jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
However infra improvements that enable additional frequency usually trump merely a few minutes saved here and there.
That seems to be the idea on the Cascades route Portland-Seattle, where the $850 million (or is it more like a Billion) current Stimulus-funds upgrades aim to increase frequencies by 50% Cascades only or 40% over Cascades plus the Coast Starlight (that is, 4 will become 6, or 5 will become 7). Meanwhile the on time performance is to improve, they promise, but only 5 or 10 minutes tops will be cut from the timetable. So basically this round is all about frequency and capacity.However infra improvements that enable additional frequency usually trump merely a few minutes saved here and there.
Why, yes, yes, it should. In practice, we've seen ballooning overhead lately... I think a lot of that is due to the extremely high expense of replacing Amtrak's 1950s-era and 1970s-era IT systems, which shows up in overhead. If Amtrak ever finishes that process (ARROW is written in mainframe assembly language -- seriously?!?) the overhead from that should drop back to normal.I'm assuming that overhead should grow more slowly than train miles or route miles increase.
Everything you mentioned. EVERYTHING. Debt service, back shops, reservations system, corporate HQ, everything. This is the craziness of "fully allocated costs".But I'm not sure what Amtrak includes in this overhead.
I can't be sure ... but it certainly looks like it.Some folks at headquarters are working on the pending order for Acela IIs, and the long delayed order for Viewliners. Are their costs allocated to the Coast Starlight and other trains by route miles?
Yep.I keep ending up where I left off. More Amtrak would spread overhead over a larger base, bring the ratio into balance, and reduce the allocated overhead per route mile or per train-mile.
The on-time performance is a big deal. The promise is that it will go up from 75% to 95%.That seems to be the idea on the Cascades route Portland-Seattle, where the $850 million (or is it more like a Billion) current Stimulus-funds upgrades aim to increase frequencies by 50% Cascades only or 40% over Cascades plus the Coast Starlight (that is, 4 will become 6, or 5 will become 7). Meanwhile the on time performance is to improve, they promise, but only 5 or 10 minutes tops will be cut from the timetable. So basically this round is all about frequency and capacity.
I think the difference in the emphasis of the improvements for the corridors you discuss is driven by what the problems are. The Cascades corridor has decent Seattle to Portland trip times, but historically poor reliability. The CHI-STL and CHI-DET corridors both have circa 5.5 hour trip times which hold down ridership and, particularly for the CHI-STL corridor, poor reliability due to single ended sidings, freight traffic, poor track conditions.That seems to be the idea on the Cascades route Portland-Seattle, where the $850 million (or is it more like a Billion) current Stimulus-funds upgrades aim to increase frequencies by 50% Cascades only or 40% over Cascades plus the Coast Starlight (that is, 4 will become 6, or 5 will become 7). Meanwhile the on time performance is to improve, they promise, but only 5 or 10 minutes tops will be cut from the timetable. So basically this round is all about frequency and capacity.
OTOH, both the Chicago corridors seem to concentrate on faster times, about 40 minutes faster from St Louis and about 50 minutes faster from Detroit. There will be about a 30% increase in capacity from going over to bi-level equipment, but NO promised or announced increases in frequencies. Well, maybe they had little choice. More frequencies thru the South of the Lake corridor (without another Billion or two in upgrades SOTL) could bring the Norfolk Southern main line to a halt, as seen before. LOL. And of course, for both the Wolverines and the Lincoln Service, this is only the first round of needed, planned, and as-yet-unfunded upgrades.
But I'm not recalling a specific infrastructure project that expanded capacity without shaving run times, or one that cut times without at least potentially (like the Michigan trains) increasing capacity.
My understanding is that you simply can't get to 90 minutes WAS-RVR without a good chunk of the line being upgraded to 90 MPH. You have about a 110 mile run; doing that in 90 minutes requires an average speed of over 70 MPH (110 miles/90 MPH gives an average speed of about 73 MPH). 90 MPH is also derived from the fact that CSX has indicated that they'll work with 90 MPH on the RF&P but aren't inclined to cooperate with a higher MAS.I think trip time minimization is the more important goal. Increasing MAS from 70 to 90 is one of the derived goals from it and indeed may have much lower priority if a bunch of 20 mph zones (curves, crossovers or interlocking) are available to raise to 50 mph somehow, or a passing track to increase reliability, for equal or close to equal cost.
More important than top speed, but...I think trip time minimization is the more important goal.
Thanks for that good n clear explanation. But you may be more misoveroptimistic :giggle: than I am, to think times WASH-BOS will drop to 6 hours without many good years and many Billions gone by.Trip time minimizing will have an important secondary benefit Using present timetables imagine a WASH - BOS train now scheduled 0315 - 1105 arrival ( 7:50 en route ).. If that trip time can be reduced to 6 hours then then the train set can cover the 1310 departure instead of the 1520 departure. Arrival WASH 1845 instead of 1945 ( present schedule 2305 for the 1520 ). Then cover the 2105 departure to NYP instead of terminating in WASH.
That allows the same number of rolling stock cars to be used for more miles a day increasing capacity. During slack times gives more time for car PM to increase reliability.
But now I'm confusing myself about Amtrak overhead allocated to the state-supported corridor trains. Did the post-PRIIA formulas limit all that, or what?Why, yes, yes, it should. ...I'm assuming that overhead should grow more slowly than train miles or route miles increase.
Everything you mentioned. EVERYTHING. Debt service, back shops, reservations system, corporate HQ, everything. This is the craziness of "fully allocated costs".But I'm not sure what Amtrak includes in this overhead.Yep.I keep ending up where I left off. More Amtrak would spread overhead over a larger base, bring the ratio into balance, and reduce the allocated overhead per route mile or per train-mile.
I typed RZD into google and it said Russian Railways. I suppose others could do so too if they really wanted to know instead of just moaning about it?Who the heck are RZD, RIC/UIC, CD and OeBB? This is like using station codes instead of the real names of places. It seems cool, but is unnecessarily confusing. Really, I've never heard of these carriers. I assume they are European railroads, but who knows?
It was a dirty job but somebody had to do it.RZD is the Russian State Railway, CD is the Cezch Republic's and OeBB (also seen anglicized as 'OBB' and technically 'ÖBB') is the Austrian Railway. RIC/UIC is essentially a leasing company in Europe for passenger cars (think TTX). All but RIC/UIC are pretty much the Amtrak's of some European countries.
peter
I don't think it's my job to do the work of the poster. If he wants to make a point he should make it clear.I typed RZD into google and it said Russian Railways. I suppose others could do so too if they really wanted to know instead of just moaning about it?Who the heck are RZD, RIC/UIC, CD and OeBB? This is like using station codes instead of the real names of places. It seems cool, but is unnecessarily confusing. Really, I've never heard of these carriers. I assume they are European railroads, but who knows?
A few years back Amtrak (& some states) issued the specs for new bi-level cars. Soon after some were ordered from Nippon Sharyo. With the new specs for single-level cars, not so lucky. (Hey, back on topic AGAIN?)Just a little footnote about the AAF Siemens order.
The cars AAF are getting aren't new untested designs. Siemens is doing the same thing they did for the ACS-64, Velaro (Acela IIs/Cali HSR), and Diesel locos (bets it'll be called the ACR-##?) which is to take their already successful european designs and convert them for use here in the states.
The AAF coaches will be a modified version of the Viaggio coaches ...
As I understand it, before PRIIA, Amtrak charged a negotiated price for each of these; this was at least the incremental cost (Amtrak made money on every deal), but less than the 'fully allocated' cost.But now I'm confusing myself about Amtrak overhead allocated to the state-supported corridor trains. Did the post-PRIIA formulas limit all that, or what?
Enter your email address to join: