This is obviously great to see - investment in rail. But I don't think I've ever declined to take the train due to the physical trains themselves. I tend not to take rail in the US because it...
This is obviously great to see - investment in rail. But I don't think I've ever declined to take the train due to the physical trains themselves. I tend not to take rail in the US because it takes so long, and is rarely on time. I feel like that should be a priority for them to help drive ridership.
Based on the report, some of those delays come from them having to switch the engines at various stations (to go from diesel to electric), which would be resolved by the new engines which can do...
Based on the report, some of those delays come from them having to switch the engines at various stations (to go from diesel to electric), which would be resolved by the new engines which can do both and don’t need to be switched.
The trains will also go a bit faster (~125mph vs the current 70-110mph).
But overall I agree with you. Usually the inhibitor for me is:
not enough options for arrival/departure
ticket prices are is still too high (at current prices, why not just fly?)
time to get there is still too long
not enough routes to the right places - you still often have to get a shuttle, etc to make it where you need to go.
The lack of frequency on some routes is what I felt most when I used Amtrak to get to DC (needed to visit an embassy) 14 or so years ago. That train only ran one or two days a week and only a...
The lack of frequency on some routes is what I felt most when I used Amtrak to get to DC (needed to visit an embassy) 14 or so years ago.
That train only ran one or two days a week and only a couple times on those days. If you missed the train or it got cancelled you were screwed and needed to find a hotel for the evening, which is incredibly impractical for most people.
There are a lot of reasons trains might be delayed, such as freight interference, but it's also a matter of what kinds of trains you're running. Diesel trains, in addition to being expensive,...
There are a lot of reasons trains might be delayed, such as freight interference, but it's also a matter of what kinds of trains you're running. Diesel trains, in addition to being expensive, inefficient, polluting, heavy, and slow, are also complicated machines that are prone to malfunction. Breakdowns cause delays, so the fewer, the better. Electrified trains experience fewer maintenance issues than diesel trains. Therefore, electrifying tracks is a proven way to improve reliability.
The Northeast Corridor is fully electrified. South of Washington DC, there is little to no electrification. The Virginia Rail Authority has an initiative to significantly improve service in the state. For example, they want to double service between Richmond and DC and add/increase service elsewhere. However, they appear to be ambivalent about electrification in particular—they are "committed to not precluding electrification in the future"—but have not made specific plans to do this. In the foreseeable future, the way they improve service will be through other means, mainly acquiring new rights-of-way to separate freight and passenger rail traffic, and rebuilding some old bridges.
The High Speed Rail Alliance recently held a webinar about "Passenger Rail Developments in North Carolina" which discussed many upcoming plans to improve connectivity to the NEC through population centers in NC and then through Virginia. I was pleased with the amount of attention North Carolina Department of Transportation appears to be placing on rail, although they still have a considerable way to go.
This makes sense, I didn't realize that this was one of the issues regarding their timeliness. Usually I hear it's more about track congestion with freight trains.
This makes sense, I didn't realize that this was one of the issues regarding their timeliness. Usually I hear it's more about track congestion with freight trains.
I think some of the delays are because some of the tracks are owned by freight companies, so they prioritize those trains over the passenger trains. At least, I've been on a delayed Amtrak train...
I think some of the delays are because some of the tracks are owned by freight companies, so they prioritize those trains over the passenger trains. At least, I've been on a delayed Amtrak train where that's how they explained it.
I'm not sure how much of the track this applies to, but it seems like a tricky and/or expensive problem to solve.
It is an expensive problem that can, in large part, be solved by constructing additional tracks along existing rights of way. If there are enough distinct tracks for trains to pass each other, it...
Exemplary
It is an expensive problem that can, in large part, be solved by constructing additional tracks along existing rights of way. If there are enough distinct tracks for trains to pass each other, it doesn't matter that freight trains are too long to fit in their sidings. The passenger train can just get by! Because land acquisition tends to be one of the most expensive portions of new rail projects, utilizing existing infrastructure is often the best way to go about it, even if that means dealing with freight.
