Let's see -- $50,000 for a Beth-Gon freight car and 1.5 million for a 110+ MPH baggage car?
I can see where a passenger car gets expensive. It needs vestibules, end doors, exit doors, lighting, A/C, destination signs, toilets, low noise level, ultra-smooth ride, PA system and possibly entertainment system, maybe electric outlets and wireless Internet. But 1.5 million for a baggage car?
Can't you take some Heritage car and put a better kind of truck on it?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul MilenkovicLet's see -- $50,000 for a Beth-Gon freight car and 1.5 million for a 110+ MPH baggage car? I can see where a passenger car gets expensive. It needs vestibules, end doors, exit doors, lighting, A/C, destination signs, toilets, low noise level, ultra-smooth ride, PA system and possibly entertainment system, maybe electric outlets and wireless Internet. But 1.5 million for a baggage car? Can't you take some Heritage car and put a better kind of truck on it?
But, Amtrak's goal seems to be more about getting a domestic supplier going than to deliver beneficial equipment, perhaps. I wonder if it would be cheaper to keep the existing 85' baggage cars and pay CAF not to build cars. The Dept. of Agriculture has some expertise in this area. In fact, it may be their core competency.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
You also need to remember this Stainless Steel is VERY EXPENSIVE on its own. When Scrap Steel is going for 200 dollars a Ton and Stainless is going for 1800 a ton there is a huge Cost differance in the metals used. Then you have the Labor costs. Working with Stainless is nothing like regular Steel. The more you work it the Stiffer Stainless gets. Also Passenger cars are not a off the shelf ITEM they are always a custom order. You are not getting a Buick.
edbenton You also need to remember this Stainless Steel is VERY EXPENSIVE on its own. When Scrap Steel is going for 200 dollars a Ton and Stainless is going for 1800 a ton there is a huge Cost differance in the metals used. Then you have the Labor costs. Working with Stainless is nothing like regular Steel. The more you work it the Stiffer Stainless gets. Also Passenger cars are not a off the shelf ITEM they are always a custom order. You are not getting a Buick.
There are two ways of looking at this. One is to say that things in real life cost a lot more than arm-chair managers think they should.
The other way to look at this is if trains are that intrinsically expensive, it explains why such high rates of subsidy expenditure are required.
Let's say stainless costs $2000/ton and there are 50 tons of this chromium-laden goodness in one of those baggage cars -- there is a lot of the weight of the car in wheel sets and truck frames, which I believe are a less exotic steel alloy. So we are talking $100,000 for the materials and we have a long way to go to reach 1.5 million dollars per car.
OK, we have the famous work hardening of these special alloys and the special welding techniques that the stuff stays stainless steel instead of a weld pool of chromium separated from the other constituents. And then the low-volume purchase, perhaps, just perhaps, if there was a higher level of funding for Amtrak there would be economy of scale for volume purchase and so on.
But at some point, this passenger train service has to make some kind of economic sense, otherwise it is simply someone's expensive hobby. One can talk about the difficulty finding workers with the skills to put together a brand new Peppercorn A-1 Pacific steam locomotive and the multi-million (pound sterling) expense involved, and one can collect money from pubs throughout the land where the steam locomotive was invented to raise the necessary money. Much as I think a Peppercorn A-1 Pacific in excursion service "across the pond somewhere" is one of the neatest things in the world, it doesn't make excursion trains pulled by new steam locomotives an economic proposition.
Subsidy or no subsidy, I just have this feeling at 1.5 million per baggage car puts Amtrak in the expensive government-supported historical exhibit category than in the category of an economic proposition.
You also have to remember that all Passenger cars have to meet the New FRA Crashworthyness Standards. Also Trucks Wheels and Brakes for 125MPH Operation are not cheap. Then you have the all the Wiring and with most if not all Amtrack cars setup with 27 pin MU connections that is not cheap at all. Then add AC for the Dorms with Sleeping quarters for the on Board Crews not to mention all the requirements for Safe Storage of any Firearms that will be carried your talking some Big Numbers.
