Jump to content




Help Support AmtrakTrains.com by donating using the link above or becoming a Supporting Member.

Photo

Equipment Order in the works this year (2018)?


  • Please log in to reply
243 replies to this topic

#121 Lonestar648

Lonestar648

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,631 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 May 2018 - 10:25 AM

If they every build the new tunnels into NYP  shouldn't the height be tall enough for superliner cars. 



#122 cpotisch

cpotisch

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,254 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, NY
  • Interests:Planes, Trains, Cooking, Politics

Posted 27 May 2018 - 10:54 AM

If they every build the new tunnels into NYP  shouldn't the height be tall enough for superliner cars. 

I don't think there's enough "headroom" in the station, and NYP only has high-level platforms. So no.


Routes Traveled: Silver Meteor, Silver Star, CrescentLake Shore LimitedCalifornia Zephyr, Sunset Limited, Texas EagleEthan Allen Express, Empire Service, Maple Leaf, AdirondackAcela Express, Northeast RegionalKeystone Service
 
Wish List: Auto Train, Cardinal, CONO, Empire Builder, Southwest Chief, Crescent (overnight), Adirondack w/ Great Dome, Downeaster


#123 cpotisch

cpotisch

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,254 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, NY
  • Interests:Planes, Trains, Cooking, Politics

Posted 27 May 2018 - 11:03 AM

There's also the fact that almost every station between WAS and ALB (NEC and Empire Corridor) have high-level platforms, and Baltimore doesn't have sufficient clearance for Superliners either.


Routes Traveled: Silver Meteor, Silver Star, CrescentLake Shore LimitedCalifornia Zephyr, Sunset Limited, Texas EagleEthan Allen Express, Empire Service, Maple Leaf, AdirondackAcela Express, Northeast RegionalKeystone Service
 
Wish List: Auto Train, Cardinal, CONO, Empire Builder, Southwest Chief, Crescent (overnight), Adirondack w/ Great Dome, Downeaster


#124 Ryan

Ryan

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,366 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:OTN
  • Interests:a fact checker combined with a ferret

Posted 27 May 2018 - 12:48 PM

And countless other structures such as bridges.

The "Superliners on the NEC" is like the zombie dream of the foamer, there's nothing out there that can kill it.

If the fleet ever gets standardized, it'll be on single level equipment. The solution to the capacity "problem" is just ordering more cars.
  • jis, Eric S, Blackwolf and 4 others like this
Posted Image

Disclaimer: Any images or links you see in my post may in fact be invasive advertising or even fraudulent phishing attacks silently injected into my post by our spam based hosting service. If anything looks suspicious or inappropriate or you have any doubt whatsoever then do not click any links (particularly those appearing in green and/or with a double underline) or interact with the spam in any way. You may also want to consider using ad-blocking plugins such as Adblock Plus and/or Ghostery)to help reduce the number and severity of advertising scams directed at you.

#125 me_little_me

me_little_me

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,548 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 May 2018 - 01:16 PM

 

It will be interesting to see what the plan is to replace the superlliners. IMHO a system wide fleet standardization wounded beneficial. I like the viewliners but I don't think that will work I'm the long run. I wonder what Seimans can do for sleepers and diners and lounges?

Yeah, I don't see any way, short term or long term, that Viewliners would work to replace the Superliners. The trains would have to be significantly longer, they would have to commission Viewliner coaches and SSLs. The cars just aren't conducive for western routes.

 

On the other hand, "significantly longer" could be an advantage. Then the Class I RRs couldn't force Amtrak trains on the sidings so their freights could go past. :giggle:


  • daybeers and Maglev like this

#126 Steve4031

Steve4031

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,420 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago
  • Interests:Riding Trains Often!!

Posted 27 May 2018 - 01:18 PM

 

It will be interesting to see what the plan is to replace the superlliners. IMHO a system wide fleet standardization wounded beneficial. I like the viewliners but I don't think that will work I'm the long run. I wonder what Seimans can do for sleepers and diners and lounges?

