# Viewliner Diner on the Road



## cpamtfan (Apr 6, 2009)

As per RAILROAD.NET, Viewliner Prototype Diner 8400 is currently in Washington, DC on its way to Beech Grove shops. All railfans along the Capitol or Cardinal routes watch for this special car due to be refurnished along with some Heritage Diners for the LSL.

cpamtfan-Peter


----------



## the_traveler (Apr 6, 2009)

I would vote for it to take the Cardinal route, as that is "the hospital train" and stops at IND (near Beech Grove).


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Apr 6, 2009)

the_traveler said:


> I would vote for it to take the Cardinal route, as that is "the hospital train" and stops at IND (near Beech Grove).


I agree anything they deadhead seems like it moves on the Cardinal from the east coast anyway. From chicago they seem to use the Hoosier State since it terminates in IND anyway


----------



## National Limited (Apr 6, 2009)

Are there any photos available of the interior of the Viewliner Diner?


----------



## sunchaser (Apr 6, 2009)

National Limited said:


> Are there any photos available of the interior of the Viewliner Diner?


I found one for you-

http://www.trainweb.org/amtrakonline/abr8505interior.jpg

listed as Interior Shot of (Temoinsa Refurbished) Heritage Diner #8505

Taken by March 20-30, 2003 By Adam Reich

www.trainweb.org/.../tripreport1-1.html


----------



## Anthony (Apr 7, 2009)

That's the interior of a Heritage diner, not the single Viewliner Diner.


----------



## Anthony (Apr 7, 2009)

Perhaps you're looking for this:

http://www.trainweb.org/amtrakonline/Mike02.jpg


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Apr 7, 2009)

Anthony said:


> Perhaps you're looking for this:
> http://www.trainweb.org/amtrakonline/Mike02.jpg


wow kudos on finding that shot I had looked around but came up empty I really hope to get a meal in this car when its ready.


----------



## National Limited (Apr 7, 2009)

Thanks for the link to the photo. I'm kind of disappointed at the interior. I guess I had hoped that with building a new diner they would make it appear a bit less utilitarian. I've not been in one of the new Diner Lite cars but, in spite of their problems, it seems to me that there was an attempt at some aesthetic design.


----------



## BuzzKillington (Apr 7, 2009)

I would venture a guess at saying that the Viewliner diner will look nothing like that on the inside when the work is done. That picture was probably taken close to 20 years ago. Remember what the lounge and sleeping cars looked like at that time?


----------



## jis (Apr 7, 2009)

National Limited said:


> Thanks for the link to the photo. I'm kind of disappointed at the interior. I guess I had hoped that with building a new diner they would make it appear a bit less utilitarian. I've not been in one of the new Diner Lite cars but, in spite of their problems, it seems to me that there was an attempt at some aesthetic design.


Worth noting that the interior looked like that when it was used last. At present there is very little in the interior. It is going to get a completely new interior before it goes back into service. So it is yet to be seen what its interior in this new incarnation is going to look like.


----------



## printman2000 (Apr 7, 2009)

Course, a single level diner has a lot less space for dining than a superliner so I suspect it will have to be more utilitarian.


----------



## Tony (Apr 7, 2009)

Anthony said:


> Perhaps you're looking for this:
> http://www.trainweb.org/amtrakonline/Mike02.jpg


Are those leather seats I see ?


----------



## AlanB (Apr 7, 2009)

Tony said:


> Anthony said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps you're looking for this:
> ...


No, that's plastic.


----------



## wayman (Apr 7, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> Course, a single level diner has a lot less space for dining than a superliner so I suspect it will have to be more utilitarian.


The Heritage diners are every bit as comfortable and elegant as the Superliner diners, IMO; the ones that got the Temoinsa rebuilt interiors are even nicer.


----------



## sunchaser (Apr 7, 2009)

Anthony said:


> That's the interior of a Heritage diner, not the single Viewliner Diner.


oops, sorry, it was listed as a viewliner. I picked it because of the date on the pic. I skipped the other photo because they looked too old.


----------



## National Limited (Apr 7, 2009)

wayman said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Course, a single level diner has a lot less space for dining than a superliner so I suspect it will have to be more utilitarian.
> ...


Yes, it seems that the Trmoinsa rebuilds took into account some aesthetic issues. It will be interesting to see what they do with the Viewliner Diner. Would be nice to have some more subdued lighting for evening dining.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 7, 2009)

National Limited said:


> wayman said:
> 
> 
> > printman2000 said:
> ...


I see two possibilites for the Viewliner Diner when it's released from Beech Grove. Possibilty one is that it will have the new design that we'll see when the new Viewliner diners get built. Possibility two is that BG will use one of the remaining Temoinsa rebuild kits and install that into the car to get it out on the road as quickly as possible.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 7, 2009)

I don't think they'd work with the double windows.


----------



## nferr (Apr 7, 2009)

Don't remember what train it was (maybe the Crescent) but I ate in the Viewliner diner once. The double row of windows gave it a nice airy feeling but the decor was kinda plain-jane. As in the picture.


----------



## National Limited (Apr 7, 2009)

AlanB said:


> National Limited said:
> 
> 
> > wayman said:
> ...


Please forgive my ignorance, but where the diners that are considered "Temonisa" rebuilds all of the same heritage--all from one pre-Amtrak railway or were they all from different railways? Are there any interior photos of "Temonisa" cars before they were rebuilt? I'd be curious to know their appearance pre-rebuild.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 7, 2009)

National Limited said:


> Please forgive my ignorance, but where the diners that are considered "Temonisa" rebuilds all of the same heritage--all from one pre-Amtrak railway or were they all from different railways? Are there any interior photos of "Temonisa" cars before they were rebuilt? I'd be curious to know their appearance pre-rebuild.


Apperance wise, just pull up any picture of a current or retired dining car and it probably looked more or less the same as the cars that were given the Temoinsa treatment.

And the cars did not all come from the same freight RR, you can view the heritage of each Amtrak diner (as well as whether it got the Temoinsa rebuild) over here on OTOL.


----------



## printman2000 (Apr 8, 2009)

wayman said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Course, a single level diner has a lot less space for dining than a superliner so I suspect it will have to be more utilitarian.
> ...


No argument there. My only point is don't look for more than fitting as many booths in as possible. Someone else posted they had hoped it would be more aesthetically pleasing. I was just saying there is just not a whole lot of room to do much.


----------



## printman2000 (Apr 8, 2009)

So, can someone please go down to WUS and take a picture?


----------



## Rafi (Apr 8, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> So, can someone please go down to WUS and take a picture?


Ugh, if I must, I must....


----------



## Tony (Apr 8, 2009)

Rafi said:


> Ugh, if I must, I must....


Wow, thanks!

I do appreciate the great personal risk you took, by taking pics at the WAS station. h34r:


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Apr 8, 2009)

Whoa how long is it going to be at WAS i might be there on monday and I would love to catch some shots if not just take a look at 4800


----------



## printman2000 (Apr 8, 2009)

Rafi said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > So, can someone please go down to WUS and take a picture?
> ...


Thanks Rafi! Since you are taking a request, how about a shot of the interior? Can you get close enough to shoot through a window?


----------



## Greg (Apr 8, 2009)

I wonder how they would handle the sun shining in on those upper windows if it's used as a dining car? I know the lower windows have shades but it seems it could be a bit awkward to get to the upper windows if the sun is blinding someone in the eye while dining.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 8, 2009)

Long Train Runnin said:


> Whoa how long is it going to be at WAS i might be there on monday and I would love to catch some shots if not just take a look at 4800


I doubt very much that it will still be there on Monday, it's most likely going out on the Cardinal to Beech Grove and there will be three chances to hook it onto a Cardinal between now and Monday. My money's on it going today or Friday.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 8, 2009)

Greg said:


> I wonder how they would handle the sun shining in on those upper windows if it's used as a dining car? I know the lower windows have shades but it seems it could be a bit awkward to get to the upper windows if the sun is blinding someone in the eye while dining.


As shown in the picture linked to back on the first page, and below again, there are curtains on the upper windows.



Anthony said:


> Perhaps you're looking for this:
> http://www.trainweb.org/amtrakonline/Mike02.jpg


----------



## printman2000 (Apr 8, 2009)

Doing a Google image search, I found one picture where the car has different trucks on it.

Here is how all the other pictures look...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3423/336890..._9d83318a71.jpg

Here is what looks to be a more recent picture (because of the paint job) with different trucks...

http://hebners.net/amtrak/amtDINER/amt8400.jpg

My first thought is perhaps the wheelsets were taken off to put on a sleeper that needed them. Any other ideas?


----------



## Ryan (Apr 8, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Long Train Runnin said:
> 
> 
> > Whoa how long is it going to be at WAS i might be there on monday and I would love to catch some shots if not just take a look at 4800
> ...


