# New equipment for Amtrak



## Hanno (Jan 12, 2009)

I just read an article in Trains magazine by Don Phillips where he mentions the following, "It is a travesty that equipment was not ordered at least a year ago, and it will be interesting to learn, as time goes on, why none has been ordered yet."

Was money appropriated a year ago for new equipment? Is money available now?

I'm sure everyone is in agreement that there is a need for additonal equipment! Any thoughts on Mr. Phillips comments?

Thanks!


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 12, 2009)

Amtrak is desperate for new equipment. If it hasn't been ordered, the money ain't there.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 13, 2009)

Amtrak just requested new equipment from Congress in like October or November as justification for giving Amtrak the money that the 5 year plan calls for.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jan 13, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Amtrak just requested new equipment from Congress in like October or November as justification for giving Amtrak the money that the 5 year plan calls for.


and i bet congress said get lost


----------



## VT Hokie (Jan 13, 2009)

Amtrak shouldn't get money for any new equipment until they use what they currently have, imo. That includes newly rebuilt Turboliners, a large number of Amfleet coaches, and a whole fleet of relatively young P40's going to waste in Bear, DE.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jan 13, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> Amtrak shouldn't get money for any new equipment until they use what they currently have, imo. That includes newly rebuilt Turboliners, a large number of Amfleet coaches, and a whole fleet of relatively young P40's going to waste in Bear, DE.


good point. give amtrak the money to repair the mothballed equipment.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 13, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> Amtrak shouldn't get money for any new equipment until they use what they currently have, imo. That includes newly rebuilt Turboliners, a large number of Amfleet coaches, and a whole fleet of relatively young P40's going to waste in Bear, DE.


The Turbos are dead, forever.

The request also included money for fixing up the mothballed Amfleet's, which aren't that many in relation to the total number of Amfleets that Amtrak owns.

And the P40's are in mothballs because Amtrak doesn't need them. They weren't sent out to pasture because they needed work, they went out to pasture because when Express Trak ended, Amtrak had a surplus of engines since they needed less engines per train. However all the P40's aren't in mothballs either, as 4 have been sold to NJT and 8 are leased to the State of CT.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jan 13, 2009)

AlanB said:


> VT Hokie said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak shouldn't get money for any new equipment until they use what they currently have, imo. That includes newly rebuilt Turboliners, a large number of Amfleet coaches, and a whole fleet of relatively young P40's going to waste in Bear, DE.
> ...


The 8 units at CDOT are now bought from Amtrak

Amtrak in its day to day operations has almost 20 diesels as active spare, plus the 30 or so remaining P40's in storage, so its not engines Amtrak needs, what they need is replacement for Amfleet, currently older than heritage fleet when Amtrak was created.

Amtrak will need more electrics soon.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jan 13, 2009)

AlanB said:


> VT Hokie said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak shouldn't get money for any new equipment until they use what they currently have, imo. That includes newly rebuilt Turboliners, a large number of Amfleet coaches, and a whole fleet of relatively young P40's going to waste in Bear, DE.
> ...


Not to mention the other needs for cars can't be satisfied with Amfleets. Baggage cars, some of the old Heritage cars, maybe a couple new Viewliners (or variant thereof).

Sometimes I look at a baggage car, or a Heritage car and wonder to myself "Hmm... I wonder why it isn't split right down the middle when the engineer opens the throttle."


----------



## wayman (Jan 13, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> Amtrak shouldn't get money for any new equipment until they use what they currently have, imo. That includes newly rebuilt Turboliners, a large number of Amfleet coaches, and a whole fleet of relatively young P40's going to waste in Bear, DE.


Alan and others have addressed this question more seriously, of course, but I thought I'd add: Much as I'd like to ride in a P40 on a long-distance train, they're not really set up to carry passengers and besides, it wouldn't be very fun unless it was the P40 in front


----------



## MattW (Jan 13, 2009)

Forgive me, but what's so special about the P40? I thought it was just a 4,000 Hp version of the P42


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL (Jan 13, 2009)

MattW said:


> Forgive me, but what's so special about the P40? I thought it was just a 4,000 Hp version of the P42


Nothing special, they were just one model before the P-42 and were put into storage shortly after purchase without gaining much mileage, which amounts to a waste since most active P-42s are run to death with some reaching mileages in the millions.


----------



## VT Hokie (Jan 13, 2009)

AlanB said:


> The Turbos are dead, forever.


They wouldn't be if Congress mandated that Amtrak use what it already paid for before asking for new toys. At the very least, the Turbo sets could be rebuilt into push-pull coaches.


----------



## wayman (Jan 13, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > The Turbos are dead, forever.
> ...


The turbos are dead, forever, because of legal issues. It has nothing to do with allocating money or resources to rebuild them. There are other threads giving extensive details of the turbo situation, or someone with more direct knowledge can recap it here. But the short of it is, don't even consider the turbos when thinking about "equipment Amtrak could make better use of".


----------



## Sam Damon (Jan 13, 2009)

We should also keep in mind the buff strength regulations for passenger rail rolling stock.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 13, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > The Turbos are dead, forever.
> ...


Amtrak didn't pay for the Turbos, NY State did. Therefore Congress has no jurisdiction over the Turbos.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jan 13, 2009)

AlanB said:


> VT Hokie said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


And I hardly think Amtrak treats any of their cars as "toys" if anything, Amtrak has demonstrated that they can make a car stretch out during its life... well beyond anything logical.

Weren't the turbos death traps? I hear about a couple fires...


----------



## access bob (Jan 13, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > VT Hokie said:
> ...



they are fuel hogs...

Bob


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jan 13, 2009)

access bob said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


And thus more expensive to operate?

And aren't they growing ivy vines?


----------



## VT Hokie (Jan 13, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Amtrak didn't pay for the Turbos, NY State did. Therefore Congress has no jurisdiction over the Turbos.


Then why does Amtrak retain possession of the completed sets in Delaware, and why is Amtrak the agency that's trying to sell them? You're right, New York did pay for most of the rebuild, so Amtrak should at least give 'em back to NYDOT!

As far as legal issues, wasn't the lawsuit was resolved a couple of years ago? The fact remains that three rebuilt high speed trainsets with almost zero miles on the odometer are going to waste in Delaware, along with a heck of a lot of other rolling stock. As much as I support passenger rail, I can't support my tax dollars going toward expensive new rolling stock when, knowing Amtrak's history of poor resource utilization, it could end up rotting away in some storage yard without even getting much use!


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jan 13, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak didn't pay for the Turbos, NY State did. Therefore Congress has no jurisdiction over the Turbos.
> ...


The turbos were worthless. They're best used as scrap metal. They were sold to the public as a futuristic way to take the train, when in fact they were fuel guzzling fire hazards that couldn't even keep up with AEM-7's.

Fine, give them back to NYDOT, then scrap them. Its a business. In a business, not all ventures work-- there are failures, there are losses. I would say that Amtrak has provided NYDOT a great system, in addition to NEC service the Empire Service is a great service.

Amtrak has made those old Heritage coaches road worthy and it is amazing that they have. Their baggage cars are falling apart at the trucks. You can't turn a bunch of old Amfleets into baggage cars!

And as Alan pointed out, Amtrak has plans to refurb those Amfleets, they need money to do so.

How would you like to run a business that has been in the red for 30 some years? It would be different if they were making profit, but they aren't. If you want Amtrak, then your tax dollars are going to pay for it.

Its not like YOUR tax dollars disappear, they come back to you-- think, what percentage of your ticket price is paid by the government? That is your tax dollars coming back to you.


----------



## VT Hokie (Jan 13, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> The turbos were worthless. They're best used as scrap metal. They were sold to the public as a futuristic way to take the train, when in fact they were fuel guzzling fire hazards that couldn't even keep up with AEM-7's.


