|
|
| Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday (1585567) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Sep 18 03:13:00 2021, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Acela II at Penn Coach Yard Thursday, posted by transittransit on Fri Sep 17 21:48:23 2021. You truly are obsessed with low platformsLOL! So must the rest of the USA be, never mind Canada, since they are still in the majority. Before the MTA started rebuilding low platforms into high, it would have been way cheaper to the public to get rid of the high platforms at terminals and get low-floor EMUs and diesels, but hindsight is 20/20. So since you threw in that nonsequitur, does that mean you're obsessed with high platforms? You kinda begged the question. Since the federal government (who should not control any kind of passenger rail) forced Amtrak into having high-speed trains without low-platform access, the message was clear: The rest of the country is never getting true intercity high-speed rail, particularly any that can bring passengers into the northeastern coastal cities. Never mind the Acela having zero utility outside the NEC on any other corridors, or being able to use all platforms at Washington Union Station. What station on the NEC has a low platform for a full length train? More importantly, what station has only a low platform? That’s what I thought Wrong. When the Budd Metroliner started running, the majority of platforms were low. The UAC Turbotrain would not have been any use in Boston South Station when the platforms were still low, just like the Rohr Turboliner would have been equally useless unless it could use Rensselaer's low platforms. And in case you missed it, Washington Union Station still has low platforms on its lower level; if not, they could not run Superliners out of there. Metroliners could use those low platforms at WAS, as could some of the trains that Amtrak was testing prior to their big Acela blunder. High platforms are the way of the world, yes, because of accessibility and also because it decreases dwell time. A mix of high and low platforms for a single service also increases infrastructure costs You have not been outside the Northeast, have you? or out of the country? Lots of other countries have a mix of low and high platforms, even in Europe. I agree that mixing the two increases infrastructure costs, but we got stuck with what we got stuck with and before the "Acela", all trains could use both types of platform. If you think that high platforms truly decrease dwell times, you have not taken note of what happened on NJ Transit's portion of the NEC, where average speeds have decreased by 10 mph. And no, it has nothing to do with their move away from EMUs. No, Acela type service is not going beyond D.C. anytime soon because mainly, Amtrak doesn’t own the track That's not a reason. There are federally-designated high-speed corridors that are not Amtrak-owned; there would have been none if not for agreeing with the owners of those corridors, many of which have extra track space that Amtrak could actually put their own tracks on (particularly the former PRR in many places between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh). Never mind abandoned corridors that would be just fine for tilt trains, instead of converting them to rail trails that transport nothing of value. There is no reason whatsoever other than control and feeding of the egos in DC. And lest you forgot, Amtrak was teasing the X2000 in places far away from the NEC, and even teasing connections between the NEC and other corridors. (Take note of the X2000 south of WAS in 1993. And also, in its native country Sweden, the X2000 uses some rather low platforms; so much for "way of the world".) As for Acela, wouldn’t work on Keystone Service. Yes, platforms are one issue but the other is maintenance. There’s no way to service trains in Harrisburg (or Philly for that matter) No way to service them? So what was surreptitiously removed cannot be put back, and not for great expense? Think that GG1s back in the day went all the way back to Sunnyside for servicing? Nope; this is by design, because TPTB don't want to expand HSR in spite of their own promises. Remember, they were promising 160 mph on the NEC as far back as the late 1960s; do you think that repeating the same lie for fifty years should be rewarded with continued indifference? They can also cutoff one car unlike Acela. It runs as a trainset and generally has to be moved and maintained as such The cars are connected by drawbars. While it'd take more work to disconnect a drawbar, it is not impossible to do. But that's not supposed to be a commonplace occurrence. An(d) why do you despise the name??? It’s actually taken pretty well, so much so that the news media has gotten around to calling the cities it connects the “Acela Corridor” Think about what you just said. Never mind the insular implications of "Acela Corridor". I've always despised the name, particularly when they were attempting to rename every Amtrak train as some kind of "Acela"; or have you forgotten "Acela Regional" already? How about the stillborn "Acela Commuter", which the former Clockers were at one time to be renamed as? The name itself is insipid and not evocative whatsoever of train travel. |
|
|
|
