Amtrak's Five Year Fleet Plan

[PerRock]

A little storage. Mainly the stuff you listed. There is a "ski locker" above one truck, and a small cabinet for storage above one; and that's about it.

peter

 

[Amtrak706]

What specific statements would you grill them on?

Everything the RPA white paper calls them out on regarding their accounting. Aside from that, maybe their claim that the long distance routes do not appeal to millennials, for example. Judging from the multi-page letter to Amtrak demanding they stop the Amtrak 2.0 agenda, though, I don’t think Congress would need much help finding topics on which to grill them.

Why would Congress grill them about this? They have Amtrak a mandate to be profitable, and they are attempting to achieve that mandate.

I think a solid 90% of this forum would disagree with you here. PRRIA and PRIIA have been cited as excuses for some of Amtrak’s recent decisions, but as many of us on this forum and elsewhere have previously pointed out, they are also conveniently ignoring multiple sections of these laws that do not align with their vision for the company; the most often cited example of this being the clauses encouraging Amtrak to increase special charter train and PV business.

What would you hope to gain by doing this? Their job is to plan, they are putting the plan together to tell the Congress “This is what it is going to take if you want us to keep operating.” Doing nothing is not an option, as eventually the wheels will fall off the current rolling stock. The plan is prompted by the fact that if they don’t start ordering equipment soon, they’ll be unable to continue “business as usual”.

You completely missed my point on this one. I’m not somehow disagreeing with the need for new locomotives and rolling stock. I’m questioning Amtrak’s sudden inclusion of “possible changes to the long distance network following the FY2020 reauthorization” in almost every aspect of their fleet planning. I think it’s pretty clear that they are hoping for and/or expecting some scaling down of the LD trains, in spite of Congress making it clear that they do not approve of this initiative.

 

[Amtrak706]

Besides Congress does require them to provide a plan to justify both appropriation and reauthorization requests. Claiming that the plan is unprompted merely exhibits ignorance of the governance process.

And your reply merely exhibits ignorance of what I actually said. Read the last paragraph of my response to Ryan (above).

 

[jis]

So in saying "and the sudden completely unprompted fleet planning for a possibly very different Amtrak following the FY2020 reauthorization.", you are referring to the mention of D/EMUs? OK, but most of the fleet planning appears to be to replace Superliners and Amfleet while taking into consideration more modern best practice. At least I read it that way. Of course whatever the Reauthorization is, the fleet plan will have to account for that. I see that as just stating the obvious. I guess we are all free to read whichever way we want to right? I just don't have your specific bias in reading it. I have mine

 

[Amtrak706]

So in saying "and the sudden completely unprompted fleet planning for a possibly very different Amtrak following the FY2020 reauthorization.", you are referring to the mention of D/EMUs? OK, but most of the fleet planning appears to be to replace Superliners and Amfleet while taking into consideration more modern best practice. At least I read it that way. Of course whatever the Reauthorization is, the fleet plan will have to account for that. I see that as just stating the obvious. I guess we are all free to read whichever way we want to right? I just don't have your specific bias in reading it. I have mine

How is that what you think I said?

No. Once again, I do not somehow have an issue with Amtrak needing new rolling stock and locomotives (or D/EMUs if that is deemed a better option) to replace their current fleet. My issue is that there are several mentions of “possible changes to the national network following the FY2020 reauthorization” being an influence on fleet planning. For example, they state that one of the reasons for only ordering 75 Chargers initially is that if the long-distance trains go away, that is all they will need. The option order for 100 more is in case they are forced to keep running the LD trains after FY2020. No one but Amtrak is hoping for or expecting these changes, as Congress has repeatedly made it clear that they want to keep the long-distance trains as-is.

 

[jis]

I'd say that it would be the current administration and Amtrak that seem to be reading off the same Heritage Foundation page, or at least one could surmise that to be the case.

