NorthCoastHiawatha
OBS Chief
Just as long as they don't have the two sets of windows, as it just look weird to me. If I remember right the original plan was to have whole trains of Viewliner
(a diner prototype was built).
Do you like the Amcans???
- Thread starter Acela150
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
(a diner prototype was built).
JAChooChoo
Service Attendant
They have held up well for being essentially EMU trailers.
IMHO their major fault is the inboard bearings which seem to make them rougher riding.
IMHO their major fault is the inboard bearings which seem to make them rougher riding.
abqdave
Train Attendant
I know this is veering off the subject a bit, but here goes...
I don't like the look of two-level trains. The Superliners are butt-ugly; I think it is because it looks odd having a lot of windows on the upper level and few on the lower level. Even in commuter trains where the number of windows are relatively even on the upper and lower, like the Bombardiers on NM Rail Runner, they just don't look right.
I like long, single-level trainsets, not short trainsets with tall cars.
I don't like the look of two-level trains. The Superliners are butt-ugly; I think it is because it looks odd having a lot of windows on the upper level and few on the lower level. Even in commuter trains where the number of windows are relatively even on the upper and lower, like the Bombardiers on NM Rail Runner, they just don't look right.
I like long, single-level trainsets, not short trainsets with tall cars.
printman2000
Engineer
The problem with the rounded shape is that they do not match the rest of the train. I believe that rounded shape would not do well for sleepers, so you can never have a long distance train with all Amfleets. Therefore, you will have a mixed looking train with some tubes and some boxes. I prefer to have a more unified looking trainset.
Ispolkom
Engineer
There's no arguing with taste. My preference are the exact opposite: a line of superliners led by Genesis locomotives. But really, the best looking train is the one that's on time that I have a ticket for.
wayman
Engineer
Whether they're tall cars or short cars, I prefer 20-car trains to 10-car trains. Maybe we can all agree on that one
George Harris
Engineer
Nope. Suggest you read my post which said in part: "The body shape did not originate with these cars. It is the same as the original Metroliner cars, . . ." They were all built by Budd. The Metroliners were not intended to pull coaches, but only to run as EMU sets.
Green Maned Lion
Engineer
Bah, I was being metaphorical.
Obviously, the modernized Metroliner car would leave Acela in the dust. Up to 100 mph, the Arrow IIIs leave Acela in the dust. That's the nature of EMUs verses engine-hauled. But you probably know that better than anyone, Mr. Harris. The people who signed off on an engine hauled Acela set, given that acceleration matters more to it than its top speed, should be lined up and shot.
The Amcans were built to match the Metroliners because that was the body shape Budd was tooled up to build. The SPV2000s share the shape for the same reason. I'm sure that there appearance relative to the most modern and fastest trains in the country at the time was not seen as a detriment, but really. Amtrak ordered them because they were largely off the shelf, and resultantly cheaper. They made more sense back then.
There was an Amfleet sleeper. Literally an. It was based off a Cafe car, with tables in one end, the counter in the middle, and some roomettes yanked out of scrapped cars. It was briefly used on the Senator Byrd Specials- the Shenandoah, Moutaineer, and Hilltopper. It would consist of 2 Amfleet cars- that thing, and a coach. I don't know why, but nobody remembers it existed- even at Amtrak.
printman2000
Engineer
I remember reading somewhere about them, though I thought I remember that is was a coach with two roomettes at one end.
http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?...aded&start=
Green Maned Lion
Engineer
The Amtrak car diagram for maintenance, along with notes for it, are right here on my desk. It was a cafe-dinette-sleeper-coach. 4 roomettes, 4 tables, 10 rows of seats. I thought it was all table on one end, my mistake. Only one such car was converted, so far as I know.
printman2000
Engineer
Can you scan it and post? That would be cool to see!
Acela150
Super Buff
That would be awesome! I should also mention that new baggage and dining cars WILL based off of the viewliners!!!!
Stephen
Stephen
JAChooChoo
Service Attendant
They are Metroliners , just without the streamlined nose and propulsion equipment. As Budd's 1969 manufacturing capability was still in place, it was the fastest way to get 492 new cars.
If you look at an original Metroliner on the "B" end, there is a half-width window that is missing on Amfleet I, but, at least on the earliest ones, the knockout for the window was apparent.
Green Maned Lion
Engineer
I wish I had a scanner, but I don't.
wayman
Engineer
If only they could've managed to work in a small checked baggage area, it would be an entire train by itself!
Where is the car now? Bear? Scrapped? Re-converted?
Last edited by a moderator:
JAChooChoo
Service Attendant
To clear the air, I rode one of the Amfleet Sleepers from Parkersburg to Washington on the Shenandoah.
The 2 cars so outfitted were 21867 and 21882, The 90 218xx cars were configured with 60 long-distance seats and two dressing cubicles, one adjacent to each restroom without any direct connection.
As I recall the two "roomettes" were said to be modified Superliner modules and were positioned across the aisle from each other on the non-restroom end of the car.
After the trial operation, the two cars were simply returned to their original configuration. Whether anyone can track them down to their current numbers - I don't know.
The 2 cars so outfitted were 21867 and 21882, The 90 218xx cars were configured with 60 long-distance seats and two dressing cubicles, one adjacent to each restroom without any direct connection.
As I recall the two "roomettes" were said to be modified Superliner modules and were positioned across the aisle from each other on the non-restroom end of the car.
After the trial operation, the two cars were simply returned to their original configuration. Whether anyone can track them down to their current numbers - I don't know.
Joel N. Weber II
Engineer
Wouldn't that have also required a Metroliner style cab and all the EMU hardware? Maybe even a cab at each end?
wayman
Engineer
It could only have a cab at one end, because the other end would have to be the rear observation platform
I wonder if we can add a dome... I mean, I would say "no, that's too silly!" but we're already talking about a cafe-dinette-sleeper-coach which actually existed so we passed the "too silly" point back in actual-reality-land! :lol:
printman2000
Engineer
So, does that mean the schematics GML has were possibly not what was actually used? Perhaps those were the original plans, but they decided to use a coach instead.
Therer was discussion on another forum (http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.p...p;sk=t&sd=a) about this with someone else who rode in them. She said the rooms were on the restroom end of the car, so I guess one of you is remembering wrong or they did the two cars differently.
GML, what about taking a digital picture of the schematics and posting. I would love to see them!
Green Maned Lion
Engineer
I presume it is reconverted. This car was on the roster from some time in very early 1977. It would have to be one of the first Amfleets delivered.
These were not Superliner modules. These were very specifically roomettes taken from AMTK 2609, ex-UP 1413, Budd 10-6 sleeper "Pacific Emblem", wrecked in December of '71. I wish I had the number of the Amfleet I it came from. The number is there, but the photostat is really crappy. I'm almost positive its number in the 20XXX series. The notes hand written on the back are clearer, explaining what it is.
So: either there are two different types of Amfleet sleepers, or someone with too much time on their hands played an elaborate practical joke on someone. I got it in a huge box filled with all kinds of equipment documentation. People have told me that it existed. However, its possible what they think is the coach you are referring to and this thing never did.
I think I'm going to need to do some first-hand research on this with retired people from Budd and Bear- assuming it was even made at Bear. It could have been converted in Bear, in Altoona, in Beech Grove, in the Chicago shops, by Pullman in Chicago (unlikely, since both cars involved are Budds) or even by Budd itself during the car's construction.
As you may or may not know, Amtrak in the mid-70s was a circus operation. Its entirely possible that a car like this could slip through the record process. I've heard stories of Amtrak misplacing rail cars- usually due to workers switching it into the back of yards because they didn't want to deal with some annoying non-compatibility or other.
[The Amtrak car diagram for maintenance, along with notes for it, are right here on my desk. It was a cafe-dinette-sleeper-coach. 4 roomettes, 4 tables, 10 rows of seats. I thought it was all table on one end, my mistake. Only one such car was converted, so far as I know]
[When I rode the Shenandoahan from Cincinnati to Washington in October,1978 the Amfleet that contained two Sleeping Rooms was a coach. The rooms were modules built specially for Amfleet that were moveable on the tracks of the car that the seats are attached to. At least two Amfleet Amfleets were modified with the Sleeping Rooms since it took two sets of equipment to cover the Shenandoahan. The train also had another coach and an Amcafe which was also just a cafe in coach with no first class section. The cost of the Sleeping Room was less than a roomette on a 10/6 Heritage Sleeping Car which the Cardinal used at the time. The Amfleet coaches were modified on a trial basis and were only tried on the Sheanandoah, but did not go over well so the modules were removed a replaced with seats.]
[When I rode the Shenandoahan from Cincinnati to Washington in October,1978 the Amfleet that contained two Sleeping Rooms was a coach. The rooms were modules built specially for Amfleet that were moveable on the tracks of the car that the seats are attached to. At least two Amfleet Amfleets were modified with the Sleeping Rooms since it took two sets of equipment to cover the Shenandoahan. The train also had another coach and an Amcafe which was also just a cafe in coach with no first class section. The cost of the Sleeping Room was less than a roomette on a 10/6 Heritage Sleeping Car which the Cardinal used at the time. The Amfleet coaches were modified on a trial basis and were only tried on the Sheanandoah, but did not go over well so the modules were removed a replaced with seats.]
Green Maned Lion
Engineer
I don't doubt what you say. You may have seen it or whatever. All I have is a highly notated car diagram, and some notes.
printman2000
Engineer
Since jphjaxfl, JAChooChoo and the lady from the other board seems to have very similar stories, I am thinking perhaps the diagrams you have either were never actually used or were a totally different project. I guess they could have even been the first drawings and the plan changed after they were created.
I sure wish there were pictures of the inside of these cars. That would be cool.
G
Gord
Guest
I concur that the small windows are a negative feature of these cars. IIRC, one of the other reasons for small windows was to present less of a target for rock throwers than the larger windows used on the vast majority of earlier passenger cars.
Gord
Green Maned Lion
Engineer
That was another reason, although rocks don't really... damage train windows. They are designed to take rock impacts at impressive speed.
One reason for the small windows is probably the way the car is built with its monocoque structure. I'd say the Amfleet IIs are pushing the boundaries of what the structure can take. I defer to George Harris on this point.
One reason for the small windows is probably the way the car is built with its monocoque structure. I'd say the Amfleet IIs are pushing the boundaries of what the structure can take. I defer to George Harris on this point.
- Status
