Superliner III cars

[Joel N. Weber II]

As far as I know, neither Amtrak nor Congress is making any plans for a Superliner III order.

However, I think it's interesting to think about what new services we won't be getting if there are no Superliner III cars anytime soon.

If Congress did hypothetically decide to buy Amtrak 300 Superliner III cars, how could they best be allocated among:

1) Lengthening existing Superliner trains

2) Adding additional frequencies on existing long distance routes (perhaps a second daily train along the Empire Builder's route?)

3) Adding service along track not currently served by Amtrak (Desert Wind? service to Amarillo, TX?)

 

[Long Train Runnin']

Make a standard corridor car so places like California can get new Surfliners and Capitols. Then they can model those cars for other states who are consider a similar service. Replace all the Horizons on things like the blue water let them run Superliners year round.

Use the other cars to make ever LD route twice a day leaving 12 hours apart.

 

[daveyb99]

Make a standard corridor car so places like California can get new Surfliners and Capitols.

I rode a Capitol a few months ago, and it was fine. Why do you want new cars?

 

[JayPea]

As far as I know, neither Amtrak nor Congress is making any plans for a Superliner III order.
However, I think it's interesting to think about what new services we won't be getting if there are no Superliner III cars anytime soon.

If Congress did hypothetically decide to buy Amtrak 300 Superliner III cars, how could they best be allocated among:

1) Lengthening existing Superliner trains

2) Adding additional frequencies on existing long distance routes (perhaps a second daily train along the Empire Builder's route?)

3) Adding service along track not currently served by Amtrak (Desert Wind? service to Amarillo, TX?)

I guess I'd like to see some sort of combination of choices 2 and 3. I think the length of the current trains is fine, though if I tried too many times to book a trip at the time I wanted and found the train sold out, I might think differently.

300 cars is a lot. I think you could both double the services of long distance routes and add more routes while you're at it. Or, in some cases, do both: A new North Coast Hiawatha, for instance, would give folks in Southern Montana new service, while folks from Sandpoint, ID west could see another train if the new Hiawatha were run during daylight hours from Sandpoint and points westward. And if this route ran over the old Empire Builder route, going from Pasco to Yakima and over Stampede Pass, that would give Pasco more service options and restore service to Yakima (and, if so desired, Ellensburg and the Seattle suburb of Auburn).

 

[sunchaser]

As far as I know, neither Amtrak nor Congress is making any plans for a Superliner III order.
However, I think it's interesting to think about what new services we won't be getting if there are no Superliner III cars anytime soon.

If Congress did hypothetically decide to buy Amtrak 300 Superliner III cars, how could they best be allocated among:

1) Lengthening existing Superliner trains

2) Adding additional frequencies on existing long distance routes (perhaps a second daily train along the Empire Builder's route?)

3) Adding service along track not currently served by Amtrak (Desert Wind? service to Amarillo, TX?)

How many Superliner cars does Amtrak have currently? Not that I'm complaining....but 300 seems to be alot.

I also realize there are many cars that should be retired. How much would they cost each?

 

[AlanB]

How many Superliner cars does Amtrak have currently? Not that I'm complaining....but 300 seems to be alot.I also realize there are many cars that should be retired. How much would they cost each?

It would probably be a lot, if Amtrak doesn't retire any of its current Superliner I and II cars. If they dump all the Superliner I's, and keep the Superliner II's which are newer, then they'd have about the same amount of cars that they have right now.

Originally there were 479 Superliner's built; 284 SL I's and 195 SL II's. Currently in service as of 4/18 there were 417 in service. Of that number 22 cars have been scrapped and are now gone for ever. There were 40 cars out of service, of which a few are probably beyond repair.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

How many Superliner cars does Amtrak have currently? Not that I'm complaining....but 300 seems to be alot.

The Wikipedia article claims 479 Superliner I and II cars were built, and 413 are in service, and 22 have been scrapped.

