Viewliner II - Part 1 - Initial Production and Delivery

[tommylicious]

That sounds like 2025 winter at the earliest.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

That sounds like 2025 winter at the earliest.

If you want a better estimate, you could do us the favor of reading earlier posts just a few pages back where this question is fully explored.

 

[MrFSS]

That sounds like 2025 winter at the earliest.

If you want a better estimate, you could do us the favor of reading earlier posts just a few pages back where this question is fully explored.

I think he was being facetious.

 

[XHRTSP]

They don't even have to share a roomette. One room per OBS.

Did Amtrak give them that or did the unions? I still can't believe that's the case, and yet they can't give conducters and engine crews rooms so they won't time out and strand the train in the middle of nowhere waiting for backfill.

 

[Bob Dylan]

The Union negotiated personal rooms for OBS in the agreement with Amtrak!

Deadheading for T& E Crew Members isn't alllowed to keep them from exceeding the Hours worked/rest rules!

They must be relieved when they Max out on the Law!

 

[Ryan]

I still can't believe that's the case, and yet they can't give conducters and engine crews rooms so they won't time out and strand the train in the middle of nowhere waiting for backfill.

Talk to the FRA. Rest doesn't count if you're on a train.

 

[user 1215]

But it does if you're in the bunk of a Semi tractor-trailer rig. Or in the luggage berth of a bus (ok, maybe not in the US, but Mexico for sure).

 

[Ryan]

I didn't say that it made sense.

 

[jis]

But it does if you're in the bunk of a Semi tractor-trailer rig. Or in the luggage berth of a bus (ok, maybe not in the US, but Mexico for sure).

In India you don't even need to be in such such luxurious quarters As a matter of fact you can just keep on driving until you fall asleep and fall off the road into a deep ravine too. Whose checking?

 

[Counting_Rooms]

They don't even have to share a roomette. One room per OBS.

On all of the LD Viewliner equipped trains the OBS ( SCA, LSA,Diner Cew,Coach arrendants) all have roomettes in the Sleeping Cars(s) which blocks revenue rooms for passengers.

How many roomettes are there in the new Viewliner II dorm-baggage cars? I mean, are there enough for all the OBS on a LD train? If not enough, then would some OBS still be assigned a roomette in a Sleeper? If too many, would Amtrak sell the extra to passengers, like what is done with the extra roomettes on the Superliner Transdorms?

Do the roomettes on the Viewliner II dorm-baggage cars, have only one bed (since only one OBS person can ever be assigned)? Or does it have two, to make them identical to the roomettes in the Sleepers?

 

[R30A]

All of these are subject to me being wrong in my recollection, But respectively:
9, Depends on the train, but almost universally yes. Yes. Probably.

I believe the plan is for 2, just like every other roomette.

 

[Ryan]

Yep, that eliminates the need for a "special" one-bed roomette module.

There really isn't anything special about the bag-dorms, they'll be not unlike the trans-dorms out west - provide some number of rooms to reduce the number of rooms needed by staff in the regular sleeping cars. I wouldn't be surprised to see that rooms in the transbag-dorm are sold to the public if there are extras on a given train.

 

[user 1215]

Now then, I will back peddle a bit on crew rest requirements for the conductor and engineer. Even if the berths were suitable for rest, and even if they had three crews, 8 on, 16 off, I still think that they need to be taken off the train on really long distance routes. For example, I don't think it's practical for someone to know every aspect (literally) between Chicago and LA and memorize every single signal - especially when using multiple roads (they do it now, but on much shorter segments). Throw in the slow orders and you're head is swimming.

So, the crew takes up probably 6 to 8 rooms plus the SCAs who take up their own 1 per car and that's 10-12 rooms per train you can't sell.

And they want to cut the diner. :angry2:

 

[Alex M.]

Regarding future purchases of new equipment, I wonder if Amtrak would consider reviving the old combine for single level coach only trains that may not require a full baggage car? It seems that if North Carolina can do this for their Piedmonts, why not Amtrak?

 

[jis]

Regarding future purchases of new equipment, I wonder if Amtrak would consider reviving the old combine for single level coach only trains that may not require a full baggage car? It seems that if North Carolina can do this for their Piedmonts, why not Amtrak?

I suppose anything could happen. But my guess is that it is very unlikely. Amtrak has been trying hard to reduce the number of different types of cars it has in its fleet. The gains from having this additional car type is minimal to non-existent.

 

[neroden]

Trying to peg an ideal ratio is tricky, but assuming three seatings, with a 48-seat single-level diner you have 144 seats/meal and with a 72-seat bilevel diner you have 216 seats/meal.

Four seatings is the best way to improve this, but I doubt it's viable. You might be able to get "three and a half", but three is a good assumption.

The theoretical capacity of a Viewliner I sleeper is 30 and the effective capacity probably somewhere in the mid-20s (I'd say around 24); for a standard Superliner the theoretical capacity is 44 and the effective capacity probably in the mid-30s (I'm guessing about 36).

Fair numbers to work with.

In theory this computes to about 6 sleepers/diner, but especially with the bilevels you tend to lose a few tables for supply storage more often than you do on a single-level diner. You also need to account for a (substantial) amount of coach traffic in the diner...honestly, assume 40% of traffic will be from coach much of the time (this is what you tend to see on the LSL and the SWC per Amtrak's PIPs).

Assuming you leave appropriate room (40%) for coach passengers, this puts a cap of 3.6 sleeper cars per dining car on either a single-level or bilevel train... unless you add a table car, of course. I don't know what the limitation on the kitchen is, though; I'm assuming seating is the limit, rather than kitchen speed or ability of waiters to serve table. I may be wrong.
But if I'm right, table cars are a sensible and economical thing to have on longer trains. Amtrak should order some. Consider, for example, an Amfleet II; and suppose the tables on one end were reserved for dining car service during mealtimes. Even if you have one of them wasted by the conductor, that's something like 5 tables, or 20 people, bringing service up to 204 people per meal, and handling 5 sleeping cars even if 40% of the patronage is still coach.

Now let me think about waiters. There are currently 12 tables in a Viewliner/Heritage diner. It appears from some googling that one waiter should be able to handle between 4 and 7 tables (depending on the restaurant). That's two or three waiters, more likely three. Adding the extra tables would make it between three and five waiters, most likely four. (Fewer during low-ridership periods.) This is probably still cost-effective as long as the kitchen staff doesn't need to be expanded.... although looking at the numbers again, it really looks to me as if you could handle occasional "peak demand" with three waiters as long as it wasn't happening daily.

 

[neroden]

Regarding OBS accomodations, I can't imagine how they got single berthing in their contract. Going back to double berthing would probably be the single biggest thing Amtrak could do to cut costs on the overnight trains. Next time the contract is renegotiated, Amtrak should demand this giveback, which only affects the small minority of crew members who go overnight, and would vastly improve the real finances of the dining cars. To accomodate our gender norms, this could be done:

1 crew -- 1 roomette

2 crew -- 2 roomettes

3 crew -- 2 roomettes (e.g. LSL Boston) -- releases 1 revenue roomette

4 crew -- 3 roomettes (e.g. Cardinal, current Star) -- releases 1 revenue roomette

5 crew -- 3 roomettes

6 crew -- 4 roomettes

7 crew -- 4 roomettes (e.g. LSL New York) -- releases 3 revenue roomettes

8 crew -- 5 roomettes (e.g. Crescent/Meteor/former Star) -- releases 3 revenue roomettes

9 crew -- 5 roomettes

10 crew -- 6 roomettes (e.g. LSL) -- releases 4 revenue roomettes

11 crew -- 6 roomettes

12 crew -- 7 roomettes

...and so on.

For each gender with an odd number of crew members, the most senior crew member would get the single. Seniority could also determine the ability to pick the lower bunk, with the youngest and most spry crew members taking the upper bunks.

The union should recognize that this is in their long-term best interest. At the moment it's just too expensive to employ additional dining car or coach staff. This change would cut Amtrak's costs for employing additional staff, while maintaining the salary levels and workloads of the staff... frankly, the disused upper bunks of the staff roomettes are the closest case to literally "featherbedding" I've ever seen! Pullman staff often slept 6 to a room in open bunks, by contrast!

 

[Guest]

Order a car's worth of extra modules, then when you bring a car into the shop, slide out the old and broken and slide in the new and refurbed. Fix up the old modules without having to have a car out of service while you do it.

Did that actually ever work, on the Viewliner I sleepers? Did they ever just slide out the old, worn out, modules, and slide new fresh modules?

 

[Ryan]

That may work once the toilets are out of the roomettes.

 

[rrdude]

Remember tho, that any Amtrak employee who is issued a "bank" or working funds (LSA or Stewards only) needs to have their own compartment, for safekeeping of company $$$. Well, that's how it was when I worked, over 30 years ago, and is one of the main reasons I went to LSA school, even thou I loved waiting tables. (read: "Tips")

But while I was a waiter, we slept in "Dorm Cars" on the western trains, some were bunked three high. All I can say was, "hold on" going track speed (90 mph) on the Santa Fe out in western desert!

I agree tho, no reason why two of the same ***, cannot be made to share a two bed roomette. Sure, people snore, fart, and sometimes are generally gross to be around, (just ask any of my friends) but that's what we did when we got to layovers, we shared hotel rooms. I remember sleeping in the bathtub one night, 'cause my overweight co-workers snored louder than a Nathan K5HL Horn.

 

[TheTuck]

Crew members will never share rooms and they should never have to. The last thing anyone wants after a long tiring shift is to share their personal time and space. Even if your co-workers are your best friends, everybody deserves their private space. Taking that away would be detrimental to Amtrak and flat out wrong.

 

[Guest]

Regarding OBS accomodations, I can't imagine how they got single berthing in their contract. Going back to double berthing would probably be the single biggest thing Amtrak could do to cut costs on the overnight trains. Next time the contract is renegotiated, Amtrak should demand this giveback, which only affects the small minority of crew members who go overnight, and would vastly improve the real finances of the dining cars. To accomodate our gender norms, this could be done:

1 crew -- 1 roomette

2 crew -- 2 roomettes

3 crew -- 2 roomettes (e.g. LSL Boston) -- releases 1 revenue roomette

4 crew -- 3 roomettes (e.g. Cardinal, current Star) -- releases 1 revenue roomette

5 crew -- 3 roomettes

6 crew -- 4 roomettes

7 crew -- 4 roomettes (e.g. LSL New York) -- releases 3 revenue roomettes

8 crew -- 5 roomettes (e.g. Crescent/Meteor/former Star) -- releases 3 revenue roomettes

9 crew -- 5 roomettes

10 crew -- 6 roomettes (e.g. LSL) -- releases 4 revenue roomettes

11 crew -- 6 roomettes

12 crew -- 7 roomettes

...and so on.

For each gender with an odd number of crew members, the most senior crew member would get the single. Seniority could also determine the ability to pick the lower bunk, with the youngest and most spry crew members taking the upper bunks.

The union should recognize that this is in their long-term best interest. At the moment it's just too expensive to employ additional dining car or coach staff. This change would cut Amtrak's costs for employing additional staff, while maintaining the salary levels and workloads of the staff... frankly, the disused upper bunks of the staff roomettes are the closest case to literally "featherbedding" I've ever seen! Pullman staff often slept 6 to a room in open bunks, by contrast!

No, it is not in the unions best interest to agree to that.

These folks are on the road for days and you want to dehumanize their working conditions.

 

[rrdude]

Look, "Why was it not 'dehumanizing' 30 years ago, for me to share a hotel room with the assistant cook (usually, also low on seniority board) or to sleep in open-berth crew car" but now you label it as "dehumanizing" or others stress the "need for privacy after a long (18hr) day" .

Amtrak pays their OBS staff pretty well, I think that's just one of the things they should have to put up with, to save the company some money. Americans seem obsessed with privacy in their sleep space.

worked fine for decades, no reason to abandon it just because we are more sensitive now-a-days.........

 

[neroden]

These folks are on the road for days and you want to dehumanize their working conditions.

If they're demanding better sleeping conditions than I, a high-paying passenger, am getting....
...then they should all be fired as prima donnas. I believe they are not so prima-donna-ish.

If prima-donna prissy staff members think that bunking two to a room is "dehumanizing", they're in the wrong line of work. They are, in fact, selling rooms to people who bunk two to a room...

As I said, for most of American railroad history, the onboard staff were bunking six to a room in open bunks. If you think sharing a roomette is "dehumanizing", there's something wrong with you.

If the union demands featherbedding for their employees, they'll pretty soon find that there aren't any employees left. Elimination of the dining cars will knock out a lot of them. Next step will be replacement of coach attendants with Assistant Conductors; the higher pay will be compensated for by the freed-up sleeping space.

I'm not looking forward to this trend.

 

[Guest]

These folks are on the road for days and you want to dehumanize their working conditions.

If they're demanding better sleeping conditions than I, a high-paying passenger, am getting....
...then they should all be fired as prima donnas. I believe they are not so prima-donna-ish.

If prima-donna prissy staff members think that bunking two to a room is "dehumanizing", they're in the wrong line of work. They are, in fact, selling rooms to people who bunk two to a room...

As I said, for most of American railroad history, the onboard staff were bunking six to a room in open bunks. If you think sharing a roomette is "dehumanizing", there's something wrong with you.

If the union demands featherbedding for their employees, they'll pretty soon find that there aren't any employees left. Elimination of the dining cars will knock out a lot of them. Next step will be replacement of coach attendants with Assistant Conductors; the higher pay will be compensated for by the freed-up sleeping space.

It is not featherbedding. It is treating employees with respect. Something you obviously know nothing about.

As far as railroad history. Railroad history is a history of rail workers fighting for better working conditions and safer working conditions. Study that history. That is the history we need to learn from and go back to, the fighting history. Not making concessions. Not going back in time to those working conditions.