- Joined
- Feb 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,526
I believe the Missouri River Runner will be getting new bi-level cars from Missouri's share of the car purchase.
Siemens Caltrans/IDOT Venture design, engineering, testing and delivery (2012-1Q 2024)
- Thread starter afigg
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
Thanks Bill, I didn't know that!!
Yes, Missouri along with Illinois and Michigan are members of the Midwest consortium or authority or however they structured it that are getting the Nippon-Sharyo bi-level cars. There are strong indications that Wisconsin will be getting bi-levels as well when the 45 car option is exercised, so the Hiawatha service won't be needing Surfliners either.
Having speculated that the CA corridor agencies may seek to buy new bi-levels from Nippon-Sharyo to replace the Amtrak owned Surfliners, I suspect the costs of doing so may keep them from doing so. I do expect that CA will buy more N-S bi-levels for service expansion, including the Coast Daylight and possibly the Coachella Valley. But they may opt to buy the 39 Surfliners from Amtrak or at least try to; don't know if Amtrak would be willing to give up that control.
For the record, Amtrak now owns the 39 Surfliners outright: the lease for 10 Surfliners came up for Early Buyout in June, 2013 ($17 million) and the remaining 29 in March, 2014 ($28.4 million). We know Amtrak took out a commercial loan to exercise the batch of Early Buyouts options that came up in FY2014.
Last edited by a moderator:
I've heard a variety of speculation concerning the Horizons. The best theories I've heard are:
(1) Use on some eastern corridor trains (for example, the Pennsylvanian, which did use them back in the 90s when it ran to Chicago), which would free up Amfleets for some mix of NEC service and/or LD service (depending on what route they were on).
(2) Use on one or more LD trains (for example, the CONO could be converted to Horizons plus Viewliners at least in theory, or one of the existing LD trains could be converted from Amfleets to Horizons to free up Amfleets for the other LDs).
My best guess is that the Pennsylvanian/Palmetto would take four sets. The Adirondack would be a decent candidate for another two sets, and that would dump a batch of LD Amfleets back into the pool for the LSL, SM, etc. If the Capitol Limited through cars happen, that's another possibility, and that would actually sync nicely with the Pennsylvanian getting them. Honestly, that mix would go through a pretty good share of the equipment; the rest might get kicked to the Ethan Allen or another corridor, or (as noted) be put on one of the LD trains.
(1) Use on some eastern corridor trains (for example, the Pennsylvanian, which did use them back in the 90s when it ran to Chicago), which would free up Amfleets for some mix of NEC service and/or LD service (depending on what route they were on).
(2) Use on one or more LD trains (for example, the CONO could be converted to Horizons plus Viewliners at least in theory, or one of the existing LD trains could be converted from Amfleets to Horizons to free up Amfleets for the other LDs).
My best guess is that the Pennsylvanian/Palmetto would take four sets. The Adirondack would be a decent candidate for another two sets, and that would dump a batch of LD Amfleets back into the pool for the LSL, SM, etc. If the Capitol Limited through cars happen, that's another possibility, and that would actually sync nicely with the Pennsylvanian getting them. Honestly, that mix would go through a pretty good share of the equipment; the rest might get kicked to the Ethan Allen or another corridor, or (as noted) be put on one of the LD trains.
On the CA equipment situation...
On the one hand, $110m or so to replace those cars is a lot of money; on the other hand, this is California and they're paying for the equipment they don't own as it stands.
Also, does anyone know what the actual status of the Coast Daylight and/or the Coachella Valley service actually are? IIRC, CA does want to start up the former (Daylight) when equipment becomes available (they own the slots though UP is being a bit difficult), but I thought CA had basically been told to sod off by UP on the latter service.
(To afigg: Sorry for editing your post for a moment. I picked the wrong post when adding this, so I threw it in as its own post.)
On the one hand, $110m or so to replace those cars is a lot of money; on the other hand, this is California and they're paying for the equipment they don't own as it stands.
Also, does anyone know what the actual status of the Coast Daylight and/or the Coachella Valley service actually are? IIRC, CA does want to start up the former (Daylight) when equipment becomes available (they own the slots though UP is being a bit difficult), but I thought CA had basically been told to sod off by UP on the latter service.
(To afigg: Sorry for editing your post for a moment. I picked the wrong post when adding this, so I threw it in as its own post.)
rickycourtney
Conductor
While I enjoy railfan fantasia as much as any guy, I HIGHLY doubt that the Alstom-built cars will ever leave California. I fully expect that Caltrans will make a offer that a cash strapped Amtrak can't refuse.
If railfans in Oklahoma or Indiana really want to see bi-level cars on their favorite route, I suggest they petition their lawmakers to purchase some from Nippon-Sharyo. I heard the company is offering bargain prices right now.
If railfans in Oklahoma or Indiana really want to see bi-level cars on their favorite route, I suggest they petition their lawmakers to purchase some from Nippon-Sharyo. I heard the company is offering bargain prices right now.
(1) I believe Oklahoma currently uses Superliners on the Heartland Flyer.While I enjoy railfan fantasia as much as any guy, I HIGHLY doubt that the Alstom-built cars will ever leave California. I fully expect that Caltrans will make a offer that a cash strapped Amtrak can't refuse.
If railfans in Oklahoma or Indiana really want to see bi-level cars on their favorite route, I suggest they petition their lawmakers to purchase some from Nippon-Sharyo. I heard the company is offering bargain prices right now.
(2) I have to wonder what an "offer Amtrak couldn't refuse" would be.
WoodyinNYC
Conductor
I'd be terribly tempted to take $100 million and exercise the option for up to 70 more Viewliners.
Probability of that is very small. First of all, the 39 Surfliners owned by Amtrak were built around 2000, so they are 14 years old and halfway through their nominal service life. If CA were to offer to buy them at half the price of a new bi-level at an average of $1.4 million each, the offer would be for $54 million, not $100 million. I also don't see why CA would buy the Amtrak Surfliners until the new N-S bi-levels are delivered as part of a move to get ownership of all the CA corridor rolling stock and not have to pay capital charges for any of it. So even if Amtrak were looking to use the money for new rolling stock, the CAF production line could be shut down by then.
An offer that Amtrak couldn't refuse might be a 5 year corridor operating service contract extension in return for selling the Surfliners to CalTrans.
neroden
Engineer
It's worth noting that in either case the Horizons really need an serious overhaul. *Nobody* likes the lighting, and apparently they have problems in cold weather which need to be addressed. For NEC service they need automatic doors and for LD service they need wider seat pitch. For either deployment, there are an excess of cafes relative to coaches.
Hopefully Amtrak management is already planning out a Horizon conversion program at Beech Grove.
If California waits too long, Amtrak will have a strong incentive to hang onto the Surfliners: advertise them for any state wanting to start up new services, use them to replace Superliners as the Superliners break one by one, etc. On the other hand, if California offers to buy them right now, at the period of Amtrak's cash crunch, when the money could be used immediately to buy new Viewiners from an operating production line, it would be a better offer from Amtrak's point of view.
rickycourtney
Conductor
Bingo! That's exactly what I was thinking.
A contract extension plus cash from the sale of those 39 cars would be a tough deal for Amtrak to pass up.
rickycourtney
Conductor
Also I expect that the Coast Daylight (or another "emerging" corridor) will get the Comet IB cars currently used on the San Joaquin and not the new bi-levels. The San Joaquin desperately needs the capacity the bi-level cars would would provide.
Once those new corridors prove themselves, bi-level cars could be ordered.
Once those new corridors prove themselves, bi-level cars could be ordered.
neroden
Engineer
ADA considerations mean that the Comet IBs are extremely undesirable cars for a startup service with low-level platforms. The rules are complicated; but basically California was able to use them on the current route because they were the only cars available within a short enough timeframe. On a startup service, they would be required to try to get cars which matched the platform height (whatever it was).
Last edited by a moderator:
rickycourtney
Conductor
In all my years covering transportation issues in California, I've never heard this rule, but I'll take your word for it. But I'm curious, who would require that?
If your suggestion is that the Coast Daylight gets the new bi-level equipment, while the San Joaquin continues to operate the Comet cars... then you don't know the people in charge of the San Joaquin JPA. They are already putting a lot of pressure on Caltrans to get the first new bi-level cars. They are "taking one for the team" because it would be difficult to run single level cars on the Capitol Corridor and the San Joaquin badly needed the additional capacity.
Last edited by a moderator:
neroden
Engineer
Federal ADA law requires that a startup service be fully accessible according to CURRENT rules, which NOW require a level-boarding platform. Or alternatively a long and convoluted process to get an exception by proving inability to get level-boarding platforms -- which must be proved one platform at a time. (The level-boarding regulations are relatively new regulations.)
