Railroad Forums
Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman
The EGE wrote:The East Side Tunnel served three different rail branches. The P&W branch which connects to the P&W mainline; the Providence, Warren, and Bristol which runs to Bristol and Fall River; and the Boston & Providence's East Providence Branch, which connected to the mainline at East Junction.
Running this route would have added 5.5 miles of perfectly straight running (on top of 10.9 plus another 3 of shallow curves into Sharon) and avoided the sharp curves at Pawtucket/Central Falls. We know that the tunnel can handle catenary - it did for the PW&B electrics.
One wonders. Perhaps the New Haven - Boston section of the NEC was not even considered until after the downtown tracks were moved in 1981. Perhaps the tunnel is too small for modern Amtrak trains (versus smaller PW&B electrics and slow freights). Perhaps the curve on the east end of the bridge is too sharp. But in the end, it wasn't to be.
ApproachMedium wrote:Could it be taking this branch would have led the train thru less dense areas and not to the popular cities that amtrak wanted to serve? Yes the big picture is to get to boston, but amtrak does serve some other cities/towns in between. A nice thought would be to have a second ROW for the acela express trains but since they already own and maintain the one route having a second is probably not an option.No Amtrak stops between Providence and the three Boston stations (128, BBY & BOS). Using the East Providence branch would not have changed any of these stops.
The EGE wrote:The East Side Tunnel served three different rail branches. The P&W branch which connects to the P&W mainline; the Providence, Warren, and Bristol which runs to Bristol and Fall River; and the Boston & Providence's East Providence Branch, which connected to the mainline at East Junction.If this tunnel leads to "Old Bridge Path", then it looks like that wye at the end of the bridge would slow trains down quite a bit. There appears to be a lot of rebuilding to the missing railroad. Besides, just how slow is the running between Cranston and Pawtucket with the curves, and why would this be a problem for a tilting train?
Running this route would have added 5.5 miles of perfectly straight running (on top of 10.9 plus another 3 of shallow curves into Sharon) and avoided the sharp curves at Pawtucket/Central Falls. We know that the tunnel can handle catenary - it did for the PW&B electrics.
One wonders. Perhaps the New Haven - Boston section of the NEC was not even considered until after the downtown tracks were moved in 1981. Perhaps the tunnel is too small for modern Amtrak trains (versus smaller PW&B electrics and slow freights). Perhaps the curve on the east end of the bridge is too sharp. But in the end, it wasn't to be.
Nasadowsk wrote:The overspeed tests are typically conduced at the facility in Pueblo, CO. Back in the day the railroads did publicity testing during the day on their speed lines.buddah wrote: Thats a good question as I believe the highest they tested the Acela before service was up to 160 mph?Yes, I think the FRA requires 10 over the top service speed. I'm just not sure where that was.
Also Nasadowsk I'll be on a bridge in France somewhere near you the next time France wants to break a rail speed record, I'm still upset I missed the last one.Lemme know if you hear about a new run, i'll do the same!
25Hz wrote:Nasadowsk wrote:The overspeed tests are typically conduced at the facility in Pueblo, CO. Back in the day the railroads did publicity testing during the day on their speed lines.buddah wrote: Thats a good question as I believe the highest they tested the Acela before service was up to 160 mph?Yes, I think the FRA requires 10 over the top service speed. I'm just not sure where that was.
Also Nasadowsk I'll be on a bridge in France somewhere near you the next time France wants to break a rail speed record, I'm still upset I missed the last one.Lemme know if you hear about a new run, i'll do the same!
buddah wrote:The Acela did in fact do high speed testing on various stretches of the NEC. It set its official speed record not in Pueblo, CO (where it did also run at 160+) but rather on the NEC near Kingston, RI when it hit 168.8 mph.Nasadowsk wrote:Thats a good question as I believe the highest they tested the Acela before service was up to 160 mph? I could be wrong, however thats how I remember it. In respect to Acela toping out at 160 the turbos which were just shy of 171 mph on there test run holds the NEC speed record however I believe even the X2000 which made a limited engagement on the NEC was given the highball on a test run and maxed out at 164-165 mph, I'll have to dig in my old chest of VHS tapes ( remember those thing) in storage to find that old Pentax Documentary on it and look it up.
Didn't they test the Acela here at high speeds back when it was new, or was that testing up in Mass?
Then again, they might publicize it like the French do*. And I have my passport ready for then next time they decide to set a new world record....
Also Nasadowsk I'll be on a bridge in France somewhere near you the next time France wants to break a rail speed record, I'm still upset I missed the last one.
morris&essex4ever wrote:I do know that raising the speed on the Acela, comes with a large papertrail including meetings, testing, discussions etc. as to the effects, risks, safety and so forth. We'll see what happens with this, like all things its going to be regulated and probably needing approval by the FRA. As much as I LOVE the Acela Express service, I do see it at a slight disadvantage as the Acela is not at the peak of High Speed Rail's capabilities due to the congestion on the NEC. Comparable to overseas, if the Acela had a dedicated ROW etc, I think it could do a whole lot more, who knows what the future bringshi55us wrote:I can already picture the platform at Hamilton packed! Can't wait to see (ride?) it!Princeton Junction should get plenty of rail fans too!
Maybe, the "testing" will be on Acelas in revenue service and the engineer will say, "This is a preview of what you'll experience when the upgrades are complete."
Comparable to overseas, if the Acela had a dedicated ROW etcThe Acela is a tilting train. Such are meant to be used on traditional rights of way, not dedicated ones.
amtrakowitz wrote:Tilting train or not, Acela would attain a much higher average speed on a dedicated ROW than the NEC and thus cut down trip times drastically.Comparable to overseas, if the Acela had a dedicated ROW etcThe Acela is a tilting train. Such are meant to be used on traditional rights of way, not dedicated ones.
GP40MC 1116 wrote:Comparable to overseas, if the Acela had a dedicated ROW etc, I think it could do a whole lot more, who knows what the future bringsNo question about it. Unfortunately, the NEC runs through the most densly populated areas in the country.
Clearfield wrote:No question about it. Unfortunately, the NEC runs through the most densly populated areas in the country.Correction, the most densely populated areas of the country sprang up around the NEC.
