lack of funding for one, they are trying to do all but coach and lounges.
observation and lounge could be one car, couldn't they?
When Amtrak was one of my company's customers way back in 1977, I recall seeing designs for ViewLiner sleepers, coaches, diners, baggage, lounges, and end-of-the-train observation cars on the drawing boards. As you may have surmised, only the sleepers made it to production due to lack of monies back then; the baggage cars are now coming on-line although a bit altered from the original designs.
“Things of quality have no fear of time.”
I say now that they have more money, I think they should go for it.
From the House THUD bill Committee report for FY 2015...
"Business case analysis on CAF cars.—On August 3, 2010, Amtrakexecuted a contract with CAF USA for 130 baggage, sleeping, anddining cars for $298,132,648 that will be deployed on Amtrak’s longdistance routes. Despite the fact that Amtrak will require federalappropriations to pay for this procurement, amounts for these carswere not visible in Amtrak’s prior budget request documents. Amtrakrepresentatives admitted that the Corporation did not performa business case or cost benefit analysis before deciding to executethis contract, nor did it determine if funds would be better usedelsewhere. This purchase, which now totals $349,800,000, was justifiedbased solely on the age of the fleet.
The Committee directed Amtrak to submit a business case analysisthat explored the impact of continuing, terminating, or reducingthe scope of the contract. Amtrak’s analysis concluded that proceedingwith the CAF USA order will generate a positive contributionof approximately $2,500,000 annually, depending on order quantities."
Seems like I recall NRPC claiming that the loan would be paid for from revenues but did they really not have a formal evaluation? Still despite the very high ratio of non-revenue dinning, baggage, and crew dorms this order is being paid for according to a study submitted to the House unless there is some massive termination clause. It would seem this gives further evidence that a pure high revenue sleeper order would be highly positive financially.
Warren J When Amtrak was one of my company's customers way back in 1977, I recall seeing designs for ViewLiner sleepers, coaches, diners, baggage, lounges, and end-of-the-train observation cars on the drawing boards. As you may have surmised, only the sleepers made it to production due to lack of monies back then; the baggage cars are now coming on-line although a bit altered from the original designs.
The Viewliner was on the drawing board back in 1977 despite a prototype not appearing for another decade? I don't understand why it would've been at a time when they were building Amfleets.
Sorry to open a slightly older thread, but the Viewliner project was a 1980s-era research project of Amtrak and car builders to create a modular system to create cars of all types upon a common platform. Only a few prototypes were built. They wanted to build over 500 cars, but no money existed. Amtrak had to wait until the mid-1990s when only around 50 sleepers were built also due to lack of money.
The idea was to have one car shell and frame and use interchangeable modules to implement everything. The modular idea was to support different car configurations (baggage-dorm, baggage, sleeper/roomette, coach, diner, dinette, automat). It didn't really work out that way since only one type was ever built in any significant numbers. Today the story has changed with some of the other types being built. All of the currently built (1990s) and newly built (2014+) cars are pretty much the cars that were already designed in the 1980s but with revisions.
The modular design was also intended to support easy of maintenance. Having trouble with a bathroom? Just detach connections and remove the module. Some complaints about the modules being noisy due to rubbing against each other and squeaking may have been corrected.
Today we're getting diners (in addition to the very old prototype diner), baggage, baggage-dorm, and sleepers. However, it's only going to be around 130, far from the project's original 1980s intention of replacing everything but Superliners with 500-600 modular Viewliner cars and vastly simplifying maintenance.
Who knows how much money Amtrak could have saved on maintenance alone over the past 30 years if they could have replaced every single-level car with one standard, modular Viewliner platform?
V.Payne The Committee directed Amtrak to submit a business case analysisthat explored the impact of continuing, terminating, or reducingthe scope of the contract. Amtrak’s analysis concluded that proceedingwith the CAF USA order will generate a positive contributionof approximately $2,500,000 annually, depending on order quantities." Seems like I recall NRPC claiming that the loan would be paid for from revenues but did they really not have a formal evaluation? Still despite the very high ratio of non-revenue dinning, baggage, and crew dorms this order is being paid for according to a study submitted to the House unless there is some massive termination clause. It would seem this gives further evidence that a pure high revenue sleeper order would be highly positive financially.
V.Paynehis purchase, which now totals $349,800,000, was justifiedbased solely on the age of the fleet.
