# Brightline Railcars Any Reason They Can't Be Used By Amtrak?



## seat38a (Aug 5, 2017)

So with the Brightline railcars up and running and the the bi-level order in a shamble, is there any technical reason's why California or another State could not purchase the same railcars for State Corridor service? The Brightline runs with the same Charger Engines and all but other than the info that the railcars are made by Siemens in California, I can't seem to find very much information on them.


----------



## PVD (Aug 5, 2017)

They have 2 types of seating, 2+1 with a 21 inch seat width and the 2+2 cars are 19 inch width. In the paired seats, they have center armrests. So the seats are somewhat narrower than Amtrak, but the aisles are obviously that much wider. I don't know what the restroom or food service setup (if any) looks like.


----------



## west point (Aug 5, 2017)

This poster likes the idea but --

1. It was not invented here .

2. Haters will never say it but if we ( haters ) allow Brightline type cars Amtrak may succeed as soon as 50 cars are in service ?


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry (Aug 5, 2017)

I thought Amtrak was only using stainless steel cars, from the beginning they eliminated a bunch of fine equipment because it wasn't stainless steel. I don't think the brightline cars are stainless steel so I doubt Amtrak would take them, though IDK what their policy on state supported services is.


----------



## CCC1007 (Aug 5, 2017)

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> I thought Amtrak was only using stainless steel cars, from the beginning they eliminated a bunch of fine equipment because it wasn't stainless steel. I don't think the brightline cars are stainless steel so I doubt Amtrak would take them, though IDK what their policy on state supported services is.


I'm pretty sure there isn't any rules on stainless or not, as the turbo trains and talgos exemplify.


----------



## dlagrua (Aug 5, 2017)

Brightline orders rail cars and they are delivered and operating. . Amtrak orders rail cars and things sink into the abyss. Anyone know why?


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Aug 5, 2017)

Bringhtline is testing, they sure as s*** are not operating yet.


----------



## Eric S (Aug 5, 2017)

Just a guess/thought, but it probably helps that AAF/Brightline didn't go to Siemens and say "we want you to build us X, will you?" like was essentially the case with the Viewliner/CAF and bilievel/N-S orders. Instead a version of an existing Siemens product was ordered.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Aug 5, 2017)

If you're talking about replacing the N-S bilevel order with Simens single level cars similar to the Brightline order, then Amtrak has nothing to do with such a decision. The bi-levels were ordered by the states of Illinois, California, Michigan and Missouri for their state-supported trains. If they wish to end the contract with N-S and reorder with Simens, I supposed they can do that, although a large amount of the funding for this order was Stimulus funding which is due to expire soon. So far, all has been quiet as to what the states are going to do. California is using some of its own money for its part of the order, so I suppose they could place an order whenever they want to. Of course the bi-levels are designed for low-level boarding, while the Brightliners will utilize high-level platforms, so some changes will be necessary, since high-level platforms are practically non-existant west of the Northeast Corridor. So, I guess it could be done, but not overnight.


----------



## chrsjrcj (Aug 5, 2017)

PVD said:


> They have 2 types of seating, 2+1 with a 21 inch seat width and the 2+2 cars are 19 inch width. In the paired seats, they have center armrests. So the seats are somewhat narrower than Amtrak, but the aisles are obviously that much wider. I don't know what the restroom or food service setup (if any) looks like.


One ADA restroom per coach. Probably comparable to the Acela, though Brightline is a bit more techier. There is no food service car (that will be Phase II, but the final specification hasn't been made), but there is a microwave in each end car (two per trainset).

Most of the interior is customer specific. If Amtrak wanted these cars, it would probably look completely different, other than the same car shell. I don't think these cars would be good for low level boarding, otherwise we'd be looking at the same situation as the Amfleets/Viewliners with the trap doors. Maybe they would make decent replacements for the Amfleet I's.


----------



## seat38a (Aug 5, 2017)

Well if anything, I can see California going for these as a temporary solution until the bi-levels get sorted out. The fact that they are also built in State probably would not hurt the cause as well. I'm thinking, they could probably be used on the HSR segment when phase 1 is complete since as I understand it, electrification will only happen once the full system is built out or something like that. Also, since the Talgo lease for the Surfliner has been stalled, the State could probably just straight out buy the new railcars and get more bang for the buck than turning to buying up old equipment and refurbishing them like what was done with the comet cars to increase capacity. I know the automated doors would be vast improvement over the manual doors on the Horizon cars. Nothing like a busy train trying to board and deboard from only 3 open doors.


