Passenger Trains > Northeast Corridor Efficacy

At another thread, Messrs. Lackawanna 484 and ChS7-321 noted:

CHS 7-321 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Amtrak didn't get funded in Clinton years, either
> Bush years, or Reagan years. They wasted the money
> they got (NEC expansion, HHP-8 failure, etc) and
> would waste additional money regardless of what
> else was going on.
>

> Can you please explain how is the New Haven-Boston
> electrification and NEC expansion a waste?? How is an > acquisition of 15 modern electric locomotives a waste?
> How is an acquisition of modern high-speed trainsets a waste?

My response to these gentlemen:

While there is much to suggest that there was corruption regarding the project, the extension of electrified lines to Boston was hardly a waste. Electric locomotion is efficient, less poluting, and operational efficiencies result from the extension. What remains is for the project to have even more efficiencies with both the MBTA and Shore Line East acquiring electric locomotives for their services.

I pass any judgement on the propriety of acquiring the HHP-8 locomotives in place of another design. All I can report is that anytime I have been on a train hauled by such, it has moved over the road without incident.

The Acela equipment? well that is another story.

If the objective of the Acela program was to 'road test' equipment that would beth qualify as a "high speed trainset' yet comply with the stringent FRA crashworthiness standards, the results are at best "mixed'.

If the objective was simply to provide Amtrak with equipment so that the two classes of services offered, presently branded as Acela Express and Regional, could be sufficiently differentiated so as to enhance their marketabilioty, that has proven to be a dismal waste of somebody's resources. Upgrading the premium class (Acela) has proven to be a commercial success - there are enough folk in the Northeast who are willing to "pop the big bucks' to ride what the common folk choose not to ride. But that same objective could simply have been met by acquiring 120 "Acela styled' cars that would have featured their contemporary "light and airy' interior motiff, yet be hauled by a 20 unit augumented existing electric locomotive fleet. Definitely the same NY-Wash schedule, where the business is, could have been maintained. Almost the same NY-Boston schedule, where the politics are, could have been maintained. The only business lost would have been the "joyride' business from those desiring to have a Disneyland experience riding a 150 mph train in North America.

GBNorman Wrote:
>
> While there is much to suggest that there was
> corruption regarding the project, the extension of
> electrified lines to Boston was hardly a waste.
> Electric locomotion is efficient, less poluting,
> and operational efficiencies result from the
> extension. What remains is for the project to have
> even more efficiencies with both the MBTA and
> Shore Line East acquiring electric locomotives for
> their services.
>
> I pass any judgement on the propriety of acquiring
> the HHP-8 locomotives in place of another design.
> All I can report is that anytime I have been on a
> train hauled by such, it has moved over the road
> without incident.
>
> The Acela equipment? well that is another story.
>
> If the objective of the Acela program was to 'road
> test' equipment that would beth qualify as a "high
> speed trainset' yet comply with the stringent FRA
> crashworthiness standards, the results are at best
> "mixed'.
>
> If the objective was simply to provide Amtrak with
> equipment so that the two classes of services
> offered, presently branded as Acela Express and
> Regional, that has proven to be a dismal waste of
> somebody's resources. Upgrading the premium class
> (Acela) has proven to be a commercial success -
> there are enough folk in the Northeast who are
> willing to "pop the big bucks' to ride what the
> common folk choose not to ride. But that same
> objective could simply have been met by acquiring
> 120 "Acela styled' cars that would have featured
> their contemporary "light and airy' interior
> motiff, yet be hauled by an augumented by 20 units
> existing electric locomotive fleet. Definitely the
> same NY-Wash schedule, where the business is,
> could have been maintained. Almost the same
> NY-Boston schedule, where the politics are, could
> have been maintained. The only business lost would
> have been the "joyride' business desiring to have
> the Disneyland experience of riding a 150 mph
> train in North America.

GB,

Most of your comments are right on the money. However, your first point of "corruption" may be somewhat overblown. If by that you mean incompatence, then you are most likely right on. And the incompatence was at all levels, where it was obvious that operstions did not talk to maintenance who did not talk to infrastructure who did not talk to procurement, etc. As for the Acela trainsets, the same applies, with the added problem of "management" trying to project an image of new/modern/fast/sleek/whathaveyou, to the benifit of no one.

