Amtrak Empire Service (NYS) Improvements Albany - Buffalo

Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, gprimr1, Amtrak67 of America, Tadman

Re: Amtrak Empire Service (NYS) Improvements Albany - Buffal

Postby DURR5017116 » Thu Jun 15, 2017 10:01 pm

Matt Johnson wrote:I wouldn't mind seeing a dual mode Siemens Brightline trainset for New York - is that a viable suggestion? :) Honestly, I don't see any point in brief 125 mph sprints when other portions of the route are getting slower. 110 mph where it exists is great, and it'd be nice to get some of the 80 mph stretches back up to 90 at least.


The RFI done by Metro North seems to indicate that a dual mode Charger would be too heavy if built to the specs that the state wants.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=us

In short, if built to the exact NYS specs, a DM Charger would weigh 300,000 lbs or more, the target range for the state is 286,000 lbs, or slightly more than a P32.
DURR5017116
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 6:17 pm

Re: Amtrak Empire Service (NYS) Improvements Albany - Buffal

Postby Backshophoss » Thu Jun 15, 2017 10:21 pm

Worth noting: GE was spec'ing 3 axle trucks (likely a varient of the 44c4 truck)for their proposed idea.
Had the ONLY prime mover (GEVO) not requiring aftertreatment of the exhaust.
All are taking hits on the added weight for "Energy Storage" requirement.
Backshophoss
 
Posts: 5178
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:58 pm

Re: Amtrak Empire Service (NYS) Improvements Albany - Buffal

Postby F-line to Dudley via Park » Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:36 am

Backshophoss wrote:Worth noting: GE was spec'ing 3 axle trucks (likely a varient of the 44c4 truck)for their proposed idea.
Had the ONLY prime mover (GEVO) not requiring aftertreatment of the exhaust.
All are taking hits on the added weight for "Energy Storage" requirement.


Unfortunately MPI impaled itself on the integration, and the HSP-46 ended up becoming a misfit the company doesn't want to build anymore. So there probably isn't even going to be a Tier 4 straight-diesel "Version 1.1" of that currently Tier 3 engine platform, let alone any new R&D sunk into advancing the GEVO to other passenger applications. That RFI is several years old; MPI is unlikely to submit a bid package at all when this gets rehashed for the RFP. Which means we're looking at Siemens v. Bombardier as the only plausible options.
F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Posts: 7355
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:26 pm
Location: North Cambridge

Re: Amtrak Empire Service (NYS) Improvements Albany - Buffal

Postby mtuandrew » Fri Jun 16, 2017 3:51 pm

Shame, a straight diesel GEVO Genesis would be a great engine for LD service. It'd be interesting to see Amtrak's take on six-axle power too, if the axles were steerable.
User avatar
mtuandrew
 
Posts: 4628
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:59 am
Location: the Manassas Gap Independent Line

Re: Amtrak Empire Service (NYS) Improvements Albany - Buffal

Postby F-line to Dudley via Park » Sat Jun 24, 2017 6:58 am

New station in Rochester's coming along nicely: http://www.democratandchronicle.com/sto ... 408070001/

Together with area business owners, Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, D-Fairport, led a tour of the new train station that’s slated to be completed in a few weeks. She helped secure a $15 million grant from the Federal Railroad Administration to help fund the expansion.

. . .

Image

. . .

Image

. . .

Image

F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Posts: 7355
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:26 pm
Location: North Cambridge

Re: Amtrak Empire Service (NYS) Improvements Albany - Buffal

Postby gokeefe » Sat Jun 24, 2017 1:07 pm

WOW! Gorgeous.
gokeefe
User avatar
gokeefe
 
Posts: 10242
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:28 pm
Location: Winthrop, Maine

Re: Amtrak Empire Service (NYS) Improvements Albany - Buffal

Postby Gilbert B Norman » Sat Jun 24, 2017 1:31 pm

It would certainly appear someone has been on a "retrokick":

http://wikimapia.org/26543368/New-York- ... demolished
Gilbert B Norman
 
Posts: 13401
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 6:52 am
Location: Clarendon Hills, IL (BNSF Chicago Sub; MP 18.71)

Re: Amtrak Empire Service (NYS) Improvements Albany - Buffal

Postby dowlingm » Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:43 pm

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:
Backshophoss wrote:Worth noting: GE was spec'ing 3 axle trucks (likely a varient of the 44c4 truck)for their proposed idea.
Had the ONLY prime mover (GEVO) not requiring aftertreatment of the exhaust.
All are taking hits on the added weight for "Energy Storage" requirement.


Unfortunately MPI impaled itself on the integration, and the HSP-46 ended up becoming a misfit the company doesn't want to build anymore. So there probably isn't even going to be a Tier 4 straight-diesel "Version 1.1" of that currently Tier 3 engine platform, let alone any new R&D sunk into advancing the GEVO to other passenger applications. That RFI is several years old; MPI is unlikely to submit a bid package at all when this gets rehashed for the RFP. Which means we're looking at Siemens v. Bombardier as the only plausible options.
I note MPI only submitted on HSP46 and not MP54AC. Was there a stipulation that there had to be one in production? (Metrolinx has only received the MP54 DC version to date) Or was it that GE was taking the lead on the submission and MPI was just along for the ride?
dowlingm
 
Posts: 1068
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:42 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Amtrak Empire Service (NYS) Improvements Albany - Buffal

Postby F-line to Dudley via Park » Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:57 pm

dowlingm wrote:I note MPI only submitted on HSP46 and not MP54AC. Was there a stipulation that there had to be one in production? (Metrolinx has only received the MP54 DC version to date) Or was it that GE was taking the lead on the submission and MPI was just along for the ride?


The RFI is old enough that it pre-dates the MP54AC by a lot. But that probably wouldn't have made the cut even if they did submit it. The 54 is a dual genset locomotive like the ALP-45DP, but unlike the ALP it already starts at an obese 290,000 lbs. without any E-mode provisions. That's because it's a derived MPXpress that swaps out the vanilla 16-cylinder 645-F3B (MP36PH-3) or 710-F3B (MP40PH-3) prime mover for two Cummins QSK60 gensets to goose its power output and hit Tier 4. MPI has thus far been unable to come up with a conventional MPXpress product higher than Tier 3 because the legacy lineup already teeters at the maximum plausible weight limit and is based on minor new-production updates of venerable/eternal old EMD prime movers. So they have an even more daunting task trying to adapt that platform for E-mode within weight limits than they do the cleanroomed (but still awfully heavy) HSP-46.


The only conventional prime mover passenger product MPI's moved since Tier 4 went into effect has been the MP32PH-Q, which escapes the Tier 4 mandate by being rebuilt from GP40 carbody & component donors with grafted-on MPXpress components to end up street-legal as Tier 0+ product that more or less acts like a slightly lower-powered MP36. And then the MP54AC pulled out the genset hack to extend performance and emissions compliance upward as far as the MPXpress platform could feasibly go, and managed to get lucky roping in one big GO order for such unorthodox product. It's hard to see anyone else adopting gensets in a new purchase, so expanding beyond GO is a tall order. A big reason why MPI's big cash cow MPXpress lineup is tapped out is because of all the company resources tied up for so many years in bailing out the tortured HSP-46 design from a potentially contract-voiding schedule hole. All hands on deck meant the MPXpress got little R&D attention during that span for addressing its weight ceiling in anticipation of Tier 4 and/or higher-performance orders. So the HSP-46 experience has essentially murdered their decade-long cash cow by making the MP36/40 lineage obsolete for new sales. And they've retreated to tending to their Tier 4 stable of freight product rather than try to make up for lost time, so they apparently don't see the potential sales in belatedly trying to revive the conventional MP36/40 engines for Tier 4.

