# Equipment order expected in January



## jis (Nov 12, 2009)

According to the latest NARP Blog:



> An Amtrak spokesman tells the Train Riders Association of California (TRAC) that Amtrak will make a “dramatic and bold” announcement on new equipment purchases in January, reports NARP Council member Jim Loomis. We should expect nothing less.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Nov 12, 2009)

In two words: KICK ASS.


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Nov 12, 2009)

This is great. I'm assuming its safe to say it will be for new single level equipment?


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Nov 12, 2009)

I'd hope so-- I don't know what else it could be.


----------



## wrjensen (Nov 12, 2009)

This site is think new Superliner Equipment

http://takeatrainride.blogspot.com/2009/11...weeks-away.html

The RFI is out for new sleepers dinners and baggage so it can't be that.

My "big and bold" guess would be for new higher speed equipment. Either a replacement for the Acela (use them on keystone service) with speed of 200 mph or a non electric corridor trainset with 125 mph capacity. The only question on these would where are the track to support them. not of this shows up on the Amtrak long term biz plan.


----------



## amtrak51 (Nov 12, 2009)

I hope there are some Superliner III's involved for all those planned route restorations out west.

Also, if (when) Bombardier receives the order, I hope the bathroom doors lock :lol:


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Nov 12, 2009)

Well if it is Superliner IIIs, they might have finally figured out how to fit them in to the tunnels!

... Or not.


----------



## cpamtfan (Nov 12, 2009)

I highly doubt he meant new Superliner cars, he probably just meant the new Viewliner fleet (which is still good for our easterners  ). He probably is all mixed up on what their ordering (like 50 Viewliner sleepers, last I heard it is only going to be 25, etc.).


----------



## jis (Nov 12, 2009)

cpamtfan said:


> I highly doubt he meant new Superliner cars, he probably just meant the new Viewliner fleet (which is still good for our easterners  ). He probably is all mixed up on what their ordering (like 50 Viewliner sleepers, last I heard it is only going to be 25, etc.).


The Viewliner Sleeper order is supposed to be 25 firm with 25 options, from what I have been hearing of late. Then there are of coruse the Viewliner Diners and Viewliner Baggage and Bag-Dorm cars too.

The bi-levels that have been talked about are the bi-level corridor cars - some 130 of them, which are supposed to be deployed in the midwest so as to release all Amfleets for service in the Northeast.

Additionally there is also mention of the 20 + 40 options or some such (I don't remember the exact number) for electric engines for the northeast.

I would be very surprised if there is any Superliner III order a.k.a. long distance bi-level order at this time.


----------



## had8ley (Nov 12, 2009)

Nope. I think the big to do is the announcement that Special Agent Pat is being promoted to Amtrak police chief; a catered party will be held afterwards at the site of where the Beaumont depot should be. Bring your own umbrellas.Oh...the new equipment will be the Chief's new gold badge. Sorry...


----------



## yarrow (Nov 12, 2009)

is the money for this from the yearly appropriation or stimulus funds or where?


----------



## AlanB (Nov 12, 2009)

amtrak51 said:


> Also, if (when) Bombardier receives the order, I hope the bathroom doors lock :lol:


Actually IIRC, the problem with the bathroom doors on Acela wasn't that they wouldn't lock, it was that some people couldn't figure out how to unlock them.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (Nov 12, 2009)

100 new Superliners for the restored Pioneer, North Coast Hiawatha, extension of the Sunset to Orlando, etc.!!!! I expect nothing less!!!! (j/k, obviously)

Seriously though, if they order new Superliners, they better make sure they order enough to at least cover the CONO "back up" equipment which is currently lounging about in NOL for three days.


----------



## amtrak51 (Nov 12, 2009)

AlanB said:


> amtrak51 said:
> 
> 
> > Also, if (when) Bombardier receives the order, I hope the bathroom doors lock :lol:
> ...


Last time I traveled in a Superliner the bathroom I was in would not lock and a couple of my friends, in the next car had the same problem. As for why I mentioned Superliner III's, recently I read the North Coast Hiawatha Study and was intrigued by the following:



> A purchase of new bi-level equipment for the North Coast Hiawatha, which wouldtake approximately four years for design, procurement and construction, would have
> 
> to be part of a larger equipment order. The high upfront design and tooling costs associated
> 
> ...


"

I thought, "Amtrak... comprehensive equipment fleet strategy... that will... address the existing shortage of bi-level Superliner cars," was an odd choice of words, and I just can't help letting my mind wonder.


----------



## rtabern (Nov 12, 2009)

When I was on the Coast Starlight a couple of weeks ago, I heard several crew members talking about a proposal for Superliner III equipment... so I am guessing this is what this is about??? They didnt seem to know any design details or anything, just its new Superliner equipment for the western routes.

My hope would be special lounge cars for sleeping car passengers only... like the PPC's on the CS.


----------



## saxman (Nov 12, 2009)

Very interesting indeed. Obviously Amtrak needs more single level equipment and obviously the soon to be Viewliners cover that....sort of. But the mention of California style bi-level equipment makes lots of sense to me. Don't some Michigan trains use Superliners?


----------



## cpamtfan (Nov 12, 2009)

saxman said:


> Very interesting indeed. Obviously Amtrak needs more single level equipment and obviously the soon to be Viewliners cover that....sort of. But the mention of California style bi-level equipment makes lots of sense to me. Don't some Michigan trains use Superliners?



The east need the new car really badly to replace the diners and add sleepers to trains which are currently lacking. The Superliners are used on Michigan trains in the winter/snowy months because of problems with the open vestibules on the Horizon cars (which should be resolved with the new cars).


----------



## rtabern (Nov 12, 2009)

saxman said:


> Very interesting indeed. Obviously Amtrak needs more single level equipment and obviously the soon to be Viewliners cover that....sort of. But the mention of California style bi-level equipment makes lots of sense to me. Don't some Michigan trains use Superliners?


Just the Pere Marquette between Chicago and Grand Rapids uses Superliner equipment.

