To my knowledge, this is the first time Amtrak has ever done offered a Fall foliage excursion train on its own......

 

http://www.amtrak.com/fall-foliage-aboard-the-autumn-express

 

Experience Fall Foliage aboard the Autumn Express

Make Your Fall Travel Plans Unique with this One Day Only Excursion Train on November 2, 2013

 

Hop aboard this one day only special train departing from and returning to Philadelphia 30th Street Station on Saturday, November 2. See key landmarks and other significant sites along the route, such as Rockville Bridge, Shocks Mill Bridge and Enola Yard.

 

Tickets Valid for Sale

Through November 2, 2013

$89 per Adult. Many Benefits.

 

Travel the Northeast Corridor to Perryville, MD, and then make a rare trip up the historic Port Road Branch (which is usually off limits to passenger traffic) along the Susquehanna River. Pass through Enola Yard, cross the Shocks Mill and Rockville bridges and make a brief stop in Harrisburg, PA, before continuing over the Columbia Secondary and ultimately back to Philadelphia via scenic Lancaster County.

 

The train departs Philadelphia at 9 am and returns at 4:30 pm.

Tickets are $89 for adults and include a boxed lunch and souvenir tote bag.

Children 2 - 15 ride for half price and receive a boxed lunch and tote bag.

Seating is limited for this unique opportunity to experience the splendor of fall in Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland.

Passenger requiring special services (e.g., wheelchair assistance, etc.) must call 1-800-USA-Rail and speak to a customer service representative.

 

How to Book this Trip

 

From the 'Buy Tickets' tab:

 

Select One-Way.

Enter Philadelphia, PA (PHL) in the From box.

Enter Autumn Express Train, PA (AXP) in the To box.

Select November 2, 2013 as the Depart date.

Select the number passengers. Maximum of 8.

 

What You'll See

 

Rockville Bridge

 

Rockville Bridge is the world's longest stone masonry arch railroad bridge. It was built by the Pennsylvania Railroad between 1900 and 1902 at a cost of just under $1 million, opening 3/30/1902. It replaced an earlier span connecting Rockville on the east shore of the Susquehanna River to Marysville on the western shore just west of Enola Yard. The 48-arch span is 3820' long, 52 feet wide, and stands 52 feet above river low water. Construction required 220,000 tons of stone and 600,000 barrels of cement. It was built for 4 tracks, presently carrying two. Ownership passed to Penn Central in 1968, Conrail in 1976, then to Norfolk Southern in 1999. It was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1975.

 

Shocks Mill Bridge

 

Shocks Mill Bridge between Codorus Furnace and Marietta, PA, was built by the Pennsylvania Railroad between 1902 and 1904, opening on January 1, 1905. As built it was a slightly smaller version of Rockville Bridge, 2209 feet long with 28 stone masonry arches, carrying two tracks at a height of 61 feet above river low water. The bridge was electrified by the PRR in 1938. Ownership passed to Penn Central in 1968, Conrail in 1976, then to Norfolk Southern in 1999. Floodwaters from Hurricane Agnes in late June 1972 undermined the bridge and caused the center 6 arches to collapse on July 2, 1972. The bankrupt Penn Central received permission from the bankruptcy court for emergency repairs. Debris was removed, nine new reinforced concrete piers were built and steel deck girder spans were put in place. The repaired bridged reopened on August 2, 1973.

 

Enola Yard

 

Enola Yard located along the Susquehanna River just west of Harrisburg, PA, was built by the Pennsylvania Railroad in 1905. It was the world's largest freight yard through 1956. It featured east and westbound receiving and classification (hump) yards, a roundhouse with over 40 stalls, a containerized freight yard, and outer bypass tracks for through trains. Originally built for steam-era operations, it was electrified in 1938 and modernized including new hump yard equipment and the addition of a diesel shop. Record traffic level was achieved in June 1943, 20,660 cars in one day. Ownership passed to Penn Central in 1968, Conrail in 1976, then to Norfolk Southern in 1999.

 

Terms & Conditions

 

Valid for sale August 19 - November 2, 2013.

Valid for travel on November 2, 2013 only.

Valid between Philadelphia, PA (PHL) - Amtrak Autumn Express, PA (AXP).

Flat price of $89 for adults and includes a boxed lunch and souvenir tote bag.

Up to 2 children ages 2 - 15 may accompany each adult at half the adult fare.

Children and infants must travel with an adult who is at least 18 years or older.

Not combinable with any other discount offer or passenger type.

 

Information Page:

 

Experience Fall Foliage aboard the Autumn Express

http://www.amtrak.com/fall-foliage-aboard-the-autumn-express

Unless Congress pays for them, you won't see more long-distance trains to reduce sold-out conditions or provide a conveniently scheduled departure to that lone, middle-of-the-night train you have now......

 

http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/fred-frailey/archive/2013/08/20/no-more-long-distance-trains.aspx#.UhU-eRM9qck.twitter

Why is the GOP perpetrating this ludicrous war on trains?

Why is the GOP perpetrating this ludicrous war on trains?

 

Please select the correct answer:

 

A.  They are in bed with the oil, gas and construction lobbies.

 

B.  Trains are used in socialist countries and we can't have that, now can we?

 

C.  Trains are expensive, wasteful spending, unlike extra lanes and sound barrier walls.

 

D.  All of the above.

Question for KJP or anyone who can answer it: What would it take to get a second train running on the Capitol Limited? 

 

I'm not talking about the politics, but in terms of finances and equipment.  Currently the train departs Cleveland at 3am westbound and 2am eastbound.  These are insanely inconvenient times.  It's my understanding that ridership from Cleveland is low in large part because of the timing.  So what would it take to run a second train at the opposite time of day?  Or a third run at 8 hour intervals?  What would the startup costs be for equipment and then what would the operational costs be?  Are the tracks busy throughout the rest of the day?  It seems to me that running a second or third time would more than double or triple ridership because having different options for departure and arrival times allows for added flexibility in travel planning, thus making rail a more attractive option.

 

And a secondary question: is there anything technical preventing Acela trains running on the Capitol Limited?  Shortening the trip would also make it more attractive.  I understand it may not make a difference east of Cleveland because the tracks have to wind through the Appalachians and there is a lot of elevation change, but west of Cleveland to Chicago it seems there are a lot of long, flat straightaways. 

Question for KJP or anyone who can answer it: What would it take to get a second train running on the Capitol Limited? 

