QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd You make a case for rebuilding Amfleet, not scrapping it. Suspension - nothing new in the past 50 years. Air suspension, suspension optimised for humans in the way it osccilates, computer controlled etc etc... http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/sr10.html QUOTE: Electromagnetic brakes - huh? The only ones I know of are trolley car track brakes. Is this what you mean? Pretty much - most of european high speed (125 mph+) equipment has them installed - they make quick stop in emrgency. While in trolley cars they were used forsome time, but were recently introduced into psgr stock. [deleted some] Of course there are also magnetic induction brakes, but that is for 140mph+ speeds. Since america will not have such trains in any forseeable future... http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/research.html#brakes QUOTE: Air conditioning - nothing new, other than controls and refrig. type, in the past 50 years. Seesh - there was air conditioning in ancient Egypt. The point is that air conditioning of the 70'ties is different to air conditioning of now. The principle is the same, but applied and controlled differently. QUOTE: Shock absorbtion - viscous damping is viscous damping. Friction damping is friction damping. Nothing new here since the 1960s. I was more concerned about crashworthiness here - you know finite element CAD designed cars and such. Lower weight with higher buff strength etc. QUOTE: Lightweight materials - such as? You COULD make a passenger car out of aluminum or composites, but what would be the point? You still have to make 1M lbs buff and materials other than steel have fatigue life issues. TGV Duplex cars use aluminum side walls - allowing double deck trainset with 17 tonnes axleload. ICE3 uses special seat construction which saves about 2 tons of car weight. The cage of the car - the buff strength part - can be made of steel. The rest is the field to show progress. QUOTE: Controlled braking - anti-slide braking to reduce stopping distances has been around since the 1940s. The controls for it are better, but the basic technology is the same. Amfleet was built with EP braking, but Amtrak removed it. It wasn't needed, even on 18 cars trains. AC traction was avalible in 50ties. It happened to be usable just recently. You see the difference? QUOTE: What about the age of Amfleet will make maintenance increase? If you rebuild in kind, you reset the clock, get "like new" performance, at roughly half the cost of new. You can even "reset" the fatigue life clock on steel castings or weldments by stress relieving them. At roughly 30 years, you have to rewire, which is a pain, but affords an opportunity to update some systems. The general rebuild you propose is just like building a new car. And cost just about the same. You can rewire, change seat configuration, add fancy electronics etc. But once you start to fiddle with the car cage or load bearing elements - you just might build a new car. QUOTE: Amfleet is certainly good enough for 100 -125 mph service. 20+ years in Metroliner service proves that. What Amtrak needs is more places to run 100-125 mph. Lets not waste what capital money that comes along on new passenger cars. Good enough is not _best_ you could get for the price. QUOTE: Does anyone know if the Capstone program includes rewiring? If it does, those cars are good for another 30 years - with periodic truck overhauls. BTW - I imagine that the inside bearings on amfleet are maintenece nightmares.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd You make a case for rebuilding Amfleet, not scrapping it. Suspension - nothing new in the past 50 years.
QUOTE: Electromagnetic brakes - huh? The only ones I know of are trolley car track brakes. Is this what you mean?
QUOTE: Air conditioning - nothing new, other than controls and refrig. type, in the past 50 years.
QUOTE: Shock absorbtion - viscous damping is viscous damping. Friction damping is friction damping. Nothing new here since the 1960s.
QUOTE: Lightweight materials - such as? You COULD make a passenger car out of aluminum or composites, but what would be the point? You still have to make 1M lbs buff and materials other than steel have fatigue life issues.
QUOTE: Controlled braking - anti-slide braking to reduce stopping distances has been around since the 1940s. The controls for it are better, but the basic technology is the same. Amfleet was built with EP braking, but Amtrak removed it. It wasn't needed, even on 18 cars trains.
QUOTE: What about the age of Amfleet will make maintenance increase? If you rebuild in kind, you reset the clock, get "like new" performance, at roughly half the cost of new. You can even "reset" the fatigue life clock on steel castings or weldments by stress relieving them. At roughly 30 years, you have to rewire, which is a pain, but affords an opportunity to update some systems.
QUOTE: Amfleet is certainly good enough for 100 -125 mph service. 20+ years in Metroliner service proves that. What Amtrak needs is more places to run 100-125 mph. Lets not waste what capital money that comes along on new passenger cars.
QUOTE: Does anyone know if the Capstone program includes rewiring? If it does, those cars are good for another 30 years - with periodic truck overhauls.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. Suspension, electomagnetic brakes, air conditioning, shock absorption, lightweight materials, controlled braking - a few things did improve. besides - amfleet are getting older - soon they will show it with increasing maintenence.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd
Originally posted by gabe Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, May 2, 2005 12:17 PM Here is the original post about the 15 minutes. I was only imparting what I know about headways on the NEC QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Why the new cars? What's wrong with Amfleet? What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? Why the new cars? Because a service like Boston - Wash should be run with 15 minute interval. If not more. What's wrong with Amfleet? Apart from being late 70ties technology - nothing much. What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? I heard that LD trains long for new equipment. This post has been edited by uzurpator on 27 QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Maybe he means better suspension & maybe leaning into curves. I would suspect that the NEC ould easily support trains with 15 minute headways with the signal system now in place. Heck between commuter & A/trak trains I would think even 15 minutes would be a long period. I know that the tunnel between NJ & Penn Station NY can handle a ttrain every 3 minutes. That would mean the signal system is geared for that time frame. [:D][:p] Originally posted by oltmannd Originally posted by uzurpator Originally posted by oltmannd Operationally, it could be done (you'd have to kick NJT out of some Penn Sta slots, tho'), but would the market support it? What headways support the max benefit for the least cost? I have never seen, read or heard anything that would support 15 minute headways. Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, May 2, 2005 12:12 PM We could spend trillions on them but outside of the NEC unless they own the tracks, dispatch the trains, contril the trains A/trak will continue to provide poor service. Just my opinion. [:o)][8D] Originally posted by Modelcar [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Modelcar Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania 13,456 posts Posted by Modelcar on Monday, May 2, 2005 9:00 AM ....And suitable improvements for Amtrak could be made for much less than the 400B....If conditions were suitable and facilities were up to good standards I believe plenty of folks would like to travel via train...In comfort and not as what the comfort level has become on air travel. Quentin Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Monday, May 2, 2005 8:48 AM I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you, Dave. But, barring a major energy crisis--which isn't out of the question--they will NEVER spend 400 Billion on Amtrak. I think all of the railroads in the United States could be bought for about 90 Billion. Gabe Reply daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Monday, May 2, 2005 8:39 AM First of all, David Gunn was not running the show when Acela was designed and did not have any say in reviewing the bid proposals. He was simply faced with the task of making the darn thing work. Second, yes in my opinion, Amtrak could be profitable: The $14Billion for the big dig is peanuts compared with the total spent for investment in highway and airport infrastructure. Amtrak can be profitable if first about $400Billion is spent for Amtrak investment, including capacity enhancement for high-speed running on selected congested freight lines used by Amtrak, a NSta-SSta Boston rail connection, complete repairs to the Corridor, renewal of all critical components, both hotel and running gear, on all Amfleet, Horizen, and Superliner equipment, overhauling of Acela equipment and Bombardier locomotives to incorporate everything that the Wilmington Shope people have learned, enhancement of the total rolling stock with new equipment so critical links can be restored, such as Florida-Atlanta-Cincinnati-Chicago, and increased frequencies so CZ can be daily and supplemented by a Chi-Denver train, so Cleveland can have service east and west at a reasonable hour, etc. Then price the service to meet the demand, following airline practice to keep the trains full during slack periods and charge what the traffic will bear during peak periods. Do not run social service operations like commuter trains to remove highway congestion unless local state or authority organizations pay for the subsidy. The high speed corridor trains will then truly be competitive with air travel and should charge accordingly. The long distance trains should be considered as cruise ships on land and charge accordingly except for reduced fares for those with medical problems that cannot fly or cannot drive long distances, and their fares do deserve a government subsidy in my opinion. Similarly with maintaining communications in harsh winter weather in the Northwest. Short of that, the $Billion subsidy Amtrak requires is peanuts compared to the total transportation expenditures and is well worth what it buys, in my opinion. Amtrak's own reform plan should be adopted and fully funded. Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, May 2, 2005 7:45 AM Actually once you get past the "romance" of riding a train there really is no real reason to keep A/trak going beyond the NEC. I compare it to the "International Space Station" which is another government boondoggle in my opinion. [:o)][:D][:)] Originally posted by donclark [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, May 2, 2005 7:45 AM Did Mr. Gunn say anything about Amtrak ownership of the corridor west of New Haven, currently owned by CDOT and Metro-North? Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, May 2, 2005 7:12 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. Suspension, electomagnetic brakes, air conditioning, shock absorption, lightweight materials, controlled braking - a few things did improve. besides - amfleet are getting older - soon they will show it with increasing maintenence. QUOTE: What do you base the 15 minute interval demand on? I remember reading a case, not too long ago in trains, that the frequency should be no more than hourly and the trains longer with several classes of accomodations - not more frequent. Ehem - having a station in the middle of cities with several million in population and running trains at hour tact is sorta weird. Besides - high frequency introduces "the train is always there" - thus increases ridership. Look at Europe - at the same distance you get hourly tact between cities helluva smaller then NY or Boston. Actually - at peak times some TGV lines are run with 3 minute headways. Nice opinions. I disagree. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, April 29, 2005 4:26 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. Suspension, electomagnetic brakes, air conditioning, shock absorption, lightweight materials, controlled braking - a few things did improve. besides - amfleet are getting older - soon they will show it with increasing maintenence. QUOTE: What do you base the 15 minute interval demand on? I remember reading a case, not too long ago in trains, that the frequency should be no more than hourly and the trains longer with several classes of accomodations - not more frequent. Ehem - having a station in the middle of cities with several million in population and running trains at hour tact is sorta weird. Besides - high frequency introduces "the train is always there" - thus increases ridership. Look at Europe - at the same distance you get hourly tact between cities helluva smaller then NY or Boston. Actually - at peak times some TGV lines are run with 3 minute headways. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, April 29, 2005 12:35 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Maybe he means better suspension & maybe leaning into curves. I would suspect that the NEC ould easily support trains with 15 minute headways with the signal system now in place. Heck between commuter & A/trak trains I would think even 15 minutes would be a long period. I know that the tunnel between NJ & Penn Station NY can handle a ttrain every 3 minutes. That would mean the signal system is geared for that time frame. [:D][:p] Originally posted by oltmannd Originally posted by uzurpator Originally posted by oltmannd Operationally, it could be done (you'd have to kick NJT out of some Penn Sta slots, tho'), but would the market support it? What headways support the max benefit for the least cost? I have never seen, read or heard anything that would support 15 minute headways. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, April 29, 2005 12:23 PM I think then Americans would have to cease driving cars. I am sure you are aware that you/I & everybody who buys gasoline is paying I think 80% of any hwy project thru a gasoline tax. The state pays the remaining 20% & that comes thru taxes that are paid into state coffers. [:D][:)][:o)] Originally posted by donclark Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, April 29, 2005 12:17 PM Maybe he means better suspension & maybe leaning into curves. I would suspect that the NEC ould easily support trains with 15 minute headways with the signal system now in place. Heck between commuter & A/trak trains I would think even 15 minutes would be a long period. I know that the tunnel between NJ & Penn Station NY can handle a ttrain every 3 minutes. That would mean the signal system is geared for that time frame. [:D][:p] Originally posted by oltmannd Originally posted by uzurpator Originally posted by oltmannd Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Friday, April 29, 2005 11:10 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jockellis G'day, Y'all, Anyone who believes ONLY gasoline tax money is used to build highways might want to buy my bridge in New York City. What is the big idea of trying to sell my bridge out from under me? Gabe Reply jockellis Member sinceMay 2002 From: Just outside Atlanta 422 posts Posted by jockellis on Friday, April 29, 2005 11:06 AM G'day, Y'all, Anyone who believes ONLY gasoline tax money is used to build highways might want to buy my bridge in New York City. The military heads a list of agencies wanting better and bigger roads. They have the ear of Congress. Congressmen love to have new roads in their districts because it is a very visible sign of the hard work they do in Washington for their constituents. In other words, it helps them get re-elected. Remember LBJ's War on Poverty? A lot of it went for an interstate-type highway north from Atlanta to Dahlonega, GA 400 which some drivers think is the Indy 500 and drive appropriately. This was not built with a penny of federal DOT money but anti-poverty money. As as for federal programs actually working, this is a poster project. It took Bill Elliott's hometown Dawsonville and gold mining Dahlonega out of Appalachian poverty and onto the road to wealth as landowners sold their farms for suburban subdivisions. And the wealth was spread around. But back to highways, a lot more money that what the DOT amasses in gas taxes goes into the roads. If Congressmen could point with pride to new federally-financed railroads in their territories, we would be getting more trains because they could be getting more votes. In reality, our representatives can get more votes railing against the railroads than they can supporting them. Railroads have from the very beginning been high profile targets and will always because they are seen as cold and heartless big business and worse than that, they keep you waiting at grade crossings for a few minutes. Jock Ellis Cumming, GA US of A Jock Ellis Cumming, GA US of A Georgia Association of Railroad Passengers Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, April 29, 2005 8:33 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd Amtrak longer distance trains are short on coaches -- it is not unusual, for instance, for the Adirondack to and from Montreal to sell out (for lack of equipment) long before the departure date, and it's not alone... The brake rotor thing? It will be interesting to read the final analysis reports. I'd agree with Don, though -- more likely cooling problems than anything else. And I would add to that that there is nothing wrong with the fundamental design (500,000 miles isn't bad, guys -- try that with your automobile!) except... and it's a big except... an Acela is a LOT heavier than the trains (TGV) from which it was derived, and has to use the brakes more often due to speed restrictions and the like. There were some somewhat similar problems (not brakes, but others related to heavier loadings than anticipated) in the very first AEM7s... Is the Adirondak selling out between NY and Albany or from Albany to Montreal? The times I've ridden it, it's been pretty sparsely filled north of Albany, but that was years ago. Do they drop/add cars at Albany? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply jchnhtfd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 1,537 posts Posted by jchnhtfd on Friday, April 29, 2005 5:38 AM Amtrak longer distance trains are short on coaches -- it is not unusual, for instance, for the Adirondack to and from Montreal to sell out (for lack of equipment) long before the departure date, and it's not alone... The brake rotor thing? It will be interesting to read the final analysis reports. I'd agree with Don, though -- more likely cooling problems than anything else. And I would add to that that there is nothing wrong with the fundamental design (500,000 miles isn't bad, guys -- try that with your automobile!) except... and it's a big except... an Acela is a LOT heavier than the trains (TGV) from which it was derived, and has to use the brakes more often due to speed restrictions and the like. There were some somewhat similar problems (not brakes, but others related to heavier loadings than anticipated) in the very first AEM7s... Jamie Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 28, 2005 6:18 PM There is no doubt in my mind that Amtrak is short on sleepers, and could use some new diners on the east coast.... However, I don't think Amtrak is short on coaches...... Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:37 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Yes CNN said today that Bombardier "over" estimated the usage on the brakes. [:(][:(] Originally posted by mustanggt [ There is a lot of really curious information out there. Best I can figure out, the problem isn't the brake "wore out", since the wear surfaces of brakes are designed to be replaced more often than one a million miles. The failure is cracks of the rotor - which at this point in their life are likely due to fatigue. Fatigue occurs with repetitive stress. Stress can occur mechanically, from braking force, or thermally. I really can't imagine they blew the stress calculation from the braking force, but thermal stress is something else. It could be a product of too much power braking, too little time released between, full speed, full application or even insufficient cooling in the rotor design or air flow around the rotor. I'll put my money on cooling deficiencies, if I were betting. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:30 PM i could see more coaches and sleepers for the trains to florida, and all the west coast trains. If Amtrak could do it right, it would be good for them to have extra cars to put on the trains as demand requires. In the west, Keep extra Superliners in Seattle, Portland, Oakland, LA, Denver, DALLAS, Minneapolis, New Orleans. I know that it would cost a lot of money, but it would be worth it. At times when there is huge demand, which would be the summer, and holidays, you would be able to meet the demand instead of saying sold out. In the mean time, the extra cars would make it so that they could keep the maintence up all year and keep the cars in good shape. Also, for sleepers, I would make one care that was all double deluxe bedrooms so that they are like master suites. You could then put a double bed in there as well as the bunk beds. If you made the cars right, you could put that car at the end of the train, so that way they would have a huge window to look out of the back. Make it like a cruise. I would also build more Pacific Parlour cars for the rest of the system, as those are a huge success. Now of course this would all take a lot of money, but if Amtrak was given the resources to do this, it would work. Brad Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:05 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Why the new cars? What's wrong with Amfleet? What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? Why the new cars? Because a service like Boston - Wash should be run with 15 minute interval. If not more. What's wrong with Amfleet? Apart from being late 70ties technology - nothing much. What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? I heard that LD trains long for new equipment. What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. What do you base the 15 minute interval demand on? I remember reading a case, not too long ago in trains, that the frequency should be no more than hourly and the trains longer with several classes of accomodations - not more frequent. Where did you hear that the LD trains need more coaches? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Thursday, April 28, 2005 1:40 PM Yes CNN said today that Bombardier "over" estimated the usage on the brakes. [:(][:(] Originally posted by mustanggt [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:52 PM Gabe Here is a link to a New York Times on the history of the Acela trains. Don Phillips was one of the covering reporters, so the paper got it right and may give you more insight to the comment made by Gunn. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/national/24acela.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=33b9ffeaa0c275cf&hp&ex=1114315200&partner=homepage Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:09 PM The original 5 year plan, updates, and the Amtrak's proposal for organizational changes are all on their web site. The 2006 appropriations request includes Amtrak's proposals for organizational changes. It is a 52 page document and presents a plan to get to an organization that includes a good portion of the things that the Bush Administration has been looking for. In many respect I see it as a put up or shut up document. I am sure that neither Congress or the Administration will see it that way, the wording is very diplomatic, but Amtrak has been pretty clear as to what it will take to implement the changes. For example, the NEC needs $2 billion to be put in good operating condition. There is a pretty strong implication that it doesn't make any difference if Amtrak, NECtrak, 13 Original Coloniestrak or billgatestrak is given the NEC, it is still going to take $2 billion for fix up. Amtrak acknowledged that the other corridor operations (the short haul stuff), ought to be an important focus of the reauthorization bill and suggested an 80-20 federal-state funding scheme to promote the development of these services. Amtrak agreed that the states should be the key deciders of which corridors should be developed and they should select operators for lines on a competitive basis. It is suggested that Amtrak should be allowed to be a bidder. The plan does note that if outside operators are to be found it may be necessary to change the federal laws governing bargaining with rail unions, the requirement for participation in the Railroad Retirement Program, and other lawful requirements that apply to railroad companies. These are all perceived to be a cause of costs incurred by railroads that other types of business do not have to deal with. Amtrak also offered to establish a precise method for determing the cost recovery of long distances trains so that congress could establish legal minimums for train continuation. When I say this is a put up or shut up document this is what I mean. The first thing being said is that this is the kind of federal investment that is going to be necessary if there is to be any rail passenger service in the US. The second is directed to the people who argue that competition solves everything. Here is an outline of the first necessay steps to make the business attractive. Get that done and then good luck. The forgoing is a little off the topic, but if one wants factual information about what Amtrak is trying to do and how the government money will be used, these documents have to be read. I didn't see the C-Span interview, but I suspect that Gunn may have been trying to make the point that the Acela problems are not exclusively the fault of Amtrak. My reading of the histroy was that rather than setting the necessary specs and authorizing the constructions of the trains, Congress, DOT planners and the FRA kept coming back with an "Oh by the way, you need to add this or upgrade that." Appearantly there was no individual in charge of the project either willing or able to keep all such requests to making it to the builder. Bombardier filed the lawsuit against Amtrak with the allegation that these change requests screwed up the works and cost them hundreds of millions of dollars. It would be a pure guess on my part, but had he been in charge Gunn may have suggested that the money put up for Acela trains may have been better spent on upgrades to the NEC. With that, the somewhat slower convential trains may have been able to achieve the running times at or close to what was to be done with the Acelas. Maybe after that, the modern style high speed train can be developed, possibly without the need for tilt and with less power. One prototype test until all the bugs are gone and then you launch the production model. The Big Dig. A few have bought up with the old saw or the highway lobby propaganda that highway projects are paid for by user fees. Sorry, but you are wrong. Federal Highway System projects are paid for by a tax on gasoline, which is paid by gasoline buyers even if they do not use Federal Highways. If you are going argue that the Big Dig is being paid for by the users, you better get me some pictures of the toll gates. By the way, many states, including Florida get much less back in federal money for highways than comes from gasoline sales in that states. How does that become a user fee for the residents of Florida? Take a trip to Boston? I was glad to hear that Mineta was very impressed by the "profitable" operation of Japan's bullet trains. They may have an operating profit, but I am willing to bet a lunch that the Japanese Government's investment in the building of that system would make our investment in Amtrak look like chump change. "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply conrailman Member sinceDecember 2001 From: NS Main Line at MP12 Blairsville,Pa 830 posts Posted by conrailman on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 7:24 PM I found it in Trains Maz October of 2004 issue about the Amfleets Cars being replace in 2007 AND OTHER STUFF about amtrak 5 year plan on Pg 14 and 15.[:)] Reply 12 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Maybe he means better suspension & maybe leaning into curves. I would suspect that the NEC ould easily support trains with 15 minute headways with the signal system now in place. Heck between commuter & A/trak trains I would think even 15 minutes would be a long period. I know that the tunnel between NJ & Penn Station NY can handle a ttrain every 3 minutes. That would mean the signal system is geared for that time frame. [:D][:p] Originally posted by oltmannd Originally posted by uzurpator Originally posted by oltmannd Operationally, it could be done (you'd have to kick NJT out of some Penn Sta slots, tho'), but would the market support it? What headways support the max benefit for the least cost? I have never seen, read or heard anything that would support 15 minute headways. Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, May 2, 2005 12:12 PM We could spend trillions on them but outside of the NEC unless they own the tracks, dispatch the trains, contril the trains A/trak will continue to provide poor service. Just my opinion. [:o)][8D] Originally posted by Modelcar [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Modelcar Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania 13,456 posts Posted by Modelcar on Monday, May 2, 2005 9:00 AM ....And suitable improvements for Amtrak could be made for much less than the 400B....If conditions were suitable and facilities were up to good standards I believe plenty of folks would like to travel via train...In comfort and not as what the comfort level has become on air travel. Quentin Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Monday, May 2, 2005 8:48 AM I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you, Dave. But, barring a major energy crisis--which isn't out of the question--they will NEVER spend 400 Billion on Amtrak. I think all of the railroads in the United States could be bought for about 90 Billion. Gabe Reply daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Monday, May 2, 2005 8:39 AM First of all, David Gunn was not running the show when Acela was designed and did not have any say in reviewing the bid proposals. He was simply faced with the task of making the darn thing work. Second, yes in my opinion, Amtrak could be profitable: The $14Billion for the big dig is peanuts compared with the total spent for investment in highway and airport infrastructure. Amtrak can be profitable if first about $400Billion is spent for Amtrak investment, including capacity enhancement for high-speed running on selected congested freight lines used by Amtrak, a NSta-SSta Boston rail connection, complete repairs to the Corridor, renewal of all critical components, both hotel and running gear, on all Amfleet, Horizen, and Superliner equipment, overhauling of Acela equipment and Bombardier locomotives to incorporate everything that the Wilmington Shope people have learned, enhancement of the total rolling stock with new equipment so critical links can be restored, such as Florida-Atlanta-Cincinnati-Chicago, and increased frequencies so CZ can be daily and supplemented by a Chi-Denver train, so Cleveland can have service east and west at a reasonable hour, etc. Then price the service to meet the demand, following airline practice to keep the trains full during slack periods and charge what the traffic will bear during peak periods. Do not run social service operations like commuter trains to remove highway congestion unless local state or authority organizations pay for the subsidy. The high speed corridor trains will then truly be competitive with air travel and should charge accordingly. The long distance trains should be considered as cruise ships on land and charge accordingly except for reduced fares for those with medical problems that cannot fly or cannot drive long distances, and their fares do deserve a government subsidy in my opinion. Similarly with maintaining communications in harsh winter weather in the Northwest. Short of that, the $Billion subsidy Amtrak requires is peanuts compared to the total transportation expenditures and is well worth what it buys, in my opinion. Amtrak's own reform plan should be adopted and fully funded. Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, May 2, 2005 7:45 AM Actually once you get past the "romance" of riding a train there really is no real reason to keep A/trak going beyond the NEC. I compare it to the "International Space Station" which is another government boondoggle in my opinion. [:o)][:D][:)] Originally posted by donclark [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, May 2, 2005 7:45 AM Did Mr. Gunn say anything about Amtrak ownership of the corridor west of New Haven, currently owned by CDOT and Metro-North? Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, May 2, 2005 7:12 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. Suspension, electomagnetic brakes, air conditioning, shock absorption, lightweight materials, controlled braking - a few things did improve. besides - amfleet are getting older - soon they will show it with increasing maintenence. QUOTE: What do you base the 15 minute interval demand on? I remember reading a case, not too long ago in trains, that the frequency should be no more than hourly and the trains longer with several classes of accomodations - not more frequent. Ehem - having a station in the middle of cities with several million in population and running trains at hour tact is sorta weird. Besides - high frequency introduces "the train is always there" - thus increases ridership. Look at Europe - at the same distance you get hourly tact between cities helluva smaller then NY or Boston. Actually - at peak times some TGV lines are run with 3 minute headways. Nice opinions. I disagree. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, April 29, 2005 4:26 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. Suspension, electomagnetic brakes, air conditioning, shock absorption, lightweight materials, controlled braking - a few things did improve. besides - amfleet are getting older - soon they will show it with increasing maintenence. QUOTE: What do you base the 15 minute interval demand on? I remember reading a case, not too long ago in trains, that the frequency should be no more than hourly and the trains longer with several classes of accomodations - not more frequent. Ehem - having a station in the middle of cities with several million in population and running trains at hour tact is sorta weird. Besides - high frequency introduces "the train is always there" - thus increases ridership. Look at Europe - at the same distance you get hourly tact between cities helluva smaller then NY or Boston. Actually - at peak times some TGV lines are run with 3 minute headways. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, April 29, 2005 12:35 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Maybe he means better suspension & maybe leaning into curves. I would suspect that the NEC ould easily support trains with 15 minute headways with the signal system now in place. Heck between commuter & A/trak trains I would think even 15 minutes would be a long period. I know that the tunnel between NJ & Penn Station NY can handle a ttrain every 3 minutes. That would mean the signal system is geared for that time frame. [:D][:p] Originally posted by oltmannd Originally posted by uzurpator Originally posted by oltmannd Operationally, it could be done (you'd have to kick NJT out of some Penn Sta slots, tho'), but would the market support it? What headways support the max benefit for the least cost? I have never seen, read or heard anything that would support 15 minute headways. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, April 29, 2005 12:23 PM I think then Americans would have to cease driving cars. I am sure you are aware that you/I & everybody who buys gasoline is paying I think 80% of any hwy project thru a gasoline tax. The state pays the remaining 20% & that comes thru taxes that are paid into state coffers. [:D][:)][:o)] Originally posted by donclark Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, April 29, 2005 12:17 PM Maybe he means better suspension & maybe leaning into curves. I would suspect that the NEC ould easily support trains with 15 minute headways with the signal system now in place. Heck between commuter & A/trak trains I would think even 15 minutes would be a long period. I know that the tunnel between NJ & Penn Station NY can handle a ttrain every 3 minutes. That would mean the signal system is geared for that time frame. [:D][:p] Originally posted by oltmannd Originally posted by uzurpator Originally posted by oltmannd Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Friday, April 29, 2005 11:10 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jockellis G'day, Y'all, Anyone who believes ONLY gasoline tax money is used to build highways might want to buy my bridge in New York City. What is the big idea of trying to sell my bridge out from under me? Gabe Reply jockellis Member sinceMay 2002 From: Just outside Atlanta 422 posts Posted by jockellis on Friday, April 29, 2005 11:06 AM G'day, Y'all, Anyone who believes ONLY gasoline tax money is used to build highways might want to buy my bridge in New York City. The military heads a list of agencies wanting better and bigger roads. They have the ear of Congress. Congressmen love to have new roads in their districts because it is a very visible sign of the hard work they do in Washington for their constituents. In other words, it helps them get re-elected. Remember LBJ's War on Poverty? A lot of it went for an interstate-type highway north from Atlanta to Dahlonega, GA 400 which some drivers think is the Indy 500 and drive appropriately. This was not built with a penny of federal DOT money but anti-poverty money. As as for federal programs actually working, this is a poster project. It took Bill Elliott's hometown Dawsonville and gold mining Dahlonega out of Appalachian poverty and onto the road to wealth as landowners sold their farms for suburban subdivisions. And the wealth was spread around. But back to highways, a lot more money that what the DOT amasses in gas taxes goes into the roads. If Congressmen could point with pride to new federally-financed railroads in their territories, we would be getting more trains because they could be getting more votes. In reality, our representatives can get more votes railing against the railroads than they can supporting them. Railroads have from the very beginning been high profile targets and will always because they are seen as cold and heartless big business and worse than that, they keep you waiting at grade crossings for a few minutes. Jock Ellis Cumming, GA US of A Jock Ellis Cumming, GA US of A Georgia Association of Railroad Passengers Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, April 29, 2005 8:33 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd Amtrak longer distance trains are short on coaches -- it is not unusual, for instance, for the Adirondack to and from Montreal to sell out (for lack of equipment) long before the departure date, and it's not alone... The brake rotor thing? It will be interesting to read the final analysis reports. I'd agree with Don, though -- more likely cooling problems than anything else. And I would add to that that there is nothing wrong with the fundamental design (500,000 miles isn't bad, guys -- try that with your automobile!) except... and it's a big except... an Acela is a LOT heavier than the trains (TGV) from which it was derived, and has to use the brakes more often due to speed restrictions and the like. There were some somewhat similar problems (not brakes, but others related to heavier loadings than anticipated) in the very first AEM7s... Is the Adirondak selling out between NY and Albany or from Albany to Montreal? The times I've ridden it, it's been pretty sparsely filled north of Albany, but that was years ago. Do they drop/add cars at Albany? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply jchnhtfd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 1,537 posts Posted by jchnhtfd on Friday, April 29, 2005 5:38 AM Amtrak longer distance trains are short on coaches -- it is not unusual, for instance, for the Adirondack to and from Montreal to sell out (for lack of equipment) long before the departure date, and it's not alone... The brake rotor thing? It will be interesting to read the final analysis reports. I'd agree with Don, though -- more likely cooling problems than anything else. And I would add to that that there is nothing wrong with the fundamental design (500,000 miles isn't bad, guys -- try that with your automobile!) except... and it's a big except... an Acela is a LOT heavier than the trains (TGV) from which it was derived, and has to use the brakes more often due to speed restrictions and the like. There were some somewhat similar problems (not brakes, but others related to heavier loadings than anticipated) in the very first AEM7s... Jamie Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 28, 2005 6:18 PM There is no doubt in my mind that Amtrak is short on sleepers, and could use some new diners on the east coast.... However, I don't think Amtrak is short on coaches...... Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:37 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Yes CNN said today that Bombardier "over" estimated the usage on the brakes. [:(][:(] Originally posted by mustanggt [ There is a lot of really curious information out there. Best I can figure out, the problem isn't the brake "wore out", since the wear surfaces of brakes are designed to be replaced more often than one a million miles. The failure is cracks of the rotor - which at this point in their life are likely due to fatigue. Fatigue occurs with repetitive stress. Stress can occur mechanically, from braking force, or thermally. I really can't imagine they blew the stress calculation from the braking force, but thermal stress is something else. It could be a product of too much power braking, too little time released between, full speed, full application or even insufficient cooling in the rotor design or air flow around the rotor. I'll put my money on cooling deficiencies, if I were betting. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:30 PM i could see more coaches and sleepers for the trains to florida, and all the west coast trains. If Amtrak could do it right, it would be good for them to have extra cars to put on the trains as demand requires. In the west, Keep extra Superliners in Seattle, Portland, Oakland, LA, Denver, DALLAS, Minneapolis, New Orleans. I know that it would cost a lot of money, but it would be worth it. At times when there is huge demand, which would be the summer, and holidays, you would be able to meet the demand instead of saying sold out. In the mean time, the extra cars would make it so that they could keep the maintence up all year and keep the cars in good shape. Also, for sleepers, I would make one care that was all double deluxe bedrooms so that they are like master suites. You could then put a double bed in there as well as the bunk beds. If you made the cars right, you could put that car at the end of the train, so that way they would have a huge window to look out of the back. Make it like a cruise. I would also build more Pacific Parlour cars for the rest of the system, as those are a huge success. Now of course this would all take a lot of money, but if Amtrak was given the resources to do this, it would work. Brad Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:05 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Why the new cars? What's wrong with Amfleet? What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? Why the new cars? Because a service like Boston - Wash should be run with 15 minute interval. If not more. What's wrong with Amfleet? Apart from being late 70ties technology - nothing much. What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? I heard that LD trains long for new equipment. What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. What do you base the 15 minute interval demand on? I remember reading a case, not too long ago in trains, that the frequency should be no more than hourly and the trains longer with several classes of accomodations - not more frequent. Where did you hear that the LD trains need more coaches? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Thursday, April 28, 2005 1:40 PM Yes CNN said today that Bombardier "over" estimated the usage on the brakes. [:(][:(] Originally posted by mustanggt [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:52 PM Gabe Here is a link to a New York Times on the history of the Acela trains. Don Phillips was one of the covering reporters, so the paper got it right and may give you more insight to the comment made by Gunn. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/national/24acela.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=33b9ffeaa0c275cf&hp&ex=1114315200&partner=homepage Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:09 PM The original 5 year plan, updates, and the Amtrak's proposal for organizational changes are all on their web site. The 2006 appropriations request includes Amtrak's proposals for organizational changes. It is a 52 page document and presents a plan to get to an organization that includes a good portion of the things that the Bush Administration has been looking for. In many respect I see it as a put up or shut up document. I am sure that neither Congress or the Administration will see it that way, the wording is very diplomatic, but Amtrak has been pretty clear as to what it will take to implement the changes. For example, the NEC needs $2 billion to be put in good operating condition. There is a pretty strong implication that it doesn't make any difference if Amtrak, NECtrak, 13 Original Coloniestrak or billgatestrak is given the NEC, it is still going to take $2 billion for fix up. Amtrak acknowledged that the other corridor operations (the short haul stuff), ought to be an important focus of the reauthorization bill and suggested an 80-20 federal-state funding scheme to promote the development of these services. Amtrak agreed that the states should be the key deciders of which corridors should be developed and they should select operators for lines on a competitive basis. It is suggested that Amtrak should be allowed to be a bidder. The plan does note that if outside operators are to be found it may be necessary to change the federal laws governing bargaining with rail unions, the requirement for participation in the Railroad Retirement Program, and other lawful requirements that apply to railroad companies. These are all perceived to be a cause of costs incurred by railroads that other types of business do not have to deal with. Amtrak also offered to establish a precise method for determing the cost recovery of long distances trains so that congress could establish legal minimums for train continuation. When I say this is a put up or shut up document this is what I mean. The first thing being said is that this is the kind of federal investment that is going to be necessary if there is to be any rail passenger service in the US. The second is directed to the people who argue that competition solves everything. Here is an outline of the first necessay steps to make the business attractive. Get that done and then good luck. The forgoing is a little off the topic, but if one wants factual information about what Amtrak is trying to do and how the government money will be used, these documents have to be read. I didn't see the C-Span interview, but I suspect that Gunn may have been trying to make the point that the Acela problems are not exclusively the fault of Amtrak. My reading of the histroy was that rather than setting the necessary specs and authorizing the constructions of the trains, Congress, DOT planners and the FRA kept coming back with an "Oh by the way, you need to add this or upgrade that." Appearantly there was no individual in charge of the project either willing or able to keep all such requests to making it to the builder. Bombardier filed the lawsuit against Amtrak with the allegation that these change requests screwed up the works and cost them hundreds of millions of dollars. It would be a pure guess on my part, but had he been in charge Gunn may have suggested that the money put up for Acela trains may have been better spent on upgrades to the NEC. With that, the somewhat slower convential trains may have been able to achieve the running times at or close to what was to be done with the Acelas. Maybe after that, the modern style high speed train can be developed, possibly without the need for tilt and with less power. One prototype test until all the bugs are gone and then you launch the production model. The Big Dig. A few have bought up with the old saw or the highway lobby propaganda that highway projects are paid for by user fees. Sorry, but you are wrong. Federal Highway System projects are paid for by a tax on gasoline, which is paid by gasoline buyers even if they do not use Federal Highways. If you are going argue that the Big Dig is being paid for by the users, you better get me some pictures of the toll gates. By the way, many states, including Florida get much less back in federal money for highways than comes from gasoline sales in that states. How does that become a user fee for the residents of Florida? Take a trip to Boston? I was glad to hear that Mineta was very impressed by the "profitable" operation of Japan's bullet trains. They may have an operating profit, but I am willing to bet a lunch that the Japanese Government's investment in the building of that system would make our investment in Amtrak look like chump change. "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply conrailman Member sinceDecember 2001 From: NS Main Line at MP12 Blairsville,Pa 830 posts Posted by conrailman on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 7:24 PM I found it in Trains Maz October of 2004 issue about the Amfleets Cars being replace in 2007 AND OTHER STUFF about amtrak 5 year plan on Pg 14 and 15.[:)] Reply 12 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Maybe he means better suspension & maybe leaning into curves. I would suspect that the NEC ould easily support trains with 15 minute headways with the signal system now in place. Heck between commuter & A/trak trains I would think even 15 minutes would be a long period. I know that the tunnel between NJ & Penn Station NY can handle a ttrain every 3 minutes. That would mean the signal system is geared for that time frame. [:D][:p] Originally posted by oltmannd Originally posted by uzurpator Originally posted by oltmannd Operationally, it could be done (you'd have to kick NJT out of some Penn Sta slots, tho'), but would the market support it? What headways support the max benefit for the least cost? I have never seen, read or heard anything that would support 15 minute headways. Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, May 2, 2005 12:12 PM We could spend trillions on them but outside of the NEC unless they own the tracks, dispatch the trains, contril the trains A/trak will continue to provide poor service. Just my opinion. [:o)][8D] Originally posted by Modelcar [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Modelcar Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania 13,456 posts Posted by Modelcar on Monday, May 2, 2005 9:00 AM ....And suitable improvements for Amtrak could be made for much less than the 400B....If conditions were suitable and facilities were up to good standards I believe plenty of folks would like to travel via train...In comfort and not as what the comfort level has become on air travel. Quentin Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Monday, May 2, 2005 8:48 AM I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you, Dave. But, barring a major energy crisis--which isn't out of the question--they will NEVER spend 400 Billion on Amtrak. I think all of the railroads in the United States could be bought for about 90 Billion. Gabe Reply daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Monday, May 2, 2005 8:39 AM First of all, David Gunn was not running the show when Acela was designed and did not have any say in reviewing the bid proposals. He was simply faced with the task of making the darn thing work. Second, yes in my opinion, Amtrak could be profitable: The $14Billion for the big dig is peanuts compared with the total spent for investment in highway and airport infrastructure. Amtrak can be profitable if first about $400Billion is spent for Amtrak investment, including capacity enhancement for high-speed running on selected congested freight lines used by Amtrak, a NSta-SSta Boston rail connection, complete repairs to the Corridor, renewal of all critical components, both hotel and running gear, on all Amfleet, Horizen, and Superliner equipment, overhauling of Acela equipment and Bombardier locomotives to incorporate everything that the Wilmington Shope people have learned, enhancement of the total rolling stock with new equipment so critical links can be restored, such as Florida-Atlanta-Cincinnati-Chicago, and increased frequencies so CZ can be daily and supplemented by a Chi-Denver train, so Cleveland can have service east and west at a reasonable hour, etc. Then price the service to meet the demand, following airline practice to keep the trains full during slack periods and charge what the traffic will bear during peak periods. Do not run social service operations like commuter trains to remove highway congestion unless local state or authority organizations pay for the subsidy. The high speed corridor trains will then truly be competitive with air travel and should charge accordingly. The long distance trains should be considered as cruise ships on land and charge accordingly except for reduced fares for those with medical problems that cannot fly or cannot drive long distances, and their fares do deserve a government subsidy in my opinion. Similarly with maintaining communications in harsh winter weather in the Northwest. Short of that, the $Billion subsidy Amtrak requires is peanuts compared to the total transportation expenditures and is well worth what it buys, in my opinion. Amtrak's own reform plan should be adopted and fully funded. Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, May 2, 2005 7:45 AM Actually once you get past the "romance" of riding a train there really is no real reason to keep A/trak going beyond the NEC. I compare it to the "International Space Station" which is another government boondoggle in my opinion. [:o)][:D][:)] Originally posted by donclark [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, May 2, 2005 7:45 AM Did Mr. Gunn say anything about Amtrak ownership of the corridor west of New Haven, currently owned by CDOT and Metro-North? Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, May 2, 2005 7:12 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. Suspension, electomagnetic brakes, air conditioning, shock absorption, lightweight materials, controlled braking - a few things did improve. besides - amfleet are getting older - soon they will show it with increasing maintenence. QUOTE: What do you base the 15 minute interval demand on? I remember reading a case, not too long ago in trains, that the frequency should be no more than hourly and the trains longer with several classes of accomodations - not more frequent. Ehem - having a station in the middle of cities with several million in population and running trains at hour tact is sorta weird. Besides - high frequency introduces "the train is always there" - thus increases ridership. Look at Europe - at the same distance you get hourly tact between cities helluva smaller then NY or Boston. Actually - at peak times some TGV lines are run with 3 minute headways. Nice opinions. I disagree. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, April 29, 2005 4:26 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. Suspension, electomagnetic brakes, air conditioning, shock absorption, lightweight materials, controlled braking - a few things did improve. besides - amfleet are getting older - soon they will show it with increasing maintenence. QUOTE: What do you base the 15 minute interval demand on? I remember reading a case, not too long ago in trains, that the frequency should be no more than hourly and the trains longer with several classes of accomodations - not more frequent. Ehem - having a station in the middle of cities with several million in population and running trains at hour tact is sorta weird. Besides - high frequency introduces "the train is always there" - thus increases ridership. Look at Europe - at the same distance you get hourly tact between cities helluva smaller then NY or Boston. Actually - at peak times some TGV lines are run with 3 minute headways. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, April 29, 2005 12:35 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Maybe he means better suspension & maybe leaning into curves. I would suspect that the NEC ould easily support trains with 15 minute headways with the signal system now in place. Heck between commuter & A/trak trains I would think even 15 minutes would be a long period. I know that the tunnel between NJ & Penn Station NY can handle a ttrain every 3 minutes. That would mean the signal system is geared for that time frame. [:D][:p] Originally posted by oltmannd Originally posted by uzurpator Originally posted by oltmannd Operationally, it could be done (you'd have to kick NJT out of some Penn Sta slots, tho'), but would the market support it? What headways support the max benefit for the least cost? I have never seen, read or heard anything that would support 15 minute headways. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, April 29, 2005 12:23 PM I think then Americans would have to cease driving cars. I am sure you are aware that you/I & everybody who buys gasoline is paying I think 80% of any hwy project thru a gasoline tax. The state pays the remaining 20% & that comes thru taxes that are paid into state coffers. [:D][:)][:o)] Originally posted by donclark Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, April 29, 2005 12:17 PM Maybe he means better suspension & maybe leaning into curves. I would suspect that the NEC ould easily support trains with 15 minute headways with the signal system now in place. Heck between commuter & A/trak trains I would think even 15 minutes would be a long period. I know that the tunnel between NJ & Penn Station NY can handle a ttrain every 3 minutes. That would mean the signal system is geared for that time frame. [:D][:p] Originally posted by oltmannd Originally posted by uzurpator Originally posted by oltmannd Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Friday, April 29, 2005 11:10 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jockellis G'day, Y'all, Anyone who believes ONLY gasoline tax money is used to build highways might want to buy my bridge in New York City. What is the big idea of trying to sell my bridge out from under me? Gabe Reply jockellis Member sinceMay 2002 From: Just outside Atlanta 422 posts Posted by jockellis on Friday, April 29, 2005 11:06 AM G'day, Y'all, Anyone who believes ONLY gasoline tax money is used to build highways might want to buy my bridge in New York City. The military heads a list of agencies wanting better and bigger roads. They have the ear of Congress. Congressmen love to have new roads in their districts because it is a very visible sign of the hard work they do in Washington for their constituents. In other words, it helps them get re-elected. Remember LBJ's War on Poverty? A lot of it went for an interstate-type highway north from Atlanta to Dahlonega, GA 400 which some drivers think is the Indy 500 and drive appropriately. This was not built with a penny of federal DOT money but anti-poverty money. As as for federal programs actually working, this is a poster project. It took Bill Elliott's hometown Dawsonville and gold mining Dahlonega out of Appalachian poverty and onto the road to wealth as landowners sold their farms for suburban subdivisions. And the wealth was spread around. But back to highways, a lot more money that what the DOT amasses in gas taxes goes into the roads. If Congressmen could point with pride to new federally-financed railroads in their territories, we would be getting more trains because they could be getting more votes. In reality, our representatives can get more votes railing against the railroads than they can supporting them. Railroads have from the very beginning been high profile targets and will always because they are seen as cold and heartless big business and worse than that, they keep you waiting at grade crossings for a few minutes. Jock Ellis Cumming, GA US of A Jock Ellis Cumming, GA US of A Georgia Association of Railroad Passengers Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, April 29, 2005 8:33 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd Amtrak longer distance trains are short on coaches -- it is not unusual, for instance, for the Adirondack to and from Montreal to sell out (for lack of equipment) long before the departure date, and it's not alone... The brake rotor thing? It will be interesting to read the final analysis reports. I'd agree with Don, though -- more likely cooling problems than anything else. And I would add to that that there is nothing wrong with the fundamental design (500,000 miles isn't bad, guys -- try that with your automobile!) except... and it's a big except... an Acela is a LOT heavier than the trains (TGV) from which it was derived, and has to use the brakes more often due to speed restrictions and the like. There were some somewhat similar problems (not brakes, but others related to heavier loadings than anticipated) in the very first AEM7s... Is the Adirondak selling out between NY and Albany or from Albany to Montreal? The times I've ridden it, it's been pretty sparsely filled north of Albany, but that was years ago. Do they drop/add cars at Albany? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply jchnhtfd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 1,537 posts Posted by jchnhtfd on Friday, April 29, 2005 5:38 AM Amtrak longer distance trains are short on coaches -- it is not unusual, for instance, for the Adirondack to and from Montreal to sell out (for lack of equipment) long before the departure date, and it's not alone... The brake rotor thing? It will be interesting to read the final analysis reports. I'd agree with Don, though -- more likely cooling problems than anything else. And I would add to that that there is nothing wrong with the fundamental design (500,000 miles isn't bad, guys -- try that with your automobile!) except... and it's a big except... an Acela is a LOT heavier than the trains (TGV) from which it was derived, and has to use the brakes more often due to speed restrictions and the like. There were some somewhat similar problems (not brakes, but others related to heavier loadings than anticipated) in the very first AEM7s... Jamie Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 28, 2005 6:18 PM There is no doubt in my mind that Amtrak is short on sleepers, and could use some new diners on the east coast.... However, I don't think Amtrak is short on coaches...... Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:37 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Yes CNN said today that Bombardier "over" estimated the usage on the brakes. [:(][:(] Originally posted by mustanggt [ There is a lot of really curious information out there. Best I can figure out, the problem isn't the brake "wore out", since the wear surfaces of brakes are designed to be replaced more often than one a million miles. The failure is cracks of the rotor - which at this point in their life are likely due to fatigue. Fatigue occurs with repetitive stress. Stress can occur mechanically, from braking force, or thermally. I really can't imagine they blew the stress calculation from the braking force, but thermal stress is something else. It could be a product of too much power braking, too little time released between, full speed, full application or even insufficient cooling in the rotor design or air flow around the rotor. I'll put my money on cooling deficiencies, if I were betting. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:30 PM i could see more coaches and sleepers for the trains to florida, and all the west coast trains. If Amtrak could do it right, it would be good for them to have extra cars to put on the trains as demand requires. In the west, Keep extra Superliners in Seattle, Portland, Oakland, LA, Denver, DALLAS, Minneapolis, New Orleans. I know that it would cost a lot of money, but it would be worth it. At times when there is huge demand, which would be the summer, and holidays, you would be able to meet the demand instead of saying sold out. In the mean time, the extra cars would make it so that they could keep the maintence up all year and keep the cars in good shape. Also, for sleepers, I would make one care that was all double deluxe bedrooms so that they are like master suites. You could then put a double bed in there as well as the bunk beds. If you made the cars right, you could put that car at the end of the train, so that way they would have a huge window to look out of the back. Make it like a cruise. I would also build more Pacific Parlour cars for the rest of the system, as those are a huge success. Now of course this would all take a lot of money, but if Amtrak was given the resources to do this, it would work. Brad Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:05 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Why the new cars? What's wrong with Amfleet? What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? Why the new cars? Because a service like Boston - Wash should be run with 15 minute interval. If not more. What's wrong with Amfleet? Apart from being late 70ties technology - nothing much. What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? I heard that LD trains long for new equipment. What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. What do you base the 15 minute interval demand on? I remember reading a case, not too long ago in trains, that the frequency should be no more than hourly and the trains longer with several classes of accomodations - not more frequent. Where did you hear that the LD trains need more coaches? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Thursday, April 28, 2005 1:40 PM Yes CNN said today that Bombardier "over" estimated the usage on the brakes. [:(][:(] Originally posted by mustanggt [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:52 PM Gabe Here is a link to a New York Times on the history of the Acela trains. Don Phillips was one of the covering reporters, so the paper got it right and may give you more insight to the comment made by Gunn. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/national/24acela.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=33b9ffeaa0c275cf&hp&ex=1114315200&partner=homepage Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:09 PM The original 5 year plan, updates, and the Amtrak's proposal for organizational changes are all on their web site. The 2006 appropriations request includes Amtrak's proposals for organizational changes. It is a 52 page document and presents a plan to get to an organization that includes a good portion of the things that the Bush Administration has been looking for. In many respect I see it as a put up or shut up document. I am sure that neither Congress or the Administration will see it that way, the wording is very diplomatic, but Amtrak has been pretty clear as to what it will take to implement the changes. For example, the NEC needs $2 billion to be put in good operating condition. There is a pretty strong implication that it doesn't make any difference if Amtrak, NECtrak, 13 Original Coloniestrak or billgatestrak is given the NEC, it is still going to take $2 billion for fix up. Amtrak acknowledged that the other corridor operations (the short haul stuff), ought to be an important focus of the reauthorization bill and suggested an 80-20 federal-state funding scheme to promote the development of these services. Amtrak agreed that the states should be the key deciders of which corridors should be developed and they should select operators for lines on a competitive basis. It is suggested that Amtrak should be allowed to be a bidder. The plan does note that if outside operators are to be found it may be necessary to change the federal laws governing bargaining with rail unions, the requirement for participation in the Railroad Retirement Program, and other lawful requirements that apply to railroad companies. These are all perceived to be a cause of costs incurred by railroads that other types of business do not have to deal with. Amtrak also offered to establish a precise method for determing the cost recovery of long distances trains so that congress could establish legal minimums for train continuation. When I say this is a put up or shut up document this is what I mean. The first thing being said is that this is the kind of federal investment that is going to be necessary if there is to be any rail passenger service in the US. The second is directed to the people who argue that competition solves everything. Here is an outline of the first necessay steps to make the business attractive. Get that done and then good luck. The forgoing is a little off the topic, but if one wants factual information about what Amtrak is trying to do and how the government money will be used, these documents have to be read. I didn't see the C-Span interview, but I suspect that Gunn may have been trying to make the point that the Acela problems are not exclusively the fault of Amtrak. My reading of the histroy was that rather than setting the necessary specs and authorizing the constructions of the trains, Congress, DOT planners and the FRA kept coming back with an "Oh by the way, you need to add this or upgrade that." Appearantly there was no individual in charge of the project either willing or able to keep all such requests to making it to the builder. Bombardier filed the lawsuit against Amtrak with the allegation that these change requests screwed up the works and cost them hundreds of millions of dollars. It would be a pure guess on my part, but had he been in charge Gunn may have suggested that the money put up for Acela trains may have been better spent on upgrades to the NEC. With that, the somewhat slower convential trains may have been able to achieve the running times at or close to what was to be done with the Acelas. Maybe after that, the modern style high speed train can be developed, possibly without the need for tilt and with less power. One prototype test until all the bugs are gone and then you launch the production model. The Big Dig. A few have bought up with the old saw or the highway lobby propaganda that highway projects are paid for by user fees. Sorry, but you are wrong. Federal Highway System projects are paid for by a tax on gasoline, which is paid by gasoline buyers even if they do not use Federal Highways. If you are going argue that the Big Dig is being paid for by the users, you better get me some pictures of the toll gates. By the way, many states, including Florida get much less back in federal money for highways than comes from gasoline sales in that states. How does that become a user fee for the residents of Florida? Take a trip to Boston? I was glad to hear that Mineta was very impressed by the "profitable" operation of Japan's bullet trains. They may have an operating profit, but I am willing to bet a lunch that the Japanese Government's investment in the building of that system would make our investment in Amtrak look like chump change. "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply conrailman Member sinceDecember 2001 From: NS Main Line at MP12 Blairsville,Pa 830 posts Posted by conrailman on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 7:24 PM I found it in Trains Maz October of 2004 issue about the Amfleets Cars being replace in 2007 AND OTHER STUFF about amtrak 5 year plan on Pg 14 and 15.[:)] Reply 12 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by oltmannd Originally posted by uzurpator Originally posted by oltmannd Operationally, it could be done (you'd have to kick NJT out of some Penn Sta slots, tho'), but would the market support it? What headways support the max benefit for the least cost? I have never seen, read or heard anything that would support 15 minute headways. Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, May 2, 2005 12:12 PM We could spend trillions on them but outside of the NEC unless they own the tracks, dispatch the trains, contril the trains A/trak will continue to provide poor service. Just my opinion. [:o)][8D] Originally posted by Modelcar [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Modelcar Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania 13,456 posts Posted by Modelcar on Monday, May 2, 2005 9:00 AM ....And suitable improvements for Amtrak could be made for much less than the 400B....If conditions were suitable and facilities were up to good standards I believe plenty of folks would like to travel via train...In comfort and not as what the comfort level has become on air travel. Quentin Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Monday, May 2, 2005 8:48 AM I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you, Dave. But, barring a major energy crisis--which isn't out of the question--they will NEVER spend 400 Billion on Amtrak. I think all of the railroads in the United States could be bought for about 90 Billion. Gabe Reply daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Monday, May 2, 2005 8:39 AM First of all, David Gunn was not running the show when Acela was designed and did not have any say in reviewing the bid proposals. He was simply faced with the task of making the darn thing work. Second, yes in my opinion, Amtrak could be profitable: The $14Billion for the big dig is peanuts compared with the total spent for investment in highway and airport infrastructure. Amtrak can be profitable if first about $400Billion is spent for Amtrak investment, including capacity enhancement for high-speed running on selected congested freight lines used by Amtrak, a NSta-SSta Boston rail connection, complete repairs to the Corridor, renewal of all critical components, both hotel and running gear, on all Amfleet, Horizen, and Superliner equipment, overhauling of Acela equipment and Bombardier locomotives to incorporate everything that the Wilmington Shope people have learned, enhancement of the total rolling stock with new equipment so critical links can be restored, such as Florida-Atlanta-Cincinnati-Chicago, and increased frequencies so CZ can be daily and supplemented by a Chi-Denver train, so Cleveland can have service east and west at a reasonable hour, etc. Then price the service to meet the demand, following airline practice to keep the trains full during slack periods and charge what the traffic will bear during peak periods. Do not run social service operations like commuter trains to remove highway congestion unless local state or authority organizations pay for the subsidy. The high speed corridor trains will then truly be competitive with air travel and should charge accordingly. The long distance trains should be considered as cruise ships on land and charge accordingly except for reduced fares for those with medical problems that cannot fly or cannot drive long distances, and their fares do deserve a government subsidy in my opinion. Similarly with maintaining communications in harsh winter weather in the Northwest. Short of that, the $Billion subsidy Amtrak requires is peanuts compared to the total transportation expenditures and is well worth what it buys, in my opinion. Amtrak's own reform plan should be adopted and fully funded. Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, May 2, 2005 7:45 AM Actually once you get past the "romance" of riding a train there really is no real reason to keep A/trak going beyond the NEC. I compare it to the "International Space Station" which is another government boondoggle in my opinion. [:o)][:D][:)] Originally posted by donclark [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, May 2, 2005 7:45 AM Did Mr. Gunn say anything about Amtrak ownership of the corridor west of New Haven, currently owned by CDOT and Metro-North? Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, May 2, 2005 7:12 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. Suspension, electomagnetic brakes, air conditioning, shock absorption, lightweight materials, controlled braking - a few things did improve. besides - amfleet are getting older - soon they will show it with increasing maintenence. QUOTE: What do you base the 15 minute interval demand on? I remember reading a case, not too long ago in trains, that the frequency should be no more than hourly and the trains longer with several classes of accomodations - not more frequent. Ehem - having a station in the middle of cities with several million in population and running trains at hour tact is sorta weird. Besides - high frequency introduces "the train is always there" - thus increases ridership. Look at Europe - at the same distance you get hourly tact between cities helluva smaller then NY or Boston. Actually - at peak times some TGV lines are run with 3 minute headways. Nice opinions. I disagree. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, April 29, 2005 4:26 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. Suspension, electomagnetic brakes, air conditioning, shock absorption, lightweight materials, controlled braking - a few things did improve. besides - amfleet are getting older - soon they will show it with increasing maintenence. QUOTE: What do you base the 15 minute interval demand on? I remember reading a case, not too long ago in trains, that the frequency should be no more than hourly and the trains longer with several classes of accomodations - not more frequent. Ehem - having a station in the middle of cities with several million in population and running trains at hour tact is sorta weird. Besides - high frequency introduces "the train is always there" - thus increases ridership. Look at Europe - at the same distance you get hourly tact between cities helluva smaller then NY or Boston. Actually - at peak times some TGV lines are run with 3 minute headways. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, April 29, 2005 12:35 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Maybe he means better suspension & maybe leaning into curves. I would suspect that the NEC ould easily support trains with 15 minute headways with the signal system now in place. Heck between commuter & A/trak trains I would think even 15 minutes would be a long period. I know that the tunnel between NJ & Penn Station NY can handle a ttrain every 3 minutes. That would mean the signal system is geared for that time frame. [:D][:p] Originally posted by oltmannd Originally posted by uzurpator Originally posted by oltmannd Operationally, it could be done (you'd have to kick NJT out of some Penn Sta slots, tho'), but would the market support it? What headways support the max benefit for the least cost? I have never seen, read or heard anything that would support 15 minute headways. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, April 29, 2005 12:23 PM I think then Americans would have to cease driving cars. I am sure you are aware that you/I & everybody who buys gasoline is paying I think 80% of any hwy project thru a gasoline tax. The state pays the remaining 20% & that comes thru taxes that are paid into state coffers. [:D][:)][:o)] Originally posted by donclark Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, April 29, 2005 12:17 PM Maybe he means better suspension & maybe leaning into curves. I would suspect that the NEC ould easily support trains with 15 minute headways with the signal system now in place. Heck between commuter & A/trak trains I would think even 15 minutes would be a long period. I know that the tunnel between NJ & Penn Station NY can handle a ttrain every 3 minutes. That would mean the signal system is geared for that time frame. [:D][:p] Originally posted by oltmannd Originally posted by uzurpator Originally posted by oltmannd Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Friday, April 29, 2005 11:10 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jockellis G'day, Y'all, Anyone who believes ONLY gasoline tax money is used to build highways might want to buy my bridge in New York City. What is the big idea of trying to sell my bridge out from under me? Gabe Reply jockellis Member sinceMay 2002 From: Just outside Atlanta 422 posts Posted by jockellis on Friday, April 29, 2005 11:06 AM G'day, Y'all, Anyone who believes ONLY gasoline tax money is used to build highways might want to buy my bridge in New York City. The military heads a list of agencies wanting better and bigger roads. They have the ear of Congress. Congressmen love to have new roads in their districts because it is a very visible sign of the hard work they do in Washington for their constituents. In other words, it helps them get re-elected. Remember LBJ's War on Poverty? A lot of it went for an interstate-type highway north from Atlanta to Dahlonega, GA 400 which some drivers think is the Indy 500 and drive appropriately. This was not built with a penny of federal DOT money but anti-poverty money. As as for federal programs actually working, this is a poster project. It took Bill Elliott's hometown Dawsonville and gold mining Dahlonega out of Appalachian poverty and onto the road to wealth as landowners sold their farms for suburban subdivisions. And the wealth was spread around. But back to highways, a lot more money that what the DOT amasses in gas taxes goes into the roads. If Congressmen could point with pride to new federally-financed railroads in their territories, we would be getting more trains because they could be getting more votes. In reality, our representatives can get more votes railing against the railroads than they can supporting them. Railroads have from the very beginning been high profile targets and will always because they are seen as cold and heartless big business and worse than that, they keep you waiting at grade crossings for a few minutes. Jock Ellis Cumming, GA US of A Jock Ellis Cumming, GA US of A Georgia Association of Railroad Passengers Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, April 29, 2005 8:33 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd Amtrak longer distance trains are short on coaches -- it is not unusual, for instance, for the Adirondack to and from Montreal to sell out (for lack of equipment) long before the departure date, and it's not alone... The brake rotor thing? It will be interesting to read the final analysis reports. I'd agree with Don, though -- more likely cooling problems than anything else. And I would add to that that there is nothing wrong with the fundamental design (500,000 miles isn't bad, guys -- try that with your automobile!) except... and it's a big except... an Acela is a LOT heavier than the trains (TGV) from which it was derived, and has to use the brakes more often due to speed restrictions and the like. There were some somewhat similar problems (not brakes, but others related to heavier loadings than anticipated) in the very first AEM7s... Is the Adirondak selling out between NY and Albany or from Albany to Montreal? The times I've ridden it, it's been pretty sparsely filled north of Albany, but that was years ago. Do they drop/add cars at Albany? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply jchnhtfd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 1,537 posts Posted by jchnhtfd on Friday, April 29, 2005 5:38 AM Amtrak longer distance trains are short on coaches -- it is not unusual, for instance, for the Adirondack to and from Montreal to sell out (for lack of equipment) long before the departure date, and it's not alone... The brake rotor thing? It will be interesting to read the final analysis reports. I'd agree with Don, though -- more likely cooling problems than anything else. And I would add to that that there is nothing wrong with the fundamental design (500,000 miles isn't bad, guys -- try that with your automobile!) except... and it's a big except... an Acela is a LOT heavier than the trains (TGV) from which it was derived, and has to use the brakes more often due to speed restrictions and the like. There were some somewhat similar problems (not brakes, but others related to heavier loadings than anticipated) in the very first AEM7s... Jamie Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 28, 2005 6:18 PM There is no doubt in my mind that Amtrak is short on sleepers, and could use some new diners on the east coast.... However, I don't think Amtrak is short on coaches...... Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:37 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Yes CNN said today that Bombardier "over" estimated the usage on the brakes. [:(][:(] Originally posted by mustanggt [ There is a lot of really curious information out there. Best I can figure out, the problem isn't the brake "wore out", since the wear surfaces of brakes are designed to be replaced more often than one a million miles. The failure is cracks of the rotor - which at this point in their life are likely due to fatigue. Fatigue occurs with repetitive stress. Stress can occur mechanically, from braking force, or thermally. I really can't imagine they blew the stress calculation from the braking force, but thermal stress is something else. It could be a product of too much power braking, too little time released between, full speed, full application or even insufficient cooling in the rotor design or air flow around the rotor. I'll put my money on cooling deficiencies, if I were betting. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:30 PM i could see more coaches and sleepers for the trains to florida, and all the west coast trains. If Amtrak could do it right, it would be good for them to have extra cars to put on the trains as demand requires. In the west, Keep extra Superliners in Seattle, Portland, Oakland, LA, Denver, DALLAS, Minneapolis, New Orleans. I know that it would cost a lot of money, but it would be worth it. At times when there is huge demand, which would be the summer, and holidays, you would be able to meet the demand instead of saying sold out. In the mean time, the extra cars would make it so that they could keep the maintence up all year and keep the cars in good shape. Also, for sleepers, I would make one care that was all double deluxe bedrooms so that they are like master suites. You could then put a double bed in there as well as the bunk beds. If you made the cars right, you could put that car at the end of the train, so that way they would have a huge window to look out of the back. Make it like a cruise. I would also build more Pacific Parlour cars for the rest of the system, as those are a huge success. Now of course this would all take a lot of money, but if Amtrak was given the resources to do this, it would work. Brad Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:05 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Why the new cars? What's wrong with Amfleet? What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? Why the new cars? Because a service like Boston - Wash should be run with 15 minute interval. If not more. What's wrong with Amfleet? Apart from being late 70ties technology - nothing much. What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? I heard that LD trains long for new equipment. What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. What do you base the 15 minute interval demand on? I remember reading a case, not too long ago in trains, that the frequency should be no more than hourly and the trains longer with several classes of accomodations - not more frequent. Where did you hear that the LD trains need more coaches? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Thursday, April 28, 2005 1:40 PM Yes CNN said today that Bombardier "over" estimated the usage on the brakes. [:(][:(] Originally posted by mustanggt [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:52 PM Gabe Here is a link to a New York Times on the history of the Acela trains. Don Phillips was one of the covering reporters, so the paper got it right and may give you more insight to the comment made by Gunn. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/national/24acela.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=33b9ffeaa0c275cf&hp&ex=1114315200&partner=homepage Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:09 PM The original 5 year plan, updates, and the Amtrak's proposal for organizational changes are all on their web site. The 2006 appropriations request includes Amtrak's proposals for organizational changes. It is a 52 page document and presents a plan to get to an organization that includes a good portion of the things that the Bush Administration has been looking for. In many respect I see it as a put up or shut up document. I am sure that neither Congress or the Administration will see it that way, the wording is very diplomatic, but Amtrak has been pretty clear as to what it will take to implement the changes. For example, the NEC needs $2 billion to be put in good operating condition. There is a pretty strong implication that it doesn't make any difference if Amtrak, NECtrak, 13 Original Coloniestrak or billgatestrak is given the NEC, it is still going to take $2 billion for fix up. Amtrak acknowledged that the other corridor operations (the short haul stuff), ought to be an important focus of the reauthorization bill and suggested an 80-20 federal-state funding scheme to promote the development of these services. Amtrak agreed that the states should be the key deciders of which corridors should be developed and they should select operators for lines on a competitive basis. It is suggested that Amtrak should be allowed to be a bidder. The plan does note that if outside operators are to be found it may be necessary to change the federal laws governing bargaining with rail unions, the requirement for participation in the Railroad Retirement Program, and other lawful requirements that apply to railroad companies. These are all perceived to be a cause of costs incurred by railroads that other types of business do not have to deal with. Amtrak also offered to establish a precise method for determing the cost recovery of long distances trains so that congress could establish legal minimums for train continuation. When I say this is a put up or shut up document this is what I mean. The first thing being said is that this is the kind of federal investment that is going to be necessary if there is to be any rail passenger service in the US. The second is directed to the people who argue that competition solves everything. Here is an outline of the first necessay steps to make the business attractive. Get that done and then good luck. The forgoing is a little off the topic, but if one wants factual information about what Amtrak is trying to do and how the government money will be used, these documents have to be read. I didn't see the C-Span interview, but I suspect that Gunn may have been trying to make the point that the Acela problems are not exclusively the fault of Amtrak. My reading of the histroy was that rather than setting the necessary specs and authorizing the constructions of the trains, Congress, DOT planners and the FRA kept coming back with an "Oh by the way, you need to add this or upgrade that." Appearantly there was no individual in charge of the project either willing or able to keep all such requests to making it to the builder. Bombardier filed the lawsuit against Amtrak with the allegation that these change requests screwed up the works and cost them hundreds of millions of dollars. It would be a pure guess on my part, but had he been in charge Gunn may have suggested that the money put up for Acela trains may have been better spent on upgrades to the NEC. With that, the somewhat slower convential trains may have been able to achieve the running times at or close to what was to be done with the Acelas. Maybe after that, the modern style high speed train can be developed, possibly without the need for tilt and with less power. One prototype test until all the bugs are gone and then you launch the production model. The Big Dig. A few have bought up with the old saw or the highway lobby propaganda that highway projects are paid for by user fees. Sorry, but you are wrong. Federal Highway System projects are paid for by a tax on gasoline, which is paid by gasoline buyers even if they do not use Federal Highways. If you are going argue that the Big Dig is being paid for by the users, you better get me some pictures of the toll gates. By the way, many states, including Florida get much less back in federal money for highways than comes from gasoline sales in that states. How does that become a user fee for the residents of Florida? Take a trip to Boston? I was glad to hear that Mineta was very impressed by the "profitable" operation of Japan's bullet trains. They may have an operating profit, but I am willing to bet a lunch that the Japanese Government's investment in the building of that system would make our investment in Amtrak look like chump change. "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply conrailman Member sinceDecember 2001 From: NS Main Line at MP12 Blairsville,Pa 830 posts Posted by conrailman on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 7:24 PM I found it in Trains Maz October of 2004 issue about the Amfleets Cars being replace in 2007 AND OTHER STUFF about amtrak 5 year plan on Pg 14 and 15.[:)] Reply 12 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by uzurpator Originally posted by oltmannd Operationally, it could be done (you'd have to kick NJT out of some Penn Sta slots, tho'), but would the market support it? What headways support the max benefit for the least cost? I have never seen, read or heard anything that would support 15 minute headways.
Originally posted by oltmannd
Originally posted by Modelcar [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Modelcar Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania 13,456 posts Posted by Modelcar on Monday, May 2, 2005 9:00 AM ....And suitable improvements for Amtrak could be made for much less than the 400B....If conditions were suitable and facilities were up to good standards I believe plenty of folks would like to travel via train...In comfort and not as what the comfort level has become on air travel. Quentin Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Monday, May 2, 2005 8:48 AM I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you, Dave. But, barring a major energy crisis--which isn't out of the question--they will NEVER spend 400 Billion on Amtrak. I think all of the railroads in the United States could be bought for about 90 Billion. Gabe Reply daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Monday, May 2, 2005 8:39 AM First of all, David Gunn was not running the show when Acela was designed and did not have any say in reviewing the bid proposals. He was simply faced with the task of making the darn thing work. Second, yes in my opinion, Amtrak could be profitable: The $14Billion for the big dig is peanuts compared with the total spent for investment in highway and airport infrastructure. Amtrak can be profitable if first about $400Billion is spent for Amtrak investment, including capacity enhancement for high-speed running on selected congested freight lines used by Amtrak, a NSta-SSta Boston rail connection, complete repairs to the Corridor, renewal of all critical components, both hotel and running gear, on all Amfleet, Horizen, and Superliner equipment, overhauling of Acela equipment and Bombardier locomotives to incorporate everything that the Wilmington Shope people have learned, enhancement of the total rolling stock with new equipment so critical links can be restored, such as Florida-Atlanta-Cincinnati-Chicago, and increased frequencies so CZ can be daily and supplemented by a Chi-Denver train, so Cleveland can have service east and west at a reasonable hour, etc. Then price the service to meet the demand, following airline practice to keep the trains full during slack periods and charge what the traffic will bear during peak periods. Do not run social service operations like commuter trains to remove highway congestion unless local state or authority organizations pay for the subsidy. The high speed corridor trains will then truly be competitive with air travel and should charge accordingly. The long distance trains should be considered as cruise ships on land and charge accordingly except for reduced fares for those with medical problems that cannot fly or cannot drive long distances, and their fares do deserve a government subsidy in my opinion. Similarly with maintaining communications in harsh winter weather in the Northwest. Short of that, the $Billion subsidy Amtrak requires is peanuts compared to the total transportation expenditures and is well worth what it buys, in my opinion. Amtrak's own reform plan should be adopted and fully funded. Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, May 2, 2005 7:45 AM Actually once you get past the "romance" of riding a train there really is no real reason to keep A/trak going beyond the NEC. I compare it to the "International Space Station" which is another government boondoggle in my opinion. [:o)][:D][:)] Originally posted by donclark [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, May 2, 2005 7:45 AM Did Mr. Gunn say anything about Amtrak ownership of the corridor west of New Haven, currently owned by CDOT and Metro-North? Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, May 2, 2005 7:12 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. Suspension, electomagnetic brakes, air conditioning, shock absorption, lightweight materials, controlled braking - a few things did improve. besides - amfleet are getting older - soon they will show it with increasing maintenence. QUOTE: What do you base the 15 minute interval demand on? I remember reading a case, not too long ago in trains, that the frequency should be no more than hourly and the trains longer with several classes of accomodations - not more frequent. Ehem - having a station in the middle of cities with several million in population and running trains at hour tact is sorta weird. Besides - high frequency introduces "the train is always there" - thus increases ridership. Look at Europe - at the same distance you get hourly tact between cities helluva smaller then NY or Boston. Actually - at peak times some TGV lines are run with 3 minute headways. Nice opinions. I disagree. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, April 29, 2005 4:26 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. Suspension, electomagnetic brakes, air conditioning, shock absorption, lightweight materials, controlled braking - a few things did improve. besides - amfleet are getting older - soon they will show it with increasing maintenence. QUOTE: What do you base the 15 minute interval demand on? I remember reading a case, not too long ago in trains, that the frequency should be no more than hourly and the trains longer with several classes of accomodations - not more frequent. Ehem - having a station in the middle of cities with several million in population and running trains at hour tact is sorta weird. Besides - high frequency introduces "the train is always there" - thus increases ridership. Look at Europe - at the same distance you get hourly tact between cities helluva smaller then NY or Boston. Actually - at peak times some TGV lines are run with 3 minute headways. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, April 29, 2005 12:35 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Maybe he means better suspension & maybe leaning into curves. I would suspect that the NEC ould easily support trains with 15 minute headways with the signal system now in place. Heck between commuter & A/trak trains I would think even 15 minutes would be a long period. I know that the tunnel between NJ & Penn Station NY can handle a ttrain every 3 minutes. That would mean the signal system is geared for that time frame. [:D][:p] Originally posted by oltmannd Originally posted by uzurpator Originally posted by oltmannd Operationally, it could be done (you'd have to kick NJT out of some Penn Sta slots, tho'), but would the market support it? What headways support the max benefit for the least cost? I have never seen, read or heard anything that would support 15 minute headways. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, April 29, 2005 12:23 PM I think then Americans would have to cease driving cars. I am sure you are aware that you/I & everybody who buys gasoline is paying I think 80% of any hwy project thru a gasoline tax. The state pays the remaining 20% & that comes thru taxes that are paid into state coffers. [:D][:)][:o)] Originally posted by donclark Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, April 29, 2005 12:17 PM Maybe he means better suspension & maybe leaning into curves. I would suspect that the NEC ould easily support trains with 15 minute headways with the signal system now in place. Heck between commuter & A/trak trains I would think even 15 minutes would be a long period. I know that the tunnel between NJ & Penn Station NY can handle a ttrain every 3 minutes. That would mean the signal system is geared for that time frame. [:D][:p] Originally posted by oltmannd Originally posted by uzurpator Originally posted by oltmannd Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Friday, April 29, 2005 11:10 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jockellis G'day, Y'all, Anyone who believes ONLY gasoline tax money is used to build highways might want to buy my bridge in New York City. What is the big idea of trying to sell my bridge out from under me? Gabe Reply jockellis Member sinceMay 2002 From: Just outside Atlanta 422 posts Posted by jockellis on Friday, April 29, 2005 11:06 AM G'day, Y'all, Anyone who believes ONLY gasoline tax money is used to build highways might want to buy my bridge in New York City. The military heads a list of agencies wanting better and bigger roads. They have the ear of Congress. Congressmen love to have new roads in their districts because it is a very visible sign of the hard work they do in Washington for their constituents. In other words, it helps them get re-elected. Remember LBJ's War on Poverty? A lot of it went for an interstate-type highway north from Atlanta to Dahlonega, GA 400 which some drivers think is the Indy 500 and drive appropriately. This was not built with a penny of federal DOT money but anti-poverty money. As as for federal programs actually working, this is a poster project. It took Bill Elliott's hometown Dawsonville and gold mining Dahlonega out of Appalachian poverty and onto the road to wealth as landowners sold their farms for suburban subdivisions. And the wealth was spread around. But back to highways, a lot more money that what the DOT amasses in gas taxes goes into the roads. If Congressmen could point with pride to new federally-financed railroads in their territories, we would be getting more trains because they could be getting more votes. In reality, our representatives can get more votes railing against the railroads than they can supporting them. Railroads have from the very beginning been high profile targets and will always because they are seen as cold and heartless big business and worse than that, they keep you waiting at grade crossings for a few minutes. Jock Ellis Cumming, GA US of A Jock Ellis Cumming, GA US of A Georgia Association of Railroad Passengers Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, April 29, 2005 8:33 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd Amtrak longer distance trains are short on coaches -- it is not unusual, for instance, for the Adirondack to and from Montreal to sell out (for lack of equipment) long before the departure date, and it's not alone... The brake rotor thing? It will be interesting to read the final analysis reports. I'd agree with Don, though -- more likely cooling problems than anything else. And I would add to that that there is nothing wrong with the fundamental design (500,000 miles isn't bad, guys -- try that with your automobile!) except... and it's a big except... an Acela is a LOT heavier than the trains (TGV) from which it was derived, and has to use the brakes more often due to speed restrictions and the like. There were some somewhat similar problems (not brakes, but others related to heavier loadings than anticipated) in the very first AEM7s... Is the Adirondak selling out between NY and Albany or from Albany to Montreal? The times I've ridden it, it's been pretty sparsely filled north of Albany, but that was years ago. Do they drop/add cars at Albany? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply jchnhtfd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 1,537 posts Posted by jchnhtfd on Friday, April 29, 2005 5:38 AM Amtrak longer distance trains are short on coaches -- it is not unusual, for instance, for the Adirondack to and from Montreal to sell out (for lack of equipment) long before the departure date, and it's not alone... The brake rotor thing? It will be interesting to read the final analysis reports. I'd agree with Don, though -- more likely cooling problems than anything else. And I would add to that that there is nothing wrong with the fundamental design (500,000 miles isn't bad, guys -- try that with your automobile!) except... and it's a big except... an Acela is a LOT heavier than the trains (TGV) from which it was derived, and has to use the brakes more often due to speed restrictions and the like. There were some somewhat similar problems (not brakes, but others related to heavier loadings than anticipated) in the very first AEM7s... Jamie Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 28, 2005 6:18 PM There is no doubt in my mind that Amtrak is short on sleepers, and could use some new diners on the east coast.... However, I don't think Amtrak is short on coaches...... Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:37 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Yes CNN said today that Bombardier "over" estimated the usage on the brakes. [:(][:(] Originally posted by mustanggt [ There is a lot of really curious information out there. Best I can figure out, the problem isn't the brake "wore out", since the wear surfaces of brakes are designed to be replaced more often than one a million miles. The failure is cracks of the rotor - which at this point in their life are likely due to fatigue. Fatigue occurs with repetitive stress. Stress can occur mechanically, from braking force, or thermally. I really can't imagine they blew the stress calculation from the braking force, but thermal stress is something else. It could be a product of too much power braking, too little time released between, full speed, full application or even insufficient cooling in the rotor design or air flow around the rotor. I'll put my money on cooling deficiencies, if I were betting. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:30 PM i could see more coaches and sleepers for the trains to florida, and all the west coast trains. If Amtrak could do it right, it would be good for them to have extra cars to put on the trains as demand requires. In the west, Keep extra Superliners in Seattle, Portland, Oakland, LA, Denver, DALLAS, Minneapolis, New Orleans. I know that it would cost a lot of money, but it would be worth it. At times when there is huge demand, which would be the summer, and holidays, you would be able to meet the demand instead of saying sold out. In the mean time, the extra cars would make it so that they could keep the maintence up all year and keep the cars in good shape. Also, for sleepers, I would make one care that was all double deluxe bedrooms so that they are like master suites. You could then put a double bed in there as well as the bunk beds. If you made the cars right, you could put that car at the end of the train, so that way they would have a huge window to look out of the back. Make it like a cruise. I would also build more Pacific Parlour cars for the rest of the system, as those are a huge success. Now of course this would all take a lot of money, but if Amtrak was given the resources to do this, it would work. Brad Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:05 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Why the new cars? What's wrong with Amfleet? What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? Why the new cars? Because a service like Boston - Wash should be run with 15 minute interval. If not more. What's wrong with Amfleet? Apart from being late 70ties technology - nothing much. What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? I heard that LD trains long for new equipment. What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. What do you base the 15 minute interval demand on? I remember reading a case, not too long ago in trains, that the frequency should be no more than hourly and the trains longer with several classes of accomodations - not more frequent. Where did you hear that the LD trains need more coaches? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Thursday, April 28, 2005 1:40 PM Yes CNN said today that Bombardier "over" estimated the usage on the brakes. [:(][:(] Originally posted by mustanggt [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:52 PM Gabe Here is a link to a New York Times on the history of the Acela trains. Don Phillips was one of the covering reporters, so the paper got it right and may give you more insight to the comment made by Gunn. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/national/24acela.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=33b9ffeaa0c275cf&hp&ex=1114315200&partner=homepage Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:09 PM The original 5 year plan, updates, and the Amtrak's proposal for organizational changes are all on their web site. The 2006 appropriations request includes Amtrak's proposals for organizational changes. It is a 52 page document and presents a plan to get to an organization that includes a good portion of the things that the Bush Administration has been looking for. In many respect I see it as a put up or shut up document. I am sure that neither Congress or the Administration will see it that way, the wording is very diplomatic, but Amtrak has been pretty clear as to what it will take to implement the changes. For example, the NEC needs $2 billion to be put in good operating condition. There is a pretty strong implication that it doesn't make any difference if Amtrak, NECtrak, 13 Original Coloniestrak or billgatestrak is given the NEC, it is still going to take $2 billion for fix up. Amtrak acknowledged that the other corridor operations (the short haul stuff), ought to be an important focus of the reauthorization bill and suggested an 80-20 federal-state funding scheme to promote the development of these services. Amtrak agreed that the states should be the key deciders of which corridors should be developed and they should select operators for lines on a competitive basis. It is suggested that Amtrak should be allowed to be a bidder. The plan does note that if outside operators are to be found it may be necessary to change the federal laws governing bargaining with rail unions, the requirement for participation in the Railroad Retirement Program, and other lawful requirements that apply to railroad companies. These are all perceived to be a cause of costs incurred by railroads that other types of business do not have to deal with. Amtrak also offered to establish a precise method for determing the cost recovery of long distances trains so that congress could establish legal minimums for train continuation. When I say this is a put up or shut up document this is what I mean. The first thing being said is that this is the kind of federal investment that is going to be necessary if there is to be any rail passenger service in the US. The second is directed to the people who argue that competition solves everything. Here is an outline of the first necessay steps to make the business attractive. Get that done and then good luck. The forgoing is a little off the topic, but if one wants factual information about what Amtrak is trying to do and how the government money will be used, these documents have to be read. I didn't see the C-Span interview, but I suspect that Gunn may have been trying to make the point that the Acela problems are not exclusively the fault of Amtrak. My reading of the histroy was that rather than setting the necessary specs and authorizing the constructions of the trains, Congress, DOT planners and the FRA kept coming back with an "Oh by the way, you need to add this or upgrade that." Appearantly there was no individual in charge of the project either willing or able to keep all such requests to making it to the builder. Bombardier filed the lawsuit against Amtrak with the allegation that these change requests screwed up the works and cost them hundreds of millions of dollars. It would be a pure guess on my part, but had he been in charge Gunn may have suggested that the money put up for Acela trains may have been better spent on upgrades to the NEC. With that, the somewhat slower convential trains may have been able to achieve the running times at or close to what was to be done with the Acelas. Maybe after that, the modern style high speed train can be developed, possibly without the need for tilt and with less power. One prototype test until all the bugs are gone and then you launch the production model. The Big Dig. A few have bought up with the old saw or the highway lobby propaganda that highway projects are paid for by user fees. Sorry, but you are wrong. Federal Highway System projects are paid for by a tax on gasoline, which is paid by gasoline buyers even if they do not use Federal Highways. If you are going argue that the Big Dig is being paid for by the users, you better get me some pictures of the toll gates. By the way, many states, including Florida get much less back in federal money for highways than comes from gasoline sales in that states. How does that become a user fee for the residents of Florida? Take a trip to Boston? I was glad to hear that Mineta was very impressed by the "profitable" operation of Japan's bullet trains. They may have an operating profit, but I am willing to bet a lunch that the Japanese Government's investment in the building of that system would make our investment in Amtrak look like chump change. "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply conrailman Member sinceDecember 2001 From: NS Main Line at MP12 Blairsville,Pa 830 posts Posted by conrailman on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 7:24 PM I found it in Trains Maz October of 2004 issue about the Amfleets Cars being replace in 2007 AND OTHER STUFF about amtrak 5 year plan on Pg 14 and 15.[:)] Reply 12 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Quentin
Originally posted by donclark [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, May 2, 2005 7:45 AM Did Mr. Gunn say anything about Amtrak ownership of the corridor west of New Haven, currently owned by CDOT and Metro-North? Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, May 2, 2005 7:12 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. Suspension, electomagnetic brakes, air conditioning, shock absorption, lightweight materials, controlled braking - a few things did improve. besides - amfleet are getting older - soon they will show it with increasing maintenence. QUOTE: What do you base the 15 minute interval demand on? I remember reading a case, not too long ago in trains, that the frequency should be no more than hourly and the trains longer with several classes of accomodations - not more frequent. Ehem - having a station in the middle of cities with several million in population and running trains at hour tact is sorta weird. Besides - high frequency introduces "the train is always there" - thus increases ridership. Look at Europe - at the same distance you get hourly tact between cities helluva smaller then NY or Boston. Actually - at peak times some TGV lines are run with 3 minute headways. Nice opinions. I disagree. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, April 29, 2005 4:26 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. Suspension, electomagnetic brakes, air conditioning, shock absorption, lightweight materials, controlled braking - a few things did improve. besides - amfleet are getting older - soon they will show it with increasing maintenence. QUOTE: What do you base the 15 minute interval demand on? I remember reading a case, not too long ago in trains, that the frequency should be no more than hourly and the trains longer with several classes of accomodations - not more frequent. Ehem - having a station in the middle of cities with several million in population and running trains at hour tact is sorta weird. Besides - high frequency introduces "the train is always there" - thus increases ridership. Look at Europe - at the same distance you get hourly tact between cities helluva smaller then NY or Boston. Actually - at peak times some TGV lines are run with 3 minute headways. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, April 29, 2005 12:35 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Maybe he means better suspension & maybe leaning into curves. I would suspect that the NEC ould easily support trains with 15 minute headways with the signal system now in place. Heck between commuter & A/trak trains I would think even 15 minutes would be a long period. I know that the tunnel between NJ & Penn Station NY can handle a ttrain every 3 minutes. That would mean the signal system is geared for that time frame. [:D][:p] Originally posted by oltmannd Originally posted by uzurpator Originally posted by oltmannd Operationally, it could be done (you'd have to kick NJT out of some Penn Sta slots, tho'), but would the market support it? What headways support the max benefit for the least cost? I have never seen, read or heard anything that would support 15 minute headways. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, April 29, 2005 12:23 PM I think then Americans would have to cease driving cars. I am sure you are aware that you/I & everybody who buys gasoline is paying I think 80% of any hwy project thru a gasoline tax. The state pays the remaining 20% & that comes thru taxes that are paid into state coffers. [:D][:)][:o)] Originally posted by donclark Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, April 29, 2005 12:17 PM Maybe he means better suspension & maybe leaning into curves. I would suspect that the NEC ould easily support trains with 15 minute headways with the signal system now in place. Heck between commuter & A/trak trains I would think even 15 minutes would be a long period. I know that the tunnel between NJ & Penn Station NY can handle a ttrain every 3 minutes. That would mean the signal system is geared for that time frame. [:D][:p] Originally posted by oltmannd Originally posted by uzurpator Originally posted by oltmannd Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Friday, April 29, 2005 11:10 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jockellis G'day, Y'all, Anyone who believes ONLY gasoline tax money is used to build highways might want to buy my bridge in New York City. What is the big idea of trying to sell my bridge out from under me? Gabe Reply jockellis Member sinceMay 2002 From: Just outside Atlanta 422 posts Posted by jockellis on Friday, April 29, 2005 11:06 AM G'day, Y'all, Anyone who believes ONLY gasoline tax money is used to build highways might want to buy my bridge in New York City. The military heads a list of agencies wanting better and bigger roads. They have the ear of Congress. Congressmen love to have new roads in their districts because it is a very visible sign of the hard work they do in Washington for their constituents. In other words, it helps them get re-elected. Remember LBJ's War on Poverty? A lot of it went for an interstate-type highway north from Atlanta to Dahlonega, GA 400 which some drivers think is the Indy 500 and drive appropriately. This was not built with a penny of federal DOT money but anti-poverty money. As as for federal programs actually working, this is a poster project. It took Bill Elliott's hometown Dawsonville and gold mining Dahlonega out of Appalachian poverty and onto the road to wealth as landowners sold their farms for suburban subdivisions. And the wealth was spread around. But back to highways, a lot more money that what the DOT amasses in gas taxes goes into the roads. If Congressmen could point with pride to new federally-financed railroads in their territories, we would be getting more trains because they could be getting more votes. In reality, our representatives can get more votes railing against the railroads than they can supporting them. Railroads have from the very beginning been high profile targets and will always because they are seen as cold and heartless big business and worse than that, they keep you waiting at grade crossings for a few minutes. Jock Ellis Cumming, GA US of A Jock Ellis Cumming, GA US of A Georgia Association of Railroad Passengers Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, April 29, 2005 8:33 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd Amtrak longer distance trains are short on coaches -- it is not unusual, for instance, for the Adirondack to and from Montreal to sell out (for lack of equipment) long before the departure date, and it's not alone... The brake rotor thing? It will be interesting to read the final analysis reports. I'd agree with Don, though -- more likely cooling problems than anything else. And I would add to that that there is nothing wrong with the fundamental design (500,000 miles isn't bad, guys -- try that with your automobile!) except... and it's a big except... an Acela is a LOT heavier than the trains (TGV) from which it was derived, and has to use the brakes more often due to speed restrictions and the like. There were some somewhat similar problems (not brakes, but others related to heavier loadings than anticipated) in the very first AEM7s... Is the Adirondak selling out between NY and Albany or from Albany to Montreal? The times I've ridden it, it's been pretty sparsely filled north of Albany, but that was years ago. Do they drop/add cars at Albany? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply jchnhtfd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 1,537 posts Posted by jchnhtfd on Friday, April 29, 2005 5:38 AM Amtrak longer distance trains are short on coaches -- it is not unusual, for instance, for the Adirondack to and from Montreal to sell out (for lack of equipment) long before the departure date, and it's not alone... The brake rotor thing? It will be interesting to read the final analysis reports. I'd agree with Don, though -- more likely cooling problems than anything else. And I would add to that that there is nothing wrong with the fundamental design (500,000 miles isn't bad, guys -- try that with your automobile!) except... and it's a big except... an Acela is a LOT heavier than the trains (TGV) from which it was derived, and has to use the brakes more often due to speed restrictions and the like. There were some somewhat similar problems (not brakes, but others related to heavier loadings than anticipated) in the very first AEM7s... Jamie Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 28, 2005 6:18 PM There is no doubt in my mind that Amtrak is short on sleepers, and could use some new diners on the east coast.... However, I don't think Amtrak is short on coaches...... Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:37 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Yes CNN said today that Bombardier "over" estimated the usage on the brakes. [:(][:(] Originally posted by mustanggt [ There is a lot of really curious information out there. Best I can figure out, the problem isn't the brake "wore out", since the wear surfaces of brakes are designed to be replaced more often than one a million miles. The failure is cracks of the rotor - which at this point in their life are likely due to fatigue. Fatigue occurs with repetitive stress. Stress can occur mechanically, from braking force, or thermally. I really can't imagine they blew the stress calculation from the braking force, but thermal stress is something else. It could be a product of too much power braking, too little time released between, full speed, full application or even insufficient cooling in the rotor design or air flow around the rotor. I'll put my money on cooling deficiencies, if I were betting. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:30 PM i could see more coaches and sleepers for the trains to florida, and all the west coast trains. If Amtrak could do it right, it would be good for them to have extra cars to put on the trains as demand requires. In the west, Keep extra Superliners in Seattle, Portland, Oakland, LA, Denver, DALLAS, Minneapolis, New Orleans. I know that it would cost a lot of money, but it would be worth it. At times when there is huge demand, which would be the summer, and holidays, you would be able to meet the demand instead of saying sold out. In the mean time, the extra cars would make it so that they could keep the maintence up all year and keep the cars in good shape. Also, for sleepers, I would make one care that was all double deluxe bedrooms so that they are like master suites. You could then put a double bed in there as well as the bunk beds. If you made the cars right, you could put that car at the end of the train, so that way they would have a huge window to look out of the back. Make it like a cruise. I would also build more Pacific Parlour cars for the rest of the system, as those are a huge success. Now of course this would all take a lot of money, but if Amtrak was given the resources to do this, it would work. Brad Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:05 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Why the new cars? What's wrong with Amfleet? What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? Why the new cars? Because a service like Boston - Wash should be run with 15 minute interval. If not more. What's wrong with Amfleet? Apart from being late 70ties technology - nothing much. What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? I heard that LD trains long for new equipment. What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. What do you base the 15 minute interval demand on? I remember reading a case, not too long ago in trains, that the frequency should be no more than hourly and the trains longer with several classes of accomodations - not more frequent. Where did you hear that the LD trains need more coaches? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Thursday, April 28, 2005 1:40 PM Yes CNN said today that Bombardier "over" estimated the usage on the brakes. [:(][:(] Originally posted by mustanggt [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:52 PM Gabe Here is a link to a New York Times on the history of the Acela trains. Don Phillips was one of the covering reporters, so the paper got it right and may give you more insight to the comment made by Gunn. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/national/24acela.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=33b9ffeaa0c275cf&hp&ex=1114315200&partner=homepage Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:09 PM The original 5 year plan, updates, and the Amtrak's proposal for organizational changes are all on their web site. The 2006 appropriations request includes Amtrak's proposals for organizational changes. It is a 52 page document and presents a plan to get to an organization that includes a good portion of the things that the Bush Administration has been looking for. In many respect I see it as a put up or shut up document. I am sure that neither Congress or the Administration will see it that way, the wording is very diplomatic, but Amtrak has been pretty clear as to what it will take to implement the changes. For example, the NEC needs $2 billion to be put in good operating condition. There is a pretty strong implication that it doesn't make any difference if Amtrak, NECtrak, 13 Original Coloniestrak or billgatestrak is given the NEC, it is still going to take $2 billion for fix up. Amtrak acknowledged that the other corridor operations (the short haul stuff), ought to be an important focus of the reauthorization bill and suggested an 80-20 federal-state funding scheme to promote the development of these services. Amtrak agreed that the states should be the key deciders of which corridors should be developed and they should select operators for lines on a competitive basis. It is suggested that Amtrak should be allowed to be a bidder. The plan does note that if outside operators are to be found it may be necessary to change the federal laws governing bargaining with rail unions, the requirement for participation in the Railroad Retirement Program, and other lawful requirements that apply to railroad companies. These are all perceived to be a cause of costs incurred by railroads that other types of business do not have to deal with. Amtrak also offered to establish a precise method for determing the cost recovery of long distances trains so that congress could establish legal minimums for train continuation. When I say this is a put up or shut up document this is what I mean. The first thing being said is that this is the kind of federal investment that is going to be necessary if there is to be any rail passenger service in the US. The second is directed to the people who argue that competition solves everything. Here is an outline of the first necessay steps to make the business attractive. Get that done and then good luck. The forgoing is a little off the topic, but if one wants factual information about what Amtrak is trying to do and how the government money will be used, these documents have to be read. I didn't see the C-Span interview, but I suspect that Gunn may have been trying to make the point that the Acela problems are not exclusively the fault of Amtrak. My reading of the histroy was that rather than setting the necessary specs and authorizing the constructions of the trains, Congress, DOT planners and the FRA kept coming back with an "Oh by the way, you need to add this or upgrade that." Appearantly there was no individual in charge of the project either willing or able to keep all such requests to making it to the builder. Bombardier filed the lawsuit against Amtrak with the allegation that these change requests screwed up the works and cost them hundreds of millions of dollars. It would be a pure guess on my part, but had he been in charge Gunn may have suggested that the money put up for Acela trains may have been better spent on upgrades to the NEC. With that, the somewhat slower convential trains may have been able to achieve the running times at or close to what was to be done with the Acelas. Maybe after that, the modern style high speed train can be developed, possibly without the need for tilt and with less power. One prototype test until all the bugs are gone and then you launch the production model. The Big Dig. A few have bought up with the old saw or the highway lobby propaganda that highway projects are paid for by user fees. Sorry, but you are wrong. Federal Highway System projects are paid for by a tax on gasoline, which is paid by gasoline buyers even if they do not use Federal Highways. If you are going argue that the Big Dig is being paid for by the users, you better get me some pictures of the toll gates. By the way, many states, including Florida get much less back in federal money for highways than comes from gasoline sales in that states. How does that become a user fee for the residents of Florida? Take a trip to Boston? I was glad to hear that Mineta was very impressed by the "profitable" operation of Japan's bullet trains. They may have an operating profit, but I am willing to bet a lunch that the Japanese Government's investment in the building of that system would make our investment in Amtrak look like chump change. "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply conrailman Member sinceDecember 2001 From: NS Main Line at MP12 Blairsville,Pa 830 posts Posted by conrailman on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 7:24 PM I found it in Trains Maz October of 2004 issue about the Amfleets Cars being replace in 2007 AND OTHER STUFF about amtrak 5 year plan on Pg 14 and 15.[:)] Reply 12 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. Suspension, electomagnetic brakes, air conditioning, shock absorption, lightweight materials, controlled braking - a few things did improve. besides - amfleet are getting older - soon they will show it with increasing maintenence. QUOTE: What do you base the 15 minute interval demand on? I remember reading a case, not too long ago in trains, that the frequency should be no more than hourly and the trains longer with several classes of accomodations - not more frequent. Ehem - having a station in the middle of cities with several million in population and running trains at hour tact is sorta weird. Besides - high frequency introduces "the train is always there" - thus increases ridership. Look at Europe - at the same distance you get hourly tact between cities helluva smaller then NY or Boston. Actually - at peak times some TGV lines are run with 3 minute headways.
QUOTE: What do you base the 15 minute interval demand on? I remember reading a case, not too long ago in trains, that the frequency should be no more than hourly and the trains longer with several classes of accomodations - not more frequent.
QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Maybe he means better suspension & maybe leaning into curves. I would suspect that the NEC ould easily support trains with 15 minute headways with the signal system now in place. Heck between commuter & A/trak trains I would think even 15 minutes would be a long period. I know that the tunnel between NJ & Penn Station NY can handle a ttrain every 3 minutes. That would mean the signal system is geared for that time frame. [:D][:p] Originally posted by oltmannd Originally posted by uzurpator Originally posted by oltmannd Operationally, it could be done (you'd have to kick NJT out of some Penn Sta slots, tho'), but would the market support it? What headways support the max benefit for the least cost? I have never seen, read or heard anything that would support 15 minute headways. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, April 29, 2005 12:23 PM I think then Americans would have to cease driving cars. I am sure you are aware that you/I & everybody who buys gasoline is paying I think 80% of any hwy project thru a gasoline tax. The state pays the remaining 20% & that comes thru taxes that are paid into state coffers. [:D][:)][:o)] Originally posted by donclark Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, April 29, 2005 12:17 PM Maybe he means better suspension & maybe leaning into curves. I would suspect that the NEC ould easily support trains with 15 minute headways with the signal system now in place. Heck between commuter & A/trak trains I would think even 15 minutes would be a long period. I know that the tunnel between NJ & Penn Station NY can handle a ttrain every 3 minutes. That would mean the signal system is geared for that time frame. [:D][:p] Originally posted by oltmannd Originally posted by uzurpator Originally posted by oltmannd Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Friday, April 29, 2005 11:10 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jockellis G'day, Y'all, Anyone who believes ONLY gasoline tax money is used to build highways might want to buy my bridge in New York City. What is the big idea of trying to sell my bridge out from under me? Gabe Reply jockellis Member sinceMay 2002 From: Just outside Atlanta 422 posts Posted by jockellis on Friday, April 29, 2005 11:06 AM G'day, Y'all, Anyone who believes ONLY gasoline tax money is used to build highways might want to buy my bridge in New York City. The military heads a list of agencies wanting better and bigger roads. They have the ear of Congress. Congressmen love to have new roads in their districts because it is a very visible sign of the hard work they do in Washington for their constituents. In other words, it helps them get re-elected. Remember LBJ's War on Poverty? A lot of it went for an interstate-type highway north from Atlanta to Dahlonega, GA 400 which some drivers think is the Indy 500 and drive appropriately. This was not built with a penny of federal DOT money but anti-poverty money. As as for federal programs actually working, this is a poster project. It took Bill Elliott's hometown Dawsonville and gold mining Dahlonega out of Appalachian poverty and onto the road to wealth as landowners sold their farms for suburban subdivisions. And the wealth was spread around. But back to highways, a lot more money that what the DOT amasses in gas taxes goes into the roads. If Congressmen could point with pride to new federally-financed railroads in their territories, we would be getting more trains because they could be getting more votes. In reality, our representatives can get more votes railing against the railroads than they can supporting them. Railroads have from the very beginning been high profile targets and will always because they are seen as cold and heartless big business and worse than that, they keep you waiting at grade crossings for a few minutes. Jock Ellis Cumming, GA US of A Jock Ellis Cumming, GA US of A Georgia Association of Railroad Passengers Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, April 29, 2005 8:33 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd Amtrak longer distance trains are short on coaches -- it is not unusual, for instance, for the Adirondack to and from Montreal to sell out (for lack of equipment) long before the departure date, and it's not alone... The brake rotor thing? It will be interesting to read the final analysis reports. I'd agree with Don, though -- more likely cooling problems than anything else. And I would add to that that there is nothing wrong with the fundamental design (500,000 miles isn't bad, guys -- try that with your automobile!) except... and it's a big except... an Acela is a LOT heavier than the trains (TGV) from which it was derived, and has to use the brakes more often due to speed restrictions and the like. There were some somewhat similar problems (not brakes, but others related to heavier loadings than anticipated) in the very first AEM7s... Is the Adirondak selling out between NY and Albany or from Albany to Montreal? The times I've ridden it, it's been pretty sparsely filled north of Albany, but that was years ago. Do they drop/add cars at Albany? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply jchnhtfd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 1,537 posts Posted by jchnhtfd on Friday, April 29, 2005 5:38 AM Amtrak longer distance trains are short on coaches -- it is not unusual, for instance, for the Adirondack to and from Montreal to sell out (for lack of equipment) long before the departure date, and it's not alone... The brake rotor thing? It will be interesting to read the final analysis reports. I'd agree with Don, though -- more likely cooling problems than anything else. And I would add to that that there is nothing wrong with the fundamental design (500,000 miles isn't bad, guys -- try that with your automobile!) except... and it's a big except... an Acela is a LOT heavier than the trains (TGV) from which it was derived, and has to use the brakes more often due to speed restrictions and the like. There were some somewhat similar problems (not brakes, but others related to heavier loadings than anticipated) in the very first AEM7s... Jamie Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 28, 2005 6:18 PM There is no doubt in my mind that Amtrak is short on sleepers, and could use some new diners on the east coast.... However, I don't think Amtrak is short on coaches...... Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:37 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Yes CNN said today that Bombardier "over" estimated the usage on the brakes. [:(][:(] Originally posted by mustanggt [ There is a lot of really curious information out there. Best I can figure out, the problem isn't the brake "wore out", since the wear surfaces of brakes are designed to be replaced more often than one a million miles. The failure is cracks of the rotor - which at this point in their life are likely due to fatigue. Fatigue occurs with repetitive stress. Stress can occur mechanically, from braking force, or thermally. I really can't imagine they blew the stress calculation from the braking force, but thermal stress is something else. It could be a product of too much power braking, too little time released between, full speed, full application or even insufficient cooling in the rotor design or air flow around the rotor. I'll put my money on cooling deficiencies, if I were betting. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:30 PM i could see more coaches and sleepers for the trains to florida, and all the west coast trains. If Amtrak could do it right, it would be good for them to have extra cars to put on the trains as demand requires. In the west, Keep extra Superliners in Seattle, Portland, Oakland, LA, Denver, DALLAS, Minneapolis, New Orleans. I know that it would cost a lot of money, but it would be worth it. At times when there is huge demand, which would be the summer, and holidays, you would be able to meet the demand instead of saying sold out. In the mean time, the extra cars would make it so that they could keep the maintence up all year and keep the cars in good shape. Also, for sleepers, I would make one care that was all double deluxe bedrooms so that they are like master suites. You could then put a double bed in there as well as the bunk beds. If you made the cars right, you could put that car at the end of the train, so that way they would have a huge window to look out of the back. Make it like a cruise. I would also build more Pacific Parlour cars for the rest of the system, as those are a huge success. Now of course this would all take a lot of money, but if Amtrak was given the resources to do this, it would work. Brad Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:05 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Why the new cars? What's wrong with Amfleet? What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? Why the new cars? Because a service like Boston - Wash should be run with 15 minute interval. If not more. What's wrong with Amfleet? Apart from being late 70ties technology - nothing much. What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? I heard that LD trains long for new equipment. What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. What do you base the 15 minute interval demand on? I remember reading a case, not too long ago in trains, that the frequency should be no more than hourly and the trains longer with several classes of accomodations - not more frequent. Where did you hear that the LD trains need more coaches? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Thursday, April 28, 2005 1:40 PM Yes CNN said today that Bombardier "over" estimated the usage on the brakes. [:(][:(] Originally posted by mustanggt [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:52 PM Gabe Here is a link to a New York Times on the history of the Acela trains. Don Phillips was one of the covering reporters, so the paper got it right and may give you more insight to the comment made by Gunn. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/national/24acela.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=33b9ffeaa0c275cf&hp&ex=1114315200&partner=homepage Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:09 PM The original 5 year plan, updates, and the Amtrak's proposal for organizational changes are all on their web site. The 2006 appropriations request includes Amtrak's proposals for organizational changes. It is a 52 page document and presents a plan to get to an organization that includes a good portion of the things that the Bush Administration has been looking for. In many respect I see it as a put up or shut up document. I am sure that neither Congress or the Administration will see it that way, the wording is very diplomatic, but Amtrak has been pretty clear as to what it will take to implement the changes. For example, the NEC needs $2 billion to be put in good operating condition. There is a pretty strong implication that it doesn't make any difference if Amtrak, NECtrak, 13 Original Coloniestrak or billgatestrak is given the NEC, it is still going to take $2 billion for fix up. Amtrak acknowledged that the other corridor operations (the short haul stuff), ought to be an important focus of the reauthorization bill and suggested an 80-20 federal-state funding scheme to promote the development of these services. Amtrak agreed that the states should be the key deciders of which corridors should be developed and they should select operators for lines on a competitive basis. It is suggested that Amtrak should be allowed to be a bidder. The plan does note that if outside operators are to be found it may be necessary to change the federal laws governing bargaining with rail unions, the requirement for participation in the Railroad Retirement Program, and other lawful requirements that apply to railroad companies. These are all perceived to be a cause of costs incurred by railroads that other types of business do not have to deal with. Amtrak also offered to establish a precise method for determing the cost recovery of long distances trains so that congress could establish legal minimums for train continuation. When I say this is a put up or shut up document this is what I mean. The first thing being said is that this is the kind of federal investment that is going to be necessary if there is to be any rail passenger service in the US. The second is directed to the people who argue that competition solves everything. Here is an outline of the first necessay steps to make the business attractive. Get that done and then good luck. The forgoing is a little off the topic, but if one wants factual information about what Amtrak is trying to do and how the government money will be used, these documents have to be read. I didn't see the C-Span interview, but I suspect that Gunn may have been trying to make the point that the Acela problems are not exclusively the fault of Amtrak. My reading of the histroy was that rather than setting the necessary specs and authorizing the constructions of the trains, Congress, DOT planners and the FRA kept coming back with an "Oh by the way, you need to add this or upgrade that." Appearantly there was no individual in charge of the project either willing or able to keep all such requests to making it to the builder. Bombardier filed the lawsuit against Amtrak with the allegation that these change requests screwed up the works and cost them hundreds of millions of dollars. It would be a pure guess on my part, but had he been in charge Gunn may have suggested that the money put up for Acela trains may have been better spent on upgrades to the NEC. With that, the somewhat slower convential trains may have been able to achieve the running times at or close to what was to be done with the Acelas. Maybe after that, the modern style high speed train can be developed, possibly without the need for tilt and with less power. One prototype test until all the bugs are gone and then you launch the production model. The Big Dig. A few have bought up with the old saw or the highway lobby propaganda that highway projects are paid for by user fees. Sorry, but you are wrong. Federal Highway System projects are paid for by a tax on gasoline, which is paid by gasoline buyers even if they do not use Federal Highways. If you are going argue that the Big Dig is being paid for by the users, you better get me some pictures of the toll gates. By the way, many states, including Florida get much less back in federal money for highways than comes from gasoline sales in that states. How does that become a user fee for the residents of Florida? Take a trip to Boston? I was glad to hear that Mineta was very impressed by the "profitable" operation of Japan's bullet trains. They may have an operating profit, but I am willing to bet a lunch that the Japanese Government's investment in the building of that system would make our investment in Amtrak look like chump change. "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply conrailman Member sinceDecember 2001 From: NS Main Line at MP12 Blairsville,Pa 830 posts Posted by conrailman on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 7:24 PM I found it in Trains Maz October of 2004 issue about the Amfleets Cars being replace in 2007 AND OTHER STUFF about amtrak 5 year plan on Pg 14 and 15.[:)] Reply 12 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by oltmannd Originally posted by uzurpator Originally posted by oltmannd Operationally, it could be done (you'd have to kick NJT out of some Penn Sta slots, tho'), but would the market support it? What headways support the max benefit for the least cost? I have never seen, read or heard anything that would support 15 minute headways. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, April 29, 2005 12:23 PM I think then Americans would have to cease driving cars. I am sure you are aware that you/I & everybody who buys gasoline is paying I think 80% of any hwy project thru a gasoline tax. The state pays the remaining 20% & that comes thru taxes that are paid into state coffers. [:D][:)][:o)] Originally posted by donclark Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, April 29, 2005 12:17 PM Maybe he means better suspension & maybe leaning into curves. I would suspect that the NEC ould easily support trains with 15 minute headways with the signal system now in place. Heck between commuter & A/trak trains I would think even 15 minutes would be a long period. I know that the tunnel between NJ & Penn Station NY can handle a ttrain every 3 minutes. That would mean the signal system is geared for that time frame. [:D][:p] Originally posted by oltmannd Originally posted by uzurpator Originally posted by oltmannd Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Friday, April 29, 2005 11:10 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jockellis G'day, Y'all, Anyone who believes ONLY gasoline tax money is used to build highways might want to buy my bridge in New York City. What is the big idea of trying to sell my bridge out from under me? Gabe Reply jockellis Member sinceMay 2002 From: Just outside Atlanta 422 posts Posted by jockellis on Friday, April 29, 2005 11:06 AM G'day, Y'all, Anyone who believes ONLY gasoline tax money is used to build highways might want to buy my bridge in New York City. The military heads a list of agencies wanting better and bigger roads. They have the ear of Congress. Congressmen love to have new roads in their districts because it is a very visible sign of the hard work they do in Washington for their constituents. In other words, it helps them get re-elected. Remember LBJ's War on Poverty? A lot of it went for an interstate-type highway north from Atlanta to Dahlonega, GA 400 which some drivers think is the Indy 500 and drive appropriately. This was not built with a penny of federal DOT money but anti-poverty money. As as for federal programs actually working, this is a poster project. It took Bill Elliott's hometown Dawsonville and gold mining Dahlonega out of Appalachian poverty and onto the road to wealth as landowners sold their farms for suburban subdivisions. And the wealth was spread around. But back to highways, a lot more money that what the DOT amasses in gas taxes goes into the roads. If Congressmen could point with pride to new federally-financed railroads in their territories, we would be getting more trains because they could be getting more votes. In reality, our representatives can get more votes railing against the railroads than they can supporting them. Railroads have from the very beginning been high profile targets and will always because they are seen as cold and heartless big business and worse than that, they keep you waiting at grade crossings for a few minutes. Jock Ellis Cumming, GA US of A Jock Ellis Cumming, GA US of A Georgia Association of Railroad Passengers Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, April 29, 2005 8:33 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd Amtrak longer distance trains are short on coaches -- it is not unusual, for instance, for the Adirondack to and from Montreal to sell out (for lack of equipment) long before the departure date, and it's not alone... The brake rotor thing? It will be interesting to read the final analysis reports. I'd agree with Don, though -- more likely cooling problems than anything else. And I would add to that that there is nothing wrong with the fundamental design (500,000 miles isn't bad, guys -- try that with your automobile!) except... and it's a big except... an Acela is a LOT heavier than the trains (TGV) from which it was derived, and has to use the brakes more often due to speed restrictions and the like. There were some somewhat similar problems (not brakes, but others related to heavier loadings than anticipated) in the very first AEM7s... Is the Adirondak selling out between NY and Albany or from Albany to Montreal? The times I've ridden it, it's been pretty sparsely filled north of Albany, but that was years ago. Do they drop/add cars at Albany? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply jchnhtfd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 1,537 posts Posted by jchnhtfd on Friday, April 29, 2005 5:38 AM Amtrak longer distance trains are short on coaches -- it is not unusual, for instance, for the Adirondack to and from Montreal to sell out (for lack of equipment) long before the departure date, and it's not alone... The brake rotor thing? It will be interesting to read the final analysis reports. I'd agree with Don, though -- more likely cooling problems than anything else. And I would add to that that there is nothing wrong with the fundamental design (500,000 miles isn't bad, guys -- try that with your automobile!) except... and it's a big except... an Acela is a LOT heavier than the trains (TGV) from which it was derived, and has to use the brakes more often due to speed restrictions and the like. There were some somewhat similar problems (not brakes, but others related to heavier loadings than anticipated) in the very first AEM7s... Jamie Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 28, 2005 6:18 PM There is no doubt in my mind that Amtrak is short on sleepers, and could use some new diners on the east coast.... However, I don't think Amtrak is short on coaches...... Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:37 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Yes CNN said today that Bombardier "over" estimated the usage on the brakes. [:(][:(] Originally posted by mustanggt [ There is a lot of really curious information out there. Best I can figure out, the problem isn't the brake "wore out", since the wear surfaces of brakes are designed to be replaced more often than one a million miles. The failure is cracks of the rotor - which at this point in their life are likely due to fatigue. Fatigue occurs with repetitive stress. Stress can occur mechanically, from braking force, or thermally. I really can't imagine they blew the stress calculation from the braking force, but thermal stress is something else. It could be a product of too much power braking, too little time released between, full speed, full application or even insufficient cooling in the rotor design or air flow around the rotor. I'll put my money on cooling deficiencies, if I were betting. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:30 PM i could see more coaches and sleepers for the trains to florida, and all the west coast trains. If Amtrak could do it right, it would be good for them to have extra cars to put on the trains as demand requires. In the west, Keep extra Superliners in Seattle, Portland, Oakland, LA, Denver, DALLAS, Minneapolis, New Orleans. I know that it would cost a lot of money, but it would be worth it. At times when there is huge demand, which would be the summer, and holidays, you would be able to meet the demand instead of saying sold out. In the mean time, the extra cars would make it so that they could keep the maintence up all year and keep the cars in good shape. Also, for sleepers, I would make one care that was all double deluxe bedrooms so that they are like master suites. You could then put a double bed in there as well as the bunk beds. If you made the cars right, you could put that car at the end of the train, so that way they would have a huge window to look out of the back. Make it like a cruise. I would also build more Pacific Parlour cars for the rest of the system, as those are a huge success. Now of course this would all take a lot of money, but if Amtrak was given the resources to do this, it would work. Brad Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:05 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Why the new cars? What's wrong with Amfleet? What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? Why the new cars? Because a service like Boston - Wash should be run with 15 minute interval. If not more. What's wrong with Amfleet? Apart from being late 70ties technology - nothing much. What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? I heard that LD trains long for new equipment. What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. What do you base the 15 minute interval demand on? I remember reading a case, not too long ago in trains, that the frequency should be no more than hourly and the trains longer with several classes of accomodations - not more frequent. Where did you hear that the LD trains need more coaches? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Thursday, April 28, 2005 1:40 PM Yes CNN said today that Bombardier "over" estimated the usage on the brakes. [:(][:(] Originally posted by mustanggt [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:52 PM Gabe Here is a link to a New York Times on the history of the Acela trains. Don Phillips was one of the covering reporters, so the paper got it right and may give you more insight to the comment made by Gunn. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/national/24acela.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=33b9ffeaa0c275cf&hp&ex=1114315200&partner=homepage Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:09 PM The original 5 year plan, updates, and the Amtrak's proposal for organizational changes are all on their web site. The 2006 appropriations request includes Amtrak's proposals for organizational changes. It is a 52 page document and presents a plan to get to an organization that includes a good portion of the things that the Bush Administration has been looking for. In many respect I see it as a put up or shut up document. I am sure that neither Congress or the Administration will see it that way, the wording is very diplomatic, but Amtrak has been pretty clear as to what it will take to implement the changes. For example, the NEC needs $2 billion to be put in good operating condition. There is a pretty strong implication that it doesn't make any difference if Amtrak, NECtrak, 13 Original Coloniestrak or billgatestrak is given the NEC, it is still going to take $2 billion for fix up. Amtrak acknowledged that the other corridor operations (the short haul stuff), ought to be an important focus of the reauthorization bill and suggested an 80-20 federal-state funding scheme to promote the development of these services. Amtrak agreed that the states should be the key deciders of which corridors should be developed and they should select operators for lines on a competitive basis. It is suggested that Amtrak should be allowed to be a bidder. The plan does note that if outside operators are to be found it may be necessary to change the federal laws governing bargaining with rail unions, the requirement for participation in the Railroad Retirement Program, and other lawful requirements that apply to railroad companies. These are all perceived to be a cause of costs incurred by railroads that other types of business do not have to deal with. Amtrak also offered to establish a precise method for determing the cost recovery of long distances trains so that congress could establish legal minimums for train continuation. When I say this is a put up or shut up document this is what I mean. The first thing being said is that this is the kind of federal investment that is going to be necessary if there is to be any rail passenger service in the US. The second is directed to the people who argue that competition solves everything. Here is an outline of the first necessay steps to make the business attractive. Get that done and then good luck. The forgoing is a little off the topic, but if one wants factual information about what Amtrak is trying to do and how the government money will be used, these documents have to be read. I didn't see the C-Span interview, but I suspect that Gunn may have been trying to make the point that the Acela problems are not exclusively the fault of Amtrak. My reading of the histroy was that rather than setting the necessary specs and authorizing the constructions of the trains, Congress, DOT planners and the FRA kept coming back with an "Oh by the way, you need to add this or upgrade that." Appearantly there was no individual in charge of the project either willing or able to keep all such requests to making it to the builder. Bombardier filed the lawsuit against Amtrak with the allegation that these change requests screwed up the works and cost them hundreds of millions of dollars. It would be a pure guess on my part, but had he been in charge Gunn may have suggested that the money put up for Acela trains may have been better spent on upgrades to the NEC. With that, the somewhat slower convential trains may have been able to achieve the running times at or close to what was to be done with the Acelas. Maybe after that, the modern style high speed train can be developed, possibly without the need for tilt and with less power. One prototype test until all the bugs are gone and then you launch the production model. The Big Dig. A few have bought up with the old saw or the highway lobby propaganda that highway projects are paid for by user fees. Sorry, but you are wrong. Federal Highway System projects are paid for by a tax on gasoline, which is paid by gasoline buyers even if they do not use Federal Highways. If you are going argue that the Big Dig is being paid for by the users, you better get me some pictures of the toll gates. By the way, many states, including Florida get much less back in federal money for highways than comes from gasoline sales in that states. How does that become a user fee for the residents of Florida? Take a trip to Boston? I was glad to hear that Mineta was very impressed by the "profitable" operation of Japan's bullet trains. They may have an operating profit, but I am willing to bet a lunch that the Japanese Government's investment in the building of that system would make our investment in Amtrak look like chump change. "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply conrailman Member sinceDecember 2001 From: NS Main Line at MP12 Blairsville,Pa 830 posts Posted by conrailman on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 7:24 PM I found it in Trains Maz October of 2004 issue about the Amfleets Cars being replace in 2007 AND OTHER STUFF about amtrak 5 year plan on Pg 14 and 15.[:)] Reply 12 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by uzurpator Originally posted by oltmannd Operationally, it could be done (you'd have to kick NJT out of some Penn Sta slots, tho'), but would the market support it? What headways support the max benefit for the least cost? I have never seen, read or heard anything that would support 15 minute headways. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, April 29, 2005 12:23 PM I think then Americans would have to cease driving cars. I am sure you are aware that you/I & everybody who buys gasoline is paying I think 80% of any hwy project thru a gasoline tax. The state pays the remaining 20% & that comes thru taxes that are paid into state coffers. [:D][:)][:o)] Originally posted by donclark Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, April 29, 2005 12:17 PM Maybe he means better suspension & maybe leaning into curves. I would suspect that the NEC ould easily support trains with 15 minute headways with the signal system now in place. Heck between commuter & A/trak trains I would think even 15 minutes would be a long period. I know that the tunnel between NJ & Penn Station NY can handle a ttrain every 3 minutes. That would mean the signal system is geared for that time frame. [:D][:p] Originally posted by oltmannd Originally posted by uzurpator Originally posted by oltmannd Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Friday, April 29, 2005 11:10 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jockellis G'day, Y'all, Anyone who believes ONLY gasoline tax money is used to build highways might want to buy my bridge in New York City. What is the big idea of trying to sell my bridge out from under me? Gabe Reply jockellis Member sinceMay 2002 From: Just outside Atlanta 422 posts Posted by jockellis on Friday, April 29, 2005 11:06 AM G'day, Y'all, Anyone who believes ONLY gasoline tax money is used to build highways might want to buy my bridge in New York City. The military heads a list of agencies wanting better and bigger roads. They have the ear of Congress. Congressmen love to have new roads in their districts because it is a very visible sign of the hard work they do in Washington for their constituents. In other words, it helps them get re-elected. Remember LBJ's War on Poverty? A lot of it went for an interstate-type highway north from Atlanta to Dahlonega, GA 400 which some drivers think is the Indy 500 and drive appropriately. This was not built with a penny of federal DOT money but anti-poverty money. As as for federal programs actually working, this is a poster project. It took Bill Elliott's hometown Dawsonville and gold mining Dahlonega out of Appalachian poverty and onto the road to wealth as landowners sold their farms for suburban subdivisions. And the wealth was spread around. But back to highways, a lot more money that what the DOT amasses in gas taxes goes into the roads. If Congressmen could point with pride to new federally-financed railroads in their territories, we would be getting more trains because they could be getting more votes. In reality, our representatives can get more votes railing against the railroads than they can supporting them. Railroads have from the very beginning been high profile targets and will always because they are seen as cold and heartless big business and worse than that, they keep you waiting at grade crossings for a few minutes. Jock Ellis Cumming, GA US of A Jock Ellis Cumming, GA US of A Georgia Association of Railroad Passengers Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, April 29, 2005 8:33 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd Amtrak longer distance trains are short on coaches -- it is not unusual, for instance, for the Adirondack to and from Montreal to sell out (for lack of equipment) long before the departure date, and it's not alone... The brake rotor thing? It will be interesting to read the final analysis reports. I'd agree with Don, though -- more likely cooling problems than anything else. And I would add to that that there is nothing wrong with the fundamental design (500,000 miles isn't bad, guys -- try that with your automobile!) except... and it's a big except... an Acela is a LOT heavier than the trains (TGV) from which it was derived, and has to use the brakes more often due to speed restrictions and the like. There were some somewhat similar problems (not brakes, but others related to heavier loadings than anticipated) in the very first AEM7s... Is the Adirondak selling out between NY and Albany or from Albany to Montreal? The times I've ridden it, it's been pretty sparsely filled north of Albany, but that was years ago. Do they drop/add cars at Albany? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply jchnhtfd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 1,537 posts Posted by jchnhtfd on Friday, April 29, 2005 5:38 AM Amtrak longer distance trains are short on coaches -- it is not unusual, for instance, for the Adirondack to and from Montreal to sell out (for lack of equipment) long before the departure date, and it's not alone... The brake rotor thing? It will be interesting to read the final analysis reports. I'd agree with Don, though -- more likely cooling problems than anything else. And I would add to that that there is nothing wrong with the fundamental design (500,000 miles isn't bad, guys -- try that with your automobile!) except... and it's a big except... an Acela is a LOT heavier than the trains (TGV) from which it was derived, and has to use the brakes more often due to speed restrictions and the like. There were some somewhat similar problems (not brakes, but others related to heavier loadings than anticipated) in the very first AEM7s... Jamie Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 28, 2005 6:18 PM There is no doubt in my mind that Amtrak is short on sleepers, and could use some new diners on the east coast.... However, I don't think Amtrak is short on coaches...... Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:37 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Yes CNN said today that Bombardier "over" estimated the usage on the brakes. [:(][:(] Originally posted by mustanggt [ There is a lot of really curious information out there. Best I can figure out, the problem isn't the brake "wore out", since the wear surfaces of brakes are designed to be replaced more often than one a million miles. The failure is cracks of the rotor - which at this point in their life are likely due to fatigue. Fatigue occurs with repetitive stress. Stress can occur mechanically, from braking force, or thermally. I really can't imagine they blew the stress calculation from the braking force, but thermal stress is something else. It could be a product of too much power braking, too little time released between, full speed, full application or even insufficient cooling in the rotor design or air flow around the rotor. I'll put my money on cooling deficiencies, if I were betting. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:30 PM i could see more coaches and sleepers for the trains to florida, and all the west coast trains. If Amtrak could do it right, it would be good for them to have extra cars to put on the trains as demand requires. In the west, Keep extra Superliners in Seattle, Portland, Oakland, LA, Denver, DALLAS, Minneapolis, New Orleans. I know that it would cost a lot of money, but it would be worth it. At times when there is huge demand, which would be the summer, and holidays, you would be able to meet the demand instead of saying sold out. In the mean time, the extra cars would make it so that they could keep the maintence up all year and keep the cars in good shape. Also, for sleepers, I would make one care that was all double deluxe bedrooms so that they are like master suites. You could then put a double bed in there as well as the bunk beds. If you made the cars right, you could put that car at the end of the train, so that way they would have a huge window to look out of the back. Make it like a cruise. I would also build more Pacific Parlour cars for the rest of the system, as those are a huge success. Now of course this would all take a lot of money, but if Amtrak was given the resources to do this, it would work. Brad Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:05 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Why the new cars? What's wrong with Amfleet? What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? Why the new cars? Because a service like Boston - Wash should be run with 15 minute interval. If not more. What's wrong with Amfleet? Apart from being late 70ties technology - nothing much. What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? I heard that LD trains long for new equipment. What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. What do you base the 15 minute interval demand on? I remember reading a case, not too long ago in trains, that the frequency should be no more than hourly and the trains longer with several classes of accomodations - not more frequent. Where did you hear that the LD trains need more coaches? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Thursday, April 28, 2005 1:40 PM Yes CNN said today that Bombardier "over" estimated the usage on the brakes. [:(][:(] Originally posted by mustanggt [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:52 PM Gabe Here is a link to a New York Times on the history of the Acela trains. Don Phillips was one of the covering reporters, so the paper got it right and may give you more insight to the comment made by Gunn. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/national/24acela.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=33b9ffeaa0c275cf&hp&ex=1114315200&partner=homepage Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:09 PM The original 5 year plan, updates, and the Amtrak's proposal for organizational changes are all on their web site. The 2006 appropriations request includes Amtrak's proposals for organizational changes. It is a 52 page document and presents a plan to get to an organization that includes a good portion of the things that the Bush Administration has been looking for. In many respect I see it as a put up or shut up document. I am sure that neither Congress or the Administration will see it that way, the wording is very diplomatic, but Amtrak has been pretty clear as to what it will take to implement the changes. For example, the NEC needs $2 billion to be put in good operating condition. There is a pretty strong implication that it doesn't make any difference if Amtrak, NECtrak, 13 Original Coloniestrak or billgatestrak is given the NEC, it is still going to take $2 billion for fix up. Amtrak acknowledged that the other corridor operations (the short haul stuff), ought to be an important focus of the reauthorization bill and suggested an 80-20 federal-state funding scheme to promote the development of these services. Amtrak agreed that the states should be the key deciders of which corridors should be developed and they should select operators for lines on a competitive basis. It is suggested that Amtrak should be allowed to be a bidder. The plan does note that if outside operators are to be found it may be necessary to change the federal laws governing bargaining with rail unions, the requirement for participation in the Railroad Retirement Program, and other lawful requirements that apply to railroad companies. These are all perceived to be a cause of costs incurred by railroads that other types of business do not have to deal with. Amtrak also offered to establish a precise method for determing the cost recovery of long distances trains so that congress could establish legal minimums for train continuation. When I say this is a put up or shut up document this is what I mean. The first thing being said is that this is the kind of federal investment that is going to be necessary if there is to be any rail passenger service in the US. The second is directed to the people who argue that competition solves everything. Here is an outline of the first necessay steps to make the business attractive. Get that done and then good luck. The forgoing is a little off the topic, but if one wants factual information about what Amtrak is trying to do and how the government money will be used, these documents have to be read. I didn't see the C-Span interview, but I suspect that Gunn may have been trying to make the point that the Acela problems are not exclusively the fault of Amtrak. My reading of the histroy was that rather than setting the necessary specs and authorizing the constructions of the trains, Congress, DOT planners and the FRA kept coming back with an "Oh by the way, you need to add this or upgrade that." Appearantly there was no individual in charge of the project either willing or able to keep all such requests to making it to the builder. Bombardier filed the lawsuit against Amtrak with the allegation that these change requests screwed up the works and cost them hundreds of millions of dollars. It would be a pure guess on my part, but had he been in charge Gunn may have suggested that the money put up for Acela trains may have been better spent on upgrades to the NEC. With that, the somewhat slower convential trains may have been able to achieve the running times at or close to what was to be done with the Acelas. Maybe after that, the modern style high speed train can be developed, possibly without the need for tilt and with less power. One prototype test until all the bugs are gone and then you launch the production model. The Big Dig. A few have bought up with the old saw or the highway lobby propaganda that highway projects are paid for by user fees. Sorry, but you are wrong. Federal Highway System projects are paid for by a tax on gasoline, which is paid by gasoline buyers even if they do not use Federal Highways. If you are going argue that the Big Dig is being paid for by the users, you better get me some pictures of the toll gates. By the way, many states, including Florida get much less back in federal money for highways than comes from gasoline sales in that states. How does that become a user fee for the residents of Florida? Take a trip to Boston? I was glad to hear that Mineta was very impressed by the "profitable" operation of Japan's bullet trains. They may have an operating profit, but I am willing to bet a lunch that the Japanese Government's investment in the building of that system would make our investment in Amtrak look like chump change. "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply conrailman Member sinceDecember 2001 From: NS Main Line at MP12 Blairsville,Pa 830 posts Posted by conrailman on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 7:24 PM I found it in Trains Maz October of 2004 issue about the Amfleets Cars being replace in 2007 AND OTHER STUFF about amtrak 5 year plan on Pg 14 and 15.[:)] Reply 12 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by donclark Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Friday, April 29, 2005 12:17 PM Maybe he means better suspension & maybe leaning into curves. I would suspect that the NEC ould easily support trains with 15 minute headways with the signal system now in place. Heck between commuter & A/trak trains I would think even 15 minutes would be a long period. I know that the tunnel between NJ & Penn Station NY can handle a ttrain every 3 minutes. That would mean the signal system is geared for that time frame. [:D][:p] Originally posted by oltmannd Originally posted by uzurpator Originally posted by oltmannd Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Friday, April 29, 2005 11:10 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jockellis G'day, Y'all, Anyone who believes ONLY gasoline tax money is used to build highways might want to buy my bridge in New York City. What is the big idea of trying to sell my bridge out from under me? Gabe Reply jockellis Member sinceMay 2002 From: Just outside Atlanta 422 posts Posted by jockellis on Friday, April 29, 2005 11:06 AM G'day, Y'all, Anyone who believes ONLY gasoline tax money is used to build highways might want to buy my bridge in New York City. The military heads a list of agencies wanting better and bigger roads. They have the ear of Congress. Congressmen love to have new roads in their districts because it is a very visible sign of the hard work they do in Washington for their constituents. In other words, it helps them get re-elected. Remember LBJ's War on Poverty? A lot of it went for an interstate-type highway north from Atlanta to Dahlonega, GA 400 which some drivers think is the Indy 500 and drive appropriately. This was not built with a penny of federal DOT money but anti-poverty money. As as for federal programs actually working, this is a poster project. It took Bill Elliott's hometown Dawsonville and gold mining Dahlonega out of Appalachian poverty and onto the road to wealth as landowners sold their farms for suburban subdivisions. And the wealth was spread around. But back to highways, a lot more money that what the DOT amasses in gas taxes goes into the roads. If Congressmen could point with pride to new federally-financed railroads in their territories, we would be getting more trains because they could be getting more votes. In reality, our representatives can get more votes railing against the railroads than they can supporting them. Railroads have from the very beginning been high profile targets and will always because they are seen as cold and heartless big business and worse than that, they keep you waiting at grade crossings for a few minutes. Jock Ellis Cumming, GA US of A Jock Ellis Cumming, GA US of A Georgia Association of Railroad Passengers Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, April 29, 2005 8:33 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd Amtrak longer distance trains are short on coaches -- it is not unusual, for instance, for the Adirondack to and from Montreal to sell out (for lack of equipment) long before the departure date, and it's not alone... The brake rotor thing? It will be interesting to read the final analysis reports. I'd agree with Don, though -- more likely cooling problems than anything else. And I would add to that that there is nothing wrong with the fundamental design (500,000 miles isn't bad, guys -- try that with your automobile!) except... and it's a big except... an Acela is a LOT heavier than the trains (TGV) from which it was derived, and has to use the brakes more often due to speed restrictions and the like. There were some somewhat similar problems (not brakes, but others related to heavier loadings than anticipated) in the very first AEM7s... Is the Adirondak selling out between NY and Albany or from Albany to Montreal? The times I've ridden it, it's been pretty sparsely filled north of Albany, but that was years ago. Do they drop/add cars at Albany? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply jchnhtfd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 1,537 posts Posted by jchnhtfd on Friday, April 29, 2005 5:38 AM Amtrak longer distance trains are short on coaches -- it is not unusual, for instance, for the Adirondack to and from Montreal to sell out (for lack of equipment) long before the departure date, and it's not alone... The brake rotor thing? It will be interesting to read the final analysis reports. I'd agree with Don, though -- more likely cooling problems than anything else. And I would add to that that there is nothing wrong with the fundamental design (500,000 miles isn't bad, guys -- try that with your automobile!) except... and it's a big except... an Acela is a LOT heavier than the trains (TGV) from which it was derived, and has to use the brakes more often due to speed restrictions and the like. There were some somewhat similar problems (not brakes, but others related to heavier loadings than anticipated) in the very first AEM7s... Jamie Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 28, 2005 6:18 PM There is no doubt in my mind that Amtrak is short on sleepers, and could use some new diners on the east coast.... However, I don't think Amtrak is short on coaches...... Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:37 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Yes CNN said today that Bombardier "over" estimated the usage on the brakes. [:(][:(] Originally posted by mustanggt [ There is a lot of really curious information out there. Best I can figure out, the problem isn't the brake "wore out", since the wear surfaces of brakes are designed to be replaced more often than one a million miles. The failure is cracks of the rotor - which at this point in their life are likely due to fatigue. Fatigue occurs with repetitive stress. Stress can occur mechanically, from braking force, or thermally. I really can't imagine they blew the stress calculation from the braking force, but thermal stress is something else. It could be a product of too much power braking, too little time released between, full speed, full application or even insufficient cooling in the rotor design or air flow around the rotor. I'll put my money on cooling deficiencies, if I were betting. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:30 PM i could see more coaches and sleepers for the trains to florida, and all the west coast trains. If Amtrak could do it right, it would be good for them to have extra cars to put on the trains as demand requires. In the west, Keep extra Superliners in Seattle, Portland, Oakland, LA, Denver, DALLAS, Minneapolis, New Orleans. I know that it would cost a lot of money, but it would be worth it. At times when there is huge demand, which would be the summer, and holidays, you would be able to meet the demand instead of saying sold out. In the mean time, the extra cars would make it so that they could keep the maintence up all year and keep the cars in good shape. Also, for sleepers, I would make one care that was all double deluxe bedrooms so that they are like master suites. You could then put a double bed in there as well as the bunk beds. If you made the cars right, you could put that car at the end of the train, so that way they would have a huge window to look out of the back. Make it like a cruise. I would also build more Pacific Parlour cars for the rest of the system, as those are a huge success. Now of course this would all take a lot of money, but if Amtrak was given the resources to do this, it would work. Brad Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:05 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Why the new cars? What's wrong with Amfleet? What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? Why the new cars? Because a service like Boston - Wash should be run with 15 minute interval. If not more. What's wrong with Amfleet? Apart from being late 70ties technology - nothing much. What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? I heard that LD trains long for new equipment. What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. What do you base the 15 minute interval demand on? I remember reading a case, not too long ago in trains, that the frequency should be no more than hourly and the trains longer with several classes of accomodations - not more frequent. Where did you hear that the LD trains need more coaches? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Thursday, April 28, 2005 1:40 PM Yes CNN said today that Bombardier "over" estimated the usage on the brakes. [:(][:(] Originally posted by mustanggt [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:52 PM Gabe Here is a link to a New York Times on the history of the Acela trains. Don Phillips was one of the covering reporters, so the paper got it right and may give you more insight to the comment made by Gunn. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/national/24acela.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=33b9ffeaa0c275cf&hp&ex=1114315200&partner=homepage Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:09 PM The original 5 year plan, updates, and the Amtrak's proposal for organizational changes are all on their web site. The 2006 appropriations request includes Amtrak's proposals for organizational changes. It is a 52 page document and presents a plan to get to an organization that includes a good portion of the things that the Bush Administration has been looking for. In many respect I see it as a put up or shut up document. I am sure that neither Congress or the Administration will see it that way, the wording is very diplomatic, but Amtrak has been pretty clear as to what it will take to implement the changes. For example, the NEC needs $2 billion to be put in good operating condition. There is a pretty strong implication that it doesn't make any difference if Amtrak, NECtrak, 13 Original Coloniestrak or billgatestrak is given the NEC, it is still going to take $2 billion for fix up. Amtrak acknowledged that the other corridor operations (the short haul stuff), ought to be an important focus of the reauthorization bill and suggested an 80-20 federal-state funding scheme to promote the development of these services. Amtrak agreed that the states should be the key deciders of which corridors should be developed and they should select operators for lines on a competitive basis. It is suggested that Amtrak should be allowed to be a bidder. The plan does note that if outside operators are to be found it may be necessary to change the federal laws governing bargaining with rail unions, the requirement for participation in the Railroad Retirement Program, and other lawful requirements that apply to railroad companies. These are all perceived to be a cause of costs incurred by railroads that other types of business do not have to deal with. Amtrak also offered to establish a precise method for determing the cost recovery of long distances trains so that congress could establish legal minimums for train continuation. When I say this is a put up or shut up document this is what I mean. The first thing being said is that this is the kind of federal investment that is going to be necessary if there is to be any rail passenger service in the US. The second is directed to the people who argue that competition solves everything. Here is an outline of the first necessay steps to make the business attractive. Get that done and then good luck. The forgoing is a little off the topic, but if one wants factual information about what Amtrak is trying to do and how the government money will be used, these documents have to be read. I didn't see the C-Span interview, but I suspect that Gunn may have been trying to make the point that the Acela problems are not exclusively the fault of Amtrak. My reading of the histroy was that rather than setting the necessary specs and authorizing the constructions of the trains, Congress, DOT planners and the FRA kept coming back with an "Oh by the way, you need to add this or upgrade that." Appearantly there was no individual in charge of the project either willing or able to keep all such requests to making it to the builder. Bombardier filed the lawsuit against Amtrak with the allegation that these change requests screwed up the works and cost them hundreds of millions of dollars. It would be a pure guess on my part, but had he been in charge Gunn may have suggested that the money put up for Acela trains may have been better spent on upgrades to the NEC. With that, the somewhat slower convential trains may have been able to achieve the running times at or close to what was to be done with the Acelas. Maybe after that, the modern style high speed train can be developed, possibly without the need for tilt and with less power. One prototype test until all the bugs are gone and then you launch the production model. The Big Dig. A few have bought up with the old saw or the highway lobby propaganda that highway projects are paid for by user fees. Sorry, but you are wrong. Federal Highway System projects are paid for by a tax on gasoline, which is paid by gasoline buyers even if they do not use Federal Highways. If you are going argue that the Big Dig is being paid for by the users, you better get me some pictures of the toll gates. By the way, many states, including Florida get much less back in federal money for highways than comes from gasoline sales in that states. How does that become a user fee for the residents of Florida? Take a trip to Boston? I was glad to hear that Mineta was very impressed by the "profitable" operation of Japan's bullet trains. They may have an operating profit, but I am willing to bet a lunch that the Japanese Government's investment in the building of that system would make our investment in Amtrak look like chump change. "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply conrailman Member sinceDecember 2001 From: NS Main Line at MP12 Blairsville,Pa 830 posts Posted by conrailman on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 7:24 PM I found it in Trains Maz October of 2004 issue about the Amfleets Cars being replace in 2007 AND OTHER STUFF about amtrak 5 year plan on Pg 14 and 15.[:)] Reply 12 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by oltmannd Originally posted by uzurpator Originally posted by oltmannd Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Friday, April 29, 2005 11:10 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jockellis G'day, Y'all, Anyone who believes ONLY gasoline tax money is used to build highways might want to buy my bridge in New York City. What is the big idea of trying to sell my bridge out from under me? Gabe Reply jockellis Member sinceMay 2002 From: Just outside Atlanta 422 posts Posted by jockellis on Friday, April 29, 2005 11:06 AM G'day, Y'all, Anyone who believes ONLY gasoline tax money is used to build highways might want to buy my bridge in New York City. The military heads a list of agencies wanting better and bigger roads. They have the ear of Congress. Congressmen love to have new roads in their districts because it is a very visible sign of the hard work they do in Washington for their constituents. In other words, it helps them get re-elected. Remember LBJ's War on Poverty? A lot of it went for an interstate-type highway north from Atlanta to Dahlonega, GA 400 which some drivers think is the Indy 500 and drive appropriately. This was not built with a penny of federal DOT money but anti-poverty money. As as for federal programs actually working, this is a poster project. It took Bill Elliott's hometown Dawsonville and gold mining Dahlonega out of Appalachian poverty and onto the road to wealth as landowners sold their farms for suburban subdivisions. And the wealth was spread around. But back to highways, a lot more money that what the DOT amasses in gas taxes goes into the roads. If Congressmen could point with pride to new federally-financed railroads in their territories, we would be getting more trains because they could be getting more votes. In reality, our representatives can get more votes railing against the railroads than they can supporting them. Railroads have from the very beginning been high profile targets and will always because they are seen as cold and heartless big business and worse than that, they keep you waiting at grade crossings for a few minutes. Jock Ellis Cumming, GA US of A Jock Ellis Cumming, GA US of A Georgia Association of Railroad Passengers Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, April 29, 2005 8:33 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd Amtrak longer distance trains are short on coaches -- it is not unusual, for instance, for the Adirondack to and from Montreal to sell out (for lack of equipment) long before the departure date, and it's not alone... The brake rotor thing? It will be interesting to read the final analysis reports. I'd agree with Don, though -- more likely cooling problems than anything else. And I would add to that that there is nothing wrong with the fundamental design (500,000 miles isn't bad, guys -- try that with your automobile!) except... and it's a big except... an Acela is a LOT heavier than the trains (TGV) from which it was derived, and has to use the brakes more often due to speed restrictions and the like. There were some somewhat similar problems (not brakes, but others related to heavier loadings than anticipated) in the very first AEM7s... Is the Adirondak selling out between NY and Albany or from Albany to Montreal? The times I've ridden it, it's been pretty sparsely filled north of Albany, but that was years ago. Do they drop/add cars at Albany? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply jchnhtfd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 1,537 posts Posted by jchnhtfd on Friday, April 29, 2005 5:38 AM Amtrak longer distance trains are short on coaches -- it is not unusual, for instance, for the Adirondack to and from Montreal to sell out (for lack of equipment) long before the departure date, and it's not alone... The brake rotor thing? It will be interesting to read the final analysis reports. I'd agree with Don, though -- more likely cooling problems than anything else. And I would add to that that there is nothing wrong with the fundamental design (500,000 miles isn't bad, guys -- try that with your automobile!) except... and it's a big except... an Acela is a LOT heavier than the trains (TGV) from which it was derived, and has to use the brakes more often due to speed restrictions and the like. There were some somewhat similar problems (not brakes, but others related to heavier loadings than anticipated) in the very first AEM7s... Jamie Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 28, 2005 6:18 PM There is no doubt in my mind that Amtrak is short on sleepers, and could use some new diners on the east coast.... However, I don't think Amtrak is short on coaches...... Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:37 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Yes CNN said today that Bombardier "over" estimated the usage on the brakes. [:(][:(] Originally posted by mustanggt [ There is a lot of really curious information out there. Best I can figure out, the problem isn't the brake "wore out", since the wear surfaces of brakes are designed to be replaced more often than one a million miles. The failure is cracks of the rotor - which at this point in their life are likely due to fatigue. Fatigue occurs with repetitive stress. Stress can occur mechanically, from braking force, or thermally. I really can't imagine they blew the stress calculation from the braking force, but thermal stress is something else. It could be a product of too much power braking, too little time released between, full speed, full application or even insufficient cooling in the rotor design or air flow around the rotor. I'll put my money on cooling deficiencies, if I were betting. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:30 PM i could see more coaches and sleepers for the trains to florida, and all the west coast trains. If Amtrak could do it right, it would be good for them to have extra cars to put on the trains as demand requires. In the west, Keep extra Superliners in Seattle, Portland, Oakland, LA, Denver, DALLAS, Minneapolis, New Orleans. I know that it would cost a lot of money, but it would be worth it. At times when there is huge demand, which would be the summer, and holidays, you would be able to meet the demand instead of saying sold out. In the mean time, the extra cars would make it so that they could keep the maintence up all year and keep the cars in good shape. Also, for sleepers, I would make one care that was all double deluxe bedrooms so that they are like master suites. You could then put a double bed in there as well as the bunk beds. If you made the cars right, you could put that car at the end of the train, so that way they would have a huge window to look out of the back. Make it like a cruise. I would also build more Pacific Parlour cars for the rest of the system, as those are a huge success. Now of course this would all take a lot of money, but if Amtrak was given the resources to do this, it would work. Brad Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:05 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Why the new cars? What's wrong with Amfleet? What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? Why the new cars? Because a service like Boston - Wash should be run with 15 minute interval. If not more. What's wrong with Amfleet? Apart from being late 70ties technology - nothing much. What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? I heard that LD trains long for new equipment. What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. What do you base the 15 minute interval demand on? I remember reading a case, not too long ago in trains, that the frequency should be no more than hourly and the trains longer with several classes of accomodations - not more frequent. Where did you hear that the LD trains need more coaches? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Thursday, April 28, 2005 1:40 PM Yes CNN said today that Bombardier "over" estimated the usage on the brakes. [:(][:(] Originally posted by mustanggt [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:52 PM Gabe Here is a link to a New York Times on the history of the Acela trains. Don Phillips was one of the covering reporters, so the paper got it right and may give you more insight to the comment made by Gunn. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/national/24acela.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=33b9ffeaa0c275cf&hp&ex=1114315200&partner=homepage Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:09 PM The original 5 year plan, updates, and the Amtrak's proposal for organizational changes are all on their web site. The 2006 appropriations request includes Amtrak's proposals for organizational changes. It is a 52 page document and presents a plan to get to an organization that includes a good portion of the things that the Bush Administration has been looking for. In many respect I see it as a put up or shut up document. I am sure that neither Congress or the Administration will see it that way, the wording is very diplomatic, but Amtrak has been pretty clear as to what it will take to implement the changes. For example, the NEC needs $2 billion to be put in good operating condition. There is a pretty strong implication that it doesn't make any difference if Amtrak, NECtrak, 13 Original Coloniestrak or billgatestrak is given the NEC, it is still going to take $2 billion for fix up. Amtrak acknowledged that the other corridor operations (the short haul stuff), ought to be an important focus of the reauthorization bill and suggested an 80-20 federal-state funding scheme to promote the development of these services. Amtrak agreed that the states should be the key deciders of which corridors should be developed and they should select operators for lines on a competitive basis. It is suggested that Amtrak should be allowed to be a bidder. The plan does note that if outside operators are to be found it may be necessary to change the federal laws governing bargaining with rail unions, the requirement for participation in the Railroad Retirement Program, and other lawful requirements that apply to railroad companies. These are all perceived to be a cause of costs incurred by railroads that other types of business do not have to deal with. Amtrak also offered to establish a precise method for determing the cost recovery of long distances trains so that congress could establish legal minimums for train continuation. When I say this is a put up or shut up document this is what I mean. The first thing being said is that this is the kind of federal investment that is going to be necessary if there is to be any rail passenger service in the US. The second is directed to the people who argue that competition solves everything. Here is an outline of the first necessay steps to make the business attractive. Get that done and then good luck. The forgoing is a little off the topic, but if one wants factual information about what Amtrak is trying to do and how the government money will be used, these documents have to be read. I didn't see the C-Span interview, but I suspect that Gunn may have been trying to make the point that the Acela problems are not exclusively the fault of Amtrak. My reading of the histroy was that rather than setting the necessary specs and authorizing the constructions of the trains, Congress, DOT planners and the FRA kept coming back with an "Oh by the way, you need to add this or upgrade that." Appearantly there was no individual in charge of the project either willing or able to keep all such requests to making it to the builder. Bombardier filed the lawsuit against Amtrak with the allegation that these change requests screwed up the works and cost them hundreds of millions of dollars. It would be a pure guess on my part, but had he been in charge Gunn may have suggested that the money put up for Acela trains may have been better spent on upgrades to the NEC. With that, the somewhat slower convential trains may have been able to achieve the running times at or close to what was to be done with the Acelas. Maybe after that, the modern style high speed train can be developed, possibly without the need for tilt and with less power. One prototype test until all the bugs are gone and then you launch the production model. The Big Dig. A few have bought up with the old saw or the highway lobby propaganda that highway projects are paid for by user fees. Sorry, but you are wrong. Federal Highway System projects are paid for by a tax on gasoline, which is paid by gasoline buyers even if they do not use Federal Highways. If you are going argue that the Big Dig is being paid for by the users, you better get me some pictures of the toll gates. By the way, many states, including Florida get much less back in federal money for highways than comes from gasoline sales in that states. How does that become a user fee for the residents of Florida? Take a trip to Boston? I was glad to hear that Mineta was very impressed by the "profitable" operation of Japan's bullet trains. They may have an operating profit, but I am willing to bet a lunch that the Japanese Government's investment in the building of that system would make our investment in Amtrak look like chump change. "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply conrailman Member sinceDecember 2001 From: NS Main Line at MP12 Blairsville,Pa 830 posts Posted by conrailman on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 7:24 PM I found it in Trains Maz October of 2004 issue about the Amfleets Cars being replace in 2007 AND OTHER STUFF about amtrak 5 year plan on Pg 14 and 15.[:)] Reply 12 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by uzurpator Originally posted by oltmannd Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Friday, April 29, 2005 11:10 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jockellis G'day, Y'all, Anyone who believes ONLY gasoline tax money is used to build highways might want to buy my bridge in New York City. What is the big idea of trying to sell my bridge out from under me? Gabe Reply jockellis Member sinceMay 2002 From: Just outside Atlanta 422 posts Posted by jockellis on Friday, April 29, 2005 11:06 AM G'day, Y'all, Anyone who believes ONLY gasoline tax money is used to build highways might want to buy my bridge in New York City. The military heads a list of agencies wanting better and bigger roads. They have the ear of Congress. Congressmen love to have new roads in their districts because it is a very visible sign of the hard work they do in Washington for their constituents. In other words, it helps them get re-elected. Remember LBJ's War on Poverty? A lot of it went for an interstate-type highway north from Atlanta to Dahlonega, GA 400 which some drivers think is the Indy 500 and drive appropriately. This was not built with a penny of federal DOT money but anti-poverty money. As as for federal programs actually working, this is a poster project. It took Bill Elliott's hometown Dawsonville and gold mining Dahlonega out of Appalachian poverty and onto the road to wealth as landowners sold their farms for suburban subdivisions. And the wealth was spread around. But back to highways, a lot more money that what the DOT amasses in gas taxes goes into the roads. If Congressmen could point with pride to new federally-financed railroads in their territories, we would be getting more trains because they could be getting more votes. In reality, our representatives can get more votes railing against the railroads than they can supporting them. Railroads have from the very beginning been high profile targets and will always because they are seen as cold and heartless big business and worse than that, they keep you waiting at grade crossings for a few minutes. Jock Ellis Cumming, GA US of A Jock Ellis Cumming, GA US of A Georgia Association of Railroad Passengers Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, April 29, 2005 8:33 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd Amtrak longer distance trains are short on coaches -- it is not unusual, for instance, for the Adirondack to and from Montreal to sell out (for lack of equipment) long before the departure date, and it's not alone... The brake rotor thing? It will be interesting to read the final analysis reports. I'd agree with Don, though -- more likely cooling problems than anything else. And I would add to that that there is nothing wrong with the fundamental design (500,000 miles isn't bad, guys -- try that with your automobile!) except... and it's a big except... an Acela is a LOT heavier than the trains (TGV) from which it was derived, and has to use the brakes more often due to speed restrictions and the like. There were some somewhat similar problems (not brakes, but others related to heavier loadings than anticipated) in the very first AEM7s... Is the Adirondak selling out between NY and Albany or from Albany to Montreal? The times I've ridden it, it's been pretty sparsely filled north of Albany, but that was years ago. Do they drop/add cars at Albany? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply jchnhtfd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 1,537 posts Posted by jchnhtfd on Friday, April 29, 2005 5:38 AM Amtrak longer distance trains are short on coaches -- it is not unusual, for instance, for the Adirondack to and from Montreal to sell out (for lack of equipment) long before the departure date, and it's not alone... The brake rotor thing? It will be interesting to read the final analysis reports. I'd agree with Don, though -- more likely cooling problems than anything else. And I would add to that that there is nothing wrong with the fundamental design (500,000 miles isn't bad, guys -- try that with your automobile!) except... and it's a big except... an Acela is a LOT heavier than the trains (TGV) from which it was derived, and has to use the brakes more often due to speed restrictions and the like. There were some somewhat similar problems (not brakes, but others related to heavier loadings than anticipated) in the very first AEM7s... Jamie Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 28, 2005 6:18 PM There is no doubt in my mind that Amtrak is short on sleepers, and could use some new diners on the east coast.... However, I don't think Amtrak is short on coaches...... Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:37 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Yes CNN said today that Bombardier "over" estimated the usage on the brakes. [:(][:(] Originally posted by mustanggt [ There is a lot of really curious information out there. Best I can figure out, the problem isn't the brake "wore out", since the wear surfaces of brakes are designed to be replaced more often than one a million miles. The failure is cracks of the rotor - which at this point in their life are likely due to fatigue. Fatigue occurs with repetitive stress. Stress can occur mechanically, from braking force, or thermally. I really can't imagine they blew the stress calculation from the braking force, but thermal stress is something else. It could be a product of too much power braking, too little time released between, full speed, full application or even insufficient cooling in the rotor design or air flow around the rotor. I'll put my money on cooling deficiencies, if I were betting. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:30 PM i could see more coaches and sleepers for the trains to florida, and all the west coast trains. If Amtrak could do it right, it would be good for them to have extra cars to put on the trains as demand requires. In the west, Keep extra Superliners in Seattle, Portland, Oakland, LA, Denver, DALLAS, Minneapolis, New Orleans. I know that it would cost a lot of money, but it would be worth it. At times when there is huge demand, which would be the summer, and holidays, you would be able to meet the demand instead of saying sold out. In the mean time, the extra cars would make it so that they could keep the maintence up all year and keep the cars in good shape. Also, for sleepers, I would make one care that was all double deluxe bedrooms so that they are like master suites. You could then put a double bed in there as well as the bunk beds. If you made the cars right, you could put that car at the end of the train, so that way they would have a huge window to look out of the back. Make it like a cruise. I would also build more Pacific Parlour cars for the rest of the system, as those are a huge success. Now of course this would all take a lot of money, but if Amtrak was given the resources to do this, it would work. Brad Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:05 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Why the new cars? What's wrong with Amfleet? What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? Why the new cars? Because a service like Boston - Wash should be run with 15 minute interval. If not more. What's wrong with Amfleet? Apart from being late 70ties technology - nothing much. What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? I heard that LD trains long for new equipment. What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. What do you base the 15 minute interval demand on? I remember reading a case, not too long ago in trains, that the frequency should be no more than hourly and the trains longer with several classes of accomodations - not more frequent. Where did you hear that the LD trains need more coaches? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Thursday, April 28, 2005 1:40 PM Yes CNN said today that Bombardier "over" estimated the usage on the brakes. [:(][:(] Originally posted by mustanggt [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:52 PM Gabe Here is a link to a New York Times on the history of the Acela trains. Don Phillips was one of the covering reporters, so the paper got it right and may give you more insight to the comment made by Gunn. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/national/24acela.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=33b9ffeaa0c275cf&hp&ex=1114315200&partner=homepage Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:09 PM The original 5 year plan, updates, and the Amtrak's proposal for organizational changes are all on their web site. The 2006 appropriations request includes Amtrak's proposals for organizational changes. It is a 52 page document and presents a plan to get to an organization that includes a good portion of the things that the Bush Administration has been looking for. In many respect I see it as a put up or shut up document. I am sure that neither Congress or the Administration will see it that way, the wording is very diplomatic, but Amtrak has been pretty clear as to what it will take to implement the changes. For example, the NEC needs $2 billion to be put in good operating condition. There is a pretty strong implication that it doesn't make any difference if Amtrak, NECtrak, 13 Original Coloniestrak or billgatestrak is given the NEC, it is still going to take $2 billion for fix up. Amtrak acknowledged that the other corridor operations (the short haul stuff), ought to be an important focus of the reauthorization bill and suggested an 80-20 federal-state funding scheme to promote the development of these services. Amtrak agreed that the states should be the key deciders of which corridors should be developed and they should select operators for lines on a competitive basis. It is suggested that Amtrak should be allowed to be a bidder. The plan does note that if outside operators are to be found it may be necessary to change the federal laws governing bargaining with rail unions, the requirement for participation in the Railroad Retirement Program, and other lawful requirements that apply to railroad companies. These are all perceived to be a cause of costs incurred by railroads that other types of business do not have to deal with. Amtrak also offered to establish a precise method for determing the cost recovery of long distances trains so that congress could establish legal minimums for train continuation. When I say this is a put up or shut up document this is what I mean. The first thing being said is that this is the kind of federal investment that is going to be necessary if there is to be any rail passenger service in the US. The second is directed to the people who argue that competition solves everything. Here is an outline of the first necessay steps to make the business attractive. Get that done and then good luck. The forgoing is a little off the topic, but if one wants factual information about what Amtrak is trying to do and how the government money will be used, these documents have to be read. I didn't see the C-Span interview, but I suspect that Gunn may have been trying to make the point that the Acela problems are not exclusively the fault of Amtrak. My reading of the histroy was that rather than setting the necessary specs and authorizing the constructions of the trains, Congress, DOT planners and the FRA kept coming back with an "Oh by the way, you need to add this or upgrade that." Appearantly there was no individual in charge of the project either willing or able to keep all such requests to making it to the builder. Bombardier filed the lawsuit against Amtrak with the allegation that these change requests screwed up the works and cost them hundreds of millions of dollars. It would be a pure guess on my part, but had he been in charge Gunn may have suggested that the money put up for Acela trains may have been better spent on upgrades to the NEC. With that, the somewhat slower convential trains may have been able to achieve the running times at or close to what was to be done with the Acelas. Maybe after that, the modern style high speed train can be developed, possibly without the need for tilt and with less power. One prototype test until all the bugs are gone and then you launch the production model. The Big Dig. A few have bought up with the old saw or the highway lobby propaganda that highway projects are paid for by user fees. Sorry, but you are wrong. Federal Highway System projects are paid for by a tax on gasoline, which is paid by gasoline buyers even if they do not use Federal Highways. If you are going argue that the Big Dig is being paid for by the users, you better get me some pictures of the toll gates. By the way, many states, including Florida get much less back in federal money for highways than comes from gasoline sales in that states. How does that become a user fee for the residents of Florida? Take a trip to Boston? I was glad to hear that Mineta was very impressed by the "profitable" operation of Japan's bullet trains. They may have an operating profit, but I am willing to bet a lunch that the Japanese Government's investment in the building of that system would make our investment in Amtrak look like chump change. "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply conrailman Member sinceDecember 2001 From: NS Main Line at MP12 Blairsville,Pa 830 posts Posted by conrailman on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 7:24 PM I found it in Trains Maz October of 2004 issue about the Amfleets Cars being replace in 2007 AND OTHER STUFF about amtrak 5 year plan on Pg 14 and 15.[:)] Reply 12 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by oltmannd Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Friday, April 29, 2005 11:10 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jockellis G'day, Y'all, Anyone who believes ONLY gasoline tax money is used to build highways might want to buy my bridge in New York City. What is the big idea of trying to sell my bridge out from under me? Gabe Reply jockellis Member sinceMay 2002 From: Just outside Atlanta 422 posts Posted by jockellis on Friday, April 29, 2005 11:06 AM G'day, Y'all, Anyone who believes ONLY gasoline tax money is used to build highways might want to buy my bridge in New York City. The military heads a list of agencies wanting better and bigger roads. They have the ear of Congress. Congressmen love to have new roads in their districts because it is a very visible sign of the hard work they do in Washington for their constituents. In other words, it helps them get re-elected. Remember LBJ's War on Poverty? A lot of it went for an interstate-type highway north from Atlanta to Dahlonega, GA 400 which some drivers think is the Indy 500 and drive appropriately. This was not built with a penny of federal DOT money but anti-poverty money. As as for federal programs actually working, this is a poster project. It took Bill Elliott's hometown Dawsonville and gold mining Dahlonega out of Appalachian poverty and onto the road to wealth as landowners sold their farms for suburban subdivisions. And the wealth was spread around. But back to highways, a lot more money that what the DOT amasses in gas taxes goes into the roads. If Congressmen could point with pride to new federally-financed railroads in their territories, we would be getting more trains because they could be getting more votes. In reality, our representatives can get more votes railing against the railroads than they can supporting them. Railroads have from the very beginning been high profile targets and will always because they are seen as cold and heartless big business and worse than that, they keep you waiting at grade crossings for a few minutes. Jock Ellis Cumming, GA US of A Jock Ellis Cumming, GA US of A Georgia Association of Railroad Passengers Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, April 29, 2005 8:33 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd Amtrak longer distance trains are short on coaches -- it is not unusual, for instance, for the Adirondack to and from Montreal to sell out (for lack of equipment) long before the departure date, and it's not alone... The brake rotor thing? It will be interesting to read the final analysis reports. I'd agree with Don, though -- more likely cooling problems than anything else. And I would add to that that there is nothing wrong with the fundamental design (500,000 miles isn't bad, guys -- try that with your automobile!) except... and it's a big except... an Acela is a LOT heavier than the trains (TGV) from which it was derived, and has to use the brakes more often due to speed restrictions and the like. There were some somewhat similar problems (not brakes, but others related to heavier loadings than anticipated) in the very first AEM7s... Is the Adirondak selling out between NY and Albany or from Albany to Montreal? The times I've ridden it, it's been pretty sparsely filled north of Albany, but that was years ago. Do they drop/add cars at Albany? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply jchnhtfd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 1,537 posts Posted by jchnhtfd on Friday, April 29, 2005 5:38 AM Amtrak longer distance trains are short on coaches -- it is not unusual, for instance, for the Adirondack to and from Montreal to sell out (for lack of equipment) long before the departure date, and it's not alone... The brake rotor thing? It will be interesting to read the final analysis reports. I'd agree with Don, though -- more likely cooling problems than anything else. And I would add to that that there is nothing wrong with the fundamental design (500,000 miles isn't bad, guys -- try that with your automobile!) except... and it's a big except... an Acela is a LOT heavier than the trains (TGV) from which it was derived, and has to use the brakes more often due to speed restrictions and the like. There were some somewhat similar problems (not brakes, but others related to heavier loadings than anticipated) in the very first AEM7s... Jamie Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 28, 2005 6:18 PM There is no doubt in my mind that Amtrak is short on sleepers, and could use some new diners on the east coast.... However, I don't think Amtrak is short on coaches...... Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:37 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Yes CNN said today that Bombardier "over" estimated the usage on the brakes. [:(][:(] Originally posted by mustanggt [ There is a lot of really curious information out there. Best I can figure out, the problem isn't the brake "wore out", since the wear surfaces of brakes are designed to be replaced more often than one a million miles. The failure is cracks of the rotor - which at this point in their life are likely due to fatigue. Fatigue occurs with repetitive stress. Stress can occur mechanically, from braking force, or thermally. I really can't imagine they blew the stress calculation from the braking force, but thermal stress is something else. It could be a product of too much power braking, too little time released between, full speed, full application or even insufficient cooling in the rotor design or air flow around the rotor. I'll put my money on cooling deficiencies, if I were betting. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:30 PM i could see more coaches and sleepers for the trains to florida, and all the west coast trains. If Amtrak could do it right, it would be good for them to have extra cars to put on the trains as demand requires. In the west, Keep extra Superliners in Seattle, Portland, Oakland, LA, Denver, DALLAS, Minneapolis, New Orleans. I know that it would cost a lot of money, but it would be worth it. At times when there is huge demand, which would be the summer, and holidays, you would be able to meet the demand instead of saying sold out. In the mean time, the extra cars would make it so that they could keep the maintence up all year and keep the cars in good shape. Also, for sleepers, I would make one care that was all double deluxe bedrooms so that they are like master suites. You could then put a double bed in there as well as the bunk beds. If you made the cars right, you could put that car at the end of the train, so that way they would have a huge window to look out of the back. Make it like a cruise. I would also build more Pacific Parlour cars for the rest of the system, as those are a huge success. Now of course this would all take a lot of money, but if Amtrak was given the resources to do this, it would work. Brad Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:05 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Why the new cars? What's wrong with Amfleet? What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? Why the new cars? Because a service like Boston - Wash should be run with 15 minute interval. If not more. What's wrong with Amfleet? Apart from being late 70ties technology - nothing much. What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? I heard that LD trains long for new equipment. What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. What do you base the 15 minute interval demand on? I remember reading a case, not too long ago in trains, that the frequency should be no more than hourly and the trains longer with several classes of accomodations - not more frequent. Where did you hear that the LD trains need more coaches? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Thursday, April 28, 2005 1:40 PM Yes CNN said today that Bombardier "over" estimated the usage on the brakes. [:(][:(] Originally posted by mustanggt [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:52 PM Gabe Here is a link to a New York Times on the history of the Acela trains. Don Phillips was one of the covering reporters, so the paper got it right and may give you more insight to the comment made by Gunn. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/national/24acela.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=33b9ffeaa0c275cf&hp&ex=1114315200&partner=homepage Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:09 PM The original 5 year plan, updates, and the Amtrak's proposal for organizational changes are all on their web site. The 2006 appropriations request includes Amtrak's proposals for organizational changes. It is a 52 page document and presents a plan to get to an organization that includes a good portion of the things that the Bush Administration has been looking for. In many respect I see it as a put up or shut up document. I am sure that neither Congress or the Administration will see it that way, the wording is very diplomatic, but Amtrak has been pretty clear as to what it will take to implement the changes. For example, the NEC needs $2 billion to be put in good operating condition. There is a pretty strong implication that it doesn't make any difference if Amtrak, NECtrak, 13 Original Coloniestrak or billgatestrak is given the NEC, it is still going to take $2 billion for fix up. Amtrak acknowledged that the other corridor operations (the short haul stuff), ought to be an important focus of the reauthorization bill and suggested an 80-20 federal-state funding scheme to promote the development of these services. Amtrak agreed that the states should be the key deciders of which corridors should be developed and they should select operators for lines on a competitive basis. It is suggested that Amtrak should be allowed to be a bidder. The plan does note that if outside operators are to be found it may be necessary to change the federal laws governing bargaining with rail unions, the requirement for participation in the Railroad Retirement Program, and other lawful requirements that apply to railroad companies. These are all perceived to be a cause of costs incurred by railroads that other types of business do not have to deal with. Amtrak also offered to establish a precise method for determing the cost recovery of long distances trains so that congress could establish legal minimums for train continuation. When I say this is a put up or shut up document this is what I mean. The first thing being said is that this is the kind of federal investment that is going to be necessary if there is to be any rail passenger service in the US. The second is directed to the people who argue that competition solves everything. Here is an outline of the first necessay steps to make the business attractive. Get that done and then good luck. The forgoing is a little off the topic, but if one wants factual information about what Amtrak is trying to do and how the government money will be used, these documents have to be read. I didn't see the C-Span interview, but I suspect that Gunn may have been trying to make the point that the Acela problems are not exclusively the fault of Amtrak. My reading of the histroy was that rather than setting the necessary specs and authorizing the constructions of the trains, Congress, DOT planners and the FRA kept coming back with an "Oh by the way, you need to add this or upgrade that." Appearantly there was no individual in charge of the project either willing or able to keep all such requests to making it to the builder. Bombardier filed the lawsuit against Amtrak with the allegation that these change requests screwed up the works and cost them hundreds of millions of dollars. It would be a pure guess on my part, but had he been in charge Gunn may have suggested that the money put up for Acela trains may have been better spent on upgrades to the NEC. With that, the somewhat slower convential trains may have been able to achieve the running times at or close to what was to be done with the Acelas. Maybe after that, the modern style high speed train can be developed, possibly without the need for tilt and with less power. One prototype test until all the bugs are gone and then you launch the production model. The Big Dig. A few have bought up with the old saw or the highway lobby propaganda that highway projects are paid for by user fees. Sorry, but you are wrong. Federal Highway System projects are paid for by a tax on gasoline, which is paid by gasoline buyers even if they do not use Federal Highways. If you are going argue that the Big Dig is being paid for by the users, you better get me some pictures of the toll gates. By the way, many states, including Florida get much less back in federal money for highways than comes from gasoline sales in that states. How does that become a user fee for the residents of Florida? Take a trip to Boston? I was glad to hear that Mineta was very impressed by the "profitable" operation of Japan's bullet trains. They may have an operating profit, but I am willing to bet a lunch that the Japanese Government's investment in the building of that system would make our investment in Amtrak look like chump change. "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply conrailman Member sinceDecember 2001 From: NS Main Line at MP12 Blairsville,Pa 830 posts Posted by conrailman on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 7:24 PM I found it in Trains Maz October of 2004 issue about the Amfleets Cars being replace in 2007 AND OTHER STUFF about amtrak 5 year plan on Pg 14 and 15.[:)] Reply 12 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
QUOTE: Originally posted by jockellis G'day, Y'all, Anyone who believes ONLY gasoline tax money is used to build highways might want to buy my bridge in New York City.
Jock Ellis Cumming, GA US of A Georgia Association of Railroad Passengers
QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd Amtrak longer distance trains are short on coaches -- it is not unusual, for instance, for the Adirondack to and from Montreal to sell out (for lack of equipment) long before the departure date, and it's not alone... The brake rotor thing? It will be interesting to read the final analysis reports. I'd agree with Don, though -- more likely cooling problems than anything else. And I would add to that that there is nothing wrong with the fundamental design (500,000 miles isn't bad, guys -- try that with your automobile!) except... and it's a big except... an Acela is a LOT heavier than the trains (TGV) from which it was derived, and has to use the brakes more often due to speed restrictions and the like. There were some somewhat similar problems (not brakes, but others related to heavier loadings than anticipated) in the very first AEM7s...
QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Yes CNN said today that Bombardier "over" estimated the usage on the brakes. [:(][:(] Originally posted by mustanggt [ There is a lot of really curious information out there. Best I can figure out, the problem isn't the brake "wore out", since the wear surfaces of brakes are designed to be replaced more often than one a million miles. The failure is cracks of the rotor - which at this point in their life are likely due to fatigue. Fatigue occurs with repetitive stress. Stress can occur mechanically, from braking force, or thermally. I really can't imagine they blew the stress calculation from the braking force, but thermal stress is something else. It could be a product of too much power braking, too little time released between, full speed, full application or even insufficient cooling in the rotor design or air flow around the rotor. I'll put my money on cooling deficiencies, if I were betting. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:30 PM i could see more coaches and sleepers for the trains to florida, and all the west coast trains. If Amtrak could do it right, it would be good for them to have extra cars to put on the trains as demand requires. In the west, Keep extra Superliners in Seattle, Portland, Oakland, LA, Denver, DALLAS, Minneapolis, New Orleans. I know that it would cost a lot of money, but it would be worth it. At times when there is huge demand, which would be the summer, and holidays, you would be able to meet the demand instead of saying sold out. In the mean time, the extra cars would make it so that they could keep the maintence up all year and keep the cars in good shape. Also, for sleepers, I would make one care that was all double deluxe bedrooms so that they are like master suites. You could then put a double bed in there as well as the bunk beds. If you made the cars right, you could put that car at the end of the train, so that way they would have a huge window to look out of the back. Make it like a cruise. I would also build more Pacific Parlour cars for the rest of the system, as those are a huge success. Now of course this would all take a lot of money, but if Amtrak was given the resources to do this, it would work. Brad Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:05 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Why the new cars? What's wrong with Amfleet? What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? Why the new cars? Because a service like Boston - Wash should be run with 15 minute interval. If not more. What's wrong with Amfleet? Apart from being late 70ties technology - nothing much. What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? I heard that LD trains long for new equipment. What "technology" of Amfleet is obsolete? I would suggest that there really is nothing new since the 70s on the car side. What do you base the 15 minute interval demand on? I remember reading a case, not too long ago in trains, that the frequency should be no more than hourly and the trains longer with several classes of accomodations - not more frequent. Where did you hear that the LD trains need more coaches? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Thursday, April 28, 2005 1:40 PM Yes CNN said today that Bombardier "over" estimated the usage on the brakes. [:(][:(] Originally posted by mustanggt [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:52 PM Gabe Here is a link to a New York Times on the history of the Acela trains. Don Phillips was one of the covering reporters, so the paper got it right and may give you more insight to the comment made by Gunn. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/national/24acela.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=33b9ffeaa0c275cf&hp&ex=1114315200&partner=homepage Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:09 PM The original 5 year plan, updates, and the Amtrak's proposal for organizational changes are all on their web site. The 2006 appropriations request includes Amtrak's proposals for organizational changes. It is a 52 page document and presents a plan to get to an organization that includes a good portion of the things that the Bush Administration has been looking for. In many respect I see it as a put up or shut up document. I am sure that neither Congress or the Administration will see it that way, the wording is very diplomatic, but Amtrak has been pretty clear as to what it will take to implement the changes. For example, the NEC needs $2 billion to be put in good operating condition. There is a pretty strong implication that it doesn't make any difference if Amtrak, NECtrak, 13 Original Coloniestrak or billgatestrak is given the NEC, it is still going to take $2 billion for fix up. Amtrak acknowledged that the other corridor operations (the short haul stuff), ought to be an important focus of the reauthorization bill and suggested an 80-20 federal-state funding scheme to promote the development of these services. Amtrak agreed that the states should be the key deciders of which corridors should be developed and they should select operators for lines on a competitive basis. It is suggested that Amtrak should be allowed to be a bidder. The plan does note that if outside operators are to be found it may be necessary to change the federal laws governing bargaining with rail unions, the requirement for participation in the Railroad Retirement Program, and other lawful requirements that apply to railroad companies. These are all perceived to be a cause of costs incurred by railroads that other types of business do not have to deal with. Amtrak also offered to establish a precise method for determing the cost recovery of long distances trains so that congress could establish legal minimums for train continuation. When I say this is a put up or shut up document this is what I mean. The first thing being said is that this is the kind of federal investment that is going to be necessary if there is to be any rail passenger service in the US. The second is directed to the people who argue that competition solves everything. Here is an outline of the first necessay steps to make the business attractive. Get that done and then good luck. The forgoing is a little off the topic, but if one wants factual information about what Amtrak is trying to do and how the government money will be used, these documents have to be read. I didn't see the C-Span interview, but I suspect that Gunn may have been trying to make the point that the Acela problems are not exclusively the fault of Amtrak. My reading of the histroy was that rather than setting the necessary specs and authorizing the constructions of the trains, Congress, DOT planners and the FRA kept coming back with an "Oh by the way, you need to add this or upgrade that." Appearantly there was no individual in charge of the project either willing or able to keep all such requests to making it to the builder. Bombardier filed the lawsuit against Amtrak with the allegation that these change requests screwed up the works and cost them hundreds of millions of dollars. It would be a pure guess on my part, but had he been in charge Gunn may have suggested that the money put up for Acela trains may have been better spent on upgrades to the NEC. With that, the somewhat slower convential trains may have been able to achieve the running times at or close to what was to be done with the Acelas. Maybe after that, the modern style high speed train can be developed, possibly without the need for tilt and with less power. One prototype test until all the bugs are gone and then you launch the production model. The Big Dig. A few have bought up with the old saw or the highway lobby propaganda that highway projects are paid for by user fees. Sorry, but you are wrong. Federal Highway System projects are paid for by a tax on gasoline, which is paid by gasoline buyers even if they do not use Federal Highways. If you are going argue that the Big Dig is being paid for by the users, you better get me some pictures of the toll gates. By the way, many states, including Florida get much less back in federal money for highways than comes from gasoline sales in that states. How does that become a user fee for the residents of Florida? Take a trip to Boston? I was glad to hear that Mineta was very impressed by the "profitable" operation of Japan's bullet trains. They may have an operating profit, but I am willing to bet a lunch that the Japanese Government's investment in the building of that system would make our investment in Amtrak look like chump change. "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply conrailman Member sinceDecember 2001 From: NS Main Line at MP12 Blairsville,Pa 830 posts Posted by conrailman on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 7:24 PM I found it in Trains Maz October of 2004 issue about the Amfleets Cars being replace in 2007 AND OTHER STUFF about amtrak 5 year plan on Pg 14 and 15.[:)] Reply 12 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by mustanggt [
QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Why the new cars? What's wrong with Amfleet? What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? Why the new cars? Because a service like Boston - Wash should be run with 15 minute interval. If not more. What's wrong with Amfleet? Apart from being late 70ties technology - nothing much. What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet? I heard that LD trains long for new equipment.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Why the new cars? What's wrong with Amfleet? What would they do with all the displaced Amfleet?
Originally posted by mustanggt [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:52 PM Gabe Here is a link to a New York Times on the history of the Acela trains. Don Phillips was one of the covering reporters, so the paper got it right and may give you more insight to the comment made by Gunn. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/national/24acela.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=33b9ffeaa0c275cf&hp&ex=1114315200&partner=homepage Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:09 PM The original 5 year plan, updates, and the Amtrak's proposal for organizational changes are all on their web site. The 2006 appropriations request includes Amtrak's proposals for organizational changes. It is a 52 page document and presents a plan to get to an organization that includes a good portion of the things that the Bush Administration has been looking for. In many respect I see it as a put up or shut up document. I am sure that neither Congress or the Administration will see it that way, the wording is very diplomatic, but Amtrak has been pretty clear as to what it will take to implement the changes. For example, the NEC needs $2 billion to be put in good operating condition. There is a pretty strong implication that it doesn't make any difference if Amtrak, NECtrak, 13 Original Coloniestrak or billgatestrak is given the NEC, it is still going to take $2 billion for fix up. Amtrak acknowledged that the other corridor operations (the short haul stuff), ought to be an important focus of the reauthorization bill and suggested an 80-20 federal-state funding scheme to promote the development of these services. Amtrak agreed that the states should be the key deciders of which corridors should be developed and they should select operators for lines on a competitive basis. It is suggested that Amtrak should be allowed to be a bidder. The plan does note that if outside operators are to be found it may be necessary to change the federal laws governing bargaining with rail unions, the requirement for participation in the Railroad Retirement Program, and other lawful requirements that apply to railroad companies. These are all perceived to be a cause of costs incurred by railroads that other types of business do not have to deal with. Amtrak also offered to establish a precise method for determing the cost recovery of long distances trains so that congress could establish legal minimums for train continuation. When I say this is a put up or shut up document this is what I mean. The first thing being said is that this is the kind of federal investment that is going to be necessary if there is to be any rail passenger service in the US. The second is directed to the people who argue that competition solves everything. Here is an outline of the first necessay steps to make the business attractive. Get that done and then good luck. The forgoing is a little off the topic, but if one wants factual information about what Amtrak is trying to do and how the government money will be used, these documents have to be read. I didn't see the C-Span interview, but I suspect that Gunn may have been trying to make the point that the Acela problems are not exclusively the fault of Amtrak. My reading of the histroy was that rather than setting the necessary specs and authorizing the constructions of the trains, Congress, DOT planners and the FRA kept coming back with an "Oh by the way, you need to add this or upgrade that." Appearantly there was no individual in charge of the project either willing or able to keep all such requests to making it to the builder. Bombardier filed the lawsuit against Amtrak with the allegation that these change requests screwed up the works and cost them hundreds of millions of dollars. It would be a pure guess on my part, but had he been in charge Gunn may have suggested that the money put up for Acela trains may have been better spent on upgrades to the NEC. With that, the somewhat slower convential trains may have been able to achieve the running times at or close to what was to be done with the Acelas. Maybe after that, the modern style high speed train can be developed, possibly without the need for tilt and with less power. One prototype test until all the bugs are gone and then you launch the production model. The Big Dig. A few have bought up with the old saw or the highway lobby propaganda that highway projects are paid for by user fees. Sorry, but you are wrong. Federal Highway System projects are paid for by a tax on gasoline, which is paid by gasoline buyers even if they do not use Federal Highways. If you are going argue that the Big Dig is being paid for by the users, you better get me some pictures of the toll gates. By the way, many states, including Florida get much less back in federal money for highways than comes from gasoline sales in that states. How does that become a user fee for the residents of Florida? Take a trip to Boston? I was glad to hear that Mineta was very impressed by the "profitable" operation of Japan's bullet trains. They may have an operating profit, but I am willing to bet a lunch that the Japanese Government's investment in the building of that system would make our investment in Amtrak look like chump change. "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply conrailman Member sinceDecember 2001 From: NS Main Line at MP12 Blairsville,Pa 830 posts Posted by conrailman on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 7:24 PM I found it in Trains Maz October of 2004 issue about the Amfleets Cars being replace in 2007 AND OTHER STUFF about amtrak 5 year plan on Pg 14 and 15.[:)] Reply 12 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.