Check the RR news. France is remodeling the original TGV trainsets. They are 30 years old - just a hair younger than Amfleet, and the same age as the AEM7s. This is a remodeling, not a rebuilt. Basically, they are getting a new interior.
So, why exactly does Amtrak need to replace their equipment?
I’m sure that this is more than just an interior rebuild and a lot of mechanical upgrades are included in this project. To me, it sounds more like the mid-life upgrade that a lot of transit agencies have performed on their MU cars, locomotives, rapid transit equipment, etc.
Passenger traffic is growing, Amtrak needs more cars, not just to replace old ones but to add capacity to meet the demand. Railroads need “extra” cars to let rolling stock rotate in for service.
Amtrak Heritage cars are 50 or more years old and are limited in track speed. They must go. Borrowing “Commuter Coaches” with 6 across seating from Commuter Railroads to meet peak demand days is not the answe.r
AEM7 locomotives that are not completely warn out are being rebuilt. On most Regional Trains, one HHP8 or two AEM7 are used.
Amfleet I and the newer Amfleet II coaches are the heart of Northeast Corridor Service and are subject to planned interior re-fitting.
The 10 year old “Acela” bullet train fleet (20 of them) has just been upgraded and had their interior re-fit with leather seats.
TGV is 30 and getting it’s mid-life upgrade…and the only thing the US has attempting to be HS is Acela.
The original TGV’s wll be retired and the US will still be TALKING about HSR!
Amtrak’s basic fleet plan has them retiring the old stuff and buying new - with no new capacity added. They have no plans to keep any around for peak seasons. Nor will they sell them off. They want them scrapped.
The new electric locos on order will retire the AEM7 DCs and HHP8s.
Sure. A capital rebuild, in US terms. You wind up with the same basic thing, plus a few upgrades, in like new condition when you are done.
Would be a good option for Amfleet and Superliners. There is no need for a replacement strategy that calls for the scrapping of perfectly good (and rebuildable) equipment. The French seem to have figured this out…
Yup, though there will be a bit more 110 mph service by then.
How about politics, jobs, and a sympathetic administration?
I suspect that there are more jobs (direct and indirect) involved in assembling new equipment and scrapping the old stuff than there is in refurbishing it. Given the nature of Amtrak, i.e. a political railroad that requires an operating subsidy of $1 for every $2 of revenue, where is the incentive to do things better, faster, cheaper?
Granted what Sam1 says; but it is so easy to see Amtrak’s gravy train running out. They’re one “bad” election from being out of business, in my opinion, or cut back to just the corridors that many here would prefer. They already blew it so badly with that $300-million order for new equipment, most of which is going for baggage cars and baggage-dorms, squandering a one-time gift and opportunity to add capacity. No vision there at all – or a death wish.
No vision or common sense. $300 mil. largely wasted on out-of-date equipment for an archaic route structure.
Not all of the first batch of TGVs will be rebuilt. The eight sets equipped with 15kV/16.7Hz capability will be retired, and three other sets will be retired based on their condition, along with 2 wrecked sets already retired.
Whether replacement or refurbishment is the best option for Amtrak involves numerous variables and, at the end of the day, there probably are persuasive points for either choice, my previous post notwithstanding.
Having just completed a round trip from Taylor to Fort Worth on the Texas Eagle, it is clear that the equipment on the Eagle needs some serious attention. Paint was peeling from numerous spots in the lounge car, two of the seats were broken, and the lower level restroom was not working.
My coach needed some serious work. Some of the materials on the stairs had worked loose, thereby creating what appeared to be a situation in which a passenger could trip going down the stairs. The restrooms were relatively clean but the appearance was shabby. The occupied/vacant sign on the restroom doors has been wiped clean through use.
Pictured is about the only gravy train Amtrak has been able latch onto…
Amtrak has never had anything more than poverty level funding from it’s inception…even poverty costs more than most of us realize.
Have any of you worked in MRO (maintenance, repair, overhaul ) ? I have. the MRO headaches in the aviation industry is very welll known. Nothing like waiting on an orphan part for a week… Orphan equipmwet and one of a kind parts are nightmares. At times we would scrap a newer piece for a more available older part.
This is why I support parking the heritage equipment. From what is being posted some cars are one of a kind for certain parts. Takes longer to repair as a new how to fix learning curve will be required.
Amtrak is trying to get its operating expenses reduced so the higher per mile maintenance costs of heritage equipmet does not fit.
Park the diners and baggage cars. They are orphans. Convert Amfleet and run the wheels off it for the next 30 years. AEM7 DCs are not orphans. The entire fleet of Rc units in Sweden, many of which are much older, are still going strong.
Save money for new equipment to accommodate growth.
If only. Gravy Train is balanced nutrition.
If 20 cents direct subsidy per passenger mile is at the poverty level, you are conceding the point made by rail critics that passenger trains are an inherently expensive mode of transportation. The argument that increased levels of funding would reduce the costs per passenger mile does not work, or at least the Vision Report that was lauded within the advocacy community reasons against there being any economy of scale.
The advocacy community needs to retire the argument that Amtrak is underfunded in relation to its level of operations as it works against getting more money for Amtrak to expand levels of service.
From everything I have read - no rail passenger service in the world is profitable when all expenses are compared to fare collections - why should we expect Amtrak to be profitable, when the best systems in the world aren’t?
Passenger rail transportation is a public service - nothing more and nothing less.
The presently crumbling nature of the Interstate system would indicate that it is running on deferred maintenance just like the freight railroads were in the pre-Staggres era and thus is not ‘profitable’ as it would appear that the user fees (the multiplicity of use & gasoline taxes) aren’t covering the expenses to keep maintenance current.
[quote user=“BaltACD”]
Paul Milenkovic:
BaltACD:
Amtrak has never had anything more than poverty level funding from it’s inception…even poverty costs more than most of us realize.
If 20 cents direct subsidy per passenger mile is at the poverty level, you are conceding the point made by rail critics that passenger trains are an inherently expensive mode of transportation. The argument that increased levels of funding would reduce the costs per passenger mile does not work, or at least the Vision Report that was lauded within the advocacy community reasons against there being any economy of scale.
The advocacy community needs to retire the argument that Amtrak is underfunded in relation to its level of operations as it works against getting more money for Amtrak to expand levels of service.
From everything I have read - no rail passenger service in the world is profitable when all expenses are compared to fare collections - why should we expect Amtrak to be profitable, when the best systems in the world aren’t?
Passenger rail transportation is a public service - nothing more and nothing less.
The presently crumbling nature of the Interstate system would indicate that it is running on deferred maintenance just like the freight railroads were in the pre-Staggres era and thus is not ‘profitable’ as it woul
How on earth did this thread segue into the Republican propaganda about the health care law? I thought it was about overhauling the TGV.
“but most government money is either going into healthcare are going to go into healthcare. So if you want to castigate the public at large about where the money is going instead of into trains, you know where that argument logically leads. You know, Grandma. Ice floes. Rationing health care.”