Trains.com

Where are the V-2 sleepers when Amtrak needs them

3645 views
26 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    July 2011
  • 3 posts
Posted by sjgiss on Monday, December 21, 2015 10:43 PM

then don't post BusList

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Monday, December 21, 2015 3:18 PM

As to differences between the V1 and V2, I understand that the V2 roomettes will hae only basins in them, which will make them little better than the roomettes in the Superliners.

Johnny

  • Member since
    November 2013
  • 1,097 posts
Posted by Buslist on Monday, December 21, 2015 12:58 PM

schlimm

Goodness!!   So defensive for an expert. #1 You had not revealed your background.   #2 Most experts/professionals I have dealt with, including those in fields outside my own are glad to share relevant information (which they are permitted) without such rancor and snarkiness.

 

Sorry but I have a non disclosure agreement with my former employer which I am probably violating with any of my posts!

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Monday, December 21, 2015 12:53 PM

Goodness!!   So defensive for an expert. #1 You had not revealed your background.   #2 Most experts/professionals I have dealt with, including those in fields outside my own are glad to share relevant information (which they are permitted) without such rancor and snarkiness.

BaltACD posted this reply (below), yet you said nothing in return, even though it was challenging the competence of the engineers.  However, I have nothing more to say to you.

Buslist

From what I can see the NA stainless design/construction is part of the problem for a European based car builder, and the original viewliners were built by others.

Even if they are identical that doesn't mean that the modual designers can get it right.

 

An Engineer or Designer that can't adapt to the reality of their situation isn't much of professional in their field.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    November 2013
  • 1,097 posts
Posted by Buslist on Monday, December 21, 2015 12:43 PM

schlimm

 

 
Buslist
For lack of an allowable public comment I think you are barking up the wrong tree.         You have no reason one way or the other to think it is true.  But yet you insult anyone who suggests the body  (not the modules) of the IIs are similar, if not identical, without any evidence.     You consider that an insult?  Barking up the wrong tree is an insult? Maybe a hint? POSSIBLE? PLease learn to read between the lines. There are things I can't say without compromising the "informed sources". From the information I have the dimmentions of the current build relative to the previous builds is irrelevant. I'm trying to convey some information. Sorry you can't see that.

 

It was not at all clear to me what the "allowable public comment" part referenced.  Now that it is clearly not an insult, I will defer to your inside knowledge on the cars.  Are the car dimensions different then?  They seem to have had no problems with the shells used as baggage cars.

 

as I said From the information I have the dimmentions of the current build relative to the previous builds is irrelevant.  

From what I understand it relates to the current modules vs the current built cars. I know no more so don't expect further comment.

 

There is an other thread on this discussion board on what would drive a knowledgeable poster away. This might be a poster case!

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Monday, December 21, 2015 12:06 PM

Buslist
For lack of an allowable public comment I think you are barking up the wrong tree.         You have no reason one way or the other to think it is true.  But yet you insult anyone who suggests the body  (not the modules) of the IIs are similar, if not identical, without any evidence.     You consider that an insult?  Barking up the wrong tree is an insult? Maybe a hint? POSSIBLE? PLease learn to read between the lines. There are things I can't say without compromising the "informed sources". From the information I have the dimmentions of the current build relative to the previous builds is irrelevant. I'm trying to convey some information. Sorry you can't see that.

It was not at all clear to me what the "allowable public comment" part referenced.  Now that it is clearly not an insult, I will defer to your inside knowledge on the cars.  Are the car dimensions different then?  They seem to have had no problems with the shells used as baggage cars.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    November 2013
  • 1,097 posts
Posted by Buslist on Monday, December 21, 2015 11:18 AM

schlimm

 

 
Buslist

 

 
schlimm

The new sleeper modules are probably different from the Viewliner I sleeper configuration.  The car itself is similar, if not identical.

 

 

 

 

Identical only if Budd/MK passed on the design details, I have no reason one way or the other to think this is true. 

For lack of an allowable public comment I think you are barking up the wrong tree.