So this is all speculation, since at least I have no way of mind reading from distance of people I have not even talked to. With that preface, it would appear to me that the current federal administration and through them the Amtrak Board have certain marching orders, which we can all agree we don't like. In writing the 2020 Appropriation request, even if Amtrak's management below the Board was completely opposed (not that I am saying they are), they'd still have to acknowledge the possibility of change that has been proposed by their bosses. So that language is to be expected given what has gone on the last couple of years and actually even before that to some extent, irrespective of what various groups of folks in management think.

It is better to know these things through such documents before a fait acompli is served to us so that we can work the system to ensure that any changes that happen are the sort that are desirable. I for one think huge changes are necessary for Amtrak to become a 21st century rail operation. It just is not the set of changes that the Trump Administration thinks is necessary. My worry is that as a result of the present dynamic, we will not even get the necessary modernization changes for fear that somehow things might get manipulated into the things that we do not want to see happen. That would be very unfortunate.

I think that in a nutshell is my position.

Sorry for being dense in understanding what you have attempted to say Amtrak706. I apologize.

 

[Amtrak706]

I'd say that it would be the current administration and Amtrak that seem to be reading off the same Heritage Foundation page, or at least one could surmise that to be the case.

So this is all speculation, since at least I have no way of mind reading from distance of people I have not even talked to. With that preface, it would appear to me that the current federal administration and through them the Amtrak Board have certain marching orders, which we can all agree we don't like. In writing the 2020 Appropriation request, even if Amtrak's management below the Board was completely opposed (not that I am saying they are), they'd still have to acknowledge the possibility of change that has been proposed by their bosses. So that language is to be expected given what has gone on the last couple of years and actually even before that to some extent, irrespective of what various groups of folks in management think.

It is better to know these things through such documents before a fait acompli is served to us so that we can work the system to ensure that any changes that happen are the sort that are desirable. I for one think huge changes are necessary for Amtrak to become a 21st century rail operation. It just is not the set of changes that the Trump Administration thinks is necessary. My worry is that as a result of the present dynamic, we will not even get the necessary modernization changes for fear that somehow things might get manipulated into the things that we do not want to see happen. That would be very unfortunate.

I think that in a nutshell is my position.

Sorry for being dense in understanding what you have attempted to say Amtrak706. I apologize.

No problem, I probably could have been clearer in describing it also.

And I 100% agree with everything you said here. That's more or less my position too.

 

[west point]

The plan moving V-1 sleepers to superliner trains has so many negatives that it is impossible to know all of them.

 

[jis]

Reading through the Service Plan document one gets the distinct impression that Amtrak in its mind is pretty committed to getting some sort of dual mode equipment to eliminate engine changes at the boundary of electrification to improve end to end running times of trains that move outside the electrified zone from the NEC.

For example, look at the 2024 NEC Plan on page 39 of the Amtrak Service Plan.

 

[sttom]

Moving single level equipment on double deck lines? Why would that make sense? Isn't the East Coast in a shortage of Viewliner equipment?

 

[Amtrak706]

Reading through the Service Plan document one gets the distinct impression that Amtrak in its mind is pretty committed to getting some sort of dual mode equipment to eliminate engine changes at the boundary of electrification to improve end to end running times of trains that move outside the electrified zone from the NEC.

For example, look at the 2024 NEC Plan on page 39 of the Amtrak Service Plan.

It’s an interesting idea but I’m not so sure it will be as useful as they are hoping. Empire Service trains at Albany that don’t require an engine change still have dwell times of about 15 minutes to accommodate the crew change. Full engine swaps used to be done in less time than that. Maybe it would be more efficient to try and get the engine swap time back down than it would be to design a dual-mode engine that will inevitably have some of the same problems (overweight, expensive, etc.) as the ALP-45DP.

 

[NSC1109]

It’s an interesting idea but I’m not so sure it will be as useful as they are hoping. Empire Service trains at Albany that don’t require an engine change still have dwell times of about 15 minutes to accommodate the crew change. Full engine swaps used to be done in less time than that. Maybe it would be more efficient to try and get the engine swap time back down than it would be to design a dual-mode engine that will inevitably have some of the same problems (overweight, expensive, etc.) as the ALP-45DP.

