# Will Amtrak try to add cars if they see trains sold out in the future?



## Mike S. (Mar 18, 2008)

I guess it would be much easier if they had extra equipment around.

Hypothetical situation: An empire service train is completely sold out months in advance. Does this go off on someones radar?

To answer my own question, maybe, but they probably aren't going to scramble and extra car for one sold out train.

I guess that's the problem with a lack of equipment. If Albany had a stock of extra cars (say 4 or 5) they could add cars (or plan on it) in the future. In business, you've got to strike while the iron's hot. If somone see's that a train is sold out, they may find alternate routes.

Mike S.

PS- I guess I just want Amtrak to go out and by ~400 new passenger cars.


----------



## NapTown Jim (Mar 18, 2008)

Interesting question. I've always wondered if the sleppers sell out in advance if they'd add another sleeper car so they can sell more berths.


----------



## Mike S. (Mar 18, 2008)

Right, thinking along the lines of: If all the sleepers are sold out, lets plan on getting another one and at least try to sell more in the comming months.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 18, 2008)

The flip-side of the coin is that if they buy more cars, they will likely retire other cars. The new Viewliners, in the end, lowered Amtraks east-coast sleeper capacity considerably.

The Amfleet Is are over 30 years old. The Superliner Is are about the same age. Both are in need of replacement. If this was NJTransit, the cars would be history already. Put an additional 200 single level short-distance coaches in the system, and Amtrak would be less resourceful with keeping cars running. Meaning, you'd probably see 150 Amfleets kicked over to the scrapyard shortly thereafter.


----------



## haolerider (Mar 18, 2008)

Mike S. said:


> I guess it would be much easier if they had extra equipment around.
> Hypothetical situation: An empire service train is completely sold out months in advance. Does this go off on someones radar?
> 
> To answer my own question, maybe, but they probably aren't going to scramble and extra car for one sold out train.
> ...


I think this has been discussed in other threads over the years and it seems to me that the answers have always been somewhat negative about adding extra equipment if a sold out situatin is seen. The issues seem to be the question of whether or not the extra car(s) would be filled and if the actual demand is there to fill the extra equipment. There also is a staffing quesiton that centers around adding labor and taking the gamble that the coach or sleeper will fill and actually require an additional staff person. It seems to me that unless there is a specific event that is selling out the train, there probably will not be additional equipment added.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 18, 2008)

In addition to GML's response, which is probably what would happen, there are a few other things to consider.

One, this equipment costs a lot of money. While one always does need to have some spares sitting around for bad ordered cars, one doesn't want to be paying off a loan on a car that ends up seeing only 15 to 20 runs a year. That's hardly productive.

Second, adding equipment may also mean adding additional workers. I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but there are thresholds beyond which Amtrak must add another conductor to the train crew. And in the case of a sleeper being added, one of course needs another sleeping car attendant. Now Amtrak does have an extra board from which to pull staff, but again one still needs to be careful. After all what happens if they add three sleepers on a given day to trains out of one crew base and pull the three extra board attendants that they have, now on the day of departure another attendant calls in sick?

Third, you do add the sleeper because the existing ones sell out. Now you only sell one more room in the newly added sleeper, what do you do? Do you cancel that one reservation angering that person? Or do you run an empty car with one attendant for one passenger?

Four, you do add the extra car of whatever type to the train. Now the car is someplace else and you don't have the passenger load needed to send it back to where it should be held. You now have to waste money dead heading it back.

I'm sure that there are even a few other issues that I'm not thinking about right now. But regardless, the bottom line is that this isn't quite as simple as it sounds. There are a lot of things that need to be factored into any such plan.


----------



## jphjaxfl (Mar 18, 2008)

Prior to Amtrak, when Railroads operated passenger trains, it was common practice to add coaches and sleeping cars to trains during peak ridership periods. In the winter Railroads operating to Florida would lease cars from Western Railroads and vs versa. Even Railroads that weren't that customer friendly in the mid to late 1960s would add extra cars during the holidays and other peak periods. Often times older non streamlined cars from the 1920s would show up on trains. It also made train watching very interesting when cars from far distant railroads would show up. Unfortunately, there is not a huge pool of passenger train equipment now as there was back then. There also was a larger pool of passenger train employees to call from the extra board. Amtrak was suppose to solve some of peaks and valleys of passenger demand by being the one entity serving all of the US. Unfortunately, Amtrak has never been given the funds to have the resources they need to respond to passenger demand resulting in lost revenue and lost opportunity to gain new customers. The non commuter passenger equipment resources are the worst they have ever been in US history since passenger trains began.


----------



## AmtrakWPK (Mar 18, 2008)

And one more, BIG problem - with the changes/cutbacks in the diner system, and the resultant limited capacity, adding sleepers would be a huge problem vis-a-vis having the capacity of feeding all those additional sleeper passengers, plus further limiting the ability of coach passengers from helping the Amtrak financial bottom line by eating in the diner, as coach passengers have to pay for their meals, and they are NOT inexpensive. And in my own experience there has always been a reasonable number of coach pax for whom eating in the diner on an LD train is one of the highlights of their trip, and I could see losing a significant number of prospective future business from those folks when they are told "sorry, there is simply no space for you to eat in the diner". We already have the situation where, without adding additional sleeping cars, the "new and wonderful" dining car system has reduced "throughput", reduced the total capacity to feed people, such that sleeper pax have been given dining reservation seating times of 10 pm or later, which would be completely unacceptable to me. So if you are going to add sleepers or coaches, and sell a significant portion of those seats/rooms, SOMETHING would have to be done to significantly increase diner capacity on those trains. Amtrak has already shot itself in the foot on that issue, as far as I'm concerned, and adding more sleepers/coaches without fixing the diner capacity problem would be shooting themselves in a much higher location.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 18, 2008)

It is not a coincidence that the three trains that have higher-than-normal sleeper capacity (the Coast Starlight, the Empire Builder, and the Auto Train, are the three that don't run SDS.


----------



## Larry H. (Mar 18, 2008)

haolerider said:


> Mike S. said:
> 
> 
> > PS- I guess I just want Amtrak to go out and by ~400 new passenger cars.
> ...



I still think it would be interesting to know if were talking about a couple sets of passengers per train that aren't being able to purchase sleeping car space, or could it be that were turning away several sleepers worth of customers? I wonder who is anyone at amtrak keeps that data? As to the diner situation, perhaps if the trains were running with the old sets of four and five sleepers the crew expense compared to revenue would be a lot less? I just can't help but think I am not the only one out here getting "sold out" when attempting to choose a day to travel, sometimes for nearly months on end, if not half the year in some cases. Another factor here no doubt is the point that if your spending weeks trying to book a room you may just forget it and go some other way. So building up a passenger base is no doubt being eroded here just when people are seeking trains as a way to travel again..

I think it is a bit like some have said in other topics, if amtrak were run like a good hotel chain instead of a cheap motel things would be different. It all starts at the top in most cases, but the right people also have to be at the bottom. And although there are the stand out attendants and others, often you get less than satisfactory service for what your paying.. I don't think its the "well they have to be gone so long answer" I often see here, its a matter of hiring on a basis of what can the employee do to improve the publics traveling experience, not wish they hadn't done it.. Unfortunately too many are the latter. An please don't write as usual and say, well there not paid well.. Baloney, I dare say the cheapest pay is more than three times a year what I ever made, which is my fault, but it is not an excuse for poor quality workers.


----------



## TVRM610 (Mar 18, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> It is not a coincidence that the three trains that have higher-than-normal sleeper capacity (the Coast Starlight, the Empire Builder, and the Auto Train, are the three that don't run SDS.


Hmm...not sure if I agree. The Lake Shore typically runs 3 sleepers while the crescent only 2. The Lake Shore has Diner Lite, The Crescent has full SDS Diner.

Doest the Coast Starlight not have SDS? I thought it did but they were "improving" the diner this May.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 18, 2008)

TVRM610 said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > It is not a coincidence that the three trains that have higher-than-normal sleeper capacity (the Coast Starlight, the Empire Builder, and the Auto Train, are the three that don't run SDS.
> ...


The CS is indeed running SDS.


----------



## had8ley (Mar 18, 2008)

AmtrakWPK said:


> And one more, BIG problem - with the changes/cutbacks in the diner system, and the resultant limited capacity, adding sleepers would be a huge problem vis-a-vis having the capacity of feeding all those additional sleeper passengers, plus further limiting the ability of coach passengers from helping the Amtrak financial bottom line by eating in the diner, as coach passengers have to pay for their meals, and they are NOT inexpensive. And in my own experience there has always been a reasonable number of coach pax for whom eating in the diner on an LD train is one of the highlights of their trip, and I could see losing a significant number of prospective future business from those folks when they are told "sorry, there is simply no space for you to eat in the diner". We already have the situation where, without adding additional sleeping cars, the "new and wonderful" dining car system has reduced "throughput", reduced the total capacity to feed people, such that sleeper pax have been given dining reservation seating times of 10 pm or later, which would be completely unacceptable to me. So if you are going to add sleepers or coaches, and sell a significant portion of those seats/rooms, SOMETHING would have to be done to significantly increase diner capacity on those trains. Amtrak has already shot itself in the foot on that issue, as far as I'm concerned, and adding more sleepers/coaches without fixing the diner capacity problem would be shooting themselves in a much higher location.


Excellent observation that will probably be with us for some time to come.


----------



## frj1983 (Mar 18, 2008)

I wonder of some of the rooms being "sold out" happen more often on the East Coast Trains rather than on the West Coast? I do believe that many Viewliner Sleepers rooms are held by the crew thus cutting into the possible revenue that Amtrak could make. Do they each get their own individual roomettes? Or do they share? Does anyone know?

The real bugger here is how to treat the crew, should they even be getting individual roomettes? This may date me, but I remember traveling Amtrak in the 80's and at that time, each attendant got two seats together in the Coach and that was it, and they were spread out throughout the train. I keep thinking about those Superliner crew transition dorms and wonder if the original thinking was to offer the extra space when other sleepers sold out. I know that the crew did not like the idea of sharing a car with passengers. Does anyone know how they are currently being used?

And I also wonder if it might be smarter now, to plan on multi-space type cars(like the transition dorms) for the future?


----------



## AlanB (Mar 18, 2008)

frj1983 said:


> I wonder of some of the rooms being "sold out" happen more often on the East Coast Trains rather than on the West Coast? I do believe that many Viewliner Sleepers rooms are held by the crew thus cutting into the possible revenue that Amtrak could make. Do they each get their own individual roomettes? Or do they share? Does anyone know?


The lack of single level dorms is definately hurting sales on the East Coast trains. I believe on most trains, the Cardinal might be the exception, the crew now takes up six roomettes. They do indeed each get their own roomette, and even without considering the toilet situation, I tend to think that it wouldn't be fair to force them to share. Especially since it would be hard to avoid ending up with a male and female in the same room. So the only answer is to find, build, buy, or otherwise obtain some dorms.



frj1983 said:


> The real bugger here is how to treat the crew, should they even be getting individual roomettes? This may date me, but I remember traveling Amtrak in the 80's and at that time, each attendant got two seats together in the Coach and that was it, and they were spread out throughout the train. I keep thinking about those Superliner crew transition dorms and wonder if the original thinking was to offer the extra space when other sleepers sold out. I know that the crew did not like the idea of sharing a car with passengers. Does anyone know how they are currently being used?
> And I also wonder if it might be smarter now, to plan on multi-space type cars(like the transition dorms) for the future?


On most routes, although not all, the Superliner trans/dorms are selling rooms to the public. That was the original intention when those cars were built. In fact they were designed with that idea in mind, which is why they have an extra public shower. Only a few runs were ever made very early on where space was sold to the public. Then for years Amtrak hauled those cars around half empty. David Gunn saw the folly in that and rather quickly changed things such that again, on many routes rooms are indeed sold when needed.

And yes I would think that even single level dorms, if new ones are aquired, should have some provision for dividing the car and giving over part of the space to the public.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Mar 18, 2008)

AlanB said:


> One, this equipment costs a lot of money. While one always does need to have some spares sitting around for bad ordered cars, one doesn't want to be paying off a loan on a car that ends up seeing only 15 to 20 runs a year. That's hardly productive.


Sure, but how accurately can Amtrak predict how big its fleet should be? Demand keeps growing, even without adding routes, and there's desire to add more routes, and multi-year lead times on cars that Amtrak can't cost effictively order one at a time. If Amtrak's goal were to buy enough cars so that the least frequently used cars saw 15 to 20 runs per year, I suspect what would actually happen is either that they'd have a bunch of cars that did fewer than 5 runs per year, or else they'd find that every car saw at least 100 runs per year, and it would be impossible to predict in advance which would happen.

(I'm also assuming for the sake of argument that cars would be sorted in some order, and used youngest-car-first or something; it's quite possible that in practice the non-peak trips would be spread out over the whole fleet such that you'd have 100 cars that each get 100 trips a year fewer than they could have been used for had Amtrak sold more tickets.)

But if Amtrak were going to replace all the Amfleet cars for non-peak use, would it make sense to keep the Amfleet coaches around for extra cars during peak times? I gather they haven't been too agressive about scrapping some of the other older equipment. Amtrak wouldn't be paying interest on the Amfleet cars at that point if the question is whether to scrap them or to keep them for 20 runs a year, but there probably are some maintenance costs that relate more to the number of calendar days that pass than the number of miles of track covered.



AlanB said:


> Third, you do add the sleeper because the existing ones sell out. Now you only sell one more room in the newly added sleeper, what do you do? Do you cancel that one reservation angering that person? Or do you run an empty car with one attendant for one passenger?


While this is not an entirely trivial problem, I think it's solvable.

Amtrak could reserve the right to change room numbers that have been assigned, and could call passengers looking for one who's willing to change the date of their travel in exchange for a voucher good for future Amtrak travel worth half (or something, I'm sure there's some manager who would would figure out what the minimum voucher value needed to actually find a willing passenger) of the accomodation charge, and then the passenger who was going to have a car to themselves could get whichever room was freed up.

(The other complication there is that if the one room that did sell in the last car is one of the bigger types, you may find that the people who buy those rooms are less easily persuaded by a small financial savings, given that they were able to afford the larger room in the first place. But if the reservation system only guarentees the smallest room at that point, that might still work out.)

Or adding the sleeper could be done only at times well in advance of the trip when Amtrak can be reasonably sure it will sell out.



AlanB said:


> Four, you do add the extra car of whatever type to the train. Now the car is someplace else and you don't have the passenger load needed to send it back to where it should be held. You now have to waste money dead heading it back.


I'm curious, does the Auto Train typically have the same load going in both directions all year round?

The other question is what Amtrak's purpose is.

If its purpose is to make a profit, then it obviously should only carry 2/3 (or much less, probably) of the passengers who wish to travel in the circumstances that happen to be most profitable for Amtrak. But that's obviously not its sole purpose, because most or all of its routes would be gone if profitability were Amtrak's sole purpose.

The reason we fund Amtrak must be that we believe that providing affordable train service to people who want to travel somehow benefits our country. Perhaps making Boston <-> NYC and NYC <-> Washington, DC travel easier for business travelers is good for economy. Or whatever. But whatever the argument is for subsidizing Amtrak, it's possible tha making passenger travel affordable and accessible to Americans includes those Americans who happen to want to make last minute reservations on peak volume trains.


----------



## GG-1 (Mar 18, 2008)

Aloha

As Alan correctly pointed out the problems to add cars, but I sure wish Amtrak Management would do more to solve capacity problems. I at times feel upper management is way to typical of Government mentality, Just like the reputations of union managers.


----------



## had8ley (Mar 18, 2008)

GG-1 said:


> Aloha
> As Alan correctly pointed out the problems to add cars, but I sure wish Amtrak Management would do more to solve capacity problems. I at times feel upper management is way to typical of Government mentality, Just like the reputations of union managers.


Only one problem with this scenario; the Amtrak managers control where the money goes. I've yet to hear one Amtrak manager say "Boy, we should have thought that one out better!" (e.g., Express Trak that went no where and drained millions of bucks that could have bought revenue cars.)


----------



## sechs (Mar 19, 2008)

Isn't it Amtrak's current head that said something to the effect of, if they had Acela to do again, they'd definitely do it differently?

Maybe not learning from experience, but certainly recognizing an error.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 19, 2008)

sechs said:


> Isn't it Amtrak's current head that said something to the effect of, if they had Acela to do again, they'd definitely do it differently?
> Maybe not learning from experience, but certainly recognizing an error.


I'm not sure if Kummant has said anything like that, but David Gun sure did. He thought that Acela was one of the worst, ill conceived ideas in a long time. Both in terms of the trains brought and their inflexibility to be lengthened for demmand, as well as the marketing of Acela and its name.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 19, 2008)

David Gunn was a man who spoke his mind, often to the wrong people at the wrong time, unfortunately.

There are a lot of problems with ordering new cars. Budd left the passenger car business a long time ago. In anycase, the Amfleet design has a lot of faults, the primary one being its durability-above-all-else design. They ride like a bucking bronco. So the next fleet of short distance single level coaches probably won't be Amfleet variations, especially not that truck type. There are other problems, as well. Nobody builds cars like Budd used to. Amtrak is more than aware of that (the Acela is a great demonstration of modern train engineering thoroughness and build quality- or lack thereof.) So whatever replaces the Amfleets probably won't have the durability to last 30+ years.

Second, the proper cars to replace them probably don't exist, although I might suggest a varient of the Comet VI. That would probably be ideal, since the design exists, is being produced, and the order could be piggybacked onto NJTs. Plus they are high-capacity bi-levels that fit into NYP. However, if they don't go with the Comet VI, there are no current US cars that are massproduction types that would work for them- nobody currently makes US-compatible high-level platform cars capable of fitting into NYP. Which means the car needs to be designed, tooling needs to be made, and that costs money. You can order 1 to 10 cars, which would be hand built prototypes like what Colorado Railcar tends to build. Or you can order several hundred. Tooling up to mass produce cars is a major part of the cost.

Third, cars are damned expensive. Sleepers cost in the range of $3-4 million, and coaches, diners, and lounges aren't much cheaper. And as I said, the minimum order for cars seems to be about 50. So we're talking about a minimum cost of several hundred million. Amtrak has made very clear, additinonally, its desire to minimize car types. Probably it will run bi-levels, and single levels.

But lastly, the huge problem is the lack of sure-fire funding. If Amtrak does this, they will probably order about 500 cars, which means over a billion dollars. They need to be damned sure that money is in the bank and allocated before they sign a contract. The Viewliners were needed, but also, in retrospect, were a mistake, primarily because they didn't have the money to make the number of Viewliners they needed. And they really have only a few choices of car builders (Kawasaki, Bombardier, and maybe Alstom), because they need to make sure the builder isn't going out of business if it catches a headcold, the way AmRail, Budd, and Pullman-Standard did. And because of their iffy finances, I suspect the builders are wary of doing business with them.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 19, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> nobody currently makes US-compatible high-level platform cars capable of fitting into NYP.


Bombardier just got done making Comet V's for NJT, so I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't be that hard to gear back up to produce that frame with Amtrak specs inside.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 19, 2008)

That was over five years ago, no?

Also, Bombardier didn't build the Comet Vs, Alstom did. And NJT has had no end of problems with them. Bad suspensions causing excessive rocking, vibration issues, seat wear issues, constant door failures, a few breaking windows due to vibration caused by improper glass securing, and more. I don't know about Amtrak, but were I running a railroad, I'd want none of it. Anyway, the Comet VIs are better cars, especially capacity-wise.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 19, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> That was over five years ago, no?


I think that the last of the cars arrived about three years ago. I know that the 2003 budget included money for a supplimental order, so I'm guessing that they arrived either in 2004 or 2005.



Green Maned Lion said:


> Also, Bombardier didn't build the Comet Vs, Alstom did. And NJT has had no end of problems with them. Bad suspensions causing excessive rocking, vibration issues, seat wear issues, constant door failures, a few breaking windows due to vibration caused by improper glass securing, and more. I don't know about Amtrak, but were I running a railroad, I'd want none of it. Anyway, the Comet VIs are better cars, especially capacity-wise.


First, the jury is still out on the Bi-levels. They frankly haven't been in service long enough to see if they will hold up any better than the Comet V's.

Second, the Comet VI's are virtually useless to Amtrak. As a coach car you'd have severe issues with luggage, you'd almost have to devote the entire mid-level areas to nothing more than a walkway and luggage racks. For a cafe car it might work, beyond the afforementioned luggage problem for passengers seating on the upper level. And the cars definately won't work as sleepers, unless Amtrak does away with the upper bunks.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Mar 19, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Third, cars are damned expensive. Sleepers cost in the range of $3-4 million, and coaches, diners, and lounges aren't much cheaper.


I'm skeptical that an Amtrak coach is anywhere near as expensive per passenger mile over its lifetime as the typical automobile owned by the typical American.

If you assume that for the average track mile it covers, an Amtrak coach is loaded with 30 passengers, and the automobile is loaded with one, then a $3 million coach is equivalent to a $100,000 automobile if they last for the same number of passenger miles. Of course, automobiles are typically a lot cheaper than $100,000, but enough automobiles to last as many calendar years as that $3 million coach will last probably cost well over $50,000, and I bet that coach tends to get way more than double the daily mileage that the typical automobile does.

Then again, the automobile comes with the scaled down equivalent of a P42, and I neglected to factor that into the previous paragraph.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 19, 2008)

AlanB said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > That was over five years ago, no?
> ...


Wasn't suggesting them for sleepers. I was merely talking Regional cars, which I think they'd be fine for. Sleepers will have to be single level, obviously. They would work famously, however, as a Slumbercoach.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Third, cars are damned expensive. Sleepers cost in the range of $3-4 million, and coaches, diners, and lounges aren't much cheaper.
> ...


The more expensive a car you buy today, in general, the less long it is going to last. The reason is, the more expensive it is, the more expensive the parts, and its parts that kill cars these days. Nothing will ever again be as good as a late eighties/early nineties Mercedes. The car reached its zenith with the introduction of the Mercedes W124, and has been heading downwards since. Unless you are talking about a Morgan, no car you buy today is going to last more than 10 years.

Its cost per passenger is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the dollar amount, as approved by the Congress of The United States.


----------



## Guest_Yerry_* (Mar 24, 2008)

I'd hardly call the Viewliners a "big mistake". Way Back When, Graham Claytor had stated that if he had his way, they would have bought 75-100 sleepers, 25 duplex sleepers, 30 diner-lounges (apparently diner-lite wasn't that new of an idea) and 150 coaches. Amtrak ended up getting what would help their bottom line the most (not what they needed the most, which was food service cars). "Two potatoes for dinner is nice, but one potato sure beats no potato".

Nobody at Amtrak EVER said, "We now have Viewliners; let's scrap the old sleepers". Shortly after delivery of the sleepers, Congressional pressure and the DOT put an end to hopper toilets. With one fell swoop, Heritage Fleet was eliminated. Only a few baggage cars, diners and lounge cars (even those were gone shortly thereafter) remained. They just weren't able to retrofit them with chemical toilets for several reasons: space for equipment would have cut severely into revenue space, parts for the cars were pretty much unavailable commercially (and therefore had to be individually machined at Beech Grove), and even if modified, they were coming up on the deadline for either outright banning from certain host railroads or a requirement for recertification that involved expensive industrial x-raying, truck and brake replacement, and structural retrofitting.

Check out Beech Grove on Google Earth. THE HERITAGE FLEET CARS ARE GONE. All that's left on the North side of the facility is a very dark patch of land from all the lead & magnesium ash (byproduct of scrapping).


----------



## jis (Mar 24, 2008)

AlanB said:


> The lack of single level dorms is definately hurting sales on the East Coast trains. I believe on most trains, the Cardinal might be the exception, the crew now takes up six roomettes. They do indeed each get their own roomette, and even without considering the toilet situation, I tend to think that it wouldn't be fair to force them to share. Especially since it would be hard to avoid ending up with a male and female in the same room. So the only answer is to find, build, buy, or otherwise obtain some dorms.


Maybe they should take 18 Horizon cars, or Comets that NJT or MNRR or someone maybe ready to part with for cheap and convert them in house into Dorms, thus releasing all Viewliner accommodation for sale to paying passengers. These cars do not need to have a toilet in every roomette. They can be setup like Superliners and they would only have roomettes with common toilet facilities. Each single level consist would get one of these cars. The conversion cost may be substantially recovered from added sleeping accommodation sales on single level trains in 5 to 7 years? This will become more feasible if and when states start chipping in more for acquiring new cars/train sets for corridor service, so as to release old Horizon cars for other uses.


----------



## D.P. Roberts (Mar 24, 2008)

AlanB said:


> TVRM610 said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


Didn't the EB finally switch over to SDS as well?


----------



## AlanB (Mar 24, 2008)

D.P. Roberts said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > TVRM610 said:
> ...


No.


----------



## Guest_yerry_* (Mar 24, 2008)

JIS, I've often wondered that too. Even an older, depreciated Amfleet car that's been stored for a few years. ANd, why cant the kitchen equipment from the rebuilt diners be put into a new(er) Amfleet or Horizon? I'd take some work to get stuff to fit, but heck, farm the project off on some UIUC (Illinois) transportation Grad Student intern.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 25, 2008)

They were a mistake in the lack of foresight for the funding situation, not in concept.


----------



## jis (Mar 25, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> They were a mistake in the lack of foresight for the funding situation, not in concept.


Yes. as far as my recollection goes Amtrak wanted 100, they got funding for 50.


----------



## Sam Damon (Mar 25, 2008)

IMO, without a new rolling stock order, this discussion is pointless.

Amtrak management has demonstrated time and again, that aside from limited seasonal variation in the winter or summer months -- say, one coach or sleeper -- consist lengths *will not* vary. That is one reason we tend to see zero advertising of LD trains.


----------



## haolerider (Mar 25, 2008)

Sam Damon said:


> IMO, without a new rolling stock order, this discussion is pointless.
> Amtrak management has demonstrated time and again, that aside from limited seasonal variation in the winter or summer months -- say, one coach or sleeper -- consist lengths *will not* vary. That is one reason we tend to see zero advertising of LD trains.


I guess I don't see the relationship between a lack of consist change and the advertising of long distance trains. I don't know where you live, but there have been pretty consistent newspaper ads in the major cities across the country the past several months, there is advertising on Weather Channel and on the internet.


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL (Mar 25, 2008)

haolerider said:


> Sam Damon said:
> 
> 
> > IMO, without a new rolling stock order, this discussion is pointless.
> ...


Personally I don't think there is a need for any advertising when trains are almost always selling out.

I think they should stick to the Amfleet design since it is a proven design that already exists and modify it to fix the problems that have cropped up over the years. It also should be updated to be more modern and aesthetically pleasing, smooth sides like on the Superliners and a new paint scheme like on the Acelas or the Piedmont. Making the locomotives and cars match would be nice as well. Also there needs to be a design for an Amfleet Sightseer Lounge doesn't seem like this would be too hard just use glass from wall to wall at seat level and above. . Personally I think Amtrak should use all single level equipment to make logistics and equipment rotation simpler. I also would like to see all of the cars in the trainsets to have the same profile, the California sets look so much better than the eastern LD sets because of this, plus I'm sure aerodynamics are better and result in less fuel usage.


----------



## Larry H. (Mar 25, 2008)

What experiences I have had with amfleet I greatly prefer heritage, or superliner type cars. The amfleets on our short lines are the business/snack cars and they ride the worst of any, and have to short a ceiling levels. I hate having to duck every time I get in and out of my seat. They look really out of place with the other cars and engines. I agree that someone with some kind of design sense needs to make the consist look like they belong together instead of an after thought of throwing cars together. Too bad they can't go back to dedicated paint schemes to make your trip seem like your really riding on a different train. They may as well toss out the names, they mean absolutely nothing.. Just call em by the numbers.

Also the interior decor is amazingly sterile. There are many ways that cars could be made to look more like the fine cars of the past in seating and comfort, and wall decor, but none of that is considered any longer.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 25, 2008)

A sightseer Amfleet would be a bad idea. The Amfleet is a unitary design- the walls are integral to its structure. The glass area would compromise its structure.

The Amfleets inbound bearing trucks are awful. The design needs massive re-doing.

And Bombardier couldn't build them half as good as Budd could.


----------



## gaspeamtrak (Mar 26, 2008)

AlanB said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > nobody currently makes US-compatible high-level platform cars capable of fitting into NYP.
> ...


Bombardier has plants in Thunder Bay, Ontario and they have another plant in Lapocataire (sp)?,Quebec and they had the plant which is closed in Vermont.

I'm sure they could build these cars,viewliners,Superliners and more cars for the Acela's.

They are building 160 Go type bilevels cars for Montreal.

I think the Acela's should have at least 8 or possibly 9 or 10 cars on some sets with all that extra horsepower they have!!!

Bombardier builds some of the best cars in the world.

I have travelled many miles on Go Transits bilevels and as far as i'm concerned they are the best commuter cars in North America, and I'm not being a homer either. Those Gallery cars Chicago bought aren't even close on comfort and ride but that was all about politics in buying them.

Bombardier has the capicity now!!! Don't wait till its to late and there order books have a 5 year back log!!!

If the Canadian and American governments could get there act together and make one HUGE order and get a good deal on these cars instead of wasting 300 or 400 billion dollars they have spent in Iraq...Oops, I most be dreaming or taking drugs!!!


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL (Mar 26, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> A sightseer Amfleet would be a bad idea. The Amfleet is a unitary design- the walls are integral to its structure. The glass area would compromise its structure.
> The Amfleets inbound bearing trucks are awful. The design needs massive re-doing.
> 
> And Bombardier couldn't build them half as good as Budd could.


I knew the tubular shape was to help them be very durable cars but I still figured if you kept the shape and used thick glass with the same curvature between metal frames it would still hold the strength of the original design.

I agree they do ride rough compared to other cars but considering thats the last design built for LD service thats all we have to work with. Making and entirely new design will result in the same problems you have now with the existing Amfleets, you'll see many defects and flaws crop up overtime. I think we should pick a design or make a new single level design and continually revise it to take care of problems that arise. I think British Rail did something similar with the MK series cars. Something similar to the horizons would do, I've never ridden in one though so I don't know details, but they look like they are strictly designed for commuter/short distance service so I don't know how a similar design would do. I don't know how hard it would be to make a design based on the top level of the Superliners but I think a single-level Superliner would be a nice choice.

I always heard the rough riding was due to the weight more than the trucks but I do realize the Amfleets have very unique trucks compared to most North American equipment, I assume this was for the 125mph operating speeds.

As far as builders are there any builders in the US or Canada aside from Bombardier that could accommodate large orders and deliver them fairly quickly? I know there are a few smaller companies such as Colorado Railcar but I wonder how they would be able to handle a large order from Amtrak.

But no matter what is decided I would like to see the new cars be able to operate on all routes and on any route that may come in the future, single level Sightseer lounges, uniform consists profiles, sleek modern appearances (a nice looking train speeding through town is the best advertisement not to mention that its free).

Also weren't there designs in the Viewliner series for all car types? Is there any possibility of these being revised and used and is there any information on these designs?

When the time comes to buy new equipment a lot will have to be done to essentially build the first non-commuter rail cars for an American railroad since the Amfleets in the mid 70s. Its surprising to me that it has been over 30 years since any significant non-locomotive purchase has been made by Amtrak, aside from the specialty projects (Acela, Amtrak California, etc) almost no passenger equipment has been bought for Amtrak since the Amfleets.

I say there's no time to waste this is probably the most urgent need for Amtrak.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 26, 2008)

While it might be nice to have that "uniform" fleet, I think that it is highly unlikely that you'll ever see the entire fleet return to a single level height. I'm pretty sure that whatever Amtrak does in the future will see them continuing to buy both single level cars and bi-level cars. Yes Amtrak might save some money by not having to have two different types of parts on hand for the cars and they wouldn't have to train crews to both operate and fix both types of cars.

But those costs don't equal the costs of needing to buy more cars due to the lower capacity of the single level cars, and the lost revenue would be huge. A Viewliner sleeper can carry 30 pax, a Superliner 44. If we assume an average charge of $450 per room (I picked the mid range price of a roomette between CHI & LAX, but odds are that average is higher because of the bedroom prices) and multiply that by the number of rooms, that comes out to $6,750 revenue from one Viewliner sleeper and $9,450 from one Superliner sleeper.

That's a loss of $2,700 worth of revenue for the SW Chief on just one car, $5,400 for a two car train. Now multiply that by 2 trains per day, times 365 days and you get $3,942,000. That's lost revenue of almost $4 Million dollars for one route in just one year. Assume a 30 year lifetime for the car and we're now into over $100 Million in lost revenue, and again thats only for one route and that number doesn't include the potential lost revenue in coach, nor the railfare for those in the sleepers.

And again, buying two single level cars to replace one bi-level car will always be more expensive than just buying a new bi-level car. The numbers just don't add up IMHO and we'll never see all single level passenger trains again. If the numbers made sense for single level cars, Amtrak California and commuter ops would be buying single level cars. They aren't! In fact the LIRR and NJT basically stood on their heads trying to figure out how they could build a bi-level car that would fit into Penn Station NY.


----------



## VentureForth (Mar 26, 2008)

Crescent ATN & TCL said:


> As far as builders are there any builders in the US or Canada aside from Bombardier that could accommodate large orders and deliver them fairly quickly? I know there are a few smaller companies such as Colorado Railcar but I wonder how they would be able to handle a large order from Amtrak.


Aside from luxury dome cars, Colorado Rail Car can't seem to deliver much of anything, much less in quantities.

Funny thing about having a homogenous fleet. The federalized Japanese rail system (JNR) tried to keep costs in check by having most long distance trains look the same, most sleepers look the same, most commuter trains look the same, and even the Bullet Trains looked the same. Just before privatization, there were some attempts to 'modernize' the fleet, but it was very slow going. The new rolling stock looked nice, but almost exactly the same form, fit and function as the previous (there were exceptions).

When privatization finally took place, the National system became 7 companies. Some new stock was jointly developed and some were ordered specifically for a single route. Long story short, there are more varieties of rolling stock in Japan today than ever before. Personally, I sort of liked the homogenous fleet - it gave a sense of familiarity. You knew when you were on a JNR train or on a 'private' railroad just because of the rolling stock. But I really can't complain. There is much more to ride now and to take pictures of.

And, JR is still making money hand. Different business climate and market share issues, I'll grant that.

Whereas I think it would be cool for the Texas Eagle to look one way and the Downeaster look totally different, it would not be practical in today's environment. I think that the current two-systems is fine - single level sets for the NE and double deckers everywhere else. But I would also like to see reversible units (ie: P42 at each end of a trainset that uses more than one, rather than elephant style).


----------



## frj1983 (Mar 26, 2008)

gaspeamtrak said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


I'm not sure about the current relationship between Amtrak and Bombardier.

A few years ago they were suing each other in court over the Acela debacle and some not nice words were exchanged in the media between them. Now while money talks, I could possibly see Bombardier saying something like: "Amtrak? New Cars? take a flying leap and find someone else to build them...we're not getting involved with you again!" Then again as I said above, money might still talk! h34r:

10 days and counting until our trip begins on the CNO!


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Mar 26, 2008)

The MBTA Commuter Rail system is buying new bi-level coaches from Rotem (I believe the order was placed within the last few months). The MBTA has generally been running bi-level coaches out of South Station and single level coaches out of North Station; my understanding is that the last bridge that was too short for the bi-level coaches on the north side of the system went away years ago.


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL (Mar 26, 2008)

AlanB said:


> While it might be nice to have that "uniform" fleet, I think that it is highly unlikely that you'll ever see the entire fleet return to a single level height. I'm pretty sure that whatever Amtrak does in the future will see them continuing to buy both single level cars and bi-level cars. Yes Amtrak might save some money by not having to have two different types of parts on hand for the cars and they wouldn't have to train crews to both operate and fix both types of cars.
> But those costs don't equal the costs of needing to buy more cars due to the lower capacity of the single level cars, and the lost revenue would be huge. A Viewliner sleeper can carry 30 pax, a Superliner 44. If we assume an average charge of $450 per room (I picked the mid range price of a roomette between CHI & LAX, but odds are that average is higher because of the bedroom prices) and multiply that by the number of rooms, that comes out to $6,750 revenue from one Viewliner sleeper and $9,450 from one Superliner sleeper.
> 
> That's a loss of $2,700 worth of revenue for the SW Chief on just one car, $5,400 for a two car train. Now multiply that by 2 trains per day, times 365 days and you get $3,942,000. That's lost revenue of almost $4 Million dollars for one route in just one year. Assume a 30 year lifetime for the car and we're now into over $100 Million in lost revenue, and again thats only for one route and that number doesn't include the potential lost revenue in coach, nor the railfare for those in the sleepers.
> ...


Aside from NYP Tunnels what other height limits require the use of Amfleets? WIth all the double stack trains out there I can't imagine there being all that many other limitiations. I know from YouTube videos that there are bridges and other structures along the NEC that appear very low but It could just be the camera angle. Whats a good estimate of the cost to dig down to make clearance higher in the NYP tunnels? Also exactly how much extra clearance would be needed?

If Amtrak buys more double decker equipment it should be able to connect directly with single level equipment. It made sense for SantaFe with their bi-levels because they were made for specific trains and weren't going to ever going to interchange with other equipment. Colorodo Railcar's observation cars on the Alaska railroad are probaly the best examples of double and single level cars being used together. I think they would make good cars for Amtrak, I'm not sure of the capacity or estimated priice. They could be used for coaches and the upper level be 2nd class, regular coach be 3rd class and sleeper remain 1st class. Thsi still wouldn't solve the problem with height clearances but I think the best thing wold be to raise the clearance where it needs to be. It would be cheaper in the long run because it would allow ultimate flexibility in operation for both freight and passenger.

They could be called SuperViewFleets. :lol: They look like a Superliner, they have a good view and are compatible with Viewliners and Amfleets.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?...8843&nseq=2


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 26, 2008)

Colorado Rail Car's double decker trains are gigantuan and don't fit much of anywhere in the NEC by a lot. Also, they have a really long and telling history of business and financial problems.

Amtrak has had quite a few car purchases over the years. The Horizons (88?), the Superliner IIs (92?), the Viewliners (94-96?) and the Talgos. Not to mention the California cars.

Re digging the North Shore tunnels would be prohibitive. THE tunnel might be an oppurtunity to do something, but I recall there being catenary clearance issues as-well. I know they couldn't fit under the catenary in the station itself. The current trains barely do.

7


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL (Mar 26, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Colorado Rail Car's double decker trains are gigantuan and don't fit much of anywhere in the NEC by a lot. Also, they have a really long and telling history of business and financial problems.
> Amtrak has had quite a few car purchases over the years. The Horizons (88?), the Superliner IIs (92?), the Viewliners (94-96?) and the Talgos. Not to mention the California cars.
> 
> Re digging the North Shore tunnels would be prohibitive. THE tunnel might be an oppurtunity to do something, but I recall there being catenary clearance issues as-well. I know they couldn't fit under the catenary in the station itself. The current trains barely do.
> ...


I was just using theirs as an example of double decker cars that are compatible with single levels. Colorado Railcar doesn't appear to be in the position to deal with a large order anyway.

Those were mostly smaller purchases and or were for specialty services (Amtrak California, Talgo), there hasn't been a massive order since the Amfleets. I think all of those were around 50 or less units.

I didn't mean redig an entirely new tunnel, I meant remove the rails dig down into the track bed, then re-lay the rails to make the tunnel larger, I remember reading about a freight railroad doing this to accomodate double stacks. Personally I think we should try to standardize clearances throughout the railsystem. Something needs to be done because the longer they wait the more it will cost. Something on the magnatude of the Big Dig will be required though.

Here are a few questions I have;

Are there any other ways into to NYC? How do the freights go through NYC? Would it be posible to relocate the station and provide free connection to the subway?


----------



## PRR 60 (Mar 26, 2008)

Crescent ATN & TCL said:


> ..I didn't mean redig an entirely new tunnel, I meant remove the rails dig down into the track bed, then re-lay the rails to make the tunnel larger, I remember reading about a freight railroad doing this to accomodate double stacks. Personally I think we should try to standardize clearances throughout the railsystem. Something needs to be done because the longer they wait the more it will cost. Something on the magnatude of the Big Dig will be required though.


While your thought of enlarging the tunnels into New York would work with normal tunnel, you cannot enlarge the old PRR Hudson (North) River tunnels. (I'll call them the Hudson River tunnels so people born in the last 100 years know what I'm talking about.)

A classic tunnel is a bore through rock. That kind of tunnel can often be enlarged by digging down, or up, or even sideways to the extent permitted by geologic stability. Not so with the PRR, now Amtrak, tunnels under the Hudson River. The Hudson tunnels are actually cast iron pipes set in the riverbed. The circular iron tube withstands the considerable pressure of the water and river silt. The tunnels sit in fluid silt, not rock, so all the capability to withstand the water pressure comes from the iron tube. One critical aspect that permits the tube to withstand that pressure is being exactly circular with no discontinuities. If you cut or modify the shape of the tube in any way, it will fail. When you ride through those tunnels you are literally riding through a 24 foot diameter iron pipe set 25 feet below the bottom of the river in mud.

Any modification of the rail position must stay within the existing circular cross-section of the iron tube. Whatever fluff existed in that position was taken when the tracks were slightly lowered in the 1930's to permit the catenary to be installed. There is no room left to wiggle any extra clearance. Basically, the Hudson tunnels are what they are and they can either be used as-is or replaced.

By the way, next year will be the 100'th anniversary of the Amtrak tunnels into Manhattan. I hope Amtrak properly commemorates the event.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 26, 2008)

Crescent ATN & TCL said:


> Here are a few questions I have;Are there any other ways into to NYC? How do the freights go through NYC? Would it be posible to relocate the station and provide free connection to the subway?


PRR already answered the question of why they can't enlarge the tunnels, so I'll try to tackle these.

Freight trains no longer operate in Manhattan at all. IIRC, the last freight train ran into Manhattan in the early 70's. Limited freight service still operates in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx. There has been a push to return freight service to Staten Island and I think that it has been completed, but it might still be under reconstruction at this time, I'm just not sure at the moment.

Freight trains get to Queens and Brooklyn by one of two methods. One being car floats across the bay from New Jersey to Brooklyn. The second is via the Hell Gate Bridge between Queens and the Bronx. This is also how freight trains reach Long Island too.

I suspect, although I'm not positive, that full height bi-level cars could reach Penn via the Empire Connection. This is a modern tunnel that probably was built to the correct height. However, that still doesn't solve the problem of the catenary in the station. If the cars actually fit in the station, they'd still probably be so close to the wires that assuming they didn't actually knock them down, you'd have major arcing issues as the 12,000 volts of electricity jumps to the roof of the cars.

And then you'd still be stuck with the cars having only one way out, the way they came in. That would mean that you can't get the cars to Sunnyside for servicing, both mechanical and operational servicing items like cleaning & water.

Now it might be possible to build a new station, but at what cost? NJT is already looking at Millions of dollars for their new small station and two new tunnels under the Hudson. Amtrak would have to find and pay for the real estate to build a new station, build the new station, build four new tunnels, connections to the existing tracks in Queens and New Jersey, new subway connections, a new Empire connection, and probably a few other things that I'm not even thinking of. We're probably talking a budget that starts to rival the War on Iraq at this point.

And guess what, we still haven't fixed the catenary issues for the other 400+ miles of track between Boston and DC, some of which isn't even Amtrak owned. And we haven't fixed the tunnels in Baltimore which also can not clear a full height Superliner car.

It's simply not going to happen. Amtrak has so many other far more urgent and useful needs, and no hope of ever getting the volume of money that would be needed to accomplish getting full height bi-level cars into NYC.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Mar 26, 2008)

Crescent ATN & TCL said:


> Those were mostly smaller purchases and or were for specialty services (Amtrak California, Talgo), there hasn't been a massive order since the Amfleets. I think all of those were around 50 or less units.


The Acela trainsets are newer than the Amfleets, and I believe there are 80 business class cars plus 20 first class cars plus 20 cafe cars. That's a bit more than 50 units...


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 26, 2008)

As are the Superliner IIs.

I doubt Crescent ATN has been to NYP. Had he been to NYP, the impossibility of this would be apparent. In order to do this, they'd have to buy the MSG, and OPP. Then they'd have to knock them down. Then they'd have to raise the roof of a station thats close to 100 years old. By removing the entire station. Forget about buying more land in Manhattan. Moving the station to the Farley Building was knocked down on cost, and thats just rebuilding and rennovating a building 300 feet away that the tracks already run through. This would be a multi-billion dollar project, and those multi billion dollars could give Amtrak enough Amfleet replacements, Viewliners, and Superliners to meet every single route expansion NARP has ever dreamed about.


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL (Mar 27, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> As are the Superliner IIs.
> I doubt Crescent ATN has been to NYP. Had he been to NYP, the impossibility of this would be apparent. In order to do this, they'd have to buy the MSG, and OPP. Then they'd have to knock them down. Then they'd have to raise the roof of a station thats close to 100 years old. By removing the entire station. Forget about buying more land in Manhattan. Moving the station to the Farley Building was knocked down on cost, and thats just rebuilding and rennovating a building 300 feet away that the tracks already run through. This would be a multi-billion dollar project, and those multi billion dollars could give Amtrak enough Amfleet replacements, Viewliners, and Superliners to meet every single route expansion NARP has ever dreamed about.


I wasn't suggesting anything along those lines. I was thinking about digging out the floor of the station and tunnels and lowering the platforms to the new level. This could be done in segments so it wouldn't require a shutdown of the tunnels or station. Work will have to be done NYP in the future to raise capacity to meet future demands so something will eventually have to be done. Digging might involve relocating utilites but I doubt it would be as hard as creating a new station. Tunnels have been built under buildings for years it seems like the most logical solution to the space and height restriction problems.

I have been in and through NYP a number of times on the Cresecent, Regional and Acela.


----------



## PRR 60 (Mar 27, 2008)

Crescent ATN & TCL said:


> ...I was thinking about digging out the floor of the station and tunnels and lowering the platforms to the new level. This could be done in segments so it wouldn't require a shutdown of the tunnels or station.


Fot the reasons I stated above, the track level in the Hudson River tunnels cannot be lowered.


----------



## GG-1 (Mar 27, 2008)

PRR 60 said:


> Crescent ATN & TCL said:
> 
> 
> > ...I was thinking about digging out the floor of the station and tunnels and lowering the platforms to the new level. This could be done in segments so it wouldn't require a shutdown of the tunnels or station.
> ...


Aloha

There is an excellent book about NY Penn Station that details the construction of the Tunnels and the Station. The title is something like "Pennsylvania Station and Tunnels" Author is I think Fred Westing


----------



## jis (Mar 27, 2008)

Crescent ATN & TCL said:


> I wasn't suggesting anything along those lines. I was thinking about digging out the floor of the station and tunnels and lowering the platforms to the new level. This could be done in segments so it wouldn't require a shutdown of the tunnels or station. Work will have to be done NYP in the future to raise capacity to meet future demands so something will eventually have to be done. Digging might involve relocating utilites but I doubt it would be as hard as creating a new station. Tunnels have been built under buildings for years it seems like the most logical solution to the space and height restriction problems.


And what good will it do to get more headroom in the station when you still can't get anything taller into the station through any of its approaches? AFAIK the Empire Connection tunnel also has pretty much the same height restrictions as any of the other approaches into NYP. 14'6" is it.

The new tunnels under the Hudson as currently proposed will be able to accommodate somewhat taller equipment, but they will not connect into the current Penn Station according to the latest Supplementary DEIS.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 27, 2008)

jis said:


> AFAIK the Empire Connection tunnel also has pretty much the same height restrictions as any of the other approaches into NYP. 14'6" is it.


If that is indeed true, then that was a very silly and stupid decision on Amtrak's part. Yes, it may never be possible/practical to fix things within the station and the other approach tunnels, but to not build a new tunnel with today's normal clearances is just silly.


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL (Mar 27, 2008)

GG-1 said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> > Crescent ATN & TCL said:
> ...


New tunnels could be made and sunk into the river bed and the rest of the tunnel system be dug out along with all the other tunnels in and out of NYP.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 27, 2008)

:huh:

Do you have any clue what that would COST? The North River tunnels were a major engineering feat, one of PRRs many demonstrations of its might as a railroad to overcome the seemingly impossible. Building a tunnel under the Hudson would cost billions, all by itself. Raising the clearance in a place as huge as Penn station would cost additional billions. And for what?

To allow Amtrak, a small company (Think about this: it sees fewer riders in a year than NYC's subway sees in a week) the ability to buy a single set of equipment? And save a few million a year in maintaining and servicing equipment? Plus a tad more flexibility? And remember, Amtrak operating long distance trains isn't a given.

If and when NJT gets THE Tunnel built, Amtrak will have more than enough capacity in Penn. Also, LIRR is talking about transferring some of its service to GCT.


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL (Mar 27, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> :huh:
> Do you have any clue what that would COST? The North River tunnels were a major engineering feat, one of PRRs many demonstrations of its might as a railroad to overcome the seemingly impossible. Building a tunnel under the Hudson would cost billions, all by itself. Raising the clearance in a place as huge as Penn station would cost additional billions. And for what?
> 
> To allow Amtrak, a small company (Think about this: it sees fewer riders in a year than NYC's subway sees in a week) the ability to buy a single set of equipment? And save a few million a year in maintaining and servicing equipment? Plus a tad more flexibility? And remember, Amtrak operating long distance trains isn't a given.
> ...


At some point those tunnels and the entire platform/track/loading area in NYP will have to be redone. It would be easier now than in the future when NYC is bigger and more populated and when costs would be even higher. This is just one of the many examples where Amtrak and Congress focus on the short term day to day operation and not to the future. A lack of planning for the future is what is hurting Amtrak the most. If you know something is going to need to be replaced start looking for ways to do it even if its 10-20-30 or more years down the road. As far as the car situation goes an order should have been made long ago, I seriously wonder where they think they are going to get equipment for all these new services that are being studied, unless they plan on forcing the states that are supporting it to buy the equipment? If Amtrak keeps being run on the don't plan ahead wait until something is completely worn out or catastrophically fails we may see a day when the NEC shuts down for a few years because of a flood in the tunnels. I know they're built to last but they are 101 years old there needs to be some sort of plan if a problem is seen during an inspection and it becomes obvious that replacement is required. Amtrak and Congress need to work together to make a long term passenger rail plan that is constantly updated and tweaked as time goes on and set up an emergency reserve of funds in the case of such a disaster as tunnel flooding. I just feel like Amtrak has no interest in preparing itself for the future and is only concerned with the short term.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 27, 2008)

The likelyhood of those tunnels flooding is not all that high- they are a good distance under the river floor. Amtrak would love to have new equipment. Hundreds of new sleepers, coaches, diners, lounges, and so on. But Bush has kept asking for Amtrak to get nothing, or half, or a quarter, of what it needs, in order to operate. They are thinking short term, because they keep thinking, are we gonna be around for our 40th birthday?


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Mar 27, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> The likelyhood of those tunnels flooding is not all that high- they are a good distance under the river floor. Amtrak would love to have new equipment. Hundreds of new sleepers, coaches, diners, lounges, and so on. But Bush has kept asking for Amtrak to get nothing, or half, or a quarter, of what it needs, in order to operate. They are thinking short term, because they keep thinking, are we gonna be around for our 40th birthday?


they made it this far and with rider ship up they should be around longer sense they got a 5 year funding or something like that. maybe the next president will be Amtrak friendly


----------



## AlanB (Mar 27, 2008)

KISS_ALIVE said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > The likelyhood of those tunnels flooding is not all that high- they are a good distance under the river floor. Amtrak would love to have new equipment. Hundreds of new sleepers, coaches, diners, lounges, and so on. But Bush has kept asking for Amtrak to get nothing, or half, or a quarter, of what it needs, in order to operate. They are thinking short term, because they keep thinking, are we gonna be around for our 40th birthday?
> ...


The 5 year plan has not passed through Congress as of yet, and even if it does, Bush will almost certainly veto it unless Congress can hitch it to some other item (like maybe the war in Iraq) that Bush can't afford to veto.

Even if it does pass and get signed into law, it is still just a plan and a promise to consider actually providing Amtrak with the monies outlined in the plan. Each year of the plan, Congress still has to actually approve to spend the money in the plan.

Don't get me wrong, I support the plan. It helps to keep Amtrak in the minds of the politicians, makes it a bit harder for them to cut funding, and it will help Amtrak to do some tentative long range planning. But again, it doesn't guarantee that Amtrak is getting anything, not even a dime.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 27, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> If and when NJT gets THE Tunnel built, Amtrak will have more than enough capacity in Penn. Also, LIRR is talking about transferring some of its service to GCT.


THE Tunnel won't help capcity all that much in Penn. NJT isn't planning to give up sending trains to Penn when THE Tunnel gets built, NJT plans to start sending still more trains into NY City. Trains from the Raritan line, the Bergen line, the Main line, and the Pascak Valley line into NYC. Those trains will take up most of the capacity afforded by the new station that NJT plans to build. Therefore NJT will still want all the current capacity that they have at Penn for Midtown Direct, NJ Coast, and the NE Corridor.

Of course NJT may not necessarily send the trains to those respective destinations as I've outlined, but the point is that NJT doesn't plan to give up most of the slots that they currently have at Penn. They plan to keep them in addition to the new slots afforded by the new tunnels and the new station.

And the LIRR isn't giving up all that many slots either if and when they actually finish the East Side Access project to bring LIRR trains into GCT. The LIRR expects to increase service into NYC also, and what slots they aren't going to use at Penn are being considered for selected Metro North trains from the Hudson and New Haven divisions to use.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 27, 2008)

Crescent ATN & TCL said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > :huh:
> ...


I agree with GML, you're talking about Billions of dollars. Dollars that IMHO would be wasted.

Yes, at some point those tunnels may need to be redone. But I believe that we are many, many years away from that. If your replacing something like a tunnel that needs replacing and is maybe 10 to 15 years away from possible failure, sure it makes sense to start doing it now. To start replacing something that may well last another 50 to 100 years, if not more, at this time doesn't make sense. Yes it will cost more to actually replace it in the future, but over the long term it is still more wasteful and costly to start replacing it now.

As for Penn, they are constantly replacing track and switches and repairing the platforms. That however is nothing like the costs that would be incurred by trying to lower track levels and/or raise platforms and the ceiling to get taller trains into the station. The costs of this type of project would far outstrip the costs associated by maintaining a single level fleet and a bi-level fleet. It simply doesn't make sense for Amtrak to ever consider this idea.

Now yes, I agree that Amtrak needs to be thinking long term and not just short term. But their long term planning needs to be in things like new cars, better catenary, better service, more trains to more places and more frequent service to places. Spending billions to get Superliner sized cars into Penn IMHO should never be part of the plan, but if it is to be in the plan, then it needs to be the very last thing in the plan. Only when all of the other things that I've mentioned have been completed, should Amtrak start to look at changing Penn to get full height bi-levels into the station, if indeed a need for such improvements can be proved.


----------

