# New Viewliner II's



## TWA904 (Nov 12, 2012)

Instead of using all the new Viewliner II's as replacement for the aging equipment, I believe a few

should be to add one peice of equipment to existing long distance trains to increase capacity

and then place another order for more Viewliner equipment. What do you think.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 12, 2012)

TWA904 said:


> Instead of using all the new Viewliner II's as replacement for the aging equipment, I believe a few
> 
> should be to add one peice of equipment to existing long distance trains to increase capacity
> 
> and then place another order for more Viewliner equipment. What do you think.


The Viewliner II sleepers will indeed be used to increase capacity on selected long distance trains.

The Viewliner baggage cars are replacing baggage cars that are way too old and need to be retired.

The same is true with the Viewliner dining cars, they're replacing cars that need to be retired.


----------



## zephyr17 (Nov 12, 2012)

TWA904 said:


> Instead of using all the new Viewliner II's as replacement for the aging equipment, I believe a few
> 
> should be to add one peice of equipment to existing long distance trains to increase capacity
> 
> and then place another order for more Viewliner equipment. What do you think.


With regard to sleepers, that is indeed the plan, to provide more capacity and more protection.

With regard to the diners and the baggage cars, the plan is not to supplement but replace existing Heritage equipment. The heritage diners and baggage cars are the last of the railroad-inherited equipment (except for the PPCs and the Ocean View) still in regular service. The newest of those are about 55 years old. Amtrak wants to retire them as soon as they can.

However, even that will serve to improve capacity, as the dorm in the new baggage/dorms will free up space in the sleepers for revenue passengers instead of space being needed for crew members.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Nov 12, 2012)

zephyr17 said:


> TWA904 said:
> 
> 
> > Instead of using all the new Viewliner II's as replacement for the aging equipment, I believe a few
> ...


I don't think Amtrak is in much need of more Diners and Baggage Cars anyway. They can just use the new cars to replace Heritage cars. But I really think they need more Sleepers, I think the NYP trains may need 100-125 Sleepers in total to answer demand.


----------



## johnny.menhennet (Nov 12, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> I don't think Matrak is in need of more Sleepers anyway.
> 
> But I really think they need more Sleepers


Will you please elaborate on your position here?


----------



## PRR 60 (Nov 12, 2012)

johnny.menhennet said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think Matrak is in need of more Sleepers anyway.
> ...


I think he's messing with our heads. It's working.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 12, 2012)

Matrak doesn't need more sleepers, but Amtrak sure does.

At least that's what I think he's putting out.


----------



## NE933 (Nov 12, 2012)

PRR 60 said:


> johnny.menhennet said:
> 
> 
> > Swadian Hardcore said:
> ...


If someone starts messing with a head that's been messed up already, there shall be results.


----------



## TWA904 (Nov 12, 2012)

I would like to the the entire system expand. Additional capacity should be added to current LD trains(and you say that will happen).

The SL needs to be restored to Orlando of Miami. I would re-route the SL up through Baton Rouge, even if I had to build new

track over to Lafayette, also re-route it to include Phoenix again. I beleive there needs to be a through train form Florida to Eastern

Canada. My entire work life has been spent in the transportation industry, so I believe I could build a profitable system.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Nov 12, 2012)

johnny.menhennet said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think Matrak is in need of more Sleepers anyway.
> ...


I am extremly sorry, guys. I meant to say Amtrak and I meant Baggage Cars.


----------



## Trogdor (Nov 13, 2012)

TWA904 said:


> My entire work life has been spent in the transportation industry, so I believe I could build a profitable system.


There are lots of people whose entire life work has been in the transportation industry (and railroads in particular). What makes you think, specifically, that you could do a better job at running a profitable passenger rail system than any of the others that have tried?


----------



## guest (Nov 13, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> > TWA904 said:
> ...


Amtrak DESPERATELY needs more baggage cars. Most of the existing bag cars date to just after the Second World War...


----------



## Ryan (Nov 13, 2012)

Nobody is saying that they don't need NEW baggage cars. He's saying they don't need to INCREASE the number of baggage cars.

I don't necessarily agree with that, but you're arguing against a position nobody has taken.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Nov 13, 2012)

PRR 60 said:


> johnny.menhennet said:
> 
> 
> > Swadian Hardcore said:
> ...


And he's always saying he's confused!?!


----------



## Notelvis (Nov 13, 2012)

I believe the plan is to cycle the existing Viewliner Sleepers through a renovation program once the new sleepers begin coming on line as well.


----------



## jis (Nov 13, 2012)

TWA904 said:


> I would like to the the entire system expand. Additional capacity should be added to current LD trains(and you say that will happen).
> 
> The SL needs to be restored to Orlando of Miami. I would re-route the SL up through Baton Rouge, even if I had to build new
> 
> ...


... Let's start with where you are planning to get the money from to make your admittedly reasonable dreams come to fruition. Merely having worked in an industry is no guarantee for any success whotsoever


----------



## transit54 (Nov 13, 2012)

TWA904 said:


> My entire work life has been spent in the transportation industry, so I believe I could build a profitable system.


Amtrak could be a profitable (no operating subsidy, only capital appropriations) system. However, Amtrak's current system cannot be run profitably. The only way to make Amtrak a profitable entity is to invest tens of billions of dollars and build the equivalent of several more Northeast Corridors (or true high speed rail) and then use any profit to cross-subsudize the operating costs for slower services. This is essentially what is done in Europe and some other parts of the world. The only way that Amtrak can generate an operating profit on its lines is being significantly more competitive time-wise than driving, and generally be able to compete with airlines in terms of overall trip time (i.e. considering the additional time to get to/from the airports, clear security, etc).

But ultimately, this plan involves investing a lot more money in passenger rail, albeit for capital rather than operating expenses.


----------



## afigg (Nov 13, 2012)

guest said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think Amtrak is in much need of more Diners and Baggage Cars anyway. They can just use the new cars to replace Heritage cars. But I really think they need more Sleepers, I think the NYP trains may need 100-125 Sleepers in total to answer demand.
> ...


Which is why Amtrak is replacing the baggage cars. The CAF 130 car order is for 55 baggage cars plus 25 baggage-dorm cars for a total of 80 baggage cars. The 55 baggage cars are enough to supply the western LD train fleet and the current eastern single level trains that have baggage cars (Carolinian, #66/#67, etc) but won't be getting baggage dorms.

For expansion such as adding baggage cars to a couple more Regionals making WAS-BOS runs and other trains, Amtrak may need to order some more baggage cars. There is an option for 70 cars total on the CAF order and we may see Amtrak exercise part of that option to get some more baggage and sleeper cars. A couple more baggage-dorm and diner cars would be nice as those would provide enough capacity plus a reserve for the restoration of the Three Rivers once additional LD coach cars are available.


----------



## Blackwolf (Nov 13, 2012)

On the topic of baggage cars, needing more, and Amtrak seeming to have a crunch for baggage car space on some trains. If you look at just about any older footage of Amtrak trains before the Express Freight era, or look back in memory to the layout of consists, it seems (when Amtrak had a great many more baggage cars to draw from in their fleet pool) that many trains had two, even three baggage cars in their length. Obviously the company does not have enough cars to do this any more, and with the exception of combined trains like the LSL, everyone has to make-due with one car regardless of demand. Of course, one may wonder if we will see a regular coupling of full baggage and bag/dorm cars on trains with a lot of checked baggage demand (and I could foresee the Boston section of the LSL simply dropping to only a bag/dorm) once the VLII's arrive en-mass.


----------



## transit54 (Nov 13, 2012)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Amtrak indicate that once the Viewliner II order is completed they may add a sleeper back to 66/67?


----------



## Gratt (Nov 13, 2012)

Just wondering, how much time does Amtrak have to exercise some or all of the extra “option.” And has anyone heard any talk if they are planning to do so.


----------



## jis (Nov 13, 2012)

They first need to figure out how exxactly to pay for what they have on order. Then if they have some money left they can consider putting a down payment on an option exercise. I honestly don;t know where things stand at present.


----------



## PRR 60 (Nov 13, 2012)

jis said:


> They first need to figure out how exxactly to pay for what they have on order. Then if they have some money left they can consider putting a down payment on an option exercise. I honestly don;t know where things stand at present.