J.

Many on this board are not interested in progress but prefer steam engines to diesel and diesel to electrification. That's a rail fan mentality, but it's not a visionary view.

For the same reason, a decrepit train service is more interesting than a routine, modern, well-run service.

A few thoughts on the Northeast Corridor:

1) It really isn't a single market, it's a number of different markets. NYP - BOS is much more lightly trafficked than NYP - WAS. There was no particular advantage to Amtrak in electrifying the whole thing, just so a single service could operate through from WAS to BOS. Hardly anyone is going to make that 7+ hour trip, especially with Southwest flying from PHL and BWI to Hartford and Providence.

2) The United Aircraft TurboTrain was scheduled from Back Bay to Grand Central in 3:40 thirty-five years ago. Acela Express makes the BOS - NYP trip in 3:25 (if on time). Ain't progress wonderful. Several years ago I saw a TRB presentation by a staffer for CONEG (Council of Northeast Governments) urging turbine-powered tilt trains between NYP and BOS. He pointed out that this would be much cheaper than electrification, and would provide the same travel time. I think he had the right idea.

3) The electrification was several years late and 100% over budget. The HHP8s are available about 50% of the time. Acela Express has had multiple problems. AND CP216 still has a 15 MPH diverging speed for Amtrak.

I think Amtrak bought a pig in a poke -- and with taxpayers' money, no less.

You know what they say, hind sight is 20-20. I beleive the idea of turbine train is not the best. Even at 100% over budget, the complete electrified NEC is better than turbines. They have not exactly been a wild success. But lets for a second assume that this turbine was a wild success...New York to Stamford...this is where it would have to terminate of course since local ordinance forbid non-electric locomotives of anykind into New York City. This means it would have to be dual mode, then it could use Catenary from New Haven on in...but it would cost more and would be another and different piece of equipment to maintain. Now lets look at turbine train manufacturers...bombardier...thats it...have you seen the Jet Train...looks a lot like an Acela doesn't it right down to the trucks. Thus about four years in they would have been sidelined due to cracked yaw dampers, just like their electrified counterparts. So a bunch more trains to overhaul, since a minimum order would have probably been twenty. This because companies like bombardier aren't going to build less than that many, it doesn't cover the cost of setting up a production line. So either the train would have been very expensive or they would have had a lot more than what they needed. The next problem is that regional trains still had to engine change in New Haven, their schedule would not be shortened. In the long run the electrification was a good idea, they still have issues to work out, including old bridges, crappy interlockings and the like but in the long run electrification was an excellent idea. Because it will still be there in fifty years (knock on wood) and with luck so will the AEM-7s will take after their predecessors the GG1s and keep on chugging for decades longer than other locomotives, even newer ones, unless of course they come from a good European manufacturer, which is a different story all together. As for wasting tax payer money...well rather have Amtrak waste it than someother agency I don't care about.
Cheers,
Nick

reindeerflame Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Many on this board are not interested in progress
> but prefer steam engines to diesel and diesel to
> electrification. That's a rail fan mentality, but
> it's not a visionary view.
>
> For the same reason, a decrepit train service is
> more interesting than a routine, modern, well-run
> service.


OK, I can understand the part about steamers, but how is a diesel more railfan-friendly than an electric??

rresor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> operate through from WAS to BOS. Hardly anyone is
> going to make that 7+ hour trip, especially with
> Southwest flying from PHL and BWI to Hartford and
> Providence.

You'd be suprised..... Train stations tend to be a lot more tourist- and student-friendly in their locations, and the time difference between taking the train and flying on the NEC is not THAT significant.


> 2) The United Aircraft TurboTrain was scheduled
> from Back Bay to Grand Central in 3:40 thirty-five
> years ago. Acela Express makes the BOS - NYP trip
> in 3:25 (if on time). Ain't progress wonderful.
> Several years ago I saw a TRB presentation by a
> staffer for CONEG (Council of Northeast
> Governments) urging turbine-powered tilt trains
> between NYP and BOS. He pointed out that this
> would be much cheaper than electrification, and
> would provide the same travel time. I think he
> had the right idea.

Problem is that turbine power is still relatively unproven in relation to electric power. And the US has had enough trouble with simple off-the-shelf concepts.

