The revision of Amtrak's fleet plan is generally the same as the Feb 2010 report. However their plan has been revised to more accurately follow some trends. I will cover each type equipment and Amtrak's reasoning.
Projected ridership. Amtrak has projected a 2% compounded yearly passenger growth. They stated tha growth could be 2 -5% compounded yearly depending on State Of Good Repair (SOGR) . Looking at figures from 2006 the actual growth has been a 4% compounded growth or simple growth of 24%. NEC has only grown 10% simple. The excess growth is in LD and commuter operations. FY 2009 had a 6% decrease in those figures. but the overall 2006 - 2010 is as stated. Amtrak recognizes that many persons say that these are too conservative but they think they can handle a larger growth by delaying retirements. Ridership in the NEC is expected to go up 45% will Pass miles 50% by 2030 . Maybe expecting longer passenger trips due to reduced in transit times?
All these figure state that the 2% compounded can only be handled on the NEC for 10 years then they will max out capacity.
Acela. Present Acela train sets have averaged about 1.4M miles each. As you are aware there is a proposal to order 40 more cars (probably configured for business class 65 seats each car) Amtrak stated 130 additional seats on each train set). 2 cars to each train set. Now the new plan is to buy 40 more Acela II train sets for increased frequency. That seems problematic as the MBTA, Conn, and MNRR limitations will need addressing. No new Acela car count was specified. Seems like longer Acela 2s might be first answer to the NYP 14 car limit. Specifications will be written this year to allow for deliveries 2017 -2019. Dates seem a little close but the new Acela IIs will be a new spec possibly 220 max speed. Aclea 1s 150MPH. Amtrak admits that reducing the NEC slow orders will provide more time reduction than top speed increases but says both are needed.
Retirement of the Acela 1s were not stated however expect maybe to remain for 30 years.
Single level car order. ( present deliver 65 per year starting Oct 2012) . Several items indicate more reasons for the order. Evidently many present cars do not have HEP car cabling capacity for much longer trains. The heritage cars seem to be especially prone to that restriction. Also the heritage cars only have average mileage numbers figured from the 1970s of 4.8M miles. Prior numbers were not provided by the selling RRs in 1971. Age at retirement will be as high as 64 years.
Amfleet replacement. This is a big change from 2010 plan. Single level coaches (2015-2018) will replace Amfleet 2s first as they have average mileage of 5.4M and are only 3 - 5 years newer than Amfleet 1s. Also the new (Viewliners 2s ?) will be compatible with the new sleepers and baggage cars. Present Viewliners are listed as qualified only to 110 MPH. . .
Amfleet 1s have an average mileage of 4.0M miles and therefore are expected to last somewhat longer than 2s. The Amfleet 1s in long distance service may return to short haul work.
Bi-level cars. The specifications for a shell that will contain compatible equipment for all applications. Stated is a shortage of Superliner sleepers. Sleepers will be the first bi-levels purchased. Amtrak is pushing for only one nationwide bi-level specification with only minor interior differences based on service requirements. If any agency wants a different car they will be 100% responsible for the price differences. The number to be ordered each year presently is 35. Superliner 1s already have average mileage of 5.7M and will be replaced first. Same HEP problems except Auto Train's that were heavily modified.
Amtrak seems to want bi-levels for all services at CHI except Hoosier and Cardinal. Amtrak to my knowledge has never stated that there is reluctance of the agencies around CHI to have bi-level equipment. I have read at other places that there is the preception that bi-levels would resemble the commuter cars used in CHI and be disliked by the riders. Amtrak stated 125 bi-levels in regional service would equal 155 singl level cars. SL cost $3.5M vs Bi $4.5. So seat cost appears the same. The fixed costs of longer platforms, more car storage space, more running gear spare parts was not quantified. Amtrak did state that the new bi-levels build rate will be set up so the rate can increase to about 70.
Still mention of moving Horizon cars (125 MPH) to a "more suitable climate" but I do not know where that would be??
Electric motors. Amtrak has ordered 70 new electric motors delivery starting in Dec 2012. They will have higher capacity HEP. The AEM-7s (125 MPH) have 22- 30 years age now. 29 are AC traction with regenerative braking and may remain as standby motive power. The DCs will be retired first. 15.. HHP-8s (135 MPH) still not as reliable as AEMs but they are built with many of the Acela power car specifications.
High speed diesels. First will be ordered in 2012. at a rate of about 50/yr for a total of 280. They will replace mostly P-40s and P-42s. The 18 P32-8s will be kept for specialized service as their mileage figures are less.
Cost. Estimated cost is listed as $900M / Yr. I find it hard to believe that this figure is obtainable?? That is all costs except for infrastructure of track and CAT. ie spares, maintenance facilities, testing training, etc included
Clearly, Amtrak needs to replace aging equipment. The need to replace the long distance equipment is an opportunity to argue for the discontinuance of the long distance trains. I had hoped that more enlightened minds would have picked up on this point. Unfortunately, it is not to be, in part I suspect because Amtrak is seen as an entitlement.
The long distance trains serve approximately 4/10s of one per cent of intercity travelers, bring in a relatively small percentage of the revenues, and chew up a significiant amount of resources.
How a federal government that is facing a massive debt, which many economists and budget experts believe could ruin the country if it is not managed down, will find the money to buy sleepers, dinners, and lounge cars is beyond me.
I continue to believe that the USA gets its money's worth from existing subisidization levels of long distance trains in general. Elimination of such trains would be real blow to tourism's contribution to the economy, a blow to the mobility of many handicapped and elderly people, many of whom are veterans, reduce the country's ability to handle specific emergencies including problems with the nation's air transportation system, and make the operation of the remaining corredor services less efficient because of their separation from each other,
daveklepper I continue to believe that the USA gets its money's worth from existing subisidization levels of long distance trains in general. Elimination of such trains would be real blow to tourism's contribution to the economy, a blow to the mobility of many handicapped and elderly people, many of whom are veterans, reduce the country's ability to handle specific emergencies including problems with the nation's air transportation system, and make the operation of the remaining corredor services less efficient because of their separation from each other,
If mobility for handicapped and elderly peeople is a justification for long distance trains, then the government should run these trains to every community in the United States with a population of 10,000 or more. Actually, it probably would be more cost effective to provide van service to every community in the country with a need to enhance the mobility of the handicapped and elderly people.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.