Don,
I think your remarks hit the nail on the bulls eye. Joe Boardman has been at this business for a long time and he sure has to see the political KISS principle. By simplifying Amtrak's structure it will make it harder for Members of Congress to obscure the real issues and that will stay. Also, if services are cut it will make it clearer that these services have an impact on someone and on just who those someones are.
I think your analysis here is pretty brilliant.
John
dakotafredIn Sept., I had the same view of a dancing loco from the observation (lead) car of No. 27 going down the Columbia River. I have a new respect for the workout engine crews get in their line of work!
Off topic but one of the longstanding complaints of Locomotive Engineers is their seats are not designed to cushion against those shocks as are trucker seats and so some of them suffer medical problems down the line as a result.
CJtrainguy oltmannd D.Carleton oltmannd D.CarletonIn another thread I had suggested rebuilding 50 of the 1500 series MHCs into baggage cars by removing and plating over the plug doors, installing two sets of conventional baggage doors and diaphragmed end doors for in-train access. In essence these would be a modern-day economy baggage car. These cars were built new in the 1980s on new GSC trucks. I believe they were cleared for 125 mph operation (unlike the 1400 series MHCs which rode on rebuilt express boxcars trucks) but will have to check my files when I catch up with them. That would be interesting to know.... I'm placing my bet on 90 mph. It would be a good trick to get short cars like that to behave themselves at those speeds. Both batches of MHCs were 61' long. An AEM-7 is 10' shorter and behaves well enough at 125 mph. Whole different deal, locomotives. Somewhere in my library I have video I shot standing in the vestibule of the first passenger car behind the locomotive on a German express train doing about 100mph. I was looking forward through the windows in the end doors at the tail end of the class 103 electric locomotive in front. What struck me in person and again watching the video was how much that locomotive danced around, the front of it moving both side to side and up and down. If the passenger cars bounced that much, it would not be a pleasant ride. And that was a German class 103, an engine built for high speed.
oltmannd D.Carleton oltmannd D.CarletonIn another thread I had suggested rebuilding 50 of the 1500 series MHCs into baggage cars by removing and plating over the plug doors, installing two sets of conventional baggage doors and diaphragmed end doors for in-train access. In essence these would be a modern-day economy baggage car. These cars were built new in the 1980s on new GSC trucks. I believe they were cleared for 125 mph operation (unlike the 1400 series MHCs which rode on rebuilt express boxcars trucks) but will have to check my files when I catch up with them. That would be interesting to know.... I'm placing my bet on 90 mph. It would be a good trick to get short cars like that to behave themselves at those speeds. Both batches of MHCs were 61' long. An AEM-7 is 10' shorter and behaves well enough at 125 mph. Whole different deal, locomotives.
D.Carleton oltmannd D.CarletonIn another thread I had suggested rebuilding 50 of the 1500 series MHCs into baggage cars by removing and plating over the plug doors, installing two sets of conventional baggage doors and diaphragmed end doors for in-train access. In essence these would be a modern-day economy baggage car. These cars were built new in the 1980s on new GSC trucks. I believe they were cleared for 125 mph operation (unlike the 1400 series MHCs which rode on rebuilt express boxcars trucks) but will have to check my files when I catch up with them. That would be interesting to know.... I'm placing my bet on 90 mph. It would be a good trick to get short cars like that to behave themselves at those speeds. Both batches of MHCs were 61' long. An AEM-7 is 10' shorter and behaves well enough at 125 mph.
oltmannd D.CarletonIn another thread I had suggested rebuilding 50 of the 1500 series MHCs into baggage cars by removing and plating over the plug doors, installing two sets of conventional baggage doors and diaphragmed end doors for in-train access. In essence these would be a modern-day economy baggage car. These cars were built new in the 1980s on new GSC trucks. I believe they were cleared for 125 mph operation (unlike the 1400 series MHCs which rode on rebuilt express boxcars trucks) but will have to check my files when I catch up with them. That would be interesting to know.... I'm placing my bet on 90 mph. It would be a good trick to get short cars like that to behave themselves at those speeds.
D.CarletonIn another thread I had suggested rebuilding 50 of the 1500 series MHCs into baggage cars by removing and plating over the plug doors, installing two sets of conventional baggage doors and diaphragmed end doors for in-train access. In essence these would be a modern-day economy baggage car. These cars were built new in the 1980s on new GSC trucks. I believe they were cleared for 125 mph operation (unlike the 1400 series MHCs which rode on rebuilt express boxcars trucks) but will have to check my files when I catch up with them.
