# Superliner III's



## CSXfoamer1997 (Feb 25, 2016)

Does anyone know when the Superliner III's should come out? Including the ones built specifically for long-distance service? And also, I know that Nippon Sharyo will build the commuter ones going to Illinois and California, but that's on hold right now. However, is it known who will build the Long-Distance ones?

Also, why not create Superliner Baggage Cars and bag-dorms rather than just a bunch of Viewliner II baggage cars? Superliner baggage cars would be able to hold more baggage, AND make a Superliner train more aerodynamic.


----------



## Palmetto (Feb 25, 2016)

I must have missed something, as I have not heard of Superliner III production plans. Concerning the bags, I think Viewliners are adequate in terms of space, but your observation on aerodynamics is noted.


----------



## jis (Feb 25, 2016)

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> Does anyone know when the Superliner III's should come out? Including the ones built specifically for long-distance service? And also, I know that Nippon Sharyo will build the commuter ones going to Illinois and California, but that's on hold right now. However, is it known who will build the Long-Distance ones?
> 
> Also, why not create Superliner Baggage Cars and bag-dorms rather than just a bunch of Viewliner II baggage cars? Superliner baggage cars would be able to hold more baggage, AND make a Superliner train more aerodynamic.


The answers to the questions is See the recently published fleet plan. No. No.

Single level baggage cars are preferred because it requires considerable additional equipment to effectively use an upper deck as a baggage car.

For a train running mostly at 79mph and occasionally a little faster aerodynamics is not a huge issue. For a foamer like you perhaps aesthetics is a bigger issue than aerodynamics anyway  And that is easy to take cre of using some non structural fairings at the one single break between single level and double level in the train.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Feb 25, 2016)

jis said:


> CSXfoamer1997 said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone know when the Superliner III's should come out? Including the ones built specifically for long-distance service? And also, I know that Nippon Sharyo will build the commuter ones going to Illinois and California, but that's on hold right now. However, is it known who will build the Long-Distance ones?
> ...


Yes, I am a foamer, as you can tell by my website name, lol, but also, if I can't be a loco engineer, I would also like to get into designing locomotives, or maybe passenger cars. I mostly would like to design locomotives. And also, with aerodynamics, if you have a Viewliner baggage car in front of a Superliner, the air rushes over the baggage car, and then would hit the front of the Superliner, which may slow the train. Just a little bit of science right there.


----------



## jis (Feb 25, 2016)

There is no denying that there is a little bit of effect. But how significant is it at 79mph? Apparently not enough for people to even put in simple mitigating fairings on the roof of the engines and single level baggage cars to streamline that interface. So first figure out what is the difference in energy consumes with or without that obstruction, and then that will give an indication on how significant it is in the overall scheme of things. Remember, it is not just single level baggage cars, but also single or 1.5 level locomotives. My guess is that it is not significant enough to worry about too much. But feel free to do the computation and prove me wrong. That will also help you develop engineering skills that goes into making such decisions, and will help you become a better designer.


----------



## lo2e (Feb 25, 2016)

jis said:


> Single level baggage cars are preferred because it requires considerable additional equipment to effectively use an upper deck as a baggage car.


This - I'll be honest, I've never even heard of a Superliner-sized baggage car, does such a thing even exist anywhere in the world?

Obviously Amtrak needed new baggage cars ASAP, so the easiest (and IMO best) thing to do was to get enough single-level ones from CAF to replace the entire fleet, rather than only get enough for single-level trains and wait seemingly forever for Superliner ones to come online. The heritage baggage cars were already pretty sad looking and a nightmare to maintain, I can't imagine keeping them another few years at least.


----------



## KmH (Feb 25, 2016)

A bi-level baggage car would just move the 1st upper level sticking up into the air stream closer to the locomotives.

The 1st upper car level on current trains using Superliner cars is the front of the transdorm.

So unless they add a fairing to the locomotives, or also make the locomotives as tall as a Superliner car, I would not expect any aerodynamic improvement by having a bi-level baggage car.

Every recent photo I have seen of the interior of an Amtrak baggage car on a LD train shows few checked bags, and _lots_ of spare room for more.


----------



## jis (Feb 25, 2016)

KmH, you make a very good point! If one is really bothered about aerodynamics, the primary way to reduce that would be to reduce the overall area presented to the air stream. The easiest way to lower that is to get rid of double decker cars  Mind you, I am not suggesting that since my position is that for the speeds at which these trains travel the aerodynamic resistance is not a huge factor.


