Will Amtrak try to add cars if they see trains sold out in the future?

[Green Maned Lion]

That was over five years ago, no?

I think that the last of the cars arrived about three years ago. I know that the 2003 budget included money for a supplimental order, so I'm guessing that they arrived either in 2004 or 2005.

Also, Bombardier didn't build the Comet Vs, Alstom did. And NJT has had no end of problems with them. Bad suspensions causing excessive rocking, vibration issues, seat wear issues, constant door failures, a few breaking windows due to vibration caused by improper glass securing, and more. I don't know about Amtrak, but were I running a railroad, I'd want none of it. Anyway, the Comet VIs are better cars, especially capacity-wise.

First, the jury is still out on the Bi-levels. They frankly haven't been in service long enough to see if they will hold up any better than the Comet V's.

Second, the Comet VI's are virtually useless to Amtrak. As a coach car you'd have severe issues with luggage, you'd almost have to devote the entire mid-level areas to nothing more than a walkway and luggage racks. For a cafe car it might work, beyond the afforementioned luggage problem for passengers seating on the upper level. And the cars definately won't work as sleepers, unless Amtrak does away with the upper bunks.

Wasn't suggesting them for sleepers. I was merely talking Regional cars, which I think they'd be fine for. Sleepers will have to be single level, obviously. They would work famously, however, as a Slumbercoach.

Third, cars are damned expensive. Sleepers cost in the range of $3-4 million, and coaches, diners, and lounges aren't much cheaper.

I'm skeptical that an Amtrak coach is anywhere near as expensive per passenger mile over its lifetime as the typical automobile owned by the typical American.

If you assume that for the average track mile it covers, an Amtrak coach is loaded with 30 passengers, and the automobile is loaded with one, then a $3 million coach is equivalent to a $100,000 automobile if they last for the same number of passenger miles. Of course, automobiles are typically a lot cheaper than $100,000, but enough automobiles to last as many calendar years as that $3 million coach will last probably cost well over $50,000, and I bet that coach tends to get way more than double the daily mileage that the typical automobile does.

Then again, the automobile comes with the scaled down equivalent of a P42, and I neglected to factor that into the previous paragraph.

The more expensive a car you buy today, in general, the less long it is going to last. The reason is, the more expensive it is, the more expensive the parts, and its parts that kill cars these days. Nothing will ever again be as good as a late eighties/early nineties Mercedes. The car reached its zenith with the introduction of the Mercedes W124, and has been heading downwards since. Unless you are talking about a Morgan, no car you buy today is going to last more than 10 years.

Its cost per passenger is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the dollar amount, as approved by the Congress of The United States.

 

[Guest_Yerry_*]

I'd hardly call the Viewliners a "big mistake". Way Back When, Graham Claytor had stated that if he had his way, they would have bought 75-100 sleepers, 25 duplex sleepers, 30 diner-lounges (apparently diner-lite wasn't that new of an idea) and 150 coaches. Amtrak ended up getting what would help their bottom line the most (not what they needed the most, which was food service cars). "Two potatoes for dinner is nice, but one potato sure beats no potato".

Nobody at Amtrak EVER said, "We now have Viewliners; let's scrap the old sleepers". Shortly after delivery of the sleepers, Congressional pressure and the DOT put an end to hopper toilets. With one fell swoop, Heritage Fleet was eliminated. Only a few baggage cars, diners and lounge cars (even those were gone shortly thereafter) remained. They just weren't able to retrofit them with chemical toilets for several reasons: space for equipment would have cut severely into revenue space, parts for the cars were pretty much unavailable commercially (and therefore had to be individually machined at Beech Grove), and even if modified, they were coming up on the deadline for either outright banning from certain host railroads or a requirement for recertification that involved expensive industrial x-raying, truck and brake replacement, and structural retrofitting.

Check out Beech Grove on Google Earth. THE HERITAGE FLEET CARS ARE GONE. All that's left on the North side of the facility is a very dark patch of land from all the lead & magnesium ash (byproduct of scrapping).

