"Acela II" to be capable of 180 mph

amtrakowitz wrote:Not just the track. IINM, the FRA doesn't allow passengers to be carried in the forward power car of a train that's going faster than 125 mph. So that knocks the Siemens Velaro, and even its tilting twin the Venturio (more suited for the NEC, because the Velaro does not tilt), out of consideration.

The DesertXpress proposed L.A. to L.V. train with a maximum speed of 150 mph plans to use a Bombardier Regina EMU train presently being used in Sweden, with passenger seats in the first and last car. Are you 100% sure about the FRA regulations preventing that over 125 mph? A variant of the Regina is used in China as the CRH1.
DesertXpress

Sweden

China


Bombardier Regina train orders:


In Sweden
Number built: 70 trainsets
Formation 2 or 3 cars per trainset for local train services.
20 more Regina's on order, with an option for 20 more with 4 car trainsets for intercity services.

In China
CRH1A: 40 trainsets (320 cars)
CRH1B: 20 trainsets (320 cars)
CRH1E: 20 trainsets (320 cars)
Formation CRH1A: 8 cars per trainset and CRH1B/E: 16 cars per trainset

DesertXpress plans to buy 10 car trainsets, I'm not sure how many trainsets it plans to buy.

electricron wrote:The DesertXpress proposed L.A. to L.V. train with a maximum speed of 150 mph plans to use a Bombardier Regina EMU train presently being used in Sweden, with passenger seats in the first and last car. Are you 100% sure about the FRA regulations preventing that over 125 mph?

If it runs on its own dedicated tracks where it exceeds 125 mph, rather than shared use tracks, then it doesn't have to meet those FRA Tier II regulations.

electricron wrote:

amtrakowitz wrote:Not just the track. IINM, the FRA doesn't allow passengers to be carried in the forward power car of a train that's going faster than 125 mph. So that knocks the Siemens Velaro, and even its tilting twin the Venturio (more suited for the NEC, because the Velaro does not tilt), out of consideration.

The DesertXpress proposed L.A. to L.V. train .....

Hold it right there. The highly dubious "DesertXpress" would terminate in the-middle-nowhere, a place otherwise known as Victorville, CA, which is simply a dead end town on the edge of the desert, a place where the economy is so bad that partially complete housing has been torn down since there's no hope of completion. This is basically just a political pet project, so it really doesn't matter which form of equipment is being "proposed," since it's hard to believe that sufficient numbers of passengers will ever take the long drive from L.A. to the-middle-nowhere, a place otherwise known as Victorville, CA, just to park their cars, to buy an expensive train ticket to go to Las Vegas when they can just drive the entire way. Seriously, if you have to drive to the middle-of-nowhere on the edge of the desert, why not just keep driving?

Of course, the same could be said about the AutoTrain. Lorton, VA isn't exactly the best place in the world for a terminal, but I know a lot of people who drive all the way down from New Jersey or PA to take the train the rest of the way.

SemperFidelis wrote:Of course, the same could be said about the AutoTrain. Lorton, VA isn't exactly the best place in the world for a terminal, but I know a lot of people who drive all the way down from New Jersey or PA to take the train the rest of the way.

Yes, but the AutoTrain was based on a previously profitable private sector business model. In contrast, the great Las Vegas-to-nowhere project is a entirely without any reasonable economic justification, which is only justifiable on a dubious political basis. Historically, the Autotrain made money for Amtrak, or at least it did for many years....

DesertXpress is the train to nowhere....which kinda reminds you of a famous Alaskan bridge-to-nowhere. Enough said.

Yes, but the AutoTrain was based on a previously profitable private sector business model. In contrast, the great Las Vegas-to-nowhere project is a entirely without any reasonable economic justification, which is only justifiable on a dubious political basis. Historically, the Autotrain made money for Amtrak, or at least it did for many years....
DesertXpress is the train to nowhere....which kinda reminds you of a famous Alaskan bridge-to-nowhere. Enough said.

The DesertXpress will be financed and ran by private parties. At the present time, no public funds have been dedicated to it. The sole exception is using publicly owned right-of-ways along I-15.

