Amfleet I Replacement

[west point]

Several points

1. Hate the necessity for a study on the Amfleet life expectancy but study will quiet persons who try to claim Amtrak is not telling truth about needed replacement or major overhaul..

2. Amfleet - 2s have a much higher mileage than -1s. See fleet strategy plan. So expect new coaches ( V-2s ? ) to replace them on LD first with many of the -2s going to the NEC.

3. Neurodem is on point about the eastern LD services. First of course is making Meteor, Star, & Palmetto all 15 - 17 car trains all to Miami during higher travel times. The number of passengers at TPA exceeds Atlanta by a large amount.

4. The same with the LSL with provision to run a split second section Albany - CHI whenever loads demand.

5. Daily Cardinal appears to be effective maybe starting during summers ?

6. The Crescent situation is a real bucket of worms. There is just not the demand south of Atlanta. The PRIIA study confirms the numbers.

7. Somehow Amtrak needs to solve the Atlanta situation. probably would require 1 to 2 additional track switches and a local switch crew.

8. Drop ATL _ NOL down to 2 - Coaches a lounge, 1 sleeper, baggage, & 1 reliable loco would decrease operating costs. The Mardi Gras load bump could easily be cover with more cars & loco if necessary.

9. Atlanta north as well might need 2 - 3 locos, Baggage, baggage dorm, 6 - 7 coaches, diner, lounge, 4 - 5 sleepers. These are based on past loads for SOU RR during high traffic times. Also SOU often ran 1 - 2 extra sections at Holidays. Note. All these southbound LD trains might originate / terminate cars at WASH / PHL as done past practices to solve any NYP space problems.

 

[MattW]

The problem with #8 is the insane amount of time required to switch out 2 coaches, the diner, a sleeper and a locomotive.

 

[neroden]

Came across this RFP on the Amtrak Procurement Portal website in the non-construction category: Engineering Assessment - Amfleet Passenger Cars which was posted on July 15 and will be open until July 24. No information beyond this:

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL * Engineering Assessments (Amfleet Passenger Cars) * Description: Engineering Assessment to determine the life expectancy of Amtrak's Amfleet Passenger Cars. A Non-Disclosure Agreement must be executed to ensure you receive all relevant documents. * Amtrak will accept proposals for the following procurement until 2:00 PM Eastern Time on the closing date stated below: * RFP Number: Doc672157 * Proposal Closing Date: 8/14/15

So Amtrak is looking for a company to provide an independent engineering assessment of the remaining life expectancy of the Amfleet cars. May be doing this as input for the next release or update of the Fleet Strategy Plan.

Kind of absurd that they need an outside consultant to answer that question, and don't have sufficiently trusted in-house engineering expertise -- but at least we'll have a clear and convincing answer next time Amtrak goes to Congress or the FRA or the states.

 

[afigg]

Kind of absurd that they need an outside consultant to answer that question, and don't have sufficiently trusted in-house engineering expertise -- but at least we'll have a clear and convincing answer next time Amtrak goes to Congress or the FRA or the states.

Not absurd at all. Even if Amtrak had highly trusted in-house engineering expertise, they should still have an outside consultant firm provide an independent assessment report to be provided to the Amtrak board, Congress, the NEC Commission and the eastern states. A replacement order for 650 to 700 single level cars to replace the 145 Amfleet IIs and circa 463 Amfleet Is will cost roughly around $2 billion or more. To make a case for either service life extemsion of the current Amfleets or replacing them, should have an outside consultant or firm provide an independent assessment to guide the decision process.

 

[Anderson]

Well, and there's a valid question as to how to handle potential expansion/follow-on orders as well, not to mention how much they want to differentiate between LD coaches, short-distance coaches, and intermediate-distance cars for some of the routes with lots of very long-haul ridership (e.g. the Palmetto, Adirondack, Vermonter-to-Montreal, and so on...this differentiation was envisioned back in the 70s IIRC).

I think it is also fair to say that even if Amtrak isn't hot on a full-on replacement order, some sort of supplementary order is going to be needed sooner or later both to replace cars breaking down due to age and to cover expansions of state routes (e.g. Vermont, Virginia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania's plans). A more modest order of, say, 200 cars is probably going to be needed at some point even if Amtrak doesn't opt for full-on replacement.

To clarify, going with state rail plans and the like...

