Amtrak was warned about Acela defect

[Superliner Diner]

From Washington Times 10/22/02:

Amtrak was warned by the manufacturer of its troubled high-speed Acela Express trains about potential "defects" in the undercarriages but forced early delivery.

Full story is here.

 

[Amfleet]

Not suprising. Warrington knew he would be in some deep **** if he didn't get the "overdue" Acelas into service. :angry:

 

[Superliner Diner]

Bombardier makes it sound like Amtrak rushed the equipment into service. But how does that explain the delays? It would be one thing if the Acela Express went into revenue service in 1999 like they were supposed to, but how does Bombardier explain the extra year it took them to deliver? Bombardier's action to me is a cowardly ploy as a countersuit, in order to cover up the truth: Amtrak had a contract with them, and Bombardier did not produce on time. In truth, Amtrak should be collecting money from the manufacturer, not the other way around. And Amtrak sure could use the money.

 

[Amfleet]

As much as I love Amtrak the truth is Amtrak ask for so many modifications to be made before and during delivery on the Acela. The first trainset was completed by January of 1999 and went through testing on the NEC. These trainsets were not meant to run on bad track (NYC-WAS) of the NEC which Bombardier mentioned to them so then Amtrak had to order all new trucks and the modifications kept pilling up. Frankly, extending Metroliner service to Boston would have been fine with me.

 

[AlanB]

These trainsets were not meant to run on bad track (NYC-WAS) of the NEC which Bombardier mentioned to them so then Amtrak had to order all new trucks and the modifications kept pilling up. Frankly, extending Metroliner service to Boston would have been fine with me.

Actually Bombardier told Amtrak that they couldn't run the Acela's at 150MPH on the bad track from NYC-WAS, and they don't. Max speed south of NYC is 135 only 10 miles per hour faster than the Metroliner was capable of. Plus for most of the run south of NYC, they don't even go 135mph, due to track conditions. They run at Metroliner speeds.

So if the Metroliner's can still handle 125 after all these years, why can't Acela handle that? Yes if Amtrak was running them at 150 and they fell apart, well then it's Amtrak's fault. But the technology for 125 has been around for years; in fact it's been around longer than Amtrak. So what did Bombardier do wrong that the Acela's can't handle 125?

Additionally many of the changes that Amtrak and/or the FRA asked for came after running the Acela test train on the pristine test track in Colorado. Not on the NE Corridor. I seem to recall that the Acela test train had hunting problems while on the test track. That alone I think was over a 6-month delay before they started testing again on the test track.

Yes to be fair, Amtrak did request many more changes after testing on the corridor and after the first trains entered service.

Finally, sadly I'm not sure that just extending the Metroliner's to Boston would have grabbed the market share that Amtrak was hoping for and needed. That's why they wanted a better train and a new name brand. They needed to break people's impressions of the Metroliner. I suspect that they could have chosen a better name though.

 

[Viewliner]

Finally, sadly I'm not sure that just extending the Metroliner's to Boston would have grabbed the market share that Amtrak was hoping for and needed. That's why they wanted a better train and a new name brand. They needed to break people's impressions of the Metroliner. I suspect that they could have chosen a better name though.

Metroliner at least as Gunn says is/was a respected brand, and I believe that Metroliners Should've at least co-existed with the Acela, rather than be eliminated (even if it remained NYP-WAS).

I agree that "Acela" isn't the greatest name choice.

But Still, couldn't these have been "improved and upgraded" Metroliner trains?

 

[Amfleet]

The "Acela" mostly got it's publicity through the media, but I think Amtrak could have kept the "Metroliner" name, but through TV and radio commercials advertise the new high-speed service. Also when I went to a lecture at the Museum of Science in Boston given by Micheal Dukakis he said he adivsed Amtrak not to electrify the Shoreline but instead invest iin the Talgo type trains used out in the northwest (except with faster power cars) or the new "Jet Train" just released by Bombardier. Both those options could have done the same as Acela, but at a much lower cost.

 

[AlanB]

I would agree with Michael Dukakis that a Talgo or similar train would have been cheaper for Amtrak. That said however, I do disagree with him that it was the correct or right answer for Amtrak. Maybe we should have kept the Metroliner name or found something new that was better than Acela. However, Amtrak did need to electrify the New England corridor.

If for no other reason than the fact that you can't bring diesels into Penn Station, and changing engines is inefficient. Also asking passengers to change trains does not work for the market that Amtrak is vying for here in the Northeast. Speed is of the utmost concern here, when one is trying to wrest control of a market that the airlines currently dominate. Thanks to the new high speed Acela’s and the unfortunate circumstances of 9/11, Amtrak has now done that on the DC-NYP leg. Yes it was expensive, but it was the correct answer. That said however, Congress should have funded it, instead of forcing Amtrak to borrow a good portion of the money needed for the electrification and the new trains.

Regardless of whether the train has the right name or the wrong name, now at least Amtrak has proven that given the resources and the correct tools, that trains can indeed be a viable alternative in the under 300 miles intercity travel market. It’s just too bad that the only people who have not learned this lesson are the ones in government in Washington DC. The rest of the country however, has seen the light.

Bringing this full circle now, I still feel that while maybe Amtrak can and should accept perhaps as much as 25% of the blame for Acela’s problems, the bulk of the blame still rests with Bombardier.

 

[Viewliner]

I agree, Amtrak isn't as much at fault as Bombardier, but has some responsibility. As for the Electrification, it did provide passengers full HEP and Power throughout the trip, which is good for the businessmen using their laptops powered by the outlets. Also, it does save on Diesel Fuel, and free up some Diesels for other uses. This does provide the valuable point as Alan said that Train travel can be viable, and hopefully congress will wake up to that soon, starting with the 1.2 Billion funding.