 

I'm not talking about the politics, but in terms of finances and equipment.  Currently the train departs Cleveland at 3am westbound and 2am eastbound.  These are insanely inconvenient times.  It's my understanding that ridership from Cleveland is low in large part because of the timing.  So what would it take to run a second train at the opposite time of day?  Or a third run at 8 hour intervals?  What would the startup costs be for equipment and then what would the operational costs be?  Are the tracks busy throughout the rest of the day?  It seems to me that running a second or third time would more than double or triple ridership because having different options for departure and arrival times allows for added flexibility in travel planning, thus making rail a more attractive option.

 

And a secondary question: is there anything technical preventing Acela trains running on the Capitol Limited?  Shortening the trip would also make it more attractive.  I understand it may not make a difference east of Cleveland because the tracks have to wind through the Appalachians and there is a lot of elevation change, but west of Cleveland to Chicago it seems there are a lot of long, flat straightaways. 

 

No question that more frequent and timely trains means more riders. That much has been proven in many places around the nation.  But the ultimate problem is inadequate funding both at the federal and state level.  At the state level (at least in Ohio), there is little chance of state funding either for improving facilities for passenger rail or for more train service.  Until the state administration and legislature changes, we won't see either happen.  Kasich and the Ohio General Assembly aren't just anti-rail, they are deeply into a highways-only transportation policy.

 

On running the Acela trains: the biggest issue is that they are all-electric and no overhead catenary wires exist beyond the Northeast Corridor or in the Philadelphia to Harrisburg corridor. There are also some engineering issues that would have to be overcome.  But the 2004 Ohio Hub Study demonstrated that a network of 110 MPH trains was possible in Ohio and the region around it.  Again, current state politics and a retro-1950's transportation policy are the main obstacles.

Kasich and the Ohio General Assembly aren't just anti-rail, they are deeply into a highways-only transportation policy.

...  Again, current state politics and a retro-1950's transportation policy are the main obstacles.

 

Which is why if one cares about this stuff, as most UOers obviously do, we really need to get out and actively support Ed FitzGerald for gov this coming year.

Question for KJP or anyone who can answer it: What would it take to get a second train running on the Capitol Limited? 

 

I'm not talking about the politics, but in terms of finances and equipment.  Currently the train departs Cleveland at 3am westbound and 2am eastbound.  These are insanely inconvenient times.  It's my understanding that ridership from Cleveland is low in large part because of the timing.  So what would it take to run a second train at the opposite time of day?  Or a third run at 8 hour intervals?  What would the startup costs be for equipment and then what would the operational costs be?  Are the tracks busy throughout the rest of the day?  It seems to me that running a second or third time would more than double or triple ridership because having different options for departure and arrival times allows for added flexibility in travel planning, thus making rail a more attractive option.

 

And a secondary question: is there anything technical preventing Acela trains running on the Capitol Limited?  Shortening the trip would also make it more attractive.  I understand it may not make a difference east of Cleveland because the tracks have to wind through the Appalachians and there is a lot of elevation change, but west of Cleveland to Chicago it seems there are a lot of long, flat straightaways. 

 

I was starting to write the response in my head from the perspective of why it can't be done. But since I hate it when people tell me why something can't be done rather than tell me how it could be done, I will change my response. Frankly, anything can be done if enough people (or enough of the right people) get behind it and support it. So here it is....

 

First, if I'm going to expand any train service through Cleveland, it's the Chicago-New York/Boston Lake Shore Limited which carries almost twice as many riders (403,000 in 2012) than the Capitol Limited (226,000 in 2012). In fact, expansion of train service on the Lake Shore route is a top priority of All Aboard Ohio. But you asked about the Capitol Limited, which links Chicago, Toledo, Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Washington DC plus many smaller cities in between.

 

So to figure out what you need, you need to first take stock of what you don't have.

 

EQUIPMENT

The first need is equipment. The Capitol Limited uses double-deck Superliner rail cars which are in extremely short supply. Some will become available in 2015 when another equipment order will free up coach cars, but those will be circulated to all Superliner-equipped trains to add more desperately needed seating capacity. But there is no law stating that a second Capitol Limited has to also be equipped with Superliner cars. Problem is, single-level cars are in high demand too. But there are more orders of single-level equipment getting built now. Sadly, there is no rail car showroom where Amtrak can walk into a buy new railcars. They have to be ordered and built as they are needed. Older railcars can be refurbished more quickly and inexpensively, but they don't last very long. Locomotives are often much more available and can be leased but may need some re-gearing from heavy-haul freight service to pull higher-speed, lighter-weight passenger trains.

 

So let's say you can find enough decent, second-hand, single-level rail cars to provide an interim service while an order of new cars is being spec'd and bidded out to a manufacturer. How many railcars are needed?

 

Absent a ridership study, we look at historical occurrences of expanding service on other routes. When a second train is added, ridership usually more than doubles. I am going to be conservative and assume a doubling of ridership for this exercise. The current Capitol Limited carries 616 people per day. That's for one train eastbound and one train westbound daily, or an average of 308 people per train. During low-peak travel periods, that number is less. So, naturally, during peak travel periods (summertime, holidays, etc), that number is higher. How much higher? I have no idea. But 150 percent higher is probably not out of the question. If so, that's a peak travel capacity of 462 seats/beds although not all are needed at the same time since people are getting on/off the train over an entire route. In fact, we're probably looking at 2/3 of those peak riders are on the train at any given time, or roughly 300 passengers. To keep operating and capital costs low, I'm going to assume this is going to be scheduled as a daytime (ie: 6am-midnight) train over its entire route. That means no sleeping cars. So to accommodate that peak ridership of 300 passengers means having five 60-seat coach cars (60-seat cars are the optimum seating arrangement for long-distance travel, while 80 seats are common for short-distance, single-level cars). And you will need a food-service car (ie: cafe car, lounge car, bistro car, club car etc). And we will likely need a baggage car. Two sets of equipment can cover a daytime Chicago-Washington schedule. Plus a third set is needed in reserve.

 

Equipment: 15 coaches, three food service cars and three baggage cars, or 21 cars @ $500K each purchase/rehab (new cars are 4-6 times more expensive), or $10.5 million, plus leased locomotives. I would also consider running this train with locomotives at both ends to reduce turnaround times at Chicago and Washington DC so that this service could reliably operate with two sets of equipment. If Amtrak won't accept operating second-hand, rehabbed equipment for a second daily Capitol Limited, then increase the capital cost requirement to $60 million for single-level cars. And might as well add about $20 million for new locomotives, or $80 million total for new equipment (ie: try to get rehab equipment with leased locomotives at about $10.5 million).