Did you ever ride aboard one? I rode aboard the RTL III, and it was nicer than the old Amfleets running on the Empire Corridor today. As far as keeping up with AEM-7's, well, being that the Empire Corridor lacks catenary I'd say it doesn't much matter! They could get up to 110 mph just fine, and ran at 125+ in test runs.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jan 13, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > The turbos were worthless. They're best used as scrap metal. They were sold to the public as a futuristic way to take the train, when in fact they were fuel guzzling fire hazards that couldn't even keep up with AEM-7's.
> ...


In TEST runs on well kept up track. That is hardly a real-life scenario.

If this is the case, then why don't they run today? Why aren't they everywhere in Europe, or Canada? They were failures, on every level. They may provide a nicer ride, but at the cost of fuel, repair, and just general stupidity.

They were NOT the trains of the future. They were doomed to fail, and they did.


----------



## VT Hokie (Jan 13, 2009)

When the Metroliners became too expensive to operate, they turned 'em into non-powered cab cars. They should turn the Turbos into push-pull sets.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jan 13, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> When the Metroliners became too expensive to operate, they turned 'em into non-powered cab cars. They should turn the Turbos into push-pull sets.


Why don't we just let you run the railroad then?

Anyway, you do not know what you're talking about. The turbliners belong to Amtrak and Amtrak is allowed to sell them.



> The RTL-II sets were sent to Super Steel Schenectady in the summer of 2000 for rebuilding into the newest generation, the RTL-III. The trainsets were all renumbered in 2001 to prevent duplicate numbers with the newly-arriving P-42s and were painted in new Acela-style livery.[2] A prototype was tested on the night of February 15, 2003, reaching 125 mph.[3] Two of these trainsets were built and entered into revenue service in April 2003, and a third set was sent to Albany in September of the same year but was never entered into service.[4] As of September 22, 2004, all three RTL-III trainsets were in storage in Bear, Delaware (39°36′21.3119″N 75°42′0.0216″W) due to problems with the air conditioning system and possibly other systems.
> Two rebuilt RTL III Turboliner trainsets sit at the Albany Diesel Shops during their brief return to service in 2003.
> 
> The original RTL-III program envisioned seven five-car trains, and Amtrak and New York State DOT attempted to renegotiate the configurations with the possibility of adding an additional coach to existing trainsets. In the summer of 2004, negotiations stopped, and the state of New York sued Amtrak over the alleged lack of support to bring 125 mph (201 km/h) train service back to the Empire State.
> ...


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jan 13, 2009)

Of course this assumes you could even convert them into push-pull sets, so to speak....


----------



## wayman (Jan 13, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Amtrak has made those old Heritage coaches road worthy and it is amazing that they have. Their baggage cars are falling apart at the trucks. You can't turn a bunch of old Amfleets into baggage cars!


Not Amfleets, no, but Amtrak is turning old Heritage coaches into baggage cars. Anytime you see an Amtrak baggage car with a single center-door that rolls up like a garage door instead of slides to the side, that car used to be a heritage coach. It's not exactly efficient and it doesn't give them baggage cars that are significantly newer than their old baggage cars, but they are doing what they can to reuse and recycle where possible since they can't buy new.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jan 13, 2009)

wayman said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak has made those old Heritage coaches road worthy and it is amazing that they have. Their baggage cars are falling apart at the trucks. You can't turn a bunch of old Amfleets into baggage cars!
> ...


That's a good thing, but it isn't cost effective. They won't last another 30 years, its a good idea.

... And it proves Amtrak doesn't treat its cars as 'toys'. They stretch everything out as far as it can go.

The turboliners could not stretch. They can do no more than they do now. Sit, and hope for a buyer. They were a very specialized train set.


----------



## VT Hokie (Jan 13, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Anyway, you do not know what you're talking about. The turbliners belong to Amtrak and Amtrak is allowed to sell them.


Actually, I do know what I'm talking about. And the article you quoted is in error - there was only one "RTL II" trainset, and it was not one of the ones rebuilt into an RTL III. The lone RTL II still sits outside of Super Steel. The RTL II was in effect the prototype for the RTL III. When New York decided that the RTL II performed well, it authorized the full rebuilding of the entire 7 train fleet.

As for ownership, I don't know exactly what the outcome of the lawsuit was, beyond the agreement that Amtrak would retain possession of the three completed RTL III sets in Delaware. In any case, all seven were listed for sale, and so far apparently there are no buyers. Meanwhile, New York continues to make false promises of passenger rail improvements (and even still shows a picture of a Turboliner on the NYDOT website!):

https://www.nysdot.gov/index


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jan 13, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway, you do not know what you're talking about. The turbliners belong to Amtrak and Amtrak is allowed to sell them.
> ...


If you don't know what the outcome was: I'll tell you.

Amtrak paid NYDOT money. NYDOT gave up rights to the sets.

And if NYDOT keeps making "false promises" it is not Amtrak's fault.


----------



## VT Hokie (Jan 13, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> ... And it proves Amtrak doesn't treat its cars as 'toys'. They stretch everything out as far as it can go.
> The turboliners could not stretch. They can do no more than they do now. Sit, and hope for a buyer. They were a very specialized train set.


The three completed RTL III sets could indeed stretch - they had a lot of miles left in 'em. They should have at least gotten maximum use of the three completely rebuilt sets, even if they didn't follow through with the remaining trainsets. Instead, practically brand new trains, among the nicest in the Amtrak fleet, go to waste:

http://forums.railfan.net/Images/Amtrak/Am...-05b_Medium.jpg


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jan 13, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > ... And it proves Amtrak doesn't treat its cars as 'toys'. They stretch everything out as far as it can go.
> ...


Stretch out as fuel guzzling fire hazards. The whole idea of a turbo train is flawed. It will never work.

This is business. Sometimes businesses make mistakes, this was one of them. Why run a gas-guzzling three car turboliner when you could have 5 amfleet's hooked up to a P40 or P42? For the sake of speed? To upgrade the tracks the Empire Service runs on to 125mph is a _pipe dream_ at best. You could get Empire service trains up to a hundred mph, if the track was nicer.

Track work needs to be done, and that isn't within Amtrak's power.


----------



## VT Hokie (Jan 13, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Stretch out as fuel guzzling fire hazards. The whole idea of a turbo train is flawed. It will never work.


It worked for over 20 years on the Empire Corridor. The Rohr Turbos went into service in, what, 1976? And they ran until the 1990's before the lone RTL II rebuild entered service. The RTL II ran from 1994 until 2002, as I recall. And they did so without catching fire. (There was one fire in the early 90's, and that was with a rebuilt French set, not a Rohr trainset. Surfliner F59PHI #451 just went up in smoke. Should all the F59PHI's be considered a fire hazard now? Seems every few months an AEM-7 has a transformer fire too.)


----------



## Shawn (Jan 13, 2009)

Sounds like a heated argument going back and forth. Maybe time to sit back with some A/C before replying again?


----------



## VT Hokie (Jan 13, 2009)

Okay, let's talk about the other stuff going to waste. I'd like to know how many Amfleets and former Metroliner cars are sitting in Delaware. Why can't Amtrak get innovative and reconfigure some of them to be sleepers or diners or whatever they're currently short on?


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jan 13, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > Stretch out as fuel guzzling fire hazards. The whole idea of a turbo train is flawed. It will never work.
> ...


Well since your argument is:

"Lets not have Amtrak build the needed single-level sleepers and baggage cars, until they figure out what to do with some flimsy 20 million dollar trainsets."

How about a compromise? Let's make the turboliners into sleepers! Hell they're scraping for money so badly that they're turning heritage coaches into baggage cars, the turboliners could easily become sleepers...

They don't treat their stuff like toys. They use it until they're dead. They are well and truly dead. And good riddance.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jan 13, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> Okay, let's talk about the other stuff going to waste. I'd like to know how many Amfleets and former Metroliner cars are sitting in Delaware. Why can't Amtrak get innovative and reconfigure some of them to be sleepers or diners or whatever they're currently short on?


An amfleet turned into a sleeper? Hell, its hard enough to stand upright in them much less lie down. It would probably be cheaper to build new cars than to do something insane like that.

Besides, they could always use a few spare amfleets. Give em a good slap of paint and some new windows, brakes, HEP, a whole tune up and put them on corridor service. That would seem more logical and far less costly.

But Amtrak needs the money to implement that course of action, money which you oppose because of a few little failed train sets.

Where is the logic in your idea? Turn amfleets into sleepers... its about as silly as turning Heritage cars into baggage cars, which desperate times aside, is a silly idea itself.


----------



## VT Hokie (Jan 13, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> They don't treat their stuff like toys. They use it until they're dead. They are well and truly dead. And good riddance.


Amtrak runs most of its equipment into the ground, but the RTL III is a glaring exception. It was not simply a worn out 30 year old trainset. It was completely rebuilt, down to the bare frame, and virtually every component in it was new.


----------



## George Harris (Jan 13, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > Stretch out as fuel guzzling fire hazards. The whole idea of a turbo train is flawed. It will never work.
> ...


Have you ever heard the expression, "Beating a dead horse."? That is what is going on here. The Turboliners are a dead horse. Send them to the mechanical equivalent of the glue factory and be done with it.

Technology has moved on. At best these things were an experiment that did not work out. At worst, they were fuel hogs that should have never gotten off the drawing board. Their main draw was that they were different and had a "space age" appearance. They were and are very inefficient machines that attempted to marry some of the aircraft technology to a rail vehicle. They would have worked best in a regime where they could spend most of their time running flat out, as they were extremely inefficient in variable speed operation. But then, if the line permits long distances of full speed running their ability to accelerate more quickly than a diesel becomes insignificant. So, back to the beginning: At best these things were an experiment that did not work out. At worst, they were fuel hogs that should have never gotten off the drawing board.

Structurally these things are not stout enough to be turned into diesel hauled coaches. They were so different from the metroliner cars it is doubtful that anything other than the body shell, if even that, would be of use if they wanted to turn the power units into cab control cars, and it is doubtful that they come anywhere close to current crashworthiness standards. Explain that one in court if they are ever in an accident.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jan 13, 2009)

Thank you George Harris!


----------



## VT Hokie (Jan 13, 2009)

Okay, well getting beyond the specifics of the Turboliner equipment, how can we as taxpayers be assured that such waste will not happen in the future when nobody was accountable in the past? Nobody went to jail, nobody got fined, nobody was accountable for wasting $75 million on the Turboliner project. Why should I have confidence that next time, it won't be $750 million spent on faulty equipment that ends up sitting in a storage yard while Amtrak comes begging for even more money?


----------



## AlanB (Jan 13, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> Okay, well getting beyond the specifics of the Turboliner equipment, how can we as taxpayers be assured that such waste will not happen in the future when nobody was accountable in the past? Nobody went to jail, nobody got fined, nobody was accountable for wasting $75 million on the Turboliner project. Why should I have confidence that next time, it won't be $750 million spent on faulty equipment that ends up sitting in a storage yard while Amtrak comes begging for even more money?


Well again, while Amtrak did have a hand in things, you're barking at the wrong horse. NY State wasted the money on these things, not Amtrak. And NY State did it to make it look like they were doing something about high speed rail, and to provide some jobs in NY State rebuilding the darn things, in the hope of buying some votes at the next election.


----------



## VT Hokie (Jan 13, 2009)

The fact that Amtrak also has an entire fleet of reasonably young P40 diesels wasting away in storage indicates that nobody is held accountable for wasting precious resources and failing to plan effectively for future needs.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 13, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> The fact that Amtrak also has an entire fleet of reasonably young P40 diesels wasting away in storage also indicates that nobody is held accountable for wasting precious resources and planning effectively for future needs.


Actually the error was Express Trak, and not so much the P40's. When Express Trak was up and running, the P40's were needed and heavily used. In fact they were so heavily used and so poorly maintained under the Warrington Glide Path that saw limited maintenance on everything, that when Metro North first got it's share of the 8 P40's that CT had leased, some of the MN mechanics were about ready to commit Hari Kari after being forced to work on the units.

But again, if there was a boondoggle, then it was the failed Express Trak idea and not so much the purchase of the P40's. Additionally it should be noted that the P40's came first, not the P42's. So to some extent it was the second purchase of the P42 units that would be considered wasteful, but for the fact that at the time Amtrak was still trying to make a go of Express Trak and it needed the extra power.

The P40's saw lots of miles before being put out to pasture, and then they were only put out because of the loss of the Express Trak system. If one has more equipment than one needs, does one retire the oldest and more heavily used equipment? Or does one retire the newer and more lightly used equipment? My vote goes to retiring the P40's.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jan 13, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> The fact that Amtrak also has an entire fleet of reasonably young P40 diesels wasting away in storage indicates that nobody is held accountable for wasting precious resources and failing to plan effectively for future needs.


What do you mean wasting away? They seem to be being put to as much use as possible. Besides, a surplus of something would be a good thing for once.)


----------



## VT Hokie (Jan 13, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> What do you mean wasting away? They seem to be being put to as much use as possible. Besides, a surplus of something would be a good thing for once.)


Four of them found a home with NJ Transit. I guess several are still in use with CDOT. But the rest of 'em are going to waste. And yes, I realize that they are older than the P42's, and of course if you're going to sideline part of the fleet it makes sense to sideline the oldest locomotives. But the fact that so many P42's were purchased when Amtrak desperately needed sleepers, diners, etc. is an indication of poor leadership. If anything, Amtrak should've kept more F40's going when they thought the ExpressTrak initiative would require additional motive power. (And speaking of F40's, they've still got a bunch of those in storage as well!)

You can see the stored P40's here:

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&...1&encType=1


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jan 13, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > What do you mean wasting away? They seem to be being put to as much use as possible. Besides, a surplus of something would be a good thing for once.)
> ...


I give up. Its a lost cause.


----------



## VT Hokie (Jan 13, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> I give up. Its a lost cause.


That's kind of how I feel about Amtrak subsidies, given the lack of accountability on spending!


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jan 13, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > I give up. Its a lost cause.
> ...


Well how about doing something pro-active.


----------



## VT Hokie (Jan 13, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Well how about doing something pro-active.


Suggestions? I've written to my representatives in the past. I ride Amtrak fairly regularly. I'd buy a Turboliner if I could afford it!


----------



## AlanB (Jan 13, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> If anything, Amtrak should've kept more F40's going when they thought the ExpressTrak initiative would require additional motive power. (And speaking of F40's, they've still got a bunch of those in storage as well!)


Actually there are only 8 left in storage now, all the rest are gone either via conversion to NPCU, lease, sold, or scrapped.

As for why they weren't kept for ExpressTrak, they have 1,250 less horse power than a P42 and weight less than a P42, both things you want when hauling freight. Additionally at the time the second order for P42's was placed, the oldest F40 was already beyond what is considered the normal useful life of a locomotive and the youngest was still already 12 years old. Then there are the cost savings realized by having one standard type of engine, in that you don't have to stock different parts and provide training on both types of engines.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jan 13, 2009)

AlanB said:


> VT Hokie said:
> 
> 
> > If anything, Amtrak should've kept more F40's going when they thought the ExpressTrak initiative would require additional motive power. (And speaking of F40's, they've still got a bunch of those in storage as well!)
> ...


The P42s are great from a usefulness standpoint. They can pull pax, minimal freight, or a combination of both.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jan 13, 2009)

look amtrak doesn't need motive power. just rebuild the locos from the ground up like via rail is doing. they got 1 F40PH-2 rebuilt from the ground up number 6400. what amtrak needs is to repair the mothballed equipment and then ask for new equipment. and complete orders that were never finished like viewliner coaches. if the company that made them is no longer around fine another company who will do it.