That is a minor detail, isn't it. Stretching out the delivery schedule helped with the cash flow crunch. How fortunate they found that design flaw that shut down production for several months.


----------



## afigg (Nov 13, 2012)

jis said:


> They first need to figure out how exxactly to pay for what they have on order. Then if they have some money left they can consider putting a down payment on an option exercise. I honestly don;t know where things stand at present.


The odds of Amtrak having the funds available to purchase some cars under the 70 car option improved considerably in the wake of the election last week. The uncertainty over what the final FY13 budget amounts will be don't help with planning at all, but even the worse case would have Amtrak continuing to get $1.4 to $1.5 billion a year from Congress. That won't help with a large Amfleet II replacement order, but should be able to cover purchasing an additional 10-30 cars at roughly $2.3 million each through the option if the Amtrak board and upper management think that it is worthwhile to do so.

Reading the more in-depth news reports on the maneuvering and staking out of political positions by the Administration and the many players in Congress, I think the odds are far better than most on here realize of getting more funding for intercity passenger rail and transit projects.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Nov 14, 2012)

The problem with adding MORE baggage cars is that I don't think Amtrak runs out of checked baggage space that quickly anyway. They definately need Sleepers more than Baggage Cars. Of the 70 options, I would like to see 35 Sleepers, 10 Diners, and 25 Baggage Cars. Or the same ratio if not all the options are exercised.

I do not think this is unreasonable.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 14, 2012)

I agree that revenue space (or revenue-capable space) should be the priority. Granted, I don't have access to hard data on how many checked bags and packages get loaded onto which trains, but I can't recall being on a train and seeing so many bags come off that it looked like they were clearing out the baggage car. Likewise, having been able to peek into the baggage car on a few occasions from a sleeper, they definitely weren't hurting for space coming into Winter Park on the Meteor (for just a quick example). So I'd be hoping for sleepers, diners, and bag-dorms on the option instead of full baggage cars.

Ideally, when the new LD coach order starts getting worked up, we'll see a serious chat about coach-baggage cars for use on medium-distance trains (i.e. the Adirondack, the Vermonter, the Carolinian, and the Pennsylvanian) in the same order. I highly doubt these trains need a full baggage car, and a bag-dorm really doesn't do them any good.

At the moment, the biggest jam-up is going to be the state of Amtrak's budget after the hurricane. Hopefully, Amtrak will get a modest funding supplement and/or a few minor capital projects funded in conjunction with any sort of aid package regarding the NEC. With that said, though, I think an LD coach order is slowly being worked up.

Of course, since I believe Amtrak owns the IP surrounding the new cars, it's also not implausible in the longer run that future orders (such as a NEC Amfleet replacement order, which seems likely within the next 10 years or so) might also include a mid-sized supplement to existing car types. If a 25-car order of sleepers is sufficient (and history does seem to imply that orders/runs of this size from a given line are common enough), then it doesn't seem unreasonable to hope for orders of something like 200 coaches, 25 cafes, and 25 sleepers (or other such mixes) to become the norm.


----------



## Exiled in Express (Nov 14, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> The problem with adding MORE baggage cars is that I don't think Amtrak runs out of checked baggage space that quickly anyway.





Anderson said:


> I agree that revenue space (or revenue-capable space) should be the priority. Granted, I don't have access to hard data on how many checked bags and packages get loaded onto which trains, but I can't recall being on a train and seeing so many bags come off that it looked like they were clearing out the baggage car. Likewise, having been able to peek into the baggage car on a few occasions from a sleeper, they definitely weren't hurting for space coming into Winter Park on the Meteor (for just a quick example). So I'd be hoping for sleepers, diners, and bag-dorms on the option instead of full baggage cars.
> 
> Ideally, when the new LD coach order starts getting worked up, we'll see a serious chat about coach-baggage cars for use on medium-distance trains (i.e. the Adirondack, the Vermonter, the Carolinian, and the Pennsylvanian) in the same order. I highly doubt these trains need a full baggage car, and a bag-dorm really doesn't do them any good.


Wasn't part of the logic of the baggage order to remove high age/maintenance heritage cars from service that can't run at NEC speeds? If the LD trains can go 10-15 mph faster over a portion of the journey it will make the schedule more competitive or least add more padding. Also getting the 12 long distance trains with baggage service that operate over the NEC up to speed may allow another Regional service to be squeezed into the schedule.

The coach/baggage idea is a good one though, especially if more stations become baggage enabled as a result.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 14, 2012)

That was a fair part of the logic, yes, but my understanding is that the current order (80 cars with checked baggage space) would be more or less sufficient to dispose of the existing Heritage baggage fleet. So for _that_ purpose, adding more full baggage cars would seem unnecessary. If there are plans to add a full new LD train in the east (as there's some hope that the Capirol Limited through cars might become), that would likely be a bag-dorm candidate, and anything else would be a better bag-coach candidate than a full baggage car candidate. Like I said, I just don't think there's enough demand at the moment to justify lots of dedicated baggage cars.


----------



## jis (Nov 14, 2012)

I am starting to rread a few articles emanating from the political pundithood that HSR and Passenger Rail is being put back on the agenda by the newly invigorated Obama Administration, which if true, is indeed very very good news for passenger rail in general and Amtrak in particular. This would considerably enhance the probability of the Viewliner II order being completed minimum further delay and also increase the probability of exercise of the option as well as of placement of further equipment orders over the next four years.


----------



## gswager (Nov 14, 2012)

In the old days where there at at least 2 baggage cars per trainsets. The reason why is it's not the suitcases, it's the mail.


----------



## afigg (Nov 14, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> The problem with adding MORE baggage cars is that I don't think Amtrak runs out of checked baggage space that quickly anyway. They definately need Sleepers more than Baggage Cars. Of the 70 options, I would like to see 35 Sleepers, 10 Diners, and 25 Baggage Cars. Or the same ratio if not all the options are exercised.
> 
> I do not think this is unreasonable.


What would Amtrak do with 10 additional diner cars? They are getting enough diners to support the current single level LD trains plus a daily Cardinal (which would take 18 in total) and still have a couple to spare. Any Viewliner II option order has to be justified by the demand and projections for the number of LD trains that could be running in the next few years.

Furthermore, any order for diner cars has to be accompanied by an order for the same number of baggage-dorm cars. Any overnight eastern LD train with a diner car should have a baggage-dorm car for the crew to sleep in. Hence the order for 25 diner and 25 baggage-dorm cars. Amtrak will have an extra diner car with the 8400, but since diner cars have more equipment to maintain and fail, having an additional diner car in the fleet can't hurt.

Realistically, the only eastern single level LD train that I see as a possibility to be restored/added in the near to medium term is the Three Rivers or maybe as the Broadway Limited. NYP-PHL-PGH over a TBD route to CHI. Any other restored or added eastern (or western) LD train would have to directly supported or requested by Congress. If there were LD coach and café cars available, Amtrak could run a Three Rivers with the CAF 130 car order, although it would get tight with a daily Cardinal. Even a modest order for 3 additional baggage-dorms and 3 diner cars would provide the capacity for a Three Rivers plus maybe another eastern LD train if there were enough sleeper and coach cars available.

On baggage cars, the idea of baggage-coach cars for the eastern day trains has merit. The day trains are not likely to get that much checked baggage that it would exceed the capacity of a 1/2 baggage car. The Carolinian could use one to expand coach seating capacity without a longer consist. But this would be a change in the type of cars ordered from CAF, so it probably would not be a configuration that could be ordered under the option with CAF.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 14, 2012)

jis said:


> I am starting to rread a few articles emanating from the political pundithood that HSR and Passenger Rail is being put back on the agenda by the newly invigorated Obama Administration, which if true, is indeed very very good news for passenger rail in general and Amtrak in particular. This would considerably enhance the probability of the Viewliner II order being completed minimum further delay and also increase the probability of exercise of the option as well as of placement of further equipment orders over the next four years.


I just read a piece on Shuster on DC Streetsblog, and I officially don't know what to make of him.

On the one hand, I disagree quite strongly with his "privatize everything" approach, which is exceedingly obnoxious (though Amtrak's ability to sue for massive compensation if there's an attempt to pull the NEC from it should hold anything like that off). As a counter, I'd argue that you effectively _do_ have competition for the non-NEC-related routes going forward, as Amtrak has to assess the full cost of running those trains on the states, as offset by fares. It's just the LD trains and the NEC that're exempt from this, while Amtrak _should_ turn a regular, modest profit on operating the rest of the lines.

