PBenham wrote:Ah, high level sleepers did materialize, but they were built for Amtrak. Now, I still consider the Superliners to be a boondoggle, since they cannot be used where Amtrak needs them most! The trains they run on are not economically viable and never will be. Amtrak is useful only in densely populated corridors, anywhere else and, well I can't go there.
I believe the original question was in reference to Budd built hi level cars for the Santa Fe, not the Amtrak Superliner sleepers built by Bombardier and Pullman.
I have to take the more David Gunn like view. The value of transportation is in the network and not any particular leg of it. In my life I have been fortunate to ride on virtually all the transcontinental routes in North America both pre and post Amtrak. I've also made innumerable trips on the NEC and the Florida trains and a trip on Auto Train. The reasons that many routes are not more viable are many, but when you consider all, there is only one reason to the customer who is the reason the system exists. Amtrak cannot provide a viable transportation choice to most travellers. Even on trains such as the Crescent which I use at least twice a year on business over much of its route there is only a single train each day (in each direction) over much of the route and there is a general lack of reliability and timekeeping for a number of reasons (freight delays, equipment problems, weather, etc). Funny, that back in the old days the railroads could keep the varnish running...
LC
Limitedclear wrote: PBenham wrote:Ah, high level sleepers did materialize, but they were built for Amtrak. Now, I still consider the Superliners to be a boondoggle, since they cannot be used where Amtrak needs them most! The trains they run on are not economically viable and never will be. Amtrak is useful only in densely populated corridors, anywhere else and, well I can't go there.I have to take the more David Gunn like view. The value of transportation is in the network and not any particular leg of it. In my life I have been fortunate to ride on virtually all the transcontinental routes in North America both pre and post Amtrak. I've also made innumerable trips on the NEC and the Florida trains and a trip on Auto Train. The reasons that many routes are not more viable are many, but when you consider all, there is only one reason to the customer who is the reason the system exists. Amtrak cannot provide a viable transportation choice to most travellers. Even on trains such as the Crescent which I use at least twice a year on business over much of its route there is only a single train each day (in each direction) over much of the route and there is a general lack of reliability and timekeeping for a number of reasons (freight delays, equipment problems, weather, etc). Funny, that back in the old days the railroads could keep the varnish running...LC
******************************************************************
True, but I can't help thinking of all those years of all those Boy Scouts who took the El Cap to Philmont camp. They automatically thought that hi-level coaches were "the norm." Given the look of most new commuter equipment west of the Alleghenies, they were ahead of their time!
The first two high-level coaches were ATSF 526-527, which were built as prototypes around 1955 and were assigned to the El Capitan to gauge customer reactions. They can be distinguished by sides canted slightly inward at the window line. Customer reaction was obviously favorable and orders were placed to re-equip the El Capitan shortly afterward.
The El Capitan was running about 16 standard-level cars at the time and the high-levels were seen as a way of reducing train length without reducing capacity or amenities.
Paul, I seem to have read somewhere that the original reason for the combo car at the end of the "Fast Mail" was due to a Kansas law that required all trains going through that state have accomadations for passengers whether they carried them or not. They were a "Token" ad on.
Dick
Texas Chief