To get beyond "reasonable service" and to "great service," one expensive but worthwhile upgrade is grade separation. In general, federal regulations limit passenger trains to 59 mph if they lack modern signaling systems, both to avoid train-on-train collisions and perhaps more importantly to reduce the chance of collision or injury near at-grade crossings where foolish drivers can dangerously park on tracks. Trains can get up to 79 mph if they use block signaling systems, which is a way to systemically avoid collisions by better communication to keep trains on separate tracks. Trains can go higher if they have more advanced signaling mechanisms. But to get above 110 mph, the Federal Railroad Administration requires the removal of nearly all at-grade crossings. At 125 mph, zero at-grade crossings are permitted. Even higher speeds are permitted only if tracks meet certain conditions. See FRA: Track Safety Standards Compliance Manual (pg. 85+, 240+ in the PDF) for more information.
And that's the point at which trains become truly magnificent forms of transportation: faster than any car can reasonably go, never getting caught in traffic, transporting dramatically more people than an equivalent volume of automobiles can, emitting far less pollutants than an equivalent number of cars, and offering a generally smoother and more comfortable experience overall. High-speed rail is a wonderful thing. But it does require quite a lot of investment into infrastructure.
The reconstruction of an at-grade crossing into a grade-separated crossing can potentially disable or limit freight traffic on a line for a period of several weeks or months, so freight companies (who hardly benefit from high speeds) are generally indifferent to the issue from that perspective. However, at-grade crossings are a serious safety hazard and present significant liability issues for freight companies whose trains can theoretically derail at road crossings, usually because of a driver who chooses to ignore safety warnings. From this perspective, they do have an incentive to eliminate grade crossings in many situations, or at least install better signaling systems to ensure fewer collisions occur.
Obviously there are many other factors at play, especially the alignment of a particular rail segment; how straight or twisty it is. Trains need very gentle curves to get to high speeds. While modern trains use innovative tilting technologies to handle these curves better, HSR is at its best in nearly straight sections of track. Unfortunately it is also expensive to rebuild existing tracks to eliminate curves. In built-up areas, this often requires expensive land acquisition or sometimes tunneling.
Here's a good video by Wendover on the relationship between freight trains and Amtrak: The One Tiny Law that Keeps Amtrak Terrible The title kinda misleads the main content of the video (the tiny...
Here's a good video by Wendover on the relationship between freight trains and Amtrak: The One Tiny Law that Keeps Amtrak Terrible
The title kinda misleads the main content of the video (the tiny law (passenger trains having right of way) is an insignificant part because it's ignored by freight anyway ) but the video as a whole does give a good history and explanation of freight and Amtrak.
Yeah, that's what I've heard as well. It is indeed an expensive problem to solve, but fancy new trains won't help Amtrack's problems if service reliability issues still persist (except for the...
Yeah, that's what I've heard as well. It is indeed an expensive problem to solve, but fancy new trains won't help Amtrack's problems if service reliability issues still persist (except for the niche of people who truly don't care how long it takes to get to their destination).
They're no Shinkansen, but if you've ridden Amtrak outside of the Northeast Corridor it is immediately obvious how dated much of the rolling stock is. While these new trains still have diesel...
They're no Shinkansen, but if you've ridden Amtrak outside of the Northeast Corridor it is immediately obvious how dated much of the rolling stock is. While these new trains still have diesel capabilities—most American track is not electrified because freight companies are generally uninterested in making these upgrades themselves and sometimes refuse to allow Amtrak to do it for them—the switch to dual-power engines is a big deal.
