Amtrak and Scrounging Equipment

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Anderson

Engineer
Joined
Nov 16, 2010
Messages
10,409
Location
Virginia
I know this may not qualify as a popular topic on several fronts, but I wonder if it might not be worth trying to get NARP (and friends) to press Amtrak to make a bid for VIA's Ren sleepers. Seeing as the Ocean is basically screwed, the Canadian uses Budds, and I believe the Churchill train does the same, would it be worth trying to get Amtrak to grab at those cars? That'd be something like 50 single-level sleepers, which would be enough to switch the sleeper services on several trains from bilevel to single level (and in turn allow a stack of Superliner sleepers to get shifted to the Builder, Chief, etc.).

My main question is what sort of operational issues would be encountered. If it's a matter of couplings, I suspect that could be fixed; windows could be temporarily waivered while they're replaced...and I think the ADA issues were actually dealt with in part when VIA did an overhaul on some of the cars to allow wheelchair access. Basically, are there any elements that would be impossible to fix at a reasonable cost/in a reasonable timeframe?

============================

I will say that this goes to a larger topic of pressing Amtrak to grab basically whatever the heck they can acquire in reasonable quantities, that isn't horribly broken down, and that wouldn't require a fortune to renovate. I know Amtrak doesn't /want/ to do this...but for crying out loud, when they've got multiple reports saying that capacity additions to various routes would significantly improve operating results, such as the PIP on the Builder, at some point "want" and "need" stop matching up and Amtrak needs some things they don't want.

Part of the larger issue is that, as discussed elsewhere, Amtrak is slammed for capacity...but trying to put in a "large enough" order for the Western trains is going to be difficult, particularly if the uses for a larger order aren't fairly self-evident. Adding a sleeper to each of the CHI-West Coast trains, plus one for the Cap, would only use up 19 sleepers (5 Builder, 6 Zephyr, 5 Chief, and 3 Cap); you might be able to stretch such an order to around 25-30 because of equipment cycling issues at CHI, but 30 cars does not an order make.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Soon, the real capacity crunch is going to be coach cars, not sleepers. The extra 25 Viewliner sleepers, plus bag-dorm cars will relieve the sleeper shortage somewhat, but without additional coaches you're not getting an extra consist. Perhaps if this was combined with converting some corridor coaches into a long-haul configuration once the new bi-levels arrive, it might be worth considering. Or, include the coaches with the equipment purchase (I don't know anything about VIA's fleet, though, and what the configuration of those cars is).
 
I would think Amtrak could make a little bit of headway on that front with a piggyback on the multistate order, too. A 10-20 car order off of the options would cover the CHI-STL coach on 21/22, the CHI-MSP coach on 7/8, and potentially add a coach or two EMY-RNO. Depending on how talks with OK/TX go, I would think that an Amtrak-owned multi-state bilevel supplement could cover the Heartland Flyer as well, again allowing Superliners to get moved around.

Likewise, as noted, there's a decent amount of space being freed up directly and indirectly from the multi-state order itself, allowing Horizons, Amfleets, and Superliners (OH MY!) to be moved off of the Midwest corridor routes as well as any remainders to be moved, Superliner or otherwise, to be moved out of CA.

Edit: And this sorta illustrates my point: It's at least plausible for Amtrak to pile onto "somebody else's" equipment order for coach cars. For another example, back east, Amtrak (and/or some states) could probably talk to FEC's supplier about similar equipment once that's announced. In the same vein, a multi-state single-level order from some mix of ME, VT, NY, PA, VA, and NC (VA being a likely leader given the funding situation here) is also quite plausible.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I know this may not qualify as a popular topic on several fronts, but I wonder if it might not be worth trying to get NARP (and friends) to press Amtrak to make a bid for VIA's Ren sleepers. Seeing as the Ocean is basically screwed, the Canadian uses Budds, and I believe the Churchill train does the same, would it be worth trying to get Amtrak to grab at those cars? That'd be something like 50 single-level sleepers, which would be enough to switch the sleeper services on several trains from bilevel to single level (and in turn allow a stack of Superliner sleepers to get shifted to the Builder, Chief, etc.).
So you are suggesting Amtrak buy additional older unique equipment that would drive up maintanence and spare part costs? Or if Amtrak has money on hand to purchase additional single level sleepers, wouldn't buying 10 or 15 additional Viewliner II sleepers from CAF be a better use of the funds? Would maintain their goal of a more consistent fleet. Maybe Amtrak can get Senator Schumer to add in some modest funding for rolling stock acquisition buried deep in the next FY transportation appropriations with the understanding it will be used to buy Viewliners made in Elmira, NY. And let Schumer take the credit for it, once the conference compromise bill gets passed in a last minute rush before the House tea party types have time to read it.
 
I know this may not qualify as a popular topic on several fronts, but I wonder if it might not be worth trying to get NARP (and friends) to press Amtrak to make a bid for VIA's Ren sleepers. Seeing as the Ocean is basically screwed, the Canadian uses Budds, and I believe the Churchill train does the same, would it be worth trying to get Amtrak to grab at those cars? That'd be something like 50 single-level sleepers, which would be enough to switch the sleeper services on several trains from bilevel to single level (and in turn allow a stack of Superliner sleepers to get shifted to the Builder, Chief, etc.).
So you are suggesting Amtrak buy additional older unique equipment that would drive up maintanence and spare part costs? Or if Amtrak has money on hand to purchase additional single level sleepers, wouldn't buying 10 or 15 additional Viewliner II sleepers from CAF be a better use of the funds? Would maintain their goal of a more consistent fleet. Maybe Amtrak can get Senator Schumer to add in some modest funding for rolling stock acquisition buried deep in the next FY transportation appropriations with the understanding it will be used to buy Viewliners made in Elmira, NY. And let Schumer take the credit for it, once the conference compromise bill gets passed in a last minute rush before the House tea party types have time to read it.
I'll grant that there's a tradeoff between capital and maintenance costs, but it would likely be easier to find <$1m/car (likely the case for the Rens) than to find $2-3m/car (roughly the case for the CAF order if I'm not mistaken...the overall order came in a bit lower, but that was a side-effect of there being 55 baggage cars in the mix). The other option would be to explore a multi-year lease agreement, which I couldn't see VIA declining. How much they would want for equipment they haven't been using for a long time (and have no foreseeable use for), I can't even begin to guess.

As to "older" equipment, the Rens (at least) are only about as old as the Acelas, and newer than either the Viewliner Is or the Horizons (they entered service in 2002, and a lot of them have been in storage for a good share of that time), and if I'm not mistaken the issue with maintenance costs spiking on the Heritage has to do with both their sheer age (60 yrs vs. <20 yrs of service), Budd being out of business, and the related lack of available parts. Also, while going for a fairly uniform fleet isn't a bad thing, I don't see it as a definite short-term goal...and especially not something that should be placed above trying to increase ridership. The key difference with the Rens and "goofball" orders is that you're looking at 29-57 cars, not just a handful. Assuming Amtrak hypothetically leased the whole set (sorry, Ocean), the batch would be larger than the Viewliner I set.

I do like the idea of getting Schumer to bury something in the bill for a few Viewliner options; I wonder if they could get Durbin to sneak something in as well (since the MSBLs are being built in IL).
 
I know this may not qualify as a popular topic on several fronts, but I wonder if it might not be worth trying to get NARP (and friends) to press Amtrak to make a bid for VIA's Ren sleepers.
They have British loading gauge: roughly 9 ft. 3 in wide at the internal floor level. And if VIA didn't change the height they run at, that level is ~43 inches ATR, rather than the 48 inches of American railcars.
Therefore, NO.

They'd be annoying (and delay-inducing) to use at most high-platform stations without bridgeplates, with the extra 7.5 inch gap. With the different floor height, they'd even be hard to use with bridgeplates. (I don't know what VIA does at Montreal, its only high-platform station.) I suppose they might be used on a route which already had stupid platforms requiring bridgeplates, like the Downeaster, but how many of those routes are there?

With the narrow loading gauge, they would be problematic even at low-platform stations. Although VIA retrofitted them for wheelchair access, they're still *very* problematic and often rated as having the worst access in VIA's fleet; I don't know if they'd be considered to meet US standards but I doubt it.

And apparently according to what I've read on other forums, the Renaissance cars don't meet various FRA standards not present in Canada, which means they actually can't legally be used in the US.

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?15,3316446

I'd bid on the Budds before I'd bid on the Rennaisance cars. Actually, I'd bid on the LRCs before I'd bid on the Rennaisance cars, and the LRCs are falling apart. Having the wrong loading gauge *sucks*.

VIA has quite the collection of Budds, they meet standards, they fit loading gauge, and they've mostly been retrofitted for handicapped access already. Though VIA actually has a surprisingly large collection of *unrestored* Budds as well. And there are yet other Budds floating about...

It wouldn't be completely crazy for someone (Iowa Pacific?) to buy a bunch of matching Budd carshells with decrepit interiors and develop a "Viewliner style" standard modular interior for them. (And new trucks and underbody equipment.

I will say that this goes to a larger topic of pressing Amtrak to grab basically whatever the heck they can acquire in reasonable quantities, that isn't horribly broken down, and that wouldn't require a fortune to renovate. I know Amtrak doesn't /want/ to do this...but for crying out loud, when they've got multiple reports saying that capacity additions to various routes would significantly improve operating results, such as the PIP on the Builder, at some point "want" and "need" stop matching up and Amtrak needs some things they don't want.
Basically anything manufactured after 1971 has either been:

- run into the ground (commuter and urban cars),

- isn't suitable for the US market (Renaissance cars),

- was a one-off or small run (Alaska Railroad cars),

- was problematic and somewhat defective (LRC cars, proving very expensive to overhaul),

- or is already in use by Amtrak.

As for pre-1971, anything not made by Budd has fallen apart.

It wouldn't seem crazy to buy a bunch of good Budd carshells with no interior and remanufacture the interiors and underfloor equipment; it might be cheaper than new carshells. But remember this stuff is getting old; apart from the shells you'd want to replace most everything.

It also wouldn't be crazy to buy back the old Santa Fe Hi-Levels, which were Budds constructed quite late. They could probably be retrofitted/remanufactured to be quite useful.

If VIA goes under completely, I'd certainly advise Amtrak to buy VIA's matching Budd collection. Heck, I might buy their spares and the ones rotting in various locations of abandoned and cancelled rebuild projects.

But apart from that it really seems to me that Amtrak should focus on getting *new* cars. There are hardly any suitable old cars out there. The Rens are not suitable.
 
It also wouldn't be crazy to buy back the old Santa Fe Hi-Levels, which were Budds constructed quite late. They could probably be retrofitted/remanufactured to be quite useful.
More PPCs!
I believe there's only one ex-Santa Fe high level lounge that is not owned by Amtrak. The rest of the high-level fleet is located at an equipment dealer in the metro St. Louis area of Illinois and have been for sale for years. Illinois Department of Transportation looked at them a number of years ago, but passed. They were also offered to Michigan, but no deal. There may be some problems that we are not aware of.
 
I believe there's only one ex-Santa Fe high level lounge that is not owned by Amtrak. The rest of the high-level fleet is located at an equipment dealer in the metro St. Louis area of Illinois and have been for sale for years. Illinois Department of Transportation looked at them a number of years ago, but passed. They were also offered to Michigan, but no deal. There may be some problems that we are not aware of.
The problems are they are very, very old, would need massive overhauls to become service-ready, and parts are hard to come by. Plus, you'd wind up with incompatible fleets should you ever want to expand (since you'd have to buy new), increasing maintenance costs even more.
 
It also wouldn't be crazy to buy back the old Santa Fe Hi-Levels, which were Budds constructed quite late. They could probably be retrofitted/remanufactured to be quite useful.
More PPCs!
There were only 6 Lounges (the ones converted to PPCs) ever built. Of which 5 are PPCs and disposition of one remaining (ATK #9971) is not clear. It was stored dead somewhere effective 1999.
So at most one more PPC if 9971 is serviceable.

There were a grand total of 39 Coach-Dorms (of which 7 lost to wrecks), 25 Coaches, 6 Lounges (5 still in service as PPCs) and 6 Diners that were planned to be HEP-ed. 2 of the planned Coach Dorms were removed from the program, plssibly due to wreck but can't tell for sure. The rest were converted.
 
Amtrak needs a good funding plan. They need to buy new equipment. Patchwork plans ultimately and always cost more money than a good plan, and usually more money than they're worth. Amtrak has historically made excellent equipment decisions when given the choice- the Superliners are excellent cars, exactly what Amtrak needs, combining good financial efficiency with a modicum of comfort and luxury, together with a completely standardized fleet. The Viewliners are exactly what Amtrak needs on the long haul trains that can't run Superliners. And while a bit outdated now, the Amfleets are probably the best corridor cars anyone has ever operated in a fiscally responsible way on an FRA-regulated railroad.

When equipment is forced down their throat, or they aren't given funding to buy the right equipment is when things go wrong- the Heritage Conversions, the Acelas, the Turboliners, the Horizons, and the oddball nature of the Talgos are also a problem. You buy the right tool for the job. Or you buy the wrong tool for the job, screw up royally, smack yourself on the forehead with the wrong tool, throw it in the trash where the damned thing belongs, and spend more money buying the right tool you shoulda bought in the first place.
 
Amtrak needs a good funding plan. They need to buy new equipment. Patchwork plans ultimately and always cost more money than a good plan, and usually more money than they're worth. Amtrak has historically made excellent equipment decisions when given the choice- the Superliners are excellent cars, exactly what Amtrak needs, combining good financial efficiency with a modicum of comfort and luxury, together with a completely standardized fleet. The Viewliners are exactly what Amtrak needs on the long haul trains that can't run Superliners. And while a bit outdated now, the Amfleets are probably the best corridor cars anyone has ever operated in a fiscally responsible way on an FRA-regulated railroad.

When equipment is forced down their throat, or they aren't given funding to buy the right equipment is when things go wrong- the Heritage Conversions, the Acelas, the Turboliners, the Horizons, and the oddball nature of the Talgos are also a problem. You buy the right tool for the job. Or you buy the wrong tool for the job, screw up royally, smack yourself on the forehead with the wrong tool, throw it in the trash where the damned thing belongs, and spend more money buying the right tool you shoulda bought in the first place.
The mentioned issues with the Rens (loading gauge and ATR height) weren't things I was aware of, hence why I ask these questions. From what I've heard here, though, the Rens would actually make sense for service outside of the NEC...for example, an overnight service from CHI-MSP or CHI-DEN might be well-served by them. The CONO might be as well. All this assumes you couldn't economically adjust the height issue away (which I suspect is the case) and that you could tweak them to conform with FRA rules or get a waiver (which I'm far less sanguine on).

As to the other "errors" Amtrak has made, the only ones I agree with as a major mistake on Amtrak's part is the Heritage Conversions (which killed a bunch of capacity). The Acelas have, for all their failings, probably saved the railroad. Imperfect equipment, sure, but they've done their job and done a bloody good job of it. They've put somewhere between $85-90m back into the system in the first three months of the present fiscal year. To call them a mistake would, IMHO, be on par with calling the 1938 Twentieth Century Limited the dumbest thing the New York Central ever did, or calling the Metroliners a disaster.

The Talgos have issues, but they're decent as a regional set based out of the Northwest. The Turboliners were an example of bad historical timing more than anything; on the one hand, they were overtaken by other developments; on the other, had they been rolled out in the 1940s instead of the 1960s, we would probably be looking back on a golden age of them in the 1950s. Finally, the Horizons...they're not great, but they get far, far too much hate.
 
Finally, the Horizons...they're not great, but they get far, far too much hate.
I agree with this.

There are two things really wrong with the Horizons. From a passenger point of view, the interior lighting is too harsh (they were designed as commuter cars, where bright lighting is fine, and probably preferred). If the lighting could be softer, through both a relocation of the lights themselves (similar to how Amfleets are lit), and perhaps tweaking their brightness, then they would be fine. They also lack window curtains, but that's a simple enough adjustment.

From an operational point of view, they suck in the winter because the steps get clogged with snow because they're constantly exposed (a design flaw, though not much of an issue in commuter territory because they generally serve high-level platforms where steps aren't an issue). There may also be an issue with pipes freezing in the winter, but I might be confusing that with the Viewliners. Their lack of trainlined doors also make them undesirable for NEC use.

