Milwaukee Route May Get First New Amtrak Trains

[AlanB]

Amtrak's Milwaukee-to-Chicago route could be one of the first in the nation to run new trains without locomotives, the national passenger railroad's president said Wednesday.
The new vehicles could improve the Hiawatha line's comfort and reliability - and possibly lead to more frequent service - while cutting operating costs, said Amtrak President David Gunn and Wisconsin state rail chief Ron Adams.

The full story from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal.

Thanks also to OTOL for finding this story.

 

[battalion51]

Any word on when they would be put into place? WIth me going to Chicago next year I'd like to see a Cabbage at least once before they're replaced.

 

[AlanB]

Any word on when they would be put into place? WIth me going to Chicago next year I'd like to see a Cabbage at least once before they're replaced.

No word at all.

With the current funding levels being bounced around DC, I doubt it will happen for at least two years.

Ps. You can also go to Boston to see a cabbage.

 

[Amfleet]

Finally, a down to earth high-speed rail plan that is senseable. B-51, I'm sure it will take over a year to get the rail cars built and the service put in place. This is only the first announcment. I would give it another 2-3 years before we see any changes and that is only if Amtrak gets proper funding.

 

[Steve4031]

This looks pretty cool for me. They tested flexiliners on that route a few years ago. What do you think they will run on there now?

 

[AlanB]

What do you think they will run on there now?

Well so far nothing is absolute. That said however, I read in a few other stories that the Colorado Rail Car DMU's are in the running. At present they are the only alternative that have actually been built. That's not to say that Amtrak might not seek out another manufacturer.

 

[PRR 60]

Exactly what is the advantage of the DMU’s over conventional push-pull? My understanding of the disadvantage of any MU operation is that each car is considered a locomotive and subject to all the FRA inspection and maintenance requirements associated with locomotives. Maintenance costs and downtime are a major issue.

Surfliners, Capitals are both push-pull operations. Talgo is a push-pull operation. It wouldn’t seem like a big deal to buy a few more F59’s and some California Car knock-offs and have them in service in a year or two. Or, heaven forbid, just buy a couple of FRA compliant Talgos off the shelf. Why another new design?

I’m puzzled.

 

[Amfleet]

Actually, the DMU is different to the old RDCs in that only the head-end and rear-end units are powered. Mid-train units are non-powered, normal, passenger cars, but match the power units. Many have had doubts about Colorado Railcar as their giant luxury liner type cars used by tourist lines have proven not to be the best out there. However, there has been a big hype over the new DMU as it tours the country.

The major plus over the DMU compared to Surfliner and Talgo is the versatility and that it is an American built product. Each car can be single and/or bi-level with a high seating capacity, but still follow ADA compliances and retain passenger comfort. The DMU is also one of the first fuel-efficient trains in America, which is a big plus with higher fuel costs these days. Another reason Gunn may be turning to the DMU is to start up passenger car manufacturing in the US again. For the past twenty years Amtrak and commuter lines have turned to international manufacturers, which has put a high price tag on new passenger cars and caused many modifications needing to be made because of FRA regulations.

For more info on the DMU click here. If this train does well in Hiawatha service, this very well could be the new generation of high-speed rail in the US.

 

[battalion51]

The DMU is very comfortable, and is very fuel conservative (it uses 2/3 the amount of fuel that a traditional locomotive uses). On a short route like the Hiawatha route, Springfield shuttles, and possibly Downeaster, the DMU presents flexibility that a traditional trainset does not. And like Amfleet said matching bi-level and single level cars are available as cab cars or middle consist cars.

 

[Viewliner]

I'm glad that there is a destinct possiblility of seeing this happen, but there are a couple of things wrong with the decisions. If Wisconsin is funding the equipment, then I don't have a problem with the Hiawatha getting new equipment. If its out of Amtrak's pocket, its not necessarily the equipment that should be first purchase. There is no question that there need to be more Single Level Sleepers, that I think is what should be the next purchase out of Amtrak's pocket.

Second and more relevant to the topic the equipment choice itself. I think an MU is a bad choice, as the only succesful diesel one (in the US) is the RDC. Amtrak otherwise, has had bad experience with MU's. The first being the Metroliners, which were pre-Amtrak (the order was pre-PC in fact). By the 1980's, Amtrak gave up on them, made the Metroliner Route AEM-7/Amfleet equipped, and turned the Metroliner Cars into Cab Cars. The second MU failure for Amtrak(/ConnDot) was the SPV-2000 RDC, which was used in the 1980's primarily on Inland route trains. The "Self Propelled Vehicles" (Meant to last till 2000) were nicknamed "Seldom Powered Vehicles" because they'd suffer failures in the New England winters. Those got converted to "Constitution Coaches". So thats the problem I have with MU's.

Does anybody know if the Jet Train is in the running for this one?

 

[battalion51]

Jet Train would require a significant chunk of change from the Wisconsin and Illinois DOt's which I don't think they are ready to put forth on this route. I think if you're looking high speed on this corridor traditional 42's will do the job, as I don't envision them qualifying the tracks for anything above 110 (which is what the 42's max out at). Is JetTrain possible there, yes, is it likely, no.

 

[AlanB]

The DMU is very comfortable, and is very fuel conservative (it uses 2/3 the amount of fuel that a traditional locomotive uses).

It is true that the CRC DMU uses far less fuel than a traditional P42 loco does. However one must also put this into perspective here. While it does have a fuel efficient engine, it's also not hauling the same load that a P42 does.

Remember that one P42 can easily haul an 8 car train. If one were using a DMU set, then one would need at least 4 powered cars to pull 4 trailers. Suddenly that fuel savings has evaporated when you compare 4 DMU's to one P42.

So while the DMU may well be fuel efficient in places like the Springfield shuttle where Amtrak only runs 2 maybe 3 cars, I have to start to question just how efficient it would be on the Hiawatha where 4 to 5 cars seems to be the norm.

 

[PRR 60]

Then there is the problem of introducing still one more unique piece of equipment on Amtrak. Chicago is set up to maintain P42’s, and Amfleet, Superliner, and Horizon. Now, here comes another family of vehicles needing separate parts, maintenance procedures, etc.

Airlines like Southwest and JetBlue have demonstrated that having a fleet of the same or at least nearly the same equipment is cost effective. It is a lesson Amtrak has not learned.

 

[AlanB]

Then there is the problem of introducing still one more unique piece of equipment on Amtrak. Chicago is set up to maintain P42’s, and Amfleet, Superliner, and Horizon. Now, here comes another family of vehicles needing separate parts, maintenance procedures, etc.
Airlines like Southwest and JetBlue have demonstrated that having a fleet of the same or at least nearly the same equipment is cost effective. It is a lesson Amtrak has not learned.

You're quite right, it just adds still more stuff and things to deal with. And you left off your list Viewliner's. While I don't think that Chicago does heavy maintenance on Viewliner's, it still must make repairs to the them when they show up with problems.