Amtrak Car Uniformity

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.

Railspike

Service Attendant
AU Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2020
Messages
128
Location
Houston
This may have been discussed in the past, and if so, please disregard. I'm wondering if Amtrak has ever considered creating a uniform fleet of cars ( i.e. Southwest Airlines flies only 737s) whereby all cars are interchangeable on any route. Why have both Superliners and Viewliners? Why not have only Viewliners on all trains? Parts would be readily available, there would always be a pool of cars to choose from for any route, training of staff simplified, improved maintenance, new dome cars (??), etc. Don't get me wrong. I like the Superliners. But if Amtrak wants to cut costs this seems like an easy way to do it. Don't place an order for new Superliners and instead order more Viewliners. Viewliners are already in production.

I realize it may cost more in fuel and labor to have longer LD trains, but it seems the overall savings would greatly offset those increases. Need to add another sleeper or coach to a "sold out" train? Maintenance issue? No problem. Pull a car from the pool. I was recently reading about the cost savings for SWA and wondered why Amtrak can't do the same. Everything on SWA is uniform. From the planes to the snacks, etc. Simple cost-saving measures. Keep it stupid simple.
 
Superliners can't fit into the tunnels outside New York Penn Station; that's the main reason there are two main car designs.

It is highly likely that when Amtrak orders new cars to replace the current Superliners, they will be single-level, thus making all trains single-level. I doubt more Viewliners will be constructed, as the design is old and the last order caused so many headaches. All of them from the last order were completed last year I believe.

I'm also not entirely convinced Amtrak will pay for dome cars like the current Superliner Sightseer Lounges, so ride them while you can. There is still time, as Amtrak doesn't intend to place the order for another two years or so :rolleyes:
 
This may have been discussed in the past, and if so, please disregard. I'm wondering if Amtrak has ever considered creating a uniform fleet of cars ( i.e. Southwest Airlines flies only 737s) whereby all cars are interchangeable on any route. Why have both Superliners and Viewliners? Why not have only Viewliners on all trains? Parts would be readily available, there would always be a pool of cars to choose from for any route, training of staff simplified, improved maintenance, new dome cars (??), etc. Don't get me wrong. I like the Superliners. But if Amtrak wants to cut costs this seems like an easy way to do it. Don't place an order for new Superliners and instead order more Viewliners. Viewliners are already in production.

I realize it may cost more in fuel and labor to have longer LD trains, but it seems the overall savings would greatly offset those increases. Need to add another sleeper or coach to a "sold out" train? Maintenance issue? No problem. Pull a car from the pool. I was recently reading about the cost savings for SWA and wondered why Amtrak can't do the same. Everything on SWA is uniform. From the planes to the snacks, etc. Simple cost-saving measures. Keep it stupid simple.

If it costs more in fuel and labor, that’s almost instantly a reason not to do it, especially given your comment “if Amtrak wants to cut costs, this seems like an easy way to do it.” Increasing costs is not really a good way to cut costs.

Fleet interchangeability isn’t really that big of a problem, given that the fleets tend to stay in their same regions.

Amtrak seems to be moving towards a more simplified fleet with the help of state partners, as in a few years the NEC, Midwest, Cascades, and San Joaquins will all be using some variation of the Siemens Venture cars. Even then, however, you won’t be able to take a car from California and run it from Portland to Seattle.

That said, while fleet simplification has many benefits, I find the religious-like worshipping of Southwest’s business model a bit over-the-top. When your fleet is large enough and your needs are varied enough, having the right equipment for the application can have benefits over a one-size-fits-all approach. Southwest may be successful, but none of their planes can take you to Europe or Asia (and only recently could they fly you to Hawaii). Also, good luck if you need to fly to a city that won’t support 130+ passengers per flight on a regular basis.

A properly funded and equipped Amtrak should have no problem efficiently maintaining a bi-level and a single-level fleet, just as they have no problem maintaining separate fleets of diesel and electric locomotives. The problem comes when you have a limited number of unique equipment sets that can only be used in a certain context (i.e. Talgo), where you need to have spares on hand, but simply doing so brings your spare ratio to a ridiculously high level. Once you have a “big enough” fleet to support its own mechanical and operational ecosystem, it really doesn’t matter that much from day to day if that is different from another fleet somewhere else.

True, you can’t run a Surfliner car on the NEC, but why would you ever need to?
 
Flying the various models of B-737s is not as simple as some here are posting. You have 737-200s, -300s, -500s with steam gauges. Then -500s and 0700s with glass. Then -700s , -900s, =900s, -NGs and that awful MAX. Then the various engines and control systems. It is not like a loco engineer going from an SD-9 unit to a SD-40. Mainly learning the 24L from a 6L brake.
 
Flying the various models of B-737s is not as simple as some here are posting. You have 737-200s, -300s, -500s with steam gauges. Then -500s and 0700s with glass. Then -700s , -900s, =900s, -NGs and that awful MAX. Then the various engines and control systems.

Some of the common type certifications sometime seem somewhat dubious for that reason alone.
 
Amtrak seems to place large orders for new cars every few years. If it wants to have the same type of car, then it would need to order the same kind of car, decade after decade. Technology changes and needs of individual lines differ (eg, running Superliners on the NEC or Acelas between Chicago and LA wouldn’t work).
 
Amtrak doesn’t have that many kinds of passenger cars:

Viewliner I
Viewliner II
Amfleet I
Amfleet II
Superliner I
Superliner II
Horizon
Siemens
Acela

That’s not huge; plenty of airlines have similar variety, and plenty of railroads have a lot more variety.

You left out a few-- not all of these are owned by Amtrak but all are operated by Amtrak

Surfliner & California Cars (They are ever so slightly different)
Talgos
The cars used on the Piedmont

And these are cars that are or can be interchangeable (from what I have seen, anyway):

Viewliner I's and II's
Superliner I's and II's
Amfleet I's, II's, Horizons, and Siemens (although generally Amfleet II's are kept separate)
California cars within California only.
Talgos and Acelas will always be separate.
 
@Cal, you are correct. I realized that there were a lot of different kinds of cars and I didn't know what I was talking about when trying to list them.
 
@Cal, you are correct. I realized that there were a lot of different kinds of cars and I didn't know what I was talking about when trying to list them.
You only missed a few, and got all of the main things so you're fine. This is assuming that I didn't miss any as well.

I would still say that Amtrak doesn't operate that many different cars, and hopefully the stand-alones (mainly the Talgo and Piedmont equipment) will be retired soon. At first I was hoping to keep the bi-levels on the Capitol Corridor and Surfliner but now I think it'd be better to get the Ventures for them. This would make it easy for Amtrak to get a standard business class on all corridor trains minus Acela
 
This may have been discussed in the past, and if so, please disregard. I'm wondering if Amtrak has ever considered creating a uniform fleet of cars ( i.e. Southwest Airlines flies only 737s) whereby all cars are interchangeable on any route.

That was part of the desire when they designed the “cross country cafe” - they were designing a superliner car that could be a diner, Lounge, or “diner-Lounge.” During that time they also converted the Amfleet II cafe Cars in the same way.

The southwest comparison is interesting, but it should be noted that southwest is a unique airline. Most airlines have different types of aircraft to serve different markets.
 
The southwest comparison is interesting, but it should be noted that southwest is a unique airline. Most airlines have different types of aircraft to serve different markets.
Keeping a uniform fleet is typically for budget airlines. We see this with EasyJet, Ryanair, Southwest, Frontier, Spirit, and many, many more across the world.
 
Isn't part of the variety within Amtrak (albeit reducing) a part of the legacy of getting all the passenger equipment from the founding (better work escaping me right now) railroads and gradually standardizing it with retirements.

I think the Talgo's are a very special case due to their maintenance agreement which likely won't be repeated anytime soon.
 
Isn't part of the variety within Amtrak (albeit reducing) a part of the legacy of getting all the passenger equipment from the founding (better work escaping me right now) railroads and gradually standardizing it with retirements.
I'd say no. AFAIK all heritage equipment has been retired ever since Viewliner baggage cars were fully deployed (2016-2018?).
 
It's more than just the cost of having consistent maintenance. The superliners can run shorter trains with the same number of passengers and fit into more stations without having to do multiple stops than the Viewliners. Two reasons why a lot of commuters run double deckers. Had NYC and Baltimore not had those short tunnels, Amtrak might have had more Superliners.

And they save on personnel costs. Amtrak (before Covid) used one SCA per sleeper on both types but the Superliner has 3 more bedrooms, a family room and 4 more roomettes. Similarly, its diner can handle a lot more passengers with its full-length seating and downstairs cooking than the Viewliner without doubling the dining crew (given that both had traditional dining).
 
If it costs more in fuel and labor, that’s almost instantly a reason not to do it, especially given your comment “if Amtrak wants to cut costs, this seems like an easy way to do it.” Increasing costs is not really a good way to cut costs.

Fleet interchangeability isn’t really that big of a problem, given that the fleets tend to stay in their same regions.

Amtrak seems to be moving towards a more simplified fleet with the help of state partners, as in a few years the NEC, Midwest, Cascades, and San Joaquins will all be using some variation of the Siemens Venture cars. Even then, however, you won’t be able to take a car from California and run it from Portland to Seattle.

...................
A properly funded and equipped Amtrak should have no problem efficiently maintaining a bi-level and a single-level fleet, just as they have no problem maintaining separate fleets of diesel and electric locomotives. The problem comes when you have a limited number of unique equipment sets that can only be used in a certain context (i.e. Talgo), where you need to have spares on hand, but simply doing so brings your spare ratio to a ridiculously high level. Once you have a “big enough” fleet to support its own mechanical and operational ecosystem, it really doesn’t matter that much from day to day if that is different from another fleet somewhere else.

True, you can’t run a Surfliner car on the NEC, but why would you ever need to?

For readers who haven't had to schedule mixed fleets that point about spare ratios is important. In the early days of wheelchair-accessible transit buses my predecessor at RTD did a study to determine what was needed to be almost certain that a trip assigned a lift-equipped bus would turn up. The management had to back off of the enthusiastic initial assignments.

There are some rules of thumb, but you really have to look closely at each need. B.F. Biaggini told me that an RDC was a poor choice for the SP's stub-station commute service because their single unit was sitting in the shop all the time. They had to substitute a locomotive and a coach. I didn't have the nerve then to point out to him that the CP, CN and B&M all seemed to be able to operate commute service with a big enough fleet.

The SP&S needed one sleeper-lounge to cover PDX<>SPK. They bought two initially when the schedule required it and when the schedule only required one they disposed of a heavy-weight sleeper-lounge that they had kept around just in case.

In the oil boom of 1970's, Edmonton Transit got down to a 9% spare ratio with its obsolete Canadian Car trolley coaches and GM Diesels with no lifts, no registering fareboxes, no radios, no air-conditioning, etc. It was very stressful, but we did it.

My McGraw-Hill electric railway handbook from the 1920's recommends a 10% spare ratio but mentions that some big cities needed 12% spare ratios due to fender-bender accidents.

Today's transit industry standard, with all of the systems loaded and working, is 20%. But if a community wants a cute route with a specially painted bus, it's either buy three buses to cover two runs or else suffer the pain of a generic paint scheme turning up from time to time.

For Amtrak then, a subfleet needs to be large enough to be backed up by say 20% spares. And if it wants to avoid Talgo, it needs an additional 5% or so that can be available for state-sponsored service or special trains, instead of telling funding legislators that they must wait while cars for an experiment are built.

Without the right percentage of spares and the right number of assignments for each subfleet, Amtrak will keep stealing cars to cover work they weren't designed for or will blow off revenue opportunities. And the Texas Eagle will continue to be victimized.
 
Without the right percentage of spares and the right number of assignments for each subfleet, Amtrak will keep stealing cars to cover work they weren't designed for or will blow off revenue opportunities. And the Texas Eagle will continue to be victimized.
Spare aren't the problem re the Eagle, if I understand the infomation correctly. Amtrak management decision to sideline cars without keeping up their maintenance is the reason for shortages. The same goes for revenue opportunities. Amtrak letting go all those people instead of using the funding to keep them employed as well as sidelining cars, lost them a huge revenue opportunity IMHO.
 
Spare aren't the problem re the Eagle, if I understand the information correctly. Amtrak management decision to sideline cars without keeping up their maintenance is the reason for shortages. The same goes for revenue opportunities. Amtrak letting go all those people instead of using the funding to keep them employed as well as sidelining cars, lost them a huge revenue opportunity IMHO.
I should have specified that a spare ratio shouldn't include wrecked or unmaintained rolling stock. In the transit world, in the 1990's the FTA let us keep some GM New Looks parked as a reserve for emergencies, but they weren't counted in the 20% spare ratio. They were parked visible from the California Zephyr. To be used, they would require deep cleaning, inspections, maybe replacement tires, maybe a test drive. This would be similar to some of the Amtrak equipment at Beech Grove.
 
Today's transit industry standard, with all of the systems loaded and working, is 20%. .
I would imagine this number fluctuates to some degree for systems that have subways or light rail versus systems that are all bus. If a subway or LR line has to be taken out of service, buses have to be available to substitute in addition to those on standby for the failure/maintenance of other buses. Toronto manages to demonstrate this need frequently.
 
I would imagine this number fluctuates to some degree for systems that have subways or light rail versus systems that are all bus. If a subway or LR line has to be taken out of service, buses have to be available to substitute in addition to those on standby for the failure/maintenance of other buses. Toronto manages to demonstrate this need frequently.

It depends. Realistically, it’s not practical for an agency to have a bunch of buses or drivers on standby just in case the rail system has an unexpected disruption. While buses can be kept in a contingency fleet, having them service-ready takes a bit of work and so if something like a derailment happens right now, those aren’t going to be available. Also, even in the best of times, agencies wouldn’t have a bunch of drivers ready to go to handle a peak-period emergency. Therefore, handling unplanned disruptions is usually done at the expense of regular service.

For planned outages, agencies typically have a policy of doing such off peak or on weekends when vehicle availability is not a constraining factor, and it gives them a few days to round up some drivers to work day-off overtime to cover the substitution.

As TTC has had some longer-term streetcar bustitutions, those can typically be planned far enough in advance to build the fleet and driver staffing plan around it. This might involve getting maintenance enough heads-up to start activating the contingency fleet, or if it’s during a fleet replacement transition period, they can put new buses into service while delaying the retirement of older buses. Large agencies are typically receiving new buses regularly enough that there is almost always some sort of delivery/retirement cycle going on in any given year.

TTC could have a large enough streetcar network that there’s “always” a disruption somewhere in the system requiring a bus replacement, in which case they just build that into their plan and not have the resources go to waste. Some agencies (if resources permit) will also have a driver pull a bus out to a key location and standby for any random disruption (have a “hot spare” bus ready in case of a breakdown, or have that driver go into service in the event of unexpected overloading on a route or some large gap in service because of traffic delays, etc.). However, those standbys would unlikely be enough to fill in for a rail disruption, and they will still be pulling from regular service.
 
MODERATOR'S NOTE: A gentle nudge back to "Amtrak Car Uniformity" which is the subject of this thread. It is fine to discuss examples from analogous parts of the transportation industry, as long as those are used to inform how they would be reflected in Amtrak's case. Thanks!
 
Back
Top