Railroad Forums 

  • Acela Disposition Discussion

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

 #1615500  by HenryAlan
 
STrRedWolf wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 8:53 am
Jeff Smith wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 8:14 am I think a 3/4 combo is definitely doable. I don't think putting traps in though is advisable. They need to put in high-level platforms. This should be doable for Virginia service. I believe most are single platform stations, and you could add a single center-island platform at DC (is Boston all high, or just the Acela tracks?). A cab car would be nice if it were a cabbage.
Boston's Amtrak stations are not all high-level boarding, per some locals I know there. Back Bay could use them, but it's completely low-level (South Station is all high). I know Virginia is a mixed bag but mostly low. So adding the traps is probably a good idea.
This is not correct. One platform at Back Bay is low level, but it only services the Lake Shore Limited and a regional rail line (Worcester). The platforms used by all NEC trains are full high level. So unless the proposal is using Acela on the Boston and Albany route, there would not be any issue with Boston area platforms.
 #1615542  by RandallW
 
What is the advantage of reducing by ~100 the seats per train for every train that terminates in Virginia unless you want to decrease train travel in Virginia?
 #1615547  by ExCon90
 
Disassemble one or two trainsets and distribute the coaches among the rest?

Also, I assume this would require redesignating -- and pricing -- the Acela biz class as coach and the first class as business. I think there's a post on here somewhere from awhile back that cutting an opening for a trap would seriously compromise the structural integrity of the cars.
 #1615569  by Jeff Smith
 
Are the Regionals in VA routinely sold out? I do think adding coaches from another set works.

I think the point of putting them on regionals is to increase the availability of first or business class without paying Acela II prices. Designating two or three cars as coach, though, does make sense, especially if you're adding coaches.

I remember the same thing about the traps. It just doesn't work. Amtrak is better off putting in highs.
 #1615577  by RandallW
 
Rebuilding the platforms in Virginia so Acela I coaches could be used would probably be an order of magnitude more expensive than just buying more ICTs (if needed) and, where VRE and Amtrak share platforms, require VRE to reequip it's entire fleet (the on order cars for VRE are near level, if not level, boarding for existing VRE platforms, so that order would need to be cancelled).

The Virginia services are "just another" Northeast Regional train north of Washington (they, and the Carolinian, used to add and remove cars when switching to and from electric traction for the extra capacity to NYC, Springfield, and Boston).

Unless Amtrak is planning on introducing, and can profit from, another tier of service that doesn't extend outside the existing NEC, keeping the Acela Is past their replacement by the Acela IIs seems to be all cost no benefit.
 #1615583  by Red Wing
 
STrRedWolf wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 8:53 am Boston's Amtrak stations are not all high-level boarding, per some locals I know there. Back Bay could use them, but it's completely low-level (South Station is all high). I know Virginia is a mixed bag but mostly low. So adding the traps is probably a good idea.
Back Bay on the NEC is all high level. The only Amtrak route that has low level at Back Bay is the Lake Shore Limited. Adding high levels in Washington, do you want Amtrak to pay for new cars for VRE since their cars are low level boarding and I'm sure the RF&P is a high and wide route so now we are talking some type of freight bypass.
 #1615586  by STrRedWolf
 
Folks here seem to forget "the grand scheme of things" going on now. Just a reminder:
  • Day-trip trains (Pennsy, Piedmont, Carolinian) are being replaced with the Airo ICTs.
  • Empire Service is being replaced with Airo ICTs.
  • Regional service that extends into diesel-only CSX held territory is being replaced with Airo ICTs.
  • Keystone service is being replaced with Airo ICTs (although why they chose diesel-with-electric-assist engines is beyond me).
You're not running remodeled Acela I's on those lines or in CSX territory, and CSX basically demands pocket tracks for high platforms. They're already claimed. Remember, CSX owns the track south of WAS!

That leaves 14+ exclusive under-the-caternary runs of the Regional that still run ACS-64's and Amfleets... and if any expanded service is to take place on the other lines.

So? Turn the Acela I's into fully functional, able to be maintained for cheaper ICTs to replace the Regional Amfleet runs.
Red Wing wrote: Back Bay on the NEC is all high level. The only Amtrak route that has low level at Back Bay is the Lake Shore Limited. Adding high levels in Washington, do you want Amtrak to pay for new cars for VRE since their cars are low level boarding and I'm sure the RF&P is a high and wide route so now we are talking some type of freight bypass.
LSL's are using Viewliner equipment, keeping low level for Back Bay is a wash. Washington's terminal section could use all high-level because MARC (it has to call in advance to get a high-block if anyone is in a wheelchair). You're stuck with low-level boarding in the through-pass section, because CSX (which affects VRE)... but that's getting off-topic.

Limit the scope here to inside NEC's electrified section. Unless all the Regionals are getting Airo ICT's (and I haven't seen any word that they are from official documentation)...
 #1615590  by frequentflyer
 
Jeff Smith wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 6:40 am I think there's an argument to be made for both, as you all have done. I saw an Acela in Stamford recently. It looked tired. Could its visual appearance be refreshed? Of course. The issue is, are the mechanical aspects "refreshable"? Sure. But at what cost?

I would say that the Acela brand is "dependable, fast, and premium". A new fleet will enhance that brand. Will the older fleet continue to reflect that? It could. The refreshed Amfleets do so to a lesser extent. So what to do with the I's, which are still premium to the older, albeit refurbished, Amfleets?

I've seen several options given here.

1. Run them on the Keystone corridor. Drawbacks: lack of high-level platforms. Continued maintenance.
2. Run them in place of Amfleets. Drawbacks: limited high platform space at terminals (the lack of sufficient high-level platforms is so idiotic as to defy belief). Continued maintenance.
3. De-motor them. This mitigates maintenance costs, keeps a higher level of service, allows their use on non-electrified territory. They could run in Regional Service into Virginia and Springfield, and even on some daylight only LD's. You could use Sprinters and Chargers depending upon the territory.

I lean towards 3. Could you imagine being able to ride a de-motored Acela on some of the longer regionals into Virginia? Or even on the Pennsylvanian, the Palmetto, or Empire Service to Buffalo?
The irony is, I read that the Acela's coaches were based on the older LRC trains. Your #3 would in essence turn them into LRC coaches. Interesting, just trying to see the advantages.
 #1615665  by RandallW
 
There are 435 Amfleet I cars and 16 ex-Metroliner cab cars in service across the entire Amtrak network and 438 Airo cars (in 41 6 car train sets and 24 8 car train sets) on order for the NEC alone (there are an additional 48 Airo cars for Cascades services (in 8 6 car train sets) not including options. I don't see where there are ACS-64 + Amfleet I services not covered by that.

From Amtrak's FY 2022-2027 Service and Asset Line Plans page 125:
Twenty-four (24) catenary-diesel dual-power trainsets (with a short term option to acquire eight more), consisting of an ALC-42E locomotive and eight passenger cars, for use on Northeast Regional including through trains to Virginia and Springfield, Massachusetts. These trainsets will also include an APV for use on the NEC.
 #1615668  by STrRedWolf
 
RandallW wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 8:56 pm There are 435 Amfleet I cars and 16 ex-Metroliner cab cars in service across the entire Amtrak network and 438 Airo cars (in 41 6 car train sets and 24 8 car train sets) on order for the NEC alone (there are an additional 48 Airo cars for Cascades services (in 8 6 car train sets) not including options. I don't see where there are ACS-64 + Amfleet I services not covered by that.

From Amtrak's FY 2022-2027 Service and Asset Line Plans page 125:
Twenty-four (24) catenary-diesel dual-power trainsets (with a short term option to acquire eight more), consisting of an ALC-42E locomotive and eight passenger cars, for use on Northeast Regional including through trains to Virginia and Springfield, Massachusetts. These trainsets will also include an APV for use on the NEC.
Okay, that's 48 round trips... 4 of those per day are inside NEC Electric territory. The Regionals are completely covered by the ICT's. (Having ALC-42E's with APV's for all Regional and Keystone service is confusing though, even though it makes for simpler maintenance)

This makes the Acela I's redundant as all other areas are being replaced by ICTs.

Toss everything I said, store the Acela I's for a bit and then turn them into scrap.
 #1616425  by STrRedWolf
 
STrRedWolf wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 8:09 am
RandallW wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 8:56 pm There are 435 Amfleet I cars and 16 ex-Metroliner cab cars in service across the entire Amtrak network and 438 Airo cars (in 41 6 car train sets and 24 8 car train sets) on order for the NEC alone (there are an additional 48 Airo cars for Cascades services (in 8 6 car train sets) not including options. I don't see where there are ACS-64 + Amfleet I services not covered by that.

From Amtrak's FY 2022-2027 Service and Asset Line Plans page 125:
Twenty-four (24) catenary-diesel dual-power trainsets (with a short term option to acquire eight more), consisting of an ALC-42E locomotive and eight passenger cars, for use on Northeast Regional including through trains to Virginia and Springfield, Massachusetts. These trainsets will also include an APV for use on the NEC.
Okay, that's 48 round trips... 4 of those per day are inside NEC Electric territory. The Regionals are completely covered by the ICT's. (Having ALC-42E's with APV's for all Regional and Keystone service is confusing though, even though it makes for simpler maintenance)

This makes the Acela I's redundant as all other areas are being replaced by ICTs.

Toss everything I said, store the Acela I's for a bit and then turn them into scrap.
Additional confirmation in this thread:
post1616332.html#p1616332

That said, yeah, Acela I's are scrap once the II's come in and shake out.
 #1620689  by Jeff Smith
 
We've been discussing this recent Railway Age article about Amfleet I safety, but the article has other, just as interesting tidbits.

https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/hi ... ese-years/
...
Reistrup and Spencer believe that the AmeriStarRail plan they are promoting will get the mid-1970s-vintage cars off the NEC. They call for “hybrid” service with existing Acela equipment and new Siemens cars now on order. Their plan would extend the existing Acela equipment into 12-car trainsets with extra coaches to deliver “triple class” service, which would allow coach passengers to travel at the same speed as “extra fare” riders do on today’s Acela. According to Reistrup, this is an “equity issue” because coach passengers are relegated only to trains that are slower than Acela trains, for which the fares are higher. He also said that these “stretch trains” could hold 600 riders.
...
 #1620714  by west point
 
As much as I like the idea of 12 car trains in principle for NYP and reworked Wilmington no way at this time.. There is no time slot that can support 12 car trains at present. A check of NYP - WASH for Monday has no train over 70 - 80%. But none less than 50 %. Exceptions are only Palmetto and Carolinian which do not count in this proposal.

So, what would the proposers have Amtrak do? Cut number of Regionals in half? That is not good for NEC riders. Suspect that a possible cutback in regionals would allow for the proposers a back doorway to get slots thru North River tunnel bores from Amtrak. If I wanted some slots making Amtrak to reduce number of trains thru North River bores is what I would do.

Since Amtrak has said it wants to increase number of trains this proposal seems to be attempt to stop Amtrak from doing that.

EDIT: What would it do to the political and public perceptions of Amtrak's NEC bottom lines running expensive AX-1 - 12 car 40% or less loads? Maybe that is what these proposers are trying to do ???
 #1626246  by electricron
 
These trains will most likely be sold to the highest bidder of third parties who might use them or scrap them, much like Talgo sets recently sold to Nigeria. If Amtrak were to keep them around a while longer, they could be used with some modifications installing traps (which do not have to be at the end of cars, they could be installed in the middle) replacing Amfleet 2 coaches. The one piece of equipment Amtrak so far has not ordered replacements for. There were only 90+ Amfleet 2 coaches in use today, and 20 trainsets of 6 coaches adds up to 120. A sweet match?
 #1626253  by west point
 
Brightline west or even Ca HSR could purchase a few to test their electrification "IF" there is a delay in receiving equipment. Sort of like Caltrain and getting a couple AEMs.
i
  • 1
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21