5 ms·

Important context buried at the bottom: "Passenger rail analysts said that it isn’t unusual for rail operators to pad their schedules when introducing new trai

Important context buried at the bottom: "Passenger rail analysts said that it isn’t unusual for rail operators to pad their schedules when introducing new trains, especially if they will run alongside older ones. For example, during a rollout, a railroad might schedule more generous dwell time at stops, they said." Also, the new schedule is only about 15 mins longer than the old one...this is a big nothingburger.

CGMthrowaway 1y ago
>"Passenger rail analysts said that it isn’t unusual for rail operators to pad their schedules when introducing new trains, especially if they will run alongside older ones. For example, during a rollout, a railroad might schedule more generous dwell time at stops, they said." Why? For marketing purposes?
- scienceman 1y ago
  I would guess to account for any unfamiliarity from the operators (new systems, etc) and allowing more time to sort out any other kinks. (they also pad the schedules for old trains too -- this is to accommodate small slowdowns without causing cascading delays).
  - jasonpeacock 1y ago
    New trains: padded schedule Old trains: padded schedule So really, all train schedules are padded - which makes sense, you need buffers to absorb variance in performance to have reliable schedules.
    - eqvinox 1y ago
      > Old trains: padded schedule No — Old trains: schedule based on experiences from having ran them for at least a year (i.e. all seasons) New trains' buffers are larger because you don't know e.g. how shit the brakes are when you have tons of leaves on your rails. (Yes this is an actual thing¹.) [¹ Ed.: in case anyone is incredulous at the leaves thing: https://www.groupe-sncf.com/en/group/behind-the-scenes/traffic-flows/autumn-leaves https://www.groupe-sncf.com/en/group/behind-the-scenes/traff... ]
      - SoftTalker 1y ago
        The contact surface area of a steel wheel on a rail is about the size of a dime. That's what you have to work with to stop the train.
        CGMthrowaway 1y ago
        To drive the train. But to stop the train, surely the contact surface of the brakes with the wheels is more important?
        jimktrains2 1y ago
        Just like on a car, if your break pads are capable of completely stopping the wheel, but the wheel is not capable of creating enough braking force with the surface, then you slide. If you lubricate between the wheels and surface, which is essentially what leaves do on rails, no amount of at-wheel breaking power will stop you. This is what antilock Brakes in cars prevent, they pulse the brakes to allow the tire to regain traction, preventing slippage and loss of control.
        tialaramex 1y ago
        Note that a modern train also has the same system, only more so, a car would typically have 4 wheels, I think the Acela probably has like 96 or something.
      - tialaramex 1y ago
        There's also some "infant mortality" stuff, the EMUs (Electric Multiple Units, which I suppose is roughly what this is?) in my country have not good failure rates in their first weeks and months but they get much better (typically best in class due to fewer moving parts than say a diesel) in mid-life. Brake performance is a thing you can simulate and measure on a test track, which presumably happened at least months ago. However loss of adhesion, the reason braking stops working on contaminated railheads is also impacted by moisture, a bunch of dry leaves won't make anywhere close to the same problem as the same leaf material after a nice gentle drizzle, not really rain per se, not enough to actually wash the rails clean, but ensuring the leaves turn into a thin mush that makes braking next to impossible. RAIB report 12/2023 about an incident near me talks about that, the driver maybe makes some dubious decisions, but ultimately he brakes, and it does nothing, so he brakes harder, still nothing, maximum braking, still nothing, select emergency braking (same effect but hey, it's there to be used right), still nothing - oh shit, we've passed the danger signal and I see another train, time to leave. He actually spent ages in hospital because he tripped trying to flee and was trapped in the wreckage, but on the other hand if he'd just sat there frozen he might well be dead 'cos his train did indeed smash into the other one so the side where the driver is sat smashed into another train at like 50+mph.
  - bobthepanda 1y ago
    If you run the new trains at maximum potential then they will just catch up to the old train in front of them and then have to maintain the old train’s pace. So during the transition period you couldn’t really run the new train faster anyways.
docdeek 1y ago
You’re right on this point, but my read of the article was that you can buy the fastest trains in the world but if your infrastructure is not up to enabling them, they won’t go much faster than the ones you have already.
- eqvinox 1y ago
  The headline — which, let's face it, will be the only thing a whole bunch of people are going to read — really makes it out like they bought shitty trains, or even that trains can't be better. Which is just untrue.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- UncleThomas 1y ago
  [flagged]
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> the new schedule is only about 15 mins longer than the old one...this is a big nothingburger Then why the new cars? Are they cheaper to run? If so, the real price of a ticket (or losses [1]) should go down. [1] https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/amtrak-financial-performance-faqs-03052025.pdf https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/p...
- craftkiller 1y ago
  Quoting from the brief article you didn't read: > Amtrak previously has said the new trains could potentially shave 20 minutes off the travel time between New York City and Washington, D.C., reducing the duration to around 2½ hours > because of Amtrak’s old infrastructure, the new trains can only travel at top speed during certain portions of the journey [...] Infrastructure upgrades planned over the coming years will improve trainspeed and reliability, the railroad said. > Each new train will hold 386 passengers, an increase of 27% compared with the current fleet. Therefore: Faster trains carrying more people. Just not faster on day 1.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    Not faster, per the article. And again, more capacity should mean lower ticket prices or lower projected losses. We have neither.
- adeelk93 1y ago
  The train was designed with a 20 year service life and is approaching 30. We do need new trains, even if they didn’t bring about any improvements.
- OneDeuxTriSeiGo 1y ago
  The new cars hold far more people, are faster, and they are supposed to be paired with comprehensive upgrades to the extremely aged infrastructure and tracks along that route. Both the cars and the overhaul on the route were funded by the Biden admin (primarily with funds allocated by congress between 2021 and 2023) with the intent that modernisation to the route would gradually allow the cars to run at speed over the next few years. Now it's unclear what the status is of this infrastructure overhaul with the current administration suspending funds for the previous admin's projects.