----------



## the_traveler (Feb 25, 2016)

Yes, single level bags are lower then locomotives and thus the air would hit the Superliners. But Superliners are *HIGHER* than locomotives, so what's the difference? :huh: (Look at photos of the SSL on the PDX section of the EB from SPK to PDX where it's on the front. You can see above and over the locomotive.)


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 25, 2016)

jis said:


> There is no denying that there is a little bit of effect. But how significant is it at 79mph?


In the case of Superliners the combined air resistance from the top third of the first car, the end of the last car, and the trucks of all cars could actually be rather significant. Its been a while but if I recall correctly the fuel relevant breakpoint for conventional non-aerodynamic vehicles at sea level is around 60MPH. That could potentially put 79MPH at a point worth mitigating with improved aerodynamics. Not with an expensive bullet train level redesign but with simple contoured wind deflection flaps. Maybe the next question should be how often do Superliner trains exceed 60MPH?









KmH said:


> Every recent photo I have seen of the interior of an Amtrak baggage car on a LD train shows few checked bags, and _lots_ of spare room for more.


Which begs the question if Amtrak really needed all these baggage cars to begin with. Seems like bag-dorms might have been far more useful and productive in many cases.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie (Feb 25, 2016)

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> Also, why not create Superliner Baggage Cars and bag-dorms rather than just a bunch of Viewliner II baggage cars


To move the focus to the other part of that, what about Superliner Bag-Dorms. Baggage on the lower level and employee dorms on the upper level. I guess such would mean putting their lounge on the upper level together with a few more showers.


----------



## CCC1007 (Feb 25, 2016)

There is already the coach baggage car.


----------



## A Voice (Feb 25, 2016)

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> Does anyone know when the Superliner III's should come out?


_What_ Superliner III's? Maybe someday, but there are no current plans. The next cars to be replaced are the Amfleet II cars in eastern long-distance service (not sure I'd hold my breath on that either, however).

You are also assuming the cars for the midwestern states are actually built.



Devil's Advocate said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Every recent photo I have seen of the interior of an Amtrak baggage car on a LD train shows few checked bags, and _lots_ of spare room for more.
> ...


The stated reason for reducing the number of baggage-dorms originally ordered, in favor of full baggage cars, was insufficient baggage capacity. If they weren't adequate for eastern trains, I wouldn't expect such a design to work on (generally higher capacity) Superliner equipped trains either. Regardless, the Superliners already have a dormitory car, which would _still be required_ even if you built Viewliner baggage-dorms for these trains.


----------



## jis (Feb 25, 2016)

the_traveler said:


> Yes, single level bags are lower then locomotives and thus the air would hit the Superliners. But Superliners are *HIGHER* than locomotives, so what's the difference? :huh: (Look at photos of the SSL on the PDX section of the EB from SPK to PDX where it's on the front. You can see above and over the locomotive.)


The height difference between a Viewliner and a Superliner is less than 2'. The cross section presented by a P42 up front is not exactly aerodynamic. Yeah there is a slight slope, but nothing like a really aerodynamic design. So the whole thing basically is close to a flat surface presented to the air stream. We live with it because it is not considered to be significant enough of a drag in normal operation. Now it does start getting significant when you get to 90/100mph and beyond. Ask the folks who are trying to figure out how much additional energy a consist of NJT MLVs running cab first at 125mph will eat up. Not a pretty picture. And that is just 14'6" tall.


----------



## west point (Feb 25, 2016)

what about the Santa Fe's sloped bag cars if you want SL Bags ?


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 25, 2016)

A Voice said:


> The stated reason for reducing the number of baggage-dorms originally ordered, in favor of full baggage cars, was insufficient baggage capacity. If they weren't adequate for eastern trains, I wouldn't expect such a design to work on (generally higher capacity) Superliner equipped trains either. Regardless, the Superliners already have a dormitory car, which would _still be required_ even if you built Viewliner baggage-dorms for these trains.


Insufficient baggage capacity? The only way that even begins to make any sense is if Amtrak is planning on further reducing allowed carry-on luggage and/or increasing free checked luggage (yeah right). As for the Superliner transition dormitory every employee we can move into a Viewliner bag-dorm further up the train potentially gives us another revenue compartment to sell in the transdorm. Or at least that would be my hope.



jis said:


> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, single level bags are lower then locomotives and thus the air would hit the Superliners. But Superliners are *HIGHER* than locomotives, so what's the difference? :huh: (Look at photos of the SSL on the PDX section of the EB from SPK to PDX where it's on the front. You can see above and over the locomotive.)
> ...


Don't forget that the substantial horizontal gap between a Viewliner and Superliner means that there is more aerodynamic drag than a strict top-to-top vertical distance would indicate.


----------



## jis (Feb 25, 2016)

Still it has not been a major factor for anyone to worry too much about for the speeds involved so far evidently. Yes I am sure some small advantage could be eked out by putting fairings between all cars matching the two car's roof lines. But it is not clear that the logistics of it is really worth it for these speeds.

BTW the gap between a Superliner and a low level car horizontally is no more or no less than between any two cars.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 25, 2016)

jis said:


> Still it has not been a major factor for anyone to worry too much about for the speeds involved so far evidently. Yes I am sure some small advantage could be eked out by putting fairings between all cars matching the two car's roof lines. But it is not clear that the logistics of it is really worth it for these speeds. BTW the gap between a Superliner and a low level car horizontally is no more or no less than between any two cars.


It took an exceptionally long time for American trucking companies to adopt even the most basic drag reducing modifications which had been implemented in other countries decades ago. American trucking companies have historically employed some of the least efficient hardware (among industrialized nations), enjoyed some of the cheapest fossil fuels (among all countries), and have been operated by a culture renowned for its excessive energy usage and perpetual inability to comprehend even the most basic of inefficiencies. Just like Amtrak. The idea that Amtrak's long distance network represents some sort of global standard for proactive energy efficiency doesn't seem to jive with anything I've seen, heard, or read about it. I guess I'll have to ponder your rather curious position the next time I'm watching an empty Texas Eagle train casually billow petrol exhaust as it rests for nine hours next to the local hotel power connection.


----------



## cirdan (Feb 26, 2016)

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > CSXfoamer1997 said:
> ...


not just hitting the Superliner, which probably isn't too much of a problem aerodynamically, but it causes pressure on the end door meaning sometimes diesel fumes get inside the car.


----------



## MARC Rider (Mar 1, 2016)

jis said:


> There is no denying that there is a little bit of effect. But how significant is it at 79mph? Apparently not enough for people to even put in simple mitigating fairings on the roof of the engines and single level baggage cars to streamline that interface. So first figure out what is the difference in energy consumes with or without that obstruction, and then that will give an indication on how significant it is in the overall scheme of things. Remember, it is not just single level baggage cars, but also single or 1.5 level locomotives. My guess is that it is not significant enough to worry about too much. But feel free to do the computation and prove me wrong. That will also help you develop engineering skills that goes into making such decisions, and will help you become a better designer.





Devil's Advocate said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Still it has not been a major factor for anyone to worry too much about for the speeds involved so far evidently. Yes I am sure some small advantage could be eked out by putting fairings between all cars matching the two car's roof lines. But it is not clear that the logistics of it is really worth it for these speeds. BTW the gap between a Superliner and a low level car horizontally is no more or no less than between any two cars.
> ...


This has been changing over the past 10 years. Nearly all long-haul tractors now have aerodynamic design, and you're starting to see the side skirts and boat-tails on the trailers. We've tested the various trailer fairings and found that side skirt + boat-tail can give a 5-10% reduction in fuel consumption. And and we tested at 62 mph. That's not exactly chump change. I don't know how that would apply in the railroad setting, but the old Pioneer Zephyr made extensive use of fairings around the wheels, and the old streamliner cars sported side fairings, as does the Acela Express, so there is clearly some benefit. It seems to me that it would be pretty cheap to install deflectors over the baggage cars to improve aerodynamic performance. Side fairings on the cars would also help, and even a "frill" like a round-end observation car at the tail of the train would probably provide for more reductions. These would help Amtrak's bottom line by saving fuel, plus enhance Amtrak's "green" credentials in reducing greenhouse gas emissions (and probably other emissions as well.)


----------



## jis (Mar 1, 2016)

Interestingly, unless the fairings are easy to attach and detach, that would make the baggage cars, a subset of them, captive to the Western trains, and additionally they will become directional, i.e. they will be usable in trains in only one orientation. If a taller locomotive is used then there will need to be a different fairing at the other end depending on which locomotive is being used on a particular day. The logistics become quite interesting.

The California Chargers will have fairings to smoothly transition the roof line to the higher California Car roof-line. I am no sure whether it is just decorative or will actually be streamlining too. The fairings on the Talgos appear to be purely decorative.

Side skirts actually have significant effect, but then, the Superliners already effectively have a side skirt, and the Viewliners in the new incarnation do too.

Any idea what part of the 5-10% is due to the boat tail and rooftop fairing, and what part is due to the fairing?


----------



## Seaboard92 (Mar 1, 2016)

I think MARC rider just made the case for an observation car. Even though I can't picture what the car body of a Viewliner would look like as one. If it's a big issue in Superliner trains why don't we just put up what the ATSF did for their El Capitan. I need to dig a photo of it.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Mar 1, 2016)

From the KATO catalogue.


----------



## A Voice (Mar 1, 2016)

MARC Rider said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > There is no denying that there is a little bit of effect. But how significant is it at 79mph? Apparently not enough for people to even put in simple mitigating fairings on the roof of the engines and single level baggage cars to streamline that interface. So first figure out what is the difference in energy consumes with or without that obstruction, and then that will give an indication on how significant it is in the overall scheme of things. Remember, it is not just single level baggage cars, but also single or 1.5 level locomotives. My guess is that it is not significant enough to worry about too much. But feel free to do the computation and prove me wrong. That will also help you develop engineering skills that goes into making such decisions, and will help you become a better designer.
> ...


Seems like a far bigger issue than Superliners following low-level equipment would be double stack trains and similar, where you are running nearly the full height of one or two containers - with a square, flat profile - into the wind. Further, the gaps between cars (particularly single unit well cars) are fairly large; Anyone happen to know how much difference the gaps between cars make in aerodynamics? Perhaps semi-trucks with double trailers have explored this?

Obviously this is not seen as a problem, but the discussion makes me curious. I don't see it as a huge issue for passenger trains - and due to the operational constraints mentioned above, very probably not worth it - but freights aren't that much slower than most long-distance passenger trains (as little as 9 mph) and place a lot of cars with tall, flat profiles running forward.


----------



## Bjartmarr (Mar 15, 2016)

I have wondered why, when the first superliners came out, why Amtrak didn't build superliner bag-dorms with a baggage compartment on the lower level and roomettes on the upper level. This would eliminate the need for the transdorm entirely, and would allow them to run a (presumably more efficient) all-superliner train with one less type of car to worry about in the west-of-Chicago pool.

Perhaps the superliner bag-dorms would also eliminate the need for the superliner coach-bags, meaning there would be one less type of car to build.

The obvious downside is if the bottom level of a superliner is not big enough to hold bags for a long train -- but the obvious solution is to just use two of them.


----------



## Acela150 (Mar 15, 2016)

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > CSXfoamer1997 said:
> ...


Come out here you won't be a foamer long..


----------



## dlagrua (Mar 28, 2016)

On the subject of Superliner III's the OP may be waiting quite a while before he see's them but the factor of loss by damage from accidents and derailing may need to be considered by congress in 2017. Consider the recent CZ derailing where 5 Superliners ran off the tracks and onto their sides. Beech Grove has done a remarkable job of rebuilding and maintaining Superliner equipment but the fleet has been depleted over time. The big question is; at what point does the fleet run out of storage/backup equipment? When that question is answered only then may we see Superliner III's enter into the discussion. I find it odd that the "good ole boy" club in Washington spends many billions on foreign wars and yet little on improving the passenger rail system.


----------



## CCC1007 (Mar 28, 2016)

dlagrua said:


> On the subject of Superliner III's the OP may be waiting quite a while before he see's them but the factor of loss by damage from accidents and derailing may need to be considered by congress in 2017. Consider the recent CZ derailing where 5 Superliners ran off the tracks and onto their sides. Beech Grove has done a remarkable job of rebuilding and maintaining Superliner equipment but the fleet has been depleted over time. The big question is; at what point does the fleet run out of storage/backup equipment? When that question is answered only then may we see Superliner III's enter into the discussion. I find it odd that the "good ole boy" club in Washington spends many billions on foreign wars and yet little on improving the passenger rail system.


When did the CZ derail recently? The wreck this month was the SWC.


----------



## jis (Mar 28, 2016)

And frankly, by the grace of nature, the damage was relatively minor.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Mar 28, 2016)

And only 4 ended up on their sides, not 5.


