New High Speed Train For NEC? Or Just Improve The Acela?

Just a question for the board. Do you guys think Amtrak should purchase all new trainsets for future operations along the NEC or just improve the Acela Express? Would it be worth the gamble of creating a new train from scratch given all the FRA requierments for tierII trains. I understand there are alot of HST out there, TGV, ICE, X-2000 etc. But remember the NEC is a unique enviornment. And The Acela Express was custom built for that purpose.

Acela Express wrote:Just a question for the board. Do you guys think Amtrak should purchase all new trainsets for future operations along the NEC or just improve the Acela Express? Would it be worth the gamble of creating a new train from scratch given all the FRA requierments for tierII trains. I understand there are alot of HST out there, TGV, ICE, X-2000 etc. But remember the NEC is a unique enviornment. And The Acela Express was custom built for that purpose.

Hi Acela Express. Im hearing from the road foreman in NYC that theres serious talk that Amtrak will indeed purchase new HST. Since the shops at NYC and DC are a fixed length, instead of redoing the shops, Amtrak is interested in purchasing trainsets much like the double deck TGV's that are currently running(or testing, I dont know). Instead of building out, they will build up. The double deck tgv I have seen has the power cars as single levels with just the coaches as double.I had to look on youtube for what Im talking about
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2OtzVpfajs

I knew i would get a response from you. I''m very into the TGV and i believe the Duplex would fit nice along the NEC. I wonder what road foreman told you that. Was it Mr P.S. i'll only use his initials. There would have to be alot of adjustments to the duplex to make it match the height of our high level platforms. And since it is much lighter than the AE it would still have to meet tier II standards.

Acela Express wrote:I knew i would get a response from you. I''m very into the TGV and i believe the Duplex would fit nice along the NEC. I wonder what road foreman told you that. Was it Mr P.S. i'll only use his initials. There would have to be alot of adjustments to the duplex to make it match the height of our high level platforms. And since it is much lighter than the AE it would still have to meet tier II standards.

It may have been P.S, P.K from Z1, and many other RFE including people from Wilmington. I believe if they get the money for this, it will work well for the NEC. Most people who use the Acela , are businessman, so thats not alot of bags that need to be taken up and down steps. I have never been on the Duplex but Im sure it would work well.I guess only time will tell.

double deck TGV's that are currently running(or testing, I don't know).

They have been running for years on the busiest lines in France.

Will they fit through the North River tunnels? NJT had to order specially designed multilevel cars because of the tunnel restriction.

Here is youtube video of the TGV DUPLEX http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCOqGx52j5Q&NR=1

It would be a mistake to ever purchase another expensive foreign train set, as the benefits of such a purchase are very limited.

Looking back, the Acela Express does not represent a meaningful advance in service in comparison to the conventional locomotive hauled, conventional Amfleet coach consist "Metroliners" that immediately preceded it.

Obviously, there is a place for extra fare, express services, but looking at past experience, there is nothing to be gained from TGV-style, tilting trainsets, which are expensive to buy and service, and invariably problematic in service. Somehow, I doubt that passengers would have paid any less to ride in further renovated Amfleet coaches drawn by 125mph locomotives, than in the Acela Express trainsets, which in any case are capable of only 150 mph bursts in limited intervals, not enough to make much of a difference in overall schedules. The Acela Express should be the final example necessary to deter future boondoggles in highspeed rail that end up being on marginally quicker than the existing conventional rolling stock, despite being less reliable and flexible in service.

Far more could be gained by eliminating the bottlenecks in the current right-of-way through infrastructure spending, and concentrating on reducing dwell times, than in spending huge amount on further embarrassments. Now is the time to improve running times through signaling, track, and station improvements, while improving service outside of the NE Corridor by giving passenger trains real precedence over freight trains on non-Amtrak owned trackage.

BuddSilverliner269 wrote: It may have been P.S, P.K from Z1, and many other RFE including people from Wilmington. I believe if they get the money for this, it will work well for the NEC. Most people who use the Acela , are businessman, so thats not alot of bags that need to be taken up and down steps. I have never been on the Duplex but Im sure it would work well.I guess only time will tell.

I rode aboard a TGV Duplex in September. They have luggage storage shelves at the end of the car, which helps to make up for the lack of overhead storage capacity, but at the cost of a couple of seats.

I have a hard time seeing the TGV Duplex adapted for the NEC, though, unless (A) Amtrak is willing to give up active tilt capability and (B) the FRA is willing to bend on the Tier II regs and allow the lightweight carbodies to be used here.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:Somehow, I doubt that passengers would have paid any less to ride in further renovated Amfleet coaches drawn by 125mph locomotives, than in the Acela Express trainsets, which in any case are capable of only 150 mph bursts in limited intervals, not enough to make much of a difference in overall schedules.

I disagree with this assertion. I think the image of a modern, European style bullet train was an integral part of Acela's marketing appeal, and is in fact part of the train's commercial success.

Frankly, the general public and the media do not have any idea what true high-speed rail is. You have only to look at media reports to get an idea of the general cluelessness. (I've even read articles describing the Chinese conventional line in Tibet as high-speed rail.)

