Acela II RFP information announcement

[afigg]

Will RRIF finance the cost of these new trains?

It is likely that Amtrak will be seeking RRIF loans to finance much of the purchase cost. But that will be a lot of debt to take on to be paid off over the next 20 or 30 years which will limit Amtrak's ability to finance other equipment purchases without some direct annual funding from Congress to cover at least part of the purchase cost.
That is why Boardman is advocating a Transportation Trust Fund to replace the Highway Trust Fund which is projected to be depleted by this fall. If Congress could set up a new Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) with additional revenue sources (yes, that is a problem) that covered all areas of transportation, not just highway and road projects, then perhaps Amtrak can be funded by the TTF with more stable and higher annual funding levels set by allocation formulas. A 6 year TTF program with $200 to $250 million a year for rolling stock acquisition plus maintaining the debt service funding at $200 million a year to help cover new equipment debt (as the old leases are paid off) might be enough for Amtrak to begin to place orders for Amfleet II, Superliner I, P-42 replacements, not just Acela IIs. But replacing the HTF with a TTF will be a hard sell in the Republican controlled House where even the current modest amounts that go to the Mass Transit Fund are subject to attack.

 

[Woody]

In this discussion is the concept of "allocated cost" being conflated with "overhead cost"? If so that will lead to confusion in analysis, since all allocated costs are not overhead. There are the variable allocated costs that would disappear from the overall account if a train does not run. The fixed costs will not. It would help to clearly identify what exactly is being talked about when the term "overhead" is used.

I'll admit to having trouble to figuring out what "overhead" may mean in Amtrak accounts.

From notes to this table in the 09/2009 monthly Performance Report:

National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)

Financial Performance of Routes -

Fully allocated overhead, excluding Depreciation and Interest (see notes below)

September 2008 YTD

Route Performance Results Exclude Federal Support for

Operations, Depreciation, Interest and Capital Charge

-Total FRA Defined Costs represents Host Railroad MofW and Performance

Incentives, Fuel and Power, T&E Crew, OBS and Commissary costs, Car

and Locomotive maint. and Turnaround Costs, Commissions, Reservations,

Call Centers, Psgr Inconvenience, and Route Stations.

-Total Remaining Direct Costs include Shared Stations, MoE Supervision and

Training, Maintenance of Way, Yard Ops, Marketing and Distribution, Insurance,

Terminal Payments, Procurement/Purchasing, Police/Environmental and Safety,

and T&E Overhead.

-Total Non-Direct Costs includes Amtrak Infrastructure Maintenance and System costs.

Sort of OK, but I'd say Boardman's salary and other headquarters costs --

the General Counsel's office; Labor Relations; Governmental, Press, and

Public Relations; Strategic Planning and HSR WIshing; Accounting; and

other departments also belong in overhead to be spread across the board.

But I'm not seeing that stuff. Maybe it's in those last words "System costs."

That kind of overhead is one place where expanding -- longer trains,

more frequencies, more routes -- would mean less overhead per unit,

whether the unit is per passenger, per seat mile, whatever. Maybe it's

not enuff to matter in a multi-billion outfit.

Other headquarters overhead like Information Technology might be in

the mentions of Reservations and Call Centers -- the 2009 reports

didn't need to get into Wi-Fi, e-Ticketing, or other IT costs we already

take for granted.

And do I espy that Route Stations are included in FRA Defined Costs,

while Shared Stations fall into Remaining Direct Costs. It's a whimsy

to think that station costs could tip a route's performance. The shared

Charlottesville station used to serve 7 Crescents a week, and 3 Cardinals.

So the poor Cardinal carried 30% of the station's costs? Along came

the Lynchburger and the Cardinal's share fell to 17.6%, I guess. Did that

make any difference to anything? Not much. For sure the Lynchburger

didn't increase any station costs for the Cardinal or the Crescent. We

could use more trains like the Lynchburger -- but we knew that. LOL.

 

[Andrew]

Will RRIF finance the cost of these new trains?

It is likely that Amtrak will be seeking RRIF loans to finance much of the purchase cost. But that will be a lot of debt to take on to be paid off over the next 20 or 30 years which will limit Amtrak's ability to finance other equipment purchases without some direct annual funding from Congress to cover at least part of the purchase cost.
That is why Boardman is advocating a Transportation Trust Fund to replace the Highway Trust Fund which is projected to be depleted by this fall. If Congress could set up a new Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) with additional revenue sources (yes, that is a problem) that covered all areas of transportation, not just highway and road projects, then perhaps Amtrak can be funded by the TTF with more stable and higher annual funding levels set by allocation formulas. A 6 year TTF program with $200 to $250 million a year for rolling stock acquisition plus maintaining the debt service funding at $200 million a year to help cover new equipment debt (as the old leases are paid off) might be enough for Amtrak to begin to place orders for Amfleet II, Superliner I, P-42 replacements, not just Acela IIs. But replacing the HTF with a TTF will be a hard sell in the Republican controlled House where even the current modest amounts that go to the Mass Transit Fund are subject to attack.

1. But wouldn't this compete with Gateway Funding?

2. Also, I actually do believe that a compromise would be reached. Republicans know that they are screwed for the 2014 midterm elections--and 2016 Presidential Election against Clinton--if they are so determined to block Transportation funding!

 

[Anderson]

Andrew: Yes, it might compete with Gateway funding. Guess what? Gateway isn't Amtrak's only priority. Amtrak has a lot of other things to do as well. Even if somebody magically funded Gateway 100% right this minute, it would probably take a decade (or more) to actually engineer, build, etc.

As of right now, the Acelas are basically maxed out between WAS and NYP, so Amtrak is working to add trains (with more capacity) on that route now. Considering that Gateway is likely a 20-year-long project due to all the politics involved, if I'm Amtrak I basically have to (1) hope that it will happen but (2) expect that it won't happen within any realistic timeframe to allow it to preempt other projects.

Another point worth considering is that for the price of Gateway, Amtrak could lengthen a lot of platforms on the NEC and boost capacity that way. It seems likely we're going to see Regionals stretching out in the 12-14 car range before we see something in the vein of Gateway.

 

[jis]

Amtrak has quite a ways to go to even use the platforms that are available to it already even before any platform lengthening is needed. What they need are corridor cars. Similarly, the new Acelas will be longer consists increasing capacity throughput without requiring any new tunnels. Though it is true that during the two hours in the morning and evening on weekdays, Amtrak will probably find itself hard pressed to find slots for additional trains.

Notice that Amtrak itself has prioritized all flood mitigation work and a lot of SOGR work, ahead of Gateway components, except for critical ROW preservation work. So as I have always hinted at, give the Gateway obsession rest. It will eventually happen, but not right now.

 

[afigg]

1. But wouldn't this compete with Gateway Funding?

2. Also, I actually do believe that a compromise would be reached. Republicans know that they are screwed for the 2014 midterm elections--and 2016 Presidential Election against Clinton--if they are so determined to block Transportation funding!

Andrew, this thread is about the HSR trainset order and issues related to it in some way. The NEC Gateway is a long term project that won't have an effect on the new trainsets and their operation until after they have been in service for some years, that is assuming, the HSR trainset contract is awarded and advances in the next several years. You have other threads to discuss or obsess on the NEC Gateway project if you want to do so. Of greater relevance to the HSR trainsets, are the NEC projects that should or could be completed in the next 5-6 years such as the NJ HSR project.

 

[Fan Railer]

My advice: don't feed the troll. Just ignore him.

 

[afigg]

Notice that Amtrak itself has prioritized all flood mitigation work and a lot of SOGR work, ahead of Gateway components, except for critical ROW preservation work. So as I have always hinted at, give the Gateway obsession rest. It will eventually happen, but not right now.

With the plans to order 28 HSR trainsets, Amtrak has advanced their schedule laid out in the 2012 NEC Vision for rolling stock. In 2012, the plan still was to acquire 40 Acela I coach cars and by 2020, acquire 12 new HSR trainsets. If the vendors respond with viable bids and Amtrak can swing the financing, we may be looking at 28 Acela II trainsets with greater seating capacity in service by end of 2020 with the Acela Is retired.
I'm looking at Stair Steps 1 and 2 in the 2012 Vision with a doubling of HSR service NYP-WAS by 2020. Of the by 2020 Stair Step 2 NEC infrastructure improvements, many are funded with only 4 open items: North Portal bridge, Pelham Bay bridge replacements, BWI station center platforms and 4th track, and WAS track & platform improvements. Of these, with the increase in capital grant funding, should be able to 1) line up funding with contributions from other sources to build the North Portal Bridge, 2) get the MTA to contribute towards a new Pelham Bay bridge, and 3) get started on DC Union Station improvements with MD and VA now able to contribute due to their transportation funding bills passed in 2013. The BWI center platform and 4th track is likely to slide pass a 2020 completion date.

The Sandy relief mitigation funds could help pay for a number of SOGR track and ROW projects with the goal of improving reliability and protection against extreme weather events. While not directly improving capacity, Sandy mitigation grants for projects to protect against flooding, extreme weather, storms could free up funds from the annual Capital grants to be used for other NEC improvement projects to trim trip times and increase capacity by circa 2020. With MD and PennDOT/SEPTA now in a better position to provide matching funding, NJ committed to the NJ HSR improvements, Amtrak is in a position to complete more of the 2012 Vision Stair Steps 2 and 3 projects by the early 2020s than we might have expected in 2012 given the budget situation in Congress.

The reason I'm bringing this up is that with 28 new HSR trainsets, there will be a lot more seats to fill. I expect it will to change the Acela and even the NE Regional pricing and marketing strategy to undercut the airlines and driving. There are 20 Acela trainsets of which 16 run on weekdays with 304 seats each for a total of 4864 seats. With 28 Acela II trainsets, say with 420 seats each, and figure that 22 trainsets would run on weekdays (for ~80% utilization), that works out to a total of 9240 seats. A 90% increase. Make it 23 Acela IIs with 425 seats on weekdays and you double the current Acela I capacity. With lower operating costs, better rides (one would hope), a little faster trip times, Amtrak could cut current Acela prices by 25% and still see a big jump in total revenue.

With ACS-64s and longer NE Regionals, Amtrak should be able to lower prices to fill more seats on the Regionals as well to compete better against the intercity buses and driving. Will be a noticeable change to go from a situation on the NEC where demand is bumping against the limits of capacity to one with a lot more capacity with a competitive pricing strategy.

 

[battalion51]

This is slightly OT, but as the new Midwest Bi-Levels come on line there will be Amfleet I's and Horizon cars from the Midwest that will almost certainly be deployed into the NEC. Even though the Horizons presently lack the Automatic doors of the Amfleet I that doesn't mean that they can't help NEC corridor capacity. On trains like the Carolinian, Vermonter, Ethan Allen, Downeaster and Empire Service (all Amfleet I consists) they can be shuffled in since they serve a number of stations that are low platforms where Automatic doors aren't necessary. Even if you want to maintain having Automatic doors for when you're at a high level platform (or using a Horizon car in a Regional consist) you have the Horizon bracketed with Amfleet I's on either end such that doors open in between each set of cars. It wouldn't surprise me however if they do deploy the Horizons to the NEC if they don't figure out a way to retrofit them with Automatic doors.

 

[Anderson]

What seems likely with the Acelas, assuming 28 new sets, etc., is that the buckets will be kept fairly static. There will be a redistribution of purchased inventory towards lower buckets (even if the percentages of seats in each bucket stay the same, you'll see more seats available in the lower bucket(s), and fewer trains will get to the top bucket(s)).

