Unlikely but Possible Future Changes for Amtrak

I started this thread for the exchange of ideas and opinions on possible changes in the Amtrak system.

Here are a couple of things I see happening.

Given that Amtrak is experiencing solid growth on certain routes, that growth cannot continue without changes. Therefore,I see the employment of multi-level Amtrak trains in the very near future. For instance, on the North East Corridor, Penn station cannot handle any additional capacity under the current system of operation. More trains cannot be added and additional capacity by lengthening the trains cannot be gained either. The existing NEC trains are currently at or near full station length. As I see it the only way to gain additional capacity is with the addition of multi-level trains similar to what NJT and MARC now use. These fit through the tunnels to NYP ( and BLT) and can boost capacity. Such a car could be based on the Bombardier MLV design with an improved interior featuring Amtrak type seats and legroom. These trains currently have luggage racks overhead.

The continued growth of Amtrak must bring about some changes and the multi-level coaches seem the most likely solution for the Eastern routes. The Western routes already use Superliner equipment so it may be a simple matter of adding a few more coaches and lengthening platforms where possible. I know that some here may disagree with the multi-level solution but I cannot imagine any other scenario as being viable. At the current rate of growth Amtrak is likely to have 25% to 30% more passengers in five years.

How Amtrak will address the capacity challenge for continued growth is a question that must be answered.

The big question is where will the $$$$ for these new cars come from? Many politician want to spend less on Amtrak each year, not provide more $$$$ for new cars!

But is it actually the case that train consists cannot be lengthened? What are platform lengths at major NEC stations?

I have learned from usually reliable sources, the identity of whom I cannot disclose, that Amtrak has studied the possible use of these MLVs and has rejected the idea for several reasons. Meybe we can go further into this after the series of upcoming NARP meetings and the TransAction Conference in Atlantic City, if Amtrak chooses to discuss this matter in answer to questions in a public forum.

One fact that has been discussed in this forum earlier as learned from the Atlantic City Express consists, after you set aside enough room for baggage racks and the requisite 2 restrooms per car, and you use Amtrak seats with Amtrak pitch, the capacity of these cars is not significantly higher than that of single level cars. The real culprit is the amount of floor space lost to luggage racks to compensate for puny to non-existent over seat luggage racks.

The second issue to keep in mind is that most Regionals still have room to add 4 to 6 cars before they become operationally non-viable on the NEC. So we are nowhere near a train length based capacity crunch point. Also there is an additional slot available in general for an additional hourly frequency between New York and Washington, and if push comes to shove Acela frequencies can be exchanged for Regional frequency east of New York, but again we are nowhere near such a point. adding 4 cars to a 8 car train gives you 33% capacity growth.

Is there ever any discussion about adding infrastructure? i.e., tracks??

jis said:

The second issue to keep in mind is that most Regionals still have room to add 4 to 6 cars before they become operationally non-viable on the NEC. So we are nowhere near a train length based capacity crunch point. Also there is an additional slot available in general for an additional hourly frequency between New York and Washington, and if push comes to shove Acela frequencies can be exchanged for Regional frequency east of New York, but again we are nowhere near such a point. adding 4 cars to a 8 car train gives you 33% capacity growth.

Click to expand...

Yes, Regionals have been running with 1 café car, 1 business class car, and 5 or 6 coach cars or 7 to 8 cars in total. I have seen Regionals with 7 or even 8 coach cars in the past year, which I attribute to the stimulus restorations and Amfleet I café to coach car conversions. The NEC can certainly handle Regionals with 8 coach cars plus the café & business class cars if Amtrak has enough Amfleet Is available. Or orders new single level corridor cars to start adding capacity.

The biggest bottleneck on the NEC between WAS and NYP are the Hudson river tunnels and the track to and through Newark. But the capacity limits are for the peak rush hour periods. Amtrak can run more Regionals between WAS and NYP outside of the peak morning and late afternoon periods. Amtrak is constrained in the number of trains they can run between NYP and BOS, but longer Regionals and Acelas will provide growth capacity while Amtrak works to address and raise the NYP-BOS limits.

