The Pennsylvanian Lives!

Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Paulus said:
Anderson said:
The problem with electrification is two-fold:

(1) It's a pain to maintain. Let's face it, hundreds of miles of overhead wires? Not cheap.

(2) You have to have dedicated locomotives and so forth, which aren't cheap (and which are more expensive to acquire than standard diesels).
Click to expand...
Eh, for American passenger locomotives, there really isn't a cost difference (and electric locomotives are cheaper to maintain). Metrolink's EMD F125s will be about 6.47 million, the ACS-64 is $6.65 million. But honestly, locomotives shouldn't be purchased at all and the ACS-64 purchase was an absolutely terrible decision; EMUs outperform in every way that matters.
Click to expand...
Well there is one difference, electric motors seem to last much longer than diesel loco's. I'm not sure if that's something that's unique to Amtrak and how they handle things, or if there are real differences that create the longevity issues.

As for Amtrak buying the ACS-64, it was the only decision that could be made. They need to start replacing the AEM-7's which are nearing the end of their useful lives, and the HHP-8's are not only not plentiful enough to fill the gap but they also have their own failure issues.

And Amtrak barely scrapped together enough money to buy new locos. Buying 400 EMU's was out of the equation, there was no way that they could find that money and no way to convince a fickle Congress that they should replace every coach in the inventory all at once.
 
AlanB said:
Paulus said:
Anderson said:
The problem with electrification is two-fold:

(1) It's a pain to maintain. Let's face it, hundreds of miles of overhead wires? Not cheap.

(2) You have to have dedicated locomotives and so forth, which aren't cheap (and which are more expensive to acquire than standard diesels).
Click to expand...
Eh, for American passenger locomotives, there really isn't a cost difference (and electric locomotives are cheaper to maintain). Metrolink's EMD F125s will be about 6.47 million, the ACS-64 is $6.65 million. But honestly, locomotives shouldn't be purchased at all and the ACS-64 purchase was an absolutely terrible decision; EMUs outperform in every way that matters.
Click to expand...
Well there is one difference, electric motors seem to last much longer than diesel loco's. I'm not sure if that's something that's unique to Amtrak and how they handle things, or if there are real differences that create the longevity issues.

As for Amtrak buying the ACS-64, it was the only decision that could be made. They need to start replacing the AEM-7's which are nearing the end of their useful lives, and the HHP-8's are not only not plentiful enough to fill the gap but they also have their own failure issues.

And Amtrak barely scrapped together enough money to buy new locos. Buying 400 EMU's was out of the equation, there was no way that they could find that money and no way to convince a fickle Congress that they should replace every coach in the inventory all at once.
Click to expand...

Electric engines almost always far outlast internal combustion engines no matter the application.
 
AlanB said:
Paulus said:
Anderson said:
The problem with electrification is two-fold:

(1) It's a pain to maintain. Let's face it, hundreds of miles of overhead wires? Not cheap.

(2) You have to have dedicated locomotives and so forth, which aren't cheap (and which are more expensive to acquire than standard diesels).
Click to expand...
Eh, for American passenger locomotives, there really isn't a cost difference (and electric locomotives are cheaper to maintain). Metrolink's EMD F125s will be about 6.47 million, the ACS-64 is $6.65 million. But honestly, locomotives shouldn't be purchased at all and the ACS-64 purchase was an absolutely terrible decision; EMUs outperform in every way that matters.
Click to expand...
Well there is one difference, electric motors seem to last much longer than diesel loco's. I'm not sure if that's something that's unique to Amtrak and how they handle things, or if there are real differences that create the longevity issues.
Click to expand...
Not unique to Amtrak; GG1 lasted almost fifty years in active service, Milwaukee Road's EP-2s lasted 40 years and probably longer if their rebuilds weren't botched, and the Iowa Traction Railroad has some locomotives that will hit their centennial soon.

As for Amtrak buying the ACS-64, it was the only decision that could be made. They need to start replacing the AEM-7's which are nearing the end of their useful lives, and the HHP-8's are not only not plentiful enough to fill the gap but they also have their own failure issues.
And Amtrak barely scrapped together enough money to buy new locos. Buying 400 EMU's was out of the equation, there was no way that they could find that money and no way to convince a fickle Congress that they should replace every coach in the inventory all at once.
Click to expand...
It could probably all have been paid for with increased revenues on the NEC and don't forget that this was primetime to be pumping Congress for money anyhow. It could have been fairly simply done by telling Congress that they were slightly accelerating the replacement of the Acela and Amfleets by a few years to coincide with locomotive retirement, that they were looking for a brand new state of the art fleet, it would save a substantial amount of money, and that it would allow for service expansion and faster, better, cheaper trains.
 