Yeah, I don't see any way, short term or long term, that Viewliners would work to replace the Superliners. The trains would have to be significantly longer, they would have to commission Viewliner coaches and SSLs. The cars just aren't conducive for western routes.
 
On the other hand, "significantly longer" could be an advantage. Then the Class I RRs couldn't force Amtrak trains on the sidings so their freights could go past. :giggle:

The sidings are usually a couple of miles long to accommodate freight trains. Even the auto train would fit in these. So I think the longer trains will still be taking the sidings.

#127 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Gathering Team Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,124 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 27 May 2018 - 03:37 PM

I think he was kidding. But one can never tell for sure
  • daybeers likes this

#128 Lonestar648

Lonestar648

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,631 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 May 2018 - 04:09 PM

Host RR will always put Amtrak on the siding unless there is a financial or publicity incentive to do differently. At least it is not as bad as the Canadian in Canada with 24 hour plus delays every week..


  • Triley likes this

#129 Trogdor

Trogdor

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,210 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Here

Posted 27 May 2018 - 07:05 PM

Longer consists can be a problem if the platforms cant handle the full train, requiring more stops with multiple spots, longer dwells, increased delays, etc.
  • daybeers likes this
Posted Image

#130 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Gathering Team Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,124 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 27 May 2018 - 08:32 PM

The tragedy of it all is that typical American trains, even single level ones are quite short, and we still can’t quite handle them. There really isn’t any solution for gross capital underinvestment other than more investment to build infrastructure that is adequate to serve the purpose in terms of traffic demands and such.

Edited by jis, 27 May 2018 - 08:33 PM.

  • tricia and daybeers like this

#131 Anderson

Anderson

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,620 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 31 May 2018 - 06:32 PM

So, I've heard that Anderson is looking to more-or-less standardize the fleet on single-level equipment.  Apparently there are enough issues with the Superliners that Anderson wants to replace them instead of refurbishing them (I can't blame him), and that it is likely to be more cost-effective to do so on a single-level carbody model than trying to do a split order.  This also speaks to Anderson's desire (which I've heard passed through a few places) to have more flexibility in fleet deployment (e.g. "right-sizing" trains to be longer at peak times as well as shorter if cars would be running empty).  Obviously this won't happen overnight (delivery will almost assuredly be a multi-year process given the sheer number of cars you'd need for this), but it seems to be where things are going.


Amtrak mileage to date: Somewhere between 120,000 and 150,000 miles...I /really/ need to run all of my trips through a calculator sometime.

...and no, I am not /that/ Anderson...;-)


#132 frequentflyer

frequentflyer

    OBS Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 486 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 May 2018 - 06:52 PM

So, I've heard that Anderson is looking to more-or-less standardize the fleet on single-level equipment.  Apparently there are enough issues with the Superliners that Anderson wants to replace them instead of refurbishing them (I can't blame him), and that it is likely to be more cost-effective to do so on a single-level carbody model than trying to do a split order.  This also speaks to Anderson's desire (which I've heard passed through a few places) to have more flexibility in fleet deployment (e.g. "right-sizing" trains to be longer at peak times as well as shorter if cars would be running empty).  Obviously this won't happen overnight (delivery will almost assuredly be a multi-year process given the sheer number of cars you'd need for this), but it seems to be where things are going.

 

Just as I speculated, VLIIs for everybody. I just don't think CAF will get the order though. And if he wants more flexibility got think fixed sets are out of the question, maybe. You always lash up two DMU/EMJUs together to increase pax capacity.

 

Then again, as being discussed on another forum  all of the players who Anderson will get bids from do make bilevel or multilevel equipment that may not be as high as a Superliner but will fit into the tunnels on the NEC (yes, I know JIS, we are armchair design proposers :cool:). We will see what transpires.

 

Airline management group think- less different types of equipment means less parts inventory, lower employee training costs, better acquisition cost per unit and possible maintenance plan rolled into the deal. Different size consists allow for higher yields if the pricing software is working correctly.


Edited by frequentflyer, 31 May 2018 - 06:54 PM.


