Amtrak Empire, LIRR, MNRR/CTDOT Dual Mode Procurement - Charger Variants

RandallW wrote: ↑Fri Jul 28, 2023 7:52 pm Catenary can clear double stacks. Why would a new route be needed?

RW: Interesting picture that you chose - I will add:
This picture shows SEPTA Silverliner Two MU cars on the former RDG West Trenton Line under wire along
with a double stack train - this scene is at least 13 years ago (2010) noting the yellow destination sign visible...
The Silverliner Two MU cars pictured were retired in 2012 for the record...

Today this route between Woodbourne and West Trenton is very different...Because the pictured catenary
wires tended to sag during periods of hot weather CSX sought - and got - the two rail lines separated over
this segment of track with SEPTA using a single track retaining catenary - CSX taking the other track with
the wire removed for freight service only...

If you look at recent-years pictures of this route and photos of West Trenton Station the separation of
SEPTA RRD and CSX can clearly be seen...

As for the NYP-ALB route - Has there ever been a study showing a ballpark figure what full electrification
of the route would cost - and what entities would be getting the bill?

Keeping the current third rail to Croton-Harmon is well enough at least for now...MACTRAXX

Plate "C" does not even allow for international container double stacks. ICTs are the answer for Amtrak. Just add CAT 60 Hz NYP past Spuyten then M-8 type EMUs for MNRR can go to Croton. Amtrak can then add 60 Hz from there as money available to Albany or maybe even start at Albany and go toward NYP. In fact that direction hcan have many benefits. However if Amtrak started at CH one arriving at POU then MNRR could end diesel service on the Hudson line using M-8 type EMUs.

All this would be best if Amtrak or NY state purchased the route. Otherwise, is CSX still paying property taxes which go up with each Amtrak installed improvements?

Are you even bothering to read the responses to this, or are you just repeating the same thing ("convert it to catenary and have everyone run new equipment") without considering reality? Its NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. PERIOD.

jamoldover wrote: ↑Fri Jul 28, 2023 5:06 pmBut you had better believe that CSX will block any installation of electrification along those tracks unless the taxpayers build them an entirely new separated route.

Then buy it from CSX and lease them back trackage rights.

jamoldover wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2023 8:06 amThey don't currently run either - but legally it's designated as a clearance route, and currently has clearances allowing (according to CSX's clearance map) 18'2" operation. That clearance level has to be maintained, even if it's not currently being used.

Why? There is nothing going down there above Plate F, which gets you 14" to work with north of Tarrytown.

1) Metro-North would need to be willing to spend billions of dollars replacing an existing system that currently works well (and that they need to keep because of GCT clearances) just to make operations more complicated. I view that as extremely unlikely.
2) Amtrak (once Metro-North had spent the money in #1) would need to spend billions of dollars adding catenary to a line that currently hosts about 20 passenger trains/day. That's about half the number they run between New Haven and Boston. While there might be an environmental benefit from spending that money, Amtrak has much more pressing needs in other areas that would provide larger environmental benefits.
3) CSX would need to agree to both #1 and #2. While they might not be able to stop #1, they have complete veto power over #2.

1) While EMUs capable of AC operation do cost more, they have fleet commonality with the New Haven Line, and the maintenance of the power infrastructure would cost less than the third rail system.
2) There's a lot more potential for growth with faster and better service well exceeding what runs on the Springfield Line, which is marginal for electrification, but probably should be as part of the NEC.
3) Buy the line from them and lease them back trackage rights. They operate under the wire in a few places, it shouldn't be an issue.

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2023 8:31 amMillions, if not a billion, because someone thinks a fleet of 30 DM’s is “silly”. Non-sensicle.

I'm not sure how the numbers crunch out for the Hudson Line, but for LIRR, the DMs are barely cheaper than just electrifying the lines that need one-seat service. Electrification is the right answer, unfortunately the people making these decisions have chosen the wrong answer.

ElectricTraction wrote: ↑Fri Aug 11, 2023 4:13 pm

jamoldover wrote: ↑Fri Jul 28, 2023 5:06 pmBut you had better believe that CSX will block any installation of electrification along those tracks unless the taxpayers build them an entirely new separated route.

Then buy it from CSX and lease them back trackage rights.

Who's going to buy it? For how many millions/billions? Who's going to force CSX to sell? CSX could have sold it to Amtrak instead of just leasing it, but chose not to. Just because you're fantasizing about wires isn't likely to change their decision.

ElectricTraction wrote: ↑Fri Aug 11, 2023 4:13 pm

jamoldover wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2023 8:06 amThey don't currently run either - but legally it's designated as a clearance route, and currently has clearances allowing (according to CSX's clearance map) 18'2" operation. That clearance level has to be maintained, even if it's not currently being used.

Why? There is nothing going down there above Plate F, which gets you 14" to work with north of Tarrytown.

Two important words you ignored - "Legally designated".

ElectricTraction wrote: ↑Fri Aug 11, 2023 4:13 pm

1) Metro-North would need to be willing to spend billions of dollars replacing an existing system that currently works well (and that they need to keep because of GCT clearances) just to make operations more complicated. I view that as extremely unlikely.
2) Amtrak (once Metro-North had spent the money in #1) would need to spend billions of dollars adding catenary to a line that currently hosts about 20 passenger trains/day. That's about half the number they run between New Haven and Boston. While there might be an environmental benefit from spending that money, Amtrak has much more pressing needs in other areas that would provide larger environmental benefits.
3) CSX would need to agree to both #1 and #2. While they might not be able to stop #1, they have complete veto power over #2.

1) While EMUs capable of AC operation do cost more, they have fleet commonality with the New Haven Line, and the maintenance of the power infrastructure would cost less than the third rail system.

Re: #1 - who said anything about the cost of the rolling stock? I'm talking about the cost of the INFRASTRUCTURE. The estimated cost of extending catenary from New Haven to Boston was $400 million - in 1978. The actual cost was closer to $4.5 billion. Multiply that by inflation over the past 40 years. Metro-North certainly doesn't have that kind of funding available. Neither does Amtrak.

jamoldover wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2023 6:27 amWho's going to buy it? For how many millions/billions? Who's going to force CSX to sell? CSX could have sold it to Amtrak instead of just leasing it, but chose not to. Just because you're fantasizing about wires isn't likely to change their decision.

Amtrak, state, or federal government could buy it. Or twist CSX's hand in allowing them to put wire up.

Two important words you ignored - "Legally designated".

Legally designated for what? By whom? It's theoretical clearance that has no purpose since there's nowhere to go with autoracks, and the modern ones don't even fit under that clearance anyway- making the whole thing pointless.

Re: #1 - who said anything about the cost of the rolling stock? I'm talking about the cost of the INFRASTRUCTURE. The estimated cost of extending catenary from New Haven to Boston was $400 million - in 1978. The actual cost was closer to $4.5 billion. Multiply that by inflation over the past 40 years. Metro-North certainly doesn't have that kind of funding available. Neither does Amtrak.

On a line with that density, electrification absolutely makes sense. Maybe the MTA needs to stop wasting billions of dollars every year and actually use the massive amount of money that they vacuum up to improve their system.

Whether it makes sense or not (not), It’s not getting electrified with catenary. END. OF. STORY.

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 2:31 pmWhether it makes sense or not (not), It’s not getting electrified with catenary. END. OF. STORY.

Overhead catenary is what logically makes sense. That being said, you're probably right on basically every project that makes sense in the NYC area, since little gets done, and what is done ends up being billions over budget and years behind schedule.

MACTRAXX wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2023 10:01 am

RandallW wrote: ↑Fri Jul 28, 2023 7:52 pm Catenary can clear double stacks. Why would a new route be needed?

RW: Interesting picture that you chose - I will add:
This picture shows SEPTA Silverliner Two MU cars on the former RDG West Trenton Line under wire along
with a double stack train - this scene is at least 13 years ago (2010) noting the yellow destination sign visible...
The Silverliner Two MU cars pictured were retired in 2012 for the record...

Today this route between Woodbourne and West Trenton is very different...Because the pictured catenary
wires tended to sag during periods of hot weather CSX sought - and got - the two rail lines separated over
this segment of track with SEPTA using a single track retaining catenary - CSX taking the other track with
the wire removed for freight service only...

If you look at recent-years pictures of this route and photos of West Trenton Station the separation of
SEPTA RRD and CSX can clearly be seen...

Was the separation deemed necessary because there wasn't the SEPTA traffic to justify the cost of rebuilding the catenary with a modern constant tension line (i.e., was it just cheaper to remove part of the catenary then to make it work)?

CSX wanted to be ‘masters of their own domain’ on the Trenton Sub between Woodbourne and West Trenton. The single track railroad in that area reduced capacity, but was better than dealing with passenger traffic on SEPTA’s double track main.

An element of urgency was added in that under the original agreement SEPTA dispatched both tracks but CSX had the right to take over the dispatching on 90 days' notice to SEPTA, who didn't want that hanging over them.

https://original.newsbreak.com/@mystict ... ves-emerge

Time to bring this back, I guess.

"Metro-North Dual Mode Locomotive Equipment as of 7-11-23:
Production for Metro-North Charger #301 and #302 is progressing ahead of DCS schedule. Carshell for Metro North Charger #301 completed the finishing process and entered Final Assembly on June 30th. Sub-assembly started in May and Final Assembly is on track to start in July 2023.
Metro North approved FAI #one carshell as well as FAI #five truck frame welded.
Payment milestone P1 carshell #1 was paid by MNR.
Siemens has notified Metro North via project letters of two potentially Excusable Delays for alternator supplier insolvency as well as supplier Lutze‘s global supply shortages for semiconductor parts."

From NGEC July Meeting Minutes. pdf found here: https://ngec.org/resources/

edflyerssn007 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 1:50 pm
Siemens has notified Metro North via project letters of two potentially Excusable Delays for alternator supplier insolvency as well as supplier Lutze‘s global supply shortages for semiconductor parts."

From NGEC July Meeting Minutes. pdf found here: https://ngec.org/resources/

Actually, this is not unexpected. Have really expected to there being more bankruptcies. It really helps if all contractors and subs have to provide tooling and drawings if any bankruptcies happen. That should be effective within 30 days or even less.

west point wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 12:47 am Actually, this is not unexpected. Have really expected to there being more bankruptcies. It really helps if all contractors and subs have to provide tooling and drawings if any bankruptcies happen. That should be effective within 30 days or even less.

Having seen transit contracts be drafted up, I would be surprised if such a provision is in there.