The inspector general of AMTRAK (OIG) issued a report stating that the costs for the additional 40 ACELA cars were excessive. It was recommened that AMTRAK negoitiate for lower prices but the OIG report states AMTRAK has decided not to pursue additional ACELA-1 cars.
http://www.amtrakoig.gov/sites/default/files/reports/final_12-4____report_summary_acela_purchase.pdf
although I would like to see longer ACELAs pursuing new ACELA-2s might be a much better optionl several options can occurr from this development.
1. Order a new generation of ACELA approximately 40 sets ( originally 24 ? were to be ordered but )with maybe even more cars maybe 10 - 12 (?)/.
2. convert ACELA-1s to longer trains
3. use -1s for Harrisburg and Springfield ? service.
4. one has to wonder if the 165 MPH tests had something to do with this decision ?
5. does anyone know if construction is continuing on the longer ACELA servicing buildings ?
Streak,
I'm surprised at this. Based on what I've read I thought the new Acela cars were a done deal. They are certainly needed. But the report is the report at best they will now be delayed.
John
blue streak 1 The inspector general of AMTRAK (OIG) issued a report stating that the costs for the additional 40 ACELA cars were excessive. It was recommened that AMTRAK negoitiate for lower prices but the OIG report states AMTRAK has decided not to pursue additional ACELA-1 cars. http://www.amtrakoig.gov/sites/default/files/reports/final_12-4____report_summary_acela_purchase.pdf although I would like to see longer ACELAs pursuing new ACELA-2s might be a much better optionl several options can occurr from this development. 1. Order a new generation of ACELA approximately 40 sets ( originally 24 ? were to be ordered but )with maybe even more cars maybe 10 - 12 (?)/. 2. convert ACELA-1s to longer trains 3. use -1s for Harrisburg and Springfield ? service. 4. one has to wonder if the 165 MPH tests had something to do with this decision ? 5. does anyone know if construction is continuing on the longer ACELA servicing buildings ?
I like option #2. Drop a loco from each set and couple them back to back. Could still use existing service facility.
Use them for "middle class" NY-DC trains.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
It may be that the 165 MPH test had some unexpected results.
What i would like to see is another HSR competition from the various builders of HSR equipment. Put the various builders ( how many 5 or less ? ) equipment to a test on the NEC. That way an even handed comparsion can be made under NEC operating conditions not european japan or china conditions. The test probably would be best done once the constant tension CAT is installed over the section used for the 165 MPH test ?
blue streak 1That way an even handed comparsion can be made under NEC operating conditions not european japan or china conditions. The test probably would be best done once the constant tension CAT is installed over the section used for the 165 MPH test ?
True. One question remains, however. can we build RoW similar to that of europe or japan?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm blue streak 1That way an even handed comparsion can be made under NEC operating conditions not european japan or china conditions. The test probably would be best done once the constant tension CAT is installed over the section used for the 165 MPH test ? True. One question remains, however. can we build RoW similar to that of europe or japan?
No matter if we can or cannot - the RoW we have is what they would run on here, and the one on which testing must be judged.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
blue streak 1 It may be that the 165 MPH test had some unexpected results. What i would like to see is another HSR competition from the various builders of HSR equipment. Put the various builders ( how many 5 or less ? ) equipment to a test on the NEC. That way an even handed comparsion can be made under NEC operating conditions not european japan or china conditions. The test probably would be best done once the constant tension CAT is installed over the section used for the 165 MPH test ?
Ooooooohhhhhhh nooooooooooo!
Seriously, what is out there that 1) would meet the FRA crush force standards and 2) offers some manner of improvement?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
BaltACD schlimm blue streak 1That way an even handed comparsion can be made under NEC operating conditions not european japan or china conditions. The test probably would be best done once the constant tension CAT is installed over the section used for the 165 MPH test ? True. One question remains, however. can we build RoW similar to that of europe or japan? No matter if we can or cannot - the RoW we have is what they would run on here, and the one on which testing must be judged.
It is not the right-of-way as such -- it is the FRA standards.
The other thing, why the big push for 165 MPH, apart from bragging rights, when there are so many speed restrictions owing to station egress, tunnels, etc? You will never get much return for running at 165 if you are slowed down in so many other places.
Paul Milenkovic blue streak 1 It may be that the 165 MPH test had some unexpected results. What i would like to see is another HSR competition from the various builders of HSR equipment. Put the various builders ( how many 5 or less ? ) equipment to a test on the NEC. That way an even handed comparsion can be made under NEC operating conditions not european japan or china conditions. The test probably would be best done once the constant tension CAT is installed over the section used for the 165 MPH test ? Ooooooohhhhhhh nooooooooooo! Seriously, what is out there that 1) would meet the FRA crush force standards and 2) offers some manner of improvement?
That is one reason for a proposed test. can the builders take an off the shelf train set and adapt it for AMTRAK running. I am sure that a repeat of the early metroliner tests with FRA exemptions can be arranged.
Paul Milenkovic The other thing, why the big push for 165 MPH,
The other thing, why the big push for 165 MPH,
If the Calif HSR Authority has any sense, getting some experience with 165 MPH running would be good practice for the planned (fantasized?) 220 MPH running.
- Erik
Paul Milenkovic t is not the right-of-way as such -- it is the FRA standards. The other thing, why the big push for 165 MPH, apart from bragging rights, when there are so many speed restrictions owing to station egress, tunnels, etc? You will never get much return for running at 165 if you are slowed down in so many other places.
t is not the right-of-way as such -- it is the FRA standards.
Amtrak is following a plan to fix the track and to my surprise the Feds are taking it seriously for once. they outlined the plan in a nice document available somewhere on the Amtrak website. They are going to largely chuck the Boston-New York coastal aliignment,for one further inland to support 220 mph speeds. South of New York the slowing for stations is not much of an issue with a inner track, IMO as you can skip past some stations for express service. There is no rule that says trains HAVE to stop at city stations befween New York and Washington DC for example. Amtrak can bypass or build a HSR bypass around those terminals. The Germans have done it, no reason why we cannot. It's only a question of money and how much the Feds are willing to spend.
Also in my view 220 mph running on the East Coast is a mobility = Economics issue more than it is a bragging rights issue. Traveling at less than half that speed has a impact on GDP along the entire corridor. The faster and more efficient you can move people the more mobile they will be and the more economic activity they will generate. Thats really how our government should view infrastructure investments. We should take the approach, does the money spent on the project have a GDP increase or ROI return that will cover the capital costs over a respectable timeline.
blue streak 1 Paul Milenkovic blue streak 1 It may be that the 165 MPH test had some unexpected results. What i would like to see is another HSR competition from the various builders of HSR equipment. Put the various builders ( how many 5 or less ? ) equipment to a test on the NEC. That way an even handed comparsion can be made under NEC operating conditions not european japan or china conditions. The test probably would be best done once the constant tension CAT is installed over the section used for the 165 MPH test ? Ooooooohhhhhhh nooooooooooo! Seriously, what is out there that 1) would meet the FRA crush force standards and 2) offers some manner of improvement? That is one reason for a proposed test. can the builders take an off the shelf train set and adapt it for AMTRAK running. I am sure that a repeat of the early metroliner tests with FRA exemptions can be arranged.
Paul MilenkovicThe other thing, why the big push for 165 MPH, apart from bragging rights, when there are so many speed restrictions owing to station egress, tunnels, etc? You will never get much return for running at 165 if you are slowed down in so many other places.
I would guess that going from 125/135 to 165 might make a difference. There are some really decent stretches where you could run off measurable minutes - if the trainset wasn't too much of a pig.
You might find cheaper minutes in curve easing, though.
CMStPnP There is no rule that says trains HAVE to stop at city stations befween New York and Washington DC for example. Amtrak can bypass or build a HSR bypass around those terminals. The Germans have done it, no reason why we cannot.
Wut?
Where? The new high speed segments in Germany are all rural and use existing track to existing major terminals in every case. There is no city the size of Philadelphia or even Baltimore that has been by-passed.
What we CAN'T do that they do is mix light weight, high speed trainsets on the same track with our commuter (and other) trains.
blue streak 1OIG report states AMTRAK has decided not to pursue additional ACELA-1 cars.
All I can think of is that they blew their money on baggage cars...
oltmannd All I can think of is that they blew their money on baggage cars...
Maybe, but where are they. The old heritage baggage cars are still running everywhere.
Matt from Anaheim, CA and Bayfield, COClick Here for my model train photo website
oltmannd I would guess that going from 125/135 to 165 might make a difference. There are some really decent stretches where you could run off measurable minutes - if the trainset wasn't too much of a pig. You might find cheaper minutes in curve easing, though.
oltmannd blue streak 1OIG report states AMTRAK has decided not to pursue additional ACELA-1 cars. All I can think of is that they blew their money on baggage cars...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.