by gokeefe
JimBoylan wrote:Could the 30 Minute Rule have something to do with Amtrak's standard for guaranteed connections?Maybe, but keep in mind the MERR isn't a "connection" yet.
gokeefe
Railroad Forums
Amtrak Downeaster Discussion Thread
- Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman
by gokeefe
A few weeks ago during one of my routine checks for new information I located the following report which appears to provide a definitive answer to the question of "How much extra does the extension cost NNEPRAs operations?"
The short answer appears to be $900,000 in operating support over a two year period. For more information see PDF page 203/223 of the linked, "Biennial Capital Workplan" published by Maine DOT.
Make sure to also reference PDF pages 15/223, 17/223, 20/223, and 207/223.
The short answer appears to be $900,000 in operating support over a two year period. For more information see PDF page 203/223 of the linked, "Biennial Capital Workplan" published by Maine DOT.
Make sure to also reference PDF pages 15/223, 17/223, 20/223, and 207/223.
gokeefe
by Cowford
This report was published in early 2011. At that time, the scheduled start-up was fixed at late 2012 (middle of Maine's Q2, FY13). The budget period is for FY 2012-13. As such, would this not indicate the $900,000 incremental operating subsidy as stated on page 203 applies to eight months of operations, not two years?
Along the lines of incremental costs, how has NNEPRA's protection equipment position changed since BRU extension start-up, i.e., what is kept as spares in Portland now?
Along the lines of incremental costs, how has NNEPRA's protection equipment position changed since BRU extension start-up, i.e., what is kept as spares in Portland now?
by gokeefe
Cowford wrote:This report was published in early 2011. At that time, the scheduled start-up was fixed at late 2012 (middle of Maine's Q2, FY13). The budget period is for FY 2012-13. As such, would this not indicate the $900,000 incremental operating subsidy as stated on page 203 applies to eight months of operations, not two years?Good point. The letter to the Legislature states:
...for the FY 2012-2013 biennium (July 2011 - June 2013).So this would appear to be correct, it's covering eight months of operations. $900,000 / 8 months = $112,500/month or $1,350,000/year. On the other hand we have no way of knowing if this includes or doesn't include any assumed farebox recovery. $1,350,000/year sounds a little steep, but given the extra trainset perhaps it is not.
gokeefe
by Cowford
"$1,350,000/year sounds a little steep, but given the extra trainset perhaps it is not."
I did some cocktail napkin figgerin'. The BRU extension increases train-miles 15%. Fuel, labor, and trackage rights costs will necessarily go up roughly the same percentage. Equipment costs will increase by ~30% (assuming they still keep quantity of spares in Portland). Misc. expenses (G+A, promotion, etc) will also go up to a lesser degree. My pencil calculation was 2.78 million. Assuming a 50% farebox recovery ratio... $1.39 million will be subsidy requirement, which comes pretty close to that 1.35 million figure.
I'm guessing the actual farebox recovery ratio on the BRU extension will be in the low- to mid-30s.
I did some cocktail napkin figgerin'. The BRU extension increases train-miles 15%. Fuel, labor, and trackage rights costs will necessarily go up roughly the same percentage. Equipment costs will increase by ~30% (assuming they still keep quantity of spares in Portland). Misc. expenses (G+A, promotion, etc) will also go up to a lesser degree. My pencil calculation was 2.78 million. Assuming a 50% farebox recovery ratio... $1.39 million will be subsidy requirement, which comes pretty close to that 1.35 million figure.
I'm guessing the actual farebox recovery ratio on the BRU extension will be in the low- to mid-30s.
by GP40MC 1116
markhb wrote:I agree, it's foolish for MERR to write off the possibility of connections. However, there have also been statements/rumors on the board that someone (I'm not sure who) has laid down a rule that the BRK platform is to be clear of all other trains for 30 minutes on each side of the Downeaster's arrival and departure, which means that connections become more awkward and MERR's trainset and personnel are tied up in Brunswick for over an hour.Maine Eastern does use the wye and the controlled siding for its turning of the train. It will be interesting to see how they'll work it out, especially if Amtrak is tied down there.
Also, does anyone know if the MERR trainset is equipped for push-pull, or do they wye it? Because it seems that wying it in Brunswick would present an issue now, since the Downeaster is (AIUI) spending the day sitting on the wye itself.
Incidentally, did anyone else notice that Freeport and Brunswick got cover mentions on the new System Timetable?
I did think however that Amtrak may be deadheading the train set back to Portland as the FRA's new hours of service rule make you need more than one crew for that long of a day. Anyone know If Amtrak is still leaving the train in BRK for the layover?
by markhb
I haven't noticed the train returning to Portland in lieu of the layover since the first week of service, but I tend not to notice it as much now, anyway.
"...And then I thought, every time some company creates a more powerful locomotive does Superman become more powerful as well or is he stuck at 1938 locomotive power levels?" - A friend of mine elsewhere
Anything I post here is mine alone and does not represent the views of my employer.
Anything I post here is mine alone and does not represent the views of my employer.
by gokeefe
GP40MC 1116 wrote:Maine Eastern does use the wye and the controlled siding for its turning of the train. It will be interesting to see how they'll work it out, especially if Amtrak is tied down there.I was wondering about that as well.
gokeefe
by markhb
Regarding the 30-minute rule, my understanding (gleaned entirely from this board, so from whence it comes 
) is that it specifically refers to the platform being clear for 30 minutes on either side of AMTK's occupancy thereof, not the block in general. That would mean that the PAR freights wouldn't be affected anyway, since they're not really occupying the platform. However, a look at the schedule for the MBTA Lowell and Haverhill lines makes it seem apparent that that clearance isn't enforced there, and I'm willing to guess that it isn't enforced at the stations in the New York area. The implication, to me, is that that restriction doesn't (or may not) apply to lines engaged in what you could consider regular passenger service (i.e., commuter rail), but MERR is a "lowly" Class III running a seasonal excursion line on ADA-excepted heritage equipment. It may also be the case that the restriction isn't an operating rules requirement, but rather a contractual thing driven by Amtrak's marketing department to avoid brand dilution.
Incidentally, I just saw 681 heading to Brunswick with an engine (rather than a cabbage) on the Boston end; wasn't there some discussion about a NPCU shortage? Good thing this isn't really bicycle weather.
Finally, NNEPRA is now sponsoring a "Reel Experience Video Challenge" contest, with the grand prize being $1000 and a R/T for travel anywhere between BRK and WAS.
) is that it specifically refers to the platform being clear for 30 minutes on either side of AMTK's occupancy thereof, not the block in general. That would mean that the PAR freights wouldn't be affected anyway, since they're not really occupying the platform. However, a look at the schedule for the MBTA Lowell and Haverhill lines makes it seem apparent that that clearance isn't enforced there, and I'm willing to guess that it isn't enforced at the stations in the New York area. The implication, to me, is that that restriction doesn't (or may not) apply to lines engaged in what you could consider regular passenger service (i.e., commuter rail), but MERR is a "lowly" Class III running a seasonal excursion line on ADA-excepted heritage equipment. It may also be the case that the restriction isn't an operating rules requirement, but rather a contractual thing driven by Amtrak's marketing department to avoid brand dilution.Incidentally, I just saw 681 heading to Brunswick with an engine (rather than a cabbage) on the Boston end; wasn't there some discussion about a NPCU shortage? Good thing this isn't really bicycle weather.
Finally, NNEPRA is now sponsoring a "Reel Experience Video Challenge" contest, with the grand prize being $1000 and a R/T for travel anywhere between BRK and WAS.
"...And then I thought, every time some company creates a more powerful locomotive does Superman become more powerful as well or is he stuck at 1938 locomotive power levels?" - A friend of mine elsewhere
Anything I post here is mine alone and does not represent the views of my employer.
Anything I post here is mine alone and does not represent the views of my employer.
by lirr42
^As to the "NPCU shortage," the Grand Junction Railway, which links the North and South Sides of Boston's rail network, is currently out of service for some much needed repairs, so in order for the Downeaster's equipment to get to the south side for servicing, they have to take a long detour out of the way—the exact route I am not sure of. Therefore, it is very likely that with the added travel time to/from the south side, repairs take longer and therefore they just sent another engine to take the NPCU's place in the meantime on the Downeaster.
by Dick H
Grand Junction opened at the end of last week.
Cabbages are notorious for developing flat wheels.
Since their prime movers and generators are long
gone, it would seem that problems with the MU
controls could be a ongoing problem. Perhaps,
other posters here with more knowledge of cabbage
components can comment further.
Cabbages are notorious for developing flat wheels.
Since their prime movers and generators are long
gone, it would seem that problems with the MU
controls could be a ongoing problem. Perhaps,
other posters here with more knowledge of cabbage
components can comment further.
by mr. mick
The 680/681 trainset having difficulties today - appr 30 min late into BON and about the same lateness coming into POR, while the 682/683 trainset is about on time (so far) Any particular reason for the 680/681 trainset difficulties? motive power? trackwork enroute?
by jbvb
The "30 minute rule" sounds like unofficial handwaving - there is no such thing in MBTA territory. Haverhill has low-level platforms on either side of a double track main, with mini-highs at the N (RR east) end. The parking garage is to the E, the parking lot to the W. There are two pedestrian crossing openings in the inter-track fence. Sometimes it looks like one crew will hold out of the station for the other, but more often the DE that is overtaking or passing the MBCR train will just operate as if it wasn't there. If there are people using the pedestrian crossings, the DE slows down to let them clear. I've never seen someone get stuck on the wrong platform; the regular MBCR conductors ask anyone they see on the mini-high where they're going, and presumably call the DE if they've got to wait till the MBCR train is gone to cross over.
All in all, the kind of railroad common sense that goverened almost everything back when I was a kid. I'm not eager to see it go, so I'm not naming trains...
All in all, the kind of railroad common sense that goverened almost everything back when I was a kid. I'm not eager to see it go, so I'm not naming trains...
by markhb
I've been watching the Maine Legislature's website for news of any Downeaster- (or other rail-) related bills being introduced in this session. To date, there is only one, SP (Senate Paper, I believe) 30, titled "Directing the Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability To Examine the Operation of the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority." It's been introduced by Senator Gerzofsky of Brunswick (no surprise), and the full text reads:
ORDERED, the House concurring, that the Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability shall examine the operation of the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority. The Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability shall secure the documents necessary to complete its examination pursuant to this order.
"...And then I thought, every time some company creates a more powerful locomotive does Superman become more powerful as well or is he stuck at 1938 locomotive power levels?" - A friend of mine elsewhere
Anything I post here is mine alone and does not represent the views of my employer.
Anything I post here is mine alone and does not represent the views of my employer.
by gokeefe
markhb wrote:I've been watching the Maine Legislature's website for news of any Downeaster- (or other rail-) related bills being introduced in this session. To date, there is only one, SP (Senate Paper, I believe) 30, titled "Directing the Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability To Examine the Operation of the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority." It's been introduced by Senator Gerzofsky of Brunswick (no surprise), and the full text reads:Count on the Portland delegation to shred this. I would be both surprised and disappointed if this goes anywhere.ORDERED, the House concurring, that the Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability shall examine the operation of the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority. The Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability shall secure the documents necessary to complete its examination pursuant to this order.
gokeefe