I propose that the mentioning of union rules is the equivalent of Godwin's Law. Once you mention union rules you lose the argument. Just kidding!
This is scary! An NJT advocate, taking on the politically-motivated, New York-built 'Viewliners'! I wonder where the "cost overruns" came into play and whose pockets they went into. The "Big D" strikes again! Yar! The "upstate" NY Republicans gained favor and are equally to blame. Too bad. I like the 'Viewliners'. Now, if New Jersey would buy some American-made locomotives, I'd be happy, but it would be harder to hide the payoffs off-shore! Fat chance! Arrest some more rabbis! Keep the "media" preoccupied!
Bill -- wdh@mcn.net
BNSFwatcherUh, oh! I see a couple of problems with the "pan on the dining car" idea. Off goes the 480 v. AC, in comes the 11,000 v. AC.
Actually the PRR had a few dinners that were dedicated to NH - NYP - Harrisburg - Washington trains for a short time that had a PAN and of course a transformer somewhere on the car to give some type of 25Hz Voltage unknown to provide power for electric ovens, lighting and maybe HVAC. Do not know any other details. Anyone know more?
Youse be an Englisher or a Canadian? We Americans only use one "l" in "traveled". Anyhoo, vy youse live in Stockton? Can't you afford Watsonville? Salinas?
Sorry 'bout that, but I had to say it. I did three Amtrak trips in the last two months. The most disappointing thing I saw on-board was kids playing games in the the lounge car. With their parents. None of them looked out the windows at the scenic wonders of our country. What a shame.
My first cross-country train ride was in 1947! Sydney, Nova Scotia to San Francisco, California. Six days, five nights. My snot-nose was glued to the window! The Pullman porters were accomodating, in the days before 'Windex'.
Interesting item on the "Cash-for-Clunkers" program. I'll look out for the "Repo Rate". Too bad Amtrak can't trade in some of their 'Amfleet' cars!
Using the NJT style double deckers (between the trucks--not overall like Superliners) makes good sense. What we need are a cross between couchettes and old-fashioned open section cars. I know how to make longitudinal berths--uppers and lowers--with feet in but 18" wide area at the very foot of the berth. About four and one-half feet of the total berth length will be as wide as the area from the center aisle to the window. The berths will be at least as private as old-fashioned sections. By taking advantage of the ability to "overlap" where one's feet are, the average berth length will be no more than five feet (individual berths, however, will be about seven feet long).
The question is whether some sort of civilized order can be maintained aboard such cars in the United States. If users had to join a "private club" to use the cars, then a condition of membership would be consent to be forced to behave or be evicted by the train crew.
In old days people who misbehaved aboard trains were put off at some flag stop in the middle of nowhere in the custody of the local sheriff. His jail was often freezing cold and most uncomfortable. People learned.
If overnight travelers could lie down and sleep aboard trains, then find hot showers, &c, at stations, they could save money. City hotels are expensive. European overnight travelers are using TrenHotels in Talgo-style equipment.
What you are suggesting sounds like the configuration of the Budd "Slumbercoach" (that's what NYC called them; other railroads may have differed). The single-bed, single-occupancy "roomettes" were stacked, in a staggered pattern, with "overlap" for head- and foot-room, up-down-up-down... There was full headroom in each entrance. The "uppers" had a couple of steps to get you there and all had private toilet facilities. I liked them, and the price was right! I think they would fit into a "Viewliner" shell. Lot's more capacity than the current lower-and-upper bunk Viewliners, and even the "Superliners". In my travels, I have noticed that most bedrooms-for-two are used single-occupancy.
Re: "Old Days" -- don't get caught smoking or over-imbibing on Amtrak. They'll still dump you off at "Podunk", even if the deputy takes a couple of hours to come after you, unless you were caught doing dope, and then they will be there immediately. You might, still, end up in the puckerbrush, if the local hoosegow is full.
Hays -- in Montana
passengerfanThe Mattresses on the old 10-6 sleepers were thicker and the sheets were crisper. Amtrak had the Viewliners designed by committee something I've always found leads to failure. The 10-6s had a better ride and from what I understand the trucks in the old cars were easier to maintain and less costly. My personal view is I really wish they would look for a new design. I see no reason the new double deck NJT cars cannot be built as sleepers and Diner-Lounges giving more bang for the buck in the same car length and able to negotiate all eastern routes. Al - in - Stockton
The Mattresses on the old 10-6 sleepers were thicker and the sheets were crisper. Amtrak had the Viewliners designed by committee something I've always found leads to failure. The 10-6s had a better ride and from what I understand the trucks in the old cars were easier to maintain and less costly. My personal view is I really wish they would look for a new design. I see no reason the new double deck NJT cars cannot be built as sleepers and Diner-Lounges giving more bang for the buck in the same car length and able to negotiate all eastern routes.
Al - in - Stockton
I'm all for a low-profile, NJT bi-level too. My question with bi-levels is whether an articulated train like a TGV would make more effective use of space. Then there is the whole tilt suspension discussion.
There's no reason that there couldn't be a "sightseer" lounge. I once wondered about low-density lounge seating, sofas & armchairs arranged for viewing the passing scene, conversation, and around tables for games, for first-class passengers.
The "viewliner" seemed to be a sorry excuse for using two narrow windows instead of a single larger window.
The tubular Amfleet and angled Viewliner cars both afforded extra inside space and shoulder room.
BNSFwatcher Without First Class/Sleeping car passengers, all LD trains would be losers. We, the hoi polloi, subsidize the "cattle car" class. At four (+) times the coach fare, we pay for the dining car and the lounge cars... Bill Hays -- wdh@mcn.net
Without First Class/Sleeping car passengers, all LD trains would be losers. We, the hoi polloi, subsidize the "cattle car" class. At four (+) times the coach fare, we pay for the dining car and the lounge cars... Bill Hays -- wdh@mcn.net
According to the Department of Transportation Inspector General's July 22, 2005 report on Amtrak, it is the other way around. Amtrak loses more money on its sleeping car passengers than it does on its long distance coach passengers. Thus, it is the coach passengers that subsidize the sleeping car passengers. This is the latest study of sleeping car vs. coach passenger costs; there is no reason to believe the results would be relationally different today.
Sleeping car passengers have a significant presence in the dinning cars because their meals are included in the price of their accommodation charges. They are a captive audience. In any case, the dinning and lounge cars lose money.
Only 2.2 per cent of Amtrak's passengers traveled by sleeper in 2007. Again, there is little reason to believe that the results would be materially different today. They account for an insignificant percentage of Amtrak's passengers. If Amtrak were run like a real business, it would have junked the sleeping cars decades ago.
The question is not whether Amtrak should take suggestions for a sleeping car design to replace the Viewliner. It should eliminate the sleepers and replace them with business class cars as per my previous post.
Sam1The question is not whether Amtrak should take suggestions for a sleeping car design to replace the Viewliner. It should eliminate the sleepers and replace them with business class cars as per my previous post.
I agree wholeheartedly!! In spite of my earlier post that suggested from the Amtrak report that sleeping car passengers are contributing a larger share per head than coach passengers on LD trains, it does seem clear that we should be moving toward getting rid of all sleepers and even most LD services.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Red ink from dining and lounge car operations is nothing new and goes back at least to the 1920's, if not earlier.
Of course, if you don't have any friends or family outside of a 30-mile radius of Chicago, you don't need a sleeping car. Just 'do the math'. I pay 4x what the "cattle car" riders do, to go first class. Forget the meal factor! Four beers will cost you $22.00 (CHI-MKE - $18.00 for [Yuck!] Budweiser) in the "Sightseer Lounge", 'bout the same as a steak dinner in the dining car. We, the first-class passengers, carry the 'coachers', and even shower, en-route!
The return of a "Slumbercoach" configuration, especially on lines-east, would do a lot to ease your gripes. Meals were not included in "Slumbercoach" travel (NYC/ACL, etc.), but the occupancy rate was, maybe, 2x that of a 10-6 sleeper. That could be done, in a "Viewliner" shell. Better in a "Superliner" shell.
I almost quit traveling Amtrak when they made the trains "non-smoking". I can deal with that, at some pain. Without a sleeping car, "I'm out of here!". I'll cash in my 48,000 "Guest Rewards" points and be gone.
Hays
BNSFwatcherI almost quit traveling Amtrak when they made the trains "non-smoking". I can deal with that, at some pain. Without a sleeping car, "I'm out of here!". I'll cash in my 48,000 "Guest Rewards" points and be gone.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Maybe he'll borrow an idea from Lucius Beebe: buy a private car, park it somewhere and live his anachronistic lifestyle without actually going anywhere.
oltmanndBNSFwatcherI almost quit traveling Amtrak when they made the trains "non-smoking". I can deal with that, at some pain. Without a sleeping car, "I'm out of here!". I'll cash in my 48,000 "Guest Rewards" points and be gone.Would you quit travelling or just go some other way?
If they discontinue long distance trains with sleeping cars I will fly to Vancouver and take the Canadian on my eastern trips and will never set foot on Amtrak again.
Al in Stockton
passengerfanIf they discontinue long distance trains with sleeping cars I will fly to Vancouver and take the Canadian on my eastern trips and will never set foot on Amtrak again.
BNSFwatcherWe, the first-class passengers, carry the 'coachers', and even shower, en-route!
I suppose the empirical data, such as mentioned by Sam1, among others, would be lost on you? You are not subsidizing anyone on long distance trains, including the "cattle car riders" on Amtrak. YOU are being heavily subsidized in your anachronism by the taxpayer, as is everyone else who rides Amtrak. The difference is your subsidy is much higher because your expenses are much higher. I have no problem with subsidizing passenger trains, but I draw the line at subsidizing someone's idiosyncratic indulgences to the detriment of a decent middle to high speed rail net.
BTW, on the Empire Builder, regular coach fare is $150, the cheapest sleeper is $461 (150 + 311), which includes 2 nites' accommodations + 2 breakfasts, 1 lunch and 2 dinners. Since even cheapo hotels are likely to charge at least $60/nite and the meals must be worth at least $60, but more realistically $100/nite + $75 for meals, thus the $311 does not seem to have enough "fat" built in to subsidize even one "cow.".
BNSFwatcherFour beers will cost you $22.00 (CHI-MKE - $18.00 for [Yuck!] Budweiser)
If you're drinking 4 beers on a 90 minute ride, you are being overserved. If you think $5.50/beer is expensive, try Wrigley Field.
"Wrigley Field"? Why would I want to go to some silly field to chew gum? Anyhoo, I hope your wife is a very good cook, a rare comodity. Most kids leave home to get away from their mother's cooking. Some go to the "left coast" (horrors!) and some to the east (cool!). You will be faced with visiting them, 'cause they won't return to your kitchen. Now that you have relatives, outside your 30-mile "sphere of influence", you will have a choice: Drive 1,000/2,000 miles; take a "Death Tube" (make sure your shoes are clean); or ride Amtrak. I was an Army Aircraft Crewmember and won't set foot on a commercial airliner, ergo Amtrak is not an indulgence. I drive a new Mustang GT, but it takes twice the time to "get there" as Amtrak does.
I figure Amtrak at $200 / nite. The three meals are worth about $50. Somewhat more expensive than a decent motel and meals, but you have "gone five hundred miles before day is done".
"Hi-Speed" rail is a "Crock...". Let's bring our basic system up to par. Why can't you get from CHI to MIA without jumping thru hoops? I'd be ***, if I lived in O'Bamaland!
schlimmBNSFwatcherFour beers will cost you $22.00 (CHI-MKE - $18.00 for [Yuck!] Budweiser) If you're drinking 4 beers on a 90 minute ride, you are being overserved. If you think $5.50/beer is expensive, try Wrigley Field.
A very important consideration through many of these threads is the efficiency, cost, revenue and resulting bottom line that can be attributed to different car designs (i.e., Viewliner vs Superliner). The absolute most efficient design I have ever seen is the Talgo 22, which is a proposed true double-deck train.
Although the train is designed for European use, an American version with a different profile and larger dimensions would offer the most efficient use and greatest percentage of passenger space possible. Check it out below if interested and imagine Amtrak coaches, diners, lounges, and sleepers (with no upper bunks) filled to maximum capacity and generating the most revenue per car Amtrak has ever seen.
http://www.talgo.de/download/Talgo22D.pdf
Very interesting, though these trains aren't operating in Germany yet, are they? I suppose there would be a lot of resistance by the "old guard" here to this equipment, just as there is to electrification, concrete ties, lighter weight passenger cars, etc.
The Talgo 22 is an interesting concept; and I'd like to share what I've been able to glean from the pdf. The Talgo 22 is intended for only qualitatively defined near and distant S-bahn suburban and regional services, and features full upper and lower decks and gangways between units.
The intermediate coach units are 10 m long, roughly 33 feet, and seat either 44 (2+2) or 54 (3+2) passengers. Intermediate units are about 10' shorter than the single-level Talgo 21, I suspect, to limit axle loads. The stairwell and doors seem to take an inordinate proportion of space in the carbody; but it would allow fast boarding.
A 10-unit train would be about 360' long and seat 440 or 540 passengers even though the text indicates only 250 seats. The train is 16' high and 10' 7" wide, so 3+2 seating would be a little cramped. The respective seating densities are 1.22 or 1.50 psgr/ft length.
The short bodies almost demand facing pairs of seats. I question whether everyone will appreciate the lack of personal space and demand for social interaction the seating offers.
The cars have entrance doors 550 mm (21.65") above the rail to conform with UIC regulations. The lower deck floor and gangway appear to be an inch or two higher.
One point about the design is the low cab position. I think an upper deck cab position would be desired by the driver in US service.
Another design issue is the apparent lack of toilets, even on an S-bahn.
The Talgo 22 is designed for speeds up to 124 mph, possibly due to limits to the size and capacity of traction equipment or tractive effort (wheel slip?), but generally for the type of service for which it is intended. The tilt suspension allows faster speeds on conventional lines, yet the Talgo 22 seems to be compliant for operation on high speed lines as well.
The trains are available for 15kV and 25kV AC and 3kV and 1.5kV DC traction.
HarveyK400The Talgo 22 is intended for only qualitatively defined near and distant S-bahn suburban and regional services
As I read the pdf, I found it translated "through a flexible design of car body and interior design the train can be adapted to the specific requirements for local, regional and intercity traffic."
Pretty clearly, however, a lot of changes would be necessary to use the design on high-density, mid-range speed routes in the US.
BNSFwatcherI figure Amtrak at $200 / nite.
$400 per night would be pretty steep! I think $200 / night is reasonable, albiet a bit high. Maybe us seniors can get some "special dispensation" from the O'Bama administration, before they euthaize us. I do not fly commercial "death tubes", but would go anywhere on a military aircraft, especially a helicopter. I drive a new Mustang GT, but long distances are a pain. ***! Montana has a speed limit now, so that takes a lot of fun out of a trip! Going east, you can't get any decent food until you get to the Atlantic states. Condiments, in the Dakotas, are ketchup, salt, and pepper. Period! They never heard of a filet mignon. They sell all of them to New York!
oltmanndBNSFwatcherI figure Amtrak at $200 / nite.At $400 per night, are you still going Amtrak or are you driving or are you not going at all?
Hilarious!
schlimmPretty clearly, however, a lot of changes would be necessary to use the design on high-density, mid-range speed routes in the US.
possibly one thing not though of is the single axel between the cars. Having ridden talgo extensively in Spain the ride good on dedicated track but put them on regular track. (looks like NEC track the ride gets rough over any track imperfection. I've forgotten are the Cascades trains single or double axel?
Last first - the Cascade Talgos are "single-axle" - actually no axle, just stubs for independent journals. The lack of an axle permits a lower level floor through the gangway; but it lacks the self-centering of a tapered wheel tread with wheels mounted rigidly on an axle..
Maybe you are more sensitive than I am; but I've ridden a Talgo in Illinois and a Cascade and thought the ride was better than the Horizon equipment. The exception was ~20 mph on a stretch of end-battered jointed rail approaching a signal at Argo that produced a severe rocking. That has been replaced since then with cwr. The BNSF was just fine; and the ride was softer with air bags than with steel springs
I'd rather see the door at one end rather than in the middle of the double-deck intermediate car. This would allow an open saloon where seats could be turned to face the direction of travel to minimize demand for social interaction and to promote privacy. Non-facing seating apparently is an FRA.guideline or regulation as well.
An accessible toilet in the place of a door and stairwell every second unit would be no significant problem with the wide and open gangways between cars.
I'd be interested in seeing how the Talgo 22 stacks up against the double-deck TGV. Neither would be compatible with the boarding configuration for an 85' car if fences or screen walls are adopted for station platforms for passenger safety.
I was thinking the Talgo 22 cars would be about 60' long in an American version (about the wheelbase of present rail equipment), 10' 6" inches wide and 14' 6" high to allow use anywhere on the system. I wonder if a four wheel version of their suspension is possible which might give a better ride and support heavier loads. But I must say that I have ridden on Talgo equipment and was very surprised at the smoothness of the ride.
I still have a problem with the Acelas and the Talgos and that is the same problem all articulated trainsets have and that is if one car has a problem then the entire trainset is out of service. The CB&Q and UP learned this over half a century ago and we are still determined to revisit the problem. Have we learned nothing since the 1930s.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.