New Amtrak Sprinter Class Locomotives

[x635 4,066]

The next generation of Amtrak locomotives are being unveiled later today. Check at the offical Amtrak blog link below for a sneak peek.

Sneak Peek Photos of Our New Locomotives

May 13, 2013

Today we are debuting the first round of our new electric Siemens locomotives in Sacramento. They’re called Cities Sprinters and they’ll replace our entire electric fleet in the Northeast Corridor by 2014. That’s

, a $466 million investment and the creation and preservation of jobs in 60 cities across the country.

Did we mention that they’re more energy efficient and will be able to reach speeds of 125 mph?

Building the Amtrak Cities Sprinter locomotives is providing work for 69 suppliers in 61 cities from 23 states.

http://blog.amtrak.com/2013/05/four-sneak-peek-photos-of-our-new-locomotives/?preview=true&preview_id=1031&preview_nonce=fe510cb38e&utm_source=FBWall&utm_medium=Social+Media&utm_campaign=Siemens

[SageVigiles 1,194]

Just curious, in about how much of the NE Corridor are they actually permitted to go 125MPH? Max speed and permitted speed can be quite different in some areas.

How does this train compare to the Acela?

[AFS1970 504]

Speed restrictions have been a problem for the Acela also. I have never understood why the acela was not used on some of the longer distance trains like going cross country where high speed would actually save a bunch of time.

[x635 4,066]

Speed restrictions have been a problem for the Acela also. I have never understood why the acela was not used on some of the longer distance trains like going cross country where high speed would actually save a bunch of time.

There's talk of regionalized high speed rail, haven't heard of a coast to coast solution. The only high speed line that I know about that may actually get off the ground is a high speed rail line in Texas connecting Houston, Houston's northern suburbs, San Antonio, Austin, Dallas, and Fort Worth-and maybe an east Texas and west Texas branches.

As far as north to south, I feel it would be really popular if the Acela ran from Boston-Miami high speed, with select limited other stops . The investment in infastructure and trainsets would be huge, but I feel the investment would pay off in the long run. You'd take traffic off I-95, too. However, being that NY-FL routes are many airlines bread and butter, I think they would put up a huge lobby against it.

I'd much rather, and will whenever possible, take a train, not just because I am a rail fan (well, that is a big reason), but it beats the hassle of flying for shorter routes.

I also have the same questions as you guys, and know there is a lot of limitations on the Northeast corridor, but there are many rather simple fixes but not simple money.

[SageVigiles 1,194]

Amtrak isn't going to take traffic off 95 until their fares are reasonable and can compete with the cost of driving.

[AFS1970 504]

Fares are a big problem for Amtrak on most shorter runs, just look at the difference between them and any comuter railroad on the same run. However on the long distance runs the fares become more reasonable. I took Amtrak from Seatle to San Francisco once and the sleeper car with means included was fairly reasonable when you figured what I would have paid for a Hotel and Restaurants plus the train. I too would take the train over a plane as long as it is feasible. Some trips just are not feasible to do because of how fast the plane will get you there. From our area, basically anything north of Boston or South of Washington is not efficient on the train.

[mfc2257 464]

One very significant reason why the comparison of high speed rail in Europe and Asia to the US doesn't work is that the vast majority of overseas high speed rail operates on dedicated tracks where local commuter service and freight don't intermingle with trains doing 200-300mph. Many think that all we need is faster trains and to replace our antiquated wooden tie and segmented rails with concrete tie and continuously welded rail. That's not the case. For high speed rail to work, its got to be able to run at high speed ALL THE TIME. Not be bobbing and weaving in and out of the 5:15 local and the mile long drag of inter-model cars that are moving at 15mph.

Edited May 15, 2013 by mfc2257

[mfc2257 464]

As far as AMTRAK goes, the last time I read about its financials I recall the data showing that the only route that is profitable is the NE corridor between Boston and DC. For the rest of the country, the taxpayers subsidize its costs as a quasi government operation just like the post office. You'll have a tough time getting the public to support an addition to service that will most likely cost them more money. The government gave the state of Florida a multi billion dollar grant to fund high speed rail on the I4 corridor between Daytona, Orlando, and Tampa. The taxpayers gave the grant back indicating that it was a poor use of government funds that in the long run would cost the taxpayers billions over the years to operate a service that most people don't want regardless if the initial costs were subsidized by the government.

[AFS1970 504]

Not too long ago I went to a public meeting about Stamford's Master Plan for development for the next 10 years. Someone actually brought up a monorail (cue Simpsons song here) but the worst part was they said we needed one like Seatle. Having been there and been on their never completed monorail that only has two stops, that is exactly what no city or town needs. The Florida and California high speed rails are similar, in that they were short projects that don't really connect with anything. A few years ago there was talk of a trolley line in Stamford running from our new south end development to the Bull's Head area. Proponants said folks would take it to go shopping. I say why would anyone drive to a parking lot, park the car, take the trolley to say Target then lug packages back on the trolley to the parking lot and drive home? Clearly these short haul projects are being planned by people who have never taken a train before. Amtrak suffers from the same sort of wisdom.

I was just talking with a friend about a possible train trip. When I looked at the schedule it included a 6 hour layover to wait for a 4 hour long train. Another option was to take a six hour long bus ride from a different station. Neither one made us jump at the chance to ride the train. This is why the airlines win, they don't make you do the same sort of multi leg trip except to some out of the way places. As for Amtrak costing the taxpayers money, which it does, this is because of the fact that when it was formed in the 1970's an arbitrary date was set when it was supposed to be self-sufficient. Starting as they did with aging equipment and by eliminating all other passenger service there was no option not to subsuidize Amtrak when the magic date came and went. I am always a fan fo small government but this idea that government can run a company is foolish and has never worked. Amtrak sits right in the middle between a bloated government and a failing corporation and falling to either side is not really an option.