New Viewliner II's

[Anderson]

I agree that revenue space (or revenue-capable space) should be the priority. Granted, I don't have access to hard data on how many checked bags and packages get loaded onto which trains, but I can't recall being on a train and seeing so many bags come off that it looked like they were clearing out the baggage car. Likewise, having been able to peek into the baggage car on a few occasions from a sleeper, they definitely weren't hurting for space coming into Winter Park on the Meteor (for just a quick example). So I'd be hoping for sleepers, diners, and bag-dorms on the option instead of full baggage cars.

Ideally, when the new LD coach order starts getting worked up, we'll see a serious chat about coach-baggage cars for use on medium-distance trains (i.e. the Adirondack, the Vermonter, the Carolinian, and the Pennsylvanian) in the same order. I highly doubt these trains need a full baggage car, and a bag-dorm really doesn't do them any good.

At the moment, the biggest jam-up is going to be the state of Amtrak's budget after the hurricane. Hopefully, Amtrak will get a modest funding supplement and/or a few minor capital projects funded in conjunction with any sort of aid package regarding the NEC. With that said, though, I think an LD coach order is slowly being worked up.

Of course, since I believe Amtrak owns the IP surrounding the new cars, it's also not implausible in the longer run that future orders (such as a NEC Amfleet replacement order, which seems likely within the next 10 years or so) might also include a mid-sized supplement to existing car types. If a 25-car order of sleepers is sufficient (and history does seem to imply that orders/runs of this size from a given line are common enough), then it doesn't seem unreasonable to hope for orders of something like 200 coaches, 25 cafes, and 25 sleepers (or other such mixes) to become the norm.

 

[Exiled in Express]

The problem with adding MORE baggage cars is that I don't think Amtrak runs out of checked baggage space that quickly anyway.

I agree that revenue space (or revenue-capable space) should be the priority. Granted, I don't have access to hard data on how many checked bags and packages get loaded onto which trains, but I can't recall being on a train and seeing so many bags come off that it looked like they were clearing out the baggage car. Likewise, having been able to peek into the baggage car on a few occasions from a sleeper, they definitely weren't hurting for space coming into Winter Park on the Meteor (for just a quick example). So I'd be hoping for sleepers, diners, and bag-dorms on the option instead of full baggage cars.

Ideally, when the new LD coach order starts getting worked up, we'll see a serious chat about coach-baggage cars for use on medium-distance trains (i.e. the Adirondack, the Vermonter, the Carolinian, and the Pennsylvanian) in the same order. I highly doubt these trains need a full baggage car, and a bag-dorm really doesn't do them any good.

Wasn't part of the logic of the baggage order to remove high age/maintenance heritage cars from service that can't run at NEC speeds? If the LD trains can go 10-15 mph faster over a portion of the journey it will make the schedule more competitive or least add more padding. Also getting the 12 long distance trains with baggage service that operate over the NEC up to speed may allow another Regional service to be squeezed into the schedule.

The coach/baggage idea is a good one though, especially if more stations become baggage enabled as a result.

 

[Anderson]

That was a fair part of the logic, yes, but my understanding is that the current order (80 cars with checked baggage space) would be more or less sufficient to dispose of the existing Heritage baggage fleet. So for that purpose, adding more full baggage cars would seem unnecessary. If there are plans to add a full new LD train in the east (as there's some hope that the Capirol Limited through cars might become), that would likely be a bag-dorm candidate, and anything else would be a better bag-coach candidate than a full baggage car candidate. Like I said, I just don't think there's enough demand at the moment to justify lots of dedicated baggage cars.

 

[jis]

I am starting to rread a few articles emanating from the political pundithood that HSR and Passenger Rail is being put back on the agenda by the newly invigorated Obama Administration, which if true, is indeed very very good news for passenger rail in general and Amtrak in particular. This would considerably enhance the probability of the Viewliner II order being completed minimum further delay and also increase the probability of exercise of the option as well as of placement of further equipment orders over the next four years.

 

[gswager]

In the old days where there at at least 2 baggage cars per trainsets. The reason why is it's not the suitcases, it's the mail.

 

[afigg]

The problem with adding MORE baggage cars is that I don't think Amtrak runs out of checked baggage space that quickly anyway. They definately need Sleepers more than Baggage Cars. Of the 70 options, I would like to see 35 Sleepers, 10 Diners, and 25 Baggage Cars. Or the same ratio if not all the options are exercised.

I do not think this is unreasonable.

What would Amtrak do with 10 additional diner cars? They are getting enough diners to support the current single level LD trains plus a daily Cardinal (which would take 18 in total) and still have a couple to spare. Any Viewliner II option order has to be justified by the demand and projections for the number of LD trains that could be running in the next few years.

Furthermore, any order for diner cars has to be accompanied by an order for the same number of baggage-dorm cars. Any overnight eastern LD train with a diner car should have a baggage-dorm car for the crew to sleep in. Hence the order for 25 diner and 25 baggage-dorm cars. Amtrak will have an extra diner car with the 8400, but since diner cars have more equipment to maintain and fail, having an additional diner car in the fleet can't hurt.

Realistically, the only eastern single level LD train that I see as a possibility to be restored/added in the near to medium term is the Three Rivers or maybe as the Broadway Limited. NYP-PHL-PGH over a TBD route to CHI. Any other restored or added eastern (or western) LD train would have to directly supported or requested by Congress. If there were LD coach and café cars available, Amtrak could run a Three Rivers with the CAF 130 car order, although it would get tight with a daily Cardinal. Even a modest order for 3 additional baggage-dorms and 3 diner cars would provide the capacity for a Three Rivers plus maybe another eastern LD train if there were enough sleeper and coach cars available.

On baggage cars, the idea of baggage-coach cars for the eastern day trains has merit. The day trains are not likely to get that much checked baggage that it would exceed the capacity of a 1/2 baggage car. The Carolinian could use one to expand coach seating capacity without a longer consist. But this would be a change in the type of cars ordered from CAF, so it probably would not be a configuration that could be ordered under the option with CAF.

 

[Anderson]

I am starting to rread a few articles emanating from the political pundithood that HSR and Passenger Rail is being put back on the agenda by the newly invigorated Obama Administration, which if true, is indeed very very good news for passenger rail in general and Amtrak in particular. This would considerably enhance the probability of the Viewliner II order being completed minimum further delay and also increase the probability of exercise of the option as well as of placement of further equipment orders over the next four years.

I just read a piece on Shuster on DC Streetsblog, and I officially don't know what to make of him.

On the one hand, I disagree quite strongly with his "privatize everything" approach, which is exceedingly obnoxious (though Amtrak's ability to sue for massive compensation if there's an attempt to pull the NEC from it should hold anything like that off). As a counter, I'd argue that you effectively do have competition for the non-NEC-related routes going forward, as Amtrak has to assess the full cost of running those trains on the states, as offset by fares. It's just the LD trains and the NEC that're exempt from this, while Amtrak should turn a regular, modest profit on operating the rest of the lines.

On the other hand, I do tend to agree with his "frequency and reliability" argument, albeit with a strong bias towards higher speeds to ensure competitiveness (in the 90-125 MPH range). From what he's saying, though, I think Shuster does have one problem here: He's used to the Keystone Corridor (125 MPH service) and not to a lot of the slower corridors out there that aren't drive-time competitive.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

The problem with adding MORE baggage cars is that I don't think Amtrak runs out of checked baggage space that quickly anyway. They definately need Sleepers more than Baggage Cars. Of the 70 options, I would like to see 35 Sleepers, 10 Diners, and 25 Baggage Cars. Or the same ratio if not all the options are exercised.

I do not think this is unreasonable.

What would Amtrak do with 10 additional diner cars? They are getting enough diners to support the current single level LD trains plus a daily Cardinal (which would take 18 in total) and still have a couple to spare. Any Viewliner II option order has to be justified by the demand and projections for the number of LD trains that could be running in the next few years.

Furthermore, any order for diner cars has to be accompanied by an order for the same number of baggage-dorm cars. Any overnight eastern LD train with a diner car should have a baggage-dorm car for the crew to sleep in. Hence the order for 25 diner and 25 baggage-dorm cars. Amtrak will have an extra diner car with the 8400, but since diner cars have more equipment to maintain and fail, having an additional diner car in the fleet can't hurt.

Realistically, the only eastern single level LD train that I see as a possibility to be restored/added in the near to medium term is the Three Rivers or maybe as the Broadway Limited. NYP-PHL-PGH over a TBD route to CHI. Any other restored or added eastern (or western) LD train would have to directly supported or requested by Congress. If there were LD coach and café cars available, Amtrak could run a Three Rivers with the CAF 130 car order, although it would get tight with a daily Cardinal. Even a modest order for 3 additional baggage-dorms and 3 diner cars would provide the capacity for a Three Rivers plus maybe another eastern LD train if there were enough sleeper and coach cars available.

On baggage cars, the idea of baggage-coach cars for the eastern day trains has merit. The day trains are not likely to get that much checked baggage that it would exceed the capacity of a 1/2 baggage car. The Carolinian could use one to expand coach seating capacity without a longer consist. But this would be a change in the type of cars ordered from CAF, so it probably would not be a configuration that could be ordered under the option with CAF.

Man, you don't understand. If Amtrak gets 35 more Sleepers in addition to the current order, that's 110 Sleepers. some trains may justify an extra diner. Plus, the BL could be restored some a few more diners wouldn't hurt. I mentioned the ratio, so if you order no more sleepers then there is no need for more diners. Unless you want to add one to the Cardinal, that is.

 

[afigg]

Man, you don't understand. If Amtrak gets 35 more Sleepers in addition to the current order, that's 110 Sleepers. some trains may justify an extra diner. Plus, the BL could be restored some a few more diners wouldn't hurt. I mentioned the ratio, so if you order no more sleepers then there is no need for more diners. Unless you want to add one to the Cardinal, that is.

Oh, I understand. Yes, if Amtrak were to order 35 additional Viewliner sleepers, then they would need to order diners and baggage-dorms to support them. The question I have is what is the justification for 35 additional Viewliner sleepers? I think Amtrak could use to order 10 additional sleepers to provide growth capacity and operational flexibility, but 35 more? Sounds like your plan is for Amtrak to be able to run 4 or 5 sleepers per LD train with multiple diners and go back to the days of really long consists for the Silvers (in peak periods), am I right?

There may indeed be a market for greatly expanded Crescent or a Silver Meteor, but that would be a tough sell to commit that much money when there are also pressing needs to replace the Amfleet IIs. If Amtrak were to order 20-30 cars total from the 70 car option with CAF with most of the cars a mix of sleepers. baggage-dorms, diners, that would be a pretty big deal. Don't have to get carried away with plans for 35 additional sleepers.

 

[Gratt]

The problem with adding MORE baggage cars is that I don't think Amtrak runs out of checked baggage space that quickly anyway. They definately need Sleepers more than Baggage Cars. Of the 70 options, I would like to see 35 Sleepers, 10 Diners, and 25 Baggage Cars. Or the same ratio if not all the options are exercised.

I do not think this is unreasonable.

Realistically, the only eastern single level LD train that I see as a possibility to be restored/added in the near to medium term is the Three Rivers or maybe as the Broadway Limited. NYP-PHL-PGH over a TBD route to CHI. Any other restored or added eastern (or western) LD train would have to directly supported or requested by Congress. If there were LD coach and café cars available, Amtrak could run a Three Rivers with the CAF 130 car order, although it would get tight with a daily Cardinal. Even a modest order for 3 additional baggage-dorms and 3 diner cars would provide the capacity for a Three Rivers plus maybe another eastern LD train if there were enough sleeper and coach cars available.

I could easily see the Palmetto becoming the silver palm again, that would require extra diners, bag-dorms and sleepers.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Man, you don't understand. If Amtrak gets 35 more Sleepers in addition to the current order, that's 110 Sleepers. some trains may justify an extra diner. Plus, the BL could be restored some a few more diners wouldn't hurt. I mentioned the ratio, so if you order no more sleepers then there is no need for more diners. Unless you want to add one to the Cardinal, that is.

Oh, I understand. Yes, if Amtrak were to order 35 additional Viewliner sleepers, then they would need to order diners and baggage-dorms to support them. The question I have is what is the justification for 35 additional Viewliner sleepers? I think Amtrak could use to order 10 additional sleepers to provide growth capacity and operational flexibility, but 35 more? Sounds like your plan is for Amtrak to be able to run 4 or 5 sleepers per LD train with multiple diners and go back to the days of really long consists for the Silvers (in peak periods), am I right?

There may indeed be a market for greatly expanded Crescent or a Silver Meteor, but that would be a tough sell to commit that much money when there are also pressing needs to replace the Amfleet IIs. If Amtrak were to order 20-30 cars total from the 70 car option with CAF with most of the cars a mix of sleepers. baggage-dorms, diners, that would be a pretty big deal. Don't have to get carried away with plans for 35 additional sleepers.

I siad that you could also order less cars, just with the same ratio of sleepers:diners:bag-dorms. But if you order 70 more Viewliners then 35 should be Sleepers.

 

[afigg]

I could easily see the Palmetto becoming the silver palm again, that would require extra diners, bag-dorms and sleepers.

I agree that is a possibility. However, the Palmetto has the best cost recovery (~65%) and has the lowest net loss (-$9.5 million for the first 11 months of FY12) of the Amtrak LD trains. The Palmetto does pretty well as a day train between NYP and Savannah. Adding sleepers, a diner, and a baggage-dorm to it and sending it to Miami would almost certainly increase losses even as it increased ridership. If it were extended to Miami, interesting options on what route it could take with overnight service south of SAV if the FEC were available.

No idea if Amtrak is contemplating adding sleepers and extending the Palmetto to Miami once they have enough equipment. The equipment issue is not just sleeper, diner cars, but also lack of spare Amfleet II coach cars for more train sets.

 

[jis]

Hey, there are still 25 options left on the NJT MLV option set. Juust kidding!

 

[Nathanael]

I agree that revenue space (or revenue-capable space) should be the priority. Granted, I don't have access to hard data on how many checked bags and packages get loaded onto which trains, but I can't recall being on a train and seeing so many bags come off that it looked like they were clearing out the baggage car.

I do recall seeing what looked exaclty like 'clearing out the baggage car' -- three full baggage floats plus a few coming off at an intermediate stop (we were checking five bags ourselves on that trip). But only in high peak season in mid-June. In February, the baggage cars looked pretty empty. However, judging from the fleet plan, Amtrak may actually hang onto some of the old baggage cars solely for surge capacity. Amtrak also deliberately tightened its baggage policy, so I think they're hoping to not have the huge huge baggage demand.

At the moment, the biggest jam-up is going to be the state of Amtrak's budget after the hurricane. Hopefully, Amtrak will get a modest funding supplement and/or a few minor capital projects funded in conjunction with any sort of aid package regarding the NEC. With that said, though, I think an LD coach order is slowly being worked up.

I'm not sure what FEMA reimbursement policy for railroads is. Some of the damage should be covered by insurance, but unfortunately I'm pretty sure nothing will compensate Amtrak for the loss of revenue.

Of course, since I believe Amtrak owns the IP surrounding the new cars, it's also not implausible in the longer run that future orders (such as a NEC Amfleet replacement order, which seems likely within the next 10 years or so) might also include a mid-sized supplement to existing car types. If a 25-car order of sleepers is sufficient (and history does seem to imply that orders/runs of this size from a given line are common enough), then it doesn't seem unreasonable to hope for orders of something like 200 coaches, 25 cafes, and 25 sleepers (or other such mixes) to become the norm.

A happy thought.

 

[Anderson]

I could easily see the Palmetto becoming the silver palm again, that would require extra diners, bag-dorms and sleepers.

I agree that is a possibility. However, the Palmetto has the best cost recovery (~65%) and has the lowest net loss (-$9.5 million for the first 11 months of FY12) of the Amtrak LD trains. The Palmetto does pretty well as a day train between NYP and Savannah. Adding sleepers, a diner, and a baggage-dorm to it and sending it to Miami would almost certainly increase losses even as it increased ridership. If it were extended to Miami, interesting options on what route it could take with overnight service south of SAV if the FEC were available.

No idea if Amtrak is contemplating adding sleepers and extending the Palmetto to Miami once they have enough equipment. The equipment issue is not just sleeper, diner cars, but also lack of spare Amfleet II coach cars for more train sets.

Well, that's why I've raised the specter of the LD coach order that Amtrak seems to be working up...it seems that Amtrak is acutely aware of this issue as well and, at the very least, wants to get some extra cars on the existing trains. Depending on the timetable for such an order (I'm not sure how long it tends to take going from a mockup to actually placing the order), it might make sense for Amtrak to plan for such a train but not start it until a new LD coach order starts delivery.

And of course, there's the speculated fact that while Amtrak generally needs 8 sets for 2/day NYP-MIA, they "only" need 10 or 11 sets (depending on scheduling) for 3/day over the same route.

Nathaniel: Actually, that's a good point (on tightening the baggage policy). I was wondering about that, but you raise a good point about peak-of-the-peak baggage demand. Like I said, I've never really seen that in action (even my trips into ORL have been at odd times, I guess).

 

[jis]

And of course, there's the speculated fact that while Amtrak generally needs 8 sets for 2/day NYP-MIA, they "only" need 10 or 11 sets (depending on scheduling) for 3/day over the same route.

With proper scheduling they should need only 7 sets for 2 per day, but with current schedules they do need 8. So I agree that there is a possible schedule that will allow doing 3/day with 10 sets, and definitely with 11 sets.

 

[Anderson]

And of course, there's the speculated fact that while Amtrak generally needs 8 sets for 2/day NYP-MIA, they "only" need 10 or 11 sets (depending on scheduling) for 3/day over the same route.

With proper scheduling they should need only 7 sets for 2 per day, but with current schedules they do need 8. So I agree that there is a possible schedule that will allow doing 3/day with 10 sets, and definitely with 11 sets.

Agreed on both points...though I know that there's definitely a departure time consideration that avoids the extremes of "efficient" equipment usage. I don't recall what the required 10-set scheduling would be, but it might be "less than ideal" with respect to either dealing with rush hours at NYP or with overall bad arrival/departure times in MIA.

 

[johnny.menhennet]

And of course, there's the speculated fact that while Amtrak generally needs 8 sets for 2/day NYP-MIA, they "only" need 10 or 11 sets (depending on scheduling) for 3/day over the same route.

With proper scheduling they should need only 7 sets for 2 per day, but with current schedules they do need 8. So I agree that there is a possible schedule that will allow doing 3/day with 10 sets, and definitely with 11 sets.

Agreed on both points...though I know that there's definitely a departure time consideration that avoids the extremes of "efficient" equipment usage. I don't recall what the required 10-set scheduling would be, but it might be "less than ideal" with respect to either dealing with rush hours at NYP or with overall bad arrival/departure times in MIA.

If Amtrak found an "ideal consist" that worked for two or all of the trains, they could maximize equipment very well by being able to turn a Star into a Meteor and a Meteor into a Palm, etc. I don't have specific schedule in mind, but it could work.

 

[Trogdor]

If Amtrak found an "ideal consist" that worked for two or all of the trains, they could maximize equipment very well by being able to turn a Star into a Meteor and a Meteor into a Palm, etc. I don't have specific schedule in mind, but it could work.

I believe that was actually attempted in the 1990s. I've seen a sketch somewhere that actually showed the equipment turns (don't know if they were just proposed, or if they actually happened) that included 19/20/48/49/89/90/91/92/97/98. Pretty fancy rotation.

Today that doesn't quite work because 97/98 have three sleepers, and 48/49 don't have a lounge (except in the winter when they rotate through to Florida). Plus, at the moment everything overnights in NYP, which eliminates any real advantage of interlining the consists.

 

[jis]

For a period 97/98 and 91/92 shared consists, but the pool had four consists with 2 Sleepers and 4 with 3 Sleepers. So AFAIR the 98 and 91 had 3 Sleepers and 97 and 92 had two Sleepers, or may be the other way round.

 

[afigg]

For a period 97/98 and 91/92 shared consists, but the pool had four consists with 2 Sleepers and 4 with 3 Sleepers. So AFAIR the 98 and 91 had 3 Sleepers and 97 and 92 had two Sleepers, or may be the other way round.

Once the new sleepers are available, wouldn't the Star be expanded to 3 sleeper cars? The new equipment should allow Amtrak to standardize the consists for the Silvers and the Crescent to baggage-dorm, 3 sleepers, diner, Amfleet II café/lounge, then 4 to 5 Amfleet II coaches. Could swap an Amfleet II coach car on and off the end of the consist as needed in NY or Hialeah without too much trouble I would think.

The LSL has a different configuration, so that stays out of the standard set. But if the two Silvers, the Crescent were all running with the same 3 sleeper car arrangement, they could try the rotation that Trogdor discussed. The Cardinal would presumably stay with 2 sleepers, so it would have its own set, whether it was a 3 days/week or daily.

Replace the Amfleet IIs with an order of 150 LD coach cars and 30 cafe/lounge cars and presto, have standard LD train Viewliner consists across the board (and lower maintenance costs one would hope). If a new station is built in Atlanta with storage tracks, the Crescent might get a different configuration so coach and sleeper cars can be dropped off in Atlanta. But it is an interesting question of if there were a Silver Meteor, Silver Star, Silver Palm, and a Three Rivers to CHI all running with identical consists with 3 sleepers and a schedule that allowed for shorter turn-arounds at one end point, how efficient could Amtrak get on the number of consists to support them?

In the above scenario with a Silver Palm & Three Rivers/BL, I am assuming that Amtrak also orders a few more baggage-dorms & diners and 10-15 sleepers exercising part of the 70 car option with CAF.

 

[AlanB]

I see lots of talk about replacing the Amfleet II's and while I won't deny Amtrak needs more long distance coaches, be they Amfleets or of a Viewliner car frame, Amtrak needs to worry about the Amfleet I's first before it worries about replacing the II's. The I's are older and closer to the end of their useful life than are the II's.

 

[Caesar La Rock]

I see lots of talk about replacing the Amfleet II's and while I won't deny Amtrak needs more long distance coaches, be they Amfleets or of a Viewliner car frame, Amtrak needs to worry about the Amfleet I's first before it worries about replacing the II's. The I's are older and closer to the end of their useful life than are the II's.

The Amfleet IIs have more mileage then the older Amfleet Is. So I could see why they are replacing them first.

 

[Nathanael]

For a period 97/98 and 91/92 shared consists, but the pool had four consists with 2 Sleepers and 4 with 3 Sleepers. So AFAIR the 98 and 91 had 3 Sleepers and 97 and 92 had two Sleepers, or may be the other way round.

Once the new sleepers are available, wouldn't the Star be expanded to 3 sleeper cars? The new equipment should allow Amtrak to standardize the consists for the Silvers and the Crescent to baggage-dorm, 3 sleepers, diner, Amfleet II café/lounge, then 4 to 5 Amfleet II coaches. Could swap an Amfleet II coach car on and off the end of the consist as needed in NY or Hialeah without too much trouble I would think.

The LSL has a different configuration, so that stays out of the standard set.

The LSL can justify a third NY sleeper right now, so perhaps it could go into the same rotation. That might change if traffic is bled off by the proposed Pennsylvanian-Capitol Limited through car, though.

 

[Anderson]

I suspect we're likely to see the Crescent get a third sleeper as well. Three sleepers on all four trains would cover 45 sleepers (plus 3 for the BOS section, 4 for the Cardinal, and two for the Shoreliner, and 6 for the Cap...that's 60 of 75 accounted for right there, or just about all of the sleepers available after the V2 order).