Amtrak to issue RFI for Acela II in early 2013

[Guest]

As someone who is old enough to have ridden both the Metro Liners and now Acela on the NEC, I have to agree with Alan on this matter! When I first rode the Metroliners between WAS and NYP most of my co-workers still took the Cattle cars, er Eastern Shuttle and couldnt understand why someone would want to ride a train when they could fly? :wacko: This was before the days of cell phones, lap tops, i-pads etc. and it was nice to get away from the cities for awhile and relax in the mostly quite cars (except when the drunks would get out of hand! :giggle: ) I also frequently rode on the old New haven RR between BOS and NYP, mostly in the Club Car/Lounge where Beer was an exhorbirent $1 a Bottle but the ride sure was nice!

Basically there are Three Kinds of People, those who see the Glass as Half Full or Half Empty, and those who see it as Completely Empty! Think most of us on here, like Alan are Realists, not Apologists for Amtrak, so I just gotta say I think the Poster who has no use for Acelas on the NEC is Full of it!

"Full of it"? Are you another miffed railfan? Are you so in love with trains that you are blinded to the fact (or don't care) that the taxpayer is being fleeced for monies to support a high speed rail project that is not high speed?

Read the posts and find where I stated anything that is not true. All of those 'little' amenities you mention which seem to mask the fact that the Acela is not much faster than the Regionals can in fact be fitted to the present fleet of standard equipment at considerably less money than purchasing an Acela II.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, and you are correct about Acela not being worth the Premium Price over a Regional! But most folks whoi ride Acela, especially FC, are VIPs and Wealthy Business Travels that have their expenses paid by the taxpayers! I personally only ride Acela when it is Paid for by someone else, a Regional is fine for me whether Paid or AGR! <_<

As to the "HSR" thing, that's a political Word that the WAS Suits throw around, we will NEVER have 300MPH Trains like the Orient and Europe, it would Bankrupt our Country to build such Real HSR Routes, and there is not the Political Will to fund such a Project even though other Countries such as China are doing it as we speak! I wish it wasnt called HSR either, but a Rose by any Other Name etc.!

I am a Railfan and Amtrak Supporter, but not a Foamer, I would say, since I'm 68 years old, that I have probably traveled many millions of miles on all Forms of Transportation in most of the World, so I do think I am a realist! Amtrak has lots of problems, lots of stuff that can be improved, some of it is,Slowly! You have to know the Cultural in Washington to understand why things work so Slowly and become FUBARd so much! It's actually a Miracle that Amtrak still exists! (It was set up by Nixon to FAIL!!) Im glad we have Amtrak, hope we have it to kick around for many more years, the Alternative is Not Pleasantt to think about! YMMV!!

 

[Blackwolf]

*sigh* Semantics aside, Amtrak is going to purchase Acela II's. Like it or not. Cup half full/half empty/completely brimming or bone dry. And baring any major forced reconsideration, the new sets are going to be Tier III compliant. I see no end to the argument of failure or not based on one's personal opinion here on this forum or elsewhere.

Call it a waste of money because the NEC is not going to see TGV speeds in the next 30 years if you want to. But Amtrak, the Acela I and II, and rail travel in the Northeast is not going anywhere but toward even more ridership as time goes on.

 

[Anderson]

As someone who is old enough to have ridden both the Metro Liners and now Acela on the NEC, I have to agree with Alan on this matter! When I first rode the Metroliners between WAS and NYP most of my co-workers still took the Cattle cars, er Eastern Shuttle and couldnt understand why someone would want to ride a train when they could fly? :wacko: This was before the days of cell phones, lap tops, i-pads etc. and it was nice to get away from the cities for awhile and relax in the mostly quite cars (except when the drunks would get out of hand! :giggle: ) I also frequently rode on the old New haven RR between BOS and NYP, mostly in the Club Car/Lounge where Beer was an exhorbirent $1 a Bottle but the ride sure was nice!

Basically there are Three Kinds of People, those who see the Glass as Half Full or Half Empty, and those who see it as Completely Empty! Think most of us on here, like Alan are Realists, not Apologists for Amtrak, so I just gotta say I think the Poster who has no use for Acelas on the NEC is Full of it!

