Amtrak: The Road to Recovery

[Devvy]

TBH, there'd be a tipping point somewhere that a POTUS would embrace it. It looks like you picked a good time to do it. Great update!

Thanks!

Yay! X2000 it is and giving them locos at both ends for longer trains makes obvious sense for when pax increase. I saw a few X2000 earlier today, blowing through my local commuter station and they still rum 'em that short here. So tiny compared to hst:s on the continent.

All that other stuff in the update... so frustrating it didn't happen otl.

The tilting feature that SJ claims allows the train to run 30% quicker is impressive, and is a great asset on the bending lines that Amtrak has in the NEC. With power levels fixed by having 2 loco's, it's the obvious choice

And after 25 years now, butterflies are starting to gather pace. Expect to pace of change accelerate over the next 15 or so years.

1997 Reelection?

Cheers - fixed. His second term started in 1997, but was re-elected in 1996. Damn US system

 

[Dan1988]

Interesting update, Devvy. I'm impressed. Especially with the North-South Rail Link.

Now - do you want to answer that other post I made immediately before you made that update?

 

[Devvy]

Ooops - forgot to reply to this

I see. Sleeper services could fill a niche, I guess - like OTL. However, even then you could adapt them to both HSR and non-HSR usages; an example of that is the Trenhotel, covering Spain and Portugal with connections from France. Here's a rough idea from "The Man from Seat 61": http://seat61.com/Spain.htm#London_to_Spain_by_sleeper_train

My thought is that a proper "sleeper service" - ie. one that leaves at 9am, and arrives in the destination at circa 7-8am could be competitive, and might possible attract the general public and business people alike if it arrives at the start of the business day, and is comfortable/convenient/decent price. Undecided on this though.

True. However, if it was just the locomotives, I could see it being adapted to a North American loading gauge - it'll just be fatter than what you guys are used to. Even the Countrylink XPT adaptation could work since I think the Australian loading gauge is similar to ours, albeit slightly narrower by just a couple inches. The Talgo Pendular cars also seem to work well in a North American environment, so we'll see. (Hmm - Talgo Pendular cars coupled with a modified BR Class 43 [IC125] locomotive? Now that would be tempting. )

Strap imported C43 locos to ends of Amtrak coaches and that could be interesting! I'm not sure how wide diesel usage will be....I want to push out electrification as I can. It's cheaper, more efficient and cleaner....but obviously needs the capital cost to get it going. Time will tell as this TL pans out.

I see. I was just thinking that you had hinted of shifting it to the Inland Route (which is basically already there, as the tracks are still being used), but I didn't know if it was actual fact. Guess I was wrong.

Not sure - at the moment anyway, NEC is using the Coastal Route as per OTL. This was a large factor in choosing a tilting train, due to the windy nature of the route. Inland Route exists, but it isn't particularly direct in any manner. To me, the ideal route would be running New York to Hartford on existing tracks, then a new track directly east from Hartford to Providence, then continuing using existing tracks into Boston. But that's me drawing a straight line on a map....and reality doesn't usually end up like that

Hmm, well I know that here the MBTA Commuter Rail seems to take up a lot of space - but that's because it's commuter rail, which in North American parlance covers what you guys would consider three separate services [regional rail, commuter rail, and suburban rail].

Upon doing some more research, I've found that the OTL Northeast Regional at least sometimes runs with 2 locomotives hauling an 8 coach train, so I guess all the stations would be able to handle Loco-8xCoach-Loco. Which is what I was planning on anyway with the Amtrak X2000 trains. Winner

Would be interesting to see if they could be extended in the future though without significant station rebuilds!

 

[Dan1988]

Ooops - forgot to reply to this

That's OK. I understand - pressure to get the update up and running and all that. We've all had those moments.

My thought is that a proper "sleeper service" - ie. one that leaves at 9am, and arrives in the destination at circa 7-8am could be competitive, and might possible attract the general public and business people alike if it arrives at the start of the business day, and is comfortable/convenient/decent price. Undecided on this though.

You mean "leaves at 9pm and arrives in the destination at circa 7-8am", right? Oh, definitely, that could be attractive - I remember way back Amtrak used to have a (regular) sleeper service called the "Twilight Shoreliner", which Mom, Dad, and I used to its terminus at Newport News, VA, then a rental car to Norfolk, VA, to celebrate a friend's bat mitzvah. That was fun. For longer distances, that would be even more interesting if you tack on the HSR option à la the Trenhotel. So sleeper service here could be both HSR and non-HSR, as well as also being used for cross-border service to Canada. In the case of sleeper service on HSR, you could even copy both the different Trenhotel categories of sleeper with appropriate category names in English and combine them with the existing Amtrak sleeper categories.

Strap imported C43 locos to ends of Amtrak coaches and that could be interesting! I'm not sure how wide diesel usage will be....I want to push out electrification as I can. It's cheaper, more efficient and cleaner....but obviously needs the capital cost to get it going. Time will tell as this TL pans out.

Believe me when I tell you that diesel is generally the default mode in North America, especially when not using electric. Here near the MBTA Commuter Rail, the T uses all diesel locomotives (though that a good portion of the Commuter Rail network is non-electrified probably plays a factor).

Not sure - at the moment anyway, NEC is using the Coastal Route as per OTL. This was a large factor in choosing a tilting train, due to the windy nature of the route. Inland Route exists, but it isn't particularly direct in any manner. To me, the ideal route would be running New York to Hartford on existing tracks, then a new track directly east from Hartford to Providence, then continuing using existing tracks into Boston. But that's me drawing a straight line on a map....and reality doesn't usually end up like that

All makes sense to me.

Upon doing some more research, I've found that the OTL Northeast Regional at least sometimes runs with 2 locomotives hauling an 8 coach train, so I guess all the stations would be able to handle Loco-8xCoach-Loco. Which is what I was planning on anyway with the Amtrak X2000 trains. Winner

Makes sense - the T probably adds a couple of carriages or two, but sounds about right (in the T's case, some of the carriages are double-decker, but the tunnels on our network can support that. Not so elsewhere on the NEC, though.

Would be interesting to see if they could be extended in the future though without significant station rebuilds!

Hmm, that's going to be a challenge.

 

[Devvy]

You mean "leaves at 9pm and arrives in the destination at circa 7-8am", right? Oh, definitely, that could be attractive - I remember way back Amtrak used to have a (regular) sleeper service called the "Twilight Shoreliner", which Mom, Dad, and I used to its terminus at Newport News, VA, then a rental car to Norfolk, VA, to celebrate a friend's bat mitzvah. That was fun. For longer distances, that would be even more interesting if you tack on the HSR option à la the Trenhotel. So sleeper service here could be both HSR and non-HSR, as well as also being used for cross-border service to Canada. In the case of sleeper service on HSR, you could even copy both the different Trenhotel categories of sleeper with appropriate category names in English and combine them with the existing Amtrak sleeper categories.

I'll fully admit I don't really know how popular such a service would be. Here at home, in the UK, sleeper services don't really exist apart from 1 or 2 special sleeper services. I'd be surprised if most people on the street even knew they existed. So from this background, I don't really know whether many people would get on a Chicago - New York non-stop sleeper service (I only say non-stop, because I don't really think people in the intermediate towns will go to their station at 2/3am for a train?)! I'll take it from your comments, that it's potentially be a yes.

Believe me when I tell you that diesel is generally the default mode in North America, especially when not using electric. Here near the MBTA Commuter Rail, the T uses all diesel locomotives (though that a good portion of the Commuter Rail network is non-electrified probably plays a factor).

Oh I fully agree. Electric traction is only viable when there plenty of trains using it, or there are damn good reasons for it - neither of which are particularly present in North America OTL, bar the NEC. IITL, the entire NEC and commuter rail lines into Boston South from south Massachusetts are electrified as well. Chicago - Minneapolis electrification is being worked on "as we speak", and Chicago - Detroit/Cleveland would probably be my next target on the list.

 

[THE OBSERVER]

Perhaps the NEC can build an inland route from New-Haven to Boston via I-91, I-84, and I-90 and open it by the mid 2000s.

 

[Dan1988]

Perhaps the NEC can build an inland route from New-Haven to Boston via I-91, I-84, and I-90 and open it by the mid 2000s.

The Inland Route already exists in TTL like in OTL.

 

[THE OBSERVER]

The Inland Route already exists in TTL like in OTL.

It does? Where? How?

 

[Devvy]

It does? Where? How?

New Haven - Springfield (New Haven - Springfield line) - Boston (CSX Berkshire/Boston Division).

Not sure on the line quality though, I can't see it being particularly fast unlike the Coastal Route.

 

[THE OBSERVER]

Run a dedicated high speed line along the interstates.

 

[Dan1988]

Run a dedicated high speed line along the interstates.

That's actually against the rules. Yes, I know, stupid, but that was what held up the connection from South Station to Logan Airport because the dimwits at Washington refused to have a subway tunnel bundled with the regular tunnel, so the Silver Line had to be BRT - and that's OTL. Maybe in TTL some of the rules will be different - as the North-South Rail Link finally coming to fruition TTL demonstrates - but generally you can not have a rail line either in the median or adjacent to a freeway or expressway, especially if Federal money is involved. Stupid rule? Yes. Could it be bent? Maybe, if the ROWs are not there (and, in the case of a Boston-Montréal route, the ROWs are actually there and are being used).

