Are Acela-1s a one offf product ? As such parts are manfactured discontinued, expensive to replicate, less than quickly available, etc ? Train sets especially HSR are changing so fast that parts are obsolete before the sets wear out.
Wonder if operating cost for the new sets will be less than A-1s with the A-2s carrying more seats. Didn't Amtrak say that additional cars for A1s would cost more than brand new A-2s ?
Another strong possibility is Amtrak getting a decent price for them from a Third World country wishing to join the higher-speed group of countries quickly and inexpensively. In fact, I think that might be the most likely fate for those trains.
Higher than usual maintenance requqirements will be less of a problem with lower wages.
CMStPnP 243129 Which one would you choose? Which would the 'educated' traveling public choose? Both irrelevant questions as had you read the article carefully as you say you didn't need to. The Accela is Business and First Class only whereas the conventional trains sell coach fares.......hence the price difference. Most of the travelers on the Accela are Business Travelers whereas the majority on the Regional are the traveling general public.
243129 Which one would you choose? Which would the 'educated' traveling public choose?
Both irrelevant questions as had you read the article carefully as you say you didn't need to. The Accela is Business and First Class only whereas the conventional trains sell coach fares.......hence the price difference. Most of the travelers on the Accela are Business Travelers whereas the majority on the Regional are the traveling general public.
"Irrelevant"? Humor me, answer the question(s).
243129Which one would you choose? Which would the 'educated' traveling public choose?
Overmod I also carefully excise any 'argument from nostalgia' for preserving them in service, so if the above-the-rail cost truly would exceed the net revenue, I would not object to leaving them out of service or formally fully retiring them. However, I think also that I'd like to see a full discussion of the costs and options to keep them running or 're-grade' them correctly for continued service before compliantly going along with scrapping them outright.
I also carefully excise any 'argument from nostalgia' for preserving them in service, so if the above-the-rail cost truly would exceed the net revenue, I would not object to leaving them out of service or formally fully retiring them. However, I think also that I'd like to see a full discussion of the costs and options to keep them running or 're-grade' them correctly for continued service before compliantly going along with scrapping them outright.
You must be new around here.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
charlie hebdoI'm still wondering why the Acela equipment (which was over-weighted because of FRA demands) cannot be refurbished and used to replace some of the dated NE Regional conventional equipment.
With the Keystone P-H line having jsut about all their stations rebuilt/being rebuilt to high level platforms, I wonder if it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility for the state of PA to buy and refurb a couple of Aceala sets?
Hopefully won't turn into the NY turbo deal part 2.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
York1 It's interesting with all the arguments for and against new equipment, for and against dining options, etc., the real issue remains, and will remain unless something very drastic happens. The routes of rail lines laid out over a century ago will not accomodate modern higher speed rail traffic. We either are going to be satisfied with that (I am), or we are going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to change it.
It's interesting with all the arguments for and against new equipment, for and against dining options, etc., the real issue remains, and will remain unless something very drastic happens.
The routes of rail lines laid out over a century ago will not accomodate modern higher speed rail traffic. We either are going to be satisfied with that (I am), or we are going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to change it.
10-4
York1 John
charlie hebdoYes. Investigate rebuilding and refurbishing. One reason why most folks prefer trainsets as opposed to loose car trains is comfort. That's why everyone world-wide uses them in various forms.
How are trainsets more comfortable than "loose car trains"?
CMStPnPNo I think you need to read more on the issue. They tilt on curves as they include Pendalino technology from Europe. So they have increased speed on the many NEC curves as well. The trains also can accelerate and decelerate faster than the current trainsets.
I do not need to "read more on the issue" as I have operated these and other high-speed trainsets dating back to the TurboTrain of the 1960's.Increased acceleration/deceleration along with increased speed on the curves,which is miniscule does not provide any substantial reduction in running time over the regional service. The main reason for the Acela running time being less than the regional trains is that they make less stops.
