# Acela II RFP information announcement



## afigg

Amtrak may be facing a temporary cutoff in federal funding and uncertain FY2014 federal funding levels, but they are moving ahead on plans to issue an RFP for Acela IIs in November. They posted the follwoing announcement on the procurement portal website (Non-construction)..



> The Board of Directors of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (“Amtrak”) has authorized Amtrak to issue a Request For Proposal (RFP) for up to twenty-eight (28) new high speed Trainsets in concert with the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA). Amtrak and CHSRA contemplate issuing the RFP in mid-November 2013. Prospective Offerors should plan to attend a Pre-Proposal Meeting, Northeast Corridor tour, and Buy America Act informational session conducted by the Federal Railroad Administration from December 4, 2013 through the December 6, 2013
> 
> Offerors that reach the competitive range/progress in the evaluation process should expect to make presentations during the week of April 28, 2014 at a venue to be determined in the United States.


----------



## Fan Railer

Good to hear.


----------



## Guest

Are these really Acela II's ? Since California is involved, I would assume these are not for use in the NE corridor to compliment or replace the existing Acela's.


----------



## jis

As deployed on the NEC they might be called Acela IIs, or they might be called something else. I don't think a commercial name for the news equipment that is yet to be ordered has been decided yet. For now they are euphemistically referred to as Acela IIs, since they come after the Acelas to augment or replace them at least on the NEC.


----------



## Guest

jis said:


> For now they are euphemistically referred to as Acela IIs, since they come after the Acelas to augment or replace them at least on the NEC.


If they are for the NEC, why is California (CHSRA) involved?


----------



## battalion51

Amtrak and CHSRA are looking to place a joint order with similar specs to reduce costs. The hope is that this will make it more appealing to manufacturers since there will be more possibilities for production. This will help both in the long term as well with the acquisition of parts and product expertise.


----------



## Blackwolf

Guest said:


> If they are for the NEC, why is California (CHSRA) involved?


Economies of scale. Its the same idea behind, say, a new airliner. A group of airlines come together and hash out a common list of needs and desires, drive up the number of units (planes) being produced, and therefore drive down the per-unit cost. A Boeing 747 is still a 747 no matter if is flown by British Airways or United Airlines or Japan Air Lines.

So, an RFP for a new high-speed trainset is just like an airliner. Amtrak will "brand" their share the Acela (II) and the CHSRA might "brand" theirs another name. The current Acela could very well operate along any electrified standard-guage rail line in the world, including the future California HSR line if a set were hauled out to it. There is no brick wall or law saying Acela's can ONLY operate on the NEC, after all. ^_^


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Guest said:


> Are these really Acela II's ? Since California is involved, I would assume these are not for use in the NE corridor to compliment or replace the existing Acela's.


California is involved because it's building a High Speed Rail line that will use high speed trains. Amtrak will also be using high speed trains on the NEC. By buying the same trains, they can expect to get a volume discount, and both will save money. And combining the orders so that one bidder builds all, it encourages more of the manufacturing to take place in the U.S., helping to build or rebuild a domestic railcar industry.

Of course, CAHSR will probably be using the trains at higher speeds sooner than Amtrak will on the NEC. But upgrades may be made to the NEC that would allow the new trains to go faster than the Acela does now. In fact, having trains on order that can go faster makes a case to Congress to fund the track upgrades to maximize the usefulness of the new trains. Meanwhile the trains will at the least add capacity (frequency) to the existing service.


----------



## battalion51

Going back to the original quote, am I reading it right that Amtrak is looking for 28 sets in addition to whatever CAHSR needs?

Also, don't forget CAHSR is going to need someone to operate their service once it gets up and running. Given the relationship between CDOT/JPBA/SCAX and Amtrak I'd say there's decent odds Amtrak will get the contract to operate the service. Who knows, we could see co-branding of the two services. Acela Northeast and Acela California...?


----------



## Anderson

IIRC, Amtrak was initially looking at 32 sets to replace the present 20 sets: 12 sets "soon-ish" and 20 sets down the line.

I'm wondering...assuming a split of the 28 sets at 12 Amtrak and 16 California, what would that (practically speaking) enable in CA?


----------



## Fan Railer

Anderson said:


> IIRC, Amtrak was initially looking at 32 sets to replace the present 20 sets: 12 sets "soon-ish" and 20 sets down the line.
> 
> I'm wondering...assuming a split of the 28 sets at 12 Amtrak and 16 California, what would that (practically speaking) enable in CA?


You have to remember that CA's system is starting small, so they're not going to need as many trains initially. As the system is built to plan, then you will see further procurement of additional trains.


----------



## Anderson

Fan Railer said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> IIRC, Amtrak was initially looking at 32 sets to replace the present 20 sets: 12 sets "soon-ish" and 20 sets down the line.
> 
> I'm wondering...assuming a split of the 28 sets at 12 Amtrak and 16 California, what would that (practically speaking) enable in CA?
> 
> 
> 
> You have to remember that CA's system is starting small, so they're not going to need as many trains initially. As the system is built to plan, then you will see further procurement of additional trains.
Click to expand...

Well, I was more looking at a perspective of "What would they have to electrify to be able to get anything meaningful out of 16 sets?" I also have to seriously wonder whether Xpress West might not get involved (since that could add another pile of sets).


----------



## afigg

Anderson said:


> IIRC, Amtrak was initially looking at 32 sets to replace the present 20 sets: 12 sets "soon-ish" and 20 sets down the line.
> 
> I'm wondering...assuming a split of the 28 sets at 12 Amtrak and 16 California, what would that (practically speaking) enable in CA?


From the January news release on the joint Request For Information that presumably generated responses that Amtrak and CHSRA have since reviewed:
"Due to the consistently strong and record setting NEC ridership over the past 10 years, Amtrak needs new and additional HSR equipment. The Amtrak plan envisions an initial acquisition of up to 12 new HSR train sets to supplement current Acela Express service and add seating capacity in the near term. Then, Amtrak would look to replace the 20 current Acela train sets in the early 2020s. California plans a first order of 27 HSR train sets."

The numbers have apparently changed. CA is some years away from having tracks to run HSR trainsets on. So the 28 trainsets could be a staggered Phase 1 (A and B) order? We will know a lot more when the public part of the RFP is released.

The big question is how will Amtrak pay for new HSR trainsets, if Congress does not give them even down payment and upfront cost funding? A RRIF loan for the whole thing will present a sizable debt load and drain available funding from a host of other capital needs.


----------



## Fan Railer

Anderson said:


> Fan Railer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> IIRC, Amtrak was initially looking at 32 sets to replace the present 20 sets: 12 sets "soon-ish" and 20 sets down the line.
> 
> I'm wondering...assuming a split of the 28 sets at 12 Amtrak and 16 California, what would that (practically speaking) enable in CA?
> 
> 
> 
> You have to remember that CA's system is starting small, so they're not going to need as many trains initially. As the system is built to plan, then you will see further procurement of additional trains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I was more looking at a perspective of "What would they have to electrify to be able to get anything meaningful out of 16 sets?" I also have to seriously wonder whether Xpress West might not get involved (since that could add another pile of sets).
Click to expand...

Well, the entire HSR system in Cali is being built electrified, but as I said, the initial section is a joke, and won't require more than 8 trains to run a moderate schedule (bakersfield to fresno). Xpress West is having trouble right now getting off its ass as it is. They are an independent privately owned organization, whereas CA and Amtrak are both connected to government.


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL

Since Siemens won the contract for the ACS-64 whats the chance of seeing an Americanized version of the Velaro/ICE-3 as the replacement for the Acela?


----------



## Fan Railer

Crescent ATN & TCL said:


> Since Siemens won the contract for the ACS-64 whats the chance of seeing an Americanized version of the Velaro/ICE-3 as the replacement for the Acela?


Definitely a good chance. I mean, there are only so many other options being offered, including the Japanese N700i, the Bombardier Zefiro (but amtrak and bomb don't get along very well), and MAYBE something from Alstom, or CNR (China). Ansaldobreda has no chance, imo, nor do I think they will offer a proposal.


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL

Fan Railer said:


> Crescent ATN & TCL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since Siemens won the contract for the ACS-64 whats the chance of seeing an Americanized version of the Velaro/ICE-3 as the replacement for the Acela?
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely a good chance. I mean, there are only so many other options being offered, including the Japanese N700i, the Bombardier Zefiro (but amtrak and bomb don't get along very well), and MAYBE something from Alstom, or CNR (China). Ansaldobreda has no chance, imo, nor do I think they will offer a proposal.
Click to expand...

So its reasonable to think that we may see Velaro's on the corridor or will Siemens more than likely make an entirely new design for the American market?


----------



## jis

Crescent ATN & TCL said:


> So its reasonable to think that we may see Velaro's on the corridor or will Siemens more than likely make an entirely new design for the American market?


They would use Velaro I hope with minor mods. Doing a separate American thing would only mean that they will get bogged down debugging it over the next 20 years on the backs of American taxpayers? Why would we Americans want that?


----------



## sitzplatz17

Considering how smooth (so far!!) the ACS-64 process has gone, and that it's essentially an Americanized version of the EuroSprinter, it would make sense to use the same tactic for the new Acela-II.

Also, the Velaro has a pretty proven track record now across Europe and Asia in a multitude of very diverse markets. It'd be a pretty strong contender.

not to mention I'd LOVE to see a Velaro in Acela colors. (pay no attention to my avatar, I'm not biased!!) :giggle:


----------



## rickycourtney

jis said:


> They would use Valro I hope with minor mods. Doing a separate American thing would only mean that they will get bogged down debugging it over the next 20 years on the backs of American taxpayers? Why would we Americans want that?


I think there is a very good chance of that happening.

Remember that the ACS-64 is based on the design of Siemens EuroSprinter and Vectron locomotives. The major modifications were to satisfy AAR safety requirements... But the internals are very similar. Using the "off the shelf" systems makes it faster to build with less chance of something going wrong.

Siemens has previously stated that they would be very interested in building high speed train sets in America. They have a portion of their manufacturing campus in Sacramento set aside for a dedicated factory. I expect that they will aggressively bid on this contract.

With these trainsets being built in California and the testing of the ACS-64 (seemingly) going very well I'm sure both Amtrak and the CAHSRA would welcome Siemens as the builder.


----------



## Andrew

When will we find out who gets the new contract?


----------



## Ryan

After the RFP is released.


----------



## afigg

Ryan said:


> After the RFP is released.


No, the RFP is the Request For Proposals for the vendors to submit bids and proposals. Those bids will be evaluated with presentations from the vendors, [SIZE=12pt]tentatively[/SIZE] scheduled for the end of April, 2014 as stated in the procurement notice. With the FRA on furlough due to the shutdown, and since the FRA is a player in this process, would not be surprised if the release of the RFP was delayed pass the mid-November date.

If there is a contractor selected and an award announced, the earliest would likely be the summer of 2014.


----------



## Ryan

I was getting at the fact that the contract can't be awarded until after an RFP goes out, that's the first step in the process that ends with a contract award.


----------



## Fan Railer

afigg said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> After the RFP is released.
> 
> 
> 
> No, the RFP is the Request For Proposals for the vendors to submit bids and proposals. Those bids will be evaluated with presentations from the vendors, [SIZE=12pt]tentatively[/SIZE] scheduled for the end of April, 2014 as stated in the procurement notice. With the FRA on furlough due to the shutdown, and since the FRA is a player in this process, would not be surprised if the release of the RFP was delayed pass the mid-November date.
> 
> If there is a contractor selected and an award announced, the earliest would likely be the summer of 2014.
Click to expand...

Considering the shutdown ended the day you after posted this comment, I don't expect the delay in any award to be anything substantial.


----------



## Acela150

Would I be shocked if Siemens gets the deal if the new electrics perform well, no. But Amtrak has to keep the door open. Look over everything from everyone and go with the best deal.


----------



## Fan Railer

Acela150 said:


> Would I be shocked if Siemens gets the deal if the new electrics perform well, no. But Amtrak has to keep the door open. Look over everything from everyone and go with the best deal.


You still have to say that we can pretty much predict who the front runners are going to be.


----------



## Nathanael

Fan Railer said:


> Acela150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would I be shocked if Siemens gets the deal if the new electrics perform well, no. But Amtrak has to keep the door open. Look over everything from everyone and go with the best deal.
> 
> 
> 
> You still have to say that we can pretty much predict who the front runners are going to be.
Click to expand...

There's really not that many players in the high-speed trainset market. I've examined them from the investment point of view. There's Bombardier, Siemens, Alstom, CAF, and I think two companies in Japan. (I didn't pay much attention to the Japanese companies in that round of research because they're hard to make 'pure play' investments in, being tied up in keiretsu and as such not listed on the stock markets). And there are the Chinese companies, but nobody in the US will use the Chinese companies. There are also a few long-shots like Talgo but they seem unlikely.

Predicting the front-runners isn't hard when the total number of likely competitors is less than 6. CAF and Alstom probably won't bid (they aren't set up to deal easily with Buy America rules for high-speed train production), so that brings it down to Siemens, Bombardier, and the two Japanese companies which I can't remember the names of.


----------



## Anderson

Fan Railer said:


> Acela150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would I be shocked if Siemens gets the deal if the new electrics perform well, no. But Amtrak has to keep the door open. Look over everything from everyone and go with the best deal.
> 
> 
> 
> You still have to say that we can pretty much predict who the front runners are going to be.
Click to expand...

Yes, but a no-bid contract would be open to all sorts of misbehavior on pricing and whatnot, to say nothing of allegations thereof that may or may not be well-founded.


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL

What are the companies in the US that are capable of producing 220mph trainsets?

I know there is Siemens, Alstom and Talgo. We all know Talgo is out because of platform height. So that leaves Siemens and Alstom. We know Siemens Velaro would be the same platform height as the rest of the NEC trains. When they brought the ICE-1 over in the 90s it operated just fine on the corridor and the Velaro operates with the ICE-1 in Germany now. I'm not sure of the height of the AGV, so I don't know if it is a contender.

Now if they want tilt that will mean an ICE-T set, but I don't think those can run at 220mph, Most tilting trains have top speeds in the 125mph-185mph range, except Talgo 350, which is out because of platform height.

We know Siemens has room to build a HighSpeed plant at their current location, but does Alstom have the space to build AGV's in Hornell or would they have to build a new plant for that?

As for the Japanese companies, I do not want a version of the Shikansen due to the tiny airplane windows in all of their trains. Which if I'm thinking correctly there is a minimum window size in the FRA requirements for evacuation through windows. Those tiny airplane windows are definitely going to be too small to meet that requirement.


----------



## afigg

Crescent ATN & TCL said:


> What are the companies in the US that are capable of producing 220mph trainsets?


Well, CAF is building Viewliners at their Elmira facility. Depending on how the vendor can comply with the Buy America requirement, the US plant for HSR trainsets may be more of a final assembly plant with the routine parts brought from US suppliers to up the US quotient.

Since CHSRA is a public agency, their website may be a better source of information on the RFP and who the qualified bidders are than what Amtrak will disclose.

BTW, I looked for info on HSR trainsets & builders and found this summary List of High-Speed Trains on wikipedia. Even a brief look at the Siemens Velaro shows why that would be a contender for the NEC application.


----------



## Andrew

The current Acela Express trains have 6 passenger cars. How many cars will the new Trainsets have?


----------



## afigg

Andrew said:


> The current Acela Express trains have 6 passenger cars. How many cars will the new Trainsets have?


Presumably TBD (To Be Determined). That will depend on which vendor and design wins the contract. Amtrak is looking to have so many seats, probably 450, give or take, with X first class seats, Y business/coach class seats, and space for cafe service. But the CA HSR will have its own specifications for capacity and configuration. The proposed trainsets will have to meet the seating and many other requirements in the RFP. One vendor may be able to meet that with a 8 car design, another with 9 or 10 cars. We shall see.


----------



## Nathanael

afigg said:


> BTW, I looked for info on HSR trainsets & builders and found this summary List of High-Speed Trains on wikipedia. Even a brief look at the Siemens Velaro shows why that would be a contender for the NEC application.


Of the companies on that list, the big one which I forgot was Fiat Ferrovia.
There are also four Japanese companies, not two. They seem to like to make joint bids, however.

BREL is now part of Bombardier, as are a lot of the other companies listed, so I didn't actually miss anything else.


----------



## Nathanael

afigg said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current Acela Express trains have 6 passenger cars. How many cars will the new Trainsets have?
> 
> 
> 
> Presumably TBD (To Be Determined). That will depend on which vendor and design wins the contract. Amtrak is looking to have so many seats, probably 450, give or take, with X first class seats, Y business/coach class seats, and space for cafe service. But the CA HSR will have its own specifications for capacity and configuration. The proposed trainsets will have to meet the seating and many other requirements in the RFP. One vendor may be able to meet that with a 8 car design, another with 9 or 10 cars. We shall see.
Click to expand...

There's a lot to be said for going straight to the longest train which can platform at all the Acela stops, given trends in demand. Given standard-length cars, I think that would mean 12 cars, though someone else may know platform lengths better than I.


----------



## Fan Railer

Nathanael said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current Acela Express trains have 6 passenger cars. How many cars will the new Trainsets have?
> 
> 
> 
> Presumably TBD (To Be Determined). That will depend on which vendor and design wins the contract. Amtrak is looking to have so many seats, probably 450, give or take, with X first class seats, Y business/coach class seats, and space for cafe service. But the CA HSR will have its own specifications for capacity and configuration. The proposed trainsets will have to meet the seating and many other requirements in the RFP. One vendor may be able to meet that with a 8 car design, another with 9 or 10 cars. We shall see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's a lot to be said for going straight to the longest train which can platform at all the Acela stops, given trends in demand. Given standard-length cars, I think that would mean 12 cars, though someone else may know platform lengths better than I.
Click to expand...

I would feel that an easily expandable train set would win out in this situation here. Growth is key, and while we know that CAHSR is gunning for an 8 car (200 meter) EMU (so they can run double consists to fill the length of their ~400 meter platforms), we may see Amtrak start with an 8 car EMU with a different seating arrangement, and plan a provision for inserting growth cars at a later date should capacity requirements demand it. As for Amtrak platform lengths, you're probably not going to see an Acela II train set longer than say 10 or 12 cars (after growth). The platforms at Boston, Philadelphia, and Washington accommodate 13-14 cars max at the moment, IIRC, and most intermediate stops that the Acela services are average 10-12 standard car lengths, with NYP and Newark Penn being the outliers, platforming 17 cars and a potential of 18 cars respectively (should the platforms at Newark be renovated and reopened to their full length).

Considering that Amtrak is planning to build a new HSR corridor through CT, we may actually (if growth demands) see a mixture of 8 car EMUs for service on the traditional NEC (through New London and Kingston), and extended (10 or 12 car) EMUs for service through the new corridor. Afterall, Amtrak is planning to have a total of 46 of these Acela II trains by the time the entire system is running, so we'll just have to wait and see what the breakdown is at the end of all of this.


----------



## battalion51

It all depends on how you define a car length. I believe the Talgo sets have car lengths that are about 40' long (it's somewhere in that ballpark), whereas the majority of Amtrak's fleet is 85' long. Amtrak and CAHSR are going to be looking for things like seat counts, restroom to passenger ratios, loading/unloading times, ability to add/remove cars, overall length, road power requirements, etc. How the bidder decides to put their product forward to meet those specs is up to them.


----------



## afigg

Fan Railer said:


> I would feel that an easily expandable train set would win out in this situation here. Growth is key, and while we know that CAHSR is gunning for an 8 car (200 meter) EMU (so they can run double consists to fill the length of their ~400 meter platforms), we may see Amtrak start with an 8 car EMU with a different seating arrangement, and plan a provision for inserting growth cars at a later date should capacity requirements demand it. As for Amtrak platform lengths, you're probably not going to see an Acela II train set longer than say 10 or 12 cars (after growth). The platforms at Boston, Philadelphia, and Washington accommodate 13-14 cars max at the moment, IIRC, and most intermediate stops that the Acela services are average 10-12 standard car lengths, with NYP and Newark Penn being the outliers, platforming 17 cars and a potential of 18 cars respectively (should the platforms at Newark be renovated and reopened to their full length).


Looking it up, the high level platforms at WAS are 9 cars long. The New Carrollton platform is 10 cars long. The 2 platforms at BAL used by Amtrak are 10 and 12 cars long. The longest platform at New Haven is 9 cars long. (Source: RE Green's maps) IIRC, there was a post on here in recent months listing platform lengths for all/most of the Amtrak NEC stations in response to a similar thread drift on why not run really long trains.
Until the NEC stations have been "modernized" and standardized to a greater extent, there is little benefit to Amtrak to deploy Acelas longer than 9 cars (cars in this case = 85' long which may not be the case for a new HSR trainset). At the current rate of upgrading the NEC, only the young ones on this forum will be around to see an NEC where almost all the Amtrak stations have platforms at least 12 cars long or ~1000'+ to be more specific.

Your mention of the CA HSR plans for 400 meter platforms (at least for the main trunk stations) brings up the question of compatibility of the requirements for the legacy constrained NEC versus the all new CA HSR. Amtrak and the CHSRA* are attempting to have a combined purchase to lower costs, but there is no guarantee that they will be able to do so. There are many ways the plans for a combined order can fall apart. Inadequate funding for Amtrak by Congress in FY14 and FY15 could delay placing an order or just stall the entire process for one.

* CHSRA = California High Speed Rail Authority to keep the authority separate from discussions of the CA HSR system.


----------



## afigg

Amtrak has posted RFP Information to potential offerers for High Speed Trainsets to their Procurement Portal site Non-construction list. Look for RFP Information to Potential Offerors for the procurement of High Speed Rail Trainsets. The listing is from Nov 21 to Dec 2, after which I expect the listing will be taken down and the link will no longer work. The juicy part of the RFP information is a link to a 169 page Schedule 1A performance specification which can be downloaded and opened with a little work. I have just started to skim the performance spec document.

The gist of the text on the procurement portal page:



> It is contemplated that Amtrak will release the Request For Proposal (RFP) for up to twenty-eight (28) new high speed Trainsets in concert with the California High-Speed Rail Authority within one months time. For now, please refer to attached Draft Specification to be used as a reference point for the Corridor Tour and Pre-Proposal Meeting.
> 
> Prospective Offerors should plan to attend the Pre-Proposal Meeting, Northeast Corridor tour, and Buy America Act informational session conducted by the Federal Railroad Administration starting on December 3, 2013 through December 6, 2013. Please note the date change from previous email for the tour and refer to information attached.


 For those wondering about seating capacity, from the performance spec:



> For Amtrak, the baseline interior layout shall provide a nominal 425 passenger seats.
> 
> For the Authority, the baseline interior layout shall provide a minimum 450 passenger seats.


There is a lot of interesting stuff in the performance spec. To be capable of 2 hours and 21 minutes WAS-NYP (obviously only after a lot of upgrades to the NEC). A USB port at each passenger seat?


----------



## afigg

Some excerpts from the NEXT GENERATION AMTRAK/AUTHORITY TRAINSETS – PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION (Revision 7b):

1. operating specs



> Amtrak journey time requirements shall be met operating with a full-seated passenger load and are as follows:
> 
> · Washington, DC - New York Penn Station: Not to exceed 2 hours, 21 minutes with one-minute station stops at Baltimore, MD; Wilmington, DE; Philadelphia 30th Street Station, PA and Newark, NJ.
> 
> · New Haven, CT – Boston South Station, MA: Not to exceed 1 hour, 51 minutes) with one-minute station stops at Boston Back Bay Station, MA; Route 128, MA; Providence, RI and New London, CT.
> 
> Journey times will be determined by Amtrak through use of its in-house Train Performance Calculator (TPC). Where a total journey time is necessary for duty cycle- and RAMS-related determinations, a Washington, DC to Boston South Station, MA total journey time of 6 hours 8 minutes shall be used.
> 
> Amtrak’s simulations will be based on operations of up to a maximum cant deficiency of 5 inches (127 mm) for a non-tilt trainset and up to 9 inches (229 mm) for a tilting trainset. High cant deficiency operation shall provide compensation for quasi static lateral accelerations exceeding 0.06g and the amount of compensation shall be determined jointly during the performance simulations stated above.


2. Train length and configuration



> For Amtrak, the distance between the first and last axles of the Trainset shall be a maximum of 205 m (672.6 feet).
> 
> For the Authority, the maximum Trainset length shall be such that all of the side entry doors of the Trainset in double traction can berth at a platform having a length of 407 m (1,335 feet).
> 
> The Trainset design shall feature single-deck passenger accommodations.


3. Noise



> The Trainset will operate at high speeds, in tunnels and occasionally in close proximity to dwellings. Therefore, the control of interior and exterior noise at speeds up to 354 km/h (220 mph) for the Authority and 257.5 km/h (160 mph) for Amtrak shall be critical.


4. General requirements



> The Trainset shall have a service life of not less than 30 years. The Trainset shall accommodate an estimated annual mileage of 650,000 km (404,000 miles) per Trainset while operating on the respective Owner’s network.


5. Americans are getting fatter. Deal with it.



> Per EN 15663, the typical weight of a passenger, with luggage is identified as 80 kg (176 lbs.). The typical weight of a crew member, with luggage and Equipment, is identified as 80 kg (176 lbs.). A review of U.S. Center for Disease Control weight statistics for adult females and males has been conducted. Based on these statistics, by 2043, the average weight for a U.S. male is predicted to be 97.5 kg (215 lbs.), and the average weight for a female is predicted to be 84.2 kg (186 lbs.).


6. Seating



> Business Class seating shall be provided in 2+2 configuration, in both table and unidirectional seating layouts, and shall include accommodations for ADA seating.
> 
> Seating shall be provided with spacing equivalent to 991 mm (39 inches) of Pitch.


7. Pantograph



> Two pantographs shall be supplied per Trainset; however, current collection during Normal operation shall be performed by only 1 pantograph. The design of the pantographs shall account for the reduction of aerodynamic noise emissions and shall provide excellent current collecting performance at all speeds on all routes.
> 
> The pantograph shall be of a proven design capable of current collection at all speeds up to 390 km/h (242 mph).
> The pantograph shall have an operating range for wire heights from 4.5 m (14.83 feet) to 7.5 m (24.5 feet).


8. Behave. They will be watching. And recording it for court.



> Internally mounted color video cameras shall be provided in each Vehicle to allow full monitoring of all passengers inside the Vehicle. This System shall be specifically designed to record anti-social behavior of passengers, as well as allow real time visual communication with all Vehicles in the consist by the Operator.


----------



## Paulus

Not terribly thrilled at the idea that business class will be the base class for CAHSR like it is for Acela. Could be good advertising though I suppose. 15% minimum for first class. I think the HHP-8 scarred Amtrak somewhat: "Trainset availability shall, at a minimum, be 99.9999%”

Ooh, dedicated bicycle storage for CAHSRA, minimum of 8 bikes per trainset.


----------



## Paulus

> 8.16.29 Onboard Media Content Delivery
> 
> The passenger information System shall integrate with the existing onboard Wi-Fi network for its Internet communication to send and receive real-time and stored messages and content to and from the Owner’s designated control center. Content may include, but is not limited to, the following:
> 
> a) Downloaded movies.
> 
> b) Streamed TV channels stored on local DVR for delayed local transmission onboard.
> 
> c) Train schedule information (train numbers and associated schedule including station
> 
> stops and arrival times).
> 
> d) Menus.
> 
> e) Advertising.
> 
> There shall be the ability to deliver Owner-controlled content that is stored locally on the train to display units in all cars over the passenger information System or to passengers’ personal Devices over the passenger Wi-Fi network.
> 
> There shall be the ability to update the stored media content with over-the-air updates from centralized command and control points without requiring physical touching of onboard computer servers.
> 
> It shall be possible to manage content and push updates remotely to:
> 
> a) Entire fleet.
> 
> b) Sub-groups of fleet.
> 
> c) An individual train.
> 
> Food service signage shall have the ability to display rich media (e.g., images and animations) from an onboard media server for the purpose of displaying and making real time changes to the menu.


I seriously hope they do an integration of the real time updated menu such that all classes, both Amtrak and HSR, can do at seat meal purchases. Also screens for each seat would be nice.



> The Contractor shall supply three G scale (1:22.5) models of the as-built Trainsets to both Amtrak and the Authority.


Now that I just find personally amusing.


----------



## Peter KG6LSE

I want those scale sets for my Xmas tree!


----------



## Nathanael

> The Contractor shall supply three G scale (1:22.5) models of the as-built Trainsets to both Amtrak and the Authority.


For press conferences, perhaps? Can't imagine why else...


----------



## afigg

Nathanael said:


> The Contractor shall supply three G scale (1:22.5) models of the as-built Trainsets to both Amtrak and the Authority.
> 
> 
> 
> For press conferences, perhaps? Can't imagine why else...
Click to expand...

For press conferences, dog & pony shows, press interviews, show and tell at Congressional hearings, display models for the boardroom or public display at National Train days. Perhaps for orientation training? A 1:22.5 scale for a trainset of longer than 672.6' (first to last axle length) is pretty big.

The complete text in the specification is :

"The Contractor shall supply three G scale (1:22.5) models of the as-built Trainsets to both Amtrak and the Authority. The model construction shall be configured so that the interior decor and layout may be viewed."

So these models can be used to show the interior configuration.


----------



## MattW

Yea, it doesn't say they have to be running so they aren't just for putting around the Amtrak Christmas tree or something.


----------



## afigg

Lengthy Fresno Bee news article on the plans for the combined HSR order and Siemens prospects with comments from the chief program manager for CHSRA and the Siemens director of HSR development: Government rules require California's high-speed trains to be built in U.S.

Some excerpts:



> Together, the two agencies are preparing to ask for bids in coming weeks from manufacturers to build between 50 and 60 train sets capable of carrying passengers at speeds up to 220 mph.
> 
> From a 34-acre plant in southeast Sacramento, Siemens Industry is one of a handful of multinational companies with an eye on the prize a contract for "rolling stock" potentially worth $2 billion or more.





> Siemens has a well-established supply chain of U.S.-made parts for the light-rail trains and heavier passenger locomotives it builds in Sacramento, Kick said. Steel comes from plants in California and the western U.S. A Siemens plant in Georgia provides propulsion equipment, and electric motors come from another Siemens factory in Ohio. Those Siemens facilities would be adapted to add high-speed rail components to their production.
> 
> But Buy America provisions for some parts could become a significant factor in driving prices up for high-speed trains built in the U.S.
> 
> "If there are certain items on that (Buy America) list that are not available in the U.S., and suppliers aren't convinced to set up shop in the U.S., that's going to be a really, really big headache," Kick said. "Say there's some widget and we have a global supplier for that, but that supplier is unwilling or unable to build this component here to comply with Buy America, then what do you do? It becomes very costly."





> The California High-Speed Rail Authority's 2012 business plan anticipated spending about $871 million for train sets to launch service on its initial operating segment, a 300-mile line from Merced into the San Fernando Valley. If that is spread across 20 train sets California's anticipated initial order it works out to a price of about $43.5 million per train. Each 656-foot train would have between 450 and 500 seats.


If the winning bid comes in at $50 million a trainset, Amtrak should be able to get a RRIF loan to pay for the lion's share of the cost for the entire order even if Congress does not provide direct funding.


----------



## Andrew

afigg said:


> Lengthy Fresno Bee news article on the plans for the combined HSR order and Siemens prospects with comments from the chief program manager for CHSRA and the Siemens director of HSR development: Government rules require California's high-speed trains to be built in U.S.
> 
> Some excerpts:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Together, the two agencies are preparing to ask for bids in coming weeks from manufacturers to build between 50 and 60 train sets capable of carrying passengers at speeds up to 220 mph.
> 
> From a 34-acre plant in southeast Sacramento, Siemens Industry is one of a handful of multinational companies with an eye on the prize a contract for "rolling stock" potentially worth $2 billion or more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siemens has a well-established supply chain of U.S.-made parts for the light-rail trains and heavier passenger locomotives it builds in Sacramento, Kick said. Steel comes from plants in California and the western U.S. A Siemens plant in Georgia provides propulsion equipment, and electric motors come from another Siemens factory in Ohio. Those Siemens facilities would be adapted to add high-speed rail components to their production.
> 
> But Buy America provisions for some parts could become a significant factor in driving prices up for high-speed trains built in the U.S.
> 
> "If there are certain items on that (Buy America) list that are not available in the U.S., and suppliers aren't convinced to set up shop in the U.S., that's going to be a really, really big headache," Kick said. "Say there's some widget and we have a global supplier for that, but that supplier is unwilling or unable to build this component here to comply with Buy America, then what do you do? It becomes very costly."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The California High-Speed Rail Authority's 2012 business plan anticipated spending about $871 million for train sets to launch service on its initial operating segment, a 300-mile line from Merced into the San Fernando Valley. If that is spread across 20 train sets California's anticipated initial order it works out to a price of about $43.5 million per train. Each 656-foot train would have between 450 and 500 seats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the winning bid comes in at $50 million a trainset, Amtrak should be able to get a RRIF loan to pay for the lion's share of the cost for the entire order even if Congress does not provide direct funding.
Click to expand...

So that comes to what, $500 million?


----------



## afigg

Andrew said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The California High-Speed Rail Authority's 2012 business plan anticipated spending about $871 million for train sets to launch service on its initial operating segment, a 300-mile line from Merced into the San Fernando Valley. If that is spread across 20 train sets California's anticipated initial order it works out to a price of about $43.5 million per train. Each 656-foot train would have between 450 and 500 seats.
> 
> 
> 
> If the winning bid comes in at $50 million a trainset, Amtrak should be able to get a RRIF loan to pay for the lion's share of the cost for the entire order even if Congress does not provide direct funding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So that comes to what, $500 million?
Click to expand...

According to the HSR order plans stated earlier this year, Amtrak is seeking to order 12 trainsets in the first round. Then Amtrak would order 20 trainsets to replace the Acela Is in the early 2020s. If the winning bid came to $50 million a trainset plus spares and maintenance support upgrades, Amtrak might be looking at a $700 or $800 million cost for the first order batch.


----------



## Andrew

Is RRIF the only way to fund that?


----------



## afigg

Andrew said:


> Is RRIF the only way to fund that?


No, Amtrak should be able to get a commercial loan to pay for the Acela II trainsets. The Acelas have an advantage that they generate substantial revenue and an operating profit above the rails. But a commercial loan would be at higher interest rates. Now, it would be better if Congress were to provide some funding for rolling stock purchases, that Amtrak could use for upfront costs and maybe the initial progress payments so they don't have to take on as much debt that has to paid off over the next 20 or how ever many years.


----------



## jis

Unfortunately it is a little more complicated than that. Amtrak cannot use the same surplus from Acela to both cross-subsidize LD and use as collateral for loans. So for them to be able to use that as the collateral for loans, they will have to find money from elsewhere to pay for LD operations. This may or may not be easy to do considering the political climate. Already they have some amount of the surplus from Regionals locked in for paying for the ACS64's I imagine.


----------



## Nathanael

jis said:


> Unfortunately it is a little more complicated than that. Amtrak cannot use the same surplus from Acela to both cross-subsidize LD and use as collateral for loans. So for them to be able to use that as the collateral for loans, they will have to find money from elsewhere to pay for LD operations. This may or may not be easy to do considering the political climate. Already they have some amount of the surplus from Regionals locked in for paying for the ACS64's I imagine.


Eh, just speed up the LDs until they're profitable. 

OK, OK, I kid, I kid. But I've been looking pretty deeply into these for a while. The Boardman presentation with direct costs was very illuminating. A lot of the "costs" we see are actually overhead which can only be covered by expanding operations. The more state-subsidized corridors there are to spread the overhead out across, the better that will get. Meanwhile, most of the eastern long-distance trains are within striking distance of profitability on a direct-costs basis; a few targeted speed improvements and better on-time performance would do the trick.

Only some of the trains require large operating subsidies (CZ, SL, SWC), and even there it's only parts of their routes (Denver-Chicago is pretty good financially, Denver-San Francisco is horrible). Amtrak rejected breaking up routes into connected corridors in the PIPs, but frankly I think it's not crazy to break the CZ at Denver -- except that it would reveal how bad the western half does and how well the eastern half does.

There's a very real sense in which the Amtrak federal operational subsidy, and many of the state operational subsidies (as opposed to the capital subsidies) are for a very specific list of line segments -- ones with particularly slow running. I mentioned the terrible speed of the Crescent south of Atlanta in another thread, and the terrible Indianapolis-Chicago speed is well known. The mountain crossing of the Coast Starlight and both mountain crossings of the California Zephyr have bad running times compared to alternatives, the SWC has awful running times over Raton, and the Sunset Limited has awful running times for most of its distance.

If I were master-planning for Amtrak, I would be tempted to sit down and find out what routes have geometric alignment suitable for continuous 80mph+ running between major cities, and then move heaven and earth to get those lines under passenger-operator control -- and focus all service on those lines. But I suppose in some sense they're doing exactly that in the attempt to get a "South of the Lake" route out of Chicago. Hasn't really succeeded yet.

Anyway, sparked a lot of interesting thoughts though.


----------



## afigg

jis said:


> Unfortunately it is a little more complicated than that. Amtrak cannot use the same surplus from Acela to both cross-subsidize LD and use as collateral for loans. So for them to be able to use that as the collateral for loans, they will have to find money from elsewhere to pay for LD operations. This may or may not be easy to do considering the political climate. Already they have some amount of the surplus from Regionals locked in for paying for the ACS64's I imagine.


I don't think there is a legal reason Amtrak can't use part of the surplus from the Acela to pay for a loan for an Acela II purchase. Doing so would mean a smaller surplus amount to draw on to cover the LD operational losses. A lot depends on what the annual operating subsidy amount provided by Congress stabilizes at. That is, of course, assuming that Congress does not pass a re-authorization bill that forces Amtrak to cut some LD trains. Reducing the losses for the LD trains with a higher cost recovery is the other way to lessen the dependence on the Acela surplus but that is a long slog process.
I'm pretty sure Boardman and Amtrak management have crunched the numbers extensively to determine how much of the current Acela surplus and how much extra projected revenue from the new trainsets they would have to draw on to pay for the first Acela II order. The wild card is the annual funding amounts provided by Congress. With the news that a budget deal has been reached by the House & Senate budget conference, we may find out soon what Amtrak will get for FY14. But the budget deal has to be passed by the House which may prove difficult.


----------



## afigg

Well, Friday afternoon is an interesting time to issue a press release on the release of the RFP. Maybe CHSRA is trying to go for a lower profile to have the likely attacks from the political opposition end up in the Saturday newspaper (the least read newspaper of the week). Here is the news release that was posted to the Amtrak website:

AMTRAK AND CALIFORNIA REQUEST BIDS FOR HIGH-SPEED TRAINSETS.



> WASHINGTON – Amtrak and the California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) today issued a request for proposals to build modern, state-of-the-art high-speed trainsets. The trainsets are essential to meeting Amtrak’s critical short-term need to expand the capacity of its current Northeast Corridor (NEC) high-speed service and meeting the long-term operational needs of both Amtrak and the Authority.
> 
> Amtrak is seeking up to 28 high-speed trainsets, each with between 400 and 450 seats, which can meet or exceed current Acela Express trip-times on the existing NEC infrastructure between Washington, New York and Boston. The Authority is seeking an initial order of 15 trainsets which will have a minimum of 450 seats that can meet its planned trip-time requirements for service from the San Francisco Bay Area to Los Angeles on what will be largely brand new infrastructure.
> 
> A goal of the procurement is to identify whether established high-speed rail equipment manufacturers have service-proven designs that can meet both the short-term needs of Amtrak and the long-term operational needs of the Authority and Amtrak with little or no modification. It is also hoped that the joint procurement of equipment with a large degree of commonality will result in lower unit acquisition and life cycle costs for both Amtrak and the Authority, while helping expand the U.S. role in high-speed rail equipment manufacturing.
> 
> “With packed trains and increasing demand, the need to expand the capacity of Amtrak’s high-speed service cannot be overstated,” said Amtrak President and CEO Joe Boardman. “It is absolutely critical that we get more high-speed trains as soon as possible to provide more service and meet the growing mobility and economic needs of the Northeast region.”
> 
> The Authority requires operation at speeds of a minimum of 200 mph which is similar to what Amtrak expects it will need to realize its Vision for High-Speed Rail on the NEC. Initially, Amtrak intends to operate at peak speeds of 160 mph because that is the expected maximum allowable speed permitted by the NEC infrastructure at the time these trainsets are delivered.
> 
> “This is a major milestone for California’s high-speed rail project,” said California High-Speed Rail Authority CEO Jeff Morales. “Combining California’s and Amtrak’s orders will help make it worthwhile for manufacturers to locate in the United States, create jobs and deliver 21st Century, state-of-the art trainsets.”
> 
> “Today’s announcement is one more step in our efforts to standardize domestic rail equipment and reinvigorate U.S. manufacturing,” said Federal Railroad Administrator Joseph C. Szabo. “Combining orders between Amtrak and the California High-Speed Rail Authority will generate economies of scale and make it more attractive for high-speed rail manufacturers to build factories here in the USA, bringing new high-quality jobs and creating ripple effects throughout our domestic supply chain. The end result means the riding public will have lighter, faster, more energy efficient passenger rail service.”
> 
> *Only current manufacturers of high-speed rail equipment, which the partners define as manufacturers with equipment in commercial operation at speeds of at least 160 mph (257 kph) for at least two years, will be eligible to submit a bid. Proposals are due May 17 and it is expected that a builder will be selected by the end of 2014.*


The bold face emphasis is mine.

Ok, time to speculate who will bid and who might win the contract. ^_^


----------



## afigg

Well, Amtrak posted the username and password to access the RFP document on their procurement portal website. Lots of interesting details for those inclined to access the documents while they are available. I just started to skim the documents. 

Why Boardman is saying up to 28 trainsets? Because Amtrak is requesting the bidders submit proposals for 4 alternatives and offer how many trainsets they think are needed to meet the Amtrak service operating plans for current level of service and expanded half hourly service. Note that 3 of the 4 alternatives are for replacing the current Acela fleet. Excerpt from the instructions to the offerors:



> *It is contemplated that this RFP will result in the award of two (2) separate contracts for Amtrak.*
> 
> The first Amtrak contract is for the procurement of an alternative number of Trainsets with an option for additional individual vehicles.
> 
> Amtrak is requesting a proposal based on the four alternatives, all of which relate to the Operating Plans attached to this Solicitation.
> 
> Alternative 1: Phase 1 of the Operating Plan calls for the addition of peak hour half hourly service that requires 6 additional Trainsets to operate alongside the existing Acela. Offeror should state the number of Trainsets needed for these additional 6 services.
> 
> Alternative 2: No change to the existing service but replacing the existing Acela fleet with the new Trainsets. Offeror should state the number of Trainsets needed for Amtrak’s current operating plan.
> 
> Alternative 3: Replacement of the existing Acela fleet and with the addition of the extra half hourly service set out in Phase 1 of the Operating Plans; the operational requirement is for 22 operating Trainsets each day. Offerors should state number of Trainsets to operate this service.
> 
> Alternative 4: Replacement of the existing Acela fleet and the addition of Trainsets to operate the 25 services needed each day outlined in Phase 2 of the Operating Plans. Offeror to state the number of Trainsets required to operate this service.
> 
> All the Trainset quantities quoted in the above Alternatives are for Trainsets in service and make no allowance for spare or maintenance cover.


----------



## Anderson

I'm pouring over the docs now, but I can't find a copy of the Operating Plan(s). Any advice where I should look?


----------



## Fan Railer

Anderson said:


> I'm pouring over the docs now, but I can't find a copy of the Operating Plan(s). Any advice where I should look?


I do not believe the plans are included in the downloads. The closest thing I could find to that is in the "Acela HSR Mechanical fact sheet" document:


> Trainset Schedule
> 
> Weekdays - Operate 16 trainsets on 32 frequencies
> 
> Saturday - Operate 7 trainsets on 9 frequencies
> 
> Sunday - Operate 13 trainsets on 19 frequencies


----------



## afigg

Anderson said:


> I'm pouring over the docs now, but I can't find a copy of the Operating Plan(s). Any advice where I should look?


I don't see the document either on the site. There is an Amtrak Operating Plan along with route profile spreadsheet files, technical references listed as attachments in the performance specification. Some of those files may be considered confidential, which would only be provided to qualified bidders upon request. Even without all the reference documents, there is a lot of information and specs on the RFP in the available documents.


----------



## Woody

jis said:


> . . . Amtrak cannot use the same surplus from Acela to both cross-subsidize LD
> 
> and use as collateral for loans. So for them to be able to use that as the collateral
> 
> for loans, they will have to find money from elsewhere to pay for LD operations. . . .
> 
> Already they have some amount of the surplus from Regionals locked in for
> 
> paying for the ACS64's I imagine.



If I parsed Boardman's interview in Railway Age correctly, he said

that the future operating supluses from the* new *Acleas would pay

for the new equipment, and help pay for future improvements to the NEC.

I took that as a promise to some in Congress that surpluses from the *new *

Acleas would not be used to subsidize the LD trains.

But since the new equipment won't arrive for 5 or 6 years if we're very

lucky, presumably the surpluses from the present Acela trains can

continue to be used to subsidize the LD trains for a few more years.

How much cross-subsidy is there anyway? Do we have a good guess?

Isn't this one of the areas where the famed Amtrak accounting may

obscure the view? LOL.


----------



## Anderson

Woody said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . . Amtrak cannot use the same surplus from Acela to both cross-subsidize LD
> 
> and use as collateral for loans. So for them to be able to use that as the collateral
> 
> for loans, they will have to find money from elsewhere to pay for LD operations. . . .
> 
> Already they have some amount of the surplus from Regionals locked in for
> 
> paying for the ACS64's I imagine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I parsed Boardman's interview in Railway Age correctly, he said
> 
> that the future operating supluses from the* new *Acleas would pay
> 
> for the new equipment, and help pay for future improvements to the NEC.
> 
> I took that as a promise to some in Congress that surpluses from the *new *
> 
> Acleas would not be used to subsidize the LD trains.
> 
> But since the new equipment won't arrive for 5 or 6 years if we're very
> 
> lucky, presumably the surpluses from the present Acela trains can
> 
> continue to be used to subsidize the LD trains for a few more years.
> 
> How much cross-subsidy is there anyway? Do we have a good guess?
> 
> Isn't this one of the areas where the famed Amtrak accounting may
> 
> obscure the view? LOL.
Click to expand...

Several hundred million dollars, from what I can tell. Per the September 2013 Monthly Performance Report, you have the following contributions/losses excluding capital charges:

Acela: $245.4m before OPEBs, $236.9m after OPEBs

Regional: $143.7m before OPEBs, $133m after OPEBs

Short Corridors: ($158.3m) before OPEBs, ($180.8m) after OPEBs

LD Trains: ($593.8m) before OPEBs, ($627.1m) after OPEBs

Total: ($360.0m) before OPEBs, ($435.0m) after OPEBs.

Total sans Corridors: ($201.7m) before OPEBs, ($254.2m) after OPEBs

Put another way, the NEC as a whole is arguably picking up 2/3 of the tab for the LD trains.


----------



## afigg

Woody said:


> But since the new equipment won't arrive for 5 or 6 years if we're very
> 
> lucky, presumably the surpluses from the present Acela trains can
> 
> continue to be used to subsidize the LD trains for a few more years.


If Amtrak can handle the financing for the HSR trainset order, I think the new trainsets would be in service on the NEC sooner than that. Depending on who wins the contract and the cost, Amtrak's hope is probably to have new trainsets entering service in 3 years from contract award. There is a reason Amtrak is seeking as close to off-the-shelf trainsets as possible. I have not found a delivery schedule for Amtrak in the publicly accessible RFP documents, so that is one of competitive parts of the bid. Which companies have manufacturing plants in the US that can build the HSR trainsets without taking years to expand their facility and ramp up on qualified employees?

Another aspect of the joint RFP and stretched production schedules is that the contract winner will need the flexibility to ramp up and down on production of the HSR trainsets. Build a bunch for Amtrak, then a few for CHSRA, then no trainsets for a time, them ramp production up again. That will require a manufacturing plant that has enough other work and space to switch employees to building other equipment orders and than back to HSR trainsets when CHSRA or Amtrak is ready for more trainsets. Siemens with a potentially large order for Next Gen diesel locomotives running through the early 2020s could be able to do that.

Under the options for Amtrak in the Instructions to Offerors, there are these items:



> D. FULL BISTRO CAROfferor shall provide pricing and design for a Full Bistro vehicle in place of the half Bistros required in the specification.
> 
> E. ADDITIONAL VEHICLES
> 
> Offeror shall provide pricing for a spare vehicle of each type provided in the Trainset fully equipped for operational use. Provide prices for additional vehicles to be added to the Fleet at a later date.
> 
> F. UPGRADED SPEED CAPABILITIES
> 
> Offeror shall provide pricing for the provision of Trainsets that can achieve all the requirements set out in Stage 1 of the Evaluation Criteria (Exhibit A) and have a maximum speed of 186 mph and a further price for Trainsets that can also achieve 220 mph. In addition, Offeror shall provide pricing to upgrade the maximum speed of the Trainset from the speed at which it is delivered (e.g. 160 mph) to both 186 mph and 220 mph.
> 
> G. VIDEO SCREENS IN ALL SEATBACKS - ALL CLASSES OF SERVICE
> 
> Offeror shall provide pricing for compliant color video screens in seatbacks for all Trainsets consistent with Amtrak’s brand and design vision.


Full sized Bistro car? These will be fixed length trainsets. Don't repeat the mistake made with the waste of revenue space made with the Acela I bistro cars.

Video screens on all seatbacks? By the time, the full set of trainsets are in service, half the people on the train may have Google glasses and most of the others, tablet computers or really large cell phones for their own video source. But this is a price option Amtrak is asking for, not something they are requiring in the base specifications.


----------



## Andrew

I wonder which company is the most likely to receive Amtrak's new contract for high speed trains:

Talgo,

Siemens,

or

Bombardier?


----------



## Fan Railer

afigg said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> 
> But since the new equipment won't arrive for 5 or 6 years if we're very
> 
> lucky, presumably the surpluses from the present Acela trains can
> 
> continue to be used to subsidize the LD trains for a few more years.
> 
> 
> 
> If Amtrak can handle the financing for the HSR trainset order, I think the new trainsets would be in service on the NEC sooner than that. Depending on who wins the contract and the cost, Amtrak's hope is probably to have new trainsets entering service in 3 years from contract award. There is a reason Amtrak is seeking as close to off-the-shelf trainsets as possible. I have not found a delivery schedule for Amtrak in the publicly accessible RFP documents, so that is one of competitive parts of the bid. Which companies have manufacturing plants in the US that can build the HSR trainsets without taking years to expand their facility and ramp up on qualified employees?
> Another aspect of the joint RFP and stretched production schedules is that the contract winner will need the flexibility to ramp up and down on production of the HSR trainsets. Build a bunch for Amtrak, then a few for CHSRA, then no trainsets for a time, them ramp production up again. That will require a manufacturing plant that has enough other work and space to switch employees to building other equipment orders and than back to HSR trainsets when CHSRA or Amtrak is ready for more trainsets. Siemens with a potentially large order for Next Gen diesel locomotives running through the early 2020s could be able to do that.
> 
> Under the options for Amtrak in the Instructions to Offerors, there are these items:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> D. FULL BISTRO CAR
> 
> Offeror shall provide pricing and design for a Full Bistro vehicle in place of the half Bistros required in the specification.
> 
> E. ADDITIONAL VEHICLES
> 
> Offeror shall provide pricing for a spare vehicle of each type provided in the Trainset fully equipped for operational use. Provide prices for additional vehicles to be added to the Fleet at a later date.
> 
> F. UPGRADED SPEED CAPABILITIES
> 
> Offeror shall provide pricing for the provision of Trainsets that can achieve all the requirements set out in Stage 1 of the Evaluation Criteria (Exhibit A) and have a maximum speed of 186 mph and a further price for Trainsets that can also achieve 220 mph. In addition, Offeror shall provide pricing to upgrade the maximum speed of the Trainset from the speed at which it is delivered (e.g. 160 mph) to both 186 mph and 220 mph.
> 
> G. VIDEO SCREENS IN ALL SEATBACKS - ALL CLASSES OF SERVICE
> 
> Offeror shall provide pricing for compliant color video screens in seatbacks for all Trainsets consistent with Amtrak’s brand and design vision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Full sized Bistro car? These will be fixed length trainsets. Don't repeat the mistake made with the waste of revenue space made with the Acela I bistro cars.
> Video screens on all seatbacks? By the time, the full set of trainsets are in service, half the people on the train may have Google glasses and most of the others, tablet computers or really large cell phones for their own video source. But this is a price option Amtrak is asking for, not something they are requiring in the base specifications.
Click to expand...

I don't know, I sort of like the idea of chilling in a full bistro car with my meal before I return to my seat for the rest of the journey. I know that, alternatively, you can take your food back to your seat and eat there, but sometimes I just want to chill with my food elsewhere. That aside, I believe that the additional seats they are gaining from the lack of two power cars (301 -> ~420) is plenty of revenue growth without the half bistro car. In addition, there is already a provision, as you've probably read, for the addition of (I'm guessing) two business cars in the future to increase trainset capacity by 33%. Honestly, I don't foresee the loss of half of a car (~30 or so seats) stemming from going from a half bistro to a full bistro to be a terrible problem.


----------



## Paulus

Andrew said:


> I wonder which company is the most likely to receive Amtrak's new contract for high speed trains:
> 
> Talgo,
> 
> Siemens,
> 
> or
> 
> Bombardier?


Talgo is disqualified, they don't have the relevant experience or vehicles. Alstom is eligible as well as the various Japanese companies, but I think that Siemens will win and force all the rail fans to sing Deutschezug über alles.



afigg said:


> Video screens on all seatbacks? By the time, the full set of trainsets are in service, half the people on the train may have Google glasses and most of the others, tablet computers or really large cell phones for their own video source. But this is a price option Amtrak is asking for, not something they are requiring in the base specifications.


It's pretty much an expectation from the airlines that they'll be competing against and it also allows them to do other things not necessarily doable with Google Glasses or smartphones/tablets like at-seat meal ordering (technically doable with smartphones/tablets, but implementation will not be as elegant or as reliable). Remember too that bandwidth and connectivity are always going to be a bit of an issue with trains; 400 people trying to stream Netflix all at once will result in complaints, but people streaming videos from an on train server is added customer revenue and satisfaction.

I can't find anything on the operating plans either, but I suspect that the 25 additional services refers to an additional 25 Acela frequencies. Hourly BOS-WAS and half hourly NYP-WAS throughout the day perhaps?


----------



## Paulus

Fan Railer said:


> I don't know, I sort of like the idea of chilling in a full bistro car with my meal before I return to my seat for the rest of the journey. I know that, alternatively, you can take your food back to your seat and eat there, but sometimes I just want to chill with my food elsewhere. That aside, I believe that the additional seats they are gaining from the lack of two power cars (301 -> ~420) is plenty of revenue growth without the half bistro car. In addition, there is already a provision, as you've probably read, for the addition of (I'm guessing) two business cars in the future to increase trainset capacity by 33%. Honestly, I don't foresee the loss of half of a car (~30 or so seats) stemming from going from a half bistro to a full bistro to be a terrible problem.


30 seats is 7.5% of capacity, which is a fairly large ding, and with current Acela pricing and occupancy, is ~$15.88 in revenue per train mile (and, across the whole fleet, over the course of a year, is $16.8 million in lost revenue potential. This does assume a certain lack of elasticity of course.


----------



## Fan Railer

Paulus said:


> Fan Railer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, I sort of like the idea of chilling in a full bistro car with my meal before I return to my seat for the rest of the journey. I know that, alternatively, you can take your food back to your seat and eat there, but sometimes I just want to chill with my food elsewhere. That aside, I believe that the additional seats they are gaining from the lack of two power cars (301 -> ~420) is plenty of revenue growth without the half bistro car. In addition, there is already a provision, as you've probably read, for the addition of (I'm guessing) two business cars in the future to increase trainset capacity by 33%. Honestly, I don't foresee the loss of half of a car (~30 or so seats) stemming from going from a half bistro to a full bistro to be a terrible problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 30 seats is 7.5% of capacity, which is a fairly large ding, and with current Acela pricing and occupancy, is ~$15.88 in revenue per train mile (and, across the whole fleet, over the course of a year, is $16.8 million in lost revenue potential. This does assume a certain lack of elasticity of course.
Click to expand...

There must be another factor then, of course, to offset the potential loss in revenue that they are considering if they are exlporing pricing options for a full bistro.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Fan Railer said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fan Railer said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . . I sort of like the idea of chilling in a full bistro car with my meal . . . Honestly, I don't foresee the loss of half of a car (~30 or so seats) stemming from going from a half bistro to a full bistro to be a terrible problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 30 seats is 7.5% of capacity, which is a fairly large ding, and with current Acela pricing and occupancy, is ~$15.88 in revenue per train mile (and, across the whole fleet, over the course of a year, is $16.8 million in lost revenue potential. . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There must be another factor then, of course, to offset the potential loss in revenue that they are considering if they are exlporing pricing options for a full bistro.
Click to expand...

It would be a helluva thing if Amtrak went from making big

losses on food service to turning the bistro car into a profit center!

Couple other things: If they are increasing the number of seats

and passengers on the new Acelas, . . . [edited to remove error]

they'll need to increase the size of the bistro car simply to hold

the same ratio of total passengers/bistro seats. Going from ½ car

bistro to ⅔ car bistro seems silly, so might as well go whole hog.

Certainly the bistro car conveys an upscale image of comfort

and space that is an important marketing feature, so the bistro car

has value beyond the products and services offered therein.

One of the major advantages of rail travel over planes and cars

is that you can get up from your seat and walk a bit to stretch.

Going to the bistro car is a good excuse to take that walk and

loosen up. Simply going to the john, or walking aimlessly from

one end of the coach to another, is boring, and it doesn't fill

that need to reward yourself.

I'm impressed by the figures Paulus provides on the potential

foregone revenue. But if Amtrak runs the numbers and goes

with a full-car bistro, I won't be angry about it.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Nathanael said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . . Amtrak cannot use the same surplus from Acela to both cross-subsidize LD
> 
> and use as collateral for loans. So . . . they will have to find money from elsewhere
> 
> to pay for LD operations.
> 
> 
> 
> Eh, just speed up the LDs until they're profitable.
> 
> OK, OK, I kid, I kid. . . . The Boardman presentation with direct costs was
> 
> very illuminating. A lot of the "costs" we see are actually overhead
> 
> which can only be covered by expanding operations. . . .
> 
> Only some of the trains require large operating subsidies (CZ, SL, SWC),
> 
> and even there it's only parts of their routes (Denver-Chicago is pretty good
> 
> financially, Denver-San Francisco is horrible). . . .
> 
> Anyway, sparked a lot of interesting thoughts . . .
Click to expand...

Sorry, Nathanael, but I missed this post back in December.

It sparked some thoughts on mine, tho, when I did read it.

But to comment here would go completely *off*-Acela-*topic*.

Would you please post your comment to start a new thread?

(I could start one quoting you a lot, but that seems clumsy.)


----------



## Anderson

Amtrak also tends to like one-car one-purpose for their single-level trains. Bilevel cars can have two "purposes" given that upstairs and downstairs are basically two cars.


----------



## NE933

Whole car Bistros, half car, or two thirds, whatever -- the steel enemas that are supposed to pass for seating, and the tiny tables, gotta go.

Suggestions: use the Amdinettes and/or Viewliner Diners as models, also the Metroliner Conference Car #9800 has very nice seating for two or four that is comfortable and has a small footprint on taking up space inside. Also, crescent bench seating that clashes on the Cross Country Cafes would work nicely on this high speed train, because it's a short-medium distance corridor route and not one that will see the same passenger visit three or more times during his or her overnight journey.


----------



## Anderson

Amtrak also seems to generally want one car to have one purpose, at least on single-level trains. Note the long-standing trend against BC or coach in snack/cafe cars, even where doing so could pull in another slab of revenue.


----------



## Nathanael

Anderson said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much cross-subsidy is there anyway? Do we have a good guess?
> 
> Isn't this one of the areas where the famed Amtrak accounting may
> 
> obscure the view? LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> Several hundred million dollars, from what I can tell. Per the September 2013 Monthly Performance Report, you have the following contributions/losses excluding capital charges:Acela: $245.4m before OPEBs, $236.9m after OPEBs
> 
> Regional: $143.7m before OPEBs, $133m after OPEBs
> 
> Short Corridors: ($158.3m) before OPEBs, ($180.8m) after OPEBs
> 
> LD Trains: ($593.8m) before OPEBs, ($627.1m) after OPEBs
> 
> Total: ($360.0m) before OPEBs, ($435.0m) after OPEBs.
> 
> Total sans Corridors: ($201.7m) before OPEBs, ($254.2m) after OPEBs
> 
> Put another way, the NEC as a whole is arguably picking up 2/3 of the tab for the LD trains.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, about 1/3 to 2/3 of the "costs" on most of those trains are unavoidable overhead, so the overhead allocation completely muddies the picture. And we don't know how Amtrak chose to allocate overhead.
Some of the long-distance trains look worse than they should due to allocation of overhead. Others look better. We got a clue about "direct costs" from that one Boardman presentation. But The Acela and Regionals may also be artificially inflated in profitability by allocation of *less* overhead than appropriate, and we don't have a clue about "direct costs" there.

I don't think we can get a good picture of the actual cross-subsidy unless we have numbers without overhead attached. Key questions for me:

- Does the NEC actually cover the overhead necessary to run it? If we (very roughly) count half of all costs as being overhead, then it doesn't cover all the system overhead. *Some* of the overhead isn't necessary for the NEC -- but how much?

- Is the federal government actually subsidizing the overhead for the system, as well as the direct operating costs of the long-distance trains? If so, I can't call it a cross-subsidy.

The dominance of overhead, financially speaking, leads to a few straightfoward conclusions. It means that the only sensible way for Amtrak to go forward is to expand the system while using the same overhead -- i.e. longer trains, extra frequencies on the same routes, etc. Obstreperousness by the freight railroads means that extra frequencies are quite difficult for routes where the state government has not gotten involved. To get back to the initial topic here, running more and longer Acelas is a sensible response to the dominance of overhead.


----------



## jis

In this discussion is the concept of "allocated cost" being conflated with "overhead cost"? If so that will lead to confusion in analysis, since all allocated costs are not overhead. There are the variable allocated costs that would disappear from the overall account if a train does not run. The fixed costs will not. It would help to clearly identify what exactly is being talked about when the term "overhead" is used.


----------



## Andrew

Will RRIF finance the cost of these new trains?


----------



## afigg

Andrew said:


> Will RRIF finance the cost of these new trains?


It is likely that Amtrak will be seeking RRIF loans to finance much of the purchase cost. But that will be a lot of debt to take on to be paid off over the next 20 or 30 years which will limit Amtrak's ability to finance other equipment purchases without some direct annual funding from Congress to cover at least part of the purchase cost.
That is why Boardman is advocating a Transportation Trust Fund to replace the Highway Trust Fund which is projected to be depleted by this fall. If Congress could set up a new Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) with additional revenue sources (yes, that is a problem) that covered all areas of transportation, not just highway and road projects, then perhaps Amtrak can be funded by the TTF with more stable and higher annual funding levels set by allocation formulas. A 6 year TTF program with $200 to $250 million a year for rolling stock acquisition plus maintaining the debt service funding at $200 million a year to help cover new equipment debt (as the old leases are paid off) might be enough for Amtrak to begin to place orders for Amfleet II, Superliner I, P-42 replacements, not just Acela IIs. But replacing the HTF with a TTF will be a hard sell in the Republican controlled House where even the current modest amounts that go to the Mass Transit Fund are subject to attack.


----------



## Woody

jis said:


> In this discussion is the concept of "allocated cost" being conflated with "overhead cost"? If so that will lead to confusion in analysis, since all allocated costs are not overhead. There are the variable allocated costs that would disappear from the overall account if a train does not run. The fixed costs will not. It would help to clearly identify what exactly is being talked about when the term "overhead" is used.


I'll admit to having trouble to figuring out what "overhead" may mean in Amtrak accounts.

From notes to this table in the 09/2009 monthly Performance Report:



> National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
> 
> Financial Performance of Routes -
> 
> Fully allocated overhead, excluding Depreciation and Interest (see notes below)
> 
> September 2008 YTD
> 
> Route Performance Results Exclude Federal Support for
> 
> Operations, Depreciation, Interest and Capital Charge
> 
> -Total FRA Defined Costs represents Host Railroad MofW and Performance
> 
> Incentives, Fuel and Power, T&E Crew, OBS and Commissary costs, Car
> 
> and Locomotive maint. and Turnaround Costs, Commissions, Reservations,
> 
> Call Centers, Psgr Inconvenience, and Route Stations.
> 
> -Total Remaining Direct Costs include Shared Stations, MoE Supervision and
> 
> Training, Maintenance of Way, Yard Ops, Marketing and Distribution, Insurance,
> 
> Terminal Payments, Procurement/Purchasing, Police/Environmental and Safety,
> 
> and T&E Overhead.
> 
> -Total Non-Direct Costs includes Amtrak Infrastructure Maintenance and System costs.


Sort of OK, but I'd say Boardman's salary and other headquarters costs --

the General Counsel's office; Labor Relations; Governmental, Press, and

Public Relations; Strategic Planning and HSR WIshing; Accounting; and

other departments also belong in overhead to be spread across the board.

But I'm not seeing that stuff. Maybe it's in those last words "System costs."

That kind of overhead is one place where expanding -- longer trains,

more frequencies, more routes -- would mean less overhead per unit,

whether the unit is per passenger, per seat mile, whatever. Maybe it's

not enuff to matter in a multi-billion outfit.

Other headquarters overhead like Information Technology might be in

the mentions of Reservations and Call Centers -- the 2009 reports

didn't need to get into Wi-Fi, e-Ticketing, or other IT costs we already

take for granted.

And do I espy that *Route Stations* are included in FRA Defined Costs,

while *Shared Stations *fall into Remaining Direct Costs. It's a whimsy

to think that station costs could tip a route's performance. The shared

Charlottesville station used to serve 7 _Crescents_ a week, and 3 _Cardinals_.

So the poor _Cardinal _carried 30% of the station's costs? Along came

the _Lynchburger_ and the _Cardinal_'s share fell to 17.6%, I guess. Did that

make any difference to anything? Not much. For sure the _Lynchburger_

didn't increase any station costs for the _Cardinal _or the _Crescent._ We

could use more trains like the _Lynchburger_ -- but we knew that. LOL.


----------



## Andrew

afigg said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will RRIF finance the cost of these new trains?
> 
> 
> 
> It is likely that Amtrak will be seeking RRIF loans to finance much of the purchase cost. But that will be a lot of debt to take on to be paid off over the next 20 or 30 years which will limit Amtrak's ability to finance other equipment purchases without some direct annual funding from Congress to cover at least part of the purchase cost.
> That is why Boardman is advocating a Transportation Trust Fund to replace the Highway Trust Fund which is projected to be depleted by this fall. If Congress could set up a new Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) with additional revenue sources (yes, that is a problem) that covered all areas of transportation, not just highway and road projects, then perhaps Amtrak can be funded by the TTF with more stable and higher annual funding levels set by allocation formulas. A 6 year TTF program with $200 to $250 million a year for rolling stock acquisition plus maintaining the debt service funding at $200 million a year to help cover new equipment debt (as the old leases are paid off) might be enough for Amtrak to begin to place orders for Amfleet II, Superliner I, P-42 replacements, not just Acela IIs. But replacing the HTF with a TTF will be a hard sell in the Republican controlled House where even the current modest amounts that go to the Mass Transit Fund are subject to attack.
Click to expand...

1. But wouldn't this compete with Gateway Funding?

2. Also, I actually do believe that a compromise would be reached. Republicans know that they are screwed for the 2014 midterm elections--and 2016 Presidential Election against Clinton--if they are so determined to block Transportation funding!


----------



## Anderson

Andrew: Yes, it might compete with Gateway funding. Guess what? _*Gateway isn't Amtrak's only priority.*_ Amtrak has a lot of other things to do as well. Even if somebody magically funded Gateway 100% right this minute, it would probably take a decade (or more) to actually engineer, build, etc.

As of right now, the Acelas are basically maxed out between WAS and NYP, so Amtrak is working to add trains (with more capacity) on that route now. Considering that Gateway is likely a 20-year-long project due to all the politics involved, if I'm Amtrak I basically have to (1) hope that it will happen but (2) expect that it won't happen within any realistic timeframe to allow it to preempt other projects.

Another point worth considering is that for the price of Gateway, Amtrak could lengthen a _lot_ of platforms on the NEC and boost capacity that way. It seems likely we're going to see Regionals stretching out in the 12-14 car range before we see something in the vein of Gateway.


----------



## jis

Amtrak has quite a ways to go to even use the platforms that are available to it already even before any platform lengthening is needed. What they need are corridor cars. Similarly, the new Acelas will be longer consists increasing capacity throughput without requiring any new tunnels. Though it is true that during the two hours in the morning and evening on weekdays, Amtrak will probably find itself hard pressed to find slots for additional trains.

Notice that Amtrak itself has prioritized all flood mitigation work and a lot of SOGR work, ahead of Gateway components, except for critical ROW preservation work. So as I have always hinted at, give the Gateway obsession rest. It will eventually happen, but not right now.


----------



## afigg

Andrew said:


> 1. But wouldn't this compete with Gateway Funding?
> 
> 2. Also, I actually do believe that a compromise would be reached. Republicans know that they are screwed for the 2014 midterm elections--and 2016 Presidential Election against Clinton--if they are so determined to block Transportation funding!


Andrew, this thread is about the HSR trainset order and issues related to it in some way. The NEC Gateway is a long term project that won't have an effect on the new trainsets and their operation until after they have been in service for some years, that is assuming, the HSR trainset contract is awarded and advances in the next several years. You have other threads to discuss or obsess on the NEC Gateway project if you want to do so. Of greater relevance to the HSR trainsets, are the NEC projects that should or could be completed in the next 5-6 years such as the NJ HSR project.


----------



## Fan Railer

My advice: don't feed the troll. Just ignore him.


----------



## afigg

jis said:


> Notice that Amtrak itself has prioritized all flood mitigation work and a lot of SOGR work, ahead of Gateway components, except for critical ROW preservation work. So as I have always hinted at, give the Gateway obsession rest. It will eventually happen, but not right now.


With the plans to order 28 HSR trainsets, Amtrak has advanced their schedule laid out in the 2012 NEC Vision for rolling stock. In 2012, the plan still was to acquire 40 Acela I coach cars and by 2020, acquire 12 new HSR trainsets. If the vendors respond with viable bids and Amtrak can swing the financing, we may be looking at 28 Acela II trainsets with greater seating capacity in service by end of 2020 with the Acela Is retired.
I'm looking at Stair Steps 1 and 2 in the 2012 Vision with a doubling of HSR service NYP-WAS by 2020. Of the by 2020 Stair Step 2 NEC infrastructure improvements, many are funded with only 4 open items: North Portal bridge, Pelham Bay bridge replacements, BWI station center platforms and 4th track, and WAS track & platform improvements. Of these, with the increase in capital grant funding, should be able to 1) line up funding with contributions from other sources to build the North Portal Bridge, 2) get the MTA to contribute towards a new Pelham Bay bridge, and 3) get started on DC Union Station improvements with MD and VA now able to contribute due to their transportation funding bills passed in 2013. The BWI center platform and 4th track is likely to slide pass a 2020 completion date.

The Sandy relief mitigation funds could help pay for a number of SOGR track and ROW projects with the goal of improving reliability and protection against extreme weather events. While not directly improving capacity, Sandy mitigation grants for projects to protect against flooding, extreme weather, storms could free up funds from the annual Capital grants to be used for other NEC improvement projects to trim trip times and increase capacity by circa 2020. With MD and PennDOT/SEPTA now in a better position to provide matching funding, NJ committed to the NJ HSR improvements, Amtrak is in a position to complete more of the 2012 Vision Stair Steps 2 and 3 projects by the early 2020s than we might have expected in 2012 given the budget situation in Congress.

The reason I'm bringing this up is that with 28 new HSR trainsets, there will be a lot more seats to fill. I expect it will to change the Acela and even the NE Regional pricing and marketing strategy to undercut the airlines and driving. There are 20 Acela trainsets of which 16 run on weekdays with 304 seats each for a total of 4864 seats. With 28 Acela II trainsets, say with 420 seats each, and figure that 22 trainsets would run on weekdays (for ~80% utilization), that works out to a total of 9240 seats. A 90% increase. Make it 23 Acela IIs with 425 seats on weekdays and you double the current Acela I capacity. With lower operating costs, better rides (one would hope), a little faster trip times, Amtrak could cut current Acela prices by 25% and still see a big jump in total revenue.

With ACS-64s and longer NE Regionals, Amtrak should be able to lower prices to fill more seats on the Regionals as well to compete better against the intercity buses and driving. Will be a noticeable change to go from a situation on the NEC where demand is bumping against the limits of capacity to one with a lot more capacity with a competitive pricing strategy.


----------



## battalion51

This is slightly OT, but as the new Midwest Bi-Levels come on line there will be Amfleet I's and Horizon cars from the Midwest that will almost certainly be deployed into the NEC. Even though the Horizons presently lack the Automatic doors of the Amfleet I that doesn't mean that they can't help NEC corridor capacity. On trains like the Carolinian, Vermonter, Ethan Allen, Downeaster and Empire Service (all Amfleet I consists) they can be shuffled in since they serve a number of stations that are low platforms where Automatic doors aren't necessary. Even if you want to maintain having Automatic doors for when you're at a high level platform (or using a Horizon car in a Regional consist) you have the Horizon bracketed with Amfleet I's on either end such that doors open in between each set of cars. It wouldn't surprise me however if they do deploy the Horizons to the NEC if they don't figure out a way to retrofit them with Automatic doors.


----------



## Anderson

What seems likely with the Acelas, assuming 28 new sets, etc., is that the buckets will be kept fairly static. There will be a redistribution of purchased inventory towards lower buckets (even if the percentages of seats in each bucket stay the same, you'll see more seats available in the lower bucket(s), and fewer trains will get to the top bucket(s)).

Bear in mind that it's likely Amtrak will bring the new equipment in over the course of 2-3 years...if they change all the sets out at once, they'd be courting the same sort of thing that happened with the first round of Acelas. I'd expect a slow increase in frequencies and seats over a few timetables as the new equipment is delivered and phased in. If fares are flat and PPR slides by 5-10% due to a bucket redistribution, ridership should rise. Another point is that low-bucket Acela fares will likely remain below high-bucket Regional fares, so at least some additional capacity will likely get swallowed up there.

The Regionals are going to be another issue entirely...the main thing there is likely going to be adding capacity so more trains stay in the lower buckets most of the time. $84 WAS-NYP is one thing; $164 for the same seat is entirely another. Amtrak's reshuffle on fare options has likely had at least some impact here, however. Again...a few years of flat fares should make a dent here. One thing to consider, however, is that it seems likely that at least some additional capacity is going to get swallowed up by ridership increases in VA sending traffic up the Corridor.

Finally, as to Horizons, it wouldn't be hard to see them redeployed on longer-distance off-NEC trains (IIRC they were used on the Three Rivers, as evidenced by the fact that at least one Cafe still has a sign promoting it with the train's run to Chicago hastily covered up; putting them in a cycle for the Adirondack, Vermonter, Silvers, etc. would probably work). This would allow Amfleets to get moved around and onto the NEC. Adding one or two Horizons to the back of a Regional and only opening them at major stops (NYP, NWK, PHL, WIL, BAL, and WAS on NEC-South for example) would be another option.


----------



## Nathanael

I've been speculating as to the equipment cascade when the new bilevels (Surfliner IIs?) show up.

Some Horizons are definitely coming east, but exactly how they'll be used? Dunno.

I think it makes a lot of sense to run the Horizons through Beech Grove and retrofit them, however. Either retrofit them for automatic doors and the NEC -- or retrofit them with long-distance seating and use them to supplement/replace the short-supply Amfleet IIs. The Horizons have a better exterior shape which allows for more overhead luggage rack space... which argues for putting them on the longer-distance trains.

Either way, retrofit the lighting with LED lighting -- the lighting has been one of the main complaints I've read about the Horizons. And mitigate the freezing problems with cowling, insulation, etc.

Whatever happens with the Horizons, I currently expect all remaining Amfleet Is to be completely removed from California and Chicago and sent to the NEC. Chicago will presumably retain some Horizons, since Hiawatha Service and the Hoosier State aren't getting new bilevels.


----------



## Nathanael

jis said:


> There are the variable allocated costs that would disappear from the overall account if a train does not run. The fixed costs will not.


I guess one of the things I'm saying is that we have never, ever had a clear breakdown of which was which, not in *any* Amtrak financial document. But all the evidence is that fixed costs dominate.

There are different degrees of "fixed", of course. For purposes of removing a car from a train, the cost of running the locomotive is mostly fixed; for purposes of cancelling the train, it's variable. For purposes of adding a second train to a route, the cost of station operations is mostly fixed; for purposes of removing the last train from the route, it's variable.

Economies of scale appear to be everywhere in railroading.


----------



## jis

afigg said:


> I'm looking at Stair Steps 1 and 2 in the 2012 Vision with a doubling of HSR service NYP-WAS by 2020. Of the by 2020 Stair Step 2 NEC infrastructure improvements, many are funded with only 4 open items: North Portal bridge, Pelham Bay bridge replacements, BWI station center platforms and 4th track, and WAS track & platform improvements. Of these, with the increase in capital grant funding, should be able to 1) line up funding with contributions from other sources to build the North Portal Bridge, 2) get the MTA to contribute towards a new Pelham Bay bridge, and 3) get started on DC Union Station improvements with MD and VA now able to contribute due to their transportation funding bills passed in 2013. The BWI center platform and 4th track is likely to slide pass a 2020 completion date.


I agree but I think your time line is a tad bit optimistic. I don't see MTA funding anything on the Hell Gate Line until the very late part of this decade at the earliest, and perhaps later, specially now that ESA has slipped to 2023 and requires a couple of billion more to complete. I also don't see any major funding materializing from other sources for Portal until after NJ has a new governor. The total cost of North Portal after all is said and done will be around $1 billion. Additionally do not forget the Sawtooth Bridge, which is probably in worse shape than Portal at present and a bigger matter of concern for Amtrak. My suspicion is that if any general corridor capital is found it will first go to Sawtooth at this point. So my crystal ball says that of your list 1, 3 and 4 will slip into the decade of the 20s before they are done, assuming that the House does not change leadership in 2014 or 2016. If the House changes leadership, a few of those things can be brought forward by 2 or 3 years, again assuming that even a friendly House at this point dos not have a huge amount of leeway to be too generous.


> The Sandy relief mitigation funds could help pay for a number of SOGR track and ROW projects with the goal of improving reliability and protection against extreme weather events. While not directly improving capacity, Sandy mitigation grants for projects to protect against flooding, extreme weather, storms could free up funds from the annual Capital grants to be used for other NEC improvement projects to trim trip times and increase capacity by circa 2020. With MD and PennDOT/SEPTA now in a better position to provide matching funding, NJ committed to the NJ HSR improvements, Amtrak is in a position to complete more of the 2012 Vision Stair Steps 2 and 3 projects by the early 2020s than we might have expected in 2012 given the budget situation in Congress.


First let us remove some confusion. NJ has committed nothing to NJ HSR. The only thing NJT has finally put into its capital plan for the next 5 years is the Midline Loop, which will help decongest County interlocking, if they actually manage to fund it. NJT has a relatively poor record of late of actually funding things that are in its capital plan, so we will see. Other than that NJHSR is a pure Amtrak/Federal project. One good thing is that any additional Sandy mitigation funding that might appear may be usable in at least moving the Sawtooth rehab/replacement along. That is a $ 200 to $300 million dollar project.


Nathanael said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are the variable allocated costs that would disappear from the overall account if a train does not run. The fixed costs will not.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess one of the things I'm saying is that we have never, ever had a clear breakdown of which was which, not in *any* Amtrak financial document. But all the evidence is that fixed costs dominate.
> 
> There are different degrees of "fixed", of course. For purposes of removing a car from a train, the cost of running the locomotive is mostly fixed; for purposes of cancelling the train, it's variable. For purposes of adding a second train to a route, the cost of station operations is mostly fixed; for purposes of removing the last train from the route, it's variable.
> 
> Economies of scale appear to be everywhere in railroading.
Click to expand...

I do agree with you on this.


----------



## Anderson

There's also the question of the disposition of the Acelas once the Acela IIs roll out. That's standing as one of the great mysteries in all of this, especially given how rarely Amtrak gets rid of non-locomotive equipment that's less than 40 years old.

I have to wonder...assuming you could pop two of the locomotives off/reconfigured them, would two Acelas put together be able to do 125 MPH?


----------



## afigg

Anderson said:


> What seems likely with the Acelas, assuming 28 new sets, etc., is that the buckets will be kept fairly static. There will be a redistribution of purchased inventory towards lower buckets (even if the percentages of seats in each bucket stay the same, you'll see more seats available in the lower bucket(s), and fewer trains will get to the top bucket(s)).
> 
> Bear in mind that it's likely Amtrak will bring the new equipment in over the course of 2-3 years...if they change all the sets out at once, they'd be courting the same sort of thing that happened with the first round of Acelas. I'd expect a slow increase in frequencies and seats over a few timetables as the new equipment is delivered and phased in. If fares are flat and PPR slides by 5-10% due to a bucket redistribution, ridership should rise. Another point is that low-bucket Acela fares will likely remain below high-bucket Regional fares, so at least some additional capacity will likely get swallowed up there.
> 
> ...


I would expect that once enough Acela IIs are available that they would be used on the peak AM and 5 & 6 PM departures from NYP and WAS. Make most of the additional seats lower bucket seats during the likely 3-4 year transition period and slow down the price increase ramp-up of recent years. What I was looking at was what might happen when the Acelas are all the new expanded capacity units, maybe by the end of 2020. Add NE Regionals with more capacity and Amtrak could get more aggressive on competitive prices to undercut the remaining airline shuttle flights. WAS-NYP will have a lot more capacity, but unless Amtrak can run more trains on the Shore Line, NYP-BOS will have more seats but will still be limited.
As for the Horizons, there are only 79 Horizon coach cars. With Horizons staying on the Hiawatha and Hoosier State, there won't be that many Horizon coach cars available to be shifted east. Unless Amtrak gets funding for Amfleet II replacements in the next several years, converting some Horizon to LD configuration would be one option. Keep the rest as reserve for peak holiday periods where single cars can be added to a trainset sandwiched between Amfleets or at the end of the trainset.

The fleet strategy plan in the FY2013 financial plans called for delivery of single level cars to start in FY2019 at 100 units a year. With the subsidies coming in from the eastern states and Regionals making money on the NEC, Amtrak might be able to place incremental orders for Amfleet I replacements starting in 2019 even without a lot of direct acquisition funding from Congress. If that happens, then Amtrak can keep all the Amfleet Is in service and expand capacity in the east once the first set of 100 new single level coaches are delivered.

with the changes in plans and funding since 2012, Amtrak could issue an updated NEC Vision plan in 2014 that would lay out what they now think can be achieved by 2020 and 2025. But I don't know if that would be productive while the NEC Future EIS is being drafted and while Congress is debating a new Transportation funding bill. Or, for that matter, until the order for 28 HSR trainsets is placed. Lots of issues with the CHSRA plans and funding that may delay or stall the contract award.


----------



## afigg

jis said:


> I agree but I think your time line is a tad bit optimistic. I don't see MTA funding anything on the Hell Gate Line until the very late part of this decade at the earliest, and perhaps later, specially now that ESA has slipped to 2023 and requires a couple of billion more to complete. I also don't see any major funding materializing from other sources for Portal until after NJ has a new governor. The total cost of North Portal after all is said and done will be around $1 billion. Additionally do not forget the Sawtooth Bridge, which is probably in worse shape than Portal at present and a bigger matter of concern for Amtrak. My suspicion is that if any general corridor capital is found it will first go to Sawtooth at this point. So my crystal ball says that of your list 1, 3 and 4 will slip into the decade of the 20s before they are done, assuming that the House does not change leadership in 2014 or 2016. If the House changes leadership, a few of those things can be brought forward by 2 or 3 years, again assuming that even a friendly House at this point dos not have a huge amount of leeway to be too generous.


My time line may be insanely optimistic.  But Amtrak did get a bump in annual Capital grant funding to $801 million that should give them some maneuvering room to tackle NEC projects. The mess with Bridge-Gate and the NJ side of PANYNJ may indeed complicate matters in getting any funding from the PA for the North Portal bridge and Sawtooth bridge replacement in the near term, but we have no way of knowing how that will play out. NJ may have a new Governor sooner than anyone would have expected a month ago, but the Lt Gov would likely follow Christie's approach of not fixing the state transportation funding problems.

The unknown is what the prospects are for Amtrak and NEC to get much funding from the Sandy mitigation funds. The Administration and US DOT (with encouragement from Senator Schumer) may decide that this is the last large batch of funds they are likely to have before 2016 for NEC projects and passenger rail in the east and provide a sizable piece of the $3 billion for transit grants for the NEC either directly to Amtrak and CT DOT or award some through the transit agencies to make it less obvious. The problems that Amtrak has been having on the NEC in the current cold weather makes the argument that there is a long list of weather hardening SOGR upgrades that should be done. That $3 billion that FTA announced for mitigation projects is not the end of it, there was a TBD funding direct grant category in the announcement as well as I recall.


----------



## afigg

Anderson said:


> There's also the question of the disposition of the Acelas once the Acela IIs roll out. That's standing as one of the great mysteries in all of this, especially given how rarely Amtrak gets rid of non-locomotive equipment that's less than 40 years old.
> 
> I have to wonder...assuming you could pop two of the locomotives off/reconfigured them, would two Acelas put together be able to do 125 MPH?


Amtrak might break up several Acela trainsets and add coach cars to the remaining Acela trainsets to lengthen them and roughly match the seating capacity of the new trainsets. But if 28 HSR trainsets are to be delivered in a ~3 year period, the lengthened Acelas would not be in revenue service for only a brief period. There would be issues with servicing the longer Acela I trainsets in the current Acela maintenance facilities, so that might kill that idea.

The FY14 appropriations required Amtrak to produce an updated Fleet Strategy and financial plans. so we may see a V4 Fleet Strategy plan released this spring. Which may provide information on the long term plans for the current Acelas, On the other hand, until the new HSR trainsets are ordered with a start of delivery date, may be best to remain vague on the plans for the 20 Acela I trainsets. My guess is that the Acela Is will be retired to save on maintenance costs.


----------



## Nathanael

afigg said:


> As for the Horizons, there are only 79 Horizon coach cars. With Horizons staying on the Hiawatha and Hoosier State, there won't be that many Horizon coach cars available to be shifted east.


The Hiawatha service (6 cars each) can be operated with two trainsets, though I'm not sure whether Amtrak is doing so. The Hoosier State only needs two trainsets and it's short (2 cars each). Add an extra Hiawatha set in case of trouble, and you get 22 coaches. That would allow for shifting *57* Horizon coaches east. I'm not sure what your definition of "not that many" is.


----------



## Nathanael

Anderson said:


> There's also the question of the disposition of the Acelas once the Acela IIs roll out. That's standing as one of the great mysteries in all of this, especially given how rarely Amtrak gets rid of non-locomotive equipment that's less than 40 years old.


Put the "old Acelas" on lower-demand services. I suspect Pennsylvania wouldn't mind having them on the Keystones.

Maybe that would be too high-demand a service. How about using the "old Acelas" for less-heavily-used early morning and late night services, allowing the Acela IIs more time in the yard?

Or, once NH-H-S Commuter Rail is operational, use them for the Springfield through services.

(I guess the other problem with using them on the Keystones is the endless delays in the high-platform projects along the Keystone route.)


----------



## Nathanael

afigg said:


> NJ may have a new Governor sooner than anyone would have expected a month ago, but the Lt Gov would likely follow Christie's approach of not fixing the state transportation funding problems.


The current Lt. Gov of NJ is absolutely central to the scandals of the current Governor of NJ, and is actually more clearly personally involved in them than the Governor is. If the Governor goes, they're both going to go. I know absolutely nothing about the State Senate chairman, who would become Governor in that case.


----------



## afigg

Nathanael said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for the Horizons, there are only 79 Horizon coach cars. With Horizons staying on the Hiawatha and Hoosier State, there won't be that many Horizon coach cars available to be shifted east.
> 
> 
> 
> The Hiawatha service (6 cars each) can be operated with two trainsets, though I'm not sure whether Amtrak is doing so. The Hoosier State only needs two trainsets and it's short (2 cars each). Add an extra Hiawatha set in case of trouble, and you get 22 coaches. That would allow for shifting *57* Horizon coaches east. I'm not sure what your definition of "not that many" is.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm reacting to posts that appear to have the idea that the freed up Horizons will provide a big increase to the eastern single level fleet. Figure Horizon coach cars in reserve and maintenance for the Hiawatha and (a daily) Hoosier State, and perhaps Horizons used for service or frequency expansions until more bi-levels can be ordered and delivered. So figure on 50 Horizon coach cars plus X cafe cars freed up and sent east.
Amtrak has 465 active Amfleet Is (of all types) and 120 Amfleet II coach cars according to the On Track On line list. 50 Horizon ooach cars is an increase, but not a huge one. Major overhauls of the Horizons won't be free, so Amtrak will have to decide whether it is worthwhile to update them or just use them as reserves.


----------



## afigg

Nathanael said:


> Put the "old Acelas" on lower-demand services. I suspect Pennsylvania wouldn't mind having them on the Keystones.
> 
> Maybe that would be too high-demand a service. How about using the "old Acelas" for less-heavily-used early morning and late night services, allowing the Acela IIs more time in the yard?
> 
> Or, once NH-H-S Commuter Rail is operational, use them for the Springfield through services.
> 
> (I guess the other problem with using them on the Keystones is the endless delays in the high-platform projects along the Keystone route.)


What would be useful to know is what the operating and maintenance costs are of an Acela trainset compared to a Keystone with an ACS-64 and a cab car. I suspect that PennDOT would not be interested in paying for Acelas (with business class seating) to run as Keystone trains.

As for the high level platforms on the Keystone East train stations, with the growing influx of more transportation funds over the next 3-4 years as the gas tax increase is phased in, PennDOT will be able to advance the station upgrade projects that I think were effectively stalled by budget shortfalls. I think the Middletown and Mt Joy station projects are now going ahead. Exton is in Phase 1 of the stations upgrades on the SEPTA hey, we got more money project list.

Acelas are not going to Springfield MA until the NHV-SPG corridor is electrified and that is not in the near term plans.


----------



## MattW

I wonder if instead of a constant capacity increase, the freed Horizons would be better used for "reserve" capacity such as Thanksgiving definitely, the Silvers during peak seasons, run an entire safety patrol special instead of bumping revenue passengers, things like that.

I've actually wondered if it wouldn't be financially viable to have extra cars that are literally warehoused for most of the year, then brought back out and inspected a few weeks before they're needed, used, then returned to storage. Beyond the financials, there's regulations about inspections that I don't know if they would allow that sort of thing.


----------



## Anderson

MattW said:


> MattW, on 31 Jan 2014 - 01:31 AM, said:
> I wonder if instead of a constant capacity increase, the freed Horizons would be better used for "reserve" capacity such as Thanksgiving definitely, the Silvers during peak seasons, run an entire safety patrol special instead of bumping revenue passengers, things like that.
> 
> I've actually wondered if it wouldn't be financially viable to have extra cars that are literally warehoused for most of the year, then brought back out and inspected a few weeks before they're needed, used, then returned to storage. Beyond the financials, there's regulations about inspections that I don't know if they would allow that sort of thing.


Short term, that might work. You'd save two 91-day inspections if you ran the equipment in two seasons: One in summer and one over Thanksgiving/Christmas. It's probably not an ideal use, but it's a plausible one.

In the longer run, however, there are likely to be enough corridors in search of cars and/or additional capacity needs (i.e. where the seats can be filled frequently) to put this to a test. I know Vermont wants some extra trains, for example, and I know there's a serious look at adding a bunch of Hiawathas to that route as well.

With that said, the Horizons could do sporadic duty to allow routes to be started/frequencies to be added on various routes without having to worry about an equipment delivery slipping. It would remove at least one obstacle to increasing capacity/frequencies in various places when there's not a "ready" equipment supply (or if something major goes out of service, such as a Talgo set).


----------



## battalion51

The thing that some people forget is that when the holiday rush hits they're suspending activities like PM that would normally have cars OOS. This could be perceived as a good thing because it's allowing Mechanical forces to be off for the holiday to be with families. On the down side it leaves little fleet flexibility in the event of a major service disruption. Imagine how bad things would've been if some of this Polar Vortex stuff hit a couple of weeks earlier when trains were packed. At the end of the day however even 50 cars being put out into the system is a huge increase in capacity. I want to say there are about 25-30 Northeast Regional sets running on a daily basis, so adding an additional car to two cars is a whole bunch of capacity without spending much to any money on capital. Assume those seats are worth $84 in revenue/day, you're adding $63 million in potential revenue (based a one way fare from WAS-NYP x 60 seats x 50 cars x 250 days of availability, extremely rough numbers, but the point stands).


----------



## afigg

Steering this thread back to the HSR trainset RFP, Kawasaki is publicly expressing an interest in bidding. Lincon Journal Star: Kawasaki Sees High-Speed Opportunity (may have to click on the single question poll to see the full article). Kawasaki has a facility in Lincoln, NE that is ramping up to build up to 748 Series 7000 cars for WMATA over the next 4-5 years. The Metro cars are EMUs, so there is some commonality in building coupled powered cars in principle between the Metro cars and HSR trainsets. Whether they could build or assemble Kawasaki design HSR trainsets that meet the Buy American requirements is an issue that they will to answer.


----------



## afigg

Found these interesting documents on the FRA eLibrary site. Amtrak and CHSRA have both filed for Buy America waivers for 2 prototype HSR trainsets each to be built outside the US. The remainder of the HSR order would be built in the US, but the waiver would allow the prototypes or first operational units to be used for testing and enter service more quickly. Amtrak and CHSRA filed separate waiver requests with a fair amount of updated info on their plans and projected schedule.

*Amtrak Buy America Waiver Request for two (2) prototype high speed rail trainsets*

*California High Speed Rail Authority Buy America Waiver Request for two (2) prototype high speed rail trainsets*

Some excerpts from the Amtrak waiver request:



> On January 24, 2014, Amtrak and the Authority jointly issued a competitive Solicitation for the new HSR Trainsets. The intended result of the Solicitation is the procurement of "Common Platform" Trainsets for Amtrak and the Authority. A "Common Platform" is defined as a Trainset or Trainsets from a "platform" family (e.g., either distributed or concentrated power, similar body construction/cross section, either conventional or articulated bogie architecture) that meets or exceeds Amtrak's current schedule performance on the NEC infrastructure as it exists today while meeting the Authority's and Amtrak's future needs when substantially new high speed infrastructure is completed. Although the technical differences between the Amtrak and Authority Trainsets require two distinct sets of prototypes to be developed (e.g., differences in traction power, car bodies, bogie suspension characteristics, and differences in initial operating speeds), developing the prototypes in concert allows both organizations to share costs, share design perspectives, and leverage the benefits of a joint procurement.
> 
> The Amtrak plan envisions an acquisition oftrainsets to supplement, and eventually replace, the current Acela service. Amtrak is seeking a trainset capable of operating at 160 mph on Amtrak's existing infrastructure and that is capable of or can be subsequently modified to operate at up to 186 mph and/or 220 mph as the tracks and other infrastructure elements are improved to support the higher speeds. The Authority is seeking a trainset capable of operating up to 220 mph initially, and which would be similar in performance requirements to that required under Amtrak's Vision for High-Speed Rail in the NEC.
> 
> Once the Amtrak contract is executed, a notice to proceed will be issued, and the Trainset design process will begin, leading initially to the manufacture and assembly of the Amtrak prototype Trainsets to be completed by December 2016. Amtrak anticipates that revenue service using the new Trainsets will be initiated in 2018.
> 
> ...
> 
> Amtrak intends to procure a service-proven trainset platform, capable of meeting the requirem.ents of the Performance Specification issued with the RFP. The Trainset will be capable of operating bidirectionally at speeds up to 220 mph, and having a minimum seating capacity of 425 passengers.
> 
> Amtrak's Trainsets will have an initial operating speed of 160 mph and will be tested at 165 mph. As a result of these high operating and testing speeds, there are several attributes ofTrainset design that need to be respected in order to provide a safe and reliable service. [rest of paragraph in document]
> 
> ...
> 
> Interviews with HSR Trainset manufacturers have identified a one and a half to two year time period to establish the required facilities to support a domestic high speed Trainset assembly capability. This time period is largely comprised of the time needed to upgrade current/future new facilities to accommodate assembly of high speed equipment, and the time needed to train the domestic workforce. Both of these elements of potential delay can be mitigated while final assembly of the prototypes is occurring overseas.


If the waiver request is granted, there could be HSR trainsets running tests on the NEC in 2017. {advance major foam alert warning)


----------



## afigg

For those wondering what the differences may be between the Amtrak NEC HSR trainsets and the CHSRA trainsets, the CHSRA waiver request summarizes the different operating requirements which will likely result in 2 different carbodies and configurations



> Justification for Separate Amtrak and Authority Waivers
> 
> Amtrak and the Authority require two sets of two prototypes to be designed, assembled and tested under the Amtrak trainset procurement contract. The Amtrak and Authority trainsets will share a common platform. There are, however, physical and technological differences between the two, driven by the particular needs of Amtrak and the Authority. The Amtrak trainset will be designed and constructed to conform to the Amtrak NEC clearance requirements. This will impact the overall width of the trainset and the lower comer of the trainset where clearance between the equipment and the third rail is needed thereby requiring modifications to existing train set designs (e.g., carbody width and underfloor equipment layout). With new infrastructure, the Authority is not limited to the constraints found on the NEC and has the flexibility to leverage several existing equipment designs. Because of these physical differences, it is likely that manufacturers will propose two different trainset carbodies.
> 
> From a technological perspective, the Amtrak and Authority trainsets differ in initial operating speed, electrification, braking, signal/control and radio system, and suspension requirements:
> 
> • The Authority's trainset will have the capability of operating up to 220 mph, with testing speeds up to 242 mph. Amtrak is initially specifYing an operating speed of 160 mph, with testing speeds up to 165 mph.
> 
> • The Authority's trainsets will be required to operate on extended gradients and in extended tunnels on the gradients as the alignment traverses the Diablo, Tehachapi and San Gabrielle mountain ranges. This will impact the design of the traction, braking and cooling systems.
> 
> • The Authority's traction power system will be based on a 25 kV, 60Hz system, whereas Amtrak's NEC operates with three different voltages, 12 kV, 25Hz; 12.5 kV, 60Hz; and 25 kV, 60Hz. The Amtrak trainset propulsion package will be a significantly different design when compared to the Authority's trainset, and the Authority anticipates that there will be two separate and distinct trainset propulsion system designs.
> 
> • The Authority's braking requirements will be based on criteria defined in European Technical Specifications for Interoperability, whereas Amtrak will need to meet the stop distances currently found on the NEC. There is likely to be differences in the type/number of brake equipment installed on the respective trainsets, especially considering the extended gradients found on the Authority alignment.
> 
> • Amtrak requires signaling equipment for Automatic Train Control and Positive Train Control compatible with the existing NEC infrastructure, whereas the Authority is initially specifying interface points (for both signaling and radio) that will be resolved once a systems Contractor is determined.
> 
> Based on the aforementioned differences, two distinct sets of prototypes are warranted.


----------



## jis

For one thing the Amtrak sets will need to have heavier transformers to be able to operate under both 25Hz and 60Hz.

The California sets will not need ACSES but will possibly need to operate under I-ETMS or equivalent freight PTC systems on some segments, irrespective of what system (possibly ERTMS L2) that they use on the high speed dedicated segments. Which means either the trains will have to be able to operate under both systems or ERTMS will need to be installed in addition to I-ETMS on the non-high speed/freight segments used by the high speed trains.But this is a relatively minor issue and boils down to having enough cabinet space for a extra module or two, and enough space under the floor on the roof for an additional antenna or two.

I understand that on the NEC there will be certain segments where I-ETMS will be installed in addition to ACSES at the expense of either a freight railroad or a commuter railroad so that their I-ETMS equipped trains can operate seamlessly. Specifically MARC has been mentioned in this context, in conjunction with the Perryville to Washington DC segment.

Such dual parallel operation of control systems is not that unheard of. The LGV Est 200mph line in France is equipped with both TVM-430 and ERTMS 2. The ICEs use the latter, the TGVs the former.

Anyway, coming back to prototypes after meandering around a bit, yes, there is ample justification for two almost completely different train sets even though based on the same platform. I had said this is what was going to happen all along. Indeed I was a bit surprised when they came out with this idea of a single order covering both.


----------



## CrazyDave

An existing design would be the best option for new HSR traisets. Personally, I think a Alstom TGV Duplex derived design would be a great starting point. The TGV Duplex is shorter in height than a Bombardier MultiLevel Coach, making it compatible with the NEC and existing Catanary. Using newer, more powerful traction motors such as those of the AGV and distributed power throughout the train will allow higher power to weight ratios to enable the train to operate at speeds not yet seen in North America, even if FRA required reinforcement is added in addition to the original design. The next generation of Acela or other HST in the US will not be as capable of succeeding as a bilevel would. Successful HSR in the US will require economies of scale that single level trains cannot offer.


----------



## jis

My guess is that there will be no involvement of Alstom in the Acela II acquisition. But we'll see.


----------



## frequentflyer

CrazyDave said:


> An existing design would be the best option for new HSR traisets. Personally, I think a Alstom TGV Duplex derived design would be a great starting point. The TGV Duplex is shorter in height than a Bombardier MultiLevel Coach, making it compatible with the NEC and existing Catanary. Using newer, more powerful traction motors such as those of the AGV and distributed power throughout the train will allow higher power to weight ratios to enable the train to operate at speeds not yet seen in North America, even if FRA required reinforcement is added in addition to the original design. The next generation of Acela or other HST in the US will not be as capable of succeeding as a bilevel would. Successful HSR in the US will require economies of scale that single level trains cannot offer.


Don't think Duplex will clear the Baltimore low tunnels.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

If it clears NYP it'll clear B&P.


----------



## jis

Anything that fits in standard UIC loading gauge will fit through all of NEC. TGV Duplexes do fit that loading gauge. Ergo....

They also are some of the most cramped accommodation on any HSR that I have ever come across too. It would be sort of like the NJT MLVs running at 200mph. 

On the NEC where only one of four potential slots are used by a relatively short train now, and there is (a) potential for running 12 - 14 car trains instead of 6, and the potential for running 4tph instead of 1tph per type, jumping to double decker seems like an overkill. Even the French did not do that until slot and train lengths became insufficient for the demand. We have a long long way to go before we get there on the NEC for Amtrak service. All the real capacity issues are commuter train issues at present, not Amtrak train issues, and are likely to remain that way for decades, even after Amtrak acquires additional rolling stock, provided they don't do misguided things like getting more 6 car consists that cannot be run in pairs.


----------



## CrazyDave

A Kawasaki MARC Bi Level is 15' 6.5" tall, A Bombardier Multilevel is 14' 5" tall. The Duplex is 14' 2", it'll fit


----------



## Paulus

OuiGo would make for a rather nice replacement for the Regionals. Could get average for NYP-WAS under $50.


----------



## frequentflyer

Is it really overkill or planning for the future. If the next Acela is 12-14 cars long will that make double stops necessary at certain stations? If Amtrak went Duplex all that revenue left behind (would make an accountant cry) would be realized, and future growth planned for.

I would imagine that Duplex would be kind of cramped.


----------



## Ryan

frequentflyer said:


> If the next Acela is 12-14 cars long will that make double stops necessary at certain stations?


No. For the platforms that are shorter, as long as you can get 3/4 of the cars or so on the platform, you're fine. If people in the first and last car have to move to the next car to board, it isn't the end of the world.


----------



## leemell

RyanS said:


> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the next Acela is 12-14 cars long will that make double stops necessary at certain stations?
> 
> 
> 
> No. For the platforms that are shorter, as long as you can get 3/4 of the cars or so on the platform, you're fine. If people in the first and last car have to move to the next car to board, it isn't the end of the world.
Click to expand...

I don't know if it is different just because it is not a commuter, but the Coast Starlight at Van Nuys always make a double spot if it has more than 12 cars. It moves up one or two cars for the last one or two coaches.


----------



## Ryan

LD trains are a different animal because you have to platform the sleepers and the coaches. Regional/Acela trains don't have that issue.


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL

Acelas have to fit on the platform unless you can isolate doors so all of them don't open


----------



## Ryan

A) You can. You can open doors in the forward or rearward direction from the control panel (or both).

B) It isn't an issue, since the Acela fits on existing platforms.

C) Even if it were an issue, the Acela II could have a different door control system.


----------



## afigg

frequentflyer said:


> Is it really overkill or planning for the future. If the next Acela is 12-14 cars long will that make double stops necessary at certain stations? If Amtrak went Duplex all that revenue left behind (would make an accountant cry) would be realized, and future growth planned for.
> 
> I would imagine that Duplex would be kind of cramped.


We know from the RFP specification that Amtrak is *NOT* looking for 12 to 14 car long HSR trainsets nor are they considering double deck cars. In the Schedule 1 Part A specification in section 7..3 Trainset Configuration, it states:



> *For Amtrak, the distance between the first and last axles of the Trainset shall be a maximum of 205 m (672.6 feet).*
> 
> *For the Authority, the maximum Trainset length shall be such that all of the side entry doors of the Trainset in double traction can berth at a platform having a length of 407 m (1,335 feet).*
> 
> *The Trainset design shall feature single-deck passenger accommodations.*
> 
> Seating provisions shall be in accordance with Section 8.4.6.


So this discussion of Duplex cars and really long HSR trainsets (for Amtrak) is not grounded in the reality of what Amtrak and CHSRA are looking to buy.

Now a company can submit a non-compliant proposal if they think that they can make a case that their proposal is superior to what is asked for in the RFP. But they would be taking a big gamble on getting their proposal considered. This is an RFP for a multi-billion contract that could lead to 20 years of building trainsets for the CA HSR system. If you are the corporate executive in charge of putting the proposal together and trying to land a big contract, would you take that risk?

I think we are overlooking how much of an increase in capacity that Amtrak is looking for with their RFP, even with circa 8 car long single level trainsets, because the Acela Is have so little.

There are 20 Acela I trainsets x 303 seats each = 6060 seats. Of the 20 Acela trainsets, 16 are in use on a weekday for 80% utilization.

Amtrak is seeking new HSR trainsets with somewhere from 425 to 450 seats. If Amtrak were to order 28 HSR trainsets with 433 seats, that would result in 12124 seats, twice that of the Acela I fleet. If Amtrak maxes out the order and gets 32 HSR trainsets with 450 seats, that would result in 14,400 seats, 2.37x that of the Acela ! fleet.

If an additional slot per hour is used between WAS and NYP to have the new HSR trainsets with 433 seats run every 30 minutes during the AM and PM peak window instead of a single Acela 1 each way per hour, that would provide 866 seats per hour (so to speak) compared to 303 seats for an 2.85x increase. Cut prices by 20% to 30% to fill those seats and Amtrak still comes out way ahead on revenue.

The chokepoint is NYP to BOS with its limit of 39 total trains a day over the Shore Line East route for 19 trains each way on a weekday. The increase in capacity for the new HSR trainsets won't be as dramatic if Amtrak can't add more Acela I/II slots. But that is a discussion for another post.


----------



## NE933

Doesn't the Coast Guard involved 19 trains-per-day maximum, expire in a few years? Namely the end of twenty years after the electrification began?


----------



## neroden

NE933 said:


> Doesn't the Coast Guard involved 19 trains-per-day maximum, expire in a few years? Namely the end of twenty years after the electrification began?


I've never heard anything about this. I'd love to see a citation.

The Coast Guard has absolute authority -- the standard rule is that water traffic has priority over all other traffic, an ancient common law rule. Even the NYC Subway lifts its bridges when ships come through. But this "19 trains per day" thing is another matter and must have something to do with an agreement to make ships wait. I don't know whether it has an expiration date, and if it does, I don't know what replaces it.


----------



## jis

A brief description of the restrictions and their genesis appears on this page on the Shores and Bridges page on Shore Line East Service Expansion.

The relevant portion says:



> Since the trains, rails, parking, platforms, and station are all here, the primary impediment to initiating Phase Two of the Shore Line East expansion plan concerns the bridge closings over the three movable railroad bridges between Old Saybrook and New London.
> 
> Train crossings over these bridges are regulated by agreement from multiple parties. The DEP governs bridge traffic via the Federal Water Quality Act, Amtrak owns the rails and the Connecticut Marine Trades Association represents the interests of the Connecticut recreational boating industry.
> 
> During the electrification of the northeast corridor in the mid 1990’s, the DOT reached an agreement with Amtrak, the DEP, and the CMTA to allow 44 trains per day to travel between Old Saybrook and New London on weekdays (34 Amtrak and 10 SLE). In 2003, total train crossings were reduced to 41 (39 Amtrak and 2 SLE).


----------



## NE933

I citation I have not, rather, more on fallible memory if its mentionings in rail forums like this.

But I hope others can chime in; besides, having a term limit would be consistant with norms for allowances, especially since many of the bridge's replacements are built several feet higher, and so it theoretically allows more marine traffic to pass without an opening. My algabreic logic says if there are fewer openings, then there is leverage in the argument that more trains over the present 19 can and should be allowed.


----------



## afigg

NE933 said:


> But I hope others can chime in; besides, having a term limit would be consistant with norms for allowances, especially since many of the bridge's replacements are built several feet higher, and so it theoretically allows more marine traffic to pass without an opening. My algabreic logic says if there are fewer openings, then there is leverage in the argument that more trains over the present 19 can and should be allowed.


The only movable bridge on the Shore Line East that has been replaced with a higher clearance bridge in the past 10+ years is the Niantic River bridge. The lift span was replaced for the Thames River bridge in New London, but AFAIK the replacement did not have a notably improved clearance.

There was a good in-depth article on the movable bridges of the NEC and Metro-North in the February 2014 issue of Trains Magazine with a data table on the bridges with length, height above water, approximate number of yearly openings, year built/rebuilt, ballpark cost to replace. The Niantic River bridge has the most yearly openings at 4,100 but I think that is for the old bridge; the new bridge has higher and wide clearance and is expected to have to open less often. The CT River bridge (3500 yearly openings) is planned to be replaced with a higher clearance movable bridge but it will take time and money to replace it.

Whether the new Niantic River bridge and rebuilt Thames River bridge are enough to result in a change to the 39 trains a day restriction, don't know. However, this thread is about the next gen HSR trainset order; don't want to get sidetracked into the CT bridge situation, except to note the 39 train a day restriction on the SLE and the slow speeds in CT are significant issues into increasing BOS-NYP ridership and capacity.

The current weekday schedule has 10 Acelas and 9 Regionals each way between NYP and BOS. If the 10 Acelas with 303 seats each are replaced with 425 to 450 seat HSR trainsets, that works to a 40% to 48% increase in capacity for the Acela class service. And figure they could add an extra coach car or two to the Regionals, but then the stations with shorter platforms become a hassle. Useful increase in capacity, but one that could get maxed out if ridership continues to grow and Amtrak remains stuck with a 39 trains a day limits. A couple of daily Inland Route Regionals would provide some relief but wouldn't help with the premium Acela service capacity.


----------



## afigg

Thought that this should be noted. If the HSR Trainset procurement is still on the schedule that was posted in January, the bid proposals were to be submitted by Friday, May 16. So, if Amtrak and CHSRA have not granted an extension, the bids for the HSR trainsets have been turned in.

The next major step in the January RFP timeline are oral presentations on the week of September 8.


----------



## leemell

Any word on who submitted bids?


----------



## afigg

leemell said:


> Any word on who submitted bids?


No public word so far. CHSRA and/or Amtrak might issue a press release in the next few weeks on how many bids they received and from who, but we may to wait until much later in the bid review process. The companies that submitted bids may post their own press notice that they did so.

BTW, for CSHRA webpage with numerous documents for the Next Generation Trainset RFP is still available for those who are interested. There are amendment links at the bottom, but they only link to a cover page, not the revised or updated document and data files provided to the bidders. The bidder questions and the answers would be interesting to read, but I do not see a link to it. For those interested in specs on the Acela trainsets, the link to the Acela HSR Mechanical Fact Sheet Shop Tour has them. For very detailed data on the NEC track speeds, grades, and curves, check the Journey Times files.


----------



## afigg

Breaking news on the procurement for HSR trainsets. Amtrak and CHSRA are canceling their joint procurement and will be proceeding with separate procurements. Saw the news on California HSR Blog site (which takes a very CA centric view of course). Not that much of a surprise as the needs of the two operators are rather different. Whether Amtrak will start their RFP process over from scratch or proceed with a revised RFP to allow the bidders to resubmit their proposals or reopen for bids, don't know. 

Fresno Bee: California and Amtrak cancel joint bids for high-speed trains. Excerpt:



> A joint bidding process that rail officials hoped would make it cheaper to buy new trains for the California High-Speed Rail Authority and Amtrak's Northeast Corridor has been cancelled by the two agencies.
> 
> The cancellation comes because the specifications of the trains needed in each region were "just too different" for manufacturers to accommodate under a single contract, said Frank Vacca, chief program manager for the California rail agency.
> 
> Would-be bidders were notified of the cancellation late Thursday afternoon, said Lisa Marie Alley, a spokeswoman for the rail authority.
> 
> When Amtrak and California issued their request for bids in January, after a year of discussion between the two agencies, "we were hoping that would be possible to leverage joint procurement and establish a national standard for high-speed trains for the U.S.," Vacca said Friday.
> 
> But over the course of discussions with nine potential manufacturers in recent weeks, Vacca added, "what came out was the fact that they really were not able to provide a common platform or common train that met both of our needs."
> 
> Both Amtrak and California want streamlined, electric-powered trains for their high-speed passenger-rail corridors. But for manufacturers, the devil was in the differences.
> 
> ....
> 
> While California anticipates building hundreds of miles of new dedicated rail with a combination of long straightaways and wide-arced curves to accommodate higher speeds, Vacca said Amtrak is confined to a corridor largely designed and built in the late 19th century, "and to meet their trip times and optimize the corridor, they required a tilting train.


Ok, so there were 9 potential bidders for the RFP.

PS. This news is being made public on Friday afternoon. The traditional time for government agencies and contractors to release bad or non-positive news, so it is old news by Monday. Or for Amtrak, by the time Congress comes back to DC on Monday and Tuesday.


----------



## jis

This was inevitable. Good that they bit the bullet early and ejected a mindlessly developed political plan and substituted reality in its place.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Did we know that Amtrak was looking for another tilting train?

My memory is worse than rusty, but I don't recall that feature

discussed in previous posts.

Anyway, calling off the engagement makes sense.

And I wouldn't be surprised if the different political backgrounds

make for timing issues. California HSR looks to be getting its

first phase funding assured. Amtrak, as ever, depends too

much on the next election. California is closer to being ready

to spend, Amtrak not so fast.

Expect there can still be some commonalities in the parts of the two

HSR trains, to save costs and strengthen the supplier base.


----------



## jis

Amtrak depends on RRIF for this. Not the next election.

Also don't be so sure that California is out of the woods. They could yet lose a lot of their federal grant due to inability to spend and deliver by 2017!

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL

So the speculation starts again..... Who currently builds HSTs that can run in the 160-170mph range while tilting?


----------



## Paulus

Crescent ATN & TCL said:


> So the speculation starts again..... Who currently builds HSTs that can run in the 160-170mph range while tilting?


Hitachi, Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Kinki Sharyo, Nippon Sharyo as part of the N700 Shinkansen and Bombardier (Acela). Siemens (ICN) and Alstom (New Pendolino) have tilting trains that run in the 140-155mph range as well and could probably make a reasonable offering.


----------



## neroden

Well, there were probably some benefits from the joint discussion. They probably now know which parts they can have in common and which things really do have to be completely different.


----------



## frequentflyer

"Hello Siemens, this is Amtrak, let's talk Velaroes."


----------



## afigg

jis said:


> Amtrak depends on RRIF for this. Not the next election.
> 
> Also don't be so sure that California is out of the woods. They could yet lose a lot of their federal grant due to inability to spend and deliver by 2017!


Amtrak would be able to reduce the cost of financing the HSR Trainsets with a RRIF loan if Congress were to provide some capital funds to cover the upfront acquisition costs. Say $100 to $200 million spread over FY16 to FY18. But it does not appear that either the Senate or the House is going to do this, so the Amtrak will probably seek a circa $1.5 or $1.6 billion RRIF loan and maybe use some of the Acela operating surplus in FY15 to FY18 to cover the upfront costs.

As for CA, the funds that have the deadline are the ~$2.5 billion in stimulus grants. The FY10 grants and state bond funds don't have the September, 2017 deadline. If CHSRA is able to work with the FRA to structure the payments to burn the ARRA funds first before taping the FY10 and much of the state bond funds, they might be able to spend the $2.5 billion by then. But I have not followed the details of the lawsuits and court decision currently blocking CHSRA from using the state bond funds and there are yet more lawsuits for CHSRA to deal with. So. yea, CA may end up not spending all of the ARRA funds and having to use the new Cap and Trade income to replace the federal money they were not able to spend. If the CA HSR system is completed from LA to SF, it will be because Gov. Brown used all of his political skill and moxie to keep the HSR project alive and to get it a dedicated state funding source. But that is a discussion for the CA HSR project which is now separated from Amtrak NEC HSR trainset acquisition.

Philly.com article on the divorce: Amtrak and California end joint plans for new trains

Relevant excerpts with additional info:



> A meeting with train manufacturers in Philadelphia this month convinced officials that the needs of the Northeast and California - including top speeds and route configurations - were just too different.
> 
> ......
> 
> "It was a unanimous decision by staff of both [railroad agencies] to recommend to our managements that it was best . . . to solicit the equipment separately," Mark Yachmetz, chief of Amtrak's Strategic Fleet Rail Initiatives, said Friday.
> 
> Amtrak will now seek bids next month from manufacturers for up to 28 new Acela train sets that can begin to roll into service between Boston and Washington by late 2018, Yachmetz said Friday.


So we may see a new RFP posted on the Amtrak procurement website next month. Since this would be a reprise minus the CA HSR components, Amtrak may be able to shorten the bid submission period.


----------



## Ryan

In service by late '18? That's a bit sporty. I'd love to see it, but I think that by the end of the decade is a little more realistic.


----------



## jis

If they don't start another Acela style "let us together design a three humped camel" exercise, it can be done. I have been given to understand that this time Amtrak will not be behaving like they did the last. So we'll have to wait and see I guess.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> If they don't start another Acela style "let us together design a three humped camel" exercise, it can be done. I have been given to understand that this time Amtrak will not be behaving like they did the last.


Sure, but what about the FRA. If it behaves the way it did last time....


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Nathanael, last time it was egos run amok more than the FRA.


----------



## jis

Yeah - good old "I will add four inches to the waist no matter what" Barb, comes to mind. Never mind that it restricted the tilt capability from being exploited fully even off of MNRR.


----------



## afigg

RyanS said:


> In service by late '18? That's a bit sporty. I'd love to see it, but I think that by the end of the decade is a little more realistic.


December 2018 is 4 and 1/2 years away. It is not that short a timeframe if the trainset is based on a proven design. The initial RFP was posted in January, the projected contract award to be made in December 2014. If Amtrak is able to repost the RFP in July, perhaps they could have a contract award next Spring as they have seen the initial bids and they no longer have to make joint decisions with CHSRA. So a late Spring 2014 contract NTP would to revenue service of the first units would be roughly 3-1/2 years.

Feasible? Maybe if the FRA grants the waiver allowing the first 2 trainsets to be built overseas with a late 2017 delivery for testing. The schedule clearly favors the vendors who have an established US production facility which does not have to undergo extensive expansion or conversion to build the HSR trainsets and also has a core of a proven skilled workforce. The US production facility should also not be too busy with other major orders in the desired 2018-2020 peak production period. If the bid has; we are going to buy the land to build a new wing on our plant and hire 80% - 90% of the workforce from scratch, Amtrak (with the recent experience of the CAF Viewliner II delays) is likely to give low technical scores on the manufacturing facility component of the bid.

So who has the manufacturing facilities that might be able to be upgraded in time for the HSR trainsets? Besides Siemens in Sacramento.


----------



## jis

I think at present the following individually or in some combination can pull it off: Siemens, Alstom, Bombardier, Kawasaki, Nippon-Sharyo.


----------



## afigg

Well, Amtrak is not letting the grass grow under its feet after the divorce with CHSRA. There is a new RFP for HSR trainsets on the procurement portal website, dated June 30. Tier III Next Generation Trainsets and Technical Support and Spares Supply Procurement.

It appears that the summary page was quickly written as the sentences are disconnected and the attachment link doesn't have anything. Perhaps document links and more public information will be added later. The schedule has a Pre-Proposal Conference Webinar on July 8 and the response end date of October 1.


----------



## Paulus

afigg said:


> Well, Amtrak is not letting the grass grow under its feet after the divorce with CHSRA. There is a new RFP for HSR trainsets on the procurement portal website, dated June 30. Tier III Next Generation Trainsets and Technical Support and Spares Supply Procurement.
> 
> It appears that the summary page was quickly written as the sentences are disconnected and the attachment link doesn't have anything. Perhaps document links and more public information will be added later. The schedule has a Pre-Proposal Conference Webinar on July 8 and the response end date of October 1.


I don't think it's actually a link, just a confusingly styled heading that looks like a link (Details looks the same way).


----------



## afigg

Amtrak has announced its RFP for 28 HSR trainsets to the press. The trade press news reports are presumably based on an official news release, but I do not see it on the Amtrak website yet. The news report confirms that the bids are due by October 1, 2014. Which would be about 4+ month slip from the joint procurement bid submission date with the CHSRA.

Railway Age: Amtrak RFP seeks 28 next-gen HSR trainsets. Excerpts:



> Amtrak said Wednesday, July 2, 2014 it has officially issued its Request for Proposals (RFP) for up to 28 next-generation high speed trainsets to replace its current Acela Express equipment on the Northeast Corridor (NEC).
> 
> Amtrak expects the new gear to be "capable of meeting or exceeding current Acela trip-times on the existing NEC infrastructure," and added, "The new equipment is intended to have 40% more seats per train than current trainsets.


Demand for the Acela service keep growing



> The move comes as Amtrak's Acela Express service struggles to handle increasing demand. Amtrak said Acela Express ridership is up 7% from a year ago and trains are often sold out, especially during peak periods. On 25 occasions so far in fiscal year 2014, which began Oct. 1, 2014, the number of daily trips on Acela topped 14,000. That's compared to five times in FY13, Amtrak noted.


There is also a new RFI on the procurement portal for 15 Tier 4 diesel electric locomotives and 1 switcher loco in conjunction with an application to the "Carl Moyer Grant Program". So Amtrak appears to be exploring all avenues to get some new diesels.


----------



## Paulus

afigg said:


> There is also a new RFI on the procurement portal for 15 Tier 4 diesel electric locomotives and 1 switcher loco in conjunction with an application to the "Carl Moyer Grant Program". So Amtrak appears to be exploring all avenues to get some new diesels.


Also what appears to be a replacement for their reservation system.


----------



## afigg

The Amtrak new release about the RFP has shown up on the website: Amtrak Seeking New High-Speed Trainsets. Short news release with no additional info beyond what was already in the Railway Age report.

What I noticed is that there is no mention of the previous RFP and attempt at a joint procurement with CHSRA. By breaking the news of the cancellation on a Friday, they succeeded in the story getting little press coverage beyond the CA papers and buried in several east coast papers. So forget the earlier RFP and pretend that this is an all new shiny procurement plan.


----------



## Anderson

afigg said:


> Amtrak has announced its RFP for 28 HSR trainsets to the press. The trade press news reports are presumably based on an official news release, but I do not see it on the Amtrak website yet. The news report confirms that the bids are due by October 1, 2014. Which would be about 4+ month slip from the joint procurement bid submission date with the CHSRA.
> 
> Railway Age: Amtrak RFP seeks 28 next-gen HSR trainsets. Excerpts:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak said Wednesday, July 2, 2014 it has officially issued its Request for Proposals (RFP) for up to 28 next-generation high speed trainsets to replace its current Acela Express equipment on the Northeast Corridor (NEC).
> 
> Amtrak expects the new gear to be "capable of meeting or exceeding current Acela trip-times on the existing NEC infrastructure," and added, "The new equipment is intended to have 40% more seats per train than current trainsets.
> 
> 
> 
> Demand for the Acela service keep growing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The move comes as Amtrak's Acela Express service struggles to handle increasing demand. Amtrak said Acela Express ridership is up 7% from a year ago and trains are often sold out, especially during peak periods. On 25 occasions so far in fiscal year 2014, which began Oct. 1, 2014, the number of daily trips on Acela topped 14,000. That's compared to five times in FY13, Amtrak noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is also a new RFI on the procurement portal for 15 Tier 4 diesel electric locomotives and 1 switcher loco in conjunction with an application to the "Carl Moyer Grant Program". So Amtrak appears to be exploring all avenues to get some new diesels.
Click to expand...

And _this_ is why I'm in favor of Amtrak pushing more Acela capacity first and timetable improvements later: The Acela is increasingly at capacity, and cutting travel times substantially is likely to further over-burden a system that can already barely handle existing demand.

Edit: With that said, does anyone know roughly what the Acela II order ought to cost per trainset?


----------



## Paulus

Anderson said:


> Edit: With that said, does anyone know roughly what the Acela II order ought to cost per trainset?


Around $40-50 million per set.


----------



## Anderson

Paulus said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: With that said, does anyone know roughly what the Acela II order ought to cost per trainset?
> 
> 
> 
> Around $40-50 million per set.
Click to expand...

*blinks*

Assuming $50m, that would be $1.4bn. Assuming something runs over...$1.5bn seems _cheap_ considering the $211m the Acela has, in theory, made so far this year. The Acela IIs ought to be able to effectively make back their cost of purchase in no more than 7-10 years (and if you put all of the nominal profits into that "repayment", the period might be as little as 3-5 years).


----------



## Paulus

Anderson said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: With that said, does anyone know roughly what the Acela II order ought to cost per trainset?
> 
> 
> 
> Around $40-50 million per set.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *blinks*Assuming $50m, that would be $1.4bn. Assuming something runs over...$1.5bn seems _cheap_ considering the $211m the Acela has, in theory, made so far this year. The Acela IIs ought to be able to effectively make back their cost of purchase in no more than 7-10 years (and if you put all of the nominal profits into that "repayment", the period might be as little as 3-5 years).
Click to expand...

Comes out to, what, $91 million a year to repay as an RRIF? That's only a 17% increase in total revenue/passengers required while this has the potential to more than triple Acela seat-miles (with extra coaches).


----------



## afigg

Anderson said:


> *blinks*
> 
> Assuming $50m, that would be $1.4bn. Assuming something runs over...$1.5bn seems _cheap_ considering the $211m the Acela has, in theory, made so far this year. The Acela IIs ought to be able to effectively make back their cost of purchase in no more than 7-10 years (and if you put all of the nominal profits into that "repayment", the period might be as little as 3-5 years).


The Buy American rules will likely push the cost above the equivalent Europe price, but $50 million per trainset is a reasonable guess. Don't forget spare parts, training, upgrading or new maintenance facilities are part of the cost. I think $1.6 billion total for 28 trainsets is a valid ballpark number. With the Acela pulling in $508 million in ticket revenue in FY13 and a goal of 40% more seats per new trainset and roughly doubling the daily Acela weekday trip capacity, one can see how the HSR trainsets will pay for themselves.
Why do you think Amtrak is pushing the RFP process along once they realized that the 2 more coach cars per existing Acela trainset was not going to work? The financial numbers for new HSR trainsets with more seats and one would expect lower operating costs per trainset over the fixed cost of running the trains on the NEC have to look pretty damn good.


----------



## MattW

Has Amtrak talked about an implementation plan for the new trainsets yet? If the sets have far more seats than the existing ones, they can't just toss them on whatever train like they can do at least with the Viewliner baggage and diners and the ACS-64s. I guess one solution is to cap the number of reservations to the existing Acela numbers until enough are in-service with the bugs worked out that they can start putting them on regular rotations.


----------



## neroden

The plan is to completely replace the existing Acelas with the "Acela IIs" ASAP as far as I can tell.

I assume that initially they'll wait until they have, say, three new trainsets ready to go (so that there are spares), and then replace an entire slot in the rotation order. Probably with great fanfare and premium prices. ;-)

As for the existing Acelas, they'll probably be cascaded to a different service until they wear out -- the obvious choice is the Keystone.


----------



## Anderson

MattW said:


> Has Amtrak talked about an implementation plan for the new trainsets yet? If the sets have far more seats than the existing ones, they can't just toss them on whatever train like they can do at least with the Viewliner baggage and diners and the ACS-64s. I guess one solution is to cap the number of reservations to the existing Acela numbers until enough are in-service with the bugs worked out that they can start putting them on regular rotations.


Once Amtrak has delivery of a few sets, they could "lock" some trains to run the new sets (i.e. the 0600 out of WAS would be guaranteed as a new set) and thus increase reservation availability. For other trains they'd just use the lower seat counts for reservations...though to be fair, even there Amtrak would have a "win" insofar as lower load factors should make for a more pleasant riding experience in the short term.

Edit: To be clear, my best guess is that they'd lock in about half of the slots that they _could_ lock in, leaving plenty of room for spares, teething troubles, and yard screwups/failed turns. As things stand right now, if a set that's supposed to turn is late due to a single-train issue, you can pull the spare set from the yard and shuffle the delayed set in later. You don't want to do that if doing so is going to risk having to explain to 130 business travelers why they're not able to take their train this evening.


----------



## afigg

Anderson said:


> Once Amtrak has delivery of a few sets, they could "lock" some trains to run the new sets (i.e. the 0600 out of WAS would be guaranteed as a new set) and thus increase reservation availability. For other trains they'd just use the lower seat counts for reservations...though to be fair, even there Amtrak would have a "win" insofar as lower load factors should make for a more pleasant riding experience in the short term.
> 
> Edit: To be clear, my best guess is that they'd lock in about half of the slots that they _could_ lock in, leaving plenty of room for spares, teething troubles, and yard screwups/failed turns. As things stand right now, if a set that's supposed to turn is late due to a single-train issue, you can pull the spare set from the yard and shuffle the delayed set in later. You don't want to do that if doing so is going to risk having to explain to 130 business travelers why they're not able to take their train this evening.


Amtrak has at least 4 years to figure out an Acela II roll-out plan. The logical place to start would be to substitute the new trains into the peak 6-7 AM and 5-6 PM departures from WAS, NYP, BOS and sell the additional seats. Another approach would be to add an advertised 5:30 PM Acela II slot from NYP and WAS to highlight the new train. I'm sure Amtrak will figure it out.
With regards to the financing, the current 20 year Treasury rate is around 3.2%. With the economy recovering, the Treasury rates will be moving up, which is another incentive to get the order placed and contracts signed, so the RRIF loan can be approved and rate locked in before the rate moves up too much. If Amtrak takes out a $1.6 billion 20 year RRIF loan at, say 4.25%, that works out to roughly $110 to $120 million a year in lease payments. So if the 28 trainsets generate 50% more revenue or $270 million (using FY13 as a baseline) with 60% to 70% more passengers (lower per seat prices) as a conservative estimate, there will be a nice pot of operating surplus left over after the lease payments.


----------



## Anderson

True...PPR _will_ take a hit, and there will almost assuredly be a hit to PPR on the Regionals as higher-end traffic clears off of them and onto the newly-available Acela space. Why take a $160 Regional coach seat (or a $200 Regional BC seat) if there's space on the Acela for $150?

You make a good point about adding new peak-hour departures for the initial arrivals, and you could probably fill those in one or two round trips at a time (i.e. an 0630 out of WAS and a 1730 out of NYP). The main argument against this is that unless you also reallocate a BOS-NYP slot to that train, you'll be missing out on revenue from NEC-North...and given the way crowding is going north of NYP, that would be leaving money on the table in the short term (both from through traffic and from traffic internal to NEC-North). With that said, I do think that putting the first few sets into service doing one round-trip per train per day between WAS and NYP would be the best move, since you'd avoid the need to station any protect sets in Boston. Expand the use of the sets from there.

I do agree with your inflation-adjusted estimates on PPR, btw. An increase in revenue of 50% on an increase in traffic of 70% vs. an FY13 baseline would give PPR of about $140...or about where PPR was between FY08 and FY11. That seems like a pretty healthy place for fares to be (while I suspect that getting too much over $150, adjusted for inflation, is getting high enough to start driving away business). On the demand side, using FY13 as a baseline, demand increases of 2.5%/year would give an increase of about 28% over the course of a decade (i.e. through FY23 or thereabouts), or about five years into the Acela II's use. 3% gets you closer to 40%. It is impossible to meet these demand figures with existing equipment (the point I made in an essay on Regional capacity goes even moreso for the Acela because at least with the Regionals, you can shuffle equipment around a bit to make things work). While I agree that adding equipment and being able to hold back on price increases will increase demand, these numbers give a likely lower end of the range for the demand that is out there.


----------



## Anderson

Three other points:
(1) Assuming that revenue jumps by $265-270m vs. an FY13 baseline (not much of a stretch; we've already added $40-45m of that so far in FY14), you'll probably have somewhere around $225m in extra profits to work with. While I don't expect costs to skyrocket, I don't see savings from more efficient trainsets managing to entirely offset costs associated the addition of more frequencies/trainsets (as well as larger trains).
(2) Taking the loan into account, you'll probably have somewhere around an extra $100-150m/yr in cash to work with vs. the FY13 baseline. I'd err towards $100m, but with PPR spiking and demand still holding I have no idea where you'll end up once upward pressure on fares abates. As to where Amtrak could use that money, putting it to use for travel time reductions WAS-NYP would probably be the most productive. Just going for 2:30 WAS-NYP is probably going to be sufficient to ramp up demand a bit more (and as a result, help the Acelas keep additional traffic once fares start going up again). There are a couple of projects that could be at least partly funded out of this surplus (the bridges and the Baltimore tunnels come to mind).
(3) If travel times can be cut to the 2:30 range from closer to 3:00, I wonder if that means Amtrak will be able to work equipment turns a bit faster? Removing most of an hour from a train's round-trip travel time and adding off-timed departures (either on the half-hour or somewhere else in the hour) could improve equipment utilization substantially (and as a result, allow those off-hour departures to be filled in all day as time goes on, rather than just happening at peak hours...or at least in theory allow a third Acela to be slipped in during some hours in lieu of the extra Regional that Amtrak isn't likely to have the equipment for).


----------



## afigg

I noticed that the CHSRA webpage for the joint RFP procurement documents is still accessible. They updated it with amendments and notifications. One of the documents is the Question Answer Matrix (1.6 MB PDF) which was up to 91 pages as of May 9 with 690 entries for questions, requests for changes in the RFP wording, corrections from bidders. Lots of deep inside baseball stuff in it.

However, it appears that the final bids were never submitted as the due date was postponed as Amtrak, CHSRA tried to adjust the terms of the RFP. The notice on June 16 may have been the last communication before Amtrak and CHSRA formally determined that a joint procurement was not feasible.



> Potential Offerors:
> 
> Amtrak and the Authority held One-on-One meetings the week of June 2, 2014. During the discussions, a number of questions were raised ranging from very detailed to policy level comments including several requests for extension of the proposal due date. We stated that an Amendment would be issued on or about June 16, 2014. Given the number and complexity of the concerns raised, we are not issuing an Amendment at this date. We acknowledge that the July 14, 2014 proposal due date will need to be adjusted. We will be communicating with you in the near future. Thank you for your continued interest in the solicitation.


----------



## HAL

neroden said:


> The plan is to completely replace the existing Acelas with the "Acela IIs" ASAP as far as I can tell.
> 
> I assume that initially they'll wait until they have, say, three new trainsets ready to go (so that there are spares), and then replace an entire slot in the rotation order. Probably with great fanfare and premium prices. ;-)
> 
> As for the existing Acelas, they'll probably be cascaded to a different service until they wear out -- the obvious choice is the Keystone.


They are already worn out!

As for Keystones, all the stations would have to be high platforms. It would be a good idea to make all those stations high platforms no matter what. However after the Acela IIs are all in service I suspect the Acela I will end up in the scrap heap.


----------



## neroden

HAL said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> The plan is to completely replace the existing Acelas with the "Acela IIs" ASAP as far as I can tell.
> 
> I assume that initially they'll wait until they have, say, three new trainsets ready to go (so that there are spares), and then replace an entire slot in the rotation order. Probably with great fanfare and premium prices. ;-)
> 
> As for the existing Acelas, they'll probably be cascaded to a different service until they wear out -- the obvious choice is the Keystone.
> 
> 
> 
> They are already worn out!
Click to expand...

Not like the Heritage cars are worn out -- or the Metroliner cab cars!! Remember, Amtrak was originally going to lengthen them [the Acela Is] -- there's life in them yet. They're being replaced because they're commercially obsolete (too small, too slow, too few), not because they're falling apart.
And if the Metroliner cab cars die, there may be some difficulty running suitable push-pull operations on the Keystone line with any other equipment.



> As for Keystones, all the stations would have to be high platforms. It would be a good idea to make all those stations high platforms no matter what.


The process of making all those stations high platforms is already in the works; it's a stated goal of PennDOT and Amtrak. It will probably be complete by 2018.
Harrisburg -- under construction (and good enough anyway)

Middletown -- EIS/FONSI for new station finished, funded and supposed to start construction in 2015

Elizabethtown -- done

Mount Joy -- under construction, supposed to be done in 2016

Lancaster -- done

Parkesburg -- no recent progress, still discussing options

Coatesville -- EIS/FONSI completed, partial funding

Downingtown -- relocated station plan currently going through environmental assessment -- funded and construction supposed to start in 2015

Exton -- done

Paoli -- replacement "transportation center" has completed Alternatives Analysis, still collecting funding. But Amtrak has made a legal commitment to disability groups to build high platforms within 4.5 years (2018) whether or not the rest of the project goes forward.

Ardmore -- design approved, heavily funded, but long-delayed; construction by SEPTA supposed to start in 2015 (if there aren't any more weird delays)

...and obviously everything else has high platforms.

Parkesburg is the laggard, but the odds are these will all be finished before we see the first Acela II. At which point the Acela Is will be 17 years old, and the Metroliner cab cars will be 50 years old. (The Amfleets and any AEM-7 or HHP-8 conversions to cab cars would be pretty old too.) Which would you run on the 125+ mph push-pull service?



> However after the Acela IIs are all in service I suspect the Acela I will end up in the scrap heap.


You may be right. I know Amtrak doesn't like the Acela Is. But...

With the delivery date for Acela II pushed back to 2018, the early buyout dates for the Acela Is will have passed. Amtrak will either own the Acela Is, or Amtrak will be stuck with the leases for several more years. With the HHP-8s still sitting around, partly usable as spare parts for the Acela, I would expect Amtrak to press the Acela Is into use for another 2 to 5 years.

There will probably be a shortage of high-speed-capable cab cars available by 2018, although Amtrak may convert some old locomotives. I think the Acela Is, with their higher top speed, and also being the maximum length which can fit on the Keystone high platforms, will simply be irresistible for the next few years after that -- until new cab cars can be delivered. They'll probably go away when Amtrak starts getting replacements for the Amfleets and Metroliners.


----------



## Anderson

Something else to consider...couldn't Amtrak reshuffle the sets? If the power cars can handle 8-car sets, there's nothing stopping Amtrak from reworking the 120 cars into 15 8-car sets instead of 20 6-car sets and putting 10 power cars into mothballs. Heck, if the power cars can handle 10-car sets, nothing says you couldn't go to 12 10-car sets.

Also, if anyone would like to consider the parallels between the Metroliners and the Acelas...both winding up doing post-prime duty to Harrisburg (the "Capitoliners", if I'm not mistaken).

Edit: To be fair, I'm not opposed to using them on the Harrisburg run...that would at least free up a bunch of Amfleets for NEC service. However, I also don't think there are enough Keystones to optimally use the Acelas.


----------



## HAL

neroden said:


> You may be right. I know Amtrak doesn't like the Acela Is. But...
> 
> With the delivery date for Acela II pushed back to 2018, the early buyout dates for the Acela Is will have passed. Amtrak will either own the Acela Is, or Amtrak will be stuck with the leases for several more years. With the HHP-8s still sitting around, partly usable as spare parts for the Acela, I would expect Amtrak to press the Acela Is into use for another 2 to 5 years.
> 
> There will probably be a shortage of high-speed-capable cab cars available by 2018, although Amtrak may convert some old locomotives. I think the Acela Is, with their higher top speed, and also being the maximum length which can fit on the Keystone high platforms, will simply be irresistible for the next few years after that -- until new cab cars can be delivered. They'll probably go away when Amtrak starts getting replacements for the Amfleets and Metroliners.


Even if deliveries began in 2018 it would take a while to get them tested and rolled out to replace the current consists. 2020 might be more realistic.

As for using the Acela on Keystone; Amtrak would likely find that idea irresistible but Pennsylvania would have to buy into that. They might not find it irresistable.


----------



## PRR 60

Anderson said:


> Something else to consider...couldn't Amtrak reshuffle the sets? If the power cars can handle 8-car sets, there's nothing stopping Amtrak from reworking the 120 cars into 15 8-car sets instead of 20 6-car sets and putting 10 power cars into mothballs. Heck, if the power cars can handle 10-car sets, nothing says you couldn't go to 12 10-car sets.
> 
> Also, if anyone would like to consider the parallels between the Metroliners and the Acelas...both winding up doing post-prime duty to Harrisburg (the "Capitoliners", if I'm not mistaken).


I think there are two issues with continuing operation of the Acela sets once replaced by Acela II's. First, the Acela sets are energy hogs. Power efficiency was not considered in the design, and the huge weight of the trainsets and massive HP needed to accelerate and move all that tonnage resulted in having Acela sets consume nearly twice the power of an AEM-7 or ACS-64 hauled train. Replacing an efficient Keystone ACS-64-hauled train with an old Acela set would be a significant downgrade from an operational cost standpoint. It would be like replacing a 787 with a 767. It makes no operational sense. I'm betting PennDOT would be not be willing to pay more just to run a bunch of sleek-looking but power-wasting old high-speed trainsets.

Second is the maintenance issues. The sets will be pushing 20 years old. At that point the technology is obsolete and parts are hard to find. The sets use three dedicated shops located at Washington, New York and Boston. I'm sure that Amtrak does not want to retain those three shops any longer than needed. Plus, those shops effectively limit the trainsets to six cars. The locations and conflicting facilities allow no practical or cheap way to expand those shops (as Amtrak found out while considering lengthening the sets to eight cars). Maybe they could use the new, Acela II shops to maintain the old sets, but I bet Amtrak would prefer having the Acela II shops dedicated to just the Acela II's.

In short, as the Acela sets are retired, they will be given a proper sendoff after years of loyal and successful service, and will head to the scrap yard.


----------



## Anderson

With operation limited to NEC-South they could ditch the Boston shop. The other problem, of course, is explaining why they're ditching equipment that is "only" 20 years old when the Amfleets will be closing in on 40 and there will likely be sustained capacity issues on the NEC unless Amtrak goes totally insane with fares (which is possible, but which I'll also bet would trigger enough hue and cry from folks on the Corridor to force some sort of backing off). In Amtrak's terms, 20 years is a sorry excuse for equipment life.


----------



## afigg

neroden said:


> The process of making all those stations high platforms is already in the works; it's a stated goal of PennDOT and Amtrak. It will probably be complete by 2018.
> 
> Harrisburg -- under construction (and good enough anyway)
> 
> Middletown -- EIS/FONSI for new station finished, funded and supposed to start construction in 2015
> 
> Elizabethtown -- done
> 
> Mount Joy -- under construction, supposed to be done in 2016
> 
> Lancaster -- done
> 
> Parkesburg -- no recent progress, still discussing options
> 
> Coatesville -- EIS/FONSI completed, partial funding
> 
> Downingtown -- relocated station plan currently going through environmental assessment -- funded and construction supposed to start in 2015
> 
> Exton -- done
> 
> Paoli -- replacement "transportation center" has completed Alternatives Analysis, still collecting funding. But Amtrak has made a legal commitment to disability groups to build high platforms within 4.5 years (2018) whether or not the rest of the project goes forward.
> 
> Ardmore -- design approved, heavily funded, but long-delayed; construction by SEPTA supposed to start in 2015 (if there aren't any more weird delays)
> 
> ...and obviously everything else has high platforms.
> 
> .......
> 
> With the delivery date for Acela II pushed back to 2018, the early buyout dates for the Acela Is will have passed. Amtrak will either own the Acela Is, or Amtrak will be stuck with the leases for several more years. With the HHP-8s still sitting around, partly usable as spare parts for the Acela, I would expect Amtrak to press the Acela Is into use for another 2 to 5 years.


Exton is not "done". In the SEPTA capital budget, Exton construction for high level platforms and new station building is from 2015 to 2017. Paoli Transportation Center was put off to the FY2020-25 timeframe, but that could be a placeholder while SEPTA, PennDOT, and Amtrak complete the EIS and locate the funding.
Regardless of the status of high level platforms for the stations on the eastern Keystone, for most of the reasons expressed by other posters, I doubt that the Acela Is will be repurposed for use as Keystone trains. PennDOT won't want to pay more, too expensive to operate, too few seats in the current 6 car configuration, NYP maintenance facility not able to handle extended Acela consists, BC seats, what to do with the first class car, unused bistro car, and so on. By 2020 or 2021, the Acela Is will have served their purpose, introducing HSR style trainsets to the US and having been quite successful in growing ridership on the NEC. The Acela Is are likely to get sent to storage and kept there until Amtrak disposes of them.

As for aging Metroliner cab cars, Amtrak can convert some AEM-7s or get a set of Viewliner II cab cars in the first batch of a single level corridor car order.


----------



## NE933

Anderson said:


> With operation limited to NEC-South they could ditch the Boston shop. The other problem, of course, is explaining why they're ditching equipment that is "only" 20 years old when the Amfleets will be closing in on 40 and there will likely be sustained capacity issues on the NEC unless Amtrak goes totally insane with fares (which is possible, but which I'll also bet would trigger enough hue and cry from folks on the Corridor to force some sort of backing off). In Amtrak's terms, 20 years is a sorry excuse for equipment life.


I agree, it's hard to justify scrapping 20 yr old trains with urgency when we have 60 yr old Heritage diners and baggage falling apart. Acela I can and should go to Keystone service. And what the hell does Pennsylvania know about rail? A state that let the high populated Lehigh Valley region with no passenger rail or leadership to restore it, for over 50 years? Or let SEPTA fall apart? Bring some grub to the table and then you can talk.


----------



## Anderson

NE933 said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> With operation limited to NEC-South they could ditch the Boston shop. The other problem, of course, is explaining why they're ditching equipment that is "only" 20 years old when the Amfleets will be closing in on 40 and there will likely be sustained capacity issues on the NEC unless Amtrak goes totally insane with fares (which is possible, but which I'll also bet would trigger enough hue and cry from folks on the Corridor to force some sort of backing off). In Amtrak's terms, 20 years is a sorry excuse for equipment life.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, it's hard to justify scrapping 20 yr old trains with urgency when we have 60 yr old Heritage diners and baggage falling apart. Acela I can and should go to Keystone service. And what the hell does Pennsylvania know about rail? A state that let the high populated Lehigh Valley region with no passenger rail or leadership to restore it, for over 50 years? Or let SEPTA fall apart? Bring some grub to the table and then you can talk.
Click to expand...

Also, assuming they overhauled the Acelas to have all BC seating, each train would have 390 seats (6*65), which isn't that bad (an equivalent Amfleet set would have 432 seats; it's a loss of 42 seats, but that's not like if the loss were closer to 100, and it's more than a 5-car Amfleet set would have). Amtrak might also have some flexibility to work with PA on lower costs considering the Acelas' prior service and the effect of freeing up Amfleets for other service.

As I've said before, the other option of using them in some sort of Regional service would make sense; moreover, I feel compelled to point out that if the Acelas are used on the Keystone route, you're going to end up in a perverse situation where the "commuter" trains connecting to Harrisburg have a higher speed limit on them than do the Regionals. That's going to create some...interesting fights if you've got Keystones able to beat Regionals between NYP and PHL (something that won't be helped by the NJ speed upgrades).*

The energy hog point borders on being moot in terms of Amtrak's operations. At last check, fuel was something like 10% of Amtrak's costs. While that's nothing to ignore, levels like that suggest that something being a "fuel hog" are generally going to be at most a limited issue. You're probably looking at the net impact being somewhere around 10% of total costs, and that's probably aiming high.

*Practical question: What is governing the 125 MPH speed limit HAR-PHL? Track conditions? Catenary? Curves? Crossings?


----------



## Paulus

If energy consumption on Acela is twice that of AEM-7, that's downright disturbing since AEM-7 is a power hog itself. That would put Acela somewhere around 140kWh/mile as I recall.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

The Acelas are nearly as worn out as the Heritage cars. Their retirement is justified that they are structurally and mechanically overdue for it.


----------



## afigg

Anderson said:


> The energy hog point borders on being moot in terms of Amtrak's operations. At last check, fuel was something like 10% of Amtrak's costs. While that's nothing to ignore, levels like that suggest that something being a "fuel hog" are generally going to be at most a limited issue. You're probably looking at the net impact being somewhere around 10% of total costs, and that's probably aiming high.
> 
> *Practical question: What is governing the 125 MPH speed limit HAR-PHL? Track conditions? Catenary? Curves? Crossings?


The top speed on the eastern Keystone is 110 mph; it will need upgrades to get to 125 mph.
If the Acela is that much of a power hog, there could be problems running it on regular service HAR-PHL. The corridor has several aging power stations that are slated for replacement or modernization. May not be a reliable enough power supply west of SEPTA territory to handle a big increase in power draw.


----------



## Anderson

There's one other point I think needs to be made here, and it feeds into my views on this: Try explaining to Rep. Mica and a bunch of other Republicans why Amtrak is asking for X (whatever X might be) when they're throwing away what is likely to be argued to be a couple hundred million dollars worth of cars.

This leads into another question: Could Acela cars be hooked into a non-Acela locomotive? I actually don't know the answer to this question.


----------



## neroden

Anderson said:


> Also, if anyone would like to consider the parallels between the Metroliners and the Acelas...both winding up doing post-prime duty to Harrisburg (the "Capitoliners", if I'm not mistaken).
> 
> Edit: To be fair, I'm not opposed to using them on the Harrisburg run...that would at least free up a bunch of Amfleets for NEC service. However, I also don't think there are enough Keystones to optimally use the Acelas.


The 6-car sets are pretty much the optimal *length* to handle the Keystone platforms (yes, I checked information about platform length and trainset length -- the Acela trainsets are longer than the shorter 550 ft. Keystone platforms, with the passenger cars just about fitting on the platforms). Too few seats is an interesting point, but seems to be solely due to the Business Class/First Class seat layout and can probably just be changed by adjusting seat pitch.

I'm not thinking of optimal usage exactly -- I'm thinking of what to do in the short run, when the Metroliner cab cars start to crap out, and no new cab cars have been ordered. There seem to be 16 or 17 Metroliners (depending on whether the most recent wreck gets repaired), and they're ancient with few spare parts. If you scrapped several of the Acelas for parts you'd still have more than you have Metroliners.

The alternative is converting some locomotives to cab cars, of course, but that's (a) more expensive, (b) lugging more dead weight around, © requires maintenance of another class of obsolete parts (either for HHP-8 or AEM-7), and (d) continues to tie up the Amfleets, which are always in demand elsewhere.



afigg said:


> Exton is not "done"


Exton high platforms are done. Look at Amtrak's website; Exton has high platforms. The rest of the station is unfinished but that's not important for this purpose.



> Paoli Transportation Center was put off to the FY2020-25 timeframe, but that could be a placeholder while SEPTA, PennDOT, and Amtrak complete the EIS and locate the funding.


Amtrak committed to build the platforms in advance of the rest of the station, in a lawsuit settlement with the Disability Rights Network of Pennsylvania. If you read through the details, the high platforms have to be done by 2018.
http://disabilityrightsgalaxy.com/settlement-reached-to-improve-amtrak-station-accessibility/



> Regardless of the status of high level platforms for the stations on the eastern Keystone, for most of the reasons expressed by other posters, I doubt that the Acela Is will be repurposed for use as Keystone trains. PennDOT won't want to pay more,


Why would it pay more? They'd be paying to use used trainsets which aren't in high demand, and which would otherwise be mothballed. The alternative is paying for in-high-demand ACS-64s and Amfleets... PennDOT might appreciate the higher acceleration and the tilting, though.



> too expensive to operate,


Operational expense is a real question, but I don't know the actual numbers. The Acela coaches are significantly overweight compared to the Amfleets, so that is expensive, and that may be a good enough reason to get rid of them. But the power cars are lighter-weight than the ACS-64 and comparable to an AEM-7, and it appears that the Acelas can accelerate faster. So I think they're going to be preferable. Diesel fuel costs are a small but significant fraction of Amtrak operating costs; electric fuel costs are a small and insignificant fraction of Amtrak operating costs.
The power supply question is more critical, but those power stations are being upgraded anyway... and they wouldn't be running at 150 mph.



> too few seats in the current 6 car configuration, NYP maintenance facility not able to handle extended Acela consists, BC seats, what to do with the first class car, unused bistro car, and so on.


Reconfigure them as 10 6-car trainsets of all coach, if you like.



> By 2020 or 2021, the Acela Is will have served their purpose, introducing HSR style trainsets to the US and having been quite successful in growing ridership on the NEC. The Acela Is are likely to get sent to storage and kept there until Amtrak disposes of them.


These aren't Turboliners -- they're much more efficient to operate than that, and there are more than enough spare parts.



> As for aging Metroliner cab cars, Amtrak can convert some AEM-7s or get a set of Viewliner II cab cars in the first batch of a single level corridor car order.


I'm absolutely sure that Viewliner II profile cab cars are Amtrak's future plan, but they certainly won't have arrived by 2018, and probably not by 2021.
Converting AEM-7s, which date from 1979-1988, to cab cars is frankly more questionable than repurposing the Acelas for a few years. AEM-7 cab car conversions would require substantial work. Even if AEM-7s are converted to cab cars, they'll probably immediately be in demand on various diesel-hauled routes.



Anderson said:


> As I've said before, the other option of using them in some sort of Regional service would make sense; moreover, I feel compelled to point out that if the Acelas are used on the Keystone route, you're going to end up in a perverse situation where the "commuter" trains connecting to Harrisburg have a higher speed limit on them than do the Regionals. That's going to create some...interesting fights if you've got Keystones able to beat Regionals between NYP and PHL (something that won't be helped by the NJ speed upgrades).*


Easy to deal with: price the Keystones higher than the Regionals (and lower than the new Acelas) between NYP and PHL. The market is big enough for that level of segmentation, and Amtrak needs to try to keep local traffic off the Keystone from NYP to PHL anyway to make room for PHL-HAR traffic.


----------



## Ryan

neroden said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exton is not "done"
> 
> 
> 
> Exton high platforms are done. Look at Amtrak's website; Exton has high platforms. The rest of the station is unfinished but that's not important for this purpose.
Click to expand...

Yep. This looks like high platforms to me:






> Even if AEM-7s are converted to cab cars, they'll probably immediately be in demand on various diesel-hauled routes.


The foamer in me would love to see AEM-7 based cabbages running all over the place without wires. Can you imagine one screaming past at 110 getting pushed by a P42 in Michigan? Good stuff.


----------



## afigg

RyanS said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exton is not "done"
> 
> 
> 
> Exton high platforms are done. Look at Amtrak's website; Exton has high platforms. The rest of the station is unfinished but that's not important for this purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. This looks like high platforms to me:
Click to expand...

You can see the mini-high platforms at front end of the main platform in that sat photo. A better photo from track level is on the wikipedia page for the Exton PA station. As for Paoli, I will be interested to see how Amtrak will put in full length high level platforms ahead of the full blown transportation center project and whether they do so in the time frame in the agreement.

But discussing which stations between HAR-PHL have or will have full length high level platforms is getting rather off-topic. The odds of the Acelas being someday used for the Keystone service are, in my opinion, between slim and none and slim is leaving the building. The "Five Year Projected Capital Investment by Program, NEC" table on page 56 of the combined FY14 budget and FY14-FY18 Five Year financial plan document is a pretty big clue as to what Amtrak wants to do with the overhaul budget of the Acelas after FY2016. Namely zero it. That won't happen, of course, because the new HSR trainsets won't really begin to show up until late FY2018 and that is only if everything stays on schedule. Which it won't. Got to keep the Acela Is running through 2019 or 2020 and then retire them.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

The Acelas design is so bad, they are structurally in worse shape than the Amfleets. They are

done!


----------



## Train600

there is no sense to upgrading the Keystone corridor to 125mph unless they plan to run tilting equipment on the line. tilting equipment should shave about 20 minutes off the run to NY which is nothing to sneeze at.


----------



## NE933

Train600 said:


> there is no sense to upgrading the Keystone corridor to 125mph unless they plan to run tilting equipment on the line. tilting equipment should shave about 20 minutes off the run to NY which is nothing to sneeze at.


In fact they could do just that and name the service the Keystone Acela. The strength of such an operation is that you'd get a train that has club car option, along with a Cafe / Bistro. Shaving 20 -30 minutes off with full NY - Harrisburg run would cause the masses to flock to it. The need for push - pull turning at Philly, again, is resolved.


----------



## Paulus

Green Maned Lion said:


> The Acelas design is so bad, they are structurally in worse shape than the Amfleets. They are
> 
> done!


Source?


----------



## jis

Source? What source? 'Tis just a strong opinion  :lol:

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Anderson

Another thought did come to mind: Though there would be restrictions at peak hours (per the North River Tunnel situation) and on NEC-North (per the situation with CT), the Acela Is could be used as additional "sections" of existing trains for times when demand goes a little crazy. You might not be able to quite command the same top dollar for a "Backupcela" as with a normal Acela, but having the option to deploy a few extra sets on, for example, Thanksgiving Wednesday or on an unusually busy Friday afternoon might provide some peak load relief to both Regionals and Acelas that are swamped on a given day.

With the Acelas "proper", I do wonder how much traffic on a NYP-WAS train originates in Newark. This comes to mind because you could also use the backup train to run NWK-WAS while the "main" train skips Newark (since Newark is R/D only on the normal train, there's nobody who would be directly affected).


----------



## jis

If they can be converted into 15 8 car consists then they can simply sub for many Regionals allowing other Regionals to be upped to 10 and 12 car consists. I think that would be the most capacity effective use of them though probably not the one that generates the most revenue.


----------



## Anderson

I tend to agree there...at the very least, it would allow you to fill in for at least some of the non-Virginia Regionals (since the Acela sets likely won't be hauled south of WAS) so the VA-bound sets can get a bit longer. Assuming no major reworks on the cars, this would be somewhere in the 434-seat range...about on par with a 7-8 car Regional. And I _do_ like the idea of some 12-car Regionals pulling into RVR!

The main issue, as always, becomes the situation with NJT and the North River Tunnels if you're adding any trains as a result...*sighs*


----------



## afigg

With the discussion about reassigning the Acela Is to the Keystone service, we dont have details on how much the Acelas cost to operate, but the FY budgets do provide a breakdown of the costs of overhauls. Going back several years in the budgets, the Acelas are in the midst of a multi-year overhaul program which is costing a _lot_ of money. To wit, the FY14 budget and some of the Five year financial plan projections for overhauls are below. The overhaul budget for the Amfleets are divided between the NEC, state, LD categories, so I am summing them up here.

Total capital budget for overhauls: FY14 $216.5 million; FY15 $224.6 million.

*Acela:* FY14 $62.9M; FY15 $52.7M, FY16 $46.8M and then zero thereafter.

*Amfleets:* FY14 $50.4M; FY15 $42.5M.

*Superliners:* FY14 $54.7M, FY15: $57.5M.

*Viewliners:* FY14 $7.5M; FY15 $7.8M.

In the May 2014 monthly report Chief Mechanical Officer table, the plan for FY14 is to overhaul 6 Acela trainsets. That works out to around $10 million a trainset, although we dont have specifics on whether the FY14 budget amount is just for the 6 trainsets or include parts and material for the FY15 Acela overhauls.

In comparison, the plan for FY14 is to overhaul 151 Amfleets (I and II), 109 Superliners, 13 Viewliner Is.

Dont know how long the Acela overhauls are supposed to last, but the Keystone service pulled in $35.4 million in FY13 revenue for trips west of 30th Street. If the Acelas need overhauls again shortly after the full set of 28 new HSR trainsets arrive, the Keystone service won't generate anywhere close to the revenue that would justify spending tens of million for Acela I overhauls which are clearly not cheap.


----------



## Anderson

My understanding is that overhauls are supposed to last 10-15 years as a rule. Pushing stuff out of service around the 5-year mark is the sort of thing that creates a political problem very quickly (unless the Acela Is were about to drop dead, $160m is a _lot_ to throw into an overhaul with Acela IIs on the horizon). Likewise, a 10-15 year time horizon would hopefully line up roughly with plans to get Amfleet replacements/supplements into service.


----------



## afigg

Anderson said:


> My understanding is that overhauls are supposed to last 10-15 years as a rule. Pushing stuff out of service around the 5-year mark is the sort of thing that creates a political problem very quickly (unless the Acela Is were about to drop dead, $160m is a _lot_ to throw into an overhaul with Acela IIs on the horizon). Likewise, a 10-15 year time horizon would hopefully line up roughly with plans to get Amfleet replacements/supplements into service.


If you look at the numbers, the cycle period for Level 1 overhauls for rolling stock appears to be around 4 years. There are 12 or 13 Viewliner sleepers, 30 Amfleet II coach cars, 6 Amfleet I diner cars overhauled every year. That is 1/4 of the total number of each type. In FY14, the goal is to have level 2 overhauls for 63 Amfleet 1 coach cars and level 1 overhauls for 26 Amfleet I coach cars. Again, about 1/4 of the available fleet.
The Acela overhauls might be a for a longer period, but the interior is not going to last 10 to 15 years without major replacement work. Do not underestimate the ability of some members of the public to damage, cut up, and beat the crap out of things.


----------



## Anderson

True, I was thinking these overhauls were more structural than that. Replacing a few torn-up seats is different from actually going in deep on the mechanical side of things.


----------



## MattW

There is an option that I don't think this thread has considered. Instead of getting Acela I hand-me-downs from Amtrak, Pennsylvania might surprise us and get in on the option for Acela IIs and run Keystone Acelas to New York with the bump in brand prestige possibly drawing a few more riders. No idea how feasible that is however either financially or politically.


----------



## jis

MattW said:


> There is an option that I don't think this thread has considered. Instead of getting Acela I hand-me-downs from Amtrak, Pennsylvania might surprise us and get in on the option for Acela IIs and run Keystone Acelas to New York with the bump in brand prestige possibly drawing a few more riders. No idea how feasible that is however either financially or politically.


I must admit, I am likely to fall off my chair if that eventuality comes to pass


----------



## afigg

jis said:


> MattW said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is an option that I don't think this thread has considered. Instead of getting Acela I hand-me-downs from Amtrak, Pennsylvania might surprise us and get in on the option for Acela IIs and run Keystone Acelas to New York with the bump in brand prestige possibly drawing a few more riders. No idea how feasible that is however either financially or politically.
> 
> 
> 
> I must admit, I am likely to fall off my chair if that eventuality comes to pass
Click to expand...

Yea, I would consider the odds of PennDOT buying Acela IIs/HSR trainsets to be extremely remote. As in next to zero. Harrisburg and Lancaster are not exactly DC, Philly, NYC, Boston for market size.
The Keystone corridor service will get ACS-64s, upgrading of all stations west of 30th St to high level platforms, a incremental series of track, power, catenary, signal upgrades to the eastern Keystone corridor, and benefit from NEC upgrades between PHL and NYP. It will be doing quite nicely even with Amfleet Is as the mainstay.


----------



## jis

I think Penn DOT's additional money, should they chance upon some, would be better spent on upgrading service on Keystone West between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, instead of saving 10 minutes on a run to New York.


----------



## neroden

afigg said:


> *Acela:* FY14 $62.9M; FY15 $52.7M, FY16 $46.8M and then zero thereafter.


This reinforces my belief that Amtrak is not going to take the Acelas out of service immediately in 2018-2020. You don't do heavy overhauls in FY16 and then retire them 4 years later, at least not if you don't have to.


----------



## NE933

I'm confused. Are the overhauls for interiors only, or more? And regardless, if Amk is in the middle of an overhaul cycle that's supposed to inject 10 years or so more life into them, they may very well have trainsets that haven't quite expired and so would be a sunk cost. It would indeed make sense to unleash at least a few on Harrisburg.


----------



## afigg

The Amtrak Inspector General reports are a useful source of information. I should check the website more often. There is an evaluation report on the HSR trainset planning that was posted on May 29, 2014 with some nuggets of info such as Amtrak arguing that $270 million to rebuild the track bed from WAS to NYP for a smoother ride is a legit part of the HSR trainset procurement funding. This report was written before Amtrak and CHSRA decided to go their separate ways.

The OIG report title is rather long winded: ASSET MANAGEMENT: Amtrak Followed Sound Practices in Developing a Preliminary Business Case for Procuring Next-Generation High-Speed Trainsets and Could Enhance its Final Case with Further Analysis. (2 MB PDF) If you read it, read it down through the Amtrak responses to the OIG criticisms near the end of the report.

The OIG opening remark: "Amtrak is soliciting proposals for up to 28 next-generation highspeed trainsets to increase seating capacity on its premium highspeed service on the Northeast Corridor (NEC) and to replace the 20 trainsets that it currently operates. These new trainsets could generate about $10.2 billion more revenue than existing trainsets at an incremental cost of up to $5.1 billion, according to the company’s preliminary business case supporting the solicitation." 

$5 billion in additional revenue over costs through 2045?


----------



## Anderson

The $10.2bn number is interesting, since it is based on flat ridership post-2030. Basically, $10.2bn over 27 years comes to a bit under $400m/yr in added revenue over a base case. I cannot tell if this is in real terms or projected nominal terms; in the former case, that is a _ton_ of money, and would put the Acela service somewhere over $1bn/yr in revenue. I can't tell if the $5.1bn includes interest on a projected purchase loan (since interest can swallow a _lot_ of money), but it looks like the benefits here should be substantial.


----------



## neroden

Anderson said:


> The $10.2bn number is interesting, since it is based on flat ridership post-2030.


I wonder why -- ah, of course. Limited seating capacity.



> Basically, $10.2bn over 27 years comes to a bit under $400m/yr in added revenue over a base case. I cannot tell if this is in real terms or projected nominal terms;


Inflation's below 2%, it's not that big a difference (maybe a factor of 1.5) unless they're projecting inflation to rise a lot.



> in the former case, that is a _ton_ of money,


It's a ton of money either way. 



> and would put the Acela service somewhere over $1bn/yr in revenue. I can't tell if the $5.1bn includes interest on a projected purchase loan (since interest can swallow a _lot_ of money), but it looks like the benefits here should be substantial.


Yeah, interest can swallow a huge amount of money, especially since Amtrak has a bad credit rating and ends up paying well above inflation.


----------



## Paulus

neroden said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The $10.2bn number is interesting, since it is based on flat ridership post-2030.
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder why -- ah, of course. Limited seating capacity.
Click to expand...

Actually it's that they don't think they can predict ridership accurately that far out.


----------



## afigg

Anderson said:


> The $10.2bn number is interesting, since it is based on flat ridership post-2030. Basically, $10.2bn over 27 years comes to a bit under $400m/yr in added revenue over a base case. I cannot tell if this is in real terms or projected nominal terms; in the former case, that is a _ton_ of money, and would put the Acela service somewhere over $1bn/yr in revenue. I can't tell if the $5.1bn includes interest on a projected purchase loan (since interest can swallow a _lot_ of money), but it looks like the benefits here should be substantial.


The $5.1 billion total cost includes lifetime maintenance, overhauls (although the model appears to be overly optimistic on the savings over the expensive Acelas), at least $300 million for storage and maintenance facilities (stated in the Amtrak response), and infrastructure investments to the NEC. The IG review objected to including $270 million for NYP-WAS track bed replacement into the total lifetime cost for the HSR trainsets. But there may be other NEC improvements factored into the cost. If track bed work is in the infrastructure cost, why not catenary replacement for the other proposed 160 mph WAS-NYP segments?

In the business model, they would have to use higher interest rates, likely commercial rates, than the current commercial market and Treasury rates, which would drive up the total cost considerably compared to a $1.5 to $2 billion RRIF loan locked in at the likely 2015 Treasury rates. Inflation rate in the model would be in the 2% to 3% range over the next 30 years; whatever the US DOT currently requires for cost projections.

As for the flat ridership projection beyond 2030, well, it makes as much sense as projecting 2.5% annual growth because it is a linear projection in a world that won't act in a linear manner over 30 years. But since 30 year forecasts are expected, got to plug something into the model. The IG reports says this for the reasons for leaving ridership projection flat beyond 2030:



> *Capacity constraints.* Although the business case projects potential revenue through 2045, growth in potential ridership was forecasted only through 2030. Acquisition team officials said that they opted to hold these forecasts constant after 2030 because forecasts beyond that date were unlikely to accurately project future market conditions or demand for service. They also said they wanted to avoid tying the hands of future decision-makers by potentially not procuring enough capacity to meet future ridership demand. They therefore plan to build future purchase options into the contract to help address this issue. We acknowledge that it is difficult to accurately develop long-term projections. However, without projecting potential capacity constraints over the entire expected life of the equipment, it is unclear how the business case will support the decision to build future purchase options into a contract, and the optimal timing and size of these purchase options.


The IG report on the ACS-64 contract that was generated last September has even more info nuggets on the ACS-64 order, if anyone wants to review it in the ACS-64 thread. The FRA is a rather bossy RRIF loan officer.


----------



## Ziv

Is there any chance that Amtrak would install catenary systems south of DC to Richmond? Or are they already there? I googled it and it sent me to Wiki and it looks like the NE Corridor and the Keystone are the only passenger lines that are electric. Is that accurate? Is there a map of the railroads with catenary systems in place? Is it merely expensive to install or is it prohibitively expensive without traffic density that we only have on the NE Corridor?

Sorry for all the questions, but I can't find the answers on-line and with the ACS-64 fleet coming along it seems like the next decade would be a great time to expand the electrified portions of Amtrak.

Where the money would come from would be problematic, but...


----------



## jis

There are not enough ACS-64s to expand operations of electrified trains beyond what is currently electrified.

WAS - RVR is not electrified. It might happen eventually, but at present there is neither the traffic justification nor the money.


----------



## Anderson

jis said:


> There are not enough ACS-64s to expand operations of electrified trains beyond what is currently electrified.
> 
> WAS - RVR is not electrified. It might happen eventually, but at present there is neither the traffic justification nor the money.


Also, per VA's existing plans, you'd just move the diesel/electric switch to Richmond...which would put all of the delays from changing engines down there. At present, no more than two of the nine trains do the same thing past RVR (two go to NPN, one to NFK, two to RGH, and two down the A-Line to CHS en route to SAV).


----------



## afigg

Forbes article on the HSR procurement: Taking Past Lessons Learned, Amtrak Designs The Next Acela. This is mainstream press, so they may get technical details wrong. Down the webpage, for example, there is a July 2 article which confuses the new procurement with the earlier plans to extend the Acelas. The quotes are from Mark Yachmetz, Amtraks Chief of Rail Fleet Initiatives.

Excerpts:



> The current Acela trainsets were designed to specifications laid out by Amtrak. Over time, this turned out to cause operational troubles and ballooning costs. This time around, Amtrak is taking lessons learned the first time around to simplify the equipment. Were looking for something that is service proven overseas, said Yachmetz.
> 
> The current equipment we use for Acela was the first time these components were assembled in this configuration. It was the last time these components were ever assembled in this configuration. There were no economies of scale of purchase. As the technology aged, we were really sort of out there by ourselves. This limited Amtraks ability to expand Acela service with the current train configuration. This time around, Amtrak is attempting to future proof Acela.





> Amtrak is also looking to add approximately 120 seats to the new Acela model, but without increasing the 205 meter overall length of the trainset. Amtrak will accomplish this by moving from concentrated power to distributed power. Essentially, this would eliminate the leading and trailing engines of each trainset, and replace them cars capable of carrying passengers. With this model, each car produces power individually, much like a subway train. This enables the train to carry additional passengers while not increasing the overall length. The train will still have the styled front and back cars for aerodynamic reasons, but there will no longer be dedicated engine cars.
> 
> As for overall length, 205 meters is here to stay for the time being. We are looking for something that would be the equivalent of the length of eight current Acela cars, says Yachmetz. Somebody could come in with seven cars, each one a little longer, or nine cars a little bit shorter. Total length is what were looking at.
> 
> However, lengthening the trainset in the future will not be ruled out. The contract will stipulate an option which would allow future purchases to be extended to 10 cars with roughly 600 seats, or roughly twice the capacity of current Acela trainsets. That was one of the lessons learned from Acela, is that it wasnt anticipated that we would ever make those trains longer, so when we went to actually look at it, it became prohibitively expensive.


----------



## Anderson

Ok...what's actually accurate in all of that?


----------



## neroden

Hmm. So:

(a) 205 meters (615 feet), capable of being expanded to 256 meters (768 feet).

(b) EMUs, not power cars

I wonder what's up with the platform situation. Does anyone know what the limiting platform lengths are along the NEC? This still seems awfully short. Presumably there are some platforms which are very expensive to lengthen?


----------



## afigg

neroden said:


> Hmm. So:
> 
> (a) 205 meters (615 feet), capable of being expanded to 256 meters (768 feet).
> 
> (b) EMUs, not power cars
> 
> I wonder what's up with the platform situation. Does anyone know what the limiting platform lengths are along the NEC? This still seems awfully short. Presumably there are some platforms which are very expensive to lengthen?


Digging up the thread on the HSR trainset RFP? There was an interesting document posted to the FRA website eLibrary today with Amtrak's Buy America waiver request for the 28 HSR trainsets, but I'll get to it later (or someone else will).

The high level platforms at WAS are all 9 cars long. There are other stations with 9 car high level platforms, IIRC, but I don't have a list in front of me.

The main reason I believe for setting the HSR trainset length at the same length as the Acela trainsets is to be able to use the existing Acela maintenance facilities without spending a lot of money to lengthen them.


----------



## Anderson

afigg said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm. So:
> 
> (a) 205 meters (615 feet), capable of being expanded to 256 meters (768 feet).
> 
> (b) EMUs, not power cars
> 
> I wonder what's up with the platform situation. Does anyone know what the limiting platform lengths are along the NEC? This still seems awfully short. Presumably there are some platforms which are very expensive to lengthen?
> 
> 
> 
> Digging up the thread on the HSR trainset RFP? There was an interesting document posted to the FRA website eLibrary today with Amtrak's Buy America waiver request for the 28 HSR trainsets, but I'll get to it later (or someone else will).
> 
> The high level platforms at WAS are all 9 cars long. There are other stations with 9 car high level platforms, IIRC, but I don't have a list in front of me.
> 
> The main reason I believe for setting the HSR trainset length at the same length as the Acela trainsets is to be able to use the existing Acela maintenance facilities without spending a lot of money to lengthen them.
Click to expand...

The facility point is my understanding as well. I think they can go from 6 cars to 8 cars without issues, but getting to 10 is a problem. Also, once you get past 10 cars you start having platforming issues all over the place.


----------



## afigg

The FRA website has posted in their eLibrary section a request letter: Amtrak Buy America Waiver Request for eight (8) components of high speed rail trainsets. The link goes to the FRA webpage with the document link, not the document itself (which is a 10 page scanned PDF).

Since the letter, dated November 3, is scanned, I can't readily cut and paste, so here are the highlights:

1. There are 8 components in the waiver request: car body shells, integrated cab/CEM structure, 5 brake components, and paintwork (not because the paintwork can't be done in the US, but the car body shells need to be painted before shipping overseas to prevent corrosion).

2. The proposals that were submitted on October 1 were the Technical proposals only. The Financial proposals are pending depending on FRA's response to the waiver request.
3. The goal for initial operational service is 2019. Without the waiver, the offerors expect it wll take 2 years to build and setup a facility that can make the requested waiver components, will add at least $2 million to the cost of each trainset, and that the aluminium car body shell manufacturing facility would be built solely for this project and then disassembled.
4. The waiver request is also relevant to the possible RRIF loan because the RRIF loan program also has Buy America requirements. Amtrak submitted a draft application for RRIF financing on July 31, 2014 to start the process.
5. With the new trainsets and half hourly peak service, the number of Acela Express seats between WAS and NYP will increase by ~180% during the peak travel hours, ~40% during the remainder of the day, and ~40% between BOS and NYP.

This is a fairly substantial waiver request, so there could be political considerations.

There is a note that one builder who participated in earlier discussions did not submit a proposal in response to the RFP.


----------



## Acela150

Anderson said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm. So:
> 
> (a) 205 meters (615 feet), capable of being expanded to 256 meters (768 feet).
> 
> (b) EMUs, not power cars
> 
> I wonder what's up with the platform situation. Does anyone know what the limiting platform lengths are along the NEC? This still seems awfully short. Presumably there are some platforms which are very expensive to lengthen?
> 
> 
> 
> Digging up the thread on the HSR trainset RFP? There was an interesting document posted to the FRA website eLibrary today with Amtrak's Buy America waiver request for the 28 HSR trainsets, but I'll get to it later (or someone else will).
> 
> The high level platforms at WAS are all 9 cars long. There are other stations with 9 car high level platforms, IIRC, but I don't have a list in front of me.
> 
> The main reason I believe for setting the HSR trainset length at the same length as the Acela trainsets is to be able to use the existing Acela maintenance facilities without spending a lot of money to lengthen them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The facility point is my understanding as well. I think they can go from 6 cars to 8 cars without issues, but getting to 10 is a problem. Also, once you get past 10 cars you start having platforming issues all over the place.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with that. LD trains can fit in many stations without issues and they are mostly 10+ cars.


----------



## afigg

Acela150 said:


> I have to disagree with that. LD trains can fit in many stations without issues and they are mostly 10+ cars.


The issue for the Acela trainsets are the length of the High Level platforms. The through tracks at WAS on the lower level leading to the First St tunnel have 15 and 17 car long low level platforms while the max length for the high level platforms on the upper is 9 cars long. New Haven has a 9 car long HLPs.


----------



## Anderson

afigg said:


> Acela150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to disagree with that. LD trains can fit in many stations without issues and they are mostly 10+ cars.
> 
> 
> 
> The issue for the Acela trainsets are the length of the High Level platforms. The through tracks at WAS on the lower level leading to the First St tunnel have 15 and 17 car long low level platforms while the max length for the high level platforms on the upper is 9 cars long. New Haven has a 9 car long HLPs.
Click to expand...

This is part of it. NEC-North is the other part...from what I understand, while you have a bunch of 10-12 car platforms in the WAS-NYP area, north of NYP the number drops dramatically, meaning you'd basically need two sets of Acelas: One for WAS-NYP and another, shorter set to handle through operation to BOS. I gather that Amtrak does not want to do that sort of thing for a host of reasons.

Also, at least historically (I asked on here a few weeks back) what would happen is that those super-long LD trains would single-spot at NYP, WAS, and probably PHL...but would be stuck spotting 2-4 times elsewhere. Additionally, the longest LD train we've seen on the NEC in the last few years on a regular basis has been the Meteor, which usually has 3 sleepers, 2 FSCs, 4 coaches, and a baggage car (10 cars). A fifth coach (11 cars) has been added on occasion as well. Besides that, _no_ train has gone past 10 cars on a regular basis.


----------



## Paulus

Extending platforms for Acela should be more than worth the expense however.


----------



## jis

But NEC can actually handle 12 to 14 car LD trains at the stations where LD trains stop in NEC south (NYP, NWK, TRE, PHL, WIL, BAL, WAS) , LD train schedules are set up such that baggage work can be done and loading/unloading does not require that every door be open to keep to schedule. I have heard from reliable sources that NEC would be able to handle 12 cars easily and 14 with ab it of effort without double spotting at any of the LD train stops. At some all cars will not platform, though the stations in question do have space to extend their platform should the need arise.

So, no. LD trains will not be stuck 2-4 spotting anywhere on the NEC, should such longer trains become the norm.


----------



## blueman271

I don't think platform length should restrict train length. Amtrak can do the same thing the commuter agencies do, simply announce that at stop X only the doors in the first seven cars or the last seven cars will open. It works well enough for NJT and the LIRR, I don't see why it wouldn't work for Amtrak.


----------



## west point

Longer ACELA-1s will have a fairly simple solution. At present the consist length is fixed due to a limited number of passenger cars. When Amtrak needs the odd ball geometry car added to an Acela train set it is fairly long process. Anyone know how much time ?

Once several of the Acela-2s begin to arrive the Acela-1s when surplus to the schedule at that time can be split up and added to existing Acela-1 train sets. Remember originally Amtrak was thinking of just buying more cars for each -1 train sets but found it too expensive..

Example --- 1 train set can add 2 cars to three train sets. That will result in a surplus of power cars but that is a small price to pay. The longer sets probably are needed NYP - BOS due to present limitations of number of trains on that route.


----------



## MattW

west point said:


> Longer ACELA-1s will have a fairly simple solution. At present the consist length is fixed due to a limited number of passenger cars. When Amtrak needs the odd ball geometry car added to an Acela train set it is fairly long process. Anyone know how much time ?
> 
> Once several of the Acela-2s begin to arrive the Acela-1s when surplus to the schedule at that time can be split up and added to existing Acela-1 train sets. Remember originally Amtrak was thinking of just buying more cars for each -1 train sets but found it too expensive..
> 
> Example --- 1 train set can add 2 cars to three train sets. That will result in a surplus of power cars but that is a small price to pay. The longer sets probably are needed NYP - BOS due to present limitations of number of trains on that route.


I don't think that will work since the current Acelas are 8-cars long, but only 6-passenger cars long. The new sets are likely going to be 8-passenger cars long since the end cars will be occupied unlike the current trainsets. If they lengthened the Acela-1s, they'd also have to lengthen the maintenance buildings.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

afigg said:


> The FRA website has posted in their eLibrary section a request letter: Amtrak Buy America Waiver Request for eight (8) components of high speed rail trainsets. The link goes to the FRA webpage with the document link, not the document itself (which is a 10 page scanned PDF).
> 
> Since the letter, dated November 3, is scanned, I can't readily cut and paste, so here are the highlights:
> 
> 1. There are 8 components in the waiver request: car body shells, integrated cab/CEM structure, 5 brake components, and paintwork (not because the paintwork can't be done in the US, but the car body shells need to be painted before shipping overseas to prevent corrosion).
> 
> 2. The proposals that were submitted on October 1 were the Technical proposals only. The Financial proposals are pending depending on FRA's response to the waiver request.
> 
> 3. The goal for initial operational service is 2019. Without the waiver, the offerors expect it wll take 2 years to build and setup a facility that can make the requested waiver components, will add at least $2 million to the cost of each trainset, and that the aluminium car body shell manufacturing facility would be built solely for this project and then disassembled.
> 
> 4. The waiver request is also relevant to the possible RRIF loan because the RRIF loan program also has Buy America requirements. Amtrak submitted a draft application for RRIF financing on July 31, 2014 to start the process.
> 
> 5. With the new trainsets and half hourly peak service, the number of Acela Express seats between WAS and NYP will increase by ~180% during the peak travel hours, ~40% during the remainder of the day, and ~40% between BOS and NYP.
> 
> This is a fairly substantial waiver request, so there could be political considerations.
> 
> There is a note that one builder who participated in earlier discussions did not submit a proposal in response to the RFP.


On balance I'm very glad to see this step. Clearly Amtrak

got enuff proposals to begin to narrow the field and move on 

with the process.

I'm more worried about the FRA safety regulations. Maybe

that was settled and I was distracted so I missed the news.

But have the FRA safety traditionalists finally and fully moved 

into the 20th century to allow lighter, faster, cheaper, safer trains 

on the NEC? Is that going to require still another waiver, and

maybe a half-assed one at that? Or is that still under discussion?


----------



## west point

Have not seen anything about cancellation of the maintenance buildings being lengthened. That would IMHO be penny wise and pound foolish. The proposal for -2s are for what ? Is there going to be a control cab at end of each train set or are they going to be a straight EMU setup ?. Maybe married pairs ?


----------



## afigg

blueman271 said:


> I don't think platform length should restrict train length. Amtrak can do the same thing the commuter agencies do, simply announce that at stop X only the doors in the first seven cars or the last seven cars will open. It works well enough for NJT and the LIRR, I don't see why it wouldn't work for Amtrak.


Amtrak does this on the NEC. For the Regionals stopping at Newark, DE, passengers board and disembark from the center of the train around the cafe car. New London high level platform is only 3 cars long, so for the Acelas that stop there, passengers have to use the center cars to board and disembark. However, unlike most NJT and LIRR passengers, most Amtrak passengers have luggage, so dragging several large suitcases through multiple cars on a crowded train to the exit can be cumbersome.

When Amtrak was looking at adding 2 coach cars to the Acelas, I doubt that there was much concern about high level platform length. The coach section would be 8 cars, so for a 9 car long HLP north of WAS, one locomotive or the other would be beyond the platform, but that is not a problem. At WAS, the HLPs are all on end tracks with a buffer space. An extended Acela might have part of the coach car on the lead end beyond the end of the platform, but that would not be much of a problem.

Amtrak dropped the plan to order 40 more coach cars from Bombardier for a number of reasons. Which, I'm pretty sure have been discussed several times in this thread.


----------



## afigg

west point said:


> Longer ACELA-1s will have a fairly simple solution. At present the consist length is fixed due to a limited number of passenger cars. When Amtrak needs the odd ball geometry car added to an Acela train set it is fairly long process. Anyone know how much time ?
> 
> Once several of the Acela-2s begin to arrive the Acela-1s when surplus to the schedule at that time can be split up and added to existing Acela-1 train sets. Remember originally Amtrak was thinking of just buying more cars for each -1 train sets but found it too expensive..
> 
> Example --- 1 train set can add 2 cars to three train sets. That will result in a surplus of power cars but that is a small price to pay. The longer sets probably are needed NYP - BOS due to present limitations of number of trains on that route.


The idea of lengthened Acelas has been discussed before. I have come to the conclusion that Amtrak is not going to do this. First of all, Amtrak is seeking to order 28 trainsets to replace the 20 Acela sets. The first batch of Acela IIs are likely to be used to expand peak period service with 1/2 hour departure intervals as that is where Amtrak is leaving a lot of revenue on the table. After 10 or more Acela IIs are delivered, then the new trainsets can begin to replace the Acela trainsets.

The delivery rate for the new trainsets might be 1 a month once production ramps up. If that it the case, the 20 new trainsets after the first 8 will take only 20 months to replace the 20 Acela Is sets. Because of the length constraint imposed by the maintenance facilities, why spend time and effort to combine Acela I trainsets if they are going to be retired in less than 20 months? The Acelas are expensive to maintain, the overhaul costs for the Acelas that show up the budget documents are pretty steep. No, I expect the plan will be to send the Acela Is to dead storage as the new trainsets come in and then return the units to the lease holder at either the end of the lease or during an early termination option.


----------



## Anderson

afigg said:


> west point said:
> 
> 
> 
> Longer ACELA-1s will have a fairly simple solution. At present the consist length is fixed due to a limited number of passenger cars. When Amtrak needs the odd ball geometry car added to an Acela train set it is fairly long process. Anyone know how much time ?
> 
> Once several of the Acela-2s begin to arrive the Acela-1s when surplus to the schedule at that time can be split up and added to existing Acela-1 train sets. Remember originally Amtrak was thinking of just buying more cars for each -1 train sets but found it too expensive..
> 
> Example --- 1 train set can add 2 cars to three train sets. That will result in a surplus of power cars but that is a small price to pay. The longer sets probably are needed NYP - BOS due to present limitations of number of trains on that route.
> 
> 
> 
> The idea of lengthened Acelas has been discussed before. I have come to the conclusion that Amtrak is not going to do this. First of all, Amtrak is seeking to order 28 trainsets to replace the 20 Acela sets. The first batch of Acela IIs are likely to be used to expand peak period service with 1/2 hour departure intervals as that is where Amtrak is leaving a lot of revenue on the table. After 10 or more Acela IIs are delivered, then the new trainsets can begin to replace the Acela trainsets.
> 
> The delivery rate for the new trainsets might be 1 a month once production ramps up. If that it the case, the 20 new trainsets after the first 8 will take only 20 months to replace the 20 Acela Is sets. Because of the length constraint imposed by the maintenance facilities, why spend time and effort to combine Acela I trainsets if they are going to be retired in less than 20 months? The Acelas are expensive to maintain, the overhaul costs for the Acelas that show up the budget documents are pretty steep. No, I expect the plan will be to send the Acela Is to dead storage as the new trainsets come in and then return the units to the lease holder at either the end of the lease or during an early termination option.
Click to expand...

Are the leases/buybacks still out on the Acelas? I forget what the schedule was on those, but I know there's a _lot_ of stuff that's been bought back from the sale/leasebacks with EBOs.

Edit: With that said, I believe Amtrak could probably justify financing most of the Acela IIs off of a revenue-secured loan. I forget the estimated cost for them ($2-3bn seems about right), but the added revenue from additional capacity at peak hours (and from running 8-car trains instead of 6-car trains) spread over 15-20 years should be able to pay that back with interest and have cash left over.


----------



## neroden

The Acela and HHP-8 lease terminations / EBOs are almost all 2015 or later.


----------



## afigg

Anderson said:


> Are the leases/buybacks still out on the Acelas? I forget what the schedule was on those, but I know there's a _lot_ of stuff that's been bought back from the sale/leasebacks with EBOs.
> 
> Edit: With that said, I believe Amtrak could probably justify financing most of the Acela IIs off of a revenue-secured loan. I forget the estimated cost for them ($2-3bn seems about right), but the added revenue from additional capacity at peak hours (and from running 8-car trains instead of 6-car trains) spread over 15-20 years should be able to pay that back with interest and have cash left over.


The FY13 Five Year Financial Plan shows some Early Buyout options for HHP-8 and "HS Trainsets", aka the Acelas, coming up in FY16 and FY17. The Five year plan does not provide info on lease options beyond FY17. These are Early Buyouts, not end of lease purchase options. The Acelas were acquired in 1999 to 2000, so if they were purchased with 20 year leases, the leases presumably would end in 2019-2020; if 25 years, then in 2024-2025. If the leases end in circa 2020, that likely makes it easy for Amtrak by returning the Acelas to the lease holder rather than a close-out purchase payment, depending, of course, on terms and structure of the leases which we are not privy to.
I may be way off base on my cost estimate, but I think the contract award price tag for the 28 new HSR trainsets plus spares and training will be in the $1.5 to $1.8 billion range. A google search reveals that Turkey in 2013 placed an order for 7 Siemems Velaro trainsets along with a 7 year maintenance contract for 285 million Euros or ~40 million Euros a Velaro trainset. So $50 to $60 million US for a HSR trainset plus spares and technical support should be in the ballpark.


----------



## Anderson

$60m/set would come out to $1.68bn for 28 sets. I'm going to assume that costs spike somehow, be it due to odd US regulations or some other issue...but that should put the deal somewhere in the $2bn range.

I will say, with the speculation that Amtrak might opt to dump the Acelas somewhere around the 20-year mark it leaves a very open question as to whether it would make sense for Amtrak to buy out the leases or not.

With the caveat that it is all speculative, does anyone know how long it is likely to take for an Acela II order to be delivered once the order is actually placed? I suspect not as long as the CAF situation (since I don't think you'd need a new factory to _start_ production), but beyond that I can't even guess.


----------



## afigg

Anderson said:


> $60m/set would come out to $1.68bn for 28 sets. I'm going to assume that costs spike somehow, be it due to odd US regulations or some other issue...but that should put the deal somewhere in the $2bn range.
> 
> I will say, with the speculation that Amtrak might opt to dump the Acelas somewhere around the 20-year mark it leaves a very open question as to whether it would make sense for Amtrak to buy out the leases or not.
> 
> With the caveat that it is all speculative, does anyone know how long it is likely to take for an Acela II order to be delivered once the order is actually placed? I suspect not as long as the CAF situation (since I don't think you'd need a new factory to _start_ production), but beyond that I can't even guess.


The Amtrak waiver request to the FRA stated the goal for entry into service for the new trainsets is 2019. But the revenue service date is going to depend on whether the FRA grants the waiver request. Then Amtrak has to award the contract and not all the vendors may be able to deliver production trainsets by 2019.


----------



## Anderson

Gotcha. A 2019 in-service date would certainly line up with disposing of the initial Acelas in 2020/21...I do take it as a given that Amtrak will hit some hiccup with the new equipment (there's always_ something_), so allowing about two years to cycle stuff seems about right.


----------



## afigg

The FRA has granted Amtrak's and CHSRA's Buy America waiver requests for two prototype HSR trainsets (each) to be built overseas. This waiver request is not the recent one that was submitted for HSR trainset components, but the waiver requests that were jointly submitted in late February when Amtrak and CHSRA were still teamed on HSR trainset acquisition. I figure that the 2 prototype waiver request is still relevant to Amtrak's plans, probably not as much for CHSRA.

FRA eLibrary page link: Amtrak High Speed Rail Prototypes Buy America Waiver Decision. (3 page PDF) Excerpts:



> This letter is in response to your request dated February 27, 2014, that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) grant the National Passenger Railroad Corporation (Amtrak), a waiver from FRA's Buy America provision, at 49 U.S.C. § 24405(a)(1), for final assembly of two prototype high-speed rail (HSR) trainsets. For the reasons contained in this letter, FRA is granting Amtrak's request, subject to the following condition:
> 
> • At ''Notice To Proceed", Amtrak must provide support for its assertion and certify to FRA that its selected supplier has not established domestic manufacturing facilities capable of assembling the prototypes within a reasonable time.



Interesting bit on public comments:



> On March 14, 2014, FRA published on its website public notice of Amtrak's and the Authority's waiver requests. FRA received 13 online comments and one mailed response to this notice. None of the commenters identified a domestic source for HSR trainsets. Of the 14 comments, 10 commenters indicated they were against granting the waiver; four were for granting the waiver. Of the 10 comments "against," four were not responsive to the notice. Of the six remaining dissenters, they mainly disagreed with Amtrak's and the Authority's argument that HSR trainsets cannot be delivered in a reasonable time because Amtrak and the Authority could wait for domestic assembly. While this is theoretically possible, significant capacity and technology transfer problems are probable, and FRA believes that the one and a half to two year minimum delay could negatively impact the schedules proposed by Amtrak and the Authority. In addition, as noted above, assembling the prototypes at the suppliers' nondomestic factories will facilitate the successful technology transfer and training of U.S. workers. Finally, because FRA is limiting the waiver to final assembly of up to four prototypes with the expectation that the training of domestic resources will occur simultaneously, FRA is not delaying or preventing the establishment of the selected supplier's domestic assembly facilities.


Which led me to look for where to submit public comments on the HSR component waiver request which appear to be on this FRA webpage: Amtrak High Speed Trainsets Components Waiver Request.

There are only 3 comments so far. If anyone is interested in posting a comment, I suggest in support, the close out date is December 5.


----------



## jis

Bombardier has decided not to participate in Acela II procurement process.

http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCAKBN0JM20L20141208


----------



## Paulus

Let's hope Siemens is still in and makes a clean sweep just so we can bring back the American Flyer name (clear progression from Sprinter and Charger after all).


----------



## afigg

jis said:


> Bombardier has decided not to participate in Acela II procurement process.
> 
> http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCAKBN0JM20L20141208


Interesting. I wonder what the change in technical specifications was that Bombardier decided they did not have enough time to respond to. They could have asked for an extension if they were serious about bidding.

The article confirms that Hyundai Rotem has submitted a bid. I expect Siemens is still in as well, but the requirement is for a (near) off-the-shelf tilt HSR trainset which may leave Siemens at a disadvantage. Would be interesting to get a list of who submitted bids and whether companies teamed up (one with a US manufacturing facility, the other with a operating HSR trainset that can meet the requirements).


----------



## jis

afigg said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bombardier has decided not to participate in Acela II procurement process.
> 
> http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCAKBN0JM20L20141208
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. I wonder what the change in technical specifications was that Bombardier decided they did not have enough time to respond to. They could have asked for an extension if they were serious about bidding.
Click to expand...

The only major change I am aware of, that could have such far reaching impact, is the separation of the CAHSR thing from the Amtrak thing. I have heard from reliable sources that Amtrak has just given broad performance requirements and left all technical details to be specified by the vendors.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Hopefully this won't lead to the problems that Amtrak experienced with the original Acela equipment?!!


----------



## jis

Well, it may also be the case that Bombardier is running gun shy after its previous experience trying to develop and deliver equipment in parallel with FRA's more or less capricious Tier II development.

Even though almost two years have passed since FRA talking about finalizing Tier III regs they are not final yet. So who knows what will actually be in the final spec. Under these circumstances it is quite reasonable for vendors to be a bit circumspect. Even Siemens has not made any final commitment to bid apparently. The situation is a bit distressing.


----------



## Amtrak172

I just want to make sure that I'm reading this and understanding this correctly. So, Amtrak is ordering 12 new train sets soon-ish, and ordering 20 more by 2020?


----------



## afigg

Amtrak172 said:


> I just want to make sure that I'm reading this and understanding this correctly. So, Amtrak is ordering 12 new train sets soon-ish, and ordering 20 more by 2020?


No, the RFP is for 28 HSR trainsets with around 425 seats each to replace the 20 Acela trainsets as a single order. The split order of 12 trainsets, then 20 later was an earlier plan which has been dropped.
The update to the Fleet Strategy Plan in the FY15 Budget and FY15-FY19 Five Year Financial Plan, which was released in mid-February, projects 2 new HSR trainsets in service in FY19, 20 in FY20, 6 in FY21. Of course, the actual delivery schedule is another matter.


----------



## afigg

Came across this tidbit of info in the January 2015 Agenda for a monthly meeting of the US DOT Credit Council. The DOT Credit Council reviews and recommends or rejection grants of all DOT loan applications such as RIFF, TIFIA loans. Their monthly agenda summaries are posted on the US DOT website.



> (d) IFA request for a $2.7 billion RRIF loan application from Amtrak for the acquisition of 28 high-speed trainsets for the Northeast Corridor - the Council recommended to the FRA Administrator the hiring of an IFA for application analysis


So $2.7 billion is the total that Amtrak is looking for to fund the HSR trainset purchase. However, I think the $2.7 billion covers more than just the rolling stock acquisition and spares, probably maintenance facility upgrades, possibly NEC infrastructure improvements. This RIFF application may be a moot point if the PRRIA act passed by the House with its provision for access to some $14 billion in RIFF loans for Amtrak and the NEC is included in the Senate version.

PS. I think in the context of the Credit Council, IFA = Independent Financial Analyst.


----------



## afigg

Amtrak is still apparently waiting for the FRA to approve the Buy America waiver. Senator Schumer (NY) poked the US DOT last week to get moving on the waiver approval, although this story doesn't explain why Amtrak needs federal approval from the US DOT. I think with a new acting head of the FRA who had no background in railroads running the agency in combination with a full plate at the agency (PTC, oil tanker regulations, multiple accidents to deal with), the waiver request may be getting lost in the shuffle. A poke in the ribs from Senator Schumer should help expedite the process. OTOH, Schumer could also be referring to getting preliminary approval for a RRIF loan, so Amtrak can talk $ with the bidders.

Progressive Railroading: Schumer calls on USDOT to OK Acela train purchase



> During a visit to the Alstom Transport plant in Hornell, N.Y., U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer last week urged the U.S. Department of Transportation to approve Amtrak's efforts to buy new Acela trains.
> 
> The $3 billion train project could improve rail safety, Amtrak service and boost the local economy in cities such as Hornell, where Alstom manufactures and services trains at its plant, Schumer said in a press release.
> 
> Amtrak is seeking federal approval to purchase the new high-speed trains for the Acela service along the Northeast Corridor. Schumer noted that the Acela service is at a "critical stage" because the leases on its current trains, which were acquired in 1994, are set to expire in the next six to eight years. As a result, Amtrak needs to advance production of its next generation trains, he said.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

afigg said:


> Amtrak is still apparently waiting for the FRA to approve the Buy America waiver. Senator Schumer (NY) poked the US DOT last week to get moving on the waiver approval ...


I haven't been following this closely at all, but ...

Aren't Amtrak and the car-builders waiting to see if the safety regulations will require another generation of not-so-high-speed and costly-to-operate "tanks on rails"?

If a change is made to modern methods, we can see new technology and European designs over here, to *prevent and avoid crashes*, rather than bundling up the passengers in tons of steel to survive them.

Are they waiting for some of the Safety agency members to die of old age or what? We've been waiting for new regs since Obama and Amtrak Joe were elected.


----------



## jis

After riding around on ICE-Ts in Germany for almost 12 hours one day on a very twisty turny route through the mountains between Berlin and Frankfurt, I am hoping that something based on the ICE-T is what we get for Acela IIs. Their performance was impressive. The Pendolino based tilt system from Fiat-Ferroviera is far superior in its feel in the passenger compartment than the LRC derived stuff from Bombardier in the Aclea Is. And boy, are those things quiet and smooth even at full speed!

The fly in the ointment is that at present they are limited to 230kph. For NEC Acela IIs they will need to have the max speed upped to 270 or 280kph or so. Not insurmountable, but something to be done. They do already meet the distributed power requirement which I believe appears in the RFP somewhere. Even if it doesn't it is desirable for performance. These puppies can really accelerate> Think of each car having almost a querter of the power of an ACS, and only one or two unpowered cars in a train consist. But then again FRA will have to shed another one of its early 20th century dogmas about no HV bus running the length of the train. Well that they will have to shed no matter which off the shelf high speed electric train is chosen.


----------



## west point

Where is the limitation of a train length high voltage bus stated ?


----------



## Fan Railer

New Velaro Acela concept art from Siemens... seems like they're confident they'll get the order, given their currently cushy relationship with Amtrak:


----------



## Hal

Fan Railer said:


> New Velaro Acela concept art from Siemens... seems like they're confident they'll get the order, given their currently cushy relationship with Amtrak:


I would guess all the bidders have a concept art like that. I would not read anything more into it than that. I don't know if Amtraks relationship with Siemans is cushy or not but the winning bidder won't win the the bid without meeting the specifications. They may have to be the low bidder meeting the specs, but I don't know if Amtrak has any discretion on that.


----------



## afigg

Fan Railer said:


> New Velaro Acela concept art from Siemens... seems like they're confident they'll get the order, given their currently cushy relationship with Amtrak:


It is a rendering, presumably generated for the Siemens bid. Wouldn't read anything into someone posting it on the net. Where did it come from?


----------



## WoodyinNYC

afigg said:


> Fan Railer said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Velaro Acela concept art from Siemens... seems like they're confident they'll get the order ...
> 
> 
> 
> It is a rendering ... Wouldn't read anything into someone posting it on the net.
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting it, Fan Railer. Like the skeptics above, I'm not reading too much into it.

But I liked seeing it.

Maybe that's the main purpose of releasing it. Something to help the "journalists are generalists" to visualize it, get a bit of understanding of it, maybe flash it on another screen where others may like seeing it. 

As public relations, to help build popular support for the new Acelas project, I don't see a downside. It's all good.


----------



## PerRock

Bombardier has similar imagery of their Acela 2 train:






It's quite the old mock-up so I'm uncertain if it is till on the Bombardier website, but it was at one point in time.

peter


----------



## Fan Railer

Only describing the relationship as "cushy" because they got both the electric locomotive order, and are positioned to replace the P42s as well, so it would be reasonably unsurprising if they also got the HSR contract.


----------



## seat38a

Fan Railer said:


> Only describing the relationship as "cushy" because they got both the electric locomotive order, and are positioned to replace the P42s as well, so it would be reasonably unsurprising if they also got the HSR contract.


Since their factory is in California, and the State does not want anything that hasn't been proven yet, I can see CAHSR going to Siemens as well. Even though CAHSR and Amtrak broke off their joint purchase agreement, it just may turn out that both orders goes to the same manufacturer.


----------



## jis

OTOH, if the cash starving of Amtrak continues, I can see Amtrak ordering something from Japan or China if they are willing to provide a funding package attached to it. That was one of the primary determiner of who got the contract for Acela Is afterall! It is difficult for beggars to have significant freedom of choice when it comes to such things.


----------



## Hal

jis said:


> OTOH, if the cash starving of Amtrak continues, I can see Amtrak ordering something from Japan or China if they are willing to provide a funding package attached to it. That was one of the primary determiner of who got the contract for Acela Is afterall! It is difficult for beggars to have significant freedom of choice when it comes to such things.


Exactly. And that quite possibly what will happen. That Japan or China will provide a funding package that determines the outcome.


----------



## Andrew

PerRock said:


> Bombardier has similar imagery of their Acela 2 train:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's quite the old mock-up so I'm uncertain if it is till on the Bombardier website, but it was at one point in time.
> 
> peter


Does anybody know which company or companies are likely to get the new Acela contract, and when this contract will be signed/announced?


----------



## Ryan

Nothing other than what was discussed in the last 13 pages.


----------



## Andrew

Hal said:


> Fan Railer said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Velaro Acela concept art from Siemens... seems like they're confident they'll get the order, given their currently cushy relationship with Amtrak:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would guess all the bidders have a concept art like that. I would not read anything more into it than that. I don't know if Amtraks relationship with Siemans is cushy or not but the winning bidder won't win the the bid without meeting the specifications. They may have to be the low bidder meeting the specs, but I don't know if Amtrak has any discretion on that.
Click to expand...


Probably some strong candidates for the new Acela Train-sets:

1. Siemens Velaro

2. Alstom AGV.

3. Kawasaki EfSET (Environmentally Friendly Super Express Train).

4. Bombardier Zefiro (although Bombardier is no longer involved in the process).


----------



## jis

Then there are the Velaro and Zefiro clones from China  It would be interesting to see if they would be entered into the fray. Maybe, maybe not.

Also, if Talgo can conjure up anything in the high floor (1.25m) category.

Also for the speeds being talked about on the NEC, Hitachi could be in the running too.

It would be really neat though if there were a ICE-T (multiple unit tilting). I really liked the ICE-T rides. In fact they were smoother than the ride on the Classical ICE in Germany. Rode them from Berlin Hbf to Munich Hbf via Leipzig and Nurenberg and back on the Munich - Berlin - Hamburg service.

Incidentally also saw a ICE-VT (multiple unit diesel) on the Berlin - Copenhagen service. Now if there were a dual model version that would work out real well for through service off the NEC to Virginia. Just a thought, though I have seen no indication of such OOB thinking at Amtrak. Also, unfortunately they wouldn't exactly be off the shelf so would probably not be considered at the present time.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> Then there are the Velaro and Zefiro clones from China  It would be interesting to see if they would be entered into the fray. Maybe, maybe not.
> 
> Also, if Talgo can conjure up anything in the high floor (1.25m) category.
> 
> Also for the speeds being talked about on the NEC, Hitachi could be in the running too.
> 
> It would be really neat though if there were a ICE-T (multiple unit tilting). I really liked the ICE-T rides. In fact they were smoother than the ride on the Classical ICE in Germany. Rode them from Berlin Hbf to Munich Hbf via Leipzig and Nurenberg and back on the Munich - Berlin - Hamburg service.
> 
> Incidentally also saw a ICE-VT (multiple unit diesel) on the Berlin - Copenhagen service. Now if there were a dual model version that would work out real well for through service off the NEC to Virginia. Just a thought, though I have seen no indication of such OOB thinking at Amtrak. Also, unfortunately they wouldn't exactly be off the shelf so would probably not be considered at the present time.


Who then do you think will get the Acela replacement contract?


----------



## jis

Who do you think? Why do you th8ink so?


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> Who do you think? Why do you th8ink so?


I actually think that Alstom will get it since New York Senator Schumer just visited their facility, and talked about the new Acela Train-sets.


----------



## afigg

Andrew said:


> I actually think that Alstom will get it since New York Senator Schumer just visited their facility, and talked about the new Acela Train-sets.


I would not read that much into Schumer visiting the Alstom's plant. Senators and House members visit companies and manufacturing facilities for photo ops all the time. Whoever lands the Acela 2 contact has to be able to supply trainsets that meet Amtrak's requirements for the NEC. Tilting, >160 mph speeds, no more than 205 meters distance between the first and last axles on the trainset, have floors level with the NEC high level platforms, and so on for a close to off the shelf trainset design. And beat the other bidders on price.
We do not know who are the serious bidders on the RFP nor do we know when or if the FRA will grant Amtrak's Buy America waiver request or when the FRA will issue final new regulations that will allow Amtrak to buy the EMU HSR trainsets it seeks. You can post more when and who type questions, but no one here is likely to be able to answer them.


----------



## jis

I don't believe the safety rule making for concurrent operation of Tier II and Tier III equipment on the same trackage at over 125mph has been fully settled yet either. If FRA cannot figure out how to do that then the whole off the shelf idea is out the window unless the Tier II Acelas are discontinued (or restricted to 125mph) the day Tier III trains start operating on the NEC.at above 125mph.


----------



## Andrew

afigg said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> I actually think that Alstom will get it since New York Senator Schumer just visited their facility, and talked about the new Acela Train-sets.
> 
> 
> 
> I would not read that much into Schumer visiting the Alstom's plant. Senators and House members visit companies and manufacturing facilities for photo ops all the time. Whoever lands the Acela 2 contact has to be able to supply trainsets that meet Amtrak's requirements for the NEC. Tilting, >160 mph speeds, no more than 205 meters distance between the first and last axles on the trainset, have floors level with the NEC high level platforms, and so on for a close to off the shelf trainset design. And beat the other bidders on price.
> We do not know who are the serious bidders on the RFP nor do we know when or if the FRA will grant Amtrak's Buy America waiver request or when the FRA will issue final new regulations that will allow Amtrak to buy the EMU HSR trainsets it seeks. You can post more when and who type questions, but no one here is likely to be able to answer them.
Click to expand...




jis said:


> I don't believe the safety rule making for concurrent operation of Tier II and Tier III equipment on the same trackage at over 125mph has been fully settled yet either. If FRA cannot figure out how to do that then the whole off the shelf idea is out the window unless the Tier II Acelas are discontinued (or restricted to 125mph) the day Tier III trains start operating on the NEC.at above 125mph.


I still believe that Alstom or Siemens will get the contract...


----------



## jis

I thought you said only Alstom was going toge t the contracts. So what caused Siemens to get on your good list? 

And prey tell what does my comment about Tier II and III mixed operation have to do with who gets the contract?


----------



## frequentflyer

Per the drawing looks like Siemens have an off the shelf solution for Amtrak. Good for the Chunnel operation should be good and reliable for Amtrak.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> I thought you said only Alstom was going toge t the contracts. So what caused Siemens to get on your good list?
> 
> And prey tell what does my comment about Tier II and III mixed operation have to do with who gets the contract?


Siemens has so sold so many Velaro's so that's why.


----------



## Andrew

afigg said:


> Came across this tidbit of info in the January 2015 Agenda for a monthly meeting of the US DOT Credit Council. The DOT Credit Council reviews and recommends or rejection grants of all DOT loan applications such as RIFF, TIFIA loans. Their monthly agenda summaries are posted on the US DOT website.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (d) IFA request for a $2.7 billion RRIF loan application from Amtrak for the acquisition of 28 high-speed trainsets for the Northeast Corridor - the Council recommended to the FRA Administrator the hiring of an IFA for application analysis
> 
> 
> 
> So $2.7 billion is the total that Amtrak is looking for to fund the HSR trainset purchase. However, I think the $2.7 billion covers more than just the rolling stock acquisition and spares, probably maintenance facility upgrades, possibly NEC infrastructure improvements. This RIFF application may be a moot point if the PRRIA act passed by the House with its provision for access to some $14 billion in RIFF loans for Amtrak and the NEC is included in the Senate version.
> 
> PS. I think in the context of the Credit Council, IFA = Independent Financial Analyst.
Click to expand...

It is my understanding that Amtrak was looking at spending close to $300 million from the $2.7 Billion RRIF Loan Proposal to renew the high speed track infrastructure between Washington D.C. and New York City. I don't know if this is still the case.

I hope, though, that some catenary renewal is part of the loan request, as well as pole replacement. These types of investments are urgently needed and they will help Amtrak (and the rest of the Northeast Corridor) better cope with extreme weather conditions, such as heat waves and torrential rain storms.


----------



## afigg

According to an announcement from Senator Schumer, Altsom has been selected to build the Acela HSR replacements. Amtrak's board is expected to vote this afternoon to award the contract to Alstom.

The news is breaking in upper NY state first because the jobs it means to the region: Schumer: Amtrak to award Alstom $2.5B contract



> WASHINGTON – A Hornell-based rail car factory operated by Alstom is expected to be awarded a $2.5 billion Amtrak contract, New York Sen. Chuck Schumer announced this morning.
> 
> The contract is expected to sustain 400 jobs at Alstom’s Hornell facility and another 350 in other parts of New York, according to Schumer’s office.
> 
> “This contract will add a massive injection of economic energy and hundreds of good-paying jobs for the economically struggling Southern Tier,” Schumer said in a statement.
> 
> Schumer was expected to join a representative of Republican Rep. Tom Reed of Corning, local officials, Steuben County officials, economic development leaders and ‎union officials in Hornell today for the announcement.
> 
> The rail cars will be used for Acela high-speed rail service on the Northeast Corridor between Washington and Boston.
> 
> The Amtrak board of directors is expected to give its approval this afternoon for negotiations with Alstom, which would be finalized by December.


Now we wait for details on what Alstom offered for the bid. And what the status is of the FRA Buy America waivers and the long in the works regulatory changes.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Good ole Senator Schumer! The saying in Washington is never get between him and a camera! LOL

Be interesting to see the details as was said, and to have the speculation start on how many decades it will be before we actually see this equipment in revenue service!


----------



## A Voice

When are the leases up on the current Acela equipment (they have to be returned to the lessor, correct?). Is Amtrak not as anxious to be rid of the expensive-to-maintan and operate Acela I transets as it was the HHP-8?

Pardon me if this was discussed earlier in the thread, and skimming over things I missed it.


----------



## Thirdrail7

afigg said:


> According to an announcement from Senator Schumer, Altsom has been selected to build the Acela HSR replacements. Amtrak's board is expected to vote this afternoon to award the contract to Alstom.


ALSTROM?????


----------



## Acela150

Well if Alstom gets it the Acela II's will be just another POS. I hope to the good lord himself that this is some BS. Siemens seems to have delivered well so far with the ACS units.


----------



## Hal

Thirdrail7 said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to an announcement from Senator Schumer, Altsom has been selected to build the Acela HSR replacements. Amtrak's board is expected to vote this afternoon to award the contract to Alstom.
> 
> 
> 
> ALSTROM?????
Click to expand...

Amtrak likes to go cheap......

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## CHamilton

http://www.schumer.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/schumer-announces-amtrak-is-set-to-select-hornells-alstom-as-part-of-25-billion-program-to-build-safer-next-generation-high-speed-trains-senator-says-project-will-create-750-jobs-including-400-direct-manufacturing-jobs-at-alstom-in-hornell-


----------



## Andrew

I wish they would release the height, length and weight specifications, as well as the seating capacity, of these new train-sets.


----------



## Thirdrail7

Acela150 said:


> Well if Alstom gets it the Acela II's will be just another POS. I hope to the good lord himself that this is some BS.* Siemens seems to have delivered well so far with the ACS units.*


Don't get ahead of yourself!!


----------



## jis

If it is Alstom it would be AGV derivative I suppose?


----------



## Fan Railer

jis said:


> If it is Alstom it would be AGV derivative I suppose?


I don't think Amtrak is looking for an articulated train set (using Jacobs trucks). I believe Alstom DID design a conventional high speed rail train set that they named the "Cordelia" which they used as part of their failed bid to win the ETR1000 contract in Italy. I would want to say that we can expect something closer to that design. That or something like the Pendolino.... God, is that thing ugly though...


----------



## afigg

Andrew said:


> I wish they would release the height, length and weight specifications, as well as the seating capacity, of these new train-sets.


Andrew, we already know the basic specifications Amtrak sought in their bid. The original spec document was posted on the CHSRA and Amtrak's procurement portal website when they sought a joint bid. I doubt if there were any changes in size constraints when Amtrak went with a solo bid. The width and height will have to be compliant with the NEC clearance envelope, so there should be few surprises there.

For length, quoting the original spec "For Amtrak, the distance between the first and last axles of the Trainset shall be a maximum of 205 m (672.6 feet)." ie, within the length of the axle spacing on the current Acelas. But as EMU trainsets, they won't have locomotives on either end.

For seating capacity, the request was "For Amtrak, the baseline interior layout shall provide a nominal 425 passenger seats." I think a range of 4xx to 450 was stated in the second range spec request, but can't find it. I expect the seating capacity will be in a press release, either this week or after the contract is signed once the negotiations are done.

We'll see if this will be in the new trainsets, although it may be years before it is known for sure (namely after internal photos of the first trainset in testing are released): "An adjustable cup holder shall be provided at each seat such that it does not require the tray table to be in the lowered position in order to be used." Whoo, cup holders! It is America!, cup holders are required. 

edit: wording fixes


----------



## Bob Dylan

Yippe, cup holders! Suddenly its the 1990s! Can't wait to ride in one of those babies!


----------



## Acela150

Thirdrail7 said:


> Acela150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if Alstom gets it the Acela II's will be just another POS. I hope to the good lord himself that this is some BS.* Siemens seems to have delivered well so far with the ACS units.*
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get ahead of yourself!!
Click to expand...

Hence the "so far".  Although from what it sounds like it seems like the issues that come up are either a quick fix or something that could be an issue that would require some attention in the form of being "shopped" for a day or two, or more. Did I see that 650 is in service?


----------



## neroden

Nothing wrong with Alstom.

It used to be that you could order from Alstom, Siemens, or Bombardier (or its numerous predecessors, AdTranz etc. were all good) and count on getting decent stuff. Then CAF, Talgo, and Kawasaki also became reliable bidders. Recently, Bombardier management lost its mind completely and stopped being reliable at all.

The only rules of thumb for ordering passenger railroad cars over the last few decades have been:

(1) never order from a company with no experience in railcars (like Boeing)

(2) never, ever order from Breda


----------



## Andrew

So then I wonder why Kawasaki or Siemens did not get the Acela Contract? http://www.mytwintiers.com/news/local-news/alstom-and-amtrak-contract-brings-jobs-to-southern-tier

If the contract does end up getting signed later today (Tuesday), then I also wonder when the first train set will get delivered and be put into revenue service.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Andrew said:


> So then I wonder why Kawasaki or Siemens did not get the Acela Contract? http://www.mytwintiers.com/news/local-news/alstom-and-amtrak-contract-brings-jobs-to-southern-tier
> 
> If the contract does end up getting signed later today (Tuesday), then I also wonder when the first train set will get delivered and be put into revenue service.


Keep two things in mind Andrew:

1) Money

2) Politics


----------



## Andrew

jimhudson said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then I wonder why Kawasaki or Siemens did not get the Acela Contract? http://www.mytwintiers.com/news/local-news/alstom-and-amtrak-contract-brings-jobs-to-southern-tier
> 
> If the contract does end up getting signed later today (Tuesday), then I also wonder when the first train set will get delivered and be put into revenue service.
> 
> 
> 
> Keep two things in mind Andrew:
> 
> 1) Money
> 
> 2) Politics
Click to expand...


Politics?


----------



## Acela150

Andrew said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then I wonder why Kawasaki or Siemens did not get the Acela Contract? http://www.mytwintiers.com/news/local-news/alstom-and-amtrak-contract-brings-jobs-to-southern-tier
> 
> If the contract does end up getting signed later today (Tuesday), then I also wonder when the first train set will get delivered and be put into revenue service.
> 
> 
> 
> Keep two things in mind Andrew:
> 
> 1) Money
> 
> 2) Politics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Politics?
Click to expand...

Is that serious? You're questioning why politics plays a game in an Amtrak order?????


----------



## VT Hokie

If the tilt mechanism and ride quality are as smooth as the Virgin Pendolinos I rode aboard over in England, they should be a nice improvement over the existing Acelas!


----------



## jis

I agree VT! I love those Virgin Pendolinos. Something like that but built to US Amtrak 14'6" loading gauge should be quite wonderful!

I suspect they might need to work a little harder to bring the NEC trackage upto standard for high speed operation though. It is much better than in the '80s and '90s but still needs a bit of work.


----------



## OBS

VT Hokie said:


> If the tilt mechanism and ride quality are as smooth as the Virgin Pendolinos I rode aboard over in England, they should be a nice improvement over the existing Acelas!


ANYTHING will be a nice improvement over the existing Acela's.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Andrew said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then I wonder why Kawasaki or Siemens did not get the Acela Contract? http://www.mytwintiers.com/news/local-news/alstom-and-amtrak-contract-brings-jobs-to-southern-tier
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> Keep two things in mind Andrew:
> 
> 1) Money
> 
> 2) Politics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Politics?
Click to expand...

For those who are just tuning in ...

Sen Schumer is a very powerful member of the U.S. Senate, currently the third ranked Democrat. He is expected to become the Democratic Leader after Harry Reid leaves in January 2017. (Reid is not running for re-election in 2016). It's always desirable for a bidder for any government contract to have a powerful supporter in Congress. (See any American war equipment maker, er, defense contractor, for examples of this factor.) And Sen Schumer is obviously pleased to be able to point to jobs he helped to bring to NY State.

From Amtrak's point of view, it's also politically beneficial to have its suppliers spread around the country. With Siemens already doing assembly of the electric locomotives in Sacramento, *California*, and Nippon Sharyo to build the bi-level cars in Rochelle, *Illinois*, now Alstom will provide a third leg with its assembly plant near Steuben, *New York*. It even helps the look of things that this plant is located in a swing district currently represented in the U.S. House by a Republican.

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

Another potential political aspect is perhaps beyond my grade level: General Electric has been involved in acquiring the electric generating equipment and electric grid equipment manufacturing businesses of Alstom. (Chiefly having an eye on the potential business to come from possible future replacements for many of the world's nuclear plants soon to be reaching their age of retirement, iirc.) The French government had numerous concerns about this takeover. One issue was whether the remaining transportation business of a much smaller Alstom would be viable. So maybe, perhaps, it could happen, that this contact somehow helps GE go forward with its much desired major acquisition.


----------



## jis

Very good points Woody!


----------



## CHamilton

Amtrak selects Alstom for Northeast Corridor train contract


----------



## Ziv

The article has links to articles that say there were options for trainsets operating up to 300, 320 and 350 kph in different areas. I think CAHSR was the 320 kph. It looks like Amtrak is looking at possible upgrades to 300 and 350 kph, and it also appears to be here on the east coast. 300 kph is around 187 mph which is a nice bump up from 160 mph for the main order. Are there any stretches of any length where Amtrak could get the Acela II's up to 187 mph? Or is this for years down the road when the existing NEC corridor may be straightened up a bit? 350 kph is what, 209 mph? That may not be huge in China or Europe, but that would be pretty darned fast here in the States if they could hit that speed for more than a few minutes at a time.

The sad part though is that higher speeds would be of even more use in the western LD routes where they could actually spend 10 or 15 minutes at the higher speed without having to brake for curves or stops. But then again, I am not sure that BN or NS would want to have 30 or 45 mile long sections of their routes being fenced in to prevent trespassers from crossing the trackage. And building the passovers and underpasses would be way too expensive for Amtrak to pay for.

Sorry if this is pretty basic stuff.

_ Amtrak required a maximum speed of 257 km/h (160 mile/h) for use on existing NEC infrastructure, with options for 300 km/h or 350 km/h, while CHSRA was seeking 320 km/h trainsets for use on a new line. _



CHamilton said:


> Amtrak selects Alstom for Northeast Corridor train contract


----------



## jis

The 300-350 kph stuff on NEC may come to pass maybe in the 2050 timeframe.


----------



## Ziv

I don't understand. Are the options kind of a long term warning of what Amtrak will be wanting a couple decades from now? Because if they are talking options for trainsets that are capable of 300-350 kph now, I would have thought the trainsets would be delivered within 5-10 years. Which would mean most of them would be retired by 2050.

(That number doesn't look like a year, it looks like a dinner reservation time...)

Anyway, I guess my point was that I was hoping that there would be 20-30 mile sections of NEC track that were capable of allowing 300 kph speeds sooner rather than later. 350 kph would be like getting biscuits with your beer, but on the east coast the short distances it would be possible probably wouldn't be worth the extra cost it would entail.

Again, I may be missing the obvious because I am not that familiar with what Amtrak is, or has been, planning.



jis said:


> The 300-350 kph stuff on NEC may come to pass maybe in the 2050 timeframe.


----------



## west point

It will take 50 years to get sections at the 300 KPH speeds. At present its not worth the effort to get small sections that fast. Instead take the money and get 160 MPH track NYP - WASH. That would reduce travel time including 4 stops to under 2 hours. Much more bang for the buck. As well there are many passengers who do not travel that complete distance so just clean up the slow orders. Just imagine the time savings NYP - PHL if PHL north station to Frankford junction and Brunswick - Newark Penn were all 160 MPH


----------



## afigg

Ziv said:


> I don't understand. Are the options kind of a long term warning of what Amtrak will be wanting a couple decades from now? Because if they are talking options for trainsets that are capable of 300-350 kph now, I would have thought the trainsets would be delivered within 5-10 years. Which would mean most of them would be retired by 2050.
> 
> (That number doesn't look like a year, it looks like a dinner reservation time...)
> 
> Anyway, I guess my point was that I was hoping that there would be 20-30 mile sections of NEC track that were capable of allowing 300 kph speeds sooner rather than later. 350 kph would be like getting biscuits with your beer, but on the east coast the short distances it would be possible probably wouldn't be worth the extra cost it would entail.
> 
> Again, I may be missing the obvious because I am not that familiar with what Amtrak is, or has been, planning.


The 300 to 350 kph speeds for the NEC came out of Amtrak's Next Gen NEC Vision plan from 2012 which envisioned new tracks for 220 mph operation between WAS and NYP by 2030. If Amtrak is buying new HSR trainsets that would be delivered in circa 2020 with a 20-25 year operating lifespan, then it follows to at least be open in the RFP for bidders to submit HSR trainsets that could operate at speeds above 160 mph for the 2030 time frame. But the reality is that there are major funding hurdles to modernize the existing NEC, expand its capacity, get the NEC to a state of good repair, and the really big ticket Gateway project.
IMO, getting multiple segments up to 160 mph speeds, getting Gateway built, replacing the RF&P tunnel and the movable bridges that are way past their replacement date, expanding to (mostly) four tracks on the WAS to WIL segment, and getting the NEC to somewhere in the ballpark of a state of good repair over the next 15-20 years would represent substantial progress and is more politically realistic. The long term planning for the NEC is now in the domain of the NEC Future EIS study and the NEC Commission, not so much up to Amtrak.


----------



## Andrew

afigg said:


> Ziv said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand. Are the options kind of a long term warning of what Amtrak will be wanting a couple decades from now? Because if they are talking options for trainsets that are capable of 300-350 kph now, I would have thought the trainsets would be delivered within 5-10 years. Which would mean most of them would be retired by 2050.
> 
> (That number doesn't look like a year, it looks like a dinner reservation time...)
> 
> Anyway, I guess my point was that I was hoping that there would be 20-30 mile sections of NEC track that were capable of allowing 300 kph speeds sooner rather than later. 350 kph would be like getting biscuits with your beer, but on the east coast the short distances it would be possible probably wouldn't be worth the extra cost it would entail.
> 
> Again, I may be missing the obvious because I am not that familiar with what Amtrak is, or has been, planning.
> 
> 
> 
> The 300 to 350 kph speeds for the NEC came out of Amtrak's Next Gen NEC Vision plan from 2012 which envisioned new tracks for 220 mph operation between WAS and NYP by 2030. If Amtrak is buying new HSR trainsets that would be delivered in circa 2020 with a 20-25 year operating lifespan, then it follows to at least be open in the RFP for bidders to submit HSR trainsets that could operate at speeds above 160 mph for the 2030 time frame. But the reality is that there are major funding hurdles to modernize the existing NEC, expand its capacity, get the NEC to a state of good repair, and the really big ticket Gateway project.
> IMO, getting multiple segments up to 160 mph speeds, getting Gateway built, replacing the RF&P tunnel and the movable bridges that are way past their replacement date, expanding to (mostly) four tracks on the WAS to WIL segment, and getting the NEC to somewhere in the ballpark of a state of good repair over the next 15-20 years would represent substantial progress and is more politically realistic. The long term planning for the NEC is now in the domain of the NEC Future EIS study and the NEC Commission, not so much up to Amtrak.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that Amtrak was originally going to take out a $2.7 Billion RRIF Loan for the new train sets, but the news says the cost is now $2.5 billion. Does anyone know why this is the case?

I believe that Amtrak wants to operate the new train sets beginning in approximately four years or so--until at least 2045!

If Amtrak is able to borrow for new train sets, then why can't Amtrak also borrow to help pay the Fed's half for Gateway if they are likely to plug future NEC Profits back into the NEC?


----------



## A Voice

Andrew said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ziv said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand. Are the options kind of a long term warning of what Amtrak will be wanting a couple decades from now? Because if they are talking options for trainsets that are capable of 300-350 kph now, I would have thought the trainsets would be delivered within 5-10 years. Which would mean most of them would be retired by 2050.
> 
> (That number doesn't look like a year, it looks like a dinner reservation time...)
> 
> Anyway, I guess my point was that I was hoping that there would be 20-30 mile sections of NEC track that were capable of allowing 300 kph speeds sooner rather than later. 350 kph would be like getting biscuits with your beer, but on the east coast the short distances it would be possible probably wouldn't be worth the extra cost it would entail.
> 
> Again, I may be missing the obvious because I am not that familiar with what Amtrak is, or has been, planning.
> 
> 
> 
> The 300 to 350 kph speeds for the NEC came out of Amtrak's Next Gen NEC Vision plan from 2012 which envisioned new tracks for 220 mph operation between WAS and NYP by 2030. If Amtrak is buying new HSR trainsets that would be delivered in circa 2020 with a 20-25 year operating lifespan, then it follows to at least be open in the RFP for bidders to submit HSR trainsets that could operate at speeds above 160 mph for the 2030 time frame. But the reality is that there are major funding hurdles to modernize the existing NEC, expand its capacity, get the NEC to a state of good repair, and the really big ticket Gateway project.
> IMO, getting multiple segments up to 160 mph speeds, getting Gateway built, replacing the RF&P tunnel and the movable bridges that are way past their replacement date, expanding to (mostly) four tracks on the WAS to WIL segment, and getting the NEC to somewhere in the ballpark of a state of good repair over the next 15-20 years would represent substantial progress and is more politically realistic. The long term planning for the NEC is now in the domain of the NEC Future EIS study and the NEC Commission, not so much up to Amtrak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was under the impression that Amtrak was originally going to take out a $2.7 Billion RRIF Loan for the new train sets, but the news says the cost is now $2.5 billion. Does anyone know why this is the case?
> 
> I believe that Amtrak wants to operate the new train sets beginning in approximately four years or so--until at least 2045!
> 
> If Amtrak is able to borrow for new train sets, then why can't Amtrak also borrow to help pay the Fed's half for Gateway if they are likely to plug future NEC Profits back into the NEC?
Click to expand...

The debt burden on a loan for a significant portion of the Gateway project would be crushing, to say the least. Even the $2.5 to $2.7 billion suggested for Acela replacements is rather substantial and will consume a large chunk of Amtrak's budget for decades, even allowing for (presumed) higher revenues for expanded and improved service. Really, these trainsets should be paid for through federal appropriations - and if we wait for that, the existing Acela equipment will be older than the current Heritage diners by the time it happens!

Indeed, if the trains are to be available in the 4-5 year timeframe, it appears Amtrak intends to retire the original Acela cars & locomotives as soon as the leases expire (or even earlier, perhaps). We know Acela is expensive to operate; Will the new sets have substantially lower maintenance and operating costs? Had the Acela design not been such a lemon from the beginning, we wouldn't be seeing complete replacement at less than 20 years of service.


----------



## afigg

Andrew said:


> I was under the impression that Amtrak was originally going to take out a $2.7 Billion RRIF Loan for the new train sets, but the news says the cost is now $2.5 billion. Does anyone know why this is the case?
> 
> I believe that Amtrak wants to operate the new train sets beginning in approximately four years or so--until at least 2045!
> 
> If Amtrak is able to borrow for new train sets, then why can't Amtrak also borrow to help pay the Fed's half for Gateway if they are likely to plug future NEC Profits back into the NEC?


Andrew, can we please keep this on-topic? Posts about the HSR trainsets or NEC track improvement plans that affect what Amtrak might be ordering are on-topic. How the NEC Gateway project might get paid for is off-topic and should be kept to the Gateway threads.
At this point, there is a lot we do not know about the contract, the proposed delivery schedule, or what type of trainsets Alstom is offering. It appears that we will have to wait for more information.


----------



## afigg

A Voice said:


> Indeed, if the trains are to be available in the 4-5 year timeframe, it appears Amtrak intends to retire the original Acela cars & locomotives as soon as the leases expire (or even earlier, perhaps). We know Acela is expensive to operate; Will the new sets have substantially lower maintenance and operating costs? Had the Acela design not been such a lemon from the beginning, we wouldn't be seeing complete replacement at less than 20 years of service.


A major factor pushing Amtrak to replace the Acelas at 20 years is the limited 303 seat capacity and the 20 trainsets. The Acelas were brought with too few coach cars. The plan to buy 40 additional coach cars of a unique design to expand the Acela trainsets was determined to be uneconomic and problematic with the rest of the Acela rolling stock well through its operating lifespan. Amtrak is leaving a LOT of revenue on the table because of the limited seat capacity and only 20 trainsets. 28 new trainsets with circa 425 seats will double the Acela class seat capacity on the NEC.
So, get new trainsets and return the Acelas to the lease holder when the leases expires. The Acelas are not lemons in that they have been financially successful and have expanded Amtrak's profile as a travel option along the cities of the Northeast corridor.


----------



## neroden

A Voice said:


> We know Acela is expensive to operate; Will the new sets have substantially lower maintenance and operating costs?


Depends on whether FRA allows the trains to be designed with "crash energy management" and "positive train control" instead of obsolete "buff strength", "corner posts", "collision posts", etc. The Acelas are full of parts which wear out too fast because the trains are too heavy.


----------



## Andrew

afigg said:


> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, if the trains are to be available in the 4-5 year timeframe, it appears Amtrak intends to retire the original Acela cars & locomotives as soon as the leases expire (or even earlier, perhaps). We know Acela is expensive to operate; Will the new sets have substantially lower maintenance and operating costs? Had the Acela design not been such a lemon from the beginning, we wouldn't be seeing complete replacement at less than 20 years of service.
> 
> 
> 
> A major factor pushing Amtrak to replace the Acelas at 20 years is the limited 303 seat capacity and the 20 trainsets. The Acelas were brought with too few coach cars. The plan to buy 40 additional coach cars of a unique design to expand the Acela trainsets was determined to be uneconomic and problematic with the rest of the Acela rolling stock well through its operating lifespan. Amtrak is leaving a LOT of revenue on the table because of the limited seat capacity and only 20 trainsets. 28 new trainsets with circa 425 seats will double the Acela class seat capacity on the NEC.
> So, get new trainsets and return the Acelas to the lease holder when the leases expires. The Acelas are not lemons in that they have been financially successful and have expanded Amtrak's profile as a travel option along the cities of the Northeast corridor.
Click to expand...

Amtrak's new Acela Train-sets are supposed to have a 40% increase in seating capacity (or possibly more)--and a 30 year lifespan--which means they could potentially be in revenue service until 2050!

I wonder why Amtrak did not look into a much longer train-set--perhaps 850 feet like a typical Long Island Rail Road Train. With more and more folks using Amtrak on the Northeast Corridor, perhaps this option should have been considered.

By Amtrak going into distributed power--instead of concentrated power--these new Acela train-sets will have 40% more seats in the same train length.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Andrew said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, if the trains are to be available in the 4-5 year timeframe . . .
> 
> 
> 
> A major factor pushing Amtrak to replace the Acelas at 20 years is the limited 303 seat capacity and the 20 trainsets. The Acelas were brought with too few coach cars. . . . Amtrak is leaving a LOT of revenue on the table because of the limited seat capacity and only 20 trainsets.
> 
> 28 new trainsets with circa 425 seats will double the Acela class seat capacity on the NEC.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amtrak's new Acela Train-sets are supposed to have a 40% increase in seating capacity (or possibly more)--and a 30 year lifespan--which means they could potentially be in revenue service until 2050!
> 
> ...
> 
> By Amtrak going into distributed power--instead of concentrated power--these new Acela train-sets will have 40% more seats in the same train length.
Click to expand...

Yes. You've got it! That's the whole point of this new equipment order.

However, saying something like,

"_I wonder why Amtrak did not look into a much longer train-set--perhaps ... this option should have been considered_,"

is NOT getting it. LOL. You can be *sure *that Amtrak considered it. Even if they didn't tell you and me.

As I'm sure you understand upon a moment's reflection, every Amtrak station is obsolete and overcrowded now, and things are getting worse. One of the problems, discussed on this blog from time to time, is that many of the platforms are too short to serve very long trains. Of course, both Penn Station and Union Station are at the small beginnings of massive rebuilds. But the platform issues won't be much better by 2020 or so when we hope to see Acela capacity double.

Now venturing beyond my comfort zone, I'll offer that _perhaps_ the new Acela II trainsets using distributed power could be lengthened in the future, when or if abundant long platforms to serve them become available. But doubling capacity with equipment that is, we hope, newer, better, lighter, faster, cheaper to operate and to maintain, makes this such a very good deal that *it's a very good deal* within a 20-year time frame. So never mind sweating 2050 and any later years.


----------



## Ryan

It's also the maintenance facility length, so even if the platforms get longer we may not see any change.


----------



## Hal

WoodyinNYC said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, if the trains are to be available in the 4-5 year timeframe . . .
> 
> 
> 
> A major factor pushing Amtrak to replace the Acelas at 20 years is the limited 303 seat capacity and the 20 trainsets. The Acelas were brought with too few coach cars. . . . Amtrak is leaving a LOT of revenue on the table because of the limited seat capacity and only 20 trainsets.
> 
> 28 new trainsets with circa 425 seats will double the Acela class seat capacity on the NEC.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amtrak's new Acela Train-sets are supposed to have a 40% increase in seating capacity (or possibly more)--and a 30 year lifespan--which means they could potentially be in revenue service until 2050!
> 
> ...
> 
> By Amtrak going into distributed power--instead of concentrated power--these new Acela train-sets will have 40% more seats in the same train length.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. You've got it! That's the whole point of this new equipment order.
> 
> However, saying something like,
> 
> "_I wonder why Amtrak did not look into a much longer train-set--perhaps ... this option should have been considered_,"
> 
> is NOT getting it. LOL. You can be *sure *that Amtrak considered it. Even if they didn't tell you and me.
> 
> As I'm sure you understand upon a moment's reflection, every Amtrak station is obsolete and overcrowded now, and things are getting worse. One of the problems, discussed on this blog from time to time, is that many of the platforms are too short to serve very long trains. Of course, both Penn Station and Union Station are at the small beginnings of massive rebuilds. But the platform issues won't be much better by 2020 or so when we hope to see Acela capacity double.
> 
> Now venturing beyond my comfort zone, I'll offer that _perhaps_ the new Acela II trainsets using distributed power could be lengthened in the future, when or if abundant long platforms to serve them become available. But doubling capacity with equipment that is, we hope, newer, better, lighter, faster, cheaper to operate and to maintain, makes this such a very good deal that *it's a very good deal* within a 20-year time frame. So never mind sweating 2050 and any later years.
Click to expand...

The main problem is the maintenance facilities not the platforms. The facilities are built for the current Acela length and expanding the buildings is problematic at their locations.


----------



## VT Hokie

Hal said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, if the trains are to be available in the 4-5 year timeframe . . .
> 
> 
> 
> A major factor pushing Amtrak to replace the Acelas at 20 years is the limited 303 seat capacity and the 20 trainsets. The Acelas were brought with too few coach cars. . . . Amtrak is leaving a LOT of revenue on the table because of the limited seat capacity and only 20 trainsets.
> 
> 28 new trainsets with circa 425 seats will double the Acela class seat capacity on the NEC.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amtrak's new Acela Train-sets are supposed to have a 40% increase in seating capacity (or possibly more)--and a 30 year lifespan--which means they could potentially be in revenue service until 2050!
> 
> ...
> 
> By Amtrak going into distributed power--instead of concentrated power--these new Acela train-sets will have 40% more seats in the same train length.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. You've got it! That's the whole point of this new equipment order.
> 
> However, saying something like,
> 
> "_I wonder why Amtrak did not look into a much longer train-set--perhaps ... this option should have been considered_,"
> 
> is NOT getting it. LOL. You can be *sure *that Amtrak considered it. Even if they didn't tell you and me.
> 
> As I'm sure you understand upon a moment's reflection, every Amtrak station is obsolete and overcrowded now, and things are getting worse. One of the problems, discussed on this blog from time to time, is that many of the platforms are too short to serve very long trains. Of course, both Penn Station and Union Station are at the small beginnings of massive rebuilds. But the platform issues won't be much better by 2020 or so when we hope to see Acela capacity double.
> 
> Now venturing beyond my comfort zone, I'll offer that _perhaps_ the new Acela II trainsets using distributed power could be lengthened in the future, when or if abundant long platforms to serve them become available. But doubling capacity with equipment that is, we hope, newer, better, lighter, faster, cheaper to operate and to maintain, makes this such a very good deal that *it's a very good deal* within a 20-year time frame. So never mind sweating 2050 and any later years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The main problem is the maintenance facilities not the platforms. The facilities are built for the current Acela length and expanding the buildings is problematic at their locations.
Click to expand...

Which means that potentially, Amtrak could run two sets together as is commonly done in Europe with trains like the ICE 3.


----------



## Acela150

Is it possible for the HST maintenance facilities to handle a 7 car set? Maybe 8?

Also I'm sure it was brought up but I've missed it if it was. How many TS will be ordered?


----------



## Ryan

Nope. The axle to axle length was specified for as long as they could possible be.

Somewhere around here (maybe even in this thread!) I posted an overhead shot of the shop in Boston that shows the difficulty one would experience in trying to lengthen it. It's pretty wedged in there.


----------



## Fan Railer

Acela150 said:


> Is it possible for the HST maintenance facilities to handle a 7 car set? Maybe 8?
> 
> Also I'm sure it was brought up but I've missed it if it was. How many TS will be ordered?


28 train sets in the base order. They're looking to expand the HST fleet to 46 train sets if they can get the funding (this is coming from the outdated NEC vision report from 2012; http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/453/325/Amtrak-Vision-for-the-Northeast-Corridor.pdf)by 2040.


----------



## Andrew

I'm sure Amtrak considered train-sets around 800 or so feet.

Then maybe maintenance facilities in different sections of yards could have been built?

Stations where the Acela Express stops, such as Philadelphia and New York Penn Station, can definitely platform trains that are longer than 800 feet--which is a fact.

Next generation train sets are expected to be lighter--which means that they can accelerate quicker out of busy stations such as Newark Penn Station.

Lolz, I bet by 2025 or 2027, Amtrak regrets not ordering train sets with a larger seating capacity! The next generation train sets are supposed to be around 200 meters--which is about 656 feet. Well, adding two 85 foot coaches would get a train-set to a little longer than 800 feet. Plus, for people worried about longer deboarding times, New York's Penn Station is getting an extension of the West-end Concourse to Amtrak's platforms, which should speed up exit times, and in Philadelphia, people simply just go down the escalator (or stairs) to wait for the Acela train to come in like 10 minutes before it's scheduled arrival.

With newer, quieter, better, faster--and safer--train-sets, Amtrak could have easily borrowed a little bit of more money with the expectation that future Acela Express trains would see very healthy ridership growth. More train-sets= more revenue for Amtrak, more jobs in the Northeast, and a smaller carbon footprint for travelers! Ridership will increase as more young folks end up taking the train, and if more and more people use Amtrak during busy travel times, such as the week of Thanksgiving and if the USA does end up getting the 2022 or 2026 FIFA World Cup.

From Amtrak's five year plan in February: http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/133/704/FY15-Budget-Business-Plan-FY16-Budget-Justification-FY-15-19-Five-Year-Financial-Plan.pdf Page 82:

[SIZE=11pt]Amtrak has cut its outstanding indebtedness over the past seven years from $3.3 billion to $1.3 billion as of September 30, 2014, a decline of 61%. Debt reduction was accomplished by a variety of means, including (i) exercise of lease early buyout options; (ii) negotiated early terminations of leases and loans; and (iii) scheduled principal amortization.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]The current debt level of $1.3 billion outstanding will be the lowest point at which Amtrak will stand over the next decade. The above debt schedule does not include debt for procurement of Next Generation High-Speed Trainsets. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Purchase of 28 NextGen Trainsets and related investments by Amtrak will require new debt to be incurred. This new debt, expected to amount to approximately $2.7 billion in total, will be sourced via the FRA’s RRIF loan program, and will permit a six-year deferral of repayment during the construction period and a twenty-five year mortgage-style repayment period. [/SIZE]

and page 152:

Next-Generation High-Speed Rail Programs


[SIZE=11pt]Delivering the next generation of high-speed rail service to the Northeast Corridor over the coming decades pursuant to Amtrak’s [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]NEC Vision [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]plan (described in the discussion of the Infrastructure and Corporate Development business line) will involve construction of dedicated tracks and stations for the length of the corridor. The long-term commitment and investment necessary to complete these initiatives is outside of the scope of the annual appropriations process and the associated five year financial plan; rather, funding these initiatives will require separate and distinct financing from Governmental and/or private sources. For this reason no financial estimates are included with this document.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Over the next five years, the focus will be on the commencement of two important cornerstones of the high-speed rail strategy: the Gateway Program and the acquisition of Next Generation High- Speed Trainsets. These projects are described in the discussions of the Infrastructure and Corporate Development business line and the Fleet Strategy, respectively. [/SIZE]


----------



## Thirdrail7

Ryan said:


> It's also the maintenance facility length, so even if the platforms get longer we may not see any change.





> Hal, on 23 Sept 2015 - 8:51 PM, said:
> 
> The main problem is the maintenance facilities not the platforms. The facilities are built for the current Acela length and expanding the buildings is problematic at their locations.


There are plans to modify all facilities to accommodate the longer trains. They are quite impressive. I hope the plans are funded as part of the procurement.



Acela150 said:


> Is it possible for the HST maintenance facilities to handle a 7 car set? Maybe 8?
> 
> Also I'm sure it was brought up but I've missed it if it was. How many TS will be ordered?


They've all handled 8 cars Acela sets. Indeed, in OCT 2011, they ran a 9 car Acela test train. The problem is even if WTC and NYT could support those lengths, Boston can't particularly in the winter.

That being said, I'm still little surprised at Alstom being selected, particularly when you consider this:

Amtrak IG's finds big money hole with supplier.

It takes two to tango. I'd venture to say the politics behind this decision are intense.


----------



## west point

Other posters probably have the correct idea. Limiting the new -2s seems counter productive. Granted the servicing facility size at BOS is a major problem It may be another facility that is longer will be needed in BOS. That facility would not only be for a stretched -2s but also longer regionals When BOS platforms are lengthened all trains there will be able to be longer.

Several solutions may be possible. The new -2s may be modified EMUs with CAT power pickup at each end. Maybe some train sets can be longer for exclusive use NYP - WASH. It may be two trains sets could be connected together such as TGVs are. Only problem no pass thru between the two sets


----------



## Fan Railer

LOL:

http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/high-speed/amtrak-refutes-us-senators-assertion-on-hs-train-deal.html?channel=523



> SOURCES at Amtrak have told IRJ's North American sister publication _Railway Age_, that claims by the US senator for New York, Senator Charles Schumer, that Amtrak has selected Alstom as preferred bidder for a contract to supply a fleet of high-speed trains, are premature.


----------



## CHamilton

CHamilton said:


> Amtrak selects Alstom for Northeast Corridor train contract


Well, maybe not.



> Schumer shoots his mouth off—again
> 
> My source at Amtrak says the trainset contract is still an “open procurement” and that the board is “furious” that Mr. Give Me the Microphone and Take My Picture (my description, for the record) took liberties to declare a winner when in fact Amtrak management has been given the go-ahead to negotiate with not one, but two pre-qualified builders, one of which is Alstom.


----------



## Thirdrail7

Well, that was fast. It looks like Dutchrailnut was correct all along.


----------



## afigg

VT Hokie said:


> Which means that potentially, Amtrak could run two sets together as is commonly done in Europe with trains like the ICE 3.


No, Amtrak can't do that. Platform length is an issue for trainsets longer than 9 cars. The high level platforms at DC Union station are all 9 cars long. I think BOS has high level platforms that are only 9 cars long as well. There are stations on the NEC with 10 car long platforms. A 16 car long double HSR trainset is not a viable option for the NEC. Double stops would kill trip times. The goal for the NEC appears to be be to have 12 car long high level platforms as the baseline configuration, but it will take decades to get there, if it can ever be achieved.
The Acela is 6 coach cars plus power cars on both ends. The earlier plan of inserting 2 coach car would have fit at WAS because the consist would be 1 power car off the end of the platform, 8 coach cars, 1 power car at the end of the platform and track.

CA HSR was looking for HSR trainsets which could be coupled as their spec calls for 400 meter long platforms. When the full system is built, they could have a double trainset depart LA Union Station that would split in the northern end of the valley, with 1 trainset headed for SF and the other for Sacramento. But that is the advantage of building a modern HSR from scratch.


----------



## afigg

CHamilton said:


> Well, maybe not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer shoots his mouth off—again
> 
> My source at Amtrak says the trainset contract is still an “open procurement” and that the board is “furious” that Mr. Give Me the Microphone and Take My Picture (my description, for the record) took liberties to declare a winner when in fact Amtrak management has been given the go-ahead to negotiate with not one, but two pre-qualified builders, one of which is Alstom.
Click to expand...

Wow, just wow. I figured with Schumer making the announcement that he had cleared it with Amtrak and Amtrak was letting him take the lead for political reasons. Someone at Amtrak should have thrown themselves in front of Schumer to stop him on Monday if they knew he was going to do this. There is no upside for Amtrak in allowing Senator Schumer to be embarrassed if Amtrak selects the other bidder. Someone on Schumer's staff or at Amtrak may have to take the fall for his announcement if Amtrak doesn't go with Alstom in December.

But this begs the question, who is the other remaining qualified bidder? Will this info leak? Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## jis

Schumer? embarrassed? That would be the day! With friends like Schumer, who needs any enemies? It is entirely possible that this is Schumer way of politically interfering in what should be a business decision, to make it the way he wants it. And we wonder why Amtrak is a mess? Seriously it is this sort of thing that causes many people, who otherwise like passenger rail, want to see Amtrak simply go away and be replaced by something else.


----------



## Fan Railer

afigg said:


> CHamilton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, maybe not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer shoots his mouth off—again
> 
> My source at Amtrak says the trainset contract is still an “open procurement” and that the board is “furious” that Mr. Give Me the Microphone and Take My Picture (my description, for the record) took liberties to declare a winner when in fact Amtrak management has been given the go-ahead to negotiate with not one, but two pre-qualified builders, one of which is Alstom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, just wow. I figured with Schumer making the announcement that he had cleared it with Amtrak and Amtrak was letting him take the lead for political reasons. Someone at Amtrak should have thrown themselves in front of Schumer to stop him on Monday if they knew he was going to do this. There is no upside for Amtrak in allowing Senator Schumer to be embarrassed if Amtrak selects the other bidder. Someone on Schumer's staff or at Amtrak may have to take the fall for his announcement if Amtrak doesn't go with Alstom in December.
> 
> But this begs the question, who is the other remaining qualified bidder? Will this info leak? Inquiring minds want to know.
Click to expand...

I'd put my money on the remaining qualified bidder being Siemens. I mean with Bombardier clearly out of the running, who else would there be? Some Chinese firm? Kawasaki?


----------



## Bob Dylan

Unless "politics" forces it to go to some outfit that has never built Rail Cars before! 

Based on a True Story repeated many times in Washington and various State Capitols!


----------



## PerRock

Nippon Shayro (Shinkansen), CAF (Oaris), CRRC, Hyundai Rotem; they all have HSR trains in some sort of development stage & have a footing here in the U.S.. Although if I were a betting man, my money would be on Siemens being the other bidder.

peter

PS, there is a very slim chance that an MPI, GE, or EMD put in a bid, but I highly doubt it.


----------



## Andrew

Fan Railer said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CHamilton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, maybe not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer shoots his mouth off—again
> 
> My source at Amtrak says the trainset contract is still an “open procurement” and that the board is “furious” that Mr. Give Me the Microphone and Take My Picture (my description, for the record) took liberties to declare a winner when in fact Amtrak management has been given the go-ahead to negotiate with not one, but two pre-qualified builders, one of which is Alstom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, just wow. I figured with Schumer making the announcement that he had cleared it with Amtrak and Amtrak was letting him take the lead for political reasons. Someone at Amtrak should have thrown themselves in front of Schumer to stop him on Monday if they knew he was going to do this. There is no upside for Amtrak in allowing Senator Schumer to be embarrassed if Amtrak selects the other bidder. Someone on Schumer's staff or at Amtrak may have to take the fall for his announcement if Amtrak doesn't go with Alstom in December.
> 
> But this begs the question, who is the other remaining qualified bidder? Will this info leak? Inquiring minds want to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd put my money on the remaining qualified bidder being Siemens. I mean with Bombardier clearly out of the running, who else would there be? Some Chinese firm? Kawasaki?
Click to expand...

I'd bet that the other firm is Kawasaki since Siemens already got the electric locomotive contract.

By (potentially) having Kawasaki manufacture the new train-sets, Amtrak's new fleet would be manufactured in California (Siemens), Illinois (Nippon Sharyo) and New York State (either by Kawasaki or Alstom).


----------



## leemell

jis said:


> Schumer? embarrassed? That would be the day! With friends like Schumer, who needs any enemies? It is entirely possible that this is Schumer way of politically interfering in what should be a business decision, to make it the way he wants it. And we wonder why Amtrak is a mess? Seriously it is this sort of thing that causes many people, who otherwise like passenger rail, want to see Amtrak simply go away and be replaced by something else.


That was my thought as soon as I saw Schumer's name mentioned. I would even call it probable as means to influence the decision.


----------



## afigg

PerRock said:


> Nippon Shayro (Shinkansen), CAF (Oaris), CRRC, Hyundai Rotem; they all have HSR trains in some sort of development stage & have a footing here in the U.S.. Although if I were a betting man, my money would be on Siemens being the other bidder.
> 
> peter
> 
> PS, there is a very slim chance that an MPI, GE, or EMD put in a bid, but I highly doubt it.


Unless MPI, GE or EMD have an existing HSR trainset design in revenue service that has been overlooked, they would not have put in a bid. From the joint Amtrak-CSHRA specification document requirement for "service-proven" trainsets and components: "Refers to Trainset Standard Platform in use in commercial high speed passenger service at least 257.5 km/h (160 mph) for a minimum of two years." I doubt that Amtrak would have dropped that requirement when they re-issued the bid for Amtrak only.

So, unless a bidder can persuade Amtrak to waive the requirement and gamble on a new unproven HSR trainset, the bids should have been for trainsets based on types currently in revenue service. Within some constraint on how much modification is acceptable to Amtrak and the technical reviewers scoring the bids. Hopefully, after the winner is selected, one of the railroad industry trade press magazine or sites will provide information (or leak) who submitted bids and a summary of what trainset types they submitted.


----------



## jis

PerRock said:


> Nippon Shayro (Shinkansen), CAF (Oaris), CRRC, Hyundai Rotem; they all have HSR trains in some sort of development stage & have a footing here in the U.S.. Although if I were a betting man, my money would be on Siemens being the other bidder.
> 
> peter
> 
> PS, there is a very slim chance that an MPI, GE, or EMD put in a bid, but I highly doubt it.


It is not like this was open to all comers. In the first round I believe something like 6 or so we're prequalified. We know Bombardier was not one of them of their own choice. There is zero chance that GE or EMD or MPI were included. They simply are not competent in HSR. What has happened is short listing to two. And Mr. Megaphone apparently deliberately or otherwise chose to jump the gun and announce his own selection based on nothing. Typical political content free hot air about how much he has worked with Alstom. Even Alstom was truly embarrassed with this enormous faux pas, which places them in a difficult situation. It will be interesting to see how much damage he has caused the selection process, and whether he has managed to set things back by several years. Sigh...


----------



## StriderGDM

leemell said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer? embarrassed? That would be the day! With friends like Schumer, who needs any enemies? It is entirely possible that this is Schumer way of politically interfering in what should be a business decision, to make it the way he wants it. And we wonder why Amtrak is a mess? Seriously it is this sort of thing that causes many people, who otherwise like passenger rail, want to see Amtrak simply go away and be replaced by something else.
> 
> 
> 
> That was my thought as soon as I saw Schumer's name mentioned. I would even call it probable as means to influence the decision.
Click to expand...

There's another possibility: Someone setup Schumer to make him look bad.

This is NYS after all.


----------



## Andrew

In my opinion, Amtrak could have gone with a slightly longer train-set (9 units instead of an expected 8), and lengthened the platforms in Washington, D.C. as well as realigned the switches there. I really do bet that Amtrak Acela ridership will only continue to grow, and longer train-sets will help with the mobility of the Northeast Corridor.

Also, perhaps Alstom really did get the contract after all:

http://www.eveningtribune.com/article/20150924/NEWS/150929879


----------



## afigg

Andrew said:


> In my opinion, Amtrak could have gone with a slightly longer train-set (9 units instead of an expected 8), and lengthened the platforms in Washington, D.C. as well as realigned the switches there. I really do bet that Amtrak Acela ridership will only continue to grow, and longer train-sets will help with the mobility of the Northeast Corridor.
> 
> Also, perhaps Alstom really did get the contract after all:
> 
> http://www.eveningtribune.com/article/20150924/NEWS/150929879


Andrew, lengthening the high level platforms on the upper level at DC Union Station is not a simple item. Can only be done after the parking garage over the track is removed AFAIK. Which is part of the ambitious mulit-decade long plan for a major rebuild of the track and platform end of DC Union Station. Until WAS and BOS are rebuilt, and for that matter, the Acela maintenance facilities at those 2 stations are lengthened, the length constraints for new HSR trainsets are an issue.

As for the article you linked to, boy, what sort of political games was Schumer playing on Monday with his announcement? I think we can venture that who ever the other remaining bidder is, they don't have a manufacturing plant in NY state.


----------



## Andrew

afigg said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, Amtrak could have gone with a slightly longer train-set (9 units instead of an expected 8), and lengthened the platforms in Washington, D.C. as well as realigned the switches there. I really do bet that Amtrak Acela ridership will only continue to grow, and longer train-sets will help with the mobility of the Northeast Corridor.
> 
> Also, perhaps Alstom really did get the contract after all:
> 
> http://www.eveningtribune.com/article/20150924/NEWS/150929879
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew, lengthening the high level platforms on the upper level at DC Union Station is not a simple item. Can only be done after the parking garage over the track is removed AFAIK. Which is part of the ambitious mulit-decade long plan for a major rebuild of the track and platform end of DC Union Station. Until WAS and BOS are rebuilt, and for that matter, the Acela maintenance facilities at those 2 stations are lengthened, the length constraints for new HSR trainsets are an issue.
> 
> As for the article you linked to, boy, what sort of political games was Schumer playing on Monday with his announcement? I think we can venture that who ever the other remaining bidder is, they don't have a manufacturing plant in NY state.
Click to expand...


Which makes it probably Siemens?


----------



## leemell

StriderGDM said:


> leemell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer? embarrassed? That would be the day! With friends like Schumer, who needs any enemies? It is entirely possible that this is Schumer way of politically interfering in what should be a business decision, to make it the way he wants it. And we wonder why Amtrak is a mess? Seriously it is this sort of thing that causes many people, who otherwise like passenger rail, want to see Amtrak simply go away and be replaced by something else.
> 
> 
> 
> That was my thought as soon as I saw Schumer's name mentioned. I would even call it probable as means to influence the decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's another possibility: Someone setup Schumer to make him look bad.
> 
> This is NYS after all.
Click to expand...

That is not possible.


----------



## A Voice

afigg said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, Amtrak could have gone with a slightly longer train-set (9 units instead of an expected 8), and lengthened the platforms in Washington, D.C. as well as realigned the switches there. I really do bet that Amtrak Acela ridership will only continue to grow, and longer train-sets will help with the mobility of the Northeast Corridor.
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew, lengthening the high level platforms on the upper level at DC Union Station is not a simple item. Can only be done after the parking garage over the track is removed AFAIK. Which is part of the ambitious mulit-decade long plan for a major rebuild of the track and platform end of DC Union Station. Until WAS and BOS are rebuilt, and for that matter, the Acela maintenance facilities at those 2 stations are lengthened, the length constraints for new HSR trainsets are an issue.
Click to expand...

While lengthening platforms and maintenance facilities would be difficult and thus carry a hefty price tag, we're already talking about spending $2.5 billion plus here, on trainsets (and related investment) which will be in service for many decades to come. Rather than limit passenger capacity for the duration (or at least for many years), it seems like it might be worthwhile to spend the money now (within reason) to relocate service facilities and expand platforms. Anyone care to guess what all that work would actually cost?

Certainly the sets may be lengthened in the future, but such "second phase" projects have a tendency not to happen (more Viewliners in the 90's, the Acela coaches, etc.).


----------



## jis

Remember that the first phase of Acela almost did not happen too. It happened only because Canada came up with a financing scheme. So be very careful before proposing various ornaments on the Christmas tree. Amtrak capital planning staff are not idiots. They have decades of experience playing this fine balancing game. Armchair quarterbacking based on insufficient information about the real constraints that they are working under while quite interesting is also quite easy to lead to proposals that are infeasible in the real world.


----------



## Andrew

Well, one way how Amtrak is increasing Acela seating capacity is to increase the size of the fleet by 40%, from 20 train-sets to 28 train-sets.


----------



## Acela150

It will be interesting to see the backlash IF Alstom is not selected as the builder. I honestly think Chucky from NY threw Amtrak under the bus in a way.

Now I'm going to take a gander of a guess that Amtrak is looking for Half Hourly Service with the 28 set order.


----------



## jis

Amtrak has been quoted by the International Railway Journal stating that there are two shortlisted vendors under consideration and no final decision has been made yet.

All that remains to be seen is how much harm Chucky has caused the process by running his motor mouth.


----------



## frequentflyer

So what will the cars look like? AGV like the Italo?


----------



## keelhauled

We don't even know who's building the things yet and you want to know what they'll look like?


----------



## frequentflyer

keelhauled said:


> We don't even know who's building the things yet and you want to know what they'll look like?


Well it does look like its leaning toward Alstom unless political aware Amtrak wants tick off a senior democratic senator.


----------



## Hal

frequentflyer said:


> keelhauled said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't even know who's building the things yet and you want to know what they'll look like?
> 
> 
> 
> Well it does look like its leaning toward Alstom unless political aware Amtrak wants tick off a senior democratic senator.
Click to expand...

I would guess that they have to consider all bidders that meet the specifications. Also if there are two that they can't pick one over the other based on the Senator. That's not to say that they could not find reason to pick that one. Consider too that other states have senior Democrat senators.


----------



## Andrew

I wonder how long these train-sets will be in revenue service.

Also, how long is a typical electric locomotive expected to be in revenue service?


----------



## Ryan

What color will they be painted? Cloth seats or leather?


----------



## Hal

Andrew said:


> I wonder how long these train-sets will be in revenue service.
> 
> Also, how long is a typical electric locomotive expected to be in revenue service?


Are you for real?


----------



## Hal

Ryan said:


> What color will they be painted? Cloth seats or leather?


Where will the quiet car be located? [emoji3]


----------



## A Voice

Also, what will be the seating arrangement in the cafe or dinette car, and what will be on the menu?


----------



## Paulus

Andrew said:


> Also, how long is a typical electric locomotive expected to be in revenue service?


About 30 years


----------



## railbuck

Andrew said:


> I wonder how long these train-sets will be in revenue service.


Around 200 meters.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Andrew said:


> I wonder how long these train-sets will be in revenue service.
> 
> Also, how long is a typical electric locomotive expected to be in revenue service?


You may still be looking at the wrong end of this thing.

When the shiny new Acela IIs enter service, costs will drop substantially. Capacity will increase enormously. In Year One, revenue will be much higher, costs will be lower, and the net -- call it what, "Operating surplus not counting a lot of stuff" -- will be a lot more cash money in Amtrak's hands.

Until they are retired (technologically obsolete or worn out, or for various other good reasons), the Acela IIs will continue to spin off operating surpluses from Year One, which could be 2020, to Year Last, which could be 2050.

Due to the time value of money, the operating surplus of each future year is not worth the same.

The operating surplus captured in Year One is worth the most. The surplus funds can be immediately reinvested in other projects -- let's say various capital investments, from longer platforms and more ADA compliant stuff like elevators, to new and added track, better signals, bridges and culverts, tunnels, etc. The new capital investments will themselves cut operating costs and/or add speed and capacity. They will each offer a return on investment over their useful lives, which could be 30 years, or 100 years, or 10 years. And the additional funds from Year Two will also be invested, and Year Three, and so on.

Any operating surplus from the Acela IIs starting in 2020 will improve Amtrak for many years to come. But any surplus from Year Last, the year before they go to scrap, will not have so much of an effect, because investing that money can't give so many years of returns in the time frame of the living.

Of course, the time value of money can most easily be understood in personal terms: If you inherit money this year, you can use the funds to pay for college, pay off student loans, eliminate that credit card debt with the 16% annual interest, make a big down payment on your home so that future monthly payments are smaller, stash some in an IRA for retirement, and so forth. Or, you could wait another 30 years for Grandma to die and leave you the inheritance. The time value of money says that sooner is almost always better. Long life to our Grandmothers notwithstanding. LOL.

Another aspect of time, of course, is that over some period we are all dead, so better to grab what we can while we're young and able, because tomorrow ...

That now is better includes Acelas and Acela IIs, which could become technologically obsolete in ways we can't quite imagine today. But we have seen very rapid change in HSR equipment since the first Bullet Trains and TGVs.

(I'm not sure that the standard 30-year lifetime for a regular electric locomotive that you asked about actually applies to HSR, which aren't "typical".)

btw The financing deals can be set up using a standard 30-year payback, like a home mortgage. So Amtrak buys a bunch of equipment, say, 70 electric locomotives, and it must set aside, on the books, millions of dollars toward the yearly "mortgage" payment. In fact, Amtrak benefits over 30 years because the yearly savings from lower costs and higher revenues may actually be much, much more than is booked for yearly payments. The savings can actually pay off the cost of the new equipment within 6 years or so. In effect, this plan allows Amtrak to use the borrowed money for other needs over the remaining 20-some-odd years.

So I'm back to saying, the shiny new Acelas -- faster, lighter, safer, cheaper to operate and maintain, with greater capacity per trainset and more trainsets -- will have a very great impact during the first 20 years of their operating lives. After that, who knows? And why worry so much?

If we're so smart as to see the future -- like how Acela IIs will fit into the world 20 or 30 years or more ahead -- we shouldn't waste our genius insights on blogs; we should be investing on Wall Street or in Silicon Valley start-ups, getting very rich now, and not waiting for 2050.


----------



## west point

Benefits not apparent are:

1. As track and structure improves then the wear and tear on all trains Acela, Regionals, & computer decreases. Less maintenance means more train sets available.

2. Once reliable scheduling of ACELAs and to lesser extent Regionals decreases en route timing then Amtrak turns trains so they can depart trains sooner from the termination stations of BOS, NYP, & WASH than now.

3.. The above is the equivalent of additional train sets without buying any more just better utilization.

4. Can attract more passengers mostly from persons now on the road as air travel has lost about all it will loose. Especially thru NYP traffic that is only about 10% now.


----------



## afigg

Ryan said:


> What color will they be painted? Cloth seats or leather?


The first class seats should be in rich Corinthian leather of course.


----------



## Andrew

WoodyinNYC said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how long these train-sets will be in revenue service.
> 
> Also, how long is a typical electric locomotive expected to be in revenue service?
> 
> 
> 
> You may still be looking at the wrong end of this thing.
> 
> When the shiny new Acela IIs enter service, costs will drop substantially. Capacity will increase enormously. In Year One, revenue will be much higher, costs will be lower, and the net -- call it what, "Operating surplus not counting a lot of stuff" -- will be a lot more cash money in Amtrak's hands.
> 
> Until they are retired (technologically obsolete or worn out, or for various other good reasons), the Acela IIs will continue to spin off operating surpluses from Year One, which could be 2020, to Year Last, which could be 2050.
> 
> Due to the time value of money, the operating surplus of each future year is not worth the same.
> 
> The operating surplus captured in Year One is worth the most. The surplus funds can be immediately reinvested in other projects -- let's say various capital investments, from longer platforms and more ADA compliant stuff like elevators, to new and added track, better signals, bridges and culverts, tunnels, etc. The new capital investments will themselves cut operating costs and/or add speed and capacity. They will each offer a return on investment over their useful lives, which could be 30 years, or 100 years, or 10 years. And the additional funds from Year Two will also be invested, and Year Three, and so on.
> 
> Any operating surplus from the Acela IIs starting in 2020 will improve Amtrak for many years to come. But any surplus from Year Last, the year before they go to scrap, will not have so much of an effect, because investing that money can't give so many years of returns in the time frame of the living.
> 
> Of course, the time value of money can most easily be understood in personal terms: If you inherit money this year, you can use the funds to pay for college, pay off student loans, eliminate that credit card debt with the 16% annual interest, make a big down payment on your home so that future monthly payments are smaller, stash some in an IRA for retirement, and so forth. Or, you could wait another 30 years for Grandma to die and leave you the inheritance. The time value of money says that sooner is almost always better. Long life to our Grandmothers notwithstanding. LOL.
> 
> Another aspect of time, of course, is that over some period we are all dead, so better to grab what we can while we're young and able, because tomorrow ...
> 
> That now is better includes Acelas and Acela IIs, which could become technologically obsolete in ways we can't quite imagine today. But we have seen very rapid change in HSR equipment since the first Bullet Trains and TGVs.
> 
> (I'm not sure that the standard 30-year lifetime for a regular electric locomotive that you asked about actually applies to HSR, which aren't "typical".)
> 
> btw The financing deals can be set up using a standard 30-year payback, like a home mortgage. So Amtrak buys a bunch of equipment, say, 70 electric locomotives, and it must set aside, on the books, millions of dollars toward the yearly "mortgage" payment. In fact, Amtrak benefits over 30 years because the yearly savings from lower costs and higher revenues may actually be much, much more than is booked for yearly payments. The savings can actually pay off the cost of the new equipment within 6 years or so. In effect, this plan allows Amtrak to use the borrowed money for other needs over the remaining 20-some-odd years.
> 
> So I'm back to saying, the shiny new Acelas -- faster, lighter, safer, cheaper to operate and maintain, with greater capacity per trainset and more trainsets -- will have a very great impact during the first 20 years of their operating lives. After that, who knows? And why worry so much?
> 
> If we're so smart as to see the future -- like how Acela IIs will fit into the world 20 or 30 years or more ahead -- we shouldn't waste our genius insights on blogs; we should be investing on Wall Street or in Silicon Valley start-ups, getting very rich now, and not waiting for 2050.
Click to expand...

That was well said!

I wonder how difficult and expensive it would be to lengthen the platforms and reconfigure the switches at Washington Union Station to enable 830 or 850 feet Acela Express Train-sets to board and disembark.


----------



## west point

Lengthen platforms ? Very long range plans are being considered. Last looked It will first require 3 - 4 complete new sets of puzzle switches beyond present ones. So to connect all tracks look for 48+ (?) sets of puzzle switches to allow access from all inbound tracks to every platform. That may not even include duplicate backups. At better than $1M per set add up the cost. Then there may be additional new switches for Ivy street access/ Then there will be the track work needed. As well new CAT for power. Then the phased removal of unused CAT and switches,

Only then can platform work begin.

The additional platforms for future HSR and the lower level. situation will also need resolving. Total cost of master plan? Billions and Billions as our favorite astronomer used to say.j.


----------



## Andrew

west point said:


> Lengthen platforms ? Very long range plans are being considered. Last looked It will first require 3 - 4 complete new sets of puzzle switches beyond present ones. So to connect all tracks look for 48+ (?) sets of puzzle switches to allow access from all inbound tracks to every platform. That may not even include duplicate backups. At better than $1M per set add up the cost. Then there may be additional new switches for Ivy street access/ Then there will be the track work needed. As well new CAT for power. Then the phased removal of unused CAT and switches,
> 
> Only then can platform work begin.
> 
> The additional platforms for future HSR and the lower level. situation will also need resolving. Total cost of master plan? Billions and Billions as our favorite astronomer used to say.j.


At least Amtrak is thinking about this, or, as President Bill Clinton would say, Amtrak is "Building a bridge to the future."

For the RFP, was Amtrak looking at an aluminum specification?


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> For the RFP, was Amtrak looking at an aluminum specification?


I spent considerable time talking to a senior Amtrak person in capital programs and futures regarding the RFP. The RFP generally gave requirements in terms of performance, capacity, end to end running time capability and such. In particular it did not specify details of technology, materials etc. It asked the vendors to propose a solution that meets the requirements. So no, they did not say anything about whether it should be steel, aluminum or Carbon Fiber or whatever. It just has to meet the FRA Tier III requirements together with the exceptions agreed upon between Amtrak and FRA for operation on the NEC in the presence of Tier II equipment above 125mph.


----------



## Andrew

The Amtrak Procurement Website said than an expansion of Ivy Yard is going to happen to get ready for additional Acela Train-sets and the Gateway Project...


----------



## afigg

Andrew said:


> The Amtrak Procurement Website said than an expansion of Ivy Yard is going to happen to get ready for additional Acela Train-sets and the Gateway Project...


Yes, there is a request for letters of interest and statement of qualifications for upgrades to the Ivy City yard on the Amtrak procurement portal: For Professional Architectural and Engineering Services for the Washington Terminal Yard HSR Infrastructure Improvements. (Link goes to construction contracts page). This is a prelude for an RFP for engineering design, so it is the first step of a lengthy process. There is not a lot of space to spare in the Ivy City yards anymore between Amtrak and MARC & VRE layover trains, so they may have to shoe-horn in additional storage tracks and maintenance facilities.

The gist of the tasks from the procurement page:



> Amtrak’s Engineering Department has been directed to develop Engineering Design, Bid Support and Construction Phase Services for the project
> 
> titled Design Services - Washington Terminal Yard (WTY) HSR Infrastructure Improvements.
> 
> Located in Ivy City, Washington, DC, WTY is the primary maintenance location for the entire NEC fleet of electric locomotives and Amfleet coaches.
> 
> WTY is quickly approaching the limits of its capacity and will require substantial infrastructure improvements and upgrades to support future service
> 
> operations within WTY and Washington Union Station (WUS).
> 
> Amtrak is currently preparing the WTY Master Plan (Master Plan) which articulates a vision for WTY that is the result of significant stakeholder involvement, operational analysis and alternative evaluations. The Master Plan has identified the facilities and general layout of the infrastructure in WTY necessary to support Amtrak and Commuter operations both prior to and following completion of the Gateway Project, and has proposed a phasing strategy that addresses both current deficiencies and pre-Gateway expansion demands consistent with the long range plan.
> 
> As part of the HSR initiative, Amtrak is currently procuring new Tier III HSR train sets that will be used to run the additional service and replace the existing
> 
> Acela fleet in the future. Amtrak’s schedule for receiving the new equipment is approximately early 2020. Therefore, critical infrastructure improvements must be in place to support the new equipment. The Master Plan has identified a specific concept plan to accommodate the immediate infrastructure needs for the new Tier III HSR train sets and their increased service operation requirements for half hourly service within the Am and PM peak hours. The proposed concept plan will serve as the foundation for this scope of work.
> 
> The intent of the Scope of Services is to prepare construction documents for the following:
> 
> 1. New 2-story, Single-Track HSR S&I Facility located adjacent to the existing HSR S&I Building will provide mechanical maintenance, toilet dumps,
> 
> cleaning and food and beverage stocking.
> 
> 2. 3 Additional Storage/Service Tracks within Coach Yard (building demolition required) will have access road at TOR, without shelters.
> 
> 3. “Health Hub” Vehicle Diagnostic Center added to north end of the existing HST Carwash.
> 
> 4. 3 Additional Storage Tracks and Turntable Stub Tracks in northeast area of yard.
> 
> 5. Electrify Track 1 Storage/Service for temporary HST storage during construction. Electrify Tracks Mail 2, 3-5 for overnight storage.


So early 2020 is now the window for the initial deployment of the new trainsets.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

afigg said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Amtrak Procurement Website said than an expansion of Ivy Yard is going to happen to get ready for additional Acela Train-sets and the Gateway Project...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, ..
> 
> The gist of the tasks from the procurement page:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Amtrak ... has proposed a phasing strategy that addresses both current deficiencies and pre-Gateway expansion demands consistent with the long range plan.
> 
> As part of the HSR initiative, Amtrak is currently procuring new Tier III HSR train sets that will be used to run the additional service and replace the existing Acela fleet in the future. ... increased service operation requirements for half hourly service within the AM and PM peak hours.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So early 2020 is now the window for the initial deployment of the new trainsets.
Click to expand...

Half-hourly service within the peak hours.

Does that mean one (1) additional departure each way, or two (2)? And where is the capacity for even one or two or four more Acelas thru the Hudson Tunnel without taking slots from, um, somebody, maybe Keystones? Or Regionals? (The LD trains already have to leave extremely early or mid-morning or even later to use NYP.)


----------



## jis

Half hourly service would mean one additional service each hour in each direction. There is capacity in Hudson tunnels for that except in one commission hour in the rush direction in the morning AFAIR. Anyway that can be taken care of by moving one Amtrak train over to the next or previous hour.

The real Hudson tunnel capacity issue is on weekends with the single tracking. but this added service we are talking of is not on weekends.


----------



## west point

link to the WASH union station master plan. Noteworthy will have 3 boarding concourses to all tracks. Also three platforms for low level boarding. A super lower level of approximately 6 - 9 tracks below present stub tracks that will also have access to both NEC and Long bridge. Eventual capacity 4 times present.

Link will not paste. Go to Amtrak reports and select Wash union station master plan.


----------



## Andrew

Maybe 2020 refers to Fiscal Year 2020?


----------



## keelhauled

Andrew said:


> Maybe 2020 refers to Fiscal Year 2020?


I don't see how that matters. It's a difference of months in a timeframe half a decade away. (And really, what are the chances it doesn't slip?)


----------



## afigg

west point said:


> link to the WASH union station master plan. Noteworthy will have 3 boarding concourses to all tracks. Also three platforms for low level boarding. A super lower level of approximately 6 - 9 tracks below present stub tracks that will also have access to both NEC and Long bridge. Eventual capacity 4 times present.
> 
> Link will not paste. Go to Amtrak reports and select Wash union station master plan.


Link to the Amtrak Reports & Documents page which has the 2012 DC Union Station Master Plan document. That master plan report is now 3 years old and has a lot of ambitious components to it, some of which were tied to the Amtrak NEC Vision with its dedicated 220 mph tracks. I expect parts like a new underground platform level to go into the (very) long term concept file to be preserved as capacity growth options for 30 or 40 years from now. Only the more near term components of the DC Union station plan have much relevance to the HSR trainset order.

If one wants to discuss the WAS master plan and any recent news on it, I started a thread on it 3 years ago (Amtrak to unveil $7 billion plan for DC Union Station).


----------



## Andrew

What about a flyover from Ivy Yard to the Station?

Also, Amtrak is looking at a nominal 425 seats for their new train-sets. An Alstom AGV of the same length of the current Acela Express Train-sets can seat 446 people--which is an almost 50% increase over the current train-sets.


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> What about a flyover from Ivy Yard to the Station?


Why? What are the congestion points that would be eliminated? What new congestion points will get created as a result. Is there enough space between Ivy City throat coming under New York Avenue and K Tower? Have you ever looked at a track diagram of Union Terminal?


----------



## afigg

Andrew said:


> What about a flyover from Ivy Yard to the Station?
> 
> Also, Amtrak is looking at a nominal 425 seats for their new train-sets. An Alstom AGV of the same length of the current Acela Express Train-sets can seat 446 people--which is an almost 50% increase over the current train-sets.


What would a flyover accomplish? Where it would flyover to?

As for seats, we don't know what the 2 remaining bidders are proposing. If what they offer has a 440 or 450 seat capacity without reducing the legroom much from the current Acela seats, I expect that will add points to the technical scoring of their bids.


----------



## PVD

I was under the impression that a key point in this whole process is Amtrak securing the FRA waivers needed to make this a distributed power (EMU like) trainset, so the length now dedicated to power cars is (mostly) added to passenger carrying capacity. Is this true, and how is that progressing? That is a big part of significantly raising passenger capacity in a comparably length trainset without decreasing pitch to any great degree.


----------



## Hal

Andrew said:


> What about a flyover from Ivy Yard to the Station?


You crack me up. What sense would that make? None at all. It can't even be done.


----------



## afigg

PVD said:


> I was under the impression that a key point in this whole process is Amtrak securing the FRA waivers needed to make this a distributed power (EMU like) trainset, so the length now dedicated to power cars is (mostly) added to passenger carrying capacity. Is this true, and how is that progressing? That is a big part of significantly raising passenger capacity in a comparably length trainset without decreasing pitch to any great degree.


It is not just FRA Buy America waivers, but the FRA finalizing and issuing the Tier III regulations for safety rules and high speed operations. However, I'm not sure of the status of the Tier III rules. Any HSR trainset contract would have to be contingent on the FRA waivers, rules, and getting approval for the reported $2.5 to $2.7 billion RIFF loan application.


----------



## DSS&A

Anderson said:


> Fan Railer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> IIRC, Amtrak was initially looking at 32 sets to replace the present 20 sets: 12 sets "soon-ish" and 20 sets down the line.
> 
> I'm wondering...assuming a split of the 28 sets at 12 Amtrak and 16 California, what would that (practically speaking) enable in CA?
> 
> 
> 
> You have to remember that CA's system is starting small, so they're not going to need as many trains initially. As the system is built to plan, then you will see further procurement of additional trains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I was more looking at a perspective of "What would they have to electrify to be able to get anything meaningful out of 16 sets?" I also have to seriously wonder whether Xpress West might not get involved (since that could add another pile of sets).
Click to expand...


----------



## DSS&A

Hi,

The link below is to an article on yesterday's big development on the progress of HSR train series to Las Vegas. Proposals will be issued this month and are due in November 2015!!!

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/traffic-transportation/nevada-high-speed-rail-authority-sets-framework-choosing-operator


----------



## PVD

It was the tier 3 regulation stuff I was curious about, I probably clouded the issue by using the term "waiver" which really applies to the "Buy American" provision, building one or two sets overseas, and completing the balance here is very likely to happen.


----------



## Andrew

Besides Alstom, does anyone know who the other bidder is?


----------



## PRR 60

Andrew said:


> Besides Alstom, does anyone know who the other bidder is?


Yes, somebody knows.


----------



## Andrew

When Amtrak said that they expect to receive the new train-sets in early 2020, I wonder if they were referring to delivery of the new train-sets or actual revenue service.

I also wonder how Amtrak came to the decision to purchase 28 train-sets.


----------



## jis

PVD said:


> It was the tier 3 regulation stuff I was curious about, I probably clouded the issue by using the term "waiver" which really applies to the "Buy American" provision, building one or two sets overseas, and completing the balance here is very likely to happen.


There two separable issue relative to Tier III regulations.

There is the pure Tier III regulations which was primarily focused on meeting the requirements of California HSR and hence other HSR operations on dedicated tracks on which only Tier III equipment operates.

NEC is a different kettle of fish requiring mixed operation of Tier II and Tier III equipment at over 125mph.That is what requires an additional special set of rule making or waivers from FRA. I know the person who is in charge of the safety case of Acela IIs mentioned year before last tat they were actively working this issue with the FRA. I don't know where it stands at present. But the bottom line is that whatever operates on the NEC at over 125mph other than the current Acela sets, will require to comply to both Tier III and to the conditions of the waiver to operate mixed with Tier II equipment at speeds greater than 125mph.


----------



## afigg

Andrew said:


> When Amtrak said that they expect to receive the new train-sets in early 2020, I wonder if they were referring to delivery of the new train-sets or actual revenue service.
> 
> I also wonder how Amtrak came to the decision to purchase 28 train-sets.


There are 20 Acela trainsets with 16 in use on a weekday for 80% utilization. For a simplistic analysis, if the goal is to add 2 additional WAS->NYP and NYP->WAS trips for half-hour frequencies at the morning and evening peak rush hours (ie 5:30, 6:30 PM departures each way), that takes 4 additional trainsets. Add 1 additional frequency peak rush hour trip each way BOS<->NYP, that would take 2 additional trainsets (morning and late afternoon). Which results in a total of 22 in weekday use. Rounding off 80% utilization gets 28 sets.

A stated goal is also to add more weekday BOS-NYP Acela class trips, some of which would likely be done by trainsets currently laying over at NYP. So Amtrak presumably did their schedule analysis and, based on future trip time goals, service turnaround times, and settled on 28 trainsets as meeting their expanded Acela service needs. There is trainset use analysis for the bidder to respond to, somewhere in the original RFP documents, as I recall, but I don't remember which file that was in.

The original Acela order was supposed to be 26 trainsets at one time, IIRC.


----------



## Andrew

afigg said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Amtrak said that they expect to receive the new train-sets in early 2020, I wonder if they were referring to delivery of the new train-sets or actual revenue service.
> 
> I also wonder how Amtrak came to the decision to purchase 28 train-sets.
> 
> 
> 
> There are 20 Acela trainsets with 16 in use on a weekday for 80% utilization. For a simplistic analysis, if the goal is to add 2 additional WAS->NYP and NYP->WAS trips for half-hour frequencies at the morning and evening peak rush hours (ie 5:30, 6:30 PM departures each way), that takes 4 additional trainsets. Add 1 additional frequency peak rush hour trip each way BOS<->NYP, that would take 2 additional trainsets (morning and late afternoon). Which results in a total of 22 in weekday use. Rounding off 80% utilization gets 28 sets.
> 
> A stated goal is also to add more weekday BOS-NYP Acela class trips, some of which would likely be done by trainsets currently laying over at NYP. So Amtrak presumably did their schedule analysis and, based on future trip time goals, service turnaround times, and settled on 28 trainsets as meeting their expanded Acela service needs. There is trainset use analysis for the bidder to respond to, somewhere in the original RFP documents, as I recall, but I don't remember which file that was in.
> 
> The original Acela order was supposed to be 26 trainsets at one time, IIRC.
Click to expand...


I just expected additional Washington--New York Acela trains with higher capacity train-sets operating between New York and Boston, for a total of 30 new train-sets.

Amtrak's top two goals to increase capacity on the Northeast Corridor is through these new Acela trains and the Gateway Project--but it would be a real shame if only the new Acela trains get ordered without new tunnels!

If Amtrak's future NEC revenue can get reinstated back into Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, is it true that they can only be used for capital improvements, and not expansion projects, such as new hudson tunnels?


----------



## Eric S

Andrew said:


> If Amtrak's future NEC revenue can get reinstated back into Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, is it true that they can only be used for capital improvements, and not expansion projects, such as new hudson tunnels?


What do you mean? Expansion projects would be capital improvements. But, you seem to significantly overestimate just how much revenue Amtrak generates and can "use" for various projects.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Eric S said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Amtrak's future NEC revenue can get reinstated back into Amtrak's Northeast Corridor ...
> 
> 
> 
> ... you seem to significantly overestimate just how much revenue Amtrak generates and can "use" for various projects.
Click to expand...

There's the problem. The annual "operating surplus before counting some stuff" comes to several 100 millions, and that's wonderful. But even getting the NEC up to a state of good repair could take $20 Billion or more.

Just to look at a handful of big ticket items, say, the new tunnels into Penn Station, the Portal Bridge(s), new bridge over the Susquehanna, the Baltimore tunnels, those are all one $ Billion each and more. For the first Portal Bridge project, the estimates are for about a $ Billion even, or 10 x $100 million. So that one project alone would absorb ALL the Acela's current operating surplus for a few years.

+++++

A better way to think of the problem it might be, Congreesscritters either (1) aren't so smart, or (2) their humongous brains are overloaded with more info than even Google can handle. So Congresscritters can usually remember simple things. Complex things they remember simply.

To simplify the NEC so that even a Congresscritter can understand and remember it, break it down.

The NEC has huge (1) *routine maintenance expenses*, and now the Acele operating surpluses can help more with that (because none is being diverted to the LD maintenance and operating costs). Of course, the Acela operating surpluses still would not cover ALL the ongoing maintenance of the NEC, but it could make a good impact on the budget.

Because of postponed or deferred maintenance, a lot of the infrastructure on the NEC needs a lot of work to reach what should be normal, (2) *state of good repair*, just catch-up work.

To improve the NEC to faster speeds and greater capacity, a large and costly batch of projects will be needed. (3) *New infrastructure* needs include tunnels and bridges, signaling, catenary, and other stuff like the new trains being discussed here.

If the needed work is to be done, Amtrak has a little flexibility with the funds it has or hopes to get. So in the present case, it looks like all of any increased annual operating surpluses from the new Acela II equipment will go to pay off the loan used to buy the new trains. That's good. But it will mean there's little or no added money for regular maintenance on the right of way, much less anything for new infrastructure.

Keep in mind that you can only spend the money once. It can't be spent for (1) and for (2) and for (3).

(Perhaps in rare cases one project might fit all three definitions of spending. But we can't fix the NEC with a few miracle multipurpose projects. Mostly we can spend the money only once.)

So the anticipated operating surpluses have been spoken for. They will buy the new trains, and if anything is left over it will go to routine maintenance or catch-up work. For your favorite, the Gateway project, the Billions will have to come from somewhere else.


----------



## Andrew

WoodyinNYC said:


> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Amtrak's future NEC revenue can get reinstated back into Amtrak's Northeast Corridor ...
> 
> 
> 
> ... you seem to significantly overestimate just how much revenue Amtrak generates and can "use" for various projects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's the problem. The annual "operating surplus before counting some stuff" comes to several 100 millions, and that's wonderful. But even getting the NEC up to a state of good repair could take $20 Billion or more.
> 
> Just to look at a handful of big ticket items, say, the new tunnels into Penn Station, the Portal Bridge(s), new bridge over the Susquehanna, the Baltimore tunnels, those are all one $ Billion each and more. For the first Portal Bridge project, the estimates are for about a $ Billion even, or 10 x $100 million. So that one project alone would absorb ALL the Acela's current operating surplus for a few years.
> 
> +++++
> 
> A better way to think of the problem it might be, Congreesscritters either (1) aren't so smart, or (2) their humongous brains are overloaded with more info than even Google can handle. So Congresscritters can usually remember simple things. Complex things they remember simply.
> 
> To simplify the NEC so that even a Congresscritter can understand and remember it, break it down.
> 
> The NEC has huge (1) *routine maintenance expenses*, and now the Acele operating surpluses can help more with that (because none is being diverted to the LD maintenance and operating costs). Of course, the Acela operating surpluses still would not cover ALL the ongoing maintenance of the NEC, but it could make a good impact on the budget.
> 
> Because of postponed or deferred maintenance, a lot of the infrastructure on the NEC needs a lot of work to reach what should be normal, (2) *state of good repair*, just catch-up work.
> 
> To improve the NEC to faster speeds and greater capacity, a large and costly batch of projects will be needed. (3) *New infrastructure* needs include tunnels and bridges, signaling, catenary, and other stuff like the new trains being discussed here.
> 
> If the needed work is to be done, Amtrak has a little flexibility with the funds it has or hopes to get. So in the present case, it looks like all of any increased annual operating surpluses from the new Acela II equipment will go to pay off the loan used to buy the new trains. That's good. But it will mean there's little or no added money for regular maintenance on the right of way, much less anything for new infrastructure.
> 
> Keep in mind that you can only spend the money once. It can't be spent for (1) and for (2) and for (3).
> 
> (Perhaps in rare cases one project might fit all three definitions of spending. But we can't fix the NEC with a few miracle multipurpose projects. Mostly we can spend the money only once.)
> 
> So the anticipated operating surpluses have been spoken for. They will buy the new trains, and if anything is left over it will go to routine maintenance or catch-up work. For your favorite, the Gateway project, the Billions will have to come from somewhere else.
Click to expand...

