Acela Speeds

amtrakowitz wrote: But making do with what is there now, perhaps the answer is the quite-ubiquitous (even in Britain today) Pendolino.

Well that's the plan.

The so-called Avelia Liberty does not look to be a pure Pendolino. And there is no point in building them to run at 186 mph, unless there are going to be actual high-speed corridors built in the USA and outside the NEC. Focusing on upgrading the existing former PRR and NYNH&H corridors (in the fashion of how Germany's Berlin-Hamburg main line was upgraded) ought to be the priority versus building any high-speed bypasses, especially around Wilmington (although I would not personally object to a high-speed rail bypass of New London in CT).

And I cannot tell from any sources whether or not these trainsets will be able to use low platforms. This feature ought to be available in order to permit boarding/disembarking at WAS's low platforms at least.

Acela 2.0 will be plenty busy and well-accommodated simply replacing Acela 1.0, so I don't see why they need to do low platform at WAS, and it is too late now: you'll get what you get when the Acela 2s arrive. They're going to be awesome,

The Wall Street Journal has an article today summarizing the NIMBYS objections to the proposed Eastern Connecticut Corridor line change. Here is a Fair Use quotation:

The federal government has a $120 billion plan that would cut Amtrak’s Acela Express travel time between New York and Boston by 45 minutes, making it a two-hour-and-45-minute trip.

To get it done, however, it is going to first have to get through Old Lyme, Conn., where opposition is strong to the project that would bring four new track lines and as many as 110 trains a day under its historic downtown in a tunnel.

“That really is the heart of our community,” said Bonnie Reemsnyder, who leads the town board as first selectwoman of Old Lyme, a community of 7,600 people southwest of Boston that traces its history to colonial times.

It isn’t just Old Lyme that objects. Lawmakers across Connecticut and Rhode Island are pledging to fight the Federal Railroad Administration’s proposal. They said the new tracks would cut through farmland, wetlands and private property along a 35-mile stretch where the new trains could zoom through at speeds of as much as 220 miles an hour. Current speeds are limited to 50 miles an hour in some spots.

I think this Journal article is fair and balanced. The "otherwise" is on the Editorial page "repeating the litany" regarding the wastefulness of the CAHSR project.

Arlington wrote:Acela 2.0 will be plenty busy and well-accommodated simply replacing Acela 1.0, so I don't see why they need to do low platform at WAS, and it is too late now: you'll get what you get when the Acela 2s arrive. They're going to be awesome,

Thanks for the enthusiasm. I remember similar enthusiasm when the "Acela 1.0" came out. I was far too young to remember what the enthusiasm that surrounded the Budd Metroliner MUs might have been, but publications claimed that those trains would eventually run at 160 mph, which would have been the fastest train in the world during that era if it had come about. 48 years later and that promise is still unfulfilled.

WAS needs to retain its low platforms or else dispense utterly with Amtrak's Superliners and VRE's gallery cars (and BBD bilevels if they are still operating them). Metroliners (all forms) could stop at the low platforms. Restricting any trainset to one kind of platform, i.e.when you have two, restricts flexibility of operation; and intercity trains require such flexibility as much as commuter trains would.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:The Wall Street Journal has an article today summarizing the NIMBYS objections to the proposed Eastern Connecticut Corridor line change. Here is a Fair Use quotation:

The federal government has a $120 billion plan that would cut Amtrak’s Acela Express travel time between New York and Boston by 45 minutes, making it a two-hour-and-45-minute trip.

To get it done, however, it is going to first have to get through Old Lyme, Conn., where opposition is strong to the project that would bring four new track lines and as many as 110 trains a day under its historic downtown in a tunnel.

“That really is the heart of our community,” said Bonnie Reemsnyder, who leads the town board as first selectwoman of Old Lyme, a community of 7,600 people southwest of Boston that traces its history to colonial times.

It isn’t just Old Lyme that objects. Lawmakers across Connecticut and Rhode Island are pledging to fight the Federal Railroad Administration’s proposal. They said the new tracks would cut through farmland, wetlands and private property along a 35-mile stretch where the new trains could zoom through at speeds of as much as 220 miles an hour. Current speeds are limited to 50 miles an hour in some spots.

