daveklepper Just a technical note. If the electrification were extended to Richmond, replacing bridges and overpasses may prove far more expensive than modifying electric locomotives, new or existing, to have dc third rail capability and have the catenary interrupted at the tight spots for automatic switch to third rail operaton. If DC, the voltage probably can be 1000V, not 600, and there can be two third rails, one on each side of the track. That way, eventually freight power can also use the electrification and have enough current capacity for a decent sized train's locomotive power.
Just a technical note. If the electrification were extended to Richmond, replacing bridges and overpasses may prove far more expensive than modifying electric locomotives, new or existing, to have dc third rail capability and have the catenary interrupted at the tight spots for automatic switch to third rail operaton. If DC, the voltage probably can be 1000V, not 600, and there can be two third rails, one on each side of the track. That way, eventually freight power can also use the electrification and have enough current capacity for a decent sized train's locomotive power.
There are a host of problems. The first is tresspassers. When you lived in NYC you noticed the protective fences and other barriers to prevent contact with 3rd rails. MOW workers have much more handicaps to maintain the track and ROW due to third rail and extra long crossties vs an overhead CAT. Suspect that would be a no - no on CSX. Why get Ward more upset? Since the Class 1s standard clearance for CAT is 23'6" the overhead clearance problems with cranes and other high maintenance equipment is mitigated and you can easily isolate CAT if the fouling of CAT is possible.
The second problem is DC current EMF causing signals to malfunction requiring more robust and more frequent signal systems that would have to replace present signal systems. At a cost of ~ $500K - $1M per signal sets that is both an initial and continuing expense.
DC feeders need to be much larger to carry current even at 1000V and rails have to be grounded much better to prevent a trickle voltage to ground occurring. Also 1000 V requires additional protection per NEC code requirements vs 600 V.
Any grade crossing require additional protection to prevent collisions from shorting out the third rail and subsequent dangers.
A 25Kv AC overhead CAT only requires about 200 Amps to provide power to 4 locos ( motors ) in a consist. 200A means only about a feeder of 4-O size.
High return AC current thru the rails can be mitigated by using an opposite feeder on the CAT suppports that is 180 degrees out of phase (ie CAT is +25Kv and return -25Kv much like your home is wired. By use of a center tap auto transformer system to provide these feeders also mitigates any EMF from the CAT to just an oval about 2 ft around the CAT wires (makes Wi-Fi able to be used). Not using it causes an EMF interferrence oval from above CAT to and including the rails.
Finally is power stations. An auto transformer center tap system only requires access to the national power grid about every 40 miles with simple Auto transformer locations about every 10 miles from substations. These auto transformers are connected to the +25Kv and -25Kv feeders with rails connected to the center tap. These auto transformers allow the voltages to balance in a manner I do not fully understand. The above spacings allow for a ~ 99%+ continuation of service with the failure of an auto transformer or a main substation.
DC third rail requires a substation about every 2 - 4 miles to prevent too much voltage and current drop. The Milwaukee's 3000 V overhead had substations every 10 miles but limited use to 1 train between substations.? That allowed 2 substations to feed the train. The track required local street car/light rail type bonding of all joints.
I believe that the raising of clearances will be less costly than adding DC sections and making dual current locos. Raising clearances will be a one time cost where as each time a loco (motor) is bought the extra ~ $1M for each motor is a continuing expense. Someone familar with the WASH - Richmond line may have an idea of how many low clearances are involved?. The only one I know is Long Bridge over the Potomac river that is slated for replacement anyway so that bridge should not be considered. Granted road bridges over the CSX line may need raising but some are already considered substandard and are being replaced to the required clearances by VRE .
Sam1 Amtrak, by comparison, pays no taxes whatsoever.
Amtrak, by comparison, pays no taxes whatsoever.
Do you suppose that has anything to do with the fact that they are a government owned company?
I used to fly state government owned aircraft, and drove state government owned vehicles. We didn't pay fuel taxes, either.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
blue streak 1 Now comes a tax relief ( subsidize ) that was snuck in (last few session days) by the Georgia legislature for the the big business -- Delta airlines to tune of $300M + per year (will not have to pay state fuel taxes that all of us Georgians do) . Have not found out if just applies to Delta or all airlines. If just Delta I can forecast endless lawsuits.
Now comes a tax relief ( subsidize ) that was snuck in (last few session days) by the Georgia legislature for the the big business -- Delta airlines to tune of $300M + per year (will not have to pay state fuel taxes that all of us Georgians do) . Have not found out if just applies to Delta or all airlines. If just Delta I can forecast endless lawsuits.
The taxes apply to all commercial airlines. Although the federal tax on Jet A is 21.9 cents per gallon, it is only 4.4 cents per gallon for the commercial airlines.
Sam1 blue streak 1: Phoebe: Looks like the rail people in NC will have to deal with the GOP following their try to kill HrSR work.. It certainly appears that the GOP with a few exceptions wants to make all of the US automobile drivers. But that is not possible. My example is suppose my mother who cannot drive wants to go to Raleigh. Now she will not ask me to drive her there because she would think it too much trouble for me to drive a round trip twice.But she will let me take her to the train station, ride the train, and have the person she is to visit pick her up at the Raleigh station. Your could put her on Greyhound. It would not be as comfortable as the train. She might revel in the fact that she is traveling on a market based mode of commercial transport that was not owned and subsidized by the government. According to the article referenced, the cost to shave 13 minutes off the running time from Charlotte to Raleigh is approximately $41 million a minute. It certainly adds a new ring to the saying that time is money. Only a government agency would believe that it is money well spent, especially when the spender is facing an annual deficit of $1.6 trillion, which will increase the national debt to more than $15 trillion.
blue streak 1: Phoebe: Looks like the rail people in NC will have to deal with the GOP following their try to kill HrSR work.. It certainly appears that the GOP with a few exceptions wants to make all of the US automobile drivers. But that is not possible. My example is suppose my mother who cannot drive wants to go to Raleigh. Now she will not ask me to drive her there because she would think it too much trouble for me to drive a round trip twice.But she will let me take her to the train station, ride the train, and have the person she is to visit pick her up at the Raleigh station.
Phoebe: Looks like the rail people in NC will have to deal with the GOP following their try to kill HrSR work.. It certainly appears that the GOP with a few exceptions wants to make all of the US automobile drivers. But that is not possible.
My example is suppose my mother who cannot drive wants to go to Raleigh. Now she will not ask me to drive her there because she would think it too much trouble for me to drive a round trip twice.But she will let me take her to the train station, ride the train, and have the person she is to visit pick her up at the Raleigh station.
Your could put her on Greyhound. It would not be as comfortable as the train. She might revel in the fact that she is traveling on a market based mode of commercial transport that was not owned and subsidized by the government.
According to the article referenced, the cost to shave 13 minutes off the running time from Charlotte to Raleigh is approximately $41 million a minute. It certainly adds a new ring to the saying that time is money. Only a government agency would believe that it is money well spent, especially when the spender is facing an annual deficit of $1.6 trillion, which will increase the national debt to more than $15 trillion.
If FY2011 ridership of 154,180 for the Carolinian and Piedmont is projected out 25 years, that works out to roughly $138 per passenger since all passengers would not benefit from the improvement. This is meant as just a point of reference and does not include the third and potential future Amtrak trains and potential ridership growth, the cost of only speed-related betterments, a longer (infinite) service life, improvement to freight service that would reduce the cost per passenger, nor future worth.
Phoebe Vet RALEIGH: A Republican push to reject $461 million in federal railroad improvement grants for North Carolina appears to have collapsed. Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger said Saturday that he didn't think the project could be stopped. Berger's statement came a day after Sen. Bob Rucho, a Republican from Matthews, said GOP leaders have agreed they should accept the money. http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/04/10/2212729/gops-bid-to-reject-rail-funds.html
RALEIGH:
A Republican push to reject $461 million in federal railroad improvement grants for North Carolina appears to have collapsed.
Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger said Saturday that he didn't think the project could be stopped. Berger's statement came a day after Sen. Bob Rucho, a Republican from Matthews, said GOP leaders have agreed they should accept the money.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/04/10/2212729/gops-bid-to-reject-rail-funds.html
Hooray!
blue streak 1 Don't you and I like to dream???
Don't you and I like to dream???
Yes; but be practical and work with what you have. Will the next level produce benefits comparable to the extra cost? Sometimes ya gotta spend money to make money; but most of the time a little common sense goes a long way in achieving benefits more effectively.
HarveyK400 ...maybe some locos swapped in RVR ? That's what I would suggest for trains continuing south of Richmond-Staples Road (RVR). Except for Florida trains, I would prefer the alternative of a routing through Richmond-Main Street for the access to downtown Richmond despite the slowness. My idea is that loco swapping at RVR appears much easier than RVM (Richmnd Main ST). There is not any reason that thru trains could continue to stop at RVM when the SEHSR work RVM - Petersburg (PTB) is complete. Also electrification would still go to to RVM probably including enough CAT to turn on the wye just south of RVM. I can't see 220mph on new NEC alignments in my lifetime; but maybe with a 40-year service life anything is possible. I agree who knows what will happen?? High-speed lines or improvements are possibilities in Illinois and California which is why I would like to see non-electric locomotives and cars good for at least 150mph for the transition. For instance, Springfield-Lincoln (IL) and Normal-Pontiac might be grade separated for 150mph operation before either electrification or completion of grade separation along most of the Chicago-Saint Louis corridor 220mph high-speed service also may be routed through Champaign, IL. The revised fleet plan mentions higher speed locos. I did not find what speed diesel but I have only been able to skim the new fleet plan but speculate it may be 125 MPH?? Acela's would require only 4 sets for the extended corridor to Richmond, VA, leaving 16 sets to mull over. Does that include one spare? They always have 20% in for maintenance. Maybe double some rush hour Acelas out of Boston, New York, and Washington? Yes but until NYP is lenghtened cannot happen. Maybe couple a Hartford Acela to one from Boston and extend earlier Acela's currently originating in New York to begin at Hartford with electrification? Similarly from Providence? Will that take agreement from Conn for additional Amtrak trains? Also MNRR? Would Joe Biden get electrification and Acela's to Dover, DE? Would Northeast Regional's get Acela I's with reconfigured seating and Acela II's be the new premium service? I'd rather see tilting and 150 mph on Regional's than 110 mph single-level cars. Absolutely. Since not enough seats in Acela Is maybe a super couch class? Norfolk shares only the short distance to Petersburg, VA. Even with hourly electrified service from Norfolk, one or two NEC trains still may originate at Staples Road and locomotives changed for other trains from south of Petersburg. I could see a Cleveland train as well as the Pennsylvanian with tilting Acela I's to cut down the running time to New York and changing power at Harrisburg - overlooked that earlier. Maybe the Vermonter to Washington and Keystones to Harrisburg as well. Don't you and I like to dream???
...maybe some locos swapped in RVR ? That's what I would suggest for trains continuing south of Richmond-Staples Road (RVR). Except for Florida trains, I would prefer the alternative of a routing through Richmond-Main Street for the access to downtown Richmond despite the slowness. My idea is that loco swapping at RVR appears much easier than RVM (Richmnd Main ST). There is not any reason that thru trains could continue to stop at RVM when the SEHSR work RVM - Petersburg (PTB) is complete. Also electrification would still go to to RVM probably including enough CAT to turn on the wye just south of RVM. I can't see 220mph on new NEC alignments in my lifetime; but maybe with a 40-year service life anything is possible. I agree who knows what will happen?? High-speed lines or improvements are possibilities in Illinois and California which is why I would like to see non-electric locomotives and cars good for at least 150mph for the transition. For instance, Springfield-Lincoln (IL) and Normal-Pontiac might be grade separated for 150mph operation before either electrification or completion of grade separation along most of the Chicago-Saint Louis corridor 220mph high-speed service also may be routed through Champaign, IL. The revised fleet plan mentions higher speed locos. I did not find what speed diesel but I have only been able to skim the new fleet plan but speculate it may be 125 MPH?? Acela's would require only 4 sets for the extended corridor to Richmond, VA, leaving 16 sets to mull over. Does that include one spare? They always have 20% in for maintenance. Maybe double some rush hour Acelas out of Boston, New York, and Washington? Yes but until NYP is lenghtened cannot happen. Maybe couple a Hartford Acela to one from Boston and extend earlier Acela's currently originating in New York to begin at Hartford with electrification? Similarly from Providence? Will that take agreement from Conn for additional Amtrak trains? Also MNRR? Would Joe Biden get electrification and Acela's to Dover, DE? Would Northeast Regional's get Acela I's with reconfigured seating and Acela II's be the new premium service? I'd rather see tilting and 150 mph on Regional's than 110 mph single-level cars. Absolutely. Since not enough seats in Acela Is maybe a super couch class? Norfolk shares only the short distance to Petersburg, VA. Even with hourly electrified service from Norfolk, one or two NEC trains still may originate at Staples Road and locomotives changed for other trains from south of Petersburg. I could see a Cleveland train as well as the Pennsylvanian with tilting Acela I's to cut down the running time to New York and changing power at Harrisburg - overlooked that earlier. Maybe the Vermonter to Washington and Keystones to Harrisburg as well. Don't you and I like to dream???
Would Joe Biden get electrification and Acela's to Dover, DE? Would Northeast Regional's get Acela I's with reconfigured seating and Acela II's be the new premium service? I'd rather see tilting and 150 mph on Regional's than 110 mph single-level cars. Absolutely. Since not enough seats in Acela Is maybe a super couch class? Norfolk shares only the short distance to Petersburg, VA. Even with hourly electrified service from Norfolk, one or two NEC trains still may originate at Staples Road and locomotives changed for other trains from south of Petersburg. I could see a Cleveland train as well as the Pennsylvanian with tilting Acela I's to cut down the running time to New York and changing power at Harrisburg - overlooked that earlier. Maybe the Vermonter to Washington and Keystones to Harrisburg as well. Don't you and I like to dream???
I could see a Cleveland train as well as the Pennsylvanian with tilting Acela I's to cut down the running time to New York and changing power at Harrisburg - overlooked that earlier. Maybe the Vermonter to Washington and Keystones to Harrisburg as well.
blue streak 1 Harvey good synopsis. I will add a few comments. HarveyK400: ...maybe some locos swapped in RVR ? That's what I would suggest for trains continuing south of Richmond-Staples Road (RVR). Except for Florida trains, I would prefer the alternative of a routing through Richmond-Main Street for the access to downtown Richmond despite the slowness. For those who do not know Boardman came out sometime last year mentioning he desires WASH - Richmond (RVR) electrification...For your info AMTRAK just came out with a revised fleet plan dated Feb 2011 that mentions they now desire to start procuring 20 new Acela II sets of a different design capable of eventually going 220 MPH. These new 20 sets will be in addition to the 40 Acela cars to be added to the existing Acela sets although they may be compatible with the new Acela II sets?? I can't see 220mph on new NEC alignments in my lifetime; but maybe with a 40-year service life anything is possible. High-speed lines or improvements are possibilities in Illinois and California which is why I would like to see non-electric locomotives and cars good for at least 150mph for the transition. For instance, Springfield-Lincoln (IL) and Normal-Pontiac might be grade separated for 150mph operation before either electrification or completion of grade separation along most of the Chicago-Saint Louis corridor 220mph high-speed service also may be routed through Champaign, IL. Several options were listed for the new cars including once the old Acela sets are retired putting them into a separate train set. Also when present Acela sets are retired buying 20 additional Acela IIs. Could be if this electrification WASH - RVR is complete Acela Is could run on that route?? Acela's would require only 4 sets for the extended corridor to Richmond, VA, leaving 16 sets to mull over. Maybe double some rush hour Acelas out of Boston, New York, and Washington? Maybe couple a Hartford Acela to one from Boston and extend earlier Acela's currently originating in New York to begin at Hartford with electrification? Similarly from Providence? Would Joe Biden get electrification and Acela's to Dover, DE? Would Northeast Regional's get Acela I's with reconfigured seating and Acela II's be the new premium service? I'd rather see tilting and 150 mph on Regional's than 110 mph single-level cars. ...we must not forget Norfolk and the proposed NS route to Norfolk Pop ______ The WASH - NPN route is very well patronized now. Norfolk shares only the short distance to Petersburg, VA. Even with hourly electrified service from Norfolk, one or two NEC trains still may originate at Staples Road and locomotives changed for other trains from south of Petersburg. Another use for future retired Acela Is may be NYP - PHL - HAR - PIT?? with a change of seating setups? I could see a Cleveland train as well as the Pennsylvanian with tilting Acela I's to cut down the running time to New York and changing power at Harrisburg - overlooked that earlier. Maybe the Vermonter to Washington and Keystones to Harrisburg as well.
Harvey good synopsis. I will add a few comments.
HarveyK400: ...maybe some locos swapped in RVR ? That's what I would suggest for trains continuing south of Richmond-Staples Road (RVR). Except for Florida trains, I would prefer the alternative of a routing through Richmond-Main Street for the access to downtown Richmond despite the slowness. For those who do not know Boardman came out sometime last year mentioning he desires WASH - Richmond (RVR) electrification...For your info AMTRAK just came out with a revised fleet plan dated Feb 2011 that mentions they now desire to start procuring 20 new Acela II sets of a different design capable of eventually going 220 MPH. These new 20 sets will be in addition to the 40 Acela cars to be added to the existing Acela sets although they may be compatible with the new Acela II sets?? I can't see 220mph on new NEC alignments in my lifetime; but maybe with a 40-year service life anything is possible. High-speed lines or improvements are possibilities in Illinois and California which is why I would like to see non-electric locomotives and cars good for at least 150mph for the transition. For instance, Springfield-Lincoln (IL) and Normal-Pontiac might be grade separated for 150mph operation before either electrification or completion of grade separation along most of the Chicago-Saint Louis corridor 220mph high-speed service also may be routed through Champaign, IL. Several options were listed for the new cars including once the old Acela sets are retired putting them into a separate train set. Also when present Acela sets are retired buying 20 additional Acela IIs. Could be if this electrification WASH - RVR is complete Acela Is could run on that route?? Acela's would require only 4 sets for the extended corridor to Richmond, VA, leaving 16 sets to mull over. Maybe double some rush hour Acelas out of Boston, New York, and Washington? Maybe couple a Hartford Acela to one from Boston and extend earlier Acela's currently originating in New York to begin at Hartford with electrification? Similarly from Providence? Would Joe Biden get electrification and Acela's to Dover, DE? Would Northeast Regional's get Acela I's with reconfigured seating and Acela II's be the new premium service? I'd rather see tilting and 150 mph on Regional's than 110 mph single-level cars. ...we must not forget Norfolk and the proposed NS route to Norfolk Pop ______ The WASH - NPN route is very well patronized now. Norfolk shares only the short distance to Petersburg, VA. Even with hourly electrified service from Norfolk, one or two NEC trains still may originate at Staples Road and locomotives changed for other trains from south of Petersburg. Another use for future retired Acela Is may be NYP - PHL - HAR - PIT?? with a change of seating setups? I could see a Cleveland train as well as the Pennsylvanian with tilting Acela I's to cut down the running time to New York and changing power at Harrisburg - overlooked that earlier. Maybe the Vermonter to Washington and Keystones to Harrisburg as well.
...maybe some locos swapped in RVR ? That's what I would suggest for trains continuing south of Richmond-Staples Road (RVR). Except for Florida trains, I would prefer the alternative of a routing through Richmond-Main Street for the access to downtown Richmond despite the slowness.
For those who do not know Boardman came out sometime last year mentioning he desires WASH - Richmond (RVR) electrification...For your info AMTRAK just came out with a revised fleet plan dated Feb 2011 that mentions they now desire to start procuring 20 new Acela II sets of a different design capable of eventually going 220 MPH. These new 20 sets will be in addition to the 40 Acela cars to be added to the existing Acela sets although they may be compatible with the new Acela II sets?? I can't see 220mph on new NEC alignments in my lifetime; but maybe with a 40-year service life anything is possible.
