http://www.phillymag.com/news/2017/10/06/amtrak-new-trains/
The next gen trains will still be called Acela.
Not too bad! Glad the lines flow with the train's length and aren't splotches and diagonals...
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Just wish it didn’t look so much like a demon Donald Duck with 5 o’clock shadow.
Heh heh...good one Overmod. You are right!
New Acela's already? Why can't they make 'em last as long as a GG1?
Something's wrong here, especially with all we know now.
And you know something, it DOES look like a demon Donald Duck with a five o'clock shadow!
Where's Capitaine Raymond Lowey now that we need him?
Overmod Just wish it didn’t look so much like a demon Donald Duck with 5 o’clock shadow.
Thanks for that! Now I can't unsee it!
Firelock76New Acela's already? Why can't they make 'em last as long as a GG1?
New ones are lighter weight and higher capacity and paid for with net revenue from existing Acela service.
The shame is that the existing Acela coaches can't be downgrade and kept for regional service.
oltmannd The shame is that the existing Acela coaches can't be downgrade and kept for regional service.
oltmannd New ones are lighter weight and higher capacity and paid for with net revenue from existing Acela service.
Amtrak says the new Acela train sets, which are scheduled to enter service in 2021, will have 1/3rd more seats than the existing equipment, will offer better amenities, and will be capable of speeds of 160 mph where the infastructure will allow it.
Amtrak says that the new fleet will be funded with a $2 billion loan from the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) Program. The debt will be service by NEC operating profits; Amtrak did not say that it would be covered solely by Acela operating profits.
In 2016 Acela operations accounted for 60.1 percent of NEC operating profits. Presumably some if not all of the operating profits generated by the regional trains will go to service the debt associated with the new Acela train sets.
Amtrak is currently the second largest RRIF debitor. Anticipated borrowing to cover the new Acela equipment, as well as other NEC infrastructure improvements, will boost its total borrowings to more than $3 billion, making it the largest beneficiary of the program. The program is a low cost government funding program supported by the taxpayers.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
JPS1Amtrak did not say that it would be covered solely by Acela operating profits.
Okay. Thanks.
Acela generates half of the NEC revenue and over half of NEC profit.
blue streak 1 From what I have read, the present Acelas are mx intensive. oltmannd The shame is that the existing Acela coaches can't be downgrade and kept for regional service. Oltmannd: That has been this poster's thoughts as well. Can imagine an Acela-1 running from Harrisburg <> Springfield, Ma if the Springfield section is electrified by the time all the A-2s are in service. Keystone service just Harrisburg - NYP would certainly be welcomed by the state of PA . Wonder if all station stops for the A-1s coud get high level platforms ? Certainly the A-1s should be kept as standby for a couple years in case of any major problem shows up with the A-2s. Another thought is maybe A-1s could be used for lower traffic times in the day. Overnight ? The Thanksgiving, Christmas rush, and other holidays as well. Then there may be the additional trains NYP <> BOS if the 39 daily train limit is raised ?
From what I have read, the present Acelas are mx intensive.
Reliability could be the reason why they're not staying around. But, if they have solid, stainless carbodies, I would think a rebuilding would be in order and cheaper than new coaches. Strip out a lot of systems they really don't have to have.
NEC or Acela "operating profits" are a myth.
The proof of this came last year when NEC train service revenues early- to mid-year were falling well short of budget, and management was forced to defer $473 million in budgeted NEC maintenance (and purchasing) in order to keep cash outlays within the limits of cash revenue plus subsidy. (Even Amtrak has a hard time spending cash it doesn't have.)
If the NEC had an "operating profit," a shortfall in budgeted revenue would simply reduce the margin, not force deferred maintenance. This has gone on for decades, by the way. The so-called cost to restore the NEC to a "state of good repair" is simply the sum of the annual upkeep that Amtrak has not done in order to keep the NEC trains running.
All this is visible in the monthly and Annual reports accessible on the website.
The RRIF loans can be repaid in the future only from future subsidy payments.
oltmannd Reliability could be the reason why they're not staying around. But, if they have solid, stainless carbodies, I would think a rebuilding would be in order and cheaper than new coaches. Strip out a lot of systems they really don't have to have.
Why? Amtrak is no doubt trying to standardize their equipment for lower maintenance costs. Why keep Acela coaches when there are newer and less mx coaches availible? Which will be easier.......no, cheape getting parts for, a 20 year old out of production Acela or a Siemens coach thats been sold around the world and is still in production?
The Acela may look cool and be neat, but operationally their time has come and its about to go.
longhorn1969 oltmannd Reliability could be the reason why they're not staying around. But, if they have solid, stainless carbodies, I would think a rebuilding would be in order and cheaper than new coaches. Strip out a lot of systems they really don't have to have. Why? Amtrak is no doubt trying to standardize their equipment for lower maintenance costs. Why keep Acela coaches when there are newer and less mx coaches availible? Which will be easier.......no, cheape getting parts for, a 20 year old out of production Acela or a Siemens coach thats been sold around the world and is still in production? The Acela may look cool and be neat, but operationally their time has come and its about to go.
I just hate seeing perfectly good carbodies going to scrap. I can see that they might be a bit too complex to be good rebuild candidates and few in number might make them orphans. That's a shame.
ANDREW C SELDEN NEC or Acela "operating profits" are a myth. The proof of this came last year when NEC train service revenues early- to mid-year were falling well short of budget, and management was forced to defer $473 million in budgeted NEC maintenance (and purchasing) in order to keep cash outlays within the limits of cash revenue plus subsidy. (Even Amtrak has a hard time spending cash it doesn't have.) If the NEC had an "operating profit," a shortfall in budgeted revenue would simply reduce the margin, not force deferred maintenance. This has gone on for decades, by the way. The so-called cost to restore the NEC to a "state of good repair" is simply the sum of the annual upkeep that Amtrak has not done in order to keep the NEC trains running. All this is visible in the monthly and Annual reports accessible on the website. The RRIF loans can be repaid in the future only from future subsidy payments.
This is a moot point. Whether you are factually right or wrong, it has become clear what Antrak's path forward will look like. Investment in the NEC is the focus.
oltmannd ANDREW C SELDEN NEC or Acela "operating profits" are a myth. The proof of this came last year when NEC train service revenues early- to mid-year were falling well short of budget, and management was forced to defer $473 million in budgeted NEC maintenance (and purchasing) in order to keep cash outlays within the limits of cash revenue plus subsidy. (Even Amtrak has a hard time spending cash it doesn't have.) If the NEC had an "operating profit," a shortfall in budgeted revenue would simply reduce the margin, not force deferred maintenance. This has gone on for decades, by the way. The so-called cost to restore the NEC to a "state of good repair" is simply the sum of the annual upkeep that Amtrak has not done in order to keep the NEC trains running. All this is visible in the monthly and Annual reports accessible on the website. The RRIF loans can be repaid in the future only from future subsidy payments. This is a moot point. Whether you are factually right or wrong, it has become clear what Antrak's path forward will look like. Investment in the NEC is the focus.
As for "operating profit" as Comrade Lenin said, "A lie repeated often enough becomes truth."
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
oltmannd This is a moot point. Whether you are factually right or wrong, it has become clear what Antrak's path forward will look like. Investment in the NEC is the focus.
I would not go that far. The fact is they could not have arranged the same financing if it was a Long Distance train route they were improving vs a high speed corridor. Additionally the NEC is the most viable corridor to place in hock for new equipment due to the projection of improving finances. Lets not forget that Amtrak is charging more for local commiuter trains to use it's track, Amtrak has a higher state contribution now on the 403 trains, last but not least Amtrak is enhancing the real estate development in and around major NEC stations which will mean increased returns vs increased expenses at those locations (NY & DC).
I think we are still going to see State Corridor expansion and we will see Long Distance Train expansion where Amtrak can obtain the funds. Amtrak has not put in a proposal to replace the Superliner Fleet yet because it is still reliable via rebuild (so Amtrak feels it can defer that request).........once that is no longer so, you'll see a proposal to replace the LD fleet with newer cars and Amtrak will point to late trains and mounting LD equipment failures as the reason. New LD service is going to require the purchase of new cars which will inhibit new LD train route offerings for the forseeable future.......just starting that production line again would be huge in costs.
If they ever extend the Heartland Flyer from Oklahoma City to Kansas City that in effect will be a new LD train. It's too long in mileage from Dallas to KC to be considered a corridor and I think it likely they will choose the one train option vs two short train option (which would meet in OKC). We'll see how that turns out.
Currently, I do not see any other serious proposal on the Amtrak map to startup a new LD train or provide financing for one by any state, except perhaps the New Orleans to Florida proposed service restoration. I don't see Amtrak wanting to take on the risk itself of a new Long Distance train without any state partnering interest as the costs to do so are huge and the risk of substantially adding to the operating deficit is also high. If Amtrak added a new LD train on it's own at this point in time and it substantially added tens of millions of dollars in loss to it's operating performance..........Congress would rip into Amtrak management for the decision and rightfully so.
What would be really cool here is if the Northern Plains states formed their own HSR consortium as well as the Southern Plains states in a third HSR consortium and pooled their resources like the Midwest has done. They could then define LD trains as a train that covers the distance of two HSR consortiums and fund each LD train with pooled money vs just one or two states. You could pool TX, LA, MS, AK, OK, NM, CO to form the Southern Plain States. Possibly ND,SD,NE,KS,MT,WY to form the Northern Plain States. Jointly each state could contribute to a fund to develop some fairly decent Plain State LD routes in the heart of the country where there are holes in the Amtrak map currently. Using Kansas City, Dallas-Ft. Worth, Omaha, as hubs?
CMStPnP Jointly each state could contribute to a fund to develop some fairly decent Plain State LD routes in the heart of the country where there are holes in the Amtrak map currently.
Jointly each state could contribute to a fund to develop some fairly decent Plain State LD routes in the heart of the country where there are holes in the Amtrak map currently.
Why do you suppose there are currenlty holes in Amtrack coverage there?
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Phoebe VetWhy do you suppose there are currenlty holes in Amtrack coverage there?
States generally do not want to pay for a passenger train that crosses the border unless the cross border state is also pitching in. Also when Amtrak chose the national system they picked what they thought back in 1970 what would be the most viable trains to preserve a national system.
CMStPnP Phoebe Vet Why do you suppose there are currenlty holes in Amtrack coverage there? States generally do not want to pay for a passenger train that crosses the border unless the cross border state is also pitching in. Also when Amtrak chose the national system they picked what they thought back in 1970 what would be the most viable trains to preserve a national system.
Phoebe Vet Why do you suppose there are currenlty holes in Amtrack coverage there?
You don;t believe the sea of red ink is a factor at all?
D.Carleton oltmannd ANDREW C SELDEN NEC or Acela "operating profits" are a myth. The proof of this came last year when NEC train service revenues early- to mid-year were falling well short of budget, and management was forced to defer $473 million in budgeted NEC maintenance (and purchasing) in order to keep cash outlays within the limits of cash revenue plus subsidy. (Even Amtrak has a hard time spending cash it doesn't have.) If the NEC had an "operating profit," a shortfall in budgeted revenue would simply reduce the margin, not force deferred maintenance. This has gone on for decades, by the way. The so-called cost to restore the NEC to a "state of good repair" is simply the sum of the annual upkeep that Amtrak has not done in order to keep the NEC trains running. All this is visible in the monthly and Annual reports accessible on the website. The RRIF loans can be repaid in the future only from future subsidy payments. This is a moot point. Whether you are factually right or wrong, it has become clear what Antrak's path forward will look like. Investment in the NEC is the focus. NEC=Nothing Else Counts. As for "operating profit" as Comrade Lenin said, "A lie repeated often enough becomes truth."
NEC=Nothing Else Counts.
Not Lenin. More likely an actual statement by William James (1842-1910) "There's nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough, people will believe it." And then these:
CMStPnP States generally do not want to pay for a passenger train that crosses the border unless the cross border state is also pitching in.
States generally do not want to pay for a passenger train that crosses the border unless the cross border state is also pitching in.
Phoebe VetYou don;t believe the sea of red ink is a factor at all?
I think that is more an issue at the National level. In rural areas where the air service is subsidized, electricity and phone service subsidized. I don't think that is as big an issue compared to the transportation function. I think thats why you see so many podunk towns willing to step forwards and push the train proposals.
CMStPnP is right. If states individually or pooled regionally want to pay for corridor and longer train services (as several in the Midwest have for years), why not? Amtrak won't.
ANDREW C SELDEN NEC or Acela "operating profits" are a myth.
If the deferred capital expenditures had all been made in 2016, the capital expenses - mostly depreciation expense - would have begun flowing through the income stream in 2017.
Amtrak depreciates its equipment up to 40 years and its infrastructure up to 120 years. Accordingly, irrespect of the percent of capital expenses allocated to the NEC, the increase in capital expenses, which would have increased fully allocated losses, would have been minimal. The NEC still would have had a substantial operating profit.
Concerning 243129's post of this morning (it appeared in my email, but not in the Passenger forum): Can you, 243129, fill each line of your post completely, and not break words at the end of every other line (such as "dol" et the end of one line and "lar" at the beginning of the next? (this is the way the post appeared in my e-meil) Or, is this a problem of which you were not aware?problem of which you were not aware?
This makes it difficult to read your thesis that the Accela is not true high-speed travel, as it appears in my email.
Johnny
DeggestyConcerning 243129's post of this morning (it appeared in my email, but not in the Passenger forum): Can you, 243129, fill each line of your post completely, and not break words at the end of every other line (such as "dol" et the end of one line and "lar" at the beginning of the next? (this is the way the post appeared in my e-meil) Or, is this a problem of which you were not aware?problem of which you were not aware? This makes it difficult to read your thesis that the Accela is not true high-speed travel, as it appears in my email.
I suspect the truncating is a function of Kalmbach software in creating the e-mail.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDThat's an entirely new feature, then; I have never before seen anything like it; I hope it is utterly abolished. Deggesty Concerning 243129's post of this morning (it appeared in my email, but not in the Passenger forum): Can you, 243129, fill each line of your post completely, and not break words at the end of every other line (such as "dol" et the end of one line and "lar" at the beginning of the next? (this is the way the post appeared in my e-meil) Or, is this a problem of which you were not aware?problem of which you were not aware? This makes it difficult to read your thesis that the Accela is not true high-speed travel, as it appears in my email. I suspect the truncating is a function of Kalmbach software in creating the e-mail.
Deggesty Concerning 243129's post of this morning (it appeared in my email, but not in the Passenger forum): Can you, 243129, fill each line of your post completely, and not break words at the end of every other line (such as "dol" et the end of one line and "lar" at the beginning of the next? (this is the way the post appeared in my e-meil) Or, is this a problem of which you were not aware?problem of which you were not aware? This makes it difficult to read your thesis that the Accela is not true high-speed travel, as it appears in my email.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.