Florida East Coast Proposes Passenger Service

[MikefromCrete]

Lead times are long if they plan to buy new equipment. I think it's entirely possible that they plan to buy used equipment.

How about using Amfleet cars? Either renting them from Amtrak or having the NRPC as the designated (though not yet named or confirmed) operator, they exist, and there are enough until new cars are built. Also, the use of "Jet Train" locomotive drew some laughs but so did the Viewliner Diner, until the right people were gathered up to make it work. Therefore, if some additional untouched P40's can be rolled out of the weeds at Bear, DE and use some of the money from the All Aboard Florida project to pay for their rehab, along with the rehab of remaining Amfleets and the Jet Train engine, there ya go! At least we've got something in the meantime.

I'm going to wince as I say this, but...what about IL's hi-level stockpile?

Illinois does not have a stockpile of high level cars. There are hi-levels, still for sale, I believe, at a used passenger car dealer in the Illinois part of the St. Louis metropolitan area. The Illinois Department of Transportation took a look at the cars several years ago, but did not buy them. I don't know what speeds the cars are rated for, but the use of 60-year-old cars wouldn't be very impressive for folks expecting a new high speed operation.

 

[Anderson]

Lead times are long if they plan to buy new equipment. I think it's entirely possible that they plan to buy used equipment.

How about using Amfleet cars? Either renting them from Amtrak or having the NRPC as the designated (though not yet named or confirmed) operator, they exist, and there are enough until new cars are built. Also, the use of "Jet Train" locomotive drew some laughs but so did the Viewliner Diner, until the right people were gathered up to make it work. Therefore, if some additional untouched P40's can be rolled out of the weeds at Bear, DE and use some of the money from the All Aboard Florida project to pay for their rehab, along with the rehab of remaining Amfleets and the Jet Train engine, there ya go! At least we've got something in the meantime.

I'm going to wince as I say this, but...what about IL's hi-level stockpile?

Illinois does not have a stockpile of high level cars. There are hi-levels, still for sale, I believe, at a used passenger car dealer in the Illinois part of the St. Louis metropolitan area. The Illinois Department of Transportation took a look at the cars several years ago, but did not buy them. I don't know what speeds the cars are rated for, but the use of 60-year-old cars wouldn't be very impressive for folks expecting a new high speed operation.

Unless there are degradation issues, the cars should have been designed for at least 90 MPH operation given their initial area of operation (the ATSF main line). The question of 100-110 MPH operation is, of course, an open one...but most of the talk now appears to be focused on 80-90 MPH speed maximums instead of 110/125 MPH, and adding 10-20 MPH to operations along a 20-40 mile segment of track (i.e. Orlando-Cocoa) would seem to have marginal benefits for the time being.

Of course, the other obvious options would be either for the FEC to simply "pitch in" on the bilevel order (assuming 8-10 sets, you'd be looking at somewhere between 32-60 cars getting added to the order), to buy off a batch of Horizons (given the choice, I'd prefer the Hi-Levels for a whole host of reasons), to buy Amfleets (Amtrak doesn't have spares lying around to sell, do they?), and to "buy something else" (either old or new).

As to the ownership, for some reason I thought that IL had bought them and then not managed to refurbish them. That's my bad; sorry 'bout that.

 

[jis]

The Jet Train locomotive has never been certified for commercial operation at any speed. It was just a prototype demo unit.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

What about the state supported services that are expected to lose federal funding? Are none of those likely to result in more coach cars being freed up?

 

[AlanB]

What about the state supported services that are expected to lose federal funding? Are none of those likely to result in more coach cars being freed up?

While of course nothing is ever set in stone when it comes to things like the above, at present it looks like only Indiana is unlikely to step up to the plate to continue the Hoosier State. There is also some doubt about the Pennsylvanian at present, but I suspect that PA will eventually step up and do the right thing.

All other state appear to be making the right noises that would lead one to believe that they will step into the funding void created by the new rules set down by Congress.

But even if both the Hoosier & the Pennsy went down, that's not going to free up too many cars. And I'm sure that Amtrak can find other uses for those cars anyhow, without needing to send them down to the FEC.

