Anderson Speaks on Long Distance Trains

[Trogdor]

There is a work around for that, in the airline business and some extent railroad business, one negotiates a trade in of present asset. Amtrak did it with the SD40Fs on new F40s. Siemens would take that deal in a heart beat for 5 years or more guaranteed work and bigger contract.

How do you know Siemens would take that deal in a heart beat?

Manufacturers will only take a trade-in if they think they can resell it somewhere else. Who else is looking for several dozen new locomotives and/or passenger cars (they still will have to/want to build the cars from the current order) other than the very places theyre buying them back from?

Theres virtually no way theyd be able to make a deal to buy them back, unless it was at a price that means Siemens would lose money on the total deal.

Then run two DMUs together. Before that though it allows Amtrak to have better yield management, just as Amtrak does with the frequently sold out Acela. You are right, DMUs would not be right for all circumstances but having one or fewer types of equipment yields lower costs. Again out of the airline playbook.

The more DMUs you run together, the less cost benefit there is to running DMUs. One big issue is that DMUs are regulated as locomotives by the FRA and come with stricter inspection requirements and more frequent mandated shop visits than a plain old passenger trailer car. This means that maintenance costs are higher on a DMU than a standard car, and spare ratios have to be higher.

That quickly cancels out any savings from cheaper (but not really cheaper) DMUs and/or fleet commonality (a single-level coach can be common to electric and diesel corridors, but the same cannot be said of an EMU vs. DMU, unless you go with dual-mode, but all that does is make it even more expensive than it already is).

 

[Ryan]

"Would not surprise me to see the Cap Ltd go single level. That will free up more Superliner cars for western LD trains."

Yup, those new dining car AKA sleeper lounges have be used somewhere.

People have been saying this for years on this forum. It hasn't happened yet.

The equipment required to make it happen hasn't appeared yet. Part of it will be the completion of the Viewliner order.

"Would not surprise me to see the Cap Ltd go single level. That will free up more Superliner cars for western LD trains."

Yup, those new dining car AKA sleeper lounges have be used somewhere.

Where would Amtrak get the coaches to make the CL single level?

The other part of it will be the bilevels going to the states to free up some coaches.

 

[Trogdor]

By bilevels, you mean single-levels, right?

 

[Lonestar648]

Even if you somehow found enough cars to change out the CL to single level, those super liner cars are also very worn, but could be a band-aid to protect the existing Superliner cars until ??? That is presuming there is a light at the end of the tunnel which there is none right now. With no Superliner replacement planned, even if one was approved, Amtrak is years from seeing the first car be delivered and by that time it could be too late especially if the deterioration accelerates.

All those amenities, Amtrak has been taking away, need to return to help camouflage the deteriorating cars.

 

[Anderson]

(1) Amtrak was supposed to have the Viewliner II order years ago.
(2) Switching the Cap to single-level would free six sleepers, six coaches, two diners/CCCs, and two SSLs (and, I think, two Transdorms). That would give you some extra shop time to refurb some of the cars as a stopgap pending a significant order. The question, of course, is getting that order.

 

[AmtrakBlue]

By bilevels, you mean single-levels, right?

I misread his post too. But rereadimg it I see he’s saying single level coaches will be freed up as bilevels replace them.

 

[Ryan]

Trogdor is correct, they’re not getting bilevels anymore. I did a poor job of articulating what the original plan was without making a nod to reality.

 

[jis]

(1) Amtrak was supposed to have the Viewliner II order years ago.

(2) Switching the Cap to single-level would free six sleepers, six coaches, two diners/CCCs, and two SSLs (and, I think, two Transdorms). That would give you some extra shop time to refurb some of the cars as a stopgap pending a significant order. The question, of course, is getting that order.

The Cap requires three consists to operate, not two, as you appear to imply.

 

[Lonestar648]

Find the worse condition in the system for the initial refurb. Question would be how much would each refurb cost Amtrak? There is the obvious visible things, but what about plumbing, electrical, suspension, etc.