 

 

 

You have no reason one way or the other to think it is true.  But yet you insult anyone who suggests the body  (not the modules) of the IIs are similar, if not identical, without any evidence.

 

 

You consider that an insult?  Barking up the wrong tree is an insult? Maybe a hint? POSSIBLE? PLease learn to read between the lines. There are things I can't say without compromising the "informed sources". From the information I have the dimmentions of the current build relative to the previous builds is irrelevant. I'm trying to convey some information. Sorry you can't see that.

 

Have you heard this information anywhere else?

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Sunday, December 20, 2015 10:35 PM

Buslist

 

 
schlimm

The new sleeper modules are probably different from the Viewliner I sleeper configuration.  The car itself is similar, if not identical.

 

 

 

 

Identical only if Budd/MK passed on the design details, I have no reason one way or the other to think this is true. 

For lack of an allowable public comment I think you are barking up the wrong tree.

 

You have no reason one way or the other to think it is true.  But yet you insult anyone who suggests the body  (not the modules) of the IIs are similar, if not identical, without any evidence.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Sunday, December 20, 2015 10:09 PM

Buslist

From what I can see the NA stainless design/construction is part of the problem for a European based car builder, and the original viewliners were built by others.

Even if they are identical that doesn't mean that the modual designers can get it right.

An Engineer or Designer that can't adapt to the reality of their situation isn't much of professional in their field.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    November 2013
  • 1,097 posts
Posted by Buslist on Sunday, December 20, 2015 9:35 PM

schlimm

The new sleeper modules are probably different from the Viewliner I sleeper configuration.  The car itself is similar, if not identical.

 

 

Identical only if Budd/MK passed on the design details, I have no reason one way or the other to think this is true. 

For lack of an allowable public comment I think you are barking up the wrong tree.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Sunday, December 20, 2015 8:31 PM

The new sleeper modules are probably different from the Viewliner I sleeper configuration.  The car itself is similar, if not identical.

 

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    November 2013
  • 1,097 posts
Posted by Buslist on Sunday, December 20, 2015 7:42 PM

From what I can see the NA stainless design/construction is part of the problem for a European based car builder, and the original viewliners were built by others.

 

Even if they are identical that doesn't mean that the modual designers can get it right.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Sunday, December 20, 2015 6:31 PM

You think?  The Viewliner design has not changed much from the first version, dating from 1987.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    September 2014
  • 1,180 posts
Posted by ROBERT WILLISON on Sunday, December 20, 2015 5:41 PM

Certainly part of it. Also american rail cars are much different than the high speed stuff being built every where else.

  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,955 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Sunday, December 20, 2015 10:31 AM

I suspect part of this passenger railcar issue problem is the fact it's an industry that has to be re-invented and re-established, at least in this country.  It's my understanding the domestic passenger car builders went out of business due to lack of business quite a while ago.  When that happens all the experience and expertise that might have been passed to a new generation of builders died with the companys.

Extreme example, but imagine trying to re-establish the stagecoach or Conestoga wagon industry in this day and age.

  • Member since
    November 2013
  • 1,097 posts
Posted by Buslist on Saturday, December 19, 2015 10:14 PM
No indication that the units are an issue.
  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Saturday, December 19, 2015 7:41 PM

Buslist
 the sources say the dimensional problems remain, don't look for a test car till mid 2016. Meanwhile the diners have weight distribution issues, no estimate on when a test car might be available.
 

 
Could this be a repeat of the space program when English measure and Metric got mixed up and converted incorrectly ?
 
  • Member since
    December 2009
  • 1,751 posts
Posted by dakotafred on Saturday, December 19, 2015 7:32 PM

This is a discouraging word. We could go to the moon, manned, in 1969, but today we can't design a railroad car?

I'll admit I don't know who the manufacturer is. Pessimistically, I assume he's not domestic (even if he's doing the building here). Whoever, I would think there's grounds for a lawsuit.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Friday, December 18, 2015 12:50 AM

Buslist
 
Buslist

You may remember a comment from a few weeks ago about a dimensional issue between the modules and the car she'll. Haven't heard any resolution to this issue yet (doesn't meen there hasn't been one) but if true who knows when they'll come on line. I will try to tap some "informed sources"). 

the sources say the dimensional problems remain, don't look for a test car till mid 2016. Meanwhile the diners have weight distribution issues, no estimate on when a test car might be available.

Amazing!  Pullman company could design and implement multiple floor plans for all kinds ot cars myriad of sleeper plans, combination sleeper and other uses and all done without computers and all the other modern tools that are supposed to make the design phase of constructing things multiple times faster and more efficient than was done with a slide rule and drafting table.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Thursday, December 17, 2015 10:04 PM

What a mess!

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    November 2013
  • 1,097 posts
Posted by Buslist on Thursday, December 17, 2015 9:52 PM

Buslist

You may remember a comment from a few weeks ago about a dimensional issue between the modules and the car she'll. Haven't heard any resolution to this issue yet (doesn't meen there hasn't been one) but if true who knows when they'll come on line. I will try to tap some "informed sources").

 

 

 

 

the sources say the dimensional problems remain, don't look for a test car till mid 2016. Meanwhile the diners have weight distribution issues, no estimate on when a test car might be available.

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Tuesday, December 15, 2015 5:36 PM

081552

Can anyone shed light on the work rules that kick in when you add additional sleepers to a train? For example, if you added 1-2 additional sleepers to the Lake Shore, how many additional train crew are added?

Right now one attendant per sleeper.

There has been some unconfirmed talk that Amtrak wants to have a sleeper attendant to serve 2 cars once the V-1s were updated to V-2 electronics so that a call button was pushed in non occupied sleeper will call attendant in the occupied sleeper.  Also unconfirmed that plans were that for 3 sleepers 2 attendants would split one sleeper.  All very confusing. 

 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Tuesday, December 15, 2015 4:15 PM

081552

Can anyone shed light on the work rules that kick in when you add additional sleepers to a train? For example, if you added 1-2 additional sleepers to the Lake Shore, how many additional train crew are added?

Train Crew - NONE - Engineer & Conductor.  I suspect there may be some rules for Assistant Conductors, which perform Amtrak specific functions, and are not required in the operation of the train from a railroad perspective. 

Train Service Crew, don't know - Car attendents, Assistant Conductors, Club/Cafe/Dining car personnel.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Altadena, CA
  • 340 posts
Posted by 081552 on Tuesday, December 15, 2015 3:54 PM

Can anyone shed light on the work rules that kick in when you add additional sleepers to a train? For example, if you added 1-2 additional sleepers to the Lake Shore, how many additional train crew are added?

  • Member since
    November 2013
  • 1,097 posts
Posted by Buslist on Tuesday, December 15, 2015 10:02 AM

You may remember a comment from a few weeks ago about a dimensional issue between the modules and the car she'll. Haven't heard any resolution to this issue yet (doesn't meen there hasn't been one) but if true who knows when they'll come on line. I will try to tap some "informed sources").

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Monday, December 14, 2015 7:57 PM

Streak, I do not remember when the change was made, but Washington has been a way station for the Cardinal for several years. It may have been so when my wife and I first rode it, in 2009, but I do remember that when I rode it in 2012 Washington was a way station--and every timetable I have since then shows this.

Johnny

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Where are the V-2 sleepers when Amtrak needs them
Posted by blue streak 1 on Monday, December 14, 2015 7:50 PM

From now until after Jan 3rd checking showed almost all east coast LD trains are sold for all sleepers. Coach mostly open except for the Crescent many days.  It would appear that Amtrak could carry more sleeper passengers thru this period if they had contracted to NS to switch the excess sleepers out at Atlanta and turn them back to NYP ?  Even if switching cost $2000 four extra passengers would have paid for the extra available sleeper.  ( fare listed as $616.00 )

Now for a big surprize that someone needs to check.  On Monday Dec 21st the Amtrak web site shows the Cardinal operatin NYP - CHI. Note this may be an error but ?  

 

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy