Amtrak Five Year Equipment Asset Line Plan

[electricron]

VIA’s Ocean is not a daily train, during the off season (non summer) it is a twice a week train and during the summer it is a thrice a week train, so, in a week per direction it sees (5 sleepers x 2 trains) 10 sleepers, while an Amtrak Crescent daily trains sees (2 sleepers x 7 trains) 14 sleepers per week. The Amtrak Cardinal sees (1 sleeper x 3 trains) 3 sleepers per week, far worse.

[rcthompson04]

Acquisition of dual power propulsion, either as an option to the diesel locomotive order or as part of
an order for trainsets to replace Amfleet equipment. Dual power propulsion will allow for Amtrak to
eliminate time-consuming engine changes in Washington, Philadelphia and New Haven, increasing the
attractiveness and reliability of its Northeast Regional and other services which operate on both the
NEC and state corridors, and potentially the long-distance Palmetto. Quantities of base and options for
dual power trainsets or locomotives will be determined as part of the Amfleet replacement process.

So is Siemens going to make a dual power version of the ACS-64? That would make life easier on the Pennsylvanian for sure.

[electricron]

So is Siemens going to make a dual power version of the ACS-64? That would make life easier on the Pennsylvanian for sure.

More likely a dual power version of the SC-44 Charger diesel locomotive - with shoes added for picking up power from third rails into Pennsylvania Station. It would be extremely difficult to add a diesel engine into an ACS-64 electric locomotive.

[njtmnrrbuff]

[quote="electricron"][quote="rcthompson04"]So is Siemens going to make a dual power version of the ACS-64? That would make life easier on the Pennsylvanian for sure.[/quote]
More likely a dual power version of the SC-44 Charger diesel locomotive - with shoes added for picking up power from third rails into Pennsylvania Station. It would be extremely difficult to add a diesel engine into an ACS-64 electric locomotive.[/quote]

It would certainly help reduce dwell time at 30th Street Station for the Pennsylvanian. However, for significant travel time to be reduced, especially for those traveling to stations west of Harrisburg, improvements would have to be made on NS.

[trainviews]

There's some good and bad thing to Talgos. I'm curious if the lack of love for them is on a mechanical level or a commercial level, perhaps an issue with Talgo corporate. Those two at Beech Grove have been there far before the Washington crash.

Globally, it's an odd group that operates them. Of course Spain has them. Argentina has a few because they were secondhand and they share a broad gauge. Russia uses them for sleeper trains to Berlin because Talgos have automatic re-gauging, and Portugal jointly operates the Sud Express sleeper with them. I'm curious what a night in a Talgo sleeper is like. But the US appears to be the only standard gauge Talgo market.

Talgo and DB recently announced that Talgo is to deliver cars for 100 trains for DB's loco hauled IC trains. Talgo is also amongst the final bidders for Danish Railways' cars to be used on international trains when the Femern Belt tunnel opens, though so is several others of the big players, including Siemens. So while Talgo might have a niche to themselves in routes with gauge changes they certainly aren't out of contention for other operators, standard or broad gauge.

[frequentflyer]

https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/proj ... Y20-24.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Page 39, relaunch of NEC Regional trains with new trains and schedules for 2025. Does a seven year old Sprinter in 2025 pulling new Siemen Viaggos constitute a relaunch?

Really getting a EMU/DMU vibe for the NEC and related routes.

[David Benton]

The East Coast sleeper trains provide the most potential for radical efficiency gains in my opinion. First they need to change the schedules or short turn the sleepers , so they aren't spending 2 out of every 3 nites sitting in the depots. 2nd , they have the frequency to make it worthwhile to change OBS service crews enroute, and perhaps vary the staffing numbers by time of day . It makes no sense to have OBS staff taking up scarce Sleeper space on trips of one nite duration . I'm sure it would be more economic to change at least the cafe attendant enroute , making it 24 hour service, and freeing up a sleeper space.

[east point]

EMUs can be used fairly well on routes with many speed changes with their total higher HP on powered axels. A Sprinter with 4 powered axels cannot compete with any EMU train same number of cars with more than say 6 - 8 EMU powered axels? As Amtrak keeps upgrading the slow spots that advantage will decrease over each year of ROW improvements . DMU s maybe but trying to get enough higher speeds may be problematic.

[David Benton]

EMUs can be used fairly well on routes with many speed changes with their total higher HP on powered axels. A Sprinter with 4 powered axels cannot compete with any EMU train same number of cars with more than say 6 - 8 EMU powered axels? As Amtrak keeps upgrading the slow spots that advantage will decrease over each year of ROW improvements . DMU s maybe but trying to get enough higher speeds may be problematic.

Some 0 to 60 mph figures from Britain's Rail Express magazine.
Class 345 EMU - 36 seconds- fastest A.C EMU
Class 220 DMU - 53 seconds - fastest DMU
Class 375 EMU - 70 seconds - fastest 3rd rail EMU
Class 57 loco - 76 seconds - fastest diesel loco
Class 90 loco- 87 seconds - fastest Electrric loco
Class 43 HST - 96 seconds- fastest HST125 , iconic HST from the 1980s.
Note , these are times recorded by the Magazines test. They are actual runs, but it doesn't mean each class can't go faster, just they may not have timed a faster run . I would expect a Electric loco to record a faster time than a Diesel for example. And the HST125 os probably derated and on a secondary train after 40 years service. But the thought of a EMU with nearly 3 times better Acceleration than a HST astounds me.

[Nasadowsk]

But the thought of a EMU with nearly 3 times better Acceleration than a HST astounds me.

Not really. Most HSTs are dog slow, despite having a lot of power. It really does take that much to get up to 186mph, and I suspect even with AC inverters, the gearing isn't helping at all (assuming 50Hz at full rpm, that's a 5Hz speed of around 20mph or so, and most industrial inverters struggle down there. Rail ones might be a bit better, but you can't overcome physics with software. I also don't know what the max Hz on rail traction motors is, there's nothing magic about 50 or 60hz. This isn't super relevant though, since the general rule of thumb is that below 1/10th full frequency, things get dicey).

At least they didn't time a Class 68. As much as I like stadler's products, diesel locomotives isn't their forte, given the 1 loco sample size train I rode on last October. I bet the first one in service is still on its way up to 60mph for the first time...

High performance can exist in the US, as anyone who's ridden the Market-Frankford line could tell you.

[R&DB]

Reading this thread and the '110 mph' thread brought to mind a question. Is track and ROW railroad equipment? Yes motive power and rolling stock need replacement but highest speed is not really a major concern when the trains can only go as fast as the freight trains on the host railroads. Why not allocate some of the 'equipment' funds to improving ROW. For instance would not replacing the second track that was removed in the eighties improve speed and on-time performance? I know the ROW is owned by the Class 1s, but if Amtrak paid for the second track both would benefit. Or Amtrak could buy the unused property on the ROW and install the second track, thereby relieving the host railroad of the property tax burden of those parcels. This would remarkably improve service on the eastern north - south routes. The state funded lines through Virginia and North Carolina could kick in some of the costs. I would much prefer to see 90 mph ON-TIME service to stop-n-go 110 mph trains that are always late. And why is not Amtrak asking US motive power and rolling stock manufacturers for quotes for passenger equipment? (I'm firm believer in buy American)
Just some ideas...

[electricron]

Reading this thread and the '110 mph' thread brought to mind a question. Is track and ROW railroad equipment? Yes motive power and rolling stock need replacement but highest speed is not really a major concern when the trains can only go as fast as the freight trains on the host railroads. Why not allocate some of the 'equipment' funds to improving ROW. For instance would not replacing the second track that was removed in the eighties improve speed and on-time performance? I know the ROW is owned by the Class 1s, but if Amtrak paid for the second track both would benefit. Or Amtrak could buy the unused property on the ROW and install the second track, thereby relieving the host railroad of the property tax burden of those parcels. This would remarkably improve service on the eastern north - south routes. The state funded lines through Virginia and North Carolina could kick in some of the costs. I would much prefer to see 90 mph ON-TIME service to stop-n-go 110 mph trains that are always late. And why is not Amtrak asking US motive power and rolling stock manufacturers for quotes for passenger equipment? (I'm firm believer in buy American)
Just some ideas...

Siemens, Alstom, Stadler, Bombardier, CAF, and others meet Buy In America laws with just 60% made in USA content as long as the final assembly line is in America. Just about every assembly line in America uses some foreign parts and some foreign labor.
Large corporations have been buying or merging with others or absorbing smaller companies getting ever larger. Check out Chrysler Corporation - do you consider it a foreign or domestic brand anymore?

[mtuandrew]

R&DB: what American rolling stock manufacturers are there? MPI/GE and Brookville for locomotives, and I can’t think of a single American passenger car company. (My dreams of ACF getting back into the biz with an original design notwithstanding.) Best we could hope for would be an American buyout of a foreign company like CAF, or the long shot of Thrall or ACF buying a foreign design or partnering with an overseas group.

To be honest, a Sino-American partnership between CRRC and one of the American freight manufacturers would be a very mutually-beneficial enterprise. The CRRC SEPTA multilevel has a lot of potential that would be wasted without a way around the trade restrictions, and it would necessarily redirect more wealth to America than a wholly-owned American subsidy of a foreign company. Give that some thought, Mr. Icahn.

A very small diversion into politics: while free trade is great when you’re on top, it breaks down if your country sells less overseas than others do in your country. Both major political parties should consider that in their platforms - it makes sense from both a socialist and a hard-capitalist perspective - especially as we leave the Pax Americana era. That’s even if new American passenger railcar manufacturers aren’t in the offing.

[Nasadowsk]

And why is not Amtrak asking US motive power and rolling stock manufacturers for quotes for passenger equipment?

The last order in the US that was purely American equipment was the M6s for Metro-North in the 90's, based on a 70's vintage design and a 60's vintage body shell. GE's P-whatevers had European influence in the body (and truck?) design, the DE/DM 30s are 1/2 Siemens, the M-7s are Canadian with Japanese propulsion equipment. Nobody in the US has produced a competitive passenger railcar since the M-1s of the late 60's. That was before man walked on the moon...

[mtuandrew]

Nobody in the US has produced a competitive passenger railcar since the M-1s of the late 60's. That was before man walked on the moon...

The Amfleets and Superliners say hello (or do you mean competitive overseas)