be a massive rethink of how trains transit through Penn. Basically, once the gateway tunnels into NJ are built, they want to pair match the East River tunnels and instead of having MTA LIRR/Metro North and NJ Transit trains terminate at Penn, through run LIRR trains into NJT territory and vice versa. they claim that doing so decreases traffic conflicts and dwells enough that you can then reduce the number of tracks at NYP by nearly half to accommodate wider platforms and more vertical circulation for a better passenger experience.

Screenshot 2023-02-03 172236.jpg
Screenshot 2023-02-03 172307.jpg


In principle, that sounds like a reasonably rational thing to pursue, except for reality. For the moment disregarding the completely incompatible electrification technologies of LIRR and NJT, which they do as well, this seems to completely ignore the political realities of transit in the NYC Metro, which seems to be one of the most balkanized anywhere in the world - PATH, NYCT, NJT and the MTA Railroads all seem to just barely tolerate each others existence, not to mention perennial NY/NJ conflicts, so I really can't see them agreeing to this. These guys seem to have money and some heft to throw around, getting mainstream coverage and hosting events, but almost seem to completely handwave reality in favor of the ideal. I doubt their numbers stand up to any sort of scrutiny. Frankly, I can't tell if these guys are just NYC NIMBY types with money to throw at it.

Case in point, what caught my attention in the first place: This Bloomberg Article is likely paywalled, but they had an event to showcase 3 architectural visions for a "New Penn," but clearly their centerpiece is their proposal to rebuild the 1910 Penn Station. which can allegedly be done affordably "by employing newer fabrication technologies such as 3-D printing." The other designs were a glassy shell of Madison Square Garden thing, or a park and glass shell (See attached) - nothing vaguely allowing development of new buildings, which seems to be at least 70% of their objection to the Cuomo/Hochul plan, which they attack as a handout to billionaire developers. Unrealistic in almost every way, But would I love to experience a rebuilt Penn that feels like a airy modern global station? Yea, I would.

1600x-1 (2).jpg

Stikeman+-+Penn+Station+concourse+FINAL.jpg

Modernized Penn Station — Rethink Penn Station NYC

www.rethinkpennstationnyc.org www.rethinkpennstationnyc.org
 

Attachments

  • 1600x-1.jpg
    1600x-1.jpg
    299.7 KB · Views: 89
  • 1600x-1 (1).jpg
    1600x-1 (1).jpg
    463.2 KB · Views: 89
Last edited:
Stlin said:
Basically, once the gateway tunnels into NJ are built, they want to pair match the East River tunnels and instead of having MTA LIRR/Metro North and NJ Transit trains terminate at Penn, through run LIRR trains into NJT territory and vice versa. they claim that doing so decreases traffic conflicts and dwells enough that you can then reduce the number of tracks at NYP by nearly half to accommodate wider platforms and more vertical circulation for a better passenger experience.
Click to expand...

What people fail to understand is that trains already run through Penn: LIRR has the West Side Yard (where Hudson Yards is now) and NJT stores trains in Sunnyside Yards in Queens. The problem is terminating operations at Penn which require trains to be emptied and cleared. That takes a lot of time and is something that shouldn't be done in the heart of the CBD where you want the most capacity. The problem here is that the platforms would need to be expanded to allow for higher passenger egress, something the narrow platforms are unsuited for.

But the ultimate monkey wrench is Amtrak. Their regional/cross country services require totally different operations and would still need space at Penn. That reduces the number of platforms LIRR and NJT (soon, Metro North) can use. With those reduced, the overall capacity increases are more negligible. A lot of transit folks are saying that the proposed Penn South expansion isn't needed, but it very well might be sooner than later. Through-running is held up as this panacea, which it will ultimately fail at, rather than just a run-of-the-mill best practice to build on.
 
Stlin said:
So I recently came across this thing, and I really don't know what to think of it - I'm putting it here because NY Penn is the center of the Amtrak NEC universe, even as this isn't strictly a Amtrak thing, it would probably affect its operations. Apparently, a advocacy group called RethinkNYC has a series of proposals to revamp NYC area rail stations, the cornerstone of which appears to be a massive rethink of how trains transit through Penn. Basically, once the gateway tunnels into NJ are built, they want to pair match the East River tunnels and instead of having MTA LIRR/Metro North and NJ Transit trains terminate at Penn, through run LIRR trains into NJT territory and vice versa. they claim that doing so decreases traffic conflicts and dwells enough that you can then reduce the number of tracks at NYP by nearly half to accommodate wider platforms and more vertical circulation for a better passenger experience.