----------



## cpamtfan (Jan 13, 2009)

Gosh, why do we have to dispute. Look, I know VT Hokie, that you would like Amtrak to put the Turboliners back in service, or at least use the coaches, but just face it, it won't ever happen. And with the P40's, Alan is correct, they don't currently need them. If they had fifteen more trains they would need them, if they were still in the freight business they would need them. But they don't have either, so what's the need for them? And Amtrak never really planned to have Viewliner coaches, Kiss Alive. They planned on sleepers, diners, and lounges. And I don't think there ever will be Viewliner coaches. Why? Well, the double window configuration wouldn't work, for there are luggage racks that need to be placed there. But Amtrak does need new LD coaches, because I personally would rather be in something other than an AmCan. Now let us stop fighting and enjoy what Amtrak currently has, because through all the bad, there maybe some good coming.

cpamtfan-Peter


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 13, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> The P42s are great from a usefulness standpoint. They can pull pax, minimal freight, or a combination of both.


One unfortunate characteristic of the P42s relative to some other passenger locomotives is the way HEP is generated. The prime mover has to run at one of two fixed speeds to get the 60 hz power, which reduces energy efficiency, and if the prime mover fails on a long distance train that has only one P42, the HVAC in all the passenger cars stops working, which I think can get dangerous at some times of year given that the cars were never designed with the idea that they'd be full of passengers on a hot or cold day with no power.

The real waste may be in having commuter railroads that are starting up or expanding deciding that buying brand new locomotives is a better use of their limited dollars than making use of Amtrak's excess P40s. That's probably mostly the fault of Amtrak's management for overestimating how much money the P40s are worth (it's not what Amtrak paid for them that matters, it's what potential users in the future are willing to pay).


----------



## Sam Damon (Jan 13, 2009)

Somehow, a post of mine in this thread got eaten by IPS; I'll amplify some thoughts a bit.

The turboliners are dead as far as regular service is concerned. If you want to get any use out of them, run some fan trips in the summer on Empire Service with an extra fare.

I used to think Amfleet cars might be converted for other uses -- then it dawned on me they're 30+ years old. It's time for new rolling stock, both single and hi-level. Waive the buff strength requirements for new rolling stock, and put some Amfleets and Superliners back into production while concurrently, new designs are developed that meet the buff strength requirements.


----------



## Crescent Mark (Jan 13, 2009)

After the 7 engines it looks like there's a Viewliner something or another in that picture. Is that the diner? Or a random sleeper? It's between the engines and the ExpressTrak cars.

Sucks all those cars have to sit in storage. I wish we could start up more lines with them such as stuff like the Piedmont, etc.


----------



## wrjensen (Jan 13, 2009)

Who Owns the rights to the viewliner design? Could Amtrak do a update to the plans to improve them and then let the design out to be bid? This would improve the turnaround time on getting new cars into the fleet. Designing new cars would take time.


----------



## VT Hokie (Jan 13, 2009)

Crescent Mark said:


> After the 7 engines it looks like there's a Viewliner something or another in that picture. Is that the diner? Or a random sleeper? It's between the engines and the ExpressTrak cars.


That's one of the two prototype Viewliner sleepers. The lone Viewliner diner is seen here in Wilmington:

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&...1&encType=1


----------



## jackal (Jan 14, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> One unfortunate characteristic of the P42s relative to some other passenger locomotives is the way HEP is generated. The prime mover has to run at one of two fixed speeds to get the 60 hz power, which reduces energy efficiency.


I always wondered why GE didn't produce an AC version of these like they did with the P32s. Yes, AC circuitry makes the cost of the locomotive a bit more expensive, and as Amtrak doesn't do much low-speed, high-torque pulling (other than Raton Pass), there's not a huge benefit to them there, but the fuel savings when using HEP alone would probably make it worth it. They wouldn't even need to add the third rail pickup option (though I'd imagine that's actually a fairly nominal cost with the existing AC circuitry on-board and would give them a good bit of operational flexibility).


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jan 14, 2009)

wrjensen said:


> Who Owns the rights to the viewliner design? Could Amtrak do a update to the plans to improve them and then let the design out to be bid? This would improve the turnaround time on getting new cars into the fleet. Designing new cars would take time.


Amtrak owns the Viewliner design and hired engineering people two yeas ago to update and change the design for todays needs.

Several designs are ready, with most obious change no second row of windows but bottom windows about 8 " higher at top.

The View liner was designed by Amtrack with the prototype shells manufactured by Budd, the cars were finished by Amtrak.

The production cars were made in Hornell at Morrison Knudsen, the shells came from Brazil I believe.


----------



## wayman (Jan 14, 2009)

Dutchrailnut said:


> Amtrak owns the Viewliner design and hired engineering people two yeas ago to update and change the design for todays needs.Several designs are ready, with most obious change no second row of windows but bottom windows about 8 " higher at top.
> 
> The View liner was designed by Amtrack with the prototype shells manufactured by Budd, the cars were finished by Amtrak.
> 
> The production cars were made in Hornell at Morrison Knudsen, the shells came from Brazil I believe.


Would the upper berth still have a window with this re-sizing? I can't picture how far down the upper berth goes and how high up an 8"-taller main window would go....


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jan 14, 2009)

wayman said:


> Dutchrailnut said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak owns the Viewliner design and hired engineering people two yeas ago to update and change the design for todays needs.Several designs are ready, with most obious change no second row of windows but bottom windows about 8 " higher at top.
> ...



No, if both rows of windows were to be kept, the car sides would not be able to carry the load, the bottom window did need enlargement to comply with the minimum window size. this was changed so a stretcher can be exited trhu a window.


----------



## access bob (Jan 14, 2009)

Dutchrailnut said:


> wayman said:
> 
> 
> > Dutchrailnut said:
> ...


seems like the upper window could be made smaller so there would be sufficient load carrying capacity, the upper berth window seemed to be one of the smartest advances in sleeping car amenities since the invention of the sleeping car. even if the bottom of the upper window was raised 8 inches still more than half the window area would remain.

Bob


----------



## Shotgun7 (Jan 14, 2009)

Does anybody have any links to drawings/plans of what these updated Viewliners might look like?


----------



## cpamtfan (Jan 14, 2009)

Shotgun7 said:


> Does anybody have any links to drawings/plans of what these updated Viewliners might look like?



No, Amtrak holds the plans, they wouldn't let someone see it yet.

cpamtfan-Peter


----------



## Sam Damon (Jan 14, 2009)

Dutchrailnut said:


> Amtrak owns the Viewliner design and hired engineering people two yeas ago to update and change the design for todays needs.Several designs are ready, with most obious change no second row of windows but bottom windows about 8 " higher at top.
> 
> The View liner was designed by Amtrack with the prototype shells manufactured by Budd, the cars were finished by Amtrak.
> 
> The production cars were made in Hornell at Morrison Knudsen, the shells came from Brazil I believe.


Dutch,

Was it you or someone else who typed about how the Viewliner design was horribly expensive to build, and that another approach might be A Good Idea?

It's been a while, but IIRC, someone posted that the exterior shell of the Viewliners was complicated to the point where substantial amounts of cash were needed to build them.


----------



## VT Hokie (Jan 14, 2009)

I think the next generation coach should look like this! 

http://www.davehonan.com/turbo/rtl-iii-set2-cafel.jpg

http://www.davehonan.com/turbo/rtl-iii-set...ch-adj-155l.jpg


----------



## transit54 (Jan 14, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> I think the next generation coach should look like this!
> http://www.davehonan.com/turbo/rtl-iii-set2-cafel.jpg


I think the next generation needs to take into account the following:

1) Safety - This is obvious

2) Efficiency - These coaches will be going into service in a time when we're at high risk for fuel prices increases, which ultimately could be substantially higher than we've seen to date (especially if these last even half as long as the Amfleets). Why are we investing tax dollars in a national rail network if its not efficient?

