Railroad Forums 

  • Railway Age OpEd on New Operating Plan

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

 #1517058  by electricron
 
rcthompson04 wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:51 am At what point would NEC trains start losing a material number of passengers if runs like the Adirondack and some of the Empire Service started running south of NYP. One or two more would not dent the current passenger numbers, but you would think extending more would hurt the existing runs.
It is possible, but it is not probable for Amtrak to run Empire Service trains south of NYP.
The main problem that arises is Amtrak’s limited number of dual power locomotives. Every one going south of NYP is one less available for Empire Service trains. Of course the simple solution would be switching locomotives types at NYP, but is it probable that Amtrak will want to do so at it’s busiest station. Empire Service trains are turned around using the loop track at Sunnyside Yard to avoid locomotive switching at NYP for a reason. And I doubt through passengers will enjoy the short detour to Sunnyside Yard for locomotive switching. So that is why I do not think it will ever happen with Amtrak’s existing rolling stock.

Another just as un-probable but possible solution is for NY or Amtrak to buy Stadler FLIRT’s dual power train sets. They operate on diesels in New York and switch to catenary power upon entering NYP. The driver/engineer switches ends, performs a break test, and departs on catenary power towards New Jersey. I do not think this possibility is likely either.

Another just as un-probable but possible solution is for NY or Amtrak to hang catenary power over the Empire corridor - at least as far as Albany. Then a train with electric locomotives on both ends could enter NYP, the driver/engineer switches ends, performs a break test, then departs NYP. I just do not think it is probable for NY or Amtrak to hang catenary power over the Empire corridor in our lifetimes.
 #1517062  by Greg Moore
 
I've argued for catenary to Albany for awhile.
That said, it doesn't entirely solve the "running south of NYP" issue. Because of how the Empire Service trains enter NYP, at least one leg will be run backwards (sorta like the Keystone trains).

Not a show-stopper, but one that may turn some folks off.
 #1517063  by mtuandrew
 
rcthompson04 wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:51 am At what point would NEC trains start losing a material number of passengers if runs like the Adirondack and some of the Empire Service started running south of NYP. One or two more would not dent the current passenger numbers, but you would think extending more would hurt the existing runs.
I don’t think that’s a huge issue yet. Each extended train (potentially Adirondack, Empire Service, Ethan Allen or Maple Leaf) would replace a NYP-WAS Regional. Or, they could replace a NYP-BOS/SPG Regional to eliminate the reverse and the engine change at NYP proper. There was also talk of extending some Empire Service trains into LIRR territory, but I suspect that is a pipe dream.
electricron wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:29 pmIt is possible, but it is not probable for Amtrak to run Empire Service trains south of NYP.
The main problem that arises is Amtrak’s limited number of dual power locomotives. Every one going south of NYP is one less available for Empire Service trains. Of course the simple solution would be switching locomotives types at NYP, but is it probable that Amtrak will want to do so at it’s busiest station. Empire Service trains are turned around using the loop track at Sunnyside Yard to avoid locomotive switching at NYP for a reason. And I doubt through passengers will enjoy the short detour to Sunnyside Yard for locomotive switching. So that is why I do not think it will ever happen with Amtrak’s existing rolling stock.

Another just as un-probable but possible solution is for NY or Amtrak to buy Stadler FLIRT’s dual power train sets. They operate on diesels in New York and switch to catenary power upon entering NYP. The driver/engineer switches ends, performs a break test, and departs on catenary power towards New Jersey. I do not think this possibility is likely either.

Another just as un-probable but possible solution is for NY or Amtrak to hang catenary power over the Empire corridor - at least as far as Albany. Then a train with electric locomotives on both ends could enter NYP, the driver/engineer switches ends, performs a break test, then departs NYP. I just do not think it is probable for NY or Amtrak to hang catenary power over the Empire corridor in our lifetimes.
I had imagined an engine-to-motor switch at NYP, changing ends without turning the trainset. I’ve read that Amtrak has done this before in order to run a through MTL-ALB-NYP-WAS service. I have further read that there is a wired pocket track in or near the Empire Connection for protect power. This would allow the southbound Empire Service to pass, the ACS-64 to follow the train into NYP and couple onto the rear, the P32 to uncouple from the front (the new rear) and the train to continue south while the P32 becomes the new protect power and waits for a northbound Empire.

Likely it’s more hassle than Amtrak would want, but it would probably help coach utilization.
 #1517071  by Tadman
 
Although an Adirondack to Washington might increase revenue, it's probably a net break even. If Adirondack goes to Washington, it takes a regional slot. Whatever revenues that train had might go over to the Adirondack, but it's not new business.


But what if it was a BOS-NYP-WAS regional? Now you have people headed for NHV or BOS that have to change trains, probably more than the Empire passengers.

At the end of the day, a network of regionals works better than really long trains.

Basic statistics also tells us that the longer a train is, the possibility of delays or problems grows greater than proportionally because problems cascade. Late trains generally get later.
 #1517075  by Philly Amtrak Fan
 
Tadman wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 2:35 pm
At the end of the day, a network of regionals works better than really long trains.

Basic statistics also tells us that the longer a train is, the possibility of delays or problems grows greater than proportionally because problems cascade. Late trains generally get later.
On the other hand, if it removes a required connection and allows for a one seat ride it makes passengers more likely to take a train.

Hey, if we're talking about trains from Albany continuing on to WAS, how about the LSL? Then Philly (along with NJ and Baltimore) would have a daily direct train to Chicago again.
 #1517087  by west point
 
Problem of swapping locos at NYP is the dual mode locos are all single ended so loco would need to go to Sunnyside to loop around and back to NYP. Capacity problems at NYP would seem to preclude and run thrus from the empire to NEC. Now if Penn south and Gateway are ever completed then ?
 #1517091  by Tadman
 
Philly Amtrak Fan wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 2:49 pm
Tadman wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 2:35 pm
At the end of the day, a network of regionals works better than really long trains.

Basic statistics also tells us that the longer a train is, the possibility of delays or problems grows greater than proportionally because problems cascade. Late trains generally get later.
On the other hand, if it removes a required connection and allows for a one seat ride it makes passengers more likely to take a train.

Hey, if we're talking about trains from Albany continuing on to WAS, how about the LSL? Then Philly (along with NJ and Baltimore) would have a daily direct train to Chicago again.
Ooof my head hurts.

Successful models in Europe show us that 1-2 changes between regional trains are perfectly normal.
 #1517122  by rcthompson04
 
Tadman wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:33 pm
Philly Amtrak Fan wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 2:49 pm
Tadman wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 2:35 pm
At the end of the day, a network of regionals works better than really long trains.

Basic statistics also tells us that the longer a train is, the possibility of delays or problems grows greater than proportionally because problems cascade. Late trains generally get later.
On the other hand, if it removes a required connection and allows for a one seat ride it makes passengers more likely to take a train.

Hey, if we're talking about trains from Albany continuing on to WAS, how about the LSL? Then Philly (along with NJ and Baltimore) would have a daily direct train to Chicago again.
Ooof my head hurts.

Successful models in Europe show us that 1-2 changes between regional trains are perfectly normal.
People connect flights all the time. It just requires being on time, which is not a strong suit.
 #1517158  by ExCon90
 
One time at Nuremberg two ICE trains from different origins were spotted opposite each other on the platform. Both were destined to Munich via two different routes, one arriving in Munich 5 minutes earlier than the other. An army of suits with briefcases hurried across the platform from one train to catch the other one that arrived earlier.