This is an interesting conversation regarding dispatchers, conductors and ADA compliance. It could be made into a separate thread or merged with my thread about USA vs Europe, etc.
Ok, so I took liberties with the title. This RFI is not for locomotives, they are DMU/EMUs. Hence, the new thread. Mods if you want to move it, have at it.I'm curious as to how you classify this as " On The Way," and why this RFi deserves a new thread.
Kindly provide the quote where this is on the record.Hes on record saying he wants to scrap Superliner and Amfleet equipment and replace east of Mississippi corridor service with rail vehicles.
Notice no replacement for scraped Superliners/Amfleets. No benefit of the doubt left at this point in time.
Looks like that the earliest an RFP can go out is after October.Hopefully these RFIs (Request for Information) will provide enough information so that Anderson can then issue an RFP (Request for Proposal) to have contract signed to purchase new equipment in the near future.
Or increase service...What's interesting about them getting EMUs is to see what they would plan to do with all the ACS-64s that they just got. Run fewer and have a higher spare ratio?
It's based on the EuroSprinter and Vectron sold around the world. Should not be hard to dispose them, but I think Amtrak would need them for LD and day trains (Palmetto) through the NEC. The commuter agencies along the NEC would be interested too.What's interesting about them getting EMUs is to see what they would plan to do with all the ACS-64s that they just got. Run fewer and have a higher spare ratio?
That was years ago and in a completely different industry. There are much greater risks involved in a flawed or unproven aircraft than in an unproven piece of rolling stock. If a train loses engine power it might just slow to a stop. If a plane loses engine power it might fall out of the sky and explode. I'm oversimplifying a little bit, but my point is that you can't really compare new aircraft and the risks involved to new rolling stock.Interesting insight into how Anderson thinks regarding new equipment- From his time at Delta.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/delta-in-talks-with-boeing-to-launch-nma-bastian-449780/
"The idea that Delta could launch the NMA is one of the more significant breaks by Bastian from his predecessor Richard Anderson. Anderson, who led the airline from 2007 to 2016, publicly eschewed new technology aircraft, calling the risks too great compared to the benefits of lower capital cost existing technology.
“My balance sheet is not equipped to take [airframers'] technical risk," he said on the Airbus A350 and Boeing 787 in an interview with Airline Business in 2014. "Once those airplanes are proven, then we’ll be in a position to be able to operate them.”"
Anderson is going to want equipment that has proven itself in the field.
How can you possibly say that? There hasn't been a case of an airliner crashing due to engine failure in many years, maybe decades. Uncontained engine failures are not unheard of, but I can think of only this year's Southwest incident that caused a fatality, and the plane was landed safely with not an explosion to be seen. Qantas and Air France A380s have had uncontained failures, as did Southwest in 2016, all of which landed safely. The two worst incidents, British in 2015 and AA in 2016 that both made a crash landing with passenger injuries, were powered by well-proven engines dating from the 80s and 90s. The 787 battery fiasco did not lead to any fatalities, nor have the more recent Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce engine problems on the A320neo and 787, respectively.That was years ago and in a completely different industry. There are much greater risks involved in a flawed or unproven aircraft than in an unproven piece of rolling stock. If a train loses engine power it might just slow to a stop. If a plane loses engine power it might fall out of the sky and explode. I'm oversimplifying a little bit, but my point is that you can't really compare new aircraft and the risks involved to new rolling stock.
The point remains that Anderson’s 2014 comments and positions on airline equipment as Delta CEO do not necessarily hold true for passenger rail equipment in 2018 as Amtrak CEO. He may feel the same way about both, but as Amtrak CEO he hasn’t indicated one way or the other.How can you possibly say that? There hasn't been a case of an airliner crashing due to engine failure in many years, maybe decades. Uncontained engine failures are not unheard of, but I can think of only this year's Southwest incident that caused a fatality, and the plane was landed safely with not an explosion to be seen. Qantas and Air France A380s have had uncontained failures, as did Southwest in 2016, all of which landed safely. The two worst incidents, British in 2015 and AA in 2016 that both made a crash landing with passenger injuries, were powered by well-proven engines dating from the 80s and 90s. The 787 battery fiasco did not lead to any fatalities, nor have the more recent Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce engine problems on the A320neo and 787, respectively.That was years ago and in a completely different industry. There are much greater risks involved in a flawed or unproven aircraft than in an unproven piece of rolling stock. If a train loses engine power it might just slow to a stop. If a plane loses engine power it might fall out of the sky and explode. I'm oversimplifying a little bit, but my point is that you can't really compare new aircraft and the risks involved to new rolling stock.