High-speed lines or improvements are possibilities in Illinois and California which is why I would like to see non-electric locomotives and cars good for at least 150mph for the transition. For instance, Springfield-Lincoln (IL) and Normal-Pontiac might be grade separated for 150mph operation before either electrification or completion of grade separation along most of the Chicago-Saint Louis corridor 220mph high-speed service also may be routed through Champaign, IL.
Several options were listed for the new cars including once the old Acela sets are retired putting them into a separate train set. Also when present Acela sets are retired buying 20 additional Acela IIs. Could be if this electrification WASH - RVR is complete Acela Is could run on that route??
Another use for future retired Acela Is may be NYP - PHL - HAR - PIT?? with a change of seating setups?
HarveyK400 Richmond, VA would be a candidate now for electrification and extension of either Regional or Acela hourly service in addition to Southeast and Florida trains. Changing locomotives would be eliminated at WUS (maybe some locos swapped in RVR ?) although earlier trains would originate and later trains still would terminate there. For those who do not know Boardman came out sometime last year mentioning he desires WASH - Richmond (RVR) electrification. I am certin that when a proposal finally gets to CSX that they will want the full 23'6" CAT to rail clearances which will mean the replacement of the Long Bridge over the Potamac and any other truss bridges (?). Some Highway bridges may need raising as well. For your info AMTRAK just came out with a revised fleet plan dated Feb 2011 that mentions they now desire to start procuring 20 new Acela II sets of a different design capable of eventually going 220 MPH. These new 20 sets will be in addition to the 40 Acela cars to be added to the existing Acela sets although they may be compatible with the new Acela II sets?? Several options were listed for the new cars including once the old Acela sets are retired putting them into a separate train set. Also when present Acela sets are retired buying 20 additional Acela IIs. Could be if this electrification WASH - RVR is complete Acela Is could run on that route?? There just isn't enough other population between Richmond (1.2m Metro) ( we must not forget Norfolk and the proposed NS route to Norfolk Pop ______ The WASH - NPN route is very well patronized now) and Raleigh (1.1m MSA) for any kind of frequent corridor service; but additional WAS-RGH-ATL and BOS-WAS-RGH trains would seem practical, maybe even a RVR-RGH-ATL r/t. Amtrak takes 3:32 for 197 miles between Richmond and Raleigh, roughly the same time and distance as for Chicago-Springfield. The Silver Comet made it in 3:05 but tracks and everything else seems too costly for a handful of trains Even if Virginia and North Carolina rebuild the former Seaboard to 150mph and upgrade Washington-Richmond to 110mph, the trip still would take over 3 hours, (I believe the SEHSR proposal envisions a 1:45 timing including stops in Petersburg)(electrification will certainly have to wait). ; the accepted threshold, from Washington (Pop: 5.4m Metro) to Raleigh. I think upgrading the "A-Line" to 110mph without the necessity of significant curve reduction would benefit both Amtrak including the Palmetto and Florida trains and CSX. (Absolutely) (FWIW, UP mentioned a second main track on the Chicago-Saint Louis corridor would be built on 20' centers; but that doesn't seem to be the case for the Sunset route covered in another thread. That still might be a criteria for improvements on the A-Line.) Capacity out of Penn Station-New York precludes new direct NEC Regional rush hour services when they are needed most to and from Connecticut, Long Island, Delaware and New Jersey between Washington or beyond and Boston respectively. Another use for future retired Acela Is may be NYP - PHL - HAR - PIT?? with a change of seating setups?
Richmond, VA would be a candidate now for electrification and extension of either Regional or Acela hourly service in addition to Southeast and Florida trains. Changing locomotives would be eliminated at WUS (maybe some locos swapped in RVR ?) although earlier trains would originate and later trains still would terminate there.
For those who do not know Boardman came out sometime last year mentioning he desires WASH - Richmond (RVR) electrification. I am certin that when a proposal finally gets to CSX that they will want the full 23'6" CAT to rail clearances which will mean the replacement of the Long Bridge over the Potamac and any other truss bridges (?). Some Highway bridges may need raising as well. For your info AMTRAK just came out with a revised fleet plan dated Feb 2011 that mentions they now desire to start procuring 20 new Acela II sets of a different design capable of eventually going 220 MPH. These new 20 sets will be in addition to the 40 Acela cars to be added to the existing Acela sets although they may be compatible with the new Acela II sets??
(FWIW, UP mentioned a second main track on the Chicago-Saint Louis corridor would be built on 20' centers; but that doesn't seem to be the case for the Sunset route covered in another thread. That still might be a criteria for improvements on the A-Line.)
Capacity out of Penn Station-New York precludes new direct NEC Regional rush hour services when they are needed most to and from Connecticut, Long Island, Delaware and New Jersey between Washington or beyond and Boston respectively.
blue streak 1 Sam1: The Hiawatha services may have been threatened by political pressure, but as is often the case, the public loses interest in the political pressure. It is still running. And it is losing nearly $40 million per year before interest and depreciation. Sam1: You and I are evidently reading from different play books and reports. I rechecked the September 2010 FY performance reports for the Hiawatha and it said operating costs losses were $12.2 M and before capital costs losses were $13.8M. The 4 months of FY 2011 report showed fully allocated gains of $0.1M. Now I am wondering about the wide difference of Full FY 2010 and 4 Months of FY 2011. Also we have no idea of the equipment depreciation costs and maybe terminal depreciations which should increase totally allocated costs. Help me with my confusion??
Sam1: The Hiawatha services may have been threatened by political pressure, but as is often the case, the public loses interest in the political pressure. It is still running. And it is losing nearly $40 million per year before interest and depreciation.
The Hiawatha services may have been threatened by political pressure, but as is often the case, the public loses interest in the political pressure. It is still running. And it is losing nearly $40 million per year before interest and depreciation.
Sam1: You and I are evidently reading from different play books and reports. I rechecked the September 2010 FY performance reports for the Hiawatha and it said operating costs losses were $12.2 M and before capital costs losses were $13.8M. The 4 months of FY 2011 report showed fully allocated gains of $0.1M. Now I am wondering about the wide difference of Full FY 2010 and 4 Months of FY 2011. Also we have no idea of the equipment depreciation costs and maybe terminal depreciations which should increase totally allocated costs. Help me with my confusion??
You are correct. I misread the number. The loss in FY10 is $13.8 million.
Most analysts only pay attention to full year numbers. Accordingly, I would not pay much attention to the numbers for the first four months of FY11. Quarterly numbers can fluctuate wildly due to weather, seasonal economic conditions, etc.
As an accounting manager I had a tough time convincing many of our executives and managers to pay attention to the bigger picture, i.e. changes in quarterly numbers from year to year but more importantly numbers for a year. They had a tendency to jump on monthly and quarterly numbers.
Amtrak does not allocate interest and depreciation by train route. They claim that doing so would be unfair inasmuch as they have sold most of their equipment and leased it back. They claim that they are working on a realistic allocation model, but they have not been able to come up with one.
The primary purpose of a sale/leaseback is to gain a financial advantage for the lease holder, i.e. Amtrak. Why Amtrak's sale/leasebacks are not advantageous is not clear. It is possible that they did not cut a favorable deal.
Most of Amtrak's interest charges and depreciation are embedded in the NEC, i.e. equipment, infrastructure, stations, etc. I am guessing more than 75 per cent. Thus, the NEC trains wear a higher percentage of these charges than the trains that run on the hoist railroads outside of the NEC. Accordingly, whilst interest and depreciation increase total costs, for the trains outside of the NEC, the increase would be relatively small, I believe.
The depreciation associated with the Hiawatha's would be for the equipment, which Amtrak depreciates over 40 years. If the equipment is owned by Amtrak or leased to it, it is responsible for the allocation of the depreciation. If the equipment is owned by the states, they wear the depreciation and probably would pass it to Amtrak in their monthly operating bill.
The depreciation associated with the hoist railroad's plant, i.e. BNSF, CSX, CN, etc. allocable to Amtrak's operations would be included in the monthly billings to Amtrak. It does not give us sufficient information to know the amounts.
Sam 1,
This link should put you on the "Amtrak Ink" page. You can download with Adobe any current and past issues. Amtrak now has good leadership, this includes pride in what Amtrak does. Each issue is 20 pages long.
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=AM_Content_C&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1241245661307
Don U. TCA 73-5735
Richmond, VA would be a candidate now for electrification and extension of either Regional or Acela hourly service in addition to Southeast and Florida trains. Changing locomotives would be eliminated at WUS although earlier trains would originate and later trains still would terminate there.
There just isn't enough other population between Richmond (1.2m Metro) and Raleigh (1.1m MSA) for any kind of frequent corridor service; but additional WAS-RGH-ATL and BOS-WAS-RGH trains would seem practical, maybe even a RVR-RGH-ATL r/t. Amtrak takes 3:32 for 197 miles between Richmond and Raleigh, roughly the same time and distance as for Chicago-Springfield. The Silver Comet made it in 3:05; but tracks and everything else seems too costly for a handful of trains. Even if Virginia and North Carolina rebuild the former Seaboard to 150mph and upgrade Washington-Richmond to 110mph, the trip still would take over 3 hours, the accepted threshold, from Washington (Pop: 5.4m Metro) to Raleigh. I think upgrading the "A-Line" to 110mph without the necessity of significant curve reduction would benefit both Amtrak including the Palmetto and Florida trains and CSX.
Sam1 The Hiawatha services may have been threatened by political pressure, but as is often the case, the public loses interest in the political pressure. It is still running. And it is losing nearly $40 million per year before interest and depreciation.
HarveyK400 Sam1: Perhaps! The Capitol Corridor offers 32 trains per day, on average, between the Bay area and Sacramento or vice versa. In FY10 the service lost $16.1 million before interest and depreciation. The average load factor was 27.7 per cent. The Pacific Surfliner service has 26 trains per day between Los Angeles and San Diego. In FY10 the trains lost $30.9 million before interest and depreciation. The average load factor was 30.1 per cent. These trains carry considerably more than one per cent of the traffic between their end points, but it is small compared to the percentage of people who travel by auto. Moreover, the numbers don't suggest that a high percentage of intercity travelers would use a service if it offered a greater number of trains. If a private operator had an average load factor of 27.7 or 30.1 per cent, he or she would be looking for ways to increase demand or slash the service before the losses drove him or her out of business. Not something governments have to worry about! An investor owned company would look to similar markets to determine what the demand would likely be in a market that is not served with a similar service or is under served by the existing service. They would do a market study to determine if they could recoup their investment. Government, on the other hand, claims that the service is in the public interest, even though the users are not willing to pay for it, and offers it anyway. If it cannot cover the cost of the service out of the fare box, it fobs the cost off on the tax payers, claiming that everyone really wins in the end. The problem that I have with a government run railroad that is not likely to recoup its costs is it likely becomes in effect another entitlement. And once an entitlement is in place, lord help the politician who attempts to take it away. Governments do not operate in a vacuum. Costs are as important as public interest and can become political issues. CTA, Metra, and Pace have faced periods where fares were raised and services cut due to public pressure. A few years ago the Hiawatha service was threatened because costs were questioned with respect to the benefits received. I can't speak to the load factors and viability of the California services; but the Hiawatha service is seriously under-used except for #330 and #339 which are nearly full with some 400 passengers. The monthly pass costs just $8.14 per ride compared to the $22 1-way fare. Parking downtown costs around $30. With gas now around $4 a gallon and assuming 30mpg, that's another $22.93 a day but less that half the cost of going to a non-downtown destination when CTA or Metra fares are added in. What's wrong with this picture is that travel to work is being given away and the train is full while it is inordinately expensive for most other trip purposes and carries few people. The monthly pass easily could be raised, perhaps in steps, to $528; and a 10-ride could be $135. In conjunction with peak pricing, I have wondered if 1-way fares were lowered to around $15 for non-peak trains whether the ridership would increase to make up the revenue, carry more occasional passengers, and increase public support.
Sam1: Perhaps! The Capitol Corridor offers 32 trains per day, on average, between the Bay area and Sacramento or vice versa. In FY10 the service lost $16.1 million before interest and depreciation. The average load factor was 27.7 per cent. The Pacific Surfliner service has 26 trains per day between Los Angeles and San Diego. In FY10 the trains lost $30.9 million before interest and depreciation. The average load factor was 30.1 per cent. These trains carry considerably more than one per cent of the traffic between their end points, but it is small compared to the percentage of people who travel by auto. Moreover, the numbers don't suggest that a high percentage of intercity travelers would use a service if it offered a greater number of trains. If a private operator had an average load factor of 27.7 or 30.1 per cent, he or she would be looking for ways to increase demand or slash the service before the losses drove him or her out of business. Not something governments have to worry about! An investor owned company would look to similar markets to determine what the demand would likely be in a market that is not served with a similar service or is under served by the existing service. They would do a market study to determine if they could recoup their investment. Government, on the other hand, claims that the service is in the public interest, even though the users are not willing to pay for it, and offers it anyway. If it cannot cover the cost of the service out of the fare box, it fobs the cost off on the tax payers, claiming that everyone really wins in the end. The problem that I have with a government run railroad that is not likely to recoup its costs is it likely becomes in effect another entitlement. And once an entitlement is in place, lord help the politician who attempts to take it away.
Perhaps!
The Capitol Corridor offers 32 trains per day, on average, between the Bay area and Sacramento or vice versa. In FY10 the service lost $16.1 million before interest and depreciation. The average load factor was 27.7 per cent.
The Pacific Surfliner service has 26 trains per day between Los Angeles and San Diego. In FY10 the trains lost $30.9 million before interest and depreciation. The average load factor was 30.1 per cent.
These trains carry considerably more than one per cent of the traffic between their end points, but it is small compared to the percentage of people who travel by auto. Moreover, the numbers don't suggest that a high percentage of intercity travelers would use a service if it offered a greater number of trains. If a private operator had an average load factor of 27.7 or 30.1 per cent, he or she would be looking for ways to increase demand or slash the service before the losses drove him or her out of business. Not something governments have to worry about!
An investor owned company would look to similar markets to determine what the demand would likely be in a market that is not served with a similar service or is under served by the existing service. They would do a market study to determine if they could recoup their investment. Government, on the other hand, claims that the service is in the public interest, even though the users are not willing to pay for it, and offers it anyway. If it cannot cover the cost of the service out of the fare box, it fobs the cost off on the tax payers, claiming that everyone really wins in the end.
The problem that I have with a government run railroad that is not likely to recoup its costs is it likely becomes in effect another entitlement. And once an entitlement is in place, lord help the politician who attempts to take it away.
Governments do not operate in a vacuum. Costs are as important as public interest and can become political issues. CTA, Metra, and Pace have faced periods where fares were raised and services cut due to public pressure. A few years ago the Hiawatha service was threatened because costs were questioned with respect to the benefits received.
I can't speak to the load factors and viability of the California services; but the Hiawatha service is seriously under-used except for #330 and #339 which are nearly full with some 400 passengers. The monthly pass costs just $8.14 per ride compared to the $22 1-way fare. Parking downtown costs around $30. With gas now around $4 a gallon and assuming 30mpg, that's another $22.93 a day but less that half the cost of going to a non-downtown destination when CTA or Metra fares are added in. What's wrong with this picture is that travel to work is being given away and the train is full while it is inordinately expensive for most other trip purposes and carries few people. The monthly pass easily could be raised, perhaps in steps, to $528; and a 10-ride could be $135. In conjunction with peak pricing, I have wondered if 1-way fares were lowered to around $15 for non-peak trains whether the ridership would increase to make up the revenue, carry more occasional passengers, and increase public support.
Governments are not oblivious when it comes to costs. But they don't have competitive pressures to do things better, faster, cheaper. If they are inefficient, their first response is to attempt to pass their wasteful practices onto the backs of the tax payers. On the other hand, a competitive business must find a way to increase revenues, reduce costs, or a combination thereof. Or go out of business!
The Hiawatha services may have been threatened by political pressure, but as is often the case, the public loses interest in the political pressure. It is still running. And it is losing nearly $40 million per year before interest and depreciation. There are not many competitive businesses that would continue to lose $40 million on a product or service line year after year. They would find a way to make it profitable or at least breakeven or junk it.
Many government services are in the public interest. National defense, education, healthcare, housing, police and fire protection, garbage collection etc. are amongst these. So too is public transit, although I believe the Melbourne, Australia model that I described would be a better way to go. But to argue that intercity passenger rail is in the public interest is a bit of a stretch, especially given the fact that its competitors (air, bus, etc.) pay their own way.
DMUinCT The Northeast Corridor: As published in Amtrak's January issue of "Amtrak Ink", in 2010 the Acela and Regional service in the Northeast Corridor had 52% of Passenger travel between Boston and New York against 48% for Air Travel. Between New York and Washington DC Amtrak achieved 69% of the Passenger traffic. Acela accounts for 1/4 of Amtrak's ticket-sale income, $440 million in Fiscal Year 2010. Northeast Regional Trains are Amfleet Cars pulled by HHP-8 or a pair of AMC-7 locomotivesand run about every 2 or 3 hours on the Boston to Washington corridor. Some of the Regionals change to diesel in Washington and continue on to Richmond and south. How far south would you want to extend this service, and if not now, it will come in future years as "The Corridor" extends both south and north. Interesting fact, Bombardier of Montreal became the prime contractor for the 20 Acela Train Sets (120 cars and 40 locomotives). They were subject to the "Buy American" clause. Bombardier opened a factory in Barre Vermont to assemble the trains and ship them to Colorado for testing. When the contract was complete, they closed the factory. Where will they build U.S. trains next time?
The Northeast Corridor:
As published in Amtrak's January issue of "Amtrak Ink", in 2010 the Acela and Regional service in the Northeast Corridor had 52% of Passenger travel between Boston and New York against 48% for Air Travel. Between New York and Washington DC Amtrak achieved 69% of the Passenger traffic. Acela accounts for 1/4 of Amtrak's ticket-sale income, $440 million in Fiscal Year 2010.
Northeast Regional Trains are Amfleet Cars pulled by HHP-8 or a pair of AMC-7 locomotivesand run about every 2 or 3 hours on the Boston to Washington corridor. Some of the Regionals change to diesel in Washington and continue on to Richmond and south. How far south would you want to extend this service, and if not now, it will come in future years as "The Corridor" extends both south and north.
Interesting fact, Bombardier of Montreal became the prime contractor for the 20 Acela Train Sets (120 cars and 40 locomotives). They were subject to the "Buy American" clause. Bombardier opened a factory in Barre Vermont to assemble the trains and ship them to Colorado for testing. When the contract was complete, they closed the factory. Where will they build U.S. trains next time?
The January 2011 issue of Amtrak Ink is not available on the webpage, but the fact that Amtrak carries more passengers in the NEC than the airlines is a well established fact. But the larger question is what percentage of total travelers in the NEC choose the train. I suspect that most people traveling in the NEC choose their car, probably the majority, whilst a large number, according to a study by the Cato Institute, choose the bus. As you may know, Bolt bus, which is a private enterprise operation, is doing very well in the NEC, especially between Philadelphia and New York.
I have ridden the Acela on several occasions, usually from Philadelphia to New York. I love it. In fact, I will be going to New York in May. To get there I will fly to BWI and take the Acela to New York. It is a wonderful excuse for a train ride.
Although Amtrak says that it grabs 68 per cent of the train/air travelers between New York and Washington, my experience suggests that the number is front-end or back-end loaded, depending on the direction of the train. The load factor on the trains between New York and Philadelphia is much higher than the load factors south of 30th Street. If this is true for the NEC as a whole, it means that Amtrak has 68 per of the passengers in the NEC between New York and Washington, but not 68 per cent of the air/train passengers between New York and Washington.
The NEC is the one corridor in the U.S. that Amtrak probably could operate without government subsidies. It would need to change its pricing model somewhat, as well as get a better handle on its costs, probably through better management of its labor costs and its overheads.
