"Acela" car truck, air bag suspension, air bag and bearing temperature monitoring.
Don U. TCA 73-5735
No tread brake here: http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=206754
They started installing single shoe tread brakes on each wheel of Amfleet around 1980. Each tread brake unit had it's own brake cylinder, levers and brake shoe. It was to help keep the wheel profile in good shape and stop a "false flange" from forming.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
sorry Oldman I love comment as to young but Im retiremet age and yes I worked on Amleet and SPV's.
So lets get back to your qualifications ............................................
DMUinCT 4. Amtrak needs more cars to meet demand, not replace cars. Rebuild and buy. The great builder of cars, BUDD, is gone, Amtrak must go elsewhere.
4. Amtrak needs more cars to meet demand, not replace cars. Rebuild and buy. The great builder of cars, BUDD, is gone, Amtrak must go elsewhere.
Some careful examination of AMTR AK performance reports back to April 2009 has some interesting information.
1. Originally in the 2009 budget $5.25M was budgeted for rebuild of 20 Baggage cars = 228K per car average.
2. Sometime before April 1 2009 these cars were then projected to cost over $9.5M = $413K/car+.
3. Rebuilding was stopped after another 3 were found to need rebuilding at a place where the 23 could go back in service and only $4.4M was spent on those rebuilds. = 191K/car
4. 20 rebuilds were credited to 2009 and 3 to 2010 but all paid for in 2009 budget.
5. No funds budgeted in 2010 for Baggage cars.
6. The savings of $5.1M (413-191) x (23) = 5.1 will build 8 - 9 new baggage cars so that is 34% of the 25 cars needed (assuming 600K per new car?). Also spending 413K to rebuild vs 600K for new makes no sense to me for old equipment. For 25 baggage cars will the higher speeds possible be worth the $4.675M extra construction costs vs overhauls of old cars then be saved in lower operating costs? (over what time frame?)
7. Was not able to yet figure out the heritage diner's cost factors.
DutchrailnutThe Horizons for example are tread brakes only again with a small sub series which has both see NEC timetabe for Amtrak.
DutchrailnutYes on Amfleet Disk brakes were added(they came originally with tread brakes only)
Plus wheels were having thermal cracks, just like the bombardier cars at MNCR
Yes on Amfleet Disk brakes were added(they came originally with tread brakes only) same on some Viewliners only a certain series.
The Horizons for example are tread brakes only again with a small sub series which has both see NEC timetabe for Amtrak.
DutchrailnutOnly cars with Both Disk and tread brakes are allowed 125 mph. Any car with just tread or just disk brakes are limited to 110 or lower.
Only cars with Both Disk and tread brakes are allowed 125 mph.
Any car with just tread or just disk brakes are limited to 110 or lower.
Amfleet was delivered all disk and good for 125 mph. The tread braking was added to help keep the tread from developing a false flange which causes poor ride quality.
Dutchrailnutrebuilding Amfleets into combines or Bagage cars won't work, the car body on these. The tube type construction is what makes these cars strong, cutting a 6 x 8 hole in side would effectivly cut the car in half, they hardly have any frame.
rebuilding Amfleets into combines or Bagage cars won't work, the car body on these.
The tube type construction is what makes these cars strong, cutting a 6 x 8 hole in side would effectivly cut the car in half, they hardly have any frame.
Dutchrailnuteven Heritage Coach to Bagage car conversions were not a succes, due to car bending and flexing, and most were out of service in a few years.
Dutchrailnut As far as trucks, the CAF cars are suppose to get a American made but European style truck, most likely looking like ACELA trucks.
Dutchrailnut Can Amfleet trucks be used ?? why use a truck thats plum worn out and 40 years old
Can Amfleet trucks be used ?? why use a truck thats plum worn out and 40 years old
Um, because heat treating resets the fatique life, and nothing technologically any better has come along in those 40 years?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
even Heritage Coach to Bagage car conversions were not a succes, due to car bending and flexing, and most were out of service in a few years.
As far as trucks, the CAF cars are suppose to get a American made but European style truck, most likely looking like ACELA trucks.
will they fit on older cars, maybe, I have no specifications on wheelbase or underframe arrangements.
As for trucks, they won't need much inventory, only usable parts like rebuilt kits for airbrake cylinders and brake shoes/pads
Dutchrailnut Only cars with Both Disk and tread brakes are allowed 125 mph. Any car with just tread or just disk brakes are limited to 110 or lower. Also yes Acela was tested at 160 mph or slightly higher, it is not certified for speeds over 150 mph. For certification purpose testing is always done with speeds reaching over 10% over maximum speed. Reason ?? what if engineer in error or speedometer has an error ?? The Design speed is governing and its damned hard to get equipment certified for speeds exceeding design speed. only examples I know off are MARC bi-levels and currently they are trying to raise speed of NJT multilevels.
Also yes Acela was tested at 160 mph or slightly higher, it is not certified for speeds over 150 mph.
For certification purpose testing is always done with speeds reaching over 10% over maximum speed.
Reason ?? what if engineer in error or speedometer has an error ??
The Design speed is governing and its damned hard to get equipment certified for speeds exceeding design speed.
only examples I know off are MARC bi-levels and currently they are trying to raise speed of NJT multilevels.
Dutchrail: These certification speeds bring up some questions.
1. Since Heritage cars are used system wide (baggage cars out west) is the out of service (OOS)rate higher on these cars? I cannot find a break down rate for each type car.
2. Does there have to be a higher car number rate for the Heritage Baggage cars due to their unique trucks? Or are they just kept OOS until parts can arrive?
3. Will there be a completely different truck (and parts) on these new cars? Again have no information.
4. If order has a new style trucks would they then require additional inventory out west? Is it possible that any present Amfleet and Horizon car could be retrofitted with these new trucks if older trucks not in inventory and the older Amfleet trucks are needed to be replaced for whatever reason? ( might require some testing at Pueblo?)
5. New Baggage cars might be able to use older Amfleet trucks in a pinch to aleviate inventory problems?
6. If not able to retrofit might is not be better to use Oltmann's suggestion to rebuild some Amfleets into combines? However that does pose single level - bi-level problems. Would that keep the need for a separate truck parts inventory reduced?
7. The parts out west problem appears to be a tough nut to crack using any of the above. An order for new bi-level with some baggage compartments may be the answer?
blue streak 1On the 2 track WASH - BAL run the 2124, 80, 138, 538 sequence is cast in stone because there is almost no chance for an overtake
Thur Aug 19th 538 appears to have gotten out ahead of #80 but #538 was delayed after BAL behind #80 somehow and was 15 late at Aberdeen (is usually early).
oltmanndblue streak 1 OK, so buy new coaches and rebuild some Amfleet into combines.
blue streak 1
Posted a version of this before but it got lost in the great infinity of the internet.
That has a lot of merit. Would solve some problems but need to look at some details.
1. There has been no actual copy of the building contract of these cars available so as to how flexible changing the construction of cars is unknown.
2. Since many Amfleet are going thru level 3 interior up grades that would be the time to institute this modification/rebuild.
3. The movement of sleepers back to the front of some long distance trains may have been influenced by the purchase of bag - Dorms or purchase have been determined by a pending decision to place the sleepers in front? Coaches at the rear of a train might be to allow an easier addition and removal of the coaches at intermediate stations?
4. A Bag-coach might allow a much closer control of available seats (say 28 coach seats?).
5. I have certainly been disappointed that there has been no follow on order announced of either single or bi-level cars. The 4 year delivery schedule of these 130 cars means that per the fleet plan that is only 25 % of planned car deliverys of 130 cars per year.
DMUinCTAmtrak needs more cars to meet demand, not replace cars. Rebuild and buy.
That's telling it like it is, Brother. And Amtrak should not squander this golden opportunity to buy REVENUE cars on baggage cars and dorms. I know Congress has promised more money for a second wave of purchases. But this may or may not be delivered. How about a little respect for the bird in the hand?
For the "mostly" long-distance service being targeted (according to Amtrak's press release), this should mean a heavy emphasis on sleepers. It's pitiful to see the Empire Builder, for instance, running with one sleeper apiece for Portland and Seattle simply for lack of equipment.
I do not know the answer: But, this should redirect the thinking.
1. Add one "Wheel Braked" Heritage car to a train it's a 110mph train
2. All "Disc Brake" cars and it's a 125mph train.
3. Don't speak ill of the "Acela", a train that can move at 160mph is held down to slightly over convention speeds do to track, catenary, and slower trains between Baltimore and Washington (and a good part of the rest of the corridor).