On the other hand, I do tend to agree with his "frequency and reliability" argument, albeit with a strong bias towards higher speeds to ensure competitiveness (in the 90-125 MPH range). From what he's saying, though, I think Shuster _does_ have one problem here: He's used to the Keystone Corridor (125 MPH service) and not to a lot of the slower corridors out there that aren't drive-time competitive.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Nov 14, 2012)

afigg said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with adding MORE baggage cars is that I don't think Amtrak runs out of checked baggage space that quickly anyway. They definately need Sleepers more than Baggage Cars. Of the 70 options, I would like to see 35 Sleepers, 10 Diners, and 25 Baggage Cars. Or the same ratio if not all the options are exercised.
> ...


Man, you don't understand. If Amtrak gets 35 more Sleepers in addition to the current order, that's 110 Sleepers. some trains may justify an extra diner. Plus, the BL could be restored some a few more diners wouldn't hurt. I mentioned the ratio, so if you order no more sleepers then there is no need for more diners. Unless you want to add one to the Cardinal, that is.


----------



## afigg (Nov 14, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Man, you don't understand. If Amtrak gets 35 more Sleepers in addition to the current order, that's 110 Sleepers. some trains may justify an extra diner. Plus, the BL could be restored some a few more diners wouldn't hurt. I mentioned the ratio, so if you order no more sleepers then there is no need for more diners. Unless you want to add one to the Cardinal, that is.


Oh, I understand. Yes, if Amtrak were to order 35 additional Viewliner sleepers, then they would need to order diners and baggage-dorms to support them. The question I have is what is the justification for 35 additional Viewliner sleepers? I think Amtrak could use to order 10 additional sleepers to provide growth capacity and operational flexibility, but 35 more? Sounds like your plan is for Amtrak to be able to run 4 or 5 sleepers per LD train with multiple diners and go back to the days of really long consists for the Silvers (in peak periods), am I right?

There may indeed be a market for greatly expanded Crescent or a Silver Meteor, but that would be a tough sell to commit that much money when there are also pressing needs to replace the Amfleet IIs. If Amtrak were to order 20-30 cars total from the 70 car option with CAF with most of the cars a mix of sleepers. baggage-dorms, diners, that would be a pretty big deal. Don't have to get carried away with plans for 35 additional sleepers.


----------



## Gratt (Nov 14, 2012)

afigg said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with adding MORE baggage cars is that I don't think Amtrak runs out of checked baggage space that quickly anyway. They definately need Sleepers more than Baggage Cars. Of the 70 options, I would like to see 35 Sleepers, 10 Diners, and 25 Baggage Cars. Or the same ratio if not all the options are exercised.
> ...


I could easily see the Palmetto becoming the silver palm again, that would require extra diners, bag-dorms and sleepers.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Nov 14, 2012)

afigg said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > Man, you don't understand. If Amtrak gets 35 more Sleepers in addition to the current order, that's 110 Sleepers. some trains may justify an extra diner. Plus, the BL could be restored some a few more diners wouldn't hurt. I mentioned the ratio, so if you order no more sleepers then there is no need for more diners. Unless you want to add one to the Cardinal, that is.
> ...


I siad that you could also order less cars, just with the same ratio of sleepers:diners:bag-dorms. But if you order 70 more Viewliners then 35 should be Sleepers.


----------



## afigg (Nov 14, 2012)

Gratt said:


> I could easily see the Palmetto becoming the silver palm again, that would require extra diners, bag-dorms and sleepers.


I agree that is a possibility. However, the Palmetto has the best cost recovery (~65%) and has the lowest net loss (-$9.5 million for the first 11 months of FY12) of the Amtrak LD trains. The Palmetto does pretty well as a day train between NYP and Savannah. Adding sleepers, a diner, and a baggage-dorm to it and sending it to Miami would almost certainly increase losses even as it increased ridership. If it were extended to Miami, interesting options on what route it could take with overnight service south of SAV if the FEC were available.

No idea if Amtrak is contemplating adding sleepers and extending the Palmetto to Miami once they have enough equipment. The equipment issue is not just sleeper, diner cars, but also lack of spare Amfleet II coach cars for more train sets.


----------



## jis (Nov 14, 2012)

Hey, there are still 25 options left on the NJT MLV option set.  Juust kidding!


----------



## Nathanael (Nov 14, 2012)

Anderson said:


> I agree that revenue space (or revenue-capable space) should be the priority. Granted, I don't have access to hard data on how many checked bags and packages get loaded onto which trains, but I can't recall being on a train and seeing so many bags come off that it looked like they were clearing out the baggage car.


I do recall seeing what looked exaclty like 'clearing out the baggage car' -- three full baggage floats plus a few coming off at an intermediate stop (we were checking five bags ourselves on that trip). But only in high peak season in mid-June. In February, the baggage cars looked pretty empty. However, judging from the fleet plan, Amtrak may actually hang onto some of the old baggage cars solely for surge capacity. Amtrak also deliberately tightened its baggage policy, so I think they're hoping to not have the huge huge baggage demand.



> At the moment, the biggest jam-up is going to be the state of Amtrak's budget after the hurricane. Hopefully, Amtrak will get a modest funding supplement and/or a few minor capital projects funded in conjunction with any sort of aid package regarding the NEC. With that said, though, I think an LD coach order is slowly being worked up.


I'm not sure what FEMA reimbursement policy for railroads is. Some of the damage should be covered by insurance, but unfortunately I'm pretty sure nothing will compensate Amtrak for the loss of revenue.



> Of course, since I believe Amtrak owns the IP surrounding the new cars, it's also not implausible in the longer run that future orders (such as a NEC Amfleet replacement order, which seems likely within the next 10 years or so) might also include a mid-sized supplement to existing car types. If a 25-car order of sleepers is sufficient (and history does seem to imply that orders/runs of this size from a given line are common enough), then it doesn't seem unreasonable to hope for orders of something like 200 coaches, 25 cafes, and 25 sleepers (or other such mixes) to become the norm.


A happy thought.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 15, 2012)

afigg said:


> Gratt said:
> 
> 
> > I could easily see the Palmetto becoming the silver palm again, that would require extra diners, bag-dorms and sleepers.
> ...


Well, that's why I've raised the specter of the LD coach order that Amtrak seems to be working up...it seems that Amtrak is acutely aware of this issue as well and, at the very least, wants to get some extra cars on the existing trains. Depending on the timetable for such an order (I'm not sure how long it tends to take going from a mockup to actually placing the order), it might make sense for Amtrak to plan for such a train but not start it until a new LD coach order starts delivery.

And of course, there's the speculated fact that while Amtrak generally needs 8 sets for 2/day NYP-MIA, they "only" need 10 or 11 sets (depending on scheduling) for 3/day over the same route.

Nathaniel: Actually, that's a good point (on tightening the baggage policy). I was wondering about that, but you raise a good point about peak-of-the-peak baggage demand. Like I said, I've never really seen that in action (even my trips into ORL have been at odd times, I guess).


----------



## jis (Nov 15, 2012)

Anderson said:


> And of course, there's the speculated fact that while Amtrak generally needs 8 sets for 2/day NYP-MIA, they "only" need 10 or 11 sets (depending on scheduling) for 3/day over the same route.


With proper scheduling they should need only 7 sets for 2 per day, but with current schedules they do need 8. So I agree that there is a possible schedule that will allow doing 3/day with 10 sets, and definitely with 11 sets.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 15, 2012)

jis said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > And of course, there's the speculated fact that while Amtrak generally needs 8 sets for 2/day NYP-MIA, they "only" need 10 or 11 sets (depending on scheduling) for 3/day over the same route.
> ...


Agreed on both points...though I know that there's definitely a departure time consideration that avoids the extremes of "efficient" equipment usage. I don't recall what the required 10-set scheduling would be, but it might be "less than ideal" with respect to either dealing with rush hours at NYP or with overall bad arrival/departure times in MIA.


----------



## johnny.menhennet (Nov 15, 2012)

Anderson said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Anderson said:
> ...