----------



## Ngotwalt (Aug 5, 2017)

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> I thought Amtrak was only using stainless steel cars, from the beginning they eliminated a bunch of fine equipment because it wasn't stainless steel. I don't think the brightline cars are stainless steel so I doubt Amtrak would take them, though IDK what their policy on state supported services is.


Not correct, Pullman built cars with I think corten steel, and over time it didn't hold up as well as stainless. A lot of frame cracking issues started to arise, and once that happens, it's all over. Buff cars on the other hand were all stainless including the frames. Even those are starting to crack now, so not perfectly good.

Nick


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 6, 2017)

Yeah, how dare a 70 year old car crack it's frame.

Pullman used carbon steel, I think it was ACF that played with Corten and only for one order. Corten steel is steel that rusts a protective layer. It has applications, but a rail car constantly pelted with dust as it moves is not one of them- the dust wears off the protective rust, and therefore the car just rusts away.


----------



## bretton88 (Aug 6, 2017)

Part of the issue with replacing the NS order with Siemens is that the stimulus money requires the cars to be built to the next generation specs (hello problem #1) so the states can't just switch models. Supposedly there where only 2 bidders, NS and a drastically higher Siemens bid because they thought the design was going to be major problems.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk


----------



## seat38a (Aug 6, 2017)

bretton88 said:


> Part of the issue with replacing the NS order with Siemens is that the stimulus money requires the cars to be built to the next generation specs (hello problem #1) so the states can't just switch models. Supposedly there where only 2 bidders, NS and a drastically higher Siemens bid because they thought the design was going to be major problems.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk


Don't know about other States but California has its own stash of cash from a bunch of vague taxes that we pay to pay for trains out here. Let the Federal Money follow whatever BS rules that it is required to follow, but the suggestion is only for California money. Right now the Surfliner is bursting at the seams and have to turn people away on many trains. During busy times same with the San Joaquin. The Surfliner alone is approaching 3 million riders a year with no new railcars available to add to the system.

I'd say with some shinny new Semen's railcars in the system, which from the Brightline website already come with bike racks, I can see the State having more flexibility. From what I'm reading, the Talgo lease scheme is pretty much dead and currently Santa Barbara and north of LA has been screaming for more Surfliner service that is better timed for commuters between Simi Valley and Goleta.


----------



## neroden (Aug 6, 2017)

Eric S said:


> Just a guess/thought, but it probably helps that AAF/Brightline didn't go to Siemens and say "we want you to build us X, will you?" like was essentially the case with the Viewliner/CAF and bilievel/N-S orders. Instead a version of an existing Siemens product was ordered.


Well, when you're ordering sleepers and dining cars, you have to order custom, there's really no choice. I actually don't think this has anything to do with it.

The mistake with CAF was trying to build cars in Elmira. Siemens could have built the Viewliner design no problem.

With N-S... bilevels are structurally tricky and they needed someone with experience building them, which they didn't get. They also specified too much of the design in advance and apparently it wasn't actually buildable; someone should have listened to the feedback from Siemens regarding why their bid was so high. (By contrast, we know the Viewliner design is buildable, because there have been 50 of them on the road for two decades.)

California can't order single-level cars unless they're prepared to raise their platforms (which sounds great to me but is unlikely). ADA rules on new orders are getting strict these days (as they should). They could probably find a buildable bilevel design (after all, they ordered the Surfliners, right?) and order some of those.

The thing is... the Siemens Desiro Double Deck would probably be fine, except our inane FRA rules probably make it illegal in the US. (Sigh.)


----------



## jis (Aug 6, 2017)

I still don't understand why anyone would need to insist on a Viewliner shell if say Siemens could figure out a way to plug the modules into an adapted Railjet shell. I think that is the relevant point. It is the interior furnishing and dimensions that is specified, not which specific shell it needs to be put into and how it needs to be designed and manufactured.

Many a standard written by many experts who don't understand this simple thing, have then fallen by the wayside ignored by all that wanted something that actually worked for a reasonable price. Having spent half my professional career in the world of International Standards, including in several committees of the US National Bodies associated with ISO, we have seen this happen over and over. Nothing new really.


