I saw one picture on the Amtrak blog today talking about the new Viewliner IIs, which are expected to be introduced into service in 2014. One of the pictures had a baggage car in Phase III paint. Question is: are they using Phase III for all new cars, just a few, or repainting them all again??
http://blog.amtrak.com/2013/10/coming-soon-new-long-distance-cars/
There's a great Amtrak video that goes along with this blog post that shows the new cars under construction and complete.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHAGdl5J0uw&feature=player_embedded
From Amtrak's blog:
With the launch of our new single-level long distance equipment – the “Viewliner II”, Amtrak is also launching Amtrak America, a brand that will encompass all that is great about Amtrak’s long-haul trains, including those with sleeper class service. Amtrak’s route brands will continue, and this brand will make the conversation and overall service offerings clear to our customers and stakeholders.
Amtrak America will utilize our Phase Three striping on the single-level long distance cars as a tribute to our heritage. The first cars released from production will also carry Amtrak’s heritage logo in honor of our past. Amtrak’s current logo will return on the standard production cars.
081552 There's a great Amtrak video that goes along with this blog post that shows the new cars under construction and complete. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHAGdl5J0uw&feature=player_embedded
Good video! Joe's a good cheerleader . (Still not a fan of all those new baggage cars....)
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
On my wall is a print of Robert West's "The Monocoque," a GE Transportation commissioned painting of two AMD-103's crossing Lake Pontchartrain with a seeming endless string of Viewliners in Phase III paint. Now it appears that just may happen.
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
oltmannd Good video! Joe's a good cheerleader . (Still not a fan of all those new baggage cars....)
Good cheerleader! Perhaps! Fast and loose with facts! Yep!
Amtrak's long distance trains connect America! Really! Here are the major cities (population of 100,000+) that are overlooked in Texas: Abilene, Amarillo, Brownsville, Corpus Christi, Denton, Killeen, Laredo, Lubbock, McAllen, McKinney, Midland, Odessa, and Wichita Falls. Drop it down a notch, i.e. to 50,000, and you get a lot more cities not served by Amtrak. And this is just in Texas. Add in the other states, and the claim that Amtrak's long distance trains are an important link in the U.S.'s national transportation system is over the top.
Irrespective of the color scheme, the new cars will increase Amtrak's depreciation expense and may acerbate the losses incurred by the long distance trains. The key question is whether the new equipment will generate greater marginal revenues than marginal expenses?
Sam, I cannot believe that Amtrak had to buy 50 new baggage cars. It would seem to me that Beech Grove could have economicaliy upgraded existing baggage cars to handle 125 mphs speeds, Not even new trucks, just replacing springs and shock absorbers with the most modern available, new roller bearings, couplers, brakes, etc. New cabling for push-pull operation and future electric-controlled breaking, etc. I was under the impression that most existing Amtrak baggage cars are stainless steel construction, and such bodies don't rust or wear out. Look at the 48-year old R32 subway cars still running around after two overhauls but no major rebuilding in much tougher service.
I also wonder if Amrak has built into these new cars provision for future electric-controlled braking? And push-pull operation?
Some of the cities and towns you mention may not have Amtrak rail service but do have Thruway bus connections, for whatever that is worth.
Are the existing Horizan coaches or any Amfleet OK for 125 mph? As you know I do support long distance trains for all the reasons I have stated. But I would agree with you the major investment with limited funds should be for the best possible equpmenet for the CORRIDORS where the nessecity for the service is proven and where losses can be minimized and even possibly operating profits realized. Older Amfleet equipment can have new interiors. Again, I think a Sky-Chefs-Wilton Caterers-Acela approach to long distance dining is appropriate for the problems Amtrak faces.
Dave: Buying 50 new baggage cars is emblematic of what is wrong with Amtrak management.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Hold onto your hats because I'm about to agree with an Amtrak decision. Many moons ago I was heading home on a Florida train back when it still split into two sections at Jacksonville. Back then Amtrak still used baggage-dorms rebuilt from US Army hospital cars. The baggage-dorm had been bad ordered in Washington so they put on a 10&6 sleeper for the crew. Now, what to do with the Miami bound baggage south of Jax? I vividly recall the onboard crew stuffing bags into every crevice of that 10&6 at Jax for the trip.
The stop-gap fix for this was converting some surplus coaches in to baggage cars; the cars with the rollup doors in the middle. A baggage car is more that a shell with no windows and a couple of big doors but they have made it work in the interim. Would I have rather seen 50 more sleeping cars? Absolutely. But, if checked baggage and express service are to continue to be offered then the new cars are necessary. Furthermore, with the heritage dining cars coming out of service that pushes the heritage baggage cars even further into odd-replacement-parts category as they would be the last equipment left in national service with pre-Amtrak (non-standardized) components.
As for Sam's question of greater revenue, probably not. This order replaces extant capacity. Lower maintenance costs (if CAF USA did its job correctly) will be a plus.