That would be interesting to know.... I'm placing my bet on 90 mph. It would be a good trick to get short cars like that to behave themselves at those speeds.
Whole different deal, locomotives.
Somewhere in my library I have video I shot standing in the vestibule of the first passenger car behind the locomotive on a German express train doing about 100mph. I was looking forward through the windows in the end doors at the tail end of the class 103 electric locomotive in front. What struck me in person and again watching the video was how much that locomotive danced around, the front of it moving both side to side and up and down. If the passenger cars bounced that much, it would not be a pleasant ride. And that was a German class 103, an engine built for high speed.
In Sept., I had the same view of a dancing loco from the observation (lead) car of No. 27 going down the Columbia River. I have a new respect for the workout engine crews get in their line of work!
D.Carleton Okay, how so? Amtrak intends to convert some of these into cab cars upon retirement.
Okay, how so? Amtrak intends to convert some of these into cab cars upon retirement.
The Amtrak F40PH converted cab cars retain their Locomotive suspension and have a whole lot of Concrete poured in them to sub partially for the weight of the missing Diesel. I think they do the concrete also to improve crashworthiness but I am not sure on the latter point.
oltmannd D.Carleton Both batches of MHCs were 61' long. An AEM-7 is 10' shorter and behaves well enough at 125 mph. Whole different deal, locomotives.
D.Carleton Both batches of MHCs were 61' long. An AEM-7 is 10' shorter and behaves well enough at 125 mph.
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
CJtrainguy D.Carleton I still agree with the original premise, the Viewliner platform did not need to be utilized for baggage cars. Maybe an updated version of this: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/pictures/44584/aSP%20x6772-1971b%20baggage%20car.jpg At least we'll have some pretty baggage cars for a while. Since new baggage cars are a given — what platform should they be built on? The Viewliner is in production. Using that platform allows for sharing many components, with just some additional expense for modifications needed for a baggage car, as detailed elsewhere in this thread. Seems a cost effective way to do it. Or as you suggest, dust off some old plans from a bygone era, update them for today's standards and produce what amounts to a limited run series, no larger than the number of baggage cars in this order. I am guessing the per each price would be correspondingly higher. I think I see why the new baggage cars are Viewliner style.
D.Carleton I still agree with the original premise, the Viewliner platform did not need to be utilized for baggage cars. Maybe an updated version of this: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/pictures/44584/aSP%20x6772-1971b%20baggage%20car.jpg At least we'll have some pretty baggage cars for a while.
I still agree with the original premise, the Viewliner platform did not need to be utilized for baggage cars. Maybe an updated version of this: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/pictures/44584/aSP%20x6772-1971b%20baggage%20car.jpg
At least we'll have some pretty baggage cars for a while.
Since new baggage cars are a given — what platform should they be built on?
The Viewliner is in production. Using that platform allows for sharing many components, with just some additional expense for modifications needed for a baggage car, as detailed elsewhere in this thread. Seems a cost effective way to do it.
Or as you suggest, dust off some old plans from a bygone era, update them for today's standards and produce what amounts to a limited run series, no larger than the number of baggage cars in this order. I am guessing the per each price would be correspondingly higher.
I think I see why the new baggage cars are Viewliner style.
In another thread I had suggested rebuilding 50 of the 1500 series MHCs into baggage cars by removing and plating over the plug doors, installing two sets of conventional baggage doors and diaphragmed end doors for in-train access. In essence these would be a modern-day economy baggage car. These cars were built new in the 1980s on new GSC trucks. I believe they were cleared for 125 mph operation (unlike the 1400 series MHCs which rode on rebuilt express boxcars trucks) but will have to check my files when I catch up with them. They had comm lines but not MU lines so they too would have to be added. These and all of Amtrak's Mail & Express boxcars became "persona non grata" on the railroads when that program imploded so it's probably a moot point. Imagine if they had been able to repurpose existing vehicles into baggage cars. Add the cost of the conversion plus the price difference between a new baggage and a new sleeper minus the cost of 50 new baggage cars. Instead of 50 new baggage cars we could have had a smaller amount, maybe 35 or 40, of revenue cars added to what's already being delivered.
oltmannd Did you notice the baggage end of the bag-dorms has stiffer springs (painted red)? That would be the predominant difference between a baggage car and a non-baggage car's structure.
