Anderson Speaks on Long Distance Trains

[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.

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.

Hitachi certainly has a product set in the UK Class 8xx’s. Just needs an American car shell. I am not sure whether Siemens has anything off the shelf that would span the needs of all possible Amtrak usages in a single family in the form of D/E/DEMUs as totally unified as the 8xx’s.
If the money can be found it would indeed be quite appropriate to trash Amtrak’s entire current fleet and replace everything with new more modern equipment.

Indeed, if that happens there will be an incredible opportunities to deploy relatively cheap slightly used equipment in the hands of alternative operators too by cascading them to potential train operators other than Amtrak, at least on the NEC. Time to dust off the AIRnet-21 proposal and get some legislative action going to get things right I suppose. [emoji23]

 

[Devil's Advocate]

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.

Which slick and flashy DMU's? What Amtrak advertising?

 

[cpotisch]

But haven’t they found with EDMUs (Electro-Diesel Multiple Units) that cramming that much technology and flexibility into a passenger car can be difficult, complicated and expensive? And the it seems like the only case where you would want a dual mode would be for trains traveling in and out of the electrified NEC. Most trains that do so are LD, with long consists, which should make locomotive(s) the more efficient option.

I can see standard DMUs as much more sensible in the Midwest, on the Heartland Flyer, Downeaster, etc. Those have short consists, aren’t electrified, and therefore are well suited for DMUs. But EDMUs just don’t seem to have a good place in the Amtrak system.

 

[bretton88]

I suspect Anderson should ride a Brightline train, then he can discover that bright, appealing passenger cars can be made in the USA. The problem the USA has is most of the really nice trains are DMUs. A lot of commuter equipment, etc are iterations of older designs and not nearly as appealing as the DMU's. The SMART DMU's and Toronto's UP express are much more pleasing rides than even a brand new Metra gallery car. Hopefully Brightline and the new coaches should remedy this.

 

[jis]

But haven’t they found with EDMUs (Electro-Diesel Multiple Units) that cramming that much technology and flexibility into a passenger car can be difficult, complicated and expensive? And the it seems like the only case where you would want a dual mode would be for trains traveling in and out of the electrified NEC. Most trains that do so are LD, with long consists, which should make locomotive(s) the more efficient option.

I can see standard DMUs as much more sensible in the Midwest, on the Heartland Flyer, Downeaster, etc. Those have short consists, aren’t electrified, and therefore are well suited for DMUs. But EDMUs just don’t seem to have a good place in the Amtrak system.

That is why I mentioned the British 80x class, which consists of three different types of train sets using the shells and same electric drive and controls. They come in pure DMU, pure EMU and dual mode DEMU varieties. Great Western is getting a mix of the EMU and the dual mode DEMU to deploy on the newly electrified main line out of Paddington. The dual mode DEMUs will be used for through service from Paddington to beyond the electrified areas in Wales and Cornwall, somewhat similar to NECR's traveling beyond the electrified area south of Washington DC.
Dual mode DEMUs, DMUs and EMUs tend to perform much better than loco hauled consists in frequent stop and go (or even decelerate-accelerate) service environment. The additional cost gives one better passenger experience as in shorter trips and better equipment utilization covering more trips because shorter trip times allow the use of the same equipment for greater net number of revenue trips in a day. Additionally if the loco hauled train does not have locos top and tail (or cab car at one end) with control line running through the train, there is additional time and labor expense of wyeing the train at each end, or at least moving the engine from one end to the other, too.

My point is, this is nothing new, nor rocket science. They exist and have and are being used elsewhere.

For Long Distance service whether it will help or not depends on the run profile for each route. For example Indian Railways is seriously considering using EMUs for its premier overnight Rajdhani Expresses that connect the national capital to each state capital because they believe that given their route characteristics, A typical run involves enough slow downs, speed ups and stop and go that they can lop off an hour or two from the schedule by just converting from loco hauled to EMUs. Mind you, we are talking here of 18 to 24 car trains that are primarily all Sleepers with 2 to 4 Service (Luggage, Pantry etc.) cars. Of course they have the inherent advantage of having most of their major trunk routes fully electrified end to end. I have no idea how that equation goes for DMUs on non-electrified routes. The Brits seem to think it works well. But the bottom line consideration is, if the performance is so much better that it significantly speeds up schedules sufficiently then the extra cost of equipment maintenance is worth it because it can be recouped in lower labor costs and potential for being able to charge slightly higher fares.

