The grant request has several interesting items that this poster will have to wait on enough time to disect. It is a rather comprehensive report. Hope to present my view of what we know and have only suspected ! Exxpect more when time allows from this poster. Have to take care of outside work that has been postponed for weeks due to constant rain.
https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/reports/Amtrak-General-Legislative-Annual-Report-FY2021-Grant-Request.pdf
Page 3 table 1. Requests a total increase from $2.00B to $2.34B. Mainly this is a request for $300M for a new corridor development program. The main item of importance is that the grant will continue until needed not expire at end of FY.
Page 5 table 2
This table takes the grant request and "expected revenue" to provide total amount to be expended in the 5 asset categories. Note all figures rounded. National probably means SD and LD
Infrastructure $1.6B NEC
470M national
Equipment $ 1.2B nec Acela-2 ?
1.0B nat SC-44s and Amfleet replacement
Stations 351M nec
348M nat
Transportation 413M nec
1.0B nat
Page 7 table 3 shows loss of under $30M
Page 10 Map is somewhata puzzle. It seems to only define the NEC as WASH - BOS and Classifies Harrisburgh, Albany, and Springfield as state supported. Technically that is correct but all three of those lines are owned or leased by Amtrak. Just some of Michigan is Amtrak owned or is it state ?
Page 13 Amtrak states that Albany and WASH - Richmond are NEC by statute.
NEC infrastructure on page 14 will be covered on next instasllment
blue streak 1 Just some of Michigan is Amtrak owned or is it state ?
Amtrak ownes west of Kalamazoo to Porter, IN. The State of Michigan owns K'zoo to Dearborn, near Detroit.
The Corridor Development Program section is where the future expansion will be outside of the NEC.
Pssge 14
Additional constant tension CAT work Clark to Ham $53M Anyone know how that ties in wiith past CAT work ? Along with the CAT upgrades more transmission tower replacement, undercuting, and signal upgrades. Note: page 117 has CETC control center consolidation. Probably all this work for operating new Acela-2s at 160 MPH ? Note page 18 has $29.8 for CAT upgrades Zoo - Paoli.
East river tunnels rehab, east river rail replacements, and track upgrades at NYP all for more capacity east of NYP.
Note the almost $475M for property acquisition for the new Gateway tunnels.
Now we get to the murky part that needs more examination. Note: This section delibertly does not list the NEC portion allocation so as to make comparsions very difficult. Worse still the categories at the end of report do not quite align with these on this post. The only way I know is to go to near end and subtract these figures from totals ? see Page 21
Virginia infrastructure exansion . This item aears to be probably subject to question. For Virginia it lists $19.1M from Amtrak and $80.9M from Federal grant request. total of $100,0 M. Allocation of the 100 is all LD allocation with no State allocation. Now how much infrastructure is in Virginia that would not be state supported. The only items I can think of is WASH Union station, and maybe other stations for ADA. The Richmond, LYH, and Roanoke station tracks might be but they are relative new ? But all 3 are for Virginia state service ? LD ? The Amrtrak system track and turnout renewals appear high for for long distance over state support.
Signals and track programs appear more in lie with probably most being for CHI work with a small amount for New Orleans ? The all over infrastructure numbers are hard to quantify with most to LD share ?
https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/businessplanning/Amtrak-Asset-Line-Plans-FY21-25.pdf
PAGE 22
Amfleet overhauls State support is twice Long distance share . That even though the LD share of cars is only about 20% of other uses. It may be that NEC network is figured somewhere else but could not find ? Bi-level overhauls more in line as mosst are used in LD travel. That is unless they are used out of CHI for winter time substitutions. The same with locomotive overhauls.
Amfleet replacement. $3.0 M for LD and $52.0 for state support. IMHO a real snub for LD. That #M figure would buy only one car but if maybe over 5 years 5 cars ? ? Diesel loco acquisition all $106M which probably is for 9 - 10 locos for that year all LD. Now that really puts the question about Amfleet replacements.
The modifications list appears about correct except the all other equipment item which has over twice as much for LD over state support. Should any of this be included into LD operating costs ?
PAGE 24
wILL LEAVE
PAGE 23
The national stations investments appears about in line but still they should not be lumped into operating costs ?
Will leave to others as I do not quite understand that categorgy ?
PAGE 25
IT technology ? $7.5M LD vs 5,0 for state. Apppears to be putting too much on LD?
PAGE 27 and on ------- Another time
Doesn't the IT specifically include better on-train WiFi and access to better 'backbone' broadband?
That involves different enabling technology (likely satellite) for much of some of the LD routes than it will for corridors where 5G infrastructure may already be substantially built out.
Clark to Ham (I believe the "Ham" is Hamilton) is one of the greatest short-term bangs for the buck that the NECIP can provide -- this is part of the stretch south of New Brunswick that has been a great potential speedway since the nominally 85mph interlocking in Princeton Junction was taken out. Here is a map and overhead view taken from the Amtrak notice of catenary work:
http://westwindsornj.org/notices/Princeton-Junction-Aerial.pdf
Note that the improvement is for all four tracks, not just the inner pair.
Yes, at least 160mph on this stretch; limited more by the approach curve and pending reversing flyover switches in South Brunswick than by other engineering concerns... (I have seen speedometer information 'captures' from existing Acela sets showing interestingly higher speed)
I think they need to have a sit down with Virgin Atlantic, Texas Central, Amtrak and anyone else who is working on rail passenger and figure out what Amtrak's role should be in what states and in what corridors. I don't think it was the intent of Congress to have Amtrak compete against privately funded companies which so far they have not done directly. This corridor initiative opens that door though. Creation of Amtrak was to preserve the nationwide passenger rail network and now Amtrak is attempting to morph that mission in order to reach profitability. I have no problems with that change in mission but at a minimum Amtrak's banker......the Congress, needs to be on board with a change in direction of that scale and agree with it.
Further, I am against a publicly funded company using taxpayer dollars to compete against privately funded companies. I think most taxpayers would fall into that same category. Somehow that hole has to be plugged or taken care of so we do not run into a scenario where Amtrak is using public funds to undercut what would have been a privately run operation.
I do agree with the initiative to find more corridors to develop and feel Amtrak has not had enough money in the past to do that. So I am fine with the experimentation and the exploration of expanding rail corridors in this country which I think will also eventually lead to potentially more LD trains > 500 miles.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.