# Amtrak Issues RFP for New Viewliners



## Amtrak839 (Jul 17, 2009)

Sorry if someone else has brought this up already.

Amtrak intends to issue a competitive Request for Proposal for a vendor to design, manufacture and deliver 130 “Viewliner 2” Long Distance Single-Level Passenger Cars, with an option for Amtrak to purchase up to an additional 70 cars. The “Viewliner 2” rolling stock which is fully described in the Technical Specifications, will be used as Amtrak passenger trains, primarily in long-distance service, but capable of operating anywhere within Amtrak’s system. There are four (4) “Viewliner 2” car types: Diners, Sleepers, Baggage-Dorms and Baggage cars. The “Viewliner 2” cars will be modeled on the concept of the Amtrak “Viewliner 1” cars.

The anticipated dates for procurement and award of Request for Proposal #X-047-9167-001 are as follows:

TASKS: ANTICIPATED DATES:

Amtrak issues RFP Week of June 22, 2009

Mandatory Pre-Proposal Meeting July 23 and 24, 2009 in Miami, FL

Due Date for submission of written proposals October 20, 2009

Oral Presentation from Short-Listed Companies Week of January 11, 2010

Contract Award Week of May 24, 2010

Notice to Proceed Week of June 28, 2010

Amtrak, at its sole discretion and without discussion, will determine which Proposers will be added to its bid list. ONLY Proposers that can meet the minimum qualifications listed below should E-MAIL or MAIL a request for the Request for Proposal Package on company letterhead to:

Ms. Virginia Squitieri

Senior Director, Capital Equipment

National Railroad Passenger Corporation

30th & Market Streets, 5th Floor, Box 12


----------



## bretton88 (Jul 17, 2009)

This is good news! It actually seems like a firm commitment by Amtrak! Isn't it more that what we thought (75) it would be?


----------



## SUNSETLIMITED01 (Jul 17, 2009)

bretton88 said:


> This is good news! It actually seems like a firm commitment by Amtrak! Isn't it more that what we thought (75) it would be?


Those were just the the baggage and baggage dorm cars. They had 25 additional vieliner sleepers, 25 viewliner diners as well. Looks like they bumped it up from 125 to 130 cars now.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jul 17, 2009)

no viewliner coaches. amtrak NEEDS single level coaches also.


----------



## cpamtfan (Jul 17, 2009)

amtrakwolverine said:


> no viewliner coaches. amtrak NEEDS single level coaches also.



They have 120 Amfleet II coaches which are perfectly acceptible.

cpamtfan-Peter


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Jul 17, 2009)

amtrakwolverine said:


> no viewliner coaches. amtrak NEEDS single level coaches also.


Its not quite a desperate as they make it seem. The Viewliners aren't the answer. They need more corridor cars. Luckily the stimulus money gives Amtrak a little help.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 17, 2009)

amtrakwolverine said:


> no viewliner coaches. amtrak NEEDS single level coaches also.


That's probably what the additional 75 car option is for.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 17, 2009)

Long Train Runnin said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> > no viewliner coaches. amtrak NEEDS single level coaches also.
> ...


What are you talking about, Steve? They have plenty of Corridor cars.

Here is the plan that has been explained to me:

125 Bi Level cars for midwestern service.

Midwestern Amfleets -> Northeast Corridor.

New California/Surfliner cars, California Amfleets -> Northeast Corridor.

75 Viewliner coaches.

Amfleet II coaches -> Adirondack, Carolinian, Vermonter.

Adirondack, Carolinian, Vermonter Amfleet I -> Northeast Corridor.

Horizons -> Capacity overruns and protection service on NEC routes.

With the 140 or so Amfleets that will free up and the 60 Amfleets being repaired now, in the next 5-6 years 'bout 200 Amfleets will be added to the Corridor. I think that will cover any problems they're having with capacity, for now. After all, the main capacity issues on the corridor are and will remain the North River tunnels, the Baltimore tunnels (to be rectified) and the bridge between OSB and New London.


----------



## MikeM (Jul 17, 2009)

Thanks Lion for your recap of all the pending car movements. I'm also pretty happy that Amtrak has gotten moving on ordering some new cars, particularly sleepers. For once in a long time, we have an administration that supports Amtrak, need to seize the opportunity to address the capital starvation Amtrak has suffered through the past decade or two. (in truth, most of Amtrak's life).

One thought, does anyone anticipate any additional orders for Superliners, or does Amtrak plan on just redistributing the current fleet. Green Maned Lion mentioned a plan for 125 Bi-Level cars for midwestern service, will these be Superliners or based on some other design? Any idea when the RFP or order may be placed?


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 17, 2009)

MikeM said:


> Thanks Lion for your recap of all the pending car movements. I'm also pretty happy that Amtrak has gotten moving on ordering some new cars, particularly sleepers. For once in a long time, we have an administration that supports Amtrak, need to seize the opportunity to address the capital starvation Amtrak has suffered through the past decade or two. (in truth, most of Amtrak's life).
> One thought, does anyone anticipate any additional orders for Superliners, or does Amtrak plan on just redistributing the current fleet. Green Maned Lion mentioned a plan for 125 Bi-Level cars for midwestern service, will these be Superliners or based on some other design? Any idea when the RFP or order may be placed?


More like Surfliner/California Car types. However, I have heard that Amtrak has intended to submit the RFP for those such that it would include an option for long-distance variations of them- a Superliner 3, more or less.


----------



## MattW (Jul 17, 2009)

Hate to be a nitpicker here, but when you say "New California/Surfliner cars, California Amfleets -> Northeast Corridor" you actually mean Midwestern Corridors? When I first saw it, it confused me a bit so just clarifying.

Finally they're getting moving on new cars. I agree that while a specifically-build LD single level car is nice, the AMFII's should work for quite a number of more years. I am curious though if anyone's ran the costs of new single level equipment vs. enlarging the NEC infrastructure to allow a complete bi-level fleet. Hopefully they'll re-reshuffle the single level sleeper consists so the Viewliners can all run together and get rid of the uglified consists they have now  (Viewliner coaches will be really nice for this...Viewliner-based locomotive...?  )


----------



## SUNSETLIMITED01 (Jul 17, 2009)

MattW said:


> Hate to be a nitpicker here, but when you say "New California/Surfliner cars, California Amfleets -> Northeast Corridor" you actually mean Midwestern Corridors? When I first saw it, it confused me a bit so just clarifying.
> Finally they're getting moving on new cars. I agree that while a specifically-build LD single level car is nice, the AMFII's should work for quite a number of more years. I am curious though if anyone's ran the costs of new single level equipment vs. enlarging the NEC infrastructure to allow a complete bi-level fleet. Hopefully they'll re-reshuffle the single level sleeper consists so the Viewliners can all run together and get rid of the uglified consists they have now  (Viewliner coaches will be really nice for this...Viewliner-based locomotive...?  )


