# Cars to be rebuilt



## Steve4031

I understand that money has been allocated to beach grove and Bear Shops in Wilmington to rebuild/refurbish the cars that have been sitting in disrepair.

Does anybody know what kinds of cars are going to be repaired, and what trains they will be on. also, what would be done to these cars?

Thanks


----------



## Acela150

My guess is all the Amcans will be "refurbished" first as the NEC carries the majority of the nations passengers.

Stephen


----------



## cpamtfan

Actually, I would think any refixable Superliners at BG. There are some diners in BG also (8511-14-19), those could possibly (if still around) could at least see a chance to run a little longer. And from what I know, most Amcans still at Bear and Wilmington are former Amcafes,Amclubs, and Amdinettes. Most of the coach fleet has been refurbed. There are also baggage and other cars which could see some work for work.

cpamtfan-Peter


----------



## AlanB

Acela150 said:


> My guess is all the Amcans will be "refurbished" first as the NEC carries the majority of the nations passengers.
> Stephen


No running Amcans will be refurbished, only the 41 Amfleets that were mothballed because they needed major work to pass FRA mandated inspections and a few wrecked cars are to be put back on the road with the stimulus monies.

Perhaps once those cars are back on the road, and assuming that Amtrak continues to receive decent funding, we'll see an expansion to the ongoing refurbishment program for the Amfleets. As of right now there are 159 AMF's scheduled for various levels of overhaul. But the current refurbishment program is for cars that are still active, not wrecks and mothballed cars which is what's being discussed in connection with the stimulus program.


----------



## AlanB

As I mentioned in the above post, the mothballed Amfleets, along with some wrecks are to be handled at Bear. Beech Grove should be working mainly on wrecked Superliners. It is possible that there are a few other wrecks, perhaps even engines, that BG will work on. I suppose that it's possible that Amtrak might also decide to work on a wrecked baggage car or a wrecked Heritage diner, but I think that unlikely since Amtrak expects to order new cars in both lines.

BG under normal funding, non-stimulus monies, is already working on 7 Heritage Diners and 20 baggage cars. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that those two programs either get cancelled before year's end or at least scaled back, since Amtrak is now going to order new cars of both types.


----------



## Philzy

the next question I'm sure (on everyones minds) will be where will these cars go to? new trains? or extra cars on current service?


----------



## AlanB

Philzy said:


> the next question I'm sure (on everyones minds) will be where will these cars go to? new trains? or extra cars on current service?


Probably both.


----------



## printman2000

AlanB said:


> BG under normal funding, non-stimulus monies, is already working on 7 Heritage Diners and 20 baggage cars. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that those two programs either get cancelled before year's end or at least scaled back, since Amtrak is now going to order new cars of both types.


Alan, where do you get this info from? Is it available online somewhere?


----------



## jis

AlanB said:


> BG under normal funding, non-stimulus monies, is already working on 7 Heritage Diners and 20 baggage cars. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that those two programs either get cancelled before year's end or at least scaled back, since Amtrak is now going to order new cars of both types.


BTW, yesterday at the NARP North East Regional meeting in New London CT, Ross Capon of NARP was one of the speakers. In course of his talk on Amtrak looking forward he mentioned that Boardman has committed to restore full Diner Service to the LSL as soon as possible. I guess that depends on the those Heritage Diners coming out of Beech Grove. Naturally this was music to our ears, specially when mentioned in conjunction with restoration of the Boston Sleeper, which has just happened.


----------



## PRR 60

jis said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> BG under normal funding, non-stimulus monies, is already working on 7 Heritage Diners and 20 baggage cars. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that those two programs either get cancelled before year's end or at least scaled back, since Amtrak is now going to order new cars of both types.
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, yesterday at the NARP North East Regional meeting in New Londin CT, Ross Capon of NARP was one of the speakers. In course of his talk on Amtrak looking forward he mentioned that Boardman has committed to restore full Diner Service to the LSL as soon as possible. I guess that depends on the those Heritage Diners coming out of Beech Grove. Naturally this was music to our ears, specially when mentioned in conjunction with restoration of the Boston Sleeper, which has just happened.
Click to expand...

It's amazing that there is presently not one train between the northeast and Chicago that has a dining car. This was once the premier route for overnight rail travel and the railroads competed in every area, especially dining. Of course, Amtrak has no competition, so it's take it or leave it. I'll leave it.


----------



## Larry H.

Sadly the congress has felt for some time that the rest of us should suck it up and eat anything in any form of diner they decide they will provide, all the while having subsidized fancy meals in their own private restaurant! Well the rules have always been different for congress than the rest of us peasants any way.

I do see a glimmer of hope in the new Amtrak Presidents statements that he seems to be saying he wants to restore rail service to a more positive experience than it has been offered of late. Of course the way things are going in Washington it could be another reversal of fortune in a few more years and all this could be mute once again..


----------



## AlanB

printman2000 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> BG under normal funding, non-stimulus monies, is already working on 7 Heritage Diners and 20 baggage cars. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that those two programs either get cancelled before year's end or at least scaled back, since Amtrak is now going to order new cars of both types.
> 
> 
> 
> Alan, where do you get this info from? Is it available online somewhere?
Click to expand...

It's in the monthly status/financial reports that Amtrak releases. Look for them under the News section, and then Other Reports.


----------



## printman2000

jis said:


> BTW, yesterday at the NARP North East Regional meeting in New London CT, Ross Capon of NARP was one of the speakers. In course of his talk on Amtrak looking forward he mentioned that Boardman has committed to restore full Diner Service to the LSL as soon as possible. I guess that depends on the those Heritage Diners coming out of Beech Grove. Naturally this was music to our ears, specially when mentioned in conjunction with restoration of the Boston Sleeper, which has just happened.


That is good news. Not holding my breath, but it would be nice to get them on before summer.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

Are we likely to see 120V outlets next to every single pair of coach seats on all active Amtrak equipment at some point in the next few years?

Also, is anything ever going to be done to improve availability of outlets in the Sightseer Lounge cars?


----------



## Rafi

With regard to the Dining Car situation, there was a bit of news to come out of the NARP Meeting yesterday in Baltimore. Joe McHugh Vice President, Government Affairs and Corporate Communications was there and spoke briefly about the rebuild projects. He said that the Amfleet/Diner/Baggage restorations are continuing and they plan to pretty much empty the warehouse, so to speak, with only a few cars left mothballed when all is said and done. With the Diners going back onto the Lake Shore, they're still going to be perilously short on spares until the new cars arrive in a few years, he said, so they are seriously looking at bringing the Viewliner Diner back into service later this year. He said that right now it's being transported from Bear to Beech Grove to draw up new blueprints for the new Viewliner Diners when they go to the production line, and after that it may go out for revenue service to fill in while the new diners are being negotiated.

Take it for what it's worth, obviously. I pressed him in the Q&A for clarification as to what exactly the plan was for revenue service on the existing Viewliner Diner and he wasn't prepared to go in depth—sounded like they're not entirely sure if it will in fact go into service, and if it does what route it'll go on, will there be any modifications, etc etc.

-Rafi


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

Are particular dining cars normally assigned to particular routes anyway? I would think with maintenance rotations that a single dining car could rotate through several routes over the course of a few years.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

I, for one, would love to see Viewliner diners. Proper diners.

Screw the diner-lites.


----------



## PRR 60

Rafi said:


> With regard to the Dining Car situation, there was a bit of news to come out of the NARP Meeting yesterday in Baltimore. Joe McHugh Vice President, Government Affairs and Corporate Communications was there and spoke briefly about the rebuild projects. He said that the Amfleet/Diner/Baggage restorations are continuing and they plan to pretty much empty the warehouse, so to speak, with only a few cars left mothballed when all is said and done. With the Diners going back onto the Lake Shore, they're still going to be perilously short on spares until the new cars arrive in a few years, he said, so they are seriously looking at bringing the Viewliner Diner back into service later this year. He said that right now it's being transported from Bear to Beech Grove to draw up new blueprints for the new Viewliner Diners when they go to the production line, and after that it may go out for revenue service to fill in while the new diners are being negotiated.
> Take it for what it's worth, obviously. I pressed him in the Q&A for clarification as to what exactly the plan was for revenue service on the existing Viewliner Diner and he wasn't prepared to go in depth—sounded like they're not entirely sure if it will in fact go into service, and if it does what route it'll go on, will there be any modifications, etc etc.
> 
> -Rafi


My understanding is that the Viewliner diner was taken out of service because the ergonomics of the kitchen were so bad that it was not just inefficient but dangerous to the food preparation staff. The problems were so inherent that they were not repairable except for a total rebuild. Of course, I would not expect that a PR VP would have any clue about little details like that. And, if they are actually reverse engineering the Viewliner diner for the next batch, I hope they take the time to ask the people who actually have to work in the cars what they want.

Every company's PR staff is out of touch with the actual company, but Amtrak PR takes that concept to a whole new level. My favorite was when Amtrak had an electric locomotive catch fire in Connecticut. The Amtrak PR person (now the NJ Transit PR person) was interviewed by a local newspaper and blamed the fire on Amtrak's lack of funding saying that the locomotives were old and could not properly be maintained. Of course, the locomotive that failed was an HHP-8 that was at the time less than a year old. Oops.


----------



## Larry H.

I find it very disturbing that such lousy designs go into production. It seems that on one has a clue as to how a decent sleeper, diner or lounge ought to look, operate and work on the road. It only took one trip on a viewliner bedroom to rate them the bottom of the barrel in quality and repair. Now they are the new gold standard it would appear. How sad.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

Larry H. said:


> I find it very disturbing that such lousy designs go into production. It seems that on one has a clue as to how a decent sleeper, diner or lounge ought to look, operate and work on the road. It only took one trip on a viewliner bedroom to rate them the bottom of the barrel in quality and repair. Now they are the new gold standard it would appear. How sad.


One trip tells you that much eh?

I've never ridden on the Viewliners but they seem to be decent operating cars, maybe not as good as the Superliners-- but then again a good double-decker car always beats out a single level.

It's like model railroading, I remember when buying engines I always weighed them. And when give a choice, I bought the heavier one. For some reason heavy = more rugged. At least on a MODEL railroad.


----------



## Larry H.

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Larry H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it very disturbing that such lousy designs go into production. It seems that on one has a clue as to how a decent sleeper, diner or lounge ought to look, operate and work on the road. It only took one trip on a viewliner bedroom to rate them the bottom of the barrel in quality and repair. Now they are the new gold standard it would appear. How sad.
> 
> 
> 
> One trip tells you that much eh?
> 
> I've never ridden on the Viewliners but they seem to be decent operating cars, maybe not as good as the Superliners-- but then again a good double-decker car always beats out a single level.
> 
> It's like model railroading, I remember when buying engines I always weighed them. And when give a choice, I bought the heavier one. For some reason heavy = more rugged. At least on a MODEL railroad.
Click to expand...


Yes without a doubt. If you have half an eye for design or quality both of which are sorely lacking on the viewliners then the superliners easily win.

Maybe its me, but the bedrooms not only have every possible rattle known to trains and at way higher volumes and lower bench seats that are too short for many to nap on without bending your neck way out of shape. The doors are missing most of the original latches and have hardware store replacements leaving holes in the doors. (high quality). And for another I very much disliked the disconnected look to the roof lines of the rooms. Its like being in a room with openings going off in several directions, just not a bit cozy like pullman or superliner bedrooms. The roomettes one saving grace that some seem not to like is having its own toilet. But again in the old days they were much better at blending them in out of the way than the new one is. I think the word for it might be "Cheap", except the fare. Oh yes as long a were on the viewliner trains, the diner is pitiful and the lounge is nearly nonexistent. I would take the Cardinal any day for quality of equipment and view. The equipment may be getting old and has its own flaws but in all my many sleeper trips the viewliner won out as worst by a long shot.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

Larry H. said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Larry H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it very disturbing that such lousy designs go into production. It seems that on one has a clue as to how a decent sleeper, diner or lounge ought to look, operate and work on the road. It only took one trip on a viewliner bedroom to rate them the bottom of the barrel in quality and repair. Now they are the new gold standard it would appear. How sad.
> 
> 
> 
> One trip tells you that much eh?
> 
> I've never ridden on the Viewliners but they seem to be decent operating cars, maybe not as good as the Superliners-- but then again a good double-decker car always beats out a single level.
> 
> It's like model railroading, I remember when buying engines I always weighed them. And when give a choice, I bought the heavier one. For some reason heavy = more rugged. At least on a MODEL railroad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes without a doubt. If you have half an eye for design or quality both of which are sorely lacking on the viewliners then the superliners easily win.
> 
> Maybe its me, but the bedrooms not only have every possible rattle known to trains and at way higher volumes and lower bench seats that are too short for many to nap on without bending your neck way out of shape. The doors are missing most of the original latches and have hardware store replacements leaving holes in the doors. (high quality). And for another I very much disliked the disconnected look to the roof lines of the rooms. Its like being in a room with openings going off in several directions, just not a bit cozy like pullman or superliner bedrooms. The roomettes one saving grace that some seem not to like is having its own toilet. But again in the old days they were much better at blending them in out of the way than the new one is. I think the word for it might be "Cheap", except the fare. Oh yes as long a were on the viewliner trains, the diner is pitiful and the lounge is nearly nonexistent. I would take the Cardinal any day for quality of equipment and view. The equipment may be getting old and has its own flaws but in all my many sleeper trips the viewliner won out as worst by a long shot.
Click to expand...


Right-- but that all, all of what you mentioned, is stuff that has nothing to do with the car's original design.

And, how many times do I have to say it about the price, if somebody from 1941 exchanged their money for today's ticket, they would get the same fricken service.

Tired of people tho think the grass was always greener in the past. Well, it wasn't. I heard some pretty gnarly stories about some trains in the past. Amtrak provides a quality service that, across the board, is about the same no matter what train you are on and this _is as it should be..._ Quality control people! LOVE IT!


----------



## Larry H.

I believe we have disagreed in the past no doubt!

The problems inherent in the rooms has everything to do with the "quality" of the design. If you can't realize that then the conversation is hopeless which most likely is true on all points.

Why is less quality always promoted here has the "new norm". Its the norm because of who designs and builds the equipment.

Fares were figured on a much different scale in those long past days as you would refer to them. We have also been though that. Yes they may in real terms be the same but the ratio charged for the rooms is not by about 18 times!


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

> Fares were figured on a much different scale in those long past days as you would refer to them. We have also been though that. Yes they may in real terms be the same but the ratio charged for the rooms is not by about 18 times!


Bull.

All you need is an inflation adjustment index for any given year and an old PRR time table. Trust me, did it myself. Our rooms are about the same on many routes, cheaper on some as well... and if I recall y'all didn't get your food included back then.


----------



## Larry H.

I forgot the comment on the service. Yes towards the end of private railroads running the routes many wanted out and went to great lengths to discourage ridership. I unfortunately rode lots of them. However a few held on such the Santa Fe and GM&O, among others. When railroads wanted the passenger the trains were run in a far superior manner than now.


----------



## AlanB

Larry H. said:


> Maybe its me, but the bedrooms not only have every possible rattle known to trains and at way higher volumes and lower bench seats that are too short for many to nap on without bending your neck way out of shape. The doors are missing most of the original latches and have hardware store replacements leaving holes in the doors. (high quality). And for another I very much disliked the disconnected look to the roof lines of the rooms. Its like being in a room with openings going off in several directions, just not a bit cozy like pullman or superliner bedrooms. The roomettes one saving grace that some seem not to like is having its own toilet. But again in the old days they were much better at blending them in out of the way than the new one is. I think the word for it might be "Cheap", except the fare. Oh yes as long a were on the viewliner trains, the diner is pitiful and the lounge is nearly nonexistent. I would take the Cardinal any day for quality of equipment and view. The equipment may be getting old and has its own flaws but in all my many sleeper trips the viewliner won out as worst by a long shot.


I've been in plenty of Superliner's that rattled every bit as much as the Viewliner's do. As for the bench seat, it's 3 inches shorter than a Superliner's, but that's some designer's fault, not the car's fault. Regarding the latches and locks, while I'll admit that I'm upset that Amtrak replaced the originals instead of fixing them, the new locks are identical to the Superliner locks.

As for Viewliner trains, they don't exist at least yet. It's not the fault of the Viewliner sleeper car's that Amtrak didn't buy Viewliner lounges, coaches, and diners. And the Cardinal uses single level equipment and a Viewliner sleeper, so I'm very confused by your statement that you'd take that any day for the quality of equipment.


----------



## Larry H.

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Fares were figured on a much different scale in those long past days as you would refer to them. We have also been though that. Yes they may in real terms be the same but the ratio charged for the rooms is not by about 18 times!
> 
> 
> 
> Bull.
> 
> All you need is an inflation adjustment index for any given year and an old PRR time table. Trust me, did it myself. Our rooms are about the same on many routes, cheaper on some as well... and if I recall y'all didn't get your food included back then.
Click to expand...


Call it what you want. I distinctly recall that the fare for a room New York to Chicago was one half the coach fare. Now the same ratio is up to 18 times higher in comparison. That is a fact.


----------



## Larry H.

AlanB said:


> Larry H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe its me, but the bedrooms not only have every possible rattle known to trains and at way higher volumes and lower bench seats that are too short for many to nap on without bending your neck way out of shape. The doors are missing most of the original latches and have hardware store replacements leaving holes in the doors. (high quality). And for another I very much disliked the disconnected look to the roof lines of the rooms. Its like being in a room with openings going off in several directions, just not a bit cozy like pullman or superliner bedrooms. The roomettes one saving grace that some seem not to like is having its own toilet. But again in the old days they were much better at blending them in out of the way than the new one is. I think the word for it might be "Cheap", except the fare. Oh yes as long a were on the viewliner trains, the diner is pitiful and the lounge is nearly nonexistent. I would take the Cardinal any day for quality of equipment and view. The equipment may be getting old and has its own flaws but in all my many sleeper trips the viewliner won out as worst by a long shot.
> 
> 
> 
> I've been in plenty of Superliner's that rattled every bit as much as the Viewliner's do. As for the bench seat, it's 3 inches shorter than a Superliner's, but that's some designer's fault, not the car's fault. Regarding the latches and locks, while I'll admit that I'm upset that Amtrak replaced the originals instead of fixing them, the new locks are identical to the Superliner locks.
> 
> As for Viewliner trains, they don't exist at least yet. It's not the fault of the Viewliner sleeper car's that Amtrak didn't buy Viewliner lounges, coaches, and diners. And the Cardinal uses single level equipment and a Viewliner sleeper, so I'm very confused by your statement that you'd take that any day for the quality of equipment.
Click to expand...

Alan,

Some days I am even surprised by your responses. The question at one point was wether the Cardinal and Superliner equipment was a better choice than the LS with abbreviated view liner equipment. The comments on the diner and lounge are for the LS in general. If the issues with the cars are real such as in the length of the seat, then it is a flaw in the car to me. Its running and the designer is at home somewhere.

I stand by my comments on the noise of the room.. I have ridden twice in two years to the coast by superliner and then to New York. That viewliner bedroom was by far the worst. Yes they all rattle, but that was unbearable much of the ride.


----------



## AlanB

Larry H. said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Larry H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe its me, but the bedrooms not only have every possible rattle known to trains and at way higher volumes and lower bench seats that are too short for many to nap on without bending your neck way out of shape. The doors are missing most of the original latches and have hardware store replacements leaving holes in the doors. (high quality). And for another I very much disliked the disconnected look to the roof lines of the rooms. Its like being in a room with openings going off in several directions, just not a bit cozy like pullman or superliner bedrooms. The roomettes one saving grace that some seem not to like is having its own toilet. But again in the old days they were much better at blending them in out of the way than the new one is. I think the word for it might be "Cheap", except the fare. Oh yes as long a were on the viewliner trains, the diner is pitiful and the lounge is nearly nonexistent. I would take the Cardinal any day for quality of equipment and view. The equipment may be getting old and has its own flaws but in all my many sleeper trips the viewliner won out as worst by a long shot.
> 
> 
> 
> I've been in plenty of Superliner's that rattled every bit as much as the Viewliner's do. As for the bench seat, it's 3 inches shorter than a Superliner's, but that's some designer's fault, not the car's fault. Regarding the latches and locks, while I'll admit that I'm upset that Amtrak replaced the originals instead of fixing them, the new locks are identical to the Superliner locks.
> 
> As for Viewliner trains, they don't exist at least yet. It's not the fault of the Viewliner sleeper car's that Amtrak didn't buy Viewliner lounges, coaches, and diners. And the Cardinal uses single level equipment and a Viewliner sleeper, so I'm very confused by your statement that you'd take that any day for the quality of equipment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Alan,
> 
> Some days I am even surprised by your responses. The question at one point was wether the Cardinal and Superliner equipment was a better choice than the LS with abbreviated view liner equipment. The comments on the diner and lounge are for the LS in general. If the issues with the cars are real such as in the length of the seat, then it is a flaw in the car to me. Its running and the designer is at home somewhere.
> 
> I stand by my comments on the noise of the room.. I have ridden twice in two years to the coast by superliner and then to New York. That viewliner bedroom was by far the worst. Yes they all rattle, but that was unbearable much of the ride.
Click to expand...

Larry,

I must be missing something here, as there was no mention of the Cardinal on the first page of this topic at all. The only mention of the Cardinal came on the second page when you stated "I would take the Cardinal any day for quality of equipment and view. " You made that statement after bashing the Viewliner sleeping car, yet now you are contradicting yourself by saying that you'd ride the Cardinal because of its superior quality, even though it uses Viewliner sleeping cars.

So I'm confused, is the Viewliner superior or inferior? You can't have it both ways. And I'm not sure what "abbreviated view liner equipment means."

And not to make this a competition, but I took 4 trips last year in a Viewliner and 6 trips in a Superliner sleeper. The best Superliner bedroom that I had was on the AT, where everything is maintained at a higher level than the rest of Amtrak. The worst bedroom that I had was on a Superliner to Chicago. Everything else fell in the middle, including the Viewliner sleepers.


----------



## jis

I think I am about to get crucified here, but what the heck! After having traveled thousands of miles by both Superliners and Viewliners, I think the basic design of the Viewliner Roomette is better than that of the Superliner Roomette. I think the workmanship of the Viewliner is somewhat inferior to that of the Superliner, but I don't see any evidence that it is a basic car design issue.

Now then, what does all this have to do with which cars are going to get fixed beats me. But that's OK too.


----------



## amtrakwolverine

i say rebuild the superliners sense 99% of them don't have outlets and each seat.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

KISS_ALIVE said:


> i say rebuild the superliners sense 99% of them don't have outlets and each seat.


I think Amtrak has more pressing concerns right now-- and 99% is quite wrong, I have seen plenty with all seats.

Get me some baggage cars, some proper single-level diners, and then some new single-level sleepers. THEN get me refurbed Superliner coaches.


----------



## Larry H.

Alan,

Your right again, I just realized that the question of the viewliner or superliner equipment and which route was better is in another thread.

I also meant to say Capitol Limited instead of Cardinal. I must be getting too old for these arguments it seems. The comment about the abbreviated LS was also meant to refer to the combination of types of cars since you had questioned the fact I complained about the diner and lounge which are what? Amfleet cars? I was trying to indicate that the train ran with an a mixed amount of car types and that the overall effect was not in my opinion good.

I refuse to move on my experience with the noise and quality of the Viewliner bedroom. Its my worst experience. If others have a better one thats great and I am happy for them. The worst for some reason of the Superliner bedrooms has been usually on the City of New Orleans for some reason for me. It seemed to be almost always more noisy than the Chicago West Coast routes I have ridden.

I now quit trying to make my points, its pretty hard to argue personal choices.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

From my experience trackage has more to do with rattling than Superliner versus Viewliner or AFII. I can't speak for Heritage or Horizon because I've never been, however-- I standby that we should all blame CSX for our discomfort! LoL.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> KISS_ALIVE said:
> 
> 
> 
> i say rebuild the superliners sense 99% of them don't have outlets and each seat.
> 
> 
> 
> I think Amtrak has more pressing concerns right now-- and 99% is quite wrong, I have seen plenty with all seats.
> 
> Get me some baggage cars, some proper single-level diners, and then some new single-level sleepers. THEN get me refurbed Superliner coaches.
Click to expand...

In other words, once Amtrak finishes wreck repairs and overhauling the mothballed Amfleet coaches, you want Amtrak to lay off some of the Bear and Beach Grove workers while they wait for an outside vendor to deliver some new rolling stock before Amtrak's maintenance people should be allowed to add outlets to Amtrak's existing equipment?


----------



## AlanB

Larry H. said:


> I also meant to say Capitol Limited instead of Cardinal. I must be getting too old for these arguments it seems. The comment about the abbreviated LS was also meant to refer to the combination of types of cars since you had questioned the fact I complained about the diner and lounge which are what? Amfleet cars? I was trying to indicate that the train ran with an a mixed amount of car types and that the overall effect was not in my opinion good.


Ok, that makes sense. But you definately had me scratching my head there for a few minutes.  I even went back and reread things a few times just to make sure that I hadn't missed something.

And yes, the diner and coaches are currently Amfleet cars on the LSL. The cafe car sometimes is an Amfleet II, sometimes a Horizon cafe car. And I would agree, I would love to see a uniform train on the LSL, as well as the other single level trains.



Larry H. said:


> I refuse to move on my experience with the noise and quality of the Viewliner bedroom. Its my worst experience. If others have a better one thats great and I am happy for them. The worst for some reason of the Superliner bedrooms has been usually on the City of New Orleans for some reason for me. It seemed to be almost always more noisy than the Chicago West Coast routes I have ridden.
> I now quit trying to make my points, its pretty hard to argue personal choices.


And you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I would never want to deny you that. I just think that a lot comes down to luck of the draw, especially when it comes to rattles in the car.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

Joel N. Weber II said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KISS_ALIVE said:
> 
> 
> 
> i say rebuild the superliners sense 99% of them don't have outlets and each seat.
> 
> 
> 
> I think Amtrak has more pressing concerns right now-- and 99% is quite wrong, I have seen plenty with all seats.
> 
> Get me some baggage cars, some proper single-level diners, and then some new single-level sleepers. THEN get me refurbed Superliner coaches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, once Amtrak finishes wreck repairs and overhauling the mothballed Amfleet coaches, you want Amtrak to lay off some of the Bear and Beach Grove workers while they wait for an outside vendor to deliver some new rolling stock before Amtrak's maintenance people should be allowed to add outlets to Amtrak's existing equipment?
Click to expand...

Its called money.

And if Amtrak's got the cash to do it-- then sure, go ahead. Until then I don't plan on seeing another dime out of the Feds for a LONG time and I would much rather have a baggage car that won't tear apart at the trucks then the engineer opens the throttle than a bunch of flipping 110 volt outlets on perfectly good coach cars.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Larry H. said:


> Call it what you want. I distinctly recall that the fare for a room New York to Chicago was one half the coach fare. Now the same ratio is up to 18 times higher in comparison. That is a fact.


I've gone around and around with you on this a dozen times. Let me say it again, Larry.

Sleepers have NOT gotten more expensive. They have gotten CHEAPER in most instances.

The coach seats have gotten CHEAPER. A LOT cheaper. In 1971 it cost $176 to go from New York to LA on Amtrak. In 2008 it costs $184. Meanwhile, a Mercedes 300SEL 6.3 at that point blew people away for costing $15k. Nowadays, its equivalent, the S65 AMG, costs $195k. Point made? I think so.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Its called money.
> And if Amtrak's got the cash to do it-- then sure, go ahead. Until then I don't plan on seeing another dime out of the Feds for a LONG time and I would much rather have a baggage car that won't tear apart at the trucks then the engineer opens the throttle than a bunch of flipping 110 volt outlets on perfectly good coach cars.


I can't imagine adding outlets at every seat could cost more than $10,000-$100,000 per coach car. It could very well be the case that adding outlets at every seat to 100 coach cars costs less than buying one new baggage car, even.

(I am curious whether adding the outlets is just a matter of adding breakers to an existing panel and running wires from those breakers to the new outlets, or if there's a need to add another breaker panel and/or upgrade the size of the 480V-208V transformer. Actually, for that matter, I'm not even sure whether the output of those transformers is three phase 208V.)


----------



## Ryan

Larry H. said:


> I refuse to move on my experience with the noise and quality of the Viewliner bedroom. Its my worst experience. If others have a better one thats great and I am happy for them. The worst for some reason of the Superliner bedrooms has been usually on the City of New Orleans for some reason for me. It seemed to be almost always more noisy than the Chicago West Coast routes I have ridden.
> I now quit trying to make my points, its pretty hard to argue personal choices.


The problem is that you're trying to make your personal single data point and extrapolate that out to a generalization that fails completely.

Anecdotes != Data


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

HokieNav said:


> Larry H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I refuse to move on my experience with the noise and quality of the Viewliner bedroom. Its my worst experience. If others have a better one thats great and I am happy for them. The worst for some reason of the Superliner bedrooms has been usually on the City of New Orleans for some reason for me. It seemed to be almost always more noisy than the Chicago West Coast routes I have ridden.
> I now quit trying to make my points, its pretty hard to argue personal choices.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that you're trying to make your personal single data point and extrapolate that out to a generalization that fails completely.
> 
> Anecdotes != Data
Click to expand...

I believe you mean:

Anecdotes ≠ Data !


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Larry H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I refuse to move on my experience with the noise and quality of the Viewliner bedroom. Its my worst experience. If others have a better one thats great and I am happy for them. The worst for some reason of the Superliner bedrooms has been usually on the City of New Orleans for some reason for me. It seemed to be almost always more noisy than the Chicago West Coast routes I have ridden.
> I now quit trying to make my points, its pretty hard to argue personal choices.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that you're trying to make your personal single data point and extrapolate that out to a generalization that fails completely.
> 
> Anecdotes != Data
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe you mean:
> 
> Anecdotes ≠ Data !
Click to expand...

What's wrong with the notation the C programming language uses?


----------



## Steve4031

I like the general layout/design of viewliner sleepers. I especially like the two levels of windows which would create a nice open feeling in the dining car. If they made viewliner coaches, the bottom row of windows should be the same size as in the sleepers which affords anyone sitting in the seat a chance to look out. A second row of windows would not be necessary in coach in light of the need for luggage racks.

As far as operating reliability, I don't know too much about the stats. I think if they took steps to correct issues in this area, the cars would be fine. There was an issue on my January trip on the LSL where the toilets were frozen for part of the day. Later in the day they were functional. When I did a test flushall of though, I did not see the liquid coming. So I used one of the working toilets in coach. I think durability during cold weather is a major issue with Amtrak's single level equipment, and this issue will need to be addressed no matter what types of cars are ordered.

The other big issue with any Amtrak seats in coach class is the comfortableness of the seats. The current seats do not get it done. I think the best seats came from the old budd cars, and it wouldn't be a bad idea to create a more modern version of that.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

> The other big issue with any Amtrak seats in coach class is the comfortableness of the seats. The current seats do not get it done. I think the best seats came from the old budd cars, and it wouldn't be a bad idea to create a more modern version of that.


Comfort is a matter of perception. I rode ALC-CHI then CHI-PDX then SEA-CHI-ALC in coach all the way and didn't mind the seats one bit.


----------



## AlanB

Joel N. Weber II said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its called money.
> And if Amtrak's got the cash to do it-- then sure, go ahead. Until then I don't plan on seeing another dime out of the Feds for a LONG time and I would much rather have a baggage car that won't tear apart at the trucks then the engineer opens the throttle than a bunch of flipping 110 volt outlets on perfectly good coach cars.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't imagine adding outlets at every seat could cost more than $10,000-$100,000 per coach car. It could very well be the case that adding outlets at every seat to 100 coach cars costs less than buying one new baggage car, even.
> 
> (I am curious whether adding the outlets is just a matter of adding breakers to an existing panel and running wires from those breakers to the new outlets, or if there's a need to add another breaker panel and/or upgrade the size of the 480V-208V transformer. Actually, for that matter, I'm not even sure whether the output of those transformers is three phase 208V.)
Click to expand...

The problem is that Amtrak doesn't want to run the wires, channels, and outlets into a car that hasn't been overhauled. If they do that, then they have to rip out all that work when the car does go in for it's heavy overhaul throwing that money away essentially. And that heavy overhaul takes a couple of weeks and costs a lot more money than what you're quoting, hence the slow pace of outfitting the fleet.


----------



## Trogdor

Since this thread is ostensibly about the cars being rebuilt, I'll mention that a lot of the Amfleets being rebuilt are actually Cafe cars (currently stored due to various incompatible interior configurations) that will be rebuilt as coaches.


----------



## cpamtfan

rmadisonwi said:


> Since this thread is ostensibly about the cars being rebuilt, I'll mention that a lot of the Amfleets being rebuilt are actually Cafe cars (currently stored due to various incompatible interior configurations) that will be rebuilt as coaches.



Where did you hear this? What are they trying to do go back to 1977?

cpamtfan-Peter


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

AlanB said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its called money.
> And if Amtrak's got the cash to do it-- then sure, go ahead. Until then I don't plan on seeing another dime out of the Feds for a LONG time and I would much rather have a baggage car that won't tear apart at the trucks then the engineer opens the throttle than a bunch of flipping 110 volt outlets on perfectly good coach cars.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't imagine adding outlets at every seat could cost more than $10,000-$100,000 per coach car. It could very well be the case that adding outlets at every seat to 100 coach cars costs less than buying one new baggage car, even.
> 
> (I am curious whether adding the outlets is just a matter of adding breakers to an existing panel and running wires from those breakers to the new outlets, or if there's a need to add another breaker panel and/or upgrade the size of the 480V-208V transformer. Actually, for that matter, I'm not even sure whether the output of those transformers is three phase 208V.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is that Amtrak doesn't want to run the wires, channels, and outlets into a car that hasn't been overhauled. If they do that, then they have to rip out all that work when the car does go in for it's heavy overhaul throwing that money away essentially. And that heavy overhaul takes a couple of weeks and costs a lot more money than what you're quoting, hence the slow pace of outfitting the fleet.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The Superliners are great cars but, like all things made before the Internet technology boom they do not lend themselves well to technological overhauls. You can't exactly run extension cords and hope it all works.

Something tells me they'll have more than enough work until the new railcars arrive with the mothballed Amfleets and such...


----------



## Steve4031

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> The other big issue with any Amtrak seats in coach class is the comfortableness of the seats. The current seats do not get it done. I think the best seats came from the old budd cars, and it wouldn't be a bad idea to create a more modern version of that.
> 
> 
> 
> Comfort is a matter of perception. I rode ALC-CHI then CHI-PDX then SEA-CHI-ALC in coach all the way and didn't mind the seats one bit.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. How tall are you? If you are shorter than I am, then you might have had a different expericne that I did. Also, that plastic strip between the two seats that is on all seats in in superliners and Amfleet II cars is literally a pain in the but if one were lucky enough to have to seats to themselves on an overnight trip. That strip did not exist on the older seats in the bud cars even after Amtrak made them into Heritage fleet cars.


----------



## nferr

I would much rather ride in a Viewliner roomette than a Superliner roomette. The fact that you have a private sink and toilet is a HUGE plus IMO. The upper level of windows is another huge plus. I can sleep up top and still get a view, while leaving the lower area set up for sitting. That way it's all set up for sleeping up top but I can sit up and read or whatever till I'm ready. The big storage area over the aisle is another big plus. Yes, the Viewliners have gotten somewhat run-down but nothing a nice refurbishing wouldn't fix. I love the Viewliners.


----------



## Upstate

nferr said:


> I would much rather ride in a Viewliner roomette than a Superliner roomette. The fact that you have a private sink and toilet is a HUGE plus IMO.


Toilets in the room is just wrong. First off if one person wants to use the toilet the other is stuck waiting in the hall. Then if they poop you run the risk of stinking up the room. If you don't want to use the in room toilet then you have to go through the dining car and lounge car to get to a coach with a toilet.


----------



## amtrakwolverine

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Its called money.


no its called *employment*. installing the outlets at each seat keeps the employees working. they have family's to support. let them rebuild the superliners and add outlets. keeps them working untill new cars arrive instead of laying them off for years while new cars get built.


----------



## AlanB

KISS_ALIVE said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its called money.
> 
> 
> 
> no its called *employment*. installing the outlets at each seat keeps the employees working. they have family's to support. let them rebuild the superliners and add outlets. keeps them working untill new cars arrive instead of laying them off for years while new cars get built.
Click to expand...

Yes, but employees don't usually like working if they aren't getting paid, so it does come back to money. If there is no money to pay for the parts needed to do the overhaul (and add outlets while the overhaul is happening), then you can't keep the employees on the payroll.


----------



## AlanB

rmadisonwi said:


> Since this thread is ostensibly about the cars being rebuilt, I'll mention that a lot of the Amfleets being rebuilt are actually Cafe cars (currently stored due to various incompatible interior configurations) that will be rebuilt as coaches.


I have no info on the wrecks that are sitting in Bear, but of the 41 AMF's mothballed for lack of funds to make the needed repairs to pass FRA inspections, here's the break down:

17 are coaches or full length business class coaches

22 are some form of cafe or dinette

2 I can't tell as those numbers don't exist on any roster that I have available.

Breaking it down further:

1 Amcafe

2 Amdinettes

3 Metroliner dinettes

4 Metroliner Club cars

15 Amcoaches

1 Cafe Lounge

1 Full dinette

3 Metroliner Full dinette

2 Business class cars

1 Amclub

1 Club-dinette (the current BC car used on most single level routes other than the NEC)

5 Regional cafes

2 Unkown


----------



## colobok

Viewliners desing must be changed. It is stupid to have shower in EVERY bedroom. They took so much space and they are no convenient to use anyway (too small, bad design).

One shower room per car is enogh. Instead bedrooms for 4 passengers (like family bedroom) would be great to have!


----------



## AlanB

Taking a look at the Superliner side of things, here's a breakdown of what was wrecked and sitting in BG as of March 10th of this year:

13 Coaches

9 Sleepers

5 Diners

7 Lounges

6 Dorms

That's a total of 40 cars out of service. Of that amount I have no idea how many are actually repairable and how many are just sitting around for insurance purposes and/or are being canabalized for parts. Back in 2002 it was stated by Stan Bagley from Amtrak that 16 of the wrecks at that time were beyond repair. Extrapolating from that, I would tend to figure that at least 10 of the current 40 wrecked cars is beyond repair, and perhaps as many as 15 or 16 are actually beyond repair.


----------



## AlanB

colobok said:


> Viewliners desing must be changed. It is stupid to have shower in EVERY bedroom. They took so much space and they are no convenient to use anyway (too small, bad design).One shower room per car is enogh. Instead bedrooms for 4 passengers (like family bedroom) would be great to have!


Unfortunately just removing the shower from the bedroom would do nothing to increase space within the Bedroom, since it doubles as the bathroom too. You'd have to remove the entire bathroom and sink with vanity in order to shoehorn in any more beds into the Bedroom. And if you take out the bathroom in the room, then everyone in that room would have to walk two cars back to the lounge car to use the facilities.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

KISS_ALIVE said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its called money.
> 
> 
> 
> no its called *employment*. installing the outlets at each seat keeps the employees working. they have family's to support. let them rebuild the superliners and add outlets. keeps them working untill new cars arrive instead of laying them off for years while new cars get built.
Click to expand...

And with your plan we're going to run out of money by squandering it on Superliners that will require a full overhaul in another few years anyway while the baggage and heritage cars fall to pieces and we have nothing to replace them...

And then what?

Amtrak needs to use this money in the long term, not the short term. They're getting a one-shot deal to fix their system and try and bring it back. WHo knows? They may actually turn a profit after all this is over...


----------



## colobok

AlanB said:


> colobok said:
> 
> 
> 
> Viewliners desing must be changed. It is stupid to have shower in EVERY bedroom. They took so much space and they are no convenient to use anyway (too small, bad design).One shower room per car is enogh. Instead bedrooms for 4 passengers (like family bedroom) would be great to have!
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately just removing the shower from the bedroom would do nothing to increase space within the Bedroom, since it doubles as the bathroom too. You'd have to remove the entire bathroom and sink with vanity in order to shoehorn in any more beds into the Bedroom. And if you take out the bathroom in the room, then everyone in that room would have to walk two cars back to the lounge car to use the facilities.
Click to expand...

Yes, remove shower and entire bathroom! One or two general bathrooms for the car is enough. People in Superliners go to common bathrooms, so what is the problem?


----------



## jackal

colobok said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colobok said:
> 
> 
> 
> Viewliners desing must be changed. It is stupid to have shower in EVERY bedroom. They took so much space and they are no convenient to use anyway (too small, bad design).One shower room per car is enogh. Instead bedrooms for 4 passengers (like family bedroom) would be great to have!
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately just removing the shower from the bedroom would do nothing to increase space within the Bedroom, since it doubles as the bathroom too. You'd have to remove the entire bathroom and sink with vanity in order to shoehorn in any more beds into the Bedroom. And if you take out the bathroom in the room, then everyone in that room would have to walk two cars back to the lounge car to use the facilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, remove shower and entire bathroom! One or two general bathrooms for the car is enough. People in Superliners go to common bathrooms, so what is the problem?
Click to expand...

I doubt removing the shower and bathroom (which isn't that big) is going to add enough space to add any more accommodations than currently exist in the car--especially since you'd then need to use that room to add a couple of shared bathrooms for the car.

If I'm paying that much money (or points  ) for a bedroom, I rather like the idea of having my own private bathroom and shower. Taking it out may actually hurt bedroom sales.

Now, toilets in roomettes is a different story..._that_ seems pointless...


----------



## colobok

jackal said:


> colobok said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colobok said:
> 
> 
> 
> Viewliners desing must be changed. It is stupid to have shower in EVERY bedroom. They took so much space and they are no convenient to use anyway (too small, bad design).One shower room per car is enogh. Instead bedrooms for 4 passengers (like family bedroom) would be great to have!
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately just removing the shower from the bedroom would do nothing to increase space within the Bedroom, since it doubles as the bathroom too. You'd have to remove the entire bathroom and sink with vanity in order to shoehorn in any more beds into the Bedroom. And if you take out the bathroom in the room, then everyone in that room would have to walk two cars back to the lounge car to use the facilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, remove shower and entire bathroom! One or two general bathrooms for the car is enough. People in Superliners go to common bathrooms, so what is the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt removing the shower and bathroom (which isn't that big) is going to add enough space to add any more accommodations than currently exist in the car--especially since you'd then need to use that room to add a couple of shared bathrooms for the car.
> 
> If I'm paying that much money (or points  ) for a bedroom, I rather like the idea of having my own private bathroom and shower. Taking it out may actually hurt bedroom sales.
Click to expand...

It's you are the only one person travelling in the bedroom.

But if you have 3 or 4 people then you need to buy 2 roommettes instead of one bedroom (30000 points instead of 20000  )

And I really doubt people buy bedrooms because of the shower...


----------



## AlanB

jackal said:


> I doubt removing the shower and bathroom (which isn't that big) is going to add enough space to add any more accommodations than currently exist in the car--especially since you'd then need to use that room to add a couple of shared bathrooms for the car.


While one could not add a new room to the train car, taking out the entire shower/vanity/bathroom unit would allow one to put two child sized bunks into the room, creating a family room in effect. The big problem is that you'd then have to sacrafice two roomettes over to public bathrooms for the entire car. So in effect to add two kids to a bedroom, we'd be sacrificing one bedroom and two roomettes. Not a good deal from Amtrak's perspective.


----------



## AlanB

colobok said:


> jackal said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I'm paying that much money (or points  ) for a bedroom, I rather like the idea of having my own private bathroom and shower. Taking it out may actually hurt bedroom sales.
> 
> 
> 
> It's you are the only one person travelling in the bedroom.
> 
> But if you have 3 or 4 people then you need to buy 2 roommettes instead of one bedroom (30000 points instead of 20000  )
> 
> And I really doubt people buy bedrooms because of the shower...
Click to expand...

Actually there are people who do buy the bedrooms for the shower, but many more do so simply for the larger space and the convienence of having the bathroom in the room. Granted on a Viewliner everyone has a bathroom in the room, but still it is nicer that the bedroom has an enclosed bathroom. And of course on the Superliner, it's the only public room with a bathroom inside the room.


----------



## nferr

Upstate said:


> nferr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would much rather ride in a Viewliner roomette than a Superliner roomette. The fact that you have a private sink and toilet is a HUGE plus IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> Toilets in the room is just wrong. First off if one person wants to use the toilet the other is stuck waiting in the hall. Then if they poop you run the risk of stinking up the room. If you don't want to use the in room toilet then you have to go through the dining car and lounge car to get to a coach with a toilet.
Click to expand...

I was talking about traveling solo. Yes, it's problematic with two in a roomette. Traveling solo give me a Viewliner roomette anyday over a Superliner roomette.

Having your own private toilet facilities worked fine in the 10-6 days. Anything beats a public toilet IMO.


----------



## sunchaser

AlanB said:


> colobok said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jackal said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I'm paying that much money (or points  ) for a bedroom, I rather like the idea of having my own private bathroom and shower. Taking it out may actually hurt bedroom sales.
> 
> 
> 
> It's you are the only one person travelling in the bedroom.
> 
> But if you have 3 or 4 people then you need to buy 2 roommettes instead of one bedroom (30000 points instead of 20000  )
> 
> And I really doubt people buy bedrooms because of the shower...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually there are people who do buy the bedrooms for the shower, but many more do so simply for the larger space and the convienence of having the bathroom in the room. Granted on a Viewliner everyone has a bathroom in the room, but still it is nicer that the bedroom has an enclosed bathroom. And of course on the Superliner, it's the only public room with a bathroom inside the room.
Click to expand...

We are some of those that purchase a bedroom (Superliner) for the bathroom, shower, & added overall space. We originally looked at the roomette, but decided for the above reasons (and others) to choose bedrooms. It did raise the overall price. But the thought was, since we are travelling such a long distance, we wanted the ability to really be comfortable & stretch out if needed. Also the extra chair is an added bonus to me.


----------



## Trogdor

cpamtfan said:


> rmadisonwi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since this thread is ostensibly about the cars being rebuilt, I'll mention that a lot of the Amfleets being rebuilt are actually Cafe cars (currently stored due to various incompatible interior configurations) that will be rebuilt as coaches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you hear this?
Click to expand...

Marc Magliari, last Saturday.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

rmadisonwi said:


> Since this thread is ostensibly about the cars being rebuilt, I'll mention that a lot of the Amfleets being rebuilt are actually Cafe cars (currently stored due to various incompatible interior configurations) that will be rebuilt as coaches.


You must have mis-understood. They are not going to convert food service cars to coaches. It would be stupid on so many levels, I don't know where to begin.


----------



## Trogdor

Green Maned Lion said:


> rmadisonwi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since this thread is ostensibly about the cars being rebuilt, I'll mention that a lot of the Amfleets being rebuilt are actually Cafe cars (currently stored due to various incompatible interior configurations) that will be rebuilt as coaches.
> 
> 
> 
> You must have mis-understood. They are not going to convert food service cars to coaches. It would be stupid on so many levels, I don't know where to begin.
Click to expand...

So you must be calling an Amtrak spokesman a liar. That, or you're calling me a liar. Either way, be careful what you say.

Stored Amfleet food service cars do nobody any good. Coaches that can earn revenue to improve short-distance corridor service (given the lack of anything else available) are what Amtrak needs.

I suppose you have a better idea on where Amtrak can get a bunch of coaches on short notice.


----------



## had8ley

While we're on the re-building page....I rode the Crescent with the "New York Club" cafe. All they've done to the smoking section is remove the door and left the bench like seating. Wouldn't these be ideal candidates for a half cafe, half Business Class makeover?


----------



## Steve4031

Regarding the food service cars . . . I don't know if there is a shortage of these cars, but they could put seating in both ends with windows and then use the middle part for something else. It could be used for luggage or bikes, etc. (I know that is a reach) or they could use it for a crew area to free up space in the regular food service car. I would think that this is a time for outside the box thinking.

I saw a post about superliner cars being rebuilt. They could almost make the Sunset daily plus add superliner service someplace else. one these cars are put back into service. They could start putting them into service on the midwest routes to replace the problematic horizon cars next winter.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

If they're planning to convert every single food service Amfleet car to a coach, where do they expect to come up with lounge cars for a few more Downeaster trainsets? And why are they passing up the opportunity to add a cafe car to the Hiawatha Service trains? And what if extensions into Virginia require a few more cafe cars for the Northeast Regional?


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

Rafi said:


> With regard to the Dining Car situation, there was a bit of news to come out of the NARP Meeting yesterday in Baltimore. Joe McHugh Vice President, Government Affairs and Corporate Communications was there and spoke briefly about the rebuild projects. He said that the Amfleet/Diner/Baggage restorations are continuing and they plan to pretty much empty the warehouse, so to speak, with only a few cars left mothballed when all is said and done. With the Diners going back onto the Lake Shore, they're still going to be perilously short on spares until the new cars arrive in a few years, he said, so they are seriously looking at bringing the Viewliner Diner back into service later this year. He said that right now it's being transported from Bear to Beech Grove to draw up new blueprints for the new Viewliner Diners when they go to the production line, and after that it may go out for revenue service to fill in while the new diners are being negotiated.


If they put real dining cars back on the LSL, is it possible that the LSL's pretend dining cars could take over as the LSL lounge cars so that the Boston section sleeper passengers can get hot meals (even if there's no flat iron steak)?


----------



## AlanB

had8ley said:


> While we're on the re-building page....I rode the Crescent with the "New York Club" cafe. All they've done to the smoking section is remove the door and left the bench like seating. Wouldn't these be ideal candidates for a half cafe, half Business Class makeover?


While it probably would be nice to start offering BC seating on the LD's, I see two problems with this. First, more than half the Amfleet II cafe cars have already been converted to Diner-Lite cars. And the second, and IMHO, bigger problem is that these cars represent the only lounge car on the train. They're already not big enough for a full passenger load even when they have tables on both ends of the cars. Putting BC seating would further cut down on the lounge's capacity. I'd much prefer to see either table returned to the car like it once had, or finish completing the Diner-Lite conversions to achieve a uniform fleet.


----------



## AlanB

Joel N. Weber II said:


> If they're planning to convert every single food service Amfleet car to a coach, where do they expect to come up with lounge cars for a few more Downeaster trainsets?


I'm not sure that Amtrak actually has a shortage of single level cafe cars right now, so I don't think that's really a problem. And eventually with new Bi-levels for many of the Chicago runs, Amtrak will have even more single level cafe cars available.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> And why are they passing up the opportunity to add a cafe car to the Hiawatha Service trains?


We don't even run cafe cars on the two and a half hour Empire Service between ALB & NYP, why would they want to put cafe cars on the one and a half hour Hiawatha service. Besides, that's a State Sponsored service. Amtrak isn't going to add anything to that service that the states aren't going to pay for.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> And what if extensions into Virginia require a few more cafe cars for the Northeast Regional?


