Viewliner II - Part 1 - Initial Production and Delivery

[Bus Nut]

The Viewliner baggage cars will be in service starting Monday. I was going to mention the first train they would be on but because of your attitudes I will let you watch for them on every train.

That's good because I would hate for your supervisor to find out you were representing your employer in this way by showing your azz on this thread. Or the supervisor of the friend/spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend whose confidence you are betraying.

:help:

 

[Ryan]

It sounds to me that our guest (I presume he works for Amtrak & deals with baggage) just doesn't want to be arsed to load the train correctly, and would rather complain that the cars aren't built the way he would like them to be.

Agreed 100%.

 

[Guest]

The car is poorly designed. Not only the shelves. Apparently the designers of the interior had no experiance with trains.

The Viewliner interiors are mostly by the experts at RailPlan, who have more experience with trains than most of Amtrak. I don't know about the baggage car interiors specifically though. The rest of the car is designed by CAF, who have more experience with trains than anyone at Amtrak does. I think I can say without fear of contradiction that the *design* is good. If there are any serious problems, they're either *construction* problems (as opposed to design problems) or they're training/operational problems on Amtrak's end.

And based off from the Guest's posts about this, it seems to more be a training/operational issue, then an actual problem. It sounds to me that our guest (I presume he works for Amtrak & deals with baggage) just doesn't want to be arsed to load the train correctly, and would rather complain that the cars aren't built the way he would like them to be.

peter

I would attempt to load the car as they have instructed. That currently is not to use the shelves. What is correct by instruction is to not use them.

 

[OlympianHiawatha]

If there was concern about the stress loads from swing down shelving, I am surprised the designers did not include vertical end columns the shelves would swing down onto and latch into place. Then just like the vertical rails the Viewliner Sleeper Beds ride on, they would take the stress and not allow it to transfer to the car walls. I'm not an engineer but do consider myself to have logic and common sense.

 

[DryCreek]

The car is poorly designed. Not only the shelves. Apparently the designers of the interior had no experiance with trains.

The Viewliner interiors are mostly by the experts at RailPlan, who have more experience with trains than most of Amtrak. I don't know about the baggage car interiors specifically though. The rest of the car is designed by CAF, who have more experience with trains than anyone at Amtrak does. I think I can say without fear of contradiction that the *design* is good. If there are any serious problems, they're either *construction* problems (as opposed to design problems) or they're training/operational problems on Amtrak's end.

And based off from the Guest's posts about this, it seems to more be a training/operational issue, then an actual problem. It sounds to me that our guest (I presume he works for Amtrak & deals with baggage) just doesn't want to be arsed to load the train correctly, and would rather complain that the cars aren't built the way he would like them to be.

peter

Heh, funny typo!

Our British members would get it.......

 

[Paulus]

Guest, why don't you provide us some proof that you actually know what you're talking about rather than being a random foamer?

 

[Guest]

Guest, why don't you provide us some proof that you actually know what you're talking about rather than being a random foamer?

I am not the foamer on this forum. I am not a rail buff or rail fan who only sees shiny new equipment or wants shiny new rail cars. I deal with the reality of the railroad. If you can't tell that you are not very perceptive. I have nothing to prove to you all.

 

[CCC1007]

Guest, why don't you provide us some proof that you actually know what you're talking about rather than being a random foamer?

I am not the foamer on this forum. I am not a rail buff or rail fan who only sees shiny new equipment or wants shiny new rail cars. I deal with the reality of the railroad. If you can't tell that you are not very perceptive. I have nothing to prove to you all.

All we want is fact, no bull please.

 

[Guest]

Guest, why don't you provide us some proof that you actually know what you're talking about rather than being a random foamer?

I am not the foamer on this forum. I am not a rail buff or rail fan who only sees shiny new equipment or wants shiny new rail cars. I deal with the reality of the railroad. If you can't tell that you are not very perceptive. I have nothing to prove to you all.

All we want is fact, no bull please.

You don't want the facts. You want to hear that the cars are wonderful. If you don't hear that then you think it is bull.

Next week when the cars are in service with actual luggage and pallets, there won't be bikes, they have not figured out the locks yet, will be the real test. My expectation is that the baggage department and train crews will make it work and work around any design and engineering errors. It does not matter if the shelves are used or not as long as the baggage can be safely taken origin to destination.

 

[PerRock]

Guest, why don't you provide us some proof that you actually know what you're talking about rather than being a random foamer?

I am not the foamer on this forum. I am not a rail buff or rail fan who only sees shiny new equipment or wants shiny new rail cars. I deal with the reality of the railroad. If you can't tell that you are not very perceptive. I have nothing to prove to you all.

All we want is fact, no bull please.

You don't want the facts. You want to hear that the cars are wonderful. If you don't hear that then you think it is bull.

Actualy we do. You may thing of us as drooling foamers, who only want to see the shiny new stuff; but in fact you are WAY wrong. Most of use want to have a passenger railroad that works. If that means old 'rusty' equipment, then so be it.

Here is the thing, you've been spouting all this negativity towards these new cars. Going on and on about how they're badly designed or engineered, etc. But beyond your ranting you haven't shown us anything that actually proves you know what you are talking about. For all we know, you're some guy in his parents basement making crap up & you've never even seen the new cars beyond the pics (& vids) posted here.

What we do know, is that:

a) Amtrak has been taking delivery of lots of these new baggage cars, I think they even have another order being picked up in the next week or so (maybe it was last week... or I could be completely wrong on that). And ANY company paying as much as they did into a product wouldn't be taking any more of the cars if they weren't designed right.

b) Amtrak has been shipping the cars around the country for training. Again if the cars weren't right they wouldn't be doing this because, they wouldn't want to pay to remove all the cars spread around the country and ship 'em back to the shops for repair & then have to re-train everyone.

c) If what you say is true about them going into service, again there can't be any big problems otherwise that wouldn't happen.

Now giving you the benefit of the doubt that you do actually work for Amtrak & have been trained. Maybe your boss is the one that can't be arsed to load them correctly and is training you guys badly. I wouldn't put it past Amtrak staff to do this.

But YES WE WANT PROOF. By saying "no you don't" you are in fact making more of us lean towards the fact that you probably don't know what you're talking about.

peter

 

[StriderGDM]

While Guest_Guest_*'s attitude can be a bit annoying (no offense) he doesn't have to prove anything. This isn't a jury of his peers. This is a public forum. And that said Amtrak management has been known to monitor such forums as these and to crack down on employees who have revealed information they don't wish revealed.

So I can see Guest_Guest_*'s desire to remain anonymous.

 

[NewCars]

Yesterday, I heard the first car is expected to go into service on Monday as well. While there wasn't talk of any particular train, my bet is on 98 and/or 92.

 

[Acela150]

DON'T FEED THE TROLL......

Thanks to Guest_NewCars for providing the information.

 

[neroden]

Now giving you the benefit of the doubt that you do actually work for Amtrak & have been trained. Maybe your boss is the one that can't be arsed to load them correctly and is training you guys badly. I wouldn't put it past Amtrak staff to do this.

Given Amtrak's history of inconsistent and unreliable service, I would unfortunately expect this. A lot.

The thing is, Guest_Guest's story about the luggage racks doesn't check out. If they're rated for 250 pounds, that's just fine. That isn't actually a problem. Luggage is already weighed, at every station with checked luggage which I can think of. If someone's telling him not to use the shelves, then either:

(1) the problem with the shelves is something different (pinch points or something)

or

(2) there is no problem with the shelves, and the boss telling him not to use the shelves can't be arsed to do his own job right,

or

(3) the problem is a training problem and they'll eventually start training people to use the shelves... but not yet

Nothing else Guest_Guest has said even hints at any actual problems with the cars.... certainly nothing he's said indicates any "design and engineering errors". Seems like it's training and management errors.

We do know from other, more reliable sources that there were some serious construction (NOT design) errors, such as bad welding, which had to be fixed and caused a year's delay. That's quite different.

 

[2.0]

I have no idea who's correct here, but you can't say Guest_Guest comments don't check out, and then counter it with "ifs" and a list of how it can actually be true.

I can add my own, like if the shelves can hold only 250 lbs, but were designed for 6 (or more) pieces of 50 lbs luggage, there could indeed be a "design and engineering error". :huh:

 

[PRR 60]

As an engineer, you never, ever design a trap like limiting the number of bags that can be loaded on a shelf when the consequence of a mistake is an employee injury. I don't care how carefully you think bags are weighed or how much training you think can happen, if a shelf can fit 10, 15 bags or more bags, then it has to be designed to handle that load - period. If that is not the case, then the shelves cannot be used until the situation is fixed. So, no, having a ten foot shelf section limited to 250 pounds is not "just fine."

 

[printman2000]

As an engineer, you never, ever design a trap like limiting the number of bags that can be loaded on a shelf when the consequence of a mistake is an employee injury. I don't care how carefully you think bags are weighed or how much training you think can happen, if a shelf can fit 10, 15 bags or more bags, then it has to be designed to handle that load - period. If that is not the case, then the shelves cannot be used until the situation is fixed. So, no, having a ten foot shelf section limited to 250 pounds is not "just fine."

From the pictures it looks to me the shelves will not hold more than 5 bags, perhaps even 4.

Of course, I guess they could pile them up, but I assume that was not the idea.

 

[PRR 60]

The shelf sections appear to be at least ten feet long. I would design a shelf like that for ten pieces of luggage @ 50 pounds each. That would result in a required load rating of at least 500 pounds per shelf.

 

[printman2000]

I was looking at this one...

Guess there may be two different lengths in there.

 

[neroden]

As an engineer, you never, ever design a trap like limiting the number of bags that can be loaded on a shelf when the consequence of a mistake is an employee injury.

There is always a weight limit for everything. You don't design a shelf to carry 10,000 pounds of gold bars. You only overdesign a little.
Foreshortening in photos means I have no idea how long the shelves actually are. If they are 10 feet long, then yes, they should be designed for higher weight limits. It looked like less than four feet to me, but no way to tell without being there.

If there are actually two different shelf lengths, the short ones may be fine and the long ones not. I've heard of specification mixups like that before. If so it's an easy fix (replace everything with short shelves).

 

[AmtrakBlue]

If so it's an easy fix (replace everything with short shelves).

Or add another weight bearing bracket at the middle.

 

[Palmetto]

I read on TO that there will be two V-II bags on 98 tomorrow, with one in service. Huzzah! Huzzah!

 

[StriderGDM]

If there are actually two different shelf lengths, the short ones may be fine and the long ones not. I've heard of specification mixups like that before. If so it's an easy fix (replace everything with short shelves).

The shelf lengths are different. IF nothing else, simply count the number of "cross-bars" in the short ones vs. the long ones. The long ones appear to have twice as many.

 

[VentureForth]

So, back to our anonymous guest. Is the 250 lb placarded limit for the 5' shelves or the 10' shelves?

I get that the big bags will likely stay on the ground for handling purposes. No problem whatsoever can I speculate in putting 10 lightweight bags on each 10 ft shelf section.

But to say the shelves won't be used at all? That's sort of ridiculous. Unless there is s safety issue that has nothing to do with capacity.

 

[Agent]

Amtrak #43, Pennsylvanian, had the Viewliner II baggage car AMTK 61006 on the end of it today. The video description says it was deadheading to Pittsburg for crew training.

http://youtu.be/cunQWjUZ_xc