Well I don't know what to say, this is one of very few times I've had little to say. Bi-level cars would be cool to see in the Northeast Corridor though.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 17, 2009)

MattW said:


> Hate to be a nitpicker here, but when you say "New California/Surfliner cars, California Amfleets -> Northeast Corridor" you actually mean Midwestern Corridors? When I first saw it, it confused me a bit so just clarifying.
> Finally they're getting moving on new cars. I agree that while a specifically-build LD single level car is nice, the AMFII's should work for quite a number of more years. I am curious though if anyone's ran the costs of new single level equipment vs. enlarging the NEC infrastructure to allow a complete bi-level fleet. Hopefully they'll re-reshuffle the single level sleeper consists so the Viewliners can all run together and get rid of the uglified consists they have now  (Viewliner coaches will be really nice for this...Viewliner-based locomotive...?  )


Amfleet refers to a specific design of car. There are a few Amfleets used as spares in California service.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jul 17, 2009)

It's good to see some action on new equipment. I assume the 75 additional cars that may be ordered later would be coaches, but you never know, it might be additional sleepers, diners and lounge cars. Once the new bi-level corridor equipment is in use on the Midwest and West short distance routes, it will cascade the single level equipment back to the east. The announcement that Wisconsin is ordering Talgo equipment for Chicago-Milwaukee - (Madison) is also good news and will allow some of those Horizons cars for use on non-high speed routes as Chicago-Rockford-Dubuque and Chicago-Quad Cities-Iowa.


----------



## Donctor (Jul 18, 2009)

Amtrak839 said:


> Amtrak intends to issue a competitive Request for Proposal for a vendor to design, manufacture and deliver 130 “Viewliner 2” Long Distance Single-Level Passenger Cars, with an option for Amtrak to purchase up to an additional 70 cars. The “Viewliner 2” rolling stock which is fully described in the Technical Specifications, will be used as Amtrak passenger trains, primarily in long-distance service, but capable of operating anywhere within Amtrak’s system. There are four (4) “Viewliner 2” car types: Diners, Sleepers, Baggage-Dorms and Baggage cars. The “Viewliner 2” cars will be modeled on the concept of the Amtrak “Viewliner 1” cars.



While I'm glad to hear that Amtrak is finally purchasing new cars for the single-level LD routes, this will (at least to me) make eastern railfanning much less interesting. The Lake Shore as of late may run 4 or more types of equipment, which makes the train interesting to photograph. However, when trains look entirely uniform, as the NEC Regionals do today, a good portion of the interest (at least for me) vanishes. I'd still much rather see new, better equipment in larger numbers than see Amtrak continue in its current state, though.


----------



## SUNSETLIMITED01 (Jul 18, 2009)

Yeah and in the next few years we start seeing trains with 18-23 cars. That would be an intresting sight.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 18, 2009)

SUNSETLIMITED01 said:


> Yeah and in the next few years we start seeing trains with 18-23 cars. That would be an intresting sight.


No we don't. The 480 cables can only handle trains up to 16 cars in length


----------



## SUNSETLIMITED01 (Jul 18, 2009)

I was actually talking about long distance trains not reginoals. I forgot to point that out.


----------



## Neil_M (Jul 18, 2009)

MattW said:


> Hopefully they'll re-reshuffle the single level sleeper consists so the Viewliners can all run together and get rid of the uglified consists they have now  (Viewliner coaches will be really nice for this...Viewliner-based locomotive...?  )


Surely making the consist look 'nice' is the last thing on anyones mind?


----------



## jackal (Jul 18, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> MattW said:
> 
> 
> > Hopefully they'll re-reshuffle the single level sleeper consists so the Viewliners can all run together and get rid of the uglified consists they have now  (Viewliner coaches will be really nice for this...Viewliner-based locomotive...?  )
> ...


Last thing on everyone's...except a few hardcore foamers'!


----------



## Donctor (Jul 18, 2009)

If my calculations are correct, there will be enough Viewliner coaches to equip the Cardinal, Crescent, Lake Shore Limited, Silver Meteor, and Silver Star. There will then be 6 spare Viewliner coaches, and of course any number of Amfleet IIs as extras. My calculations are as follows:

Cardinal – 2 equipment sets – 3 coaches/set – 6 coaches

Crescent – 4 equipment sets – 4 coaches/set – 16 coaches

Lake Shore – 3 equipment sets – 6 coaches/set – 15 coaches

Meteor – 4 equipment sets – 4 coaches/set – 16 coaches

Star – 4 equipment sets – 4 coaches/set – 16 coaches

TOTAL = 69 / 75

I'm assuming that the Lake Shore won't get a third Boston coach or a fourth New York coach, and that the Atlantic trains won't be expanded, which, in all reality, likely will not be the case. So, assuming that trains get expanded, which ones have the ridership to support such expansion? If I've read ridership reports correctly, it seems that the Lake Shore and the Florida trains would be ideal for expansion, with the Crescent maybe seeing an additional car or two at most.

A couple of questions:

1. Does it seem wise to order the same number of diners we currently have? That doesn't leave room for expansion.

2. Why are no additional café cars being ordered? We only have 25 right now. Again, no room for expansion. Unless...

3. Might the Viewliner diners resemble the current diner-lites/lounges? In other words, might one car replace two? My guess is 'no,' given that three trains still have full diner service, and a fourth is supposed to.

4. Will 25 diners be enough to re-equip the Lake Shore? There's not much room for error, given that we currently have around 25 diners and still can't equip all trains.

5. Will the Viewliner baggage cars mix with the Heritage baggage cars? I can't imagine that many Heritage baggage cars will be retired, given the current shortage.

6. Will the Cardinal see any of the new coaches? My math above shows that if the Cardinal was assigned Viewliner coaches, there would only be 6 spares...

7. Will the Viewliner coaches mix with the Amfleet IIs? If the Amfleets are used as spares, which question 6 addresses, they can't realistically be kept from mixing, can they?

8. What about the Palmetto? There won't be enough Viewliner coaches for the Palmetto to be re-equipped.


----------



## cpamtfan (Jul 18, 2009)

Has anyone forgotten, no Viewliner coaches can be built because the second row of windows can't be put where the luggage racks are. The car would probably look like a glorified Bombardier M7 or Acela car. But what about new lounge cars? Then you can move the Diner Lited Amfleet II lounges off to the day trains and you could finally have a good looking-and viewing lounge car!

cpamtfan-Peter


----------



## AlanB (Jul 18, 2009)

SUNSETLIMITED01 said:


> I was actually talking about long distance trains not reginoals. I forgot to point that out.


Long distance or Regionals it doesn't matter, GML is correct that the 480 cables basically limit how long the trains can be. They simply can't carry enough electricity to support long trains without burning up. The Auto Train passenger section is pushing the upper limit when it has 1-transdorm, 6-sleepers, 3-diners, 2-lounges, and 6-coaches I believe. They might be able to add one more sleeper and coach, but I'm not positive.

Now, the single level car does pull less power than the bi-level car, so that would allow a single level consist to be a bit longer, but again there is a finite limit and it's not the long trains of yesteryear.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 18, 2009)

cpamtfan said:


> Has anyone forgotten, no Viewliner coaches can be built because the second row of windows can't be put where the luggage racks are. The car would probably look like a glorified Bombardier M7 or Acela car. But what about new lounge cars? Then you can move the Diner Lited Amfleet II lounges off to the day trains and you could finally have a good looking-and viewing lounge car!
> cpamtfan-Peter


Even if you don't put in the upper level windows, you can still use the same shell, which would make things look uniform from the outside and save money.


----------



## cpamtfan (Jul 18, 2009)

Amtking said:


> A couple of questions:
> 1. Does it seem wise to order the same number of diners we currently have? That doesn't leave room for expansion.
> 
> 2. Why are no additional café cars being ordered? We only have 25 right now. Again, no room for expansion. Unless...
> ...



1. Again they have the option to order more, so if you leave any room, five more would be enough. But twenty is the current amount they have to use, maybe even less. Twenty five is enough.

2. I would think if they ordered anymore cars, lounges would be the cars to order. Then they could push the Amfleet II diner lited diners to the eastern day trains (you know them).

3. No, these will be full diners, no cafe included.

4. Yes, there are currently twelve used, and the rest are either in storage, protects, under overhaul, or in inspection.

5. Yes, all Heritage baggages will be retired. Maybe Amtrak should think about upping the order to 80 baggages (bacause about 70 baggages are currently around, and remember there might be expansions of service.

6. The Cardinal might be turned into a daily train after everything new is here. And who knows maybe Superliners will be given back (fat chance though)  <_< .

7. If there are even Viewliner coaches, thats the key. Coaches are just a "extra thought, along with the lounges :blink: .

8. Why would the Palmetto get the new cars (which probably won't even be a major thought by Amtrak)? It already has Amfleet II coaches (isn't that good enough?).

You can dream, you can hope, you can cross your fingers, etc. :unsure: just hopeing this order will actually happen (just go back in time, in this forum, back to about '02 when the original blood of this forum couldn't wait for the brandnew Viewliner car arrive by atleast 2008! 

cpamtfan-Peter


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jul 18, 2009)

AlanB said:


> cpamtfan said:
> 
> 
> > Has anyone forgotten, no Viewliner coaches can be built because the second row of windows can't be put where the luggage racks are. The car would probably look like a glorified Bombardier M7 or Acela car. But what about new lounge cars? Then you can move the Diner Lited Amfleet II lounges off to the day trains and you could finally have a good looking-and viewing lounge car!
> ...



Don't expect two rows of windows, simply because the new cars require bigger windows for emergency evacuation.

The current window size of Amfleets Horizons and View liner are no longer accepteble under FRA regulations.

and putting two rows of overzized windows in would severly weaken the car body.


----------



## AmtrakWPK (Jul 18, 2009)

We also need to remember that somewhere in here we need equipment when they reinstitute NOL-ORL service, based on one of the three options they gave Congress this week (by Congressional mandate): 1 - return 3x/wk Sunset to the full route; 2 - extend CONO daily to ORL; or 3 - begin a new NOL-ORL daily. The third option, I think would give the best chance for good OTP, with the 2nd option giving the best chance for a large jump in ridership, providing CHI-NOL-JAX-ORL daily service in addition to having the southern transcontinental route active again (3x/wk).


----------



## MrFSS (Jul 18, 2009)

AmtrakWPK said:


> We also need to remember that somewhere in here we need equipment when they re-institute NOL-ORL service, based on one of the three options they gave Congress this week (by Congressional mandate): 1 - return 3x/wk Sunset to the full route; 2 - extend CONO daily to ORL; or 3 - begin a new NOL-ORL daily. The third option, I think would give the best chance for good OTP, with the 2nd option giving the best chance for a large jump in ridership, providing CHI-NOL-JAX-ORL daily service in addition to having the southern transcontinental route active again (3x/wk).


Joe - does congress have the ability on this matter to select none of the three and not do anything about the route? Or, are they compelled to pick one?


----------



## AmtrakWPK (Jul 18, 2009)

Congress can do or not do whatever they please, unfortunately. Presumably there would be transportation committee hearings and hopefully they would pick one and say do it, but who knows. Amtrak was given the hot potato and they have now, per instructions, delivered it back to congress.


----------



## bretton88 (Jul 18, 2009)

Well, the one benefit of turning the CL back to single level is that it would free up superliners for out west. I live out west, so I don't see a problem. This viewliner order would enable them to do that. Restored Pioneer anyone?


----------



## cpamtfan (Jul 18, 2009)

bretton88 said:


> Well, the one benefit of turning the CL back to single level is that it would free up superliners for out west. I live out west, so I don't see a problem. This viewliner order would enable them to do that. Restored Pioneer anyone?



No, there aren't enough single level cars to return the CL to single level. You can dream, but they aren't turning the CL to single level.

cpamtfan-Peter


----------



## AlanB (Jul 19, 2009)

Dutchrailnut said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > cpamtfan said:
> ...


I don't know how they are doing it, but the current drawings include two rows of windows.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 19, 2009)

cpamtfan said:


> bretton88 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, the one benefit of turning the CL back to single level is that it would free up superliners for out west. I live out west, so I don't see a problem. This viewliner order would enable them to do that. Restored Pioneer anyone?
> ...


The Capitol is getting back a full diner once the wrecks are back in service, so it's not going single level.


----------



## jis (Jul 19, 2009)

Dutchrailnut said:


> Don't expect two rows of windows, simply because the new cars require bigger windows for emergency evacuation.The current window size of Amfleets Horizons and View liner are no longer accepteble under FRA regulations.
> 
> and putting two rows of overzized windows in would severly weaken the car body.


You do realize that the window size on Horizons and Viewliners are quite different, the Viewliner windows being already much bigger, and I have been given to understand that the main windows (as opposed to the upper windows) in Viewliners can be made even bigger without compromising body integrity and strength.

So I would be very appreciative if you could provide some definitive cite to support the claim that you make regarding the impossibility of Viewliners having two rows of windows. Thanks.


----------



## bretton88 (Jul 19, 2009)

Now, with this good news, the question arises, how will Amtrak pay for these?


----------



## Amtrak839 (Jul 19, 2009)

bretton88 said:


> Now, with this good news, the question arises, how will Amtrak pay for these?