Paulus said:
AlanB said:
As for Amtrak buying the ACS-64, it was the only decision that could be made. They need to start replacing the AEM-7's which are nearing the end of their useful lives, and the HHP-8's are not only not plentiful enough to fill the gap but they also have their own failure issues.

And Amtrak barely scrapped together enough money to buy new locos. Buying 400 EMU's was out of the equation, there was no way that they could find that money and no way to convince a fickle Congress that they should replace every coach in the inventory all at once.
Click to expand...
It could probably all have been paid for with increased revenues on the NEC and don't forget that this was primetime to be pumping Congress for money anyhow. It could have been fairly simply done by telling Congress that they were slightly accelerating the replacement of the Acela and Amfleets by a few years to coincide with locomotive retirement, that they were looking for a brand new state of the art fleet, it would save a substantial amount of money, and that it would allow for service expansion and faster, better, cheaper trains.
Click to expand...
Amtrak couldn't even get Congress to pay for the new Viewliners and the ACS-64's; they had to get creative and borrow money to make that happen. No way they were getting 400 new EMU's out of Congress.

And it's that increased revenue, along with hefty loans from the FRA, that allowed Amtrak to buy the Viewliners and the ACS-64 locos. Again, they weren't going to be able to do much more. In fact, at present with the sequestration and the continued hostility in the House towards Amtrak, I think it unlikely that Amtrak will even be able to exercise any of the options on the Viewliner's, much less all of them.
Click to expand...
 
Apologies - my edit of my response turned into pages of utter html nonsense.

Probably "my-side error"

Reminding everyone that there are no "diesels" on any railroad in North America.

It's diesel-electric - the issue is the source of the power for the driver motors -

"Diesel" means "electric motors powered by a portable generator on wheels as part of the locomotive" like diesel-electric

"Electric" means "power for the electric motors that drive the train comes form a third rail or overhead wires"

Pedantic - but important.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anderson said:
Post cleanup on aisle five!
Click to expand...
oi! --

The point I wanted to make - here - there - somewhere -

was that all the fancy "hybrid" cars they want so much money for --

The railroads been doing it for at least half a century.

Diesel-electric - was, and is , and is already more efficient, than any " hybrid" automobile you can buy today.

Lets start another discuss about this -- maybe "future of techno power on Amtrak" -- naah.

Let it wait.

tHX
 
AlanB said:
jis said:
Anderson said:
Mentioning putting the Transdorm on the back of the Cap is interesting, since (per stuff overheard at dinner on the Cap, and take that for what it is worth) they're going to pop the Transdorm back there and restructuring the bid line to assign the Transdorm to the coach attendant for the rear coach. So it looks like this is moving forward.
Click to expand...
Why not move the Cap sleepers to the rear along with the Transdorm?
Click to expand...
Because that will then require the NY section Coach passengers to have to walk through the Sleepers. That is why the Sleepers will stay up front and not move back.
Click to expand...
Actually, I thought that was the point of transferring a single level cafe car from the Penny to the Capital. Coach pax would be restricted to that car only for food. Sleeper pax in the Viewliner would have full access of the train.

And even if they just put the Trans/Dorm on the rear and don't move the Superliner sleepers, coach pax would still have to walk through the Trans/Dorm and therefore walk through sleepers. And in this case it would be both crew & paying passengers that would now have coach pax trouping by.
Click to expand...
With regards to coach passengers moving though a revenue sleeping car, this already happens on the Empire Builder anytime that the 807/808 coach is present, since it's the last car on the train and is therefore directly behind the Portland sleeping car.
 
AlanB said:
Well there is one difference, electric motors seem to last much longer than diesel loco's. I'm not sure if that's something that's unique to Amtrak and how they handle things, or if there are real differences that create the longevity issues.
Click to expand...
Fewer moving parts is one reason. Fewer self-caused vibrations is another. Yet another contributor is that they work in a cleaner and more controlled environment.
 
TCRT said:
AlanB said:
jis said:
Anderson said:
Mentioning putting the Transdorm on the back of the Cap is interesting, since (per stuff overheard at dinner on the Cap, and take that for what it is worth) they're going to pop the Transdorm back there and restructuring the bid line to assign the Transdorm to the coach attendant for the rear coach. So it looks like this is moving forward.
Click to expand...
Why not move the Cap sleepers to the rear along with the Transdorm?
Click to expand...
Because that will then require the NY section Coach passengers to have to walk through the Sleepers. That is why the Sleepers will stay up front and not move back.
Click to expand...
Actually, I thought that was the point of transferring a single level cafe car from the Penny to the Capital. Coach pax would be restricted to that car only for food. Sleeper pax in the Viewliner would have full access of the train.

