csor2010 wrote:To those worried about the existing trains being retired prematurely (quote is from the WSJ blog):
Those new trains will run side-by side with the existing ones up until around 2025, when the old ones are phased out and the next-generation of trains capable of speeds of up to 220 miles per hour start to be introduced, alongside the next wave of network upgrades.
By 2025 the current trainsets will be pushing 25 years of age, at which point they will be due for major remanufacturing or retirement. Keep in mind that the F40(PH)s were only about 25 years old when they were retired, and that even the re-manned toasters are pushing 30. By the sound of it they are planning on running the new and old cars in parallel before phasing out the old cars to bring in 220+ equipment. Given that the 220mph implementation will probably be pushed back, we could very likely see the original Acelas sticking around for some time.
No, that is highly unlikely. Amtrak would not continue to run all this surplus equipment, so look for original AEs to be gone well before 2025. Speaking of "220-mph implementation" as if it were something that were bound to happen is about as realistic as believing in the Budd Metroliners running at 160 mph back in the late 1960s, merely because the government said it would (the claim is 43 years out of date, so imagine how far down the road this new $345-million-per-mile magical corridor is).
The F40PHs were themselves prematurely retired, and being diesels are not as comparable with electrics anyhow. This throwaway mentality seems to be a theme with Amtrak, never mind the premature end the SDP40Fs and P30CHs came to. Via Rail, who rebuild instead of buy new (including half-century-old Budd cars that Amtrak recently borrowed; Via have been upgrading their entire fleet of F40PHs since '07 too), seem to outdo Amtrak in this economical area.
BTW, off-topic mention about rail fares and inflation: Just watched "White Christmas", which is set in 1944. Danny Kaye's character buys two tickets for coach on a train from Miami to "Vermont", which cost a total of $97.24; in 2012 dollars, this would be a whopping $1,271.97, per the BLS' Inflation Calculator. The fare to "New York" was quoted as being identical...let's just say that Amtrak's fares are significantly lower than that.