Amtrak gets a contract to transport gold in the baggage car. Then they hire some guys to do this.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jul 19, 2009)

bretton88 said:


> Now, with this good news, the question arises, how will Amtrak pay for these?


They're in the budget. For the first time ever, Amtrak is operating under a presidential administration that is favorable to passenger trains.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 20, 2009)

Dude, there are 20 diners "active", of which 17 are actually roadworthy. Plus due the geriatric nature, Amtrak has to plan on high failure rates. 25 is plenty to re equip the Lake Shore, the Cardinal, and a Silver Palm, or Broadway Limited- possibly both if you can workout efficient equipment sharing.


----------



## volkris (Jul 20, 2009)

MikefromCrete said:


> bretton88 said:
> 
> 
> > Now, with this good news, the question arises, how will Amtrak pay for these?
> ...


More to the point, Amtrak is operating under a presidential administration that is favorable to directing tax dollars to passenger trains.

If trains ran on good wishes and hopes, then far more presidents would have seemed "favorable" to passenger trains. The difference is that this one values trains enough to force us all to pay for them.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 20, 2009)

volkris said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> > bretton88 said:
> ...


No the difference is that this President likes trains enough to force us to consider that paying for all three major forms of transportation is a good idea. Past Presidents have only considered forcing us to pay for the other two major forms of transportation and have largely unwillingly forced us to pay for the third form, trains.


----------



## transit54 (Jul 20, 2009)

volkris said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> > bretton88 said:
> ...


Honestly, I think that's a bit of a ridiculous distinction. Transportation infrastructure costs tax dollars. There is absolutely no way around that, not in our present economic system. So either you financially support (i.e. are favorable to) passenger trains or you do not support our nation's rail system (i.e. are not favorable to passenger trains). It's irrelevant to judge politician's views on their ideals (i.e. they like passenger rail), one needs to judge them based on their actions (do they or do they not support it?).

If you could cite an instance in which a national passenger rail system was constructed and operated fully without government involvement in the modern era, then you might have some grounds for argument, because we could then debate about the appropriate funding approaches for passenger rail.

I suppose you could argue that we shouldn't "all" be paying for them. I'd support a heavy fuel tax to fund our rail and transit infrastructure (which would, I suppose, free those who exclusively walked and cycled from the "burden" of paying for an efficient, sustainable transportation infrastructure). But I really don't think that's what you had in mind. The money has to come from somewhere, and given that competing forms of infrastructure have received heavy government subsidies in the past, the only way to build a rail network is to direct tax dollars to assist in its operation and construction.

In an theoretical world, sure, we could operate rail free of tax dollars. In that world, the interstate system would have had to have been built completely by private money by private corporations. The government would never have been able to bail out the airlines and any modern day airport which benefited from defense spending (most of them, back in the 50s-70s) would have fully paid back the inflation adjusted cost of the airport's construction to the US government. For better or for worse, that's not how things were done in this country and its going to be impossible to return things to doing them that way.

So it comes back to two options - either you support passenger rail, and are willing to pay for it, or you don't. Everything else is just rhetoric.


----------



## volkris (Jul 21, 2009)

rnizlek said:


> Honestly, I think that's a bit of a ridiculous distinction.


Well no, it's the whole point: the question was how this was going to be paid for. That the administration supports rail is nice and all, but that in itself is not funding. The government's part of the funding is the money that the administration and congress force taxpayers to hand over... which is quite a different thing in my book. As I said, it's really easy to support things; it's a more dramatic thing to force others to support it as well.

To further support the distinction, look at other forms of support and harm politicians can do, ranging from mucking about with regulation through the FRA and others, to reconsidering regulations that harm rail by making manufacture of equipment more expensive, to simple rhetorical motions, there's a ton of non-funding actions the politicians can take. But that wasn't the question.

Personally, regardless of my own feelings about rail I think it's extremely important to keep in mind that the financial support of rail amounts to forcing the whole country to value the mode the way we do. EVEN IF WE'RE RIGHT, and can provide reasonable, rational arguments for why the whole country should take on our values, I consider it both morally and practically questionable to impose values like that--to take away peoples' freedoms for their own good.

So, how will this be paid for? Simple: we have an administration that's eager to force everyone to pay for it, regardless of their feelings on the matter, because it believes it to be for the best. If you're ok with that then great, and congratulations, but don't pretend things are otherwise.


----------



## transit54 (Jul 21, 2009)

volkris said:


> rnizlek said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly, I think that's a bit of a ridiculous distinction.
> ...


From a theoretical perspective, I completely agree with you. However, the reality is that other forms of transportation don't pay their fare share, and actually impose external costs on me, which I am not compensated for. Those who choose to drive in single occupancy vehicles, for instance, cause traffic congestion that delays my bus. There is a real cost of this congestion, but it isn't built into the cost of driving. It should be. The pollution and inefficient fuel consumption of an automobile based society are costs associated with driving but drivers do not pay them. I could go on, but I'm not intending to turn this thread into an extended lecture of transportation externalities...

In an ideal, efficient market, those costs are priced into the cost of driving, so that the price reflects the true costs of the activity (both personal costs and those to society). This doesn't even get into massive amounts of funding that have gone into highways and airports that I mentioned in my above post (while federal highways are maintained mostly with revenue with the federal gas tax, they weren't constructed with gas tax money).

If we had a system where everyone paid the costs of their activities, then I wouldn't have a problem with what you're suggesting. But the reality is, in this country, we all pay for highways and airports, whether we like it or not. So I believe, yes, we should all pay for rail. In fact, I believe it's actually more important to pay for rail - I think that our current transport network has left us incredibly vulnerable to oil price increases and that we need to build a vastly more efficient transportation infrastructure if we want to have continued economic success in the future. If you could come up with a practical, politically feasible system in which everyone paid their true costs and that compensated for years in vastly differing amounts of funding, I'd be the first to support it. But from a present, practical perspective, I can't see the approach you're suggesting implemented.

The fact is, past presidents weakened passenger rail in this country while supporting airports/airlines and highways/auto industry. If they supported passenger rail, they'd have equalized funding across modes - either everyone pays their own costs, or no one does. But instead, they choose aviation and roads over rail. You may be able to argue that support for rail does not equal directly funding it, but support for rail absolutely means equalizing funding methods across all modes, which no past president has attempted.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 21, 2009)

This post from volkris in another thread may be illustrative to the discussion here.

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?...st&p=178239

If he's honestly maintaining the position that none of these transportation methods should be subsidized then that changes the complexion of the discussion considerably.

I get the impression that his belief is that most folks here support subsidies for rail transit and think that the highways and airways should be self sufficient and that's what he's arguing against that. Unfortunately for him (if my impression is correct), I'm not sure that anyone here espouses that notion.


