# Amfleet I Replacement



## Daniel (Oct 26, 2014)

Are there any concrete plans to replace/retrofit Amfleet I equipment at this point, perhaps with larger windows? I read that there is a RFP for 28 new High Speed Trainsets for the Northeast Corridor...would the Amfleet Is still be used if these new trainsets are delivered? I would imagine that the new trainsets would replace the Acelas/Regionals, but Amfleet Is would still run on routes like the Carolinian, Empire Service, Keystones, Adirondack, etc.


----------



## MattW (Oct 26, 2014)

A coach replacement is likely a ways off. The 28 trainsets would go toward replacing the Acelas and not the Amfleet equipment such as Regionals, Keystones, etc.


----------



## afigg (Oct 26, 2014)

The 28 new HSR trainsets would replace the Acela (Is) and expand the Acela class service with more daily trains. The Acela service generates enough revenue with an operating surplus that the 28 HSR trainsets, which we have been calling Acela II (completely unofficial), will pay for themselves.

Amtrak does have a long range fleet strategy plan to replace the Amfleet Is, the Amfleet II LD cars, the Superliners, and the P-42 diesels. But without at least some direct funding from Congress for equipment purchases, it is going to be quite difficult to place large orders for new equipment. There are ways to fund replacing the Amfleet I cars with the states in the east paying a capital charge for their supported corridor services and the operating surplus generated by the NE Regionals, but it won't be easy if Congress does not contribute partial funding for a large Amfleet I replacement order.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Oct 27, 2014)

Daniel said:


> Are there any concrete plans to replace/retrofit Amfleet I equipment at this point, perhaps with larger windows? ...


The plan is to replace everything, if Amtrak can raise the money, and in

the specs for Next Gen equipment, the windows are larger.

If you want to know more, the slightly dated Fleet Strategy is here:

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/36/921/2012-Amtrak-Fleet-Strategy-v3.1-%2003-29-12.pdf

You might want to jump to the heart of it on page 13, Build Rate.

Apparently Amtrak first thought it could buy 65 new single-level coaches

and cafes a year for the Eastern routes, and 35 a year of new bi-level

equipment for the West.

But feedback from suppliers, that is, would-be bidders, was that building

a minimum 100 cars a year of one type would be needed to generate

the maximum volume discount.

Reading between the lines, my take is, without a lot of help from Congress,

Amtrak perhaps could do 100 new cars a year -- 65 + 35 -- as in the first

Fleet Strategy document. But if Amtrak can only do 100 new cars a year,

and of only one type, then the single-level equipment will be replaced first.

The Western trains will just have to, uh, uh, write their Congresscritters,

or wait their turn until 600 or more new cars have been supplied to the East.

Meanwhile as you've noticed, except for the puny order for 130 diners,

bag cars, and sleepers from CAF, (and of course, for new Acelas) there's

no movement now to buy more stuff for either Eastern or Western trains.

There is an order from All Aboard Florida for 70 new coaches, that

Siemens will build. That is a launch order for new single-level equipment.

All Aboard Florida will have to eat the start-up costs for this manufacturing line,

because they have no way to get 70 coaches without buying them new.

Then Amtrak (or a few states supporting trains) could put out bids for

batches of up to 100 a year -- or for batches of 35 or 65 cars a year,

whatever they can afford -- that could be supplied by Siemens, CAF,

or another bidder. Amtrak and the states would simply pay a higher price

that way than if the orders were big enuff and long enuff to drive down

manufacturing costs.

Trusting in the wisdom of Congress, I expect Amtrak will be forced to pay

"small batch" prices rather than save with "high volume" prices.

YMMV.


----------



## Anderson (Oct 27, 2014)

The point about AAF is salient because, if I'm not mistaken, AAF has tentative plans to expand their orders beyond the initial sets of equipment. If I'm not mistaken, AAF's stuff is also going to be roughly compliant with Amtrak's high-level boarding specs, so it's entirely possible that if AAF's stuff either meets Buy American requirements or comes reasonably close (i.e. only minimal supplier tweaking and/or moving assembly locations around is needed to comply) Amtrak could piggyback on AAF's order in some fashion.


----------



## neroden (Oct 27, 2014)

AAF's order probably won't have traps (for stairs for low-level boarding). That rather restricts Amtrak's use of them; Amtrak would have to have a heavily modified order.

I know more and more high-level platforms are being built. But there are still low-level platforms with replacements not funded on the NEC, Keystone, and Empire corridors, to say nothing of Virginia service or the sleeper trains.

Ooh. And now I feel stupid.

I just figured out which moving part is present on the CAF diners/sleepers/bag-dorms and not on the pure baggage cars -- and is actually manufactured by CAF. I'll bet the traps are the problem which are delaying the rest of the order. There have been all kinds of problems with traps in the past, including being prone to water & snow infiltration and damage.


----------



## Guest (Oct 27, 2014)

A point of confusion is that although Amfleet-1s are older the -2s have much more mileage. Other than -1 trains 66 & 67 -2s rack up much more mileage since are all overnight trains so average mileage is much higher per month. The -2s are slated to be replaced first with them maybe going into spare car status ? -1s will have to wait.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Oct 27, 2014)

No matter what kind of cars are ordered, bigger windows will be required due to new safety requirements, i.e., making it easier to get people out of cars in an emergency.


----------



## xyzzy (Oct 27, 2014)

Not all Amfleet II are on overnight trains; the Palmetto is mostly Amfleet II. Some Amfleet I (e.g. the Carolinian) run 700 miles in one day. But I get your point.


----------



## jis (Oct 27, 2014)

My guess is that notwithstanding whatever the flavor of the day long term plan says, the reality is that the decision on which cars to replace first will be driven partly by the potential revenue that the new cars will bring. Afterall that most likely is what will have to pay for a significant part of the cars, absent significant grant based cash infusion from the feds or whoever. That taken together with maintenance cost profiles will determine which will happen in what order between Amfleet Is and IIs and anything else for that matter. The decision to deal with Acela first is completely consistent with this reality. The consequences of this reality may not be exactly consistent with what some of us might want.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Oct 27, 2014)

Anderson said:


> The point about AAF is salient because ... AAF has tentative plans to expand their orders beyond the initial sets of equipment. … AAF's stuff is also going to be roughly compliant with Amtrak's high-level boarding specs, so … if AAF's stuff either meets Buy American requirements ... Amtrak could piggyback on AAF's order in some fashion.


You got it.

From Railway Age, Sept 11, 2014 [with my arithmetic inserted]:

"The ‘modern single-level inter-city passenger cars’... would be assembled Sacramento using components manufactured across the USA, making them fully compliant with Buy America requirements.


"AAF plans to start operations with five trainsets, each formed of two diesel locomotives and four passenger coaches. [Total 5 x 4 = 20 coaches.] These will operate between Miami ... and West Palm Beach at the southern end of the route, where services are expected *to begin in 2016*. The trains would be extended to seven coaches [5 x 3 = 15 coaches] and five more train sets ordered [5 x 7 = 35 coaches, *Grand Total  20 + 15 + 35 = 70 coaches*] when the second phase is completed between West Palm Beach and Orlando ... Airport.

"... fully compliant with ADA accessibility requirements, and designed for level boarding without steps."

I can't believe the part about starting service in 2016, only two years after ordering the new cars. CAF has had four years since it got the order and not one car is yet in service. But anyway ...


----------



## rickycourtney (Oct 27, 2014)

WoodyinNYC said:


> I can't believe the part about starting service in 2016, only two years after ordering the new cars. CAF has had four years since it got the order and not one car is yet in service. But anyway ...


Last time I checked the Siemens built ACS-64 electric locomotives are being delivered on-time and on-budget. Unlike CAF, Siemens appears to run a tight ship, so it wouldn't surprise me if they also deliver AAF's passenger cars on-time and on-budget. 
In terms of new equipment for the Western trains... if Amtrak put out a bid right now I would expect that Sumitomo/Nippon Sharyo would win the bid. The states have already spent the money preparing a manufacturing line to build intercity cars. It would be significantly less expensive to convert that to build long distance cars than to build a new manufacturing line from scratch. That would in turn save Amtrak money.

Maybe I'm just pessimistic, but I just don't see Amtrak placing any serious orders in the years to come. That likely means they'll be stuck placing small orders and paying high prices to the lowest bidder.


----------



## jis (Oct 27, 2014)

One difference may be that CAF is building a more complex car designed by someone else, whereas Siemens will just be building a version of cars that they have designed and have already in production in Europe. Just a matter of setting up a new production line with some minor mods to match US requirements. Just a guess. But that is what I understand listening to the AAF folks on this matter.Since AAF is also not depending on the RRIF loan anymore the pressure to be Buy America compliant is eased considerably.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Oct 27, 2014)

jis said:


> My guess is that notwithstanding whatever the flavor of the day long term plan says, the reality is that the decision on which cars to replace first will be driven partly by the potential revenue that the new cars will bring. … The decision to deal with Acela first is completely consistent with this reality. The consequences of this reality may not be exactly consistent with what some of us might want.


The Eastern single-level trains may already have a positive operating result, namely the _Palmetto _(the Auto Train, of course, does not use single-level equipment); or they're getting close to break even, the _Carolinian_, _Meteor_, _Star_, _Lake Shore Ltd_, and probably the _Ethan Allen_, _Vermonter_, _Adirondack_, _Maple Leaf_, and _Pennsylvanian_; or they have modest but tolerable losses of $10 or $20 million or so, the _Cardinal_ and the _Crescent_. The results on most of these trains will soon improve when high-maintenance diners are replaced, and sleeper capacity increases by 60%.

Most of the Western trains, alas, count losses by the tens of millions.

I'm not playing favorites. I want a strong national system.

But my bet is they'll invest first in the Eastern trains: new coaches and cafes to expand capacity by one or two cars per train (so, 20 to 40 for that), take the _Cardinal _daily (5 or 10 more tops), to reduce maintenance and operating costs, and to give riders fresh modern trains. Perhaps if the tide is with us, add a Chicago-NYC train with daylight stops in Cleveland and Pittsburgh and that day train to Atlanta.

After somehow paying for 600 or more cars for the East, I'd expect a turn to the West.

But yes, YMMV.


----------



## Anderson (Oct 27, 2014)

It's also a good question as to how much trouble it would be to add the traps for the steps, too.

With that being said, at least as far as trains only going between WAS and NYP, I want to say that most or all of the stations have platforms that are all-high-level, and I think the same applies to the Keystone and Empire routes as far as Albany and Harrisburg, so Amtrak could in theory partially replace the NEC fleet. Fixing non-NEC stations to comply will be problematic; though it would at least be doable in theory, enough stations have platform setups that are not exactly friendly to all-high-level trains...though even at RVR, you could probably raise everything but a small area around the pedestrian crossing between platforms and the crossing plus "ramped" platform areas would be only about one car long (and besides, the main platform is something like 18 cars long, while the other platforms don't allow trains to be parked across the crossing for very long since that would block access to the main platform).


----------



## afigg (Oct 27, 2014)

WoodyinNYC said:


> The Eastern single-level trains may already have a positive operating result, namely the _Palmetto _(the Auto Train, of course, does not use single-level equipment); or they're getting close to break even, the _Carolinian_, _Meteor_, _Star_, _Lake Shore Ltd_, and probably the _Ethan Allen_, _Vermonter_, _Adirondack_, _Maple Leaf_, and _Pennsylvanian_; or they have modest but tolerable losses of $10 or $20 million or so, the _Cardinal_ and the _Crescent_. The results on most of these trains will soon improve when high-maintenance diners are replaced, and sleeper capacity increases by 60%.


You are mixing state supported trains with LD trains. With the eastern states now supporting all the off-NEC corridor services and the NEC commission working on a new funding arrangement for the NEC, really have to put a wall between the LD and corridor trains for funding, future equipment acquisition and planning.
The acquisition of Amfleet I replacements could and possibly likely will end up being completely separated from the acquisition of Amfleet II replacements which may result in orders from different vendors. If the states are providing some or much of the funding for Amfleet I replacements, they will ultimately decide what to order, not Amtrak. The Amfleet I could be replaced by Siemens built coach cars of Siemens own design. Amtrak could decide to order Amfleet II replacements based on the Viewliner II, so they would have a consistent type for the eastern LD fleet. Don't know how replacement orders for the Amfleet I and IIs (and P-42 diesels) are going to play out, but we need to recognize that the states DOTs will have a major role in the process. It is not just up to Amtrak management to decide, the FRA to oversee and Congress to provide the funds.

The Palmetto, Meteor, Star, etc are not operating at a surplus or getting close to "breaking even". Some of the eastern LD trains may be covering their direct costs, which is a useful metric when to comes to looking at possible service expansions. But until they cover their fully allocated costs which includes all the overhead, they are losing money. Period. For the first 11 months of FY14, the Palmetto has a fully allocated operating loss of $9.3 million, the Silver Meteor $27 million.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Oct 27, 2014)

afigg said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> > The Eastern single-level trains may already have a positive operating result, namely the _Palmetto _(the Auto Train, of course, does not use single-level equipment); or they're getting close to break even, the _Carolinian_, _Meteor_, _Star_, _Lake Shore Ltd_, and probably the _Ethan Allen_, _Vermonter_, _Adirondack_, _Maple Leaf_, and _Pennsylvanian_; or they have modest but tolerable losses of $10 or $20 million or so, the _Cardinal_ and the _Crescent_. The results on most of these trains will soon improve when high-maintenance diners are replaced, and sleeper capacity increases by 60%.
> ...


Seems like Amtrak has been cooperating with the states for many years,

conspicuously so in developing the specs for Next Gen locomotive and

rolling stock. In the Midwest, now Illinois, Michigan, and Missouri are buying

new bi-level cars from Nippon-Sharyo for their state-supported services

that will probably be operated by Amtrak. They will enjoy various economies

from sharing common equipment. Why should Amtrak and the states not

cooperate to their mutual benefit in the future?

In addition, the bi-levels designed for corridor service apparently could be

easily tweaked for long distance cars. Nippon Sharyo hasn't won the bidding

for long distance bi-level cars for the Western trains, but it will have a big

head start. So yes, I'll mix the _Lincoln_ service with the _Texas Eagle_. I'm

betting that in 15 years they could both have consists of bi-level coaches

from Nippon Sharyo.

In much the same way, I expect that in 20 years the cars on the _Vermonter_

and the _Regionals_, on the_ Ethan Allen_ and the _Lake Shore Ltd_, on the

_Adirondack_ and the _Cardinal_, on the _Pennsylvanian_ and the _Silvers_ will be

basically the same, certainly built to the same Next Gen specs, possibly

from the same manufacturer, and serviced in the same Amtrak yards.

And no, I'm not seeing any wall between the LD and corridor trains that
wasn't there already. Each of the equipment orders since the Stimulus money
came has been an individual collage of planning and funding, and I don't
expect that process somehow to change to smooth cookie cutter patterns.
If North Carolina doesn't want to pay to use Amtrak's new equipment and
chooses to buy their own from Amtrak's supplier, so what? But I'm sure
that Amtrak won't let state-supported trains with consists of old cars
that can't keep up even get on the NEC.

Perhaps I missed the proper terms to describe the results of the Eastern
trains and the Western trains. However, unless you are really intent on
deliberately missing my point, it doesn't much matter. The point is, the losses
on each and every one of the Eastern trains is *much* lower than the losses
of any of the Western trains. Closing the gap between current losses and
break-even or positive results, however defined, labeled, or measured will
be much easier on the Eastern trains. I expect that Amtrak will try to close
the easier gap, then turn to the problems of the Western trains down the line.


----------



## Anderson (Oct 27, 2014)

States on the extended NEC are a special case since Amtrak controls most of the tracks from WAS to ALB, SPG, and BOS as well as HAR-PHL. NC could tell Amtrak to get lost and use whatever they want equipment-wise as far as the Piedmont goes, but not the Carolinian (unless they're willing to truncate service to WAS).

With that being said, my best guess is that if Amtrak tries to get rid of the Amfleet Is (rather than retaining them as surge capacity, for example), they'll face a lot of pressure from states, other operators, and (I sincerely hope) Congress to sell them rather than scrap them...and it'll be pretty hard for Amtrak to deny access on the NEC to trains using equipment Amtrak is (presumably) still using in any quantity.


----------



## Barciur (Oct 27, 2014)

Anderson said:


> I want to say that most or all of the stations have platforms that are all-high-level, and I think the same applies to the Keystone and Empire routes as far as Albany and Harrisburg, so Amtrak could in theory partially replace the NEC fleet.


That's not exactly true as far as Keystone is concerned. Ardmore, Paoli, Downingtown, Coatesville, Parkesburg, Mt Joy and Middletown are all low-level platforms that require steps.


----------



## Anderson (Oct 28, 2014)

Ok, that's my bad on the Keystone. I know that Albany is high-level. Ditto Yonkers, and I think the others on the Hudson line are.


----------



## neroden (Oct 28, 2014)

So, just for fun, I worked out which stations have high platforms and which have low platforms.

On the Empire Corridor, it's high in Metro-North territory (NY Penn through Poughkeepsie), but north of that, the only high platforms are Albany, Schenectady (coming soon), Syracuse, and Rochester (coming soon). In particular, Rhinecliff and Hudson still have low platforms.

On the Adirondack, Montreal has high platforms but everything in between there and Schenectady does not.

On the Keystone, there are *plans* for high platforms everywhere from Harrisburg to Philadelphia, but they aren't *funded*. (Barclur listed the unfunded stations.)

On the NEC itself, the low-level stations are:

Westerly, RI

Mystic, CT

Cornwells Heights, PA

Newark, DE (there are plans for this but they keep changing and being delayed)

Aberdeen, MD (I found a 2012 study for "Aberdeen Station Square")

and of course *some* of the tracks at DC Union.

There seem to be no plans for high-level platforms at Westerly, Mystic, or Cornwells Heights.

The Springfield corridor is all low-level. The commuter rail funding is only going to build high-levels as far north as Berlin. Springfield itself should also get high-levels as part of the endlessly delayed station reconstruction project. (It is hoped that the unfunded highway relocation project in Hartford will involve high-levels there. This still leaves Windsor and Windsor Locks unfunded, though!)

In short, there is a lot of platform work necessary before Amtrak can run all-stops service on trains without traps, on any corridor.



afigg said:


> The Palmetto, Meteor, Star, etc are not operating at a surplus or getting close to "breaking even". Some of the eastern LD trains may be covering their direct costs, which is a useful metric when to comes to looking at possible service expansions. But until they cover their fully allocated costs which includes all the overhead, they are losing money.


How can I put this politely?

****.

I apparently understand more about the economics of business lines than you do.

When you talk about an operation "losing money", what do you mean? I believe the actual question is:

"If we discontinued this operation, would the bottom line

(a) improve (i.e. the operation is "losing money" for us)

(b) get worse (i.e. the operation is "making money" for us)

?"

For a train which is covering its avoidable costs, the answer is that discontinuing it would make the bottom line worse -- the train is "making money".

Direct costs are nowhere near a perfect proxy for avoidable costs, but they're the best I've seen. They're certainly a better proxy than "fully allocated costs", which are nonsense.

Larding services up with overhead is bad accounting when you're making business decisions. There are clear case studies of several railroads which made *bad business decisions* based on looking at *profitable* lines which appeared unprofitable after they'd been larded up with overhead. They kept cutting the supposedly "unprofitable" lines, each time they did this, their bottom line got worse.

It is a terrible, terrible business mistake to look at the operations that way. That's why I speak so strongly about it.

Now, do the Star, Meteor, and Palmetto as a *group* "make money"? I'm not actually sure -- since nobody's released direct-costs numbers for fiscal years after 2012 -- but likely not. You could close a lot of stations and thus eliminate some overhead costs if you discontinued *all three* of them. (Though you'd have to relocate Hialeah; so many overhead costs would not go away.) *Individually*, however, the Palmetto and Meteor make money. You can't reasonably count the shared costs towards either one of them individually if you're considering whether to discontinue that one or not.

Here's another way to see why your thinking is simply wrong. Suppose you have three services which which you are claiming "lose money". Suppose you add a fourth service, with the *same* variable costs and the *same* revenues as each of the other three, and now all four of the services "make money". Does this make any sense? No.

What's really going on is that all the services were "making money" all along -- they just weren't making enough money to cover overhead. Expansion of services allowed overhead to be covered. That's the correct way to look at it if you're looking at it as a business matter.

Another way to put it: if you cancelled the entire eastern long-distance network, the cost of the reservations system (which is partly "allocated" to them) would... remain exactly the same and be reallocated to other trains. Whoops.

The only legitimate purpose of overhead allocation is when figuring out how much of a markup you need to charge when doing *contract services*. If you do nothing but contract services, then your markup over avoidable costs on each contract has to include an amount to cover overhead, and to be fair to your customers, you want to spread it evenly over all of them. If you underestimate the number of contracts you're going to get this year, you'll underallocate the overhead and lose money; if you overestimate the number of contracts you're going to get this year, you'll overallocate the overhead and gain money. But it's still a useful tool for this purpose. As such, I'm not going to complain about Amtrak's allocation of overhead to the state-contracted trains; it's an attempt to get the states to cover part of the overhead costs, and it's a negotiated result.

By contrast, if you're running operations on your own account, allocating overhead is silliness and leads to bad business decisions. Please note that Amtrak is running the long-distance trains and the NEC on its own account.

This overhead allocation is the same idiotic thinking which causes people to claim that "Amtrak loses $XXX on every passenger, so if they get more passengers they'll lose more money". It really, really doesn't work that way, and it's misleading to think about it that way.

From a business point of view, what is going on with the best-performing eastern "long distance" trains is that they are profitable to operate, but have very low gross margins. So they do not contribute much to the extremely large overhead of running a railroad. (This seems to be the current problem on the Palmetto, Meteor, and LSL.)

By contrast, a bunch of the western trains seem to be nowhere close to covering their variable costs.

I don't know what the situation was back when David Gunn foolishly cancelled the Three Rivers. It's possible that it was actually losing money, since it seems like all the trains had lower ridership back in 2004. Or maybe it wasn't. It would certainly be making money now. Would the "fully allocated" numbers show that? Depends on what arbitrary allocation procedure was used.

You can make any train look unprofitable by screwing around with overhead allocation. It's not real, it's just confusing. What is real is that some trains have much better gross margins than others. But Amtrak is no longer publishing numbers which allow us to work out the gross margins.


----------



## neroden (Oct 28, 2014)

Hmm. I'll try to put this less confrontationally:

Good business sense says that the NY-Chicago services should be expanded, with capital improvements. The demand is clearly there, even at high ticket prices and even with delays. The LSL probably has positive gross margins at this point (it's hard to tell); adding additional service with positive gross margins improves the bottom line. The network effect will also improve ridership & revenue on all connecting lines.

Good business sense says that the NY-Florida services should be expanded, with capital improvements. The demand is clearly there, even at high ticket prices and even with delays. The existing service as a whole probably has positive gross margins at this point (it's hard to tell); adding additional service with positive gross margins improves the bottom line. The network effect will also improve ridership & revenue on all connecting lines.

Good business sense says that West Coast - Chicago services should NOT be expanded, and that money put into capital improvements would NOT help. The demand does not seem to be there, even when the trains are running on time, and even with arguably low prices. The existing services have substantial negative gross margins. Adding additional service with negative gross margins makes the bottom line worse. The network effect would still improve ridership & revenue on connecting lines, but given how negative the gross margins are, this probably isn't enough to compensate.

Furthermore, expansion is currently very difficult and expensive on the other service Amtrak operates on its own account -- the NEC. The returns on expanding Acela are expected to be positive. But NE Regional service probably can't be expanded much even with more cars; expensive trackwork is needed.

So: there is a straightforward dollars-and-cents business case for buying new Viewliners. They will pay for themselves quickly. Amtrak's choice to spend its free cash on this was pure dollars and cents. With positive gross margins, if a shortage of Viewliners causes a train to be cancelled (or worse, causes it to run with too few cars on a high demand day), this is lost money for Amtrak.

But there is a much worse business case for buying new Superliners (except perhaps on the Auto Train). If a shortage of Superliners causes a train to be cancelled, Amtrak probably actually comes out ahead at the end of the year.


----------



## jis (Oct 28, 2014)

I generally agree with the points you make. Couple of minor observations:

1. The NE Regionals can be uniformly expanded to 10 or 11 cars if more cars become available, involving no additional track work. That would be increasing capacity by a third. And most of the additional revenue will be additional cash since there will be minimal additional staffing involved - one additional assistant conductor per train AFAICT.

2. Agree fully about eastern LDs. Among the LDs they are a potential gold mine that Amtrak is sitting on, and rightfully the first replacement and expansion rolling stock that they ordered is to beef them up some.


----------



## xyzzy (Oct 28, 2014)

The Silvers run with 10-12 car consists compared to 15-18 in the Heritage Fleet era. It's typical for the trains to be sold out at some point along their routes. The Crescent also had a significantly longer consist prior to Amfleet II. Whether the financial performance of these trains would improve with longer consists is unclear; it depends on what happens to the average selling price of a ticket for longer consists and the capital and maintenance charges for the incremental cars. But my guess is, the trains' financial performance would improve with longer consists -- at least during the high and shoulder seasons for these trains.


----------



## afigg (Jul 16, 2015)

Came across this RFP on the Amtrak Procurement Portal website in the non-construction category: Engineering Assessment - Amfleet Passenger Cars which was posted on July 15 and will be open until July 24. No information beyond this:



> REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL * Engineering Assessments (Amfleet Passenger Cars) * Description: Engineering Assessment to determine the life expectancy of Amtrak's Amfleet Passenger Cars. A Non-Disclosure Agreement must be executed to ensure you receive all relevant documents. * Amtrak will accept proposals for the following procurement until 2:00 PM Eastern Time on the closing date stated below: * RFP Number: Doc672157 * Proposal Closing Date: 8/14/15


So Amtrak is looking for a company to provide an independent engineering assessment of the remaining life expectancy of the Amfleet cars. May be doing this as input for the next release or update of the Fleet Strategy Plan.


----------



## west point (Jul 16, 2015)

Several points

1. Hate the necessity for a study on the Amfleet life expectancy but study will quiet persons who try to claim Amtrak is not telling truth about needed replacement or major overhaul..

2. Amfleet - 2s have a much higher mileage than -1s. See fleet strategy plan. So expect new coaches ( V-2s ? ) to replace them on LD first with many of the -2s going to the NEC.

3. Neurodem is on point about the eastern LD services. First of course is making Meteor, Star, & Palmetto all 15 - 17 car trains all to Miami during higher travel times. The number of passengers at TPA exceeds Atlanta by a large amount.

4. The same with the LSL with provision to run a split second section Albany - CHI whenever loads demand.

5. Daily Cardinal appears to be effective maybe starting during summers ?

6. The Crescent situation is a real bucket of worms. There is just not the demand south of Atlanta. The PRIIA study confirms the numbers.

7. Somehow Amtrak needs to solve the Atlanta situation. probably would require 1 to 2 additional track switches and a local switch crew.

8. Drop ATL _ NOL down to 2 - Coaches a lounge, 1 sleeper, baggage, & 1 reliable loco would decrease operating costs. The Mardi Gras load bump could easily be cover with more cars & loco if necessary.

9. Atlanta north as well might need 2 - 3 locos, Baggage, baggage dorm, 6 - 7 coaches, diner, lounge, 4 - 5 sleepers. These are based on past loads for SOU RR during high traffic times. Also SOU often ran 1 - 2 extra sections at Holidays. Note. All these southbound LD trains might originate / terminate cars at WASH / PHL as done past practices to solve any NYP space problems.


----------



## MattW (Jul 16, 2015)

The problem with #8 is the insane amount of time required to switch out 2 coaches, the diner, a sleeper and a locomotive.


----------



## neroden (Jul 16, 2015)

afigg said:


> Came across this RFP on the Amtrak Procurement Portal website in the non-construction category: Engineering Assessment - Amfleet Passenger Cars which was posted on July 15 and will be open until July 24. No information beyond this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Kind of absurd that they need an outside consultant to answer that question, and don't have sufficiently trusted in-house engineering expertise -- but at least we'll have a clear and convincing answer next time Amtrak goes to Congress or the FRA or the states.


----------



## afigg (Jul 16, 2015)

neroden said:


> Kind of absurd that they need an outside consultant to answer that question, and don't have sufficiently trusted in-house engineering expertise -- but at least we'll have a clear and convincing answer next time Amtrak goes to Congress or the FRA or the states.


Not absurd at all. Even if Amtrak had highly trusted in-house engineering expertise, they should still have an outside consultant firm provide an independent assessment report to be provided to the Amtrak board, Congress, the NEC Commission and the eastern states. A replacement order for 650 to 700 single level cars to replace the 145 Amfleet IIs and circa 463 Amfleet Is will cost roughly around $2 billion or more. To make a case for either service life extemsion of the current Amfleets or replacing them, should have an outside consultant or firm provide an independent assessment to guide the decision process.


----------



## Anderson (Jul 17, 2015)

Well, and there's a valid question as to how to handle potential expansion/follow-on orders as well, not to mention how much they want to differentiate between LD coaches, short-distance coaches, and intermediate-distance cars for some of the routes with lots of very long-haul ridership (e.g. the Palmetto, Adirondack, Vermonter-to-Montreal, and so on...this differentiation was envisioned back in the 70s IIRC).

I think it is also fair to say that even if Amtrak isn't hot on a full-on replacement order, some sort of supplementary order is going to be needed sooner or later both to replace cars breaking down due to age and to cover expansions of state routes (e.g. Vermont, Virginia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania's plans). A more modest order of, say, 200 cars is probably going to be needed at some point even if Amtrak doesn't opt for full-on replacement.

To clarify, going with state rail plans and the like...

(1) Vermont very much wants two trains to Burlington (one an extended Ethan Allen, one operating via Bennington) and the timeline on that is, I believe, the next decade or so. Vermont wants two Vermonters operating to/from Montreal, but the timeframe there is a bit longer. The extended Ethan Allen shouldn't affect equipment availability much, but the Bennington train will require one or two additional trainsets. The second Vermonter will require two sets, but that is a longer-term issue.

(2) Virginia has three service extensions penned in within the next 3-5 years. One is the Lynchburger going to Roanoke (no new equipment needed), one is a second train to Lynchburg (equipment need depends on the schedule picked; if a "commuter" schedule is picked, nothing will be needed, but a "reverse-peak" schedule would grab at least one net set), and one is the two additional trains to Norfolk (no new equipment needed).

However, outside that timeframe VA is likely to move heavily into adding four more trains between either Richmond or Hampton Roads and Washington, which is likely to need at least some extra equipment (if only because of how that is likely to impact equipment turns), and VA will likely need to buy additional equipment as well, if only to help offset capital equipment charges.

(3) North Carolina may be able to eke out another round-trip or two between Charlotte and Raleigh with scrounged equipment, but they ALSO want to add four round-trips CLT-NYP. The timeframe here is a bit longer, but unlike VA (which can mostly "get away with" extending Regionals for a little longer), NC will need about eight trainsets plus spares.

(4) Pennsylvania is likely to at least add some Keystones at some point down the line. The ridership situation there has been steady-to-increasing over time (year-over-year growth there is running at about 3.5-4%/year over the last few years). There's also the complicated issue of additional service to Pittsburgh (at a bare minimum, the Pennsylvanian seems to be closing in on needing additional seats).

(5) Though there's no timeframe on it, New York does want to add a number of trains along at least the New York-Albany and New York-Albany-Buffalo runs.

(6) The NEC is also slamming into intermittent capacity issues. To take an example from today (that is, Friday July 17), 14 of 21 trains show nothing but "flexible" fares at $169 for coach available WAS-NYP. NYP-WAS it's 11 of 21, with a 12th sold out of coach entirely. Granted this is a Friday in July, but on Monday (July 20) 5 of 20 NYP-WAS trains are in that boat as well. Stepping aside from this anecdote, Regional ridership has surged ahead strongly over the last decade with no new capacity; at some point, additional equipment will be needed. This might simply be for adding 9th and 10th cars (maybe even 11th/12th in some cases) to trains (particularly on NEC-North) as opposed to adding frequencies (though Amtrak has the right to add a few Regionals near the peaks on NEC-South as well), but additional seats will help here regardless.

The one thing moderating the NEC situation in the short term is the Acela II order, which (should it happen, and I see little reason for it not to) ought to take a million pax or so off of the Regionals (albeit at the cost of knocking PPR for a bit of a loop on both services, though doing so would likely induce some ridership that Amtrak is beginning to run off with skyrocketing prices). Lack of frequency on NEC-North is also helping keep demand in check (38x daily trains WAS-NYP vs. 18x daily trains NYP-BOS; more crucially, 21x Regionals vs. 9x Regionals), though even this effect seems to be weakening.

Ergo, a supplemental coach order seems inevitable. More to the point, with more states getting into the train business it seems likely that there will be a push to work out some sort of "standard" equipment order that states can place so as to get into the "NEC pool" with their equipment orders (i.e. so that VA can order a few sets for their Regionals and have Amtrak willing to take the sets as part of their Regional equipment pool) even if those orders aren't immediate (e.g. Pennsylvanians, Vermonters, etc.).


----------



## Anderson (Jul 17, 2015)

Dealing with the LD stuff as a separate point...

If recent numbers are any indication, LD sleeper ridership is exceedingly resilient (basically, if the train runs and isn't catastrophically late, sleeper pax will book it) and (as I've mentioned before, and I think Amtrak probably has data to back this up) could probably be substantially grown, capacity-permitting. One thing that I think the data bears out (and the Iowa Pacific people said this point blank when I got to chat with them over the winter) is that people will happily take a one-night trip as a matter of course. A two-night trip is trickier and begins to fall into the realm of "strictly leisure" travel by-and-large.[1]

At the moment, the Florida trains are largely constrained by capacity (often, demand from the Meteor will spill over onto the Star and vice-versa; I've wound up on one versus the other because of space availability more than once). I strongly suspect that adding a sleeper to each will be successful; the Meteor might well be able to handle substantially more (the Star is in a tough spot because of its times on the NEC; it loses a lot of riders because it doesn't arrive into NYP until late enough in the day that the legal connection to the north is 66...not to mention its extended runtime into Miami). One of the big problems is that while these trains could probably sport a lot more capacity, demand obviously fluctuates on a day-to-day basis (based on Amsnag results, demand rises around the weekends while it tends to run slack on Tuesday, Wednesday, and is lighter on the Star on Thursday).

Basically, there's a clear business case for seriously ramping up the sleepers on the Florida trains. The coach picture is more complicated for a host of reasons (coach rarely sells out compared to the sleepers; I've got no coach sellouts WAS-DLD [2] over the next 30 days versus not being able to find a roomette in the next few days on any train; a quick check, however, shows that in a non-trivial number of cases, this is due to sleeper pax north of Richmond [3]), but there is probably room to add some additional capacity. [4]

I suspect the same applies to the Cap (in spite of the ridership hit said train has suffered) and LSL. A lot of the ridership issues there have more to do with the roving disaster area that various Western LD trains have been...as well as, of course, the infamous NS meltdown last year.

The Auto Train is one particularly sore point here: There is clearly room to add to the service with a longer/higher-capacity train, but practical considerations prevent that, while a second frequency runs into practical issues (not least of which being facility limits at Lorton and Sanford).

Anyhow, the short version IMHO is that there's room for a modest coach order to supplement the eastern LD trains. Most of the additions should probably be sleepers, however, rather than coaches since that's where the demand seems to be steady. Looking back over the last few decades, sleeper ridership SEEMS to have only tumbled in the face of either catastrophic OTP or a capacity cut. Coach ridership has been a more complicated animal for long-distance trips...and the phenomenon of two-night coach trips seems to be basically going away with time. [5]

Funding permitting, were I in Amtrak's shoes I'd aim to get a supplemental coach order in (possibly pushing towards 150 long(er)-distance single-level cars and moving the LD Amfleets over to the state trains and/or switching the CONO to single-level as an interim measure; for example, I think 66/67 would benefit from being switched over) while trying to hit another round of 25-50 single-level sleeping cars (and possibly some cafes or diners intended for table car use, if only to supplement table capacity in what are likely to be increasingly stressed dining cars).




[1] As a handy example...my Florida trips wouldn't be happening nearly as much if I lived in the Midwest, and trying to go bungee jumping in Arizona is a scheduling nightmare (basically that becomes a one-week trip for a day or two of fun). As it is, taking the train to Florida is on par with flying in terms of convenience (I'd lose half a day having to connect in Atlanta or Charlotte, for example) and beats the crap out of it in terms of comfort.

[2] Why am I using Deland and not Orlando? Because I take the train to Deland quite frequently and am most familiar with that pair.

[3] About 1/4 of the time roomettes would be sold out WAS-DLD but not RVR-DLD. The ratio seems to be slightly higher with bedrooms. It would seem that I have increasingly triggered a trend.

[4] There aren't any sellouts, but coach seats WAS-DLD end up in higher buckets a LOT more often than seats RVR-DLD. Particularly on the Star, this is in line with my observations (there is a TON of turnover at RVR, with 30+ pax boarding the NB Star not uncommon).

[5] For example, the Western LD trains have seen major losses in terms of coach ridership but I see nothing to indicate that the sleepers have suffered matching losses; if anything, sleeper ridership seems to be as strong as ever for the most part. The exception seems to be on the Silvers, which I believe lost capacity due to the small size of the Viewliner order and the phasing out of Heritage equipment.


----------



## west point (Jul 17, 2015)

All posters need to read Anderson very carefully. His posts have taken the time to analyze the eastern traffic situation very closely. The fact of higher loads on weekends needs especially important study. More cars will allow fill the weekend demand and leave the un needed mid week cars time to get more Preventative maintenance.

However would make the Capitol a single level train. That would easily allow for thru cars to / from Pennsylvanian and possibly Florida. A Viewliner lounge on the Capitol would provide views close to a SL lounge. The SL cars released could allow for spares say SEA or other end points . The only problem is putting more single level cars in the black hole of CHI maintenance.

*Matt: Agree that switching cars in and out at ATL would take time, By having a switch located mid- train and the switcher working at the rear of train and lead loco handling part of switching the time could be significantly reduced.*


----------



## Ryan (Jul 17, 2015)

Still no place to keep the layover cars. This is dead until the station moves.


----------



## west point (Jul 17, 2015)

Although not ideal the Atlantic Steel siding at the Atlanta station can be used for car storage if 480V HEP is added.. Note: the siding is used every Monday - Thursday in January when the Crescent is cancelled from ATL - NOL for NS maintenance. The siding would also be used for switching in and out of excess cars when Crescent runs normally. Underneath the Atlanta station are the 2 main tracks and the Steel siding which is no longer used otherwise.


----------



## railiner (Jul 17, 2015)

afigg said:


> Came across this RFP on the Amtrak Procurement Portal website in the non-construction category: Engineering Assessment - Amfleet Passenger Cars which was posted on July 15 and will be open until July 24. No information beyond this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Other than being 'old'....what's the biggest problem with the Amfleet cars (I and II)? They sure seem solid to me. Like all Budd built cars, with minimal maintenance they seem like they can go on forever.....


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jul 17, 2015)

railiner said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> > Came across this RFP on the Amtrak Procurement Portal website in the non-construction category: Engineering Assessment - Amfleet Passenger Cars which was posted on July 15 and will be open until July 24. No information beyond this:
> ...


They are starting to take on the elements and some their components are obsolete and falling apart. In the not too distant future, servicing them will become an extremely expensive proposition.

They have some life in them but it is time to look down the road. Amtrak has a bunch of grandiose plans (that I obviously can't list here but if anyone reading this thread was part of the passenger "test" group this week, feel free to chime in) to address some of the stuff Anderson mentioned in the short term, but it would cost quite a bit of money to give the Amfleets the sort of overhaul they have in mind.


----------



## west point (Jul 17, 2015)

The big problem with Amfleets and to a certain extent the V-1s is a lack of modular design, Overhaul of the Amfleet -1s would probably entail a modular replacement design. That way new parts could be inserted into Manufactured discontinued parts locations. AC units and LED lights are a couple examples.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 17, 2015)

west point said:


> Several points
> 
> 1.
> 
> ...


So we need the option order from CAF for more Viewliner sleepers. Getting the 25 sleepers in the current order, plus 10 bag-dorms (equal to 5 full sleepers) will get a nice 60% capacity increase over the [ 25 wrong - correction: ] *50 *now operating, but exercising part of the option could bring a 100% capacity increase, or better.

Last year Neroden and another expert or two here hashed out the figures for revenues and costs on Viewliner sleepers, and concluded, iirc, that each additional sleeper would net $1 or $2 million a year. Sure, at some point the returns would decline, but probably not until well after 25 more Viewliners were added to the fleet.

I guess the major hesitation to adding even more sleepers is the cost question of buying and operating more diners. If Amtrak can't get those costs down, as promised, there'd seem to be some maximum on how many diner-less trains could be filled.


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL (Jul 17, 2015)

Well here goes my "if I were CEO".... I'd expand the contract with CAF for enough veiwliner coaches to replace the amfleet 2s, get rid of the worst amfleet 1s or just add capacity with the amfleet 2s.... Order a replacement for amfleet 1s and make the specs in favor of Siemens... Use loans/leases to cover procurement and hold on to the amfleet in best condition to help cover procurement costs... Congress tends to fund debt service fairly well and Amtrak can easily sell extra space on most corridors... But that's just my opinion...


----------



## Anderson (Jul 17, 2015)

A couple of points do come to mind on the diner front. I don't think you're going to want to run "dinerless" trains, but shifting to a model where you book your meal in advance (or at least book that you'll be eating in advance) rather than it being assumed? That's something that could easily get you a fifth sleeper on a dining car. That's why I've also mentioned using space in an additional car (perhaps have a diner as a first-class lounge _a la_ the PPC, for sleeper pax, and a coach lounge; the first-class lounge can be used for substantial added diner capacity) and some other options to at least improve the cost ratios...and why I've seriously looked into various accounting moves that could be used to cram down losses there.

To put it another way, if you can produce substantial direct operating margins on some trains it may be possible to get Congress off Amtrak's back on those trains. A Meteor that is producing $5-10m in positive cash flow (which is about what a 6-7 sleeper Meteor would likely produce) is something that Amtrak can probably either (A) defend nominal diner losses in light of overall profitability or (B) tinker with accounting to produce a phantom break-even scenario. My money is, of course, on (B).

(By the way, on the baggage/bag-dorm front? I got a look inside the baggage car of the Meteor a few weeks back while the train was at a stop since I was in the 9712 sleeper and the bag was next door...no, I did not go inside...and let's just say that I can see why Amtrak backed away from getting bag-dorms alone for many trains)


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 18, 2015)

Anderson said:


> Well, and there's a valid question as to how to handle potential expansion/follow-on orders as well, not to mention how much they want to differentiate between LD coaches, short-distance coaches, and intermediate-distance cars for some of the routes with lots of very long-haul ridership (e.g. the Palmetto, Adirondack, Vermonter-to-Montreal, and so on...this differentiation was envisioned back in the 70s IIRC).
> 
> ... fair to say that even if Amtrak isn't hot on a full-on replacement order, some sort of supplementary order is going to be needed sooner or later both to replace cars breaking down due to age and to cover expansions of state routes (e.g. Vermont, Virginia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania's plans). ...
> 
> ...


----------



## Anderson (Jul 18, 2015)

Two general points:
(1) Louisville-Atlanta showed up as part of an "Atlanta Hub" study that also included Charlotte-Atlanta, Birmingham-Atlanta, and Jacksonville/Savannah-Atlanta. Suffice it to say that the costs for the project (envisioned as HSR of some sort) were rather spectacular.
(2) Virginia may be behind such a proposal, but unless Tennessee and the other states get onboard with it in a serious way you have a non-starter. VA may pay for a train that goes down to, say, Johnson City or Knoxville. VA is not going to pay for a train that is sprawling hundreds of miles outside the state.

The problem, ultimately, is that while VA is the driving force, VA also has major projects to keep itself busy for YEARS right now. The most optimistic situation would be that the RVR-WAS study is complete in 2017 alongside the Roanoke extension, second Lynchburger, and Norfolk trains 2 and 3. By about 2021-22 (assuming everything works out...and with CSX that is anything but a given) I could see that phase being mostly done...but you're probably looking at a case of VA having leveraged a lot of the available funding to make it happen (including using future revenues to underwrite a loan/bond issue...IPROC funding could be used, for example, to lock in an RRIF loan for a good portion of the $1.8bn that RVR-WAS is expected to cost).

At that point, you'll probably see four things looked at:
-The TDX (Norfolk-Richmond-Charlottesville-Roanoke-Bristol)
-An additional train to Lynchburg/Roanoke and/or extension to Bristol
-Richmond-Raleigh service
-Additional Hampton Roads trains

Of the three, I think the TDX is (sadly) the weakest of the three options. Unlike the Richmond-Raleigh service (which is likely to end up in the black and be a stronger competitor for federal funding) it looks like a fiscal hole, and unlike additional Western service there isn't likely to be the demand for it (there's a respectable chance that ridership on the second Lynchburg train simply swamps the service, particularly if you get a reliable commuter frequency out of Charlottesville in the deal). And I can easily see a situation where Hampton Roads ends up meriting additional service to hande all sorts of markets (e.g. trains timed for a Richmond-centric commuter market; I've known people driving from Williamsburg into Richmond most of my life, and you've definitely got a number of them out in northern James City County).

At its core, the TDX is a "Parliamentary train": Its primary merit comes in the form of serving SW Virginia so as to ensure that the region is reasonably pro-rail, but there is nothing saying that this won't be accomplished simply by extending a single train at some strange hour out to Bristol. This is not to say that there is no merit to the service (it would plug a key gap in service in the state), but it is likely not to measure up in many respects to the other proposals and IIRC it is estimated to run a rather large deficit. Granted, those numbers are old...but at the same time, they're also the best ones I have to work with and I suspect that neither the operational estimates nor the required improvements will make anyone's heart flutter.

Basically, I can see this all happening...just not on a particularly foreseeable timescale.

===== ===== ===== ===== =====

Edit: Figured I'd add a bit more. I've got a tangle of views on the equipment situation, some of which I've elaborated on in the past. The Superliners have been a functional success but a political disaster: They increased the capacity of the Western trains (the Southwest Chief probably carries more passengers today than did the Super Chief/El Capitan in the late 60s) and quite possibly saved them from becoming such deep fiscal holes that they would have been dropped due to the losses. However, they also split the country in two whereby a Viewliner order is an "Eastern" order and a Superliner order is a "Western" order. The sheer cost of either order being of sufficient size to be feasible (a minimum order size of 50 cars translates into about $125m for a single-level order and $200m for a bilevel order) puts Amtrak in a tricky position, since it really isn't workable to place both at the same time (and the fleet strategy plan is rather unrealistic at the moment). The result is that you can't exactly fund any single order with a broad political consensus behind it.

To be fair, bilevel coaches make a lot of sense for high-density corridor routes (e.g. the Midwest, California); they'd make sense across the board, but operational issues in the NEC prevent that from happening. The sleepers are a harder issue since you have 5-7 LD trains that are going to be stuck as single-level trains.

Where does this leave us? Well, an order of 50 Superliner sleepers would more than cover an extra sleeper for each Superliner train as well as allowing for a Daily Sunset. 50 Viewliners (on top of the present order of 25) would seriously risk over-saturating the market in the East. [1] More long-distance bilevel coaches seem unnecessary at the moment (Amtrak is going to have a batch of those freed up by the MSBL order), so there's nothing to pair them with that would have a similar enough plan...meaning that the best shot Amtrak has is to keep ordering 25 single-level sleepers (and other single-level equipment) at a go alongside single-level coach orders. This is probably going to involve rolling a few trains back to single-level equipment (the Cardinal got switched about a decade back; the CONO and Cap are candidates for this as well).

[1] This would provide 125 single-level sleepers. Even assuming that you go to 6 sleepers for the Florida trains (48) and the LSL (18), 2 for the Pennsylvanian-Cap (6), 5 for the Crescent (20), and 4 for a daily Cardinal (12) you'd only barely consume that many cars after spares (that allocates 104 of 125, leaving 21 for spares and for 66/67). To be fair, I can see this many being used at peak times...but you're basically doubling every train and then some.


----------



## PVD (Jul 18, 2015)

How many Horizon single levels will be freed up when the state financed cars arrive? I realize that most board posters don't love them, but if refurbed, they could be useful, and getting them (full time) out of the really bad winters would take away one of their big sticking points. Like them or not, they are somewhat newer than the A2s, and considerably newer than earlier A1s, so are likely to be around for a while. With additional Viewliner sleepers available, could you convert CONO and go daily Card, or would diners come up short? Same question for CL and a possible interchange with Penn?


----------



## jis (Jul 18, 2015)

Reading this thread I realized that the number variety and range of studies that exist of various possible, and even some that could be characterized as exotic routes, is positively breathtaking!


----------



## neroden (Jul 18, 2015)

Anderson said:


> (2) Virginia may be behind such a proposal, but unless Tennessee and the other states get onboard with it in a serious way you have a non-starter.


Everything I've read in the Tennessee newspapers has been surprisingly positive towards train service. It's not like reading the papers in Georgia, or Florida, or Texas, or even Wisconsin or Ohio or Iowa. If Virginia has done 'its part' I think there are decent odds of getting a line across the border.
Regarding equipment, arguably the most valuable thing to do is to order a large number of Viewliner Coaches, with a small number of additional sleepers, bag/dorms, and a larger number of additional cafe/observation cars. This replaces the worn-out Amfleet II series. If the production line can be kept open then the Amfleet Is can be replaced as well. Horizons, and perhaps the best of the Amfleets, will then provide cheap options for regional-route expansion. (The cafe/obs cars can and should be used on corridor trains as well as long-distance trains.)

Unfortunately, I can't see a solid business case for buying new Superliner diners or sleepers for the long distance services.

The east/west divide is significant here: I rerun my analytics based on Amtrak's rarely-released avoidable-cost numbers every time Amtrak releases new data. It's still the case that the Auto Train, Palmetto, Silver Star, and Silver Meteor are profitable-before-overhead, while the Cardinal should be if run daily.

The other so-called long-distance routes aren't, with the possible exception of the Capitol Limited. This makes brand-new cars just for them a very hard call, unless they get state support. And the Auto Train isn't long enough to really justify a full order just for it.

Perhaps Amtrak can buy some new bilevel coaches as an add-on to the Midwest/California order, which would allow for some expansion & improvement in the bi-level services.


----------



## Paulus (Jul 18, 2015)

Given all the extensive delays and problems with the CAF order, I don't see any great rationale for buying Viewliner coaches rather than simply tacking onto Siemen's intercity coach production line that's being opened up for All Aboard Florida. Best of all, they'll have worked out all the bugs for Amtrak ahead of time.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 18, 2015)

Paulus said:


> Given all the extensive delays and problems with the CAF order, I don't see any great rationale for buying Viewliner coaches rather than simply tacking onto Siemen's intercity coach production line that's being opened up for All Aboard Florida. Best of all, they'll have worked out all the bugs for Amtrak ahead of time.


The order will have to be put out to bid, no? It's good there'll be *two* bidders with open assembly lines, even if one appears to be potentially better than the other.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 18, 2015)

jis said:


> Reading this thread I realized that the number variety and range of studies that exist of various possible, and even some that could be characterized as exotic routes, is positively breathtaking!


So true. Well, one day some of the seeds may sprout. Not this year or next, but things change.

I'm hoping some of the various routes will develop row-of-dominoes characteristics. That Trans Dominion Express route D.C./Richmond-Lynchburg-Roanoke-Bristol-Knoxville-Chattanooga-Atlanta will look easier to do after the first step gets to Roanoke. When the train gets to Bristol, the State of Tennessee and Knoxville City Hall will be tempted by Bristol-Knoxville, so that domino starts to quiver. Next politics (not to mention logic) will have Chattanooga demanding to be connected. By then, even Georgia should come around to the last link Chattanooga-ATL. In time, the row of dominoes will tip. Yeah, I understand that the current ATL station etc is hopeless, but we're looking 10 or 15 years out. Sadly, that's about when an order for single-level coaches may start arriving. 

So Chicago-Florida seems less dead now than a month ago. Louisville-ATL on the wish list look stronger now than any Atlanta hub study would have shown a few years back. If the Trans Dominion Express reaches down Knoxville-Chattanooga-ATL, that's several dominoes in that row. Kentucky would be looking at two or three different dominoes: Louisville-Frankfort-Lexington should be easy, high-population stops close together. The hard one would be Lexington-Knoxville over thinly populated mountains. But look the other direction: Chicago-Indianapolis-Louisville to feed traffic to Louisville-Knoxville-Atlanta, and points beyond.

A mere $200 million invested in track upgrades *within Indiana alone* without any time savings from work in Chicagoland considered, one of those many studies said, would cut 35 minutes out of the _Hoosier_ run Chicago-Indianapolis. But a month ago extending Indianapolis-Louisville looked hopeless, with terrible track. Well, along came an announcement that CSX is taking over that line and will invest almost $100 in upgrades. To my eye, that development improves the chances of service Chicago-Indy-Louisville-Frankfort-Lexington. Do that line, and the politicians from the coal country will be demanding their fair share, extending the route from Lexington to Knoxville.

I like to say, The cure for Amtrak's problems is more Amtrak. I do include state-supported corridors in the "more Amtrak". On a Knoxville-Chattanooga-ATL corridor, to the prospective rider the two proposed LD trains could be simply two more daily frequencies, the way the _Texas Eagle_ is Chicago-St Louis. But without needing any added subsidies from the states. I'm sure the ATL hub study did not dare to add the positive effects of two LD trains to their calculations. But 5 or 10 years from now, in the next study, LOL, it will make good sense to do it.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 18, 2015)

Paulus said:


> Given all the extensive delays and problems with the CAF order, I don't see any great rationale for buying Viewliner coaches rather than simply tacking onto Siemen's intercity coach production line that's being opened up for All Aboard Florida. Best of all, they'll have worked out all the bugs for Amtrak ahead of time.


That depends wildly on what the cause of the delays and supposed problems are, of which we have precisely zero insight into.


----------



## Anderson (Jul 18, 2015)

My understanding/recollection is that there were two issues with the CAF order. One was that CAF had fairly little plumbing experience, leading to delays on the sleepers and bag-dorms (the diners were more or less unaffected). The other was that Amtrak hit them with a bunch of change orders mid-process (probably down to Amtrak having not placed a new sleeper order in close to 20 years).

As to the Tennessee stuff, TN has generally had a desire for train service...but even if VA gets service down to Bristol (or even Knoxville), riders from TN would basically be looking at an all-day/all-night trip to get to DC. TN also looked at the possibility of extending the _Kentucky Colonel_ [1] to Nashville among several other projects, but nothing more happened. I'll grant that the Chattanooga-Atlanta project got fouled because someone got a burr in their saddle for a maglev and the state didn't want to split efforts up, but nothing else has progressed _at all_ as far as I know.

[1] I know the name was the _Kentucky Cardinal_, but both because the name amuses me and because it was one of the best examples of a "bad train" that I can recall...I'm sticking with the name.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 18, 2015)

Anderson said:


> ...
> 
> By the way, on the baggage/bag-dorm front? I got a look inside the baggage car of the Meteor a few weeks back while the train was at a stop since I was in the 9712 sleeper and the bag was next door...no, I did not go inside...and let's just say that I can see why Amtrak backed away from getting bag-dorms alone for many trains.


This is good, right? Passengers with more bags are happy passengers. I'll bet there are *many* sleeper riders who take the train because their cars' trunks are too small for all their stuff. LOL.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 18, 2015)

PVD said:


> How many Horizon single levels will be freed up when the state financed cars arrive? I realize that most board posters don't love them, but if refurbed, they could be useful, and getting them (full time) out of the really bad winters would take away one of their big sticking points. Like them or not, they are somewhat newer than the A2s, and considerably newer than earlier A1s, so are likely to be around for a while.
> 
> With additional Viewliner sleepers available, could you convert CONO and go daily Card, or would diners come up short? Same question for CL and a possible interchange with Penn?


It's about 95 Horizon single-level cars. Rebuilding them for longer routes would entail, iiuc, adding a toilet to each one, as well as re-spacing the seats for more leg room. Of course, they'd all get new LED lighting and up-to-date HVAC, new carpets and upholstery. They could get work done underneath to reduce their difficulty dealing with snow, cold, and ice. Even with all the reworking, they'd still be lower cost equipment than brand new cars from Siemens or CAF, so I expect they'll be used.

Also, politically, I don't see how Amtrak could send 95 Horizons to the scrap yard, turn around, and ask Congress to buy hundreds of brand new cars. Anyway, until new cars arrive in substantial numbers, Amtrak will need the Horizons' capacity, somehow, somewhere.

One obvious possibility is the _Sunset Shuttle _San Antonio-New Orleans, if/when the _Texas Eagle_ runs thru to L.A. daily. That's not a lot of cars needed, maybe 10. Otherwise, I'd think anything on the East Coast south of NYC is a potential user. Yeah, I know New Jersey has snow, but nothing like the brutal winters of the Midwest, and the busy NEC is generally kept clear of snow and ice.

Amtrak needs to order more diners and sleepers while CAF is still building them. Then promise to switch the _Capitol Ltd_ and the _City of New Orleans_ both to single-level operation if/when Congress allows a large order for new single-level equipment. (Amtrak might have to use rehabbed Horizons to fill the consists until the new cars arrive.). Of course, when the new single-level cars arrive, send the liberated bi-level equipment (nicely rehabbed, of course) to the Western trains. The daily _Eagle/Sunset Ltd_ will take another consist or two. Then add another sleeper to almost every Western train consists.

As Anderson explained, orders for both hundreds of single levels and hundreds of bi-levels is just too much at once. But concentrating on the Eastern fleet is the priority.

I'm thinking that the, how am I supposed to say this?, operating surplus/loss before allocated overhead, of the Eastern LD trains probably combined is not a large number. A daily _Cardinal_ might reduce any loss. But the big reduction comes from having more sleepers. iirc Neroden calculated that $1 million, and possibly $2 million, would go to the bottom line for each and every Viewliner sleeper! So 25 sleepers plus half of the 10 bag dorms = 30 more sleepers, adding $30 million or possibly $60 million to the, er, operating surplus/loss before allocated overhead, figure, should make the combined total positive. That would put Amtrak in a good position to ask Congress for hundreds of new single-level coaches etc.


----------



## Anderson (Jul 19, 2015)

Amtrak should jump on more equipment, agreed, but FWIW the option with CAF expired a while back. I've actually got a fun story on that front (again, it's one of those "over a drink" stories).

FWIW, I think the $1m figure is probably closer to the truth (this is about in line with the numbers a group I worked with on the aforementioned project...I think we came up with a tentative figure of $750-800k, but that was assuming a relatively short-distance route) on a per-car basis...but remember that on the Meteor, for example, you multiply that by 4x to get the impact of "adding a car" to a train.

Edit: Ok, I've got a slightly "off" estimate there. It was $650k-$1m for a two-car service (albeit with a "spare" assumed as a part of the startup cost), net of operating costs, on a relatively short route depending on various load factor assumptions. The numbers would shake out differently for a longer service.


----------



## keelhauled (Jul 19, 2015)

Anderson said:


> Amtrak should jump on more equipment, agreed, but FWIW the option with CAF expired a while back. I've actually got a fun story on that front (again, it's one of those "over a drink" stories).


C'mon, you can't just say these things and not go into detail, it's just not fair...


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 19, 2015)

Anderson said:


> ...
> 
> As to the Tennessee stuff, TN has generally had a desire for train service...but even if VA gets service down to Bristol (or even Knoxville), riders from TN would basically be looking at an all-day/all-night trip to get to DC. ...


O.K., I'm in this deep, I might as well keep slogging.

"If VA gets service down to Bristol (or even Knoxville), riders from TN would basically be looking at an all-day/all-night trip to get to"  *Florida* I say. Let's not look in only one direction.

If VA gets service down to Bristol, the political pressure from Knoxville will be intense, with support from Chattanooga as well. These are the third and fourth largest cities in the state, not nothing in political clout. And Knoxville-Chattanooga could almost stand on its own as a short corridor, three or four trains going back and forth. Then Atlanta would seem inevitable. Well, we'd have to study the cost figures, but this whole plan sort of assumes another Stimulus-type Billions-fall-from-the-sky event. LOL. 

But of course, such a train could stop in Atlanta only by adding costly facilities. If Amtrak gets in on it, and all-night trips scream "sleepers", than the current rules require that LD trains link two of certain named cities, NOT including Atlanta, the Appalachian train (and any Kentucky Colonel train) would have to continue to Miami, Sanford, or New Orleans, where Amtrak could service the cars.

Seems this southern extension would be as strong or stronger a route than Knoxville-Lynchburg-D.C..


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 19, 2015)

Anderson said:


> Amtrak should jump on more equipment, agreed, but FWIW the option with CAF expired a while back. I've actually got a fun story on that front (again, it's one of those "over a drink" stories).


I'm not surprised to think that the option date expired.

But I also think that CAF has every reason to bid as low as possible to get any additional order, to keep their line running. If they dream of bidding for some or all of the single-level fleet replacement, they'll be in a much stronger position if their plant is still busy, or only recently shut down. Besides, it would be very face-saving for them to get to extend the Viewliner run after the embarrassing delays. I'm sure material and parts costs have gone up, but I still think more cars from CAF would be a bargain.


----------



## neroden (Jul 19, 2015)

Paulus said:


> Given all the extensive delays and problems with the CAF order, I don't see any great rationale for buying Viewliner coaches rather than simply tacking onto Siemen's intercity coach production line that's being opened up for All Aboard Florida. Best of all, they'll have worked out all the bugs for Amtrak ahead of time.


Amtrak owns the Viewliner design, and does not own whatever random design AAF is using. Amtrak does not want to multiply the number of different designs which Amtrak is maintaining. The Viewliner design is modular. The Viewliner design maximizes space usage through the Hudson Tunnels; AAF's design probably does not.

I'm sure there will be multiple bids, but I would expect Amtrak to explicitly demand Viewliner production, rather than some random design. If Siemens (or Bombardier, or Kawasaki, or whoever) can produce 'em cheaper and faster than CAF, great.

Remember, many different companies produced PCC streetcars.


----------



## neroden (Jul 19, 2015)

Anderson said:


> My understanding/recollection is that there were two issues with the CAF order. One was that CAF had fairly little plumbing experience, leading to delays on the sleepers and bag-dorms (the diners were more or less unaffected). The other was that Amtrak hit them with a bunch of change orders mid-process (probably down to Amtrak having not placed a new sleeper order in close to 20 years).