"Full of it"? Are you another miffed railfan? Are you so in love with trains that you are blinded to the fact (or don't care) that the taxpayer is being fleeced for monies to support a high speed rail project that is not high speed?

Read the posts and find where I stated anything that is not true. All of those 'little' amenities you mention which seem to mask the fact that the Acela is not much faster than the Regionals can in fact be fitted to the present fleet of standard equipment at considerably less money than purchasing an Acela II.

Ok, let's see...the Acela turns a profit and cross-subsidizes the rest of the Amtrak system above the rails, and based on my understanding, they were expecting to be able to pay for at least the 40 supplementary cars with added revenue. There's a good chance the Acela IIs will pay for themselves all told. So I think the claim that the Acela is a taxpayer ripoff is dubious.

Maybe, by your insinuation, people are stupid. Maybe the seats on the Acela (which are nicer than those on the Regional, especially in FC) make a differe.nce, too. It may have also been the presence of Wi-Fi (which was really nice heading from DC to Boston one time and which can't have hurt). I don't have hard numbers going back before the Acela was running, so I can't see how well the Acela did vs. the Metroliners in 2000 or 1995. Hell, maybe George Warrington sprinkled the sets with pixie dust! The point is that the shiny, new trains with marginal time improvements sold to folks.

I will say that it's probably better to compare the Acelas to a combo of what the Metroliners actually achieved NYP-WAS on the one hand, and what the New Haven looked like in the late 40s and early 50s on the other (as things rather went to hell by the late 60s even if the timetables didn't keep pace with the decline). But I'd also point out that even before the Acelas, Amtrak did a lot to improve the NEC from the mess that it inherited in the 70s (which was, at least south of NYP, an improvement over what existed in the early 60s).

Another point: If improved speeds improves ridership and revenue, do it. If better seats improves things, do that. If just repainting the equipment improves things, then do that. Heck, if putting a couple of Orks in the drivers seat and painting red on the sides improves the operation's performance and attracts riders, then do that! It doesn't really matter if the reason the Acela worked was because timekeeping and speeds improved, because the seats were nicer, or because the ad office earned their keep. The Acela worked, and it worked a miracle.

 

[Anderson]

Just for reference:

     Metroliner    Metroliner    Standard    Standard
   Coach        Metroclub    Coach        Parlor
1971    $17.00        $27.40        $13.00        $23.15
1971*    $94.40        $152.00        $72.20        $129.00
2012 S    -------        -------        $49.00        $89.00
2012 L    $145.00        $254.00        $80.00        $120.00
2012 H    $242.00        $351.00        $153.00        $193.00

Second row is 1971 adjusted for inflation to 2011 (I don't have data for 2012 yet), and I used the numbers from back in May. Numbers below are the "advance special", the lowest (other) bucket, and the top bucket. Obviously, for 2012, the Acela is substituted for the Metroliner. Bottom line: In real terms, the Acela at low bucket is kicking the Metroliner's butt in terms of yielded fares. At high bucket, you're well over twice the fare.

 

[George Harris]

"Full of it"? Are you another miffed railfan? Are you so in love with trains that you are blinded to the fact (or don't care) that the taxpayer is being fleeced for monies to support a high speed rail project that is not high speed?

If I am understanding correctly, you are saying that the only way to properly do this is to build a completely new railroad. I can think of almost nothing more unrealistic than that. It is simiply not going to happen. If it were seriously proposed to do so, our grandchildren would still be dealing with the various impact statements, studies of this and that, and lawsuits. Cost? You could probably build a new high speed between New York and Chicago or Chicago and Los Angeles cheaper. Where is a sufficiently straight line to be found between Washington, New York, and Boston to be able to run a consistent 150 mph or faster speed. (If you want to go for 150 mph, you might as well go for 250 mph as there will be littile difference in either difficulty of finding the alignment or the cost.

 

[AlanB]

Would you like to buy a bridge? hboy:

As indicated right below my name to the left of my posts, I live in NY City. As a NYC taxpayer, I already own the bridge.

So I deal in facts, like the ones that I post.

I am not at all opposed to change but it must sensible change.Ccan't you see that high speed trains on the NEC existing "ROW" are a waste of taxpayer dollars?

