Amtrak Five Year Equipment Asset Line Plan

[R&DB]

Gilbert B Norman » Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:54 pm

Thanks for the links. After lookig through a few I have come to the conclusion that there is no hope of improved Amtrak service. The gov-speak in these documents is so thick one has to wonder how any money is available for actually operating a railroad. Why plan for 5 years when they can't figure out how to get tomorrows operations to work effectively. Amtrack needs to be privatized to be brought into the 21st century.

[frequentflyer]

I think we've workshopped that one pretty thoroughly in other areas and come up with little. I don't know enough to back this up, but perhaps the Talgo is an idea who's time has come and gone but national pride in Spain keeps it under construction. I'd be curious to see annual production numbers. Aside from Spain and Portugal, there are something like ten trains in the USA (half built in Wisconsin), five in Argentina, two in Uzbekistan, three in Kazakhstan, etc... Not exactly a well-embraced technology.

Would the next generation of Cascades be better served by a Siemens product that looks like Brightline? Or perhaps by secondhand Caltrain MP36 and BBD cigar cars rebuilt for long distance seating purchased after electrification? The Starlight has an hour additional in the timetable to Portland, but how much of that is equipment (tilt) limitations and how much of it is just not pushing a slow long train because BNSF doesn't want to? How much curvature was eliminated by ditching the waterfront line south of Tacoma? If the answer is the latter two, perhaps a deep dive is necessary.

This leads to another important point in long-term equipment planning. Buying rare and one-off stuff like Talgo and Acela means there is little chance of selling them or reusing them. If we had bought an ICE or X2000 instead of the Acela, perhaps the Argentines or Kazakhs would buy it for their perpetually under development HSR. Perhaps they could be used in Keystone service or towed by a diesel. But its clear nobody wants standard gauge Talgos, even brand new, and nobody wants the used Acelas. That hobbles future developments of corridors.

I think Amtrak has learned their lesson and is looking for off the shelf type products. The recents equipment purchases has been off the shelf. As and example, if Amtrak needs to dump the Sprinters, it can sell them to European operators.

[Tadman]

I wish they'd dump that Charger diesel order and follow Metra's lead with the rebuilt SD70MACH. There are 5,000 idled freight units laying around. A MACH program would keep more money in the US and get more units for the buck. It would also mean the new engine orders from the Class 1's start a bit sooner, too.

[Nasadowsk]

I wish they'd dump that Charger diesel order and follow Metra's lead with the rebuilt SD70MACH. There are 5,000 idled freight units laying around. A MACH program would keep more money in the US and get more units for the buck. It would also mean the new engine orders from the Class 1's start a bit sooner, too.

Ugh, now about no? The last thing Amtrak needs is beat up old freight power. And I've yet to see any convincing argument that the same basic equipment in a different package, is going to be any more reliable in Amtrak's hands than what they've got now. And limiting the system to maybe 70mph max is only going to result in longer trip times, meaning an even less attractive proposition for joe.public.

Is it silly that Amtrak's buying from Siemens? Maybe. But that's not Amtrak's fault - nothing was stopping GE or EMD from offering a viable passenger unit. And the F125 looks like it's not even close (though admitingly, that seems to be a function more of infighting between EMD and their European partner than anything else - the PL42 was a decent enough unit for NJT though so go figure).

It looks more like US business is going to just hand another industry over to foreign companies because they don't want to bother competing. Oh well, wev'e handed pretty much everything else over to the rest of the world already, and it looks like aerospace is going to be next on the list by the time the Max fiasco settles down...

[Tadman]

I wish they'd dump that Charger diesel order and follow Metra's lead with the rebuilt SD70MACH. There are 5,000 idled freight units laying around. A MACH program would keep more money in the US and get more units for the buck. It would also mean the new engine orders from the Class 1's start a bit sooner, too.

Ugh, now about no? The last thing Amtrak needs is beat up old freight power. And I've yet to see any convincing argument that the same basic equipment in a different package, is going to be any more reliable in Amtrak's hands than what they've got now. And limiting the system to maybe 70mph max is only going to result in longer trip times...

From what I understand everything above the frame is getting a complete rebuild or replacement. The 710 is a known performer with little issues. Quote from Metra's press release:

All components will either be refurbished, upgraded or new... Metra CEO/Executive Director Jim Derwinski said in a statement. “These like-new locomotives will be replacing some of the oldest locomotives

And regarding top speed, (a) it's not hard to re-gear especially at rebuild time; (b) we discuss a lot on here about how the top speed is far less important than mitigating slow-speed delays and bottlenecks. It would be interesting to see how much time is spent at or above 70mph on a long distance train.