----------



## neroden (Mar 28, 2016)

If Nippon-Sharyo ever manages to deliver the "Surfliner IIs", that will alleviate the pressure for Superliner coaches, and also cafes. There appear to be enough transdorms still. Dining cars, sightseer lounges, and sleeping cars are potential shortages; I'm not sure which is the most acute shortage, but I do know none of them is anywhere *near* as acute as the shortage of single-level rolling stock. Even when the Viewliner II order is delivered, Amtrak will badly need more single-level sleepers, a huge number of single-level long-distance coaches, and a large order of Viewliner observation/cafes (Amtrak has never really ordered any, and they'd be a major selling point).


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Mar 28, 2016)

neroden said:


> If Nippon-Sharyo ever manages to deliver the "Surfliner IIs", that will alleviate the pressure for Superliner coaches, and also cafes.


*Nippon Sharyu, where are you?*


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Mar 29, 2016)

WoodyinNYC said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > If Nippon-Sharyo ever manages to deliver the "Surfliner IIs", that will alleviate the pressure for Superliner coaches, and also cafes.
> ...


----------



## A Voice (Mar 29, 2016)

Well, I was rather thinking this...


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Mar 29, 2016)

A Voice said:


> Well, I was rather thinking this...


DA may be too young to remember this. I'm not, though.  :giggle:


----------



## seat38a (Apr 8, 2016)

I'm still surprised the Superliner Coach / Baggage cars still isn't enough capacity that they need a dedicated baggage car.



P1000535 by B H, on Flickr



IMG_0868 by B H, on Flickr

How much none passenger baggage freight such as Amtrak Express does a typical train carry?


----------



## seat38a (Apr 8, 2016)

AmtrakBlue said:


> And only 4 ended up on their sides, not 5.


I'm sure, California will pay to have them fixed for a nice long lease term.


----------



## A Voice (Apr 8, 2016)

seat38a said:


> I'm still surprised the Superliner Coach / Baggage cars still isn't enough capacity that they need a dedicated baggage car.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not enough, frankly. Amtrak sort of threw out the baby with the bathwater when it gave up on the mail & express business, and that was a mistake. Any express shipments which do not unduly interfere with operation of the train contribute badly needed revenue to the bottom line.

In an ideal world (and passenger rail is very far from that!) Amtrak would acquire some specialized cars to handle express business, rather than trying to make it work "on the cheap" hauling boxcars at 79 mph.


----------



## afigg (Apr 8, 2016)

seat38a said:


> AmtrakBlue said:
> 
> 
> > And only 4 ended up on their sides, not 5.
> ...


Er, why? California will be getting a bunch of Nippon-Sharyo bi-level cars that the state will own. The new bi-levels will replace the Superliners leased from Amtrak and expand the CA fleet.


----------



## jis (Apr 8, 2016)

That's what I was thinking. California is about to return whatever it has leased from Amtrak in the bi-levels arena. It is almost inconceivable that they will now fund leasing additional Superliners from Amtrak. So I figured that seat38a was just being facetious


----------



## west point (Apr 9, 2016)

We can probably expect that there will be no more BAG-Coaches built. That being said maybe take those trains ( not routes if possible ) that have smaller loads and place 1 - 2 - 3 bag coaches on train and do not run a V-2 bag. Leaves spare V-2 bags for special needs.


----------



## seat38a (Apr 11, 2016)

jis said:


> That's what I was thinking. California is about to return whatever it has leased from Amtrak in the bi-levels arena. It is almost inconceivable that they will now fund leasing additional Superliners from Amtrak. So I figured that seat38a was just being facetious


Because of the constant delay of the new cars. The new bi level cars are becoming like Berlin's new airport. God only knows when it will be finished.


----------



## seat38a (Apr 11, 2016)

west point said:


> We can probably expect that there will be no more BAG-Coaches built. That being said maybe take those trains ( not routes if possible ) that have smaller loads and place 1 - 2 - 3 bag coaches on train and do not run a V-2 bag. Leaves spare V-2 bags for special needs.


They seems to be quite useful on split trains such as the Empire Builder. The bags for the PDX portion is stored in the coach baggage while the Seattle portion has the baggage car. I'm sure this is how they do it for the other trains that split up along the way like the Eagle and LSL. Not sure what they are going to replace the coach baggage cars on these routes when the wheel falls off the last of these cars.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Apr 11, 2016)

The Eagles are now running with a VLII Bag Car in the consist between CHI and SAS.


----------

