New equipment for Amtrak

[AlanB]

If anything, Amtrak should've kept more F40's going when they thought the ExpressTrak initiative would require additional motive power. (And speaking of F40's, they've still got a bunch of those in storage as well!)

Actually there are only 8 left in storage now, all the rest are gone either via conversion to NPCU, lease, sold, or scrapped.

As for why they weren't kept for ExpressTrak, they have 1,250 less horse power than a P42 and weight less than a P42, both things you want when hauling freight. Additionally at the time the second order for P42's was placed, the oldest F40 was already beyond what is considered the normal useful life of a locomotive and the youngest was still already 12 years old. Then there are the cost savings realized by having one standard type of engine, in that you don't have to stock different parts and provide training on both types of engines.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

If anything, Amtrak should've kept more F40's going when they thought the ExpressTrak initiative would require additional motive power. (And speaking of F40's, they've still got a bunch of those in storage as well!)

Actually there are only 8 left in storage now, all the rest are gone either via conversion to NPCU, lease, sold, or scrapped.

As for why they weren't kept for ExpressTrak, they have 1,250 less horse power than a P42 and weight less than a P42, both things you want when hauling freight. Additionally at the time the second order for P42's was placed, the oldest F40 was already beyond what is considered the normal useful life of a locomotive and the youngest was still already 12 years old. Then there are the cost savings realized by having one standard type of engine, in that you don't have to stock different parts and provide training on both types of engines.

The P42s are great from a usefulness standpoint. They can pull pax, minimal freight, or a combination of both.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

look amtrak doesn't need motive power. just rebuild the locos from the ground up like via rail is doing. they got 1 F40PH-2 rebuilt from the ground up number 6400. what amtrak needs is to repair the mothballed equipment and then ask for new equipment. and complete orders that were never finished like viewliner coaches. if the company that made them is no longer around fine another company who will do it.

 

[cpamtfan]

Gosh, why do we have to dispute. Look, I know VT Hokie, that you would like Amtrak to put the Turboliners back in service, or at least use the coaches, but just face it, it won't ever happen. And with the P40's, Alan is correct, they don't currently need them. If they had fifteen more trains they would need them, if they were still in the freight business they would need them. But they don't have either, so what's the need for them? And Amtrak never really planned to have Viewliner coaches, Kiss Alive. They planned on sleepers, diners, and lounges. And I don't think there ever will be Viewliner coaches. Why? Well, the double window configuration wouldn't work, for there are luggage racks that need to be placed there. But Amtrak does need new LD coaches, because I personally would rather be in something other than an AmCan. Now let us stop fighting and enjoy what Amtrak currently has, because through all the bad, there maybe some good coming.

cpamtfan-Peter

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

The P42s are great from a usefulness standpoint. They can pull pax, minimal freight, or a combination of both.

One unfortunate characteristic of the P42s relative to some other passenger locomotives is the way HEP is generated. The prime mover has to run at one of two fixed speeds to get the 60 hz power, which reduces energy efficiency, and if the prime mover fails on a long distance train that has only one P42, the HVAC in all the passenger cars stops working, which I think can get dangerous at some times of year given that the cars were never designed with the idea that they'd be full of passengers on a hot or cold day with no power.

The real waste may be in having commuter railroads that are starting up or expanding deciding that buying brand new locomotives is a better use of their limited dollars than making use of Amtrak's excess P40s. That's probably mostly the fault of Amtrak's management for overestimating how much money the P40s are worth (it's not what Amtrak paid for them that matters, it's what potential users in the future are willing to pay).

 

[Sam Damon]

Somehow, a post of mine in this thread got eaten by IPS; I'll amplify some thoughts a bit.

The turboliners are dead as far as regular service is concerned. If you want to get any use out of them, run some fan trips in the summer on Empire Service with an extra fare.

I used to think Amfleet cars might be converted for other uses -- then it dawned on me they're 30+ years old. It's time for new rolling stock, both single and hi-level. Waive the buff strength requirements for new rolling stock, and put some Amfleets and Superliners back into production while concurrently, new designs are developed that meet the buff strength requirements.

 

[Crescent Mark]

After the 7 engines it looks like there's a Viewliner something or another in that picture. Is that the diner? Or a random sleeper? It's between the engines and the ExpressTrak cars.

Sucks all those cars have to sit in storage. I wish we could start up more lines with them such as stuff like the Piedmont, etc.

 

[wrjensen]

Who Owns the rights to the viewliner design? Could Amtrak do a update to the plans to improve them and then let the design out to be bid? This would improve the turnaround time on getting new cars into the fleet. Designing new cars would take time.

 

[VT Hokie]

After the 7 engines it looks like there's a Viewliner something or another in that picture. Is that the diner? Or a random sleeper? It's between the engines and the ExpressTrak cars.

That's one of the two prototype Viewliner sleepers. The lone Viewliner diner is seen here in Wilmington:

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&...1&encType=1

 

[jackal]

One unfortunate characteristic of the P42s relative to some other passenger locomotives is the way HEP is generated. The prime mover has to run at one of two fixed speeds to get the 60 hz power, which reduces energy efficiency.

I always wondered why GE didn't produce an AC version of these like they did with the P32s. Yes, AC circuitry makes the cost of the locomotive a bit more expensive, and as Amtrak doesn't do much low-speed, high-torque pulling (other than Raton Pass), there's not a huge benefit to them there, but the fuel savings when using HEP alone would probably make it worth it. They wouldn't even need to add the third rail pickup option (though I'd imagine that's actually a fairly nominal cost with the existing AC circuitry on-board and would give them a good bit of operational flexibility).

 

[Dutchrailnut]

Who Owns the rights to the viewliner design? Could Amtrak do a update to the plans to improve them and then let the design out to be bid? This would improve the turnaround time on getting new cars into the fleet. Designing new cars would take time.

Amtrak owns the Viewliner design and hired engineering people two yeas ago to update and change the design for todays needs.

Several designs are ready, with most obious change no second row of windows but bottom windows about 8 " higher at top.

The View liner was designed by Amtrack with the prototype shells manufactured by Budd, the cars were finished by Amtrak.

The production cars were made in Hornell at Morrison Knudsen, the shells came from Brazil I believe.

 

[wayman]

Amtrak owns the Viewliner design and hired engineering people two yeas ago to update and change the design for todays needs.Several designs are ready, with most obious change no second row of windows but bottom windows about 8 " higher at top.

The View liner was designed by Amtrack with the prototype shells manufactured by Budd, the cars were finished by Amtrak.

The production cars were made in Hornell at Morrison Knudsen, the shells came from Brazil I believe.

Would the upper berth still have a window with this re-sizing? I can't picture how far down the upper berth goes and how high up an 8"-taller main window would go....

 

[Dutchrailnut]

Amtrak owns the Viewliner design and hired engineering people two yeas ago to update and change the design for todays needs.Several designs are ready, with most obious change no second row of windows but bottom windows about 8 " higher at top.

The View liner was designed by Amtrack with the prototype shells manufactured by Budd, the cars were finished by Amtrak.

The production cars were made in Hornell at Morrison Knudsen, the shells came from Brazil I believe.

Would the upper berth still have a window with this re-sizing? I can't picture how far down the upper berth goes and how high up an 8"-taller main window would go....

No, if both rows of windows were to be kept, the car sides would not be able to carry the load, the bottom window did need enlargement to comply with the minimum window size. this was changed so a stretcher can be exited trhu a window.

 

[access bob]

Amtrak owns the Viewliner design and hired engineering people two yeas ago to update and change the design for todays needs.Several designs are ready, with most obious change no second row of windows but bottom windows about 8 " higher at top.

The View liner was designed by Amtrack with the prototype shells manufactured by Budd, the cars were finished by Amtrak.

The production cars were made in Hornell at Morrison Knudsen, the shells came from Brazil I believe.

Would the upper berth still have a window with this re-sizing? I can't picture how far down the upper berth goes and how high up an 8"-taller main window would go....

No, if both rows of windows were to be kept, the car sides would not be able to carry the load, the bottom window did need enlargement to comply with the minimum window size. this was changed so a stretcher can be exited trhu a window.

seems like the upper window could be made smaller so there would be sufficient load carrying capacity, the upper berth window seemed to be one of the smartest advances in sleeping car amenities since the invention of the sleeping car. even if the bottom of the upper window was raised 8 inches still more than half the window area would remain.

Bob

 

[Shotgun7]

Does anybody have any links to drawings/plans of what these updated Viewliners might look like?

 

[cpamtfan]

Does anybody have any links to drawings/plans of what these updated Viewliners might look like?

No, Amtrak holds the plans, they wouldn't let someone see it yet.

cpamtfan-Peter

 

[Sam Damon]

Amtrak owns the Viewliner design and hired engineering people two yeas ago to update and change the design for todays needs.Several designs are ready, with most obious change no second row of windows but bottom windows about 8 " higher at top.

The View liner was designed by Amtrack with the prototype shells manufactured by Budd, the cars were finished by Amtrak.

The production cars were made in Hornell at Morrison Knudsen, the shells came from Brazil I believe.

Dutch,

Was it you or someone else who typed about how the Viewliner design was horribly expensive to build, and that another approach might be A Good Idea?

It's been a while, but IIRC, someone posted that the exterior shell of the Viewliners was complicated to the point where substantial amounts of cash were needed to build them.

 

[VT Hokie]

I think the next generation coach should look like this!

http://www.davehonan.com/turbo/rtl-iii-set2-cafel.jpg

http://www.davehonan.com/turbo/rtl-iii-set...ch-adj-155l.jpg

 

[transit54]

I think the next generation coach should look like this!
http://www.davehonan.com/turbo/rtl-iii-set2-cafel.jpg

I think the next generation needs to take into account the following:

1) Safety - This is obvious

2) Efficiency - These coaches will be going into service in a time when we're at high risk for fuel prices increases, which ultimately could be substantially higher than we've seen to date (especially if these last even half as long as the Amfleets). Why are we investing tax dollars in a national rail network if its not efficient?