[mtuandrew]

Or if Amtrak really does prefer GE, there are a goodly number of AC4400CWs kicking around. Even some AC6000CWs, if Amtrak wants the extra frame length for a standalone HEP generator. These would be crap for corridor service and overkill for eastern LDs, but good for western LDs and perfect for the Auto Train.

And for the hundredth time, I wish someone (Amtrak or another operator) would ECO-ize some F40s. That’s a route I’m a little surprised Metra didn’t take.

[WhartonAndNorthern]

And for the hundredth time, I wish someone (Amtrak or another operator) would ECO-ize some F40s. That’s a route I’m a little surprised Metra didn’t take.

I imagine someone looked at the cost of the new prime mover, main alternator, inverters, HEP inverter (they're not going to run them as "screamers" anymore), new traction motors, modern signalling and control upgrades and said "might as well buy a new loco." What's left? The frame, the hood/cowl, and the trucks. A lot of work for maybe 3000 HP after HEP. Besides the oldest F40s are already 44 years old and new locomotives have warranties and vendor support. There are quite a few rebuild projects that went horribly wrong (T*!@%$liners come to mind). Who wants to take the risk?

[frequentflyer]

Also, new locomotives have predictive maintenance software to lower shop time that older units do not.

Its cheaper to operate new units compared to rebuilt ones over a lifetime of service.

[Tadman]

And for the hundredth time, I wish someone (Amtrak or another operator) would ECO-ize some F40s. That’s a route I’m a little surprised Metra didn’t take.

Pure speculation here, but I bet the package is too small and the ultimate price isn't that much different. I could be wrong.

[RRspatch]

You're also forgetting that Amtrak long ago swore off of 6 axle power. I'm sure some of the older folks here remember the SDP40F's, P30CH's and the E60CH's. I'm sure the MAC70's will work well for METRA especially getting trains quickly up to speed. I just don't think Amtrak will ever touch anything with 6 axle power again.

[Mackensen]

You're also forgetting that Amtrak long ago swore off of 6 axle power. I'm sure some of the older folks here remember the SDP40F's, P30CH's and the E60CH's. I'm sure the MAC70's will work well for METRA especially getting trains quickly up to speed. I just don't think Amtrak will ever touch anything with 6 axle power again.

That's a very good point; Amtrak's transition to 4 axle power in the 1970s with the F40PH and AEM-7 saved the company. Both EMD and GE tried and failed to deliver reliable 6 axle power. Since then you've had the Genesis family, the F59PHI, and the ACS-64. These have all been successful designs. Why would Amtrak pivot to converted 6 axle freight power?

[mtuandrew]

I imagine someone looked at the cost of the new prime mover, main alternator, inverters, HEP inverter (they're not going to run them as "screamers" anymore), new traction motors, modern signalling and control upgrades and said "might as well buy a new loco." What's left? The frame, the hood/cowl, and the trucks. A lot of work for maybe 3000 HP after HEP. Besides the oldest F40s are already 44 years old and new locomotives have warranties and vendor support. There are quite a few rebuild projects that went horribly wrong (T*!@%$liners come to mind). Who wants to take the risk?

That sounds like a strong argument until you see EMD doing the same conversion process with GP9s. The ECO series is warranted, has microprocessor control and modern everything but frames & trucks, and meets Tier 3 emissions with the same prime mover as their legacy fleet for rather less than the price of a genset. Point taken about 3000/3200 hp of course, since these would be at best 3300 hp units with 12-710s and auxiliary HEP engines.

Pure speculation here, but I bet the package is too small and the ultimate price isn't that much different. I could be wrong.

Either that, or Metra didn’t ask and EMD didn’t offer - it certainly isn’t that EMD is incapable. I do hope the SD70MACH works for Metra.

[jp1822]

The idea of using Viewliner I sleepers as crew dorms on Superliner trains ahead of a transition Superliner sleeper seems dubious, as it would (a) not allow for expansion of eastern long distance capacity and (b) leave Amtrak with only 25 Viewliner II sleepers to replace 48 Viewliner I sleepers.

Speaking of the Viewliner I sleepers, is 48 a permanent fleet reduction, with 2 of the 50 stored, or are those repairable?

This is the first report that I've seen with 2 of the 50 Viewliner I Sleepers being listed as "stored." I suspect they are the Viewliners involved in the Silver Star/CSX wreck and are being held out of service for legal reasons, OR, Amtrak feels they are not in the position to repair them, since they claim it will be hard to find use for the 25 Viewliner II sleepers, which I don't agree with either.

To subsidize ANY food service operation on the long distance trains, Amtrak needs that high end sleeper revenue, in my opinion. Freeing up more roomettes in the Superliner Trans Dorm/Sleeper - great idea. Considering that crew sizes are shrinking so bad, why not retrofit the crew lounge on the lower level with four roomettes (don't think a family bedroom would fit), ensure if there is a handicap room opposite, and outfit the former conductor's office with a revenue roomette. There are only six to eight staff using a crew car, way too few to single out for an entire Viewliner I (14 berths in Viewliner II and 15 berths in a Viewliner I for sale).

IF long distance trains are to survive and be apart of Amtrak's future (and I hold no strong opinion on keeping or ceasing the run of LD trains quite frankly), Amtrak needs to market to fill as much coach AND sleeper space as possible on these trains; and it needs to figure out an F&B formula that works for different types of passengers. I find Amtrak has been severely devoid of marketing efforts these past years. Course not sure if the eastern LD trains are going to hit a favorability rating in marketing due to the current F&B mess. Filling sleepers means ensuring the Viewliner II sleepers are fully utilized as well. I do see they want to restore sleeper service on the NEC.

Crew taking up sleeper space:
1) Chef
2) Dining Car Server
3) Dining Car Server
4) Dining Car LSA (the one with all the money!)
5) Cafe/Lounge LSA
6) Extra onboard staff member for peak service diner

Occasionally Amtrak employees will ride for business purposes so that's the 6 to 8 range I list.

Amtrak should be able to sell an extra sleeper on the Silver Meteor (4 trainsets), Crescent (at least from Northeast to Atlanta - 4 trainsets), NEC overnight sleepers (2 trainsets), Cardinal should finally get an extra full sleeper (2 trainsets), and perhaps it's either the through sleepers from Pennsylvanian at Pittsburgh and/or converting Capitol Limited to single level trainset. This would take 6 Viewliner II's if just the Pennsylvanian through cars (two Viewliners each) or if converting Capitol Limited to single level too - 6 more VIewliner II's. Combined Capitol Limited and Pennsylvanian single level train set west of Pittsburgh would easily take four Viewliners (3 trainsets). That's now using 24 VIewliner II sleepers, out of 25 ordered. That's a little tight, not sparing........ And it doesn't consider expansion for Lake Shore in the East. So not convinced if Capitol Limited should truly be converted to single level as it's sleeper space regularly hit capacity before all this diner maneuvering. The order of 25 Viewliner II's was built on the premise of through sleepers between Pennsylvanian and Capitol Limited. Booking two weeks before departure on the Capitol Limited, often put me in the Dorm Car due to regular Superliner sleepers being full, and Superliners have more berths than the Viewliners!

What's interesting (or perhaps a little disturbing) is that VIA Rail Canada is running 5 Renaissance sleepers in the off season to/from Montreal and Halifax - and filling them. That's 50 berths (all double occupancy) for sale. They have a Chateau car separate for the crew, AND there's revenue space in the Park Car that's sold. Lake Shore Limited is running three Viewliners year round with ONLY 39 berths for sale after accounting for a crew of six taking space. In peak season, that 5 sleepers will grow to 8 sleepers. Somehow VIA can get better economics than Amtrak for the high end revenue and they produce a consistent product with good service - staff, onboard experience, and dining. Amtrak's all over the map too much It's just that VIA has NOT done the massive cost cutting that Amtrak has on the Ocean or Canadian. BUT, VIA has service attendants and a chief of onboard services that travel end point to end point with the train (for most part), thus avoiding a large T&E cost Amtrak has to pay for housing conductors "away" from home. VIA only switches out the head-end crew.

I feel there also needs to be an equipment asset plan at present (and for future) that considers how and why said passenger cars are going to be part of "x" train set, what are the premium cars offered (and how many - can two business cars be sold, are there two premium product cars and not just one), and what's the plan for allocating cars to LD trains - what types of cars, what are the premium cars, get it out there with the food and beverage option, etc. (no hiding behind re-authorization by Congress, as that's not happening overnight).

[east point]

JP 1822: We agree about you post for the V-2 sleepers on east coast trains. But the powers that be will not do that because it will show that demand is still not being met on east coast trains. As well Amtrak could make all but one sleeper cut offs at ATL. To move V-1 sleepers to superliner trains just makes all LD worse. Notice that there are no replacements planned for AM=2s that are used on east coast LD trains. IMHO the best plan would be to change Capital to single level allowing sleeper thru from PHL -CHI.

Those displaced superliners can go to LD western trains that would make up for the crazy plan of placing V-1 ahead of the transition dorms.

Also congress will need to earmark funds to repair those cars that can be financially repaired.

[mtuandrew]

east point: or replace the Cardinal consist with the Capitol Limited Superliners, then use the Cardinal cars to partially reequip the Capitol Limited (though you’d need more.) You could almost make four Cardinal consists from the Cap’s cars if daily service ever came back. (It would make the Cardinal numbers look better though, and that makes it harder to make it a corridor...)