 

[jis]

The plumbing and electricals in the Superliners apparently are pretty much the original ones duly patched up as things fail. The significant refurbs apparently did not touch the core infrastructure in each car. It was mostly a large dollop of cosmetics. Of course of necessity the wreck repairs probably had more extensive changes, but again the core architecture of the systems did not change much.

 

[frequentflyer]

There is a work around for that, in the airline business and some extent railroad business, one negotiates a trade in of present asset. Amtrak did it with the SD40Fs on new F40s. Siemens would take that deal in a heart beat for 5 years or more guaranteed work and bigger contract.

How do you know Siemens would take that deal in a heart beat?

Manufacturers will only take a trade-in if they think they can resell it somewhere else. Who else is looking for several dozen new locomotives and/or passenger cars (they still will have to/want to build the cars from the current order) other than the very places theyre buying them back from?

Theres virtually no way theyd be able to make a deal to buy them back, unless it was at a price that means Siemens would lose money on the total deal.

Then run two DMUs together. Before that though it allows Amtrak to have better yield management, just as Amtrak does with the frequently sold out Acela. You are right, DMUs would not be right for all circumstances but having one or fewer types of equipment yields lower costs. Again out of the airline playbook.

The more DMUs you run together, the less cost benefit there is to running DMUs. One big issue is that DMUs are regulated as locomotives by the FRA and come with stricter inspection requirements and more frequent mandated shop visits than a plain old passenger trailer car. This means that maintenance costs are higher on a DMU than a standard car, and spare ratios have to be higher.

That quickly cancels out any savings from cheaper (but not really cheaper) DMUs and/or fleet commonality (a single-level coach can be common to electric and diesel corridors, but the same cannot be said of an EMU vs. DMU, unless you go with dual-mode, but all that does is make it even more expensive than it already is).

Seeing what Anderson how ran NWA and Delta, I am confident he has run the numbers and he and his team believes DMUs are the way to go operating costs wise. How much it costs to move pax per trip, or per mile is the same conundrum whether its moving a pax by air or rail. Are DMUs the perfect solution, no. I am not sure how a DMU fares with a semi at 79 mph at a grade crossing. But again, you or I do not know what various manufacturers of DMUs have told the Anderson team regarding durability or operating costs of their DMU products.`

Who knows what a Siemens deal would look like, IF it was Siemens. I was just speculating, with that said, I do not think Siemens would have that much of a problem placing 75 Vectron clones somewhere in the world, but that's my opinion. But Anderson WILL wheel and deal. I will not bore you on how hard of a blue chip customer Delta was to the Airbus, Boeing and Bombardier. I expect Anderson to bring that same hard nose attitude to Amtrak's OEMs.

 

[jis]

Actually based on other information I am quite confident that there is no agreement even among his staff about the DMU thing. He just made a one liner statement that is being over-interpreted by people. He mentioned DMUs as an example of things worth looking at, and there is no reason to disagree with that as far as that goes. DMUs would indeed be quite desirable in the typical light corridors in the midwest.

He did not say that everything will turn into DMUs, He couldn't have meant to say that since he was talking about replacement of Amfleet Is in that talk. 90% of the Amfleet Is are used on the NEC where D anything won't work. And we are mindlessly talking about what to do with the ACS-64s. Trust me, no matter how adept Anderson may be at wheeling and dealing, the ACS-64s will last out in Amtrak far longer than Anderson will. He will be gone in a couple of years, maybe three.

And as far as midwest goes, very little DMU will happen there since they are all State operations with Amtrak merely providing operations staff and leasing equipment until states get their own, and the states have just spent a pile of money acquiring locomotives and trailer cars to stop paying lease rates charged by Amtrak. So maybe in 15 years we can talk again.

This basically leaves places like the Springfield corridor in Connecticut, and assorted other new short-medium routes that might come into being.

 

[cpotisch]

Aren't locos generally more efficient and offer better range than DMUs? I just don't see why so many people are suggesting multiple units as the best replacement for conventional equipment. Is the main benefit of a DMU that they can make consists as long as they want, without worrying about HEP or insufficient power?

