Viewliner II Part 2: Dining Car Production, Delivery, Speculation

[dlagrua]

I will make one last post to support my position and then not comment further. Here is the Amtrak report on the CAF situation. Moving forward lets discuss it point by point.

https://www.amtrakoig.gov/sites/default/files/reports/CAF%20Final%20Report%2020160201.pdf

Its all laid out very logically. CAF claims to be losing $41 million on this project. They have already burned through about 60% of the funding If anyone here believes CAF is making money on this order and that this is false info, please produce evidence. If it is true ( which I believe that it is) why would CAF wish to continue with a project that is losing money? This is the one question that some forum members avoid and do not wish to answer.

 

[ehbowen]

Because it's been adequately answered by others. They wish to continue because they could/would lose MORE money if they up and quit, due to cancellation penalties and non-performance of the contract.

 

[Ryan]

Precisely. Losing $41M to complete the contract is probably better than losing significantly more than that if they don’t (and don’t see another dime of revenue to offset the money they’ve already sent out the door.

Your characterization of both my argument and my willingness to answer your questions is blankly false. Knock it off.

 

[jis]

I will make one last post to support my position and then not comment further. Here is the Amtrak report on the CAF situation. Moving forward lets discuss it point by point.

https://www.amtrakoig.gov/sites/default/files/reports/CAF%20Final%20Report%2020160201.pdf

Its all laid out very logically. CAF claims to be losing $41 million on this project. They have already burned through about 60% of the funding If anyone here believes CAF is making money on this order and that this is false info, please produce evidence. If it is true ( which I believe that it is) why would CAF wish to continue with a project that is losing money? This is the one question that some forum members avoid and do not wish to answer.

You know? you really have ceased to make any sense anymore in this thread. So you might want to quit while you are ahead

If CAF does not deliver it will lose all the revenue and will not recoup any of the money that is already committed. What can we do to get this through your thick skull?

 

[PVD]

Defaulting would also have a profound effect on their ability to secure future work. A major default can knock you out as "lowest responsible bidder" regardless of pricing.

 

[Lonestar648]

CAF may be losing money, but canceling a contract because they are loosing money could bring bad PR they don't want for future contracts. They don't want a reputation that they quit if they find they are loosing money. That would get CAF disqualified in the bidding process. So CAF may be advertising they are loosing money, but by hanging in they can tell future customers, we don't quit.

 

[west point]

Finally got this web site to accept copy and paste. Here is Amtrak's petition to waive the propulsion open door interlock. States delivery of bag dorms and sleepers sometime after Feb 5 2018.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/07/14/2017-14809/petition-for-waiver-of-compliancehttps://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/07/14/2017-14809/petition-for-waiver-of-compliance

 

[Ngotwalt]

According to other forums, the waiver is needed because the cars will operate with older equipment not equipped with this door system, and the regulation applies to entire trains.

Nick

 

[Cho Cho Charlie]

Looking at the referenced Code, I see that (b) says "that are ordered on or after April 5, 2016, or placed in service for the first time on or after February 5, 2018".

I guess I am not a legal expert on the meaning of "or" because I would think that these requirements would not be applicable to the VLII cars since they were ordered before April 5, 2016.

 

[Ryan]

The requirement is invoked if either condition is satisfied (that's what "or" means).

This means that cars placed into service after 5 Feb 2018 will be subject to the requirement (which is why the waiver is needed).

If the "or" were an "and", then both conditions would need to be satisfied to invoke the requirement. Then your logic would hold that the order date for the cars would exempt them from the requirement.

Easy way to test "or" is to strike it and one of the clauses:

"All manual and powered exterior side door systems in passenger cars, and connected door safety systems in locomotives used in passenger service, that are ordered on or after April 5, 2016 shall be:" We're cool! Cars were ordered before that date.

"All manual and powered exterior side door systems in passenger cars, and connected door safety systems in locomotives used in passenger service, that are placed in service for the first time on or after February 5, 2018 shall be:" Now we're not, unless a miracle occurs.

 

[willem]

Good explanation, Ryan!

 

[Thirdrail7]

. It makes perfectly good business sense to keep delaying deliveries ( which they are doing) until Amtrak gets fed up and cancels the order which is probably what CAF is hoping will happen. Am I wrong with the facts or with this analogy? If so please explain how.

Not to pick on you but I just don't see Amtrak canceling the order. It is entirely too late in the process for them to just say forget it and let's start again.

In any event, the end of the month should yield:

If everything stays on course: Blue and Ryan=(2), PennyK=(3)

 

[DSS&A]

Hi Thirdrail7,

Thanks for all of your updates which are greatly appreciated!!! With two more cars at the end of this month, I am encouraged that CAF has increased the production rate to two a month.

 

[Lonestar648]

The production rate from CAF maybe agonizingly slow, but each one or each two released to Amtrak is a step forward to improving the single level trains, even if very slow. I wish the order was being completed quickly, or already complete, but that is not to be. Thanks for the updates.

 

[StriderGDM]

This is good news. This should mean within 2-4 months the LSL finally gets diners back! Woohoo!

 

[west point]

This is good news. This should mean within 2-4 months the LSL finally gets diners back! Woohoo!

That will be the 64 dollar question for what will happen ? LSL will need 3 diners. It may be that LSL may get Heritage diners first so the Crescent with V-2 diners will not be speed limited on its portion of the NEC ? Since CHI already has some spare Heritage bag parts they may have H-diner parts as well. It gets complicated ? Also NOL would not need spare Heritage diner parts that could go to where Heritage diners are operated ? Not saying that will happen but who knows ? 3rd rail ? If the 3 V-2s not presently in service finally get fixed then these speculations could happen faster ?

Then again what about the Star ? Speculation that next step would be to put V-2 diners on LSL and Heritage diners finally on Star leaving Heritage to run out their days on Star ? Just wait and see ? ?

 

[GaSteve]

This is good news. This should mean within 2-4 months the LSL finally gets diners back! Woohoo!

That will be the 64 dollar question for what will happen ? LSL will need 3 diners. It may be that LSL may get Heritage diners first so the Crescent with V-2 diners will not be speed limited on its portion of the NEC ? Since CHI already has some spare Heritage bag parts they may have H-diner parts as well. It gets complicated ? Also NOL would not need spare Heritage diner parts that could go to where Heritage diners are operated ? Not saying that will happen but who knows ? 3rd rail ? If the 3 V-2s not presently in service finally get fixed then these speculations could happen faster ?

Then again what about the Star ? Speculation that next step would be to put V-2 diners on LSL and Heritage diners finally on Star leaving Heritage to run out their days on Star ? Just wait and see ? ?

I have never seen a protect diner in NOL.

 

[jis]

This is good news. This should mean within 2-4 months the LSL finally gets diners back! Woohoo!

That will be the 64 dollar question for what will happen ? LSL will need 3 diners. It may be that LSL may get Heritage diners first so the Crescent with V-2 diners will not be speed limited on its portion of the NEC ? Since CHI already has some spare Heritage bag parts they may have H-diner parts as well. It gets complicated ? Also NOL would not need spare Heritage diner parts that could go to where Heritage diners are operated ? Not saying that will happen but who knows ? 3rd rail ? If the 3 V-2s not presently in service finally get fixed then these speculations could happen faster ?
Then again what about the Star ? Speculation that next step would be to put V-2 diners on LSL and Heritage diners finally on Star leaving Heritage to run out their days on Star ? Just wait and see ? ?

All LD trains will continue to be speed limited on the NEC unless the V-I Sleepers somehow get modified trucks/wheel profiles to be cleared and certified for 125mph. In any case that 15mph speed difference does not matter a heck of a lot in a schedule of a day or more through the CSX and NS wilderness.

 

[KnightRail]

Albany - Elmira

Annapolis - Northward with Boston

Atlanta - Hialeah (in the bullpen)

Augusta - Southward

Baton Rouge - Hialeah

Boston - Northward with Annapolis

Charleston - See a few posts prior...

Columbia - ...Look for the signs.

 

[DSS&A]

Hi,

I read postings on another website that the the two reported new diners left CAF this morning which Thirdrail7 had previously announced would happen this week.

 

[twropr]

Another forum confirms that 68006 Charleston and 68007 Columbia were moving Tuesday from Elmira to Albany-Rensseler.

Andy

 

[Ziv]

I wonder if they can get the "delivered but not operating" diners on line this month...

And if CAF can deliver 2 diners a month for the rest of the year.

I can't imagine that the sleepers are that much more difficult to build than than the diners. Haven't most of the problems been with welding and AC? Both of which will be similar in the sleepers, or so I would guess. Even if CAF delivers slowly, it might be worth it to tack another 10-20 sleepers on the order.

 

[Ryan]

If everything stays on course: Blue and Ryan=(2), PennyK=(3)

 

[StriderGDM]

I wonder if they can get the "delivered but not operating" diners on line this month...

And if CAF can deliver 2 diners a month for the rest of the year.

I can't imagine that the sleepers are that much more difficult to build than than the diners. Haven't most of the problems been with welding and AC? Both of which will be similar in the sleepers, or so I would guess. Even if CAF delivers slowly, it might be worth it to tack another 10-20 sleepers on the order.

Sure, as soon as Amtrak can come up with the money. :-/

There was the option for 30 more cars, but zero word that Amtrak ever (or will ever) exercise it.

I think it would be great if they could, but then the question is, to what point?

How much longer could they make existing trains? (keep in mind with the new sleepers and baggage-dorms, most trains will already see a 50% or more increase in sleeper space).

And, other than perhaps a sleeper on 66/67, and returning something like Three Rivers, where could they use this new equipment?

Unless there's a plan to use it, not necessarily worth buying it.

Heck, as it is, 25 diners will be too much.

 

[Ziv]

Maybe make the Capital Limited a Viewliner train and move the Superliner cars that are freed up to the western LD routes? I am not sure all the coaches are needed but the sleepers are, I believe.