Haven't heard either of these stories before.
What we do have hard evidence for, from multiple sources (I can think of four off the top of my head, two of which are in writing), is that CAF had very serious trouble hiring competent stainless steel welders in upstate New York. (It's a very specialized skill.) This was the cause of the 'stop work' order. I think CAF ended up having to raise the pay rate to attract suitable welders, IIRC. The most recent report to the Inspector General mentions the introduction of specific procedures for checking weld quality!

This seems to be the major cause of delay to the order, accounting for at least a year's delay.

This would be a problem for any company which attempted to set up an essentially-new factory in a city which didn't have one.


----------



## neroden (Jul 19, 2015)

WoodyinNYC said:


> I'm thinking that the, how am I supposed to say this?, operating surplus/loss before allocated overhead, of the Eastern LD trains probably combined is not a large number.


East of the Mississippi (including CONO) without the Auto Train, 2014 total surplus-before-overhead approximately $9.1 million. With the Auto Train, surplus approximately $51.5 million. The Crescent has the largest individual loss among these trains, at $7.3 million, followed by the CONO; more riders out of New Orleans would be a big deal.
This estimation procedure required using Amtrak's last released data for direct-cost losses (the famous bar chart), retro-computing the overhead for that year by comparing to the official fully-allocated numbers, and assuming that the overhead is still allocated to trains in the same percentages it was at that time. (We have updated numbers for total LD overhead -- which has gone up -- but not for per-train overhead.)



> A daily _Cardinal_ might reduce any loss.


By a *lot*. In 2014 the Cardinal's loss-before-overhead was about $2.8 million. My conservative projection, based on multiplying revenues by 7/3 and direct costs by 1.5, says that a daily Cardinal would have a surplus-before-overhead of $2.3 million. That's a difference of $5.1 million per year. Which is enough to justify quite a large capital expenditure to make it happen; short payback period. More importantly, it's a shift from the loss side to the surplus side (before overhead).



> But the big reduction comes from having more sleepers. iirc Neroden calculated that $1 million, and possibly $2 million, would go to the bottom line for each and every Viewliner sleeper!


Yeah, I've run that three or four ways and I don't always get the same numbers each time. It partly depends on train allocation, since some trains are running much higher ticket prices than others.
We have a specific test case in the Cardinal, which gained about $320,000 in sleeper revenue during 2014 by running an additional sleeper for only the last three months of the fiscal year. Annualize to get $1,280,000, multiply by 7/3 to get $2,986,666.

Operating costs for a sleeper, I worked out, were somewhere in the neighborhood of $525K for the LSL. ( Reference: http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/45804-viewliner-ii-production-status-photos/page-57&do=findComment&comment=569288) Of this, about $300K in maintenance/fuel; and about $225K in wages-and-benefits.

It depends heavily on how many hours the train runs, unfortunately -- cutting runtime by an hour saves $6800/year. The Cardinal runs 26.5 hours (call it 28 with delays) rather than the LSL's 21 with delays, so raise the wage-and-benefit estimate to $300K.

If the two sleepers on the Cardinal can be handled by one attendant (because one of the sleepers is half-full of staff), then there are no added staffing costs, so multiply by 3 to get a cost of $900K. If an attendant is needed, it's $1.8 million.

This gives a profit of anywhere from $1.2 million to $2 million for adding a second sleeper to an already-daily Cardinal -- $2 million if no additional attendant is needed, $1.2 million if the attendant is needed. Even if this is optimistic, it'll still be over $1 million in incremental profit.

Significant. At $2 million the car pays for itself in 2 years. At $1.2 million it pays for itself in 3 years.

A daily Cardinal is probably more significant, however, due to the shift from the loss-before-overhead side to the profit-before-overhead side of the register. Even if it required $150 million in improvements, that would be a payback period of less than 10 years. The payback would be quicker with more cars added to the train, of course, or with a faster schedule.



> So 25 sleepers plus half of the 10 bag dorms = 30 more sleepers, adding $30 million or possibly $60 million to the, er, operating surplus/loss before allocated overhead, figure, should make the combined total positive. That would put Amtrak in a good position to ask Congress for hundreds of new single-level coaches etc.


The problem is that a hell of a lot of overhead is assigned to these trains. $195.3 million to the single-level "LD" trains combined, $256.1 million to all the East-of-Mississippi trains including the Auto Train combined. Adding $30 million to the surplus before overhead is great, but if Congress is still looking at the phoney "fully-allocated" numbers, they'll still see phoney "losses".


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 19, 2015)

neroden said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> > I'm thinking that the ... operating surplus/loss before allocated overhead, of the Eastern LD trains combined is probably not a large number.
> ...


*WoodyinNYC*

If we're talking about ordering more single-level cars, let's keep the _Auto Train _out of it. I'd include the _Capitol Limited_ and the _City of New Orleans _results if the proposal would be to convert them to single-level cars and distribute the liberated bi-level equipment to lengthen the Western trains.

On the allocated overhead problem. Seems like the ratio is whack. The overhead is out of proportion to the current number of passengers/seats/cars/frequencies/routes, so I'd like to see more of all of those. LOL. Well, you always say successful railroading is about economies of scale. I say that the cure for Amtrak's problems is more Amtrak.

+++++++++++++++++

Sorry about the formatting mess.

I tried to reply to too many points at once. Me and the software couldn't cope!


----------



## Anderson (Jul 19, 2015)

On the Hoosier State bit:

Technically, system benefits are beyond the scope of IN's concern. For example, it isn't like Amtrak is going to turn around and cut IN's costs by some share of improvements to the Cardinal's performance from IN's work (or like MI is going to pay IL some share for improvements in Chicago because MI's trains suddenly get another 50k/yr in ridership and a few million off their operating subsidy). Of course, states also don't get slapped with a bill if they add several trains and it hurts the ridership/revenue of an Amtrak "system train".


----------



## me_little_me (Jul 19, 2015)

$100 in upgrades? Sounds too low. I'll bet they'll spring for $150 - $200. :giggle:



WoodyinNYC said:


> But a month ago extending Indianapolis-Louisville looked hopeless, with terrible track. Well, along came an announcement that CSX is taking over that line and will invest almost $100 in upgrades. To my eye, that development improves the chances of service Chicago-Indy-Louisville-Frankfort-Lexington. Do that line, and the politicians from the coal country will be demanding their fair share, extending the route from Lexington to Knoxville.


----------



## west point (Jul 19, 2015)

A one time look seemed to indicate cost allocation came from Revenue passenger miles or revenue seat miles. + station costs. Any thoughts ?


----------



## jis (Jul 19, 2015)

me_little_me said:


> $100 in upgrades? Sounds too low. I'll bet they'll spring for $150 - $200. :giggle:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just a note .... I don't believe I said any of that :-/


----------



## PRR 60 (Jul 19, 2015)

jis said:


> me_little_me said:
> 
> 
> > $100 in upgrades? Sounds too low. I'll bet they'll spring for $150 - $200. :giggle:
> ...


You didn't. I somehow figured out the correct quote and changes it to show the correct original poster.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 20, 2015)

Anderson said:


> On the Hoosier State bit:
> 
> Technically, system benefits are beyond the scope of IN's concern. For example, it isn't like Amtrak is going to turn around and cut IN's costs by some share of improvements to the Cardinal's performance from IN's work (or like MI is going to pay IL some share for improvements in Chicago because MI's trains suddenly get another 50k/yr in ridership and a few million off their operating subsidy). Of course, states also don't get slapped with a bill if they add several trains and it hurts the ridership/revenue of an Amtrak "system train".


I'm sure that's true. One day it could help if the 50 states could get united, but no time soon, I guess.

Meanwhile, at the federal level, when Indiana asks for a grant, even a little TIGER grant for the _Hoosier State _route, I'd hope that the DOT/FRA would try to look at total costs and total benefits because the potential cross-state and national system benefits do exist.

Of course, when there's plenty of money, such as the Stimulus year, we can get a bunch of improvements to state corridors that benefit the national system, like, the _Texas Eagle/Lincoln Service_ Chicago-St Louis, the _Coast Starlight/Cascades_ Portland-Seattle, and time saved on the _Crescent _from upgrades to the _Piedmont _route.

There are two megaprojects pending outside the NEC. One is South of the Lake for the 5 current Michigan trains. SOTL will greatly benefit the 2 current LD trains, the _Lake Shore Ltd._ and the _Capitol Ltd._ The other is the Potomac Long Bridge and the route D.C.-Richmond to cut an hour or more for a bunch of Virginia trains. That work will benefit the _Palmetto_, the _Silver Star_, the _Silver Meteor_, and the _Carolinian_, as well as some later round draft picks (Richmond-Raleigh).

Surely when the states ask for federal funds for these megaprojects, the feds will consider the system benefits when evaluating the requests. The other side of that is, when considering whether to make an effort for a costly project, like $200 million upgrades to the _Hoosier State_ route, the states should note when their project has system benefits that might help get some federal funding.


----------



## neroden (Jul 20, 2015)

WoodyinNYC said:


> Beyond that, network effects. A daily _Sunset Shuttle_ bringing more passengers from Lafayette, Beaumont, especially Houston, some from San Antonio, and even a few more coach passengers from L.A. and Arizona enticed by a daily _Eagle/Sunset _could be helping the _Crescent, _and the _CONO, _too_,_ within a few years.


You know, I hadn't thought about that... the current sub-daily service is really not satisfactory, and replacing it with a daily service with more reliable scheduling (due to a shorter run) really could send more passengers onto the south ends of the CONO and Crescent.
That would take some serious modeling to predict how many, but it seems to me that getting to daily service in the San Antonio-Houston-New Orleans corridor might have substantial network effects.



> On the allocated overhead problem. Seems like the ratio is whack. The overhead is out of proportion to the current number of passengers/seats/cars/frequencies/routes, so I'd like to see more of all of those.


Looking at the overhead numbers, I think it is mostly done on a train-miles basis, or maybe it's a route-miles basis. Which is... arbitrary, really, and basically done that way as a matter of tradition. It's not a good way to represent the real economic situation.




> LOL. Well, you always say successful railroading is about economies of scale. I say that the cure for Amtrak's problems is more Amtrak.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 20, 2015)

neroden said:


> > WoodyinNYC
> >
> > On the allocated overhead problem. Seems like the ratio is out of whack. The overhead is out of proportion to the current number of passengers/seats/cars/frequencies/routes, so I'd like to see more of all of those.
> 
> ...


O.K, but it's still out of whack if the ratio is of train miles to overhead. 

I'm assuming that overhead should grow more slowly than train miles or route miles increase. 

But I'm not sure what Amtrak includes in this overhead. 

Consider the back shop facilities at Beech Grove, Bear, Wilmington, and 12 terminals "almost 300 acres of facilities and over one million square feet of under-roof production space" as well as maintenance facilities from Hialeah to Seattle. I'm thinking that Amtrak could handle many more route miles of work by adding employees but without needing to add more acreage or under-roof production space. So overhead from back shops and maintenance facilities would increase more slowly than train miles or route miles.

You like to point out that the reservations system and IT staff don't have to grow much if Amtrak grows, by taking the _Cardinal_ daily or adding more sleepers to existing trains. Once they've built the reservation system, adding another 125,000 reservations from the daily _Cardinal _is almost no more cost at all.

Does overhead include corporate and headquarters stuff? Neither Boardman nor his secretary would be paid twice as much if Amtrak doubled its route miles. The VP and the staff who handle labor matters will be negotiating contracts with the same unions, and only see increases in grievances to handle. Advertising and marketing expenses don't have to grow faster than route miles. The bigger system would sort of advertise itself, with a stronger brand and a larger "mind share" among prospective customers than a small system. Some folks at headquarters are working on the pending order for Acela IIs, and the long delayed order for Viewliners. Are their costs allocated to the _Coast Starlight_ and other trains by route miles?

Is debt service part of the allocated overhead? So higher revenues from a daily _Cardinal _would help to pay off the mortgage on Penn Station? 

​I keep ending up where I left off. More Amtrak would spread overhead over a larger base, bring the ratio into balance, and reduce the allocated overhead per route mile or per train mile. 

The best way to reduce Amtrak's losses is to grow the system -- passengers/seats/cars/frequencies/routes/train miles/route miles -- by every measure.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 20, 2015)

Anderson said:


> On the Hoosier State bit:
> 
> Technically, system benefits are beyond the scope of IN's concern. For example, it isn't like Amtrak is going to turn around and cut IN's costs by some share of improvements to the Cardinal's performance from IN's work (or like MI is going to pay IL some share for improvements in Chicago because MI's trains suddenly get another 50k/yr in ridership and a few million off their operating subsidy). Of course, states also don't get slapped with a bill if they add several trains and it hurts the ridership/revenue of an Amtrak "system train".


[SIZE=16.2px]I'm sure that's true. One day it could help if the 50 states could get united! But no time soon, I guess. [/SIZE]

Meanwhile, at the federal level, when Indiana asks for a grant, even a little TIGER grant for the _Hoosier State _route, I'd hope that the DOT/FRA would try to look at total costs and *total benefits* because the potential cross-state and national system benefits do exist.

Of course, when there's plenty of money, such as the Stimulus year, we can get a bunch of improvements to state corridors that benefit the national system, like, the _Texas Eagle/Lincoln Service_ Chicago-St Louis, the _Coast Starlight/Cascades_ Portland-Seattle, and time saved on the _Crescent _from upgrades to the _Piedmont _route.

There are two megaprojects pending outside the NEC. One is South of the Lake for the 5 current Michigan trains. SOTL will greatly benefit the 2 current LD trains, the _Lake Shore Ltd._ and the _Capitol Ltd._ and would help a _Broadway Ltd._ train. The other is the Potomac Long Bridge and the route D.C.-Richmond to cut an hour or more for a bunch of Virginia trains. That work will benefit the _Palmetto_, the _Silver Star_, the _Silver Meteor_, and the _Carolinian_, as well as some later round draft picks (Richmond-Raleigh).

Surely when the states ask for federal funds for these megaprojects, the feds should consider the system benefits when evaluating the requests. The other side of that is, when considering whether to make an effort for a costly project, like $200 million upgrades to the _Hoosier State_ route, I'd say the states should know when their project has system benefits that might help get some federal funding, and point out [SIZE=16.2px]a rough estimate of those benefits in any application for federal funds.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=16.2px]Even down at the local level, if I'm a legislator from Indianapolis, I'd want to know that upgrades to the Hoosier State route would make the _Cardinal _service on that segment either (a) leave Indy half an hour later or (b) arrive in Chicago half an hour earlier. So I'm annoyed that the Indiana consultants left out that information, which could help to "sell" the project.[/SIZE]


----------



## Anderson (Jul 20, 2015)

Having dumped over the data on VA, I'm compelled to correct one point: While the plan is to knock time off of the VA trains, the medium-term goal is 90 minutes RVR-WAS. We seem to have whacked six minutes off that stretch recently (The Meteor, for example, went from 2:10 WAS-RVR to 2:04 for the same stretch. Most other trains seem to have dropped the same amount of time.), but the goal is dropping a total of 40 minutes Richmond-Washington (2:10 to 1:30). The timings for the Hampton Roads stretches are more of a tangle (IIRC there's about 10-15 minutes to drop RVR-RVM and it's hard to argue about dropping times NFK-RVR since that's a freshly-initiated service...there was time cut from the initial schedule simply because not all of the initial project work was done before service was started).

I'm not going to deny that there might end up being further improvements put on deck down the line (perhaps getting from 90 minutes to 75-80 minutes), but there's not much more time to be cut without a _true_ megaproject that probably wouldn't hold up on a cost-benefit analysis.

===== ===== ===== ===== =====

Network benefits do get mentioned in conjunction with federal applications for the most part, at least as far as I can tell. However, while they may get mentioned in federal applications the fact is that in many cases they're not really a consideration for a given state unless there's pretty good cooperation between a group of states (e.g. South of the Lake, which IN made clear they were applying for funds for largely for the sake of MI).


----------



## andersone (Jul 20, 2015)

I still feel like many have their heads in the sand and refuse to think outside the box. In my humble opinion what gets involved in every discussion of LD service, and LD equipment to provide that service is that you have one place - New York - unable to handle bi-level equipment. Surely the combine intelligence of this group could figure out some way to leave all LD service west of the river and figure out someway to get the NY LD folks over there. I am not sure the impact that would have on the multi billion dollar tunnel that is needed, but it would sure make a level playing field and simplify the grand scheme.

I am prepared, as every time I bring this up, for the "busiest" shouts to echo off the wall at high volume. But if have to always do things the way they have been done we limit our possibilities. Sorry to be so blunt but we need new solutions based on new questions not merely revisions based on history.


----------



## Anderson (Jul 20, 2015)

andersone said:


> I still feel like many have their heads in the sand and refuse to think outside the box. In my humble opinion what gets involved in every discussion of LD service, and LD equipment to provide that service is that you have one place - New York - unable to handle bi-level equipment. Surely the combine intelligence of this group could figure out some way to leave all LD service west of the river and figure out someway to get the NY LD folks over there. I am not sure the impact that would have on the multi billion dollar tunnel that is needed, but it would sure make a level playing field and simplify the grand scheme.
> 
> I am prepared, as every time I bring this up, for the "busiest" shouts to echo off the wall at high volume. But if have to always do things the way they have been done we limit our possibilities. Sorry to be so blunt but we need new solutions based on new questions not merely revisions based on history.


The problem is not _just_ the Hudson tunnels. The tunnels are a fatal error, yes, but they're not the only problem. You also have problems with the B&P tunnel in Baltimore (which precludes simply flipping the Silvers and Crescent to bilevel and running them to, say, Hoboken). Also at issue is the platforms...plenty of stations simply don't have a low-level platform to work with (I don't think either NYP or PHL have one, and I want to say that WIL is in the same boat). This means that you lose a lot of the added capacity from bilevel equipment...and it means that you can only use NJT-style bilevels instead of Superliner-style bilevels. There's also an issue with needing to raise catenary heights as well. I think there's also the issue of the East River tunnels, which you'd need to add height to in order to get trains from NYP over to Sunnyside.

As to terminating at Hoboken instead of New York, there are several major problems with this. One is the inherent broken connection, particularly with the Empire corridor/LSL (and the LSL can't be converted...though I suspect the existing single-level equipment would, in a pinch, keep it running for a _long_ time) but also with the Regionals heading to Boston. Yes, you might be able to do something with Newark Penn that could get around this...but I'm not sure what the options are there. More problematic, however, is that the equipment gets serviced at Sunnyside (in Queens), meaning you'd need to move a bunch of servicing ops over there...well, somewhere. Basically this is an operational problem since now Amtrak would have two yards in the New York area.

I hate to say it like this, but while the split pool is expensive to deal with it is probably seriously cheaper to deal with it than it would be to try and make something work. It is a problem, no doubt about that, but this is one of those highly annoying "pick your problem" situations.


----------



## jis (Jul 20, 2015)

Specifically the return on the huge investment to basically rebuild Penn Station from ground up to provide 17'+ clearance simple does not exist when so much else needs to be done to create a viable and useful passenger system nationwide. This has been seriously looked at and rejected a few times so doing it one more time will just fatten some more consultants. The end result will not be different.


----------



## afigg (Jul 20, 2015)

Anderson said:


> The problem is not _just_ the Hudson tunnels. The tunnels are a fatal error, yes, but they're not the only problem. You also have problems with the B&P tunnel in Baltimore (which precludes simply flipping the Silvers and Crescent to bilevel and running them to, say, Hoboken). Also at issue is the platforms...plenty of stations simply don't have a low-level platform to work with (I don't think either NYP or PHL have one, and I want to say that WIL is in the same boat). This means that you lose a lot of the added capacity from bilevel equipment...and it means that you can only use NJT-style bilevels instead of Superliner-style bilevels. There's also an issue with needing to raise catenary heights as well. I think there's also the issue of the East River tunnels, which you'd need to add height to in order to get trains from NYP over to Sunnyside.


WIL does have a low level platform on the north side, although I don't think it is in regular use. But low level platforms are really a minor consideration against the issue of clearances. In this discussions on clearance on the NEC, we tend to focus only on the high profile items, the tunnels in Baltimore and under the Hudson and East Rivers and the catenary. I don't have numbers, but I suspect there are multiple road bridges over the southern NEC that would prevent the catenary from being raised enough to increase clearance for Superliner trains. Then there are clearance issues through the PHL and NYP stations themselves. There is simply far too much physical infrastructure in place on the NEC for Superliner height trains to run.
The NEC and the eastern corridors will remain the domain of rolling stock that meet the existing NEC clearance envelope for many decades to come. Which means single level trains, unless Amtrak opts for a cramped split level design for capacity.

This thread has wandered rather far afield from the topic which is Amfleet I replacements. I think the question in the context of that topic is in the next 15 years, how many single level coach and cafe cars would be needed to replace the Amfleet Is in order to support the realistic projections of service expansion? Which I take to be trains running from NC to Maine with: more Regionals to VA, maybe a second NYP to Charlotte train, longer NEC Regional consists, several more daily Regionals (along with 28 Acela II trainsets), several more daily Keystones, a second Pennsylvanian & second Adirondack, maybe several more daily NYP-ALB trains, a third Empire service train across upper NY state, 3 Inland Route Regionals, 2 additional trains to & through VT (on each route), maybe 3 NHV-SPG-BOS trains, a NYP to Maine service, and possibly several BON to Concord NH trains (which might handled by the MBTA).