 

[Gratt]

I think one person pointed out already that if these cars were paid for with private money then there are no "buy American" clauses attached. The only restrictions would come from the FRA, and even some of those could be waved.

So theoretically the cars could be bought in Europe or Asia, though again US safety guidelines would come into play, but that still gives the FEC a lot more flexibility as to where to purchase new equipment.

 

[Anderson]

What about the state supported services that are expected to lose federal funding? Are none of those likely to result in more coach cars being freed up?

While of course nothing is ever set in stone when it comes to things like the above, at present it looks like only Indiana is unlikely to step up to the plate to continue the Hoosier State. There is also some doubt about the Pennsylvanian at present, but I suspect that PA will eventually step up and do the right thing.

All other state appear to be making the right noises that would lead one to believe that they will step into the funding void created by the new rules set down by Congress.

But even if both the Hoosier & the Pennsy went down, that's not going to free up too many cars. And I'm sure that Amtrak can find other uses for those cars anyhow, without needing to send them down to the FEC.

On the one hand, I don't have ready access to PA's "noises"; on the other hand, I would be sort of surprised if they cut the Pennsylvanian, considering both its high ridership (for a once-daily corridor operation) and the fact that they were apparently seriously looking at adding a second daily frequency lately. Mind you, it seems quite possible that there are going to be sour grapes over Amtrak not counting any PHL-NYP travel towards PA's credit...but I'm not sure that this would be enough to get the train canned.

 

[jis]

On the one hand, I don't have ready access to PA's "noises"; on the other hand, I would be sort of surprised if they cut the Pennsylvanian, considering both its high ridership (for a once-daily corridor operation) and the fact that they were apparently seriously looking at adding a second daily frequency lately. Mind you, it seems quite possible that there are going to be sour grapes over Amtrak not counting any PHL-NYP travel towards PA's credit...but I'm not sure that this would be enough to get the train canned.

PennDoT negotiating for some future possibilities with Amtrak and PA Legislature funding something this coming year or not are two completely different things and one of those heading in a positive direction while the other heads in a negative direction for the immediate future is not inconsistent with the way how these things often go down.

However, I really don't believe that PA won't come up with the money to continue running the Pennsylvanian. PA and Amtrak will most likely work out something. PA is not Indiana.

The biggest new state bills will be for California and New York, and both of those states appear to be completely ready to step up to the plate.

PHL - NYP runs do not count towards any credit for anybody. At that point it is a corridor train paid for by NEC and revenues accruing to NEC. Just like VA does not get credit for running Regionals between WAS and NYP. That is not how Section 209 is written and how it is being interpreted by the STB.

 

[Anderson]

On the one hand, I don't have ready access to PA's "noises"; on the other hand, I would be sort of surprised if they cut the Pennsylvanian, considering both its high ridership (for a once-daily corridor operation) and the fact that they were apparently seriously looking at adding a second daily frequency lately. Mind you, it seems quite possible that there are going to be sour grapes over Amtrak not counting any PHL-NYP travel towards PA's credit...but I'm not sure that this would be enough to get the train canned.

PennDoT negotiating for some future possibilities with Amtrak and PA Legislature funding something this coming year or not are two completely different things and one of those heading in a positive direction while the other heads in a negative direction for the immediate future is not inconsistent with the way how these things often go down.

However, I really don't believe that PA won't come up with the money to continue running the Pennsylvanian. PA and Amtrak will most likely work out something. PA is not Indiana.

The biggest new state bills will be for California and New York, and both of those states appear to be completely ready to step up to the plate.

PHL - NYP runs do not count towards any credit for anybody. At that point it is a corridor train paid for by NEC and revenues accruing to NEC. Just like VA does not get credit for running Regionals between WAS and NYP. That is not how Section 209 is written and how it is being interpreted by the STB.

They did prior to Section 209 (at least for Virginia, hence the messy recalculations), and I could easily see the state having sour grapes over it.

IN is...well, IN has had the Hoosier State more by accident than anything, and I honestly don't think they care if it stays or goes. To be fair, the timings and speeds on it are lousy enough that I can't blame them for not wanting to pick up the tab for such a service.

 

[TVRM610]

I don't know what speeds the cars are rated for, but the use of 60-year-old cars wouldn't be very impressive for folks expecting a new high speed operation.

I do not understand this statement... who cares how old the cars are as long as they look nice and they run smooth / safely? The NCDOT cars are 60 years old, but they look brand new. Obviously the cars would be refurbished to look like new.

 

[bretton88]

I don't know what speeds the cars are rated for, but the use of 60-year-old cars wouldn't be very impressive for folks expecting a new high speed operation.

I do not understand this statement... who cares how old the cars are as long as they look nice and they run smooth / safely? The NCDOT cars are 60 years old, but they look brand new. Obviously the cars would be refurbished to look like new.

If they can be rated for 110mph operation, they would work really well. Just need a major overhaul, like new interior colors and furnishing. They certainly have good, high capacity too. Now, a few would have to have a complete renovation to become the promised bistros. But they could work well. The only thing is that single level cars are considered to be "sexier" and thus more attractive.

 

[Nickrapak]

Lead times are long if they plan to buy new equipment. I think it's entirely possible that they plan to buy used equipment. Perhaps we're the blindly optimistic folks assuming new service automatically equals new hardware.

What about the only high-speed non-electric trainsets in this country today...The Turboliners!

<cue maniacal laughter>

 

[rrdude]

I don't know what speeds the cars are rated for, but the use of 60-year-old cars wouldn't be very impressive for folks expecting a new high speed operation.

I do not understand this statement... who cares how old the cars are as long as they look nice and they run smooth / safely? The NCDOT cars are 60 years old, but they look brand new. Obviously the cars would be refurbished to look like new.

If they can be rated for 110mph operation, they would work really well. Just need a major overhaul, like new interior colors and furnishing. They certainly have good, high capacity too. Now, a few would have to have a complete renovation to become the promised bistros. But they could work well. The only thing is that single level cars are considered to be "sexier" and thus more attractive.

Totally disagree, in fact IMHO, the "sexiest" rail cars on the planet are the double-deck HSR cars.

 

[Trogdor]

I know it's probably been mentioned already, but there are two almost-completed trainsets in a warehouse in Milwaukee looking for a home. All they need is about $10 million/year in maintenance upkeep.

 

[Anderson]

I don't know what speeds the cars are rated for, but the use of 60-year-old cars wouldn't be very impressive for folks expecting a new high speed operation.

I do not understand this statement... who cares how old the cars are as long as they look nice and they run smooth / safely? The NCDOT cars are 60 years old, but they look brand new. Obviously the cars would be refurbished to look like new.

If they can be rated for 110mph operation, they would work really well. Just need a major overhaul, like new interior colors and furnishing. They certainly have good, high capacity too. Now, a few would have to have a complete renovation to become the promised bistros. But they could work well. The only thing is that single level cars are considered to be "sexier" and thus more attractive.

My feeling is that it's trainsets that a fascination (that I can not understand because of equipment inflexibility) has built around.

And at least in Amtrak's plan, the corridor cars were to be bilevels (though obviously the Silvers would remain single level due to operating up north).

As to the Talgos, the biggest problems that I see are:

1) There's no ready way to expand the equipment in use, since Talgo is shutting its production facility down;

2) Two sets isn't going to be enough for the advertised service, which I believe mentions hourly service. That implies 6-10 sets of equipment (6 if you're willing to have a periodic gap in service; 10 if you want to avoid that and you account for needing 20% of the equipment as spares...though this might be kept down slightly if all of the inspections and whatnot take place in Florida); and

3) IIRC, there's no real advantage to using the Talgos in FL given the relatively straight tracks.

As to the Hi-Levels: I'm certain that they are capable of 90 MPH. Whether they can do 110 MPH is a question mark, of course, but you have a lot of PVs from the same era that are rated for 110 MPH...to say nothing of Amtrak's Heritage equipment of the same general vintage.

To be honest, if I was the FEC and I really wanted to make 2014 for a startup that needed 8-10 sets, I'd grab the Hi-Levels while placing an order for equipment that would (more or less) match up in appearance. I'd make sure that the cafe/bistros were at the "front of the line" for delivery (to fill the gap in the existing equipment; basically, whomever was delivering the equipment would be told to build the cafes first and the coaches second), and I'd order about 8-10 trains' worth of equipment. Eventually (I'm assuming 4-6 years for delivering the whole order), I would phase the Hi-Levels out of regular service (though still using them as the protect sets, for "surge" equipment when the seasons demanded it, and/or to enable a relatively quick startup of new service to Tampa and/or Jacksonville should that time come). Even if I couldn't get the full hourly service running with the extant equipment, I'd have enough to run reasonably frequent service right out of the gate, with a planned stepping-up of service a year or two down the road.