What I am hoping is that the Illinois regional trains and the Hiawatha up to Milwaukee get Superliner-type equipment. I just got back from a trip out to California and rode the Surfliners and the totally put that Horizon equipment to shame. It would be so great if Illinois got the same equipment California uses.

We could call them "Cornliners"!!!

Anyway... the design of the Horizon is not suited for cold weather and snow. Since the stairwell is actually on the OUTSIDE of the train... it constantly gets clogged with snow and ice... forcing the conductors to try and get that slippery stuff off the steps... but no matter how hard they try they have some really dangerous conditions on the stairs sometimes.

They need the Superliners on the Midwest corrdior runs and delegate the Horizon equipment to the Sunset Limited Stub Train from SAS-NOL if they are going to do that.


----------



## cpamtfan (Nov 12, 2009)

rtabern said:


> When I was on the Coast Starlight a couple of weeks ago, I heard several crew members talking about a proposal for Superliner III equipment... so I am guessing this is what this is about??? They didnt seem to know any design details or anything, just its new Superliner equipment for the western routes.
> My hope would be special lounge cars for sleeping car passengers only... like the PPC's on the CS.



Well I highly doubt that new Superliners will arriv in the next few years, let alone new PPC type cars! Those cars are really just for show now, they don't really make enough money to jurify their existance.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Nov 12, 2009)

Yeah I think Amtrak will hold off on bi-levels until they know more about what midwest HSR projects are going so they know if they should expect what states to buy what gear if any--


----------



## George Harris (Nov 12, 2009)

rtabern said:


> Anyway... the design of the Horizon is not suited for cold weather and snow. Since the stairwell is actually on the OUTSIDE of the train... it constantly gets clogged with snow and ice... forcing the conductors to try and get that slippery stuff off the steps... but no matter how hard they try they have some really dangerous conditions on the stairs sometimes.


Just one of many exmples of what you get when thigs are designed by people that don't use that sort of stuff. Anyone who ever rode trains in places where it snowed would have felt it necessary to come up with a solution for this issue during the design porcess.


----------



## Kramerica (Nov 12, 2009)

rtabern said:


> What I am hoping is that the Illinois regional trains and the Hiawatha up to Milwaukee get Superliner-type equipment.


Remember, Wisconsin just purchased two trainsets from Talgo to replace the Hiawatha trainsets. So I don't think we'll see Superliners on the Hiawatha for a very long time.


----------



## D.P. Roberts (Nov 13, 2009)

wrjensen said:


> This site is think new Superliner Equipment
> http://takeatrainride.blogspot.com/2009/11...weeks-away.html


I hope it's new Superliners too. I wonder if the fact that this was announced in California means anything?

The only trains I've ever ridden in are Superliners, and the one's I've been in have shown a lot of wear and tear. I was on the CS right after it was "relaunched" last year, and managed to miss getting refurbished cars. Twice.

Actually, I'd be happy for any new cars, as long as it means Amtrak would have more time/funds to refurbish the Superliners.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Nov 13, 2009)

D.P. Roberts said:


> I hope it's new Superliners too. I wonder if the fact that this was announced in California means anything?
> The only trains I've ever ridden in are Superliners, and the one's I've been in have shown a lot of wear and tear. I was on the CS right after it was "relaunched" last year, and managed to miss getting refurbished cars. Twice.


If you rode the single levels, you'd re-write that post to say you hope we get Viewliners.

While its true that we don't have Superliners to throw around, we don't have enough Viewliners around to do what Amtrak already does--


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Nov 13, 2009)

jis said:


> cpamtfan said:
> 
> 
> > I highly doubt he meant new Superliner cars, he probably just meant the new Viewliner fleet (which is still good for our easterners  ). He probably is all mixed up on what their ordering (like 50 Viewliner sleepers, last I heard it is only going to be 25, etc.).
> ...


Actually, from what I've been hearing, JIS, the January order will be the 130 bi-level Corridor cars, with an option for something like 30 sleepers and 40 LD coaches, plus 15 diner/lounge things based off that corridor design, the idea being to use them on captive service for restored Desert Wind, Pioneer, North Coast Hiawatha, and Texas Chief applications if and when Congress/the states agree to fund them, at which point, if it occurs in time, the options would be exercised.

As well as announcing an award-of-contract for the Viewliners, and perhaps some specifics on the long-range plan for replacing the Acelas, and on the longer term, the Amfleets.


----------



## VT Hokie (Nov 13, 2009)

I was hoping that "dramatic and bold" meant 1000 new Super Steel Turboliners!


----------



## jis (Nov 13, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> I was hoping that "dramatic and bold" meant 1000 new Super Steel Turboliners!


:lol:

GML, if what you say turns out to be true, that would be indeed very very good news. I look forward to such.

I am still wondering though how anyone is going to actually pay for all this since Congress does not appear to be in a hurry to appropriate any funds for anything. They have been diligently reducing the capital component of the FY10 budget the last time I looked. Has that changed? Are they perhaps talking of using bonding authority of some sort to raise the money? Or perhaps getting some private partnership going with the notion of rail equipment owning and leasing companies, like in the UK being considered?

I am just curious because the money story does not seem to add up yet.


----------



## frequentflyer (Nov 13, 2009)

jis said:


> VT Hokie said:
> 
> 
> > I was hoping that "dramatic and bold" meant 1000 new Super Steel Turboliners!
> ...


They could take money from the stimulus plan since an order of this magnitude would keep and create more jobs in the US.

In other news, so these will be Superliner look a likes with an updated interior similar in construction to the Surfliners. As I stated before, if the states are paying for this, Amtrak should want to put an order in for some EMD locomotives too. Just like California didn't want to use a mismatched aesthetics wise Genesis/Surfliner looking train, neither will the midwest states fronting the money. They are going to want a sleek looking train, even if it will only do 79mph.


----------



## jis (Nov 13, 2009)

frequentflyer said:


> In other news, so these will be Superliner look a likes with an updated interior similar in construction to the Surfliners. As I stated before, if the states are paying for this, Amtrak should want to put an order in for some EMD locomotives too. Just like California didn't want to use a mismatched aesthetics wise Genesis/Surfliner looking train, neither will the midwest states fronting the money. They are going to want a sleek looking train, even if it will only do 79mph.