There are various derogations and exceptions; most of them, however, relate to maintaining and modifying existing service.
One exception allows the purchase of less-accessible used vehicles if more-accessible new vehicles are simply not available in the right timeframe for a reasonable price. This is presumably what was used to get the Comet Ibs.
I doubt this exception would be available for the Coast Daylight, unless some governor decided to do a rush job on the project and get it running within a year.
I expect the Comet Ibs to be either retired -- or sold east to an area with high platforms. (Vermont or North Carolina might be interested in them, for example.)
There are various derogations and exceptions; most of them, however, relate to maintaining and modifying existing service.
One exception allows the purchase of less-accessible used vehicles if more-accessible new vehicles are simply not available in the right timeframe for a reasonable price. This is presumably what was used to get the Comet Ibs.
I doubt this exception would be available for the Coast Daylight, unless some governor decided to do a rush job on the project and get it running within a year.
I expect the Comet Ibs to be either retired -- or sold east to an area with high platforms. (Vermont or North Carolina might be interested in them, for example.)
Last edited by a moderator:
cirdan
Engineer
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2011
- Messages
- 3,849
Absolutely. If California is spending money, then it's to improve service in California, not to support other parts of the Amtrak system.
Last edited by a moderator:
Setting aside possible ADA compliance questions with regards to level boarding, CA would not be starting the Coast Daylight as an "experimental" service. CalTrans and UP still have to agree on what minimum track improvements are needed before UP relents and allows the Coast Daylight train to run on their tracks, but CalTrans may have to lay out $30 million to $40 million for track and station upgrades. Possibly more. CalTrans is not going to spend that kind of money with the intent of running a temporary experimental service. The communities on the route won't take that position either.
A Coast Daylight would take 2 consists, but it also would be treated as an extension of a Surfliner slot, so one Surfliner consists becomes a Coast Daylight. Figure a Coast Daylight train would be 5 to 6 cars, and if 2 new consists are needed, worse case 6 cars * 2 consists plus 3 spares means that CalTran might order 15 additional bi-level cars to support the Coast Daylight. At ~$3 million each, not a big deal for CalTrans with the Cap and Trade revenue coming in.
rickycourtney
Conductor
Here's the problem with that... unlike in New York... there is no such thing as "level" or step-free boarding for the commuter or intercity trains in California. All of the equipment in use today has a lift, ramp or bridgeplate for people using mobility devices. These new Nippon-Sharyo cars will be equipped with two wheelchair lifts. Granted that's nicer than the manually operated wheelchair lift in use on the San Joaquin, but it's not "level" or step-free.
Apologies, I was unclear in my last post. I don't think the Coast Daylight would be an experiment. If Caltrans is going to launch the service, they are going to commit to making it work for the long haul. My point was that without some real-world information on the train, it doesn't make since to purchase cars for the line. The state would be spending millions on trainsets that will be used at some unknown time in the future on a line with totally unknown ridership.
If Caltrans orders 2 trainsets for the Coast Daylight at published prices, that's $41.7 million. Why spend that money today, when in 2017/2018 the state will have two perfectly good Comet IB trainsets sitting in mothballs?
That being said... I think the state has been too conservative with its equipment purchase. Considering the explosive ridership growth on the San Joaquin and the aspirations of both the Pacific Surfliner and the San Joaquin to add runs to their schedule, I fear California will find itself with another equipment shortage a few short years after these cars are delivered. I remain hopeful that the state will keep adding to this order.
Last edited by a moderator:
neroden
Engineer
For new service:
If the "freight" owner of the tracks obstructs level boarding (as they might be anticipated to), a separate case has to be made to the FRA for *each station* proving that the option chosen is the best they could get, and specifically proving it superior to traincar-based lifts. (Traincar-based lifts/ramps are the default for situations where the freight operator is being obstructive.)
This only applies where the freight operator has some sort of legal property rights -- on Metrolink and Caltrain tracks, they probably don't; unless they have a specific "high and wide" guarantee in their retained freight easement, level boarding would be required for any station modifications.
Good luck going through this process with the Comet Ibs. It's going to be a lot easier to buy some more bilevels with built-in ramps.
(Incidentally, it's possible that the CPUC "no platforms higher than 8" next to trains" rule is actually bad law now. It may be preempted by the ADA regulations. It would be interesting to see an agency try this one in court.)