(1) Vermont very much wants two trains to Burlington (one an extended Ethan Allen, one operating via Bennington) and the timeline on that is, I believe, the next decade or so. Vermont wants two Vermonters operating to/from Montreal, but the timeframe there is a bit longer. The extended Ethan Allen shouldn't affect equipment availability much, but the Bennington train will require one or two additional trainsets. The second Vermonter will require two sets, but that is a longer-term issue.

(2) Virginia has three service extensions penned in within the next 3-5 years. One is the Lynchburger going to Roanoke (no new equipment needed), one is a second train to Lynchburg (equipment need depends on the schedule picked; if a "commuter" schedule is picked, nothing will be needed, but a "reverse-peak" schedule would grab at least one net set), and one is the two additional trains to Norfolk (no new equipment needed).

However, outside that timeframe VA is likely to move heavily into adding four more trains between either Richmond or Hampton Roads and Washington, which is likely to need at least some extra equipment (if only because of how that is likely to impact equipment turns), and VA will likely need to buy additional equipment as well, if only to help offset capital equipment charges.

(3) North Carolina may be able to eke out another round-trip or two between Charlotte and Raleigh with scrounged equipment, but they ALSO want to add four round-trips CLT-NYP. The timeframe here is a bit longer, but unlike VA (which can mostly "get away with" extending Regionals for a little longer), NC will need about eight trainsets plus spares.

(4) Pennsylvania is likely to at least add some Keystones at some point down the line. The ridership situation there has been steady-to-increasing over time (year-over-year growth there is running at about 3.5-4%/year over the last few years). There's also the complicated issue of additional service to Pittsburgh (at a bare minimum, the Pennsylvanian seems to be closing in on needing additional seats).

(5) Though there's no timeframe on it, New York does want to add a number of trains along at least the New York-Albany and New York-Albany-Buffalo runs.

(6) The NEC is also slamming into intermittent capacity issues. To take an example from today (that is, Friday July 17), 14 of 21 trains show nothing but "flexible" fares at $169 for coach available WAS-NYP. NYP-WAS it's 11 of 21, with a 12th sold out of coach entirely. Granted this is a Friday in July, but on Monday (July 20) 5 of 20 NYP-WAS trains are in that boat as well. Stepping aside from this anecdote, Regional ridership has surged ahead strongly over the last decade with no new capacity; at some point, additional equipment will be needed. This might simply be for adding 9th and 10th cars (maybe even 11th/12th in some cases) to trains (particularly on NEC-North) as opposed to adding frequencies (though Amtrak has the right to add a few Regionals near the peaks on NEC-South as well), but additional seats will help here regardless.

The one thing moderating the NEC situation in the short term is the Acela II order, which (should it happen, and I see little reason for it not to) ought to take a million pax or so off of the Regionals (albeit at the cost of knocking PPR for a bit of a loop on both services, though doing so would likely induce some ridership that Amtrak is beginning to run off with skyrocketing prices). Lack of frequency on NEC-North is also helping keep demand in check (38x daily trains WAS-NYP vs. 18x daily trains NYP-BOS; more crucially, 21x Regionals vs. 9x Regionals), though even this effect seems to be weakening.

Ergo, a supplemental coach order seems inevitable. More to the point, with more states getting into the train business it seems likely that there will be a push to work out some sort of "standard" equipment order that states can place so as to get into the "NEC pool" with their equipment orders (i.e. so that VA can order a few sets for their Regionals and have Amtrak willing to take the sets as part of their Regional equipment pool) even if those orders aren't immediate (e.g. Pennsylvanians, Vermonters, etc.).

 

[Anderson]

Dealing with the LD stuff as a separate point...

If recent numbers are any indication, LD sleeper ridership is exceedingly resilient (basically, if the train runs and isn't catastrophically late, sleeper pax will book it) and (as I've mentioned before, and I think Amtrak probably has data to back this up) could probably be substantially grown, capacity-permitting. One thing that I think the data bears out (and the Iowa Pacific people said this point blank when I got to chat with them over the winter) is that people will happily take a one-night trip as a matter of course. A two-night trip is trickier and begins to fall into the realm of "strictly leisure" travel by-and-large.[1]

At the moment, the Florida trains are largely constrained by capacity (often, demand from the Meteor will spill over onto the Star and vice-versa; I've wound up on one versus the other because of space availability more than once). I strongly suspect that adding a sleeper to each will be successful; the Meteor might well be able to handle substantially more (the Star is in a tough spot because of its times on the NEC; it loses a lot of riders because it doesn't arrive into NYP until late enough in the day that the legal connection to the north is 66...not to mention its extended runtime into Miami). One of the big problems is that while these trains could probably sport a lot more capacity, demand obviously fluctuates on a day-to-day basis (based on Amsnag results, demand rises around the weekends while it tends to run slack on Tuesday, Wednesday, and is lighter on the Star on Thursday).