Haven't seen any mention of any diesel locos so far. The only mention of locos have been of the electric kind for the NEC so far.

Of course individual state might do somepurchasing of their own, but that would not be part of an Amtrak announcement, just like North Carolina has purchased EMD locos separate from any Amtrak purchases.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Nov 13, 2009)

jis said:


> GML, if what you say turns out to be true, that would be indeed very very good news. I look forward to such.


If anything he;s said in this thread turns out to be right I'll eat my shoe for dinner.


----------



## jis (Nov 13, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > GML, if what you say turns out to be true, that would be indeed very very good news. I look forward to such.
> ...


I just heard from one of the horse's mouth a few moments back that there are no takers for the Viewliners RFP yet, so I would be surprised if an actual order for Viewliners is announced in Jan.

I have no problem believing that an order will be placed for the corridor bi-levels in the near future. I am quite dubious about an LD bi-level of any kind in the near future.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Nov 13, 2009)

jis said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


The part I'm dubious about is the whole sleepers and LD coaches bit-- I have no problem believing they are going to get some bi-levels for the Midwest... and I have no problem with them getting it-- I just don't know how big this order can be. I haven't heard about enough money being put in anybody's hands to warrant such an order?


----------



## Mark (Nov 13, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> ...


Bi-levels for the midwest? These new cars should be rated for 110 mph or better. I think that sooner or later the CHI-STL route will see 110 mph.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Nov 13, 2009)

Mark said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


That should be easy as pie. The Superliners are rated for 100mph and they are the product of decades old technology. The Viewliners can do 110mph and the Amfleets are an easy 125. Double-decked at 110mph should be easy, after all-- the Europeans do it. Speed limits in the midwest have more to do with not having electrified lines and rough track than railcars with limits.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Nov 13, 2009)

The Surfliners are rated at 125. No reason new bilevels couldn't be.



frequentflyer said:


> They could take money from the stimulus plan since an order of this magnitude would keep and create more jobs in the US.
> In other news, so these will be Superliner look a likes with an updated interior similar in construction to the Surfliners. As I stated before, if the states are paying for this, Amtrak should want to put an order in for some EMD locomotives too. Just like California didn't want to use a mismatched aesthetics wise Genesis/Surfliner looking train, neither will the midwest states fronting the money. They are going to want a sleek looking train, even if it will only do 79mph.


You must be joking. First of all, EMD is out of the passenger engine business and hasn't built a pax engine in nearly a decade. If Amtrak was going to acquire a Pax engine with EMD prime movers, Wabtec is a better bet. And they won't be F59 PHi. And besides railfans, nobody with a vested interest in this (passengers not yet riding do not have a vested interest) cares about how sleek the engines look compared to the cars.



ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> The part I'm dubious about is the whole sleepers and LD coaches bit-- I have no problem believing they are going to get some bi-levels for the Midwest... and I have no problem with them getting it-- I just don't know how big this order can be. I haven't heard about enough money being put in anybody's hands to warrant such an order?


So is Amtrak. They are not placing an order for them, merely keeping an option open to exercise using the shell from a currently produced train car, if and when money becomes available. Think about it. If they are asking someone to design a bi-level car for them, it would be downright stupid for them not to request that it be designed so that it can accept, at reasonable marginal cost, the ability to be a sleeper and/or long-distance oriented coach.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Nov 14, 2009)

I don't think they need to worry about designing it-- between the California cars and the Superliners Bombardier should have no problem releasing a new bi-level with only modest updates to the current design.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Nov 14, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> I don't think they need to worry about designing it-- between the California cars and the Superliners Bombardier should have no problem releasing a new bi-level with only modest updates to the current design.


That assumes Bombardier gets the contract which is not a guarantee. The original California cars were made by M-K, while the Surfliner and second series California cars were made by Alstom. Alstom has as good a chance of taking this on as Bombardier. Possibly a better one.

We already discussed that this order is primarily corridor equipment. The Alstom design is both more recent and more corridor friendly.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Nov 14, 2009)

Then Alstom-- the point is the same, you're just plucking nose hairs.

The design is sound, all you need is a modest update.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Nov 14, 2009)

That's not true. Not all cars make usable sleepers. The Amfleets don't make good sleepers, for instance. This would ensure all proposals are capable of being a sleeper.


----------



## Kramerica (Nov 14, 2009)

jis said:


> According to the latest NARP Blog:
> 
> 
> > An Amtrak spokesman tells the Train Riders Association of California (TRAC) that Amtrak will make a “dramatic and bold” announcement on new equipment purchases in January, reports NARP Council member Jim Loomis. We should expect nothing less.


I think the best we can hope for in January will be "meets our expectations". I can guarantee that there will be no “dramatic and bold” from Amtrak unless you're talking negatively. My guess is we'll all be pretty disappointed come January. I base this on the not “dramatic and bold" but "a day late and a dollar short” Viewliner RFQ.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Nov 14, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> That's not true. Not all cars make usable sleepers. The Amfleets don't make good sleepers, for instance. This would ensure all proposals are capable of being a sleeper.


Then Bombardier would be the best for the contract.

Besides who says they're going to order sleepers and commuters from the same company? I STILL say its asinine to order Superliner III sleepers before the Viewliner II contracts are even ordered. You risk some politician moving to cut Amtrak's budget and eventually the know-nothings on Capitol Hill will say "hey, you just got new cars, you don't need anymore" and BAM the Viewliner II order gets reduced or cut.


----------



## AMTK 365 (Nov 14, 2009)

I'm in agreeance with those who think the announcement will have something to do with the Viewliner order. That makes the most sense to me. If not the viewliners, it might be in regard to the new power they'd like to get on the NEC ("equipment" can mean locomotives too). THAT is just speculation on my part though.