 

[Devvy]

That's actually against the rules. Yes, I know, stupid, but that was what held up the connection from South Station to Logan Airport because the dimwits at Washington refused to have a subway tunnel bundled with the regular tunnel, so the Silver Line had to be BRT - and that's OTL. Maybe in TTL some of the rules will be different - as the North-South Rail Link finally coming to fruition TTL demonstrates - but generally you can not have a rail line either in the median or adjacent to a freeway or expressway, especially if Federal money is involved. Stupid rule? Yes. Could it be bent? Maybe, if the ROWs are not there (and, in the case of a Boston-Montréal route, the ROWs are actually there and are being used).

Interesting - never knew that. Will try to incorporate it in....

 

[Simon]

Well that sounds, on the face of it, moronic. What was their reasoning behind it do you know?

 

[Bureaucromancer]

Well that sounds, on the face of it, moronic. What was their reasoning behind it do you know?

Almost certainly a largely unintended (though maybe not so much given folks like Robert Moses were involved) consequence of the interstate standards that prevent more reasonable things like level crossings, embedded track (and more disputable) trolley wires.

 

[Dan1988]

Well that sounds, on the face of it, moronic. What was their reasoning behind it do you know?

AFAIK it's because generally since controlled-access highways (freeways/motorways and expressways) are supposed to be grade-separated, the idea was to keep level crossings to a minimum, preferably none.* Given that the design speed of most Interstate Highway projects is 75 mph (~120 km/h), it kinda helps to not have the trains in the way to prevent any conflict, such as head-on collisions. It also helps that in some cases, to get an expressway on board at the cheapest possible cost, all that was needed was to rip out the tracks from existing ROWs and just pave it over and BAM! you've got your expressway. (Case in point: I-195 - before the new bridge was built, for the longest time I-195 actually used an old ROW from one of the railway companies, even to the point of actually using the bridges from the ROW, when snaking through Providence. Hence, there were many sharp curves which occasionally led to accidents.)

*An example of what the standards try to avoid is on Autoroute 20, in Québec. In Québec, their Autoroutes are more or less up to US Interstate Highway Standards, with several exceptions - one of them on Autoroute 20, where there's a railway crossing. Because the level crossing is on a major route (as it's on the Trans-Canada Highway), train operators have to call the MTQ before making the crossing.

 

[Plumber]

No love for the Fullerton train station?

 

[Historico]

Great last round of updates Devy, I've been keeping up with this TL even if I haven't really been commenting as I should. I had a question in regards to you last update in which you stated that President Clinton was converted by a 10 Hour trip from Washington to Chicago. I just have to argue against the plausibility of that, as current route conditions clock in at 23 hours at best. My research for my Environmental Law class, surrounds the feasibility of HSR in Western PA, and there are considerable obstacles to it. But there are also some plausible solutions.

1. The Pennsylvania High Speed Rail Commission: It was created via statute around 1981, and in 1986 the Agency produced a feasibility report which stated that there was significant market demand for the project. However the Commission gave considerable weight to Maglev versus Advanced Steel Wheel Technology as the best option to achieve 2hour service from Pittsburgh to Philly since it would be easier to create a new route rather than the massive infrastructure improvements needed to expand Norfolk Southern's current route.

Once public support for the project evaporated in the early '90's nothing really emerged out the Commission's study but a Maglev-Steel Wheel split by supporters. I do believe, that in your TL we could possibly advert such a focus on Maglev since the effects of an earlier re-electrification of the Harrisburg to Philly part of the line would have begun having some effect by the time the commission got off the ground ITTL. But in order to cut down on almost 6hour diesel-powered trip through ridiculously mountainous terrain, The PA HSR Commission is going to have to work with NS to keep the four tracks open(it's down to two now), as well as new bridges/tunnels, electrification, and tilting wheel technology to get around the sharp curves(Altoona Horsehoe). It's definitely doable and certainly not as expensive as the Maglev boondogle which caused the Commonwealth to get two decades behind other states in terms of the HSR plans.

So I think it's plausible that you can have 2 to 3 hour service across PA, without having Amtrak buy out all the track. I haven't focused to much of my research around Ohio, but I believe that the ARRA studies showed a 5 hour trip as feasible before Kasich denied the funding. My solution would be to have the states develop their own HSR commission's to form Public-Private partnerships with the freight rail-line owners inorder to insure that Amtrak doesn't have the financial responsibility to buy out all those miles of track. Amtrak is better served purchasing the interstate lines(Cleveland to Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne to Toledo, and Toledo to Detroit potentially) to ensure infighting between the states doesn't occur.

Just my two cents lol, keep it comming

 

[Devvy]

Great last round of updates Devy, I've been keeping up with this TL even if I haven't really been commenting as I should. I had a question in regards to you last update in which you stated that President Clinton was converted by a 10 Hour trip from Washington to Chicago. I just have to argue against the plausibility of that, as current route conditions clock in at 23 hours at best.

Glad to have you on board (honestly there was no pun intended when I wrote that )! I'm just away with work for most of this week, so forgive the brevity of the response and I'll reply to the rest of the points when I'm back home.

Regarding the 10 hour....I was imagining the service as a special overnight sleeper service for the President, running pretty much non stop from DC to Chicago.

The Capitol Limited when operated by B&O managed DC to Pittsburgh in 6:40 with stops. As it's running with no stops, it could probably manage to Pittsburgh in 6:00 with modern traction, before stopping there for 10 minutes of refuelling if neccessary. That's with freight owned tracks.

From Cleveland to Chicago (again running non stop), Amtrak Capitol Ltd service takes 6 hours - but on freight owned track. ITTL we have Amtrak owned track that can at least do 100mph on most stretches, so I was imagining that the service could manage it in about 4:00, hence the overall 10 hour figure.

Just some calculations - let me know if you spots any mistakes or disagree at all!

EDIT: Finished super early today for some reason, so a couple of hours free and I'll finish writing this post I hurried at lunch time!

1. The Pennsylvania High Speed Rail Commission: It was created via statute around 1981, and in 1986 the Agency produced a feasibility report which stated that there was significant market demand for the project. However the Commission gave considerable weight to Maglev versus Advanced Steel Wheel Technology as the best option to achieve 2hour service from Pittsburgh to Philly since it would be easier to create a new route rather than the massive infrastructure improvements needed to expand Norfolk Southern's current route.

Once public support for the project evaporated in the early '90's nothing really emerged out the Commission's study but a Maglev-Steel Wheel split by supporters. I do believe, that in your TL we could possibly advert such a focus on Maglev since the effects of an earlier re-electrification of the Harrisburg to Philly part of the line would have begun having some effect by the time the commission got off the ground ITTL. But in order to cut down on almost 6hour diesel-powered trip through ridiculously mountainous terrain, The PA HSR Commission is going to have to work with NS to keep the four tracks open(it's down to two now), as well as new bridges/tunnels, electrification, and tilting wheel technology to get around the sharp curves(Altoona Horsehoe). It's definitely doable and certainly not as expensive as the Maglev boondogle which caused the Commonwealth to get two decades behind other states in terms of the HSR plans.

I agree that there will be far less people calling for Maglev, as Amtrak already own significant amounts of track. Far easier and cheaper for them to continue working to upgrade their routes rather then building new ones; a different proposition to OTL where Amtrak own little outside of the NEC and so building new routes is more appealing.

So I think it's plausible that you can have 2 to 3 hour service across PA, without having Amtrak buy out all the track. I haven't focused to much of my research around Ohio, but I believe that the ARRA studies showed a 5 hour trip as feasible before Kasich denied the funding. My solution would be to have the states develop their own HSR commission's to form Public-Private partnerships with the freight rail-line owners inorder to insure that Amtrak doesn't have the financial responsibility to buy out all those miles of track. Amtrak is better served purchasing the interstate lines(Cleveland to Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne to Toledo, and Toledo to Detroit potentially) to ensure infighting between the states doesn't occur.

Just my two cents lol, keep it coming

As you allude to, building HSR across Pennsylvania is difficult due to the rugged terrain. ITTL, Amtrak services crossing the state will be doing so on freight lines - I don't see any decent financial case for Amtrak building a line across from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh for example - and to be honest I'm not sure there is a massive market unless you spend billions making a rail route that is flat & straight for HSR to make travel times competitive.

ITTL, Amtrak has a large focus on HSR/long distance travel for 2 reasons; it's profitable, and it's popular (popular as an air feeder route, and as normal passenger traffic). Amtrak's dedicated lines will have ample capacity for commuter traffic; HSR can comfortably handle 15tph on the super high speed areas; 20tph is reasonably in denser and slower areas approaching city centre areas.

ITTL, Amtrak already own tracks from Chicago - Fort Wayne, Fort Wayne - Toledo - Detroit and Fort Wayne - Cleveland. Although some of the inner city will be shared track for access to the station in places like Detroit or Cleveland, trains are going slow by this point so no problem.