And even if they just put the Trans/Dorm on the rear and don't move the Superliner sleepers, coach pax would still have to walk through the Trans/Dorm and therefore walk through sleepers. And in this case it would be both crew & paying passengers that would now have coach pax trouping by.
Click to expand...
With regards to coach passengers moving though a revenue sleeping car, this already happens on the Empire Builder anytime that the 807/808 coach is present, since it's the last car on the train and is therefore directly behind the Portland sleeping car.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is indeed correct and for that matter, at one point it was also happening with the Texas Eagle and the 322 coach. I'm not sure if it still is happening, they keep changing the order of that train and how things get switched in San Antonio.

However, in both cases it only happens for a few hours, not overnight and not during the entire trip.
 
AlanB said:
TCRT said:
With regards to coach passengers moving though a revenue sleeping car, this already happens on the Empire Builder anytime that the 807/808 coach is present, since it's the last car on the train and is therefore directly behind the Portland sleeping car.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is indeed correct and for that matter, at one point it was also happening with the Texas Eagle and the 322 coach. I'm not sure if it still is happening, they keep changing the order of that train and how things get switched in San Antonio.

However, in both cases it only happens for a few hours, not overnight and not during the entire trip.
Click to expand...
Besides, just because it already happens does not measn that you need to make it happen when it is completely unnecessary.

Even on the Cap, if they continue selling Transdorm accommodation, it will happen for those few that are in the Transdorm. But that does not mean that another two cars full of people should be exposed to same when they can be kept perfectly well segregated at the front end of the train.
 
AlanB said:
Amtrak couldn't even get Congress to pay for the new Viewliners and the ACS-64's; they had to get creative and borrow money to make that happen. No way they were getting 400 new EMU's out of Congress. And it's that increased revenue, along with hefty loans from the FRA, that allowed Amtrak to buy the Viewliners and the ACS-64 locos. Again, they weren't going to be able to do much more. In fact, at present with the sequestration and the continued hostility in the House towards Amtrak, I think it unlikely that Amtrak will even be able to exercise any of the options on the Viewliner's, much less all of them.
Click to expand...
It really depends on the case that you make. Viewliners and ACS-64 are more of the same, EMUs allow for a significantly better service which is more likely to win votes. In any event, using the increased revenues for loans on EMUs would have been a significantly better choice than using them on the ACS-64 or Viewliners in my opinion. Look at it from the stance of opportunity costs: the $764 million spent on ACS-64 and Viewliners could have bought 32 brand new state of the art 125mph capable EMU sets.
 
True, but those EMU sets would have been unusable outside of a few select areas. You can't run EMUs south of WAS, for example. You can't run them north of NHV on the Inland Route. You can't run them past HAR on the Keystone line, or indeed anywhere north on the Empire Corridor. So, speaking realistically, you'd need to at least pair such an order with a diesel engine order so you could move more Amfleets off the NEC (or at least run them on a few other routes).
 
Anderson said:
Paulus said:
AlanB said:
Amtrak couldn't even get Congress to pay for the new Viewliners and the ACS-64's; they had to get creative and borrow money to make that happen. No way they were getting 400 new EMU's out of Congress. And it's that increased revenue, along with hefty loans from the FRA, that allowed Amtrak to buy the Viewliners and the ACS-64 locos. Again, they weren't going to be able to do much more. In fact, at present with the sequestration and the continued hostility in the House towards Amtrak, I think it unlikely that Amtrak will even be able to exercise any of the options on the Viewliner's, much less all of them.
Click to expand...
It really depends on the case that you make. Viewliners and ACS-64 are more of the same, EMUs allow for a significantly better service which is more likely to win votes. In any event, using the increased revenues for loans on EMUs would have been a significantly better choice than using them on the ACS-64 or Viewliners in my opinion. Look at it from the stance of opportunity costs: the $764 million spent on ACS-64 and Viewliners could have bought 32 brand new state of the art 125mph capable EMU sets.
Click to expand...
True, but those EMU sets would have been unusable outside of a few select areas. You can't run EMUs south of WAS, for example. You can't run them north of NHV on the Inland Route. You can't run them past HAR on the Keystone line, or indeed anywhere north on the Empire Corridor. So, speaking realistically, you'd need to at least pair such an order with a diesel engine order so you could move more Amfleets off the NEC (or at least run them on a few other routes).
Click to expand...
Not to mention the fact that those 32 sets, even assuming that you are correct that you could get them for the same price, aren't enough to replace the 400+ Amfleet I cars. So you'd come up short on trains to cover all runs.

And it doesn't deal with the fact that Amtrak MUST replace the current single level dining cars & baggage cars. It only helps to replace the new locos.
 
Anderson said:
True, but those EMU sets would have been unusable outside of a few select areas. You can't run EMUs south of WAS, for example. You can't run them north of NHV on the Inland Route. You can't run them past HAR on the Keystone line, or indeed anywhere north on the Empire Corridor. So, speaking realistically, you'd need to at least pair such an order with a diesel engine order so you could move more Amfleets off the NEC (or at least run them on a few other routes).
Click to expand...
No different than is the case with the ACS-64 however (though, technically, one could get creative and go for something like the SNCF B 82500 which is a diesel and overhead electric MU).

AlanB said:
Not to mention the fact that those 32 sets, even assuming that you are correct that you could get them for the same price, aren't enough to replace the 400+ Amfleet I cars. So you'd come up short on trains to cover all runs.
And it doesn't deal with the fact that Amtrak MUST replace the current single level dining cars & baggage cars. It only helps to replace the new locos.
Click to expand...
32 sets might not be enough to replace the entire Amfleet set, but it would go rather a significant way towards it and prove far more valuable than keeping Amfleets around with new locomotives. And since I think that the long distance trains ought to be converted to coach+cafe trains along the lines of the Palmetto, I don't think that the loss of some sleepers and baggage cars is much of a loss at all.
 
Paulus said:
AlanB said:
Amtrak couldn't even get Congress to pay for the new Viewliners and the ACS-64's; they had to get creative and borrow money to make that happen. No way they were getting 400 new EMU's out of Congress. And it's that increased revenue, along with hefty loans from the FRA, that allowed Amtrak to buy the Viewliners and the ACS-64 locos. Again, they weren't going to be able to do much more. In fact, at present with the sequestration and the continued hostility in the House towards Amtrak, I think it unlikely that Amtrak will even be able to exercise any of the options on the Viewliner's, much less all of them.
Click to expand...
It really depends on the case that you make. Viewliners and ACS-64 are more of the same, EMUs allow for a significantly better service which is more likely to win votes. In any event, using the increased revenues for loans on EMUs would have been a significantly better choice than using them on the ACS-64 or Viewliners in my opinion. Look at it from the stance of opportunity costs: the $764 million spent on ACS-64 and Viewliners could have bought 32 brand new state of the art 125mph capable EMU sets.
Click to expand...
Actually it does not depend on any case you or I make at all. :) It depends on the approach that Amtrak and FRA is comfortable with.
I don't think you could buy 32 EMU sets for the price of the ACS 64s. You cannot meaningfully lump the Viewliners into this discussion unless you are sitting in a fantasy world of denial. The Viewliners have absolutely nothing to do with corridor service so should not even enter the equation for this discussion. The Viewliners are necessary for LD service and those will not be EMU (or even DMUs) in this country in the foreseeable future, so scratch that.

My guess is that the Acela IIs will be the first distributed power semi-permanently coupled sets to be deployed, i.e. they will have motors under passenger accommodation, unlike in Acelas. I believe Regional service will continue to be trailers pulled by power heads for a long time to come. They may get front and tail dual power heads like Acelas, but that will be it for now.

BTW, if passenger rail service really had any significant effect on "winning votes" it would not be in the pitiful state that it is in. All evidence suggests that the effect on votes is minimal (even among the denizens in the AU forum, where many have vocally stated that they consider other issues as more pressing in determining how they will vote, than what happens to Amtrak or passenger rail), and it is unlikely that a vast majority of those who ride trains could tell the difference between an EMU and a regular train anyway. Very few of the riders of NJT apparently can, and in survey after survey, they mostly love the push pull MLVs over the EMUs anyway, when they can tell the difference.
 
Winning votes from Congresscritters, not from the general public. The general public is irrelevant outside of state initiatives (such as California's several rail bonds). And yes, the Viewliner is relevant as it is part of a simple prioritization. What do we spend money on now? Upgrading a far more heavily used service that is approaching end of life or purchasing some new sleepers and baggage cars for a comparatively lightly used service? How many passengers and how much revenue can you win with a new, faster, better Regional service and how many passengers and revenue can you get with a few extra sleepers and baggage cars?
 
