Additional CHI-DEN Frequency

[Bob Dylan]

All you need to know about Iowa is that there's plenty of Corn, and the religious right nutcakes have taken over the Republican party and think Trump, Carson or Cruz would make a good President!

 

[WoodyinNYC]

The South of the Lake project, to improve the times of the Wolverine and other CHI-Michigan services (as well as the Capitol Ltd. and the Lake Shore), is likely to cost $1.5 to $2 Billion. ..

.... So many opportunities to spend money! What are the priorities?

...

It's clear Kasich killed the 3C high speed line in 2010 after he was elected. But ..

The conventional wisdom is that Kasich is responsible for Ohio being left out of the Midwest improvements funded by the Stimulus.

There's another side of the story. Go to The Transport Politic. You'll love the blog, tho Yonah Freeman mostly focuses on transit, with only side coverage of intercity rail.

After the disastrous election of 2010 almost repealed the Obama Administration, Yonah ignited a discussion with 271 comments before name-calling shut it down. LOL.

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/page/36/

Look for the comments by buckeryechucke. I believe his story. YMMV.

Buckereyechuck claimed to work for the Republican legislature. He said the agreed plan, following the Midwest Rail Initiative and supported by the Repub legislative leaders, was to ask for a Billion to get the corridor Cleveland-Toledo-CHI underway. Even Indiana was ready to go.

But, he says, Gov Strickland wanted a train for his contested home turf in southwestern Ohio. Cleveland and Toledo are heavily black and strongly blue, so he didn't need them. Thinking to appeal to swing voters in Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati, he changed the ask. The Cleveland-CHI Corridor went back into the filing cabinet.

The Stimulus ask was for the 3-Cs. Indiana was left with no time to whip up an ask for Indy-CHI.

From there the 3-Cs train rolled downhill. The first official estimate of its average speed was 49 mph.

Later they said 59 mph with 69 mph coming soon as they could get more money.

Too dayum late. Everybody who heard 49 mph made up their mind -- and kept it closed. (Of course Kasich campaigned against it. I would have run against it myself. LOL) So we got neither the 3-Cs Corridor nor the Cleveland-CHI Corridor.

Even one lousy hour out of the timetables would transform the Lake Shore and the Cap Ltd. Not counting any collateral damage to hopes for the Hoosier State route and the Cardinal, missing the start of the Cleveland-CHI Corridor was the greatest single missed opportunity of the Stimulus.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

All you need to know about Iowa is that there's plenty of Corn...!

Corn growers receive enormous subsidies to grow corn as the feedstock for ethanol. It's been shown that this does nothing for energy efficiency, increases the cost of food around the world, and plowing every inch of land for the unneeded crop destroys the wildflower fields that feed Monarch butterflies, pushing them to the edge of population crash.

But keep your Big Government hands off my subsidies!

 

[jis]

Yeah the government subsidized contamination scheme of dubious value. Knocks off upto 5% in mpg in my Prius. Fortunately these days in Florida you can get the non-contaminated stuff.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

... spending its way to Toledo and Cleveland with a new corridor service would be much more productive to Illinois, and to the national system ...

Give me faster Capitols and Lake Shores on top of corridor service to Cleveland

When Amtrak was formed in 1971, were there any other railroads running the 3C route? We know why 3C is ignored by Amtrak since 2010 but what about before then?

Do we know why Amtrak ignored the 3-C's? I never saw that. Did Congress publicly explain its instructions to Amtrak?

On my own, I figured that a train "connecting" in Cleveland to two LD trains that stop there around 3 a.m. was not gonna help the national system much if at all.

The 3-C's money should have been invested Cleveland-Toledo, and Toledo-Indiana state line, as steps toward a robust Cleveland-CHI Corridor, as envisioned in the Midwest Regional Initiative and the Ohio Hub concepts.

Under the Midwest plan, the Cleveland-CHI Corridor would ultimately chop 3 hours off the schedule. More than enuff to transform the Lake Shore: Get into CHI Union Station at 6:45 a.m. instead of 9:45 as now, giving plenty of time to make a full day of business. OR, leave WB from Cleveland 3 hours later than the 3:45 now, so depart 6:45 a.m., and still arrive in Chicago at 9:45.