1. Some supporters of LD services justify them as a series of overlapping short corridors. Checked baggage is not compatible with short corridor operations.
2. Checked baggage and baggage cars cause long dwell times in stations. Consequently, the use of checked baggage in separate cars was largely discontinued in most passenger services in the world.
3. Baggage beyond what can be placed overhead should be accommodated in spaces at the end of coaches.(and sleepers).
D.Carleton Hold onto your hats because I'm about to agree with an Amtrak decision. Many moons ago I was heading home on a Florida train back when it still split into two sections at Jacksonville. Back then Amtrak still used baggage-dorms rebuilt from US Army hospital cars. The baggage-dorm had been bad ordered in Washington so they put on a 10&6 sleeper for the crew. Now, what to do with the Miami bound baggage south of Jax? I vividly recall the onboard crew stuffing bags into every crevice of that 10&6 at Jax for the trip. The stop-gap fix for this was converting some surplus coaches in to baggage cars; the cars with the rollup doors in the middle. A baggage car is more that a shell with no windows and a couple of big doors but they have made it work in the interim. Would I have rather seen 50 more sleeping cars? Absolutely. But, if checked baggage and express service are to continue to be offered then the new cars are necessary. Furthermore, with the heritage dining cars coming out of service that pushes the heritage baggage cars even further into odd-replacement-parts category as they would be the last equipment left in national service with pre-Amtrak (non-standardized) components. As for Sam's question of greater revenue, probably not. This order replaces extant capacity. Lower maintenance costs (if CAF USA did its job correctly) will be a plus.
They would have been better off to buy 50 new coaches and convert 50 Amfleet II to baggage cars.
oltmannd They would have been better off to buy 50 new coaches and convert 50 Amfleet II to baggage cars.
Again, a baggage car is more than just a passenger car shell with no windows and big doors. This is a lesson Amtrak learned (the hard way) with their 1700 series cars rebuilt from coaches. (Hopefully CAF USA learned this lesson too or this is going to get real ugly real quick.) The Metroliner/Amfleet shell is especially unfit for true baggage (freight) service. The cost of reengineering the car plus the modifications would bring the cost close to what they are paying for new cars.
As an aside I had suggested a while back converting some idled Amfleet cars into baggage coaches where the forward third of the car would be blanked off and used solely for "baggage," that is, suitcases and bags not palletized freight loaded with a forklift. Even keep the small door on the end to lower costs of the conversion and dissuade anyone from trying to drive a forklift through it. I was told that they have very creative forklift operators and that was the end of it.
schlimm2. Checked baggage and baggage cars cause long dwell times in stations. Consequently, the use of checked baggage in separate cars was largely discontinued in most passenger services in the world.
It could be, but it would have to be re-designed. Roll on roll off racks?
D.CarletonAgain, a baggage car is more than just a passenger car shell with no windows and big doors. This is a lesson Amtrak learned (the hard way) with their 1700 series cars rebuilt from coaches. (Hopefully CAF USA learned this lesson too or this is going to get real ugly real quick.) The Metroliner/Amfleet shell is especially unfit for true baggage (freight) service. The cost of reengineering the car plus the modifications would bring the cost close to what they are paying for new cars.
Okay - convert Horizon cars. Point is, new equipment should be for passengers. A baggage car is just a passenger car with no widows fitted for baggage.
oltmannd Okay - convert Horizon cars. Point is, new equipment should be for passengers. A baggage car is just a passenger car with no widows fitted for baggage.
Does anybody actually know what the Amtrak baggage cars are used for today? Strictly checked suitcases? or is there some express business? If so, why? And how much of the interior space is typically used in an 85' car?
Typically baggage cars are not 85' long. Historically a baggage car was 60' to 75' long. It's hard to tell from the pictures but it seems the new Viewliner 2 baggage cars are shorter than 85' but we shall see when they hit the road.
That said, I am not qualified to speak to the day-to-day baggage count on a long distance train. Earlier this year I was tasked with brining a private car east from Chicago. Separating my car from the rest of the Lake Shore Limited was one of the baggage cars converted from a coach. Walking through there was the new firearms locker and few overhead light fixtures. Other than that there was... nothing, not even a box of matches. What was in the forward baggage of the Boston section? Was this typical? Was this car going to be set out in ALB? I have no idea but that is what I saw.
D.Carleton oltmannd Okay - convert Horizon cars. Point is, new equipment should be for passengers. A baggage car is just a passenger car with no widows fitted for baggage. Totally agree, "new equipment should be for passengers." Given my druthers, the 1600 series MHC's would have been rebuilt with end doors and the plug side doors exchanged for something that could be opened from the inside. However, Amtrak Mail & Express burned their bridges and the MHC's went along with it. The Horizon/Comet car platform is even less suitable for baggage conversion than an Amfleet. A baggage car is a freight car on a passenger train and (should be) designed as such.