I think this Journal article is fair and balanced. The "otherwise" is on the Editorial page "repeating the litany" regarding the wastefulness of the CAHSR project.

Given the amount they intend to spend per unit length, it certainly is wasteful. Were similar objections raised when I-95 was built? Has any study been conducted towards building any high-speed rails next to the aforementioned interstate, possibly resulting in some cost savings?

amtrakowitz wrote:Given the amount they intend to spend per unit length, it certainly is wasteful. Were similar objections raised when I-95 was built? Has any study been conducted towards building any high-speed rails next to the aforementioned interstate, possibly resulting in some cost savings?

This study IS tracks running along I95, although there are some deviations because I95 is not straight enough on it's own for HSR.

It only makes sense to run HSR lines in or immediately adjacent to interstate highway right-of-ways if the curves allow it. Some interesting curve radii to keep in mind:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum ... rve_radius" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(Freeways) ≤ 33 m/s = 120 km/h (74 mph)= 630 m (2,067 ft) or less than a half mile
(Midwest) ≤ 56 m/s = 200 km/h (124 mph)= 1,800 m (5,905 ft) or more than a mile
(NEC) ≤ 69 m/s = 250 km/h (155 mph)= 2,800 m (9,186 ft) or almost two miles
(HSR) ≤ 83 m/s = 300 km/h (186 mph)= 4,000 m (13,123 ft) or about two and a half miles
≤ 97 m/s = 350 km/h (217 mph)= 5,400 m (17,716 ft) or more than three miles
≤ 111 m/s = 400 km/h (248 mph)= 7,000 m (22,965 ft) or more than four miles
Note = Cant 160 mm, cant deficiency 100 mm, no tilting trains

As is readily evident in the table above, most interstate highway curves radii will not meet what HSR needs at a minimum.

That's for running in the median, but given that some Interstate highways might have 300' fence-to-fence, and others have offset the two sides by another 1000 feet, I've often wondered how often HSR could be put in tunnel or viaduct and do a wide radius turn and still stay technically within the fences on any particuar stretch of interstate.

Well, let's add that extra 150 feet from the center of the freeway to the outer edge of its' 300 feet right-of-way.
2,067 feet now becomes 2,217 feet, still almost 11,000 feet short of the 13,123 feet radii needed for no speed reductions on a 186 mph curve.

Lets not forget that when enough time is taken out of schedules then some equipment is available for another trip. So capacity is somewhat increased without buying any more equipment. Also crew costs are decreased.

I rarely see trains that terminate in Washington, except for the Capitol Ltd., using the tracks with low platforms at Union Station. Those tracks lead to the tunnel going towards Virginia, and those Amtrak trains, plus VRE on weekdays, keep those tracks fairly busy. I don't think their occasional use by a purely NEC train warrants making high-speed trains compatible with low platforms.

I have two points/questions:

First, does anyone know if the low platforms at Union Station will be eliminated as part of the Second Century project? According to the plan, "Capacity growth and safety standards cannot be achieved without realigning and re-spacing the station tracks; the Master Plan creates platforms that are wider, longer and straighter – and capable of handling more passengers per train and more trains per hour than the existing platforms. The new platforms will meet ADA accessibility requirements and the rigorous emergency egress standards required in transit facilities." (Page 5 of this PDF: https://nec.amtrak.com/sites/default/fi ... 201207.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) That doesn't make it clear whether all the new platforms will be high-level. Would there be rolling stock issues if they were? Can VRE equipment use high-levels? If it's possible, it should to done to increase flexibility for the Acela, especially if the total number of platforms is being reduced.

Second, there was a discussion a while back in the NEC future thread about alignments in Eastern Connecticut. I seem to remember a very good argument that the best option would be to go through Hartford and use the land that was originally going to be I-384. According to this article, there would be a 9-minute speed penalty for the Acela if this alignment were used, but I think that might be worth it to avoid the coastal NIMBYs and to get the benefit of a Hartford stop: https://pedestrianobservations.wordpres ... rovidence/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Metzger wrote:First, does anyone know if the low platforms at Union Station will be eliminated as part of the Second Century project? That doesn't make it clear whether all the new platforms will be high-level.

Looks like Tracks 26 & 27 are low-level to me and 29 is both high and low level capable.

they can never make all platforms high level in Washington , the superliners only have access via low level platforms.