Turning away business

[AlanB]

Why do they not use other materials for the windows?

Safety. You want windows that preferably don't shatter, but if they do, then at least they shatter into such tiny little pieces that they are unlikely to slice someone's jugular vein in an accident.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

This is true, Alan, but there are other relatively shatter proof, safe materials besides lexan. St. Gobains glass, for instance.

 

[Rail Freak]

This is true, Alan, but there are other relatively shatter proof, safe materials besides lexan. St. Gobains glass, for instance.

Is there a weight difference?

 

[Gingee]

As far as dirty windows, we rode the Cardinal a few years ago and the windows leaved a lot to be desired. Some were fine and some weren't. I wish Amtrak would get the funding they deserve. Obviously the public is saying something here with full trains and all.

 

[Gord]

This is true, Alan, but there are other relatively shatter proof, safe materials besides lexan. St. Gobains glass, for instance.

Is there a weight difference?

Lots of interesting discussion.

FRA document 49CFR223 spells out strict rules for safety glazing in railroad equipment including passenger cars. It is quite detailed with different requirements for new and older equipment. It has to stand up to several tests including being shot at by a 22 calibre rifle, a cement block hitting an end window (cab car for example) at 30 mph and so on, worth a read.

I believe Bombardier holds the rights to Pullman and Budd designs so in theory could build new shells of older designs. Their order books are pretty full these days.

Via Rail makes extensive use of Budd stainless steel equpment, most built in 1955 for CPR's Canadian but some go back to 1948 and are second hand from US roads. They received heavy overhauls and HEP equipment many years ago as it was significantly cheaper than ordering new equipment. These cars are well maintained. Rebuilding to as good as new is feasible and can be a better option, it's simply a matter of Amtrak getting additional money to do so.

As some have noted, it's great to see full trains. What's not great is to see trains or accomodation sold out days, weeks and even months in advance when additional customers want to ride but can't be accomodated, business and earnings being turned away.

Gord

 

[jackal]

This is true, Alan, but there are other relatively shatter proof, safe materials besides lexan. St. Gobains glass, for instance.

Is there a weight difference?

I don't think the weight of the glass is much of a concern in railroad operations. If all of the windows were twice as heavy, I'd bet that the train's fuel consumption wouldn't even measurably increase. Per pound, trains are about the most fuel-efficient form of moving things (really, only ocean freighters take less fuel to move a given weight of cargo than trains). Airlines are the least efficient, which is why they are pushing so hard to reduce weight (even taking out entertainment systems and drink carts) and improve efficiency at every move.

If Amtrak were truly concerned about weight, they'd probably be lobbying the FRA to reduce the weight standards for the cars to standards closer to European ones. Even then, I doubt fuel consumption would decrease more than a small percentage...

 

[sechs]

You've made an extreme statement of little meaning. Of course their different on the inside! But hardly "absolutely nothing in common."

If you'd ever been inside one you'd understand.

Yes. Just two weeks ago, in fact. Many times a year, usually. Have you ever been outside of one? If you have you must have missed it.

Maybe the problem is that you've seen a Superliner...?

 

[sechs]

I don't think the weight of the glass is much of a concern in railroad operations. If all of the windows were twice as heavy, I'd bet that the train's fuel consumption wouldn't even measurably increase. Per pound, trains are about the most fuel-efficient form of moving things (really, only ocean freighters take less fuel to move a given weight of cargo than trains). Airlines are the least efficient, which is why they are pushing so hard to reduce weight (even taking out entertainment systems and drink carts) and improve efficiency at every move.
If Amtrak were truly concerned about weight, they'd probably be lobbying the FRA to reduce the weight standards for the cars to standards closer to European ones. Even then, I doubt fuel consumption would decrease more than a small percentage...

Perhaps not a concern, but I'm quite sure that it would have a noticeable impact on fuel efficiency.

To be honest, Amtrak has trouble lobbying to get money every year. I doubt that getting the FRA to modify standards is high on their list or within easy reach.

 

[amamba]

Even with a good rinse, the chemicals mixed into the detergent still eats away at the Lexan causing the opaque window problem. Every passenger RR has this problem.