If the "freight" owner of the tracks obstructs level boarding (as they might be anticipated to), a separate case has to be made to the FRA for *each station* proving that the option chosen is the best they could get, and specifically proving it superior to traincar-based lifts. (Traincar-based lifts/ramps are the default for situations where the freight operator is being obstructive.)
This only applies where the freight operator has some sort of legal property rights -- on Metrolink and Caltrain tracks, they probably don't; unless they have a specific "high and wide" guarantee in their retained freight easement, level boarding would be required for any station modifications.
Good luck going through this process with the Comet Ibs. It's going to be a lot easier to buy some more bilevels with built-in ramps.
(Incidentally, it's possible that the CPUC "no platforms higher than 8" next to trains" rule is actually bad law now. It may be preempted by the ADA regulations. It would be interesting to see an agency try this one in court.)
The best way to answer this is "they aren't perfectly good". Not for California. They were simply available quickly. Caltrans would be much better off buying some new bilevels which match the rest of the fleet, and selling the Comet IBs to a high-platform area. Goodness knows there's enough latent demand for single-level coaches.
Last edited by a moderator:
I wish I was being pithy, but I'm really not...
Can someone please explain to me why, when SP sold CA the slots needed to add in the Daylight back in the 70s, UP is able to demand a stack of improvements to run the Daylight? Was there a clause in the sale contract allowing this or something?
Can someone please explain to me why, when SP sold CA the slots needed to add in the Daylight back in the 70s, UP is able to demand a stack of improvements to run the Daylight? Was there a clause in the sale contract allowing this or something?
That agreement expired. Per 2000 California state rail planning for the Daylight:
It's possible that is just got sidelined during the electricity crisis and Arnold's term as governor.
I do recall it was in a Capitol Corridor Business plan to extend train service south to Salinas. That is a Capitol Corridor project, however the main concern was also UP's concern regarding increasing service between San Jose and Salinas. If anything, it would be nice to branch the gap between San Jose and San Luis Obispo with another train connection as mentioned. The buses allow for options, however a train to train connection (if not a thru-train) would be nice.
The Capitol Corridor Business plan also included extending a trip east to Reno, however that also came under huge opposition by UP. Expansion of Service to Roseville and building a yard facility in Sacramento east of the current station are more realistic projects in the short-term unless UP changes its mind.
The Capitol Corridor Business plan also included extending a trip east to Reno, however that also came under huge opposition by UP. Expansion of Service to Roseville and building a yard facility in Sacramento east of the current station are more realistic projects in the short-term unless UP changes its mind.
W
west point
Guest
It may be the best way to solve the high level platform issue is to add station tracks only for passenger trains with high level platforms . Example The northern California joint powers uses one at Oakland Coliseum station. The siding for station track(s) may meet the requirement for additional sidings on single tracks that the freight RRs often desire ( require ). That way the costs for sidings and signals are met.
There are several ways to build station tracks.
1. Ideally for those stations that are far away from the main track is build a platform far enough away from main track to allow for station track. That will be easy for locations getting a new station.
2. for locations with clearance restrictions ( especially historic buildings ) use old main track as station track and install new main track farther away from station. Then build a high level platform next to old main.
3. At locations with 2 or more tracks and platforms on both sides of tracks then the opposite platform might need to be moved farther from main station and a underpass or overpass might be needed.
There are several ways to build station tracks.
1. Ideally for those stations that are far away from the main track is build a platform far enough away from main track to allow for station track. That will be easy for locations getting a new station.
2. for locations with clearance restrictions ( especially historic buildings ) use old main track as station track and install new main track farther away from station. Then build a high level platform next to old main.
3. At locations with 2 or more tracks and platforms on both sides of tracks then the opposite platform might need to be moved farther from main station and a underpass or overpass might be needed.
WoodyinNYC
Conductor
[SIZE=12pt]"The purpose of this document is to outline an implementation plan [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]for the Coast Daylight. Start-up is scheduled for late 2001."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Damn. Reading those old historical documents can be so depressing.[/SIZE]
This just came up in another thread in a broader context, but what CA really needs to do, IMHO, is to find a way to buy out the Coast Line from San Jose to Moorpark. Yes, I know this would probably be "not cheap", but between this, commuter service to Salinas, UP's relatively light use of the line, and the fact that the state could presumably do a lot to help out UP over with Tehachapi (where the real bottleneck is) this seems like a worthwhile endeavor.
- Status
Latest posts
-
Superliner trains' removal and restoration of cars 2024- Latest: F900ElCapitan
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