It looks like that picture was taken on one of the lower level tracks where the SB LD trains load up, so it should be gone by evening. Good catch Rafi, I had been keeping an eye out for it but hadn't seen it yet.


----------



## Amtrak839 (Apr 8, 2009)

Went through ALX on 51 today. I got videos and pictures. Viewliner Diner


----------



## printman2000 (Apr 8, 2009)

Amtrak839 said:


> Went through ALX on 51 today. I got videos and pictures. Viewliner Diner


Great video! Thanks for sharing that. Wouldnt it be cool to see a whole trainset made up of viewliners?

What was up with the big K at the end of Amtrak on the diner?


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Apr 8, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Long Train Runnin said:
> 
> 
> > Whoa how long is it going to be at WAS i might be there on monday and I would love to catch some shots if not just take a look at 4800
> ...


Well thats good and bad it means beech grove can get started on fixing it but it means i don't get to see it :angry: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Apr 8, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> Amtrak839 said:
> 
> 
> > Went through ALX on 51 today. I got videos and pictures. Viewliner Diner
> ...


Oh watched your video after i posted wow I guess its gone... Great catch though look neat to see it next to a sleeper.


----------



## MattW (Apr 8, 2009)

I can already imagine the Crescent parked in its usual spot above I-75 on my morning commute with 4 Viewliners, then 5 Amcans! (baggage, 2 sleepers, diner, amcan cafe, 4 coaches). Who knows, maybe before too long, the P42s will have been replaced with MP40s, or MP42s with the same body! Of course by that time it'd probably 9 Viewliners!

http://www.jaysmarine.com/KLW_3dparty_private_a.php

If that link works, check out the first locomotive! Pretty sharp huh?


----------



## cpamtfan (Apr 8, 2009)

Awesome job Rafi and 839! It's great to know it wasn't just talk by Amtrak! Hope she's on the road soon!

cpamtfan-Peter


----------



## AlanB (Apr 8, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> Amtrak839 said:
> 
> 
> > Went through ALX on 51 today. I got videos and pictures. Viewliner Diner
> ...


It's Amtrak's way of marketing a new breakfast special, Special K. :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Anthony (Apr 8, 2009)

Pre-Temoinsa rebuild Heritage diner:

#8553

http://www.amtraktrains.com/DSC00025.JPG

http://www.amtraktrains.com/DSC00082.JPG

http://www.amtraktrains.com/DSC00074.JPG

I think this was also pre-Temoinsa, but in fact was separately renovated (8501 Silver Tureen):

http://www.amtraktrains.com/heritdinrINT.jpg

http://www.amtraktrains.com/heritdinrEXT.jpg

http://www.amtraktrains.com/heritdinrKit.jpg


----------



## Anthony (Apr 8, 2009)

And just for comparison's sake, here's a pre-renovation Superliner I diner:

http://www.amtraktrains.com/supr1diner.jpg


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Apr 8, 2009)

Anthony said:


> And just for comparison's sake, here's a pre-renovation Superliner I diner:
> http://www.amtraktrains.com/supr1diner.jpg


YIKES! The old Superliner Dinners are GROSS!


----------



## Rafi (Apr 8, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> Thanks Rafi! Since you are taking a request, how about a shot of the interior? Can you get close enough to shoot through a window?


Hah... well, I thought about it, but the train was across the tracks and you know that feeling when you're pushing the limit. 

That said, with the naked eye I could see inside and frankly, it was stripped bare from what I could see. No tables, no booth seats from what I could tell. Pretty much a shell, although I'm sure the galley was at least there in skeleton form.

Rafi


----------



## Anthony (Apr 8, 2009)

Long Train Runnin said:


> Anthony said:
> 
> 
> > And just for comparison's sake, here's a pre-renovation Superliner I diner:
> ...



In fact, the dinner I had in that very car was pretty gross. It was on the CZ in 1999.


----------



## Amtrak839 (Apr 8, 2009)

Rafi said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks Rafi! Since you are taking a request, how about a shot of the interior? Can you get close enough to shoot through a window?
> ...


That's pretty much what I saw, too. The rear vestibule door was wide open at ALX, so I got a decent look at it.


----------



## printman2000 (Apr 8, 2009)

Long Train Runnin said:


> Anthony said:
> 
> 
> > And just for comparison's sake, here's a pre-renovation Superliner I diner:
> ...


Besides the seatbacks being higher and the curtains being orange, I do not see anything different. Sure would not call it "gross."


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Apr 8, 2009)

Anthony said:


> Long Train Runnin said:
> 
> 
> > Anthony said:
> ...


:lol: :lol: What did you have? Aside from some of the specials and the fish its pretty easy to not go wrong with the roast chicken or a steak.


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Apr 8, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> Long Train Runnin said:
> 
> 
> > Anthony said:
> ...


Right thats where they go wrong idk I guess its a personal thing but that color scheme just doesn't work for me. The head rests also make it seem more imprisonable.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 8, 2009)

You've never had much taste, Steve. 70s schemes ROCK!


----------



## Anthony (Apr 8, 2009)

Long Train Runnin said:


> Anthony said:
> 
> 
> > Long Train Runnin said:
> ...



This was before the lame standardized menus of today... while the quality was more hit-or-miss, I enjoyed the meal variety of the pre-Warrington era. Granted, that specific meal was no good, but I had some great ones on the Starlight (stuffed chicken breast, caramel turtle ice cream cake... remember that?) and Silver Service (cuban sub w/ plantains, crab cakes, etc), for example.


----------



## VentureForth (Apr 9, 2009)

Anthony said:


> Granted, that specific meal was no good, but I had some great ones on the Starlight (stuffed chicken breast, caramel turtle ice cream cake... remember that?) and Silver Service (cuban sub w/ plantains, crab cakes, etc), for example.


DOH! I read that fast at first and read "Caramelized Turtle". Man, that would have been exquisite!

This has been such a fun thread I hate to ask the question...

...but I will...

What is the use of a Viewliner diner? It's not tall enough to take advantage of dual-levelness, and as much as I think an all-Viewliner consist would look super cool, it seems to be a WHOLE lot of completely wasted space. The high ceiling is neato, but I don't get where there is any energy savings or efficient use of space being gained from using a viewliner for anything other than what they're used for in the sleepers.

If I'm drastically missing something here (like the ability to store live lobster under the seats and acquiring them through an automated conveyor system to the kitchen), please let me know.


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Apr 9, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> Anthony said:
> 
> 
> > Granted, that specific meal was no good, but I had some great ones on the Starlight (stuffed chicken breast, caramel turtle ice cream cake... remember that?) and Silver Service (cuban sub w/ plantains, crab cakes, etc), for example.
> ...


They need another diner so they can put diners back on the LSL and there simply are not enough heritage diners to use so they are going to revamp 4800 since its an already built diner so they can use it on the LSL so everyone can enjoy the thrills of a single level dining car.


----------



## Tony (Apr 9, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> You've never had much taste, Steve. 70s schemes ROCK!


Yea, I kind-of liked it too.

Dining is especially nice when seated with Jan, Marcia, and Cindy.


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Apr 9, 2009)

Tony said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > You've never had much taste, Steve. 70s schemes ROCK!
> ...


Bright colors for window treatments just don't do it anything for me so thatws why I'm happy there all refurbed :lol:


----------



## AlanB (Apr 9, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> What is the use of a Viewliner diner? It's not tall enough to take advantage of dual-levelness, and as much as I think an all-Viewliner consist would look super cool, it seems to be a WHOLE lot of completely wasted space. The high ceiling is neato, but I don't get where there is any energy savings or efficient use of space being gained from using a viewliner for anything other than what they're used for in the sleepers.
> If I'm drastically missing something here (like the ability to store live lobster under the seats and acquiring them through an automated conveyor system to the kitchen), please let me know.


The use of a Viewliner diner, beyond uniformity, is the fact that Amtrak needs single level diners and they own the design to the Viewliner diner so they don't have to pay someone to design it. Additionally since they are also ordering more Viewliner sleepers, as well as Viewliner baggage cars, keeping the same shell for the diners helps to keep costs down.

By the way, the Viewliner's are only slightly taller than the Heritage cars, so there isn't all that much extra room in a Viewliner diner by comparison to a Heritage diner. It just looks roomier thanks to the extra row of windows.


----------



## Trogdor (Apr 9, 2009)

Are they really ordering Viewliner baggage cars?

What would luggage do with two sets of windows?


----------



## Ryan (Apr 9, 2009)

They're likely going to be baggage dorms, and the baggage section won't have windows (like the coaches would likely not have windows, since the luggage rack would block them).


----------



## AlanB (Apr 9, 2009)

rmadisonwi said:


> Are they really ordering Viewliner baggage cars?