If Amtrak found an "ideal consist" that worked for two or all of the trains, they could maximize equipment very well by being able to turn a Star into a Meteor and a Meteor into a Palm, etc. I don't have specific schedule in mind, but it could work.


----------



## Trogdor (Nov 15, 2012)

johnny.menhennet said:


> If Amtrak found an "ideal consist" that worked for two or all of the trains, they could maximize equipment very well by being able to turn a Star into a Meteor and a Meteor into a Palm, etc. I don't have specific schedule in mind, but it could work.


I believe that was actually attempted in the 1990s. I've seen a sketch somewhere that actually showed the equipment turns (don't know if they were just proposed, or if they actually happened) that included 19/20/48/49/89/90/91/92/97/98. Pretty fancy rotation.

Today that doesn't quite work because 97/98 have three sleepers, and 48/49 don't have a lounge (except in the winter when they rotate through to Florida). Plus, at the moment everything overnights in NYP, which eliminates any real advantage of interlining the consists.


----------



## jis (Nov 15, 2012)

For a period 97/98 and 91/92 shared consists, but the pool had four consists with 2 Sleepers and 4 with 3 Sleepers. So AFAIR the 98 and 91 had 3 Sleepers and 97 and 92 had two Sleepers, or may be the other way round.


----------



## afigg (Nov 15, 2012)

jis said:


> For a period 97/98 and 91/92 shared consists, but the pool had four consists with 2 Sleepers and 4 with 3 Sleepers. So AFAIR the 98 and 91 had 3 Sleepers and 97 and 92 had two Sleepers, or may be the other way round.


Once the new sleepers are available, wouldn't the Star be expanded to 3 sleeper cars? The new equipment should allow Amtrak to standardize the consists for the Silvers and the Crescent to baggage-dorm, 3 sleepers, diner, Amfleet II café/lounge, then 4 to 5 Amfleet II coaches. Could swap an Amfleet II coach car on and off the end of the consist as needed in NY or Hialeah without too much trouble I would think.

The LSL has a different configuration, so that stays out of the standard set. But if the two Silvers, the Crescent were all running with the same 3 sleeper car arrangement, they could try the rotation that Trogdor discussed. The Cardinal would presumably stay with 2 sleepers, so it would have its own set, whether it was a 3 days/week or daily.

Replace the Amfleet IIs with an order of 150 LD coach cars and 30 cafe/lounge cars and presto, have standard LD train Viewliner consists across the board (and lower maintenance costs one would hope). If a new station is built in Atlanta with storage tracks, the Crescent might get a different configuration so coach and sleeper cars can be dropped off in Atlanta. But it is an interesting question of if there were a Silver Meteor, Silver Star, Silver Palm, and a Three Rivers to CHI all running with identical consists with 3 sleepers and a schedule that allowed for shorter turn-arounds at one end point, how efficient could Amtrak get on the number of consists to support them?

In the above scenario with a Silver Palm & Three Rivers/BL, I am assuming that Amtrak also orders a few more baggage-dorms & diners and 10-15 sleepers exercising part of the 70 car option with CAF.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 15, 2012)

I see lots of talk about replacing the Amfleet II's and while I won't deny Amtrak needs more long distance coaches, be they Amfleets or of a Viewliner car frame, Amtrak needs to worry about the Amfleet I's first before it worries about replacing the II's. The I's are older and closer to the end of their useful life than are the II's.


----------



## Caesar La Rock (Nov 15, 2012)

AlanB said:


> I see lots of talk about replacing the Amfleet II's and while I won't deny Amtrak needs more long distance coaches, be they Amfleets or of a Viewliner car frame, Amtrak needs to worry about the Amfleet I's first before it worries about replacing the II's. The I's are older and closer to the end of their useful life than are the II's.


The Amfleet IIs have more mileage then the older Amfleet Is. So I could see why they are replacing them first.


----------



## Nathanael (Nov 16, 2012)

afigg said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > For a period 97/98 and 91/92 shared consists, but the pool had four consists with 2 Sleepers and 4 with 3 Sleepers. So AFAIR the 98 and 91 had 3 Sleepers and 97 and 92 had two Sleepers, or may be the other way round.
> ...


The LSL can justify a third NY sleeper right now, so perhaps it could go into the same rotation. That might change if traffic is bled off by the proposed Pennsylvanian-Capitol Limited through car, though.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 16, 2012)

I suspect we're likely to see the Crescent get a third sleeper as well. Three sleepers on all four trains would cover 45 sleepers (plus 3 for the BOS section, 4 for the Cardinal, and two for the Shoreliner, and 6 for the Cap...that's 60 of 75 accounted for right there, or just about all of the sleepers available after the V2 order).


----------



## VentureForth (Nov 16, 2012)

So who gets the baggage and who gets the baggage/dorms? It was suggested in an earlier post that the Westerns get the baggage dorms and the Eastern get just baggage, but I don't think that would work. The only Superliner to single conversion, iirc, is the Trans-dorm. I doubt you would see a baggage dorm attached to a Trans-dorm. I'm thinking the straight baggage will go on the Westerns and the baggage dorms go on the single level train sets.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 16, 2012)

VentureForth said:


> So who gets the baggage and who gets the baggage/dorms? It was suggested in an earlier post that the Westerns get the baggage dorms and the Eastern get just baggage, but I don't think that would work. The only Superliner to single conversion, iirc, is the Trans-dorm. I doubt you would see a baggage dorm attached to a Trans-dorm. I'm thinking the straight baggage will go on the Westerns and the baggage dorms go on the single level train sets.


That's been the assumption, more or less, especially since the Viewliner trains are frequently more pressed for sleeper space. That the number of bag-dorms lines up with the number of diners hints at this as well. Basically, it'd be baggage cars to the bilevel trains and corridor trains with checked baggage space (and no coach-bag available, as I believe there are a few of in the Midwest), and bag-dorms to single-level sleeper trains.


----------



## Trogdor (Nov 16, 2012)

Anderson said:


> Basically, it'd be baggage cars to the bilevel trains and corridor trains with checked baggage space (and no coach-bag available, as I believe there are a few of in the Midwest), and bag-dorms to single-level sleeper trains.


There are no Midwest corridor trains that use baggage cars. The only train in the Midwest to offer checked baggage is the Hiawatha, and it uses an NPCU/cabbage car. On the west coast, each train that offers checked baggage already has a baggage car (coach/baggage in California, Talgo baggage in the Northwest).

So, the regular baggage cars would only go to LD trains, plus 66/67.


----------



## afigg (Nov 16, 2012)

Trogdor said:


> There are no Midwest corridor trains that use baggage cars. The only train in the Midwest to offer checked baggage is the Hiawatha, and it uses an NPCU/cabbage car. On the west coast, each train that offers checked baggage already has a baggage car (coach/baggage in California, Talgo baggage in the Northwest).
> 
> So, the regular baggage cars would only go to LD trains, plus 66/67.


The Carolinian has a baggage car. The Piedmont's offer checked baggage service, but they have the refurbished combined bag/vending/bike rack cars.

This was discussed recently in another thread on the Viewliner II order, but once Amtrak has 125 mph capable baggage cars, they may add checked baggage to another daily Regional or two to provide more checked baggage and bike options on the NEC. The Pennsylvanian would be a candidate for a baggage & bike rack car, especially if it has run-through sleepers to the Capitol Limited. If the Customs facility open in Montreal, the Adirondack would be a logical candidate for a baggage car for the NYP-MTR passengers.

But as was brought up earlier in this thread, the capacity of a full length baggage car would likely be overkill for any eastern day trains. A 1/2 coach, 1/2 baggage car, maybe with a place for passenger to hang their own bikes, could be a better approach.


----------



## johnny.menhennet (Nov 16, 2012)

First off, if the New York side of LSL consist was to be standardized at 3 sleepers, diner, lounge, 4 coaches, that would be a nice consist to rotate around/see what you could do with. I would be worried about how much baggage that little bag-dorm could carry, but heck just have em stack it to the ceiling, if possible. I don't think the Cap/Pennsy cars will have an impact greatly on LSL ridership. Most all of the NY - Cleveland-or-points-west would be handled by the LSL, because people are not going to want to leave 5 hours earlier to get there 1 hour earlier. Traffic at least out of New York should not be impacted. Philly residents already might make this connection just without through-cars, and 50% probably train on the Cap (or LSL) and then Regional or Acela to Philly, so I mean, you might have a SLIGHT ridership drop-off, with the frequently-selling-out LSL, other people will fill their spots.