Paul MilenkovicSubsidy or no subsidy, I just have this feeling at 1.5 million per baggage car puts Amtrak in the expensive government-supported historical exhibit category than in the category of an economic proposition.
edbentonYou also have to remember that all Passenger cars have to meet the New FRA Crashworthyness Standards.
edbenton Also Trucks Wheels and Brakes for 125MPH Operation are not cheap.
edbentonThen add AC for the Dorms with Sleeping quarters for the on Board Crews
edbentonSafe Storage of any Firearms
edbenton Then you have the all the Wiring and with most if not all Amtrack cars setup with 27 pin MU connections that is not cheap at all.
I'll bet it would be cheaper to buy a handful of new sleepers and diners, rebuild existing baggage cars and then pay CAF to NOT build the baggage cars (that is, keep all the designs and manufacturing facility in place and operating...slowly). Or, even to purchase new coaches and rebuild displaced Amfleet as baggage cars. (In fact, the more I think about it, the more I like this idea) But, new baggage cars as the backbone of a new car order? I just don't get it.
You may have to Engineer the cars to that standard. However you forget then you have to Build things up to what the Engineers Design. The old cars have no Crashworthyness at all in their designs. Amtrak needs massive amounts of new cars PEROID when all the Baggage cars they have are if they were Freight cars would have been scrapped by now due to AGE ALONE. Yet your screaming here beacuse they want some new ones. Yes Amtrak is a money loser and will never make a profit. However at least have the decentcy to let them to have some newer Equipment. The P42DC's are wearing out also. So we have a choice kill it and strand all the people that take it or pour cash into it. Whats it going to be.
Amfleet trucks would be cheaper than the swing motion, equalized trucks under the current baggage cars
What sort of "issues" does Amtrak have with anything that is not the equalized swing-hanger style of truck. Especially no one in Europe or Japan, where they have done scientific research on high-speed passenger rail, uses that style of truck anymore.
Amfleet has the "Pioneer III" truck where the lateral motion is in the side-displacement of those big outboard springs. This truck, I am told, has an FRA waiver to operate around curves faster on NY-BOS on account of reduced adverse roll. Amtrak ditched this truck when ordering Horizon cars. Superliner I had the "European style" truck where the axle boxes are guided with a link motion -- Superliner II and we are talking about the equalized swing-hanger style truck.
The thing against the "equalized swing-hanger style truck" is that the axles are guided by sliding within the truck "pedestal guides." The key thing for high speed operation is to put stiffness into the axle guides so the axles don't wobble within the guided. I suppose you can do this with what used to be called Franklin wedges, but the Europeans and Japanese have all gone over to a guide link -- what you see on the Genesis locomotive trucks and on the Superliner I's.
It seems as if Amtrak would stuff a two-axle swing-hanger truck under the Talgo, if they could get away with it. What gives?
At first I was baffled by the logic of not wanting to buy new equipment to replace cars that are 50 years old. I get that you can rebuild and modify them but at some point it's time to let go and move on. There's only some many times i'm going to replace or modify the tires, a/c unit, mirrors, brakes, etc on my car before I decide to junk it and buy a new one. Even the military gets rid of a lot of their planes and ships after awhile instead of just of doing just a complete overhaul with new engines, computer equipment, weapons, etc. And yes i do get that we want the best and the newest military equipment to protect us, the point is that at some point the military replace its older equipment. Based on some of the comments I have read here, it seems that this announcement has grinded the gears of one particularly person who has posted multiple times on this thread. The sarcasm about paying people to just sit around hasn't gone unnoticed. Sarcasm is a way to avoid being honest in saying what you really want to say... it's just a thought.
Just to throw out a few points that haven't been mentioned:
-While rebuilding the existing fleet might be cheaper in the short run, in the long run it isn't because a lot of the baggage and dining cars are unique. Buying standardized equipment is more expensive in the short run but over the long haul it's cheaper because maintainance is cheap while the cars are still new and over the long run the standardized equipment means they can buy the same parts in bulk which would be cheaper.
- From a public relationship standpoint, crowing to the public that their trains have "new" equipment looks better than saying our "50 year old" cars have another 15 years of life and can travel over 100mph. Some of the newer airlines have been crowing about how young their fleet is.
-Yes, 500 jobs have been created. While it's a drop in the bucket, it's better than nothing. Gotta start somewhere. And besides, rebuilding cars at beech grove would probably be slow since Amtrak probably wouldn't hire more workers.
-Keep the crew on board is cheaper and more logical than crew change points. I would assume Amtrak would have to hire more people if the crews are only working 12 hour shifts instead of 24 hours (like chefs, car attendants). It would become more expensive of an option if a train is late making it to its crew change point (overtime pay for those who work over the 12 hour limit).
Just a few thoughts.
blue streak 1 This order averages $2.24M per car which is below the $3.5 estimated for single level cars. Of course the order to build 55 Baggage and 25 Baggage-Dorms skews the figures. A wag for Baggage at $1.5M, Bag-Dorms $2.M, and Sleepers -- dinners at $3.5M comes close to the $298M figure
I am disappointed that no one has challenged my possible wag for the costs of baggage cars. I threw out those figures to hope someone would take me to task. I really do not feel the above figures are correct and we need to see the actual contract with CAF before we go off the deep end. More later when I have time.
For the overhaul (defined as major work on sheet metal, running gear, and other regular gear) Amtrak budgeted for 2 Heritage dinning cars $1.619M. That does not include the interiors. $.8M for an old car overhaul? Does not seem well worth it. These items have been completed and cars back in service before this new car contract let. Other work on Heritage cars has been suspended.
Amtrak actually suspended some heritage overhaul work this year probably because they found out there were replacement cars may be on the way and only spent $1.375M for the 2 cars. 2 other cars were finished in FY 2010 but carried over from 2009 paid for in 2009. Probably what they did in the overhaul will last until replacement DCs (dinning cars) are delivered.So $.687M per car for an overhaul? Suspect baggage car overhauls very close to this figure??
MerrilyWeRollAlongAt first I was baffled by the logic of not wanting to buy new equipment to replace cars that are 50 years old. I get that you can rebuild and modify them but at some point it's time to let go and move on.
Granted. But what dismays me and others is that Amtrak has been crying for years that it has been unable to maximize business for lack of equipment. This means space it can sell on sleepers and coaches. Then it finally gets a potful of money for equipment, and what does it propose to do? Drop most of it on non-revenue equipment that will not put one more body on the trains or a single additional dollar in its coffers.
This, friends, signals a business that is seriously out of touch with its mission, starved for so long that its brain has atrophied for lack of nourishment.
If the old baggage cars and dorms are too old to run, scrap 'em and do without. Put up the onboard crew in some of the additional sleepers you would be able to buy with the money and forget the baggage cars, if it comes to that. Most of the ones I've stuck my nose into on LD trains (out of curiosity, as a mail and baggage handler in pre-Amtrak days) are mostly empty anyway. Save the TBM's wages in the bargain.
No argument with the new diners. Diners are one of the things that make a passenger train a passenger train.
The reason they want bagage cars is because the passengers do demand more space and some headend revenue can be created.
The Dorm and Bagage Dorms free up revenue space now taken in sleepers for crew members requiring a sleeping space.
This order is suppose to be just a first step with more orders to follow, including replacements for the Amfleets.
As for Bagage price a Bagage car correctly designed has a much heavier frame than any other car.
the coach bagage conversions were a disaster since car was bowing down due to frame not being able to carry the load.
Dutchrailnut The reason they want bagage cars is because the passengers do demand more space and some headend revenue can be created.
What headend revenue, please?
Let's have an honesty check. How many of us would have had, at the top of our wish list for 130 new cars for Amtrak, 55 baggage cars and 25 baggage-dorms?
This is yesterday's thinking. Looking at how the airplane and auto have evolved in the short 100 years since their creation -- and at how the passenger train has stood virtually still in this country since introduction of the streamliners in the 1930s -- is it any wonder most of us rail fans are driving and flying?
The heck with HSR. What will we be riding -- baggage cars and baggage-dorms?
dakotafred What revenue, please? This is yesterday's thinking. Looking at how the airplane and auto have evolved in the short 100 years since their creation -- and at how the passenger train has stood virtually still in this country since introduction of the streamliners in the 1930s -- is it any wonder most of us rail fans are driving and flying?
What revenue, please?
Maybe Amtrak will go the way of the airlines and charge $50 for every bag you check in. If Amtrak charges money for checked baggage, then the baggage and baggage/dorm cars become revenue cars.
Apparently the airlines have recently caught on to what railroads, even before Amtrak, have been doing since dining cars were first introduced on to passenger trains: Charging passengers for food and drinks. Amtrak sell blankets onboard their trains for coach passengers... guess who is also doing that too? Yup, airlines. I guess yesterday's thinking has found a home in today's society.
Dutchrailnut As for Bagage price a Bagage car correctly designed has a much heavier frame than any other car.
Dutchrailnut the coach bagage conversions were a disaster since car was bowing down due to frame not being able to carry the load.
86 passengers spread out evenly in a passenger car even if for argument sake all weight 200 lbs is only 17 000 lbs plus bagage 50 lbs a pop is 4300 lbs
in a bagage car one pallet of newspaper would weigh more than that, put two more in and car would be bending.
oltmanndDutchrailnut As for Bagage price a Bagage car correctly designed has a much heavier frame than any other car.I don't believe this is true. Dutchrailnut the coach bagage conversions were a disaster since car was bowing down due to frame not being able to carry the load.So, baggage density is much greater than that of passengers plus car interior, et. al. Really?
"the coach baggage conversions were a disaster "
Train wreck attributed to aging, sagging baggage car -- film to follow at 11 PM.
Dutchrailnut86 passengers spread out evenly in a passenger car even if for argument sake all weight 200 lbs is only 17 000 lbs plus bagage 50 lbs a pop is 4300 lbs in a bagage car one pallet of newspaper would weigh more than that, put two more in and car would be bending.
Right.... everyone will load a car near doors, not as far away as possible like over trucks.
Currently amtrak does very little head end business, but if Bagage cars are regular that business will pick up.
MerrilyWeRollAlongAt first I was baffled by the logic of not wanting to buy new equipment to replace cars that are 50 years old. I get that you can rebuild and modify them but at some point it's time to let go and move on. There's only some many times i'm going to replace or modify the tires, a/c unit, mirrors, brakes, etc on my car before I decide to junk it and buy a new one. Even the military gets rid of a lot of their planes and ships after awhile instead of just of doing just a complete overhaul with new engines, computer equipment, weapons, etc. And yes i do get that we want the best and the newest military equipment to protect us, the point is that at some point the military replace its older equipment. Based on some of the comments I have read here, it seems that this announcement has grinded the gears of one particularly person who has posted multiple times on this thread. The sarcasm about paying people to just sit around hasn't gone unnoticed. Sarcasm is a way to avoid being honest in saying what you really want to say... it's just a thought. Just to throw out a few points that haven't been mentioned: -While rebuilding the existing fleet might be cheaper in the short run, in the long run it isn't because a lot of the baggage and dining cars are unique. Buying standardized equipment is more expensive in the short run but over the long haul it's cheaper because maintainance is cheap while the cars are still new and over the long run the standardized equipment means they can buy the same parts in bulk which would be cheaper. - From a public relationship standpoint, crowing to the public that their trains have "new" equipment looks better than saying our "50 year old" cars have another 15 years of life and can travel over 100mph. Some of the newer airlines have been crowing about how young their fleet is. -Yes, 500 jobs have been created. While it's a drop in the bucket, it's better than nothing. Gotta start somewhere. And besides, rebuilding cars at beech grove would probably be slow since Amtrak probably wouldn't hire more workers. -Keep the crew on board is cheaper and more logical than crew change points. I would assume Amtrak would have to hire more people if the crews are only working 12 hour shifts instead of 24 hours (like chefs, car attendants). It would become more expensive of an option if a train is late making it to its crew change point (overtime pay for those who work over the 12 hour limit). Just a few thoughts.
A second consideration is availability of new technology that is fundamental to the design. A new automobile has features in it's design that didn't exist 20 years ago. Offset collision and side impact survivability are part of the frame/body design. Composite materials are in use on newer aircraft, saving weight (and fuel).
None of these factors are in play for Amtrak's new car order in any major way. These railcar designs are steel and designed below the yield limit so have infinite fatigue life (in general). They are not sill-less, tubular, or well car design. They are not lightweight or articulated or single axle. They are warmed over 50 year old American stainless steel streamlined passenger car designs. The "need" for new, according to Amtrak is driven by two major considerations. One is the commercial life of the equipment - that is when the customers perceive the "newness" to have worn off. The other is the reestablishment of a domestic car supply industry.
I don't really see how new baggage cars will excite the public. But I can see how a car order can get the car building industry up and running.
So, Amtrak sends out press release after press release about record ridership levels. Add to this all the hype over the $8B for new corridors et.al. And, the new short haul trains being added - Lynchburg, Piedmont, Richmond. So, Amtrak then announces a new, big car order for.......baggage cars? What's a person to think?
MerrilyWeRollAlong-Keep the crew on board is cheaper and more logical than crew change points. I would assume Amtrak would have to hire more people if the crews are only working 12 hour shifts instead of 24 hours (like chefs, car attendants). It would become more expensive of an option if a train is late making it to its crew change point (overtime pay for those who work over the 12 hour limit).
DutchrailnutRight.... everyone will load a car near doors, not as far away as possible like over trucks. Currently amtrak does very little head end business, but if Bagage cars are regular that business will pick up.
Paul MilenkovicAmfleet trucks would be cheaper than the swing motion, equalized trucks under the current baggage cars What sort of "issues" does Amtrak have with anything that is not the equalized swing-hanger style of truck. Especially no one in Europe or Japan, where they have done scientific research on high-speed passenger rail, uses that style of truck anymore. Amfleet has the "Pioneer III" truck where the lateral motion is in the side-displacement of those big outboard springs. This truck, I am told, has an FRA waiver to operate around curves faster on NY-BOS on account of reduced adverse roll. Amtrak ditched this truck when ordering Horizon cars. Superliner I had the "European style" truck where the axle boxes are guided with a link motion -- Superliner II and we are talking about the equalized swing-hanger style truck. The thing against the "equalized swing-hanger style truck" is that the axles are guided by sliding within the truck "pedestal guides." The key thing for high speed operation is to put stiffness into the axle guides so the axles don't wobble within the guided. I suppose you can do this with what used to be called Franklin wedges, but the Europeans and Japanese have all gone over to a guide link -- what you see on the Genesis locomotive trucks and on the Superliner I's. It seems as if Amtrak would stuff a two-axle swing-hanger truck under the Talgo, if they could get away with it. What gives?
oltmanndNew Amtrak ad: "Thinking of driving to Aunt Minnies? Take the train! Your luggage will love our new, state of the art baggage cars! And wait until you try the same old food in our brand new diners!"
In response to your past 5 comments which are all in a row:
Dude you have some serious issues if this post is really bothering you. Your pattern seems to be that of some of the trolls who frequent this site... (just saying). I get that you don't like some of Amtrak's decisions and fine, they are debatable. But you seem to be really obsessed in taking on everyone who disagrees with you. Chill out my friend. There are bigger fish to fry than this.
oltmanndAmtrak doesn't accept pallets over 500# or packages over 50#.
Johnny
MerrilyWeRollAlong to your past 5 comments which are all in a row: Dude you have some serious issues if this post is really bothering you. Your pattern seems to be that of some of the trolls who frequent this site... (just saying). I get that you don't like some of Amtrak's decisions and fine, they are debatable. But you seem to be really obsessed in taking on everyone who disagrees with you. Chill out my friend. There are bigger fish to fry than this
to your past 5 comments which are all in a row:
Dude you have some serious issues if this post is really bothering you. Your pattern seems to be that of some of the trolls who frequent this site... (just saying). I get that you don't like some of Amtrak's decisions and fine, they are debatable. But you seem to be really obsessed in taking on everyone who disagrees with you. Chill out my friend. There are bigger fish to fry than this
Nah. My goal in life is to point out the obvious and make it sound like wisdom. Unfortunately, that rarely occurs. Usually the opposite happens! ...and it's never personal.
"Then, like the tail wagging the dog, there's Amtrak Frankly, as of now, I have no idea what to make of Amtrak." Don Phillips, Sept 2010 Trains
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.