The current Amfleet I fleet size is circa 460 cars total. In the near term, there are a few Amfleets in CA and 2? Amfleet trainsets on the CHI-STL corridor that will be able to be moved east as the corridor bi-level cars enter revenue service. So, those will help add a little capacity in the east in a few years. Still, would an order for 550 Amfleet I replacements be enough for 15 years from now?


----------



## west point (Jul 20, 2015)

Anderson: Have often wondered if cost benefit analysis be based on passenger minutes saved per dollar spent. That does have problems because it is very hard to quantify how many more passengers will be carried with quicker times. So 5 minutes less on NYP - PHL might have ROW costs more than say WASH - RVR -RNM but maybe more passenger minutes saved. .On the NEC Newark - PHL it would be interesting to see the Elizabeth "S" curve eliminated and the Trenton - PHL north section fixed especially at Frankford curve CP.

Another point maybe is anything less than a 20 minute reduction may not be significant for leisure travel but may be for business travel ? Then again reliable OTP may be more important ? It may be interesting to see results when the Vermonter travel times are reduced. Minutes saved might not be as important. There may be a tipping point as well once travel times over a segment including last mile are reduced over other surface / air transportation..


----------



## jis (Jul 20, 2015)

However infra improvements that enable additional frequency usually trump merely a few minutes saved here and there.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 20, 2015)

jis said:


> However infra improvements that enable additional frequency usually trump merely a few minutes saved here and there.


That seems to be the idea on the _Cascades_ route Portland-Seattle, where the $850 million (or is it more like a Billion) current Stimulus-funds upgrades aim to increase frequencies by 50% _Cascades_ only or 40% over _Cascades_ plus the _Coast Starlight _(that is, 4 will become 6, or 5 will become 7). Meanwhile the on time performance is to improve, they promise, but *only* 5 or *10 minutes* tops will be cut from the timetable. So basically this round is all about frequency and capacity.

OTOH, both the Chicago corridors seem to concentrate on faster times, about 40 minutes faster from St Louis and about 50 minutes faster from Detroit. There will be about a 30% increase in capacity from going over to bi-level equipment, but NO promised or announced increases in frequencies. Well, maybe they had little choice. More frequencies thru the South of the Lake corridor (without another Billion or two in upgrades SOTL) could bring the Norfolk Southern main line to a halt, as seen before. LOL. And of course, for both the _Wolverines_ and the _Lincoln Service_, this is only the first round of needed, planned, and as-yet-unfunded upgrades.

But I'm not recalling a specific infrastructure project that expanded capacity without shaving run times, or one that cut times without at least potentially (like the Michigan trains) increasing capacity.

That study to add one-a-day corridor service St Paul-Chicago is weak on infrastructure and speed increases, but seems weakest in lacking enuff frequencies, disappointing from either point of view,

Anyway, I resolve any contradictions by favoring all the upgrades, LOL, Congress permitting.


----------



## PVD (Jul 20, 2015)

Improvements have very different impacts based on type and location. Boston/NYP/WAS the train gets a very high percentage of the passenger load right now. Shaving small amounts of time probably would have very little impact. 2-4-6 NYP-ALB-SYR-BUF with an additional run West of ALB might take a fair number of cars off the road, at least to ALB. Improving corridor running times between key city pairs in the Midwest and perhaps in VA might have the same effect. Pre-clearance might help the Adirondack pick up some added MTL traffic, but it is still really slow North of Albany.


----------



## neroden (Jul 20, 2015)

WoodyinNYC said:


> I'm assuming that overhead should grow more slowly than train miles or route miles increase.


Why, yes, yes, it should. In practice, we've seen ballooning overhead lately... I think a lot of that is due to the extremely high expense of replacing Amtrak's 1950s-era and 1970s-era IT systems, which shows up in overhead. If Amtrak ever finishes that process (ARROW is written in mainframe assembly language -- seriously?!?) the overhead from that should drop back to normal.



> But I'm not sure what Amtrak includes in this overhead.


Everything you mentioned. EVERYTHING. Debt service, back shops, reservations system, corporate HQ, everything. This is the craziness of "fully allocated costs".


> Some folks at headquarters are working on the pending order for Acela IIs, and the long delayed order for Viewliners. Are their costs allocated to the _Coast Starlight_ and other trains by route miles?


I can't be sure ... but it certainly looks like it.



> ​I keep ending up where I left off. More Amtrak would spread overhead over a larger base, bring the ratio into balance, and reduce the allocated overhead per route mile or per train-mile.


Yep.


----------



## neroden (Jul 20, 2015)

WoodyinNYC said:


> That seems to be the idea on the _Cascades_ route Portland-Seattle, where the $850 million (or is it more like a Billion) current Stimulus-funds upgrades aim to increase frequencies by 50% _Cascades_ only or 40% over _Cascades_ plus the _Coast Starlight _(that is, 4 will become 6, or 5 will become 7). Meanwhile the on time performance is to improve, they promise, but *only* 5 or *10 minutes* tops will be cut from the timetable. So basically this round is all about frequency and capacity.


The on-time performance is a big deal. The promise is that it will go up from 75% to 95%.

Riders are very sensitive to on-time performance. Any project which improves OTP significantly has huge payback in terms of ridership and revenue. This is why buying the tracks from the freight operator is likely to give the single best payback, even though it costs a lot and makes no physical improvement.


----------



## afigg (Jul 20, 2015)

WoodyinNYC said:


> That seems to be the idea on the _Cascades_ route Portland-Seattle, where the $850 million (or is it more like a Billion) current Stimulus-funds upgrades aim to increase frequencies by 50% _Cascades_ only or 40% over _Cascades_ plus the _Coast Starlight _(that is, 4 will become 6, or 5 will become 7). Meanwhile the on time performance is to improve, they promise, but *only* 5 or *10 minutes* tops will be cut from the timetable. So basically this round is all about frequency and capacity.
> 
> OTOH, both the Chicago corridors seem to concentrate on faster times, about 40 minutes faster from St Louis and about 50 minutes faster from Detroit. There will be about a 30% increase in capacity from going over to bi-level equipment, but NO promised or announced increases in frequencies. Well, maybe they had little choice. More frequencies thru the South of the Lake corridor (without another Billion or two in upgrades SOTL) could bring the Norfolk Southern main line to a halt, as seen before. LOL. And of course, for both the _Wolverines_ and the _Lincoln Service_, this is only the first round of needed, planned, and as-yet-unfunded upgrades.
> 
> But I'm not recalling a specific infrastructure project that expanded capacity without shaving run times, or one that cut times without at least potentially (like the Michigan trains) increasing capacity.


I think the difference in the emphasis of the improvements for the corridors you discuss is driven by what the problems are. The Cascades corridor has decent Seattle to Portland trip times, but historically poor reliability. The CHI-STL and CHI-DET corridors both have circa 5.5 hour trip times which hold down ridership and, particularly for the CHI-STL corridor, poor reliability due to single ended sidings, freight traffic, poor track conditions.
By cutting the trip times for 2 Midwest corridors to circa 4:30 to 4:45 AND improving reliability (well, whenever the track work is finally done), ridership will increase. The lack of additional frequency for the CHI-STL corridor I think is mostly on IL DOT, which added a 4th Lincoln service train some years back, but does not appear that they really focused on getting UP to agree to a 5th frequency in return for close to a billion plus in track, signal, and crossing upgrades. If the annual HSIPR funding had not dried up completely after the 2010 election, I expect we would IL would have gotten follow-on funding to double track more of the corridor and gotten the rights to run more daily Lincoln service trains from UP.

NC DOT has had a different emphasis on the Piedmont corridor with projects to separate and close over 20 grade crossings on the corridor. Given the persistence of grade crossing collisions in NC, especially involving trucks, that emphasis is not unreasonable.

There is, of course, considerable overlap in projects or upgrades to improve reliability versus to reduce trip times. Adding a 2nd or 3rd track, more or longer sidings, track rebuilds, cross-overs, new signals, longer station platforms to improve reliability will also usually trim padded trip times.


----------



## Anderson (Jul 20, 2015)

(1) Frequency improvements and speed improvements aren't mutually exclusive. An improvement which allows a train to pass another train at a meet while moving is one example of this (you can save time for avoiding the stop, which presently has to be added to the timetable, as well as any situation-specific padding needed for reliability as a result).

(2) Reliability is a big deal, and I think that is no small part of the planned improvements on the Cascades. Ridership is probably going to be better on a train that takes, say, 2:30 with 95% reliability than on one that takes 2:15 with 40% reliability and intermittent major delays. Put another way, we don't complain too much about how long an LD train takes...but we sure aren't happy when it comes in six hours late. On most corridors the tolerances are tighter (e.g. you want arrival within 5-10 minutes of the stated time).

In the case of Virginia, this is why the goal is "90-90-90". 90 minutes WAS-RVR is a big deal, and connected with that is lifting the MAS on the route to 90 MPH (it is presently 70 MPH). However, the third leg (reliable 90% OTP) is important because if someone has a 10 AM meeting in DC they ought to be able to board the 8 AM train out of Richmond (on the faster timetable) and get there comfortably. If they have to board an earlier train and plan out more time than it would take to reliably drive (a very vague idea in NOVA, to be sure, with that being no small part of why VA's trains are making money).

(3) This isn't to say that 5 minutes here and 3 minutes there don't add up. At some point the incremental improvements add up to material improvements...either in getting travel time under highway times by a reasonable margin, getting city pairs under the magic three hour line, or other key/headline-grabbing points that help ridership.

(4) Finally, on frequencies...the problem is that each frequency on some routes is another couple hundred million dollars. Setting up a 4x daily corridor CHI-MSP, for example, could easily burn through well over a billion dollars.


----------



## jis (Jul 20, 2015)

I think trip time minimization is the more important goal. Increasing MAS from 70 to 90 is one of the derived goals from it and indeed may have much lower priority if a bunch of 20 mph zones (curves, crossovers or interlocking) are available to raise to 50 mph somehow, or a passing track to increase reliability, for equal or close to equal cost.


----------



## west point (Jul 20, 2015)

Trip time minimizing will have an important secondary benefit Using present timetables imagine a WASH - BOS train now scheduled 0315 - 1105 arrival ( 7:50 en route ).. If that trip time can be reduced to 6 hours then then the train set can cover the 1310 departure instead of the 1520 departure. Arrival WASH 1845 instead of 1945 ( present schedule 2305 for the 1520 ). Then cover the 2105 departure to NYP instead of terminating in WASH.

That allows the same number of rolling stock cars to be used for more miles a day increasing capacity. During slack times gives more time for car PM to increase reliability.


----------



## Anderson (Jul 20, 2015)

jis said:


> I think trip time minimization is the more important goal. Increasing MAS from 70 to 90 is one of the derived goals from it and indeed may have much lower priority if a bunch of 20 mph zones (curves, crossovers or interlocking) are available to raise to 50 mph somehow, or a passing track to increase reliability, for equal or close to equal cost.


My understanding is that you simply can't get to 90 minutes WAS-RVR without a good chunk of the line being upgraded to 90 MPH. You have about a 110 mile run; doing that in 90 minutes requires an average speed of over 70 MPH (110 miles/90 MPH gives an average speed of about 73 MPH). 90 MPH is also derived from the fact that CSX has indicated that they'll work with 90 MPH on the RF&P but aren't inclined to cooperate with a higher MAS.


----------



## neroden (Jul 20, 2015)

jis said:


> I think trip time minimization is the more important goal.


More important than top speed, but...
Based on psych studies, minimization of the 5th percentile (or 10th percentile, or 1st percentile) trip time is the appropriate goal. People seem to judge 'how fast' a train or bus is by the worst case they can remember, so if a train is an hour late 5% of the time, people will think of it as being an hour late all the time.

This means OTP is rather more important than anything else, up to a certain point.

Given the current situation with regards to OTP, this means that South of the Lake is by far the most important unfunded project Amtrak has on its future agenda. More important than new Hudson tunnels, since the one-at-a-time closure of the old tunnels mostly hurts NJ Transit rather than Amtrak.

Currently the catastrophic OTP messes from Chicago to Porter are severely damaging the viability of all the Michigan lines, and the LSL and CL. Englewood Flyover should have helped, but apparently NS mismanagement has eaten up all the gains from it -- although it's not as bad as when NS decided to melt down their entire system by ordering dispatchers to obey an incompetent automated program *only last winter*, it's still really bad. Amtrak needs its own route from the east into Chicago.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 21, 2015)

west point said:


> Trip time minimizing will have an important secondary benefit Using present timetables imagine a WASH - BOS train now scheduled 0315 - 1105 arrival ( 7:50 en route ).. If that trip time can be reduced to 6 hours then then the train set can cover the 1310 departure instead of the 1520 departure. Arrival WASH 1845 instead of 1945 ( present schedule 2305 for the 1520 ). Then cover the 2105 departure to NYP instead of terminating in WASH.
> 
> That allows the same number of rolling stock cars to be used for more miles a day increasing capacity. During slack times gives more time for car PM to increase reliability.


Thanks for that good n clear explanation. But you may be more misoveroptimistic :giggle: than I am, to think times WASH-BOS will drop to 6 hours without many good years and many Billions gone by.

A second round of upgrades on the St Louis- and Detroit-Chicago routes could have the _Lincoln Service_ and _Wolverines_ combining trains for more efficiency. Or maybe we'll see one or two run thru starting late 2017.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 21, 2015)

neroden said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> > I'm assuming that overhead should grow more slowly than train miles or route miles increase.
> ...


But now I'm confusing myself about Amtrak overhead allocated to the state-supported corridor trains. Did the post-PRIIA formulas limit all that, or what?

Because, of course, most of the sizable growth we can count on is from the three prime project corridors -- the _Cascades_, the _Wolverines_, the _Lincoln Service_. I figure 200,000 more passengers a year after the trip time cut on the _Wolverines_ and on the _Lincoln Services_, and maybe 300,000 or more on the _Cascades_. If those 700,000 new passengers start to help pay for Amtrak's reservations system, Boardman's salary, etc that would help to reduce the overhead allocations on all the other passengers/train miles/route miles/whatever. But if the 700,000 new riders won't pick up a chunk of the overhead, well, damn.

Otherwise, on Amtrak's own accounts, the NEC services should continue to grow and presumably reduce the overhead allocated to other routes.

But big growth in the LD line is gonna be hard. I mean, 25 (or 30 equivalent) new sleepers could add $30 or even $60 million to the bottom line, but would we notice a change in revenues or passenger totals? Where and how will 95 or so refurbished Horizons boost revenue and ridership? To get more LD passengers, we're looking at a daily _Eagle/Sunset_ plus _Sunset Shuttle_, roughly 125,000 more riders, and about the same from a daily _Cardinal_, probably more. But then what?

Maybe replacing the Amfleet I's and having longer trains could get as much added revenue and riders as the two new daily trains could get. But then what?

Wait. Stop. How did I get back on topic? :giggle:


----------



## Anderson (Jul 21, 2015)

Shush! We were having a perfectly good off-topic ramble and then you came along! :giggle: 

Ok, joking aside there are a few points to pass around:
(1) I've generally assumed that ridership on the daily trains would be somewhere around this formula:
Daily ridership=(3x weekly ridership*7/3)*1.05

Basically, I'm assuming that a daily train gives you a 5% boost in ridership per-train (about what I think was observed with the frequency cuts back in the 90s). That would bump the Cardinal and Sunset by about 150-160k each, or 300k-ish total.

(2) There appears to be about...I'd guess another 250-300k riders that have been lost due to lousy OTP which could easily come back...albeit needing a few years of increased reliability to induce.

(3) Each batch of 25 sleepers should be able to add somewhere in the range of 75-100k riders (depending on exactly how the rooms are being used, how demand shifts around, etc.). The 75k total is based on the Viewliner trains having about 150k riders last year and having about a 50% capacity boost; the 100k total is based on me making some guesses at load factors and the like and then reducing my estimates a bit to account for timing on routes/non-turnover of sleeper spaces (e.g. NYP-MIA riders taking a slot on two days). I'm ignoring the bag-dorms in this calculation, FWIW.

This would get somewhere around 700k riders onto the LD trains without adding anything not presently ordered. After this, there are a few other additions that would likely add significant ridership. One would be a JAX-MIA section on the Silvers, which would probably add about 100k riders per train. Adding north-of-Atlanta capacity on the Crescent, through coaches from the Pennsylvanian to the Capitol Limited, tweaking the LSL's schedule, possibly north-of-RGH capacity for the Star...all of these would probably add 25-50k per move, and again most or all of this could be done with existing equipment and some shuffling with the Horizons and Amfleet IIs. At that point there's a good chance you've managed to add about a million riders per year to the LD system, albeit with the cost of stretching equipment to the brink (you'd probably have some wiggle room with Superliner coaches to add cut-out equipment on, for example, the Zephyr or to attempt some sort of business class experiments on other routes...but that's about it). At this point I think "What's next?" is a bit like the joke about the rabbi who keeps asking it of the newly ordained priest...

Beyond that I think you could make a case for another 50 single-level sleepers (as well as some bag-dorms to complement baggage cars on some of the bigger LD trains) to deal with converting the CONO/Cap (at least on the sleeper side of things) to single-level and add more capacity on the eastern trains. You could probably stretch some more capacity out of a partial Amfleet reshuffle as well (e.g. adding an Amfleet I to each LD train for short-distance riders as new equipment is ordered), and there's the option of reviving the Silver Palm in some form as well.

Edit: To address the Horizon point...

I don't recall the mix of Horizon equipment (cafes vs. coaches), but 95 cars of some mix of the two is enough to equip 10-12 LD consists with 5-6 coaches and a cafe. Put another way, you could re-equip the Silver Service (Silver Meteor, Silver Star, and Palmetto) with 6 coaches and a cafe each for the Meteor and Star, run a ten-car Palmetto (8 coaches, a cafe, and a BC car), and have enough equipment for 20% spares. Or you could do the Meteor, Star, and a daily Cardinal with 6+cafe configurations and be in more or less the same position. With the Meteor and Star you'd be freeing up 32-36 Amfleet IIs; with the Cardinal you'd free up another 6 (I forget the numbers on the Palmetto since the consist there is a mix). That's enough to lengthen the LSL and Crescent, add a few through cars between the Cap and Pennsylvanian and possibly do full re-equips on one or two of the longer state trains.


----------



## west point (Jul 21, 2015)

The Senate bill proposal to add some day time LD trips over routes with just night time trips

brings up several possibilities.

Western

1. SAN - LAX - SFO connections at SJC to Oakland.

2. PHX - LAX With the I-10 bridge collapse if this route was in service then a real service would be possible say 2 or 3 daily RTs.

3. DEN - CHI

4. MSP - CHI

5. MEM - CHI

Eastern routes

11. ATL - NYP

12. NYP - CHI various routes available

13. BOS - ALB - CLE

14. CLE - CHI

15. WASH - RVM - RGH - CLT - BHM Could be the new bi-level equipment

All these routes have current service just needs a large amount of equipment. Will reduce overhead.

Other overnight routes ?


----------



## jis (Jul 21, 2015)

The length of the running time on many of these routes makes a daytime train over the entire route impossible. However, daytime trains over part of the route is possible.


----------



## PerRock (Jul 21, 2015)

Just a little footnote about the AAF Siemens order.

The cars AAF are getting aren't new untested designs. Siemens is doing the same thing they did for the ACS-64, Velaro (Acela IIs/Cali HSR), and Diesel locos (bets it'll be called the ACR-##?) which is to take their already successful european designs and convert them for use here in the states.

The AAF coaches will be a modified version of the Viaggio coaches used by RZD, RIC/UIC, CD, and OeBB (CD & OeBB are branded RailJet). Just like the ACS-64 is a modified version of the ES-64u4, and the new diesels are modified versions of the EuroRunner platform. Having ridden the OeBB cars I can tell you they are quite comfortable & very modern feeling.

peter


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jul 21, 2015)

Who the heck are RZD, RIC/UIC, CD and OeBB? This is like using station codes instead of the real names of places. It seems cool, but is unnecessarily confusing. Really, I've never heard of these carriers. I assume they are European railroads, but who knows?


----------



## jis (Jul 21, 2015)

MikefromCrete said:


> Who the heck are RZD, RIC/UIC, CD and OeBB? This is like using station codes instead of the real names of places. It seems cool, but is unnecessarily confusing. Really, I've never heard of these carriers. I assume they are European railroads, but who knows?


I typed RZD into google and it said Russian Railways. I suppose others could do so too if they really wanted to know instead of just moaning about it?


----------



## PerRock (Jul 21, 2015)

RZD is the Russian State Railway, CD is the Cezch Republic's and OeBB (also seen anglicized as 'OBB' and technically 'ÖBB') is the Austrian Railway. RIC/UIC is essentially a leasing company in Europe for passenger cars (think TTX). All but RIC/UIC are pretty much the Amtrak's of some European countries.

peter


----------



## jis (Jul 21, 2015)

Like Amtrak, well actually at a more advanced stage, CD and OBB are facing some significant challenges from private train operators, as is DB the German Federal Railway and PKP, the Polish Govt. Railway.

The reason that through international service ceased between Dresden and Wroclow is that the Wroclow region banned PKP before their chosen alternative operator managed to come up with an arrangement with DB. DB almost lost its operating franchise for the Nurenberg S-Bahn, and was saved by an obscure technicality. Around Berlin there are already a number of alternative operators holding franchise on various specific local routes.

Surprisingly to me, all these alternate operators seem to somehow come in with new equipment for their service.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 21, 2015)

PerRock said:


> RZD is the Russian State Railway, CD is the Cezch Republic's and OeBB (also seen anglicized as 'OBB' and technically 'ÖBB') is the Austrian Railway. RIC/UIC is essentially a leasing company in Europe for passenger cars (think TTX). All but RIC/UIC are pretty much the Amtrak's of some European countries.
> 
> peter


It was a dirty job but somebody had to do it.

Thanks, Peter.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jul 21, 2015)

jis said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> > Who the heck are RZD, RIC/UIC, CD and OeBB? This is like using station codes instead of the real names of places. It seems cool, but is unnecessarily confusing. Really, I've never heard of these carriers. I assume they are European railroads, but who knows?
> ...


I don't think it's my job to do the work of the poster. If he wants to make a point he should make it clear.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 21, 2015)

PerRock said:


> Just a little footnote about the AAF Siemens order.
> 
> The cars AAF are getting aren't new untested designs. Siemens is doing the same thing they did for the ACS-64, Velaro (Acela IIs/Cali HSR), and Diesel locos (bets it'll be called the ACR-##?) which is to take their already successful european designs and convert them for use here in the states.
> 
> The AAF coaches will be a modified version of the Viaggio coaches ...


A few years back Amtrak (& some states) issued the specs for new bi-level cars. Soon after some were ordered from Nippon Sharyo. With the new specs for single-level cars, not so lucky. (Hey, back on topic AGAIN?)

iirc The All Aboard Florida RFP called for bidders to meet the new Amtrak specs, and why not. This could be the launch order for Amtrak's new single-level fleet. AAF and Siemens will be eating much of the set-up costs for the newly Americanized cars. AAF had no other easy way to get good equipment. And it puts Siemens in the best position to bid for any Amtrak order.

Now, if the specs were drawn to favor certain mass production rail car makers around the world, i don't know. But I'd expect that it should not be too hard for various bidders to meet the terms from AAF and Amtrak.


----------



## neroden (Jul 22, 2015)

WoodyinNYC said:


> But now I'm confusing myself about Amtrak overhead allocated to the state-supported corridor trains. Did the post-PRIIA formulas limit all that, or what?


As I understand it, before PRIIA, Amtrak charged a negotiated price for each of these; this was at least the incremental cost (Amtrak made money on every deal), but less than the 'fully allocated' cost.

Now, each state has to pay, IIRC, 97% of the "fully allocated" cost? Or 95%? Something like that, anyway... they found a loophole where it didn't have to be 100%. But either way, most states are paying a lot more in overhead than they were before.

This is the reason every single state complained about the PRIIA cost-sharing rules. Although the worst impact was on states like New York and Michigan which had to pay for trains formerly covered entirely by federal funding, every single state was charged more than before. Because a bunch of overhead, formerly not allocated, was allocated to each and every one of them.

Expansion of the system will spread that overhead over more trains and reduce each state's cost per train.

I am not sure, however, whether more passengers -- or shorter trip times -- on an individual corridor will pick up any additional overhead. If it's really being allocated by train miles, they won't change the overhead allocation.

Additional frequencies should, though: more train miles, so more overhead allocated to those trains. So when the Cascades go from 4 frequencies per day to 7, this takes some overhead weight off of every other train. Same thing when Illinois adds Moline service.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 22, 2015)

MikefromCrete said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > MikefromCrete said:
> ...


Yet you'll spend more time complaining about someone else's failure to hold your hand than you would have just helping yourself. I didn't know what railroads all of them are, but understood his point perfectly.


----------



## Karl1459 (Jul 22, 2015)

Considering bi-level cars.

If Amtrak were to attempt a replacement on a sustainable basis, ie a constant number of cars each year.

Of the 4 bi-level types currently in service (SL-1, 2, Calif, Surf) there were about 600 (607) built, with about 50 (53) out of service due to wrecks, fires, etc.

Assuming an average fleet age of 25 years to determine wreck rates, and a fleet life of 50 years for age replacement, suggests to me that to maintain the fleet 2.5 cars a year would be needed for wreck replacement, and 12 a year for age replacement, a total of about 15 cars a year, nowhere near the 100 per year numbers being thrown about early in the threads. A long term commitment (10 years minimum) to purchase 15 cars a year might bring the cost per car down into a reasonable level.

All the discussion about making a profit on the western LD trains is fluff, its not going to happen in the foreseeable future. That makes it a decision of congress or the various states to include the subsidy, INCLUDING CAPITAL REPLACEMENT, as part of a responsible transportation plan. Again, unlikely in the foreseeable future.


----------



## neroden (Jul 22, 2015)

50 years is considered significantly too old for sensible fleet replacement. Use 40 years.


----------



## jis (Jul 22, 2015)

MikefromCrete said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > MikefromCrete said:
> ...


I don;t think it was necessary to know more than that they are passenger train operators (which could be gleaned from the context, as even you apparently managed to do  ) to understand the point.

Incidentally Viaggio is a brand name that covers a rather wide range of cars, including the Viaggio Light which is a lower floor design that is deployed in Israel.

Specifically, the AAF contract involves the Viaggio Comfort platform (PDF) using the Siemens Charger diesel electric engine at each end of the consist. AAF has ordered 5 sets (2 per set) of engines, with an option for 5 more sets which apparently will be exercised. The number of cars in a consist initially will be 5 cars, later to be expanded to 7 cars as needed. Siemens has also been selected to maintain the equipment.

If things work out well it could provide an alternative paradigm on provision and maintenance of passenger equipment in the US, possibly even for Amtrak.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 22, 2015)

Karl1459 said:


> ...
> 
> If Amtrak were to attempt a replacement on a sustainable basis, ie a constant number of cars each year.
> 
> ...


The 100-a-year figure wasn't being "thrown around". It came from Amtrak fleet plan documents.

Amtrak reported that the first notion was to order 50 new cars a year. But after discussion with potential bidders, it became clear that 100 a year would be needed to obtain the best price, with big savings from mass production. To avoid boutique pricing, we're looking at 100 a year when or if such a contract is put to bid.

Anyway, how could a mere 15 cars a year work? Most of the current Superliners are quite mature. Neroden says a 40-year life expectancy is a good rule of thumb. But at 15 a yr x 10 yrs = 150 cars, that's barely replacing a quarter of the fleet over a decade! And 35 years or so to replace the fleet. Never mind any little expansion.

All my (not alone) thinking is to postpone any attempt for a big order for bi-level equipment until after the single-level fleet is replaced and expanded. That could be 10 years from now.

Going whole hog to replace the entire fleet is just too many Billions for Congress to swallow. So try to get the easier piece first.

Let's try to get the Eastern trains completely re-equipped with new stuff. Postpone the Western order, change the_ Capitol Ltd _and the _City of New Orleans _to single-level, and move their liberated bi-level equipment to the other trains to increase capacity as needed. Meanwhile, the results for the Eastern trains will improve, mostly due to added capacity, but also thanks to the new and shiny cars attracting more riders. The revenue improvement will help make the case for Part 2, ordering the bi-levels.

When or if the order is placed for new bi-levels, there'll be some urgency. Then getting 100cars a year will barely be fast enuff.


----------



## west point (Jul 22, 2015)

There is something not right about the F&B losses. We know that Amtrak has creative accounting but ----

The May performance report lists for the current FY.

F&B revenue $110M, Expenses 208M, Loss 98M

Passengers Total 20M, LD 2M, sleeper 433K

If a ticket surcharge listed as F&B was instituted of say $5.00 / 100 miles for sleeper passengers and $1.00 / 200 miles on all other passengers you would immediately have a F&B surplus. Too simple ? POLS probably would not like a simple solution. Suspect that this is how airlines and cruise ships allocate for their bean counters.


----------



## jis (Jul 22, 2015)

Only actual consumption by sleeper passenger is paid for by transfer from the transport account to the F&B account. This amount is far less than the fare differential charged ostensibly for providing F&B. So there is no obvious inconsistency in those numbers AFAICT. And the proposed simple solution will make no difference in what goes into the F&B account, if the same accounting procedure is followed.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 23, 2015)

Karl1459 said:


> All the discussion about making a profit on the western LD trains is fluff...


I must have overlooked anyone discussing making a profit on the Western LD trains. Can you give me a link? I'd like to read it for myself. Thanks.


----------



## Anderson (Jul 23, 2015)

I don't think it is really plausible to make a profit on the "big four" western trains (Builder, Zephyr, Chief, and Sunset) though I do think you could significantly close losses if there were more equipment to work with (particularly sleepers). The big issue is that unless you're going to run a "Florida Special"-type extra train (maybe run the CONO to Orlando/Miami 3x weekly on a seasonal basis with equipment that is used elsewhere in the summer if you can't wrangle any extra slots), a lot of equipment is going to spend a lot of time down in the off-season (though to be fair, having perhaps two dozen spare sleepers in the winter would both allow major maintenance overhauls and give Amtrak some much-needed wiggle room to shove an extra set into use when a winter storm hopelessly borks the Builder, Zephyr, or Cap; in all likelihood, having two or three extra consists sitting in CHI from 12/1-3/15 would all but eliminate cancellations/truncations outside of the truly worst weather (e.g. BNSF shuts the line down for safety reasons) or serious derailment issues.

As to equipment, I'd want to plan for a 30-year replacement cycle, with equipment over 30 years old being used for a mix of peak-season capacity help, backup sets, and "starter" equipment that can be leased to states at a low cost to trial additional service. Still...even if you went a bit under 100 cars/year that would require about 3000 cars in circulation to maintain (outside of "special order" sets like Acelas). That being said...such a pace might actually be achievable if you either (1) convert most trains (or at least their sleeper sides) to single-level or (2) you alter the order between single-level and bilevel equipment in reasonably predictable increments. You'd be looking at $200-350m/yr in capex for this, but that level seems increasingly doable, especially if you're willing to risk having much bigger trains in peak seasons than you do in the off-season.

One thing to consider is that if you're willing to lengthen existing trains a bit, 100 cars/year for the single-level trains can last you a long time.
-If you went with a 25% increase in the Amfleet I fleet you'd be at about 600 cars. 25% would cover extending most Regionals from 8 to 11 cars, adding a small number of sets to account for expanded VA service, and possibly some other expansions.
-For the LD trains I'd note that you have 18 "full" trains assuming a daily Cardinal (3 LSL-NYP, 4 SM, 4 SS, 4 CR, 3 CD) and 6 "half" trains (3 LSL-BOS, 3 CL-NYP). Converting the Cap and CONO would bring this to 24 and 6. Consider each such "full" train as having 5 sleepers, 2 FSCs, 5 coaches, and a baggage car (13 cars); each "half" train would have 2 sleepers, 1 FSC, 3 coaches, and a bag-dorm (7 cars). That gives you 354 cars before spares or 425 after spares; even removing 90 cars (to account for the present Viewliner II order) gives you 335 cars.

Ergo, it is quite possible to envision a single-level car order set totalling about 1000 cars (give or take a few). Some of these would probably be paid for by states, etc. The biggest problem is that I can see pulses of 200-300 cars ordered every 5-7 years (alternating with bilevel orders for other regions on the "off" side of the cycle) being the best thing overall (you'd have a steady flow of equipment and orders and you wouldn't have massive batches of equipment all ready to become a problem at the same time). If you went with an six-year cycle of single-levels and bilevels, you'd probably be able to get reasonably close to 20 years out of that cycle. Not quite the 30-40 we'd hope for, but something like that is big enough for a company (or two) to seriously invest in getting a contract for.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 24, 2015)

neroden said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> > But now I'm confusing myself about Amtrak overhead allocated to the state-supported corridor trains. ...
> ...


O.K. Looking at the September end of Fiscal 2017, by which time the Stimulus-funded stuff should be operating.

Two more frequencies on the _Cascades_ Seattle-Portland, and I seem to recall another run or two is coming Portland-Eugene.

Another run of the _San Joaquin_.

One daily train Chicago-Quad Cities (Moline service). Or could it be two trains each way?

Chicago-Rockford may get killed by Gov Raunch, so I hesitate to include it here.

More runs New Haven-Hartford-Springfield, but I don't recall if they said how many.

Amtrak Virginia, not sure they'll have anything more by Sept 2017, but by 2020, let's say, it should be two more Norfolk runs, and an extension of the _Lynchburger_ to Roanoke.

By Sept 2017, Illinois may have cleared the way with the UP for a couple more frequencies on the _Lincoln Service_ St Louis-Chicago. I can't see who would benefit by announcing any such deal early: Even with two more trains, everyone will gripe that it should have been more. LOL.

By Sept 2017, Michigan may have cleared the way for the long-rumored second run of the _Pere Marquette_ Grand Rapids-Chicagoa. Or start a train Kalamazoo-Battle Creek-Ann Arbor-Dearborn-Detroit-Pontiac. That's where the first round of cuts to the travel times -- 50 minutes or so -- will happen. Michigan really needs another _Wolverines _frequency squeezed thru the most highly congested freight corridor in the country, to get another train from Michican into Chicago. I'm sure Michigan will make their best effort, but I'm not sure it can be done.

Another _Piedmont _could happen, as well, but I don't recall an announced date.

But if Iowa Pacific actually runs the _Hoosier State_, that'll be a minus from the overhead-paying part of the equation.

And that's all there is to love? Could leave a fella brokenhearted.

The piddling addition being included soonish in the train miles denominator, divided into the numerator of fixed overhead, won't yield a very different result. Sadly not enuff to noticeably lower the "overhead divided by train miles" of the Amtrak system. Bummer. We need a lot more route miles. A lot of 'em.

Looking ahead to 2020, not very far away any more. If the Acela IIs come on time and allow more frequencies on the NEC, they could shoulder a considerable chunk of the overhead.

Then let's see. A second _Lynchburger_ running to Roanoke, and two or three more _Amtrak Virginia _frequencies to Norfolk, Newport News, and/or Richmond. Probably another _Piedmont _run. If SEPTA can fix tracks in Philly, likely another frequency or two on the _Keystone_, helped by getting the stations fixed. The _Vermonter _and the _Ethan Allen_ should be extended a few miles more by then. And I'm guessing an _Inland Route _train or two by 2020, somehow. (If it uses Amfleet I replacements, we'd be solidly back on topic!)

Maybe by 2020 they'll release the ex-Governor from prison and put the current one in, a typical Illinois cycle, and we'll see frequencies added to Carbondale and Quad Cities, with Rockford back on track. Five years from now might get a second run St Paul-Milwaukee-Chicago. More frequencies on the _Hiawathas _Milwaukee-Chicago, but so few miles. And dream of another run of the _River Runner_ St Louis-Kansas City.

There'll probably be another run of the _Pacific Surfliner_ and on the _Capitol Corridor _within five years. Likely another run or two of the _San Joaquin_. Cali might get a couple of trains down the Coachella Valley: Redlands-Indio-Palm Springs.

But all of these are short or shortish routes, again not enuff train miles to have enuff impact on "overhead divided by train miles" to see much difference.

To get more train miles, take the _Sunset Shuttle_ New Orleans-San Antonio, plus _Eagle/Sunset _daily San Antonio-L.A., and gain 4/7th of a week's train that way. Similarly 4 more days a week's worth of the _Cardinal_. Extend the _Palmetto _down to Florida. By 2020 could we get a revived _Broadway Ltd_ route? A _Coast Daylight _would cover some miles.

The host railroad would hate it, and the current, not-yet-imprisoned Governor would hate it, but reports suggest that Amtrak was sniffing around a possible second run of the _CONO_ Chicago-Memphis. If that's a state-supported train extended from Carbondale, but not another frequency Chicago-Carbondale, then it's just another short route and not much help.

The cure for what ails Amtrak is more Amtrak. But I just don't see much "more Amtrak" en route.


----------



## Anderson (Jul 24, 2015)

Just a note, but the Norfolk trains (well, #2 and #3) are extensions of the trains to Richmond that presently terminate there. The second Lynchburger (alongside the Roanoke extension) should happen by 2017/8. Basically count it as adding a Roanoke-Washington train, since you'll still have a Lynchburg-terminating train in the mix (largely due to trainset storage limits).

I had a talk with some relevant folks, and the daily Cardinal is still facing some deep issues in West Virginia.

On the _Cascades_...I'll need to ask Charlie, but I think there's some serious talk of a third train Seattle-Bellingham (Seattle-Vancouver is complicated by the border).

Anyhow...outside the NEC there are a lot of small route additions, but they do add up and yield a surprising number of train miles.


----------



## Andrew (Jul 24, 2015)

WoodyinNYC said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > WoodyinNYC said:
> ...


When will new Amfleet coaches likely inter revenue service?


----------



## neroden (Jul 24, 2015)

west point said:


> There is something not right about the F&B losses. We know that Amtrak has creative accounting


Yes, yes, I've discussed this for a while.... Amtrak's accounting is a mess, due to way too much 'allocation'. We don't know what's going into the reported F&B costs.

Amtrak says that the cafe cars are incrementally profitable. However, Amtrak hasn't broken out dining cars separately from cafe cars. (Ever.)

-- The excessive costs of maintaining the antique Heritage dining cars is probably dumped on the F&B account. So getting rid of them will probably make the F&B numbers look better.

-- The West-of-the-Mississippi 'long-distance' trains can't cover their incremental operating expenses from ticket sales, and only the Empire Builder comes close. It seems fairly obvious that the F&B numbers for these trains will also come out with a loss, given that the whole train operation does.

Amtrak has never broken out F&B numbers for individual trains, and I suspect Amtrak doesn't even have the accounting capability to do so, unfortunately. I would bet that the Silver Meteor and LSL dining cars could break even without much difficulty, given *decent food*.


----------



## neroden (Jul 24, 2015)

Anderson: I like your analysis of how to deploy single-level cars to make *long* trains in the East. Economies of scale!



Anderson said:


> I had a talk with some relevant folks, and the daily Cardinal is still facing some deep issues in West Virginia.


I'd like to know what's going on here. I have read that CSX dispatchers actually leave a slot for the Cardinal every day, including the days it's not running (did you say that or did someone else?). If so there really can't be terribly large issues in West Virginia. I've been assuming that there were major issues on the Buckingham Branch Railroad in Virginia, which is normally run one way with the Cardinal being the only major traffic the other direction.

If someone had a decent summary of where the congestion issues are for the Cardinal -- where is it coming into conflict with opposing train movements? which single-track-sections are problematic? -- someone might be able to come up with an upgrade funding proposal, but so far it's all been dark, vague rumors. And I don't tend to give those much credit, for obvious reasons.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 24, 2015)

Andrew said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> > neroden said:
> ...


LOL. After they are ordered and built.

We've been sort of discussing how many should be ordered for service and for where. But given your level of impatience, just forgetaboutit. If an order for $2 or $3 billion worth of new equipment were placed next week (and that can't happen, no funding, no RFP, no bids in hand, nothing, nothing, nothing happening), it would take 4 or 5 years to see the cars come off the assembly line.

So find something else to worry about.


----------



## Andrew (Jul 24, 2015)

WoodyinNYC said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> > WoodyinNYC said:
> ...


The new Amfleet coaches will probably enter service in the 2020's and be financed by a RRIF loan.

Perhaps Bombardier, Alstom, or Kawasaki could manufacture the coaches.

How long is it usually between when an RFP is released and a contract signing occurs for new coaches?


----------



## jis (Jul 24, 2015)

Oh brother.... here we go again 

Why not Siemens?

The answer is take a dice and roll it whatever face comes up may be the answer.


----------



## Andrew (Jul 24, 2015)

jis said:


> Oh brother.... here we go again
> 
> Why not Siemens?
> 
> The answer is take a dice and roll it whatever face comes up may be the answer.


Imagine if Siemens got the new electric locomotive contract (which they did), new DM locomotive contract, and the contract for the new Acela train-sets and Amfleet coaches...


----------



## Amfleeter (Jul 24, 2015)

The next gen single level coach is probably going to be made by CAF, in all honesty. Once the V-II order part I is done, Amtrak should have a good working relationship with CAF. Plus, they own the design, so they can get exactly what they want.


----------



## jis (Jul 24, 2015)

Considering the disaster that CAF has been so far, there is little love lost between Amtrak and CAF at present. At least that is what I hear through the grapevine. I don't think it is a slam dunk either for CAF or for that matter that the next generation single level car will even be based on the Viewliner design. The decision will be based on what is available cheapest and most reliably in the marketplace possibly attached with a financing plan. I believe just like with Acela IIs Amtrak will provide requirements based on required features, and not require a specific base design and let the vendors propose how and for what cost they can meet the requirements. Just my speculation mind you. I don't know anything specific about this matter any more than anyone else does here.


----------



## PRR 60 (Jul 24, 2015)

jis said:


> Considering the disaster that CAF has been so far, there is little love lost between and Amtrak and CAF at present. At least that is what I hear through the grapevine. I don;t think it is a slam dunk either for CAF or for that matter that the next generation single level car will even be based on the Viewliner design. The decision will be based on what is available cheapest and most reliably in the marketplace possibly attached with a financing plan. I believe just like with Acela IIs Amtrak will provide requirements based on required features, and not require a specific base design and let the vendors propose how and for what cost they can meet the requirements. Just my speculation mind you. I don;t know anything specific about this matter any more than anyone else does here.


When someone suggests that Amtrak order yet more cars from CAF, the line from Animal House comes to mind: "Thank you sir, may I have another."


----------



## afigg (Jul 24, 2015)

Amfleeter said:


> The next gen single level coach is probably going to be made by CAF, in all honesty. Once the V-II order part I is done, Amtrak should have a good working relationship with CAF. Plus, they own the design, so they can get exactly what they want.


Adding my two bits to the other replies, we should realize that Amtrak will not be in charge - or at least the only player for deciding what to get for an Amfleet 1 replacement order. Whenever that might happen. The FRA/US DOT, the NEC Commission with representatives from all the NEC states, and all the eastern states that provide subsidies including capital charges for the rolling stock used for the corridor services will have a say. I suspect that it is likely that a joint equipment order commission of some sort will be formed to issue the RFP for single level cars, review the bids and make the purchase decision with Amtrak having only a few votes on such a commission.

I think it is possible that the Amfleet I and Amfleet II replacements could go separate ways. Amtrak may want to order Viewliner II coach and cafe cars for the single level LD fleet to have a consistent car type for the LD trains. Say, an order for 130 to 140 LD coach cars and 30 cafe/diner light/lounge cars to replace the 145 remaining Amfleet II cars. That order might not neccesarily go to CAF, but could go to another vendor as the RFP would have to be an open bid.

For an order of Amfleet I replacements, say 550 plus cars to expand capacity and the fleet size, the states might opt for off the shelf equipment, such as the Siemans cars, that is compliant with the PRIIA single level specification. But I am speculating here, have no inside info or sources. Which would be meaningless anyway as until there is enough funds lined up to place either an Amfleet I or II replacement order, little will happen beyond updates to a fleet strategy plan.


----------



## Anderson (Jul 24, 2015)

jis said:


> Considering the disaster that CAF has been so far, there is little love lost between Amtrak and CAF at present. At least that is what I hear through the grapevine. I don't think it is a slam dunk either for CAF or for that matter that the next generation single level car will even be based on the Viewliner design. The decision will be based on what is available cheapest and most reliably in the marketplace possibly attached with a financing plan. I believe just like with Acela IIs Amtrak will provide requirements based on required features, and not require a specific base design and let the vendors propose how and for what cost they can meet the requirements. Just my speculation mind you. I don't know anything specific about this matter any more than anyone else does here.


I am reasonably certain that it will be based on the Viewliner platform. They were doing Viewliner-basis mockups of a coach back when AU did the Wilmington yard tour (remember that oddly out-of-place Viewliner prototype sleeper? They were using that for the work).


----------



## jis (Jul 24, 2015)

If the reason for your certainty is that they were doing mockups, well, I don't have much else to say  That does not really mean much of anything. They have done such mockups for many things on many platforms and about 5% may have come to fruition in some form or another. I sincerely hope there is something more than that behind your feeling of reasonable certainty.

Ultimately it will be about money. If a world manufacturer comes in with a proposal that is significantly cheaper and meets the basic requirements, I would be astounded to see Amtrak and the states go with the more expensive option and justify it to everyone that pays the bill. So it will depend on whether a seemingly more complex design can be produced cheaper than mass produced cars.


----------



## Paulus (Jul 25, 2015)

What's the actual benefit to Amtrak owning the design for the Viewliners?


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jul 25, 2015)

afigg said:


> Amfleeter said:
> 
> 
> > The next gen single level coach is probably going to be made by CAF, in all honesty. Once the V-II order part I is done, Amtrak should have a good working relationship with CAF. Plus, they own the design, so they can get exactly what they want.
> ...



Would you agree that this assumes that all of the groups will actually utilize Amtrak as their carrier? Personally, I don't think it is outside the realm of possibility that NY, PA and CT, order their own cars and grab someone else to provide services for them.


----------



## jis (Jul 25, 2015)

Thirdrail, I think Amtrak will try its darnedest to remain the carrier of choice for everyone. But I agree with you that NY, PA, and CT (and MA for Boston - Springfield operations) might very well go their own way. Of those in my reckoning CT might be the first to defect. Frankly neither NY nor PA has a robust enough passenger rail desk in their DOT to pull of their own operations at present. but of course that could change, specially if something like what is being tried by Indiana with the Hoosier State is found to work equipment-wise.

The impact on passenger rolling stock is at best unpredictable at present. On thing is clear that the private rolling stock providers will not follow the Amtrak lead. They will be more cost sensitive and will go into the world market to get the best deal they can, as is evidenced by what AAF is doing in Florida.


----------



## Amfleeter (Jul 25, 2015)

Paulus said:


> What's the actual benefit to Amtrak owning the design for the Viewliners?


They can have anyone they want building it, it's cheaper because all R&D is in-house, plus maintenance is cheaper.


----------



## jis (Jul 25, 2015)

Amfleeter said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> > What's the actual benefit to Amtrak owning the design for the Viewliners?
> ...


How do we know maintenance is cheaper. Cheaper than what? Isn't the design pretty obsolete being of 1980's vintage? How much real R&D is involved in building an '80's vintage passenger car? How can a car that will have a total build run using special rigs for it, of maybe 600 cars be cheaper overall than cars that have build runs of many thousands? I am just curious. I don;t know the answers to these questions.


----------



## west point (Jul 25, 2015)

JIS; There is a major difference between 1980s cars and today. Capital costs are much easier to justify than operating costs (maintenance). So the present V-2s are built with a modular design. That way parts or components can be quickly removed and a new / rebuilt part inserted. + the build contract has maintenance provisions for "X" number of years pushing manufacturer to build cars and locos more reliable. The modular also allows quicker turn around of cars allowing for higher utilization. Remember even the sleeper units will be modular. Now with the designs being owned by Amtrak anyone can bid from the drawings and the only problem new builders have will be institutional construction experience.

It may be that the AAF equipment will not be so designed. We will have to wait and see they may want a cheaper design at first in case the service does not work. One of the many problems of older aircraft is the difficulty of replacing some parts as compared with later models...


----------



## Hal (Jul 25, 2015)

west point said:


> JIS; There is a major difference between 1980s cars and today. Capital costs are much easier to justify than operating costs (maintenance). So the present V-2s are built with a modular design. That way parts or components can be quickly removed and a new / rebuilt part inserted. + the build contract has maintenance provisions for "X" number of years pushing manufacturer to build cars and locos more reliable. The modular also allows quicker turn around of cars allowing for higher utilization. Remember even the sleeper units will be modular. Now with the designs being owned by Amtrak anyone can bid from the drawings and the only problem new builders have will be institutional construction experience.
> 
> It may be that the AAF equipment will not be so designed. We will have to wait and see they may want a cheaper design at first in case the service does not work. One of the many problems of older aircraft is the difficulty of replacing some parts as compared with later models...


Any new cars by any manufacturer is going to be modular. That is how they build these days. I doubt that the replacement for Amfleet 1 will be based on the Viewliners.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jul 25, 2015)

jis said:


> Thirdrail, I think Amtrak will try its darnedest to remain the carrier of choice for everyone. But I agree with you that NY, PA, and CT (and MA for Boston - Springfield operations) might very well go their own way. Of those in my reckoning CT might be the first to defect. Frankly neither NY nor PA has a robust enough passenger rail desk in their DOT to pull of their own operations at present. but of course that could change, specially if something like what is being tried by Indiana with the Hoosier State is found to work equipment-wise.
> 
> The impact on passenger rolling stock is at best unpredictable at present. On thing is clear that the private rolling stock providers will not follow the Amtrak lead. They will be more cost sensitive and will go into the world market to get the best deal they can, as is evidenced by what AAF is doing in Florida.



I'm just going to cut to the chase and post an older article that makes me wonder, Jis. Please allow a brief "fair use" quote from the following article: Looming fund cuts endanger Amtrak's Keystone line



> Subsidies from Pennsylvania and Amtrak have been declining gradually as ridership and ticket revenue have risen.
> 
> But Pennsylvania is not likely to replace the full $8 million subsidy from Amtrak, leaving severe cuts in service as "a distinct possibility," said Andy Sharpe, communications director of the rail passengers association.
> 
> ...


Amtrak's unit operating costs are relatively high is telling statement, particularly if your DOT is already operating trains. Herzog might not have a fleet of equipment but SEPTA does. It wouldn't take a hell of a lot for Penndot to get SEPTA to Harrisburg. Although SEPTA may be in slightly worse shape than Amtrak, the Pennsylvanian DOT may just decide the throw their weight behind SEPTA to provide service. This way they deal with one company. They may tack onto the order of double deckers and once their ACS-64s are operational, they can tell Amtrak to pound sand.

Possible? Yes! Probable? Well, time will tell.

Amtrak may have a surplus of equipment in the next few years.


----------



## neroden (Jul 26, 2015)

PRR 60 said:


> When someone suggests that Amtrak order yet more cars from CAF, the line from Animal House comes to mind: "Thank you sir, may I have another."


:sigh: There's nothing wrong with CAF. They badly underestimated the difficulty of setting up a factory from scratch in Elmira and staffing it, but they seem to have managed to do so finally. If I were Amtrak, I would totally buy more cars from CAF *if* CAF was willing to offer ridiculous discount prices in order to try to win back reputation.



jis said:


> Amfleeter said:
> 
> 
> > Paulus said:
> ...


No, it's not. It's really better considered a 1990s design.
It's actually state-of-the-art except for one key thing: the weight penalty. But given that AFAIK the FRA *still* hasn't relaxed its rules to allow for lightweight cars, it's the best thing to order. The moment lightweights are allowed, the ideal thing to order will change massively.



Thirdrail7 said:


> Amtrak's unit operating costs are relatively high is telling statement


Not really. What's going on there is allocation of overhead; PRIIA is requiring the allocation of Amtrak's overhead to these lines, which makes the unit operating costs look high. Unfortunately any startup would have the same problem. SEPTA could offer the service at avoidable-cost pricing and underbid, but SEPTA's got its own capital backlog, so SEPTA would be obliged to tack on capital costs to its bid and it probably wouldn't be any cheaper.


----------



## Andrew (Jul 26, 2015)

Septa is planning to purchase double-decker coaches in the not too distant future...

Does anyone know if the Bombardier Multi-level vehicle is the strongest candidate for this new coach procurement, and when a contract is expected to get signed?


----------



## jis (Jul 26, 2015)

It has to be something like the Bombardier MLVs (NJT-like) or Kawasaki C3s (LIRR-like) since they have to fit through tunnels of similar height clearance through center city.


----------



## Andrew (Jul 26, 2015)

jis said:


> It has to be something like the Bombardier MLVs (NJT-like) or Kawasaki C3s (LIRR-like) since they have to fit through tunnels of similar height clearance through center city.


Bombardier's double deckers are lighter than Kawasaki's.

I wasn't able to find the height and weight of Hyundai Rotem's double decker's. Do you know what they are?


----------



## jis (Jul 26, 2015)

neroden said:


> It's actually state-of-the-art except for one key thing: the weight penalty. But given that AFAIK the FRA *still* hasn't relaxed its rules to allow for lightweight cars, it's the best thing to order. The moment lightweights are allowed, the ideal thing to order will change massively.


FRA has apparently changed the regulations for tier 1 (allowing CEM to meet energy absorption requirements instead of brute force collision posts alone) enough to allow off the shelf UIC equipment with very minor changes. AAF is taking advantage of that to acquire Siemens Viaggio cars for their Miami - Orlando service. That is also what is now allowing Stadlers DMUs to become FRA compliant with relative ease, something that was inconceivable when NJT built the RiverLINE.
Regarding the Viewliner design vintage....



> No, it's not. It's really better considered a 1990s design.


Well if you say so. I would just note that the prototypes were built in 1987-88 and leave it at that.



Andrew said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > It has to be something like the Bombardier MLVs (NJT-like) or Kawasaki C3s (LIRR-like) since they have to fit through tunnels of similar height clearance through center city.
> ...


The Boston Rotem cars are the Boston double-decker height, same as the Boston Kawaskis (or the MARC Kawasakis), which would not fit through NY and Philly tunnels.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jul 26, 2015)

neroden said:


> Thirdrail7 said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak's unit operating costs are relatively high is telling statement
> ...



My thought process (which may be wrong) is the unit costs include what Amtrak charges for support which includes the labor pools. In other words, even if the cost of the actual "car" turns out to be the same, if Amtrak's labor rate for engineers, conductors, mechanical forces, etc is significantly more than a SEPTA employee, that would add to the "unit" costs.

Am I looking at this wrong?


----------



## neroden (Jul 26, 2015)

jis said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > It's actually state-of-the-art except for one key thing: the weight penalty. But given that AFAIK the FRA *still* hasn't relaxed its rules to allow for lightweight cars, it's the best thing to order. The moment lightweights are allowed, the ideal thing to order will change massively.
> ...


FINALLY. This would call for major changes to order specifications, and should improve things, hopefully.


----------



## neroden (Jul 26, 2015)

Thirdrail7 said:


> My thought process (which may be wrong) is the unit costs include what Amtrak charges for support which includes the labor pools. In other words, even if the cost of the actual "car" turns out to be the same, if Amtrak's labor rate for engineers, conductors, mechanical forces, etc is significantly more than a SEPTA employee, that would add to the "unit" costs.
> 
> Am I looking at this wrong?


This would be the case if it were *true*, but in fact from everything I can tell it is not the case; SEPTA employees get paid just as well as Amtrak, it seems, if not better. Don't forget that SEPTA Regional Rail has crazily powerful unions which were able to thwart the adoption of modern practices on more than one occasion.

Maybe hiring BNSF or Veolis to run it would get lower-paid workers, but from what I can tell not SEPTA.


----------



## StriderGDM (Jul 26, 2015)

Thirdrail7 said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> > Amfleeter said:
> ...


I can't see NYS caring enough to actually invest in their own cars (even though it may be a double win since the cars would almost certainly be built in NYS).


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 28, 2015)

jis said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > It's actually state-of-the-art except for one key thing: the weight penalty. But given that AFAIK the FRA *still* hasn't relaxed its rules to allow for lightweight cars, it's the best thing to order. The moment lightweights are allowed, the ideal thing to order will change massively.
> ...


Wait! Shouldn't this be HEADLINE NEWS?

You are saying the new regulations may make possible lighter, cheaper, faster, more fuel efficient, more nearly off-the-shelf coaches as replacements for the Amfleets? (Staying on topic.  )

Wonder if the latest delays to the Viewliner diners and sleepers could be because Amtrak is busily trying to write change orders for CAF for lighter, cheaper, faster, more fuel efficient, more nearly off-the-shelf designs in line with the new regulations. :giggle:

Anyway, this news is, Amtrak Joe Biden might say, "a big f*cking deal." So thanks for the info. Links or more details would be appreciated, since this news blew past me while I was distracted. Or maybe the hardliners agreed to relax the old rules on condition there be no press release about their backing down to embarrass them. LOL.


----------



## Caesar La Rock (Jul 29, 2015)

In response to the previous post, you may want to look at this. Don't want to take this off topic, but it is true about off-the-shelf stuff.

https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/modern-european-train-designs-american-tracks-2015-fra


----------



## neroden (Jul 29, 2015)

Did the regulations actually finally go through? Are they reallly in place? Can someone find references to the Federal Register?

Because yes, if true, this should be headline news on every rail website. It is a *huge* deal.


----------



## neroden (Jul 29, 2015)

WoodyinNYC said:


> Wonder if the latest delays to the Viewliner diners and sleepers could be because Amtrak is busily trying to write change orders for CAF for lighter, cheaper, faster, more fuel efficient, more nearly off-the-shelf designs in line with the new regulations. :giggle:


That would be absoutely awesome and would be a great reason to delay the diners and sleepers. I kind of doubt it, though. But that would be absolutely awesomely great.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 29, 2015)

Not especially, change orders of that scale at this stage in the construction process are a recipe for disaster.


----------



## jis (Jul 29, 2015)

I have no idea what changes in the buff strength and collision characteristics rules would be considered "awesome" and which not, so it is likely that the changes that have happened are probably not "awesome", They were being discussed last year or earlier.

What has not changed is the ability to absorb 800,000lb buff force.

What has changed is that deformation of the ends of the cars to absorb energy is now allowed. The deformation that is not allowed is of the main passenger carrying compartment. That is typically how CEM is done. The previous tier 1 standards did not allow deformation of the entire body of the car..

I am told that the changes appear as an additional method of meeting the Tier I requirements in the CFR. I have not checked it personally.

I have no idea what, if any, effect this has on the weight of cars. I am told that with this change, the changes needed in the design of line manufactured cars that meet current and near future UIC standards will be relatively small. However, I am not a coach manufacturer, nor do I know enough about the statics and dynamics of coach designs to comment beyond that in a knowledgeable way.

And yeah, I don't think CAF's inability to deliver cars within several years of the original plan has anything to do with any of this. These rules were not available when the order was placed.


----------



## neroden (Jul 29, 2015)

jis said:


> What has not changed is the ability to absorb 800,000lb buff force.
> 
> What has changed is that deformation of the ends of the cars to absorb energy is now allowed. The deformation that is not allowed is of the main passenger carrying compartment. That is typically how CEM is done. The previous tier 1 standards did not allow deformation of the entire body of the car..


The question is, basically, do vestibules count as part of "the main passenger carrying compartment" or not. If they do, nothing much has changed, since the cars can't be made longer to add crumple zones. If they don't, it's a huge change; a crumple-able vestibule can absorb a lot of energy and a lot of dead weight can be eliminated.


----------



## jis (Jul 29, 2015)

neroden said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > What has not changed is the ability to absorb 800,000lb buff force.
> ...


No they don't, as far as I could understand from the text and talking to folks whose job it is to understand and execute upon it. What they have speced in the regs appears to be pretty much in line with standard European practice as far as what is and what is not "passenger compartment" goes.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 29, 2015)

THE CJ said:


> In response to the previous post, you may want to look at this. Don't want to take this off topic, but it is true about off-the-shelf stuff.
> 
> https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/modern-european-train-designs-american-tracks-2015-fra


Long Barred from American Tracks, European Train Designs Could Get Rolling by 2015

By Stephen J. Smith | October 31, 2013

“It’ll take a while to get the [new] regulations in place,” said Robert Lauby, associate administrator for railroad safety and chief safety officer at the FRA. The new rules have already been drafted and now await approval from various federal agencies, followed by a period of public review. ... Lauby suggested that the new rules should clear the final hurdles sometime in 2015."

It's a good article from NEXT CITY but it's stale, almost two years old.

So I'm still wondering if there's an official notice yet.


----------



## jis (Jul 29, 2015)

There is no official notice. There are the regulations in place in CFR

Go and read 49 CFR Subtitle B Chapter II Part 238 Subpart C Section 238.203. The requirement has been loosened a lot and much greater leeway has been given to FRA to evaluate non-standard crash energy management systems to certify them compliant. IIt looks like the collision post requirements have also been revised, but I am not quite sure what the net effect is on car weight. I am told that it is easier to meet these requirements with smaller modification to off the shelf European designs.


----------



## Caesar La Rock (Jul 29, 2015)

WoodyinNYC said:


> THE CJ said:
> 
> 
> > In response to the previous post, you may want to look at this. Don't want to take this off topic, but it is true about off-the-shelf stuff.
> ...


I posted that to show the changes have been talked about for some time now.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 29, 2015)

THE CJ said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> > THE CJ said:
> ...


Yes, that was clear. And the article, especially the paragraph that I pasted in here, was VERY well sourced. You did fine. Don't worry about it.


----------



## Acela2172 (Nov 23, 2015)

One thing Amtrak could do if Congress wont allow the funding to replace the entire amfleet I fleet at once is purchase new equipment to replace a 10th of the fleet from different purchases until they are all replaced and then replace the cars more frequently. The commuter rails replace their rolling stock more frequently then Amtrak. And the commuter rails are state owned as Amtrak is federal owned. And it is too bad the Acela LRC passenger cars do not have the stow away stepwells because they would make for good usage on the NEC. Maybe with ACS64s. Except they would need a cab car for the Keystone.


----------



## neroden (Nov 23, 2015)

With the new Crash Energy Management regulation, something interesting happens: there's a strong motivation to have vestibules on both ends of any new cars, so that the CEM can be used rather than stupid plain weight. Otherwise the end without a vestibule still has to be built stupidly heavy.

As a result the Amfleet II and Amfleet I replacements will probably be nearly identical, with vestibules on both ends, and the only difference being in the seating. This does make it easier to make an order big enough to get decent pricing, while spreading it out over several years to keep production lines open, while also having enough volume per year to make it worthwhile for the carbuilder -- they've got 618 to replace, plus any wanted for expansion, and that doesn't include cab cars. (It does include cafes, and I really hope they go for double windows and glasstops... because why not? Should increase revenue.)


----------



## PVD (Nov 24, 2015)

Well said. In addition, incorporating modern modular interior fit out methods might allow the opportunity to create legit business class cars at a reasonable cost, Most of us seem to like the club-dinette seating on many single level trains, but perhaps something a bit larger in capacity, like a half regular car maybe with a few workstation /table spots might sell well (in and out of Albany comes to mind). Certainly the Am-1 BC cars on the NER are nothing special.


----------



## jis (Nov 24, 2015)

If Amtrak is hell bent on using the Viewliner design for everything then perhaps the new CEM regulations are not of huge relevance to them, since the Viewliner design adequately addresses the energy absorption issues in compliance with pre-CEM regulations anyway. What the new regulations allow is buying stuff like Siemens Viaggio off the shelf more or less. However, if the car designed by the committee in the US does not permit such for use in the Amtrak system, as those cars are probably different, then it is not clear if Amtrak would ever acquire new CEM cars. I don't know how specific the committee car design is and how married Amtrak is to the Viewliner design. Maybe I am just worrying about a nonexistent issue.


----------



## Andrew (Nov 24, 2015)

jis said:


> If Amtrak is hell bent on using the Viewliner design for everything then perhaps the new CEM regulations are not of huge relevance to them, since the Viewliner design adequately addresses the energy absorption issues in compliance with pre-CEM regulations anyway. What the new regulations allow is buying stuff like Siemens Viaggio off the shelf more or less. However, if the car designed by the committee in the US does not permit such for use in the Amtrak system, as those cars are probably different, then it is not clear if Amtrak would ever acquire new CEM cars. I don't know how specific the committee car design is and how married Amtrak is to the Viewliner design. Maybe I am just worrying about a nonexistent issue.


So maybe a Siemens Viaggio will be the Amfleet replacement at some point?


----------



## Eric S (Nov 24, 2015)

Or some other coach design that doesn't exist yet.


----------



## jis (Nov 24, 2015)

Well, I would modify my statement a bit to say that it is almost certain that the Acela II cars will use the new CEM standards. What will happen with the replacement for Tier I cars? Who knows? But Eric may be right. Or it could be some design that is broadly deployed all over the world, just to keep costs down.


----------



## Acela2172 (Nov 24, 2015)

I doubt the Amfleet design will continue on the Amfleet replacements. Its too bad they didn't purchase additional single level Cars around the time the Acela Rolling stock was built. The LRCs would make good cars on the NEC and Keystone Corridor except with the stow away stairwells in the doors and possibly even the door that slides into the panels instead of the parallelogram opening. Or one thing they can do to save money is even piggyback off of Via Rails Renaissance cars except for the luggage rack configuration. And the double vestibules. As well as the seats. Although I believe the company who made the Renaissance car went out of business. So who knows. I wouldn't be surprised if they were the shape of the new Viewliners except the height of the typical passenger rail car.


----------



## jis (Nov 24, 2015)

There was nothing to piggyback off of Renaissance Cars. The Renaissance cars were originally built for Nightstar service through the Channel Tunnel, derived from the Met-Cam built Mark IV cars used on the ECML. When that scheme fell through they became surplus and VIA acquired them for a bargain, and modified them for use in Canada. The manufacturer of Renaissance Cars is Metro-Cammell, which was by then a subsidiary of Alstom and they are very much in business, though they do not manufacture anything at Washwood Heath anymore. The last rolling stock to be manufactured there were the British tilting Pendolinos for the modernization of WCML.The Renaissance Cars in their present configuration are not even FRA regulations compliant, so they cannot operate in the US without a very significant waiver.


----------



## Acela2172 (Nov 24, 2015)

I have noticed lately in the US a lot of single level passenger railcars are shaped kind of like the Viewliners so most likely I wouldn't be surprised if the Amfleet replacements were shaped like the Viewliners except not as tall as the Viewliners.


----------



## jis (Nov 24, 2015)

There are at present exactly 123 cars in general circulation in the US shaped like Viewliners. Some more will join the Viewliner fleet over the next year or two. What else is shaped like a Viewliner. The Acela cars are basically shaped more like LRCs, which is their antecedent and has the bulge like them. What else looks even remotely like a Viewliner?


----------



## Acela2172 (Nov 24, 2015)

I have noticed that many rail cars have the side walls shaped similar to those on the LRC Viewliner and even the M7 and M8. And even the Silverliner V. I don't think new single level railcars are available in flat sides like the Comet railcar. And the Amfleet design is from the 70s and even the 80s. I think depending on who the manufacturer is may have to do with how its designed.


----------



## Eric S (Nov 24, 2015)

jis said:


> There was nothing to piggyback off of Renaissance Cars. The Renaissance cars were originally built for Nightstar service through the Channel Tunnel, derived from the Met-Cam built Mark IV cars used on the ECML. When that scheme fell through they became surplus and VIA acquired them for a bargain, and modified them for use in Canada. The manufacturer of Renaissance Cars is Metro-Cammell, which was by then a subsidiary of Alstom and they are very much in business, though they do not manufacture anything at Washwood Heath anymore. The last rolling stock to be manufactured there were the British tilting Pendolinos for the modernization of WCML.The Renaissance Cars in their present configuration are not even FRA regulations compliant, so they cannot operate in the US without a very significant waiver.


Didn't the Renaissance cars require some significant modifications to meet Transport Canada (correct agency?) regulations? I seem to recall there was a rather long delay in them entering service for VIA, but perhaps I'm mistaken as to the reasons for that delay.

(Not to suggest that because they were modified to meet Canadian regulations that they could be modified to meet American regulations - in fact just agreeing with you and noting that they were not able to be used "off-the-shelf/boat" in Canada.)


----------



## jis (Nov 24, 2015)

Yes they did, Eric. but as you surmised Canadian and FRA regulations differ in many ways that allows some things to happen in Canada that would not work "out of the box" in FRA jurisdiction without specific waivers. One of them is mixing Renaissance stock with FRA stock. Canadians allowed it with a buffer car. It is possible that FRA would allow such too, but it will require a specific waiver. Also the new modified Tier I rules may make that easier too.

Though part of the delay was because what VIA acquired was only half finished too. Almost half of the group was acquired as just completed car shells that needed completion of the rest of the car too.


----------



## Acela2172 (Nov 24, 2015)

I think designs like the LRC or even the design like the M7 or even the Silverliner V would make good amfleet replacements. Of course in push pull with end vestibules. As Amtrak is non EMU like the M7 and Silverliner are and only commuter rails use the center vestibules.


----------



## west point (Nov 24, 2015)

Repeating. Do not expect Amfleet - 1s to be replaced any time soon. It will be the -2s replaced first. Why you ask ? -2s have 1.4 to 1.6 times the average mileage of -1s. Some even higher. See Amtrak fleet strategy plan and FY 2016 budget request. Amtrak's plan has been to replace AMFLEET-2s on LD trains with V-2 coaches and lounges. That of course is subject to available funds which who knows when they will become available.

With V-2 replacements some of the AMFLEET-2s can then be repurposed to cover low mileage SD routes that need more equipment but also the NEC since they perform well on the NEC.


----------



## Acela2172 (Nov 25, 2015)

If Amtrak plans to replace the Amfleet 2s first they should also look into adding on for the Amfleet Is that were retired due to major structural damage. As we don't want to the situation of having a shortage in cars and overcrowding. But luckily the Amfleets are push pull and not EMU. Metro Norths M2s were built around the same time as the Amfleet Is and they replaced them as they were run down. Smelly restrooms and even overcrowding due to many cars constantly being out for repair on the New Haven Line. But the M2s were EMU and the Amfleets are push pull so there is no issue of motor malfunctions on the Amfeets.

The Amfleet Is are still in good condition. I don't know how they are mechanically but I know riding them they are in good condition. If they feel they cant replace them but want to update they can send them for a complete overhaul like PATCO did with their rolling stock.


----------



## neroden (Nov 25, 2015)

Acela2172 said:


> I have noticed that many rail cars have the side walls shaped similar to those on the LRC Viewliner and even the M7 and M8. And even the Silverliner V. I don't think new single level railcars are available in flat sides like the Comet railcar. And the Amfleet design is from the 70s and even the 80s. I think depending on who the manufacturer is may have to do with how its designed.


The Viewliner sidewalls maximize internal space while still clearing all the restricted-loading-gauge tunnels (Park Avenue, North River, etc.) So it's practical to use it. I am glad that that profile is being used. (I notice that the M7s and M8s on Metro-North and LIRR have a similar profile.) A straight-side railcar would be fine too, and only lose a little space.

For a new build, nobody's going to use the Amcan design which wastes a lot of space in a bizarre attempt to mimic airplane body styling.


----------



## PVD (Nov 25, 2015)

One of those "era" things. Big tailfins on cars, oranges and yellow kitchen stuff, sea green telephones, don't see that stuff anymore (museums notwithstanding). Couldn't get parts for those phones after the fad passed, but I had customers that wouldn't say good bye. Ugh.


----------



## Andrew (May 16, 2016)

With potentially such a large order of coaches in the future, I wonder if Amtrak would go with a joint venture (so perhaps a company such as CAF builds the long distance Amfleets and Alstom builds the inter-city Amfleets) or if Amtrak would ask one company to manufacture possibly 700 coaches!


----------



## WoodyinNYC (May 16, 2016)

Andrew said:


> With potentially such a large order of coaches in the future, I wonder if Amtrak would go with a joint venture (so perhaps a company such as CAF builds the long distance Amfleets and Alstom builds the inter-city Amfleets) or if Amtrak would ask one company to manufacture possibly 700 coaches!


In the Fleet Plan document some years back, they went into detail about the plan to replace the whole batch in one order, taking 100 coaches a year for six or seven years (More if they started to expand with new routes).

The problem is, how to pay for them? Even if Amtrak-friendly Members controlled the House and Senate, they could vote plenty money to Amtrak for two years. Then another election and things could change again. ;-( So the manufacturer would know that because politics, he might not get paid for the whole order of 6 or 7 years of cars, but only for two. It's hard to get a bargain bid buying only 200 cars over two years, and then starting over with a new Congress and new bids.

I could see CAF building more Viewliner II sleepers, bag dorms, baggage cars, and maybe even diners (if Amtrak started adding routes). But after losing $42 million so far on this contract, I'd be very surprised if they made a strong bid to build coaches.

Meanwhile you return to the notion of joint bids as if it were some kinky sex. I do not expect any joint bids here. No.


----------



## west point (May 17, 2016)

Woody --- Amtrak's latest budget request still shows 100 single level cars a year for about 6 years starting in 2019. ( see Amtrak reports - budget request - about page 22 ? ) . Note to Andrew the same report does not call the replacements Amfleet. No matter who builds the next gen coaches they are probably going to meet the outside profile of CAF's Viewliners.


----------



## PVD (May 17, 2016)

Absolutely, because Amfleet replacement does not mean replacement Amfleets. Aside from profile, there are major improvements that have been made in many areas which will be included in any new design. Obvious short list: LED lighting, better controllability, maintainability, and environmental friendliness of HVAC, built in Wi-Fi, and electrical outlets as original(not add on) equipment. There will be many more. The PRIIA 305 Committee issued a single level car standard, anything new is likely to be built off of this, maybe some tweaks over time (it is almost 5 years old already) but Amfleet design concepts are pushing 50.


----------



## Fan Railer (May 18, 2016)

Likely not shared here, but: http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/PRIIA%20305%20DocSpec%20and%20other%20NGEC%20Documents/PRIIA%20Single%20Level%20Spec%20305%20003%20Approved%20Initial%20Release.pdf

Scroll to page 214 for the car design diagrams.


----------



## Anderson (May 18, 2016)

WoodyinNYC said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> > With potentially such a large order of coaches in the future, I wonder if Amtrak would go with a joint venture (so perhaps a company such as CAF builds the long distance Amfleets and Alstom builds the inter-city Amfleets) or if Amtrak would ask one company to manufacture possibly 700 coaches!
> ...


Note that what you're referring to is a delivery schedule. I don't think, for example, that (presuming they can manage delivery) N-S is worried about getting paid at the moment. What would happen is that you'd get a large one-shot appropriation for up to, say, $1.5bn that's good until a given date or until exhausted for those cars and the contract would be signed. Unless the contract ran over (which would be another issue in and of itself and would probably be due to unrealistic expectations on the appropriators' part) there wouldn't be a need for further action on the part of the appropriators.

And...CAF is losing money because, IIRC, CAF is bumbling in the dark and had a lousy handle on what was needed.


----------



## jis (May 18, 2016)

A more likely scenario is that only part of the fund needed would be appropriated in the first year to get the ball rolling with an order for X units and Y options with some time limit on the options freezing the price for the option units over that period. Then hopefully additional funding will get appropriated or sourced from elsewhere over time to exercise those options over a period of time. That is what the steady stream of 50 to 100 car orders is all about.

But, as far as Amfleet I's go, what I am hearing is that they will go for another rebuild. Amtrak will try to beat VIA in longevity of Budd cars.


----------



## Andrew (May 18, 2016)

Wouldn't it be interesting for Amtrak to choose Alstom for their new Acela Trains--and Alstom for their Amfleet replacement?


----------



## Anderson (May 19, 2016)

jis said:


> A more likely scenario is that only part of the fund needed would be appropriated in the first year to get the ball rolling with an order for X units and Y options with some time limit on the options freezing the price for the option units over that period. Then hopefully additional funding will get appropriated or sourced from elsewhere over time to exercise those options over a period of time. That is what the steady stream of 50 to 100 car orders is all about.
> 
> But, as far as Amfleet I's go, what I am hearing is that they will go for another rebuild. Amtrak will try to beat VIA in longevity of Budd cars.


Oh, I have little doubt that Amtrak will give them a run for their money...though reading through TAC's report from last year made me cringe at the LRC rebuild project. If nothing else, the Amfleets will likely have a long future in various state services even if Amtrak manages to overhaul everything on the NEC "proper". I'd take an even-money LongNow bet that the Amfleets will outlive me in at least seasonal use.

Edit: On the basis of the Viewliner I fiasco (the 1990s one, not the CAF situation), I suspect that when the RFI goes out a number of manufacturers will be inclined to respond to the effect either "We want the first 2-3 years' orders guaranteed if you don't want us to charge you an arm and a leg" or "Fine, but we want a deposit on those options as well that you don't get back if you don't follow through". Nobody wants to bid on the basis of 600 cars and only get an order of 50...


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (May 19, 2016)

It's not only the Amfleet I's that need to go. The Amfleet II's also need to go. They should perhaps replace them with Viewliner II coaches and lounge cars. And also, are there any plans to make any Viewliners designed for regional service, such as the Northeast Regionals or the Downeasters?


----------



## PVD (May 19, 2016)

To politely summarize all of the previous discussion, the most current Amtrak long range fleet plan has Amfleet 2 being replaced before Amfleet 1. Viewliner Coaches and lounges don't exist, except in speculation. Whatever single level cars are ultimately purchased will likely be flatter sided with a profile resembling one of the more modern car designs out there, but not necessarily that of the VL. There was a PRIIA committee convened (Amtrak was a major player) to draw up single level car specs, it includes mention of the various different types of cars needed for both LD and regional services. It is a few years old now, but is broadly written to allow for updates and slight differences in utilization between carriers, as may be practical. Unless someone sees giant piles of money drop from the sky, we are very likely to see another Amfleet and Horizon rebuild before replacement. It would have been nice to have the cars displaced by the arrival of the N-S bilevels as a cushion to start that with, but don't hold your breath on that one.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (May 19, 2016)

PVD said:


> To politely summarize all of the previous discussion, the most current Amtrak long range fleet plan has Amfleet 2 being replaced before Amfleet 1. Viewliner Coaches and lounges don't exist, except in speculation. Whatever single level cars are ultimately purchased will likely be flatter sided with a profile resembling one of the more modern car designs out there, but not necessarily that of the VL. There was a PRIIA committee convened (Amtrak was a major player) to draw up single level car specs, it includes mention of the various different types of cars needed for both LD and regional services. It is a few years old now, but is broadly written to allow for updates and slight differences in utilization between carriers, as may be practical. Unless someone sees giant piles of money drop from the sky, we are very likely to see another Amfleet and Horizon rebuild before replacement. It would have been nice to have the cars displaced by the arrival of the N-S bilevels as a cushion to start that with, but don't hold your breath on that one.


Yeah. I read it. The Amfleet II's are supposed to go and then the Amfleet I's. The II's are obviously younger than the I's, but had more mileage. With them having more mileage, that would probably mean more wear and tear.

And I think, in theory, if we created Viewliner II coaches and lounges, that would eliminate wheel noise. The Viewliners have the GSI 70 Trucks, whereas the Amfleets have the Budd Pioneer Trucks. The noise from the Amfleets when moving is the flange squeal. And the way I hear them when they pass, the Viewliner trucks are not nearly as noisy as the Amfleet trucks.

In fact, speaking of LD and Regional, I think Viewliners should be purchased for Long-Distance trains, and Viaggios for Regional Service.


----------



## PVD (May 19, 2016)

Anything built today is going to have a truck that is in production today. Budd and GSI are both long gone.


----------



## R30A (May 19, 2016)

Are there passenger car trucks "in production" today at all? Seems to me like everything is being made to order...


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (May 19, 2016)

PVD said:


> Anything built today is going to have a truck that is in production today. Budd and GSI are both long gone.


I thought GSI trucks were still being built today. The Viewliner II's are currently being built and the trucks looked brand-spankin' new.


----------



## keelhauled (May 19, 2016)

Viewliner II trucks I believe are being built by Columbus Castings. The design may well be a derivative of GSI's, I don't know where those designs ended up after GSI closed. Ironically, Columbus Castings is now in danger of closing in the near future as well.


----------



## PVD (May 19, 2016)

Columbus is part of its parent companies' bankruptcy, I believe it is on a temporary shutdown while it is being sold. Not totally sure. I think they are also doing quite a bit of the N-S car work as well as Hyundai-Rotem for Septa as well as the aforementioned V2s..


----------



## WoodyinNYC (May 19, 2016)

PVD said:


> Columbus is part of its parent companies' bankruptcy, I believe it is on a temporary shutdown while it is being sold. Not totally sure. I think they are also doing quite a bit of the N-S car work as well as Hyundai-Rotem for Septa as well as the aforementioned V2s..


That would be why CAF complained that among its several problems, it had to restructure payments to prop up an important supplier at risk of going away?


----------



## jis (May 19, 2016)

That is a pretty dire situation for an industry I'd say. When technology is imported into India for establishing local manufacturing of stuff using it, the entire kit and cabootle is put under the same roof in the factory based on the new technology. So it includes trucks and suspension fabrication, possibly from parts purchased from outside, or possibly manufactured in house, depending. But I guess when you order stream is guaranteed to be a thousand or more units per year, year in and year out for maybe a decade, that makes a huge difference.


----------



## Andrew (Jun 17, 2016)

So do you folks think that Amfleet I and Amfleet 2 would be separate orders or one massive order?


----------



## A Voice (Jun 17, 2016)

Andrew said:


> So do you folks think that Amfleet I and Amfleet 2 would be separate orders or one massive order?


Under currently published plans, the Amfleet II cars are scheduled to be replaced first (higher mileage).


----------



## west point (Jun 17, 2016)

Andrew---- once again it will not be a new order for Amfleets. The first order no matter what builder will be for additional cars mostly coaches. They will probably have the profile of Viewliner cars. Speculation and the Amtrak fleet plan will probably have these cars at first added to LD trains and then some Amfleet-2s re assigned to run corridor trains probably NEC,

As for number of cars ordered it will depend on the will of congress and / or if any private source for construction becomes available.

The fleet plan calls for 100 cars a year thru 2028 but of course depends on how many cars can be ordered. Would expect that the most cars Amtrak can enter iinto service would be 100 single level and 100 bi-level per year. That is 16 cars a month.


----------



## Andrew (Jun 17, 2016)

west point said:


> Andrew---- once again it will not be a new order for Amfleets. The first order no matter what builder will be for additional cars mostly coaches. They will probably have the profile of Viewliner cars. Speculation and the Amtrak fleet plan will probably have these cars at first added to LD trains and then some Amfleet-2s re assigned to run corridor trains probably NEC,
> 
> As for number of cars ordered it will depend on the will of congress and / or if any private source for construction becomes available.
> 
> The fleet plan calls for 100 cars a year thru 2028 but of course depends on how many cars can be ordered. Would expect that the most cars Amtrak can enter iinto service would be 100 single level and 100 bi-level per year. That is 16 cars a month.


I wonder when Amtrak would likely order more coaches--and which company would get the contract for the new coaches.


----------

