# New Passenger Cars



## frj1983 (Nov 2, 2006)

Looking at the state of Amtrak's Passenger Cars (Superliners, Viewliners, Amfleet, Horizon etc) which cars do you think need replacing soon? And seeing how Amtrak has a rather tortured relationship with Bombardier, who do they order the cars from?


----------



## saxman (Nov 2, 2006)

I've been wondering this myself. I'd like to see more Talgo sets on the regional routes. They look good. All I know is the Superliners and most everything else is not made anymore. The other guys probably know much more than I do.


----------



## MrFSS (Nov 2, 2006)

*THIS COMPANY* could make them for Amtrak if they had the money!!

How about *THIS ONE* for an Amtrak sleeping car??


----------



## Guest (Nov 2, 2006)

Money was requested by Amtrak for early development of new passenger cars, which would be built, say around FY 09. I'm not sure if the money was actually given to Amtrak, though.


----------



## frj1983 (Nov 2, 2006)

MrFSS said:


> *THIS COMPANY* could make them for Amtrak if they had the money!!
> How about *THIS ONE* for an Amtrak sleeping car??


I like Colorado railcar, but I'm not sure they have the capacity to build a huge multi-car order.

And while I like the Sleeping Car, I think it would be prohibitive to build for Amtrak. I get the feeling that ultimately, it boils down once again to Bombardier.


----------



## frj1983 (Nov 2, 2006)

Guest said:


> Money was requested by Amtrak for early development of new passenger cars, which would be built, say around FY 09. I'm not sure if the money was actually given to Amtrak, though.


And even if the monies are there, the order has to be bid out, a contract signed, and dates decided upon. If such were the case and thing went smoothly, I would imagine that the cars would be built and delivered in 2012. That sounds rather optimistic to me and I wonder what the older cars will look like with 6 more years of hard wear on them.


----------



## battalion51 (Nov 2, 2006)

I personally am not a fan of Colorado Railcars work. From what I've seen they use very cheap materials, which means short life for the cars. I'd much rather see the contract go to a proven reliable builder like Bombardier or Kawasaki.


----------



## TransAtlantic (Nov 2, 2006)

I second the above vote for Talgo; and I know that Superliners are near and dear to many people's hearts, but they really need to go. Most of them are past their life expectancy, nevermind the fact that they rely on virtually 19th Century technology to begin with. All hail the single-level pendulars!


----------



## Trogdor (Nov 2, 2006)

Bombardier isn't the only company that can build railcars. The new Metra gallery cars are being built (or, at the very least, finished) by Super Steel in Milwaukee. I want to say that the California Cars (which are basically Superliners with a new interior) were built by Alstom, but I could be wrong on that.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 2, 2006)

rmadisonwi said:


> I want to say that the California Cars (which are basically Superliners with a new interior) were built by Alstom, but I could be wrong on that.


You are not wrong, the new California Surfliner cars used on many of the runs in California were indeed from Alstom.


----------



## Oxy (Nov 2, 2006)

Since there is no dire need for a new design, I doubt there will be the money for development, yet alone production.


----------



## Oxy (Nov 2, 2006)

However, if new cars were plausible, then the talgo double decker (http://www.talgo.com/htm/English/pdf/oy5_02.pdf) would be a nice replacement for superliners. Pesonaly, I don't really like the half length lower level.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 2, 2006)

Oxy said:


> Pesonaly, I don't really like the half length lower level.


Well the half length is thanks to the fact that they need some place to put the water tanks, sewrage tanks, the A/C and other needed equipment.

In the case of the Talgo's that you linked to, it appears that they have mid-level ends. So you're still getting half lenths, but on both levels now instead of just one.


----------



## Guest (Nov 2, 2006)

Kawasaki is capable of making the order, they have contracts with Metro-North, the MTA, and New York City Transit. I don't know if anyone has seen their factories, but the one in Lincoln, NE can be switched from single level to bilevel production in a matter of days and they have a lift system that allows one person to move the car around the shop. It is really cool.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 2, 2006)

Guest said:


> Kawasaki is capable of making the order, they have contracts with Metro-North, the MTA, and New York City Transit.


The MTA is Metro North and NYC Transit, as the MTA is the parent company for both, as well as for the LIRR.


----------



## Guest (Nov 2, 2006)

AlanB said:


> The MTA is Metro North and NYC Transit, as the MTA is the parent company for both, as well as for the LIRR.


Maryland Mass Transit Authority, abbreviated MTA on the Kawasaki site as MTA. As a non-railroad person I just assumed their abbreviations were good since they have the contracts.


----------



## battalion51 (Nov 2, 2006)

I'd forgotten about Super Steel and Alstom. Not that I dislike the Talgo product, it is a good product from what I've seen, but they don't have FRA approval. The Cascades sets are running on an exemption. That's a big hurdle to overcome there.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 2, 2006)

Guest said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > The MTA is Metro North and NYC Transit, as the MTA is the parent company for both, as well as for the LIRR.
> ...


Ah, yes, the MMTA often provides confusion. :lol:


----------



## AlanB (Nov 2, 2006)

battalion51 said:


> I'd forgotten about Super Steel and Alstom. Not that I dislike the Talgo product, it is a good product from what I've seen, but they don't have FRA approval. The Cascades sets are running on an exemption. That's a big hurdle to overcome there.


I thought that Talgo's newer equipment did meet FRA regs. Yes, the current Cascade's trains don't meet specs, but then they were built and designed before before the FRA raised the bar to it's current level. That is why the current trains are running on an exemption, since they were built before the current standards.

I wouldn't be surprise to find that most of the PV's being hauled around by Amtrak also wouldn't meet today's FRA crash standards either.


----------



## VT Hokie (Nov 2, 2006)

Amtrak desperately needs additional sleeper capacity on the single level long distance trains. So, I think Viewliners should be the top priority. Viewliner diners would be nice as well.


----------



## JAChooChoo (Nov 2, 2006)

Guest said:


> Maryland Mass Transit Authority, abbreviated MTA on the Kawasaki site as MTA. As a non-railroad person I just assumed their abbreviations were good since they have the contracts.


*Maryland MTA is buses, Baltimore Metro and Light Rail.*

*Commuter trains are MARC (**MA**ryland **R**ail **C**ommuter)*


----------



## Rafi (Nov 3, 2006)

JAChooChoo said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Mass Transit Authority, abbreviated MTA on the Kawasaki site as MTA. As a non-railroad person I just assumed their abbreviations were good since they have the contracts.
> ...


The MARC, however, is operated by the Maryland MTA (http://www.mtamaryland.com/services/marc/).

-Rafi


----------



## rmgreenesq (Nov 3, 2006)

AlanB said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


And the MTA referred to in the Kingston Trio song, "Charlie on the MTA" is in Boston. Thankfully we now call it the Mass Bay Transit Authority or MBTA or just 'The T".

Rick


----------



## frj1983 (Nov 3, 2006)

I just realized theat "Nippon Sharyo" (may not have the spelling right) had a hand in building the newer Metra gallery cars. I know they were assembled at Super Steel, but am not sure how the whole order was put together. I wonder how big a jump it is from gallery car to a doubledecker Superliner type car?


----------



## AlanB (Nov 3, 2006)

frj1983 said:


> I wonder how big a jump it is from gallery car to a doubledecker Superliner type car?


Well I think that would depend on whether they were parked next to one another on adjacent tracks or if you had several yard tracks seperating the cars. :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## frj1983 (Nov 3, 2006)

AlanB said:


> frj1983 said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how big a jump it is from gallery car to a doubledecker Superliner type car?
> ...


OK, I deserved that!

Let me rephrase: I wonder how big a jump it is to build a "Superliner" type car from a "Gallery" type car?


----------



## saxman (Nov 3, 2006)

I definetly think most or all LD trains should be double deckers. It's one thing that distinguishes US trains from other countries. Yes, other countries have double decked cars, but not to the extent. Of course we have big freight trains as well. They should also look sleek and modern.


----------



## jamesontheroad (Nov 4, 2006)

saxman66 said:


> I definetly think most or all LD trains should be double deckers. It's one thing that distinguishes US trains from other countries. Yes, other countries have double decked cars, but not to the extent.


The real need is with the single level LD trains. I believe there are a lot of Amfleets mothballed right now - adding a high level window might not be possible, but perhaps they could be refurbished and re-engineered into modern sleeper cars to supplement or replace the Viewliners and older dining cars.

*j* :blink:


----------



## AlanB (Nov 4, 2006)

jamesbrownontheroad said:


> saxman66 said:
> 
> 
> > I definetly think most or all LD trains should be double deckers. It's one thing that distinguishes US trains from other countries. Yes, other countries have double decked cars, but not to the extent.
> ...


Actually I believe that there are only 22 or 23 Amfleets in mothballs right now, another 20 or so were pulled out of mothballs and sent to New Orleans. So there isn't a whole lot of Amfleets just currently lying around.

Next, while I suppose that it might be possible and might make some sense to convert a few of them to dining cars, it would not make sense to convert them to sleepers to replace the Viewliners. The reason being is that you'd be replacing the Viewliner cars that are 10 to 11 years old, with Amfleet cars that are 30+ years old. Hardly a good use of money.


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2006)

saxman66 said:


> I definetly think most or all LD trains should be double deckers. It's one thing that distinguishes US trains from other countries. Yes, other countries have double decked cars, but not to the extent. Of course we have big freight trains as well. They should also look sleek and modern.


Yes, but considering the popularity and position of US trains versus that of those is Europe, it that necessarily a good thing?


----------



## gyuri_ft (Nov 5, 2006)

jamesbrownontheroad said:


> The real need is with the single level LD trains. I believe there are a lot of Amfleets mothballed right now - adding a high level window might not be possible, but perhaps they could be refurbished and re-engineered into modern sleeper cars to supplement or replace the Viewliners and older dining cars.*j* :blink:


I can't agree more with you. What we really need is Bombardier-Ammendorf wide-profile (similar to streamliners of past) cars. They were built to the highest standard in Germany. There are literally thousands of them and they are running in good part of Asia and almost everywhere in CIS. Ammendorf was closed a year ago - how sad - because they had no orders anymore (too expensive for cost-sensitive market in Russia or China where own cars are built now). But these Ammendorfs are very well built, very American-like and most people (not me, to be honest) like them a lot.

Perhaps these can be seen better as models (TT, 1:120) - there are countless railfan pictures of these, but the models are showing the features perhaps better.

Sleeping car:







Dining car:






Luggage storage car/crew car:


----------



## Sam Damon (Nov 7, 2006)

Amtrak's FY 2005-2009 Amtrak Strategic Plan called for "funding to begin design of replacement equipment begins in FY 09 (see New Equipment Acquisition)." (reference: page 36.)

The "New Equipment Acquistion" page, though, only lists a project to replace diners and crew dorms with cars built on the Viewliner shell. Draw your own conclusions.


----------



## Steve4031 (Nov 7, 2006)

If they could get the blue prints to those classic budd cars, and then do modern wiriings, etch, they would have the perfect cars. The windows on the budd cars are big. The seats are way more comfortable than the ones that they now put in horizon and view liner cars.

If they built long distance coaches on the Amfleet II model that would bo OK too.


----------



## Sam Damon (Nov 8, 2006)

Steve,

Bombardier owns the rights to cars made by Budd and P-S. They've got all the engineering drawings.

There's one other problem: FRA has new crash standards in light of the Metrolink accident. Think of it like this: all railroad cars must be SUVs. They cannot be sedans, however much it might make sense from an economic POV.


----------



## Steve4031 (Nov 8, 2006)

I did not know that. That is interesting. I never thought that the budd cars were not safe. I am sure that they could make improvements too them as much as with any other equipment. I know the safety issue has kept Amtrak from adopting european technology in the past. Thus the Talgos may not ever be used any place else which is a shame. Those are nice trains.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 8, 2006)

Steve4031 said:


> I know the safety issue has kept Amtrak from adopting european technology in the past. Thus the Talgos may not ever be used any place else which is a shame. Those are nice trains.


Actually the only reason that the Talgo's don't meet current standards, is because they were ordered, built, and and I think delivered before the current standards for crash strength were established. I believe, I'm not positive, but I do believe that I recall reading an article once that said that the new designs from Talgo could easily be adapted to meet the current FRA safety standards.

So I don't believe that is the problem as far as getting more Talgo equipment for Amtrak. The problem remains, who's going to pay for it?


----------



## Sam Damon (Nov 8, 2006)

Exactly.

Any discussion of new equipment needs to have that caveat. We can talk about them here as much as we like, but we need someone or some entity to cough up the $3 million per car it will take. (I do think I'm in the ballpark here. If not, help me with some real-world numbers.)

'nite, all.


----------



## battalion51 (Nov 9, 2006)

I believe it's more in the $2 million range with a Motive costing about $3 million. But again I also could be wrong.


----------



## amtrakrulez (Nov 9, 2006)

What about the Amfleets(both Is and IIs)? Do they need to be replaced as much as the Superliners?


----------



## AlanB (Nov 9, 2006)

amtrakrulez said:


> What about the Amfleets(both Is and IIs)? Do they need to be replaced as much as the Superliners?


Well they certainly need some work, and as I mentioned above the AMF I's are now 30 years old, so they don't have too many more years on their wheels left. There might not be desperate need to replace them right now, but they need to get started looking soon! Especially the way these things get funded.


----------



## battalion51 (Nov 9, 2006)

I believe there has been much more care given to the Amfleets considering the rebuild programs that have occured over the past few years. It seems as though the biggest problem hindering the fleet is continuing air conditioning problems. The first of the cars that will need replacing will be the ex-Metroliner fleet that debuted nearly forty years ago.


----------



## frj1983 (Nov 9, 2006)

battalion51 said:


> I believe there has been much more care given to the Amfleets considering the rebuild programs that have occured over the past few years. It seems as though the biggest problem hindering the fleet is continuing air conditioning problems. The first of the cars that will need replacing will be the ex-Metroliner fleet that debuted nearly forty years ago.


Wow, I hadn't even thought of the Metroliner cars. At 40 years old I'm sure thay have seen a lot of miles and will soon need to be replaced. Does anyone know how many of these are still running?


----------



## battalion51 (Nov 9, 2006)

A fair number of the cars are still in use as Club Cafes, and a great deal of them serve today as cab cars on the Springfield Shuttles and Keystone service. I can say that the Cab Cars (while many have been overhauled) are not the most comfortable things in the world for the Engineers that have to run them. It'd be great if they could get cab cars that have cabs similar to Bombardier's Bi-Levels.


----------



## Amtrak Kid (Nov 14, 2006)

amtrak also has the michigan coaches in the 44550-7 series, they're in storage as far as i know at Beech Grove.

Corey


----------



## frj1983 (Nov 14, 2006)

Amtrak Kid said:


> amtrak also has the michigan coaches in the 44550-7 series, they're in storage as far as i know at Beech Grove.
> Corey


Amtrak Kid,

Are the cars you mention Cab control type cars? Are they also old metroliners as well?

Just curious.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 14, 2006)

frj1983 said:


> Amtrak Kid said:
> 
> 
> > amtrak also has the michigan coaches in the 44550-7 series, they're in storage as far as i know at Beech Grove.
> ...


They are indeed old Metroliner coaches, but they are not cab control cars.

And Amtrak no longer carries those cars on its active roster.


----------



## battalion51 (Nov 14, 2006)

The Michigan Cars were converted cab cars that became standard coaches.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Nov 14, 2006)

battalion51 said:


> The Michigan Cars were converted cab cars that became standard coaches.


They were never cab cars.

The cab cars are other batch of ex Metro liner cars.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 14, 2006)

Dutchrailnut said:


> battalion51 said:
> 
> 
> > The Michigan Cars were converted cab cars that became standard coaches.
> ...


Thanks Dutch.  I had wondered why the Pennsy would order 31 coaches for Metroliner service and make every single one of them a cab car. That seemed like an excessive number of cab cars, especially considering the inspections and maintenance that would be required. I would have figured on at least some of them being straight coaches.


----------



## VT Hokie (Nov 14, 2006)

battalion51 said:


> I believe there has been much more care given to the Amfleets considering the rebuild programs that have occured over the past few years. It seems as though the biggest problem hindering the fleet is continuing air conditioning problems.


Uh oh, better send 'em all to rot alongside these trains in a Delaware storage yard!


----------



## battalion51 (Nov 15, 2006)

Yeah that's my bad right there. Since the original Metroliners never had true engines and it was all just MU sets I think of them as a Cab Car, even though that's not the technical correct term for them.


----------



## frj1983 (Nov 15, 2006)

battalion51 said:


> Yeah that's my bad right there. Since the original Metroliners never had true engines and it was all just MU sets I think of them as a Cab Car, even though that's not the technical correct term for them.


I was kind of thinking along similar lines battalion51, I'm glad to be corrected!


----------



## Bigval109 (Nov 18, 2006)

AlanB said:


> Dutchrailnut said:
> 
> 
> > The Michigan Cars were converted ex Metroliner cars that became standard coaches.
> ...


What's a cab car?


----------



## Trogdor (Nov 18, 2006)

Bigval109 said:


> What's a cab car?


A car (non-locomotive) from which an engineer can operate the train.

These can be coaches (as found in California, a couple of routes in the northeast, and on many commuter railroads), or non-revenue cars, such as baggage cars (nicknamed "cabbage" cars).


----------



## JAChooChoo (Nov 18, 2006)

rmadisonwi said:


> ............(or non-revenue cars, such as baggage cars (nicknamed "cabbage" cars).


*Actually "Cabbage" is the term applied to F40 locomotive shells with cab intact but the prime mover removed and rollup side doors applied to use the empty space for baggage.*

http://www.hebners.net/amtrak/amtF40CAB/amt90200b.jpg


----------



## battalion51 (Nov 18, 2006)

When a Cab Car is being used this is called push-pull operation. When the locomotive is leading the train this is "pull" service, and when the cab car is leading it is in "push" service (since the locomotive) is pushing the train. There are cables that are run through the train from the cab car to the locomotive (called a MU Cable) that sends the signals from the cab car to the locomotive. True cab cars (in Amtrak service) can be found on Springfield Shuttles, Keystone Service, Pacific Surfliners, and San Joaquin/Captiol Corridor service. Other routes that use a canabalized F-40 (otherwise known as a Cabbage Car) include the Downeaster, Hiawathas, Michigan Service, Heartland Flyer, Cascades Service, and Surfliners 798/799. Below is a photo in the cab of an Amfleet Cab Car.


----------



## Trogdor (Nov 18, 2006)

JAChooChoo said:


> rmadisonwi said:
> 
> 
> > ............(or non-revenue cars, such as baggage cars (nicknamed "cabbage" cars).
> ...


I'm well aware of what Amtrak's current cabbage cars are, and their origins. But, the nickname "cabbage" comes from the merger of "cab" and "baggage," and could refer to any such car that combines a cab and baggage space. That the only "cabbages" on Amtrak's roster are former F40s is irrelevant.


----------



## battalion51 (Nov 18, 2006)

I don't think I've ever heard of a Cabbage car that wasn't an F-40. Now if you're suggesting that the Pacific Surfliners Cab Cars are Cabbage cars that is wrong.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 18, 2006)

battalion51 said:


> I don't think I've ever heard of a Cabbage car that wasn't an F-40. Now if you're suggesting that the Pacific Surfliners Cab Cars are Cabbage cars that is wrong.


I don't think that anyone has and Robert wasn't suggesting that there were cabbage's that weren't F-40. He was simply stating that term "Cabbage" doesn't mean that it has to be a F-40. The term applies to the idea that one has taken a baggage car and a cab car and combined them into one. Whether one wants to do that with an engine or what in effect would normally qualify as a passenger/coach car isn't the point. In other words, adding a baggage area to a Pacific Surfliner Cab Car would indeed make it a "Cabbage".

The point is that Cabbage indicates a cab car combined with a baggage car. Cabbage does not mean that it must be an F-40, although in today's world a former F-40 is the only such animal that actually qualifies as a cabbage. But who knows, maybe the remaining mothballed P40's could one day end up being cabagges.


----------



## Mark (Nov 20, 2006)

There’s no doubt that Amtrak needs new equipment. The real question is how long will it be before somebody asks for the funds to get it. Then, after they ask, how long before first of the new cars actually enter service. I think were in for a five-year wait at the minimum. That being said I believe Amtrak really has to take a look at what it wants to be and how it’s going to get there. If we maintain the status quo, and the funds are approved then another series of Superliners or Superliner-like cars will be needed for the western long-distance trains.

This series of Superliners should incorporate all the latest technology, (bathrooms and AC included), and be compatible with the Superliner Is and IIs in service. They need to be rated to 110 mph incase they are needed on the painfully slow progressing ‘high speed’ corridors. Transition crew-dorms should incorporate the checked baggage area on its lower level, (I don’t know why this is not done now. There is plenty of room down there for showers, bathrooms and baggage). The average western long distance train has about 9-10 employees on board counting the Conductor and his/her assistant. These folks could be accommodated on the upper level in roomettes, (there are already 10 in a standard sleeper). The conductors should have an office or worktable in this car as well. This would keep them from occupying dining car, lounge and revenue space in the regular sleepers as I’ve seen them do many a time particularly on the LSL, (Half the café is occupied by crewmembers and I know, the LSL is a single level train, I’ll get to that below). This Transition Car would then eliminate the baggage car and be closest to the Locomotive.

The combined Diner-Lounge, (assuming it works), should be configured for Diner on the lower deck and remain largely a Sightseer Lounge on top with the service section in the middle being expanded. This would have to be well thought out as folks will line up for dinner below. The lower level needs to be able to seat at least 50 for diner and serve them quickly. This would drop the western consist down to a very manageable, (by one P42 on most routes), eight cars: P42-TDB-3SLS-DL-3SLC. The trains, of course, could be beefed-up as demand requires. I’m sure some genius could tie it all together by computer, as the train fills an order is automatically generated for more sleepers or coaches. These cars would come from a national ‘pool’ dedicated to this service. Maintenance would have to be tight for this to work and the ‘pool’ cars closely managed so that they land where they are needed and don’t bunch up in say, Chicago. From what I can tell the trains generally run as ‘sets’ protecting multiple routes and that could still work: If the extra car was added in Chicago and goes to LA where it isn’t needed on its next leg. I gets chopped back in to the ‘pool’, cleaned, serviced and awaits its next call. If there becomes a build up on ‘pool’ cars in one location simply deadhead them back to the areas of high demand. After a year or so, predictable patterns will develop and the cars could be staged accordingly. The ‘pool’ cars would be covered crew-wise by the extra-board.

There needs to be more Sleepers. It seems to me that these cars are always sold out or darn close to it every time I ride, (and I generally ride in all seasons both east and west). Some of the new cars should be configured as roomettes only and should be made slightly longer so that that the two passengers facing each other have a little more leg room. For me the Deluxe is a tad too expensive while the roomette gives me the privacy I prefer at a more attractive price. These Roomette cars could also be sold at a reduced rate as ‘day-rooms’ for passengers making shorter journeys yet still wanting the privacy.

