Update on Viewliner 8400

[The Davy Crockett]

...the Viewliner aesthetic doesn't really have anything about it that appeals to me. I was actually rather disappointed to hear they were forming the basis for the next car order. I understand on the inside they're updated and improved in many ways, but for some reason I just can't get all that excited about them. Frankly I wish the Amfleet design was getting a revisit instead. -_-

Ryan replied:

Have you been inside one of them? The differences in shape are really striking from the inside, it really gives the feel of a LOT more room with the vertical walls and windows at the ceiling, especially when you compare it to the cave like feeling of a Amfleet Cafe car. Hopefully they'll get around to getting some Viewliner Cafe and Coach cars where the design will really shine (the diner will be very nice as well - I can't imagine an Amfleet diner feeling very inviting at all).

Exactly. Its my opinion that the Viewliners were designed from the inside out - As in they were designed with the pleasure of the passengers riding in it in mind, not the aesthetic appeal of watching it roll by from the outside.

 

[jis]

I find Amfleet cars to have a timeless simplicity about them that's also appealing in its own way. But the Viewliner aesthetic doesn't really have anything about it that appeals to me. I was actually rather disappointed to hear they were forming the basis for the next car order. I understand on the inside they're updated and improved in many ways, but for some reason I just can't get all that excited about them. Frankly I wish the Amfleet design was getting a revisit instead. -_-

All that I can say is YUCK! :blink: There is a reason that Amfleet cars are called Amtubes, and no it is not a term of endearment. They are about as close as a railroad car has come in shape to an airline fuselage, with little windows and all. And hopefully they will be the last of that genre. As you can tell, I, and I am sure many others, are quite pleased that they are not being revisited.

Ps. I will grant you that London Tube trains are more Tubular than Amfleets, and perhaps the only moretubular cars in the world. But they are afterall "Tube" trains.

 

[VentureForth]

As a weight engineer, i understand that weight is directly proportional to performance. That is to say, airplane, train, bus, or bicycle, the less weight you haul, the more you save on fuel.

Since we want to haul more people and their stuff, the best place to save weight is in the structure. They need to be considering aluminum frames, or even just where they feel structural integrity is not an issue. The cost of the material should be offset by fuel savings.

The other performance improvements come from aerodynamics. Unfortunately, no matter how aerodynamic the Amcans are, all benefits are destroyed by that hunk of P42 out front.

So what is the answer? I don’t know, but i for one would really love to see a uniformly consistent height consist, functional and weight optimized.

 

[Cho Cho Charlie]

They are about as close as a railroad car has come in shape to an airline fuselage, with little windows and all.

I wonder if that was the intent?

I can envision some Amtrak exec making an off-the-cuff remark that the passengers cars should have the look and feel of an airplane, since obviously, that's why people prefer to fly over taking Amtrak (they want small windows). :huh:

 

[Oldsmoboi]

As someone flying on a CRJ today (if AA can get their act together, on my 3rd cancellation), the Amfleets have a long way to go before I would consider their windows "small".

 

[Rafi]

They are about as close as a railroad car has come in shape to an airline fuselage, with little windows and all.

I wonder if that was the intent?

I can envision some Amtrak exec making an off-the-cuff remark that the passengers cars should have the look and feel of an airplane, since obviously, that's why people prefer to fly over taking Amtrak (they want small windows). :huh:

The Amfleet shape is a derivative of the Pennsylvania Railroad Metroliner EMU. In fact, the shells of some of those original metroliners are still in use today as cab cars and are virtually indistinguishable from modern Amfleets. Now whether the PRR wanted an airplane-like shape, and/or whether Amtrak decided to run with it because it was an airplane-like shape I can't speculate.

Rafi

 

[Larry H.]

Just curious. What is the perceived advantage of building empty shells an then having to design and install modular interior shapes? I think from riding the viewliner sleepers that the modular aspects were not particularly endearing visually or functionally. I didn't like the walls that ended with large spaces open above them. It seemed unfinished compared to rooms that wrap around the passenger in an enveloping manner. Plus it wouldn't surprise me if much of the noisy doors and other walls were due to modular installations instead of more solid construction. How often would amtrak in reality be tearing out the interiors and installing new ones anyway? It would seem the cost of that would offset any advantage to changeable interiors?