3) Comfort - Will draw passengers

4) Looks - If feel that moving away from the corrugated steel look of the Amfleets and towards something like looks a bit more like the Acela will have more impact on public perception than a lot of people might think.

I don't know a lot about it, but the JetTrain idea always intrigued me. Though I don't know how much applicability that would have for Amtrak outside of corridor service.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 15, 2009)

rnizlek said:


> 1) Safety - This is obvious2) Efficiency - These coaches will be going into service in a time when we're at high risk for fuel prices increases, which ultimately could be substantially higher than we've seen to date (especially if these last even half as long as the Amfleets). Why are we investing tax dollars in a national rail network if its not efficient?
> 
> 3) Comfort - Will draw passengers
> 
> ...


I doubt the JetTrain helps much if you don't have reasonably straight track, and it doesn't look like a huge win on efficiency, either, especially if you're concerned with how much petroleum the US is importing. Maybe it would be a win if petroleum were cheap and the US had a shortage of workers who could build catenary (although if we do decide that some fraction of those 3 million jobs Obama wants to create/save are going toward rail infrastructure, deciding to include catenary probably means fewer miles of new track per year than we'd get for petroleum powered routes).

There's an easy efficiency/comfort tradeoff that can be made in adjusting seat pitch. Be careful you don't emphasize efficiency too much (especially if doing so drives people to their automobiles, which are even less efficient than ``wastefully'' spacious coach seats; it's funny how even economy automobiles have more comfortable seating than local mass transit). The biggest win for efficiency would come simply from making trains longer and driving down the low bucket prices to attract cost sensitive riders away from other modes of intercity transportation such as bus.


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL (Jan 15, 2009)

rnizlek said:


> VT Hokie said:
> 
> 
> > I think the next generation coach should look like this!
> ...


The Jet Train performed well in tests, pulling the same load as the Acela Power Cars at 151 top speed in Pueblo. It would probably work best in California along the Surfline or Capital Corridor/San Joaquin lines as a limited stop express for BC and FC only just as the Aclea does in the NEC aside from that its not all that much economical. The only real reason the Jet Trains aren't used is a lack of interest and funds from Amtrak and DOTs. For pictures and a small article see TRAINS magazine from Jan under the "Ask Trains Section"


----------



## OlympianHiawatha (Jan 15, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> I think the next generation coach should look like this!
> http://www.davehonan.com/turbo/rtl-iii-set2-cafel.jpg
> 
> http://www.davehonan.com/turbo/rtl-iii-set...ch-adj-155l.jpg


I noticed what looks like cars from the American Freedom Train in the background-where was that pic taken?


----------



## VT Hokie (Jan 15, 2009)

OlympianHiawatha said:


> I noticed what looks like cars from the American Freedom Train in the background-where was that pic taken?


I think you're looking at the stripped, unrebuilt Turboliner coaches in the background. That was at Super Steel in Schenectady, NY.

http://www.davehonan.com/turbo/rtl-iii.html


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 15, 2009)

VT Hokie said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > They don't treat their stuff like toys. They use it until they're dead. They are well and truly dead. And good riddance.
> ...


They rebuilt it. But they did so very poorly. What do you think, Amtrak is doing this to spite you? They are not running valuable equipment because it is not valuable and its more expensive to operate than the utility it provides.



VT Hokie said:


> I think the next generation coach should look like this!
> http://www.davehonan.com/turbo/rtl-iii-set2-cafel.jpg
> 
> http://www.davehonan.com/turbo/rtl-iii-set...ch-adj-155l.jpg




The ridges are functional. That's why its there.

By the way, if you take care of them, those Amfleets have another 20-30 years of life in them easy. They are Budd coaches, after all.


----------



## transit54 (Jan 15, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> By the way, if you take care of them, those Amfleets have another 20-30 years of life in them easy. They are Budd coaches, after all.


That may be, but isn't the problem that they are expensive to take care of due to the lack of available parts?


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jan 15, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> By the way, if you take care of them, those Amfleets have another 20-30 years of life in them easy. They are Budd coaches, after all.



You obviously have not studied any metalurical subjects, Stainless steel gets britle over years from flexing, and it will rip apart once it gets to that point.

Stainlesss steel is not a forever solution, yes it last longer than carbon steel of same weight.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 15, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> VT Hokie said:
> 
> 
> > ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> ...


I think the mothballed Amfleet Is are probably a fine example of something valuable that is not more expensive to operate than the utility it provides.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 19, 2009)

rnizlek said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, if you take care of them, those Amfleets have another 20-30 years of life in them easy. They are Budd coaches, after all.
> ...


Given the number in service, the need for parts would justify them being produced in sufficient volume for the prices to be reasonable.



Dutchrailnut said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, if you take care of them, those Amfleets have another 20-30 years of life in them easy. They are Budd coaches, after all.
> ...


Sure. And when the Amfleets get to be 60 years old like some of the other Budd equipment thats beginning to reach the end of its usable life, we'll talk.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 20, 2009)

Dutchrailnut said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, if you take care of them, those Amfleets have another 20-30 years of life in them easy. They are Budd coaches, after all.
> ...


I must have missed the part of GMLs post where he claimed to be a metallurgical expert (hell, at least I can spell it correctly) or that the Amfleet tubes were a forever solution. I think that it's important to keep in mind that in pushing to get new equipment you take the time to maintain what you have and use it to its fullest potential.


----------



## lrdc9_metroplitan_sub (Jan 23, 2009)

AlanB said:


> VT Hokie said:
> 
> 
> > If anything, Amtrak should've kept more F40's going when they thought the ExpressTrak initiative would require additional motive power. (And speaking of F40's, they've still got a bunch of those in storage as well!)
> ...


Which is, in fact, one of the principles that Southwest Airlines (only 30+ year straight profit airline around until last Q) uses. One fleet type reduces costs drastically.

Further, the mothballed p40's could be put to use with more funding as follows: buy more western equipment to acccomadate the recently soaring demand. The longer trains will necessitate some additional power up front. Everybody wins. Or, alternativly, the Pioneer could be restarted with extra funds. I hate to say it but... the solution to utilizing the moth balled fleets may be to throw money at it, in an organized reasonably well planned manner.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 23, 2009)

lrdc9_metroplitan_sub said:


> Further, the mothballed p40's could be put to use with more funding as follows: buy more western equipment to acccomadate the recently soaring demand. The longer trains will necessitate some additional power up front. Everybody wins. Or, alternativly, the Pioneer could be restarted with extra funds. I hate to say it but... the solution to utilizing the moth balled fleets may be to throw money at it, in an organized reasonably well planned manner.


From the perspective of offering the best possible service to riders, using more passenger cars to add additional trips each day on different schedules (like, say, to maybe add 3 PM service at LNK as an alternative to 3AM service) might be better than lengthening trains. On the other hand, from the perspective of how much freight can be moved off the highways with a given set of track, fewer passenger trains is a win.

The other interesting question is whether getting rid of mid-east oil dependency that Obama promised during the debates is something that will be addressed in part with massive railroad electrification.


----------



## Rob_C (Jan 24, 2009)

Speaking of massive electrification (no, not my wife before electricity! Hheuugghh!)... What's the towing capacity of an HHP-8 vs a P42? Would it work towing a Superliner consist out west? Is it realistic to string catenary high enough for double stacks to safely pass, yet in reach of low profile locomotive pickup?

Rob (who's not actually married but a big Rodney Dangerfield fan)


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jan 24, 2009)

you would need the wires high enough and a pantograph long enough to reach. or you go third rail.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 24, 2009)

The Alameda Corridor is looking at electrification to address polution in the vincity of the railroad, and my understanding is that that railroad is mostly used to haul double stack freight.

