The Best Days Of Passenger Rail Lie Ahead

[Devil's Advocate]

Both of you make some good points for why Union Pacific has no business-minded reason to work with Amtrak on additional traffic requests. Which I don't even disagree with. I just don't see what purpose there is to blame Amtrak for not meeting UP's sky-high demands with fees Amtrak has no hope of recovering. Unless you're saying that Amtrak is at fault for not pushing hard enough to "force" Union Pacific to lower their fees. Never mind the simple fact that Amtrak is already hanging by a thread politically, and that Union Pacific has far more support in our government than Amtrak has or ever will have. Regardless of whatever punitive powers are bestowed upon Amtrak they would be wise to leave those powers alone while their continued funding is under constant threat of severe budget reductions. Today's Union Pacific is no small fry. They're big enough and powerful enough to help bring an end to Amtrak if they ever find themselves backed into a corner. There is no way today's Amtrak wins over today's Union Pacific in all but the most trivial of matters. Anything more than a slap on the wrist and there will be hell to pay at budget time.

 

[johnny.menhennet]

Some of the most heavily used bilevel high speed trains would fit within the loading gauge of NEC today. For example, TGV Duplexes are well within the NEC loading gauge, though there may be a slight problem with platform height if they are taken as is.

But the real fact of the matter is that since train lengths on the NEC are so much shorter than the max possible that bi-level is not really necessary as yet, though maybe sometime in the future. Simpler things like the ability to operate two Acela sets in tandem, maxing up Regionals to 12 or 14 cars, and increasing train frequencies, may be more cost effective for now, and possibly for decades to come.

BTW, if you look at world passenger train lengths the except for the Auto Train, all other Amtrak trains are downright puny in terms of length. So that is not a real argument for not converting to single level.

However, given that we have the Superliners and given that going forward we have a standard design for the next gen, and no reason otherwise not to use them on lines with the clearance, I don;t see why anyone would want to convert them.

Now then, prognosticating about LD trains, I suspect the following are likely to happen within the next 5 or so years:

1. Pennsy run through section on the Cap, possibly the number of run through cars growing after inauguration if it catches on.

2. Extension of the Palmetto at least to JAX.

3. Section of at least one Silver service going via the FEC JAX - MIA.

4. Southwest Chief via the Transcon, abandoning Raton Pass Route.

5. Oakland - LAX day train, unless California steps up to provide facility at 4th and Townsend to handle such a train, in which case San Fran to LAX. An example of corridors stitched together to create an LD -ish train.

Less likely but possible:

1. Daily Cardinal - this could happen if Virginia specifically accelerates passing siding work on the BBRR.

2. Daily Sunset Limited - negotiations need to start instead of the parties sitting at their respective corners just glaring at each other.

3. Boston and New York sections of the LSL running as separate trains, perhaps with some NY State and Massachusetts financial support.

4. Resurrected Montrealer, only if both Vermont and Quebec step upto it.

OK, that's my modest list.

Jis, I like your list, but I have two changes to make. Move daily Cardinal to the top section. Once the Viewliner 2's start rolling out, it WILL happen. Also, add a number 7 (assuming daily Cardinal is #6) for an extended Heartland Flyer.

 

[johnny.menhennet]

If there were a third category for possible corridor train updates other than the Illinois ones we know are happening, I would add a definitely to an extension of Capitol Corridor to Salinas at 2 RT's per day, and a possibly to one or two RT's per day (probably only one for capacity reasons) to Reno.

Other corridor projects that are possible but not all that likely are a corridor service from LAX-Coachella Valley, and Twin Cities-Chicago increased frequencies.

 

[cirdan]

I have heard folks say that they (UP) would be happiest if Amtrak simply fell off the face of the earth tomorrow. But, as you said, that's just hearsay and not admissible as proof of UP's bad faith negotiations.

UPRR seem amiable enough when dealing with Amtrak California.

Maybe it's a question of finding the right way to approach them and also to see things from their point of view rather than just painting them as the bad guy.

 

[The Davy Crockett]

Since this thread has veered far and wide, I'll post this here...

Yesterday, while using my last 'companion coupon,' I visited MOMA in NYC to see an exhibit entitled "Foreclosed - Rehousing the American Dream." Here is a link to the exhibit's webpage: http://www.moma.org/visit/calendar/exhibitions/1230

The exhibit looks at five communities across the USA and is

...an exploration of new architectural possibilities for cities and suburbs in the aftermath of the recent foreclosure crisis.

I know it seems like I've gone completely off topic, but what struck me was the fact that three of the five studies had a rail component or aspect to them.

I might be a cynic but I am still hopeful about the future. :wacko:

 

[jis]

If there were a third category for possible corridor train updates other than the Illinois ones we know are happening, I would add a definitely to an extension of Capitol Corridor to Salinas at 2 RT's per day, and a possibly to one or two RT's per day (probably only one for capacity reasons) to Reno.

Other corridor projects that are possible but not all that likely are a corridor service from LAX-Coachella Valley, and Twin Cities-Chicago increased frequencies.

See message 20 in this thread. The list I had there was:

In the Amtrak and state supported Amtrak arena, I expect to see significant enhancement of service in :

1. Midwest corridors out of Chicago.

2. North East Corridor and its extensions south perhaps all the way to Jacksonville.

3. Empire Corridor

4. California Corridors - with an opportunity for a day train from San Fran to LA by stringing corridors together at San Louis Obispo.

5. Cascade Corridor.

6. Florida FEC Corridor.

 

[George Harris]

I have heard folks say that they (UP) would be happiest if Amtrak simply fell off the face of the earth tomorrow. But, as you said, that's just hearsay and not admissible as proof of UP's bad faith negotiations.

UPRR seem amiable enough when dealing with Amtrak California.

Maybe it's a question of finding the right way to approach them and also to see things from their point of view rather than just painting them as the bad guy.

The "right way" consists of an open checkbook. A strong leadership on the part of Amtrak Calif didn't hurt, either. But, also note that the San Joaquins spend most of their miles on BNSF tracks.

 

[RCrierie]

I see a simple way to go high speed on the longer distance trains (at least 125) is to make all of the cars in the Superliners single level.

No no no no NO NO NO O NO GOD NO.

In about 30 days, I'll be taking the Silver Star down to Orlando from Washington, and then the Silver Meteor up from Orlando to Washington, and in both cases, I wish that both trains had superliner consists. There is no substitute for the Superliner Lounge. None at all.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I have heard folks say that they (UP) would be happiest if Amtrak simply fell off the face of the earth tomorrow. But, as you said, that's just hearsay and not admissible as proof of UP's bad faith negotiations.

UPRR seem amiable enough when dealing with Amtrak California.Maybe it's a question of finding the right way to approach them and also to see things from their point of view rather than just painting them as the bad guy.

The "right way" consists of an open checkbook. A strong leadership on the part of Amtrak Calif didn't hurt, either. But, also note that the San Joaquins spend most of their miles on BNSF tracks.

On the plus side, I guess you could say we have the best damn railroad that spare change and lukewarm leadership can buy! :lol:

I see a simple way to go high speed on the longer distance trains (at least 125) is to make all of the cars in the Superliners single level.

No no no no NO NO NO O NO GOD NO. In about 30 days, I'll be taking the Silver Star down to Orlando from Washington, and then the Silver Meteor up from Orlando to Washington, and in both cases, I wish that both trains had superliner consists. There is no substitute for the Superliner Lounge. None at all.

Oh, I can think of a single-level substitute I wouldn't mind having in place of an SSL. Put this puppy on the back of virtually any train and I'd be happy.

 

[afigg]

I see a simple way to go high speed on the longer distance trains (at least 125) is to make all of the cars in the Superliners single level.

No no no no NO NO NO O NO GOD NO.

In about 30 days, I'll be taking the Silver Star down to Orlando from Washington, and then the Silver Meteor up from Orlando to Washington, and in both cases, I wish that both trains had superliner consists. There is no substitute for the Superliner Lounge. None at all.

