New equipment for Amtrak

[Dutchrailnut]

By the way, if you take care of them, those Amfleets have another 20-30 years of life in them easy. They are Budd coaches, after all.

You obviously have not studied any metalurical subjects, Stainless steel gets britle over years from flexing, and it will rip apart once it gets to that point.

Stainlesss steel is not a forever solution, yes it last longer than carbon steel of same weight.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

They don't treat their stuff like toys. They use it until they're dead. They are well and truly dead. And good riddance.

Amtrak runs most of its equipment into the ground, but the RTL III is a glaring exception. It was not simply a worn out 30 year old trainset. It was completely rebuilt, down to the bare frame, and virtually every component in it was new.

They rebuilt it. But they did so very poorly. What do you think, Amtrak is doing this to spite you? They are not running valuable equipment because it is not valuable and its more expensive to operate than the utility it provides.

I think the mothballed Amfleet Is are probably a fine example of something valuable that is not more expensive to operate than the utility it provides.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

By the way, if you take care of them, those Amfleets have another 20-30 years of life in them easy. They are Budd coaches, after all.

That may be, but isn't the problem that they are expensive to take care of due to the lack of available parts?

Given the number in service, the need for parts would justify them being produced in sufficient volume for the prices to be reasonable.

By the way, if you take care of them, those Amfleets have another 20-30 years of life in them easy. They are Budd coaches, after all.

You obviously have not studied any metalurical subjects, Stainless steel gets britle over years from flexing, and it will rip apart once it gets to that point.

Stainlesss steel is not a forever solution, yes it last longer than carbon steel of same weight.

Sure. And when the Amfleets get to be 60 years old like some of the other Budd equipment thats beginning to reach the end of its usable life, we'll talk.

 

[Ryan]

By the way, if you take care of them, those Amfleets have another 20-30 years of life in them easy. They are Budd coaches, after all.

You obviously have not studied any metalurical subjects, Stainless steel gets britle over years from flexing, and it will rip apart once it gets to that point.

Stainlesss steel is not a forever solution, yes it last longer than carbon steel of same weight.

I must have missed the part of GMLs post where he claimed to be a metallurgical expert (hell, at least I can spell it correctly) or that the Amfleet tubes were a forever solution. I think that it's important to keep in mind that in pushing to get new equipment you take the time to maintain what you have and use it to its fullest potential.

 

[lrdc9_metroplitan_sub]

If anything, Amtrak should've kept more F40's going when they thought the ExpressTrak initiative would require additional motive power. (And speaking of F40's, they've still got a bunch of those in storage as well!)

Actually there are only 8 left in storage now, all the rest are gone either via conversion to NPCU, lease, sold, or scrapped.

As for why they weren't kept for ExpressTrak, they have 1,250 less horse power than a P42 and weight less than a P42, both things you want when hauling freight. Additionally at the time the second order for P42's was placed, the oldest F40 was already beyond what is considered the normal useful life of a locomotive and the youngest was still already 12 years old. Then there are the cost savings realized by having one standard type of engine, in that you don't have to stock different parts and provide training on both types of engines.

Which is, in fact, one of the principles that Southwest Airlines (only 30+ year straight profit airline around until last Q) uses. One fleet type reduces costs drastically.

Further, the mothballed p40's could be put to use with more funding as follows: buy more western equipment to acccomadate the recently soaring demand. The longer trains will necessitate some additional power up front. Everybody wins. Or, alternativly, the Pioneer could be restarted with extra funds. I hate to say it but... the solution to utilizing the moth balled fleets may be to throw money at it, in an organized reasonably well planned manner.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Further, the mothballed p40's could be put to use with more funding as follows: buy more western equipment to acccomadate the recently soaring demand. The longer trains will necessitate some additional power up front. Everybody wins. Or, alternativly, the Pioneer could be restarted with extra funds. I hate to say it but... the solution to utilizing the moth balled fleets may be to throw money at it, in an organized reasonably well planned manner.

From the perspective of offering the best possible service to riders, using more passenger cars to add additional trips each day on different schedules (like, say, to maybe add 3 PM service at LNK as an alternative to 3AM service) might be better than lengthening trains. On the other hand, from the perspective of how much freight can be moved off the highways with a given set of track, fewer passenger trains is a win.

The other interesting question is whether getting rid of mid-east oil dependency that Obama promised during the debates is something that will be addressed in part with massive railroad electrification.

 

[Rob_C]

Speaking of massive electrification (no, not my wife before electricity! Hheuugghh!)... What's the towing capacity of an HHP-8 vs a P42? Would it work towing a Superliner consist out west? Is it realistic to string catenary high enough for double stacks to safely pass, yet in reach of low profile locomotive pickup?

Rob (who's not actually married but a big Rodney Dangerfield fan)

 

[amtrakwolverine]

you would need the wires high enough and a pantograph long enough to reach. or you go third rail.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

The Alameda Corridor is looking at electrification to address polution in the vincity of the railroad, and my understanding is that that railroad is mostly used to haul double stack freight.

I think where third rail is potentially attractive is mostly in tunnels and under bridges where clearance is tight.

 

[gaspeamtrak]

I just read an article in Trains magazine by Don Phillips where he mentions the following, "It is a travesty that equipment was not ordered at least a year ago, and it will be interesting to learn, as time goes on, why none has been ordered yet."
Was money appropriated a year ago for new equipment? Is money available now?

I'm sure everyone is in agreement that there is a need for additonal equipment! Any thoughts on Mr. Phillips comments?

Thanks!

Can anybody tell me if any of the Stimulus money that is going to Amtrak is for those "wreck repairs" ( Amfleets & Superliners) sitting in the "Delaware" and the "Beech Grove" shops??? Or did i here something before that they already had the money before the Stimulus package?

The 81 "Amfleet" are not all wrecked as some of them nedded expensive "truck " overhauls? They were using about 24 amfleets for evacuation of people from New Orleans during the hurricane season if needed?

I also heard that Amtrak had a "wish" for 15 more "viewliners" and 20 signal level"diners" and 50 baggage cars? Is the money for this from another bill?

Sorry for all the questions as i'm hearing all kinds of gossip!!!

Thanks for any info!!!

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I also heard that Amtrak had a "wish" for 15 more "viewliners" and 20 signal level"diners" and 50 baggage cars? Is the money for this from another bill?

Is a signal level dining car one that's constructed so that those who are enjoying their dinner can clearly see the wayside signals to make sure the engineer isn't busy texting?

I'm not aware of any bill authorizing new rolling stock, but that rolling stock was requested in Amtrak's testimony before Congress a few months ago; see October 29 2008 here

 

[Green Maned Lion]

From the perspective of offering the best possible service to riders, using more passenger cars to add additional trips each day on different schedules (like, say, to maybe add 3 PM service at LNK as an alternative to 3AM service) might be better than lengthening trains. On the other hand, from the perspective of how much freight can be moved off the highways with a given set of track, fewer passenger trains is a win.
The other interesting question is whether getting rid of mid-east oil dependency that Obama promised during the debates is something that will be addressed in part with massive railroad electrification.

The problem is that adding a new train takes a lot more than adding cars. I believe over UP Amtrak is limited to 30 cars per train. Adding capacity for 2 more sleepers and 3 more coaches on the California Zephyer requires, i think, 10-12 more sleepers and 15-18 more coaches. Perhaps an 5-6 P42s (1 per train) to haul the extra weight. Oh, and you'd probably have to kill SDS on a train that long.

Adding an additional frequency on the CZ route of the same size, assuming you inter-turned them (you shared equipment between them) to minimize equipment requirements, you could handle the whole thing with, say, 10 sets if we are currently using 6. So you need 8 more P42s (doable, especially if you woke up the P40s for some of the short mid-west trains), 8 more sleepers (difficult but could be done if you cut the CS and EB from 3 sleepers to 2, or yanked some off the A/T), 12-16 more coaches (doable if you yanked Superliners off trains that could live without them, and put some Amfleets back on track). Thats the easy part. You also need 4 more conveyences capable of hauling baggage (difficult), four more Sightseers (Practically impossible), and 4 more dining cars (not happening, period). 8 P42s, 4 Trans/Dorms, 8 Sleepers, 8-12 coaches, 4 Coach/Bags, 4 Diners, 4 Sightseers.

The other option that I think would be pretty nice would be adding three trains. Let's call them the Denver Zephyr, the Desert Wind, and the Pioneer.

Denver Zephyr consists of a sleeping car and a coach, short turning at Denver, you'd need 2 sleepers and 2 coaches for this.

Pioneer consists of a P42, one of those new Lounge/Diners converted from the Sightseer, a sleeper, a coach, and a coach/baggage, requiring 5 P42s, 5 L/Ds, 5 sleepers, 5 coaches, and 5 coach baggages. The Pioneer runs to Portland, via Ogden, mostly duplicating its post 1994 route.

Desert Wind consists of 1 P42s, a Trans/Dorm, a sleeper, a Cross Country Cafe, a coach/bag, and a coach. For this we need 10 P42s, 5 Trans/Dorms, 5 Sleepers, 5 CCCs, 5 coaches, and 5 coach/baggage cars.

The Consist would probably be, east of denver: 2 P42s, Trans/Dorm (DW), Sleeper (DW), Coach/Bag(DW), Coach (DW), CCC(DW), Coach (DZ), L/D (P), Coach/Bag, Coach (P), Sleeper (P), Sleeper(DZ).

Total required equipment: 10 P42s, 5 T/Ds, 12 Sleepers, 12 Coaches, 10 Coach/Bags, 5 CCCs, and 5 L/Ds.

Vs. Total Rqd. equipment: 8 P42s, 4 T/Ds, 8 Sleepers, 12 Coaches, 4 Coach/ Bags, 4 Diners, and 4 SSLs.

What's the towing capacity of an HHP-8 vs a P42?

The P42 produces 4200 bhp, and I believe 3800 is availible for tractive effort in HEP mode. Which means that 2 P42s produce about 8000 horsepower (since only one need provide HEP).

The HHP-8, as its name implies (High-HorsePower-8000) produces 8000 bhp, and I think all of it is availible for tractive effort. So numerically speaking, 2 P42s approximately equals 1 HHP-8.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

The problem is that adding a new train takes a lot more than adding cars. I believe over UP Amtrak is limited to 30 cars per train. Adding capacity for 2 more sleepers and 3 more coaches on the California Zephyer requires, i think, 10-12 more sleepers and 15-18 more coaches. Perhaps an 5-6 P42s (1 per train) to haul the extra weight. Oh, and you'd probably have to kill SDS on a train that long.

Would anyone mourn the passing of SDS, though?

Platform length is probably the real factor that limits how long a train is a good idea. 30 cars at 87.5 feet each would be 2625 feet, which is over 1/3 mile.

Adding an additional frequency on the CZ route of the same size, assuming you inter-turned them (you shared equipment between them) to minimize equipment requirements, you could handle the whole thing with, say, 10 sets if we are currently using 6. So you need 8 more P42s (doable, especially if you woke up the P40s for some of the short mid-west trains), 8 more sleepers (difficult but could be done if you cut the CS and EB from 3 sleepers to 2, or yanked some off the A/T), 12-16 more coaches (doable if you yanked Superliners off trains that could live without them, and put some Amfleets back on track). Thats the easy part. You also need 4 more conveyences capable of hauling baggage (difficult), four more Sightseers (Practically impossible), and 4 more dining cars (not happening, period). 8 P42s, 4 Trans/Dorms, 8 Sleepers, 8-12 coaches, 4 Coach/Bags, 4 Diners, 4 Sightseers.
The other option that I think would be pretty nice would be adding three trains. Let's call them the Denver Zephyr, the Desert Wind, and the Pioneer.

Denver Zephyr consists of a sleeping car and a coach, short turning at Denver, you'd need 2 sleepers and 2 coaches for this.

Pioneer consists of a P42, one of those new Lounge/Diners converted from the Sightseer, a sleeper, a coach, and a coach/baggage, requiring 5 P42s, 5 L/Ds, 5 sleepers, 5 coaches, and 5 coach baggages. The Pioneer runs to Portland, via Ogden, mostly duplicating its post 1994 route.

Desert Wind consists of 1 P42s, a Trans/Dorm, a sleeper, a Cross Country Cafe, a coach/bag, and a coach. For this we need 10 P42s, 5 Trans/Dorms, 5 Sleepers, 5 CCCs, 5 coaches, and 5 coach/baggage cars.

The Consist would probably be, east of denver: 2 P42s, Trans/Dorm (DW), Sleeper (DW), Coach/Bag(DW), Coach (DW), CCC(DW), Coach (DZ), L/D (P), Coach/Bag, Coach (P), Sleeper (P), Sleeper(DZ).

Total required equipment: 10 P42s, 5 T/Ds, 12 Sleepers, 12 Coaches, 10 Coach/Bags, 5 CCCs, and 5 L/Ds.

Vs. Total Rqd. equipment: 8 P42s, 4 T/Ds, 8 Sleepers, 12 Coaches, 4 Coach/ Bags, 4 Diners, and 4 SSLs.

It seems to me that unless Congress writes a check to Bombardier for more Superliners, none of these options are all that attractive. And if you assume more Superliners can be built, I don't see why there'd be any restrictions on what equipment would be available.

And which train do you want to convert to single level?

What's the towing capacity of an HHP-8 vs a P42?

The P42 produces 4200 bhp, and I believe 3800 is availible for tractive effort in HEP mode. Which means that 2 P42s produce about 8000 horsepower (since only one need provide HEP).

The HHP-8, as its name implies (High-HorsePower-8000) produces 8000 bhp, and I think all of it is availible for tractive effort. So numerically speaking, 2 P42s approximately equals 1 HHP-8.

However, while the horsepower available matters for some things (and that more or less boils down to the number of watts available to the traction motors), the weight on the powered axles is sometimes also a factor, and the HHP-8 has the highest wattage per axle weight of any Amtrak locomotive, so there are more situations where an HHP-8 cannot apply its full wattage to the track than there are situations where other locomotives cannot take full advantage of their horsepower.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

You could cobble up equipment for either train possibility, its a matter of what you are willing to take it from.

The Heartland Flyer and Pere Marquette are not trains that require long-distance equipment. But both use Superliners.

I wasn't suggesting trains should be 30 cars long, although it would be nice if the demand was availible.

As for horsepower, I said "numerically speaking" for a reason.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

The Heartland Flyer and Pere Marquette are not trains that require long-distance equipment. But both use Superliners.

What are the consists, and how many trainsets does each have?

I wasn't suggesting trains should be 30 cars long, although it would be nice if the demand was availible.

It would be nice if we had dedicated passenger tracks, and trains running every hour or two everywhere.

As for horsepower, I said "numerically speaking" for a reason.

The number of pounds on the powered axles is the number that matters for certain things. (I wish I had a clearer understanding of which things it matters for.) There's a reason freight railroads use slugs.

 

[SUNSETLIMITED01]

30 cars? Now that is seriously taking to a whole new level. There hasn't been any normal passenger trains that even come close to 30 cars in the past or present, not that I'm aware of. I mean back in the 80s and ealry 90s several single-level trains had 20 cars or more and I bet they did have problems fitting trains that size at station platforms. If Amtrak does make their other long distance trains 30 cars long than it will be VERY INTRESTING to see.

 

[MrFSS]

30 cars? Now that is seriously taking to a whole new level. There hasn't been any normal passenger trains that even come close to 30 cars in the past or present, not that I'm aware of. I mean back in the 80s and ealry 90s several single-level trains had 20 cars or more and I bet they did have problems fitting trains that size at station platforms. If Amtrak does make their other long distance trains 30 cars long than it will be VERY INTRESTING to see.

I rode The Canadian several years ago from Toronto to Jasper. We had 3 engines and 27 cars! Had to double spot at several stations.

 

[lrdc9_metroplitan_sub]

Desert Wind consists of 1 P42s, a Trans/Dorm, a sleeper, a Cross Country Cafe, a coach/bag, and a coach. For this we need 10 P42s, 5 Trans/Dorms, 5 Sleepers, 5 CCCs, 5 coaches, and 5 coach/baggage cars.

Not to question what GML says but . . . I have always held the opinion that LV, NV may be better served by bus. The region that train travels is sparsly populated and it seem there would not be sufficient demand to justify a daily train. 3x a week maybe . . . but daily, I think not.

 

[had8ley]

Does anyone know how many active transistion dorms are in Amtrak's fleet? They might make for a good slumbercoach fleet with all the roomettes that are presently upstairs.

 

[AlanB]

Does anyone know how many active transistion dorms are in Amtrak's fleet? They might make for a good slumbercoach fleet with all the roomettes that are presently upstairs.

There are 40 listed as active.

 

[AlanB]

With regard to trains that are 30 cars long, we won't be seeing them either unless Amtrak not only gets new equipment, but also performs a major overhaul on the various electrical systems in the Superliner cars. Under the current conditions the one train that Amtrak might actually wish to make longer, the Auto Train and they probably have the equipment to do it, they can't make it much longer than it already is. And I'm not counting the auto carriers, I'm just talking passenger cars.

As it stands right now with 1 crew dorm, 4 sleepers, 2 deluxe sleepers, 3 diners, 2 cafes, and 5 to 6 coaches, they are basically maxing out the HEP system. Now granted that a normal LD might not have 3 dining cars, but still there isn't too much wiggle room there. If I had to guess I'd say that 20 cars is about the max that the HEP system can handle under the current circumstances.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

As it stands right now with 1 crew dorm, 4 sleepers, 2 deluxe sleepers, 3 diners, 2 cafes, and 5 to 6 coaches, they are basically maxing out the HEP system. Now granted that a normal LD might not have 3 dining cars, but still there isn't too much wiggle room there. If I had to guess I'd say that 20 cars is about the max that the HEP system can handle under the current circumstances.

Couldn't they simply stick a generator car or P42 at the back of the string of passenger cars, and divide the passenger cars roughly in half and feed the front half from one of the locomotives at the front of the train, and the back half of the passenger cars from the generator car or P42 at the back of the string of passenger cars? Granted if they wanted to get traction power from a P42 at the back they'd need to run MU cables through all the passenger cars, but if you don't care about efficiency, I think you could just tow a P42 that was doing nothing but powering the passenger cars towards the back.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Desert Wind consists of 1 P42s, a Trans/Dorm, a sleeper, a Cross Country Cafe, a coach/bag, and a coach. For this we need 10 P42s, 5 Trans/Dorms, 5 Sleepers, 5 CCCs, 5 coaches, and 5 coach/baggage cars.

Not to question what GML says but . . . I have always held the opinion that LV, NV may be better served by bus. The region that train travels is sparsly populated and it seem there would not be sufficient demand to justify a daily train. 3x a week maybe . . . but daily, I think not.

The table of primary census areas says that the greater Las Vegas area has about 1.88 million people. That somehow is failing to strike me as sparsely populated.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

30 cars? Now that is seriously taking to a whole new level. There hasn't been any normal passenger trains that even come close to 30 cars in the past or present, not that I'm aware of. I mean back in the 80s and ealry 90s several single-level trains had 20 cars or more and I bet they did have problems fitting trains that size at station platforms. If Amtrak does make their other long distance trains 30 cars long than it will be VERY INTRESTING to see.

I rode The Canadian several years ago from Toronto to Jasper. We had 3 engines and 27 cars! Had to double spot at several stations.

If memory serves and I was correctly understanding what was happening, the westbound LSL I rode last month needed to tripple spot at Waterloo, IN and double spot at South Bend, IN.

 

[had8ley]

Does anyone know how many active transistion dorms are in Amtrak's fleet? They might make for a good slumbercoach fleet with all the roomettes that are presently upstairs.

There are 40 listed as active.

Good gravy...there's enough to supply just about every LD train with at least one, if not two, slumber coaches if the combine bag dorms get built.