Opinions solicited
The Superliners, especially the lounge cars, are appealing to this Texan. I also like the looks of the Acela equipment. And I found the Cascades equipment to be appealing, although it does not mesh that well with the locomotives, or at least it did not when I rode the Cascades last year.
On the inside, however, the Superliner coaches, at least, tend to be a bit dark and drab. The windows are relatively small and, therefore, don't admit much outside light. This is especially true if a significant number of passengers have pulled the window curtains.
The fabrics on the seats, floor, and sides (partial) of the Eagle coaches, at least, are faded blues and browns, neither of which are very appealing. If anything they make the interior of the car look even darker than would be the case if lighter, brighter fabrics were used.
The interiors of the Superliner coaches, at least, appear to have been designed by the U.S. General Services Administration. They don't show much imagination.
The Superliner lounge cars on the other hand are bright and cheerful on the inside. This is especially true for the lounge cars that have been refurbished. The dark browns and oranges of the earlier versions have given way to pastel blue, magenta, and light gray. They could look even better if Amtrak used more imaginative color schemes.
The interiors of the Superliner dinning cars and sleepers are OK, although both of them suffer from the same lighting problems found in the coaches.
Well in regards to the single level equipment, we now have 4 differently shaped exterior car shells, thats going to look like absolute crap when pulled within the same consist combined together.
1. Legacy (pre-1971)......Budd and Pullman.
2. Amfleet......was designed for high speed...hence the small windows. This design is also pre-1971 as it was the Pennsylvania that had it designed first from Budd
3. Horizon.......have to say that this design probably is also a pre-1971 design in that some of the later Union Pacific Passenger Cars purchased look pretty similar to this design.
4. Viewliner.
How did we end up here? Lack of Amtrak standardization with specs and trying to always go with the lowest bidder. We now have an expansion of use of the ugly viewliner shells because it's cheaper for Amtrak to continue this experiment than it would be to re-engineer the inside of the former Pullman and Budd shell cars.
On the Western Long DIstance Front:
1. Appears Amtrak has standardized on the Superliner. I am OK with that design but when it comes to rebuliding it, there really has not been much of an effort on Amtraks behalf for attempting to make the design better, in fact their only attempt in the area of Cafe Cars.........IMO has made the former Dining Cars worse in layout. What is the design to be used for the next generation Long Distance bi-level?
How about at least widening the central staircase just a little? Maybe? Or making the now central serving area in the Sleeping Cars a little more functional to allow for snacks between meals? maybe?
2. Surfliner Cars - No argument with these for short distance travel.
CMStPnPAmfleet......was designed for high speed...hence the small windows
Actually, was designed to make a smaller target for rock throwers. In the 70s, you could pretty much count on every train getting "rocked" in Connecticut.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
The Horizon cars are an outgrowth of the basic design developed for NJDOT when it re-equipped the EL diesel-powered suburban lines in 1971.
The streamliner era was the epitome. If this Nat'l Ltd had a tail car, it would be prefect.
The Metroliner/Amfleet design is not bad looking. A solid consist with an E60 or AEM7 pulling looked pretty good. The "jetliner" styling was cool in it's day, but I think that day has passed. I'd much rather have larger windows and get back the space lost to the curved sides.
Viewliners, look okay and would probably look pretty good in a solid train. Mixed with Amfleet and old Budd equipment does not make for a great looking train.
I'm not a huge fan of Cesar Vergara. The NJT locos and M8s are interesting, but not great looking. I'm not a big fan of his Cadillac styling, either.
I think the paint scheme might be more important than the equipment shape. I'm a fan of schemes that accentuate the length of the train. Stripes along the windows or sill. If the scheme can blend into the locomotive, even better. The Cascades do this rather well. The original Amtrak schemes were good. The NYC lightning stripes scheme, too.
I'm not a fan of the Amtrak P42 "Shamu" scheme. The locomotive has good lines and the scheme ignores them. Ditto for the Acela "blobs". (BTW, if we could lose the "humps" on the Acela cars, that would help them look quite a bit better)
Solid train of Viewliners is a long way in the future unless Amtrak does a publicity photo.
