• Budd Amfleet I Replacement 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

  • 225 posts
  • 1
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  by gokeefe
 
What if it isn't running?
  by Ridgefielder
 
gokeefe wrote: Wed Dec 18, 2019 7:19 pm What if it isn't running?
It's not the diesel engine per se-- it's the diesel fuel in the tanks under the floor of the passenger compartments that might worry them. The only such equipment that ever operated into New York was the New Haven's Budd RDC-derived Roger Williams back in the mid-'50s. And that of course only ran through the Park Ave tunnel, which is less space-constrained than the river tubes and easier to ventilate.
  by andegold
 
NJT's ALP45-DPs go through the North River and East River tunnels dozens of times a day every day with how ever many hundreds of gallons of diesel as their tanks can hold.
  by Ridgefielder
 
andegold wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 9:31 am NJT's ALP45-DPs go through the North River and East River tunnels dozens of times a day every day with how ever many hundreds of gallons of diesel as their tanks can hold.
As do the LIRR's DM30AC's. But those are locomotives, not DMU's. The fuel bunkers are not directly underneath passengers, nor are they permanently attached to passenger-carrying rolling stock.
  by JimBoylan
 
What about New York Central? Did they ever tow RDCs into Grand Central behind electric trains to provide through commuter service beyond the 3rd rail territory without using separate locomotives?
  by Gilbert B Norman
 
As I recall, when delivered for GCT-Boston service, the "Roger Williams" RDC's had NYC Third Rail shoes.

However, when they were reassigned to the Pool, and became "just another RDC", those shoes could well have been shorn.

Thoughts, Mr. Nelligan?
  by Ridgefielder
 
JimBoylan wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 2:54 pm What about New York Central? Did they ever tow RDCs into Grand Central behind electric trains to provide through commuter service beyond the 3rd rail territory without using separate locomotives?
Not so far as I know. They *did* haul MU's past the end of electric territory with locomotives to provide some rush-hour through service to Peekskill.
Gilbert B Norman wrote:As I recall, when delivered for GCT-Boston service, the "Roger Williams" RDC's had NYC Third Rail shoes
The Roger Williams definitely had third rail shoes and operated into GCT. But you must remember, just because something was permitted in 1956 doesn't mean it would be permitted today.

And as I said, there's a big difference between the Park Ave. tunnel, which is basically just a roofed-over cut, with 10'x10' ventilation gratings in the roof every ~120 feet, and the 100+ foot deep single-track underwater tubes leading into Penn.
  by Backshophoss
 
Back in the '70's PC used RDC's on the "Off Peak" trains on the Harlem Line,to North White Plains,then couple onto a 3 coach train
for the tow into GCT.
  by gokeefe
 
If Amtrak believes they will be allowed to do so I think there's a really good chance they will pursue dual mode MU trainsets. This week's announcement in Virginia only convinces me of this even more so.
  by njtmnrrbuff
 
The equipment purchases can go either way. There could be dual powered catenary/diesel locomotive push pull sets, dual powered catenary/diesel multiple unit trainsets, or both. The point is that Amtrak wants to eliminate the engine changes as much as possible for corridor trains. Right now, Amtrak has close to 70 ACS-64 units in service and more often. That's a lot and of course, that means that Amtrak would have to order coaches and cab cars that can only be pulled by a locomotive. I'm not speaking from a railfan perspective but from a business perspective. If there are close to 70 active ACS-64 electric locomotives that aren't old and Amtrak would order replacement coaches and cab cars for trains that can only be pulled by Sprinters, Amtrak might be best off ordering the same type of coaches that would be pulled by Sprinters, except order hybrid diesel/catenary locomotives. I know that Amtrak, in the distant past, has used self propelled trainsets like the turboliners and the Metroliner MUs, but they didn't last very long. Even if Amtrak were to run more trains that would make every stop on the schedule, the stops are still pretty far a part for the most part. It's not like we are talking stopping every mile here. If they do purchase dual powered MU trainsets and they can work fine, then good for Amtrak. Many foreign countries use multiple units for their intercity services-in Ireland, Irish Rail runs plenty of DMUs. England does as well.
  by gokeefe
 
I agree the MU trainsets appear to imply a sudden and unexpected shift away from the ACS-64s. That being said if you assume that Amtrak is planning for much broader expansions of service with higher frequencies and greater route miles the dual mode MU becomes a necessity as opposed to merely a convenience.

Not only does the engine change take time but it also interferes with the throughput capacity at Washington Union Station which unlike New Haven does not have a very flexible platform and track configuration.

It only makes sense if you assume Amtrak intends to add dozens of new trains running through WAS. As we can see from the announcement this past week with Virginia that in fact appears to be exactly what they intend to do.

Additionally the ACS-64 fleet is also only sufficient if you assume there will be no new electrification of Amtrak territory in the next 10 years. I now believe that may be incorrect and am beginning to think electrification of the Hartford Line may be in the cards sooner rather than later. Another possible corridor could be the Empire Corridor between Albany and New York.

If either of these two corridors were electrified in 10 years time Amtrak would have an immediate power shortage unless they already had supplemented their Amfleets with MU trainsets.
  by njtmnrrbuff
 
Electrification on the Hartford Line or Empire Corridor will never happen. It’s not on CDOT’s plan for the Hartford Line. MNR, NY State, and CSX don’t want it on Amtrak’s Empire Service. Those routes are fine using diesel.

Washington Union Station and New Haven Union Station are two different stations. At DC, yes, you don’t have much operational flexibility. Plus, given that DC is a larger city than NHV, still more people detrain in DC so the dwell time would have to factor unloading and loading. I think when the dual powered trainsets enter revenue service, maybe we’ll see 15 minutes shaved off the dwell time in DC. Even with faster service to VA down the road, there will always be several packs of people who will detrain in DC when coming from the north.
  by rcthompson04
 
njt/mnrrbuff wrote: Mon Dec 23, 2019 7:48 am Electrification on the Hartford Line or Empire Corridor will never happen. It’s not on CDOT’s plan for the Hartford Line. MNR, NY State, and CSX don’t want it on Amtrak’s Empire Service. Those routes are fine using diesel.
At what point does electrification on any line make sense? 10 trains a day each way with little freight interference?
  by frequentflyer
 
If Amtrak put all of the Sprinters on the market today, they would be snapped up in a week by the commuter agencies along the NEC. Lets stop acting like the Spinters are some impediment to Amtrak ordering EMU/DMUs. The first MU set would not be delivered to Amtrak till 2025 anyway.
  by Arlington
 
I would think a surge of new service coming South of WAS by 2026 (and perhaps North of NHV) would argue for more dual mode / through-running needs.
  • 1
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15