No, I can't see that because it's not true. Acela was designed to improve speeds on the NEC and to improve revenue and customer satisfaction. While it failed to achieve the original, and probably lofty goals of the first item, it still has improved speeds over the equipment that was running at the time it was conceived. And it has accomplished the second two things. And they are just as important, if not more important than the first. An Acela that makes Boston - New York in 3 hours but runs with fewer passengers and less revenue is not something that we want.or need.

As for wasting taxpayer dollars, consider that the Acela trainsets cost Amtrak $1.2 Billion. Acela since 2003 has made an operating profit of $1.271 Billion 2003 through 2012. While I grant that there are other capital costs, like the slightly higher track standards for the 135 MPH to 150 MPH track sections, that should get charged to Acela, But Acela has technically paid for the trainsets with its operating profits.

Please show me a Superliner coach that has made enough money to cover it's price tag.

The "big picture"? I certainly do look at the big picture I was railroading before Amtrak was 'born' and you know something, and I'm not alone in my feelings, they really haven't got it right yet. They are still employing the trial and error hit and miss tactics since their inception. It's tragic what they have done to this (NEC) railroad.

I wouldn't argue that Amtrak doesn't have it right. I agree. Amtrak gets many things wrong. Certainly all the monkeying with Acela specs which was partly Amtrak, partly FRA, and partly the consortium didn't help. But they also do get some things right, like for example the fact that they no push more trains through NYP than ever before. But unfortunately they are also being held back by the negativity of those like you. You continue to sit here concerned with only one thing, Acela didn't meet its advertised running times. Ergo, that makes it a colossal failure. And that is wrong! Sorry.

Yes, it didn't meet that goal. But the customers like it and they are willing to pay for it. And that is just as important, if not more important that those speed goals. And it certainly means that while Acela did not perhaps achieve as much success as it might have had they met the speed goals, it does make the train a success.

 

[Guest]

"Full of it"? Are you another miffed railfan? Are you so in love with trains that you are blinded to the fact (or don't care) that the taxpayer is being fleeced for monies to support a high speed rail project that is not high speed?

If I am understanding correctly, you are saying that the only way to properly do this is to build a completely new railroad. I can think of almost nothing more unrealistic than that. It is simiply not going to happen. If it were seriously proposed to do so, our grandchildren would still be dealing with the various impact statements, studies of this and that, and lawsuits. Cost? You could probably build a new high speed between New York and Chicago or Chicago and Los Angeles cheaper. Where is a sufficiently straight line to be found between Washington, New York, and Boston to be able to run a consistent 150 mph or faster speed. (If you want to go for 150 mph, you might as well go for 250 mph as there will be littile difference in either difficulty of finding the alignment or the cost.

Yes the only way to achieve true high speed rail is to build a dedicated infrastructure. Now point out to me where I say I am in favor of it. I'll wait.

 

[Guest]

Would you like to buy a bridge? hboy:

As indicated right below my name to the left of my posts, I live in NY City. As a NYC taxpayer, I already own the bridge.

So I deal in facts, like the ones that I post.

I am not at all opposed to change but it must sensible change.Ccan't you see that high speed trains on the NEC existing "ROW" are a waste of taxpayer dollars?

No, I can't see that because it's not true. Acela was designed to improve speeds on the NEC and to improve revenue and customer satisfaction. While it failed to achieve the original, and probably lofty goals of the first item, it still has improved speeds over the equipment that was running at the time it was conceived. And it has accomplished the second two things. And they are just as important, if not more important than the first. An Acela that makes Boston - New York in 3 hours but runs with fewer passengers and less revenue is not something that we want.or need.

As for wasting taxpayer dollars, consider that the Acela trainsets cost Amtrak $1.2 Billion. Acela since 2003 has made an operating profit of $1.271 Billion 2003 through 2012. While I grant that there are other capital costs, like the slightly higher track standards for the 135 MPH to 150 MPH track sections, that should get charged to Acela, But Acela has technically paid for the trainsets with its operating profits.

Please show me a Superliner coach that has made enough money to cover it's price tag.

The "big picture"? I certainly do look at the big picture I was railroading before Amtrak was 'born' and you know something, and I'm not alone in my feelings, they really haven't got it right yet. They are still employing the trial and error hit and miss tactics since their inception. It's tragic what they have done to this (NEC) railroad.

I wouldn't argue that Amtrak doesn't have it right. I agree. Amtrak gets many things wrong. Certainly all the monkeying with Acela specs which was partly Amtrak, partly FRA, and partly the consortium didn't help. But they also do get some things right, like for example the fact that they no push more trains through NYP than ever before. But unfortunately they are also being held back by the negativity of those like you. You continue to sit here concerned with only one thing, Acela didn't meet its advertised running times. Ergo, that makes it a colossal failure. And that is wrong! Sorry.

Yes, it didn't meet that goal. But the customers like it and they are willing to pay for it. And that is just as important, if not more important that those speed goals. And it certainly means that while Acela did not perhaps achieve as much success as it might have had they met the speed goals, it does make the train a success.

Alan answer me these questions. What is a high speed train supposed to do?

Why have it if it can't perform much better than the service it is replacing? :huh:

 

[AlanB]

Alan answer me these questions. What is a high speed train supposed to do?

Why have it if it can't perform much better than the service it is replacing? :huh:

Do you even bother to read what gets written? Or do you just keep charging at walls while ignoring everything that has been said?

A high speed train is supposed to attract and carry passengers at higher speeds. Does Acela do that? Yes!

Again, it doesn't manage to do it along the entire ROW at it's highest speed. But it is carrying passengers faster than the conventional trains and it has attracted more business. An empty train going 220 MPH is NOT a successful high speed train.

I'll say this once again, SPEED is not the only consideration here! Maybe in your mind it is because your disappointed that you don't have train to drive at 220 MPH. But that is not what this is about. This train is still a success for Amtrak! It makes money. The Passengers like it. You know those passengers, the ones that pay your salary! That alone makes it better than what it replaced. Meatloaf wrote a song several years back entitled "2 out of 3 ain't bad." Well Acela has hit that mark. It had 3 major goals, higher speeds, more market share, more revenue. It succeeded on the last two and partially failed on the first, since it is higher speed than before but not as high as advertised.

 

[Trogdor]

Guest above is expressing fairly typical sentiments among Amtrak employess: that is to say, "Change is necessarily bad." It's what keeps Amtrak from being truly successful. Changes are needed, some of which Amtrak could accomplish alone, others of which would require significant government intervention. As a longtime employee, I see a constant need among other employees to pooh-pooh anything that might require a bit of activation of grey matter. It's an attitudinal problem in all departments, and at all levels. And it has to stop, if people really want to stay employed, and want the US to have a world-class rail system (currently it's far from that).

"expressing fairly typical sentiments among Amtrak employess" make that longtime employees and I agree 100%.

So, you're basically agreeing that you're among the people that are preventing Amtrak from becoming truly successful?

 

[Paulus]

Third, anyone who has ever seen any pictures of any of these wonderful European high speed train sets post-accident, would not consider the extra strength required by the FRA so dumb. Yes, better design could probably have achieved the increased strength with a lesser weight increase, but the builders/designers would not admit to that under torture, because to do so would be to in part admit that the trains running around in Europe did not have the strength they should and could.

There might be major cosmetic or physical damage, but they perform a hell of a lot better than American equipment when it comes to passenger and crew safety.

NO THEY DON'T. Do some research and you will find out.

I have, and I'd love to see your explanation of why the TGV or other UIC compliant equipment has a far better safety record than American equipment in comparable events. The only terribly bad one for a UIC set was Eschede and quite frankly, you're screwed no matter what in that scenario. I'd also love to see why you think that Caltrain's study, and the resultant FRA waiver, which showed greater safety for UIC equipment is flawed.

 

[Anderson]

Third, anyone who has ever seen any pictures of any of these wonderful European high speed train sets post-accident, would not consider the extra strength required by the FRA so dumb. Yes, better design could probably have achieved the increased strength with a lesser weight increase, but the builders/designers would not admit to that under torture, because to do so would be to in part admit that the trains running around in Europe did not have the strength they should and could.

There might be major cosmetic or physical damage, but they perform a hell of a lot better than American equipment when it comes to passenger and crew safety.

NO THEY DON'T. Do some research and you will find out.

I have, and I'd love to see your explanation of why the TGV or other UIC compliant equipment has a far better safety record than American equipment in comparable events. The only terribly bad one for a UIC set was Eschede and quite frankly, you're screwed no matter what in that scenario. I'd also love to see why you think that Caltrain's study, and the resultant FRA waiver, which showed greater safety for UIC equipment is flawed.

At least with the Acela, are there any real accidents to compare?

 

[Guest]

Alan answer me these questions. What is a high speed train supposed to do?

Why have it if it can't perform much better than the service it is replacing? :huh:

Do you even bother to read what gets written? Or do you just keep charging at walls while ignoring everything that has been said?

A high speed train is supposed to attract and carry passengers at higher speeds. Does Acela do that? Yes!

Again, it doesn't manage to do it along the entire ROW at it's highest speed. But it is carrying passengers faster than the conventional trains and it has attracted more business. An empty train going 220 MPH is NOT a successful high speed train.

I'll say this once again, SPEED is not the only consideration here! Maybe in your mind it is because your disappointed that you don't have train to drive at 220 MPH. But that is not what this is about. This train is still a success for Amtrak! It makes money. The Passengers like it. You know those passengers, the ones that pay your salary! That alone makes it better than what it replaced. Meatloaf wrote a song several years back entitled "2 out of 3 ain't bad." Well Acela has hit that mark. It had 3 major goals, higher speeds, more market share, more revenue. It succeeded on the last two and partially failed on the first, since it is higher speed than before but not as high as advertised.

Alan is has now become perfectly obvious that you are so enamored of the Acela Express that you lash out at those who would dare speak against it. The Acela Express has been force fed to the public. Time will, as it has in the past, prove that true high speed (sustained) will not take place on the existing "ROW".

SPEED IS THE CONSIDERATION when HIGH SPEED is proposed. What part of that don't you comprehend?

"Do you even bother to read what gets written?"

I certainly do it's seems that you do not as you do not realize that the Acela Express is no faster than the trains of 50 and 60 years ago.

"A high speed train is supposed to attract and carry passengers at higher speeds. Does Acela do that? Yes!"

The statement above is evidence of your 'unconditional love' for the Acela as is the unconditional love a dog has for his master. The dog doesn't care about his master's faults, failures or shortcomings he is intensely loyal and protective. Do you see the similarity?

"Maybe in your mind it is because your disappointed that you don't have train to drive at 220 MPH."

Let me tell you this Alan I do not become giddy and moist when I "drive" the Acela at 150 mph I've felt more accomplished "driving" a 10,000 ton freight @ 50 mph. It takes infinitely more skill and knowledge. There is no 'device' to assist you in not ripping the train apart. Were their still freight service in my area I would leave this clusterf*** called Amtrak in a heartbeat.

Go back and read my posts for the real time happenings on Amtrak.

Like I said I am a disappointed employee. Amtrak has tried to re-invent the wheel and trashed a perfectly good operation. Billions of dollars and 42 years and they don't have it right yet.

Then again, given your age, along with your suspect stats you probably don't know any better.

One more time. Acela Express.

Why have it if it can't perform much better than the service it is replacing?

 

[Ryan]

Because it does perform much better?

 

[J-1 3235]

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

 

[Ryan]

It's like the Christmas gift that keeps on giving!

 

[Blackwolf]

I'll take the lumps of coal over this perpetual 'gift'. At least those are useful!

 

[George Harris]

Third, anyone who has ever seen any pictures of any of these wonderful European high speed train sets post-accident, would not consider the extra strength required by the FRA so dumb. Yes, better design could probably have achieved the increased strength with a lesser weight increase, but the builders/designers would not admit to that under torture, because to do so would be to in part admit that the trains running around in Europe did not have the strength they should and could.

There might be major cosmetic or physical damage, but they perform a hell of a lot better than American equipment when it comes to passenger and crew safety.

NO THEY DON'T. Do some research and you will find out.