Now whether things that work well elsewhere in the world, will work in today's American environment at all is an entirely different issue. Remember UK managed to build the entire Crossrail system in less time than our East Side Access project, which has both cost and time increasing as time goes on.

 

[cpotisch]

I just want to clarify that there’s a difference between a DEMU and an EDMU. A DEMU is a Diesel Electric Multiple Unit, which has the diesel engine powering the electric motors (like most conventional locomotives). Most DMUs are technically DEMUs. Then you have an EDMU, which is an Electro-Diesel Multiple Unit, aka a dual mode. Just figured I’d clarify so I know we’re all talking about the same thing.

 

[jis]

I just want to clarify that there’s a difference between a DEMU and an EDMU. A DEMU is a Diesel Electric Multiple Unit, which has the diesel engine powering the electric motors (like most conventional locomotives). Most DMUs are technically DEMUs. Then you have an EDMU, which is an Electro-Diesel Multiple Unit, aka a dual mode. Just figured I’d clarify so I know we’re all talking about the same thing.

Ok. The term “dual mode DEMU” is widely used for dual mode too whether you like it or not. Its meaning is quite clear.

 

[Lonestar648]

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.

Also, Passenger units have to have HEP where the freight do not. Reason when a Host RR unit is in rescue mode, the Amtrak unit is still needed to provide HEP.

 

[Thirdrail7]

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.

Also, Passenger units have to have HEP where the freight do not. Reason when a Host RR unit is in rescue mode, the Amtrak unit is still needed to provide HEP.

You two are missing his point. Amtrak has operated modified freight designed engines for passenger service. One only needs to look at the E-60, the "pooch" and the DASH-8 P32-BWH) former Pepsi Cans), which are still in operation, though with a bland paint job as examples.

None of these engines scream modern or are intriguing.

 

[Thirdrail7]

Honestly I think your boss doesn't have a clue about railroading

That is an understatement but he wears it like a badge of honor. Indeed, he's an outsider looking at the railroad's bleak existence. Paraphrasing some comments, we have gems like "Railroaders are stuck in the past and this is not good for the future", " If it was so good, railroads would make a profit and they'd have no problem recruiting and retaining talent", " It is time for changes. For too long, Amtrak has run like a freight railroad that happens to carry passengers. it clearly isn't working which is why he is here. We're going to run it like an airline!" and my personal favorite regarding long distance trains came from , well I can;t remember his title but he said in front of Mr Anderson "the long distance model is flawed since a great deal of travelers are utilizing it for vacations and Amtrak shouldn't be in the business of using taxpayers funds to provide vacations."

Mr. Anderson didn't disagree. While some may agree with that comment, I think we are chartered to provide rail service. It doesn't really matter to me why you want to ride the train. If you want to ride the train, we should provide the service. I suppose it is better for taxpayers to fund people taking day trips or commuting to work?

Whatever. I'll tie this back into a previous post but the bottom line is he IS one of the few people to take this on.

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.

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).

Image means quite a bit. After all, it worked before.Imagine you're new to the industry and having the converstation:

. You are walking around and people are showing you a train. It has locomotives, cars and some comfortable seats. He sits down and says "not too bad. By the way, what is that over there?"

Underling:"It is an ACELA, our premium product."

Richard Anderson: "It looks nice and sleek. Other than that, what is the difference between these two sets?"

U: " Um...well, this sleek set tilts and makes the run in 3'50" above and 2'50" minutes below."

RA: "And the other set?"

U: Well, if we push it, 4'20" above and 3'15" below.

RA: "Yes, but it seems much of that difference is due to the number of stops made between the sets."

U: "Well...yes, but there are also different amenities on the Acela"

RA: Oh yeah? Like what?"

U: Um....the Acela sets tilt."

RA: You told me that already. Anything else?"