The only difference seems to be that some passenger RRs are more diligent about replacing slightly worn ones by new ones while outfits like MBTA appear to wait until they become almost opaque before doing anything about it.

Yes, the MBTA is really bad at this. You can barely see out of most of the MBTA commuter cars that I ride daily.

 

[Gord]

This is true, Alan, but there are other relatively shatter proof, safe materials besides lexan. St. Gobains glass, for instance.

Is there a weight difference?

I don't think the weight of the glass is much of a concern in railroad operations. If all of the windows were twice as heavy, I'd bet that the train's fuel consumption wouldn't even measurably increase. Per pound, trains are about the most fuel-efficient form of moving things (really, only ocean freighters take less fuel to move a given weight of cargo than trains). Airlines are the least efficient, which is why they are pushing so hard to reduce weight (even taking out entertainment systems and drink carts) and improve efficiency at every move.

If Amtrak were truly concerned about weight, they'd probably be lobbying the FRA to reduce the weight standards for the cars to standards closer to European ones. Even then, I doubt fuel consumption would decrease more than a small percentage...

There are many reasons Euro equipment is lighter, one being that it is often narrower and not as high. One of the great things about conventional North American passenger cars is their interior space. The extra foot and a half in width makes a big difference. Via Rail's, Rennaisance (Nighstar) equipment, originaly to be used in the Chunnel, is a good example. Corridors through these sleeping cars are very narrow, even for an average person and it is not inconceivable that someone who was overweight could not get through.

The Renn coaches are so narrow that they can only fit 2 and 1 seating and wheelchair access has been a big issue. Since we have more generous overhead and side clearances in North America, it makes sense, to me to build wider, more comfortable, cars, not just settle for what works in Europe. Let's face it, people in North America are getting taller, wider and heavier so does it make sense to go to smaller Euro cars?

It also seems that Euro design follows airline practice, less space, stay in your seat and so on. IMHO following airline practice is a step backward, not forward. I also wonder about crashworthiness with lower floor heights and lower standards for buff strength.

Gord

 

[transit54]

There are many reasons Euro equipment is lighter, one being that it is often narrower and not as high. One of the great things about conventional North American passenger cars is their interior space. The extra foot and a half in width makes a big difference. Via Rail's, Rennaisance (Nighstar) equipment, originaly to be used in the Chunnel, is a good example. Corridors through these sleeping cars are very narrow, even for an average person and it is not inconceivable that someone who was overweight could not get through.

Perhaps this is true for Tier II equipment, but the amount of reinforcement the FRA requires for Tier III (i.e. the Acela) makes the train far heavier and less efficient than its European counterparts, even compensating for the size differences and the operating environment.

 

[JohnF]

All this talk about new equipment purchases, why don't they just repair what they have? There are hundreds of bad order cars waiting repair and many that are running need refurbishing.

Amtrak's monthly magazine attempts to address some of this:

http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/ink/AmtrakInk-061808.pdf

Starting on page A-4.18 Amtrak discusses car repair projects for FY2008 in their April Monthly Performance Reports.

http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/0804monthly.pdf

 

[chuljin]

And then there's the argument that intercity travelers have more luggage than commuters, which is why the Superliners are taller than any of the commuter cars I'm aware of.
And do any of the commuter cars have the connection from one car to the next at the Superliner height?

Could Bombardier build more Superliner II cars easily?

Are the Superliners that much taller than the bi-level commuter cars used by various services -- Metrolink, Caltrain, Metra, MARC, etc.? The relevent Wikipedia article seems to indicate that Bombardier's design is 15 feet 11 inches tall, just three inches shorter than the Superliner design. East Coast cars are apparently limited to 14.5 feet.

However, I don't know too much about the car-to-car connections, but the Bombardier's bi-level design doesn't seem to be compatible with Superliner (just based on pictures of door placements).

I also don't know how quickly Bombardier could turn out Superliner IIs, but they've been making California Cars for Amtrak California so I don't think they're out of practice.

It would probably be manageable to buy new Superliners. Amtrak and its contractors have experience in making cars of various configurations -- sleeper, long-haul coach and commuter coach. I don't know what they would do for single-level cars.

