# Equipment Order in the works this year (2018)?



## jis (Apr 6, 2018)

Excerpting from a report on a recent Amtrak Employee Town Hall Meeting hosted by Anderson:



> _Replacing Amfleets and P42s_:
> 
> “These are two big programs for us. We want to get an RFP completed and contracts awarded this year. There is no reason why we can’t. In large measure, our Amfleets and P42s can be replaced by more modern, lightweight, environmentally sensitive, ADA-compliant equipment that will give us a completely different product. DMU trainsets in Fort Worth, Texas, and Santa Rosa, California, are the modern way of train travel. If we want to appeal to a millennial generation in high-density urban markets, we need the same kind of modern, unit trains we see operating in Europe and Asia. Making these investments now will benefit
> the next generation of Amtrak.”


Other parts of the report has him talking about Amtrak being effectively debt free this year, thus allowing it to take on financing for new equipment. He stated that all capital investment will be consistent with meeting Amtrak's statutory requirements. I read that to mean that LD service is here to stay.

A fleet replacement order for Amfleet Is and P42s would indeed be welcome news.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 6, 2018)

That’s impossible, Anderson is an airplane guy that hates Amtrak and wants to see it fail.


----------



## TiBike (Apr 6, 2018)

From what I can see, Amtrak's only statutory obligation is:

"Amtrak shall operate a national rail passenger transportation system which ties together existing and emergent regional rail passenger service and other intermodal passenger service."

That's the result of changes made in 1997 to the original 1970 law, which was (a little) more prescriptive.

As I read the plain text, the "national rail passenger transportation system" Amtrak is obligated to run is one that "ties together existing and emergent regional rail passenger service". That isn't the same thing as a system of long distance trains that lets you take a two-seat ride from Boston to Los Angeles.

There's no obligation regarding frequency of service, duration of travel or number of connections. It can even be read as excluding any obligation to run a long distance (i.e. national passenger transportation) service between points that are served by corridor trains. For example, running weekly trains between San Luis Obispo and San Jose and Sacramento and Eugene would meet any statutory obligation Amtrak has to provide service along the West Coast.

That report also had Anderson praising SMART in Sonoma and Marin counties in California as a model -- at least in terms of equipment -- for Amtrak's future. He equated those to the kinds of trains that provide intercity service in Europe, which he seems to favor. Those are very nice trains, but they're not the classic nineteenth century configuration -- coach, sleeper, diner, lounge, baggage cars -- that are the basis for long distance service as we know it.


----------



## Lonestar648 (Apr 6, 2018)

I don't agree about Anderson. The CEO's I know and others I have worked with, all have an ego that drives them to be successful. If Amtrak fails it is a major negative on his record that I don't think his ego can tolerate. It would be better to show that he made the company successful despite how he feels about it. CEOs are a group of competive major egos.


----------



## fredmcain (Apr 6, 2018)

Ryan said:


> That’s impossible, Anderson is an airplane guy that hates Amtrak and wants to see it fail.


I find it hard to believe that he wants to see it fail. Far more likely he just doesn't know what he's doing. Kinda like Thomas Downs.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain


----------



## the_traveler (Apr 6, 2018)

Almost every president (of both the US and Amtrak) has wanted to see Amtrak fail too. So how would that be any different?


----------



## Ryan (Apr 6, 2018)

Lonestar648 said:


> I don't agree about Anderson. The CEO's I know and others I have worked with, all have an ego that drives them to be successful. If Amtrak fails it is a major negative on his record that I don't think his ego can tolerate. It would be better to show that he made the company successful despite how he feels about it. CEOs are a group of competive major egos.


I don’t agree either. The sarcasm must have sailed over your head.

At the end of the day, the important part is what metric that you use to describe “successful”. The metric he has been given isn’t necessarily aligned with the “run charters and land cruises” that the foamerdom seems to think that it should be.


----------



## MattW (Apr 6, 2018)

I was wondering when this would make it here. I'm surprised no one's mentioned the DMUs yet...


----------



## Trogdor (Apr 6, 2018)

I'm definitely curious to see what they have in mind regarding DMU trainsets. A lot of the shorter (consist-wise) corridor trains would probably run quite a bit more efficiently if they didn't have a huge locomotive pulling 3 or 4 passenger cars.

That said...where would such equipment operate? I can only think of the Springfield shuttles that really fall into the category of short consists, Amfleet replacement and P42 replacement. Maybe a dual-mode (3rd rail/diesel) DEMU for the Albany corridor?

Almost everything else already has other equipment either already in service or on order (Siemens Chargers and coaches).


----------



## Lonestar648 (Apr 6, 2018)

Sorry, that did fly over my head. Must be all the meds I am on right now.


----------



## jis (Apr 6, 2018)

fredmcain said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > That’s impossible, Anderson is an airplane guy that hates Amtrak and wants to see it fail.
> ...


Actually I think it about as likely that the Railfans who are railing don't know how to run a railroad or any other company for that matter either. They just know what their pet hobby horse of the day is. Anderson has actually run a large corporation or two successfully. Not something we can say about most of the armchair executives ranting on and on around here.







MattW said:


> I was wondering when this would make it here. I'm surprised no one's mentioned the DMUs yet...


DMUs make sense for certain short to medium corridor service, e.g. the Heartland Flyer comes to mind. There are others too.

On the NEC for a service like the Keystone, probably EMUs make a lot of sense.

Incidentally in many places elsewhere in the world, and NEC Regional kind of service would be operated using EMU and perhaps DEMUs for those that go outside the electrified region. Could potentially be a a lot more efficient operation than what we have today. Similarly with the Empire Corridor. Not that I am saying anything that makes so much sense would ever happen here.





My guess is that given the equipment that is already in place, we will get a large order for Brightline like cars for the Amfleet I replacement. There may be some experimentation with the use of DMUs in a few places, but that would be about it as far as DMUs go.

What to me is more itneresting is that it sounds like we are talking about P42 replacements, rather than a mid-to-late-life major rebuild.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 6, 2018)

Lonestar648 said:


> I don't agree about Anderson. The CEO's I know and others I have worked with, all have an ego that drives them to be successful. If Amtrak fails it is a major negative on his record that I don't think his ego can tolerate. It would be better to show that he made the company successful despite how he feels about it. CEOs are a group of competive major egos.


How CEO's judge success is rarely inline with how average customers or rank and file employees would judge success.



the_traveler said:


> Almost every president (of both the US and Amtrak) has wanted to see Amtrak fail too. So how would that be any different?


I didn't seen any evidence of Clinton or Obama hoping/trying to kill off Amtrak. Bush (43) and Trump did publish budget proposals that would have left much of Amtrak essentially bankrupt/liquidated if not for Congress largely ignoring them. Did Reagan or the elder Bush (41) also try to get rid of Amtrak?


----------



## the_traveler (Apr 6, 2018)

Maybe Clinton did not try to kill all of Amtrak, but I can think of 2 examples from 1997. They are the Pioneer and the Desert Wind.


----------



## jis (Apr 6, 2018)

Devil's Advocate said:


> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Almost every president (of both the US and Amtrak) has wanted to see Amtrak fail too. So how would that be any different?
> ...


Reagan certainly did in his first term in a big way. Remember the famous Stockman budgets?



the_traveler said:


> Maybe Clinton did not try to kill all of Amtrak, but I can think of 2 examples from 1997. They are the Pioneer and the Desert Wind.


Amtrak deciding to handle its equipment shortage in a particular way does not necessarily have much to do with a President of the US wanting to kill Amtrak.

this would be akin to giving credit to Trump for Amtrak getting a huge funding this year in spite of Trump's best effort to see it not happen, and even threats to veto the budget over such matters.


----------



## blueman271 (Apr 6, 2018)

Based on the Viewliner 2 and Sumitomo/Siemens order Amtrak may get these cars by 2030 if they issue the RFP this year.


----------



## jis (Apr 6, 2018)

blueman271 said:


> Based on the Viewliner 2 and Sumitomo/Siemens order Amtrak may get these cars by 2030 if they issue the RFP this year.


If they place the order with some outfit like Alstom or Siemens or some other outfit, who have established facilities in the US with a good track record for delivering US manufactured cars, an order placed this year would like be delivered within 3-5 years - by 2023 or so on the outside. The earlier dates would be likely if minimal modification of a standard platform is required. OTOH, if there is insistence on the cars being Viewliners, then all bets on both delivery timelines and costs are off.


----------



## the_traveler (Apr 6, 2018)

You also note that I did not say every president, I said ALMOST every president! That means that there are some exceptions.


----------



## jis (Apr 6, 2018)

the_traveler said:


> You also note that I did not say every president, I said ALMOST every president! That means that there are some exceptions.


Could we please get over this silly diversion and focus on the possibilities that arise out of an equipment order? Please? Pretty please?

If it is to replace the entire Amfleet I fleet then it would be an order of the order of 450 - 500 cars or so cars I would imagine. Originally 492 Amfleet I were purchased.

I wonder if all would be trailers or a small set, say 30 or 40 or so would be ordered in the form of DME/EMU or even DEMU.

Of the locomotives, if it is a total fleet replacement that would be something like 320 units counting P40s and 42s. I wonder, given how much through traffic to non--electrified territory exists now, whether there would be a small subset say 20 or so dual modes thrown in.


----------



## stappend (Apr 6, 2018)

The quote would imply mostly off the shelf technology that other railroads use around the world. Maybe Amtrak has learned from the VL2 order. Their most recent orders all seem to be off the shelf products with minor modifications to work here; Acela replacement, Chargers, Siemens replacement for Bi-levels.


----------



## TiBike (Apr 6, 2018)

I think the first clue to Anderson's capital spending plan will come if/when we see the route changes that are apparently in process for this summer. If he moves toward breaking up the one/two seat long distance rides into (theoretically contiguous) city pair segments, that'll be an indication that he's leaning toward a mix with more powered cars (of whatever kind).

SMART-type trainsets with two powered cars could be used to provide more frequent service between heavily trafficked pairs, and less frequently otherwise, with the segments designed as day trips, i.e. no sleeper service.

I don't think he's going to get rid of sleeper service, but I do think he's going to deploy it strategically – offer overnight rides as a specific service where there's demand for it (DC-Chicago?) and not as a way of stitching segments together, as it is now.


----------



## keelhauled (Apr 6, 2018)

I'm curious what will happen to the Amfleet Is. Hopefully they will retain at least a subset of the fleet, either to supplement the Amfleet IIs or to give them a pool of equipment to offer to states to increase corridor service.


----------



## CraigDK (Apr 6, 2018)

Ryan said:


> That’s impossible, *Anderson is an airplane guy that hates Amtrak and wants to see it fail.*


You must be spending to much time elsewhere on the internet, as you managed to sum up just about every post on a certain other message board.


----------



## neroden (Apr 6, 2018)

TiBike said:


> From what I can see, Amtrak's only statutory obligation is:
> 
> "Amtrak shall operate a national rail passenger transportation system which ties together existing and emergent regional rail passenger service and other intermodal passenger service."
> 
> ...


Actually, it is the same thing.

Have you thought about this? Existing regional rail service is present in:

-- Boston

-- New York

-- Philadelphia

-- Baltimore

-- Washington DC (hmm, the NEC seems mandated)

-- Miami (oh, so Amtrak has to connect Miami to DC)

-- Orlando (see Miami)

-- Chicago (oh, so Amtrak has to connect Chicago to the east coast)

-- Minneapolis (oh, so Amtrak has to connect that to Chicago)

-- Seattle & Portland (oh, so Amtrak has to connect those to Chicago)

-- Denver (oh, so Amtrak has to connect that to Chicago)

-- Salt Lake (oh, so Amtrak has to connect that to Denver)

-- the Bay Area (oh, so Amtrak has to connect that to Seattle, Portland, Salt Lake, Denver, Chicago, etc.)

-- Los Angeles (oh, so Amtrak has to connect that to the Bay Area, etc. etc. etc.)

-- Dallas/Fort Worth (oh, so Amtrak has to connect that to Chicago)

-- Albuquerque (oh, so Amtrak has to connect that to something, let's say LA)

-- Nashville (darn it, I think Amtrak is obligated to expand to Nashville!)

If you look at this list of cities with existing regional rail service, you find that the only "nonessential" Amtrak long-distance routes -- by this Congressionally-mandated criterion -- are the three which go to New Orleans.

If you assume "other intermodal passenger service" means local rail, of course, it also makes sense to go to:

New Orleans, Kansas City, Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, San Diego, Tacoma, Tucson, Newark, Sacramento, Trenton, Norfolk, Tampa, and Memphis.

Also Houston, Austin, Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Phoenix, Cincinnati, and Charlotte, but only if the Amtrak station is moved or the local rail is extended. Also Cleveland but only if Amtrak arrives while the light rail is running to its station.

What's interesting about this list? Except for Nashville, all of these places actually have Amtrak service, although that final list needs some very major improvements to connectivity.


----------



## jis (Apr 6, 2018)

For various reasons, I have grave doubts that all this talk about the breaking up of the LD intercity network will come to pass. Mr. Anderson will be very hard pressed to explain to his 500+ proxy owners that such a move is consistent with Amtrak's mission, and I suspect he is unlikely to throw a hissy fit over such a matter, even assuming that he believes that a trunk system is undesireable.

For those that like to hark back to his Delta and Northwest days trying to decipher him, he never harmed Delta's or Northwest's trunk network. Indeed he strengthened them.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Apr 6, 2018)

neroden said:


> TiBike said:
> 
> 
> > From what I can see, Amtrak's only statutory obligation is:
> ...


If you include rapid transit then the Crescent would be required as well because of Atlanta, while Tucson and Houston's light rail could be interpreted to require the Sunset Limited. However, if connecting urban and commuter rail systems was the intention of that requirement, then it is being very poorly enforced (as you mentioned, Nashville, as well as the new SMART train and the Light Rail system in Phoenix).


----------



## jebr (Apr 6, 2018)

It depends on what your criteria is for "regional passenger rail service and other intermodal passenger service." To use the example I'm most familiar with (MSP) I'd find it hard to come to a conclusion that the Northstar commuter rail is currently regional passenger rail service. It might if you include the connecting bus service from St. Cloud (because now you're connecting two metropolitan areas) or if the talk about extending the Northstar to St. Cloud ever materializes, but there seems to be enough wiggle room to remove at least a few of these cities if someone really wanted to.

I think any city that has intercity service paid for by the states would need to be connected, and there's also the potential for other rail or built-up intermodal networks to be counted depending on how that definition is applied.


----------



## CraigDK (Apr 6, 2018)

jis said:


> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> > .......
> ...


Yes, lets do that!

There are 203 P40s and P42s in service according to On Track On line. If you add in the P32s (although I think they will remain on the roster as work units) that is 221. Most of the dual modes are used in state supported services, so I don't know if they would get included. Although I suppose you could get to 20 if you ran them on all the long distance trains to and from New York...

I would agree that an Amfleet I replacement order would as a base order be around 450-500 cars, possibly with options for more.

As for DMUs/EMUs, I have no idea where or how many. The only places where they seem to make sense would be on some (but not all) of the state supported services


----------



## jis (Apr 6, 2018)

Amtrak Looking to Order Modern Lightweight Trainsets


----------



## looshi (Apr 6, 2018)

I have heard there is a discussion considering dual-modes for Virginia service in order to eliminate the engine change at WAS. It sounded like this idea was still very preliminary and definitely in the "What-if" stage.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Apr 6, 2018)

DMUs could be used on most of Amtrak's regional/state supported services. They would certainly be put to a good use on the Chicago-Milwaukee route as well as the other Illinois/Michigan/Indiana/Missouri services. There's no reason such cars could not be outfitted to include business class and food services.

EMUs could certainly be used on the Keystones as well as for local services on the NEC (a whole third class of service outside of the Accelas and Regionals, which could stop at smaller cities and towns bypassed by the other trains.

At least this is forward thinking, not the "slash and burn" actions we have seen recently.


----------



## MattW (Apr 6, 2018)

I'm guessing any DMUs would look something like the British Class 222 or Class 800/802.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Apr 6, 2018)

MikefromCrete said:


> DMUs could be used on most of Amtrak's regional/state supported services. They would certainly be put to a good use on the Chicago-Milwaukee route as well as the other Illinois/Michigan/Indiana/Missouri services. There's no reason such cars could not be outfitted to include business class and food services.
> 
> EMUs could certainly be used on the Keystones as well as for local services on the NEC (a whole third class of service outside of the Accelas and Regionals, which could stop at smaller cities and towns bypassed by the other trains.
> 
> At least this is forward thinking, not the "slash and burn" actions we have seen recently.


DMUS would make sense in many Midwest and West Coast corridors, but all of these lines have relatively new cars operating or on order.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Apr 6, 2018)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> > DMUs could be used on most of Amtrak's regional/state supported services. They would certainly be put to a good use on the Chicago-Milwaukee route as well as the other Illinois/Michigan/Indiana/Missouri services. There's no reason such cars could not be outfitted to include business class and food services.
> ...


New cars? You mean Amfleet 1s and Horizons?


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Apr 6, 2018)

MikefromCrete said:


> brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> 
> 
> > MikefromCrete said:
> ...


I'm referring to the Siemens cars which will begin arirving in next few years.


----------



## jis (Apr 6, 2018)

MikefromCrete said:


> brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> 
> 
> > DMUS would make sense in many Midwest and West Coast corridors, but all of these lines have relatively new cars operating or on order.
> ...


No. The recently ordered Siemens cars.

But it is not Amtrak's job to order equipment for state corridors, unless the states ask them of course. The states are responsible and they have placed their orders already. So to some extent the Midwest and California corridors are quite irrelevant in this discussion of Amtrak orders for new equipment.

However, for state corridors where the states might want to piggyback onto an Amtrak order, it may still be relevant. One state that comes to mind is New York (Empire Corridor), and the other is Pennsylvania (Keystone). Virginia could also fall in that category in a big way since they use NEC equipment.


----------



## TiBike (Apr 6, 2018)

neroden said:


> TiBike said:
> 
> 
> > From what I can see, Amtrak's only statutory obligation is:
> ...


Could be the same thing, but doesn't have to be. Could be weekly shuttle trains. Could be "intermodal" bus service too. I can get from Redding to San Diego on California Amtrak service, without ever getting on the Starlight. Run an Ambus from Eugene to Redding and do a transfer deal with San Diego Metro, and you're good to go from Vancouver to Tijuana.

My point was that Anderson's comments about statutory obligations doesn't mean he's under any restrictions regarding his choice of future business models. Equipment purchases will follow service plans, which are not meaningfully restricted by law. If you want to know what kind of equipment he's going to buy, watch how he changes service. He's redesigning and replacing old service, not old equipment.


----------



## jis (Apr 6, 2018)

Of course we have to wait to see what is actually ordered and before that what the RFP says. Ultimately what is ordered is what will be delivered and service that can be provided by those delivered things is the service that we will have.

It is just a game of wait and see for concrete stuff. The rest we can argue until the cows come home.

As for statutory requirements, all that he said is that capital investments will be in accordance with Amtrak's statutory requirements. This sort of indicates to me that he probably will not be ordering a fleet of buses or airplanes. But we'll see. Amtrak California is not Amtrak and what Amtrak California does has little to do with the statutory requirements that Amtrak must meet. Anderson actually has relatively little wiggle room in choosing his business model totally devoid of input from his 500+ stake holders.

