Acela II RFP information announcement

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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

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

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

 

[afigg]

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.