Amtrak to issue RFI for Acela II in early 2013

leemell said:

Alan, I've had to deal with people like this in my job, there is just no convincing them that there is anything other than their own perception of things that is the truth and feel it is necessary to badmouth their employer. The bad thing is that even if they do a satisfactory job, they poison the well of other employees and that usually hinders any improvement in the organization. With an employee you have option of counseling and without mitigation, termination. Here, it is better just to quit responding. Posting without response is in the end very frustrating and causes the poster to just quit and sometimes leave.

Click to expand...

Was it not your signature that said something to the effect of "Never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"?
If not you, someone did/does, and this is a great example of it.

J-1 3235 said:

I have to stop clicking on this thread..........

Click to expand...

I keep telling myself the same thing...but here I am.

Ryan said:

leemell said:

Alan, I've had to deal with people like this in my job, there is just no convincing them that there is anything other than their own perception of things that is the truth and feel it is necessary to badmouth their employer. The bad thing is that even if they do a satisfactory job, they poison the well of other employees and that usually hinders any improvement in the organization. With an employee you have option of counseling and without mitigation, termination. Here, it is better just to quit responding. Posting without response is in the end very frustrating and causes the poster to just quit and sometimes leave.

Click to expand...

Was it not your signature that said something to the effect of "Never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"?
If not you, someone did/does, and this is a great example of it.

Click to expand...

Not me.

Guest said:

To compare Europe's high speed rail to the U.S. attempt seriously erodes , along with your flawed Metroliner stats, your credibility . Europe, as was Japan, was bombed in to rubble during World War II and their infrastrucrures were rebuilt courtesy of SCAP and the Marshall Plan. So Alan, their infrastructure was replaced in the late 1940's with an eye on the future (read straight-er) while the U.S. infrastructure dates back to the mid 1800's and here in the northeast it followed a circuitous (read curves)route to service industries, mills, etc.

So I conclude that high speed rail on the existing "ROW" is a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Click to expand...

Evaluating your knowledge about US railways I will leave to others, but I shure hope that it is better than your knowledge of European rail.

Across Europe damaged railways after the war were largely repaired within a few years. It could only be done that fast, because with few exceptions they were put back in their original 19th century ROW - if not for any other reason then because the majority of them were only broken in spots, and resources at the time did certainly not allow for any more construction than absolutely necessary to get things moving again.

Additionally Marshall aid did not start rolling in until 1948/49, long after all the important lines were back in service.

Finally it is pretty ridiculous to say "Europe" was bombed to rubble, as the level of destruction varied greatly. In countries that had seen bombings, cities were damaged, and with it rail infrastructure there, but not the bulk of the lines in rural areas (Britain), other places had seen little bombing, but heavy fighting in areas with bridges etc blown up (i.e parts of the Netherlands), and others again partisan activity (a.o. France) directed at railroads to stop German troop and supplies movements. And then a few had been neutral and saw no damage at all (Sweden, Spain), Yet it makes no difference at all to whether these countries have high speed rail today - as it did't start to get build until the late '70's. It has solely been a political decision made long after the war to invest in new HSR ROW or to upgrade existing ROW's to about Acela top speed, depending which strategy the different countries have followed.

So to use lack of war damages as an excuse for the lack of HSR in the US is bogus. The difference has been political will.

And by the way - I don't think it is OK to refer to other posters as dogs. But I will state that GG doing so gives the impression of a despicable human being.

Well, I think we need to differentiate the ICE services in Germany (which use the prewar RoWs and run at 110/125 MPH, I believe) or the InterCity125 in Britain (which runs at 125 MPH on Victorian-era lines, albeit with some improvements) from HSR services such as the TGV. The former were set up on preexisting routes with improvements, while the latter were set up on new, purpose-designed alignments.

I was going to respond until I read the last paragraph. Dogs? You call me a despicable human being? That can be done over the internet with no fear of retaliation.

However I fear that I have injected some unwanted reality in to your circle jerk. It seems you all prefer to remain in your fantasyland.

The info below is for Alan B. Alan stated with convicction that the Acela was faster than the Metroliner. Once more his info is flawed.

Continue with your love fest and when I see folks along the way with cameras I'll be able to identify the posters here by the 'wood' they are displaying. :lol:

There is a reason for stereotypes and you folks are one the best.

Metroliner (train)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Metroliner (Amtrak))

Jump to: navigation, search

For other uses, see Metroliner (disambiguation). Metroliner

Budd Pennsylvania Railroad

Metroliner electric multiple-unit car circa 1968

before acceptance. All Metroliners, including this

car, entered revenue service wearing Penn

Central identification. Overview Service type Inter-city rail Status Discontinued Locale Northeast Corridor First service 1969 Last service 2006 Successor Acela Express Former operator(s) Penn Central (1969-1971)

Amtrak (1971-2006) Route Start New York City End Washington, DC Distance travelled 226 miles (364 km) Average journey time 2 hours 30 minutes (1969)[1] Service frequency 6 per day in each direction On-board services Class(es) Business and First Technical Rolling stock

• Budd Metroliners (1969-1981)
   
  
• EMD AEM-7s (1981-2006)
   
  
• Amfleet coaches (1981-2006)
  

Gauge 4 ft 8 1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) Operating speed up to 125 mph (201 km/h) Track owner(s) PC, Amtrak [hide]Route map



0 New York New York New Jersey North River Tunnels 10 mi 16 km Newark 58 mi 93 km Trenton New Jersey Pennsylvania 91 mi 146 km Philadelphia Pennsylvania Delaware 116 mi 187 km Wilmington http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/BSicon_exGRENZE.svg/20px-BSicon_exGRENZE.svg.png Delaware Maryland http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/BSicon_exHST.svg/20px-BSicon_exHST.svg.png 185 mi 298 km Baltimore http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/BSicon_exHST.svg/20px-BSicon_exHST.svg.png 196 mi 315 km BWI Airport http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/BSicon_exGRENZE.svg/20px-BSicon_exGRENZE.svg.png Maryland District of Columbia http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3a/BSicon_exKBHFe.svg/20px-BSicon_exKBHFe.svg.png 225 mi 362 km Washington

The Metroliner was a premium express train service between Washington, D.C., and New York City in the United States from 1969 to 2006.[2][3] It was first operated by Penn Central Transportation, successor to the Pennsylvania Railroad, and later by Amtrak.

Originally operated with self-powered electric multiple unit cars, which were later replaced with locomotive-hauled trainsets due to their vastly decreasing reliability and other issues (such as being demoted to 90 miles per hour in the late 1970s), the train offered reserved business-class and first-class seating. A trip between New York's Pennsylvania Station and Washington, D.C.'s Union Station took approximately 2.5 hours.[4]

"Clown" you say Anderson?

Not sure why I'm getting involved, but if you had bothered to look at the source for that number (little superscript "1") It would have taken you to an historic timetable which shows that the only train that made 2:30 New York to Washington was a non-stop train which made NO stops between New York and Washington. Train 101 which has a similar stopping pattern to most Washington-New York Acelas, made the trip in 2:40. The other trains take 2:59. The fastest Acela I can find between New York and Washington takes 2:45 and adds a stop at Wilmington. Amtrak tried a non-stop limited-stop service with the Acela (I believe this was noted earlier in the topic) and it was a colossal flop because as has been noted repeatedly, the true measure of success for a train is in the ridership, and not speed alone.

MattW said:

Amtrak tried this non-stop service with the Acela (I believe this was noted earlier in the topic) and it was a colossal flop because as has been noted repeatedly, the true measure of success for a train is in the ridership, and not speed alone.

Click to expand...

Amtrak tried an NYP-WAS express Acela in early 2008 which only stopped in PHL with a scheduled trip time of 2:35.

In regards to the posts above in the thread, the tone is getting rather un-christmasly. This thread may need a timeout. Is it possible to lock out guest posters from this posting in this thread? That would force GGG to sign up under an account name if he wants to continue to argue in this thread.

Oh yes, thanks for the correction. I should have indicated that I wasn't sure what the times for Amtrak's WAS-PHL-NYP only trains were, my mistake and thanks for the information.

Ryan said:

Was it not your signature that said something to the effect of "Never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"?

If not you, someone did/does, and this is a great example of it.

Click to expand...

Actually that's RmadisonWi's signature.