----------



## saxman (Jul 21, 2009)

volkris said:


> Personally, regardless of my own feelings about rail I think it's extremely important to keep in mind that the financial support of rail amounts to forcing the whole country to value the mode the way we do. EVEN IF WE'RE RIGHT, and can provide reasonable, rational arguments for why the whole country should take on our values, I consider it both morally and practically questionable to impose values like that--to take away peoples' freedoms for their own good.


Well back in the 50's and onward on till today, the whole country has been forced by the government, highway lobby and big oil to own and drive automobiles. (Not that the highway lobby and big oil were as powerful back then) And if we're against the government building any type of transportation infrastructure, then go back 50 or more years when they decided to get into the highway building business that put the private, money making, passenger railroads out of business.

Ok, back to Viewliners...and getting this thread back on topic.

It'll be great to get more Viewliners out there. The Cardinal for sure needs a second sleeper, as its one sleeper seems to always be sold out or in high buckets. I don't know if Amtrak wants to make the Cardinal daily ever, but that would be even better.


----------



## SeaToby (Jul 27, 2009)

volkris said:


> rnizlek said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly, I think that's a bit of a ridiculous distinction.
> ...


So you don't won't to pay for rail. Well, I don't fly and I don't want to pay for airports, terminals, air traffic controllers, airport parking garage, and/or the highways leading to airports.... There, we are even....


----------



## jis (Jul 27, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> With the 140 or so Amfleets that will free up and the 60 Amfleets being repaired now, in the next 5-6 years 'bout 200 Amfleets will be added to the Corridor. I think that will cover any problems they're having with capacity, for now. After all, the main capacity issues on the corridor are and will remain the North River tunnels, the Baltimore tunnels (to be rectified) and the bridge between OSB and New London.


Yep. The real issue then will be availability of serviceable electric motors. And hence the RFP for them.


----------



## volkris (Jul 27, 2009)

SeaToby said:


> volkris said:
> 
> 
> > rnizlek said:
> ...


Who said I don't want to pay for rail? Of course I want to pay for rail... as I do every time I buy a ticket. What I want is for us to be honest and recognize that this funding doesn't come from a magical, governmental pot of gold, but from the pockets of our fellow taxpayers, and that by forcing them to pay for rail whether they want to or not we're forcing our opinions on all Americans.

That's a pretty grave responsibility, I think, and one that requires a more sober treatment than many would otherwise give it.

If you're ok with forcing your values on others this way, thinking, hopefully, that it's for peoples' own good that they be forced to pay for rail, then great. That's between you and your conscience. But it's a fact that we should bear in mind and be ok with.

And, of course, the argument about spending on air and highways... two wrongs don't make a right.


----------



## MrFSS (Jul 27, 2009)

volkris said:


> SeaToby said:
> 
> 
> > volkris said:
> ...


You have hit the problem right on the head.

If you don't take it from everyone's pockets there won't be any rail. But, there also won't be any highways, no airline service, no bus routes, etc

Paying for what is needed with ticket money will never get it done, no matter if it is rail, airlines, roads, etc. Everyone has to pay, like it or not.

I don't want to be paying for a lot of things the government does. I don't have many options not to, though.


----------



## volkris (Jul 27, 2009)

MrFSS said:


> If you don't take it from everyone's pockets there won't be any rail. But, there also won't be any highways, no airline service, no bus routes, etc
> Paying for what is needed with ticket money will never get it done, no matter if it is rail, airlines, roads, etc. Everyone has to pay, like it or not.
> 
> I don't want to be paying for a lot of things the government does. I don't have many options not to, though.


But that's not really the issue. It's not about getting things done or not getting things done, but about when it's right to force others to pay for what we believe should be done even when they disagree.

Sure, if you don't force everyone to pay there might not be rail... but perhaps it's more just to accept the lack of rail than to force everyone else to pay for it when they don't want it in the first place. Without everyone else fitting the bill there also won't be a ladder to the moon, but that doesn't mean we should get to work making everyone pay!


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 27, 2009)

volkris said:


> MrFSS said:
> 
> 
> > If you don't take it from everyone's pockets there won't be any rail. But, there also won't be any highways, no airline service, no bus routes, etc
> ...


This sounds like the ramblings in the NARP newsletter,everyone has something they dont like that the

government uses our money for but as our high school civics taught us the common good is what matters!

All trains need more $$$,not just AMTRAK, I dont especially like it when airlines talk about making profits and

losses this quarter when they are totally dependant on govt. subsidyto exist!(aka corporate welfare)

As an old DC hand I might see too much politics in everything but seems like to me everyone has their hand

out for the stimulus $$$,personally I want more to go to rail transit and NONE to wars and bailing out greedy

billionaiure crooks that havent gone to jail yet! Forgot the highways,were in the midst of toll road mania

down here in Central Texas where the govt.(us) puts up the $$$,guarantees the profits and lets foriegn

companies rake it in!Most Texans are voting with their cars as revenue is nowhere near what was expected/promised!

If we ever can get our light rail to run it will be welcomed by thousands of stuck in traffic folks!


----------



## AKA (Jul 27, 2009)

volkris said:


> rnizlek said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly, I think that's a bit of a ridiculous distinction.
> ...


We all pay for airports and raods. I dont fly. Can I please have my money back ?


----------



## jis (Jul 27, 2009)

volkris said:


> But that's not really the issue. It's not about getting things done or not getting things done, but about when it's right to force others to pay for what we believe should be done even when they disagree.


At the end of the day that is precisely the issue unfortunately. And that is the reason that we choose to have a representative government, imperfect as it is bound to be, so as to try to strike a balance that is reasonably acceptable to most, most of the time, and is seen to be arrived at through deliberation that has legitimacy in the eyes of most, most of the time. Unless there is a desire to share and cross support each others interest in the community soon there will be no community or nation left to talk about. The business about funding transport and infrastructure is but a microcosm of this bigger scheme of things.


----------



## jis (Jul 28, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> > no viewliner coaches. amtrak NEEDS single level coaches also.
> ...


Not so according to Amtrak. See http://www.railwayage.com/breaking-news/am...r-interest.html

The breakdown for the option of 70 cars is for: 10 sleepers, 15 baggage-dorm cars, 15 diners, and 30 baggage cars.

The core 130 car order would be for: 25 sleeping cars, 25 baggage-dorm cars, 25 diners, and 55 baggage cars.

All this from the horse's mouth in the form of Amtrak’s William F. Durham, program director for capital acquisition.

Apparently Alstom, Kawasaki, Nippon Sharyo, Sumitomo, CAF, and Bombardier, showed up at the pre-proposal meeting in Hialeah, which bodes well from a competitive pricing standpoint.

Also reported in the same article, Alstom, Bombardier Transportation, MotivePower Inc., (Wabtec), Siemens Transportation, GE, EMD, and Patentes Talgo SA, showed up at the pre-proposal meeting for the RFP for electric locomotives.

The total number of Diners surprises me and would be indicative of a desire to expand single level LD service in some way.

This of course reopens the question about LD single level coaches. It looks like the Amfleet IIs will see service for quite a while longer, both in Coach and Lounge forms.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 28, 2009)

jis said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > amtrakwolverine said:
> ...


Conspicuosly absent from the list is GM!If they could do it in WWII why not now?Since we own GM now why

not put someone like AMTRAK Joe in charge and start hireing all the thousands of skilled industrial workers

that have bee/are being layed off to crank out train equipment?Im shocked that the rust belt politicians havent

thought of this, especially Michigans so called statesmen/stateswomen!lets not let anymore big $$ contracts go

to foriegn companies when we so despereatly need manufacturing jobs!Makes sense no?


----------



## jis (Jul 28, 2009)

jimhudson said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Also reported in the same article, Alstom, Bombardier Transportation, MotivePower Inc., (Wabtec), Siemens Transportation, GE, EMD, and Patentes Talgo SA, showed up at the pre-proposal meeting for the RFP for electric locomotives.
> ...


But EMD, the old GM Electro-Motive Division, and now Electro-Motive Diesel, is on the list. I am not sure GM, the automotive car maker, would necessarily be a good thing to add to the mix. They will first have to learn from scratch how to make railroad stuff.


----------



## Donctor (Jul 28, 2009)

jis said:


> The total number of Diners surprises me and would be indicative of a desire to expand single level LD service in some way.



I figured there'd be 30 or so diners, not 25. Given that 17 are needed for three trains, the 25 isn't much of an expansion. I figure 21 or so are needed if the Lake Shore gets equipped (the LSL needs three plus a spare in CHI), so the other four really would be good for only a fifth train. Which train will that be? A new Silver? A new Broadway? I personally have no idea whatsoever, but I'm not guessing that there will be incredibly many new trains.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jul 28, 2009)

jimhudson said:


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


Well, General Motors isn't in the locomotive building business anymore since they sold Electro-Motive a few years ago, so they would have to start from scratch. They could sell one of their old auto plants to one of the foreign firms needing a U.S. base to meet the "Build America" quotas in any government-funded contract.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jul 28, 2009)

Amtking said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > The total number of Diners surprises me and would be indicative of a desire to expand single level LD service in some way.
> ...


The add-on is for 15 additional diners, so that would make a total of 40, enough for some kind of expansion.


----------



## cpamtfan (Jul 28, 2009)

Amtking said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > The total number of Diners surprises me and would be indicative of a desire to expand single level LD service in some way.
> ...



If they get the Silver Meteor, that opens up some more diners, which might help slightly. Also the new diners won't need as much mantienence as the current diners do, so that should also help.

cpamtfan-Peter


----------



## jis (Jul 28, 2009)

cpamtfan said:


> Amtking said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


Also note that if the options are exercised there would be a total of 40 Diners which by your (Amtking) own admission would be some 19 more than are needed for the current trains.

In addition to perhaps creating another NYP - CHI and/or NYP - Florida train, here is one other possibility.... given the additional Sleepers and Diners conceivably something like the CONO could be reverted back to single level and extended to Florida while the Superliners thus released could be used to make Sunset daily all the way between LAX and NOL, and also augment some other Super equipped trains. Just a random thought with not much real analysis put behind it yet on my part.


----------



## Donctor (Jul 28, 2009)

jis said:


> In addition to perhaps creating another NYP - CHI and/or NYP - Florida train, here is one other possibility.... given the additional Sleepers and Diners conceivably something like the CONO could be reverted back to single level and extended to Florida while the Superliners thus released could be used to make Sunset daily all the way between LAX and NOL, and also augment some other Super equipped trains. Just a random thought with not much real analysis put behind it yet on my part.


Wait, is it 40 Viewliner diners, or 40 diners including what we have now? If it's 40 including the Heritage diners, that wouldn't make sense. I've heard (from multiple sources) that the Heritage diners are going.


----------



## jis (Jul 28, 2009)

Also take a look at _An Amtrak RFP This Fall?_ in the July issue of _Railway Age_.


----------



## jis (Jul 28, 2009)

Amtking said:


> Wait, is it 40 Viewliner diners, or 40 diners including what we have now? If it's 40 including the Heritage diners, that wouldn't make sense. I've heard (from multiple sources) that the Heritage diners are going.


It would be a total of 40 Viewliner Diners, 25 in the base order and 15 through exercise of option.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 29, 2009)

Amtking said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > The total number of Diners surprises me and would be indicative of a desire to expand single level LD service in some way.
> ...


Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

TWELVE good and functioning diners are required to service current trains. 4 sets for each of three trains, the Silver Meteor, Silver Star, and Crescent. An additional three would be required for the Lake Shore Limited. The 5 cars are rotating protection spares (which are an always required element in any system) and to allow for maintainance room in the roster.

Here's my breakdown:

First, give that with three Florida trains we could get it down to 10 sets for the three of them.

Florida Trains: 10 sets of equipment.

Lake Shore Limited: 3 sets of equipment.

Crescent: 4 sets of equipment.

Broadway Limited: 3 sets of equipment.

Total required: 20 cars. 4 spares, 1 each in New York, Chicago, Miami, and one for maintainence protection. Remember, these cars are new. They are not going to be as problematic as cars built in the 1940s.


----------



## cpamtfan (Jul 29, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Amtking said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...



I don't think you could get the Silver Service sets down to ten, but eleven is quite easily possible. Also don't forget the Cardinal, they may wan't that train with a full diner or better sightseeing car  . Also there will still be Viewliner Prototype Diner 8400. So if you keep the Cardinal to tri-weekly/2 sets for now, it could use two of the other diners avalible, and still have one avalible for inspection, etc.

cpamtfan-Peter


----------



## Donctor (Jul 29, 2009)

jis said:


> It would be a total of 40 Viewliner Diners, 25 in the base order and 15 through exercise of option.


Oh, I entirely misunderstood what was being said.


----------



## Donctor (Jul 29, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
> TWELVE good and functioning diners are required to service current trains. 4 sets for each of three trains, the Silver Meteor, Silver Star, and Crescent. An additional three would be required for the Lake Shore Limited. The 5 cars are rotating protection spares (which are an always required element in any system) and to allow for maintainance room in the roster.
> 
> Here's my breakdown:
> ...



I'm pretty sure that three Florida trains would need more than 10 equipment sets.

If the cars are new, wouldn't Amtrak want MORE spares, just in case these untested cars develop defects early on and need to be returned to the manufacturer?


----------



## jis (Jul 29, 2009)

Amtking said:


> I'm pretty sure that three Florida trains would need more than 10 equipment sets.
> If the cars are new, wouldn't Amtrak want MORE spares, just in case these untested cars develop defects early on and need to be returned to the manufacturer?


I agree that most likely three Florida trains would require at least 11 consists.

As for spares, I don't think this will be a huge issue since there is not going to be a flash cut one fine morning from all old cars to all new cars. There will a considerable time when both types will be operational hence there will be plenty of spare floating around to handle possible defect fixing in the new cars.


----------



## Donctor (Jul 29, 2009)

jis said:


> As for spares, I don't think this will be a huge issue since there is not going to be a flash cut one fine morning from all old cars to all new cars. There will a considerable time when both types will be operational hence there will be plenty of spare floating around to handle possible defect fixing in the new cars.


Actually, that makes a lot of sense. Now that I think about it, weren't the original Viewliners delivered at a rate of 4 a month, or something along those lines?

Now, my question is this: Where do we think the diners will first run in service? If there's a new Broadway, I could see them there.


----------



## bretton88 (Jul 29, 2009)

Come to think of it, is there any possibility these viewliners will run west of Chicago?


----------



## battalion51 (Jul 29, 2009)

The only Viewliners I think you will potentially see west of Chicago on a regular basis is the baggage cars. Amtrak is likely to stay with its current general fleet utilization with Viewliners east of the Mississippi and Superliners west of it (with a few exceptions like the Capitol and AT).


----------



## MattW (Jul 29, 2009)

Would they use Viewliner Baggages on the western LDs or are they doing something with the bilevels? That wouldn't be the worst looking train, but it'd be odd.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 30, 2009)

MattW said:


> Would they use Viewliner Baggages on the western LDs or are they doing something with the bilevels? That wouldn't be the worst looking train, but it'd be odd.


Not much odder then Heritage baggage cars on Superliners.


----------



## AlanB (Aug 1, 2009)

You'll see the Viewliner baggage cars through out the entire Amtrak system, the Heritage cars will be retired.

As for the Viewliner Dining car situation, 1 car out for inspection is not enough. Every car needs a two week annual inspection, so with 25 dining cars initially, that's basically one car out of service all year long.

But now you have to deal with the 92 day inspections, which require 3 days out of service each time. Three days times 4 inspections for each car is 12, times 25 means that you have to have at least one car out of service for 300 days out of the 365 days in a year.

And that still leaves no margin for problems and bad orders.

So I'd say at a minimum, one must assume that 3 diners will be out of service at any given point during the year for inspections and/or problems.


----------



## cpamtfan (Aug 1, 2009)

Well 30 could probably cut it (plus the prototype). But maybe Amtrak should make a new list on the extra cars (like having an extra 15 sleepers, less diners, more baggage dorms, etc.).

cpamtfan-Peter


----------



## Donctor (May 16, 2010)

What is the base order? 25 diners, 15 sleepers, 30 baggage? I may be blind, because I cannot seem to find the answer in this thread.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 16, 2010)

I don't know why you can't find it, I repeat it all over the place.

50 full baggage cars, 25 baggage-dorms, 25 sleepers, 25 diners.


----------



## Donctor (May 16, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I don't know why you can't find it, I repeat it all over the place.
> 50 full baggage cars, 25 baggage-dorms, 25 sleepers, 25 diners.


Great, thanks.


----------



## dlagrua (May 16, 2010)

So who's bidding? The original Viewliners were designed by Budd, prototyped at Beech Grove, and built by Amerail which is no longer in business. Alstom, a French company took over their operations. I can only guess that Bombardier, Alstom, Siemens and Talgo would be the bidders. We already put AMF, Budd, Pullman and all of the other American passenger car manufacturers out of business so whos left? If this goes through its going to be interesting seeing new diners and baggage cars coupled to ancient equipment. Maybe Beech Grove will step up the effort to refurbish more Viewliners as all use modular interiors.


----------



## AlanB (May 16, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> So who's bidding? The original Viewliners were designed by Budd, prototyped at Beech Grove, and built by Amerail which is no longer in business. Alstom, a French company took over their operations. I can only guess that Bombardier, Alstom, Siemens and Talgo would be the bidders. We already put AMF, Budd, Pullman and all of the other American passenger car manufacturers out of business so whos left? If this goes through its going to be interesting seeing new diners and baggage cars coupled to ancient equipment. Maybe Beech Grove will step up the effort to refurbish more Viewliners as all use modular interiors.


Amtrak owns the patents to the Viewliners, not Budd and now its successor.


----------



## MattW (May 16, 2010)

I've done a bit more looking around, and at this point, I'd say I'm pulling for Alstom. Not only do they have the original Viewliner plant (that's gotta count for something right?), but they built cars for Amtrak California that seem pretty good, and they built the TGVs which are second to none. Talgo however does seem to have more long-distance experience which would be useful, but then again, Alstom already has a factory.


----------



## dlagrua (May 16, 2010)

MattW said:


> I've done a bit more looking around, and at this point, I'd say I'm pulling for Alstom. Not only do they have the original Viewliner plant (that's gotta count for something right?), but they built cars for Amtrak California that seem pretty good, and they built the TGVs which are second to none. Talgo however does seem to have more long-distance experience which would be useful, but then again, Alstom already has a factory.



Here is an interior shot of the Allstom plant in Hornell, NY. This shot was taken when they were building the Comet cars.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 17, 2010)

MattW said:


> I've done a bit more looking around, and at this point, I'd say I'm pulling for Alstom. Not only do they have the original Viewliner plant (that's gotta count for something right?), but they built cars for Amtrak California that seem pretty good, and they built the TGVs which are second to none. Talgo however does seem to have more long-distance experience which would be useful, but then again, Alstom already has a factory.


When you get down to it, its more or less a two company race, Alstom and Bombardier. Talgo builds excellent cars... of the TALGO type, i.e. Tren Articulado Ligero Goicoechea Oriol. Light, articulated, tilt trains. They have no experience building cars such as the Viewliners, and with their orders for Wisconsin and others, I doubt they'd be interested.

Lastly, Siemens doesn't do this kind of stuff, either. I don't recall them doing heavy rail trailers, nor ones out of stainless steel. Alstom and Bombardier both build heavy rail trailers. Bombardier in NA, quite frankly, doesn't do anything but practically.


----------



## sechs (May 18, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Bombardier in NA, quite frankly, doesn't do anything but practically.


Except for the planes.
Bombardier makes Canadair regional jets and Learjet private jets. Nothing to sneeze at, for sure.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (May 18, 2010)

bombardier is responsible for the bi-level cars used by TRE,NMRR,Go transit etc and the superliner 2 order.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 18, 2010)

sechs said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Bombardier in NA, quite frankly, doesn't do anything but practically.
> ...