3) Comfort - Will draw passengers

4) Looks - If feel that moving away from the corrugated steel look of the Amfleets and towards something like looks a bit more like the Acela will have more impact on public perception than a lot of people might think.

I don't know a lot about it, but the JetTrain idea always intrigued me. Though I don't know how much applicability that would have for Amtrak outside of corridor service.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

1) Safety - This is obvious2) Efficiency - These coaches will be going into service in a time when we're at high risk for fuel prices increases, which ultimately could be substantially higher than we've seen to date (especially if these last even half as long as the Amfleets). Why are we investing tax dollars in a national rail network if its not efficient?

3) Comfort - Will draw passengers

4) Looks - If feel that moving away from the corrugated steel look of the Amfleets and towards something like looks a bit more like the Acela will have more impact on public perception than a lot of people might think.

I don't know a lot about it, but the JetTrain idea always intrigued me. Though I don't know how much applicability that would have for Amtrak outside of corridor service.

I doubt the JetTrain helps much if you don't have reasonably straight track, and it doesn't look like a huge win on efficiency, either, especially if you're concerned with how much petroleum the US is importing. Maybe it would be a win if petroleum were cheap and the US had a shortage of workers who could build catenary (although if we do decide that some fraction of those 3 million jobs Obama wants to create/save are going toward rail infrastructure, deciding to include catenary probably means fewer miles of new track per year than we'd get for petroleum powered routes).

There's an easy efficiency/comfort tradeoff that can be made in adjusting seat pitch. Be careful you don't emphasize efficiency too much (especially if doing so drives people to their automobiles, which are even less efficient than ``wastefully'' spacious coach seats; it's funny how even economy automobiles have more comfortable seating than local mass transit). The biggest win for efficiency would come simply from making trains longer and driving down the low bucket prices to attract cost sensitive riders away from other modes of intercity transportation such as bus.

 

[Crescent ATN & TCL]

I think the next generation coach should look like this!
http://www.davehonan.com/turbo/rtl-iii-set2-cafel.jpg

I think the next generation needs to take into account the following:

1) Safety - This is obvious

2) Efficiency - These coaches will be going into service in a time when we're at high risk for fuel prices increases, which ultimately could be substantially higher than we've seen to date (especially if these last even half as long as the Amfleets). Why are we investing tax dollars in a national rail network if its not efficient?

3) Comfort - Will draw passengers

4) Looks - If feel that moving away from the corrugated steel look of the Amfleets and towards something like looks a bit more like the Acela will have more impact on public perception than a lot of people might think.

I don't know a lot about it, but the JetTrain idea always intrigued me. Though I don't know how much applicability that would have for Amtrak outside of corridor service.

The Jet Train performed well in tests, pulling the same load as the Acela Power Cars at 151 top speed in Pueblo. It would probably work best in California along the Surfline or Capital Corridor/San Joaquin lines as a limited stop express for BC and FC only just as the Aclea does in the NEC aside from that its not all that much economical. The only real reason the Jet Trains aren't used is a lack of interest and funds from Amtrak and DOTs. For pictures and a small article see TRAINS magazine from Jan under the "Ask Trains Section"

 

[OlympianHiawatha]

I think the next generation coach should look like this!
http://www.davehonan.com/turbo/rtl-iii-set2-cafel.jpg

http://www.davehonan.com/turbo/rtl-iii-set...ch-adj-155l.jpg

I noticed what looks like cars from the American Freedom Train in the background-where was that pic taken?

 

[VT Hokie]

I noticed what looks like cars from the American Freedom Train in the background-where was that pic taken?

I think you're looking at the stripped, unrebuilt Turboliner coaches in the background. That was at Super Steel in Schenectady, NY.

http://www.davehonan.com/turbo/rtl-iii.html

 

[Green Maned Lion]

They don't treat their stuff like toys. They use it until they're dead. They are well and truly dead. And good riddance.

Amtrak runs most of its equipment into the ground, but the RTL III is a glaring exception. It was not simply a worn out 30 year old trainset. It was completely rebuilt, down to the bare frame, and virtually every component in it was new.

They rebuilt it. But they did so very poorly. What do you think, Amtrak is doing this to spite you? They are not running valuable equipment because it is not valuable and its more expensive to operate than the utility it provides.

I think the next generation coach should look like this!
http://www.davehonan.com/turbo/rtl-iii-set2-cafel.jpg

http://www.davehonan.com/turbo/rtl-iii-set...ch-adj-155l.jpg

The ridges are functional. That's why its there.

By the way, if you take care of them, those Amfleets have another 20-30 years of life in them easy. They are Budd coaches, after all.

 

[transit54]

By the way, if you take care of them, those Amfleets have another 20-30 years of life in them easy. They are Budd coaches, after all.

That may be, but isn't the problem that they are expensive to take care of due to the lack of available parts?