I believe most if not all of the Heritage equipment has been sold. The exceptions include the Heritage diners and a full-length dome car that usually lives out West.
Eric
A better use for those old cars may be for Baggage. They are needed on Superliner LD trains. Perhaps Amtrak should build some HEP/Cabbage cars?
When you consider the Superliner 1 & Amfleet are 30yrs old, it's time for Amtrak to buy new. I understand Sen Durbin has a new bill to rebuild the US passenger car industry.
There's no question Amtrak needs to buy something new soon. Perhaps someone could build new cars in a older design but with updated mechanicals? There ought to be much more efficient lighting packages available.
I've wrestled with the question of new Amtrak equipment. The answer may be that one size does not fit all. Six issues need to be addressed.
Let's hold off on replacing things until they can keep up. As passenger rates increase, the LAST thing to be doing is removing cars. The problem with Heritage is the Superliners (accesiblity). But the Heritages are a fast way to get a temporary fix out. In my model railroad design, I have a third party company that takes old coaxches collecting dust in museums and redoes them for use. Maybe Amtrak should look into this idea, or even renting already useable cars off of Museums, at least until there can be more regular coaches, Superliner or whatever. I'd suggest taking a look at the Supers first, as a lot of trains use them. I personally would consider some more Tranistion Sleepers as well. Because until the new rise levels out, you might need the ability to tack on single level cars as needed. But the bottom line is, they need more equipment last month. What they really want is money.
BTW: Amtrak Californi as at least partially funded by CA. So Regional considerations are out. And they;ll need a whole heck of a lot more than 6.
-Morgan
I don't think anyone else mentioned it, but Amtrak dropped the Heritage sleepers because they couldn't be easily retrofitted to retenetion toilet systems.
Structurally and mechanically there was not reason they couldn't continue in service indefinitely.
Economically, they are not as attractive as the Superliners and Viewliners - less capacity for nearly the same wt. and complexity.
How about getting those out of service Amfleet back in service as a first step?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Don -- I incurred the scorn of Samantha for suggesting that the size of the bad-ordered or dead-lined Amcoach fleet should be made public knowledge to guide opinion makers in the advocacy community rather than being reserved for "need-to-know" members of state DOT agencies and the like.
Samantha was of the opinion that the bad-ordered or dead line fleet was only about 20 cars or so. Someone else on another thread counted 86 cars parked at Beech Grove using Google Earth.
You had indicated that there was a somewhat larger pool of Amfleets "off the active-duty roster" as they say in the NFL, put there not to incur the cost of FRA inspections and so on. Kind of like telling DMV that Dad's old van is only driven on the farm or kept in the barn and not taken on public roads.
How many cars are we talking about, and what kind of money to put them in service? Samantha indicated that CalTrans negotiated for a couple Superliners (to match their high-level gangway Surfliners) and is paying a million a piece for rebuilding. Were those wrecked Superliners you suppose, or is a major overhaul going to cost a cool million in a day when a new one might be 3 million or more, if you could get anyone to build one in low quantities?
As to Heritage Sleepers, my understanding is that VIA Canada has a lot of them. Do the bathrooms contribute to the environment in the manner of the moose or the elk, or have they been outfited with retention tanks?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
"Scorn" means: 1) open dislike and disrespect or derision often mixed with indignation; 2) an expression of contempt or derision, or 3) an object of extreme disdain, contempt, or derision.
I don't think anything that I said about making bad order car information available to the general public fits the definition of scorn. I said, in a nutshell, that Amtrak did not have an obligation make this information available to people who did not have a need to know it. Moreover, I said that people with a legitimate need to know the information could get it through proper channels. And I pointed out in a follow-up posting some of the incremental cost that Amtrak could incur if it posted the information in an open net.
I did not say anything about the number of bad order cars because I don't have that information. I did, however, say that according to Amtrak's monthly operating report, during May 2008 approximately 12.4 per cent of the passenger car fleet was out of service and, moreover, for the fiscal year to date, the average percentage of bad order cars was about 14 per cent.
Amtrak may get funding to repair some damaged, out of service Amfleet cars thanks to Sen. Durbin (D-IL).
Previous writers have pointed out why Heritage cars are an unlikely source of relief.