I was talking about their Transportation division, not their Aerospace division.


----------



## MikeM (May 18, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> sechs said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


Which, although a bit off topic, reminds us of the Aerotrain, one massive demonstration of why bus and aircraft construction expertise doesn't translate to railroad usage...


----------



## Trogdor (May 18, 2010)

MikeM said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > sechs said:
> ...


Different situation. In this case, Bombardier didn't use their aerospace designers to desing railcars. In fact, Bombardier (which started out as a snowmobile manufactuer, IIRC), hasn't really designed much of anything new on their own. Their airplane designs came from Canadair, de Havilland Canada, and Lear, their railcar division came from elsewhere, etc. They've just brought those various divisions under one corporate structure.


----------



## dlagrua (May 18, 2010)

MikeM said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > sechs said:
> ...


Pullman Standard was the original designer of the Superliner cars and they also designed the old lounge car cafe cars with the enormous windows. .I believe that Bombardier was the manufacturer of the last generation of Superliners an we know that Amerrail was the manufacturer of the Viewliners. Both passengers cars have had their share of issues so who know who Amtrak will chose to manufacture and design the next order of cars. It would seem Allstom woud be the logical choice as they have all the tooling, but this company rose from the ashes of the old Amerrail.


----------



## jis (May 18, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> It would seem Allstom woud be the logical choice as they have all the tooling, but this company rose from the ashes of the old Amerrail.


Alstom has not much to do with Amerail. The only connecting thread is that one of Alstom's factories happens to occupy the same piece of real estate that Amerail occupied once upon a time, and also had acquired certain associated warranty service responsibilities. This happened as a result of Alstom acquiring certain properties when Amerail went out of business.

Alstom is a French company formed out of the merger of Alsace and Thomson, and is a well known manufacturer of rail equipment.

As an aside, previously it formed part of Alcatel-Alstom and then was also into doing telecom equipment and other stuff. Since then Alcatel and Alstom were split apart and as some of us know Alcatel bought Lucent Technologies to become Alcatel-Lucent, and currently owns what remains of Bell Labs. Strange are the ways of M&A.


----------



## MikeM (May 18, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> Pullman Standard was the original designer of the Superliner cars and they also designed the old lounge car cafe cars with the enormous windows. .I believe that Bombardier was the manufacturer of the last generation of Superliners an we know that Amerrail was the manufacturer of the Viewliners. Both passengers cars have had their share of issues so who know who Amtrak will chose to manufacture and design the next order of cars. It would seem Allstom woud be the logical choice as they have all the tooling, but this company rose from the ashes of the old Amerrail.


I was always of the impression that the Superliner II's were pretty successful in launch - there were changes made to trucks, toilets, layout of the cafe area of the observation car, and different color schemes, but overall I don't recall there being major teething issues when those cars were launched. My inclination is that either Allstom or Bombardier would be qualified to build new cars. Am I mistaken about the SII's?


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 18, 2010)

The rollout of the Superliner IIs was somewhat more successful than the rollout of the Superliner Is, which were built by a Pullman-Standard in its death throes. Fortunately, the Superliner I and II cars are both generally well built and will probably comfortably last 50 years of over the road service. However, in the dawn of their lives, the Superliner Is were cantankerous, ornery things with teething issues aplenty. Their suspension, in particular, were an issue.

Fortunately, unlike the Viewliners, the shell was promising and Amtrak ended up with excellent cars. The Amerail Viewliners are more deeply flawed, down in the very composition of the metal with which they were formed, and outward from there.

You might put lipstick on an Amerail Viewliner, but at the end of the day it will still be a pig.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (May 19, 2010)

amerail is now Alstom/Morrison-Knudsen.


----------



## Donctor (May 19, 2010)

amtrakwolverine said:


> amerail is now Alstom/Morrison-Knudsen.


Really? I thought (just from reading this forum) that Morrison-Knudsen went out of business, transformed into Amerail to finish the Viewliners, then died. If Amerail was MK, and Amerail was only a front for Amtrak picking up the remnants of MK, how is MK still alive?

Where am I getting confused?


----------



## jis (May 19, 2010)

amtrakwolverine said:


> amerail is now Alstom/Morrison-Knudsen.


Actually Amerail was a temporary holding company created by a completion insurance bonding co. to complete Morrison-Knudsen Passenger Rail products during bankruptcy. This took place in 1995 during MK's Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings from which MK emerged as a company that was minus the railcar business which caused its bankruptcy. Since then it has been acquired by Washington Construction Group, which then changed its name to Morrison Knudsen Company! Finally in 1999 MK acquired a part of Westinghouse Electric Company (the government services group), and then promptly entered bankruptcy in 2001 immediately after acquiring Raytheon Engineers & Constructors, but emerged from it later. Finally what used to be Washington Group aka Morrison-Knudsen was acquired by URS in 2007 and became the Washington Division of URS, operating out of Boise ID.

As for the left-overs from the MK Railcar Division, Amerail completed (well sort of.... and sloppily at that) the existing contracts and then went out of existence (well I think a shell company may still exist on paper). In addition to the VLs, the Calif. Car sets and Chicago rapid transit cars were also in this situation. Alstom did take over the warranty program on the VLs. And of course one of Alstom's factories occupies the same real estate at Hornell. Upon completion of the passenger rail product contracts the bonding company disposed off all the properties that were temporarily held by Amerail and at that point Alstom acquired a very large proportion of the same.

There is no entity AFAIK that carries the name Alstom/Morrison-Knudsen. As mentioned above there is indeed no entity called Morrison-Kudsen anymore AFAIK. In EPA documents the owner of the Hornell plant is listed as "Alstom Transportation Co." through an outfit called "Alstom Rolling Stock USA".


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 19, 2010)

amtrakwolverine said:


> amerail is now Alstom/Morrison-Knudsen.


There is a book called the Talmud and in it are many things, most of which for various reasons I disagree with. But among them is passage that says, "First learn, then form opinions", roughly. It is a useful phrase to keep in mind.

Amerail, as Jishnu said, was an off shoot designed to satisfy legal obligations of M-K. It wasn't intended. Amerail's shops in Hornell, I'm pretty sure, used to be the Erie Railroad shops.


----------



## sechs (May 19, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> sechs said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


As is often the case, that's not what you said.
Does the Talmud say something about completely forming thoughts before engaging the keyboard?


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 20, 2010)

No, I have a problem common to people with my level of intelligence, which is constantly making an erroneous assumption people know what I'm talking about.


----------



## battalion51 (May 21, 2010)

Well you know what happens when you assume...(although it's probably minus me in this case)


----------

