# New Sleepers



## NBCNewsGuy (Nov 17, 2008)

Do you know when we will see new sleeper cars?

Who is making them? Where will they be putting them?

What are the features?

Thanks!


----------



## PRR 60 (Nov 17, 2008)

Right now plans for new equipment are preliminary. There are no details available except that single-level equipment for east coast operations is the priority.


----------



## spacecadet (Nov 17, 2008)

I think it's unlikely that they'll be anything but Viewliners in basic design.

My guess: modified Viewliners with somewhat different interior configuration (the Viewliners are modular so this shouldn't be too hard) and built by somebody like Bombardier.

Don't forget also that they also want 15 diners and 75 baggage cars, so this will be part of a large order if it comes to pass. And I would think all of these cars would be the same base mechanical/exterior design.


----------



## Acela150 (Nov 17, 2008)

I have a friend who works in the purchashing of new equipment, he has mentioned that Amtrak is working into builders. He has also mentioned that the AEM-7's are going to be replaced in the next ten years. He has also mention about Amtrak purchasing more baggage cars and diners. Also more coaches for the east coast routes and more superliners.


----------



## MattW (Nov 18, 2008)

75 Baggage cars? Seriously? I didn't know that Amtrak was so strapped for baggage space, especially on the superliners.

From what I can gather though, the Viewliner isn't a well liked design. I like it cause of the odd-angle of the sides, but I just never got the idea that others liked it.

What are they thinking to replace the Amtoasters with? An independent version of an Acela power car? It'd make sense to me aesthetically cause you don't have the big depression in profile you do with the HHP-8s.


----------



## had8ley (Nov 18, 2008)

One major observation~ you don't have an over supply of car makers wanting Amtrak business anymore. Look at the legal snafus the Acela created and you'll see where I'm coming from. The Viewliners had legal problems also. So it looks like there won't be much choice of vendors if, and when, a car order is put out.


----------



## ralfp (Nov 18, 2008)

had8ley said:


> One major observation~ you don't have an over supply of car makers wanting Amtrak business anymore. Look at the legal snafus the Acela created and you'll see where I'm coming from. The Viewliners had legal problems also. So it looks like there won't be much choice of vendors if, and when, a car order is put out.


Rationalize the FRA safety standards and you'd have several companies waiting to sell Amtrak sleeper cars based on existing designs.

Given that sleepers have low passenger density and are a low volume item, such a move would make sense. Of course the FRA seems like it would rather kill off passenger rail than bend the rules a little.


----------



## spacecadet (Nov 18, 2008)

MattW said:


> 75 Baggage cars? Seriously? I didn't know that Amtrak was so strapped for baggage space, especially on the superliners.From what I can gather though, the Viewliner isn't a well liked design. I like it cause of the odd-angle of the sides, but I just never got the idea that others liked it.


The current Viewliners are "junk" as David Gunn put it. That doesn't mean it makes sense to build any other type of car at present.

Amtrak has learned a lot from the current Viewliners. It would be much, much easier and probably a lot cheaper to just incorporate what they've learned into a revised "Viewliner II" design than to start from scratch. And the Viewliners do have some features that make them pretty flexible, like the modular design and the extra height (I think they're a little more than a foot taller than the Amfleet cars). They're also the only type of modern single-level car Amtrak has that has actually been tested as a real diner. (The diner had some issues, but then it was considered a prototype. Now they can take what they learned and put it into production.)

The biggest thing Amtrak learned from the Viewliners is not to let Morrison-Knudsen build passenger cars for them. But that won't be a problem this time around.

As for the baggage cars, we were talking about that on railroad.net too - it does seem like a lot, but if you really break it down train set by train set, it makes sense. 75 cars would basically replace every baggage car they're currently using and leave a few for spares. But it's not a crazily excessive number.



> What are they thinking to replace the Amtoasters with?


I have heard the ALP46, although I don't know if that's true or not. I don't remember that they actually requested money for power for the next fiscal year, although they probably will soon if they didn't this time around.


----------



## had8ley (Nov 18, 2008)

spacecadet said:


> The current Viewliners are "junk" as David Gunn put it. That doesn't mean it makes sense to build any other type of car at present.


Not to debate Mr. Gunn but the junk has rolled for over a dozen years now. Either Amtrak has magicians at the shops or the Viewliners have some functional capabilities.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 18, 2008)

spacecadet said:


> > What are they thinking to replace the Amtoasters with?
> 
> 
> I have heard the ALP46, although I don't know if that's true or not. I don't remember that they actually requested money for power for the next fiscal year, although they probably will soon if they didn't this time around.


I hadn't heard that Amtrak had made any decisions on what to use as a replacement for the AEM-7's. I did hear one knowledgeable railfan suggest that the ALP46 would be a good choice, since they are well tested and perform quite admirably for NJT. And no designing or testing monies need be wasted by Amtrak; they just need to place an order.


----------



## spacecadet (Nov 18, 2008)

had8ley said:


> spacecadet said:
> 
> 
> > The current Viewliners are "junk" as David Gunn put it. That doesn't mean it makes sense to build any other type of car at present.
> ...


They have also had some major problems that other cars in the fleet have not.

And many of their features have been changed/removed because they didn't work (heating system, coffee makers, door locks, etc.). Some of these things may have been Amtrak's fault, but ask almost anybody familiar with these cars and they'll tell you that they're just not built all that well.

I know the one time I've ridden in one the door rattled so badly that I had to prop it shut with my shoes, and the heating system died in the middle of the night and was out for the rest of the trip. (I found out recently that this was not an isolated problem.)


----------



## AlanB (Nov 18, 2008)

had8ley said:


> spacecadet said:
> 
> 
> > The current Viewliners are "junk" as David Gunn put it. That doesn't mean it makes sense to build any other type of car at present.
> ...


Well to hear member Miami Joe talk, the cars did have their problems and there were definately things that could have and should have been done better, but he also didn't consider them a pile of junk either. And since Miami Joe is an electrician in Hialiah working on the Viewliners, I'd say his opinion is one that counts. Sadly we haven't seen Joe around here now for a while, hopefully he's still ok.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 18, 2008)

spacecadet said:


> They have also had some major problems that other cars in the fleet have not.
> And many of their features have been changed/removed because they didn't work (heating system, coffee makers, door locks, etc.). Some of these things may have been Amtrak's fault, but ask almost anybody familiar with these cars and they'll tell you that they're just not built all that well.


The original coffee makers were replaced because people were burning themselves on the coffee pot and/or by spilling coffee while pouring it, not because they didn’t work. Now the replacement coffee pots have had an astounding failure rate.

As for the door locks, they worked just fine. They were replaced in large part because the parts and time involved to fix them when they did break was too costly. Yes there were people who had trouble understanding how to open the door at times, but that wasn't the fault of the lock so much as it was either not maintaining them properly or people just not understanding how to open the door.

The same can be said of the shades in the Viewliner. They were vastly superior to the curtains, both in terms of blocking the light and ease of use. However, when they did fail, the parts and labor to replace them was too costly. Curtain takes only a few minutes for a shop to replace. It was a cost cutting initiative that lead to their demise, not a failure of the component.

And this is the first time I've heard of the heating system being replaced. I know that the cars are prone to freezeup's, but I hadn't heard that they had replaced the heating system and I'm not sure that's at all related to the freezeup issue.


----------



## barbark (Nov 18, 2008)

Wonder if that is the reason I saw a long long row of baggage cars at the Beech Grove facility yesterday? Repair or Replace?


----------



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

Acela150 said:


> He has also mentioned that the AEM-7's are going to be replaced in the next ten years.


Don't those have Budd shells, and doesn't Green Maned Lion claim that Budd shells will last forever?

Also, is there any thought being given to coordinating this with building a higher bridge over the Connecticut River (or getting the Framingham to Springfield tracks transfered from CSX to passenger railroad ownership and electrified and probably double tracked) and placing a larger order for electric locomotives based on the idea of running more trains through to Boston?


----------



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

spacecadet said:


> My guess: modified Viewliners with somewhat different interior configuration (the Viewliners are modular so this shouldn't be too hard) and built by somebody like Bombardier.


If the interior configuration is modified in a way that makes them non-interchangeable, that means that probably several will be ``wasted'' by various sorts of operational overhead.


----------



## John Bredin (Nov 18, 2008)

spacecadet said:


> I think it's unlikely that they'll be anything but Viewliners in basic design.
> My guess: modified Viewliners with somewhat different interior configuration (the Viewliners are modular so this shouldn't be too hard) and built by somebody like Bombardier.
> 
> Don't forget also that they also want 15 diners and 75 baggage cars, so this will be part of a large order if it comes to pass. And I would think all of these cars would be the same base mechanical/exterior design.


If Amtrak is going to buy something from Bombardier, then the quickest route from funding becoming available to cars in actual service would be to have Bombardier manufacture its existing commuter car designs but with intercity-friendly interiors: coaches with fewer seats for more legroom, food service cars, and sleeping cars.

That way, instead of a one-off order from scratch, Bombardier uses its existing manufacturing facilities on an existing (except for the interior) design, resulting in:

*less-expensive cars, and

*the ability to buy more of the same in the future as more funding becomes available, rather than a long lead time for new design.

Bombardier makes a bilevel car useful for the Western corridors and long-distance routes -- Amtrak needs more corridor cars *and* long-distance cars -- but also a "multilevel" car for New Jersey Transit that operates on the Northeast Corridor and thus could be used on the Eastern "single level" corridor and long-distance trains.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Nov 18, 2008)

The Bombardier NJT Multilevels might make sense for a food service car- especially a full diner. They don't make sense for a coach because there isn't enough baggage storage in the racks. They don't make sense for sleepers because there is no room for an upper bunk. They also are not handicapped accessible enough,


----------



## AlanB (Nov 18, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Acela150 said:
> 
> 
> > He has also mentioned that the AEM-7's are going to be replaced in the next ten years.
> ...


That doesn't mean that the motors and electronic equipment inside lasts forever. And I'm not sure if they do or don't have a Budd shell.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> Also, is there any thought being given to coordinating this with building a higher bridge over the Connecticut River (or getting the Framingham to Springfield tracks transfered from CSX to passenger railroad ownership and electrified and probably double tracked) and placing a larger order for electric locomotives based on the idea of running more trains through to Boston?


Haven't heard of any plans to build a higher bridge over the CT river and I'm not sure if there is enough land available and distance to build a climbable grade to a high level bridge over the CT river. There wasn't in New London, which is why they didn't build a high level there. Cost had a hand in that decision too, but the real issue was the grade.

As for going the other way, you've got a lot more to deal with than just getting the CSX tracks and electrifying them. You've got to electrify the existing T portion, you've got re-electrify the New Haven to Springfield section, you need to double track some areas of the New Haven-Springfield section as some areas have been reduced to single track.

So we're talking a very big budget project here.


----------



## John Bredin (Nov 18, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> The Bombardier NJT Multilevels might make sense for a food service car- especially a full diner. They don't make sense for a coach because there isn't enough baggage storage in the racks. They don't make sense for sleepers because there is no room for an upper bunk. They also are not handicapped accessible enough,


1) Amtrak could sacrifice one seat pair per coach, or on each level of the coach, for a luggage rack.

2) No room for an upper bunk is not insurmountable. The cars could feature *real* roomettes -- one-person compartments -- which a lot of people have been advocating for a long time and would be particularly appropriate in the East (bring back the Night Owl!). As for two-person bedrooms, the beds could be side-by-side.

3) Explain how they are not accessible enough. Clearly, there's some accessible seating area and an accessible washroom on these cars or they wouldn't be ADA compliant. Do you mean:

* there isn't enough accessible seating,

* it's inappropriate for a long trip,

* there isn't an accessible path between cars (to the cafe or dining car, for instance),

* the accessible portions of the car aren't big enough to fit a sleeping compartment,

or some combination of these?

I'm asking sincerely, not sarcastically, because I am not familiar with the layout of these cars except what can be gleaned from the Bombardier website and a few other pictures on the Web.


----------



## RailFanLNK (Nov 18, 2008)

I was at a Pro Rail Nebraska meeting this weekend and Marc Magliari from Amtrak was there. He pretty much put up the numbers that Amtrak needs to work on when it comes to equipment it already has. Alot of the Reauthorization Plan is for debt payoff, NEC maintence issues, repairing cars they already have then new equipment. Some of the baggage cars are from 1946 and some diners not that much younger than that. He says, " that we have to fabricate parts on a monthly basis for cars like these where theres no parts left". Fabricating them is more expensive. He also showed a stat that showed "late" trains cost the company $140 Million last year. With hotels, buses, food vouchers, he also said this figure had nothing to do with the lost revenue of the passenger who will never ride Amtrak again because they were 9 hours late. It was an intresting time listening to him speak.


----------



## had8ley (Nov 18, 2008)

AlanB said:


> had8ley said:
> 
> 
> > spacecadet said:
> ...


Just to add to "in the know" list maybe OBS Gone Freight could add some light on the subject. It seems like he worked the Silver Service quite a bit and would have had some experiences, whether they be good or bad, with Viewliner cars.


----------



## wayman (Nov 18, 2008)

RailFanLNK said:


> Alot of the Reauthorization Plan is for debt payoff, NEC maintence issues, repairing cars they already have then new equipment. Some of the baggage cars are from 1946 and some diners not that much younger than that. He says, " that we have to fabricate parts on a monthly basis for cars like these where theres no parts left". Fabricating them is more expensive.


The Reauthorization Plan is great but, as you say, not going to have much if anything to do with increasing their fleet. But the separate Durbin-sponsored "Train CARS Act" (whatever the stupid acronym stands for!) bill, which I believe is yet to be voted on in the Senate much less passed on to the House, is specifically to authorize funding for more equipment. Let's hope it passes!

Last time I saw the Crescent (19, at Lynchburg in early August) it was carrying a baggage car which looked odd to me--one center door, and some clearly filled in windows. I had about five minutes to chat with the baggage handler while passengers entrained after he was done with his baggage duties, and he told me it--and a growing number of Amtrak baggage cars--were converted Heritage coaches. The single door was not only in the center of the car, but rolled up into the car like a garage door instead of sliding to the side. While I couldn't make out the lettering in the dark on this car, he said on many of the cars you can still faintly read "Union Pacific" above the (former-)window line. So yes, they are really hurting for baggage cars. Surprised me too.

Here's a photo of that car, as the Crescent started pulling out--apologies for blurriness, it was a short exposure at 10:00 PM.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Nov 18, 2008)

AlanB said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > Acela150 said:
> ...


They do. But as you said, the electronics won't last forever. I'd say they'd be better off completely rebuilding the electronics, unless they can somehow figure out how to let Bombardier build Amtrak some ALP-46As from the former AdTranz/Daimler-Benz plant in Germany.



John Bredin said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > The Bombardier NJT Multilevels might make sense for a food service car- especially a full diner. They don't make sense for a coach because there isn't enough baggage storage in the racks. They don't make sense for sleepers because there is no room for an upper bunk. They also are not handicapped accessible enough,
> ...


They are cramped as heck. I mean you can fit a small briefcase in the upstairs luggage rack. There is no downstairs luggage rack. They are difficult for very tall people to walk in. As a commuter coach, the design is workable. But not for long distance travel. You can't walk through the cars, you have to constantly go up and down the stairs. Again, for a commuter coach where people generally stay put end-point to end-point, this is fine. But its entirely untenable for longer-distance work.

As a diner? Sure, kitchen on the lower level, dining seats on the upper level. Remove the luggage racks, people only sit there for an hour, its the only car of its type in the train, etc. Sure, why not? But for anything else, its not suited to it.


