Turning away business

[Gord]

Along the line of "Will America wake up to rail travel?", I think it already has. I am seeing more and more sold out trains and sleeping accomodation, especially bedrooms, sold out months in advance. If you can't adjust the date of your travel, good luck.

Even the Maple Leaf has been sold out between NYP and TWO for the past several days. A friend thought he'd try Amtrak on this route and ended up having to take a bus. He was not happy. Are there no spare Amfleet coaches available?

All of this points to the major equipment shortage we are all aware of. It is very frustrating to see Amtrak losing all this business due to lack of funding to rebuild existing cars and purchase new ones. Via Rail trains are also often sold out. In the "good old days" they always had enough surplus equipment to add cars or run a second section. Not now, they turn customers away all the time, simply unacceptable in my view.

It appears that the only way this will change is for all of us to frequently pressure our elected representatives.

 

[the_traveler]

Do they have any spare coaches available - NO! The main problem was all those many years of $-0- or minimum budgets. There was enough to operate, but not much more. (In fact on the NEC, there are 4 bridges in CT that are about 100 years old! 1 just got rebuilt this summer!)

Even if someone came along and said "Here's $1 billion for new cars!", it will be YEARS before those cars could be built!

It's so bad that many of the cars operating now are 30+ years old!

 

[jis]

Even if someone came along and said "Here's $1 billion for new cars!", it will be YEARS before those cars could be built!

If Amtrak can bring itself to avoid its unfortunately inevitable urge for going into a full court "let's design a new car" exercise and instead use currently available shell designs and just figure out an Amtrak grade furnishing (specially for coaches) for them, they should be able to start getting cars on line within two years of ordering them. Afterall many of the transit agencies are quite able to achieve that.

For example, I am sure Alstom or Bombardier could do relatively quick turnaround order for both single level and bilevel coaches using one of the shells that is currently used by various transit agencies.

 

[Walt]

It's so bad that many of the cars operating now are 30+ years old!

Would that not be equally true of most of today's commercial aircraft?

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

If Amtrak can bring itself to avoid its unfortunately inevitable urge for going into a full court "let's design a new car" exercise and instead use currently available shell designs and just figure out an Amtrak grade furnishing (specially for coaches) for them, they should be able to start getting cars on line within two years of ordering them. Afterall many of the transit agencies are quite able to achieve that.
For example, I am sure Alstom or Bombardier could do relatively quick turnaround order for both single level and bilevel coaches using one of the shells that is currently used by various transit agencies.

Congress doesn't really seem to be trying to help Amtrak to avoid that urge.

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?

Could Amtrak buy some compromise commuter-ish cars, and sell them to commuter agencies in a few years after they figure out how to get what they really want, or use them on the shorter Amtrak runs?

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

It's so bad that many of the cars operating now are 30+ years old!

I don't think the Amfleet I / Superliner I cars are really much of a problem. About two months ago, I made a trip on the Lake Shore Limited where Boston to Albany was Amfleet I, and Albany to Boston was a bus. I'd take an Amfleet I over a brand new bus any day.

That the single level dining cars are about 60 year old and there aren't really enough of them at this point seems like a bigger annoyance.

What would a billion dollars buy? Roughly 500 cars?

 

[amtrakmichigan]

Sounds like it's a good time to pull some of the old herritage equipment out of the bone yards. Clean them up a little, install new seating, carpet etc.. and put them back into service for the time being.

 

[AlanB]

Sounds like it's a good time to pull some of the old herritage equipment out of the bone yards. Clean them up a little, install new seating, carpet etc.. and put them back into service for the time being.

I believe that most of the Heritage equipment has either been sold off or scrapped. Even if Amtrak did have a bunch just sitting around, they haven't got the money to get it out of mothballs, rehabbed, refurbished, and back on the road.

 

[RTOlson]

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.

 

[sportbiker]

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.

I'm not sure about the California Car I design, but California Car II / Surfliner cars are by Alstom.

 

[RTOlson]

D'oh. I thought a quick Internet search would yield my answer, but I have the sinking feeling that I missed the mark. Wiki says the first round of California Cars was built by Morrison-Knudsen while the next batch was built by Alstom.

Apologies for my making an assumption about Bombardier.

 

[Trogdor]

It's so bad that many of the cars operating now are 30+ years old!

Would that not be equally true of most of today's commercial aircraft?

No it would not.

With the exception of Northwest (because of their DC-9 fleet), no major US airline has an average fleet age above 15 years.

Again, except for Northwest's DC-9s, I'm not aware of any major US airline flying a passenger airplane built before 1980. None of them fly 727s, or any 737-200s. Many of them are retiring (or have already retired) the MD-80s and oldest 757s.

I don't know what the actual average age of commercial airplanes is in the United States, but I'd wager a guess that it's in the range of 10-15 years for large jets. Plus, unlike a decade or so ago, the new airlines today (well, those that can survive more than a few months) are generally flying brand-new airplanes, rather than second-, third- or fourth-hand equipment sold off by the majors. That would tend to lower the average age of airline fleets in the US.

Take a flight on Virgin America, and you'll be on a brand new A320, whereas a flight on ValuJet in the early to mid 1990s would have you on a 20-year-old DC-9.

Plus, as airlines struggle with fuel costs, they are parking their older airplanes even faster. That will make the average age of airline fleets decline even more.

 

[Mike S.]

Back to the Maple Leaf being sold out.

1. I think its great to see sold out trains in NYS!

2. Why this train? The other 2 "Empire Service" cross state trains are not sold out, but must be pretty packed based on the bucket fares. However, business class is sold out now a lot. Are that many people really going to Toronto?

3. There is a youtube video of the Maple Leaf with 6 cars (snack car and 5 coaches) vs. the normal 5 car consist of the Maple Leaf and the Empire Service trains. I wonder if this was just an equipment move or have they can add an extra car.

 

[JimInVa]

It's so bad that many of the cars operating now are 30+ years old!

Would that not be equally true of most of today's commercial aircraft?

Not really. A pretty large percentage of the active commercial airline fleet is about 15 years old or less...and a significant number are about 10 years or less. The older ones are less fuel-efficient, and these guys are trying really hard to save $$$.

That said, I'm not afraid to fly on a 30-year-old aircraft; it's quite likely that the plane has undergone a couple of C-checks or D-checks, in which the plane is essentially stripped bare and rebuilt (exaggerating only a little).

OTOH, I'd rather take the train!

 

[sechs]

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.

I'm not sure about the California Car I design, but California Car II / Surfliner cars are by Alstom.

I will note, however, that they are based on the Superliner design. I recently saw one of the refurbished Superliner coaches in California colours, and, except for the door configuration, it is tough to tell them apart.

 

[sportbiker]

I will note, however, that they are based on the Superliner design. I recently saw one of the refurbished Superliner coaches in California colours, and, except for the door configuration, it is tough to tell them apart.

They're very similar externally; however, the interiors have absolutely nothing in common with Superliners. California Cars I and II are both designed for short-haul duty.

 

[jackal]

I will note, however, that they are based on the Superliner design. I recently saw one of the refurbished Superliner coaches in California colours, and, except for the door configuration, it is tough to tell them apart.

They're very similar externally; however, the interiors have absolutely nothing in common with Superliners. California Cars I and II are both designed for short-haul duty.

The seat pitch and recline angle is less in the California cars, but for day use, I MUCH prefer them over the Superliner coaches. They just feel more inviting, and the seats are (IIRC) a bit more cushioned and ergonomical.

I would probably still pick the Superliner coach for an overnight run, however.

 

[sechs]

I will note, however, that they are based on the Superliner design. I recently saw one of the refurbished Superliner coaches in California colours, and, except for the door configuration, it is tough to tell them apart.

They're very similar externally; however, the interiors have absolutely nothing in common with Superliners. California Cars I and II are both designed for short-haul duty.

Just like Superliner coaches and sleepers are very similar externally, and yet are all still Superliners?

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

 

[sportbiker]

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. I doubt there's a single nut, bolt or screw that's the same as on a Superliner coach. Oh, and (duh!) sleepers are different from coaches, but all car variants in the Superliner family were designed at the same time and they do share many design similarities.

 

[jackal]

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?

(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...)

 

[Spokker]

I don't think the dirty window indicates any kind of lapse in train cleanliness. From time to time you'll get a train that hasn't been washed in a while and I don't think it's a huge deal.

I prefer the Superliners to the Surfliner cars, especially for riding at night. It's much easier to see out the windows in the darker Superliner cars.

As for turning away business I'm being forced to tone down my travel plans this Summer on Amtrak simply because so many trains are either sold out or selling at the highest bucket.

 

[sportbiker]

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.

The first batch of cars is at their 8-yr major-cleaning point, where they get taken to BG for cleaning and rehab. Just a guess, but it's possible any really dirty cars have been let go a bit knowing the rehab is coming.

Opaque windows have long been a sore spot in these parts. The wash rack at LAX is in the middle of a very slight dip in grade; speculation is that the yard engine has a tough time keeping a constant speed when taking cars through the rack, so not only is the wash perhaps not the best, but the rinse cycle may be too short, leaving detergent on the cars. Over time, that might eat away at the Lexan windows.

 

[AlanB]

Opaque windows have long been a sore spot in these parts. The wash rack at LAX is in the middle of a very slight dip in grade; speculation is that the yard engine has a tough time keeping a constant speed when taking cars through the rack, so not only is the wash perhaps not the best, but the rinse cycle may be too short, leaving detergent on the cars. Over time, that might eat away at the Lexan windows.

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.

 

[jis]

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.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Why do they not use other materials for the windows?