----------



## dlagrua (Aug 8, 2017)

jis said:


> I still don't understand why anyone would need to insist on a Viewliner shell if say Siemens could figure out a way to plug the modules into an adapted Railjet shell. I think that is the relevant point. It is the interior furnishing and dimensions that is specified, not which specific shell it needs to be put into and how it needs to be designed and manufactured.
> 
> Many a standard written by many experts who don't understand this simple thing, have then fallen by the wayside ignored by all that wanted something that actually worked for a reasonable price. Having spent half my professional career in the world of International Standards, including in several committees of the US National Bodies associated with ISO, we have seen this happen over and over. Nothing new really.


I agree that Amtrak doesn't need to keep insisting on having the Viewliner rail car design. It makes perfect sense to use an existing standard passenger car and develop modules for the interior. The Viewliner is a 1980's design. Technology has changed since then and perhaps there is a better more cost effective way to filling the eastern train consists.. Back when the private railroads ran passenger trains, the coaches and sleepers were of basic designs and many of these run as PV and tourist trains today. I believe that the later ones were painted steel cars and they had a very colorful look to them.


----------



## A Voice (Aug 8, 2017)

neroden said:


> California can't order single-level cars unless they're prepared to raise their platforms (which sounds great to me but is unlikely). ADA rules on new orders are getting strict these days (as they should). They could probably find a buildable bilevel design (after all, they ordered the Surfliners, right?) and order some of those.


There is a rumor (and just a rumor) the Midwest states are considering a single-level design in place of the previous bi-level order (assuming they still have funding.....). They don't have high platforms either.



jis said:


> I still don't understand why anyone would need to insist on a Viewliner shell if say Siemens could figure out a way to plug the modules into an adapted Railjet shell. I think that is the relevant point.



Aesthetics, for one. Hardly the most important aspect, but it does matter.


----------



## jis (Aug 8, 2017)

If that mattered they should have stuck with the classic Budd shape (no not Amfleet. The original Budd shape like the Heritage Sleepers). They didn't. So it is safe to assume that it really does not matter.


----------



## west point (Aug 8, 2017)

This poster's observations and talk to passengers has been the Amfleet tube type construction is a put off. Viewliner and Heritage diners to a lesser extent have been more to the liking of passengers I've talk to.

Anyone know the various cubic volume in side Viewliners especially diners, Amfleet 1 & 2s and Heritage diners ? Also the Brightline cars as well ? Do Brightline cars have one vestibule or 2 ? It would seem the overhead baggage racks in V-2 coaches would be less intrusive at eye level in the aisles of coaches than Amfleets ?


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Aug 8, 2017)

jis said:


> If that mattered they should have stuck with the classic Budd shape (no not Amfleet. The original Budd shape like the Heritage Sleepers). They didn't. So it is safe to assume that it really does not matter.


At what point? That may have made sense during the original construction of Amfleets or Viewliner Is, but the existing Viewliner Is are not going anywhere anytime soon. It is clear for this reason that aesthetics did not matter in the past, but different people are in charge now compared to back then. The only way to make all the cars match at this point is with Viewliner coaches and lounges. I agree with "A Voice" that this should not be the priority, but should not be completely ignored either. Even though it doesn't have much of an affect on passenger experience, it could affect passenger's opinions of a company.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 8, 2017)

jis said:


> If that mattered they should have stuck with the classic Budd shape (no not Amfleet. The original Budd shape like the Heritage Sleepers). They didn't. So it is safe to assume that it really does not matter.


Come on, JIS. Asthetics always matter to the extent people choose to let them matter. Obviously, operationally it is almost irrelevant, and practicality and getting trains running trump it thoroughly, but to say they don't matter is a rather sweeping statement.


----------



## A Voice (Aug 8, 2017)

jis said:


> If that mattered they should have stuck with the classic Budd shape (no not Amfleet. The original Budd shape like the Heritage Sleepers). They didn't. So it is safe to assume that it really does not matter.


The Amfleet body shape wasn't a deliberate design choice. It was retained mostly because Budd had a completed design and tooling to produce "Metroliner Trailer Cars". Can you honestly say that a train with a mix of Heritage, Amfleet, and Superliner cars (it's been done) looks just as sleek as an Acela trainset (or even a Surfliner)?