If the Fed's really do end up paying half of Gateway, it is my understanding that the New Starts Program and CMAQ funds are on the table. I appreciate Amtrak making it a top priority to procure new Acela Trains--but Gateway is just as important if not more important. Cost-sharing by the commuter rail agencies for Gateway is also on the table.

It would be nice if the old Acela trains could be used on Keystone service or Amtrak Empire Service to Albany with a diesel locomotive...


----------



## andersone

Woody you are so right about enabling legislators,,,,, we all need to pay heed to the gospel of Edward Tufte - "What is sought in the display of information is the clear portrayal of complexity. Not the complication of the simple but rather the task of the designer is to give visual access to the subtle and the difficult, that is the revelation of the complex."

In a former life I had to go to the legislature every year and defend my agency funding. I never gave them more than one side of one sheet - I wasn't getting paid by the word. I also emphasized the impact our services made on Ma and Pa Kettle, and how we improved the quality of their lives. If you fund this you get that,,, I could rant on about KISS but I am just grateful someone understands the message need not be delivered in volumes.


----------



## neroden

WoodyinNYC said:


> (Perhaps in rare cases one project might fit all three definitions of spending


CREATE / South of the Lake in Chicago, perhaps? Changes which should have been done incrementally during maintenance over the course of 100 years, but weren't, so just to catch up to a state of good repair, we need major new infrastructure? And the improvement from the new infrastructure will bring in enough reduced costs and increased revenues to pay for its maintenance? 
The NEC's important and all, but I'm glad Amtrak is making an advocacy push for the Chicago improvements. They could be a game-changer, unlocking the true potential of train service in the Midwest.


----------



## frequentflyer

Just read GE is buying Alstom energy plant division. In the deal GE will work with Alstom in joint ventures in other business such as rail transport. So GE will benefit from this too.

If I was a cynic, I would say GE Amtrak connections has a little to do with too.


----------



## Andrew

It appears as if Amtrak is getting closer to finalizing the vital contract with Alstom! Below is the French and English update--which includes an eight car train-set. Does this include the two locomotives, or are the locomotives extra, so as to make it a 10 unit train-set?

Alstom en discussion avec Amtrak pour 28 rames LGV

Amtrak qui exploite les rames Acela à grande vitesse sur le corridor nord-est des Etats-Unis (Washington-New York-Boston) est en discussion exclusive avec Alstom pour la livraison de 28 rames de 8 voitures dont la commande pourrait être passée d’ici fin 2015. Valeur estimée du contrat: 5,2 milliards USD. Pour ce projet, Alstom a proposé un train combinant plusieurs technologies bien maîtrisées par le constructeur français: une motrice de TGV classique, des voitures de type AGV sans motorisation et un système de pendulation identique à celui utilisé sur les Pendolino produits en Italie toujours par Alstom. Cette combinaison a le mérite d’utiliser des technologies éprouvées par le constructeur, lesquelles s’adaptent parfaitement à la demande d’Amtrak pour ce corridor. Les tractations en cours qui devaient rester secrètes jusqu’à leur finalisation ont été dévoilées par le Sénateur Charles E. Schumer.

Alstom semble d’ores et déjà avoir obtenu une dérogation au _Buy American Act_ qui lui permettrait de construire en France les deux premières rames prototypes de façon à ne pas retarder la mise en production de la série qui s’effectuerait dans son usine située dans l’Etat de New York à Hornell. L’une de ces rames subirait des essais sur l’anneau d’essais de Pueblo tandis que l’autre circulerait sur le corridor Nord-Est.

Alstom qui connaît actuellement de grosses difficultés dans la construction d’une usine de montage en Afrique du Sud dans le cadre du contrat signé en octobre 2013 portant sur la livraison de 600 X’Ttrapolis commandées par Prasa et Gibela, semble en revanche en bonne position pour remporter un contrat de 800 locomotives diesels et électriques en Inde, puisque le constructeur est le moins-disant. Ce contrat, s’il était confirmé, serait quasi exclusivement réalisé en Inde, à Madhepura, à raison de 80 machines par an.

WHICH TRANSLATES TO:

Alstom in discussions with Amtrak for 28 trainsets LGV

Amtrak which operates high-speed Acela trains in the Northeast US Corridor (Washington-New York-Boston) is in exclusive talks with Alstom to deliver 28 trainsets of 8 cars whose control could be shifted from end of 2015. Estimated contract value: USD 5.2 billion. For this project, Alstom proposed a package combining several well-controlled by the French manufacturer technology: a driving classic TGV, the AGV type of cars without engine and an identical tilting system to that used on the Pendolino products in Italy always Alstom . This combination has the advantage of proven technologies used by the manufacturer, which perfectly adapt to the demand for Amtrak corridor. The ongoing negotiations that should remain secret until their completion have been unveiled by Senator Charles E. Schumer.

Alstom seems already to have obtained a derogation from the Buy American Act that would allow it to build in France the first two prototypes oars so as not to delay the start of production of the series that would take place at its plant in State of New York in Hornell. One of these trains would undergo tests on the ring of Pueblo tests while the other would flow on the Northeast Corridor.

Alstom currently experiencing great difficulties in building a South Africa assembly plant under the contract signed in October 2013 for the delivery of 600 X'Ttrapolis controlled by Prasa and Gibela, however seems in good position awarded a contract for 800 diesel and electric locomotives in India, since the manufacturer is the lowest bidder. The contract, if confirmed, would almost exclusively produced in India, Madhepura, at 80 machines per year.


----------



## Eric S

Andrew said:


> It appears as if Amtrak is getting closer to finalizing the vital contract with Alstom! Below is the French and English update--which includes an eight car train-set. Does this include the two locomotives, or are the locomotives extra, so as to make it a 10 unit train-set?


What is the source for that? When was it released/printed?


----------



## jis

It is kind of neat that India now has major locomotive contracts with EMD, Bombardier and Alstom!

The Acela IIs will probably looks somewhat like the Virgin Pendolinos in the UK or even the ones in Italy, of course scaled up to American loading gauge. Interesting that they talk of AGV cars, which perhaps indicated that they are going for distributed power.


----------



## A Voice

Eric S said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears as if Amtrak is getting closer to finalizing the vital contract with Alstom! Below is the French and English update--which includes an eight car train-set. Does this include the two locomotives, or are the locomotives extra, so as to make it a 10 unit train-set?
> 
> 
> 
> What is the source for that? When was it released/printed?
Click to expand...

Appears to be dated from October 6, 2015.


----------



## afigg

Eric S said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears as if Amtrak is getting closer to finalizing the vital contract with Alstom! Below is the French and English update--which includes an eight car train-set. Does this include the two locomotives, or are the locomotives extra, so as to make it a 10 unit train-set?
> 
> 
> 
> What is the source for that? When was it released/printed?
Click to expand...

The link to the French magazine report was posted on railroad.net. Le Rail report (in French). The auto-translated report is odd because it does not match the 8 car EMU and an existing trainset that Amtrak was seeking in the RFP. Don't know how reliable the news source is or whether the writer got some stuff mixed up. I would not give the French source much weight until there is more information from US sources.


----------



## jis

All that we know for sure is that Alstom has been selected and the tilt technology used will be Pendolinos with which Alstom has a lot of experience.


----------



## Andrew

afigg said:


> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears as if Amtrak is getting closer to finalizing the vital contract with Alstom! Below is the French and English update--which includes an eight car train-set. Does this include the two locomotives, or are the locomotives extra, so as to make it a 10 unit train-set?
> 
> 
> 
> What is the source for that? When was it released/printed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The link to the French magazine report was posted on railroad.net. Le Rail report (in French). The auto-translated report is odd because it does not match the 8 car EMU and an existing trainset that Amtrak was seeking in the RFP. Don't know how reliable the news source is or whether the writer got some stuff mixed up. I would not give the French source much weight until there is more information from US sources.
Click to expand...

So the train-set will likely be a total of eight emu's (distributed power) rather than eight coaches with two locomotives (concentrated power)?

Also, I wonder if the billion dollar number was a typo?


----------



## Palmetto

What about tilting on Metro North? Will they be narrow enough?


----------



## jis

Even the current Acelas with their alleged extra width are fine on MNRR. They all run with tilt on on Metro north these days. It was apparently just MNRR blowing smoke and throwing around their lazy weight before FRA got on their case after mutliple mishaps. Surprisingly one fine day Acelas were allowed to tilt after the end of one of the several audits of MNRR safety.


----------



## Andrew

I read that the first two train-sets are expected to be built in France.

What is the delivery and testing schedule of the future train-sets?


----------



## PerRock

Andrew said:


> I read that the first two train-sets are expected to be built in France.
> 
> What is the delivery and testing schedule of the future train-sets?


No one knows, I don't even think anyone at Alstom has any idea. The contract hasn't even been finalized yet. Esentially the following need to happen, and no we don't know when these will happen.

1) Contract finalized and signed.

2) Payment made (according to contract)

3) Design begins

4) Engineering stuff tested

5) Design approved

6) Construction of initial 2 units begin construction in France

7) Units tested in France

8) Changes made to units

9) Rinse, repeat

10) Units shipped to US

11) Units tested in US

12) Units fixed in US

13) Production begins on rest of fleet in US

14) 1st 2 units enter training phase

etc

etc

etc

Needless to say, you're not going to know any sort of timetable as to when anything with these are going to happen until the timetable is "now."

peter


----------



## WoodyinNYC

PerRock said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the delivery and testing schedule of the future train-sets?
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Needless to say, you're not going to know any sort of timetable as to when anything with these are going to happen until the timetable is "now."
> 
> peter
Click to expand...

The template or model for the timetable for Alstom building and delivering the Acela IIs will be based on the timetable we have seen for CAF building and deliveries of the Viewliner IIs. So when they do announce a timetable, add three years, or more.

This is going to be very hard on you Andrew, but you can handle it better if you don't get your hopes up and become impatient with the timetable. Add three years to whatever dates are announced and chill.


----------



## frequentflyer

Or they may be Americanized AGVs. If Alstom gets this, GE will be a part of this contract someway or some how. Considering GE's long relationship with Amtrak, should not be surprised.


----------



## jis

It will not be a simple Americanized AGVs. the tilt system will be the Pendolino Fiat system. The car bodies will most likely be that of AGVs. have not heard any specifics of the drive system yet. Not clear how GE will be involved in any big way. GE has zero experience with high speed rail drive systems, and is not involved in any of the possible currently used systems, which appears to be a requirement of the RFP.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Andrew said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears as if Amtrak is getting closer to finalizing the vital contract with Alstom!
> 
> 
> 
> What is the source for that? When was it released/printed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The link to the French magazine report was posted on railroad.net. Le Rail report (in French). The auto-translated report is odd ... Don't know how reliable the news source is or whether the writer got some stuff mixed up. I would not give the French source much weight until there is more information from US sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...
> 
> Also, I wonder if the billion dollar number was a typo?
Click to expand...

Not sure we know a damn thing more than before. If the French report is dated Oct 6, then it is based on the Schumer press release and photo op about that time, which Amtrak quietly (not for attribution) walked back.

Right, Andrew. I'm sure the $5.4 Billion is a typo or currency translation error or an error of another sort. iirc The Schumer release suggested around $2.5 Billion for the bid (no details if this included spare parts, maintenance assistance, or anything else).

Anyway, the bid figure was in the ballpark with previous guesstimates or leaks (up to $2.7 B) for the Acela IIs.

If the bid had come in at twice that amount, Amtrak would have to start over with new specs, new RFI, new RFP, everything. The explosion would have been heard across the Atlantic.

But no noise strongly suggests that the bid is in the area that Amtrak was planning for.


----------



## jis

AFAICT Amtrak has never denied that Alstom has been selected. All that they have said is that details are yet to be negotiated.

From what I heard last weekend from people in the know is that indeed Alstom has been selected and indeed they will be tilting trains using the Pendolino/Fiat tilt technology and also using asynchronous AC drive. Haven't heard anything beyond that.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

jis said:


> AFAICT Amtrak has never denied that Alstom has been selected. All that they have said is that details are yet to be negotiated.


I don't recall seeing a single word about it attributed to any named person at Amtrak. But wasn't it Trains Magazine that reported its Amtrak sources saying it wasn't quite a done deal, but with no attribution to any specific source. So I said, "Amtrak quietly (not for attribution) walked back"

Meanwhile I recall seeing a reference to article or two in Upstate papers saying it looked more and more like Alstom, according to a local official who was quoted in a way that made me wonder if he'd perhaps been over-served. LOL.

Anyway, we agree that _officially_ Amtrak has said nothing at all.


----------



## jis

I did hear some private grumbling from a few about Schumer stealing their thunder.


----------



## MikefromCrete

Nothing official has been said about the awarding of an Acela II contract, as far as I know. This is all speculation, AU's favorite topic.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Letter to the Editor


Alstom-Amtrak Letter: It's not over til it's over
Posted Oct. 20, 2015 


While a lot of what is being said is presumption, prior to all of the ancillary issues being resolved, on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest, the matter stands at about 7 or 8. I believe the director of Amtrak is saying that, yes, other bids could be considered, as The Evening Tribune stated in its article.
The truth of the matter is Amtrak has chosen Alstom as the primary entity to continue negotiations with over the myriad issues connected with the contract, such as "Buy American" requirements, approval to operate at high speeds in the corridor and requirements from the Federal Railroad Administration who will be footing some of the bill for the project.The subject of the Alstom Manufacturing facility obtaining the Acela contract ... everyone, both politicians and others, want to weigh in on whether Alstom will actually get it and when.
Remember the words of our great orator, "Yogi."When it is clear that all of the ancillary issues have been worked out and the contract has finally been signed by Alstom, Amtrak and others, the City of Hornell Industrial Development Agency, which has played a significant role and spent an inordinate amount of time in the planning process, along with Mayor Shawn Hogan and Alstom will be the first to announce and celebrate the great victory for Alstom and the residents of Hornell and New York State.
Samuel J. Nasca Chairperson, City of Hornell IDA (Industrial Development Agency)


----------



## jis

It is actually more than speculation, considering the people that I heard it from. But please feel free to believe whatever you are comfortable with. I will not say it is anything beyond hearsay since I cannot quote any real sources.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Sorry, technical difficulties as I tried to cut and paste.

Here's the link: 

http://www.eveningtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20151020%2FOPINION%2F151029992

"The truth of the matter is Amtrak has chosen Alstom as the primary entity to continue negotiations with over the myriad issues connected with the contract ..." 

That seems to be the nugget herein.

It does seem that the Chair of Hornell's Industrial Development Agency has as much trouble keeping his mouth shut as Senator Schumer. But he is a second source essentially confirming that the contract now is Alstom's to lose. I'm sure Alstom really, really doesn't want to lose this flagship contract that is almost within its grasp. So I'm with Mr Nasca, seeing the odds at 7 or 8 out of 10 that Alstom will get it.


----------



## frequentflyer

To jls-

I mentioned GE in this since they bought Alstom's power generation business and will work closely with Alstom in the railroad business worldwide.

For some reason the link to the story will not post.


----------



## jis

One thing interesting about Alstom is that many moons ago they were a joint company with GEC of UK and were known then as GEC-Alstom. While being part of the GEC-Alstom conglomerate, part of the Alstom's holding company was acquired by Alcatel to take the name Alcatel-Alstom. Then bothGEC and Alcatel divested Alstom and it became a separate companies. Now they have sold their power business to GE US and their turbine business to Ansaldo. The deal with GE apparently includes some unspecified collaboration with GE on the transportation side. As for whether the flow will be from GE to Alstom or Asynchronous AC traction technology from Alstom to GE is yet to be seen. Maybe Alstom will start using GE prime movers now that they have also gotten rid of their diesel motor business. Or perhaps GE is hoping to swap out the transportation division to Alstom? Who knows? If that were to happen this wouldn't be the first time that an US icon sold part of itself to a French conglomerate. Remember Lucent Technologies to Alcatel to form Alcatel-Lucent? Yes that same Alcatel mentioned above.

Of course Originally Alstom was created as Alsthom by the merger of Alsace and Thompson.

Incidentally Alstom has huge huge contracts with India. India's next generation mainline passenger cars are all based on Alstom's LHB design. All the newer Rajdhani and Shatabdi Express cars that you see in Eddie's photos are LHB cars. And they recently signed a huge diesel engine deal too.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

frequentflyer said:


> I mentioned GE in this since they bought Alstom's power generation business and will work closely with Alstom in the railroad business worldwide.


Absolutely. When the deal was proposed, the French government was concerned that if GE took the power generating stuff, the remaining transportation equipment biz would be small and vulnerable.

GE agreed to "pay for" part of the price for the power generation biz by giving Alstom all or a part of its signaling (or something) and related railroad biz. With that concession, the French govt gave consent. So GE and Alstom have formed several "joint ventures". Now, a joint venture can be 50:50 or 25:75 of 49:51, whatever. It can be like one of those French style, um, relationships in which the two parties cohabitate. It's not exactly marriage but they act like it is.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

jis said:


> One thing interesting about Alstom is that many moons ago they were a joint company with GEC of UK and were known then as GEC-Alstom. While being part of the GEC-Alstom conglomerate, part of the Alstom's holding company was acquired by Alcatel to take the name Alcatel-Alstom. Then bothGEC and Alcatel divested Alstom and it became a separate companies. Now they have sold their power business to GE US and their turbine business to Ansaldo. The deal with GE apparently includes some unspecified collaboration with GE on the transportation side. As for whether the flow will be from GE to Alstom or Asynchronous AC traction technology from Alstom to GE is yet to be seen. Maybe Alstom will start using GE prime movers now that they have also gotten rid of their diesel motor business. Or perhaps GE is hoping to swap out the transportation division to Alstom? Who knows? If that were to happen this wouldn't be the first time that an US icon sold part of itself to a French conglomerate. Remember Lucent Technologies to Alcatel to form Alcatel-Lucent? Yes that same Alcatel mentioned above.
> 
> Of course Originally Alstom was created as Alsthom by the merger of Alsace and Thompson.
> 
> ...


Nice history of corporate marriages and European cohabitations. LOL.


----------



## Andrew

So the train-sets will be distributed power, and if they are Americanized AGV's, then they will probably be taller than the current AGV's?


----------



## keelhauled

Andrew said:


> So the train-sets will be distributed power, and if they are Americanized AGV's, then they will probably be taller than the current AGV's?


How in the world do you expect anyone to know?


----------



## jis

Specifically I have no idea why they must be taller than current AGVs. AFAIK they are not double deckers so what is the need for being taller?


----------



## afigg

Andrew said:


> So the train-sets will be distributed power, and if they are Americanized AGV's, then they will probably be taller than the current AGV's?


Andrew, you are going to have to wait until the official announcement and press release on the contract award. Even then, technical details may be sparse for some time.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> Specifically I have no idea why they must be taller than current AGVs. AFAIK they are not double deckers so what is the need for being taller?


Viewliner's are 14 feet tall, and new dual-power locomotives are just slightly more than 14 feet tall, so maybe the new train-sets will be 14 feet tall. It seems that 14 feet is a pretty typical number.


----------



## Ryan

It just seems that you're making stuff up again. Have some patience.


----------



## internationalpirate

Andrew said:


> So the train-sets will be distributed power, and if they are Americanized AGV's, then they will probably be taller than the current AGV's?


http://www.lerail.com/alstom-en-discussion-avec-amtrak-pour-28-rames-lgv/



> a driving classic TGV, the AGV type of cars without engine and an identical tilting system to that used on the Pendolino products in Italy


Based on this article, Alstom is essentially proposing a TGV model. The reason it comes with AGV's unpowered coach is that Alstom doesn't have aluminum body single-level coach cars at the moment(All new coaches are bi-level duplexes and all single-level coaches are obsolete mild steel cars), so they are trying to create a new modernized single level TGV train set by combining a pair of TGV power cars with AGV's coach cars.

But something like that already exists and is in a full-scale production; it's called Hyundai Rotem's KTX-II and this model costs only $28 million per 200 m long trainset. Even with Buy America compliance, it would not exceed more than $50 million per train set, so AMTRAK's total bill for 28 sets would come at $1.4 billion, a full $1.1 billion less than Alstom's rumored bid price of $2.5 billion.

So let me ask you this question, does it make sense to pay $1.1 billion more just for tilting, when the faster acceleration rate and the lighter weight of a Tier-III train set would improve cornering and match the travel time of the Acela Express without tilting anyway.

So this whole $2.5 billion Alstom selection rumor sounds fishy to me, especially considering how much the tilt-less rival is cheaper. We are not talking a couple hundred million dollars, but a cool billion dollar cheaper.


----------



## Andrew

internationalpirate said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the train-sets will be distributed power, and if they are Americanized AGV's, then they will probably be taller than the current AGV's?
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.lerail.com/alstom-en-discussion-avec-amtrak-pour-28-rames-lgv/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a driving classic TGV, the AGV type of cars without engine and an identical tilting system to that used on the Pendolino products in Italy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Based on this article, Alstom is essentially proposing a TGV model. The reason it comes with AGV's unpowered coach is that Alstom doesn't have aluminum body single-level coach cars at the moment(All new coaches are bi-level duplexes and all single-level coaches are obsolete mild steel cars), so they are trying to create a new modernized single level TGV train set by combining a pair of TGV power cars with AGV's coach cars.
> 
> But something like that already exists and is in a full-scale production; it's called Hyundai Rotem's KTX-II and this model costs only $28 million per 200 m long trainset. Even with Buy America compliance, it would not exceed more than $50 million per train set, so AMTRAK's total bill for 28 sets would come at $1.4 billion, a full $1.1 billion less than Alstom's rumored bid price of $2.5 billion.
> 
> So let me ask you this question, does it make sense to pay $1.1 billion more just for tilting, when the faster acceleration rate and the lighter weight of a Tier-III train set would improve cornering and match the travel time of the Acela Express without tilting anyway.
> 
> So this whole $2.5 billion Alstom selection rumor sounds fishy to me, especially considering how much the tilt-less rival is cheaper. We are not talking a couple hundred million dollars, but a cool billion dollar cheaper.
Click to expand...

But the KTX-II seats 359 people--instead of the 400 to 450 seats in a 200 meter train-set that Amtrak is looking for.

Also, the extra cost includes spare components, training, and I believe track and catenary upgrades as well.

Here is a train-set fact sheet that was just posted: http://nec.amtrak.com/sites/default/files/HSR%20Train%20Set%20Factsheet%20V4.pdf


----------



## internationalpirate

Andrew said:


> But the KTX-II seats 359 people--instead of the 400 to 450 seats in a 200 meter train-set that Amtrak is looking for.


http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/high-speed/korean-president-inaugurates-ktx-honam.html



> The new trains have 410 seats compared with 363 on the KTX Sancheon, Hyundai Rotem's previous high-speed train platform.


The 410 seater is a low platform version. The high platform version can add 32 more seats for a total of 442. Seating capacity is not an issue and the usable floor space is exactly the same as that of a modernized TGV that Alstom is pitching.

This is why I find it hard to believe that AMTRAK would forego $1.1 billion in savings for tilting. Even the original Acela was only $800 million(later ballooned to $1.2 billion) and this came with a Canadian government's financing.


----------



## Ziv

ip, is there a difference in the amount of pitch that is acceptable on a Korean train vs. an Amtrak train? Because I have ridden in coach in Asia and they are not nearly as roomy as Amtrak. That having been said, even a 5% reduction in seats (possibly remove one row per car?) to increase the pitch would still keep you at 420 seats per trainset on the high platform version.



internationalpirate said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the KTX-II seats 359 people--instead of the 400 to 450 seats in a 200 meter train-set that Amtrak is looking for.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/high-speed/korean-president-inaugurates-ktx-honam.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The new trains have 410 seats compared with 363 on the KTX Sancheon, Hyundai Rotem's previous high-speed train platform.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 410 seater is a low platform version. The high platform version can add 32 more seats for a total of 442. Seating capacity is not an issue and the usable floor space is exactly the same as that of a modernized TGV that Alstom is pitching.
> 
> This is why I find it hard to believe that AMTRAK would forego $1.1 billion in savings for tilting. Even the original Acela was only $800 million(later ballooned to $1.2 billion) and this came with a Canadian government's financing.
Click to expand...


----------



## jis

However, if Rotem did not participate in the RFP process for whatever reason, this entire discussion is moot. If they did participate it should be easy to find out why their proposal was not chosen. Seeing that they have not chosen to challenge the selection either they are not interested or not capable of meeting the requirements, which would make this discussion of theoretical interest.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> However, if Rotem did not participate in the RFP process for whatever reason, this entire discussion is moot. If they did participate it should be easy to find out why their proposal was not chosen. Seeing that they have not chosen to challenge the selection either they are not interested or not capable of meeting the requirements, which would make this discussion of theoretical interest.


It is my understanding that Rotem did participate--but they were not chosen for the new train-sets.

I'm wondering if the new train-sets will look like the TGV's of the 1990's or the modern AGV's...

But I do think this train would look very cool for operation on the Northeast Corridor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_Train_Express#/media/File:KTX.jpg


----------



## jis

Looking cool is not exactly a criterion that is used to select anything. I bet the phrase "looks cool" does no appear anywhere in the RFP


----------



## frequentflyer

jis said:


> Looking cool is not exactly a criterion that is used to select anything. I bet the phrase "looks cool" does no appear anywhere in the RFP


LOL........But it should........LOL


----------



## Andrew

With Amtrak's Northeast Corridor experiencing very healthy ridership growth, why wouldn't Amtrak take out a larger loan in order to buy perhaps 250 meter long train-sets with platform extensions in Washington and Boston?


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> With Amtrak's Northeast Corridor experiencing very healthy ridership growth, why wouldn't Amtrak take out a larger loan in order to buy perhaps 250 meter long train-sets with platform extensions in Washington and Boston?


I suggest you write a nice letter to Boardman asking that question. how on earth can anyone here answer that question with any credibility beats me.


----------



## Hal

Andrew said:


> With Amtrak's Northeast Corridor experiencing very healthy ridership growth, why wouldn't Amtrak take out a larger loan in order to buy perhaps 250 meter long train-sets with platform extensions in Washington and Boston?


You appear to be living in a Reality Distortion Field. We live in the USA. That has to be taken into account.


----------



## west point

Maybe longer trains are in the future. Maybe plan for additional cars added to the middle of train sets.

A look at the final contract would show if that option is included. Maybe even preliminary ?


----------



## internationalpirate

Andrew said:


> But I do think this train would look very cool for operation on the Northeast Corridor.


That one is out of production, and so is the AGV.

This is why Alstom's bid price is $2.5 billion, because they are trying to restore something out of production for four years(AGV) vs KTX-II which is in full production and is at least $1 billion cheaper because of the volume of scale.

So this whole TGV power car + AGV coach car + tilting bogie frankenstein train set sounds fishy, because of this at least $1 billion in price differences.


----------



## internationalpirate

Ziv said:


> ip, is there a difference in the amount of pitch that is acceptable on a Korean train vs. an Amtrak train?


The KTX-II's seat pitch is 980 mm. The Acela's seat pitch is 991 mm. That's a difference of about 0.4 inches, and matching Acela's seat pitch would add about 5.6 inches to cabin, so a non-issue.


----------



## Ziv

Thanks for the info, 11 mm is not even a noticeable difference. It sounds like the KTX-II has a lot going for it. Saving a Billion would sure free up a lot of money for other purchases. Korean engineering and quality control might not quite match that of Japan at its former best, but it is pretty darned good.



internationalpirate said:


> Ziv said:
> 
> 
> 
> ip, is there a difference in the amount of pitch that is acceptable on a Korean train vs. an Amtrak train?
> 
> 
> 
> The KTX-II's seat pitch is 980 mm. The Acela's seat pitch is 991 mm. That's a difference of about 0.4 inches, and matching Acela's seat pitch would add about 5.6 inches to cabin, so a non-issue.
Click to expand...


----------



## Ryan

Once more for possible penetration...



jis said:


> Seeing that they have not chosen to challenge the selection either they are not interested or not capable of meeting the requirements, which would make this discussion of theoretical interest.


----------



## jis

The other thing about Rotem is that they have a pretty miserable track record both on timeliness and quality of product delivered in the US so far. I bet so far they have not made a single penny from the passenger railcar venture in the US. We have no idea what price point they bid in their response. Just because something is available in Korea for some price does not mean diddly-squat about what the price point will be in the US.


----------



## internationalpirate

jis said:


> The other thing about Rotem is that they have a pretty miserable track record both on timeliness and quality of product delivered in the US so far.


Rotem's standard EMUs and KTX-II models and their export derivatives are fine, the KTX-II is run like a subway with hundreds of departures per day yet everything runs smoothly.



> We have no idea what price point they bid in their response.


Rotem typical bid at 70% of its European rivals. The difference maybe greater this time because while Alstom is trying to resurrect a discontinued model(AGV), while the KTX-II is in full production, so a cool $1 billion bid price difference is entirely possible.


----------



## jis

But all of this is a bit irrelevant if they have not been selected for whatever reason.


----------



## Hal

internationalpirate said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The other thing about Rotem is that they have a pretty miserable track record both on timeliness and quality of product delivered in the US so far.
> 
> 
> 
> Rotem's standard EMUs and KTX-II models and their export derivatives are fine, the KTX-II is run like a subway with hundreds of departures per day yet everything runs smoothly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have no idea what price point they bid in their response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rotem typical bid at 70% of its European rivals. The difference maybe greater this time because while Alstom is trying to resurrect a discontinued model(AGV), while the KTX-II is in full production, so a cool $1 billion bid price difference is entirely possible.
Click to expand...

But you don't know what Rotem bid. You don't know the difference in bids if any. You have no point at this point.


----------



## Ryan

Hal said:


> You have no point at this point.


This may give "solution in search of a problem" a run for the money for Official AU Motto.


----------



## Andrew

It is possible for Sandy's left-over salt in the Hudson Tunnels to damage the new train-sets?


----------



## keelhauled

Andrew said:


> It is possible for Sandy's left-over salt in the Hudson Tunnels to damage the new train-sets?


No.


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> It is possible for Sandy's left-over salt in the Hudson Tunnels to damage the new train-sets?


Really? LOL!


----------



## internationalpirate

Andrew said:


> It is possible for Sandy's left-over salt in the Hudson Tunnels to damage the new train-sets?


No, but the tunnel could collapse under corrosion and destroy the train set.


----------



## jis

internationalpirate said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is possible for Sandy's left-over salt in the Hudson Tunnels to damage the new train-sets?
> 
> 
> 
> No, but the tunnel could collapse under corrosion and destroy the train set.
Click to expand...

Not if the inspectors, who are actually pretty good, are doing their job. The tunnels will be shut down way before they collapse, or even significant chunks of concrete start falling off the lining. From the reports I have seen, there is no problem with the integrity of the casing. The problem is with the integrity of the concrete lining the inside of the casing, and the conduits that carry the cables and such.


----------



## Andrew

Are you saying that a tunnel closure is very likely before the new train-sets enter revenue service?


----------



## jis

No.


----------



## west point

IMO there are too many variables to know when the first of the north river bores need to be closed. We can easily think of 10 - 20 items that might happen to cause a closure. + The closure might be just for 1 week , 1 Month, 1 year or longer. Do we even know what the tunnel engineers think? It may be 10 tunnel engineers might have 10 different opinions.


----------



## jis

It is one thing to say that the risk of a closure is increasing. It is an entirely different thing to say that something will happen before something else. The only serious person I have seriously spoken to about the state of the tunnel is the guy who owns the problem. His take is that the risks are increasing with passing time. And parenthetically, it is not just the tunnel. It is the Portal bridge. it is the Sawtooth bridge and half a dozen other facilities that have similar issue of increasing risk of failure.leading to closure for a non trivial amount of time to patch it back up. Nothing is about to collapse into a heap of metal and concrete though.


----------



## neroden

People tend to forget Newark Bay, the Passaic and Hackensack Rivers, and the associated swamps. There's a huge amount of infrastructure associated with crossing those, though not as much as crossing the Palisades or the Hudson.


----------



## west point

Everything from including the new tunnel bores to Newark Penn station is supposed to be part of the Gateway project,


----------



## Andrew

A link on Tunnel Repairs: http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/11/repairs_to_sandy-ravaged_rail_tunnels_wont_start_until_end_of_decade.html

And if you look on the bright side, NJ Transit is looking at completing an environmental review for the Hudson Tunnel Project by September 2018: http://www.njtransit.com/AdminTemp/board_agenda_10-14-2015_final.pdf


----------



## seat38a

Thank god they aren't going with KTX ll. Having been on both KTX l imported from France and KTX ll trains, the KTX ll runs much rougher. The inside is much wider and nicer than the KTX l but much bumpier on the same segment of HSR.

KTX ll





[/url]P1030101 by

 

KTX l



P1030062 by 

 

Whatever Alstom comes up with, its going to have to be wider than their TGV based train if Amtrak is going to sell coach as "Business Class." When I was on KTX l, I was not too thrilled with the seat width or the aisle width. Everyone that passed by I got bumped by.


----------



## Andrew

I really do hope that Amtrak can finalize the contract with Alstom before the end of the year!

I also have not heard about the option to eliminate first class and replace it with business class in order to increase seating capacity (2 x 2 seating).


----------



## Acela150

Eliminating First Class would be an interesting option. But I don't see it happening.


----------



## Fan Railer

Doesn't first class sell out on certain trains on a regular basis?


----------



## MikefromCrete

Since first class is an extremely profitable niche for Amtrak, I highly doubt if it would be eliminated. And where did that come from anyway? I didn't see any other mention of eliminating first class,other than Andrew's post.


----------



## afigg

Andrew said:


> I really do hope that Amtrak can finalize the contract with Alstom before the end of the year!
> 
> I also have not heard about the option to eliminate first class and replace it with business class in order to increase seating capacity (2 x 2 seating).


What option to eliminate first class service? We have people posting speculative posts about the pending order for 28 HSR trainsets, vendors, possible equipment, and contract costs with little information available on what Amtrak is negotiating for. The original RFP spells out First Class with 2x1 seating with a seat pitch of 1067 mm (42 inches). The new trainsets who ever Amtrak buys them from will have first class seats.


----------



## PRR 60

MikefromCrete said:


> Since first class is an extremely profitable niche for Amtrak, I highly doubt if it would be eliminated. And where did that come from anyway? I didn't see any other mention of eliminating first class,other than Andrew's post.


I wonder if Acela First is really that profitable for Amtrak. The First Class car has 45 seats. A Business Car has about 65 seats. By airline standards, the up charge for First is pretty modest - about $120 or so NYP-WAS or NYP-BOS. Is the up charge for First enough to compensate for the fewer available revenue seats and the food, beverage and staffing cost of the First Class car?


----------



## Hal

PRR 60 said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since first class is an extremely profitable niche for Amtrak, I highly doubt if it would be eliminated. And where did that come from anyway? I didn't see any other mention of eliminating first class,other than Andrew's post.
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if Acela First is really that profitable for Amtrak. The First Class car has 45 seats. A Business Car has about 65 seats. By airline standards, the up charge for First is pretty modest - about $120 or so NYP-WAS or NYP-BOS. Is the up charge for First enough to compensate for the fewer available revenue seats and the food, beverage and staffing cost of the First Class car?
Click to expand...

I doubt it is very profitable, if profitable at all, but passengers like the option even if they don't use it all the time. Like if they had meetings all day, want to get home without stopping for food. Also Amrak can offer upgrades to first class for frequent travelers. So having First Class available is part of marketing Acela service.


----------



## jis

Domestic First Class on airlines is almost certainly not all that profitable by itself. After all most of it seem to be filled by upgrades or continuation of international FC/BC itineraries.


----------



## west point

Acela first class may be profitable if some riders decide to not ride Amtrak if no first class seats available. Those riders do not have to choose Amtrak at all but an airline or limo. The same may be said to a lesser extent for Business class riders on Regionals.


----------



## Andrew

Did the RFP call for the new train-sets to be the exact same length as the current Acela train-sets?


----------



## Fan Railer

Andrew said:


> Did the RFP call for the new train-sets to be the exact same length as the current Acela train-sets?


Maximum length of 205 meters.


----------



## Acela150

Fan Railer said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did the RFP call for the new train-sets to be the exact same length as the current Acela train-sets?
> 
> 
> 
> Maximum length of 205 meters.
Click to expand...

In non metric terms 672 Feet. So about the same as what the current HST's are like.


----------



## afigg

Fan Railer said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did the RFP call for the new train-sets to be the exact same length as the current Acela train-sets?
> 
> 
> 
> Maximum length of 205 meters.
Click to expand...

The 205 meters length was specified for the wheelbase. not the actual trainset length. In the original joint RFP, the spec was "For Amtrak, the distance between the first and last axles of the Trainset shall be a maximum of 205 m (672.6 feet)." So the trainset may be several meters longer, depending on the overhang at the ends.


----------



## Andrew

afigg said:


> Fan Railer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did the RFP call for the new train-sets to be the exact same length as the current Acela train-sets?
> 
> 
> 
> Maximum length of 205 meters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 205 meters length was specified for the wheelbase. not the actual trainset length. In the original joint RFP, the spec was "For Amtrak, the distance between the first and last axles of the Trainset shall be a maximum of 205 m (672.6 feet)." So the trainset may be several meters longer, depending on the overhang at the ends.
Click to expand...

Which link did you get that quote from?


----------



## afigg

Andrew said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 205 meters length was specified for the wheelbase. not the actual trainset length. In the original joint RFP, the spec was "For Amtrak, the distance between the first and last axles of the Trainset shall be a maximum of 205 m (672.6 feet)." So the trainset may be several meters longer, depending on the overhang at the ends.
> 
> 
> 
> Which link did you get that quote from?
Click to expand...

I got the quote from a copy of the HSR trainset RFP spec I downloaded from either CHSRA website or the Amtrak procurement portal when the joint procurement documents were made public. Those document links were taken down on the CHSRA website sometime after the joint procurement attempt ended. The new RFP documents for the HSR trainsets by CHSRA are available, BTW, if you want to read what they are seeking. But those are likely to be entirely different trainsets that what Amtrak buys for the NEC.

On the Amtrak new HSR trainset front, the FRA has granted Amtrak's request for a Buy America waiver for the aluminum car body shells and brake units. Saw that the grant of the waiver request was recently posted to the FRA eLibrary site along with a bunch of presentations from a mid-October FRA rail delivery conference, some of which have useful info.

The letter granting the waiver and providing the justification is available here: Amtrak High Speed Rail Trainset Components Buy America Waiver Decision. What strikes me reading the letter is how much time and money must have been spent to justify the Buy America waiver by the FRA staff, Amtrak, and the 23 US vendors contacted & asked to provide details on their capability. Amtrak submitted the waiver request in November, 2014 and it was granted a year later in November, 2015. There is a reason it took an entire year, wasting IMHO both valuable time and money. I don't have a problem with the intent of the Buy America rules, it is just the 100% part that drives costs up. Brief excerpt from the letter:



> In July 2014, Amtrak issued a Request for Proposal for its procurement of HSR trainsets. In October 2014, Amtrak received technical proposals from manufacturers in response to its Request for Proposals. After reviewing the proposals, Amtrak determined there were seven (7) Components of the trainsets' 134 components that each manufacturer indicated it could not source domestically. On November 3, 2014, Amtrak requested from the FRA a Buy America waiver for these seven (7) components and the HSR trainset paint (discussed in more detail below).
> Coordinating with FRA, in February 2015 Amtrak engaged the Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology's Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (NIST-MEP) to scout for domestic manufacturers ofthe Components. In its April 2015 report, NIST-MEP did not identify any suppliers making the exact Components. NIST-MEP did identify a total of 23 potential suppliers that either make products similar to the Components or claim to have the capability to manufacture the Components. FRA asked Amtrak to investigate whether any of the potential suppliers could manufacture the Components. After analyzing the NISTMEP report and Amtrak's report regarding follow-up discussions with the potential suppliers, FRA finds that none of the potential suppliers currently manufacture the Components.


Also, in the letter it states that the Notice to Proceed is scheduled for February 2016 (or that is the hope).


----------



## Andrew

afigg said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 205 meters length was specified for the wheelbase. not the actual trainset length. In the original joint RFP, the spec was "For Amtrak, the distance between the first and last axles of the Trainset shall be a maximum of 205 m (672.6 feet)." So the trainset may be several meters longer, depending on the overhang at the ends.
> 
> 
> 
> Which link did you get that quote from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got the quote from a copy of the HSR trainset RFP spec I downloaded from either CHSRA website or the Amtrak procurement portal when the joint procurement documents were made public. Those document links were taken down on the CHSRA website sometime after the joint procurement attempt ended. The new RFP documents for the HSR trainsets by CHSRA are available, BTW, if you want to read what they are seeking. But those are likely to be entirely different trainsets that what Amtrak buys for the NEC.
> 
> On the Amtrak new HSR trainset front, the FRA has granted Amtrak's request for a Buy America waiver for the aluminum car body shells and brake units. Saw that the grant of the waiver request was recently posted to the FRA eLibrary site along with a bunch of presentations from a mid-October FRA rail delivery conference, some of which have useful info.
> 
> The letter granting the waiver and providing the justification is available here: Amtrak High Speed Rail Trainset Components Buy America Waiver Decision. What strikes me reading the letter is how much time and money must have been spent to justify the Buy America waiver by the FRA staff, Amtrak, and the 23 US vendors contacted & asked to provide details on their capability. Amtrak submitted the waiver request in November, 2014 and it was granted a year later in November, 2015. There is a reason it took an entire year, wasting IMHO both valuable time and money. I don't have a problem with the intent of the Buy America rules, it is just the 100% part that drives costs up. Brief excerpt from the letter:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In July 2014, Amtrak issued a Request for Proposal for its procurement of HSR trainsets. In October 2014, Amtrak received technical proposals from manufacturers in response to its Request for Proposals. After reviewing the proposals, Amtrak determined there were seven (7) Components of the trainsets' 134 components that each manufacturer indicated it could not source domestically. On November 3, 2014, Amtrak requested from the FRA a Buy America waiver for these seven (7) components and the HSR trainset paint (discussed in more detail below).
> Coordinating with FRA, in February 2015 Amtrak engaged the Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology's Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (NIST-MEP) to scout for domestic manufacturers ofthe Components. In its April 2015 report, NIST-MEP did not identify any suppliers making the exact Components. NIST-MEP did identify a total of 23 potential suppliers that either make products similar to the Components or claim to have the capability to manufacture the Components. FRA asked Amtrak to investigate whether any of the potential suppliers could manufacture the Components. After analyzing the NISTMEP report and Amtrak's report regarding follow-up discussions with the potential suppliers, FRA finds that none of the potential suppliers currently manufacture the Components.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also, in the letter it states that the Notice to Proceed is scheduled for February 2016 (or that is the hope).
Click to expand...

Well, I look forward to hearing more about the length of the train-set and seating capacity, etc.

If the Notice to Proceed is scheduled for February 2016, then revenue service would not probably not begin for at least four years. After all, the original train-set contract was signed in March of 1996, and those train-sets did not enter revenue service until December of 2000, or at least on the section between New Haven, Connecticut, and Boston, Massachusetts.

We also don't know which company will build the new train-sets.


----------



## jis

Some people in important positions both inside and outside Amtrak sound like they are certain it is Alstom.


----------



## internationalpirate

Two strikes against Alstom today.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34822666



> *French TGV high-speed train derails near Strasbourg*
> 
> A high-speed TGV train has derailed near the eastern French city of Strasbourg, *killing at least 10 people*, officials say.
> The crash happened during a test run in the town of Eckwersheim, on a new Paris-Strasbourg line.


http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/alstom-sentenced-pay-772-million-criminal-fine-resolve-foreign-bribery-charges



> *Alstom Sentenced to Pay $772 Million Criminal Fine to Resolve Foreign Bribery Charges*
> 
> Represents Largest-Ever Criminal Foreign Bribery Fine
> 
> Alstom S.A., a French power and transportation company, was sentenced today to pay a $772,290,000 fine to resolve criminal charges related to a widespread corruption scheme involving at least $75 million in secret bribes paid to government officials in countries around the world, including Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Bahamas and Taiwan.


----------



## internationalpirate

There are only two HSR train models with zero passenger accident fatalities to date; KTX-II and Pure Shinkansen(Hybrid Shinkansen E2 was involved in the 2011 Wenzhou disaster and countless perished).


----------



## PVD

It appears that the bribery involved the type of equipment that was sold by the part of the company that GE bought.

It is a little premature to call the train accident a strike against Alstom, since accident investigations very often take a turn away from the populist speculation. On the other hand, regardless of what actually occurred it will probably be perceived by the public as such.


----------



## Hal

internationalpirate said:


> Two strikes against Alstom today.
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34822666
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *French TGV high-speed train derails near Strasbourg*
> 
> A high-speed TGV train has derailed near the eastern French city of Strasbourg, *killing at least 10 people*, officials say.
> 
> The crash happened during a test run in the town of Eckwersheim, on a new Paris-Strasbourg line.
Click to expand...

It is premature to call it a strike against Alstom.


----------



## jis

Besides TGV is not what Alstom is bidding in the US. It does not have viable tilting version. What i am hearing is that it is a version of the Pendolino that is in play in the NEC RFP.

I don't believe either of those are strikes for or against anything at present.


----------



## internationalpirate

jis said:


> Besides TGV is not what Alstom is bidding in the US. It does not have viable tilting version. What i am hearing is that it is a version of the Pendolino that is in play in the NEC RFP.


It is not Pendolino for one simple reason; there is no Pendolino model in service at 160 mph(maximum is 140 mph) and speed increase adds weight to rolling stocks, on top of FRA-fied weight increase which requires more powerful electrical propulsion and so on.

The French newspaper claimed it was a TGV power car + AGV coach + unpowered Pendolino tiling bogie on offer. In other word, a modernized single level TGV.



> I don't believe either of those are strikes for or against anything at present.


Surely it will. The train you are considering just had a major disaster and cost $1 billion more than the rival with zero fatality.


----------



## jis

Believe whatever you like. 

BTW I am not considering anything. I just report what I hear from reliable sources. Take it or leave it. I don't really care either way. Don't have a dog in the race.


----------



## Paulus

The disaster was due to excessive speed, not an issue with the train design, so what's the relevance?


----------



## MattW

Paulus said:


> The disaster was due to excessive speed, not an issue with the train design, so what's the relevance?


It's only been a day, we can't say what it was yet.


----------



## jis

From what is known so far it was a test train operating at upto 350 kph on a segment that is still under construction and apparently does not have over speed protection operative yet. The derailment took place on a curve due to over speeding through the curve.

This segment is scheduled to be completed and put into commercial service in April 2016


----------



## Paulus

MattW said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> 
> The disaster was due to excessive speed, not an issue with the train design, so what's the relevance?
> 
> 
> 
> It's only been a day, we can't say what it was yet.
Click to expand...

It was already being reported as excessive speed.


----------



## frequentflyer

What prototype train was being tested? New type of Duplex?


----------



## afigg

internationalpirate said:


> It is not Pendolino for one simple reason; there is no Pendolino model in service at 160 mph(maximum is 140 mph) and speed increase adds weight to rolling stocks, on top of FRA-fied weight increase which requires more powerful electrical propulsion and so on.


The New Pendolino trainsets have a max rated in service speed of 250 kph or 155 mph. Wikipedia entry on the New Pendolino ETR600 / ED250 trainsets. A ED250 Pendolino trainset reached 292 kph (182 mph) in Poland, so the ED250 models have enough power to exceed 160 mph.

The New Pendolino design is close to the speeds that Amtrak needs for the NEC. The ones in service with 7 cars are notably shorter than the specified length limit, so whether Alstom has proposed an longer trainset with a 160 to 165 mph revenue service speed, don't know. We may find out in the next month or so. The granting of the Buy America waiver request by the FRA clears one hurdle for an official contract award.


----------



## jis

The Buy America waivers are BTW mostly about minimizing the FRA related weight increases. The components needed are simply not available in the US, since no one builds any serious higher speed trains for operating above 125mph, in the US. The last such train built was built using an obsolete and hopeless FRA Tier II standard which even the FRA has abandoned, and no new Tier II equipment will ever be built. So part of the reason that Amtrak and American taxpayers have ahd to **** away significant amounts of money on obsolete systems with no reasonable source for expansion or replacement in kind is the hubris and incompetence of the FRA standard making office. Hope they have learned their lesson and will move on in a more productive direction.

BTW, here is an article on the Polish Alstom Pendolions ....


----------



## MattW

Paulus said:


> MattW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> 
> The disaster was due to excessive speed, not an issue with the train design, so what's the relevance?
> 
> 
> 
> It's only been a day, we can't say what it was yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was already being reported as excessive speed.
Click to expand...

Ok Mr. Expert, WHY was the train traveling with excessive speed? It was reported above the signaling system wasn't installed yet. Did the computers send the wrong speed to the motors? Did the driver fall asleep? Did he want to show off? Was the speed limit set too high by someone unrelated to the train itself? Did the brakes fail? Again, we don't know what the actual reason is, and won't for a while (if ever, not every country is open as the U.S.) so that's hardly a reason to jump all over Alstom!


----------



## Paulus

It's almost certainly due to human error.


----------



## Ryan

Wow, it's pretty awesome that a random stranger halfway around the world is able to tell us what happened while the investigation is ongoing.

If you could do the same thing for accidents in the US, we could fire the whole NTSB and let you sit behind your keyboard and tell us what happened wartime there is an accident.


----------



## jis

I sometimes wonder whether he is a planted troll from Rotem


----------



## internationalpirate

frequentflyer said:


> What prototype train was being tested? New type of Duplex?


An old test train.



afigg said:


> The New Pendolino trainsets have a max rated in service speed of 250 kph or 155 mph. Wikipedia entry on the New Pendolino ETR600 / ED250 trainsets.


That's the maximum design speed, not the maximum revenue service speed, which must be at least 10% lower.



> The New Pendolino design is close to the speeds that Amtrak needs for the NEC.


AMTRAK asked for a train set that could do 200 mph service when conditions permitting in the future, and this is why Alstom proposed a frankentrain model consisting of parts from three train models according to French paper.

As you can imagine, this is a very risky preposition compared to the competitor's service-proven "off the shelf" model that cost $1 billion less, and most importantly, recorded ZERO PASSENGER FATALITY to date.


----------



## jis

There may be a bit of GIGO going on here based on a confusion about which RFP one is talking about. The original joint Amtrak-CAHSR RFP did mention eventually operating at 200mph. However when that joint RFP was withdrawn and an NEC specific RFP was issue AFAIR all mention of 200mph disappeared from the new RFP. It basically talked of 160mph and specific segment operating times to be met.

As for what Alstom is offering, we will know for sure exactly what Alstom is offering once that information published when the actual contract is signed. Until then it is all hearsay, take it or leave it. And I for one prefer to leave it as hearsay for now. Since whatever they are offering is acceptable to the techies who issued the RFP it would seem to be a pretty open and shut case.

BTW, just in case anyone is confused this web site has nothing to do with Amtrak other than being a bunch of passenger rail and Amtrak enthusiasts. If anyone thinks that they can influence decisions about what Amtrak will actually buy by raising hell here, they are sadly mistaken. My advise is save your breath.


----------



## keelhauled

internationalpirate said:


> AMTRAK asked for a train set that could do 200 mph service when conditions permitting in the future, and this is why Alstom proposed a frankentrain model consisting of parts from three train models according to French paper.
> 
> As you can imagine, this is a very risky preposition compared to the competitor's service-proven "off the shelf" model that cost $1 billion less, and most importantly, recorded ZERO PASSENGER FATALITY to date.


How do you know it cost $1 billion less? Have you seen Rotem's bid? Do you know the specifics? Do you know if it met Amtrak's requirements? Do you even know if they did bid? And don't tell me "well, they built some trains on the opposite side of the world for such and such dollars," that has no bearing on the American market or Amtrak's requirements, I mean you say they would cost $50 million per trainset, how do you know that? Do you know how much it would cost Rotem to open an HSR equipment assembly line in the US? Do you have some intimate understanding of the differences between Korean and American manufacturing? Do you know anything other than vague hand-waving?


----------



## internationalpirate

keelhauled said:


> How do you know it cost $1 billion less?


The KTX-II is currently in full production(unlike Alstom's proposed frankentrain model), and is currently selling for $28 million a train set. I am being very generous here, since it could well be less than $56 million per trainset.

Double that for Buy America compliance X 28 sets = $1.57 billion, about $1 billion less than supposed Alstom bid of $2.5 billion.

The reason Alstom's bid cost so much is because it is a frankentrain with parts from three train models, one of which has been out of production for four years now. Anyhow, $2.5 billion for 28 train sets is a highway robbery and that $1 billion saving could be better spent elsewhere in AMTRAK's operation.



> Do you even know if they did bid?


Yes, Rotem spokesperson said so.



> I mean you say they would cost $50 million per trainset, how do you know that?


Because the price information is in public domain, revealed each time the KTX-II trainsets are sold($28 million)



> Do you know how much it would cost Rotem to open an HSR equipment assembly line in the US?


Not much because Rotem already has the Philadelphia plant?


----------



## internationalpirate

jis said:


> As for what Alstom is offering, we will know for sure exactly what Alstom is offering once that information published


It is a modernized single level TGV according to French papers. All current TGV models are bi-level duplex units, so Alstom's taking AGV coach cars that went out of production with TGV power cars to create a "Just for AMTRAK" custom-made single-level TGV model.

And Alstom offering a TGV instead of a Pendulino makes a perfect sense, the Acela II must co-exist with the Acela I, which makes an EMU highly unsuitable in terms of crashworthiness.


----------



## jis

We know what the French paper says. But that is not the definitive specification. We will know exactly what it is when the actual contract is signed. Do you have a problem agreeing with this simple proposition? Let us hold out horses until then. The French paper dos not quote any official source for its information. So we don;t know for sure that it has got it right. What makes sense to you is completely inconsequential since you are not part of the procurement process.


----------



## keelhauled

> Double that for Buy America compliance X 28 sets = $1.57 billion, about $1 billion less than supposed Alstom bid of $2.5 billion.


I see. So you're hand-waving a wild guess.



> Because the price information is in public domain, revealed each time the KTX-II trainsets are sold($28 million)


Sold half a world away in a different market. I suppose you're telling me that the Korean versions are identical down to the last nut and bolt and therefore there is no possible way for there to be any fluctuation in price?



> Not much because Rotem already has the Philadelphia plant?


And I suppose no tooling, worker training, or any sort of assembly line changes are required to convert said plant from making commuter cars to high speed trainsets.


----------



## jis

The really surreal thing about this discussion is that KTX-1's are essentially TGV Resau sets with some minor modifications. and the more recent versions are all derivatives based on licensed technology. So all this seems to be an argument that sounds like "My TGV is better than theirs". At least it is somewhat entertaining.

And yeah, Rotem's track record in delivering anything on time is such that the first thing someone should do when they hear Rotem is run in the other direction. In short their credibility at present in the US is pretty low.

BTW, one thing I noticed about the Korean HSR lines is that most of them are incredibly short lines. I suppose it is not that big a country geographically afterall. Interesting layout though.


----------



## PRR 60

jis said:


> The really surreal thing about this discussion is that KTX-1's are essentially TGV Resau sets with some minor modifications. and the more recent versions are all derivatives based on licensed technology. So all this seems to be an argument that sounds like "My TGV is better than theirs". At least it is somewhat entertaining.
> 
> And yeah, Rotem's track record in delivering anything on time is such that the first thing someone should do when they hear Rotem is run in the other direction. In short their credibility at present in the US is pretty low.


To be fair, Alstom's performance with the PATCO transit car rebuild was at least as bad or worse than Rotem's with the SEPTA order. The first prototype rebuilds arrived at Lindenwold over a year late, and then experienced one failure after another dragging out the testing program for over another year. DRPA came very, very close to canceling the order due to Alstom's poor performance.

After all the pain, the SEPTA Silverliner V's seem to be performing pretty well. Perhaps the same will be true of the PATCO rebuilds. However, performance on recent US orders does not seem give any particular advantage to Alstom


----------



## jis

A rebuild is a completely different activity from manufacturing new cars however.

Alstom did pretty well with the Surfliners and the New York subway orders (massive order at that) AFAICT. So I view Alstom as a mixed bag whereas Rotem does not have much positive about it so far.

But I agree with you that such things probably don't play a major role in these decisions.

Although I am not sure what to make of Nippon-Sharyo of late. I wonder who will be on the hook for returning the money to the feds when the contract delivery is not completed by the 2017 deadline.

In terms of recent deliveries it seems Bombardier and Siemens appear to have been doing the best. On the New York subway orders both Bombardier and Alstom have done well as has Kawasaki.


----------



## internationalpirate

keelhauled said:


> Sold half a world away in a different market. I suppose you're telling me that the Korean versions are identical down to the last nut and bolt and therefore there is no possible way for there to be any fluctuation in price?


That's why I assumed it would be twice as much as the Korean version.



> And I suppose no tooling, worker training, or any sort of assembly line changes are required to convert said plant from making commuter cars to high speed trainsets.


It is putting together the work force that's the most difficult part of setting up a productio base.

Once that work force is set up and running, then the rest is smooth sailing.



jis said:


> and the more recent versions are all derivatives based on licensed technology.


It is not a licensed design. This is why the KTX-II can be offered for sale in the US and all Alstom can do is watch.



> BTW, one thing I noticed about the Korean HSR lines is that most of them are incredibly short lines. I suppose it is not that big a country geographically afterall. Interesting layout though.


The Korean Main HSR line is about 40 miles longer than the New York - Washington DC corridor.



> it seems Bombardier and Siemens appear to have been doing the best.


Bombardier didn't bid and Siemens had an EMU penalty. The reality of having to share tracks with Acela I trains at 160 mph meant the Acela II coach cars had to be protected by power cars at both ends.


----------



## afigg

internationalpirate said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> The New Pendolino trainsets have a max rated in service speed of 250 kph or 155 mph. Wikipedia entry on the New Pendolino ETR600 / ED250 trainsets.
> 
> 
> 
> That's the maximum design speed, not the maximum revenue service speed, which must be at least 10% lower.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New Pendolino design is close to the speeds that Amtrak needs for the NEC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> AMTRAK asked for a train set that could do 200 mph service when conditions permitting in the future, and this is why Alstom proposed a frankentrain model consisting of parts from three train models according to French paper.
> 
> As you can imagine, this is a very risky preposition compared to the competitor's service-proven "off the shelf" model that cost $1 billion less, and most importantly, recorded ZERO PASSENGER FATALITY to date.
Click to expand...

No, the New Pendolino trainsets have a max revenue service speed of 250 kph (155 mph) as stated in the Wikipedia entry and in multiple news reports and in Alstom press releases I found with a quick google search. You could do the same.
What did Amtrak ask for in the original spec posted in January 2014 when it was teamed with CHSRA for its requirements?

"For Amtrak, the Trainset shall be capable of an initial minimum continuous Operating Speed of 257.5 km/h (160 mph) under full load conditions, and a testing speed of the Operating Speed plus 5 mph."

The New Pendolino is pretty close to those max speed requirements. Whether Alstom submitted a slightly uprated and extended New Pendolino design or something else, we will likely find out in the next month or two.

As for higher speeds, the original RFP asked for price options or estimates for 186 mph capable trainsets, but those werebid options, not a requirement from what I see in the documents I have. But to be realistic, the NEC is a long way from being able to build new dedicated HSR corridors on either half of the NEC that could run trains at > 160 mph. The cost of the Acela II trainsets is comparatively small to the cost of the 10s of billions to build all new HSR corridors and the many years it will take to actually do it. Difficult to justify spending extra in 2015-2021 on > 165 mph trainsets for the NEC if they can't be used at such speeds for decades.

Edit: accidentally hit send too soon....


----------



## jis

Yeah. Those Polish Pendolinos have been tested at upto something around 180mph (293kph to be precise). But what is the point of arguing about it? It is a well published fact, and can't fix ignorance when people refuse to check facts before going on and on.

As a matter of fact there was a bit of a kerfuffle between PKP and Alstom about testing and certifying the Pendolinos at 255kph under ETCS2 in Poland. Alstom tested and certified for 255kph using their 293kph test. but that was done under the only ETCS equipped line available in Poland which was ETCS1. So when PKP complained, Alstom retorted by saying well you provide us an ETCS2 equipped line in Poland and we will gladly certify under that too. This was a bit of an embarrassment for PKP since no one in their bureaucracy apparently realized there was no operational ETCS2 line in Poland back then.


----------



## afigg

internationalpirate said:


> And Alstom offering a TGV instead of a Pendulino makes a perfect sense, the Acela II must co-exist with the Acela I, which makes an EMU highly unsuitable in terms of crashworthiness.


The mixed operation of the new HSR trainsets with the current Acela trainsets is an odd issue to raise from design safety standpoint for an EMU vs locomotive on each end. The 20 Acela trainsets make up a small part of the traffic on the NEC. The locomotive hauled Amtrak NE Regionals, Keystones, LD trains; the many commuter locomotive hauled & EMU trains and some freight trains make up most of the traffic on the NEC. Then there are other sources of collision risks such as the 11 remaining grade crossings in CT and the occasional car or SUV that somehow ends up driving on or crossing the NEC at unexpected locations.

Besides, the new HSR trainsets and the Acela Is won't co-exist in revenue service for more than a few years.


----------



## west point

IMHO there is absolutely no reason to build / rebuild the NEC for speeds greater than 160 MPH. 160 MPH would mean 1:50 NYP - WASH 225 miles. 220 MPH would mean 1:30 NYP - WASH. So for 20 minutes no way.

The NYP - BOS route of 231 miles will need much more work to get even 160 MPH. This poster would expect 3:00 is doable in about 25 years.

It is all about getting rid of the slow sections such as Frankford curve. Much cheaper in the long run.

At that time the POLs can decide of expansion if realistic. Both NEC and other locations.


----------



## jis

This whole argument about inability to coexist between loco hauled (often push pull) and EMUs) has little foundation in facts. They coexist fine in places where train speeds are much higher than on the NEC. The aspect of passengers occupying the first driving trailer car of the train at upto 125mph happens on the NEC every day. So it is mostly a red herring IMHO.


----------



## keelhauled

On the other hand it all depends on the design. Metrolink thinks their cab cars are at risk of derailing in a collision, which I guess is not so good.

Say, who made those cab cars anyway...


----------



## Andrew

So will the new Acela train-sets be locomotive hauled trains with eight coaches or a total of eight EMU'S?


----------



## Hal

keelhauled said:


> On the other hand it all depends on the design. Metrolink thinks their cab cars are at risk of derailing in a collision, which I guess is not so good.
> 
> Say, who made those cab cars anyway...


That manufacturer obviously should not build the Acela II......[emoji57]


----------



## jis

Hal said:


> keelhauled said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand it all depends on the design. Metrolink thinks their cab cars are at risk of derailing in a collision, which I guess is not so good.
> 
> Say, who made those cab cars anyway...
> 
> 
> 
> That manufacturer obviously should not build the Acela II......[emoji57]
Click to expand...

Touche! Even though technically it is not clear that it should be an issue. Afterall, what the Koreans would apparently propose is a slightly modified TGV that they have hijacked from Alstom in the first place. Apparently what has been stated in this thread is essentially that the original TGV derivatives have been safe for many years and therefore are preferable to newer technology. Never mind that given the track profile of the NEC it is known that the original TGV or derivatives without tilt cannot meet the segment times that have been stated as requirement in the RFP, without very significant track realignment, some of it even on new right of way.


----------



## internationalpirate

jis said:


> The aspect of passengers occupying the first driving trailer car of the train at upto 125mph happens on the NEC every day. So it is mostly a red herring IMHO.


There are no EMUs cruising at above 150 mph on NEC.

The collision scenario with Acela I rules out EMUs.



keelhauled said:


> On the other hand it all depends on the design. Metrolink thinks their cab cars are at risk of derailing in a collision, which I guess is not so good.
> 
> Say, who made those cab cars anyway...


Rotem rolling stocks feature excellent crashworthiness, Metrolink praised it themselves. In fact, no one died at the scene of 93 mph Oxnard crash, but the train engineer did die of complications at hospital a week later.

The Metrolink Bombardier rolling stocks that the Rotem rolling stocks replaced did much worse with 25 deaths at the 2008 Chatsworth crash.



jis said:


> Touche! Afterall, what the Koreans would apparently propose is a slightly modified TGV


The KTX-II is not a slightly modified TGV. It is a TGV style modernized high-crashworthy train engineered from scratch and is basically a single-level modernized TGV that Alstom never built. The closest thing to the KTX-II is the TGV Power Car + AGV Coach frankentrain offered by Alstom.



> that they have hijacked from Alstom in the first place.


Alstom laywers would be happy to sue if that was the case.



> Never mind that given the track profile of the NEC it is known that the original TGV or derivatives without tilt cannot meet the segment times that have been stated as requirement in the RFP, without very significant track realignment, some of it even on new right of way.


That's not really a problem because the KTX-II has a Shinkansen like acceleration-deceleration performance to cope with the operating conditions of Korean HSR corridors, where high speed trains stop every 20~25 minutes. It can shave off a significant chunk of travel time relative to Acela with superior acceleration-deceleration.


----------



## jis

Interesting information. Thanks.

But still all this remains inconsequential since we (a) don't know that the KTX-II was bid by anyone, and (b) even if it was bid, it was not selected. So this is interesting theoretical discussion.

Again, in case anyone is confused, this forum is not an official Amtrak forum and no amount of marketing here is going to have any impact on what Amtrak or FRA does. At best it would amount to venting ones frustration with the state of affairs, which of course continues to be a legitimate use of this forum.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

west point said:


> IMHO there is absolutely no reason to build / rebuild the NEC for speeds greater than 160 MPH. 160 MPH would mean 1:50 NYP - WASH 225 miles. 220 MPH would mean 1:30 NYP - WASH. So for 20 minutes no way.
> 
> ...


*No way.* Not worth it. Absolutely not.

The ruling class may want a trip time D.C.-NYC be about the same as a ride on the Senate elevator. But how many citizens will benefit from our spending $100 Billion and more on the NEC?

At some point, we may see that the true cost of a $100 Billion NEC -- or wasn't the opening bid $160 Billion? -- would surely be more than $200 Billion, maybe $300 or $400 Billion.

Because politicians (and the public) outside the Eastern Seaboard will rightly demand that* as much or more be invested in the other states *as in the dozen or so on, or very near, to the NEC. (Indeed, Upstate NY and Greater Pittsburgh may have other priorities than saving 20 more minutes off a 2-hour schedule.)

Well, actually, I'm not against that part. LOL. I have big dreams for the country outside the NEC.

I do support the first round upgrades that will increase capacity as well as speeds -- Portal Bridge, Hudson Tunnels, new Baltimore tunnel, Susquehanna bridge, etc. But even there, I'd want an equal amount to go to the rest of the U.S.


----------



## A Voice

internationalpirate said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The aspect of passengers occupying the first driving trailer car of the train at upto 125mph happens on the NEC every day. So it is mostly a red herring IMHO.
> 
> 
> 
> The collision scenario with Acela I rules out EMUs.
Click to expand...

When the original Acela trainsets are withdrawn from service and returned to the lessor, following the delivery of the "Acela II"_ replacements_, that really won't be an issue.


----------



## internationalpirate

A Voice said:


> When the original Acela trainsets are withdrawn from service and returned to the lessor, following the delivery of the "Acela II"_ replacements_, that really won't be an issue.


The Acela I will coexist with the Acela II as long as 7 years. Of course a possible collision with Acela I train sets are factored into the selection of Acela II train sets.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

internationalpirate said:


> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the original Acela trainsets are withdrawn from service and returned to the lessor, following the delivery of the "Acela II"_ replacements_, that really won't be an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> The Acela I will coexist with the Acela II as long as 7 years. Of course a possible collision with Acela I train sets are factored into the selection of Acela II train sets.
Click to expand...

Americas railroads are being compelled to spend many Billions on high tech systems to prevent crashes. Will these systems work? if not, why not, and why spend the Billions for a half-assed system?


----------



## Amfleeter

A Voice said:


> internationalpirate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The aspect of passengers occupying the first driving trailer car of the train at upto 125mph happens on the NEC every day. So it is mostly a red herring IMHO.
> 
> 
> 
> The collision scenario with Acela I rules out EMUs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the original Acela trainsets are withdrawn from service and returned to the lessor, following the delivery of the "Acela II"_ replacements_, that really won't be an issue.
Click to expand...

The Acela leases were bought out, as I recall.


----------



## Hal

west point said:


> IMHO there is absolutely no reason to build / rebuild the NEC for speeds greater than 160 MPH. 160 MPH would mean 1:50 NYP - WASH 225 miles. 220 MPH would mean 1:30 NYP - WASH. So for 20 minutes no way.
> 
> The NYP - BOS route of 231 miles will need much more work to get even 160 MPH. This poster would expect 3:00 is doable in about 25 years.
> 
> It is all about getting rid of the slow sections such as Frankford curve. Much cheaper in the long run.
> 
> At that time the POLs can decide of expansion if realistic. Both NEC and other locations.


I agree. Run Acela at 160 MPH and improve some of the slow sections. That is feasible. Running faster than that is a pipedream for the foreseeable future and I don't believe it is necessary anyway between Washington and New York.


----------



## Hal

jis said:


> Interesting information. Thanks.
> 
> But still all this remains inconsequential since we (a) don't know that the KTX-II was bid by anyone, and (b) even if it was bid, it was not selected. So this is interesting theoretical discussion.
> 
> Again, in case anyone is confused, this forum is not an official Amtrak forum and no amount of marketing here is going to have any impact on what Amtrak or FRA does. At best it would amount to venting ones frustration with the state of affairs, which of course continues to be a legitimate use of this forum.


It does sound like some kind of marketing going on. That won't do any good here.

One thing that always is a consideration with Amtrak is the financing plan.

I don't have a clue as to what they are going to order. Or from who, except the rumors. I think after they order and we see what has been ordered and from whom there will be a lot of discussion. It will also become clearer why they ordered from who and why they ordered whatever type of power. I won't have any problem being critical of what they order if I think it deserves criticism. But I will wait and see.


----------



## Acela150

So in a country that desperately needs a true HSR system you just want to roll over a play dead? While true HSR is no where near happening cause the folks in that big capitol building don't seem to care. Saying let's just run at 150 between WAS-NYP is the answer? No it's not. That's what guys like John Mica want people to say. Let's just think about how the NEC would be in 2040 without any decent HSR, and we're talking about Highways and Airports.


----------



## jis

Actually I do think 160mph is OK between New York and Washington given the stopping patterns and reasonable end to end times that one can achieve with it. Going beyond that at this in exchange for lower overall capacity has lower net ROI. Maybe someday there will be a time to reach for higher speeds, but does not make much sense right now. OTOH, higher speeds in other more open spaces with easier access to ROW does make sense. That is why California and Texas make sense and they actually make trips that are impossible to do today possible. Increasing speed on the NEC by another 40mph or so does not produce the bang for the enormous cost for achieving that. It is just a matter of fulfilling the most pressing needs first instead of getting carried away by the hype.

And actually your characterization of John Mica is inaccurate. he was one of the few people in Florida who fought hard and lost on the Orlando - Tampa HSR.

NEC will actually have very decent service and will not need expansion of highways and airports if we are able to do significant parts of alternative 2. What NEC really needs to stop needing more highways and airports are feeder lines more than a fancier spine. Airports are clogged by puddle jumpers going to Scranton and Albany and such. It is those line that need to be improved and or reinstated if we want to address the airport and highway problem, not get NEC to run 40mph faster.


----------



## neroden

WoodyinNYC said:


> \
> 
> Because politicians (and the public) outside the Eastern Seaboard will rightly demand that* as much or more be invested in the other states *as in the dozen or so on, or very near, to the NEC. (Indeed, Upstate NY and Greater Pittsburgh may have other priorities than saving 20 more minutes off a 2-hour schedule.)


Indeed. From my upstate NY perspective, the NEC is plenty fast enough. I understand the need to replace decaying "may fail at any time" infrastructure, and high platforms & wheelchair access need to be universal, and some of those SEPTA stops are practically derelict and need platforms built (!!!), and redundancy is valuable as is storm-proofing, and there are some capacity needs... but there is no need whatsoever to go faster on the NEC.
Routes which do need to go faster include:

Downeaster

Springfield Shuttle

Lake Shore Limited Boston Section

Inland Route

Empire Service (south)

Empire Service (west)

Lake Shore Limited to Chicago

Pennsylvanian

Wolverine

Blue Water

Pere Marquette

Hoosier State

Cardinal

Capitol Limited

Carolinian

Texas Eagle

...and a number of routes which are not currently operating.



jis said:


> Airports are clogged by puddle jumpers going to Scranton and Albany and such. It is those line that need to be improved and or reinstated if we want to address the airport and highway problem, not get NEC to run 40mph faster.


Yep.


----------



## internationalpirate

jis said:


> Actually I do think 160mph is OK between New York and Washington given the stopping patterns


Other country's corridors easily reach the top speed of 187 mph with a 30 mile average distance between stations. 187 mph is doable on NEC as long as tracks are straightened up.


----------



## Hal

internationalpirate said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I do think 160mph is OK between New York and Washington given the stopping patterns
> 
> 
> 
> Other country's corridors easily reach the top speed of 187 mph with a 30 mile average distance between stations. 187 mph is doable on NEC as long as tracks are straightened up.
Click to expand...

Good luck with getting the tracks straightened up. There are many obstacles to that.


----------



## jis

This from the lady who manages the safety case for Acela II service on the NEC. I actually spoke to her about the issue of going faster than 160mph on the NEC. Her answer was that this is not going to happen until track center distances are increased, and that require acquisition of extremely expensive real estate in many places 160 is right at eh edge of safe operation with current track center distances according to her.

There is the potential of increasing track center distance at great cost without acquiring any additional real estate most of the way between New Brunswick and Trenton, since Amtrak already owns enough property. but for now Amtrak has chosen to upgrade to 160mph and CT catenary with new catenary posts making no allowance for such spreading of the ROW in the future. So it is safe to surmise that Amtrak at present has no plans to run trains faster than 160mph on the current ROW. Any faster running will be on new ROW which of course may not happen soon, though there are plans for many track straightening projects involving new ROW in the NEC Future Alternative 2 and 3, and as expected, the cost is great. If and when that happens the ROW acquired could be wide enough for greater track center distances. So we'll see when that happens.

At the end of the day maximum speed is just one of several factors involved in reducing start to stop running times in the specific environment in which a train is to operate. It is not and end all and be all by itself, except among some frothing railfans.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

The whole Midwestern corridors vision was based on the practical measure that with 110-mph you can get at least half the benefit (ridership? value of time saved by riders?) of true *HSR which costs 10 times as much*. (Am I remembering the numbers right?) You'll get more bang for the buck by upgrading many corridors than from gilding one for the Seaboard elite.

Nobody cares how fast they are going. Everybody wants to know how long the trip will take, when it will arrive, when it will leave, can they grab something to eat in the station or on the train, and if they can't make that mid-day departure when is the next one they can take, etc.

Politicians want to know how much train can they get with this amount of money in the budget.

Hey, citizens want to know what they'll get for the money.

When 3-C's project in Ohio was announced, it was said to go an average of 49 mph. When 49 mph became the number in the popular mind, the project was doomed. No matter that someone hurried along a couple of weeks later to explain that on a closer look it would be 59 mph, and with more money it could be 69 mph. Too late, too late, too late. Those numbers never caught up with the fast-moving 49-mph description.

Back to the Midwest Regional plan. Get the trip times under 4 hours to compete with flying, get them down to 3 hours and it's a big hit!

So the Stimulus was to fund St Louis-Chicago, for a Billion get the trip down from 5:30 to about 4:30. Another Billion would get it below that 4-hour mark.

Meanwhile, Detroit-Chicago would go from 5:40 on one of the Wolverine runs, down to about 4:50. (Am I doing this right? I always stumble over the time zones, LOL.) That's not great for the end cities, but it's better. And it is great for Ann Arbor and Kalamazoo, the busiest stations in Michigan today. Another Billion in upgrades (mostly South of the Lake) would cut the 4:50ish run time down to 4:10 or even to 4 hours even.

So two, $2 Billion projects would get very High Performing routes connecting two very big cities and their metro areas with near 4-hour trip times.

Just going with the $1 Billion each in upgrades underway will get two 110-mph routes where ridership could exceed a million on each of them by 2020.

With those results we hope that the neighbors will get jealous and want trains, too. Like Cleveland-Toledo-CHI, Indianapolis-CHI, Cincinnati-Indy-CHI, Louisville-Indy-CHI, Minneapolis-St Paul-Milwaukee-CHI, St Louis-Kansas City, CHI-Quad Cities at 110 mph, then on to Iowa City, Des Moines, and Omaha at 79 mph. (As long as they go faster than the cars on the road alongside, they will do well.) At least $25 Billion to do those routes. My wild guess that would get 3 million new riders moving at speeds up to 110 mph and getting to their destination in 4 hours or so.

For the NEC, we all want the same basic stuff. Portal Bridge, new Hudson Tunnels, new Baltimore Tunnel, Susquehanna and several other bridges, state of good repair up n down the line. That all needs to be done, along with undercutting, other track work, and new catenary, for safety and reliability. When finished, these projects should make possible some 160-mph running for bragging rights, and shave minutes off the trip time, lemme hazard a guess of shaving up to 15 minutes. So Acela Is now making NY Penn Station to Union Station in 2 hrs 53 minutes could aim for 2 hrs 40 minutes. Acela IIs might, might, get to 2 hrs 30 minutes.

How many Billions again would it cost to get run time down to 1 hr 50 minutes?

Meanwhile Regionals could be moving along Penn Station-Union Station in about 3 hours. Their riders would be very happy.

Plans to hurry up and spend $100 Billion or $168 Billion on the NEC strike me as obscene, a hub-of-the-universe arrogance, and a project for the benefit to an elite who think their time is so extremely valuable that $100 Billion of other people's money is just another day marking up the Defense Dept budget.

Meanwhile, millions of ordinary people living on corridors like Baton Rouge-NOLA, Knoxville-Chattanooga, Phoenix-Tucson, Pueblo-Denver, and yeah, Detroit-Cleveland, just want to get somewhere in less than 4 hours. Their needs can be met for roughly $2 billion and up per project.

OK, New York has a plan to spend $6 or $7 Billion between Albany and Buffalo, LOL, But for $6 or $7 Billion we could likely get a new Potomac Bridge, a 90-minute corridor to Richmond, probably less than 4 hours Raleigh-Richmond, and more.

I'm hoping that Congress, in the old-fashioned way, will spread the gravy all across the land. Don't lavish it all on helping the ruling class move faster between the political and financial capitals of the country.

First triple, or at least double, Amtrak's non-NEC passengers on state-supported corridors and more LD trains moving at 110 mph. Then I might listen to a case for a gilded ride on the NEC at 180 mph.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Excellent Post Woody! Ditto,!


----------



## internationalpirate

It appears that a mechanical failure on the TGV train itself was the cause of crash.

https://en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com/train-driver-denies-excess-speed-caused-derailment-eastern-132628839--sector.html



> *Train driver denies excess speed caused derailment* in eastern France
> Prosecutors described the train driver as "very experienced" during a press conference on Monday.
> "He said he had respected the speed indicated on the map of the route," deputy persecutor Alexandre Chevrier told journalists, adding that *the train's speed was 176 km (109 miles) per hour when the accident happened.*


----------



## Hal

internationalpirate said:


> It appears that a mechanical failure on the TGV train itself was the cause of crash.
> 
> https://en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com/train-driver-denies-excess-speed-caused-derailment-eastern-132628839--sector.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Train driver denies excess speed caused derailment* in eastern France
> 
> Prosecutors described the train driver as "very experienced" during a press conference on Monday.
> 
> "He said he had respected the speed indicated on the map of the route," deputy persecutor Alexandre Chevrier told journalists, adding that *the train's speed was 176 km (109 miles) per hour when the accident happened.*
Click to expand...

That is not what the article says. As I said before it is premature to conclude what caused the accident.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## internationalpirate

Hal said:


> That is not what the article says. As I said before it is premature to conclude what caused the accident.


At 109 mph, the TGV train certainly wasn't speeding, and many test runs were made on that section before.

My suspicion is a cracked wheel or broken axle due to mechanical stress.


----------



## PRR 60

jis said:


> This from the lady who manages the safety case for Acela II service on the NEC. I actually spoke to her about the issue of going faster than 160mph on the NEC. Her answer was that this is not going to happen until track center distances are increased, and that require acquisition of extremely expensive real estate in many places 160 is right at eh edge of safe operation with current track center distances according to her.
> 
> There is the potential of increasing track center distance at great cost without acquiring any additional real estate most of the way between New Brunswick and Trenton, since Amtrak already owns enough property. but for now Amtrak has chosen to upgrade to 160mph and CT catenary with new catenary posts making no allowance for such spreading of the ROW in the future. So it is safe to surmise that Amtrak at present has no plans to run trains faster than 160mph on the current ROW. Any faster running will be on new ROW which of course may not happen soon, though there are plans for many track straightening projects involving new ROW in the NEC Future Alternative 2 and 3, and as expected, the cost is great. If and when that happens the ROW acquired could be wide enough for greater track center distances. So we'll see when that happens.
> 
> At the end of the day maximum speed is just one of several factors involved in reducing start to stop running times in the specific environment in which a train is to operate. It is not and end all and be all by itself, except among some frothing railfans.


That makes me question the wisdom of even going to 160mph on the NEC. What is the benefit - a few minutes of run time? Will cutting five or ten minutes of run time really make such a difference that Acela will gain significant market share. As an engineer, the statement "edge of safe operation" is chilling. Engineers do not design life-critical facilities on the edge of safety, particularly when that "edge" is not necessarily easy to determine analytically. The engineering rule of thumb is that the effects of speed are based on the square of the ratio. The impact of 160mph is 14% higher than 150mph. Is moving 14% closer to the safe/unsafe line worth it?

The proposed 160mph NEC operation has always seemed to be more a political and PR move than a prudent transportation and engineering decision. It's Amtrak's TGV envy showing. The Amtrak people making these decisions are often not technical people, and the true technical people behind the Amtrak curtain likely cringe when they hear some of this stuff.


----------



## jis

On the matter of the MAS on NEC, I agree that way too much is being made of 160mph. I am not sure what has happened since then with the 160mph safety case. The primary issue in that has been the track center issue. Until the safety case is signed off there will not be a 160mph commercial service. Originally the plan was to have introduced 160mph service up north where the current MAS is 150mph by this time. The fact that this has not happened may be indicative of something or maybe not. I would not blame just Amtrak. I think it is the whole nation's TGV envy reflected through the Congress pushing for such while being unwilling to invest adequately to make it a well capitalized and sustainable project.

Meanwhile of course, for all of that money allocated for the NJ speedway, apparently we will not get constant tension catenary even on the measly few miles between New Brunswick (actually CP County) and Trenton (actually CP Ham AFAICT). What has been completed so far is renewal of tracks 1 and 4, construction of the Delco and Adams high speed crossovers. Substantial progress has been made on the signaling system upgrade, Work continues apace on replacement o Midway, Ham and Fair interlocking plants. The electrification upgrade project is way behind schedule and as I mention part of it will not get the CT upgrade. And AFAICT they have run so short of money that the entire Penn Station A interlocking realignment project is being shelved. Also some of the upgrade proposed for the electrification feeder system also won;t see the light of the day apparently. Even with all that there is significant risk that the allocated funds may not all get expended within the deadline. What happens then is anyone's guess.


----------



## jis

internationalpirate said:


> It appears that a mechanical failure on the TGV train itself was the cause of crash.
> 
> https://en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com/train-driver-denies-excess-speed-caused-derailment-eastern-132628839--sector.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Train driver denies excess speed caused derailment* in eastern France
> Prosecutors described the train driver as "very experienced" during a press conference on Monday.
> "He said he had respected the speed indicated on the map of the route," deputy persecutor Alexandre Chevrier told journalists, adding that *the train's speed was 176 km (109 miles) per hour when the accident happened.*
Click to expand...

Apparently SNCF bosses disagree with the rumor mill, possibly after bothering to read the black box, instead of going off half cocked.

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/news/europe/single-view/view/late-braking-caused-tgv-derailment-says-sncf.html



> FRANCE: SNCF President Guillaume Pepy emphasised the ‘over-riding importance of organisational and human factors’ following the publication on November 19 of an initial report into the fatal derailment near Strasbourg on November 14 of a TGV during commissioning trials for Phase 2 of LGV Est-Européenne. The accident claimed the lives of 11 people, injuring 37 of which three are still reported to be seriously ill.
> 
> The report has concluded that the ‘certain cause’ of the accident was ‘a late braking sequence’. The train derailed at 243 km/h after entering a 945 m radius curve over a canal at Eckwersheim at 265 km/h, instead of the 176 km/h limit applying to that point in the test run. The resulting centrifugal force destabilised the TGV causing the vehicles to derail, with some coming to rest in the canal. The curve forms the approach to the grade-separated junction between LGV Est and the Paris – Strasbourg main line at Vendenheim.


----------



## Hal

jis said:


> Apparently SNCF bosses disagree with the rumor mill
> 
> 
> http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/news/europe/single-view/view/late-braking-caused-tgv-derailment-says-sncf.html


Thank you for posting that link. My comment is seven people in the cab. Too many. Could easily be distracting.


----------



## DSS&A

Hi,

The current Railway Age magazine has a very good article about The New Jersey 160mph speedway upgrade. Unfortunately, time constraints does not allow enough time to realign a reverse curve adjacent to wetlands. I read the the one interlocking is going to remain with No. 20 crossovers with fixed-income frogs, which reduces maintenance. My commuter train route has a few of the same No. 20 crossovers using 40pm on the diverging movement. We also travel over a No. 24 switch with a fixed-point point frog and I think that the diverging movement is 55pm where we go from double to single track. I could notice the speed increase when they installed the No. 24 switch.


----------



## Andrew

Are the new train-sets supposed to be lighter than the current ones?

Also, although Amtrak plans on ordering 28 train-sets, what will be the increase in frequency runs between New York City and Washington DC?


----------



## OBS

Oh no, the questions have started again....


----------



## afigg

Andrew said:


> Are the new train-sets supposed to be lighter than the current ones?
> 
> Also, although Amtrak plans on ordering 28 train-sets, what will be the increase in frequency runs between New York City and Washington DC?


Andrew, the answer to both of your questions is available in earlier posts in this thread. Well, to the extent that anyone here knows. The short direct answers to your questions are: 1) yes, if Amtrak buys off the shelf EMU trainsets (or close to off the shelf), the new trainsets will be significantly lighter than the Acelas. 2) The stated plan is to add Acela class trains for 1/2 hour service frequencies during evening and morning peak rush hours between WAS and NYP.


----------



## Andrew

afigg said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are the new train-sets supposed to be lighter than the current ones?
> 
> Also, although Amtrak plans on ordering 28 train-sets, what will be the increase in frequency runs between New York City and Washington DC?
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew, the answer to both of your questions is available in earlier posts in this thread. Well, to the extent that anyone here knows. The short direct answers to your questions are: 1) yes, if Amtrak buys off the shelf EMU trainsets (or close to off the shelf), the new trainsets will be significantly lighter than the Acelas. 2) The stated plan is to add Acela class trains for 1/2 hour service frequencies during evening and morning peak rush hours between WAS and NYP.
Click to expand...

It would be cool if Amtrak could have the new, higher capacity Acela's in revenue service for this Thanksgiving holiday!

They could provide more revenue for Amtrak while also meeting the travel demands of the Northeast Corridor!


----------



## Andrew

Will the new Acela train-sets have outward facing cameras?


----------



## afigg

Andrew said:


> Will the new Acela train-sets have outward facing cameras?


Yes. It will certainly have forward looking cameras to record any incidents or collisions. The 2014 joint Amtrak-CHSRA RFP specification could be summarized as asking for cameras all over the frigging place - interior ones to monitor passengers and exterior ones to monitor boarding platforms and the front of the trainset.

Edited for clarity on what I meant by joint specification.


----------



## Thirdrail7

afigg said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will the new Acela train-sets have outward facing cameras?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. It will certainly have forward looking cameras to record any incidents or collisions. The 2014 joint specification could be summarized as asking for cameras all over the frigging place - interior ones to monitor passengers and exterior ones to monitor boarding platforms and the front of the trainset.
Click to expand...

The existing sets have outward facing cameras. Why wouldn't the new ones?

Hey Afigg! I'm starting to detect a pattern to these questions and I'm getting an uneasy feeling.

Does the name Thomas seem familiar?  h34r: :help:


----------



## afigg

Thirdrail7 said:


> Hey Afigg! I'm starting to detect a pattern to these questions and I'm getting an uneasy feeling.
> 
> Does the name Thomas seem familiar?  h34r: :help:


I thought the Thomas connection would have been obvious. Same type of questions....


----------



## Andrew

Apparently, the RRIF loan for the new Acela's will also get used to fund Washington Union Station Improvements as well.


----------



## afigg

In the Trains Magazine updated report on Boardman's retirement announcement: UPDATE: BOARDMAN TO RETIRE, Boardman had this to say about the HSR trainset order:



> Regarding acquisition of high-speed trainsets for the Northeast Corridor, Boardman said, “I don’t expect to be here when they get here, but I want to make sure they get ordered and that gets done before I leave.” He said that Amtrak doesn’t have, “a final figure from the vendor and we don’t yet have approval on a Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing loan but we are doing all the due diligence that we are supposed to do to make that happen.”
> 
> He said that he hopes to announce details on NEC trainsets within the next three months.


So the bureaucratic issues with the FRA and getting the approval for the RRIF loan that are dragging out completing the contract award. The long term interest rates on the US Treasury notes, which set the RRIF loan rates, are likely to creep up over the next several years, so dragging out the contract award process is going to increase the total cost of the RRIF loan.


----------



## Thirdrail7

afigg said:


> In the Trains Magazine updated report on Boardman's retirement announcement: UPDATE: BOARDMAN TO RETIRE, Boardman had this to say about the HSR trainset order:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding acquisition of high-speed trainsets for the Northeast Corridor, Boardman said, “I don’t expect to be here when they get here, but I want to make sure they get ordered and that gets done before I leave.” He said that Amtrak doesn’t have, “a final figure from the vendor and we don’t yet have approval on a Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing loan but we are doing all the due diligence that we are supposed to do to make that happen.”
> 
> He said that he hopes to announce details on NEC trainsets within the next three months.
> 
> 
> 
> So the bureaucratic issues with the FRA and getting the approval for the RRIF loan that are dragging out completing the contract award. The long term interest rates on the US Treasury notes, which set the RRIF loan rates, are likely to creep up over the next several years, so dragging out the contract award process is going to increase the total cost of the RRIF loan.
Click to expand...


Afigg,

what happens if the loan is not approved? Has that ever happened?


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Thirdrail7 said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Trains Magazine … : UPDATE: BOARDMAN TO RETIRE, Boardman had this to say about the HSR trainset order:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding acquisition of high-speed train sets ... Boardman said … that Amtrak doesn’t have, “a final figure from the vendor and we don’t yet have approval on a Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing loan but we are doing all the due diligence that we are supposed to do to make that happen.”
> 
> He said that he hopes to announce details on NEC trainsets within the next three months.
> 
> 
> 
> So the bureaucratic issues with the FRA and getting the approval for the RRIF loan that are dragging out completing the contract award. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Afigg, what happens if the loan is not approved? Has that ever happened?
Click to expand...

Who does the approvals? The decisions in a democracy are supposed to be made by elected officials and their appointees. If the electeds don't approve of the decisions of the appointees, we get new appointees. Of course, there are simply rules n regulations requiring so many boxes in a long list get check marks. But the loan will be approved.

But I'm wondering, if the RIFF loan can cover a bundle of things like Acelas and work on Washington Union Station, can't it also include $200 million to cover the badly needed option order for the rest of the Viewliners? The cars that would come -- more sleepers n bag dorms -- will produce good revenue. The already-paid-for baggage cars couldn't show any such to pay off a loan. Diners can't either. But sleepers should be bankable.

Of course, in that case, maybe Amtrak is waiting for the haters to adjourn for Xmas holidays or actually pass a funding bill or sumpin. LOL. We may wait at least another three months to see this play out.


----------



## jis

I am almost certain that the same single loan will not cover both Acela IIs and Washington Union Station. That is just Andrew dreamin'.


----------



## Bob Dylan

With it looking certain that the Fed is fixing to raise interest rates, this would be an excellent time for Amtrak to lock in a low interest rate for loans so they should borrow all they can including picking up the option for more Viewliner II Sleeping Cars and Viewliner Coaches as well as for much needed Diesel Locomotives!


----------



## Paulus

jis said:


> I am almost certain that the same single loan will not cover both Acela IIs and Washington Union Station. That is just Andrew dreamin'.


No, that was actually in a document I recall seeing. Not sure if it was posted here or not.


----------



## neroden

Bob Dylan said:


> With it looking certain that the Fed is fixing to raise interest rates


The Fed is not going to raise interest rates any time in the near future, unless they're seized by madness. They saw what happened in the EU when they raised rates; the pro-rate-raising people have actually been switching to "keep rates low" out of fear of the EU disaster.


----------



## Andrew

I didn't realize that the other bidder that made it into the final round of bidding was Talgo (in addition to Alstom).

Amtrak also apparently gets a 6 year deferral of loan repayments during the construction period, which will be followed by a 25 year repayment period, from http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/133/704/FY15-Budget-Business-Plan-FY16-Budget-Justification-FY-15-19-Five-Year-Financial-Plan.pdfpage 82.


----------



## afigg

WoodyinNYC said:


> Who does the approvals? The decisions in a democracy are supposed to be made by elected officials and their appointees. If the electeds don't approve of the decisions of the appointees, we get new appointees. Of course, there are simply rules n regulations requiring so many boxes in a long list get check marks. But the loan will be approved.
> 
> But I'm wondering, if the RIFF loan can cover a bundle of things like Acelas and work on Washington Union Station, can't it also include $200 million to cover the badly needed option order for the rest of the Viewliners? The cars that would come -- more sleepers n bag dorms -- will produce good revenue. The already-paid-for baggage cars couldn't show any such to pay off a loan. Diners can't either. But sleepers should be bankable.
> 
> Of course, in that case, maybe Amtrak is waiting for the haters to adjourn for Xmas holidays or actually pass a funding bill or sumpin. LOL. We may wait at least another three months to see this play out.


The US DOT Credit Council gives the official approval for RRIF and TIFIA loans. Without diving into the details, I figure that the FRA has to recommend the approval of the RRIF loan to the Council. However, the RRIF loan program has long been underused due to the conditions and terms attached. Desert Xpress, now Express West, gave up on its $5.5 billion RRIF application which they blamed on the Buy America requirement, but the FRA & Credit Council may have been very reluctant to approve such a large high risk loan.

RRIF loans are an option for the Acela replacements and was used to finance the ACS-64 order because the NEC generates surplus revenue. If Amtrak can get the eastern states to agree to multi-year contracts for the state corridors, that with the remaining NEC operating surplus could likely be used to get RRIF loan financing for an Amfleet I replacement order. That is not the case for the LD system, which is dependent on year to year subsidy funding from Congress. Amtrak did not get a RRIF loan to finance the 130 car Viewliner II order, but has been doing it out of its own pocket so to speak. OTOH, if Congress gives Amtrak a blanket approval to draw down on $14 billion in RRIF loans, that might change the financing options for replacing Amfleet IIs, P-42s, Superliners. But it is still a loan, that has to be paid off with interest costs.


----------



## afigg

Paulus said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am almost certain that the same single loan will not cover both Acela IIs and Washington Union Station. That is just Andrew dreamin'.
> 
> 
> 
> No, that was actually in a document I recall seeing. Not sure if it was posted here or not.
Click to expand...

I also recall reading a statement that the circa $2.5 billion RRIF loan was also going to cover improvements at DC Union Station. Don't recall exactly where. However, the statement might have used DC Union Station as the reference for improvements at the Ivy City yards, modifying the Acela service facilities, squeezing in a few more storage tracks to accommodate the additional HSR trainsets. Funding yard and service facility upgrades as part of the HSR trainset financing package is reasonable, using it to pay for improvements to the station passenger concourse is a bit of a stretch.


----------



## jis

Yup. The $2.5 billion RRIF loan is entirely for Acela II related expenses which include the actual cost of trains and spare parts, and improvement of maintenance facilities at Ivy City, Sunnyside and Southampton Street. There won;t be much left after those are all taken care of, and in all likelihood there will be a cost overrun which will be eaten by payments out of NEC revenues immediately rather in deferred capital and interest payments.

So I don't believe any of that will go to the grand plan for Washington Union Station at all. AFAICT, a lot of that investment will come from other PPP (Public Private Partnership) sources, specially for the headhouse improvements) and not from RRIF infrastructure loans. I suppose some RRIF money could be used for the track level reconstruction and extension work, but that has not much to do with the Acela II loan we are discussing AFAIK. But only time will tell.


----------



## west point

Afigg: Once again Amtrak will be replacing the Amfleet-2s first due to their high LD mileage. Cannot post a link but if you go to Amtrak's reports, select Amtrak fleet strategy version 3.1, go to page 44 - 46 you will see Amtrak plans to replace the Amfleet-2s first. Now it may be that they will either move them to the lower mileage / day NEC or place them in a surge fleet instead of retiring the -2s..


----------



## leemell

neroden said:


> Bob Dylan said:
> 
> 
> 
> With it looking certain that the Fed is fixing to raise interest rates
> 
> 
> 
> The Fed is not going to raise interest rates any time in the near future, unless they're seized by madness. They saw what happened in the EU when they raised rates; the pro-rate-raising people have actually been switching to "keep rates low" out of fear of the EU disaster.
Click to expand...

From the Wall Street Journal yesterday:

"Federal Reserve officials are likely to raise their benchmark short-term interest rate from near zero Wednesday, expecting to slowly ratchet it higher to above 3% in three years."


----------



## Andrew

The FAST ACT signed by President Obama yesterday enables RRIF Loan repayments to start five years after a project gets completed, instead of within 6 years after the loan term begins. (It also allows Amtrak to reinvest their NEC surplus revenue to get reinvested back into the NEC; in FY 2015, this was almost $500 million).

Would Washington Union Station improvements include platform extensions?

Also, Amtrak is looking at possibly using NEC surplus revenues to pay off a RRIF Loan for their Gateway share. http://www.schumer.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/schumer-booker-amtrak-chair-announce_breakthroughs-achieved-in-just-passed-transpo-bill-that-provides-clear-path-to-federal-funding-for-gateway-tunnel-new-law-puts-gateway-on-track-for-billions-of-much-needed-additional-federal-dollars


----------



## jis

Actually even PRIIA allowed for the NEC revenues to be re-invested in the NEC, but Congress never appropriated enough in any year covered by PRIIA to actually make that happen without shutting down the LD network, or significant parts of it. So things continued pretty much as usual. Maybe Congress will appropriate adequately for it to happen this time. only time will tell. But if Congress does not appropriate $700million+ for the LD side, we can forget about NEC revenues getting re-invested in the NEC. At least part of it will go to support LD or more correctly speaking the central allocated costs of Amtrak. As we know, none of the FY16 figures for Amtrak appropriation suggest that there is any plan to do an adequate appropriation at least for FY16.

Words are cheap. Be on the lookout for what money is actually made available when push comes to shove.


----------



## afigg

west point said:


> Afigg: Once again Amtrak will be replacing the Amfleet-2s first due to their high LD mileage. Cannot post a link but if you go to Amtrak's reports, select Amtrak fleet strategy version 3.1, go to page 44 - 46 you will see Amtrak plans to replace the Amfleet-2s first. Now it may be that they will either move them to the lower mileage / day NEC or place them in a surge fleet instead of retiring the -2s..


I am well aware of the Fleet Strategy Plan V3.1 because it was extensively discussed on here when it was released 3 and a half years ago (April, 2012). Amtrak has since issued updates, such as they are, to its Fleet Strategy since then in the FY14 and FY15 budget and 5 year financial plan documents. The FY2015 plan has the replacement order of single level cars begin in 2019, but has no money for it.

While Amtrak may still wish to replace the Amfleet 2's next, the short supply, attrition losses and breakdown rates of the P-42s locomotives may push ordering some Siemens Chargers to the top of the replacement list. The problem with ordering either Amfleet II replacements or Siemens Chargers for the LD system is that there is little funding available for either. Perhaps for FY2016, Amtrak will issue a complete update of the Fleet Strategy Plan to provide info on their options rather than put in more kick the rolling stock replacement can down the road content in the 5 year financial plan documents. But this is beyond the topic of the HSR trainset order which can be paid for from ticket revenue.


----------



## mrpresident1776

Will the new Acela's be faster right out of the box? I read on Reason Rail that they would reduce the NY-Boston travel time by 38 minutes and 24 minutes between NY and Washington but it wasn't clear whether this would be because of the Acela II's characteristics, better acceleration and higher tilt etc, or if some infrastructure investment would be required. I think the X2000 could do NY-Washington faster than Acela due to lower weigh during a test so a 24 minute reduction is believable. And the plan for Acela was initially about 3 hours but Metro North forbid tilt which added about 30 minutes but I think this is now allowed. A link to the RFP would be helpful too.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> Actually even PRIIA allowed for the NEC revenues to be re-invested in the NEC, but Congress never appropriated enough in any year covered by PRIIA to actually make that happen without shutting down the LD network, or significant parts of it. So things continued pretty much as usual. Maybe Congress will appropriate adequately for it to happen this time. only time will tell. But if Congress does not appropriate $700million+ for the LD side, we can forget about NEC revenues getting re-invested in the NEC. At least part of it will go to support LD or more correctly speaking the central allocated costs of Amtrak. As we know, none of the FY16 figures for Amtrak appropriation suggest that there is any plan to do an adequate appropriation at least for FY16.
> 
> Words are cheap. Be on the lookout for what money is actually made available when push comes to shove.


Does the $2.5 Billion RRIF Loan request include the improvements to Washington Union Station and the train yard? Is the Proposed NEC profit in addition to the grants from the Fast Act?

Also, here is a Link to the Fast Act which includes Amtrak funding titles:

https://www.enotrans.org/wp-content/uploads/FAST-Act-Authorizations.pdf


----------



## neroden

leemell said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Dylan said:
> 
> 
> 
> With it looking certain that the Fed is fixing to raise interest rates
> 
> 
> 
> The Fed is not going to raise interest rates any time in the near future, unless they're seized by madness. They saw what happened in the EU when they raised rates; the pro-rate-raising people have actually been switching to "keep rates low" out of fear of the EU disaster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the Wall Street Journal yesterday:
> 
> "Federal Reserve officials are likely to raise their benchmark short-term interest rate from near zero Wednesday, expecting to slowly ratchet it higher to above 3% in three years."
Click to expand...

The WSJ is not trustworthy in any way (and I stopped reading it around the time Murdoch bought it and ruined the news pages), but it is possible that the Federal Reserve has been seized by madness. The EU officials certainly were.

If so, Federal Reserve officials are effectively inducing a recession immediately before the election, which is political interference in the election for the benefit of the Republicans. Removal from office would be appropriate, but we have a President who probably doesn't even see the problem. The country is in big trouble.


----------



## Andrew

So I guess Amtrak is not going with the TGV Duplex after all...


----------



## afigg

mrpresident1776 said:


> Will the new Acela's be faster right out of the box? I read on Reason Rail that they would reduce the NY-Boston travel time by 38 minutes and 24 minutes between NY and Washington but it wasn't clear whether this would be because of the Acela II's characteristics, better acceleration and higher tilt etc, or if some infrastructure investment would be required. I think the X2000 could do NY-Washington faster than Acela due to lower weigh during a test so a 24 minute reduction is believable. And the plan for Acela was initially about 3 hours but Metro North forbid tilt which added about 30 minutes but I think this is now allowed. A link to the RFP would be helpful too.


Since no one else has responded to your question, the new HSR trainsets will likely allow for some small reductions in trip times, maybe a few minutes, but not the numbers you state. The proposed (hoped for someday in the distant future?) 38 minute reduction for NYP-BOS and 24 minutes for NYP-WAS trip times would come from major investments in the NEC infrastructure starting with bridge & tunnel replacement projects, additional tracks, and a long list of various NEC state of good repair and improvement projects.
The slow trip time over the New Haven line is not due to the Acela not being allowed to tilt, but the many slow spots and never ending track & catenary projects on the New Haven line. The Acela has been allowed to tilt on the New Haven line for a while now. Gov. Malloy of CT has proposed to invest $3.9 billion over many years into upgrading and modernizing the New Haven Line, which would significantly benefit the Acelas and Regionals if all the proposed CT upgrades were to be done.


----------



## Andrew

And it's probably unlikely that Amtrak will combine two train-sets into one, which is done in other parts of the world. (By this, I mean that two train-sets coupled into one, with a total length of about 1,312 feet or so).

For the next generation train-set, Amtrak is looking at a train-set not more than 205 meters (or 672 feet) long to seat 40% more passengers. Why didn't they look at trains that are closer to 750 or 800 feet long to seat even more passengers?


----------



## afigg

Alstom ran a full page ad in the Washington Post last week on the back page of the first section and is repeating the ad today as a ~3/4 page ad on page A5. I think the ad is a sign that Alstom expects an announcement soon and wants to get the word out to the staff and Congresscritters on the Hill that the equipment will be American Made built by real Americans in the USA to cut off any negative knee jerk responses.

The ad has an outline of the Statute of Liberty formed by train tracks with "Alstom is USA" in large text. The smaller text in the bottom part says: "Over 150 of USA rail manufacturing expertise * More than 8,000 cars assembled in Alatom's factory in Hornell, NY * 1,900 employees across the USA with more than 350 suppliers in 30 states". The basic colors in the ad are red, white, and blue. Not exactly subtle. Worthy of ads put out by US defense contractors that you see a lot of in the DC area.


----------



## jis

The Red, White and Blue colors work well for both the US and France.


----------



## blondninja

This is good news I think. I like the current plan of spreading out contracts amongst Siemens, CAF, and Alstom. Wish Talgo got more business too and could've kept the Wisconsin factory. Plus the corridor order in Illinois.


----------



## afigg

The FY16 budget and FY16-FY20 Five Year Plan document has been released which has some updates on the projected schedule for the Next Gen HSR trainsets. Of course, contract award and delivery schedules are prone to delay. And more delay.

The section on the trainset RFP and hopefully done soon contract award:



> Next Generation High-Speed Trainsets for the Northeast Corridor The introduction of Amtraks first generation high-speed trainsets and the start of Acela Express service in late calendar year 2000 represented a watershed event for Amtraks service on the NEC. In FY 2000, the last year before Acela Express began operation, Amtraks NEC operations generated a net operating loss. In FY15, the NEC operations generated an operating surplus of nearly $479 million, down from approximately $500 million in FY14.5 The large majority of this operating surplus, and hence the success of the NEC, is attributable to Acela Express.
> 
> Acela Express service is provided by 20 trainsets, each with approximately 300 seats that are based upon early to mid-1990s technology. These trainsets, which are of a design unique to Amtrak, are becoming progressively more difficult and expensive to maintain due to their aging technology. More important, however, are their capacity constraints and inability to meet growing demand. A majority of the departures between Washington and New York City on most days of the week see load factors in excess of 90%. Trains that are completely sold out are becoming an increasingly common occurrence. This reflects potential income Amtrak cannot realize because of the limited capacity.
> 
> Amtraks Next Generation High-Speed Trainset Project will address the short-term capacity constraints and position Acela Express service for the long-term. The project will acquire up to 28 contemporary, state-of-the-art, high-speed trainsets to first supplement and eventually replace the legacy Acela Express trainsets. Each will have substantially more seats than the current equipment, and the added number of trainsets will permit Amtrak to operate half-hourly service between Washington and New York City during peak hours and hourly service between New York City and Boston while maintaining the remaining existing schedules. Minimum requirements of the trainsets included that they meet or reduce the existing Acela Express trip times, and preserve or enhance on the existing customer experience.
> 
> This project will be the first application of a new tier of passenger equipment safety standards by FRA and the first large Amtrak equipment procurement using performance standards rather than a set of design specifications. Together, they will permit Amtrak to acquire equipment that will be the next generation of high-speed trainsets proven in service overseas. Amtrak published the request for proposals on July 1, 2014. Proposals were received on October 1, 2014 and evaluated, and Amtrak is presently in negotiations with an intended awardee. Amtrak anticipates the delivery of the first prototype trainset 36 months following the notice to proceed (NTP); the first revenue in-service trainset is anticipated 48 months after the NTP and the final revenue service trainset 60 months after the NTP.
> 
> A critical element of the project involves financing. In part because of the anticipated strong financial performance of the Acela Express service using the new equipment, in FY14 Congress directed that Amtrak seek to finance this equipment using the USDOTs RRIF Loan Program, whose advantageous terms will maximize the ability of Amtrak to use Acela Express passenger revenues to meet NEC investment needs. The RRIF application for these new trainsets and other investments necessary to position the Acela service for the future was filed with the FRA in July 2014. Amtraks business case supporting the release of the request for proposals shows that incremental growth in NEC revenues resulting from the high-speed trainsets will fund Amtraks debt service obligations associated with the financing. Amtrak anticipates a decision by USDOT on the RRIF application in the second quarter of FY16. A favorable decision on the RRIF application and successful conclusion with the intended awardee on the purchase of the equipment should permit a final decision by the Amtrak Board of Directors to proceed with this project and a NTP to builder late in the second quarter of FY16.


So Amtrak's appears to be waiting on the US DOT to approve the RRIF loan and to complete negotiations with the "intended awardee".


----------



## neroden

So here's a question. I know Acela trainsets are considered a pig to maintain and Amtrak doesn't really want anything to do with them... but...

...the carshells are still good, and Amtrak has a permanent shortage of rolling stock. I wonder if throwing away the power cars, removing the tilt mechanism, attaching ordinary couplers to the front and rear, and using them to supplement the Regional/Keystone fleet would be viable. (The problem of low-level platforms is being solved as we speak.)


----------



## afigg

neroden said:


> So here's a question. I know Acela trainsets are considered a pig to maintain and Amtrak doesn't really want anything to do with them... but...
> 
> ...the carshells are still good, and Amtrak has a permanent shortage of rolling stock. I wonder if throwing away the power cars, removing the tilt mechanism, attaching ordinary couplers to the front and rear, and using them to supplement the Regional/Keystone fleet would be viable. (The problem of low-level platforms is being solved as we speak.)


How much would it cost to modify the Acela coach cars to do all that and install seats for more seats per car? What do they do with the cafe and the first class cars? Then there is the question of maintenance cost and facility capacity. They will be modifying or upgrading the Acela maintenance facilities and the storage tracks for the 28 new HSR trainsets. Can they do that and retain for the longer term, parts and tools for the Acelas? And why the heck would PennDOT have any interest at all in paying for the higher maintenance and operating costs of the Acela trainsets?
It is also not clear that all of the Keystone stations between PHL and HAR will get high level platforms by the time the Acelas are replaced. Yea, sure, there is a ADA compliance lawsuit settlement, but there appears to be nothing happening for the Parkesburg and slow, if any, progress on the new Downingtown station. Station projects get delayed. And delayed.


----------



## neroden

Ah, but would they still have higher maintenance and operating costs if they were turned into hauled coaches? That's my question.

I'm thinking of VIA's practice of using whatever old rolling stock they happen to have lying around. There's just not enough Amfleets, especially with the way they keep getting wrecked...


----------



## Hal

neroden said:


> Ah, but would they still have higher maintenance and operating costs if they were turned into hauled coaches? That's my question.
> 
> I'm thinking of VIA's practice of using whatever old rolling stock they happen to have lying around. There's just not enough Amfleets, especially with the way they keep getting wrecked...


They can't be turned into hauled coaches. The coach electronics would not be compatible with other engines.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Thirdrail7

The cafe car is an interesting subject. When there was talk about lengthening the ACELA sets, there was a plan to add seats to the cafe car. The estimated cost per cafe was quite high. Quite high! Let's say, prohibitively high.

I can't imagine anything ever becoming of that bad plan of a cafe car. They should preserve it as reminder of what happens when you have displaced airline personnel making decisions as they pass through a railroad on the way to their next job.


----------



## A Voice

Thirdrail7 said:


> The cafe car is an interesting subject. When there was talk about lengthening the ACELA sets, there was a plan to add seats to the cafe car. The estimated cost per cafe was quite high. Quite high! Let's say, prohibitively high.


I always wondered why that plan never happened, because I would have assumed (falsely) that it was a cost effective way to add capacity. Interesting.

Of course, it someone was willing to write a big enough check, then yes, the cafe cars could have coach seating and the coaches could be modified for use with any locomotive (P42, ACS-64, etc.). That's not going to happen.


----------



## neroden

Hal said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, but would they still have higher maintenance and operating costs if they were turned into hauled coaches? That's my question.
> 
> I'm thinking of VIA's practice of using whatever old rolling stock they happen to have lying around. There's just not enough Amfleets, especially with the way they keep getting wrecked...
> 
> 
> 
> They can't be turned into hauled coaches. The coach electronics would not be compatible with other engines.
Click to expand...

Geez, I wonder how they managed to design that level of incompatibility.

Really, my question is whether it's cheaper to hack them into hauled coaches than to *order brand new coaches*, complete with new stainless steel carshells. Ordering brand new coaches is obviously better, but seems to be astronomically expensive.


----------



## A Voice

neroden said:


> Hal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, but would they still have higher maintenance and operating costs if they were turned into hauled coaches? That's my question.
> 
> I'm thinking of VIA's practice of using whatever old rolling stock they happen to have lying around. There's just not enough Amfleets, especially with the way they keep getting wrecked...
> 
> 
> 
> They can't be turned into hauled coaches. The coach electronics would not be compatible with other engines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Geez, I wonder how they managed to design that level of incompatibility.
> 
> Really, my question is whether it's cheaper to hack them into hauled coaches than to *order brand new coaches*, complete with new stainless steel carshells. Ordering brand new coaches is obviously better, but seems to be astronomically expensive.
Click to expand...

There is also the issue of lease agreements; Specifically could Amtrak return the locomotives to the lessor but buy out the lease on the cars? If I'm not mistaken (without looking it up), the option to buy out the first Acela leases happens sometime this calendar year. I'm expecting the train sets to simply be returned and subsequently scrapped once the new trains are accepted, but we'll see.


----------



## west point

Small problem about high level platforms. CSX has trackage rights Albany to Long island over Amtrak's and MNRR's Albany line.. No way plate "H" cars can go by those high platforms without either station tracks or a gauntlet track past station. Believe passenger cars are classified plate "A" but not sure. Are there any freights to Harrisburg on the Amtrak line ?


----------



## jis

That is why gauntlet tracks were invented. For a little additional cost it is basically a non-issue. NJT uses them on shared trackage with Conrail between Hunter and Aldene at two stations.


----------



## Hal

neroden said:


> Hal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, but would they still have higher maintenance and operating costs if they were turned into hauled coaches? That's my question.
> 
> I'm thinking of VIA's practice of using whatever old rolling stock they happen to have lying around. There's just not enough Amfleets, especially with the way they keep getting wrecked...
> 
> 
> 
> They can't be turned into hauled coaches. The coach electronics would not be compatible with other engines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Geez, I wonder how they managed to design that level of incompatibility.
> Really, my question is whether it's cheaper to hack them into hauled coaches than to *order brand new coaches*, complete with new stainless steel carshells. Ordering brand new coaches is obviously better, but seems to be astronomically expensive.
Click to expand...

The power cars and coaches are electronically and mechanically married together. Modifying the fleet of Electric or Diesel locomotives would be astronomically expensive, if it were even possible. There are many things totally different. Each coach has an integrated truck surveillance unit that sends signals to the power car on the status of the wheels and journals that are received from sensors on the trucks. If there is a failure speed is automatically restricted. If there is a door open speed is restricted. There are no hand brakes. The parking brake controls are on the power cars. I could go on and on. Acela is what I would call over engineered. They are not going to be able to hack the current fleet of electric and diesel locomotives to haul Acela coaches or hack the coaches.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## neroden

Wow. Thanks for the information, Hal.

Given that description... I think the Acela really wasn't a good design, in many ways. Too damn clever; violating the KISS principle.

Yeah, they're gonna have to be scrapped. Nobody will want them.

I was thinking about the LRCs (which were converted from a trainset to locomotive-hauled coaches), the Metroliners (converted from MUs to loco-hauled coaches), and numerous other examples of the same sort of thing. But apparently the Acelas are gratuitously incompatible.


----------



## Paulus

Are any modern distributed traction trains capable of being hacked in that way?



Thirdrail7 said:


> The cafe car is an interesting subject. When there was talk about lengthening the ACELA sets, there was a plan to add seats to the cafe car. The estimated cost per cafe was quite high. Quite high! Let's say, prohibitively high.
> 
> I can't imagine anything ever becoming of that bad plan of a cafe car. They should preserve it as reminder of what happens when you have displaced airline personnel making decisions as they pass through a railroad on the way to their next job.


Not having ridden the Acela, what's the problem with the cafe car?


----------



## OBS

The Acela café car has a lot of wasted space, as well as no tables, just stools (intentionally uncomfortable) along a narrow counter with no electrical outlets conveniently located for use.


----------



## Acela150

west point said:


> Small problem about high level platforms. CSX has trackage rights Albany to Long island over Amtrak's and MNRR's Albany line.. No way plate "H" cars can go by those high platforms without either station tracks or a gauntlet track past station. Believe passenger cars are classified plate "A" but not sure. Are there any freights to Harrisburg on the Amtrak line ?


NS runs locals on the Harrisburg line M-F. NS runs H84 and H83 between Coatesville at W&N Junction and GLEN interlocking then on to Abrams. Having been on both, I can tell you that it's the same train, just a different symbol for crews etc. The 84 crew is O/D at 630a M-F and the 83 crew is O/D at 7p M-F. The largest car I've seen is a I Beam Lumber car. Other then that it's tanks and gons. Occasional covered hopper.


----------



## afigg

neroden said:


> Given that description... I think the Acela really wasn't a good design, in many ways. Too damn clever; violating the KISS principle.
> 
> Yeah, they're gonna have to be scrapped. Nobody will want them.
> 
> I was thinking about the LRCs (which were converted from a trainset to locomotive-hauled coaches), the Metroliners (converted from MUs to loco-hauled coaches), and numerous other examples of the same sort of thing. But apparently the Acelas are gratuitously incompatible.


The issue is integrated train sets. If the cars are designed as part of a combined HSR trainset, in this case, one with tilt, reusing them for anything else is problematical. And too expensive to be worthwhile.

Want more "standard" single level coach cars? Buy them. Figuring the price for a new single level coach car is around $3 to $3.5 million, buying new rolling stock becomes the better option. Which is what Amtrak is doing with the Next Gen HSR trainset order. Which will roughly double the seat capacity for Acela class service on the NEC, so there will be a boost in NEC capacity once the new trainsets are in service.


----------



## afigg

Another piece of info in the FY16 Budget and Five Year Financial Plan has to do the with expected RRIF loan and the increase in Amtrak's debt burden:



> The current debt level of $1.3 billion outstanding will likely be the lowest point at which Amtrak debt will stand over the next decade; purchase of 28 NextGen Trainsets and related investments by Amtrak will require new debt to be incurred. This new debt, expected to amount to approximately $2.5 billion in total, will be sourced via the FRA’s RRIF loan program, and will likely permit at least a six-year deferral of repayment during the construction period and approximately twenty-three year mortgage-style repayment period, thereafter.


A few months ago I expressed some concern about the impact of higher interest rates. Well, thanks to the economic slow-down in China and other countries, collapse in oil prices and some other commodities, there has been a flight of capital to US Treasuries, pushing down long term Treasury rates. Not sure exactly how the RRIF loans are structured, but if Amtrak can lock in the entire $2.5 billion loan at current 20 and 30 year Treasury rates with a small premium and then defer initial payments for up 6 years after the Notice To Proceed, it will be debt about cheap as it gets.

As of Friday, February 19, US Treasury rates for 20 year notes are 2.17% and 30 year notes 2.61%. Hurry up and get the RRIF loan approved and signed off on while rates are this low.


----------



## neroden

Paulus said:


> Are any modern distributed traction trains capable of being hacked in that way?


Yes, nearly all of them. It's usually not too hard to convert anything into a hauled coach; just remove all the smart bits. The "dumb" failsafes like handbrakes are usually still present for redundancy of safety equipment. You can usually even haul the whole damn trainset.


----------



## afigg

Ah, the things one can find by doing a little digging in US government websites. In this case, the US DOT Credit Council (link which leads to the meeting schedule and agenda page). To be specific, the February 19, 2016 Agenda has this under action items:



> (b) Application for a $2.45 billion RRIF loan from Amtrak for the financing of 28 new trainsets, trainset spares, facility improvements and ride quality improvements - the Council recommended to the FRA Administrator the approval of Amtraks application


So, the RRIF loan application is for $2.45 billion total and may be officially approved soon, if not already done. The $2.45 billion will also pay for facility improvements (ie the maintenance facilities and storage tracks at WAS, NYP, BOS) and "ride quality improvements". I take this last item to mean that some of the financing will go to undercutting and fixing segments of the track bed between WAS and NYP so the ride on the new trainsets won't be as bumpy. Which means that Amtrak will be using some of the predicted Acela II operating surplus to pay for financing NEC track maintenance and improvements as new debt, for better or worse.


----------



## OBS

Good catch...thanks.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

afigg said:


> Ah, the things one can find by doing a little digging in US government websites. . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (b) Application for a $2.45 billion RRIF loan from Amtrak for the financing of 28 new trainsets, trainset spares, facility improvements and ride quality improvements - the Council recommended to the FRA Administrator the approval of Amtraks application
> 
> 
> 
> . . . "ride quality improvements". . . . [likely meaning] . . . undercutting and fixing segments of the track bed between WAS and NYP so the ride on the new trainsets won't be as bumpy. Which means that Amtrak will be using some of the predicted Acela II operating surplus to pay for financing NEC track maintenance and improvements as new debt, for better or worse.
Click to expand...

One can find this sort of thing, but I can't.  I count on you to do it. *You the best!*

I'm glad they've found a way to pay for the much needed undercutting and fixing. That work will benefit the Acelas, Regionals, Keystones, as well as the Palmetto, the Star, the Meteor, the Crescent, the Cardinal, the Carolinian, the Pennsylvanian, the Vermonter, and the Virginia services.

I only wish they could have borrowed *more *money to do more things. Interest rates will never be cheaper, so borrow and build NOW. Amtrak will benefit from these investments for years to come.


----------



## west point

If Amtrak could borrow more and the resulting improvements decrease losses would it be prudent to borrow more ? Then would congress critters forgive some of the loans ?


----------



## WoodyinNYC

west point said:


> If Amtrak could borrow more and the resulting improvements decrease losses would it be prudent to borrow more ? Then would congress critters forgive some of the loans ?I


The resulting improvements -- such as buying another 20 Viewliner II sleepers, investing a Billion or two to bring 110-mph Higher Speed Rail to South of the Lake, a Billion to build a new Potomac Long Bridge, to make D.C.-Richmond-Petersburg into 90-mph service and another Billion to open the shortcut Petersburg-Raleigh -- of course these would decrease losses, likely putting a few LD trains into operating surpluses. So then, the loans could repaid in the usual way. Why would Amtrak need to have any loans forgiven?

As I've been given to understand, it's obvious that several Amtrak investments could "pay for themselves" with better operating results. Amtrak can't take that to a bank, not even the RRIF bank, because Amtrak's ability to repay depends on Congress continuing the yearly federal funding without any reduction. But nobody can guarantee that a future Congress won't cut the yearly funding and ruin Amtrak's ability to repay any and all loans.

Recently Amtrak reorganized to keep Acela/NEC separate from the LD and state-supported divisions. Perhaps one reason was to fence off the Acela/NEC enuff to be able to pledge the Acela surpluses without fear that Congress would pull the plug on funding for LD or other services, wreck Amtrak's budget, and jeopardize loans taken against forecasted Acela surpluses.


----------



## neroden

WoodyinNYC said:


> Recently Amtrak reorganized to keep Acela/NEC separate from the LD and state-supported divisions. Perhaps one reason was to fence off the Acela/NEC enuff to be able to pledge the Acela surpluses without fear that Congress would pull the plug on funding for LD or other services, wreck Amtrak's budget, and jeopardize loans taken against forecasted Acela surpluses.


No, it doesn't really do that. The Acela surpluses, like everything else, depend on funding of Amtrak's national system overhead (IT, backshops, etc.), about $1 billion a year. The Acela surpluses aren't nearly large enough to cover that overhead on their own. Amtrak needs that overhead funded.

I really think it would make the most sense to present the accounting with a "national passenger train central services" account and make it clear to Congress that they are funding the equivalent of the FAA.


----------



## afigg

WoodyinNYC said:


> west point said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Amtrak could borrow more and the resulting improvements decrease losses would it be prudent to borrow more ? Then would congress critters forgive some of the loans ?I
> 
> 
> 
> The resulting improvements -- such as buying another 20 Viewliner II sleepers, investing a Billion or two to bring 110-mph Higher Speed Rail to South of the Lake, a Billion to build a new Potomac Long Bridge, to make D.C.-Richmond-Petersburg into 90-mph service and another Billion to open the shortcut Petersburg-Raleigh -- of course these would decrease losses, likely putting a few LD trains into operating surpluses. So then, the loans could repaid in the usual way. Why would Amtrak need to have any loans forgiven?
> As I've been given to understand, it's obvious that several Amtrak investments could "pay for themselves" with better operating results. Amtrak can't take that to a bank, not even the RRIF bank, because Amtrak's ability to repay depends on Congress continuing the yearly federal funding without any reduction. But nobody can guarantee that a future Congress won't cut the yearly funding and ruin Amtrak's ability to repay any and all loans.
Click to expand...

The RRIF loans are funded by US Treasury bills, so "forgiving" the loans would require Congress to come up with the funds to pay off the bills. Well, unless we want to default on US Treasury bills. Which is not a good idea. At all.
As for using RRIF or other federal loans to pay for a bunch of NEC infrastructure projects and rolling stock, it is likely to happen. But loans are debt which has to be paid off over the next 20 to 35 years. Burying the NEC under $500 million or $1 billion a year in debt payments, expecting the NEC revenue and NEC transit agencies to pay off the debt, will inevitably hamper funding of maintenance and additional NEC improvements projects 10 or 20 years from now.

Should figure out what the annual debt service payments for a $2.45 billion RRIF loan would be. There will be fees and credit risk premiums on top of the 20 to 25 year loan, but could estimate what the ballpark minimum annual cost is. Then extrapolate that to an additional, say, $10 billion loan for NEC projects at 3%, 3.5%, 4% interest.


----------



## neroden

Well, the US Treasury can just print money to pay off the T-bills. (Federal Reserve Notes, US Notes, superjumbo platinum coins, whatever.) There would be very little effect, economically speaking. But there's this illusion that the government has to "borrow" money which certain people like to maintain.


----------



## jis

neroden said:


> Well, the US Treasury can just print money to pay off the T-bills. (Federal Reserve Notes, US Notes, superjumbo platinum coins, whatever.) There would be very little effect, economically speaking. But there's this illusion that the government has to "borrow" money which certain people like to maintain.


Specially some who seem to be unable to balance their own personal finances. People don't realize that managing a national account of a country that owns the core currency of international trade is nowhere near like balancing one's checkbook.


----------



## Ziv

The US dollar doesn't HAVE to be the core international currency, and there are states that are working to see that it doesn't remain so. If that happens, and it is more likely to happen if we keep selling huge amounts of T bills, then the cost to borrow will go up substantially which will be a huge drag on our economy. If the perception of the strength of the dollar changes, and profligate spending might do that, then we will pay a huge cost down the road. No way to know for sure, of course.



jis said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the US Treasury can just print money to pay off the T-bills. (Federal Reserve Notes, US Notes, superjumbo platinum coins, whatever.) There would be very little effect, economically speaking. But there's this illusion that the government has to "borrow" money which certain people like to maintain.
> 
> 
> 
> Specially some who seem to be unable to balance their own personal finances. People don't realize that managing a national account of a country that owns the core currency of international trade is nowhere near like balancing one's checkbook.
Click to expand...


----------



## jis

Actually we are nowhere as profligate as the certain states that are trying to change it. As long as we keep things as they are we should be fine as we watch China and Russia collapse into a heap of mush


----------



## Ziv

I hope you are right, jis. I don't think our spending is completely out of control, but between the Russians, the Chinese, the Saudis and a few others, there are states that would love to see us take a hit.



jis said:


> Actually we are nowhere as profligate as the certain states that are trying to change it. As long as we keep things as they are we should be fine as we watch China and Russia collapse into a heap of mush


----------



## jis

But if you look at their own finances you soon realize that they will be dreaming for a long long time, while struggling to stay afloat themselves. You can run on completely cooked books for only so long, specially in the case of the Chinese.


----------



## mrpresident1776

afigg said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> west point said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Amtrak could borrow more and the resulting improvements decrease losses would it be prudent to borrow more ? Then would congress critters forgive some of the loans ?I
> 
> 
> 
> The resulting improvements -- such as buying another 20 Viewliner II sleepers, investing a Billion or two to bring 110-mph Higher Speed Rail to South of the Lake, a Billion to build a new Potomac Long Bridge, to make D.C.-Richmond-Petersburg into 90-mph service and another Billion to open the shortcut Petersburg-Raleigh -- of course these would decrease losses, likely putting a few LD trains into operating surpluses. So then, the loans could repaid in the usual way. Why would Amtrak need to have any loans forgiven?
> As I've been given to understand, it's obvious that several Amtrak investments could "pay for themselves" with better operating results. Amtrak can't take that to a bank, not even the RRIF bank, because Amtrak's ability to repay depends on Congress continuing the yearly federal funding without any reduction. But nobody can guarantee that a future Congress won't cut the yearly funding and ruin Amtrak's ability to repay any and all loans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The RRIF loans are funded by US Treasury bills, so "forgiving" the loans would require Congress to come up with the funds to pay off the bills. Well, unless we want to default on US Treasury bills. Which is not a good idea. At all.
> As for using RRIF or other federal loans to pay for a bunch of NEC infrastructure projects and rolling stock, it is likely to happen. But loans are debt which has to be paid off over the next 20 to 35 years. Burying the NEC under $500 million or $1 billion a year in debt payments, expecting the NEC revenue and NEC transit agencies to pay off the debt, will inevitably hamper funding of maintenance and additional NEC improvements projects 10 or 20 years from now.
> 
> Should figure out what the annual debt service payments for a $2.45 billion RRIF loan would be. There will be fees and credit risk premiums on top of the 20 to 25 year loan, but could estimate what the ballpark minimum annual cost is. Then extrapolate that to an additional, say, $10 billion loan for NEC projects at 3%, 3.5%, 4% interest.
Click to expand...

I would guess that the annual debt service payments would be about $130 million per year, $2.45 billion @ 25 years @ 2.38% interest, very reasonable considering today's Acela takes in about twice that in profit, and the Acela II's will at minimum, increase profit by 50%, and likely even more through a combination of increased capacity per set, additional frequencies, and slightly lower operating and (hopefully) lower maintenance costs. They should also be a little faster, doing DC to NY in about 2h21m-2h30m and DC-Boston in about 6h8m, which would attract a few more riders/revenue on top of what I thought above.

To caveat, similar claims were made about the original Acela and we only ended up with some benefits.

Yes, Amtrak is thinking about financing some NEC projects with RRIF. It is a good idea and helps to weed out some of the really expensive projects (ie $1 billion for reduce travel time by 1 minute or 2).

"Amtrak may borrow through RRIF to finance investments within the NEC that demonstrate economic benefit and the ability to repay the loan." p77 https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/133/704/FY15-Budget-Business-Plan-FY16-Budget-Justification-FY-15-19-Five-Year-Financial-Plan.pdf


----------



## Andrew

mrpresident1776 said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> west point said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Amtrak could borrow more and the resulting improvements decrease losses would it be prudent to borrow more ? Then would congress critters forgive some of the loans ?I
> 
> 
> 
> The resulting improvements -- such as buying another 20 Viewliner II sleepers, investing a Billion or two to bring 110-mph Higher Speed Rail to South of the Lake, a Billion to build a new Potomac Long Bridge, to make D.C.-Richmond-Petersburg into 90-mph service and another Billion to open the shortcut Petersburg-Raleigh -- of course these would decrease losses, likely putting a few LD trains into operating surpluses. So then, the loans could repaid in the usual way. Why would Amtrak need to have any loans forgiven?
> As I've been given to understand, it's obvious that several Amtrak investments could "pay for themselves" with better operating results. Amtrak can't take that to a bank, not even the RRIF bank, because Amtrak's ability to repay depends on Congress continuing the yearly federal funding without any reduction. But nobody can guarantee that a future Congress won't cut the yearly funding and ruin Amtrak's ability to repay any and all loans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The RRIF loans are funded by US Treasury bills, so "forgiving" the loans would require Congress to come up with the funds to pay off the bills. Well, unless we want to default on US Treasury bills. Which is not a good idea. At all.
> As for using RRIF or other federal loans to pay for a bunch of NEC infrastructure projects and rolling stock, it is likely to happen. But loans are debt which has to be paid off over the next 20 to 35 years. Burying the NEC under $500 million or $1 billion a year in debt payments, expecting the NEC revenue and NEC transit agencies to pay off the debt, will inevitably hamper funding of maintenance and additional NEC improvements projects 10 or 20 years from now.
> 
> Should figure out what the annual debt service payments for a $2.45 billion RRIF loan would be. There will be fees and credit risk premiums on top of the 20 to 25 year loan, but could estimate what the ballpark minimum annual cost is. Then extrapolate that to an additional, say, $10 billion loan for NEC projects at 3%, 3.5%, 4% interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would guess that the annual debt service payments would be about $130 million per year, $2.45 billion @ 25 years @ 2.38% interest, very reasonable considering today's Acela takes in about twice that in profit, and the Acela II's will at minimum, increase profit by 50%, and likely even more through a combination of increased capacity per set, additional frequencies, and slightly lower operating and (hopefully) lower maintenance costs. They should also be a little faster, doing DC to NY in about 2h21m-2h30m and DC-Boston in about 6h8m, which would attract a few more riders/revenue on top of what I thought above.
> 
> To caveat, similar claims were made about the original Acela and we only ended up with some benefits.
> 
> Yes, Amtrak is thinking about financing some NEC projects with RRIF. It is a good idea and helps to weed out some of the really expensive projects (ie $1 billion for reduce travel time by 1 minute or 2).
> 
> "Amtrak may borrow through RRIF to finance investments within the NEC that demonstrate economic benefit and the ability to repay the loan." p77 https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/133/704/FY15-Budget-Business-Plan-FY16-Budget-Justification-FY-15-19-Five-Year-Financial-Plan.pdf
Click to expand...

And I believe that Amtrak will continue to lobby Congress this year to be allowed to retain the NEC "surplus" revenues for reinvestment back into the NEC. The Fast Act signed by Obama this past December permitted this, but the appropriations bills did not comport with the Fast Act. We'll see what happens during the remaining time for this Congress.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Andrew: there's this thing going on called an Election, so don't look for Congress to do Anything except perhaps vote once again to kill Obamacare! 

And the beat goes on!


----------



## jis

In effect what Congress needs to do is appropriate at the level of the authorization. This whole business about reinvesting NEC profits is partly accounting magic that first of all gives the impression of the surplus by carefully hiding away maintenance and shared costs. Carefully accounting for actually operating the NEC, not just a made up above the rails cost using mysterious allocation algorithms to allocate away shared costs elsewhere is need and is very hard to come by. And meanwhile the unsustainable usurious fares charged on the NEC in face of lower energy costs need to be addressed too.

I was talking to a few current and recently retired Amtrak folks, and apparently the finances are really in a bit of shambles due to drops in ridership across the board with no respite in site given the situation with the world oil market and weakness in demand relative to supply.


----------



## neroden

Saudi Arabia runs out of money in roughly late 2018 (maybe earlier) if the price of oil doesn't go up above $50/bbl. So definitely expect the price of oil to go up in 2018.

Fracking for oil is already collapsing due to low prices so the price may actually go up in 2017 or even late 2016.

Oil demand will probably continue to drop, however. Also electric cars are going to be a mass-market item starting late-2017, early-2018, and once you own one, the cost of driving it is roughly equivalent to having $1.50 gasoline.

Amtrak needs to be faster than driving, and can't charge too much more.


----------



## Andrew

afigg said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> west point said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Amtrak could borrow more and the resulting improvements decrease losses would it be prudent to borrow more ? Then would congress critters forgive some of the loans ?I
> 
> 
> 
> The resulting improvements -- such as buying another 20 Viewliner II sleepers, investing a Billion or two to bring 110-mph Higher Speed Rail to South of the Lake, a Billion to build a new Potomac Long Bridge, to make D.C.-Richmond-Petersburg into 90-mph service and another Billion to open the shortcut Petersburg-Raleigh -- of course these would decrease losses, likely putting a few LD trains into operating surpluses. So then, the loans could repaid in the usual way. Why would Amtrak need to have any loans forgiven?
> As I've been given to understand, it's obvious that several Amtrak investments could "pay for themselves" with better operating results. Amtrak can't take that to a bank, not even the RRIF bank, because Amtrak's ability to repay depends on Congress continuing the yearly federal funding without any reduction. But nobody can guarantee that a future Congress won't cut the yearly funding and ruin Amtrak's ability to repay any and all loans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The RRIF loans are funded by US Treasury bills, so "forgiving" the loans would require Congress to come up with the funds to pay off the bills. Well, unless we want to default on US Treasury bills. Which is not a good idea. At all.
> As for using RRIF or other federal loans to pay for a bunch of NEC infrastructure projects and rolling stock, it is likely to happen. But loans are debt which has to be paid off over the next 20 to 35 years. Burying the NEC under $500 million or $1 billion a year in debt payments, expecting the NEC revenue and NEC transit agencies to pay off the debt, will inevitably hamper funding of maintenance and additional NEC improvements projects 10 or 20 years from now.
> 
> Should figure out what the annual debt service payments for a $2.45 billion RRIF loan would be. There will be fees and credit risk premiums on top of the 20 to 25 year loan, but could estimate what the ballpark minimum annual cost is. Then extrapolate that to an additional, say, $10 billion loan for NEC projects at 3%, 3.5%, 4% interest.
Click to expand...

Any update on the financing and Notice to Proceed? The RFP was issued back on July 1st, 2014.


----------



## afigg

Andrew said:


> Any update on the financing and Notice to Proceed? The RFP was issued back on July 1st, 2014.


If there had been any public news, it would have been posted here. We will find out when we find out.


----------



## west point

If you read the FY2016 budget and business plan the calendar for the project is quite compact. Once the notice to proceed the vendor must provide a operational prototype by 36 months, first operational train set by 48 months, final delivery 60 months. ) not sure if it will be operational ? ) That would be a delivery better than one every two weeks./ Even ACS-64s did not meet that metric.

The only problem will be certain spoil sports taking Amtrak to court changeling the award.


----------



## Acela150

west point said:


> If you read the FY2016 budget and business plan the calendar for the project is quite compact. Once the notice to proceed the vendor must provide a operational prototype by 36 months, first operational train set by 48 months, final delivery 60 months. ) not sure if it will be operational ? ) That would be a delivery better than one every two weeks./ Even ACS-64s did not meet that metric.
> 
> The only problem will be certain spoil sports taking Amtrak to court changeling the award.


Let's be honest.. The way that the Sprinters have performed so far.. Siemens will be awarded the deal.. Alstom will complain and sue.. But who does it come down to.. Fat Mouthed Charlie....


----------



## afigg

west point said:


> If you read the FY2016 budget and business plan the calendar for the project is quite compact. Once the notice to proceed the vendor must provide a operational prototype by 36 months, first operational train set by 48 months, final delivery 60 months. ) not sure if it will be operational ? ) That would be a delivery better than one every two weeks./ Even ACS-64s did not meet that metric.
> 
> The only problem will be certain spoil sports taking Amtrak to court changeling the award.


The production schedule won't have to be quite that compact on the latter end. Amtrak got the waiver from the FRA for the first two trainsets to be built outside the US, so those 2 trainsets can be delivered in the 36 month period for testing. Those 2 trainsets may be called "prototypes", but they will be used in revenue service. To go into operational service at 48 months, that implies a minimum number of trainsets delivered and approved for revenue service by then, whatever that number is. Since the US plant will build 26 out of the 28 trainsets, the delivery schedule could be something like from 42 to 60 months or over a 18 month period. That is roughly a trainset a little under every 3 weeks.

An aggressive schedule? yes. Do I think whoever the vendor is will meet it? Probably not, given the established recent (and not so recent) history of US based manufacturing plants not meeting the original agreed delivery schedule for passenger trains, be it intercity, commuter, subway, or light rail equipment.


----------



## PVD

With the downturn in the oilfields, the next round of hiring of machinists and welders will be a bit easier for the factories.


----------



## Andrew

It is my understanding that Alstom is expected to get the contract for the 28 new Acela Train-sets, unless, of course, there ends up being some kind of joint venture? (Someone said maybe Siemens would get the contract). Read the last paragraph from the link:

http://www.eveningtribune.com/article/20160330/NEWS/160339951


----------



## jis

Someone who is talking about Siemens is just making a SWAG* which I doubt is based in any concrete inside knowledge.

*SWAG - Simple Wild As*ed Guess


----------



## Acela150

Andrew said:


> It is my understanding that Alstom is expected to get the contract for the 28 new Acela Train-sets, unless, of course, there ends up being some kind of joint venture? (Someone said maybe Siemens would get the contract). Read the last paragraph from the link:
> 
> http://www.eveningtribune.com/article/20160330/NEWS/160339951


The Acela sets and HHP's were a Joint venture.. And nothing short of a bad one..



jis said:


> Someone who is talking about Siemens is just making a SWAG* which I doubt is based in any concrete inside knowledge.
> 
> *SWAG - Simple Wild As*ed Guess


Oh come on Jishnu, with the good record that ACS' have right now.. Their is no reason not to go with Siemens.. Wild guess or not. Why wouldn't you pick a builder that has a reliable product on your rails right now. Just because Chuck Schumer opened his mouth last year about such a thing.. Isn't a justified reason to not go with Siemens, or anyone else.


----------



## Andrew

Acela150 said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is my understanding that Alstom is expected to get the contract for the 28 new Acela Train-sets, unless, of course, there ends up being some kind of joint venture? (Someone said maybe Siemens would get the contract). Read the last paragraph from the link:
> 
> http://www.eveningtribune.com/article/20160330/NEWS/160339951
> 
> 
> 
> The Acela sets and HHP's were a Joint venture.. And nothing short of a bad one..
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone who is talking about Siemens is just making a SWAG* which I doubt is based in any concrete inside knowledge.
> 
> *SWAG - Simple Wild As*ed Guess
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh come on Jishnu, with the good record that ACS' have right now.. Their is no reason not to go with Siemens.. Wild guess or not. Why wouldn't you pick a builder that has a reliable product on your rails right now. Just because Chuck Schumer opened his mouth last year about such a thing.. Isn't a justified reason to not go with Siemens, or anyone else.
Click to expand...


Amtrak and Alstom are about to sign off on the contract. From:

http://www.eveningtribune.com/article/20160503/NEWS/160509930


----------



## jis

Acela150 said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is my understanding that Alstom is expected to get the contract for the 28 new Acela Train-sets, unless, of course, there ends up being some kind of joint venture? (Someone said maybe Siemens would get the contract). Read the last paragraph from the link:
> 
> http://www.eveningtribune.com/article/20160330/NEWS/160339951
> 
> 
> 
> The Acela sets and HHP's were a Joint venture.. And nothing short of a bad one..
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone who is talking about Siemens is just making a SWAG* which I doubt is based in any concrete inside knowledge.
> 
> *SWAG - Simple Wild As*ed Guess
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh come on Jishnu, with the good record that ACS' have right now.. Their is no reason not to go with Siemens.. Wild guess or not. Why wouldn't you pick a builder that has a reliable product on your rails right now. Just because Chuck Schumer opened his mouth last year about such a thing.. Isn't a justified reason to not go with Siemens, or anyone else.
Click to expand...

All that I am saying is you know nothing more than anyone else does here. You are just speculating based on your railfan idea on how contracts are arrived at, which may or may not have anything to do with reality. That is called a SWAG in my book.  
I know you work for a railroad and all that, but how many purchase contracts have you negotiated so far to know precisely what logic is used to arrive at a choice?

I am just happy to see the contract put in place and would be happy with either possibility.


----------



## Hal

Acela150 said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is my understanding that Alstom is expected to get the contract for the 28 new Acela Train-sets, unless, of course, there ends up being some kind of joint venture? (Someone said maybe Siemens would get the contract). Read the last paragraph from the link:
> 
> http://www.eveningtribune.com/article/20160330/NEWS/160339951
> 
> 
> 
> The Acela sets and HHP's were a Joint venture.. And nothing short of a bad one..
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone who is talking about Siemens is just making a SWAG* which I doubt is based in any concrete inside knowledge.
> 
> *SWAG - Simple Wild As*ed Guess
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh come on Jishnu, with the good record that ACS' have right now.. Their is no reason not to go with Siemens.. Wild guess or not. Why wouldn't you pick a builder that has a reliable product on your rails right now. Just because Chuck Schumer opened his mouth last year about such a thing.. Isn't a justified reason to not go with Siemens, or anyone else.
Click to expand...

Some might not agree with you about the record of the ACS-64 being all that good.

As for who they pick. I don't think you understand how the builder will be picked.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Andrew said:


> It is my understanding that Alstom is expected to get the contract [soon]
> 
> from the link:
> 
> http://www.eveningtribune.com/article/20160330/NEWS/160339951


http://www.eveningtribune.com/news/20160503/alstom-amtrak-deal-on-track

That first link seems messed up.