As always, feedback/comments are appreciated!

 

[Historico]

Glad to have you on board (honestly there was no pun intended when I wrote that )! I'm just away with work for most of this week, so forgive the brevity of the response and I'll reply to the rest of the points when I'm back home.

Regarding the 10 hour....I was imagining the service as a special overnight sleeper service for the President, running pretty much non stop from DC to Chicago.

The Capitol Limited when operated by B&O managed DC to Pittsburgh in 6:40 with stops. As it's running with no stops, it could probably manage to Pittsburgh in 6:00 with modern traction, before stopping there for 10 minutes of refueling if necessary. That's with freight owned tracks.

From Cleveland to Chicago (again running non stop), Amtrak Capitol Ltd service takes 6 hours - but on freight owned track. ITTL we have Amtrak owned track that can at least do 100mph on most stretches, so I was imagining that the service could manage it in about 4:00, hence the overall 10 hour figure.

Just some calculations - let me know if you spots any mistakes or disagree at all!

EDIT: Finished super early today for some reason, so a couple of hours free and I'll finish writing this post I hurried at lunch time!

Well that makes more sense, it seems when there multiple passenger rail trips, the Pittsburgh to DC/Philly actually managed better times than we see today with the Pennsylvanian. I think the now cancelled Three Rivers service pushed 20 hours for Chicago-Pittsburgh-Philadelphia-NYC.

I agree that there will be far less people calling for Maglev, as Amtrak already own significant amounts of track. Far easier and cheaper for them to continue working to upgrade their routes rather then building new ones; a different proposition to OTL where Amtrak own little outside of the NEC and so building new routes is more appealing.



As you allude to, building HSR across Pennsylvania is difficult due to the rugged terrain. ITTL, Amtrak services crossing the state will be doing so on freight lines - I don't see any decent financial case for Amtrak building a line across from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh for example - and to be honest I'm not sure there is a massive market unless you spend billions making a rail route that is flat & straight for HSR to make travel times competitive.

ITTL, Amtrak has a large focus on HSR/long distance travel for 2 reasons; it's profitable, and it's popular (popular as an air feeder route, and as normal passenger traffic). Amtrak's dedicated lines will have ample capacity for commuter traffic; HSR can comfortably handle 15tph on the super high speed areas; 20tph is reasonably in denser and slower areas approaching city centre areas.

ITTL, Amtrak already own tracks from Chicago - Fort Wayne, Fort Wayne - Toledo - Detroit and Fort Wayne - Cleveland. Although some of the inner city will be shared track for access to the station in places like Detroit or Cleveland, trains are going slow by this point so no problem.

As always, feedback/comments are appreciated!

Interesting, Norfolk Southern in '05 produced a study which weighed the CBA on the effect of more passenger rail service on their freight lines for the Keystone West Corridor. Basically they said with major infrastructure upgrades they could get the travel down from about 5.5 hours to about 4 hours for about $110 million. The Interesting thing about this route is that NS paired down Conrail's 4 track route to two. So ROW purchases may not be as difficult in some other areas, esp if we want to get a sealed corridor across the state. Electrification is also an issue, but I think if you can at least get a sealed corridor, you could get competitive automobile speeds.

In terms of Public-Private Investment, I think with Amtrak's better record ITTL freight companies may be more willing to work with them to drive capital costs down for track upgrades. If we could get travel speeds up across Pennsylvania than the chances that Amtrak could maybe purchase the Cleveland to Pittsburgh route, might make it seem more reasonable

 

[Nicola]

<snip>

Cheers! I was just wondering. Over in the UK, intercity express service platforms are normally around 10-11 coaches (most intercity trains are 8 or 9 passenger coaches flanked by locomotives) long. Just wondering if it was similar in the US, shorter (Acela is only 6 coaches flanked by the 2 locomotives!), or longer (some US passenger trains seem to have a huge number of passenger coaches).

East Coast's HSTs are 2 power cars + 9 mk 3s , XC HSTs are 2+7 , fGW 2+7 and MML 2+8 , the original formats for the HST under BR were 2 +7 or 2 +8

the 'InterCity 225' is class 91 + 9x mk 4s +DVT

220/1/2 can be configured with between 4 and 9 vehicles in a set and 4 and 5 car units are sometimes seen coupled in pairs

the cl 390 pendolino sets are either 9 or 11 cars .

the UK operates up to 12 cars on some of the Commuter services around london .

in BR days some of the loco hauled trains within InterCity services / IC cross country would have larger numbers of carriages , but in the post BR world the move has been to higher frequency services of shorter consists ( hence the reason for the 4 and 5 car 22x series units for XC)