Amtrak Issues RFP for New Viewliners

[Dutchrailnut]

Has anyone forgotten, no Viewliner coaches can be built because the second row of windows can't be put where the luggage racks are. The car would probably look like a glorified Bombardier M7 or Acela car. But what about new lounge cars? Then you can move the Diner Lited Amfleet II lounges off to the day trains and you could finally have a good looking-and viewing lounge car!
cpamtfan-Peter

Even if you don't put in the upper level windows, you can still use the same shell, which would make things look uniform from the outside and save money.

Don't expect two rows of windows, simply because the new cars require bigger windows for emergency evacuation.

The current window size of Amfleets Horizons and View liner are no longer accepteble under FRA regulations.

and putting two rows of overzized windows in would severly weaken the car body.

 

[AmtrakWPK]

We also need to remember that somewhere in here we need equipment when they reinstitute NOL-ORL service, based on one of the three options they gave Congress this week (by Congressional mandate): 1 - return 3x/wk Sunset to the full route; 2 - extend CONO daily to ORL; or 3 - begin a new NOL-ORL daily. The third option, I think would give the best chance for good OTP, with the 2nd option giving the best chance for a large jump in ridership, providing CHI-NOL-JAX-ORL daily service in addition to having the southern transcontinental route active again (3x/wk).

 

[MrFSS]

We also need to remember that somewhere in here we need equipment when they re-institute NOL-ORL service, based on one of the three options they gave Congress this week (by Congressional mandate): 1 - return 3x/wk Sunset to the full route; 2 - extend CONO daily to ORL; or 3 - begin a new NOL-ORL daily. The third option, I think would give the best chance for good OTP, with the 2nd option giving the best chance for a large jump in ridership, providing CHI-NOL-JAX-ORL daily service in addition to having the southern transcontinental route active again (3x/wk).

Joe - does congress have the ability on this matter to select none of the three and not do anything about the route? Or, are they compelled to pick one?

 

[AmtrakWPK]

Congress can do or not do whatever they please, unfortunately. Presumably there would be transportation committee hearings and hopefully they would pick one and say do it, but who knows. Amtrak was given the hot potato and they have now, per instructions, delivered it back to congress.

 

[bretton88]

Well, the one benefit of turning the CL back to single level is that it would free up superliners for out west. I live out west, so I don't see a problem. This viewliner order would enable them to do that. Restored Pioneer anyone?

 

[cpamtfan]

Well, the one benefit of turning the CL back to single level is that it would free up superliners for out west. I live out west, so I don't see a problem. This viewliner order would enable them to do that. Restored Pioneer anyone?

No, there aren't enough single level cars to return the CL to single level. You can dream, but they aren't turning the CL to single level.

cpamtfan-Peter

 

[AlanB]

Has anyone forgotten, no Viewliner coaches can be built because the second row of windows can't be put where the luggage racks are. The car would probably look like a glorified Bombardier M7 or Acela car. But what about new lounge cars? Then you can move the Diner Lited Amfleet II lounges off to the day trains and you could finally have a good looking-and viewing lounge car!
cpamtfan-Peter

Even if you don't put in the upper level windows, you can still use the same shell, which would make things look uniform from the outside and save money.

Don't expect two rows of windows, simply because the new cars require bigger windows for emergency evacuation.

The current window size of Amfleets Horizons and View liner are no longer accepteble under FRA regulations.

and putting two rows of overzized windows in would severly weaken the car body.

I don't know how they are doing it, but the current drawings include two rows of windows.

 

[AlanB]

Well, the one benefit of turning the CL back to single level is that it would free up superliners for out west. I live out west, so I don't see a problem. This viewliner order would enable them to do that. Restored Pioneer anyone?

No, there aren't enough single level cars to return the CL to single level. You can dream, but they aren't turning the CL to single level.

cpamtfan-Peter

The Capitol is getting back a full diner once the wrecks are back in service, so it's not going single level.

 

[jis]

Don't expect two rows of windows, simply because the new cars require bigger windows for emergency evacuation.The current window size of Amfleets Horizons and View liner are no longer accepteble under FRA regulations.

and putting two rows of overzized windows in would severly weaken the car body.

You do realize that the window size on Horizons and Viewliners are quite different, the Viewliner windows being already much bigger, and I have been given to understand that the main windows (as opposed to the upper windows) in Viewliners can be made even bigger without compromising body integrity and strength.

So I would be very appreciative if you could provide some definitive cite to support the claim that you make regarding the impossibility of Viewliners having two rows of windows. Thanks.

 

[bretton88]

Now, with this good news, the question arises, how will Amtrak pay for these?

 

[Amtrak839]

Now, with this good news, the question arises, how will Amtrak pay for these?

Amtrak gets a contract to transport gold in the baggage car. Then they hire some guys to do this.

 

[MikefromCrete]

Now, with this good news, the question arises, how will Amtrak pay for these?

They're in the budget. For the first time ever, Amtrak is operating under a presidential administration that is favorable to passenger trains.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Dude, there are 20 diners "active", of which 17 are actually roadworthy. Plus due the geriatric nature, Amtrak has to plan on high failure rates. 25 is plenty to re equip the Lake Shore, the Cardinal, and a Silver Palm, or Broadway Limited- possibly both if you can workout efficient equipment sharing.

 

[volkris]

Now, with this good news, the question arises, how will Amtrak pay for these?

They're in the budget. For the first time ever, Amtrak is operating under a presidential administration that is favorable to passenger trains.

More to the point, Amtrak is operating under a presidential administration that is favorable to directing tax dollars to passenger trains.

If trains ran on good wishes and hopes, then far more presidents would have seemed "favorable" to passenger trains. The difference is that this one values trains enough to force us all to pay for them.

 

[AlanB]

Now, with this good news, the question arises, how will Amtrak pay for these?

They're in the budget. For the first time ever, Amtrak is operating under a presidential administration that is favorable to passenger trains.

More to the point, Amtrak is operating under a presidential administration that is favorable to directing tax dollars to passenger trains.

If trains ran on good wishes and hopes, then far more presidents would have seemed "favorable" to passenger trains. The difference is that this one values trains enough to force us all to pay for them.

No the difference is that this President likes trains enough to force us to consider that paying for all three major forms of transportation is a good idea. Past Presidents have only considered forcing us to pay for the other two major forms of transportation and have largely unwillingly forced us to pay for the third form, trains.

 

[transit54]

Now, with this good news, the question arises, how will Amtrak pay for these?

They're in the budget. For the first time ever, Amtrak is operating under a presidential administration that is favorable to passenger trains.

More to the point, Amtrak is operating under a presidential administration that is favorable to directing tax dollars to passenger trains.

If trains ran on good wishes and hopes, then far more presidents would have seemed "favorable" to passenger trains. The difference is that this one values trains enough to force us all to pay for them.

Honestly, I think that's a bit of a ridiculous distinction. Transportation infrastructure costs tax dollars. There is absolutely no way around that, not in our present economic system. So either you financially support (i.e. are favorable to) passenger trains or you do not support our nation's rail system (i.e. are not favorable to passenger trains). It's irrelevant to judge politician's views on their ideals (i.e. they like passenger rail), one needs to judge them based on their actions (do they or do they not support it?).

If you could cite an instance in which a national passenger rail system was constructed and operated fully without government involvement in the modern era, then you might have some grounds for argument, because we could then debate about the appropriate funding approaches for passenger rail.

I suppose you could argue that we shouldn't "all" be paying for them. I'd support a heavy fuel tax to fund our rail and transit infrastructure (which would, I suppose, free those who exclusively walked and cycled from the "burden" of paying for an efficient, sustainable transportation infrastructure). But I really don't think that's what you had in mind. The money has to come from somewhere, and given that competing forms of infrastructure have received heavy government subsidies in the past, the only way to build a rail network is to direct tax dollars to assist in its operation and construction.

In an theoretical world, sure, we could operate rail free of tax dollars. In that world, the interstate system would have had to have been built completely by private money by private corporations. The government would never have been able to bail out the airlines and any modern day airport which benefited from defense spending (most of them, back in the 50s-70s) would have fully paid back the inflation adjusted cost of the airport's construction to the US government. For better or for worse, that's not how things were done in this country and its going to be impossible to return things to doing them that way.

So it comes back to two options - either you support passenger rail, and are willing to pay for it, or you don't. Everything else is just rhetoric.

 

[volkris]

Honestly, I think that's a bit of a ridiculous distinction.

Well no, it's the whole point: the question was how this was going to be paid for. That the administration supports rail is nice and all, but that in itself is not funding. The government's part of the funding is the money that the administration and congress force taxpayers to hand over... which is quite a different thing in my book. As I said, it's really easy to support things; it's a more dramatic thing to force others to support it as well.

To further support the distinction, look at other forms of support and harm politicians can do, ranging from mucking about with regulation through the FRA and others, to reconsidering regulations that harm rail by making manufacture of equipment more expensive, to simple rhetorical motions, there's a ton of non-funding actions the politicians can take. But that wasn't the question.

Personally, regardless of my own feelings about rail I think it's extremely important to keep in mind that the financial support of rail amounts to forcing the whole country to value the mode the way we do. EVEN IF WE'RE RIGHT, and can provide reasonable, rational arguments for why the whole country should take on our values, I consider it both morally and practically questionable to impose values like that--to take away peoples' freedoms for their own good.

So, how will this be paid for? Simple: we have an administration that's eager to force everyone to pay for it, regardless of their feelings on the matter, because it believes it to be for the best. If you're ok with that then great, and congratulations, but don't pretend things are otherwise.

 

[transit54]

Honestly, I think that's a bit of a ridiculous distinction.

Well no, it's the whole point: the question was how this was going to be paid for. That the administration supports rail is nice and all, but that in itself is not funding. The government's part of the funding is the money that the administration and congress force taxpayers to hand over... which is quite a different thing in my book. As I said, it's really easy to support things; it's a more dramatic thing to force others to support it as well.

To further support the distinction, look at other forms of support and harm politicians can do, ranging from mucking about with regulation through the FRA and others, to reconsidering regulations that harm rail by making manufacture of equipment more expensive, to simple rhetorical motions, there's a ton of non-funding actions the politicians can take. But that wasn't the question.

Personally, regardless of my own feelings about rail I think it's extremely important to keep in mind that the financial support of rail amounts to forcing the whole country to value the mode the way we do. EVEN IF WE'RE RIGHT, and can provide reasonable, rational arguments for why the whole country should take on our values, I consider it both morally and practically questionable to impose values like that--to take away peoples' freedoms for their own good.

So, how will this be paid for? Simple: we have an administration that's eager to force everyone to pay for it, regardless of their feelings on the matter, because it believes it to be for the best. If you're ok with that then great, and congratulations, but don't pretend things are otherwise.

From a theoretical perspective, I completely agree with you. However, the reality is that other forms of transportation don't pay their fare share, and actually impose external costs on me, which I am not compensated for. Those who choose to drive in single occupancy vehicles, for instance, cause traffic congestion that delays my bus. There is a real cost of this congestion, but it isn't built into the cost of driving. It should be. The pollution and inefficient fuel consumption of an automobile based society are costs associated with driving but drivers do not pay them. I could go on, but I'm not intending to turn this thread into an extended lecture of transportation externalities...

In an ideal, efficient market, those costs are priced into the cost of driving, so that the price reflects the true costs of the activity (both personal costs and those to society). This doesn't even get into massive amounts of funding that have gone into highways and airports that I mentioned in my above post (while federal highways are maintained mostly with revenue with the federal gas tax, they weren't constructed with gas tax money).

If we had a system where everyone paid the costs of their activities, then I wouldn't have a problem with what you're suggesting. But the reality is, in this country, we all pay for highways and airports, whether we like it or not. So I believe, yes, we should all pay for rail. In fact, I believe it's actually more important to pay for rail - I think that our current transport network has left us incredibly vulnerable to oil price increases and that we need to build a vastly more efficient transportation infrastructure if we want to have continued economic success in the future. If you could come up with a practical, politically feasible system in which everyone paid their true costs and that compensated for years in vastly differing amounts of funding, I'd be the first to support it. But from a present, practical perspective, I can't see the approach you're suggesting implemented.

The fact is, past presidents weakened passenger rail in this country while supporting airports/airlines and highways/auto industry. If they supported passenger rail, they'd have equalized funding across modes - either everyone pays their own costs, or no one does. But instead, they choose aviation and roads over rail. You may be able to argue that support for rail does not equal directly funding it, but support for rail absolutely means equalizing funding methods across all modes, which no past president has attempted.

 

[Ryan]

This post from volkris in another thread may be illustrative to the discussion here.

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?...st&p=178239

If he's honestly maintaining the position that none of these transportation methods should be subsidized then that changes the complexion of the discussion considerably.

I get the impression that his belief is that most folks here support subsidies for rail transit and think that the highways and airways should be self sufficient and that's what he's arguing against that. Unfortunately for him (if my impression is correct), I'm not sure that anyone here espouses that notion.

 

[saxman]

Personally, regardless of my own feelings about rail I think it's extremely important to keep in mind that the financial support of rail amounts to forcing the whole country to value the mode the way we do. EVEN IF WE'RE RIGHT, and can provide reasonable, rational arguments for why the whole country should take on our values, I consider it both morally and practically questionable to impose values like that--to take away peoples' freedoms for their own good.

Well back in the 50's and onward on till today, the whole country has been forced by the government, highway lobby and big oil to own and drive automobiles. (Not that the highway lobby and big oil were as powerful back then) And if we're against the government building any type of transportation infrastructure, then go back 50 or more years when they decided to get into the highway building business that put the private, money making, passenger railroads out of business.

Ok, back to Viewliners...and getting this thread back on topic.

It'll be great to get more Viewliners out there. The Cardinal for sure needs a second sleeper, as its one sleeper seems to always be sold out or in high buckets. I don't know if Amtrak wants to make the Cardinal daily ever, but that would be even better.

 

[SeaToby]

Honestly, I think that's a bit of a ridiculous distinction.

So, how will this be paid for? Simple: we have an administration that's eager to force everyone to pay for it, regardless of their feelings on the matter, because it believes it to be for the best. If you're ok with that then great, and congratulations, but don't pretend things are otherwise.

So you don't won't to pay for rail. Well, I don't fly and I don't want to pay for airports, terminals, air traffic controllers, airport parking garage, and/or the highways leading to airports.... There, we are even....

 

[jis]

With the 140 or so Amfleets that will free up and the 60 Amfleets being repaired now, in the next 5-6 years 'bout 200 Amfleets will be added to the Corridor. I think that will cover any problems they're having with capacity, for now. After all, the main capacity issues on the corridor are and will remain the North River tunnels, the Baltimore tunnels (to be rectified) and the bridge between OSB and New London.

Yep. The real issue then will be availability of serviceable electric motors. And hence the RFP for them.

 

[volkris]

Honestly, I think that's a bit of a ridiculous distinction.

So, how will this be paid for? Simple: we have an administration that's eager to force everyone to pay for it, regardless of their feelings on the matter, because it believes it to be for the best. If you're ok with that then great, and congratulations, but don't pretend things are otherwise.

So you don't won't to pay for rail. Well, I don't fly and I don't want to pay for airports, terminals, air traffic controllers, airport parking garage, and/or the highways leading to airports.... There, we are even....

Who said I don't want to pay for rail? Of course I want to pay for rail... as I do every time I buy a ticket. What I want is for us to be honest and recognize that this funding doesn't come from a magical, governmental pot of gold, but from the pockets of our fellow taxpayers, and that by forcing them to pay for rail whether they want to or not we're forcing our opinions on all Americans.

That's a pretty grave responsibility, I think, and one that requires a more sober treatment than many would otherwise give it.

If you're ok with forcing your values on others this way, thinking, hopefully, that it's for peoples' own good that they be forced to pay for rail, then great. That's between you and your conscience. But it's a fact that we should bear in mind and be ok with.

And, of course, the argument about spending on air and highways... two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[MrFSS]

Honestly, I think that's a bit of a ridiculous distinction.

So, how will this be paid for? Simple: we have an administration that's eager to force everyone to pay for it, regardless of their feelings on the matter, because it believes it to be for the best. If you're ok with that then great, and congratulations, but don't pretend things are otherwise.

So you don't won't to pay for rail. Well, I don't fly and I don't want to pay for airports, terminals, air traffic controllers, airport parking garage, and/or the highways leading to airports.... There, we are even....

Who said I don't want to pay for rail? Of course I want to pay for rail... as I do every time I buy a ticket. What I want is for us to be honest and recognize that this funding doesn't come from a magical, governmental pot of gold, but from the pockets of our fellow taxpayers, and that by forcing them to pay for rail whether they want to or not we're forcing our opinions on all Americans.

That's a pretty grave responsibility, I think, and one that requires a more sober treatment than many would otherwise give it.

If you're ok with forcing your values on others this way, thinking, hopefully, that it's for peoples' own good that they be forced to pay for rail, then great. That's between you and your conscience. But it's a fact that we should bear in mind and be ok with.

And, of course, the argument about spending on air and highways... two wrongs don't make a right.

You have hit the problem right on the head.

If you don't take it from everyone's pockets there won't be any rail. But, there also won't be any highways, no airline service, no bus routes, etc

Paying for what is needed with ticket money will never get it done, no matter if it is rail, airlines, roads, etc. Everyone has to pay, like it or not.

I don't want to be paying for a lot of things the government does. I don't have many options not to, though.

 

[volkris]

If you don't take it from everyone's pockets there won't be any rail. But, there also won't be any highways, no airline service, no bus routes, etc
Paying for what is needed with ticket money will never get it done, no matter if it is rail, airlines, roads, etc. Everyone has to pay, like it or not.

I don't want to be paying for a lot of things the government does. I don't have many options not to, though.

But that's not really the issue. It's not about getting things done or not getting things done, but about when it's right to force others to pay for what we believe should be done even when they disagree.

Sure, if you don't force everyone to pay there might not be rail... but perhaps it's more just to accept the lack of rail than to force everyone else to pay for it when they don't want it in the first place. Without everyone else fitting the bill there also won't be a ladder to the moon, but that doesn't mean we should get to work making everyone pay!