CMStPnPAnd as I stated before another gain is increased passenger capacity per train which is also flexible as they can add an additional three coaches per train if ridership increases or the market will bear the additional seats.
Conventional equipment allows you to add twice the amount of coaches to gain increased passenger capacity at a considerably less involved procedure.
CMStPnPYes it is worth $2 Billion if the cost recovery of all the trainsets exceed the purchase price over their lifespan.
You can buy a ticket on a regional train Boston to Washington for $81.00, a ticket on Acela is $192.00 for less than an hour difference in travel time. Which one would you choose? Which would the 'educated' traveling public choose?
243129Why not purchase new conventional equipment replete with Acela amenities at substantially less money?
I suspect that any 'new conventional equipment' would be PRIIA-compliant and built most cost-effectively as a follow-on production to some existing order for similar equipment. (Note that this implies 125mph capability by default.) The required level of amenities would be relatively easy to incorporate into such cars, and the cost to do so easily estimated if not actually calculated.
The question here, though, is whether rebuilding the existing Acela sets is, seat for seat, cheaper than this new construction, with at least the tacit advantage of implied better service or higher quality carrying over into the 'new' regional or business services provided by famous high-speed equipment.
Personally I think it would be, but (as I indicated in the previous post) there are significant technical issues involved in keeping this equipment running even at reduced top speed, and these would have to be addressed as well as any 'refurb' costs, upgrades to current amenities, etc.
I suspect that any ;new conventional equipment' would be PRIIA-compliant and built most cost-effectively as a follow-on production to some existing order for similar equipment. The required level of amenities would be relatively easy to incorporate into such cars, and the cost to do so easily estimated if not actually calculated.
Overmod charlie hebdo I'm still wondering why the Acela equipment (which was over-weighted because of FRA demands) cannot be refurbished and used to replace some of the dated NE Regional conventional equipment. The general consensus I've gotten 'over the years' is that parts of the technology are similar to that in the HHP-8 in being expensive to maintain 'at any level of use' and that expensive components that were not made in quantity (and by now may be only special-order produced) would still be needed in maintenance. (Note that a somewhat similar latter argument led to the discontinuance of the Amtrak LRC consist, and I think was at least 'named in dispatches' as contributing to the rather shocking termination of the rebuilt Turboliners.) The relatively recent use of first-generation TGV equipment (still capable of high-speed and if anything even more elegant in its new livery!) for bargain transport service is a marked contrast to this. I agree with you that some use of the equipment, even if redesigned somewhat to use 'cheaper' components at lower speed, would be preferable to just scrapping the whole shebang quietly and sweeping any opportunity use under the rug. I also carefully excise any 'argument from nostalgia' for preserving them in service, so if the above-the-rail cost truly would exceed the net revenue, I would not object to leaving them out of service or formally fully retiring them. However, I think also that I'd like to see a full discussion of the costs and options to keep them running or 're-grade' them correctly for continued service before compliantly going along with scrapping them outright.
charlie hebdo I'm still wondering why the Acela equipment (which was over-weighted because of FRA demands) cannot be refurbished and used to replace some of the dated NE Regional conventional equipment.
The general consensus I've gotten 'over the years' is that parts of the technology are similar to that in the HHP-8 in being expensive to maintain 'at any level of use' and that expensive components that were not made in quantity (and by now may be only special-order produced) would still be needed in maintenance. (Note that a somewhat similar latter argument led to the discontinuance of the Amtrak LRC consist, and I think was at least 'named in dispatches' as contributing to the rather shocking termination of the rebuilt Turboliners.)
The relatively recent use of first-generation TGV equipment (still capable of high-speed and if anything even more elegant in its new livery!) for bargain transport service is a marked contrast to this. I agree with you that some use of the equipment, even if redesigned somewhat to use 'cheaper' components at lower speed, would be preferable to just scrapping the whole shebang quietly and sweeping any opportunity use under the rug. I also carefully excise any 'argument from nostalgia' for preserving them in service, so if the above-the-rail cost truly would exceed the net revenue, I would not object to leaving them out of service or formally fully retiring them. However, I think also that I'd like to see a full discussion of the costs and options to keep them running or 're-grade' them correctly for continued service before compliantly going along with scrapping them outright.
Yes. Investigate rebuilding and refurbishing. One reason why most folks prefer trainsets as opposed to loose car trains is comfort. That's why everyone world-wide uses them in various forms.
daveklepper Who says it won't?
Who says it won't?
It seems that Amtrak has only said they would be retired. Strange, because older HSR trainsets have operated in Europe over 20 years, with heavy usage, such as the ICE 1s in Germany. Used since 1991.
Lower speeds on curves, slower acceleration and deceleration. No real discernable difference for what they are charging a lower ticket price for now.
Why not purchase new conventional equipment replete with Acela amenities at substantially less money?
243129The higher speed factor is laughable, the reason that they are "slightly faster" is because they make less stops. Folks are 'blinded' by the amenity laden, shiny,sleek spaceship appearance that denotes high speed but does not provide it.
No I think you need to read more on the issue. They tilt on curves as they include Pendalino technology from Europe. So they have increased speed on the many NEC curves as well. The trains also can accelerate and decelerate faster than the current trainsets.
And as I stated before another gain is increased passenger capacity per train which is also flexible as they can add an additional three coaches per train if ridership increases or the market will bear the additional seats.
Yes it is worth $2 Billion if the cost recovery of all the trainsets exceed the purchase price over their lifespan.
Overmod 243129 Do you consider the outlay of 2 billion taxpayer dollars for something that is useless to be wasteful? Not all the outlay is 'worthless', but I think we all agreed that the percentage of the cost that represents the 220mph capacity over a 186mph or even, as I argued, a design that could truly use 125mph top speed for a large percentage of the run was essentially 'wasted' as there is little prospect of its being usable during the anticipated service lifetime of the trainsets. However, even bringing up the point is really little more than 'sour grapes' now that the money has been allocated, the contracts signed, and the trains well into production. Consider the expensive Ferraris bought and financed; there is no real way to recoup the expense for the United States or to cancel the contract and get reallocation of all that money to revamp lower-cost equipment. On the other hand, too much complaining about it may result in enemies adding this to their anti-NEC rhetoric to get all of Amtrak marginalized or defunded, and that would be counterproductive. That doesn't mean we can't acknowledge that money still needs to be spent on improving 'other' trains in the NEC, perhaps to the point even the regionals run regularly fully patronized and enthusiastically utilized by what in marketing we call 'raving fans'. As you and others have pointed out, the relative changes are mostly in amenities and services, much more than in incremental speed or time improvement, but would represent (among other things) a greater amount of 'subsidy' above-the-rails revenue to help retain a 'network' of national rail transportation...
243129 Do you consider the outlay of 2 billion taxpayer dollars for something that is useless to be wasteful?
Not all the outlay is 'worthless', but I think we all agreed that the percentage of the cost that represents the 220mph capacity over a 186mph or even, as I argued, a design that could truly use 125mph top speed for a large percentage of the run was essentially 'wasted' as there is little prospect of its being usable during the anticipated service lifetime of the trainsets.
However, even bringing up the point is really little more than 'sour grapes' now that the money has been allocated, the contracts signed, and the trains well into production. Consider the expensive Ferraris bought and financed; there is no real way to recoup the expense for the United States or to cancel the contract and get reallocation of all that money to revamp lower-cost equipment. On the other hand, too much complaining about it may result in enemies adding this to their anti-NEC rhetoric to get all of Amtrak marginalized or defunded, and that would be counterproductive.
That doesn't mean we can't acknowledge that money still needs to be spent on improving 'other' trains in the NEC, perhaps to the point even the regionals run regularly fully patronized and enthusiastically utilized by what in marketing we call 'raving fans'. As you and others have pointed out, the relative changes are mostly in amenities and services, much more than in incremental speed or time improvement, but would represent (among other things) a greater amount of 'subsidy' above-the-rails revenue to help retain a 'network' of national rail transportation...
I'm still wondering why the Acela equipment (which was over-weighted because of FRA demands) cannot be refurbished and used to replace some of the dated NE Regional conventional equipment.
CMStPnPI don't believe it to be useless or wasteful since the lifespan of those trains is what? 20 years or more?
So is the lifespan of locomotives and conventional coaches at considerably less cost.
CMStPnPDo you really believe that the NEC is going to stay frozen in time infrastructure wise during that timeframe as that person that wrote the letter assumes?
Yes, a dedicated infrastructure, which true high-speed would require, in the heavily populated Northeast Corridor would be cost prohibitive and a logistical nightmare.
CMStPnPMore and more Congress is shifting to the belief we need a rail component as alternative to air and bus.
I agree, midtown to midtown in the 500 mile and under market is squarely in Amtrak's lap.
CMStPnPLast but not least, Amtrak did not buy the trains for only their higher speed. It bought them for their greater capacity carrying passengers and their ability to tilt around curves as well as faster acceleration and deceleration compared to conventional equipment.......which will buy them a slightly faster schedule without spending money on the tracks as well as more revenue per train.
The higher speed factor is laughable, the reason that they are "slightly faster" is because they make less stops. Folks are 'blinded' by the amenity laden, shiny,sleek spaceship appearance that denotes high speed but does not provide it.
How can the enormous outlay for little or no gain be justified?
243129Do you consider the outlay of 2 billion taxpayer dollars for something that is useless to be wasteful?
I don't believe it to be useless or wasteful since the lifespan of those trains is what? 20 years or more? Do you really believe that the NEC is going to stay frozen in time infrastructure wise during that timeframe as that person that wrote the letter assumes? I think it highly unlikely it won't improve substantially infrastructure wise. More and more Congress is shifting to the belief we need a rail component as alternative to air and bus. You can thank the man induced climate change mythology for much of the change in thinking. Additionally we have more than one private firm making proposals for HSR systems. Where will they be in 20 years.
Last but not least, Amtrak did not buy the trains for only their higher speed. It bought them for their greater capacity carrying passengers and their ability to tilt around curves as well as faster acceleration and deceleration compared to conventional equipment.......which will buy them a slightly faster schedule without spending money on the tracks as well as more revenue per train. Also from what I read the purchased train capacity can be increased even more via purchase of three additional coaches per train and the trains powerplant can handle that expansion. So the new trainsets are also able to grow with passenger loads to an extent.
Overmod No comments yet on Cameron's Middletown Press article. Why not??? To be honest, the argument really lost most of its importance when the money was actually allocated and the contracts to build the trains signed. That $2B is now water over the bridge as far as possibly 'recouping' it to reallocate to improving more 'legacy' equipment is concerned. I think we'd be better served to say 'these new trains are great, but now let's apply some of the amenities and care to improving the slower business services, and get their take rates up to the "soldo out" status Cameron mentioned.'
No comments yet on Cameron's Middletown Press article. Why not???
To be honest, the argument really lost most of its importance when the money was actually allocated and the contracts to build the trains signed. That $2B is now water over the bridge as far as possibly 'recouping' it to reallocate to improving more 'legacy' equipment is concerned.
I think we'd be better served to say 'these new trains are great, but now let's apply some of the amenities and care to improving the slower business services, and get their take rates up to the "soldo out" status Cameron mentioned.'
Do you consider the outlay of 2 billion taxpayer dollars for something that is useless to be wasteful?
This from the New Haven(CT) Register:
https://www.nhregister.com/opinion/article/Waste-of-money-on-train-upgrades-Letter-14501009.php
Cameron commentary:
https://www.middletownpress.com/middletown/article/Look-inside-Amtrak-s-new-high-speed-luxury-14470009.php?_ga=2.255158472.174093323.1570566275-552206545.1565139299
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.