2012 Budget Request Includes 40 Acela cars

Matt Johnson wrote:]
I have to wonder if the money would be better spent on the next-gen HST, or lobbying the FRA to allow something sensible like purchasing some off the shelf X-2000's or something.

I would have agreed with you on a procurement for off the shelf x-2000 until I had a look at the damage that entailed to one of the coaches after a X2000 set hit a concrete barrier in Malmo just a few weeks ago (not at high speed).
http://www.worldtravelimages.net/DSC02136.JPG
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01/ ... 34x399.jpg
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... l?ITO=1490

I think there just might be something to this FRA crash standard everyones talks about ( end sarcasm). Looking at the damage the X2000 encountered I'm leaning towards just purchasing the 40 or 70 Acela add on cars for now. We might as well start somewhere adding Acela cars to the current sets is at-least a step in the right direction. As for Amtrak "beggars can't be choosers ".

David Benton wrote:Why would the locos need platform space, unless a crew change is required ?

Well, they wouldn't necessarily need to be parked next to a platform, but some rail stations are stubs, and I'm sure Amtrak can't eliminate the front locomotive magically.

About time if you ask me. Also, as for platform space, the engineer usually pops out to check the power car at newark penn.

I presume the only stub stations acela would use would be Washington and Boston , and they would be long enough .
As for the damage to the X2000 , looks like well designed crumple zones working as they are supposed too . Note that the driver only sustained light injuries . He may have sustained neck and back injuries if he was in fra standard equipment .
Human bodies just do not like sudden stops .

electricron wrote:Using the numbers from my earlier reply, A ten car trainset would consist of
1 first class (44 seats), 1 cafe/bistro, and 8 business class (65 seats) for a grand total of 564 seats. That would be an increase in capacity of 85.5% over the existing Acela trainsets. Could Amtrak ever sell that many Acela seats without decreasing fares significantly?

I'm not all that sure all the platforms the Acela trains use would be large enough for 12 car lengths, 10 Acela cars plus the 2 locomotives. Assuming all are 85 feet in length including the locomotives, that would make every Acela train 1020 feet long.
Does anyone know where and what size the shortage Acela platform is?

why would they have to do it without lowering fares? current fares are set on limited supply. the average cost of a seat should decrease significantly with such a capacity increase, fares should follow.
track standards would be the same, catenary the same, station costs mostly the same, locomotive inspections the same, website costs the same, dispatching costs the same, etc, etc.

I agree with Suburban Station. If the trainsets were expanded to 10 cars each, then prices could come down (though not necessarily 1:1), to encourage even more people to ride the Acela. Amtrak wants to take as much of the traffic as it can away from competing modes of transport along the NEC. The more capacity, with lower fares means more people exposed to Amtrak and the closest thing we have to Euro style HSR in this country.

If Amtrak increased the number of available seats by 50-85%, but only lowered fares by 15-20%, the increased profit margin would be tremendous, not only covering the cost of additional cars and car maintenance, but also start covering the cost to eventually replace the Acela and to help cover the cost to upgrade the entire NEC to 220mph+ capability.

With the Acela slated to go out of service in 2018, is it really advisable to purchase more Acela rollingstock? A better solution would be to increase the utilization of the current train sets, although I've always suspected that the Acela sets will have a very short life for some unspecified technical reason.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:With the Acela slated to go out of service in 2018, is it really advisable to purchase more Acela rollingstock? A better solution would be to increase the utilization of the current train sets, although I've always suspected that the Acela sets will have a very short life for some unspecified technical reason.

I wouldn't count on Acela going out of service in 2018.

Also, if the payback really is 2-3 years, and they arrive in 2013 let's say, they still make a profit.

I wonder though if it would make more sense to build 5 trainset out of the cars and use them to allow current trainsets to go in for more in depth overhauls, thus extending the life even more.

That said, I'll be curious to see what happens.

Funny how I distinctly recall comments circa 1976 to the effect from Amtrak people I knew at the tme regarding the A-I's; "they'll be gone by the turn of the century".

