Passenger Trains > PTC to reduce capacity into NY Penn, Amtrak says

According to an article on northjersey.com, PTC installation on Amtrak and New Jersey Transit trains using the North River Tunnels is likely to reduce hourly capacity by two trains per hour in each direction. Whether the Amtrak official interviewed for the story is correct or not, I can't say. The reporter also asked NJT whether this would cut the number of NJT rush hour trains, and the response was that their contract to use the tunnels provides for a set number of trains (slots) and any reduction would have to come out of Amtrak schedules. Full article is here:

http://www.northjersey.com/story/news/transportation/2017/07/26/train-safety-systems-installation-could-cut-penn-stations-capacity/506548001/

Whether the specific capacity reduction of two trains per hour is accurate I can't say, but doesn't surprise me. That PTC will generally result in reduced capacity has been acknowledged for a long time. In a location such as this where current operations are at capacity the reduction will be seen immediately.

<begin rant> The assertion in the article that PTC was intended to increase capacity is true, but dates back to when PTC was being developed voluntarily by the industry. One long-term goal envisioned a very sophisticated moving block system. The advent of a Congressionally-mandated, very specific form of PTC with an unrealistic implementation schedule has, if anything, pushed back the date when true communications-based train control can become reality. <end of rant>

Gordon

Amtrak only gets 2 slots per hour in the rush hour peak direction as it is. Either NJT has to cut 2 trains, or there will be no Amtrak NEC service for 3 hours, which isn't going to happen.

Posted from Android

illini73 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> According to an article on northjersey.com, PTC
> installation on Amtrak and New Jersey Transit
> trains using the North River Tunnels is likely to
> reduce hourly capacity by two trains per hour in
> each direction. Whether the Amtrak official
> interviewed for the story is correct or not, I
> can't say. The reporter also asked NJT whether
> this would cut the number of NJT rush hour trains,
> and the response was that their contract to use
> the tunnels provides for a set number of trains
> (slots) and any reduction would have to come out
> of Amtrak schedules. Full article is here:
>
> http://www.northjersey.com/story/news/transportati
> on/2017/07/26/train-safety-systems-installation-co
> uld-cut-penn-stations-capacity/506548001/


I'm not fan of PTC, but I don't know what they are talking about. First, ACSES is already in service through A interlocking, exclusive, for Amtrak trains so there isn't anything left to be installed. Second, at peak periods no trains have a straight shot into A interlocking at 60mph. You get in a conga line and crawl on restricted signals. Finally, A interlocking already has ATC protection a sufficient braking distance from the home signal since it is a slow speed interlocking. Yes, diverging routes at interlockings are also treated as an ACSES speed restriction (when the digital radios are working), but in that case the ACSES enforced braking curve is typically less conservative than the cab signal based ATC enforcement.

This is a valid issue in general however. SEPTA's ACSES implementation uses ridiculously conservative braking curves and they recently had to increase the runtimes of most Regional Rail lines by 4-5 minutes. I talked with a signal engineer working on the LIRR/MNRR ACSES project and there are a number of accommodations available to railroads IF they choose to use them as a matter of policy. For example the positive stop point does not have to be a signal, but can instead by the fouling point of the first trailing point switch. Also the overturn speed can be used as a reference for the civil speed enforcement, not the timetable or "coffee cup" speed.

I fear that overly conservative PTC implementations are likely part of an effort to reduce the skill requirements of engineers in order to ultimately reduce labor costs.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/17 06:08 by mbrotzman.

In the morning Penn station NY sees 2107, 183, 79, 641 110 from 7 to 8

Posted from Android

4 of the 5 you listed are reverse peak (westbound- AM).

Posted from Android

illini73 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The reporter also asked NJT whether
> this would cut the number of NJT rush hour trains,
> and the response was that their contract to use
> the tunnels provides for a set number of trains
> (slots) and any reduction would have to come out
> of Amtrak schedules.

That is pretty funny and sad: Blaming Amtrak on the consequence of a Federal Goverment mandate.

jst3751 Wrote:

>
> That is pretty funny and sad: Blaming Amtrak on
> the consequence of a Federal Goverment mandate.

Like I said Amtrak and other railroads are going beyond what the law requires. For example freight railroads have enabled a creep mode that allows them to close in on stop signals at 1-3mph. Amtrak actually changed its rulebook to prevent crews from using the ACSES stop release button to close in on signals at the end of a platform. Feds didn't make them do that.

mbrotzman Wrote:

- - - - - - - -

> I fear that overly conservative PTC
> implementations are likely part of an effort to
> reduce the skill requirements of engineers in
> order to ultimately reduce labor costs.


The de-skilling of locomotive engineers has been a matter of concern from the beginning, however the relevant union representatives in the RSAC PTC Working Group meetings pressed for the widest possible application.

