Reistrup questions safety of Amfleet equipment on NEC at 125 mph.

[Steve4031]

This article is from Railway Age. Reistrup who ordered Amfleet cars questions the safety of operating them on the NEC.

Here is a link to the article.

 

[Brian_tampa]

Where is the link?

 

[Steve4031]

This article is from Railway Age. Reistrup who ordered Amfleet cars questions the safety of operating them on the NEC.

Here is a link to the article.

https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/intercity/veteran-railroaders-question-amfleet-safety/
I forgot to post the link. Sorry about that.

 

[Acela150]

So here’s my two cents. This is a conflict of interest. Claiming that Amfleet equipment is not safe, and the people making the claim are attempting to compete with Amtrak. Even attempting to take NEC service away from Amtrak. I am on trains that use the Amfleet equipment several days a week. I haven’t felt unsafe on them at any point in time.

 

[jis]

I think Reistrup may be trying to use his previous title using the age old technique of sowing FUD to try to expedite lining his own pocket possibly even in a very well intentioned way.

Anyhow. It is in the process of getting fixed as we speak. I also wonder if there are any Amfleets with patched sills in service after Amtrak sold off a bunch and stored some more. I also wonder how soon they can get these alleged new Acela cars and what their opinion is about deteriorating car bodies of the Acelas. Somehow the whole thing seems random and not particularly credible given that the Airos are on the way.

 

[west point]

https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/intercity/veteran-railroaders-question-amfleet-safety/
I forgot to post the link. Sorry about that.

I give the article a D minus. Found at least 3 factual errors and there may be others. Railway age certainly did not have proper editing, How long has the principals been away from Amtrak info. Seems really peculiar. Like to see if others here can find errors.

 

[Mystic River Dragon]

I give the article a D minus. Found at least 3 factual errors and there may be others. Railway age certainly did not have proper editing, How long has the principals been away from Amtrak info. Seems really peculiar. Like to see if others here can find errors.

I immediately saw a noun-verb agreement error: “speeds...poses” instead of “speeds...pose.”

I don’t know enough train details to spot the factual errors, but when I see a basic grammar error in an article, I assume it has not been edited properly, if at all. The editing process should include fact checking. I am disappointed in Railway Age—I thought better of them.

 

[west point]

Try this statement:

He notes that the Federal Railroad Administration has a policy of requiring that most freight cars be retired at age 40, but no similar retirement age for passenger equipment, even though such cars are subject to vibrations and wear and tear as they accumulate miles.

 

[Cal]

I am on trains that use the Amfleet equipment several days a week. I haven’t felt unsafe on them at any point in time.

Just because something feels safe doesn't mean it is, and vise versa. Although I do agree that the article is sketchy, and don't particularly trust it.

 

[Willbridge]

It doesn't directly mention Reistrup's proposal to divert the new cars planned for the Cascades.

 

[GDRRiley]

It doesn't directly mention Reistrup's proposal to divert the new cars planned for the Cascades.

it makes me feel like they want a cheap collection of standard cars to run and the easiest way to do that is to go amfleets are old and should be running at 125mph. That combined with limiting amtrak seems like an ideal way to take market share and make money.

 

[George Harris]

I will throw in something else here. First, I thought better of Reistrup than what I see here. The article is coauthored with a Scott Spencer, and part of his claim to fame is spending some time on Taiwan HSR, stated in the article as follows:
"Joining Reistrup in this initiative is Scott R. Spencer, who started his railroad career in 1979 when he was a student at Northeastern University. His career included jobs at New Jersey Transit and SEPTA in Philadelphia, as well as consulting in Alaska and as an adviser for high-speed rail in Taiwan."

Since I was there from 1999 to 2007, I am thinking, who he, so I looked him up. On Linkedin it shows him having a Bachelor's in Business Administration, and most of his work history involves finance and management consulting. As to his Taiwan HSR experience? It is for 6 months in 2003, "Served as an advisor to THSRC on developing the start-up plans for the management, training and operating activities necessary to begin revenue service." Based on that, he was gone over 3 years before operations started. Also, this is in the middle of the time (2002-2006) he was described as being the Director of a company called Railway Services Corporation, so it appears that his THSRC time was within his time with this outfit.

