Just as a reminder, Grand Central has as severe as if not worse loading gauge restrictions like Penn Station, so one gains nothing by flipping anything to Grand Central. The only thing big is the headhouse. The tunnels (specially those under Park Avenue) are no bigger than the Penn Station ones.
That's why I put the parenthesis in place...I wasn't sure what the tunnel situation was at NYG. With that particular qualifier, I'm left wondering if the Boston section could even theoretically be run with Superliners without major capital upgrades. If not, then we have one train that must be single-level and four others that need to be at least partly single-level.
Yep. They will have to terminate the Boston Section in Back Bay since it won;t be able to platform at South Station. The New York section would have nowhere to platform south of Rhinecliff. And of course even theoretically it could not get into either Penn Station or Grand Central.
To be clear, Mr. Boardman isn't reluctant to buy new equipment. He'd like to start buying some equipment for those trains. However, since he submitted a plan to Congress almost 2 years ago now for buying new equipment and Congress has done nothing about that plan, Mr. Boardman has now gone on record as saying that he won't buy anything new until Congress gives him a clear decision on the future & fate of the LD's.
Ok, serious question time: In terms of cost per seat added (or cost per sleeping slot added), how do Superliners compare to Viewliners? I think I punched in 60/$2.5 million and 96/$4 million and got equivalent costs, so...I'd definitely go with prioritizing a single-level order over a bilevel order.
Actually, I would call that a reluctance to order new equipment. Hopefully some of the LD routes will, under the current conditions, at least perk up on their CR numbers. Checking the YTD figures, most routes are up between 2.5% and 5%.To be clear, Mr. Boardman isn't reluctant to buy new equipment. He'd like to start buying some equipment for those trains. However, since he submitted a plan to Congress almost 2 years ago now for buying new equipment and Congress has done nothing about that plan, Mr. Boardman has now gone on record as saying that he won't buy anything new until Congress gives him a clear decision on the future & fate of the LD's.
Of course getting Congress to provide a clear definition on anything is a near impossibility.
He's not reluctant to buy new cars. He wants to buy new cars. But he can't buy new cars if Congress isn't going to give him a commitment for funding the purchases.Actually, I would call that a reluctance to order new equipment. Hopefully some of the LD routes will, under the current conditions, at least perk up on their CR numbers. Checking the YTD figures, most routes are up between 2.5% and 5%.To be clear, Mr. Boardman isn't reluctant to buy new equipment. He'd like to start buying some equipment for those trains. However, since he submitted a plan to Congress almost 2 years ago now for buying new equipment and Congress has done nothing about that plan, Mr. Boardman has now gone on record as saying that he won't buy anything new until Congress gives him a clear decision on the future & fate of the LD's.
Of course getting Congress to provide a clear definition on anything is a near impossibility.
Well, I'm left wondering about that RR financing facility. Granted, I can understand wanting to make sure that Congress won't turn around the next day and say "Oops, we're cutting the LD subsidy by $100 million...pick a few Western routes to kill!"...but the sad truth is that even with a "commitment", the next Congress can (regrettably) do this anyway.He's not reluctant to buy new cars. He wants to buy new cars. But he can't buy new cars if Congress isn't going to give him a commitment for funding the purchases.Actually, I would call that a reluctance to order new equipment. Hopefully some of the LD routes will, under the current conditions, at least perk up on their CR numbers. Checking the YTD figures, most routes are up between 2.5% and 5%.To be clear, Mr. Boardman isn't reluctant to buy new equipment. He'd like to start buying some equipment for those trains. However, since he submitted a plan to Congress almost 2 years ago now for buying new equipment and Congress has done nothing about that plan, Mr. Boardman has now gone on record as saying that he won't buy anything new until Congress gives him a clear decision on the future & fate of the LD's.
Of course getting Congress to provide a clear definition on anything is a near impossibility.
If he was reluctant to buy new cars, then he wouldn't have had his staff produce a detailed plan about which types of cars to buy and in what numbers.
While I'm sure that's part of his concern, and a valid concern, I think his bigger concern is signing say a 5 year contract for a bunch of new cars without a promise from Congress to actually provide the monies needed to buy those cars. And my understanding is that Mr. Boardman isn't just holding off on buying new LD cars, he's holding off on placing any more orders for new cars period where Amtrak is the only one getting the bill.Well, I'm left wondering about that RR financing facility. Granted, I can understand wanting to make sure that Congress won't turn around the next day and say "Oops, we're cutting the LD subsidy by $100 million...pick a few Western routes to kill!"...but the sad truth is that even with a "commitment", the next Congress can (regrettably) do this anyway.He's not reluctant to buy new cars. He wants to buy new cars. But he can't buy new cars if Congress isn't going to give him a commitment for funding the purchases.Actually, I would call that a reluctance to order new equipment. Hopefully some of the LD routes will, under the current conditions, at least perk up on their CR numbers. Checking the YTD figures, most routes are up between 2.5% and 5%.To be clear, Mr. Boardman isn't reluctant to buy new equipment. He'd like to start buying some equipment for those trains. However, since he submitted a plan to Congress almost 2 years ago now for buying new equipment and Congress has done nothing about that plan, Mr. Boardman has now gone on record as saying that he won't buy anything new until Congress gives him a clear decision on the future & fate of the LD's.