Basically, there's a clear business case for seriously ramping up the sleepers on the Florida trains. The coach picture is more complicated for a host of reasons (coach rarely sells out compared to the sleepers; I've got no coach sellouts WAS-DLD [2] over the next 30 days versus not being able to find a roomette in the next few days on any train; a quick check, however, shows that in a non-trivial number of cases, this is due to sleeper pax north of Richmond [3]), but there is probably room to add some additional capacity. [4]

I suspect the same applies to the Cap (in spite of the ridership hit said train has suffered) and LSL. A lot of the ridership issues there have more to do with the roving disaster area that various Western LD trains have been...as well as, of course, the infamous NS meltdown last year.

The Auto Train is one particularly sore point here: There is clearly room to add to the service with a longer/higher-capacity train, but practical considerations prevent that, while a second frequency runs into practical issues (not least of which being facility limits at Lorton and Sanford).

Anyhow, the short version IMHO is that there's room for a modest coach order to supplement the eastern LD trains. Most of the additions should probably be sleepers, however, rather than coaches since that's where the demand seems to be steady. Looking back over the last few decades, sleeper ridership SEEMS to have only tumbled in the face of either catastrophic OTP or a capacity cut. Coach ridership has been a more complicated animal for long-distance trips...and the phenomenon of two-night coach trips seems to be basically going away with time. [5]

Funding permitting, were I in Amtrak's shoes I'd aim to get a supplemental coach order in (possibly pushing towards 150 long(er)-distance single-level cars and moving the LD Amfleets over to the state trains and/or switching the CONO to single-level as an interim measure; for example, I think 66/67 would benefit from being switched over) while trying to hit another round of 25-50 single-level sleeping cars (and possibly some cafes or diners intended for table car use, if only to supplement table capacity in what are likely to be increasingly stressed dining cars).




[1] As a handy example...my Florida trips wouldn't be happening nearly as much if I lived in the Midwest, and trying to go bungee jumping in Arizona is a scheduling nightmare (basically that becomes a one-week trip for a day or two of fun). As it is, taking the train to Florida is on par with flying in terms of convenience (I'd lose half a day having to connect in Atlanta or Charlotte, for example) and beats the crap out of it in terms of comfort.

[2] Why am I using Deland and not Orlando? Because I take the train to Deland quite frequently and am most familiar with that pair.

[3] About 1/4 of the time roomettes would be sold out WAS-DLD but not RVR-DLD. The ratio seems to be slightly higher with bedrooms. It would seem that I have increasingly triggered a trend.

[4] There aren't any sellouts, but coach seats WAS-DLD end up in higher buckets a LOT more often than seats RVR-DLD. Particularly on the Star, this is in line with my observations (there is a TON of turnover at RVR, with 30+ pax boarding the NB Star not uncommon).

[5] For example, the Western LD trains have seen major losses in terms of coach ridership but I see nothing to indicate that the sleepers have suffered matching losses; if anything, sleeper ridership seems to be as strong as ever for the most part. The exception seems to be on the Silvers, which I believe lost capacity due to the small size of the Viewliner order and the phasing out of Heritage equipment.

 

[west point]

All posters need to read Anderson very carefully. His posts have taken the time to analyze the eastern traffic situation very closely. The fact of higher loads on weekends needs especially important study. More cars will allow fill the weekend demand and leave the un needed mid week cars time to get more Preventative maintenance.

However would make the Capitol a single level train. That would easily allow for thru cars to / from Pennsylvanian and possibly Florida. A Viewliner lounge on the Capitol would provide views close to a SL lounge. The SL cars released could allow for spares say SEA or other end points . The only problem is putting more single level cars in the black hole of CHI maintenance.

Matt: Agree that switching cars in and out at ATL would take time, By having a switch located mid- train and the switcher working at the rear of train and lead loco handling part of switching the time could be significantly reduced.

 

[Ryan]

Still no place to keep the layover cars. This is dead until the station moves.

 

[west point]

Although not ideal the Atlantic Steel siding at the Atlanta station can be used for car storage if 480V HEP is added.. Note: the siding is used every Monday - Thursday in January when the Crescent is cancelled from ATL - NOL for NS maintenance. The siding would also be used for switching in and out of excess cars when Crescent runs normally. Underneath the Atlanta station are the 2 main tracks and the Steel siding which is no longer used otherwise.

 

[railiner]

Came across this RFP on the Amtrak Procurement Portal website in the non-construction category: Engineering Assessment - Amfleet Passenger Cars which was posted on July 15 and will be open until July 24. No information beyond this:

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL * Engineering Assessments (Amfleet Passenger Cars) * Description: Engineering Assessment to determine the life expectancy of Amtrak's Amfleet Passenger Cars. A Non-Disclosure Agreement must be executed to ensure you receive all relevant documents. * Amtrak will accept proposals for the following procurement until 2:00 PM Eastern Time on the closing date stated below: * RFP Number: Doc672157 * Proposal Closing Date: 8/14/15

So Amtrak is looking for a company to provide an independent engineering assessment of the remaining life expectancy of the Amfleet cars. May be doing this as input for the next release or update of the Fleet Strategy Plan.

Other than being 'old'....what's the biggest problem with the Amfleet cars (I and II)? They sure seem solid to me. Like all Budd built cars, with minimal maintenance they seem like they can go on forever.....

 

[Thirdrail7]

Came across this RFP on the Amtrak Procurement Portal website in the non-construction category: Engineering Assessment - Amfleet Passenger Cars which was posted on July 15 and will be open until July 24. No information beyond this:

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL * Engineering Assessments (Amfleet Passenger Cars) * Description: Engineering Assessment to determine the life expectancy of Amtrak's Amfleet Passenger Cars. A Non-Disclosure Agreement must be executed to ensure you receive all relevant documents. * Amtrak will accept proposals for the following procurement until 2:00 PM Eastern Time on the closing date stated below: * RFP Number: Doc672157 * Proposal Closing Date: 8/14/15

So Amtrak is looking for a company to provide an independent engineering assessment of the remaining life expectancy of the Amfleet cars. May be doing this as input for the next release or update of the Fleet Strategy Plan.

Other than being 'old'....what's the biggest problem with the Amfleet cars (I and II)? They sure seem solid to me. Like all Budd built cars, with minimal maintenance they seem like they can go on forever.....

They are starting to take on the elements and some their components are obsolete and falling apart. In the not too distant future, servicing them will become an extremely expensive proposition.

They have some life in them but it is time to look down the road. Amtrak has a bunch of grandiose plans (that I obviously can't list here but if anyone reading this thread was part of the passenger "test" group this week, feel free to chime in) to address some of the stuff Anderson mentioned in the short term, but it would cost quite a bit of money to give the Amfleets the sort of overhaul they have in mind.

 

[west point]

The big problem with Amfleets and to a certain extent the V-1s is a lack of modular design, Overhaul of the Amfleet -1s would probably entail a modular replacement design. That way new parts could be inserted into Manufactured discontinued parts locations. AC units and LED lights are a couple examples.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

Several points

1.

2.

3. Neroden is on point about the eastern LD services. First of course is making Meteor, Star, & Palmetto all 15 - 17 car trains all to Miami during higher travel times.

4. The same with the LSL with provision to run a split second section Albany - CHI whenever loads demand.

5. Daily Cardinal appears to be effective

6.

7.

8.

9. [Crescent] Atlanta north as well might need [15-17 car trains with] … 4 - 5 sleepers. ... based on past loads for SOU RR during high traffic times.

So we need the option order from CAF for more Viewliner sleepers. Getting the 25 sleepers in the current order, plus 10 bag-dorms (equal to 5 full sleepers) will get a nice 60% capacity increase over the [ 25 wrong - correction: ] 50 now operating, but exercising part of the option could bring a 100% capacity increase, or better.

Last year Neroden and another expert or two here hashed out the figures for revenues and costs on Viewliner sleepers, and concluded, iirc, that each additional sleeper would net $1 or $2 million a year. Sure, at some point the returns would decline, but probably not until well after 25 more Viewliners were added to the fleet.

I guess the major hesitation to adding even more sleepers is the cost question of buying and operating more diners. If Amtrak can't get those costs down, as promised, there'd seem to be some maximum on how many diner-less trains could be filled.

 

[Crescent ATN & TCL]

Well here goes my "if I were CEO".... I'd expand the contract with CAF for enough veiwliner coaches to replace the amfleet 2s, get rid of the worst amfleet 1s or just add capacity with the amfleet 2s.... Order a replacement for amfleet 1s and make the specs in favor of Siemens... Use loans/leases to cover procurement and hold on to the amfleet in best condition to help cover procurement costs... Congress tends to fund debt service fairly well and Amtrak can easily sell extra space on most corridors... But that's just my opinion...

 

[Anderson]

A couple of points do come to mind on the diner front. I don't think you're going to want to run "dinerless" trains, but shifting to a model where you book your meal in advance (or at least book that you'll be eating in advance) rather than it being assumed? That's something that could easily get you a fifth sleeper on a dining car. That's why I've also mentioned using space in an additional car (perhaps have a diner as a first-class lounge a la the PPC, for sleeper pax, and a coach lounge; the first-class lounge can be used for substantial added diner capacity) and some other options to at least improve the cost ratios...and why I've seriously looked into various accounting moves that could be used to cram down losses there.

To put it another way, if you can produce substantial direct operating margins on some trains it may be possible to get Congress off Amtrak's back on those trains. A Meteor that is producing $5-10m in positive cash flow (which is about what a 6-7 sleeper Meteor would likely produce) is something that Amtrak can probably either (A) defend nominal diner losses in light of overall profitability or (B) tinker with accounting to produce a phantom break-even scenario. My money is, of course, on (B).

(By the way, on the baggage/bag-dorm front? I got a look inside the baggage car of the Meteor a few weeks back while the train was at a stop since I was in the 9712 sleeper and the bag was next door...no, I did not go inside...and let's just say that I can see why Amtrak backed away from getting bag-dorms alone for many trains)

 

[WoodyinNYC]

Well, and there's a valid question as to how to handle potential expansion/follow-on orders as well, not to mention how much they want to differentiate between LD coaches, short-distance coaches, and intermediate-distance cars for some of the routes with lots of very long-haul ridership (e.g. the Palmetto, Adirondack, Vermonter-to-Montreal, and so on...this differentiation was envisioned back in the 70s IIRC).

... fair to say that even if Amtrak isn't hot on a full-on replacement order, some sort of supplementary order is going to be needed sooner or later both to replace cars breaking down due to age and to cover expansions of state routes (e.g. Vermont, Virginia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania's plans). ...

To clarify, going with state rail plans and the like...

(1) ...

(2) Virginia has three service extensions penned in within the next 3-5 years. One is the Lynchburger going to Roanoke (no new equipment needed), one is a second train to Lynchburg (equipment need depends on the schedule picked; if a "commuter" schedule is picked, nothing will be needed, but a "reverse-peak" schedule would grab at least one net set), and one is the two additional trains to Norfolk (no new equipment needed).

However, outside that timeframe VA is likely to move heavily into adding four more trains between either Richmond or Hampton Roads and Washington, which is likely to need at least some extra equipment (if only because of how that is likely to impact equipment turns), and VA will likely need to buy additional equipment as well, if only to help offset capital equipment charges.

++++++++++++

Far outside that timeframe, but in the big picture, these routes will need a lot of cars:

[From over at, ahem, a competing forum, excerpts from a thread. A bit awkward, but I'm trying to credit Arlington who posted the link to the article. Then trimmed and rephrased my own words, trying to avoid any appearance of plagiarism. Hope this works:]

Re: Lynchburg VA NE Regional (ext. to Roanoke and Bristol) by Woody » Sat Jul 11, 2015 5:27 pm



Arlington wrote:
http://clevelandbanner.com/stories/amtrak-linethrough-areagets-new-look,13181this article from Cleveland Tennessee
http://clevelandbanner.com/stories/amtrak-linethrough-areagets-new-look,13181suggests interest in extending beyond Roanoke and Bristol to Chattanooga TN and from there to Atlanta. Sounds good to me!


That Cleveland Banner article also has a bonus mention of "a memorandum of understanding in connection with a passenger rail system that will connect Louisville, Ky., with Atlanta."