I think where third rail is potentially attractive is mostly in tunnels and under bridges where clearance is tight.


----------



## gaspeamtrak (Jan 24, 2009)

Hanno said:


> I just read an article in Trains magazine by Don Phillips where he mentions the following, "It is a travesty that equipment was not ordered at least a year ago, and it will be interesting to learn, as time goes on, why none has been ordered yet."
> Was money appropriated a year ago for new equipment? Is money available now?
> 
> I'm sure everyone is in agreement that there is a need for additonal equipment! Any thoughts on Mr. Phillips comments?
> ...



Can anybody tell me if any of the Stimulus money that is going to Amtrak is for those "wreck repairs" ( Amfleets & Superliners) sitting in the "Delaware" and the "Beech Grove" shops??? Or did i here something before that they already had the money before the Stimulus package?

The 81 "Amfleet" are not all wrecked as some of them nedded expensive "truck " overhauls? They were using about 24 amfleets for evacuation of people from New Orleans during the hurricane season if needed?

I also heard that Amtrak had a "wish" for 15 more "viewliners" and 20 signal level"diners" and 50 baggage cars? Is the money for this from another bill?

Sorry for all the questions as i'm hearing all kinds of gossip!!! 

Thanks for any info!!!


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 24, 2009)

gaspeamtrak said:


> I also heard that Amtrak had a "wish" for 15 more "viewliners" and 20 signal level"diners" and 50 baggage cars? Is the money for this from another bill?


Is a signal level dining car one that's constructed so that those who are enjoying their dinner can clearly see the wayside signals to make sure the engineer isn't busy texting?

I'm not aware of any bill authorizing new rolling stock, but that rolling stock was requested in Amtrak's testimony before Congress a few months ago; see October 29 2008 here


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 25, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> From the perspective of offering the best possible service to riders, using more passenger cars to add additional trips each day on different schedules (like, say, to maybe add 3 PM service at LNK as an alternative to 3AM service) might be better than lengthening trains. On the other hand, from the perspective of how much freight can be moved off the highways with a given set of track, fewer passenger trains is a win.
> The other interesting question is whether getting rid of mid-east oil dependency that Obama promised during the debates is something that will be addressed in part with massive railroad electrification.


The problem is that adding a new train takes a lot more than adding cars. I believe over UP Amtrak is limited to 30 cars per train. Adding capacity for 2 more sleepers and 3 more coaches on the _California Zephyer_ requires, i think, 10-12 more sleepers and 15-18 more coaches. Perhaps an 5-6 P42s (1 per train) to haul the extra weight. Oh, and you'd probably have to kill SDS on a train that long.

Adding an additional frequency on the CZ route of the same size, assuming you inter-turned them (you shared equipment between them) to minimize equipment requirements, you could handle the whole thing with, say, 10 sets if we are currently using 6. So you need 8 more P42s (doable, especially if you woke up the P40s for some of the short mid-west trains), 8 more sleepers (difficult but could be done if you cut the CS and EB from 3 sleepers to 2, or yanked some off the A/T), 12-16 more coaches (doable if you yanked Superliners off trains that could live without them, and put some Amfleets back on track). Thats the easy part. You also need 4 more conveyences capable of hauling baggage (difficult), four more Sightseers (Practically impossible), and 4 more dining cars (not happening, period). 8 P42s, 4 Trans/Dorms, 8 Sleepers, 8-12 coaches, 4 Coach/Bags, 4 Diners, 4 Sightseers.

The other option that I think would be pretty nice would be adding three trains. Let's call them the _Denver Zephyr_, the _Desert Wind_, and the _Pioneer_.

*Denver Zephyr* consists of a sleeping car and a coach, short turning at Denver, you'd need 2 sleepers and 2 coaches for this.

*Pioneer* consists of a P42, one of those new Lounge/Diners converted from the Sightseer, a sleeper, a coach, and a coach/baggage, requiring 5 P42s, 5 L/Ds, 5 sleepers, 5 coaches, and 5 coach baggages. The _Pioneer_ runs to Portland, via Ogden, mostly duplicating its post 1994 route.

*Desert Wind* consists of 1 P42s, a Trans/Dorm, a sleeper, a Cross Country Cafe, a coach/bag, and a coach. For this we need 10 P42s, 5 Trans/Dorms, 5 Sleepers, 5 CCCs, 5 coaches, and 5 coach/baggage cars.

The Consist would probably be, east of denver: 2 P42s, Trans/Dorm (DW), Sleeper (DW), Coach/Bag(DW), Coach (DW), CCC(DW), Coach (DZ), L/D (P), Coach/Bag, Coach (P), Sleeper (P), Sleeper(DZ).

Total required equipment: 10 P42s, 5 T/Ds, 12 Sleepers, 12 Coaches, 10 Coach/Bags, 5 CCCs, and 5 L/Ds.

Vs. Total Rqd. equipment: 8 P42s, 4 T/Ds, 8 Sleepers, 12 Coaches, 4 Coach/ Bags, 4 Diners, and 4 SSLs.



Rob_C said:


> What's the towing capacity of an HHP-8 vs a P42?


The P42 produces 4200 bhp, and I believe 3800 is availible for tractive effort in HEP mode. Which means that 2 P42s produce about 8000 horsepower (since only one need provide HEP).

The HHP-8, as its name implies (High-HorsePower-8000) produces 8000 bhp, and I think all of it is availible for tractive effort. So numerically speaking, 2 P42s approximately equals 1 HHP-8.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 25, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> The problem is that adding a new train takes a lot more than adding cars. I believe over UP Amtrak is limited to 30 cars per train. Adding capacity for 2 more sleepers and 3 more coaches on the _California Zephyer_ requires, i think, 10-12 more sleepers and 15-18 more coaches. Perhaps an 5-6 P42s (1 per train) to haul the extra weight. Oh, and you'd probably have to kill SDS on a train that long.


Would anyone mourn the passing of SDS, though?

Platform length is probably the real factor that limits how long a train is a good idea. 30 cars at 87.5 feet each would be 2625 feet, which is over 1/3 mile.



Green Maned Lion said:


> Adding an additional frequency on the CZ route of the same size, assuming you inter-turned them (you shared equipment between them) to minimize equipment requirements, you could handle the whole thing with, say, 10 sets if we are currently using 6. So you need 8 more P42s (doable, especially if you woke up the P40s for some of the short mid-west trains), 8 more sleepers (difficult but could be done if you cut the CS and EB from 3 sleepers to 2, or yanked some off the A/T), 12-16 more coaches (doable if you yanked Superliners off trains that could live without them, and put some Amfleets back on track). Thats the easy part. You also need 4 more conveyences capable of hauling baggage (difficult), four more Sightseers (Practically impossible), and 4 more dining cars (not happening, period). 8 P42s, 4 Trans/Dorms, 8 Sleepers, 8-12 coaches, 4 Coach/Bags, 4 Diners, 4 Sightseers.
> The other option that I think would be pretty nice would be adding three trains. Let's call them the _Denver Zephyr_, the _Desert Wind_, and the _Pioneer_.
> 
> *Denver Zephyr* consists of a sleeping car and a coach, short turning at Denver, you'd need 2 sleepers and 2 coaches for this.
> ...


It seems to me that unless Congress writes a check to Bombardier for more Superliners, none of these options are all that attractive. And if you assume more Superliners can be built, I don't see why there'd be any restrictions on what equipment would be available.

And which train do you want to convert to single level?



Green Maned Lion said:


> Rob_C said:
> 
> 
> > What's the towing capacity of an HHP-8 vs a P42?
> ...


However, while the horsepower available matters for some things (and that more or less boils down to the number of watts available to the traction motors), the weight on the powered axles is sometimes also a factor, and the HHP-8 has the highest wattage per axle weight of any Amtrak locomotive, so there are more situations where an HHP-8 cannot apply its full wattage to the track than there are situations where other locomotives cannot take full advantage of their horsepower.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 25, 2009)

You could cobble up equipment for either train possibility, its a matter of what you are willing to take it from.

