Amtrak Plans to Replace Fleet
- Thread starter rolfecms
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
I think the reporter confused some parts of the press conference call.
"Boardman said Amtrak wants to shave 15 minutes off the high-speed Acela Express travel time between New York and Washington, D.C., and New York and Boston.
Reducing the travel time will require a significant investment: $10 billion between New York and Boston, and $6 billion between New York and Washington. Between New York and Washington Amtrak needs to straighten some curves along the train's path, replace some railroad ties, and change some tunnel approaches, Boardman said."
Those $ numbers are significantly bigger than those in the recent interim NEC master plan report. That report has $3.7 billion to reduce Acela travel times from BOS-NYP to 3:10 and $6.5 billion to reduce NYP-WAS times to 2:20. I think the shaving 15 minutes off each leg would be the first upgrade step for faster times on the NEC. The stated goal in the interim report is 3:00 for BOS-NYP and 2:15 to NYP-WAS. And If they are really talking about $10 billion for NYP-BOS, that would suggest they might be considering new ROW alignments between New Haven and Westerly, RI. That could get the BOS-NYP travel times down under 3:00.
It will be interesting to see the details of what the proposed plans are.
If it was up to me, I would push not only getting the current NEC up to decent speed, but push extension of the electrified tracks with electrification and up to 125 mph speeds on the southern end to Richmond, if not Petersburg, VA; up to Springfield, MA; up to Albany and Schenectady, and get the Keystone East up to 125 mph+. Restore (diesel) service to Allentown and Scranton to get the larger cities of the NE and eastern mid-Atlantic back on the train system. Then extend the electrified system to Pittsburgh with some new faster (and very expensive) ROW and down to Norfolk and Virginia Beach on the southern end. Would make for a much faster and more used train system for the Northeast and mid-Atlantic region. And with multiple daily frequency corridor service connecting to this expanded Eastern electrified system. But I am not in charge... :lol:
"Boardman said Amtrak wants to shave 15 minutes off the high-speed Acela Express travel time between New York and Washington, D.C., and New York and Boston.
Reducing the travel time will require a significant investment: $10 billion between New York and Boston, and $6 billion between New York and Washington. Between New York and Washington Amtrak needs to straighten some curves along the train's path, replace some railroad ties, and change some tunnel approaches, Boardman said."
Those $ numbers are significantly bigger than those in the recent interim NEC master plan report. That report has $3.7 billion to reduce Acela travel times from BOS-NYP to 3:10 and $6.5 billion to reduce NYP-WAS times to 2:20. I think the shaving 15 minutes off each leg would be the first upgrade step for faster times on the NEC. The stated goal in the interim report is 3:00 for BOS-NYP and 2:15 to NYP-WAS. And If they are really talking about $10 billion for NYP-BOS, that would suggest they might be considering new ROW alignments between New Haven and Westerly, RI. That could get the BOS-NYP travel times down under 3:00.
It will be interesting to see the details of what the proposed plans are.
If it was up to me, I would push not only getting the current NEC up to decent speed, but push extension of the electrified tracks with electrification and up to 125 mph speeds on the southern end to Richmond, if not Petersburg, VA; up to Springfield, MA; up to Albany and Schenectady, and get the Keystone East up to 125 mph+. Restore (diesel) service to Allentown and Scranton to get the larger cities of the NE and eastern mid-Atlantic back on the train system. Then extend the electrified system to Pittsburgh with some new faster (and very expensive) ROW and down to Norfolk and Virginia Beach on the southern end. Would make for a much faster and more used train system for the Northeast and mid-Atlantic region. And with multiple daily frequency corridor service connecting to this expanded Eastern electrified system. But I am not in charge... :lol:
amtrakwolverine
Engineer
want to get the acela to shave time without messing with the tracks. upgrade the catenary wires. some sections lack the automatic tension needed for 150MPH running.
Cho Cho Charlie
Engineer
:wub:
Allentown is #3, behind only Philly and Pittsburgh, in size here in PA. Large enough to warrant having rail service to somewhere.
domefoamer
Train Attendant
- Joined
- May 27, 2005
- Messages
- 92
This has to be good news for reliability of the rolling stock (who calls a set of trains a "fleet"?). And if it's done right, with attractive design, it will increase passenger appeal. And this time, unlike the coming or the Superliners, many of us won't be mourning the retirement of the older passenger cars. I miss Slumbercoaches, Heritage equipment in general, and especially real dome cars, but what current Amtrak cars are distinctive enough to miss, besides the last Great Dome?