Regardless, Amtrak apparently thinks it matters. Note the publicity photos in the old National Timetable and Amtrak Vacations booklet; They never showed the _Crescent_ with a mix of Viewliner, Amfleet, and Heritage cars. Rather, we see a matched Amfleet set (no sleepers or diner or baggage) on the Toccoa Viaduct or a solid train of Superliners (no baggage) out west. These were trains sent out solely for these publicity purposes.

I am certainly not suggesting appearance should trump basic design, function, utility or most anything else (including production cost). But I do contend that a sleek, modern trainset is sufficiently preferable to a circus train reject that attention should be paid to aesthetics in future passenger car design. There are undeniable advantages to Amtrak taking what is available, but for a vehicle which will be in service probably the next forty or fifty years it is more important to get the design right than rush an existing production design or pinch pennies in development.


----------



## jis (Aug 8, 2017)

Factors that should matter more is cost of production and currency of design. that is my only point. Some seem to be making the argument that we should perpetuate a particular shape of an 80s design for the sake of "sleekness" irrespective of anything else. that is just nuts.

If one is starting greenfield of course it would be nice to have everything shaped the same. but we are (a) not starting from green field and (b) are in a very financially constrained situation. We should be looking for the best design that is available as quickly as possible with the least possible cost, and place niceties like aesthetic alignment with designs from the last cetury rather low on the list of priorities.


----------



## neroden (Aug 8, 2017)

Honestly, I don't think the added cost of a Viewliner profile is significant. There's nothing wrong with the Viewliner design and it's specifically designed to maximize volume of space used while fitting in the clearance envelope of the NEC.


----------



## A Voice (Aug 8, 2017)

jis said:


> Factors that should matter more is cost of production and currency of design. that is my only point. Some seem to be making the argument that we should perpetuate a particular shape of an 80s design for the sake of "sleekness" irrespective of anything else. that is just nuts.


*Nobody* here has claimed that aesthetic considerations should override all other elements of passenger car design. That's a strawman argument.


----------



## jis (Aug 8, 2017)

A Voice said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Factors that should matter more is cost of production and currency of design. that is my only point. Some seem to be making the argument that we should perpetuate a particular shape of an 80s design for the sake of "sleekness" irrespective of anything else. that is just nuts.
> ...


All that I said was that should not be done to start with so I was just re-emphasizing that, since it was not clear what anybody was actually saying  I am glad to see at least you agree with me. I have no idea what the real position of anyone else is.



neroden said:


> Honestly, I don't think the added cost of a Viewliner profile is significant. There's nothing wrong with the Viewliner design and it's specifically designed to maximize volume of space used while fitting in the clearance envelope of the NEC.


And it is entirely possible that the shape can be achieved in other car bodies with minor variation. Afterall Bombardier had very little trouble doing the M-8 and M-9s with similar bulges. The problem arises when one then goes on to insist that the airconditioning units muse be similar to the ones used in Amfleets and on and on.

What should be provided to the manufacturers is the loading gauge, internal dimensions, the regulations they must comply with and furnishing specs and then let them propose how they are going to meet those, rather than hand them a detailed design and say produce us 150 of these. It is the former approach that Amtrak has taken with the Acela II order, and the latter approach with the Viewliner II order. And the lesser we say about the cluster among Amtrak, FRA, Bombardier and Alstom that begat the Acela Is came to be the better.

Speaking of new cars (Coaches), whatever its outside shape is, it would be really much more pleasing I think if the interior could be designed to resemble something akin to the so called "Sky" interior that we are seeing in planes today. A 14'6" tall car certainly leaves enough room for doing that and making the car feel much airier even without the upper row of windows, specially with some judiciously designed indirect lighting one would think.


----------



## west point (Aug 8, 2017)

Still no comparison of View liner and Brightline profiles ? Brightline appears to have very large windows which may improve passenger acceptance. Granted that will require higher capacity HVAC and more efficient shades. ? Still believe that most but certainly not all persons will like the View liner inside profile compared to Amfleets ? View liner lounges will certainly have a bigger viewing angle available for outside viewing. Can imagine that V-2 lounges on the Cardinal thru New River Gorge will be well received.