The Heartland Flyer and Pere Marquette are not trains that require long-distance equipment. But both use Superliners.

I wasn't suggesting trains should be 30 cars long, although it would be nice if the demand was availible.

As for horsepower, I said "numerically speaking" for a reason.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 25, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> The Heartland Flyer and Pere Marquette are not trains that require long-distance equipment. But both use Superliners.


What are the consists, and how many trainsets does each have?



Green Maned Lion said:


> I wasn't suggesting trains should be 30 cars long, although it would be nice if the demand was availible.


It would be nice if we had dedicated passenger tracks, and trains running every hour or two everywhere.



Green Maned Lion said:


> As for horsepower, I said "numerically speaking" for a reason.


The number of pounds on the powered axles is the number that matters for certain things. (I wish I had a clearer understanding of which things it matters for.) There's a reason freight railroads use slugs.


----------



## SUNSETLIMITED01 (Jan 25, 2009)

30 cars? Now that is seriously taking to a whole new level. There hasn't been any normal passenger trains that even come close to 30 cars in the past or present, not that I'm aware of. I mean back in the 80s and ealry 90s several single-level trains had 20 cars or more and I bet they did have problems fitting trains that size at station platforms. If Amtrak does make their other long distance trains 30 cars long than it will be VERY INTRESTING to see.


----------



## MrFSS (Jan 25, 2009)

SUNSETLIMITED01 said:


> 30 cars? Now that is seriously taking to a whole new level. There hasn't been any normal passenger trains that even come close to 30 cars in the past or present, not that I'm aware of. I mean back in the 80s and ealry 90s several single-level trains had 20 cars or more and I bet they did have problems fitting trains that size at station platforms. If Amtrak does make their other long distance trains 30 cars long than it will be VERY INTRESTING to see.


I rode *The Canadian* several years ago from Toronto to Jasper. We had 3 engines and *27* cars! Had to double spot at several stations.


----------



## lrdc9_metroplitan_sub (Jan 25, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> *Desert Wind* consists of 1 P42s, a Trans/Dorm, a sleeper, a Cross Country Cafe, a coach/bag, and a coach. For this we need 10 P42s, 5 Trans/Dorms, 5 Sleepers, 5 CCCs, 5 coaches, and 5 coach/baggage cars.


Not to question what GML says but . . . I have always held the opinion that LV, NV may be better served by bus. The region that train travels is sparsly populated and it seem there would not be sufficient demand to justify a daily train. 3x a week maybe . . . but daily, I think not.


----------



## had8ley (Jan 25, 2009)

Does anyone know how many active transistion dorms are in Amtrak's fleet? They might make for a good slumbercoach fleet with all the roomettes that are presently upstairs.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 25, 2009)

had8ley said:


> Does anyone know how many active transistion dorms are in Amtrak's fleet? They might make for a good slumbercoach fleet with all the roomettes that are presently upstairs.


There are 40 listed as active.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 25, 2009)

With regard to trains that are 30 cars long, we won't be seeing them either unless Amtrak not only gets new equipment, but also performs a major overhaul on the various electrical systems in the Superliner cars. Under the current conditions the one train that Amtrak might actually wish to make longer, the Auto Train and they probably have the equipment to do it, they can't make it much longer than it already is. And I'm not counting the auto carriers, I'm just talking passenger cars.

As it stands right now with 1 crew dorm, 4 sleepers, 2 deluxe sleepers, 3 diners, 2 cafes, and 5 to 6 coaches, they are basically maxing out the HEP system. Now granted that a normal LD might not have 3 dining cars, but still there isn't too much wiggle room there. If I had to guess I'd say that 20 cars is about the max that the HEP system can handle under the current circumstances.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 25, 2009)

AlanB said:


> As it stands right now with 1 crew dorm, 4 sleepers, 2 deluxe sleepers, 3 diners, 2 cafes, and 5 to 6 coaches, they are basically maxing out the HEP system. Now granted that a normal LD might not have 3 dining cars, but still there isn't too much wiggle room there. If I had to guess I'd say that 20 cars is about the max that the HEP system can handle under the current circumstances.


Couldn't they simply stick a generator car or P42 at the back of the string of passenger cars, and divide the passenger cars roughly in half and feed the front half from one of the locomotives at the front of the train, and the back half of the passenger cars from the generator car or P42 at the back of the string of passenger cars? Granted if they wanted to get traction power from a P42 at the back they'd need to run MU cables through all the passenger cars, but if you don't care about efficiency, I think you could just tow a P42 that was doing nothing but powering the passenger cars towards the back.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 25, 2009)

lrdc9_metroplitan_sub said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > *Desert Wind* consists of 1 P42s, a Trans/Dorm, a sleeper, a Cross Country Cafe, a coach/bag, and a coach. For this we need 10 P42s, 5 Trans/Dorms, 5 Sleepers, 5 CCCs, 5 coaches, and 5 coach/baggage cars.
> ...


The table of primary census areas says that the greater Las Vegas area has about 1.88 million people. That somehow is failing to strike me as sparsely populated.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 25, 2009)

MrFSS said:


> SUNSETLIMITED01 said:
> 
> 
> > 30 cars? Now that is seriously taking to a whole new level. There hasn't been any normal passenger trains that even come close to 30 cars in the past or present, not that I'm aware of. I mean back in the 80s and ealry 90s several single-level trains had 20 cars or more and I bet they did have problems fitting trains that size at station platforms. If Amtrak does make their other long distance trains 30 cars long than it will be VERY INTRESTING to see.
> ...


If memory serves and I was correctly understanding what was happening, the westbound LSL I rode last month needed to tripple spot at Waterloo, IN and double spot at South Bend, IN.


----------



## had8ley (Jan 25, 2009)

AlanB said:


> had8ley said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone know how many active transistion dorms are in Amtrak's fleet? They might make for a good slumbercoach fleet with all the roomettes that are presently upstairs.
> ...


Good gravy...there's enough to supply just about every LD train with at least one, if not two, slumber coaches if the combine bag dorms get built.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 25, 2009)

It occurs to me to wonder if another good option for baggage/something cars might be baggage/generator, since offloading generation from the P42s would improve overall energy efficiency and allow single P42 long distance trains to have redundant sources of HEP. Though if that were done, keeping exhaust from the generator out of Superliners might be a bit of a concern. And if the all the major freight tracks were electrified, I'm not sure if the diesel generators would still be considered useful.


----------



## had8ley (Jan 25, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> It occurs to me to wonder if another good option for baggage/something cars might be baggage/generator, since offloading generation from the P42s would improve overall energy efficiency and allow single P42 long distance trains to have redundant sources of HEP. Though if that were done, keeping exhaust from the generator out of Superliners might be a bit of a concern. And if the all the major freight tracks were electrified, I'm not sure if the diesel generators would still be considered useful.


I've posted my concern for diesel exhaust on this Forum in the past and no one seems to have found the same problem. Class 1 business car specials usually carry a generator car, I think the Denver Ski Train used to and the Alaska RR carries one. Might not be a bad idea after all.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 25, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > As it stands right now with 1 crew dorm, 4 sleepers, 2 deluxe sleepers, 3 diners, 2 cafes, and 5 to 6 coaches, they are basically maxing out the HEP system. Now granted that a normal LD might not have 3 dining cars, but still there isn't too much wiggle room there. If I had to guess I'd say that 20 cars is about the max that the HEP system can handle under the current circumstances.
> ...


I'm far from an expert on these things, but my understanding is that they can't do that. Reason, the crew in engine must be in control of the entire HEP system under FRA regs. They wouldn't be in control and able to turn off the HEP from a generator car at the rear of the train.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 25, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> It occurs to me to wonder if another good option for baggage/something cars might be baggage/generator, since offloading generation from the P42s would improve overall energy efficiency and allow single P42 long distance trains to have redundant sources of HEP. Though if that were done, keeping exhaust from the generator out of Superliners might be a bit of a concern. And if the all the major freight tracks were electrified, I'm not sure if the diesel generators would still be considered useful.


And now you've got more engines to maintain, more fuel and storage of same that is needed, and probably a potential safety hazard.

Not to mention the exhaust problem, although that's usually less of an issue if one has a trans/dorm at the head end.


----------



## MattW (Jan 25, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


Then how can the Great smokey Mountains Railroad do it? When I rode it, they had a generator car that was just behind the locomotives from Bryson-Nantahala then on the end of the train fron Nantahala to Bryson. Or did they get special premission?


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 25, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


If that sort of control is needed, it might not be too hard to build some special connectors that would go between the two cars that form the boundary between the frount HEP system and the back HEP system, and basically would make the back HEP system think there was a disconnected cable somewhere (which I think would cause the rear HEP source to shut down) if power on the front HEP system was lost. Assuming my vague understanding of how the control system for HEP works is correct, anyway (I believe there are some control lines that are basically designed to prevent turning on the power to the coaches if any of the cables aren't plugged in).


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 25, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > It occurs to me to wonder if another good option for baggage/something cars might be baggage/generator, since offloading generation from the P42s would improve overall energy efficiency and allow single P42 long distance trains to have redundant sources of HEP. Though if that were done, keeping exhaust from the generator out of Superliners might be a bit of a concern. And if the all the major freight tracks were electrified, I'm not sure if the diesel generators would still be considered useful.
> ...


Where along the length of a P42 is the exhaust? If you had a baggage/generator car, you could put the generator exhaust at one end of that car and try to get the crews who assemble the trainsets to put the generator at the front end of the car, which would probably help some (assuming the baggage car is right behind the locomotives, anyway, which I think is typically true everywhere except the New York City section of the Lake Shore Limited).

If your options for making sure you don't have passengers stuck for hours in cars with no HVAC even if one P42 breaks are to either run two P42s, or run one P42 with a generator car, I really doubt that second P42 is any bargin in fuel storage and maintenance compared to the generator car.

And total fuel consumption per train ought to go down with the generator car, given that the P42 won't be stuck at 1800/3600 RPM.


----------



## SUNSETLIMITED01 (Jan 25, 2009)

AlanB said:


> With regard to trains that are 30 cars long, we won't be seeing them either unless Amtrak not only gets new equipment, but also performs a major overhaul on the various electrical systems in the Superliner cars. Under the current conditions the one train that Amtrak might actually wish to make longer, the Auto Train and they probably have the equipment to do it, they can't make it much longer than it already is. And I'm not counting the auto carriers, I'm just talking passenger cars.
> As it stands right now with 1 crew dorm, 4 sleepers, 2 deluxe sleepers, 3 diners, 2 cafes, and 5 to 6 coaches, they are basically maxing out the HEP system. Now granted that a normal LD might not have 3 dining cars, but still there isn't too much wiggle room there. If I had to guess I'd say that 20 cars is about the max that the HEP system can handle under the current circumstances.


There is a youtube video of the Auto train back in 1994 with 22 passenger cars behind it(not counting autoracks).


----------



## AlanB (Jan 26, 2009)

SUNSETLIMITED01 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > With regard to trains that are 30 cars long, we won't be seeing them either unless Amtrak not only gets new equipment, but also performs a major overhaul on the various electrical systems in the Superliner cars. Under the current conditions the one train that Amtrak might actually wish to make longer, the Auto Train and they probably have the equipment to do it, they can't make it much longer than it already is. And I'm not counting the auto carriers, I'm just talking passenger cars.
> ...


Was that a video of a Superliner equiped AT or was it a single level consist, as Bombardier was still delivering the Superliner II's through 1995. I don't recall when the AT was converted over to SL-II.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 26, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Where along the length of a P42 is the exhaust? If you had a baggage/generator car, you could put the generator exhaust at one end of that car and try to get the crews who assemble the trainsets to put the generator at the front end of the car, which would probably help some (assuming the baggage car is right behind the locomotives, anyway, which I think is typically true everywhere except the New York City section of the Lake Shore Limited).
> If your options for making sure you don't have passengers stuck for hours in cars with no HVAC even if one P42 breaks are to either run two P42s, or run one P42 with a generator car, I really doubt that second P42 is any bargin in fuel storage and maintenance compared to the generator car.
> 
> And total fuel consumption per train ought to go down with the generator car, given that the P42 won't be stuck at 1800/3600 RPM.


I never sat and measured, but it looks to me to be about the middle of the engine. However Amtrak usually tries not to position diesels next to the station when possible. Any arriving train is moved out pretty quickly to keep the exhaust out of CUS for example. Placing a generator car on the rear of the train would park the exhaust right by the doors to the station for potentially an hour or more on some occasions.

And while you're right a second P42 isn't a bargin when compared to a generator car, it is when you consider the other factors. Things like Amtrak already owns them and doesn't need to waste money building generator cars and training people to use and maintain them, as well as stocking parts for them. And then there is the fact that just about any train pulling that many cars is going to need a second, and maybe even a third or fourth, engine to get over the road. And even on a flat road with fewer cars, the second P42 still helps with acceleration and that is important.

Finally if we're gonna start spending money on building new cars, they might as well be new Superliner III's with better AC systems and 480 power cables that can carry a heavier power load, rather than jumping through hoops to divide the train into two seperate HEP systems with a generator car. And as for the dead P42 issue, hopefully the next loco fleet will go with the F59 setup for HEP.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 26, 2009)

MattW said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Joel N. Weber II said:
> ...


I honestly don't know and as I said, I'm far from an expert on this. But I'm guessing that either tourist RR's have different regs than Amtrak, or perhaps they got an exemption, or perhaps they have a crew member on duty in the generator car.


----------



## lrdc9_metroplitan_sub (Jan 26, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> lrdc9_metroplitan_sub said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


Yes, Las Vegas is not a cow town. That was not my point. The point was that theremainder of the route is barely dotted with tiny towns. 3 major cities and nothing else. The route would be used, but to serve commun tites with no air service where trains would be more useful I belive resources could be devoted in better ways.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 26, 2009)

AlanB said:


> And as for the dead P42 issue, hopefully the next loco fleet will go with the F59 setup for HEP.


I'm hoping the next locomotive fleet will be all catenary/third rail.


----------



## wrjensen (Jan 26, 2009)

After traveling out of WAS lately I have wondered if you could create new sleeper and Diners out Kawasaki cars like the ones on the MARC. They have no problem with the Cantary or high platforms, I am not sure if the would fit under the tunnels leading to NYP. The cars would allow for the creation of larger bi level dinners and sleepers which could be used with the Amfleet coaches and cafes.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 27, 2009)

wrjensen said:


> After traveling out of WAS lately I have wondered if you could create new sleeper and Diners out Kawasaki cars like the ones on the MARC. They have no problem with the Cantary or high platforms, I am not sure if the would fit under the tunnels leading to NYP. The cars would allow for the creation of larger bi level dinners and sleepers which could be used with the Amfleet coaches and cafes.


First, no, the Kawasaki cars that were built for MARC will not fit into the Hudson River tunnels. Only the specially designed NJT multi-level cars fit into the Hudson River tunnels.

And while either car might work well as a dining car, they won't make for good sleepers, unless Amtrak changes the design of the sleeper rooms. Namely, dropping the upper bunk. There's barely any room right now between the ceiling and the upper bunk on a Superliner sleeper. Drop 3.25 inches and even someone like me, 5'11" and 160 lbs will start having problems fitting into the upper bunk. I'm not sure just how much shorter the NJT multi-level car is, but we can't afford to loose any more height and still keep the upper bunks.


----------