Coaches should be designed with higher backed chairs and sectioned off to provide a more quiet ride. They should also have all the plugs-ins necessary for the current IPODs, laptops, etc. The bottom of at least one coach should be designed as a Business, (with some tables) or Quiet Car section for those who do not want the free for all of near constant cell phone chatter and running children. I don’t know if its possible but can’t the Coaches, at least, generate some of there own power through an alternator-battery system that is recharged by wheel movement? This would reduce HEP demand on the single locomotive I mentioned above.

Now I’ll argue the other way- forget the new Superliners and make an entirely new fleet that is compatible everywhere, (I’ll call this ‘Fleet-One’). Fleet One would use the Viewliner shell as the model. They still look pretty modern and look good behind a P42, (which we will have for at least another 10-15 years). The problem with ‘Fleet One’ is now you have to add cars, locos and crew to the equation to make up for capacity loss. My question to you guys is: Will this cost be off-set by having say LSL49, (train-set), travel to Chicago and become SWC3 which will travel to LA to become SSL2 to NOL, where it will return to NYC as CRST20? I think you would need a lot less equipment if sets were able to protect both east and west routes. I don’t really know but I think that cash-strapped Amtrak should seek equipment commonality. I know this would be boring for us Amtrak fans, (I love the Amfleets as well but my wife thinks they look too 70s trying to be futuristic), but the money saved in stocking/purchasing repair parts that work everywhere must be at least looked at. I’m reasonably sure that having several different types of cars made by several different manufacturers is a logistical nightmare. Particularly when somebody is constantly telling you to, ‘cut back, you cost too much’. 100% interchangeability will help when the lean times come and have they ever really gone away? Cars will be damaged in wrecks and can be stripped to keep others in service. I think this has been done but you can’t take the running gear off of an Amfleet and put it on a Superliner.

Fleet One must be 135mph capable to operate on the NEC. Cut the Sleepers, (to my so-called ‘national pool’), add an HHP8 or P32ACDM and presto you have an Acela Regional ready to go which came in as CL30 or LSL48. This would be a handy feature in the event of breakdowns, extremely late trains, etc. Another option would be to leave the Sleepers on, reduce the rate a bit and sell them as ‘day rooms’ or ‘business rooms’, like I mentioned above. The train could then go straight from NYC to WAS as a Regional then turn for CL29 back to Chicago and out to Seattle as EB7. The key to Fleet One is simplicity.

I don’t really know much about any of this. I hope you folks don’t mind my theorizing, here’s a little more: I would probably eliminate as much non-P42 power as possible. Again, commonality of parts-fleet wide. I would consider converting yard locomotives to Remote Control, (Engineers are really only needed over the road- sorry its true and we must reduce costs to survive). I’d take a hard look at how to save fuel by trying to lease the new yard locomotives UP is using. Somebody could probably invent an Amtrak specific low emission switcher. Its not like Amtrak is switching out 50-60 car cuts regularly. They are pushing perhaps 20 cars max. They don’t need to be 2000 hp capable.

Finally Fleet One would be at least assembled, (if not actually built), at Beech Grove. Regular Mechanical Employees would learn the new equipment as it was assembled, (to save training costs), and gain the knowledge necessary for future repairs. These folks would literally be part of the team and could make spot corrections to any discovered design flaws. I would lease additional facilities that would expire when the surge was over. I would hire contracted employees to beef-up our mechanical forces, (regular maintenance work is still going on), again for the surge that would expire when the last car was completed. Union contracts? Hmm, a slight pay increase to the ‘Regular Employees’ would bargain away the contracted employees rights, (again sorry- but its true). As Fleet One trains enter service regular trains would be removed and mothballed, leased or sold as commuter cars to new routes that are popping up, yet cannot afford ‘new’ equipment.

Respectfully Mark


----------



## Trogdor (Nov 20, 2006)

I don't think there's necessarily that huge of a benefit in Amtrak having a single type of equipment that can run everywhere. Amtrak's network should be large enough that they can efficiently and economically maintain two "separate" fleets. In fact, Amtrak maintains numerous different sub-fleets even within the bi-level/Superliner and single-level category. In fact, I'd be surprised if many parts weren't already interchangeable between them.

The Superliner is a much more efficient design, not only from a capacity point of view, but also from a layout point of view. For one example, the dining car on a Superliner has the kitchen area downstairs, making it easy for passengers to walk through from one end to the other. On single-level cars, the kitchen is at one end, and takes up a considerable amount of space, forcing the aisle off to the side.

In coaches, the Superliner design allows the restrooms to be downstairs, which is a lot better, in my opinion, both in terms of passenger privacy as well as keeping the smell and the seating area separate. In my past rides in coach on long-distance trains, the odor of the restroom seems to be far more noticeable on single-level cars, especially for the seats close to said restroom, than on Superliners. For elderly passengers and others that desire to/need to be closer to restrooms, lower-level seating is available.

Superliners also offer much more (and better, IMO) storage space, and are easier to board with large luggage than the standard single-level cars out there.

Ultimately, I think it's bad enough that the Northeast Corridor has such restricting clearances and platform issues as to prevent the operation of Superliner or other bi-level equipment, but I'd hate to see the limited clearances of a tiny segment of the network dictate the equipment specifications of the entire system.


----------



## battalion51 (Nov 20, 2006)

You know with the development of Bi-Levels similar to the Kawasaki and Bombardier coaches that run in commuter service you'd think they'd develop a fleet of bi-levels in a similar fashion that can operate nationwide standardizing the fleet. Wait. That'd make sense. Nevermind.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 20, 2006)

battalion51 said:


> You know with the development of Bi-Levels similar to the Kawasaki and Bombardier coaches that run in commuter service you'd think they'd develop a fleet of bi-levels in a similar fashion that can operate nationwide standardizing the fleet. Wait. That'd make sense. Nevermind.


They can't, since the reduced height of those commuter Bi-Levels wouldn't permit Bi-Level sleepers. They can barely fit the two beds into the rooms now, drop a few more inches in overall height and no one would be able to climb into the upper bunk.

You'd also have no real room to put any luggage on the overhead racks in coach.

So I'd say that's a non-starter.


----------



## VT Hokie (Nov 21, 2006)

I would think the Superliners, in addition to not being universally compatible with infrastructure on the Amtrak system, are also somewhat challenging for those who are mobility impaired. I'm sure folks with bad knees or various handicaps don't want to be going up and down stairs all the time. I'd rather see the Viewliner become the basis for future long distance equipment.


----------



## frj1983 (Nov 21, 2006)

VT Hokie said:


> I would think the Superliners, in addition to not being universally compatible with infrastructure on the Amtrak system, are also somewhat challenging for those who are mobility impaired. I'm sure folks with bad knees or various handicaps don't want to be going up and down stairs all the time. I'd rather see the Viewliner become the basis for future long distance equipment.


I am not crazy about the viewliners!

While they are fairly young, they look much more fragile and beat-up. The last Viewliner Sleeper that I traveled in (Sep 2005) had an air of genteel shabbiness about it. Hallway panels that covered plumbing access were all bent, dirty, and did not fit flush with the walls. Carpeting and upholstery was worn and old looking, doors didn't fit flush in the compartments, light switches didn't work and I could go on...but I got a sense of chintziness about the car that you don't get on a Superliner. Cheaper materials, cheaper built? I don't know, but it seemed so to me(OK Viewliner Fans, you may now rake me over the coals)

I will also be the first to admit, though, that deferred maintenance might have a lot to do with it and Amtrak has much to answer for in that regard. Perhaps some thought should be given to making Superliners more handicap accessible. Aren't the Superliner transition Dorms accesible from one level to another?


----------



## bmichel5581 (Nov 21, 2006)

At this point in time it makes FAR more sense to go to a Viewliner based LD fleet. After all, it was Amtrak who designed the Viewliners based on a long "wish list" of their's. Soooo, unless they're really disappointed with the Viewliners (which I doubt since Gunn was about to order Viewliner diners), why not go with something you've designed inside and out?


----------



## jphjaxfl (Nov 21, 2006)

The Superliners, as well as the Santa Fe High Level cars, which the Superliners were developed from, have a much better riding quality than the Viewliners or any other single level cars that I have traveled on. Even when the tracks are not in the greatest shape, the ride on the upper level is much better than a single level car. The riding quality of the old Dome cars on the upper level was every similar and the Great Northern and Milwaukee Road Super Domes were equal to Superliners because they were heavier cars and passengers in the upper level were further from the tracks. In the early days of Amtrak, they had to maintain various cars from 4 manufacturers that were produced to specification of 15 or more railroads. I don't think Amtrak would have problems with 2-3 different fleets. New Cars should be built so that travelers will be comfortable and will want to travel by train more frequently.


----------



## bmichel5581 (Nov 21, 2006)

jphjaxfl said:


> The Superliners, as well as the Santa Fe High Level cars, which the Superliners were developed from, have a much better riding quality than the Viewliners or any other single level cars that I have traveled on. Even when the tracks are not in the greatest shape, the ride on the upper level is much better than a single level car.



Tell that to the conductor I sometimes work with. Coming up the stairs on a Superliner, the train slapped, he didn't have time to react or grab on to anything, fell into the side of a chair and shattered his knee. He now has a nice "new" metal knee.

Trust me. Stairs and trains don't go together.


----------



## TransAtlantic (Nov 21, 2006)

Also, from an operational standpoint, the Superliners require more staffing - if there are passengers with disabilities who need assistance (especially around meal times) this can take up many hours for an attendant just to deal with one car, let alone 2 or 3 like they normally have to deal with...at least on single-level equipment, in a pinch, those who can walk but just can't do the stairs can make it to restrooms and food areas. Everyone say it with me: single level pendular


----------



## Trogdor (Nov 21, 2006)

If accessibility to those with disabilities were the issue, the Superliner would win over the Viewliner. A simple ramp (or very short step) and you're on board, as opposed to the several stairs one has to climb on a Viewliner (or other standard single-level car).


----------



## George Harris (Nov 21, 2006)

Mark said:


> This series of Superliners should incorporate all the latest technology, (bathrooms and AC included), and be compatible with the Superliner Is and IIs in service. They need to be rated to 110 mph incase they are needed on the painfully slow progressing ‘high speed’ corridors.
> ******
> 
> Fleet One must be 135mph capable to operate on the NEC. Cut the Sleepers, (to my so-called ‘national pool’), add an HHP8 or P32ACDM and presto you have an Acela Regional ready to go which came in as CL30 or LSL48. This would be a handy feature in the event of breakdowns, extremely late trains, etc. Another option would be to leave the Sleepers on, reduce the rate a bit and sell them as ‘day rooms’ or ‘business rooms’, like I mentioned above.


The 110 mph is not just for corridors. Recall that in the 1940's - 50's there were several lines that allowed 100 mph, such as most of the ATSF route used by the Southwest Chief, the ICRR main in Illinois, and the Milwuakee main to MSP - also the ACL Richmond to Jacksonville - or was that 90 mph? At least the almost freight-free former ATSF passenger line between Kansas City and Albuquerque could become a 110 mph line with a rail relay and little else. What I am saying is, if we are going to get serious about retaining long distance passenger service, we should also be looking to running it at 100 mph plus where practical.

"Fleet One" should be 150 mph plus capable. The only thing that limits a lot of the 135 mph sections on the ex Pennsy part of the Northeast Corridor to 135 mph is the condition of the electrification system. Of course going from 135 mph to 150 mph has you well into the range of diminishing returns, so there would only be a few minutes savings. In fact the highly promoted 150 mph speed limit on a short section of the north end probably saves only a couple of minutes, if that much, over having the limit at 135 mph. Any further time savings of significance on the Northeast Corridor will require huge expenditures to straighten out curvey sections.

George


----------



## AlanB (Nov 21, 2006)

George Harris said:


> Of course going from 135 mph to 150 mph has you well into the range of diminishing returns, so there would only be a few minutes savings. In fact the highly promoted 150 mph speed limit on a short section of the north end probably saves only a couple of minutes, if that much, over having the limit at 135 mph. Any further time savings of significance on the Northeast Corridor will require huge expenditures to straighten out curvey sections.


Absolutely correct George. During the Acela brake rotor crisis Amtrak, as everyone knows, susbstituted Metroliners. During that time period for the first time ever, Amtrak ran the first every all electric Metroliners to Boston. The schedules, if memory serves, were lengthened by about 5 minutes to compensate for the lack of 150 MPH running, since they maxed out the Metroliners at 125 MPH on those same streches.


----------



## JAChooChoo (Nov 21, 2006)

Mark said:


> There’s no doubt that Amtrak needs new equipment. The real question is how long will it be before somebody asks for the funds to get it. ............... I don’t know if its possible but can’t the Coaches, at least, generate some of there own power through an alternator-battery system that is recharged by wheel movement? This would reduce HEP demand on the single locomotive I mentioned above.


 *Mark, I take it you are still fairly young .*

*That was the outmoded, unreliable system used for virtually all long-distance cars built before Amtrak.*

*Santa Fe's Hi-Level cars carried individual diesel generators, the PRR's **Keystone** had a power/kitchen car.*


----------



## Mark (Nov 21, 2006)

George Harris said:


> "Fleet One" should be 150 mph plus capable. The only thing that limits a lot of the 135 mph sections on the ex Pennsy part of the Northeast Corridor to 135 mph is the condition of the electrification system. Of course going from 135 mph to 150 mph has you well into the range of diminishing returns, so there would only be a few minutes savings. In fact the highly promoted 150 mph speed limit on a short section of the north end probably saves only a couple of minutes, if that much, over having the limit at 135 mph. Any further time savings of significance on the Northeast Corridor will require huge expenditures to straighten out curvey sections.
> George


I agree on the 150mph George. I just figured that since the Acelas are doing 135 for the bulk of the journey then Fleet One just needed to match that speed to be integrated into the NEC as a 'Regional'. If the bulk of the NEC can be kicked up to 150 eventually then naturally Fleet One needs to match. Will we have problems with Fleet One running over freight tracks, (at slower speeds but rougher rail), elsewhere; then running at top speed on the NEC?

Can I put you down as Director, Design and Technology-Fleet One? lol

Mark

(edited to format quote- AmtrakWPK)


----------



## Mark (Nov 22, 2006)

JAChooChoo said:


> Mark said:
> 
> 
> > There’s no doubt that Amtrak needs new equipment. The real question is how long will it be before somebody asks for the funds to get it.
> ...


I think age is relative to the individual but yes, JAChooChoo. I was two years old when Amtrak came into being. I've lived near the BN/BNSF my whole life and my first and everlasting memories of passenger rail are the Big Red nosed SDP40Fs leading the San Fransisco Zephyr through my folks town. I made my first Amtrak trip in 79 aboard the Sunset Limited from Tucson to San Antonio. I was hooked and remain so to this day. I like to think my ideas aren't clouded by the visions of past railroad glory. However as we all know but generally do not follow: "Those who have contempt for the past are doomed to repeat it."

That being said, thank you for bringing me up to speed. Those ATSF Hi-Levels are what I rode on that first Amtrak trip and they will forever be my favorite cars. I didn't know that self-powered cars had been tried before but don't you think that with today's technology something better could be developed? Refer cars run all over the country- sure they fail from time to time but most of our produce gets through. I guess what I was aiming at was saving HP on the head end. I may be wrong but I thought that running the HEP draws off of the Locomotive's ability to pull. The P42DC is an astonishingly powerful unit yet most LD trains use two of them. The SWC uses three, (the same number of SDPs it used in the 70s and F40s in the 80s), most of the time. Is this for reliablility reasons? I read somewhere that Amtrak saves 1 million dollars a year by chopping one unit off of the Texas Eagle. If that's true, (and I don't know if it still only uses one but it was last year when I rode it to St Louis), then a hard look needs to be taken at the other routes.

Of course if it isn't worth the trouble, (failures, cost, maintenance, etc.), to make the cars self-powered then this is all academic. I think you're sharp-shooting me on a relatively small point what do you think of the rest of it?

Mark


----------



## AlanB (Nov 22, 2006)

Mark said:


> That being said, thank you for bringing me up to speed. Those ATSF Hi-Levels are what I rode on that first Amtrak trip and they will forever be my favorite cars. I didn't know that self-powered cars had been tried before but don't you think that with today's technology something better could be developed? Refer cars run all over the country- sure they fail from time to time but most of our produce gets through. I guess what I was aiming at was saving HP on the head end. I may be wrong but I thought that running the HEP draws off of the Locomotive's ability to pull. The P42DC is an astonishingly powerful unit yet most LD trains use two of them. The SWC uses three, (the same number of SDPs it used in the 70s and F40s in the 80s), most of the time. Is this for reliablility reasons? I read somewhere that Amtrak saves 1 million dollars a year by chopping one unit off of the Texas Eagle. If that's true, (and I don't know if it still only uses one but it was last year when I rode it to St Louis), then a hard look needs to be taken at the other routes.


A few thoughts not in any order. First part of the savings from dropping an engine is the fuel used. Now with your first idea, no extra fuel would be used. But if another option were choosen, that might not be true. Plus now there is the cost of batteries and maintaining them and you've got to find space to put those batteries into the cars. That could mean the loss of revenue space. I'm not positive, but for some reason I believe that the refer cars actually have a motor and therefore a small fuel tank. So if that is true, then your fuel savings wouldn't be as substantial.

Next, Amtrak often doesn't always analyze things properly. They may notice the fuel savings by dropping one engine, but not stop to notice that fuel consumption went up on the remaining units. Yes, they did save on wear and tear on that dropped unit, but it could also cost them in times of failure by not having that extra unit around. I'm not sure about the $1 M, but it certainly could be possible.

Next, one reason for more engines, isn't just the extra pulling power it's for tractive effort. If you have more wheels on the ground actually helping to pull the train along, you can climb steeper hills and do it more swiftly. Then there is the general idea of accelerating back up to track speed after a stop. Takes longer to do that with one engine vs two. That could mean slightly longer schedules.

Next, in the case of the P42, yes HEP does take away power from the prime mover (the main engine). In the case of the F59PHI locomotives, there is a seperate smaller diesel engine that provides HEP, therefore there is no drain off of the prime mover. And an extra niceity is that if the main engine fails, you can still provide HEP while waiting for rescue.

Finally, because of Amtrak's recent record of engine failures due to some maintenance cuts (not safety issues), CSX and I believe BNSF have demanded that Amtrak run with two or three engines depending on the route.


----------



## AmtrakWPK (Nov 22, 2006)

And another thought re making electrical power for each car by something that generates power from the forward motion of that car is that nothing happens for free in physics. You save the draw of the HEP from the prime mover but then you require a lot more horsepower from that same prime mover by the drag of all those alternators on the individual cars, making it harder to pull the train. And you have added a lot more weight with all those batteries and all those alternators, and (presumably) high-capacity inverters to change that DC to 110V AC (maybe you could run high-current DC motors on the A/C systems of those cars instead of the 480V systems there now, but you still have to provide 110V for passenger equipment and so forth. All of which, of course, is mass the prime mover has to accelerate, and all of which the brake systems have to decelerate. And you have had to basically install a brand-new and fairly complex electrical system in each car. And all that extra equipment has to be PM's and replaced periodically, especially the batteries, which have a slow but inexorable downward curve in their capacity as they get older. And if we are actually talking about running HVAC systems on those cars from batteries when the train is not moving, you are probably not going to get more than a max of 10-30 minutes of run time on batteries, unless you have a LOT of batteries, and REAL BIG alternators. And batteries are HEAVY (see comment above about accel and decel requirements with large units of mass). So those cars are going to get uncomfortable real fast on routes like Sunset where UP makes them sit sometimes for hours on sidings, in the hot American SouthWest. Not good. And you have added a lot of HAZMAT to each car, all that battery acid. I think you would find that the cost of all that stuff FAR outweighs the cost of HEP, and that the end result would be a poorly performing train that has much higher costs to operate than what you have now..


----------



## Sam Damon (Nov 22, 2006)

It would be nice if Miami Joe weighed in on the Viewliners here.


----------



## Miami Joe (Nov 23, 2006)

Good evening, Everybody!!!!!!!

What an interesting topic!!!!! :lol:

I prefer cars built by Pullman and Budd!!!!! They were very well built for years of service and very safe if involved in an accident!

I do like the V/L design, and can only imagine if they were built by Budd!!!!! Spend the money for a decent interior, do away with the digital lighting, and a few minor changes, and they will last 40 years!!!

A few decades ago, each car generated it's own power for lighting and A/C. Was common for the car to go dark and get hot at each stop. P42 generates plenty of power for a consist. The only thing that sucks is one generator provides main and aux power. Old engines had 2 generators.

Unfortunately, the costs of materials and technology play an important part in car construction. I think plastic interiors are here to stay, and companies will push for sub-systems that may be "high tech", but fail in RR cars!!!!!

Basically, Keep it simple!!!

MJ B)


----------



## George Harris (Nov 23, 2006)

To reinforce Miami Joe's statement: The two most important cnocepts in design of anything on the railroad are:

RUGGED and SIMPLE.

If you do that then you have reliability. I have at times spec'ed track material, and for track fastneners in particular the deisgn and fabrication can be as high tech as you want, but the finished product had better be truly rugged and above all simple to install and maintain. That is what I love about the Pandrol clip. Bang it in and it will be right. Some of these others require use of feeler gauges to set right, proper bolt tension, etc., etc. Guess what when you are out there at night and it is raining on your back, if it ain't simple it will not be done right.

George


----------



## Guest (Nov 25, 2006)

Miami Joe said:


> I do like the V/L design, and can only imagine if they were built by Budd!!!!! Spend the money for a decent interior, do away with the digital lighting, and a few minor changes, and they will last 40 years!!!


If you have a chance, MJ, could you amplify these thoughts a bit? I've never ridden a Viewliners, so what's with this "digital lighting" you're mentioning? I'm curious about these things from the perspective of someone who works on them, that's all. Thanks.


----------



## battalion51 (Nov 25, 2006)

The digital lighting system is uses buttons in multiple locations that are fed through a computer system to control the lights, rather than just a traditional switch like you have in our homes, or at least that's how I understand it.


----------



## Miami Joe (Nov 25, 2006)

Illuminator has provide lighting for RR cars for decades.

Previous systems use a simple "on-off button" for lighting.

The V/L's have a "light controller box" and a "video control box" in the ceiling for each room. There was a modification put out that the boxes needed to be grounded, but it was never done. The boxes get charged with static electricity and fail. Changing the controller fixes the problem, but the bad controller is usually good after a few hours when it slowly discharges the static electricity.

I believe a simple switch is better than digital, in this example.

MJ B)


----------