Successful marketing is all about finding an angle that will strike the imagination. You don't need to splurge on true HSR; you just need something that will create the impression of European-style train travel in the public's mind. You could buy several Talgo sets, run them at 79 mph, bill them as "European-designed trains," and build a very successful corridor. That's what Washington state did. You could buy a bunch of conventional cars, put a conventional locomotive at front, run it over a non-electrified railroad, call it "Baby Bullet" service, and see a significant improvement in ridership. That's what Caltrain did.

Amtrak will soon be getting some additional appropriations for capital spending. Priority should go to the projects that generate most-bang-for-the-buck. If new cars/trainsets are in the plans (the Amfleets are getting long in the tooth), then they should have big windows, bright lighting, a sleek unfluted exterior, a pointy-nosed locomotive, and additional amenities in first class. They do not need to be capable of running faster than 135 mph. Train travel has greater mindshare in this country than at any time since the oil embargo. Get people onboard, give them a train that looks sparkling clean and modern, get them there on time with no delays, and nobody will care whether the train runs at 135 mph or 150 mph.

taoyue wrote:Get people onboard, give them a train that looks sparkling clean and modern, get them there on time with no delays, and nobody will care whether the train runs at 135 mph or 150 mph.

People may not really care if it runs at 135 or 150, but I can assure you that they will care if it runs at 79 vs 135! The Northeast Corridor would not enjoy the success that it does if it were just another 79 mph railroad.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:It would be a mistake to ever purchase another expensive foreign train set, as the benefits of such a purchase are very limited.

Looking back, the Acela Express does not represent a meaningful advance in service in comparison to the conventional locomotive hauled, conventional Amfleet coach consist "Metroliners" that immediately preceded it.

Obviously, there is a place for extra fare, express services, but looking at past experience, there is nothing to be gained from TGV-style, tilting trainsets, which are expensive to buy and service, and invariably problematic in service. Somehow, I doubt that passengers would have paid any less to ride in further renovated Amfleet coaches drawn by 125mph locomotives, than in the Acela Express trainsets, which in any case are capable of only 150 mph bursts in limited intervals, not enough to make much of a difference in overall schedules. The Acela Express should be the final example necessary to deter future boondoggles in highspeed rail that end up being on marginally quicker than the existing conventional rolling stock, despite being less reliable and flexible in service.

Far more could be gained by eliminating the bottlenecks in the current right-of-way through infrastructure spending, and concentrating on reducing dwell times, than in spending huge amount on further embarrassments. Now is the time to improve running times through signaling, track, and station improvements, while improving service outside of the NE Corridor by giving passenger trains real precedence over freight trains on non-Amtrak owned trackage.

A couple of points worth noting:

1) Passenger DO pay more to ride on Acela Express than Amfleets so your assertion is not supported by real data. Having often traveled on both over the NEC, I can certainly understand the fare difference.

2) The active-tilt capability most definitely reduces travel times on the NEC. It's why Amtrak adopted this feature. Further, other regions of the world have gone the same route for reducing travel times on pre-existing ROWs. HSR in Europe and Japan has been achieved without active-tilt only on all-new dedicated ROW which no one right now can foresee in the Boston - Washington corridor.

Personally, adopting a non-tilting trainset to achieve higher capacities at the expense of average speed is not the correct approach to the issue. If we can put a man on the moon, we ought to be able to find a way to service longer train lengths in Boston, New York, and Washington.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:Somehow, I doubt that passengers would have paid any less to ride in further renovated Amfleet coaches drawn by 125mph locomotives, than in the Acela Express trainsets, which in any case are capable of only 150 mph bursts in limited intervals, not enough to make much of a difference in overall schedules.

I disagree with this assertion. I think the image of a modern, European style bullet train was an integral part of Acela's marketing appeal, and is in fact part of the train's commercial success.

Yeah with all due respect goodnightjohnwayne, you don't understand "business". Acela, in the final analysis, has been wildly successful. Crazy though it may seem, it doesn't matter that it doesn't have a much high average speed than the older metroliners, people just know it's "faster". People know the cars are "sharper" looking. People know it was "inspired by TGV". It seems silly to me that the actually success of a product depends more on marketing than anything else, but, there you are...it usually does in this crazy image-driven world. I wouldn't call myself a regular Acela rider but I've ridden it about 7 full round trips, including 2 separate legs in first class. I see a lot of people I can just tell find some appeal in it being an entirely separate "class" of service from the regular NE regionals. I know, for example, a successful, single 50-ish career woman in the DC area, who is vice-president of a company and makes several 100K per year. She talks about taking trips to NYC "on Acela" several times a year to shop at places like Versace and Harry Winston. She doesn't take "the train" she takes "Acela".

MudLake wrote: Passenger DO pay more to ride on Acela Express than Amfleets so your assertion is not supported by real data.

Passengers also paid a premium to ride in Amfleet coaches, pulled by AEM-7 locomotives, in the "Metroliner" service. The point remains that the express schedule is the selling point, and the improvements in running time that the Acela Express trainsets brought were so incremental as to be negligible.