New Viewliner II's

[Anderson]

In regard to the orphaned Cardinal, freeing up the full existing sleeper with a bag/dorm should increase the revenue space considerably. Getting a full diner back on that train also increases its attractiveness over the current food service offering. Out of curiosity, though, is there any chatter to placing a second sleeper for a total of two on top of the bag/dorm and diner?

Yeah, the Cardinal is really the underdog of the LD trains, along with the SL. This train may take a bir circle but it atually has quite a bit of potential in West Virginia and the Ohio River Valley, so it should really get better. In those places there is no parallel Interstate, no parallel bus service, and very poor airline service.

Well, the problem is that the Cardinal is screwed by the map. It's always had a bunch of issues as a train that come from both being once-a-day (at best) and being an unwieldy merger of two pre-existing routes. The travel times aren't great (and are hard to improve).

I had a long chat with someone about this train, and apparently Virginia has looked at everything under the sun to try and improve it. Basically, the problem is that it has four main potential markets:

1) Western VA to the NEC (115-379 mi)

2) Cincinatti to the NEC (603-828 mi)

3) Cincinatti to Chicago (319 mi; 9:42 WB, 8:32 EB)

4) Indianapolis to Chicago (196 mi; 5:05 WB, 5:05 EB)

Basically, it can't handle CIN-CHI during daylight without screwing up connections in Chicago, even with substantial track improvements. It can't handle CHI-IND at decent hours without improvements or cutting those connections. CIN-NEC is complicated by the Chicago issues. That all leaves Virginia as a major, well-timed market candidate, and /that/ is a mess because the train has to cover the New River Gorge, which makes the train unable to cover Lynchburg or Roanoke.

In short, it's a "no good answer" train.

At least they could upgrade the Buckingham Branch then make the Card daily. If we need more capacity we'll go from there.

The Buckingham Branch work is all either done or in process, and a passing siding is going in to allow the Cardinal to pass a unit train east of Staunton. Basically, VA has done its part to get the extra capacity in place; the jam-up, if there is one, will be between Indianapolis and Clifton Forge.

 

[Nathanael]

Actually, Mr. Boardman has made it quite clear that he doesn't intend to do anything more for the long distance trains without a more clear directive from Congress.

This is a misinterpretation of the remarks by the same man who rejected the idea of cancelling the long distance trains, describing them as national treasures like the national parks.

No, Mr. Boardman was quite specific when just after placing the order for the Viewliner II's he essentially said that he would not place any more orders for long distance equipment until Congress gives him clear direction. I don't recall the exact words, but again the meaning of his statements were quite clear and not at all ambiguous.

I still don't think this precludes Amtrak ordering long-distance-seating coaches.

The question was very much in the context of "you bought new sleepers and diners for the eastern trains, are you gonna buy new sleepers and diners for the western trains?" And I agree that the purchase of new bilevel sleepers and diners is unlikely to happen during Boardman's term (unless the price the 'market will bear' for rooms gets up to the levels we're seeing on the LSL); there are enough for current service and a buffer, and they'd be orphaned if Congress ordered service cuts to the long-distance trains.

In contrast, lack of coaches has clearly been hurting results on some of the western trains (Coast Starlight, Empire Builder, Texas Eagle, California Zephyr). There have been an awful lot of wrecks over the years. The coaches can always be reused for shorter-distance service if Congress does decide to pull the plug on long-distance services -- there's definitely a market for them -- making them less of a risk than sleepers or diners. They can be purchased as add-on orders to the state corridor-coach orders.

Remember that Amtrak's current fleet strategy plan *post-dates* Boardman's remarks, and yet it still says that replacement of the shrinking Superliner I fleet is urgent.

Actually the AMF II's were never supposed to be the "overnight" coaches, they were designed for the Leaf, Adirondack, Pennsy, Carolinian type runs. The money ran out before the overnight coaches got built, so the AMF II's became the overnight coaches by default for lack of anything better.

Interesting, didn't know that. Thanks for the info.

 

[afigg]

At least they could upgrade the Buckingham Branch then make the Card daily. If we need more capacity we'll go from there.

The Buckingham Branch work is all either done or in process, and a passing siding is going in to allow the Cardinal to pass a unit train east of Staunton. Basically, VA has done its part to get the extra capacity in place; the jam-up, if there is one, will be between Indianapolis and Clifton Forge.

I would call the BBRR work more in process or to be done. The Virginia funding for the North Mountain Subdivision projects runs through state FY 2015. The $7 million North Mountain Siding project is allocated $4.9 million in state funds in FY13 and FY14. Depending on the state funding rules, some of the actual project work may stretch beyond the FY allocation window. So it could be 3-4 years before the BBRR maintenance, signal, and siding upgrades are done.

Just like the prospects for follow-on Viewliner II orders and the HSIPR funded track projects: there is a long lead time to completing the project or getting the new rolling stock delivered and in revenue service. When some one says, hey, that set of equipment has another 10 years of operating life so what's the rush? Well, if it you are placing a large order for 500 Amfleet I replacements and 200 Amfleet II replacements and delivery rate is 120 cars per year, it takes almost 6 years to build and deliver the cars. Add in 2 years ahead of the 6 years after placing the order for design, fabrication, and production ramp-up. Then add X years for getting the funding lined-up, writing the specs, putting out bids, and awarding the contracts. So, if you need to replace a large amount of rolling stock in 10 years, you had better start the acquisition process way before the replacement deadline.

 

[jis]

No matter how much we may dislike it there are several realities that we have to live with:

1. In general rolling stock needed to support Corridor Service is more likely to be acquired earlier than those needed for LD service, unless one is at a situation where the old stock has three legs in the grave.

2. Just because current plans say Amfleet Is will be life expired in 10 years does not make it so. It is quite possible that they will last considerably longer than that. What will happen is that progressively maintenance costs will go up, and they will have to plan a significant rebuild at some point. AFAICT the body shells on the Amfleets are aging very well and there are no fatigue problems seen so far, so they can last for quite a while yet. However, it still is a good idea to plan replacement in 10 years as they have done, to put pressure on all relevant stakeholders to start doing something about it. Amtrak by itself without support from some of the stakeholders cannot really pull it off given its current finances.

3. At the end of the day, until the actual allocation of capital costs to various service segments is worked out, all these claims of NEC profitability are a bit of a chimera. We will only know for sure that all this works if Amtrak is actually able to pay for the current round of proposed acquisitions. Ar present they still depend critically on the "Debt Service" line item in the appropriations, which of course is at the mercy of Congress. There are reasons to believe that Amtrak was not particularly unhappy with the delays in the Viewliner II order fulfillment because frankly, they did not have the money lined up to pay for them.

4. While a case can be made for paying for corridor equipment using loans collateralized by projected additional revenues, given that at least the corridors are within earshot of paying for themselves through a combination of farebox and state contributions, there is relatively low likelihood of being able to use similar loans for primarily LD equipment unless some corridor or the other is milked to collateralize them, or a direct appropriation for that purpose is approved by Congress. I think when Mr. Boardman makes his comments about LD equipment acquisition, it is the latter that he is obliquely alluding to since he would rather millk corridors to support better service on said corridors which provide a better RoI in general.

 

[AlanB]

In contrast, lack of coaches has clearly been hurting results on some of the western trains (Coast Starlight, Empire Builder, Texas Eagle, California Zephyr). There have been an awful lot of wrecks over the years. The coaches can always be reused for shorter-distance service if Congress does decide to pull the plug on long-distance services -- there's definitely a market for them -- making them less of a risk than sleepers or diners. They can be purchased as add-on orders to the state corridor-coach orders.

Amtrak can't be hurting for Superliner coaches too badly if they can afford to use them on the Blue Water year round and as the replacement consist for when one of the Talgo trainsets are out of service. And once the new cars start arriving for Michigan, that will actually free up some Superliner coaches. In theory it would also free up the 7 that California uses, but I'm not sure just what the lease terms state and if California will be willing to give them up if they haven't gotten their full use out of the cars.