Bear in mind that it's likely Amtrak will bring the new equipment in over the course of 2-3 years...if they change all the sets out at once, they'd be courting the same sort of thing that happened with the first round of Acelas. I'd expect a slow increase in frequencies and seats over a few timetables as the new equipment is delivered and phased in. If fares are flat and PPR slides by 5-10% due to a bucket redistribution, ridership should rise. Another point is that low-bucket Acela fares will likely remain below high-bucket Regional fares, so at least some additional capacity will likely get swallowed up there.

The Regionals are going to be another issue entirely...the main thing there is likely going to be adding capacity so more trains stay in the lower buckets most of the time. $84 WAS-NYP is one thing; $164 for the same seat is entirely another. Amtrak's reshuffle on fare options has likely had at least some impact here, however. Again...a few years of flat fares should make a dent here. One thing to consider, however, is that it seems likely that at least some additional capacity is going to get swallowed up by ridership increases in VA sending traffic up the Corridor.

Finally, as to Horizons, it wouldn't be hard to see them redeployed on longer-distance off-NEC trains (IIRC they were used on the Three Rivers, as evidenced by the fact that at least one Cafe still has a sign promoting it with the train's run to Chicago hastily covered up; putting them in a cycle for the Adirondack, Vermonter, Silvers, etc. would probably work). This would allow Amfleets to get moved around and onto the NEC. Adding one or two Horizons to the back of a Regional and only opening them at major stops (NYP, NWK, PHL, WIL, BAL, and WAS on NEC-South for example) would be another option.

 

[Nathanael]

I've been speculating as to the equipment cascade when the new bilevels (Surfliner IIs?) show up.

Some Horizons are definitely coming east, but exactly how they'll be used? Dunno.

I think it makes a lot of sense to run the Horizons through Beech Grove and retrofit them, however. Either retrofit them for automatic doors and the NEC -- or retrofit them with long-distance seating and use them to supplement/replace the short-supply Amfleet IIs. The Horizons have a better exterior shape which allows for more overhead luggage rack space... which argues for putting them on the longer-distance trains.

Either way, retrofit the lighting with LED lighting -- the lighting has been one of the main complaints I've read about the Horizons. And mitigate the freezing problems with cowling, insulation, etc.

Whatever happens with the Horizons, I currently expect all remaining Amfleet Is to be completely removed from California and Chicago and sent to the NEC. Chicago will presumably retain some Horizons, since Hiawatha Service and the Hoosier State aren't getting new bilevels.

 

[Nathanael]

There are the variable allocated costs that would disappear from the overall account if a train does not run. The fixed costs will not.

I guess one of the things I'm saying is that we have never, ever had a clear breakdown of which was which, not in *any* Amtrak financial document. But all the evidence is that fixed costs dominate.

There are different degrees of "fixed", of course. For purposes of removing a car from a train, the cost of running the locomotive is mostly fixed; for purposes of cancelling the train, it's variable. For purposes of adding a second train to a route, the cost of station operations is mostly fixed; for purposes of removing the last train from the route, it's variable.

Economies of scale appear to be everywhere in railroading.

 

[jis]

I'm looking at Stair Steps 1 and 2 in the 2012 Vision with a doubling of HSR service NYP-WAS by 2020. Of the by 2020 Stair Step 2 NEC infrastructure improvements, many are funded with only 4 open items: North Portal bridge, Pelham Bay bridge replacements, BWI station center platforms and 4th track, and WAS track & platform improvements. Of these, with the increase in capital grant funding, should be able to 1) line up funding with contributions from other sources to build the North Portal Bridge, 2) get the MTA to contribute towards a new Pelham Bay bridge, and 3) get started on DC Union Station improvements with MD and VA now able to contribute due to their transportation funding bills passed in 2013. The BWI center platform and 4th track is likely to slide pass a 2020 completion date.