But if you insist on your bizarre interpretation, no one can argue you out of it either.


----------



## TiBike (Apr 6, 2018)

I thought AT&T's plan to meet its subsidised obligations by replacing (ageing and expensive) copper wires with (new and cheap) fixed wireless systems was a bizarre interpretation of universal service rules. Until the FCC agreed with them.

Like any CEO, Anderson will read the law as a permission slip, not as a straightjacket.


----------



## west point (Apr 6, 2018)

Was not there somewhere a posting that 3 or less DMU were cheaper to operate but 4 or more conventional loco hauled cheaper ?


----------



## frequentflyer (Apr 7, 2018)

So what will replace the Genesis? Amtrak will not need as many locomotives since the States have ordered Chargers to cover a large portion of the old Genesis work. The new DMV will lower the replacement number further.

For Amtrak to be talking Amfleet 1 replacement now, Siemens must be throwing around some nice numbers.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 7, 2018)

jis said:


> For various reasons, I have grave doubts that all this talk about the breaking up of the LD intercity network will come to pass. Mr. Anderson will be very hard pressed to explain to his 500+ proxy owners that such a move is consistent with Amtrak's mission, and I suspect he is unlikely to throw a hissy fit over such a matter, even assuming that he believes that a trunk system is undesireable.
> 
> For those that like to hark back to his Delta and Northwest days trying to decipher him, he never harmed Delta's or Northwest's trunk network. Indeed he strengthened them.


So, a few thoughts based on the discussions I've seen/heard:

(1) The mention of MU sets does not necessarily foreshadow the use of MUs on Amtrak. What I think it /does/ foreshadow is the use of semi-fixed consists in a few forms on corridor trains. In terms of slamming out an RFP on the timeline he's talking about, I have to suspect that means hopping on the Brightliner wagon, especially since he's already going to be stuck operating a bunch of those in the Midwest and CA...but by the same token, there are probably Alstom and/or Talgo choices to be had as well. I suspect that N-S will be effectively hard-barred from any orders on account of the MSBL fiasco.

(2) With (1) in mind, I do see an opening to do something involving splitting/combining trains at Philly. Were the equipment available, I wonder if it would be practical to combine most WAS-NYP Regionals with a Keystone set out of New York (since IIRC load factors are quite high PHL-NYP), running (for example) a few more 6-car Regionals to Washington while a 4-5 car Keystone would split off at Philly and head for Harrisburg? Likewise, I can definitely see a case for DMUs for service into VA...one big constraint has been that VA can _not_ send a train out to LYH/ROA, NPN, or NFK within about 30-40 minutes of sending a train to either of the others.

(3) My read, possibly overly optimistic, is that Anderson is going to go in front of Congress and basically say "Look, I'm overstretched on LD equipment as it is. You're telling me to restore the Sunset East, among other things [1], I need a massive overhaul of the Superliners [2], and as it stands my Western trains are too short and my pricing model is a complete disaster area [3]. In the not-too-long term, I cannot perform this mission with the equipment and facilities I have. So, here are two options: One, I don't get an LD equipment order and I knock the following routes below daily service. Two, I get a major LD equipment order so that I can enhance the existing routes and add the ones you want me to add." It's a variation on the Washington Monument approach [4], but there is a painful amount of validity to it: I know we've had lurking concerns about equipment counts, and for as long as I can tell a lot of the need for more LD equipment comes down to a mix of "These trains are a bit too short, particularly on the sleeper side" and "The equipment is old and in bad shape".

(4) As an adjunct to (3), I think he's going to have a lot of trouble justifying cutting trains when they just gave him an extra $150m for the National Network even aside from the PTC money. The only way that really starts making sense is if he points to a lurking equipment crisis. If he tried cutting LD trains with that appropriation in place and without a justification other than safety or equipment shortages or something like that, the term "impoundment" comes to mind.

(5) Given that I've heard the same model repeated from virtually everyone within a light-year of the private sector, as well as from Bud Shuster once upon a time, I have to suspect that Anderson will overall be looking at a "fast, frequent service" model wherever he can implement it.

[1] There's also the agitation for an extended Heartland Flyer, the eternal NCH project, the Cap-Pennsylvanian through cars, the Daily Sunset, any Daily Cardinal, etc. Not all of these require Superliners.

[2] Let's face it, many of us have stories of Superliners falling apart.

[3] Compare, for example, the differential in cost between coach and sleeper products on the Caledonian sleeper or...well, almost any respectable operation in Europe. Also compare car counts in most of those cases. Even accepting that sections and couchettes are a non-starter in the US...well, take the new Caledonian sets (four sets of 18 cars each, albeit with splits in both trains to serve most of Scotland with two daily departures from London).

[4] And a lot more direct than Boardman's passive-aggressive approach to Congress of "Tell me what you want".


----------



## west point (Apr 7, 2018)

There seems to continue to be a misconception about Amfleet cars. Although AM-1s are older the AM-2s have almost twice the mileage that AM-1s do. The one exception is AM-1 lounges have received about the same mileages as AM-2s due to lounges run on LD trains. The published Amtrak fleet plans all mention the need to replace AM-2s first. The AM-2s could then be refurbished into supplementing AM-1 routes during surge load times ?


----------



## Anderson (Apr 7, 2018)

I think there's a sort of bottom line that both of them need to be replaced sooner rather than later. Remember, if you replace Amfleet 1s you can turn around and refit a bunch of Amfleet 1s in a near-LD configuration and run those on an LD train with a memo being issued to primarily use them in higher load factor parts of a route. What is being "replaced" isn't always what is actually being taken out of service.

It might also be easier to do a refit/rebuild on 120-ish Amfleet 2 cars while replacing 500-ish Amfleet 1 cars and tackle the Amfleet 2s later, for various reasons.


----------



## PVD (Apr 7, 2018)

If the N-S multistate acquisition hadn't gone into the tank, we would have started to see a big chunk of cars to work with for refurb or repurposing and responding to peaks in a less pressured schedule of work or acquisition.. And if CAF wasn't 2 years behind, single level sleeper space would be much improved as well. A converted CONO or CL would free up a small number of SL sleepers that are also sorely needed.


----------



## MARC Rider (Apr 7, 2018)

jis said:


> On the NEC for a service like the Keystone, probably EMUs make a lot of sense.


Back in the good old days )1970s) the Keystone service WAS EMU's (Silverliners). They only ran between Philadelphia and Harrisburg. I think they ran some Metroliner EMU sets for a while in the early 1980s, too. And back in the days of the Penn Central, I remember riding Silverliners on some Clocker service between New York and Philadelphia. I didn't fully appreciate it as I preferred a little more legroom and a reclining seat for a 2-hour trip.


----------



## Palmland (Apr 7, 2018)

I don’t think the use of DMU’s precludes comfortable seating arrangements. The original DMU, Budd’s RDC cars, were quite comfortable and were used on B&O’s Daylight Speedliner service in the 50’s for the 330 miles from Baltimore to Pittsburgh - complete with its ‘refreshment diner’ section. But those engines were loud when accelerating!

I suspect Anderson is thinking of a DMU version of Europe’s HSR trains that are double ended eliminating turning at destinations (and switching expense) but are very comfortable with good food served in the cafe car, not to mention the rolling cart service offering free coffee, water, or wine and snacks (in 1st class-Italy). This off course addressees one of his goals: improve equipment utilization to better provide multiple frequencies on corridor services.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Apr 7, 2018)

Honestly I could see a lot of good reason to order DMU or some sort of DMU-EMU combination for the NEC. Instead of running a service each to Newport News, Norfolk, and Roanoke. One could use a four car DMU for the service and combine all of them in Washington for the trip north where 12 cars could be useful.

To further make that better could even split one section off at any point like Philadelphia for Harrisburg, New York for Albany, and Nee Haven for Springfield/Inland Route. So DMUs make a lot of sense for the corridor.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Apr 7, 2018)

Seaboard92 said:


> Honestly I could see a lot of good reason to order DMU or some sort of DMU-EMU combination for the NEC. Instead of running a service each to Newport News, Norfolk, and Roanoke. One could use a four car DMU for the service and combine all of them in Washington for the trip north where 12 cars could be useful.
> 
> To further make that better could even split one section off at any point like Philadelphia for Harrisburg, New York for Albany, and Nee Haven for Springfield/Inland Route. So DMUs make a lot of sense for the corridor.


How would they use the ACS-64s then? Is it possible that MBTA would have an interest in them?


----------



## Blackwolf (Apr 7, 2018)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly I could see a lot of good reason to order DMU or some sort of DMU-EMU combination for the NEC. Instead of running a service each to Newport News, Norfolk, and Roanoke. One could use a four car DMU for the service and combine all of them in Washington for the trip north where 12 cars could be useful.
> ...


Nothing says a DMU can't be used independently for one section, then be connected to traditional cars as part of a consist and be pulled unpowered by a locomotive.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 7, 2018)

Palmland said:


> I don’t think the use of DMU’s precludes comfortable seating arrangements. The original DMU, Budd’s RDC cars, were quite comfortable and were used on B&O’s Daylight Speedliner service in the 50’s for the 330 miles from Baltimore to Pittsburgh - complete with its ‘refreshment diner’ section. But those engines were loud when accelerating!
> 
> I suspect Anderson is thinking of a DMU version of Europe’s HSR trains that are double ended eliminating turning at destinations (and switching expense) but are very comfortable with good food served in the cafe car, not to mention the rolling cart service offering free coffee, water, or wine and snacks (in 1st class-Italy). This off course addressees one of his goals: improve equipment utilization to better provide multiple frequencies on corridor services.


For the moment, allow for the fact that car lengths might not be the same as an Amfleet (witness the Acela IIs), but I could see a setup where you have two six-car MUs (the cars being slightly shorter than the current US standard) that are laid out something like this (front to back):

-Locomotive

-Business Class

-Cafe/coach (minimal cafe seating)

-Coach

-Coach

-Coach

-Coach/Cab

-Coach/Cab

-Coach

-Coach

-Coach

-Cafe/coach (minimal cafe seating)

-Business Class

-Locomotive

Now, the first six might have a separate train number than the last six, and the set can be split, but I think this sort of equipment setup (with two six-car modular units) would work.

Something else to consider is that if the cars are permanently linked (or at least are in married pairs) is that you might not need an ADA restroom in every "car", just in every pair, while you could set ADA seats together by said restrooms . Between that and reducing "actual" vestibule space, there's a good chance you can flog a reasonable amount of extra seating out of car sets.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Apr 7, 2018)

I'd like to advise the blurb Jis (and other posters on various sites) posted was basically a short, recap of a much longer conversation. His hopes, wishes and dreams were spelled out quite clearly, not that I think some of it is actually feasible (but I'm no equipment expert.) It tied in with various themes from state supported services, outlying terminals, run through service and state partnerships to future Amtrak growth, fixed sets, and other business items that may be impacted by such a purchase (after all, it is hard to put a private car on a train with an engine on each end, right?)






It would be advisable to actually wait a few more months, see what other things shape up (or get cut back), and wait for the actually RFI to emerge. Between Anderson, Affigatt and Neroden, we'll have that information as soon as it is available.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 7, 2018)

Is there a more complete version to be had out there?

(I _am_ hopeful that Anderson (the CEO, not me) will be able to at least push the RFI/RFP process along a little bit more aggressively than we've seen in the past.)


----------



## looshi (Apr 7, 2018)

One thing that struck me in the conversation that Thirdrail mentioned was that he talked very negativity about the Brightline cars specifically, and individual cars with locomotive-hauled trains were not the future of passenger railroads.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 8, 2018)

I'm rather surprised by that...those were some of the best coaches I've ridden in.


----------



## PVD (Apr 8, 2018)

TR7 makes a very important point about state acquired equipment. In the reports from the NGEC meeting, it was indicated that NYS (for MNRR) was interested in a P32-DM replacement, with the possibility of Amtrak joining for the Empire Corridor. If Empire stays locomotive hauled, it lowers the number of potential DMU/DEMU units to be used across the system considerably, which usually raises per unit cost. If someone else is paying for it, even something that may be sub optimal in your eyes, is what you usually agree to. I always remember when I was working in Manhattan some years back with my not so state of the art cellphone in hand, and on every block someone would run up and hand you a flyer and say " I can give you a better phone and save you money too!" answer "I'm sorry, I have the my boss pays for it plan, no one beats that"


----------



## CraigDK (Apr 8, 2018)

looshi said:


> One thing that struck me in the conversation that Thirdrail mentioned was that he talked very negativity about the Brightline cars specifically, and individual cars with locomotive-hauled trains were not the future of passenger railroads.


Where did Thirdrail mention that?


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Apr 8, 2018)

CraigDK said:


> looshi said:
> 
> 
> > One thing that struck me in the conversation that Thirdrail mentioned was that he talked very negativity about the Brightline cars specifically, and individual cars with locomotive-hauled trains were not the future of passenger railroads.
> ...


Maybe looshi was at the meeting where Anderson was talking and heard it for him/her self.


----------



## jis (Apr 8, 2018)

Railroads that manage their trains as a set of individual cars are certainly much harder to manage than one with half a dozen types if fixed consists. That of course has nothing to do with what the cars in the consist look like inside or how they are manufactured. Also notice that managing a system with a small number of types of fixed consist is more like managing an airline, so Anderson may understand better and feel more comfortable with such. Both DEMUs and EMUs in semi-articulated form as found in many places elsewhere fits the bill. And yes, as Thirdrail mentioned, that will pretty much mean the end of towing PVs. The airlines do not tow private gliders around either. [emoji51]

Specifically as for Amfleet I replacements, which have mainly to do with the NEC, it would not surprise me if he goes 100% DEMU/EMU for the NEC segment of Amfleet I usage, though he would have a bit of 'splainin to do regarding the ACS-64s. It is entirely possible that the ACS-64s can simply be converted to power heads a-la the Brightline style power heads. I doubt that he specifically cares about concentrated vs. distributed power in each semi-articulated consist.

I don't think he will get around to changing much in the State run corridor service, except for States that depend almost completely on Amtrak supplied equipment. And it would be very interesting to see how the Intercity LD network is handled.

All wild-assed speculations on my part of course based on third hand information from a meeting that only the Amtrak employees amongst us were at.


Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## jis (Apr 8, 2018)

BTW Anderson may not be alone. It looks like Indian Railways is also seriously looking at EMUs for long distance intercity service. Of course Anderson does not have the luxury of contemplating EMU's for such due to the inadequate infrastructure in the US.





https://www.ndtv.com/business/indian-railways-loco-free-train-sets-to-be-maintained-by-private-player-773800

Elsewhere it has been mentioned that these trains would be tried out for both medium distance daytime trains like the Shatabdis, and longer distance overnight trains like the Rajdhanis.

https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/logistics/railways-to-open-financial-bids-for-trainsets-on-dec-21/article7869952.ece

The main argument is reducing overall running time taking advantage of the superior acceleration/deceleration performance, among other things. It has been mentioned that they could lop off two or three hours from the 17 hour schedule for a typical run between Mumbai or Kolkata to Delhi (~900 miles) without increasing the maximum speed.


----------



## west point (Apr 8, 2018)

The more slow orders and slow sections and then max track on any route the more distributed power helps reducing schedule times. Extreme example if NYP - WASH was all 160 MPH capable then the only time for slowing and speeding up would be at station stops, But it would be an interesting project for someone to track all the present slows and speed up now on the NYP - WASH route. As well how long each slow location causes extra en route times ?

The trade off of distributed power costs vs the power car)s_ is very dynamic. Power cars and ACS-64s weigh more so they also has to consider the extra wear and tear on track and structures from them. EMUs also have higher costs on CAT when more pans per train contact the CAT.


----------



## jis (Apr 8, 2018)

There are EMUs that are six cars per unit with one pan. So just because it is an EMU does not mean it will have a large number of pans, and indeed for high speed ones having fewer pans per train has other benefits too.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## daybeers (Apr 9, 2018)

west point said:


> The more slow orders and slow sections and then max track on any route the more distributed power helps reducing schedule times. Extreme example if NYP - WASH was all 160 MPH capable then the only time for slowing and speeding up would be at station stops, But it would be an interesting project for someone to track all the present slows and speed up now on the NYP - WASH route. As well how long each slow location causes extra en route times ?
> 
> The trade off of distributed power costs vs the power car)s_ is very dynamic. Power cars and ACS-64s weigh more so they also has to consider the extra wear and tear on track and structures from them. EMUs also have higher costs on CAT when more pans per train contact the CAT.


[SIZE=11pt]Here's a link to a Google Map someone made based off an Employee Timetable with Acela speed limits overlayed on it. I'm not sure how old it is though.[/SIZE]


----------



## frequentflyer (Apr 9, 2018)

jis said:


> Railroads that manage their trains as a set of individual cars are certainly much harder to manage than one with half a dozen types if fixed consists. That of course has nothing to do with what the cars in the consist look like inside or how they are manufactured. Also notice that managing a system with a small number of types of fixed consist is more like managing an airline, so Anderson may understand better and feel more comfortable with such. Both DEMUs and EMUs in semi-articulated form as found in many places elsewhere fits the bill. And yes, as Thirdrail mentioned, that will pretty much mean the end of towing PVs. The airlines do not tow private gliders around either. [emoji51]
> 
> Specifically as for Amfleet I replacements, which have mainly to do with the NEC, it would not surprise me if he goes 100% DEMU/EMU for the NEC segment of Amfleet I usage, though he would have a bit of 'splainin to do regarding the ACS-64s. It is entirely possible that the ACS-64s can simply be converted to power heads a-la the Brightline style power heads. I doubt that he specifically cares about concentrated vs. distributed power in each semi-articulated consist.
> 
> ...


Interesting, looks like Anderson is trying to shake up the status quo.

1. Is it cheaper to run a charger Charger and four or five Brightline like cars or a DMU of four or five cars? It seems that airline Anderson has done the math.

2.That would make any engine order much smaller than the previous Genesis order in units needed.

3. Truth be told, DMU could probably operate a lot of state supported trains cheaper than the Charger/ car combination.

4.Interesting, look at who makes DMUs.....N/S https://m.railjournal.com/index.php/rolling-stock/north-american-dmus-to-have-cummins-tier-4-engines.html


----------



## jis (Apr 9, 2018)

I doubt very much that Anderson has had the time to actually do a full analysis. He has certainly been reading some more modern railroad related publications and British practices. But it is not at all obvious that it is cheaper to use DMUs instead of cars pulled by engine for long trains.

Almost every rail equipment manufacturer has DMU and DEMU on offer. Nothing special about N/S except that they happen to have supplied the ones used by SMART.


----------



## PVD (Apr 9, 2018)

Let me ask a technical question that I figure a few folks can answer. Would a change/waiver in (present) regulation be required to allow high voltage from the cat to be trainline distributed, so as to avoid the multiple pan operation that some people have mentioned in EMU set-ups?


----------



## stappend (Apr 9, 2018)

I'm interested to see how he would get more service out of the host railroads, and Congress will want its say if he starts removing service in favor of different service.


----------



## frequentflyer (Apr 9, 2018)

http://www.alstom.com/products-services/product-catalogue/rail-systems/trains/products/coradia-stream-regional-train/

https://www.siemens.com/global/en/home/products/mobility/rail-solutions/rolling-stock/commuter-and-regional-trains/mireo.html

Two manufacturers that Amtrak feels comfortable with Alstom and Seimens. So Anderson's thinking is for these to be NEC regionals?


