When/Why was Sunset trimmed from Miami to Sanford?

[Joel N. Weber II]

ISTR that even Acela has a much-lower-than-you'd-expect average speed. I forget the exact metric (end-to-end, BOS-NYP, NYP-WAS, etc.), but for whichever calculation it was, the overall average was in the 70mph range, and maybe it was even less. Much of that is the stops, slowing down to the stops, accelerating from the stops, and traveling slowly through built-up areas.

While I don't have data to prove this, I suspect that slowing down for curves and then speeding up again wastes a lot more time than slowing down for scheduled stops and then speeding up again.

If someone with a GPS reciever logged positions along the route every minute (or more frequently), that would probably provide some data that would be able to determine whether that's really the case, although I can't think offhand of a trivial way to do the data analysis even if I had a copy of the data.

You could also look at the difference in runtime between NYP and WAS for the typical Acela train, vs the super-express that briefly ran that only stopped at Philadelphia. I think it only saved 5 or 10 minutes across all the stops it skipped.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

It could be, yes. I think when Amtrak gets some new Corridor equipment, they'd be wise to convert some Amfleet Is to LD coaches and some Amfleet IIs to sectional and roomette sleepers.

Why not just get new long distance equipment?

I would not be at all surprised if sometime before any of that new corridor equipment starts getting delivered, the mothballed Amfleet I coaches all end up refurbished and in corridor service, and I would not be surprised if new corridor equipment in its first year or two of being delivered ends up being used to add capacity to the system rather than to replace old, solid equipment with flimsier equipment that just so happens to be newer.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

George made my point for me. I suggest using the Amfleets for sleepers for several reasons. One, Amtrak has tons of them and can select the best cars in the group for the job.

I thought there were only about 40 mothballed spares.

I get the general impresion that there are roughly as many Regional trains as there are Acela trains, and therefore, there ought to be roughly about as many Regional trainsets as Acela trainsets. If there are 15-20 regional trainsets and the mothballed cars are being used to add two coaches to every Regional trainset (not sure if two is has any correlation with Amtrak's plans, beyond that I got the distinct impression that the plan was to add more than one coach to at least some trains), you'll have 0-10 spare Amfleet I coaches left over. And it only takes at most one or two of the 48 states deciding they want a new state sponsored train with about two trainsets with about 2-3 coaches each to use up any coaches that might be left over after lengthening the Regional trains. And I think the Hiathawa trainset(s) were recently lengthened by one coach.

Amtrak has them right now, doesn't need to go through the whole order process. Maybe even Beech Grove could handle doing a few of them a year.

Isn't that the type of business Colorado Railcar likes to be in also?

 

[Green Maned Lion]

First, let me state that Colorado Rail Car should be allowed to make model trains and little else. Amtrak would be dumber than all hell to trust them with a project, and I think Kummant knows that.

It could be, yes. I think when Amtrak gets some new Corridor equipment, they'd be wise to convert some Amfleet Is to LD coaches and some Amfleet IIs to sectional and roomette sleepers.

Why not just get new long distance equipment?

I would not be at all surprised if sometime before any of that new corridor equipment starts getting delivered, the mothballed Amfleet I coaches all end up refurbished and in corridor service, and I would not be surprised if new corridor equipment in its first year or two of being delivered ends up being used to add capacity to the system rather than to replace old, solid equipment with flimsier equipment that just so happens to be newer.

Amtrak isn't built of money, Joel. Neither will the U.S. Government ever change that. Its the curse of democracy to not be able to change anything. Saving about 1.7 million dollars a car makes using the older equipment smarter.

There are currently 322 Amfleet I coach and business class cars in the system. There are another 40+ in storage. I suspect that Amtrak will grab as much equipment as they can when the order comes through. Reusing the old equipment as sleepers is a wise use of fund.

 

[jackal]

ISTR that even Acela has a much-lower-than-you'd-expect average speed. I forget the exact metric (end-to-end, BOS-NYP, NYP-WAS, etc.), but for whichever calculation it was, the overall average was in the 70mph range, and maybe it was even less. Much of that is the stops, slowing down to the stops, accelerating from the stops, and traveling slowly through built-up areas.

While I don't have data to prove this, I suspect that slowing down for curves and then speeding up again wastes a lot more time than slowing down for scheduled stops and then speeding up again.

If someone with a GPS reciever logged positions along the route every minute (or more frequently), that would probably provide some data that would be able to determine whether that's really the case, although I can't think offhand of a trivial way to do the data analysis even if I had a copy of the data.

You could also look at the difference in runtime between NYP and WAS for the typical Acela train, vs the super-express that briefly ran that only stopped at Philadelphia. I think it only saved 5 or 10 minutes across all the stops it skipped.