Also, maybe there is a reason why all the exisiting and planned high-speed rail systems are powered by overhead catenary.

The original TGV had turbine power cars, however that concept was not pursued. Now, whatever one might think of the French, it can not be doubted that those people can design and build one heck of a train, and have done copious research in all aspects of high-speed rail technology. Given the US track record, I think it would be best to absorb some of that knowledge and not reinvent the wheel..........

rresor Wrote:

> 2) The United Aircraft TurboTrain was scheduled
> from Back Bay to Grand Central in 3:40 thirty-five
> years ago. Acela Express makes the BOS - NYP trip
> in 3:25 (if on time). Ain't progress wonderful.
> Several years ago I saw a TRB presentation by a
> staffer for CONEG (Council of Northeast
> Governments) urging turbine-powered tilt trains
> between NYP and BOS. He pointed out that this
> would be much cheaper than electrification, and
> would provide the same travel time. I think he
> had the right idea.

IIRC, the trip to GCT is several miles shorter than the trip to NYP.
Also, there were nowhere near as many restrictions on railroad operators (or operations) at the time. If a stretch of track was deemed "capable" of 150mph operation, it was determined by the NH or the Pennsy (clearly not the PC nor the FRA).

Needless to say, the Express (while short of the success it was hoped to be by some) has proven itself somewhat more reliable than almost any turbine powered train in the US. The UA turbo's record speaks for itself and New York state's idea (yet another govenrment based decision) has yet to move anywhere.

Most of the original promises for the Boston to New York project have proven false.

----Price came in double the estimates
----Passenger traffic way under estimates
----Tilt feature not available for 1/3 of the distance due to ATK incompetence
----No hope of achieving anywhere near the original speed estimates
----Minimal through traffic except on a few college get-out / in days
----Through time is only a few minutes better than the GCT to Boston time of the 1930s, which used steam and electric with a change en-route.

The HHP-8 project is no better. Amtrak's best hope is having 50% available for service. That's their plan, and it's sometimes not met.

I'd argue that it's the execution of the concept, not the concept itself, that has failed.

The trains took longer to deliver than planned, can't go as fast as promised, and haven't been as reliable as they should have been. Inadequate infrastructure improvement, such as the interlocking at New Rochelle and the old wire in Connecticut that restricts speeds, is also a problem. To a significant degree, Amtrak's failure to gain the expected market share can be attributed to these factors. No, Boston-Washington is too far to be time-competitive with airline service, but New York-Boston certainly should be and right now the trains are neither fast enough nor reliable enough to corner that market.

Actually Mr. Patch, the existing Acela service IS time competitive with air transport in the Stamford-Boston market.

Downtown Stamford, which growing up as a kid around there during the 40's could best be called "gritty', has been transformed into a "corplex' of sorts that is within walking distance of the station. If one's Boston area destination is one of the "corplexes' along Route 128, then it's not even a contest.

I must acknowledge that during the 'train vs. fly/drive' contests occurring after the 2001 Acela launch, one Tribune Company reporter with their Stamford Advocate decided to play race the train to Boston. He won, but never mind the speeds he reported to be driving. They saw fit to circulate the story amongst the chain of papers they own throughout Southern CT, which includes the Greenwich Time, where I actually saw the story.

All told, a sorry excuse for journalism.

Oh well, just one more reason why I've lived in the Chicago area for now 35 years and have never regularly read the Chicago Tribune?

Point made that rail does a much better job of serving intermediate city pairs than air ever could hope to do -- with Stamford-Dedham (Rte 128) being a good example. My comment, however, was intended to follow up on the previous remark about the downtown-to-downtown advantage that the train should have been NY-Penn and South Station.

Did the Advocate/Time etc. story actually mention the speeds that the reporter drove?

In my opinion, Amtrak, with help from Congress, consultants, the media and government agencies "went to Abilene" with Acela and electrification to Boston, a paradox summarized by Ms. Deiss, below, and fully explored in author Jerry B. Harvey's book, "The Abilene Paradox."

by Kathryn J. Deiss, ARL Office of Leadership and Management Services Program Manager

"In 1974, Professor Jerry Harvey of George Washington University developed a parable from a real-life experience to describe the issues surrounding how individuals reach agreement, or, more specifically, believe they have reached agreement. Twenty-five years later the lessons and insights his parable generates are still valid and provocative for organizations and the individuals who work together in those organizations.