I'll also assume at one time in the distant past that a Union Pacific train operated between Los Angeles and Salt Lake City via Las Vegas actually made a profit. This train will be able to terminate in Los Angeles after extending its own rails to Palmdale, and after the Palmdale to Los Angeles CHSR line is built.

Private parties are taking the economic risk, construction set to start later this year, why are you so negative over it? It's not like any of your State and Local taxes will go to it. The only Federal funds I see that might go to it are Stimulus funds for High Speed Rail, funds dedicated to put Americans back to work building infrastructure projects, whether the projects actually turn a profit or not.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:Hold it right there. The highly dubious "DesertXpress" would terminate in the-middle-nowhere, a place otherwise known as Victorville, CA, which is simply a dead end town on the edge of the desert, a place where the economy is so bad that partially complete housing has been torn down since there's no hope of completion.

Off topic, but lest we note Victorville is host to at least one "growth industry":

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/busin ... lines.html

electricron wrote:Yes, but the AutoTrain was based on a previously profitable private sector business model. In contrast, the great Las Vegas-to-nowhere project is a entirely without any reasonable economic justification, which is only justifiable on a dubious political basis. Historically, the Autotrain made money for Amtrak, or at least it did for many years....

DesertXpress is the train to nowhere....which kinda reminds you of a famous Alaskan bridge-to-nowhere. Enough said.

The DesertXpress will be financed and ran by private parties. At the present time, no public funds have been dedicated to it. The sole exception is using publicly owned right-of-ways along I-15.

I'll also assume at one time in the distant past that a Union Pacific train operated between Los Angeles and Salt Lake City via Las Vegas actually made a profit. This train will be able to terminate in Los Angeles after extending its own rails to Palmdale, and after the Palmdale to Los Angeles CHSR line is built.

Private parties are taking the economic risk, construction set to start later this year, why are you so negative over it? It's not like any of your State and Local taxes will go to it. The only Federal funds I see that might go to it are Stimulus funds for High Speed Rail, funds dedicated to put Americans back to work building infrastructure projects, whether the projects actually turn a profit or not.

Actually, the bulk of funding would be borrowed from the Fedral Railroad Administration's Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing (RRIF) fund, which very obviously is taxpayer money.

It's equally obvious that any money that is spent on a middle-of-nowhere to Las Vegas electric high speed rail line is unlikely to every be repaid, at least looking at the historical financial performance of North American passenger railroading. Actually, it's hard to understand why any private investor would put money into a high speed rail venture terminating in the middle of nowhere, unless of course, there will be federal guarantees for the private investment? So will the taxpayer be on the hook for most of the debt of DesertXpress, or all of it?

In the end, DesertXpress is simply a political pet project, a very bad example of HSR planning, and project that is detrimental to passenger rail advocacy in general. As far as I'm concerned, DesertXpress has been an impediment to the return of Amtrak service to Las Vegas.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:Actually, the bulk of funding would be borrowed from the Fedral Railroad Administration's Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing (RRIF) fund, which very obviously is taxpayer money.

Borrowing federal funds isn't necessarily a freebee handout. I assume all the major freight railroads companies in America; BNSF, UP, CSX, NS, KCS, and CN; have tapped these FRA funds before, so why can't DesertXpress?

Won't the DesertXpress project rehabilitate and Improve rails generally located between L.A. and L.V.?
Isn't that what these funds are authorized by Congress for? I ask again, what's your problem?

Why would you deny funds for lending to DesertXpress that you'd grant to UP, BNSF, etc?

electricron wrote:

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:Actually, the bulk of funding would be borrowed from the Fedral Railroad Administration's Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing (RRIF) fund, which very obviously is taxpayer money.

Borrowing federal funds isn't necessarily a freebee handout. I assume all the major freight railroads companies in America; BNSF, UP, CSX, NS, KCS, and CN; have tapped these FRA funds before, so why can't DesertXpress?

Won't the DesertXpress project rehabilitate and Improve rails generally located between L.A. and L.V.?
Isn't that what these funds are authorized by Congress for? I ask again, what's your problem?

Why would you deny funds for lending to DesertXpress that you'd grant to UP, BNSF, etc?

1. BNSF, UP, CSX, NS, KCS, and CN are all going enterprises. In the decades since the failure of Penn Central, the freight railroad industry has stabilized and developed a successful business model. The same thing can't be said of a politically motivated passenger rail proposal which is only masquerading as a private enterprise.

2. DesertXpress will not offer service between L.A. and L.V. Let's be clear about that. We're talking about service between Victorville, CA and Las Vegas. This is not a viable passenger market and it makes absolutely no sense. This does not represent a revitalization of passenger rail but an embarassment to all passenger rail advocates. This is literally the HSR equivalent of the Alaskan bridge to nowhere.

3. Congress will apparently authorize funds to any project, no matter how trivial, if there is lobbying effort backed up by campaign contributions. This is a universally accepted truth.

4. Yes, I would deny all taxpayer funds to DesertXpress as there is no credible basis for the loan of FRA controlled funds.

5. There is no comparison between this effort and legitimate Class I railroads like BNSF and UP.

The real motivation for an "Acela II" would appear to be the limited lifespan of the current Acela equipment, along with serviceability issues, not passenger demand. The recent recession has demonstrated that there is a limited time-sensitive business travel market, so there is no real need for larger Acela consists. More to the point, current rates of utilization for the Acela fleet as dismal. It looks as if Amtrak is trying to preserve the current Acela equipment by limiting the total hours of operation. Airliners are typically rated in terms of flight hours to determine the overall useful life. I've never heard of this sort of practice in railroading, but the problematic service history of the Acela, combined with the low current utilization makes me wonder if there isn't some sort of looming issue regarding Acela longevity in service.

Even if the Acela equipment itself hasn't been altogether successful, and the Acela brand floundered during the attempt at brand expansion, there will be a continuing need for time sensitive, business traveler focused service on the NE corridor. Of course, given the limited gains from fixed consist, European style trainsets in the overall schedule, and the notable drawbacks, it might make more sense to concentrate on infrastructure improvement and cater to business travelers with conventional locomotive hauled equipment working on limited stop express schedules.

Why not simply make Acela II part of the upcoming electric locomotive and single level coach order, while funding NE corridor improvements that would improve schedules for the NE Regionals (and various commuter agencies) as well?

History shows that the real service improvements on the NE Corridor are made through improving the infrastructure, not the rolling stock.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:The real motivation for an "Acela II" would appear to be the limited lifespan of the current Acela equipment, along with serviceability issues, not passenger demand. The recent recession has demonstrated that there is a limited time-sensitive business travel market, so there is no real need for larger Acela consists.

I think you're looking at this the wrong way. the Acela is only used for time sensitive business travel market because the seats are limited and that's who is willign to pay. at a lwoer price, more people would be travelling on the acela with shorter trip times. no one is saying, I want to ride for 6h20m to boston instead of five hours. Amtrak is saying, we don't have space for your butt at the price you're willing to pay. Of course, that's a long term proposition is the Acela proposition at 180..you're other recomendations seem perfectly sensible in the near term. track first, then rolling stock. the new electric locomotives seem to be to allow Amtrak to use the old toasters as cab cars so regionals can run push pull and be turned at the station without the need for a yard crew, thus increasing equipment utilization rates.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote: It's equally obvious that any money that is spent on a middle-of-nowhere to Las Vegas electric high speed rail line is unlikely to every be repaid, at least looking at the historical financial performance of North American passenger railroading.

Whcih puts it in the same bucket as Amtrak, and all the 'high speed' stimulus money.

Actually, it's hard to understand why any private investor would put money into a high speed rail venture terminating in the middle of nowhere, unless of course, there will be federal guarantees for the private investment? So will the taxpayer be on the hook for most of the debt of DesertXpress, or all of it?

First off, it's pretty obvious the 'private investors' are the casinos. And they're not dumb, and to them, a few billion, especially spread out among a few, isn't much. And this isn't a large, or technically challenging project for them.

Second - assuming the above is true, they don't care if the service is a money loser - guess what's going to happen when folks arrive at The Strip? And that's the justification for them - it gets folks into the casinos faster and easier. That's where the money is, litterally.

