The revision of Amtrak’s fleet plan is generally the same as the Feb 2010 report. However their plan has been revised to more accurately follow some trends. I will cover each type equipment and Amtrak’s reasoning.
Projected ridership. Amtrak has projected a 2% compounded yearly passenger growth. They stated tha growth could be 2 -5% compounded yearly depending on State Of Good Repair (SOGR) . Looking at figures from 2006 the actual growth has been a 4% compounded growth or simple growth of 24%. NEC has only grown 10% simple. The excess growth is in LD and commuter operations. FY 2009 had a 6% decrease in those figures. but the overall 2006 - 2010 is as stated. Amtrak recognizes that many persons say that these are too conservative but they think they can handle a larger growth by delaying retirements. Ridership in the NEC is expected to go up 45% will Pass miles 50% by 2030 . Maybe expecting longer passenger trips due to reduced in transit times?
All these figure state that the 2% compounded can only be handled on the NEC for 10 years then they will max out capacity.
Acela. Present Acela train sets have averaged about 1.4M miles each. As you are aware there is a proposal to order 40 more cars (probably configured for business class 65 seats each car) Amtrak stated 130 additional seats on each train set). 2 cars to each train set. Now the new plan is to buy 40 more Acela II train sets for increased frequency. That seems problematic as the MBTA, Conn, and MNRR limitations will need addressing. No new Acela car count was specified. Seems like longer Acela 2s might be first answer to the NYP 14 car limit. Specifications will be written this year to allow for deliveries 2017 -2019. Dates seem a little close but the new Acela IIs will be a new spec possibly 220 max speed. Aclea 1s 150MPH. Amtrak admits that re
Clearly, Amtrak needs to replace aging equipment. The need to replace the long distance equipment is an opportunity to argue for the discontinuance of the long distance trains. I had hoped that more enlightened minds would have picked up on this point. Unfortunately, it is not to be, in part I suspect because Amtrak is seen as an entitlement.
The long distance trains serve approximately 4/10s of one per cent of intercity travelers, bring in a relatively small percentage of the revenues, and chew up a significiant amount of resources.
How a federal government that is facing a massive debt, which many economists and budget experts believe could ruin the country if it is not managed down, will find the money to buy sleepers, dinners, and lounge cars is beyond me.
I continue to believe that the USA gets its money’s worth from existing subisidization levels of long distance trains in general. Elimination of such trains would be real blow to tourism’s contribution to the economy, a blow to the mobility of many handicapped and elderly people, many of whom are veterans, reduce the country’s ability to handle specific emergencies including problems with the nation’s air transportation system, and make the operation of the remaining corredor services less efficient because of their separation from each other,
If mobility for handicapped and elderly peeople is a justification for long distance trains, then the government should run these trains to every community in the United States with a population of 10,000 or more. Actually, it probably would be more cost effective to provide van service to every community in the country with a need to enhance the mobility of the handicapped and elderly people.