Of course getting Congress to provide a clear definition on anything is a near impossibility.
If he was reluctant to buy new cars, then he wouldn't have had his staff produce a detailed plan about which types of cars to buy and in what numbers.
Ah, ok. I'd heard the reluctance only in the context of the Superliners, not the Viewliners.While I'm sure that's part of his concern, and a valid concern, I think his bigger concern is signing say a 5 year contract for a bunch of new cars without a promise from Congress to actually provide the monies needed to buy those cars. And my understanding is that Mr. Boardman isn't just holding off on buying new LD cars, he's holding off on placing any more orders for new cars period where Amtrak is the only one getting the bill.Well, I'm left wondering about that RR financing facility. Granted, I can understand wanting to make sure that Congress won't turn around the next day and say "Oops, we're cutting the LD subsidy by $100 million...pick a few Western routes to kill!"...but the sad truth is that even with a "commitment", the next Congress can (regrettably) do this anyway.He's not reluctant to buy new cars. He wants to buy new cars. But he can't buy new cars if Congress isn't going to give him a commitment for funding the purchases.Actually, I would call that a reluctance to order new equipment. Hopefully some of the LD routes will, under the current conditions, at least perk up on their CR numbers. Checking the YTD figures, most routes are up between 2.5% and 5%.To be clear, Mr. Boardman isn't reluctant to buy new equipment. He'd like to start buying some equipment for those trains. However, since he submitted a plan to Congress almost 2 years ago now for buying new equipment and Congress has done nothing about that plan, Mr. Boardman has now gone on record as saying that he won't buy anything new until Congress gives him a clear decision on the future & fate of the LD's.
Of course getting Congress to provide a clear definition on anything is a near impossibility.
If he was reluctant to buy new cars, then he wouldn't have had his staff produce a detailed plan about which types of cars to buy and in what numbers.
That means no new LD cars after the Viewliners, no new corridor cars save those being brought by the States, no new HSR cars for Acela or a replacement thereof after the current order already in.
There is currently a stated policy that no new long distance equipment will be purchased by Amtrak until Congress clarifies what Amtrak's role should be relative to LD service.This was stated by Boardman in the House and Senate hearings on the future budgets within the last couple of months.
It was necessary to have a credible study on what the higher end possibilities are in order to come up with something that is a stepwise improvement over the Corridor Plan. The study was also necessary to feed into the Program EIS for the Corridor that is a currently funded project being run by the FRA on behalf of the State of NJ. Indeed a few elements of the Future HSR study are slowly finding their way into the so called Gateway II part of the plan for upgrading the corridor in NJ. This would not have been possible without that study being in place.
That's an interesting question MattW, but I believe that when the Wisconsin Talgos are built and start running there will be a big taadaa and then after a few years, I think the Talgos will be quietly moved out West to beef up the CA-OR-WA service and Wisconsin will again have the same cars as the rest of the Midwest States. 3 years tops, even with a Talgo maintenance base being built in Wisconsin.
I don't think a blanket restriction on ordering more new LD cars would apply to the 40 Acela coach cars. Those have a rare attribute for Amtrak - the Acela makes a profit above the rails and the new cars can pay for themselves in a few years. A sold out Acela leaves revenue on the table. If Congress does not appropriate capital funds in FY12 budget for the 40 Acela coach cars, it has been indicated that they would get a RRIF loan to pay for them - and probably for extending the Acela service facilities to handle longer trainsets (which presumably would be useful for Acela IIs someday). The rate, as of today, on a 10 year Treasury note is 2.47%, mind bogglingly low. Damn close to free money.
It is more that Congress has refused to fund any new equipment. Afterall Boardman may be personally rich, but he is no Warren Buffett. This really is not a call for Boardman to make, no matter how many people think that an Amtrak President/Chairman can carry on doing stuff that his/her owners do not want to commit to.
That is correct. This was discussed in the Congressional hearings.
As I have stated before.... I have not heard of any blanket restriction on buying cars. The only point that has been made repeatedly by Boardman in Congressional hearings is that there will be no additional LD cars ordered until a strategy is in place regarding the future of LD service. And I am sure he has his Board on board with him on that. CEOs just don;t go about making public statements without consulting their Board, if they wish to retain their job.
Agreed
Agreed
Onr more thing that might find its way into the equation is the concept of RoSCo'es as in the UK privatization, where the Rolling Stock is actually owned by Leasing Companies (RoSCo - Rolling Stock Company) which lease them to the TOC (Train Operating Companies). This takes things like equipment depreciation off the books of the TOCs and lets the Leasing Companies manage that. The only thing then that appears in the books of the TOCs regarding rolling stock is the leasing contract expense which often includes maintenance cost too. This has worked relatively well in the UK, but has failed to work in the US so far in the realm of passenger trains. OTOH for freight there are many many examples of cars actually being owned and leased by companies other than the train operating companies.
