The original draft had $5B for Amtrak. That was cut to $1.1B. $800M direct to Amtrak, $300M via the states.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I am glad Amtrak is getting some money.
Like I've said in some other posts, now Amtrak will finaly have some money to play around with, and can finaly get some of it's car's and loco's fixed, a major probem with capacity issues. I also think Amtrak will work on upgrading some of it's track for higher speed ops., (if the FRA will alow it, no PTC yet!) Especally in the midwest. For trains like The City Of New Orleans. Or The Heartland Flyer Hope that more $$$ will come Amtrak's way again sometime soon!
The road to to success is always under construction. _____________________________________________________________________________ When the going gets tough, the tough use duct tape.
I hope the powers that be at Amtrak will be very careful with the monies that have been dolled out to them by the taxpayers and spend it in a frugal fashion.
First they need a replacemnet for the P-42s that have proven anything but reliable. The F40s proved to be great for Amtrak and gave years of reliable service. The P40s and P42s have been a disaster. I don't care if it is pleasing to the eye or not just so it is capable of operating in all weather conditions reliably.
Second they need to repair all equipment at Beech Grove and get it back on the road before the summer traffic increase takes place.
Third they need to address the issue of new equipment for the long distance trains in the east. No more Viewliners ever. Why not look at the cars that have just entered ACE service. These cars can probably be configured just about anyway Amtrak would like them Sleepers, Dining/Lounge and Coaches. This would solve the problem for the east and even the midwest trains such as the City of New Orleans etc. No more Superliners would be needed for the Capitol Limited etc. This would permit Amtrak to concentrate all of the Superliners on the western trains and even purchase additional Superliners for these trains to increase passenger loads. Gasoline is already starting to rise in price once again (California new 12cent a gallon gas tax) so urgency is needed. Probably 50-75 Superliners is all that would be needed. California needs additional California cars until there HSR program is built as well. The larger the equipment order is the lower the per unit costs become. Maybe even build the ACE cars for California as well. Then the existing California cars can be assigned to the Superliner trains as well maybe even eliminating the additional new Superliners. They certainly could be used as short haul coaches on the long distance Superliner trains and it should not cost much to change interiors on already existing equipment. The Talgos in the Northwest need to be replaced as well and probably the ACE cars could even fit in there.
What ever monies if any are left over could be used for straightening curves and eliminating grade crossings on certain routes. This would do more to make Amtrak a viable transportation alternative than anything else I can think of. The older equipment instead of being scrapped can be held in reserve for peak travel periods wherever the demand is needed. And the Viewliner sleepers can be parked on sidings in cities with large homeless populations and used for that purpose.
Al - in - Stockton
What is the failure rate per 100 million miles or other benchmark for the PS40s and PS42s as opposed to the F40s?
Hopefully Amtrak will not waste another dollar on long distance trains, especially sleepers and dinners. Amtrak's long distance trains carry less than 15 per cent of the system's passengers, generate only 22.5 per cent of train revenues, and account for 203 per cent of Amtrak's operating loses before interest, depreciation, and other charges. They wipe out all of the substantial NEC operating profits.
If Amtrak could rid itself of the long distance trains, it could, with some fare adjustments, probably breakeven or nearly breakeven as a system.
Except for a small number of occasions, Amtrak's trains don't operate anywhere near capacity. The average load factor for the system was 52.3 per cent in FY 2008. The average load factor for the long distance trains was 58.9 per cent. The average load factors on three of the most popular western trains (Empire Builder, California Zephyr, and Southwest Chief) were 61.8, 51.4, and 63.1 per cent. These are well below the average 79.9 per cent load factor enjoyed by the nation's airlines.
Proponents of long distance trains claim that it is unfair to compare them to airplanes. True! Long distance trains are inefficient and costly compared to commercial aircraft.
Gasoline prices will surely rise. Outside of a few high density corridors, most Americans will not opt for going by train. They will choose more fuel efficient airplanes for long distance travel and alternative fueled cars for relatively short trips.
Amtrak should focus the additional monies on the one area where trains are a good business decision; namely, relative short, high density corridors where the cost of expanding highways and airways is prohibitive.