On the Capital Ltd, EB keep the 6:40 p.m. out of CHI as now, but arrive in Toledo, say, an hour and a half better, at 10:10 p.m. instead of almost midnight as now. Then arrive in Cleveland at almost midnight, a great improvement over the 1:45 a.m. as now.

Push that 3 hour savings thru to D.C.? Now Pittsburgh EB is 5:20 a.m.; how much worse would a 2:20 stop be? Then the train could arrive D.C. mid-morning instead of inconveniently after lunch, a really big improvement even for people from Pittsburgh. LOL.

A Cleveland-CHI Corridor, by adding lots of new and longer sidings, even stretches of double-track (or triple track?), fewer and upgraded grade crossing, etc, could greatly relieve pressure on the NS main line. The South of the Lake project, along dedicated passenger rail tracks, will remove 14 trains a day from the NS congestion (as well as 40 or 50 minutes from the passenger train times.)

Somewhere in the 480 miles of upgrades to NS tracks in the Cleveland Corridor plan, is there a possible deal to squeeze in one more run on the 239 miles of NS tracks Philly-Pittsburgh? Is that the third NYC-Philly-Pgh-CHI route discussed elsewhere? That route could start CHI-Cleveland, with then a 110-mph Cleveland-Pgh extension.

Or maybe bargain for one more run each of the Capitol Limited and the Lake Shore. Right now those trains are chained to near midnight departures at Pittsburgh for the Capital and at Buffalo for the Lake Shore. A second frequency could gain a new train day-light-timed to Cleveland and Toledo (maybe connects from Detroit/Ann Arbor) and better stops in Pgh, too.

 

[neroden]

I know this has been talked about on several other discussions quite often so I'm going to open a thread up for it. Just for this section. As one thing we can all seem to agree on is that there should be an extra service on this part of the California Zephyr's route. My question is which time slot should run. A day train, or a night train? I'm thinking a day train would probably be the best possible option. But it's a long run for a day with the current CZ taking about 18 hours, which is three hours longer then the Palmetto. Which correct me if I'm wrong but the longest of the day trains. It's getting questionable if one could run it and arrive at a decent hour, or depart at a decent hour.

I say two night trains. If you allow for tight servicing windows, four consists are required -- serviced at both ends. If you allow for Amtrak's current very long servicing windows, 5 consists.

Westbound:

The schedule for train "A" departs Chicago midday, arrives Denver in the morning (like the current CZ): daytime through Illinois & Iowa

The schedule for train "B" departs Chicago evening (10 PM), arrives Denver midday (3:15 PM): daytime through Nebraska

Eastbound:

The schedule for train "B" departs Denver midday (Noon), arrives Chicago in the morning (8 AM): daytime through Nebraska

The schedule for train "A" departs Denver evening, arrives Chicago midday (like the current CZ): daytime through Illinois & Iowa

All trains have decent calling hours at Omaha. Nebraska has daytime service to Denver and overnight service to Chicago. I believe this gives the best pair of schedules given roughly-current speeds.

If the Iowa corridor is built, I think both trains should run on it. But if one train is to be kept on the existing route, it should be the "B" train (the one with nighttime service in Iowa).

The "B" train would have lower ridership than the "A" train due to the low population of Nebraska, but I suspect it would have more longer-distance ridership (due to the arrival and departure times at Chicago).

Accordingly I really would prefer that the "B" train be the one extended to the west. There will be more "short-haul" passengers crowding the "A" train. Any delays west of Denver on the "B" train wouldn't affect daytime corridor service on the Iowa route. Having the "B" train go to California also means delays are less likely to break connections at Chicago.

Doing this requires rethinking the CZ schedule west of Denver, however.

Westbound runs 8 hours later than current schedule, so it gets into:

Winter Park at 6 PM,

Glenwood Springs at 10 PM,

Grand Junction around midnight,

Salt Lake City around 7 AM,

Reno around 4:30 PM,

Sacramento around 10 PM,

Emeryville around midnight.

Which is actually perfectly reasonable, much to my surprise. Scenery isn't great, but I did say there needs to be a separate Denver-Grand Junction / Glenwood Springs Scenery Train.

Eastbound runs 7 hours earlier than current schedule, so it gets to:

Emeryville at 2 AM (ouch)

Sacramento at 4 AM (ouch)

Salt Lake City at 8 PM (decent)

Grand Junction at 3 AM (ouch)

Glenwood Springs at 5 AM (OK)

Winter Park at 9 AM (OK)

Hmmm. Maybe the Eastbound would have to stay attached to the "A" train.

Another alternative is to run one train via Moffat and one via Wyoming, but that requires servicing facilities at Salt Lake.

A third alternative is to run service west of Denver as an entirely separate train on the current schedule, which requires servicing facilities only at Denver (much easier). It would require four consists.

(Either way I think the extra pair of frequencies DEN-CHI requires at least three consists.)

 

[Anderson]

There's also the option of slapping a schedule pad somewhere in there. For example, back the eastbound train up by four hours:
EMY: 2200 (not bad)

SAC: 0000 (ouch-ish but not horrid)

SLC: 1600 (not bad)

GJT: 2300 (ouch-ish but not horrid)

GSC: 0100 (ouch)

WIP: 0500 (not great)

One thing you might do is park the train at GJT for an hour or so (there seems to be more space for it to sit there for a bit), moving GSC to 0200 (which really isn't much worse than 0100 at the end of the day) and WIP from 0500 to 0600 (which is an improvement). Arrive DEN at 0800 instead of 1100.

 

[Seaboard92]

I could sign off on that idea. I think this would be avoid way to run two trains west. I would keep the train arriving in the morning on the Moffat route so it has the scenery. And the later train gong toward Wyoming and the northwest. Depending on the arrival time on the other end

 

[WoodyinNYC]

The South of the Lake project, to improve the times of the Wolverine and other CHI-Michigan services (as well as the Capitol Ltd. and the Lake Shore), is likely to cost $1.5 to $2 Billion. ...

What are the priorities [for Illinois]? Milwaukee-CHI? Twin Cities-CHI? Memphis-CHI? DEN-CHI? Omaha-CHI? Des Moines-CHI? Quad Cities-CHI? Indy-CHI? Cincy-CHI?

Nah, priority #1 will be more investment to get more and faster trains St Louis-CHI. ...

AndersonAs to priorities, that's the point of that "constrained vision plan" I've been referring to with another thread in here. ... I'd like to come up with a decent priority list that we could (for example) take to NARP as a "first step" towards something akin to their "vision plan" (e.g. a realistic set of projects which could be funded with another stimulus, allowing for political concerns such as the need to spread money around the country).

Anderson, I wasn't barking at you about priorities.

I was emphatically agreeing with you. Priorities are fundamental. I should have thanked and applauded you earlier for this effort, to select top priority projects for when funding becomes available for passenger rail.

When NARP is asked, "What do you want?", and their answer is, "Everything, look at our map", that's simply not helpful. Not helpful at all. (And NARP prioritizing Sunset East is not how I want my dues money spent either.)

Well, I quickly concluded that my list would be bullet point or fat paragraphs. And I wanted paragraphs to make my case. So I put it off. LOL.

One thing. I'm not sure of the rules on this: Can we invest $100 million that will require, say, a further $900 million to complete, and assume that more money will have to come? Or may we invest smaller sums only on those incremental improvements that will be of "independent operational utility"? I kind of lean to, What can be used in the 8 years of a two term president, and assume no big money follows under the next president.

Here's a first draft of my points in shortish paragraphs. My emphasis is on projects where the LD trains can benefit.

The NEC, with 11.6 million riders, is its own thing. CAHSR, with a projected ridership of up to 71 million, is its own thing. We're here to talk about the rest of us, the rest of Amtrak, with more than 17 million passengers on state-supported corridors and almost half a million more riders on Long Distance routes.

We can make a giant improvement to Amtrak with targeted investments:

Most, if not all, of the Long Distance routes east of the Mississippi are near to break-even status before allocated overhead. After the right capital improvements, almost all of these Eastern trains would no longer require operating subsidies going forward and instead would make a positive contribution to Amtrak's bottom line.

1) Amtrak's passenger cars are growing old. For new coaches, cafe cars, and lounges we need $2 or $3 Billion.

2) The route "South of the Lake" east of Chicago is a massive bottleneck for passenger and freight trains alike. Plans are being finalized to build a dedicated passenger-train-only track, to move 7 Amtrak trains out of the way of the freights, and to get the freights out of the way of 5 trains to Michigan and 2 to the East Coast. For $2.5 Billion this full project could be finished and save 30 or 40 minutes. Improvements will allow the State of Michigan to add a number of new trains to Grand Rapids, Lansing, and Kalamazoo-Ann Arbor-Dearborn-Detroit. OR, for incremental improvements -- a new bridge, new sidings, double-tracks, better grade crossings, etc., with each shaving minutes off the trip times -- $1 Billion will get the work well underway.

3) That South of the Lake project will take 30 or 40 minutes out of the schedules of trains going to/from Cleveland, but the trains will still stop in that city around 2 or 3 a.m. Extending the upgrades all the way thru Toledo to Cleveland would cost a total of $3 Billion or more. But $1 Billion now will allow serious work on this Cleveland-CHI corridor, make possible 6 trains a day each way, and provide Cleveland stops on Long Distance trains before midnight and after dawn.

4) Heading south from the NEC, 5 LD trains, and 7 ( ? ) state-supported corridor trains all must cross the obsolete and constrained Potomac Long Bridge. Most of them follow tracks to Richmond before diverging. To replace the bridge, speed trains to Richmond and beyond, and allow additional state-supported trains, we need $1 billion to get most ( much ?) of the work done.

5) South of that, the SEHSR has been working on plans for a shortcut Richmond-Raleigh that would slash travel times and allow 6 new trains on this corridor. The NEC-Richmond-Petersburg-Raleigh-Greensboro-Charlotte corridor will carry hundreds of thousands more riders when this shortcut is completed. And 6 LD trains will see their schedules improved. Half a Billion, or $500 million, can get us moving on the shortcut.

6) Whatever it takes to go to daily trains on the Cardinal, maybe $200 million?

7) Whatever it takes to go to daily trains on the Sunset Limited, maybe $200 million?

8) As we have seen from the work already done on the St Louis-CHI Lincoln Corridor, a Billion dollars can remake a slow, 5 1/2 hours corridor into a faster 4 1/2 hour route that will quickly gain over 300,000 more riders. More improvements will make faster times possible and attract more riders, of course, so to do further work here, $200 million.

9) Similarly, the Cascades Corridor will soon be benefiting after a Billion dollars has been invested in the core route Seattle-Portland. The extensions Seattle-Bellingham-Vancouver, B.C. and Portland-Salem-Eugene, to the north and south, need upgrading to improve service and build ridership there. So $100 million to the northern segment, $100 million to the southern segment, and $100 million more to the core for continuing work, for a total of $300 million.

10) To help begin the Coast Daylight train from San Francisco-San Jose-San Luis Obispo-Santa Barbara-L.A.-San Diego, say $100 million.

11) To begin advance work on developing corridor service Phoenix-Tucson, $100 million.

12) Service on the River Runner St Louis-Kansas City can be speeded up, three more trains each way added, and the route extended to Lawrence and Topeka, KS. And $200 million will help make this possible.

13) For a shuttle service Omaha-Lincoln, $200 million.

14) To begin corridor service CHI-Twin Cities, $1 Billion.

15) Indiana needs to cut half an hour out of the Indianapolis-Chicago Hoosier State trains and the Cardinal's schedule, allowing two more departures every day on this route. The upgrades and added frequencies will help the Cardinal's performance by making an earlier (9:35 a.m. instead of 10:05) arrival in Chicago, by making possible go-and-return same-day trips, and by sharing station, advertising, and other costs with the new corridor trains. A study said it could be done for only $250 million

16) To upgrade tracks for a corridor shuttle Shreveport-Marshall-Mineola-Dallas-Ft Worth, need $100 million.

17) To upgrade tracks for an extension of the Saluki, CHI-Carbondale by 5 hours to reach Memphis at 6:60 p.m., and to extend the Illini (both with new names to reflect their new multi-state status) by 5 hours departing from Memphis at 11 a.m. to provide a day train CHI-Champaign-Carbondale-Memphis. Need $100 million.

18) To restore service New Orleans-Biloxi-Mobile, with 4 trains daily on a corridor shuttle. Need $100 million.

Oops, I blew thru my $10 Billion! How could that happen!

Well this is a first draft. Revisions coming.

 

[Seaboard92]

I like how you think and I believe the major goal on this one to be done first would be the new coaches and cafes. That should be the most urgent. Followed by diesels hopefully in a fleet large enough to allow expansion. My question is how long could the Amfleets remain on the rails. If we could get Viewliner coaches which would displace the Amfleets. What's to say we don't overhaul those extensively and put them on your new and improved services.

 

[Anderson]

@Woody: I know you were agreeing with me (and I do like your project list); my point was more that I wasn't setting specific numbers but rather giving an example.

For what it is worth, I'm torn between how much equipment I'd push for before pushing South of the Lake through...SotL provides multiple opportunities to save a set of equipment here and there (knocking a net hour out of the round-trip might well be enough to push the Cap's schedule to allow a same-day turn in WAS, for example), opportunities which are hard to ignore.

@Seaboard: I think the Amfleets probably have at least 20 years left in them with cyclical overhauls. Now, there will eventually be attrition of the "stuff eventually breaks" variety, but it doesn't seem like we're about to have a massive breakdown of the Amfleets anytime soon.

With that being said, if we could get an order of (say) 200-250 Viewliner coaches and cafes plus a supplementary sleeper order (to cover the eastern long-distance and medium-distance trains) you could reallocate more Amfleets to the NEC and other shorter-distance trains and/or add some additional frequencies/extensions which might complicate equipment turn patterns if requested by states (something likely to happen in some form sooner or later with VA, NC, NY, and VT at a bare minimum).

 

[neroden]

South of the Lake will not only improve runtimes, it'll improve *on time performance*, which is critical. It won't stop CSX delays on Albany-Cleveland, CN delays at Battle Creek or Detroit-Pontiac, or Amtrak-conductor-induced delays, or wheelchair loading delays on the short-platform stations, but it will remove the bulk of remaining delays (ones which aren't being addressed by existing projects). This is a big deal.

The Chicago-St. Louis project failed to notice that the delays are generally at the city approaches, and so it's upgraded the middle part of the line and left the trains crawling and delayed from Chicago to Joliet and St. Louis to Alton. Let's do the opposite heading east, please -- let's get a single fast Chicago approach from the east and make a big difference all at once.

The improved ridership from better OTP should improve the case for buying more equipment.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

The Chicago-St. Louis project failed to notice that the delays are generally at the city approaches, and so it's upgraded the middle part of the line and left the trains crawling and delayed from Chicago to Joliet and St. Louis to Alton. ...

Well, fixing Joliet-CHI is likely to come in at almost a Billion more. Iirc, they hadn't even settled on the preferred route there when the Stimulus funds were passed out. They were gonna get a round tuit thru later appropriations, hopes which died in the counter-election of 2010.

But I'm not giving up. By FY 2019 almost a million riders a year will speed thru the mid-section of the state at up to 110 mph, then crawl Joliet-CHI at 45 mph. That's got to make an impression. Then we can hope that the politicians will find a way, federal or state, for funds to upgrade for faster speeds there.

The complete redo of Alton-St Louis will climax with a new half Billion or $1 Billion bridge over the Mississippi, oh my. I can forgive the planners for putting that project off until last.

Meanwhile that long middle will have more and longer sidings, more than 50 miles double tracked, etc, that together should help with the on time performance. I have not noticed any quantification of expected % improvement in OTP, just generalities that it will improve. (A flip side of their adding only one more frequency is that UP is not letting them over-promise at this stage.)

Over all I'm not as pessimistic about the Lincoln Corridor as you seem to be.

 

[Seaboard92]

If the Amfleets that are freed up go to the states I could see some new services starting up especially on the east coast. I could see NC trying to get another service and Virginia as well. But if that doesn't pan out they could be on the LD trains as a supplement to new cars.

But I find your points interesting for speed improvements. If we could speed up the routes to same day turns that would be amazing. We would probably be able to expand again with the now freed up equipment. But some cars have to be protect fleet

 

[WoodyinNYC]

... diesels hopefully in a fleet large enough to allow expansion. ...

I flat out forgot diesels. Partly because I truly know nothing about that end of the business.

Roughly how much will that be in dollars?

In the 2nd draft, diesels become part of point 1) or in paragraph 2) on their own.

btw. My new passengers cars are single level. New and improved and more Superliners will have to come later. (I think I understand, LOL, that the same new diesels will be needed for both Eastern and Western LD trains.)

I'm aiming to get the Eastern LDs up to operational break-even, which $5 Billion in capital investments should do, no?.

It would be a great talking point in Congress and the media to say, "All our LD trains east of the Mississippi are now making an operating profit, and we will work on the Western LD trains next."

 

[WoodyinNYC]

... But I find your points interesting for speed improvements. If we could speed up the routes to same day turns that would be amazing. We would probably be able to expand again with the now freed up equipment.

Anderson quickly spotted the potential for saving cars by turning the trains faster. I get it now, but I didn't think of it.

But I look at faster times this way:

The passenger doesn't give a dayum how fast the train is going, even in the middle of Illinois, or Joliet-CHI, .

The rider wants to know, When will the train arrive? (Because she has to make a 10 a.m. meeting at headquarters, so earlier is better, not like the Cardinal getting into CHI at 10:05 a.m., or the Capital into D.C. after lunch, pissing away half the working day. A too-late arrival means she flies in the night before with hotel costs and all the hassles.)

How early do I have to get out of bed to get there in time? (That's me, sleepy head using meds, and I know I'm not alone! It's also the question of every rider out of Cleveland.)

If I miss that first train in the morning, how soon can I catch the next one and still get there for the lunch meeting/afternoon convention events/supper when my friend gets off work? (So, as Neroden emphasizes, reliability a.k.a. On Time Performance is very important, and frequency is important.)

How early do I have to leave the office to catch that train? (Folks like to leave after putting in a full day in the office, not at 3:40 p.m. like the Lake Shore Ltd. out of NYC.)

Can I grab something to eat in the station or on the train?

When will I get home? (Can I see the kids before their bedtime? Or is the Carolinian's 8:12 arrival nto Charlotte just a few minutes too late to do that?))

Can I do a same day go-early-and-return-late or will I have to pay for a hotel?

How much will the ticket cost?

Is service good, the cars shiny new or at least clean, and the amenities attractive?

Are the windows clean? Is there anything to see besides pine trees?

And more such items in roughly descending order of importance.

Anderson makes a great point that faster can mean better use of equipment and thus addresses Amtrak's chronic and crippling equipment shortage, and the better productivity can help to keep down costs. The rider doesn't know about that stuff, but that operational stuff greatly affects the answers to questions I listed above.

btw After puzzling over some of the timetables, I've grown a new respect for the folks who make up the Amtrak schedules. (Leave NYC after 5 p.m. and arrive Buffalo well after midnight. If the times are right for Cleveland, that messes up Pittsburgh. I've tried adjusting those times and it just doesn't work, LOL.) The larger solution as always is more Amtrak, with more frequencies in this case.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

Anderson, when you get a chance, a lot of these comments belong in the thread you started on a Fiscally Constrained System Vision.

My recent posts here have nothing to do with CHI-DEN, LOL. They just flowed naturally from other posts. But it's probably better to tidy up.

 

[Seaboard92]

Woody is right. That's what the customer wants. And diesels I wouldn't have the faintest idea on what they cost. The problem with Passenger power is that their isn't much of a market amtrak orders once every twenty years or so, and the commuter lines. But commuter power and road power I would argue are two different things. For one commuter power has to accelerate and decelerate quickly. And it doesn't have to remain at speed as long. Plus most commuter trains that I've ridden aren't more then four or five cars. Of course NJ transit metro North and Metra are exceptions.

A road engine needs to have a good range so a decent fuel tank and hopefully good fuel economy. And has to be able to maintain speed for long distances.

I'm guessing the closest thing to what Amtrak needs are the EMD F125 which if using the price Metrolink used come up to 12.9 million per engine. So for a fleet of about 210 which seems about what Amtrak normally buys as the P42 numbers would come up to 2.7 billion if my numbers are right. And that number of engines seems low to me as I would prefer more engines for more services. I'm not sure what the Siemens engine is costing. I'll look it ip

 

[Eric S]

I want to say Siemens Charger is in the $7-8 million range

 

[afigg]

A road engine needs to have a good range so a decent fuel tank and hopefully good fuel economy. And has to be able to maintain speed for long distances.