 

FIXED FACILITIES

Capital improvements to fixed facilities (ie: right of way, stations, signaling etc) are likely needed -- especially since this is a very heavily traveled freight route at all hours of the day and night. West of Pittsburgh to Chicago, the right of way is owned and operated by Norfolk Southern Corp., a multi-billion-dollar freight railroad company. This freight corridor is easily NS's busiest in its entire 20,000-mile rail network. The least-used sections see 70 freight trains per day, with the busiest section west of Elkhart, IN at above 90 freight trains per day. East of Pittsburgh to Washington DC, the right of way is owned and operated by CSX Transportation Inc., another mulit-billion-dollar freight carrier. This one CSX's busiest routes with about 30-50 freight trains per day. It will likely get much busier in the coming years after the Panama Canal is widened and imports from the Pacific Rim are now off-loaded at East Coast ports. CSX is completing nearly $1 billion worth of work to raise clearances for larger double-stack container trains to fit through tunnels and under bridges. Depending on the extent and type of freight traffic operating when the second Capitol Limited is passing through, the addition of a new passenger train can be a major disruption to the profitable freight business. If you want to have a reliable passenger train service and keep the freight business whole, then Amtrak or someone on its behalf is going to have to pay for new infrastructure that will provide sufficient new traffic capacity. Typically this means new, lengthened or connected passing sidings, more "crossovers" between the two main tracks, enhanced signal systems and even "flyovers" (a railroad track built on an elevated alignment over a diverging or intersecting track -- think of a freeway interchange, which actually was inspired by railroad flyover designs). Adding significant new infrastructure for just one daily round trip isn't very cost-effective. So any capacity enhancements that are made should be designed to benefit the other passenger trains already operating on the route. West of Elkhart, where the heaviest rail traffic is located, that investment is already underway and more is planned.

 

Without a doubt, the biggest design flaw of the passenger rail service across Northern Ohio and Indiana is that nearly all of the stations have only one loading platform, or if they have two, passengers cannot access the second platform while there is a train (passenger or freight) occupying a track next to the station. Since this is a double-tracked railroad, this means that half of the passenger trains must run against the flow of rail traffic to serve a given station. This is very inefficient and cumbersome for freight traffic and slows passenger traffic by an average of about 5 minutes per train per station. These are the stations between Chicago and Washington DC. Stations in bold below likely need some form of modification to accommodate new daytime trains:

 

Chicago: 2+ tracks with station platforms, passengers can access more than one platform while other trains are in station;

Hammond/Whiting: 1 track with station platform (Capitol Ltd no longer stops here due to station constraints & freight congestion);

South Bend: 2 tracks with station platforms, but passengers can NOT access more than one platform while other trains are in station;

Elkhart: 1 track with station platform;

Waterloo: 1 track with station platform (two-track station funded with construction due soon, but passengers will NOT be able to access more than one platform while other trains are in station);

Bryan: 1 track with station platform;

Toledo: 2+ tracks with station platforms, but passengers can NOT access more than one platform while other trains are in station;

Sandusky: 1 track with station platform;

Elyria: 1 track with station platform (two-track station funding plan emerging, passengers will be able to access more than one platform while other trains are in station);

Cleveland: 1 track with station platform (two-track station funding plan emerging, but passengers will NOT be able to access more than one platform while other trains are in station);

Alliance: 1 track with station platform;

Pittsburgh: 1 track with station platform (two-track station funding plan emerging, but passengers will NOT be able to access more than one platform while other trains are in station);

Connellsville: 1 track with station platform;

Cumberland: 1 track with station platform;

Martinsburg: 2 tracks with station platforms, but passengers can NOT access more than one platform while other trains are in station;

Harpers Ferry: 2 tracks with station platforms, passengers can access more than one platform while other trains are in station (no elevator however);

Rockville:  2 tracks with station platforms, passengers can access more than one platform while other trains are in station;

Washington DC: 2+ tracks with station platforms, passengers can access more than one platform while other trains are in station;

 

To add second platforms to stations without grade-separated passenger access, a cost of about $500,000 per station is probable. Adding a second platform with grade-separated ADA-compliant passenger access (ie overhead walkway, elevators, etc) carries a probably cost of about $5 million per station. NS appears so eager to get more two-platform stations, that it is willing to accept second platforms without grade separations. CSX is not so eager. So I count five stations on NS where second platforms could be added without grade separations ($2.5 million total estimated) and two more stations (Toledo and Cleveland) where grade-separated platform access may be required ($10 million total estimated). And on CSX, I would not spend $5 million for a grade-separated station at Connellsville as passenger trafffic and track configurations don't allow it. I would do it at Cumberland however as it would also connect the station better to downtown, including to a Holiday Inn on the other side of the tracks. The other stations in the MARC commuter rail territory (Martinsburg eastward) could use some ADA compliance modifications, so I'd throw about $5 million total at them, for a total on CSX of about $10 million. Thus my stations total for all segments would be about $22.5 million. And since I don't know if or where NS or CSX will scream bloody murder over a traffic tie-up, I'll include a $10 million placeholder for a new passing siding and/or addition of crossovers on each railroad, or $20 million. So I'll estimate $42.5 million total in fixed facility costs.

 

OPERATING COSTS

And then we'll need some operating subsidy. The current Capitol Limited receives an annual operating subsidy of about $20 million to $25 million per year. The new train will need less for two reasons: second trains add more ridership and revenue while benefiting from infrastructure and operating costs that already exist for the first train (ie: economies of scale) and this would be a day train that doesn't require costly sleepers. So I am guesstimating that this added train would need an operating subsidy of perhaps $15 million to $20 million per year.

 

SUMMARY

So if you want a second train (including faster existing trains with better stations) across Northern Ohio with more convenient arrival/departure times, get your Congressfolk to support spending about $53 million in one-time capital investment costs and perhaps $20 million in annual operating costs. Be prepared to at least double those figures if you want to add a second AND third Chicago-Washington train because a part of the third train would have to run on a nighttime schedule which means offering sleepers (or not, if you want to run an el cheapo train).

 

By the way, that number is also very close to what's needed for a second train on the Lake Shore Limited route which, in my opinion, is much more justified than a second Capitol Limited based on the current ridership. If trains had genders, the Lake Shore would be a man among boys. It's a ridership powerhouse.

 

(EDIT: recalculated the equipment needs data)

KJP, thanks for that in-depth answer.  An understanding of these details is helpful for advocating our elected officials for more services.

Kasich and the Ohio General Assembly aren't just anti-rail, they are deeply into a highways-only transportation policy.

...  Again, current state politics and a retro-1950's transportation policy are the main obstacles.

 

Which is why if one cares about this stuff, as most UOers obviously do, we really need to get out and actively support Ed FitzGerald for gov this coming year.

 

We need to make sure he is informed about this issue first.

 

Dems are better but they are not always for progressive transportation choices.

 

So buyer beware.

Kasich and the Ohio General Assembly aren't just anti-rail, they are deeply into a highways-only transportation policy.

...  Again, current state politics and a retro-1950's transportation policy are the main obstacles.

 

Which is why if one cares about this stuff, as most UOers obviously do, we really need to get out and actively support Ed FitzGerald for gov this coming year.

 

We need to make sure he is informed about this issue first.

 

Dems are better but they are not always for progressive transportation choices.

 

So buyer beware.

 

Very true. Kasich may have killed 3C in 2010, but it was the Ohio Democratic Party that was mostly silent on the issue, even if it was a signature initiative of both a Democrat President and Governor. On top of that, there is a lot of misinformation out there when it comes to rail service and some politicians are quick to support glitzy ideas instead of practical off the shelf technology. We had that fight for years in Ohio with bullet train zealots.

Question for KJP or anyone who can answer it: What would it take to get a second train running on the Capitol Limited? 

 

I'm not talking about the politics, but in terms of finances and equipment.  Currently the train departs Cleveland at 3am westbound and 2am eastbound.  These are insanely inconvenient times.  It's my understanding that ridership from Cleveland is low in large part because of the timing.  So what would it take to run a second train at the opposite time of day?  Or a third run at 8 hour intervals?  What would the startup costs be for equipment and then what would the operational costs be?  Are the tracks busy throughout the rest of the day?  It seems to me that running a second or third time would more than double or triple ridership because having different options for departure and arrival times allows for added flexibility in travel planning, thus making rail a more attractive option.

 

And a secondary question: is there anything technical preventing Acela trains running on the Capitol Limited?  Shortening the trip would also make it more attractive.  I understand it may not make a difference east of Cleveland because the tracks have to wind through the Appalachians and there is a lot of elevation change, but west of Cleveland to Chicago it seems there are a lot of long, flat straightaways. 

 

No question that more frequent and timely trains means more riders. That much has been proven in many places around the nation.  But the ultimate problem is inadequate funding both at the federal and state level.  At the state level (at least in Ohio), there is little chance of state funding either for improving facilities for passenger rail or for more train service.  Until the state administration and legislature changes, we won't see either happen.  Kasich and the Ohio General Assembly aren't just anti-rail, they are deeply into a highways-only transportation policy.

 

On running the Acela trains: the biggest issue is that they are all-electric and no overhead catenary wires exist beyond the Northeast Corridor or in the Philadelphia to Harrisburg corridor. There are also some engineering issues that would have to be overcome.  But the 2004 Ohio Hub Study demonstrated that a network of 110 MPH trains was possible in Ohio and the region around it.  Again, current state politics and a retro-1950's transportation policy are the main obstacles.

 

As Noozer notes, the Acela runs with electric locomotives fed by an overhead catenary wire system. Outside the Northeast Corridor, most trains are powered by diesel-electric locomotives.

 

Aside from that, the Northeast Corridor is largely a dedicated passenger railroad owned by Amtrak and commuter agencies. Outside the Northeast, the reverse is true: Amtrak runs mostly on privately owned freight railroad tracks.

 

Thus, the issue isn't so much the Acela trains, it's the infrastructure which makes it possible for the Acela to operate at high speeds. The only way to reach those speeds (110 mph +) is operate on dedicated right of way of dedicated trackage on shared right of way, a very expensive proposition. However, you CAN run at a top speed of 90-110 mph on existing freight rail right of way at a lower cost, but even here, there has to be a significant commitment of money to make this happen.

 

This incremental, 90-110 mph service is being developed in the Midwest and is already operating in places at speeds up to 110 mph.

BTW, adding overhead electric wires costs about $2 million per track mile, including all related infrastructure (catenary supports, transformers, substations, etc). So for a double-tracked line, that's $4 million per route mile. The rail line from Cleveland to Washington is 298 miles. So we're talking more than $1.1 billion to electrify this rail corridor. From Cleveland to Chicago, its 341 rail miles, or nearly $1.4 billion to electrify that corridor. But I do not know how practical it is to electrify a railroad corridor that hosts double-stack trains. I'm sure the pantograph (the electricity-collecting device that extends up from the locomotive to the overhead wires) could be made taller to reach the wires. But I don't know how much clearance is needed or available between the tops of the double-stack trains or the bottoms of bridges and other overhead structures, etc.

 

Neither of these routes are necessarily ideal for electrically powered high-speed passenger trains. Fortunately there are some parallel routes to play with from Pittsburgh west to Chicago. East of Pittsburgh to Washington DC, the options are limited (unless we want to reactivate the old Western Maryland ROW which is now a bike path).

KJP, how much time would be saved on routes by removing the smaller, less used stations such as Elyria?

KJP, how much time would be saved on routes by removing the smaller, less used stations such as Elyria?

 

About 5 minutes per station. If you eliminated the 12 smallest stops from the Lake Shore Limited's Chicago-New York route, it would save only one hour over 960 miles. That would let the Lake Shore make the CHI-NYC trip in 18 hours rather than 19. What does that get you that you didn't have before?

 

Removing these stations as stops is counter-productive as these smaller stations produce significant share of the total route's ridership when only or two daily round trips are offered. Consider example, only 11 percent of the 403,000 riders on the Lake Shore Limited's route last year traveled between endpoints Chicago and New York City and that was by far the largest city-pair travel market! Long-distance trains achieve their ridership not by linking endpoint cities or even the largest enroute cities. They attract ridership because they link the smaller cities to the big cities because the smaller cities have few if any other affordable and comfortable intercity public transportation options.

 

Oh, and politically, dropping smaller cities risks the political support for the rest of the system. There are conservative congress persons out west who stand with their conservative colleagues on most issues except Amtrak because its one of the few intercity public transportation options available to their constituents.

 

Dropping smaller cities only makes sense when you have multiple daily trains which allows you to run a mix of express and local service trains. When you have only one or two daily trains, you don't have that ability.

Thanks for the response. I have not had the opportunity to ride YET, but does that 5 minutes account for slow down speed to stop at a station, and then the time it takes to accelerate?

 

And good points. I was just wondering what kind of speed could be gained if you only hit the bigger cities.

Thanks for the response. I have not had the opportunity to ride YET, but does that 5 minutes account for slow down speed to stop at a station, and then the time it takes to accelerate?

 

 

Yes.

The train brakes and speeds up very quickly, and only stops for about 2 minutes at those stations, so I'd say KJP's 5 minutes may even be a worst-case estimate.

The train brakes and speeds up very quickly, and only stops for about 2 minutes at those stations, so I'd say KJP's 5 minutes may even be a worst-case estimate.

