New Passenger Cars

[battalion51]

Yeah that's my bad right there. Since the original Metroliners never had true engines and it was all just MU sets I think of them as a Cab Car, even though that's not the technical correct term for them.

 

[frj1983]

Yeah that's my bad right there. Since the original Metroliners never had true engines and it was all just MU sets I think of them as a Cab Car, even though that's not the technical correct term for them.

I was kind of thinking along similar lines battalion51, I'm glad to be corrected!

 

[Bigval109]

The Michigan Cars were converted ex Metroliner cars that became standard coaches.

They were never cab cars.

The cab cars are other batch of ex Metro liner cars.

Thanks Dutch. I had wondered why the Pennsy would order 31 coaches for Metroliner service and make every single one of them a cab car. That seemed like an excessive number of cab cars, especially considering the inspections and maintenance that would be required. I would have figured on at least some of them being straight coaches.

What's a cab car?

 

[Trogdor]

What's a cab car?

A car (non-locomotive) from which an engineer can operate the train.

These can be coaches (as found in California, a couple of routes in the northeast, and on many commuter railroads), or non-revenue cars, such as baggage cars (nicknamed "cabbage" cars).

 

[JAChooChoo]

............(or non-revenue cars, such as baggage cars (nicknamed "cabbage" cars).

Actually "Cabbage" is the term applied to F40 locomotive shells with cab intact but the prime mover removed and rollup side doors applied to use the empty space for baggage.

http://www.hebners.net/amtrak/amtF40CAB/amt90200b.jpg

 

[battalion51]

When a Cab Car is being used this is called push-pull operation. When the locomotive is leading the train this is "pull" service, and when the cab car is leading it is in "push" service (since the locomotive) is pushing the train. There are cables that are run through the train from the cab car to the locomotive (called a MU Cable) that sends the signals from the cab car to the locomotive. True cab cars (in Amtrak service) can be found on Springfield Shuttles, Keystone Service, Pacific Surfliners, and San Joaquin/Captiol Corridor service. Other routes that use a canabalized F-40 (otherwise known as a Cabbage Car) include the Downeaster, Hiawathas, Michigan Service, Heartland Flyer, Cascades Service, and Surfliners 798/799. Below is a photo in the cab of an Amfleet Cab Car.

 

[Trogdor]

............(or non-revenue cars, such as baggage cars (nicknamed "cabbage" cars).

Actually "Cabbage" is the term applied to F40 locomotive shells with cab intact but the prime mover removed and rollup side doors applied to use the empty space for baggage.

http://www.hebners.net/amtrak/amtF40CAB/amt90200b.jpg

I'm well aware of what Amtrak's current cabbage cars are, and their origins. But, the nickname "cabbage" comes from the merger of "cab" and "baggage," and could refer to any such car that combines a cab and baggage space. That the only "cabbages" on Amtrak's roster are former F40s is irrelevant.

 

[battalion51]

I don't think I've ever heard of a Cabbage car that wasn't an F-40. Now if you're suggesting that the Pacific Surfliners Cab Cars are Cabbage cars that is wrong.

 

[AlanB]

I don't think I've ever heard of a Cabbage car that wasn't an F-40. Now if you're suggesting that the Pacific Surfliners Cab Cars are Cabbage cars that is wrong.

I don't think that anyone has and Robert wasn't suggesting that there were cabbage's that weren't F-40. He was simply stating that term "Cabbage" doesn't mean that it has to be a F-40. The term applies to the idea that one has taken a baggage car and a cab car and combined them into one. Whether one wants to do that with an engine or what in effect would normally qualify as a passenger/coach car isn't the point. In other words, adding a baggage area to a Pacific Surfliner Cab Car would indeed make it a "Cabbage".

The point is that Cabbage indicates a cab car combined with a baggage car. Cabbage does not mean that it must be an F-40, although in today's world a former F-40 is the only such animal that actually qualifies as a cabbage. But who knows, maybe the remaining mothballed P40's could one day end up being cabagges.