The Crescent should become 3 sleepers, and if they can do some switching in Atlanta, you could even get 4 out of it without needing more equipment. That would be awesome, but for the sake of standardization, keep it at 3 sleepers, diner, lounge, 4 coaches.

I really wish that every LD train could have a bag-dorm. In the west, they have already proven that they are willing to sell space in the transdorms, and this would be yet more revenue. What I think would be best would actually be to send a baggage AND a bag-dorm on the EB to see how it works. With the increased consist the train could fill (wishful thinking assuming moderate availability of equipment), some transdorm space would still have to be for crew even , but you could get much more revenue space out of a transdorm, and host all of the baggage that train must carry. You can be sure those baggage cars were full to the brim this summer, after we have heard some of those crazy 20-minute baggage unloading and loading stories from Williston.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 16, 2012)

There was some chatter early on when Amtrak first started talking about new Viewliners that all 75 baggage cars were to be of the Bag/Dorm type and converting the existing Superliner Trans/Dorms to full revenue sleepers. Never heard if "full revenue sleepers" meant simply selling all of the existing rooms within the cars or it they were actually going to rework the cars and add Bedrooms and a family room to make them identical to the "regular" Superliner sleepers.

That "chatter" went away when the decision was made not to make all baggage cars in the Bag/Dorm model, but instead to make some of them Full Baggage cars. I never heard why that decision was made, but I assume that it was simply a costs thing. Putting in 8 shelving units to hold bags is considerably cheaper than putting in a shower, toilets, several roomettes, water tanks, waste tanks, AC & heat, etc. I've no doubt cutting back on the number of Bag/Dorms dropped the overall production price tag by a bit.

So baring Amtrak exercising all options on the order, and making a bunch of them Bag/Dorms, except perhaps in an emergency situation one won't see Bag/Dorms in the Superliner consists. They'll all stay on the east coast where they are desperately needed to get the crews out the normal Viewliner revenue space.


----------



## NE933 (Nov 16, 2012)

THE CJ said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > I see lots of talk about replacing the Amfleet II's and while I won't deny Amtrak needs more long distance coaches, be they Amfleets or of a Viewliner car frame, Amtrak needs to worry about the Amfleet I's first before it worries about replacing the II's. The I's are older and closer to the end of their useful life than are the II's.
> ...


An Amfleet, whether I or II, can survive a nuclear attack it seems. Seriously, they have been described as tanks, so I would press Amtrak on Superliner III's, more Viewliner II's, get started on Acela II, and also on diesel locomotives to replace Genesis. If need be, the Amfleet cars can likely serve another generation if not at least a decade. Put them through another overhaul and they will safely carry more passengers. Because to attend to the greatest needs while re-establishing a railcar business, and nurturing it instead of atrophying it the way it happened to Budd and Pullman, Amfleet replacements can and should be on the list, just at the bottom. There are plenty of them and they work. The Nippon bilevels should release enough cars. Maybe a starter order for Viewliner II coaches and lounges.


----------



## Blackwolf (Nov 16, 2012)

In regard to the orphaned Cardinal, freeing up the full existing sleeper with a bag/dorm should increase the revenue space considerably. Getting a full diner back on that train also increases its attractiveness over the current food service offering. Out of curiosity, though, is there any chatter to placing a second sleeper for a total of two on top of the bag/dorm and diner?


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Nov 17, 2012)

Blackwolf said:


> In regard to the orphaned Cardinal, freeing up the full existing sleeper with a bag/dorm should increase the revenue space considerably. Getting a full diner back on that train also increases its attractiveness over the current food service offering. Out of curiosity, though, is there any chatter to placing a second sleeper for a total of two on top of the bag/dorm and diner?


Yeah, the Cardinal is really the underdog of the LD trains, along with the SL. This train may take a bir circle but it atually has quite a bit of potential in West Virginia and the Ohio River Valley, so it should really get better. In those places there is no parallel Interstate, no parallel bus service, and very poor airline service.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 17, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Blackwolf said:
> 
> 
> > In regard to the orphaned Cardinal, freeing up the full existing sleeper with a bag/dorm should increase the revenue space considerably. Getting a full diner back on that train also increases its attractiveness over the current food service offering. Out of curiosity, though, is there any chatter to placing a second sleeper for a total of two on top of the bag/dorm and diner?
> ...


Well, the problem is that the Cardinal is screwed by the map. It's always had a bunch of issues as a train that come from both being once-a-day (at best) and being an unwieldy merger of two pre-existing routes. The travel times aren't great (and are hard to improve).

I had a long chat with someone about this train, and apparently Virginia has looked at everything under the sun to try and improve it. Basically, the problem is that it has four main potential markets:

1) Western VA to the NEC (115-379 mi)

2) Cincinatti to the NEC (603-828 mi)

3) Cincinatti to Chicago (319 mi; 9:42 WB, 8:32 EB)

4) Indianapolis to Chicago (196 mi; 5:05 WB, 5:05 EB)

Basically, it can't handle CIN-CHI during daylight without screwing up connections in Chicago, even with substantial track improvements. It can't handle CHI-IND at decent hours without improvements or cutting those connections. CIN-NEC is complicated by the Chicago issues. That all leaves Virginia as a major, well-timed market candidate, and /that/ is a mess because the train has to cover the New River Gorge, which makes the train unable to cover Lynchburg or Roanoke.

In short, it's a "no good answer" train.


----------



## Nathanael (Nov 17, 2012)

Regarding priority order for new rolling stock, the recent statements and reports by Amtrak have for the most part sorted the replacement into separate queues, one for "single-level" and one for "bilevel".

Within the "single-level" category, Amtrak is quite clear: it wants to get rid of all single-level Heritage cars first (except the Great Dome, their business and geometry cars, and a few other oddities). In the first version of the fleet strategy report, it proposed replacing the Amfleet Is next and the Amfleet IIs third; in the most recent version, it proposed replacing the Amfleet IIs second and the Amfleet Is third.

Within the "bilevel" category, the Pacific Parlour Cars and Superliner Is are intended to be replaced first (with the PPCs coming as part of the first Superliner I replacement order.)

However, Amtrak has made no official statement as to how the priorities of these two queues interlace: whether replacement of Amfleet IIs is a higher priority than replacement of Superliner Is, for instance. This is perhaps slightly odd.

I would agree with everyone else that replacing the Superliner Is should be a higher priority than replacing any of the Amfleets. (Some of the Superliner Is are starting to be in really bad shape.) However, perhaps expanding the single-level fleet should be a higher priority than replacing the Superliner Is. But whichever is the case, Amtrak has made no clear statement of intent.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 17, 2012)

Frankly, I think Amtrak should handle replacing the Amfleets (and Horizons) together, rather than separating the orders out by type. As far as I can tell, the only differences between the LD coaches and SD coaches is seat spacing/type, and perhaps a row of seats and a set of baggage racks. The cars are functionally the same in many regards, so ordering 200 coaches at a time to be split between LD service and corridor service in various fashions would give Amtrak a bit more flexibility on several fronts (including experimenting with longer trains on some routes to see if they can fill the extra seats, for example).

Moreover, as I hinted at earlier in the thread, with Amtrak apparently retaining better control over the IP, it should be possible for them to toss out regular enough orders on each front to be able to supplement all of the single-level fleet elements on an as-needed basis. Since the Viewliner order contained a set of 25-car batches (diners, sleepers, and bag-dorms), and looking at some of the equipment batches from before Amtrak, 20-25 car orders of a single type seem viable as long as they're thrown in with a larger order. In this vein, I also wonder if Amtrak might not be able to negotiate option extensions if CAF keeps getting the single-level orders, allowing even smaller car numbers to be ordered on extended options from existing contracts.

The Superliners are a bit more of a mess because there simply aren't as many of them in existence. On the Superliners, I think you have somewhere around 33 LD sets plus scattered corridor sets and spares, while from what I understand you have 27 sets on the NEC that handle most of those services in a pool (with the cafe/BC end of the train removed for services like the Keystones, and added on for the Regionals), plus LD equipment and other single-level cars on non-standard trains (the Carolinian is like this, I think, as is the Adirondack). Basically, it's a far larger pool to handle replacements of, and even the coach trains are bigger (you're looking at 5-7 "basic" coaches in the corridor pools these days, versus 3-5 coaches on the Western bilevels).


