http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2015/03/fra-amtrak-inspect-proposed-hoosier-state-equipment
Ed Ellis is going to work with some ancient passenger cars and long ago rebuilt locomotives.
This just provides more evidence that Amtrak's arguements in their fleet strategy for replacing "old" Amfleet with new equipment are pretty much bunk.
If the new equipment doesn't provide technology or design gains that improve productivity or reduce cost, there's no reason not to just keep rebuilding what you already have.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Nothing been debunked. These cars still have to go thru the wear and tear of daily service. Ed hasn't experienced the real costs involed of operating them daily and keeping them on the road. Thier a huge difference between daily operations and excursion equipment that sits parked for a substantial part of the year.
With that said the cars look great and I wish them well.
ROBERT WILLISON Nothing been debunked. These cars still have to go thru the wear and tear of daily service. Ed hasn't experienced the real costs involed of operating them daily and keeping them on the road. Thier a huge difference between daily operations and excursion equipment that sits parked for a substantial part of the year. With that said the cars look great and I wish them well.
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
Oltmann: Must ask some questions.
1. Have these baggage cars accumulated more or less miles than your referenced passenger cars ?
2. What kind of loads were carried on the Heritage baggage cars ?.
2a. The problems that the converted coach cars had when loaded is well known. The V-2 baggage seem to be built sturdier.
2b. How heavy were the loads that the owner RRs and later Amtrak express services put into the cars ? The FAA actually has a program taking in account the amount of loads for each flight. The heavier the average load ( not linear ) the more wear inspections required.
3. Many of these older passenger cars were removed from service before the 1950 -1980 track condition deteoriations became enormous.
4. Since most Heritage baggage cas did not have personel during enroute operation rough ridding cars probably did not get maintenance for any problem. As well any other enroute problems.
5. Not as much PM for the baggage as compared to these heritage passenger cars.
6. On previous coast to coast trip noted many problems with Heritage baggage.
a. Doors not able to be opened ( closed )
b. wet bags ( water into car frames )
c. observed hunting when at track speeds.
d. poor or inop lighting.
e. Delays due to above.
They were in seasonal service running well below main line speeds. A little different than running at track speed on the main line on a daily basis.
But your right I can't question thier experience. Just saying nothing been debunked. The cars have been inspected by Amtrak. Let's give it six months to year before we can say its debunked and have a better idea of the true costs.
North Carolina seems to do fine with equipment that is of similar vintage as Iowa Pacific's cars. The important thing is that these are in short distance corridors operating at less than NEC speeds.
Nc cars have been rebuilt to run NEC speeds. Aren't the nc cars maintained and operated by Amtrak.
ROBERT WILLISON Nc cars have been rebuilt to run NEC speeds. Aren't the nc cars maintained and operated by Amtrak.
The IPH cars being inspected for Indiana service regularly operated at mainline speeds on the back of Amtrak trains. They didn't exhibit any problems then and there is no reason expect any issue outside of normal wear and tear.
Not suggesting problems just higher operating costs
According to ncdot, the cars were shopped by contactor, but thier trains are contractually operated and maintained by Amtrak.
ROBERT WILLISON According to ncdot, the cars were shopped by contactor, but thier trains are contractually operated and maintained by Amtrak.
As for the Indiana service the operating costs are Amtrak's problem. The maintenance costs will be handled by IPH. The bulk of those costs are the daily inspections along with the 92 day inspections for the motive power and the 186 day inspections for the cars.
ROBERT WILLISON Not suggesting problems just higher operating costs
What drives the higher operating costs? Be specific.
ROBERT WILLISON Nothing been debunked. These cars still have to go thru the wear and tear of daily service. Ed hasn't experienced the real costs involed of operating them daily and keeping them on the road. Thier a huge difference between daily operations and excursion equipment that sits parked for a substantial part of the year.
There is no substantial advance in technology or design between what Ed Ellis and NC DOT is running and the new Viewliners that would drive operation costs down or revenue up.
In fact, I'd bet Amfleet is cheaper to operate than either.
One of the biggest advantage of old vs new equipment is the initial investment. The cost of new railroad equipment, even off the shelf equipment like in Europe is very expensive. The cost of buying older equipment is a no brainer, even after the expenses of rebuilding.
No business in the world operates old equipment on a regular basis and claims to do because of efficiency. You don't see many f units in service today, or 1953 mack trucks, or dc3 in service for the same under lining reason. All equipment eventually reach a point where it reaches it end of it economic life. Railroad coaches are no different.
With that said I enjoyed my ride on Pullman, can't beat a 10/6 sleeper or a fine dinner. When IP takes over, it would a good ride in business class.
ROBERT WILLISONYou don't see many f units in service today, or 1953 mack trucks, or dc3 in service for the same under lining reason.
You don't see them because newer techonology and better design made them obsolete. Newer stuff has capacity and efficiency gains that pay for the increment between rebuild and new.
Economic life occurs because of advancement. Why did SD70MACs replace SD40-2s for example? Only 60% of moving parts to maintain, greater traction motor life, and 20-25% less fuel and to move the same freight.