Sam1 Perhaps! The Capitol Corridor offers 32 trains per day, on average, between the Bay area and Sacramento or vice versa. In FY10 the service lost $16.1 million before interest and depreciation. The average load factor was 27.7 per cent. The Pacific Surfliner service has 26 trains per day between Los Angeles and San Diego. In FY10 the trains lost $30.9 million before interest and depreciation. The average load factor was 30.1 per cent. These trains carry considerably more than one per cent of the traffic between their end points, but it is small compared to the percentage of people who travel by auto. Moreover, the numbers don't suggest that a high percentage of intercity travelers would use a service if it offered a greater number of trains. If a private operator had an average load factor of 27.7 or 30.1 per cent, he or she would be looking for ways to increase demand or slash the service before the losses drove him or her out of business. Not something governments have to worry about! An investor owned company would look to similar markets to determine what the demand would likely be in a market that is not served with a similar service or is under served by the existing service. They would do a market study to determine if they could recoup their investment. Government, on the other hand, claims that the service is in the public interest, even though the users are not willing to pay for it, and offers it anyway. If it cannot cover the cost of the service out of the fare box, it fobs the cost off on the tax payers, claiming that everyone really wins in the end. The problem that I have with a government run railroad that is not likely to recoup its costs is it likely becomes in effect another entitlement. And once an entitlement is in place, lord help the politician who attempts to take it away.
Actually equipment does make a difference for allowable speed through curves. While Talgos are designed for 8 degrees of tilt, under-cant, the F-59 is limited to 7 inches, close to 7 degrees, probably by a combination of its high center of gravity and suspension - reports were sketchy.
Another aspect is the tolerances for surface and line by class of track.
Freight cars and loads also determine how much cant can be tolerated. One hazard with high cant is a bow-string derailment.
I wonder if North Carolina chose to refurbish equipment less expensively in the long run rather than to lease it from Amtrak as part of the service agreement?
blue streak 1 I do not want to put words into Harvey's mouth but his query seemed to ask if a loco(s) could be attached to the front Acela power car and towed over the SEHSR route. That would not be the most fuel efficient item but would give single seat service BOS - CLT. There are not many grades on the Wash - CLT route that I know of so fuel would not be a big item? I do know that Virgin in the UK tows with diesels their electric HSR sets. This of course is dependent on AMTRAK ordering and receiving an Acela replacement in the future for the NEC. Might give additional service life to the present Acela equipment? The additional Acela cars will last for a long time.
I do not want to put words into Harvey's mouth but his query seemed to ask if a loco(s) could be attached to the front Acela power car and towed over the SEHSR route. That would not be the most fuel efficient item but would give single seat service BOS - CLT. There are not many grades on the Wash - CLT route that I know of so fuel would not be a big item? I do know that Virgin in the UK tows with diesels their electric HSR sets. This of course is dependent on AMTRAK ordering and receiving an Acela replacement in the future for the NEC. Might give additional service life to the present Acela equipment? The additional Acela cars will last for a long time.
I do not want to put words into Harvey's mouth but his query seemed to ask if a loco(s) could be attached to the front Acela power car and towed over the SEHSR route. That would not be the most fuel efficient item but would give single seat service BOS - CLT. There are not many grades on the Wash - CLT route that I know of so fuel would not be a big item? I do know that Virgin in the UK tows with diesels their electric HSR sets.
This of course is dependent on AMTRAK ordering and receiving an Acela replacement in the future for the NEC. Might give additional service life to the present Acela equipment? The additional Acela cars will last for a long time.
I was proposing switching out one electric and leaving the other for push-pull control south of Washington. I suppose a diesel or turbine could be coupled to the Acela; but that needs control and HEP cables and would haul that much more dead weight and lost utilization.
Amtrak is considering, I don't know the exact status, additional cars for 8-car Acela consists. New Acela locomotives are not anticipated in the immediate future; but I would think that these might replace the planned HHP replacements with modifications.
I can't find the post; but the writer was correct in one respect that trains can't go any faster whether or not they have tilting. The limit is imposed as a matter of comfort and safety of passenger and crew movement in the train where tilting makes a significant difference. I had a taste of higher speeds without tilting on the pre-TGV era "Lyonnaise" running at 140kph where other passenger trains were limited to 120kph.
Sam1 ! The Capitol Corridor offers 32 trains per day, on average, between the Bay area and Sacramento or vice versa. In FY10 the service lost $16.1 million before interest and depreciation. The average load factor was 27.7 per cent. The Pacific Surfliner service has 26 trains per day between Los Angeles and San Diego. In FY10 the trains lost $30.9 million before interest and depreciation. The average load factor was 30.1 per cent.
!
Sam where do you find these load factors? Amtrak's web site does not provide them but only the over all system load factors that are around 50%.?
Also on multiple stop routes the peak load factor usually is more important. Amtrak does publish some of those figures. Usually the end points of any route will have less loads except when trains can fill up with commuters to an end point. That is happening on trains to/from WASH as VRE and MARC cannot haul all the commuter riders.
Phoebe Vet Sam: Only one percent of Americans travel intercity by rail because there are very few trains on which they can travel. You can't cite numbers that show that no one uses a service that doesn't exist as evidence that there is no market for that service. What percentage of Americans live within 20 miles of an Amtrak station? Even if they do, does the train actually go to their intended destination?
Sam:
Only one percent of Americans travel intercity by rail because there are very few trains on which they can travel.
You can't cite numbers that show that no one uses a service that doesn't exist as evidence that there is no market for that service.
What percentage of Americans live within 20 miles of an Amtrak station? Even if they do, does the train actually go to their intended destination?
Talgo makes a high speed power car for its Talgo 250 (called the Talgo 250H, or Spanish RENFE's class S130H), that can pull its articulated tilting trainset at over 110 mph on its diesel power, and over 155 mph under catenary.
http://www.talgoamerica.com/pdf/Talgo_250_hybrid.pdf (look at page 3).
DMUinCT"]
Item 1. Four buffers? Maybe a steadier to prevent "rocking" or aid in the train "tilting" as a smooth unit?Can someone clear this up? Item 2. Two Electrical boxes, one above the other, on each side. in your photo only the boxes on the left are connected. I do know each car has battery backup to run heating, cooling, and lights for an extended time in case of catenary power failure. Amtrak wrote the Spec. for the trains so I might expect it would be a standard HEP Voltage but don't know for sure. Item 3. Which MU Cabels go where? Don't know! Both locomotives are operated and monitored from which ever locomotive leads. Both Pantographs are raised and lowered for "Phase Breaks",Doors, Wheel Bearing Temperature, and Air Bag Suspension on the cars are all monitored from the cab Items 4. - 5. - 6. Once the cars and locomotives are coupled they are designed to stay together. Routine service is performed as a complete train in a special building. Yes the front of the "Power Car" (Locomotive) has an impact resistance absorber, an anti-climber, and a standard coupler installed. On the front of the Locomotive you will see a slot low down on each side of the nose. You push this in and you can then un-latch the fiberglass hood which will swing up to reveal a coupler for Rescue Towing. (You can see it better on the left hand engine) It has been used too offend, and not just for Catenary Power failure. It has hit a deer at speed south of Boston, an automobile heading out of New London CT. and a few "Trespassers" (pedestrians). Item 7. Four Disk Break Rotors on each axel. Every thing is backed up. I do not want to put words into Harvey's mouth but his query seemed to ask if a loco(s) could be attached to the front Acela power car and towed over the SEHSR route. That would not be the most fuel efficient item but would give single seat service BOS - CLT. There are not many grades on the Wash - CLT route that I know of so fuel would not be a big item? I do know that Virgin in the UK tows with diesels their electric HSR sets. This of course is dependent on AMTRAK ordering and receiving an Acela replacement in the future for the NEC. Might give additional service life to the present Acela equipment? The additional Acela cars will last for a long time.
Item 1. Four buffers? Maybe a steadier to prevent "rocking" or aid in the train "tilting" as a smooth unit?Can someone clear this up?
Item 2. Two Electrical boxes, one above the other, on each side. in your photo only the boxes on the left are connected. I do know each car has battery backup to run heating, cooling, and lights for an extended time in case of catenary power failure. Amtrak wrote the Spec. for the trains so I might expect it would be a standard HEP Voltage but don't know for sure.
Item 3. Which MU Cabels go where? Don't know! Both locomotives are operated and monitored from which ever locomotive leads. Both Pantographs are raised and lowered for "Phase Breaks",Doors, Wheel Bearing Temperature, and Air Bag Suspension on the cars are all monitored from the cab
Items 4. - 5. - 6. Once the cars and locomotives are coupled they are designed to stay together. Routine service is performed as a complete train in a special building. Yes the front of the "Power Car" (Locomotive) has an impact resistance absorber, an anti-climber, and a standard coupler installed. On the front of the Locomotive you will see a slot low down on each side of the nose. You push this in and you can then un-latch the fiberglass hood which will swing up to reveal a coupler for Rescue Towing. (You can see it better on the left hand engine) It has been used too offend, and not just for Catenary Power failure. It has hit a deer at speed south of Boston, an automobile heading out of New London CT. and a few "Trespassers" (pedestrians).
Item 7. Four Disk Break Rotors on each axel. Every thing is backed up.
blue streak 1 Phoebe Vet: It is my understanding that Acela does not have drawbars but a semi permanent coupler, mounted inside the diaphragm. Here is picture of 10003 and the non standard height couplers. When the Crescent or Carolinian enter the NEC they have a half hour layover in DC while they change the engines. Phoebee: Several observations but please corre if wrong. 1 The four almost rectangular pads in the 4 corners appear to be European style buffers? 2. The 2 outside electrical boxes appear to be the standard 480 v HEP system used on other AMTRAK equippment? 3. Cannot discern the MU cable connection? 4. Coupler definitely does not appear to be the US standard coupler more like a EMU coupler? 5. Are the couplers on the front of each power car standard couplers and height so to allow a loco or motor to rescue failed ACELA? I understand that the nose cone of the power car can hinge up to allow 2 ACELAS to be coupled together? 6. If Standard couplers is there HEP connections in the nose? 7. Appears to be standard 2 hose brake & air line connections?
Phoebe Vet: It is my understanding that Acela does not have drawbars but a semi permanent coupler, mounted inside the diaphragm. Here is picture of 10003 and the non standard height couplers. When the Crescent or Carolinian enter the NEC they have a half hour layover in DC while they change the engines.
It is my understanding that Acela does not have drawbars but a semi permanent coupler, mounted inside the diaphragm. Here is picture of 10003 and the non standard height couplers.
When the Crescent or Carolinian enter the NEC they have a half hour layover in DC while they change the engines.
Phoebee: Several observations but please corre if wrong.
1 The four almost rectangular pads in the 4 corners appear to be European style buffers?
2. The 2 outside electrical boxes appear to be the standard 480 v HEP system used on other AMTRAK equippment?
3. Cannot discern the MU cable connection?
4. Coupler definitely does not appear to be the US standard coupler more like a EMU coupler?
5. Are the couplers on the front of each power car standard couplers and height so to allow a loco or motor to rescue failed ACELA? I understand that the nose cone of the power car can hinge up to allow 2 ACELAS to be coupled together?
6. If Standard couplers is there HEP connections in the nose?
7. Appears to be standard 2 hose brake & air line connections?
Thanks for the photo; it explains a lot.
A non-electric locomotive then would need to have the same configuration and coupler for through service with modified Acela cars from New York or Washington to Carolina or elsewhere (eg., Savannah, Montreal?). While just changing the locomotive on one end would leave the other to serve as a NPCU in non-electrified territory, this does limit utilization of costly equipment that can be mitigated with a mirrored schedule.
4,000hp would be adequate for a 90mph 8-car & NPCU train (400+ seats) beyond the NEC. Northeast Regional service could be upgraded as well, only serving more intermediate stops. Only one type of locomotive and cars would be necessary. Two locomotives might be run back-to-back for long-distance trains for coupling compatibility.
Changing locomotives and passenger alighting and boarding should take only 10-15 minutes. I can see the complexity of uncoupling and moving far enough to disconnect HEP and control cables and air hoses and reversing the procedure after switching locomotives.
The long layover in Washington may be to ensure the schedule on the NEC. This has got to affect capacity and utilization on Washington Union Station's lower level. This seems to be a bottleneck for VRE as well.
(A question: did the Bombardier gas turbine tour with Acela cars or did it have a coupler for other Amtrak equipment?)
What is 4-abreast seating if not coach other than for a premium schedule? Elsewhere 3-abreast seating is business class. Acela has coaches; they just aren't called that.
Seems to me traps could be added to Acelas.
If tilting is locked out, how is it switched back for Acela to realize 125mph for the many curves on the ex-Pennsy while conventional trains are allowed 100mph? If speed just is kept within the allowed, cars won't tilt beyond the clearance on the ex-New Haven.
Can't say for shure as I have not viewed a car uncoupled, but;
Note the monitoring of the wheels and Air Bags in the photo of the Car Truck.
Bluestreak:
Yes, there is a standard coupler concealed in the nose of each power car.
I suppose that if you are just speculating about what could be done if price is no object, a hybrid engine that could run under the cats when they are available and on a turbine or diesel when cats are not available could be built. Or perhaps the Bombardier Jet train on one end and the standard Acela engine on the other would work.
But that is pie in the sky. NCDOT does not have the budget to buy new equipment, much less state of the art tilting equipment. I could be wrong, but it is my understanding that tilting does not increase the speed the train can run, but rather is for passenger comfort in sharper turns. I believe that the track itself determines top speed. Leaning into the turn does not reduce the load on the outside rail.
I have no idea what Amtrak has in mind for equipment on the SEHSR corridor but I know that they have no plans to electrify it in the near term.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.