 

[Bob Dylan]

Agree with jis. Amtrak CEOs are just like residents of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.,(and of the same types, incompetent hacks,so-so caretakers ,average to good,a rare geat and an occasional crooked moron). They come and they go, and Life goes on!

 

[Trogdor]

Aren't locos generally more efficient and offer better range than DMUs? I just don't see why so many people are suggesting multiple units as the best replacement for conventional equipment. Is the main benefit of a DMU that they can make consists as long as they want, without worrying about HEP or insufficient power?

It's actually the opposite. The main benefit of a DMU is that they could make consists as short as they want without worrying about excess power.

DMUs are more efficient for short consists, because they typically use a lot less fuel than a standard locomotive (they have a much smaller engine). Consider, if a single locomotive is capable of hauling around 9 or 10 cars with HEP, then a two-or three-car train with a locomotive is way overpowered. A DMU on a short consist will save a ton of fuel, and also reduce the overall equipment cost because you're replacing a locomotive plus three cars with just three cars.

However, once you get above a certain length, DMUs stop being practical/efficient, and conventional locomotive(s)-with-trailers becomes preferred.

 

[Anderson]

(1) Amtrak was supposed to have the Viewliner II order years ago.

(2) Switching the Cap to single-level would free six sleepers, six coaches, two diners/CCCs, and two SSLs (and, I think, two Transdorms). That would give you some extra shop time to refurb some of the cars as a stopgap pending a significant order. The question, of course, is getting that order.

The Cap requires three consists to operate, not two, as you appear to imply.

You're right, it does. I know this; I forgot that on the diners/CCCs and SSLs. The current consist is, IIRC, 2 sleepers, 2-3 coaches, a diner/CCC, an SSL, and a Transdorm (and a baggage car, but that's not going to be altered).

 

[jis]

Even the Brits, who absolutely love DMUs, do not stretch them beyond six car trains too often. And after operating them for years they have come to the conclusion that they intend to ban diesel traction by 2040 and electrify everything or for very light lines use fuel cell, battery powered or other exotic stuff.

 

[Thirdrail7]

Actually based on other information I am quite confident that there is no agreement even among his staff about the DMU thing. He just made a one liner statement that is being over-interpreted by people. He mentioned DMUs as an example of things worth looking at, and there is no reason to disagree with that as far as that goes. DMUs would indeed be quite desirable in the typical light corridors in the midwest.

I'll break ranks. He's mentioned DMUs SEVERAL times as replacements for the traditional locomotive and coach configuration on routes where single level trains operate. Indeed, he'd like to see a DMU with electric and diesel propulsion so you can eliminate engine changes and so it can be used seamlessly throughout the entire system. He specifically stated locomotive hauled equipment will not appeal to modern thinking millennials! We need something futuristic and modern to appeal to them for the long term.

As mentioned, there is a great deal of concern about such thinking since it stymies growth and we've dealt with the Acela but he's already made it clear that fixed consists are the way to to go. In fact, it has already begun.

The bottom line is this is not some pie in the sky, what if, one off comment. The Amfleets will not last another 10 years and if he orders DMUs, don't think for a second the ACS-64s won't get benched. One only needs to look at the HHP-8 fleet and NJT's ALP-44 fleet to see what can happen even when the lease isn't up on the equipment.

 

[frequentflyer]

Actually based on other information I am quite confident that there is no agreement even among his staff about the DMU thing. He just made a one liner statement that is being over-interpreted by people. He mentioned DMUs as an example of things worth looking at, and there is no reason to disagree with that as far as that goes. DMUs would indeed be quite desirable in the typical light corridors in the midwest.

I'll break ranks. He's mentioned DMUs SEVERAL times as replacements for the traditional locomotive and coach configuration on routes where single level trains operate. Indeed, he'd like to see a DMU with electric and diesel propulsion so you can eliminate engine changes and so it can be used seamlessly throughout the entire system. He specifically stated locomotive hauled equipment will not appeal to modern thinking millennials! We need something futuristic and modern to appeal to them for the long term.

As mentioned, there is a great deal of concern about such thinking since it stymies growth and we've dealt with the Acela but he's already made it clear that fixed consists are the way to to go. In fact, it has already begun.