 

No, that's an industry standard for diesel powered trains. For trains powered by an electric locomotive, its 4 minutes. And for self-propelled trains (where there is no locomotive, diesel or electrical) it's even less.

 

Amtrak also adds "recovery time" (ie: scheduling padding) of 20 percent for each minute traveled since the last padded part of the schedule. Amtrak typically puts this schedule padding, er recovery time, prior to arrival at larger stations. So if you look at an Amtrak schedule and, for example, and wonder why it takes 64 minutes for the Capitol Limited to travel the 47 miles from Sandusky into Toledo but only 50 minutes for the eastbound counterpart to travel out of Toledo to Sandusky, the reason is Toledo is a larger station where padding, er, recovery is added.

Increasing Ridership Shows Amtrak's Value

EDITORIAL

August 28, 2013|Editorial, The Hartford Courant

 

For the better part of 40 years, Amtrak's enemies in Congress have been doing what they can to sabotage the nation's rail passenger service.

 

They've attacked Amtrak's federal subsidies, pared back routes, been stingy in replacing worn-out equipment — anything to kill passenger rail.

 

But Amtrak has hung on, fortunately, and may be hitting its stride, proving that in many situations the rails are a preferred alternative to travel by auto or air.

 

READ MORE AT:  http://articles.courant.com/2013-08-28/news/hc-ed-amtrak-ridership-at-all-time-high-20130828_1_record-ridership-commuter-rail-new-haven-hartford-springfield

So Cleveland Indians play-by-play announcer Tom Hamilton said during last night's game:

 

Pitchers batting is antiquated "for the same reason we don't take trains anymore."

 

My response..... So pitchers don't bat because their competition had to use government-owned right of ways and subsidies to grow and destroy a private funded rail service which then had to also resort to subsidies to stabilize and now grow faster than driving and flying since 2000? Is that what you mean, Tom?

Tom is a bit of an exurban fossil, I'm afraid. He's bugged the crap out of me this year with some of his non-baseball comments.

 

As the decades have marched on, I worry that the cultural gap between areas well-served by trains those without has increasingly hardened.  Taking Amtrak in the NEC is about is noteworthy as going to Walmart is in Avon or wherever Tom lives.

Why doesn't the USA have, er, ride passenger trains? A view from the UK....

 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/08/economist-explains-18?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/bl/ee/americanridetrains

Why doesn't the USA have, er, ride passenger trains? A view from the UK....

 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/08/economist-explains-18?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/bl/ee/americanridetrains

 

The article is good but misses the root cause of why things are the way they are. Unlike their European cousins, US railroads were privately run, for profit companies. This set them up for a fall, since every other mode is government supported and made the railroads' passenger operations impossible to operate in the face of massive support by all levels of government for all other modes. It's a wonder we even HAVE railroads in the face of this imbalance and it continues to this day.

So Cleveland Indians play-by-play announcer Tom Hamilton said during last night's game:

 

Pitchers batting is antiquated "for the same reason we don't take trains anymore."

 

My response..... So pitchers don't bat because their competition had to use government-owned right of ways and subsidies to grow and destroy a private funded rail service which then had to also resort to subsidies to stabilize and now grow faster than driving and flying since 2000? Is that what you mean, Tom?

 

We don't take the train in Ohio because a repressive regime at the State House won't let us.

A federal government blog not subject copyright....

 

Sept 20, 2013

Supporting State Planning for a Higher-Performing Rail System

Joseph C. Szabo

 

On Tuesday, FRA issued Final State Rail Plan Guidance to assist States in their ongoing effort to plan for and invest in a higher-performing rail network.

 

The guidance will help States better identify their transportation challenges and understand the role that rail – freight and passenger – can play in ensuring the safe, reliable and efficient movement of people and goods.

 

State rail plans are the blueprint, and the forerunner of all projects to come.  Any time states apply for federal funding, planning must be complete in order to compete effectively for these funds. A rail plan puts states in a much better position to have projects ready for funding when and if funding becomes available. The guidance FRA issued Tuesday will help them develop market-based solutions and increase their readiness.

 

Already, states have a growing pipeline of rail projects that – if funded – would develop or improve 9,000 miles of rail corridors in 33 states. A state rail plan would allow that pipeline to expand even further.

 

And that means more opportunities to build on the progress the Obama Administration has made over the last four and a half years--6,000 miles of improved rail, 40 new or modernized rail stations, and 260 new railcars and 105 locomotives.

 

Across the nation, state, regional, and local transportation planners understand that investing in rail will deliver economic growth.  They also understand that rail –given the capacity constraints of our highways and runways– represents a mode of opportunity.

 

Rail needs to play a growing role in moving 100 million additional people and 4 billion more tons of freight annually in the next few decades. And State rail plans will help define this role, assisting our efforts to build a more integrated transportation system.

 

With the guidance we issued, the clock is now running for every state to have an FRA-compliant State Rail Plan in the next five years.  And while the clocks ticks, the need for rail –like other modes– to have dedicated and predictable federal funding becomes increasingly important.

 

Joseph Szabo is Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration.

 

SOURCE

http://www.dot.gov/fastlane/supporting-state-planning-higher-performing-rail-system

Watch Amtrak's Trains Move Along Their Routes in Real Time

Eric Jaffe

9:33 AM ET

 

This week Amtrak released "Track a Train" — an interactive, Google-powered, real-time-ish status map of its 300-plus daily trips. America's passenger rail provider says it created the feature because checking train status is the second most-popular action on its website, after buying tickets. Now travelers and train enthusiasts alike can see how slow fast a particular Amtrak train is moving at any given time.

 

Requisite snark aside, the service looks both polished and useful. (You can find it in the lower-left corner of Amtrak's main site.) The base map gives a national overview of Amtrak's service at the moment. Active trains are indicated by a blue arrow pointing in the direction they're traveling. Stations are shown as smaller white dots. A purple circle enclosing a number shows how many trains are in high-traffic areas and lets users zoom in with one click.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/technology/2013/10/google-map-now-tracks-all-amtraks-trains/7093/

Press release from Amtrak from today........

 

 

AMTRAK AND STATE PARTNERS REACH AGREEMENT TO PRESERVE ALL CORRIDOR ROUTES

Passenger rail improvement and expansion plans to move forward

 

WASHINGTON -- Amtrak has successfully negotiated contracts with 19 state transportation departments and other entities to increase state control and funding of 28 current passenger rail routes. America's Railroad® is now poised to move forward with state partners to further expand and improve the intercity passenger rail network.

 

"We thank these state leaders who have sent a strong message in favor of Amtrak service and the need to offer multiple mobility options for the traveling public across their regions," said Amtrak President and CEO Joe Boardman.

 

California-Caltrans, California-Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority, Connecticut, Indiana, Illinois,  Maine-Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin have each reached agreement for Amtrak to operate their state corridor services.

 

"These state-supported services are vital links in the Amtrak national network that bring value, connectivity, economic development and jobs to states and local communities," stated Tony Coscia, chairman of the Amtrak board of directors.

 

The 28 state-supported routes are in addition to the Amtrak Acela Express and Northeast Regional services in the Northeast and the overnight long-distance trains that connect the regions, which combined have set new records for ridership over the past decade.

 

"This has been a long process and one that has produced agreements that are fair and consistent while recognizing the needs of these states and the unique qualities of these routes," Boardman continued. "Many of these are our fastest growing services and we are working on expansion plans with our partners in several states."

 

The agreements fulfill Section 209 of the federal Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA).  It required states to share costs with Amtrak under a consistent formula for all routes of less than 750 miles, excluding the Northeast Corridor. During the past four years, Amtrak and the states partnered to jointly develop the cost formula which received approval by the federal Surface Transportation Board.

 

Under the Section 209 policy, state partners will pay for approximately 85 percent of operating costs that are attributed to their routes, as well as for capital maintenance costs of the Amtrak equipment they use and for support costs such as safety programs and marketing. Amtrak will pay about 15 percent for "backbone" costs such as centralized dispatching and services, and back shops.  States will continue to benefit from Amtrak's incremental cost access rights to tracks owned by host railroads, dispatching priority and Amtrak capital investments that support the entire system such as technology improvements like eTicketing.

 

"Our state partners have told us they are expecting Amtrak to continue to improve the services we provide to them," Boardman said. "It is a challenge I know we are ready to meet."

 

About Amtrak®

Amtrak is America's Railroad®, the nation's intercity passenger rail service and its high-speed rail operator. Amtrak and its state and commuter partners move people, the economy and the nation forward.  Formally known as the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Amtrak is governed by a nine member board of directors appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.  Anthony R. Coscia is board chairman and Jeffrey R. Moreland serves as vice chairman. In FY 2013, a record 31.6 million passengers traveled on Amtrak on more than 300 daily trains - at speeds up to 150 mph (241 kph) - that connect 46 states, the District of Columbia and three Canadian Provinces.  Enjoy the journey® at Amtrak.com or call 800-USA-RAIL for schedules, fares and more information. For updates, Like us on Facebook, Follow us on Twitter(@Amtrak) and check out our blog at blog.amtrak.com

Here are articles about yesterday's Capitol Limited bicycle-roll-on test.  The Post-Gazette story made the front page. Note that "The Cap" serves five Ohio cities -- Toledo, Sandusky, Elyria, Cleveland and Alliance...

 

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/region/amtrak-tests-bicycle-roll-on-service-on-capitol-limited-route-between-pittsburgh-and-dc-707669/

 

http://triblive.com/news/fayette/4883698-74/roll-train-amtrak#axzz2hnMH9IJ7

BTW, consider that Amtrak ridership systemwide five years ago was 28.7 million. Today it's 31.6 million -- an increase of 10 percent. Pretty good, right?

 

Most Ohio stations blew away the systemwide average growth over the past five years....

 

Cincinnati grew from 15,067 to 15,213 (+1%)

Alliance changed from 3,720 to 4,373 (+18%)

Bryan grew from 5,507 to 6,693 (+22%)

Toledo grew from 50,490 to 68,463 (+36%)

Cleveland grew from 36,977 to 50,940 (+38%)

Sandusky grew from 5,832 to 9,591 (+64%)

Elyria changed from 3,426 to 6,408 (+87%)

 

Imagine how many Ohioans would ride if we had more than one or two trains a night and enjoyed convenient schedules! Hear that Ohio??

October 16, 2013, 11:08 am 133 Comments

Amtrak: Not a Money Pit, After All

By ELEANOR RANDOLPH

 

When Hurricane Sandy swept across railroad beds in the Northeast last year, Amtrak went quiet. Officials at the nation’s railroad scrambled to repair the damage that stretched the length of the huge storm. Amtrak in the region was out for a week. And disruptions continued along the popular Boston to Washington corridor for almost a month.

 

For all that, Amtrak had one of its best years ever. Amtrak officers boasted this week about carrying 31.6 million passengers this year, up from 31.2 million last year. And ridership increased even in the Northeast Corridor where Sandy did her worst. As a result, the railroad will ask for less federal help. That old story about how Amtrak is a transportation money pit has, once again, been proven false.

 

Read more at: http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/16/amtrak-not-a-money-pit-after-all/?_r=0

Train stops to continue despite Amtrak station fire

Filed on October 26, 2013 by Lisa Roberson

 

ELYRIA — A fire at the East River Road Amtrak station is not likely to speed up any improvements to the site or any plans to move rail service to the Lorain County Transportation Center.

 

Amtrak has said improvements to the old station were long overdue because it does not meet Americans with Disabilities Act standards. But local officials are trying to negotiate bringing Amtrak service to the Depot Street location and any improvement projects to the East River Road station were put on hold pending those talks.

 

Marc Magliari, Amtrak spokesman, said he could not speculate on when the fire-damaged station would be repaired or replaced.

 

See more at: http://chronicle.northcoastnow.com/2013/10/26/train-stops-to-continue-despite-amtrak-station-fire/#sthash.6cTwL8wd.dpuf

A much more insightful piece than a similarly titled article published recently in The Atlantic Cities

 

Did Republicans kill America’s high speed rail plan?

Written by  William C. Vantuono, Editor-in-Chief

 

Let’s face it: Too many politicians do too many dumb, harmful things, purely for the sake of being partisan. I’m cynical enough to know that this is how the game is played, and how politicians get re-elected and rise in the ranks of their chosen party and get money for their campaign coffers and prime-time sound bytes on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox “News”, and a lot of other perks that come with being an elected official.

 

If you want to attach a label to me, call me a “railroad guy.” Freight rail? That’s a no-brainer. Anything that can be hauled on a train instead of a truck should be on a train—period. Passenger rail? “Build it and they will ride.” That’s why the all-too-common political shenanigans or posturing that prevent the expansion of passenger rail in this country always gets me going.

 

....All this is a crying shame. Years from now, after we as a nation have hopefully gotten past all the partisan bickering and obstructionism, and the drag on our national progress and economic growth that have resulted, we will wake up and press ahead on bringing our passenger rail system into the 21st century. But we will have lost precious time."