About Air conditioning units. Our understanding is that the units are now designed to be interchangeable with quick disconnects and identical air handling connections that will prevent delays due to replacements of failed units. Compatible units allow for more maintenance locations to carry a spare unit(s) such as Atlanta, Florence, Memphis, Denver, Minot. That way additional improvements in unit efficiency can be used for new and replacement units. .


----------



## neroden (Aug 8, 2017)

jis said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly, I don't think the added cost of a Viewliner profile is significant. There's nothing wrong with the Viewliner design and it's specifically designed to maximize volume of space used while fitting in the clearance envelope of the NEC.
> ...


Sure. I believe the Viewliner IIs have a completely different primary electrical distribution system from the Viewliner Is, however, so they're obviously not being too picky. Did they really specify *Amfleet* A/C units? That would make no sense given that the Amfleets are totally different.


----------



## west point (Aug 8, 2017)

Amfleet-1 HVAC units ? Ridiculous.

1. Not built anymore due to going from banned R-22 to R-410 to meet current EPA regulations.

2. SEER probably was only 7 - 8 where as units now SEER units are 14+

3. Today's new units will probably be bulkier and weight more than original AM-1 units


----------



## railiner (Aug 8, 2017)

Green Maned Lion said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > If that mattered they should have stuck with the classic Budd shape (no not Amfleet. The original Budd shape like the Heritage Sleepers). They didn't. So it is safe to assume that it really does not matter.
> ...


Once upon a time it mattered a lot, when railroads could easily order matched sets of equipment from a choice of builder's, to equip their new streamliner's.

Now, we have trains like VIA Rail's Ocean, where they match up Renaissance cars with classic Budd Park series cars... Practical? Certainly. Aesthetic? Hardly......


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Aug 9, 2017)

west point said:


> Still no comparison of View liner and Brightline profiles ? Brightline appears to have very large windows which may improve passenger acceptance. Granted that will require higher capacity HVAC and more efficient shades. ? Still believe that most but certainly not all persons will like the View liner inside profile compared to Amfleets ? View liner lounges will certainly have a bigger viewing angle available for outside viewing. Can imagine that V-2 lounges on the Cardinal thru New River Gorge will be well received.
> 
> About Air conditioning units. Our understanding is that the units are now designed to be interchangeable with quick disconnects and identical air handling connections that will prevent delays due to replacements of failed units. Compatible units allow for more maintenance locations to carry a spare unit(s) such as Atlanta, Florence, Memphis, Denver, Minot. That way additional improvements in unit efficiency can be used for new and replacement units. .


Is there actually a proposed design for Viewliner lounges? I would like to see the same size windows as SSLs as well as the same-style chairs. Obviously, some space will be lost due to the need for the food service area on the same level as the viewing area.


----------



## jis (Aug 9, 2017)

There isn't. Except at AU


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 9, 2017)

I agree shape isn't particularly important. I'm just rejecting the argument that it is immaterial. All things being equal, it is a positive for trains to have a consistent car appearance. Obviously all things are not equal, and it is quite low priority.

Nate, I would tend to agree with you that the marginal cost difference of producing a Viewliner shape rather than some other shape would be limited. However that cost would mostly likely mean either dealing with the dunderheads at CAF or setting up new tooling, which would be substantially more expensive than asking Seimans to fire up the bright liner plant and asking them to build Amtrak a fleet of coaches and lounges based on that design. Whether that would be true for additional sleepers I am not sure.


----------



## west point (Aug 9, 2017)

Do we know for sure that the Bright liners meet NEC loading gauge ?


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 10, 2017)

It would be astonishing if they don't, since they were built to a specification that they do.


----------



## cirdan (Aug 10, 2017)

To revert to the original question.

I remember some time ago on this forum, when it was first announced that Siemens had been selected to supply the Brightline equipment.

At the time I said that the Railjet coach was taylored for European conditions where track is generally smoother than on most Amtrak LD routes. I questioned whether these coaches would stand up well under American operating conditions.

It was countered that FEC tracks were also going to be maintained to very high standards so this wasn't a problem.

So to come back to the original question, in my opinion it depends on how well they perform on average and poor track, and whether they can still provide an adequate level of comfort unde those conditions, quite apart from not falling to bits.


----------



## jis (Aug 10, 2017)

They could hardly run any more poorly than Amfleets on any track IMHO. that would take a special ability to design something with a goal set for poor ride quality and maintenance requirements  Not that it cannot be done, but it would be quite an achievement.

BTW, it ight be surprising for some to learn that the considerably larger loading gauge of a double decker TGV also fits within the NEC loading gauge envelope. Yes, the Brightline cars would fit fine on the NEC. Actually the NEC loading gauge is not that small by world standards.


----------



## PerRock (Aug 10, 2017)

For loading gauge, the Viaggio Twin is 4600mm tall. https://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/global/SiteCollectionDocuments/en/rail-solutions/passenger-coaches/viaggio-twin-en.pdf

peter


----------



## jis (Aug 10, 2017)

PerRock said:


> For loading gauge, the Viaggio Twin is 4600mm tall. https://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/global/SiteCollectionDocuments/en/rail-solutions/passenger-coaches/viaggio-twin-en.pdf
> 
> peter


That would be right on the edge. It is taller than the Viewliners 14'6", but is under 14'8"


----------



## west point (Aug 10, 2017)

And the clearance gauge ?


----------



## jis (Aug 11, 2017)

west point said:


> And the clearance gauge ?


When you get that close to the edge one has to take a closer look at the shape.

However, so far no one has proposed to purchase Viaggio Twins for anything in the US. If someone does then they will have to make sure that the US version fits the loading gauge of the proposed routes over which they will be used.


----------



## cirdan (Aug 11, 2017)

railiner said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


This

If aesthetics realyl mattered, locomotives would also be designed to match cars more closely, as they did back in the streamliner era.


----------



## A Voice (Aug 11, 2017)

cirdan said:


> If aesthetics realyl mattered, locomotives would also be designed to match cars more closely, as they did back in the streamliner era.


When you operate six different models of single-level passenger cars - each with distinctive shapes and profiles - and multiple types of bi-level equipment, to what exactly do you match the locomotives?

Remember that aesthetics were a primary reason the railroads got the FP-45/SDP-40F designs; It would have been easier and cheaper to have just bought more SDP-45's (or even P32's instead of the Genesis). Indeed, the issue of cost is paramount. It was far less expensive and more practical to do a cowled GP-40 than a modern E-unit.

None of which proves aesthetics unimportant. There are very good reasons - and more important considerations than style - why much modern equipment doesn't match very well. To the extent possible and _practical_, attention should be paid to style and a more uniform appearance.


----------



## jis (Aug 11, 2017)

The modern trend elsewhere in the world is to use semi-permanently coupled matched consists for passenger service.

However, in countries that have extensive long distance service, at for the long distance trains the trend still is to have trains consists built of individual cars coupled together using standard couplers. Even there though because of other reasons e.g. braking system, HEP system etc. compatibility, more often than not similar cars from the same generation tend to be kept together. Attempts to keep cars with similar livery start with much fanfare at the introduction of a new service, but in five years it descends into a mess.

Matching the livery of train consists with engines is more often than not, mostly ignored.

As has been mentioned, operational convenience and cost considerations tend to derail the best laid out aesthetics plans. But it is still good to start at a good point.

The problem that Amtrak has is that, as Thirdrail and I have discussed elsewhere, it is a grossly under-capitalized operation, both on the capital purchases front and on the maintenance front. Under those circumstances, you basically acquire what you can at the lowest possible price, You maintain things closer to the point of failure than a fully capitalized operation would. The reason that the very effective maintenance paradigm used for the Acelas is not used elsewhere can be traced to this basic under-capitalization. Even when you plan to rebrand it takes so long to re-livery the relevant fleet that the whole plan falls apart and aesthetics suffers even more.


----------



## railiner (Aug 11, 2017)

cirdan said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


Gorgeous! Thanks for posting!

Love those E-5's...only the 'Q' had them...they sure looked great with a matching set of stainless Budd Zephyr's.....


----------



## west point (Aug 11, 2017)

match for awhile then mix becomes the normal. Since the Bright line coaches are different colors for each semi permanent train set want to bet when the sets get mixed up ? Bright line may have certain trips that sell out with a current train set and they will add cars from other set(s) ?


----------



## jis (Aug 11, 2017)

west point said:


> match for awhile then mix becomes the normal. Since the Bright line coaches are different colors for each semi permanent train set want to bet when the sets get mixed up ? Bright line may have certain trips that sell out with a current train set and they will add cars from other set(s) ?


They are unlikely to do that since their plan is to maintain and run each set as a single unit. The sets are not easy to take apart to replace a single car.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Aug 12, 2017)

jis said:


> west point said:
> 
> 
> > match for awhile then mix becomes the normal. Since the Bright line coaches are different colors for each semi permanent train set want to bet when the sets get mixed up ? Bright line may have certain trips that sell out with a current train set and they will add cars from other set(s) ?
> ...


Yeah, they will be run similar to how the Acela is run now. The only time the consists may be adjusted is if a specific car needs repairs, which is unusual as a whole set is usually worked on at the same time. There was a time a few years ago when one of the Acela sets was missing a car due to major repairs. If I remember correctly, it was a first class car.


----------



## chrsjrcj (Aug 12, 2017)

Theoretically Brightline could remove the two middle cars (the end cars have no passageways) and add a car to two trainsets or two cars to one trainset. This would leave them with three trainsets and a spare (which is enough with an hour end to end run time and a 30 min turnaround at each end point). Of course, they would have to change the exterior decal and interior markings from Bright Blue to Bright Pink (or whatever). I doubt they would want to do this unless there is considerably more demand at rush hour.


----------



## jis (Aug 12, 2017)

They have additional cars (including food service car) on order for each set and additional sets for extension of service to Orlando and expansion on capacity and enhancement of service in Phase II.

Phase III, though not called that yet, appears to be adding one or more station in the big gap between West Palm Beach and Orlando.


----------



## cirdan (Aug 13, 2017)

The train form with two locomotives sandwiching a fixe set is based on British Rail's HST. Okay, there are or were earlier examples than that, including Britain-s Blue Pullman, Germany's TEE and others. But I think there is no denying that the British HST went a long way to making this type of train popular and succesful.

As ordered, the BR versions came with both 7 and 8 passenger cars, depending on the route. Furthermore, initially there was both a buffet car and a full restaurant, at least on the versions earmarked for longer trips. Full restaurants were phased out a few years later, replaced by meals served at your seat in the first class on longer trips. Over the years cars have been rebuilt and repurposed and indeed cars have been rebuilt from the general fleet to strengthen the HSTs. with many sets being one or even two cars longer than initially delivered. On the other hand parcels are no longer carried, so the sets today are quite different in many respects to the configuration as first designed. Not to mention they have also been re-engined.

BR and its privatized succesors were fortunate in that there were plenty of Mk3s available on other services that could be rebuilt for HST use (basically buffers removed and rewired for diferent voltage). I hope Brightline has some sort of arrangement with Siemens to be able to add further cars in the longer term future without being charged some extortionate price,as happened to Amtrak when they tried to strengthen the Acela sets.


----------



## jis (Aug 13, 2017)

Yes. Brightline has a deal with Siemens to both add cars to the current consists and add new consists to their fleet.

Since these are not one of a kind special order but are off the shelf products with minor customization for a customer there would be no justification for the scenario that unfolded with Acelas, even if it was just an additional order within the next several years. Of course if it is an order for something 20 years hence, it would probably be crazy not to go for a more current generation of technology by then.


----------



## seat38a (Aug 14, 2017)

jis said:


> Yes. Brightline has a deal with Siemens to both add cars to the current consists and add new consists to their fleet.
> 
> Since these are not one of a kind special order but are off the shelf products with minor customization for a customer there would be no justification for the scenario that unfolded with Acelas, even if it was just an additional order within the next several years. Of course if it is an order for something 20 years hence, it would probably be crazy not to go for a more current generation of technology by then.


They are running the trains currently with two engines. Does Siemens not have a control car for the Brightline railcars?


----------



## cirdan (Aug 14, 2017)

seat38a said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. Brightline has a deal with Siemens to both add cars to the current consists and add new consists to their fleet.
> ...


The Railjet has a control car. But it appears that Brightline did not pursue that option. Maybe the design wasn't FRA compiiant?


----------



## jis (Aug 14, 2017)

Brightline wanted 8000HP. Logical way to get that is from two 4000hp diesels. So no need for cab cars.


----------



## seat38a (Aug 14, 2017)

jis said:


> Brightline wanted 8000HP. Logical way to get that is from two 4000hp diesels. So no need for cab cars.


