Equipment Order in the works this year (2018)?

[Steve4031]

It will be interesting to see what the plan is to replace the superlliners. IMHO a system wide fleet standardization wounded beneficial. I like the viewliners but I don't think that will work I'm the long run. I wonder what Seimans can do for sleepers and diners and lounges?

Yeah, I don't see any way, short term or long term, that Viewliners would work to replace the Superliners. The trains would have to be significantly longer, they would have to commission Viewliner coaches and SSLs. The cars just aren't conducive for western routes.

On the other hand, "significantly longer" could be an advantage. Then the Class I RRs couldn't force Amtrak trains on the sidings so their freights could go past.

The sidings are usually a couple of miles long to accommodate freight trains. Even the auto train would fit in these. So I think the longer trains will still be taking the sidings.

 

[jis]

I think he was kidding. But one can never tell for sure [emoji57]

 

[Lonestar648]

Host RR will always put Amtrak on the siding unless there is a financial or publicity incentive to do differently. At least it is not as bad as the Canadian in Canada with 24 hour plus delays every week..

 

[Trogdor]

Longer consists can be a problem if the platforms cant handle the full train, requiring more stops with multiple spots, longer dwells, increased delays, etc.

 

[jis]

The tragedy of it all is that typical American trains, even single level ones are quite short, and we still can’t quite handle them. There really isn’t any solution for gross capital underinvestment other than more investment to build infrastructure that is adequate to serve the purpose in terms of traffic demands and such.

 

[Anderson]

So, I've heard that Anderson is looking to more-or-less standardize the fleet on single-level equipment. Apparently there are enough issues with the Superliners that Anderson wants to replace them instead of refurbishing them (I can't blame him), and that it is likely to be more cost-effective to do so on a single-level carbody model than trying to do a split order. This also speaks to Anderson's desire (which I've heard passed through a few places) to have more flexibility in fleet deployment (e.g. "right-sizing" trains to be longer at peak times as well as shorter if cars would be running empty). Obviously this won't happen overnight (delivery will almost assuredly be a multi-year process given the sheer number of cars you'd need for this), but it seems to be where things are going.

 

[frequentflyer]

So, I've heard that Anderson is looking to more-or-less standardize the fleet on single-level equipment. Apparently there are enough issues with the Superliners that Anderson wants to replace them instead of refurbishing them (I can't blame him), and that it is likely to be more cost-effective to do so on a single-level carbody model than trying to do a split order. This also speaks to Anderson's desire (which I've heard passed through a few places) to have more flexibility in fleet deployment (e.g. "right-sizing" trains to be longer at peak times as well as shorter if cars would be running empty). Obviously this won't happen overnight (delivery will almost assuredly be a multi-year process given the sheer number of cars you'd need for this), but it seems to be where things are going.

Just as I speculated, VLIIs for everybody. I just don't think CAF will get the order though. And if he wants more flexibility got think fixed sets are out of the question, maybe. You always lash up two DMU/EMJUs together to increase pax capacity.

Then again, as being discussed on another forum all of the players who Anderson will get bids from do make bilevel or multilevel equipment that may not be as high as a Superliner but will fit into the tunnels on the NEC (yes, I know JIS, we are armchair design proposers

). We will see what transpires.

Airline management group think- less different types of equipment means less parts inventory, lower employee training costs, better acquisition cost per unit and possible maintenance plan rolled into the deal. Different size consists allow for higher yields if the pricing software is working correctly.

 

[jis]

I am almost certain that no car manufacturer will propose VL Iis [emoji41]. When the last of the CAF order rolls out, that will be it for VL IIs. The car manufacturers will offer something based on what they already have in the way of car bodies, with modular AC units and the works as found in any modern 21st century design.

 

[Ryan]

Agreed.

There is no way that the order is for Viewliners or anything multilevel.

 

[jis]

I can actually see possible use of bilevels a-la TGV Duplex for Corridor Coaches that fit within the Amtrak Plate A. But they will have only marginally higher capacity than single level after space is taken out for adequate luggage racks and ADA toilets and such. We saw this layout in the NJT MLVs that were briefly used for the New York - Atlantic City service. And they will be less ADA compliant than single levels.

What we won’t see is Roomettes in those low clearance bilevels. OTOH there could be airline style lie flat seats. But again capacity won’t be much greater than for single level sections or roomettes. But frankly I would personally like the lie flat arrangement.

I have a detail study of capacity issues that I did a while back using example layouts. I just have to find it again.

 

[cpotisch]

I feel like the desire often expressed to make every single-level car a Viewliners is really just rail fan fantasy, by those who want to gawk at a nice and shiny uniform consist. The way I see it, there aren't many logical reasons why all (any) new coaches and lounges should be built on a carbody that was originally designed around 35 years ago, and that would need to be assembled by a new manufacturer on a new production line. CAF's production of the V-II has been a disaster in pretty much every way, and though the cars are here now, they are probably the least likely manufacturer to consider building more Viewliners for Amtrak. The tooling and assembly lines will be gone, and gone with it any reason why the V-IIs would be the best platform for the single-level fleet. If CAF were willing to build more cars (which they're not), there would be something to be said for utilizing the pre-existing production lines and tooling. But since CAF is pretty much done with Amtrak altogether, a completely new manufacturer would be required to take up production of the new Viewliners, which would negate any possible advantage of having the tooling and infrastructure in place to build the cars. Just the way I see it.

 

[frequentflyer]

I feel like the desire often expressed to make every single-level car a Viewliners is really just rail fan fantasy, by those who want to gawk at a nice and shiny uniform consist. The way I see it, there aren't many logical reasons why all (any) new coaches and lounges should be built on a carbody that was originally designed for sleepers, and that would need to be assembled by a new manufacturer and on a new production line. CAF's production of the V-II has been a disaster in pretty much every way, and though the cars are here now, they are probably the least likely manufacturer to consider building more Viewliners for Amtrak. The tooling and assembly lines will be gone, and gone with it any reason why the V-IIs would be the best platform for the single-level fleet. If CAF were willing to build more cars (which they're not), there would be something to be said for utilizing the pre-existing production lines and tooling. But since CAF is pretty much done with Amtrak altogether, a completely new manufacturer would be required to take up production of the new Viewliners, which would negate any possible advantage of having the tooling and infrastructure in place to build the cars. Just the way I see it.

I wish I had the July 1984 Amtrak in train magazine (American Way?)that first debuted the Viewliner design( 1984, sad isn’t) It was designed to be modular and a fleet of any config necessary. It was not designed to be a sleeper only. Are there more advanced designs today, of course. But Amtrak owns the plans to the VL which was designed by them.

Though good point about the tooling.

 

[frequentflyer]

I can actually see possible use of bilevels a-la TGV Duplex for Corridor Coaches that fit within the Amtrak Plate A. But they will have only marginally higher capacity than single level after space is taken out for adequate luggage racks and ADA toilets and such. We saw this layout in the NJT MLVs that were briefly used for the New York - Atlantic City service. And they will be less ADA compliant than single levels.

What we won’t see is Roomettes in those low clearance bilevels. OTOH there could be airline style lie flat seats. But again capacity won’t be much greater than for single level sections or roomettes. But frankly I would personally like the lie flat arrangement.

I have a detail study of capacity issues that I did a while back using example layouts. I just have to find it again.

I see the NEC being the domain of Acela IIs and EMU/DMUs for conventional trains in the future. Something like the Sadler Bilevel KISS like what Caltrans is getting may work ( too tall?) but I am guessing single level.

 

[Anderson]

My guess is that we'll see something like the Nightjet service in Austria. I'd suggest something like the new Caledonian service in the UK (which is about to get rolled out), but CAF had that order and I don't think they'll even be allowed to bid. I would also guess that Siemens may have an inside track on this given their already-operating plant in California.

From what I understand, the priority order is roughly:
-Diesel locomotives

-Amfleet I replacements

-Superliner replacements (with this possibly cascading onto Amfleet IIs as well)

 

[neroden]

So, I've heard that Anderson is looking to more-or-less standardize the fleet on single-level equipment. Apparently there are enough issues with the Superliners that Anderson wants to replace them instead of refurbishing them (I can't blame him), and that it is likely to be more cost-effective to do so on a single-level carbody model than trying to do a split order. This also speaks to Anderson's desire (which I've heard passed through a few places) to have more flexibility in fleet deployment (e.g. "right-sizing" trains to be longer at peak times as well as shorter if cars would be running empty). Obviously this won't happen overnight (delivery will almost assuredly be a multi-year process given the sheer number of cars you'd need for this), but it seems to be where things are going.

I actively support standardizing on single-level equipment, but I don't think Mr. Anderson has thought through the ADA expenses of raising damn near everything to high level platforms, which is legally required if stations are served only by high-floor cars. Milwaukee Station will have to be redone again, for example.

This is yet another indication that Mr. Anderson doesn't actually know what he's dealing with. I'd be a better CEO of Amtrak because I have more understanding of the problems they're dealing with than Mr. Anderson does.

 

[cpotisch]

I feel like the desire often expressed to make every single-level car a Viewliners is really just rail fan fantasy, by those who want to gawk at a nice and shiny uniform consist. The way I see it, there aren't many logical reasons why all (any) new coaches and lounges should be built on a carbody that was originally designed for sleepers, and that would need to be assembled by a new manufacturer and on a new production line. CAF's production of the V-II has been a disaster in pretty much every way, and though the cars are here now, they are probably the least likely manufacturer to consider building more Viewliners for Amtrak. The tooling and assembly lines will be gone, and gone with it any reason why the V-IIs would be the best platform for the single-level fleet. If CAF were willing to build more cars (which they're not), there would be something to be said for utilizing the pre-existing production lines and tooling. But since CAF is pretty much done with Amtrak altogether, a completely new manufacturer would be required to take up production of the new Viewliners, which would negate any possible advantage of having the tooling and infrastructure in place to build the cars. Just the way I see it.

I wish I had the July 1984 Amtrak in train magazine (American Way?)that first debuted the Viewliner design( 1984, sad isn’t) It was designed to be modular and a fleet of any config necessary.

Though good point about the tooling.

Fixed and thank you.

 

[frequentflyer]

My guess is that we'll see something like the Nightjet service in Austria. I'd suggest something like the new Caledonian service in the UK (which is about to get rolled out), but CAF had that order and I don't think they'll even be allowed to bid. I would also guess that Siemens may have an inside track on this given their already-operating plant in California.

From what I understand, the priority order is roughly:

-Diesel locomotives

-Amfleet I replacements

-Superliner replacements (with this possibly cascading onto Amfleet IIs as well)

1.Diesel locomotives- I am sure Amtrak will put it out to bid, but Siemens kind of has this wrapped up, though Amtrak may not need the full 150 options available. See next point..........On a side note, I guess 3 Charges can pull an Autotrain consist.

2.Amfleet I replacements- This is where we will see if Anderson was serious or not about DMU/EMUs. Find the right DMU/EMU product, then problem solved and less need for locomotives.

3. Superliner/Amfleet II replacements-This hurts since I grew up with these cars (that in itself is a problem), but it makes sense to simplify the fleet around one configurable platform, which most likely will be the Siemens car body. Especially since it will be the defacto coach for the midwest states and parts of California. Man, if N/S could get the Bi-level prototype to pass the buff test, Amtrak would had a choice at least for LD replacement.

While Amtrak could spec what it wants in a pax car or locomotive, as been wisely stated in previous posts, buying "what's available" will yield major savings in upfront CapEx costs and reliability down the road.

 

[Anthony V]

So, I've heard that Anderson is looking to more-or-less standardize the fleet on single-level equipment. Apparently there are enough issues with the Superliners that Anderson wants to replace them instead of refurbishing them (I can't blame him), and that it is likely to be more cost-effective to do so on a single-level carbody model than trying to do a split order. This also speaks to Anderson's desire (which I've heard passed through a few places) to have more flexibility in fleet deployment (e.g. "right-sizing" trains to be longer at peak times as well as shorter if cars would be running empty). Obviously this won't happen overnight (delivery will almost assuredly be a multi-year process given the sheer number of cars you'd need for this), but it seems to be where things are going.

If he's going to eliminate bi-levels, why don't we encourage him to order some dome and observation cars. Those are much better than Superliners at providing a great view of the passing scenery you see when traveling by rail. This could help offset the almost certain loss of ridership caused the negative changes to food and beverage service.

 

[keelhauled]

If he's going to eliminate bi-levels, why don't we encourage him to order some dome and observation cars. Those are much better than Superliners at providing a great view of the passing scenery you see when traveling by rail. This could help offset the almost certain loss of ridership caused the negative changes to food and beverage service.

As long as the name of the game is standardization, the chances of designing and building a custom dome/observation car, a non revenue one at that, are infinitesimal. Besides, I doubt that that any loss of ridership will be significant enough to even restore dining car service, let alone introduce a new hard product entirely.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Good point neroden, I agree that Mr Anderson's lack of expierence and knowledge of Railroading will lead to expensive clusterflubs with unforseen costly consequences.

The old canard that a good Manager can manage anything is pure BS. YMMV

 

[jis]

The locomotive order rebuild or new RFP is out:

https://media.amtrak.com/2018/06/amtrak-improve-national-network-locomotive-fleet/

 

[Seaboard92]

Good point neroden, I agree that Mr Anderson's lack of expierence and knowledge of Railroading will lead to expensive clusterflubs with unforseen costly consequences.

The old canard that a good Manager can manage anything is pure BS. YMMV

It should be noted that the Superliners are an updated design on the 1952 Santa Fe El Capitan order. It should also be noted the Santa Fe was looking into making their high level fleet into sleepers but because of the post war decline in passenger trains they opted not to do that.

 

[cpotisch]

I thought that while the Superliners are superficially similar to the Hi-Levels, the actual design and construction is relatively different.

 

[jis]

I thought that while the Superliners are superficially similar to the Hi-Levels, the actual design and construction is relatively different.

Yes it is, as are the dimensions. Superliners are taller than Santa Fe Hi Levels and their upper floor height from rail is also different, among other things.

 

[Seaboard92]

I thought that while the Superliners are superficially similar to the Hi-Levels, the actual design and construction is relatively different.

Hence the word updated. It's an updated design with some major changes. Br basic principal of it.