The Parable of the Abilene Paradox
Four adults are sitting on a porch in 104-degree heat in the small town of Coleman, Texas, some 53 miles from Abilene. They are engaging in as little motion as possible, drinking lemonade, watching the fan spin lazily, and occasionally playing the odd game of dominoes. The characters are a married couple and the wife’s parents. At some point, the wife’s father suggests they drive to Abilene to eat at a cafeteria there. The son-in-law thinks this is a crazy idea but doesn’t see any need to upset the apple cart, so he goes along with it, as do the two women. They get in their unair-conditioned Buick and drive through a dust storm to Abilene. They eat a mediocre lunch at the cafeteria and return to Coleman exhausted, hot, and generally unhappy with the experience. It is not until they return home that it is revealed that none of them really wanted to go to Abilene–they were just going along because they thought the others were eager to go. Naturally, everyone sees this miss in communication as someone else’s problem!

Dr. Harvey used this wonderfully simple parable to illustrate what he believes is a major symptom of organizational dysfunction: the management of agreement–as opposed to the management of disagreement or conflict. This unique perspective has much to teach us about how we do or do not engage in deep inquiry and in self-disclosure when attempting to come to agreement with others.

How Do We Know When We Are Headed for Abilene?
Harvey points to six characteristics emblematic of a group failing to manage agreement effectively:

1. Members individually, but privately, agree about their current situation. The group in Coleman knew individually that they were satisfied with just sitting on the porch.
2. Members agree, again in private, about what it would take to deal with the situation. In this case, the members privately agreed that staying on the porch was a good way to spend a hot and dusty day.
3. Members fail to communicate their desires and/or beliefs to one another, and, most importantly, sometimes even communicate the very opposite of their wishes based on what they assume are the desires and opinions of others. People make incorrect assumptions about consensus. In the Abilene case, one suggestion (offered on the assumption that the people wanted to do something besides sit on the porch) began a domino-like sequence of individual agreement with the concept in spite of each person’s private misgivings about the desirability and wisdom of making the trip to Abilene.
4. Based on inaccurate perceptions and assumptions, members make a collective decision that leads to action. It is in the action that it becomes apparent that the decision is contrary to individual desires. They thereby arrive at a destination they did not want to go to in the first place. Our protagonists in the parable do not actually discover their unanimous disagreement with the action they took until someone says, "Well, that was a nice trip." Another person is then moved by frustration and exhaustion to blurt out the truth, "It was not a good idea or a nice trip!"
5. Members experience frustration, anger, and dissatisfaction with the organization. Often this leads to the forming of sub-groups that take combative or blaming positions toward each other. The Abilene group begins asking themselves immediately, "Whose crazy idea was this anyway?" and thus starts the blaming cycle.
6. Finally, members are destined to repeat this unsatisfying and dysfunctional behavior if they do not begin to understand the genesis of mismanaged agreement.

Sources of the Paradox
It is provocative to ask why people would actually speak against their own desires. What psychological reasons are there for doing something that is bound to result in both individual discomfort and in a lack of full and valid information for the group and our organizations? It is believed, according to Harvey, that people behave in this manner because they are afraid of the unknown. His hypothesis, quite different from others, is that we know what we are afraid of and that it generally has to do with loneliness, being left out, separation, and alienation. To avoid these, we will actually act against our best interests, hoping to be "part" of something, members of the whole.

We also tend to believe that any decision or action is better than no action at all. The problem is that there is incomplete information in individual minds. The need to act together, to be seen as cohesive, overrides the need to be explicit about group assumptions, desires, opinions, and even facts. Harvey calls this "action anxiety" and he believes it works in close conjunction with another piece of the paradox puzzle: negative fantasies. These are fantasies each individual harbors of what they think would happen if they actually spoke their minds and offered their desires or opinions to the group."

toledopatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did the Advocate/Time etc. story actually mention
> the speeds that the reporter drove?
>
As I recall, 100 was noted on I-84 in Northeast CT. The reporter also noted his array of "fuzzbusters' on-board.

In this world of "NASCAR Dads' and "life imitating art', it was not my idea of responsible journalism.