I agree but I think your time line is a tad bit optimistic. I don't see MTA funding anything on the Hell Gate Line until the very late part of this decade at the earliest, and perhaps later, specially now that ESA has slipped to 2023 and requires a couple of billion more to complete. I also don't see any major funding materializing from other sources for Portal until after NJ has a new governor. The total cost of North Portal after all is said and done will be around $1 billion. Additionally do not forget the Sawtooth Bridge, which is probably in worse shape than Portal at present and a bigger matter of concern for Amtrak. My suspicion is that if any general corridor capital is found it will first go to Sawtooth at this point. So my crystal ball says that of your list 1, 3 and 4 will slip into the decade of the 20s before they are done, assuming that the House does not change leadership in 2014 or 2016. If the House changes leadership, a few of those things can be brought forward by 2 or 3 years, again assuming that even a friendly House at this point dos not have a huge amount of leeway to be too generous.

The Sandy relief mitigation funds could help pay for a number of SOGR track and ROW projects with the goal of improving reliability and protection against extreme weather events. While not directly improving capacity, Sandy mitigation grants for projects to protect against flooding, extreme weather, storms could free up funds from the annual Capital grants to be used for other NEC improvement projects to trim trip times and increase capacity by circa 2020. With MD and PennDOT/SEPTA now in a better position to provide matching funding, NJ committed to the NJ HSR improvements, Amtrak is in a position to complete more of the 2012 Vision Stair Steps 2 and 3 projects by the early 2020s than we might have expected in 2012 given the budget situation in Congress.

First let us remove some confusion. NJ has committed nothing to NJ HSR. The only thing NJT has finally put into its capital plan for the next 5 years is the Midline Loop, which will help decongest County interlocking, if they actually manage to fund it. NJT has a relatively poor record of late of actually funding things that are in its capital plan, so we will see. Other than that NJHSR is a pure Amtrak/Federal project. One good thing is that any additional Sandy mitigation funding that might appear may be usable in at least moving the Sawtooth rehab/replacement along. That is a $ 200 to $300 million dollar project.

There are the variable allocated costs that would disappear from the overall account if a train does not run. The fixed costs will not.

I guess one of the things I'm saying is that we have never, ever had a clear breakdown of which was which, not in *any* Amtrak financial document. But all the evidence is that fixed costs dominate.

There are different degrees of "fixed", of course. For purposes of removing a car from a train, the cost of running the locomotive is mostly fixed; for purposes of cancelling the train, it's variable. For purposes of adding a second train to a route, the cost of station operations is mostly fixed; for purposes of removing the last train from the route, it's variable.

Economies of scale appear to be everywhere in railroading.

I do agree with you on this.

 

[Anderson]

There's also the question of the disposition of the Acelas once the Acela IIs roll out. That's standing as one of the great mysteries in all of this, especially given how rarely Amtrak gets rid of non-locomotive equipment that's less than 40 years old.

I have to wonder...assuming you could pop two of the locomotives off/reconfigured them, would two Acelas put together be able to do 125 MPH?

 

[afigg]

What seems likely with the Acelas, assuming 28 new sets, etc., is that the buckets will be kept fairly static. There will be a redistribution of purchased inventory towards lower buckets (even if the percentages of seats in each bucket stay the same, you'll see more seats available in the lower bucket(s), and fewer trains will get to the top bucket(s)).

Bear in mind that it's likely Amtrak will bring the new equipment in over the course of 2-3 years...if they change all the sets out at once, they'd be courting the same sort of thing that happened with the first round of Acelas. I'd expect a slow increase in frequencies and seats over a few timetables as the new equipment is delivered and phased in. If fares are flat and PPR slides by 5-10% due to a bucket redistribution, ridership should rise. Another point is that low-bucket Acela fares will likely remain below high-bucket Regional fares, so at least some additional capacity will likely get swallowed up there.

...