Common enough usage on this side of the Atlantic.
George Harris
Engineer
Sounds right on this side of it, also.
Aloha
Sounds correct to me in describing all of the vehicles of a company, division, or location
domefoamer
Train Attendant
- Joined
- May 27, 2005
- Messages
- 92
Silly me, I thought a "fleet" was made of up things that float. I'm a traditionalist, I'll stick with "rolling stock." But I imagine that means less to the general public.
George Harris
Engineer
Funny, I heard about the Santa Fe's "fleet" of streamliners as a kid, also the "fleet" of trains operated by the Pennsy between New York and Washington. I had alwasy considered "rolling stock" more of a European thing, with "cars" bot freight and passenger being more American. (Engines were a separate category altogether.)
Acela150
Super Buff
Ok, the idea of faster speeds between WAS-NRO is more then caternary. If you think about it signals are placed every mile to mile and a half, not even. If you are running 150MPH and signals are placed that far apart and the frequency of the trains. The speed would be hard to maintain. Let's say Train 86 is on track 2 or 3 (the inside track) and 2158 is right behind it. 86 would be a mile ahead and is going 125MPH. 2158 would be going 150MPH on the same track and then all of a sudden it hits an approach medium. You would going from 150 to 45 or so and need to do that in less then a mile. That's 105MPH drop. You would do that constantly if they don't switch 86 over. Between NHV and BOS signals are placed every two miles or so and the trains are less frequent. So keep in mind it is a combination of things not just the caternary.
Stephen
Stephen
TVRM610
Conductor
But what if train 86 was running 122 mph. and then increases to 126 before braking for for a turn? What then? (Sorry.. i know that is smart-a of me but I couldn't resisit)
Seriously though... I'm not sure I follow your logic. If the track and catenary are good for 150, Amtrak can change schedules to make it work.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Also if one were to assume that the signaling system is something like what is installed in the NEC then first the Acela would hit cab 80 or something like that four blocks back. It would be very unlikely to hit a approach medium straight from 150mph anyway. That is not how 9 aspect cab signals on the NEC work.
M
MikefromCrete
Guest
You never heard of the New York Central's post-war "Great Steel Fleet"?
wrjensen
Service Attendant
Kramerica
Service Attendant
"Amtrak currently operates nearly half of its more than 300 daily trains at speeds of 100 mph or higher on their routes."
That's not very comforting to anyone who lives outside the NEC. That whole press release is just a list of one NEC project after another.
From the press release:
"Long-Distance Routes, Corridor Services and Commuter Contract
Amtrak will undertake an in-depth evaluation of the poorest performing long-distance
routes to identify and implement changes where possible to improve key measures such as
customer service, ridership, and financial performance. The five routes being analyzed are the
Sunset Limited, Cardinal, Texas Eagle, Capitol Limited, and California Zephyr."
I'm hoping for a daily Sunset with a 10:30pm departure from LAX, and for the return of Superliners to the Cardinal.
Last edited by a moderator:
TVRM610
Conductor
While I agree with you to a point... you have to realize that Amtrak is counting several LD trains in this category as well.. Obviously all the Acelas, Regionals, Empire Service and Keystones fall into this category but also the Crescent, Lake Shore, Cardinal, Silver Star/Meteor, Carolinian am I forgetting any?
Plus there is the Chicago-Michigan corridor that sees 100 speeds as well. Does Chicago to St. Louis see high speeds at all? I'm thinking no, but I remember it being talked about.
wrjensen
Service Attendant
None of CHI-STL over 100 mph. In the peak (before Amtrak) Chicago to Milwaukee was over 100 mph.
G
Guest
Guest
You never heard of a fleet of planes?
Though, I guess a plane might float better than a diesel loco.
Ask Captain Sullenberger!You never heard of a fleet of planes?
Though, I guess a plane might float better than a diesel loco.
Acela150
Super Buff
While my point about the signals and other is true I was using 86 and 2158 as an example as would could happen.
domefoamer
Train Attendant
- Joined
- May 27, 2005
- Messages
- 92
All right, call it a fleet. But why speak of "replacing" it? Don't we need to add more coaches, sleepers, lounges and diners to the system? That's what I've been reading on the railfan boards up to now. We need better dining options on trains like the Cardinal, and more sleepers on every route. Adding comfort to our LD trains is far cheaper than adding speed.