Samantha wrote: "Scorn" means: 1) open dislike and disrespect or derision often mixed with indignation; 2) an expression of contempt or derision, or 3) an object of extreme disdain, contempt, or derision.I don't think anything that I said about making bad order car information available to the general public fits the definition of scorn. I said, in a nutshell, that Amtrak did not have an obligation make this information available to people who did not have a need to know it. Moreover, I said that people with a legitimate need to know the information could get it through proper channels. And I pointed out in a follow-up posting some of the incremental cost that Amtrak could incur if it posted the information in an open net. I did not say anything about the number of bad order cars because I don't have that information. I did, however, say that according to Amtrak's monthly operating report, during May 2008 approximately 12.4 per cent of the passenger car fleet was out of service and, moreover, for the fiscal year to date, the average percentage of bad order cars was about 14 per cent.
I'm going to have to check, but I suspect the bad order % probably excludes "stored bad order". Stored cars are typically not counted in RR fleet availability metrics.
And 12.4% out of service is a very high number!
HarveyK400 wrote: Amtrak may get funding to repair some damaged, out of service Amfleet cars thanks to Sen. Durbin (D-IL).Previous writers have pointed out why Heritage cars are an unlikely source of relief.Few, if any, coaches are in Amtrak's hands.Conversion of sleepers to coaches also costly, including need to buy seats and to retro-fit with retention toilet and wheelchair lift, just in case anyone is wondering.Returning cars to service is a stop-gap measure to enhance capacity for existing services and allows the fastest implementaion. This does not address in any significant way the needs for new equipment for service expansion or for more appropriate equipment for the service environment.
Returning cars to service is a stop-gap measure to enhance capacity for existing services and allows the fastest implementaion. This does not address in any significant way the needs for new equipment for service expansion or for more appropriate equipment for the service environment.
The opportunity to attract new riders to existing trains is right now! ...if it isn't too late already. The price of gasoline is dropping now - the tide is starting to go out.
This is the time to catch the wave by getting those out of service cars back in action, then figure out what new equipment you need to retain them and grow some more.
Spent some time along the coast on vacation, hence the ocean metaphors...
" Amtrak should rebuild the old Heritage Budd Coaches and Sleepers so they can relieve crowding on most of the Amtrak trains."
For the first eights months of FY 2008 Amtrak carried approximately 18.4 million passengers. Of these 376,539 or 2.04 per cent booked space in a sleeping car. This percentage is in line with the ratio of sleeping car to coach and business class passengers for the FY ended September 30, 2007.
The average system wide load factor through the end of May was 49.2 per cent, up from 46.2 per cent for the corresponding 2007 period. Ridership for the first eight months of FY 2008 was up 10.9 per cent over 2007. The figures for each route vary.
The average load factors, as examples, were 63.9 per cent for the Acela; 52.6 per cent for the Northeast Corridor; 35.9 per cent for the Hiawatha's; 34.5 per cent for the Keystone service; 44.2 per cent for the St. Louis service; 35.1 per cent for the Empire trains; 33.8 per cent for the Pacific Surfliners, and 28 per cent for the Capitols.
Clearly, on some routes, for select trains, on certain days, i.e. Friday and Sunday nights, the load factors may approach or even exceed 100 per cent. In many instances the high load factor may only exist for a relatively short distance. For example, the load factor on trains between New York and Philadelphia is higher than the load factor south of Philly. Also the load factor between New York and Albany or Chicago and Springfield tends to be higher than the load factor west of Albany or south of Springfield.
To hear some reporters tell it Amtrak is busting at the seams. But the average load factors don't support the story.
The problem requires further analysis. The question is when, where, how often, and to what extent does the bursting at the seams occur?
If all the trains departing Chicago, for example, between 3:00 and 6:00 p.m. on a Friday are sold out, one might conclude that Amtrak should add more equipment to handle the overflow. But what if the overflow is only six passengers, on average, and the capacity load was only for the first one or two segments of the trip? Adding addition equipment would not be a good management decision. Or what if some of the people who could not get on the 4:00 p.m. train could catch a train at 7:00 p.m. to get to their desired destination. Again, adding more equipment would not be a good idea; a better idea would be to provide enough incentive pricing to persuade some of the passengers who would like to take the 4:00 p.m. train to opt for the 7:00 p.m. train. There are, of course, numerous scenarios to examine, but concluding that Amtrak needs more equipment may be premature.
For the FY ended September 30, 2007, Amtrak's debt stood at $3.3 billion. This is the unamortized debt incurred by Amtrak to purchase equipment, right-of-way, and facilities. This is for an organization that has lost a total of $22.9 billion since its inception.
Given these numbers, it is difficult to see that Amtrak has a demonstrable need to purchase new equipment; it may have a need to repair and restore some of its out of service cars for corridor trains that are experiencing high loads factors at select times.
It is equally difficult to see where it will get the money for new equipment, unless it uses some of the anticipated increase in federal funds to under write the equipment acquisition. It certainly won't be able to generate the funds from operations.
Amtrak should start running trains like THIS!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4-Bh4DNhu8
My train videos - http://www.youtube.com/user/karldotcom
Samantha:
As you know I am a supporter of rail however you bring out the problems of load factors that I have only alluded to. By not knowing what european load factors are and only travelled them I can only speculate as follows. First the lack of periodic service on routes severly limits the people who can travel and that causes certain legs to be oversold. The old method of the BN skip stops has many advantages that may be applied to certain routes. Next is the inherrent lack of riders on certain legs that is not addressed at all. Southern RR used to run the Cresent south of Atlanta on three days of the week. The only time of overloads was at mardi gras time and they would sometimes run a second section then. At first AMTRAK would take off 1 or 2 coaches in Atlanta southbound with their daily service. However now that is no longer the case. (Problems with costs switching out and in I was told). The other end of the Cresent from Charlottesville - Washington being sold out has been addressed here many times. If Virginia gets the second train Charlottesville - Wash in place maybe that leg could be limited to not allow local passengers on the Cresent and increase the whole load factor of the train end to end. This is also a problem on the Florida route.
You cited the NEC and ACELA and those figures lean towards my conclusion. Not knowing enough about the other routes their choke points are hard to know. Since you were in the airline business you remember how multiple stop routes will have the same type choke points which I believe led to hub and spoke systems to balance available seats to demand. Believe it or not the airline load factors in the 1960 and 70s was in the low 60% range and off season would be below 50% (sound familiar?). But peak holidays would approach 90%.
Now if the out of service equipment that is not in running condition is upgraded and used on peak days only the equipment can be kept on running condition and the short haul passengers loaded on this equipment as you stated. Second the crafts need to work to keep switching costs down and keep the choke points supplied with capacity. Maybe at outlying points an agent can be qualified to move dropped and added equipment with a track mobile. Of course this would require some track modifications to only add a single stub end track at the station end where the cars would be added to another train.(wouldn't work everywhere)
Certainly, it doesn't pay to own an extra coach if it's only going to make one trip on Friday PM and one trip on Sunday each week.
But, what if you planned to have 100% of your fleet available on Friday afternoons and Sundays. That is, you don't plan to do any scheduled maintenance on those days. Further, you plan your bad order repairs to insure they are complete by Friday afternoon each week.
Certainly, some cars will drop out of service unexpectedly, but instead of having 12% of your fleet in the shop on Friday PM, maybe you could manage it down to 3% or so.
Does Amtrak operate this way now or do they tend to staff their shops to run M-F, 8-4?
A bill recently introduced in Congress would appoint a committee to write specifications for the purchase of new passenger cars. The committee would consist of various interested parties, such as the FRA, as well as Amtrak representatives.
It isn't clear to me if they are talking about the NE corridor, Superliner compatible or high speed equipment. Perhaps they deliberately didn't specify that. It will be interesting to see what (if anything) comes of it.
oltmannd wrote: Certainly, it doesn't pay to own an extra coach if it's only going to make one trip on Friday PM and one trip on Sunday each week.But, what if you planned to have 100% of your fleet available on Friday afternoons and Sundays. That is, you don't plan to do any scheduled maintenance on those days. Further, you plan your bad order repairs to insure they are complete by Friday afternoon each week.Certainly, some cars will drop out of service unexpectedly, but instead of having 12% of your fleet in the shop on Friday PM, maybe you could manage it down to 3% or so.Does Amtrak operate this way now or do they tend to staff their shops to run M-F, 8-4?
Judging by Beech Grove, which is near me, M-F, 8-4. Saturdays as needed.
Dakguy201 wrote: A bill recently introduced in Congress would appoint a committee to write specifications for the purchase of new passenger cars. The committee would consist of various interested parties, such as the FRA, as well as Amtrak representatives.It isn't clear to me if they are talking about the NE corridor, Superliner compatible or high speed equipment. Perhaps they deliberately didn't specify that. It will be interesting to see what (if anything) comes of it.
The FRA has a seat at the table to write specs? Gadzooks! This is not good....
I understand that there are multiple departments within the FRA. One department of FRA is analogous to the safety arm of FAA -- being the safety cop. Another department is a kind of railroad version of NACA/NASA. Besides running the Space Shuttle, NASA still has the function of doing aeronautical research on the next generation fuel-efficient turbofan jet engine, fins that you can stick on a wing to make it lower drag and more fuel efficient, and so on. The FRA equivalent is taking trains down to the contractor-run facility in Pueblo, Colorado to evaluate the ride quality, tracking stability, and other attributes of new train designs, which they have been doing for some time now.
On the other hand, this committee thing seems a little scary. That kind of process got us the original Metroliner along with the more recent Acela.
Wasn't the acquisition of the Amfleet along with the AIM-7 electric locomotive essentially a Paul Reistrup decision? I don't think there was any committee and drafting of specs. Someone in charge said, the Metroliner has a pretty good carbody and someone in Philly knows how to make it. Lets just build Metroliner trailers, and by the way, these folks in Sweden have this hot rod electric locomotive, so lets get a bunch of those. We will hook a few of those cars behind one of those locomotives, and we will have ourselves a Metroliner that won't be parked in the car barn the whole time.
Ooooh, drafting of specs, that sounds scary. Let's get the advocacy community involved when we are at this, and we will end up with the rail counterpart to "The Homer" (the Simpsons TV cartoon episode where Homer Simpson gets to design his idea of the perfect car).
If I could influence this specification process, and if the Amcoach is a "Metroliner shell", my vote would go for a "United Aircraft TurboTrain shell."
What I am talking about is something 1) low floor for the ADA access from non high-level platforms, 2) streamlined and light weight for energy saving, 3) passive tilt to get the curve speed advantage without the maintenance of an active tilt system, 4) ditches the fuel thirsty and tempermental turbines, and besides, the thing is so lightweight that the Canadian Turbo accelerated better behind a lone FP-9 the times they had turbine breakdowns, 5) have the Alan Cripe clamshell end door arrangement so these articulated trainsets can be run in multiple or in consists with Horizon or Amfleet, and 6) domes!
I have heard second-hand with some corroboration on Google Groups that Alan Cripe's people, he had this company called Trailblazer Technologies, were going around to advocacy groups in the mid 1990's, a time when people throught the Midwest Regional Rail Intiative would go through, promoting something they called the Fastracker DMT, essentially a Diesel MU version of the TurboTrain. As to the grade-crossing protection issue, they were showing a video of a grade crossing accident involving a TurboTrain, where the nose on that thing split a dump truck in two.
If anything, what the Alan Cripe clamshell door gives you is a streamlined and reinforced cab-car end that can retract the streamlined fairing (the clamshell doors) and allow coupling with a weather-protected diaphragm walkway to an adjoining element of a consist. People are focused on the turbine aspect of the TurboTrain, but the turbines were only one innovation of many and perhaps the weakest part to the TurboTrain.
The TurboTrain is a good starting point for most Midwest routes.
Wasn;t the Turbo also rated at something like a 98% effency rating?
HarveyK400 wrote: The TurboTrain is a good starting point for most Midwest routes.Do we want an aluminum shell and frame instead of stainless steel? What are the pros and cons?My preference would be for the Train-X configuration with an end vestibule every other car rather than a center door.I think the TurboTrain intermediate cars had a full axle, a hollow tube - not solid, that would track better with a conical wheel profile without the wear associated with Talgo.I can go along with the clam-shell end doors.I definitely like the cab location for protection from grade crossing collisions; but my vote is for the 50's GM AeroTrain locomotive styling.Can a diesel be provided with enough power and without a lot of weight?Maybe the power car should be in the middle of the train in order that the front cars clean the rail for better adhesion. A diesel may be too tall for a passenger dome above it, so don't get too excited.Would a double-deck configuration require a (power dome) 2-axle truck instead of a single axle?Could the passive tilt mechanism be adapted for a higher, heavier car?The Xplorer version of Train-X was designed to be uncoupled with a retractable dolly wheel to hold up the car end.
I think the answer for power might be something akin to these gen set switchers that are cropping up all over the place. Just plop in as many as you need for the service and bring them on and off line as needed while in use. With the high adhesion possible from AC traction, you wouldn't need very many powered axles to get good acceleration, either.
The only thing I don't like about putting the doors in the middle of the cars is that you're giving up the part of the car with the best ride quality with those seats going to the part of the car with the worst ride.
Talgo famously has a "hollow axle" -- actually a pair of wheel bearings connected by a u-shaped cross member. The TurboTrain patents show a solid axle with tapered wheels, and if there is any info out there to suggest that TurboTrain didn't do this, I am highly interested in seeing this.
As to the gen-set concept, the TurboTrain had modular bays for adding or subtracting turbines to the drive train as needed, and I suppose there is no reason that high-speed truck Diesels of the type used on the Colorado Railcars DMU could not be substituted. Alan Cripe had this in mind with his Fastracker DMT proposal shortly before his passing in the mid 1990's.
As far as a separate locomotive, there is considerable weight and energy saving to be had for going with DMU. If a separate locomotive is used for the usual reasons -- FRA inspections, separate maintenance facilities for locomotives and cars, and so on -- I hope that they go with some kind of protected cab car arrangement like Alan Cripe's TurboTrain nose instead of a dummy locomotive such as the NPCC that adds so much extra weight.
In terms of a view out of a dome section, the Turbo dome is far enough back from the nose that you still can see out the front with a locomotive coupled -- you won't see directly ahead but you will be able to see frontwards in a vision cone -- like the Draper Taper principle on Canadian cowl units and backing visibility.
There is also the possiblity of a low profile passenger Diesel. ALCo made such a thing back in the day as a steam generator equiped RS-1 road switcher; more recently, the ALCo-MLW LRC locomotive was low profile.
I know that visibility out of a dome is maybe more a railfan thing than anything else, but thinking along those lines, there is always the possiblity of a road switcher locomotive with a full-width safety cab -- like the Amtrak Pepsi Can GE's that preceded the Genesis. A road switcher has definite advantages in terms of access to the Diesel for maintenance, and with the right application of rounded corners to the cab and the end of the car it is mated to, this arrangement could be properly streamlined.
What would be cool even if they didn't go for the guided axles would be to have a kind of streamlined dome-cab car with the TurboTrain style Plexi partitions so you could see out the front, and to couple one of these to the end of each corridor consist. Combined with a safety cab with hood locomotive, I think there would be plenty of visibility.
As to the passive banking system, no, it is not restricted to guided-axle, although guided axle gives you a lower center of gravity for more margin against overturning with the elevated roll center required for passive banking. The TurboTrain had the same four bar linkage remote roll center tilt on the Power Dome Cars with 2-axle trucks as it had on the guided axles, although the turbines below the domes put weight down low to keep down the center of gravity.
Hitachi also makes a semi-active tilt 4-axle coach for 3.5 foot narrow gauge. They have a patent for a roller truck bolster with the same kind of high roll center you get with the TurboTrain. The system uses air cylinders so it is quicker reacting to curves than passive banking, although they point out they still have passive tilt if the air cylinders are not activated owing to shutdown of the control system.
The combination of narrow gauge with the elevated roll center is a problem with the train flopping off the tracks. They had an accident in Australia a couple years ago where a train operator went sailing into a curve way over the posted speed restriction, and the thing flopped over on its side in the type of accident you can have on a model railroad. Otherwise, trains are pretty hard to flip over, even with tall cars and in derailment situations.
If the powers that be cannot be interested in the Alan Cripe design, or Talgo, I hope they give serious consideration to the Hitachi tilt train, with some kind of "safety cab" cab car instead of that overweight NPCC. Standard gauge should provide added margin against overturning.
Whatever they do, if they are at all serious about eventual 110 MPH operation, that they give serious consideration to streamlining (aero drag) and weight (energy lost to braking from those higher speeds). If they go with tilt, I hope they consider passive systems on account of the complexity of active tilt trains, and I also hope that they thoroughly research the loading gauge before having another Acela oops.
Paul,
I too am a great fan of the Turbos having made many trips between Montreal and Toronto when they were in service. I was always fortunate enough to ride Turbo Club and always managed to get a seat in the dome. The Turbo Club Dome lead from Toronto to Montreal and trailed from Montreal to Toronto. I feel they were retired prematurely as the turbine problems were being worked out. Even when occasionally pulled by a GMD FP9A or a MLW FPA4 they arrived on time almost to the minute.
I believe CN took better care of the Turbos than Via Rail and still cannot understand their early retirement. The ride was very comfortable and pleasant. Meals catered by Cara were served airline style at your seat in Turbo Club and since Cara was the caterer to Air Canada all in all the food wasn't bad.
I hope the next generation of passenger equipment in the US uses some common sense. I have ridden every type of equipment but Acela that Amtrak has to offer and must say the Amtrak California cars have excellent ride qualities better than Superliner 1 by far. The Northwest Talgos are surprizingly comfortable to ride as well. And the old Heritage cars are missed by at least me. What Via Rail has done with there 1950's Budd cars is nothing short of great. I have not sampled the equipment they got from England yet but hopefully next summer.
I for one am disappointed in the cars Amtrak designed as replacement sleepers for the Heritage sleepers. They do not ride comfortably and the old style Pullman rooms were far more comfortable and relaxing.
If Amtrak buys new equipment I hope it is not designed by committee as someone previously mentioned.
Bring back the Turbos, they were great and I don't mean the French or Rohr built ones.
Al - in - Stockton
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.