No need to panic. As I posted earlier in this thread, the bi-level corridor cars will be capable of 125 mph speeds. Any Superliner III order will be based on the bi-level specification and design and the cars will be capable of 125 mph. Replacing the Superliners in the west and LD trains with 125 mph single level cars is not in the plans at all. By the time we get many corridors outside of the NEC and the east that have 110 or 125 mph tracks, there should be plenty of bi-level corridor and LD cars around. Meanwhile the Superliner trains will run at 100 mph when they can.

As for the single level Silvers, imagine if you will, an all Viewliner consist. The full service diner and the café/diner-light cars will have the double row of windows providing an airy feel and good views. The LD coach cars will have the bigger lower windows and more overhead storage space (I expect the coach cars won't have the upper smaller windows). The sleeper cars will look the almost the same as the current Viewliners, but if the Amtrak claims are correct, should have a lot less rattle and squeaks. The train will have the baggage-dorm for the crew. Maybe you don't get the Superliner Lounge, but I think most would regard an all Viewliner LD train as an improvement. It will take a few years and for Amtrak to place an order for Viewliner LD coach and café cars, but I think that will happen.

 

[Anderson]

I see a simple way to go high speed on the longer distance trains (at least 125) is to make all of the cars in the Superliners single level.

No no no no NO NO NO O NO GOD NO.

In about 30 days, I'll be taking the Silver Star down to Orlando from Washington, and then the Silver Meteor up from Orlando to Washington, and in both cases, I wish that both trains had superliner consists. There is no substitute for the Superliner Lounge. None at all.

No need to panic. As I posted earlier in this thread, the bi-level corridor cars will be capable of 125 mph speeds. Any Superliner III order will be based on the bi-level specification and design and the cars will be capable of 125 mph. Replacing the Superliners in the west and LD trains with 125 mph single level cars is not in the plans at all. By the time we get many corridors outside of the NEC and the east that have 110 or 125 mph tracks, there should be plenty of bi-level corridor and LD cars around. Meanwhile the Superliner trains will run at 100 mph when they can.

As for the single level Silvers, imagine if you will, an all Viewliner consist. The full service diner and the café/diner-light cars will have the double row of windows providing an airy feel and good views. The LD coach cars will have the bigger lower windows and more overhead storage space (I expect the coach cars won't have the upper smaller windows). The sleeper cars will look the almost the same as the current Viewliners, but if the Amtrak claims are correct, should have a lot less rattle and squeaks. The train will have the baggage-dorm for the crew. Maybe you don't get the Superliner Lounge, but I think most would regard an all Viewliner LD train as an improvement. It will take a few years and for Amtrak to place an order for Viewliner LD coach and café cars, but I think that will happen.

The big thing I'd like to see is a Viewliner lounge-cafe or something in that vein. Even if it's just reconfiguring some seats in the cafe for a SSL-style setup, it would be a nice variation on the lots-and-lots-of-tables approach in use now.

 

[The Davy Crockett]

The big thing I'd like to see is a Viewliner lounge-cafe or something in that vein. Even if it's just reconfiguring some seats in the cafe for a SSL-style setup, it would be a nice variation on the lots-and-lots-of-tables approach in use now.

I agree. IMHO the thing that is lacking in the single level trains, compared to the trains that use the Superliners, is a good lounge car. When I travel coach on the single level trains I'll sit in the cafe car for a 'change of pace' from time to time, but when I have a room I usually just 'hole up' in it between meals.

Not that Amtrak has the resources to change things, but I'm thinking that the dome cars on the B&O's Capitol Ltd. were 'low profile' and would fit through the Bal'more tunnels. Wouldn't something like them be nice?

 

[RCrierie]

Oh, I can think of a single-level substitute I wouldn't mind having in place of an SSL. Put this puppy on the back of virtually any train and I'd be happy.

Won't work, I think. Loading gauge restrictions would prevent it from going into NYP, which is important for the Silvers.

As for the single level Silvers, imagine if you will, an all Viewliner consist. The full service diner and the café/diner-light cars will have the double row of windows providing an airy feel and good views.

I don't want double rows of windows. That made sense in the late 1980s when the Viewliner I's were being designed, as Amtrak was short of money, and had a huge pile of ready-made and FRA-certified Amfleet windows that could support the Viewliner Fleet.

