New Amtrak equipment

I mentioned this at the bottom of my post on the Empire Builder's 75th anniversary, but figured I'd give it its own subject in case someone didn't feel like reading all the way down there.

Anyway, I was speaking with an Amtrak conductor today, who had spoken with David Gunn while on the Empire Builder from Chicago to Milwaukee.

He said that David Gunn believes that they will get approval very soon (though, I don't know how soon "very soon" is) to order RDCs to operate on the Chicago-Milwaukee and Springfield-New Haven corridor. I don't know when they will enter service.

I have seen an Amtrak PowerPoint presentation on the RDCs, and my impression is that they will not be Colorado Railcar DMUs. I don't know who the manufacturer might be.

This equipment order will be needed, as the cabbage car fleet is, according to the conductors with whom I have communicated, junk. Amtrak often runs two engines on trains in the Midwest, one on each end, because the cabbage fleet is in such poor shape. The RDCs will offer a significant cost savings over operating two locomotives.

The other thing David Gunn said, though this may be more of an idea/wish list rather than something in the works for the near future, is that he wants to take one "power car" off of each Acela Express trainset, and replace it with a cab car with seats in it (since these trains basically have twice the power necessary to run anyway).

The extra power cars could then be used to add more coaches behind them (though I'm not sure if these would be Acela-type coaches, or if it would be Amfleet-style). He also wants to add seats in the lounge car (which apparently has no useful seats inside), in the event that the Acela is oversold, so they can put those extra passengers in the "bistro" instead.

RMadisonWI wrote: The other thing David Gunn said, though this may be more of an idea/wish list rather than something in the works for the near future, is that he wants to take one "power car" off of each Acela Express trainset, and replace it with a cab car with seats in it (since these trains basically have twice the power necessary to run anyway).

I think that's doubtful. Push-pull operation is not allowed at 125 mph, much less 150, under current FRA rules. (The X2000 operated at 135 in push-pull operation, but I think it was exempted from FRA rules.) Furthermore, Tier II safety requirements do not allow passengers to sit in the lead car. And finally, performance would suffer somewhat, and you'd lose redundancy (and hence, reliability) by having only one power car.

He also wants to add seats in the lounge car (which apparently has no useful seats inside), in the event that the Acela is oversold, so they can put those extra passengers in the "bistro" instead.

Again, sounds like a terrible idea to me. The cafe car is fine the way it is!

When the Cascades started, they served meals in the diner, but later gave that up to use the table space for casual dining and overflow seating when the train is oversold. Since it makes so many stops between Seattle and Portland, with people getting on and off at every stop, it makes sense.

If nothing else, seating is nice to have just for eating.

What Amtrak needs most in terms of new equipment is a couple hundred new Viewliners! They probably need about 40 new diners to replace the existing Heritage diners, and have enough to equip the Cardinal, Palmetto, and Three Rivers. They could probably use 30 or 40 new crew dorms, and 40 Viewliner Sightseer lounges would be nice. And most importantly, they need quite a few more sleepers.

RMadisonWI wrote:...I was speaking with an Amtrak conductor today...He said that David Gunn believes that they will get approval very soon (though, I don't know how soon "very soon" is) to order RDCs to operate on the Chicago-Milwaukee and Springfield-New Haven corridor. I don't know when they will enter service.

I have seen an Amtrak PowerPoint presentation on the RDCs, and my impression is that they will not be Colorado Railcar DMUs. I don't know who the manufacturer might be.

This equipment order will be needed, as the cabbage car fleet is, according to the conductors with whom I have communicated, junk. Amtrak often runs two engines on trains in the Midwest, one on each end, because the cabbage fleet is in such poor shape. The RDCs will offer a significant cost savings over operating two locomotives.

The DMU rumor has been circulating for quite a while now...mainly IIRC because Gunn himself started it. Only prudent to have lower-horsepower equipment available for off-peak short-range runs.

Plenty of DMU manufacturers out there...BBD, Siemens, Alstom, not just CRC.

RMadisonWI wrote:The other thing David Gunn said, though this may be more of an idea/wish list rather than something in the works for the near future, is that he wants to take one "power car" off of each Acela Express trainset, and replace it with a cab car with seats in it (since these trains basically have twice the power necessary to run anyway).

The extra power cars could then be used to add more coaches behind them (though I'm not sure if these would be Acela-type coaches, or if it would be Amfleet-style). He also wants to add seats in the lounge car (which apparently has no useful seats inside), in the event that the Acela is oversold, so they can put those extra passengers in the "bistro" instead.

I heard a different story last year, that being that Gunn wished to lengthen the AE trainsets to about eight or nine cars, what with the 12,000 horsepower of the AE generally going to waste on a mere six cars (five cars with revenue seating). What with Tier II specs stipulating that "no passengers may ride in the front power car of a Tier II vehicle" (no mention of cab cars is made, but there are speed restrictions on push-pull service using cab cars IIRC), if Gunn wants to remove a power car from AE trainsets, perhaps he would be better off making the last car into an observation car and turning the trainsets on wye or loop tracks?

Does anyone know what the max speed allowed is for push-pull trains? The FRA wouldn't allow Amtrak to run at 125 in push mode with ex-Metroliner cab cars, but NJ Transit runs at 100 mph in push mode. How fast does MARC operate with its Kawasaki bi-level push-pull cars?

I had the not so great priviledge of being in a new Alstom built DMU a couple of weeks ago. I say not so great only because I had to stand in the end vestibule (which was carpeted and had jump seats btw) and I was standing next to the exhaust pipe so it was loud during acceleration and very hot. But the train ran at 125 mph. It was strange hearing a train change gears.

