Jump to content




Help Support AmtrakTrains.com by donating using the link above or becoming a Supporting Member.

Photo

Equipment Order in the works this year (2018)?


  • Please log in to reply
272 replies to this topic

#21 keelhauled

keelhauled

    Conductor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 684 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Camorr

Posted 06 April 2018 - 02:52 PM

I'm curious what will happen to the Amfleet Is. Hopefully they will retain at least a subset of the fleet, either to supplement the Amfleet IIs or to give them a pool of equipment to offer to states to increase corridor service.

We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that works.


#22 CraigDK

CraigDK

    Lead Service Attendant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 152 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland & Delaware
  • Interests:Planes, Trains, & Automobiles

Posted 06 April 2018 - 02:59 PM

That’s impossible, Anderson is an airplane guy that hates Amtrak and wants to see it fail.

 

You must be spending to much time elsewhere on the internet, as you managed to sum up just about every post on a certain other message board. :P


  • Ryan, AmtrakBlue and seat38a like this

#23 neroden

neroden

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,665 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Ithaca, NY
  • Interests:Please feel free to moderate my posts

Posted 06 April 2018 - 03:01 PM

 

From what I can see, Amtrak's only statutory obligation is:

 

"Amtrak shall operate a national rail passenger transportation system which ties together existing and emergent regional rail passenger service and other intermodal passenger service."
 
That's the result of changes made in 1997 to the original 1970 law, which was (a little) more prescriptive.
 
As I read the plain text, the "national rail passenger transportation system" Amtrak is obligated to run is one that "ties together existing and emergent regional rail passenger service". That isn't the same thing as a system of long distance trains that lets you take a two-seat ride from Boston to Los Angeles.

 

Actually, it is the same thing. 

 

Have you thought about this?  Existing regional rail service is present in:

-- Boston

-- New York

-- Philadelphia

-- Baltimore

-- Washington DC (hmm, the NEC seems mandated)

-- Miami (oh, so Amtrak has to connect Miami to DC)

-- Orlando (see Miami)

-- Chicago (oh, so Amtrak has to connect Chicago to the east coast)

-- Minneapolis (oh, so Amtrak has to connect that to Chicago)

-- Seattle & Portland (oh, so Amtrak has to connect those to Chicago)

-- Denver (oh, so Amtrak has to connect that to Chicago)

-- Salt Lake (oh, so Amtrak has to connect that to Denver)

-- the Bay Area (oh, so Amtrak has to connect that to Seattle, Portland, Salt Lake, Denver, Chicago, etc.)

-- Los Angeles (oh, so Amtrak has to connect that to the Bay Area, etc. etc. etc.)

-- Dallas/Fort Worth (oh, so Amtrak has to connect that to Chicago)

-- Albuquerque (oh, so Amtrak has to connect that to something, let's say LA)

-- Nashville (darn it, I think Amtrak is obligated to expand to Nashville!)

 

If you look at this list of cities with existing regional rail service, you find that the only "nonessential" Amtrak long-distance routes -- by this Congressionally-mandated criterion -- are the three which go to New Orleans. 

 

If you assume "other intermodal passenger service" means local rail, of course, it also makes sense to go to:

New Orleans, Kansas City, Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, San Diego, Tacoma, Tucson, Newark, Sacramento, Trenton, Norfolk, Tampa, and Memphis.

 

Also Houston, Austin, Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Phoenix, Cincinnati, and Charlotte, but only if the Amtrak station is moved or the local rail is extended.  Also Cleveland but only if Amtrak arrives while the light rail is running to its station.

 

What's interesting about this list?  Except for Nashville, all of these places actually have Amtrak service, although that final list needs some very major improvements to connectivity.


Edited by neroden, 06 April 2018 - 03:13 PM.

--Nathanael--

Please feel free to moderate my posts.

#24 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Gathering Team Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,169 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 06 April 2018 - 03:12 PM

For various reasons, I have grave doubts that all this talk about the breaking up of the LD intercity network will come to pass. Mr. Anderson will be very hard pressed to explain to his 500+ proxy owners that such a move is consistent with Amtrak's mission, and I suspect he is unlikely to throw a hissy fit over such a matter, even assuming that he believes that a trunk system is undesireable.

 

For those that like to hark back to his Delta and Northwest days trying to decipher him, he never harmed Delta's or Northwest's trunk network. Indeed he strengthened them.


  • AmtrakBlue, R30A, seat38a and 3 others like this

#25 brianpmcdonnell17

brianpmcdonnell17

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,036 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 06 April 2018 - 03:15 PM


 
From what I can see, Amtrak's only statutory obligation is:
 
"Amtrak shall operate a national rail passenger transportation system which ties together existing and emergent regional rail passenger service and other intermodal passenger service."
 
That's the result of changes made in 1997 to the original 1970 law, which was (a little) more prescriptive.
 
As I read the plain text, the "national rail passenger transportation system" Amtrak is obligated to run is one that "ties together existing and emergent regional rail passenger service". That isn't the same thing as a system of long distance trains that lets you take a two-seat ride from Boston to Los Angeles.

 
Actually, it is the same thing. 
 
Have you thought about this?  Existing regional rail service is present in:
-- Boston
-- New York
-- Philadelphia
-- Baltimore
-- Washington DC (hmm, the NEC seems mandated)
-- Miami (oh, so Amtrak has to connect Miami to DC)
-- Orlando (see Miami)
-- Chicago (oh, so Amtrak has to connect Chicago to the east coast)
-- Minneapolis (oh, so Amtrak has to connect that to Chicago)
-- Seattle & Portland (oh, so Amtrak has to connect those to Chicago)
-- Denver (oh, so Amtrak has to connect that to Chicago)
-- Salt Lake (oh, so Amtrak has to connect that to Denver)
-- the Bay Area (oh, so Amtrak has to connect that to Seattle, Portland, Salt Lake, Denver, Chicago, etc.)
-- Los Angeles (oh, so Amtrak has to connect that to the Bay Area, etc. etc. etc.)
-- Dallas/Fort Worth (oh, so Amtrak has to connect that to Chicago)
-- Albuquerque (oh, so Amtrak has to connect that to something, let's say LA)
-- Nashville (darn it, I think Amtrak is obligated to expand to Nashville!)
 
If you look at this list of cities with existing regional rail service, you find that the only "nonessential" Amtrak long-distance routes -- by this Congressionally-mandated criterion -- are the three which go to New Orleans.
If you include rapid transit then the Crescent would be required as well because of Atlanta, while Tucson and Houston's light rail could be interpreted to require the Sunset Limited. However, if connecting urban and commuter rail systems was the intention of that requirement, then it is being very poorly enforced (as you mentioned, Nashville, as well as the new SMART train and the Light Rail system in Phoenix).
Routes Travelled: CL WAS-CHI, Card. CHI-WAS, Caro. CLT-RGH, CS SEA-LAX, CZ CHI-RIC, Cre. BAL-ATL, EB SEA-CHI, ES NYG/NYP-NFL, LSL BOS/NYP-CHI, ML ALB-NYP, NER FBG-RVR+WAS-BOS, PS LAX-ANA, Pen. NYP-PGH, Pie. RGH-CLT, SM ORL-NYP, SS MIA-NYP

#26 jebr

jebr

    Engineer

  • Forum Manager
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,057 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"The Last Great City of the East," St. Paul, MN

Posted 06 April 2018 - 03:16 PM

It depends on what your criteria is for "regional passenger rail service and other intermodal passenger service." To use the example I'm most familiar with (MSP) I'd find it hard to come to a conclusion that the Northstar commuter rail is currently regional passenger rail service. It might if you include the connecting bus service from St. Cloud (because now you're connecting two metropolitan areas) or if the talk about extending the Northstar to St. Cloud ever materializes, but there seems to be enough wiggle room to remove at least a few of these cities if someone really wanted to.

 

I think any city that has intercity service paid for by the states would need to be connected, and there's also the potential for other rail or built-up intermodal networks to be counted depending on how that definition is applied.



#27 CraigDK

CraigDK

    Lead Service Attendant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 152 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland & Delaware
  • Interests:Planes, Trains, & Automobiles

Posted 06 April 2018 - 03:24 PM

 

.......

Could we please get over this silly diversion and focus on the possibilities that arise out of an equipment order? Please? Pretty please?

 

If it is to replace the entire Amfleet I fleet then it would be an order of the order of 450 - 500 cars or so cars I would imagine. Originally 492 Amfleet I were purchased.

 

I wonder if all would be trailers or a small set, say 30 or 40 or so would be ordered in the form of DME/EMU or even DEMU.

 

Of the locomotives, if it is a total fleet replacement that would be something like 320 units counting P40s and 42s. I wonder, given how much through traffic to non--electrified territory exists now, whether there would be a small subset say 20 or so dual modes thrown in.

 

 

Yes, lets do that!

 

There are 203 P40s and P42s in service according to On Track On line. If you add in the P32s (although I think they will remain on the roster as work units) that is 221.  Most of the dual modes are used in state supported services, so I don't know if they would get included.  Although I suppose you could get to 20 if you ran them on all the long distance trains to and from New York...

 

I would agree that an Amfleet I replacement order would as a base order be around 450-500 cars, possibly with options for more.

 

As for DMUs/EMUs, I have no idea where or how many.  The only places where they seem to make sense would be on some (but not all) of the state supported services



#28 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Gathering Team Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,169 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 06 April 2018 - 04:04 PM

Amtrak Looking to Order Modern Lightweight Trainsets

 

smart%20dmu%20interior%20credit%20jim%20



#29 looshi

looshi

    Service Attendant

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 66 posts

Posted 06 April 2018 - 04:06 PM

I have heard there is a discussion considering dual-modes for Virginia service in order to eliminate the engine change at WAS. It sounded like this idea was still very preliminary and definitely in the "What-if" stage.

#30 MikefromCrete

MikefromCrete

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,407 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Crete, IL

Posted 06 April 2018 - 04:17 PM

DMUs could be used on most of Amtrak's regional/state supported services. They would certainly be put to a good use on the Chicago-Milwaukee route as well as the other Illinois/Michigan/Indiana/Missouri services. There's no reason such cars could not be outfitted to include business class and food services. 

EMUs could certainly be used on the Keystones as well as for local services on the NEC (a whole third class of service outside of the Accelas and Regionals, which could stop at smaller cities and towns bypassed by the other trains.

At least this is forward thinking, not the "slash and burn" actions we have seen recently. 



#31 MattW

MattW

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,729 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:East of Atlanta, GA

Posted 06 April 2018 - 04:19 PM

I'm guessing any DMUs would look something like the British Class 222 or Class 800/802.


Forum's official broken record about expanded Georgia passenger service!

#32 brianpmcdonnell17

brianpmcdonnell17

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,036 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 06 April 2018 - 04:26 PM

DMUs could be used on most of Amtrak's regional/state supported services. They would certainly be put to a good use on the Chicago-Milwaukee route as well as the other Illinois/Michigan/Indiana/Missouri services. There's no reason such cars could not be outfitted to include business class and food services. 
EMUs could certainly be used on the Keystones as well as for local services on the NEC (a whole third class of service outside of the Accelas and Regionals, which could stop at smaller cities and towns bypassed by the other trains.
At least this is forward thinking, not the "slash and burn" actions we have seen recently. 

DMUS would make sense in many Midwest and West Coast corridors, but all of these lines have relatively new cars operating or on order.
  • Triley likes this
Routes Travelled: CL WAS-CHI, Card. CHI-WAS, Caro. CLT-RGH, CS SEA-LAX, CZ CHI-RIC, Cre. BAL-ATL, EB SEA-CHI, ES NYG/NYP-NFL, LSL BOS/NYP-CHI, ML ALB-NYP, NER FBG-RVR+WAS-BOS, PS LAX-ANA, Pen. NYP-PGH, Pie. RGH-CLT, SM ORL-NYP, SS MIA-NYP

#33 MikefromCrete

MikefromCrete

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,407 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Crete, IL

Posted 06 April 2018 - 04:28 PM

 

DMUs could be used on most of Amtrak's regional/state supported services. They would certainly be put to a good use on the Chicago-Milwaukee route as well as the other Illinois/Michigan/Indiana/Missouri services. There's no reason such cars could not be outfitted to include business class and food services. 
EMUs could certainly be used on the Keystones as well as for local services on the NEC (a whole third class of service outside of the Accelas and Regionals, which could stop at smaller cities and towns bypassed by the other trains.
At least this is forward thinking, not the "slash and burn" actions we have seen recently. 

DMUS would make sense in many Midwest and West Coast corridors, but all of these lines have relatively new cars operating or on order.

 

 

New cars? You mean Amfleet 1s and Horizons? 



#34 brianpmcdonnell17

brianpmcdonnell17

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,036 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 06 April 2018 - 04:36 PM


 

DMUs could be used on most of Amtrak's regional/state supported services. They would certainly be put to a good use on the Chicago-Milwaukee route as well as the other Illinois/Michigan/Indiana/Missouri services. There's no reason such cars could not be outfitted to include business class and food services. 
EMUs could certainly be used on the Keystones as well as for local services on the NEC (a whole third class of service outside of the Accelas and Regionals, which could stop at smaller cities and towns bypassed by the other trains.
At least this is forward thinking, not the "slash and burn" actions we have seen recently. 

DMUS would make sense in many Midwest and West Coast corridors, but all of these lines have relatively new cars operating or on order.
 
 
New cars? You mean Amfleet 1s and Horizons? 
I'm referring to the Siemens cars which will begin arirving in next few years.
  • Triley and R30A like this
Routes Travelled: CL WAS-CHI, Card. CHI-WAS, Caro. CLT-RGH, CS SEA-LAX, CZ CHI-RIC, Cre. BAL-ATL, EB SEA-CHI, ES NYG/NYP-NFL, LSL BOS/NYP-CHI, ML ALB-NYP, NER FBG-RVR+WAS-BOS, PS LAX-ANA, Pen. NYP-PGH, Pie. RGH-CLT, SM ORL-NYP, SS MIA-NYP

#35 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Gathering Team Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,169 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 06 April 2018 - 04:38 PM

 

DMUS would make sense in many Midwest and West Coast corridors, but all of these lines have relatively new cars operating or on order.

 
New cars? You mean Amfleet 1s and Horizons?

 

No. The recently ordered Siemens cars.

But it is not Amtrak's job to order equipment for state corridors, unless the states ask them of course. The states are responsible and they have placed their orders already. So to some extent the Midwest and California corridors are quite irrelevant in this discussion of Amtrak orders for new equipment.

 

However, for state corridors where the states might want to piggyback onto an Amtrak order, it may still be relevant. One state that comes to mind is New York (Empire Corridor), and the other is Pennsylvania (Keystone). Virginia could also fall in that category in a big way since they use NEC equipment.


Edited by jis, 06 April 2018 - 05:09 PM.


#36 TiBike

TiBike

    OBS Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 467 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alta California

Posted 06 April 2018 - 05:22 PM

 

 

From what I can see, Amtrak's only statutory obligation is:

 

"Amtrak shall operate a national rail passenger transportation system which ties together existing and emergent regional rail passenger service and other intermodal passenger service."
 
That's the result of changes made in 1997 to the original 1970 law, which was (a little) more prescriptive.
 
As I read the plain text, the "national rail passenger transportation system" Amtrak is obligated to run is one that "ties together existing and emergent regional rail passenger service". That isn't the same thing as a system of long distance trains that lets you take a two-seat ride from Boston to Los Angeles.

 

Actually, it is the same thing. 

 

Could be the same thing, but doesn't have to be. Could be weekly shuttle trains. Could be "intermodal" bus service too. I can get from Redding to San Diego on California Amtrak service, without ever getting on the Starlight. Run an Ambus from Eugene to Redding and do a transfer deal with San Diego Metro, and you're good to go from Vancouver to Tijuana.

 

My point was that Anderson's comments about statutory obligations doesn't mean he's under any restrictions regarding his choice of future business models. Equipment purchases will follow service plans, which are not meaningfully restricted by law. If you want to know what kind of equipment he's going to buy, watch how he changes service. He's redesigning and replacing old service, not old equipment.


Coast Starlight • California Zephyr • Crescent • Lake Shore Limited • San Joaquin • Capitol Corridor • Pacific Surfliner

Shinkansen • TranzAlpine (NZ) • Northern Explorer (NZ) • Coastal Pacific (NZ) • Great Southern Rail Overland (Oz) • Tze-Chiang Limited (ROC) • Thello Venice-Paris

#37 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Gathering Team Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,169 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 06 April 2018 - 05:43 PM

Of course we have to wait to see what is actually ordered and before that what the RFP says. Ultimately what is ordered is what will be delivered and service that can be provided by those delivered things is the service that we will have.

 

It is just a game of wait and see for concrete stuff. The rest we can argue until the cows come home.

 

As for statutory requirements, all that he said is that capital investments will be in accordance with Amtrak's statutory requirements. This sort of indicates to me that he probably will not be ordering a fleet of buses or airplanes. But we'll see. Amtrak California is not Amtrak and what Amtrak California does has little to do with the statutory requirements that Amtrak must meet. Anderson actually has relatively little wiggle room in choosing his business model totally devoid of input from his 500+ stake holders.

 

But if you insist on your bizarre interpretation, no one can argue you out of it either. :D


  • Triley likes this

#38 TiBike

TiBike

    OBS Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 467 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alta California

Posted 06 April 2018 - 06:11 PM

I thought AT&T's plan to meet its subsidised obligations by replacing (ageing and expensive) copper wires with (new and cheap) fixed wireless systems was a bizarre interpretation of universal service rules. Until the FCC agreed with them.

 

Like any CEO, Anderson will read the law as a permission slip, not as a straightjacket.  :cool:


  • seat38a likes this

Coast Starlight • California Zephyr • Crescent • Lake Shore Limited • San Joaquin • Capitol Corridor • Pacific Surfliner

Shinkansen • TranzAlpine (NZ) • Northern Explorer (NZ) • Coastal Pacific (NZ) • Great Southern Rail Overland (Oz) • Tze-Chiang Limited (ROC) • Thello Venice-Paris

#39 west point

west point

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,511 posts

Posted 06 April 2018 - 08:54 PM

Was not there somewhere a posting that 3 or less DMU  were cheaper to operate but 4 or more conventional loco hauled cheaper ?



#40 frequentflyer

frequentflyer

    OBS Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 490 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 April 2018 - 12:51 AM

So what will replace the Genesis? Amtrak will not need as many locomotives since the States have ordered Chargers to cover a large portion of the old Genesis work. The new DMV will lower the replacement number further.

 

For Amtrak to be talking Amfleet 1 replacement now, Siemens must be throwing around some nice numbers.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users