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

gooseberry said:
Long Island? Why and how?
Click to expand...
You didn't read the original Amtrak proposal, did you ?

Try here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/38345039/A-Vision-for-High-Speed-Rail-in-the-Northeast-Corridor

There are five sets of alignments from NYP to Boston mentioned in Section 3.0:
1. Hudson
2. Highway
3. "Air line"
4. Shorline
5. Long Island

But in any event, I just mentioned Long Island because it is a major population center, currently connected to the rest of the Northeast Corridor only through Penn Station. A tunnel route from Long Island to New Haven would be "interesting", but that doesn't mean I am sold on the idea.
 
Instead of spending billions on new ROWs and tunnels, which will face cost overruns, court cases, environmental review, and other assorted delays, why can't existing highway ROWs be used? Simply build an elevated rail bed using the same prefab elevated concrete structures used to connect to the Big Dig in the center medians of existing highways. The project would be 10x faster and cheaper for the same, if not better, result.
 
Lurker said:
Instead of spending billions on new ROWs and tunnels, which will face cost overruns, court cases, environmental review, and other assorted delays, why can't existing highway ROWs be used? Simply build an elevated rail bed using the same prefab elevated concrete structures used to connect to the Big Dig in the center medians of existing highways. The project would be 10x faster and cheaper for the same, if not better, result.
Click to expand...

Because there isn't enough space on existing highway ROWs (in urban areas). Elevated rail would have to contend with overpasses so it wouldn't be that simple. Also highways are not designed with high speed trains in mind so their curves in places would be too much.

A new, dedicated ROW is the proven way to do this.
 
Right. Curves designed for cars at 65 or 75 mph are not adequate for HSR moving at 200+ mph.

And for that matter, the Connecticut Turnpike (I-95) is just about as curvy as the existing New Haven railroad alignment.

(This doesn't mean that a highway alignment couldn't be taken advantage of in some instances.)
 
Space isn't an issue supports can shift from center span to transverse rather easily as required. Look at the highway ramps connecting to tunnels and Zakim Bridge. They shift in this manner to clear all kinds obstacles underneath.

As far as interchanges, the elevated structure simply climbs higher and maintains the grade change if need be for multiple interchanges spaced closely together.

HSR trains automatically tilt to make tight turns. An elevated structure would allow for the track bed to be banked like a race track to further take advantage of this and provide tighter curves than would be normally be possible on conventional track beds.
 
Not only are our high speed trains non existent as of now in this country, but think of this. Currently, Amtrak has a few lines up here in NE. But when it comes to regular trains running, example the MBTA commuter rail, it stops at the states borders rather than continuing past providence and it literally stops at the NH border. While other countries have trains that run regularly between countries that hate each other.

Pretty sad.

However, new transportation has popped up within the as 10 years and many new talk about concepts. I think within a total of 20 years, our environmental impact, transportation, city development and the standard way of living will have drastically changed for the better abse don the way we seem to be moving.
 
MBTA commuter rail is being extended to Warwick RI (and I think beyond, eventually). They'll be happy to run into New Hampshire too if that state will kick in a little subsidy for a change. NJ Transit, SEPTA, Maryland commuter rail, and I think some other transit agencies (St. Louis? Portland OR?) cross into neighboring states.
 
Logistically this would be tough, but would it make sense to create some type of large rail system that ran between Manchester to the north, Boston, Providence, Hartford, Springfield, and Worcester? It would certainly connect a large portion of southern New England.

Obviously with the state of the MBTA and other neighboring transit agencies, I'm not by any means suggesting this will happen, but it's just a concept. Imagine if the states of Rhode Island, MA, Conn, and NH all chipped in? Just a thought I had.
 
Since these agencies are all state-run, they tend not to operate across state lines. SEPTA doesn't run into New Jersey; the NJ suburbs of Philadelphia are served by NJ Transit. NJ Transit doesn't run into PA or NY; the Port Jervis line of Metro North (on the western bank of the Hudson) uses NJ Transit track to get from Manhattan to that part of NY state via New Jersey, but doesn't stop there. Metro North trains from Grand Central to Connecticut are actually run by that state's DOT. Maryland's MARC serves DC, but doesn't extend into VA, which has its own commuter rail network.

The bottom line is that, while some state agencies run trains into other states, they do so on the basis of their own state population's needs (CT commuters need to get to NY) or form contracts to use each others' trackage like the rail systems of different countries in Europe would.
 
czsz said:
Since these agencies are all state-run, they tend not to operate across state lines. SEPTA doesn't run into New Jersey; the NJ suburbs of Philadelphia are served by NJ Transit. NJ Transit doesn't run into PA or NY; the Port Jervis line of Metro North (on the western bank of the Hudson) uses NJ Transit track to get from Manhattan to that part of NY state via New Jersey, but doesn't stop there. Metro North trains from Grand Central to Connecticut are actually run by that state's DOT. Maryland's MARC serves DC, but doesn't extend into VA, which has its own commuter rail network.
Click to expand...

SEPTA does run to Trenton and West Trenton, as well as DE. MARC doesn't go to VA but it does go to WV. They tend not to go too far over the border, but there is a lot of multi-state cooperation in commuter rail.
 
Last edited:
czsz said:
Since these agencies are all state-run, they tend not to operate across state lines. SEPTA doesn't run into New Jersey; the NJ suburbs of Philadelphia are served by NJ Transit. NJ Transit doesn't run into PA or NY; the Port Jervis line of Metro North (on the western bank of the Hudson) uses NJ Transit track to get from Manhattan to that part of NY state via New Jersey, but doesn't stop there. Metro North trains from Grand Central to Connecticut are actually run by that state's DOT. Maryland's MARC serves DC, but doesn't extend into VA, which has its own commuter rail network.

The bottom line is that, while some state agencies run trains into other states, they do so on the basis of their own state population's needs (CT commuters need to get to NY) or form contracts to use each others' trackage like the rail systems of different countries in Europe would.
Click to expand...

This is why we have Port Authorities (http://www.ridepatco.org/stations/routemap.html), though the transfers are annoying if not well planned.
 
czsz said:
NJ Transit doesn't run into PA or NY
Click to expand...

Lots of NJ Transit trains run into NYC's Penn Station.

the Port Jervis line of Metro North (on the western bank of the Hudson) uses NJ Transit track to get from Manhattan to that part of NY state via New Jersey, but doesn't stop there.
Click to expand...

All of the Port Jervis line trains make at least a small number of stops in New Jersey, and some of them make lots of local NJ stops. Schedule
 
The point is that interstate operations tend to be pretty minimal. Of course NJ Transit operates to NY Penn - that's practically its entire raison d'etre.

What there clearly aren't, really, are completely integrated systems across state lines. One system for the Philadelphia metro area, or New York's, largely because of the interstate issues (although I'm not sure why Metro North and LIRR aren't the same agency for anything other than historical reasons).
 
czsz said:
One system for the Philadelphia metro area, or New York's, largely because of the interstate issues (although I'm not sure why Metro North and LIRR aren't the same agency for anything other than historical reasons).
Click to expand...

They are. Both fall under the umbrella of MTA, and are in most respects no different than the North and South side operations of MBCR (which likewise don't interoperate), just with different names (and rolling stock). Two divisions of the same railroad, essentially.
 
To be fair, there aren't many local, European systems that cross national boundaries either. I.e. You can't take the RER from Paris to Brussels. In Germany, which has a federal system similar to the US's, where trains cross state boundaries (however, the Munich S-Bahn does not leave Bavaria), it can do so easily because the S-Bahns are usually just arms of Deutsche Bahn. In other words, Amtrak would have to directly take over the regional rail systems from their respective owners.

Where a drastic improvement could be made is in cities where multiple systems operate, having one, integrated fare system. This may already be the case in New York but not to the extent I'm thinking. What I'd like to see is someone be able to buy a fare card (or a CharlieCard-like plastic card for commuters) in Stamford, use it on the Metro-North to Grand Central, then transfer to the Subway on the same card and then have it as valid fare on NJ Transit from Penn Station to Princeton. So, in that sense, the traveller will have travelled on three different systems but, as far as fares are concerned, he will have bought only one ticket. So, essentially, you're given a fare card (or maybe incorporating it with an open-payment system, like what the NY Metro has trialled, i.e. MasterCard PayPass) and then you have a period (say 3-4 hours) where your fare card is valid. Then have fare inspectors travel the commuter rail systems with handheld devices to check the validity of the ticket.

I suppose you could get SEPTA on board as well and essentially have one fare system from Southwestern Connecticut to Northern Delaware, though fares would centre around the respective cities, mainly because it would be difficult (probably impossible) to ride the Metro-North, Subway, NJ Transit and SEPTA from New Haven to Newark, DE via local transit in the allotted time (again, say 3-4 hours).
 
There definitely should be more integration to that extent. In Japan, you can use the same farecards on transit systems in the entire country! (and not only that, but you can use them as debit cards at vending machines and in certain convenience stores too...or you could even use your phone!)
 
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer/Page/1248542787937/1237405732517

Nothing brand new, but new. Just found it.

I went to NYC this weekend, and the only High Speed Train in North America is the Acella, that is sad. 150mph top speed, but hardly averages even half that due to tracks not being banked in most spots. I saw the train pas at Stamford, very very fast. It is the only train service that profits that Amtrak owns, but a one way trip from Boston to NYC is like $95+.
 
Amtrak is trying to get out of the FRA's requirements for heavier trains. Hopefully this means better looking, better functioning, faster trains at a cheaper off the shelf price.

If amtrak does this, could the T as well for future orders? is there any good rolling stock for the T if so? Can we plug and play some of those Paris trains for the Green Line?

Article

Amtrak Seeks Safety Changes to Allow U.S. Bullet Trains
By Angela Greiling Keane - Jan 2, 2013 12:00 AM ET
Facebook Share
LinkedIn
Google +1
0 COMMENTS
Print
QUEUE
Q
Amtrak will recommend new U.S. rail- safety regulations to allow it to replace its Acela trains in the Northeast U.S. with lighter, faster equipment, Chief Executive Officer Joseph Boardman said.
U.S. crashworthiness standards force Amtrak to use trains that have locomotives on both ends and are slower and heavier than bullet trains used in Europe and Asia, Boardman said in an interview. Those standards reflect that U.S. passenger trains often share tracks with freight railroads rather than operating on their own lines.
Enlarge image
Amtrak Chief Executive Officer Joseph Boardman said, “What we’re really looking for is a performance specification here.” Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg
22:00
Dec. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Robert Stevens, chief executive officer of Lockheed Martin Corp., and Marillyn Hewson, president and chief operating officer, talk about the potential impact of automatic federal budget cuts on the company and defense industry, and the outlook for the F-35 fighter program. Amtrak Chief Executive Officer Joseph Boardman discusses the company's improvement plans. Bloomberg Government's Robert Levinson talks about the implications of fiscal uncertainty for the defense industry. They speak with Peter Cook on Bloomberg Television's "Capitol Gains." (Source: Bloomberg)
4:24
Dec. 17 (Bloomberg) -- "Capitol Gains" profiles the man trying to get Amtrak back on track. Amtrak CEO Joseph Boardman is trying to get Congress on board with his multibillion dollar plans to upgrade the passenger train service and move high-speed rail forward.
Existing standards apply to trains traveling as much as 150 miles per hour (241 kilometers per hour). Writing new rules that relax railcar structural-strength requirements for faster trains “would allow for less use of fuel, quicker acceleration, a different performance profile,” Boardman, 64, said. “What we’re really looking for is a performance specification here.”
Amtrak last month announced it would seek bids to replace its 12-year-old fleet of 20 Acela trains operating between Washington and Boston instead of adding two cars to each train, a plan its inspector general questioned as too expensive. The Acela carried about 3.4 million passengers and produced about a fourth of Amtrak’s $2 billion in ticket revenue for the year ended Sept. 30.
Boardman, in the interview, said he’d like to add at least 10 to 12 trains before beginning to retire the current Acela fleet. The cost, for which Amtrak said it will seek information from potential suppliers in early 2013, may be $30 million to $40 million per trainset, Boardman said.
“It depends on how many we actually would purchase and whether anybody else in this country is going to move forward with high-speed trainsets,” he said.
Train Competition
Amtrak in 1996 signed a contract valued at $1.2 billion to buy the original Acelas, which operate much more slowly than their maximum speed on most of the Northeast Corridor due to the limitations of tracks and tunnels.
Companies including Siemens AG (SIE), Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. (7011) and Hitachi Ltd. (6501) may want to compete with Bombardier Inc. (BBD/B) and Alstom SA (ALO), the joint suppliers of Acela equipment used since the service’s start 12 years ago. Amtrak is subject to rules that require its equipment to be made in the U.S.
Safety standards for passenger trains operating at more than 150 mph are being developed, Kevin Thompson, a spokesman for the Federal Railroad Administration, said in an e-mail. Amtrak is “working with FRA and other members of the Railroad Safety Advisory Council to better define the car strength criteria for higher-speed passenger equipment,” he said.
Amtrak’s long-term plan for high-speed service in the Northeast envisions those trains running on dedicated tracks.
Congress Challenge
Boardman, who was FRA administrator from 2005 to 2008, said he’ll also challenge Congress this year to commit to maintaining taxpayer funding for long-distance train service outside the Northeast Corridor, so it can get the best value on equipment purchases.
Amtrak will be up for reauthorization by Congress in 2013, as the railroad’s chief critic in the House, Florida Republican John Mica, relinquishes his seat as chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee due to term limits.
Representative Bill Shuster, a Pennsylvania Republican who has said taxpayer subsidies for Amtrak are inevitable, will assume the panel’s chairmanship this month. Amtrak has never made an annual profit and received about $1.4 billion in taxpayer aid in the 2012 fiscal year.
“Until Congress establishes that reliable funding source for rail infrastructure investment, it’s going to be very difficult to take advantage of millions of dollars available from the private sector,” Boardman said.
Non-Cash Returns
Boardman, who became Amtrak’s CEO in 2008, said it won’t be easy to convince budget-conscious lawmakers to spend more money on a transportation service they sometimes hold out as an example of waste. Mica held a series of hearings last year to criticize Amtrak’s subsidies, especially on long-distance trains, and its $151 billion proposal to build a high-speed system in the Northeast.
“It’s always that way in business; there are always scarce resources for the things that you want to do,” he said. “So you continue to look for the returns. Those are not always returns in cash money.”
Mica’s staff in September released a report showing taxpayers have provided Amtrak subsidies of $50.97 per ticket sold for the past five years, an amount Boardman said needs to be compared with taxpayer support for highways and airports.
President Barack Obama made establishing high-speed rail passenger service in the U.S. a priority shortly after taking office in 2009. U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood last week in a blog post said that vision still exists even after states including Florida and Ohio rejected grant money they’d received to build such projects.
To contact the reporter on this story: Angela Greiling Keane in Washington at agreilingkea@bloomberg.net
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top