The bottom line is this is not some pie in the sky, what if, one off comment. The Amfleets will not last another 10 years and if he orders DMUs, don't think for a second the ACS-64s won't get benched. One only needs to look at the HHP-8 fleet and NJT's ALP-44 fleet to see what can happen even when the lease isn't up on the equipment.

Airline group think again, use the same aircraft on different routes even if not the most efficient use of asset. Deficiencies will be made up in standardizing of equipment, less spare parts/mx familiarity and less training of employees. And the fact the DMU just may be cheaper to operate than a Charger pulling four or five Siemens pax cars.

I just hope he invites some "railroad" men or women to look over his plan. Something tells me Mr. Anderson has his mind made up.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

What (non-railfan) millennial knows or cares what a locomotive is or how the train is moving? I'm trying to give this guy a chance but comments like that make it difficult.

Millenials care about the same things other customers care about... Comfortable seats, a clean train, good customer service, wifi, and yes decent food / drink options.

 

[Seaboard92]

Actually based on other information I am quite confident that there is no agreement even among his staff about the DMU thing. He just made a one liner statement that is being over-interpreted by people. He mentioned DMUs as an example of things worth looking at, and there is no reason to disagree with that as far as that goes. DMUs would indeed be quite desirable in the typical light corridors in the midwest.

I'll break ranks. He's mentioned DMUs SEVERAL times as replacements for the traditional locomotive and coach configuration on routes where single level trains operate. Indeed, he'd like to see a DMU with electric and diesel propulsion so you can eliminate engine changes and so it can be used seamlessly throughout the entire system. He specifically stated locomotive hauled equipment will not appeal to modern thinking millennials! We need something futuristic and modern to appeal to them for the long term.

As mentioned, there is a great deal of concern about such thinking since it stymies growth and we've dealt with the Acela but he's already made it clear that fixed consists are the way to to go. In fact, it has already begun.

The bottom line is this is not some pie in the sky, what if, one off comment. The Amfleets will not last another 10 years and if he orders DMUs, don't think for a second the ACS-64s won't get benched. One only needs to look at the HHP-8 fleet and NJT's ALP-44 fleet to see what can happen even when the lease isn't up on the equipment.

Honestly I think your boss doesn't have a clue about railroading. I can think of several locomotive hauled conventional trains such as the RailJet (ÖBB, ĆD), ICE class 401 (DB) and a handful of others. The RailJet honestly would be a really good replacement for the Northeast Regionals.

They are semi-fixed consists with non fixed locomotives. So easy enough to do a locomotive change. It also is brand new, sleek, and modern. Not that the kids these days would like them anymore. If he wants to reach my generation he needs to reinstate the student discount, expand wifi to the superliners, and distinguish the train further from the ULC Airlines.

What is he doing playing with DMUs, food service cuts, and targeting PVs. The Germans have a lot of DMUs in service but the class 603 were poor performers. They were sleek but expensive to run, and prone to mechanical issues.

 

[Lonestar648]

How many single level trains currently are only 3 or 4 cars total? On the NEC, all the regional I have seen are about twice that long.

 

[chrsjrcj]

Millennials have no idea about the difference between a DMU/EMU/P42. Actually, outside of the railfan community, I doubt most people know or care.

I agree with what crescent-zephyr said. I see it on Brightline where I see more millennials than I do on Tri-Rail which is bare bones (and had a failed experiment with DMUs, though I found the seats more comfortable than the Bombers and Hyundai-Rotem cars).

 

[frequentflyer]

I don't know, there is a reason Amtrak doesn't use freight locomotives, looks do matter. A slick DMU would look flashy in Amtrak's advertising.

 

[brianpmcdonnell17]

I don't know, there is a reason Amtrak doesn't use freight locomotives, looks do matter. A slick DMU would look flashy in Amtrak's advertising.

Freight locomotives and passenger locomotives differ not only in looks but also performance. Freight locomotives are typically designed to pull long trains, while passenger locomotives usually have faster acceleration and deceleration.