Gordon



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/17 09:34 by gbmott.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In the morning Penn station NY sees 2107, 183, 79,
> 641 110 from 7 to 8
>
> Posted from Android

That is 4 flowing in the non-peak direction and one in the peak direction. The limit of two is in the peak direction only.

And of course there is nothing that says that it is cast in stone forever, for the numbers, either for NJT or Amtrak.

gbmott Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mbrotzman Wrote:
>
> - - - - - - - -
>
> > I fear that overly conservative PTC
> > implementations are likely part of an effort to
> > reduce the skill requirements of engineers in
> > order to ultimately reduce labor costs.
>
>
> The de-skilling of locomotive engineers has been a
> matter of concern from the beginning, however the
> relevant union representatives in the RSAC PTC
> Working Group meetings pressed for the widest
> possible application.
>

I have found that, just as the engineers learned to get Talgo speeds down to a science (yes, 67 means 67 and 41 means 41 and they all add up to about five minutes), they will probably get PTC down to a science. I have already heard of learning how to reduce speed by a couple of mph just before the system decides that a penalty application is needed. BNSF is indeed configuring the system to allow trains to pull right up to a red signal at the end of a platform.

It appears from the discussion of overly conservative installations that some places will suffer regardless of the efforts of engineers to work the system for all they can, and others will have very little capacity and reliability effect. Those that insist on reducing capacity and reliability with system configuration are frustrating. They spend huge sums on capacity or complain that they don't have huge sums to spend on capacity, sometimes complain about how passenger trains delay their trains and screw up their operation, then limit capacity and utilization with monster trains and signal system configuration.

TAW

Ah the Feds are making Amtrak do this. It is becoming a contentious point because it will effect train capacity in the stub end terminals. Especially with the MBTA selling track space at South Station (they own it) to a developer that will shorten the tracks there significantly.

And as information there is no ACSES in service within any of the terminals at this time, including PSNY. The ability to control movements in the complicated routing and coming against bumping post hasn't been worked out yet, but the Feds are insisting it has to be enforced so the reduction in train capacity is coming.

It has come to the point where the FRA believes no engineer can be trusted to run a train. Engineerless trains are in your future.


mbrotzman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jst3751 Wrote:
>
> >
> > That is pretty funny and sad: Blaming Amtrak on
> > the consequence of a Federal Goverment mandate.
>
> Like I said Amtrak and other railroads are going
> beyond what the law requires. For example freight
> railroads have enabled a creep mode that allows
> them to close in on stop signals at 1-3mph.
> Amtrak actually changed its rulebook to prevent
> crews from using the ACSES stop release button to
> close in on signals at the end of a platform.
> Feds didn't make them do that.

What NJT will wind up doing is what the LIRR did in the late 1980's when thing got too tight: spread out the rush hour trains. For example, the 4 o'clock hour trains get progressively earlier, the 6 o'clock hour trains get made later. What is now a 6:30pm train, may get shoved back to 6:40.

People will survive.

Posted from Android

Between 8 am and 9 am INBOUND to NYP:

Keystone Train 640
NE Regional 170
NE Regional 180
Acela Express 2100

All FOUR of these trains are PACKED coming into NYP. At one time, there would have been two Amtrak Clockers inbound as well, but they were surrendered to NJT.

ALL these trains have monthly pass holders onboard who often have their ticket paid with company $$$. Amtrak increased the monthly passes on the NEC exponentially over the years and people still pay!!! They'd rather have a comfortable ride with café and tables to work at than being crammed on a commuter train. Been there done that!

I see ony trains 170 and 2100.

Posted from Android

MW4man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ah the Feds are making Amtrak do this. It is
> becoming a contentious point because it will
> effect train capacity in the stub end terminals.
> Especially with the MBTA selling track space at
> South Station (they own it) to a developer that
> will shorten the tracks there significantly.
>
> And as information there is no ACSES in service
> within any of the terminals at this time,
> including PSNY. The ability to control movements
> in the complicated routing and coming against
> bumping post hasn't been worked out yet, but the
> Feds are insisting it has to be enforced so the
> reduction in train capacity is coming.
>
> It has come to the point where the FRA believes no
> engineer can be trusted to run a train.
> Engineerless trains are in your future.
>

Given the anti-regulatory nature of the White House and the era of Chuck Schumer this should be something railroads can push back over. Of course if PTC is a stealth plan to cripple passenger rail then full steam ahead.

mbrotzman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of course
> if PTC is a stealth plan to cripple passenger rail
> then full steam ahead.

I have almost finished developing the timetable for the opening of the Point Defiance Bypass (Amtrak Cascades new alignment between Tacoma and Nisqually WA). The homework involved some serious examination of the effect of PTC (as implemented by BNSF). I found that, unless something changes from the testing I observed, I needed to make no allowance for the effect of PTC in the timetable.

TAW

Many consultants and lawyers bill by the hour, so paying more for a work table that lets you bill another $250 - $500 per hour is a great deal.

Posted from Android