How can you possibly say that? Using the numbers you cite it would take 139+ years to pay, even with zero interest charges. Sleepers lose money every time the run today, partially because of high labor costs, partially because the fares are too low, partially because of poor equipment utilization because of low speeds and slow turnaround times.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
It would seem a positive contribution would be the same as the net value (incremental revenue - incremental cost), so the positive contribution amount would be what is left after paying off the loan and operating costs, not what is used to pay the cost of the loan.
BTW, that was a direct quote from a Congressional committee.
Now to some observations. Generally, almost any type of car added to an existing train providing a different service class generates an incremental profit, which is why there should be two classes of coach (2+2 & 2+1 seating), slumbercoaches, and private room sleepers with full bathrooms all priced with non-refundable and refundable ticket levels.
There was the study from a decade ago that assumed checked baggage, the second engine where used, and the dinning car (including the commisary costs that seem to be a large lump sum that would remain with just a cafe) was solely allocated to the sleepers and removing such would not impact coach revenue. However, you can go the opposite direction and add sleepers incrementally and improve the bottom line. As usual there is room for improvement in the dinning car (tablet ordering perhaps).
Additionally, more service classes mean more passenger miles, which makes the overhead costs become lower on a per passenger mile basis when Congressional hearing time rolls around.
V.PayneIt would seem a positive contribution would be the same as the net value (incremental revenue - incremental cost), so the positive contribution amount would be what is left after paying off the loan and operating costs
You don't actually know that. You are guessing and the terminology you suggest is not quite right. You have no evidence to support your contentions about sleepers. Amtrak should have purchased Viewliner coaches, not sleepers and the assortment of non-revenue and money losers (dining cars, not dinning unless they are very noisy, BTW).
That is why "seem" was used in the reply, though it seems that a positive contribution margin is a standard definition. Might be interesting to get the actually study off the sub-committee. I will see if I can work one of my connections to do so. Generally speaking, the incremental costs of a modern car are about $3.2/car-mile, inclusive of capital and rebuilding.
deleted
I would point out that stainless-steel car shells have a very long service life. There are Budd liscensed SNTF mu cars running between Paris and Versailles that are 74 years old, from 1938! Motors, trucks, braking, etc, possibly the seats also, are lots newer, of course. Amtrak has a whale of a lot of Amfleet I and Amfleet II that are reasonably good material for recycling into reasonably up-to-date coach and lounge equipment if one can tolerate the small windows.
The shells may indeed have a long life but other factors come into play. Metal fatigue is always an issue and parts compatibility has to be considered. As even a rebuilt car gets older, replacement parts get harder to find and correspondingly more expensive. The cost of rebuilding vs. buying new also comes into play.
daveklepper I would point out that stainless-steel car shells have a very long service life. There are Budd liscensed SNTF mu cars running between Paris and Versailles that are 74 years old, from 1938! Motors, trucks, braking, etc, possibly the seats also, are lots newer, of course. Amtrak has a whale of a lot of Amfleet I and Amfleet II that are reasonably good material for recycling into reasonably up-to-date coach and lounge equipment if one can tolerate the small windows.
Agree! There is nothing that procludes refitting Amfleet cars almost indefinitely.
It remains incomprehensible to me that Amtrak, with record ridership, would spend such a huge pile of money for new non-revenue equipment.
Need baggage cars for short haul trains? How about making some Amfleet combines? Need baggage and dorm space? Refit some Amfleet!
Have money for new equipment? How about adding letting paying customers get the new stuff!
FWIW, Amtrak just exercised some of the option for more equipment. Guess what they got? 15 more baggage cars! (and changed the order for some baggage-dorm cars to straight baggage - which erodes the amount of revenue space available)
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
That sort of "thinking" is one reason why it is hard to have much confidence in the future of US passenger rail with Amtrak as a dead weight. The new Viewliners should have been primarily coaches; as you say more baggage cars, if actually needed, could have been obtained from converted surplus Amfleets. Take out the seats, etc, leave the windows and add a large roll up door on each side.
Nope. Mess up the structural integrity of the tubular construction. But the existing stainless steel bags could have ben rebuilt with modern trucks and draft gear. Ditto the surplus "material handling cars" from the ill-fated express venture. Rebuilding Amfleets into modern cars makes sense from a cash standpoint. But I agree new cars should be to expand capacity where the market is.
Didn't they try turning heritage fleet coaches into baggage cars only to discover their structure wasn't designed to the same standards as actual baggage cars leading to short lifespans for the conversions? I'm not a close follower of Amtrak equipment news and such, but that seemed to be the gist of it in the bits and pieces I've read over the years.