5. When the Acela Program (then called American Flyer) started they imported and ran trains from several European manufactures before deciding what features, suspension system, speed, and the ability to meet the much stricter U.S. safety standards.
blue streak 1I stumbled onto a couple operational items that may have some bearing on the need for higher speed bagage cars. Tuesday Aug 17 a late train 80 the Carolinian arrived WASH 1744 and departed at 1802. 18 minute turn is not as good as some NB trains that make 10 minutes (change to electric motor) so 80 may have been ready to leave earlier. However it had to follow ACELA 2124 (1800 Dep). 80 then cleared the throat of WASH and then NEC regional #138 cleared behind 80 ( schedule has 138 1802 departure). Then MARC 538 left WASH a delayed 15 minutes at 1830 and arrived BAL 1937 (22 min late) #80 carries a heritage baggage car and historically takes 3 - 8 minutes longer WASH - BAL than the Palmetto whic often matches ACELA 30 minute time (#90 no baggage car) .Whenever 80 is ready to leave WASH at 1745 or later it is held until 2124 (Not operated weekends) leaves WASH. due to 80's slower speeds. Then 138 (usually after 80 since it makes 3 intermediate stops WASH - BAL and 80 makes none. Then 538 leaves late. On the 2 track WASH - BAL run the 2124, 80, 138, 538 sequence is cast in stone because there is almost no chance for an overtake. So with 80 delayed the delays cascade (both opposing traffic and the crosstie replacement now being completed on this section. The new BWI station with 4 tracks may change this The BAL station layout often does not have any spare tracks due to MARC layovers. If the speed of 80 could be relied upon to match #90 and ACELA then there would not be a cascade delays. The savings in crew time and late penaltys of MARC 538 mount up over a months time and 538 is one trip that has delays 2 -3 times a week. Is this an example of: "Lack of single speed fluidity"?? How I cringe at that word.
I stumbled onto a couple operational items that may have some bearing on the need for higher speed bagage cars.
Tuesday Aug 17 a late train 80 the Carolinian arrived WASH 1744 and departed at 1802. 18 minute turn is not as good as some NB trains that make 10 minutes (change to electric motor) so 80 may have been ready to leave earlier. However it had to follow ACELA 2124 (1800 Dep). 80 then cleared the throat of WASH and then NEC regional #138 cleared behind 80 ( schedule has 138 1802 departure). Then MARC 538 left WASH a delayed 15 minutes at 1830 and arrived BAL 1937 (22 min late)
#80 carries a heritage baggage car and historically takes 3 - 8 minutes longer WASH - BAL than the Palmetto whic often matches ACELA 30 minute time (#90 no baggage car) .Whenever 80 is ready to leave WASH at 1745 or later it is held until 2124 (Not operated weekends) leaves WASH. due to 80's slower speeds. Then 138 (usually after 80 since it makes 3 intermediate stops WASH - BAL and 80 makes none. Then 538 leaves late.
On the 2 track WASH - BAL run the 2124, 80, 138, 538 sequence is cast in stone because there is almost no chance for an overtake. So with 80 delayed the delays cascade (both opposing traffic and the crosstie replacement now being completed on this section. The new BWI station with 4 tracks may change this The BAL station layout often does not have any spare tracks due to MARC layovers. If the speed of 80 could be relied upon to match #90 and ACELA then there would not be a cascade delays. The savings in crew time and late penaltys of MARC 538 mount up over a months time and 538 is one trip that has delays 2 -3 times a week.
Is this an example of: "Lack of single speed fluidity"?? How I cringe at that word.
Falcon48Second - I'm intrigued by the figures which purport to show how "full" various types of Amtrak trains are, and I have to wonder how they are calculated. The reason is that the load factor of a single Amtrak train will vary station to station. It may be "full" leaving the origin, diminish as the train goes across the county and people get off, then increase again which it hits a major origin point and so on. It's not nearly as simple as calculating the load factor of an airliner with a single origin and destination. One wouldn't expect a long distance train to have a 100% load factor all across the country. My guess is that these figures are gross averages.
Falcon48: I agree with you on the above. The only figures that Amtrak discloses is their total Revenue passenger miles vs total revenue seat miles.