I'm guessing the closest thing to what Amtrak needs are the EMD F125 which if using the price Metrolink used come up to 12.9 million per engine. So for a fleet of about 210 which seems about what Amtrak normally buys as the P42 numbers would come up to 2.7 billion if my numbers are right. And that number of engines seems low to me as I would prefer more engines for more services. I'm not sure what the Siemens engine is costing. I'll look it ip

The base order of 32 units with Siemens works out to just over $7 million each. The base contract likely includes spare parts and training. The Siemens contract includes an option for up to 150 locomotives in long distance configuration, which I think the difference is mostly a larger fuel tank.

 

[neroden]

Let's see. With the capital charges going into effect, the states will be funding the locomotives for most of the state trains, one way or another.

Amtrak may be able to buy new diesel locomotives for states like VT/MA/NY/PA with an RRIF loan and pay the loan back with the state capital charges incurred over the lifetime of the locomotive. I bet Amtrak would still eat some residual cost but a fraction of the cost of the locomotive.

Anyway, that leaves the so-called long-distance trains where Amtrak needs to fund its own diesels. First, the east:

LSL: 3 trainsets * 2 locos

CL: 3 trainsets * 2 locos

Cardinal (daily): 3 trainsets * 2 locos

Silver Meteor: 4 trainsets * 2 locos

Silver Star: 4 trainsets * 2 locos

Palmetto: 2 trainsets * 2 locos

Crescent: 4 trainsets * 2 locos

CONO: 2 trainsets * 2 locos

Auto Train: 2 trainsets * 2 locos (is two locos enough here?)

----

54 locomotives. If there are efficiencies with the Silver Service, it might be possible to use less due to the electric running on the NEC.

And then the west:

EB: 5 trainsets * 2 locos

CZ: 6 trainsets * 2 locos

SWC: 5 trainsets * 2 locos

TE: 4 trainsets * 2 locos

Sunset Limited (daily): 6 trainsets * 2 locos

Coast Starlight: 4 trainsets * 2 locos

----

60 locomotives

So, assuming Charger pricing at $7 million, Amtrak itself is on the hook for about $800 million, or about $950 million with 20% spares.

Obviously any train which can be run with a single locomotive will save a locomotive.

Normally I would suggest assigning new equipment to the East first, because I think it's easier to justify internal funding for trains which are profitable based on direct costs.

But given the Charger orders by California, Washington State, Missouri, and Illinois, if Amtrak orders Chargers on their own account, maybe they should go on the Western trains, so that Amtrak can abandon GE maintenance in at least some of its maintenance bases.

 

[jis]

Palmetto has not run with two locos for more than five years now. Unless it suddenly becomes much longer train I don't see it needing two locos. Indeed even the current 7 car Silver Star is also running with a single loco many days.

 

[Seaboard92]

One thing we have to remember though is some lines have strange rules. Like the Hamlet and Columbia Subdivisons of CSX on 91/92 SAV-HAM two engines have to be on line for passenger trains of ten cars or more. So some other lines probably have that too

 

[neroden]

I am of the opinion that none of the eastern trains except the Auto Train should need two locos for traction at this time, at least not with the Chargers. Most of the eastern trains are on very flat routes, while the Cardinal, CL, and Pennsylvanian which run through the mountains are relatively short.

But try to tell that to the Class Is. Amtrak runs two locos for reliability reasons so that if one fails they can keep going, *not* because they're actually needed for pulling the trains. Perhaps parking rescue locos at key locations would be more effective but it would be a major operational change, and I'm not sure it would satisfy the Class Is. It might be worth thinking about.

Anyway, I was just trying to get a rough sense of what Amtrak needs to fund internally for its locomotive fleet. If all the eastern trains except Auto Train dropped to a single loco, that would be only 29; add 12 rescue locos at various points and you're up to 41; add 20% and you're up to about 50. Ends up being the same order of magnitude: $300-$400 million in the east, $400-$500 million in the west.

We should not under any circumstances assume short trains in the long run, because longer trains are more financially efficient and are the long-term goal. Most standard cars are 85 ft. long; add 5 feet for coupling, and you basically want 90 feet per car. Amtrak is encouraging new platforms to be built 1080 feet long, aka 12 cars. With two locomotives this allows the train to spot once for everything. It's tolerable if the locomotives hang off the platform, however. New locomotives will be around for the long run; Amtrak should get enough to allow them to pull trains which are at least 13 cars long (since you can half-platform the front and rear car and still spot the train once).