 

[afigg]

As a weight engineer, i understand that weight is directly proportional to performance. That is to say, airplane, train, bus, or bicycle, the less weight you haul, the more you save on fuel.

Since we want to haul more people and their stuff, the best place to save weight is in the structure. They need to be considering aluminum frames, or even just where they feel structural integrity is not an issue. The cost of the material should be offset by fuel savings.

The other performance improvements come from aerodynamics. Unfortunately, no matter how aerodynamic the Amcans are, all benefits are destroyed by that hunk of P42 out front.

So what is the answer? I dont know, but i for one would really love to see a uniformly consistent height consist, functional and weight optimized.

The specification for the next generation single level and bi-level cars call for stainless steel car bodies. The Viewliner 2s will be made from stainless steel frames. The cars will see 30-40 years of operational service, if not longer, and durability and ruggedness are clearly regarded as more important than trimming some weight. FRA crashworthiness requirements also play a rather significant role in the material selection and frame design. Reducing weight would obviously be desirable, but the design, manufacturing and maintenance engineers have to deal with a lot of trade-offs.

With respect to aerodynamics, an all Viewliner sized consist, figuring the new single level coach cars (whenever they are ordered) will likely have the same height and general shape as the Viewliners, should provide for lower drag and thus should save a bit on fuel. The current LD trains when the Viewliner sleepers are on the rear, with a Heritage baggage car, followed by a string of Amtubes, then a boxy shape taller diner, and then 2-3 taller Viewliners are not terribly aerodynamic.

 

[VentureForth]

That's very true. And they almost match the shape and height of the P42s that pull them. Only problem is that there aren't any Viewliner coaches on order, are there?

 

[PRR 60]

The Amfleet shape is a derivative of the Pennsylvania Railroad Metroliner EMU. In fact, the shells of some of those original metroliners are still in use today as cab cars and are virtually indistinguishable from modern Amfleets. Now whether the PRR wanted an airplane-like shape, and/or whether Amtrak decided to run with it because it was an airplane-like shape I can't speculate.

Rafi

The PC Metroliner design was intentionally based on the look of an aircraft, right down to the small windows. It was an effort to change the stogy image of rail travel in the late 1960's. The Metroliner shell became the basis for the Budd production of the Amfleet cars and the ill-fated SPV-2000 self-propelled (on a good day) railcar.

 

[afigg]

That's very true. And they almost match the shape and height of the P42s that pull them. Only problem is that there aren't any Viewliner coaches on order, are there?

No, there are no LD single level passenger cars on order. The Amtrak Fleet Strategy Plan V2 has replacing the Amfleet II cars on their priority list along with replacing 250 Superliner 1s, development of a new diesel locomotive, 40 Acela coach cars, and bi-level corridor cars. The HSIPR grants have provided funding for ordering 120 corridor bi-level cars and the Acela profit margin can over the cost of the 40 Acela coach cars. But getting funding from Congress for replacing the Amfleet II and Superliner I for the LD fleet is going to be difficult to get, very difficult, in the next several years.

 

[printman2000]

Just curious. What is the perceived advantage of building empty shells an then having to design and install modular interior shapes? I think from riding the viewliner sleepers that the modular aspects were not particularly endearing visually or functionally. I didn't like the walls that ended with large spaces open above them. It seemed unfinished compared to rooms that wrap around the passenger in an enveloping manner. Plus it wouldn't surprise me if much of the noisy doors and other walls were due to modular installations instead of more solid construction. How often would amtrak in reality be tearing out the interiors and installing new ones anyway? It would seem the cost of that would offset any advantage to changeable interiors?

I am no expert, but I am guessing that the modular design's main purpose is not to be able to take modules in and out. It simply seems to make construction more economical and streamlined. All of the modules can be constructed elsewhere at the same time the shells are being constructed. Otherwise, the shell would have to be completed before any interior work could be done.

 

[VentureForth]

That's very true. And they almost match the shape and height of the P42s that pull them. Only problem is that there aren't any Viewliner coaches on order, are there?

No, there are no LD single level passenger cars on order. The Amtrak Fleet Strategy Plan V2 has replacing the Amfleet II cars on their priority list along with replacing 250 Superliner 1s, development of a new diesel locomotive, 40 Acela coach cars, and bi-level corridor cars. The HSIPR grants have provided funding for ordering 120 corridor bi-level cars and the Acela profit margin can over the cost of the 40 Acela coach cars. But getting funding from Congress for replacing the Amfleet II and Superliner I for the LD fleet is going to be difficult to get, very difficult, in the next several years.

I decided to go straight to the horse's mouth on this one. Page 12 states:

Two major acquisition contracts have been awarded.o CAF USA was awarded a contract for 130 Long Distance Single level (LDSL) cars. Delivery is expected from October 2012, and the new cars will replace the single level Heritage cars and bolster capacity on the single level long distance fleet. Replacement of the Amfleet II cars has been reprioritized to allow for complete replacement of the single level long distance fleet.

Did I miss something?

Never mind. I understand that this is where the baggage and diners are getting replaced, but the way its worded seems to imply that they are replacing coaches.

 

[GlobalistPotato]

The Amfleet shape is a derivative of the Pennsylvania Railroad Metroliner EMU. In fact, the shells of some of those original metroliners are still in use today as cab cars and are virtually indistinguishable from modern Amfleets. Now whether the PRR wanted an airplane-like shape, and/or whether Amtrak decided to run with it because it was an airplane-like shape I can't speculate.

Rafi

The PC Metroliner design was intentionally based on the look of an aircraft, right down to the small windows. It was an effort to change the stogy image of rail travel in the late 1960's. The Metroliner shell became the basis for the Budd production of the Amfleet cars and the ill-fated SPV-2000 self-propelled (on a good day) railcar.

Keep in mind that when PRR designed the Metroliner back in the 1960s, flying (and the airlines) were viewed as the world-class standard in design and customer satisfaction. Amtrak's first CEO thought he could run the company like the airline (or something like that), for those same reasons. Oh the great irony... :giggle:

 

[Guest]

They are about as close as a railroad car has come in shape to an airline fuselage, with little windows and all.

I wonder if that was the intent?

I can envision some Amtrak exec making an off-the-cuff remark that the passengers cars should have the look and feel of an airplane, since obviously, that's why people prefer to fly over taking Amtrak (they want small windows). :huh:

When the Pennsylvania Railroad was designing the Metroliners the idea was to play off of the 'sexy' aspects of air travel at the time; when it was still a glamourous luxury. Some lip service was paid to 'aerodynamics', but the real motivator, from what I understand from reading and talking to old timers, was that it would add panache to rail travel.

Viewliners are designed to maximize the available loading gauge of the Northeast Corridor, and provide as much space and large windows as possible.

DX Philly

 

[cpamtfan]

8400 is currently in Sunnyside Yard in NY. It has a minor eletrical and wheel issue. It could be on the LSL sometime this week just as a heads up..

 

[jis]

With respect to aerodynamics, an all Viewliner sized consist, figuring the new single level coach cars (whenever they are ordered) will likely have the same height and general shape as the Viewliners, should provide for lower drag and thus should save a bit on fuel. The current LD trains when the Viewliner sleepers are on the rear, with a Heritage baggage car, followed by a string of Amtubes, then a boxy shape taller diner, and then 2-3 taller Viewliners are not terribly aerodynamic.

I am never sure about what is best aerodynamically. Did you know that on several occasions a full upper deck version of the venerable Boeing 747 has been considered and rejected because having a full length upper deck cause more aerodynamic drag than having a partial upper deck that ends around the wing? I was surprised to learn that, but this is apparently the way it is!.

Similarly the original TGV supposedly have no worse aerodynamic drag than the duplexes. The originals had the power heads of greater height than the passenger carrying section of the train.

 

[Acela150]

8400 is currently in Sunnyside Yard in NY. It has a minor eletrical and wheel issue. It could be on the LSL sometime this week just as a heads up..

Good to know! I think I might head up state if there is some better info on being in service!

 

[afigg]

By the way, it was reported on another railroad forum site by someone who has seen the 8400 that it has almost all LED lighting on the interior. Somewhat cutting edge for Amtrak.

 

[abcnews]

That would make sense to me - I think the newer LED lighting uses very little power.