RAILROAD.NET

That's more or less my take as well ... If there's a good economic argument to run them then, "Why not?" ... It's an absolute nightmare scenario for the airlines that operate East Coast shuttle service. The last thing they want is higher frequency of service and higher capacity for Amtrak's premium products.

Not only is this a large and relatively young fleet (by any standard) but it's also proven and successful.

Except for the internal MU control line between power cars,Acela I's have HEP plugs and maybe the Door/Comm Plug in the nose of the of
the power cars.

Amtrak releases renderings of new Acela interiors.

https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/hi ... a-liberty/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wonder if they will really have such nice big windows without the middle separation bar?

I also hope the hell they don't expect half of us to ride backwards at 160 mph!

UPDATE: Just found additional info that the seats are fixed and half face backwards. I hate that.

How come the Japanese can solve this but we can't?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/ ... 91662.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

bostontrainguy wrote:
I also hope the hell they don't expect half of us to ride backwards at 160 mph!

Eh, I've done it before!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHRpR_h_Euk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Seeing these new interiors is a really good reminder of just how much Amtrak got right the first time around in 2000.

We do support keeping the AX-1s for some kind of service. However the AX-2 purchase contract does have an option to purchase additional cars to be inserted into the new sets . Believe eventual 12 car train sets are contemplated ? That can be a game changer if Amtrak can solve the service facility train length limit at the BOS yard. Of course SSY and WASH would need either a longer facility or lengthen present ones if possible. Another factor is whether the present 39 / day train limit across the draw bridges between Providence and New Haven is increased. So would Amtrak trade more AX trains for longer ones BOS <> NYP ? Then we have the problem of MNRR rebuilding some draw bridges that may limit more Amtrak trains. At present the Walk bridge lift bridges will not be complete until when ? 2023 or 2024 ? Then other MNRR bridges will need replacing ?

Amtrak does not have any idea or do we as to the NEC passenger loads 5 - 10 years into the future ? Anything is just speculation and although speculation is OK it is just that speculation . Therefore how rolling stock would need to be allocated in the future is impossible to know .







further until MNRR gets all their drawbridges s

Matt Johnson wrote:There are a lot of intriguing possibilities for post Avelia secondary uses of the original Acela sets, and then there are good arguments against maintaining expensive unique trains which require unique parts. It's an interesting tradeoff study, and if there's an economic case for keeping 'em, I wonder if eliminating the tilt mechanisms and/or downgrading to say, 125 mph max might reduce wear and maintenance enough to make any difference. I'll leave it to the experts to determine if they're structurally sound and safe for continued high speed use after their 20 year primary career ends.

100 coaches (80 passenger coaches, 20 cafes) is nothing to sneeze at - that's quite a sizable fleet and at CAF Viewliner production rates, represents like a century's worth of equipment acquisition!

It's why I keep suggesting NYS should electrify the Empire Service.
Decent captive service, can work into the existing infrastructure...

Good luck getting the FRA to approve a mixed setup of overhead wire with 3rd rail on the MN Hudson Line to Harmon.
They are not happy with the mix of catenary and 3rd rail in NY Penn now!

Backshophoss wrote:Good luck getting the FRA to approve a mixed setup of overhead wire with 3rd rail on the MN Hudson Line to Harmon.
They are not happy with the mix of catenary and 3rd rail in NY Penn now!

Does the FRA have an actual reason for this, or is it just the typical FRA "Not invented here" BS?

Mixed operations aren't common in the world, but they've existed a long long time, and they work.

In any case, the easy way around that is to just remove the third rail north of S-D, and run M8s on the Hudson line. Not ideal, but whatever. Maybe the FRA can pay for that if they're so afraid of mixed ops.

Or, just get HSTs that run on third rail (albeit slowly)

As far as making the Keystone 125mph? Why the hell not? The point of tilt is faster curve speeds. 110 to 125 shouldn't be that big of a jump.

Nasadowsk wrote:

Backshophoss wrote:Good luck getting the FRA to approve a mixed setup of overhead wire with 3rd rail on the MN Hudson Line to Harmon.
They are not happy with the mix of catenary and 3rd rail in NY Penn now!

Does the FRA have an actual reason for this, or is it just the typical FRA "Not invented here" BS?

Mixed operations aren't common in the world, but they've existed a long long time, and they work.

In any case, the easy way around that is to just remove the third rail north of S-D, and run M8s on the Hudson line. Not ideal, but whatever. Maybe the FRA can pay for that if they're so afraid of mixed ops.

Or, just get HSTs that run on third rail (albeit slowly)

As far as making the Keystone 125mph? Why the hell not? The point of tilt is faster curve speeds. 110 to 125 shouldn't be that big of a jump.

Amtrak is the tenant, not the owner, on the Hudson Line. There is zero-- repeat zero-- chance that you convince either MNRR or the State of New York to shell out the money to install 11.5kV AC catenary for the sake of Amtrak. It would be far cheaper to have Siemens or someone build an AX-1-compatible DM diesel power unit.

Nasadowsk wrote:snip As far as making the Keystone 125mph? Why the hell not? The point of tilt is faster curve speeds. 110 to 125 shouldn't be that big of a jump.

As I said before, because the line is far too curvy and has too many stations to make the upgrade worth the money. Plus, time savings wouldn't be very big.

I don't understand the aversion to riding backwards; The only difference is the scenery runs backwards. I do prefer flippable seats however, and it seems like a reasonable amenity to flip the seats for a train traveling hundreds of miles. This could be done by the cleaning crew.

I read here that the limit on drawbridges east of New Haven is 39/day. This can be increased by negotiation with the Coast Guard, and/or diverting regionals to the inland route. Then they can exercise options for more Avelia trainsets. Presumably Amtrak wins by ordering more Avelias & keeping the number of Regionals constant. Drawback is decreased local service or pressure for some Acelas to make more stops. Acela-1s pulled out of mothballs while options are being manufactured.

There is no drawback in my mind to having some variety in the Acela schedules to include more trains with limited stops and more trains with local stops. It all adds up to Amtrak being able to market more capacity on their premium product that is constantly sold out. I like the idea that this might push more ridership onto the Northeast Regionals that run off-corridor. NYP-WAS in particular would probably be very successful as a limited stop "express" (WAS, BWI, BAL, PHL, MET, NWK, NYP).

gokeefe wrote:NYP-WAS in particular would probably be very successful as a limited stop "express" (WAS, BWI, BAL, PHL, MET, NWK, NYP).

I’ll leave it to others to describe, but such service hasn’t proven all that successful in the past. You’re right to pick park-and-ride stations in wealthy neighborhoods though.

Yes, I recall the previous discussion. The only reason I'm optimistic now is because of the exceptionally high levels of ridership. I feel that the service is in new territory right now and as it continues to grow that may make express service realistic again.