A good story by Jason Jordan, writing in _The Evening Tribune_ of Hornell, NY, the local paper for the factory slated to build the Acela IIs if Alstom wins the contract.

CongressCritter and the Mayor seem to expect the deal to be signed by the end of June, maybe much sooner.



> “There’s no reason not to be optimistic,” Mayor Shawn Hogan said. “I’m told that everything is moving along as anticipated and they’re getting the details worked out.”


----------



## jis

Yet another article on the subject that surfaced yesterday....

http://www.eveningtribune.com/article/20160503/NEWS/160509930


----------



## Andrew

The contract should be completed either later this month or in early June!

I wonder how many seats the new train-sets will have, and, if they prove extremely reliable--and popular-- that Amtrak will ask Alstom to build the new Amfleet coaches in the future.

Does anyone predict that a joint venture will get the contract for new Amfleet coaches?


----------



## Hal

Andrew said:


> The contract should be completed either later this month or in early June!
> 
> I wonder how many seats the new train-sets will have, and, if they prove extremely reliable--and popular-- that Amtrak will ask Alstom to build the new Amfleet coaches in the future.
> 
> Does anyone predict that a joint venture will get the contract for new Amfleet coaches?


I wonder how some here come up with wonders and questions like the above.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Hal said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... I wonder how many seats the new train-sets will have, and, if they prove extremely reliable--and popular-- that Amtrak will ask Alstom to build the new Amfleet coaches in the future.
> 
> Does anyone predict that a joint venture will get the contract for new Amfleet coaches?
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how some here come up with wonders and questions like the above.
Click to expand...

Sort of like asking, "Are we there yet?"


----------



## Hal

WoodyinNYC said:


> Hal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... I wonder how many seats the new train-sets will have, and, if they prove extremely reliable--and popular-- that Amtrak will ask Alstom to build the new Amfleet coaches in the future.
> 
> Does anyone predict that a joint venture will get the contract for new Amfleet coaches?
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how some here come up with wonders and questions like the above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sort of like asking, "Are we there yet?"
Click to expand...

Or "putting the cart before the horse".


----------



## west point

New coaches will not be Amfleet. The FY budget request and 5 year plan seems to imply that design will either be very similar or actual design ( Amtrak owned ) of present V-2s. The budget request on page 28 states more single level cars to be delivered in 2019 so that might give an indication of when contract will be awarded.


----------



## jis

Or more like in an ideal world when they wish to be able to acquire them. That does not mean it will happen anytime around then. I have heard from a very reliable source that the current speculation is that the Amfleet Is and IIs will go through another round of rebuilding before any real new single level cars will materialize. Which suggests that the 2019 date is a fantasy that everyone wishes would come true, but no one is counting on.


----------



## keelhauled

Even if they were ordered tomorrow I wouldn't believe we'd see them delivered in 2019.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Andrew said:


> I wonder how many seats the new train-sets will have?
> 
> And, if they prove extremely reliable--and popular-- that Amtrak will ask Alstom to build the new Amfleet coaches in the future.
> 
> Does anyone predict that a joint venture will get the contract for new Amfleet coaches?


I'm sure you can find into on the seating capacity of the Acela IIs by using Google.

Amtrak won't ask anybody to build anything. Amtrak follows the rules of the federal government. All major purchases are put out to bid, and a lowest or best bid is chosen. Closest to asking anyone to build is that sometimes Amtrak can send a nice letter to various manufacturers, with a set of the specs attached, and "invite" them to bid along with the others.

Siemens will bid to build the single-level cars, I'm sure. Right now they are building cars for Brightline that reportedly meet the Next Gen specs that will apply to any Amtrak order. So they have a head start in the race. But another car builder could be hungrier and put in a lower bid to win the contract.

The last thing close to a joint venture was for the Acelas they have now. It didn't turn out well. Amtrak has no reason to go down that road again. So, No.

And we aren't there yet. But continue to watch this space for any developments.


----------



## afigg

WoodyinNYC said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how many seats the new train-sets will have?
> 
> And, if they prove extremely reliable--and popular-- that Amtrak will ask Alstom to build the new Amfleet coaches in the future.
> 
> Does anyone predict that a joint venture will get the contract for new Amfleet coaches?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you can find into on the seating capacity of the Acela IIs by using Google.
Click to expand...

Unless the sealed bids from Alstom or the details of what Alstom is offering have been made public or someone has talked out of school, we don't know the proposed exact seating capacity of what Alstom is offering. Amtrak requested a nominal number of seats in the RFP, up to the bidders to propose how seats could fit in their trainsets. Possible seating capacity numbers have been discussed in this thread after all.

As for a large single level car order to replace the Amfleets, that is not going to happen until Amtrak has the funds to do so. But what Amtrak buys will not be entirely up to Amtrak, the east coast state DOTs that pay for the equipment outside of the NEC will have their say along with the US DOT/FRA. They may overrule Amtrak on sticking to a Viewliner 2 design, opting instead for an "off the shelf" model. And as noted, Amtrak will have to issue an open RFP and the contract will go to whoever wins the bid. But the single level coach car replacement order has little to do with the HSR trainset contract.

Last year, the stated plan was to award the contract by the end of the year, in December. If the contract is finally signed off on in June, that is 6 months of delay primarily due to the bureaucratic process of approving the RRIF loan, FRA regulatory approvals, and hammering out the contract. Pushes out the earliest the new trainsets might enter service by 6 months. Oh well.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

afigg said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how many seats the new train-sets will have?
> 
> 
> 
> … you can find info on the seating capacity of the Acela IIs by using Google.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last year, the stated plan was to award the contract by the end of the year, in December. If the contract is finally signed off on in June, that is 6 months of delay primarily due to the bureaucratic process of approving the RRIF loan, FRA regulatory approvals, and hammering out the contract. Pushes out the earliest the new trainsets might enter service by 6 months. Oh well.
Click to expand...

Since Senator Schumer tooted the horn, Alstom has had good reason to believe it will get the contract. Didn't Nippon Sharyo whine that they couldn't find domestic suppliers to meet the 100% Made in America requirement? Now Alstom has had six months to work on that problem.


----------



## PerRock

Has anyone tried FOIA-ing the RFP results from Amtrak? It wouldn't say who won the bid, but would probably give a good indication.

peter


----------



## jis

I bet they will dilly dally responding to the FOIA until the RFP process is completed. They don't have to produce every document if they can find a reason, even a flimsy one, and then leave you to challenge their decision which can take years to resolve. We have played this game with NJT and even Amtrak at times, and at least in one case they have successfully blocked supplying anything for over ten years leaving the only recourse to take them to court, for which no one involved had the financial fortitude.


----------



## Chaz

Running into a brick wall with your FOIA request? Take it public (May 4 '16)

http://www.poynter.org/2016/running-into-a-brick-wall-with-your-foia-request-take-it-public/409958/

Poynter.org supports news reporting & education etc.

They report that ProPublica  immediate response got to an online post after 10 months of emailing back & forth w. NYC Dept of Ed.

Don't know if AU can replicate it tho (lol)


----------



## PVD

JIS is right about FOIA. Not only is there quite a bit of delaying by various agencies, remember that quite a bit of material is "FOIA Exempt" and gov't agencies find lots of reasons (excuses) to place items in that category.


----------



## jis

Chaz said:


> Running into a brick wall with your FOIA request? Take it public (May 4 '16)
> 
> http://www.poynter.org/2016/running-into-a-brick-wall-with-your-foia-request-take-it-public/409958/
> 
> Poynter.org supports news reporting & education etc.
> 
> They report that ProPublica immediate response got to an online post after 10 months of emailing back & forth w. NYC Dept of Ed.
> 
> Don't know if AU can replicate it tho (lol)


You really think you are bringing new ideas to deal with FOIA eh? We at NARP and NJ-ARP (and half a dozen other passenger rail advocacy groups) have been at it for at least 20 years now  AU is not organized to do such things. it is a web hosting service running a forum. Some issues have appeared repeatedly in public places including such places as NY Times and WSJ, and several US Congressmen have had a go at one of those too. When they want to block, they really know how to do it. Anything that was resolved by ProPublica was probably not something they wanted to invest much in blocking anyway. There is a lot of kneejerk blocking that is done, which gets lifted rather quickly when pressed. And then finally even if you get a document sometimes it has more dark black strikeouts than there is readable text on it, inviting you to go for round three. Been there and done that several times collectively (not me personally).

However, something that involves competitive bidding will not be released until the results of the process are firmly in place. you can rest assured about that. It is sitting firmly in the Exempt category. Only those that have standing to challenge an award can open up the process, not just some random person, unless there is immense proof of malafide I suppose, which puts the whole thing in a different ballpark, and then you have to trace the money and see who might help and who might block and play accordingly.


----------



## mrpresident1776

Acela150 said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is my understanding that Alstom is expected to get the contract for the 28 new Acela Train-sets, unless, of course, there ends up being some kind of joint venture? (Someone said maybe Siemens would get the contract). Read the last paragraph from the link:
> 
> http://www.eveningtribune.com/article/20160330/NEWS/160339951
> 
> 
> 
> The Acela sets and HHP's were a Joint venture.. And nothing short of a bad one..
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone who is talking about Siemens is just making a SWAG* which I doubt is based in any concrete inside knowledge.
> 
> *SWAG - Simple Wild As*ed Guess
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh come on Jishnu, with the good record that ACS' have right now.. Their is no reason not to go with Siemens.. Wild guess or not. Why wouldn't you pick a builder that has a reliable product on your rails right now. Just because Chuck Schumer opened his mouth last year about such a thing.. Isn't a justified reason to not go with Siemens, or anyone else.
Click to expand...

I think someone already mentioned that Talgo was the other bidder. While Siemens probably bid or looked at bidding, they would have needed a tilting train to achieve the RFP specs. Siemens hasn't made a tilting train for a while now and the ones they did make were not reliable, see ICE DMU, or fast enough as the ICE-T topped out at 140mph. Furthermore, Siemens used the Pendolino tilt system which has since been acquired by Alstom. While Amtrak did not specify tilt as a requirement, they did require a 1h51m travel time between Boston and New Haven, 2h21m between New York and Washington and 6h8m from Boston to Washington. Those times would only be achievable by a tilt train. Alstom makes the great New Pendolino trainsets and the AGV. While the AGV does not tilt, I believe they have design plans for a tilting version. http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/bidders-line-up-in-high-speed-race.html


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> Or more like in an ideal world when they wish to be able to acquire them. That does not mean it will happen anytime around then. I have heard from a very reliable source that the current speculation is that the Amfleet Is and IIs will go through another round of rebuilding before any real new single level cars will materialize. Which suggests that the 2019 date is a fantasy that everyone wishes would come true, but no one is counting on.


How many years does a typical rebuilding enable? Would you see Amtrak using capital expenditures or a RRIF Loan for the Amfleet replacement? I think it would be interesting for CAF to build the Amfleet long distance coaches, and another company the other coaches.

I bet the Amfleet Coach contract will be awarded to a manufacturer that has their facility in New York State.

And, with regards to the Acela, I know that Kawasaki and Hyundai Rotem also bid. It would be cool to find out what their proposed train-sets looked like.


----------



## jis

I don't have enough information to meaningfully speculate. I am just quoting a senior Amtrak person that I happen to have discussed this matter with in the recent past.

Meanwhile you can keep fantasizing without any foundation in reality all you want.


----------



## CCC1007

Andrew said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or more like in an ideal world when they wish to be able to acquire them. That does not mean it will happen anytime around then. I have heard from a very reliable source that the current speculation is that the Amfleet Is and IIs will go through another round of rebuilding before any real new single level cars will materialize. Which suggests that the 2019 date is a fantasy that everyone wishes would come true, but no one is counting on.
> 
> 
> 
> How many years does a typical rebuilding enable? Would you see Amtrak using capital expenditures or a RRIF Loan for the Amfleet replacement? I think it would be interesting for CAF to build the Amfleet long distance coaches, and another company the other coaches.
> 
> I bet the Amfleet Coach contract will be awarded to a manufacturer that has their facility in New York State.
> 
> And, with regards to the Acela, I know that Kawasaki and Hyundai Rotem also bid. It would be cool to find out what their proposed train-sets looked like.
Click to expand...

Please stop referring to the new coaches as "amfleet" as they most certainly will not share major structural design with the amfleets in service now. It would be better to call them what they are going to be, which is "new single level" cars.


----------



## afigg

jis said:


> However, something that involves competitive bidding will not be released until the results of the process are firmly in place. you can rest assured about that. It is sitting firmly in the Exempt category. Only those that have standing to challenge an award can open up the process, not just some random person, unless there is immense proof of malafide I suppose, which puts the whole thing in a different ballpark, and then you have to trace the money and see who might help and who might block and play accordingly.


Yes, many of the response documents in a competitive bid would be confidential regardless as they contain proprietary information from the respective bidder on costs, design, manufacturing capabilities, salaries, etc that the vendors don't their competitors to see. The only key document that I would expect Amtrak to make available if pushed hard enough is the summary of the technical and contract bid review, the scores for the bids, and the justification for the contract selection.

This discussion about a FOIA request is sort of silly because the contract award has not even been announced yet. When it is announced, hopefully in the next month. we will learn more about the winning bid and assuming it is awarded to Alstom, highlights of what the design is and capabilities. Then we can begin the guessing game of how much slippage there will be from the initial announced delivery and production schedule.


----------



## afigg

Andrew said:


> How many years does a typical rebuilding enable? Would you see Amtrak using capital expenditures or a RRIF Loan for the Amfleet replacement? I think it would be interesting for CAF to build the Amfleet long distance coaches, and another company the other coaches.
> 
> I bet the Amfleet Coach contract will be awarded to a manufacturer that has their facility in New York State.


As the forum member who started this thread back in 2013, I want to point out that the title of this thread is "Acela II RFP information announcement". While the effort moved on to a second RFP round and a long dragged out process in awarding the contract, I don't see anything about Amfleets and single level coach car replacements or RFP for such in the title. If you want to discuss the issues of a rebuild/refurb of the remaining Amfleet cars or a replacement order, how about taking such posts to either an existing thread or start a new one on the topic? Let's not clutter up a thread on the hopefully pending new HSR trainset order with clearly off-topic stuff. Just saying.

Edit: wording fix.


----------



## Andrew

For the big Acela II Loan, besides the train sets, spare parts, and upgrades to the WAS and the Train yard, what other improvements are being financed by the anticipated loan?


----------



## CCC1007

Andrew said:


> For the big Acela II Loan, besides the train sets, spare parts, and upgrades to the WAS and the Train yard, what other improvements are being financed by the anticipated loan?


Not likely, modifying an existing European or Asian design to meet our standards is a very expensive proposition, almost as expensive as designing a new type. There will be little to no money leftover.


----------



## Acela150

CCC1007 said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the big Acela II Loan, besides the train sets, spare parts, and upgrades to the WAS and the Train yard, what other improvements are being financed by the anticipated loan?
> 
> 
> 
> Not likely, modifying an existing European or Asian design to meet our standards is a very expensive proposition, almost as expensive as designing a new type. There will be little to no money leftover.
Click to expand...

IINM he is referring to things such as platform length..

I don't know if they are planning on making a longer train set.


----------



## PRR 60

Acela150 said:


> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the big Acela II Loan, besides the train sets, spare parts, and upgrades to the WAS and the Train yard, what other improvements are being financed by the anticipated loan?
> 
> 
> 
> Not likely, modifying an existing European or Asian design to meet our standards is a very expensive proposition, almost as expensive as designing a new type. There will be little to no money leftover.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IINM he is referring to things such as platform length..
> 
> I don't know if they are planning on making a longer train set.
Click to expand...

The last I heard, the answer is no. The maximum length of the new trainset is limited to the length of the existing Acela trainset (672.6 feet from first to last axle).


----------



## jis

I doubt that they would need any serious platform length work even if they were to go for longer trains since AFAIR all Acela stops (perhaps except New Haven and Stamford, have platforms long enough to hold a 11 car consist including power head. I doubt they will deploy such a long unit in the US. This is not Europe or India or China (yet). Maybe someday.


----------



## afigg

Andrew said:


> For the big Acela II Loan, besides the train sets, spare parts, and upgrades to the WAS and the Train yard, what other improvements are being financed by the anticipated loan?


According to statements by Boardman and IIRC, in several reports, the RRIF loan was going to be used to pay for undercutting the trackbed on the WAS-NYP part of the NEC. The track bed is in poor condition on some parts and the justification was for a smoother ride for the new HSR trainsets (and the rest of the trains operating on the southern NEC). If they ever close the deal and finalize the RRIF loan, I expect what the $2.45 billion loan will be used for, will be broken down at a high level in either the news release or, more likely, the articles by the railroad trade press.

Would be good if they could get the contract signed off and make the award announcement before the 2nd anniversary of the RFP and submitting the RRIF loan application (July, 2014). :huh:


----------



## west point

The Acela - 2s having the same length comes down to servicing facilities. BOS South Hampton St servicing facility is limited to the present -1s' length. Others have posted that there is not any room to lengthen the facility. Also you will note that the length is what limits Regionals to 8 cars as well. Another limitation is the platform length of BOS south station. The rebuilding of the station for longer platforms appears a very long time coming to get longer platforms. Others can post the plans for the station and a new servicing area.

See South station DEIS

Understand that Sunnyside and Ivy city facilities are same length but others with more knowledge can enlighten us as to dimensions & expansion possibilities.?

It may be that the -2s can add mid train equipment in the future once ( if ) servicing facilities are expanded

At one time Amtrak talked about buying 40 extra -1 cars to insert 2 additional into each existing -1 train set but that was cancelled and probably one reason was the servicing facilities' lengths. Along that same vein the thought that maybe some -1s could be broken up and added to present -1s now seems farfetched.


----------



## Ryan

Ivy City has the space:


----------



## west point

So Ivy city has the space now if Sunnyside ? Then possible longer Acelas could operate NYP <> WASH ?


----------



## jis

Sunnyside is currently a mess since it has in effect been deconstructed as part of the East Side Access project and is being reconstructed with significantly different layout. If Amtrak wished to find space there I am sure they could at this point in time. I have no idea what their final plans are. Meanwhile the construction of ESA through/under Sunnyside and the Harold Amtrak bypass carries on.... and on ... and on...with completion dates slipping on and on with passing years. It has already become the New York version of the Boston Big Dig, and hey, we haven;t even started on the real big one yet ... the Hudson Tunnel project.

But this thread is about Acela II. I think unless they made the requirement for being to operate multiple units hooked together in regular service much stronger than the last time, it is shortsighted to restrict train lengths to be so short, specially since they are not really planning on quarter hourly service or anything like that.


----------



## mrpresident1776

west point said:


> The Acela - 2s having the same length comes down to servicing facilities. BOS South Hampton St servicing facility is limited to the present -1s' length. Others have posted that there is not any room to lengthen the facility. Also you will note that the length is what limits Regionals to 8 cars as well. Another limitation is the platform length of BOS south station. The rebuilding of the station for longer platforms appears a very long time coming to get longer platforms. Others can post the plans for the station and a new servicing area.
> 
> See South station DEIS
> 
> Understand that Sunnyside and Ivy city facilities are same length but others with more knowledge can enlighten us as to dimensions & expansion possibilities.?
> 
> It may be that the -2s can add mid train equipment in the future once ( if ) servicing facilities are expanded
> 
> At one time Amtrak talked about buying 40 extra -1 cars to insert 2 additional into each existing -1 train set but that was cancelled and probably one reason was the servicing facilities' lengths. Along that same vein the thought that maybe some -1s could be broken up and added to present -1s now seems farfetched.


Correct, I believe the Acela 2 contract will include an option to buy 2 additional cars to length trainsets in the future at reasonable price. The Acela 1 contract did not have one and Bombardier would have had to restart that production line and could have charged a lot as it would have been a sole-source contract. That was another reasons why buying the 40 extra cars was canceled.

Also, the Acela 2 should be able to connect together as a double length set unlike the current Acelas.


----------



## jis

mrpresident1776 said:


> Correct, I believe the Acela 2 contract will include an option to buy 2 additional cars to length trainsets in the future at reasonable price. The Acela 1 contract did not have one and Bombardier would have had to restart that production line and could have charged a lot as it would have been a sole-source contract. That was another reasons why buying the 40 extra cars was canceled.


Any concrete evidence to support this belief? Or is it a wish?

No doubt it would be a good idea to build something like that in the contract, but do not expect a manufacturer to keep a line open just to deliver some cars ten years later. Any realistic inclusion of such terms will no doubt add to the overall cost of the contract possibly dramatically.

Remember, the original Acela I deal almost didn't happen because Amtrak could not come up with the money. It finally came together because in effect the Canadian taxpayers funds were used to put together a loan package to pay for it initially. This time around of course it is going to be American government loan. Whether lot of additional money will be available to gold plate the contract is doubtful. And if there is such money available it would probably be better spent on equipment that is needed today rather than on partially pre-paying for the possibility of adding what by then would be old technology cars to the fleet.


----------



## mrpresident1776

jis said:


> mrpresident1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, I believe the Acela 2 contract will include an option to buy 2 additional cars to length trainsets in the future at reasonable price. The Acela 1 contract did not have one and Bombardier would have had to restart that production line and could have charged a lot as it would have been a sole-source contract. That was another reasons why buying the 40 extra cars was canceled.
> 
> 
> 
> Any concrete evidence to support this belief? Or is it a wish?
> 
> No doubt it would be a good idea to build something like that in the contract, but do not expect a manufacturer to keep a line open just to deliver some cars ten years later. Any realistic inclusion of such terms will no doubt add to the overall cost of the contract possibly dramatically.
> 
> Remember, the original Acela I deal almost didn't happen because Amtrak could not come up with the money. It finally came together because in effect the Canadian taxpayers funds were used to put together a loan package to pay for it initially. This time around of course it is going to be American government loan. Whether lot of additional money will be available to gold plate the contract is doubtful. And if there is such money available it would probably be better spent on equipment that is needed today rather than on partially pre-paying for the possibility of adding what by then would be old technology cars to the fleet.
Click to expand...

Yes, I don't have the latest RFP but the joint Amtrak/CA RFP lists 2 additional business cars for the 2025-2030 page 3. Essentially, they're asking for pricing information to be included if they at some point decide to go that route. It is not really an contract option in the traditional sense, just a request for pricing so that shouldn't add to the base contract price. The Acela 1 contract lacked that information. I don't imagine Amtrak's RFP that they put out after dropping California is much different.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/z4qe87gz9s7szmi/AACXe89iViLKCuNFioFdO524a/Schedule%2014-PRICING%20SCHEDULE%20AND%20PROPOSAL%20FORM%20RFP%20RELEASED%2001.24.14.pdf?dl=0

True about the production line, the Acela 1's are the only one of their type. The original idea for Acela II was to have something more off-the-shelf so ordering new cars or trainsets wouldn't be prohibitively expense. Granted, there will still be a bunch FRA-mandated garbage but hopefully, the end product will still resemble one of Alstom's AGV or New Pendolino trainsets. It is unlikely they'll stop building either.


----------



## afigg

mrpresident1776 said:


> Yes, I don't have the latest RFP but the joint Amtrak/CA RFP lists 2 additional business cars for the 2025-2030 page 3. Essentially, they're asking for pricing information to be included if they at some point decide to go that route. It is not really an contract option in the traditional sense, just a request for pricing so that shouldn't add to the base contract price. The Acela 1 contract lacked that information. I don't imagine Amtrak's RFP that they put out after dropping California is much different.
> 
> True about the production line, the Acela 1's are the only one of their type. The original idea for Acela II was to have something more off-the-shelf so ordering new cars or trainsets wouldn't be prohibitively expense. Granted, there will still be a bunch FRA-mandated garbage but hopefully, the end product will still resemble one of Alstom's AGV or New Pendolino trainsets. It is unlikely they'll stop building either.


While there may have been or be stuff in the RFP about an interest in possible future extensions of trainsets, if they have selected a version of the Alstom Pendalino, that may not be an option that was retained.

The original joint RFP specification or interest in having the capability to connect two trainsets together was clearly for the CA HSR system. It would little utility for the NEC, especially with the platform length limits. The combined trainsets would be useful to the planned built-out CA HSR system with lines splitting off to San Francisco, Sacramento, LA-> Anaheim, San Diego. If the Las Vegas HSR line is built, that provides another destination for a split train to go to. A combined train could depart SF, then split at Palmdale with one trainset headed to LA and Anaheim, the other to Las Vegas. From LA, the destinations could be SF and Sacramento. For a single line NEC with only one electrified branch to Harrisburg (which isn't going to get Acela service), double length combined trainsets don't provide any real utility.

Winter turned into Spring. Spring is now turning into Summer. Still no announcement on the loan and contract award....


----------



## jis

The Brits did actually add additional cars to some of their Pendolinos later, but pretty much within five years or so of their introduction. That was probably handled within realm of options. As long as it is done relatively soon after delivery it is easier. But ten to fifteen years later becomes dicey. I bet getting new car subunits for original TGV Reseau sets would cost a pretty penny, or even trying to get cars for the original Eurostars. Fortunately both those outfits have simply chosen to go for significant number of current generation rolling stock instead of fiddling around with 15 year old technology (other than refurbishing them), Amtrak should follow their example rather than plan on fiddling around with old technology fifteen years from now when half the life of the original acquisition is gone.


----------



## DSS&A

Hi,

I found this interesting article dated May 25th on the Railway Gazette website about the new Alstom HSR passenger train equipment which had references to this Amtrak procurement. With this article, at least we know what the company was basically proposing.

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/acela-influences-alstoms-hs2-concept-train.html


----------



## Acela150

Where in that article does it state they are going to build a multi-level Acela II? It just mentions the attempt at the procurement.


----------



## jis

From that article one gets the impression that Alstom's offer to Amtrak appears to be derived from the British Pendolinos. This in my opinion would be a fine things since I do like the Pendolinos quite a bit.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> From that article one gets the impression that Alstom's offer to Amtrak appears to be derived from the British Pendolinos. This in my opinion would be a fine things since I do like the Pendolinos quite a bit.


Are the Pendolinos quiet to ride in? I was originally under the impression that the AGV would be the coaches for the new Acela trains.


----------



## Acela150

Sorry. Never been to Europe to experience their HSR. What are these HST's that the Brits have?


----------



## jis

Acela150 said:


> Sorry. Never been to Europe to experience their HSR. What are these HST's that the Brits have?


Here you go ...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_390

And yes they are smooth and quiet on British tracks. What they or actually some sort of derivative which are wider and taller than them, will do on the less smooth American tracks is a different matter.


----------



## afigg

Andrew said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> From that article one gets the impression that Alstom's offer to Amtrak appears to be derived from the British Pendolinos. This in my opinion would be a fine things since I do like the Pendolinos quite a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> Are the Pendolinos quiet to ride in? I was originally under the impression that the AGV would be the coaches for the new Acela trains.
Click to expand...

Why would you think the new Alstom trainsets would be 220 mph AGVs? What Amtrak is seeking for the curvy NEC are 160+ mph trainsets with tilting capability. The UK Class 390 Pendalinos (wikipedia entry), while built for 140 mph max operating speeds, apparently come close to meeting the basic requirements. The Brits have brought a total of 57 trainsets, with some of the 9 car trainsets lengthened to 11 cars. A Class 390 trainset has reached 162 mph, so the design is close to matching Amtrak's 160 mph max revenue speed requirement.

Wikpedia entry on the Pendalino family for further reference.


----------



## Acela150

jis said:


> Acela150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry. Never been to Europe to experience their HSR. What are these HST's that the Brits have?
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go ...
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_390
> 
> And yes they are smooth and quiet on British tracks. What they or actually some sort of derivative which are wider and taller than them, will do on the less smooth American tracks is a different matter.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

Just curious, is it possible that should a similar design be chosen?? Where the Cab would be in a coach, basically making it similar to a Cab Car?? I'll see if I can find a photo of what I'm describing..

Edit: This is what I'm talking about. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/ICE3_Euerwangtunnel.jpg


----------



## Dutchrailnut

US high speed regulations prohibit occupied (other than crew) first and last unit of high speed train sets.


----------



## CCC1007

The us definition includes all trains traveling faster than 100 mph correct?

If so, how is the Keystone Service still running with cab cars?


----------



## StriderGDM

No, that's not the definition in use.


----------



## CCC1007

Could someone please reiterate what the in use definition is, to help clear up some confusion on my end?


----------



## MattW

Dutchrailnut said:


> US high speed regulations prohibit occupied (other than crew) first and last unit of high speed train sets.


Do you have a link to the code section for Tier-III crash standards? The only information out there is for Tier-II so far.


----------



## Dutchrailnut

tier II high speed equipment is any train certified to run between 125 and 150 mph.

CFR 49 -238 second part is about high speed equipment.


----------



## Ryan

From a 2009 FRA document:



> New standards or guidelines could also address circumstances under which the use of passenger‐occupied lead units may or may not be acceptable. FRA's regulations for Tier II operations, which covers passenger trains that operate up to 150 mph, requires that the power cars at the ends of the train exclude passengers. This is the current arrangement of the Acela trainset on the Northeast Corridor. One HSR operation that will be constructed on a dedicated right‐of‐way has proposed a 150 mph service with passenger seating in the power cars (cab cars). Another HSR operation has proposed a 220 mph service and has also included passenger seating in the power cars (cab cars).
> 
> FRA realizes that some of the more modern HSR train sets used overseas eliminate the conventional power car and use an electrical multiple‐unit configuration that includes passenger seating in the cab car. However, there are no simple answers to the question of whether passenger seating in cab cars is appropriate. The answer will require careful research and full consideration of the operating environment where the trainset operates. Protection for the operator and passengers will remain a key factor.
> 
> FRA will conduct further research into the relationship between occupied power cars and the number of injuries and fatalities that might occur in a collision or derailment as part of this review.


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwiG47GNzYDNAhXDGx4KHRNkASgQFggvMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fra.dot.gov%2FElib%2FDocument%2F2225&usg=AFQjCNGR2WIeisBVWgtZhT-1HmPNVNxEgg&sig2=M4wFHwcuZr4wJKFz5oqZJw


----------



## MattW

Dutchrailnut said:


> tier II high speed equipment is any train certified to run between 125 and 150 mph.
> 
> CFR 49 -238 second part is about high speed equipment.


If you had read my post completely, you'll see I said I found Tier-*2* which is what you posted. I asked for Tier-*3*.


----------



## Dutchrailnut

I do not believe there is a tier-3 yet as there is no revenue running over 150 mph in US.


----------



## jis

Tier III is actually the proposed new standard that replaces Tier II for operation above 125mph. The new sets will be Tier III compliant. No one will ever order or make another Tier II anything. It is an obsolete standard. I don't believe the Tier III specs have made it into CFR yet.


----------



## Andrew

Dutchrailnut said:


> US high speed regulations prohibit occupied (other than crew) first and last unit of high speed train sets.


But the new Acela train-sets will be EMU coaches--thus enabling passengers to sit in the same unit as the engineer.


----------



## Andrew

afigg said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> From that article one gets the impression that Alstom's offer to Amtrak appears to be derived from the British Pendolinos. This in my opinion would be a fine things since I do like the Pendolinos quite a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> Are the Pendolinos quiet to ride in? I was originally under the impression that the AGV would be the coaches for the new Acela trains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would you think the new Alstom trainsets would be 220 mph AGVs? What Amtrak is seeking for the curvy NEC are 160+ mph trainsets with tilting capability. The UK Class 390 Pendalinos (wikipedia entry), while built for 140 mph max operating speeds, apparently come close to meeting the basic requirements. The Brits have brought a total of 57 trainsets, with some of the 9 car trainsets lengthened to 11 cars. A Class 390 trainset has reached 162 mph, so the design is close to matching Amtrak's 160 mph max revenue speed requirement.
> 
> Wikpedia entry on the Pendalino family for further reference.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that the new Acela trains would have AGV coaches with TGV power systems--thus not manufactured for 220 mph use.


----------



## jis

We won't know for sure until we see the final contract. But it seems absurd that they would bid a more expensive thing than is needed to meet the requirements.


----------



## Dutchrailnut

keep in mind that part of Tier III proposal is, any speeds over 150 mph would need to be dedicated right of way with no intermingling of tier I or II trains.


----------



## MattW

Dutchrailnut said:


> keep in mind that part of Tier III proposal is, any speeds over 150 mph would need to be dedicated right of way with no intermingling of tier I or II trains.


Not for the NEC: https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FRA-2014-0124-0003


----------



## Dutchrailnut

a petition for waivers is nothing more than a request to break rules, it is NOT permission, for now it prohibits tier III operation in mixed environments.

http://www.apta.com/mc/rail/previous/2011/Presentations/R-Lauby-Development-Of-High-Speed-Rail-Equipment-Interoperability-Requirements.pdf


----------



## afigg

MattW said:


> Dutchrailnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> keep in mind that part of Tier III proposal is, any speeds over 150 mph would need to be dedicated right of way with no intermingling of tier I or II trains.
> 
> 
> 
> Not for the NEC: https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FRA-2014-0124-0003
Click to expand...

And according to a FRA Regulatory Activity Update slide presentation ("RSAC Regulatory Update (FINAL).pdf" link found with a google search) from November 9, 2015, on the proposed new high speed regulations: "Proposes to increase the maximum speed for Tier II operations from 150 mph to 160 mph." So, the FRA may increase the Tier II to Tier III threshold to 160 mph, subjected to the safety regulations. Which of course only applies to the NEC anyway.

The November, 2015 had this timeframe for the new regulations: "NPRM Expected – Fall 2015 (Under Departmental Review)". Well, it is now end of May, 2016. Has anything been officially issued? The wheels of bureaucracy can turn slowly; very, very slowly.

Edit: direct link to the PDF file didn't work correctly, so just listing the filename.


----------



## mrpresident1776

Andrew said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> From that article one gets the impression that Alstom's offer to Amtrak appears to be derived from the British Pendolinos. This in my opinion would be a fine things since I do like the Pendolinos quite a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> Are the Pendolinos quiet to ride in? I was originally under the impression that the AGV would be the coaches for the new Acela trains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would you think the new Alstom trainsets would be 220 mph AGVs? What Amtrak is seeking for the curvy NEC are 160+ mph trainsets with tilting capability. The UK Class 390 Pendalinos (wikipedia entry), while built for 140 mph max operating speeds, apparently come close to meeting the basic requirements. The Brits have brought a total of 57 trainsets, with some of the 9 car trainsets lengthened to 11 cars. A Class 390 trainset has reached 162 mph, so the design is close to matching Amtrak's 160 mph max revenue speed requirement.
> 
> Wikpedia entry on the Pendalino family for further reference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was under the impression that the new Acela trains would have AGV coaches with TGV power systems--thus not manufactured for 220 mph use.
Click to expand...

The New Pendolinos used in Italy and Poland can do 155mph so they could be what Alstom is proposing. The British Pendolinos are the previous generation of the Italian and Polish trains. But the requirement for faster operation in the future leads me to think they proposed the AGV with tilt, an option they have long planned for but never built. That tilt system would likely be closely related to the New Pendolino tilt.

_"Railway Gazette understands that the single-deck proposal borrows heavily from the fleet Alstom is to supply to Amtrak for its premium Acela Express service linking Boston with New York and Washington DC. Alstom expects final confirmation of this order ‘within the next couple of months’."_


----------



## jis

The Polish ED250 New Pendolino has run at upto 181mph on test runs, which is plenty fast to meet Amtrak's Acela II requirements.

Alstom has actually been struggling to find a second customer for the AGV so far.


----------



## frequentflyer

So the AGV is too much train? Yet this Pendolino is not,interesting.

http://www.alstom.com/products-services/product-catalogue/rail-systems/trains/products/pendolino/

The video is interesting, especially the 8 degree tilt, what is the max tilt for Acela? Does the Acela actually use that feature? I know at one time it was turned off due to clearance problems if two Acelas past each other in certain areas on the NEC.


----------



## Acela150

I can't recall off the top of my head but 8 degrees stands out to me. Limited to 4 due to clearance issues. Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Triley

I was thinking it is 4 degrees, and use to be disabled on MetroNorth due to clearance, but isn't anymore?


----------



## Hal

frequentflyer said:


> So the AGV is too much train? Yet this Pendolino is not,interesting.
> 
> http://www.alstom.com/products-services/product-catalogue/rail-systems/trains/products/pendolino/
> 
> The video is interesting, especially the 8 degree tilt, what is the max tilt for Acela? Does the Acela actually use that feature? I know at one time it was turned off due to clearance problems if two Acelas past each other in certain areas on the NEC.


The tilt is used. It had to be turned off on Metro North and also less tilt than originally planned because the Acela was built slightly wider than it was supposed to be. There are different "legends" on how that happened. 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Acela150

Triley said:


> I was thinking it is 4 degrees, and use to be disabled on MetroNorth due to clearance, but isn't anymore?


Bingo. MNRR now allows the tilt. Special instruction had crews inform MNRR dispatchers that the tilt was "disabled". IIRC I've seen signs on the shoreline that say "disable tilt" just before the phase change. Can't remember the exact area though.


----------



## jis

The amount of under balance allowed on curves in the US is also less than what is allowed in the UK and Europe. So eight degree tilt may not be necessary to compensate in the US anyway. AFAIR the original plan was six degrees reduced to four due to clearance issues.


----------



## Fan Railer

Maximum designed system tilt according to one site is 6.5 degrees from either side of centered position, but according to the operating manual, it is limited to 3.2 degrees. The literature is unclear beyond that, but if anyone understands cant deficiency, then I'll quote:



> The maximum tilting angle is based on clearance considerations associated to the
> 
> carbody geometry. The tilting system compensates the lateral accelerations
> induced by cant deficiency in curves. The maximum compensation goes up to
> 39.5% of the deficiency at speeds of 45 mph or more. The maximum cant
> deficiency is 9 inches or 8.53 degrees, 37.5% of 8.53 degrees is 3.2º.


----------



## frequentflyer

I was under the impression that the AGV (in Duplex form) was the TGV replacement, so more orders will eventually come. This Pendolinos seem like a step down from the AGV, but should be cheaper to purchase and why buy performance one will not use.


----------



## afigg

It is now mid-June. Still no announcement about a formal contract award and granting of the RRIF loan. Looking back, Senator Schumer made his announcement at Alstom back in last September! We need one of those movie montages to show the passage of time, where Fall changes to Winter, then Winter to Spring, now Spring changing to Summer. Still the FRA, US DOT, Amtrak, and Alstom are apparently working on the paperwork and approvals. Good grief, how long does it take?

Meanwhile, thanks to the recent US jobs report and slowdown in US economic growth and the flight of money from all over to US Treasuries, the interest rates on 20 Year Treasury notes has fallen sharply in recent weeks to 1.96% (!!) and 30 year Treasury notes to 2.39%. If they are to ever lock in a 20 to 30 year federally backed RRIF loan, now may be a really good time to do so.


----------



## jis

I hear in about a month something could be expected if everything goes according to plan.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> I hear in about a month something could be expected if everything goes according to plan.


Who said that?


----------



## PRR 60

jis said:


> I hear in about a month something could be expected if everything goes according to plan.


I hope not from the same person who said multiple Viewliner II diners would be in service by late May or early June.


----------



## afigg

jis said:


> I hear in about a month something could be expected if everything goes according to plan.


That is what the unofficial reports were a month or two ago. If this process drags on much longer, Boardman may end up retiring before the contracts and approvals are signed off on. If Alstom expects to get the contract, hopefully they have begun to staff up on some of the key management and engineer positions, so they can get the design, parts orders, and subcontract awards aspects off to a quick start upon the official contract award.


----------



## jis

PRR 60 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear in about a month something could be expected if everything goes according to plan.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope not from the same person who said multiple Viewliner II diners would be in service by late May or early June.
Click to expand...

No. 
BTW, on VLII Diner, I heard both July and August from two different people. But as usual it is hard to tell until the proverbial fat lady sings


----------



## Andrew

afigg said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear in about a month something could be expected if everything goes according to plan.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what the unofficial reports were a month or two ago. If this process drags on much longer, Boardman may end up retiring before the contracts and approvals are signed off on. If Alstom expects to get the contract, hopefully they have begun to staff up on some of the key management and engineer positions, so they can get the design, parts orders, and subcontract awards aspects off to a quick start upon the official contract award.
Click to expand...

Where are the reports?


----------



## PRR 60

jis said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear in about a month something could be expected if everything goes according to plan.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope not from the same person who said multiple Viewliner II diners would be in service by late May or early June.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> BTW, on VLII Diner, I heard both July and August from two different people. But as usual it is hard to tell until the proverbial fat lady sings
Click to expand...

I thought she left Amtrak during the Gunn era.


----------



## jis

AFAIK she couldn't sing if her life depended on it


----------



## Eric S

Andrew said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear in about a month something could be expected if everything goes according to plan.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what the *unofficial* reports were a month or two ago. If this process drags on much longer, Boardman may end up retiring before the contracts and approvals are signed off on. If Alstom expects to get the contract, hopefully they have begun to staff up on some of the key management and engineer positions, so they can get the design, parts orders, and subcontract awards aspects off to a quick start upon the official contract award.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where are the reports?
Click to expand...

I think you overlooked an important word in that post - "unofficial"


----------



## jis

Yup. When you see terms like "unofficial" or even "I am hearing", that means you will not get a citation even if you go blue in your face holding your breath for and asking for one. You can take it or leave it for what it may or may not be worth.


----------



## Steve4031

Maybe when the fat lady sits down to first call for dinner in a VL II diner. . .


----------



## afigg

Andrew said:


> Where are the reports?


Andrew, the closest I see to a recent close to official "report" is the May 3 article in the local Evening Tribune paper that YOU posted in this very thread: Alstom-Amtrak deal on track. Excerpts:



> HORNELL — Federal and local officials alike continue to express confidence that Alstom and Amtrak will come to terms on a $2.5 billion high-speed rail cars contract in the next month.
> 
> ....
> 
> The deal apparently has been slowed by a bureaucratic review of the contract’s finer details. However, in a call with reporters on Monday, Rep. Tom Reed, R-Corning, reported a productive meeting with Alstom officials on Friday.
> 
> “I’m still confident that we are in a good position, but we are not celebrating and spiking the football until all the I’s are dotted and the T’s are crossed. But I think we’re moving forward each and every day,” he said.
> 
> Reed could not go into detail about the hold-up, other than to say, “I know it has been slowed down by the bureaucracy in Washington.”


That article was written six weeks ago, still no official announcement. If I did not know better, I say this was a DOD contract award. Those can drag on almost _forever _before the funding eventually gets turned on (from personal experience waiting to start on projects). After months of delay, the word is the contract will be awarded in a month. A month later, then it is maybe down to in 3 weeks. Then another month later, the contract start is maybe in a couple of weeks. Couple of weeks pass, the funding is coming next week. Then next week, it is only a few more days from being done Then a few more days pass....

The wheels of federal bureaucracy can turn very, very slowly.


----------



## A Voice

Steve4031 said:


> Maybe when the fat lady sits down to first call for dinner in a VL II diner. . .


Thanks for the confirmation that the diner booths will be large enough for us fa,,,err, "persons of size" to fit.


----------



## Steve4031

If she's like a couple of the ones that I work with, Amtrak will need more power on the head end.


----------



## jis

Looks like the Amtrak Board will be voting on signing off on the contract with Alstom this week.

http://www.eveningtribune.com/news/20160725/alstom-amtrak-come-to-terms-on-25-billion-deal


----------



## afigg

Yes, it appears that the contract award and financing arrangements for the HSR trainsets are, at long lost, going to be done. Excerpt from the Evening Tribune article (linked above), local paper in Hornell, NY:



> HORNELL — On Monday morning, Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) announced that the Amtrak Board of Directors are expected to vote this week to support finalization of negotiations with Alstom provide new Next Generation High-Speed trains for Amtrak's Acela Express service as part of a $2.5 billion program.
> 
> The contract is expected to create over 750 jobs, including 400 jobs directly at Alstom in Hornell, and an additional 350 or more across New York State at subcontracting companies.
> 
> Schumer announced that with his support, final federal financing approvals have been secured, clearing the way for execution of an agreement between Amtrak and Alstom.


The takeway from the last sentence is that getting the RRIF loan completed has been holding up the contract award. Only taken close to a year. OTOH, if the entire $2.45 billion RRIF loan can be locked in at current federal treasury note rates, the interest rates will be extraordinarily low for a 20 to 30 year note.

If the Amtrak board votes on the contract in the next few days, maybe we will finally learn more about the trainsets that Alstom will be building.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

jis said:


> Looks like the Amtrak Board will be voting on signing off on the contract with Alstom this week.
> 
> http://www.eveningtribune.com/news/20160725/alstom-amtrak-come-to-terms-on-25-billion-deal


Thanks for that *Good News* flash.

I've been frothing over the needed big order -- 700 or 900 new single-level cars for the Regionals, the Eastern LDs, and a bunch of corridor services.

No order for anything else, not even a puny order for a couple of dozen more Viewliner sleepers, was going to happen until the Acela IIs were underway. That Top Priority absolutely blocked the tracks for anything else. (Probably not just for equipment, but any big ask of Congress for infrastructure funds, as well.) I mean, Amtrak and the FRA have their hands full with a $2.5 Billion project. Take things step at a time -- and now this chokepoint will be loosened considerably.

For the next few years we'll all be hearing about the coming new trains -- with more capacity, many more riders, higher revenues, bigger operating surpluses, faster, better. And soonish -- 5 or 6 years? -- we'll actually see it happen.

That will be the best time to make the case for more new equipment, to add capacity, gain more riders, count more revenue, reduce costs, etc. if Amtrak hasn't won the order before then.


----------



## afigg

Senator Schumer's office posted a press release on the pending completion of the contract award. With a seriously wordy title:

SCHUMER ANNOUNCES: FINAL HURDLES HAVE BEEN CLEARED, AMTRAK BOARD WILL AWARD HORNELL’S ALSTOM START OF $2.5 BILLION PROGRAM TO BUILD SAFER, NEXT-GENERATION HIGH-SPEED TRAINS; SENATOR SAYS PROJECT WILL CREATE 750 JOBS INCLUDING 400 DIRECT MANUFACTURING JOBS AT ALSTOM IN HORNELL.


----------



## Triley

WoodyinNYC said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like the Amtrak Board will be voting on signing off on the contract with Alstom this week.
> 
> http://www.eveningtribune.com/news/20160725/alstom-amtrak-come-to-terms-on-25-billion-deal
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for that *Good News* flash.
> 
> I've been frothing over the needed big order -- 700 or 900 new single-level cars for the Regionals, the Eastern LDs, and a bunch of corridor services.
> 
> No order for anything else, not even a puny order for a couple of dozen more Viewliner sleepers, was going to happen until the Acela IIs were underway. That Top Priority absolutely blocked the tracks for anything else. (Probably not just for equipment, but any big ask of Congress for infrastructure funds, as well.) I mean, Amtrak and the FRA have their hands full with a $2.5 Billion project. Take things step at a time -- and now this chokepoint will be loosened considerably.
> 
> For the next few years we'll all be hearing about the coming new trains -- with more capacity, many more riders, higher revenues, bigger operating surpluses, faster, better. And soonish -- 5 or 6 years? -- we'll actually see it happen.
> 
> That will be the best time to make the case for more new equipment, to add capacity, gain more riders, count more revenue, reduce costs, etc. if Amtrak hasn't won the order before then.
Click to expand...

Boardman had written in Arrive magazine earlier this year as stating that plans were to have the replacements coming in some time 2019, approximately the time all renovations would be finished in WAS. Now we all know the replacements won't come in on time, and then you need to allow time for the units to undergo testing, both T&E to qualify on them and OBS to get orientated to them, etc. I don't know how Alstom is, and we'll have to wait on the final details to see exactly how much design of the units will have to be custom done for Amtrak and all that, so I'd like to hope we'll see them within 4 years, but I won't hold my breath.


----------



## afigg

Another news article on how the contracts & funding for the new trainsets will be finalized soon. We mean it this time! USA Today (Aug 8): Amtrak's Acela to run faster new trains on Washington to Boston route. Excerpt:



> RATON, N.M. – Amtrak plans to run new, faster trains on the busy Northeast Corridor with locomotives pulling passengers at up to 160 mph in sections.
> 
> The $2.5 billion project to be announced later this month will replace the now-20-year-old Acela Express trains with new locomotives and passenger coaches.
> 
> The trains, which can run at higher speeds, will travel the busy route between Boston and Washington, D.C., and will decrease travel times slightly, Amtrak CEO Joe Boardman told USA TODAY.
> 
> The new trains will come on line three years from now, said Boardman, who is retiring next month.
> 
> “You’re going to see a well-improved Northeast Corridor service,” Boardman said Friday while aboard a train in New Mexico.


----------



## jis

At least this time it is from Joe Boardman and not from Mr. Loudmouth Microphone.


----------



## Bob Dylan

jis said:


> At least this time it is from Joe Boardman and not from Mr. Loudmouth Microphone.


Is that any way to refer to the next Majority Leader of the Senate? (hopefully!)


----------



## PVD

he is loud, he can really be annoying, and he will beat whoever runs against him in the next election by 20 points, because the people that he needs to satisfy in parts of NY other than NYC ( which he would win easily) connect with events like this. When Clinton ran for the Senate in NY, they tried to brand her a carpetbagger, and the guy who ran against her (born on Long Island) was less up to speed on upstate NY issues than her, and got crushed for it.


----------



## OEBB

Three years and they will be running? That's laughable. If they stuck with that timeline they might be running before the new Viewliners!! Hah!


----------



## afigg

OEBB said:


> Three years and they will be running? That's laughable. If they stuck with that timeline they might be running before the new Viewliners!! Hah!


Amtrak received a waiver from the FRA that allows for the first 2 HSR trainsets to be built overseas at an existing manufacturing facility. That will allow Amtrak to get 2 trainsets for what is going to be a lengthy testing and certification process while the Hornell plant and the US parts suppliers are ramping up on production of the next 26 units.

Also, Alstom has had a long lead time waiting for the contract and funding to be finalized. They should have used that time to assemble key members of the project management and engineering team to get a start on planning and engineering documents so they can quickly ramp up the design, part orders, and manufacturing tasks once the contract is signed. Three years to the delivery of the first batch of US made trainsets may be reasonable. We shall see.


----------



## jis

And Alstom has already built mainline rolling stock in the American environment (actually even built in Hornell) and delivered them successfully. That logistical experience will come in handy to avoid some of the pitfalls that CAF faced.


----------



## PRR 60

jis said:


> And Alstom has already built mainline rolling stock in the American environment (actually even built in Hornell) and delivered them successfully. That logistical experience will come in handy to avoid some of the pitfalls that CAF faced.


Alstom was about two years late with the PATCO car rebuild project, and the delivered cars have had more than their share of teething problems. I would temper my optimism to the cautious side of the range.
By the way, since when are the Acela sets "20 years old" as claimed on the executive tour. The first set was delivered in late 2000 (not quite 16 years old), and the tenth set (midpoint) was delivered in mid-2001 (15 years ago). Sometimes Mr. Boardman seems to lack a grasp of details and technical facts.


----------



## Palmetto

At the rate things go around here, they will probably be 30 years old before their replacements arrive.


----------



## jis

PRR 60 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Alstom has already built mainline rolling stock in the American environment (actually even built in Hornell) and delivered them successfully. That logistical experience will come in handy to avoid some of the pitfalls that CAF faced.
> 
> 
> 
> Alstom was about two years late with the PATCO car rebuild project, and the delivered cars have had more than their share of teething problems. I would temper my optimism to the cautious side of the range.
> By the way, since when are the Acela sets "20 years old" as claimed on the executive tour. The first set was delivered in late 2000 (not quite 16 years old), and the tenth set (midpoint) was delivered in mid-2001 (15 years ago). Sometimes Mr. Boardman seems to lack a grasp of details and technical facts.
Click to expand...

Notice how Pennsylvania seems to be involved in many of these fiascos?  CAF excepted of course. Juuust kidding.

How did Alstom do with the Surfliners. I think that is more relevant in this context.

Of course Alstom also inherited the followup stuff with the Viewliner Is too.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

> "… will replace the now-20-year-old Acela Express trains with new locomotives and passenger coaches."
> 
> 
> … since when are the Acela sets "20 years old" as claimed on the executive tour. The first set was delivered in late 2000 (not quite 16 years old), and the tenth set (midpoint) was delivered in mid-2001 (15 years ago). Sometimes Mr. Boardman seems to lack a grasp of details and technical facts.


We don't know for sure if Boardman said the Acelas are "now" 20 years old. It's not in quotes. Maybe Boardman told the reporter the Acelas will be 20 years old when they're replaced but it got garbled in writing and editing.

If Boardman did say 'they are now 20 years old', remember, he is always actually speaking to CongressCritters. They think train cars should last 20 years (not unreasonably). But they could easily forget about "will be 20 years when replaced". So if Boardman vastly over-simplified the age count to meet the level of understanding of his audience, bureaucrats do this all the time.


----------



## Acela150

PRR 60 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Alstom has already built mainline rolling stock in the American environment (actually even built in Hornell) and delivered them successfully. That logistical experience will come in handy to avoid some of the pitfalls that CAF faced.
> 
> 
> 
> Alstom was about two years late with the PATCO car rebuild project, and the delivered cars have had more than their share of teething problems. I would temper my optimism to the cautious side of the range.
> By the way, since when are the Acela sets "20 years old" as claimed on the executive tour. The first set was delivered in late 2000 (not quite 16 years old), and the tenth set (midpoint) was delivered in mid-2001 (15 years ago). Sometimes Mr. Boardman seems to lack a grasp of details and technical facts.
Click to expand...

Contract was officially signed. A post on the NEC Facebook page has a small article.

As for Alstom delivering Patco cars 2 years late... That's on Patco. Those cars were built by Budd. They weren't meant to be overhauled to what they're at now. Patco should have bought new cars. Coulda, woulda, shoulda. I guess.


----------



## jis

Here is the article about the signing of the contract for Acela IIs with Alstom ...

http://www.pressconnects.com/story/news/local/new-york/2016/08/16/alstom-amtrak-ink-deal/88827758/


----------



## A Voice

So glad there is Senator Schumer to set the record straight, though. 



> Schumer said last month the Amtrak trains on the route were first installed in 1994, and the leases for the trains are set to expire in the coming years, requiring the new trains.


----------



## Acela150

Thank you Jis.


----------



## jis

Acela150 said:


> Thank you Jis.


You are most welcome


----------



## mrpresident1776

Boardman might be referring to the design of the Acela trainsets when he talks about 20 years. David Gunn said as much. https://skift.com/2012/12/15/why-amtrak-is-replacing-its-acela-trains-on-the-northeast-corridor/You figure that Acela's traction systems are based on the 3rd generation TGV and that the railcars are based off of the LRC which dates back to the late 70's so it is not a stretch to say that the Acela design is a little elderly.


----------



## afigg

A Voice said:


> So glad there is Senator Schumer to set the record straight, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer said last month the Amtrak trains on the route were first installed in 1994, and the leases for the trains are set to expire in the coming years, requiring the new trains.
Click to expand...

I would not pay much attention to incorrect statements such as this (the 1994 part). The statement could have been mangled by the reporter, a staffer given the task of drafting a Schumer "quote" to be released to the press, or Schumer mixing up dates for the Acela pre-selection testing, the contract award, and the Acela deployment. We don't know and it is really not important. Amtrak appears to have been making a point of the Acela lease expiration dates to help nudge the funding and regulatory oversight process along and Schumer or someone in his staff is echoing that.

The big news is that contract has finally been signed. Today is Tuesday, so perhaps there will be a formal press conference later this week where we will get some info on the trainsets Alstom will be providing and what the RRIF loan will be used for (besides paying for the 28 trainsets).


----------



## Hal

I heard there will be a press conference at Wilmington station this afternoon.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## afigg

Hal said:


> I heard there will be a press conference at Wilmington station this afternoon.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


On a Friday afternoon? An unusual time for a press conference if Amtrak wants to get a lot of press coverage on the HSR trainset contract. OTOH, Wilmington would suggest that VP Biden could be in attendance and they may have to fit into Biden's schedule.

We'll see. Boardman has only a few more days as CEO, so he should be motivated to make an official announcement before he departs.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

afigg said:


> Hal said:
> 
> 
> 
> I heard there will be a press conference at Wilmington station this afternoon.
> 
> 
> 
> On a Friday afternoon? ...
> 
> Boardman has only a few more days as CEO, so he should be motivated to make an official announcement before he departs.
Click to expand...

I'm really glad the signing will be done in Boardman's term. He deserves that respect.


----------



## Bob Dylan

It's the Veep, Amtrak Joe making the Announcement in Wilmington. It's all over the News and Social Media.

Senator Schumer is reportedly furious!


----------



## jis

Bob Dylan said:


> It's the Veep, Amtrak Joe making the Announcement in Wilmington. It's all over the News and Social Media.
> 
> Senator Schumer is reportedly furious!


What does he want. He has already made the announcement half a dozen times, hasn't he?


----------



## PRR 60

jis said:


> Bob Dylan said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the Veep, Amtrak Joe making the Announcement in Wilmington. It's all over the News and Social Media.
> 
> Senator Schumer is reportedly furious!
> 
> 
> 
> What does he want. He has already made the announcement half a dozen times, hasn't he?
Click to expand...

On the other hand, he certainly fought long and hard to get this work for Alstom. No matter how annoying and how much of a grandstander he may be, it's a pretty obvious slight to not have him there.


----------



## Triley

afigg said:


> Hal said:
> 
> 
> 
> I heard there will be a press conference at Wilmington station this afternoon.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> On a Friday afternoon? An unusual time for a press conference if Amtrak wants to get a lot of press coverage on the HSR trainset contract. OTOH, Wilmington would suggest that VP Biden could be in attendance and they may have to fit into Biden's schedule.
> 
> We'll see. Boardman has only a few more days as CEO, so he should be motivated to make an official announcement before he departs.
Click to expand...

It's already been mentioned elsewhere that Biden will be the one making an announcement. It hadn't been stated what the conference was going to be about, however....


----------



## jis

PRR 60 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Dylan said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the Veep, Amtrak Joe making the Announcement in Wilmington. It's all over the News and Social Media.
> 
> Senator Schumer is reportedly furious!
> 
> 
> 
> What does he want. He has already made the announcement half a dozen times, hasn't he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the other hand, he certainly fought long and hard to get this work for Alstom. No matter how annoying and how much of a grandstander he may be, it's a pretty obvious slight to not have him there.
Click to expand...

Is it the case that Schumer is not invited to the event? That would indeed be strange and something to throw a hissy over. But if the tantrum is only about the VP being the lead announcer then that is simply silly IMHO.


----------



## afigg

OK, finally there is some official news on the new trainsets and the $2.45 billion RRIF loan. A 1 hour long video of Biden's announcement is available, which I am I currently listening to.

DeIaware Online: In Wilmington, Biden announces $2.45 billion for Amtrak. Excerpt: (The reporter's words not mine)



> With the money, Amtrak will purchase 28 new trains for the Northeast Corridor’s Acela service between Boston and Washington, D.C., which will expand its capacity by 40 percent. The Northeast Corridor is the nation’s busiest and only profitable rail line.
> 
> The funds will also pay for track upgrades south of Baltimore and station upgrades in New York City, Baltimore, and Washington D.C.


Now we wait for press release's and industry press articles to provide useful details.


----------



## districtRich

Here's the Amtrak announcement with a slick video! I can't wait to ride on one of these.

http://blog.amtrak.com/2016/08/amtraks-next-generation-high-speed-trains/


----------



## Fan Railer

I thought the RFP specified EMUs with distributed power... these certainly don't look like EMUs with distributed power...


----------



## jis

from the Trains Magazine:

http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2016/08/26-amtrak-alstom-final

The RFP was not very specific. It suggested various things but ultimately asked the vendor to propose something that would meet the performance requirements. When I asked a friend of mine at a relatively senior level in Amtrak NEC Capital Program that is how he explained the structure of the RFP to me.

Anyway, it appears to be basic articulated TGV with Pendolino suspension. If you go way back in this thread you will find me speculating that it would be exactly that based on rumors that were going around back then.


----------



## mrpresident1776

No kidding, it looks they slapped power cars onto a 7 car Pendolino. I thought the original spec was for up to 200mph speed and 40% more capacity, not 33% according to the Alstom press release. I guess they must have done a lot of negotiating in the trade off process.

http://www.alstom.com/press-centre/2016/8/alstom-to-provide-amtrak-with-its-new-generation-of-high-speed-train/

Correction, make that 9 cars between the power cars. The video shows 7 but Alstom cites 9.


----------



## afigg

mrpresident1776 said:


> No kidding, it looks they slapped power cars onto a 7 car Pendolino. I thought the original spec was for up to 200mph speed and 40% more capacity, not 33% according to the Alstom press release. I guess they must have done a lot of negotiating in the trade off process.


The original specs were when Amtrak was teamed with CHSRA on an attempt at a joint bid. That fell apart because the needs of the NEC was simply way too different from that of a new 220 mph system. Anything above 160 mph will require new dedicated tracks, so any capability of operating > 160 mph is not going to be utilized for a long time, if ever.

The Alstom trainsets will be the Avelia Liberty line. Question for those who know the Alstom product line is what is the closest existing Alstom trainset to what we see here?


----------



## ToniCounter

PRR 60 said:


> On the other hand, he certainly fought long and hard to get this work for Alstom. No matter how annoying and how much of a grandstander he may be, it's a pretty obvious slight to not have him there.


Vive la France!


----------



## Fan Railer

afigg said:


> mrpresident1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding, it looks they slapped power cars onto a 7 car Pendolino. I thought the original spec was for up to 200mph speed and 40% more capacity, not 33% according to the Alstom press release. I guess they must have done a lot of negotiating in the trade off process.
> 
> 
> 
> The original specs were when Amtrak was teamed with CHSRA on an attempt at a joint bid. That fell apart because the needs of the NEC was simply way too different from that of a new 220 mph system. Anything above 160 mph will require new dedicated tracks, so any capability of operating > 160 mph is not going to be utilized for a long time, if ever.
> 
> The Alstom trainsets will be the Avelia Liberty line. Question for those who know the Alstom product line is what is the closest existing Alstom trainset to what we see here?
Click to expand...

It's really a mix of the existing stuff. Power car with Pendolino-like coaches and tilting technology on jacobs bogies (like the TGV and AGV).

Alstom responded to a twitter question about the trainset configuration, albeit in French, but you should be able to understand it: "Bonsoir, pour Amtrak, ce sont des rames de 9 voitures, mais l'Avelia Liberty est modulaire : 8 à 14 voitures"


----------



## jis

The first Avelias are being delivered to NTV in Italy:

http://www.alstom.com/press-centre/2015/10/alstom-and-ntv-sign-a-contract-for-the-purchase-of-8-pendolino-high-speed-trains-and-20-years-of-maintenance/

Alstom's rendition of the Amtrak announcement:

http://www.alstom.com/press-centre/2016/8/alstom-to-provide-amtrak-with-its-new-generation-of-high-speed-train/

Wonders of retroactive marketing naming of products that have already been sold using a different name. Surprisingly Alstom's global marketing site has no mention of Avelia in any form, and yet they have apparently sold 1100 of them according to this press release.

Anyway as long as it is a reliable TGV design with a reliable and well tried and tested Pendolino tilt system, no reason to complain.

As Alstom says they are configurable from 8 to 14 cars but are being delivered with 9 cars.


----------



## mrpresident1776

jis said:


> The first Avelias are being delivered to NTV in Italy:
> 
> http://www.alstom.com/press-centre/2015/10/alstom-and-ntv-sign-a-contract-for-the-purchase-of-8-pendolino-high-speed-trains-and-20-years-of-maintenance/
> 
> Alstom's rendition of the Amtrak announcement:
> 
> http://www.alstom.com/press-centre/2016/8/alstom-to-provide-amtrak-with-its-new-generation-of-high-speed-train/
> 
> Wonders of retroactive marketing naming of products that have already been sold using a different name. Surprisingly Alstom's golbal marketing site has no mention of Avelia in any form, and yet they have apparently sold 1100 of them according to this rpess release.
> 
> Anyway as long as it is a reliable TGV design with a reliable and well tried and tested Pendolino tilt system, no reason to complain.


Exactly, the cars themselves look like the articulated AGV jacobs bogies, have similar length and only 1 set of doors per car but with the same tilt as Pendolinos.


----------



## Fan Railer

Avelia just seems to be the overarching family name for all of Alstom's HSR trains (Pendolino, Euroduplex, AGV). They're just adding the Amtrak variant (Liberty) to that list.


----------



## jis

Yes, but the name did not exist until the very recent past. It was retroactively applied to a whole bunch of things.

It is sort of like an Auto manufacturer sold me say for example Honda sold me a Honda Civic, and five years later they started calling my Honda Civic a Honda Insignia (or some other funny name they came up with.

Don't get me wrong. I don't really care what they call their products, but calling something that was sold using a different name something else five years later is shall we say... an interesting approach.

BTW, even Alstom differentiates between the AGVs that the Italian outfit that runs them and the Avelia that they sold them as the next generation. It is just interesting ... that's all.


----------



## jis

And here is a CNN report on the Joe Biden event at his namesake station in Wilmington DE

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/26/politics/joe-biden-amtrak-loan/

Brian Gallagher apparently had a chat with Amtrak Joe after the announcement ....

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10207348564418051&set=pcb.10207348573938289&type=3&theater


----------



## ToniCounter

Fan Railer said:


> Avelia just seems to be the overarching family name for all of Alstom's HSR trains (Pendolino, Euroduplex, AGV). They're just adding the Amtrak variant (Liberty) to that list.


I dont' know... first time I saw the word "Avelia" and all I could think of was how that word can also spell "a *alive*"


----------



## Andrew

Very cool stuff!!

Check out this Fact Sheet Link:

http://media.amtrak.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/NextGen-Fact-Sheet_Proof5.pdf


----------



## afigg

The deployment schedule spelled out on the website and in the fact sheet should be noted:



> The first trainset prototype will be ready for testing in 2019 and the first trainset will enter revenue service in early 2021, with all trainsets in service and the current fleet retired in early 2022.


So instead of 2019 for initial revenue service, or 2020, it now slips to early 2021. And the current Acelas will be retired in 2022 according to the plan.


----------



## west point

There may be some fuzzy math here. Believe each train set will carry 33% more passengers. Going from 20 -1s to 28 -2s would be 40% more trains. Total new seats ~ 86% more ?

The ability to add cars may be achievable due to this being a model with much good past history.


----------



## jis

afigg said:


> The deployment schedule spelled out on the website and in the fact sheet should be noted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first trainset prototype will be ready for testing in 2019 and the first trainset will enter revenue service in early 2021, with all trainsets in service and the current fleet retired in early 2022.
> 
> 
> 
> So instead of 2019 for initial revenue service, or 2020, it now slips to early 2021. And the current Acelas will be retired in 2022 according to the plan.
Click to expand...

2019 was unrealistic anyway.

It was hardly going to be the case that Alstom would start delivering trains to Amtrak faster than it does to SNCF, specially when setting up a new factory and training a whole new set of people is involved.



west point said:


> There may be some fuzzy math here. Believe each train set will carry 33% more passengers. Going from 20 -1s to 28 -2s would be 40% more trains. Total new seats ~ 86% more ?
> 
> The ability to add cars may be achievable due to this being a model with much good past history.


Specially since cars similar to these will be still in active manufacturing for other customers for a while, unlike the once off Acela cars which were out of manufacture once they were delivered to Amtrak.

The Brits were able to do that with their Pendolinos, and supposedly they may even be able to convert some to dual mode half way through their life.


----------



## frequentflyer

So its a Pendolino then, Amtrak is smart to use trusted and tested technology. Less chances of teething problems.

Oh and a new livery too, should look good on the Sprinters too. Of course by 2022 will Amfleet still be running the rails or will their replacement wear this new livery too.


----------



## frequentflyer

From the reading the press release some of the 2.5 billion will go to the new Moynihan train station? Its really a go then? The biggest basement in the world is about to be replaced?...........tears of joy are streaming down my face.....


----------



## PRR 60

frequentflyer said:


> So its a Pendolino then, Amtrak is smart to use trusted and tested technology. Less chances of teething problems.
> 
> Oh and a new livery too, should look good on the Sprinters too. Of course by 2022 will Amfleet still be running the rails or will their replacement wear this new livery too.


I would not put much stock in the livery shown on 2016 renderings and video. When the Acela order was announced in 1997, the trainset was called "American Flyer" and it had a relatively traditional livery. When it entered revenue service in late 2000, it was Acela Express, and had the blue glob livery.

American Flyer / Acela Express


----------



## Bob Dylan

Hopefully Amtrak Joe will use his influence in having the new CEO bring back Competent Execs that the Boardman Cartel ran off, and to get rid of the "cut your way to profitability" Bean Counters! ! ( Rosenwald as Chief of the LD Trains would be a great start!)


----------



## WoodyinNYC

west point said:


> There may be some fuzzy math here. Believe each train set will carry 33% more passengers. Going from 20 -1s to 28 -2s would be 40% more trains. Total new seats ~ 86% more ?
> 
> The ability to add cars may be achievable due to this being a model with much good past history.


Think you put your finger on something: We'd been thinking about EMU trainsets, with a fixed number of cars, like Talgos. But Alstom is talking about being modulaire, and the trains could fixed to be longer in the future.

So looks like capacity is set to increase fuzzy math ~86%, but it could increase still more if ridership is growing and Amtrak decides to lengthen the trains.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Bob Dylan said:


> ... bring back Competent Execs that the Boardman Cartel ran off ... (Rosenwald as Chief of the LD Trains would be a great start!)


Who was the exec sacked after messing up the negotiations with the UP over a daily _Sunset_? Didn't Rosenwald disappear about that time? I don't know the palace gossip, but it seemed at the time ...


----------



## jis

frequentflyer said:


> From the reading the press release some of the 2.5 billion will go to the new Moynihan train station? Its really a go then? The biggest basement in the world is about to be replaced?...........tears of joy are streaming down my face.....


No. $2.5 billion is not going to Moynihan Station. Most of it is going to buy the Acela IIs. Read the press release very very carefully paying attention to it without applying any prejudices to its interpretation


----------



## frequentflyer

jis said:


> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the reading the press release some of the 2.5 billion will go to the new Moynihan train station? Its really a go then? The biggest basement in the world is about to be replaced?...........tears of joy are streaming down my face.....
> 
> 
> 
> No. $2.5 billion is not going to Moynihan Station. Most of it is going to buy the Acela IIs. Read the press release very very carefully paying attention to it without applying any prejudices to its interpretation
Click to expand...

"As part of a $2.45 billion loan from the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing (RRIF) program, Amtrak will invest in significant station improvements at Washington Union Station, Moynihan Station New York, as well as safety, track capacity and ride quality improvements to the NEC."


----------



## frequentflyer

PRR 60 said:


> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So its a Pendolino then, Amtrak is smart to use trusted and tested technology. Less chances of teething problems.
> 
> Oh and a new livery too, should look good on the Sprinters too. Of course by 2022 will Amfleet still be running the rails or will their replacement wear this new livery too.
> 
> 
> 
> I would not put much stock in the livery shown on 2016 renderings and video. When the Acela order was announced in 1997, the trainset was called "American Flyer" and it had a relatively traditional livery. When it entered revenue service in late 2000, it was Acela Express, and had the blue glob livery.
> 
> American Flyer / Acela Express
Click to expand...

So true about the livery, but the "American Flyer" livery was pretty close to the one that debuted on Acela.


----------



## frequentflyer

Avelia Liberty...................Lets hope that Amtrak will not would throw away the Acela brand equity built up over the years.

Avelia Liberty equals American Flyer. We hope.


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL

Avelia is Alstom's new brand name for their HSTs, similar to Siemens Velaro....


----------



## jis

frequentflyer said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the reading the press release some of the 2.5 billion will go to the new Moynihan train station? Its really a go then? The biggest basement in the world is about to be replaced?...........tears of joy are streaming down my face.....
> 
> 
> 
> No. $2.5 billion is not going to Moynihan Station. Most of it is going to buy the Acela IIs. Read the press release very very carefully paying attention to it without applying any prejudices to its interpretation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "As part of a $2.45 billion loan from the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing (RRIF) program, Amtrak will invest in significant station improvements at Washington Union Station, Moynihan Station New York, as well as safety, track capacity and ride quality improvements to the NEC."
Click to expand...

After funding the train purchase what will be left will be about $250 million. Primarily that will be used for improving maintenance facilities and other stuff to enable proper use of the equipment. I bet quite a bit will go towards constant tension catenary in Maryland and such. There will be minor crumbs left form this for actual investment in passenger side facility at stations, since there is so much that still needs to be done to even have them be able to really run at 160mph.

Of course we will know for sure only after we see a breakdown.


----------



## jamesontheroad

Will the current Acela fleet be completely life expired by 2021? At only twenty-one years old, it seems like they would have some life in them.

Might be this another good opportunity for VIA Rail Canada to acquire the Acelas, and electrify the core of the Ontario / Quebec corridor?


----------



## jis

jamesontheroad said:


> Will the current Acela fleet be completely life expired by 2021? At only twenty-one years old, it seems like they would have some life in them.
> 
> Might be this another good opportunity for VIA Rail Canada to acquire the Acelas, and electrify the core of the Ontario / Quebec corridor?


