how much in peril is the Viewliner II order?

[Ryan]

I was thinking that you could do that after all of the bag dorms (and enough of the sleepers to take a VL1 sleeper down for a few days) were in service - once you have them all in service and maybe while you still have the best of the heritage bags around (and using the remainders for parts if needed) you can get 'em in there and make the swap.

Well that would mean a lot of expensive double work, as you'd be sliding those new bedrooms into the dorm cars, then sliding them back out and then sliding in the old Viewliner I modules.

That's expensive!

And not really worth the effort IMHO.

As expensive as buying a few hundred new roomette modules (or are the plans to refurb the current modules into the new standard)?

It would just be such a shame to see the current view liner roomette modules go to waste.

 

[OlympianHiawatha]

Amtrak could also declare the Heritage Bags surplus and sell them off. For someone with a spread of land not too far from a railroad they would make great storage. I imagine they have so many miles on their frames that's about all they'd be good for other than the scrapper's torch.

 

[AlanB]

IMHO, it might not be worth the effort, but I'd point out that you've got 50-odd Heritage Bags, 20 Heritage diners, and about 20 mothballed Heritage sleepers. That's somewhere between 80 and 100 cars (depending on how many of each are actually around)...yes, I'm a bit crazy, but that certainly strikes me as enough to work out a maintenance pool deal with VIA (which has about 200 of the same cars) and shift over any non-NEC (or overnight NEC) services to/from Canada to that equipment. The bags can go back to their old lives as coaches, etc., and even if only half the cars are useful...well, that's still a pool of around 50-60. Likewise, this might actually make sense for a conversion on 66/67 (even though VA wants to shift those to being "pool sets" with the rest of the NERs).

Amtrak plans to dump those cars. Maybe if VIA had some cash Amtrak might sell them to them, but otherwise Amtrak wants nothing to do with those old cars and plans are to scrap most of them. A few may be retained as spares, but the bulk are history.

And I'm not sure what modular sleeping compartments has to do with these cars anyhow, the cars aren't modular so we can't slide things into them. Or am I misunderstanding where you're going with things? :unsure:

 

[Nathanael]

It should be noted that the CAF order cars are still referred to as "single-level long distance" cars, not Viewliners.

That is such a ridiculously ungainly name for them that they're going to be called Viewliner IIs unless Amtrak comes up with a new catchy name. The "California Cars" didn't have an official catchy name, and as a result they are... "California Cars". They rectified that with "Surfliners".

The original plan called for 9 modular roomettes in the car for the crew, all without toilets. One module will contain 2 bathrooms and 1 module will contain a shower for the crew. A little more than half the car was given over to the crew area, the rest of the car goes to 8 modules for luggage. Not sure if one of those modules will be a bike rack.

Does that add 9 modules + 1 + 1 is 11 modules. There has to be an even number, surely? Or are the modules of varying sizes?

That said, at least based upon that current photo, it does appear that they may well have modified the original plan and dropped 2 roomettes from the car based upon the window cutouts. Of course that assumes that we're looking at the side of the car where the modular units are slid in and that hole is indeed where the access panel goes to permit the units to be slid in.

Well, let's think about OBS needs vs. baggage needs: the OBS dorm needs are mostly for diner and cafe car staff, since the sleeper attendants get their own roomettes (I'm not sure how things work with coach car attendants -- do they get beds or do they stay in the coaches overnight? Perhaps someone could tell me). How many roomettes does that actually fill up, assuming double occupancy?

I've been commenting before that a half-baggage doesn't seem like enough for the high baggage loads which most of the eastern trains have been routinely experiencing. Perhaps the baggage area has been expanded and the crew area contracted in hopes of being able to handle the baggage demands of more trains with "only" a bag-dorm. I also wonder where the baggage door will be (center of the car or end of the car). Well, I guess we'll see when they're finished -- shouldn't be too long now!

 

[AlanB]

As expensive as buying a few hundred new roomette modules (or are the plans to refurb the current modules into the new standard)?

It would just be such a shame to see the current view liner roomette modules go to waste.

The plan/hope, is that Amtrak will buy 50 sets of new modules and use them to refurbish the existing Viewliner I cars. Unlike the Superliner I cars that had to be essentially rebuilt in their refurbishment which took about 3 months per car, the hope is that the modular design here will allow Beech Grove to complete a car within about a month, if not less.

Slide out the old, tired module and toss it, slid in the new module and viola! instant refurb.

 

[Nathanael]

As expensive as buying a few hundred new roomette modules (or are the plans to refurb the current modules into the new standard)?

The plan, last I heard, was to refurbish the current Viewliners to have separate toilets rather than in-room toilets. This was to be delayed until the Viewliner IIs became available, at which point it would be possible to start sending Viewliners to Beech Grove to do this work. Of course, this plan could be cancelled for lack of money at any time, it didn't seem to be Amtrak's top priority.

 

[AlanB]

The original plan called for 9 modular roomettes in the car for the crew, all without toilets. One module will contain 2 bathrooms and 1 module will contain a shower for the crew. A little more than half the car was given over to the crew area, the rest of the car goes to 8 modules for luggage. Not sure if one of those modules will be a bike rack.

Does that add 9 modules + 1 + 1 is 11 modules. There has to be an even number, surely? Or are the modules of varying sizes?

Your math is correct, it's 11. If I recall correctly from what I saw a few years ago, an electrical locker takes up most of the space where a 12th module would have gone. And the modules are all the same size, at least for the rooms, shower, etc. I believe that the luggage modules were also the same size, but can't swear to that.

That said, at least based upon that current photo, it does appear that they may well have modified the original plan and dropped 2 roomettes from the car based upon the window cutouts. Of course that assumes that we're looking at the side of the car where the modular units are slid in and that hole is indeed where the access panel goes to permit the units to be slid in.

Well, let's think about OBS needs vs. baggage needs: the OBS dorm needs are mostly for diner and cafe car staff, since the sleeper attendants get their own roomettes (I'm not sure how things work with coach car attendants -- do they get beds or do they stay in the coaches overnight? Perhaps someone could tell me). How many roomettes does that actually fill up, assuming double occupancy?

Coach attendants do not spend the night in coach, they get a room. Additionally, there is no double occupancy. Every employee is guaranteed their own private room in the contract. Besides, it would be a logistical nightmare for Amtrak to try to schedule things so as to not end up with a guy and a gal sharing a room or other uncomfortable situations.

So on say a Silver train, you could have 2 cooks, 2 waiters, 2 LSA's, and 2 to 3 coach attendants. That would fill the car during peak staffing. It would run more empty during off peak staffing. The LSL would max out the dorm, and still need a couple of revenue rooms almost year round.

I've been commenting before that a half-baggage doesn't seem like enough for the high baggage loads which most of the eastern trains have been routinely experiencing. Perhaps the baggage area has been expanded and the crew area contracted in hopes of being able to handle the baggage demands of more trains with "only" a bag-dorm. I also wonder where the baggage door will be (center of the car or end of the car). Well, I guess we'll see when they're finished -- shouldn't be too long now!

And that is a real possibility, that they were worried about baggage and therefore cut back on 2 rooms to increase baggage space.

 

[Ryan]

The plan/hope, is that Amtrak will buy 50 sets of new modules

Slide out the old, tired module and toss it

That's what I was looking to avoid - refurbing the existing modules or reusing them as crew rooms has got to be cheaper than buying all new rooms and throwing away the ones they have.

 

[AlanB]

As expensive as buying a few hundred new roomette modules (or are the plans to refurb the current modules into the new standard)?

The plan, last I heard, was to refurbish the current Viewliners to have separate toilets rather than in-room toilets. This was to be delayed until the Viewliner IIs became available, at which point it would be possible to start sending Viewliners to Beech Grove to do this work. Of course, this plan could be cancelled for lack of money at any time, it didn't seem to be Amtrak's top priority.

We were both answering the same post at basically the same time, but yes, you are correct that is the plan last I heard.

And while not a "top priority" it is a priority because until its done Amtrak has to contend with several problems. First, and the biggest, the new cars will have 11 roomettes. So you can't easily substitute a new car for an old car, as you'd leave someone without a room. You also have to confine the new cars to specific trains and confine the old cars to specific trains to avoid driving the ARROW inventory people nuts. If you don't, then they don't know how many rooms to allow ARROW to sell.

Second, the new cars are supposed to have an undercarriage that will help with freezing in the winter. And of course they now have less pipes to freeze. Getting the I's through the refurb program would help fix that.

Finally, one of course creates confusion for the passenger who rides on the Meteor to find an in room toilet and then board the LSL to find it doesn't have one.

So Amtrak wants this. The question is can they find the money?

 

[AlanB]

The plan/hope, is that Amtrak will buy 50 sets of new modules

Slide out the old, tired module and toss it

That's what I was looking to avoid - refurbing the existing modules or reusing them as crew rooms has got to be cheaper than buying all new rooms and throwing away the ones they have.

It's not cheaper than pulling the cars from service to slide the brand new rooms out in favor of the old rooms. And of course you now keep that Viewliner I sleeper out of revenue service for a longer period of time, costing still more money.

And of course no matter what you do, more than half the old rooms are still going to get scrapped.

Modular construction is so much cheaper than other methods, so the loss of the old rooms simply isn't that much when compared to the other costs.

 

[Ryan]

It's not cheaper than pulling the cars from service to slide the brand new rooms out in favor of the old rooms. And of course you now keep that Viewliner I sleeper out of revenue service for a longer period of time, costing still more money.

That was the whole idea behind swapping rooms with the bag dorms once everything was in service - you only have to take the cars out of service long enough to slide out the old rooms and slide in the new ones (or in the case of the bag dorms slide out the new rooms and slide in the old ones).

You reap all the benefits of modular construction, plus the added benefit of having to buy fewer new roomettes.

 

[AlanB]

It's not cheaper than pulling the cars from service to slide the brand new rooms out in favor of the old rooms. And of course you now keep that Viewliner I sleeper out of revenue service for a longer period of time, costing still more money.

That was the whole idea behind swapping rooms with the bag dorms once everything was in service - you only have to take the cars out of service long enough to slide out the old rooms and slide in the new ones (or in the case of the bag dorms slide out the new rooms and slide in the old ones).

You reap all the benefits of modular construction, plus the added benefit of having to buy fewer new roomettes.

And again, I strongly suspect that the associated costs of all that work will be higher than just buying extra modules.

Besides, the point of all of this is that those current modules are old, tired, and worn out. It's just time to junk them.

 

[MattW]

At a guess, if Amtrak is really thinking about this, they'd bring the bag/dorms all online first and open up 6-8 rooms per train by not having to house the crew. Then once they're ready to bring the new sleepers online, only sell 11 roomettes per car even if they're Viewliner Is. So essentially, instead of opening up 6-8 rooms, they'd be opening up 5-7 rooms which is still a net gain. Or better yet, once the crew-dorms are active, still only sell the extra 5-7 rooms instead of 6-8 so you don't have a period where they sell 12 roomettes per car, followed by only selling 11 roomettes per car. I'm sure people like Mica will still grouse about Amtrak not maximizing revenue or somesuch, but I wonder how much more they'd grouse if Amtrak were to suddenly reduce its capacity?

 

[CHamilton]

Then once they're ready to bring the new sleepers online, only sell 11 roomettes per car even if they're Viewliner Is.

Wouldn't it be interesting to always have those extra rooms available for onboard upgrades?

 

[AlanB]

Then once they're ready to bring the new sleepers online, only sell 11 roomettes per car even if they're Viewliner Is.

Wouldn't it be interesting to always have those extra rooms available for onboard upgrades?

Well seeing as how Amtrak is doing its all out best to discourage onboard upgrades, the only thing interesting would be how much revenue is lost from not selling the rooms outright.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

No one is going to pull the plug on an executed contract-the money has already been spent.

Tell that to the Wisconsin TALGO plant.

 

[Anderson]

IMHO, it might not be worth the effort, but I'd point out that you've got 50-odd Heritage Bags, 20 Heritage diners, and about 20 mothballed Heritage sleepers. That's somewhere between 80 and 100 cars (depending on how many of each are actually around)...yes, I'm a bit crazy, but that certainly strikes me as enough to work out a maintenance pool deal with VIA (which has about 200 of the same cars) and shift over any non-NEC (or overnight NEC) services to/from Canada to that equipment. The bags can go back to their old lives as coaches, etc., and even if only half the cars are useful...well, that's still a pool of around 50-60. Likewise, this might actually make sense for a conversion on 66/67 (even though VA wants to shift those to being "pool sets" with the rest of the NERs).

Amtrak plans to dump those cars. Maybe if VIA had some cash Amtrak might sell them to them, but otherwise Amtrak wants nothing to do with those old cars and plans are to scrap most of them. A few may be retained as spares, but the bulk are history.

And I'm not sure what modular sleeping compartments has to do with these cars anyhow, the cars aren't modular so we can't slide things into them. Or am I misunderstanding where you're going with things? :unsure:

I toyed with how to phrase this, and I've got the best explanation of it: Amtrak currently has two trains that run out of New York and terminate in Canada. Considering that VIA is already maintaining a large amount of Heritage equipment, I'd want to seriously look at converting the Maple Leaf and Adirondack to Heritage sets and flipping the maintenance bases from NYP to contracted handling at MTR/TWO by VIA, who already has the equipment base to do this. I wouldn't be inclined to sell the equipment outright due to leaseback issues, but shifting the maintenance contract seems like something that could be made to work.

The only Canada-bound train envisioned at the present for the next few years that this could reasonably be an issue with would be the Vermonter south of NYP, but even there a schedule shuffle should take care of any issues if you used the equipment there, while if some of the plans that seem to be in development (Adirondack, Vermonter, BOS-MTR train, etc.) pile up, you'd likely still end up needing to run a stray Amfleet train into MTR anyway. It's an ugly mess, I know, and I know what Amtrak wants to do, but...well, let's just say that my view of the fleet plans amounts to "If ifs and buts were candied nuts..." given the unstable nature of politics in the US.

Mind you, I may have misread what was being suggested as well (I read the suggestion as "switch the Heritage bags back into service so you can stretch the existing equipment into more sleepers, which might be wrong).

 

[afigg]

Well seeing as how Amtrak is doing its all out best to discourage onboard upgrades, the only thing interesting would be how much revenue is lost from not selling the rooms outright.

If the issue with on board upgrades is the lack of interest by the Conductor in announcing the available rooms and selling the tickets, the advent of eTicketing and smart phone could change the situation. The internet reservation and phone apps could be upgraded to show available upgrades - BC seats, sleeper rooms - for someone either waiting for the train or who has already on the train & has been scanned in. Allow the customer to check the upgrade options, see that a roomette is available to their destination, buy the upgrade on their phone or tablet computer and then show the new bar code to the conductor or OBS. Use technology to expand opportunities to increase revenue even if the onboard staff is not that cooperative or willing to follow through on potential sales.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Well seeing as how Amtrak is doing its all out best to discourage onboard upgrades, the only thing interesting would be how much revenue is lost from not selling the rooms outright.

If the issue with on board upgrades is the lack of interest by the Conductor in announcing the available rooms and selling the tickets, the advent of eTicketing and smart phone could change the situation. The internet reservation and phone apps could be upgraded to show available upgrades - BC seats, sleeper rooms - for someone either waiting for the train or who has already on the train & has been scanned in. Allow the customer to check the upgrade options, see that a roomette is available to their destination, buy the upgrade on their phone or tablet computer and then show the new bar code to the conductor or OBS. Use technology to expand opportunities to increase revenue even if the onboard staff is not that cooperative or willing to follow through on potential sales.

From my perspective it appears to be more than a simple lack of interest in announcing it. In my experience they just plain refuse to sell it to you. Even if you bring up multiple vacant rooms through a live connection to Amtrak.com on your laptop or smart phone and take the time to show the conductor they still won't sell it to you. So far as I can tell it seems to make little or no difference to them if a room is actually available or not. I like your idea but I'm curious if paying for the room through a mobile application would really solve the problem or if they would just try to find some other way to discourage you from occupying it.

 

[OlympianHiawatha]

To defend some of the Conductors, I have often seem them eagerly sell upgrades and often at a great price. One of the most comical situations I saw is a couple who boarded the California Zephyr at Sacramento wanted to upgrade from their Roomette to a Bedroom and the Condcutor said he could get that taken care of at Reno. But 4 undercover Reno Vice were waiting for them and their 2 suitcases which were billowing with narcotics and they ended up being upgraded to County instead

 

[AlanB]

Well seeing as how Amtrak is doing its all out best to discourage onboard upgrades, the only thing interesting would be how much revenue is lost from not selling the rooms outright.

If the issue with on board upgrades is the lack of interest by the Conductor in announcing the available rooms and selling the tickets, the advent of eTicketing and smart phone could change the situation. The internet reservation and phone apps could be upgraded to show available upgrades - BC seats, sleeper rooms - for someone either waiting for the train or who has already on the train & has been scanned in. Allow the customer to check the upgrade options, see that a roomette is available to their destination, buy the upgrade on their phone or tablet computer and then show the new bar code to the conductor or OBS. Use technology to expand opportunities to increase revenue even if the onboard staff is not that cooperative or willing to follow through on potential sales.

While I don't understand the particulars, and I freely admit that I'm actually quite confused as to how this is possible, apparently eTicketing made things harder and more confusing for Amtrak. It is for that reason that they changed the onboard upgrade policy a month or so ago, so as to discourage people from waiting until they're onboard to do the upgrade.

I believe that part of the decision is also simply revenue based, in that most rooms are selling normally through the advance purchase bucket system, so they decided not to encourage people to hold out in the hope of snagging a low bucket room onboard.

But again, I for one remain quite confused as to how eTicketing made things harder, but apparently it did. So coupled with the revenue aspect of things, onboard upgrades now sell at the current bucket. So one might as well just buy the room while still at the station.

 

[AlanB]

I toyed with how to phrase this, and I've got the best explanation of it: Amtrak currently has two trains that run out of New York and terminate in Canada. Considering that VIA is already maintaining a large amount of Heritage equipment, I'd want to seriously look at converting the Maple Leaf and Adirondack to Heritage sets and flipping the maintenance bases from NYP to contracted handling at MTR/TWO by VIA, who already has the equipment base to do this. I wouldn't be inclined to sell the equipment outright due to leaseback issues, but shifting the maintenance contract seems like something that could be made to work.

OK, now I'm following you. Thanks for the clarification!

I don't see it happening, but I'll never say never.

 

[Gratt]

Just throwing this out, has there ever been any talk from Amtrak about using the viewliner option on Superliner trains via the transdorm?

I can see how it would be a bad deal passengers but they could use it for the crew and it would free up some regular sleeper space.

 

[jis]

Just throwing this out, has there ever been any talk from Amtrak about using the viewliner option on Superliner trains via the transdorm?

I can see how it would be a bad deal passengers but they could use it for the crew and it would free up some regular sleeper space.

Only for through New York cars on the Capitol. Otherwise there are no surplus Viewliners around that are not already needed on single level trains.

 

[Anderson]

Just throwing this out, has there ever been any talk from Amtrak about using the viewliner option on Superliner trains via the transdorm?

I can see how it would be a bad deal passengers but they could use it for the crew and it would free up some regular sleeper space.

Only for through New York cars on the Capitol. Otherwise there are no surplus Viewliners around that are not already needed on single level trains.

Well, I think the idea expressed was to grab the extra 15 Viewliners and use them on mixed-level trains. The biggest problem with that, I believe, is if you end up with a bilevel diner and single-level sleepers, which would force all of your sleeper passengers to march up the stairs.