But wait! Shlimm has the basis of an excellent idea. In fact, such a good idea that any of you with any connections with Amtrak should, after reading what follows, get on the phone and have Amtrak modify the baggage car order.
True the shells of Anfleet would require considerable expensive and perhaps not completely successful modification to preserve structural strength with baggage-car doors.
But the some thousand or so Metro-North, Conn-Dot and Long Island RR M-1-M-7 cars now being retired have the doors in the right places already and doors that are wide enough for baggage-car use. They are all-stainless construction. They are currently destined for scrap! Many are in very good condition. For Amtrak not to take advantage of this opportunity would be extreme foolishness.
daveklepperNope. Mess up the structural integrity of the tubular construction.
I'm not so sure it's a blanket "nope" It should be possible. The sides/roof of Amfleet isn't any more or less structural that than of a 1940's Budd car. The trick is how you go about carrying the strengrh around the opening.
The shape may be challanging, but I ought to be doable.
Leo_AmesDidn't they try turning heritage fleet coaches into baggage cars only to discover their structure wasn't designed to the same standards as actual baggage cars leading to short lifespans for the conversions?
That's the rumor. I think we figured out it had more to do with not beefing up the flooring - which could have been handled in a complete rebuild. These were more of a minor refitting. I wonder about them putting the door smack in the middle, too. The bending moment is greatest there and is made worse if you concentrate the load in the middle of the car.
Right-on, and they would have the same trouble with Amfleet. But not these commuter cars. Because these cars were built to handle crush loads, three-and-two dense seating plus aisles packed with standies and ditto the areas around the doors, about three times the passenger weight of a typical heritage coach, 180 people vs, 60. Would a load-limit of 36,000 pounds be enough for a baggage car?
daveklepper Would a load-limit of 36,000 pounds be enough for a baggage car?
Are they used for actual baggage or heavy freight? If baggage, that is way more than enough.
And actually, the load limit would be 46,000 lb., because removal of all the seats should remove 10,000 lb. of load.
Someone better connected with Amtrak than I am should contact them as soon as possible.
How much of this is because of Congress' meddling? You know, attempting to 'fix' Amtrak by cutting funding for everything but the NEC? Insisting that funding should only be spent in Congressman X's district? (What's the opposite of NIMBY?)
Why would any money be spent on new equipment if Congressman Y wants to eliminate Amtrak all together?
Has anyone ever done a map of Red States vs Blue States and Amtrak state subsidies (e.g. Amtrak California)? Any correlation with Congressional support for Amtrak?
Strength in diversity!
droughtquake How much of this is because of Congress' meddling?
How much of this is because of Congress' meddling?
None.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
So you don't consider seemingly continuous budget restrictions to be Congressional meddling? You don't consider seemingly continuous complaints about Amtrak not making money to be Congressional meddling? Don't you consider the lack of Congressional support for a healthy Amtrak to be irresponsible meddling when there never seems to be any corresponding calls for highways and (especially significant) airports to be self-supporting?
droughtquake So you don't consider seemingly continuous budget restrictions to be Congressional meddling? You don't consider seemingly continuous complaints about Amtrak not making money to be Congressional meddling? Don't you consider the lack of Congressional support for a healthy Amtrak to be irresponsible meddling when there never seems to be any corresponding calls for highways and (especially significant) airports to be self-supporting?
No. Amtrak found money for new equipment and decided what to purchase all by themselves. Congress did not tell them to buy mostly baggage cars.
If anything, I'm surprised Mica et.al. haven't called them on the carpet for it!
droughtquakeDon't you consider the lack of Congressional support for a healthy Amtrak to be irresponsible meddling when there never seems to be any corresponding calls for highways and (especially significant) airports to be self-supporting?
I think Amtrak has to get it's own house in order before they can make a serious case to Congress for improved funding.
If they could show that the cost/benefit from investing in their operation is superior to alternatives, they could make a real case for more funding.
Why do you suppose they haven't done this?
Notice what they've done and said lately:
They've split off the LD network from the rest of Amtrak as a budget line item. They say they will no longer take operating profit from the NEC and short haul to cover LD train operating losses.
They say they believe it's important to have LD trains, but they don't say the US needs more.
What this means is they are using political leverage to get funding for LD trains - a "put up or shut up" to Congress. And, it means they believe the trains that generate cash deserve further investment. Those trains run on the NEC and it's extensions.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.