jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
That 85' may be related to DMU thing.
Equipment Order in the works this year (2018)?
- Thread starter jis
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
west point
Engineer
The 1000kW HEP is important as they will be able to be locos for auto train. As well can provide the power for any regular Passenger train for ~ 18 superliner car trains or ~20 car single level trains. Baggage car(s) not included. However 2 dinning cars on any train may reduce the number by 1 ?
cpotisch
Engineer
Amtrak only goes 110 mph? Dont NERs run at up to 125 mph?
Last edited by a moderator:
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
These are diesel engines for the national network for LD trains. Clearly they don;t want to spend the extra money to maintain them to run at 125mph so why bother buying them with 125mph capability when they will spend 99% of their life running at 110mph or less - mostly less.
Yes, there are >110 mph NER. They are pulled by ACS-64 (electrics) not the diesels....
cpotisch
Engineer
Thanks. Didn't realize that this was only for diesels and the national network.
frequentflyer
Conductor
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2008
- Messages
- 1,214
[SIZE=8pt]8.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=8pt]Amtrak Equipment Procurements Update – Charlie King, Amtrak:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=8pt]Charlie King provided a high-level overview of the RFP that is on the streets for power and cited some of the differences between the PRIIA specification and that of Amtrak. Amtrak began with the PRIIA spec as its baseline and added some items based on its needs.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=8pt]Some of those differences/changes include: Amtrak speed is 110mph vs PRIIA “up to” 125mph; 1000 KW HEP system vs PRIIA’s 600 KW Amtrak is calling for a 2,200-gallon fuel tank – to PRIIA’s call for 1,800 to 2,200 gallons; and the maximum length for Amtrak is 85 feet vs 72 feet called for in the PRIIA spec. There are other items such as those pertaining to advanced analytics and safety options especially in areas where there will be no PTC, and other safety measures will be required. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=8pt]Charlie also noted that the questions and comments on the RFP have slowed down with about 4 or 5 manufacturers likely formulating their proposals for next month. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=8pt]As for the RFI for cars, Charlie reported that 8 builders have come to Amtrak for interviews. Three states have been represented on those calls (IDOT, NYSDOT and Caltrans) as part of the team listening in. They provide questions to Amtrak to take to the builders. Data gathering will likely continue until October with an RFP thereafter.[/SIZE]
Expect more information about a car order in October.
[SIZE=8pt]Amtrak Equipment Procurements Update – Charlie King, Amtrak:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=8pt]Charlie King provided a high-level overview of the RFP that is on the streets for power and cited some of the differences between the PRIIA specification and that of Amtrak. Amtrak began with the PRIIA spec as its baseline and added some items based on its needs.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=8pt]Some of those differences/changes include: Amtrak speed is 110mph vs PRIIA “up to” 125mph; 1000 KW HEP system vs PRIIA’s 600 KW Amtrak is calling for a 2,200-gallon fuel tank – to PRIIA’s call for 1,800 to 2,200 gallons; and the maximum length for Amtrak is 85 feet vs 72 feet called for in the PRIIA spec. There are other items such as those pertaining to advanced analytics and safety options especially in areas where there will be no PTC, and other safety measures will be required. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=8pt]Charlie also noted that the questions and comments on the RFP have slowed down with about 4 or 5 manufacturers likely formulating their proposals for next month. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=8pt]As for the RFI for cars, Charlie reported that 8 builders have come to Amtrak for interviews. Three states have been represented on those calls (IDOT, NYSDOT and Caltrans) as part of the team listening in. They provide questions to Amtrak to take to the builders. Data gathering will likely continue until October with an RFP thereafter.[/SIZE]
Expect more information about a car order in October.
frequentflyer
Conductor
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2008
- Messages
- 1,214
Its been rumored that Amtrak is talking to Stadler about possible order of DMU/EMUs for services such as NEC regionals. Here is an example of a EMU/DMU being tested in Europe for delivery late this year or next year to the UK.
It can run on catenary or diesel.
It can run on catenary or diesel.
Considering the young age of the ACS-64 it will be very tough to make an economic case to change the NEC to DMU/EMU at this point. Maybe some of the other corridors, where it would lower the number of new locos to be acquired.
cpotisch
Engineer
Yeah, I don't think a dual mode is a good choice for the NEC. They only really make sense on short distance trains that go through both electrified and non-electrified trackage. Maybe it would work on trains like the Springfield and Virginia Regionals, but I still don't think it makes sense, especially considering (as PVD said) how new the ACS-64s are.
If the Midwest states and California hadn't bought cars and power, that would be another possibility. But they did.
west point
Engineer
DMU / EMUs can have certain advantages..
1. The lower emissions in electrified territory can be realized.
2. Top speed in each mode is important. The EMU portion needs to be able to meet same MAS as regular electric services !
3. Quick seamless transistion from one mode is a big plus
3a. Whenever CAT on a section of electric becomes unpowered.
3b. Transistion when changing modes at track speed
3c. CAT wire just near stations might help timekeeping by allowing faster acceleration and regen braking. Might apply at locations with drastic permanent speed restrictions
4. Transistion onto routes with low demand secondary routes where CAT not financially viable. An example is New Haven to the southeast Mass coast. Also Harrisburgh route to branch routes. Harrisburg to Baltimore by the post road.
1. The lower emissions in electrified territory can be realized.
2. Top speed in each mode is important. The EMU portion needs to be able to meet same MAS as regular electric services !
3. Quick seamless transistion from one mode is a big plus
3a. Whenever CAT on a section of electric becomes unpowered.
3b. Transistion when changing modes at track speed
3c. CAT wire just near stations might help timekeeping by allowing faster acceleration and regen braking. Might apply at locations with drastic permanent speed restrictions
4. Transistion onto routes with low demand secondary routes where CAT not financially viable. An example is New Haven to the southeast Mass coast. Also Harrisburgh route to branch routes. Harrisburg to Baltimore by the post road.
A properly configured unit would bring a great deal to the table. I just don't see a way to make a solid economic case for the NEC when the ACS-64 are so recent an acquisition.
west point
Engineer
Clarification on our post. The NEC portion is only for branch line service originating on NEC. That is only if NEC portion under CAT can meet the 125 MAS in electric operation.
I think you meant by the "Port Road".....unless you will add rubber tires to the DMU's....
brianpmcdonnell17
Conductor
Amtrak actually does run trains on the Post Road Branch, but it is a few hundred miles north on the route of the LSL.I think you meant by the "Port Road".....unless you will add rubber tires to the DMU's....
To play devil's advocate, in the case of the VA services you'd probably knock 15-20 minutes off of the time from VA to points north of DC. Considering that about half of VA's ridership goes through there, that isn't insignificant. You'd probably have to spend a few billion dollars to shake that much time savings out elsewhere. Being able to "single-seat" the remaining Shuttles in CT is something that CT might be willing to buy into as well. Finally, I do wonder if Amtrak has any room to (for example) use some reshuffled locomotives to do something with Keystones and Regionals at PHL? If Amtrak could have a 10-12 car train leave NYP (they've got plenty of tracks that can handle this) and then split/combine the train at PHL, that would let them pull a good chunk of revenue out of their existing HRT slots.
Not sure why they still have the Shuttles and CT Rail. However dont see any point of a single-seat of the Shuttles. Sure people do like the long single seat NEC regionals. But most shuttles were two coach cars. Taken up a extra slot into NYP for a very short train, just does not makes sense.
Cross platform transfer works. Branch line to main line.
brianpmcdonnell17
Conductor
If the shuttle consisted of DMUS it could relatively easily attach to the back of a Regional and run underpowered on the NEC.
I was thinking the same thing. A DMU that had a front door that could attach and detach at New Haven would be ideal.
frequentflyer
Conductor
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2008
- Messages
- 1,214
cpotisch
Engineer
Yeah, but there are already two trains each way between NYP and Springfield every day. I don't think it's worth it to add in switching moves (however minor) for more one seat rides. JMO.
Last edited by a moderator:
Triley
Real Lead Service Attendant
Even though it's something that could boost ridership, and provide additional seating on the corridor between the train's origin and New Haven?
west point
Engineer
Boost ridership ? Doubtful Have you ever wondered how many persons do not ride LIRR if they have to change at Jamaica ? The convivence of changing to MNRR or Amtrak at New Haven from every shuttle train is a distinct advantage !
Last edited by a moderator:
A one-seat ride on Amtrak from the Springfield shuttles to NYP wouldn't preclude someone from transferring to MNRR at New Haven if they wanted to. I wouldn't call being forced to transfer, in and of itself, a "distinct advantage." There may be operational reasons why it's overall better to have people transfer than to have a one-seat ride (it allows for schedules to "reset" instead of the train just getting later and later the longer it goes, and it can be more efficient to have people transfer) but if given a choice, all else being equal, a one-seat ride is preferred and, assuming timekeeping wouldn't suffer, would boost ridership.
