September 2016 (Final FY 2016) MPR is out

[jis]

There are no Chargers coming to Amtrak. They are going to state run operations and those are coming in pretty much as planned. Their arrival will release a number of P42s for use in LD service.

 

[niemi24s]

2 locos allow train to acquire MAS twice as fast

Not quite, I don't think. Don't forget the added locomotive is a part of the mass of the train and it's mass is close to that of two passenger cars. That extra mass of the added locomotive must also be be accelerated.

 

[Ryan]

No, twice as fast is right. Both locomotives have their own mass to accelerate and then have an identical amount of force available to accelerate the rest of the consist (I'm assuming we're talking about equal locomotives with and equal amount of fuel load).

 

[niemi24s]

From elementary physics, F = ma (Force = Mass X Acceleration) shows that if F is doubled, a (acceleration) will be doubled only if the mass remains unchanged - as would be the case where the tractive effort of the single locomotive could be doubled with no change in the mass of the entire train. There is, however, no such magic on my side of the event horizon. While the addition of a second similar locomotive doubles the tractive effort (F) available to accelerate the train, the total mass of the train is also increased by some not insignificant amount. This means the acceleration will be increased by a factor of something less 2. As an example:

Assume a consist of a single P-42 locomotive and ten passenger cars each weighing 270,000 and 130,000 pounds, respectively. The total weight of this train would be 270,000 + (10 X 130,000) = 1,570,000 pounds or 1,570,000 ÷ 32.2 = 48,800 pounds mass. The tractive effort of this locomotive is between 63,000lbf starting and 38,000lbf continous so just for giggles lets say its average tractive effort is about 50,500lbf. Its acceleration will thus be an average of: a = F ÷ m = 50,000 ÷ 48,800 = 1.03 ft/sec².

Adding a second P-42 increases the total weight of the train by 270,000 lbs to 1,570,000 + 270,000 = 1,840,000 lbs and its mass to 1,840,000 ÷ 32.2 = 57,100 lbs mass. Assuming the addition of the second P-42 will double the tractive effort to 2 X 50,500 = 101,000 lbf, the acceleration of this train will be an average of: a = F ÷ m = 101,000 ÷ 57,100 = 1.77 ft/sec².

Newtonian Mechanics thus leads me to believe the addition of a second P-42 will increase the acceleration of the entire consist by a factor of 1.77 ÷ 1.03 = 1.72 and not by a factor of 2.

 

[Ryan]

I thought that would be the case, but didn't feel like pulling the numbers and doing the math. Glad I could get you to do it for me.

 

[CCC1007]

Not all the power of the first locomotive is available for traction power, as HEP comes off of the same fixed source. This would push the acceleration level on almost every train to mort than 2.

 

[jis]

Really, with current schedules and ten car trains on most routes it doesn't matter. Redundency is a bigger reason than acceleration.

 

[seat38a]

Just under three million for the Surfliner. Hopefully we'll break that, and then some, with the new round trip.

Its right on Acela's tail. Not sure how Metrolink monthly pass passengers are counted but the new morning SD to SLO train is just ripe to be filled with Metrolink passengers, trying to ride the "Express" train to LAUS. If those passengers are counted, then we maybe blowing right through the 3 million mark and catching up to Acela's numbers.

 

[jis]

If only it could catch upto Acela's revenues

 

[PRR 60]

Just under three million for the Surfliner. Hopefully we'll break that, and then some, with the new round trip.

Its right on Acela's tail. Not sure how Metrolink monthly pass passengers are counted but the new morning SD to SLO train is just ripe to be filled with Metrolink passengers, trying to ride the "Express" train to LAUS. If those passengers are counted, then we maybe blowing right through the 3 million mark and catching up to Acela's numbers.

Metrolink and Coaster monthly pass holders account for about 400,000 of the Pacific Surfliner ridership (FY15). The downsides for LOSSAN (the Surfliner operating agency) is that the commuter agencies reimburse Amtrak just $4.50 per Metrolink or Coaster rider. The result is that the commuter riders are about 14% of the overall Surfliner ridership, and contribute just over 2% of the revenue.

 

[seat38a]

Just under three million for the Surfliner. Hopefully we'll break that, and then some, with the new round trip.

Its right on Acela's tail. Not sure how Metrolink monthly pass passengers are counted but the new morning SD to SLO train is just ripe to be filled with Metrolink passengers, trying to ride the "Express" train to LAUS. If those passengers are counted, then we maybe blowing right through the 3 million mark and catching up to Acela's numbers.

Metrolink and Coaster monthly pass holders account for about 400,000 of the Pacific Surfliner ridership (FY15). The downsides for LOSSAN (the Surfliner operating agency) is that the commuter agencies reimburse Amtrak just $4.50 per Metrolink or Coaster rider. The result is that the commuter riders are about 14% of the overall Surfliner ridership, and contribute just over 2% of the revenue.