For example the June 2010 performance report listed for June 600,992,000 revenue passenger miles system wide and 1,045,901 revenue seat miles for a june load factor of 57.45% and FY 2010 YTD of 4,578,295K and 9,145,727K for a load factor of 50.06%.
Amtrak does not disclose various train load factors on any of these reports but probably does to the various state agencies for state subsidized trains (ex: Me, Nc & Va) but unless the state discloses those figures we do not know what they are.
Airlines actually have this same problem for Example a SW air trip that flys 6 legs may have wildly different loads with maybe a couple in the middle at 100% but at least they are not over 100%.
Amtrak is a different animal.
1. Available seat miles. The Crescent for example has one or more coach cars that are regularly closed off south of ATL or Birmingham when loads are light. My question then becomes are these available seat miles or not? The answer may be is the train staffed for these cars or not? I have no idea. What about the overhauled cars going from Beech Grove to CHI?
2. What about out of service cars? probably not?
3. What about when an Amtrak train is stopped short of destination but train is later dead-headed?
4. What happens when An Amtrak train picks up commuters off a stranded commuter train? Are they counted as revenue passenger miles? (happens alot with MARC & VRE but also others).
5. Since non revenue seats can be used (dinners, lounges, dorms?) plus in a pinch Standing room in a train could be used causing loads over 100% for some or all of its length.
You go figure.
Two other observations:
First - I've done a lot of work in rail abandonments and discontinuances. If one is trying to analyze which services an entity like Amtrak should continue and which it should discontinue, the proper economic measure isn't "operating cost" or "operating profit". The proper measure is AVOIDABLE revenues and costs. In other words, you look at the revenues Amtrak would actually LOSE if it discontinued a particular service, versus the costs Amtrak would actually SAVE from the discontinuance (regardless of whether those costs fall into the "operating" or "capital" cost buckets). I don't know what this kind of an analysis would show, but I rather suspect that, if you look at a scenario involved total discontinuance of NEC service, the NEC would look a lot less viable than it does if you look at "operating profit" and ignore the huge capital costs Amtrak is incurring for this service.
Second - I'm intrigued by the figures which purport to show how "full" various types of Amtrak trains are, and I have to wonder how they are calculated. The reason is that the load factor of a single Amtrak train will vary station to station. It may be "full" leaving the origin, diminish as the train goes across the county and people get off, then increase again which it hits a major origin point and so on. It's not nearly as simple as calculating the load factor of an airliner with a single origin and destination. One wouldn't expect a long distance train to have a 100% load factor all across the country. My guess is that these figures are gross averages.
Sam1 dakotafred There's an interesting 3-part L.A. Times interview with Amtrak president Joseph Boardman on today's BLET Web site (http://www.ble.org/). The best part of it to me is Boardman's unequivocal support for Amtrak's long-distance trains. "They run full," he says of the likes of the Southwest Chief and the Builder, are needed by rural America and are safe "on my watch." Amtrak's long distance trains had an average load factor of approximately 56% through the first nine months of FY10. This compares to 54% for the comparable FY09 period. This does not meet my definition of "full". For the first nine month of FY10 the long distance trains generated approximately 22 % of Amtrak's revenues, but they accounted for 73% of the carrier's operating costs before interest and depreciation. They carried approximately 15% of Amtrak's riders. They lost approximately 25 cents per passenger mile compared to a loss of 14 cents per passenger mile for the short distance and corridor trains vs. nearly 1 cent per passenger mile profit for the NEC trains. In FY09 the long distance trains carried approximately 4/10s of one per cent of the intercity passengers traveling on a commercial carrier (airlines, buses, etc.). Most rural areas of the United States are not dependent on long distance trains for commercial carrier services. One look at Amtrak's long distance train map makes this fact crystal clear. Moreover, for those areas that have reasonable access to the long distance trains, once a day train services, with many communities served in the middle of the night, is not a serious transport option. If Amtrak were operated like a business, the first thing that the managers would do, after reviewing the dismal numbers associated with the long distance trains, is drop them and use the resources to beef up the high density corridors where passengers trains make sense.
dakotafred There's an interesting 3-part L.A. Times interview with Amtrak president Joseph Boardman on today's BLET Web site (http://www.ble.org/). The best part of it to me is Boardman's unequivocal support for Amtrak's long-distance trains. "They run full," he says of the likes of the Southwest Chief and the Builder, are needed by rural America and are safe "on my watch."
There's an interesting 3-part L.A. Times interview with Amtrak president Joseph Boardman on today's BLET Web site (http://www.ble.org/).
The best part of it to me is Boardman's unequivocal support for Amtrak's long-distance trains. "They run full," he says of the likes of the Southwest Chief and the Builder, are needed by rural America and are safe "on my watch."
Amtrak's long distance trains had an average load factor of approximately 56% through the first nine months of FY10. This compares to 54% for the comparable FY09 period. This does not meet my definition of "full".
For the first nine month of FY10 the long distance trains generated approximately 22 % of Amtrak's revenues, but they accounted for 73% of the carrier's operating costs before interest and depreciation. They carried approximately 15% of Amtrak's riders. They lost approximately 25 cents per passenger mile compared to a loss of 14 cents per passenger mile for the short distance and corridor trains vs. nearly 1 cent per passenger mile profit for the NEC trains. In FY09 the long distance trains carried approximately 4/10s of one per cent of the intercity passengers traveling on a commercial carrier (airlines, buses, etc.).
Most rural areas of the United States are not dependent on long distance trains for commercial carrier services. One look at Amtrak's long distance train map makes this fact crystal clear. Moreover, for those areas that have reasonable access to the long distance trains, once a day train services, with many communities served in the middle of the night, is not a serious transport option.
If Amtrak were operated like a business, the first thing that the managers would do, after reviewing the dismal numbers associated with the long distance trains, is drop them and use the resources to beef up the high density corridors where passengers trains make sense.
Similarly, the "profit" and "loss" figures shown in the prior post appear to be based on excess/deficit of operating revenues over operating costs. These aren't really "profits". They are operating costs coverage ratios, and are subject to the problem discussed in the previous paragraph. True economic "profit" would take all costs into account, regardless of whether they feel into the "capital" or "operating" cost bucket. I doubt whether any Amtrak services earn a true economic profit.
DutchrailnutJust for information collision post are only required on locomotives and MU cars. trailing vehicles only need complying with buff strenght, and have anti climber type protection. With PTC being mandatory in 2015 one of biggest obstacles to higher speed will be gone. no need to keep railroad only good for 79 mph when now speed can be dramaticly increased.
Just for information collision post are only required on locomotives and MU cars.
trailing vehicles only need complying with buff strenght, and have anti climber type protection.
With PTC being mandatory in 2015 one of biggest obstacles to higher speed will be gone.
no need to keep railroad only good for 79 mph when now speed can be dramaticly increased.
PTC might be a good argument to use to get around the buff strength rule.
Second, is that PTC as an overlay on existing systems - which is how it is going in - will reduce max line capacity. Speeding up passenger trains will further reduce capacity. Frt. RRs aren't going to do it for free - and Amtrak doesn't have the extra $$ to pay.
Dutchrailnut With PTC being mandatory in 2015 one of biggest obstacles to higher speed will be gone.
This business of wait-for-PTC-2015 sounds to me like waiting for the arrival of the Rail Fairy -- poof, one touch of the Magic Wand and the 79 MPH barrier is broken.
Don was filling us in on the drawbacks, make that insurmountable obstacles, to PTC in 2015, mainly, that the freight railroads will have to give up all of their line capacity for the factor-of-safety of the PTC system in deciding when to apply brakes based on an automatic process rather than on the skill of an intelligent and experienced human engine driver.
Is this PTC thing really, really going to happen, or is this a case of wishful thinking? Yeah, its written into law, but 2015 is some time away, and maybe the law will get changed to pull the railroads from the brink of clogging up their operations. And remember, the freight railroads keep truck traffic off the roads, so freight railroading is "green" too.
Toss in the current regs which mandate massive collision posts and strong underframe/carbody structure which pile on the weight and you have ....a mess.
If all you need is 110 mph and you don't even think about trying to have the current FRA regs amended, or improving passenger miles/gal, you wind up with slightly updated Budd 1950s cars. Center sills and equalized, swing hanger trucks. Kinda like an old body on frame Cadillac.
But, you are definitely thinking about how to speed up the NEC and have laid out a plan to do it. Big bucks. Not likely happening soon - or ever - the eventual answer might be new ROW for much of the route. You just don't know.... So, maybe, big, old designs are OK for this generation.
