Acela Disposition Discussion

[ApproachMedium]

Just as little tiddys of info here. The new trainsets it has been confirmed that due to the single pan operation, they can now do 165mph with non constant tension wire. So much more of the railroad that currently offers only 135mph max operations can now run close to 160. Single pan ops eliminates the rear panto bounce at higher speeds as well as the rear panto bounce from two trains passing at high speeds.

Also the max curve speed for the new set is now 150mph vs 130mph of the old sets. Likely the rollout of these trains will be in current time slots, with trains that see the most ridership.

I'm confused... is this after they add fins to the pans? Or are you saying they don't need fins if they run without a "double pantograph order?"

The new power cars only have one pan each. And both power cars are buss bared together. The entire trainset only needs ONE pan to operate,

[ApproachMedium]

The curve at Deans to Midway will be 150mph up from 130mph. The section between Grace and Bush is next in line for high speed signal upgrade. the wayside boxes are all installed, it just needs to be cutover. Once that is done the two outer tracks that are good for 125mph will be brought up to higher speed ops.

[Gilbert B Norman]

Reported at another site complete with photos.

[Matt Johnson]

I saw the photos which were rather shocking but some comments indicated that those were the extra pre-production car shells located at Bear, DE which were used for testing interior configurations but never even put on trucks. Either way, sad to see the iconic Acelas becoming junk. I hope that unlike the UA Turbo at least one gets preserved in a museum somewhere.

[R36 Combine Coach]

Another version of the story is that trainset 4, originally prototype set 2 was scrapped. Originally delivered in 1999 with power units 2001 and 2003, this set was used for high speed testing with the coaches as shells only.

The coaches returned to Barre, Vermont (just before the plant's closing) in 2002 for final assembly and interior finishing before accepted in 2003.

[MACTRAXX]

Everyone - This is an interesting but not totally surprising development concerning some of the original Acela equipment - which to me is being replaced far too soon understanding that they were all sturdily built...

I am of the opinion that Amtrak should "downgrade" the Acela One trainsets to "Regional" status and convert them into longer 10 car fixed sets with the same two motors at each end...provided they can be overhauled and rehabilitated for this service option and a plan worked out with Bombardier to keep them in continued NEC service. This would replace a few 40-something year old Amfleet cars W/ early 20-something Acela equipment...
At the very least this could be an interim plan until the Airo trainsets for the NEC are built and deployed...

I understand that any Acela One retirement or changes will not happen until the new Acela Two fleet is placed into service noting the long testing delays after delivery...Is there any revised timeline in the Acela replacement?

MACTRAXX

[ExCon90]

MACTRAXX: Re your post above, "sturdily built" is good. Understatement of the year, so far?

[amtrakowitz]

Everyone - This is an interesting but not totally surprising development concerning some of the original Acela equipment - which to me is being replaced far too soon understanding that they were all sturdily built...

I am of the opinion that Amtrak should "downgrade" the Acela One trainsets to "Regional" status and convert them into longer 10 car fixed sets with the same two motors at each end...provided they can be overhauled and rehabilitated for this service option and a plan worked out with Bombardier to keep them in continued NEC service. This would replace a few 40-something year old Amfleet cars W/ early 20-something Acela equipment...

At the very least this could be an interim plan until the Airo trainsets for the NEC are built and deployed...

I understand that any Acela One retirement or changes will not happen until the new Acela Two fleet is placed into service noting the long testing delays after delivery...Is there any revised timeline in the Acela replacement?

MACTRAXX

With all due respect, what use would Acela I be as Regional? They cannot travel into unelectrified territory, and they cannot use the many low platforms that even the NEC still has (particularly at WAS).

[STrRedWolf]

With all due respect, what use would Acela I be as Regional? They cannot travel into unelectrified territory, and they cannot use the many low platforms that even the NEC still has (particularly at WAS).

How many runs are between WAS and BOS in electrified territory? Lets see... latest schedule... Regional between WAS and BOS...

173/163/149, 135/137, 165/175, 167,139,169,179 southbound.
190/150, 160, 162, 172, 152, 154, 184, 132, 168, 178, 166 northbound.

That's roughly 23 train sets at worst case, but probably half that (12) because it's an 8 hour run. There's 28 Acela runs, probably 14 train sets. So if there's a 1-to-1 replacement, you got Acela 1 equipment that can drop-in replace those runs. The only issue is high-block loading -- which would require a slight rebuild of the equipment or stations (I think ABE has a crank-lift and NRK is just being cheap).

[RandallW]

Northeast Regionals usually consist 8 Amfleet cars; assuming that's 1 business class car (62 pax), 6 coaches (72 pax ea), and 1 cafe (0 pax), the Regionals can seat 494 passengers. Using numbers from Wikipedia, the 8 car Airo train-sets will seat 484 in 1 business class car (54 pax), 5 coaches (74 pax ea), 1 cafe (0 pax), and 1 cab coach (62 pax). The Acela I train-sets seat 304 passengers, so using Acela train-sets for Regionals could result in real reductions in passenger capacity in the NEC. Since every train terminating in Newports News, Norfolk, Richmond, and Roanoke are also "just" Regional trains, and the Acela I train-sets cannot serve those routes, retaining the Acela I train-sets would result in two very different travel experiences for the Regional brand.

Now I'd think that entering into a rebranding with American Airlines a la the Lufthansa Airport Express for Harrisburg-Philadelphia Airport services would be good, but I doubt AA would see a viable business case.

[TheOneKEA]

IF the Acela Is were to be retained in any fashion, my pie-in-the-sky idea would involve regearing the trucks under the power cars to cap the maximum speed of the units at 125mph. This would give them substantially faster acceleration curves and would allow Regional services with tight timings to keep to those timings more easily. But given the mechanical condition of the Acela Is I suspect most of them will be scrapped as-is.

[Jeff Smith]

Bump

[STrRedWolf]

Now I'd think that entering into a rebranding with American Airlines a la the Lufthansa Airport Express for Harrisburg-Philadelphia Airport services would be good, but I doubt AA would see a viable business case.

Not really. It's about two hours via train 42, and that's assuming that diesel can haul at track speeds under crunch load. It's then another rough half hour depending on the terminal via SEPTA's service. I don't know if going full electric, skipping Exton, and boarding from the Amtrak concourse would save enough time to make it worth while.

[RandallW]

It's an 1:40 from Harrisburg to Philadelphia on the Keystone train 620 with 8 intermediate stops. My thinking was less Harrisburg-PHI with no intermediate stops than the airline could add service to 8 new destinations although security and checked baggage would be a pain point. (AA is already running AA branded busses between Lancaster and PHI but security is cleared at Lancaster in that case).

[ExCon90]

Getting from the airport to Paoli and west without a switchback move in PHIL interlocking would require beefing up the escape track to enable a straightaway move through 30th St. Lower Level (no point in stopping there, but you'd have to go through that way) to reach the Keystone route, and the curvature on the escape track would probably not permit a speed greater than 15 mph, which in turn would require a slow speed for southbound moves from 30th St. to the escape track. Ridership probably wouldn't justify the expense, and the conflicts at PHIL, but does AA operate any flights to and from Harrisburg that could be eliminated by a rail link to PHL? (I'm not up on airline flight schedules.) If so, maybe it would be worth it for AA to pay Amtrak the actual costs for the Harrisburg link.