----------



## jis (Apr 9, 2018)

We don't know and won't know for sure until he shares his vision with the public in general. The Amtrak employees he spoke to certainly know way more than us on the outside. And as the CEO of an outfit that would want to bargain with the vendors for the best deal, he is of course never going to say that he prefers a specific one. That would weaken his bargaining position. Remember, he bargained with Boeing and Airbus playing one against the other to get the best deal he could. No reason to believe it will be any different this time around. Same MO different players I would imagine.


----------



## AGM.12 (Apr 9, 2018)

While EMU/DMU trainsets seem to be more efficient, some have said that the traditional engine/separate car trainset is more flexible since you can easily drop and add cars as needed.


----------



## jis (Apr 9, 2018)

There was a time when a lot of so called through and sectional carriages were shuffled among trains. That is not done any more. Where sections of the same train head to different locations, entire consists are hived off. In general most trains run in pretty much fixed consists. So the flexibility of individual cars has become more or less irrelevant. Removing cars to handle servicing needs or fixing defects is the only remaining issue, and most railroads are choosing to improve overall reliability of equipment by using more sophisticated maintenance methodologies so that they can use the easier to manage fixed consists to provide service. At least that is the trend in the really heavy passenger rail usage countries. I think Anderson is looking at those. I have no idea what will actually happen in the US where of course we all know that even the Laws of Physics are exceptionally different


----------



## jrud (Apr 9, 2018)

jis said:


> There was a time when a lot of so called through and sectional carriages were shuffled among trains. That is not done any more. Where sections of the same train head to different locations, entire consists are hived off. In general most trains run in pretty much fixed consists. So the flexibility of individual cars has become more or less irrelevant. Removing cars to handle servicing needs or fixing defects is the only remaining issue, and most railroads are choosing to improve overall reliability of equipment by using more sophisticated maintenance methodologies so that they can use the easier to manage fixed consists to provide service. At least that is the trend in the really heavy passenger rail usage countries. I think Anderson is looking at those. I have no idea what will actually happen in the US where of course we all know that even the Laws of Physics are exceptionally different


The preference for multiple units (with driven axles spread out across semi-permanently coupled cars and passenger space in the driving cars) and trainsets (with semi-permanently coupled unpowered cars and locomotive(s)/powercar(s) at the end(s)) varies across Europe. Germany and Austria tend to favor locomotives with trainsets and the UK likes multiple units. But everyone has some of each. In other words, the correct solution depends on a lot of factors and it would be a shame for Amtrak to have decided on a solution already.

IDOT’s preference for some married pairs and some individual cars in their CALIDOT order would also appear to have merit. Certainly adds flexibility to the consist.

Cat. Skin. Many ways.

As a personal note. I lucked into seeing a train with a MARC Charger and an MP36PH-3C a couple times last week at Greenbelt during my DC Metro Rail commute. Boy is the Charger smaller with a gorgeous paint job.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## jis (Apr 9, 2018)

https://www.ajot.com/news/amtrak-may-order-modern-lightweight-trainsets#.WsugS8JT_E4.facebook



> Passengers and rail travel advocates around the country are eagerly awaiting details about new Amtrak CEO Richard Anderson’s plans for our national rail service. Reports from a recent town hall meeting for Amtrak employees offer some clues about Anderson’s priorities for new train equipment. Although this is not yet official, the information indicates that Amtrak is looking at modern, lightweight, unified trainsets.
> 
> Anderson reportedly pointed to trainsets like the Sonoma-Marin area’s Nippon-Sharyo diesel multiple-units (DMUs, pictured here) and the new TexRail Stadler DMUs as the future of train travel. The new Brightline service in Florida is proving that modern equipment is important to bringing in new riders—and keeping them coming back. It’s good to see Amtrak looking in the same direction.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Apr 9, 2018)

Well if I remember correctly Anderson has capped capacity on trains on the NEC. So no more shrinking and growing with needs. So with that in mind there is another precedent for EMU/DMUs.

I might add the Statler Flirts in use in Europe are actually perfectly good trains. And they would probably fit in well on the NEC.


----------



## jis (Apr 9, 2018)

This will play complete havoc with PV operations though, as Thirdrail has hinted earlier.


----------



## jrud (Apr 9, 2018)

Seaboard92 said:


> Well if I remember correctly Anderson has capped capacity on trains on the NEC. So no more shrinking and growing with needs. So with that in mind there is another precedent for EMU/DMUs.
> 
> I might add the Statler Flirts in use in Europe are actually perfectly good trains. And they would probably fit in well on the NEC.


The major head scratcher with FLIRTs is figuring out a good way to handle high platforms. Even the higher floors over the trucks/bogies don’t seem to be nearly high enough. The double decker KISS manages with the middle level at the ends (Caltrain and Russia).

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Train_Freak (Apr 9, 2018)

jrud said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> > Well if I remember correctly Anderson has capped capacity on trains on the NEC. So no more shrinking and growing with needs. So with that in mind there is another precedent for EMU/DMUs.
> ...


Stadler is building both EMUs and a Bi-Mode Multiple Unit version of the Flirt for Abellio Greater Anglia in the UK, with high level boarding at 36 inches (915 mm) while the standard in the US is 48 inches (1,219 mm), so Stadler would have some experience with adapting the Flirt for high level platforms.


----------



## MattW (Apr 9, 2018)

PVD said:


> Let me ask a technical question that I figure a few folks can answer. Would a change/waiver in (present) regulation be required to allow high voltage from the cat to be trainline distributed, so as to avoid the multiple pan operation that some people have mentioned in EMU set-ups?


I don't know, but I lean toward not thinking so. I'm pretty sure that high voltage cables are allowed between semi-permanently coupled cars in a married pair, like the A and B cars of an M8 as it looks from every pic I can find that M8 pairs run with only one pan up per pair. I can't see why a 6-car train would be significantly different.


----------



## PVD (Apr 9, 2018)

Because married pairs share equipment and resources between the cars of the pair, they are a single unit. Six cars would be 3 units, 3 pans. It's sort of the type of thing a Dutchrailnut or JIS is likely to have a definitive answer to.


----------



## frequentflyer (Apr 9, 2018)

MattW said:


> I'm guessing any DMUs would look something like the British Class 222 or Class 800/802.









I find it interesting the Hitachi 800 can run under cantenary and diesel operation, the same set. Tailor made for the NEC and splinter operations. DMU may not be so crazy after all. I have my doubts running this rail crossings across America though.

Does Hitachi have a US factory?


----------



## jrud (Apr 10, 2018)

Train_Freak said:


> jrud said:
> 
> 
> > Seaboard92 said:
> ...


I’m not saying it can’t be done for a price. However, a platform height of four feet is higher than the end raised platform on a typical current FLIRT at around 44” to 46”. https://wwwstadlerrailcom-live-01e96f7.s3-eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/filer_public/1c/11/1c116727-4cdc-4adc-b34e-cf9d7bed1d1b/f3vd0716e.pdf and https://wwwstadlerrailcom-live-01e96f7.s3-eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/filer_public/f8/54/f8545b2a-4d48-463b-a994-5921cf0fa0ac/f3nsreiz0715e.pdf . The FLIRT UK is a special model and not a typical continental FLIRT. The interior mock-up of the Greater Anglia train does indicate that only a short ramp is needed between levels indicating a raised center floor compared to the typical FLIRT.

 . So a FLIRT NEC (to coin a term) could possibly be another design modification with an end to end flat floor at 48” and other modifications. Stadler modified the FLIRT into a low floor high speed train as the SMILE. So given time and money they can certainly pull it off. 

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## jis (Apr 10, 2018)

Interestingly, the Hitachi 800 Class are poorer performers in real life, than the old and trusted HST125s! They demonstrably cannot maintain the schedules that the HST125s have no problem maintaining! So just because it is distributed power DMU does not make it a better performer necessarily.


----------



## west point (Apr 10, 2018)

jis said:


> Interestingly, the Hitachi 800 Class are poorer performers in real life, than the old and trusted HST125s! They demonstrably cannot maintain the schedules that the HST125s have no problem maintaining! So just because it is distributed power DMU does not make it a better performer necessarily.


So it is all about tractive effort per pound of equipment


----------



## jis (Apr 10, 2018)

west point said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Interestingly, the Hitachi 800 Class are poorer performers in real life, than the old and trusted HST125s! They demonstrably cannot maintain the schedules that the HST125s have no problem maintaining! So just because it is distributed power DMU does not make it a better performer necessarily.
> ...


Yeah and I am sure a few other things too. Nothing in Engineering is all about just one thing. Something that I have learned in a 40 year career as an Engineer of sorts, not of the locmotive driving kind.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 10, 2018)

How that tractive effort is applied matters a great deal. Applying it all into one axle will behave somewhat differently than it will distributed across a few dozen axles.


----------



## jis (Apr 10, 2018)

Ryan said:


> How that tractive effort is applied matters a great deal. Applying it all into one axle will behave somewhat differently than it will distributed across a few dozen axles.


And the weight on said axles to provide sufficient adhesion. The shape of the wheel tire and flange relative to the shape of the rail head, and on and on....


----------



## bretton88 (Apr 10, 2018)

jis said:


> Interestingly, the Hitachi 800 Class are poorer performers in real life, than the old and trusted HST125s! They demonstrably cannot maintain the schedules that the HST125s have no problem maintaining! So just because it is distributed power DMU does not make it a better performer necessarily.


The 800s where dogs, fortunately it was learned early, so there won't be many of those in service. The 802 (which most operators are getting) is an updated version that has more diesel engines so they can keep the schedules. I've heard the 802s are much better.


----------



## Andrew (Apr 10, 2018)

Alstom, Kawasaki, and Siemens will put up good bids for these new coaches!

I don't see a contract being awarded this year, though, and the new coaches will probably be financed by a RRIF Loan.


----------



## jrud (Apr 11, 2018)

bretton88 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Interestingly, the Hitachi 800 Class are poorer performers in real life, than the old and trusted HST125s! They demonstrably cannot maintain the schedules that the HST125s have no problem maintaining! So just because it is distributed power DMU does not make it a better performer necessarily.
> ...


The 750hp derated engines on the Class 800s are apparently being rerated to the same 940hp as the 802s. They are the same engines on both classes. The lower rating was certainly tied to the assumption that the Class 800s would be under catenary for a higher percentage of the time, but they are running a lot on diesel. A lower rating typically increases engine life, reduces breakdowns... Fundamentally, it is probably the cutback in electrification of many lines in the UK that is the main culprit.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## neroden (Apr 11, 2018)

jis said:


> There was a time when a lot of so called through and sectional carriages were shuffled among trains. That is not done any more. Where sections of the same train head to different locations, entire consists are hived off. In general most trains run in pretty much fixed consists. So the flexibility of individual cars has become more or less irrelevant. Removing cars to handle servicing needs or fixing defects is the only remaining issue, and most railroads are choosing to improve overall reliability of equipment by using more sophisticated maintenance methodologies so that they can use the easier to manage fixed consists to provide service. At least that is the trend in the really heavy passenger rail usage countries. I think Anderson is looking at those. I have no idea what will actually happen in the US where of course we all know that even the Laws of Physics are exceptionally different


Of course, trains split and join and add and drop cars all the time in Europe, still... but those which do this also have fully automatic couplers. It makes it much quicker and more straightforward. I don't think anyone would do it if they had to do the futzing about with hoses which Amtrak currently does.

If I were buying new EMU equipment... well, you get the idea.


----------



## neroden (Apr 11, 2018)

Anderson said:


> (3) My read, possibly overly optimistic, is that Anderson is going to go in front of Congress and basically say "Look, I'm overstretched on LD equipment as it is. You're telling me to restore the Sunset East, among other things [1], I need a massive overhaul of the Superliners [2], and as it stands my Western trains are too short and my pricing model is a complete disaster area [3].


Note regarding the pricing model.

I have noticed repeatedly that at many times the cost of a room from Chicago to the West Coast is less than that of a room from Chicago to Syracuse, let alone New York. I've seen the same for coach.

This doesn't actually surprise me. What it does do is point out that some trains are substantially less able to command high prices than others. Despite this, the LSL tends to be more full in the off season than the CZ.


----------



## frequentflyer (May 26, 2018)

https://www.railpassengers.org/happening-now/news/hotline/hotline-1068/

1. New locomotives are coming, wants them quickly, most likely Chargers. But can't see Chargers on Autotrain.

2. Wants more info about different single level equipment and DMUs.

3. Superliners are worn out, will not be refurbished. Last time a manufacture took a shot at bilevels it did not turn out too well.

Wants all equipment soon.


----------



## Blackwolf (May 26, 2018)

Since I honestly do not know, what is the largest reason the Auto Train would not be capable of being pulled by a Charger? Is it the braking system? It can't be tractive power, since a Charger has the Genesis beat squarely in that department.


----------



## Palmetto (May 26, 2018)

Good news, but the post title is very restrictive. The link to the report is much more positively wide-ranging than new equipment. Only one example: the long distance routes are not in immediate danger of being eliminated.


----------



## Steve4031 (May 26, 2018)

It will be interesting to see what the plan is to replace the superlliners. IMHO a system wide fleet standardization wounded beneficial. I like the viewliners but I don't think that will work I'm the long run. I wonder what Seimans can do for sleepers and diners and lounges?


----------



## frequentflyer (May 26, 2018)

Steve4031 said:


> It will be interesting to see what the plan is to replace the superlliners. IMHO a system wide fleet standardization wounded beneficial. I like the viewliners but I don't think that will work I'm the long run. I wonder what Seimans can do for sleepers and diners and lounges?


I was thinking standardization too. Though I would not want to see it, but VLIIs on western trains is a possibility.


----------



## cpotisch (May 26, 2018)

Steve4031 said:


> It will be interesting to see what the plan is to replace the superlliners. IMHO a system wide fleet standardization wounded beneficial. I like the viewliners but I don't think that will work I'm the long run. I wonder what Seimans can do for sleepers and diners and lounges?


Yeah, I don't see any way, short term or long term, that Viewliners would work to replace the Superliners. The trains would have to be significantly longer, they would have to commission Viewliner coaches and SSLs. The cars just aren't conducive for western routes.


----------



## Steve4031 (May 26, 2018)

I read on train orders that CAF may not be allowed to participate. I think the viewliner sleepers and diners and those car shells also being used for long distance coaches would be the best IMHO. A single level sightseer lounge with double windows would be ok.


----------



## cpotisch (May 26, 2018)

Steve4031 said:


> A single level sightseer lounge with double windows would be ok.


True, however I think they'd probably have need to add a second row of windows and some seats across from where the kitchen currently is, since that's currently just an aisle with one row of windows. I bet they'd also want to open up and shrink the kitchen area bit for easier use as a snack bar, as well as to increase lounge space.


----------



## MikefromCrete (May 26, 2018)

The OP didn't say Chargers couldn't be used on the Auto Train, he said he couldn't see it. It was an opinion, not a fact.

I personally think the Superliners were a genius idea. Their high capacity is very practical. Some kind of next generation of bi-level equipment would be the best idea for those routes that can handle the height. Now we just have to find a car builder that can actually make one.


----------



## cpotisch (May 26, 2018)

I personally feel like Siemens would make a good Superliner successor. And Amtrak has already got Chargers, Sprinters, and soon some Siemens single-levels. I feel like there's something to be said for having one manufacturer for most of the fleet. That could just be me, though.


----------



## chrsjrcj (May 26, 2018)

Lets just hope a Superliner replacement includes sleeping and food service cars.


----------



## cpotisch (May 26, 2018)

chrsjrcj said:


> Lets just hope a Superliner replacement includes sleeping and food service cars.


I would be shocked if it didn't include sleepers, but not shocked at all if it didn't include many diners. There's no question that Amtrak is currently leaning away from full service dining, so I imagine they'll cut back the number of diners to only support the two or three night routes.


----------



## KmH (May 26, 2018)

There are 7 overnight Superliner LD train routes west of Chicago, using some 35 diners in total.

• Empire Builder - 6 train sets

• California Zephyr - 6 train sets

• Southwest Chief - 5 train sets

• Coast Starlight- 4 train sets

• Texas Eagle - 6 train sets

• City of New Orleans - 4 train sets

• Sunset Limited - 4 train sets


----------



## jis (May 26, 2018)

I think how much dining service will be there long term on LD trains, and indeed the shape of the LD network will depend on what the Amtrak reauthorization bill says. I don’t think anything is cast in stone at present. That is why it is very important to get the right language in there.

The fleet plan due this summer will give some hint as to what is currently in Amtrak’s mind, but that can change too. Afterall Amtrak management is not the only stakeholder in Amtrak. That is a two edged sword.


----------



## cpotisch (May 26, 2018)

KmH said:


> There are 7 overnight Superliner LD train routes west of Chicago, using some 35 diners in total.
> 
> • Empire Builder - 6 train sets
> 
> ...


But if you take the Texas Eagle and CONO, that's 25 diners. And while the Coast Starlight is a one night ride, I would say it's "prestigious" enough that it would keep normal food service.


----------



## PRR 60 (May 26, 2018)

New topic merged with prior topic.


----------



## Palmetto (May 26, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> Steve4031 said:
> 
> 
> > It will be interesting to see what the plan is to replace the superlliners. IMHO a system wide fleet standardization wounded beneficial. I like the viewliners but I don't think that will work I'm the long run. I wonder what Seimans can do for sleepers and diners and lounges?
> ...


They were for decades. Why -all of a sudden -aren't they conducive for western routes?


----------



## Steve4031 (May 26, 2018)

Imho a standardized fleet is better. This makes maintaining the cars cheaper and easier. Thought I enjoy the superliners, they are getting run down. If siemans can make sleepers, diners, and lounges using cars similar in design to the bright line cars I’m sure this would be a vast improvement.


----------



## cpotisch (May 26, 2018)

Palmetto said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> > Steve4031 said:
> ...


Viewliners never operated on western routes. Superliners preceded them by 20 years. What are you referring to?


----------



## jis (May 26, 2018)

But single level Sleepers operated them for almost a hundred years before Superliners. IMHO Superliners just happen to be the fashion of the day for those who were not around when everything was single level, and that is when we had the best of dining, sleeping and Dome service.


----------



## Palmetto (May 26, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> Palmetto said:
> 
> 
> > cpotisch said:
> ...


Any single level car, as in the current Canadian consist.


----------



## frequentflyer (May 26, 2018)

The thing Superliners have going for them over single level is their increased capacity. And subjectively to me, a more quiet ride being 8 feet or above the wheels. But a Viewliner fleet could make do.


----------



## frequentflyer (May 26, 2018)

MikefromCrete said:


> The OP didn't say Chargers couldn't be used on the Auto Train, he said he couldn't see it. It was an opinion, not a fact.
> 
> I personally think the Superliners were a genius idea. Their high capacity is very practical. Some kind of next generation of bi-level equipment would be the best idea for those routes that can handle the height. Now we just have to find a car builder that can actually make one.


On another rail forum someone posted the idea of a modern day bilevel (unibody like construction?) that could fit in the tunnels in the NEC. That would give Amtrak one fleet of LD cars. A Viewliner/Superliner successor.


----------



## cpotisch (May 26, 2018)

frequentflyer said:


> The thing Superliners have going for them over single level is their increased capacity. And subjectively to me, a more quiet ride being 8 feet or above the wheels. But a Viewliner fleet could make do.


Though I prefer Viewliner sleepers to Superliner sleepers, I would say that I prefer Superliners in pretty much every other way. I feel like the Superliners ride better, are quieter, and are just a nicer ride overall. Just my take from the two Superliner trips I've done.


----------



## jis (May 26, 2018)

frequentflyer said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> > The OP didn't say Chargers couldn't be used on the Auto Train, he said he couldn't see it. It was an opinion, not a fact.
> ...


They already exist. They are called NJT MLVs and also LIRR C3s. You would not use them for LD Coach and even less for Sleeper. Clearly those suggesting have never experienced the vertical space constraints and are armchair car design proposers. [emoji57]


----------



## frequentflyer (May 26, 2018)

jis said:


> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> > MikefromCrete said:
> ...


He or she stated such a car would have a LD car would 6 ft 5 inch height per floor. Kind of tight but bigger windows could negate that effect.

Have ridden the NJT MLVs a couple of times, surprised how quiet it was.


----------



## Lonestar648 (May 26, 2018)

The Superliner fleet design to me is superior to a single level design. I do like the extra windows on the Viewliner. One reason I like the CL is the SSL verses the LSL. The Superliners have luggage racks that the Viewliner does not. Stepping off the Superliner is easier in the winter than the several snow covered steps of the single level. The Superliner Sleeper has more Roomettes, a Family Room, more Bedrooms, several bathrooms.


----------



## MattW (May 26, 2018)

If we could go back in time, or send the information we have now back to the designers of the day, I'm sure the NEC would have been built to accommodate Superliner-type cars. The oldest reference I can find with a quick Google to bilevel railcars is the 1950s with the gallery style commuter cars. Bilevel railcars are superior to single-level cars for most things, enough that they should be used where possible.


----------



## railiner (May 27, 2018)

MattW said:


> If we could go back in time, or send the information we have now back to the designers of the day, I'm sure the NEC would have been built to accommodate Superliner-type cars. The oldest reference I can find with a quick Google to bilevel railcars is the 1950s with the gallery style commuter cars. Bilevel railcars are superior to single-level cars for most things, enough that they should be used where possible.


You could go back to the thirties, if you include the original Long Island RR "double-deck" MU cars. They were more like "duplex" cars...one aisle, with seats alternately up or down a couple of steps....

http://www.trainsarefun.com/lirr/doubledecker.htm


----------



## Ziv (May 27, 2018)

I agree that Superliners do have some advantages. The ones you note, increased capacity and a seeming reduction in road noise, are probably the most important. But one advantage that the SL has over any single level sleeper is that the extra 7' of height you have as you are looking out of the windows gives you a better view of the countryside, over the top of obstructions that would block the view from a lower level sleeper window. Being able to sit back and watch the countryside roll by is one of my favorite aspects of train travel.

Almost as good as traveling by train is reading about it. I just picked up a copy of The Great Railway Bazaar for about the 4th time and it is just as good this time as it has been in the past.



frequentflyer said:


> The thing Superliners have going for them over single level is their increased capacity. And subjectively to me, a more quiet ride being 8 feet or above the wheels. But a Viewliner fleet could make do.


----------



## Lonestar648 (May 27, 2018)

If they every build the new tunnels into NYP shouldn't the height be tall enough for superliner cars.


----------



## cpotisch (May 27, 2018)

Lonestar648 said:


> If they every build the new tunnels into NYP shouldn't the height be tall enough for superliner cars.


I don't think there's enough "headroom" in the station, and NYP only has high-level platforms. So no.


----------



## cpotisch (May 27, 2018)

There's also the fact that almost every station between WAS and ALB (NEC and Empire Corridor) have high-level platforms, and Baltimore doesn't have sufficient clearance for Superliners either.


----------



## Ryan (May 27, 2018)

And countless other structures such as bridges.

The "Superliners on the NEC" is like the zombie dream of the foamer, there's nothing out there that can kill it.

If the fleet ever gets standardized, it'll be on single level equipment. The solution to the capacity "problem" is just ordering more cars.


----------



## me_little_me (May 27, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> Steve4031 said:
> 
> 
> > It will be interesting to see what the plan is to replace the superlliners. IMHO a system wide fleet standardization wounded beneficial. I like the viewliners but I don't think that will work I'm the long run. I wonder what Seimans can do for sleepers and diners and lounges?
> ...


On the other hand, "significantly longer" could be an advantage. Then the Class I RRs couldn't force Amtrak trains on the sidings so their freights could go past.


----------



## Steve4031 (May 27, 2018)

me_little_me said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> > Steve4031 said:
> ...


The sidings are usually a couple of miles long to accommodate freight trains. Even the auto train would fit in these. So I think the longer trains will still be taking the sidings.


----------



## jis (May 27, 2018)

I think he was kidding. But one can never tell for sure [emoji57]


----------



## Lonestar648 (May 27, 2018)

Host RR will always put Amtrak on the siding unless there is a financial or publicity incentive to do differently. At least it is not as bad as the Canadian in Canada with 24 hour plus delays every week..


----------



## Trogdor (May 27, 2018)

Longer consists can be a problem if the platforms cant handle the full train, requiring more stops with multiple spots, longer dwells, increased delays, etc.


----------



## jis (May 27, 2018)

The tragedy of it all is that typical American trains, even single level ones are quite short, and we still can’t quite handle them. There really isn’t any solution for gross capital underinvestment other than more investment to build infrastructure that is adequate to serve the purpose in terms of traffic demands and such.


----------



## Anderson (May 31, 2018)

So, I've heard that Anderson _is_ looking to more-or-less standardize the fleet on single-level equipment. Apparently there are enough issues with the Superliners that Anderson wants to replace them instead of refurbishing them (I can't blame him), and that it is likely to be more cost-effective to do so on a single-level carbody model than trying to do a split order. This also speaks to Anderson's desire (which I've heard passed through a few places) to have more flexibility in fleet deployment (e.g. "right-sizing" trains to be _longer_ at peak times as well as shorter if cars would be running empty). Obviously this won't happen overnight (delivery will almost assuredly be a multi-year process given the sheer number of cars you'd need for this), but it seems to be where things are going.


----------



## frequentflyer (May 31, 2018)

Anderson said:


> So, I've heard that Anderson _is_ looking to more-or-less standardize the fleet on single-level equipment. Apparently there are enough issues with the Superliners that Anderson wants to replace them instead of refurbishing them (I can't blame him), and that it is likely to be more cost-effective to do so on a single-level carbody model than trying to do a split order. This also speaks to Anderson's desire (which I've heard passed through a few places) to have more flexibility in fleet deployment (e.g. "right-sizing" trains to be _longer_ at peak times as well as shorter if cars would be running empty). Obviously this won't happen overnight (delivery will almost assuredly be a multi-year process given the sheer number of cars you'd need for this), but it seems to be where things are going.


Just as I speculated, VLIIs for everybody. I just don't think CAF will get the order though. And if he wants more flexibility got think fixed sets are out of the question, maybe. You always lash up two DMU/EMJUs together to increase pax capacity.

Then again, as being discussed on another forum all of the players who Anderson will get bids from do make bilevel or multilevel equipment that may not be as high as a Superliner but will fit into the tunnels on the NEC (yes, I know JIS, we are armchair design proposers



). We will see what transpires.

Airline management group think- less different types of equipment means less parts inventory, lower employee training costs, better acquisition cost per unit and possible maintenance plan rolled into the deal. Different size consists allow for higher yields if the pricing software is working correctly.


----------



## jis (May 31, 2018)

I am almost certain that no car manufacturer will propose VL Iis [emoji41]. When the last of the CAF order rolls out, that will be it for VL IIs. The car manufacturers will offer something based on what they already have in the way of car bodies, with modular AC units and the works as found in any modern 21st century design.


----------



## Ryan (May 31, 2018)

Agreed.

There is no way that the order is for Viewliners or anything multilevel.


----------



## jis (May 31, 2018)

I can actually see possible use of bilevels a-la TGV Duplex for Corridor Coaches that fit within the Amtrak Plate A. But they will have only marginally higher capacity than single level after space is taken out for adequate luggage racks and ADA toilets and such. We saw this layout in the NJT MLVs that were briefly used for the New York - Atlantic City service. And they will be less ADA compliant than single levels.

What we won’t see is Roomettes in those low clearance bilevels. OTOH there could be airline style lie flat seats. But again capacity won’t be much greater than for single level sections or roomettes. But frankly I would personally like the lie flat arrangement.

I have a detail study of capacity issues that I did a while back using example layouts. I just have to find it again.


----------



## cpotisch (May 31, 2018)

I feel like the desire often expressed to make every single-level car a Viewliners is really just rail fan fantasy, by those who want to gawk at a nice and shiny uniform consist. The way I see it, there aren't many logical reasons why all (any) new coaches and lounges should be built on a carbody that was originally designed around 35 years ago, and that would need to be assembled by a new manufacturer on a new production line. CAF's production of the V-II has been a disaster in pretty much every way, and though the cars are here now, they are probably the _least_ likely manufacturer to consider building more Viewliners for Amtrak. The tooling and assembly lines will be gone, and gone with it any reason why the V-IIs would be the best platform for the single-level fleet. If CAF were willing to build more cars (which they're not), there would be something to be said for utilizing the pre-existing production lines and tooling. But since CAF is pretty much done with Amtrak altogether, a completely new manufacturer would be required to take up production of the new Viewliners, which would negate any possible advantage of having the tooling and infrastructure in place to build the cars. Just the way I see it.


----------



## frequentflyer (May 31, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> I feel like the desire often expressed to make every single-level car a Viewliners is really just rail fan fantasy, by those who want to gawk at a nice and shiny uniform consist. The way I see it, there aren't many logical reasons why all (any) new coaches and lounges should be built on a carbody that was originally designed for sleepers, and that would need to be assembled by a new manufacturer and on a new production line. CAF's production of the V-II has been a disaster in pretty much every way, and though the cars are here now, they are probably the _least_ likely manufacturer to consider building more Viewliners for Amtrak. The tooling and assembly lines will be gone, and gone with it any reason why the V-IIs would be the best platform for the single-level fleet. If CAF were willing to build more cars (which they're not), there would be something to be said for utilizing the pre-existing production lines and tooling. But since CAF is pretty much done with Amtrak altogether, a completely new manufacturer would be required to take up production of the new Viewliners, which would negate any possible advantage of having the tooling and infrastructure in place to build the cars. Just the way I see it.


I wish I had the July 1984 Amtrak in train magazine (American Way?)that first debuted the Viewliner design( 1984, sad isn’t) It was designed to be modular and a fleet of any config necessary. It was not designed to be a sleeper only. Are there more advanced designs today, of course. But Amtrak owns the plans to the VL which was designed by them.

Though good point about the tooling.


----------



## frequentflyer (May 31, 2018)

jis said:


> I can actually see possible use of bilevels a-la TGV Duplex for Corridor Coaches that fit within the Amtrak Plate A. But they will have only marginally higher capacity than single level after space is taken out for adequate luggage racks and ADA toilets and such. We saw this layout in the NJT MLVs that were briefly used for the New York - Atlantic City service. And they will be less ADA compliant than single levels.
> 
> What we won’t see is Roomettes in those low clearance bilevels. OTOH there could be airline style lie flat seats. But again capacity won’t be much greater than for single level sections or roomettes. But frankly I would personally like the lie flat arrangement.
> 
> I have a detail study of capacity issues that I did a while back using example layouts. I just have to find it again.


I see the NEC being the domain of Acela IIs and EMU/DMUs for conventional trains in the future. Something like the Sadler Bilevel KISS like what Caltrans is getting may work ( too tall?) but I am guessing single level.


----------



## Anderson (Jun 1, 2018)

My guess is that we'll see something like the Nightjet service in Austria. I'd suggest something like the new Caledonian service in the UK (which is about to get rolled out), but CAF had that order and I don't think they'll even be allowed to bid. I would also guess that Siemens may have an inside track on this given their already-operating plant in California.

From what I understand, the priority order is roughly:
-Diesel locomotives

-Amfleet I replacements

-Superliner replacements (with this possibly cascading onto Amfleet IIs as well)


----------



## neroden (Jun 1, 2018)

Anderson said:


> So, I've heard that Anderson _is_ looking to more-or-less standardize the fleet on single-level equipment. Apparently there are enough issues with the Superliners that Anderson wants to replace them instead of refurbishing them (I can't blame him), and that it is likely to be more cost-effective to do so on a single-level carbody model than trying to do a split order. This also speaks to Anderson's desire (which I've heard passed through a few places) to have more flexibility in fleet deployment (e.g. "right-sizing" trains to be _longer_ at peak times as well as shorter if cars would be running empty). Obviously this won't happen overnight (delivery will almost assuredly be a multi-year process given the sheer number of cars you'd need for this), but it seems to be where things are going.


I actively support standardizing on single-level equipment, but I don't think Mr. Anderson has thought through the ADA expenses of raising damn near everything to high level platforms, which is legally required if stations are served only by high-floor cars. Milwaukee Station will have to be redone again, for example.

This is yet another indication that Mr. Anderson doesn't actually know what he's dealing with. I'd be a better CEO of Amtrak because I have more understanding of the problems they're dealing with than Mr. Anderson does.


----------



## cpotisch (Jun 1, 2018)

frequentflyer said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> > I feel like the desire often expressed to make every single-level car a Viewliners is really just rail fan fantasy, by those who want to gawk at a nice and shiny uniform consist. The way I see it, there aren't many logical reasons why all (any) new coaches and lounges should be built on a carbody that was originally designed for sleepers, and that would need to be assembled by a new manufacturer and on a new production line. CAF's production of the V-II has been a disaster in pretty much every way, and though the cars are here now, they are probably the _least_ likely manufacturer to consider building more Viewliners for Amtrak. The tooling and assembly lines will be gone, and gone with it any reason why the V-IIs would be the best platform for the single-level fleet. If CAF were willing to build more cars (which they're not), there would be something to be said for utilizing the pre-existing production lines and tooling. But since CAF is pretty much done with Amtrak altogether, a completely new manufacturer would be required to take up production of the new Viewliners, which would negate any possible advantage of having the tooling and infrastructure in place to build the cars. Just the way I see it.
> ...


Fixed and thank you.


----------



## frequentflyer (Jun 1, 2018)

Anderson said:


> My guess is that we'll see something like the Nightjet service in Austria. I'd suggest something like the new Caledonian service in the UK (which is about to get rolled out), but CAF had that order and I don't think they'll even be allowed to bid. I would also guess that Siemens may have an inside track on this given their already-operating plant in California.
> 
> From what I understand, the priority order is roughly:
> 
> ...


1.Diesel locomotives- I am sure Amtrak will put it out to bid, but Siemens kind of has this wrapped up, though Amtrak may not need the full 150 options available. See next point..........On a side note, I guess 3 Charges can pull an Autotrain consist.

2.Amfleet I replacements- This is where we will see if Anderson was serious or not about DMU/EMUs. Find the right DMU/EMU product, then problem solved and less need for locomotives.

3. Superliner/Amfleet II replacements-This hurts since I grew up with these cars (that in itself is a problem), but it makes sense to simplify the fleet around one configurable platform, which most likely will be the Siemens car body. Especially since it will be the defacto coach for the midwest states and parts of California. Man, if N/S could get the Bi-level prototype to pass the buff test, Amtrak would had a choice at least for LD replacement.

While Amtrak could spec what it wants in a pax car or locomotive, as been wisely stated in previous posts, buying "what's available" will yield major savings in upfront CapEx costs and reliability down the road.


----------



## Anthony V (Jun 1, 2018)

Anderson said:


> So, I've heard that Anderson _is_ looking to more-or-less standardize the fleet on single-level equipment. Apparently there are enough issues with the Superliners that Anderson wants to replace them instead of refurbishing them (I can't blame him), and that it is likely to be more cost-effective to do so on a single-level carbody model than trying to do a split order. This also speaks to Anderson's desire (which I've heard passed through a few places) to have more flexibility in fleet deployment (e.g. "right-sizing" trains to be _longer_ at peak times as well as shorter if cars would be running empty). Obviously this won't happen overnight (delivery will almost assuredly be a multi-year process given the sheer number of cars you'd need for this), but it seems to be where things are going.


If he's going to eliminate bi-levels, why don't we encourage him to order some dome and observation cars. Those are much better than Superliners at providing a great view of the passing scenery you see when traveling by rail. This could help offset the almost certain loss of ridership caused the negative changes to food and beverage service.


----------



## keelhauled (Jun 1, 2018)

Anthony V said:


> If he's going to eliminate bi-levels, why don't we encourage him to order some dome and observation cars. Those are much better than Superliners at providing a great view of the passing scenery you see when traveling by rail. This could help offset the almost certain loss of ridership caused the negative changes to food and beverage service.


As long as the name of the game is standardization, the chances of designing and building a custom dome/observation car, a non revenue one at that, are infinitesimal. Besides, I doubt that that any loss of ridership will be significant enough to even restore dining car service, let alone introduce a new hard product entirely.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jun 1, 2018)

Good point neroden, I agree that Mr Anderson's lack of expierence and knowledge of Railroading will lead to expensive clusterflubs with unforseen costly consequences.

The old canard that a good Manager can manage anything is pure BS. YMMV


----------



## jis (Jun 1, 2018)

The locomotive order rebuild or new RFP is out:

https://media.amtrak.com/2018/06/amtrak-improve-national-network-locomotive-fleet/


----------



## Seaboard92 (Jun 1, 2018)

Bob Dylan said:


> Good point neroden, I agree that Mr Anderson's lack of expierence and knowledge of Railroading will lead to expensive clusterflubs with unforseen costly consequences.
> 
> The old canard that a good Manager can manage anything is pure BS. YMMV


It should be noted that the Superliners are an updated design on the 1952 Santa Fe El Capitan order. It should also be noted the Santa Fe was looking into making their high level fleet into sleepers but because of the post war decline in passenger trains they opted not to do that.


----------



## cpotisch (Jun 1, 2018)

I thought that while the Superliners are superficially similar to the Hi-Levels, the actual design and construction is relatively different.


----------



## jis (Jun 1, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> I thought that while the Superliners are superficially similar to the Hi-Levels, the actual design and construction is relatively different.


Yes it is, as are the dimensions. Superliners are taller than Santa Fe Hi Levels and their upper floor height from rail is also different, among other things.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Jun 1, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> I thought that while the Superliners are superficially similar to the Hi-Levels, the actual design and construction is relatively different.


Hence the word updated. It's an updated design with some major changes. Br basic principal of it.


----------



## jis (Jun 1, 2018)

Yeah similar concept, different construction.


----------



## jrud (Jun 7, 2018)

The May NGEC minutes are out. Note that toward the end of the minutes they say that a Request for Information is being prepared by Amtrak for passenger cars. This is in addition to the RFP for locomotives. http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305%20activities%20report%20-%20monthly%205-31-18.docx


----------



## frequentflyer (Jun 7, 2018)

jrud said:


> The May NGEC minutes are out. Note that toward the end of the minutes they say that a Request for Information is being prepared by Amtrak for passenger cars. This is in addition to the RFP for locomotives. http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305%20activities%20report%20-%20monthly%205-31-18.docx


Will be interesting to see what comes out. Good to see operations involved in these procurements.