There is nothing new about Viewliners that make old Budd coaches obosolete. Same number of parts. Same material, same weight, same fuel, same number of wear surfaces, similar trucks, same airbrake system, same HVAC system, same lighting, same number of seats, etc, etc.
I venture to say thier are differences even between budd cars and the veiwliners.
Even more impotantly rail equipment continue to advance. compare the Acela to a Budd car. When it comes to rail equipment the us just lags behind. Compare the new equipment just ordered in Florida for higher speed rail between Miami and Orlando. Same moving parts much greater efficiency. Thier is the striking difference between 1950's technology and 2015 technology. No company is going to invested in dated technology in today's world. I can't think of any modern rail system that has. It is what it is.
ROBERT WILLISON I venture to say thier are differences even between budd cars and the veiwliners. Even more impotantly rail equipment continue to advance. compare the Acela to a Budd car. When it comes to rail equipment the us just lags behind. Compare the new equipment just ordered in Florida for higher speed rail between Miami and Orlando. Same moving parts much greater efficiency. Thier is the striking difference between 1950's technology and 2015 technology. No company is going to invested in dated technology in today's world. I can't think of any modern rail system that has. It is what it is.
Perhaps the stuff its made out if is a tad different, trucks certainly have improved, hvc units upgraded. What we need are the real stats.
ROBERT WILLISON Perhaps the stuff its made out if is a tad different, trucks certainly have improved, hvc units upgraded. What we need are the real stats.
Parts availability and cost can be a major issue for older equipment, especially with trucks and brake gear.
It's like anything else; the more of the stuff that was made the more there is available either through parts off retired equipment or still available new. What's really tricky are couplers and draft gear. Some knuckles are next to impossible to find and then there is the matter of modifying a car to meet Amtrak's specs over and above 49CFR238.
ROBERT WILLISONcompare the Acela to a Budd car
An example of new techonology. You can't run Acela service with old Budd coaches.
Viewliners don't have any important technological or design improvments over old Budd coaches. They don't hold more people, can't go faster, etc. Nada.
What stats? Just look at the design !
CSSHEGEWISCH Parts availability and cost can be a major issue for older equipment, especially with trucks and brake gear.
True, but not a deal breaker, particularly if your fleet is large enough. Most of the castings have pretty long lives and can be built back up and normalized for wear.
D.Carleton matter of modifying a car to meet Amtrak's specs
Hmmm... tail wagging the dog again?
oltmannd D.Carleton matter of modifying a car to meet Amtrak's specs Hmmm... tail wagging the dog again?
The new cars are built different. Modular interior construction, modern trucks and modern brakes and brake rigging. Hard to imagine that since 1950 thier hasnt been some technological advancements in car production, even where the view liners are concerned. Again, don't need to review the cars stats, rather than speculation.
ROBERT WILLISON The new cars are built different. Modular interior construction, modern trucks and modern brakes and brake rigging. Hard to imagine that since 1950 thier hasnt been some technological advancements in car production, even where the view liners are concerned. Again, don't need to review the cars stats, rather than speculation.
The trucks are "modern" in the sense that they were cast in recent memory. The design dates back to at least the late 1960s.
A "modular" interior helps with the initial construction but doesn't make much difference with the operation or maintenance of the car. If a bulb goes out you replace the bulb and not the whole bedroom module.
D.Carleton ROBERT WILLISON The new cars are built different. Modular interior construction, modern trucks and modern brakes and brake rigging. Hard to imagine that since 1950 thier hasnt been some technological advancements in car production, even where the view liners are concerned. Again, don't need to review the cars stats, rather than speculation. NRPC non-AutoTrain conventional equipment uses 26C brakes just like most non-Amtrak cars. All Amtrak passenger cars ordered new have clasp and disc brakes; non-Amtrak have one or the other. Both use air and have a collection of reserviors and pipes conforming to 49CFR238. There is no real difference. There cannot be if we are to maintain network interoperability. The trucks are "modern" in the sense that they were cast in recent memory. The design dates back to at least the late 1960s. A "modular" interior helps with the initial construction but doesn't make much difference with the operation or maintenance of the car. If a bulb goes out you replace the bulb and not the whole bedroom module.
NRPC non-AutoTrain conventional equipment uses 26C brakes just like most non-Amtrak cars. All Amtrak passenger cars ordered new have clasp and disc brakes; non-Amtrak have one or the other. Both use air and have a collection of reserviors and pipes conforming to 49CFR238. There is no real difference. There cannot be if we are to maintain network interoperability.
+1
Exactly.
Its pretty obvious you are missing the significance of the weight of the new view liner cars. The new cars weight in at over 20000 PDS less than a typical heritage sleeper. That could amount to a weight savings of 100000 PDS per train. This weight savings over the course of the cars service life of 40 years would save thier owners considerable amounts in fuel cost, wear and tear on the locomotives and the track/ roadbed .
If you compare the weight differences between a heritage coach and a Amtrak cascade coach or the cars that siemens is producing for the new fec Florida service the savings is even more dynamic.
If you want to compete in todays marjet, you must operate modern fuel efficient equipment.
Heritage equipment may be able to be made serviceable on daily basis but they are not the most cost effective option available. If they were then why are thier not being operated on rail and commuter trains in north America?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.