That's what Amtrak says they're doing.



rmadisonwi said:


> What would luggage do with two sets of windows?


Look better sitting in piles on the floor. :lol:


----------



## printman2000 (Apr 9, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> What is the use of a Viewliner diner? It's not tall enough to take advantage of dual-levelness, and as much as I think an all-Viewliner consist would look super cool, it seems to be a WHOLE lot of completely wasted space. The high ceiling is neato, but I don't get where there is any energy savings or efficient use of space being gained from using a viewliner for anything other than what they're used for in the sleepers.
> If I'm drastically missing something here (like the ability to store live lobster under the seats and acquiring them through an automated conveyor system to the kitchen), please let me know.


Using the same shell for all cars can help costs, as stated. Just because they use a Viewliner shell, does not mean it will have two rows of windows. Course, in the diner, it is nice to have the extra windows (I suspect) just for the atmosphere. Really, how often have you ever looked out the curved top windows of a Sightseer Lounge car? Probably not much. But that car would be less appealing somehow if they were not there.

If they come out with Viewliner coaches, I would suspect only one row of windows, maybe even larger than other Viewliner lower windows.



rmadisonwi said:


> Are they really ordering Viewliner baggage cars?
> What would luggage do with two sets of windows?


Again, I suspect it will just use the same shell and not have any windows. As for dorm/baggage cars, I have read nothing from Amtrak that says they are building those. Everything I have seen says just baggage cars.


----------



## Tony (Apr 9, 2009)

rmadisonwi said:


> Are they really ordering Viewliner baggage cars?
> What would luggage do with two sets of windows?


While I have knowledge of such, I would think that the Viewliner Diner shell would lend itself pretty well to a Viewliner dorm/baggage car.

The (roughly) half with windows, _the booth half_, could be the crew dorm roomettes, and the half without windows, _the kitchen half_, could be for baggage. Plus, the large side door used to load supplies into the kitchen could just as well serve to load baggage.


----------



## Tony (Apr 9, 2009)

Tony said:


> While I have knowledge of such, ...


While I have *no* knowledge of such, ...


----------



## Rafi (Apr 9, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> As for dorm/baggage cars, I have read nothing from Amtrak that says they are building those. Everything I have seen says just baggage cars.


If I'm not mistaken, the Amtrak rep who presented at the Baltimore NARP meeting last month (can't remember his name now) specified that there would be Baggage/Dorms ordered as part of the Viewliner order.

Rafi


----------



## Ryan (Apr 9, 2009)

From the 1-5-09 URPA "This week at Amtrak"



> 4) We know by combing through various Amtrak information, it already has a very, very modest five year equipment plan, which is akin to having next to nothing. Here is what Amtrak has said it wants as of right now (hopefully, subject to rational thought and changes):
> - Purchase 75 Viewliner class baggage and baggage dorm cars, plus 25 Viewliner class diners, and 15 Viewliner sleeping cars, for a total of 115 cars.


Don't know what his source was, but this is something that I've read a handful of places, so I'm pretty sure that's the plan (or at least has been part of the plan).


----------



## BuzzKillington (Apr 9, 2009)

Wasnt that number raised to 25 sleeping cars?


----------



## jis (Apr 9, 2009)

BuzzKillington said:


> Wasnt that number raised to 25 sleeping cars?


Yes, 25 Sleeping Cars and 130 bi-level corridor cars, and also 60 electric locomotives (in addition to the 25 Diners and 75 baggage/bag-dorm cars. Apparently URPA needs to do a bit of catchup. They are still stuck in the Kummant era slideset, not the Boardman era ones that have materialized since then, and are part of the 2010 request.


----------



## printman2000 (Apr 9, 2009)

I still find it interesting that Amtrak has not specified that some of the baggage cars would be baggage/dorms. Even their projected costs do not differentiate seeing as a baggage dorm would cost more than a baggage only.

Until I see/hear or someone else here sees/hears something from Amtrak direct, I will be a bit skeptical.


----------



## jis (Apr 9, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> I still find it interesting that Amtrak has not specified that some of the baggage cars would be baggage/dorms. Even their projected costs do not differentiate seeing as a baggage dorm would cost more than a baggage only.
> Until I see/hear or someone else here sees/hears something from Amtrak direct, I will be a bit skeptical.


You are correct. One should be skeptical about the bag-dorm theory until we hear it from the proverbial horse's mouth.


----------



## DAWall (Apr 9, 2009)

If I had to guess (and this is only a guess) the 4800 was dropped off by 51 at IND this morning, and is already in Beech Grove, or will be by tonight.

If anyone can confirm this I would like to know.


----------



## battalion51 (Apr 9, 2009)

IMHO most routes really won't benefit from a baggage dorm. The demands for space is too high. If they were to use a baggage dorm in conjunction with another baggage car, it'd probably work out. If you want to put it on some smaller routes like the Cardinal it wouldn't be too bad. But with as many bags as a Silver Service train handles there's no way it'd be wise to just have a baggage dorm on there. Also, you need decent size doors on these things. The doors that the Viewliner diner has are just too small to make it functional when you're trying to work. If these guys are smart they'll talk to some Conductors and station agents about how to build these things. I won't hold my breath though.


----------



## MattW (Apr 9, 2009)

I was under the impression that the baggage cars even on LD trains were maybe 50% full if that. For checked baggage I used the following numbers: 400 people/train 3 max-size bags each, baggage space 10' wide by 10' tall. Which means only 12' length. Of course that's every cubic-yard bag packed in as tight as you can shove them and exactly cubical in nature. But considering the length of the car is 75-85 feet (don't know actual length) divided in half is 37.5-42.5 feet. I don't know how much space is needed for the dorm side, but it certainly seems possible that a baggage-dorm could work.


----------



## printman2000 (Apr 9, 2009)

I believe any new baggage cars based on the Viewliner frame WILL have large baggage doors. Maybe even two per side.

As for how much space is needed, you have to factor in that luggage comes and goes through the entire route. So even though the baggage car may not be full at departure, there very well could be parts of the route it gets very full. You also need extra space to get luggage in and out at all station stops. Cramming luggage in is not an option since that would limit them getting to what they need.


----------



## p&sr (Apr 9, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> Really, how often have you ever looked out the curved top windows of a Sightseer Lounge car?


Pretty much constantly, while the CZ heads down the deep Canyons along the Colorado River.


----------



## printman2000 (Apr 9, 2009)

p&sr said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Really, how often have you ever looked out the curved top windows of a Sightseer Lounge car?
> ...


There of course are exceptions, but most of the time they are just looking at the sky.


----------



## p&sr (Apr 9, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> There of course are exceptions, but most of the time they are just looking at the sky.


Skies can be dramatic out West as well, especially when there are Thunderstorms in the area. Or at Sunrise and Sunset.


----------



## MattW (Apr 9, 2009)

Or late at night in the middle of nowhere near no light pollution to speak of the stars would be more dramatic than ever near a city! I've never gone on a sightseer, but I have driven through Kansas at night and even with the other headlights, the stars were more brilliant than I've ever seen!


----------



## printman2000 (Apr 9, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> p&sr said:
> 
> 
> > printman2000 said:
> ...


Remember, I was defending having the windows. I like them. I want them. You don't have to give me reasons for having them.


----------



## battalion51 (Apr 10, 2009)

MattW said:


> I was under the impression that the baggage cars even on LD trains were maybe 50% full if that. For checked baggage I used the following numbers: 400 people/train 3 max-size bags each, baggage space 10' wide by 10' tall. Which means only 12' length. Of course that's every cubic-yard bag packed in as tight as you can shove them and exactly cubical in nature. But considering the length of the car is 75-85 feet (don't know actual length) divided in half is 37.5-42.5 feet. I don't know how much space is needed for the dorm side, but it certainly seems possible that a baggage-dorm could work.


I think you just proved my point. :lol: In order for the system to work you have to be able to create separate piles for each station stop, and still have to room to be able to walk and move around. Trust me when I say you need the entire car.


----------



## MattW (Apr 10, 2009)

Yea, but 37.5 feet on the low end isn't exactly small. Plus, aren't the Cabbage compartments only about this big?


----------



## AlanB (Apr 10, 2009)

MattW said:


> Yea, but 37.5 feet on the low end isn't exactly small. Plus, aren't the Cabbage compartments only about this big?


Cabbages don't run on LD's and LD's carry the most luggage.


----------



## Konrad (Apr 10, 2009)

National Limited said:


> Are there any photos available of the interior of the Viewliner Diner?


I was on the Cardinal on Wednesday when number 8400 was shunted onto the back of Viewliner 62020 Moonlightview in Washington (may be from the Great Downunder but I know how you guys love these details).