Although many of us do not like its lines they seem to be built to provide the maximum room inside for passengers. Along with good interior decoration that IMO is more important to attract passengers.
Funding the next generation of bi-level long distance cars could be a real challenge.
Amtrak ordered 479 Superliner cars in two tranches. The first batch was delivered in or near 1975, with the second batch being delivered during 1993-94. According to Wikipeda, which pulled the information from Train Web, as well as several other sources, the first order cost $241 million; the second was for $340 million.
Using the average annual increased in the Producer Price Index for railway equipment as a guide, the cost to replace the current Superliner cars today, using original price data adjusted for inflation, would be approximately $2.4 billion. Of course, this says nothing about the challenge of finding a builder, different designs, better functionality, etc., and averages can be deceptive, but it suggests a challenge for Amtrak's long distance trains.
Would the federal government being willing to write a check, if not all at once, in increments to fund new bi-level equipment for some of its long distance trains?
I realize that this goes beyond the scope of the presenting issue, but replacement was mentioned in one or two posts and, therefore, is fair game.
If I were the President or in Congress I would immediately vote for and appropriate the 2.4 billion or so estimated by Sam1 to build these cars. This would immediately create some well-paying jobs somewhere else other than in New York City, Washington DC, or San Francisco. Amtrak would borrow the money from the Federal government, which would borrow it from us, all at interest rates that are at historic lows. Amtrak would repay the money to the Feds over, say, 35 or 40 years. After that time, whatever is owed is simply written off by the Feds as a gift to Amtrak and the American people. The logic for this seems sound enough to me: there's never a shortage of money for defense projects, which often wind up crashing, being destroyed, not even used etc in stories we're all familiar with from reading the newspapers since the Eisenhower administration ("Every airplane or tank is a theft...").
I realize that my position infuriates and inflames many, if not most, of the contributors to this forum and perhaps the general public. But I am convinced that infrastructure projects that build such sorely needed facilities (trains, bridges, pipeline replacement, etc) will, in the long run, pay for themselves in dozens of ways, both quantifiable and otherwise. The people of this country want work and want an America ready for the 21st century.
Raise my taxes if necessary. But borrow the money while it's cheap and invest in an America that can design and manufacture its own railroad equipment built by the skilled hands of her people, who, after all, are indirectly paying their own wages; only this time they can use the results, instead of making yet more weaponry.
When I look at those Amfleet (AmCan) cars the first thing I think of is they were designed that way for ease of manufacture, the builder could roll the whole exterior shell in one piece instead of building it up piecemeal.
The newer stuff coming out just seems to be getting less and less attractive, at least the exteriors, but the train traveling public probably cares less what it looks like, as long as it gets to where it's supposed to be in a timely manner.
NKP guy If I were the President or in Congress I would immediately vote for and appropriate the 2.4 billion or so estimated by Sam1 to build these cars. This would immediately create some well-paying jobs somewhere else other than in New York City, Washington DC, or San Francisco. Amtrak would borrow the money from the Federal government, which would borrow it from us, all at interest rates that are at historic lows. Amtrak would repay the money to the Feds over, say, 35 or 40 years. After that time, whatever is owed is simply written off by the Feds as a gift to Amtrak and the American people. The logic for this seems sound enough to me: there's never a shortage of money for defense projects, which often wind up crashing, being destroyed, not even used etc in stories we're all familiar with from reading the newspapers since the Eisenhower administration ("Every airplane or tank is a theft..."). I realize that my position infuriates and inflames many, if not most, of the contributors to this forum and perhaps the general public. But I am convinced that infrastructure projects that build such sorely needed facilities (trains, bridges, pipeline replacement, etc) will, in the long run, pay for themselves in dozens of ways, both quantifiable and otherwise. The people of this country want work and want an America ready for the 21st century. Raise my taxes if necessary. But borrow the money while it's cheap and invest in an America that can design and manufacture its own railroad equipment built by the skilled hands of her people, who, after all, are indirectly paying their own wages; only this time they can use the results, instead of making yet more weaponry.
Doesn't upset me, I just think your underinformed and things have changed with the Defense Budget since Eisenhower was President, they are a lot more focused now on technical R&D to improve survivability because of reduced personel funded by the Defense Budget. When Eisenhower was President we had millions upon millions of people in the Armed Forces or supporting them, Economy of Force was not even an issue. Things have changed......
Actually a good portion of what is spent on Defense flips over to the consumer side and is turned into consumer products, much akin to the Space program. The fact you never hear about it has to do with bias and stupidity by our national media. Spend some time on the website army.mil and look through their technology section to see what they are working on now that might have consumer applications..
Not sure if you saw it but if you did. That whole use your cell phone or Iphone to monitor your medical issue (Army Medical Project). While your on the army.mil in the technology section look at the new field radio they are developing for Rifleman with an Android OS interface. The GPS abilty of Iphone/ Cell Phone (another DoD invention) is going to be expanded into battlefield telecommunications which means local weather / satellite / and streaming drone images.....comming soon to a Iphone for your use.
Additionally, the Army is regularly hailed by the Sierra Club for the post management / environmental preservation initiatives.........rare to see that on the civilan corporation side.
BTW, where do you think automotive companies got those nifty proximity sensors and night vision capability from not to mention their telematics capabilities. Did you know that troops can Email between moving armored vehicles now and have been doing so for almost 10 years or more?
Back to Topic, I agree on the infrastructure projects and I think you stand a better chance there by getting Congress to make Amtrak appropriations part of their regular Transportation Budget with a inflation adjustment each year...........instead of having them debate each year.
The picture of the National Limited - I rode it several times - coming down the mountain towards Altoona, having just rounded the Horseshoe Curve, is one of the best that I have ever seen. Thanks for posting it.
NKP guy I realize that my position infuriates and inflames many, if not most, of the contributors to this forum and perhaps the general public. . . . Raise my taxes if necessary.
I realize that my position infuriates and inflames many, if not most, of the contributors to this forum and perhaps the general public.
. . . Raise my taxes if necessary.
The point of offering the cost estimates of passenger trains, which annoys many people who want trains to be reminded of this all the time, is if the passenger trains are taken out of the market arena where they have to pay their own way, they are in the political arena, where enough of the public has to be convinced to pay for them.
You expressed willingness to pay perhaps a minor increase in taxes to pay for the trains, but a lot of other people need to be convinced to have their taxes increased too, many of them members of the general public whom you estimate may be infuriated and inflamed by the reasons you give for why taxes should be increased to pay for the trains.
If the objective is to get something off your chest regarding lavish Defense expenditures and stingy train expenditures, your post makes that point. If the objective is to advance the cause of getting more money for trains, maybe a different approach may work better.
The points I have been making for some time now are 1) if trains are taken out of the marketplace that would require them to pay their own way, you still have to worry about finances because the money comes from the political sphere where, yes, value for the money spent is still important, 2) if trains are in the political sphere, one is going to have to build a broad coalition of people willing to have their tax money spent that way, which maybe includes people who disagree with you on the merits of Defense funding.
A starting point, in my opinion, is to try and put oneself in the shoes of persons with differing political views, and a starting point for that is to work on getting the Big Picture of the political landscape. That there is "never a shortage of money for defense projects" is not the case, especially in recent history where a number of expensive projects are being cancelled or restricted. Furthermore, the priority next-in-line for the savings from reductions in Defense is healthcare and after that, education spending.
In the nearly trillion dollars in the 2009 ARRA (the Stimulus) to do the things for economic recovery that you indeed propose, my understanding is that the major part of it was to make up for the shortfalls in State budgets paying for school teachers, with a minor part going to the "shovel ready" infrastructure projects. Of that money, about 8 billion dollars filtered down for passenger trains, and this is from a President and composition of Congress as favorably disposed towards trains as you are going to see in a long time.
There was a thread on this forum on "how the 8 billion should be spent", with considerable back-and-forth between factions who would have supported the long-distance trains with your Superliner purchase proposal and others supporting corridors. There was a considerable contingent considering the 8 billion to be merely a downpayment, the start of a lot more money to come ,with a minor squad of Eyores and Cassandras warning people, "Be careful how you spend the 8 billion because you may not see more." And that the funding tap that supplied the 8 billion got turned off as some had warned had nothing to do with trains and little to do with Defense expenditures but a lot to do with the political controversies generated by Health Care funding.
As to the discussions here of the 8 billion, they do matter because trains are not high on most people's priorities, and what gets talked about here does influence what Congress does on trains. "We" as in those of us who care about trains get a tiny slice, a mere pittance of the Federal budget funding Amtrak, but we have a larger influence on how that gets spent than we realize, and that is why I believe "getting the arguments" right is important on this Forum.
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 Milenkovic NKP guy I realize that my position infuriates and inflames many, if not most, of the contributors to this forum and perhaps the general public. . . . Raise my taxes if necessary. The point of offering the cost estimates of passenger trains, which annoys many people who want trains to be reminded of this all the time, is if the passenger trains are taken out of the market arena where they have to pay their own way, they are in the political arena, where enough of the public has to be convinced to pay for them. You expressed willingness to pay perhaps a minor increase in taxes to pay for the trains, but a lot of other people need to be convinced to have their taxes increased too, many of them members of the general public whom you estimate may be infuriated and inflamed by the reasons you give for why taxes should be increased to pay for the trains. If the objective is to get something off your chest regarding lavish Defense expenditures and stingy train expenditures, your post makes that point. If the objective is to advance the cause of getting more money for trains, maybe a different approach may work better. The points I have been making for some time now are 1) if trains are taken out of the marketplace that would require them to pay their own way, you still have to worry about finances because the money comes from the political sphere where, yes, value for the money spent is still important, 2) if trains are in the political sphere, one is going to have to build a broad coalition of people willing to have their tax money spent that way, which maybe includes people who disagree with you on the merits of Defense funding. A starting point, in my opinion, is to try and put oneself in the shoes of persons with differing political views, and a starting point for that is to work on getting the Big Picture of the political landscape. That there is "never a shortage of money for defense projects" is not the case, especially in recent history where a number of expensive projects are being cancelled or restricted. Furthermore, the priority next-in-line for the savings from reductions in Defense is healthcare and after that, education spending. In the nearly trillion dollars in the 2009 ARRA (the Stimulus) to do the things for economic recovery that you indeed propose, my understanding is that the major part of it was to make up for the shortfalls in State budgets paying for school teachers, with a minor part going to the "shovel ready" infrastructure projects. Of that money, about 8 billion dollars filtered down for passenger trains, and this is from a President and composition of Congress as favorably disposed towards trains as you are going to see in a long time. There was a thread on this forum on "how the 8 billion should be spent", with considerable back-and-forth between factions who would have supported the long-distance trains with your Superliner purchase proposal and others supporting corridors. There was a considerable contingent considering the 8 billion to be merely a downpayment, the start of a lot more money to come ,with a minor squad of Eyores and Cassandras warning people, "Be careful how you spend the 8 billion because you may not see more." And that the funding tap that supplied the 8 billion got turned off as some had warned had nothing to do with trains and little to do with Defense expenditures but a lot to do with the political controversies generated by Health Care funding. As to the discussions here of the 8 billion, they do matter because trains are not high on most people's priorities, and what gets talked about here does influence what Congress does on trains. "We" as in those of us who care about trains get a tiny slice, a mere pittance of the Federal budget funding Amtrak, but we have a larger influence on how that gets spent than we realize, and that is why I believe "getting the arguments" right is important on this Forum.
+1
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I sincerely respect the views expressed here about my posting which are so different from my own.
But in the last paragraph of Paul Milenkovic's posting he states, "...and what gets talked about here does influence what Congress does on trains." Really? I've never seen any evidence that anyone in Congress reads or cares what postings are expressed here. I think we're deluding ourselves to think this forum has any influence beyond its readership, if that. I say "if that" because I have not often seen anyone here admitting some other person's recent posting has changed his mind on some point.