----------



## jphjaxfl (Nov 17, 2012)

Anderson said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > Blackwolf said:
> ...


 The former N&W Route from Cincinnati to Norfolk also goes through the New River Gorge and serves Roanoke and Lynchburg. That route has better scenery than the former C&O route. N&W moved former Wabash Dome Coaches from the midwest to that route because of the scenery back in the late 60s immediately before Amtrak.


----------



## VentureForth (Nov 17, 2012)

All these Viewliners being ordered are sure going to make for some funny looking consists.

A P42 is roughly the height of a Viewliner.

An F59PHI is roughly the height of a Superliner.

The heritage baggage cars are shorter than either locomotive.

So, in the West, it may actually improve the look - P42-VLII-SL, though I think that the best looking consist, though perhaps not practical, would be a pair of F59PHIs with only Superliners behind it. At least the Viewliner Baggage car will be less of a height difference than the Heritage.

In the East, it'll all look good - Same height P42, Viewliner Baggage Dorm, Viewliner Sleeper, Viewliner Diner [then the really out of place cafe/lounge], then the Amfleets. Would still prefer a homogenous looking trainset, though.

The corridors will be the funniest looking. P42, Viewliner Baggage, amfleets OR heritage coaches - though it won't look any weirder than the current Silvers and regionals.

Why can't someone just design homogenous looking trainsets? They look so piecemail now, and it's about to get worse.


----------



## jis (Nov 17, 2012)

Fortunately very few corridor trains have or will have baggage cars. So they will mostly look just fine and homogenous.


----------



## NE933 (Nov 17, 2012)

VentureForth said:


> All these Viewliners being ordered are sure going to make for some funny looking consists....
> 
> Why can't someone just design homogenous looking trainsets? They look so piecemail now, and it's about to get worse.


Oh contrare! On western trains, where Superliners rule, they will simply replace the Heritage baggage cars. A Viewliner is a tad higher than its Heritage counterpart, so the height appearance will actually improve a little. Same for Eastern trains for the same reason, and for one more: instead of three types of railcars there will now be only two: Amfleets and Viewliners.

Most of us have mused about Amtrak excercising the extra 70 (hopefully more) Viewliners from CAF, but i have to hold my horses: the Viewliners are still very much a prototype project that sat on the backburner since 1987, nearly a quarter century ago. Amtrak is going to want to see how the first of these production units work before getting to another order. Just hope that if all is well they decide right away, and not wait for the cows to come home.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 17, 2012)

Nathanael said:


> I would agree with everyone else that replacing the Superliner Is should be a higher priority than replacing any of the Amfleets. (Some of the Superliner Is are starting to be in really bad shape.) However, perhaps expanding the single-level fleet should be a higher priority than replacing the Superliner Is. But whichever is the case, Amtrak has made no clear statement of intent.


Actually, Mr. Boardman has made it quite clear that he doesn't intend to do anything more for the long distance trains without a more clear directive from Congress. Frankly I rather doubt he'll ever get such a directive from Congress, seeing as how they're rarely clear about anything.

But it does mean that for now, his focus is on short haul equipment, which would mean replacing the Amfleet I's and maybe just maybe throw in some replacements for the AMF II's since they are essentially the same design even if they are long distance cars.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 17, 2012)

Anderson said:


> Moreover, as I hinted at earlier in the thread, with Amtrak apparently retaining better control over the IP, it should be possible for them to toss out regular enough orders on each front to be able to supplement all of the single-level fleet elements on an as-needed basis. Since the Viewliner order contained a set of 25-car batches (diners, sleepers, and bag-dorms), and looking at some of the equipment batches from before Amtrak, 20-25 car orders of a single type seem viable as long as they're thrown in with a larger order. In this vein, I also wonder if Amtrak might not be able to negotiate option extensions if CAF keeps getting the single-level orders, allowing even smaller car numbers to be ordered on extended options from existing contracts.


Keep in mind that working with the Viewliners is a horse of a different color when it comes to things as compared to say the Superliners of other older cars. The Viewliners are modular cars. CAF is really just building the shell of the car largely the same every time, save an extra door or two for baggage cars and such. But after that, the base of the car is the same. They just slide in what ever they need to make the car what Amtrak wants.

So technically, but for the fact that I'm sure the modules are already in production, if Amtrak wanted to do so, they could call up CAF tomorrow and cancel 10 of the sleepers and tell them to slid in chairs & luggage modules instead.

This provides great flexibility in what actually rolls off the production line as compared to years ago where things were built in place and to order.


----------



## VentureForth (Nov 17, 2012)

That would be assuming that there is no penalty for cancelling the modules. There is most presumably a lead time and a cost for changes clause, but you are right - not withstanding any thing not already ordered or in work - changes to the configuration of future orders is much simpler.


----------



## Nathanael (Nov 17, 2012)

AlanB said:


> Nathanael said:
> 
> 
> > I would agree with everyone else that replacing the Superliner Is should be a higher priority than replacing any of the Amfleets. (Some of the Superliner Is are starting to be in really bad shape.) However, perhaps expanding the single-level fleet should be a higher priority than replacing the Superliner Is. But whichever is the case, Amtrak has made no clear statement of intent.
> ...


This is a misinterpretation of the remarks by the same man who rejected the idea of cancelling the long distance trains, describing them as national treasures like the national parks.

What I would expect is that he would attempt, roughly speaking, maintenance of the status quo. This means he is *not* going to allow the trains to be cancelled due to lack of servicable equipment.

It also means no *new* long-distance routes, of course. (Though Amtrak is quite clear that 3-a-week is bad, so they may still make efforts to go daily on those trains.) I would also not expect added bilevel sleeper cars (there doesn't seem to be a shortage -- prices for a roomette from Chicago-LA are routinely less than prices for a roomette from NY-Chicago, which says soimething), and there seem to be enough diners and Sightseer Lounges to go around.

However, an order of long-distance bilevel coaches, to replace wrecks and allow for increased demand, should be considered likely. The difference between a long-distance coach and a corridor coach is just the seating, anyway.



> Frankly I rather doubt he'll ever get such a directive from Congress, seeing as how they're rarely clear about anything.


Indeed.



> But it does mean that for now, his focus is on short haul equipment, which would mean replacing the Amfleet I's and maybe just maybe throw in some replacements for the AMF II's since they are essentially the same design even if they are long distance cars.


First, Amtrak's fleet strategy is quite clear: the Amfleet IIs get replaced first, because they have more mileage (so the trucks and other mechanical parts are wearing out quicker). Of course, it's perfectly possible that we'll see the Amfleet Is reconfigured for long-distance use and the "Amfleet II replacements" put into corridor use!

Second, it has been explained to me that the government definition of long-distance (for purposes of requiring state funding or not) is not the same as Amtrak's internal definition of long-distance for purposes of staffing and equipment allocation. The Pennsylvanian, Adirondack, Maple Leaf, etc., use "long-distance" configuration coaches. Amtrak is absolutely in the business of having long-distance coaches for state-supported trains, and I would expect Amtrak to order new long-distance coaches for that purpose if nothing else.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 17, 2012)

Nathanael said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, Mr. Boardman has made it quite clear that he doesn't intend to do anything more for the long distance trains without a more clear directive from Congress.
> ...


No, Mr. Boardman was quite specific when just after placing the order for the Viewliner II's he essentially said that he would not place any more orders for long distance equipment until Congress gives him clear direction. I don't recall the exact words, but again the meaning of his statements were quite clear and not at all ambiguous.



Nathanael said:


> > But it does mean that for now, his focus is on short haul equipment, which would mean replacing the Amfleet I's and maybe just maybe throw in some replacements for the AMF II's since they are essentially the same design even if they are long distance cars.
> 
> 
> First, Amtrak's fleet strategy is quite clear: the Amfleet IIs get replaced first, because they have more mileage (so the trucks and other mechanical parts are wearing out quicker). Of course, it's perfectly possible that we'll see the Amfleet Is reconfigured for long-distance use and the "Amfleet II replacements" put into corridor use!