Elsewhere on Amtrak Unlimited, there has been discussion of how the economic stimulus program is going to rebuild 20 wrecked Superliners, which basically will be used to lengthen the Empire Builder.

I was initially thinking of asking this question with 100 or 200 cars, and decided to think big.

Consider that if you have a 7 car train (transdorm, two regular sleepers, sightseer lounge, dining car, and two coaches, perhaps) and need 6 sets (which is probably not all that far off from the needs of a Chicago to west coast train), that's 42 cars right there, just for one named train. A 100 car order might not improve more than two or three or four long distance routes.

I also realize there are many cars that should be retired.

The intent behind my question is that none of the 300 would be to replace any cars that were being retired due to age (although they might replace cars that have been irrepairably damaged in accidents). The existing Superliners are not nearly as old as the Heritage baggage and dining cars Amtrak is hoping to retire in the near future.

How much would they cost each?

A few million dollars, probably. My best guess is that the whole order of 300 cars would probably cost somewhere between $.5 billion and $1.5 billion. IIRC, the economic stimulus plan allocated $8 billion for upgrading track to allow speeds of 15 MPH slower than the not-high-speed Northeast Regional, so if there were good uses for 300 Superliner III cars, I think it would be difficult to argue that they would be unaffordably expensive.

 

[WhoozOn1st]

Make a standard corridor car so places like California can get new Surfliners and Capitols.

I rode a Capitol a few months ago, and it was fine. Why do you want new cars?

To increase service frequencies and/or lengthen consists. I've been aboard several SRO Surfliners in the past year, and it's not pleasant. A combination of longer trains and more of them would go a fair way toward alleviating sardine can conditions.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

To increase service frequencies and/or lengthen consists. I've been aboard several SRO Surfliners in the past year, and it's not pleasant. A combination of longer trains and more of them would go a fair way toward alleviating sardine can conditions.

Wasn't Amtrak planning to ask for something like 200 new bi-level corridor cars, in addition to the Viewliners? I may not have stated this clearly, but with the question at the beginning of this thread, I was thinking primarily about the western long distance routes where Amtrak seems to be making no effort to expand the fleet as ridership increases and Congress wants them to think about bringing back the Desert Wind and we have arguments about whether there's enough equipment for a daily Sunset to Florida.

 

[WhoozOn1st]

To increase service frequencies and/or lengthen consists. I've been aboard several SRO Surfliners in the past year, and it's not pleasant. A combination of longer trains and more of them would go a fair way toward alleviating sardine can conditions.

I may not have stated this clearly, but with the question at the beginning of this thread, I was thinking primarily about the western long distance routes...

I thought you were quite clear, but the other thing came up, so...

I like your first two options best.

 

[sunchaser]

To increase service frequencies and/or lengthen consists. I've been aboard several SRO Surfliners in the past year, and it's not pleasant. A combination of longer trains and more of them would go a fair way toward alleviating sardine can conditions.

I may not have stated this clearly, but with the question at the beginning of this thread, I was thinking primarily about the western long distance routes...

I thought you were quite clear, but the other thing came up, so...

I like your first two options best.

Sorry, guys wasn't trying to hijack the thread. Just wondering about costs involved, which I thought was directly related. Would like to see new Superliner IIIs added as well. Maybe 300 isn't enough then.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I also realize there are many cars that should be retired.

Not so many as you might think. Pullman did a decent job building the first order, and Bombardier did and uncharacteristically good job on the second order. (Truth: Bombardier's products are hit or miss, more often miss than hit.) I'd say that if you were to go through them and scrap the ones that really shouldn't be on the rails, you'd be getting rid of 30-40 cars, some of them Superliner IIs, mostly cars that got inadvisable wreck repairs. As I was mentioning to my friend Bob the other day, when he pointed out to me that 6 months ago or so I said that "Most of the Superliner cars sitting in Beech Grove are beyond economical repair."