Investment into electrification is a real "chicken or egg" situation, with stakeholders reluctant to buy faster, lighter, and more efficient electric trains because of a lack of electrified tracks, but likewise reluctant to electrify tracks because of a lack of electric trains to run on them (a major additional capital cost). These new trainsets are the stopgap between fully diesel service and fully electric service. The switch to electric is the #1 thing that will allow future trains to reach speeds and service frequencies comparable to what you see in Europe and Asia.
Improvements to accessibility (ADA compliance) are particularly important too. While it doesn't affect able-bodied people a whole lot, these new trains are very much bringing the modern world onto decades-old tracks by offering more accommodations for people with disabilities. This is a population who relies on public transit the most out of any other group. It's very much something to get excited about!
It's possible there will be soon. See: Amtrak Connects US: 2035. With the passing of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in 2021, Amtrak intends to expand its network significantly.
This is obviously great to see - investment in rail. But I don't think I've ever declined to take the train due to the physical trains themselves. I tend not to take rail in the US because it takes so long, and is rarely on time. I feel like that should be a priority for them to help drive ridership.
Based on the report, some of those delays come from them having to switch the engines at various stations (to go from diesel to electric), which would be resolved by the new engines which can do both and don’t need to be switched.
The trains will also go a bit faster (~125mph vs the current 70-110mph).
But overall I agree with you. Usually the inhibitor for me is:
The lack of frequency on some routes is what I felt most when I used Amtrak to get to DC (needed to visit an embassy) 14 or so years ago.
That train only ran one or two days a week and only a couple times on those days. If you missed the train or it got cancelled you were screwed and needed to find a hotel for the evening, which is incredibly impractical for most people.
There are a lot of reasons trains might be delayed, such as freight interference, but it's also a matter of what kinds of trains you're running. Diesel trains, in addition to being expensive, inefficient, polluting, heavy, and slow, are also complicated machines that are prone to malfunction. Breakdowns cause delays, so the fewer, the better. Electrified trains experience fewer maintenance issues than diesel trains. Therefore, electrifying tracks is a proven way to improve reliability.
The Northeast Corridor is fully electrified. South of Washington DC, there is little to no electrification. The Virginia Rail Authority has an initiative to significantly improve service in the state. For example, they want to double service between Richmond and DC and add/increase service elsewhere. However, they appear to be ambivalent about electrification in particular—they are "committed to not precluding electrification in the future"—but have not made specific plans to do this. In the foreseeable future, the way they improve service will be through other means, mainly acquiring new rights-of-way to separate freight and passenger rail traffic, and rebuilding some old bridges.
The High Speed Rail Alliance recently held a webinar about "Passenger Rail Developments in North Carolina" which discussed many upcoming plans to improve connectivity to the NEC through population centers in NC and then through Virginia. I was pleased with the amount of attention North Carolina Department of Transportation appears to be placing on rail, although they still have a considerable way to go.
Eliminating the need for engine changes will make big improvements to headways and timeliness.
This makes sense, I didn't realize that this was one of the issues regarding their timeliness. Usually I hear it's more about track congestion with freight trains.
Absolutely. I take the train from Richmond, VA to NYC a few times a year and the engine switch in DC adds 30-45 minutes to the trip.
I think some of the delays are because some of the tracks are owned by freight companies, so they prioritize those trains over the passenger trains. At least, I've been on a delayed Amtrak train where that's how they explained it.
I'm not sure how much of the track this applies to, but it seems like a tricky and/or expensive problem to solve.
It is an expensive problem that can, in large part, be solved by constructing additional tracks along existing rights of way. If there are enough distinct tracks for trains to pass each other, it doesn't matter that freight trains are too long to fit in their sidings. The passenger train can just get by! Because land acquisition tends to be one of the most expensive portions of new rail projects, utilizing existing infrastructure is often the best way to go about it, even if that means dealing with freight.
To get beyond "reasonable service" and to "great service," one expensive but worthwhile upgrade is grade separation. In general, federal regulations limit passenger trains to 59 mph if they lack modern signaling systems, both to avoid train-on-train collisions and perhaps more importantly to reduce the chance of collision or injury near at-grade crossings where foolish drivers can dangerously park on tracks. Trains can get up to 79 mph if they use block signaling systems, which is a way to systemically avoid collisions by better communication to keep trains on separate tracks. Trains can go higher if they have more advanced signaling mechanisms. But to get above 110 mph, the Federal Railroad Administration requires the removal of nearly all at-grade crossings. At 125 mph, zero at-grade crossings are permitted. Even higher speeds are permitted only if tracks meet certain conditions. See FRA: Track Safety Standards Compliance Manual (pg. 85+, 240+ in the PDF) for more information.
And that's the point at which trains become truly magnificent forms of transportation: faster than any car can reasonably go, never getting caught in traffic, transporting dramatically more people than an equivalent volume of automobiles can, emitting far less pollutants than an equivalent number of cars, and offering a generally smoother and more comfortable experience overall. High-speed rail is a wonderful thing. But it does require quite a lot of investment into infrastructure.
The reconstruction of an at-grade crossing into a grade-separated crossing can potentially disable or limit freight traffic on a line for a period of several weeks or months, so freight companies (who hardly benefit from high speeds) are generally indifferent to the issue from that perspective. However, at-grade crossings are a serious safety hazard and present significant liability issues for freight companies whose trains can theoretically derail at road crossings, usually because of a driver who chooses to ignore safety warnings. From this perspective, they do have an incentive to eliminate grade crossings in many situations, or at least install better signaling systems to ensure fewer collisions occur.
Obviously there are many other factors at play, especially the alignment of a particular rail segment; how straight or twisty it is. Trains need very gentle curves to get to high speeds. While modern trains use innovative tilting technologies to handle these curves better, HSR is at its best in nearly straight sections of track. Unfortunately it is also expensive to rebuild existing tracks to eliminate curves. In built-up areas, this often requires expensive land acquisition or sometimes tunneling.
Here's a good video by Wendover on the relationship between freight trains and Amtrak: The One Tiny Law that Keeps Amtrak Terrible
The title kinda misleads the main content of the video (the tiny law (passenger trains having right of way) is an insignificant part because it's ignored by freight anyway ) but the video as a whole does give a good history and explanation of freight and Amtrak.
Yeah, that's what I've heard as well. It is indeed an expensive problem to solve, but fancy new trains won't help Amtrack's problems if service reliability issues still persist (except for the niche of people who truly don't care how long it takes to get to their destination).
New trains!
Go for it, US! Rail is future.
They're no Shinkansen, but if you've ridden Amtrak outside of the Northeast Corridor it is immediately obvious how dated much of the rolling stock is. While these new trains still have diesel capabilities—most American track is not electrified because freight companies are generally uninterested in making these upgrades themselves and sometimes refuse to allow Amtrak to do it for them—the switch to dual-power engines is a big deal.
Investment into electrification is a real "chicken or egg" situation, with stakeholders reluctant to buy faster, lighter, and more efficient electric trains because of a lack of electrified tracks, but likewise reluctant to electrify tracks because of a lack of electric trains to run on them (a major additional capital cost). These new trainsets are the stopgap between fully diesel service and fully electric service. The switch to electric is the #1 thing that will allow future trains to reach speeds and service frequencies comparable to what you see in Europe and Asia.
Improvements to accessibility (ADA compliance) are particularly important too. While it doesn't affect able-bodied people a whole lot, these new trains are very much bringing the modern world onto decades-old tracks by offering more accommodations for people with disabilities. This is a population who relies on public transit the most out of any other group. It's very much something to get excited about!
If only there was passenger rail where I live...
It's possible there will be soon. See: Amtrak Connects US: 2035. With the passing of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in 2021, Amtrak intends to expand its network significantly.
There have been requests and our region has a proposal in for routes, but it never seems to come to fruition.
I'm hoping someday it does.
Hey everyone, new transit pack just dropped!