The real giveaway is that in Linkedin he is described as the Manager of AmeriStarRail LLC, 2017 to present, which company is described as, "Developer of privately operated rail passenger service: AmeriStarRail.com"

By the way, the article says "110 years of experience", so if this guy started his railroad career in 1979 and this is 2023, my math gives me 44 years. How old is Reistrup? Not to mention, experience at what?

 

[joelkfla]

By the way, the article says "110 years of experience", so if this guy started his railroad career in 1979 and this is 2023, my math gives me 44 years. How old is Reistrup? Not to mention, experience at what?

The 2nd paragraph says Reistrup started at B&O in 1957. If he's been working on the railroad continuously up to now, that's 66 years, which does indeed total 110 when added to 44.

Assuming he started at age 21, he must be closing in on 90 now.
ETA: Actually, the article does state further down that he is 90.

 

[BlackDiamond]

They also use the crash of train 188 in 2015 as an example of the lack of safety of Amfleet equipment. But is there any reason to think the crash would have been any less severe with Airo equipment given that the cars slammed against catenary poles? They go on to talk about the age of the poles which is irrelevant in a discussion about the safety of Amfleet

 

[Green Maned Lion]

We have 750 employees with a combined 200 years of experience at misleading claims of experience totals. Which is why that statement is so transparent.

I know some of the people who write for railway age personally. I think it is a microcosm of the American rail scene- a bunch of people with large egos, limited comprehension of reality, and a bunch of conflicting personal agendas that seem to have been unwittingly (to the holder of them, anyway) crafted by organizations that are fairly transparently BANANAs.

I mean I agree the Amfleet are well past a sell by date for first-string fleet on our Country’s main rail backbone, but reducing their speed on the line least likely to have a derailment of all our nations rail infrastructure in a way that will divert passengers to far less safe highways is also sort of sadly humorous. It’s why I stopped being an advocate- it’s not for lack of belief in rail.

 

[railiner]

I find it sad, that Reistrup, whom I used to admire for his positive impact at passenger rail and many innovations during his careers at B&O/C&O, IC, and then Amtrak; at his age would be connected with this “enterprise”…

 

[UserNameRequired]

Link says not found? When I navigate to Passenger, Intercity, I don’t seem to see it either. Just me?

 

[Eric S]

Link says not found? When I navigate to Passenger, Intercity, I don’t seem to see it either. Just me?

Just tried it. Same thing here. Link definitely worked on a couple days ago on Sunday, though.

 

[demonizedwater]

Looks like the article was deleted, but you can retrieve an archive of the URL via archive.org here:

https://web.archive.org/web/2023032.../veteran-railroaders-question-amfleet-safety/

 

[UserNameRequired]

Thanks for the wayback link! Now I wonder why it was deleted…

 

[jis]

Thanks for the wayback link! Now I wonder why it was deleted…

Perhaps because someone was a bit embarrassed

 

[west point]

Yes, Deleted. A contributing editor wrote the by line. Well the age deadline AFAIK was 50years and the only caveat was that they overage were not allowed in interchange service. It also was not FRA but AAR directive. Just a couple errors.

 

[MARC Rider]

Perhaps because someone was a bit embarrassed

There must be an interesting backstory about how this article was published and then deleted.

 

[railiner]

Looking at the article, it appears that the “entrepreneurs” only requested a meeting with Amtrak executives, “after the fact”, that is after warning the FRA and the NTSB about the alleged dangers of the old cars.
I don’t find it surprising that Amtrak management ignored them under the circumstances. They should have gone to them first, and only gone “above their head”, if ignored.
Now they are appealing to the Amtrak Board, with copies to USDOT, FRA, NTSB, STB, and members of Congress, to force a meeting.

Should be interesting to see if that happens…

 

[John Bredin]

Just read the article for myself. Two things struck me as bogus or at least got my antennae waving:

1) Their privately-financed [del]motivation[/del] proposal is stuck in the middle of the article, after they've well and truly trashed the Amfleets (and old catenary poles, apparently) as death on a stick.

2) They then go on to suggest that these death traps with rusty sills that will fail in a collision are fine and dandy for under-125 service for which they don't have a lucrative business plan. Don't collisions happen at 79mph too?

Between the two, the hypocrisy and mercenary (rather than altruistic) motive is obvious to anyone who reads the whole article with any care. I'd be embarrassed if it was my article or magazine.