http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-13/amtrak-plans-to-replace-all-high-speed-acela-trains.html
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I am skeptical of the Bloomberg report since I was only able to read the 1st 9 pages of Boardman's testimony . Now Bloomberg may have gotten an advance copy of Boardman's testimony. His1st 9 pages did not mention these replacements. I would assume that the new train sets would supplement and not replace the present. Once the rest of Boardman's testimony is released then we can make more informed conclusions. Here is a link to the first 9 pages.
http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/823/289/Amtrak-CEO-Boardman-House-T&I-testimony-Dec-13-2012.pdf
How much Acela equipment will go to which museums?
Seems clear enough. “What we really need to do is replace the Acela with new equipment,” Amtrak Chief Executive Officer Joseph Boardman told a congressional committee today in Washington. “I told our folks they need to get this done by the time I’m 70, and I’ll be 64 next year.”
In Politico, Morning Transportation: Amtrak head Joe Boardman, who will testify at the hearing today, told MT he plans to say that it’s “critical” that speeds be improved on the corridor. “To that end I want to replace the Acela equipment rather than add to it,” he wrote. Boardman plans to talk about a preliminary schedule on that effort, which could help boost train speeds on the popular corridor that includes four of the country’s 10 largest metro areas. The T&I briefing memo has more: http://1.usa.gov/VWOqWS
A chance to get it right! Buy lightweight, off the shelf European design (ICE-T anyone?). No unexpected problems due to excess weight, or too-wide carbodies, or expensive, boutique designs!
Just do it then hammer the FRA into submission. Show congress that "off the shelf" costs X and "FRA compliant" cost "2X" (or whatever) and let them carry the ball.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
You really think they could do that? Why not just ban freight from those tracks and then buy whatever the newest version of the ICE is from Siemens? While they are at it, buy the Siemens catenary system, too.
oltmannd Just do it then hammer the FRA into submission. Show congress that "off the shelf" costs X and "FRA compliant" cost "2X" (or whatever) and let them carry the ball.
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
I stand corrected here is the link to BOARDMAN'S notice. However I wonder what will happen in the meantime. since no numbers are given we will have to see what the final plan is. the old sets may have some use in secondary routes by the time new ones are delivered.
http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/188/748/ATK-12-133%20Amtrak%20Advances%20Plans%20for%20Next%20Gen%20HSR%20Train%20Sets%20(12-13-12).pdf
Here is the exact quote of the release
WASHINGTON – In order to better meet strong and growing ridership demand on the Northeast Corridor (NEC), Amtrak is advancing plans to acquire new next-generation high-speed train sets and ending its plans to purchase 40 additional high-speed passenger cars to add to the existing Acela Express fleet.
In early 2013, Amtrak will issue a Request for Information (RFI) to formally start the process that will replace the existing 20
Acela Express train sets and add additional train sets to expand seating capacity and provide for more frequent high-speed service on the NEC.
There was some discussion over on the Locomotives forum to the effect that the railroads rebuild their locomotives until it is demonstrated that new locomotive types offer improved fuel economy, or reduced maintenance, especially through "unit reduction", where 2 of the new locomotive units have the pulling power of 3 of the older ones.
What would an Acela replacement bring to the table? Would it have noticable savings in electricity usage? Would it have reduced maintenance costs? Would it have a suspension design that is easier on the track? Would it have a tilt system that actually works in improving trip speed? Would it offer improved passenger comfort or other amenities? Does the Acela have ongoing maintenance problems or have problems with cracks in frames or trucks or some problems making a rebuild a difficult process?
If none of these things are the current situation, why replace the Acela?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
I think don covered most of the reasons.
Schlimm,
I don't even think you would have to ban freight trains from the Northeast Corridor to use standard light weight high speed trains. Right now Acelas use the tracks from about 5 am to about 11 pm. That gives 6 hours during the night to run freight traffic.
Northeast Regional trains do run during the night time hours; however they are heavy weight and can share the tracks with freight trains.
It also occurs to me that if freight trains were restricted to night time hours commuter authorities might be able to run light weight (and less expensive) equipment during the hours reserved for Acela. Not necessarily high speed equipment; only lighter equipment.
John
oltmannd A chance to get it right! Buy lightweight, off the shelf European design (ICE-T anyone?). No unexpected problems due to excess weight, or too-wide carbodies, or expensive, boutique designs! Just do it then hammer the FRA into submission. Show congress that "off the shelf" costs X and "FRA compliant" cost "2X" (or whatever) and let them carry the ball.
For a Congress that has participated in getting the U.S. to more than $16 trillion in national debt, as well as more than $46 trillion in unfunded liabilities, I am hard pressed to believe that it (Congress) has a clue about optimizing costs.
In another post it was suggested that Amtrak could restrict freight train operations to the dead of night to accommodate European designs on the NEC. This is what Capital Metro has done on the Austin and Western, where it runs Stadler equipment for the Red Line commuter service. Two unintended consequences have popped up. Running freight trains at night means nighttime premium pay for the crews. And a number of shippers are not happy with the arrangement because of the delays in shipping or receiving their loads, so I have been told.
I am not familiar with the re-routing options available to freight carriers operating along the NEC. If there are any viable alternatives, they may opt to use them, and Amtrak would be out the revenues.
Good news! Boardman announced today that Amtrak is not going to pursue the purchase of new Acela cars saying that with Bombdier no longer with an operating manufacturing facility to build the cars the cost of tooling up would drive the costs of the cars up beyond the value of the investment. Instead, a new design perhaps, for new trainsets with a future would be a better investment in the long run.
As for keeping passenger and freight services off the same tracks...this has been tossed around quite a bit here in the US. Following that concept out of hand does not necessarily make sense for either argument. There are some lines with one freight a day which could certainly handle passenger trains and services and there are some tracks with so many passenger trains and at high speeds that freight is entirely out of the question if only for safety.
As for the Corridor...there are many sidings and running tracks on the right of way to keep freight and terminal services active without venturing out on the Corridor mains. But there has to be some kind of feed of the freight traffic at some time. Running freight trains from Arlington, VA to Newark, NJ on the Corridor does not make much sense for scheduling or safety. Thus the former B&O-Reading-CNJ-LV tracks make for a perfect freight routing even with the SEPTA and NJT services using parts of the routes. New York Harbor and vicinity are no longer the 10 one hundred car trains in and out railroading of the last Century by each railroad and can be (and are) handled fairly efficiently.
One of the reasons I believe American railroads are often inefficient is because although they claim to have freight schedules they also know they can fall off that schedule and do so because there is usually no harm done and nobody's gonna care much. If railroads would really work at scheduled freight services with conviction and integrity, they would be more efficient and believable, and could pick up some extra buck by scheduling a passenger train or two a day...scheduling and keeping to the schedule both for freight or passenger would make the whole railroad more efficient and profitable.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
After further consideration this appears that is a wise decision.
1.. If costs were too much then the funds could be spent better elsewhere.
2. the 40 additional cars could have been different as many parts for the original Acela cars are no longer being made and the difference may have made operational compatibility problems.
2a. maintenance costs may be high on the present Acelas and new ACELAs can be specificed differently with maintenance performance exact goals.
3. The 160 - 165 MPH tests may have shown problems that we may not be made aware of.
4. I am unaware if there is an option to buy more Viewliner-2s above the present order of 130 but if there is one a better use of the funds may be to buy more Viewline-2s and not have to issue another RFBs..
a.-- reviewing the costs of the Acela sets appears that each Acela car costs about 3-4 times what a new VIEWLINER costs so maybe getting almost 10,000 more coach seats instead of 2500 seats is a better use of funds.
b. ---- Increase the delivery rate of Viewliner-2s to meet the fleet strategy plan of 100 / year.
c. --- Take these new cars make them coaches and assign them to long distance trains to increase capacity and reassign the Amfleet -2s that have very high mileage.
d. --- What Amfleet-2s that are not needed for long distance trains reassign them to make longer NEC regional trains that will absorb the Acela demand that cannot be met with this cancellation of the 40 additional cars.
e. --- The new ACS-64s that are on order may be able to haul the longer NEC trains with one loco.
f. --- Having all Viewliner cars long distance trains may be an attraction for additional passengers.