Did you notice the baggage end of the bag-dorms has stiffer springs (painted red)? That would be the predominant difference between a baggage car and a non-baggage car's structure.
Well, having consulted with one of my peers (who has been doing this a lot longer than I) the differences between baggage cars and everything else was made plain. The center sill is not the issue. Aside from the thicker floors and heavier springs it is the side sills which need reinforcement especially around the doors. Otherwise, yes, they are the same. This has been an educational exercise, thank you. I still agree with the original premise, the Viewliner platform did not need to be utilized for baggage cars. Maybe an updated version of this: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/pictures/44584/aSP%20x6772-1971b%20baggage%20car.jpg
Paul, thanks for your explanation, it goest a long way to answering some long-held questions.
^^^ Which brings me to another point I neglected to mention from my recent experience on the Capitol Limited, one of the sleepers had wheels with flat spots on it..................leading to the notorious sound of whop-whop-whop-whop-whop, at night when I was drifting off to sleep. Happily I was in a neighboring car.
I wonder though now that they are shifting to high speed if they will prioritize fixing flat spots or just reduce the speed of the train in HSR trackage areas............or if it even matters with HSR?
The top truck is for the Superliner I and is the earlier design.
The bottom truck is for the Superliner II and is the later design.
The top, earlier design was influenced by European and especially British research into higher speed passenger trains. This effort to place the design of train cars that can safely and comfortably operate at high speeds on a scientific-theoretical basis rather than simple trial and error, emphasized the need for the "bogie" (truck in American usage) to precisely control the resistance offered to the wheelset. This resistance needs to counteract the tendency of the pair of wheels connected by a solid axle to oversteer, resulting in dangerous levels of "hunting" or "nosing" at speed. Mild levels of such hunting are experienced by the passengers as side-to-side sway.
What makes this earlier Superliner truck different is that it connects the axle box to the truck frame through an articulated link as seen in the picture. This type of design is characteristic of automotive practice -- the rear suspension in my Ford Taurus has similar links that stabilize the pointing direction of the back wheels. It is believed that such a suspension design can better control the amount of resistance of change in direction of the axle relative to the truck frame. It is meant to have that resistance not degrade with wear of the truck over time.
The bottom design from the Superliner II is more characteristic of U.S. passenger train practice. It is sometimes called a "pedestal" truck as the axle boxes are guided by being allowed to slide in "pedestal" guides in the main truck frame. You can also see this in the second picture.
This type of truck design is preferred by Amtrak and its maintenance shops for some reason. Maybe they are more accustomed to knowing how to repair and maintain it. This design is generally not used in higher-speed trains and certainly not in HSR. It is more difficult to control the amount of resistance to wheelset self steer with this design, and this design is regarded as being particularly bad as the axle box guides wear, lowering the critical speed and making the train car run much more roughly.
I have asked people who ride Amtrak a lot and have encountered 'bad track" whether it is really the track or it is the fault of the wheelsets and trucks. On a number of occasions I have asked whether the bad riding is encountered in Amfleet (the resistance of the wheelset to turning is controlled by a synthetic rubber slab in the Budd "Pioneer III" truck design according to Don Oltmann -- Pioneer I was the Pioneer Zephyr whereas Pioneer III was an experimental lighweight train car of more conventional design that first had the Amfleet truck), by the automotive-style links as in Superliner I, or the pedestal-style truck in Superliner II.
One thing Don Oltmann mentioned is something called "Franklin wedges." These are gadgets used in late-era steam to counteract the wear of axles sliding in pedestal guides as do the drivers on a steam locomotive. If such appliances can be used in a passenger car truck, this may explain why latter-day pedestal truck designs are indeed qualified for 125 MPH operation whereas older pedestal-truck baggage cars are not.
The superior truck is the one that can offer the proper level of resistance between the wheelset and the truck frame to operate at the speeds required, do so without unduly degrading over time, and be something the Amtrak shops are able to work with. A yet better truck design may be a forced-steer radial truck where, similar to the Talgo guided axles, the wheelsets are guided into the "radial" direction in relation to the curve by the pivoting of the truck but still have resistance from deviating from this direction. Such a truck may reduce wheel wear, especially on sharper curves while allowing for smooth, safe high-speed operation. This advantage has to be weighed against initial cost as well as more parts to maintain.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
oltmannd D.Carleton I was re-reviewing Bob Johnston's pictures from the CAF USA open house when this photo caught my eye: http://trn.trains.com/~/media/Images/Railroad%20News/News%20Wire/2013/11/IMG_7006.jpg?mw=980 The truck has the General Steel Castings mark. I was under the impression that these castings were now made by Columbus Castings, f.k.a. Buckeye Steel Castings. Are they recycling trucks from older equipment (Metroliners, 1500 series MHCs)? Recycling truck castings is a common occurrence in the locomotive purchasing world. They are truly made "good as new" by building up worn areas with weld, machining and then soaking in an oven to normalize/relieve any residual stress from fatigue or welding. Not one iota of difference in performance or life from new for doing this. It's a smart, cost saving move.
D.Carleton I was re-reviewing Bob Johnston's pictures from the CAF USA open house when this photo caught my eye: http://trn.trains.com/~/media/Images/Railroad%20News/News%20Wire/2013/11/IMG_7006.jpg?mw=980 The truck has the General Steel Castings mark. I was under the impression that these castings were now made by Columbus Castings, f.k.a. Buckeye Steel Castings. Are they recycling trucks from older equipment (Metroliners, 1500 series MHCs)?
I was re-reviewing Bob Johnston's pictures from the CAF USA open house when this photo caught my eye: http://trn.trains.com/~/media/Images/Railroad%20News/News%20Wire/2013/11/IMG_7006.jpg?mw=980
The truck has the General Steel Castings mark. I was under the impression that these castings were now made by Columbus Castings, f.k.a. Buckeye Steel Castings. Are they recycling trucks from older equipment (Metroliners, 1500 series MHCs)?
Recycling truck castings is a common occurrence in the locomotive purchasing world. They are truly made "good as new" by building up worn areas with weld, machining and then soaking in an oven to normalize/relieve any residual stress from fatigue or welding. Not one iota of difference in performance or life from new for doing this.
It's a smart, cost saving move.
The CZ always backed into DUS, because that is the way the tracks are arranged. But with all the money going into the "New" DUS, any chance of power switches?
I guess I was criticized for getting too political.
So . . . how bout them Packers!
Apology accepted. And now back to our regularly scheduled programing.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
blue streak 1 oltmannd The things that will improve the LD trains are not generally the same kinds of things that will improve corridor trains. We could make a list...but I think it's fair to say that frequency and speed improve corridors - that's typically track, signalling and equipment - capital. For LD trains, it's mostly about operations given that speed and frequency are what they are and are hard to change. So, the major point of attack is from the route managers trying to control costs and boost revenue with the existing assets. If lengthening the LD trains can improve the bottom line, and the incremental net revenue can support the cost to acquire some equipment, this will be a much easier sale. Readers: ---- IMHO Don is very correct. The only thing to add is taking care of slow areas. Extra CPs is one example such as been done on BNSF and the delayed CSX work north of Selma , NC, But it is the first & last miles into terminals that delay all trains at many locations.. Mostly improvements would help short distance trains but for example once CHI terminal delays are reduced both types will benefit. ( Englewood and grand crossing as 2 examples ). Other locations are WASH, BON, STL, PDX, Oakland, LAX (if the south approach is completed ). edit -- one example of speed ups is the CLT -- Greensboro route that has helped both NC trains and the Crescent. My trip on the Crescent made up ~ 30 minutes between the 2 stations. o
oltmannd The things that will improve the LD trains are not generally the same kinds of things that will improve corridor trains. We could make a list...but I think it's fair to say that frequency and speed improve corridors - that's typically track, signalling and equipment - capital. For LD trains, it's mostly about operations given that speed and frequency are what they are and are hard to change. So, the major point of attack is from the route managers trying to control costs and boost revenue with the existing assets. If lengthening the LD trains can improve the bottom line, and the incremental net revenue can support the cost to acquire some equipment, this will be a much easier sale.
The things that will improve the LD trains are not generally the same kinds of things that will improve corridor trains.
Readers: ---- IMHO Don is very correct. The only thing to add is taking care of slow areas. Extra CPs is one example such as been done on BNSF and the delayed CSX work north of Selma , NC,
But it is the first & last miles into terminals that delay all trains at many locations.. Mostly improvements would help short distance trains but for example once CHI terminal delays are reduced both types will benefit. ( Englewood and grand crossing as 2 examples ). Other locations are WASH, BON, STL, PDX, Oakland, LAX (if the south approach is completed ).
edit -- one example of speed ups is the CLT -- Greensboro route that has helped both NC trains and the Crescent. My trip on the Crescent made up ~ 30 minutes between the 2 stations.
o
Johnny
oltmannd D.Carleton We've been down this road before during the Downs administration when the company was divided into three Strategic Business Units. David Gunn ended that. One reason for the new "look" and branding: It distinguishes the equipment from similar equipment already in service thus proving to the public that "something" is being done... even though in reality the net gain is practically none. I think this is being done more for political purposes than public perception. If you parse the public statement out, you get "this brand will make the conversation ... clear to our ... stakeholders." Where "stakeholders" is basically Congress and perhaps, local politicians along the route. Amtrak is drawing a bright red, white and blue line around the LD trains. Boardman is clearly walking away from Gunn's "National or nothing" Amtrak, to a "which Amtrak are you talking about?" Amtrak. Amtrak America will have their own management that controls "soup to nuts", their own equipment and their own P&L statement (apparently). So, when the Mica (or other) circus starts up with "Why does your food service lose money?" or "We could give airline tix for what it costs you to take a person from NOL to Chicago", or other hard to defend operation cost issues, Boardman will actually be able to respond in a fashion that make clear what costs what. I don't think he's trying to walking away from the LD network. Clearly, they just spend a boat load of money on baggage cars and crew space... But, having Amtrak operating two distinct major product lines makes it much easier to explain what kind of support each need, what that costs, and what you get. It's about the sales pitch...and not taking a flogging every time you talk to Mica, et. al.
D.Carleton We've been down this road before during the Downs administration when the company was divided into three Strategic Business Units. David Gunn ended that. One reason for the new "look" and branding: It distinguishes the equipment from similar equipment already in service thus proving to the public that "something" is being done... even though in reality the net gain is practically none.
We've been down this road before during the Downs administration when the company was divided into three Strategic Business Units. David Gunn ended that.
One reason for the new "look" and branding: It distinguishes the equipment from similar equipment already in service thus proving to the public that "something" is being done... even though in reality the net gain is practically none.
I think this is being done more for political purposes than public perception. If you parse the public statement out, you get "this brand will make the conversation ... clear to our ... stakeholders." Where "stakeholders" is basically Congress and perhaps, local politicians along the route.
Amtrak is drawing a bright red, white and blue line around the LD trains. Boardman is clearly walking away from Gunn's "National or nothing" Amtrak, to a "which Amtrak are you talking about?" Amtrak.
Amtrak America will have their own management that controls "soup to nuts", their own equipment and their own P&L statement (apparently). So, when the Mica (or other) circus starts up with "Why does your food service lose money?" or "We could give airline tix for what it costs you to take a person from NOL to Chicago", or other hard to defend operation cost issues, Boardman will actually be able to respond in a fashion that make clear what costs what.
I don't think he's trying to walking away from the LD network. Clearly, they just spend a boat load of money on baggage cars and crew space... But, having Amtrak operating two distinct major product lines makes it much easier to explain what kind of support each need, what that costs, and what you get.
It's about the sales pitch...and not taking a flogging every time you talk to Mica, et. al.
I do apologize. It was over the top, as charged. I violated my wait-until-the-morning rule.
dakotafred You Democrats are demonstrating that politics of the correct stripe are just fine on the Forum. Wm. F. Buckley Jr. is WAY beyond belittlement by you cretins.
You Democrats are demonstrating that politics of the correct stripe are just fine on the Forum.
Wm. F. Buckley Jr. is WAY beyond belittlement by you cretins.
While it is impossible to completely avoid politics in Amtrak discussions, your political insult goes WAY over the line.
Fred, you are pretty far off the mark. Your ideology blinds you to reality. I am a progressive and proud of it, but I rather liked Bill Buckley and read many of his books and NR and even his fiction thrillers. Paul M. has made some suggestions he is of a libertarian stripe, but doesn't care for Bill. The point is, don't judge everyone by their politics. For example, you are apparently not a Democrat, yet you seem to favor federally subsidized LD passenger rail, while Paul does not, for the most part, as far as I can tell. sam1 has voted Democratic, but would like to end all LD trains tomorrow.
Calling fellow forum members "cretins" is really rude. Name-calling is off-limits here.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.