GBNorman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As I recall, 100 was noted on I-84 in Northeast
> CT. The reporter also noted his array of
> "fuzzbusters' on-board.
>
> In this world of "NASCAR Dads' and "life imitating
> art', it was not my idea of responsible
> journalism.


Sounds pretty irresponsible to me, but that doesn't mean that a more responsible writer/paper couldn't do better. I seem to recall that the Washington Post did a door-to-door comparison in which one party took the train and the other flew one of the shuttles, and the train won.

toledopatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I seem to recall that the
> Washington Post did a door-to-door comparison in
> which one party took the train and the other flew
> one of the shuttles, and the train won.

We are on the same page here, Mr. Patch.

I too recall the train v. plane races that both The New York Times and Post "sponsored'. Nothing irresponsible in either paper's reportage.

If you have access to Times Select subscription service Here you go

NYP-BOS times will never be air competitive for most of the metro-to-metro market until the New Haven line problem is solved. Ninety minutes from New York to New Haven makes it virtually impossible to offer 3 hour timings, short of building a TGV line east of New Haven.

To do this all corridor users need to agree to support (and fund) the MULTIPLE transportation functions the corridor serves. Connecticut and New York, as the owners of the Shell-New Haven section, have been content to maintain the same low-speed commuter conveyer-belt that the New Haven Railroad developed almost a hundred years ago. In the absence of regional or federal leadership to represent intercity users, the two states' stance isn't surprising.

The New Haven should be substantially rebuilt to support 125mph tilt train operation on the express tracks, and high-frequency multi-stop services on the local tracks. Amtrak's New York division should also support 125mph or more speeds, and flyover junctions are required at Shell and Harold to keep trains moving. Yes, this would require some land acqusition in the most expensive markets of the country, but if funded through bond issue or a private finance/public leaseback scheme it's affordable for a wealthy nation like the US (just as it is for the Germans, French, etc.). The benefits would be enourmous, including reduced airport congestion, reduced traffic congestion on I-95 and the Merritt Parkway, and increased real-estate values in many Connecticut communities, made possible by better commute times.

This is why the DOT proposal to shift corridor ownership to a multi-state compact, flawed and ill thought out as it is so far, shouldn't be completely dismissed. If well executed, it provides the best hope for transforming the NEC from a 19th century transportation solution to a 21st century solution.

Dave

DavidP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The New Haven should be substantially rebuilt to
> support 125mph tilt train operation on the express
> tracks, and high-frequency multi-stop services on
> the local tracks. Amtrak's New York division
> should also support 125mph or more speeds, and
> flyover junctions are required at Shell and Harold
> to keep trains moving.

Ummm, isn't Harold already a flyover set-up?

As for Shell, I think part of the problem is that I-95 is practically on top of the junction. It's one thing to condemn a few expensive building sites, it's another to screw with a major Interstate.

I rode through there about a year ago and noticed that Metro-North was installing a new interlocker with universal crossovers between Shell and Pelham that might allow it to retire some of the crossovers within the Shell plant. Simplifying Shell could allow the installation of higher-speed switches for the remaining moves needed to serve the Amtrak connection. It wouldn't be as good as a flyover, but it may be the best practical alternative. And certainly the 90-mph speed limit on the rest of the New Haven Line is a bigger problem than is losing a minute or two at New Rochelle.

lurchdel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>> The Parable of the Abilene Paradox
> Four adults are sitting on a porch in 104-degree
> heat in the small town of Coleman, Texas,



Sounds like another Political jab at the Amtrak Appointees, sounds about right though.

David,

Now that I think about it you're right about Harold, although for some reason traveling eastbound I've had to sit waiting for LIRR to clear.

Shell is being rebuilt to 45mph standards, which is a little better, but as long as westbounds have to crossover two very busy tracks the potential for delay is real and must be built into the schedule. Yes, the NY Thruway is adjacent, and a city street runs perpendicular below, but I think if the flyover happened slightly east of the current junction there's probably room. The key to improving schedules is not having to slow trains down - every time you have to slow and acelerate minutes are lost. Likewise, crossing over the eastbound MNRR tracks means that a window of several minutes exists were their trains can't be scheduled, significantly reducing overall line capacity.

Dave