The Amfleet I's rack up nearly the same amount of mileage as an AMF II does. The Palmetto is probably one of the longest runs in one day of any AMF II at 829. Most long distance trains run longer distances, but over the course of two days, so the car isn't getting more miles per day than a car on the Palmetto.

An AMF I running on the NEC can rack up 914 miles in one day by running a round trip WAS to Boston. And the AMF I's get turned much faster than any AMF II does.

Now I'll grant that not every AMF I probably racks up that many miles per day, but still with more years on their wheels, other than the mothballed cars, they should have just as many miles on them as the AMF II's do.



Nathanael said:


> Second, it has been explained to me that the government definition of long-distance (for purposes of requiring state funding or not) is not the same as Amtrak's internal definition of long-distance for purposes of staffing and equipment allocation. The Pennsylvanian, Adirondack, Maple Leaf, etc., use "long-distance" configuration coaches. Amtrak is absolutely in the business of having long-distance coaches for state-supported trains, and I would expect Amtrak to order new long-distance coaches for that purpose if nothing else.


Actually the AMF II's were never supposed to be the "overnight" coaches, they were designed for the Leaf, Adirondack, Pennsy, Carolinian type runs. The money ran out before the overnight coaches got built, so the AMF II's became the overnight coaches by default for lack of anything better.


----------



## NE933 (Nov 17, 2012)

Re: Boardman waiting for Congress, me thinks that Hurricane Sandy's aftermath will put some zing in their step. Long Distance trains are being overwhelmed all over the country, and Amtrak has a job to make this known as a case for an expedited fleet renewal.


----------



## Trogdor (Nov 17, 2012)

NE933 said:


> Re: Boardman waiting for Congress, me thinks that Hurricane Sandy's aftermath will put some zing in their step. Long Distance trains are being overwhelmed all over the country, and Amtrak has a job to make this known as a case for an expedited fleet renewal.


What does Hurricane Sandy have to do with anything? If anything, it diverted more attention and resources _to_ the NEC to fix the damage. I don't see how you can tie that hurricane to LD fleet renewal.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 17, 2012)

My understanding is that the comments Boardman made were with respect to a Superliner III order, more or less, and that they primarily involved the Western LD trains (which is where a lot of the ambiguity seems to lie in terms of long-term policy matters). This plus the mockup taking place at Wilmington suggest that there may, in fact, be a single-level LD coach order coming along to replace some of the Amfleets in LD service.

The other issue with Boardman's comments is that it's not clear what he _actually_ wants in terms of "clear guidance" (or if we'd know it if we saw it). At least some dedicated funding might do the trick, but it's not like I expect to see Congress passing a resolution saying "We like long-distance trains!" and that triggering an equipment order.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Nov 18, 2012)

Anderson said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > Blackwolf said:
> ...


At least they could upgrade the Buckingham Branch then make the Card daily. If we need more capacity we'll go from there.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 18, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Swadian Hardcore said:
> ...


The Buckingham Branch work is all either done or in process, and a passing siding is going in to allow the Cardinal to pass a unit train east of Staunton. Basically, VA has done its part to get the extra capacity in place; the jam-up, if there is one, will be between Indianapolis and Clifton Forge.


----------



## Nathanael (Nov 18, 2012)

AlanB said:


> Nathanael said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


I still don't think this precludes Amtrak ordering long-distance-seating coaches.

The question was very much in the context of "you bought new sleepers and diners for the eastern trains, are you gonna buy new sleepers and diners for the western trains?" And I agree that the purchase of new bilevel sleepers and diners is unlikely to happen during Boardman's term (unless the price the 'market will bear' for rooms gets up to the levels we're seeing on the LSL); there are enough for current service and a buffer, and they'd be orphaned if Congress ordered service cuts to the long-distance trains.

In contrast, lack of coaches has clearly been hurting results on some of the western trains (Coast Starlight, Empire Builder, Texas Eagle, California Zephyr). There have been an awful lot of wrecks over the years. The coaches can always be reused for shorter-distance service if Congress does decide to pull the plug on long-distance services -- there's definitely a market for them -- making them less of a risk than sleepers or diners. They can be purchased as add-on orders to the state corridor-coach orders.

Remember that Amtrak's current fleet strategy plan *post-dates* Boardman's remarks, and yet it still says that replacement of the shrinking Superliner I fleet is urgent.



> Actually the AMF II's were never supposed to be the "overnight" coaches, they were designed for the Leaf, Adirondack, Pennsy, Carolinian type runs. The money ran out before the overnight coaches got built, so the AMF II's became the overnight coaches by default for lack of anything better.


Interesting, didn't know that. Thanks for the info.


----------



## afigg (Nov 18, 2012)

Anderson said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > At least they could upgrade the Buckingham Branch then make the Card daily. If we need more capacity we'll go from there.
> ...


I would call the BBRR work more in process or to be done. The Virginia funding for the North Mountain Subdivision projects runs through state FY 2015. The $7 million North Mountain Siding project is allocated $4.9 million in state funds in FY13 and FY14. Depending on the state funding rules, some of the actual project work may stretch beyond the FY allocation window. So it could be 3-4 years before the BBRR maintenance, signal, and siding upgrades are done.

Just like the prospects for follow-on Viewliner II orders and the HSIPR funded track projects: there is a long lead time to completing the project or getting the new rolling stock delivered and in revenue service. When some one says, hey, that set of equipment has another 10 years of operating life so what's the rush? Well, if it you are placing a large order for 500 Amfleet I replacements and 200 Amfleet II replacements and delivery rate is 120 cars per year, it takes almost 6 years to build and deliver the cars. Add in 2 years ahead of the 6 years after placing the order for design, fabrication, and production ramp-up. Then add X years for getting the funding lined-up, writing the specs, putting out bids, and awarding the contracts. So, if you need to replace a large amount of rolling stock in 10 years, you had better start the acquisition process way before the replacement deadline.


----------



## jis (Nov 18, 2012)

No matter how much we may dislike it there are several realities that we have to live with:

1. In general rolling stock needed to support Corridor Service is more likely to be acquired earlier than those needed for LD service, unless one is at a situation where the old stock has three legs in the grave.

2. Just because current plans say Amfleet Is will be life expired in 10 years does not make it so. It is quite possible that they will last considerably longer than that. What will happen is that progressively maintenance costs will go up, and they will have to plan a significant rebuild at some point. AFAICT the body shells on the Amfleets are aging very well and there are no fatigue problems seen so far, so they can last for quite a while yet. However, it still is a good idea to plan replacement in 10 years as they have done, to put pressure on all relevant stakeholders to start doing something about it. Amtrak by itself without support from some of the stakeholders cannot really pull it off given its current finances.

3. At the end of the day, until the actual allocation of capital costs to various service segments is worked out, all these claims of NEC profitability are a bit of a chimera. We will only know for sure that all this works if Amtrak is actually able to pay for the current round of proposed acquisitions. Ar present they still depend critically on the "Debt Service" line item in the appropriations, which of course is at the mercy of Congress. There are reasons to believe that Amtrak was not particularly unhappy with the delays in the Viewliner II order fulfillment because frankly, they did not have the money lined up to pay for them.

4. While a case can be made for paying for corridor equipment using loans collateralized by projected additional revenues, given that at least the corridors are within earshot of paying for themselves through a combination of farebox and state contributions, there is relatively low likelihood of being able to use similar loans for primarily LD equipment unless some corridor or the other is milked to collateralize them, or a direct appropriation for that purpose is approved by Congress. I think when Mr. Boardman makes his comments about LD equipment acquisition, it is the latter that he is obliquely alluding to since he would rather millk corridors to support better service on said corridors which provide a better RoI in general.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 18, 2012)

Nathanael said:


> In contrast, lack of coaches has clearly been hurting results on some of the western trains (Coast Starlight, Empire Builder, Texas Eagle, California Zephyr). There have been an awful lot of wrecks over the years. The coaches can always be reused for shorter-distance service if Congress does decide to pull the plug on long-distance services -- there's definitely a market for them -- making them less of a risk than sleepers or diners. They can be purchased as add-on orders to the state corridor-coach orders.


