AMTRAK'S ALC-42'S and ALC-42E'S paint scheme questio +question about where the new ALC-42'S operate

Tadman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 5:25 pm

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 8:55 am From Hilton Suites Boca Raton--

Let's see, how long do airlines go between "re-imagings"?


But it seems like about once every fifteen years for airlines. Amtrak started with Phase V during '96 with delivery of the P'42's; so using the major airlines as a "measuring stick", "they're due".

By my count we had Phase V (blue pinstripes) when the SL2's showed up around 1993, Phase VI when the Acelas showed up around 2000, the coaches reverted back to Phase V because someone didn't like the Lava Lamp amfleets. Then on top of having active Phase V and VI fleets, Boardman brought Phase III back to the new Viewliners. Then NYS did the same thing for the 700's. You also have subfleets for Norcal California, Socal California, and Cascades. Now we have a subfleet for Amtrak midwest. Plus the Phase VIIa and VIIb in 2016 and 2022 when the Siemens engines start showing up.

And somehow we can't seem to figure out how to board the passengers in a normal and uniform method still. The trains are purty but screw the passengers, just bark orders and threats and make them march around like kindergartners.

TD - I want to mention that the early 2000s "Lava Lamp Amfleets" as you describe them was the
"Acela Everything" color scheme that was ordered done away with by then-Amtrak President David Gunn.
The Amfleet cars (as example) color scheme(s) consists of graphic sheeting...The Phase Three Viewliner
and equal part striping on the 700 series units is reflectorized Avery or Scotchlite graphics...Interesting
variety of color schemes and stripe types used on Amtrak equipment that only train buffs bicker about...

Precedures such as station boarding and the quality of train services are what Amtrak passengers are really
concerned about - not trivial matters such as color schemes or livery on the equipment - Agreed...MACTRAXX

MACTRAXX wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2024 11:07 am Until the new NEC Airo trains are finally built and available it makes NO sense for me to speculate and/or
predict what service options will be at least three to five years in the future...I will defer to Amtrak's own
service planners and advocacy groups such as the Rail Passenger's Association in this instance...
MACTRAXX

Knowing that proposing to almost any entity that they should subsidize an additional train service will require studies and planning, it seems that starting advocacy now is the only way to get that additional service in a decade.

I'm interested, not in speculating on which services are made possible by the ICTs, but in what services I can (or should) be advocating for that could take advantage of the ICT's ability to operate under diesel and electric territories while eliminating the complexity, cost, and time of engine changes, which means starting now for equipment available in 5 years time to be able to have a chance of seeing that service 5 years after the available equipment is operating (worse would be starting advocacy right when the contract options expire and the cost new ICT sets rises above the options cost).

Since economic opportunity (both for people at the local level and for communities at the regional level) is directly tied to improved mobility (to the point where in most of America simply giving people in poverty a cheap reliable car is the most likely way to help lift them out of poverty), I don't see value in advocating for Amtrak services on Long Island (unless they cover their own costs completely, that would seem to be a subsidy for the relatively rich in this country), and I am not interested in advocating for more Virginia Amtrak services over existing routes since Virginia is already working on those processes, where should I be advocating that ICT services be extended?

This is extremely anecdotal but to me the best places for corridors are around big institutions such as military bases, airports, universities, retirement communities, sports venues. To be clear, that can't be the only passengers relied upon, but its a foundation on which to base the business case while attracting business and leisure travelers.

Example: the current almost-operating Mobile-NOLA service has been criticized for low ridership projections. It seems like there is a "if you build it they will come" attitude. Instead there is a giant seaport(s) in Mobile, a navy shipyard in Pascagoula, a military base in Biloxi and another in Gulfport, NASA facitilities in both NOLA and Bay Saint Louis, and an international airport at MSY. It seems the potential travelers here from these big draws are marginalized. If there is such a problem with a Mobile endpoint, terminate at Pascagoula and focus on Navy/NASA traffic. If Mobilians want a ride to New Orleans, that's your aspirational "build a business" target. West Mobilians can get to Pascagoula almost as fast as downtown Mobile and the parking situation is far better.

