Railroad Forums 

  • Amtrak Asset & Service Line Plans FY20-25

  • 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

 #1549106  by WesternNation
 
As some of you may be aware, Amtrak released their FY20-25 asset line plan recently. Some of the details have been discussed in other threads, but I figured this can be a central location to discuss anything and everything from the document.

Here are the big things, in my own opinion:

1) Amtrak is proposing several service improvements and expansions in California, including the Coast Daylight and an as-yet un-named service to the Coachella Valley from LA

2) Major infrastructure improvements nationwide, including double-tracking the AML between Kalamazoo and Niles, building a third main between Ragan and Brandy in Delaware, two new interlockings in the Northeast, re-configuring North Penn, the Hudson Tunnel Project, and replacing Portal North.

3) Master plans have been or are being developed for most major stations on the system, including Chicago, NYP, WAS, PHL, and Baltimore.

4) The system-wide maintenance backlog is estimated to be at $33.9 billion.

5) 75 ALC-42s have been ordered; exercising the options will depend on the AMF I replacement that is chosen as well as any national network changes that arise out of Amtrak's reauthorization. The first unit is to enter service next summer with all 75 being delivered by 2024.

6) All Talgo service with Amtrak Cascades will be transitioned to AMF I replacement. In the meantime, once all CALIDOT cars have been delivered, the AMF and Horizon units will be redeployed to service the Cascades and increase frequencies or start new services elsewhere. Talgo VIII units are short-term only.

7) Amtrak is seriously considering dual-power modes for services that operate both on and off the NEC to eliminate power swaps.

8) Superliner replacement is on hold for the time being pending a study on whether replacing or rebuilding the Supers is the most cost-effective option as well as any NN changes post-reauthorization. AMF II replacement is also on hold pending AMF I replacement choice and if the AMF I replacement is a viable candidate to use for the AMF II replacement as well as changing some services over to corridor units, such as what is happening with the Palmetto.

9) Bag and bag/dorm cars may see reduced service on the Carolinian, Pennsylvanian, and NE Regional trains 66/67, with those services potentially transitioning to trainsets, as well as potential changes to the NN pending reauthorization.

10) Amtrak is considering modifying the Viewliner II diners for the "Flexible Dining" program, potentially allowing for such diners to be deployed to the Silver Star and Cardinal.

11) Amtrak plans to use 25 V-II sleepers to increase capacity as well as potential deployment on 66/67.

12) New routes outlined for FY21-25:
FY 21: Ethan Allen extension to Burlington, VT; Pacific Surfliner 14th round-trip between LA and SD; Richmond round-trip extended to Norfolk

FY22: Capitol Corridor extended to Salinas w/ 2 new RTs between SAC and OAK; Roanoke 2nd RT to Lynchburg; Gulf Coast service (NOL to Mobile)

FY23: Hiawatha RTs 8, 9, and 10; Keystone 14th RT; Pere Marquette connection to New Buffalo; Twin Cities service (CHI-MSP)

FY24: Piedmont 4th RT; Pennsylvanian 2nd RT; Chicago-Moline service

FY25: Chicago-Rockford service

TBD: Extending the Vermonter to Montreal.

13: New initiatives for the LDSL include just about everything from fleet planning and acquisition to introducing an entirely new class of service. It's just too long to put in here but it's interesting. I will say that Amtrak is still toying with the Southwest Chief, but it doesn't give specifics.

Link to the documents:
Asset Line: https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/proj ... Y21-25.pdf

Service Line:
https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/proj ... Y21-25.pdf
 #1549134  by njtmnrrbuff
 
It would be great to have the Capitol Corridor extended to Salinas. I know that that's been on the radar for a very long time. That would enable people who live in the Bay Area and San Jose to have some more rail options to not only Salinas but I also believe stations like Castroville would be served.
 #1549339  by rcthompson04
 
Much of this seems predicated on getting new rolling stock and dual mode power. Adding another Keystone and Pennsylvanian seem like relatively easy lifts (if you can figure out the ideal time for another Pennsylvanian).
 #1549349  by Jeff Smith
 
Now if we could just extend it to Monterey.... yeah, not likely. But still, Salinas is not that far off. I was stationed in Monterey at the Defense Language Institute.
njtmnrrbuff wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 6:32 pm It would be great to have the Capitol Corridor extended to Salinas. I know that that's been on the radar for a very long time. That would enable people who live in the Bay Area and San Jose to have some more rail options to not only Salinas but I also believe stations like Castroville would be served.
 #1549389  by STrRedWolf
 
rcthompson04 wrote: Mon Aug 03, 2020 11:39 am Much of this seems predicated on getting new rolling stock and dual mode power. Adding another Keystone and Pennsylvanian seem like relatively easy lifts (if you can figure out the ideal time for another Pennsylvanian).
I played with this over in the Pennsylvanian (Keystone West) thread... although it also needs more capacity and significant platform addition on opposite side of the tracks.
 #1549413  by njtmnrrbuff
 
I know that in the past, it has been mentioned to have the second Pennsylvanian run from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh. It's better to have it run to at least Philadelphia so that way, you can gain more revenue. I wouldn't mind seeing it extended to NYP but my concern is track slots underneath the Hudson River. As for the second platforms at stations, that's not a bad idea but I'm not sure if that would be worth it for every station west of Harrisburg. I could see it being done at the stations like Lewistown, Huntingdon, and Latrobe. At Altoona, maybe make a center island high level platform and this would involve having to move the track closest to Downtown Altoona.