Amtrak can't be hurting for Superliner coaches too badly if they can afford to use them on the Blue Water year round and as the replacement consist for when one of the Talgo trainsets are out of service. And once the new cars start arriving for Michigan, that will actually free up some Superliner coaches. In theory it would also free up the 7 that California uses, but I'm not sure just what the lease terms state and if California will be willing to give them up if they haven't gotten their full use out of the cars.

Looking at the actual numbers, Amtrak built 188 Superliner coaches originally. A total of 11 are confirmed as having been scrapped. As of a year or so ago, 9 were considered wrecked, but there is no indication on how many might be repairable and how many are simply awaiting scrapping. It appears from the OTOL numbers that another 2 cars have since come off the active roster for whatever reasons. That would leave Amtrak with 166 active Superliner coaches or about 12% of the fleet.

Amtrak has lost about 10% of its Superliner sleepers.


----------



## Nathanael (Nov 18, 2012)

jis said:


> Ar present they still depend critically on the "Debt Service" line item in the appropriations, which of course is at the mercy of Congress.


Small point: some provision of some law or other allows the Treasury to pay off any amount of Amtrak debt it likes, without needing special appropriations (in other words, Congress already appropriated "such amounts as are necessary"). This has given Amtrak some key breathing space. Unfortunately, that applies only to debt restructuring and repayment. Amtrak does not have access to commercial loans, so it can't actually acquire arbitrary amounts of debt. So Amtrak is still at the mercy of Congressional appropriations for both operations and capital improvements.


----------



## jis (Nov 18, 2012)

Amtrak does have access to RRIF loans though, a mechanism that it is using for paying for the ACS64s. If Congress set things up appropriately Amtrak could also qualify for commercial loans but so far they have not done so.

Are you sure that Treasury can pay off all of Amtrak['s loans without further appropriation. If so then why isn't it? Why does Congress include specific debt service line items in each Amtrak appropriations? Just for the fun of it?


----------



## Nathanael (Nov 18, 2012)

AlanB said:


> Amtrak can't be hurting for Superliner coaches too badly if they can afford to use them on the Blue Water year round and as the replacement consist for when one of the Talgo trainsets are out of service.


True. Good point.



> And once the new cars start arriving for Michigan, that will actually free up some Superliner coaches. In theory it would also free up the 7 that California uses, but I'm not sure just what the lease terms state and if California will be willing to give them up if they haven't gotten their full use out of the cars.


The 7 California Superliners are definitely supposed to be returned to Amtrak sometime after the new cars start arriving, when the leases expire. I'm not quite sure when, though, I think I remember 2015 but it might have been 2017?

Those and the Michigan coaches should, thinking about it, give enough breathing room for several years: allow for the cut-off cars to Denver and Reno, etc.



> Looking at the actual numbers, Amtrak built 188 Superliner coaches originally. A total of 11 are confirmed as having been scrapped. As of a year or so ago, 9 were considered wrecked, but there is no indication on how many might be repairable and how many are simply awaiting scrapping. It appears from the OTOL numbers that another 2 cars have since come off the active roster for whatever reasons. That would leave Amtrak with 166 active Superliner coaches or about 12% of the fleet.
> Amtrak has lost about 10% of its Superliner sleepers.


I should go through and work out peak equipment usage on the long-distance trains, add the 20% shop count... eh, not today.


----------



## afigg (Nov 18, 2012)

jis said:


> Amtrak does have access to RRIF loans though, a mechanism that it is using for paying for the ACS64s. If Congress set things up appropriately Amtrak could also qualify for commercial loans but so far they have not done so.
> 
> Are you sure that Treasury can pay off all of Amtrak['s loans without further appropriation. If so then why isn't it? Why does Congress include specific debt service line items in each Amtrak appropriations? Just for the fun of it?


From the financial reports, all the Warrington era equipment leases are commercial loans. Amtrak has a mortgage on NY Penn Station for example. I don't think there is a Congressional rule that blocks Amtrak from commercial loans. If there was, how would Amtrak operate? As a company with a payroll, operating expenses, contracts, it has to have a commercial line of credit to pay the bills. I have read that the Secretary of Transportation has to approve large loans taken out by Amtrak as part of the US DOT oversight, but that is not the same as a being blocked from obtaining commercial loans.

The 2008 PRIIA act, according to the financial reports, authorizes the US Treasury to restructure and repay Amtrak's debt outstanding as of the date of enactment of PRIIA ,including leases, if as I interpret it, if the terms are favorable to the US Government and are advantageous to Amtrak. Amtrak is receiving $420 million through FY2013 from the US Treasury to exercise Early Buyout Options (EBOs) of equipment leases to save money on lease payments. But the funds from the US Treasury are only for debt and leases that were outstanding in 2008, not for new debt or leases incurred after the passage of the 2008 PRIIA act. The intent of the PRIIA act Treasury payments was to enable Amtrak to retire Warrington era and other old debt, not to allow wholesale transfer of funds to pay for new debt.

This is discussed in the Five year financial plans. The earlier FY11 to FY15 plan discusses the EBOs in more depth than the FY12-FY16 plan. With a friendly administration staying in power, Amtrak should be able to get $208.7 million in FY2014 to exercise EBOs for 14 Superliners, 83 P-42s, 29 Surfliners. In FY2013, the EBOs include $147,4 million for 114 Superliners and $79.5 million for 51 P-42. The bottom line for Amtrak is that they are retiring a lot of lease payments and outstanding debt, which will allow it to take on new debt if it has to take that approach.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 19, 2012)

Jis,

While I agree with all of the points you mention, from what I can tell over the last few years, it seems more likely that Amtrak will be able to argue for the following:

1) A rebuild programme on the existing Amfleets (I and II alike).

2) A replacement set of LD coaches, to allow the LD Amfleets to be either pushed into Regional/Corridor service (Amfleets aren't bad for starting up a given service, especially if there's a bilevel shortage).

3) A modest capacity expansion/attrition replacement programme on the existing corridor fleet.

2/3 are likely to go together by virtue of wanting to scale orders (even if an initial LD order might come first); Amtrak can point out that Regional ridership is up 50% since FY03, Adirondack ridership is up similarly, etc., so there /is/ capacity there, and adding cars for longer trains should (in general) improve Amtrak's bottom line. Still, a reallocation of the Amfleets to all-corridor service (plus the Horizons) should give Amtrak some space on that front, at least unless/until something major gets started in terms of new corridors (such as SEHSR).

1 is going to be necessary sooner or later, but I think that's more likely in the short run than a total replacement order. It may not make total accounting sense in the long run (since the refurb work is likely good for maybe 20 years rather than the 30-40 the initial work was), but the nominal cost is likely to be far less for overhauling 500 cars than for buying that many new ones.

I know that Amtrak wants to retire equipment somewhere around that magic 40-year line, but between steadily rising ridership on a number of routes, the desperate need for at least a modest seasonal surge fleet to lengthen trains, if not to add additional ones (note that disruptions notwithstanding, the increase in ridership is more and more heavily geared towards the off-season now), and so forth, it seems highly unlikely that Amtrak is going to be getting rid of the Amfleets anytime in the foreseeable future. Phasing them out over a lengthy period of time? Sure. Shifting them to primarily backup use and/or to help states start corridors more cheaply? I can see that. But not getting rid of them. I just don't see that.

One option that I _do_ see as plausible, however, is Amtrak easing X number of Amfleets out of service and buying Y replacements (where Y is a much larger number and X is more or less those that are really running into service/maintenance issues and/or those that have "attrited out" over the interim since the last order). It's easier to see an order of, say, 150 short-haul coaches, 25 mid-haul coaches, and 25 LD coaches go out where you're effectively replacing 80, 10, and 10 and shaking some spare capacity loose in the process.


----------



## Mackensen (Nov 19, 2012)

Nathanael said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak can't be hurting for Superliner coaches too badly if they can afford to use them on the Blue Water year round and as the replacement consist for when one of the Talgo trainsets are out of service.
> ...


Unless something changed in the last month or two the _Blue Water_ uses the same equipment as the _Wolverine_: 3-5 Horizon coaches and either an Amfleet or Horizon Club/Dinette. Superliner equipment usually only shows up in the winter when the Horizons are down for maintenance, and then not every day.


----------



## Trogdor (Nov 19, 2012)

It's the Pere Marquette that operates with Superliners.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 19, 2012)

Oops, sorry! I knew it was one of the Michigan trains.


----------

