Amtrak ACS-64

[Blackwolf]

Just saw the cab mock-up from the new Siemens-built Amtrak Cities Sprinter class of locomotives. Go check it out, if you've not already seen!

Siemens ACS-64 Cab

Discuss. Opinions? Comments? Issues?

I'll be hard-pressed to see one in service, but they are being built primarily in Sacramento, only 30 minutes from where I live.

 

[The Davy Crockett]

Discuss. Opinions? Comments? Issues?

Nice. When can I take one for a spin?

 

[MC CJ'S REVENGE]

Discuss. Opinions? Comments? Issues?

Nice. When can I take one for a spin?

If everything goes well February of 2013.

 

[the_traveler]

But not in the cab!

 

[Oldsmoboi]

These are replacing the AEMs?

 

[MiRider]

Saw that on Facebook a little while ago.

Too bad they're just for the NEC.

On my last trip from CHI on the Pere Marquette, the engineer had to shut the train down numerous times to reset the computer as the engine was having problems generating enough power to pull the cars.

We made it, and not too late either, but what a drag for the crew to have to deal with problems like that.

From Amtrak's fb page:

In October 2010, Amtrak awarded Siemens a six-year – $466 million contract to build 70 electric locomotives to operate on the Northeast Corridor.

Some 250 jobs will be created at the Sacramento plant and also at plants in Norwood, Ohio and Alpharetta, Georgia during this multi-year project.

The first Amtrak Cities Sprinter ACS-64 electric locomotive is scheduled for delivery in 2013 and will operate at speeds up to 125 mph (201 kph) from Washington, D.C. to Boston and up to 110 mph (177 kph) on the Keystone Corridor from Philadelphia to Harrisburg, Pa.

They will replace locomotives in service between 20 and 30 years.

Direct link to pic on Amtrak's fb page

 

[afigg]

Nice. When can I take one for a spin?

If everything goes well February of 2013.

The most recent published schedule dates for the ACS-64s I see are delivery of a test locomotive in or by December, 2012 followed by service deliveries in 2013. Since these will be entirely new locomotives to the FRA and Amtrak, I would expect the testing, training, and shakedown stages to take some months. So entry into revenue service could be mid-2013? or maybe fall 2013?

 

[afigg]

These are replacing the AEMs?

Yes, and also the HHP-8s, even though the HHP-8s will only be middle aged by 2015-2016. Amtrak is likely to keep the HHP-8s around for spares. Some of the AEM-7's are to be converted to cab cars.

 

[Texan Eagle]

I read the specifications for this engine on the Wikipedia page and it mentions top designed speed 135 mph. Considering these engines will be the future fleet of the NEC, isn't this a bit too low? Agreed currently they will not do anything higher than 125 mph, but is Amtrak so sure that there will be no speed improvements to NEC over the next 10 or 15 years by even 15 mph?

 

[jis]

I read the specifications for this engine on the Wikipedia page and it mentions top designed speed 135 mph. Considering these engines will be the future fleet of the NEC, isn't this a bit too low? Agreed currently they will not do anything higher than 125 mph, but is Amtrak so sure that there will be no speed improvements to NEC over the next 10 or 15 years by even 15 mph?

I don't know if they are Tier II compliant or they merely have the physical capability to run at 135 mph. Anything running at greater than 125 mph has to be Tier II compliant and at present the only thing that is are the Acela trainsets. Individual cars by themselves are not, nor are individual power units. The entire trainset together is.

 

[transit54]

I read the specifications for this engine on the Wikipedia page and it mentions top designed speed 135 mph. Considering these engines will be the future fleet of the NEC, isn't this a bit too low? Agreed currently they will not do anything higher than 125 mph, but is Amtrak so sure that there will be no speed improvements to NEC over the next 10 or 15 years by even 15 mph?

Out of curiosity, are there worldwide examples of conventionally coupled trains exceeding 135 MPH? Everything I recall that runs faster than that is a trainset, much like the Acela, but I'm by no means an expert in the area.

 

[afigg]

I read the specifications for this engine on the Wikipedia page and it mentions top designed speed 135 mph. Considering these engines will be the future fleet of the NEC, isn't this a bit too low? Agreed currently they will not do anything higher than 125 mph, but is Amtrak so sure that there will be no speed improvements to NEC over the next 10 or 15 years by even 15 mph?