Wow such simple cost effective solutions to the problem.


----------



## jis (Aug 14, 2017)

And also a more reliable solution since there is now no single point of failure for the prime movers powering the train.


----------



## seat38a (Aug 14, 2017)

jis said:


> And also a more reliable solution since there is now no single point of failure for the prime movers powering the train.


That is what I was thinking as well but hit submit before writing it on the above post. The biggest sched failure for Metrolink and Amtrak in California has been the engines breaking down. I just love getting a tweet or a text message. Train so and so has been cancelled due to mechanical issue with the engine. In Amtrak's case they have spare engines located in SD and LA but my train has always broken down somewhere between the location of the spares.


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry (Aug 14, 2017)

CCC1007 said:


> norfolkwesternhenry said:
> 
> 
> > I thought Amtrak was only using stainless steel cars, from the beginning they eliminated a bunch of fine equipment because it wasn't stainless steel. I don't think the brightline cars are stainless steel so I doubt Amtrak would take them, though IDK what their policy on state supported services is.
> ...


Those are state supported though, so I'm betting Amtrak doesn't care as much
Sent from my SM-G930P using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## jis (Aug 15, 2017)

I have been told by one of the Brightline representatives that the Brightline Cars are Stainless Steel with the livery applied as decal wraps. But what would they know. 

We have also heard from Amtrak that they are taking a serious look at the Brightline cars and they have seen no problem with the material used for their construction. The same Amtrak gentleman from a relatively high position within Amtrak also said that if and when Amtrak finds the money to purchase new cars, it is quite likely that Siemens will be a contender among several others.

But remember, there are several very credible passenger car producers in the world, and as long as Amtrak and FRA stop being anal about their car specifications, probably most of them would bid. So who will be selected is almost impossible to guess. One would of course hope that a dud contract like the one with CAF or Nippon Sharyo is not repeated.


----------



## neroden (Aug 30, 2017)

The Brightline cars would be perfectly good single-level coaches, and probably cafes. Amtrak needs a lot of coaches.

I don't think anyone knows how to modify them to be dining cars or sleepers. Hopefully the CAF order can get straightened out and extended.


----------



## jis (Aug 30, 2017)

neroden said:


> The Brightline cars would be perfectly good single-level coaches, and probably cafes. Amtrak needs a lot of coaches.
> 
> I don't think anyone knows how to modify them to be dining cars or sleepers. Hopefully the CAF order can get straightened out and extended.


I suspect Brightline and Siemens know how to build Cafes in that shell since Brightline has ordered on per set that will be used for the full service to Orlando.


----------



## cirdan (Aug 30, 2017)

jis said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > The Brightline cars would be perfectly good single-level coaches, and probably cafes. Amtrak needs a lot of coaches.
> ...


Seeing Railjet has a cafetria car, (although albeit the concept is somewhat different to Amtrak's), I don't see a problem here.


----------



## Eric S (Aug 30, 2017)

I believe Siemens has supplied/is supplying Russian Railways (RZD) with a sleeping car based on the Viaggio Classic.


----------



## jis (Aug 30, 2017)

Eric S said:


> I believe Siemens has supplied/is supplying Russian Railways (RZD) with a sleeping car based on the Viaggio Classic.


That is true too.

Frankly, furnishing the interior for Sleeping accommodation should not be any problem at all. Car builders have been able to do that in myriads of car bodies over the last 100 and more years.


----------



## MisterUptempo (Aug 31, 2017)

Eric S said:


> I believe Siemens has supplied/is supplying Russian Railways (RZD) with a sleeping car based on the Viaggio Classic.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6_kQ31SFTQ

source - YouTube user Mark Smith - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvagRZi_ro7U3yKsgCkvP1A


----------



## jis (Sep 25, 2017)

Some pictures of Brightline cars that I snapped last Saturday at their West Palm Beach facility while on a tour with the FECRS folks as part of their Annual Convention in Miami.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10214953387373390&set=pcb.10214953390853477&type=3&theater


----------



## railiner (Oct 1, 2017)

jis said:


> Some pictures of Brightline cars that I snapped last Saturday at their West Palm Beach facility while on a tour with the FECRS folks as part of their Annual Convention in Miami.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10214953387373390&set=pcb.10214953390853477&type=3&theater


Nice shots! Thanks for posting them....


----------

