D.Carleton schlimm I wonder how many of the antique rail car supporters prefer flying on 60 year old DC-7s? As opposed to...?
schlimm I wonder how many of the antique rail car supporters prefer flying on 60 year old DC-7s?
As opposed to...?
As opposed to fairly modern jetliners, obviously.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I rode the Hoosier to Indy in Janurary and it ran on time (waiting for departure time at each stop and arrived about 20 min early at Indy. But with track speeds of 40 mph and 20 mph getting out of Chicago is rediculous. After leaving the former C&IW and C&EI, ran at 70 and then 60 on former Monon & NYC tracks. This makes for a very slow trip. Service was excellent. Amtrak had a crew of three, two conductors ( I can see training and other reasons for this) nd engineer. IP had a coach attendent, chef, and two servers. Two coaches were empty, one had about 40 for Lafeyette, the other had about 30 for Crawfords ville and Indy. Amtrak getting such a large cut of the Indiana payment for Management, Billing, Reservations, Insurance and CSX charges makes me wish I could see the full accounting. I can see INDOT dropping it.
Took greyhound NB and it got off I-65 to go to a transit center in Lafayette, then took city streets to go to Greyhounds station in Gary, then got on I-90 (Indiana tollway) to an exit where it took city streets to get to the Dan Ryan to go South to the 95th street CTA station before going on to the Chicago Greyhound terminal. Its total time 4:10 is compared to the rail time of 5:05. Other busses are scheduled for times as low as 3:15. And fares as low as $19 but I paid $29 for Greyhound and $59 for Amtrak business class. When I started planning my trip, Southwest Airlines had a $49 WannaGetAway fare but I delayed and it got up to $125 when I went to buy it so I changed to the bus. Todays SWA wga fare is $120. So Amtrak's fare is reasonable and competative. but it's slow time is working against it.
schlimm D.Carleton schlimm I wonder how many of the antique rail car supporters prefer flying on 60 year old DC-7s? As opposed to...? As opposed to fairly modern jetliners, obviously.
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
When I say that reuse of Budd cars makes sense, I am talking about refitted cars, not preserved antiques. Yes, HEP, modern air-conditioning, new springs and shocks, perhaps even complete new trucks, air, tinted windows that still permit scenery viewing while reducing glare, etc.
D.Carleton schlimm D.Carleton schlimm I wonder how many of the antique rail car supporters prefer flying on 60 year old DC-7s? As opposed to...? As opposed to fairly modern jetliners, obviously. No, not so obvious. Are we talking about a 1950s railcar with steam heat, fluorescent lighting and dump tube toilets or a refitted 1950s railcar with HEP, LED lighting, retention toilets, WiFi and outlets at every seat? In the Amtrak/Via era the new corridor equipment that came down the line were Amfleet, LRC, Talgo, Renaissance and the California Bilevels. Each brought innovations but never really could match the “people space” of what we call heritage cars. It always seemed we were going in the opposite direction. A heritage car with updated amenities results in greater customer satisfaction than the newer rolling stock. Why? You'll have to ask them. At the risk of sounding self serving the new Siemens North American Viaggio coaches as being built for Florida are much closer in “people space” to those cars of the past making very good use of the space available. Soon we shall see what the customers think. I think the superliners equipment reached the level of acceptance that the original heritage equipment did. When the atsf introduced its original high level cars for its el cap, they were very well received by riding public Today's super liners coaches, diners and lounge's in my opinion are better than any of Iowa Pacific heritage cars. Including their ex atsf first generation high level cars. Amtrak could field a better train today with its super liners than Iowa Pacific, ( if their any to spare ) and if Indiana wanted to foot the bill. ( which I doubt. ) The Hoosier state biggest issue continue to be slow running times and a poor schedule. The IP heritage cars were just a novelty, not a lasting solution.
No, not so obvious. Are we talking about a 1950s railcar with steam heat, fluorescent lighting and dump tube toilets or a refitted 1950s railcar with HEP, LED lighting, retention toilets, WiFi and outlets at every seat? In the Amtrak/Via era the new corridor equipment that came down the line were Amfleet, LRC, Talgo, Renaissance and the California Bilevels. Each brought innovations but never really could match the “people space” of what we call heritage cars. It always seemed we were going in the opposite direction. A heritage car with updated amenities results in greater customer satisfaction than the newer rolling stock. Why? You'll have to ask them. At the risk of sounding self serving the new Siemens North American Viaggio coaches as being built for Florida are much closer in “people space” to those cars of the past making very good use of the space available. Soon we shall see what the customers think.
I think the superliners equipment reached the level of acceptance that the original heritage equipment did. When the atsf introduced its original high level cars for its el cap, they were very well received by riding public
Today's super liners coaches, diners and lounge's in my opinion are better than any of Iowa Pacific heritage cars. Including their ex atsf first generation high level cars. Amtrak could field a better train today with its super liners than Iowa Pacific, ( if their any to spare ) and if Indiana wanted to foot the bill. ( which I doubt. )
The Hoosier state biggest issue continue to be slow running times and a poor schedule. The IP heritage cars were just a novelty, not a lasting solution.
All sorts of interesting suppositions and meandering through unrelated subject matter here. (Yes I would fly a DC7, DC3 or an L1049 from Chicago to Indy in a heartbeat!)
What I don't understand is the sound of crickets emanating (or not!) from TRAINS, PTJ and so on. The mainstream press is reporting vagaries of the IP family of companies, lack of contract understanding from Mr Ellis, layoffs, possible financial issues and so on. The "fan" press on the other hand is curiously quiet with the exception of printing press releases. I wonder if there is a story here or not ?
Yeah I would fly aboard a DC 7 or DC 3 or Ford tri motor hands down. but then again I ride steam excursions every summer as well. When traveling I prefer a modern jet, Amtrak Acela or superliners and modern high speed trains the European field. I also love my new car and truck. A 55 Chevy is great on a sunny summer day, can't see driving it every day.
daveklepper When I say that reuse of Budd cars makes sense, I am talking about refitted cars, not preserved antiques. Yes, HEP, modern air-conditioning, new springs and shocks, perhaps even complete new trucks, air, tinted windows that still permit scenery viewing while reducing glare, etc.
If you watch a few YouTube videos and see the interiors of the Iowa Pacific Cars.............not as well maintained or as refurbished as the Budds on VIA Rail North of the Border. Ellis took the cheap way out, whenever he could.
CMStPnP daveklepper When I say that reuse of Budd cars makes sense, I am talking about refitted cars, not preserved antiques. Yes, HEP, modern air-conditioning, new springs and shocks, perhaps even complete new trucks, air, tinted windows that still permit scenery viewing while reducing glare, etc. If you watch a few YouTube videos and see the interiors of the Iowa Pacific Cars.............not as well maintained or as refurbished as the Budds on VIA Rail North of the Border. Ellis took the cheap way out, whenever he could.
CMStPnP confirms what I saw at Union Staion: old cars with a fine, nostalgic paint scheme on a train running on a terrible schedule. Unless Indiana can fork up the dough for improvements in ROW (unlikely), they should drop the "service" soon.
Boeing is still making 737s. Updated in many ways, but still a 737 that they started making over 40 years ago.
Old designs are fine. Economics determines when designs are obsolete, not a calendar.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd schlimm D.Carleton schlimm I wonder how many of the antique rail car supporters prefer flying on 60 year old DC-7s? As opposed to...? As opposed to fairly modern jetliners, obviously. Boeing is still making 737s. Updated in many ways, but still a 737 that they started making over 40 years ago. Old designs are fine. Economics determines when designs are obsolete, not a calendar.
Other than the name and some parts of the basic design, the 737s made in the last 10+ years are quite different animals. Show me a domestic airline flying a 737-100 built in the late 60s. There are none. About 99 737-200s are still flying but only with 2nd and 3rd tier airlines (freight) or in LDCs.
CMStPnPIf you watch a few YouTube videos and see the interiors of the Iowa Pacific Cars.............not as well maintained or as refurbished as the Budds on VIA Rail North of the Border. Ellis took the cheap way out, whenever he could.
I just took a look. They look decent enough, but yeah, definately dated. Just kind of oldish without being classic. Maybe it is better in person? Then there were people in the superdome laying down with their stanky shoes up on the seats. Manners are in short supply.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
schlimm oltmannd schlimm D.Carleton schlimm I wonder how many of the antique rail car supporters prefer flying on 60 year old DC-7s? As opposed to...? As opposed to fairly modern jetliners, obviously. Boeing is still making 737s. Updated in many ways, but still a 737 that they started making over 40 years ago. Old designs are fine. Economics determines when designs are obsolete, not a calendar. Other than the name and some parts of the basic design, the 737s made in the last 10+ years are quite different animals. Show me a domestic airline flying a 737-100 built in the late 60s. There are none. About 99 737-200s are still flying but only with 2nd and 3rd tier airlines (freight) or in LDCs.
Again apples to oranges. Something that carries its own form of propulsion will age far faster economically than something that does not.
An "expensive model collector"
n012944oranges
ROBERT WILLISON n012944 Pretty much an orange to Orange comparison.
n012944
Pretty much an orange to Orange comparison.
I first flew a 737 in 1970 - it in no way compared the the most recent 737 I flew in 2008 - and lord only knows what the current 737 are compared the verison I flew in 2008.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Well the seats are smaller and more tightly packed.
matthewsaggie Well the seats are smaller and more tightly packed.
Smaller? Not really. The latest 737 that is being built has the same width in the fuselage as the 1st one built in the 60s. The majority of the 737s built since the begining have had the standard 3x3 seating in coach. While the amount of legroom between the seats may have been reduced over time, the width of the seats really has not changed.
ROBERT WILLISON n012944 oranges Pretty much an orange to Orange comparison.
n012944 oranges
Sigh. Economically a 737-100 can not compete with a 737MAX, due to the fact it carries its own propulsion. The 737MAX has engines hung on its wings that are at least 4 generations past the original 737. Doing some quick math from a technical site, the Leap 1B that will be on the 737MAX is around 30% more efficient than the original JT8Ds on the 737-100. This is something that does not affect a railroad passenger car.
This is also not even getting into the fact the 737-100, with its JT8Ds hung on its wings, would be banned from many airports around the world for noise regulations.
"One of the most significant improvements in the powerplant has been to the noise levels. The original JT8D-9 engines in 1967 produced 75 decibel levels, enough to disrupt normal conversation indoors, within a noise contour that extended 12 miles along the take-off flight path. Since 1997 with the introduction of the 737-700’s CFM56-7B engines, the 75-decibel noise contour is now only 3.5 miles long."
http://www.b737.org.uk/powerplant.htm
That noise level should go down again with the new engines on the latest 737MAX, and its new Leap engines. Again, something that would not affect a railroad passenger car.
Now lets look at cycle limits that aircraft have. Each takeoff and landing is considered one cycle, and they add up quickly on short haul aircraft. A 737-100 has a limit of 34000 cycles. The FAA forbids an aircraft to be flown once it has reached its limit. I have no knowledge of a similar requirment from the FRA on a passenger car.
So, apples to oranges.
A link to information on airplane cycle limits
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/2012_q4/pdfs/AERO_2012q4_article2.pdf
Somebody explain to me why engine efficiency, more modern construction, or increased airframe cycles have ANY relevance to interior dimensions, seat-track setting, or other aspects of passenger packaging? That is the only 'apples to other fruit' comparison even remotely relevant in this discussion.
And people give Euclid flak for the number of seconds between a detected emergency and a subsequent physical collision?
RME Somebody explain to me why engine efficiency, more modern construction, or increased airframe cycles have ANY relevance to interior dimensions, seat-track setting, or other aspects of passenger packaging? That is the only 'apples to other fruit' comparison even remotely relevant in this discussion. And people give Euclid flak for the number of seconds between a detected emergency and a subsequent physical collision?
You are correct. However when someone uses this argument,
schlimm I wonder how many of the antique rail car supporters prefer flying on 60 year old DC-7s? As opposed to fairly modern jetliners, obviously.
or this,
schlimm Show me a domestic airline flying a 737-100 built in the late 60s. There are none. About 99 737-200s are still flying but only with 2nd and 3rd tier airlines (freight) or in LDCs.
as a reason railroads should not be operating equipment built in the 1950s, it needs to be pointed out why that is a bad comparision. At the end of the day, a 1960s era 737 could have an interior that is comparable to the latest and greatest being built by Boeing today. Outside of the louder engines, most passengers would not notice the difference. If not for the economic and safety regulations, it no doubt would have been done. It would be the equivalent of the IP cars vs a Horizon or Viewliner coach used today.
So a horrible comparison, that should never have brought up.
n012944 ... when someone uses [arguments about historic aircraft size or amenities] as a reason railroads should not be operating equipment built in the 1950s, it needs to be pointed out why that is a bad comparison.
I completely agree, but it needs to be done concisely and "on topic" regarding, in this case, the relative space available within first the loading gage, and then within whatever a given method of railcar construction and suspension would permit. In this case, the available width for seating does not, to me, appear 'that much' more different in 1950s equipment than in the latest developments, nor is there anything distinctive about seat tracking in older cars that would preclude installation of more modern seat systems, amenities, 'angled seating' for seat-sleeper arrangements, etc.
Perhaps an argument that better establishes the point might have been something like the B-52, which is a remarkably different aircraft in most respects from the '50s original ... but has interior volume and packaging that corresponds to it.
Now, the argument gets different when talking about hi-level cars, or full duplex arrangements with 'low floors' and so forth. But even there, I see very little parallel between "modern" airliner packaging, which doesn't involve multiple levels until you get to very substantial size (and equally dramatic required passenger loading per segment) and railcar dimensional size. Aircraft go to multiple rows and widebody fuselage arrangements, which unless someone revives 'the case for the double-track train' or dusts off the Breitspurbahn detail drawings isn't likely to work for any Amtrak service, regional or otherwise.
Now, I think schlimm's point is not related to this -- in part, the recent history of 'heritage' equipment in Amtrak service demonstrates that in a great many ways, maintaining older equipment (even older equipment that has been expensively brought up to current "Amtrak" standards) gets more and more expensive, and the parts harder and harder to find. If it had been cheaper for Amtrak to 'tube' and re-truck heritage cars, baggage cars in particular, there would be less perceived need to tolerate the CAF shenanigans over the past several years. And in a couple of fairly well-known situations, efforts to 'tube out' and refurbish older equipment for modern trains have not exactly met with shining success.
I think mine and schimm point is being taken to literally. It's not the comparing trains to planes. It the point that planes like rail cars have changed tremendous Thur the years. It makes no sense trying to keep heritage cars or planes operating when their are modern, more efficient and cost effective product's available. I'll take an Amtrak Acela train set over a Budd coach or parlor car. Yeah I miss the diner, but I enjoy first class on the train on every trip.
ROBERT WILLISONIt makes no sense trying to keep heritage cars or planes operating when there are modern, more efficient and cost-effective products available.
Yes, but the argument here is that organizations that already have the 'heritage' equipment in operable condition and know how to work on it may have upward of five orders of magnitude head start on 'cost effectiveness' for services that don't require full modern amenities at full modern build cost. Not to mention the anticipated draw of "likely" customers for rail service who value old-time style and amenity level of the sort that Ed Ellis tried to provide...
The other half of the argument is whether the Hoosier State is expected to reach or sustain the kind of speed that is inappropriate for heritage equipment. I find this rather unlikely, even to the extent that modern low-unsprung-mass trucks could not be substituted under older shells if deemed useful.
Consider what would happen if your Acela train set were modified to run Hoosier service (and this might not be as sarcastically far-fetched as it sounds if Amtrak withdraws the original sets from NEC service when their 'replacements' in high-speed traffic are available). Do you think the amenities of the Acela set would be valuable enough to justify all the cost to provide them ... assuming now it is no more modified than to allow top-and-tailed Genesis locomotives to run it, and to have "internal" power for activated tilt ... relative to legacy cars?
Something I would like to see is a list of modifications to a Budd stainless shell to provide modern electrics and amenities, without removing all the expensive "legacy" wiring and ducting that a tube-out, full abatement, etc. would involve. There is so much less tinkering involved in, say, a combination of powerline modulation and some kind of Canbus for the connectivity and power than would be needed to formally rewire and then maintain all the stuff in a car...
ROBERT WILLISON I think mine and schimm point is being taken to literally. It's not the comparing trains to planes. It the point that planes like rail cars have changed tremendous Thur the years. It makes no sense trying to keep heritage cars or planes operating when their are modern, more efficient and cost effective product's available. I'll take an Amtrak Acela train set over a Budd coach or parlor car. Yeah I miss the diner, but I enjoy first class on the train on every trip.
Thank you for the clear explanation of our analogies. Apparently some folks are very literal. We could have made the same argument using 1950s passenger autos.
As to Heritage equipment and other old, 50-60 year-old cars. They are often far noisier, with many body noises (creeking joints, metal on metal screeches) that make riding them a less pleasant experience than modern cars. IMO, they should be retired from regular revenue service and if not scrapped or put in a museum, used by some tourist line or land cruise folks like Ellis. Speaking of Ellis, looks like both his ventures (CNO and then IDOT) were failures.
I never said I wanted to run an Acela train set as a substitute for heritage cars. I said or meant is that there are more up date equipment that can do the job much more effectively.
The ideal Amtrak equipment for the run would be super liner cars. A coach and lounge would be a much better than what Iowa pacific was providing. If the state of Indiana wanted some form of business class or dining service it would need to pay for it on its own.
What really needs to happen is the train needs to run independent of the cardinal. Which the state would not pay for. And the track needs to be upgraded, another expense Indiana does not want to do. So don't blame Amtrak, it's in the hands of the state of Indiana.
ROBERT WILLISON The ideal Amtrak equipment for the run would be super liner cars. A coach and lounge would be a much better than what Iowa pacific was providing.
The ideal Amtrak equipment for the run would be super liner cars. A coach and lounge would be a much better than what Iowa pacific was providing.
The problem with that argument is you won't see superliners on the run. You will see Horizon cars. Those cars are not better than what IP was providing, in fact they are far worse.
CSX is in the midst of track and signalling upgrade and has been for over a year now. Now has one large passing siding just outside of Lafayette on the south side of town and more are planned. There is going to be new intermodal traffic between Louisville and Chicago. Amtrak's speeds are going up.
ROBERT WILLISON What really needs to happen is the train needs to run independent of the cardinal. Which the state would not pay for. And the track needs to be upgraded, another expense Indiana does not want to do. So don't blame Amtrak, it's in the hands of the state of Indiana.
It is being reported on the Indiana forum that the route had its best ontime performance ever in 2016. CSX has dropped a ton of money into the route, new sidings, ties and rail. They have updated the signal system in a couple of key spots, and even more than doubled the max speed in at least one place. As a result the train has done very well with timekeeping, and is having to wait for time at stations. From what was said, it is not uncommon for the train to have to wait up to 10 minutes at certain stations because it is so far advanced. As a result, IP went to the state of Indiana and Amtrak looking to tighen the schedule. The state was supposedly all for it, however since the train shares the schedule with the Cardinal, Amtrak would have to OK it. They would not agree to it.
If this is true, then yes, Amtrak is partially to blame for the slow schedule.
n012944 As a result, IP went to the state of Indiana and Amtrak looking to tighen the schedule. The state was supposedly all for it, however since the train shares the schedule with the Cardinal, Amtrak would have to OK it. They would not agree to it. If this is true, then yes, Amtrak is partially to blame for the slow schedule.
That's really bad. Do you know how much might have been cut from the schedule?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.