I missed something: what are ACE cars? Do they have tilt suspension for faster speeds and less fuel-consuming speed recovery on existing railroad curves? Do they have low floors for easier boarding at smaller stops? Do they need PTC to augment track circuit-based train and crossing protection?
So why replace the Talgos in the Northwest? Without another alternative to solve the wheel wear problem, the Talgo is better suited to most US corridor services for the above reasons except the Northeast and possibly California Corridors. Correct me if I'm wrong: doesn't Talgo have a compliant design for the US market? And what better alternative than trains that can transition from existing lines to new 217 mph (350 kph) HSR as segments are implemented and still provide service to smaller markets on branches off the main corridors?
As for locomotives, is the P42 reliability problem one of inadequate (opposed to non-compliant) inspection and maintenance? The excessive weight of the P42 is bad for both fuel consumption and track degradation; and weight provides only limited benefit in tractive effort at lower speeds that is offset by the time and distance required to acheive maximum speed.
What's good about the P42 is that it is the most powerful American-built passenger locomotive. A pair of light weight fuel-efficient either diesel or recouperating gas turbine locomotives are needed that can get a train up to 150 mph in about 7 miles distance that would provide a measure of collision protection to the passengers.
I'm not too enthusiastic about DMU's for low-density lines. If only 60 or fewer passengers would be attracted, a bus and driver would be cheaper than a railcar and two-man crew. At some point, the maintenance and purchase costs for DMU's will exceed a locomotive-hauled train; and the cost of a train will fall below that of a comparable number of buses. The other argument that train consist size is more flexible with separate cars is undercut apparent by the cost of switching cars in and out; and availability to provide additional capacity to meet unexpected demand.
Talk about total segregation of HSR to allow non-compliant trains and you get to some costly duplication of tracks and dislocation for additional ROW easement. One advantage of HSR is that it can be compatible with non-HSR regional and intercity branch line services and share facilities.
I am reluctant to eliminate long-distance trains; but I surely do not think this is where the need for intercity rail passenger service lies and where stimulus money should go.
HarveyK400 I missed something: what are ACE cars? Do they have tilt suspension for faster speeds and less fuel-consuming speed recovery on existing railroad curves? Do they have low floors for easier boarding at smaller stops? Do they need PTC to augment track circuit-based train and crossing protection? So why replace the Talgos in the Northwest? Without another alternative to solve the wheel wear problem, the Talgo is better suited to most US corridor services for the above reasons except the Northeast and possibly California Corridors. Correct me if I'm wrong: doesn't Talgo have a compliant design for the US market? And what better alternative than trains that can transition from existing lines to new 217 mph (350 kph) HSR as segments are implemented and still provide service to smaller markets on branches off the main corridors? As for locomotives, is the P42 reliability problem one of inadequate (opposed to non-compliant) inspection and maintenance? The excessive weight of the P42 is bad for both fuel consumption and track degradation; and weight provides only limited benefit in tractive effort at lower speeds that is offset by the time and distance required to acheive maximum speed. What's good about the P42 is that it is the most powerful American-built passenger locomotive. A pair of light weight fuel-efficient either diesel or recouperating gas turbine locomotives are needed that can get a train up to 150 mph in about 7 miles distance that would provide a measure of collision protection to the passengers. I'm not too enthusiastic about DMU's for low-density lines. If only 60 or fewer passengers would be attracted, a bus and driver would be cheaper than a railcar and two-man crew. At some point, the maintenance and purchase costs for DMU's will exceed a locomotive-hauled train; and the cost of a train will fall below that of a comparable number of buses. The other argument that train consist size is more flexible with separate cars is undercut apparent by the cost of switching cars in and out; and availability to provide additional capacity to meet unexpected demand. Talk about total segregation of HSR to allow non-compliant trains and you get to some costly duplication of tracks and dislocation for additional ROW easement. One advantage of HSR is that it can be compatible with non-HSR regional and intercity branch line services and share facilities. I am reluctant to eliminate long-distance trains; but I surely do not think this is where the need for intercity rail passenger service lies and where stimulus money should go.