I would find it very hard to believe that Boardman is making the pronouncements that he has about LD trains to the Congress without having discussed it with his Board. The problem with many people on Amtrak forums is that they think running Amtrak is like running a large HO model in the basement. When you want to add another express train you just send an order to Walthers, and bingo you are all set. The real world of running a full sized railroad in a hostile financial environment - and one that got significantly more hostile, specially where operating subsidies are under attack, is not like that..
I agree that overall this is a large backlog of new order, in line with the backlog of new equipment orders from the main line airlines when compared to the size of ops, for example.
Agreed. Actually the acquisition of the Regional Diesels will already relieve considerable pressure on Amtrak's diesel fleet. I believe that Amtrak can even put off replacement of Amfleet Is by several years. Those cars have aged remarkably well. There are no significant body frame problems in them yet, so in principle they could easily live through another overhaul cycle. Yeah I hate those gun-slit windows. But I'd rather have them than no service.
Much of Amtrak's rolling stock is not owned by Amtrak, but by lease holders. The Amtrak FY12 Comprehensive Business Plan on page 27 lists a bunch of leases with Early Buyout Options (EBOs) with the EBO payment date through 1-July-2013 for a total of $420 million to be paid. I would assume most of these leases were set up to allow the private lease holders to get the tax depreciation writeoff on the equipment. Amtrak is getting funds from the FRA to exercise their EBO and improve their debt situation. The biggest upcoming EBO is "Trust 98C for 107 Superliners", EBO payment date of 19-June-2013 for $134.02 million. So Amtrak is significantly improving their debt payment situation which should allow them manuevering room on RRIF loans if they go that route. Wonder how many of these leases are holdovers from Warrington years?
Agreed. A lot of people on here and other Amtrak forums appear to have little understanding of the needs to run Amtrak as a business which can mean retiring old equipment rather than paying ever increasing maintenance and operating cost to keep it going. There is a nostalgia factor of why not keep the 50 or 60 year old equipment? None of the new rolling stock is off the shelf, so planning has to start years in advance to replace equipment which won't start delivery until 2-3 years after the contract is signed. So by the time the last replacement unit arrives, the current rolling stock it is replacing will be 5-6 years older. A lot of posters here don't seem to grasp that.
At 4% or so interest, if Amtrak can lock in Treasury rates that low, 1 or 2 billion of RRIF debt is very manageable if they have the ticket revenue to pay the RRIF loan off over 10-20 years. If Amtrak has to choose between replacing the Superliner 1s, the Amfleets and the P-42 diesels, I would think the locomotives get replaced. New coach, sleeper, diner/lounge cars don't go anyplace without enough locomotives to move them.
I believe all of it is from the Warrington years. It was all equipment that Amtrak owned outright, sold for the cash, and then leased back. Amtrak caught some flak for that, since they were paying for equipment that they already owned. Leasing to buy new stuff could potentially make sense. Leasing what you already owned free & clear, a bit less. Had Amtrak used the money from the lease back to buy other new equipment it might have made some sense. But they were borrowing to keep the lights on, while Amtrak glided into bankruptcy with assurances that they were on the glidepath to making a profit.
Exactly. Selling things you already own to lease them back is merely a financial trick. That is more akin to taking out a second mortgage, and is very different from actually developing a healthy lease/renatl market where companies don't have to sign 30 year contracts for the lease. The British have managed to do that since the TOC's franchises are for just 4 to 7 years. The ROSCOE's actually purchase the equipment based on say a 7 year commitment from a TOC, and then have typically been able to lease the equipment to either the same or a different operator for another franchise period and so on. This means there is a general rental market where prices can be set to some extent based on market forces. To run such a system it requires a strong regulator. I don't think the nincompoops in Washington DC appear to be capable of either understanding that or implementing that. So it may just remain a dream.
Not a good comparison. Selling what you own and leasing back does have some advantages. It gives you cash now to keep going hopefully until revenue comes in to cover the lease costs plus the normal expenditures. For a homeowner, it would be more akin to selling the home then leasing it because you want to continue living there but need the cash to tide you over until you find another job or say, to invest in a business. It would be useful if you already maxed out your credit and don't qualify for a mortgage.
The purpose of both leasebacks and of secnd mortgage is to get current cash flow by monetizing the net current worth of capital asset. Strictly speaking you are correct that Amtrak did a sell and lease back. Amtrak did it out of desperation which to some extent was self inflicted because the bright guy leading it at the time essentially told a non-truth that he was going to run Amtrak self-sufficiently.
The problem with this is that you won't have a crew available to operate the train. On the Builder, the crews operate St. Cloud-Winona, and Winona-Milwaukee/Chicago (engineer changes eastbound in MKE, conductors go through to CHI). If you are running a second train St. Paul to Chicago, with basically little to no notice, then you taxi a crew from St. Cloud to operate to Winona, and you burn up the crew that was overnighting in Winona to run east. Now you don't have a crew available to take the regular train once it does come through.