If I were a bettin man, I would say that Anderson’s gonna want to see some options before trying to cut down on engine swap times. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see an RFP for some sort of dual-mode equipment.

Does anyone know what the current procedures are for power swaps? I would like to think that Amtrak has power assigned and ready when the train arrives but I’ve been surprised before...

 

[jis]

As far as I can tell they do have the power lined up for the change before the train arrives at least in Washington Union Station. But still it seems to take them longer than at many other places in the world where frequent engine change is required.

 

[cocojacoby]

Bombardier (Hawker-Siddley at the time) did LD mockups of sleepers for both Amtrak and VIA based on the "lozenge"-shaped commuter cars introduced by Toronto GO Transit and used by dozens of US and Canadian commuter agencies ever since. As I recall, VIA rejected them due to cost and Amtrak wanted upper level walk-through to pair with ex-Santa Fe cars, whereas these had compatibility with standard-level coaches. The odd shape also significantly reduced the space available for rooms (and therefore revenue), so another limitation. A diner was proposed, but AFAIK never made if off the drawing board.

I was really curious when I heard that Budd had a proposal for a Hi-Level sleeper that never materialized. I even bought the book More Classic Trains (cheaply on ebay) just to see the design since I couldn't quite understand the concept when I heard about it.

It had 6 single-person bedrooms at standard 4' floor level and 8 "Vista Bedrooms" on the upper level that spanned the entire car width.

I thought it was a great concept but a rather odd design execution. It didn't take advantage of a dropped floor between the trucks so the rooms were nestled together rather than on separate levels. Also both pass-throughs were on the LOWER (4') level so the car couldn't be easily coupled to most Hi-Levels cars and would need a transition car. Probably no big deal I guess since that was necessary with the single-level sleepers anyway, but as mentioned above, an upper-level pass-through would have worked better.

I'm sure the views from the upper level "Vista Bedrooms" would have been spectacular.

 

[Amtrak706]

I'm sure the views from the upper level "Vista Bedrooms" would have been spectacular.

I’ve always thought it would be quite cool to somehow use the forward-facing space above the baggage car on the front end of the first Superliner as some type of passenger windshield. It would be a bit impractical since that space is currently the crew dorm and I’m not sure current Superliner transition cars could support it structurally (not to mention it would need to be cleaned of diesel soot constantly) but it’s an interesting pipe dream for Superliner III in the fantasy world where Amtrak actually wanted to innovate and grow the market for LD trains. The area could be a lounge similar to the vista domes of the streamliner era, or maybe even a super deluxe bedroom that could print money for Amtrak like VIA’s Park car rooms do for them.

 

[frequentflyer]

https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/...lanning/Amtrak-Service-Line-Plans-FY20-24.pdf

https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/...ak-Transportation-Asset-Line-Plan-FY20-24.pdf

https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/...g/Amtrak-Stations-Asset-Line-Plan-FY20-24.pdf

https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/...ak-Infrastructure-Asset-Line-Plan-FY20-24.pdf

 

[NSC1109]

https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/...lanning/Amtrak-Service-Line-Plans-FY20-24.pdf

https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/...ak-Transportation-Asset-Line-Plan-FY20-24.pdf

https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/...g/Amtrak-Stations-Asset-Line-Plan-FY20-24.pdf

https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/...ak-Infrastructure-Asset-Line-Plan-FY20-24.pdf

Well I gotta say...the Transportation Asset Line Plan was disappointing to say the least. I was hoping to get more information about potential corridors and changes to LDTs.

 

[west point]

A few very expensive items. The Electric traction to maintain SOGR and do necessary capital work is going to take $1.2B + per year. Another item is that CAT is going to have longer horizontal supports as it is planned to increase distance from the centers of each track. Now to do that it is going to cost many bucks as well!