5. A request for information to see what kind of new Acela-2s can be bought and their cost appears the way to proceed.
Sam1 oltmannd A chance to get it right! Buy lightweight, off the shelf European design (ICE-T anyone?). No unexpected problems due to excess weight, or too-wide carbodies, or expensive, boutique designs! Just do it then hammer the FRA into submission. Show congress that "off the shelf" costs X and "FRA compliant" cost "2X" (or whatever) and let them carry the ball. For a Congress that has participated in getting the U.S. to more than $16 trillion in national debt, as well as more than $46 trillion in unfunded liabilities, I am hard pressed to believe that it (Congress) has a clue about optimizing costs. In another post it was suggested that Amtrak could restrict freight train operations to the dead of night to accommodate European designs on the NEC. This is what Capital Metro has done on the Austin and Western, where it runs Stadler equipment for the Red Line commuter service. Two unintended consequences have popped up. Running freight trains at night means nighttime premium pay for the crews. And a number of shippers are not happy with the arrangement because of the delays in shipping or receiving their loads, so I have been told. I am not familiar with the re-routing options available to freight carriers operating along the NEC. If there are any viable alternatives, they may opt to use them, and Amtrak would be out the revenues.
Nighttime freight operations are already the norm on the NEC and have been since Amtrak took over operational control of the NEC. The problem of lightweight, lower crash resistance equipment would have to operate concurrently with Amtraks own legacy equipment that have been constructed to the higher level of crash resistance - unless ALL equipment on the NEC were replaced (which is not financially doable).
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
In the long run the most important thing is to have a stable car building and car parts industry. The last 40 years have been one on-off run after another - the exceptions being Amfleet - until Budd quit - and Bombardiers Horizon cars. The list of dead carbuilders is fairly long - Budd, P-S, Amerail (Viewliners), and whatever business name M-K used for the "California Cars". The Bombardier plant in Barre Vermont that produced the Acelas also produced the Superliner II's before that - but all of the trained workforce and tooling for those projects is now pretty much lost. Bombardier's Superliner IIs were almost twice as expensive as P-S's Superliner Is because a virtually new factory had to be included in the cost. The main reason that european and asian carbuilders can keep costs down is by reusing tooling, and having a long-term stable workforce with the required skills.
Kudos to Boardman for trying to look long-term instead of just plugging gaps.
rcdrye In the long run the most important thing is to have a stable car building and car parts industry. The last 40 years have been one on-off run after another - the exceptions being Amfleet - until Budd quit - and Bombardiers Horizon cars. The list of dead carbuilders is fairly long - Budd, P-S, Amerail (Viewliners), and whatever business name M-K used for the "California Cars". The Bombardier plant in Barre Vermont that produced the Acelas also produced the Superliner II's before that - but all of the trained workforce and tooling for those projects is now pretty much lost. Bombardier's Superliner IIs were almost twice as expensive as P-S's Superliner Is because a virtually new factory had to be included in the cost. The main reason that european and asian carbuilders can keep costs down is by reusing tooling, and having a long-term stable workforce with the required skills. Kudos to Boardman for trying to look long-term instead of just plugging gaps.
Considering the relatively few customers for passenger cars and their longevity in performing their duties when given a reasonable level of maintenance there is little wonder that the industry, in North America, is a boom or bust enterprise that has taken those in it bankrupt, since there is not continuous sustaining demand for the new cars. Once a industry is gone, the craftsmen that made the industry cease to exist.
Paul Milenkovic What would an Acela replacement bring to the table? Would it have noticable savings in electricity usage? Would it have reduced maintenance costs? Would it have a suspension design that is easier on the track? Would it have a tilt system that actually works in improving trip speed? Would it offer improved passenger comfort or other amenities? Does the Acela have ongoing maintenance problems or have problems with cracks in frames or trucks or some problems making a rebuild a difficult process? If none of these things are the current situation, why replace the Acela?
Paul -
That's exactly the point. It needs to be faster, cheaper and better. (and quick to market)
schlimmYou really think they could do that? Why not just ban freight from those tracks and then buy whatever the newest version of the ICE is from Siemens? While they are at it, buy the Siemens catenary system, too.
They mix 60 mph freights with 125 passenger in Germany. Now, the freight trains are only 2200 ft. , 2000 tons, but it's hard to imagine hitting one of these at 125 mph would be any better than hitting a 6000 ton, 5000 ft long train. It would equally awful in both cases...
oltmanndThey mix 60 mph freights with 125 passenger in Germany.
But there, freight and passenger services cooperate, mostly (but not always) part of DB. Here you have some host freight lines that are hostile to Amtrak (and commuter services as well). there are also posters here who refuse to acknowledge that many of the improvement bluestreak listed to lines benefit the freight service, too.
In some quarters there seems to be a reluctance to acknowledge that railroads are in fact public roads. This has always been the case. Railroads have certain special rights but with those rights come responsibilities.
John WR In some quarters there seems to be a reluctance to acknowledge that railroads are in fact public roads. This has always been the case. Railroads have certain special rights but with those rights come responsibilities.
Railroads are privately owned and operated. They operate under common carrier law wherein the must transport whatever legal freight is offered to them. They are NOT public roads and other carriers cannot operate over one carriers tracks without the permission of the owning carrier. Amtrak has contracts with the carriers they operate over that specify who pays for what - without those contracts Amtrak would not be operating over freight railroads.
schlimm oltmanndThey mix 60 mph freights with 125 passenger in Germany. But there, freight and passenger services cooperate, mostly (but not always) part of DB. Here you have some host freight lines that are hostile to Amtrak (and commuter services as well). there are also posters here who refuse to acknowledge that many of the improvement bluestreak listed to lines benefit the freight service, too.
Cooperation isn't the problem on the NEC. It's FRA crash standards that make the equipment so heavy - and stop Amtrak from buying "off the shelf" European designs. The "buy American" requirements don't help, either.
BaltACDThe problem of lightweight, lower crash resistance equipment would have to operate concurrently with Amtraks own legacy equipment that have been constructed to the higher level of crash resistance - unless ALL equipment on the NEC were replaced (which is not financially doable).
This is true if you accept that the FRA specs provide a measure of safety greater than their cost. I suspect they do not - or will not once we get into the "PTC world", particularly on routes with few grade crossings like the NEC.
The "bang for the buck" for safety comes from figuring out how to avoid collisions, not how to survive them. Seems to work pretty well in Germany, et. al.
BaltACDConsidering the relatively few customers for passenger cars and their longevity in performing their duties when given a reasonable level of maintenance there is little wonder that the industry, in North America, is a boom or bust enterprise that has taken those in it bankrupt, since there is not continuous sustaining demand for the new cars. Once a industry is gone, the craftsmen that made the industry cease to exist.
All the more reason to buy "off the shelf" from overseas...at least for now. Should passenger rail operations grow to be sufficient size to support a full time plant here, it will happen naturally. The "buy American" and, worse yet, "assemble in my state" laws add a ton of cost to these things.
If railroads are not public roads how is it then that they are empowered to assess a tariff on goods they transport?
A railroad tariff is simply a price list or a formula for determining a price.
Have it your way. I really prefer to stick to the topic of Acela.
John WR If railroads are not public roads how is it then that they are empowered to assess a tariff on goods they transport?
Railroads are still "common carriers" which means they have to move whatever's tendered. The rates are regulated within bounds based on cost.
oltmanndRailroads are still "common carriers" which means they have to move whatever's tendered. The rates are regulated within bounds based on cost.
Exactly. However, the Staggers Act greatly reduced rate regulations. That is why railroads are much better able to compete with trucks than they were prior to the Act.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.