Siemens to manufacture 83 Airo Intercity Trainsets for Amtrak: Design, Delivery, Acceptance

RandallW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2024 7:01 am I find it interesting that 40% of Northeast Regional trips (per the FY 24-29 Service and Asset Line Plans) terminate in Virginia, which suggests that any improvement to time through Washington DC will only increase passenger traffic between Virginia and points north.

That is the reason that the second Long Bridge is desperately needed now!

The plan to purchase dual mode engines will save time as well.

Railjunkie wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 9:32 am It pays me for an hours work and leaves some crumbs on the table.

Its not the $70.00 for the ticket that's the issue it should be the fact that Amtrak refuses to add a coach to a train that consistently sells out. However why should they if they can get a premium price for the seat AND the public is willing to pay said price.

I was specifically replying to the claim that apparently the NEC has great ridership due to artificially low fares. I do not think that $70 is a low fare.

At the end of the day, Amtrak and any other business is going to charge and staff things to what the market will bear. It sounds like the market will bear overstuffed cars while still paying $70 or more for a 1-hour train ride. That does not correspond to artificially low fares, artificially short trains, or any other conspiracy theory. It simply corresponds to ridership that now exceeds pre-pandemic levels and appears to continue to grow. That's why more trains were added.

If fares aren't convering capital and operations expenses without a taxpayer bailout, then yes, fares are artificially low.

You love to cherry pick your arguments and ignore the subsidies.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

I am totally confused and at a loss trying to figure out how brand new trainsets that are years away are going to affect the price of NEC fares today?

lensovet wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2024 9:36 pm

Railjunkie wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 9:32 am It pays me for an hours work and leaves some crumbs on the table.

Its not the $70.00 for the ticket that's the issue it should be the fact that Amtrak refuses to add a coach to a train that consistently sells out. However why should they if they can get a premium price for the seat AND the public is willing to pay said price.

I was specifically replying to the claim that apparently the NEC has great ridership due to artificially low fares. I do not think that $70 is a low fare.

At the end of the day, Amtrak and any other business is going to charge and staff things to what the market will bear. It sounds like the market will bear overstuffed cars while still paying $70 or more for a 1-hour train ride. That does not correspond to artificially low fares, artificially short trains, or any other conspiracy theory. It simply corresponds to ridership that now exceeds pre-pandemic levels and appears to continue to grow. That's why more trains were added.

As someone who makes them stop and go I don't care how much Amtrak charges for a seat on a over crowded train. Crowded trains equals people are willing to ride not caring about price. More trains equals more work. More work equals more jobs and perhaps a few more Lira in my pocket. More jobs equals more new hires paying into the Railroad retirement system and earning a livable wage ish. Hiring part that's a tough one.

So I ask what would you propose Amtrak do to correct the problem as you see it. The NEC may break even and the Empire Corridor at one time turned a profit. Without those prices and crowded trains...

Lets connect this all back to the Airo, shall we?

Amtrak going push-pull on the NEC is going to save time in turning trains around. Yes, it'll haul another engine or a cab unit, but having not to wye trains in two Virginia stations, DC, NYC, and Boston is going to "turn" trains faster, eliminating incurred mileage and the time it takes to wye it... and having to reverse at restricted speed. So more runs can be done.

The next step would be to eliminate engine swaps. That's costing Amtrak time on Virginia runs and the Pennsylvanian. Drop that, and you get even more trains for the price of swapping out crew. The Pennsy runs faster and saves diesel because it can connect up to the caternary in Harrisburg.

That's time saved translating to saved crew and fuel costs in two steps, which makes running on the NEC more profitable. Will that translate to lower prices? OH HELL NO! Only way that'll happen is the LD services getting fixed. But that's a topic for another thread...

Railjunkie wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 9:46 am So I ask what would you propose Amtrak do to correct the problem as you see it. The NEC may break even and the Empire Corridor at one time turned a profit. Without those prices and crowded trains...

I never suggested this was a problem. eolesen seems to be convinced that Amtrak as a whole is apparently some kind of sham operation that doesn't know how to transport people, has terrible customer service, and will cease to exist any moment now, and that the terrible seats and seating arrangement on the Airos was going to accelerate this demise.

I was raising the current success on the corridor as a counterpoint to that narrative and that changing the orientation of the seats on the existing fleet was going to have zero impact to Amtrak, both long- and short-term.

I personally was not a fan of using the Airo sets on the corridor when it was announced, because it seemed wasteful to me to be hauling around a genset under the wire. I realize now that the operational efficiencies resulting from removing the need to swap engines counterweigh this, though I do wonder comparatively speaking what the costs of extending electrification, and continuing to use ACS-64s, would be. But we had NJT follow this path with their 45DPs, and it seems to have worked out fine for them.

The ALC-Es on the NEC will have one advantage whenever a section of CAT goes down for any reason except wires on track. However, would suspect they would be used to pull or push dead electric only trains thru a dead zone?

You can push dead electric trains with a diesel today, no need to order a bunch of new trainsets for that.

How often does catenary go down on the NEC? 2-3 times every decade?

The main disruption with catenary failure is the fallout, not the lack of electricity.

lensovet wrote: I never suggested this was a problem. eolesen seems to be convinced that Amtrak as a whole is apparently some kind of sham operation that doesn't know how to transport people, has terrible customer service, and will cease to exist any moment now, and that the terrible seats and seating arrangement on the Airos was going to accelerate this demise.

If you're going to quote me, at least do so on something I've actually said instead of making crap up.

I've never said anything about Amtrak onboard service, nor have I criticized the seats or seating.

All I've ever said or asked of Amtrak is for it to pay fair rates to the Class 1's for access, not to waste time and tax dollars on a dedicate long distance fleet that averages 35% of capacity, or to add more services that are unsustainable at the fare box...

Essentially, nothing you claimed I said.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

If we use $18M per mile (which I think is the rough cost of Caltrain's electrification project per mile in 2021 excluding rolling stock purchases) as the cost of electrifying rail rights of way, the Airo purchase price ($3.4B, the contracted price for delivery of the new trains) is equivalent to about 180 miles of ROW electrification, which is slightly less than the milage of the Hartford Line and Downeaster services combined.

However, if we consider that an ALC-42 is about $11M each, and the Airo contract includes the sidelining of 50 ACS-64s that could otherwise haul Airo trainsets (that 50 is based on an assumption that 50 ACS-64s are needed to cover existing NEC and Keystone services), that would be about $55M in savings on the Airo trainsets if existing locomotives hauled them, or about 3 miles of electrification, assuming the Amfleet I fleet needs to be replaced anyway.

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 7:59 pm Lets connect this all back to the Airo, shall we?

Amtrak going push-pull on the NEC is going to save time in turning trains around. Yes, it'll haul another engine or a cab unit, but having not to wye trains in two Virginia stations, DC, NYC, and Boston is going to "turn" trains faster, eliminating incurred mileage and the time it takes to wye it... and having to reverse at restricted speed. So more runs can be done.

The next step would be to eliminate engine swaps. That's costing Amtrak time on Virginia runs and the Pennsylvanian. Drop that, and you get even more trains for the price of swapping out crew. The Pennsy runs faster and saves diesel because it can connect up to the caternary in Harrisburg.

That's time saved translating to saved crew and fuel costs in two steps, which makes running on the NEC more profitable. Will that translate to lower prices? OH HELL NO! Only way that'll happen is the LD services getting fixed. But that's a topic for another thread...

Airo sets, maybe in the next 7 to 10 years if your lucky. Look at the "new" ACELA II and how long its taken them to still not to be in revenue service. As for your time saving on engine changes it will be minimal as most of those spots are crew change points. Amtrak is not going to rush a crew change just to pick up a few minutes, you might pick up 5 or to 6 minutes, maybe.

David Benton wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2024 12:33 am It seems unlikely that there is even demand on every train during the day , yet they all are the same consist.
The question is wether the cost of changing consist lenght is worth the extra ticket revenue that a longer consist would bring , or the savings in running costs of running a shorter consist( i would think this would not be a saving ). also bearing in mind the other trains the consist might be assigned too in its 24 hour diagram .

Well said. A few years back the FRA made it a lot harder to add/drop cars en route even though I am not aware of any related injuries or problems.

There is also the issue of adding/dropping cars in the yard before a train runs. When you see that, pre-covide, most trains had a very similar consist throughout the week and year, it becomes apparent that there is not likely any effort to respond to demand (or lack thereof).

I had once suggested that surplus cars from Via's Canadian be used on Silver trains January to April. It is my understanding that, short term, that doesnt work as the via Budd cars are not cleared for NYP. But if Via and Amtrak kenw this would lead to 10+ years of better asset utilization, perhaps that could be accomodated.

VIA and Amtrak use different HEP electrical standards (same voltage different wiring), and I'm sure those short team leases would have been easy to manage. Today VIA runs empty cars whose sole purpose is to allow HEP compatibility between their Renaissance and Heritage fleets because they aren't compatible electrically.