The carriage is a total wreck, it has been completely gutted from the kitchen/corridor section and has only minimal panelling left in the dining section. It was accompanied by Amtrak crew from Washington to (I presume - I was in bed) Indianopolis.

Nevertheless, we must have made a pretty cool consist with three Amcans, one Amcan dinerlite, one Viewliner and the one and only (pretend) Viewliner diner.

If you want interior and exterior pics I've got them in my camera and I'm home in just over a week (CZ tomorrow) but I'm blowed if I know how to attach them to a post in this site.

I'll post a travelogue or three when I get home and have a broadband connection, but, overall it has been a very good trip so far (and that has completely jinxed it).


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Apr 10, 2009)

battalion51 said:


> IMHO most routes really won't benefit from a baggage dorm. The demands for space is too high. If they were to use a baggage dorm in conjunction with another baggage car, it'd probably work out. If you want to put it on some smaller routes like the Cardinal it wouldn't be too bad. But with as many bags as a Silver Service train handles there's no way it'd be wise to just have a baggage dorm on there.


What about the LSL? Would a baggage-dorm car to NYP and another to BOS work?

I'm also wondering if they're really going to be taking all of the existing baggage cars out of service once the new ones are delivered. I'm sure there will be some Heritage baggage cars that will reach the point where continuing to use them would require uneconomically expensive repairs, but is the whole fleet going to reach that point a month after the last Viewliner baggage/baggage-dorm car is delivered? We don't have toilet regulations forcing the issue the way we did with the 10-6 sleepers last time there was a Viewliner order.

And it does seem like there's the potential that part of the order could be baggage-dorm and part all-baggage.


----------



## printman2000 (Apr 10, 2009)

Konrad said:


> National Limited said:
> 
> 
> > Are there any photos available of the interior of the Viewliner Diner?
> ...


Looking forward to the pics! This site does not host pictures, you have to save them somewhere else and then embed a link.

Did you get to go inside the diner? If so, did you do that on your own or did someone let you?


----------



## AlanB (Apr 10, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> I'm also wondering if they're really going to be taking all of the existing baggage cars out of service once the new ones are delivered. I'm sure there will be some Heritage baggage cars that will reach the point where continuing to use them would require uneconomically expensive repairs, but is the whole fleet going to reach that point a month after the last Viewliner baggage/baggage-dorm car is delivered? We don't have toilet regulations forcing the issue the way we did with the 10-6 sleepers last time there was a Viewliner order.


Most of the baggage cars have already reached that point, where continuing to use them requires unecomomically expensive repairs. Remember these cars are over 60 years old now and were built to last 30 to 40 years.


----------



## sechs (Apr 10, 2009)

It may be cheaper to run two bag/dorms when necessary than to keep these rickety old things rolling.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Apr 11, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > I'm also wondering if they're really going to be taking all of the existing baggage cars out of service once the new ones are delivered. I'm sure there will be some Heritage baggage cars that will reach the point where continuing to use them would require uneconomically expensive repairs, but is the whole fleet going to reach that point a month after the last Viewliner baggage/baggage-dorm car is delivered? We don't have toilet regulations forcing the issue the way we did with the 10-6 sleepers last time there was a Viewliner order.
> ...


Every single baggage car Amtrak is currently running was originally built in 1949 or earlier? I'd somehow thought the freight railroads did buy some new rolling stock in the 1950s.

With the 10-6 sleepers, I thought one of the major excuses for retiring them was that the trucks were going to need to be rebuilt. I can't imagine that Amtrak is going to manage to time things so that the FRA mandated rebuilds on each set of trucks on all of the baggage cars are going to be scheduled to be needed a month after each new baggage car is delivered. If the rebuilds normally would happen every decade or so, I imagine some of the Heritage baggage cars are going to have several years of life left in their trucks when the new baggage cars arrive.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 11, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> With the 10-6 sleepers, I thought one of the major excuses for retiring them was that the trucks were going to need to be rebuilt. I can't imagine that Amtrak is going to manage to time things so that the FRA mandated rebuilds on each set of trucks on all of the baggage cars are going to be scheduled to be needed a month after each new baggage car is delivered. If the rebuilds normally would happen every decade or so, I imagine some of the Heritage baggage cars are going to have several years of life left in their trucks when the new baggage cars arrive.


Amtrak currently has 71 baggage cars carried on it's active roster. They're ordering 75 new ones. One isn't going to keep around an old worn out car with many other issues and failings just because it got new trucks recently, when one has 75 new ones. Especially since I suspect that the new cars will probably be lighter and will help save a bit on fuel costs.

Amtrak did the same thing with the Heritage sleepers, basically dumping all but a select few that continued run on the Three Rivers, once the new Viewliner sleepers came on line. Once they were faced with both the truck issue, retention issues, and other major FRA mandated work, even those few remaining Heritage sleepers were cut.

Heck, they've even dumped all the Heritage Crew Dorms and without suitable replacements being available.

I'm sure that the Heritage baggage cars are history once the new bags are all online. I'd also bet that the Heritage Dining car fleet will be history too, once the new diners come online. They've already retired 4 since 2003, 4 that they couldn't really afford to retire from a service perspective. Perhaps, maybe, for a few years they might try to hold onto a few of the Timoinsa rebuilds just as a backup, but once they need new trucks they'll be gone too.


----------



## battalion51 (Apr 11, 2009)

I certainly hope that they'll offer up a lot of these to museums/historical societies at their scrap value so history can be preserved. I won't hold my breath though.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Apr 11, 2009)

battalion51 said:


> I certainly hope that they'll offer up a lot of these to museums/historical societies at their scrap value so history can be preserved. I won't hold my breath though.


The typical current Amtrak baggage car isn't high on my list of historical artifacts that I care to see preserved.

It might well be a good idea for museums to preserve some dining cars, though.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Apr 11, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Amtrak currently has 71 baggage cars carried on it's active roster. They're ordering 75 new ones. One isn't going to keep around an old worn out car with many other issues and failings just because it got new trucks recently, when one has 75 new ones. Especially since I suspect that the new cars will probably be lighter and will help save a bit on fuel costs.


You're suggesting that they might end up with four more baggage cars than they have now. If three go to a daily Cardinal, how are they going to find enough baggage cars for a daily Los Angeles to New Orleans train plus a daily New Orleans to Florida train plus more Boston NEC checked luggage service plus any new routes?


----------



## battalion51 (Apr 11, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> battalion51 said:
> 
> 
> > I certainly hope that they'll offer up a lot of these to museums/historical societies at their scrap value so history can be preserved. I won't hold my breath though.
> ...


You have to think about how they can be used. Many museums, like the North Florida Railway Museum, use their baggage car for exhibits and display of historical items. So while its purpose in life will change it could certainly be very valuable to a number of museums.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Apr 11, 2009)

Are baggage cars any more valuable to a museum than a freight railroad boxcar in this regard? I seem to recall a couple of aging boxcars parked on sidings (or perhaps abandoned mainlines) near the MBTA Fitchburg Line...


----------



## AlanB (Apr 11, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak currently has 71 baggage cars carried on it's active roster. They're ordering 75 new ones. One isn't going to keep around an old worn out car with many other issues and failings just because it got new trucks recently, when one has 75 new ones. Especially since I suspect that the new cars will probably be lighter and will help save a bit on fuel costs.
> ...


Who said that we were getting a daily LAX to NOL train, or any of those other things? :unsure:

And while 71 are on the active list, I don't think that all of them are actually in use at present.

I also suspect that Amtrak is hoping that they'll be able to add to the 75 new ones in coming years.

But I really don't see Amtrak holding onto any of those old bags once the new ones are fully delivered in the hope that they can actually keep them on the road should a new service materialize. They are gonna dump those old bags like a hot potato.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 11, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Are baggage cars any more valuable to a museum than a freight railroad boxcar in this regard? I seem to recall a couple of aging boxcars parked on sidings (or perhaps abandoned mainlines) near the MBTA Fitchburg Line...


Not hugely more valuable, but a bit since they come with internal lighting, whereas box cars don't. They can also be hooked end to end to allow people to walk through from one car to the next, again something that a box car can't do.


----------



## sechs (Apr 12, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> If three go to a daily Cardinal, how are they going to find enough baggage cars for a daily Los Angeles to New Orleans train


Coach-baggage?


----------



## guestlsa (Apr 12, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak currently has 71 baggage cars carried on it's active roster. They're ordering 75 new ones. One isn't going to keep around an old worn out car with many other issues and failings just because it got new trucks recently, when one has 75 new ones. Especially since I suspect that the new cars will probably be lighter and will help save a bit on fuel costs.
> ...


why would they need a baggage car on the boston nec ?


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Apr 12, 2009)

guestlsa said:


> why would they need a baggage car on the boston nec ?


Right now, the only trains at BOS with checked luggage are the Lake Shore Limited and the train formerly known as the Twilight Shoreliner. It would be nice if a few more BOS-NYP trains carried checked luggage. Especially since New Haven only has checked baggage service in one direction due to the hours at which the train formerly known as the Twilight Shoreliner serves that station.


----------



## sechs (Apr 13, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Right now, the only trains at BOS with checked luggage are the Lake Shore Limited and the train formerly known as the Twilight Shoreliner.


...And it doesn't seem to be too much of a problem.

It would also be nice if Amtrak always had absolute priority, but I don't see it buying UP anytime soon.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 13, 2009)

battalion51 said:


> I certainly hope that they'll offer up a lot of these to museums/historical societies at their scrap value so history can be preserved. I won't hold my breath though.


I'll bet they will, and here is why: people like dinner trains. Dining cars are a rare commodity. I can bet you 20 individuals exist who are willing to pay more than scrap value for them. Amtrak will sell them to the highest bidder, and I doubt many of them will be scrappers. Between you, me, and the entire freakin' internet, I hope I have enough money at the time to be among those bidders. I want a nice dining room onboard my grand plan for a wheeled mansion. One of those Timoinsas would do very nicely indeed.


----------



## VentureForth (Apr 13, 2009)

We've talked about this before, but let's look at this again from a practical standpoint. Is there no way to have a Viewliner coach where the headroom is the same as a Heritage or Amfleet and the resulting space beneath could be used for luggage? It would be almost like the crawl space under a bus. It just seems to me that there is an awful lot of wasted space in a baggage car, and they are so poorly maintained - how long will 75 brand new ones last?

If I haven't seen with my own eyes how poorly checked baggage is treated on Amtrak (across the country on at least two different services), I may have a different opinion. But it seems like if they are going to exploit the Viewliner design (which I'm totally in favor of), why not make them a bit more utilitarian (not in aesthetics, but in function)?


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Apr 13, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> We've talked about this before, but let's look at this again from a practical standpoint. Is there no way to have a Viewliner coach where the headroom is the same as a Heritage or Amfleet and the resulting space beneath could be used for luggage? It would be almost like the crawl space under a bus. It just seems to me that there is an awful lot of wasted space in a baggage car, and they are so poorly maintained - how long will 75 brand new ones last?
> If I haven't seen with my own eyes how poorly checked baggage is treated on Amtrak (across the country on at least two different services), I may have a different opinion. But it seems like if they are going to exploit the Viewliner design (which I'm totally in favor of), why not make them a bit more utilitarian (not in aesthetics, but in function)?



And how would a passenger get his lugage out of those underbody Bagage holds?? specially at a High level platform like on N E C and some of its feeder lines.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 13, 2009)

sechs said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > Right now, the only trains at BOS with checked luggage are the Lake Shore Limited and the train formerly known as the Twilight Shoreliner.
> ...


Lack of luggage service on the NEC is a big problem. There are plenty of people who are left holding the bag as it were and are sometimes put off from traveling on Amtrak because of a lack of service on the NEC.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 13, 2009)

Dutchrailnut said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > We've talked about this before, but let's look at this again from a practical standpoint. Is there no way to have a Viewliner coach where the headroom is the same as a Heritage or Amfleet and the resulting space beneath could be used for luggage? It would be almost like the crawl space under a bus. It just seems to me that there is an awful lot of wasted space in a baggage car, and they are so poorly maintained - how long will 75 brand new ones last?
> ...


Not to mention the resulting cars would either have to have the vestibules raised in every car to accommodate the higher floor (rendering the equipment incompatible with everything else on the rails today), or have two flights of stairs inside each car (ADA issues?).


----------



## VentureForth (Apr 13, 2009)

Dutchrailnut said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > We've talked about this before, but let's look at this again from a practical standpoint. Is there no way to have a Viewliner coach where the headroom is the same as a Heritage or Amfleet and the resulting space beneath could be used for luggage? It would be almost like the crawl space under a bus. It just seems to me that there is an awful lot of wasted space in a baggage car, and they are so poorly maintained - how long will 75 brand new ones last?
> ...


When does a passenger ever get his own luggage from the checked baggage car?


----------



## VentureForth (Apr 13, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> Dutchrailnut said:
> 
> 
> > VentureForth said:
> ...


It's all in the engineering.  Perhaps it can be worked out, perhaps it can't. I just can't help but wonder if there is a way to better utilize the size of the Viewliner shells to incorporate baggage rather than continuing to use baggage cars.

I know that there is no such thing as checked luggage on Japanese long distance trains (even the overnighters). Does Europe have checked luggage? 75 new baggage cars seems like money better suited towards other new technologies and solutions, not rehashes of the same old problem.


----------



## Tony (Apr 13, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> It's all in the engineering.  Perhaps it can be worked out, perhaps it can't. I just can't help but wonder if there is a way to better utilize the size of the Viewliner shells to incorporate baggage rather than continuing to use baggage cars.


How would two or three new Viewliner cars handle all the baggage from a long distance train like the Silvers? Those few Viewliner cars will need to accommodate not only all the sleeper passenger's checked luggage, but all the checked luggage from all the coach cars.


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Apr 13, 2009)

AlanB said:


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


Right but adding checked bags would be a big issue I mean they would have to make a baggage corridor car as to not slow operations down and even with that there would need to be ALOT of them.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 13, 2009)

Long Train Runnin said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > sechs said:
> ...


Don't need one for every train, but there should be maybe 4 or 5 runs in each direction that carry luggage.

If you're in the Boston area and connecting to either a Silver or the Crescent, you have a big problem if you want more luggage than the two allowed carry-on's. Your choice is to either not bring what you want and perhaps need, or show up at South station the day before and check your bag onto 66/67. Alternatively you could return to your arriving station the next day when you bag shows up because it went out of Boston that night, long after you left.

Neither is an attractive alternative and it does put people off from traveling on Amtrak.


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Apr 13, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Long Train Runnin said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


Hmm. There is no place on a regional where they could make a baggage compartment. So there would have to be a car made or redone. The new baggage cars won't help if there baggage/ crew dorm as thats not needed on the NEC.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 13, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> Dutchrailnut said:
> 
> 
> > VentureForth said:
> ...


Passenger or not, a below the car solution is going to be inaccessible to anyone at a high platform.


----------



## battalion51 (Apr 13, 2009)

While all of this is hypothetical, I have to wonder if they're not thinking about buying coaches similar to what NJT has bought in the bi-level variety. Obviously this would greatly increase the capacity both on and off the NEC. They could potentially create a baggage area on the upper level of one car, this way it would match up better with the baggage carts. I don't know what the feasibility is, but it'd be a good thing IMHO.


----------



## Tony (Apr 13, 2009)

In thinking about this some more (adding baggage on the NEC), I would be worried that if Amtrak were pressed enough, baggage might be "sold" as a revenue generator, with (like the airlines) Amtrak charging $25 to check the first bag, and $50 to check the second.


----------



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

Long Train Runnin said:


> Hmm. There is no place on a regional where they could make a baggage compartment. So there would have to be a car made or redone. The new baggage cars won't help if there baggage/ crew dorm as thats not needed on the NEC.


If Amtrak's only option were baggage-dorm cars, why wouldn't those help on the NEC? They do have the ability to carry roughly half as much baggage as a full baggage car, which would be helpful even if the dorm space went unused, even if it might not be the most cost effective approach.

If there were roomettes in a half-baggage, half-roomette car which weren't needed for crew dorm purposes, they could be sold as revenue compartments. You'd have to convince far less than 10% of the Acela First Class passengers that a roomette on a slightly slower train is more attractive than an Acela FC seat to fill those roomettes. Or you could draw from the passengers who are going to stations not served by the Acela but served by the Northeast Regional. If there are 8 revenue roomettes per car and they each earn Amtrak $200 in revenue a day, that's over half a million dollars a year, which probably means that over time, those 8 revenue roomettes will collect enough money to more than pay for the entire car, and unless that $200 a day is an overestimate, Amtrak is probably throwing money away if they don't do this. (Or maybe I'm not adequately accounting for operating expenses, but it's also very possible that that $200 a day is a pretty major underestimate.)


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Apr 13, 2009)

battalion51 said:


> While all of this is hypothetical, I have to wonder if they're not thinking about buying coaches similar to what NJT has bought in the bi-level variety. Obviously this would greatly increase the capacity both on and off the NEC. They could potentially create a baggage area on the upper level of one car, this way it would match up better with the baggage carts. I don't know what the feasibility is, but it'd be a good thing IMHO.


AlanB or Jis may recall better then I but the new ACES service has the bi-levels with luggage racks with all the racks there really are not to many more seats open then on an AMI corridor car. Also there is no over head. With the seats that close the tray table is really right there. Larger people would find it impossible to use. So the bi-levels with luggage racks don't feel like the answer to me.


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Apr 13, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Long Train Runnin said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm. There is no place on a regional where they could make a baggage compartment. So there would have to be a car made or redone. The new baggage cars won't help if there baggage/ crew dorm as thats not needed on the NEC.
> ...


Interesting point... Well for a price point you could find what it used to cost when 66/67 ran with a sleeper. They would be more like Day rooms in most cases though. Although BOS to NPN Is quite a long ride... Even if they don't sell the rooms its the government so efficient isn't always what's in mind.


----------



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

Long Train Runnin said:


> Well for a price point you could find what it used to cost when 66/67 ran with a sleeper.


Except the other factor is how aware the traveling public is of the options. If they made a major effort to advertised private compartments without adding any substantial amount of rolling stock, I bet the prices would go up a lot.


----------



## DAWall (Apr 13, 2009)

Konrad said:


> National Limited said:
> 
> 
> > Are there any photos available of the interior of the Viewliner Diner?
> ...


Does anyone know if the 8400 actually made it back to Beech Grove? By what I've been reading it should have been there a couple of days ago.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 14, 2009)

Long Train Runnin said:


> Well for a price point you could find what it used to cost when 66/67 ran with a sleeper.


I paid $124.89 for a roomette on the last run of the Twilight Shoreliner, BOS - WAS, including railfare.

I paid $140.36 the very next day for a roomette on the first run of the Federal WAS-BOS, again including railfare.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 14, 2009)

DAWall said:


> Does anyone know if the 8400 actually made it back to Beech Grove? By what I've been reading it should have been there a couple of days ago.


I have to believe so, since it's not even a one night journey from DC to Indianappolis on the Cardinal and I haven't heard of any derailments.


----------



## sechs (Apr 14, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Lack of luggage service on the NEC is a big problem.


No, luggage service on the NEC is simply inconvenient.

Boston to Washington is not a great distance. People don't need to lug huge bags with them.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 14, 2009)

sechs said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Lack of luggage service on the NEC is a big problem.
> ...


If we were just talking about BOS - WAS, you might have a partial case, even though there will always be people who do feel the need to lug more. Especially if like they're going to school or to a branch office for a few weeks.

But the big problem is as I stated in this post:



AlanB said:


> If you're in the Boston area and connecting to either a Silver or the Crescent, you have a big problem if you want more luggage than the two allowed carry-on's. Your choice is to either not bring what you want and perhaps need, or show up at South station the day before and check your bag onto 66/67. Alternatively you could return to your arriving station the next day when you bag shows up because it went out of Boston that night, long after you left.
> Neither is an attractive alternative and it does put people off from traveling on Amtrak.


----------



## Tony (Apr 14, 2009)

sechs said:


> Boston to Washington is not a great distance. People don't need to lug huge bags with them.


I think it really depends on the type of passenger. If one is simply commuting to Washington for the day, and planning on returning back that evening, then yes, there isn't a great need for checked baggage.

However, if one is going to Washington for a week or more, then one probably needs to lug huge bags with them.

What the purpose of the Acela and NE Regional? Its it just a longer commuter railroad?


----------



## VentureForth (Apr 14, 2009)

Maybe this is something already offered in the Northeast with certian geographical boundaries, but if not it should be considered. When I took my family to Japan 6 years ago, I flew into Tokyo and took the bullet train to Osaka. There is no checked baggage on the Shinkansen, so I _takkyubiin'd_ (over ground parcel service like UPS) our four large checked bags from the airport to my parent's house. Repeated the process on the return trip. I've heard of families that own small personal aircraft that Fed Ex their bags to their destination and travel light in their aircraft. Problem in the US is that the geographical range is so large that it's not practical to make it a National Service. And, regionally, I don't think it's cheap to send a 50 lb bag by 2-day delivery (ours in Japan cost $10 per bag - had plenty of necessities for two nights in our carry-ons).

Is there a similar type service available in the NEC region? Checked bags on railroads could become obsolete. I don't think I'd have a problem with that, except that sending bags by FedEx or UPS is not as easy as it is in Japan (per my own perception).


----------



## wayman (Apr 14, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > Are baggage cars any more valuable to a museum than a freight railroad boxcar in this regard? I seem to recall a couple of aging boxcars parked on sidings (or perhaps abandoned mainlines) near the MBTA Fitchburg Line...
> ...


They can also be used as _rolling_ museums, as the West Chester RR does with their baggage car. It serves the dual function of cafe car and local museum car on their excursion trains. A very clever use of a resource!

I suspect there are at least a few heritage railroads which would love to purchase a heritage diner as well--some of these operations have extensive volunteer expertise and could do their own restoration work and keep a diner in operating condition, and the opportunity to have an operating diner to facilitate the true dinner train experience could--given the proper sort of heritage railroad--be a great revenue draw.


----------



## DAWall (Apr 17, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> Konrad said:
> 
> 
> > National Limited said:
> ...


I went by Beech Grove today, the 8400 is there. was on the end of a long line of single level cars on the east side of the shops. Just an observation, Many of the wreaked Superliners that had been line up out back have been moved..and I saw a few sticking out of shops. Looks like there going to work.


----------



## ctim2 (May 16, 2009)

DAWall said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Konrad said:
> ...


Here is video of the dinner heading west: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iljW7ZUjiRE...feature=related.

Ctim2


----------



## Konrad (May 22, 2009)

Hokay,

I've never had any success doing this but I hope this turns into a link to my pictures taken in WUS on 8 April 2009 en-route to Chicago on the Cardinal.

http://picasaweb.google.com.au/Ozmike52/US...524010286092578


----------



## Konrad (May 22, 2009)

ctim2 said:


> DAWall said:
> 
> 
> > printman2000 said:
> ...


----------



## Konrad (May 22, 2009)

I surrender!

I've got the pics, they're on the web, but I can't link them to here.

If you want 'em tutor me or email me.


----------



## Konrad (May 22, 2009)

One last try...

http://picasaweb.google.com.au/Ozmike52/US...524010286092578


----------



## Konrad (May 22, 2009)

Konrad said:


> One last try...
> http://picasaweb.google.com.au/Ozmike52/US...524010286092578


And now I can stop worrying and relax for the evening.

'Night all.


----------



## Alice (May 22, 2009)

Konrad said:


> Hokay,
> I've never had any success doing this but I hope this turns into a link to my pictures taken in WUS on 8 April 2009 en-route to Chicago on the Cardinal.
> 
> http://picasaweb.google.com.au/Ozmi...key=Gv1sRgCLui6-D6_oay1AE#5338524010286092578http://picasaweb.google.com.au/Ozmike52/USAMarch2009?authkey=Gv1sRgCLui6-D6_oay1AE#5338524010286092578


Konrad, I got to these photos fine by copying and pasting the displayed URL. When you click on the green plus sign to add a link, put the desired URL in the first answer box, and what you want to display in the second box. Alternatively, put the URL you want to display in both times. (I see you got it to work while I was writing.)

Also, I can tell what the photos are of when you show the outside of the car, but I'm not positive what the inside shots (gutted car, being restored?) are. So how about some captions for those of us who can't just look at those windows and identify what that is?!


----------



## Konrad (May 22, 2009)

Alice said:


> Konrad said:
> 
> 
> > Hokay,
> ...


The interior shots are of the 8400. Amazing what can happen to a prototype diner that hardly ever saw revenue service.

Hope you're suitable impressed that the pics came from Australia.

As the carriage is being used as a prototype for future builds I hope it doesn't indicate what future SDS service wille be like (in its current state).


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (May 22, 2009)

Wow its really stripped bear! I guess it will be all ne when it hits the road. I thought maybe the tables would still be inside.


----------



## printman2000 (May 22, 2009)

Thanks for posting those. I guess they are going with the clean slate approach. It will interesting to see what they come up with or if they will just use the same package as the heritage dining cars.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 22, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> Thanks for posting those. I guess they are going with the clean slate approach. It will interesting to see what they come up with or if they will just use the same package as the heritage dining cars.


I'm going to bet you that it will be basically a standard diner, except it will have a more capable counter then the heritage diners that have them, it will be pointed at the non-table end of the car, and it will be configured to serve as a snack bar, so that it can be used as a combined diner-snack car on certain trains. The Cardinal, in particular, has shown itself to be well suited to the diner-lite concept. Or perhaps the Cardinal will remain on Diner lite even after the delivery of the new Viewliners. However, I personally hope that the Cardinal gets a consist similar to the Silvers or Crescent, and goes daily.

Although, they would probably be better served by adding a sleeper to the Crescent, and reinstating the Silver Palm and Broadway Limited so that all New York run bagdorm-3 sleepers-diner-dinerlite-4 coaches and can thus be all interlined.