 

[Mark]

There’s no doubt that Amtrak needs new equipment. The real question is how long will it be before somebody asks for the funds to get it. Then, after they ask, how long before first of the new cars actually enter service. I think were in for a five-year wait at the minimum. That being said I believe Amtrak really has to take a look at what it wants to be and how it’s going to get there. If we maintain the status quo, and the funds are approved then another series of Superliners or Superliner-like cars will be needed for the western long-distance trains.

This series of Superliners should incorporate all the latest technology, (bathrooms and AC included), and be compatible with the Superliner Is and IIs in service. They need to be rated to 110 mph incase they are needed on the painfully slow progressing ‘high speed’ corridors. Transition crew-dorms should incorporate the checked baggage area on its lower level, (I don’t know why this is not done now. There is plenty of room down there for showers, bathrooms and baggage). The average western long distance train has about 9-10 employees on board counting the Conductor and his/her assistant. These folks could be accommodated on the upper level in roomettes, (there are already 10 in a standard sleeper). The conductors should have an office or worktable in this car as well. This would keep them from occupying dining car, lounge and revenue space in the regular sleepers as I’ve seen them do many a time particularly on the LSL, (Half the café is occupied by crewmembers and I know, the LSL is a single level train, I’ll get to that below). This Transition Car would then eliminate the baggage car and be closest to the Locomotive.

The combined Diner-Lounge, (assuming it works), should be configured for Diner on the lower deck and remain largely a Sightseer Lounge on top with the service section in the middle being expanded. This would have to be well thought out as folks will line up for dinner below. The lower level needs to be able to seat at least 50 for diner and serve them quickly. This would drop the western consist down to a very manageable, (by one P42 on most routes), eight cars: P42-TDB-3SLS-DL-3SLC. The trains, of course, could be beefed-up as demand requires. I’m sure some genius could tie it all together by computer, as the train fills an order is automatically generated for more sleepers or coaches. These cars would come from a national ‘pool’ dedicated to this service. Maintenance would have to be tight for this to work and the ‘pool’ cars closely managed so that they land where they are needed and don’t bunch up in say, Chicago. From what I can tell the trains generally run as ‘sets’ protecting multiple routes and that could still work: If the extra car was added in Chicago and goes to LA where it isn’t needed on its next leg. I gets chopped back in to the ‘pool’, cleaned, serviced and awaits its next call. If there becomes a build up on ‘pool’ cars in one location simply deadhead them back to the areas of high demand. After a year or so, predictable patterns will develop and the cars could be staged accordingly. The ‘pool’ cars would be covered crew-wise by the extra-board.

There needs to be more Sleepers. It seems to me that these cars are always sold out or darn close to it every time I ride, (and I generally ride in all seasons both east and west). Some of the new cars should be configured as roomettes only and should be made slightly longer so that that the two passengers facing each other have a little more leg room. For me the Deluxe is a tad too expensive while the roomette gives me the privacy I prefer at a more attractive price. These Roomette cars could also be sold at a reduced rate as ‘day-rooms’ for passengers making shorter journeys yet still wanting the privacy.

Coaches should be designed with higher backed chairs and sectioned off to provide a more quiet ride. They should also have all the plugs-ins necessary for the current IPODs, laptops, etc. The bottom of at least one coach should be designed as a Business, (with some tables) or Quiet Car section for those who do not want the free for all of near constant cell phone chatter and running children. I don’t know if its possible but can’t the Coaches, at least, generate some of there own power through an alternator-battery system that is recharged by wheel movement? This would reduce HEP demand on the single locomotive I mentioned above.

Now I’ll argue the other way- forget the new Superliners and make an entirely new fleet that is compatible everywhere, (I’ll call this ‘Fleet-One’). Fleet One would use the Viewliner shell as the model. They still look pretty modern and look good behind a P42, (which we will have for at least another 10-15 years). The problem with ‘Fleet One’ is now you have to add cars, locos and crew to the equation to make up for capacity loss. My question to you guys is: Will this cost be off-set by having say LSL49, (train-set), travel to Chicago and become SWC3 which will travel to LA to become SSL2 to NOL, where it will return to NYC as CRST20? I think you would need a lot less equipment if sets were able to protect both east and west routes. I don’t really know but I think that cash-strapped Amtrak should seek equipment commonality. I know this would be boring for us Amtrak fans, (I love the Amfleets as well but my wife thinks they look too 70s trying to be futuristic), but the money saved in stocking/purchasing repair parts that work everywhere must be at least looked at. I’m reasonably sure that having several different types of cars made by several different manufacturers is a logistical nightmare. Particularly when somebody is constantly telling you to, ‘cut back, you cost too much’. 100% interchangeability will help when the lean times come and have they ever really gone away? Cars will be damaged in wrecks and can be stripped to keep others in service. I think this has been done but you can’t take the running gear off of an Amfleet and put it on a Superliner.

Fleet One must be 135mph capable to operate on the NEC. Cut the Sleepers, (to my so-called ‘national pool’), add an HHP8 or P32ACDM and presto you have an Acela Regional ready to go which came in as CL30 or LSL48. This would be a handy feature in the event of breakdowns, extremely late trains, etc. Another option would be to leave the Sleepers on, reduce the rate a bit and sell them as ‘day rooms’ or ‘business rooms’, like I mentioned above. The train could then go straight from NYC to WAS as a Regional then turn for CL29 back to Chicago and out to Seattle as EB7. The key to Fleet One is simplicity.

I don’t really know much about any of this. I hope you folks don’t mind my theorizing, here’s a little more: I would probably eliminate as much non-P42 power as possible. Again, commonality of parts-fleet wide. I would consider converting yard locomotives to Remote Control, (Engineers are really only needed over the road- sorry its true and we must reduce costs to survive). I’d take a hard look at how to save fuel by trying to lease the new yard locomotives UP is using. Somebody could probably invent an Amtrak specific low emission switcher. Its not like Amtrak is switching out 50-60 car cuts regularly. They are pushing perhaps 20 cars max. They don’t need to be 2000 hp capable.

Finally Fleet One would be at least assembled, (if not actually built), at Beech Grove. Regular Mechanical Employees would learn the new equipment as it was assembled, (to save training costs), and gain the knowledge necessary for future repairs. These folks would literally be part of the team and could make spot corrections to any discovered design flaws. I would lease additional facilities that would expire when the surge was over. I would hire contracted employees to beef-up our mechanical forces, (regular maintenance work is still going on), again for the surge that would expire when the last car was completed. Union contracts? Hmm, a slight pay increase to the ‘Regular Employees’ would bargain away the contracted employees rights, (again sorry- but its true). As Fleet One trains enter service regular trains would be removed and mothballed, leased or sold as commuter cars to new routes that are popping up, yet cannot afford ‘new’ equipment.

Respectfully Mark

 

[Trogdor]

I don't think there's necessarily that huge of a benefit in Amtrak having a single type of equipment that can run everywhere. Amtrak's network should be large enough that they can efficiently and economically maintain two "separate" fleets. In fact, Amtrak maintains numerous different sub-fleets even within the bi-level/Superliner and single-level category. In fact, I'd be surprised if many parts weren't already interchangeable between them.

The Superliner is a much more efficient design, not only from a capacity point of view, but also from a layout point of view. For one example, the dining car on a Superliner has the kitchen area downstairs, making it easy for passengers to walk through from one end to the other. On single-level cars, the kitchen is at one end, and takes up a considerable amount of space, forcing the aisle off to the side.

In coaches, the Superliner design allows the restrooms to be downstairs, which is a lot better, in my opinion, both in terms of passenger privacy as well as keeping the smell and the seating area separate. In my past rides in coach on long-distance trains, the odor of the restroom seems to be far more noticeable on single-level cars, especially for the seats close to said restroom, than on Superliners. For elderly passengers and others that desire to/need to be closer to restrooms, lower-level seating is available.

Superliners also offer much more (and better, IMO) storage space, and are easier to board with large luggage than the standard single-level cars out there.

Ultimately, I think it's bad enough that the Northeast Corridor has such restricting clearances and platform issues as to prevent the operation of Superliner or other bi-level equipment, but I'd hate to see the limited clearances of a tiny segment of the network dictate the equipment specifications of the entire system.

 

[battalion51]

You know with the development of Bi-Levels similar to the Kawasaki and Bombardier coaches that run in commuter service you'd think they'd develop a fleet of bi-levels in a similar fashion that can operate nationwide standardizing the fleet. Wait. That'd make sense. Nevermind.

 

[AlanB]

You know with the development of Bi-Levels similar to the Kawasaki and Bombardier coaches that run in commuter service you'd think they'd develop a fleet of bi-levels in a similar fashion that can operate nationwide standardizing the fleet. Wait. That'd make sense. Nevermind.

They can't, since the reduced height of those commuter Bi-Levels wouldn't permit Bi-Level sleepers. They can barely fit the two beds into the rooms now, drop a few more inches in overall height and no one would be able to climb into the upper bunk.

You'd also have no real room to put any luggage on the overhead racks in coach.

So I'd say that's a non-starter.

 

[VT Hokie]

I would think the Superliners, in addition to not being universally compatible with infrastructure on the Amtrak system, are also somewhat challenging for those who are mobility impaired. I'm sure folks with bad knees or various handicaps don't want to be going up and down stairs all the time. I'd rather see the Viewliner become the basis for future long distance equipment.

 

[frj1983]

I would think the Superliners, in addition to not being universally compatible with infrastructure on the Amtrak system, are also somewhat challenging for those who are mobility impaired. I'm sure folks with bad knees or various handicaps don't want to be going up and down stairs all the time. I'd rather see the Viewliner become the basis for future long distance equipment.

I am not crazy about the viewliners!

While they are fairly young, they look much more fragile and beat-up. The last Viewliner Sleeper that I traveled in (Sep 2005) had an air of genteel shabbiness about it. Hallway panels that covered plumbing access were all bent, dirty, and did not fit flush with the walls. Carpeting and upholstery was worn and old looking, doors didn't fit flush in the compartments, light switches didn't work and I could go on...but I got a sense of chintziness about the car that you don't get on a Superliner. Cheaper materials, cheaper built? I don't know, but it seemed so to me(OK Viewliner Fans, you may now rake me over the coals)

I will also be the first to admit, though, that deferred maintenance might have a lot to do with it and Amtrak has much to answer for in that regard. Perhaps some thought should be given to making Superliners more handicap accessible. Aren't the Superliner transition Dorms accesible from one level to another?

 

[bmichel5581]

At this point in time it makes FAR more sense to go to a Viewliner based LD fleet. After all, it was Amtrak who designed the Viewliners based on a long "wish list" of their's. Soooo, unless they're really disappointed with the Viewliners (which I doubt since Gunn was about to order Viewliner diners), why not go with something you've designed inside and out?

 

[jphjaxfl]

The Superliners, as well as the Santa Fe High Level cars, which the Superliners were developed from, have a much better riding quality than the Viewliners or any other single level cars that I have traveled on. Even when the tracks are not in the greatest shape, the ride on the upper level is much better than a single level car. The riding quality of the old Dome cars on the upper level was every similar and the Great Northern and Milwaukee Road Super Domes were equal to Superliners because they were heavier cars and passengers in the upper level were further from the tracks. In the early days of Amtrak, they had to maintain various cars from 4 manufacturers that were produced to specification of 15 or more railroads. I don't think Amtrak would have problems with 2-3 different fleets. New Cars should be built so that travelers will be comfortable and will want to travel by train more frequently.

 

[bmichel5581]

The Superliners, as well as the Santa Fe High Level cars, which the Superliners were developed from, have a much better riding quality than the Viewliners or any other single level cars that I have traveled on. Even when the tracks are not in the greatest shape, the ride on the upper level is much better than a single level car.

Tell that to the conductor I sometimes work with. Coming up the stairs on a Superliner, the train slapped, he didn't have time to react or grab on to anything, fell into the side of a chair and shattered his knee. He now has a nice "new" metal knee.

Trust me. Stairs and trains don't go together.

 

[TransAtlantic]

Also, from an operational standpoint, the Superliners require more staffing - if there are passengers with disabilities who need assistance (especially around meal times) this can take up many hours for an attendant just to deal with one car, let alone 2 or 3 like they normally have to deal with...at least on single-level equipment, in a pinch, those who can walk but just can't do the stairs can make it to restrooms and food areas. Everyone say it with me: single level pendular

 

[Trogdor]

If accessibility to those with disabilities were the issue, the Superliner would win over the Viewliner. A simple ramp (or very short step) and you're on board, as opposed to the several stairs one has to climb on a Viewliner (or other standard single-level car).

 

[George Harris]

This series of Superliners should incorporate all the latest technology, (bathrooms and AC included), and be compatible with the Superliner Is and IIs in service. They need to be rated to 110 mph incase they are needed on the painfully slow progressing ‘high speed’ corridors.
******

Fleet One must be 135mph capable to operate on the NEC. Cut the Sleepers, (to my so-called ‘national pool’), add an HHP8 or P32ACDM and presto you have an Acela Regional ready to go which came in as CL30 or LSL48. This would be a handy feature in the event of breakdowns, extremely late trains, etc. Another option would be to leave the Sleepers on, reduce the rate a bit and sell them as ‘day rooms’ or ‘business rooms’, like I mentioned above.

The 110 mph is not just for corridors. Recall that in the 1940's - 50's there were several lines that allowed 100 mph, such as most of the ATSF route used by the Southwest Chief, the ICRR main in Illinois, and the Milwuakee main to MSP - also the ACL Richmond to Jacksonville - or was that 90 mph? At least the almost freight-free former ATSF passenger line between Kansas City and Albuquerque could become a 110 mph line with a rail relay and little else. What I am saying is, if we are going to get serious about retaining long distance passenger service, we should also be looking to running it at 100 mph plus where practical.

"Fleet One" should be 150 mph plus capable. The only thing that limits a lot of the 135 mph sections on the ex Pennsy part of the Northeast Corridor to 135 mph is the condition of the electrification system. Of course going from 135 mph to 150 mph has you well into the range of diminishing returns, so there would only be a few minutes savings. In fact the highly promoted 150 mph speed limit on a short section of the north end probably saves only a couple of minutes, if that much, over having the limit at 135 mph. Any further time savings of significance on the Northeast Corridor will require huge expenditures to straighten out curvey sections.

George

 

[AlanB]

Of course going from 135 mph to 150 mph has you well into the range of diminishing returns, so there would only be a few minutes savings. In fact the highly promoted 150 mph speed limit on a short section of the north end probably saves only a couple of minutes, if that much, over having the limit at 135 mph. Any further time savings of significance on the Northeast Corridor will require huge expenditures to straighten out curvey sections.

Absolutely correct George. During the Acela brake rotor crisis Amtrak, as everyone knows, susbstituted Metroliners. During that time period for the first time ever, Amtrak ran the first every all electric Metroliners to Boston. The schedules, if memory serves, were lengthened by about 5 minutes to compensate for the lack of 150 MPH running, since they maxed out the Metroliners at 125 MPH on those same streches.