CGMthrowaway 1y ago

>"Passenger rail analysts said that it isn’t unusual for rail operators to pad their schedules when introducing new trains, especially if they will run alongside older ones. For example, during a rollout, a railroad might schedule more generous dwell time at stops, they said." Why? For marketing purposes?

scienceman 1y ago
I would guess to account for any unfamiliarity from the operators (new systems, etc) and allowing more time to sort out any other kinks. (they also pad the schedules for old trains too -- this is to accommodate small slowdowns without causing cascading delays).
- jasonpeacock 1y ago
  New trains: padded schedule Old trains: padded schedule So really, all train schedules are padded - which makes sense, you need buffers to absorb variance in performance to have reliable schedules.
  - eqvinox 1y ago
    > Old trains: padded schedule No — Old trains: schedule based on experiences from having ran them for at least a year (i.e. all seasons) New trains' buffers are larger because you don't know e.g. how shit the brakes are when you have tons of leaves on your rails. (Yes this is an actual thing¹.) [¹ Ed.: in case anyone is incredulous at the leaves thing: https://www.groupe-sncf.com/en/group/behind-the-scenes/traffic-flows/autumn-leaves https://www.groupe-sncf.com/en/group/behind-the-scenes/traff... ]
    - SoftTalker 1y ago
      The contact surface area of a steel wheel on a rail is about the size of a dime. That's what you have to work with to stop the train.
      - CGMthrowaway 1y ago
        To drive the train. But to stop the train, surely the contact surface of the brakes with the wheels is more important?
        jimktrains2 1y ago
        Just like on a car, if your break pads are capable of completely stopping the wheel, but the wheel is not capable of creating enough braking force with the surface, then you slide. If you lubricate between the wheels and surface, which is essentially what leaves do on rails, no amount of at-wheel breaking power will stop you. This is what antilock Brakes in cars prevent, they pulse the brakes to allow the tire to regain traction, preventing slippage and loss of control.
        tialaramex 1y ago
        Note that a modern train also has the same system, only more so, a car would typically have 4 wheels, I think the Acela probably has like 96 or something.
    - tialaramex 1y ago
      There's also some "infant mortality" stuff, the EMUs (Electric Multiple Units, which I suppose is roughly what this is?) in my country have not good failure rates in their first weeks and months but they get much better (typically best in class due to fewer moving parts than say a diesel) in mid-life. Brake performance is a thing you can simulate and measure on a test track, which presumably happened at least months ago. However loss of adhesion, the reason braking stops working on contaminated railheads is also impacted by moisture, a bunch of dry leaves won't make anywhere close to the same problem as the same leaf material after a nice gentle drizzle, not really rain per se, not enough to actually wash the rails clean, but ensuring the leaves turn into a thin mush that makes braking next to impossible. RAIB report 12/2023 about an incident near me talks about that, the driver maybe makes some dubious decisions, but ultimately he brakes, and it does nothing, so he brakes harder, still nothing, maximum braking, still nothing, select emergency braking (same effect but hey, it's there to be used right), still nothing - oh shit, we've passed the danger signal and I see another train, time to leave. He actually spent ages in hospital because he tripped trying to flee and was trapped in the wreckage, but on the other hand if he'd just sat there frozen he might well be dead 'cos his train did indeed smash into the other one so the side where the driver is sat smashed into another train at like 50+mph.
- bobthepanda 1y ago
  If you run the new trains at maximum potential then they will just catch up to the old train in front of them and then have to maintain the old train’s pace. So during the transition period you couldn’t really run the new train faster anyways.

docdeek 1y ago

You’re right on this point, but my read of the article was that you can buy the fastest trains in the world but if your infrastructure is not up to enabling them, they won’t go much faster than the ones you have already.

eqvinox 1y ago
The headline — which, let's face it, will be the only thing a whole bunch of people are going to read — really makes it out like they bought shitty trains, or even that trains can't be better. Which is just untrue.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
UncleThomas 1y ago
[flagged]

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> the new schedule is only about 15 mins longer than the old one...this is a big nothingburger Then why the new cars? Are they cheaper to run? If so, the real price of a ticket (or losses [1]) should go down. [1] https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/amtrak-financial-performance-faqs-03052025.pdf https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/p...

craftkiller 1y ago
Quoting from the brief article you didn't read: > Amtrak previously has said the new trains could potentially shave 20 minutes off the travel time between New York City and Washington, D.C., reducing the duration to around 2½ hours > because of Amtrak’s old infrastructure, the new trains can only travel at top speed during certain portions of the journey [...] Infrastructure upgrades planned over the coming years will improve trainspeed and reliability, the railroad said. > Each new train will hold 386 passengers, an increase of 27% compared with the current fleet. Therefore: Faster trains carrying more people. Just not faster on day 1.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  Not faster, per the article. And again, more capacity should mean lower ticket prices or lower projected losses. We have neither.
adeelk93 1y ago
The train was designed with a 20 year service life and is approaching 30. We do need new trains, even if they didn’t bring about any improvements.
OneDeuxTriSeiGo 1y ago
The new cars hold far more people, are faster, and they are supposed to be paired with comprehensive upgrades to the extremely aged infrastructure and tracks along that route. Both the cars and the overhaul on the route were funded by the Biden admin (primarily with funds allocated by congress between 2021 and 2023) with the intent that modernisation to the route would gradually allow the cars to run at speed over the next few years. Now it's unclear what the status is of this infrastructure overhaul with the current administration suspending funds for the previous admin's projects.