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/blogs/william-vantuono/did-republicans-kill-americas-high-speed-rail-plan.html

Here's a Washington Post article looking at how Obama's plans for high speed rail nationwide have faced political roadblocks:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-high-speed-rail-project-falters-obamas-vision-of-government-remains-unfulfilled/2013/11/08/669f2dda-1a61-11e3-8685-5021e0c41964_story.html?hpid=z4

There's probably not a lot new to readers of this site and it focuses more on Wisconsin's decision to refuse federal funding than Ohio's. 

One thing I thought was interesting was Governor Scott Walker's justification for refusing funding: because it would be cheaper for him to drive from his home in suburban Milwaukee to Madison than drive into Milwaukee, pay to park, and take the train.  Well Governor, what about people who don't have a car?  Or who live in the city closer to the train station?  Or students in Madison who want to go to Milwaukee for work or fun?  It just seems indicative of a line of thinking that leads to opposition to rail investment: if it doesn't personally benefit me, I won't vote for it. 

 

 

URGENT: Contact Congress today!

 

Contact your Representative: http://www.house.gov/

Contact your Senator:  http://www.senate.gov/

 

Please keep your comments brief and personal (example: I support expanded federal funding for Amtrak because I am a regular rider. I would use Amtrak more if it had better service in Ohio because I do not have the stamina for driving long distances. Airline service is too expensive and bus service near me is very limited and uncomfortable for long trips.)

______________________

 

Rail Passengers Defend Public’s Right to Transportation

Federal Government Must Not Abandon Its Responsibilities

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (#13-14)

National Association of Railroad Passengers www.narprail.org

Contacts: Sean Jeans-Gail 202-408-8362;

Ross Capon 202-408-8362 [mobile 301-385-6438]

November 18, 2013

 

Washington, D.C.—With the House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure racing to organize a mark-up on the rail reauthorization before Congress adjourns for the year, the National Association of Railroad Passengers is urging legislators to embrace a national vision for intercity passenger trains.

 

There are indications that leaders on the Committee are moving towards shrinking rather than strengthening the nation’s already-limited passenger train network.  During a hearing held this June, Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA) said Amtrak’s national network is “something we have to take a hard look at…There are places that it costs us a lot of money and the ridership is not there.”

 

Americans want more trains, and they are voting with their travel dollars.  Amtrak carried 31.6 million passengers in FY 2013, setting the tenth ridership record in 11 years; ridership on the long-distance trains was the highest in 20 years.  Some 173 million Americans—more than half of our total population—live within 25 miles of an Amtrak station that is served by long distance trains.  Moreover, in 23 of the lower 48 states, long-distance trains are the only intercity passenger trains.  Eliminating operating support for these interstate routes would end access to train service for scores of millions of passengers. The fact is, these trains are the only form of public transportation for hundreds of communities, and their loss would have a profound impact.

 

“What happens to the people that are stranded if Congress kills the long distance trains,” asked NARP President Ross Capon.  “Because make no mistake: if Congress eliminates operating support for these interstate routes that is what will happen. For many of these communities, it’s their only connection to cities in other states.  Will seniors be forced to drive hundreds of miles to visit their families?  Will disabled citizens have to forego trips to hospitals in metropolitan regions?  Will students be forced out onto crowded highways to get to university?  The House Transportation Committee does not appear to be asking these questions; the answers aren’t good.”

 

It will take increased federal investment to meet the rapidly increasing public demand for transportation.  NARP has worked with passenger representatives from all across the U.S. to draft a list of goals and recommendations for the reauthorization that will build a modern, customer-focused national passenger train network that America needs.

 

About the National Association of Railroad Passengers

 

NARP is the only national organization speaking for the users of passenger trains and rail transit. We have worked since 1967 to expand the quality and quantity of passenger rail in the U.S. Our mission is to work towards a modern, customer-focused national passenger train network that provides a travel choice Americans want. Our work is supported by over 22,000 individual members.

 

###

Without a permanent trust fund, Amtrak could go to the dogs

Written by  Frank N. Wilner, Contributing Editor

 

Amtrak’s Sisyphean travails could sober a smashed sot.

 

Ever present is former House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica (R-Fla.)—now just a T&I Committee member—whose shtick is an enduring impersonation of an annoying hemorrhoid, as he perpetually interrupts Amtrak officers from running the railroad to absorb his screeches over the profit margin of a ham sandwich and glass of wine aboard Amtrak.

 

More recently, and rivaling a scene from a Marx Brothers comedy, comes Rail Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Denham (R-Calif.) introducing H.R. 2066, requiring that Amtrak devise a policy allowing passengers to bring aboard on trains traveling fewer than 750 miles their pet dogs and cats. Call it the Fido and Fluffy bill, and one can only wonder if pot belly pigs will be added as an amendment. Surely the United Transportation Union will seek an amendment exempting conductors from cleaning up the mess and from quieting the barks, growls, and meows. (Editor’s note: The animals, not Mica and Denham. Just wanted to make that clear.)

 

Lost on lawmakers—as was the universal ache imposed by the government shutdown—is widespread public clamor that Congress sustain a national intercity rail passenger network. Contrary to nattering nabobs in Congress resolved to zero-out federal subsidies for Amtrak, a majority of Americans associate an improved quality of life with a well-funded and efficient public transportation network. As illuminated by an October public opinion poll, even voters in the nation’s most conservative congressional districts support retention of federal funding for Amtrak.

Read More At: http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/blogs/frank-n-wilner/without-a-permanent-trust-fund-amtrak-could-go-to-the-dogs.html

That's priceless work by Wilner! I had to tweet that one out.

"…an enduring impersonation of a hemorrhoid…." (LOL)  Best description ever of Cong. Mica.

"…an enduring impersonation of a hemorrhoid…." (LOL)  Best description ever of Cong. Mica.

 

Yeah a hemorrhoid wearing a cheap rug.

Ohio: the only state east of Mississippi River and north of Mason-Dixon line that's not sponsoring Amtrak/regional passenger rail!

 

States are getting on board for Amtrak short routes

Larry Copeland and Paul Overberg, USA TODAY 8 a.m. EST November 23, 2013

 

States that view Amtrak intercity trains as a viable alternative to driving or flying are stepping up to help foot the cost of the trains. These short corridors are showing robust growth for the agency.

 

ABOARD THE CAROLINIAN — On a recent afternoon, Amtrak's Carolinian pulls out of the Raleigh, N.C., train station right on time at 4:50 p.m. It's southbound for Charlotte, with seven regularly scheduled stops along the way.

 

About 10 minutes into the trip, the train chugs to a stop at the North Carolina State Fair. Parents crowd on with young children lugging huge stuffed bears and giraffes. The booty is crammed into overhead luggage bins, and the train is soon on its way again.

 

Al and Nancy Parker, who are returning home to Concord after a day at the fair, make their way to the lounge car for a round or two of adult beverages.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/23/states-amtrak-short-lines/3316205/

BTW, the article did a horrible job explaining the subsidy issue which is heavily tilted in favor of roads and aviation. Save and share this data for future debates.....

 

Federal Transportation Subsidies

For these programs, federal subsidies pay the following shares of total operating costs:

 

Amtrak: 12%

Federal Aviation Administration: 29%

Federal Highway Administration: 49%

Transportation Security Administration: 67%

 

SOURCES:

“Amtrak covers 88% of operating costs”, News Release, Amtrak; March 5, 2013.

“Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF)”, Fact Sheet, Federal Aviation Administration; February 2012.

“Analysis finds shifting trends in highway funding, user fees make up decreasing share”, SubsidyScope, An Initiative of

the Pew Research Trusts; November 25, 2009.

“Funds Up In The Air”, Edward L. Glaeser, Boston Globe; March 7, 2013.

 

NOTE: does not include indirect federal or direct nonfederal subsidies such as military spending to continue oil shipping,

petroleum tax benefits, defense technology transfers to commercial aviation, or state/local subsidies including urban tax

donating to exurban/rural areas, free parking, or stormwater management in low-density, car-dependent areas.

Is maintenance road/rail under operating costs?

 

Also do you have figures for construction and other costs not included in operating costs?

Is maintenance road/rail under operating costs?

 

Also do you have figures for construction and other costs not included in operating costs?

 

Yes, if you buy something that lasts less than five years, it is an operating cost. So most maintenance costs are an operating cost, not capital.

 

I'll pull together some basic construction costs, but these usually aren't 1-for-1 comparisons since some are used differently depending on where they are, how they are priced (ie: tolled vs free), and so on.

Thanks. It should be interesting. While rail can be expensive, so are highways and airports. I guess a good comparison would be cost per user? That would probably be difficult to do though.

High Speed ‘Trains of the Future’ May Finally Be Coming to the Northeast http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/25/high-speed-trains-of-the-future-may-finally-be-coming-to-the-northeast.html … Would also affect routes outside Northeast!

High Speed ‘Trains of the Future’ May Finally Be Coming to the Northeast http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/25/high-speed-trains-of-the-future-may-finally-be-coming-to-the-northeast.html … Would also affect routes outside Northeast!

 

The NEC really needs modernization and greater capacity. Projects like the Baltimore tunnels will make operations smoother and more efficient. As far as speed and running times go, replacing old catenary  to allow 165 mph south of New York will itself allow a NYP-WAS running time of less than 2:30. New equipment will slice that to 2:10 and a nonstop could do the run in two hours flat.

There's also the Portal Bridge and the Hudson River tunnels. The NEC needs to be four tracks between Newark and New York. How they get 200+ trains a day through there on just two tracks is beyond me.

There's also the Portal Bridge and the Hudson River tunnels. The NEC needs to be four tracks between Newark and New York. How they get 200+ trains a day through there on just two tracks is beyond me.

 

I saw an Amtrak NEC study that put the cost to do these projects at around $35 billion. To me, that's a bargain.

High Speed ‘Trains of the Future’ May Finally Be Coming to the Northeast http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/25/high-speed-trains-of-the-future-may-finally-be-coming-to-the-northeast.html … Would also affect routes outside Northeast!

 

The NEC really needs modernization and greater capacity. Projects like the Baltimore tunnels will make operations smoother and more efficient. As far as speed and running times go, replacing old catenary  to allow 165 mph south of New York will itself allow a NYP-WAS running time of less than 2:30. New equipment will slice that to 2:10 and a nonstop could do the run in two hours flat.

 

BTW, the ruling needed by the FRA to do this could change equipment standards nationwide. I can't imagine this would be restricted to the NEC because trains from beyond the NEC operate over the NEC. So the intermingling of equipment makes any FRA ruling a national ruling. So if we had faster/lighter trains that could also tilt through curves the way Acela trains were supposed to, imagine the potential time savings on routes like Pittsburgh-Washington or Pittsburgh-Harrisburg or Cincinnati-Washington. I have seen estimates that this could result in time savings of at least 30 percent. Coupled with PTC installations and grade crossing improvements that permit 90 mph top speeds, the time savings could increase to 50 percent.

 

Here's some examples of slow operations through rugged terrain that could be improved with high-performance trains and modest infrastructure improvements.....

 

Pittsburgh-Washington DC [299 miles] CURRENT: 7:45 -- POSSIBLE: 4:15 to 5:25

Pittsburgh-Harrisburg [249 miles] CURRENT: 5:30 -- POSSIBLE: 3:30 to 4:10

Cincinnati-Washington DC [603 miles] CURRENT 14:15 -- POSSIBLE:  8:30 to 10:00

High Speed ‘Trains of the Future’ May Finally Be Coming to the Northeast http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/25/high-speed-trains-of-the-future-may-finally-be-coming-to-the-northeast.html … Would also affect routes outside Northeast!

 

The NEC really needs modernization and greater capacity. Projects like the Baltimore tunnels will make operations smoother and more efficient. As far as speed and running times go, replacing old catenary  to allow 165 mph south of New York will itself allow a NYP-WAS running time of less than 2:30. New equipment will slice that to 2:10 and a nonstop could do the run in two hours flat.

 

BTW, the ruling needed by the FRA to do this could change equipment standards nationwide. I can't imagine this would be restricted to the NEC because trains from beyond the NEC operate over the NEC. So the intermingling of equipment makes any FRA ruling a national ruling. So if we had faster/lighter trains that could also tilt through curves the way Acela trains were supposed to, imagine the potential time savings on routes like Pittsburgh-Washington or Pittsburgh-Harrisburg or Cincinnati-Washington. I have seen estimates that this could result in time savings of at least 30 percent. Coupled with PTC installations and grade crossing improvements that permit 90 mph top speeds, the time savings could increase to 50 percent.

 

Here's some examples of slow operations through rugged terrain that could be improved with high-performance trains and modest infrastructure improvements.....

 

Pittsburgh-Washington DC [299 miles] CURRENT: 7:45 -- POSSIBLE: 4:15 to 5:25

Pittsburgh-Harrisburg [249 miles] CURRENT: 5:30 -- POSSIBLE: 3:30 to 4:10

Cincinnati-Washington DC [603 miles] CURRENT 14:15 -- POSSIBLE:  8:30 to 10:00

 

There are places where this could make a really big difference, but we have to temper that with the realization that freight railroads might not cooperate, even if this is technologically feasible.