And thank goodness that's the case. I'd sure hate for Congressmen and others in positions to affect Amtrak to be influenced by some of the ideas I've read here, from rail fans no less, like eliminating long distance trains or making the dining cars a fast-food Automat-like service.
Now as to how the Defense Department carefully husbands our taxes and therefore can't give up the $2.4 billion, I suggest we turn, perhaps, to crop subsidies, or to the financial industry, the cable TV industry, the major league sports franchises, or to the major corporations who now pay nearly nothing in taxes (think GE, etc), while our troops and ships guarantee the safe conduct of their businesses abroad.
So, since this discussion of my point is just a fantasy, anyone can have an opinion without doing too much damage.
As to the thread's main point however, I love the look of the Heritage cars and think the Viewliners are just OK. I never did think the Superliners looked aesthetically pleasing; they remind me of the difference in the look of the old Queen Mary or Queen Elizabeth 2, compared with the boxy, clunky look of such modern cruise ships as Carnival Pride. Just my opinion.
The folks who read these posts are not only those who post who are members/regulars. Look at the recent threads on the Passenger Forum. The number of views compared to posts is often 20:1 or more. Some of those folks may be exposed to new (new for them) information which just may alter their opinions. Perhaps that is a part of what Paul M. is referring to, though I am only voicing my hunch.
CMStPnP 2. Surfliner Cars - No argument with these for short distance travel.
Except for seat pitch. There's barely enough room for me to work on a laptop with the seat in front in the upright position, which is why I head for the Superliner car if there is one in the consist.
- Erik
I share my views on passenger rail, as well as other transportation issues, with my Congressman and senators, as well as state officials, at least twice a year. Of course, I have no way of measuring the impact of my letters, but at least I get my views in front of their staffs.
My views on high speed rail have been shaped, at least in part, by the discussions on these forums. One participant opined that the best way to promote high speed rail is in increments, i.e. stand before walking, walk before running, etc. I have adopted this view. It is the most practical approach to high speed rail, and I have said so to my elected officials at all levels of government. In most areas of the country, upgrading existing rail lines to 110 - 125 mph probably would generate the best all around outcome.
One person talking with his or her elected representatives is not likely to have much if any influence. But if enough people share their views with their elected representatives, it can influence outcomes.
Back when I lived in Wisconsin and was a lot younger (18-20), I used to debate F. James Sensenbrenner on Amtrak in his Town Hall meetings on the subject of Amtrak. He was fairly smart and always took the opposing view but he did listen and write down some items (so I think I made some good points).
I have to say with the Sensenbrenner experience. People are afraid to express their views face to face and feel intimidated (not me). Very clear to me the other adults in the room were intimidated by his position and let him off the hook instead of following up with more argument.
I don't see that Texas Reps have a Town Hall Format. Though I did visit Senator Cornyn's DC office about a year ago for a pass to tour the Capitol he wasn't there only his secretary was. Nice office building and I was surprised at the lack of security compared to other parts of DC that have become an armed camp.
Sam1 My views on high speed rail have been shaped, at least in part, by the discussions on these forums. One participant opined that the best way to promote high speed rail is in increments, i.e. stand before walking, walk before running, etc.
My views on high speed rail have been shaped, at least in part, by the discussions on these forums. One participant opined that the best way to promote high speed rail is in increments, i.e. stand before walking, walk before running, etc.
SAM!: is on track. Any route that can show a shorter transit time or higher on time % is going to look good to the public. Once the CAT upgrades Brunswick - Trenton and Zoo improvements completed there may be a published 5 minute decrease in transit times ?
Once the 1st Ca HSR section is in service the Amtrak San Joaquin route even if using diesels can then transit that section 20 minutes less. All that points to getting from crawling to standing.
One thing this poster has realized from other posts is the incremental improvements approach will appeal to the public .
Incremental approaches can first concentrate on removing the worst slow sections. Almost all slow section eliminations except maybe those in urban areas cost much less than increasing top speed ? A 30 MPH bridge on 79 MPH track causes a loss of about 5 minutes of transit time + an average of another 5 minutes if it is a draw bridge that stops a train.
Although I do not disagree with the incremental approach (I first saw it espoused on here by Don Oltmann), especially if step one is 110 mph as the STL-CHI line will be, I think a true HSR line, as perhaps we will have in CA, will attract and positively influence the public far more.
First, I'm glad we have any passenger trains to watch at all.
Heritage fleet is mostly gone.
Amfleet is ok, as is Horizon, but unfortunately on the Midwest corridor trains they are always mixed in the same consist. Makes the train look like crap, but is what operations require.
The Horizons get really dirty, and hold the dirt well.
Viewliner design leaves something to be desired, but at least they are getting some new cars.
Now if they could get some decent looking locomotives.....
I wish they could get some decent looking locomotives as well, but let's face it, no-ones going to reproduce an E unit, GE could probably do a PA clone without too much difficulty but that's not going to happen either, and the general Amtrak riding public doesn't care what the locomotive looks like as long as it works.
I think those Genesis units are ugly as sin, but what are you gonna do?
Firelock76 I wish they could get some decent looking locomotives as well, but let's face it, no-ones going to reproduce an E unit, GE could probably do a PA clone without too much difficulty but that's not going to happen either, and the general Amtrak riding public doesn't care what the locomotive looks like as long as it works. I think those Genesis units are ugly as sin, but what are you gonna do?
I would have loved to been a bug on the wall when Amtrak ordered the Genesis units because, my view is they could have spec'd a more streamlined front end and GE would have obliged. Yes it would have cost more AND there is probably the reason why Amtrak didn't. Amtrak probably said "Give us the cheapest you have, we don't care how it looks". It's too bad because I am of the opinion that both great interior design and streamlining DO sell AND are a part of marketing.
Amtraks hits and misses with the Superliners:
Hits:
Like the addition of wood grain formica or whatever it is. Milwaukee Road learned this adds to a trains interior with the Hiawatha.
Addition of a communal Shower for Economy room passengers, Amtrak could expand on the concept by adding a workout gym and large shower in Chicago Union Station for passengers, maybe charge for Coach passenger but only a nominal fee for first class and maybe outsource the Gym to one of the Gym chains? I think this would add to passengers experience as they could shower in a stationary stall upon arrival in Chicago, perhaps while waiting for their baggage to make it to the head house?
Bi-level LD cars.......smoother riding, IMO then the single level version.
Misses:
Overly narrow central staircase.
Need to add an onboard luggage shelf to the sleeping car passengers that bring too much luggage for their compartment. I would remove one of the restrooms on the first floor for this purpose.
Need to expand the flexibility of the central serving area on the upper level next to the central staircase.
Redesign of Superliner Diner to Cafe Car.........I think sucks and mostly is not used for public on the trains I have ridden (Capital Limited and Texas Eagle).
Refresh of Sleeping Car linen, IMO should happen once every 1-2 years min. Charge higher rates if you need to cover the cost. Yellow aged sheets are gross. No wonder Amtrak has not switched to LED lighting in the sleeping car compartments. Yuck!
Dittos to what you said about marketing, packaging DOES help to sell the product, no doubt about it.
Good idea on the communal showers, but with some modifications. Male passengers wouldn't mind, especially if they're ex-jocks or veterans. Trust me on this one, if you've ever been in the service one of the first things you learn is privacy isn't sacrosanct!
Female passengers are another matter, unless they're ex-jockettes or veterans as well. There has to be some degree of privacy involved, or it won't work. If any ladies out there wish to disagree with me go right ahead, I'm more than willing to be corrected on this.
Mind you, I'm not taking about both sexes in the same shower room, but I'm sure no-one thinks that.
At any rate, there's very few people who'll turn down a chance to get clean, I know I wouldn't. When I go to the gym I can't understand those who don't shower after a workout and go home reeking! Yuck!
On linens, maybe it's a mistake to use white sheets to begin with. Use colored sheets, dark blue, dark red, et al. They'd age better and there wouldn't be any nasty yellowing.
CMStPnP Firelock76 I wish they could get some decent looking locomotives as well, but let's face it, no-ones going to reproduce an E unit, GE could probably do a PA clone without too much difficulty but that's not going to happen either, and the general Amtrak riding public doesn't care what the locomotive looks like as long as it works. I think those Genesis units are ugly as sin, but what are you gonna do? What am I going to do? walk as fast as I can when I have to pass one--I had to pass two when I arrived in Salt Lake City this past Wednesday morning, because #6 was in the station when #5 arrived; both trains were late. I would have loved to been a bug on the wall when Amtrak ordered the Genesis units because, my view is they could have spec'd a more streamlined front end and GE would have obliged. Yes it would have cost more AND there is probably the reason why Amtrak didn't. Amtrak probably said "Give us the cheapest you have, we don't care how it looks". It's too bad because I am of the opinion that both great interior design and streamlining DO sell AND are a part of marketing. Amtraks hits and misses with the Superliners: Hits: Like the addition of wood grain formica or whatever it is. Milwaukee Road learned this adds to a trains interior with the Hiawatha. Addition of a communal Shower for Economy room passengers, Amtrak could expand on the concept by adding a workout gym and large shower in Chicago Union Station for passengers, maybe charge for Coach passenger but only a nominal fee for first class and maybe outsource the Gym to one of the Gym chains? I think this would add to passengers experience as they could shower in a stationary stall upon arrival in Chicago, perhaps while waiting for their baggage to make it to the head house? Bi-level LD cars.......smoother riding, IMO then the single level version. Misses: Overly narrow central staircase. Need to add an onboard luggage shelf to the sleeping car passengers that bring too much luggage for their compartment. I would remove one of the restrooms on the first floor for this purpose. There are shelves downstairs to hold luggage that is not needed while on board. Passengers do need to observe the rule concerning how much baggage may be carried on board. I am not sure that three restrooms would be enough for the passengers in rooms 1-15. Once in a while, when traveling in one of the "roomettes," I have had to wait for one to be available. Need to expand the flexibility of the central serving area on the upper level next to the central staircase. Redesign of Superliner Diner to Cafe Car.........I think sucks and mostly is not used for public on the trains I have ridden (Capital Limited and Texas Eagle). You mean people did not eat in the diner? I ate in the diners on both trains on my last two trips, and found many others eating there also. Refresh of Sleeping Car linen, IMO should happen once every 1-2 years min. Charge higher rates if you need to cover the cost. Yellow aged sheets are gross. No wonder Amtrak has not switched to LED lighting in the sleeping car compartments. Yuck! Ah, but some cars do have LED lighting in the rooms--I made use of such on my trip this month (and on previous trips, as well). Perhaps I did not notice the color of the sheets because I was interested in getting to bed.
What am I going to do? walk as fast as I can when I have to pass one--I had to pass two when I arrived in Salt Lake City this past Wednesday morning, because #6 was in the station when #5 arrived; both trains were late.
There are shelves downstairs to hold luggage that is not needed while on board. Passengers do need to observe the rule concerning how much baggage may be carried on board. I am not sure that three restrooms would be enough for the passengers in rooms 1-15. Once in a while, when traveling in one of the "roomettes," I have had to wait for one to be available.
You mean people did not eat in the diner? I ate in the diners on both trains on my last two trips, and found many others eating there also.
Ah, but some cars do have LED lighting in the rooms--I made use of such on my trip this month (and on previous trips, as well). Perhaps I did not notice the color of the sheets because I was interested in getting to bed.
Johnny
I like the classic look of the heritage equipment (and by extension, superliners), and was OK with the modern look of amfleet. However, in never cared for the bent-sides look if viewliner, and was sorry to see them re-ordered
CMStPnPI would have loved to been a bug on the wall when Amtrak ordered the Genesis units because, my view is they could have spec'd a more streamlined front end and GE would have obliged. Yes it would have cost more AND there is probably the reason why Amtrak didn't. Amtrak probably said "Give us the cheapest you have, we don't care how it looks". It's too bad because I am of the opinion that both great interior design and streamlining DO sell AND are a part of marketing.