But the stated goal of Amtrak California and the metrics they use to measure success is not purely revenue. Its more important to the State to have more people taking the train and getting cars off of the roads than earning a profit. Don't remember the source off my head but in an article I read a while back, something like if the train fare recovers around 50% of the cost then that is considered good and if the recovery rate gets too high or if the train is turning a profit, then it means the State or the agency running the train is not investing enough in the trains and should be investing more by expanding service, upgrades etc.. Also, since LOSSAN is made up of the counties / agencies that make up the Metrolink and Coaster I don't think it is really a big issue. The whole reason for setting up LOSSAN was for better coordination through local control.

Finally, without the rail to rail program, I think Metrolink and Coaster ridership would probably get negatively impacted as well. The rail to rail program pretty much gives an hourly option to get home from work for most people instead of getting stuck because of the commuter surge sched implemented by the commuter lines. I remember the biggest complaint on using Metrolink for commuting to work was that if you had an emergency, got sick etc, there was no way to get home in the middle of the day.

 

[niemi24s]

Not all the power of the first locomotive is available for traction power, as HEP comes off of the same fixed source. This would push the acceleration level on almost every train to mort than 2.

Please re-read Post #29 which shows that with two P-42's supplying NO head-end Power, acceleration is increased by a factor less than 2 by nearly 12%, or 1.77. If, say, 20% of the tractive effort of one was used for HEP, the total tractive effort would be reduced to 50,500 + (0.8 X 50,500) = 90,900 lbf. The acceleration would then be an average of: a = F ÷ m = 90,900 ÷ 57,100 = 1.59 ft/sec². Acceleration would thus be increased by a factor of 1.59 ÷ 1.03 = 1.54. This is not more than 2 but less than 2 by 23%.

However, if in your second sentence you are referring to an actual acceleration value of more than 2 ft/sec², the problem is to find how many P-42's this would take (with one diverting 20% of its tractive effort to HEP) and what the actual acceleration would be.

Good way to practice Algebra, eh?

 

[Ryan]

That's not how it works. If you have 1 locomotive, it has to provide HEP. The numbers look like this:

(0.8*50,500)/48,800 = 0.83 ft/s2

The 1.59 ft/s2 you get from adding a second locomotive is much closer to doubling the original acceleration than you give it credit for. I'm sure you can work out the math on how far away it is from being twice as much.

 

[bretton88]

Just under three million for the Surfliner. Hopefully we'll break that, and then some, with the new round trip.

Its right on Acela's tail. Not sure how Metrolink monthly pass passengers are counted but the new morning SD to SLO train is just ripe to be filled with Metrolink passengers, trying to ride the "Express" train to LAUS. If those passengers are counted, then we maybe blowing right through the 3 million mark and catching up to Acela's numbers.

Metrolink and Coaster monthly pass holders account for about 400,000 of the Pacific Surfliner ridership (FY15). The downsides for LOSSAN (the Surfliner operating agency) is that the commuter agencies reimburse Amtrak just $4.50 per Metrolink or Coaster rider. The result is that the commuter riders are about 14% of the overall Surfliner ridership, and contribute just over 2% of the revenue.

But the stated goal of Amtrak California and the metrics they use to measure success is not purely revenue. Its more important to the State to have more people taking the train and getting cars off of the roads than earning a profit. Don't remember the source off my head but in an article I read a while back, something like if the train fare recovers around 50% of the cost then that is considered good and if the recovery rate gets too high or if the train is turning a profit, then it means the State or the agency running the train is not investing enough in the trains and should be investing more by expanding service, upgrades etc.. Also, since LOSSAN is made up of the counties / agencies that make up the Metrolink and Coaster I don't think it is really a big issue. The whole reason for setting up LOSSAN was for better coordination through local control.
Finally, without the rail to rail program, I think Metrolink and Coaster ridership would probably get negatively impacted as well. The rail to rail program pretty much gives an hourly option to get home from work for most people instead of getting stuck because of the commuter surge sched implemented by the commuter lines. I remember the biggest complaint on using Metrolink for commuting to work was that if you had an emergency, got sick etc, there was no way to get home in the middle of the day.

Lossan is no longer run by the state of California and the people running the Surfliners now are not happy about the crowding that rail2rail passengers are adding. Per their last board meeting, they are looking at restricting certain trains from metrolink riders.

 

[seat38a]

Just under three million for the Surfliner. Hopefully we'll break that, and then some, with the new round trip.

Its right on Acela's tail. Not sure how Metrolink monthly pass passengers are counted but the new morning SD to SLO train is just ripe to be filled with Metrolink passengers, trying to ride the "Express" train to LAUS. If those passengers are counted, then we maybe blowing right through the 3 million mark and catching up to Acela's numbers.

Metrolink and Coaster monthly pass holders account for about 400,000 of the Pacific Surfliner ridership (FY15). The downsides for LOSSAN (the Surfliner operating agency) is that the commuter agencies reimburse Amtrak just $4.50 per Metrolink or Coaster rider. The result is that the commuter riders are about 14% of the overall Surfliner ridership, and contribute just over 2% of the revenue.