First the ACE cars are the new double deck cars that can fit into New Yorks Penn Stattion and have recently entered service between New York and Atlantic City they are named the Atlantic City Express thus the ACE for short. They are really commuterCars with fancied interiors. I see no reason these cars can't be constructed in long distance versions as I said.
You are right about the P42s and the recently retired P40s being hard on track. They have been anything but reliable. Amtrak has had problems with them since they entered service. The F59 has been more reliable and is not having the problems of the GE products.
I would be the first to agree with you about where the monies should be spent, but I don't think the congress or Senate in whose districts the long distance trains operate are going to let them go. So if we are stuck with them lets make them the best they can be and see if that attracts more passengers. And lets offer more cars by eliminating the eastern trains including the City of New Orleans use of Superliners and rebuild the 42 that are sitting at Beech Grove and by doing that we can offer every Western train complete Superliner equipped trains and longer trains during the peak travel periods.
The Talgos are beginning to show there age and remember they do not comply with collision standards and have a special waver because they have the P40 dummy on the other end. I understand that is also a problem with the Acela equipment and the reason for power on both ends.
All I am saying is that money needs to be spent wisely and they can probaby get the ACE cars in volume cheaper than anything else and they can probably be brought into service the fastest. They could replace every long distance service east of the Mississippi and many of the regional trains. And like I mentioned earlier even the Talgos could be replaced if necessary. It has already been mentioned that the Talgos are going to cease being operated south of Portland when newer replacement equipment can be found. That would leave Washington with the Talgos from Portland to Vancouver BC.
One other possibility is to use Acela cars on all of the eastern trains with a low slung diesel to match to increase speeds on some of the existing routes. I am sure they can configure the Acela cars anyway Amtrak would like. For longer trains they could place a diesel at both ends and operate it remotely like the freight RRs are doing in DPU.
The ACES train uses Bombardier bilevels similar to NJT's. Several AC Casinos purchased 8 of them and fit them out with intercity style seating. A typical train is an ALP44 (AEM7 cousin), 4 cars and an NJT rehabbed Amtrak P40. The electic is used as a cab car on the non-electrified portion of the trip. Not the most fuel efficient arrangement, but it saves time and labor. The Casios are underwriting the train's operating losses. The most interesting part of this service is that there is a lounge area in one of the cars - that you can rent for $200 per trip.
I agree with Sam1 that there is no need to beef up the LD fleet, especially for seasonal service. Equipment turns are a key part of the economy of rail service and if you don't have a use for the equipment 6 months of the year, it's game over before you even start. (Never mind trying to find seasonal employees to operate and maintain the cars)
The Bombardier bilevels are really nice equipement - smooth, quiet, comfortable - that would be well suited for NY-Washington or similar service. The biggest drawback, is lack of overhead luggage space. The cars are built for high level platforms.
Beside crash-worthiness, a diesel-electric or gas turbine locomotive would be needed at both ends because about 9,000 hp will be needed to accelerate a modest length train to 150 mph in a reasonable distance. This would allow interim service until electrification can be completed for 217 mph HSR service over an entire route. 150 mph also may be the limit for segments of existing lines that can be grade separated for a reasonable cost on lower volume routes and branches that may not warrant full HSR development with electrification.
This brings up the problem of fuel efficiency. The principal of "Drive 55" holds for rail too. Cars come close to Amtrak's average passenger-mile per train-mile with low average train loads. This often results from fares focused on revenue per passenger instead of the revenue from passengers. At what point do fast trains exceed the fuel consumption of jet or turbo-prop aircraft?
The practice of charging premium fares for high-speed service restricts economic accessibility to a publicly supported service. Even the extra fare for limited stop Acelas is questionable since more passengers might be attracted with lower fares for reduced trip time. The other issue is the newer Acela equipment compared to the older Regional Express-branded trains.
As for comments regarding weight of the Acelas, how much of this is for FRA-compliant structural modification for what appears to be a TGV-based design? The Horizon cars come in at only a little over 100,000 pounds. Can somebody explain the difference, or is Acela simply an elephant where a horse would be better?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.