Acela Replacement and Disposition Discussion

mtuandrew wrote:

R36 Combine Coach wrote:The LRC cars were removed from the power units and continued in service. I see the same with Acela cars, perhaps VIA could buy to replace the LRC (provided modifications are made for low level platforms).

I thought so too, but that depends on

a) VIA having the need for up to 120 cars
b) VIA having enough money for used cars but NOT enough for new cars
c) anyone having the ability to legally and safely install traps in these cars (VIA has demonstrated that they can remove tilting)

Easier for VIA to order new from Siemens or Alston (or Bombardier), or simply not expand their fleet.

VIA is actively considering replacing the LRC fleet (corridor services) with brand new trains.
They have 98 LRC cars; 26 club cars (with 44 seats) and 72 coach cars (with 68 seats). they have a variable consist, a typical consist could have 2 club cars and 5 coach cars, making a 7 car train. This would allow 13 train sets (with 6 coach cars as spares). Each of the 13 trains would have 428 seats. Could doesn't mean would, as I mentioned before the trains aren't all using the same consist. All of the LRC cars have 6040 seats.

The retiring 20 Acela sets would provide them with 20 first class cars (with 44 seats), 20 bistro cars, and 80 coach cars (with 65 seats). They are consist together in twenty 1-1-4 six car train. Each train has 304 seats. All 20 trains have 6080 seats.

But there is the problem of the Acela trains having a lack of traps to overcome. I'm sure a trap solution could be found if lots of money was poured into these cars, or poured into the corridor's platforms.

VIA has little "in house" ability to do Heavy Repairs/Overhauls,almost all are contracted out to contract shops,a few of them have gone "belly up"
after starting on a VIA contract,one was doing the RDC overhauls,one was doing the LRC car overhauls,the last was the "Nightstar" cars from
Britain conversion to the "Ren" cars used on the Ocean and some corridor services.
these 3 shops are gone.
VIA will be hard pressed to find a contract shop or for that matter,get BBD to convert the Acela cars to VIA's specs.

electricron wrote:

mtuandrew wrote:

R36 Combine Coach wrote:The LRC cars were removed from the power units and continued in service. I see the same with Acela cars, perhaps VIA could buy to replace the LRC (provided modifications are made for low level platforms).

I thought so too, but that depends on

a) VIA having the need for up to 120 cars
b) VIA having enough money for used cars but NOT enough for new cars
c) anyone having the ability to legally and safely install traps in these cars (VIA has demonstrated that they can remove tilting)

Easier for VIA to order new from Siemens or Alston (or Bombardier), or simply not expand their fleet.

VIA is actively considering replacing the LRC fleet (corridor services) with brand new trains.
They have 98 LRC cars; 26 club cars (with 44 seats) and 72 coach cars (with 68 seats). they have a variable consist, a typical consist could have 2 club cars and 5 coach cars, making a 7 car train. This would allow 13 train sets (with 6 coach cars as spares). Each of the 13 trains would have 428 seats. Could doesn't mean would, as I mentioned before the trains aren't all using the same consist. All of the LRC cars have 6040 seats.

The retiring 20 Acela sets would provide them with 20 first class cars (with 44 seats), 20 bistro cars, and 80 coach cars (with 65 seats). They are consist together in twenty 1-1-4 six car train. Each train has 304 seats. All 20 trains have 6080 seats.

But there is the problem of the Acela trains having a lack of traps to overcome. I'm sure a trap solution could be found if lots of money was poured into these cars, or poured into the corridor's platforms.

The "money into cars" solution requires removing the tilt mechanisms, full-stop...because tilt hardware is quite literally what physically blocks installation of door traps. That is a lethal expense, because it also involves extra TBD hacks to re-plug the structural voids under the carbody from the absent tilt hardware for equivalent crashworthiness. VIA is the last agency on earth that would ever consider doing that given what heinous cost overruns it took to de-tilt the LRC's and plug those structural voids with extra welded steel. They learned the hard way that simply removing the Bombardier tilt hardware doesn't leave behind a frame with enough independent strength to meet current regs; BBD's weight-balancing games for having the tilt junk in the first place on FRA-compliant vehicles required those compartments to share in the side-impact crash energy distribution.

That's the nonstarteriest of nonstarters for VIA. Like...to the point of their CEO making "never again" re: the LRC rebuilds and Renaissance accessibility follies and threats of "or-else" service cuts company mantra to drum up political support for doing this all-new procurement cleanly.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:

electricron wrote:VIA is actively considering replacing the LRC fleet (corridor services) with brand new trains.

...tilt hardware is quite literally what physically blocks installation of door traps. That is a lethal expense, because it also involves extra TBD hacks to re-plug the structural voids under the carbody from the absent tilt hardware for equivalent crashworthiness. VIA is the last agency on earth that would ever consider doing that given what heinous cost overruns it took to de-tilt the LRC's and plug those structural voids with extra welded steel. They learned the hard way [and have made] threats of "or-else" service cuts company mantra to drum up political support for doing this all-new procurement cleanly.

Thank you, F-Line. I hope your answer settles the question. When operators say they are considering new equipment, I take them at their word: the new stuff is operationally-proven, world-standard, easily-customized, and competitively-assembled (now that the Chinese are legit rivals). It validates Amtrak's decision to buy new to hear that nobody else (beyond RR.net) desires to re-fit/re-use the Acelas.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:VIA is the last agency on earth that would ever consider doing that given what heinous cost overruns it took to de-tilt the LRC's and plug those structural voids with extra welded steel.

Very much agreed. They simply are not in the business of engaging in capital intensive solutions. I think this tendency even overcomes the desire to help Bombardier in some fashion with government sponsored rebuilds.

All of this said, I’d like to see Alstom propose a diesel-powered version of the Avelia Liberty for the Canada Corridor. The JetTrain wasn’t practical, but the idea of a North American version of the InterCity125 still has a lot of merit.

mtuandrew wrote:All of this said, I’d like to see Alstom propose a diesel-powered version of the Avelia Liberty for the Canada Corridor. The JetTrain wasn’t practical, but the idea of a North American version of the InterCity125 still has a lot of merit.

That exists.

Matt Johnson wrote:

mtuandrew wrote:All of this said, I’d like to see Alstom propose a diesel-powered version of the Avelia Liberty for the Canada Corridor. The JetTrain wasn’t practical, but the idea of a North American version of the InterCity125 still has a lot of merit.

That exists.

Specially considering that it will soon be a Siemens-Alstom product!

^ And that's the point the Disposition=Scrapping folks have been trying to make here. There's no reason to buy used Acelas (all tech risks) when the world's best manufacturers can deliver new, built-to-order versions, world-best, ops-proven models in almost any configuration (Diesel/Electric, 125mph/HSR, traps/none, tilt/not coupled/articulated) at prices that even Brightline (a private operator!) finds attractive.

New equipment has price & features and the manufacturer owns all the spec risks (and warranties your configuration), and (as we also see with Avelia) probably takes the maintenance / life-cycle risks too. No manufacturer (not Amtrak), no operator (neither Amtrak or VIA nor anyone elese) nor after-market "Corridor Capital" has the shops to cure Acela.

Arlington wrote:^ And that's the point the Disposition=Scrapping folks have been trying to make here. There's no reason to buy used Acelas (all tech risks) when the world's best manufacturers can deliver new, built-to-order versions, world-best, ops-proven models in almost any configuration (Diesel/Electric, 125mph/HSR, traps/none, tilt/not coupled/articulated) at prices that even Brightline (a private operator!) finds attractive.

New equipment has price & features and the manufacturer owns all the spec risks (and warranties your configuration), and (as we also see with Avelia) probably takes the maintenance / life-cycle risks too. No manufacturer (not Amtrak), no operator (neither Amtrak or VIA nor anyone elese) nor after-market "Corridor Capital" has the shops to cure Acela.

Agreed with a caveat: Beech Grove, Bombardier itself, and possibly other shops could heavily rebuild the AX-1, but I’m fairly sure no one wants to do so. Either they run with tilt (operational or disabled-in-place) or they don’t run, and odds are toward the latter even if a sucker or shyster buys them.

Siemens-Alstom stands to make a mint by being at the right place at the right time.

Arlington wrote:^

New equipment has price & features and the manufacturer owns all the spec risks (and warranties your configuration), and (as we also see with Avelia) probably takes the maintenance / life-cycle risks too. No manufacturer (not Amtrak), no operator (neither Amtrak or VIA nor anyone elese) nor after-market "Corridor Capital" has the shops to cure Acela.

Oh just like CAF ??

east point wrote:Oh just like CAF ??

What about CAF? I don’t see them being relevant, either in terms of AX-1 reuse or AX-2 construction. For the V-II CAF is essentially a subcontractor working for general contractor and owner Amtrak (like a plumber or electrician working for a homeowner who designed their own home renovation), rather than designing their own bid package according to Amtrak guidelines (a homeowner hiring a dedicated general contractor to oversee and manage the construction.)

And for the amount of money per car that CAF would charge to convert them, it’d be cheaper to build more V-IIs for VIA. Reverse engineering & restoration is expensive, ask any hot rodder or museum.

east point wrote:Oh just like CAF ??

Actually, New Brightline and Avelia are about as unlike CAF as you can get, and the contrast proves the case against somebody trying a custom hack of the Acelas.

Brightline and Avelia are coming straight from a manufacturer's kit of elements proven across years of operation on railroads worldwide, and representing the umpteenth time they've built such derivatives. Proven Design. Experience in actually building those designs (and desire to repeat that learning curve over and over to learn/sustain/promote future variations, and therefore a willingness to maintain and extend the designs in the future)

If anything CAF is Exhibit #3, alongside the Acelas and MBTA's HSPs of why railroad operators should not be.playing vehicle designer (or redesigner). Modular/hot-swap V-IIs is an unproven (custom) design, and hence the manufacturer has no experience in building those designs (and no learning curve to learn/sustain/promote, since when the order ends, the product family ends)

mtuandrew wrote:All of this said, I’d like to see Alstom propose a diesel-powered version of the Avelia Liberty for the Canada Corridor. The JetTrain wasn’t practical, but the idea of a North American version of the InterCity125 still has a lot of merit.

Plenty of BR Mark 3 cars been scrapped in Britain and Ireland, purely because Loco drawn trains are been phased out. Perfect for VIA. Same car as the hsr225.

Arlington wrote:Actually, New Brightline and Avelia are about as unlike CAF as you can get, and the contrast proves the case against somebody trying a custom hack of the Acelas.
If anything CAF is Exhibit #3, alongside the Acelas and MBTA's HSPs of why railroad operators should not be.playing vehicle designer (or redesigner). Modular/hot-swap V-IIs is an unproven (custom) design, and hence the manufacturer has no experience in building those designs (and no learning curve to learn/sustain/promote, since when the order ends, the product family ends)

Given the lucrative size of a large intercity/regional car order, would newcomers CRRC or Rotem take interest as well?