Ten years of Acela service.

CSX Conductor wrote:

jbvb wrote:The extra speed matters, as I'm connecting to NJT at NYP.

This is another big misunderstanding by most riders. The Acelas don't have a shorter running time simply due to speed, but more so becuase of less stops. The biggest example of this is during winter months when we operate under the "Snow Plan". The Snow Plan reuires that the rear power car's pantograph is kept locked down and the rear power car is kept shut down, therefore the lead power car is pulling the entire train on it's own, including the dead weight of the rear power car. Additionally the Tilting feature is shut off during snowy conditions and as a result the Acelas have to operate at "B" speeds between Boston & New Haven which is the same speed as the Regionals, except the Acelas can still do 150mph in a few of the 150 stretches. It is usually only a difference of about 10 to 15 minutes running time.

These are theoretical considerations, however. I understand that the regionals making the same stops would only lose about 15-30 minutes, but as a practical matter, there are no regionals with limited stops. As a rider, I therefore can choose between a 3h 35 min trip on the Acela, or a 4h 25min trip on the regional.

For some the price difference is worth it, for others not so much.

And frankly, how often does the "snow plan" get put into action? Five, maybe 10 days a year?

CSX Conductor wrote:

jbvb wrote:The extra speed matters, as I'm connecting to NJT at NYP.

This is another big misunderstanding by most riders. The Acelas don't have a shorter running time simply due to speed, but more so becuase of less stops. The biggest example of this is during winter months when we operate under the "Snow Plan". The Snow Plan reuires that the rear power car's pantograph is kept locked down and the rear power car is kept shut down, therefore the lead power car is pulling the entire train on it's own, including the dead weight of the rear power car. Additionally the Tilting feature is shut off during snowy conditions and as a result the Acelas have to operate at "B" speeds between Boston & New Haven which is the same speed as the Regionals, except the Acelas can still do 150mph in a few of the 150 stretches. It is usually only a difference of about 10 to 15 minutes running time.

Why do they have to keep one power car down? Wouldn't that pretty much kill the Acela's namesake acceleration?

Matt Johnson wrote:

Patrick Boylan wrote: What's the difference between Acela express's sliding doors and those on regular Amtrak Washington-Boston trains? Don't regular trains also have buttons on their vestibule doors that operate a powered door opening device? Do the Acela expresses have supermarket sensors that open the doors automatically when a passenger approaches?

Yeah, they do have those sensors. Plus they just look cooler than the cold, industrial design of the Amfleets with all the bare steel!

No, it makes them warmer.

I hope those who are posting about the "comfortability" of Acela Express seats have experienced the new "leather seats" not only in the "First Class" section, but also in "Business Class." The old seats were horrendously worn out and there was no cushion left in them!

The "First Class" of Acela Express does have more "space" but, I agree, compared to the ole "Amfleet Metroliner" train sets, legroom and space was much more abundant in the Amfleet Metroliner coaches.

As for "Amtrak Commuter," I NEVER remember hearing this name actually being applied to the "Clockers" when they were in service. Perhaps they made it into "ARRIVE" magazine as a label and some other reports by Amtrak, but they were never referred to "Acela Commuter" trains on either the "Amtrak Solari" boards or similiar. They continued to be called "Clockers." As much as Warrington wanted "Acela Commuter" to debut in marketing terms, I don't think it ever made it, despite what one may read in reports or on Wikipedia etc. However, "Acela Regional" did make its debut, and then an exit to stage left when Gunn came onboard - for mixed reactions/reasons already mentioned.

I hope to make an Aclea Express trip before month's end, so I'll report back on comfortability - assuming I am aboard a train set with the new seating. Most of the morning and evening trains I've seen in NYP during peak periods have the newer seats and interior makeover.

Acela Express train sets should have definitely been designed with another coach for business class. The best that Amtrak could potentially do now is try and get extra seating out of the Acela Express Cafe area. I find the cafe area a huge waste of space anyway. Rarely do I see people lingering in the cafe like on the Northeast Regional trains.

Well, here I sit (leaving Baltimore as I type) in First Class Acela.

I must say, I do enjoy Acela, but typically use my coupons to upgrade to 1st class. As for speed, sometimes the speed between NYP and WAS is useful to me, but often the cost is not.

But, almost everyone I've spoke to definitely considers Acela a "real train". It looks modern and feels modern. And I thnk this is part of the experience.

Acela is far from perfect, but it's on e of the better things Amtrak has done.

(and today, it's cheaper for me to travel from WAS to ALB via Amtrak, including my Acela Express ticket than it is to fly. Definitely a bit slower, but today's my birthday and I decided I want to have a relaxing day of travel.)

GP40 6694 wrote:Why do they have to keep one power car down? Wouldn't that pretty much kill the Acela's namesake acceleration?

Because the sides of the power cars are like huge vents, and snow &/or moisture getting kicked up as the train travels gets in the machine room..........if the power car is running it runs more of a chance of shorting something out.

Okay, I'll post to this thread for a second time. The mention of the cafe car was what did it. Not only is the cafe a waste of space (only 14 uncomfortable seats!), but WHY does a car with no passenger seats have two vestibules? Maybe someone from Bombardier can explain that to me.

Amtrak was supposed to be working on a way to put seats into the cafe car, but I've heard nothing more about that in quite a while.

As for the discussion of two power cars, information I've gotten from Amtrak managers is that Bombardier designed the train with one power car and a cab at each end. FRA wanted two power cars "for safety", but the train can actually make the schedule even if one power car is dead. Amtrak could probably add four or five cars to the trains and still get over the road on schedule.

Another minor annoyance for me are the huge areas of wasted space in the vestibules. Acela Express just isn't a very good design. Go ride some of VIA's LRCs, and you'll see where the car design came from. It's 30 years old.

Patrick Boylan wrote:Do the Acela expresses have supermarket sensors that open the doors automatically when a passenger approaches?

Yes, when the cutout switches are set properly. And when they do, I feel like Captain Kirk coming out of a turbolift...
"Take her ahead, Mr. Sulu....135mph...."

NellieBly wrote:Another minor annoyance for me are the huge areas of wasted space in the vestibules. Acela Express just isn't a very good design. Go ride some of VIA's LRCs, and you'll see where the car design came from. It's 30 years old.

That "wasted space" is actually not so wasted. The train had to be designed for ADA access and that space is needed for wheelchairs, scooters, and whatnot to be able to board, disembark, turn, etc.

CSX Conductor wrote:

GP40 6694 wrote:Why do they have to keep one power car down? Wouldn't that pretty much kill the Acela's namesake acceleration?

Because the sides of the power cars are like huge vents, and snow &/or moisture getting kicked up as the train travels gets in the machine room..........if the power car is running it runs more of a chance of shorting something out.

Why not run it and then if something shorts it out, shut down? You'd be back to one power car, but at least you had two for a while while they were both working...

Because shorts generally don't just cleanly pop a circuit breaker or blow a $2 fuse. I can't say I have any experience in railroad equipment, but I have a decent amount of experience with consumer-level electronics and will speak from experience that shorts tend to cause stuff to stop working for good or at least until you can get new components.

It was fine snow blowing into the rear power cars and shorting out components that knocked out many Eurostar trains during that storm last winter. Shutting the rear power cars down minimizes that risk, as stated above.

Back to the original topic of Acela's 10 years in service...if the Acela Express trainsets last more than 12 years in service (2012-2013), they would have surpassed the Metroliners' duration on the Corridor (1969-81, before they were replaced with AEM7s). However some Metroliners made 19 years, lasting in Harrisburg (Capitoliner) service until early 1988.

I still can't believe Amtrak plans to phase them out of service starting in 2020 with just 20 years' service. As it is, even if they get their wish and order 20 Acela coaches to insert into the existing trainsets as a 7th car, by the time an order is placed and done, they'll have less than five years to go. A bit of a waste if they don't plan on keeping them around much longer past 2020...

I don't think Amtrak will be truly retired once the Acela replacement comes. I bet their lifecycle will be similar to the original Metroliners, and they will only be removed from premium service. A niche such as the Harrisburg trains (or if we are really lucky, an electrified Richmond corridor) will be their new home for the last decade or so of their lives.

Of course, for that to happen, all stations served (in the case of Harrisburg) would need high level platforms, as would anywhere else they may go. The Metroliner MU's only got removed because of their increasing unreliability, otherwise we may have seen them roll on the Corridor right up to Acela. I guess we will see what happens. Re-assigned Acela sets would be a 500% upgrade in services for the Keystone corridor, even if they didn't use the cafes and convert the first class cars to coach...

Well with the new station being built at Middletown, and the current platform project underway at Elizabethtown, that would leave Ardmore, Paoli, Exton, Coatesville, Parkesburg, and Mt. Joy with low levels. Plans are in the works to high level Paoli in the near future. Ardmore would be easy to high-level, without elevators even being needed. SEPTA will probably install high-levels at Ardmore at some point. If not, Ardmore could probably be eliminated without too much of a fight, many of the current users would easily adjust to using Paoli and 30th Street. If people do complain, the stop could be shifted to Bryn Mawr, with its mini-highs. Exton already has mini-highs, and if those aren't good enough, there is plenty of open space for platform construction. The Coatesville station stop could be shifted the short distance to Thorndale, which already has high platforms. That leaves only Parkesburg and Mt. Joy to renovate, only two stations.