The focus for now is “... an extension down to Roanoke ... The gist of the MOU [is] the four states along this corridor agree to support the project.”

Cleveland Mayor Rowland said the route had been pushed before, around 1990. At the time, East Tennessee and the western portion of Virginia were deemed the most underserved areas by Amtrak. The proposed route then did not include Louisville.

[Emphasis added. Material above not in quotes is paraphrased from the source article.]

++++++

... I'd read that Tennessee DOT officials attended a meeting about VA's plans to extend trains to Bristol, on the VA/TN border. So I knew they were looking at Knoxville and Chattanooga.

Wonder who cooked up this proposed connection Louisville-Atlanta? Railroad maps online show Louisville-Frankfort-Lexington would make a good start. Then make a hard right turn south thru Appalachia to Knoxville and beyond.

The article suggests not one new Chattanooga Choo Choo but two.

Now where are Dorothy Dandridge and the Nicholas Brothers when we need 'em!

 

[Anderson]

Two general points:
(1) Louisville-Atlanta showed up as part of an "Atlanta Hub" study that also included Charlotte-Atlanta, Birmingham-Atlanta, and Jacksonville/Savannah-Atlanta. Suffice it to say that the costs for the project (envisioned as HSR of some sort) were rather spectacular.
(2) Virginia may be behind such a proposal, but unless Tennessee and the other states get onboard with it in a serious way you have a non-starter. VA may pay for a train that goes down to, say, Johnson City or Knoxville. VA is not going to pay for a train that is sprawling hundreds of miles outside the state.

The problem, ultimately, is that while VA is the driving force, VA also has major projects to keep itself busy for YEARS right now. The most optimistic situation would be that the RVR-WAS study is complete in 2017 alongside the Roanoke extension, second Lynchburger, and Norfolk trains 2 and 3. By about 2021-22 (assuming everything works out...and with CSX that is anything but a given) I could see that phase being mostly done...but you're probably looking at a case of VA having leveraged a lot of the available funding to make it happen (including using future revenues to underwrite a loan/bond issue...IPROC funding could be used, for example, to lock in an RRIF loan for a good portion of the $1.8bn that RVR-WAS is expected to cost).

At that point, you'll probably see four things looked at:
-The TDX (Norfolk-Richmond-Charlottesville-Roanoke-Bristol)
-An additional train to Lynchburg/Roanoke and/or extension to Bristol
-Richmond-Raleigh service
-Additional Hampton Roads trains

Of the three, I think the TDX is (sadly) the weakest of the three options. Unlike the Richmond-Raleigh service (which is likely to end up in the black and be a stronger competitor for federal funding) it looks like a fiscal hole, and unlike additional Western service there isn't likely to be the demand for it (there's a respectable chance that ridership on the second Lynchburg train simply swamps the service, particularly if you get a reliable commuter frequency out of Charlottesville in the deal). And I can easily see a situation where Hampton Roads ends up meriting additional service to hande all sorts of markets (e.g. trains timed for a Richmond-centric commuter market; I've known people driving from Williamsburg into Richmond most of my life, and you've definitely got a number of them out in northern James City County).

At its core, the TDX is a "Parliamentary train": Its primary merit comes in the form of serving SW Virginia so as to ensure that the region is reasonably pro-rail, but there is nothing saying that this won't be accomplished simply by extending a single train at some strange hour out to Bristol. This is not to say that there is no merit to the service (it would plug a key gap in service in the state), but it is likely not to measure up in many respects to the other proposals and IIRC it is estimated to run a rather large deficit. Granted, those numbers are old...but at the same time, they're also the best ones I have to work with and I suspect that neither the operational estimates nor the required improvements will make anyone's heart flutter.

Basically, I can see this all happening...just not on a particularly foreseeable timescale.

===== ===== ===== ===== =====

Edit: Figured I'd add a bit more. I've got a tangle of views on the equipment situation, some of which I've elaborated on in the past. The Superliners have been a functional success but a political disaster: They increased the capacity of the Western trains (the Southwest Chief probably carries more passengers today than did the Super Chief/El Capitan in the late 60s) and quite possibly saved them from becoming such deep fiscal holes that they would have been dropped due to the losses. However, they also split the country in two whereby a Viewliner order is an "Eastern" order and a Superliner order is a "Western" order. The sheer cost of either order being of sufficient size to be feasible (a minimum order size of 50 cars translates into about $125m for a single-level order and $200m for a bilevel order) puts Amtrak in a tricky position, since it really isn't workable to place both at the same time (and the fleet strategy plan is rather unrealistic at the moment). The result is that you can't exactly fund any single order with a broad political consensus behind it.