The mention by GML of purchasing single-level cars to run on the reinstated western trains got the gears in my mind going. Here's something to chew on...I'd have to check, but I believe the reports that were released on these trains specified the use of Superliners, which Amtrak is obviously short of right now. However...if the initial Viewliner proposal/order was increased and the options for extras were exercised, the new cars, combined with the current single level fleet, could potentially be used in place of Superliners on several trains (specifically the Capitol Limited and City of New Orleans, but also possibly the Auto Train). If they did that, they would be able to shift the Superliners to other trains that need them and may even have enough to cover the Pioneer and North Coast Hiawatha.

Again, this is mostly just pure thought or speculation on my part. Regardless of how "bold" the announcement may be, I think we should try to view this in a positive light. At this point in time, any new equipment announcements are a definite improvement over the status-quo.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 14, 2009)

AMTK 365 said:


> However...if the initial Viewliner proposal/order was increased and the options for extras were exercised, the new cars, combined with the current single level fleet, could potentially be used in place of Superliners on several trains (specifically the Capitol Limited and City of New Orleans, but also possibly the Auto Train).


The Auto Train will never go back to single level. It would result in too much loss of revenue, between the reduced carrying capacity and the loss of the Deluxe sleepers. The Auto Train is one train that regularly sells out most of it's Bedrooms, and each days train has a minimum of 25 and most trains have 30 Bedrooms up for sale. And of course they have many more roomettes too, with 5 to 6 sleeping cars on each train.

They also couldn't feed everyone with single level dining cars either, at least not without putting on about 8 to 10 single level dining cars.


----------



## SunsetLimited01 (Nov 14, 2009)

Well AlanB is right about that, you can't have the Auto Train go single-level. Back when the Auto Train used single-level cars they had up to 4 diners on both trains and 16-20 cars that were a mix of sleepers, Amfleet coaches, and dome cars. That would be one large consumption of equipment there.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Nov 14, 2009)

AlanB said:


> The Auto Train will never go back to single level. It would result in too much loss of revenue, between the reduced carrying capacity and the loss of the Deluxe sleepers. The Auto Train is one train that regularly sells out most of it's Bedrooms, and each days train has a minimum of 25 and most trains have 30 Bedrooms up for sale. And of course they have many more roomettes too, with 5 to 6 sleeping cars on each train.
> They also couldn't feed everyone with single level dining cars either, at least not without putting on about 8 to 10 single level dining cars.


I certainly don't think the Auto Train should go single level, but is there anything preventing the construction of a Viewliner Deluxe Sleeper, and making the Auto Train longer to compensate for fewer passengers per car?


----------



## AlanB (Nov 14, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> I certainly don't think the Auto Train should go single level, but is there anything preventing the construction of a Viewliner Deluxe Sleeper, and making the Auto Train longer to compensate for fewer passengers per car?


There's nothing that would prevent Amtrak from buying an all Deluxe Viewliner, other than perhaps money.

But there are things that could prevent making the AT longer, namely will the host CSX accept a longer train and the ever present problem of overloading the HEP system.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Nov 14, 2009)

AlanB said:


> But there are things that could prevent making the AT longer, namely will the host CSX accept a longer train


How does the length of the present Auto Train compare with CSX's longest freight trains on that route?



AlanB said:


> and the ever present problem of overloading the HEP system.


I would expect a lot of the HEP loads to be proportional to the number of sleeping car compartments more than number of cars, although admittedly a bi-level car is probably more efficient to heat/cool as measured per compartment. But there is also always the option of adding a HEP generator at the back of the passenger cars, and designing a sufficient mechanism to control that HEP from the cab at the front of the train. (Or maybe standard MU cabling would be enough; consider that on a Downeaster trainset being operated from a cabbage car, the HEP source is obviously at the back of the train, and presumably the engineer has adequate control of the HEP source in that case.)

I was also wondering if the size of the tracks at the Auto Train terminals is a factor.

Given how high the low bucket prices on the Auto Train are, I would think that if it could be expanded to accommodate more passengers and automobiles, there would be passengers willing to fill the extra space.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 14, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > But there are things that could prevent making the AT longer, namely will the host CSX accept a longer train
> ...


Rough guess at present the AT is probably half the length of CSX's longer trains. That however has nothing to do with what CSX will permit Amtrak to run.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > and the ever present problem of overloading the HEP system.
> ...


Actually one of the bigger power draws are the dining cars, something that you'd now need more of if you went single level. And as has been discussed several times before, adding HEP at the rear of the train is not an option under currrent FRA rules.

And yes, terminals are also a limiting factor. The current train fits in on one platform in Virginia. That platform could probably handle a few more cars, I'm guessing maybe 5 or 6, before you'd run out of space. In Florida, the train already doesn't fit and has to be split, about 3/4ths and 1/4th. This requires extra switching and delays. Between the two sections, they might be able to fit maybe another 3, max 4 cars.

As for the prices, they charge that much because they can. The demand is there. Adding more cars might reduce the prices, but it also increases the expenses too. Don't know if the trade off is worth it.


----------



## Shanghai (Nov 14, 2009)

What is the Superliner III?


----------



## frequentflyer (Nov 14, 2009)

gml, please,spare me, can you explain why the surfliners look the way they do? Why do the nocal san joaquin look the way they do? Why go the way of EMD when Amtrak have plenty of GEs around? Why did WaDot choose a different paint scheme or add wings to the talgos if aesthics are not important? Truth be told is if the midwest states are fronting money for equipment you better looks matter. If it did not the surfliner would still be the san diegan with Genesis power and Superliners in phase four paintwbeei


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Nov 14, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > That's not true. Not all cars make usable sleepers. The Amfleets don't make good sleepers, for instance. This would ensure all proposals are capable of being a sleeper.
> ...


.. But they aren't ordering them. They are simply requesting an option for an order. An option means that the company agrees to, if requested, sell Amtrak more cars of that design at a given price. By putting such options into the order, once Amtrak sells congress on the (seriously needed) bi-levels for midwestern corridors, they can then bring up to Congress the possibility of buying 70 cars at a marginal price (Say 2.5 million a car?) which makes them a lot more attractive then separately tooling up a different production line (in which case, say more like $4-5 million a car at this volume).

As for who is best for the contract? The one that can build them to the quality Amtrak desires and to the specification Amtrak desire for the lowest price is the one best for the order. Alstom and Bombardier are both not all that well known for the quality of their products, but somehow I don't see Talgo tackling Superliner-sized cars, and Kawasaki doesn't have the experience with this type of design.