Yes, I say clown. While I recognize that it verges on ad hominem, you haven't bothered to register for an account and you have derailed this thread so far that it isn't even funny. Moreover, your citations of "facts" have been rebutted and/or refuted repeatedly but you persist in them. I'll be the first to admit that I haven't always had my facts straight, but I've also conceded my errors quite frequently as well. You, sir, have been disruptive to the board with both your claims and your histrionics, and you haven't even had the decency to register an account while doing so, suggesting that you simply intend to troll us for a bit and then leave.

As to the Wikipedia article which you quote, let me offer you a link to a record of one of the relevant timetables:

http://www.streamlin...iner197002.html

The upshot is that the 2:30 timing was achieved on one train per day, a "super-express" stopping en route only at Baltimore NB and running non-stop NYP-WAS SB. On the "stopping schedules" akin to what Amtrak runs today, the trip timing was 2:59 on paper. Note that I say "on paper" for a reason: It is very likely that the 2:59 timing was shoehorned in on the timetable for PR reasons (there was a big deal made out of getting the time under 3:00) and that the train frequently ran a few minutes behind. But the 2:30 time was limited to a train that was a non-stop express one way, and close to it the other way (this is the only NYP-WAS train that I can ever recall skipping PHL; even Amtrak didn't try that with the super-express Acela).

Guest said:

It seems you all prefer to remain in your fantasyland.

Click to expand...

I understand that this is a very difficult concept for you to understand, seeing as how you are so blinded by your hatred of Amtrak, but I'll try this one last time.

If I were living in fantasyland, and in love with Acela thinking that it can do no wrong, then I would NOT be here telling you about some of its flaws. Someone in love would think that everything is rosy. I don't and I have repeatedly told you so in this topic. But alas, your blind hatred seems to prevent you from seeing and understanding this simple fact.

Guest said:

The info below is for Alan B. Alan stated with convicction that the Acela was faster than the Metroliner. Once more his info is flawed.

Click to expand...

And as shown by others, my info was correct. It was your reliance on Wiki that led you to be wrong. Wrong again!

This thread has made me wonder about my fervent, five year long support of the Chevy Volt. Maybe my fascination with the idea and its possible/probable positive impact on America's economy blinded me to some of its shortcomings...

One small point in my favor, at least I was 'blindly' FOR something and not against it.

Ryan said:

Was it not your signature that said something to the effect of "Never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"?
If not you, someone did/does, and this is a great example of it.

Click to expand...

It is tp49's signature.

That's who I was thinking of!

PRR 60 said:

As for Acela II, I have a problem with that plan. Acela II will be built to FRA Tier III standards. That standard, as I understand it, will require a dedicated RW for operation in excess of 125mph. Operation on the existing NEC, co-mingled with commuter, some freight, and Amtrak regional traffic, will not allow the speeds currently operated by Acela. I'm not sure I go ahead with buying some very expensive trainsets capable of true high speed unless I know I have a place to operate them. I'm not a believer.

Click to expand...

Bill, this issue is being addressed as part of the safety case. The lady who is handling the safety case development stated at the IEEE Transportation SIG organized meeting a couple of months back that FRA has taken the position that for NEC there will be special rules allowing mixed operation of Tier II and Tier III with positive separation. The rules are being developed with the help of Volpe Center. As to how well or poorly that will work out, who knows? Only time will tell. But it is safe to assume that Amtrak will not be ordering anything until there is a reasonable resolution of this problem which is probably at least a couple or three years away. I have since talked to a gentleman who is the Deputy Chief Engineer of the NEC HSR program. Indeed if you register for a single day of the TransAction conference in Atlantic City, (or even just drop by at an appropriate time), I will be happy to introduce you to him. You can also read the definitive book on the RiverLINE written by him which is available from various book vendors. He claims that the discussions are going well with FRA on this matter. He ought to know since he negotiated the then revolutionary "temporal separation" agreement for the RiverLINE. I haven't had a chance to pick his brain yet. but when I get a chance I will. He is usually very forthcoming and open about such technical things.

Amtrak needs new hardware to accommodate increased demand and replace worn out equipment, no matter what. So some new trainsets are going to be required, high(er) speed or not. The question is will the Acela IIs manage to make their higher cost worth it in increased fares. As AlanB has pointed out, the Acela I has certainly shown this.

Maybe all the Acela riders are idiots or their employers are, but that still doesn't mean Amtrak shouldn't take their money. They've had plenty of time since Acela was introduced to "wise up", but the trend has been in the opposite direction. If people are willing to pay for a slight increase in speed and comfort, Amtrak shouldn't be telling them no.

If I'm reading our Guest's posts right, he's saying that barring a new ROW, we should just give up on any higher speeds and just dust off the 1970s blueprints for the AEM-7 and Amfleets. Or perhaps, more realistically, ACS-64s (some already on order) and Viewliner II coaches.

So what's the price premium between a theoretical new-build Regional and an Acela II?

alanh said:

So what's the price premium between a theoretical new-build Regional and an Acela II?

Click to expand...

Poland bought 20 ETR 610 New Pendolinos and maintenance for 17 years for $47.61 million each (adjusted for inflation and currency conversion) and NTV purchased 25 11-car AGVs for about $40 million each (also adjusted).

On the low end, an individual railcar costs in the range of $2 million and Amtrak's ACS-64 is about $6.65 million. According to Trenitalia's ETR 610 seating chart, there are 108 first class (2x1) seats (including 2 for disabled passengers), a restaurant with 18 places, and 304 2nd class (2x2) seats. Going off Wiki's Amfleet description, a comparable train would consist of 2 business class cars (with 2x2 seating), a full dinette, and 4 coach cars (total cost $20.65 million). The AGV is rather harder to figure out seating with. My estimate there is 26 seats in first class driver car (2x1 and 2 1x1) and 38 (2x1 and 2 1x1) in normal first class car with 36 and 56 (42 in handicap accessible restroom) respectively in second class (2x2). An 11-car train with a comparable number of first class seats would run a capacity of 102 first class seats (driver, car, car), restaurant, and 252-336 2nd class seats (depending on how many cars were handicap accessible). That's about an equal comparison with the earlier 7 car train.

So capital cost is about twice as much between theoretical new NERegional and a modern top of the line high speed train, but you have significantly better performance, especially for the NERegional schedules which have rather more stops (and thus take advantage of the improved acceleration). On the other hand, Eurostar purchased 10 new e320 Velaro derived trains and is refurbishing the 28 other trains in their fleet for 700 million euros with 894-950 seats per train.

name='Anderson' timestamp='1355527783' post='410819']I was sorely tempted by the idea of buying some of the seats[/u] (and given the prices running around, I think they might have done well to just put a batch of the Custom Class seats, at the very least, up for sale individually), but I don't have anywhere to put 70 indefinite crates of stuff. One or two might have made a nice conversation piece (and been worth some money to me), but not dozens upon dozens.

Click to expand...

And you say you are not a "foamer"?

You stoop to name calling and accuse me of 'derailing' the thread when in fact I was merely stating the Acela has not lived up to it's hype so why purchase Gen II when Gen I can't get it done. It is a high speed train on a low speed "ROW". You yourselves have admitted that the Acela did not and cannot provide 3 hour service BOS-NYP and sustain high speed on the existing "ROW".Because ridership is up and amenities are provided you consider it a success. If you replaced the Acelas tomorrow with standard equipment fitted with the same amenities which you all get in a lather about the ridership would be the same or perhaps even increase due to the lower fare.

Given that the fellow above is percolating over the defunct Turboliner(which some here deemed a success) seats I can see why all you folks act like you got your teats caught in the wringer when I speak realistically about high speed rail.

I have surfed this site and determined that you are all railfans who are dazzled by the new technology and amenites and cannot think practically in matters concerning your beloved trains.

AlanB said:

Guest said:

It seems you all prefer to remain in your fantasyland.

Click to expand...

I understand that this is a very difficult concept for you to understand, seeing as how you are so blinded by your hatred of Amtrak, but I'll try this one last time.

If I were living in fantasyland, and in love with Acela thinking that it can do no wrong, then I would NOT be here telling you about some of its flaws. Someone in love would think that everything is rosy. I don't and I have repeatedly told you so in this topic. But alas, your blind hatred seems to prevent you from seeing and understanding this simple fact.

Guest said:

The info below is for Alan B. Alan stated with convicction that the Acela was faster than the Metroliner. Once more his info is flawed.

Click to expand...

And as shown by others, my info was correct. It was your reliance on Wiki that led you to be wrong. Wrong again!

Click to expand...

Alan my statements concering Amtrak are facts not "hatred". There is little that is positive in the operating department. Talk to anyone with 35 plus years(in the operating department) and they will certainly echo my sentiments.
So Alan if you say I am wrong "again!"and Wiki is wrong please show me where the Acela has bested the Metroliners of 1969 running time of 2 hours 30 minutes NYP-WAS. FYI I operated the Turbos, the Metroliners and Acelas so I am not dependent on Wiki for my information. I posted that link(unlike you) to give credence to my statement. Oh and Alan you do live in fantasyland I've read some of your, and others here, posts on other threads and you guys certainly are in a love fest with trains.

I beg everyone: please, please, please leave the troll be. It's the same thing over and over and over. He has made his points. Others have made theirs. I don't care anymore. Seriously.

Guest said:

Alan my statements concering Amtrak are facts not "hatred". There is little that is positive in the operating department. Talk to anyone with 35 plus years(in the operating department) and they will certainly echo my sentiments.

Click to expand...

No, your failure to understand what other's have repeatedly told you indicates a hatred that has blinded you. You sit here calling all of us foamer's and telling us that we live in fantasyland, yet the only one with blinders on is unfortunately you.

So again, while Acela might be a failure from your operations point of view; that is not all that must be considered here. And the "amenities" that you keep referring to are minor. It's the mere appearance that Acela is faster that is the big attraction. And that cannot be achieved with conventional Tier I equipment, even brand new Tier I equipment cannot achieve that.

Guest said:

So Alan if you say I am wrong "again!"and Wiki is wrong please show me where the Acela has bested the Metroliners of 1969 running time of 2 hours 30 minutes NYP-WAS. FYI I operated the Turbos, the Metroliners and Acelas so I am not dependent on Wiki for my information. I posted that link(unlike you) to give credence to my statement. Oh and Alan you do live in fantasyland I've read some of your, and others here, posts on other threads and you guys certainly are in a love fest with trains.

Click to expand...

Go back and read all the post in between where you posted your Wiki link and this one. Other's already linked you to the information that proves you wrong.

PRR 60 said:

I beg everyone: please, please, please leave the troll be. It's the same thing over and over and over. He has made his points. Others have made theirs. I don't care anymore. Seriously.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Ban this joker and lets get on with being dazzled by the new shiny and living in our fantasyland.

AlanB said:

Guest said:

Alan my statements concering Amtrak are facts not "hatred". There is little that is positive in the operating department. Talk to anyone with 35 plus years(in the operating department) and they will certainly echo my sentiments.

Click to expand...

No, your failure to understand what other's have repeatedly told you indicates a hatred that has blinded you. You sit here calling all of us foamer's and telling us that we live in fantasyland, yet the only one with blinders on is unfortunately you.

So again, while Acela might be a failure from your operations point of view; that is not all that must be considered here. And the "amenities" that you keep referring to are minor. It's the mere appearance that Acela is faster that is the big attraction. And that cannot be achieved with conventional Tier I equipment, even brand new Tier I equipment cannot achieve that.

Guest said:

So Alan if you say I am wrong "again!"and Wiki is wrong please show me where the Acela has bested the Metroliners of 1969 running time of 2 hours 30 minutes NYP-WAS. FYI I operated the Turbos, the Metroliners and Acelas so I am not dependent on Wiki for my information. I posted that link(unlike you) to give credence to my statement. Oh and Alan you do live in fantasyland I've read some of your, and others here, posts on other threads and you guys certainly are in a love fest with trains.

Click to expand...

Go back and read all the post in between where you posted your Wiki link and this one. Other's already linked you to the information that proves you wrong.

Click to expand...

You stated that the Acela was faster did you not? Show me the proof..
So let me get this straight. I come here and post the reasons why Gen II should not be purchased and I am branded a troll by the moderator who allows the "vested" members to refer to me as a "clown" and sundry other derogatory monikers because my opinion does not conform to that of the "vested" members here? This is a discussion forum is it not? Do I have this right? If one were to scroll back you would find that I countered when attacked.

I have a number of business associates that will travel Acela Express on the NEC corridor and will get reimbursed by their Employers because Acela is considered as fast and efficient as flying. These are executives that would not take Amtrak anywhere else except maybe the California corridors. But they would take Acela type trains if they were running on other routes . There is a lot of interest in the proposed FEC service here in Florida by business executives because of the type of service being proposed.