Now? We've advanced a lot in FRA-compliant glass, allowing larger windows while still meeting regulations. So why are we sticking with Amfleet double rows of windows in 2011?

 

[The Davy Crockett]

We've advanced a lot in FRA-compliant glass, allowing larger windows while still meeting regulations. So why are we sticking with Amfleet double rows of windows in 2011?

Time and Money - which are basically the same thing in this instance. Instead of reinventing the wheel, and designing a completely new car type, it is quicker and cheaper to use the Viewliner Is as a prototype for the new cars.

 

[jis]

We've advanced a lot in FRA-compliant glass, allowing larger windows while still meeting regulations. So why are we sticking with Amfleet double rows of windows in 2011?

Time and Money - which are basically the same thing in this instance. Instead of reinventing the wheel, and designing a completely new car type, it is quicker and cheaper to use the Viewliner Is as a prototype for the new cars.

I don't understand the comment about Amfleet double rows of windows. Is it being suggested that Viewliners use Amfleet windows?

 

[The Davy Crockett]

I took this to mean "Why is Amtrak building more Viewliners, and not building new cars using large windows of the type like VIA is retrofitting into (some of?) the Budd rebuilds?" But that was just my guess...

 

[jis]

I took this to mean "Why is Amtrak building more Viewliners, and not building new cars using large windows of the type like VIA is retrofitting into (some of?) the Budd rebuilds?" But that was just my guess...

Ah! Well that would be yet another different body shell design and would have to be a brand new development. The currently available body shells (that are current in some sense of the word) for single level cars that fit the NEC loading gauge basically are the following:

(i) Viewliner as used and on order from Amtrak

(ii) Standard Single Level Specification

(iii) Bombardier MLV as used by NJT, AMT and MARC.

(iv) Bombardier M-x cars used by LIRR and MNRR.

(v) Acela cars - Tier II and much heavier - currently used, and more soon to be ordered.

(vi) TALGO, thought there is a platform height issue to be dealt with - currently neither used nor contemplated for NEC.

It is unlikely that investment will be made in yet another type at this point other than perhaps a Tier III car for next gen Acela, if and when that happens, for operation on dedicated very high speed line.

 

[Montanan]

Well, the double windows are pretty much needed in sleeping cars, because that way there's a window for each bunk. If there were a single large window, the upper bunk's mattress would butt up against it.

And with that necessity, it makes economic sense to use the double-window design in other car types, too, rather than re-engineer the car exteriors for different car types.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Actually, the viewliner Is use, iirc, Superliner and AmFleet 1 windows, which has par cOmanality advantages. Also, I believe the VLII uses larger primary window glass.

 

[George Harris]

I have heard folks say that they (UP) would be happiest if Amtrak simply fell off the face of the earth tomorrow. But, as you said, that's just hearsay and not admissible as proof of UP's bad faith negotiations.

UPRR seem amiable enough when dealing with Amtrak California. Maybe it's a question of finding the right way to approach them and also to see things from their point of view rather than just painting them as the bad guy.

The "right way" consists of an open checkbook. A strong leadership on the part of Amtrak Calif didn't hurt, either. But, also note that the San Joaquins spend most of their miles on BNSF tracks.

On the plus side, I guess you could say we have the best damn railroad that spare change and lukewarm leadership can buy! :lol:

You are welcome to your opinion, adn you are equally if not more so welcome to keep it to yourself. As a fairly regular user of the California service, I would say it is one of the better things this state does. The trains and the stations are all quite nice, usually reliable, and the station and train people generally acting like they want to be helpful. As to teh "Lukewarm leadership" when it comes to Gene Skoropowski and the Capitol services, that is libelious. Few if anybody could have managed to get the sort of cooperation out of Southern Pacific and Union Paciifc that he managed.

 

[PRR 60]

I have heard folks say that they (UP) would be happiest if Amtrak simply fell off the face of the earth tomorrow. But, as you said, that's just hearsay and not admissible as proof of UP's bad faith negotiations.

UPRR seem amiable enough when dealing with Amtrak California. Maybe it's a question of finding the right way to approach them and also to see things from their point of view rather than just painting them as the bad guy.

The "right way" consists of an open checkbook. A strong leadership on the part of Amtrak Calif didn't hurt, either. But, also note that the San Joaquins spend most of their miles on BNSF tracks.

On the plus side, I guess you could say we have the best damn railroad that spare change and lukewarm leadership can buy! :lol:

You are welcome to your opinion, adn you are equally if not more so welcome to keep it to yourself. As a fairly regular user of the California service, I would say it is one of the better things this state does. The trains and the stations are all quite nice, usually reliable, and the station and train people generally acting like they want to be helpful. As to teh "Lukewarm leadership" when it comes to Gene Skoropowski and the Capitol services, that is libelious. Few if anybody could have managed to get the sort of cooperation out of Southern Pacific and Union Paciifc that he managed.

In fairness to Texas Sunset, I believe the "lukewarm leadership" comment was aimed at Amtrak corporate leadership, not Amtrak California or Capitol Corridor leadership. To that end, I agree with him. Amtrak has been led by a series of political hacks from both sides of the aisle, and the operation shows the results. The leadership by those in charge of the California operations, and what they have been able to do dealing directly with the UP and BNSF, shows that there are ways to get things done: Gene Skoropowski being a perfect example.

 

[George Harris]

I have heard folks say that they (UP) would be happiest if Amtrak simply fell off the face of the earth tomorrow. But, as you said, that's just hearsay and not admissible as proof of UP's bad faith negotiations.

UPRR seem amiable enough when dealing with Amtrak California. Maybe it's a question of finding the right way to approach them and also to see things from their point of view rather than just painting them as the bad guy.

The "right way" consists of an open checkbook. A strong leadership on the part of Amtrak Calif didn't hurt, either. But, also note that the San Joaquins spend most of their miles on BNSF tracks.

On the plus side, I guess you could say we have the best damn railroad that spare change and lukewarm leadership can buy! :lol:

You are welcome to your opinion, adn you are equally if not more so welcome to keep it to yourself. As a fairly regular user of the California service, I would say it is one of the better things this state does. The trains and the stations are all quite nice, usually reliable, and the station and train people generally acting like they want to be helpful. As to teh "Lukewarm leadership" when it comes to Gene Skoropowski and the Capitol services, that is libelious. Few if anybody could have managed to get the sort of cooperation out of Southern Pacific and Union Paciifc that he managed.

In fairness to Texas Sunset, I believe the "lukewarm leadership" comment was aimed at Amtrak corporate leadership, not Amtrak California or Capitol Corridor leadership. To that end, I agree with him. Amtrak has been led by a series of political hacks from both sides of the aisle, and the operation shows the results. The leadership by those in charge of the California operations, and what they have been able to do dealing directly with the UP and BNSF, shows that there are ways to get things done: Gene Skoropowski being a perfect example.

For Amtrak, absolutely true, with one exception. However, I stated that I was specifically talking about the California trains. Probably should calm it down a little, but this one I will leave alone.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

For Amtrak, absolutely true, with one exception. However, I stated that I was specifically talking about the California trains. Probably should calm it down a little, but this one I will leave alone.

As already alluded to, I was indeed referring to the national Amtrak services outside of the commuter corridors. I have few if any qualms about California's position on passenger rail and my experiences there have been surprisingly good. In many respects the California experience is night and day compared to the Texas experience, but I believe that in most respects California is the exception while Texas is closer to the rule.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Does anybody care for a revived Lone Star and/or National Limited?

 

[AlanB]

As to teh "Lukewarm leadership" when it comes to Gene Skoropowski and the Capitol services, that is libelious. Few if anybody could have managed to get the sort of cooperation out of Southern Pacific and Union Paciifc that he managed.

What Gene managed to pull off in California with the Capitol Corridor is nothing short of miraculous IMHO. While I begrudge him nothing and certainly wish him all the best in his future, it was a very sad day when he announced his retirement. And I for one could not think of a better man to lead Amtrak in DC than Gene. Not sure he wants the job; but he'd get my vote!