AMTK 365 said:


> The mention by GML of purchasing single-level cars to run on the reinstated western trains got the gears in my mind going.


I said nothing of the sort. I was talking about bi-levels closer in design to the Surfliners then the Superliners.



frequentflyer said:


> gml, please,spare me, can you explain why the surfliners look the way they do? Why do the nocal san joaquin look the way they do? Why go the way of EMD when Amtrak have plenty of GEs around? Why did WaDot choose a different paint scheme or add wings to the talgos if aesthics are not important? Truth be told is if the midwest states are fronting money for equipment you better looks matter. If it did not the surfliner would still be the san diegan with Genesis power and Superliners in phase four paintwbeei


If the states were buying these cars, you'd have a solid point there. But they aren't. This is a federal proposal. California wanted to buy their own equipment, and so they did. Wisconsin ditto, Washington double ditto.

The Genesis locomotives are adequate for hauling the current midwest commitment- the cars ordered aren't for starting new midwest trains, they are for displacing single level equipment to the northeast to be hauled by electric locos. Amtrak isn't going to replace the Genesis until they get as unreliable as the F40s did.


----------



## wrjensen (Nov 14, 2009)

AlanB said:


> But there are things that could prevent making the AT longer, namely will the host CSX accept a longer train


How does the length of the present Auto Train compare with CSX's longest freight trains on that route?



AlanB said:


> and the ever present problem of overloading the HEP system.


CSX Does not seem to run long trains north of Richmond and the trains that run from FL north thru DC are never that long. I heard from a few people the they prefer to run more shorter trains then the one long one, unlike their western counterparts.


----------



## printman2000 (Nov 15, 2009)

jis said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


So what happens if no one accepts the RFP?


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Nov 15, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> ...


They can't build new Viewliner II cars? :lol:

I guess they can change the RFP, or extended the date.


----------



## TVRM610 (Nov 15, 2009)

It would actually make more sense for Amtrak to order more superliners then the viewliners. If they were available, superliners could be used on the Cardinal, and one of the Silver Trains could be dropped to DC and use Superliners. This would free up enough single level equipment to cover current needs. Meanwhile, all of the other extra Superliners could be used for expanded service throughout the country.

Do we need both? yes. But just saying, it makes alot more sense for Amtrak to order more superliner equipment right now.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 15, 2009)

No, it doesn't make sense to go with Superliners. Yes, Amtrak does need more single level sleepers, but that part of the order is more of an after thought/niceity. They need new single level dining cars and baggage cars, so they must order those cars now. So while they're doing that, it makes sense to beef up the sleeper side too, and hopefully make the contract more attractive to the builders.

More Superliner's won't fix either the baggage problem or the diner problem.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Nov 15, 2009)

jis said:


> According to the latest NARP Blog:
> 
> 
> > An Amtrak spokesman tells the Train Riders Association of California (TRAC) that Amtrak will make a “dramatic and bold” announcement on new equipment purchases in January, reports NARP Council member Jim Loomis. We should expect nothing less.


If they were to announce that all the midwest bilevel coaches for corridor use will be EMUs that can operate off 25 kV/60hz overhead power, as well as off rechargeable battery arrays scaled up from what is in the Tesla Roadster / Tesla Model S, and that they are planning to install sufficient overhead power to be able to keep those batteries charged without needing to ever run diesel locomotives to haul those cars, I would consider _that_ dramatic and bold.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Nov 15, 2009)

TVRM610 said:


> It would actually make more sense for Amtrak to order more superliners then the viewliners. If they were available, superliners could be used on the Cardinal, and one of the Silver Trains could be dropped to DC and use Superliners. This would free up enough single level equipment to cover current needs. Meanwhile, all of the other extra Superliners could be used for expanded service throughout the country.
> Do we need both? yes. But just saying, it makes alot more sense for Amtrak to order more superliner equipment right now.


In addition to what Alan said, the Cardinal needs NYC ridership. Without NYC ridership goes down, IIRC, 30%. Same story with the Silvers, you could even send the Palmetto back to MIA and make a third Silver out of NYC and it would work!


----------



## TVRM610 (Nov 15, 2009)

AlanB said:


> No, it doesn't make sense to go with Superliners. Yes, Amtrak does need more single level sleepers, but that part of the order is more of an after thought/niceity. They need new single level dining cars and baggage cars, so they must order those cars now. So while they're doing that, it makes sense to beef up the sleeper side too, and hopefully make the contract more attractive to the builders.
> More Superliner's won't fix either the baggage problem or the diner problem.


I'm saying what if Amtrak were to be faced with a one or the other decision? If Amtrak had one shot at a big car order I think they need superliners more than single level equipment. The western trains could have baggage space in superliners if needed... that leaves us with diners that could be replaced with amfleet "diner-lite" or whatever they call them cars if needed.

Honestly I have no idea what amtrak's big and bold announcement will be. I hope it's new single level and superliner equipment since both are greatly needed for service expansion.


----------



## wrjensen (Nov 15, 2009)

What happens to the Horizon Cars? If the get new bi-level cars for the Midwest where do this cars go? I would guess to NC.


----------



## jis (Nov 15, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> If they were to announce that all the midwest bilevel coaches for corridor use will be EMUs that can operate off 25 kV/60hz overhead power, as well as off rechargeable battery arrays scaled up from what is in the Tesla Roadster / Tesla Model S, and that they are planning to install sufficient overhead power to be able to keep those batteries charged without needing to ever run diesel locomotives to haul those cars, I would consider _that_ dramatic and bold.


And why would that make sense?


----------



## MattW (Nov 15, 2009)

TVRM610 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > No, it doesn't make sense to go with Superliners. Yes, Amtrak does need more single level sleepers, but that part of the order is more of an after thought/niceity. They need new single level dining cars and baggage cars, so they must order those cars now. So while they're doing that, it makes sense to beef up the sleeper side too, and hopefully make the contract more attractive to the builders.
> ...


From what I understand (partly by reading on here) the Heritage fleet is about to fly apart at the seams, the Superliners, not so much. Given the choice between supplementing a fleet that's ok for now and a fleet that might break if the engineer goes into Notch 8 too fast, I'd choose the latter.


----------



## cpamtfan (Nov 15, 2009)

Yes, the Superliners are only 30 years old at the oldest, while the Heritage Baggages and Diners are as old as 60! New western bi-level cars need to wait no matter what.


----------



## The Metropolitan (Nov 16, 2009)

wrjensen said:


> What happens to the Horizon Cars? If the get new bi-level cars for the Midwest where do this cars go? I would guess to NC.


I was wondering the same thing. That's a heckuva lot of cars for just NC!

I was thinking the SPG Shuttles and Downeaster, but here again, these are places with cold, snowy winters, so scratch that.

Given that the New Orleans intrastate train concept is kinda stymied now, there really don't seem to be a whole lot of temperate places where short to intermediate haul coaches can be used. Even the oft discussed NOL-SAS stub seems like a long time on a Horizon.

Wow, 4 pages of reading replies and not a single mention of Flat Iron Whateveritis (until me just now) - could be a new record!


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Nov 16, 2009)

jis said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > If they were to announce that all the midwest bilevel coaches for corridor use will be EMUs that can operate off 25 kV/60hz overhead power, as well as off rechargeable battery arrays scaled up from what is in the Tesla Roadster / Tesla Model S, and that they are planning to install sufficient overhead power to be able to keep those batteries charged without needing to ever run diesel locomotives to haul those cars, I would consider _that_ dramatic and bold.
> ...


It may ultimately be the cheapest way for Amtrak to operate trains that are as close to zero emission as the power grid can get.

If Tesla Motors actually does succeed in selling a battery powered car under $30k five or six years from now like they've claimed they will, there's some risk that in 2019 or so, people will be talking about how much more environmentally friendly their three year old battery powered automobile that is 1/3 of the way through its useful life is than that Amtrak equipment that was built in 2011 that's only 1/3 of the way through its useful life if it's still being hauled behind diesels.

An EMU train with batteries in every car is likely to have vastly better battery range than a locomotive hauled train with batteries in the locomotive. If passenger cars aren't built to carry substantial battery arrays (probably 25 tons per passenger car or more), retrofitting may be impossible.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Nov 16, 2009)

The Metropolitan said:


> I was thinking the SPG Shuttles and Downeaster, but here again, these are places with cold, snowy winters, so scratch that.


I'm wondering how long the Springfield Shuttles are really going to stick around in their present form. If some additional NEC trains run north of SPG, some continue to Worcester and BOS, some continue to Worcester, Ayer, Nashua, Manchester, and Concord, and others continue to Worcester, Ayer, Lowell, Haverhill, and then follow the Downeaster route to Maine, we might see enough full length Northeast Regional trains going past Hartford and Springfield to make the locomotive-coach-cabbage trainsets a thing of the past on that route.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Nov 16, 2009)

Obviously Joel, they'll have to encounter the engine change problem at NHV.

I rode the SPG shuttles during NTD and I have to say its a pretty smooth operation.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Nov 16, 2009)

wrjensen said:


> What happens to the Horizon Cars? If the get new bi-level cars for the Midwest where do this cars go? I would guess to NC.


They get booted hell out a fleet they never belonged in in the first place. From about the most solid source I can imagine, I have heard this unequivocally: The bi-levels, if and when ordered, will displace the Amfleets to the east and REPLACE the Horizons. Several commuter agencies have expressed interest in purchasing them, especially Rail Runner, who wants to use them for their ELP-DEN insanity.

If the Bi-levels come, the Horizons are gone.


----------



## Steve4031 (Nov 16, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> wrjensen said:
> 
> 
> > What happens to the Horizon Cars? If the get new bi-level cars for the Midwest where do this cars go? I would guess to NC.
> ...


thank god

:lol:


----------



## wrjensen (Nov 16, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Obviously Joel, they'll have to encounter the engine change problem at NHV.
> I rode the SPG shuttles during NTD and I have to say its a pretty smooth operation.


Was that line electrified Pre-Amtrak to Hartford or Springfield? Would it be cost effective to try and get rid of the engine change and wire the line? It would improve the time from Hartford to NYC.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Nov 16, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Obviously Joel, they'll have to encounter the engine change problem at NHV.


If we're looking at a 5-10 year time frame, are you sure? I would think if Amtrak wants to continue to run diesels at all in the long run, the NJT dual mode catenary/diesel locomotives might be an option. And then there's the question of how well batteries might work, especially if Amtrak switches to EMU sets on trains that run beyond catenary territory, and perhaps installs catenary from Springfield to Worcester and a few other segments so that the batteries can recharge en route.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Nov 16, 2009)

wrjensen said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously Joel, they'll have to encounter the engine change problem at NHV.
> ...


Remember that Connecticut wants to run commuter rail at least as far north as Springfield (though they may also be assuming they'll persuade Massachusetts to pay for Springfield service). I will be very surprised if that doesn't provide a one seat ride from its northern endpoint to GCT. I expect Connecticut to want to find some way to avoid an engine change in New Haven for the commuter service.

If the M9 ends up being a combination of technology from the M8 and the Tesla Roadster, it's easy to imagine that the M9 could have a battery range of 200-300 miles between charging. New Haven to Springfield is only 62 miles each way. If the train turns around quickly at its north end, and charges on the New Haven to Manhattan run and continues to charge on the way back to New Haven, the only new overhead wiring that's likely needed for Metro North is for power at the overnight layover facilities. This also would mean the M9 could provide one seat rides from the ends of the existing non-electrified branches of the New Haven Line to GCT.

By contrast, if a train had a 200 mile battery range and tried to get from New Haven to Boston South Station, it might have to spend some time sitting in the yard in Boston recharging its batteries before heading back to New Haven (unless it was rotated onto the route via Rhode Island at that point), and New Haven to Portland, ME without recharging is probably not possible at all. But Connecticut probably doesn't care whether the Northeast Regional can get to Maine, and Connecticut is probably not the right place for recharging halfway between New Haven and Portland anyway.

Another option might be installing overhead wiring in the vicinity of stations only, since that would maximize the minutes the train spends under every thousand feet of overhead wire, and thus might be most cost effective if getting the local electric utility to provide 25 kV power at such points doesn't turn out to be too expensive.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Nov 17, 2009)

You are seeking an answer to a question nobody would ever ask.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Nov 17, 2009)

Well if we're ever going to market expanded electrification to the rest of the US we're going to show what we can do with modern technology.


----------



## GG-1 (Nov 17, 2009)

wrjensen said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously Joel, they'll have to encounter the engine change problem at NHV.
> ...


Aloha

5o years ago there was a power change in New Haven for trains to Hartford and north, and returning to NYC, By the New Haven RR. Have no clue what happened after 1963 and I left for the west coast, on my way to Hawaii.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Nov 17, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Well if we're ever going to market expanded electrification to the rest of the US we're going to show what we can do with modern technology.


Battery powered mechanisms of this type are only modern in the sense that many modern things are stupid.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Nov 17, 2009)

NS just made a nice little switcher battery powered-- it is, in theory, plausible and negates the need to change engines at NHV.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Nov 17, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> NS just made a nice little switcher battery powered-- it is, in theory, plausible and negates the need to change engines at NHV.


Plausibility and sensibility are different, Micah.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Nov 17, 2009)

Since when are we on a first name basis?

And either way, I'm glad you're the voice of reason around here, I mean-- lord help us if you weren't here Amtrak _might actually do something progressive..._


----------



## GG-1 (Nov 17, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> And either way, I'm glad you're the voice of reason around here, I mean-- lord help us if you weren't here Amtrak _might actually do something progressive..._


Aloha

Well I never thought of GML as a voice of reason, But I do frequently enjoy his unique viewpoint's, as you also have, and believe that the eventual compromise will leave us with a much better World

Mahalo

Eric


----------



## Neil_M (Nov 17, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > Well if we're ever going to market expanded electrification to the rest of the US we're going to show what we can do with modern technology.
> ...


Depends on your reference point for 'modern'.......


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL (Nov 17, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> NS just made a nice little switcher battery powered-- it is, in theory, plausible and negates the need to change engines at NHV.


I was told by NS employees that they made the switcher to test the possibility of electrifying their main lines and use battery switchers in yards and spurs that can recharge on the mainline under the catenary

.


----------



## wrjensen (Nov 17, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> NS just made a nice little switcher battery powered-- it is, in theory, plausible and negates the need to change engines at NHV.


Illinois Terminal many yeas ago has switchers in STL that ran off battery, overhead, and third rail.


----------



## wayman (Nov 17, 2009)

Crescent ATN & TCL said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > NS just made a nice little switcher battery powered-- it is, in theory, plausible and negates the need to change engines at NHV.
> ...


Their engineers probably took one look at the huge yards the PRR electrified, with such a complex set of catenary wires, and started crying at the thought of figuring out all the math for the wire tensions :lol: And the finance department took one look at those yards and started crying when they thought of the price of that much copper.  The battery powered switchers are a neat idea to work around both of those problems, though I don't know if they'll work out in practice. Building a prototype is the best way to find out, but it's definitely an experiment, not a sign that there will be more of them any time soon.


----------



## George Harris (Nov 17, 2009)

GG-1 said:


> wrjensen said:
> 
> 
> > ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> ...


The line north of New Haven has never been electrified.

Given the tight clearances in most of New England, it is doubtful that New Haven - Springfield - Boston could be electrified without major work to improve clearances. From both a service and a clean air perspective, it would make more sense to electrify the boston area commuter system. Since South Station already has eelctrified tracks (is it all of them or just osome of them?) it would be cheapre to start there rather than with the services that go into North Station.


----------



## nferr (Nov 17, 2009)

Connecticut is not going to pay to electrify that route. Passengers going beyond New Haven will switch trains. There's no giant need to provide a one train service Springield to south of New Haven. Does anyone realize what it would cost to electrify that route? I live in Connecticut.


----------



## afigg (Nov 17, 2009)

nferr said:


> Connecticut is not going to pay to electrify that route. Passengers going beyond New Haven will switch trains. There's no giant need to provide a one train service Springield to south of New Haven. Does anyone realize what it would cost to electrify that route? I live in Connecticut.


As I recall, in the CT Track 2 application for the ARRA stimulus money, they estimated the cost of electrification from New Haven to Springfield at around $500 million, but it was stated to be a placeholder estimate. I believe CT & Mass were applying for engineering study funding for possible electrification to follow after the major track upgrade projects are done. For only a 63 mile line, $500 million is awfully high on a per mile basis. So electrification is being considered, but would depend on sustained federal funding for HSR and inter-city rail.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Nov 17, 2009)

this is just a thought but would it be cheaper to just use 3rd rail power then overhead. that way there's no clearance issues height wise.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Nov 17, 2009)

George Harris said:


> The line north of New Haven has never been electrified.


I could have sworn that I've seen catenary towers on the NHV-SPG line.


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL (Nov 18, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > The line north of New Haven has never been electrified.
> ...


There are some, even some of the signal towers are in fact catenary towers. I have a vid of a cabride from a shuttle and there are definitely signs of past electrification. But with the previous owners of the line and Amtrak involved it is very likely they could have just slapped old catenary poles in the ground for the signals rather than buy a signal mast.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 18, 2009)

amtrakwolverine said:


> this is just a thought but would it be cheaper to just use 3rd rail power then overhead. that way there's no clearance issues height wise.


That would solve the clearance issues, but it would not be cheaper to do. It would be more expensive, as 3rd rail power requires many more substations to provide power. Additionally, now you need to run out and buy equipment that can run on third rail power.

So again while it does solve one problem rather nicely, it creates a few others and therefore I wouldn't expect them to consider it. But who knows? Stranger things have happened.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Nov 18, 2009)

they could always slap 3rd rail shoes on the locos and wire them to the computers and generator for traction and hotel power.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Nov 18, 2009)

amtrakwolverine said:


> they could always slap 3rd rail shoes on the locos and wire them to the computers and generator for traction and hotel power.