125 mph is the specified max operational speed for the Amfleets, Viewliner IIs along with the next generation single level and bi-level passenger cars. That is the top nominal operating speed of the standard tier equipment which the ACS-64's will tow on the NEC and Keystone East. And any other electrified corridors in the east that might get built during the lifespan of the ACS-64s. Faster than 125 mph operational speeds is the domain of the HSR trainsets. The issue is not the max speeds of the NEC tracks which are 135 mph for several segments between WAS-NYP and 150 mph NYP-BOS.

 

[NE933]

But I think there is a sentiment on here where many of us believe that since Amtrak is already persuading the FRA to have Acela fly at 160, why not put some sprinkles on the cake by also asking for a way to get the ACS-64 and 'Amfleet III's' legally up to 130? A 5mph increase that can be done by requesting a, ohh, say, a permanent waiver or a redo of the Tier specs? I'm sort of going at the genesis (not the locomotive) of how the value of 125 was arrived at, and why it should stand as a stonewall nearly three decades later when there is solid data that the hunting, overweight Acela can do 135 but Amfleets are not allowed 130?

 

[sitzplatz17]

But I think there is a sentiment on here where many of us believe that since Amtrak is already persuading the FRA to have Acela fly at 160, why not put some sprinkles on the cake by also asking for a way to get the ACS-64 and 'Amfleet III's' legally up to 130? A 5mph increase that can be done by requesting a, ohh, say, a permanent waiver or a redo of the Tier specs? I'm sort of going at the genesis (not the locomotive) of how the value of 125 was arrived at, and why it should stand as a stonewall nearly three decades later when there is solid data that the hunting, overweight Acela can do 135 but Amfleets are not allowed 130?

Generally around the world you don't see conventional passenger trains do much over 200km/h (about 125mph), if at all.

Anything higher than that and you usually have semi-permanently coupled trainsets.

For example I'm pretty sure the 200km/h maximum speed of the Inter-City trains in Germany (not ICE) was kept as is because of the advent of push-pull operations.

You don't really want to go any faster than 200km/h when pushing anyway so the Inter-Cities were kept at a 200km/h speed limit. If you wanted anything faster you would just go with an ICE trainset (rated to 330km/h, about 205mph)

I guess that kind of thinking applies here as well. Why bother spending money and lobbying power on getting the extra 5mph when 125 is already not bad. If you need to have a faster train you'll just use an Acela.

 

[cirdan]

But I think there is a sentiment on here where many of us believe that since Amtrak is already persuading the FRA to have Acela fly at 160, why not put some sprinkles on the cake by also asking for a way to get the ACS-64 and 'Amfleet III's' legally up to 130? A 5mph increase that can be done by requesting a, ohh, say, a permanent waiver or a redo of the Tier specs? I'm sort of going at the genesis (not the locomotive) of how the value of 125 was arrived at, and why it should stand as a stonewall nearly three decades later when there is solid data that the hunting, overweight Acela can do 135 but Amfleets are not allowed 130?

Generally around the world you don't see conventional passenger trains do much over 200km/h (about 125mph), if at all.

Anything higher than that and you usually have semi-permanently coupled trainsets.

For example I'm pretty sure the 200km/h maximum speed of the Inter-City trains in Germany (not ICE) was kept as is because of the advent of push-pull operations.

You don't really want to go any faster than 200km/h when pushing anyway so the Inter-Cities were kept at a 200km/h speed limit. If you wanted anything faster you would just go with an ICE trainset (rated to 330km/h, about 205mph)

I guess that kind of thinking applies here as well. Why bother spending money and lobbying power on getting the extra 5mph when 125 is already not bad. If you need to have a faster train you'll just use an Acela.

I think that sums it up quite well.

Also, the incremental cost of high-speed locomotives is quite steep.

So building for speed that you're not going to use fully is not an effective way to spend money.

It's not the top speed that makes a service competitive but the overall travel time and that means average speed.

It is often more cost effective to go for the average speed rather than the top speed. That can mean addressing speed restrictions, for example by using high-speed compatible switches, easing curves or modifying intermediate stations at which the train doesn't stop to raise the speed at which trains can pass . This has been DB's approach on many lines, which is why they could get away with ordering 200km/h (125mph) ICE sets for many services on classic lines (i.e, upgraded older lines in contrast to purose built new ones)

 

[jis]

But I think there is a sentiment on here where many of us believe that since Amtrak is already persuading the FRA to have Acela fly at 160, why not put some sprinkles on the cake by also asking for a way to get the ACS-64 and 'Amfleet III's' legally up to 130? A 5mph increase that can be done by requesting a, ohh, say, a permanent waiver or a redo of the Tier specs? I'm sort of going at the genesis (not the locomotive) of how the value of 125 was arrived at, and why it should stand as a stonewall nearly three decades later when there is solid data that the hunting, overweight Acela can do 135 but Amfleets are not allowed 130?

Amtrak is hardly doing much persuading. It is pretty straghtforward what needs to be done to achieve 160mph, and Amtrak is basically running through the process. Tier II already permits 160mph. Basically Amtrak has to show that the train can safely operate at that speed by running test at 176-180mph.

So since there is no connection between Acela getting certified for 160mph commercial operation and any new trainsets or cars that may be coming down the pike, I think the entire logic of the proposition above is founded on shaky ground.

It is unlikely that FRA will grant any waiver of the Tier II spec. It will mostly a fools errand to fight to get a 5mph speed increase since it gains you almost nothing in terms of end to end running times.

As you know hunting has nothing to do with the FRA track classes and with the buff strength tiers. 125mph is both the threshold for FRA track class and buff strength standard, and going forward it is also going to be a threshold for Tier III trains to operate mixed with Tier I and Tier II trains. So whatever its genesis, it is what we are stuck with and it is unlikely to change. There is considerable support from the rest of the world about using 125mph as a reasonable threshold.

It is a totally separate matter that the Acela sets are a three humped camel and has relatively poor, perhaps the poorest among the current HSR sets, ride quality. To some extent active tilt contributes to that and to some extent the extra weight does too.

 

[Dave Walker]

But I think there is a sentiment on here where many of us believe that since Amtrak is already persuading the FRA to have Acela fly at 160, why not put some sprinkles on the cake by also asking for a way to get the ACS-64 and 'Amfleet III's' legally up to 130? A 5mph increase that can be done by requesting a, ohh, say, a permanent waiver or a redo of the Tier specs? I'm sort of going at the genesis (not the locomotive) of how the value of 125 was arrived at, and why it should stand as a stonewall nearly three decades later when there is solid data that the hunting, overweight Acela can do 135 but Amfleets are not allowed 130?

Generally around the world you don't see conventional passenger trains do much over 200km/h (about 125mph), if at all.

Anything higher than that and you usually have semi-permanently coupled trainsets.

For example I'm pretty sure the 200km/h maximum speed of the Inter-City trains in Germany (not ICE) was kept as is because of the advent of push-pull operations.

You don't really want to go any faster than 200km/h when pushing anyway so the Inter-Cities were kept at a 200km/h speed limit. If you wanted anything faster you would just go with an ICE trainset (rated to 330km/h, about 205mph)

I guess that kind of thinking applies here as well. Why bother spending money and lobbying power on getting the extra 5mph when 125 is already not bad. If you need to have a faster train you'll just use an Acela.

As a side note on high speed Push-Pull equipment: the British Rail Class 370 Advanced Passenger Train (APT) was designed for 150 mph (225 kph) operation with the power units in the center of the articulated train set. Yes, that's right. It was pushed in *both* directions. Its full production successor, the InterCity 225 was made of a class 91 locomotive and a Driving Van Trailer ("Cabbage") with Mk 4 non-articulated coaches in between.

High speed push-pull can be quite successful.

 

[NE933]

As a side note on high speed Push-Pull equipment: the British Rail Class 370 Advanced Passenger Train (APT) was designed for 150 mph (225 kph) operation with the power units in the center of the articulated train set. Yes, that's right. It was pushed in *both* directions. Its full production successor, the InterCity 225 was made of a class 91 locomotive and a Driving Van Trailer ("Cabbage") with Mk 4 non-articulated coaches in between.

High speed push-pull can be quite successful.

But doesn't this mean a passenger can't walk from one half of the train to the other, owing to the locomotive in the middle?

 

[jis]

As a side note on high speed Push-Pull equipment: the British Rail Class 370 Advanced Passenger Train (APT) was designed for 150 mph (225 kph) operation with the power units in the center of the articulated train set. Yes, that's right. It was pushed in *both* directions. Its full production successor, the InterCity 225 was made of a class 91 locomotive and a Driving Van Trailer ("Cabbage") with Mk 4 non-articulated coaches in between.

High speed push-pull can be quite successful.

225kp is 140mph, not 150.

APT was targeted for 155mph which is roughly 250kph.

InterCity 225 has technically nothing to do with the APT project, which was essentially dropped after the failure of APT in regular service between London and Glasgow. During the development phase though they were called APT-U, but the APT monicker was dropped after it became more of a brand liability. As stated above, InterCity 225s are basic Mark IV cars with a DVT at one end and a Class 91 at the other end (usually the north end). In test runs IC225 has operated at something like 162mph.

InterCity 225s though technically capable of operating at 225kph, have never done so in regular service on the routes they normally ply, because the signaling system does not allow speeds higher than 125mph (200kph). Theoretically they could operate at their design speed on HS-1 provided they are equipped with TVM430 ATC equipment.

Consequently they operate at the same speed that Amtrak Northeast Regionals and even Keystone push-pulls operate in the US. In principle, if Amtrak had enough DVTs capable of running at 125mph, they could operate the Northeast Regionals as push-pulls too.

One thing to keep in mind though that UK has way more route mileage cleared for 125mph operation than the US. In addition to IC225s, the InterCity 125 also provide 125mph service powered by diesel power heads at both ends of the train (and Mark 3 cars), which originally had Paxman Valenta prime movers, but have since been upgraded with new MTU4000 prime movers. These sets are still soldiering on after all these years. Technically, US could learn a lesson or two from the InterCity 125 program on how to run a successful higher speed diesel powered passenger system.

 

[Dave]

As a side note on high speed Push-Pull equipment: the British Rail Class 370 Advanced Passenger Train (APT) was designed for 150 mph (225 kph) operation with the power units in the center of the articulated train set. Yes, that's right. It was pushed in *both* directions. Its full production successor, the InterCity 225 was made of a class 91 locomotive and a Driving Van Trailer ("Cabbage") with Mk 4 non-articulated coaches in between.

High speed push-pull can be quite successful.

But doesn't this mean a passenger can't walk from one half of the train to the other, owing to the locomotive in the middle?

That was one of the drawbacks, a train had 2 complete trainsets, or more often than not they ran one side with a full set, and a minimum set on the other.

 

[jis]

As a side note on high speed Push-Pull equipment: the British Rail Class 370 Advanced Passenger Train (APT) was designed for 150 mph (225 kph) operation with the power units in the center of the articulated train set. Yes, that's right. It was pushed in *both* directions. Its full production successor, the InterCity 225 was made of a class 91 locomotive and a Driving Van Trailer ("Cabbage") with Mk 4 non-articulated coaches in between.

High speed push-pull can be quite successful.

But doesn't this mean a passenger can't walk from one half of the train to the other, owing to the locomotive in the middle?

That was one of the drawbacks, a train had 2 complete trainsets, or more often than not they ran one side with a full set, and a minimum set on the other.

And yet the French and the Japanese have no problem running two TGV or Shinkansen sets coupled together as a single train where people from one of them can't get to the other. Methinks too much is made of the need for everyone to be able to walk the entire train.

 

[Ziv]

Cirdan, I agree that top speed is important but not quite as important as the average speed. It is the dept. and arr. times that matter not the top speed the train reaches for a few minutes. But wouldn't the low hanging fruit for improving average speeds be doing something to increasing the approach speed limits at many of the larger train stations? I remember rolling into New Orleans more than 40 minutes before our scheduled time and then we hit the city limits and the speed dropped to around 30 mph, then down to 15 mph for the last few mile or so. Same thing in LA. Is the train slowing to prevent an early arrival or are the speed limits in the city really that slow? Then there are the curvy bits that really slow down certain trains, like the Capital Limited's portion that cuts through Maryland northwest of Cumberland. I don't see how they could straighten it too much.

Obviously the Holy Grail would be getting better priorities for the Amtrak trains, but that seems to be kind of hit or miss. We seemed to have good priorities just about everywhere on my last trip when I went from WAS to NO to Deming NM, to LA to Portland to WGL to Chicago to WAS. Except on the Sunset Limited anyway, we seemed to zip along pretty well. Better than my train trips 10 or 12 years ago, anyway.

But I think there is a sentiment on here where many of us believe that since Amtrak is already persuading the FRA to have Acela fly at 160, why not put some sprinkles on the cake by also asking for a way to get the ACS-64 and 'Amfleet III's' legally up to 130? A 5mph increase that can be done by requesting a, ohh, say, a permanent waiver or a redo of the Tier specs? I'm sort of going at the genesis (not the locomotive) of how the value of 125 was arrived at, and why it should stand as a stonewall nearly three decades later when there is solid data that the hunting, overweight Acela can do 135 but Amfleets are not allowed 130?

Generally around the world you don't see conventional passenger trains do much over 200km/h (about 125mph), if at all.

Anything higher than that and you usually have semi-permanently coupled trainsets.

For example I'm pretty sure the 200km/h maximum speed of the Inter-City trains in Germany (not ICE) was kept as is because of the advent of push-pull operations.

You don't really want to go any faster than 200km/h when pushing anyway so the Inter-Cities were kept at a 200km/h speed limit. If you wanted anything faster you would just go with an ICE trainset (rated to 330km/h, about 205mph)

I guess that kind of thinking applies here as well. Why bother spending money and lobbying power on getting the extra 5mph when 125 is already not bad. If you need to have a faster train you'll just use an Acela.

I think that sums it up quite well.

Also, the incremental cost of high-speed locomotives is quite steep.

So building for speed that you're not going to use fully is not an effective way to spend money.

It's not the top speed that makes a service competitive but the overall travel time and that means average speed.

It is often more cost effective to go for the average speed rather than the top speed. That can mean addressing speed restrictions, for example by using high-speed compatible switches, easing curves or modifying intermediate stations at which the train doesn't stop to raise the speed at which trains can pass . This has been DB's approach on many lines, which is why they could get away with ordering 200km/h (125mph) ICE sets for many services on classic lines (i.e, upgraded older lines in contrast to purose built new ones)

 

[Trogdor]

Cirdan, I agree that top speed is important but not quite as important as the average speed. It is the dept. and arr. times that matter not the top speed the train reaches for a few minutes. But wouldn't the low hanging fruit for improving average speeds be doing something to increasing the approach speed limits at many of the larger train stations? I remember rolling into New Orleans more than 40 minutes before our scheduled time and then we hit the city limits and the speed dropped to around 30 mph, then down to 15 mph for the last few mile or so. Same thing in LA. Is the train slowing to prevent an early arrival or are the speed limits in the city really that slow?

It's not really a matter of "speed limits in the city" per se, but rather when you approach large terminals you tend to go over a lot of switches in order to be lined up to the proper track, and this does require moving very slowly (10-15 mph is pretty common in these cases). However, in the case of LA, that slow running really only hits you once you're within a mile of the station (though you aren't doing 79, you could still be doing 40-50). Even if you could zip into the station at 40 mph, it wouldn't save you more than a minute or so on the Surfliner trains.

 

[Ziv]

Trogdor, what you are talking about is what I expected, but what both New Orleans and LA were like was something else. I wanted to walk to my hotel before dark in New Orleans and I had a friend waiting to take me to breakfast in LA and in both instances it took around 20-30 minutes to go the last few miles. I tend to hang out with train buffs and they all forecast the last minute slowdowns. NO was worse but LA was kind of a pain as well. And you are right, the last mile into both stations was at around 10 mph. But the five or six miles before that at 20 mph or so was even more frustrating because it didn't seem to make sense. Chicago had a slow down but it wasn't as bad, DC was kind of odd too, we left Rockville and just kind of schlepped along at a moderate speed, but at least there we were doing 35 or 40 mph so it didn't seem like we were standing still.

Maybe part of it is me just wanting to get to my next stop but it did seem like there were approach speed limits that added a lot of trip time.

Regardless of little irritants, a bad day riding a train is still a good day, in my book.

Cirdan, I agree that top speed is important but not quite as important as the average speed. It is the dept. and arr. times that matter not the top speed the train reaches for a few minutes. But wouldn't the low hanging fruit for improving average speeds be doing something to increasing the approach speed limits at many of the larger train stations? I remember rolling into New Orleans more than 40 minutes before our scheduled time and then we hit the city limits and the speed dropped to around 30 mph, then down to 15 mph for the last few mile or so. Same thing in LA. Is the train slowing to prevent an early arrival or are the speed limits in the city really that slow?

It's not really a matter of "speed limits in the city" per se, but rather when you approach large terminals you tend to go over a lot of switches in order to be lined up to the proper track, and this does require moving very slowly (10-15 mph is pretty common in these cases). However, in the case of LA, that slow running really only hits you once you're within a mile of the station (though you aren't doing 79, you could still be doing 40-50). Even if you could zip into the station at 40 mph, it wouldn't save you more than a minute or so on the Surfliner trains.

 

[PerRock]

The model from the ongoing Innotrans show: