Amfleet I cars have a vestibule and doors at each end, Amfleet II cars have a vestibule and door at only one end, so I'm not sure what he means unless he's referring to double doors like gallery coaches and unlike South Shore's single-level coaches.
daveklepper And I think the LIRR should order bilevel mu's.
And I think the LIRR should order bilevel mu's.
Yes!
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
CSSHEGEWISCH Amfleet I cars have a vestibule and doors at each end, Amfleet II cars have a vestibule and door at only one end, so I'm not sure what he means unless he's referring to double doors like gallery coaches and unlike South Shore's single-level coaches.
Amfleet cars have a standard vestibule at one, or both ends, with a trap, drop steps and door separating it from the interior. (Amfleet II cars actually have a "vestibule" on the blind end - but instead of traps and exterior doors, they have equipment lockers)
The NJT bilevels are structurally built like double-stack well cars. They have a standard height floor at each end with a large sliding door the opens right into the carbody (like the center door on an Arrow or Comet) This area also houses ADA compliant seating and restroom.
From their, you can go down to the lower level in the "well" or up to the upper level.
The NJT cars have regular vestibules, also and can use low level platforms, but they might be superfluous. SEPTA's new Silverliners have carbody side doors that accommodate both platform heights.
As Don has shown, there are solutions to many difficulties. It simply requires the ability (apparently lacking at Amtrak) to look around and adapt. Instead Amtrak remains locked in the past because of attitudes such as "The boss knows" "It's the way we've always done it" "Outsiders don't understand" "Congress says (-------)" --- all of which are preventing progress.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
CSSHEGEWISCHAmfleet I cars have a vestibule and doors at each end, Amfleet II cars have a vestibule and door at only one end,
Mac,
I added a footnote to clarify this point. I was referring to my own experience. John
schlimm As Don has shown, there are solutions to many difficulties. It simply requires the ability (apparently lacking at Amtrak) to look around and adapt. Instead Amtrak remains locked in the past because of attitudes such as "The boss knows" "It's the way we've always done it" "Outsiders don't understand" "Congress says (-------)" --- all of which are preventing progress.
Changing car configurations cost $$$$$$$$. When Congress limits $$$$$$$. What do you do? What is the ROI on the change?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD schlimm As Don has shown, there are solutions to many difficulties. It simply requires the ability (apparently lacking at Amtrak) to look around and adapt. Instead Amtrak remains locked in the past because of attitudes such as "The boss knows" "It's the way we've always done it" "Outsiders don't understand" "Congress says (-------)" --- all of which are preventing progress. Changing car configurations cost $$$$$$$$. When Congress limits $$$$$$$. What do you do? What is the ROI on the change?
The ROI for re-configuring Amfleet (or Horizon) to handle baggage and buying new coaches is better than the ROI for just buying the same number of new baggage cars.
Although, they both are probably negative.
The ROI for 50+ new baggage cars is probably zero, since they generate zero revenue.
Where are you going to place the congressionally mandated gun safes?
Where are they currently on Acela trains? How often are guns checked in? i think it is a red herring.
"Under the policy, which reverses a decade-old ban, beginning Dec. 15, 2010, guns can be brought aboard trains that have checked baggage service." So if no checked baggage, no guns.
schlimm The ROI for 50+ new baggage cars is probably zero, since they generate zero revenue.
No. Less than zero. They cost money to operate.
Yes, you are right. Pretty clearly the potential revenue to offset operating expense for 50 new passenger coaches is a lot better than 50 non-revenue producing baggage cars (or any new diners, lounge cars, dormitories, etc. This is true even if some money is spent to stick a baggage rack at the end of the car on one side, replacing 2 seats.
What abpit tje material handling cars from the express business? Have they all been sold? Seems to me thay could be upgraded with high speed trucks, push-pull train lines, and whatever.
i think they are gone, but the point is we don't need "baggage cars" anymore. There are better ways to deal with passenger luggage.
I went back to the OIG report to see what it says about baggage cars. I could not find a specific reference to "baggage cars." (If anyone else has a reference I would appreciate knowing it). I did find two indirect references. First, the report suggests that as part of its planning process Amtrak should give greater consideration to repurposing cars by using the outer shell and reconstruction the interior. Certainly coaches or other cars could be repurposed into baggage cars. Second, Amtrak should focus on getting the maximum number of passengers into each passenger cars. This suggests setting aside space within passenger cars for luggage by taking away seats is not recommended.
Amtrak generally accepts these ideas in principle but points out an underlying planning problem. It does not have an assured source of funds to do very much long term planning with. In fact, Congress has not even made a final decision on Amtrak's budget for the 2013 fiscal year, a decision which should have been made by October 1 of 2012. And the annual delay in passing a budget is fairly common. This greatly limits the ability of any government agency to plan or to do any more that repeat its current practices. Thus, while Amtrak is familiar with multi level passenger cars and would like to have more of them as the IG recommends the lack of a budget makes this difficult or impossible. In fact Amtrak has done a fair amount of rebuilding current equipment simply because the lack of a budget compels it to repair rather than replace equipment.
Amtrak has requested a guaranteed capital budget for 5 years. Whether or not Congress will agree remains to be seen.
John WR I did find two indirect references. First, the report suggests that as part of its planning process Amtrak should give greater consideration to repurposing cars by using the outer shell and reconstruction the interior. Certainly coaches or other cars could be repurposed into baggage cars.
Yes! But that would be "hard". Buying new, which they did, was "easy".
John WRSecond, Amtrak should focus on getting the maximum number of passengers into each passenger cars. This suggests setting aside space within passenger cars for luggage by taking away seats is not recommended.
Not if you are buying bi-levels! That's the best way to increase seats/car.
Also, if you turned more eastern overnight trains into split day trains, you could decrase the seat pitch since nobody would trying to sleep overnight in a coach. Perhaps for long day trains, you'd set the pitch between the current Amfleet I (~60) and standard NEC Regional seat pitch (~80) - perhaps 70 seats per car?
John WRIt does not have an assured source of funds to do very much long term planning with.
Planning is cheap. DOING is expensive.
John WR In fact Amtrak has done a fair amount of rebuilding current equipment simply because the lack of a budget compels it to repair rather than replace equipment.
In fact Amtrak has done a fair amount of rebuilding current equipment simply because the lack of a budget compels it to repair rather than replace equipment.
Sort of. Repair or replace has been a moot point, but it doesn't mean the "replace" wins just because someone hands you the money. When you have the choice, you need to figure out which is best. I'll grant this is a relatively new concept for Amtrak.
John WRAmtrak has requested a guaranteed capital budget for 5 years.
Good. They should do a revised 5 year plan every year.
oltmanndJohn WRSecond, Amtrak should focus on getting the maximum number of passengers into each passenger cars. This suggests setting aside space within passenger cars for luggage by taking away seats is not recommended.
Taking away two, maybe four seats in a car is not nearly as wasteful as hauling around an 85' non-revenue producing car. Put another way, that baggage car if used as a coach could seat 70; losing 2 seats per coach in an eight car train would be only 16 (32 at most), which is a quarter as much as by using the baggage car. Maybe the problem is that some folks at Amtrak, including the OIG folks, need to spend some time in Europe to see how it should be done. But that would be too hard.
oltmanndPlanning is cheap. DOING is expensive.
Believe me, Don, nothing the Federal Government does is really cheap. But even if it is it is very common for Congress to simply enact continuing resolutions to avoid budget decisions for the current year. This is especially true for a low profile agency like Amtrak. So how do you plan when you don't know even how much money you really ;have now? My experience is that government agencies just don't do that kind of thing.
John
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.