Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
Fan Railer

Amtrak Finally Laying Out Plans For Fleet Revitalization

Recommended Posts

http://transportation.house.gov/Media/file/Main%20Street/HR%202847%20Summary.pdf

 

Amtrak’s equipment is aging; it is a major factor in delays. Some of Amtrak’s vehicles are more than 50 years old. The average life of a passenger rail car, depending on its usage, is 25 to 30 years. The lifespan of a locomotive is 20 to 25 years.

 

Currently, Amtrak has 92 Heritage cars in service (which are 53 to 61 years old), 17 Metroliners (which are 42 years old), 412 Amfleet I cars (which are 32 to 35 years old), 122 Amfleet II cars (which are 28 to 29 years old), 249 Superliner I cars (which are 28 to 30 years old); 184 Superliner II cars (which are 13 to 15 years old), 97 Horizon cars (which are 19 to 20 years old), 50 Viewliners (which are 13 to 14 years old), 29 Talgo cars (which are 10 years old), 120 Acela cars (which are nine to 10 years old), and 41 Surfliners (which are seven to nine years old).

 

With respect to locomotives, Amtrak has 49 AEM-7 locomotives (which are 21 to 29 years old), 18 P32’s (which are 18 years old), 18 P32DM’s (which are 11 to 14 years old), 21 F59PHI’s (which are 11 years old), 15 HHP-8’s (which are eight to 10 years old), and 207 P42’s (which are eight to 13 years old).

 

Over the next five years and given adequate resources, Amtrak plans to purchase 396 new single-level vehicles for corridor service, which will replace about 95 percent of the Amfleet I vehicles; purchase 275 new single-level vehicles for long-haul service in an effort to remove all of the Heritage single-level cars and about 95 percent of the Amfleet II vehicles from service; purchase 160 new bi-level vehicles to replace 65 percent of the Superliner I cars; and purchase 100 new electric locomotives to replace the entire electric locomotive fleet.

 

Amtrak also plans to acquire 54 new diesel locomotives, replacing 20 percent of its diesel fleet; and purchase five additional Acela trainsets and 41 new switch engines to replace the entire switcher fleet. Amtrak estimates that the effort requires capital funding of approximately $4.57 billion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 new sets, and hopefully more pax cars on the existing sets.

 

All new locos... ALP-46a comes to mind.

 

- A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At last there is something to replace the Amfleet Is! But I'm sure that that Amfleet IIs can last another decade as they lack many of the Amfleet I flaws such as overflooding toilets. Also Fan Railer, I think you meant the P42s are 18 years old. The ALP-46As is definitely a maybe for electric locos, except maybe geared to 8000hp for 125mph+ runs hauling heavy loads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, the 46a's traction motors total 7500 hp constant and something like 8750 max, you could get a modified order with 8000 hp constant and 9200 max. GM had that monster 10000 hp freight electric, so 9200 max isn't even getting close to the maximum the "alp-46" form factor can handle. I believe i read somewhere that the traxx bo-bo config maxes out at 12010 hp (absolute max) and a bo-co layout would be needed to get higher than that, with larger wheel diameter etc, the sky really is the limit, and you could do the full co-co and get like 15,000 hp... The co-co model is longer by about 4 feet i believe to give the trucks clearance.

 

- A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At last there is something to replace the Amfleet Is! But I'm sure that that Amfleet IIs can last another decade as they lack many of the Amfleet I flaws such as overflooding toilets. Also Fan Railer, I think you meant the P42s are 18 years old. The ALP-46As is definitely a maybe for electric locos, except maybe geared to 8000hp for 125mph+ runs hauling heavy loads.

 

there must have been a misstype in the PDF... check the link lol.:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy, I have seen Co-Co Locos with over 8000hp hitting at least 100mph in China and would be a good idea to have them on the NEC. The curves are still quite sharp and the E60s didn't come out as great. China will eventually upgrade their Co-Co passenger locos to 125mph to haul longer and faster overnight/commuter trains, but I don't think that's feasible here in the USA as Amtrak also needs long trains with higher speeds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy, I have seen Co-Co Locos with over 8000hp hitting at least 100mph in China and would be a good idea to have them on the NEC. The curves are still quite sharp and the E60s didn't come out as great. China will eventually upgrade their Co-Co passenger locos to 125mph to haul longer and faster overnight/commuter trains, but I don't think that's feasible here in the USA as Amtrak also needs long trains with higher speeds.

 

Yea, the pax locos co-co trucks are not as long as a freight, mainly due to the large number of switches near/at terminal stations, minimal derail risk, as well as keeping weight down. It would likely have the traction motors as such:

 

( )>( )>( )>-------------------<( )<( )<( )

 

This would keep cooling even & reduce drag.

 

- A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yea, the 46a's traction motors total 7500 hp constant and something like 8750 max, you could get a modified order with 8000 hp constant and 9200 max.

- A

 

The maximum power rating for Bombardiers MITRAC traction motors is 1500 kW for the DR-3800 motor. i believe the 46A uses the 1400 kW motor (DR 3600), so it's power rating at the wheel is only 5600 kW. based on this, the theoretical max rating with Bombardier equipment is 6000 kW, which is equivalent to 8040 hp. of course, i guess if AMTRAK wanted to, they could order something akin to the new Permanent magnet motors and get like, 1750-1800 kW per motor, which would add up to or 7200 kW or 9648 hp. anything higher, you would need a CoCo locomotive, which could be specified up to 9600-10800 kW (based on 1600-1800 kW traction motor ratings). however, you would also have to take into account locomotive tractive effort rating, locomotive weight, and corresponding adhesion factor, which should be around 35% for an electric loco.

 

getting into that, assuming the absolute max locomotive weight for the NEC is approximately 300,000 lbs, then maximum allowable tractive effort before entering the "slippery zone" would be around 85,000 lbs (36%) to 90,000 lbs (33%), or even up to 100,000 lbs (30%) the current ALP-46A loco has a tractive effort of 71,000 and a weight of 202,822, which gives a modest 28.5% adhesion, which is supposedly better than the ALP-46 already. so i don't know. the P42DC has a tractive effort rating of 88,500 lbs, and a weight of 268,000 lbs, which gives it 30.3% adhesion.

 

i guess i'm just rambling on here. try to make sense of it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The maximum power rating for Bombardiers MITRAC traction motors is 1500 kW for the DR-3800 motor. i believe the 46A uses the 1400 kW motor (DR 3600), so it's power rating at the wheel is only 5600 kW. based on this, the theoretical max rating with Bombardier equipment is 6000 kW, which is equivalent to 8040 hp. of course, i guess if AMTRAK wanted to, they could order something akin to the new Permanent magnet motors and get like, 1750-1800 kW per motor, which would add up to or 7200 kW or 9648 hp. anything higher, you would need a CoCo locomotive, which could be specified up to 9600-10800 kW (based on 1600-1800 kW traction motor ratings). however, you would also have to take into account locomotive tractive effort rating, locomotive weight, and corresponding adhesion factor, which should be around 35% for an electric loco.

 

getting into that, assuming the absolute max locomotive weight for the NEC is approximately 300,000 lbs, then maximum allowable tractive effort before entering the "slippery zone" would be around 85,000 lbs (36%) to 90,000 lbs (33%), or even up to 100,000 lbs (30%) the current ALP-46A loco has a tractive effort of 71,000 and a weight of 202,822, which gives a modest 28.5% adhesion, which is supposedly better than the ALP-46 already. so i don't know. the P42DC has a tractive effort rating of 88,500 lbs, and a weight of 268,000 lbs, which gives it 30.3% adhesion.

 

i guess i'm just rambling on here. try to make sense of it...

 

The ALP's are all AC motors, & the P42's are all DC, so that likely makes a difference in starting traction.

 

Bomb's IORE system could produce 10,800 hp, but due to the dual unit nature it may not be as suited to pax service unless it was modified as a single articulated unit, derate it to say 9900 hp and you get all the weight for adhesion & braking etc you need, plus the power to haul 14 car trains at 135+. You could even make it have have staged power, where the motors all turn for startup but at speed they cut out to save on the electric bill, only turning on to accelerate or engage for dynamic braking. Just an idea... :cool:

 

- A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The ALP's are all AC motors, & the P42's are all DC, so that likely makes a difference in starting traction.

 

Bomb's IORE system could produce 10,800 hp, but due to the dual unit nature it may not be as suited to pax service unless it was modified as a single articulated unit, derate it to say 9900 hp and you get all the weight for adhesion & braking etc you need, plus the power to haul 14 car trains at 135+. You could even make it have have staged power, where the motors all turn for startup but at speed they cut out to save on the electric bill, only turning on to accelerate or engage for dynamic braking. Just an idea... :cool:

 

- A

 

actually, the IORE's can produce 10,800 kW, which is 14,472 hp, but yeah, they are double units. and their traction motors only output 900 kW.

if each traction motor was actually rated at 1500 kW, they would be at a whopping 18,000 kW or 24,120 hp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
actually, the IORE's can produce 10,800 kW, which is 14,472 hp, but yeah, they are double units. and their traction motors only output 900 kW.

if each traction motor was actually rated at 1500 kW, they would be at a whopping 18,000 kW or 24,120 hp.

 

Indeed. I mean hey there have been stranger motive power than that for mainline trains (just look at the C&O M1!!), if the price is right maybe they could replace all the aem-7 wth the 46a, and the hhp8's with some kind of IORE system for trains like the crescent, silver meteor/silver star, event/holiday extras, and just really long regional moves. It also might make sense for them to get a handful of 45dm's for empire & adirondack service... being able to power the train though to sunnyside would be an improvement on the current handoff, and allow detours of boston lake shore limited trains.

 

- A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will be a odd day when I watch a Northeast Regional go by with no Amfleet on it, or not pulled by a HHP-8 or AEM-7.

 

Would most consider the HHP-8's a complete bomb? They only have a few of them but they always seem to be asscioated with mechanical problems and only recently finally got them to be pretty reliable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will be a odd day when I watch a Northeast Regional go by with no Amfleet on it, or not pulled by a HHP-8 or AEM-7.

 

Would most consider the HHP-8's a complete bomb? They only have a few of them but they always seem to be asscioated with mechanical problems and only recently finally got them to be pretty reliable.

 

They are fine and are in fact an excellent supplement to the aging AEM7s. I'm sure that the crew has gotten used to them over the decade in fixing out any bugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iv'e been riding an Amtrak sleeper car passenger for about 6 years, they have got to change there Viewliners on the Silver Meteor and Silver Star trains they are quite brutel no more TV's the air is so so and the bedding is like a notch better than a Rikers Island bunk bed and they charge close to 1000.00 for this LOL.:cry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At last there is something to replace the Amfleet Is! But I'm sure that that Amfleet IIs can last another decade as they lack many of the Amfleet I flaws such as overflooding toilets. Also Fan Railer, I think you meant the P42s are 18 years old. The ALP-46As is definitely a maybe for electric locos, except maybe geared to 8000hp for 125mph+ runs hauling heavy loads.

 

Maybe a newer Viewliner type coach, lounge, and diner model for an Amfleet II replacement. The Acela car shape could be a good design for a possible Amfleet III.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Acela car shape could be a good design for a possible Amfleet III.

 

Haha, that's what I've been thinking all along but never got the chance to express it. Regarding the windows, I personally prefer the oval shapes like that of the Arrows and Silverliners and without that bar in the window. I'm sure that Amtrak can save a lot of money by having solid pane glasses for each car window instead of two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Haha, that's what I've been thinking all along but never got the chance to express it. Regarding the windows, I personally prefer the oval shapes like that of the Arrows and Silverliners and without that bar in the window. I'm sure that Amtrak can save a lot of money by having solid pane glasses for each car window instead of two.

 

The windows are like that for structural stability in the event of an object striking them or the car going onto its side in a derailment. The bigger the windows are, the faster you go, the stronger they have to be. Give a good hard knock on those various windows and you'll see what i mean.

 

- A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The windows are like that for structural stability in the event of an object striking them or the car going onto its side in a derailment. The bigger the windows are, the faster you go, the stronger they have to be. Give a good hard knock on those various windows and you'll see what i mean.

 

- A

 

Look at the Eurostar, ICE, Shinkansen, and TGV windows...

All are much bigger than those of the Acela and consist of one solid pane of glass. I'm sure that Amtrak can do it like the rest of world and save some money on just one strong pane of glass. In my opinion, that bar really obstructs the view sometimes and besides NJT removed them from the Arrow Is when they were rebuilt into the Comet IBs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iv'e been riding an Amtrak sleeper car passenger for about 6 years, they have got to change there Viewliners on the Silver Meteor and Silver Star trains they are quite brutel no more TV's the air is so so and the bedding is like a notch better than a Rikers Island bunk bed and they charge close to 1000.00 for this LOL.:cry:

 

Anyone who rides Amtrak is a fool. You pay so much for so little. If you're traveling within the Northeast Corridor then it is cheaper to use Megabus or Bolt Bus. If you're traveling further away then it is faster and cheaper to use the plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forest you made a very interesting comment. "Anyone who rides amtrak is a fool." Im pretty sure you know that the NEC is a co-operate line. "Most" people that ride the line is taking the train for business, they are not paying for it. If you notice in other places the fare is not as much. I agree with the long distance trains but other than that i dont really agree. On the NEC we look for how fast can we get from point A to point B and location. This is why alot of people take the train.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone who rides Amtrak is a fool. You pay so much for so little. If you're traveling within the Northeast Corridor then it is cheaper to use Megabus or Bolt Bus. If you're traveling further away then it is faster and cheaper to use the plane.

 

Well said! It simply indicates that Amtrak doesn't make any money from the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look at the Eurostar, ICE, Shinkansen, and TGV windows...

All are much bigger than those of the Acela and consist of one solid pane of glass. I'm sure that Amtrak can do it like the rest of world and save some money on just one strong pane of glass. In my opinion, that bar really obstructs the view sometimes and besides NJT removed them from the Arrow Is when they were rebuilt into the Comet IBs.

 

They have different crash standards there, and their lines are largely separate from freight.

 

- A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone who rides Amtrak is a fool. You pay so much for so little. If you're traveling within the Northeast Corridor then it is cheaper to use Megabus or Bolt Bus. If you're traveling further away then it is faster and cheaper to use the plane.

 

I disagree, I don't like using the bus and going to the airport is a PITA for a flight that takes an hour I need to be there 2 hours before. The train is relaxing, I can get up and move around if I want, I can get food on board if I want not to mention boarding is as simple as just printing or picking up my ticket. To call someone a "fool" for using Amtrak is childish, each person has their preferences no one is a "fool" for the mode of transport they choose.

 

On the topic of new cars, take the existing Acela Coach and make it into a regular piece of rolling stock and there ya go Amfleet III.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.