Later that same year Delta ordered 25 Airbus A350s. It seems just as likely that he was negotiating through the press as he was making a definitive statement on new technology.Interesting insight into how Anderson thinks regarding new equipment- From his time at Delta.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/delta-in-talks-with-boeing-to-launch-nma-bastian-449780/
"The idea that Delta could launch the NMA is one of the more significant breaks by Bastian from his predecessor Richard Anderson. Anderson, who led the airline from 2007 to 2016, publicly eschewed new technology aircraft, calling the risks too great compared to the benefits of lower capital cost existing technology.
My balance sheet is not equipped to take [airframers'] technical risk," he said on the Airbus A350 and Boeing 787 in an interview with Airline Business in 2014. "Once those airplanes are proven, then well be in a position to be able to operate them."
Anderson is going to want equipment that has proven itself in the field.
True, not to go all avgeek, but that order also included proven in service A330s and supposedly Airbus could deliver the order faster than Boeing. On the flip side Delta inherited NWA's order of 787s that Delta never exercised, though the aircraft were priced at "launch" (read cheap) prices. The A350 service entry has been incredibly smooth for a new plane while the 787 service entry had been anything but.Later that same year Delta ordered 25 Airbus A350s. It seems just as likely that he was negotiating through the press as he was making a definitive statement on new technologInteresting insight into how Anderson thinks regarding new equipment- From his time at Delta.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/delta-in-talks-with-boeing-to-launch-nma-bastian-449780/
"The idea that Delta could launch the NMA is one of the more significant breaks by Bastian from his predecessor Richard Anderson. Anderson, who led the airline from 2007 to 2016, publicly eschewed new technology aircraft, calling the risks too great compared to the benefits of lower capital cost existing technology.
My balance sheet is not equipped to take [airframers'] technical risk," he said on the Airbus A350 and Boeing 787 in an interview with Airline Business in 2014. "Once those airplanes are proven, then well be in a position to be able to operate them."
Anderson is going to want equipment that has proven itself in the field.
I was once on a Northeast Regional that lost power. It was late at night and 12 degrees outside. We waited long enough to start getting cold. Then they transferred us to a northbound train and took us back to Boston. Then they locked us into the waiting room at south station while they hauled the stricken train back to Boston and put an older, more reliable motor in front. We finally left about 5 hours late and, fortunately, didnt lose any more time.That was years ago and in a completely different industry. There are much greater risks involved in a flawed or unproven aircraft than in an unproven piece of rolling stock. If a train loses engine power it might just slow to a stop. If a plane loses engine power it might fall out of the sky and explode. I'm oversimplifying a little bit, but my point is that you can't really compare new aircraft and the risks involved to new rolling stock.Interesting insight into how Anderson thinks regarding new equipment- From his time at Delta.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/delta-in-talks-with-boeing-to-launch-nma-bastian-449780/
"The idea that Delta could launch the NMA is one of the more significant breaks by Bastian from his predecessor Richard Anderson. Anderson, who led the airline from 2007 to 2016, publicly eschewed new technology aircraft, calling the risks too great compared to the benefits of lower capital cost existing technology.
My balance sheet is not equipped to take [airframers'] technical risk," he said on the Airbus A350 and Boeing 787 in an interview with Airline Business in 2014. "Once those airplanes are proven, then well be in a position to be able to operate them."
Anderson is going to want equipment that has proven itself in the field.
Very true. I just meant that the risks and liability of unproven aircraft to that of unproven rolling stock.I was once on a Northeast Regional that lost power. It was late at night and 12 degrees outside. We waited long enough to start getting cold. Then they transferred us to a northbound train and took us back to Boston. Then they locked us into the waiting room at south station while they hauled the stricken train back to Boston and put an older, more reliable motor in front. We finally left about 5 hours late and, fortunately, didnt lose any more time.That was years ago and in a completely different industry. There are much greater risks involved in a flawed or unproven aircraft than in an unproven piece of rolling stock. If a train loses engine power it might just slow to a stop. If a plane loses engine power it might fall out of the sky and explode. I'm oversimplifying a little bit, but my point is that you can't really compare new aircraft and the risks involved to new rolling stock.Interesting insight into how Anderson thinks regarding new equipment- From his time at Delta.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/delta-in-talks-with-boeing-to-launch-nma-bastian-449780/
"The idea that Delta could launch the NMA is one of the more significant breaks by Bastian from his predecessor Richard Anderson. Anderson, who led the airline from 2007 to 2016, publicly eschewed new technology aircraft, calling the risks too great compared to the benefits of lower capital cost existing technology.
My balance sheet is not equipped to take [airframers'] technical risk," he said on the Airbus A350 and Boeing 787 in an interview with Airline Business in 2014. "Once those airplanes are proven, then well be in a position to be able to operate them."
Anderson is going to want equipment that has proven itself in the field.
Sure, it's not the same as a spectacular plane failure in mid-air, but constant delays due to malfunctioning equipment that hasn't been properly beta testing aren't going to help Amtrak grow its business.
Enter your email address to join: