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

I don't understand why grade crossings would limit speed. Shouldn't a train go through them as fast as possible, to minimize the amount of time they are blocked?
 
I think most agencies see grade crossings at high speed as dangerous. (see the Lynnfield? boy recently) The slower it goes, the lower the chance of an accident.
 
Ron Newman said:
I don't understand why grade crossings would limit speed. Shouldn't a train go through them as fast as possible, to minimize the amount of time they are blocked?
Click to expand...

I don't know for certain, but two thoughts:

The faster the train speed, the longer the gates have to lowered in advance of the train's approach, because of stopping distances. I think the signaling is such that if the gates don't lower properly, this sends a signal to the engineer who must slow down (and maybe even stop) before the crossing.

The higher the speed, the greater the risk that a collision might derail the train.
 
stellarfun said:
The other thing that could be done is to lift the restriction on the number of trains AMTRAK is allowed to run between NYC and BOS. The restriction was insisted on by Connecticut yachtsman who wanted the bridges to remain open, except when a train was approaching. They diudn't want too many trains interfering with their freedom to navigate.
Click to expand...
Special interest trumps public.
 
^^ And in other news: Sky is blue, water is wet.
 
About crossings. warning is time-sensitive; The gates must be activated for twenty seconds before the train crosses, so speed only affects the distance of the circuits for the gates. The problem with higher speeds is with the idiot who would mis- judge his chances to beat a train.
I am a Conductor on the Acela and the best time I have run to NY in revenue service is 3:14. It is not unreasonable to believe that 3 hours is attainable with relatively inexpensive, and minor improvements to critical areas.
 
chumbolly said:
The TGV in France routinely travels at close to 200mph, and in 2007 it topped out at around 340mph. We're a good 25 years behind them. I'm sure Amtrak could come up with a litany of reasons why we can't have an equivalent train, but it boils down to this: the French are capable of building great trains, and we are not. The Acela is a stupid train.
Click to expand...

Not only that, the TGV is integrated with other transit. Last month I flew into Charles de Gaulle Airport, got directly on a TGV train to Tours AT THE AIRPORT. No need to ride subways into the city then transfer.

Smart, integrated transportation works. The French (and others) have been investing in it for decades. We sit around and moan about gas prices. Americans are basically stupid about transportation.
 
BostonBoy said:
About crossings. warning is time-sensitive; The gates must be activated for twenty seconds before the train crosses, so speed only affects the distance of the circuits for the gates. The problem with higher speeds is with the idiot who would mis- judge his chances to beat a train.
I am a Conductor on the Acela and the best time I have run to NY in revenue service is 3:14. It is not unreasonable to believe that 3 hours is attainable with relatively inexpensive, and minor improvements to critical areas.
Click to expand...

I flew the other day to Newark (to make a connection) and the flight time was 41 minutes (although the ticket said 1:30 because Newark is a hellhole and thats how long it takes to get to a gate).

I think its reasonable to expect train service to take not more than 3 times airplane service. 41 minutes = 120 minutes. That's what Acela should be aiming for, a 2 hour trip between Boston and NYC. Or in other words, 3x a plane time or 1/2 a bus time.
 
jass said:
I flew the other day to Newark (to make a connection) and the flight time was 41 minutes (although the ticket said 1:30 because Newark is a hellhole and thats how long it takes to get to a gate).

I think its reasonable to expect train service to take not more than 3 times airplane service. 41 minutes = 120 minutes. That's what Acela should be aiming for, a 2 hour trip between Boston and NYC. Or in other words, 3x a plane time or 1/2 a bus time.
Click to expand...

Was your destination Manhattan? If so, how long (and how much) did it take you to then get from Newark to the city? And how long did you have to get to Logan before your flight left? It's not just the total time the train or plane is moving that counts.
 
I agree toatally that a trip time to New York should be two hours or so. That would take a significant investment, however. The payoff would be , of course, that we would expect true high-speed along the entire corridor, and beyond. I believe that it would be a huge boost to the entire region's economy.
I have day-dreamed of an incremental approach to high speed by building the new right of way along the I-95 corridor.
A first step would be to by-pass the Stonington- Mystic area; beginning in Westerlly or Kingston.
The next phase could continue down Rte 95 past New London.
Building a new route through those two areas would redice trip time drastically because of the slow speeds through those areas.
Neaw London to East Haven would be next.
The extra benefit would come from eliminating the costly movable bridges in that area by spanning navigable waterways with fixed spans.
One could also envision high speed by-passes at critcal spots on Metro-North Territory.
bypassing Bridgeport at the Housitannic River and merging with Metro North at Stamford would solve the same problems of curves,movable bridges,and capacity problemsin that area, too.
A pipe dream or great vision. I think it would be a huge success. It would also spawn the creation of feeder lines to hubs. Springfield,Hartford to New Haven, or Worcester to Providence along the P & W.
Any thoughts?
 
^Wait... we have TWO "Boston Boys" now? I had to go back and re-read your posts because our other BostonBoy (I think it's "THEBostonboy" actually) is about 13 or 14 and I couldn't see how he'd be a conductor on the Acela. In anycase, thanks for the posts.

I hope for the days when we can get feeder lines from smaller New England Cities to larger ones. Unfortunately we have a long way to go until then. For starters, some of our smaller cities need rail service, period (read, Fall River, Taunton, New Bedford), and some of the smaller ones that DO have service (Portland) are getting rid of it (unless they find miracle funding). I agree that it would be great to have faster service and spur lines like the ones you mention (and others). Hopefully it's something that rising fuel and airline costs can help push.
 
This Boston Boy behaves like a child sometimes; thinks like a teenager most the time, but feels like an old-timer all the time. 36 years of seniority in passenger service.
 
saulblum said:
Was your destination Manhattan? If so, how long (and how much) did it take you to then get from Newark to the city? And how long did you have to get to Logan before your flight left? It's not just the total time the train or plane is moving that counts.
Click to expand...

My destination was California, but my point being, if it takes only 42 minutes of actual transit time by plane, it's reasonable to want a train taking no more than 120.
 
If you can get from Back Bay / South End station to Penn Station in 2:59:59, I think you have a winner on your hands.

The alternative would be 15 minute ride to the airport (by cab), 30 minute wait for plane (longer in the morning, evening, alternate Thursdays), 45 minutes in air, 10 minute taxi to gate, 10 minute walk to curb, 45 minute ride into city (by cab) (longer in the morning, evening, alternate Tuesdays).

155 minutes by plane vs. 179 minutes by Amtrak. A 25-minute difference, during which I can use my laptop, walk around at will, talk on my cell phone, or use the luxuriously-large toilets (over and over again).

Living in the city, it's such a simple decision for me, personally. Even at 3:30 for Acela, I consider it so much easier than flying by plane.

Of course, I have the luxury of time on my hands.
 
JimboJones said:
If you can get from Back Bay / South End station to Penn Station in 2:59:59, I think you have a winner on your hands.

The alternative would be 15 minute ride to the airport (by cab), 30 minute wait for plane (longer in the morning, evening, alternate Thursdays), 45 minutes in air, 10 minute taxi to gate, 10 minute walk to curb, 45 minute ride into city (by cab) (longer in the morning, evening, alternate Tuesdays).

155 minutes by plane vs. 179 minutes by Amtrak. A 25-minute difference, during which I can use my laptop, walk around at will, talk on my cell phone, or use the luxuriously-large toilets (over and over again).

Living in the city, it's such a simple decision for me, personally. Even at 3:30 for Acela, I consider it so much easier than flying by plane.

Of course, I have the luxury of time on my hands.
Click to expand...

The ride to and from the airport cannot be counted because theres no way to know someones final destination. Maybe I live in eastie and am going to newark city. Or maybe I live in downtown crossing and want to go to central park.

The fact is, the amount of planes flying between boston and new york tells me that for business travelers, it's still the preferred method. A large portion (such as myself) are indeed making connections to other major cities, but it would be blind to argue that a large percentage isnt flying between cities for business.
 
With all due respect; travel time to your choice of transportation and your destination is important. We have seen our greatest spike in ridership on the Acela Express from the Rt. 128 Station. Metro- West and South Shore business travelers talk about the convenience and the shorter time it takes to get to that station as opposed to Logan. They also talk about the long and expensive taxi ride to Manhatten from LaGuardia and Kennedy.
Acela has slowly increased its market share against the the shuttles. The problem now is capacity. I do not believe that Acela can continue to gain market share because it is almost at capacity.
 
The distance to the airport is the quantifier (?!). If you are downtown Boston, then hopping the train is the easiest way, and worth something in the equation. If you are in the suburbs and need to drive to your choice of transportation, that's hard to measure. Also, if you live in the city, you don't have to worry about parking costs, either way.

I agree about the Rt 128 station. Everytime, I'm surprised at the number of people who board.

One thing: everyone seems so cheery. I'm not kidding. If you're traveling with co-workers or a friend, it seems to be that people talk a lot more. Sucks if you're a loner and want quiet (although there's the Quiet Car!), but otherwise, probably preferred to being stuck in a plane.

And, yes, I realize those aren' related to time or cost.

One final thing: when I travel to NYC by plane, I take the AirTrain and Long Island Railroad from the airport. It's only 35 minutes, if you get a LIRR train right away. It beats a cab in price (and speed), every time. It's $12 round trip.
 
Riding a train, when it is on-time, is a happy and communal experience. People actually get nostalgic about it. It is a good time to be a Conductor on Amtrak.
 
Dear Jimbo,
Does it really suck to be cheerful?
The point is that RELIABLE, COMFORTABLE, and CONVENIENT rail service on short distances beats air bus and auto travel, hands-down.
I know by personal observation. Passengers on my train HAVE FUN!
 
OK, So I highly doubt this will ever happen, but it is in other countries. But I always thought it would be so good to just make a maglev from Boston to Washington, with only major city stops. The way the technology is progressing in this area is amazing. And I am sure you could make some argument as fuel gets higher and air travel becomes more of a luxury, that this will eventually save money, time, and the environment.

But I know this is really a pipe dream, because you could never sell the billions of dollars to congress to get it done, but dream big. Better than the half @$$ "high speed" train we have.

I can see it now!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top