I would expect that once enough Acela IIs are available that they would be used on the peak AM and 5 & 6 PM departures from NYP and WAS. Make most of the additional seats lower bucket seats during the likely 3-4 year transition period and slow down the price increase ramp-up of recent years. What I was looking at was what might happen when the Acelas are all the new expanded capacity units, maybe by the end of 2020. Add NE Regionals with more capacity and Amtrak could get more aggressive on competitive prices to undercut the remaining airline shuttle flights. WAS-NYP will have a lot more capacity, but unless Amtrak can run more trains on the Shore Line, NYP-BOS will have more seats but will still be limited.
As for the Horizons, there are only 79 Horizon coach cars. With Horizons staying on the Hiawatha and Hoosier State, there won't be that many Horizon coach cars available to be shifted east. Unless Amtrak gets funding for Amfleet II replacements in the next several years, converting some Horizon to LD configuration would be one option. Keep the rest as reserve for peak holiday periods where single cars can be added to a trainset sandwiched between Amfleets or at the end of the trainset.

The fleet strategy plan in the FY2013 financial plans called for delivery of single level cars to start in FY2019 at 100 units a year. With the subsidies coming in from the eastern states and Regionals making money on the NEC, Amtrak might be able to place incremental orders for Amfleet I replacements starting in 2019 even without a lot of direct acquisition funding from Congress. If that happens, then Amtrak can keep all the Amfleet Is in service and expand capacity in the east once the first set of 100 new single level coaches are delivered.

with the changes in plans and funding since 2012, Amtrak could issue an updated NEC Vision plan in 2014 that would lay out what they now think can be achieved by 2020 and 2025. But I don't know if that would be productive while the NEC Future EIS is being drafted and while Congress is debating a new Transportation funding bill. Or, for that matter, until the order for 28 HSR trainsets is placed. Lots of issues with the CHSRA plans and funding that may delay or stall the contract award.

 

[afigg]

I agree but I think your time line is a tad bit optimistic. I don't see MTA funding anything on the Hell Gate Line until the very late part of this decade at the earliest, and perhaps later, specially now that ESA has slipped to 2023 and requires a couple of billion more to complete. I also don't see any major funding materializing from other sources for Portal until after NJ has a new governor. The total cost of North Portal after all is said and done will be around $1 billion. Additionally do not forget the Sawtooth Bridge, which is probably in worse shape than Portal at present and a bigger matter of concern for Amtrak. My suspicion is that if any general corridor capital is found it will first go to Sawtooth at this point. So my crystal ball says that of your list 1, 3 and 4 will slip into the decade of the 20s before they are done, assuming that the House does not change leadership in 2014 or 2016. If the House changes leadership, a few of those things can be brought forward by 2 or 3 years, again assuming that even a friendly House at this point dos not have a huge amount of leeway to be too generous.

My time line may be insanely optimistic. But Amtrak did get a bump in annual Capital grant funding to $801 million that should give them some maneuvering room to tackle NEC projects. The mess with Bridge-Gate and the NJ side of PANYNJ may indeed complicate matters in getting any funding from the PA for the North Portal bridge and Sawtooth bridge replacement in the near term, but we have no way of knowing how that will play out. NJ may have a new Governor sooner than anyone would have expected a month ago, but the Lt Gov would likely follow Christie's approach of not fixing the state transportation funding problems.

The unknown is what the prospects are for Amtrak and NEC to get much funding from the Sandy mitigation funds. The Administration and US DOT (with encouragement from Senator Schumer) may decide that this is the last large batch of funds they are likely to have before 2016 for NEC projects and passenger rail in the east and provide a sizable piece of the $3 billion for transit grants for the NEC either directly to Amtrak and CT DOT or award some through the transit agencies to make it less obvious. The problems that Amtrak has been having on the NEC in the current cold weather makes the argument that there is a long list of weather hardening SOGR upgrades that should be done. That $3 billion that FTA announced for mitigation projects is not the end of it, there was a TBD funding direct grant category in the announcement as well as I recall.