But the stated goal of Amtrak California and the metrics they use to measure success is not purely revenue. Its more important to the State to have more people taking the train and getting cars off of the roads than earning a profit. Don't remember the source off my head but in an article I read a while back, something like if the train fare recovers around 50% of the cost then that is considered good and if the recovery rate gets too high or if the train is turning a profit, then it means the State or the agency running the train is not investing enough in the trains and should be investing more by expanding service, upgrades etc.. Also, since LOSSAN is made up of the counties / agencies that make up the Metrolink and Coaster I don't think it is really a big issue. The whole reason for setting up LOSSAN was for better coordination through local control.
Finally, without the rail to rail program, I think Metrolink and Coaster ridership would probably get negatively impacted as well. The rail to rail program pretty much gives an hourly option to get home from work for most people instead of getting stuck because of the commuter surge sched implemented by the commuter lines. I remember the biggest complaint on using Metrolink for commuting to work was that if you had an emergency, got sick etc, there was no way to get home in the middle of the day.

Lossan is no longer run by the state of California and the people running the Surfliners now are not happy about the crowding that rail2rail passengers are adding. Per their last board meeting, they are looking at restricting certain trains from metrolink riders.

Your right, but the State still funds it but the decisions are up to LOSSAN. All I'm saying is that LOSSAN is made up of the same agencies that control Metrolink and Coaster so all three trains are pretty much being controlled by the same counties and agencies.

 

[niemi24s]

I'm sure you can work out the math on how far away it is from being twice as much.

Don't be so sure.

Biggest stumbling block to finding out deals with tractive effort (TE). The starting and continuous TE's are given, but I can find nothing about the transition between them. In addition, the reduction of TE caused by the delivery of up to 800kW of HEP is a bit iffy. In spite of these difficulties, the problem was worked two ways: How much TE was was needed to increase acceleration by a factor of 2; Finding that factor by first finding the accelerations of each of the two consists and dividing the larger by the smaller. Both tended to indicate a second P42DC added would increase acceleration by a factor of 2.1, exceeding 2.0 with about 4,500 lbs of TE to spare. Both pulling a consist of ten 65 ton passenger cars.

However, this was found by using the average of the starting and continuous values of TE (50,500 lbf) and I've absolutely no idea if that's a realistic value.

 

[Ryan]

So let me get something straight. You spend several posts going into great mathematical detail about how the statement that a second locomotive will double acceleration can't possibly be right, except for when you make a mistake. Then it's a bunch of hand waving about how the assumptions you made were probably wrong and in all actuality, the statement you set out to disprove is actually true?

(ps, the number I was looking for was 1.92. 1.59/0.83 is 1.92. Using your assumptions and taking HEP into account, acceleration increases by a factor of nearly-but-not-quite 2)

 

[lo2e]

Having taken a few months off from analyzing the long distance coach/business numbers, I've come back with the final FY16 numbers, pictured down below. Anything in green is a year-over-year gain, anything in red is a year-over-year loss. Note that to figure the "average per day" calculation I based it on a 365 day year even though we are in a leap year. If we based it on a 366 day year, the average per day would be slightly better (if it's in the red) or slightly worse (if it's in the green), but it would make a difference of no more than a passenger or two per day.

Some pretty obvious winners and losers, and several that were kinda flat year-to-year. We knew AutoTrain would have a pretty awful year, and sure enough it's taken a huge hit on both the coach side and sleeper side. Same with the Star, though it did have a good gain in sleeper passengers and I think the latter part of the fiscal year was somewhat better than the beginning of it (recall that there were a few months where the Star lost enough coach passengers to empty an entire coach on average). TexasEagle was definitely off due to a variety of factors and the Crescent was pretty awful for coach ridership but gained a tiny bit of it back in sleeper passengers.

We knew the LSL and CZ were going to do pretty well, but I was pretty shocked by how well the EB did, rather quietly having a nice bounce back from an awful FY15.

For the year, taking out the Palmetto's numbers (which skew things a bit due to its surge of NER passengers), long distance coach/business passengers gained 1,384, sleeper passengers dropped 6,497, total passengers dropped 5,113.

 

[neroden]

The LSL is recovery from the NS Autorouter Meltdown in 2014, and the EB is the slow recovery from actually running on time again.

The CZ, on the other hand... I'm going to credit Denver's massive expansion of Union Station passenger rail services for increasing awareness. I wonder how much of that new ridership is at Denver.

Texas Eagle has had constant service disruptions so the poor performance there is no surprise, unforrtunately. :-( I wish Illinois would get their act together and finish enough work that they could leave the line open during future work instead of shutting the line down over and over again.

The CONO and Crescent also suffered badly this year. I wonder why.

 

[gatelouse]

I'm blaming business class for the Crescent coach numbers. One less coach car, fewer coach seats, higher fares, lower ridership.

 

[Anderson]

Here's hoping Amtrak can find their way to reversing some of those changes from a year or two ago. Demand seems to be down enough to justify swapping out the coach for at least an unstaffed lounge;-)