[SIZE=9pt]Amtrak Equipment Procurement Update:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=9pt]As of 5-31-18, Charlie King reported that Amtrak expects to release it RFP for Locomotives early next month (June). The Amtrak mechanical side has completed its portion, but there are additional departments that also need to sign off their portions. There is a meeting later this afternoon (5-31-18), and Charlie hopes that the RFP can be out on the street by next week at the latest. Charlie will keep the Technical subcommittee approsed.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=9pt]An RFI for cars will also be going out – no date provided for that as of yet.[/SIZE]


----------



## cpotisch (Jun 7, 2018)

frequentflyer said:


> On a side note, I guess 3 Charges can pull an Autotrain consist.


I would think that two Chargers could pull Auto Train - two Genesises do the job now. In fact, engine power is marginally increased, and I believe performance on startup is improved as well.


----------



## jis (Jun 7, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> > On a side note, I guess 3 Charges can pull an Autotrain consist.
> ...


Indeed, the Charger is a more powerful locomotive with higher performance parameters than the P42 in every way, and has significantly higher tractive effort, specially continuous tractive effort, with marginally higher continuous HP. So I see no logic at all in believing that it take more units of SC-44 than P-42.


----------



## cirdan (Jun 7, 2018)

neroden said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > So, I've heard that Anderson _is_ looking to more-or-less standardize the fleet on single-level equipment. Apparently there are enough issues with the Superliners that Anderson wants to replace them instead of refurbishing them (I can't blame him), and that it is likely to be more cost-effective to do so on a single-level carbody model than trying to do a split order. This also speaks to Anderson's desire (which I've heard passed through a few places) to have more flexibility in fleet deployment (e.g. "right-sizing" trains to be _longer_ at peak times as well as shorter if cars would be running empty). Obviously this won't happen overnight (delivery will almost assuredly be a multi-year process given the sheer number of cars you'd need for this), but it seems to be where things are going.
> ...


Just acting the devill's advocate here, but

Changes to platforms are infrastructure investments. This is the type of thing you can TIGER money for, that you can get cities (who want to keep their Amtral service) to chip in some money.

So if you go out and say, we're going to buy some new cars, people just say, good for you.

If you say, if you don't raise your platforms, you're going to lose your service, people will mobilize and write letters, cash will flow, and it's somebody other than Amtrak who is paying the bulk of the costs.


----------



## Pere Flyer (Jun 7, 2018)

New equipment can’t come soon enough. HEP on today’s No. 50 has cut out twice in the 20 minutes since departure from CHI.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jun 7, 2018)

Pere Flyer said:


> New equipment can’t come soon enough. HEP on today’s No. 50 has cut out twice in the 20 minutes since departure from CHI.


That may have little to do with the equipment.


----------



## Pere Flyer (Jun 7, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> Pere Flyer said:
> 
> 
> > New equipment can’t come soon enough. HEP on today’s No. 50 has cut out twice in the 20 minutes since departure from CHI.
> ...


Pardon my ignorance.


----------



## Trogdor (Jun 8, 2018)

Pere Flyer said:


> New equipment can’t come soon enough. HEP on today’s No. 50 has cut out twice in the 20 minutes since departure from CHI.


A few months ago, I was on a train where HEP cut out several times due to problems with the locomotive. That engine should probably be retired.

Of course, the locomotive in question was a Siemens Charger.


----------



## neroden (Jun 8, 2018)

cirdan said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > Anderson said:
> ...


Hope this works, but Amtrak is already under pressure due to its failure to meet the original ADA requirements back in 2008. At some point Congress will simply require that Amtrak spend its own money on the ADA compliance and will take it out of the rest of Amtrak's budget; this has already started to happen.


----------



## cpotisch (Jun 8, 2018)

neroden said:


> Hope this works, but Amtrak is already under pressure due to its failure to meet the original ADA requirements back in 2008. At some point Congress will simply require that Amtrak spend its own money on the ADA compliance and will take it out of the rest of Amtrak's budget; this has already started to happen.


On the SL/TE back in February, a very elderly woman disembarked at Tucson, and needed a proper ramp or vehicle to get down to the platform, but the only thing they had at the station was a short, very steep, cheese grater ramp. It took her many minutes to get down, and assistance from my dad. Since there was about a 60% chance that she'd fall down this death trap and effectively be flayed, the woman was suitably hesitant to do so. Meanwhile the conductor was pestering her: "Come on! Come on! We've got a schedule to keep!" They clearly did not have anywhere near enough equipment or training to safely get a disabled passenger onto a low platform, and that was on a Superliner. Amtrak gets plenty of disabled passengers, yet they are completely inept at safely handling them.


----------



## AmtrakLKL (Jun 8, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> Meanwhile the conductor was pestering her: "Come on! Come on! We've got a schedule to keep!" They clearly did not have anywhere near enough equipment or training to safely get a disabled passenger onto a low platform, and that was on a Superliner. Amtrak gets plenty of disabled passengers, yet they are completely inept at safely handling them.


Thanks for throwing everyone under the train, including those who work very hard to safely and comfortably move those with special needs. Some conductors try and make them feel like they are the only person in the world who matters when boarding, riding and detraining. I'm sorry to hear anyone would ever stand there hollering about the schedule when a passenger needs extra time and assistance, but that's not how most of us work.


----------



## cpotisch (Jun 8, 2018)

AmtrakLKL said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> > Meanwhile the conductor was pestering her: "Come on! Come on! We've got a schedule to keep!" They clearly did not have anywhere near enough equipment or training to safely get a disabled passenger onto a low platform, and that was on a Superliner. Amtrak gets plenty of disabled passengers, yet they are completely inept at safely handling them.
> ...


I'm by no means saying that everyone who works for Amtrak is insensitive and inept at dealing with the disabled. However, I've seen this kind of stuff happen multiple times, so it seems to me that Amtrak has not been _completely _successful at making sure all employees give all passengers proper assistance and treatment. I do not mean to insult you or anyone else at Amtrak who help disabled and elderly passengers - I was just saying that some more training and/or equipment might be good for those employees who aren't great at that stuff.


----------



## tricia (Jun 8, 2018)

AmtrakLKL said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> > Meanwhile the conductor was pestering her: "Come on! Come on! We've got a schedule to keep!" They clearly did not have anywhere near enough equipment or training to safely get a disabled passenger onto a low platform, and that was on a Superliner. Amtrak gets plenty of disabled passengers, yet they are completely inept at safely handling them.
> ...


As with so many things Amtrak-related, YMMV. Traveling over several years with my elderly, mobility-impaired father, I encountered very kind Amtrak employees who worked proficiently to make his trip easier and more comfortable, but also met Amtrak employees who seemed to view him as an unwelcome burden. A good many more of the former than the latter, in my experience. Still, I learned not to count on help from Amtrak staff, but welcomed it when (usually) we got it.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 8, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> I'm by no means saying that everyone who works for Amtrak is insensitive and inept at dealing with the disabled.


 That's pretty much exactly what you said.



cpotisch said:


> Amtrak gets plenty of disabled passengers, yet they are completely inept at safely handling them.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Jun 9, 2018)

I think a lot of the problems being stated here come from a morale problem that's been systemic at Amtrak for years. The issues with the limited budget, and equipment that is maintained but routinely has issues due to being put down wet, and age related issues. So yes I can see where Amtrak employees morale problem comes and then couple that with corporates constant "cut our way to profit," often at the expense of the worker. I can definitely see where the problems come.

And let's face it you can have all the training in the world but give horrible service if you are disgruntled because of management, failing equipment, and then rude passengers on top of it. I think it's a two fold question the first being how can we improve training for ADA, and the second how can we improve employee morale so they give their best.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jun 9, 2018)

I don't want to drive this too much off topic but just so you know, there may be more than morale problem. There is also a fear factor with certain people. While you would think helping passengers would result in kudos, it has led to discipline. How long is reasonable to you and to the employee may not be reasonable or acceptable to those who operate or dispatch the railroad.

How much customer service it too much often depends on the consequences. This is harrowing when you are a guest on the territory. I have literally heard a dispatcher say "I will get you...you will pay for this" when a crew refused his order to move a train...without a scheduled 40 person group and their baggage. It was last minute track change and the group was on their way to the new track. The train crew ran over to assist to expedite the move and defied the dispatcher...who followed through on his threat the next day. The crew was charged with delay of train by the hosts and failing to secure the train and they tried to press insubordination for failing to follow the order of the dispatcher (even though that was b/s charge.) They beat back the insubordination and failing to secure the train charge, however, Amtrak couldn't help them when the host banned them from their territory for three days..

I remember an elderly person that needed help and none was forthcoming. After waiting around, the crew took the woman and her luggage to street level, hailed and placed her in a cab and were charged with delay of train for their efforts. That is because it was in the station and it blocked other trains. I have tons of similar stories which have led people to basically give up. As wild and inconsistent as the treatment of passengers seem, it reflects wild and inconsistent enforcement and interpretation of rules, standards and application. This often leads to minimal (and sometimes it is condoned) effort.

I'm not saying that makes it right. I'm not saying that this is always the case. Some people just are lackluster. However, there are plenty of people that have seen these actions (if you're not ready NOW, you'll follow such and such for the next 100 miles) and taken it as a subliminal message.


----------



## railiner (Jun 9, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> I don't want to drive this too much off topic but just so you know, there may be more than morale problem. There is also a fear factor with certain people. While you would think helping passengers would result in kudos, it has led to discipline. How long is reasonable to you and to the employee may not be reasonable or acceptable to those who operate or dispatch the railroad.
> 
> How much customer service it too much often depends on the consequences. This is harrowing when you are a guest on the territory. I have literally heard a dispatcher say "I will get you...you will pay for this" when a crew refused his order to move a train...without a scheduled 40 person group and their baggage. It was last minute track change and the group was on their way to the new track. The train crew ran over to assist to expedite the move and defied the dispatcher...who followed through on his threat the next day. The crew was charged with delay of train by the hosts and failing to secure the train and they tried to press insubordination for failing to follow the order of the dispatcher (even though that was b/s charge.) They beat back the insubordination and failing to secure the train charge, however, Amtrak couldn't help them when the host banned them from their territory for three days..
> 
> ...


Wow...now that is what defines the expression: "being between a rock and a hard place"....


----------



## jis (Jun 9, 2018)

This perhaps one core reason why the likes of Brightline have forsworn operating in a territory where they do not have any control over dispatching.


----------



## neroden (Jun 10, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> I don't want to drive this too much off topic but just so you know, there may be more than morale problem. There is also a fear factor with certain people. While you would think helping passengers would result in kudos, it has led to discipline. How long is reasonable to you and to the employee may not be reasonable or acceptable to those who operate or dispatch the railroad.


This is interesting information and essentially confirms things I've suspected... the response needs to be rather more combative than you might imagine.



> How much customer service it too much often depends on the consequences. This is harrowing when you are a guest on the territory.


You're proving my repeated point that a passenger operator or government agency needs to own the tracks. And therefore control dispatching of it.



> I have literally heard a dispatcher say "I will get you...you will pay for this" when a crew refused his order to move a train...without a scheduled 40 person group and their baggage. It was last minute track change and the group was on their way to the new track. The train crew ran over to assist to expedite the move and defied the dispatcher...who followed through on his threat the next day. The crew was charged with delay of train by the hosts and failing to secure the train and they tried to press insubordination for failing to follow the order of the dispatcher (even though that was b/s charge.) They beat back the insubordination and failing to secure the train charge, however, Amtrak couldn't help them when the host banned them from their territory for three days.


I guess Amtrak wasn't quite ready to head to the STB and seize the tracks, which it has only done once. I can see picking your battles... That provision is in the US Code for a reason, though.



> I remember an elderly person that needed help and none was forthcoming. After waiting around, the crew took the woman and her luggage to street level, hailed and placed her in a cab and were charged with delay of train for their efforts.


If this was post-1993, they could have won by citing the ADA, which is controlling federal law, as overriding any other regulations (which it does), and countersuing on the grounds that management was attempting to induce ADA violations, which is illegal.



> That is because it was in the station and it blocked other trains. I have tons of similar stories which have led people to basically give up. As wild and inconsistent as the treatment of passengers seem, it reflects wild and inconsistent enforcement and interpretation of rules, standards and application. This often leads to minimal (and sometimes it is condoned) effort.
> 
> I'm not saying that makes it right. I'm not saying that this is always the case. Some people just are lackluster. However, there are plenty of people that have seen these actions (if you're not ready NOW, you'll follow such and such for the next 100 miles) and taken it as a subliminal message.


In ADA cases, it might be best if the conductors gave the dispatcher a nice threat of being hit with a lawsuit for violating the ADA's reasonable accomodations requirement. Because the dispatcher could, personally, be sued for it, as could the railroad which employed him.


----------



## Anderson (Jun 11, 2018)

You know, a near-retirement conductor with a "hot mike" recording such threats could make for some interesting legal action. I can't even guess how it would play out or unintended consequences, but seeing a freight railroad enjoined in an ADA suit over dispatching retaliation would be interesting to see play out...prefereably from a very long distance away.

Actually, it would also be interesting if (for example) an ADA suit were brought forward over host refusals to accommodate high-level platforms. Remember, Amtrak can want to upgrade the platforms all it wants...half of the time they don't own the platforms (if they even own the station) [1] and in many other cases, even if they do own them they're hamstrung in altering them because the local Class I owns the tracks. Amtrak trying to carry out ADA improvements on a station they do not own inherently brings other actors into the mix.

Speaking from Virginia, as far as I can tell, NPN, WBG, RVM, RVR, ASD, and PTB have never seen a bilevel/low-level train. NFK was built in 2012 without any foreseeable path towards seeing one come in. Yet all have exclusively low-level platforms (I am certain about all but NFK, and I'm 99.56% certain with NFK that there's no mini-high-level platform at the south end, but I know there's not at the north end). At least in the case of the stations north of Fredericksburg, there's VRE (and the Cardinal has been run as a Superliner train before), but I don't think "the Auto Train passes through" counts for this purpose.

[1] Let's take RVR (Staples Mill, to be clear): The station is owned by Amtrak. The tracks/platforms are owned by CSX. The parking lot, btw, is owned by some mix of the state and the county...which is why it took a few years to improve it while there was a "free parking" lot next door: The state and the county had to figure out how to sort parking income.


----------



## Palmetto (Jun 11, 2018)

Radio transmissions are recorded, aren't they? If someone wanted to, they could have turned in said dispatcher if they wanted to. Intimidation in the workplace is pretty inadmissible.

Maybe we could return to the topic at hand?


----------



## cirdan (Jun 11, 2018)

jis said:


> This perhaps one core reason why the likes of Brightline have forsworn operating in a territory where they do not have any control over dispatching.



The same could be achieved by a managament who actually back up their staff when they get flak for performing their duties correctly rather than leavin them out in the rain.

That, and a rulebook that actually gives clear und unambiguous guidance.


----------



## Anderson (Jun 11, 2018)

Palmetto said:


> Radio transmissions are recorded, aren't they? If someone wanted to, they could have turned in said dispatcher if they wanted to. Intimidation in the workplace is pretty inadmissible.
> 
> Maybe we could return to the topic at hand?


We probably just need to split the thread.


----------



## Steve4031 (Jun 12, 2018)

This is an interesting conversation regarding dispatchers, conductors and ADA compliance. It could be made into a separate thread or merged with my thread about USA vs Europe, etc.


----------



## frequentflyer (Jun 25, 2018)

https://procurement.amtrak.com/irj/portal/anonymous?NavigationTarget=navurl://7e7c6db809b56f05f8e58e6565a217df

Anderson wasn't joking when he spoke about this. He met with Stadler when he out there in California giving that speech.

MODERATOR NOTE: The thread previous titled "EMUs/DMUs are on the way!!" was merged with this existing topic.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jun 25, 2018)

I'm curious as to how you classify this as " On The Way," and why this RFi deserves a new thread.


----------



## frequentflyer (Jun 25, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> I'm curious as to how you classify this as " On The Way," and why this RFi deserves a new thread.


Ok, so I took liberties with the title. This RFI is not for locomotives, they are DMU/EMUs. Hence, the new thread. Mods if you want to move it, have at it.


----------



## DSS&A (Jun 25, 2018)

Hopefully these RFIs (Request for Information) will provide enough information so that Anderson can then issue an RFP (Request for Proposal) to have contract signed to purchase new equipment in the near future.


----------



## jis (Jun 27, 2018)

Amtrak’s media announcement of the new RFI ...

https://media.amtrak.com/2018/06/amtrak-pursuit-new-equipment/


----------



## AmtrakFlyer (Jun 27, 2018)

After seeing whats going on the last thing we want is a new order by Anderson. A stinker of an order could be the true death of Amtrak.

Hes on record saying he wants to scrap Superliner and Amfleet equipment and replace east of Mississippi corridor service with rail vehicles.

Notice no replacement for scraped Superliners/Amfleets. No benefit of the doubt left at this point in time.

How messed up is it after all Amtraks been through to get their highest appropriation ever with bi partisan support at time when nothing in the country is bi partisan, only to be destroyed from within by a non comprising ideology driven CEO whos utterly clueless.

This would have been the perfect time to do a Superliner 3 order with bipartisan support instead of anchoring Amtrak with debt from whatever Anderson orders which more then likely wont be appropriate for corridors or the national network.


----------



## jis (Jun 28, 2018)

The RFI is basically for Amfleet replacement, explicitly for east of Mississippi service. Why would that have any impact on Superliners? The only difference that may come out of it is that we may get some mix of trailer cars and EMU/DMU/EDMU, instead of just trailers. That will have no impact on LD service and has the potential of improving corridor service considerably.

So all in all I would love to see a well thought out order that moves Amtrak equipment into the 21st Century from vintage mid 20th Century.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 28, 2018)

AmtrakFlyer said:


> Hes on record saying he wants to scrap Superliner and Amfleet equipment and replace east of Mississippi corridor service with rail vehicles.
> 
> Notice no replacement for scraped Superliners/Amfleets. No benefit of the doubt left at this point in time.


Kindly provide the quote where this is on the record.


----------



## mfastx (Jun 28, 2018)

Good. Amtrak is in dire need of new equipment. Looking forward to see what direction they go in. EMU trainsets would be an interesting look, I've ridden some in Europe and they are great.


----------



## Trogdor (Jun 28, 2018)

What's interesting about them getting EMUs is to see what they would plan to do with all the ACS-64s that they just got. Run fewer and have a higher spare ratio?


----------



## jis (Jun 28, 2018)

DSS&A said:


> Hopefully these RFIs (Request for Information) will provide enough information so that Anderson can then issue an RFP (Request for Proposal) to have contract signed to purchase new equipment in the near future.


Looks like that the earliest an RFP can go out is after October.



Trogdor said:


> What's interesting about them getting EMUs is to see what they would plan to do with all the ACS-64s that they just got. Run fewer and have a higher spare ratio?


Or increase service...

One possibility would be to go for enough EDMUs for Virginia Service, and re-purpose the ACS-64s for use in push-pull sets (with the acquisition of California style cab cars as part of a trailer car suborder) like Austria does in RailJet possibly with some increase in frequency.

One can dream up other random schemes like that.

What I am curious to see is a service plan driving the mix of things to acquire. There is such a plan for Acela IIs. So why not one for East of Mississippi Services.

