Have not had time to peruse the document but will provide synopsis later.
http://railwayage.com/index.php/passenger/intercity/amtrak-updates-fleet-strategy-plan.html?channel=
Amtrak report -- Look comprehensive business plans.
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer/Page/1241245669222/1241245669129
There is a lot of verbal nonsense in report however many of the number figures are revealing.
All year listing are FY only.
Amtrak still is using a 2% per year growth even though last 5 years much greater. However if some of the planned NEC upgrades are finished Amtrak anticipates a 5% growth on the NEC>
The Viewliner - 2s on order appear to be an orphan order as there is reference to new specs for single level cars. Viewliner - 2s deliveries are expected FY Sept 2013 -2014. Some hints that not alll the viewliners will be as previously ordered especially baggage replacements. There is then a 1 year gap in single level car deliveries but starting in 2016 100 single levels per year ( vs 65/yr ) .for 7 years ( 2016 - 2022 ); 100 bi-levels (vs 35/yr ) for 5 years ( 2018 - 2022 ). The 200 per year was stated to get suppliers interested in buiding these cars and auxillaries.
Present average overhaul costs were listed as SL- $375,000; Bi-level $480k; electric $700k; Diesel $120k; Acela $10m / train set.
LD trains are anticipated to increase ridership by adding cars up to station limits such as Silver service and Crescent. in PRIIA report.
a few more items.
1st electric loco delivery expected fall 2013.
55 Amfleet cars have been returned to service.
Talgos have average of 1.92m miles Acela 1.62m miles. both placed in service same year.
Mention of one additinal Acela route north of NYP. Any idea what route ????
Note: even though 100/yr each of single level and bi-levels a total of 825 singles 2016 - 3022 and 508 bi-levels 2018 -2022.
more later.site went down.
Interesting that the same error from the last iteration of this report has been carried forward. We reported this last year in This Week at Amtrak:
One other curious statement as regards the potential routes for the new bi-level cars: “The only other exception would be Amtrak’s Hoosier State/Cardinal Service between Chicago and Indianapolis, which would continue to use single level equipment because of clearance constraints on the Cardinal route.” Trains between Chicago and Indianapolis have always ferried equipment to and from Beech Grove, Amtrak’s maintenance facility just outside Indianapolis. The deadheading equipment does include cars from Amtrak’s current bi-level fleet: Superliners, Superliner II’s and California cars.
Maybe I should send them a subscription?
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
D.Carleton Interesting that the same error from the last iteration of this report has been carried forward. We reported this last year in This Week at Amtrak: One other curious statement as regards the potential routes for the new bi-level cars: “The only other exception would be Amtrak’s Hoosier State/Cardinal Service between Chicago and Indianapolis, which would continue to use single level equipment because of clearance constraints on the Cardinal route.” Trains between Chicago and Indianapolis have always ferried equipment to and from Beech Grove, Amtrak’s maintenance facility just outside Indianapolis. The deadheading equipment does include cars from Amtrak’s current bi-level fleet: Superliners, Superliner II’s and California cars.
I wondered about that statement as well. Remember for a while the cardinal was superliner equipment CHI - WAS. There are several more typos in the report.
blue streak 1 I wondered about that statement as well. Remember for a while the cardinal was superliner equipment CHI - WAS. There are several more typos in the report.
a few more items and a couple corrections.
1. The 825 single cars do include the 130 cars already on order so 100 / yr for 7 years is a correct number..
2. One big problem to enable longer trains on both the NEC and long distance trains is the HEP liimit of about 9 revenue cars ( cars that draw power). There are some electric motors and a few diesels ( noteabley the locos hauling Auto Train ) that can power different numbers with a few some 16 - 18 revenue cars. Some have capability to parallel with another loco however that is not standard practice. The new motors ( ACS 125s ) will all have 14 - 16 car HEP capability. New diesels when ordered were hinted to also have more car capability.
3. Still plan to retire 145 Amfleet - 2s first due to their much higher mileage.
4. 80 new auto carriers are listed but no retirement plans yet for present auto carriers.
5. ADA requirements may reduce new car capacities slightly.
6. $102,000 cost for diesel overhaul did not include the $3500 / mo / loco diesel maintenance fee paid by Amtrak ( GE ?? ).
7. 15 P-40s and 20 Superliners returned to service.
8. plans are to increase present 85% equipment availability in 5 years to cars 89%; diesels 87% and motors 77% ( sad figure for motors )
9. Old HHPs and AEMs many will be carried as reserve power ( maybe at various sidings for quicker protection power ???? ). Others to cab cars that can carry baggage
10. Now plans to store most officially retired cars for possible surge fleet. ( Wonder if this came from on high ? ) o
11. New Acela route north of New York mentioned on p42 of report.
An eye opener in the fleet plan was the statement of a new Acela route north of NYC. A further review of the report stated that specifications for the additional 40 Acela cars would modify them for low platform boardings as well as high platforms. That IMHO certainly opens up possibilities of maybe NYP - Albany ??.
7 new cars could be placed all in one train along with 1 first class car along with power cars at each end; giving boardings possibilities for such a route ? The upgrade planned for POU - ALB to 125 MPH also may be a part. Would need High speed diesel(s) to pull train NYP - Albany? Could then provide thru Acela service WASH - Albany ?
Another item noted in report was statement that certain cars ( Horizon ? ) were subject to weather problems and might get replaced with the use of new bi-levels in midwest service. Location not stated. Only place thought of was FEC ?
blue streak 1 An eye opener in the fleet plan was the statement of a new Acela route north of NYC. A further review of the report stated that specifications for the additional 40 Acela cars would modify them for low platform boardings as well as high platforms. That IMHO certainly opens up possibilities of maybe NYP - Albany ??. 7 new cars could be placed all in one train along with 1 first class car along with power cars at each end; giving boardings possibilities for such a route ? The upgrade planned for POU - ALB to 125 MPH also may be a part. Would need High speed diesel(s) to pull train NYP - Albany? Could then provide thru Acela service WASH - Albany ?
D.Carleton Albany-Rensselaer has high level platforms but its doubtful you'll see any "Acela" service anytime soon. When they say "north of New York" all they mean is an additional trip to Boston. Currently five of the weekday 16 southbound Acela trips are NYP-WAS only.
Albany-Rensselaer has high level platforms but its doubtful you'll see any "Acela" service anytime soon. When they say "north of New York" all they mean is an additional trip to Boston. Currently five of the weekday 16 southbound Acela trips are NYP-WAS only.
I don't have enough information to argue the possible route. All I know is that the report said 1 new route north of New York The report did not say 1 new train; any possibility Springfield ?
Again what is the reason for the 40 new Acela business class cars having both high level platform and low level platform capability ??
The V3.1 plan specifically said new route north of New York, not service frequency. What the plan likely means is prospects for future Acela service to Springfield MA. CT has longer terms plans for electrification of the New Haven to Springfield corridor for their commuter service. Electrification of the Springfield corridor would allow M-8s to run from Stamford to Hartford for example. Hartford and even Springfield MA are good sized cities which may be big enough markets to support a daily Acela to NYP and WAS. If the corridor is electrified for the commuter service, why not try running an Acela to Springfield to see how much business it gets?
All of the Springfield corridor stations will be upgraded to high level platforms, so Acela would be able to access them if the 62 mile corridor were electrified. The low level access capability of the 40 new Acela cars is very likely intended for emergency or contingency access at stations with low level platforms, not for daily stops at stations with low level platforms.
There are a few perfectly good Turboliners sitting somewhere (Bear? Wilmington?) that could do the WAS to ALB thing at 125 mph....
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
As I commented on another thread regarding Talgo being an "orphan", Amtrak has this "thing" about not wanting to operate those Turboliners. It is not that they haven't gotten around to necessary maintenance or refurbishment, it is that they are standing astride the State of New York and declaiming "No!" to the Turboliners. Anyone have more history on this?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Increases in fuel costs ended Turbo usefullness. They are extremely inefficient at anything but full power. This applied to all gas turbines. And the gen-set approach would solve the problem, but be extremely expensive to implement. And might increase maintenance costs to unreasonable levels.
A nice idea, but : 1) the line is not Amtrak owned (a strange thing, since it's mostly used by passenger trains), and 2) presently the speed standard is quite low, with only one 17 miles section where 110 mph is allowed, whith the reninder if the line having a general speed limit varying between 80 and 95 (and of course this 'high speed ' route really ends in Schenectady, since there are some sections on the single track line going there from Rennselaer where speeds between 90 and 110 are allowed).
Anyway, despite rhe fact that turboliners are perfectly capable of reaching 125, in regular service, most of the line would have to get some realignments, general fencing, and all grade crossings would have to be eliminated in order to have sustained high speed scetions. Also some form of PTC, wether piggybacked in the existing Cab signal system or tottaly new, would have to be installed. and last, but maybe not least, these turboliners were known to be quite nosy and extremely thirsty, a fact that above all might have helped the decision of long term storage.
I also think somebody mentioned a high speed Diesel. I know that LRC locomotives (of Shoreliner service and Via Rail fame) were capable of reaching 125 Mph. Maybe some new design based on it, or then a Talgo train service like the one that will be used in Wisconsin, wich will use BT Motorheads and can reach high speeds. But then there's the high platform problem in NYP and Albany(Talgos can only be used with low level platforms).
Mario_v A nice idea, but : 1) the line is not Amtrak owned (a strange thing, since it's mostly used by passenger trains), and 2) presently the speed standard is quite low, with only one 17 miles section where 110 mph is allowed, whith the reninder if the line having a general speed limit varying between 80 and 95 (and of course this 'high speed ' route really ends in Schenectady, since there are some sections on the single track line going there from Rennselaer where speeds between 90 and 110 are allowed). Anyway, despite rhe fact that turboliners are perfectly capable of reaching 125, in regular service, most of the line would have to get some realignments, general fencing, and all grade crossings would have to be eliminated in order to have sustained high speed scetions. Also some form of PTC, wether piggybacked in the existing Cab signal system or tottaly new, would have to be installed. and last, but maybe not least, these turboliners were known to be quite nosy and extremely thirsty, a fact that above all might have helped the decision of long term storage. I also think somebody mentioned a high speed Diesel. I know that LRC locomotives (of Shoreliner service and Via Rail fame) were capable of reaching 125 Mph. Maybe some new design based on it, or then a Talgo train service like the one that will be used in Wisconsin, wich will use BT Motorheads and can reach high speeds. But then there's the high platform problem in NYP and Albany(Talgos can only be used with low level platforms).
Should still be 110 from Castleton to Rensselaer and West Albany to CP-169, no?
The thought was to run WAS to the tunnel on turbo at 125, then 3rd rail through the tunnel to Penn and back out to the through the west side connection. Then up the Hudson to Albany.
I've just been checking the source (a Conrail ETT from 1999, I think it's a real pre merger one) and the only sections at 110 are : 1) Chicago - Line, between MP 149.0 and MP 156,3 and, 2) Hudson line, between MP124,3 and CP 141.
One thing I did not mention on the last post is the fact that that Talgos, having a passive tilt capability allowing the to 'steer' thru curves up to a maximum of 5 degrees. That would bring speed increases of 10 to 10 % on a bargain. In the case of the NY - Albany line, that would allow speeds in the vicinity of 90 - 100 mph in most of the line (now the norm is 80 - 95, with the notable exceptions that I mentioned above), and maybe 125 in the 110 capable sections.
What does the ETT show between MP 156.3 and MP 169?
Between MP 156,3 and MP 169, the posted speeds on the aformentioned timetable are :
- MP 156,3 and MP 158,0 : 90 Mph ;
- MP 158,0 and MP 159,6 : 55 Mph ;
- MP 159,6 and MP 159,9 : 30 Mph (connection with CPR [D&H], with a wye to CP160, limited to 15);
- MP 159,9 to MP 160,3 : 50 Mph ;
- MP 160,3 to MP 161,3 : 70 Mph ;
- MP 161,3 to MP 164,5 : 100 Mph ;
- MP 164,5 to MP 165,8 : 90 Mph ;
- MP 165,8 to CP 169 : 100 Mph.
OK. Only 100 mph for the 10 miles west of Schenectady to CP-169, with one 90 mph curve. Still all Class 6 track, though.
The Turboliners are finished. The State of New York is going to put the train sets and the piles of parts up for sale if they haven't already. It's costing them tens of millions a year just to store them. New York still thinks they own the ones stored in Delaware which Amtrak put up for sale some years ago. Does anyone have an update on that sale?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.