They were built using help from the Canadian taxpayers. I suppose it would make sense for them to spend some more money on them and keep Bombardier happy. 

More seriously, they are expensive to maintain and operate, is what I have heard. They will also be coming up for a very heavy overhaul by that time. So they will not be cheap and they will be two generations out of date and HEAVY! VIA might be better off getting off the shelf new equipment for a little bit more if they choose to electrify the corridor. The other thing is that the Toronto -Montreal Corridor has many stretches where top speed of something much higher than the 150-2160 mph that the Acelas are capable of would be possible. They should probably start off with 220mph capability, rather than nurse along a fleet of 160mph train sets with half expired life.


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> After funding the train purchase what will be left will be about $250 million. Primarily that will be used for improving maintenance facilities and other stuff to enable proper use of the equipment. I bet quite a bit will go towards constant tension catenary in Maryland and such. There will be minor crumbs left form this for actual investment in passenger side facility at stations, since there is so much that still needs to be done to even have them be able to really run at 160mph.
> 
> Of course we will know for sure only after we see a breakdown.


A Interlocking, maybe? The work which was scheduled but not done with the last round of HSR funding because the money ran out? You could spin that as being part of Moynihan Station.
More optimistically, they could execute the long-proposed scheme to put the "diagonal platform" into use. That would definitely qualify as part of Moynihan. You'd have to reconfigure A interlocking to make it useful anyway...


----------



## A Voice

jamesontheroad said:


> Will the current Acela fleet be completely life expired by 2021? At only twenty-one years old, it seems like they would have some life in them.
> 
> Might be this another good opportunity for VIA Rail Canada to acquire the Acelas, and electrify the core of the Ontario / Quebec corridor?


Leases expire on the Acela consists (and the already sidelined HHP-8 locomotives, wrapped up in the same agreements) around that time or shortly thereafter, unless Amtrak chooses to buy out the leases. I believe the first opportunity to do that comes next month, but you're talking a few hundred million to purchase equipment you are already planning to retire (unless the buyout is cheaper than the continuing lease payments until expiration, then it makes more sense).


----------



## Ziv

So Bombardier is going to end up with 20 tired trainsets in 2021 or 2022 after Amtrak refuses to buy them out or to negotiate for a lease extension.

Would it be worth it for Bombardier to try to find a rail line with existing catenaries and come to an agreement on a 10 year lease and then re-furb the 8 or 10 best Acela trainsets? It seems like a waste to just scrap all 20 trainsets. I don't have the knowledge of what it would cost to re-build these trainsets, or what it would take to find another route for them, but to scrap them after just 20 years of service will be a rather sad denouement.



A Voice said:


> jamesontheroad said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will the current Acela fleet be completely life expired by 2021? At only twenty-one years old, it seems like they would have some life in them.
> 
> Might be this another good opportunity for VIA Rail Canada to acquire the Acelas, and electrify the core of the Ontario / Quebec corridor?
> 
> 
> 
> Leases expire on the Acela consists (and the already sidelined HHP-8 locomotives, wrapped up in the same agreements) around that time or shortly thereafter, unless Amtrak chooses to buy out the leases. I believe the first opportunity to do that comes next month, but you're talking a few hundred million to purchase equipment you are already planning to retire (unless the buyout is cheaper than the continuing lease payments until expiration, then it makes more sense).
Click to expand...


----------



## neroden

Ziv said:


> So Bombardier is going to end up with 20 tired trainsets in 2021 or 2022 after Amtrak refuses to buy them out or to negotiate for a lease extension.
> 
> Would it be worth it for Bombardier to try to find a rail line with existing catenaries and come to an agreement on a 10 year lease and then re-furb the 8 or 10 best Acela trainsets? It seems like a waste to just scrap all 20 trainsets.


Nobody outside North America will touch 'em since they're overweight. Nobody in Mexico has catenary. Nobody in Canada has catenary. Almost nobody in the US outside the NEC has catenary, and the only places likely to get it in the right timeframe are commuter operations.
So there's just no chance. If Canada managed to electrify Toronto-Montreal, I could see them doing it (especially since it mails money to Bombardier), but that's been caught in development hell forever.


----------



## MikefromCrete

I can't see VIA spending millions of dollars to electrify the Toronto -Montreal corridor and then saying to its passengers and taxpayers, Oh, by the way, we're going to use 20-year-old, used equipment on this brand new corridor.

The only place in North America where the Acelas could have an after-life is Philadelphia-Harrisburg. The only other electric operations in North America are commuter lines and they sure don't want them. They're headed for the scrap yard, unless Bombardier can convert them to diesel-power and even then I don't see much interest in them.


----------



## west point

It may be that some cars can be taken from some trains and add them to other units. That would be one option. Another option would be ::: Remember that the Acella-2s may have teething problems. After what happened to the Acela-1s and SEPTA the lease might be extended on as a -1 used basis ?


----------



## Andrew

What type of track work would be done in Maryland from this RRIF Loan?


----------



## jis

AFAICT the details are unknown outside the NEC High Speed Project. But I would suspect that Constant Tension Catenary between Ragan and Prince may be high on the list since that is what is limiting the speed limit there to 135mph.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> AFAICT the details are unknown outside the NEC High Speed Project. But I would suspect that Constant Tension Catenary between Ragan and Prince may be high on the list since that is what is limiting the speed limit there to 135mph.


Thanks.

Constan Tension Catenary for all three tracks?

What is the distance in miles between Ragan and Prince Interlocking?

Also, what type of station improvements are planned at New Carrolton, Baltimore, and New York?


----------



## bretton88

MikefromCrete said:


> I can't see VIA spending millions of dollars to electrify the Toronto -Montreal corridor and then saying to its passengers and taxpayers, Oh, by the way, we're going to use 20-year-old, used equipment on this brand new corridor.
> 
> The only place in North America where the Acelas could have an after-life is Philadelphia-Harrisburg. The only other electric operations in North America are commuter lines and they sure don't want them. They're headed for the scrap yard, unless Bombardier can convert them to diesel-power and even then I don't see much interest in them.


There have been rumors that the Acelas will become the new NE Regional equipment. I'm not sure if there's enough sets to do so, though.


----------



## Ziv

That is kind of what I thought, but it is useful to hear it from people like you and Jis and others who are a lot more knowledgeable about this sort of info. I have never ridden an Acela, but I love the way they look and the place they have in American history. Even if Amtrak kept just the 10 best trainsets and ran them at 140 mph max to differentiate them from the Acela Liberty class, maybe Amtrak could have a 2 class Acela service for 10 years or so. Ok, I am dreaming here and know it, but perhaps that would free up 4 or 6 of the new Amtrak Liberty trainsets to do non-stops from DC to NY and NY to Boston. My parents grew up during the depression and they instilled a "Never throw something away before it is fully used up!" mentality into me.

So keeping any of the Acela's is probably not realistic, but it would be cool. I liked the related HHP-8's, too. They just look like a modern locomotive should look, even nearly 20 years after they were first tested.



neroden said:


> Ziv said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Bombardier is going to end up with 20 tired trainsets in 2021 or 2022 after Amtrak refuses to buy them out or to negotiate for a lease extension.
> Would it be worth it for Bombardier to try to find a rail line with existing catenaries and come to an agreement on a 10 year lease and then re-furb the 8 or 10 best Acela trainsets? It seems like a waste to just scrap all 20 trainsets.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody outside North America will touch 'em since they're overweight. Nobody in Mexico has catenary. Nobody in Canada has catenary. Almost nobody in the US outside the NEC has catenary, and the only places likely to get it in the right timeframe are commuter operations.
> 
> So there's just no chance. If Canada managed to electrify Toronto-Montreal, I could see them doing it (especially since it mails money to Bombardier), but that's been caught in development hell forever.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hal

bretton88 said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't see VIA spending millions of dollars to electrify the Toronto -Montreal corridor and then saying to its passengers and taxpayers, Oh, by the way, we're going to use 20-year-old, used equipment on this brand new corridor.
> 
> The only place in North America where the Acelas could have an after-life is Philadelphia-Harrisburg. The only other electric operations in North America are commuter lines and they sure don't want them. They're headed for the scrap yard, unless Bombardier can convert them to diesel-power and even then I don't see much interest in them.
> 
> 
> 
> There have been rumors that the Acelas will become the new NE Regional equipment. I'm not sure if there's enough sets to do so, though.
Click to expand...

Many of the NE Regional trains go thru to non electified territory. So I don't see Acela having a future becoming the NE Regional equipment. Plus Amtrak just bought new electric locomotives for NE Regional.


----------



## neroden

MikefromCrete said:


> I can't see VIA spending millions of dollars to electrify the Toronto -Montreal corridor and then saying to its passengers and taxpayers, Oh, by the way, we're going to use 20-year-old, used equipment on this brand new corridor.


Canada's done stupider things for the purpose of subsidizing Bombardier.  Still, pretty unlikely.


----------



## jis

There are many theoretical possibilities of repurposing the Acela sets. It would appear that economic realities would work against all of those.

For example, possibly the most obvious would be a third category of service on the NEC or an additional hourly train between New York and Washington, over and above the twice hourly Acela II (for the want of a real name), and the hourly Regional. However, it is not clear that there really is a market need that would justify the huge cost of upkeep of the Acela I sets. That is what I mean by economic realities.


----------



## Hal

Ziv said:


> That is kind of what I thought, but it is useful to hear it from people like you and Jis and others who are a lot more knowledgeable about this sort of info. I have never ridden an Acela, but I love the way they look and the place they have in American history. Even if Amtrak kept just the 10 best trainsets and ran them at 140 mph max to differentiate them from the Acela Liberty class, maybe Amtrak could have a 2 class Acela service for 10 years or so. Ok, I am dreaming here and know it, but perhaps that would free up 4 or 6 of the new Amtrak Liberty trainsets to do non-stops from DC to NY and NY to Boston. My parents grew up during the depression and they instilled a "Never throw something away before it is fully used up!" mentality into me.
> 
> So keeping any of the Acela's is probably not realistic, but it would be cool. I liked the related HHP-8's, too. They just look like a modern locomotive should look, even nearly 20 years after they were first tested.


So Amtrak should keep running them because they look cool to you? The HHP-8's were always problematic. Acela's are used up because they were running up and down the NEC constantly and not enough sets were purchased to take sets off for the maintenance they needed. I don't know what the plans are but I would expect the Acela trainsets to be scapped like the HH-8's.


----------



## Hal

jis said:


> There are many theoretical possibilities of repurposing the Acela sets. It would appear that economic realities would work against all of those.


I don't think they can maintain Acela II, Regional equipment and Acela I. It has taken a lot of work keeping the Acela's in service as it is. I doubt the Acela sets will be repurposed.


----------



## jis

Hal said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are many theoretical possibilities of repurposing the Acela sets. It would appear that economic realities would work against all of those.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think they can maintain Acela II, Regional equipment and Acela I. I doubt the Acela sets will be repurposed.
Click to expand...

Yes. We do agree very violently on that point  I was just giving examples of why I think it is not justified by the service that needs to be provided at present or in five years.


----------



## Ziv

I think the main part I regret is the fact that they will be retired before they are "fully used up". Their appearance is a plus but leaving money on the table, so to speak, goes against the grain. Using the 10 or 12 best Acela trainsets for another 10-12 years would have made their purchase an even better deal. If the refurb didn't cost as much as it sounds like it will cost in the real world. What other trainsets are we going to get in the next 10 years that can do 150 mph? Even the new Liberty's only do 160, albeit with more passengers and at a lower cost to operate.

Scrapping the Acelas before their use by date is like having to buy 16 oz of sour cream, even though you only use 8 oz, because there is nothing else you want to use the sour cream with before it goes bad. But the sour cream costs $1.50. An Acela trainset cost $40Mn or more. ;-)



Hal said:


> Ziv said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is kind of what I thought, but it is useful to hear it from people like you and Jis and others who are a lot more knowledgeable about this sort of info. I have never ridden an Acela, but I love the way they look and the place they have in American history. Even if Amtrak kept just the 10 best trainsets and ran them at 140 mph max to differentiate them from the Acela Liberty class, maybe Amtrak could have a 2 class Acela service for 10 years or so. Ok, I am dreaming here and know it, but perhaps that would free up 4 or 6 of the new Amtrak Liberty trainsets to do non-stops from DC to NY and NY to Boston. My parents grew up during the depression and they instilled a "Never throw something away before it is fully used up!" mentality into me.
> 
> So keeping any of the Acela's is probably not realistic, but it would be cool. I liked the related HHP-8's, too. They just look like a modern locomotive should look, even nearly 20 years after they were first tested.
> 
> 
> 
> So Amtrak should keep running them because they look cool to you? The HHP-8's were always problematic. Acela's are used up because they were running up and down the NEC constantly and not enough sets were purchased to take sets off for the maintenance they needed. I don't know what the plans are but I would expect the Acela trainsets to be scapped like the HH-8's.
Click to expand...


----------



## jis

Just to remind people, the new train sets are built capable of 300kph (186mph). They are limited to 160mph by the infrastructure. The existing Acelas can barely manage at 160 mph and they are incapable of anything above that.

It is unlikely that we will be acquiring 150mph capable HSR sets for anything in the next 15 years. They will either be 200+mph real high speed trains, or they will be run of the mill Tier I 125mph trains.

It really is a sound business decision to sideline them because once the new sets are deployed the old sets will lose the capability of earning their keep, and maintaining them will simply be throwing good money after bad. Only justification would be if an additional service could earn its keep through the overall additional ridership that it brings in, and that at present based on current projections for the remaining lifetime of these sets even after a heavy overhaul, seems unlikely. So while that will increase revenues, it will possibly have a detrimental effect on surpluses, which are required to be robust to pay off the loan. Remember that considerable additional mainteance infrastructure will need to be built to keep 28+20 = 48 sets running or even 38 sets running, all of which will cost money that is not there.


----------



## frequentflyer

Ziv said:


> I think the main part I regret is the fact that they will be retired before they are "fully used up". Their appearance is a plus but leaving money on the table, so to speak, goes against the grain. Using the 10 or 12 best Acela trainsets for another 10-12 years would have made their purchase an even better deal. If the refurb didn't cost as much as it sounds like it will cost in the real world. What other trainsets are we going to get in the next 10 years that can do 150 mph? Even the new Liberty's only do 160, albeit with more passengers and at a lower cost to operate.
> 
> Scrapping the Acelas before their use by date is like having to buy 16 oz of sour cream, even though you only use 8 oz, because there is nothing else you want to use the sour cream with before it goes bad. But the sour cream costs $1.50. An Acela trainset cost $40Mn or more. ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> Hal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ziv said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is kind of what I thought, but it is useful to hear it from people like you and Jis and others who are a lot more knowledgeable about this sort of info. I have never ridden an Acela, but I love the way they look and the place they have in American history. Even if Amtrak kept just the 10 best trainsets and ran them at 140 mph max to differentiate them from the Acela Liberty class, maybe Amtrak could have a 2 class Acela service for 10 years or so. Ok, I am dreaming here and know it, but perhaps that would free up 4 or 6 of the new Amtrak Liberty trainsets to do non-stops from DC to NY and NY to Boston. My parents grew up during the depression and they instilled a "Never throw something away before it is fully used up!" mentality into me.
> 
> So keeping any of the Acela's is probably not realistic, but it would be cool. I liked the related HHP-8's, too. They just look like a modern locomotive should look, even nearly 20 years after they were first tested.
> 
> 
> 
> So Amtrak should keep running them because they look cool to you? The HHP-8's were always problematic. Acela's are used up because they were running up and down the NEC constantly and not enough sets were purchased to take sets off for the maintenance they needed. I don't know what the plans are but I would expect the Acela trainsets to be scapped like the HH-8's.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I think you are underestimating the cost of maintaining the original Acelas. They are heavy and not as efficient as the new sets that will replace them and are one offs. Bombardier wants this nightmare to end ASAP.

Its like the Concorde, when Airbus stated it would no longer provide maintenance support it was the deathknell. Though the airframes had another 15 years at least on them. No maintenance support from Bombardier means no business case for the original Acelas, no matter how "new" they look.


----------



## west point

A highly unlikely use of -1s would be Keystone(s) to Harrisburg. If New Haven - Springfield is electrified by 2022 -2024 that could be another route. So maybe a few Acela-1s SPG <> HAR ? That would make the POLs in HAR, Hartford, & Springfield happy.


----------



## keelhauled

west point said:


> A highly unlikely use of -1s would be Keystone(s) to Harrisburg. If New Haven - Springfield is electrified by 2022 -2024 that could be another route. So maybe a few Acela-1s SPG <> HAR ? That would make the POLs in HAR, Hartford, & Springfield happy.


I sincerely doubt that the "POLs" would be happy about paying more to operate at best the exact same service just for the sake of slightly shinier trains.


----------



## Andrew

I wonder how long each coach will be.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Andrew said:


> I wonder how long each coach will be.


I was gonna ask you, Andrew.

Srsly. I bet you can find something close to the answer by looking at the specs for the sister (European) trains in Alstom's newly created umbrella "Avelia" brand.

Edit: Avelia is not to be confused with Aleve, a popular painkiller among us curmudgeons. (Glad we can quickly edit our posts here. LOL.)


----------



## Andrew

And still no word on the interest rate for the $2.45 Billion RRIF Loan, and what the deferral on debt service will be.


----------



## frequentflyer

So why would Alstrom put all of their high speed rail products under the Avelia brand?


----------



## leacrane

Not a train expert, just a passenger...so

How to they get 33%more seats on a car without shortening legroom?

Are the cars longer?(what about platform length limits?)

Does the fact that the cars are articulated mean less wasted space at the ends?

Just curious. Tx


----------



## jis

They did not get 33% more seats in a car. They got 33% more seats in the train. You do that by having more cars in the train. There are more cars in the new trains than in the current ones.


----------



## leacrane

Ahh. Got it. What's the deal with only one door per car? Doesn't it slow down boarding and egress?


----------



## frequentflyer

So I guess the new trainsets will be maintained where Acela is now, and Altsom will install new jigs to service the Acela IIs. And is Alstom personell going to do the actual maintenance since there is a contract.


----------



## leacrane

Another q...what does articulating the cars do? Increase safety?


----------



## jis

leacrane said:


> Ahh. Got it. What's the deal with only one door per car? Doesn't it slow down boarding and egress?


If it is stanadrd TGV then the cars are slightly shorter than the 85 footers normally used in the US. That together with the Jacobs trucks connecting the two cars together in an articulated way gives massively more stability to the train. One consequence is that each car holds slightly fewer passengers, which together with the wider door than in today's sets make one door per car quite adequate as seen in very heavy usage in France.



frequentflyer said:


> So I guess the new trainsets will be maintained where Acela is now, and Altsom will install new jigs to service the Acela IIs. And is Alstom personell going to do the actual maintenance since there is a contract.


We don't know such details at present. They have not been published so far AFAICT. But afigg is certainly more knowledgeable about this than I. Maybe he has seen the details somewhere.



leacrane said:


> Another q...what does articulating the cars do? Increase safety?


Yes, and provides a smoother ride and more stable vestibules to walk between cars.


----------



## mrpresident1776

According to what Alstom shared with the media, the power cars are 18 meters or 59' long. A rough comparison from that power car length to the trainset on page gives me an estimate of 67.8' for the first passenger car and 52.5' for the second car if that visual is to scale. Visually comparing the Avelia Liberty to the AGV cars, it looks as though Avelia Liberty's are slightly different because of the number of windows, 6 for AGV and 7 for Avelia. But AGV cars are 56.76' long while standard TGV cars have 72.7' power cars, 71.7’ end cars and 61.4' intermediate cars. We won't know the exact specs for a while though...


----------



## bretton88

The best comparison for these trainsets are the tilting TGV trains that never made it out of prototype stage. Apparently alstom decided to dust off the blueprints of them and pitch it to Amtrak.

http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/p01.html


----------



## jis

mrpresident1776 said:


> According to what Alstom shared with the media, the power cars are 18 meters or 59' long. A rough comparison from that power car length to the trainset on page gives me an estimate of 67.8' for the first passenger car and 52.5' for the second car if that visual is to scale. Visually comparing the Avelia Liberty to the AGV cars, it looks as though Avelia Liberty's are slightly different because of the number of windows, 6 for AGV and 7 for Avelia. But AGV cars are 56.76' long while standard TGV cars have 72.7' power cars, 71.7’ end cars and 61.4' intermediate cars. We won't know the exact specs for a while though...


My suspicion is that they are more like standard TGV cars than like AGV cars. The suspension is quite different from the AGV cars too apparently, basically with standard Pendolino tilt system on Jacobs trucks. But we will have to wait and see what the exact details are. They appear to be derivative of the TGV Reseau like cars, so in that sense they are different from the original P-01 tilt TGV trial set which used a Sud-Est set. The front end shape OTOH resembles the AGV a bit. but that is mostly decorative shrouding and can be any shape that one chooses to make it.


----------



## Fan Railer

mrpresident1776 said:


> According to what Alstom shared with the media, the power cars are 18 meters or 59' long. A rough comparison from that power car length to the trainset on page gives me an estimate of 67.8' for the first passenger car and 52.5' for the second car if that visual is to scale. Visually comparing the Avelia Liberty to the AGV cars, it looks as though Avelia Liberty's are slightly different because of the number of windows, 6 for AGV and 7 for Avelia. But AGV cars are 56.76' long while standard TGV cars have 72.7' power cars, 71.7’ end cars and 61.4' intermediate cars. We won't know the exact specs for a while though...


I'm not quite sure where you got any power car length spec from what was in that link, but I did find some additional info in the following link:

https://www.partners.alstom.com/Assets/Information/?AssetID=67efd9c5-e84c-468f-a2b5-2469b6e86210

After going to the downloadable files tab and opening the "additional files" drop down menu, you will find the "Avelia Liberty - Amtrak - Case Study - July 2016" pdf file. Several of the specs listed:

- 212 meters (695.572 ft) for initial 9 car set + 2 power cars

- 381 seats + 8 ADA spaces for 9 car set

- Expandable to 518 passengers for 12 car set

- Traction power of 7000 kW (9380 hp)

Compared to the original Acela sets:

- 202 meters (665 ft)

- 304 seats

- 9200 kW traction power

So either it's me, or there's going to have to be some SERIOUS weight reduction to allow a trainset with LESS traction power to achieve a HIGHER top speed than the existing trainset. Afterall, overseas, almost all 200 meter trainsets capable of speeds of 300-350 km/h have at least 8000 to 8800 kW of traction power. I get the feeling that there's still a LOT of info that we're lacking.


----------



## PVD

I'm pretty sure its 9200 HP not KW for the present sets, meaning it is actually a slight increase not decrease.


----------



## jis

Acela power heads are 6000hp each for a total of 12,000hp.


----------



## Acela150

jis said:


> Acela power heads are 6000hp each for a total of 12,000hp.


If I had my Acela Manuel handy, which I don't... Buried in Mom's garage somewhere.. I could give you much better info on HP.. I think their's a little more then that. And I don't want to give bad info. But I remember it being in the 6,000 range per PC..

As for the one door a car... I have to think that their will be two doors at most vestibules. Simply cause one door at each will greatly slow station dwell time and cause mass confusion.

I also have to take a guess and say they may be bringing 2 FC cars to the new trains. As the current sets stand they're 6 coaches, 4 BC, 1 Cafe, and 1 FC car. I think the new number is 9? Which would mean 2 FC, 6 BC and 1 Cafe. And if this is a possible configuration That would add a small handful of extra FC seats to each train possibly making upgrades easier to acquire for those using the 12 hours Coupons as well as quite a few extra BC seats.I can't recall off hand what each TS can handle as far as PAX loads go..


----------



## PVD

12 K HP would be just under 9000kw, what you are saying makes sense. don't know what the heck I was looking at


----------



## dogbert617

Fan Railer said:


> I thought the RFP specified EMUs with distributed power... these certainly don't look like EMUs with distributed power...



That's really cool, love that interior and exterior design for those cars. I sure have a weird feeling they still won't go as fast, as similar trains do in other parts of the world. Since I thought I read the Genesis P42s could technically go faster than 79MPH, but that Amtrak rules only allow for them to go as fast as 79 on most lines? The few high speed portions that've been upgraded like Michigan(for the Wolverine trains) and Illinois(Lincoln Service to Saint Louis), excluded.


----------



## Andrew

Fan Railer said:


> mrpresident1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to what Alstom shared with the media, the power cars are 18 meters or 59' long. A rough comparison from that power car length to the trainset on page gives me an estimate of 67.8' for the first passenger car and 52.5' for the second car if that visual is to scale. Visually comparing the Avelia Liberty to the AGV cars, it looks as though Avelia Liberty's are slightly different because of the number of windows, 6 for AGV and 7 for Avelia. But AGV cars are 56.76' long while standard TGV cars have 72.7' power cars, 71.7’ end cars and 61.4' intermediate cars. We won't know the exact specs for a while though...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not quite sure where you got any power car length spec from what was in that link, but I did find some additional info in the following link:
> 
> https://www.partners.alstom.com/Assets/Information/?AssetID=67efd9c5-e84c-468f-a2b5-2469b6e86210
> 
> After going to the downloadable files tab and opening the "additional files" drop down menu, you will find the "Avelia Liberty - Amtrak - Case Study - July 2016" pdf file. Several of the specs listed:
> 
> - 212 meters (695.572 ft) for initial 9 car set + 2 power cars
> 
> - 381 seats + 8 ADA spaces for 9 car set
> 
> - Expandable to 518 passengers for 12 car set
> 
> - Traction power of 7000 kW (9380 hp)
> 
> Compared to the original Acela sets:
> 
> - 202 meters (665 ft)
> 
> - 304 seats
> 
> - 9200 kW traction power
> 
> So either it's me, or there's going to have to be some SERIOUS weight reduction to allow a trainset with LESS traction power to achieve a HIGHER top speed than the existing trainset. Afterall, overseas, almost all 200 meter trainsets capable of speeds of 300-350 km/h have at least 8000 to 8800 kW of traction power. I get the feeling that there's still a LOT of info that we're lacking.
Click to expand...

Where did you get the train set specifications?

So the train set measures for a total of 11 cars long, and the total length is 695 feet?

Nothing happens when I click the link.


----------



## jis

PVD said:


> 12 K HP would be just under 9000kw, what you are saying makes sense. don't know what the heck I was looking at


I find the published 7Mw number for the Avelia Liberty a bit odd, since after the Sud-Est sets, the minimum power for all TGVs has been at least 8.8Mw. It might have something to do with what is possible at 25Hz and 12.5kV within weight limits. Also gradients on the NEC are really tame compared to what one finds on LGVs. The most powerful mainland TGV is the TGV 2N2 at 9.4Mw, and of course the TMST (Eurostar) at 12.2Mw, but that is a much more capacious and longer train.

One thing that people need to understand and internalize is that unlike the current Acelas which have 85' long cars, the Liberty sets will have shorter TGV-like cars. You can get a feeling for how short by considering that in the Liberty sets on an average there are 49 seats per car, while in the Acelas there are 61. This number is computed by simply dividing the number of seats by the number of revenue cars (389/8 for Liberty, 5 for Acela), thus not differentiating between first class and economy class seating. but it gives a good indicator, and it also shows why a single vestibule with doors per car is adequate. Putting in two vestibules per car would simply reduce capacity for no particular gain.

Incidentally 212m divided by 11 assuming power heads are the same length as cars is about 19.3m give or take. So each car is around 63' long, just as a rough estimate.

I wonder if they stay within the 17 tonnes axle load or overrun that a bit to allow for the extra weight of the tilt system. If they are close to that axle weight then It is probably a safe guess that each car is well under 40 tonnes.


----------



## jis

Acela150 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Acela power heads are 6000hp each for a total of 12,000hp.
> 
> 
> 
> If I had my Acela Manuel handy, which I don't... Buried in Mom's garage somewhere.. I could give you much better info on HP.. I think their's a little more then that. And I don't want to give bad info. But I remember it being in the 6,000 range per PC..
Click to expand...

Actually it is 6,200HP (4.6Mw). They do not provide further details of any difference in power available between 25kV/60Hz input and 12.5kV/25Hz input, but I suspect that the amount of power available under the lower voltage would be a little less.


----------



## mrpresident1776

Fan Railer said:


> mrpresident1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to what Alstom shared with the media, the power cars are 18 meters or 59' long. A rough comparison from that power car length to the trainset on page gives me an estimate of 67.8' for the first passenger car and 52.5' for the second car if that visual is to scale. Visually comparing the Avelia Liberty to the AGV cars, it looks as though Avelia Liberty's are slightly different because of the number of windows, 6 for AGV and 7 for Avelia. But AGV cars are 56.76' long while standard TGV cars have 72.7' power cars, 71.7’ end cars and 61.4' intermediate cars. We won't know the exact specs for a while though...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not quite sure where you got any power car length spec from what was in that link, but I did find some additional info in the following link:
> 
> https://www.partners.alstom.com/Assets/Information/?AssetID=67efd9c5-e84c-468f-a2b5-2469b6e86210
> 
> After going to the downloadable files tab and opening the "additional files" drop down menu, you will find the "Avelia Liberty - Amtrak - Case Study - July 2016" pdf file. Several of the specs listed:
> 
> - 212 meters (695.572 ft) for initial 9 car set + 2 power cars
> 
> - 381 seats + 8 ADA spaces for 9 car set
> 
> - Expandable to 518 passengers for 12 car set
> 
> - Traction power of 7000 kW (9380 hp)
> 
> Compared to the original Acela sets:
> 
> - 202 meters (665 ft)
> 
> - 304 seats
> 
> - 9200 kW traction power
> 
> So either it's me, or there's going to have to be some SERIOUS weight reduction to allow a trainset with LESS traction power to achieve a HIGHER top speed than the existing trainset. Afterall, overseas, almost all 200 meter trainsets capable of speeds of 300-350 km/h have at least 8000 to 8800 kW of traction power. I get the feeling that there's still a LOT of info that we're lacking.
Click to expand...

Bottom of page 5, footnote 11, the power cars are "compact" about 10' shorter than Acela's. Interesting source, I certainly don't doubt it although 381 seats is only a 25.3% increase and I do recall Amtrak wanting trains no longer than 205 meters in order to fit into existing maintenance facilities. Perhaps some of the old specs were negotiated away but I really hope they are getting more seats than that.

Alstom had long planned a AGV with tilt, paragraph six.

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/bidders-line-up-in-high-speed-race.html


----------



## jis

But this is no AGV. AGV is distributed power. This is concentrated power in the two power heads.


----------



## Andrew

Where are the specifications listed?


----------



## Paulus

Fan Railer said:


> mrpresident1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to what Alstom shared with the media, the power cars are 18 meters or 59' long. A rough comparison from that power car length to the trainset on page gives me an estimate of 67.8' for the first passenger car and 52.5' for the second car if that visual is to scale. Visually comparing the Avelia Liberty to the AGV cars, it looks as though Avelia Liberty's are slightly different because of the number of windows, 6 for AGV and 7 for Avelia. But AGV cars are [/size]
> 
> 
> 
> 56.76' long while standard TGV cars have 72.7' power cars, 71.7’ end cars and 61.4' intermediate cars. We won't know the exact specs for a while though...
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure where you got any power car length spec from what was in that link, but I did find some additional info in the following link:https://www.partners.alstom.com/Assets/Information/?AssetID=67efd9c5-e84c-468f-a2b5-2469b6e86210

After going to the downloadable files tab and opening the "additional files" drop down menu, you will find the "Avelia Liberty - Amtrak - Case Study - July 2016" pdf file. Several of the specs listed:

I wonder how much work is required for that "Upgradeable to 220mph" capability.


----------



## Fan Railer

^ From a trainset perspective? Or ROW perspective? lol


----------



## Andrew

So the 212m train set length includes both the 9 coaches and two power cars, for a total of 11 units?

Thus, passengers will not be able to sit in the power cars?


----------



## A Voice

Andrew said:


> So the 212m train set length includes both the 9 coaches and two power cars, for a total of 11 units?
> 
> Thus, passengers will not be able to sit in the power cars?


No, passengers will not be permitted to sit in the power cars (locomotives)...

There won't be more than six or seven coaches per train set; There will also be one or two first-class cars and a food service car, for a total of nine cars.


----------



## mrpresident1776

jis said:


> But this is no AGV. AGV is distributed power. This is concentrated power in the two power heads.


You're right but these coaches look most similar AGV coaches, minus that distributed power, and with power cars on each end. They have similar curved roofs, shorter car lengths and Jacobs bogies and lack the boxy look of the TGV coaches. While the TGV coaches have been out of production for more than a decade, the last AGV was delivered in NTV in early 2013.


----------



## Paulus

Fan Railer said:


> ^ From a trainset perspective? Or ROW perspective? lol


Trainset.


----------



## jis

Paulus said:


> Fan Railer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^ From a trainset perspective? Or ROW perspective? lol
> 
> 
> 
> Trainset.
Click to expand...

More power  Which will probably mean going to the full size power heads to make room for the larger transformer to achieve the more power.


----------



## Andrew

A Voice said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the 212m train set length includes both the 9 coaches and two power cars, for a total of 11 units?
> 
> Thus, passengers will not be able to sit in the power cars?
> 
> 
> 
> No, passengers will not be permitted to sit in the power cars (locomotives)...
> 
> There won't be more than six or seven coaches per train set; There will also be one or two first-class cars and a food service car, for a total of nine cars.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

Wouldn't Amtrak be able to make more revenue by operating additional business class cars and one fewer first class car?


----------



## west point

Reduce First class ? Does not make sense as FC often sells out before business class.


----------



## StriderGDM

Does it sell out? Or fill up? I know a number of people (including myself) that never pay for FC, but only use points or upgrades.


----------



## Hal

StriderGDM said:


> Does it sell out? Or fill up? I know a number of people (including myself) that never pay for FC, but only use points or upgrades.


You are right. It fills up......many are there on upgrades. 
Don't know what they are planning but I would be skeptical that there would be two first class cars. That would require 2 additional crew.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Fan Railer

Based on the specs, there may indeed be two FC cars. Only having 1 FC car on the new trainsets likely means fewer FC seats.


----------



## StriderGDM

Hal said:


> StriderGDM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it sell out? Or fill up? I know a number of people (including myself) that never pay for FC, but only use points or upgrades.
> 
> 
> 
> You are right. It fills up......many are there on upgrades.
> Don't know what they are planning but I would be skeptical that there would be two first class cars. That would require 2 additional crew.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, given the way the cars are setup, they might treat 2 FC cars as a single articulated car.

Just speculation.


----------



## leacrane

another novice question...

2 power cars, one in front,1 in back.

how come? I've seen 2 in front. can both be running at the same time with 1 control?


----------



## Fan Railer

It makes more sense to have the power cars sandwich the train set. Otherwise, you'd need two different power car designs; one with a cab and one without. You'd also need a cab car on the other end. This would involve more unnecessary design work. Remember, the simpler something is, the better it runs and the easier it is to maintain.


----------



## leacrane

tx. It's not intuitive to me that you can do this without trouble if the two engines are out of sync.


----------



## Ryan

It's done all the time.


----------



## Hal

StriderGDM said:


> Hal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StriderGDM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it sell out? Or fill up? I know a number of people (including myself) that never pay for FC, but only use points or upgrades.
> 
> 
> 
> You are right. It fills up......many are there on upgrades.
> Don't know what they are planning but I would be skeptical that there would be two first class cars. That would require 2 additional crew.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not necessarily, given the way the cars are setup, they might treat 2 FC cars as a single articulated car.Just speculation.
Click to expand...

Could be. I guess the question really is how many first class seats.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Hal

leacrane said:


> another novice question...
> 
> 2 power cars, one in front,1 in back.
> 
> how come? I've seen 2 in front. can both be running at the same time with 1 control?


Yes, with a power car on each end they can be running at the same time.
There is a control cable running from one end of the consist to the other end.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## StriderGDM

I'll point out that Acela's been doing this in the US for 15 years, so it's not new to the US (and other countries have obviously been doing it too


----------



## George K

Are the new trains _too good_?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/09/06/amtrak_s_avelia_liberty_is_going_to_be_better_than_the_acela_in_every_way.html


----------



## afigg

Amtrak posted a news release that the Concourse expansion project at DC Union Station is being funded by the $2.45 billion RRIF loan. The news release provides some info on where the NEC improvement portion of the loan is going towards, but not how much nor a lot of specifics.

AMTRAK INVESTMENT PACKAGE TO ADVANCE WASHINGTON UNION STATION CONCOURSE MODERNIZATION. Excerpts:



> WASHINGTON – Amtrak will use a portion of its $2.45 billion investment package in next-generation high-speed Acela Express trainsets and Northeast Corridor (NEC) infrastructure improvements to fund construction for the modernization of Washington Union Station’s passenger rail concourse and the expansion of Amtrak’s D.C.-based fleet maintenance facility.
> 
> ....
> 
> The investment will fund full-phase construction of Amtrak’s Concourse Modernization Project –announced in March– a near-term comprehensive renovation of Washington Union Station’s intercity and commuter concourse that will double the concourse’s current capacity and upgrade key customer amenities including new restrooms, boarding gates, seating, and ClubAcela lounge. Design for the project, previously funded with contributions from Amtrak and the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation (USRC), is already well underway.
> 
> ....
> 
> In addition to concourse improvements, funding will be used to modify Amtrak’s fleet maintenance facility in Washington, D.C. The existing two-track high-speed maintenance building in Amtrak’s Ivy City Yard will be expanded to enclose a third track, which supports the creation of highly-technical jobs for the District of Columbia as well as improve the on board and station customer experience that will accommodate the high-speed rail service levels.
> 
> ,,,,,
> 
> In addition to station improvements at Washington Union Station, customers will see improvements at Moynihan Station in New York City, and New Carrollton Station and Baltimore Penn Station in Maryland, as well as track capacity and ride quality improvements to the NEC that will benefit both Acela Express riders and other Amtrak and commuter passengers.


The Acelas don't stop at New Carrollton, so what improvements are planned for NCR in the next 4-5 years and are they using the RRIF loan to pay for them?

BTW, the interest rate on the RRIF loan is 2.23% with 29 year repayment terms, according to an article in the Washington Examiner newspaper that was posted a few weeks ago. Not a bad interest rate at all.


----------



## Triley

StriderGDM said:


> Hal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StriderGDM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it sell out? Or fill up? I know a number of people (including myself) that never pay for FC, but only use points or upgrades.
> 
> 
> 
> You are right. It fills up......many are there on upgrades.
> Don't know what they are planning but I would be skeptical that there would be two first class cars. That would require 2 additional crew.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not necessarily, given the way the cars are setup, they might treat 2 FC cars as a single articulated car.Just speculation.
Click to expand...

We would need additional crew. We can barely support a sold out Club Car with 43 seats. I see no way that we could handle an additional 20 seats without at minimum another assist to run meals on the floor. Even then, we can only set up the tray so quick with the order, and I think people will still have extended wait times.


----------



## neroden

If the RRIF loan rates are that good, maybe Amtrak can get one for South of the Lake? It would be such a monumental improvement to Michigan services, the LSL, the CL, and the Cardinal, and it should be much less expensive than some of these grandiose station projects...


----------



## jis

It will be a little more challenging finding the collateral for a South of Lake loan. Not that it is impossible but just a bit more work.

Alternatively, the surplus of NE Regional revenues could be used to leverage a substantial loan for Amfleet I replacement too.


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> It will be a little more challenging finding the collateral for a South of Lake loan. Not that it is impossible but just a bit more work.


*Collateral* shouldn't be a problem -- it's real estate and track. I guess the problem would be proving that there was a *revenue stream* to repay it (not the same thing at all). It would be necessary to work up a business case to show that eliminating the host-railroad and congestion delays on this segment would cause massive increases in revenue. (Which, personally, I believe it would.)


----------



## seat38a

George K said:


> Are the new trains _too good_?
> 
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/09/06/amtrak_s_avelia_liberty_is_going_to_be_better_than_the_acela_in_every_way.html


I can see these bad boys in California minus the tilt, I'm guessing the way things have been going, the trains for CA will go to Siemens. Correct me if I'm wrong but, in CA they can buy off the shelf what they already use in Europe since it will be on dedicated tracks? No need for as I quote "bank vault" on wheels.


----------



## seat38a

Do you think Amtrak might rename the service, "Avelia Liberty" or "Avelia" once all the Acela's are gone? The Metroliner name disappeared once the Acela's arrived.


----------



## CCC1007

seat38a said:


> George K said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are the new trains _too good_?
> 
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/09/06/amtrak_s_avelia_liberty_is_going_to_be_better_than_the_acela_in_every_way.html
> 
> 
> 
> I can see these bad boys in California minus the tilt, I'm guessing the way things have been going, the trains for CA will go to Siemens. Correct me if I'm wrong but, in CA they can buy off the shelf what they already use in Europe since it will be on dedicated tracks? No need for as I quote "bank vault" on wheels.
Click to expand...

If only it were going to be a fully separated line, it will share with Caltrain in the Bay Area, and metrolink in the la basin, if plans haven't changed.


----------



## Acela150

seat38a said:


> Do you think Amtrak might rename the service, "Avelia Liberty" or "Avelia" once all the Acela's are gone? The Metroliner name disappeared once the Acela's arrived.


No. Reason being simple. Under Warrington every train had a Title of Acela. With the Current Regional trains being Acela Regional and Keystone and Clockers were going to be Acela Commuter. Which drastically backfired. So if they changed the name of the service. It would cause confusion. Also Amtrak owns the name Acela so that adds incentive.
Edit Add info: The Metroliner name is still owned by Amtrak and is on Conference Car 9800. Matter of fact if you look at the super fine print of a National TT it shows they own the title.


----------



## jis

CCC1007 said:


> seat38a said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George K said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are the new trains _too good_?
> 
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/09/06/amtrak_s_avelia_liberty_is_going_to_be_better_than_the_acela_in_every_way.html
> 
> 
> 
> I can see these bad boys in California minus the tilt, I'm guessing the way things have been going, the trains for CA will go to Siemens. Correct me if I'm wrong but, in CA they can buy off the shelf what they already use in Europe since it will be on dedicated tracks? No need for as I quote "bank vault" on wheels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If only it were going to be a fully separated line, it will share with Caltrain in the Bay Area, and metrolink in the la basin, if plans haven't changed.
Click to expand...

Actually, last I heard the Tier 3 Avelias will require a specific waiver to operate mixed with Tier 2 Acelas at above 125mph too, and they have been working on the specifics of that. This was in a presentation by the Amtrak person in charge of the safety case for the higher speed operations on the NEC. I am am almost certain that the California sets will be Tier 3 just like the Avelias and that would make them able to operate intermixed with Tier 1 at below 125mph without any further waiver. OTOH, the EMUs that Caltrain is getting have a waiver to operate intermixed with Tier 1 because they are not fully Tier 1 compliant. They already have the waiver from FRA.



Acela150 said:


> seat38a said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think Amtrak might rename the service, "Avelia Liberty" or "Avelia" once all the Acela's are gone? The Metroliner name disappeared once the Acela's arrived.
> 
> 
> 
> No. Reason being simple. Under Warrington every train had a Title of Acela. With the Current Regional trains being Acela Regional and Keystone and Clockers were going to be Acela Commuter. Which drastically backfired. So if they changed the name of the service. It would cause confusion. Also Amtrak owns the name Acela so that adds incentive.
> Edit Add info: The Metroliner name is still owned by Amtrak and is on Conference Car 9800. Matter of fact if you look at the super fine print of a National TT it shows they own the title.
Click to expand...

To be more precise, the Metroliner moniker is a registered trade mark of Amtrak for use in the context of train service (at least). I don't know how wide the applicability is beyond that. The reason that I say that is that even the moniker Adirondack is an Amtrak registered trade mark.Clearly the use of that term beyond the context of train service is not restricted by said trade mark. New York state for example, does not need Amtrak's permission to call their state park by that name  and I am sure no one has forced Adirondack Trailways to change their name either. It is likely that if someone names their cafe "Metroliner Cafe" in Miami they won't run afoul of anything.

Microsoft at one time tried to trade mark "Window" and was denied. Trade Mark and Copyrights are an interesting morass in and of themselves.


----------



## afigg

seat38a said:


> Do you think Amtrak might rename the service, "Avelia Liberty" or "Avelia" once all the Acela's are gone? The Metroliner name disappeared once the Acela's arrived.


No. The Acela brand name has become widely known and an established short hand for the higher class service on the NEC. The phrase Acela Corridor and even Acela Primaries were used in the press this past Spring during the primaries for the states of the NEC.

For proof, check out the new website Amtrak has to plug the new trainsets and the passenger improvements coming to the NEC stations: https://futureofrail.amtrak.com/. Near the top of the webpage it says "ALL-NEW ACELA FLEETS ARRIVING IN 2021". Avelia Liberty is Alstom's name for the rolling stock, Acela will remain Amtrak's name for the service.


----------



## MattW

Is Tier-3/Tier-1 separation treated with the same stringency as non-compliant (transit)/national network separation? In other words, how does the FRA require the agencies to ensure a piece of Tier-1 equipment will not wander onto a Tier-3 (dedicated HSR) line? I guess things are still pretty in flux right now given there's no Tier-3 operation, and even the NEC won't be that way, but I'm curious of the level of rigor in ensuring separation.


----------



## jis

Tier 1 and Tier 3 don't have to be separated when both trains are operating at or below 125mph. Tier 1 does not operate above 125mph. The issue is with Tier 2 - Tier 3 separation above 125mph, and that is where a waiver will be needed on the NEC.

On a PTC equipped system which anything like ACSES or any run of the mill ERTMS system that is easy to enforce. You just set the speed limit at 0 for the class(es) of train that is Tier 1 and enforce a stop at the boundary entry point to the Tier 3 only territory.

However, on the NEC there will also be mixing of Tier 1 and Tier 3 operation where a Tier 1 train may be operating at upto 125mph and a Tier 3 may be operating above 125mph. That would also be part of the waiver which requires a special safety case covering those specific pieces of equipment on specific route segments. At least that is what I understood from that loooong and detailed presentation I sat through couple of years back.

The EMUs that Caltrain is ordering supposedly required a waiver because they are not fully Tier 1 compliant. However, I don;t know much detail about it since I have never sat through an equivalent presentation on the Peninsula route situation.


----------



## CraigDK

afigg said:


> ...
> 
> AMTRAK INVESTMENT PACKAGE TO ADVANCE WASHINGTON UNION STATION CONCOURSE MODERNIZATION. Excerpts:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In addition to station improvements at Washington Union Station, customers will see improvements at Moynihan Station in New York City, and New Carrollton Station and Baltimore Penn Station in Maryland, as well as track capacity and ride quality improvements to the NEC that will benefit both Acela Express riders and other Amtrak and commuter passengers.
> 
> 
> 
> The Acelas don't stop at New Carrollton, so what improvements are planned for NCR in the next 4-5 years and are they using the RRIF loan to pay for them?
> 
> BTW, the interest rate on the RRIF loan is 2.23% with 29 year repayment terms, according to an article in the Washington Examiner newspaper that was posted a few weeks ago. Not a bad interest rate at all.
Click to expand...

I've went looking again at some of the previously published documents on the NEC. My best guess would either be track-work in the vicinity of New Carrollton (An additional track and/or re-configuring the nearby interlockings and/or constant tension catenary) or someone confused New Carrollton with BWI.

But at this point, who knows. :huh:


----------



## Anderson

It's also "always possible" that Amtrak could add NCR to a stray Acela as a fig leaf (basically chewing up the time savings on a thinly-used Sat/Sun train or an off-off hour train). Not likely, I know, but hardly the most creative shenanigan Amtrak would ever have pulled...


----------



## Acela150

In the first few years of service a weekend Acela or two would stop at NCR.


----------



## Thirdrail7

CraigDK said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> AMTRAK INVESTMENT PACKAGE TO ADVANCE WASHINGTON UNION STATION CONCOURSE MODERNIZATION. Excerpts:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In addition to station improvements at Washington Union Station, customers will see improvements at Moynihan Station in New York City, and New Carrollton Station and Baltimore Penn Station in Maryland, as well as track capacity and ride quality improvements to the NEC that will benefit both Acela Express riders and other Amtrak and commuter passengers.
> 
> 
> 
> The Acelas don't stop at New Carrollton, so what improvements are planned for NCR in the next 4-5 years and are they using the RRIF loan to pay for them?
> 
> BTW, the interest rate on the RRIF loan is 2.23% with 29 year repayment terms, according to an article in the Washington Examiner newspaper that was posted a few weeks ago. Not a bad interest rate at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've went looking again at some of the previously published documents on the NEC. My best guess would either be track-work in the vicinity of New Carrollton (An additional track and/or re-configuring the nearby interlockings and/or constant tension catenary) or someone confused New Carrollton with BWI.
> 
> But at this point, who knows. :huh:
Click to expand...

NCR represents a major bottleneck in the area. It has two through tracks that utilize the platforms while the third track only takes you to Anacostia Line. This makes for congestion when it comes to MARC and Amtrak trains making the stop with a train that bypasses the station in the area.

When they built NCR station, someone was smart enough to basically dig out the area needed in case someone wanted to add another platform in the future. The plan is close Landover Interlocking to the south and move it north. The new interlocking (which had a working name of Hansen) would have universal, high speed crossings. That is instrumental since now a train can leave WAS, use a high speed crossover to access 1 track south of NCR station instead of waiting for the train to trudge along at 45mph from Landover to NCR, make a station stop and then crossover out of the path of the express.



Acela150 said:


> In the first few years of service a weekend Acela or two would stop at NCR.


Many of them stopped at NCR.


----------



## Andrew

Thirdrail7 said:


> CraigDK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> AMTRAK INVESTMENT PACKAGE TO ADVANCE WASHINGTON UNION STATION CONCOURSE MODERNIZATION. Excerpts:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In addition to station improvements at Washington Union Station, customers will see improvements at Moynihan Station in New York City, and New Carrollton Station and Baltimore Penn Station in Maryland, as well as track capacity and ride quality improvements to the NEC that will benefit both Acela Express riders and other Amtrak and commuter passengers.
> 
> 
> 
> The Acelas don't stop at New Carrollton, so what improvements are planned for NCR in the next 4-5 years and are they using the RRIF loan to pay for them?
> 
> BTW, the interest rate on the RRIF loan is 2.23% with 29 year repayment terms, according to an article in the Washington Examiner newspaper that was posted a few weeks ago. Not a bad interest rate at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've went looking again at some of the previously published documents on the NEC. My best guess would either be track-work in the vicinity of New Carrollton (An additional track and/or re-configuring the nearby interlockings and/or constant tension catenary) or someone confused New Carrollton with BWI.
> 
> But at this point, who knows. :huh:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NCR represents a major bottleneck in the area. It has two through tracks that utilize the platforms while the third track only takes you to Anacostia Line. This makes for congestion when it comes to MARC and Amtrak trains making the stop with a train that bypasses the station in the area.
> 
> When they built NCR station, someone was smart enough to basically dig out the area needed in case someone wanted to add another platform in the future. The plan is close Landover Interlocking to the south and move it north. The new interlocking (which had a working name of Hansen) would have universal, high speed crossings. That is instrumental since now a train can leave WAS, use a high speed crossover to access 1 track south of NCR station instead of waiting for the train to trudge along at 45mph from Landover to NCR, make a station stop and then crossover out of the path of the express.
> 
> 
> 
> Acela150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the first few years of service a weekend Acela or two would stop at NCR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many of them stopped at NCR.
Click to expand...

Where did you get the interest rate information?


----------



## CraigDK

Thirdrail7 said:


> NCR represents a major bottleneck in the area. It has two through tracks that utilize the platforms while the third track only takes you to Anacostia Line. This makes for congestion when it comes to MARC and Amtrak trains making the stop with a train that bypasses the station in the area.
> 
> When they built NCR station, someone was smart enough to basically dig out the area needed in case someone wanted to add another platform in the future. The plan is close Landover Interlocking to the south and move it north. The new interlocking (which had a working name of Hansen) would have universal, high speed crossings. That is instrumental since now a train can leave WAS, use a high speed crossover to access 1 track south of NCR station instead of waiting for the train to trudge along at 45mph from Landover to NCR, make a station stop and then crossover out of the path of the express.


I had not looked that closely at the track configuration in the area. That sounds like a good project, I would assume that might be worth at least a few minutes in time saved for those trains that won't stop there, as well as better reliability and on time performance with the removal of the bottleneck for every train that passes through.

Of all the work that is being planned in conjunction with the Acela II procurement, this seems like it might be the simplest and quickest one to do. Hopefully with the loan now secured, it won't be too long before work begins.


----------



## railiner

[quote name="jis" post="682210" timestamp="1475067768

To be more precise, the Metroliner moniker is a registered trade mark of Amtrak for use in the context of train service (at least). I don't know how wide the applicability is beyond that. The reason that I say that is that even the moniker Adirondack is an Amtrak registered trade mark.Clearly the use of that term beyond the context of train service is not restricted by said trade mark. New York state for example, does not need Amtrak's permission to call their state park by that name  and I am sure no one has forced Adirondack Trailways to change their name either. It is likely that if someone names their cafe "Metroliner Cafe" in Miami they won't run afoul of anything.

.

Adirondack Trailways has been around for 4 decades longer than Amtrak...

Another user of the "Metroliner" moniker was Fairchild-Swearingen, for their 19 passenger regional airliner...


----------



## Fan Railer

Bringing back the power rating discussion, a more recent publication seems to have had the number amended to a more realistic value (9280 kW, which is similar to the current Acela trainset):

http://www.alstom.com/Global/Transport/Resources/Documents/brochure2014/Avelia%20Liberty%20-%20Amtrak%20-%20Case%20study%20-%20English.pdf?epslanguage=en-GB


----------



## CraigDK

I guess someone copied a wrong number somewhere earlier...

I would have to assume that Alstom is fairly far along in the design process. Does anyone have an idea on the average time that Alstom needs to construct a complete trainset (TGV, AGV, or Pendilo)?


----------



## Fan Railer

Emperor Cuomo is making a speech (live now) @ Alstom's plant in Hornell celebrating their win of the Acela II contract. Look for a news release in a little bit, I guess.


----------



## CraigDK

Fan Railer said:


> Emperor Cuomo is making a speech (live now) @ Alstom's plant in Hornell celebrating their win of the Acela II contract. Look for a news release in a little bit, I guess.


Seems like a strange date to celebrate it. :huh:

I imagine that they have only just begun to make any changes to the plant to begin tooling up for production. Maybe that is why they are celebrating (the start of that process)...

Does anyone know what Alstom plant in France is building the two prototypes?


----------



## jis

Since it is basically a TGV derivative, most likely it will be built in the Belfort Plant, now that French Government has stepped in by placing a large TGV order to prevent the closure of that plant.


----------



## Andrew

Fan Railer said:


> Emperor Cuomo is making a speech (live now) @ Alstom's plant in Hornell celebrating their win of the Acela II contract. Look for a news release in a little bit, I guess.


Two excellent links on the Alstom Acela Contract update from New York State Governor--and likely 2020 presidential candidate--Andrew Cuomo:

http://www.governor.ny.gov/news/video-photos-rush-transcript-governor-cuomo-announces-30-million-alstom-transportation-inc

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-30-million-alstom-transportation-inc-expansion-create-nearly-200-new


----------



## bretton88

I'm still not sold on the. tilting tgv as the best option for Amtrak, but it should be better than the Acela.


----------



## Andrew

These new train-sets are supposed to be nearly 700 feet long.

Does that include the two new locomotives? I ask because I wonder how Amtrak could add 1/3rd more seating capacity if the new transits would only be about 30 feet longer than the current ones.


----------



## CCC1007

bretton88 said:


> I'm still not sold on the. tilting tgv as the best option for Amtrak, but it should be better than the Acela.


isn't that almost exactly what Acela was designed as?


----------



## Green Maned Lion

The Acela is a modified LRC design, actually.


----------



## jis

CCC1007 said:


> bretton88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still not sold on the. tilting tgv as the best option for Amtrak, but it should be better than the Acela.
> 
> 
> 
> isn't that almost exactly what Acela was designed as?
Click to expand...

Not at all. Acelas are not articulated using Jacobs bogies (trucks), which is a hallmark of TGVs.

Acelas are gussied up LRCs with TGV-like power heads.

Acela IIs are articulated like TGVs, and use the latest generation TGV power heads. They are a full fledged member of the "Concentrated Power TGV" family branded as "Avelia Liberty". The addition over and above regular TGVs is that of a tilt system derived from the Pendolino tilt system to the entire train, apparently including the power heads.

Having ridden Pendolinos extensively in UK (Virgin Intercity West Coast) and elsewhere in Europe, and ridden Acelas, in my experience the Pendolino tilt system is much more user friendly and gentler and yet tilts way more than the Acelas to take advantage of the higher underbalance allowed in Europe. My speculation is that the Acela IIs with these well tested systems and lighter will be a huge improvement over the Acela Is.


----------



## afigg

The FY2016 annual financial statement was posted to the website: FY2016 financial statement (51 page PDF). Besides the income and expense numbers, the report has nuggets of useful information in the notes on contracts and capital projects for the Alstom Acelas, CAF order, etc.

One fact that I don't recall seeing explicitly stated before is that the base contract for the 28 new trainsets is $1.4 billion which works out to $50 million a trainset including whatever maintenance. training, deployments costs are bundled into the base contract. Which leaves approximately $1 billion of the RRIF loan for upgrades to the maintenance facilities and NEC capital projects such as DC Union Station concourse & trackbed repair.

Extended excerpts from the FY2016 financial report for the Alstom Acela order.

Page 32 under Commitments:



> On August 8, 2016, the Company entered into a Purchase Agreement with a contractor for the acquisition of 28 Trainsets, to replace the Company’s current Acela Express equipment which runs on the NEC. The base price of the contract is $1.4 billion. Financing for the contract was obtained under the 2016 RRIF Loan (see Note 6). The Company issued a Notice to Proceed (NTP) to the contractor on August 16, 2016. The Company will make payments to the contractor pursuant to an approved payment schedule upon the contractor’s successful completion of certain tasks (milestones) during the contract. As of September 30, 2016, Amtrak has received a letter of credit from the contractor representing 10% of the contract value for which Amtrak is the beneficiary. Additional letters of credit will be issued during the construction period. As of September 30, 2016, the Company has incurred $152.6 million in project related costs. Also on August 8, 2016, the Company entered into a technical support and spares supply agreement with the same contractor to provide technical support, spares and other related services for the fifteen year period commencing upon acceptance of the first Trainset, expected in 2021. The base price for the technical support and spares supply agreement is $637.6 million. As of September 30, 2016, the Company has incurred $4.3 million in cost related to this agreement


Page 26 backs up a report of the 2.23% interest rate, not counting the credit risk premium.



> *2016 RRIF Loan*
> 
> On August 16, 2016, the Company entered into a $2.45 billion financing agreement with the Federal Government under the RRIF Loan program (the 2016 RRIF Loan), to finance the purchase of 28 Next Generation High-Speed Trainsets (the Trainsets), related spare parts, and improvements to existing facilities and properties. Amtrak’s obligations under the 2016 RRIF Loan are collateralized by the Trainsets, spare parts, Amtrak’s right to construct and receive delivery of the Trainsets and spare parts, and the debt service reserve account required under the financing agreement. See Note 10 for a description of the contracts issued to a vendor for the construction and delivery of the Trainsets and related spare parts and services.
> 
> By June 15, 2021, the Company will be required to fund and maintain a restricted debt service reserve account equal, over time, to increasing percentages of the projected first year debt service payments to support future debt service. Delivery of the Trainsets is expected to occur between 2021 and 2022. The Company is not required to begin making repayments on borrowings under the 2016 RRIF Loan until September 15, 2022.
> 
> All borrowings under the 2016 RRIF Loan will bear interest at a rate of 2.23% per annum. The Company expects to capitalize interest incurred during the construction period of the Trainsets as part of Construction-in-progress in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The Company will also pay a credit risk premium of 5.80% for all amounts borrowed under the 2016 RRIF Loan. The credit risk premiums paid will be recorded as a reduction of the outstanding balance of the 2016 RRIF Loan. The amortization of the credit risk premium will be recognized as interest expense and during the construction period will be capitalized as part of Construction-in-progress.
> 
> As of September 30, 2016, no amounts had been borrowed under the 2016 RRIF Loan.


----------



## west point

Has Alstom issued any construction info for the prototype yet ?


----------



## Acela150

Foam away

http://www.phillymag.com/news/2017/10/06/amtrak-new-trains/#gallery-2-1

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2017/10/06/amtrak-unveils-new-train-sets/

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/passenger/high-performance/avelia-liberty-look-revealed.html


----------



## frequentflyer

:unsure: :blink: :blink: :huh: :huh:


----------



## frequentflyer

:huh: :huh: :huh: :huh:


----------



## frequentflyer

So is this what the new Amfleet replacement (Siemens ????) livery will also look like? When do the new Siemens electric locomotives get their "new" paint job?


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Ok. Closed cell foam mock up methinks.


----------



## MisterUptempo

I know these are only renderings, but I can't find a single Amtrak logo on the new Acela livery. Is it possible that they are attempting to completely dissociate Acela from Amtrak, as far as marketing/branding is concerned?

EDIT - grammar


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Amtrak logos werent on the original Acelas either.


----------



## frequentflyer

So JIS was correct, it is a Frankenstein TGV.


----------



## CraigDK

MisterUptempo said:


> I know these are only renderings, but I can't find a single Amtrak logo on the new Acela livery. Is it possible that they attempting to completely dissociate Acela from Amtrak, as far as marketing/branding is concerned?


I doubt it. Remember when they released the video below, it was that speculated that they where going to drop the Acela name.



Speaking of the video, the livery on the new drawings and models appear to be simplified. The shape of the trainset, in particular the power cars, seem a bit more defined.


----------



## jis

Remember those early American Flyer renderings? What did the actual Acelas' livery look like? Anything close to the early renderings?

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## jis

frequentflyer said:


> So is this what the new Amfleet replacement (Siemens ????) livery will also look like? When do the new Siemens electric locomotives get their "new" paint job?


Most likely not. The livery will change a few times before the actual vinyl is printed. 
Also there is no reason to believe that Amtrak will repeat the foolish mistake of trying to co- brand the Regionals as Acela either. So unlikely that they will share the same livery.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## VT Hokie

jis said:


> Remember those early American Flyer renderings? What did the actual Acelas' livery look like? Anything close to the early renderings?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


Actually, yes, at least in terms of the basic color scheme.

http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/images/acela/flyer03.jpg

http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/images/acela/flyer04.jpg

What strikes me about this new rendering is that the power car sides are vertical, and different from the profile of the tilting coaches. The initial Alstom video suggests that the power cars will tilt around a fixed pantograph mount in Pendolino fashion, but I wonder if in fact the power cars will lack tilt mechanisms.


----------



## jis

If you say so. [emoji57]

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## me_little_me

Amtrak Phase MLXVIII color scheme.


----------



## MattW

I thought Amtrak was going for EMUs, as well as getting an FRA wavier (until Tier-III) for occupied end-cars. Oh well.


----------



## Acela150

Green Maned Lion said:


> Amtrak logos werent on the original Acelas either.


Actually yes it was. On the first TS in service they had the current logo on the nose and the word Amtrak in Red on the side of the cars Mid Car. Currently most of the TS have the Amtrak logo on them on all cars including the PC's.



jis said:


> Remember those early American Flyer renderings? What did the actual Acelas' livery look like? Anything close to the early renderings?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


When the "Acela" brand was announced they showed renderings. It's not much different at all.

Personally I prefer the stainless steel look with the splotches.


----------



## jis

http://www.masstransitmag.com/news/12373180/alstom-unveils-final-acela-line-model



> .. . . . . .
> 
> New documents obtained by The Spectator outline added design benefits of the new train line, which include one-third more passenger seats; half-hourly service facilitated by the ordering of more trainsets; a smoother ride comparable to international high-speed train service; as well as customer amenities like Wi-Fi access, personal outlets, USB ports and adjustable reading lights at every seat, enhanced food service car service and handicap accessibility.
> 
> Originally, company timelines put delivery of the first train-car shells in November of this year. At Friday's announcement a more solid timeline was established. The first trainset prototype will be ready for testing in 2019 and the first trainset will enter revenue service in early 2021, with all trainsets in service and the current fleet retired in early 2022.
> 
> . . . . . .


----------



## Acela150

Question and this may be right up Jis' ally or TR7's. What is the definition of a "prototype trainset"?? On top of that is it fair or unfair to say that this may be the set being built overseas per the FRA Waiver? On top of that, I would imagine that this TS would be for testing of top speeds, speeds that would be allowed in Revenue service e.g. curve speeds, tilt angles on each curve, the whole nine. I will say that I would hope and hope big that this set will be retrofitted as it would be in Revenue service and be put on public display for feed back from the public.

One thing that has recently crossed my mind is that back in the early 90's when Amtrak leased trains from Sweden (X2000), Germany (ICE), and France (Talgo) the one thing that I think would tremendously benefit HSR in the states is something that the X2000 has. Self Steering trucks. I think the only units that have such a thing are believe it or not Freight units. I know that the old Conrail SD80MAC's have them. So I have to ask if freight units have them, granted a small number, why shouldn't a High Speed Trainset have them?? I can only imagine how much time savings that would bring.


----------



## jis

The relevant definition of prototype from Merriam-Webster:

"a first full-scale and usually functional form of a new type or design of a construction (such as an airplane) "

Remember, this design brings together a few technical components that have not been married together in this way in the past. So it will need to go through a certain amount of debugging and such. And of course it will most likely be used to complete the safety case for certification for operation at target speeds and to establish that it can meet the RFP requirements adequately too, before line production is started.

Don't know enough about the pros and cons of self steering trucks to make much of any intelligent statement except to observe the old dictum that was taught to us at Bell Labs over and over again: A component that is not in the system will never fail and will have zero maintenance cost, so think hard before adding a component about whether its addition is justified for fulfilling the requirements specified in the requirements spec.


----------



## PVD

Or as those of us in the field used to hear when the salesmen promised the customers features that no one else had: "They swear it worked in the lab"


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Id say what Jishnu is saying is simply another way to state the KISS principle. Anyone who has had a long relationship with a Mercedes-Benz automobile can give you a really long rant about the advantages and disadvantages of adhering to that principle. And trust me, the list is long on both the pro and con sides.

BUT- and this is really important when dealing chronically underfunded Amtrak- while choosing not to adhere to the KISS principle can very often get you a better in-service performance, it will always increase both maintenance cost and downtime.


----------



## Acela150

jis said:


> The relevant definition of prototype from Merriam-Webster:
> 
> "a first full-scale and usually functional form of a new type or design of a construction (such as an airplane) "
> 
> Remember, this design brings together a few technical components that have not been married together in this way in the past. So it will need to go through a certain amount of debugging and such. And of course it will most likely be used to complete the safety case for certification for operation at target speeds and to establish that it can meet the RFP requirements adequately too, before line production is started.
> 
> Don't know enough about the pros and cons of self steering trucks to make much of any intelligent statement except to observe the old dictum that was taught to us at Bell Labs over and over again: A component that is not in the system will never fail and will have zero maintenance cost, so think hard before adding a component about whether its addition is justified for fulfilling the requirements specified in the requirements spec.


Makes plenty of sense to me. I would imagine this is due to the heavy standards set by the FRA?

I think that one thing that should happen is that should it be set up as it would be in revenue service, is that Amtrak should put it on display at several key stations, DC, Philly, Boston, try to fit NYP in if possible. That way customers can provide feedback on what they would like to see changed or vise versa.


----------



## jis

These will be Tier III, so not much of the traditional FRA standard. They will be close to off the shelf European stuff which already meet buff strength requirements close to those required for FRA Tier I anyway. So there is no reason for them to be significantly heavier than European stuff.

TGVs in general do not have independently steering axles anyway.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## frequentflyer

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/production-of-next-generation-acela-express-fleet-underway.html

So its not a Pendolino, its a TGV power cars, with next gen TGV propulsion, Pendolino tilt mechanism with AGV cars. That's what we call a "mutt" in the USA. But since non of this is experimental should work like a charm.

From the article-

Amtrak initially favoured a Pendolino derivative’, Sherin explained, but ‘we were able to persuade them otherwise, partly because a move to a multiple-unit fleet would require significant alterations to depot facilities’. The Avelia Liberty is also designed to allow extra intermediate cars to be added without any mechanical or electrical alterations to the train.

Whats different from the Pendolino and what modification would it had required for depots? How does one easily add cars to a unit train that shares boogies?


----------



## Green Maned Lion

They arent going with distributed power? I think that is a very poor choice. _He says as the major understatement alarm goes haywire._


----------



## WoodyinNYC

frequentflyer said:


> http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/production-of-next-generation-acela-express-fleet-underway.html
> 
> From the Railway Gazette article-





> They will incorporate Alstom’s Tiltronix anticipatory tilting technology, and a crash energy management system meeting the latest FRA crashworthiness guidelines.
> 
> Alstom’s Vice-President for Marketing & Strategy in North America Scott Sherin told _Railway Gazette _that the Avelia Liberty design blended experience from various high speed trains supplied internationally over recent years.
> 
> ‘The trailers are based on the AGV bodyshell used in Italy and the tilt equipment is derived from our Pendolino family, while we expect the compact power car design to be selected for SNCF’s next generation of TGVs’, he said. By opting for power cars with unpowered intermediate trailers, Alstom has continued the arrangement used for the existing fleet of 20 Acela Express trains supplied by a consortium of Alstom and Bombardier in 1998-2001.


Could Railway Gazette be subtly offering an opinion in this news article, by pointing out that the power car-trailers on order follow a somewhat stale precedent?


----------



## DSS&A

frequentflyer said:


> http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/production-of-next-generation-acela-express-fleet-underway.html
> 
> From the article-
> 
> Amtrak initially favoured a Pendolino derivative, Sherin explained, but we were able to persuade them otherwise, partly because a move to a multiple-unit fleet would require significant alterations to depot facilities. The Avelia Liberty is also designed to allow extra intermediate cars to be added without any mechanical or electrical alterations to the train.
> 
> Whats different from the Pendolino and what modification would it had required for depots? How does one easily add cars to a unit train that shares boogies?


In Europe, the railroad phrase "depot" is used to describe what railroaders in the USA call "maintenance building and shop facilities" and not "train stations".


----------



## Green Maned Lion

I caught that part. I just distinctly remember a lot of the discourse from upper management about the problems of the Acela included its inadequate acceleration on the curved NEC, and need to switch to distributed power as a way to rectify that.

The 40 year old Arrow III cars blow an Acelas doors off out of a station, and they werent even intended to be fast. I see whats before me, and I believe it because idiocy beats sense every bloody time. But I cant stand watching it yet again.


----------



## VT Hokie

While an EMU like the Arrow III is faster off the line, so to speak, the Acela is no slouch when it comes to acceleration. I imagine these new true TGV derivatives will perform even better.


----------



## jis

We will see how these things perform. What I do know is that TGVs with non-distributed power are quite capable of pinning you to your seat when they accelerate full blast.

There is a maintenance and operating cost tradeoff between concentrated power and distributed power. The RFP required proposals for meeting specific operating goals possibly with a requirement for providing maintenance with specific MDBF goals. Alstom decided to propose what it did to meet those requirements. It is hard to question their decision sitting firmly in our arm chairs based on very incomplete knowledge of the various issues involved and how they price out.


----------



## neroden

Well, going with old-school power cars is decidedly *retro*, but look on the bright side -- it's a less bad decision than attempting to keep running P42s rather than buying modern diesels.


----------



## A Voice

jis said:


> It is hard to question their decision sitting firmly in our arm chairs based on very incomplete knowledge of the various issues involved and how they price out.


When has that ever stopped us before..... :unsure:

Of course, its a fact they got the carbody shape all wrong. Budd proved nearly _fifty years ago_ that _modern_ railcars are supposed to be round. 



neroden said:


> Well, going with old-school power cars is decidedly *retro*, but look on the bright side -- it's a less bad decision than attempting to keep running P42s rather than buying modern diesels.


While Jis' wisdom correctly applies here too, we do know there are valid arguments in favor of rebuilding existing locomotives (note that the major freight carriers also have rebuild programs, while sales of new-build freight units are down, for more than one reason).


----------



## jis

A Voice said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is hard to question their decision sitting firmly in our arm chairs based on very incomplete knowledge of the various issues involved and how they price out.
> 
> 
> 
> When has that ever stopped us before..... :unsure:
> 
> Of course, its a fact they got the carbody shape all wrong. Budd proved nearly _fifty years ago_ that _modern_ railcars are supposed to be round.
Click to expand...

That idea that railroad cars must look line airplane fuselages with tiny windows, was the timeless contribution from the Volpe Center and Budd  that lives on with us. Fortunately nothing new is following that pattern.


----------



## west point

The major difference of power cars and distributed power probably comes with MYBF rates. How much of a distributed power train can continue operating with multiple failures of traction motors, inverters, control equipment, etc. ? Really depends on what reliability specifications for equipment. Of course some failures will shut a train set down. Another consideration which may be is the amount of maintenance personnel for each type. It gets much higher for more cars added in the future ?


----------



## Acela150

I think the thing that is simply wild to me, is that the prototype set will be here before you know it.. The Sprinters arrival came pretty quickly as well. We'll see how long it'll be at TTCI before it makes its way to the NEC.


----------



## Andrew

How long and tall will the locomotives and coaches be?


----------