 

[JAChooChoo]

There’s no doubt that Amtrak needs new equipment. The real question is how long will it be before somebody asks for the funds to get it. ............... I don’t know if its possible but can’t the Coaches, at least, generate some of there own power through an alternator-battery system that is recharged by wheel movement? This would reduce HEP demand on the single locomotive I mentioned above.

Mark, I take it you are still fairly young .

That was the outmoded, unreliable system used for virtually all long-distance cars built before Amtrak.

Santa Fe's Hi-Level cars carried individual diesel generators, the PRR's Keystone had a power/kitchen car.

 

[Mark]

"Fleet One" should be 150 mph plus capable. The only thing that limits a lot of the 135 mph sections on the ex Pennsy part of the Northeast Corridor to 135 mph is the condition of the electrification system. Of course going from 135 mph to 150 mph has you well into the range of diminishing returns, so there would only be a few minutes savings. In fact the highly promoted 150 mph speed limit on a short section of the north end probably saves only a couple of minutes, if that much, over having the limit at 135 mph. Any further time savings of significance on the Northeast Corridor will require huge expenditures to straighten out curvey sections.
George

I agree on the 150mph George. I just figured that since the Acelas are doing 135 for the bulk of the journey then Fleet One just needed to match that speed to be integrated into the NEC as a 'Regional'. If the bulk of the NEC can be kicked up to 150 eventually then naturally Fleet One needs to match. Will we have problems with Fleet One running over freight tracks, (at slower speeds but rougher rail), elsewhere; then running at top speed on the NEC?

Can I put you down as Director, Design and Technology-Fleet One? lol

Mark

(edited to format quote- AmtrakWPK)

 

[Mark]

There’s no doubt that Amtrak needs new equipment. The real question is how long will it be before somebody asks for the funds to get it.

............... I don’t know if its possible but can’t the Coaches, at least, generate some of there own power through an alternator-battery system that is recharged by wheel movement? This would reduce HEP demand on the single locomotive I mentioned above.

Mark, I take it you are still fairly young .

That was the outmoded, unreliable system used for virtually all long-distance cars built before Amtrak.

Santa Fe's Hi-Level cars carried individual diesel generators, the PRR's Keystone had a power/kitchen car.

I think age is relative to the individual but yes, JAChooChoo. I was two years old when Amtrak came into being. I've lived near the BN/BNSF my whole life and my first and everlasting memories of passenger rail are the Big Red nosed SDP40Fs leading the San Fransisco Zephyr through my folks town. I made my first Amtrak trip in 79 aboard the Sunset Limited from Tucson to San Antonio. I was hooked and remain so to this day. I like to think my ideas aren't clouded by the visions of past railroad glory. However as we all know but generally do not follow: "Those who have contempt for the past are doomed to repeat it."

That being said, thank you for bringing me up to speed. Those ATSF Hi-Levels are what I rode on that first Amtrak trip and they will forever be my favorite cars. I didn't know that self-powered cars had been tried before but don't you think that with today's technology something better could be developed? Refer cars run all over the country- sure they fail from time to time but most of our produce gets through. I guess what I was aiming at was saving HP on the head end. I may be wrong but I thought that running the HEP draws off of the Locomotive's ability to pull. The P42DC is an astonishingly powerful unit yet most LD trains use two of them. The SWC uses three, (the same number of SDPs it used in the 70s and F40s in the 80s), most of the time. Is this for reliablility reasons? I read somewhere that Amtrak saves 1 million dollars a year by chopping one unit off of the Texas Eagle. If that's true, (and I don't know if it still only uses one but it was last year when I rode it to St Louis), then a hard look needs to be taken at the other routes.

Of course if it isn't worth the trouble, (failures, cost, maintenance, etc.), to make the cars self-powered then this is all academic. I think you're sharp-shooting me on a relatively small point what do you think of the rest of it?

Mark