Its not that simple, you need to completely overhaul the current power to make it work, in fact it may not be worth the overhaul-- new units might just be cheaper.


----------



## Neil_M (Nov 18, 2009)

amtrakwolverine said:


> they could always slap 3rd rail shoes on the locos and wire them to the computers and generator for traction and hotel power.


Wiring the 3rd rail shoes to the computer would be a very bad thing..........


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Nov 18, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> > they could always slap 3rd rail shoes on the locos and wire them to the computers and generator for traction and hotel power.
> ...


And boom goes the dynamite.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Nov 18, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> > they could always slap 3rd rail shoes on the locos and wire them to the computers and generator for traction and hotel power.
> ...


i don't mean wire directly.instead of just buying new locos that use 3rd rail power just modify the locos to use 3rd rail. cheaper then buying new. amtrak has the p32 locos that use 3rd rail and they could always bring out the turbos fix the a/c and run them as they can use 3rd rail power.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Nov 18, 2009)

amtrakwolverine said:


> Neil_M said:
> 
> 
> > amtrakwolverine said:
> ...


The P32s are not botched P42s, they are purpose built movers, they also have a significant reduction in HP-- about a 25% reduction.

And don't bring out the Turbos _again_... they're dead, they're scrap, they're done.


----------



## nferr (Nov 18, 2009)

The Metro-North New Haven line cars are already setup to use third rail power OR catenary. They switch to third rail power in Mount Vernon for the run into NYC.


----------



## Heading North (Nov 18, 2009)

IIRC, the New Haven cars can use third rail OR catenary because third-rail power is illegal in Connecticut?


----------



## AlanB (Nov 18, 2009)

Hadn't heard that third rail was illegal in CT, but it wouldn't make sense for them to have converted the overhead catenary to third rail as that would have been a huge expense. Not to mention that it would screw up Amtrak totally.

But yes, the New Haven line cars can run on either third rail power or catenary power.


----------



## jis (Nov 18, 2009)

My fearless prediction is that third rail will not be used for any mainline electrification in this day and age. Every town on the route will throw a veritable hissyfit about the danger of people getting electrocuted etc., which of course would be in addition to the fact that third rail electrification in all likelihood will end up costing more than OHE anyway for long distance electrification.


----------



## wrjensen (Nov 19, 2009)

I found the answer in "when the steam railroad electrified" (great book by the way)

The main line from New Haven to Hartford was not electrified but lines near Hartford were but not the line that Amtrak uses.


----------



## George Harris (Nov 20, 2009)

AlanB said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> > this is just a thought but would it be cheaper to just use 3rd rail power then overhead. that way there's no clearance issues height wise.
> ...


Third rail power is usually limited to 1000 volts maximum. Most systems are either 600 or 750 volts.

At these low voltages a very large condutor rail is necessary to get much power across. The only extensive main line electrification that I know about (not counting Long Island RR or the ex NYC lines) is British Southern Region. Generally speed is limited to aobut 100 mph.

Also, third rail cannot be continuous through turnouts. There must be a gap to keep the third rail shoe from coming into the side of the third rail at the switch. For high speed turnouts this gap gets very long.


----------



## delvyrails (Nov 20, 2009)

wrjensen said:


> I found the answer in "when the steam railroad electrified" (great book by the way)
> The main line from New Haven to Hartford was not electrified but lines near Hartford were but not the line that Amtrak uses.



New third rail electrification is just about obsolete for railroads. At the maximum of 600-750 volts, the required current for any kind of passenger train speed or heavy freight would require an uneconomic amount of feeder cable and too many substations. Short extensions of an existing third-rail network are probably the only exceptions.

Actually, there was a New Haven Railroad suburban third-rail electrification in existence at one time between Hartford and Waterbury.


----------



## jis (Nov 20, 2009)

Interestingly many of the newly constructed Metro systems choose to use bigger diameter tunnels and deliver power to the trains via 25kV AC or at least several thousand volts DC OHE rather than third rail.


----------



## George Harris (Nov 20, 2009)

jis said:


> Interestingly many of the newly constructed Metro systems choose to use bigger diameter tunnels and deliver power to the trains via 25kV AC or at least several thousand volts DC OHE rather than third rail.


Which ones and where?

There are some that use 1500VDC overhead. So far as I know 3000VDC is about as high as DC electrification has ever gone anywhere.


----------



## jis (Nov 20, 2009)

George Harris said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Interestingly many of the newly constructed Metro systems choose to use bigger diameter tunnels and deliver power to the trains via 25kV AC or at least several thousand volts DC OHE rather than third rail.
> ...


Two that immediately come to mind are Rome, which is 3kV DC AFAIR. Delhi is 25kV AC/50Hz. Of course all of the Paris RER lines are OHE DC electrified, except B, D north of Gare du Nord is 25kV and E is 25kV. I believe all new Metros in India will be 25kV. Only Calcutta will retain its current line using third rail DC electrification. Hong Kong MTR's newest line is OHE.


----------



## George Harris (Nov 20, 2009)

jis said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


OK, I guess you could consider 3000V as "several thousand."

I think, but am not certain that Hong Kong MTR is 1500V DC. All of Hong Kong MTR is overhead electric and was so from the beginning. (I will be seeing a long time HK MTR man Monday and will correct the voltage if it is wrong)

Hong Kong KCR is 25 kv 50 cycle overhead, but it also hauls long distance trains as well. However, the 25 KV predated the electrification of the line on the Guangdong side of the border, so for quite a few years the long distance trains were diesel hauled.

The Paris RER services are more on the order of commuter rail than Metro.


----------



## jis (Nov 20, 2009)

George Harris said:


> The Paris RER services are more on the order of commuter rail than Metro.


They bear an eerie resemblance to BART or WMATA, specially the RER A line. RER-C is clearly old suburban line converted to RER. RER-B is sort of like RER-A more than like RER-C. D and E are the newest lines and within the city they all are like subway, while outside they are like commuter service, but typically with much more frequent service than what is common in the US.


----------

