Comes out to, what, $91 million a year to repay as an RRIF? That's only a 17% increase in total revenue/passengers required while this has the potential to more than triple Acela seat-miles (with extra coaches).
Acela II RFP information announcement
- Thread starter afigg
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
The Buy American rules will likely push the cost above the equivalent Europe price, but $50 million per trainset is a reasonable guess. Don't forget spare parts, training, upgrading or new maintenance facilities are part of the cost. I think $1.6 billion total for 28 trainsets is a valid ballpark number. With the Acela pulling in $508 million in ticket revenue in FY13 and a goal of 40% more seats per new trainset and roughly doubling the daily Acela weekday trip capacity, one can see how the HSR trainsets will pay for themselves.
Why do you think Amtrak is pushing the RFP process along once they realized that the 2 more coach cars per existing Acela trainset was not going to work? The financial numbers for new HSR trainsets with more seats and one would expect lower operating costs per trainset over the fixed cost of running the trains on the NEC have to look pretty damn good.
MattW
Conductor
Has Amtrak talked about an implementation plan for the new trainsets yet? If the sets have far more seats than the existing ones, they can't just toss them on whatever train like they can do at least with the Viewliner baggage and diners and the ACS-64s. I guess one solution is to cap the number of reservations to the existing Acela numbers until enough are in-service with the bugs worked out that they can start putting them on regular rotations.
neroden
Engineer
The plan is to completely replace the existing Acelas with the "Acela IIs" ASAP as far as I can tell.
I assume that initially they'll wait until they have, say, three new trainsets ready to go (so that there are spares), and then replace an entire slot in the rotation order. Probably with great fanfare and premium prices. ;-)
As for the existing Acelas, they'll probably be cascaded to a different service until they wear out -- the obvious choice is the Keystone.
I assume that initially they'll wait until they have, say, three new trainsets ready to go (so that there are spares), and then replace an entire slot in the rotation order. Probably with great fanfare and premium prices. ;-)
As for the existing Acelas, they'll probably be cascaded to a different service until they wear out -- the obvious choice is the Keystone.
Once Amtrak has delivery of a few sets, they could "lock" some trains to run the new sets (i.e. the 0600 out of WAS would be guaranteed as a new set) and thus increase reservation availability. For other trains they'd just use the lower seat counts for reservations...though to be fair, even there Amtrak would have a "win" insofar as lower load factors should make for a more pleasant riding experience in the short term.
Edit: To be clear, my best guess is that they'd lock in about half of the slots that they could lock in, leaving plenty of room for spares, teething troubles, and yard screwups/failed turns. As things stand right now, if a set that's supposed to turn is late due to a single-train issue, you can pull the spare set from the yard and shuffle the delayed set in later. You don't want to do that if doing so is going to risk having to explain to 130 business travelers why they're not able to take their train this evening.
Last edited by a moderator:
Amtrak has at least 4 years to figure out an Acela II roll-out plan. The logical place to start would be to substitute the new trains into the peak 6-7 AM and 5-6 PM departures from WAS, NYP, BOS and sell the additional seats. Another approach would be to add an advertised 5:30 PM Acela II slot from NYP and WAS to highlight the new train. I'm sure Amtrak will figure it out.
With regards to the financing, the current 20 year Treasury rate is around 3.2%. With the economy recovering, the Treasury rates will be moving up, which is another incentive to get the order placed and contracts signed, so the RRIF loan can be approved and rate locked in before the rate moves up too much. If Amtrak takes out a $1.6 billion 20 year RRIF loan at, say 4.25%, that works out to roughly $110 to $120 million a year in lease payments. So if the 28 trainsets generate 50% more revenue or $270 million (using FY13 as a baseline) with 60% to 70% more passengers (lower per seat prices) as a conservative estimate, there will be a nice pot of operating surplus left over after the lease payments.
True...PPR will take a hit, and there will almost assuredly be a hit to PPR on the Regionals as higher-end traffic clears off of them and onto the newly-available Acela space. Why take a $160 Regional coach seat (or a $200 Regional BC seat) if there's space on the Acela for $150?