 

[jis]

The lack of single level dorms is definately hurting sales on the East Coast trains. I believe on most trains, the Cardinal might be the exception, the crew now takes up six roomettes. They do indeed each get their own roomette, and even without considering the toilet situation, I tend to think that it wouldn't be fair to force them to share. Especially since it would be hard to avoid ending up with a male and female in the same room. So the only answer is to find, build, buy, or otherwise obtain some dorms.

Maybe they should take 18 Horizon cars, or Comets that NJT or MNRR or someone maybe ready to part with for cheap and convert them in house into Dorms, thus releasing all Viewliner accommodation for sale to paying passengers. These cars do not need to have a toilet in every roomette. They can be setup like Superliners and they would only have roomettes with common toilet facilities. Each single level consist would get one of these cars. The conversion cost may be substantially recovered from added sleeping accommodation sales on single level trains in 5 to 7 years? This will become more feasible if and when states start chipping in more for acquiring new cars/train sets for corridor service, so as to release old Horizon cars for other uses.

 

[D.P. Roberts]

It is not a coincidence that the three trains that have higher-than-normal sleeper capacity (the Coast Starlight, the Empire Builder, and the Auto Train, are the three that don't run SDS.

Hmm...not sure if I agree. The Lake Shore typically runs 3 sleepers while the crescent only 2. The Lake Shore has Diner Lite, The Crescent has full SDS Diner.

Doest the Coast Starlight not have SDS? I thought it did but they were "improving" the diner this May.

The CS is indeed running SDS.

Didn't the EB finally switch over to SDS as well?

 

[AlanB]

It is not a coincidence that the three trains that have higher-than-normal sleeper capacity (the Coast Starlight, the Empire Builder, and the Auto Train, are the three that don't run SDS.

Hmm...not sure if I agree. The Lake Shore typically runs 3 sleepers while the crescent only 2. The Lake Shore has Diner Lite, The Crescent has full SDS Diner.

Doest the Coast Starlight not have SDS? I thought it did but they were "improving" the diner this May.

The CS is indeed running SDS.

Didn't the EB finally switch over to SDS as well?

No.

 

[Guest_yerry_*]

JIS, I've often wondered that too. Even an older, depreciated Amfleet car that's been stored for a few years. ANd, why cant the kitchen equipment from the rebuilt diners be put into a new(er) Amfleet or Horizon? I'd take some work to get stuff to fit, but heck, farm the project off on some UIUC (Illinois) transportation Grad Student intern.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

They were a mistake in the lack of foresight for the funding situation, not in concept.

 

[jis]

They were a mistake in the lack of foresight for the funding situation, not in concept.

Yes. as far as my recollection goes Amtrak wanted 100, they got funding for 50.

 

[Sam Damon]

IMO, without a new rolling stock order, this discussion is pointless.

Amtrak management has demonstrated time and again, that aside from limited seasonal variation in the winter or summer months -- say, one coach or sleeper -- consist lengths will not vary. That is one reason we tend to see zero advertising of LD trains.

 

[haolerider]

IMO, without a new rolling stock order, this discussion is pointless.
Amtrak management has demonstrated time and again, that aside from limited seasonal variation in the winter or summer months -- say, one coach or sleeper -- consist lengths will not vary. That is one reason we tend to see zero advertising of LD trains.

I guess I don't see the relationship between a lack of consist change and the advertising of long distance trains. I don't know where you live, but there have been pretty consistent newspaper ads in the major cities across the country the past several months, there is advertising on Weather Channel and on the internet.

 

[Crescent ATN & TCL]

IMO, without a new rolling stock order, this discussion is pointless.
Amtrak management has demonstrated time and again, that aside from limited seasonal variation in the winter or summer months -- say, one coach or sleeper -- consist lengths will not vary. That is one reason we tend to see zero advertising of LD trains.

I guess I don't see the relationship between a lack of consist change and the advertising of long distance trains. I don't know where you live, but there have been pretty consistent newspaper ads in the major cities across the country the past several months, there is advertising on Weather Channel and on the internet.

Personally I don't think there is a need for any advertising when trains are almost always selling out.

I think they should stick to the Amfleet design since it is a proven design that already exists and modify it to fix the problems that have cropped up over the years. It also should be updated to be more modern and aesthetically pleasing, smooth sides like on the Superliners and a new paint scheme like on the Acelas or the Piedmont. Making the locomotives and cars match would be nice as well. Also there needs to be a design for an Amfleet Sightseer Lounge doesn't seem like this would be too hard just use glass from wall to wall at seat level and above. . Personally I think Amtrak should use all single level equipment to make logistics and equipment rotation simpler. I also would like to see all of the cars in the trainsets to have the same profile, the California sets look so much better than the eastern LD sets because of this, plus I'm sure aerodynamics are better and result in less fuel usage.

 

[Larry H.]

What experiences I have had with amfleet I greatly prefer heritage, or superliner type cars. The amfleets on our short lines are the business/snack cars and they ride the worst of any, and have to short a ceiling levels. I hate having to duck every time I get in and out of my seat. They look really out of place with the other cars and engines. I agree that someone with some kind of design sense needs to make the consist look like they belong together instead of an after thought of throwing cars together. Too bad they can't go back to dedicated paint schemes to make your trip seem like your really riding on a different train. They may as well toss out the names, they mean absolutely nothing.. Just call em by the numbers.

Also the interior decor is amazingly sterile. There are many ways that cars could be made to look more like the fine cars of the past in seating and comfort, and wall decor, but none of that is considered any longer.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

A sightseer Amfleet would be a bad idea. The Amfleet is a unitary design- the walls are integral to its structure. The glass area would compromise its structure.

The Amfleets inbound bearing trucks are awful. The design needs massive re-doing.

And Bombardier couldn't build them half as good as Budd could.

 

[gaspeamtrak]

nobody currently makes US-compatible high-level platform cars capable of fitting into NYP.

Bombardier just got done making Comet V's for NJT, so I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't be that hard to gear back up to produce that frame with Amtrak specs inside.

Bombardier has plants in Thunder Bay, Ontario and they have another plant in Lapocataire (sp)?,Quebec and they had the plant which is closed in Vermont.

I'm sure they could build these cars,viewliners,Superliners and more cars for the Acela's.

They are building 160 Go type bilevels cars for Montreal.

I think the Acela's should have at least 8 or possibly 9 or 10 cars on some sets with all that extra horsepower they have!!!

Bombardier builds some of the best cars in the world.

I have travelled many miles on Go Transits bilevels and as far as i'm concerned they are the best commuter cars in North America, and I'm not being a homer either. Those Gallery cars Chicago bought aren't even close on comfort and ride but that was all about politics in buying them.

Bombardier has the capicity now!!! Don't wait till its to late and there order books have a 5 year back log!!!

If the Canadian and American governments could get there act together and make one HUGE order and get a good deal on these cars instead of wasting 300 or 400 billion dollars they have spent in Iraq...Oops, I most be dreaming or taking drugs!!!

 

[Crescent ATN & TCL]

A sightseer Amfleet would be a bad idea. The Amfleet is a unitary design- the walls are integral to its structure. The glass area would compromise its structure.
The Amfleets inbound bearing trucks are awful. The design needs massive re-doing.

And Bombardier couldn't build them half as good as Budd could.

I knew the tubular shape was to help them be very durable cars but I still figured if you kept the shape and used thick glass with the same curvature between metal frames it would still hold the strength of the original design.

I agree they do ride rough compared to other cars but considering thats the last design built for LD service thats all we have to work with. Making and entirely new design will result in the same problems you have now with the existing Amfleets, you'll see many defects and flaws crop up overtime. I think we should pick a design or make a new single level design and continually revise it to take care of problems that arise. I think British Rail did something similar with the MK series cars. Something similar to the horizons would do, I've never ridden in one though so I don't know details, but they look like they are strictly designed for commuter/short distance service so I don't know how a similar design would do. I don't know how hard it would be to make a design based on the top level of the Superliners but I think a single-level Superliner would be a nice choice.

I always heard the rough riding was due to the weight more than the trucks but I do realize the Amfleets have very unique trucks compared to most North American equipment, I assume this was for the 125mph operating speeds.

As far as builders are there any builders in the US or Canada aside from Bombardier that could accommodate large orders and deliver them fairly quickly? I know there are a few smaller companies such as Colorado Railcar but I wonder how they would be able to handle a large order from Amtrak.

But no matter what is decided I would like to see the new cars be able to operate on all routes and on any route that may come in the future, single level Sightseer lounges, uniform consists profiles, sleek modern appearances (a nice looking train speeding through town is the best advertisement not to mention that its free).

Also weren't there designs in the Viewliner series for all car types? Is there any possibility of these being revised and used and is there any information on these designs?

When the time comes to buy new equipment a lot will have to be done to essentially build the first non-commuter rail cars for an American railroad since the Amfleets in the mid 70s. Its surprising to me that it has been over 30 years since any significant non-locomotive purchase has been made by Amtrak, aside from the specialty projects (Acela, Amtrak California, etc) almost no passenger equipment has been bought for Amtrak since the Amfleets.

I say there's no time to waste this is probably the most urgent need for Amtrak.

 

[AlanB]

While it might be nice to have that "uniform" fleet, I think that it is highly unlikely that you'll ever see the entire fleet return to a single level height. I'm pretty sure that whatever Amtrak does in the future will see them continuing to buy both single level cars and bi-level cars. Yes Amtrak might save some money by not having to have two different types of parts on hand for the cars and they wouldn't have to train crews to both operate and fix both types of cars.

But those costs don't equal the costs of needing to buy more cars due to the lower capacity of the single level cars, and the lost revenue would be huge. A Viewliner sleeper can carry 30 pax, a Superliner 44. If we assume an average charge of $450 per room (I picked the mid range price of a roomette between CHI & LAX, but odds are that average is higher because of the bedroom prices) and multiply that by the number of rooms, that comes out to $6,750 revenue from one Viewliner sleeper and $9,450 from one Superliner sleeper.

That's a loss of $2,700 worth of revenue for the SW Chief on just one car, $5,400 for a two car train. Now multiply that by 2 trains per day, times 365 days and you get $3,942,000. That's lost revenue of almost $4 Million dollars for one route in just one year. Assume a 30 year lifetime for the car and we're now into over $100 Million in lost revenue, and again thats only for one route and that number doesn't include the potential lost revenue in coach, nor the railfare for those in the sleepers.

And again, buying two single level cars to replace one bi-level car will always be more expensive than just buying a new bi-level car. The numbers just don't add up IMHO and we'll never see all single level passenger trains again. If the numbers made sense for single level cars, Amtrak California and commuter ops would be buying single level cars. They aren't! In fact the LIRR and NJT basically stood on their heads trying to figure out how they could build a bi-level car that would fit into Penn Station NY.

 

[user 1215]

As far as builders are there any builders in the US or Canada aside from Bombardier that could accommodate large orders and deliver them fairly quickly? I know there are a few smaller companies such as Colorado Railcar but I wonder how they would be able to handle a large order from Amtrak.

Aside from luxury dome cars, Colorado Rail Car can't seem to deliver much of anything, much less in quantities.

Funny thing about having a homogenous fleet. The federalized Japanese rail system (JNR) tried to keep costs in check by having most long distance trains look the same, most sleepers look the same, most commuter trains look the same, and even the Bullet Trains looked the same. Just before privatization, there were some attempts to 'modernize' the fleet, but it was very slow going. The new rolling stock looked nice, but almost exactly the same form, fit and function as the previous (there were exceptions).