----------



## BuzzKillington (May 22, 2009)

Didn't Boardman basically say that Diner Lite wouldn't work on the long distance trains and he was getting rid of it?


----------



## AlanB (May 22, 2009)

Konrad said:


> Konrad said:
> 
> 
> > One last try...
> ...


You got it right this time, and I fixed the link for you in the first attempt to lessen confusion for others.

And thanks for the pictures!


----------



## AlanB (May 22, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> Thanks for posting those. I guess they are going with the clean slate approach. It will interesting to see what they come up with or if they will just use the same package as the heritage dining cars.


They can't use the Timoinsa package, as that was specially designed to fit into the Heritage cars. Additonally, the Viewliner's are modular cars. That's why they all have that big rather square seem on one side of the car, where they slide the moduals into the car. Each roomette and bedroom on a Viewliner was built else where and just slid into the carbody and bolted down. The same approach will be used for the new Viewliner II Diners, and the prototype will serve as the test bed for the new modules that will go into the Viewliner II's. If the modules don't fit now, then they'll know before starting production on the new diners and can make the needed changes.

And returning to the Timoinsa rebuild packages, they aren't modular and therefore won't work in the prototype diner.


----------



## printman2000 (May 22, 2009)

AlanB said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for posting those. I guess they are going with the clean slate approach. It will interesting to see what they come up with or if they will just use the same package as the heritage dining cars.
> ...


I can understand having sleeper modules, but a dining car? What would be/need to be modular on a dining car? Not like you can slide the kitchen module in/out or that there would be any need to slide table modules in/out. Seems to me you would just install the parts in a dining car.


----------



## MattW (May 22, 2009)

What kind of weird trucks are those under the diner? Is that a new design passenger truck or is that just what the folks at wherever it was stored stuck under it to repair some other car? Also, do the trucks under the passenger cars have a specific name?


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 22, 2009)

I think they are freight trucks, or more likely, trucks from a wrecked or scrapped ExpressTrak.


----------



## cpamtfan (May 22, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I think they are freight trucks, or more likely, trucks from a wrecked or scrapped ExpressTrak.



Actually, they are a specially designed truck built especially for the prototype Viewliners. I think they are getting replaced as part of the overhaul, but I'm not certain.

cpamtfan-Peter


----------



## rolfecms (May 27, 2009)

From what I've read, there have been issues (quality-wise) with the existing Viewliners - just not manufactured to the same standard or built to last like the heritage cars were and as a result there is a feeling of cheapness about them. Not having ridden on them I can't comment - can someone provide some insight? BTW, who built the Viewliners? Who in the US is capable of building a quality long distance passenger car?


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 27, 2009)

rolfecms said:


> From what I've read, there have been issues (quality-wise) with the existing Viewliners - just not manufactured to the same standard or built to last like the heritage cars were and as a result there is a feeling of cheapness about them. Not having ridden on them I can't comment - can someone provide some insight? BTW, who built the Viewliners? Who in the US is capable of building a quality long distance passenger car?


There are a whole plethora of problems with regards to the Viewliners. The design overall was damned good, but the execution sucked. It starts out with poor materials, indifferent workmanship, bad equipment, and goes on to excessive use of unneeded innovations- those stupid shades come to mind.

They were built by Amerail/Morrison-Knudson.

Nobody in the US is qualified to build passenger cars anymore. American Car And Foundry stopped building passenger cars in 1959, St. Louis Car Company died out in 1973, Pullman-Standard closed its doors after the last Superliner I left the factory in 1982, and Budd stopped in 1989. Morrison-Knudson was the last, and died in 96/97 after the Viewliners and first batch of California cars.

As for who would build the Viewliners, I'd say there are about five companies. Bombardier (Canadian/French), Alstom (French), TALGO (Spanish), Rotem (Korean), and Kawasaki (Japanese). I guess Mafersa (the company that took over building Budd designs) might bid too, but I doubt it.

Amtrak has experience with Bombardier (Horizons, Superliner II, Acela, HHP-8), Alstom (Surfliners, Acela, HHP-8, AEM-7AC rebuild), and TALGO (Cascades TALGO sets). Due to the Acela experience, I'd say Bombardier is likely out of the running. I'd say Alstom will get the contract for the bi-level cars for Chicago corridors, and TALGO will build the Viewliners. But Bombardier is a possibility for the latter. If more Superliners or Amfleets are built, Bombardier will build them, since they own the patents.


----------



## Ryan (May 27, 2009)

I wouldn't count Kawasaki out of the mix either, the commuter cars they built for MARC and others seem to be well thought of and holding up real well. Obviously the commuter car design is no good for Amtrak, but build quality and design are two different cups of tea.


----------



## rolfecms (May 27, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> rolfecms said:
> 
> 
> > From what I've read, there have been issues (quality-wise) with the existing Viewliners - just not manufactured to the same standard or built to last like the heritage cars were and as a result there is a feeling of cheapness about them. Not having ridden on them I can't comment - can someone provide some insight? BTW, who built the Viewliners? Who in the US is capable of building a quality long distance passenger car?
> ...


Thanks for that. It's sad that there's no US manufacturers left, but given that Morrison-Knudson did such a crappy job it's good they're not in the running to build the new cars. You would think that with the extra money now available for Amtrak along with the high speed rail corridors and the political push for funds to be spent in the USA, that there could be some new manufacturers emerge or old ones jump back in. Let's hope whoever builds Viewliner II does a better job than the first go-around.


----------



## wayman (May 27, 2009)

rolfecms said:


> Thanks for that. It's sad that there's no US manufacturers left, but given that Morrison-Knudson did such a crappy job it's good they're not in the running to build the new cars. You would think that with the extra money now available for Amtrak along with the high speed rail corridors and the political push for funds to be spent in the USA, that there could be some new manufacturers emerge or old ones jump back in. Let's hope whoever builds Viewliner II does a better job than the first go-around.


The Budd manufacturing complex is still standing in north Philadelphia, several city blocks of factory buildings and rails, just waiting for someone to do something with it. At one point several years ago a developer bought it with the intent to ... do some sort of mixed-use something-or-another, but it never happened and the plans died. I asked a city council staffer a few months ago if there was anything preventing someone from buying the facilities and building passenger cars there, and she thought that was entirely possible, at least insofar as nobody was presently planning anything and the current owners were just squatting, waiting for the economy to turn around, basically.

So, if anyone here wants to start the new Budd company (GML, I'm looking at you)....


----------



## cpamtfan (May 27, 2009)

I don't think Talgo will be building any Viewliners, because if you haven't noticed, the Talgos are also having troubles (they don't even have the Vancouver set up).

cpamtfan-Peter


----------



## AlanB (May 27, 2009)

cpamtfan said:


> I don't think Talgo will be building any Viewliners, because if you haven't noticed, the Talgos are also having troubles (they don't even have the Vancouver set up).
> cpamtfan-Peter


Well that's just a matter of refurbishing the cars, and they are a few years older than the Acelas.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 27, 2009)

wayman said:


> So, if anyone here wants to start the new Budd company (GML, I'm looking at you)....


Get me a line on financing and I'll hit the ground running.



cpamtfan said:


> I don't think Talgo will be building any Viewliners, because if you haven't noticed, the Talgos are also having troubles (they don't even have the Vancouver set up).
> cpamtfan-Peter


The TALGOs are the best cars Amtrak has bought since the Superliner IIs. They have given few problems, TALGO has been cooperative, and I'd say (from my perspective) they are the best cars Amtrak has aside from the Amfleets. The Superliners are pretty good. Most of what Amtrak has bought in its life has been problematic junk- perhaps people remember the serious toothing problems Amtrak had with both the Superliner I and II cars?- the only notable exceptions are the Amfleets and the Talgos. The Viewliners are junk, the Horizons are junk, the RTG Turboliners are junk, the Rohr Turboliners are junk. The Acela turns being junk into a high art form.

I hope Talgo steps up to the plate for this one. I sincerely do.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (May 27, 2009)

they wouldn't be junk if amtrak did the required maintenance on the cars instead of the if it ain't broke don't fix it attitude. via rail canada has cars as old as the heritage and they work fine.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 28, 2009)

That's because the VIA cars, like the Amfleets and every other car Budd built with the exception of the Seldom Propelled Vehicle (SPV2000), aren't junk. Amtrak's maintenance leaves much to be desired, but its not what I'm referring to. Metal fatigue and dying welds on a 10 year old trainset is not a maintenance problem, its indifferent/shoddy build quality.


----------



## jis (May 28, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Due to the Acela experience, I'd say Bombardier is likely out of the running. I'd say Alstom will get the contract for the bi-level cars for Chicago corridors, and TALGO will build the Viewliners. But Bombardier is a possibility for the latter. If more Superliners or Amfleets are built, Bombardier will build them, since they own the patents.


Why should patent ownership matter? They have all expired a long time back. Afterall they just last for 17 or 20 years depending on when they were granted. Now if you say that they have the design and drawings and all that would indeed be a factor.

I actually have difficulty believing that TALGO will build anything but TALGO sets. I also do not believe that is this sort of business the minor flap that occurred between Bombardier and Amtrak really amounts to much. But I suppose we can just wait and see who actually gets the order. I agree that Alstomis the front runner for the corridor bi-levels. I would not be surprised at all if Alstom gets the Superliner III order based on the Surfliner shell.


----------



## had8ley (May 28, 2009)

jis said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Due to the Acela experience, I'd say Bombardier is likely out of the running. I'd say Alstom will get the contract for the bi-level cars for Chicago corridors, and TALGO will build the Viewliners. But Bombardier is a possibility for the latter. If more Superliners or Amfleets are built, Bombardier will build them, since they own the patents.
> ...


I don't think I'd call mega-millions a "minor" flap.


----------



## rolfecms (May 28, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> The TALGOs are the best cars Amtrak has bought since the Superliner IIs. They have given few problems, TALGO has been cooperative, and I'd say (from my perspective) they are the best cars Amtrak has aside from the Amfleets. The Superliners are pretty good. Most of what Amtrak has bought in its life has been problematic junk- perhaps people remember the serious toothing problems Amtrak had with both the Superliner I and II cars?- the only notable exceptions are the Amfleets and the Talgos. The Viewliners are junk, the Horizons are junk, the RTG Turboliners are junk, the Rohr Turboliners are junk. The Acela turns being junk into a high art form.
> I hope Talgo steps up to the plate for this one. I sincerely do.


I recall when Superliner I was built after which Pullman Standard exited passenger car manufacturing. One of the reasons P-S gave then was the unrelenting changes that Amtrak kept imposing during the actual manufacturing process. Those revisions supposedly wiped out P-S's profit margin on the Superliner order. Not sure to what extent this was the case (can anyone comment?) or if this has happened on other subsequent car orders, but intrusion like this cannot contribute positively to either the quality or to the car manufacturer's bottom line. Let's hope this time is different. Amtrak needs to get their requirements correct from the start, and then get out of the way while they are built to specifcation.


----------



## jis (May 28, 2009)

had8ley said:


> I don't think I'd call mega-millions a "minor" flap.


Depends entirely on ones perspective. If one normally deals in thousands and 10s of thousands, then mega-million is big. But if one deals regularly in 10s of millions then a mega million is par for the course. These deals are in that ball-park so it is not out of the ordinary. Now when someone gets fined over a billion, that is big!


----------



## jis (May 28, 2009)

rolfecms said:


> I recall when Superliner I was built after which Pullman Standard exited passenger car manufacturing. One of the reasons P-S gave then was the unrelenting changes that Amtrak kept imposing during the actual manufacturing process. Those revisions supposedly wiped out P-S's profit margin on the Superliner order. Not sure to what extent this was the case (can anyone comment?) or if this has happened on other subsequent car orders, but intrusion like this cannot contribute positively to either the quality or to the car manufacturer's bottom line. Let's hope this time is different. Amtrak needs to get their requirements correct from the start, and then get out of the way while they are built to specifcation.


Amtrak has a penchant for such. Part of the problem with Acelas also had to do with endless series of change orders from Amtrak, which of course then they turn around and try to blame entirely on everything other than themselves.


----------



## printman2000 (May 28, 2009)

rolfecms said:


> I recall when Superliner I was built after which Pullman Standard exited passenger car manufacturing. One of the reasons P-S gave then was the unrelenting changes that Amtrak kept imposing during the actual manufacturing process. Those revisions supposedly wiped out P-S's profit margin on the Superliner order. Not sure to what extent this was the case (can anyone comment?) or if this has happened on other subsequent car orders, but intrusion like this cannot contribute positively to either the quality or to the car manufacturer's bottom line. Let's hope this time is different. Amtrak needs to get their requirements correct from the start, and then get out of the way while they are built to specifcation.


Typically, when you do change orders, you are charged pretty heftily for it. I would think that would have been the case here, unless the contract was poorly written for Pullman.


----------



## rolfecms (May 28, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> rolfecms said:
> 
> 
> > I recall when Superliner I was built after which Pullman Standard exited passenger car manufacturing. One of the reasons P-S gave then was the unrelenting changes that Amtrak kept imposing during the actual manufacturing process. Those revisions supposedly wiped out P-S's profit margin on the Superliner order. Not sure to what extent this was the case (can anyone comment?) or if this has happened on other subsequent car orders, but intrusion like this cannot contribute positively to either the quality or to the car manufacturer's bottom line. Let's hope this time is different. Amtrak needs to get their requirements correct from the start, and then get out of the way while they are built to specifcation.
> ...


IMHO that's all the more reason for Amtrak to step back after the requirements have been agreed upon. In my lifetime there's never been an opened-ended spigot of cash available for passenger rail equipment purchases so it would be a real shame if these funds were again wasted on after-the-fact changes to the specifications.


----------



## printman2000 (May 28, 2009)

rolfecms said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > rolfecms said:
> ...


My point was that I do not see how making changes would but Pullman out-of-business.


----------



## rolfecms (May 28, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> rolfecms said:
> 
> 
> > printman2000 said:
> ...


You're right - assuming P-S exercised the right to charge for those post-facto changes. Makes you wonder how anyone could lose money on a government contract! :lol:


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 28, 2009)

P-S had to go outta business. Think about it: what other orders were there for cars they could build at the time?


----------



## wayman (May 29, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> P-S had to go outta business. Think about it: what other orders were there for cars they could build at the time?


SEPTA could order some diners...


----------



## AlanB (May 29, 2009)

wayman said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > P-S had to go outta business. Think about it: what other orders were there for cars they could build at the time?
> ...


First they need to order coaches with bathrooms!


----------



## wayman (May 29, 2009)

AlanB said:


> wayman said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


Several Sundays ago, I rode out to Doylestown and back (an hour north of the city on the Reading) ... from Ardmore (west of the city on the PRR Main Line) ... and returned on the very last train of the evening--which makes all local stops. A one-seat ride through Center City, 102 minutes! After several beers at a pub in Doylestown, I sure could've used a Silverliner-with-bathroom!


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jun 4, 2009)

wayman said:


> The Budd manufacturing complex is still standing in north Philadelphia, several city blocks of factory buildings and rails, just waiting for someone to do something with it. At one point several years ago a developer bought it with the intent to ... do some sort of mixed-use something-or-another, but it never happened and the plans died. I asked a city council staffer a few months ago if there was anything preventing someone from buying the facilities and building passenger cars there, and she thought that was entirely possible, at least insofar as nobody was presently planning anything and the current owners were just squatting, waiting for the economy to turn around, basically.
> So, if anyone here wants to start the new Budd company (GML, I'm looking at you)....


Aren't there several foreign railcar manufacturers that might need to build factories in the US to meet ``made in the USA'' requirements? Rotem (who will be making the next batch of MBTA Commuter Rail coaches) certainly comes to mind, but I suspect they've choosen some other factory location by now.

Are there any labor reasons why building a factory from scratch somewhere that isn't Philadephia is cheaper than taking over Budd's complex?


----------



## battalion51 (Jun 4, 2009)

I'll run with Michael Moore's suggestion. We've got all these car factories laying around that have been shut down. Seems like we should be able to convert some of those puppies pretty easily...


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jun 4, 2009)

battalion51 said:


> I'll run with Michael Moore's suggestion. We've got all these car factories laying around that have been shut down. Seems like we should be able to convert some of those puppies pretty easily...


The MBTA's experience with Boeing Vertol makes me think we should be careful with that. I suspect the key is making sure management understands rail.


----------



## sechs (Jun 5, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Are there any labor reasons why building a factory from scratch somewhere that isn't Philadephia is cheaper than taking over Budd's complex?


First, the Budd site likely to be an environmental mess. No one wants to own whatever they dumped there for all of those years.

Second, it's often cheaper to build what you want from the ground up rather than retrofitting a space.

There's also the possibility of issues with accessibility, environmental factors, and the desire to do something different with the land.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jun 5, 2009)

sechs said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > Are there any labor reasons why building a factory from scratch somewhere that isn't Philadephia is cheaper than taking over Budd's complex?
> ...


I'd want to start producing railcars based on basic streamliner designs out of shotwelded stainless steel. I'm sure Budd's factory is capable of accommodating this.


----------



## sechs (Jun 6, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I'd want to start producing railcars based on basic streamliner designs out of shotwelded stainless steel. I'm sure Budd's factory is capable of accommodating this.


Surely, any big box factory could. It's not a question of capability.


----------