The only thing you can say for the HSP-46 is that the GEVO-12 has a much straighter path to Tier 4 emissions compliance, and is already about as brawny as it gets for performance...so there is at least an upgrade path for a conventional prime mover loco that doesn't dead-end at Tier 3 and more variables to play around with for fitting E-mode within a weight limit. Unfortunately, MPI is not actually going to sell any new Tier 4 GEVO's given how it screwed the pooch on the HSP's integration. Those mythical passenger GEVO beings, if they exist at all, are going to end up being re-kitted Gennies instead of more new product. Think P42DC-begats-"P46AC", with the trusty old 7FDL prime movers traded up to a GEVO and the P32AC-DM's/HSP-46's GEB15AC traction motors inside ye olde monocoque shell...provided someone's up to the task of designing a consistent-spec mass market kit for that usable by multiple rebuilders. Maybe MPI saves face by being one of the rebuilders pitching such a re-kit; they have long made more money as a rebuilder/overhauler than they do peddling new product (and made more with that side of the freight/passenger biz even when the MPXpress was setting sales records). So given what they've already accomplished with the MP32PH-Q "Hermit Crabs"-in-Geep-armor it's quite possible that they see re-kits of all stripes as higher margin biz for the next decade than blowing more R&D on a next-gen MPXpress or some other all-new product. That makes a certain amount of sense given how many perfectly fungible displaced Gennies, F59PH/PHI's, and F40PH-2's (via commuter rail overchurn and VIA Rail replacing its well-maintained fleet in the next 7 years) are going to be cycling through the aftermarket en masse starting very soon.
F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Posts: 7355
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:26 pm
Location: North Cambridge

Re: Amtrak Empire Service (NYS) Improvements Albany - Buffal

Postby dgvrengineer » Mon Jul 24, 2017 11:02 am

Wonder what the effect will be on Amtrak Empire service & LSL if Hunter Harrison gets his way and single tracks Albany to Chicago. From Railway Age " “Hunter did away with the rule banning getting off moving equipment. He currently has a team working on a design to single-track from Albany, N.Y. to Chicago.” . Very interesting article I think everyone interested in the future of CSX should read. Here is the link:
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/blo ... channel=00
dgvrengineer
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:22 am

Re: Amtrak Empire Service (NYS) Improvements Albany - Buffal

Postby dowlingm » Mon Jul 24, 2017 11:38 am

Singling might complicate matters east of Albany, but might it create an opportunity west of Albany given CSX demands for track centre separation for higher speed Amtrak service?
dowlingm
 
Posts: 1068
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:42 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Amtrak Empire Service (NYS) Improvements Albany - Buffal

Postby Greg Moore » Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:04 pm

That was my thought. I almost would support CSX giving up a track... and letting NYS buy the other track (rather than let them tear it up) and dedicate it to Amtrak trains. And then if CSX WANTS to use the tracks, "Here's the usage fees"
Check out QuiCR, Quick, Crowdsourced Responses for businesses.
Greg Moore
 
Posts: 5109
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 12:15 am

Re: Amtrak Empire Service (NYS) Improvements Albany - Buffal

Postby railfan365 » Mon Jul 24, 2017 7:18 pm

rohr turbo wrote:
Matt Johnson wrote:.... And would it still be possible to match the 2:15 NYC - Albany times that were achieved back in the Turboliner Empire State Express era?


Those were the days for sure! And not just trip time -- think about turn around time. Now Empire trains have to loop out at Sunnyside, crossing LIRR traffic. Sure miss a certain push-pull trainset :-D

What's wrong with the turnaround loop at NYP?
railfan365
 
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 9:55 am

Re: Amtrak Empire Service (NYS) Improvements Albany - Buffal

Postby Backshophoss » Mon Jul 24, 2017 8:45 pm

The loop track was always at Sunnyside Yard,and passes under the LIRR/Amtrak mainlines there.
There were loop tracks at GCT,both upper and lower levels,due to ESA,GCT lower level loop tracks are defunct. :(

EHH claims to be a "short timer" at the CSX helm,may have an "anti-Amtrak" bias built in (from CN),but the damage is only just starting.
Splitting the ROW to CSX and State owned,Amtrak controlled ROW's might happen
Last edited by Backshophoss on Mon Jul 24, 2017 9:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Backshophoss
 
Posts: 5178
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:58 pm

Re: Amtrak Empire Service (NYS) Improvements Albany - Buffal

Postby electricron » Mon Jul 24, 2017 8:51 pm

railfan365 wrote:What's wrong with the turnaround loop at NYP?

What turnaround (balloon) loop at NY Penn Station? It doesn't exist.
electricron
 
Posts: 4169
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:35 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Amtrak

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Anthony, David Benton, Google Feedfetcher and 14 guests