View attachment 33819View attachment 33820

In principle, that sounds like a reasonably rational thing to pursue, except for reality. For the moment disregarding the completely incompatible electrification technologies of LIRR and NJT, which they do as well, this seems to completely ignore the political realities of transit in the NYC Metro, which seems to be one of the most balkanized anywhere in the world - PATH, NYCT, NJT and the MTA Railroads all seem to just barely tolerate each others existence, not to mention perennial NY/NJ conflicts, so I really can't see them agreeing to this. These guys seem to have money and some heft to throw around, getting mainstream coverage and hosting events, but almost seem to completely handwave reality in favor of the ideal. I doubt their numbers stand up to any sort of scrutiny. Frankly, I can't tell if these guys are just NYC NIMBY types with money to throw at it.

Case in point, what caught my attention in the first place: This Bloomberg Article is likely paywalled, but they had an event to showcase 3 architectural visions for a "New Penn," but clearly their centerpiece is their proposal to rebuild the 1910 Penn Station. which can allegedly be done affordably "by employing newer fabrication technologies such as 3-D printing." The other designs were a glassy shell of Madison Square Garden thing, or a park and glass shell (See attached) - nothing vaguely allowing development of new buildings, which seems to be at least 70% of their objection to the Cuomo/Hochul plan, which they attack as a handout to billionaire developers. Unrealistic in almost every way, But would I love to experience a rebuilt Penn that feels like a airy modern global station? Yea, I would.

View attachment 33821
View attachment 33822

Modernized Penn Station — Rethink Penn Station NYC

www.rethinkpennstationnyc.org www.rethinkpennstationnyc.org
Click to expand...

Id love to see the US grab some of the spirit of Germany as far as rebuilding lost historic sites. Maybe this would be the catalyst for a new movement?
 
Stlin said:
The other designs were a glassy shell of Madison Square Garden thing



Modernized Penn Station — Rethink Penn Station NYC

www.rethinkpennstationnyc.org www.rethinkpennstationnyc.org
Click to expand...

I personally think that the Glass MSG would be a cool, modern looking option. That would probably be the best use of space as the footprint would be much smaller than the 1910 built (which is a pretty ridiculous thing to want to do imo). Never mind the through-running as that just seems way too pie-in-the-sky. The separated agencies and multiple states being involved would end up being way too complex.
 
Stlin said:
So I recently came across this thing, and I really don't know what to think of it - I'm putting it here because NY Penn is the center of the Amtrak NEC universe, even as this isn't strictly a Amtrak thing, it would probably affect its operations. Apparently, a advocacy group called RethinkNYC has a series of proposals to revamp NYC area rail stations, the cornerstone of which appears to be a massive rethink of how trains transit through Penn. Basically, once the gateway tunnels into NJ are built, they want to pair match the East River tunnels and instead of having MTA LIRR/Metro North and NJ Transit trains terminate at Penn, through run LIRR trains into NJT territory and vice versa. they claim that doing so decreases traffic conflicts and dwells enough that you can then reduce the number of tracks at NYP by nearly half to accommodate wider platforms and more vertical circulation for a better passenger experience.

View attachment 33819View attachment 33820

In principle, that sounds like a reasonably rational thing to pursue, except for reality. For the moment disregarding the completely incompatible electrification technologies of LIRR and NJT, which they do as well, this seems to completely ignore the political realities of transit in the NYC Metro, which seems to be one of the most balkanized anywhere in the world - PATH, NYCT, NJT and the MTA Railroads all seem to just barely tolerate each others existence, not to mention perennial NY/NJ conflicts, so I really can't see them agreeing to this. These guys seem to have money and some heft to throw around, getting mainstream coverage and hosting events, but almost seem to completely handwave reality in favor of the ideal. I doubt their numbers stand up to any sort of scrutiny. Frankly, I can't tell if these guys are just NYC NIMBY types with money to throw at it.

Case in point, what caught my attention in the first place: This Bloomberg Article is likely paywalled, but they had an event to showcase 3 architectural visions for a "New Penn," but clearly their centerpiece is their proposal to rebuild the 1910 Penn Station. which can allegedly be done affordably "by employing newer fabrication technologies such as 3-D printing." The other designs were a glassy shell of Madison Square Garden thing, or a park and glass shell (See attached) - nothing vaguely allowing development of new buildings, which seems to be at least 70% of their objection to the Cuomo/Hochul plan, which they attack as a handout to billionaire developers. Unrealistic in almost every way, But would I love to experience a rebuilt Penn that feels like a airy modern global station? Yea, I would.

View attachment 33821
View attachment 33822

Modernized Penn Station — Rethink Penn Station NYC

www.rethinkpennstationnyc.org www.rethinkpennstationnyc.org
Click to expand...
I enjoy the graphics and I'm also struggling to imagine this working in reality.

The intercity trains need another level/set of platforms. The passengers will act very differently than commuter platforms because of the difference in luggage and traveller group size. In addition, the way that trains interface with platforms is fairly different between the commuter trains and intercity trains. This proposal doesn't seem to seriously take into consider what the intercity rail operations are like and are only maximizing for commuter through-running.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top