The airline industry is only now retiring the past 727s and 737s. I've been flying on those planes for half my life, which works out to 25 years plus. Amtrak's oldest coaches are around 30, I'd guess, but others would know for sure. Railcars should be even more long-lived than aircraft, since the basic designs and materials are so mature and they don't include propulsion systems. Or toilets, which seem to be the most troublesome malfunction on Superliners.
Some new equipment is necessary. Production should be spread over consecutive years to support steady, efficient growth of our domestic railcar industry. But I'd imagine two-thirds of our current passenger cars would be well worth keeping-- wouldn't you? To reverse the motto of Orwell's Big Brother, "Mending is Better than Ending."
The airline industry is only now retiring the past 727s and 737s. I've been flying on those planes for half my life, which works out to 25 years plus. Amtrak's oldest coaches are around 30, I'd guess, but others would know for sure. Railcars should be even more long-lived than aircraft, since the basic designs and materials are so mature and they don't include propulsion systems. Or toilets, which seem to be the most troublesome malfunction on Superliners.
Some new equipment is necessary. Production should be spread over consecutive years to support steady, efficient growth of our domestic railcar industry. But I'd imagine two-thirds of our current passenger cars would be well worth keeping-- wouldn't you? To reverse the motto of Orwell's Big Brother, "Mending is Better than Ending."
Eh? The average age of a typical US carrier airline fleet is 10 to 15 years. And, yes, they do call them fleets. Rental car companies have fleets too. The first generation of 737s which entered service 40 years started being retired by the major US carriers 20 years ago. Most of them get passed on to charter carriers or less developed country airlines. There are few 727s left in active service for the major passenger airlines in the US.
The average age of Amtrak equipment is obviously much higher than the airlines, but the lifespan of a passenger train car is longer than that of a typical passenger airplane that goes through repeated pressure cycles on each takeoff & landing. And where older planes burn more fuel compared to newer gen airplanes. Hopefully, the thinking behind the talk of "replacing" the fleet is the need to get political support to buy a lot of new equipment without leaving the opening to have Congress say, oh, you plan to keep many of the Amfleets in service for another 10 years for additional service or interim fill-ins for new corridor services? ok, then we'll cut your funding so Amtrak can only buy 1/2 as many cars as they planned. Amtrak has to play a complex political dance between public announcements and their 535 would be bosses on Capital Hill.
16 billion to shave 15 minutes off of one rail line? I too wonder how many long abandoned intercity services could be restored to the rest of the country with that money? Amtrak as usual has a mind set of improvements mean northeast corridor. Do they think the rest of us should just pay for their service while being ignored? Well I guess from past example that is exactly what they think.
I would have been happier to see instead of fixing the long distance trains they presently run, which should have been done without prodding, some announcements for service that would make connections more convenient for many others who are not "included" in the plans as usual.
Extending just the River Runners back to Centralia and on the other end up to Omaha would give thousands of passengers many more convenient options for rail travel. That change alone with a CN train run to Florida would give the whole midwest a way to get to florida without going days out of the way, not to consider what the extra rail fares come to. That is something that is rarely discussed when these ideas of expanded service come up. One has to really weigh why you would want to pay up to 77.00 just to go 6 hours out of your way, spend nearly a whole day in chicago, then pay again to return to where you started as far as distance is concerned just to go south on amtrak? A direct connection such as was suggested would save days and many dollars for passengers, that would have to be a winner. But of course nothing is proposed by the actual management that would do that. How about using those 16 billion to do that instead? Or just about any other expansion of services to the rest of the country that would make connections easier for people. Enough on the east coast already.
I would have been happier to see instead of fixing the long distance trains they presently run, which should have been done without prodding, some announcements for service that would make connections more convenient for many others who are not "included" in the plans as usual.
Extending just the River Runners back to Centralia and on the other end up to Omaha would give thousands of passengers many more convenient options for rail travel. That change alone with a CN train run to Florida would give the whole midwest a way to get to florida without going days out of the way, not to consider what the extra rail fares come to. That is something that is rarely discussed when these ideas of expanded service come up. One has to really weigh why you would want to pay up to 77.00 just to go 6 hours out of your way, spend nearly a whole day in chicago, then pay again to return to where you started as far as distance is concerned just to go south on amtrak? A direct connection such as was suggested would save days and many dollars for passengers, that would have to be a winner. But of course nothing is proposed by the actual management that would do that. How about using those 16 billion to do that instead? Or just about any other expansion of services to the rest of the country that would make connections easier for people. Enough on the east coast already.
- Status