Looking at the actual numbers, Amtrak built 188 Superliner coaches originally. A total of 11 are confirmed as having been scrapped. As of a year or so ago, 9 were considered wrecked, but there is no indication on how many might be repairable and how many are simply awaiting scrapping. It appears from the OTOL numbers that another 2 cars have since come off the active roster for whatever reasons. That would leave Amtrak with 166 active Superliner coaches or about 12% of the fleet.

Amtrak has lost about 10% of its Superliner sleepers.

 

[Nathanael]

Ar present they still depend critically on the "Debt Service" line item in the appropriations, which of course is at the mercy of Congress.

Small point: some provision of some law or other allows the Treasury to pay off any amount of Amtrak debt it likes, without needing special appropriations (in other words, Congress already appropriated "such amounts as are necessary"). This has given Amtrak some key breathing space. Unfortunately, that applies only to debt restructuring and repayment. Amtrak does not have access to commercial loans, so it can't actually acquire arbitrary amounts of debt. So Amtrak is still at the mercy of Congressional appropriations for both operations and capital improvements.

 

[jis]

Amtrak does have access to RRIF loans though, a mechanism that it is using for paying for the ACS64s. If Congress set things up appropriately Amtrak could also qualify for commercial loans but so far they have not done so.

Are you sure that Treasury can pay off all of Amtrak['s loans without further appropriation. If so then why isn't it? Why does Congress include specific debt service line items in each Amtrak appropriations? Just for the fun of it?

 

[Nathanael]

Amtrak can't be hurting for Superliner coaches too badly if they can afford to use them on the Blue Water year round and as the replacement consist for when one of the Talgo trainsets are out of service.

True. Good point.

And once the new cars start arriving for Michigan, that will actually free up some Superliner coaches. In theory it would also free up the 7 that California uses, but I'm not sure just what the lease terms state and if California will be willing to give them up if they haven't gotten their full use out of the cars.

The 7 California Superliners are definitely supposed to be returned to Amtrak sometime after the new cars start arriving, when the leases expire. I'm not quite sure when, though, I think I remember 2015 but it might have been 2017?

Those and the Michigan coaches should, thinking about it, give enough breathing room for several years: allow for the cut-off cars to Denver and Reno, etc.

Looking at the actual numbers, Amtrak built 188 Superliner coaches originally. A total of 11 are confirmed as having been scrapped. As of a year or so ago, 9 were considered wrecked, but there is no indication on how many might be repairable and how many are simply awaiting scrapping. It appears from the OTOL numbers that another 2 cars have since come off the active roster for whatever reasons. That would leave Amtrak with 166 active Superliner coaches or about 12% of the fleet.
Amtrak has lost about 10% of its Superliner sleepers.

I should go through and work out peak equipment usage on the long-distance trains, add the 20% shop count... eh, not today.

 

[afigg]

Amtrak does have access to RRIF loans though, a mechanism that it is using for paying for the ACS64s. If Congress set things up appropriately Amtrak could also qualify for commercial loans but so far they have not done so.

Are you sure that Treasury can pay off all of Amtrak['s loans without further appropriation. If so then why isn't it? Why does Congress include specific debt service line items in each Amtrak appropriations? Just for the fun of it?

From the financial reports, all the Warrington era equipment leases are commercial loans. Amtrak has a mortgage on NY Penn Station for example. I don't think there is a Congressional rule that blocks Amtrak from commercial loans. If there was, how would Amtrak operate? As a company with a payroll, operating expenses, contracts, it has to have a commercial line of credit to pay the bills. I have read that the Secretary of Transportation has to approve large loans taken out by Amtrak as part of the US DOT oversight, but that is not the same as a being blocked from obtaining commercial loans.

The 2008 PRIIA act, according to the financial reports, authorizes the US Treasury to restructure and repay Amtrak's debt outstanding as of the date of enactment of PRIIA ,including leases, if as I interpret it, if the terms are favorable to the US Government and are advantageous to Amtrak. Amtrak is receiving $420 million through FY2013 from the US Treasury to exercise Early Buyout Options (EBOs) of equipment leases to save money on lease payments. But the funds from the US Treasury are only for debt and leases that were outstanding in 2008, not for new debt or leases incurred after the passage of the 2008 PRIIA act. The intent of the PRIIA act Treasury payments was to enable Amtrak to retire Warrington era and other old debt, not to allow wholesale transfer of funds to pay for new debt.

This is discussed in the Five year financial plans. The earlier FY11 to FY15 plan discusses the EBOs in more depth than the FY12-FY16 plan. With a friendly administration staying in power, Amtrak should be able to get $208.7 million in FY2014 to exercise EBOs for 14 Superliners, 83 P-42s, 29 Surfliners. In FY2013, the EBOs include $147,4 million for 114 Superliners and $79.5 million for 51 P-42. The bottom line for Amtrak is that they are retiring a lot of lease payments and outstanding debt, which will allow it to take on new debt if it has to take that approach.

 

[Anderson]

Jis,

While I agree with all of the points you mention, from what I can tell over the last few years, it seems more likely that Amtrak will be able to argue for the following:

1) A rebuild programme on the existing Amfleets (I and II alike).

2) A replacement set of LD coaches, to allow the LD Amfleets to be either pushed into Regional/Corridor service (Amfleets aren't bad for starting up a given service, especially if there's a bilevel shortage).

3) A modest capacity expansion/attrition replacement programme on the existing corridor fleet.

2/3 are likely to go together by virtue of wanting to scale orders (even if an initial LD order might come first); Amtrak can point out that Regional ridership is up 50% since FY03, Adirondack ridership is up similarly, etc., so there /is/ capacity there, and adding cars for longer trains should (in general) improve Amtrak's bottom line. Still, a reallocation of the Amfleets to all-corridor service (plus the Horizons) should give Amtrak some space on that front, at least unless/until something major gets started in terms of new corridors (such as SEHSR).

1 is going to be necessary sooner or later, but I think that's more likely in the short run than a total replacement order. It may not make total accounting sense in the long run (since the refurb work is likely good for maybe 20 years rather than the 30-40 the initial work was), but the nominal cost is likely to be far less for overhauling 500 cars than for buying that many new ones.

I know that Amtrak wants to retire equipment somewhere around that magic 40-year line, but between steadily rising ridership on a number of routes, the desperate need for at least a modest seasonal surge fleet to lengthen trains, if not to add additional ones (note that disruptions notwithstanding, the increase in ridership is more and more heavily geared towards the off-season now), and so forth, it seems highly unlikely that Amtrak is going to be getting rid of the Amfleets anytime in the foreseeable future. Phasing them out over a lengthy period of time? Sure. Shifting them to primarily backup use and/or to help states start corridors more cheaply? I can see that. But not getting rid of them. I just don't see that.

One option that I do see as plausible, however, is Amtrak easing X number of Amfleets out of service and buying Y replacements (where Y is a much larger number and X is more or less those that are really running into service/maintenance issues and/or those that have "attrited out" over the interim since the last order). It's easier to see an order of, say, 150 short-haul coaches, 25 mid-haul coaches, and 25 LD coaches go out where you're effectively replacing 80, 10, and 10 and shaking some spare capacity loose in the process.

 

[Mackensen]

Amtrak can't be hurting for Superliner coaches too badly if they can afford to use them on the Blue Water year round and as the replacement consist for when one of the Talgo trainsets are out of service.

True. Good point.

Unless something changed in the last month or two the Blue Water uses the same equipment as the Wolverine: 3-5 Horizon coaches and either an Amfleet or Horizon Club/Dinette. Superliner equipment usually only shows up in the winter when the Horizons are down for maintenance, and then not every day.

 

[Trogdor]

It's the Pere Marquette that operates with Superliners.

 

[AlanB]

Oops, sorry! I knew it was one of the Michigan trains.