The extensions are just that, extensions of existing Amtrak NEC trains, so they already have cafe cars.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

rmadisonwi said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rmadisonwi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since this thread is ostensibly about the cars being rebuilt, I'll mention that a lot of the Amfleets being rebuilt are actually Cafe cars (currently stored due to various incompatible interior configurations) that will be rebuilt as coaches.
> 
> 
> 
> You must have mis-understood. They are not going to convert food service cars to coaches. It would be stupid on so many levels, I don't know where to begin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you must be calling an Amtrak spokesman a liar. That, or you're calling me a liar. Either way, be careful what you say.
> 
> Stored Amfleet food service cars do nobody any good. Coaches that can earn revenue to improve short-distance corridor service (given the lack of anything else available) are what Amtrak needs.
> 
> I suppose you have a better idea on where Amtrak can get a bunch of coaches on short notice.
Click to expand...

I am not calling you a liar. I said specifically, "you must have misunderstood", and telling the truth is only laying out information as it occurs in your mind. Lying is stating information you know to be untrue.

There are several reasons why the Amfleet I cafe cars can not be full coaches. They have mechanical equipment, reinforcements, and so on that would make the conversion extraordinarily expensive and downright silly.

Now, here is what I think is actually the plan, and what I think Magliari was saying, is that they were planning on converting these cars to a layout similar to the original AmCafe layout- coach seats on both sides of the snack bar. I guess you could call that a "coach", and it would make more sense. After all, the snack bar doesn't take that much space, when you get down to it.

There are trains on the system running with Club-Dinettes and full-dinettes that really don't need them. For example, the Downeaster is a short run. There isn't much need for table seating on that train. Running it with a club-snack-coach car that has the BC section in one end, the snack bar, and coach seats in the other would increase capacity significantly.

Likewise, people have mentioned the Hiawatha. Yeah, Wisconsin doesn't pay for a food service car. But Amtrak runs the at-seat carts anyway. Perhaps they could (and will) experiment with the idea of a mid-train snack-coach instead. All you give up is a few seats, while greatly improving the selection and types of food available.

Another place it might work is providing a second snack car on long regional trains.

Honestly, I've never understood why they got rid of the the snack-coach configuration. Its not great railroading, but NEC regional trains have never been about that.


----------



## AlanB

Green Maned Lion said:


> There are trains on the system running with Club-Dinettes and full-dinettes that really don't need them. For example, the Downeaster is a short run. There isn't much need for table seating on that train. Running it with a club-snack-coach car that has the BC section in one end, the snack bar, and coach seats in the other would increase capacity significantly.


AFAIK all full-dinettes only ply the NEC and baring a last minute BO Club-Dinnette, never venture outside the corridor. There might be a few that still run on certain routes out of Chicago, but I believe that Amtrak is trying to stop that, if they haven't done so already. So replacing them with a Club-Dinette or a cafe car with normal seating on both ends IMHO would not be a good idea, to many people use those tables.

Regarding the Downeaster, that train should retain its Club-dinette. Again, people do like the tables and the conductors use one table for their paperwork. I also suspect that NNEPRA would not be happy with another car. They weren't exactly thrilled when Amtrak stole all the Club-Dinette cars back during the Acela crisis, but that was both temporary and an emergency. This isn't.



Green Maned Lion said:


> Likewise, people have mentioned the Hiawatha. Yeah, Wisconsin doesn't pay for a food service car. But Amtrak runs the at-seat carts anyway. Perhaps they could (and will) experiment with the idea of a mid-train snack-coach instead. All you give up is a few seats, while greatly improving the selection and types of food available.


Amtrak runs the cart service, because that's what the states want and pay for. I rather doubt that the two states involved will pony up more money for a cafe car of any type. And frankly, assuming that the new bi-levels expected to be on order by year's end are planned to run on the Hiawatha route, I rather doubt that any changes would be made betweeen now and then.


----------



## Reno89502

So I am just throwing out this idea. If they are going to re-build or create new baggage cars, I have a idea of a item that they should include in the baggage cars. When I board the CZ in Reno to go over to the Bay Area, the lounge is always out of alot of food items, (Sometimes the diner is as well). I think they should incorporate some refrigerated food storage into the baggage cars. It doesn't take up much room, and it will cut down on the constant "Running Out" of food, thus, more happy and satisfied passengers!!


----------



## AlanB

Reno89502 said:


> So I am just throwing out this idea. If they are going to re-build or create new baggage cars, I have a idea of a item that they should include in the baggage cars. When I board the CZ in Reno to go over to the Bay Area, the lounge is always out of alot of food items, (Sometimes the diner is as well). I think they should incorporate some refrigerated food storage into the baggage cars. It doesn't take up much room, and it will cut down on the constant "Running Out" of food, thus, more happy and satisfied passengers!!


It's generally not a lack of storage space that leads to sold out items, it's the fact that they items simply aren't loaded onto the train in the first place. Some of the times it's simply just that someone overlooked something or that the commissary didn't have the item. But most of the issue is that Amtrak has simply determined that it doesn't pay to overload the cars with food. They try to predict how many of each item will be brought by the passengers on board from past years, and then load only a few extras above and beyond what has historically sold.

This is done for two reasons that I know of, one to keep things fresh and two, to keep costs down.

But again, it's not a lack of storage space that causes them to run out of items.

The Superliner dining car can carry enough food to go from DC to LA, and quite possibly start back to DC before running out of food because they couldn't carry any more. The single level diners carry far less, but then there are no single level dining cars that need to carry more than a day and a half's worth of meals.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

AlanB said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are trains on the system running with Club-Dinettes and full-dinettes that really don't need them. For example, the Downeaster is a short run. There isn't much need for table seating on that train. Running it with a club-snack-coach car that has the BC section in one end, the snack bar, and coach seats in the other would increase capacity significantly.
> 
> 
> 
> AFAIK all full-dinettes only ply the NEC and baring a last minute BO Club-Dinnette, never venture outside the corridor. There might be a few that still run on certain routes out of Chicago, but I believe that Amtrak is trying to stop that, if they haven't done so already. So replacing them with a Club-Dinette or a cafe car with normal seating on both ends IMHO would not be a good idea, to many people use those tables.
> 
> Regarding the Downeaster, that train should retain its Club-dinette. Again, people do like the tables and the conductors use one table for their paperwork. I also suspect that NNEPRA would not be happy with another car. They weren't exactly thrilled when Amtrak stole all the Club-Dinette cars back during the Acela crisis, but that was both temporary and an emergency. This isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Likewise, people have mentioned the Hiawatha. Yeah, Wisconsin doesn't pay for a food service car. But Amtrak runs the at-seat carts anyway. Perhaps they could (and will) experiment with the idea of a mid-train snack-coach instead. All you give up is a few seats, while greatly improving the selection and types of food available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amtrak runs the cart service, because that's what the states want and pay for. I rather doubt that the two states involved will pony up more money for a cafe car of any type. And frankly, assuming that the new bi-levels expected to be on order by year's end are planned to run on the Hiawatha route, I rather doubt that any changes would be made betweeen now and then.
Click to expand...

The Hiawatha food service is: 1) not paid for under 403(b)- Wisconsin doesn't pay them for it because it is 2) Profitable. There is no reason why they wouldn't play with adding a snack coach if they thought it might increase said profit.


----------



## Trogdor

Green Maned Lion said:


> There are several reasons why the Amfleet I cafe cars can not be full coaches. They have mechanical equipment, reinforcements, and so on that would make the conversion extraordinarily expensive and downright silly.
> Now, here is what I think is actually the plan, and what I think Magliari was saying, is that they were planning on converting these cars to a layout similar to the original AmCafe layout- coach seats on both sides of the snack bar. I guess you could call that a "coach", and it would make more sense. After all, the snack bar doesn't take that much space, when you get down to it.


Mr. Magliari specifically said that the Amfleet I cafe cars were built identical to the coaches, and that the middle part of the car has slots where windows were plugged, and that they would remove those plugs and convert them to full-blown coaches.

But, I suppose you know more than he does. After all, you were at the meeting on Saturday and I was living in a dream world.


----------



## Neil_M

rmadisonwi said:


> But, I suppose you know more than he does. After all, you were at the meeting on Saturday and I was living in a dream world.


That's not the point. GML knows best. Even if he doesn't!


----------



## Green Maned Lion

rmadisonwi said:


> Mr. Magliari specifically said that the Amfleet I cafe cars were built identical to the coaches, and that the middle part of the car has slots where windows were plugged, and that they would remove those plugs and convert them to full-blown coaches.
> But, I suppose you know more than he does. After all, you were at the meeting on Saturday and I was living in a dream world.


Why are you taking my comment in such a negative light? I will re-explain myself. My comment was on the level of when I said to my guidance counsellor, "You must be mistaken, I couldn't have possibly gotten a 1580 on my SAT!"

If you say Mr. Maglieri said that with that degree of precision, I believe you heard him say that. If Mr. Maglieri said that, I believe he believes it. I continue to disbelieve Amtrak would do something so ridiculously short-sighted, but then again, this is Amtrak.

I'm incredulous, sufficiently so that I doubted what you were relaying was a completely accurate picture of what Amtrak is saying it is going to do. I'm not calling you a liar, and never was. I assume you've played the telephone game.



Neil_M said:


> That's not the point. GML knows best. Even if he doesn't!


Ya know, you must be the sweetest person I've ever met. I know I'm an obnoxious, blunt, and very cocky a$$hole, but I don't go around picking on you. I'm not sure why you have the time or need to do so to me. Please knock it off. It's rather boorish.


----------



## Trogdor

Green Maned Lion said:


> I continue to disbelieve Amtrak would do something so ridiculously short-sighted, but then again, this is Amtrak.


I'm just curious, what is your background in railcar engineering or mechanical design?


----------



## Green Maned Lion

I have a minor in engineering from Rowan University. I study railcars on my own. I don't claim to be an expert on them. I was referring more to macro effects on the system with the comment you are quoting. Logistics, system utilization, and operations management IS my background.


----------



## Neil_M

Green Maned Lion said:


> Logistics, system utilization, and operations management IS my background.


Ah........


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

AlanB said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what if extensions into Virginia require a few more cafe cars for the Northeast Regional?
> 
> 
> 
> The extensions are just that, extensions of existing Amtrak NEC trains, so they already have cafe cars.
Click to expand...

I thought there was the potential that more Newport News frequencies and/or any Norfolk service at all might increase the number of Northeast Regional trainsets needed. (Norfok service southbound in the evening and northbound in the morning could be added without increasing the number of trainsets needed to meet the schedule if the Lynchburg extension weren't happening, but the Lynchburg extension does look quite likely.)


----------



## MikefromCrete

Green Maned Lion said:


> rmadisonwi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since this thread is ostensibly about the cars being rebuilt, I'll mention that a lot of the Amfleets being rebuilt are actually Cafe cars (currently stored due to various incompatible interior configurations) that will be rebuilt as coaches.
> 
> 
> 
> You must have mis-understood. They are not going to convert food service cars to coaches. It would be stupid on so many levels, I don't know where to begin.
Click to expand...

I was also at the Midwest High Speed Rail Association meeting on Saturday where Marc Magliani, Amtrak's spokesman for the middle of the country, was one of the speakers. He clearly said that the mothballed Amfleet cars, most of which are now food service cars, would be converted to coaches. He said that when built, the food service cars had spaces for windows in the middle that were covered up. Apparently Amtrak plans to put windows in those covered up spaces and convert the cars to full coaches. There are a number of Midwestern train lines that could be started soon (Chicago-Dubuque, Chicago-Moline and on to Iowa City and Chicago to Peoria), but no spare coaches are available. Additional coaches are also needed at busy times on the other Chicago-based routes. Now, I assume that food service cars would be needed also, but the list posted earlier by Al B showed that there was an abundance of food service cars in the stored fleet, but only a handful of coaches, so it would make sense to remodel most of these cars in coaches, which are in short supply.

In three years or so, when the new double-deck corridor cars are ready, the Amfleet cars can be sent back to the corridor and the Horizon cars can be sent some place warm where snow won't be an issue.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

MikefromCrete said:


> Horizon cars can be sent some place warm where snow won't be an issue.


Yeah, like hell.

Er, I mean New Jersey, with the rest of the Comet cars, doing commuter service- where they belong.


----------



## MattW

We'll take them here in Atlanta if just to get some semblance of commuter service going! (Yes, I'm the official straw-grasper of these boards!)


----------



## printman2000

MattW said:


> (Yes, I'm the official straw-grasper of these boards!)


Hey, we have a club, welcome!

(I still have hope that Amarillo will get Amtrak service)


----------



## MadManMoon

Green Maned Lion said:


> rmadisonwi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since this thread is ostensibly about the cars being rebuilt, I'll mention that a lot of the Amfleets being rebuilt are actually Cafe cars (currently stored due to various incompatible interior configurations) that will be rebuilt as coaches.
> 
> 
> 
> You must have mis-understood. They are not going to convert food service cars to coaches. It would be stupid on so many levels, I don't know where to begin.
Click to expand...

No, he was not mistaken.

From Amtrak's own ARRA Project Summary Descriptions, page 68:

"1) Twenty (20) Amfleet I Food Service Cars will be converted to Amfleet I Coach Cars. During this process, the galley area will be removed, windows,

seating, heating, and air conditioning will be installed and the car floor plan will meet the standard Capstone configuration thereby increasing revenue

capacity. (Capstone: name given for this interior package enhancement which includes bathroom modules, wall and ceiling plastics, and a more

neutral color scheme)."

Here's the link to the subject PDF: ARRA Project Summary Descriptions

Here's the overall Amtrak site with all ARRA documents (see "ARRA Budget Documents"): Amtrak Reports - ARRA

What's more interesting is this little nugget from page 67: "Lake Shore Limited Route: 1 Viewliner Diner (8400) @ $1.634m." I wonder how effective the supportability will be for a one-off, unique car, unless they modify/upgrade the existing 8400 to the same conceptual configuration as the planned new order of Viewliner Diners.


----------



## AlanB

MadManMoon said:


> What's more interesting is this little nugget from page 67: "Lake Shore Limited Route: 1 Viewliner Diner (8400) @ $1.634m." I wonder how effective the supportability will be for a one-off, unique car, unless they modify/upgrade the existing 8400 to the same conceptual configuration as the planned new order of Viewliner Diners.


I'm guessing that after spending that much money on the original proto-type, that they will update it as much as possible to match the new diners. Especially since it's first supposed to serve as the model/living blue print for the new diners. And the shell of course pretty much matches the existing Viewliner fleet.

It's interesting though that they are going to spend money to bring that car out of mothballs, but not the two original proto-type sleepers. The first proto-type sleeper #2300 may be too far gone and too different also, but #2301 Eastern View later renumbered to 62091 ran in revenue service about 6 or 7 years ago, so it could in theory be rescued for a similar amount of money if not even less.


----------



## Trogdor

I, too, was wondering whether or not they planned to rebuild 62091. It's possible, though, that they cannibalized that car of any usable parts in order to keep the rest of the fleet running.

Also included in the stimulus plan is to return 15 P40s to service.

Further, there is a mention of using the Superliner diner-lounge cars on the Empire Builder. I'd heard rumors of this in the past, where they would send the Diner-Lounge to Portland, and the dining car and Sightseer Lounge to Seattle. They also plan to add a sleeper to the Empire Builder, meaning that they would have four sleepers on that train during peak times (which, along with at least four coaches, means they would certainly justify an extra food-service car).


----------



## Rafi

Thanks for that link, MadMan...

I also stumbled across this little nugget on page 68-69 (I've added bold to call out main points which may be of interest to some forum members):



> *SUPERLINERS:*This project will return 21 long distance cars from wreck status. Upon completion of the wreck work, these cars will receive a full overhaul in
> 
> accordance with the scopes defined by equipment type. The scope of work will include overhaul or replacement of major components and systems that
> 
> will maintain the rolling stock in a state of good repair and extend the life of the asset. The work scope includes replacing all carpet, drapes and
> 
> cushions, windows, batteries, battery chargers, lamps, wheel slide units, door motors, diaphragms, toilets, water heaters, and 480-volt train line.
> 
> Melamine will replace carpet on walls where applicable. The work scope also includes the overhaul of trucks and air brake valves. *Additionally, this*
> 
> *equipment will include all work to upgrade the equipment to the Empire Builder standards (name given for this interior package which includes new color*
> 
> *scheme upgrades for floors, walls, and window coverings that was installed on the Empire Builder Service).*
> 
> Justification:
> 
> This work will return stored and wrecked fleet to service and complete the long distance fleet types with ADA compliance (Americans with Disabilities
> 
> Act).
> 
> Increase capacity and fill-in on long distance service: 1 Superliner Coach-Bag (31006) @ $1.086m; 2 Superliner I Coach (34040 and 34087) @ $.672m.
> 
> *Capitol Limited Route (will replace the Diner-Lounge Cars which will go on the Empire Builder Route)*: 3 Superliner I Diners (38017, 38026 and 38031) @ $.970m; 1 Superliner II Diner (38049) @ $1.055m.
> 
> *Auto Train Service*: 1 Superliner II Deluxe Sleeper (32501) @ $1.073m.
> 
> *Expand Empire Builder Route*: 5 Superliner I Sleepers (32014, 32040, 32046, 32049 and 32065) @ $1.073m; 1 Superliner II Sleeper (32112) @ $1.055m.
> 
> Supplement daily shortage on long distance service: 2 Superliner II Trans Sleepers (39008 and 39023) @ $1.065m.
> 
> *Lake Shore Limited Route: 1 Viewliner Diner* (8400) @ $1.634m.
> 
> 3 Superliner I Lounges (33003, 33011 and 33016) @ $.378m; 1 Superliner II Lounge (33036) @ $.512m.
> 
> *AMFLEETS:*
> 
> This project will return 60 Amfleet cars to service over the next two years. The following scope will be performed under this Amfleet project:
> 
> 1) Twenty (20) *Amfleet I Food Service Cars will be converted to Amfleet I Coach Cars*. During this process, the galley area will be removed, windows, seating, heating, and air conditioning will be installed and the car floor plan will meet the standard Capstone configuration thereby increasing revenue capacity. (Capstone: name given for this interior package enhancement which includes bathroom modules, wall and ceiling plastics, and a more neutral color scheme).
> 
> 2) Four (4) Amfleet II Coach Cars and seven (7) Amfleet I Coach Cars *will be rehabilitated from wreck status and then undergo a level 3 overhaul*. (Level 3 overhaul; high level of overhaul or replacement of major components and systems that return the rolling stock to a state of good repair and extend the life of the asset. The work scope includes the overhaul of trucks, air brake valves, couplers, draft gears, seats, diaphragms, door operators, battery chargers, air conditioning units, and toilets. Also includes the replacement of the wheel-slide system, 480-volt train line cables, batteries, heat and air conditioning control panels, freeze protection system, carpet, cushions, windows, lighting, exhaust fans, blower motors, evaporator assembly and weather-stripping. Any fleet-wide modifications will also be completed as well as the Capstone interior package.
> 
> 3) One (1) *Amfleet II Food Service Car will be rehabilitated from wreck status and then undergo a Diner Lite Conversion* and a level 3 overhaul. This converted car will have new table and booth seating, dry storage compartments, conductor's module, condiment stations, and additional refrigerators.
> 
> 4) Thirteen (13) Amfleet I Coach Cars and fifteen (15) Amfleet I Food Service Cars will receive a level 3 overhaul.
> 
> Justification:
> 
> This work will return stored and wrecked equipment to service and complete the Amfleet equipment types with ADA compliance (Americans with Disabilities Act).
> 
> The following units and capital per unit estimated costs will be completed under this project following the index listed under the Description Area. Also noted in this section is the service it will supplement:
> 
> 1) The following *Amfleet I Food Service Cars will be converted to Amfleet I Coach cars* at a total average cost per unit of $1.428m: 20026, 20029, 20032, 20037, 20041, 20045, 20049, 20124, 20145, 20906, 20908, 20936, 20977, 20979, 20982, 20988, 48143, 48152, 48984 and 48989. These Amfleet I Coach Cars will be used during peak demands; i.e., Holidays including Thanksgiving and Christmas, specials and charter services.
> 
> 2) The following *Amfleet II Coach Cars will be returned from wreck status* at a total average cost per unit of $.872m: 25007, 25055, 25085 and 25103. These cars will be used in long distance service. The following Amfleet I Coach Cars will be returned from wreck status at the total average cost of $1.019m: 21095, 21100, 21177, 21182, 44673, 44834, and 44957. These cars will be in Northeast Corridor Regional Service.
> 
> 3) The following Amfleet II Food Service Car will be returned from wreck status at a cost of $.650m: 28019. This car will be used in single-level long distance service.
> 
> 4) The following Amfleet I Coach Cars will be overhauled at a total average cost per unit of $.723m: 21018, 21021, 21027, 21099, 21112, 21117, 21123, 21124, 21134, 21137, 21151, 21164 and 21195. The following Amfleet I Food Service Cars will be overhauled at a total average cost per unit of $.615m: 20225, 20253, 28305, 28350, 28353, 28357, 28358, 43351, 43353, 43359, 43383, 43371, 48220, 48224 and 48905. The first 13 cars (Amfleet I Coach) will be used in the Northeast Corridor Regional Service. *An operating plan is being developed to utilize the remaining 15 Amfleet I Food Service Cars where Club Dinette Cars are currently being used*.
> 
> *P-40s RETURNING TO SERVICE*
> 
> This project will return to service 15 P-40 Locomotives in order for them to be used in long distance service. During the overhaul of the P-40 locomotives, all main components of the unit including the auxiliary generator power contactors, voltage regulator, batteries, trucks and air brake will be replaced or overhauled. The 480 volt system, event recorder, and interior components such as seat, doors, windows and control stand will be inspected and replaced. All modifications on file will be completed. The cab interior and exterior will be refurbished and painted.
> 
> Justification:
> 
> The following P-40 locomotives have a capital per unit estimated cost of $867,000: 807, 814, 815, 816, 817, 818, 821, 822, 823, 824, 830, 831, 832, 835 and 837.
> 
> *These locomotives will be used in long distance service.*


-Rafi


----------



## Steve4031

Looks like the full service diners are coming back to the Capitol Limited. Lots of good improvements here. Glad I voted for Obama!!!!.


----------



## Long Train Runnin'

> The following Amfleet I Coach Cars will be overhauled at a total average cost per unit of $.723m: 21018, 21021, 21027, 21099, 21112, 21117,21123, 21124, 21134, 21137, 21151, 21164 and 21195. The following Amfleet I Food Service Cars will be overhauled at a total average cost per unit of
> 
> $.615m: 20225, 20253, 28305, 28350, 28353, 28357, 28358, 43351, 43353, 43359, 43383, 43371, 48220, 48224 and 48905. The first 13 cars
> 
> (Amfleet I Coach) will be used in the Northeast Corridor Regional Service. An operating plan is being developed to utilize the remaining 15 Amfleet I
> 
> Food Service Cars where Club Dinette Cars are currently being used.


Does this mean the 2-1 biz cars will be gone forever  ?


----------



## MadManMoon

Steve4031 said:


> Looks like the full service diners are coming back to the Capitol Limited. Lots of good improvements here. Glad I voted for Obama!!!!.


I hope that's the answer! The way I read it, the Diner-Lounge cars are going to the Empire Builder - does that mean they're going SDS on all routes now?!


----------



## BuzzKillington

Does anyone think that the rebuilt P40's might mean some new/reinstated routes in the near future?


----------



## AlanB

Long Train Runnin said:


> The following Amfleet I Coach Cars will be overhauled at a total average cost per unit of $.723m: 21018, 21021, 21027, 21099, 21112, 21117,21123, 21124, 21134, 21137, 21151, 21164 and 21195. The following Amfleet I Food Service Cars will be overhauled at a total average cost per unit of
> 
> $.615m: 20225, 20253, 28305, 28350, 28353, 28357, 28358, 43351, 43353, 43359, 43383, 43371, 48220, 48224 and 48905. The first 13 cars
> 
> (Amfleet I Coach) will be used in the Northeast Corridor Regional Service. An operating plan is being developed to utilize the remaining 15 Amfleet I
> 
> Food Service Cars where Club Dinette Cars are currently being used.
> 
> 
> 
> Does this mean the 2-1 biz cars will be gone forever  ?
Click to expand...

There is no plan in the world that could possibly replace 45 Club-Dinette cars with only 15 AMF I food service cars. I believe, although I will admit that it is a bit unclear, that they are saying that there are still a few Club-Dinette cars that ply the NEC and that they are trying to take those off the corridor. The Club-Dinette cars really aren't the right cars for the NEC and it's passenger loads. It probably works on the overnight run, but otherwise they just don't have the capacity for seating that the NEC demmands.

Most likely those Club-Dinettes would then be reassigned else where, like maybe to the Adirondack and other trains of that type.

I certainly don't think that Amtrak intends to do away with 45 cars that were basically just rebuilt within the last 5 years. That would be a huge waste of money.


----------



## AlanB

MadManMoon said:


> Steve4031 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like the full service diners are coming back to the Capitol Limited. Lots of good improvements here. Glad I voted for Obama!!!!.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that's the answer! The way I read it, the Diner-Lounge cars are going to the Empire Builder - does that mean they're going SDS on all routes now?!
Click to expand...

No, it sounds like they want a second car that can do dinners on the EB, since they plan to add yet another sleeper to that run, plus having the CCC would allow the Portland section to finally serve a nice cooked meal. My guess is that when the two sections are combined, that they would use the full diner for sleeping car pax only with the current menu and staff and the CCC for coach pax who want a sit down meal, albeit a more SDS like meal.


----------



## BuzzKillington

I wonder why Amtrak is building more Diner-Lite cars if they are planning on restoring full diner service on the LSL? Would it be for trains such as the Adirondack or the Carolinian?


----------



## printman2000

BuzzKillington said:


> I wonder why Amtrak is building more Diner-Lite cars if they are planning on restoring full diner service on the LSL? Would it be for trains such as the Adirondack or the Carolinian?





> 3) One (1) *Amfleet II Food Service Car will be rehabilitated from wreck status and then undergo a Diner Lite Conversion* and a level 3 overhaul. This converted car will have new table and booth seating, dry storage compartments, conductor's module, condiment stations, and additional refrigerators.


Buzz, that was my exact question also. The only answer I can think of is they plan to put them on some other trains that currently do not use dining cars. If the LSL has dining cars, then that just leaves the Cardinal using diner-lite.


----------



## BuzzKillington

Diner Lites would be great for trains like:

Adirondack

Maple Leaf

Palmetto

Carolinian

Pennsylvanian

Vermonter

Put Diners back on the LSL and Cardinal and they might be in business.


----------



## Long Train Runnin'

AlanB said:


> Long Train Runnin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following Amfleet I Coach Cars will be overhauled at a total average cost per unit of $.723m: 21018, 21021, 21027, 21099, 21112, 21117,21123, 21124, 21134, 21137, 21151, 21164 and 21195. The following Amfleet I Food Service Cars will be overhauled at a total average cost per unit of
> 
> $.615m: 20225, 20253, 28305, 28350, 28353, 28357, 28358, 43351, 43353, 43359, 43383, 43371, 48220, 48224 and 48905. The first 13 cars
> 
> (Amfleet I Coach) will be used in the Northeast Corridor Regional Service. An operating plan is being developed to utilize the remaining 15 Amfleet I
> 
> Food Service Cars where Club Dinette Cars are currently being used.
> 
> 
> 
> Does this mean the 2-1 biz cars will be gone forever  ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no plan in the world that could possibly replace 45 Club-Dinette cars with only 15 AMF I food service cars. I believe, although I will admit that it is a bit unclear, that they are saying that there are still a few Club-Dinette cars that ply the NEC and that they are trying to take those off the corridor. The Club-Dinette cars really aren't the right cars for the NEC and it's passenger loads. It probably works on the overnight run, but otherwise they just don't have the capacity for seating that the NEC demmands.
> 
> Most likely those Club-Dinettes would then be reassigned else where, like maybe to the Adirondack and other trains of that type.
> 
> I certainly don't think that Amtrak intends to do away with 45 cars that were basically just rebuilt within the last 5 years. That would be a huge waste of money.
Click to expand...

Okay sounds good  I still have to get in on one of those 2-1 seat BC Cars and if they were going away then that would ruin that chance lol. Maybe there will be more runs that get a BC car added..


----------



## AlanB

printman2000 said:


> BuzzKillington said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder why Amtrak is building more Diner-Lite cars if they are planning on restoring full diner service on the LSL? Would it be for trains such as the Adirondack or the Carolinian?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3) One (1) *Amfleet II Food Service Car will be rehabilitated from wreck status and then undergo a Diner Lite Conversion* and a level 3 overhaul. This converted car will have new table and booth seating, dry storage compartments, conductor's module, condiment stations, and additional refrigerators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Buzz, that was my exact question also. The only answer I can think of is they plan to put them on some other trains that currently do not use dining cars. If the LSL has dining cars, then that just leaves the Cardinal using diner-lite.
Click to expand...

My guesses are and in no particular order:

One, to keep the fleet of AMF II food service cars uniform. This makes it easier to swap out a bad ordered car.

Two, having such a car on all single level LD's provides a backup should a full diner fail for any reason. It's not a great backup, but it's still better than sending sleeping car pax to the cafe car.

Three, perhaps they are also thinking along the same lines for the Silvers or the LSL that they are thinking about the EB, making the train longer and needing more dining space to accommodate the load.

Four, as already mentioned, perhaps some of the long haul daytime only routes will get these cars. Of course that does leave me wondering what they would then do with the nice Club-Dinette cars that currently ply many of those routes and offer BC seating in addition to the cafe. But I won't deny that having a better food service car on runs like the Leaf, Adirondack, Vermonter, Pennsy, and so on is a good idea.


----------



## BuzzKillington

You could make the argument that trains like the Maple Leaf, Vermonter and Palmetto could serve more meals than the LSL. While the LSL will serve a total of 2 meals on its route, the others could serve breakfast, lunch and dinner.


----------



## AlanB

BuzzKillington said:


> You could make the argument that trains like the Maple Leaf, Vermonter and Palmetto could serve more meals than the LSL. While the LSL will serve a total of 2 meals on its route, the others could serve breakfast, lunch and dinner.


The LSL westbound always served two meals, but eastbound it used to serve 3 meals, and I understand that it is supposed to start doing that once again.


----------



## printman2000

AlanB said:


> BuzzKillington said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could make the argument that trains like the Maple Leaf, Vermonter and Palmetto could serve more meals than the LSL. While the LSL will serve a total of 2 meals on its route, the others could serve breakfast, lunch and dinner.
> 
> 
> 
> The LSL westbound always served two meals, but eastbound it used to serve 3 meals, and I understand that it is supposed to start doing that once again.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about dinner south of Albany or dinner in Chicago? Also, is that after the restoration of dining cars?


----------



## AlanB

printman2000 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuzzKillington said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could make the argument that trains like the Maple Leaf, Vermonter and Palmetto could serve more meals than the LSL. While the LSL will serve a total of 2 meals on its route, the others could serve breakfast, lunch and dinner.
> 
> 
> 
> The LSL westbound always served two meals, but eastbound it used to serve 3 meals, and I understand that it is supposed to start doing that once again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you talking about dinner south of Albany or dinner in Chicago? Also, is that after the restoration of dining cars?
Click to expand...

Dinner south of Albany. It's still too late in Chicago with a 9:00 PM departure to do dinner there.


----------



## printman2000

AlanB said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuzzKillington said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could make the argument that trains like the Maple Leaf, Vermonter and Palmetto could serve more meals than the LSL. While the LSL will serve a total of 2 meals on its route, the others could serve breakfast, lunch and dinner.
> 
> 
> 
> The LSL westbound always served two meals, but eastbound it used to serve 3 meals, and I understand that it is supposed to start doing that once again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you talking about dinner south of Albany or dinner in Chicago? Also, is that after the restoration of dining cars?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dinner south of Albany. It's still too late in Chicago with a 9:00 PM departure to do dinner there.
Click to expand...

That is what I figured, but wanted to make sure. You think this is only after they restore the dining cars?


----------



## AlanB

printman2000 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dinner south of Albany. It's still too late in Chicago with a 9:00 PM departure to do dinner there.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what I figured, but wanted to make sure. You think this is only after they restore the dining cars?
Click to expand...

This is Amtrak, who knows for sure? :unsure:

However, I was under the impression that it would come with the departure time change from Chicago and the sleeper running to Boston.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

printman2000 said:


> Buzz, that was my exact question also. The only answer I can think of is they plan to put them on some other trains that currently do not use dining cars. If the LSL has dining cars, then that just leaves the Cardinal using diner-lite.


Doesn't #448 need to serve dinner (and #449 lunch), and wouldn't a pretend dining car be an improvement over a cafe car?


----------



## Mark

Rafi said:


> Thanks for that link, MadMan...
> I also stumbled across this little nugget on page 68-69 (I've added bold to call out main points which may be of interest to some forum members):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *SUPERLINERS:*This project will return 21 long distance cars from wreck status. Upon completion of the wreck work, these cars will receive a full overhaul in
> 
> accordance with the scopes defined by equipment type. The scope of work will include overhaul or replacement of major components and systems that
> 
> will maintain the rolling stock in a state of good repair and extend the life of the asset. The work scope includes replacing all carpet, drapes and
> 
> cushions, windows, batteries, battery chargers, lamps, wheel slide units, door motors, diaphragms, toilets, water heaters, and 480-volt train line.
> 
> Melamine will replace carpet on walls where applicable. The work scope also includes the overhaul of trucks and air brake valves. *Additionally, this*
> 
> *equipment will include all work to upgrade the equipment to the Empire Builder standards (name given for this interior package which includes new color*
> 
> *scheme upgrades for floors, walls, and window coverings that was installed on the Empire Builder Service).*
> 
> Justification:
> 
> This work will return stored and wrecked fleet to service and complete the long distance fleet types with ADA compliance (Americans with Disabilities
> 
> Act).
> 
> Increase capacity and fill-in on long distance service: 1 Superliner Coach-Bag (31006) @ $1.086m; 2 Superliner I Coach (34040 and 34087) @ $.672m.
> 
> *Capitol Limited Route (will replace the Diner-Lounge Cars which will go on the Empire Builder Route)*: 3 Superliner I Diners (38017, 38026 and 38031) @ $.970m; 1 Superliner II Diner (38049) @ $1.055m.
> 
> *Auto Train Service*: 1 Superliner II Deluxe Sleeper (32501) @ $1.073m.
> 
> *Expand Empire Builder Route*: 5 Superliner I Sleepers (32014, 32040, 32046, 32049 and 32065) @ $1.073m; 1 Superliner II Sleeper (32112) @ $1.055m.
> 
> Supplement daily shortage on long distance service: 2 Superliner II Trans Sleepers (39008 and 39023) @ $1.065m.
> 
> *Lake Shore Limited Route: 1 Viewliner Diner* (8400) @ $1.634m.
> 
> 3 Superliner I Lounges (33003, 33011 and 33016) @ $.378m; 1 Superliner II Lounge (33036) @ $.512m.
> 
> *AMFLEETS:*
> 
> This project will return 60 Amfleet cars to service over the next two years. The following scope will be performed under this Amfleet project:
> 
> 1) Twenty (20) *Amfleet I Food Service Cars will be converted to Amfleet I Coach Cars*. During this process, the galley area will be removed, windows, seating, heating, and air conditioning will be installed and the car floor plan will meet the standard Capstone configuration thereby increasing revenue capacity. (Capstone: name given for this interior package enhancement which includes bathroom modules, wall and ceiling plastics, and a more neutral color scheme).
> 
> 2) Four (4) Amfleet II Coach Cars and seven (7) Amfleet I Coach Cars *will be rehabilitated from wreck status and then undergo a level 3 overhaul*. (Level 3 overhaul; high level of overhaul or replacement of major components and systems that return the rolling stock to a state of good repair and extend the life of the asset. The work scope includes the overhaul of trucks, air brake valves, couplers, draft gears, seats, diaphragms, door operators, battery chargers, air conditioning units, and toilets. Also includes the replacement of the wheel-slide system, 480-volt train line cables, batteries, heat and air conditioning control panels, freeze protection system, carpet, cushions, windows, lighting, exhaust fans, blower motors, evaporator assembly and weather-stripping. Any fleet-wide modifications will also be completed as well as the Capstone interior package.
> 
> 3) One (1) *Amfleet II Food Service Car will be rehabilitated from wreck status and then undergo a Diner Lite Conversion* and a level 3 overhaul. This converted car will have new table and booth seating, dry storage compartments, conductor's module, condiment stations, and additional refrigerators.
> 
> 4) Thirteen (13) Amfleet I Coach Cars and fifteen (15) Amfleet I Food Service Cars will receive a level 3 overhaul.
> 
> Justification:
> 
> This work will return stored and wrecked equipment to service and complete the Amfleet equipment types with ADA compliance (Americans with Disabilities Act).
> 
> The following units and capital per unit estimated costs will be completed under this project following the index listed under the Description Area. Also noted in this section is the service it will supplement:
> 
> 1) The following *Amfleet I Food Service Cars will be converted to Amfleet I Coach cars* at a total average cost per unit of $1.428m: 20026, 20029, 20032, 20037, 20041, 20045, 20049, 20124, 20145, 20906, 20908, 20936, 20977, 20979, 20982, 20988, 48143, 48152, 48984 and 48989. These Amfleet I Coach Cars will be used during peak demands; i.e., Holidays including Thanksgiving and Christmas, specials and charter services.
> 
> 2) The following *Amfleet II Coach Cars will be returned from wreck status* at a total average cost per unit of $.872m: 25007, 25055, 25085 and 25103. These cars will be used in long distance service. The following Amfleet I Coach Cars will be returned from wreck status at the total average cost of $1.019m: 21095, 21100, 21177, 21182, 44673, 44834, and 44957. These cars will be in Northeast Corridor Regional Service.
> 
> 3) The following Amfleet II Food Service Car will be returned from wreck status at a cost of $.650m: 28019. This car will be used in single-level long distance service.
> 
> 4) The following Amfleet I Coach Cars will be overhauled at a total average cost per unit of $.723m: 21018, 21021, 21027, 21099, 21112, 21117, 21123, 21124, 21134, 21137, 21151, 21164 and 21195. The following Amfleet I Food Service Cars will be overhauled at a total average cost per unit of $.615m: 20225, 20253, 28305, 28350, 28353, 28357, 28358, 43351, 43353, 43359, 43383, 43371, 48220, 48224 and 48905. The first 13 cars (Amfleet I Coach) will be used in the Northeast Corridor Regional Service. *An operating plan is being developed to utilize the remaining 15 Amfleet I Food Service Cars where Club Dinette Cars are currently being used*.
> 
> *P-40s RETURNING TO SERVICE*
> 
> This project will return to service 15 P-40 Locomotives in order for them to be used in long distance service. During the overhaul of the P-40 locomotives, all main components of the unit including the auxiliary generator power contactors, voltage regulator, batteries, trucks and air brake will be replaced or overhauled. The 480 volt system, event recorder, and interior components such as seat, doors, windows and control stand will be inspected and replaced. All modifications on file will be completed. The cab interior and exterior will be refurbished and painted.
> 
> Justification:
> 
> The following P-40 locomotives have a capital per unit estimated cost of $867,000: 807, 814, 815, 816, 817, 818, 821, 822, 823, 824, 830, 831, 832, 835 and 837.
> 
> *These locomotives will be used in long distance service.*
> 
> 
> 
> -Rafi
Click to expand...

This is truly amazing, astonishing in fact. I knew Amtrak had equipment in storage, rated as wrecked, etc., that could be returned to service but I had no idea it would be _this_ much equipment. Plus they intend to buy new equipment- wow, simply wow! Amtrak ink quotes Mr Boardman on page 3, "I’ve met with vendors to see how quickly we

can acquire new Viewliners." I wonder what exactly that means. What vendors? Are they going to hand over the Viewliner blueprints and specs and say, "Here's x-million build us some more."?

I thought Amtrak was fine with the current locomotive roster- why are they restoring more units? The P40s covered the Auto Train for awhile before they went into storage didn't they? Are they going to troll the system in random LD service? Where will they be assigned out of?


----------



## AlanB

Joel N. Weber II said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Buzz, that was my exact question also. The only answer I can think of is they plan to put them on some other trains that currently do not use dining cars. If the LSL has dining cars, then that just leaves the Cardinal using diner-lite.
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't #448 need to serve dinner (and #449 lunch), and wouldn't a pretend dining car be an improvement over a cafe car?
Click to expand...

Yes, and YES!!!!


----------



## AlanB

Mark said:


> This is truly amazing, astonishing in fact. I knew Amtrak had equipment in storage, rated as wrecked, etc., that could be returned to service but I had no idea it would be _this_ much equipment. Plus they intend to buy new equipment- wow, simply wow! Amtrak ink quotes Mr Boardman on page 3, "I’ve met with vendors to see how quickly wecan acquire new Viewliners." I wonder what exactly that means. What vendors? Are they going to hand over the Viewliner blueprints and specs and say, "Here's x-million build us some more."?
> 
> I thought Amtrak was fine with the current locomotive roster- why are they restoring more units? The P40s covered the Auto Train for awhile before they went into storage didn't they? Are they going to troll the system in random LD service? Where will they be assigned out of?


Well keep in mind that not all of that is wrecked equipment. Some 41 of the Amfleets were just mothballed because Amtrak didn't have the money to replace parts that were needed to pass FRA inspections. And the P40's being brought back also were no wrecked, at least in an accident. There are some who would say that Amtrak wrecked them by running them into the ground and not taking care of them.

No vendors have been selected, much less asked for a Request For Proposal so far to my knowledge. And yes, Amtrak will hand over the blue prints as well as providing two mock-ups of what they want.

With the repaired and mothballed cars coming online, as well as a few issues with the P42's, I think that Amtrak wants a few more backup engines around. I suppose that it's even possible that we could see some of the LD's out of NY switching over to diesel once again in Philly, rather than DC, at least until Amtrak gets some new electric motors.


----------



## Guest

So none of those Superliners will go towards Sunset going daily.


----------



## Chris J.

Guest said:


> So none of those Superliners will go towards Sunset going daily.


I thought they could do Sunset Daily with what they have now (given the 'suspended' service east of New Orleans).


----------



## Tony

Rafi said:


> *Lake Shore Limited Route: 1 Viewliner Diner* (8400) @ $1.634m.
Click to expand...

That one prototype Viewliner Diner will be placed into service?


----------



## Walt

Mark said:


> Amtrak ink quotes Mr Boardman on page 3, "I’ve met with vendors to see how quickly wecan acquire new Viewliners." I wonder what exactly that means. What vendors? Are they going to hand over the Viewliner blueprints and specs and say, "Here's x-million build us some more."?


With today's economy, there might be non-traditional companies who see the x-millions and say "why can't be build railroad cars?"

Ford, GM, or Chrysler? h34r:


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Walt said:


> Mark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak ink quotes Mr Boardman on page 3, "I’ve met with vendors to see how quickly wecan acquire new Viewliners." I wonder what exactly that means. What vendors? Are they going to hand over the Viewliner blueprints and specs and say, "Here's x-million build us some more."?
> 
> 
> 
> With today's economy, there might be non-traditional companies who see the x-millions and say "why can't be build railroad cars?"
> 
> Ford, GM, or Chrysler? h34r:
Click to expand...

Yeah, but that's the thinking that got us the crappy Viewliner I cars.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

Walt said:


> Mark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak ink quotes Mr Boardman on page 3, "I’ve met with vendors to see how quickly wecan acquire new Viewliners." I wonder what exactly that means. What vendors? Are they going to hand over the Viewliner blueprints and specs and say, "Here's x-million build us some more."?
> 
> 
> 
> With today's economy, there might be non-traditional companies who see the x-millions and say "why can't be build railroad cars?"
> 
> Ford, GM, or Chrysler? h34r:
Click to expand...

I suspect the big three automakers are way too big for a mere one billion dollar railcar order to have any major impact on their revenue. One random news report I get from a google web search for ``General Motors revenue'' talks about GM's revenue dropping by $31 billion to $149 billion.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

AlanB said:


> With the repaired and mothballed cars coming online, as well as a few issues with the P42's, I think that Amtrak wants a few more backup engines around. I suppose that it's even possible that we could see some of the LD's out of NY switching over to diesel once again in Philly, rather than DC, at least until Amtrak gets some new electric motors.


I'm also wondering if they're trying to reduce the number of long distance trains that carry only a single HEP source. For a significant fraction of the year, the temperatures in passenger cars in a train with no HEP aren't necessarily safe, and the typical long distance train is usually several hours away from any locomotive capable of providing HEP that wasn't coupled to that train when it departed its point of origin.


----------



## AlanB

Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> With the repaired and mothballed cars coming online, as well as a few issues with the P42's, I think that Amtrak wants a few more backup engines around. I suppose that it's even possible that we could see some of the LD's out of NY switching over to diesel once again in Philly, rather than DC, at least until Amtrak gets some new electric motors.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm also wondering if they're trying to reduce the number of long distance trains that carry only a single HEP source. For a significant fraction of the year, the temperatures in passenger cars in a train with no HEP aren't necessarily safe, and the typical long distance train is usually several hours away from any locomotive capable of providing HEP that wasn't coupled to that train when it departed its point of origin.
Click to expand...

If that were the case Amtrak would be mothballing P42's, not taking P40's out of mothballs.


----------



## Ryan

AlanB said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> With the repaired and mothballed cars coming online, as well as a few issues with the P42's, I think that Amtrak wants a few more backup engines around. I suppose that it's even possible that we could see some of the LD's out of NY switching over to diesel once again in Philly, rather than DC, at least until Amtrak gets some new electric motors.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm also wondering if they're trying to reduce the number of long distance trains that carry only a single HEP source. For a significant fraction of the year, the temperatures in passenger cars in a train with no HEP aren't necessarily safe, and the typical long distance train is usually several hours away from any locomotive capable of providing HEP that wasn't coupled to that train when it departed its point of origin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that were the case Amtrak would be mothballing P42's, not taking P40's out of mothballs.
Click to expand...

How would mothballing P42's increase the pool of available power so that every LD train is able to leave the yard with 2 sources of HEP?


----------



## jis

Walt said:


> Mark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak ink quotes Mr Boardman on page 3, "I’ve met with vendors to see how quickly wecan acquire new Viewliners." I wonder what exactly that means. What vendors? Are they going to hand over the Viewliner blueprints and specs and say, "Here's x-million build us some more."?
> 
> 
> 
> With today's economy, there might be non-traditional companies who see the x-millions and say "why can't be build railroad cars?"
> 
> Ford, GM, or Chrysler? h34r:
Click to expand...

Heaven help us if we fall for that one again. Haven't we had enough of Boeing trying to build LRVs already? I certainly don't look forward to a GM, Ford or Chrysler fabricated Viewliner. Let existing railroad passenger car builders do the job, not new wannabe ones, please.


----------



## Steve4031

That can't even build cars that are reliable.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Steve4031 said:


> That can't even build cars that are reliable.


Everyone knows I'm not a fan of cars, right? Ok then.

I also am not a fan of GM in general, after the National City Lines debacle.

HOWEVER, I am sick of people making inaccurate claims about our national auto industry that are based primarily on inaccurate and outdated statements by our elected morons- er, I mean congresspeople, the most vocal of which are in states that conveniently contain auto plants primarily owned by Honda, Toyota, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Subaru, Bayerische Motoren Werke, Hyundai, and Mercedes-Benz. What a coincidence!

A decade ago, General Motors and Chrysler couldn't build a car to save their ass, and Ford wasn't far behind. Over the past ten years, however, Ford has implemented one of the best manufacturing systems I have ever seen, General Motors has figured out how to build cars, and builds some pretty decent ones. They were on line to make a decent profit by next year. Then the entire economy collapsed and like EVERY SINGLE OTHER CAR COMPANY is hurting.

Chrysler has forgotten whatever they knew. After all, their lineup consists of an overweight pig (the Caliber and its various derivatives), a Mitsubishi Gallant (Dodge Avenger/Chrysler Sebring) and an over-stuffed Mercedes W210 1996 E-class (Charger/Challenger/Magnum/300), a out-dated and over-weight minivan, a circa 1997 Mercedes SLK (the Crossfire) and a few fuel-guzzling curiosities. They are everything the Senate is talking about.

But please, stop hearing what our wonderful opinion guides- er, I mean media- and politicians are telling you and then repeating it as if somebody that actually knows something told you.


----------



## AlanB

HokieNav said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> With the repaired and mothballed cars coming online, as well as a few issues with the P42's, I think that Amtrak wants a few more backup engines around. I suppose that it's even possible that we could see some of the LD's out of NY switching over to diesel once again in Philly, rather than DC, at least until Amtrak gets some new electric motors.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm also wondering if they're trying to reduce the number of long distance trains that carry only a single HEP source. For a significant fraction of the year, the temperatures in passenger cars in a train with no HEP aren't necessarily safe, and the typical long distance train is usually several hours away from any locomotive capable of providing HEP that wasn't coupled to that train when it departed its point of origin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that were the case Amtrak would be mothballing P42's, not taking P40's out of mothballs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would mothballing P42's increase the pool of available power so that every LD train is able to leave the yard with 2 sources of HEP?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I totally misread Joel's post this morning in my haste to get off a 46K dial-up connection that was being charged to my home phone from a ski resort in Western Mass. A resort without AT&T cellular service or Wi-FI. :angry:


----------



## Ryan

AlanB said:


> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> With the repaired and mothballed cars coming online, as well as a few issues with the P42's, I think that Amtrak wants a few more backup engines around. I suppose that it's even possible that we could see some of the LD's out of NY switching over to diesel once again in Philly, rather than DC, at least until Amtrak gets some new electric motors.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm also wondering if they're trying to reduce the number of long distance trains that carry only a single HEP source. For a significant fraction of the year, the temperatures in passenger cars in a train with no HEP aren't necessarily safe, and the typical long distance train is usually several hours away from any locomotive capable of providing HEP that wasn't coupled to that train when it departed its point of origin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that were the case Amtrak would be mothballing P42's, not taking P40's out of mothballs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would mothballing P42's increase the pool of available power so that every LD train is able to leave the yard with 2 sources of HEP?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, I totally misread Joel's post this morning in my haste to get off a 46K dial-up connection that was being charged to my home phone from a ski resort in Western Mass. A resort without AT&T cellular service or Wi-FI. :angry:
Click to expand...

It's all good, I was just wicked confused.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

Green Maned Lion said:


> Everyone knows I'm not a fan of cars, right?


You've always struck me as a pretty big fan of your Mercedes.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone knows I'm not a fan of cars, right?
> 
> 
> 
> You've always struck me as a pretty big fan of your Mercedes.
Click to expand...

I was talking conceptually.


----------



## F59

Just a FYI. Coach 82999 was originally a cafe. I suspect those 20 others may end up in the 82969-82998 series.

Really looking forwards to 8400 coming back (68400?) Perhaps 62090-1 too!(hopefully)

I wonder if the Viewliner-Surfliner purchase will be part of a single order...


----------



## Green Maned Lion

F59 said:


> Just a FYI. Coach 82999 was originally a cafe. I suspect those 20 others may end up in the 82969-82998 series.
> Really looking forwards to 8400 coming back (68400?) Perhaps 62090-1 too!(hopefully)
> 
> I wonder if the Viewliner-Surfliner purchase will be part of a single order...


Doubt it. I'd expect the surfliners to come from Alstom, while the Viewliners will probably come from Bombardier. Just a pure guess, though.


----------



## F59

Both the Cal Cars and the original 50 Viewliners were built by Amerail. As the other amerail products have seemed to pass onto Alstom, I sort of suspect the Viewliners might.


----------



## Dutchrailnut

F59 said:


> Both the Cal Cars and the original 50 Viewliners were built by Amerail. As the other amerail products have seemed to pass onto Alstom, I sort of suspect the Viewliners might.


The viewliner design and prints are owned by Amtrak, Amerail built those under Amtrak contract of Amtrak engineering designs.

Amtrak had first 4 or 6 shells built by BUDD and then completed at Beech Grove.

http://www.trainweb.org/amtrakonline/viewlinerinfo.html


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Alice said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> <snip> a 10-year depreciation cycle, which is what I think Amtrak uses <snip>
> 
> 
> 
> Depreciation cycles are accounting and tax tools and arguably have nothing at all to do with how long a piece of equipment lasts.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure there were only three shells built by Budd. I think Amtrak had always intended Budd to get the contract. Unfortunately, Budd went out of business before that happened. If they built the Viewliners, we'd have a lot less problems.


----------



## WICT106

If I haven't already typed this: the Superliner rebuild / refurbish / recondition / reconstruction program should be restarted. The cars need to be in service, generating revenue.


----------



## AlanB

WICT106 said:


> If I haven't already typed this: the Superliner rebuild / refurbish / recondition / reconstruction program should be restarted. The cars need to be in service, generating revenue.


It has been. They are already starting on rebuilding the wrecks, which will put more Superliner's back into service. Some 20+ cars in fact.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

AlanB said:


> It has been. They are already starting on rebuilding the wrecks, which will put more Superliner's back into service. Some 20+ cars in fact.


I thought there were exactly 20 Superliners (of various flavors) and one Viewliner Sleeper on the list of ``long distance'' wrecks being restored.


----------



## jis

Joel N. Weber II said:


> I thought there were exactly 20 Superliners (of various flavors) and one Viewliner Sleeper on the list of ``long distance'' wrecks being restored.


There are no Viewliner wrecks. There are three Viewliner prototypes not in service at this time. Of which one is being restored for service - the Diner prototype.


----------



## MattW

Three prototypes? I thought there were two prototypes: sleeper and diner. Is the third another one of these?


----------



## AlanB

MattW said:


> Three prototypes? I thought there were two prototypes: sleeper and diner. Is the third another one of these?


Yes, there were two prototype sleepers built (2300 & 2301) and one diner (8400). The 2301 sleeper after having been retired for several years was pulled out of mothballs in 2001, renumbered to 62091 Eastern View, and returned to service for a few years both in revenue service and as a crew dorm, before being retired again around 2004 or 2005.


----------



## amtrak51

Larry H. said:


> I find it very disturbing that such lousy designs go into production. It seems that on one has a clue as to how a decent sleeper, diner or lounge ought to look, operate and work on the road. It only took one trip on a viewliner bedroom to rate them the bottom of the barrel in quality and repair. Now they are the new gold standard it would appear. How sad.



I was thinking the same thing. It better be better then what the current Viewliners are like to even pass for modest. I truly hope Beech Grove has had something to say in this. Here is a nicer start REBUILD the SLEEPERS no way are dirty, old, run down, cars worth over $125 a trip.

- I don't want to sound uniformed and I know AMTRAK needs Diners badly but after my last trip in a Viewliner, I am up in arms that AMTRAK would even consider such a poor design that "we" on this forum and "we" the passengers will only complain about in 7-10 years time. Not to mention "We the People" are paying for this "poor judgment" by AMTRAK -(not to sound like a Conservative (I'm NOT) but as a rail-fan)- I would like to see the rebuilt Diner as well as AMTRAK present an alliterative first.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

The design is good. M-K's build quality was the main failing.


----------



## Neil_M

Green Maned Lion said:


> The design is good. M-K's build quality was the main failing.


You keep trotting out that line, but what do you mean?


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Well, lets say you have a car, right? Its built by Honda, and they call it the Legend. They even sell it in the US under the name Acura, right? And then you take this exceptionally good car and you get a real **** company to build it, lets say Austin Rover, and they sell it as the Rover 800/Sterling. And its a piece of junk. Are we clear now?


----------



## Neil_M

Green Maned Lion said:


> Well, lets say you have a car, right? Its built by Honda, and they call it the Legend. They even sell it in the US under the name Acura, right? And then you take this exceptionally good car and you get a real **** company to build it, lets say Austin Rover, and they sell it as the Rover 800/Sterling. And its a piece of junk. Are we clear now?


Not really.

I was looking for specific examples and practical experience rather than some stuff about cars.


----------



## DAWall

Has anyone heard any rumors on the time frame for the overhaul of the Superliners, and the P-40's. I see the Amfleets are looking at a two year period. But haven't seen a timetable for anything else. Are the P-40's stored at Beech Grove?

I'll be riding the Hoosier State in June, and I'm wondering if I might see freshly overhauled equipment tacked on, heading back to Chicago.


----------



## Tony

Green Maned Lion said:


> The design is good. M-K's build quality was the main failing.


I have to agree with you 110%.

IMHO, the Viewliners are clearly a great design. Their only failings, are the quality of the materials and workmanship.


----------



## MrFSS

Tony said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> The design is good. M-K's build quality was the main failing.
> 
> 
> 
> I have to agree with you 110%.
> 
> IMHO, the Viewliners are clearly a great design. Their only failings, are the quality of the materials and workmanship.
Click to expand...

I have that problem, too. My design is good, but at near 68 years old my material and workmanship is starting to fade away.


----------



## jis

Green Maned Lion said:


> The design is good. M-K's build quality was the main failing.


+1 Agreed.


----------



## AlanB

jis said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> The design is good. M-K's build quality was the main failing.
> 
> 
> 
> +1 Agreed.
Click to expand...

The question in my mind that needs to be asked though is, was the build quality poor because of M-K? Or was it poor because Amtrak low balled things and requested lower quality materials?

If the latter, here's hoping that they won't make that same mistake this time.


----------



## jis

AlanB said:


> The question in my mind that needs to be asked though is, was the build quality poor because of M-K? Or was it poor because Amtrak low balled things and requested lower quality materials?
> If the latter, here's hoping that they won't make that same mistake this time.


Agreed with that too. We have no way of telling for sure.


----------



## Tony

Hum... maybe I need clarify. By "design", I meant things like the floor plan and the window placement. Sorry folks, but I think one of the reasons the Viewliner roomettes are so much better than the Superliner roomettes, are the extra "top bunk" windows. It really helps to make the top bunk much more inviting and spacious to use.

But yea, I would like the chairs to be all ultra-soft leather in the new builds. 

And the mattresses to be contracted out to the people who did the "Cloud Nine beds" at Hampton Inn.

And the fiberglass (plastic?) finish pieces to have molded-in-color, rather than industrial gray paint which wears off pretty easily.

And a working coffee pot!


----------



## Neil_M

AlanB said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> The design is good. M-K's build quality was the main failing.
> 
> 
> 
> +1 Agreed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question in my mind that needs to be asked though is, was the build quality poor because of M-K? Or was it poor because Amtrak low balled things and requested lower quality materials?
> 
> If the latter, here's hoping that they won't make that same mistake this time.
Click to expand...

Who is more at fault? The company that makes the vehicles or the railroad that accepts them?

Although if Amtrak asked for crap to be built and crap is what they got then its their fault.


----------



## jis

Neil_M said:


> Who is more at fault? The company that makes the vehicles or the railroad that accepts them?Although if Amtrak asked for crap to be built and crap is what they got then its their fault.


Notwithstanding all the problem that Viewliners may have, real and perceived, to call them "crap" is a bit over the top IMHO. But then everyone is entitled to have an opinion and share it too 

Unfortunately though, the whole business of the bidding process that is used for RFPs is rife with problems and present ample opportunities for gratuitious political and other extraneous interference, in many cases leading to less than optimal outcomes. The extreme classic case of such is the Super Steel fiasco with the Turboliner rebuilds, a case where Amtrak refused to accept the resulting trainsets and that led to suits, counter-suits and endless political posturing which essentially brought any development of the Empire Corridor to a grinding halt for years. Some could argue that that is what the Pataki administration wanted anyway, but that is getting off the topic here. In passing, it is worth noting though, without any comment, that at that time Mr. Boardman who is now at Amtrak, was the DOT Commissioner for New York State.


----------



## nferr

People forget the Viewliners have been run to death with no major refurbishments yet. A lot of the problems are deferred maintenance by Amtrak. Hence fixing things with duct tape, cheap shades etc.


----------



## Neil_M

jis said:


> Notwithstanding all the problem that Viewliners may have, real and perceived, to call them "crap" is a bit over the top IMHO. But then everyone is entitled to have an opinion and share it too


It wasn't aimed at the Viewliners as such, more a general comment about rail vehicles in general.

Generally the builder will build what you ask for, you need to know exactly what you want.

That said, I don't think the Viewliners are much good anyway. But that's Amtrak's fault for letting the maintenance slide.


----------



## Walt

jis said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> The design is good. M-K's build quality was the main failing.
> 
> 
> 
> +1 Agreed.
Click to expand...

+2 Agreed.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Neil_M said:


> Not really.I was looking for specific examples and practical experience rather than some stuff about cars.


It was the best example I could think of. A good design built poorly will be a poor product. You can take a poor design and still make a good product by building it well- sorry for bringing up cars, but the VW Type-1 (We know it as the Beetle) comes to mind- but if you build even the best design poorly, though, you still have crap.

M-K did a poor job building the Viewliners. They were assembled using fairly decent materials, actually. I'm sure they were specced. Most of the problem are botched welds, poor fitting, improper fits, improvised fixes for mistakes, and so on.



nferr said:


> People forget the Viewliners have been run to death with no major refurbishments yet. A lot of the problems are deferred maintenance by Amtrak. Hence fixing things with duct tape, cheap shades etc.


Maintenance has little to do with most of it, although the cars would be in better shape if they weren't run to death. Anything would be, be it a Fiat or a Mercedes. The cars are simply of low quality. The 10-6s were also run to death, and they weren't in as bad shape in 1990 as the Viewliners are now. And in 1990, many of them were over 40 years old- the Viewliners are less than 15.

Amtrak's mistake was selecting a subway manufacturer on its way to bankruptcy to build a long-distance rail car. The poor quality of the cars is the fault of the company they picked. It would be like buying cars from Colorado Rail Cars.


----------



## Neil_M

Green Maned Lion said:


> M-K did a poor job building the Viewliners. They were assembled using fairly decent materials, actually. I'm sure they were specced. Most of the problem are botched welds, poor fitting, improper fits, improvised fixes for mistakes, and so on.
> 
> 
> Maintenance has little to do with most of it,


'Maintenance' (or lack of) is what the passenger sees. I work in a maintenance depot and our management are very hot on 'Customer facing defects', toilets, air con, catering equipment. All the silly little things that stick in peoples minds, and the kind of stuff you need to use duct tape to fix. The botched welds are of little matter to the passenger, if they were that botched the car would have fallen apart by now. Why don't the doors lock, why don't the curtains close, why does the coffee machine never work in Veiwliners? Who built what back in the day is of little matter (unless you 'foam' for a pastime), if the sleeper compartment door will not lock, then thats more important to the passenger than worrying about what went on 15 years ago.

Regardless of who built what car/coach/trailer, the customer needed to ensure it is fit for purpose, 15 years on is too bloomin late to worry that one long gone company did a worse job than other long gone company.


----------



## George Harris

One thing easy to forget in this process is the difference between something built for a long standing private customre and for a government agency.

In the past the passenger cars were built by one of a few car builders for one of many private railroad companies all parties intending to be in business for a long time. All involved were dealing with suppliers of materials and parts who also intended to be around a while and keep a good relationship with their customers. There was always the clear understanding of "you build it good, or we won't come back". As a result, the spec could be fairly short and to the point with the understanding that issues and misunderstandings would be settled between people that wanted ot keep a good working relationship. The work in progress would be visited regualrly by people from the railroad that knew what they were looking at, knew what they wanted, and were regular users of the service.

Today: We have work built by here today gone tomorrow companies buying many of their parts from who knows where. The customer is a quasi-government agency that does random purchasing at random times from random sources. Most of the people involved don't use the services regularly and most of the people involved inspecting the work are either inexperienced or inept. The plans and specs go into excruciating detail and any disputes are settled in an acrimonious fashion by a bunch of lawyers.

Why should we be surprised that there are quality issues? We should be both surprised and thankful that things come out as good as they do. There are still people out there that do have integrity and dedication for which they get very little thanks, but without them things would be much worse than they are.


----------



## PRR 60

Neil_M said:


> Who is more at fault? The company that makes the vehicles or the railroad that accepts them?Although if Amtrak asked for crap to be built and crap is what they got then its their fault.


My impression at the time was that M-K low-balled the bid to get the business and then found out that actually building the cars was a lot more involved than their estimators thought. Companies that are losing money on work tend to do that work poorly.

I can also say that the Viewliner design was (and still is) unique. The odd shape of the cars and the modular slide-in rooms of the sleepers was pretty far out of the box for rail car design. With just 50 cars, there was little chance for M-K to work-out production bugs building cars that no one else had ever built. Fifty cars is more like custom work than a true production line. It could be that M-K priced those 50 assuming that maybe 100 more would follow and help defray the start-up costs. As all know, it was 50 and done.


----------



## AlanB

PRR 60 said:


> Neil_M said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is more at fault? The company that makes the vehicles or the railroad that accepts them?Although if Amtrak asked for crap to be built and crap is what they got then its their fault.
> 
> 
> 
> My impression at the time was that M-K low-balled the bid to get the business and then found out that actually building the cars was a lot more involved than their estimators thought. Companies that are losing money on work tend to do that work poorly.
> 
> I can also say that the Viewliner design was (and still is) unique. The odd shape of the cars and the modular slide-in rooms of the sleepers was pretty far out of the box for rail car design. With just 50 cars, there was little chance for M-K to work-out production bugs building cars that no one else had ever built. Fifty cars is more like custom work than a true production line. It could be that M-K priced those 50 assuming that maybe 100 more would follow and help defray the start-up costs. As all know, it was 50 and done.
Click to expand...

Wasn't the original order for 100, that then got scaled back to 50 when Amtrak found that there wasn't enough money for 100?


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Neil_M said:


> 'Maintenance' (or lack of) is what the passenger sees. I work in a maintenance depot and our management are very hot on 'Customer facing defects', toilets, air con, catering equipment. All the silly little things that stick in peoples minds, and the kind of stuff you need to use duct tape to fix. The botched welds are of little matter to the passenger, if they were that botched the car would have fallen apart by now. Why don't the doors lock, why don't the curtains close, why does the coffee machine never work in Veiwliners? Who built what back in the day is of little matter (unless you 'foam' for a pastime), if the sleeper compartment door will not lock, then thats more important to the passenger than worrying about what went on 15 years ago.Regardless of who built what car/coach/trailer, the customer needed to ensure it is fit for purpose, 15 years on is too bloomin late to worry that one long gone company did a worse job than other long gone company.


You can't spend alot of precious money and time on the things the customer sees if you are spending that money and time trying to keep the vehicle from falling apart and actually in a state approaching roadworthiness. First you make it run. Then you can set about making it look good while doing it. Amtrak was and is running around like chickens without heads keeping those damned pieces of rubbish running the rails. They'll get around to making the amenities work when they have enough breathing room to work on a car for things other then the basic essentials.



AlanB said:


> Wasn't the original order for 100, that then got scaled back to 50 when Amtrak found that there wasn't enough money for 100?


Yeah. Which is pretty laughable when you think about it. They could have had the entire 350-car Viewliner I (100 sleepers, 25 diners, 25 lounge cars, 25 baggage/dorms, 175 coach cars) program on the road for what its going to cost to retool for the Viewliner IIs. Let alone build more than this initial order.


----------



## Tony

Green Maned Lion said:


> Yeah. Which is pretty laughable when you think about it. They could have had the entire 350-car Viewliner I (100 sleepers, 25 diners, 25 lounge cars, 25 baggage/dorms, 175 coach cars) program on the road for what its going to cost to retool for the Viewliner IIs. Let alone build more than this initial order.


The Hoover Dam cost $50M. The Hoover Dam Visitor's Center cost $120M. :blink:


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

Tony said:


> The Hoover Dam cost $50M. The Hoover Dam Visitor's Center cost $120M. :blink:


Were they built decades apart, and if so, does that adjust for inflation?


----------



## Tony

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Were they built decades apart, and if so, does that adjust for inflation?


Aren't the two Viewliner orders decades apart too? If so, inflation is consistent between the comparisons and doesn't need any adjustment.


----------



## Neil_M

Green Maned Lion said:


> You can't spend alot of precious money and time on the things the customer sees if you are spending that money and time trying to keep the vehicle from falling apart and actually in a state approaching roadworthiness. First you make it run. Then you can set about making it look good while doing it. Amtrak was and is running around like chickens without heads keeping those damned pieces of rubbish running the rails. They'll get around to making the amenities work when they have enough breathing room to work on a car for things other then the basic essentials.


I think (like with most things) you over-exaggerate the situation. If the cars were that bad they would be stopped by now, you can not tell me that every time they reach a maintenance location there are welds to be repaired and other major stuff like that?

How long does it take to replace a door lock or fix a toilet, I bet you I have more idea than you do.

I doubt you have ever laid hands on a rail vehicle except to travel on it.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Neil_M said:


> I think (like with most things) you over-exaggerate the situation. If the cars were that bad they would be stopped by now, you can not tell me that every time they reach a maintenance location there are welds to be repaired and other major stuff like that?How long does it take to replace a door lock or fix a toilet, I bet you I have more idea than you do.
> 
> I doubt you have ever laid hands on a rail vehicle except to travel on it.


If they were stopped, Amtrak would lose sleeper service on its important New York-Chicago and New York-Florida runs. Crappy sleeping cars are better than no sleeping cars at all.


----------



## Ryan

Mark said:


> I thought Amtrak was fine with the current locomotive roster- why are they restoring more units? The P40s covered the Auto Train for awhile before they went into storage didn't they? Are they going to troll the system in random LD service? Where will they be assigned out of?


A pair of P40's have appeared in Ivy City (832 on Monday-ish, 821 yesterday afternoon):







Not sure if they're headed out on the road for duty, or ???


----------



## printman2000

Thanks for the pic. Can you tell me where Ivy City is?

I doubt they have any restored P40's ready to go yet. Perhaps on there way to wherever they will be restoring them?


----------



## AlanB

printman2000 said:


> Thanks for the pic. Can you tell me where Ivy City is?


DC.


----------



## printman2000

So where will the P40's be restored? And why were these two not already there? Or could they really already be going back into service?


----------



## Ryan

printman2000 said:


> Thanks for the pic. Can you tell me where Ivy City is?
> I doubt they have any restored P40's ready to go yet. Perhaps on there way to wherever they will be restoring them?


That's what I thought as well, but figured that the most likely location for the restoration was in Bear, where they were stored. I recall reading somewhere that some of them were kept road worthy, so perhaps these are they. It'll be interesting to see where they turn up. It's been an odd week for power at Ivy City, seen a handful of Dash 8's kicking around as well (not that terribly rare, but not an everyday sight either)


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

821 is beautiful with that old livery-- would love to be on a train with her in order to get a picture.


----------



## Ryan

That's what got my attention and promoted me to pull the camera out of my bag - as you can see I was a bit rushed.


----------



## AlanB

I believe that all the P40's were mothballed in Delaware, most likely at Bear, but they could have some in Wilmington. Additionally I seem to recall reading that BG was supposed to do the work on restoring them. I believe that Bear can also do that work, but BG probably has more room to do the work. Bear's already pretty busy trying to deal with all those Amfleets.

Therefore my guess is that those P40's are in Ivy waiting to hitch a ride on the Cardinal.


----------



## MattW

Any idea where in the Cardinal they'll stick 'em? Putting 832 behind the lead locomotive with 821 behind it would be nice. Or sticking both on teh end would make for an interesting consist!


----------



## Shotgun7

MattW said:


> Any idea where in the Cardinal they'll stick 'em? Putting 832 behind the lead locomotive with 821 behind it would be nice. Or sticking both on teh end would make for an interesting consist!


Deadheading locomotives tend to always be in between the powered locos and the rest of the consist.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

HokieNav said:


> That's what got my attention and promoted me to pull the camera out of my bag - as you can see I was a bit rushed.


Were you on a regional?


----------



## saxman

Ok whats the difference between the P40's and P42's? Any easy way to distinguish between the two?


----------



## DAWall

saxman66 said:


> Ok whats the difference between the P40's and P42's? Any easy way to distinguish between the two?



P40's are 4000 HP, P42's are 4200 All the P40's are in the 800 series. other then the number they're hard to tell apart. I believe all the P40's are to be rebuilt at Beech Grove. It took the 8400 viewliner dinner only a couple of days to make it from Washington to Beech Grove, so I imagine they will be in Indiana by the weekend. (if that's were they are headed)


----------



## Ryan

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what got my attention and promoted me to pull the camera out of my bag - as you can see I was a bit rushed.
> 
> 
> 
> Were you on a regional?
Click to expand...

I was on my usual MARC Penn line commute. It's nice to ride past there twice a day, you see some interesting sights sometimes.

Both still present and accounted for this morning, so maybe they'll head out on Saturday's Cardinal.


----------



## DAWall

HokieNav said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what got my attention and promoted me to pull the camera out of my bag - as you can see I was a bit rushed.
> 
> 
> 
> Were you on a regional?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was on my usual MARC Penn line commute. It's nice to ride past there twice a day, you see some interesting sights sometimes.
> 
> Both still present and accounted for this morning, so maybe they'll head out on Saturday's Cardinal.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the morning update. If I was a betting man I'd say you're right about Saturday's Cardinal. Are you able to check on them on Saturday?


----------



## Rafi

Just as a quick update...

I have it on good authority that those two P40s were still in DC as of yesterday along with a third that HokieNav didn't see. Mechanical apparently didn't feel comfortable releasing them onto CSX and NS trackage without some thorough checks of the trucks since those three engines haven't moved out of Delaware since 2003. They're also trying to weigh whether or not they should send more than one at a time out to Beech Grove (yes, they're going to the Grove); either way it sounds like the Cardinal will be getting an extra P42 for these tows.

Rafi


----------



## DAWall

Rafi said:


> Just as a quick update...
> I have it on good authority that those two P40s were still in DC as of yesterday along with a third that HokieNav didn't see. Mechanical apparently didn't feel comfortable releasing them onto CSX and NS trackage without some thorough checks of the trucks since those three engines haven't moved out of Delaware since 2003. They're also trying to weigh whether or not they should send more than one at a time out to Beech Grove (yes, they're going to the Grove); either way it sounds like the Cardinal will be getting an extra P42 for these tows.
> 
> Rafi


Thanks for the update Rafi, hopefully someone along the route will catch them. when they finally head to the Grove.


----------



## Ryan

Thanks Rafi! I saw them both still there Friday morning (I stayed in town late and took the metro home Friday evening). Do you know where the third P40 is sitting? I'm sure I look quite the fool nose pressed to the window looking wildly about for the 10 seconds that I have as we roll past there every day.  I'll keep an eye out for when they disappear in hopes of giving someone out in Chicagoland a heads up on when these guys start moving.


----------



## Rafi

HokieNav said:


> Thanks Rafi! I saw them both still there Friday morning (I stayed in town late and took the metro home Friday evening). Do you know where the third P40 is sitting?


I don't, unfortunately. My guess is that it's somewhere behind the Ivy Yard buildings where you can't spot it from the main line.

On a related note, the first group of P40s out of the Grove are looking like they'll go straight to a captive service on the Auto Train, as many on this board have speculated. That'll free up some P42s for use elsewhere in the system.

Rafi


----------



## PaulM

Joel N. Weber II said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anecdotes != Data
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you mean:
> 
> Anecdotes ≠ Data !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's wrong with the notation the C programming language uses?
Click to expand...

Or PHP, or Javascript?


----------



## Ryan

Rafi said:


> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Rafi! I saw them both still there Friday morning (I stayed in town late and took the metro home Friday evening). Do you know where the third P40 is sitting?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't, unfortunately. My guess is that it's somewhere behind the Ivy Yard buildings where you can't spot it from the main line.
> 
> On a related note, the first group of P40s out of the Grove are looking like they'll go straight to a captive service on the Auto Train, as many on this board have speculated. That'll free up some P42s for use elsewhere in the system.
> 
> Rafi
Click to expand...

P-40 #3 appeared this morning parked with the other two - it's #837 and it's in the same paint scheme as #821 (which is referred to as the "diet pepsi" or "Phase III", right?).


----------



## DAWall

HokieNav said:


> Rafi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Rafi! I saw them both still there Friday morning (I stayed in town late and took the metro home Friday evening). Do you know where the third P40 is sitting?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't, unfortunately. My guess is that it's somewhere behind the Ivy Yard buildings where you can't spot it from the main line.
> 
> On a related note, the first group of P40s out of the Grove are looking like they'll go straight to a captive service on the Auto Train, as many on this board have speculated. That'll free up some P42s for use elsewhere in the system.
> 
> Rafi
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> P-40 #3 appeared this morning parked with the other two - it's #837 and it's in the same paint scheme as #821 (which is referred to as the "diet pepsi" or "Phase III", right?).
Click to expand...

Maybe they will finally head west for the Grove on Friday?


----------



## cpamtfan

HokieNav said:


> Rafi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Rafi! I saw them both still there Friday morning (I stayed in town late and took the metro home Friday evening). Do you know where the third P40 is sitting?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't, unfortunately. My guess is that it's somewhere behind the Ivy Yard buildings where you can't spot it from the main line.
> 
> On a related note, the first group of P40s out of the Grove are looking like they'll go straight to a captive service on the Auto Train, as many on this board have speculated. That'll free up some P42s for use elsewhere in the system.
> 
> Rafi
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> P-40 #3 appeared this morning parked with the other two - it's #837 and it's in the same paint scheme as #821 (which is referred to as the "diet pepsi" or "Phase III", right?).
Click to expand...


3 is a P42. It was on both of my LSL trips in July. It had an electrical fire and FWIK, it was stored at BG already. Iguess you can call it the Diet Pepsi scheme, but I hope noone drank that Pepsi looking stuff in that big tank underneath it!

cpamtfan-Peter


----------



## printman2000

cpamtfan said:


> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rafi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Rafi! I saw them both still there Friday morning (I stayed in town late and took the metro home Friday evening). Do you know where the third P40 is sitting?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't, unfortunately. My guess is that it's somewhere behind the Ivy Yard buildings where you can't spot it from the main line.
> 
> On a related note, the first group of P40s out of the Grove are looking like they'll go straight to a captive service on the Auto Train, as many on this board have speculated. That'll free up some P42s for use elsewhere in the system.
> 
> Rafi
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> P-40 #3 appeared this morning parked with the other two - it's #837 and it's in the same paint scheme as #821 (which is referred to as the "diet pepsi" or "Phase III", right?).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3 is a P42. It was on both of my LSL trips in July. It had an electrical fire and FWIK, it was stored at BG already. Iguess you can call it the Diet Pepsi scheme, but I hope noone drank that Pepsi looking stuff in that big tank underneath it!
> 
> cpamtfan-Peter
Click to expand...

I believe he meant it was the third P40 to appear. The loco number was actually 837.


----------



## Ryan

printman2000 said:


> I believe he meant it was the third P40 to appear. The loco number was actually 837.


That is exactly what I meant!


----------



## Ryan

Now 5 p40s waiting @ Ivy - add 815 and 817 to the list. Anyone know how they're getting here?


----------



## AlanB

Most likely they're being dragged down the NEC behind one of the switchers assigned to Bear.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

Rafi said:


> On a related note, the first group of P40s out of the Grove are looking like they'll go straight to a captive service on the Auto Train, as many on this board have speculated. That'll free up some P42s for use elsewhere in the system.


What advantage does the P40 have over the P42 in Auto Train service?


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Rafi said:
> 
> 
> 
> On a related note, the first group of P40s out of the Grove are looking like they'll go straight to a captive service on the Auto Train, as many on this board have speculated. That'll free up some P42s for use elsewhere in the system.
> 
> 
> 
> What advantage does the P40 have over the P42 in Auto Train service?
Click to expand...

The P40s brakes are more compatible with the Auto Train's auto racks, and are better for moving freight-type consists.


----------



## Ryan

They're gone! All 5 have moved, either headed to BG or off somewhere where I can't see them (although there really isn't enough space to hide 5 P40's without something being visable).


----------



## Ryan

An enterprising soul over at the "other" Amtrak forum caught the P40s on video, moved all by themselves, not on the Cardinal as I expected.

http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.p...=670736#p670736



(I don't have youtube access here at work, so I'm copying the link blind - hopefully it works!)


----------



## printman2000

Another update on another board says the special train is sitting at the Toledo station until sometime tonight. It is apparently going to Chicago before going to Beech Grove.

Anyone around Toledo that can go get some pics? Also, anyone in Chicago can start looking for it tomorrow.


----------



## printman2000

Also reported elsewhere...



> All the stored P40 locomotives will be brought to Beech Grove probably in groups of 5 at a time, stripped down to bare metal then completely overhauled and rebuilt with the new Tier 2 additives which will include electronic governors and electronic air brakes. There is only one locomotive #809 which had the straight air brake system changed over to the electronic air brake system about 9 or 10 years ago at Beech Grove after the first batch of P42 locomotives arrived. This was basically done as a test checking for compatibility and it was successful.


If the above is true, does that mean they may not be going to the Auto Train?


----------



## Rafi

printman2000 said:


> Also reported elsewhere...
> 
> 
> 
> All the stored P40 locomotives will be brought to Beech Grove probably in groups of 5 at a time, stripped down to bare metal then completely overhauled and rebuilt with the new Tier 2 additives which will include electronic governors and electronic air brakes. There is only one locomotive #809 which had the straight air brake system changed over to the electronic air brake system about 9 or 10 years ago at Beech Grove after the first batch of P42 locomotives arrived. This was basically done as a test checking for compatibility and it was successful.
> 
> 
> 
> If the above is true, does that mean they may not be going to the Auto Train?
Click to expand...

Nothing's certain yet. But internal discussion has been leaning toward the Auto Train. As for the brakes being overhauled, that's news to me.

Rafi


----------



## Mark

If they redo the P40 brakes to the electronic type then there should be no reason for them _not_ to roam the system. Sorry guys but those of us around Chicago, (well at least me), don't feel that the P40s should be reassigned only to the Auto train, (AT has made it this long with out them). I would love to see them on the IL Zephyr/Carl Sandburg, SWC, CZ or EB- three in a row all 800 series!


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Mark said:


> If they redo the P40 brakes to the electronic type then there should be no reason for them _not_ to roam the system. Sorry guys but those of us around Chicago, (well at least me), don't feel that the P40s should be reassigned only to the Auto train, (AT has made it this long with out them). I would love to see them on the IL Zephyr/Carl Sandburg, SWC, CZ or EB- three in a row all 800 series!


Not true. If the P40s are kept captive to the Auto Train and Florida pool, it would simplify service requirements. Then only Ivy City, Lorton, Sanford, and Hialeah would need to have any qualifications on their mechanical specifics. Having them roam the system makes less sense then running them captivity.


----------



## Gord

AlanB said:


> Larry H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe its me, but the bedrooms not only have every possible rattle known to trains and at way higher volumes and lower bench seats that are too short for many to nap on without bending your neck way out of shape. The doors are missing most of the original latches and have hardware store replacements leaving holes in the doors. (high quality). And for another I very much disliked the disconnected look to the roof lines of the rooms. Its like being in a room with openings going off in several directions, just not a bit cozy like pullman or superliner bedrooms. The roomettes one saving grace that some seem not to like is having its own toilet. But again in the old days they were much better at blending them in out of the way than the new one is. I think the word for it might be "Cheap", except the fare. Oh yes as long a were on the viewliner trains, the diner is pitiful and the lounge is nearly nonexistent. I would take the Cardinal any day for quality of equipment and view. The equipment may be getting old and has its own flaws but in all my many sleeper trips the viewliner won out as worst by a long shot.
> 
> 
> 
> I've been in plenty of Superliner's that rattled every bit as much as the Viewliner's do. As for the bench seat, it's 3 inches shorter than a Superliner's, but that's some designer's fault, not the car's fault. Regarding the latches and locks, while I'll admit that I'm upset that Amtrak replaced the originals instead of fixing them, the new locks are identical to the Superliner locks.
> 
> As for Viewliner trains, they don't exist at least yet. It's not the fault of the Viewliner sleeper car's that Amtrak didn't buy Viewliner lounges, coaches, and diners. And the Cardinal uses single level equipment and a Viewliner sleeper, so I'm very confused by your statement that you'd take that any day for the quality of equipment.
Click to expand...

Having been stuck in a Viewliner roomette more than once, due to the flimsy design and tendancy to wear of the original door hardware, I for one am glad they went back to the traditional, foolproof Adlake "hook and pin" design.

IMHO, when comparing roomettes between Superliner and Viewliner, the Viewliner wins easily as it has mirror, sink, toilet and upper berth windows. It is great for one person and more comfortable for two than the Superliner. Annoying rattles dont seem to discriminate between the two types, in my experience.

Gord


----------



## printman2000

Gord said:


> IMHO, when comparing roomettes between Superliner and Viewliner, the Viewliner wins easily as it has mirror, sink, toilet and upper berth windows.
> Gord


Funny thing is, I prefer the Superliner because it does NOT have a sink and toilet. I personally hate having those in such a small room. The toilet requires privacy if you are with someone and the sink just makes a mess with it spraying everywhere. I also find the bed less comfortable with the dent in it to make room for the toilet/sink.

The only plus I see for the Viewliner is the upper bunk. Not only do I like the windows, I like how the bed is designed to slide down from the ceiling as opposed to the lean down kind in the Superliner.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

printman2000 said:


> Gord said:
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO, when comparing roomettes between Superliner and Viewliner, the Viewliner wins easily as it has mirror, sink, toilet and upper berth windows.
> Gord
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing is, I prefer the Superliner because it does NOT have a sink and toilet. I personally hate having those in such a small room. The toilet requires privacy if you are with someone and the sink just makes a mess with it spraying everywhere. I also find the bed less comfortable with the dent in it to make room for the toilet/sink.
> 
> The only plus I see for the Viewliner is the upper bunk. Not only do I like the windows, I like how the bed is designed to slide down from the ceiling as opposed to the lean down kind in the Superliner.
Click to expand...

And how the upper bunk is the same a the lower one, and thus wider then that on the Superliner?


----------



## Mark

Green Maned Lion said:


> Mark said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they redo the P40 brakes to the electronic type then there should be no reason for them _not_ to roam the system. Sorry guys but those of us around Chicago, (well at least me), don't feel that the P40s should be reassigned only to the Auto train, (AT has made it this long with out them). I would love to see them on the IL Zephyr/Carl Sandburg, SWC, CZ or EB- three in a row all 800 series!
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. If the P40s are kept captive to the Auto Train and Florida pool, it would simplify service requirements. Then only Ivy City, Lorton, Sanford, and Hialeah would need to have any qualifications on their mechanical specifics. Having them roam the system makes less sense then running them captivity.
Click to expand...

I don't agree- first of all this is Amtrak we are talking about so whatever they may or may not end up doing may make sense to somebody but probably not us.

Second- It would seem to me the best idea for the P40s, (since they are supposedly rebuilding them from the ground up), is to make them in every respect the same as the P42s. Then they could be serviced and maintained anywhere and used as additional power at will. That's what I would do with them and that's what I hope _they_ do with them.


----------



## AAARGH!

Mark said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they redo the P40 brakes to the electronic type then there should be no reason for them _not_ to roam the system. Sorry guys but those of us around Chicago, (well at least me), don't feel that the P40s should be reassigned only to the Auto train, (AT has made it this long with out them). I would love to see them on the IL Zephyr/Carl Sandburg, SWC, CZ or EB- three in a row all 800 series!
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. If the P40s are kept captive to the Auto Train and Florida pool, it would simplify service requirements. Then only Ivy City, Lorton, Sanford, and Hialeah would need to have any qualifications on their mechanical specifics. Having them roam the system makes less sense then running them captivity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't agree- first of all this is Amtrak we are talking about so whatever they may or may not end up doing may make sense to somebody but probably not us.
> 
> Second- It would seem to me the best idea for the P40s, (since they are supposedly rebuilding them from the ground up), is to make them in every respect the same as the P42s. Then they could be serviced and maintained anywhere and used as additional power at will. That's what I would do with them and that's what I hope _they_ do with them.
Click to expand...

I disagree. First, P40s are just that. They can't be just like P42s 'in every respect' and thus have their own maintenance requirements / needs. So, to be most efficient, you would want to maintain them at as few locations as possible. So it makes total sense to make them captive to a relatively small region and/or route.

It's the same reason Southwest Airlines only flies 737s, to keep maintenance costs down.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Mark said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they redo the P40 brakes to the electronic type then there should be no reason for them _not_ to roam the system. Sorry guys but those of us around Chicago, (well at least me), don't feel that the P40s should be reassigned only to the Auto train, (AT has made it this long with out them). I would love to see them on the IL Zephyr/Carl Sandburg, SWC, CZ or EB- three in a row all 800 series!
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. If the P40s are kept captive to the Auto Train and Florida pool, it would simplify service requirements. Then only Ivy City, Lorton, Sanford, and Hialeah would need to have any qualifications on their mechanical specifics. Having them roam the system makes less sense then running them captivity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't agree- first of all this is Amtrak we are talking about so whatever they may or may not end up doing may make sense to somebody but probably not us.
> 
> Second- It would seem to me the best idea for the P40s, (since they are supposedly rebuilding them from the ground up), is to make them in every respect the same as the P42s. Then they could be serviced and maintained anywhere and used as additional power at will. That's what I would do with them and that's what I hope _they_ do with them.
Click to expand...

Does that include spending a million bucks or so to replace the prime mover? Seriously. They look the same, but they are different as night and day under that skin. Only the chassis is similar. The P42 is a Dash-9, the P40 a Dash-8, for one thing.


----------



## Mark

> It's the same reason Southwest Airlines only flies 737s, to keep maintenance costs down.


Which is exactly why the P40s should be rebuilt to match the P42.


----------



## AAARGH!

Mark said:


> Which is exactly why the P40s should be rebuilt to match the P42.


But again, that is not practical at all. It's like saying we should rebuild an 727 to be like a 737. I'll give you that a P40 is more similar to a P42 than a 727 is to a 737, but you get my point. To rebuild a P40 just like a P42, you would have to in essence build a brand new P42.

Perhaps a better airplane analogy would be to rebuild a 737-200 just like a 737-700. They have the same basic body, but have totaly different engines, avionics, and MANY other substantial differences. That is why Boeing calls the 737-700, 800, and 900 'next generation'. It is impossible to retrofit a 737-200 to be like a 737-700.


----------



## Mark

Green Maned Lion said:


> Mark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they redo the P40 brakes to the electronic type then there should be no reason for them _not_ to roam the system. Sorry guys but those of us around Chicago, (well at least me), don't feel that the P40s should be reassigned only to the Auto train, (AT has made it this long with out them). I would love to see them on the IL Zephyr/Carl Sandburg, SWC, CZ or EB- three in a row all 800 series!
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. If the P40s are kept captive to the Auto Train and Florida pool, it would simplify service requirements. Then only Ivy City, Lorton, Sanford, and Hialeah would need to have any qualifications on their mechanical specifics. Having them roam the system makes less sense then running them captivity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't agree- first of all this is Amtrak we are talking about so whatever they may or may not end up doing may make sense to somebody but probably not us.
> 
> Second- It would seem to me the best idea for the P40s, (since they are supposedly rebuilding them from the ground up), is to make them in every respect the same as the P42s. Then they could be serviced and maintained anywhere and used as additional power at will. That's what I would do with them and that's what I hope _they_ do with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does that include spending a million bucks or so to replace the prime mover? Seriously. They look the same, but they are different as night and day under that skin. Only the chassis is similar. The P42 is a Dash-9, the P40 a Dash-8, for one thing.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that they are night and day different under the hood but I'm no expert. I'm sure there are plenty of similarities, they were re-geared for 110mph and 4200 hp previously if I'm not mistaking.

I don't have any of the specifics as to what is exactly going to be done to the P40s but if they are taking the trouble to rebuild them why not go all the way.

According to Amtrak they are spending $13 million on 15 units or an estimated cost of $867,000 per unit. New units run about 2 million, so I think that's quite an overhaul. The ARRA sheet states, "for long distance service" it does not say for the Auto Train. Which is what I'm hoping for. I guess time will tell.


----------



## Neil_M

Green Maned Lion said:


> Does that include spending a million bucks or so to replace the prime mover? Seriously. They look the same, but they are different as night and day under that skin. Only the chassis is similar. The P42 is a Dash-9, the P40 a Dash-8, for one thing.


Woooh! GML in talking sense shocker!

What he says is right, overhauling the P40s is one thing, converting them into P42s is something completely different and maybe it would be cheaper to just build new P42s....

Makes sense to get them up and running again and by keeping them on one route like the Auto Train concentrates the knowledge and spares to just a few locations, rather than systemwide.


----------



## Rafi

Just to re-calibrate here...

It's just the first two out of the Grove that there's been some speculation of moving to captive service on the Auto Train. And yes, to turn a P40 into a P42 is not a simple matter, and that's not what they're doing. These will still be P40 engines when the Grove turns them loose. But I think you'll see the engines in captive services around the system so they can be repaired and maintained by shops with the knowhow. You wouldn't want one ending up DOA in Boston, for example.

Rafi


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie

Gord said:


> IMHO, when comparing roomettes between Superliner and Viewliner, the Viewliner wins easily as it has mirror, sink, toilet and upper berth windows. It is great for one person and more comfortable for two than the Superliner. Annoying rattles dont seem to discriminate between the two types, in my experience.


I have to agree. The Viewliner roomette is the easy winner, for all the reasons you mention. I'll add one more, ceiling height. Because of that, you can lower the upper buck, and still have lots of headroom for the two seats below.

BTW, it is far easier to not use the toilet in the Viewliner roomette if it really bothers you, than the "go" in a Superliner roomette.  What we do on the Viewliner, is the other roomette mate, goes for a walk. Good excuse to stretch you legs and check out the rest of the train.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie

AAARGH said:


> Perhaps a better airplane analogy would be to rebuild a 737-200 just like a 737-700. They have the same basic body, but have totally different engines, avionics, and MANY other substantial differences. That is why Boeing calls the 737-700, 800, and 900 'next generation'. It is impossible to retrofit a 737-200 to be like a 737-700.


I am not that sure if the goal is to rebuild both a 737-200 and a 737-700, that one couldn't rebuild them to both use the same jet engines. Also, if they can rebuild a shuttle with totally new avionics (switch to a glass cockpit, amongst other improves), I bet one could upgrade a 737-200's avionics to state-of-the-art too (just might cost a bit).


----------



## printman2000

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> BTW, it is far easier to not use the toilet in the Viewliner roomette if it really bothers you, than the "go" in a Superliner roomette.  What we do on the Viewliner, is the other roomette mate, goes for a walk. Good excuse to stretch you legs and check out the rest of the train.


Except that there are no public toilets on a Viewliner thus you have to go to the lounge or coaches and those bathrooms can get pretty nasty. Not to mention someone going right next to where you sit and sleep.


----------



## jis

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> I am not that sure if the goal is to rebuild both a 737-200 and a 737-700, that one couldn't rebuild them to both use the same jet engines. Also, if they can rebuild a shuttle with totally new avionics (switch to a glass cockpit, amongst other improves), I bet one could upgrade a 737-200's avionics to state-of-the-art too (just might cost a bit).


No airline in its right mind with any business sense will ever attempt to rebuild a 737-200 into a 737-700. It is probably cheaper to sell the 737-200 in secondary market or junk it depending on the number of cycles it has gone through and buy a new 737-700s than to go through the exercise of fixing a new wing on a 737-200, which is what will be needed to change it into a 737-700, even before you deal with getting it new engines and new avionics and new everything else practically. Maybe the unused ashtray in the cockpit could be re-used  .


----------



## jis

printman2000 said:


> Cho Cho Charlie said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, it is far easier to not use the toilet in the Viewliner roomette if it really bothers you, than the "go" in a Superliner roomette.  What we do on the Viewliner, is the other roomette mate, goes for a walk. Good excuse to stretch you legs and check out the rest of the train.
> 
> 
> 
> Except that there are no public toilets on a Viewliner thus you have to go to the lounge or coaches and those bathrooms can get pretty nasty. Not to mention someone going right next to where you sit and sleep.
Click to expand...

Rumor has it that the new Viewliners will be built with no toilets in the roomettes and with 2 shared toilets per car.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie

jis said:


> Rumor has it that the new Viewliners will be built with no toilets in the roomettes and with 2 shared toilets per car.


Boo. Hisss.

I need to write my Congressman and Senators, demanding they take back all the stimulus money from Amtrak due to gross misuse of the funds!


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie

jis said:


> No airline in its right mind with any business sense will ever attempt to rebuild a 737-200 into a 737-700. It is probably cheaper to sell the 737-200 in secondary market or junk it depending on the number of cycles it has gone through and buy a new 737-700s than to go through the exercise of fixing a new wing on a 737-200, which is what will be needed to change it into a 737-700, even before you deal with getting it new engines and new avionics and new everything else practically. Maybe the unused ashtray in the cockpit could be re-used  .


One can't replace the jet engines in a 737-200 without also fixing new wings on it too? I didn't know that. Must have been designed in Detroit!


----------



## printman2000

jis said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cho Cho Charlie said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, it is far easier to not use the toilet in the Viewliner roomette if it really bothers you, than the "go" in a Superliner roomette.  What we do on the Viewliner, is the other roomette mate, goes for a walk. Good excuse to stretch you legs and check out the rest of the train.
> 
> 
> 
> Except that there are no public toilets on a Viewliner thus you have to go to the lounge or coaches and those bathrooms can get pretty nasty. Not to mention someone going right next to where you sit and sleep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rumor has it that the new Viewliners will be built with no toilets in the roomettes and with 2 shared toilets per car.
Click to expand...

Wonder where they would fit them?


----------



## AlanB

printman2000 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cho Cho Charlie said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, it is far easier to not use the toilet in the Viewliner roomette if it really bothers you, than the "go" in a Superliner roomette.  What we do on the Viewliner, is the other roomette mate, goes for a walk. Good excuse to stretch you legs and check out the rest of the train.
> 
> 
> 
> Except that there are no public toilets on a Viewliner thus you have to go to the lounge or coaches and those bathrooms can get pretty nasty. Not to mention someone going right next to where you sit and sleep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rumor has it that the new Viewliners will be built with no toilets in the roomettes and with 2 shared toilets per car.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wonder where they would fit them?
Click to expand...

That same rumor suggests that the attendant's room will be sacraficed, along with one roomette.


----------



## jis

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> One can't replace the jet engines in a 737-200 without also fixing new wings on it too? I didn't know that. Must have been designed in Detroit!


Different landing gear too. Afterall the higher bypass ration engines that were introduced in the -300 onwards are bigger than the old hair-blowers that went for engines in the early 737s  , and the old short landing gear did not leave enough room for the larger engines under the wings. Also the engine mounts are completely different for the same reason, part of the reason that the wing had to be different. But the other reason was for improving aerodynamics of the wing.

However, since Amtrak does not operate any 737's we could move this line of dialogue to somewhere like airliners.net and get much more learned discourse on the subject.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

AlanB said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rumor has it that the new Viewliners will be built with no toilets in the roomettes and with 2 shared toilets per car.
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder where they would fit them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That same rumor suggests that the attendant's room will be sacraficed, along with one roomette.
Click to expand...


Did Amtrak renegotiate the deal with the unions such that they no longer need to provide a roomette for the sleeping car attendant?


----------



## AlanB

Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rumor has it that the new Viewliners will be built with no toilets in the roomettes and with 2 shared toilets per car.
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder where they would fit them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That same rumor suggests that the attendant's room will be sacraficed, along with one roomette.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did Amtrak renegotiate the deal with the unions such that they no longer need to provide a roomette for the sleeping car attendant?
Click to expand...

No.

The attendant is only guaranteed a room to sleep in, there is no guarantee of where that room will be on the train. So it could be that we're loosing a passenger roomette to the attendant, or it could be that the attendant will be moved into the crew dorm.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

AlanB said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rumor has it that the new Viewliners will be built with no toilets in the roomettes and with 2 shared toilets per car.
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder where they would fit them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That same rumor suggests that the attendant's room will be sacraficed, along with one roomette.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did Amtrak renegotiate the deal with the unions such that they no longer need to provide a roomette for the sleeping car attendant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> The attendant is only guaranteed a room to sleep in, there is no guarantee of where that room will be on the train. So it could be that we're loosing a passenger roomette to the attendant, or it could be that the attendant will be moved into the crew dorm.
Click to expand...

So if you take the total number of revenue roomettes plus sleeping car attendant rooms, these toilets are going to cost two revenue sleeping compartments somewhere on the train per car, regardless of exactly where the attendant ends up sleeping.

I would think having some revenue roomettes in the crew dorm would work better than moving the sleeping car attendants for cars not adjacent to the crew dorm into the crew dorm.

Also, what ever happened to the goal of having a fleet of interchangable cars? Will ARROW now have to keep track of some single level trains having 10 revenue roomettes per car and others 12? Will there end up being more cars stored spare in the system to accomodate this?


----------



## AlanB

Joel N. Weber II said:


> So if you take the total number of revenue roomettes plus sleeping car attendant rooms, these toilets are going to cost two revenue sleeping compartments somewhere on the train per car, regardless of exactly where the attendant ends up sleeping.


If they move the attendant to the crew dorm, then you're not loosing 2 revenue rooms. If he stays in the car, then yes one would loose two rooms.

However, I'm also being told by someone who heard the same rumor that I did, that I'm recalling things wrong. Only the attendant’s room is to be used to provide the two public restrooms. That would mean that if the attendant goes to the crew dorm, no revenue rooms are sacrificed. If they leave the attendant in the sleeper, then one revenue room is sacrificed.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> I would think having some revenue roomettes in the crew dorm would work better than moving the sleeping car attendants for cars not adjacent to the crew dorm into the crew dorm.


I would not think that there is really enough room to do that in terms of how many roomettes would fit, much less separate the crew from the pax in the new Viewliner bag/dorm.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> Also, what ever happened to the goal of having a fleet of interchangable cars? Will ARROW now have to keep track of some single level trains having 10 revenue roomettes per car and others 12? Will there end up being more cars stored spare in the system to accomodate this?


No clue what happened to that idea. I guess that someone high up decided that the issue of having toilets in the roomettes out weighed the idea of having the same type of car configuration.

ARROW would definitely have to track that, and can. As to how they plan to deal with spares, I can't say. Not even sure that Amtrak has really drawn up plans for that, since the cars aren't even on order yet AFAIK. But it wouldn't surprise me if the new cars go to the Silvers, while the old cars go to the other routes. That would pretty much solve the problem, as you'd only need a spare in Sunnyside and Hialeah.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

AlanB said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if you take the total number of revenue roomettes plus sleeping car attendant rooms, these toilets are going to cost two revenue sleeping compartments somewhere on the train per car, regardless of exactly where the attendant ends up sleeping.
> 
> 
> 
> If they move the attendant to the crew dorm, then you're not loosing 2 revenue rooms. If he stays in the car, then yes one would loose two rooms.
> 
> However, I'm also being told by someone who heard the same rumor that I did, that I'm recalling things wrong. Only the attendant’s room is to be used to provide the two public restrooms. That would mean that if the attendant goes to the crew dorm, no revenue rooms are sacrificed. If they leave the attendant in the sleeper, then one revenue room is sacrificed.
> 
> 
> 
> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would think having some revenue roomettes in the crew dorm would work better than moving the sleeping car attendants for cars not adjacent to the crew dorm into the crew dorm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would not think that there is really enough room to do that in terms of how many roomettes would fit, much less separate the crew from the pax in the new Viewliner bag/dorm.
> 
> 
> 
> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, what ever happened to the goal of having a fleet of interchangable cars? Will ARROW now have to keep track of some single level trains having 10 revenue roomettes per car and others 12? Will there end up being more cars stored spare in the system to accomodate this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No clue what happened to that idea. I guess that someone high up decided that the issue of having toilets in the roomettes out weighed the idea of having the same type of car configuration.
> 
> ARROW would definitely have to track that, and can. As to how they plan to deal with spares, I can't say. Not even sure that Amtrak has really drawn up plans for that, since the cars aren't even on order yet AFAIK. But it wouldn't surprise me if the new cars go to the Silvers, while the old cars go to the other routes. That would pretty much solve the problem, as you'd only need a spare in Sunnyside and Hialeah.
Click to expand...

That wouldn't make sense, since I don't think 25 cars could cover spare service and the idea of three trains with three sleepers per. I bet you they instead go into captive service for the Lake Shore, Cardinal, and a resurrected Broadway Limited.


----------



## jis

Green Maned Lion said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> No clue what happened to that idea. I guess that someone high up decided that the issue of having toilets in the roomettes out weighed the idea of having the same type of car configuration.
> 
> ARROW would definitely have to track that, and can. As to how they plan to deal with spares, I can't say. Not even sure that Amtrak has really drawn up plans for that, since the cars aren't even on order yet AFAIK. But it wouldn't surprise me if the new cars go to the Silvers, while the old cars go to the other routes. That would pretty much solve the problem, as you'd only need a spare in Sunnyside and Hialeah.
> 
> 
> 
> That wouldn't make sense, since I don't think 25 cars could cover spare service and the idea of three trains with three sleepers per. I bet you they instead go into captive service for the Lake Shore, Cardinal, and a resurrected Broadway Limited.
Click to expand...

A much simpler thing to do would be to just sell 11 roomettes via Arrow until the Bag-Dorms arrive, and leave the 12th one on the older cars to be used for upgrades en-route by people in the know like members of this Board  . Eventually then older cars could be refurbed to make them exactly like the new cars, since surveys have established that a preponderance of riders prefer not to sleep next to their commode in this day and age.

This is a technique that was used by the Indian Railways when they were changing the configuration of the AC 3-Tier Sleepers. Of course in their case they were converting to a longer car and were adding 3 berths to each car in the newer cars, and progressively taking the older cars out of service and downgrading them to Chair Cars (Coaches). They just let the conductor sell the additional berths as upgrades or to bring in passengers from the waitlist on an as available basis on each particular train, until the conversion was complete and all cars could be entered into the reservation system with the additional berths.

Of course managing something as complicated as waiting lists and reservations against cancellations while the train is en-route, as done by IR may be too complex for Amtrak to handle :lol: Juuuust kidding!


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

AlanB said:


> However, I'm also being told by someone who heard the same rumor that I did, that I'm recalling things wrong. Only the attendant’s room is to be used to provide the two public restrooms. That would mean that if the attendant goes to the crew dorm, no revenue rooms are sacrificed. If they leave the attendant in the sleeper, then one revenue room is sacrificed.


But consider also the option of moving the attendant to the crew dorm, and converting the attendant's room to a revenue roomette. You're still losing a revenue room to the toilets in that case.



AlanB said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would think having some revenue roomettes in the crew dorm would work better than moving the sleeping car attendants for cars not adjacent to the crew dorm into the crew dorm.
> 
> 
> 
> I would not think that there is really enough room to do that in terms of how many roomettes would fit, much less separate the crew from the pax in the new Viewliner bag/dorm.
Click to expand...

If #448/#449 gets a bag/dorm car, just how many non-revenue roomettes does it need? Even if the 4820/4920 sleeper attendant and the cafe attendant need roomettes and there are a few roomettes available for free travel by Amtrak employees, are all of the roomettes in the bag/dorm car going to be filled by non-revenue passengers?

It seems to me that if a bag/dorm car has half its length for baggage and half for dorm, there will probably be 8-10 roomettes in that car, depending on the toilet and shower configuration.

For that matter, another option might be to provide two public-to-sleeper-passengers toilets in the dorm car, make all the dorm car roomettes toiletless, and introduce some new terminology so that those passengers who strongly object to a toilet in their roomette could specifically request a roomette in the dorm car. That might maximize the number of compartments on the train that can collect revenue.

Or, if there really must be toiletless roomettes in every regular sleeper, maybe Amtrak should consider leaving the toilets in some roomettes (1-4 or 1-6 maybe?) to sell to passengers who like having toilets in the roomettes.


----------



## printman2000

Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, I'm also being told by someone who heard the same rumor that I did, that I'm recalling things wrong. Only the attendant's room is to be used to provide the two public restrooms. That would mean that if the attendant goes to the crew dorm, no revenue rooms are sacrificed. If they leave the attendant in the sleeper, then one revenue room is sacrificed.
> 
> 
> 
> But consider also the option of moving the attendant to the crew dorm, and converting the attendant's room to a revenue roomette. You're still losing a revenue room to the toilets in that case.
> 
> 
> 
> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would think having some revenue roomettes in the crew dorm would work better than moving the sleeping car attendants for cars not adjacent to the crew dorm into the crew dorm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would not think that there is really enough room to do that in terms of how many roomettes would fit, much less separate the crew from the pax in the new Viewliner bag/dorm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If #448/#449 gets a bag/dorm car, just how many non-revenue roomettes does it need? Even if the 4820/4920 sleeper attendant and the cafe attendant need roomettes and there are a few roomettes available for free travel by Amtrak employees, are all of the roomettes in the bag/dorm car going to be filled by non-revenue passengers?
> 
> It seems to me that if a bag/dorm car has half its length for baggage and half for dorm, there will probably be 8-10 roomettes in that car, depending on the toilet and shower configuration.
> 
> For that matter, another option might be to provide two public-to-sleeper-passengers toilets in the dorm car, make all the dorm car roomettes toiletless, and introduce some new terminology so that those passengers who strongly object to a toilet in their roomette could specifically request a roomette in the dorm car. That might maximize the number of compartments on the train that can collect revenue.
> 
> Or, if there really must be toiletless roomettes in every regular sleeper, maybe Amtrak should consider leaving the toilets in some roomettes (1-4 or 1-6 maybe?) to sell to passengers who like having toilets in the roomettes.
Click to expand...

That is just another thing to cause headaches for Amtrak.


----------



## AlanB

Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, I'm also being told by someone who heard the same rumor that I did, that I'm recalling things wrong. Only the attendant’s room is to be used to provide the two public restrooms. That would mean that if the attendant goes to the crew dorm, no revenue rooms are sacrificed. If they leave the attendant in the sleeper, then one revenue room is sacrificed.
> 
> 
> 
> But consider also the option of moving the attendant to the crew dorm, and converting the attendant's room to a revenue roomette. You're still losing a revenue room to the toilets in that case.
Click to expand...

How?

The current attendant's room is sacrificed to be the facilities. If the attendant goes to the crew dorm, then no revenue rooms are lost. If the attendant remains in the sleeper, then and only then does one loose a revenue room.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would think having some revenue roomettes in the crew dorm would work better than moving the sleeping car attendants for cars not adjacent to the crew dorm into the crew dorm.
> 
> 
> 
> I would not think that there is really enough room to do that in terms of how many roomettes would fit, much less separate the crew from the pax in the new Viewliner bag/dorm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If #448/#449 gets a bag/dorm car, just how many non-revenue roomettes does it need? Even if the 4820/4920 sleeper attendant and the cafe attendant need roomettes and there are a few roomettes available for free travel by Amtrak employees, are all of the roomettes in the bag/dorm car going to be filled by non-revenue passengers?
> 
> It seems to me that if a bag/dorm car has half its length for baggage and half for dorm, there will probably be 8-10 roomettes in that car, depending on the toilet and shower configuration.
> 
> For that matter, another option might be to provide two public-to-sleeper-passengers toilets in the dorm car, make all the dorm car roomettes toiletless, and introduce some new terminology so that those passengers who strongly object to a toilet in their roomette could specifically request a roomette in the dorm car. That might maximize the number of compartments on the train that can collect revenue.
> 
> Or, if there really must be toiletless roomettes in every regular sleeper, maybe Amtrak should consider leaving the toilets in some roomettes (1-4 or 1-6 maybe?) to sell to passengers who like having toilets in the roomettes.
Click to expand...

Once the regular dining car returns to the LSL during peak periods you'll have a cook, assistant cook, 1 to 2 waiter(s), LSA, and at least 2 to 3 coach attendants. That's already 5 to 7 employees in the crew dorm, before possibly putting in sleeping car attendants. Doesn't leave much room for revenue pax or extra bathrooms.


----------



## jis

AlanB said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, I'm also being told by someone who heard the same rumor that I did, that I'm recalling things wrong. Only the attendant’s room is to be used to provide the two public restrooms. That would mean that if the attendant goes to the crew dorm, no revenue rooms are sacrificed. If they leave the attendant in the sleeper, then one revenue room is sacrificed.
> 
> 
> 
> But consider also the option of moving the attendant to the crew dorm, and converting the attendant's room to a revenue roomette. You're still losing a revenue room to the toilets in that case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How?
> 
> The current attendant's room is sacrificed to be the facilities. If the attendant goes to the crew dorm, then no revenue rooms are lost. If the attendant remains in the sleeper, then and only then does one loose a revenue room.
Click to expand...

I think he means to move the attendant to the crew dorm and convert the attendant room to another roomette.

But I think that whole line of thinking is irrelevant, if Amtrak cares about feedback that it is getting from its passengers. The clear feedback is that they on an average do not like to sleep next to their commodes. Any reasonable business should work towards accommodating that rather than nickeling and dimeing to figure out how to add one more passenger or 2 per car while not meeting a clearly expressed desire of its ridership.

Realistically I think, one of the roomettes, like roomette 12 will be converted for use by the attendant so that s/he can be collocated with the passengers that s/he is supposed to be looking after. The rest of the world does it that way for sleeping cars. I don't see why Amtrak should do something inferior.


----------



## AlanB

jis said:


> Realistically I think, one of the roomettes, like roomette 12 will be converted for sue by the attendant so that s/he can be collocated with the passengers that s/he is supposed to be looking after. The rest of the world does it that way for sleeping cars. I don;t see why Amtrak should do something inferior.


I think it should be 11. 

But it probably will be 12, if indeed that's what happens.


----------



## jis

AlanB said:


> I think it should be 11.
> But it probably will be 12, if indeed that's what happens.


Yeah, whichever. Or we could have a long-winded thread running to four pages arguing this fine point too 

BTW, I was just thinking, on IR (Indian Railways) in First Class AC Sleepers, the capacity is 24 people in 5 4 berth and 2 2 berth compartments, and they have an attendant room and also 4 common rooms of which two are western style toilets, one is an eastern style toilet, and the fourth is a shower and change room. In addition there are two common sinks with toiletry shelf in the vestibule areas. There are no facilities in any of the sleeping quarters since that would not be tolerated in any way, shape or form by the traveling public there. This actually provides more toilet facilities per person than in a theoretically fully loaded new Viewliner (i.e. all roomettes occupied by 2 people). Of course, since they are never fully loaded, that may be a non-issue.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

AlanB said:


> The current attendant's room is sacrificed to be the facilities. If the attendant goes to the crew dorm, then no revenue rooms are lost. If the attendant remains in the sleeper, then and only then does one loose a revenue room.


If you consider roomette 12, the current attendant roomette, and a roomette in the crew dorm, you can either use these somehow for toilets, an attendant room, and a revenue room, or for an attendant room and two revenue rooms. No matter how you allocate revenue vs non-revenue, the toilets end up eating up a revenue roomette.



AlanB said:


> Once the regular dining car returns to the LSL during peak periods you'll have a cook, assistant cook, 1 to 2 waiter(s), LSA, and at least 2 to 3 coach attendants. That's already 5 to 7 employees in the crew dorm, before possibly putting in sleeping car attendants. Doesn't leave much room for revenue pax or extra bathrooms.


ALB<->CHI, there are two baggage cars now. I'm assuming there would be two baggage-dorm cars in the future, one for BOS and one for NYP.


----------



## jis

Joel N. Weber II said:


> If you consider roomette 12, the current attendant roomette, and a roomette in the crew dorm, you can either use these somehow for toilets, an attendant room, and a revenue room, or for an attendant room and two revenue rooms. No matter how you allocate revenue vs non-revenue, the toilets end up eating up a revenue roomette.


There is no argument about that. But that is what the preponderance of the current generation rail traveling public, and specially those that are re-discovering rail want..... no facilities - specially of the variety that handles excreta, in their rooms. So why are we spending a couple of pages arguing about this? Would one rather have new riders try it once and then be turned off never to come back? Or would it make sense to accommodate to their tastes so that they would come back over and over again?

Amtrak could also pick up something from RZD the Russian Railways, which will happily sell you a two berth room for the use of a single person for an extra charge, or would let you share same with another person unrelated or known to you for a considerably smaller charge. Once the issue of toilets is taken care of this could be another way of enhancing revenues from the cars.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Joel N. Weber II said:


> ALB<->CHI, there are two baggage cars now. I'm assuming there would be two baggage-dorm cars in the future, one for BOS and one for NYP.


I would imagine that it would be one Bag-dorm running NYP-CHI and a baggage car headed BOS-CHI. The order, as I understand it, is for both baggage-dorms and full baggage cars. In addition, quite a few of the heritage baggages have life left in them. I'd be expecting Amtrak to keep running each car at-least until some specific reason to retire it comes up- that is, retire them as they get bad-ordered or a serious flaw is found in inspection. There are probably some h-bags that have many years left in them, particularly the coach-conversions.



jis said:


> There is no argument about that. But that is what the preponderance of the current generation rail traveling public, and specially those that are re-discovering rail want..... no facilities - specially of the variety that handles excreta, in their rooms. So why are we spending a couple of pages arguing about this? Would one rather have new riders try it once and then be turned off never to come back? Or would it make sense to accommodate to their tastes so that they would come back over and over again?
> Amtrak could also pick up something from RZD the Russian Railways, which will happily sell you a two berth room for the use of a single person for an extra charge, or would let you share same with another person unrelated or known to you for a considerably smaller charge. Once the issue of toilets is taken care of this could be another way of enhancing revenues from the cars.


I can't imagine people actually objecting to that on a large scale, a few hypochondriacs notwithstanding. I dunno, when I was riding the heritage cars as a little kid, the oddity of having a toilet in proximity to where I am sleeping never even occurred to me.


----------



## printman2000

Joel N. Weber II said:


> ALB<->CHI, there are two baggage cars now. I'm assuming there would be two baggage-dorm cars in the future, one for BOS and one for NYP.


There has been absolutely no word from Amtrak that there are going to be any baggage-dorms. Everything Amtrak has put out has said baggage cars and listed one price amount for them, not one for baggage and one for baggage-dorm.

I cannot image Amtrak putting out that list of new equipment and not list baggage-dorm if that is what they intend.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

printman2000 said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALB<->CHI, there are two baggage cars now. I'm assuming there would be two baggage-dorm cars in the future, one for BOS and one for NYP.
> 
> 
> 
> There has been absolutely no word from Amtrak that there are going to be any baggage-dorms. Everything Amtrak has put out has said baggage cars and listed one price amount for them, not one for baggage and one for baggage-dorm.
> 
> I cannot image Amtrak putting out that list of new equipment and not list baggage-dorm if that is what they intend.
Click to expand...

At the NARP meeting in California, Boardman specifically referred to them as "Baggage and baggage-dorm cars". I'd say that is pretty solid information coming from the top.


----------



## jis

Green Maned Lion said:


> I can't imagine people actually objecting to that on a large scale, a few hypochondriacs notwithstanding. I dunno, when I was riding the heritage cars as a little kid, the oddity of having a toilet in proximity to where I am sleeping never even occurred to me.


I don't have any personal objections to it either. However, I have been told about Amtrak survey results that indicate that everyone in general public does not share our enthusiasm on this matter. It is not an imaginary thing. I just admit that I have never had a chance to participate in such a survey, but I am not sure that that is because I tend to throw away mosat such surveys or because I never received one.


----------



## jis

Green Maned Lion said:


> At the NARP meeting in California, Boardman specifically referred to them as "Baggage and baggage-dorm cars". I'd say that is pretty solid information coming from the top.


Indeed I have heard from NARP sources that they will be a mix of Bag only and Bag-Dorm cars. I have not been able to find any information about the proportions though.


----------



## printman2000

jis said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the NARP meeting in California, Boardman specifically referred to them as "Baggage and baggage-dorm cars". I'd say that is pretty solid information coming from the top.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed I have heard from NARP sources that they will be a mix of Bag only and Bag-Dorm cars. I have not been able to find any information about the proportions though.
Click to expand...

News to me. Thanks


----------



## printman2000

printman2000 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the NARP meeting in California, Boardman specifically referred to them as "Baggage and baggage-dorm cars". I'd say that is pretty solid information coming from the top.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed I have heard from NARP sources that they will be a mix of Bag only and Bag-Dorm cars. I have not been able to find any information about the proportions though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> News to me. Thanks
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Just watched Boardman's speech on youtube, unless I just missed it, he referred only to baggage cars, not baggage-dorms.


----------



## jis

printman2000 said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the NARP meeting in California, Boardman specifically referred to them as "Baggage and baggage-dorm cars". I'd say that is pretty solid information coming from the top.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed I have heard from NARP sources that they will be a mix of Bag only and Bag-Dorm cars. I have not been able to find any information about the proportions though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> News to me. Thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmmm. Just watched Boardman's speech on youtube, unless I just missed it, he referred only to baggage cars, not baggage-dorms.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what Boardman said or not. I have it from three relatively independent sources that they are going to be a mix.


----------



## AlanB

Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current attendant's room is sacrificed to be the facilities. If the attendant goes to the crew dorm, then no revenue rooms are lost. If the attendant remains in the sleeper, then and only then does one loose a revenue room.
> 
> 
> 
> If you consider roomette 12, the current attendant roomette, and a roomette in the crew dorm, you can either use these somehow for toilets, an attendant room, and a revenue room, or for an attendant room and two revenue rooms. No matter how you allocate revenue vs non-revenue, the toilets end up eating up a revenue roomette.
Click to expand...

If it were numbered, the current attendant's room would be #14. The shower would be 13.

Therefore if the attendant moves to the crew dorm we loose no revenue rooms. If the attendant moves to roomette #12, then and only then do we loose a revenue room. Since there are no plans and never were any plans to have a revenue rooms in the dorm, it doesn't count as a lost revenue room by sending the attendant there.


----------



## printman2000

jis said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the NARP meeting in California, Boardman specifically referred to them as "Baggage and baggage-dorm cars". I'd say that is pretty solid information coming from the top.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed I have heard from NARP sources that they will be a mix of Bag only and Bag-Dorm cars. I have not been able to find any information about the proportions though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> News to me. Thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmmm. Just watched Boardman's speech on youtube, unless I just missed it, he referred only to baggage cars, not baggage-dorms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no idea what Boardman said or not. I have it from three relatively independent sources that they are going to be a mix.
Click to expand...

Well, no disrespect to you, but I will remain skeptical until Amtrak says something. I still cannot image them not listing them if that is what they meant. Also, Boardman specifically said baggage cars.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

AlanB said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current attendant's room is sacrificed to be the facilities. If the attendant goes to the crew dorm, then no revenue rooms are lost. If the attendant remains in the sleeper, then and only then does one loose a revenue room.
> 
> 
> 
> If you consider roomette 12, the current attendant roomette, and a roomette in the crew dorm, you can either use these somehow for toilets, an attendant room, and a revenue room, or for an attendant room and two revenue rooms. No matter how you allocate revenue vs non-revenue, the toilets end up eating up a revenue roomette.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it were numbered, the current attendant's room would be #14. The shower would be 13.
> 
> Therefore if the attendant moves to the crew dorm we loose no revenue rooms. If the attendant moves to roomette #12, then and only then do we loose a revenue room. Since there are no plans and never were any plans to have a revenue rooms in the dorm, it doesn't count as a lost revenue room by sending the attendant there.
Click to expand...

Gentlemen, can I kill this silly game of semantics? POTENTIALLY an unmodified Viewliner sleeper carbody can accommodate 14 roomettes. By installing a shower you "give up" a potential room. By using a room for the attendant, you also "give up" a potential room. There is no law written in stone that the room we currently use for the attendant can't be sold for revenue purposes. If you remove the attendant to the dorm car, you can either potentially gain a 13th room, or put bathrooms in that space. So you're both right. They are giving up the potential of a room by installing bathrooms, but if you are simply moving the attendant to the baggage dorm, then the revenue capacity of the sleeper remains the same.


----------



## Dutchrailnut

> Gentlemen, can I kill this silly game of semantics? POTENTIALLY an unmodified Viewliner sleeper carbody can accommodate 14 roomettes. By installing a shower you "give up" a potential room. By using a room for the attendant, you also "give up" a potential room. There is no law written in stone that the room we currently use for the attendant can't be sold for revenue purposes. If you remove the attendant to the dorm car, you can either potentially gain a 13th room, or put bathrooms in that space. So you're both right. They are giving up the potential of a room by installing bathrooms, but if you are simply moving the attendant to the baggage dorm, then the revenue capacity of the sleeper remains the same.


You also make it 10 times harder to get an attendant to do anything, once he is safely away from paying mutants.


----------



## jis

printman2000 said:


> Well, no disrespect to you, but I will remain skeptical until Amtrak says something. I still cannot image them not listing them if that is what they meant. Also, Boardman specifically said baggage cars.


Indeed, you (and for that matter anyone else) don't have to believe a word that I say. Sometimes even I don;t   :lol: No offense taken.

I just report what I hear and learn the best I can. That's all one can do realistically.


----------



## printman2000

jis said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no disrespect to you, but I will remain skeptical until Amtrak says something. I still cannot image them not listing them if that is what they meant. Also, Boardman specifically said baggage cars.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, you (and for that matter anyone else) don't have to believe a word that I say. Sometimes even I don;t   :lol: No offense taken.
> 
> I just report what I hear and learn the best I can. That's all one can do realistically.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, it is not that I disbelieve *you* and what you have heard, but without knowing sources or seeing something official from Amtrak I am just going to be skeptical.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Dutchrailnut said:


> Gentlemen, can I kill this silly game of semantics? POTENTIALLY an unmodified Viewliner sleeper carbody can accommodate 14 roomettes. By installing a shower you "give up" a potential room. By using a room for the attendant, you also "give up" a potential room. There is no law written in stone that the room we currently use for the attendant can't be sold for revenue purposes. If you remove the attendant to the dorm car, you can either potentially gain a 13th room, or put bathrooms in that space. So you're both right. They are giving up the potential of a room by installing bathrooms, but if you are simply moving the attendant to the baggage dorm, then the revenue capacity of the sleeper remains the same.
> 
> 
> 
> You also make it 10 times harder to get an attendant to do anything, once he is safely away from paying mutants.
Click to expand...

I wasn't arguing for or against. Not interested. Not involved. Not curious.

I was just pointing out they were sparring over semantics rather then anything of substance.


----------



## jis

Green Maned Lion said:


> I was just pointing out they were sparring over semantics rather then anything of substance.


Thank you. This is what I have been trying to point out for a little while too!


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

Green Maned Lion said:


> but if you are simply moving the attendant to the baggage dorm, then the revenue capacity of the sleeper remains the same.


But if you don't put the attendant in the roomette in the baggage dorm car, then you may be able to use that roomette in the baggage dorm car for revenue passenger(s).

If #448/#449 and/or #66/#67 (maybe even and/or the Cardinal) end up with a baggage dorm car with 8-10 roomettes, not selling revenue space in the baggage dorm car would be throwing money away, just like not selling revenue roomettes in the Superliner transdorms was throwing money away in the past.


----------



## AlanB

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> but if you are simply moving the attendant to the baggage dorm, then the revenue capacity of the sleeper remains the same.
> 
> 
> 
> But if you don't put the attendant in the roomette in the baggage dorm car, then you may be able to use that roomette in the baggage dorm car for revenue passenger(s).
> 
> If #448/#449 and/or #66/#67 (maybe even and/or the Cardinal) end up with a baggage dorm car with 8-10 roomettes, not selling revenue space in the baggage dorm car would be throwing money away, just like not selling revenue roomettes in the Superliner transdorms was throwing money away in the past.
Click to expand...

Amtrak isn't going to be selling space in the baggage/dorm. So please forget that idea, it's a non-starter.

The Superliner Trans/Dorms were specially designed to separate the crew section from the passenger section. That separation is not possible in the Viewliner bag/dorm. The passenger side has its own shower and bathroom, separate from the crew side. Other than the crew walking through the passenger section to reach the rest of the train, there is no interaction between the crew and the passengers. That's not possible in the bag/dorm.


----------



## RTOlson

I'm sorta curious to see how a bag/dorm would be laid out in a Viewliner configuration.

Would the car be divided in half across the width of the car? Would the dorm side be closer to passenger cars with a door separating the living quarters from the baggage area?

I doubt they would do this, but perhaps having the quarters in a raised position while the cargo is loaded below -- like a motorcoach

I would be interested to see how it would look. It might be ungainly from the outside -- half with windows and the other half as solid panels.


----------



## amtrakwolverine

maybe use the back half of the car for living quarters and the front half for baggage.


----------



## Dutchrailnut

KISS_ALIVE said:


> maybe use the back half of the car for living quarters and the front half for baggage.


Would that not require wying car every trip ;-)

or can front half of car be quarters and rear half bagage


----------



## frj1983

Dutchrailnut said:


> KISS_ALIVE said:
> 
> 
> 
> maybe use the back half of the car for living quarters and the front half for baggage.
> 
> 
> 
> Would that not require wying car every trip ;-)
> 
> or can front half of car be quarters and rear half bagage
Click to expand...


What if the car were split in half lengthwise? No wying needed then!

But I too would be interested in seeing the real design!


----------



## Ryan

KISS_ALIVE said:


> maybe use the back half of the car for living quarters and the front half for baggage.


This. No wying needed, as it isn't a problem for the crew to walk through the baggage compartment to get to the rest of the train.


----------



## VentureForth

RTOlson said:


> I'm sorta curious to see how a bag/dorm would be laid out in a Viewliner configuration.
> Would the car be divided in half across the width of the car? Would the dorm side be closer to passenger cars with a door separating the living quarters from the baggage area?
> 
> I doubt they would do this, but perhaps having the quarters in a raised position while the cargo is loaded below -- like a motorcoach
> 
> I would be interested to see how it would look. It might be ungainly from the outside -- half with windows and the other half as solid panels.


For the Superliners: What's downstairs right now in the transdorm? More roomettes? I think that the entire downstairs of a dormer could be used for baggage and the entire upstairs could be used for dorms. This would far exceed the necessary space for checked bags. You wouldn't even need a _trans_dorm because you don't have a baggage car any more.

I think you could do something similar in the Viewliners. I don't think you need the extra height for a crew dorm, so have a "single level" type sleeper with a baggage area downstairs. Downstairs would no longer be 8' high, but perhaps only 5'. I don't know what's practical, but you don't need a viewliner height bedroom, and you don't need full size bedrooms - Maybe just 8 crew rooms with beds, and desk space across an aisle. Not real practical for revenue overflow, but an idea to get rid of the baggage cars all together.


----------



## amtrakwolverine

Dutchrailnut said:


> KISS_ALIVE said:
> 
> 
> 
> maybe use the back half of the car for living quarters and the front half for baggage.
> 
> 
> 
> Would that not require wying car every trip ;-)
> 
> or can front half of car be quarters and rear half bagage
Click to expand...

not if you have a door that allows you to walk from one end to the other. so no wying needed. you have a wall that seperates the 2 compartments but have a door that allows crew members to go from one end to the other.


----------



## printman2000

So, how many trains can actually utilize a baggage dorm? As I have seen discussed here before, some full length baggage cars can get quite full at times during a trip, so are there any routes where a bag-dorm would not work? I guess we are only talking about...

LSL

Cardinal

Crescent

Silver Meteor

Silver Star

Any of those that you think have too much baggage to use a bag-dorm?

I would assume the bag-dorms would stay on single level trains only since the Superliners have trans-dorms.


----------



## AlanB

KISS_ALIVE said:


> maybe use the back half of the car for living quarters and the front half for baggage.


My understanding is that you are basically correct, it will be slightly less than half for the baggage area, slightly more for the dorm area.


----------



## AlanB

VentureForth said:


> For the Superliners: What's downstairs right now in the transdorm? More roomettes? I think that the entire downstairs of a dormer could be used for baggage and the entire upstairs could be used for dorms. This would far exceed the necessary space for checked bags. You wouldn't even need a _trans_dorm because you don't have a baggage car any more.


On most, but not all, of the Trans/Dorms you have a handicapped room, the normal amount of toilets, luggage rack, and a lounge for the crew. There are no roomettes downstairs and no family room. On a few odd cars, the passenger showers are downstairs and the handicapped room is gone. The lounge remains.



VentureForth said:


> I think you could do something similar in the Viewliners. I don't think you need the extra height for a crew dorm, so have a "single level" type sleeper with a baggage area downstairs. Downstairs would no longer be 8' high, but perhaps only 5'. I don't know what's practical, but you don't need a viewliner height bedroom, and you don't need full size bedrooms - Maybe just 8 crew rooms with beds, and desk space across an aisle. Not real practical for revenue overflow, but an idea to get rid of the baggage cars all together.


You don't have enough room to put baggage downstairs in a single level car.


----------



## AlanB

printman2000 said:


> So, how many trains can actually utilize a baggage dorm? As I have seen discussed here before, some full length baggage cars can get quite full at times during a trip, so are there any routes where a bag-dorm would not work? I guess we are only talking about...
> LSL
> 
> Cardinal
> 
> Crescent
> 
> Silver Meteor
> 
> Silver Star
> 
> Any of those that you think have too much baggage to use a bag-dorm?
> 
> I would assume the bag-dorms would stay on single level trains only since the Superliners have trans-dorms.


While I stress that nothing is ever official until it's done, one rumor is that that all trains will get the new bag/dorms and that the Trans/Dorms will be converted to revenue cars.

On the other hand, if the rumor that only half the cars will be bag/dorms and the other half will be bags only, then there won't be enough bag/dorms to do the other rumor. That is unless the split is not quite 50/50.


----------



## printman2000

AlanB said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, how many trains can actually utilize a baggage dorm? As I have seen discussed here before, some full length baggage cars can get quite full at times during a trip, so are there any routes where a bag-dorm would not work? I guess we are only talking about...
> LSL
> 
> Cardinal
> 
> Crescent
> 
> Silver Meteor
> 
> Silver Star
> 
> Any of those that you think have too much baggage to use a bag-dorm?
> 
> I would assume the bag-dorms would stay on single level trains only since the Superliners have trans-dorms.
> 
> 
> 
> While I stress that nothing is ever official until it's done, one rumor is that that all trains will get the new bag/dorms and that the Trans/Dorms will be converted to revenue cars.
> 
> On the other hand, if the rumor that only half the cars will be bag/dorms and the other half will be bags only, then there won't be enough bag/dorms to do the other rumor. That is unless the split is not quite 50/50.
Click to expand...

So what about actual baggage space? I seriously doubt all LD trains can give up half of their baggage space.


----------



## AlanB

printman2000 said:


> So what about actual baggage space? I seriously doubt all LD trains can give up half of their baggage space.


I quite honestly don't know, except to say that perhaps the crew will have to be more organized. After all the current cars don't have luggage racks in them, so things are just piled on the floor. Pile too high, things tip over. The new cars will have racks to help keep things organized and to utilize more of the vertical space in the car.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

frj1983 said:


> Dutchrailnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KISS_ALIVE said:
> 
> 
> 
> maybe use the back half of the car for living quarters and the front half for baggage.
> 
> 
> 
> Would that not require wying car every trip ;-)
> 
> or can front half of car be quarters and rear half bagage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What if the car were split in half lengthwise? No wying needed then!
> 
> But I too would be interested in seeing the real design!
Click to expand...

Transdorms have to be wyed every trip. Are wyes harder to come by on the right coast than the left coast?

Splitting in half lengthwise introduces the question of how you deal with some stops having the platform on one side of the train and other stops having the platform on the other side of the train. Now, maybe you could have some gaps between the roomettes on one side where there can be baggage doors, so it's not completely unsolvable, but I suspect it's a good argument for putting the baggage in the front half of the car instead of in the left half of the car.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

AlanB said:


> While I stress that nothing is ever official until it's done, one rumor is that that all trains will get the new bag/dorms and that the Trans/Dorms will be converted to revenue cars.
> On the other hand, if the rumor that only half the cars will be bag/dorms and the other half will be bags only, then there won't be enough bag/dorms to do the other rumor. That is unless the split is not quite 50/50.


If it turns out that putting shelves in the baggage half of a bag-dorm car makes a single bag-dorm car sufficient for every long distance route that doesn't split the train, is there any reason at all to build baggage-only cars?

Also, could Amtrak write the contract so that they have the option of whether the last N cars are going to be baggage or baggage-dorm, and don't have to decide until after they've inflicted the first baggage-dorm car on whichever long distance train tends to have the most baggage and found out how well it does or doesn't work?


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

AlanB said:


> I quite honestly don't know, except to say that perhaps the crew will have to be more organized. After all the current cars don't have luggage racks in them, so things are just piled on the floor. Pile too high, things tip over. The new cars will have racks to help keep things organized and to utilize more of the vertical space in the car.


Has Amtrak considered retrofitting an existing baggage car with racks in one half of the car, and asking the crew to try to keep all of the baggage in the half of the car with racks to see how well this might work? (For such an experiment, picking a baggage car with a door configuration close to what they're considering for the Viewliners would probably be best.)


----------



## printman2000

Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> I quite honestly don't know, except to say that perhaps the crew will have to be more organized. After all the current cars don't have luggage racks in them, so things are just piled on the floor. Pile too high, things tip over. The new cars will have racks to help keep things organized and to utilize more of the vertical space in the car.
> 
> 
> 
> Has Amtrak considered retrofitting an existing baggage car with racks in one half of the car, and asking the crew to try to keep all of the baggage in the half of the car with racks to see how well this might work? (For such an experiment, picking a baggage car with a door configuration close to what they're considering for the Viewliners would probably be best.)
Click to expand...

They could use a baggage that has two doors on each side, put a barrier halfway and shelving in and say you can only use the front half and the two front doors.

Doubt they will do it, but it would be wise.


----------



## MattW

Why do trans-dorms need to be WYEd any ways? If they're reversed, wouldn't there be a diaphragm mismatch?


----------



## AlanB

Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I stress that nothing is ever official until it's done, one rumor is that that all trains will get the new bag/dorms and that the Trans/Dorms will be converted to revenue cars.
> On the other hand, if the rumor that only half the cars will be bag/dorms and the other half will be bags only, then there won't be enough bag/dorms to do the other rumor. That is unless the split is not quite 50/50.
> 
> 
> 
> If it turns out that putting shelves in the baggage half of a bag-dorm car makes a single bag-dorm car sufficient for every long distance route that doesn't split the train, is there any reason at all to build baggage-only cars?
> 
> Also, could Amtrak write the contract so that they have the option of whether the last N cars are going to be baggage or baggage-dorm, and don't have to decide until after they've inflicted the first baggage-dorm car on whichever long distance train tends to have the most baggage and found out how well it does or doesn't work?
Click to expand...

Well first, let's be clear. There are plenty of rumors that suggest that the entire 75 cars will be bag-dorms. And then there are plenty of rumors that suggest that some portion will be baggage only.

So if the first rumor is correct, then your question is irrelevant. If the second rumor is true, then your question remains relevant. But I don't know the answer. Sorry! 

As for your second question, I'm sure that Amtrak could request a contract with those terms and conditions. However, they'd have to ensure that the target date for delivery of the first few new cars is shortly before the peak season and then hope that they stay on schedule.


----------



## AlanB

Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> I quite honestly don't know, except to say that perhaps the crew will have to be more organized. After all the current cars don't have luggage racks in them, so things are just piled on the floor. Pile too high, things tip over. The new cars will have racks to help keep things organized and to utilize more of the vertical space in the car.
> 
> 
> 
> Has Amtrak considered retrofitting an existing baggage car with racks in one half of the car, and asking the crew to try to keep all of the baggage in the half of the car with racks to see how well this might work? (For such an experiment, picking a baggage car with a door configuration close to what they're considering for the Viewliners would probably be best.)
Click to expand...

No clue.


----------



## AlanB

MattW said:


> Why do trans-dorms need to be WYEd any ways? If they're reversed, wouldn't there be a diaphragm mismatch?


They don't wye just the Trans/Dorm, they wye the entire train; at least in most cases. The Auto Train never wyes its consist, so the sleepers lead when going north and trail when going south. But on most other Superliner equiped trains, Amtrak wants the sleepers up front. That means that they wye the entire train when it reaches the terminals, be it LAX, EMY, SEA, PDX, CHI, NOL, WAS.


----------



## jis

MattW said:


> Why do trans-dorms need to be WYEd any ways? If they're reversed, wouldn't there be a diaphragm mismatch?


AFAIK for all LD trains, the entire train is wyed. So I don't understand why this has suddenly become an issue for Bag-Dorms or Trans-Dorms individually.


----------



## MattW

Yea, that's what I'm trying to understand by asking.


----------



## jis

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Transdorms have to be wyed every trip. Are wyes harder to come by on the right coast than the left coast?


Man! The entire train is wyeed. Why are you particularly worried about the Trans-Dorm. It just gets wyed with the rest of the train. No one would take the trouble to pull it out of the consist so that it does not get wyed when the rest of the train does, just to satisfy us worry-warts.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Let us remember for a moment that all cars are going to be built on the Viewliner shell. The Viewliner shell, from its first stages as a Budd-Amtrak design was always designed to be modular.

That means that it is going to be hella easy to simply build a car with its roomette corridor just as in every other car and its baggage area separate in the other half. All the other ideas you people have suggested would involve extensive redesigns and reengineering, at the cost of millions of dollars. No.

The crew rooms will be roomettes, just like the other cars roomettes. They will be the exact same modules. Reduces costs considerably.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

printman2000 said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> I quite honestly don't know, except to say that perhaps the crew will have to be more organized. After all the current cars don't have luggage racks in them, so things are just piled on the floor. Pile too high, things tip over. The new cars will have racks to help keep things organized and to utilize more of the vertical space in the car.
> 
> 
> 
> Has Amtrak considered retrofitting an existing baggage car with racks in one half of the car, and asking the crew to try to keep all of the baggage in the half of the car with racks to see how well this might work? (For such an experiment, picking a baggage car with a door configuration close to what they're considering for the Viewliners would probably be best.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They could use a baggage that has two doors on each side, put a barrier halfway and shelving in and say you can only use the front half and the two front doors.
> 
> Doubt they will do it, but it would be wise.
Click to expand...

There doesn't even need to be a barrier of any sort. Just ask the crew to try it out, and let the crews know that if the crews trying it out don't come up with concrete evidence that using only that half of the car doesn't work or suggestions for cheap/easy improvements, that's what they're going to be stuck with in the future, so it's in their best interests to try to find the problems with it.

I suspect experience will show that the first attempt at an exact shelving/rack configuration will be suboptimal, and building a prototype in an existing baggage car is probably the cheapest way to get an improved design into production. They could even build different prototypes in different baggage cars and figure out which works best.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

Green Maned Lion said:


> The crew rooms will be roomettes, just like the other cars roomettes. They will be the exact same modules. Reduces costs considerably.


Do attendant roomettes have two bunks?


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

AlanB said:


> As for your second question, I'm sure that Amtrak could request a contract with those terms and conditions. However, they'd have to ensure that the target date for delivery of the first few new cars is shortly before the peak season and then hope that they stay on schedule.


How long is the period of time between when the first Viewliner and last Viewliner will likely be delivered?

(And remember that the regular sleepers and diners can probably be put in the middle of the order, with a few bag dorms at the beginning, if there's a question of how to configure the last of the baggage cars that will be delivered. Unless there's concern that the leaving the assembly line for roomette modules idle for a few months in the middle of the Viewliner project is going to have a meaningful impact on total costs. But even then, it might be possible to interleave the regular sleepers with the diners to help the roomette module output become a little closer to constant.)


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for your second question, I'm sure that Amtrak could request a contract with those terms and conditions. However, they'd have to ensure that the target date for delivery of the first few new cars is shortly before the peak season and then hope that they stay on schedule.
> 
> 
> 
> How long is the period of time between when the first Viewliner and last Viewliner will likely be delivered?
> 
> (And remember that the regular sleepers and diners can probably be put in the middle of the order, with a few bag dorms at the beginning, if there's a question of how to configure the last of the baggage cars that will be delivered. Unless there's concern that the leaving the assembly line for roomette modules idle for a few months in the middle of the Viewliner project is going to have a meaningful impact on total costs. But even then, it might be possible to interleave the regular sleepers with the diners to help the roomette module output become a little closer to constant.)
Click to expand...

Honestly, the diners are a race item. We could use the extra sleepers and baggage-dorms. But we NEED the diners. If the whole program goes kaput again, we need to have the diners online.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

Green Maned Lion said:


> Honestly, the diners are a race item. We could use the extra sleepers and baggage-dorms. But we NEED the diners. If the whole program goes kaput again, we need to have the diners online.


The cars are presumably going to be built at a rate of at least one Viewliner a week, possibly somewhat more. If we ``only'' get two Viewliner Diners rolling off the assembly line a month, is that going to cause a critical shortage?


----------



## AlanB

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> The crew rooms will be roomettes, just like the other cars roomettes. They will be the exact same modules. Reduces costs considerably.
> 
> 
> 
> Do attendant roomettes have two bunks?
Click to expand...

The current ones do, and since as GML pointed out, these cars are modular they just slide the pre-fabed rooms right into the car and bolt it down, I'd guess that they'll just leave the extra bunk in the room. It probably wouldn't save very much by eliminating it. In fact, they might even get charged more to have it removed.


----------



## AlanB

Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for your second question, I'm sure that Amtrak could request a contract with those terms and conditions. However, they'd have to ensure that the target date for delivery of the first few new cars is shortly before the peak season and then hope that they stay on schedule.
> 
> 
> 
> How long is the period of time between when the first Viewliner and last Viewliner will likely be delivered?
Click to expand...

I have no idea, since I'm neither holding the contract nor am I versed in how fast a production line can roll cars off.


----------



## Rafi

AlanB said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> The crew rooms will be roomettes, just like the other cars roomettes. They will be the exact same modules. Reduces costs considerably.
> 
> 
> 
> Do attendant roomettes have two bunks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The current ones do, and since as GML pointed out, these cars are modular they just slide the pre-fabed rooms right into the car and bolt it down, I'd guess that they'll just leave the extra bunk in the room. It probably wouldn't save very much by eliminating it. In fact, they might even get charged more to have it removed.
Click to expand...

It's also important to note that Amtrak employees traveling on the train are also instructed to book a crew-side Transdorm (and soon to be Baggage Dorm) room, and if it's a big group, they sometimes have to double bunk, so there is a use for having the bunk bed, even if it's used on rare occasions.

Rafi


----------



## Ryan

Bringing this thread back from the dead, P40 #816 was at Ivy City this morning, so it looks like shipment #2 to BG is getting put together.


----------



## MikeM

VentureForth said:


> RTOlson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would be interested to see how it would look. It might be ungainly from the outside -- half with windows and the other half as solid panels.
> 
> 
> 
> For the Superliners: What's downstairs right now in the transdorm? More roomettes? I think that the entire downstairs of a dormer could be used for baggage and the entire upstairs could be used for dorms. This would far exceed the necessary space for checked bags. You wouldn't even need a _trans_dorm because you don't have a baggage car any more.
Click to expand...

What I recall from the past is the Superliner crew dorms have a small lounge area in the downstairs with a table and seating for crew members while on break or off duty. As for sleeper attendants, I'm with the group that thinks it'd result in worse service if you took car attendants from sleepers, keep them with the paying passengers where they can help with ongoing questions or routine housekeeping.


----------



## sunchaser

jis said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> 
> Transdorms have to be wyed every trip. Are wyes harder to come by on the right coast than the left coast?
> 
> 
> 
> Man! The entire train is wyeed. Why are you particularly worried about the Trans-Dorm. It just gets wyed with the rest of the train. No one would take the trouble to pull it out of the consist so that it does not get wyed when the rest of the train does, just to satisfy us worry-warts.
Click to expand...


Can someone please explain wyes & wyed? i tried looking it up & not sure if I have right info. Thank you!!!

Just want to follow the train of thought on this thread!


----------



## Ryan

Turn a train around on a triangular shaped track shaped like a "Y".

Here's a link to the wye in DC:

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=38....mp;t=h&z=16

Trains leave Union station coming up from the bottom left, go up the track to the left, then go in the opposite direction along the curved track towards the top right, which makes the train fast the opposite direction.


----------



## sunchaser

HokieNav said:


> Turn a train around on a triangular shaped track shaped like a "Y".
> Here's a link to the wye in DC:
> 
> http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=38....mp;t=h&z=16
> 
> Trains leave Union station coming up from the bottom left, go up the track to the left, then go in the opposite direction along the curved track towards the top right, which makes the train fast the opposite direction.



Great! Thank you! When I looked it up, there were 2 definitions; one about electrical wiring; the other was the tracks.

I was confused because the thread is about rebuilding cars, so I thought it could be a wiring issue.


----------



## PaulM

HokieNav said:


> Turn a train around on a triangular shaped track shaped like a "Y".


No wonder I was confused. I always figured it took a triangle to turn a train around, not a Y. You cleared it up.


----------



## printman2000

PaulM said:


> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> 
> Turn a train around on a triangular shaped track shaped like a "Y".
> 
> 
> 
> No wonder I was confused. I always figured it took a triangle to turn a train around, not a Y. You cleared it up.
Click to expand...

It does take a "triangle". I think the correct word is wye.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wye_(railroad)


----------



## Amtrak839

HokieNav said:


> Bringing this thread back from the dead, P40 #816 was at Ivy City this morning, so it looks like shipment #2 to BG is getting put together.


Good to hear! Hopefully #839 will be among them. It wasn't on the list, but there has to be one in place of #807 (listed for refurbishment, but wrecked in 1999). I think it will be #839, because that is the only unit that was in the Auto Train pool that hasn't been either sold or sent to BG.


----------



## Rafi

Suddenly I see a betting pool in this board's future. <grin>


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL

Green Maned Lion said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for your second question, I'm sure that Amtrak could request a contract with those terms and conditions. However, they'd have to ensure that the target date for delivery of the first few new cars is shortly before the peak season and then hope that they stay on schedule.
> 
> 
> 
> How long is the period of time between when the first Viewliner and last Viewliner will likely be delivered?
> 
> (And remember that the regular sleepers and diners can probably be put in the middle of the order, with a few bag dorms at the beginning, if there's a question of how to configure the last of the baggage cars that will be delivered. Unless there's concern that the leaving the assembly line for roomette modules idle for a few months in the middle of the Viewliner project is going to have a meaningful impact on total costs. But even then, it might be possible to interleave the regular sleepers with the diners to help the roomette module output become a little closer to constant.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Honestly, the diners are a race item. We could use the extra sleepers and baggage-dorms. But we NEED the diners. If the whole program goes kaput again, we need to have the diners online.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the order just for the shells? I assume Amtrak will place the modules in the shells as the modules are produced, so what cars roll off first will be based on what modules are constructed first. I agree that they will try to build modules for the diners first, but I think we will see all types coming out at once. The diner modules will probably take the longest to produce and install with sleepers, and dorms coming next and baggage modules being the fastest to build and install. That being said if a shell is completed I doubt Amtrak will hold it indefinitely until a particular module is completed they will most likely put in whatever is ready to be installed.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Way to resurect a year old topic.


----------



## jis

Crescent ATN & TCL said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the order just for the shells? I assume Amtrak will place the modules in the shells as the modules are produced, so what cars roll off first will be based on what modules are constructed first. I agree that they will try to build modules for the diners first, but I think we will see all types coming out at once. The diner modules will probably take the longest to produce and install with sleepers, and dorms coming next and baggage modules being the fastest to build and install. That being said if a shell is completed I doubt Amtrak will hold it indefinitely until a particular module is completed they will most likely put in whatever is ready to be installed.


IMHO it would be kind of silly and inefficient for Amtrak to get into the manufacturing business. They should provide the designs to whoever they contract with and let them deliver completed cars including installation of all modules.


----------



## Steve4031

Green Maned Lion said:


> Way to resurect a year old topic.



I wonder if that is a record. Guess who started the whole thing?


----------



## AlanB

Green Maned Lion said:


> Way to resurect a year old topic.


More like 6 months, not a year.


----------



## Ryan

AlanB said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Way to resurect a year old topic.
> 
> 
> 
> More like 6 months, not a year.
Click to expand...

And Alan just linked to it from another discussion, so it isn't completely random.


----------



## Ryan

3 of the 5 P40's stored at Ivy City for transfer to the Grove were missing this morning - not sure if they've left the area or are just getting shuffled around.


----------



## DET63

HokieNav said:


> 3 of the 5 P40's stored at Ivy City for transfer to the Grove were missing this morning - not sure if they've left the area or are just getting shuffled around.


Probably being taken for a joyride by the_traveler.


----------