This would be a great place for AIro services.

From Brightline Premium Lounge @McCoy Field--

Observed #91(21) passing the Lynx bus station in Orlando (today is a Brightline joyride; I took a Lynx bus into town and back; only $1.00 (Senior) each way.

Consist is P-42's eight cars (3 Coach, Snack Bar, Diner, V-2, V-1. Bagg).

RandallW wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2024 8:30 am I do find it interesting that using ALC-42Es and APVs will allow for piecemeal electrification in ways that no other equipment in US operations do. I also see possibilities of extending routes like the Keystone services west of Harrisburg a possibility.

You’re not going to see any extension of electrification. Dual modes were always about avoiding it, or cutting it back. This latest fleet of wunderloks won’t make things any different.

You want to see electrification? Bump a P-42 to an Acela set, and let it tow the thing to Richmond. Pathetic? That’s exactly the point.

Creating an excuse to not electrify means nobody will electrify.

Nasadowsk wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 10:39 pm

RandallW wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2024 8:30 am I do find it interesting that using ALC-42Es and APVs will allow for piecemeal electrification in ways that no other equipment in US operations do. I also see possibilities of extending routes like the Keystone services west of Harrisburg a possibility.

You’re not going to see any extension of electrification. Dual modes were always about avoiding it, or cutting it back. This latest fleet of wunderloks won’t make things any different.

You want to see electrification? Bump a P-42 to an Acela set, and let it tow the thing to Richmond. Pathetic? That’s exactly the point.

Creating an excuse to not electrify means nobody will electrify.

The only extension of any electrification in place today that is likely to happen anytime soon is the restoration of the 12kV catenary across the Potomac, to allow electric trains to run through from Union Station to Alexandria. It’s the only extension that’s remotely plausible right now.

TheOneKEA wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 7:57 am The only extension of any electrification in place today that is likely to happen anytime soon is the restoration of the 12kV catenary across the Potomac, to allow electric trains to run through from Union Station to Alexandria. It’s the only extension that’s remotely plausible right now.

Not going to happen for a very long time. The 1st street tunnel bores (2) built 1904 - 1906 leaving the station only have a height above rail of 17 feet. Superliners and VRE galley car transition the bores constantly. VRE galley cars are ~ ~ 15' 10" & Superliners are 16'2" there is no clearance for Nominal 12 kV or future 12.5 kV CAT.

There are only vague ideas not even plans to build another tunnel bore(s) in the future. As well rebuilding the present bores. IMO rebuilding a present bore would mean shutting it down leaving only one bore for access. When one bore was closed due to the track switch derailment the remaining bore could not handle all the present traffic with VRE having to O&D at L'Enfant station. So, another bore or 2 will be needed much like the Hudson River tunnel bores.

Now If the ALC=42Es start service then maybe use diesel in the bores and CAT when outside. The 4000+ foot tunnel bores need diesel ventilation at halfway point just to increase thru put as well. But a surface ventilation shaft above ground??? not going to happen. Once the new Long Bridge is in service both Amtrak and VRE will want to increase service on the 2-passenger main tracks. How to solve the ventilation problem leave it to others.

Security considerations are going to make any tunnel work very expensive to implement being so close to government operations above ground.

Let me pose an idea for everyone then. Instead of focusing on expanding or boring under the existing First Street tunnels to allow for overhead caternary, where it's at the east side of DC Union Station... why not look at the west side of Union Station? Good ol' tracks 1-4?

Sink them 18 feet down and make them run through track.

Route the track under Louisiana Avenue NW next to the WMATA tracks. Then go across the National Mall, under the WMATA tracks and the Potomac River to connect near Crystal City, and electrify the whole line TO Crystal City.

Security considerations are much less of a concern because it's not threading themselves between Congress, it's office buildings, the Supreme Court, and the Library of Congress. IE much less risk of a Guy Faulks event.

That takes care of the Superliners, oversized VRE trains, and anything else. It also has the benefit of speeding up the Capitol Limited because it doesn't need to traverse from one side of K Tower to another just to get a berth that it can fit into.

THEN restrict VRE to tracks 1-4 while caternary gets strung up on the First Street tunnels. That'll let them use existing equipment and have closer access to WMATA. If they want to stop at L'Efant Plaza? They need to get Bombardier Multilevels. Offer a grant to them about that.

RW - I'll bite first: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
(An actual reply that I got from a fellow member in the Chicagoland Forum back in my early membership days
introducing a proposal to extend Metra Electric service about 30 miles S from University Park to Kankakee, IL)

A new drilled tunnel from Washington Union Station UNDER Louisiana Avenue, The National Mall and then to a
new tunnel under the Potomac River is going to have a BILLION DOLLAR PLUS PRICE TAG...ANY type of project
that is as close to the US Capitol and through and/or under the National Mall is going to have security concerns.

A cut-and-cover type tunnel will come with years of inconvenience and other problems depending how the new
route will be constructed the same as when Metro was being built - remembering photos of how the Red Line in
Union Station (and vicinity) was being built back during the first half of the 1970s...

It will be FAR less expensive to work on one track of the First Street Tunnel at a time to enlarge their clearance for
catenary to be installed on the roof along with rehabilitation work - As I previously mentioned in this topic 11 KV
AC (and for that matter any high-voltage AC rail electrification) MUST have a minimum amount of clearance to
prevent flash-over to rail equipment which again can be a potentially dangerous problem...

I remember that an idea was proposed back about 1979 when there was still wire to Potomac Yard was:
Close the First Street Tunnel "gap" between the end of the Washington Terminal electrification and Virginia
Tower. From Potomac Yard extend overhead wire to Alexandria Union Station which would allow the option
of changing locomotives at ALX for north-south through trains relieving some congestion at WAS Lower Level...

Today there is much less of any incentive to electrify south of Washington Union Station unless there is a need
to again move engine changes to Alexandria - or if either of VRE's two routes is to be electrified (example)...
No matter what may eventually happen it all will come down to money and cost...MACTRAXX

west point wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 1:06 pm

TheOneKEA wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 7:57 am The only extension of any electrification in place today that is likely to happen anytime soon is the restoration of the 12kV catenary across the Potomac, to allow electric trains to run through from Union Station to Alexandria. It’s the only extension that’s remotely plausible right now.

Not going to happen for a very long time. The 1st street tunnel bores (2) built 1904 - 1906 leaving the station only have a height above rail of 17 feet. Superliners and VRE galley car transition the bores constantly. VRE galley cars are ~ ~ 15' 10" & Superliners are 16'2" there is no clearance for Nominal 12 kV or future 12.5 kV CAT.

There are only vague ideas not even plans to build another tunnel bore(s) in the future. As well rebuilding the present bores. IMO rebuilding a present bore would mean shutting it down leaving only one bore for access. When one bore was closed due to the track switch derailment the remaining bore could not handle all the present traffic with VRE having to O&D at L'Enfant station. So, another bore or 2 will be needed much like the Hudson River tunnel bores.

We are in violent agreement. I speculated earlier in this thread about the colossal expense and engineering challenges of expanding both of the First Street Tunnels to support any extension of the 12kV electrification. I only cited it as plausible because it's the only location I could think of, and one of the few locations where the acceleration advantages of electric traction would promote the reliable operation of the entire railroad from Union Station to Alexandria. I don't know enough about the other electrified railroads in the U.S. to speculate on the viability of extending their electrification schemes.

west point wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 1:06 pm Now If the ALC=42Es start service then maybe use diesel in the bores and CAT when outside. The 4000+ foot tunnel bores need diesel ventilation at halfway point just to increase thru put as well. But a surface ventilation shaft above ground??? not going to happen. Once the new Long Bridge is in service both Amtrak and VRE will want to increase service on the 2-passenger main tracks. How to solve the ventilation problem leave it to others.

Security considerations are going to make any tunnel work very expensive to implement being so close to government operations above ground.

We are once again in agreement. Earlier in this thread MACTRAXX corrected me about the actual routing of the First Street Tunnels, so it's slightly less challenging to retrofit additional ventilation than I had originally assumed. But it will still be a hugely difficult, expensive, bureaucratic, and slow process to do even this much.

Looking at schedules (even proposed one), assuming enough Airo trainsets were bought, it seems that, in terms of service expansions that Airo trainsets enable without requiring a locomotive change, replacing the Amtrak Hartford Line and Valley Flyer trains with NE Regional trains, or extending the Keystones northern/eastern terminus from NYP to Springfield, is possible.

Also of interest is that the Airo trains would enable either piecemeal introduction of electrification between New Haven and Springfield, such that CTDOT could partly take advantage of it once it were completed to Hartford, and completely leverage it once extended to Springfield (actually, they could claim partial electrification immediately as Airo trains could serve New Haven State St using the overhead instead of running diesel to New Haven Union Station).

One item that failed to mention is slightly different ways of electrification of the tunnel bores. However, since I have no idea exactly how the tunnel bores are constructed this may not be possible. Instead of CAT wires use a contact rail attached to ceiling with proper insulation. It has been done several locations in Europe. Of course, the rail in that case should be either installed or planned for 12.5 kV 60 hZ use. Nominal voltage which is +/- 10%.

Another less likely would be uses 6.25 kV 60 hZ or maybe even 3.125 kV 60 Z only in the tunnel bores. That reduces required flashover distances. However, that would require modifications of all Amtrak electric motor and ALCs to add additional tap Changning capabilities. That probably is impractical because changing voltage at the tunnel entrance could be operationally unwise.

MACTRAXX wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 9:56 am RW - I'll bite first: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
(An actual reply that I got from a fellow member in the Chicagoland Forum back in my early membership days
introducing a proposal to extend Metra Electric service about 30 miles S from University Park to Kankakee, IL)

While this is a Metra and Chicago matter, it illustrates a point really well.

The whole point of electrification is infrastructure to support many trains with many stops and wicked good acceleration. Kankakee is far enough and small enough (similar to South Bend on CSS) that 4-5 trains of 4-6 cars each way are plenty. Metra Electric runs zone-express so just as a Harvey zone train hauls ass south with little/no stops to Harvey then all stops to Richton, a Kankakee zone train would haul ass to Richton Park, make 5 stops, then be home. You don't need acceleration if you don't make a lot of stops, and you don't need wires for 4 trains/day. Ergo if they found the money and ridership to do this, buy four more SD70MHP or whatever and find 20 gallery cars (have to put traps on them, whatever...).

Bottom line is electrification is way cool for high density and hefty acceleration, but don't spend the money for wow factor.

It seems like the dual mode locomotive would be the perfect solution for a thinner market like Kankakee, or for facilitating stringing catenary on the other side of a restrictive tunnel.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

TD (and EO): I was responding to RW's post above mine without quoting anything about his idea to construct
a new rail tunnel route through Washington, DC to circumvent or supplement the First Street Tunnel...

I brought up the "$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$" reply to show - as it was
to me in that older "Metra Electric to Kankakee" topic that this new route would be VERY expensive.

A price tag of a billion dollars and more for a new construction rail tunnel through the center of Washington, DC
along with all of the inconveniences and security concerns (to name two) will be a very complicated project...

This should further clarify my post - and help stay on what is turning out to be an interesting discussion...
MACTRAXX