But, all those states are out there pushing their emerging corridor plans, some of which are not integrated into the national network, with the ability to pile the pass miles/gal and gobble up up all those "green" credits. Can't get there with the Cadillac, even with speed rated tires and pushing it off the cliff. (which is what Acela is.....) You need light and fast for this - like that unibody Camry. No massive center sills and swing hangers allowed! But, trying to figure out how to purchase this would require going outside your comfort zone and negotiating with the FRA. Lots of new mechanical and political skills to be employed.
That's sounds hard. Why bother.
Cookie, please!
How d'ya get 160 MPH outa an equalizer-and-swing-hanger-truck that Amtrak loves so much but the rest of the world, yes that "rest of the world" that is "shaming us" for our backwardness in HSR, which has pretty much gone to a "radius link" type truck, like on the Genesis and the Superliner I's?
Metroliner Classic MU cars had swing hanger trucks in place of the Pioneer III design, according to my poppa, at the insistence of the Pennsylvania (later Penn Central) Railroad. Those cars were rated at 160 MPH, but the ride was like on a school bus.
The New York Central did that famous test with a jet powered RDC. The test is often misunderstood that someone thought there was a future of jet propelled rail cars or that this was some kind of "stunt." Rather, it was a valid piece of engineering research into whether "conventional" railroad equipment could stay on the rails beyond 150 MPH or whether something exotic -- perhaps air cushion vehicles was the "tech" of the day, now we talk about maglev -- would be required. Story I read is that yes, these were equalized swing-hanger trucks, but they went to some kind of "cylindrical wheel profile" (a way to suppress "hunting" at speed, but it relies on a special tapered flange instead of wheel coning for guidance, and in service would require much maintenance to counteract the effect of wear to hollow out that profile and make the trucks hunt like crazy).
Is there any plan to do away with nose-suspended traction motors, or is the plan to simply hammer away at the tracks and do more track maintenance? Again, those other major industrial countries that are putting us to shame use just about anything but nose-suspended traction motors, even to the point of bringing back "quill drive."
So yes, you could operate all of these classes of equipment at 160 MPH plus -- I guess you could run my Camry at 160 MPH plus if you put on speed rated tires and then dropped it off a cliff. But would, say, Superliners with swing-hanger trucks operate practically at 160 MPH plus with realistic levels of maintenance for the cars and the track?
blue streak 1The long term direction that Amtrak appears to be heading towards is for more speed capabilities for all of its rolling stock. The retirement of GG-1s (100MPH?), the E-60s (80 MPH), Heritage sleepers (85 MPH),. We do not know the speed capabilities of this new equipment order but from what was in the Fleet Strategy plan all that equipment will be 160 MPH capable. And now: Heritage baggage (90 & 110 MPH) to be retired. Heritage Dinners but speeds not stated howeverthere are only 2 spare and last fall's CSX tearing of one dinner really placed Amtrak in a squeeze until car was repaired. Minimum required to cover schedule 15 (?) and it is desired to put one on Palmetto if returns to Florida and maybe Cardinal? (3 - 4 more?) HHP-8s were designated as 135 MPH to replace AEM-7s 125 but they have not worked out due to reliability problems so additional were not purchased. Replacement motors will be least 160+ MPH. Acelas – 150 with New Acelas ?+ MPH. Amfleets, Horizon, Cab cars, Surfliners, Cascades, all 125 MPH capable. Older purchases were at 110 MPH – Viewliners, P-42s, P-32DMs. 100MPH slated for replacement are SL coaches and sleepers, Cal train converted SLs, F-40 Cabbage, P-40s, GP-38s. All this purchasing of higher speed equipment denotes 1. Increased Fluidity in the NEC especially on the 2 track sections from PHL – WASH. Almost 2+ times a week MARC is delayed due to slow Northbound Amtrak trains. Suspect from schedule reports that they are MIA or Crescent trains. Having all equipment 110 or 110+ MPH capable will allow all present MSR routes that are planned. Note: NJ Transit new all electric and dual mode -46As are 125+ MPH capable under CAT. SEPTA Silverliner Vs also 125 capable. Guess Amtrak may have required that speed and so could not keep slower Heritage equipment on the NEC. Certainly would help us to see a copy of the new car contract.
Certainly would help us to see a copy of the new car contract.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.