----------



## spacecadet (Nov 18, 2008)

John Bredin said:


> Bombardier makes a bilevel car useful for the Western corridors and long-distance routes -- Amtrak needs more corridor cars *and* long-distance cars


http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/testimony/102908...seRailroads.pdf

Everybody should read what Amtrak is actually requesting. The corridor cars are coming from the refurbishment of 80+ Amfleet cars that are currently stored. The new cars are *all* for LD. And they specify "single level" cars. (You can debate whether they meant that literally or not; my thinking is they did, for a variety of reasons.)

btw, I was wrong that they had not requested power. They did.


----------



## wayman (Nov 18, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> As a diner? Sure, kitchen on the lower level, dining seats on the upper level. Remove the luggage racks, people only sit there for an hour, its the only car of its type in the train, etc. Sure, why not? But for anything else, its not suited to it.


I agree, those bi-level cars might make great diners for the east-coast (NYP-constrained) routes. (And they would make lousy everything-elses.) Much as I hate to see the Heritage diners go, they could get 50 new diners this way relatively quickly and relatively cheaply--several years quicker and a lot cheaper than if they design the whole dining car from scratch, I would think. And then by replacing the entire Heritage diner fleet at one go, they'll save a lot on maintenance costs (and maintenance shop/personnel time) which can in turn be applied to increased maintenance on the rest of the single-level fleet until new sleepers (designed from scratch, taking longer) come into service.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 18, 2008)

wayman said:


> And then by replacing the entire Heritage diner fleet at one go, they'll save a lot on maintenance costs (and maintenance shop/personnel time) which can in turn be applied to increased maintenance on the rest of the single-level fleet until new sleepers (designed from scratch, taking longer) come into service.


No need to design new sleepers from scratch, the Viewliner design is perfectly viable and IMHO a very nice design. If there is anything wrong with the Viewliners overall, beyond the toilet issue that bugs some, it's simply the fact that better quality parts and components needed to be used. But the shell and overall design of the cars are just fine if one has a quality builder and quality parts.


----------



## wayman (Nov 18, 2008)

AlanB said:


> wayman said:
> 
> 
> > And then by replacing the entire Heritage diner fleet at one go, they'll save a lot on maintenance costs (and maintenance shop/personnel time) which can in turn be applied to increased maintenance on the rest of the single-level fleet until new sleepers (designed from scratch, taking longer) come into service.
> ...


Who owns the intellectual property of the Viewliner designs? Does Amtrak own them outright, or did Morrison-Knudson (and hence now whomever received their IP upon their demise)? Basically, is it trivial or messy to give those designs directly to another manufacturer?


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL (Nov 18, 2008)

wayman said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > wayman said:
> ...


I think Amtrak bought the designs of all of its current equipment as the builders went out of business, this obviously doesn't apply to the Acelas or other equipment built by companies still in existence. Since Amtrak had a large part in the designs of all of its equipment it probably has a certain portion of the rights on everything.


----------



## cpamtfan (Nov 18, 2008)

Amtrak owns the rights to build the Viewliners. I hope if they do end up getting new VL sleepers that they're stronger than they currently are. I also like the bi-level diner, but theres only one problem, how would a handicaped person (i.e. in a wheelchair) access the lounge car?

cpamtfan-Peter


----------



## wayman (Nov 18, 2008)

cpamtfan said:


> Amtrak owns the rights to build the Viewliners. I hope if they do end up getting new VL sleepers that they're stronger than they currently are. I also like the bi-level diner, but theres only one problem, how would a handicaped person (i.e. in a wheelchair) access the lounge car?
> cpamtfan-Peter


Good point. I haven't had a chance to ride these cars on the NJT yet (looking forward to that in the coming months) to see how the level-changes are configured (though obviously with stairs, from the sound of things). Then again, how do chair-using passengers on Superliners get to the cafe or diner? There's simply no way, if they're in a lower-level coach seat or a lower-level sleeper accommodation. So I guess whatever rules govern (and allow) that for the Superliners would also apply here?


----------



## AlanB (Nov 18, 2008)

cpamtfan said:


> I also like the bi-level diner, but theres only one problem, how would a handicaped person (i.e. in a wheelchair) access the lounge car?


Someone in a wheelchair who is incapable of leaving it for even a short period of time currently can't get to the dining car, much less the lounge car. The only exception to that rule would be if one managed to get the H room in a Viewliner that was orientated so that the H room faced the dining car. Then and only then would they be able to get into the diner without leaving their wheelchair. The lounge would still be out of the question, as the wheelchair won't fit down the hall past the kitchen.

So other than that rare occasion when one not only gets the H room in the sleeper nearest the diner and finds the car properly orientated, would a multi-level car create a problem.

That said, I'm still not personally convinced that using the NJT multi-level design for a dining car is a good idea. Yes it does greatly increase the seating capacity of the diner, but I suspect that the car may still be too cramped to function properly.


----------



## Crescent Mark (Nov 18, 2008)

I personally REALLY like the Heritage diners...the classic feel of the interior is excellent. I'd be supportive of a new Viewliner diner. The interior picture(s) I've seen of the "prototype" were great with the huge windows. Possibly a design based on that, with some upgrades would be good. Viewliner II sleepers and lots of baggage cars as well.

I guess they are really lacking with the baggage cars. Here is a picture from my trip to Raleigh from Charlotte on the Carolinian in late July of this year. When I saw it I was surprised at how bad the condition of it looks. The paint is falling off, etc. I'm sure it's really really old.







Anyway, I would like to see the Silver Services, Crescent and a few other East Coast routes get the dome cars back! In this America By Rail video I have, it covers the Capitol Limited from DC to Chicago (back when it used single level equipment) and the dome car on that was great. Why were they taken out of service? Unpopular? Hard to maintain? I think if you'd stick a few of those on each of the single level routes, it'd be a huge hit. I'm pretty sad they removed them all except the one Great Dome.

This is a REALLY old picture but these are the cars I'm talking about:






http://www.morscher.com/rr/1988/19880522_06.jpg

http://www.morscher.com/rr/1994/19940701_07.jpg

Does Amtrak have no interest in them anymore? Are they not that profitable?


----------



## George Harris (Nov 18, 2008)

ralfp said:


> Rationalize the FRA safety standards and you'd have several companies waiting to sell Amtrak sleeper cars based on existing designs.
> Given that sleepers have low passenger density and are a low volume item, such a move would make sense. Of course the FRA seems like it would rather kill off passenger rail than bend the rules a little.


Before suggesting this, better know what the differences are. The major objections to the current FRA standards come from foreign, mostly European suppliers that would like to send us their vehicles without any modifications. There is no real need to bend the rules.

Alan, I don't know what rebuilding the Connecticut River Bridge at Old Saybrook has to do with new equipment, but a higher level bridge would be quite feasible. I beleive that the clearance requirement is only about 50 feet, so you would be looking at going up about 40 feet or so and then back down similarly, which even with long vertical curves could be done in a little under two miles for the total relocation. The replacement bridge itself would be quite long, as a lot of the current fill is in "wetlands" so any offset in alignment, which would be necessary to get the grade change while keeping the existing in service, would have to be on structure.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 18, 2008)

George Harris said:


> Alan, I don't know what rebuilding the Connecticut River Bridge at Old Saybrook has to do with new equipment, but a higher level bridge would be quite feasible. I beleive that the clearance requirement is only about 50 feet, so you would be looking at going up about 40 feet or so and then back down similarly, which even with long vertical curves could be done in a little under two miles for the total relocation. The replacement bridge itself would be quite long, as a lot of the current fill is in "wetlands" so any offset in alignment, which would be necessary to get the grade change while keeping the existing in service, would have to be on structure.


George,

I'm not sure what the bridge has to do with new cars either, I was just responding to another post.

As for the bridge, one doesn't have two miles of approach between the bridge and populated areas, at most one has a mile between the last crossing of a road (be it at grade or not) and the river. There's only a mile and a quarter from the Old Saybrook station to the bridge, and I'm not sure just how much residential stuff there is in the area, but I do believe it's considerable. So I'd expect howls of protest from those who live nearby.