It at least appears so frar that this is not about Eastern Single Level LD trains, but who knows? No reason that a bunch of slightly differently furnished Coaches suitable for long distance cannot be thrown into the mix.


----------



## frequentflyer (Jun 28, 2018)

Trogdor said:


> What's interesting about them getting EMUs is to see what they would plan to do with all the ACS-64s that they just got. Run fewer and have a higher spare ratio?


It's based on the EuroSprinter and Vectron sold around the world. Should not be hard to dispose them, but I think Amtrak would need them for LD and day trains (Palmetto) through the NEC. The commuter agencies along the NEC would be interested too.


----------



## frequentflyer (Jun 28, 2018)

Interesting insight into how Anderson thinks regarding new equipment- From his time at Delta.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/delta-in-talks-with-boeing-to-launch-nma-bastian-449780/

"The idea that Delta could launch the NMA is one of the more significant breaks by Bastian from his predecessor Richard Anderson. Anderson, who led the airline from 2007 to 2016, publicly eschewed new technology aircraft, calling the risks too great compared to the benefits of lower capital cost existing technology.

“My balance sheet is not equipped to take [airframers'] technical risk," he said on the Airbus A350 and Boeing 787 in an interview with _Airline Business_ in 2014. "Once those airplanes are proven, then we’ll be in a position to be able to operate them.”"

Anderson is going to want equipment that has proven itself in the field.


----------



## cpotisch (Jun 28, 2018)

frequentflyer said:


> Interesting insight into how Anderson thinks regarding new equipment- From his time at Delta.
> 
> https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/delta-in-talks-with-boeing-to-launch-nma-bastian-449780/
> 
> ...


That was years ago and in a completely different industry. There are much greater risks involved in a flawed or unproven aircraft than in an unproven piece of rolling stock. If a train loses engine power it might just slow to a stop. If a plane loses engine power it might fall out of the sky and explode. I'm oversimplifying a little bit, but my point is that you can't really compare new aircraft and the risks involved to new rolling stock.


----------



## keelhauled (Jun 28, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> That was years ago and in a completely different industry. There are much greater risks involved in a flawed or unproven aircraft than in an unproven piece of rolling stock. If a train loses engine power it might just slow to a stop. If a plane loses engine power it might fall out of the sky and explode. I'm oversimplifying a little bit, but my point is that you can't really compare new aircraft and the risks involved to new rolling stock.


How can you possibly say that? There hasn't been a case of an airliner crashing due to engine failure in many years, maybe decades. Uncontained engine failures are not unheard of, but I can think of only this year's Southwest incident that caused a fatality, and the plane was landed safely with not an explosion to be seen. Qantas and Air France A380s have had uncontained failures, as did Southwest in 2016, all of which landed safely. The two worst incidents, British in 2015 and AA in 2016 that both made a crash landing with passenger injuries, were powered by well-proven engines dating from the 80s and 90s. The 787 battery fiasco did not lead to any fatalities, nor have the more recent Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce engine problems on the A320neo and 787, respectively.


----------



## Pere Flyer (Jun 28, 2018)

keelhauled said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> > That was years ago and in a completely different industry. There are much greater risks involved in a flawed or unproven aircraft than in an unproven piece of rolling stock. If a train loses engine power it might just slow to a stop. If a plane loses engine power it might fall out of the sky and explode. I'm oversimplifying a little bit, but my point is that you can't really compare new aircraft and the risks involved to new rolling stock.
> ...


The point remains that Anderson’s 2014 comments and positions on airline equipment as Delta CEO do not necessarily hold true for passenger rail equipment in 2018 as Amtrak CEO. He may feel the same way about both, but as Amtrak CEO he hasn’t indicated one way or the other.


----------



## frequentflyer (Jun 28, 2018)

My point was Anderson will not be looking at cutting edge tech that has not proven itself. So far, the Siemens locomotives and cars in service with Amtrak and other companies have not yielded any problems that we know of. Stadler, the company you can hear him talking too in the California Video will be presenting DMUs, but again, Stadler has a track record of products that have been in service in harsh winters for a number of years. Whatever chosen, it will be based on off the rack equipment.


----------



## jis (Jun 28, 2018)

The main takeaway is that focus will be on off the shelf equipment with minimal modifications needed for complying with FRA regs. I think we have known this for a little while now.

Incidentally this is exactly the approach that Brightline took too.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Jun 28, 2018)

Actually a Railjet Type train would work for the Northeast Regionals and that I could support. The actual RailJets are fantastic trains even though I feel some of the older ones are starting to show their age. I've been riding them since day one

But great practical trains where a locomotive change is incredibly easy to do. They have the standard linkage between the first car and the locomotive. So nothing is overly special about that. The inside is what I like. Also the fact the crews who have one walk down the platform with a poise and command that tells you. This is the hottest train on the line.


----------



## blueman271 (Jun 28, 2018)

frequentflyer said:


> Interesting insight into how Anderson thinks regarding new equipment- From his time at Delta.
> 
> https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/delta-in-talks-with-boeing-to-launch-nma-bastian-449780/
> 
> ...


Later that same year Delta ordered 25 Airbus A350s. It seems just as likely that he was negotiating through the press as he was making a definitive statement on new technology.


----------



## frequentflyer (Jun 28, 2018)

blueman271 said:


> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting insight into how Anderson thinks regarding new equipment- From his time at Delta.
> ...


True, not to go all avgeek, but that order also included proven in service A330s and supposedly Airbus could deliver the order faster than Boeing. On the flip side Delta inherited NWA's order of 787s that Delta never exercised, though the aircraft were priced at "launch" (read cheap) prices. The A350 service entry has been incredibly smooth for a new plane while the 787 service entry had been anything but.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jun 28, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting insight into how Anderson thinks regarding new equipment- From his time at Delta.
> ...


I was once on a Northeast Regional that lost power. It was late at night and 12 degrees outside. We waited long enough to start getting cold. Then they transferred us to a northbound train and took us back to Boston. Then they locked us into the waiting room at south station while they hauled the stricken train back to Boston and put an older, more reliable motor in front. We finally left about 5 hours late and, fortunately, didnt lose any more time.

Sure, it's not the same as a spectacular plane failure in mid-air, but constant delays due to malfunctioning equipment that hasn't been properly beta testing aren't going to help Amtrak grow its business.


----------



## cpotisch (Jun 28, 2018)

MARC Rider said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> > frequentflyer said:
> ...


Very true. I just meant that the risks and liability of unproven aircraft to that of unproven rolling stock.


----------



## NSC1109 (Jun 30, 2018)

Howdy folks,

I’ve been active on other forums about this topic and forgot that I hadn’t been here in a while, and I look forward to discussing this with you all.

First, I want to say that I think it’s ridiculous that Anderson is seriously considering DMUs for corridors east of Mississippi, including the state stupoorted lines already getting the Chargers. I’ve ridden on DMUs before, in England. I wasn’t impressed..it felt more like a bus than a train, and I don’t want to feel like I’m taking a bus from Michigan to Chicago. In addition, if this is some sort of attempt to dramatically expand corridor service, I’m all for that, but capacity issues need to be considered at CUS. Amtrak’s Illinois and Michigan corridor trains are packed into half of south concourse along with most of the LD trains and the one-offs like Hoosier State, Sandburg, and Illinois Zephyr. There are proposals to move some of the Metra services to LaSalle Street but those are a long way off for now.

The replacement of the Amfleets and Superliners: we knew it was going to happen eventually. I personally think Siemens will get the nod for the new cars, considering they have functioning examples on Brightline with the Chargers and as far as I’m aware, things are running smoothly. I loved the Superliners that I rode in this past summer on the Chief, Starlight, and Builder, but at this point I’m just not sure they’re practical anymore. It’s a shame really, but I’m looking forward to seeing what Siemens and others will cook up for replacements.

Locomotive RFP: Siemens, hands down. The EMD F125 isn’t exactly flying off the shelves and supposedly has had problems, GE just sold off their locomotive business to Wabtec and their engine (the HSP) is a little more than a joke at the expense of the Massachusetts taxpayer. As much as I like the P42s, I don’t think we’re going to see a rebuild of them.


----------



## railiner (Jul 1, 2018)

Re: those F125's...

As an old fan of the former General Motors, Electro-Motive Division, I have a very hard time accepting a locomotive powered by a Caterpillar prime mover, and a body designed in Spain, as a genuine "EMD"


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 1, 2018)

The concept of risk is an interesting thing, because it depends on what you consider a risk. Obviously theres a certain risk with an aircraft that if it mechanically fails you can drop out of the sky. However when you were talking about and under budgeted and already somewhat unreliable transportation service, there are other risks.

If you have a proven well-built and bug free or almost bug free design, you have a lot of confidence that the design will run reliably. Not in the context of falling out of the sky, but in the context of guaranteeing reliable running on time service. Not to mention the financial implications of repairs and refunds due to non-running trains.

I have not been impressed with what Anderson is doing on the long distance network. However what we need, an I have not been impressed with what Anderson is doing on the long distance network. However what we need, NEED, Is a reliable Northeast Corredor and every other Corredor for that matter such that people trust their train will run and run with in a reasonable accuracy of the printed schedule. Hell we need it for the long distance trains to.

Is a reliable Northeast Corredor and every other Corredor for that matter such that people trust their train will run and run with in a reasonable accuracy of the printed schedule. Hill we need it for the long distance trains to.

However the majority of the demographic of the long-distance train ride or, combined with the nature that Amtrak has been running for years means that long distance train riders have come to expect an unreliable product, and still use it for s however the majority of the demographic of a long-distance train writer, combined with the nature that Amtrak has been running for years means that long-distance train riders have come to expect an unreliable product, and still use it despite that.

Despite it being unreliable for about 40 years now. The Northeast Corredor on the other hand is an actual transportation service used by people who arent necessarily have a lien client to train riding. They fly take the bus or ride the train, whichever is cheapest more convenient or more effective for their purpose. So in that nature it needs to be competitive in away the long distance trains do not. Switching the system to newer and more reliable equipment that we know is going to be reliable from day one of service is imperative.

Please do not assume that I am for Andersons intentions on the long distance network. But the Northeast Corredor and other Corredors have different operating imperativesthan the long-distance network


----------



## Seaboard92 (Jul 1, 2018)

railiner said:


> Re: those F125's...
> 
> As an old fan of the former General Motors, Electro-Motive Division, I have a very hard time accepting a locomotive powered by a Caterpillar prime mover, and a body designed in Spain, as a genuine "EMD"


I understand what you mean. I've ran both modern GEs and classic EMD E8s in my engineer training at a museum that uses both. There is nothing quite like those old EMDs. They load well, I like the control stand, and and they respond well. However the C40-8s I've also learned on do have the better visibility and nicer cab (hvac). But nothing compares to the vintage EMDs.


----------



## railiner (Jul 1, 2018)

I had my first cab ride in a PC E-8, from Croton-Harmon to Albany-Rensselaer, back in 1969, after getting off one of those 'P' Motor's, from Grand Central Terminal...

What a difference! The engineer smiled, and said to me, "now you're riding in a Cadillac"...


----------



## jis (Jul 1, 2018)

This is what a modern EMD Passenger Diesel looks like. This is the dual cab version. IR Class WDP-4D, Though currently geared for 80mph, they can be upped to 110mph, but there is no need for such in India, since all trains faster than 80mph are Electric hauled. currently being deployed extensively in India: The article linked to below is from 2014. Since then more than a couple of hundred have been deployed.






Details and Copyright info at:

https://tractionmech8.wordpress.com/2014/07/16/wdp4d/


----------



## cpotisch (Jul 1, 2018)

This article in Railway Age talks about the RFI and replacement of the Amfleet Is.


----------



## railiner (Jul 2, 2018)

jis said:


> This is what a modern EMD Passenger Diesel looks like. This is the dual cab version. IR Class WDP-4D, Though currently geared for 80mph, they can be upped to 110mph, but there is no need for such in India, since all trains faster than 80mph are Electric hauled. currently being deployed extensively in India: The article linked to below is from 2014. Since then more than a couple of hundred have been deployed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


At least I would recognize the "chant" of the two-stroke prime mover...

Those grills over the windshield recall the 'ghetto-grates' over New Haven RR locomotives...


----------



## jrud (Jul 7, 2018)

Metro North and Amtrak starting to work together on dual-mode locomotives. http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305%20activities%20report%20-%20monthly%206-30-18.docx


----------



## jrud (Jul 23, 2018)

This just provides further verification that Siemens could provide modern single level sleeping cars in addition to “day” cars. http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/traction-rolling-stock/single-view/view/siemens-chosen-to-build-day-and-night-fleets.html


----------



## frequentflyer (Jul 23, 2018)

jrud said:


> This just provides further verification that Siemens could provide modern single level sleeping cars in addition to “day” cars. http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/traction-rolling-stock/single-view/view/siemens-chosen-to-build-day-and-night-fleets.html


One car body, one set of spare parts, would yield significant savings for Amtrak. It would be politically easier for Amtrak to get the California congress coalition behind a huge appropriation for made in California Siemen cars.

But if the rumors are correct that Amtrak is looking at single level cars to replace the east and west LD cars, what happpens to the over 400 Amfleet, over 100 Horizons, over 400 Superliner cars on the secondary market?


----------



## Ziv (Jul 23, 2018)

I don't think that all the SuperLiners need to be retired immediately and the same goes for retiring all of the Amfleets or Horizons. Retire the worst ones, keep the rest and refurb as needed. Add frequencies to LD lines that are successful and lease the rest to regional rail companies. Anderson may not be the right choice for this but this is a good time to push for more rail, not less.



frequentflyer said:


> jrud said:
> 
> 
> > This just provides further verification that Siemens could provide modern single level sleeping cars in addition to “day” cars. http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/traction-rolling-stock/single-view/view/siemens-chosen-to-build-day-and-night-fleets.html
> ...


----------



## Alexandria Nick (Jul 24, 2018)

On the matter of the "I don't want unproven planes" comment, remember that a pair of 787s cost as much as the entire Viewliner II order. The order was something like a $4 billion dollar deal. Your decision threshold is in a very different place when the numbers are that high.


----------



## Trogdor (Jul 24, 2018)

Alexandria Nick said:


> On the matter of the "I don't want unproven planes" comment, remember that a pair of 787s cost as much as the entire Viewliner II order. The order was something like a $4 billion dollar deal. Your decision threshold is in a very different place when the numbers are that high.


To bring some perspective: Boeing lists the 787 at $239 million (for the -8) to $325 million (for the -10).

However, "list price" is meaningless in the world of airlines and airplane orders. Rumors are that Boeing has optimized the manufacturing process enough to be able to profitably sell a 787 for under $100 million.

Railcars, on the other hand, are what...$2 - $4 million?


----------



## Amtrakfflyer (Jul 24, 2018)

I still dont trust this management with any order at all. Look how theyre using the V2 diners, or not using them. A order for the wrong equipment could hamper Amtrak for years to come. Amtrak gets to place a new car order at the most once a decade. Andersons idea of Amtraks future isnt all of what Americans want even though he claims hes going after the young, hip, demanding, crowd. Obviously we need corridors but not at the expense of long distance trains.


----------



## bretton88 (Jul 24, 2018)

Amtrakfflyer said:


> I still dont trust this management with any order at all. Look how theyre using the V2 diners, or not using them. A order for the wrong equipment could hamper Amtrak for years to come. Amtrak gets to place a new car order at the most once a decade. Andersons idea of Amtraks future isnt all of what Americans want even though he claims hes going after the young, hip, demanding, crowd. Obviously we need corridors but not at the expense of long distance trains.


Apples to Oranges, the V2s where ordered long before current management and they fit that management group's vision. This management group will purchase equipment that fits with their vision of where they see Amtrak, it might not fit the vision of future management. That's the problem with the constant management turnover that Amtrak has.


----------



## jrud (Jul 25, 2018)

In line with the assertion that a good design never totally dies, there is certainly some common lineage between these and AEM-7s. http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/traction-rolling-stock/single-view/view/locomotives-handed-over-to-green-cargo.html


----------



## jis (Jul 25, 2018)

I hope they are actually using technology that is more modern by a couple of generations than what was used in AEM-7s. They are ancient. Even Amtrak upgraded a subset of them with AC drive, before they decided to replace them entirely, and NJT replaced them earlier than Amtrak.


----------



## jrud (Jul 25, 2018)

jis said:


> I hope they are actually using technology that is more modern by a couple of generations than what was used in AEM-7s. They are ancient. Even Amtrak upgraded a subset of them with AC drive, before they decided to replace them entirely, and NJT replaced them earlier than Amtrak.


The article does say asynchronous motors. My best interpretation is they are based on a generation or two newer designs than the AEM-7s, but still in the family. This is doubly interesting as it is Swedish derived designs made in Romania sold to a Swedish railroad.


----------



## jis (Jul 25, 2018)

jrud said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > I hope they are actually using technology that is more modern by a couple of generations than what was used in AEM-7s. They are ancient. Even Amtrak upgraded a subset of them with AC drive, before they decided to replace them entirely, and NJT replaced them earlier than Amtrak.
> ...


Which leaves me wondering what is actually used from the previous design other than the name, car body and perhaps trucks, though those are probably significantly different too. I would be surprised if the engineer's stand has not been modified significantly too.

Though different from this case since the question here is about a specific instance of a design rather than the class, still it reminds me of an eternal discussion point. If you start with a Ford Mustang (say) with a specific VIN and then replace everything in it, except its ash tray, is it still the same Ford Mustang that you started with?


----------



## jrud (Jul 25, 2018)

jis said:


> jrud said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


As an old car pool mate used to say: “it’s my grandpa’s axe. It’s had three new handles and two new heads. But it’s my grandpa’s axe.”

And it is not me but the article that says it is derived from the EA locomotive family built in Romania decades ago under license from ASEA. Looking up the EA family gets you close to the AEM-7.


----------



## cirdan (Jul 25, 2018)

jis said:


> I hope they are actually using technology that is more modern by a couple of generations than what was used in AEM-7s. They are ancient. Even Amtrak upgraded a subset of them with AC drive, before they decided to replace them entirely, and NJT replaced them earlier than Amtrak.


equipment development is both about revolutions and evolutions.

The principle of the asynchronous motor in trains goes back to the late 19th Century. Think Italian three-phase electrification for example. The principle is very simple, very robust and if you keep some basic principles in mind, very forgiving control-wise.

Unfortunately, that simplicity on the motor side is offset by carzy complexity upstream because you need to eb able to vary the frequency. It was doable back then but very complicated. That's why the asynchronous motor didn't really start gaining ground until power electronics hit the market, and even then it took a while. Most of the early power electronic systems on trains used DC motors. At present, one of the main limitations on asynchronous motor is voltage ripple and harmonics. Progress here is one of evolution, not revolution. And I don't think that will change in the forseeable future.

On the converter sise, there have been some significant revolutions. Notably the transition from bipolar to IGBT in silicon. But within that there has also been an evolution as every generation of components was minimally superior to its predecessor. Trenches, bandgap and things have happened, meaning today we can do things that are actually better than as little as 10 years ago pundits were predicting would ever be possible using silicon. The next big thing will be silicon carbide. That won't remove complexity but it will mean lower losses, meaning you can probably reduce some of the cooling foorprint. And this can offset the higher costs of the converter. But that too is more evolution than revolution, seeing old fashioned silicon has been optimized to such an extent that the first generation of siliucon carbide will probably be only marginally better at first, but of course have much more potential for optimization.