I have, and I'd love to see your explanation of why the TGV or other UIC compliant equipment has a far better safety record than American equipment in comparable events. The only terribly bad one for a UIC set was Eschede and quite frankly, you're screwed no matter what in that scenario. I'd also love to see why you think that Caltrain's study, and the resultant FRA waiver, which showed greater safety for UIC equipment is flawed.

"Chapter and verse" your information.

 

[NE933]

This is penance for our sins. And by the way GG, you're already moist, it's that giddy part that needs work. Do and say something different, wash your hair, give someone a kiss, I don't know. Today is Dec 25 and we supposed to be Merry. Instead I'm with my mother in physical rehab and no friends have visited. A week ago twenty little kids got shot. This is by far the worst Christmas holiday in a looonng time. Would't it be nice to see something uplifting for a change.

 

[Caesar La Rock]

Why is this thread still active? What's with the argument? Sheesh guys your making a big deal out of this.

 

[AlanB]

Alan is has now become perfectly obvious that you are so enamored of the Acela Express that you lash out at those who would dare speak against it.

Clearly nothing is obvious to you. My first Amtrak ride ever took place on a Metroliner at 14. Years later when I started riding Amtrak in earnest, most rides were on a Metroliner. I Ride Acela today because it's the only option. While there are things that I like about Acela and that I find superior to the Metroliner, the Metroliner will probably always be my favorite train.

The Acela Express has been force fed to the public. Time will, as it has in the past, prove that true high speed (sustained) will not take place on the existing "ROW".

Disagree on the first. Don't need time at all to know that "true high speed" will never be possible on the existing ROW. Already know that and others have stated that already in this topic.

SPEED IS THE CONSIDERATION when HIGH SPEED is proposed. What part of that don't you comprehend?

What part of "high speed isn't the only consideration" do you not comprehend?

Yes, it didn't achieve its stated goal of the hours. But it is faster and it does show that we can go faster and most importantly the customer likes it.

"Do you even bother to read what gets written?"

I certainly do it's seems that you do not as you do not realize that the Acela Express is no faster than the trains of 50 and 60 years ago.

Since we don't have the operating conditions of 50 years ago we don't have an accurate comparison to make.

"A high speed train is supposed to attract and carry passengers at higher speeds. Does Acela do that? Yes!"

The statement above is evidence of your 'unconditional love' for the Acela as is the unconditional love a dog has for his master. The dog doesn't care about his master's faults, failures or shortcomings he is intensely loyal and protective. Do you see the similarity?

Your response shows that once again you fail to understand the fact that this is not just about speed. No doubt this is due to your hatred, anger, or whatever it is about Amtrak that causes you to put on your blinders.

See I'm fair. I see both good & bad at Amtrak. You are so blinded that all you can see is bad. In real life there is always good and bad. It is never 100% all bad.

"Maybe in your mind it is because your disappointed that you don't have train to drive at 220 MPH."

Let me tell you this Alan I do not become giddy and moist when I "drive" the Acela at 150 mph I've felt more accomplished "driving" a 10,000 ton freight @ 50 mph. It takes infinitely more skill and knowledge. There is no 'device' to assist you in not ripping the train apart. Were their still freight service in my area I would leave this clusterf*** called Amtrak in a heartbeat.

Ah, one of those "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence guys". Go read sites like CSX sucks and you'll learn that the freights are no better, and may even be worse.

Go back and read my posts for the real time happenings on Amtrak.

No point, it's clearly clouded by your anger towards Amtrak.

Then again, given your age, along with your suspect stats you probably don't know any better.

My stats have been verified in most cases by the GAO and accepted by a hostile Congress. A Congress where certain members would take great delight in catching Amtrak putting out false info. Which is why they constantly send the GAO in to investigate.

One more time. Acela Express.

Why have it if it can't perform much better than the service it is replacing?

But it is performing better than the Metroliner service that it replaced. It is faster than the Metroliner, not much, but it is faster. It has a much higher ridership Han the Metroliner. And its revenues far exceed those of the Metroliner.

 

[leemell]

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.

 

[Anderson]

Alan,

Why are this clown's posts not just being deleted at this point?

 

[leemell]

Alan,

Why are this clown's posts not just being deleted at this point?

And then there is that.