Equipment Order in the works this year (2018)?

Shop deals on ebay
shop deals on amazon
Advertise with us
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Hopefully these RFIs (Request for Information) will provide enough information so that Anderson can then issue an RFP (Request for Proposal) to have contract signed to purchase new equipment in the near future.
 
After seeing whats going on the last thing we want is a new order by Anderson. A stinker of an order could be the true death of Amtrak.

Hes on record saying he wants to scrap Superliner and Amfleet equipment and replace east of Mississippi corridor service with rail vehicles.

Notice no replacement for scraped Superliners/Amfleets. No benefit of the doubt left at this point in time.

How messed up is it after all Amtraks been through to get their highest appropriation ever with bi partisan support at time when nothing in the country is bi partisan, only to be destroyed from within by a non comprising ideology driven CEO whos utterly clueless.

This would have been the perfect time to do a Superliner 3 order with bipartisan support instead of anchoring Amtrak with debt from whatever Anderson orders which more then likely wont be appropriate for corridors or the national network.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The RFI is basically for Amfleet replacement, explicitly for east of Mississippi service. Why would that have any impact on Superliners? The only difference that may come out of it is that we may get some mix of trailer cars and EMU/DMU/EDMU, instead of just trailers. That will have no impact on LD service and has the potential of improving corridor service considerably.

So all in all I would love to see a well thought out order that moves Amtrak equipment into the 21st Century from vintage mid 20th Century.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good. Amtrak is in dire need of new equipment. Looking forward to see what direction they go in. EMU trainsets would be an interesting look, I've ridden some in Europe and they are great.
 
What's interesting about them getting EMUs is to see what they would plan to do with all the ACS-64s that they just got. Run fewer and have a higher spare ratio?
 
DSS&A said:
Hopefully these RFIs (Request for Information) will provide enough information so that Anderson can then issue an RFP (Request for Proposal) to have contract signed to purchase new equipment in the near future.
Click to expand...
Looks like that the earliest an RFP can go out is after October.

Trogdor said:
What's interesting about them getting EMUs is to see what they would plan to do with all the ACS-64s that they just got. Run fewer and have a higher spare ratio?
Click to expand...
Or increase service...

One possibility would be to go for enough EDMUs for Virginia Service, and re-purpose the ACS-64s for use in push-pull sets (with the acquisition of California style cab cars as part of a trailer car suborder) like Austria does in RailJet possibly with some increase in frequency.

One can dream up other random schemes like that.

What I am curious to see is a service plan driving the mix of things to acquire. There is such a plan for Acela IIs. So why not one for East of Mississippi Services.

It at least appears so frar that this is not about Eastern Single Level LD trains, but who knows? No reason that a bunch of slightly differently furnished Coaches suitable for long distance cannot be thrown into the mix.
 
Trogdor said:
What's interesting about them getting EMUs is to see what they would plan to do with all the ACS-64s that they just got. Run fewer and have a higher spare ratio?
Click to expand...
It's based on the EuroSprinter and Vectron sold around the world. Should not be hard to dispose them, but I think Amtrak would need them for LD and day trains (Palmetto) through the NEC. The commuter agencies along the NEC would be interested too.
 
Interesting insight into how Anderson thinks regarding new equipment- From his time at Delta.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/delta-in-talks-with-boeing-to-launch-nma-bastian-449780/

"The idea that Delta could launch the NMA is one of the more significant breaks by Bastian from his predecessor Richard Anderson. Anderson, who led the airline from 2007 to 2016, publicly eschewed new technology aircraft, calling the risks too great compared to the benefits of lower capital cost existing technology.

“My balance sheet is not equipped to take [airframers'] technical risk," he said on the Airbus A350 and Boeing 787 in an interview with Airline Business in 2014. "Once those airplanes are proven, then we’ll be in a position to be able to operate them.”"

Anderson is going to want equipment that has proven itself in the field.
 
frequentflyer said:
Interesting insight into how Anderson thinks regarding new equipment- From his time at Delta.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/delta-in-talks-with-boeing-to-launch-nma-bastian-449780/

"The idea that Delta could launch the NMA is one of the more significant breaks by Bastian from his predecessor Richard Anderson. Anderson, who led the airline from 2007 to 2016, publicly eschewed new technology aircraft, calling the risks too great compared to the benefits of lower capital cost existing technology.

“My balance sheet is not equipped to take [airframers'] technical risk," he said on the Airbus A350 and Boeing 787 in an interview with Airline Business in 2014. "Once those airplanes are proven, then we’ll be in a position to be able to operate them.”"

Anderson is going to want equipment that has proven itself in the field.
Click to expand...
That was years ago and in a completely different industry. There are much greater risks involved in a flawed or unproven aircraft than in an unproven piece of rolling stock. If a train loses engine power it might just slow to a stop. If a plane loses engine power it might fall out of the sky and explode. I'm oversimplifying a little bit, but my point is that you can't really compare new aircraft and the risks involved to new rolling stock.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cpotisch said:
That was years ago and in a completely different industry. There are much greater risks involved in a flawed or unproven aircraft than in an unproven piece of rolling stock. If a train loses engine power it might just slow to a stop. If a plane loses engine power it might fall out of the sky and explode. I'm oversimplifying a little bit, but my point is that you can't really compare new aircraft and the risks involved to new rolling stock.
Click to expand...
How can you possibly say that? There hasn't been a case of an airliner crashing due to engine failure in many years, maybe decades. Uncontained engine failures are not unheard of, but I can think of only this year's Southwest incident that caused a fatality, and the plane was landed safely with not an explosion to be seen. Qantas and Air France A380s have had uncontained failures, as did Southwest in 2016, all of which landed safely. The two worst incidents, British in 2015 and AA in 2016 that both made a crash landing with passenger injuries, were powered by well-proven engines dating from the 80s and 90s. The 787 battery fiasco did not lead to any fatalities, nor have the more recent Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce engine problems on the A320neo and 787, respectively.
 
keelhauled said:
cpotisch said:
That was years ago and in a completely different industry. There are much greater risks involved in a flawed or unproven aircraft than in an unproven piece of rolling stock. If a train loses engine power it might just slow to a stop. If a plane loses engine power it might fall out of the sky and explode. I'm oversimplifying a little bit, but my point is that you can't really compare new aircraft and the risks involved to new rolling stock.
Click to expand...
How can you possibly say that? There hasn't been a case of an airliner crashing due to engine failure in many years, maybe decades. Uncontained engine failures are not unheard of, but I can think of only this year's Southwest incident that caused a fatality, and the plane was landed safely with not an explosion to be seen. Qantas and Air France A380s have had uncontained failures, as did Southwest in 2016, all of which landed safely. The two worst incidents, British in 2015 and AA in 2016 that both made a crash landing with passenger injuries, were powered by well-proven engines dating from the 80s and 90s. The 787 battery fiasco did not lead to any fatalities, nor have the more recent Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce engine problems on the A320neo and 787, respectively.
Click to expand...
The point remains that Anderson’s 2014 comments and positions on airline equipment as Delta CEO do not necessarily hold true for passenger rail equipment in 2018 as Amtrak CEO. He may feel the same way about both, but as Amtrak CEO he hasn’t indicated one way or the other.
 
My point was Anderson will not be looking at cutting edge tech that has not proven itself. So far, the Siemens locomotives and cars in service with Amtrak and other companies have not yielded any problems that we know of. Stadler, the company you can hear him talking too in the California Video will be presenting DMUs, but again, Stadler has a track record of products that have been in service in harsh winters for a number of years. Whatever chosen, it will be based on off the rack equipment.
 
The main takeaway is that focus will be on off the shelf equipment with minimal modifications needed for complying with FRA regs. I think we have known this for a little while now.

Incidentally this is exactly the approach that Brightline took too.
 
Actually a Railjet Type train would work for the Northeast Regionals and that I could support. The actual RailJets are fantastic trains even though I feel some of the older ones are starting to show their age. I've been riding them since day one

But great practical trains where a locomotive change is incredibly easy to do. They have the standard linkage between the first car and the locomotive. So nothing is overly special about that. The inside is what I like. Also the fact the crews who have one walk down the platform with a poise and command that tells you. This is the hottest train on the line.
 
frequentflyer said:
Interesting insight into how Anderson thinks regarding new equipment- From his time at Delta.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/delta-in-talks-with-boeing-to-launch-nma-bastian-449780/

"The idea that Delta could launch the NMA is one of the more significant breaks by Bastian from his predecessor Richard Anderson. Anderson, who led the airline from 2007 to 2016, publicly eschewed new technology aircraft, calling the risks too great compared to the benefits of lower capital cost existing technology.

My balance sheet is not equipped to take [airframers'] technical risk," he said on the Airbus A350 and Boeing 787 in an interview with Airline Business in 2014. "Once those airplanes are proven, then well be in a position to be able to operate them."

Anderson is going to want equipment that has proven itself in the field.
Click to expand...
Later that same year Delta ordered 25 Airbus A350s. It seems just as likely that he was negotiating through the press as he was making a definitive statement on new technology.
 
blueman271 said:
frequentflyer said:
Interesting insight into how Anderson thinks regarding new equipment- From his time at Delta.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/delta-in-talks-with-boeing-to-launch-nma-bastian-449780/

"The idea that Delta could launch the NMA is one of the more significant breaks by Bastian from his predecessor Richard Anderson. Anderson, who led the airline from 2007 to 2016, publicly eschewed new technology aircraft, calling the risks too great compared to the benefits of lower capital cost existing technology.

My balance sheet is not equipped to take [airframers'] technical risk," he said on the Airbus A350 and Boeing 787 in an interview with Airline Business in 2014. "Once those airplanes are proven, then well be in a position to be able to operate them."

Anderson is going to want equipment that has proven itself in the field.
Click to expand...
Later that same year Delta ordered 25 Airbus A350s. It seems just as likely that he was negotiating through the press as he was making a definitive statement on new technolog
Click to expand...
True, not to go all avgeek, but that order also included proven in service A330s and supposedly Airbus could deliver the order faster than Boeing. On the flip side Delta inherited NWA's order of 787s that Delta never exercised, though the aircraft were priced at "launch" (read cheap) prices. The A350 service entry has been incredibly smooth for a new plane while the 787 service entry had been anything but.
 
cpotisch said:
frequentflyer said:
Interesting insight into how Anderson thinks regarding new equipment- From his time at Delta.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/delta-in-talks-with-boeing-to-launch-nma-bastian-449780/

"The idea that Delta could launch the NMA is one of the more significant breaks by Bastian from his predecessor Richard Anderson. Anderson, who led the airline from 2007 to 2016, publicly eschewed new technology aircraft, calling the risks too great compared to the benefits of lower capital cost existing technology.

My balance sheet is not equipped to take [airframers'] technical risk," he said on the Airbus A350 and Boeing 787 in an interview with Airline Business in 2014. "Once those airplanes are proven, then well be in a position to be able to operate them."

Anderson is going to want equipment that has proven itself in the field.
Click to expand...
That was years ago and in a completely different industry. There are much greater risks involved in a flawed or unproven aircraft than in an unproven piece of rolling stock. If a train loses engine power it might just slow to a stop. If a plane loses engine power it might fall out of the sky and explode. I'm oversimplifying a little bit, but my point is that you can't really compare new aircraft and the risks involved to new rolling stock.
Click to expand...
I was once on a Northeast Regional that lost power. It was late at night and 12 degrees outside. We waited long enough to start getting cold. Then they transferred us to a northbound train and took us back to Boston. Then they locked us into the waiting room at south station while they hauled the stricken train back to Boston and put an older, more reliable motor in front. We finally left about 5 hours late and, fortunately, didnt lose any more time.

Sure, it's not the same as a spectacular plane failure in mid-air, but constant delays due to malfunctioning equipment that hasn't been properly beta testing aren't going to help Amtrak grow its business.
 
MARC Rider said:
cpotisch said:
frequentflyer said:
Interesting insight into how Anderson thinks regarding new equipment- From his time at Delta.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/delta-in-talks-with-boeing-to-launch-nma-bastian-449780/

"The idea that Delta could launch the NMA is one of the more significant breaks by Bastian from his predecessor Richard Anderson. Anderson, who led the airline from 2007 to 2016, publicly eschewed new technology aircraft, calling the risks too great compared to the benefits of lower capital cost existing technology.

My balance sheet is not equipped to take [airframers'] technical risk," he said on the Airbus A350 and Boeing 787 in an interview with Airline Business in 2014. "Once those airplanes are proven, then well be in a position to be able to operate them."

Anderson is going to want equipment that has proven itself in the field.
Click to expand...
That was years ago and in a completely different industry. There are much greater risks involved in a flawed or unproven aircraft than in an unproven piece of rolling stock. If a train loses engine power it might just slow to a stop. If a plane loses engine power it might fall out of the sky and explode. I'm oversimplifying a little bit, but my point is that you can't really compare new aircraft and the risks involved to new rolling stock.
Click to expand...
I was once on a Northeast Regional that lost power. It was late at night and 12 degrees outside. We waited long enough to start getting cold. Then they transferred us to a northbound train and took us back to Boston. Then they locked us into the waiting room at south station while they hauled the stricken train back to Boston and put an older, more reliable motor in front. We finally left about 5 hours late and, fortunately, didnt lose any more time.

Sure, it's not the same as a spectacular plane failure in mid-air, but constant delays due to malfunctioning equipment that hasn't been properly beta testing aren't going to help Amtrak grow its business.
Click to expand...
Very true. I just meant that the risks and liability of unproven aircraft to that of unproven rolling stock.
 
Howdy folks,

I’ve been active on other forums about this topic and forgot that I hadn’t been here in a while, and I look forward to discussing this with you all.

First, I want to say that I think it’s ridiculous that Anderson is seriously considering DMUs for corridors east of Mississippi, including the state stupoorted lines already getting the Chargers. I’ve ridden on DMUs before, in England. I wasn’t impressed..it felt more like a bus than a train, and I don’t want to feel like I’m taking a bus from Michigan to Chicago. In addition, if this is some sort of attempt to dramatically expand corridor service, I’m all for that, but capacity issues need to be considered at CUS. Amtrak’s Illinois and Michigan corridor trains are packed into half of south concourse along with most of the LD trains and the one-offs like Hoosier State, Sandburg, and Illinois Zephyr. There are proposals to move some of the Metra services to LaSalle Street but those are a long way off for now.

The replacement of the Amfleets and Superliners: we knew it was going to happen eventually. I personally think Siemens will get the nod for the new cars, considering they have functioning examples on Brightline with the Chargers and as far as I’m aware, things are running smoothly. I loved the Superliners that I rode in this past summer on the Chief, Starlight, and Builder, but at this point I’m just not sure they’re practical anymore. It’s a shame really, but I’m looking forward to seeing what Siemens and others will cook up for replacements.

Locomotive RFP: Siemens, hands down. The EMD F125 isn’t exactly flying off the shelves and supposedly has had problems, GE just sold off their locomotive business to Wabtec and their engine (the HSP) is a little more than a joke at the expense of the Massachusetts taxpayer. As much as I like the P42s, I don’t think we’re going to see a rebuild of them.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top