U: "Yes!! How could I forget this? The Acela sets have purty curtains that the passengers can use to block sunlight, which is fortunate since the windows ARE bigger!"

RA: "You don't say...and what is the price difference between these trains?"

U: "It depends on the day and buckets but roughly $200-300 more per seat.

RA: Aaaaand people are paying that?

U: "yes...except on weekends, when the price difference is lower."

RA: "We should probably order more things that look like this. It seems to have worked like a charm!"

With the right buzzwords, you can sell a lot of things. I'm sure the new contemporary train set, with its modernistic look will be the train of the future!!!

 

[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.

Also, Passenger units have to have HEP where the freight do not. Reason when a Host RR unit is in rescue mode, the Amtrak unit is still needed to provide HEP.

You two are missing his point. Amtrak has operated modified freight designed engines for passenger service. One only needs to look at the E-60, the "pooch" and the DASH-8 P32-BWH) former Pepsi Cans), which are still in operation, though with a bland paint job as examples.

None of these engines scream modern or are intriguing.

You are actually just further proving the point I am trying to make. As you have shown, Amtrak is not opposed to using freight-style locomotives if they have what is required for passenger trains. Therefore, Amtrak does not have separate locomotives from freight railroads primarily because of the way they look, but more because of the different requirements for a locomotive that pulls passenger trains.

 

[bretton88]

I suspect the new Alstom sets will probably help a lot in that perception issue too.

 

[Thirdrail7]

You two are missing his point. Amtrak has operated modified freight designed engines for passenger service. One only needs to look at the E-60, the "pooch" and the DASH-8 P32-BWH) former Pepsi Cans), which are still in operation, though with a bland paint job as examples.

None of these engines scream modern or are intriguing.

You are actually just further proving the point I am trying to make. As you have shown, Amtrak is not opposed to using freight-style locomotives if they have what is required for passenger trains. Therefore, Amtrak does not have separate locomotives from freight railroads primarily because of the way they look, but more because of the different requirements for a locomotive that pulls passenger trains.

You don't HAVE to do anything. You can actually have a an actual freight unit with a separate HEP car like they did yeas ago if they decided to. The point that is sailing over your head is Frequent Flyer didn;t say YOU COULDN'T use a freight engine. He said there is A REASON that they don't.

That reason is some regimes place a high value on looks over functionality. There is REASON that the AEM-7 looked the way it did and it wasn't just for aerodynamics. There is a REASON the Amfleets have the tubular design. There is a REASON they hid the knuckle under a nose cone for the Acela. There is a REASON the HHP-8 has the rounded edges. There was a REASON for those ridiculous paint drops and green and blue blobs on the Acela. It was to catch your eye.

It had a lot to do with visual aesthetics and that was his point.

 

[jis]

The only real difference between freight locomotives and US passenger locomotives as far as I can tell is HEP and different gear ratio to enable running at a higher speed at the cost of lower torque and starting tractive effort perhaps. Ignoring the looks they have been surprisingly similar before the Tier IV engines with Urea injection came on in the last year or two. And of course the ALP-45DP is a beast unto itself which even Amtrak didn’t quite know what to make of [emoji57]

 

[Seaboard92]

Honestly he needs to look at European DMUs before determining that's what we need. The successful ones are mostly in commuter type services.

The Germans attempted to do a long distance DMU and market it as an ICE. Stylistically it's similar to the ICE III but it's been a colossal failure. While all of the other generations of ICE trains are still running. And several classes of DMUs for commuter lines are very successful.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

I wonder how many airline passengers are on vacation?

 

[SarahZ]

I wonder how many airline passengers are on vacation?

“Business travelers account for 12 percent of passengers but are typically twice as profitable for airlines. On some flights, business passengers represent 75 percent of an airline's profits.”

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/041315/how-much-revenue-airline-industry-comes-business-travelers-compared-leisure-travelers.asp

That’s just one source, but it’s safe to say there are more leisure travelers than business travelers.

I would maybe inflate that 12% statistic a little bit to account for business travelers who don’t book through their company, such as those with a company credit card, or those who are self-employed.

 

[Lonestar648]

With the companies i worked for over the last 20 year period, all the field personnel (10 implementation teams plus support personnel and sales) made all their own reservations for transportation, hotel, and car. As far as anyone knew these were leisure trips, unless they matched up all the trips to see 40+ weeks of traveling. Airlines and Amtrak saw these as individual trips, not through a corporate travel agency. So how does any transportation company really know the percent of business to leisure travel.

 

[SarahZ]

With the companies i worked for over the last 20 year period, all the field personnel (10 implementation teams plus support personnel and sales) made all their own reservations for transportation, hotel, and car. As far as anyone knew these were leisure trips, unless they matched up all the trips to see 40+ weeks of traveling. Airlines and Amtrak saw these as individual trips, not through a corporate travel agency. So how does any transportation company really know the percent of business to leisure travel.

Did you read my entire post? I said:

"I would maybe inflate that 12% statistic a little bit to account for business travelers who don’t book through their company, such as those with a company credit card, or those who are self-employed."

​Also, some of the airlines I use have a checkbox for "business" or "leisure" when searching fares. I don't think you're bound to it, but that may be one (of many) ways they gather data.

 

[Ryan]

That, and yes. The company can look at a person's travel patterns and draw reasonable conclusions about whether travel is for work or for leisure. Data analytics is a hell of a thing.

 

[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.

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.

Also, Passenger units have to have HEP where the freight do not. Reason when a Host RR unit is in rescue mode, the Amtrak unit is still needed to provide HEP.

You two are missing his point. Amtrak has operated modified freight designed engines for passenger service. One only needs to look at the E-60, the "pooch" and the DASH-8 P32-BWH) former Pepsi Cans), which are still in operation, though with a bland paint job as examples.

None of these engines scream modern or are intriguing.

You are actually just further proving the point I am trying to make. As you have shown, Amtrak is not opposed to using freight-style locomotives if they have what is required for passenger trains. Therefore, Amtrak does not have separate locomotives from freight railroads primarily because of the way they look, but more because of the different requirements for a locomotive that pulls passenger trains.

I don't think we are understanding each other. But aesthics do matter to Amtrak. As GE has proven, they could have stuck a HEP in back of Dash 8 unit and called it a day, and Amtrak did in deed buy 10 of them. I wish I had the Trains article that discussed how the Genesis locomotive came to be which is a Dash 8 in a "slick" monocoque design.

The same could be said for the venerable F40 which was a GP40 in a cowl body. Why the cowl body, when the GP40 could have been modified with HEP? Because aesthetics matter.

Finally, why has the Acela train gain popularity when the AEM7/Amfleet Metroliners were doing fine in its mission. The aesthetics of Acela helped sell it and make it the air shuttle killer it is now.

While aesthetics matter, functionality and reliability more so, and I hope whatever Anderson is cooking up, its functional first.

 

[keelhauled]

I wonder if there's something being lost in translation about leisure travel as in travel where riding the train is the leisure in and of itself vs. travel in order to go to a leisure destination. I would tend to agree with Anderson if his opinion is that Amtrak shouldn't be operating for the habits of the former group, but I don't understand why he would want to turn down passengers from the latter.

 

[Lonestar648]

if Anderson doesn't want Amtrak used for vacations, he needs to stop his own company (see quote below

"Vacation package bookings and inquiries can be made through amtrakvacations.com or by calling 1-800-AMTRAK-2 (1-800-268-7252). To view the Amtrak Vacations page,

click this link:Amtrak Vacations"

 

[George K]

if Anderson doesn't want Amtrak used for vacations, he needs to stop his own company (see quote below

"Vacation package bookings and inquiries can be made through amtrakvacations.com or by calling 1-800-AMTRAK-2 (1-800-268-7252). To view the Amtrak Vacations page,

click this link:Amtrak Vacations"

I was under the impression that Amtrak Vacations is *not* Amtrak, but a separate company licensed to use the Amtrak name.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

I don't have any data, but I can't imagine too many people are using Amtrak AS their vacations. Most of the people I talk to are using amtrak as part of their vacations. For example, they want to go to california, and thought it would be fun to take the train to get there.