My response was: "They are. If it didn't cost a quarter of a billion dollars to set up a production line, these cars would be replaced. But since it does, they are, in effect, performing uneconomical repairs."

A good quality shot-welded stainless steel car, properly maintained, can last 60 years, as the Heritage cars have demonstrated. The Amfleets and Superliner Is are only about half way through their life.

Amtrak wasted good equipment for far too long. By this point, I think they have learned their lesson about being scrappy happy.

 

[sunchaser]

I also realize there are many cars that should be retired.

Not so many as you might think. Pullman did a decent job building the first order, and Bombardier did and uncharacteristically good job on the second order. (Truth: Bombardier's products are hit or miss, more often miss than hit.) I'd say that if you were to go through them and scrap the ones that really shouldn't be on the rails, you'd be getting rid of 30-40 cars, some of them Superliner IIs, mostly cars that got inadvisable wreck repairs. As I was mentioning to my friend Bob the other day, when he pointed out to me that 6 months ago or so I said that "Most of the Superliner cars sitting in Beech Grove are beyond economical repair."

My response was: "They are. If it didn't cost a quarter of a billion dollars to set up a production line, these cars would be replaced. But since it does, they are, in effect, performing uneconomical repairs."

A good quality shot-welded stainless steel car, properly maintained, can last 60 years, as the Heritage cars have demonstrated. The Amfleets and Superliner Is are only about half way through their life.

Amtrak wasted good equipment for far too long. By this point, I think they have learned their lesson about being scrappy happy.

We've talked about this before. IMHO, I would expect at some point it would be more cost effective to purchase new Superliner IIIs, rather than spending money on repairs. It's like an older car, how much money spent on repairs is too much? My thinking is that if the repair cost is close to the price of a newer one, then buy the newer one. But of course, in this case, Amtrak cannot go to a dealer to just pick up what they want. I also think if you can repair the old ones that is ok unless it's too expensive.

I would hope that Amtrak will beef up the consists on existing routes first by adding what is needed to make more money.

Then maybe bring on new routes or revive old ones.

So I don't know how many more cars Amtrak would need to make it really work & truly make a decent profit, but I would really like to see it happen. Not just for the comfort of those riding, but to make Amtrak a success rather than something maligned & subsidized.

I'm sure most of you feel the same way.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I would hope that Amtrak will beef up the consists on existing routes first by adding what is needed to make more money.Then maybe bring on new routes or revive old ones.

The cost of buying rail cars is probably effectively a fixed charge per batch, plus a cost per car, although the contract probably won't quite be written that way. The way to get the best bargin is probably to buy a batch that will cover both lengthening existing trains, and adding whatever routes we think we might want added in the near future.

I would hope that Amtrak will beef up the consists on existing routes first by adding what is So I don't know how many more cars Amtrak would need to make it really work & truly make a decent profit, but I would really like to see it happen. Not just for the comfort of those riding, but to make Amtrak a success rather than something maligned & subsidized.

I'm sure most of you feel the same way.

I'll be upset about Amtrak not being profitable when I start reading news stories about how the Interstate Highway system is so profitable that the excess money collected from fuel taxes is helping to keep the cost of government subsidized health insurance down, or that operating airports is similarily profitable.

There are certain rail freight routes in North America that are so successful that shippers find them more attractive than the Interstate Highway system even with shippers having to indirectly pay property taxes for the railroads and not the highways. American transportation is probably less efficient because we've let the rhetoric of the owners of that freight track reduce investment in passenger rail transportation, and in rail freight routes which would be better than the Interstate Highway system, if only we leveled the playing field for the property taxes.

 

[sunchaser]

I would hope that Amtrak will beef up the consists on existing routes first by adding what is needed to make more money.Then maybe bring on new routes or revive old ones.

The cost of buying rail cars is probably effectively a fixed charge per batch, plus a cost per car, although the contract probably won't quite be written that way. The way to get the best bargin is probably to buy a batch that will cover both lengthening existing trains, and adding whatever routes we think we might want added in the near future.

I would hope that Amtrak will beef up the consists on existing routes first by adding what is So I don't know how many more cars Amtrak would need to make it really work & truly make a decent profit, but I would really like to see it happen. Not just for the comfort of those riding, but to make Amtrak a success rather than something maligned & subsidized.

I'm sure most of you feel the same way.

I'll be upset about Amtrak not being profitable when I start reading news stories about how the Interstate Highway system is so profitable that the excess money collected from fuel taxes is helping to keep the cost of government subsidized health insurance down, or that operating airports is similarily profitable.

There are certain rail freight routes in North America that are so successful that shippers find them more attractive than the Interstate Highway system even with shippers having to indirectly pay property taxes for the railroads and not the highways. American transportation is probably less efficient because we've let the rhetoric of the owners of that freight track reduce investment in passenger rail transportation, and in rail freight routes which would be better than the Interstate Highway system, if only we leveled the playing field for the property taxes.

Yes I agree, but it does seem like the rail system is treated like a step child rather than a historic, functional part of our transportation system. It is a shame that as a nation that we cannot allow a balance of taxes across the board instead of favoring the highways. I'm not against the use of highways, but there is really no reason why they should be exempt, IMHO. It's almost like there are those that would like to eliminate rail, because of the competion. Our country always has allowed competition, that's what makes companies try harder to be the best.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Does the web have a list, all in one place, with all of the Superliner routes, one route per line, the number of trainsets for that route at the beginning of the line, and the consist for each trainset following that count? I'm thinking that such a thing would be very helpful for answering questions like ``how many Superliner III sleepers would be needed to add one sleeper to every existing Superliner train?'' (My guess is the answer is 80ish?)

 

[AlanB]

I've never seen such a list. Not saying that one doesn't exist, just haven't seen it.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

It is a shame that as a nation that we cannot allow a balance of taxes across the board instead of favoring the highways. I'm not against the use of highways, but there is really no reason why they should be exempt, IMHO.

I've concluded that the really important thing is to find a politically viable way to level the playing field.

Making railroad rights of way exempt from property taxes is probably politically easier than raising fuel taxes to cover the highway's property taxes. The Massachusetts State Senate apparently was recently unwilling to raise fuel taxes to help to address the budget shortfalls, which I think demonstrates that Massachusetts is committed to subsidizing transportation out of the general funds.

Additionally, property taxes on transportation rights of way are likely to be regressive: the poor will spend a larger fraction of their income on such taxes than the rich.

And there are no property taxes for using the skies, either. Given that battery powered airplanes are less likely than battery powered cars due to the weight carrying capacity of those modes of transportation, there are air quality reasons why we should be careful to not create additional incentives to favor the use of airplanes.

 

[jis]

Interesting set of Facts and Figures from UIC on the matter of energy and CO2 emission efficiency of rail.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Interesting set of Facts and Figures from UIC on the matter of energy and CO2 emission efficiency of rail.

Yes. Though they don't seem to talk about what could happen if Tesla Motors is wildly successful.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

We've talked about this before. IMHO, I would expect at some point it would be more cost effective to purchase new Superliner IIIs, rather than spending money on repairs. It's like an older car, how much money spent on repairs is too much? My thinking is that if the repair cost is close to the price of a newer one, then buy the newer one. But of course, in this case, Amtrak cannot go to a dealer to just pick up what they want. I also think if you can repair the old ones that is ok unless it's too expensive.

This is actually a question I was dealing with myself recently. I drive a 15-year-old Mercedes diesel, and my dealer had discovered that the outer headgasket on the engine is starting to fail- that is, I have a blown head gasket. They told me that replacing the gasket itself is a $1800 job, and that I should replace the timing chain while we're in there ($700) and that given the cars mileage (166k) it might need a valve job ($2000).

I did some math. Cars these days aren't built as well as they used to be- they certainly aren't built as well as Mercedes used to build them. If I go out and buy a new car, of a safe and solid nature (say, a Honda Accord) I'm gonna end up spending $20,000- probably closer to $25k. In ten years time I will be back where I started. So the question in my mind is: In 10 years time, am I likely to spend $22,500 or so on repairs? I doubt it. In 20 years time, with some repairs along the way, I'd say my Mercedes will still be roadable. I doubt the Accord would be.

And let me tell you: Railcars aren't built as well as they used to be, either.

 

[sunchaser]

We've talked about this before. IMHO, I would expect at some point it would be more cost effective to purchase new Superliner IIIs, rather than spending money on repairs. It's like an older car, how much money spent on repairs is too much? My thinking is that if the repair cost is close to the price of a newer one, then buy the newer one. But of course, in this case, Amtrak cannot go to a dealer to just pick up what they want. I also think if you can repair the old ones that is ok unless it's too expensive.

This is actually a question I was dealing with myself recently. I drive a 15-year-old Mercedes diesel, and my dealer had discovered that the outer headgasket on the engine is starting to fail- that is, I have a blown head gasket. They told me that replacing the gasket itself is a $1800 job, and that I should replace the timing chain while we're in there ($700) and that given the cars mileage (166k) it might need a valve job ($2000).

I did some math. Cars these days aren't built as well as they used to be- they certainly aren't built as well as Mercedes used to build them. If I go out and buy a new car, of a safe and solid nature (say, a Honda Accord) I'm gonna end up spending $20,000- probably closer to $25k. In ten years time I will be back where I started. So the question in my mind is: In 10 years time, am I likely to spend $22,500 or so on repairs? I doubt it. In 20 years time, with some repairs along the way, I'd say my Mercedes will still be roadable. I doubt the Accord would be.

And let me tell you: Railcars aren't built as well as they used to be, either.

Ok, I give you that. New cars are definitely not built with the same level of quality as even 5 years back. I totally agree. We at some point have to deal with those very same issues with our car. I expect at some point, our older cars will not be allowed on the road anymore, so we will all be forced to get other cars. So that brings us back to the beginning with the Superliners. Amtrak at some point will need more rolling stock-should they scour the land for the old ones and refurb those? I'm hoping that the cars they are currently refurbing are finished off well. Then at some point they will need to rotate the other cars out for refurb/repair too. Should they order new ones to add to the stock? If yes on new ones, how many? And also if yes on new ones, then Amtrak should get to ordering soon, given lead time for delivery.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

The only sane way for Amtrak to use older equipment- and they have discussed this before- is if VIA rail discontinues its long-distance trains. If that happens, the VIA Budd cars would probably be on the market and ideal for Amtrak's needs.

Otherwise, we have to buy new equipment. The old equipment isn't standardized enough to justify.

I'd say that ordering 25 diners, dorms, lounges, 50 coach-baggages, 60 sleepers, and 50 coaches would cover it. 185 cars. Gives 10 more sleepers for consist expansion, eliminates most baggage cars from Superliner trains, and gives you 25 more Superliner sets of dorm, 2 sleepers, diner, lounge, coach-bag, 2 coaches.

Also Viewliners: 29 diners, 30 lounges and baggage-dorms, 40 sleepers, 50 baggage cars, 150 coaches. 299 cars. Gives you baggage cars for various purposes and a total of 30 Viewliner sets consisting of bag-dorm, 3 sleepers, diner, lounge, 5 coaches.

I'd also order about 100 bi-level coach cars, 50 bi-level business class cars, and 50 bi-level snack-coaches for use on Midwest corridor trains. 200 cars. I'd order 50 MP40s to go with them, and relegate the P42s to servicing the long-distance trains.

Total is 684 cars, figure total cost at about... $2 billion? Plus about $100 million for the locomotives. And about $300 million for an order of 50 AEM-9s (Amtrak spec ALP-46as built here) So when everything is over, a total of about 2.5 billion would get this massive fleet expansion done.

 

[sunchaser]

The only sane way for Amtrak to use older equipment- and they have discussed this before- is if VIA rail discontinues its long-distance trains. If that happens, the VIA Budd cars would probably be on the market and ideal for Amtrak's needs.
Otherwise, we have to buy new equipment. The old equipment isn't standardized enough to justify.

I'd say that ordering 25 diners, dorms, lounges, 50 coach-baggages, 60 sleepers, and 50 coaches would cover it. 185 cars. Gives 10 more sleepers for consist expansion, eliminates most baggage cars from Superliner trains, and gives you 25 more Superliner sets of dorm, 2 sleepers, diner, lounge, coach-bag, 2 coaches.

Also Viewliners: 29 diners, 30 lounges and baggage-dorms, 40 sleepers, 50 baggage cars, 150 coaches. 299 cars. Gives you baggage cars for various purposes and a total of 30 Viewliner sets consisting of bag-dorm, 3 sleepers, diner, lounge, 5 coaches.

I'd also order about 100 bi-level coach cars, 50 bi-level business class cars, and 50 bi-level snack-coaches for use on Midwest corridor trains. 200 cars. I'd order 50 MP40s to go with them, and relegate the P42s to servicing the long-distance trains.

Total is 684 cars, figure total cost at about... $2 billion? Plus about $100 million for the locomotives. And about $300 million for an order of 50 AEM-9s (Amtrak spec ALP-46as built here) So when everything is over, a total of about 2.5 billion would get this massive fleet expansion done.

Ok. Then what else? Many of the posters (me included) have wondered about reinstating old routes, maybe they should plan for those cars as well. Since I have limited knowledge about all the old routes, I don't know how many there were & how many more cars would be needed if Amtrak decided to start any of them up again.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

The only sane way for Amtrak to use older equipment- and they have discussed this before- is if VIA rail discontinues its long-distance trains. If that happens, the VIA Budd cars would probably be on the market and ideal for Amtrak's needs.
Otherwise, we have to buy new equipment. The old equipment isn't standardized enough to justify.

I'd say that ordering 25 diners, dorms, lounges, 50 coach-baggages, 60 sleepers, and 50 coaches would cover it. 185 cars. Gives 10 more sleepers for consist expansion, eliminates most baggage cars from Superliner trains, and gives you 25 more Superliner sets of dorm, 2 sleepers, diner, lounge, coach-bag, 2 coaches.

Also Viewliners: 29 diners, 30 lounges and baggage-dorms, 40 sleepers, 50 baggage cars, 150 coaches. 299 cars. Gives you baggage cars for various purposes and a total of 30 Viewliner sets consisting of bag-dorm, 3 sleepers, diner, lounge, 5 coaches.

I'd also order about 100 bi-level coach cars, 50 bi-level business class cars, and 50 bi-level snack-coaches for use on Midwest corridor trains. 200 cars. I'd order 50 MP40s to go with them, and relegate the P42s to servicing the long-distance trains.

Total is 684 cars, figure total cost at about... $2 billion? Plus about $100 million for the locomotives. And about $300 million for an order of 50 AEM-9s (Amtrak spec ALP-46as built here) So when everything is over, a total of about 2.5 billion would get this massive fleet expansion done.

Ok. Then what else? Many of the posters (me included) have wondered about reinstating old routes, maybe they should plan for those cars as well. Since I have limited knowledge about all the old routes, I don't know how many there were & how many more cars would be needed if Amtrak decided to start any of them up again.

Well, this would add about 10 Viewliner trainsets. If you judiciously apply this, you can bring back 3 long distance trains (the Broadway, the Silver Palm, and one other of your choosing) plus reinstate the Twilight Shoreliner.

It also gives you 25 more Superliner sets. This would allow for a Floridian, a Desert Wind, a Pioneer, and a daily Sunset, all full service. If you reduce the Desert Wind and Pioneer to sections of the CZ, you could also get a Texas Chief and maybe even a North Coast Hiawatha out of this.