If they could fix those issues, the cars would be just fine. If they could just fix one issue, I'd suggest the interior lighting issue (and window curtains), and then reconfigure them to 60-seaters and run them as coach cars on the eastern LDs (where trainlined doors aren't an issue, and where they can run to/from Florida or NOL during the winter, where snow in the traps isn't an issue).
 
Amtrak has historically made excellent equipment decisions when given the choice...
When equipment is forced down their throat, or they aren't given funding to buy the right equipment is when things go wrong- the Heritage Conversions, the Acelas, the Turboliners, the Horizons, and the oddball nature of the Talgos are also a problem.
The Talgos are working out fine, but largely because they're a captive fleet in a specialized location where the tilting is really useful. "Talgos for the Pacific Northwest" has been great.
You buy the right tool for the job.
:) Which applies to the PacNW Talgos.

Or you buy the wrong tool for the job, screw up royally, smack yourself on the forehead with the wrong tool, throw it in the trash where the damned thing belongs, and spend more money buying the right tool you shoulda bought in the first place.
Arguably the Heritage conversions made sense in 1971, when the country was awash in spare passenger cars. But that day passed a long, long time ago.
Meanwhile, your general point is well taken. A more extreme example is the sad saga of the Turboliners and the even less useful Turbo Train. A gas-guzzler was the wrong tool for the job from the moment the first oil shock hit, and this was pretty obvious at the time, but ignored. (The correct tool for the desired higher speeds was first track improvements, then electrification.)

VIA Rail has had even more screw-ups of the "wrong tool for the job" variety: the Ren cars are the most outrageous, but the repeated attempts to re-re-rebuild rather than ordering new are another. The LRCs are the only new cars VIA has *ever* ordered, and they were actually being built for CN before the formation of VIA -- contrast Amtrak's several orders. VIA's decision to give money to CN for upgrades without enough strings attached to actually get improved service is an even bigger "wrong tool for the job" error.

The LRCs actually seem to have been a pretty good idea; they have more damage than expected for the current round of rebuilds, but that's unsurprising after 30 years of operations of cars which were pretty cutting-edge at the time.

There are two things really wrong with the Horizons. From a passenger point of view, the interior lighting is too harsh (they were designed as commuter cars, where bright lighting is fine, and probably preferred). If the lighting could be softer, through both a relocation of the lights themselves (similar to how Amfleets are lit), and perhaps tweaking their brightness, then they would be fine. They also lack window curtains, but that's a simple enough adjustment.
This really could be done pretty easily. The Horizons were built before widespread LED lighting, so they should be retrofitted to replace the lights with LEDs, which use much less energy, in any case. Why not make the lighting nicer at the same time? This is a project which Amtrak should just *do* -- it would pay for itself through energy savings and passenger approval.

From an operational point of view, they suck in the winter because the steps get clogged with snow because they're constantly exposed (a design flaw, though not much of an issue in commuter territory because they generally serve high-level platforms where steps aren't an issue). There may also be an issue with pipes freezing in the winter, but I might be confusing that with the Viewliners. Their lack of trainlined doors also make them undesirable for NEC use.

If they could fix those issues, the cars would be just fine. If they could just fix one issue, I'd suggest the interior lighting issue (and window curtains), and then reconfigure them to 60-seaters and run them as coach cars on the eastern LDs (where trainlined doors aren't an issue, and where they can run to/from Florida or NOL during the winter, where snow in the traps isn't an issue).
That's a pretty smart idea. This would alleviate the crunch on Amfleet IIs, and they'd actually be more spacious internally. The Horizons in the Midwest are due to be "relieved" by the new bilevel corridor cars in 2015, and that would be a good time to cycle them through the shop, change the lighting, do any "winterizing" they can do easily, and convert the coaches to LD seating.
It's a little harder to know what to do with the Horizon cafe cars (5) and "club/dinette" cars (11), but the non-trainlined doors aren't such a big issue there; they could probably find a use on the NEC or its neighboring corridors, after the lighting is fixed.
 
Back
Top