 

[PRR 60]

With no federal money involved, FEC does not have to be constrained by "Buy USA" requirements. As long as they can get equipment designed or modified to meet FRA requirement, they can go offshore.

 

[johnny.menhennet]

What may happen in terms of passenger service on the FEC took another step today. Saw the headline on the Trains magazine website, but the story there is only available to subscribers. So I found a Daytona Beach newspaper story that the Florida Legislature passed the bill setting the insurance liability issues that had been a roadblock for state supported Amtrak service over the FEC and Tri-Rail from Jacksonville to Miami.

The story focuses on what FL DOT can achieve with the $118 million they have allocated such as 80 mph service, not 90 mph, maybe one round trip train a day, not two. Not clear if that would be a state supported corridor service or a Silver Star split at JAX. Does not mention the FEC recent announcement of plans for a Miami to Cocoa to Orlando corridor service. There are now multiple players with different interests: Amtrak, the state DOT, the towns that want train service on the entire MIA-JAX corridor, and FEC which is proposing to spend a $1 billion in private financing. Does the FEC agree to Amtrak and state supported 1-2 trains a day service to JAX while setting up their own Miami to Cocoa then eventually to Orlando high frequency service? While the FEC is really in the drivers seat, they will need extensive state cooperation to build tracks to Orlando (then to Tampa over what is presumably the former HSR ROW). Will the FEC proposal for a privately funded corridor service result in severely undercutting the FL DOT and Amtrak plans for a JAX to Miami service?

One other thing that has no doubt appealed to the FEC's strategic planners is the already underway construction project to restore the FEC's direct rail link to the Port of Miami.

While the obvious intent of this is to be able to move intermodal trains directly on and off the port and keep a significant portion of truck traffic off of downtown Miami streets, bear in mind that the Port of Miami is actually located in Biscayne Bay on Dodge Island... on which both cargo and passenger vessels call.

Right there is a golden opportunity to move cruise ship pax to and from ships, possibly in private railcars owned by the cruise lines, similar to their operations in conjunction with the Alaska RR for cruise pax there.

The Port of Miami is the busiest cruise ship port in the world, and then add having nearby Port Everglades & Port Canaveral also having access to on-dock or near-dock passenger rail could represent considerable business potential.

Remind me...how far is the Ft. Lauderdale station (and/or the FEC line) from the cruise ports there?

What this does raise is some interesting possibilities, such as cruises being able to add on a "Disney adder" on one end of a cruise as part of a package...or, indeed, Disney being able to do run some operations that include a rail transfer to/from the ships.

While I do think that adding cars and using them to ferry post-cruise pax to the Orlando area, Disney itself will not do that. Disney ships in the Caribbean only leave from Port Canaveral, so Disney may arrange a shuttle from there, but there would not be any major Disney charters. I love that the FEC line does go right into the ports though, and while still not a good walk from Port Everglades, it is a lot closer there, if there is a well-located station. I actually find Anderson's suggestion of the Hi-Levels a fantastic idea. I was very skeptical when this was first mentioned because I did not believe that there were really 70 of them (I'm figuring 7 car trains if they want to make a profit). After nobody else saying this though, I think that they could work out very well for the FEC though. Overall, I am excited to see where this project will go.

 

[Anderson]

Johnny,

I think there are only 35-40 coaches, but I could be wrong. However, let's not forget that cars can be switched around, and that the Florida market is likely to be far more seasonal than rail traffic at large. The pattern will generally be the same (high in the summer and at the holidays, low in spring/fall), but the ups and downs will be higher given how tourist-heavy the route is likely to be. So while the Hi-Levels aren't the answer, they are a part of an answer, and one that would give the FEC a startup fleet more quickly and a surge fleet/backup fleet/expansion fleet more affordably. The FEC is going to need to order at least some new equipment, but it's a matter of how much and how quickly they can put it together. One point worth noting: I think the IP surrounding the Hi-Levels is fair game by this point, given that the last one was built over half a century ago...so simply ordering slightly modified versions of them (i.e. adjusted to have on-board Wi-Fi and comply with the ADA) wouldn't necessarily be a hard thing to do.

Though they're not necessarily going to be tied up with ordering equipment in the US, who could they go to overseas that:

A) Is used to making stuff to FRA specs; and

B) Wouldn't run into issues with shipping the cars?

The latter...I'm not sure how much shipping a bunch of railcars would add, but it can't be cheap to try and move that much equipment by boat.

 

[johnny.menhennet]

Johnny,

I think there are only 35-40 coaches, but I could be wrong. However, let's not forget that cars can be switched around, and that the Florida market is likely to be far more seasonal than rail traffic at large. The pattern will generally be the same (high in the summer and at the holidays, low in spring/fall), but the ups and downs will be higher given how tourist-heavy the route is likely to be. So while the Hi-Levels aren't the answer, they are a part of an answer, and one that would give the FEC a startup fleet more quickly and a surge fleet/backup fleet/expansion fleet more affordably. The FEC is going to need to order at least some new equipment, but it's a matter of how much and how quickly they can put it together. One point worth noting: I think the IP surrounding the Hi-Levels is fair game by this point, given that the last one was built over half a century ago...so simply ordering slightly modified versions of them (i.e. adjusted to have on-board Wi-Fi and comply with the ADA) wouldn't necessarily be a hard thing to do.

Though they're not necessarily going to be tied up with ordering equipment in the US, who could they go to overseas that:

A) Is used to making stuff to FRA specs; and

B) Wouldn't run into issues with shipping the cars?

The latter...I'm not sure how much shipping a bunch of railcars would add, but it can't be cheap to try and move that much equipment by boat.

Thanks for that response, Anderson. While 40 is not the 70 they would probably like, it would definitely do. It could provide probably provide 90 minute frequencies at best, which for people not spoiled by having the PacSurf a half mile from your house running hourly, is fantastic. I actually disagree about the peak season for the Florida market though. I know that Miami gets 3x as many cruise ships per day in the winter than in the summer, and Port Everglades gets about 1 1/2x that of the summer. Since this discussion has revolved so heavily around the u]possible use by cruise ship pax, then I think that surge capacity would be greater in the winter. Nobody wants to spend all day at Disney World anyways when it's 100 degrees out and muggy anyways, so I assume most Orlando-bound tourist traffic would in fact be in the winter.

 

[SM Nelson]

I hold some FEC bonds. They are rated B3, or junk, and pay a really nice interest rate (8.125%) and are secured paper. They are junk because RR's do not generate large amounts of cash, especially FEC, and their assets are in difficult to convert real estate. The bonds represent virtually the entire debt of the RR, $475 million and mature in 2017. The RR is profitable but not by much, especially considering the debt service $$ every six months. Any funding of passenger trains and new lines will require all outside money. Should the RR incur any debt itself I do not believe they could pay it because the current bond issue is secured and any other paper would be subordinate and carry a prohibitive interest rate if anyone would buy the paper at all. I suspect a new corporation would have to be created to run the service and to issue debt paper. FEC as currently structured cannot issue any debt paper without retiring the current bond issue and there is little money to do that. Stay tuned.

 

[Rob_C]

Totally disagree, in fact IMHO, the "sexiest" rail cars on the planet are the double-deck HSR cars.

Amen!! On that note, just finished the Northeast Regional double-deck HSR set model, maybe it is time to do one in FEC livery??

Video on youtube: http://youtu.be/OZ8Kf_tpodo

 

[jis]

With no federal money involved, FEC does not have to be constrained by "Buy USA" requirements. As long as they can get equipment designed or modified to meet FRA requirement, they can go offshore.

That is correct. For example, the NJ Transit ALP-46s, 46as and PL42s were manufactured in Germany and Poland. They were funded entirely from New Jersey funds hence no "Buy USA" requirement on them.

 

[jis]

Unless there are degradation issues, the cars should have been designed for at least 90 MPH operation given their initial area of operation (the ATSF main line). The question of 100-110 MPH operation is, of course, an open one...but most of the talk now appears to be focused on 80-90 MPH speed maximums instead of 110/125 MPH, and adding 10-20 MPH to operations along a 20-40 mile segment of track (i.e. Orlando-Cocoa) would seem to have marginal benefits for the time being.

Methinks you grossly under-estimate the amount of 100+ speed that is being contemplated. Actually the proportion of 100+ running proposed will probably be higher for this than say between Boston and New York on the NEC.

The plan as stated is 90mph from Miami to West Palm, that is all of about 65 miles or so.

Then 110mph from West Palm to Cocoa which is about 130 miles.

And finally Cocoa to Orlando 125 mph over a distance of about 55 miles or so.

So only about a quarter of the total distance is targeted form 90mph MAS. The rest is 100+, mostly 110mph. Of course there will be some PSRs at curves etc. But the general prevailing MAS is planned to be as stated above.

That said, I am skeptical that they will start the entire service in 2014. They will probably get a lower speed initial segment upto Cocoa in place by 2014 if that. I am skeptical about that too.

PHL - NYP runs do not count towards any credit for anybody. At that point it is a corridor train paid for by NEC and revenues accruing to NEC. Just like VA does not get credit for running Regionals between WAS and NYP. That is not how Section 209 is written and how it is being interpreted by the STB.

They did prior to Section 209 (at least for Virginia, hence the messy recalculations), and I could easily see the state having sour grapes over it.

That was a one off deal that Amtrak had with Virginia. That has nothing to do with what the Section 209 rules as stated by FRA are. Any future operations will be based on the new rules, not the rules that Amtrak had in the past with some state or the other.

IN is...well, IN has had the Hoosier State more by accident than anything, and I honestly don't think they care if it stays or goes. To be fair, the timings and speeds on it are lousy enough that I can't blame them for not wanting to pick up the tab for such a service.

Indiana has refused to participate in any state funded trains under Section 209. So it is not just Hoosier State that is in question, though effectively that is the only one currently affected. It has nothing to do with Hoosier State's schedule or any such. Even if it ran at 200mph IN would not chip in, or that is essentially what they have said in effect.

I guess their position is something like "We might fund something that provides connectivity from the extreme NW corner to Chicago, but even that we will do under some special deal, not the Section 209 rules, since it will not involve Amtrak".

And speaking of using ATSF Hi-Levels I think is viable only if used for limited time, though at great cost to refurbish them and make them 110 capable, if it can be done at all. Afterall you won't just take things that have been in storage for 20 years expect them to just run fine off the shelf. For long term use it is a pretty bad idea. They will be expensive to maintain, and the intended use is much more intensive and punishing with frequent start stop and quick acceleration and deceleration than the sedate life that they lived before.

 

[cirdan]

Unless there are degradation issues, the cars should have been designed for at least 90 MPH operation given their initial area of operation (the ATSF main line). The question of 100-110 MPH operation is, of course, an open one...but most of the talk now appears to be focused on 80-90 MPH speed maximums instead of 110/125 MPH, and adding 10-20 MPH to operations along a 20-40 mile segment of track (i.e. Orlando-Cocoa) would seem to have marginal benefits for the time being.

Isn't top speed ultimately a question of the bogie design? So all it would take to upgrade a 90mph car to 110mph would be a new set of bogies, or possibly even some design adjustments to the existing ones (brake performance, suspension and the like).

Even if the cars themselves are expected to have a limited lifespan, new bogies would not be lost as they could be re-used under the next generation of cars.

 

[jis]

Isn't top speed ultimately a question of the bogie design? So all it would take to upgrade a 90mph car to 110mph would be a new set of bogies, or possibly even some design adjustments to the existing ones (brake performance, suspension and the like).

It is a bit more than just bogie design. The entire package has to be dynamically stable under the conditions that it is to be operated regularly.

It is possible that they could discover some oscillation problems at the higher speeds. There is always a chance that running at a higher speed would excite some natural frequency of the body that has never been tested for such, which would require additional engineering work sticking in larger dampers etc. Can't tell for sure until it is tried. Heck even in brand new trains such happens. Remember the Acela Yaw Damper Bracket problems?