If we take a step back and see what improvements are on order or in the nearer term pipeline:

- 70 ACS-64 electric locomotives. Don't know what the specific plans are, but Amtrak may be planning to add additional daily (VA)-WAS-NYP Regionals to the schedule with the new ACS-64s.

- 40 Acela coach cars to be ordered soon to extend the capacity of each Acela trainset by 130 seats.

- Restoration of the entire available Amfleet I fleet to service with some more café to coach car conversions.

- A number of NEC track, signal, catenary, power, bridge improvement projects will be underway and completed over the next 3-4 years.

- Phase I of the Moynihan station project is fully funded and will provide additional platform access capacity for getting people on and off the the platforms more quickly. The growth of passenger traffic at NYP itself is a capacity concern.

- DC Union Station is to get an significantly expanded passenger concourse area over the lower tracks to provide greater capacity at WAS which can get rather jammed up with very long lines for Regionals and trains heading south of DC.

No need to use squeezed multi-level cars on the NEC in the foreseeable future.

Michigan Mom said:

Is there ever any discussion about adding infrastructure? i.e., tracks??

Click to expand...

Yes. Quite a lot of discussion and long range planning.

As a starting point, you could read the NEC Infrastructure Master Plan, published in June 2010, which is available near the top of Amtrak's Reports and Document page.

Thinking this over, there are three ideas that come to mind:

1) Simply extending trains shouldn't be too much of an issue, though you start running into multi-spot problems at smaller stations and/or on the "extended Regionals" running into Virginia. You can spot some longer trains in RVR (and I believe at RVM, due to the latter's history), but elsewhere is going to be a bit of a stretch. Still, the problem isn't NYP necessarily...it's the smaller stations and/or stations where platforms got cut back. I know there's been talk of extending Regionals to 10 cars at times (8 coaches, a cafe, and a BC car).*

2) Honestly, there might be a way to "split the baby" with the bilevel cars. This came up elsewhere, but could Amtrak find some way to have "third class" or "commuter class" light-on-luggage seating at one end of a train? I mean, let's face it: I regularly take a weekend trip on a backpack, and there are plenty of businessmen who're going WAS-NYP (for example) who aren't going to be taking more than a briefcase with them for just the day. This is not an ideal solution, but I wouldn't rule it out as an option.

3) Could Acelas be doubled up in length in the vein of what's done with some of the HSR sets in Europe? I'm not sure about engine capacity here, but I'd think you could at least theoretically run a 12-car set with two 6-car sets put together.

4) Would it be possible to "split number" a Regional in the vein of what's done with the LSL or EB, and have one end of the train (say, 2-4 cars) be a limited-stop express (i.e. the train would still make all stops, but a set of cars at one end would be listed as a separate train "only" stopping at the largest stations)?

Finally, when are the upcoming NARP events?

*Just wondering, but depending on price points and the like, if the length demanded it (i.e. you went to an 11 or 12 car train) could a train be run with two cafe/BC cars? I know I've seen 194/195 run with a 66/67-style BC/cafe before, but could the "full BC" car be omitted? What about using "standard" BC 2-2 seating in half of the cafe (or, for that matter, upping the BC surcharge but sticking with 2-1 seating) so as to flog some revenue space out of the cars?

Anderson said:

Thinking this over, there are three ideas that come to mind:

Click to expand...

I count four.

1) Simply extending trains shouldn't be too much of an issue, though you start running into multi-spot problems at smaller stations and/or on the "extended Regionals" running into Virginia. You can spot some longer trains in RVR (and I believe at RVM, due to the latter's history), but elsewhere is going to be a bit of a stretch. Still, the problem isn't NYP necessarily...it's the smaller stations and/or stations where platforms got cut back. I know there's been talk of extending Regionals to 10 cars at times (8 coaches, a cafe, and a BC car).*

Click to expand...

What the crews do now when trains are longer than the platforms (happens on the Springfield Line, as well as places such as Aberdeen and Old Saybrook on the NEC spine) is they tell passengers going to those destinations that they can only exit from certain doors (usually the cafe car).

2) Honestly, there might be a way to "split the baby" with the bilevel cars. This came up elsewhere, but could Amtrak find some way to have "third class" or "commuter class" light-on-luggage seating at one end of a train? I mean, let's face it: I regularly take a weekend trip on a backpack, and there are plenty of businessmen who're going WAS-NYP (for example) who aren't going to be taking more than a briefcase with them for just the day. This is not an ideal solution, but I wouldn't rule it out as an option.

Click to expand...

I suppose, but it would add another configuration car to the fleet. Not a showstopper, but going to a commuter-style seating is probably the thing to consider when absolutely nothing else will work.

3) Could Acelas be doubled up in length in the vein of what's done with some of the HSR sets in Europe? I'm not sure about engine capacity here, but I'd think you could at least theoretically run a 12-car set with two 6-car sets put together.

Click to expand...

This would actually give you a 16-car set (we'll call the engines "cars" for lack of a better term), with two engines in the middle. Not ideal. Besides, it won't happen because 1) right now there aren't enough Acelas to go around to double them up, and 2) you'll get the extra Acela coaches (total 8 cars plus 2 engines per set) before you ever see any new Acela sets. Then you'd definitely have trains that are too long.

4) Would it be possible to "split number" a Regional in the vein of what's done with the LSL or EB, and have one end of the train (say, 2-4 cars) be a limited-stop express (i.e. the train would still make all stops, but a set of cars at one end would be listed as a separate train "only" stopping at the largest stations)?

Click to expand...

Too complicated. Just tell the passengers in those cars that the doors will only open at certain stations, and if they want to get off elsewhere, they should walk to another car.

*Just wondering, but depending on price points and the like, if the length demanded it (i.e. you went to an 11 or 12 car train) could a train be run with two cafe/BC cars? I know I've seen 194/195 run with a 66/67-style BC/cafe before, but could the "full BC" car be omitted? What about using "standard" BC 2-2 seating in half of the cafe (or, for that matter, upping the BC surcharge but sticking with 2-1 seating) so as to flog some revenue space out of the cars?

Click to expand...

Changing the car configuration to have 2-2 seating (which some cars used to have a long time ago) would add yet another configuration to the fleet, which is preferable to not have to do.

You could do two club-dinettes (2-1), one at each end of the train, but you'd limit your business class capacity to half of what it is today (30 vs. 60), and I don't know that you could charge double the fare to make up for the loss of capacity. Probably better off sticking with the current offerings. Running two cafe cars means that you also have to double your LSA costs (unless you ran one empty, which is just a waste of space). Granted, the cafe cars can get crowded, but I don't know if having a second one would pay for itself often enough to make it worthwhile to do.

jis said:

The second issue to keep in mind is that most Regionals still have room to add 4 to 6 cars before they become operationally non-viable on the NEC. So we are nowhere near a train length based capacity crunch point. Also there is an additional slot available in general for an additional hourly frequency between New York and Washington, and if push comes to shove Acela frequencies can be exchanged for Regional frequency east of New York, but again we are nowhere near such a point. adding 4 cars to a 8 car train gives you 33% capacity growth.

Click to expand...

It actually gives 50% growth... yes 8 is 2/3 of 12, but 8 x 1.50 =12

Trog,

Thanks for the comments. I get the point about avoiding additional configurations; the main reason that the two-cafe setup comes to mind is that I know such was run on the Wolverine per one poster's report when the train got super-long. Also, I think that Amtrak is leery about making folks walk 5 cars or more. In general, I get the complication issues.

As to the bilevel situation...well, while I know it's not pretty, you could at least go in with SEPTA, NJT, MARC, or someone else on a car order (i.e. tack on a 50-100 car order the next time they place an order). Somehow, I see that as a more likely situation than Amtrak being able to place a fleet expansion order on their own. At the very least, it wouldn't be any worse than the Horizon/Comet order.

I guess it's just my pessimism, but I'm worried that capacity is going to be a big killer for Amtrak before too long given the complicated situation with fares and so forth. The other thing is that it would give Amtrak some place to put cross-honor ticketholders so they could save "full coach" space for full fare-paying passengers.

johnny.menhennet said:

jis said:

The second issue to keep in mind is that most Regionals still have room to add 4 to 6 cars before they become operationally non-viable on the NEC. So we are nowhere near a train length based capacity crunch point. Also there is an additional slot available in general for an additional hourly frequency between New York and Washington, and if push comes to shove Acela frequencies can be exchanged for Regional frequency east of New York, but again we are nowhere near such a point. adding 4 cars to a 8 car train gives you 33% capacity growth.

Click to expand...

It actually gives 50% growth... yes 8 is 2/3 of 12, but 8 x 1.50 =12

Click to expand...

That's even better. See what happens when you try to post serious stuff in short breaks between doing intense UML Metamodel design?

Anderson said:

As to the bilevel situation...well, while I know it's not pretty, you could at least go in with SEPTA, NJT, MARC, or someone else on a car order (i.e. tack on a 50-100 car order the next time they place an order). Somehow, I see that as a more likely situation than Amtrak being able to place a fleet expansion order on their own. At the very least, it wouldn't be any worse than the Horizon/Comet order.

Click to expand...

Would the fact that you get at most 15 more seats per car cause you to rethink?

Anyway, as I said we can discuss all we want here. It ain't happening. Amtrak is committed to standardize on the standards single level specification going forward.

Admittedly the tunnels under the Hudson are the main bottleneck to adding more trains on the NEC so short of going to modified multi-level coaches here is a possible solution.

Move the LSL to Grand Central. That line started life there as New York Central's 20th Century limited so assuming that Metro-North can accommodate, Amtrak will gain platform space at NYP for several NEC runs. Next you reroute the LSL from Grand Central over the old 20th Century line through Akron, Toledo and onto Chicago. This will free up line that the CL now uses on the Lake end and will allow for more capacity there. Some resources will be required to do this but at the present growth rate; in a few years Amtrak will be bursting at the seams. Something will need to be done to address capacity.

dlagrua said:

Admittedly the tunnels under the Hudson are the main bottleneck to adding more trains on the NEC so short of going to modified multi-level coaches here is a possible solution.

Move the LSL to Grand Central. That line started life there as New York Central's 20th Century limited so assuming that Metro-North can accommodate, Amtrak will gain platform space at NYP for several NEC runs. Next you reroute the LSL from Grand Central over the old 20th Century line through Akron, Toledo and onto Chicago. This will free up line that the CL now uses on the Lake end and will allow for more capacity there. Some resources will be required to do this but at the present growth rate; in a few years Amtrak will be bursting at the seams. Something will need to be done to address capacity.

Click to expand...

The whole point of moving the Hudson Line trains to NYP was to avoid crosstown transfers. NYG will most likely not be used for Amtrak again.

You talk about incresing capacity. Then increasingg LD capacity is also important. Amtrak sleepers are getting sold out far too often. I say, more sleepers, less coaches. If I am not mistaken, more sleepers should also reduce sleeper fares.

One option could be to convert Amfleet coaches into sleepers. An unreliable source states that Amtrak had a few berths on a few Amfleets in the 1980s. Cannot confirm, cannot remember exact source.

Is this possible? How about 25 Amfleet sleepers to supplement 25 more Viewliners? Get full Amfleet diners, too for supplementing extra sleepers. 100 single-level sleepers is equal to the original Viewliner order. Double sleepers on all Eastern trains!

There is definitely space on the platforms in PVD for longer trainsets.

I would really hesitate to remove the overhead luggage space and go to bilevels. Aside from the fact that jis says it is not going to happen, I generally see college kids and people with rolling suit cases that are similar to those that one would carry on a plane. Where is all this luggage supposed to go when there is no checked baggage service? :blink:

dlagrua said:

Admittedly the tunnels under the Hudson are the main bottleneck to adding more trains on the NEC so short of going to modified multi-level coaches here is a possible solution.

Move the LSL to Grand Central. That line started life there as New York Central's 20th Century limited so assuming that Metro-North can accommodate, Amtrak will gain platform space at NYP for several NEC runs. Next you reroute the LSL from Grand Central over the old 20th Century line through Akron, Toledo and onto Chicago. This will free up line that the CL now uses on the Lake end and will allow for more capacity there. Some resources will be required to do this but at the present growth rate; in a few years Amtrak will be bursting at the seams. Something will need to be done to address capacity.

Click to expand...

Sending the Lake Shore to Grand Central would do nothing to help get more trains into NYP. The bottleneck is the North River Tunnels, the tunnels under the Hudson River. The Lake Shore does not use those tunnels; so sending the LSL to NYG does nothing to help that problem.

Swadian Hardcore said:

You talk about incresing capacity. Then increasingg LD capacity is also important. Amtrak sleepers are getting sold out far too often. I say, more sleepers, less coaches. If I am not mistaken, more sleepers should also reduce sleeper fares.

Click to expand...

Perhaps. But it would also send coach fares up. Which would price people like me right back onto planes.

One option could be to convert Amfleet coaches into sleepers. An unreliable source states that Amtrak had a few berths on a few Amfleets in the 1980s. Cannot confirm, cannot remember exact source.Is this possible? How about 25 Amfleet sleepers to supplement 25 more Viewliners? Get full Amfleet diners, too for supplementing extra sleepers. 100 single-level sleepers is equal to the original Viewliner order. Double sleepers on all Eastern trains!

Click to expand...

I'm trying to think of a justication for creating a whole new type of car, in a shell that's several feet too short to be effective for the purpose, not to mention out of production, while a purpose-designed alternative is presently being built. It has thus far eluded me.

edit: typo

Maybe add to the production line a set of viewliner coaches that would have been built with the first order but were cut due to budget issues.

AlanB said:

dlagrua said:

Admittedly the tunnels under the Hudson are the main bottleneck to adding more trains on the NEC so short of going to modified multi-level coaches here is a possible solution.

Move the LSL to Grand Central. That line started life there as New York Central's 20th Century limited so assuming that Metro-North can accommodate, Amtrak will gain platform space at NYP for several NEC runs. Next you reroute the LSL from Grand Central over the old 20th Century line through Akron, Toledo and onto Chicago. This will free up line that the CL now uses on the Lake end and will allow for more capacity there. Some resources will be required to do this but at the present growth rate; in a few years Amtrak will be bursting at the seams. Something will need to be done to address capacity.

Click to expand...

Sending the Lake Shore to Grand Central would do nothing to help get more trains into NYP. The bottleneck is the North River Tunnels, the tunnels under the Hudson River. The Lake Shore does not use those tunnels; so sending the LSL to NYG does nothing to help that problem.

Click to expand...

In reexamiing the situation; I agree that sending the LSL to Grand Central will not alleviate the Hudson Tunnel logjam but since the LSL only arrives once and departs once daily it sits at NYP for hours on end. This takes up platform space that might be used for additonal NEC runs.

One other mistaken point about the multi-levels is that they DO have a luggage rack overhead, the same as the Amfleet coaches. I occasionally ride NJT into NYP and can confirm that.

I cannot see how capacity 5 years from now can be handled w/o going to multi-lvels, w/o building new tunnels and/or w/o expanding NYP and other stations along the way. Time will tell.

dlagrua said:

In reexamiing the situation; I agree that sending the LSL to Grand Central will not alleviate the Hudson Tunnel logjam but since the LSL only arrives once and departs once daily it sits at NYP for hours on end. This takes up platform space that might be used for additonal NEC runs.

Click to expand...

The Lake Shore does not sit at NYP for hours on end. It arrives at 6:30 pm, after the pm rush (in fact, it's arrival is intentionally scheduled to be after the peak, specifically so it doesn't occupy platform space when said space is scarce), it sits in the station for maybe 30-40 minutes (again, after the rush, so there's plenty of space around for other trains to use), then it pulls into Sunnyside yard.

The departing Lake Shore does the reverse. It pulls in from Sunnyside yard 30 or so minutes before departure, loads, and departs ahead of the rush hour.

So, the Lake Shore does not really prevent any additional service from operating, because it's not running during the peak.

I cannot see how capacity 5 years from now can be handled w/o going to multi-lvels, w/o building new tunnels and/or w/o expanding NYP and other stations along the way. Time will tell.

Click to expand...

I guess the entire half of the thread about being able to expand consists to longer than what they are today was lost on you.

dlagrua said:

AlanB said:

dlagrua said:

Admittedly the tunnels under the Hudson are the main bottleneck to adding more trains on the NEC so short of going to modified multi-level coaches here is a possible solution.

Move the LSL to Grand Central. That line started life there as New York Central's 20th Century limited so assuming that Metro-North can accommodate, Amtrak will gain platform space at NYP for several NEC runs. Next you reroute the LSL from Grand Central over the old 20th Century line through Akron, Toledo and onto Chicago. This will free up line that the CL now uses on the Lake end and will allow for more capacity there. Some resources will be required to do this but at the present growth rate; in a few years Amtrak will be bursting at the seams. Something will need to be done to address capacity.

Click to expand...

Sending the Lake Shore to Grand Central would do nothing to help get more trains into NYP. The bottleneck is the North River Tunnels, the tunnels under the Hudson River. The Lake Shore does not use those tunnels; so sending the LSL to NYG does nothing to help that problem.

Click to expand...

In reexamiing the situation; I agree that sending the LSL to Grand Central will not alleviate the Hudson Tunnel logjam but since the LSL only arrives once and departs once daily it sits at NYP for hours on end. This takes up platform space that might be used for additonal NEC runs.

One other mistaken point about the multi-levels is that they DO have a luggage rack overhead, the same as the Amfleet coaches. I occasionally ride NJT into NYP and can confirm that.

I cannot see how capacity 5 years from now can be handled w/o going to multi-lvels, w/o building new tunnels and/or w/o expanding NYP and other stations along the way. Time will tell.

Click to expand...

At most, the two Lake Shore trains each day spend maybe 1 hour occupying a track. That's a half an hour for each. We're not talking all that much time in the greater scheme of things. And they use a platform that is not in high demand by Amtrak for a Regional train. NJT might be a bit happier to see the LSL go else where, but since NJT can't get anymore trains through the tunnel it really doesn't matter.

And while the NJT ML's have a luggage rack, you can't put anything larger than a thin briefcase on that rack. You cannot even fit a small overnight bag, much less a true carry-on suitcase up there.

dlagrua said:

In reexamiing the situation; I agree that sending the LSL to Grand Central will not alleviate the Hudson Tunnel logjam but since the LSL only arrives once and departs once daily it sits at NYP for hours on end. This takes up platform space that might be used for additonal NEC runs.

One other mistaken point about the multi-levels is that they DO have a luggage rack overhead, the same as the Amfleet coaches. I occasionally ride NJT into NYP and can confirm that.

I cannot see how capacity 5 years from now can be handled w/o going to multi-lvels, w/o building new tunnels and/or w/o expanding NYP and other stations along the way. Time will tell.

Click to expand...

Next time you ride a multi-level, try to put even a carry-on size bag onto that luggage rack. The rack is too close to the ceiling to hold luggage. A briefcase or laptop bag: yes. Suitcase: no. I like the multi-levels, but they would not work for Amtrak NEC except perhaps for Keystone service.

The multi-levels are not needed by Amtrak to provide additional capacity in the NEC. Single-level equipment will suffice for the foreseeable future.

PRR 60 said:

dlagrua said:

In reexamiing the situation; I agree that sending the LSL to Grand Central will not alleviate the Hudson Tunnel logjam but since the LSL only arrives once and departs once daily it sits at NYP for hours on end. This takes up platform space that might be used for additonal NEC runs.

One other mistaken point about the multi-levels is that they DO have a luggage rack overhead, the same as the Amfleet coaches. I occasionally ride NJT into NYP and can confirm that.

I cannot see how capacity 5 years from now can be handled w/o going to multi-lvels, w/o building new tunnels and/or w/o expanding NYP and other stations along the way. Time will tell.

Click to expand...

Next time you ride a multi-level, try to put even a carry-on size bag onto that luggage rack. The rack is too close to the ceiling to hold luggage. A briefcase or laptop bag: yes. Suitcase: no. I like the multi-levels, but they would not work for Amtrak NEC except perhaps for Keystone service.

The multi-levels are not needed by Amtrak to provide additional capacity in the NEC. Single-level equipment will suffice for the foreseeable future.

Click to expand...

Personally I'm not interested in riding a 'commuter' from WAS to NYP. If I liked feeling cramped I'd take a "Chinatown" bus.