#133 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Gathering Team Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,124 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 31 May 2018 - 07:08 PM

I am almost certain that no car manufacturer will propose VL Iis . When the last of the CAF order rolls out, that will be it for VL IIs. The car manufacturers will offer something based on what they already have in the way of car bodies, with modular AC units and the works as found in any modern 21st century design.
  • PRR 60, Ryan and cpotisch like this

#134 Ryan

Ryan

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,366 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:OTN
  • Interests:a fact checker combined with a ferret

Posted 31 May 2018 - 07:11 PM

Agreed.

There is no way that the order is for Viewliners or anything multilevel.
Posted Image

Disclaimer: Any images or links you see in my post may in fact be invasive advertising or even fraudulent phishing attacks silently injected into my post by our spam based hosting service. If anything looks suspicious or inappropriate or you have any doubt whatsoever then do not click any links (particularly those appearing in green and/or with a double underline) or interact with the spam in any way. You may also want to consider using ad-blocking plugins such as Adblock Plus and/or Ghostery)to help reduce the number and severity of advertising scams directed at you.

#135 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Gathering Team Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,124 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 31 May 2018 - 07:21 PM

I can actually see possible use of bilevels a-la TGV Duplex for Corridor Coaches that fit within the Amtrak Plate A. But they will have only marginally higher capacity than single level after space is taken out for adequate luggage racks and ADA toilets and such. We saw this layout in the NJT MLVs that were briefly used for the New York - Atlantic City service. And they will be less ADA compliant than single levels.

What we won’t see is Roomettes in those low clearance bilevels. OTOH there could be airline style lie flat seats. But again capacity won’t be much greater than for single level sections or roomettes. But frankly I would personally like the lie flat arrangement.

I have a detail study of capacity issues that I did a while back using example layouts. I just have to find it again.

Edited by jis, 31 May 2018 - 07:23 PM.


#136 cpotisch

cpotisch

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,254 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, NY
  • Interests:Planes, Trains, Cooking, Politics

Posted 31 May 2018 - 07:27 PM

I feel like the desire often expressed to make every single-level car a Viewliners is really just rail fan fantasy, by those who want to gawk at a nice and shiny uniform consist. The way I see it, there aren't many logical reasons why all (any) new coaches and lounges should be built on a carbody that was originally designed around 35 years ago, and that would need to be assembled by a new manufacturer on a new production line. CAF's production of the V-II has been a disaster in pretty much every way, and though the cars are here now, they are probably the least likely manufacturer to consider building more Viewliners for Amtrak. The tooling and assembly lines will be gone, and gone with it any reason why the V-IIs would be the best platform for the single-level fleet. If CAF were willing to build more cars (which they're not), there would be something to be said for utilizing the pre-existing production lines and tooling. But since CAF is pretty much done with Amtrak altogether, a completely new manufacturer would be required to take up production of the new Viewliners, which would negate any possible advantage of having the tooling and infrastructure in place to build the cars. Just the way I see it.

Edited by cpotisch, 01 June 2018 - 06:38 AM.

Routes Traveled: Silver Meteor, Silver Star, CrescentLake Shore LimitedCalifornia Zephyr, Sunset Limited, Texas EagleEthan Allen Express, Empire Service, Maple Leaf, AdirondackAcela Express, Northeast RegionalKeystone Service
 
Wish List: Auto Train, Cardinal, CONO, Empire Builder, Southwest Chief, Crescent (overnight), Adirondack w/ Great Dome, Downeaster


#137 frequentflyer

frequentflyer

    OBS Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 486 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 May 2018 - 09:48 PM

I feel like the desire often expressed to make every single-level car a Viewliners is really just rail fan fantasy, by those who want to gawk at a nice and shiny uniform consist. The way I see it, there aren't many logical reasons why all (any) new coaches and lounges should be built on a carbody that was originally designed for sleepers, and that would need to be assembled by a new manufacturer and on a new production line. CAF's production of the V-II has been a disaster in pretty much every way, and though the cars are here now, they are probably the least likely manufacturer to consider building more Viewliners for Amtrak. The tooling and assembly lines will be gone, and gone with it any reason why the V-IIs would be the best platform for the single-level fleet. If CAF were willing to build more cars (which they're not), there would be something to be said for utilizing the pre-existing production lines and tooling. But since CAF is pretty much done with Amtrak altogether, a completely new manufacturer would be required to take up production of the new Viewliners, which would negate any possible advantage of having the tooling and infrastructure in place to build the cars. Just the way I see it.


I wish I had the July 1984 Amtrak in train magazine (American Way?)that first debuted the Viewliner design( 1984, sad isn’t) It was designed to be modular and a fleet of any config necessary. It was not designed to be a sleeper only. Are there more advanced designs today, of course. But Amtrak owns the plans to the VL which was designed by them.

Though good point about the tooling.
  • cpotisch likes this

#138 frequentflyer

frequentflyer

    OBS Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 486 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 May 2018 - 09:54 PM

I can actually see possible use of bilevels a-la TGV Duplex for Corridor Coaches that fit within the Amtrak Plate A. But they will have only marginally higher capacity than single level after space is taken out for adequate luggage racks and ADA toilets and such. We saw this layout in the NJT MLVs that were briefly used for the New York - Atlantic City service. And they will be less ADA compliant than single levels.
What we won’t see is Roomettes in those low clearance bilevels. OTOH there could be airline style lie flat seats. But again capacity won’t be much greater than for single level sections or roomettes. But frankly I would personally like the lie flat arrangement.
I have a detail study of capacity issues that I did a while back using example layouts. I just have to find it again.


I see the NEC being the domain of Acela IIs and EMU/DMUs for conventional trains in the future. Something like the Sadler Bilevel KISS like what Caltrans is getting may work ( too tall?) but I am guessing single level.

#139 Anderson

Anderson

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,620 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 31 May 2018 - 11:08 PM

My guess is that we'll see something like the Nightjet service in Austria.  I'd suggest something like the new Caledonian service in the UK (which is about to get rolled out), but CAF had that order and I don't think they'll even be allowed to bid.  I would also guess that Siemens may have an inside track on this given their already-operating plant in California.

From what I understand, the priority order is roughly:
-Diesel locomotives

-Amfleet I replacements

-Superliner replacements (with this possibly cascading onto Amfleet IIs as well)


Amtrak mileage to date: Somewhere between 120,000 and 150,000 miles...I /really/ need to run all of my trips through a calculator sometime.

...and no, I am not /that/ Anderson...;-)


#140 neroden

neroden

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,665 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Ithaca, NY
  • Interests:Please feel free to moderate my posts

Posted 01 June 2018 - 01:21 AM

So, I've heard that Anderson is looking to more-or-less standardize the fleet on single-level equipment.  Apparently there are enough issues with the Superliners that Anderson wants to replace them instead of refurbishing them (I can't blame him), and that it is likely to be more cost-effective to do so on a single-level carbody model than trying to do a split order.  This also speaks to Anderson's desire (which I've heard passed through a few places) to have more flexibility in fleet deployment (e.g. "right-sizing" trains to be longer at peak times as well as shorter if cars would be running empty).  Obviously this won't happen overnight (delivery will almost assuredly be a multi-year process given the sheer number of cars you'd need for this), but it seems to be where things are going.

 

I actively support standardizing on single-level equipment, but I don't think Mr. Anderson has thought through the ADA expenses of raising damn near everything to high level platforms, which is legally required if stations are served only by high-floor cars.  Milwaukee Station will have to be redone again, for example.

 

This is yet another indication that Mr. Anderson doesn't actually know what he's dealing with.  I'd be a better CEO of Amtrak because I have more understanding of the problems they're dealing with than Mr. Anderson does.


Edited by neroden, 01 June 2018 - 01:22 AM.

--Nathanael--

Please feel free to moderate my posts.




7 user(s) are reading this topic

5 members, 1 guests, 1 anonymous users


    jis, amtrakpass, PVD, NativeSon5859, frequentflyer