Well, trains don't really slow down for curves, per se, like cars slow down for curves (using, you know, the yellow "SLOW 20MPH" signs, etc.--my favorite was in Colorado, where the 75mph Interstate had curve warnings to slow down to 70mph!). What happens instead is that a curvy section of track will have a fairly low speed limit, and as the curves get shallower and the track gets straighter, the speed limit increases.

Speed restrictions or maximum authorized speeds (railroad terminology for speed limits) are rarely shorter than a mile. Check out the Alaska Railroad timetable here and look at pages 12 and 13 for the railroad's maximum authorized speeds. The mileposts for the speeds are listed, so you can see that the speed restrictions are not very short and they typically change by a fairly small increment each time (5mph, or at most, 10), so the speed changes are pretty gradual.

But you have a point about the Acela Limited's runtime (I think that was what it was marketed as) vs. the regular Acela Express. I would have expected it to save more. Maybe, though, that was because Acela has a pretty good rate of acceleration, since it has two really powerful locomotives powering a pretty short train (i.e. the hp-to-weight ratio is a lot higher than for, say, a western Superliner long distance train).

 

[GP35]

It could be, yes. I think when Amtrak gets some new Corridor equipment, they'd be wise to convert some Amfleet Is to LD coaches and some Amfleet IIs to sectional and roomette sleepers.

Why not just get new long distance equipment?

I would not be at all surprised if sometime before any of that new corridor equipment starts getting delivered, the mothballed Amfleet I coaches all end up refurbished and in corridor service, and I would not be surprised if new corridor equipment in its first year or two of being delivered ends up being used to add capacity to the system rather than to replace old, solid equipment with flimsier equipment that just so happens to be newer.

I'm all for Amfleet making the SL and Cardinal daily. Too bad Amtrak is not.

 

[GP35]

First, let me state that Colorado Rail Car should be allowed to make model trains and little else. Amtrak would be dumber than all hell to trust them with a project, and I think Kummant knows that.

What is wrong with Colorado rail cars?

 

[Green Maned Lion]

CRC has been in and out of receivership most of its life. It died a death as Rader RailCar only to come back as CRC under the same owner (!) Most of its products have been poorly made garbage. Their DMUs are famously underpowered, inefficient, and unreliable. Tri-Rail actually uses a F40 to pull their supposedly self-propelled DMUs.

Also, they build things primarily out of carbon steel. Edward G. Budd demonstrated the proper way to build a durable rail car back in the mid 30s- shot welding stainless steel. Carbon steel rusts. There is a reason that 90% of Amtrak equipment is made of shot-welded stainless steel. (Most of the rest are either ancient Pullman-Standard baggage cars, or the aluminum Horizon equipment)

The amazing dominance of Budd equipment in the heritage roster from the mid-70s onward speaks for itself.

 

[jphjaxfl]

The only problem with a section in an Amfleet is the tube shape of the car body. That could result in a fairly narrow upper compared to those in the more ractangular body shells of the 1950's and earlier sleepers. (I have never been in a Viewliner, but they look far more squarish than the Amfleet.) On the other hand, Malaysian Railways manages upper and lowers in section type arrangements in a body shell that is certainly smaller, as the track gauge is only one meter (3'-3 3/8"), and and the car size looks to be on the order of British standards which are quite small. In spite of that, the upper was still big enough for me to stuff my 220 lb body into an upper and sleep comfortably.

Amtrak experimented with Sleeping room modules in an Amfleet I car back in the mid to late 1970s on a train known as the Shenandoan between Washington and Cincinnati on B&O's National LTD route.

The coach seats were removed from one end of the car and 3 single room sleeping modules were installed on the "tracks" where the coach seats were. In addition to the Sleeper-coach car, the train also carried an Amfleet snack bar coach. The train was not very well patronized and eventually was discontinued. The Amfleet Sleeper-coach concept was not tried any where else. I traveled on the Shenandoan in October, 1978 from Cincinnati to Washington. It ran on virtually the same schedule as the Cardinal which it connected with at Cincinnati. The Cardinal reache Washington faster so most of the through passengers stayed on the Cardinal. The train was well patronized between Cincinnati and Chillicothe, Oh and between Parkersburg, WV and Washington. Between Chillicothe and Parkersburg, there were less than 10 passengers on the train, but all 3 sleeper rooms were occupied.

It would seem like Amtrak could use the same concept today to covert Amfleet coaches to low level Sleeping Cars.]

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Amtrak isn't built of money, Joel. Neither will the U.S. Government ever change that. Its the curse of democracy to not be able to change anything. Saving about 1.7 million dollars a car makes using the older equipment smarter.
There are currently 322 Amfleet I coach and business class cars in the system. There are another 40+ in storage. I suspect that Amtrak will grab as much equipment as they can when the order comes through. Reusing the old equipment as sleepers is a wise use of fund.

Reusing coaches as coaches and building new sleepers is likely cheaper than building new coaches and then converting old coaches to sleepers, though.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Why would that be so? A sleeper is more complex and expensive car.