I don't think the Capitol Corridor will ever be extended to Monterey. It looks like that would involve traveling a bit out of the way from Salinas. People can just switch from a train to bus at Salinas. They do that when getting on and off the Coast Starlight.

It would be great if a lot of the Michigan Line was double tracked, even the stretch as far as Porter. A much better interlocking is needed at Porter so that way Amtrak trains heading to and from Michigan don't have to play that waiting game for freights.
 #1549424  by STrRedWolf
 
njtmnrrbuff wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2020 8:40 am I know that in the past, it has been mentioned to have the second Pennsylvanian run from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh. It's better to have it run to at least Philadelphia so that way, you can gain more revenue. I wouldn't mind seeing it extended to NYP but my concern is track slots underneath the Hudson River. As for the second platforms at stations, that's not a bad idea but I'm not sure if that would be worth it for every station west of Harrisburg. I could see it being done at the stations like Lewistown, Huntingdon, and Latrobe. At Altoona, maybe make a center island high level platform and this would involve having to move the track closest to Downtown Altoona.
I can see a direct Philly/Pittsburgh run, transferring to the NEC at 30th street (saves a slot if the Pennsy is truncated and saves an equipment swap). But I can also see it being extended to Cleveland if Cleveland gets beefed up. Right now you can't terminate a train there -- one track only and it's served by two Amtrak trains at least. Widen one platform, lay down another track with a high platform, add a bridge w/elevators to not fowl the light rail... and you can go two through-track and a termination. Alas, it'll take money...
 #1551759  by WhartonAndNorthern
 
You don't need to worry about an NEC slot, just find a Keystone slot and extend it (or swap a Keystone with a Regional to get the times right).

You need to worry about convincing NS to allow another passenger train on that line or finding the money to triple track the remaining double track segments to make NS happy. And you need to worry about getting money from PA to make this "state supported route" work.

I'm not entirely convinced that they need three tracks everywhere when they do have three tracks from Altoona to Johnstown and a freight bypass line (Conemaugh).
 #1551777  by STrRedWolf
 
WhartonAndNorthern wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 3:30 pm You don't need to worry about an NEC slot, just find a Keystone slot and extend it (or swap a Keystone with a Regional to get the times right).

You need to worry about convincing NS to allow another passenger train on that line or finding the money to triple track the remaining double track segments to make NS happy. And you need to worry about getting money from PA to make this "state supported route" work.

I'm not entirely convinced that they need three tracks everywhere when they do have three tracks from Altoona to Johnstown and a freight bypass line (Conemaugh).
I'm more convinced that they need to build a third track and opposite track platforms. Here's the stations that do not have them:
  • Lewistown
  • Huntingdon
  • Tyrone (flag stop)
  • Altoona
  • Latrobe
Out of the above, Lewistown would need to be moved (it's on an interlock), Altoona needs an island platform, Latrobe could have an island and a third (freight) track, and a third track around Greensburg. (looks like it has the room),

...But we've discussed this to death in the Pennsyvanian thread.
 #1551787  by njtmnrrbuff
 
The suggested station improvements west of Harrisburg are a must. If a third track would help bring down travel times significantly, that would be great. Traveling anywhere west of Harrisburg from NYC and Philly and all stations in between isn't even close to the time that it takes to drive.
 #1551789  by John_Perkowski
 
Jeff Smith wrote: Mon Aug 03, 2020 12:29 pm Now if we could just extend it to Monterey.... yeah, not likely. But still, Salinas is not that far off. I was stationed in Monterey at the Defense Language Institute.
Jeff, repeat after me....

The Del Monte isn’t coming back.
 #1551804  by STrRedWolf
 
njtmnrrbuff wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 11:13 pm The suggested station improvements west of Harrisburg are a must. If a third track would help bring down travel times significantly, that would be great. Traveling anywhere west of Harrisburg from NYC and Philly and all stations in between isn't even close to the time that it takes to drive.
True, but then you got legacy rail routes that are winding through the biggest problem: the Appalachian Mountains.

The "very big, expensive" thing that can be done is electrification combined with tunneling and bridging. I'd have to look at the land layout, because "straight shot" isn't going to work out and we're going to miss that Horseshoe Curve.
 #1551837  by electricron
 
David Benton wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2020 7:08 pm HSR can handle steep grades,1 in 28, whatever that is in American. So future builds can look at highway alignment, rather than traditional railroad restrictions.
1 in 25 would be a 4% grade, 1 in 33 would be a 3% grade, so 1 in 28 would be about 3.75% grade. There are some Interstate Highways with up to 6% grades, I-65, I-70, and I-84 just to name a few. A 6% grade would be the equivalent of 1 in 16.6 .
So Interstate Highways would not always be great choices for a HSR alignment.