You make a good point about adding new peak-hour departures for the initial arrivals, and you could probably fill those in one or two round trips at a time (i.e. an 0630 out of WAS and a 1730 out of NYP). The main argument against this is that unless you also reallocate a BOS-NYP slot to that train, you'll be missing out on revenue from NEC-North...and given the way crowding is going north of NYP, that would be leaving money on the table in the short term (both from through traffic and from traffic internal to NEC-North). With that said, I do think that putting the first few sets into service doing one round-trip per train per day between WAS and NYP would be the best move, since you'd avoid the need to station any protect sets in Boston. Expand the use of the sets from there.
I do agree with your inflation-adjusted estimates on PPR, btw. An increase in revenue of 50% on an increase in traffic of 70% vs. an FY13 baseline would give PPR of about $140...or about where PPR was between FY08 and FY11. That seems like a pretty healthy place for fares to be (while I suspect that getting too much over $150, adjusted for inflation, is getting high enough to start driving away business). On the demand side, using FY13 as a baseline, demand increases of 2.5%/year would give an increase of about 28% over the course of a decade (i.e. through FY23 or thereabouts), or about five years into the Acela II's use. 3% gets you closer to 40%. It is impossible to meet these demand figures with existing equipment (the point I made in an essay on Regional capacity goes even moreso for the Acela because at least with the Regionals, you can shuffle equipment around a bit to make things work). While I agree that adding equipment and being able to hold back on price increases will increase demand, these numbers give a likely lower end of the range for the demand that is out there.
You make a good point about adding new peak-hour departures for the initial arrivals, and you could probably fill those in one or two round trips at a time (i.e. an 0630 out of WAS and a 1730 out of NYP). The main argument against this is that unless you also reallocate a BOS-NYP slot to that train, you'll be missing out on revenue from NEC-North...and given the way crowding is going north of NYP, that would be leaving money on the table in the short term (both from through traffic and from traffic internal to NEC-North). With that said, I do think that putting the first few sets into service doing one round-trip per train per day between WAS and NYP would be the best move, since you'd avoid the need to station any protect sets in Boston. Expand the use of the sets from there.
I do agree with your inflation-adjusted estimates on PPR, btw. An increase in revenue of 50% on an increase in traffic of 70% vs. an FY13 baseline would give PPR of about $140...or about where PPR was between FY08 and FY11. That seems like a pretty healthy place for fares to be (while I suspect that getting too much over $150, adjusted for inflation, is getting high enough to start driving away business). On the demand side, using FY13 as a baseline, demand increases of 2.5%/year would give an increase of about 28% over the course of a decade (i.e. through FY23 or thereabouts), or about five years into the Acela II's use. 3% gets you closer to 40%. It is impossible to meet these demand figures with existing equipment (the point I made in an essay on Regional capacity goes even moreso for the Acela because at least with the Regionals, you can shuffle equipment around a bit to make things work). While I agree that adding equipment and being able to hold back on price increases will increase demand, these numbers give a likely lower end of the range for the demand that is out there.
Three other points:
(1) Assuming that revenue jumps by $265-270m vs. an FY13 baseline (not much of a stretch; we've already added $40-45m of that so far in FY14), you'll probably have somewhere around $225m in extra profits to work with. While I don't expect costs to skyrocket, I don't see savings from more efficient trainsets managing to entirely offset costs associated the addition of more frequencies/trainsets (as well as larger trains).
(2) Taking the loan into account, you'll probably have somewhere around an extra $100-150m/yr in cash to work with vs. the FY13 baseline. I'd err towards $100m, but with PPR spiking and demand still holding I have no idea where you'll end up once upward pressure on fares abates. As to where Amtrak could use that money, putting it to use for travel time reductions WAS-NYP would probably be the most productive. Just going for 2:30 WAS-NYP is probably going to be sufficient to ramp up demand a bit more (and as a result, help the Acelas keep additional traffic once fares start going up again). There are a couple of projects that could be at least partly funded out of this surplus (the bridges and the Baltimore tunnels come to mind).
(3) If travel times can be cut to the 2:30 range from closer to 3:00, I wonder if that means Amtrak will be able to work equipment turns a bit faster? Removing most of an hour from a train's round-trip travel time and adding off-timed departures (either on the half-hour or somewhere else in the hour) could improve equipment utilization substantially (and as a result, allow those off-hour departures to be filled in all day as time goes on, rather than just happening at peak hours...or at least in theory allow a third Acela to be slipped in during some hours in lieu of the extra Regional that Amtrak isn't likely to have the equipment for).
(1) Assuming that revenue jumps by $265-270m vs. an FY13 baseline (not much of a stretch; we've already added $40-45m of that so far in FY14), you'll probably have somewhere around $225m in extra profits to work with. While I don't expect costs to skyrocket, I don't see savings from more efficient trainsets managing to entirely offset costs associated the addition of more frequencies/trainsets (as well as larger trains).
(2) Taking the loan into account, you'll probably have somewhere around an extra $100-150m/yr in cash to work with vs. the FY13 baseline. I'd err towards $100m, but with PPR spiking and demand still holding I have no idea where you'll end up once upward pressure on fares abates. As to where Amtrak could use that money, putting it to use for travel time reductions WAS-NYP would probably be the most productive. Just going for 2:30 WAS-NYP is probably going to be sufficient to ramp up demand a bit more (and as a result, help the Acelas keep additional traffic once fares start going up again). There are a couple of projects that could be at least partly funded out of this surplus (the bridges and the Baltimore tunnels come to mind).
(3) If travel times can be cut to the 2:30 range from closer to 3:00, I wonder if that means Amtrak will be able to work equipment turns a bit faster? Removing most of an hour from a train's round-trip travel time and adding off-timed departures (either on the half-hour or somewhere else in the hour) could improve equipment utilization substantially (and as a result, allow those off-hour departures to be filled in all day as time goes on, rather than just happening at peak hours...or at least in theory allow a third Acela to be slipped in during some hours in lieu of the extra Regional that Amtrak isn't likely to have the equipment for).
I noticed that the CHSRA webpage for the joint RFP procurement documents is still accessible. They updated it with amendments and notifications. One of the documents is the Question Answer Matrix (1.6 MB PDF) which was up to 91 pages as of May 9 with 690 entries for questions, requests for changes in the RFP wording, corrections from bidders. Lots of deep inside baseball stuff in it.
However, it appears that the final bids were never submitted as the due date was postponed as Amtrak, CHSRA tried to adjust the terms of the RFP. The notice on June 16 may have been the last communication before Amtrak and CHSRA formally determined that a joint procurement was not feasible.
However, it appears that the final bids were never submitted as the due date was postponed as Amtrak, CHSRA tried to adjust the terms of the RFP. The notice on June 16 may have been the last communication before Amtrak and CHSRA formally determined that a joint procurement was not feasible.
Last edited by a moderator:
H
HAL
Guest
They are already worn out!
As for Keystones, all the stations would have to be high platforms. It would be a good idea to make all those stations high platforms no matter what. However after the Acela IIs are all in service I suspect the Acela I will end up in the scrap heap.
neroden
Engineer
Not like the Heritage cars are worn out -- or the Metroliner cab cars!! Remember, Amtrak was originally going to lengthen them [the Acela Is] -- there's life in them yet. They're being replaced because they're commercially obsolete (too small, too slow, too few), not because they're falling apart.
And if the Metroliner cab cars die, there may be some difficulty running suitable push-pull operations on the Keystone line with any other equipment.
The process of making all those stations high platforms is already in the works; it's a stated goal of PennDOT and Amtrak. It will probably be complete by 2018.
Harrisburg -- under construction (and good enough anyway)
Middletown -- EIS/FONSI for new station finished, funded and supposed to start construction in 2015
Elizabethtown -- done
Mount Joy -- under construction, supposed to be done in 2016
Lancaster -- done
Parkesburg -- no recent progress, still discussing options
Coatesville -- EIS/FONSI completed, partial funding
Downingtown -- relocated station plan currently going through environmental assessment -- funded and construction supposed to start in 2015
Exton -- done
Paoli -- replacement "transportation center" has completed Alternatives Analysis, still collecting funding. But Amtrak has made a legal commitment to disability groups to build high platforms within 4.5 years (2018) whether or not the rest of the project goes forward.
Ardmore -- design approved, heavily funded, but long-delayed; construction by SEPTA supposed to start in 2015 (if there aren't any more weird delays)
...and obviously everything else has high platforms.
Parkesburg is the laggard, but the odds are these will all be finished before we see the first Acela II. At which point the Acela Is will be 17 years old, and the Metroliner cab cars will be 50 years old. (The Amfleets and any AEM-7 or HHP-8 conversions to cab cars would be pretty old too.) Which would you run on the 125+ mph push-pull service?
You may be right. I know Amtrak doesn't like the Acela Is. But...
With the delivery date for Acela II pushed back to 2018, the early buyout dates for the Acela Is will have passed. Amtrak will either own the Acela Is, or Amtrak will be stuck with the leases for several more years. With the HHP-8s still sitting around, partly usable as spare parts for the Acela, I would expect Amtrak to press the Acela Is into use for another 2 to 5 years.
There will probably be a shortage of high-speed-capable cab cars available by 2018, although Amtrak may convert some old locomotives. I think the Acela Is, with their higher top speed, and also being the maximum length which can fit on the Keystone high platforms, will simply be irresistible for the next few years after that -- until new cab cars can be delivered. They'll probably go away when Amtrak starts getting replacements for the Amfleets and Metroliners.
Last edited by a moderator:
Something else to consider...couldn't Amtrak reshuffle the sets? If the power cars can handle 8-car sets, there's nothing stopping Amtrak from reworking the 120 cars into 15 8-car sets instead of 20 6-car sets and putting 10 power cars into mothballs. Heck, if the power cars can handle 10-car sets, nothing says you couldn't go to 12 10-car sets.
Also, if anyone would like to consider the parallels between the Metroliners and the Acelas...both winding up doing post-prime duty to Harrisburg (the "Capitoliners", if I'm not mistaken).
Edit: To be fair, I'm not opposed to using them on the Harrisburg run...that would at least free up a bunch of Amfleets for NEC service. However, I also don't think there are enough Keystones to optimally use the Acelas.
Also, if anyone would like to consider the parallels between the Metroliners and the Acelas...both winding up doing post-prime duty to Harrisburg (the "Capitoliners", if I'm not mistaken).
Edit: To be fair, I'm not opposed to using them on the Harrisburg run...that would at least free up a bunch of Amfleets for NEC service. However, I also don't think there are enough Keystones to optimally use the Acelas.
Last edited by a moderator:
H
HAL
Guest
Even if deliveries began in 2018 it would take a while to get them tested and rolled out to replace the current consists. 2020 might be more realistic.
As for using the Acela on Keystone; Amtrak would likely find that idea irresistible but Pennsylvania would have to buy into that. They might not find it irresistable.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,509
I think there are two issues with continuing operation of the Acela sets once replaced by Acela II's. First, the Acela sets are energy hogs. Power efficiency was not considered in the design, and the huge weight of the trainsets and massive HP needed to accelerate and move all that tonnage resulted in having Acela sets consume nearly twice the power of an AEM-7 or ACS-64 hauled train. Replacing an efficient Keystone ACS-64-hauled train with an old Acela set would be a significant downgrade from an operational cost standpoint. It would be like replacing a 787 with a 767. It makes no operational sense. I'm betting PennDOT would be not be willing to pay more just to run a bunch of sleek-looking but power-wasting old high-speed trainsets.
Second is the maintenance issues. The sets will be pushing 20 years old. At that point the technology is obsolete and parts are hard to find. The sets use three dedicated shops located at Washington, New York and Boston. I'm sure that Amtrak does not want to retain those three shops any longer than needed. Plus, those shops effectively limit the trainsets to six cars. The locations and conflicting facilities allow no practical or cheap way to expand those shops (as Amtrak found out while considering lengthening the sets to eight cars). Maybe they could use the new, Acela II shops to maintain the old sets, but I bet Amtrak would prefer having the Acela II shops dedicated to just the Acela II's.
In short, as the Acela sets are retired, they will be given a proper sendoff after years of loyal and successful service, and will head to the scrap yard.
With operation limited to NEC-South they could ditch the Boston shop. The other problem, of course, is explaining why they're ditching equipment that is "only" 20 years old when the Amfleets will be closing in on 40 and there will likely be sustained capacity issues on the NEC unless Amtrak goes totally insane with fares (which is possible, but which I'll also bet would trigger enough hue and cry from folks on the Corridor to force some sort of backing off). In Amtrak's terms, 20 years is a sorry excuse for equipment life.
Last edited by a moderator:
Exton is not "done". In the SEPTA capital budget, Exton construction for high level platforms and new station building is from 2015 to 2017. Paoli Transportation Center was put off to the FY2020-25 timeframe, but that could be a placeholder while SEPTA, PennDOT, and Amtrak complete the EIS and locate the funding.
Regardless of the status of high level platforms for the stations on the eastern Keystone, for most of the reasons expressed by other posters, I doubt that the Acela Is will be repurposed for use as Keystone trains. PennDOT won't want to pay more, too expensive to operate, too few seats in the current 6 car configuration, NYP maintenance facility not able to handle extended Acela consists, BC seats, what to do with the first class car, unused bistro car, and so on. By 2020 or 2021, the Acela Is will have served their purpose, introducing HSR style trainsets to the US and having been quite successful in growing ridership on the NEC. The Acela Is are likely to get sent to storage and kept there until Amtrak disposes of them.
As for aging Metroliner cab cars, Amtrak can convert some AEM-7s or get a set of Viewliner II cab cars in the first batch of a single level corridor car order.
NE933
Conductor
I agree, it's hard to justify scrapping 20 yr old trains with urgency when we have 60 yr old Heritage diners and baggage falling apart. Acela I can and should go to Keystone service. And what the hell does Pennsylvania know about rail? A state that let the high populated Lehigh Valley region with no passenger rail or leadership to restore it, for over 50 years? Or let SEPTA fall apart? Bring some grub to the table and then you can talk.
Also, assuming they overhauled the Acelas to have all BC seating, each train would have 390 seats (6*65), which isn't that bad (an equivalent Amfleet set would have 432 seats; it's a loss of 42 seats, but that's not like if the loss were closer to 100, and it's more than a 5-car Amfleet set would have). Amtrak might also have some flexibility to work with PA on lower costs considering the Acelas' prior service and the effect of freeing up Amfleets for other service.
As I've said before, the other option of using them in some sort of Regional service would make sense; moreover, I feel compelled to point out that if the Acelas are used on the Keystone route, you're going to end up in a perverse situation where the "commuter" trains connecting to Harrisburg have a higher speed limit on them than do the Regionals. That's going to create some...interesting fights if you've got Keystones able to beat Regionals between NYP and PHL (something that won't be helped by the NJ speed upgrades).*
The energy hog point borders on being moot in terms of Amtrak's operations. At last check, fuel was something like 10% of Amtrak's costs. While that's nothing to ignore, levels like that suggest that something being a "fuel hog" are generally going to be at most a limited issue. You're probably looking at the net impact being somewhere around 10% of total costs, and that's probably aiming high.
*Practical question: What is governing the 125 MPH speed limit HAR-PHL? Track conditions? Catenary? Curves? Crossings?
Green Maned Lion
Engineer
The Acelas are nearly as worn out as the Heritage cars. Their retirement is justified that they are structurally and mechanically overdue for it.
Last edited by a moderator:
The top speed on the eastern Keystone is 110 mph; it will need upgrades to get to 125 mph.
If the Acela is that much of a power hog, there could be problems running it on regular service HAR-PHL. The corridor has several aging power stations that are slated for replacement or modernization. May not be a reliable enough power supply west of SEPTA territory to handle a big increase in power draw.
There's one other point I think needs to be made here, and it feeds into my views on this: Try explaining to Rep. Mica and a bunch of other Republicans why Amtrak is asking for X (whatever X might be) when they're throwing away what is likely to be argued to be a couple hundred million dollars worth of cars.
This leads into another question: Could Acela cars be hooked into a non-Acela locomotive? I actually don't know the answer to this question.
This leads into another question: Could Acela cars be hooked into a non-Acela locomotive? I actually don't know the answer to this question.
neroden
Engineer
The 6-car sets are pretty much the optimal *length* to handle the Keystone platforms (yes, I checked information about platform length and trainset length -- the Acela trainsets are longer than the shorter 550 ft. Keystone platforms, with the passenger cars just about fitting on the platforms). Too few seats is an interesting point, but seems to be solely due to the Business Class/First Class seat layout and can probably just be changed by adjusting seat pitch.
I'm not thinking of optimal usage exactly -- I'm thinking of what to do in the short run, when the Metroliner cab cars start to crap out, and no new cab cars have been ordered. There seem to be 16 or 17 Metroliners (depending on whether the most recent wreck gets repaired), and they're ancient with few spare parts. If you scrapped several of the Acelas for parts you'd still have more than you have Metroliners.
The alternative is converting some locomotives to cab cars, of course, but that's (a) more expensive, (b) lugging more dead weight around, © requires maintenance of another class of obsolete parts (either for HHP-8 or AEM-7), and (d) continues to tie up the Amfleets, which are always in demand elsewhere.
Exton high platforms are done. Look at Amtrak's website; Exton has high platforms. The rest of the station is unfinished but that's not important for this purpose.
Amtrak committed to build the platforms in advance of the rest of the station, in a lawsuit settlement with the Disability Rights Network of Pennsylvania. If you read through the details, the high platforms have to be done by 2018.
http://disabilityrightsgalaxy.com/settlement-reached-to-improve-amtrak-station-accessibility/
Why would it pay more? They'd be paying to use used trainsets which aren't in high demand, and which would otherwise be mothballed. The alternative is paying for in-high-demand ACS-64s and Amfleets... PennDOT might appreciate the higher acceleration and the tilting, though.
Operational expense is a real question, but I don't know the actual numbers. The Acela coaches are significantly overweight compared to the Amfleets, so that is expensive, and that may be a good enough reason to get rid of them. But the power cars are lighter-weight than the ACS-64 and comparable to an AEM-7, and it appears that the Acelas can accelerate faster. So I think they're going to be preferable. Diesel fuel costs are a small but significant fraction of Amtrak operating costs; electric fuel costs are a small and insignificant fraction of Amtrak operating costs.
The power supply question is more critical, but those power stations are being upgraded anyway... and they wouldn't be running at 150 mph.
Reconfigure them as 10 6-car trainsets of all coach, if you like.
These aren't Turboliners -- they're much more efficient to operate than that, and there are more than enough spare parts.
I'm absolutely sure that Viewliner II profile cab cars are Amtrak's future plan, but they certainly won't have arrived by 2018, and probably not by 2021.
Converting AEM-7s, which date from 1979-1988, to cab cars is frankly more questionable than repurposing the Acelas for a few years. AEM-7 cab car conversions would require substantial work. Even if AEM-7s are converted to cab cars, they'll probably immediately be in demand on various diesel-hauled routes.
Easy to deal with: price the Keystones higher than the Regionals (and lower than the new Acelas) between NYP and PHL. The market is big enough for that level of segmentation, and Amtrak needs to try to keep local traffic off the Keystone from NYP to PHL anyway to make room for PHL-HAR traffic.
Ryan
Court Jester
Yep. This looks like high platforms to me:
The foamer in me would love to see AEM-7 based cabbages running all over the place without wires. Can you imagine one screaming past at 110 getting pushed by a P42 in Michigan? Good stuff.
You can see the mini-high platforms at front end of the main platform in that sat photo. A better photo from track level is on the wikipedia page for the Exton PA station. As for Paoli, I will be interested to see how Amtrak will put in full length high level platforms ahead of the full blown transportation center project and whether they do so in the time frame in the agreement.
But discussing which stations between HAR-PHL have or will have full length high level platforms is getting rather off-topic. The odds of the Acelas being someday used for the Keystone service are, in my opinion, between slim and none and slim is leaving the building. The "Five Year Projected Capital Investment by Program, NEC" table on page 56 of the combined FY14 budget and FY14-FY18 Five Year financial plan document is a pretty big clue as to what Amtrak wants to do with the overhaul budget of the Acelas after FY2016. Namely zero it. That won't happen, of course, because the new HSR trainsets won't really begin to show up until late FY2018 and that is only if everything stays on schedule. Which it won't. Got to keep the Acela Is running through 2019 or 2020 and then retire them.
Latest posts
-
-
Container Ship strikes and collapses Baltimore's Francis Scott Key Bridge- Latest: JamesWhitcombRiley
-
-
-
-
-
Siemens Caltrans/IDOT Venture design, engineering, testing and delivery (2Q 2024)- Latest: Goldspike_Railfanning