----------



## jis (Jul 25, 2018)

jrud said:


> And it is not me but the article that says it is derived from the EA locomotive family built in Romania decades ago under license from ASEA. Looking up the EA family gets you close to the AEM-7.


Yeah it certainly claims lineage to the RC family and boasts of Romanian innovation in doubling the power or some such too..

License manufacturers have done some really remarkable and almost bizarre things, allowed by the terms of the license.

For example, Indian Railways proceeded to use the Alco trucks manufactured under license not only under Alco derived locomotives (WDM-2, WDM-3 etc.), but also under home grown electric locomotives (WAM-4).

They took a Bombardier high power 60mph freight locomotive (WAG-9) and fiddled around with its trucks and gearing and electronics to increase its speed to 90mph, and managed to up the power some and made a very credible passenger locomotive (WAP-7) out of it with tremendous tractive effort capable of starting a 26 car train as if it was nothing.

And their latest exploit is to take a pair of Alco derived WDM-2s, remove the diesel prime mover an ancillaries in its entirety and paste on a WAG-5 electric superstructure and controls and create a married pair dual cab 9000HP Co-Co-Co-Co electric freight engine. And all this while they are busily importing for inhouse license manufacture of 12000 HP Bo-Bo-Bo-Bo Alstom freight electric.

But as their appetite for equipment is enormous as they sit at the cusp of completely re-equipping the railways with new generation equipment and rolling stock, almost anything that works to reduce cost of evolution is fair game.

Now one could sit and have a lively discussion about which a derivative of what.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 25, 2018)

jrud said:


> As an old car pool mate used to say: “it’s my grandpa’s axe. It’s had three new handles and two new heads. But it’s my grandpa’s axe.”
> 
> And it is not me but the article that says it is derived from the EA locomotive family built in Romania decades ago under license from ASEA. Looking up the EA family gets you close to the AEM-7.


Sounds like a modern day Ship of Theseus.


----------



## DSS&A (Jul 25, 2018)

New Bi-modal DMU-electric high speed trains have started non-revenue testing in England. The new Hitachi built British Class 802 trainsets can operate at 125mph using a Rolls-Royce engine and quickly change to electric power to operate at 140mph. These trainsets could offer single-seat service connecting the NEC to other places such as Richmonds, VA; Newport, VA; Springfield,MA; replace the Empire Service trainsets and other trains.

Here are some links to these brand new trainsets.

https://www.railmagazine.com/news/fleet/transpennine-express-class-802-starts-main-line-testing?image=27037

http://press.hitachirail-eu.com/pressreleases/first-of-nova-1-bullet-train-inspired-fleet-leaves-japan-on-its-way-to-transform-journeys-in-the-north-and-scotland-2483541


----------



## frequentflyer (Jul 25, 2018)

DSS&A said:


> New Bi-modal DMU-electric high speed trains have started non-revenue testing in England. The new Hitachi built British Class 802 trainsets can operate at 125mph using a Rolls-Royce engine and quickly change to electric power to operate at 140mph. These trainsets could offer single-seat service connecting the NEC to other places such as Richmonds, VA; Newport, VA; Springfield,MA; replace the Empire Service trainsets and other trains.
> 
> Here are some links to these brand new trainsets.
> 
> ...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_800

The 801 bi mode similar to the 802 has been in service. It had some teething problems though. I agree with your premise of how Amtrak would use DMU/EMUs.


----------



## jrud (Jul 26, 2018)

frequentflyer said:


> DSS&A said:
> 
> 
> > New Bi-modal DMU-electric high speed trains have started non-revenue testing in England. The new Hitachi built British Class 802 trainsets can operate at 125mph using a Rolls-Royce engine and quickly change to electric power to operate at 140mph. These trainsets could offer single-seat service connecting the NEC to other places such as Richmonds, VA; Newport, VA; Springfield,MA; replace the Empire Service trainsets and other trains.
> ...


FWIW. Class 801 is pure electric. 800 bi-modes have been around a while and are supposedly getting horsepower increases to match the 802s. There is some earlier discussion of these trains advantages and problems.

As another example of a modern locomotive hauled passenger train. It will be diesel at first and switch to electric when the infrastructure is in place. http://railcolornews.com/2018/07/17/de-awaiting-electrification-the-chemnitz-leipzig-passenger-trains-get-an-upgrade/


----------



## jrud (Jul 26, 2018)

frequentflyer said:


> DSS&A said:
> 
> 
> > New Bi-modal DMU-electric high speed trains have started non-revenue testing in England. The new Hitachi built British Class 802 trainsets can operate at 125mph using a Rolls-Royce engine and quickly change to electric power to operate at 140mph. These trainsets could offer single-seat service connecting the NEC to other places such as Richmonds, VA; Newport, VA; Springfield,MA; replace the Empire Service trainsets and other trains.
> ...


FWIW. Class 801 is pure electric. 800 bi-modes have been around a while and are supposedly getting horsepower increases to match the 802s. There is some earlier discussion of this series of trains’ advantages and problems. 
As an example of a modern locomotive hauled passenger train. It will be diesel at first and switch to electric when the infrastructure is in place. http://railcolornews.com/2018/07/17/de-awaiting-electrification-the-chemnitz-leipzig-passenger-trains-get-an-upgrade/


----------



## jrud (Jul 31, 2018)

frequentflyer said:


> DSS&A said:
> 
> 
> > New Bi-modal DMU-electric high speed trains have started non-revenue testing in England. The new Hitachi built British Class 802 trainsets can operate at 125mph using a Rolls-Royce engine and quickly change to electric power to operate at 140mph. These trainsets could offer single-seat service connecting the NEC to other places such as Richmonds, VA; Newport, VA; Springfield,MA; replace the Empire Service trainsets and other trains.
> ...


In the latest Railway Magazine, there is a very brief article that includes a report that IETs (Class 800, etc.) have had problems during Britain’s recent hot weather.


----------



## frequentflyer (Aug 1, 2018)

Yes, they are having teething problems with the Hitachi 800s, supposedly the 802s fixes most of the problems. The 800 is more a premium type product though, and the new Alstom TGV lite Acela 2s will have that segment covered on the NEC.

There are other EMU/DMU products out there such as Stadler which so far has a stellar reputation. And we know Anderson has talked to them informally.

http://railcolornews.com/2018/06/30/uk-the-very-first-flirt-uk-is-out-bmu-on-transport/


----------



## jrud (Aug 6, 2018)

frequentflyer said:


> Yes, they are having teething problems with the Hitachi 800s, supposedly the 802s fixes most of the problems. The 800 is more a premium type product though, and the new Alstom TGV lite Acela 2s will have that segment covered on the NEC.
> 
> There are other EMU/DMU products out there such as Stadler which so far has a stellar reputation. And we know Anderson has talked to them informally.
> 
> http://railcolornews.com/2018/06/30/uk-the-very-first-flirt-uk-is-out-bmu-on-transport/


There are significant differences in the intended service for Hitachi IETs (800s etc) versus the Alstom Avelias. But the more restrictive British loading gauge also had a strong influence on the IET design. Even the to-be-built British HSTs (similar requirements to the Avelias) appear to be burdened with the small loading gauge.
The Stadler designs are very nice but any route with high platforms is going to require significant changes to the single-level DMU/EMU FLIRT. If you can go to bi-level, the EMU KISS can handle high and low-level platforms but a DMU version would require significant work.

Siemens has the only current modern train sets in the USA that can operate on high/low platforms and not under catenary.

Time will tell if others are going to invest the money needed to handle all the variations in the USA market.


----------



## NSC1109 (Aug 9, 2018)

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/Amtrak-State_EQ_CAPEX_CIP_2018_approved%2012-19-17.pdf

In absence of the July 2018 minutes from the Next Generation Equipment Committee, I found the above attachment on their website. The information is relatively current and meant for FY2018 - FY2022.


----------



## jrud (Aug 14, 2018)

This order includes tri-mode trains of diesel-battery-overhead electric. The battery is both for street running and to eliminate the need to electrify trough tunnels and under bridges to save on route electrification costs. Is there anywhere in the USA that would be a lot easier to electrify if they used battery power for short stretches? https://www.railwaygazette.com/news/passenger/single-view/view/wales-borders-electric-train-order-confirmed.html


----------



## Steve4031 (Aug 14, 2018)

Maybe through the tunnels in Washington, D.C. for trains continuing south. But that assumes that the line to Richmond is electrified. How far can these trains operate on battery power?


----------



## jrud (Aug 14, 2018)

Steve4031 said:


> Maybe through the tunnels in Washington, D.C. for trains continuing south. But that assumes that the line to Richmond is electrified. How far can these trains operate on battery power?


Another link: http://railcolornews.com/2018/08/13/uk-official-stadler-is-preferred-bidder-to-supply-71-trains-for-wales-borders-video/

It’s not obvious how far they can run on batteries as it is mostly to avoid a slew of bridge modifications that go over the line. And they have diesels for the totally non-electric routes. But there is a lot of flexibility in the basic Stadler concept of a separate car (or cars) with batteries-diesels-fuel cells-etc. in the middle of the train. If you need more batteries they can make room.


----------



## jis (Aug 14, 2018)

For seamless operation to south of Washington to Richmond and points beyond one would use electric and diesel dual mode. I don’t think anyone will use batteries for that service.


----------



## cpotisch (Aug 14, 2018)

I would note that the likely humongous batteries needed to run a whole train will probably end up losing some of their capacity and wearing out after not too long. The larger the battery, the quicker it can wear out, so I don't think that that's a good long-term idea for a train, not to mention a how complicated a "tri-mode" transit would have to be.


----------



## jis (Aug 14, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> I would note that the likely humongous batteries needed to run a whole train will probably end up losing some of their capacity and wearing out after not too long. The larger the battery, the quicker it can wear out, so I don't think that that's a good long-term idea for a train, not to mention a how complicated a "tri-mode" transit would have to be.


Technically it is not really that complex. The problem is carrying around too much dead weight, which should be avoided if possible. It is impractical to do so over large distances, so I doubt they will be used for long distance intercity trains, beyond electric/diesel bi-mode, which are used quite extensively already.

BTW, there are very few humongous monolithic large batteries. They are usually large packs of small batteries connected together to provide the capacity. The battery in my Plugin Prius can actually be fixed by replacing individual cells that go bad, So the theory of large batteries failing faster is a bit of a myth based on incorrect understanding of how they are constructed. Also, the usable life of a battery depends quite a bit on the charging and discharging discipline, which can be electronically controlled to a large extent, irrespective of the size of the battery pack.


----------



## PVD (Aug 14, 2018)

I only agree partially. Some of the largest batteries have the longest lives amongst the common battery types. Very large wet cell stationary batteries like the ones traditionally used in telco central offices, if properly maintained, have 15-20 year expected lives. Because they are not designed for frequent cycling, are extremely heavy,and filled with acid they would not be suitable for a transit application. The lifespan of lithium ion batteries used in bus apps is not bad, and their energy density is much higher, but a train would need way more energy storage than a bus.Batteries might be useful for relatively short gaps, but not for a long service yet. Because of the research done in battery technology to further enable renewable energy, particularly wind and pv,, huge strides have been made, and more happens every day, but we are not there (for a long train run) yet.


----------



## cpotisch (Aug 14, 2018)

jis said:


> BTW, there are very few humongous monolithic large batteries. They are usually large packs of small batteries connected together to provide the capacity. The battery in my Plugin Prius can actually be fixed by replacing individual cells that go bad, So the theory of large batteries failing faster is a bit of a myth based on incorrect understanding of how they are constructed. Also, the usable life of a battery depends quite a bit on the charging and discharging discipline, which can be electronically controlled to a large extent, irrespective of the size of the battery pack.


I'm pretty sure that the larger the capacity, the more prone it is to being overstressed and subsequently losing capacity. And while of course they could control it such that it will keep the batteries between 40% and 80% for minimal stress and lost capacity, that does mean it can only go 40% as far by battery. My point is, it will experience stress and lost capacity overtime, and while the losses can try to be reduced, that usually will require more limited usage and reduced range. Just my opinion.


----------



## PVD (Aug 14, 2018)

People almost always forget that batteries are generally really packs of cells. Like a 12v car battery is actually 6 cells in series. There are some utility scale battery storage projects (multiple mw) and they are made up of rack mounted modules, (Lithium Ion) each of which consists of multiple cells in series and parallel to get the desired voltage and current. The cells are not field swappable because of the way the modules are assembled, but individual modules are. they are also connected to battery monitoring systems that look at many parameters.


----------



## PVD (Aug 14, 2018)

Capacity is not the factor, design is. Different chemistry and manufacture yields very different products each suitable for very specific purposes. In most but not all cases, a very large battery is just an assembly of lots of smaller ones. Exceptions would be large wet cells, flow batteries like vanadium redox, or some of the new "seawater" designs.


----------



## frequentflyer (Aug 14, 2018)

Hmm, talking about batteries, apparently Stadler has a train with that.

http://railcolornews.com/2018/08/13/uk-official-stadler-is-preferred-bidder-to-supply-71-trains-for-wales-borders-video/

Oops, I see this article has been posted already. Anyway to turn this back to Amtrak, Anderson has been talking to Stadler too about a possible order. That FLIRT platform sure is flexible. From metro to intercity configurations.


----------



## jis (Aug 14, 2018)

Stadler products, of the diesel variety, mostly GTW derivatives, are used by several transit agencies in the US. The first use was by NJ Transit on the RiverLINE AFAIR. I believe the Canadians also use their product in Ottawa, or at least did at one time.

I rode one of their products in Austin a month back.

Image from Wikimedia:


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Aug 14, 2018)

Personally I think electric trains with fast charging high density batteries and modern regenerative breaking could turn out to be a useful tool for deploying renewable energy solutions beyond today's electrified networks. If modern tech can make batteries work for buses, semi trucks, and heavy mining equipment an electric train should be easier and more efficient by comparison.


----------



## PVD (Aug 14, 2018)

The primary obstacle (Buy America) to Amtrak business has been removed with the FLIRT project for TexRail being assembled here. Next is a higher floor for level boarding at existing high platforms along with traps, and there is no reason to believe they can't do it if they want to pursue it.


----------



## jis (Aug 14, 2018)

Just like in the old days of steam there were water collecting trough sections of track where the engine could replenish its water supply while running, in these electric days there could be segments of track with inductive charging rail that could recharge the battery on the train while it is running. In general such things are workable where operations are more predictable than what we find on the intercity network these days in the US. That is why I thihnk we will see their use in transit first, and probably won;t see their use in main line operations for quite a while yet.


----------



## frequentflyer (Aug 14, 2018)

PVD said:


> The primary obstacle (Buy America) to Amtrak business has been removed with the FLIRT project for TexRail being assembled here. Next is a higher floor for level boarding at existing high platforms along with traps, and there is no reason to believe they can't do it if they want to pursue it.


Yes, Stadler opened a plant near Salt Lake City to be USA compliant.

The center "power car" in the Stadler trains is genius and much simpler than Hitachi's 802 trains for EMU to DMU conversion.


----------



## PVD (Aug 14, 2018)

SEPTA has a few projects using battery storage at substations to capture regenerative braking energy. Doesn't extend reach to non electrified segments,but also doesn't require the trains to be anything out of the ordinary. (beyond being modern/regen braking capable)


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 14, 2018)

I'm no Scientist or Engineer, but I think jis and PVD know their stuff! ( PRR may want to weigh in since he actually worked in this area as a Professional Engineer.)


----------



## jis (Aug 14, 2018)

PVD said:


> SEPTA has a few projects using battery storage at substations to capture regenerative braking energy. Doesn't extend reach to non electrified segments,but also doesn't require the trains to be anything out of the ordinary. (beyond being modern/regen braking capable)


That is probably necessary partly because the 25Hz network does not always have enough power sinks available to eat up the regenerated energy, and the Commercial network to 25Hz network converters are not capable of reverse feeding.

PRR may be able to throw more light on the subject, having professionally worked on such stuff before retiring.


----------



## west point (Aug 14, 2018)

Substation energy storage might be better suited to mechanical storage. Imagine banks of very large fly wheels storing energy. They could store all regenerative energy and used as a smoothing factor for peak demand surges. We do know that mechanical power is somewhat stored in large turbine generators. You would loose that energy during long periods of low demand unless power from them were managed close to the low demand periods.


----------



## jis (Aug 14, 2018)

There are some serious projects getting cranked up to hydraulically store vast amounts of surplus energy from Solar and Wind generators for use when there is no Sun or Wind. A new use of dams and lakes.


----------



## PRR 60 (Aug 14, 2018)

jis said:


> PVD said:
> 
> 
> > SEPTA has a few projects using battery storage at substations to capture regenerative braking energy. Doesn't extend reach to non electrified segments,but also doesn't require the trains to be anything out of the ordinary. (beyond being modern/regen braking capable)
> ...


Appreciate the endorsement, but I'm a structural engineer. Working in high voltage transmission for 38 years, I was always a good listener and picked up a lot of basic electrical theory, but when things got past "basic" (system protection settings, load flows, planning contingencies, etc. etc etc), I happily deferred to the really smart people down the corridor.


----------



## PRR 60 (Aug 14, 2018)

jis said:


> There are some serious projects getting cranked up to hydraulically store vast amounts of surplus energy from Solar and Wind generators for use when there is no Sun or Wind. A new use of dams and lakes.


Modern day version of pump storage generation. Pump water out of a lower elevation source up to a higher elevation lake at night when there is lots of cheap base load power, then reverse the process in the daytime and generate power when demand is high.


----------



## PVD (Aug 14, 2018)

Actually, the SEPTA projects are on Broad St and Market-Frankford lines DC third rail.


----------



## jis (Aug 14, 2018)

PVD said:


> Actually, the SEPTA projects are on Broad St and Market-Frankford lines DC third rail.


Ah. OK, same reason then. There is no way to feed the surplus power back to the source past the Commercial supply to DC converters. So in order to keep the regenerative brakes working the supply network needs to be receptive to the generated power, and the only way to ensure that is to provide a storage system to suckk it up.


----------



## PVD (Aug 14, 2018)

To add an additional wrinkle, they added inverters and have a deal with the local utility to allow them to tapped stored energy for frequency regulation/stability in a deal that brings in some money for SEPTA. If you google SEPTA Battery Storage, there are a bunch of good articles, it might be getting a little deep for this thread.

NY has 2 very large pump storage plants, Lewiston (next to Niagara) at over 240 MW, and Blenheim-Gilboa at 1165 MW.


----------



## jis (Aug 14, 2018)

What really gets interesting is when e.g. the Dutch start using tidal sea levl differences to generate power and then store them away in a hydraulic storage for use later


----------



## PVD (Aug 14, 2018)

In NYC we have the East River , and it is actually tidal (connecting to LI Sound and NY Harbor/Atlantic) so off Roosevelt Island, in the West Channel, they sank a turbine meant to work in both directions of flow to study tidal flow generation. The first time they got it all wrong, currents were much more powerful than the design could handle, and it "tore away" from the bottom. The second try has been more successful. (RITE Project) Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy....original demo. later commercial siting...


----------



## jrud (Aug 14, 2018)

FWIW. The consensus in Europe is pretty solidly that batteries will be the energy source on train lines without electrification. Any fossil fuels including natural gas are out due to CO2 greenhouse gas emissions. Hydrogen is way to expensive to burn. Fuel cells using hydrogen are a lot more efficient than combustion but still no where near batteries. Only in transportation modes with very strict weight constraints (aircraft) is hydrogen perhaps viable.

The main reason for my original comment is the shift in the economics of electrifying routes if you can use batteries to eliminate the highest expense sections. Does that suddenly bring a lot more possibilities for rail electrification into play in the USA. And if so where?

Any ideas? As an example, are there bridges and tunnels beyond DC that seriously increase the cost of electrification to Richmond?


----------



## jis (Aug 14, 2018)

In USA there will be no main line electrification (except for 125+ mph HSR) until the attitude towards fossil fuel changes. Until then it will be purely an immediate cost consideration and electrification will always lose in that discussion.

As far as obstructions go, there are actually very few, if any, on the RF&P blocking electrification with 22' high catenary to clear Plate H and Plate K AFAIK. Probably the tightest will be the Capitol Hill and those do not require 22'. Capitol hill could do with 17' or so to clear 16' Superliners and they could be 12kV. Perhaps ceiling rails will suffice, though they might have to cut notches in the tunnel roof to clear the full width of Pantos.

As for who will get CSX to agree to this grand plan is a different matter.


----------



## jrud (Aug 14, 2018)

jis said:


> In USA there will be no main line electrification (except for 125+ mph HSR) until the attitude towards fossil fuel changes. Until then it will be purely an immediate cost consideration and electrification will always lose in that discussion.
> 
> As far as obstructions go, there are actually very few, if any, on the RF&P blocking electrification with 22' high catenary to clear Plate H and Plate K AFAIK. Probably the tightest will be the Capitol Hill and those do not require 22'. Capitol hill could do with 17' or so to clear 16' Superliners and they could be 12kV. Perhaps ceiling rails will suffice, though they might have to cut notches in the tunnel roof to clear the full width of Pantos.
> 
> As for who will get CSX to agree to this grand plan is a different matter.


Commuter rail like Caltrain? On government controlled track?


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Aug 15, 2018)

Bob Dylan said:


> I'm no Scientist or Engineer, but I think jis and PVD know their stuff! ( PRR may want to weigh in since he actually worked in this area as a Professional Engineer.)


There are a number of knowledgeable contributors here on the forum who either know something inherently, can uncover the answer with a bit of research, or can theorize a plausible answer as necessary. It's quite a diverse crowd with often complementary knowledge. The trick is to realize when someone is inside or outside their area of expertise. For instance, if you were to ask me a simple question about SAS or Superliners I can most likely provide a legitimate answer. But if you were to ask me about operational aspects of the NEC, or the range and usage rate of a narrow-body trijet, chances are good I have no idea what the hell I'm talking about.


----------



## railiner (Aug 15, 2018)

PVD said:


> In NYC we have the East River , and it is actually tidal (connecting to LI Sound and NY Harbor/Atlantic) so off Roosevelt Island, in the West Channel, they sank a turbine meant to work in both directions of flow to study tidal flow generation. The first time they got it all wrong, currents were much more powerful than the design could handle, and it "tore away" from the bottom. The second try has been more successful. (RITE Project) Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy....original demo. later commercial siting...


Sounds like a brilliant source of 'renewable energy'....but this is New York, and even that idea was met with resistance from advocates claiming it harmed some fish or other...


----------



## PVD (Aug 15, 2018)

That's why they did the demo project. There were some concerns, the studies conducted did not find the results to be that bad.

https://www.verdantpower.com/rite

https://tethys.pnnl.gov/annex-iv-sites/roosevelt-island-tidal-energy-rite-project-demonstration

Rather than me "muddying the waters" anyone interested can read further.


----------



## west point (Aug 15, 2018)

CAT clearances WASH - Richmond ?

We know of none except is the superstructure of Long bridge high enough. Old drawings showed it not even high enough to clear double stacks but that obviously has changed to clear present double stacks.

The entrance to the first street tunnel should be far enough from CSX that the change in CAT height can be manaaged by the loco pan ?


----------



## jis (Aug 15, 2018)

jrud said:


> Commuter rail like Caltrain? On government controlled track?


I sometimes wonder if the Caltrain electrification would have gotten funded without the infusion from the California HSR funds.

But yes, I agree that some commuter electrification will happen. E.g. Denver.

When Metrolink in Socal starts electrifying then we will know that the tide has turned perhaps.

WAS - RVR electrification, if it happens, is decades away at best.



west point said:


> CAT clearances WASH - Richmond ?
> 
> We know of none except is the superstructure of Long bridge high enough. Old drawings showed it not even high enough to clear double stacks but that obviously has changed to clear present double stacks.


All that you need is enough clearance to stick in a ceiling rail. Besides, I doubt that there will still be the current Long Bridge structure in place by the time electrification comes around.



> The entrance to the first street tunnel should be far enough from CSX that the change in CAT height can be manaaged by the loco pan ?


That should not be any problem. Also there most likely be a voltage and system change at that point from 12kV 25Hz to 25kV 60Hz. I am certain no one will be crazy enough to add to the old 25Hz system


----------



## jrud (Aug 15, 2018)

jis said:


> jrud said:
> 
> 
> > Commuter rail like Caltrain? On government controlled track?
> ...


As a side note. I go past the Long bridge twice a day on Metro Rail. There was a crane barge next to it that put in a couple piling. After a couple weeks it left. It certainly looked like it was doing some preliminary work related to the new Long Bridge.


----------



## west point (Aug 15, 2018)

Suspect pilings just regular maintenance. Pilings do go bad and have to be replaced.


----------



## PVD (Aug 15, 2018)

Any year now:

http://longbridgeproject.com/


----------



## jrud (Aug 15, 2018)

west point said:


> Suspect pilings just regular maintenance. Pilings do go bad and have to be replaced.


Barge was noticeably downstream of the current bridge. And didn’t seem associated with any work on the bridge. So it was unusual.

It does seem like a combination of DMU, EMU, BMU & TMU (you can’t make all these acronyms up) from someone like Stadler represents the most likely competitor to Siemens. All single level cars would not seem optimum for every route. Sleeper cars based on European bilevel cars do exist. Platform length restrictions also favor bilevel cars and the European designs fit fairly tight loading gauge.


----------



## west point (Aug 15, 2018)

Does Amtrak have to order and put down payment by SEptemer 30 ( end of FY ) for any LD equipment order ? Otherwise would it loose the funds allocated for FY 2018 ?


----------



## jis (Aug 16, 2018)

No they won’t lose the funds unless Congress explicitly rescinds them. They are all under the “available until expended” terms.


----------



## Trogdor (Aug 16, 2018)

PVD said:


> Any year now:
> 
> http://longbridgeproject.com/


Off topic, but I love how the first photo that shows up on that page has the P42 with the Hearland Flyer "Big Game Train" decals on it.


----------



## frequentflyer (Aug 17, 2018)

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305%20Exec%20Brd%20minutes%20%20-8-14-18%20DRAFT.doc

*[SIZE=8pt]8.[/SIZE]*

*[SIZE=8pt]Amtrak Equipment Procurements Update – Charlie King, Amtrak:[/SIZE]*

[SIZE=8pt]Charlie King provided a high-level overview of the RFP that is on the streets for power and cited some of the differences between the PRIIA specification and that of Amtrak. Amtrak began with the PRIIA spec as its baseline and added some items based on its needs.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=8pt]Some of those differences/changes include: Amtrak speed is 110mph vs PRIIA “up to” 125mph; 1000 KW HEP system vs PRIIA’s 600 KW Amtrak is calling for a 2,200-gallon fuel tank – to PRIIA’s call for 1,800 to 2,200 gallons; and the maximum length for Amtrak is 85 feet vs 72 feet called for in the PRIIA spec. There are other items such as those pertaining to advanced analytics and safety options especially in areas where there will be no PTC, and other safety measures will be required. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=8pt]Charlie also noted that the questions and comments on the RFP have slowed down with about 4 or 5 manufacturers likely formulating their proposals for next month. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=8pt]As for the RFI for cars, Charlie reported that 8 builders have come to Amtrak for interviews. Three states have been represented on those calls (IDOT, NYSDOT and Caltrans) as part of the team listening in. They provide questions to Amtrak to take to the builders. Data gathering will likely continue until October with an RFP thereafter.[/SIZE]


----------



## jis (Aug 17, 2018)

That 85' may be related to DMU thing.


----------



## west point (Aug 17, 2018)

The 1000kW HEP is important as they will be able to be locos for auto train. As well can provide the power for any regular Passenger train for ~ 18 superliner car trains or ~20 car single level trains. Baggage car(s) not included. However 2 dinning cars on any train may reduce the number by 1 ?


----------



## cpotisch (Aug 17, 2018)

frequentflyer said:


> Some of those differences/changes include: Amtrak speed is 110mph vs PRIIA up to 125mph; 1000 KW HEP system vs PRIIAs 600 KW Amtrak is calling for a 2,200-gallon fuel tank to PRIIAs call for 1,800 to 2,200 gallons; and the maximum length for Amtrak is 85 feet vs 72 feet called for in the PRIIA spec. There are other items such as those pertaining to advanced analytics and safety options especially in areas where there will be no PTC, and other safety measures will be required.


Amtrak only goes 110 mph? Dont NERs run at up to 125 mph?


----------



## jis (Aug 17, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> > Some of those differences/changes include: Amtrak speed is 110mph vs PRIIA up to 125mph; 1000 KW HEP system vs PRIIAs 600 KW Amtrak is calling for a 2,200-gallon fuel tank to PRIIAs call for 1,800 to 2,200 gallons; and the maximum length for Amtrak is 85 feet vs 72 feet called for in the PRIIA spec. There are other items such as those pertaining to advanced analytics and safety options especially in areas where there will be no PTC, and other safety measures will be required.
> ...


These are diesel engines for the national network for LD trains. Clearly they don;t want to spend the extra money to maintain them to run at 125mph so why bother buying them with 125mph capability when they will spend 99% of their life running at 110mph or less - mostly less.


----------



## PVD (Aug 17, 2018)

Yes, there are >110 mph NER. They are pulled by ACS-64 (electrics) not the diesels....


----------



## cpotisch (Aug 17, 2018)

Thanks. Didn't realize that this was only for diesels and the national network.


----------



## frequentflyer (Aug 31, 2018)

*[SIZE=8pt]8.[/SIZE]*

*[SIZE=8pt]Amtrak Equipment Procurements Update – Charlie King, Amtrak:[/SIZE]*

[SIZE=8pt]Charlie King provided a high-level overview of the RFP that is on the streets for power and cited some of the differences between the PRIIA specification and that of Amtrak. Amtrak began with the PRIIA spec as its baseline and added some items based on its needs.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=8pt]Some of those differences/changes include: Amtrak speed is 110mph vs PRIIA “up to” 125mph; 1000 KW HEP system vs PRIIA’s 600 KW Amtrak is calling for a 2,200-gallon fuel tank – to PRIIA’s call for 1,800 to 2,200 gallons; and the maximum length for Amtrak is 85 feet vs 72 feet called for in the PRIIA spec. There are other items such as those pertaining to advanced analytics and safety options especially in areas where there will be no PTC, and other safety measures will be required. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=8pt]Charlie also noted that the questions and comments on the RFP have slowed down with about 4 or 5 manufacturers likely formulating their proposals for next month. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=8pt]As for the RFI for cars, Charlie reported that 8 builders have come to Amtrak for interviews. Three states have been represented on those calls (IDOT, NYSDOT and Caltrans) as part of the team listening in. They provide questions to Amtrak to take to the builders. *Data gathering will likely continue until October with an RFP thereafter.*[/SIZE]

Expect more information about a car order in October.


----------



## frequentflyer (Sep 12, 2018)

Its been rumored that Amtrak is talking to Stadler about possible order of DMU/EMUs for services such as NEC regionals. Here is an example of a EMU/DMU being tested in Europe for delivery late this year or next year to the UK.

It can run on catenary or diesel.


----------



## PVD (Sep 12, 2018)

Considering the young age of the ACS-64 it will be very tough to make an economic case to change the NEC to DMU/EMU at this point. Maybe some of the other corridors, where it would lower the number of new locos to be acquired.


----------



## cpotisch (Sep 12, 2018)

frequentflyer said:


> Its been rumored that Amtrak is talking to Stadler about possible order of DMU/EMUs for services such as NEC regionals. Here is an example of a EMU/DMU being tested in Europe for delivery late this year or next year to the UK.
> 
> It can run on catenary or diesel.


Yeah, I don't think a dual mode is a good choice for the NEC. They only really make sense on short distance trains that go through both electrified and non-electrified trackage. Maybe it would work on trains like the Springfield and Virginia Regionals, but I still don't think it makes sense, especially considering (as PVD said) how new the ACS-64s are.


----------



## PVD (Sep 12, 2018)

If the Midwest states and California hadn't bought cars and power, that would be another possibility. But they did.


----------



## west point (Sep 12, 2018)

DMU / EMUs can have certain advantages..

1. The lower emissions in electrified territory can be realized.

2. Top speed in each mode is important. The EMU portion needs to be able to meet same MAS as regular electric services !

3. Quick seamless transistion from one mode is a big plus

3a. Whenever CAT on a section of electric becomes unpowered.

3b. Transistion when changing modes at track speed

3c. CAT wire just near stations might help timekeeping by allowing faster acceleration and regen braking. Might apply at locations with drastic permanent speed restrictions

4. Transistion onto routes with low demand secondary routes where CAT not financially viable. An example is New Haven to the southeast Mass coast. Also Harrisburgh route to branch routes. Harrisburg to Baltimore by the post road.


----------



## PVD (Sep 12, 2018)

A properly configured unit would bring a great deal to the table. I just don't see a way to make a solid economic case for the NEC when the ACS-64 are so recent an acquisition.


----------



## west point (Sep 12, 2018)

Clarification on our post. The NEC portion is only for branch line service originating on NEC. That is only if NEC portion under CAT can meet the 125 MAS in electric operation.


----------



## railiner (Sep 13, 2018)

west point said:


> Harrisburg to Baltimore by the post road.


I think you meant by the "Port Road".....unless you will add rubber tires to the DMU's....


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Sep 13, 2018)

railiner said:


> west point said:
> 
> 
> > Harrisburg to Baltimore by the post road.
> ...


Amtrak actually does run trains on the Post Road Branch, but it is a few hundred miles north on the route of the LSL.


----------



## Anderson (Sep 13, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> Its been rumored that Amtrak is talking to Stadler about possible order of DMU/EMUs for services such as NEC regionals. Here is an example of a EMU/DMU being tested in Europe for delivery late this year or next year to the UK.
> 
> It can run on catenary or diesel.


To play devil's advocate, in the case of the VA services you'd probably knock 15-20 minutes off of the time from VA to points north of DC. Considering that about half of VA's ridership goes through there, that isn't insignificant. You'd probably have to spend a few billion dollars to shake that much time savings out elsewhere. Being able to "single-seat" the remaining Shuttles in CT is something that CT might be willing to buy into as well. Finally, I do wonder if Amtrak has any room to (for example) use some reshuffled locomotives to do something with Keystones and Regionals at PHL? If Amtrak could have a 10-12 car train leave NYP (they've got plenty of tracks that can handle this) and then split/combine the train at PHL, that would let them pull a good chunk of revenue out of their existing HRT slots.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Sep 13, 2018)

Anderson said:


> Being able to "single-seat" the remaining Shuttles in CT is something that CT might be willing to buy into as well.


Not sure why they still have the Shuttles and CT Rail. However dont see any point of a single-seat of the Shuttles. Sure people do like the long single seat NEC regionals. But most shuttles were two coach cars. Taken up a extra slot into NYP for a very short train, just does not makes sense.

Cross platform transfer works. Branch line to main line.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Sep 13, 2018)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Being able to "single-seat" the remaining Shuttles in CT is something that CT might be willing to buy into as well.
> ...


If the shuttle consisted of DMUS it could relatively easily attach to the back of a Regional and run underpowered on the NEC.


----------



## cocojacoby (Sep 13, 2018)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> Just-Thinking-51 said:
> 
> 
> > Anderson said:
> ...


I was thinking the same thing. A DMU that had a front door that could attach and detach at New Haven would be ideal.


----------



## frequentflyer (Sep 13, 2018)

PVD said:


> Considering the young age of the ACS-64 it will be very tough to make an economic case to change the NEC to DMU/EMU at this point. Maybe some of the other corridors, where it would lower the number of new locos to be acquired.


So true, but the Sprinters are just Vectrons with new nose caps. Maybe buyers in Europe.

In any event, Anderson was talking to Stadler for a reason.


----------



## cpotisch (Sep 13, 2018)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> Just-Thinking-51 said:
> 
> 
> > Anderson said:
> ...


Yeah, but there are already two trains each way between NYP and Springfield every day. I don't think it's worth it to add in switching moves (however minor) for more one seat rides. JMO.


----------



## Triley (Sep 13, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> 
> 
> > Just-Thinking-51 said:
> ...


Even though it's something that could boost ridership, and provide additional seating on the corridor between the train's origin and New Haven?


----------



## west point (Sep 13, 2018)

Boost ridership ? Doubtful Have you ever wondered how many persons do not ride LIRR if they have to change at Jamaica ? The convivence of changing to MNRR or Amtrak at New Haven from every shuttle train is a distinct advantage !


----------



## jebr (Sep 13, 2018)

west point said:


> The convivence of changing to MNRR or Amtrak at New Haven from every shuttle train is a distinct advantage !


A one-seat ride on Amtrak from the Springfield shuttles to NYP wouldn't preclude someone from transferring to MNRR at New Haven if they wanted to. I wouldn't call being forced to transfer, in and of itself, a "distinct advantage." There may be operational reasons why it's overall better to have people transfer than to have a one-seat ride (it allows for schedules to "reset" instead of the train just getting later and later the longer it goes, and it can be more efficient to have people transfer) but if given a choice, all else being equal, a one-seat ride is preferred and, assuming timekeeping wouldn't suffer, would boost ridership.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Sep 13, 2018)

Any time a passenger has to transfer between trains, or between buses and trains, it discourages ridership. Transit riders love one seat service.


----------



## railiner (Sep 13, 2018)

MikefromCrete said:


> Any time a passenger has to transfer between trains, or between buses and trains, it discourages ridership. Transit riders love one seat service.


Strongly agree with this...

I live in what was known as a "two-fare" zone in a NYC "outer borough". To get into Manhattan, I have to take a local bus to reach the subway line. Sometime in the sixties, they introduced "express bus routes", which for a premium, even higher than the double local fare, gave people a comfortable one seat ride. These proved wildly popular with commuter's and shopper's...even for weekend trips for entertainment. A whole new network of these sprang up all over the city.

When the Metrocard came out, it eliminated the two fare zone, by giving one free bus to subway or vice versa, transfer. It mostly was successful for eliminating illegal "dollar cabs" taking people from bus stops to and from the subway, but had little impact on the express buses, which its partisans still preferred, for the comfortable one seat ride, even when seriously delayed by traffic.


----------



## PVD (Sep 14, 2018)

Some of of is aversion to the subways, we are on the same bus route, and quite a few people get on the QM4 the last 2 stops before Qns Blvd, and they are a short walk to the subway.


----------

