Amfleet I Replacement

[Ryan]

Who the heck are RZD, RIC/UIC, CD and OeBB? This is like using station codes instead of the real names of places. It seems cool, but is unnecessarily confusing. Really, I've never heard of these carriers. I assume they are European railroads, but who knows?

I typed RZD into google and it said Russian Railways. I suppose others could do so too if they really wanted to know instead of just moaning about it?

I don't think it's my job to do the work of the poster. If he wants to make a point he should make it clear.

Yet you'll spend more time complaining about someone else's failure to hold your hand than you would have just helping yourself. I didn't know what railroads all of them are, but understood his point perfectly.

 

[Karl1459]

Considering bi-level cars.

If Amtrak were to attempt a replacement on a sustainable basis, ie a constant number of cars each year.

Of the 4 bi-level types currently in service (SL-1, 2, Calif, Surf) there were about 600 (607) built, with about 50 (53) out of service due to wrecks, fires, etc.

Assuming an average fleet age of 25 years to determine wreck rates, and a fleet life of 50 years for age replacement, suggests to me that to maintain the fleet 2.5 cars a year would be needed for wreck replacement, and 12 a year for age replacement, a total of about 15 cars a year, nowhere near the 100 per year numbers being thrown about early in the threads. A long term commitment (10 years minimum) to purchase 15 cars a year might bring the cost per car down into a reasonable level.

All the discussion about making a profit on the western LD trains is fluff, its not going to happen in the foreseeable future. That makes it a decision of congress or the various states to include the subsidy, INCLUDING CAPITAL REPLACEMENT, as part of a responsible transportation plan. Again, unlikely in the foreseeable future.

 

[neroden]

50 years is considered significantly too old for sensible fleet replacement. Use 40 years.

 

[jis]

Who the heck are RZD, RIC/UIC, CD and OeBB? This is like using station codes instead of the real names of places. It seems cool, but is unnecessarily confusing. Really, I've never heard of these carriers. I assume they are European railroads, but who knows?

I typed RZD into google and it said Russian Railways. I suppose others could do so too if they really wanted to know instead of just moaning about it?

I don't think it's my job to do the work of the poster. If he wants to make a point he should make it clear.

I don;t think it was necessary to know more than that they are passenger train operators (which could be gleaned from the context, as even you apparently managed to do ) to understand the point.

Incidentally Viaggio is a brand name that covers a rather wide range of cars, including the Viaggio Light which is a lower floor design that is deployed in Israel.

Specifically, the AAF contract involves the Viaggio Comfort platform (PDF) using the Siemens Charger diesel electric engine at each end of the consist. AAF has ordered 5 sets (2 per set) of engines, with an option for 5 more sets which apparently will be exercised. The number of cars in a consist initially will be 5 cars, later to be expanded to 7 cars as needed. Siemens has also been selected to maintain the equipment.

If things work out well it could provide an alternative paradigm on provision and maintenance of passenger equipment in the US, possibly even for Amtrak.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

...

If Amtrak were to attempt a replacement on a sustainable basis, ie a constant number of cars each year.

Of the 4 bi-level types currently in service (SL-1, 2, Calif, Surf) there were about 600 (607) built, with about 50 (53) out of service due to wrecks, fires, etc.

Assuming an average fleet age of 25 years to determine wreck rates, and a fleet life of 50 years for age replacement, suggests to me that to maintain the fleet 2.5 cars a year would be needed for wreck replacement, and 12 a year for age replacement, a total of about 15 cars a year, nowhere near the 100 per year numbers being thrown about early in the threads. A long term commitment (10 years minimum) to purchase 15 cars a year might bring the cost per car down into a reasonable level.

...

The 100-a-year figure wasn't being "thrown around". It came from Amtrak fleet plan documents.

Amtrak reported that the first notion was to order 50 new cars a year. But after discussion with potential bidders, it became clear that 100 a year would be needed to obtain the best price, with big savings from mass production. To avoid boutique pricing, we're looking at 100 a year when or if such a contract is put to bid.

Anyway, how could a mere 15 cars a year work? Most of the current Superliners are quite mature. Neroden says a 40-year life expectancy is a good rule of thumb. But at 15 a yr x 10 yrs = 150 cars, that's barely replacing a quarter of the fleet over a decade! And 35 years or so to replace the fleet. Never mind any little expansion.

All my (not alone) thinking is to postpone any attempt for a big order for bi-level equipment until after the single-level fleet is replaced and expanded. That could be 10 years from now.

Going whole hog to replace the entire fleet is just too many Billions for Congress to swallow. So try to get the easier piece first.

Let's try to get the Eastern trains completely re-equipped with new stuff. Postpone the Western order, change the Capitol Ltd and the City of New Orleans to single-level, and move their liberated bi-level equipment to the other trains to increase capacity as needed. Meanwhile, the results for the Eastern trains will improve, mostly due to added capacity, but also thanks to the new and shiny cars attracting more riders. The revenue improvement will help make the case for Part 2, ordering the bi-levels.

When or if the order is placed for new bi-levels, there'll be some urgency. Then getting 100cars a year will barely be fast enuff.

 

[west point]

There is something not right about the F&B losses. We know that Amtrak has creative accounting but ----

The May performance report lists for the current FY.

F&B revenue $110M, Expenses 208M, Loss 98M

Passengers Total 20M, LD 2M, sleeper 433K

If a ticket surcharge listed as F&B was instituted of say $5.00 / 100 miles for sleeper passengers and $1.00 / 200 miles on all other passengers you would immediately have a F&B surplus. Too simple ? POLS probably would not like a simple solution. Suspect that this is how airlines and cruise ships allocate for their bean counters.

 

[jis]

Only actual consumption by sleeper passenger is paid for by transfer from the transport account to the F&B account. This amount is far less than the fare differential charged ostensibly for providing F&B. So there is no obvious inconsistency in those numbers AFAICT. And the proposed simple solution will make no difference in what goes into the F&B account, if the same accounting procedure is followed.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

All the discussion about making a profit on the western LD trains is fluff...

I must have overlooked anyone discussing making a profit on the Western LD trains. Can you give me a link? I'd like to read it for myself. Thanks.

 

[Anderson]

I don't think it is really plausible to make a profit on the "big four" western trains (Builder, Zephyr, Chief, and Sunset) though I do think you could significantly close losses if there were more equipment to work with (particularly sleepers). The big issue is that unless you're going to run a "Florida Special"-type extra train (maybe run the CONO to Orlando/Miami 3x weekly on a seasonal basis with equipment that is used elsewhere in the summer if you can't wrangle any extra slots), a lot of equipment is going to spend a lot of time down in the off-season (though to be fair, having perhaps two dozen spare sleepers in the winter would both allow major maintenance overhauls and give Amtrak some much-needed wiggle room to shove an extra set into use when a winter storm hopelessly borks the Builder, Zephyr, or Cap; in all likelihood, having two or three extra consists sitting in CHI from 12/1-3/15 would all but eliminate cancellations/truncations outside of the truly worst weather (e.g. BNSF shuts the line down for safety reasons) or serious derailment issues.

As to equipment, I'd want to plan for a 30-year replacement cycle, with equipment over 30 years old being used for a mix of peak-season capacity help, backup sets, and "starter" equipment that can be leased to states at a low cost to trial additional service. Still...even if you went a bit under 100 cars/year that would require about 3000 cars in circulation to maintain (outside of "special order" sets like Acelas). That being said...such a pace might actually be achievable if you either (1) convert most trains (or at least their sleeper sides) to single-level or (2) you alter the order between single-level and bilevel equipment in reasonably predictable increments. You'd be looking at $200-350m/yr in capex for this, but that level seems increasingly doable, especially if you're willing to risk having much bigger trains in peak seasons than you do in the off-season.

One thing to consider is that if you're willing to lengthen existing trains a bit, 100 cars/year for the single-level trains can last you a long time.
-If you went with a 25% increase in the Amfleet I fleet you'd be at about 600 cars. 25% would cover extending most Regionals from 8 to 11 cars, adding a small number of sets to account for expanded VA service, and possibly some other expansions.
-For the LD trains I'd note that you have 18 "full" trains assuming a daily Cardinal (3 LSL-NYP, 4 SM, 4 SS, 4 CR, 3 CD) and 6 "half" trains (3 LSL-BOS, 3 CL-NYP). Converting the Cap and CONO would bring this to 24 and 6. Consider each such "full" train as having 5 sleepers, 2 FSCs, 5 coaches, and a baggage car (13 cars); each "half" train would have 2 sleepers, 1 FSC, 3 coaches, and a bag-dorm (7 cars). That gives you 354 cars before spares or 425 after spares; even removing 90 cars (to account for the present Viewliner II order) gives you 335 cars.

Ergo, it is quite possible to envision a single-level car order set totalling about 1000 cars (give or take a few). Some of these would probably be paid for by states, etc. The biggest problem is that I can see pulses of 200-300 cars ordered every 5-7 years (alternating with bilevel orders for other regions on the "off" side of the cycle) being the best thing overall (you'd have a steady flow of equipment and orders and you wouldn't have massive batches of equipment all ready to become a problem at the same time). If you went with an six-year cycle of single-levels and bilevels, you'd probably be able to get reasonably close to 20 years out of that cycle. Not quite the 30-40 we'd hope for, but something like that is big enough for a company (or two) to seriously invest in getting a contract for.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

But now I'm confusing myself about Amtrak overhead allocated to the state-supported corridor trains. ...

As I understand it, before PRIIA, Amtrak charged a negotiated price for each of these; this was at least the incremental cost (Amtrak made money on every deal), but less than the 'fully allocated' cost.

Now, each state has to pay, IIRC, 97% of the "fully allocated" cost? ...

Expansion of the system will spread that overhead over more trains and reduce each state's cost per train.

I am not sure, however, whether more passengers -- or shorter trip times -- on an individual corridor will pick up any additional overhead. If it's really being allocated by train miles, they won't change the overhead allocation.

Additional frequencies should, though: more train miles, so more overhead allocated to those trains. So when the Cascades go from 4 frequencies per day to [6], this takes some overhead weight off of every other train. Same thing when Illinois adds Moline service.

O.K. Looking at the September end of Fiscal 2017, by which time the Stimulus-funded stuff should be operating.

Two more frequencies on the Cascades Seattle-Portland, and I seem to recall another run or two is coming Portland-Eugene.

Another run of the San Joaquin.

One daily train Chicago-Quad Cities (Moline service). Or could it be two trains each way?

Chicago-Rockford may get killed by Gov Raunch, so I hesitate to include it here.

More runs New Haven-Hartford-Springfield, but I don't recall if they said how many.

Amtrak Virginia, not sure they'll have anything more by Sept 2017, but by 2020, let's say, it should be two more Norfolk runs, and an extension of the Lynchburger to Roanoke.

By Sept 2017, Illinois may have cleared the way with the UP for a couple more frequencies on the Lincoln Service St Louis-Chicago. I can't see who would benefit by announcing any such deal early: Even with two more trains, everyone will gripe that it should have been more. LOL.

By Sept 2017, Michigan may have cleared the way for the long-rumored second run of the Pere Marquette Grand Rapids-Chicagoa. Or start a train Kalamazoo-Battle Creek-Ann Arbor-Dearborn-Detroit-Pontiac. That's where the first round of cuts to the travel times -- 50 minutes or so -- will happen. Michigan really needs another Wolverines frequency squeezed thru the most highly congested freight corridor in the country, to get another train from Michican into Chicago. I'm sure Michigan will make their best effort, but I'm not sure it can be done.

Another Piedmont could happen, as well, but I don't recall an announced date.

But if Iowa Pacific actually runs the Hoosier State, that'll be a minus from the overhead-paying part of the equation.

And that's all there is to love? Could leave a fella brokenhearted.

The piddling addition being included soonish in the train miles denominator, divided into the numerator of fixed overhead, won't yield a very different result. Sadly not enuff to noticeably lower the "overhead divided by train miles" of the Amtrak system. Bummer. We need a lot more route miles. A lot of 'em.

Looking ahead to 2020, not very far away any more. If the Acela IIs come on time and allow more frequencies on the NEC, they could shoulder a considerable chunk of the overhead.

Then let's see. A second Lynchburger running to Roanoke, and two or three more Amtrak Virginia frequencies to Norfolk, Newport News, and/or Richmond. Probably another Piedmont run. If SEPTA can fix tracks in Philly, likely another frequency or two on the Keystone, helped by getting the stations fixed. The Vermonter and the Ethan Allen should be extended a few miles more by then. And I'm guessing an Inland Route train or two by 2020, somehow. (If it uses Amfleet I replacements, we'd be solidly back on topic!)

Maybe by 2020 they'll release the ex-Governor from prison and put the current one in, a typical Illinois cycle, and we'll see frequencies added to Carbondale and Quad Cities, with Rockford back on track. Five years from now might get a second run St Paul-Milwaukee-Chicago. More frequencies on the Hiawathas Milwaukee-Chicago, but so few miles. And dream of another run of the River Runner St Louis-Kansas City.

There'll probably be another run of the Pacific Surfliner and on the Capitol Corridor within five years. Likely another run or two of the San Joaquin. Cali might get a couple of trains down the Coachella Valley: Redlands-Indio-Palm Springs.

But all of these are short or shortish routes, again not enuff train miles to have enuff impact on "overhead divided by train miles" to see much difference.

To get more train miles, take the Sunset Shuttle New Orleans-San Antonio, plus Eagle/Sunset daily San Antonio-L.A., and gain 4/7th of a week's train that way. Similarly 4 more days a week's worth of the Cardinal. Extend the Palmetto down to Florida. By 2020 could we get a revived Broadway Ltd route? A Coast Daylight would cover some miles.

The host railroad would hate it, and the current, not-yet-imprisoned Governor would hate it, but reports suggest that Amtrak was sniffing around a possible second run of the CONO Chicago-Memphis. If that's a state-supported train extended from Carbondale, but not another frequency Chicago-Carbondale, then it's just another short route and not much help.

The cure for what ails Amtrak is more Amtrak. But I just don't see much "more Amtrak" en route.

 

[Anderson]

Just a note, but the Norfolk trains (well, #2 and #3) are extensions of the trains to Richmond that presently terminate there. The second Lynchburger (alongside the Roanoke extension) should happen by 2017/8. Basically count it as adding a Roanoke-Washington train, since you'll still have a Lynchburg-terminating train in the mix (largely due to trainset storage limits).

I had a talk with some relevant folks, and the daily Cardinal is still facing some deep issues in West Virginia.

On the Cascades...I'll need to ask Charlie, but I think there's some serious talk of a third train Seattle-Bellingham (Seattle-Vancouver is complicated by the border).

Anyhow...outside the NEC there are a lot of small route additions, but they do add up and yield a surprising number of train miles.

 

[Andrew]

But now I'm confusing myself about Amtrak overhead allocated to the state-supported corridor trains. ...

As I understand it, before PRIIA, Amtrak charged a negotiated price for each of these; this was at least the incremental cost (Amtrak made money on every deal), but less than the 'fully allocated' cost.

Now, each state has to pay, IIRC, 97% of the "fully allocated" cost? ...

Expansion of the system will spread that overhead over more trains and reduce each state's cost per train.

I am not sure, however, whether more passengers -- or shorter trip times -- on an individual corridor will pick up any additional overhead. If it's really being allocated by train miles, they won't change the overhead allocation.

Additional frequencies should, though: more train miles, so more overhead allocated to those trains. So when the Cascades go from 4 frequencies per day to [6], this takes some overhead weight off of every other train. Same thing when Illinois adds Moline service.

O.K. Looking at the September end of Fiscal 2017, by which time the Stimulus-funded stuff should be operating.

Two more frequencies on the Cascades Seattle-Portland, and I seem to recall another run or two is coming Portland-Eugene.

Another run of the San Joaquin.

One daily train Chicago-Quad Cities (Moline service). Or could it be two trains each way?

Chicago-Rockford may get killed by Gov Raunch, so I hesitate to include it here.

More runs New Haven-Hartford-Springfield, but I don't recall if they said how many.

Amtrak Virginia, not sure they'll have anything more by Sept 2017, but by 2020, let's say, it should be two more Norfolk runs, and an extension of the Lynchburger to Roanoke.

By Sept 2017, Illinois may have cleared the way with the UP for a couple more frequencies on the Lincoln Service St Louis-Chicago. I can't see who would benefit by announcing any such deal early: Even with two more trains, everyone will gripe that it should have been more. LOL.

By Sept 2017, Michigan may have cleared the way for the long-rumored second run of the Pere Marquette Grand Rapids-Chicagoa. Or start a train Kalamazoo-Battle Creek-Ann Arbor-Dearborn-Detroit-Pontiac. That's where the first round of cuts to the travel times -- 50 minutes or so -- will happen. Michigan really needs another Wolverines frequency squeezed thru the most highly congested freight corridor in the country, to get another train from Michican into Chicago. I'm sure Michigan will make their best effort, but I'm not sure it can be done.

Another Piedmont could happen, as well, but I don't recall an announced date.

But if Iowa Pacific actually runs the Hoosier State, that'll be a minus from the overhead-paying part of the equation.

And that's all there is to love? Could leave a fella brokenhearted.

The piddling addition being included soonish in the train miles denominator, divided into the numerator of fixed overhead, won't yield a very different result. Sadly not enuff to noticeably lower the "overhead divided by train miles" of the Amtrak system. Bummer. We need a lot more route miles. A lot of 'em.

Looking ahead to 2020, not very far away any more. If the Acela IIs come on time and allow more frequencies on the NEC, they could shoulder a considerable chunk of the overhead.

Then let's see. A second Lynchburger running to Roanoke, and two or three more Amtrak Virginia frequencies to Norfolk, Newport News, and/or Richmond. Probably another Piedmont run. If SEPTA can fix tracks in Philly, likely another frequency or two on the Keystone, helped by getting the stations fixed. The Vermonter and the Ethan Allen should be extended a few miles more by then. And I'm guessing an Inland Route train or two by 2020, somehow. (If it uses Amfleet I replacements, we'd be solidly back on topic!)

Maybe by 2020 they'll release the ex-Governor from prison and put the current one in, a typical Illinois cycle, and we'll see frequencies added to Carbondale and Quad Cities, with Rockford back on track. Five years from now might get a second run St Paul-Milwaukee-Chicago. More frequencies on the Hiawathas Milwaukee-Chicago, but so few miles. And dream of another run of the River Runner St Louis-Kansas City.

There'll probably be another run of the Pacific Surfliner and on the Capitol Corridor within five years. Likely another run or two of the San Joaquin. Cali might get a couple of trains down the Coachella Valley: Redlands-Indio-Palm Springs.

But all of these are short or shortish routes, again not enuff train miles to have enuff impact on "overhead divided by train miles" to see much difference.

To get more train miles, take the Sunset Shuttle New Orleans-San Antonio, plus Eagle/Sunset daily San Antonio-L.A., and gain 4/7th of a week's train that way. Similarly 4 more days a week's worth of the Cardinal. Extend the Palmetto down to Florida. By 2020 could we get a revived Broadway Ltd route? A Coast Daylight would cover some miles.

The host railroad would hate it, and the current, not-yet-imprisoned Governor would hate it, but reports suggest that Amtrak was sniffing around a possible second run of the CONO Chicago-Memphis. If that's a state-supported train extended from Carbondale, but not another frequency Chicago-Carbondale, then it's just another short route and not much help.

The cure for what ails Amtrak is more Amtrak. But I just don't see much "more Amtrak" en route.

When will new Amfleet coaches likely inter revenue service?

 

[neroden]

There is something not right about the F&B losses. We know that Amtrak has creative accounting

Yes, yes, I've discussed this for a while.... Amtrak's accounting is a mess, due to way too much 'allocation'. We don't know what's going into the reported F&B costs.

Amtrak says that the cafe cars are incrementally profitable. However, Amtrak hasn't broken out dining cars separately from cafe cars. (Ever.)

-- The excessive costs of maintaining the antique Heritage dining cars is probably dumped on the F&B account. So getting rid of them will probably make the F&B numbers look better.

-- The West-of-the-Mississippi 'long-distance' trains can't cover their incremental operating expenses from ticket sales, and only the Empire Builder comes close. It seems fairly obvious that the F&B numbers for these trains will also come out with a loss, given that the whole train operation does.

Amtrak has never broken out F&B numbers for individual trains, and I suspect Amtrak doesn't even have the accounting capability to do so, unfortunately. I would bet that the Silver Meteor and LSL dining cars could break even without much difficulty, given *decent food*.

 

[neroden]

Anderson: I like your analysis of how to deploy single-level cars to make *long* trains in the East. Economies of scale!

I had a talk with some relevant folks, and the daily Cardinal is still facing some deep issues in West Virginia.

I'd like to know what's going on here. I have read that CSX dispatchers actually leave a slot for the Cardinal every day, including the days it's not running (did you say that or did someone else?). If so there really can't be terribly large issues in West Virginia. I've been assuming that there were major issues on the Buckingham Branch Railroad in Virginia, which is normally run one way with the Cardinal being the only major traffic the other direction.

If someone had a decent summary of where the congestion issues are for the Cardinal -- where is it coming into conflict with opposing train movements? which single-track-sections are problematic? -- someone might be able to come up with an upgrade funding proposal, but so far it's all been dark, vague rumors. And I don't tend to give those much credit, for obvious reasons.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

But now I'm confusing myself about Amtrak overhead allocated to the state-supported corridor trains. ...

As I understand it, before PRIIA, Amtrak charged a negotiated price for each of these....

Now, each state has to pay, IIRC, 97% of the "fully allocated" cost? ...

Expansion of the system will spread that overhead over more trains and reduce each state's cost per train.

...

...

Looking ahead to 2020, not very far away any more. ...

…

… I'm guessing an Inland Route train or two by 2020, somehow. (If it uses Amfleet I replacements, we'd be solidly back on topic!)

...

The cure for what ails Amtrak is more Amtrak. But I just don't see much "more Amtrak" en route. .

When will new Amfleet coaches likely enter revenue service?

LOL. After they are ordered and built.

We've been sort of discussing how many should be ordered for service and for where. But given your level of impatience, just forgetaboutit. If an order for $2 or $3 billion worth of new equipment were placed next week (and that can't happen, no funding, no RFP, no bids in hand, nothing, nothing, nothing happening), it would take 4 or 5 years to see the cars come off the assembly line.

So find something else to worry about.

 

[Andrew]

But now I'm confusing myself about Amtrak overhead allocated to the state-supported corridor trains. ...

As I understand it, before PRIIA, Amtrak charged a negotiated price for each of these....

Now, each state has to pay, IIRC, 97% of the "fully allocated" cost? ...

Expansion of the system will spread that overhead over more trains and reduce each state's cost per train.

...

...

Looking ahead to 2020, not very far away any more. ...

…

… I'm guessing an Inland Route train or two by 2020, somehow. (If it uses Amfleet I replacements, we'd be solidly back on topic!)

...

The cure for what ails Amtrak is more Amtrak. But I just don't see much "more Amtrak" en route. .

When will new Amfleet coaches likely enter revenue service?

LOL. After they are ordered and built.

We've been sort of discussing how many should be ordered for service and for where. But given your level of impatience, just forgetaboutit. If an order for $2 or $3 billion worth of new equipment were placed next week (and that can't happen, no funding, no RFP, no bids in hand, nothing, nothing, nothing happening), it would take 4 or 5 years to see the cars come off the assembly line.

So find something else to worry about.

The new Amfleet coaches will probably enter service in the 2020's and be financed by a RRIF loan.

Perhaps Bombardier, Alstom, or Kawasaki could manufacture the coaches.

How long is it usually between when an RFP is released and a contract signing occurs for new coaches?

 

[jis]

Oh brother.... here we go again

Why not Siemens?

The answer is take a dice and roll it whatever face comes up may be the answer.

 

[Andrew]

Oh brother.... here we go again

Why not Siemens?

The answer is take a dice and roll it whatever face comes up may be the answer.

Imagine if Siemens got the new electric locomotive contract (which they did), new DM locomotive contract, and the contract for the new Acela train-sets and Amfleet coaches...

 

[Amfleeter]

The next gen single level coach is probably going to be made by CAF, in all honesty. Once the V-II order part I is done, Amtrak should have a good working relationship with CAF. Plus, they own the design, so they can get exactly what they want.

 

[jis]

Considering the disaster that CAF has been so far, there is little love lost between Amtrak and CAF at present. At least that is what I hear through the grapevine. I don't think it is a slam dunk either for CAF or for that matter that the next generation single level car will even be based on the Viewliner design. The decision will be based on what is available cheapest and most reliably in the marketplace possibly attached with a financing plan. I believe just like with Acela IIs Amtrak will provide requirements based on required features, and not require a specific base design and let the vendors propose how and for what cost they can meet the requirements. Just my speculation mind you. I don't know anything specific about this matter any more than anyone else does here.

 

[PRR 60]

Considering the disaster that CAF has been so far, there is little love lost between and Amtrak and CAF at present. At least that is what I hear through the grapevine. I don;t think it is a slam dunk either for CAF or for that matter that the next generation single level car will even be based on the Viewliner design. The decision will be based on what is available cheapest and most reliably in the marketplace possibly attached with a financing plan. I believe just like with Acela IIs Amtrak will provide requirements based on required features, and not require a specific base design and let the vendors propose how and for what cost they can meet the requirements. Just my speculation mind you. I don;t know anything specific about this matter any more than anyone else does here.

When someone suggests that Amtrak order yet more cars from CAF, the line from Animal House comes to mind: "Thank you sir, may I have another."

 

[afigg]

The next gen single level coach is probably going to be made by CAF, in all honesty. Once the V-II order part I is done, Amtrak should have a good working relationship with CAF. Plus, they own the design, so they can get exactly what they want.

Adding my two bits to the other replies, we should realize that Amtrak will not be in charge - or at least the only player for deciding what to get for an Amfleet 1 replacement order. Whenever that might happen. The FRA/US DOT, the NEC Commission with representatives from all the NEC states, and all the eastern states that provide subsidies including capital charges for the rolling stock used for the corridor services will have a say. I suspect that it is likely that a joint equipment order commission of some sort will be formed to issue the RFP for single level cars, review the bids and make the purchase decision with Amtrak having only a few votes on such a commission.

I think it is possible that the Amfleet I and Amfleet II replacements could go separate ways. Amtrak may want to order Viewliner II coach and cafe cars for the single level LD fleet to have a consistent car type for the LD trains. Say, an order for 130 to 140 LD coach cars and 30 cafe/diner light/lounge cars to replace the 145 remaining Amfleet II cars. That order might not neccesarily go to CAF, but could go to another vendor as the RFP would have to be an open bid.

For an order of Amfleet I replacements, say 550 plus cars to expand capacity and the fleet size, the states might opt for off the shelf equipment, such as the Siemans cars, that is compliant with the PRIIA single level specification. But I am speculating here, have no inside info or sources. Which would be meaningless anyway as until there is enough funds lined up to place either an Amfleet I or II replacement order, little will happen beyond updates to a fleet strategy plan.

 

[Anderson]

Considering the disaster that CAF has been so far, there is little love lost between Amtrak and CAF at present. At least that is what I hear through the grapevine. I don't think it is a slam dunk either for CAF or for that matter that the next generation single level car will even be based on the Viewliner design. The decision will be based on what is available cheapest and most reliably in the marketplace possibly attached with a financing plan. I believe just like with Acela IIs Amtrak will provide requirements based on required features, and not require a specific base design and let the vendors propose how and for what cost they can meet the requirements. Just my speculation mind you. I don't know anything specific about this matter any more than anyone else does here.

I am reasonably certain that it will be based on the Viewliner platform. They were doing Viewliner-basis mockups of a coach back when AU did the Wilmington yard tour (remember that oddly out-of-place Viewliner prototype sleeper? They were using that for the work).

 

[jis]

If the reason for your certainty is that they were doing mockups, well, I don't have much else to say That does not really mean much of anything. They have done such mockups for many things on many platforms and about 5% may have come to fruition in some form or another. I sincerely hope there is something more than that behind your feeling of reasonable certainty.

Ultimately it will be about money. If a world manufacturer comes in with a proposal that is significantly cheaper and meets the basic requirements, I would be astounded to see Amtrak and the states go with the more expensive option and justify it to everyone that pays the bill. So it will depend on whether a seemingly more complex design can be produced cheaper than mass produced cars.

 

[Paulus]

What's the actual benefit to Amtrak owning the design for the Viewliners?