----------



## wayman (Nov 18, 2008)

Crescent Mark said:


> I personally REALLY like the Heritage diners...the classic feel of the interior is excellent. I'd be supportive of a new Viewliner diner. The interior picture(s) I've seen of the "prototype" were great with the huge windows. Possibly a design based on that, with some upgrades would be good. Viewliner II sleepers and lots of baggage cars as well.


Oh, I whole-heartedly agree: Heritage diners are one of the great perks of the Crescent for me (and the source of my fondest memories of the LSL). I only suggest the bi-level diners on the assumption that they could be produced in, say, 2-3 years rather than 4-5, and at the rate the Heritage diners seem to be removed from revenue service over the last couple years (and replaced with diner-lites) coupled with the bizarre ongoing move to CCC's on the Superliners, I'm worried that those few years might be critical to maintaining full dining car service in the East as opposed to a "temporary" downgrading of Silver and Crescent meal service to diner-lites.



> Does Amtrak have no interest in (dome cars) anymore? Are they not that profitable?


Well, if they're run as lounge cars available to all passengers their profit is an intangible unless they completely replace the existing lounge cars (in which case their profit is basically food-sales). If they're run as coaches, then they're just a more expensive version of a coach car available only to passengers lucky enough to snag a coach seat there. When multiple railroads are competing with each other for passengers on a given route (eg, California Zephyr versus City of San Francisco), the marketing appeal of a dome car can make a huge difference in ridership; when you're the only railroad, not only cornering the market but also running near-capacity as Amtrak is these days, there's no way adding dome cars can effective _increase_ demand. I imagine the Silvers, Crescent, and LSL revenue wouldn't really be helped by a dome car, and out west the Sightseer Lounge sort of fills that niche already. Whereas more coaches and sleepers would allow for increased ridership and directly produce a lot of revenue if the current demand continues or increases (as we project it will).


----------



## ralfp (Nov 18, 2008)

George Harris said:


> Before suggesting this, better know what the differences are. The major objections to the current FRA standards come from foreign, mostly European suppliers that would like to send us their vehicles without any modifications. There is no real need to bend the rules.


Of course they'd like to sell their cars 'as is'... modifying them to FRA specs, plus assembling them in the US, would add to the cost, increase risk, and lower profits. That's why one negotiates. I imagine that there might be a few FRA specs that would cost a lot to follow, yet do little to improve safety. You never know unless you ask.


----------



## Alice (Nov 18, 2008)

wayman said:


> > Does Amtrak have no interest in (dome cars) anymore? Are they not that profitable?
> 
> 
> Well, if they're run as lounge cars available to all passengers their profit is an intangible unless they completely replace the existing lounge cars (in which case their profit is basically food-sales). If they're run as coaches, then they're just a more expensive version of a coach car available only to passengers lucky enough to snag a coach seat there. When multiple railroads are competing with each other for passengers on a given route (eg, California Zephyr versus City of San Francisco), the marketing appeal of a dome car can make a huge difference in ridership; when you're the only railroad, not only cornering the market but also running near-capacity as Amtrak is these days, there's no way adding dome cars can effective _increase_ demand. I imagine the Silvers, Crescent, and LSL revenue wouldn't really be helped by a dome car, and out west the Sightseer Lounge sort of fills that niche already. Whereas more coaches and sleepers would allow for increased ridership and directly produce a lot of revenue if the current demand continues or increases (as we project it will).


The Denver Post runs a Dome Car for Cheyenne Frontier Days every year. They charge extra for the upper level Dome seats, with no extra amenities other than location.


----------



## jis (Nov 18, 2008)

AlanB said:


> spacecadet said:
> 
> 
> > > What are they thinking to replace the Amtoasters with?
> ...


If it is anything based on the ALP-46 platform it will have to be something along the lines of the ALP46A that NJT has ordered, since those are the only ones that have 125mph capability, which I assume would be a basic requirement for a Am-toaster replacement. The other possibility is to do a AC rebuild of the remaining DC Am-toasters, which might be cheaper and give the same capability as the AEM-7ACs.

If the choice is the ALP-46A Indeed this would be a good time to place such an order since it could be placed as an add-on to NJT's relatively large order and options combo thus saving considerable money possibly.


----------



## MattW (Nov 18, 2008)

Why doesn't Amtrak drag the old Turboliners out from behind Super Steel (or wherever they're currently stored) and use those for some daylight-only routes? Or is there some legal crap with NYDOT that would have to be settled first?


----------



## Rob_C (Nov 18, 2008)

Question: Are

 people are suggesting as a basis for a diner for trains in and out of NYP? I gather they are *just* low enough to fit under the wires? How much shorter are these than the Superliners and how the heck can they fit two floors on em with any reasonable ceiling? (sorry west coaster here with only one trip to NYP ever!)
Aside from the doors at the ends rather than the center, how different are these builds from the original Bombardier bi-levels?

I have to agree, the Viewliner Diner and sleepers makes a lot of sense without working off another existing build like the commuter cars. Probably won't happen, but a viewliner version of the sightseer lounge would make the east coast trains a lot more attractive to those of us that grew up with the sightseers.

Those my cents.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 18, 2008)

Rob_C said:


> Question: Are



No, that's a Long Island RR bi-level card. although they are similar to NJT's. NJT's cars I think are an inch shorter and they have tapered ends to avoid scraping the tunnel walls as they hit the switches at the tunnel mouth of the Hudson River tunnels.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "original" Bombardier bi-level, but the NJT ones are actually tri-level or as NJT like to call them, Multi-level. They actually have three levels. One enters at one or the other end of the car at a level that meets a high level platform. There are a few seats at that level, as well as a restroom. Then one can either go down a half flight of stairs to the lower level or up a half flight of stairs to the upper level.


----------



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

AlanB said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > Alan, I don't know what rebuilding the Connecticut River Bridge at Old Saybrook has to do with new equipment, but a higher level bridge would be quite feasible. I beleive that the clearance requirement is only about 50 feet, so you would be looking at going up about 40 feet or so and then back down similarly, which even with long vertical curves could be done in a little under two miles for the total relocation. The replacement bridge itself would be quite long, as a lot of the current fill is in "wetlands" so any offset in alignment, which would be necessary to get the grade change while keeping the existing in service, would have to be on structure.
> ...


Increasing the size of Amtrak's electric locomotive fleet without either a higher Connecticut River bridge or some new catenary somewhere else in the system would be pointless, AFAIK, since there wouldn't be any good place to add any new trains for those extra locomotives to pull.

Raising the Connecticut River Bridge wouldn't help much without new locomotives, at least in terms of Boston to NYP service frequencies, although IIRC Shore Line East is diesel and would be able to get more frequent service.

Of course, this is pretty unrelated to baggage and dining and sleeping cars.

Am I reading correctly that George's two miles would be the total of the distance on both sides of the bridge, and Alan's mile and a quarter would be just on one side of the bridge?

Also, what grade are we talking about? IIRC, the traditional max grade on the NEC is about 1.6%; on the other hand, if the NSRL ever happens in Boston, it has been proposed as 3% (and building it with a less steep grade would require much longer tunnels, and some existing surface stations moved underground, AFAICT). Is leaving the existing Connectiut River bridge in place for any freight that might need it, and building a new bridge for passenger service with a 3% grade leading to it an option?


----------



## AlanB (Nov 19, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Increasing the size of Amtrak's electric locomotive fleet without either a higher Connecticut River bridge or some new catenary somewhere else in the system would be pointless, AFAIK, since there wouldn't be any good place to add any new trains for those extra locomotives to pull.


Amtrak isn't really planning to increase the size of its electric loco fleet, it's looking to replace the AEM-7's. Yes, they may order a few more motors than what would be retired, since the fleet is stretched a bit thin, but I don't think that they are planning a major increase is the size of the fleet. Probably no more than 5 to 10 more than what's going to be retired.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> Am I reading correctly that George's two miles would be the total of the distance on both sides of the bridge, and Alan's mile and a quarter would be just on one side of the bridge?


Even if I did misunderstand what George wanted in terms of distance, that still doesn't change the fact that any grade will run right in front of many houses on both sides of the river, but especially on the west bank. The howls of protest at that will be sure to kill any such project.

Besides all that's really needed is for the US Coast Guard to stop catering to the pleasure boater and allowing them to abuse the rules of the road as it were. The rules of the road were never intended for pleasure boaters, they were intended for comercial shipping. If we stop catering to the richies in CT and force them to actually plan when they want to leave, rather than excercising a whim, many more trains per day could run on the coastline.


----------



## access bob (Nov 19, 2008)

Rob_C said:


> Question: Are




the Superliners are 16ft 2 inches tall

the Kawasaki Bilevels (will fit NYP tunnel) are 15ft 6inches tall

so the difference is 8 inches.

Bob


----------



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

AlanB said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > Increasing the size of Amtrak's electric locomotive fleet without either a higher Connecticut River bridge or some new catenary somewhere else in the system would be pointless, AFAIK, since there wouldn't be any good place to add any new trains for those extra locomotives to pull.
> ...


Sure, but I also thought ridership was up, etc etc etc, and that they ought to be looking at where expansion makes sense.

Then again, is the Connecticut River bridge the bottleneck for the number of Northeast Regional and Acela Express trains that reach Boston, or is track capacity in Metro-North territory the bottleneck?



AlanB said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > Am I reading correctly that George's two miles would be the total of the distance on both sides of the bridge, and Alan's mile and a quarter would be just on one side of the bridge?
> ...


What if Amtrak put in noise reducing walls as part of a new grade that they would not otherwise ever install? Could that create a situation where everyone would benefit from such a project?



AlanB said:


> Besides all that's really needed is for the US Coast Guard to stop catering to the pleasure boater and allowing them to abuse the rules of the road as it were. The rules of the road were never intended for pleasure boaters, they were intended for comercial shipping. If we stop catering to the richies in CT and force them to actually plan when they want to leave, rather than excercising a whim, many more trains per day could run on the coastline.


That argument certainly has some potential merit. I just discovered that the bridge regulations are here and the Connecticut River rules are here:



> § 117.205 Connecticut River.
> (a) The owners of the AMTRAK Old Saybrook-Old Lyme Bridge, mile 3.4 the Route 82 Bridge, mile 16.8, and the CONRAIL Middletown-Portland Bridge, mile 32.0, shall provide, and keep in good legible condition, clearance gauges with figures not less than twelve (12) inches which designed, installed and maintained according to the provisions of §118.160 of this chapter.
> 
> (b) The draws of the AMTRAK Old Saybrook-Old Lyme Bridge, mile 3.4, and the CONRAIL Middletown-Portland Bridge, mile 32.0, shall be opened as soon as practicable for all non-commercial vessels that cannot pass under the closed draws, but in no case shall the delay be more than 20 minutes from the time the opening was requested.
> ...


I'm amazed that anyone would try to run trains on time over a bridge whose schedule they can't control.


----------



## VentureForth (Nov 19, 2008)

spacecadet said:


> http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/testimony/102908...seRailroads.pdf
> Everybody should read what Amtrak is actually requesting. The corridor cars are coming from the refurbishment of 80+ Amfleet cars that are currently stored. The new cars are *all* for LD. And they specify "single level" cars. (You can debate whether they meant that literally or not; my thinking is they did, for a variety of reasons.)
> 
> btw, I was wrong that they had not requested power. They did.


Interesting testimony indeed. I find it interesting that they lump the cost of diners and baggage cars together:



> Heritage baggage cars and diners (~$3M apiece, 75 baggage cars, 25 diners) -~$300M


Obviously, the diners cost a bit more than the baggage cars. They DO need to do something about baggage, but couldn't they continue to refurb the existing fleet? A good cleaning, rust repair, and a new interior that won't destroy people's baggage would seem to cost much less than even $1 mil per unit.

Another something to think about is that ridership is doomed to fall dramatically. With the economy tanking and the cost of gas less than it was three years ago, all along with higher rail fares, I think you're going to see passenger counts drop like a rock.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 19, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Then again, is the Connecticut River bridge the bottleneck for the number of Northeast Regional and Acela Express trains that reach Boston, or is track capacity in Metro-North territory the bottleneck?


Metro North might eventually become part of the problem, but right now I think that they can probably handle a few more Amtrak trains than currently run. The major bottleneck is the CT river bridges. Shoreline East actually dropped one run to New London from their schedule a year or two ago, so that Amtrak could fill that slot with an Acela Express.



Joel N. Weber II said:


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


It's not specifically the noise that's going to be a problem, in fact I doubt that things would be much noiser than they are right now. The howls of protest are going to come for three reasons. One, because people just love to complain about anythng that changes in their neighborhood. Two, the construction noise and disruption to the local areas while things are being built. Three, because the new approach bridges will block their views of Long Island Sound.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Besides all that's really needed is for the US Coast Guard to stop catering to the pleasure boater and allowing them to abuse the rules of the road as it were. The rules of the road were never intended for pleasure boaters, they were intended for comercial shipping. If we stop catering to the richies in CT and force them to actually plan when they want to leave, rather than excercising a whim, many more trains per day could run on the coastline.
> ...


It's certainly an interesting exercise. Especially since again as I mentioned, it's not like most of the openings are commercial, where you probably could get some sort of a schedule worked out with the local shippers. The bulk of the openings are for pleasure boaters who could decide at 10:00 AM, hey, "let's go for a ride in our boat."


----------



## AlanB (Nov 19, 2008)

VentureForth said:


> Obviously, the diners cost a bit more than the baggage cars. They DO need to do something about baggage, but couldn't they continue to refurb the existing fleet? A good cleaning, rust repair, and a new interior that won't destroy people's baggage would seem to cost much less than even $1 mil per unit.


The baggage cars need more than just a good cleaning, rust repair, and a new interior. There are parts on those cars that can no longer be brought anywhere. They have to be custom made everytime you need a new one, and that gets very expensive.



VentureForth said:


> Another something to think about is that ridership is doomed to fall dramatically. With the economy tanking and the cost of gas less than it was three years ago, all along with higher rail fares, I think you're going to see passenger counts drop like a rock.


I expect that ridership might fall some in this fiscal year, but given the higher prices to fly with all the nickle and diming taking place, I suspect that many people who do travel will consider Amtrak for the first time ever and prevent a huge drop in ridership.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Nov 19, 2008)

wayman said:


> Who owns the intellectual property of the Viewliner designs? Does Amtrak own them outright, or did Morrison-Knudson (and hence now whomever received their IP upon their demise)? Basically, is it trivial or messy to give those designs directly to another manufacturer?


Amtrak worked with Budd to design them. Budd went belly up and Amtrak owns the design. M-K just made a poor attempt at building them.



MattW said:


> Why doesn't Amtrak drag the old Turboliners out from behind Super Steel (or wherever they're currently stored) and use those for some daylight-only routes? Or is there some legal crap with NYDOT that would have to be settled first?


1) NYS and Amtrak reached an agreement.

2) They are for sale, and damnit, I don't have the money to buy one at the moment. :angry:

3) SuperSteel rebuilt them so poorly, Rader coulda done a better job.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Nov 19, 2008)

From an appearance standpoint, I enjoy the look of the Veiwliners... But thats just me.

And certainly they are not junk as they are still moving, given the penchant for rolling stock to be neglected to a degree.


----------



## access bob (Nov 19, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> wayman said:
> 
> 
> > Who owns the intellectual property of the Viewliner designs? Does Amtrak own them outright, or did Morrison-Knudson (and hence now whomever received their IP upon their demise)? Basically, is it trivial or messy to give those designs directly to another manufacturer?
> ...


the Turboliners are stored, buried might be better term way in the the back at Bear Del and are not visible from outside the fence. they are well hidden and attempted to be forgotten by Amtrak

Bob


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Nov 19, 2008)

I know they are for sale because I requested a bid form, and got it, and the minimum bid they were asking for was more than I could afford.


----------



## Rob_C (Nov 19, 2008)

access bob said:


> the Superliners are 16ft 2 inches tallthe Kawasaki Bilevels (will fit NYP tunnel) are 15ft 6inches tall
> 
> so the difference is 8 inches.
> 
> Bob



Wow! Amazing the difference 8 inches makes! I'm guessing most of that space came out of the lower level luggage racks. Thanks for the info!


----------



## John Bredin (Nov 19, 2008)

VentureForth said:


> Another something to think about is that ridership is doomed to fall dramatically. With the economy tanking and the cost of gas less than it was three years ago, all along with higher rail fares, I think you're going to see passenger counts drop like a rock.


I respectfully disagree. While transit isn't the same as intercity rail, there are a lot of similarities, the biggest being that the alternative (or closest competitor, if one prefers) is driving. And transit ridership that went up when gas is more expensive has not dropped off significantly when gas prices have fallen and transit fares risen.

Generally.

Dallas

Boston

Miami Tri-Rail

Columbus

Raleigh/Durham "triangle"

Why?

First and foremost, especially for one or two travelers, Amtrak is often (and transit almost always) cheaper than driving the same distance, parking, etc. Just because $4 gas made the difference more obvious doesn't mean it doesn't exist at $2.50 or less.

Second, "cheaper" gets people in the door but "more convenient" keeps them there. People who had to stress-out in congested rush-hour traffic (for transit), or pay attention in every direction at 80mph for several hours on the highway (for intercity trips), get to sit back and read, talk, sleep, eat, use the phone or computer, etc. On Amtrak, they don't have to stop to get something to eat or to use the washroom. (And yes, transit and Amtrak users often make a pastime of kvetching about late trains, dirty washrooms, rude employees, rude passengers, etc., etc. They show their true preference when they continue to *drive* to the train station or leave their car at home.)

Lastly, Amtrak fares were increased *because* ridership was up. Amtrak does not set fares willy-nilly but with a clear goal of matching ridership demand to the supply of seats and sleepers. If ridership does start to fall, the fares can easily be adjusted downward. In fact, with the "bucket" system, fares probably would *automatically* adjust.


----------



## jis (Nov 19, 2008)

AlanB said:


> Question: Are


The LIRR multi-levels and the NJT multi-levels are the same height, 14' 6". The principal difference between them that makes the NJT ones operable through the North River (Hudson) Tunnels and the LIRR ones not, is that the roof at the ends of the NJT cars is beveled, whereas the LIRR cars have a straight roof line. If one attempted to run an LIRR car through the North River Tunnels entering them from one of the diverging tracks at A interlocking the extreme corners of the roof will strike the tunnel roof. The beveling of the NJT cars makes them just fit through.


----------



## jis (Nov 19, 2008)

access bob said:


> the Superliners are 16ft 2 inches tallthe Kawasaki Bilevels (will fit NYP tunnel) are 15ft 6inches tall
> 
> so the difference is 8 inches.
> 
> Bob


Actually the LIRR and the NJT bilevels are both 14' 6" tall, not 15' 6". So the difference is 1 foot and 8 inches.


----------



## access bob (Nov 19, 2008)

jis said:


> access bob said:
> 
> 
> > the Superliners are 16ft 2 inches tallthe Kawasaki Bilevels (will fit NYP tunnel) are 15ft 6inches tall
> ...



Correct I have spec sheets for just about every transit vehicle made in the last 30 years. and all Bilevel/trilevel cars in the Northeast are 15ft 6inches EXCEPT for the NJ transit (Bombardier) and LI RR cars (Kawasaki cars) are 14ft 6inch. you explanation on the North Side tunnels might be why the MARC cars can go to New York Penn but I do not know of them going beyond the station....

one other difference, the Kawasaki cars do not have a window at the wheelchair seating locations, the Bombardier cars have a window, why does anyone think people don't want to look out the window if they are in a wheelchair???

Bob


----------



## jis (Nov 20, 2008)

access bob said:


> Correct I have spec sheets for just about every transit vehicle made in the last 30 years. and all Bilevel/trilevel cars in the Northeast are 15ft 6inches EXCEPT for the NJ transit (Bombardier) and LI RR cars (Kawasaki cars) are 14ft 6inch. you explanation on the North Side tunnels might be why the MARC cars can go to New York Penn but I do not know of them going beyond the station....


I would indeed be very very surprised if the 15'6" height MARC double-deckers can get into NYP, since from what I recall, the max height to the top of locked down pantograph that is allowed into Penn Station is 15'. Of course I am happy to be corrected on that one, should my recollection be wrong.


----------



## access bob (Nov 20, 2008)

jis said:


> access bob said:
> 
> 
> > Correct I have spec sheets for just about every transit vehicle made in the last 30 years. and all Bilevel/trilevel cars in the Northeast are 15ft 6inches EXCEPT for the NJ transit (Bombardier) and LI RR cars (Kawasaki cars) are 14ft 6inch. you explanation on the North Side tunnels might be why the MARC cars can go to New York Penn but I do not know of them going beyond the station....
> ...



I have seen them "Borrowed" by Amtrak for NEC service.... but have not actually seen them in NYP

maybe next Fri and Sun will offer some proof since Amtrak almost always borrows a couple sets of MARC equipment over the Thanksgiving weekend.

Bob


----------



## Ryan (Nov 21, 2008)

jis said:


> access bob said:
> 
> 
> > Correct I have spec sheets for just about every transit vehicle made in the last 30 years. and all Bilevel/trilevel cars in the Northeast are 15ft 6inches EXCEPT for the NJ transit (Bombardier) and LI RR cars (Kawasaki cars) are 14ft 6inch. you explanation on the North Side tunnels might be why the MARC cars can go to New York Penn but I do not know of them going beyond the station....
> ...


I suspect that you're right, the only photos I can find of borrowed MARC equipment is the single levels and power (although like you, I'd be happy to be corrected and see otherwise!  ).


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Dec 2, 2008)

spacecadet said:


> Don't forget also that they also want 15 diners and 75 baggage cars, so this will be part of a large order if it comes to pass. And I would think all of these cars would be the same base mechanical/exterior design.


Would it make sense to put bike racks in the new baggage cars, if they get built? It seems like the Downeaster's bike carrying ability is something that would be worth replicating elsewhere in the system, and I get the impression that baggage cars in their current configuration have no shortage of interior space.

Also, are they looking at putting in sufficient HVAC to carry pets? Is this something Amtrak should do?


----------



## wayman (Dec 2, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Would it make sense to put bike racks in the new baggage cars, if they get built? It seems like the Downeaster's bike carrying ability is something that would be worth replicating elsewhere in the system, and I get the impression that baggage cars in their current configuration have no shortage of interior space.


Someday (hmm, maybe while I'm in Lynchburg and am friends with the station agent who drives the baggage truck...) I want to have a peek inside an Amtrak baggage car to see how they use the space. How are things tied down? Is everything sorted by destination? Does a baggage agent work in the car full-time, or only just long enough to offload, load, and sort bags at checked baggage stops? And, of course, how full or empty are those Heritage baggage cars? (The WCRR's B60, the only baggage car I've ridden in, has a series of rigid pipes through the car for sectioning off and tying down baggage, along with an office area with two desks for the baggage clerk. I'm guessing Amtrak doesn't have the desks, at least. But did they keep original interior structure from heritage baggage cars? And did they put any interior structure of any sort into the heritage coaches they rebuilt into baggage cars?)



> Also, are they looking at putting in sufficient HVAC to carry pets? Is this something Amtrak should do?


I think they could market the heck out of that. (Of course, there are a lot of ways Amtrak could market its existing services better too.) I know the cost to put HVAC into existing baggage cars was quoted recently and was quite high; but how different is the cost of a new baggage car with HVAC from the cost of a new baggage car without, and how does that compare to the potential revenues each would enable?


----------



## gswager (Dec 2, 2008)

Last October at Amtrak Los Angeles shop, we took a look at the baggage car. It's nothing fancy, just a very simple one- just pile the suitcases up! It's like a boxcar.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Dec 2, 2008)

gswager said:


> Last October at Amtrak Los Angeles shop, we took a look at the baggage car. It's nothing fancy, just a very simple one- just pile the suitcases up! It's like a boxcar.


I looked at one inside the EB- there was def. some method to their madness... and there was a desk in there IIRC.


----------



## had8ley (Dec 2, 2008)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> gswager said:
> 
> 
> > Last October at Amtrak Los Angeles shop, we took a look at the baggage car. It's nothing fancy, just a very simple one- just pile the suitcases up! It's like a boxcar.
> ...


Most of the baggage cars are nothing more than empty shells; some have desks from days of old but they are non functional as no one rides the car until approaching a station stop. There is some sorting of baggage for major destinations and is obvious by the piles of bags in one spot. The A/C usually unloads/loads the bags with the station agent at outlying stations while baggage handlers do the deed in big stations like NYP and Chicago.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Dec 2, 2008)

If those baggage cars, as speculated elsewhere, are infact Baggage-Dorm cars, they could very easily accomodate the HVAC nessecary to carry pets.


----------



## sky12065 (Dec 3, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> If those baggage cars, as speculated elsewhere, are infact Baggage-Dorm cars, they could very easily accomodate the HVAC nessecary to carry pets.


If there were cars that could carry pets, what would be your opinion on how Amtrak would provide care for those pets on 2 or 3 night trips? i.e. food, water or transfers between connecting trains, lullabyes at bedtime, etc.


----------



## ralfp (Dec 3, 2008)

sky12065 said:


> If there were cars that could carry pets, what would be your opinion on how Amtrak would provide care for those pets on 2 or 3 night trips? i.e. food, water or transfers between connecting trains, lullabyes at bedtime, etc.


By avoiding the problem. Only allow pets to travel for a certain number of hours (say 12).


----------



## VentureForth (Dec 3, 2008)

RE: Baggage car interior

I had the misfortune while riding Business Class on the Palmetto to Savannah last January seeing the interior of the baggage car the whole time. That was because the vestibule door in my car kept opening and closing. The baggage car door remained open and the light was on the whole time. Suitcases were being flung to and fro, left to right, getting all kinds of scuffed up. That, and the experience I had with a lady who's brand new luggage was ripped to shreds two years ago when arriving in Fullerton has convinced me to NEVER EVER EVER check a bag on Amtrak.

RE: Pets

A nice baggage car that was climate controlled could easily be accessed by pet owners for feeding. A pee-pad would be required in the kennel - one that would be changed daily. If they did this, added stainless baggage racks, added bicycle racks, there would be absolutely no need in the world to ban pets, have bad luggage experiences, and not have your bicycle with you while you travel.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Dec 3, 2008)

VentureForth said:


> Suitcases were being flung to and fro, left to right, getting all kinds of scuffed up. That, and the experience I had with a lady who's brand new luggage was ripped to shreds two years ago when arriving in Fullerton has convinced me to NEVER EVER EVER check a bag on Amtrak.


I've been contemplating packing an ordinary cardboard box for the stuff I want to bring as checked luggage, such that getting scuffed up may not bother me. Is it really that bad? I thought most other people's Amtrak baggage experiences had been pretty good.


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL (Dec 3, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > Suitcases were being flung to and fro, left to right, getting all kinds of scuffed up. That, and the experience I had with a lady who's brand new luggage was ripped to shreds two years ago when arriving in Fullerton has convinced me to NEVER EVER EVER check a bag on Amtrak.
> ...



I've never noticed any damage on luggage coming off of 19 or 20 at Tuscaloosa.


----------



## Tony (Dec 3, 2008)

sky12065 said:


> If there were cars that could carry pets, what would be your opinion on how Amtrak would provide care for those pets on 2 or 3 night trips? i.e. food, water or transfers between connecting trains, lullabyes at bedtime, etc.


Would the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) put the same regulations onto Amtrak as the airlines? Water after 4 hours, food every 24 hours.


----------



## Shanghai (Dec 3, 2008)

I would definately be in favor of having pets in the baggage car.

I would propose that the pet owners be permitted to enter the car two or three times a day to feed the pets and possibly walk them at smoking stops. We have a small Bichon dog (12 pounds), well behaved and trained. She has made 8 trips (airplane) across the Atlantic without incident. You can now take pets (they allow 12) on transatlantic sailings of the Queen Mary 2.

There have been times that we drove rather than taking the train becuase we wanted to take our dog.


----------



## ralfp (Dec 3, 2008)

Shanghai said:


> I would definately be in favor of having pets in the baggage car.I would propose that the pet owners be permitted to enter the car two or three times a day to feed the pets and possibly walk them at smoking stops.


$$$$$ and liability. You'd have to be escorted or the baggage section would have to be locked off from the pet section. The price of this service would have to be quite high to recover the expense.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Dec 3, 2008)

ralfp said:


> Shanghai said:
> 
> 
> > I would definately be in favor of having pets in the baggage car.I would propose that the pet owners be permitted to enter the car two or three times a day to feed the pets and possibly walk them at smoking stops.
> ...


Longer smoking stops are also crew change points, so having the assistant conductor escorting passengers with pets would probably not be a great idea.

But how busy is the station staff who handles loading/unloading baggage at the longer stops? Do they end up with a free half hour after dealing with the baggage, if the stop is 45 minutes long? Or do the baggage handlers have extra responsibities at crew change points that the station staff at shorter stops with checked baggage service don't have to deal with?

Remember also that not every Amtrak trip is two or three days long. There has got to be some subset of the NEC where being separated from a pet for an entire trip could be OK. BOS-PVD is probably not the longest such example. Additionally, Amtrak could consider allowing passengers to get off the train at an intermediate point to spend some time with their pet, and then board the next scheduled train to continue their journey along the NEC.


----------



## wayman (Dec 3, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> But how busy is the station staff who handles loading/unloading baggage at the longer stops? Do they end up with a free half hour after dealing with the baggage, if the stop is 45 minutes long? Or do the baggage handlers have extra responsibities at crew change points that the station staff at shorter stops with checked baggage service don't have to deal with?


The station agent's responsibilities with regard to checked baggage extend beyond taking it off the train--I imagine at a busier station it could take twenty or thirty minutes to drive the baggage cart back to the station, lay out the bags, make sure they get claimed, etc. And then some bags might be Amtrak Express shipments or delayed or advanced baggage, each of which will require a phone call to the recipient. I imagine the station agent at a crew change station doesn't actually have all that much free time until after the train has left the station.

Also, the 45 minute long (scheduled) stop could always become a 15 minute long (actual) stop if the train is running late.

For any activity like dog-walking, the assistant conductor would have to judge, based on the actual timing, whether the train would be in the station for more than (say) thirty minutes, and carefully and quickly orchestrate the dog-walking. It's not by any stretch impossible, but it would take some care to make it work right.



> Remember also that not every Amtrak trip is two or three days long. There has got to be some subset of the NEC where being separated from a pet for an entire trip could be OK. BOS-PVD is probably not the longest such example. Additionally, Amtrak could consider allowing passengers to get off the train at an intermediate point to spend some time with their pet, and then board the next scheduled train to continue their journey along the NEC.


The longest possible trip on the NEC (aside from 66/67) is only about eight hours. Surely that's short enough for pet-separation. Most dogs can go eight hours between walks, I should think. Though also, the NEC isn't really conducive to pet-travel for another reason, since we're talking about pets traveling in HVAC baggage cars and all but two NEC trains don't carry baggage cars at all.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Dec 4, 2008)

wayman said:


> The longest possible trip on the NEC (aside from 66/67) is only about eight hours. Surely that's short enough for pet-separation. Most dogs can go eight hours between walks, I should think. Though also, the NEC isn't really conducive to pet-travel for another reason, since we're talking about pets traveling in HVAC baggage cars and all but two NEC trains don't carry baggage cars at all.


But I thought we were talking about 75 new baggage cars. It seems to me that BOS ought to have NEC baggage service more than daily per direction, and buying more baggage cars than the current fleet might enable that.


----------



## jis (Dec 4, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> But I thought we were talking about 75 new baggage cars. It seems to me that BOS ought to have NEC baggage service more than daily per direction, and buying more baggage cars than the current fleet might enable that.


I suspect that the 75 baggage cars that have been asked for are for use on LD trains to get rid of the baggage cars that are currently used, which are getting near or beyond their end of useful life. I would be quite surprised if Amtrak actually planned to increase checked baggage service on the NEC.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Dec 4, 2008)

jis said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > But I thought we were talking about 75 new baggage cars. It seems to me that BOS ought to have NEC baggage service more than daily per direction, and buying more baggage cars than the current fleet might enable that.
> ...


I would tend to agree. While it would be nice to check bags on the NEC I would imagine it would slow things down, a lot...


----------



## had8ley (Dec 4, 2008)

My vote is for a baggage-dormitory car like the Southern had on the head end of the Crescent. It will free up rooms in the Viewliners as well as the trans-dorms on the LD trains. Perhaps Beech Grove can get innovative and make a slumbercoach variety car out of the trans-dorms where we could have three classes of service available and people wouldn't have to worry about how badly they might smell at the end of a three day trip. I don't have the figures but most trains I have ridden don't have too many rooms sold in the trans-dorm unless the entire revenue sleeper is a sell-out. I know it is Amtrak policy to sell the trans-dorm rooms last but it looks like they are rolling only to accommodate the 5 or 6 OBS people on board. They also could have been used for baggage as there is plenty of room downstairs to do so. What do I know?...I just ride.


----------



## wayman (Dec 4, 2008)

had8ley said:


> My vote is for a baggage-dormitory car like the Southern had on the head end of the Crescent. It will free up rooms in the Viewliners as well as the trans-dorms on the LD trains. Perhaps Beech Grove can get innovative and make a slumbercoach variety car out of the trans-dorms where we could have three classes of service available and people wouldn't have to worry about how badly they might smell at the end of a three day trip. I don't have the figures but most trains I have ridden don't have too many rooms sold in the trans-dorm unless the entire revenue sleeper is a sell-out. I know it is Amtrak policy to sell the trans-dorm rooms last but it looks like they are rolling only to accommodate the 5 or 6 OBS people on board. They also could have been used for baggage as there is plenty of room downstairs to do so. What do I know?...I just ride.


Well, the trans-dorms are also rolling so the assistant conductor can enter and leave the baggage car as needed before and after every checked baggage stop. That's the problem with incompatible door heights--you're stuck with running that transition car. It wouldn't be so much of a problem if Amtrak made effective use of the car, but as things stand they don't seem to. You'd still have to run the trans-dorm even with the new baggage/dorm cars (assuming they build all single-levels to economize their order, they'll need the height-change), but then in an ideal world Amtrak can consider the trans-dorm a bonus sleeper entirely for passengers and presto, it becomes a 100% revenue car!

This makes more sense than paying more money for two smaller orders for baggage/dorm cars (some Superliner, some single-level). But ... this is Amtrak. Knowing them, they'll probably order more expensive Superliner baggage/dorm cars ... and then just pull the trans-dorms out of service. Or, worse... and then start converting the trans-dorm cars to still more Cross Country Cafes!!! :unsure: :unsure: :unsure:


----------



## MattW (Dec 4, 2008)

What I want to know is why can't they just shove bags in the spaces at the end of the lower levels on every Superliner? I have a trip vacation brochure that shows internal diagrams of all the cars and all the Superliners have a lower level space at each end where Baggage could easily go. As I currently understand it, they only stuff bags in there on some of the cars and yet, you still have Superliner routes with a single-level baggage car.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Dec 4, 2008)

MattW said:


> What I want to know is why can't they just shove bags in the spaces at the end of the lower levels on every Superliner? I have a trip vacation brochure that shows internal diagrams of all the cars and all the Superliners have a lower level space at each end where Baggage could easily go. As I currently understand it, they only stuff bags in there on some of the cars and yet, you still have Superliner routes with a single-level baggage car.


They do have baggage racks in the bottom of every Superliner... some have the lower level seating torn out for baggage space.

Remember those Superliners also have to carry water, and electricals, and toilets, and all that good stuff too!


----------



## access bob (Dec 4, 2008)

MattW said:


> What I want to know is why can't they just shove bags in the spaces at the end of the lower levels on every Superliner? I have a trip vacation brochure that shows internal diagrams of all the cars and all the Superliners have a lower level space at each end where Baggage could easily go. As I currently understand it, they only stuff bags in there on some of the cars and yet, you still have Superliner routes with a single-level baggage car.


that space is fully utilized for cars system services, one end is water tanks and sewage tanks, other end has air tanks air conditioning/heating etc. no room in those compartments, I've seen em with the hatches open, it is pretty stuffed tight, feel for the mechanics that have to get in there and work on the stuff.

Bob


----------



## AlanB (Dec 4, 2008)

access bob said:


> MattW said:
> 
> 
> > What I want to know is why can't they just shove bags in the spaces at the end of the lower levels on every Superliner? I have a trip vacation brochure that shows internal diagrams of all the cars and all the Superliners have a lower level space at each end where Baggage could easily go. As I currently understand it, they only stuff bags in there on some of the cars and yet, you still have Superliner routes with a single-level baggage car.
> ...


No, there is indeed a special compartment accessible only from the outside of the Superliner car that can carry bulky items like skies, I've seen it in use. And it is seperate from the other compartments that hold things like water, AC and so forth.

I don't believe however that they have enough capacity to fullfill the needs of the baggage car. Even if they did however, consider the delay to the train as the local redcap/agent drives down the length of the train looking for bags to be taken off and for places to load new bags onto the train.

And the conductor's can't get into those spaces while the train is in motion to prepare the bags that do need to be offloaded at the next stop, so again even if there was enough capacity for the compartments in all the cars to replace the baggge car, one would just be prolonging every station stop.


----------



## access bob (Dec 4, 2008)

AlanB said:


> access bob said:
> 
> 
> > MattW said:
> ...



oh car numbers 31000-31047 the coach baggage cars. I thought you could get into the baggage compartement from inside the train. they used one on the Cascade train I took to Vancouver last monh. (only baggage car on train and it was used

Bob


----------



## AlanB (Dec 4, 2008)

access bob said:


> oh car numbers 31000-31047 the coach baggage cars. I thought you could get into the baggage compartement from inside the train. they used one on the Cascade train I took to Vancouver last monh. (only baggage car on train and it was used
> Bob


No, Bob, there are Superliner "baggage" coaches that have a baggage area downstairs where there would normally be a seating area. And yes, I believe that you can get into that area from inside the car.

But every Superliner car, although I'm not positive if this is true of dining cars and cafe cars, but certainly every coach and sleeper, also has a special baggage compartment right at the very end of the car that is only accessible from outside the car. It looks just like an equipment compartment from the outside. But when you open the door, there is space to store things like a pair of skies, a folding wheel chair, and probably a few bags if need be. I'm not really sure just how large the space is as I couldn't see into it very well the one time I saw it being used in Reno.

From the Amtrak page on baggage, under carry on items:



> Special Items: Ski equipment, snowboards, golf clubs and bicycles may generally only be handled as checked baggage on Amtrak trains, and not as carry-ons. Items are permitted onboard when they can be safely stowed in the exterior lockers of Superliner equipment, or onboard equipment that is specifically designed to safely and securely accommodate the storage of the items.


This is not checked baggage, you hand it over to your car attendant and they place it in the locker for you. One needs a key to open the locker too, so it's not like someone can steal it at a station stop.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Dec 9, 2008)

Who wants to bet that the new cars won't be Viewliner shaped and thus make the trains even less homogenous. XD


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Dec 9, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Who wants to bet that the new cars won't be Viewliner shaped and thus make the trains even less homogenous. XD


I'll put a fiver on that bet.


----------