Of course, back in those days, Mick's lyrics were "not exactly" of concern to Amtrak.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:With the Acela slated to go out of service in 2018, is it really advisable to purchase more Acela rollingstock? A better solution would be to increase the utilization of the current train sets, although I've always suspected that the Acela sets will have a very short life for some unspecified technical reason.

I also doubt if the Acelas will be going be out of service by 2018. The planning to buy Acela 2s is complicated by what is the plan for the NEC 10 or 20 years from now? Is Amtrak going to acquire Acela 2s that can operate at 160-180 or even 220 mph on the Next Gen NEC tracks or just stick with a modest upgrade to the Acelas? The development, dealing with FRA requirements, and purchase process for the Acela replacement is likely to be drawn out process.

Does anyone have an idea as to how much it will cost to modify the Acela service facilities to accommodate a 10 car long Acela (including the locomotives)? Ok, so the Boston facility is a problem, but Amtrak presumably would not be planning to extend the Acelas without a plan to expand the service facilities. Are we talking $20 or $30 million? or a $100 or $150 million? $200 million? Amtrak might be able to borrow money to pay for the 40 coach cars against expected increased revenue, but upgrading the 3 service facilities is likely to be dependent on getting enough capital funding in the annual appropriations to cover the cost.

Also, what happened to the plan to modify the café cars to include revenue seating? Have not seen anything about that in some time. Is that still in the works or did Amtrak drop it in favor of buying 40 new coach cars?

One of the reasons why Acela breaks even, or makes an operational profit, is because they sell most of the seats at higher fares than the Amfleet trains. They are charging a "Premium" fare for a "Premium" service. Buying 80 cars instead of 40 cars will cause the fares to fall, because there will be empty seats. Lowering "Premium" fares will result in lowering Amfleet regional fares...
As is, the two additional cars is going to add more than 40% capacity to these trains, adding over 80% with four additional cars just isn't wise now....

Whats actually wrong with the Acela cars , and cam they be improved . apaart form the obvious weight problems , which may not be curable given the fra regulations , What else is wrong ???

electricron wrote:One of the reasons why Acela breaks even, or makes an operational profit, is because they sell most of the seats at higher fares than the Amfleet trains. They are charging a "Premium" fare for a "Premium" service. Buying 80 cars instead of 40 cars will cause the fares to fall, because there will be empty seats. Lowering "Premium" fares will result in lowering Amfleet regional fares...
As is, the two additional cars is going to add more than 40% capacity to these trains, adding over 80% with four additional cars just isn't wise now....

Okay, so Amtrak removes a few Regionals, adds stops on others, and runs a higher-priced, faster and more comfortable Acela in their places. Bad for the budget traveler, but good for Amtrak's bottom line.

mtuandrew wrote:

electricron wrote:One of the reasons why Acela breaks even, or makes an operational profit, is because they sell most of the seats at higher fares than the Amfleet trains. They are charging a "Premium" fare for a "Premium" service. Buying 80 cars instead of 40 cars will cause the fares to fall, because there will be empty seats. Lowering "Premium" fares will result in lowering Amfleet regional fares...
As is, the two additional cars is going to add more than 40% capacity to these trains, adding over 80% with four additional cars just isn't wise now....

Okay, so Amtrak removes a few Regionals, adds stops on others, and runs a higher-priced, faster and more comfortable Acela in their places. Bad for the budget traveler, but good for Amtrak's bottom line.

At some point there is a tipping point as far as fares. Right now, there are thriving private sector, unsubsidized bus lines in the NE Corridor market, not to mention discount airlines that are undercutting Amtrak in terms of fares. It seems to me that Amtrak's ridership is healthy despite of, not because of, the current fare structure.

There might be a handful of railfans who'll ride the Acela, but this is a premium priced service aimed solely at business travelers, most of whom aren't fare sensitive because they're traveling at employer expense.

David Benton wrote:Whats actually wrong with the Acela cars , and cam they be improved . apaart form the obvious weight problems , which may not be curable given the fra regulations , What else is wrong ???

Considering the major service issues, consistently low equipment utilization rates, not to mention the unexpected early replacement date of 2018, the life of the current Acela sets might be limited. Basically, this equipment has been problematic and there's some suspicion that the service life is limited.