To be fair, bilevel coaches make a lot of sense for high-density corridor routes (e.g. the Midwest, California); they'd make sense across the board, but operational issues in the NEC prevent that from happening. The sleepers are a harder issue since you have 5-7 LD trains that are going to be stuck as single-level trains.

Where does this leave us? Well, an order of 50 Superliner sleepers would more than cover an extra sleeper for each Superliner train as well as allowing for a Daily Sunset. 50 Viewliners (on top of the present order of 25) would seriously risk over-saturating the market in the East. [1] More long-distance bilevel coaches seem unnecessary at the moment (Amtrak is going to have a batch of those freed up by the MSBL order), so there's nothing to pair them with that would have a similar enough plan...meaning that the best shot Amtrak has is to keep ordering 25 single-level sleepers (and other single-level equipment) at a go alongside single-level coach orders. This is probably going to involve rolling a few trains back to single-level equipment (the Cardinal got switched about a decade back; the CONO and Cap are candidates for this as well).

[1] This would provide 125 single-level sleepers. Even assuming that you go to 6 sleepers for the Florida trains (48) and the LSL (18), 2 for the Pennsylvanian-Cap (6), 5 for the Crescent (20), and 4 for a daily Cardinal (12) you'd only barely consume that many cars after spares (that allocates 104 of 125, leaving 21 for spares and for 66/67). To be fair, I can see this many being used at peak times...but you're basically doubling every train and then some.

 

[PVD]

How many Horizon single levels will be freed up when the state financed cars arrive? I realize that most board posters don't love them, but if refurbed, they could be useful, and getting them (full time) out of the really bad winters would take away one of their big sticking points. Like them or not, they are somewhat newer than the A2s, and considerably newer than earlier A1s, so are likely to be around for a while. With additional Viewliner sleepers available, could you convert CONO and go daily Card, or would diners come up short? Same question for CL and a possible interchange with Penn?

 

[jis]

Reading this thread I realized that the number variety and range of studies that exist of various possible, and even some that could be characterized as exotic routes, is positively breathtaking!

 

[neroden]

(2) Virginia may be behind such a proposal, but unless Tennessee and the other states get onboard with it in a serious way you have a non-starter.

Everything I've read in the Tennessee newspapers has been surprisingly positive towards train service. It's not like reading the papers in Georgia, or Florida, or Texas, or even Wisconsin or Ohio or Iowa. If Virginia has done 'its part' I think there are decent odds of getting a line across the border.
Regarding equipment, arguably the most valuable thing to do is to order a large number of Viewliner Coaches, with a small number of additional sleepers, bag/dorms, and a larger number of additional cafe/observation cars. This replaces the worn-out Amfleet II series. If the production line can be kept open then the Amfleet Is can be replaced as well. Horizons, and perhaps the best of the Amfleets, will then provide cheap options for regional-route expansion. (The cafe/obs cars can and should be used on corridor trains as well as long-distance trains.)

Unfortunately, I can't see a solid business case for buying new Superliner diners or sleepers for the long distance services.

The east/west divide is significant here: I rerun my analytics based on Amtrak's rarely-released avoidable-cost numbers every time Amtrak releases new data. It's still the case that the Auto Train, Palmetto, Silver Star, and Silver Meteor are profitable-before-overhead, while the Cardinal should be if run daily.

The other so-called long-distance routes aren't, with the possible exception of the Capitol Limited. This makes brand-new cars just for them a very hard call, unless they get state support. And the Auto Train isn't long enough to really justify a full order just for it.

Perhaps Amtrak can buy some new bilevel coaches as an add-on to the Midwest/California order, which would allow for some expansion & improvement in the bi-level services.

 

[Paulus]

Given all the extensive delays and problems with the CAF order, I don't see any great rationale for buying Viewliner coaches rather than simply tacking onto Siemen's intercity coach production line that's being opened up for All Aboard Florida. Best of all, they'll have worked out all the bugs for Amtrak ahead of time.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

Given all the extensive delays and problems with the CAF order, I don't see any great rationale for buying Viewliner coaches rather than simply tacking onto Siemen's intercity coach production line that's being opened up for All Aboard Florida. Best of all, they'll have worked out all the bugs for Amtrak ahead of time.

The order will have to be put out to bid, no? It's good there'll be two bidders with open assembly lines, even if one appears to be potentially better than the other.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

Reading this thread I realized that the number variety and range of studies that exist of various possible, and even some that could be characterized as exotic routes, is positively breathtaking!

So true. Well, one day some of the seeds may sprout. Not this year or next, but things change.

I'm hoping some of the various routes will develop row-of-dominoes characteristics. That Trans Dominion Express route D.C./Richmond-Lynchburg-Roanoke-Bristol-Knoxville-Chattanooga-Atlanta will look easier to do after the first step gets to Roanoke. When the train gets to Bristol, the State of Tennessee and Knoxville City Hall will be tempted by Bristol-Knoxville, so that domino starts to quiver. Next politics (not to mention logic) will have Chattanooga demanding to be connected. By then, even Georgia should come around to the last link Chattanooga-ATL. In time, the row of dominoes will tip. Yeah, I understand that the current ATL station etc is hopeless, but we're looking 10 or 15 years out. Sadly, that's about when an order for single-level coaches may start arriving.

So Chicago-Florida seems less dead now than a month ago. Louisville-ATL on the wish list look stronger now than any Atlanta hub study would have shown a few years back. If the Trans Dominion Express reaches down Knoxville-Chattanooga-ATL, that's several dominoes in that row. Kentucky would be looking at two or three different dominoes: Louisville-Frankfort-Lexington should be easy, high-population stops close together. The hard one would be Lexington-Knoxville over thinly populated mountains. But look the other direction: Chicago-Indianapolis-Louisville to feed traffic to Louisville-Knoxville-Atlanta, and points beyond.

A mere $200 million invested in track upgrades *within Indiana alone* without any time savings from work in Chicagoland considered, one of those many studies said, would cut 35 minutes out of the Hoosier run Chicago-Indianapolis. But a month ago extending Indianapolis-Louisville looked hopeless, with terrible track. Well, along came an announcement that CSX is taking over that line and will invest almost $100 in upgrades. To my eye, that development improves the chances of service Chicago-Indy-Louisville-Frankfort-Lexington. Do that line, and the politicians from the coal country will be demanding their fair share, extending the route from Lexington to Knoxville.

I like to say, The cure for Amtrak's problems is more Amtrak. I do include state-supported corridors in the "more Amtrak". On a Knoxville-Chattanooga-ATL corridor, to the prospective rider the two proposed LD trains could be simply two more daily frequencies, the way the Texas Eagle is Chicago-St Louis. But without needing any added subsidies from the states. I'm sure the ATL hub study did not dare to add the positive effects of two LD trains to their calculations. But 5 or 10 years from now, in the next study, LOL, it will make good sense to do it.

 

[Ryan]

Given all the extensive delays and problems with the CAF order, I don't see any great rationale for buying Viewliner coaches rather than simply tacking onto Siemen's intercity coach production line that's being opened up for All Aboard Florida. Best of all, they'll have worked out all the bugs for Amtrak ahead of time.

That depends wildly on what the cause of the delays and supposed problems are, of which we have precisely zero insight into.

 

[Anderson]

My understanding/recollection is that there were two issues with the CAF order. One was that CAF had fairly little plumbing experience, leading to delays on the sleepers and bag-dorms (the diners were more or less unaffected). The other was that Amtrak hit them with a bunch of change orders mid-process (probably down to Amtrak having not placed a new sleeper order in close to 20 years).

As to the Tennessee stuff, TN has generally had a desire for train service...but even if VA gets service down to Bristol (or even Knoxville), riders from TN would basically be looking at an all-day/all-night trip to get to DC. TN also looked at the possibility of extending the Kentucky Colonel [1] to Nashville among several other projects, but nothing more happened. I'll grant that the Chattanooga-Atlanta project got fouled because someone got a burr in their saddle for a maglev and the state didn't want to split efforts up, but nothing else has progressed at all as far as I know.

[1] I know the name was the Kentucky Cardinal, but both because the name amuses me and because it was one of the best examples of a "bad train" that I can recall...I'm sticking with the name.