When privatization finally took place, the National system became 7 companies. Some new stock was jointly developed and some were ordered specifically for a single route. Long story short, there are more varieties of rolling stock in Japan today than ever before. Personally, I sort of liked the homogenous fleet - it gave a sense of familiarity. You knew when you were on a JNR train or on a 'private' railroad just because of the rolling stock. But I really can't complain. There is much more to ride now and to take pictures of.

And, JR is still making money hand. Different business climate and market share issues, I'll grant that.

Whereas I think it would be cool for the Texas Eagle to look one way and the Downeaster look totally different, it would not be practical in today's environment. I think that the current two-systems is fine - single level sets for the NE and double deckers everywhere else. But I would also like to see reversible units (ie: P42 at each end of a trainset that uses more than one, rather than elephant style).

 

[frj1983]

nobody currently makes US-compatible high-level platform cars capable of fitting into NYP.

Bombardier just got done making Comet V's for NJT, so I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't be that hard to gear back up to produce that frame with Amtrak specs inside.

Bombardier has plants in Thunder Bay, Ontario and they have another plant in Lapocataire (sp)?,Quebec and they had the plant which is closed in Vermont.

I'm sure they could build these cars,viewliners,Superliners and more cars for the Acela's.

They are building 160 Go type bilevels cars for Montreal.

I think the Acela's should have at least 8 or possibly 9 or 10 cars on some sets with all that extra horsepower they have!!!

Bombardier builds some of the best cars in the world.

I have travelled many miles on Go Transits bilevels and as far as i'm concerned they are the best commuter cars in North America, and I'm not being a homer either. Those Gallery cars Chicago bought aren't even close on comfort and ride but that was all about politics in buying them.

Bombardier has the capicity now!!! Don't wait till its to late and there order books have a 5 year back log!!!

If the Canadian and American governments could get there act together and make one HUGE order and get a good deal on these cars instead of wasting 300 or 400 billion dollars they have spent in Iraq...Oops, I most be dreaming or taking drugs!!!

I'm not sure about the current relationship between Amtrak and Bombardier.

A few years ago they were suing each other in court over the Acela debacle and some not nice words were exchanged in the media between them. Now while money talks, I could possibly see Bombardier saying something like: "Amtrak? New Cars? take a flying leap and find someone else to build them...we're not getting involved with you again!" Then again as I said above, money might still talk! h34r:

10 days and counting until our trip begins on the CNO!

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

The MBTA Commuter Rail system is buying new bi-level coaches from Rotem (I believe the order was placed within the last few months). The MBTA has generally been running bi-level coaches out of South Station and single level coaches out of North Station; my understanding is that the last bridge that was too short for the bi-level coaches on the north side of the system went away years ago.

 

[Crescent ATN & TCL]

While it might be nice to have that "uniform" fleet, I think that it is highly unlikely that you'll ever see the entire fleet return to a single level height. I'm pretty sure that whatever Amtrak does in the future will see them continuing to buy both single level cars and bi-level cars. Yes Amtrak might save some money by not having to have two different types of parts on hand for the cars and they wouldn't have to train crews to both operate and fix both types of cars.
But those costs don't equal the costs of needing to buy more cars due to the lower capacity of the single level cars, and the lost revenue would be huge. A Viewliner sleeper can carry 30 pax, a Superliner 44. If we assume an average charge of $450 per room (I picked the mid range price of a roomette between CHI & LAX, but odds are that average is higher because of the bedroom prices) and multiply that by the number of rooms, that comes out to $6,750 revenue from one Viewliner sleeper and $9,450 from one Superliner sleeper.

That's a loss of $2,700 worth of revenue for the SW Chief on just one car, $5,400 for a two car train. Now multiply that by 2 trains per day, times 365 days and you get $3,942,000. That's lost revenue of almost $4 Million dollars for one route in just one year. Assume a 30 year lifetime for the car and we're now into over $100 Million in lost revenue, and again thats only for one route and that number doesn't include the potential lost revenue in coach, nor the railfare for those in the sleepers.

And again, buying two single level cars to replace one bi-level car will always be more expensive than just buying a new bi-level car. The numbers just don't add up IMHO and we'll never see all single level passenger trains again. If the numbers made sense for single level cars, Amtrak California and commuter ops would be buying single level cars. They aren't! In fact the LIRR and NJT basically stood on their heads trying to figure out how they could build a bi-level car that would fit into Penn Station NY.

Aside from NYP Tunnels what other height limits require the use of Amfleets? WIth all the double stack trains out there I can't imagine there being all that many other limitiations. I know from YouTube videos that there are bridges and other structures along the NEC that appear very low but It could just be the camera angle. Whats a good estimate of the cost to dig down to make clearance higher in the NYP tunnels? Also exactly how much extra clearance would be needed?

If Amtrak buys more double decker equipment it should be able to connect directly with single level equipment. It made sense for SantaFe with their bi-levels because they were made for specific trains and weren't going to ever going to interchange with other equipment. Colorodo Railcar's observation cars on the Alaska railroad are probaly the best examples of double and single level cars being used together. I think they would make good cars for Amtrak, I'm not sure of the capacity or estimated priice. They could be used for coaches and the upper level be 2nd class, regular coach be 3rd class and sleeper remain 1st class. Thsi still wouldn't solve the problem with height clearances but I think the best thing wold be to raise the clearance where it needs to be. It would be cheaper in the long run because it would allow ultimate flexibility in operation for both freight and passenger.

They could be called SuperViewFleets. :lol: They look like a Superliner, they have a good view and are compatible with Viewliners and Amfleets.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?...8843&nseq=2

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Colorado Rail Car's double decker trains are gigantuan and don't fit much of anywhere in the NEC by a lot. Also, they have a really long and telling history of business and financial problems.

Amtrak has had quite a few car purchases over the years. The Horizons (88?), the Superliner IIs (92?), the Viewliners (94-96?) and the Talgos. Not to mention the California cars.

Re digging the North Shore tunnels would be prohibitive. THE tunnel might be an oppurtunity to do something, but I recall there being catenary clearance issues as-well. I know they couldn't fit under the catenary in the station itself. The current trains barely do.

7

 

[Crescent ATN & TCL]

Colorado Rail Car's double decker trains are gigantuan and don't fit much of anywhere in the NEC by a lot. Also, they have a really long and telling history of business and financial problems.
Amtrak has had quite a few car purchases over the years. The Horizons (88?), the Superliner IIs (92?), the Viewliners (94-96?) and the Talgos. Not to mention the California cars.

Re digging the North Shore tunnels would be prohibitive. THE tunnel might be an oppurtunity to do something, but I recall there being catenary clearance issues as-well. I know they couldn't fit under the catenary in the station itself. The current trains barely do.

7

I was just using theirs as an example of double decker cars that are compatible with single levels. Colorado Railcar doesn't appear to be in the position to deal with a large order anyway.

Those were mostly smaller purchases and or were for specialty services (Amtrak California, Talgo), there hasn't been a massive order since the Amfleets. I think all of those were around 50 or less units.

I didn't mean redig an entirely new tunnel, I meant remove the rails dig down into the track bed, then re-lay the rails to make the tunnel larger, I remember reading about a freight railroad doing this to accomodate double stacks. Personally I think we should try to standardize clearances throughout the railsystem. Something needs to be done because the longer they wait the more it will cost. Something on the magnatude of the Big Dig will be required though.

Here are a few questions I have;

Are there any other ways into to NYC? How do the freights go through NYC? Would it be posible to relocate the station and provide free connection to the subway?

 

[PRR 60]

..I didn't mean redig an entirely new tunnel, I meant remove the rails dig down into the track bed, then re-lay the rails to make the tunnel larger, I remember reading about a freight railroad doing this to accomodate double stacks. Personally I think we should try to standardize clearances throughout the railsystem. Something needs to be done because the longer they wait the more it will cost. Something on the magnatude of the Big Dig will be required though.

While your thought of enlarging the tunnels into New York would work with normal tunnel, you cannot enlarge the old PRR Hudson (North) River tunnels. (I'll call them the Hudson River tunnels so people born in the last 100 years know what I'm talking about.)

A classic tunnel is a bore through rock. That kind of tunnel can often be enlarged by digging down, or up, or even sideways to the extent permitted by geologic stability. Not so with the PRR, now Amtrak, tunnels under the Hudson River. The Hudson tunnels are actually cast iron pipes set in the riverbed. The circular iron tube withstands the considerable pressure of the water and river silt. The tunnels sit in fluid silt, not rock, so all the capability to withstand the water pressure comes from the iron tube. One critical aspect that permits the tube to withstand that pressure is being exactly circular with no discontinuities. If you cut or modify the shape of the tube in any way, it will fail. When you ride through those tunnels you are literally riding through a 24 foot diameter iron pipe set 25 feet below the bottom of the river in mud.

Any modification of the rail position must stay within the existing circular cross-section of the iron tube. Whatever fluff existed in that position was taken when the tracks were slightly lowered in the 1930's to permit the catenary to be installed. There is no room left to wiggle any extra clearance. Basically, the Hudson tunnels are what they are and they can either be used as-is or replaced.

By the way, next year will be the 100'th anniversary of the Amtrak tunnels into Manhattan. I hope Amtrak properly commemorates the event.

 

[AlanB]

Here are a few questions I have;Are there any other ways into to NYC? How do the freights go through NYC? Would it be posible to relocate the station and provide free connection to the subway?

PRR already answered the question of why they can't enlarge the tunnels, so I'll try to tackle these.

Freight trains no longer operate in Manhattan at all. IIRC, the last freight train ran into Manhattan in the early 70's. Limited freight service still operates in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx. There has been a push to return freight service to Staten Island and I think that it has been completed, but it might still be under reconstruction at this time, I'm just not sure at the moment.

Freight trains get to Queens and Brooklyn by one of two methods. One being car floats across the bay from New Jersey to Brooklyn. The second is via the Hell Gate Bridge between Queens and the Bronx. This is also how freight trains reach Long Island too.

I suspect, although I'm not positive, that full height bi-level cars could reach Penn via the Empire Connection. This is a modern tunnel that probably was built to the correct height. However, that still doesn't solve the problem of the catenary in the station. If the cars actually fit in the station, they'd still probably be so close to the wires that assuming they didn't actually knock them down, you'd have major arcing issues as the 12,000 volts of electricity jumps to the roof of the cars.

And then you'd still be stuck with the cars having only one way out, the way they came in. That would mean that you can't get the cars to Sunnyside for servicing, both mechanical and operational servicing items like cleaning & water.

Now it might be possible to build a new station, but at what cost? NJT is already looking at Millions of dollars for their new small station and two new tunnels under the Hudson. Amtrak would have to find and pay for the real estate to build a new station, build the new station, build four new tunnels, connections to the existing tracks in Queens and New Jersey, new subway connections, a new Empire connection, and probably a few other things that I'm not even thinking of. We're probably talking a budget that starts to rival the War on Iraq at this point.

And guess what, we still haven't fixed the catenary issues for the other 400+ miles of track between Boston and DC, some of which isn't even Amtrak owned. And we haven't fixed the tunnels in Baltimore which also can not clear a full height Superliner car.

It's simply not going to happen. Amtrak has so many other far more urgent and useful needs, and no hope of ever getting the volume of money that would be needed to accomplish getting full height bi-level cars into NYC.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Those were mostly smaller purchases and or were for specialty services (Amtrak California, Talgo), there hasn't been a massive order since the Amfleets. I think all of those were around 50 or less units.

The Acela trainsets are newer than the Amfleets, and I believe there are 80 business class cars plus 20 first class cars plus 20 cafe cars. That's a bit more than 50 units...