As luck would have it, I have recently discovered, through unscientific measurements (comparing to a wall at GDL) that it seems that BBCs would be compatible with single-level equipment like, well, everything but Calisupurfliners.

 

[chuljin]

Every California and Surfliner car I've ever been on had a nice, modern, clean, bright, cheery, well-lit interior, especially compared to the Superliner cars.
However, a friend of mine rode from Santa Barbara to Los Angeles this afternoon and said the interior was all grimy and dirty and the windows were so dirty that she could barely see out of them.

Is this abnormal, or are they starting to show some age and wear? Chuljin, you're on them every day--how do the Surfliners appear to you?

Strange that I've taken such an interest in this thread, but overlooked jackal's question. :|

Meh, they (especially the 2000-delivered first batch [the ones whose third digit is not 5]) are indeed starting to show age. Externally (or more specifically the windows), I've encountered two types: older ones scrubbed translucent by chemicals as AlanB describes, and newer ones that are festooned with dried waterspots). The latter are better-than-adequate to look through comfortably; not so much the former (especially on the sunlit side of the train). I get the impression that internally, they do a pretty good job (though they can't wipe away broken table springs or holes worn into the upholstery). Most of the filth I see inside the train is that left in seatback pockets by previous passengers on that same train. It's not spotless, and I imagine could not be; the daily ride mentioned is from LAX to GDL on 785, which (if I assume correctly based on the timetable) was 774 earlier in the day, which means by the time I board, it has been in motion for a little over 11 hours, with only 50 minutes at SAN for cleaning and whatnot. (On a side note, does anyone know how the various few trainsets become different-numbered trains throughout the day? The only blindingly obvious one is the 798/799 pair. Perhaps I shall make a new thread for that. )

Also, *physically separating sechs and sportbiker* Superliners on the one hand and Surfliners/Californias on the other are, IMHO, utterly different internally, and less-than-utterly-but-more-than-simply-distinguishably different externally.

Perhaps wandering a bit from the topic, but here is a writeup I did in a PM to jackal some weeks ago (a bit gauche to publicize PMs, but at least I'm quoting myself, not jackal )

There are essentially two kinds of cars running in NoCal: what I call 'real' California cars (8000 series) that seem to be newer, have a nicer layout, and are more comfortable, and the older (and it kinda shows) 6000 series, which amount to Surfliner cars painted in the California scheme. I don't know if there's any rhyme or reason to the distribution of them: During my bay area trip, I was on SJ once and CC thrice; SJ had 2 of each series; one CC had 1 8000 and 3 6000s, and the other two CCs had all 8000s. IMHO, 8000-series cars kick 6000-series cars' asses, especially the 8800 cafes vs the 6300 cafes. (it should also be noted [important to a pig like me, who always finds an excuse to eat on the train except on the very shortest trips] that the at-seat tray tables in 8000s are held down by friction and gravity, and up by friction [and have a rounded rectangular ring to keep your drink from sliding]; on 6000s down by gravity and up by a rotating clip [like airliners] and a spring. These latter are often ill-maintained and over bumps threaten to fold themselves up and spill your food and drink, or in some cases actually do.) Aside from 798/799, Surfliners exclusively use the 6000 series, with I guess a little more than half the trains having a single Superliner I coach thrown in, either a 34000-series or sometimes a 31000-series BaggCoach.
Having now been on all of them, my own preference on CA corridor services, most-to-least-preferred, is:

1. 8000-series 'real' California
   
2. 58000-series Horizon Club-Dinette (business on 798/799 [i haven't been on 799 yet though])
   
3. 6000-series Surfliner and 'fake' California (with [on Surfliner] a slight [and decreasing as I get more disillusioned ] preference for Business class)
   
4. 54000-series Horizon Coach (coach on 798/799)
   
5. 31000- or 34000-series Superliner I Coach (seats are larger and more comfortable, but no outlets)
   

N.B. tossup between these last two.

Note that when I wrote that, I was considering interior facilities without regard to interior or exterior cleanliness; even considering cleanliness, I would rank them the same (possibly giving 8000-series a yet wider lead ).

(I told her to try moving to another car--she said she could not get into the car in front of her, and she hadn't tried going back--I wonder if the car in front was a business class car or if she just didn't know how to open the door...)

Perhaps the latter; the doors between the CoachCafe and Business are not locked or anything (otherwise I couldn't come back with my cheese-and-crackers! ), and conductors politely but not continuously enforce the difference.

 

[jackal]

Note that when I wrote that, I was considering interior facilities without regard to interior or exterior cleanliness; even considering cleanliness, I would rank them the same (possibly giving 8000-series a yet wider lead ).

I had her take pictures, so maybe I can see what kind of car she was in and exactly what was dirty about it.

(I told her to try moving to another car--she said she could not get into the car in front of her, and she hadn't tried going back--I wonder if the car in front was a business class car or if she just didn't know how to open the door...)

Perhaps the latter; the doors between the CoachCafe and Business are not locked or anything (otherwise I couldn't come back with my cheese-and-crackers! ), and conductors politely but not continuously enforce the difference.

She told me that it was barred. Maybe she didn't realize that the next car was really the engine, or it is possible they had some cars closed off until later in the run (she boarded at Santa Barbara on the 2pm run).

 

[RTOlson]

I've been on Capitol Corridor several times where at least one car has been roped off. I always thought it was because of low utilization and they wanted to keep the passengers to the other cars.

 

[chuljin]

Note that when I wrote that, I was considering interior facilities without regard to interior or exterior cleanliness; even considering cleanliness, I would rank them the same (possibly giving 8000-series a yet wider lead ).

I had her take pictures, so maybe I can see what kind of car she was in and exactly what was dirty about it.

(I told her to try moving to another car--she said she could not get into the car in front of her, and she hadn't tried going back--I wonder if the car in front was a business class car or if she just didn't know how to open the door...)

Perhaps the latter; the doors between the CoachCafe and Business are not locked or anything (otherwise I couldn't come back with my cheese-and-crackers! ), and conductors politely but not continuously enforce the difference.

She told me that it was barred. Maybe she didn't realize that the next car was really the engine, or it is possible they had some cars closed off until later in the run (she boarded at Santa Barbara on the 2pm run).

It could indeed be either of those.

On my daily trips, I board in the middle of the second of its two runs for the day, so all cars are already being used, but there are metal bars across the door between the front end of business and the engine and across the door between the rear end of the cab and nothing.

The rare times I've encountered an (as-yet-)unused car and noticed, it was not a metal bar, but just the red canvas strap usually used to keep people away from the cab.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Yes, the MBTA is really bad at this. You can barely see out of most of the MBTA commuter cars that I ride daily.

Do you ride single level cars on the north side, or bi-level cars on the south side?

I suspect the MBTA may think they're going to be able to retire the single level cars when the new batch of bi-level cars appears, and that may reduce their inclincation to maintain the single level cars; on the other hand, with increasing fuel prices, they may find that by the time the new cars get delivered, demand has gone up enough that they need to keep the single level cars running. But the MBTA is also pretty badly funded in general, and I would be surprised if improving window condition is a major goal in trying to use what money the MBTA has to maintain the current state of disrepair.

 

[sportbiker]

Also, *physically separating sechs and sportbiker* Superliners on the one hand and Surfliners/Californias on the other are, IMHO, utterly different internally, and less-than-utterly-but-more-than-simply-distinguishably different externally.

No they're not! No they're not! Oh, wait, I'm the one who was saying they are different. In that case, you're right!

There are essentially two kinds of cars running in NoCal: what I call 'real' California cars (8000 series) that seem to be newer, have a nicer layout, and are more comfortable, and the older (and it kinda shows) 6000 series, which amount to Surfliner cars painted in the California scheme. I don't know if there's any rhyme or reason to the distribution of them: During my bay area trip, I was on SJ once and CC thrice; SJ had 2 of each series; one CC had 1 8000 and 3 6000s, and the other two CCs had all 8000s. IMHO, 8000-series cars kick 6000-series cars' asses, especially the 8800 cafes vs the 6300 cafes.

The Amtrak California site says the 8000 series (California Car I, by Morrison-Knudson) came first (1996-ish) and the 6000 series (California Car II, Alstom) came second (2001-ish). I read elsewhere the 8000 series has much better food service because the average trip length on the San Joaquin is so much longer; the 6000-series coach/snacks on the Surfliner are the way they are because average trip length is fairly short. As to why you see some 6000 series on the San Joaquin, it's because when Amtrak CA ordered the CA Car II it was more economical to tack on a few extra to expand San Joaquin capacity than it would have been to restart the M-K line, especially since M-K got out of the railcar biz.

Lastly, as to wear-and-tear, I think it's just a utilization issue. Surfliners get a lot of use and there are very few spares to rotate out; Caltrans' head of rail said they desperately need new stock because they're "running the wheels off" of what they have.

 

[sechs]

Lastly, as to wear-and-tear, I think it's just a utilization issue. Surfliners get a lot of use and there are very few spares to rotate out; Caltrans' head of rail said they desperately need new stock because they're "running the wheels off" of what they have.

And by very few, you mean none. We have Superliner coaches running out here in consists. I understand that Central Coast Dayllight is still using single-level equipment.

 

[George Harris]

Perhaps this is true for Tier II equipment, but the amount of reinforcement the FRA requires for Tier III (i.e. the Acela) makes the train far heavier and less efficient than its European counterparts, even compensating for the size differences and the operating environment.

I feel like this is mostly the propoganda of the European equipment manufacturers so they can sell off the shelf equipment to the US market. The stuff will simply not be rugged enough to last.

 

[Trogdor]

Perhaps this is true for Tier II equipment, but the amount of reinforcement the FRA requires for Tier III (i.e. the Acela) makes the train far heavier and less efficient than its European counterparts, even compensating for the size differences and the operating environment.

I feel like this is mostly the propoganda of the European equipment manufacturers so they can sell off the shelf equipment to the US market. The stuff will simply not be rugged enough to last.

Aren't the original TGV trainsets still in service (albeit with refurbishment)?

Nearly three decades (and counting) ain't good enough for you?

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Aren't the original TGV trainsets still in service (albeit with refurbishment)?
Nearly three decades (and counting) ain't good enough for you?

I think the TGV track is in somewhat better condition than any American track, including the passenger track in the NEC.

 

[transit54]

Perhaps this is true for Tier II equipment, but the amount of reinforcement the FRA requires for Tier III (i.e. the Acela) makes the train far heavier and less efficient than its European counterparts, even compensating for the size differences and the operating environment.

I feel like this is mostly the propoganda of the European equipment manufacturers so they can sell off the shelf equipment to the US market. The stuff will simply not be rugged enough to last.

But I think this keeps coming back to weight. Increased weight does not equal better engineering or a longer life. It equals inefficiency. I'm not going to argue about the offerings of off the shelf European equipment as I don't know enough about them on a technical level to make a comparison. I have no problem with rigorous safety standards, the problem I have is standards that completely undercut one of the best features of trains: energy efficiency. I'd like to see revised safety standards that approach things from the angle of "How do we keep people safe without compromising efficiency?" Of course the FRA probably has no interest in efficiency because they're not actually operating the equipment, just making the rules.

Take a look at the Amfleets, for instance. They meet tier II standards, are significantly lighter than the Acela and have been in use forever. In every other area of transportation - cars, busses, airplanes, bicycles, etc, the trend is towards lighter and lighter vehicles that don't compromise performance. It seems that passenger railcars are heading the completely opposite way. I'd be hesitant to see Amtrak enter a large order for new equipment that wasn't engineered with energy efficiency in mind. Especially if they're going to need to last 20+ more years. The energy situation 20 years from now will be significantly different than it is today.

 

[George Harris]

Take a look at the Amfleets, for instance. They meet tier II standards, are significantly lighter than the Acela and have been in use forever.

In part this is my point. It also suggests that the additional strength of the Acela was achieved through other than smart engineering. Stronger does not necessarily have to mean significantly heavier, and possibly not even heavier at all, just better designed.

And, yes, the Acela service regime is far more difficult than that of the TGV. Remember, the TGV's spends 90+% of their runs on new alignment where they can run full speed without the need for repeated braking and acceleration, other than that needed to make the stops. The Acelas run on near zero % new alignment where they are constantly having to brake and accelerate in order to maintain anything even resembling a fast schedule.