Acela Disposition Discussion

ADMIN NOTE

We have a forum to discuss preservation.

Click here to discuss preservation of locomotives and cars.

ExCon90 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2023 10:30 pm Getting from the airport to Paoli and west without a switchback move in PHIL interlocking would require beefing up the escape track to enable a straightaway move through 30th St. Lower Level (no point in stopping there, but you'd have to go through that way) to reach the Keystone route, and the curvature on the escape track would probably not permit a speed greater than 15 mph, which in turn would require a slow speed for southbound moves from 30th St. to the escape track. Ridership probably wouldn't justify the expense, and the conflicts at PHIL, but does AA operate any flights to and from Harrisburg that could be eliminated by a rail link to PHL? (I'm not up on airline flight schedules.) If so, maybe it would be worth it for AA to pay Amtrak the actual costs for the Harrisburg link.

AA flies out of Harrisburg International Airport, with direct flights to Boston, Chicago O'Hare, Charlotte, DFW, and Philly. Harrisburg to Philly it's a sub-one hour trip hovering around $250 plus fees and taxes... and with less frequency.

Maybe just jack up the Keystone frequency?

I'll place money that nearly everyone flying to PHI from Harrisburg are flying to connect out of PHI to some other destination, and is not attempting to avoid driving or taking the train into Philadelphia. Increasing the Keystone frequency won't change that. Incidentally, the Keystones all stop at the east end of the Harrisburg airport at Middletown Station (1 mi walk from the train to the terminal entrance).

RandallW wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 8:41 pm I'll place money that nearly everyone flying to PHI from Harrisburg are flying to connect out of PHI to some other destination, and is not attempting to avoid driving or taking the train into Philadelphia. Increasing the Keystone frequency won't change that. Incidentally, the Keystones all stop at the east end of the Harrisburg airport at Middletown Station (1 mi walk from the train to the terminal entrance).

...or a 5 minute bus ride via CAT Transit.

Back to Acela dispo please.

MACTRAXX wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 1:22 pm Everyone - This is an interesting but not totally surprising development concerning some of the original Acela equipment - which to me is being replaced far too soon understanding that they were all sturdily built...

I am of the opinion that Amtrak should "downgrade" the Acela One trainsets to "Regional" status and convert them into longer 10 car fixed sets with the same two motors at each end...provided they can be overhauled and rehabilitated for this service option and a plan worked out with Bombardier to keep them in continued NEC service. This would replace a few 40-something year old Amfleet cars W/ early 20-something Acela equipment...
At the very least this could be an interim plan until the Airo trainsets for the NEC are built and deployed...

I understand that any Acela One retirement or changes will not happen until the new Acela Two fleet is placed into service noting the long testing delays after delivery...Is there any revised timeline in the Acela replacement?

MACTRAXX

Why? This has been covered many times on this site, its a mx hog. I bet Amtrak is having to fabricate parts for it instead of ordering it from the manufacturer. You don't think Amtrak did not run the numbers to see how they could be repurposed after 20 years of service?

Alstom is providing the Acela II equipment which is better in every way, guess who owns Bombardier transportation now? Alstom. Do you think Alstom wants to continue servicing a relic or sell new equipment with less mx headaches.

frequentflyer wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 9:40 am Why? This has been covered many times on this site, its a mx hog. I bet Amtrak is having to fabricate parts for it instead of ordering it from the manufacturer. You don't think Amtrak did not run the numbers to see how they could be repurposed after 20 years of service?

Alstom is providing the Acela II equipment which is better in every way, guess who owns Bombardier transportation now? Alstom. Do you think Alstom wants to continue servicing a relic or sell new equipment with less mx headaches.

Lets correct the record here a bit. Acela I equipment was built under a Bombardier/Alsom consortium at the time. Now it's all Alstom. (By comparison, Amfleet I/II cars are Budd, the designs sold to Bombardier, which is now Alstom)

To the question of "Do you think Alstom wants to continue servicing a relic or sell new equipment with less maintenance headaches?" the answer is "yes." Alstom will do both, but usually in a "taper off the older for the newer" and possibly "rehab the older into something with less headaches" depending on how much it would take to do so and if Amtrak's willing to pay for it.

The question now is will Amtrak pay for such a rehab to squeeze another 10-20 years out of the Acela I's like they did with the Amfleets (which are older than me by a few years)? I would contend it would be safer to do so in light of the ICT sets, which look like won't completely replace Regional service.

Correct on Alstom's involvement with the Acela Is. It makes no financial sense to keep the Acela Is around. If this idea is based on sentimentality, that's another matter.

Whether the ICT concept is sound is another matter too, but it has nothing to do with keeping the mx intensive Acela Is around.

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?

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 6:40 am 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?

I would add a #4 here, which leans on #3: Turn them into ICTs. Swap out the electric engine for diesel+electric pickup like in the Airo design at one end. Convert the other end to a cab car. Yank out the tilting mechanism and upgrade the trucks. Add low-level boarding. Add an extra car.

#3 would be cheap to do but to get them in non-electrified territory, you need to swap engines... which Amtrak absolutely does not want to do anymore! #4 is in line with Amtrak's future intent to save operating costs and speed up travel.

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.

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.

How about keeping the best ones and using them to offer real EXPRESS service - i.e., Boston South Station - New York Penn - Washington, D.C.?

I know it was tried before for a limited time but it was never allowed to develop and there really should be a market for this I would think:

CNN - August 2, 2019
—
Train travel between New York City and Washington is now faster than ever.

On Thursday, Amtrak announced that starting in September it will offer a new direct route between Washington Union Station (WAS) and New York Penn Station (NYP). The Acela Nonstop service is the first of several new projects for the transportation company, which will include an additional direct route from New York to Boston starting in 2020. “The new Acela Nonstop service will have you halfway to your New York City or DC destination in the time it would take you to board a flight,” Amtrak President & CEO Richard Anderson said in a statement. “This new service will offer an ideal solution for travelers who want to save time and travel between city center DC and New York.”. Travelers can expect one southbound (NYP-WAS will depart at 6:35 a.m.) and one northbound (WAS-NYP will depart at 4:30 p.m.) train per day.

Acela Nonstop riders can expect to travel for two hours and 35 minutes, which is about 15 minutes faster than the average Acela about an hour faster than the Northeast Regional train. Flight times between the two cities are approximately 90 minutes, and that doesn’t include getting to the airport, security and boarding.

The company’s standard Quiet Car and First Class services will continue to be offered on the new routes.

Tickets are already available for purchase through Amtrak’s website, with the first scheduled departure on Monday, September 23. A one-way saver ticket from WAS to NYP is priced at $130.

I don't know, I don't think it makes sense. Limited stops, but not non-stop. I don't think you want to skip Baltimore for one. Where are Acela boardings light?

As for traps, they should just go ahead and upgrade the platforms rather than an expensive adaptation of doors.

As for my LD suggestion, if they're going to do that, than it should be an additional frequency, not a replacement. A Daylight Crescent ATL-NYP (or DC with a Charger), Leave the Palmetto out, it's already a bi-directional daylight. Lynchburg, Roanoke, Newport News, etc.

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 9:51 am I don't know, I don't think it makes sense. Limited stops, but not non-stop. I don't think you want to skip Baltimore for one. Where are Acela boardings light?

As for traps, they should just go ahead and upgrade the platforms rather than an expensive adaptation of doors.

As for my LD suggestion, if they're going to do that, than it should be an additional frequency, not a replacement. A Daylight Crescent ATL-NYP (or DC with a Charger), Leave the Palmetto out, it's already a bi-directional daylight. Lynchburg, Roanoke, Newport News, etc.

Before we go too much farther, one big question from my Bostonian friend. Will there be full-electric Airo ICT's to replace regular Regional service?

The other question here that I just thought up is... what about express LA to Vegas? Is that still going on?