Cars to be rebuilt

[AlanB]

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.

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?

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

 

[jis]

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]

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?

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

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

 

[AlanB]

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?

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

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

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]

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?

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

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

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

That is just another thing to cause headaches for Amtrak.

 

[AlanB]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

News to me. Thanks

 

[printman2000]

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.

News to me. Thanks

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

 

[jis]

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.

News to me. Thanks

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

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]

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.

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.