Structurally? Nope. It's a passenger car. Same center sill, same crossbearers, same roof and wall structure, same draft pocket/draft gear. Very slight mods to support racks, carry load around larger doors, etc., but basically a passenger car. Not similar to any kind of freight car.
MHCs are too short for 125 mph. Controlling hunting would be almost impossible. Gotta have 85 foot cars for 125 mph. It's why the 60 footers are only good for 90 mph.
D.Carletonypically baggage cars are not 85' long. Historically a baggage car was 60' to 75' long. It's hard to tell from the pictures but it seems the new Viewliner 2 baggage cars are shorter than 85' but we shall see when they hit the road.
Certainly true in the standard heavyweight era but many streamline baggage and combination cars were 82-85'.
And many RPO, RWExp, and Mail Storage cars.
oltmannd D.Carleton oltmannd Okay - convert Horizon cars. Point is, new equipment should be for passengers. A baggage car is just a passenger car with no widows fitted for baggage. Totally agree, "new equipment should be for passengers." Given my druthers, the 1600 series MHC's would have been rebuilt with end doors and the plug side doors exchanged for something that could be opened from the inside. However, Amtrak Mail & Express burned their bridges and the MHC's went along with it. The Horizon/Comet car platform is even less suitable for baggage conversion than an Amfleet. A baggage car is a freight car on a passenger train and (should be) designed as such. Structurally? Nope. It's a passenger car. Same center sill, same crossbearers, same roof and wall structure, same draft pocket/draft gear. Very slight mods to support racks, carry load around larger doors, etc., but basically a passenger car. Not similar to any kind of freight car. MHCs are too short for 125 mph. Controlling hunting would be almost impossible. Gotta have 85 foot cars for 125 mph. It's why the 60 footers are only good for 90 mph.
Not a huge deal to convert either a Horizon or Amfleet car to a baggage car. Would have to be creative about door in Amfleet.
oltmannd Structurally? Nope. It's a passenger car. Same center sill, same crossbearers, same roof and wall structure, same draft pocket/draft gear. Very slight mods to support racks, carry load around larger doors, etc., but basically a passenger car. Not similar to any kind of freight car. MHCs are too short for 125 mph. Controlling hunting would be almost impossible. Gotta have 85 foot cars for 125 mph. It's why the 60 footers are only good for 90 mph.
D.CarletonAll of them have the standard three inch thick floor... with one exception: The baggage car floor is five inches thick throughout the length and width of the car. This is to compensate for the beating they would take from baggage, express, coffins, freight and whatever else the railroads would throw at them. Furthermore, perpendicular to the doors are extra heavy bracing on the walls and roof to compensate for the larger opening. (I didn't climb up there to measure, too busy.) I don't recall seeing such on a converted coach.
Makes sense. Floor isn't really structural. It sits on the cross-bearers. The walls on both sides of the doors and where the walls attach to the roof members would need beefing up. Neither are a huge deal after the interior is out of the car.
D.CarletonOur local FRA inspector was around today and I asked him about such a conversion and he said it would need approval and a waiver from the FRA prior to implementation. Again, I don't know what Amtrak did prior to their rebuilding. Going through such engineering and approval process would negate any savings rather than build anew.
Not a huge deal either. Pretty much show them the results of the finite element analysis you did for the design. I'm pretty sure we did this with the GP40s we stretched into GP40PHs for NJT a couple of decades ago. We did it for the anti-climber we added to the rear, at the least.
D.CarletonThe baggage car floor is five inches thick throughout the length and width of the car. This is to compensate for the beating they would take from baggage, express, coffins, freight and whatever else the railroads would throw at them.
Is Amtrak transporting express, coffins, freight along with suitcases? So the heavier floor is unnecessary.
schlimm D.CarletonThe baggage car floor is five inches thick throughout the length and width of the car. This is to compensate for the beating they would take from baggage, express, coffins, freight and whatever else the railroads would throw at them. Is Amtrak transporting express, coffins, freight along with suitcases? So the heavier floor is unnecessary.
D.Carleton schlimm D.CarletonThe baggage car floor is five inches thick throughout the length and width of the car. This is to compensate for the beating they would take from baggage, express, coffins, freight and whatever else the railroads would throw at them. Is Amtrak transporting express, coffins, freight along with suitcases? So the heavier floor is unnecessary. When driving a forklift onto the baggage car, yes, the heavier floor is necessary. And I have had experience with all of the above.
Sure, to distribute the load out over the cars's structure. What's under the floor is the same....
oltmannd D.Carleton schlimm D.CarletonThe baggage car floor is five inches thick throughout the length and width of the car. This is to compensate for the beating they would take from baggage, express, coffins, freight and whatever else the railroads would throw at them. Is Amtrak transporting express, coffins, freight along with suitcases? So the heavier floor is unnecessary. When driving a forklift onto the baggage car, yes, the heavier floor is necessary. And I have had experience with all of the above. Sure, to distribute the load out over the cars's structure. What's under the floor is the same....
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.