 

[afigg]

There's also the question of the disposition of the Acelas once the Acela IIs roll out. That's standing as one of the great mysteries in all of this, especially given how rarely Amtrak gets rid of non-locomotive equipment that's less than 40 years old.

I have to wonder...assuming you could pop two of the locomotives off/reconfigured them, would two Acelas put together be able to do 125 MPH?

Amtrak might break up several Acela trainsets and add coach cars to the remaining Acela trainsets to lengthen them and roughly match the seating capacity of the new trainsets. But if 28 HSR trainsets are to be delivered in a ~3 year period, the lengthened Acelas would not be in revenue service for only a brief period. There would be issues with servicing the longer Acela I trainsets in the current Acela maintenance facilities, so that might kill that idea.

The FY14 appropriations required Amtrak to produce an updated Fleet Strategy and financial plans. so we may see a V4 Fleet Strategy plan released this spring. Which may provide information on the long term plans for the current Acelas, On the other hand, until the new HSR trainsets are ordered with a start of delivery date, may be best to remain vague on the plans for the 20 Acela I trainsets. My guess is that the Acela Is will be retired to save on maintenance costs.

 

[Nathanael]

As for the Horizons, there are only 79 Horizon coach cars. With Horizons staying on the Hiawatha and Hoosier State, there won't be that many Horizon coach cars available to be shifted east.

The Hiawatha service (6 cars each) can be operated with two trainsets, though I'm not sure whether Amtrak is doing so. The Hoosier State only needs two trainsets and it's short (2 cars each). Add an extra Hiawatha set in case of trouble, and you get 22 coaches. That would allow for shifting *57* Horizon coaches east. I'm not sure what your definition of "not that many" is.

 

[Nathanael]

There's also the question of the disposition of the Acelas once the Acela IIs roll out. That's standing as one of the great mysteries in all of this, especially given how rarely Amtrak gets rid of non-locomotive equipment that's less than 40 years old.

Put the "old Acelas" on lower-demand services. I suspect Pennsylvania wouldn't mind having them on the Keystones.

Maybe that would be too high-demand a service. How about using the "old Acelas" for less-heavily-used early morning and late night services, allowing the Acela IIs more time in the yard?

Or, once NH-H-S Commuter Rail is operational, use them for the Springfield through services.

(I guess the other problem with using them on the Keystones is the endless delays in the high-platform projects along the Keystone route.)

 

[Nathanael]

NJ may have a new Governor sooner than anyone would have expected a month ago, but the Lt Gov would likely follow Christie's approach of not fixing the state transportation funding problems.

The current Lt. Gov of NJ is absolutely central to the scandals of the current Governor of NJ, and is actually more clearly personally involved in them than the Governor is. If the Governor goes, they're both going to go. I know absolutely nothing about the State Senate chairman, who would become Governor in that case.

 

[afigg]

As for the Horizons, there are only 79 Horizon coach cars. With Horizons staying on the Hiawatha and Hoosier State, there won't be that many Horizon coach cars available to be shifted east.

The Hiawatha service (6 cars each) can be operated with two trainsets, though I'm not sure whether Amtrak is doing so. The Hoosier State only needs two trainsets and it's short (2 cars each). Add an extra Hiawatha set in case of trouble, and you get 22 coaches. That would allow for shifting *57* Horizon coaches east. I'm not sure what your definition of "not that many" is.

I guess I'm reacting to posts that appear to have the idea that the freed up Horizons will provide a big increase to the eastern single level fleet. Figure Horizon coach cars in reserve and maintenance for the Hiawatha and (a daily) Hoosier State, and perhaps Horizons used for service or frequency expansions until more bi-levels can be ordered and delivered. So figure on 50 Horizon coach cars plus X cafe cars freed up and sent east.
Amtrak has 465 active Amfleet Is (of all types) and 120 Amfleet II coach cars according to the On Track On line list. 50 Horizon ooach cars is an increase, but not a huge one. Major overhauls of the Horizons won't be free, so Amtrak will have to decide whether it is worthwhile to update them or just use them as reserves.

 

[afigg]

Put the "old Acelas" on lower-demand services. I suspect Pennsylvania wouldn't mind having them on the Keystones.

Maybe that would be too high-demand a service. How about using the "old Acelas" for less-heavily-used early morning and late night services, allowing the Acela IIs more time in the yard?

Or, once NH-H-S Commuter Rail is operational, use them for the Springfield through services.

(I guess the other problem with using them on the Keystones is the endless delays in the high-platform projects along the Keystone route.)

What would be useful to know is what the operating and maintenance costs are of an Acela trainset compared to a Keystone with an ACS-64 and a cab car. I suspect that PennDOT would not be interested in paying for Acelas (with business class seating) to run as Keystone trains.

As for the high level platforms on the Keystone East train stations, with the growing influx of more transportation funds over the next 3-4 years as the gas tax increase is phased in, PennDOT will be able to advance the station upgrade projects that I think were effectively stalled by budget shortfalls. I think the Middletown and Mt Joy station projects are now going ahead. Exton is in Phase 1 of the stations upgrades on the SEPTA hey, we got more money project list.

Acelas are not going to Springfield MA until the NHV-SPG corridor is electrified and that is not in the near term plans.

 

[MattW]

I wonder if instead of a constant capacity increase, the freed Horizons would be better used for "reserve" capacity such as Thanksgiving definitely, the Silvers during peak seasons, run an entire safety patrol special instead of bumping revenue passengers, things like that.

I've actually wondered if it wouldn't be financially viable to have extra cars that are literally warehoused for most of the year, then brought back out and inspected a few weeks before they're needed, used, then returned to storage. Beyond the financials, there's regulations about inspections that I don't know if they would allow that sort of thing.

 

[Anderson]

MattW, on 31 Jan 2014 - 01:31 AM, said:
I wonder if instead of a constant capacity increase, the freed Horizons would be better used for "reserve" capacity such as Thanksgiving definitely, the Silvers during peak seasons, run an entire safety patrol special instead of bumping revenue passengers, things like that.

I've actually wondered if it wouldn't be financially viable to have extra cars that are literally warehoused for most of the year, then brought back out and inspected a few weeks before they're needed, used, then returned to storage. Beyond the financials, there's regulations about inspections that I don't know if they would allow that sort of thing.

Short term, that might work. You'd save two 91-day inspections if you ran the equipment in two seasons: One in summer and one over Thanksgiving/Christmas. It's probably not an ideal use, but it's a plausible one.

In the longer run, however, there are likely to be enough corridors in search of cars and/or additional capacity needs (i.e. where the seats can be filled frequently) to put this to a test. I know Vermont wants some extra trains, for example, and I know there's a serious look at adding a bunch of Hiawathas to that route as well.

With that said, the Horizons could do sporadic duty to allow routes to be started/frequencies to be added on various routes without having to worry about an equipment delivery slipping. It would remove at least one obstacle to increasing capacity/frequencies in various places when there's not a "ready" equipment supply (or if something major goes out of service, such as a Talgo set).

 

[battalion51]

The thing that some people forget is that when the holiday rush hits they're suspending activities like PM that would normally have cars OOS. This could be perceived as a good thing because it's allowing Mechanical forces to be off for the holiday to be with families. On the down side it leaves little fleet flexibility in the event of a major service disruption. Imagine how bad things would've been if some of this Polar Vortex stuff hit a couple of weeks earlier when trains were packed. At the end of the day however even 50 cars being put out into the system is a huge increase in capacity. I want to say there are about 25-30 Northeast Regional sets running on a daily basis, so adding an additional car to two cars is a whole bunch of capacity without spending much to any money on capital. Assume those seats are worth $84 in revenue/day, you're adding $63 million in potential revenue (based a one way fare from WAS-NYP x 60 seats x 50 cars x 250 days of availability, extremely rough numbers, but the point stands).