Third - look west. Guess who's looking to build a huge HSR system. And guess what? Nobody in the US knows how the heck to do it. Any consortium that builds and pulls off DXP has a leg up - a big one - on any other HSR project in the US. In fact, the line''s going to be built with explicit ca-hsr interoperability in mind.

In the end, DesertXpress is simply a political pet project, a very bad example of HSR planning, and project that is detrimental to passenger rail advocacy in general.

I don't see it as any of that. What I see is someone finally getting off their behinds and building the rail line the feds have been promising since the 70's. I bet this isn't the last example of it, either. Look at how long Cali's system has been '5 years from groundbreaking'. Meanwhile, we're stuck with the same, slow, outdated Amtrak that we had back in the 70's.

As far as I'm concerned, DesertXpress has been an impediment to the return of Amtrak service to Las Vegas.

Returning Amtrak to Las Vegas isn't worth it - the market rejected it long ago. Too slow, too unreliable.

Nasadowsk wrote:

goodnightjohnwayne wrote: It's equally obvious that any money that is spent on a middle-of-nowhere to Las Vegas electric high speed rail line is unlikely to every be repaid, at least looking at the historical financial performance of North American passenger railroading.

Whcih puts it in the same bucket as Amtrak, and all the 'high speed' stimulus money.

There no comparison between Amtrak, with its proven track record, and the DesertXpress, which lacks any credibility. DesertXpress isn't a railroad, it's nothing more than a lobbying effort.

Nasadowsk wrote:

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:Actually, it's hard to understand why any private investor would put money into a high speed rail venture terminating in the middle of nowhere, unless of course, there will be federal guarantees for the private investment? So will the taxpayer be on the hook for most of the debt of DesertXpress, or all of it?

First off, it's pretty obvious the 'private investors' are the casinos. And they're not dumb, and to them, a few billion, especially spread out among a few, isn't much. And this isn't a large, or technically challenging project for them.

Second - assuming the above is true, they don't care if the service is a money loser - guess what's going to happen when folks arrive at The Strip? And that's the justification for them - it gets folks into the casinos faster and easier. That's where the money is, litterally.

Third - look west. Guess who's looking to build a huge HSR system. And guess what? Nobody in the US knows how the heck to do it. Any consortium that builds and pulls off DXP has a leg up - a big one - on any other HSR project in the US. In fact, the line''s going to be built with explicit ca-hsr interoperability in mind.

The gaming industry in Las Vegas is in trouble at the moment with too much capacity and a high cost labor structure due to the SEIU. Is it any wonder that the unemployment rate is so high in Nevada? There are too many casinos for too few gamblers.

We're more likely to see more than a couple of gaming companies go bankrupt, along with the potential for major casino closing on the strip. This DesertXpress nonsense isn't likely to change the dire situation.

Nasadowsk wrote:

goodnightjohnwayne wrote: In the end, DesertXpress is simply a political pet project, a very bad example of HSR planning, and project that is detrimental to passenger rail advocacy in general.

I don't see it as any of that. What I see is someone finally getting off their behinds and building the rail line the feds have been promising since the 70's. I bet this isn't the last example of it, either. Look at how long Cali's system has been '5 years from groundbreaking'. Meanwhile, we're stuck with the same, slow, outdated Amtrak that we had back in the 70's.

"Cali's system" doesn't merit groundbreaking since the state couldn't afford to subsidize CHSR even if the Feds pick up 100% of capital costs.

Nasadowsk wrote:[quote="goodnightjohnwayne" As far as I'm concerned, DesertXpress has been an impediment to the return of Amtrak service to Las Vegas.

Returning Amtrak to Las Vegas isn't worth it - the market rejected it long ago. Too slow, too unreliable.[/quote]

I think you proved my point about DesertXpress forming an impediment to the return of Amtrak service to Las Vegas.

Amtrak doesn't have the lobbying organization or the ability to make strategic political contributions.

Might have been said previously, but the acela needs more cars. It might come as a shock to some, but they are often sold out or very full, every acela that i see is at least 80% full with people in most seats and in the cafe car. This train makes money, lets help it make more, "acela 2" or not!

- A