From what I heard from the GE sales and service guys at the time, the whole styling thing was discussed. Amtrak didn't want cheap to buy, they wanted easy to repair given then number of bumps and bruises locomotives get - particularly at grade Xings. Hence, the angular styling and slot-like windshields.
FWIW, I think they look pretty good in the "bloody nose" phase one scheme. I also like the phase II and III schemes where the nose is mostly black and the windows don't "stick out" so much. (The three on the left, I like. The two on the right - not so much...)
Would you rather have this styling? It's a box.
oltmannd Amtrak didn't want cheap to buy, they wanted easy to repair given then number of bumps and bruises locomotives get
Amtrak didn't want cheap to buy, they wanted easy to repair given then number of bumps and bruises locomotives get
This is a point that this poster had not considered. Yes styling may sell somewhat but since Amtrak is running close to maximum loads ( I know that may be controversial ) why not make ease of repair more of a priority. The circular design of Amfleets appear to be much harder to repair than Viewliners ? All equipment's ease of repair depends on how the equipment is built especially how much welding is done. Look how many noses have been bolted onto some locos.
m
Deggesty CMStPnP Firelock76 I wish they could get some decent looking locomotives as well, but let's face it, no-ones going to reproduce an E unit, GE could probably do a PA clone without too much difficulty but that's not going to happen either, and the general Amtrak riding public doesn't care what the locomotive looks like as long as it works. I think those Genesis units are ugly as sin, but what are you gonna do? What am I going to do? walk as fast as I can when I have to pass one--I had to pass two when I arrived in Salt Lake City this past Wednesday morning, because #6 was in the station when #5 arrived; both trains were late. I would have loved to been a bug on the wall when Amtrak ordered the Genesis units because, my view is they could have spec'd a more streamlined front end and GE would have obliged. Yes it would have cost more AND there is probably the reason why Amtrak didn't. Amtrak probably said "Give us the cheapest you have, we don't care how it looks". It's too bad because I am of the opinion that both great interior design and streamlining DO sell AND are a part of marketing. Amtraks hits and misses with the Superliners: Hits: Like the addition of wood grain formica or whatever it is. Milwaukee Road learned this adds to a trains interior with the Hiawatha. Addition of a communal Shower for Economy room passengers, Amtrak could expand on the concept by adding a workout gym and large shower in Chicago Union Station for passengers, maybe charge for Coach passenger but only a nominal fee for first class and maybe outsource the Gym to one of the Gym chains? I think this would add to passengers experience as they could shower in a stationary stall upon arrival in Chicago, perhaps while waiting for their baggage to make it to the head house? Bi-level LD cars.......smoother riding, IMO then the single level version. Misses: Overly narrow central staircase. Need to add an onboard luggage shelf to the sleeping car passengers that bring too much luggage for their compartment. I would remove one of the restrooms on the first floor for this purpose. There are shelves downstairs to hold luggage that is not needed while on board. Passengers do need to observe the rule concerning how much baggage may be carried on board. I am not sure that three restrooms would be enough for the passengers in rooms 1-15. Once in a while, when traveling in one of the "roomettes," I have had to wait for one to be available. Need to expand the flexibility of the central serving area on the upper level next to the central staircase. Redesign of Superliner Diner to Cafe Car.........I think sucks and mostly is not used for public on the trains I have ridden (Capital Limited and Texas Eagle). You mean people did not eat in the diner? I ate in the diners on both trains on my last two trips, and found many others eating there also. Refresh of Sleeping Car linen, IMO should happen once every 1-2 years min. Charge higher rates if you need to cover the cost. Yellow aged sheets are gross. No wonder Amtrak has not switched to LED lighting in the sleeping car compartments. Yuck! Ah, but some cars do have LED lighting in the rooms--I made use of such on my trip this month (and on previous trips, as well). Perhaps I did not notice the color of the sheets because I was interested in getting to bed.
No people ate in the Diner part, they did not eat in the Cafe part which seemed to be used as a break area for crew (NOT IT"S INTENDED PURPOSE). I am talking about the new half and half cars. Half the upstairs is a regular dining car and the other half is a snack bar type setup (which largely duplicates the lower level of the LOUNGE CAR).
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.