I've said this before - with the shortage of electrial motive power on the Northeast Corridor (which is often discussed around here) coupled with the restoration of all electric motive power on the Keystone Corridor in the near future (demanding additional electric locomotives), take one of the power cars off the Acela Express trainsets, wye the trainset, turn the seats and tack something on the end to meet FRA regulations if need be (i.e. cab car etc.). The second power car on the Acela Express units are such a waste. If it was a true high speed operation, I might feel differently. If taking the extra power car off the AE units is going to tack on more time to their schedule, then I wouldn't do it. They've lengthened trip time enough - any more we are going to start going backwards in time.

I strongly disagree. I'd sure hate to see them ruin the looks of my favorite train by removing one of the locomotives! But beyond appearances, the second locomotive provides redundancy and does help performance (acceleration matters as much as top speed after all). I don't think they should try to fix what ain't broke, and the Acela configuration is just fine the way it is!

The Acela Express was designed to be expandable to 10 cars from the current 6, so it was given enough horsepower for that. Given that the trains seem to be filling up, maybe it makes sense to go to 8 or 10 cars. But aside from that, I hope they leave the Acelas alone.

Oh, and regarding the restoration of all-electric service to Harrisburg, the solution there seems to be push-pull trains. It's a waste to require two separate locomotives for a New York - Harrisburg run. Amtrak should make use of its remaining ex-Metroliner cab control cars and run push-pull Keystone trains with a single AEM-7.

The MARC cars are FRA certified to 125mph, at least the Kawasaki bilevels are. AFAIk, they're the only ones in use that are.

Oh yes, DMU's don't really 'change gears' so much as they drain one torque converter and fill another, though they do route through different gearings. But it's not like a car automatic transmission where the gear rations are being changed via clutches and bands. I don't even really know a good way of describing it, because a torque converter isn't a clutch, but you do have multiple gear ratios. I guess the best way would be to say it's like changing from one transmission with a fixed ratio to another, but even that's fuzzy.

Of course, if Amtrak dropped 150mph operation on the NEC, they wouldn't need Tier II equipment, thus theoretically, the Acelas wouldn't need to be Tier II, thus theortically they could chop the end loco off. But the lawyers would have a field day, no doubt...

Ah yes, instead of finally having a small bit of high speed rail in this country after all these years, let's drop 150 mph operation and take a step backwards. Heck, while we're at it, let's de-electrify the corridor and reintroduce steam locomotives to the fleet!

If anyone thinks the Harrisburg line needs to be electric it should be PennDot and just like NJT they could get their wallet opened and buy their own electrics, to preserve clean air.

If the Acela Express trainsets were the "sizzle" to sell the "steak" i.e. 157 miles of electrfication, then so be it.

Let's think of the alternative (discussion, I hope) of 80 "Acela Styled" Coaches, and 20 each Cafes and First Class cars being added to the fleet permitting the existing premium class of service NY-Wash to be upgraded and extend same to the "essentially uncharted territory" of Boston. These cars would be hauled by an augmented fleet of existing locomotives on the present NY-Wash schedule, and probably NY-Boston in 3'55".

Disneyland would then only be in Central Florida; and not between MP 205 and 195 as well as MP 170-162. But the marketing objective of uniform premium service throughout the Boston-Wash corridor, as well as more efficient Standard class (Regional) service would still be attained.

Probably, the only business lost would be "joyride" business (yup, I did one during June 01). The considerably higher Premium fare level could be maintained, as could the excellent First Class on-board service.

But what would have been missing were shiny new trains that would "sell" the project to those folks down UNOWARE with purses filled with YERZNMINE$$$$$. That is why "We the People" got stuck with 20 trainsets that when they work are analagous to a Ferarri being driven in rush hour traffic.

But then if the Acela sets were not to be, premium service would only be offered NY-Wash and there would still be, for that intelligent yet otherwise uninformed Klatu (man from Mars), that inexplicable "lights out", a "slam-bam", and a station stop considerably longer than a mid sized city en route would appear to justify.

The Acela Express' capabilities were based not only on the present infrastructure, but on anticipated future improvements. When you're buying trains that are likely to be around for 20 years or more, it makes sense to look to the future. Sure, there are only 18 miles of 150 mph track presently, but future upgrades will increase that amount. And even now, there is a fair amount of 135 mph running. With trains in Europe and Japan nearing the 200 mph mark, I don't think it was too much to ask for Amtrak to implement a modest upgrade on the NEC from 125 to 150 mph.

Mr. High Speed, I of course note your optimistic comment, with considerable respect and somehow the hope that it will come to fruition.

I will gladly offer that constant tension caternary will likely become fact on the PRR; or at least where commuter agencies that can tap the UMTA infrastructure $$$$ operate. Likely a Disneyland ride cou;d then be effected on the PRR, mostl= likely between New Brunswick and Trenton (I knew the Towers once, but memory fades) with only a restricted speed through PJ.

But having "been there done that", I fail to see much opportunity for any "line change" projects elsewhere on the Corridor. There will still be restrictions over the various draw/movable bridges, and I doubt if the Westchester/Fairfield NIMBY's will subdue their whinings "pro bono publico'. (On that note, I was there first hand when I-95 was being laid out; heard "first hand" stories from my Mother regarding laying out CT 15 - Meritt Pkwy).

Unfortunately pragmatism and idealism have a way of conflicting with one another.