Paulus said:
Winning votes from Congresscritters, not from the general public. The general public is irrelevant outside of state initiatives (such as California's several rail bonds). And yes, the Viewliner is relevant as it is part of a simple prioritization. What do we spend money on now? Upgrading a far more heavily used service that is approaching end of life or purchasing some new sleepers and baggage cars for a comparatively lightly used service? How many passengers and how much revenue can you win with a new, faster, better Regional service and how many passengers and revenue can you get with a few extra sleepers and baggage cars?
Click to expand...
Trust me, funding for NEC will fall apart if the LD network falls apart. It is very relevant that LD service be maintained in order to maintain the coalition that enables funding of things like the NEC. Clearly there is a lack of understanding of the fundamental political forces that makes the system get funding these days, and how precarious the coalition is. The pro-rail coalition in the Corridor states collectively do not have enough votes to maintain funding for themselves unless they get others to support them. One needs to realize that even in states like New York and Pennsylvania, only about half the federal legislators, and in NJ about 2/3rds to 3/4ths vote in favor of passenger rail. The others vote against, and more or less they are all sitting in safe seats.

So no, the Viewliners are not relevant when considering NEC related acquisition. You cannot exchange Viewliners for something for the NEC.

Really, if you think EMUs will win Congresscritters votes, all I can do is shake my head in disbelief and leave it at that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Paulus said:
Winning votes from Congresscritters, not from the general public. The general public is irrelevant outside of state initiatives (such as California's several rail bonds). And yes, the Viewliner is relevant as it is part of a simple prioritization. What do we spend money on now? Upgrading a far more heavily used service that is approaching end of life or purchasing some new sleepers and baggage cars for a comparatively lightly used service? How many passengers and how much revenue can you win with a new, faster, better Regional service and how many passengers and revenue can you get with a few extra sleepers and baggage cars?
Click to expand...
The general public elects congresscritters and from time to time and some of those critters get held accountable by those voters.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The NEC can financially support itself without the long distance network and I did not suggest having the LD network fall apart. I said that it should receive less priority than the NEC and preferentially ought to be converted to a coach+cafe service.

And it's the attributes that EMUs bring with them that should win votes, especially their far superior acceleration, which means trip time reductions. A campaign of "Every train an Acela" does have the potential for political gain, especially if Amtrak is able to do studies and show that it would lead to increased ridership and revenues.
 
Good grief, Keith Laing :excl: Somebody needs a geography lesson :excl:

From this article in The Hill:

Amtrak has considered eliminating portions of the Pennsylvanian line, which runs from New York City to Harrisburg, Pa., with stops in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.
Click to expand...
:blink: :blink: :blink:

And Mr. Laing, the author, probably thinks those are the only stops between New York and Harrisburg. :giggle:
 
Paulus said:
The NEC can financially support itself without the long distance network and I did not suggest having the LD network fall apart. I said that it should receive less priority than the NEC and preferentially ought to be converted to a coach+cafe service.
Click to expand...
The NEC cannot financially support itself at present, just given the sheer backlog of work that is needed to bring it to a state of good repair. One could come up with a fee schedule that possibly could, but the politics of it is complicated and we are quite far from that at the present time. It needs cash infusion and the coalition needs to be in place to enable that. At least so I am told by people who spend their entire life working this issue, and I trust they do know a bit more about such things than I.
And it's the attributes that EMUs bring with them that should win votes, especially their far superior acceleration, which means trip time reductions. A campaign of "Every train an Acela" does have the potential for political gain, especially if Amtrak is able to do studies and show that it would lead to increased ridership and revenues.
Click to expand...
If one could find the funds for what is needed to make that possible yes. But right now such funds are not available, so it is only a hypothetical discussion.
I think the potential for political gain using HSR is being overestimated and its costs being underestimated in this particular position being taken. And trust me, this is from someone who actually supports HSR, but is grounded somewhat in reality.

Admittedly a situation will come where the mix of liquid fuel prices and other conditions could be obtained which will tilt the balance much more in favor of HSR. But we are not quite there yet and not even very near there yet.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Paulus said:
The NEC can financially support itself without the long distance network and I did not suggest having the LD network fall apart. I said that it should receive less priority than the NEC and preferentially ought to be converted to a coach+cafe service.
And it's the attributes that EMUs bring with them that should win votes, especially their far superior acceleration, which means trip time reductions. A campaign of "Every train an Acela" does have the potential for political gain, especially if Amtrak is able to do studies and show that it would lead to increased ridership and revenues.
Click to expand...
Of course that is fantasy as it certainly cannot support itself. It is funded by Congress with tax money from all 50 states and by sloughing off it's overhead to the LD and State supported trains. On the other hand, if that position prevails, that is that the LD trains be converted to coach+cafe service, in other words rail based Greyhounds, then I would maintain that the NEC be supported by the states in which it runs as it is clearly under the 750 mile limit. It serves no one outside the northeast so why should we support it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top