Amtrak new single level equipment

[BuzzKillington]

If Amtrak does get the new equipment they are asking for, I'd suspect the new sleeping cars would probably be modernized Viewliners.

Does anyone think the new Dining cars might be Viewliner as well or another design? Though I've never actually been in a Heritage Diner, the videos and pictures I've seen look like they are some of the nicer cars on the system.

Any chance we could get rid of those ugly looking lounge cars on the eastern trains and replace them with some sort of sightseer car? The Superliner lounge cars are so much nicer.

 

[saxman]

I think the Viewliners are relatively new. Relative for Amtrak at least. But IMHO I really love the Talgo equipment. I'd love to see those in more places besides the Northwest. But I guess they'd all need to be high level platforms, if thats possible, I'm not sure. Seems like when I was in Spain, their Talgo's had high level entry ways.

But I think in order for Amtrak to add capacity without having to add cars would be to get the double-decker cars that the LIRR and NJT current use. I'm not sure what they're called. That way they can fit into the NY tunnels. And they could be outfitted with more comfortable "long distance" seats.

I don't know, but I'm not the equipment expert either.

 

[Ryan]

But I think in order for Amtrak to add capacity without having to add cars would be to get the double-decker cars that the LIRR and NJT current use. I'm not sure what they're called. That way they can fit into the NY tunnels. And they could be outfitted with more comfortable "long distance" seats.

This isn't going to happen, as it absolutely destroys the overhead luggage space.

 

[George Harris]

By now, if the Amtrak management actually rides these things or listen to the passengers and train crew, they should be able to come up with a revised viewliner interior design that fixes most of whatever deficiencies there are in the current design. It would then make sense to, with the new order for sleepers, also order dinning cars and new coaches to be built with the same body shell.

The suspension on these things should be designed to perform well at 150 mph or faster so that when, and hopefully not if, high speed tracks and alignments become available the equipment can take full advatage of the speed possibilities.

Like HokieNav says, skip thinking about the Claustro-coaches for long distance service.

 

[AlanB]

As I've mentioned elsewhere, Amtrak has kept the original Viewliner prototype sleeper and dining car at Bear and turned them into mock-ups for the next generation of Viewliner cars. I've no doubt that those designs will be the ones used for the new sleepers and diners that Amtrak is hoping to get on order soon. I suspect that the new baggage cars, which are supposed to be a combination baggage car/dorm will also be based on the Viewliner design.

And I agree with the others, you won't see NJT multi-level cars running on Amtrak anytime soon. Definately not for LD service, and I rather suspect not even in corridor service, unless they follow the idea used on the ACES cars where they build a luggage rack into the cars on each level. But that reduces the number of seats available by at least 4, maybe 6.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

how about something like the LRC coaches. they have overhead luggage compartments with doors + racks at 1 end of each car for bigger stuff.

 

[had8ley]

As I've mentioned elsewhere, Amtrak has kept the original Viewliner prototype sleeper and dining car at Bear and turned them into mock-ups for the next generation of Viewliner cars. I've no doubt that those designs will be the ones used for the new sleepers and diners that Amtrak is hoping to get on order soon. I suspect that the new baggage cars, which are supposed to be a combination baggage car/dorm will also be based on the Viewliner design.
And I agree with the others, you won't see NJT multi-level cars running on Amtrak anytime soon. Definately not for LD service, and I rather suspect not even in corridor service, unless they follow the idea used on the ACES cars where they build a luggage rack into the cars on each level. But that reduces the number of seats available by at least 4, maybe 6.

Sounds logical Alan since design takes money and time. I see nothing drastically wrong with the Viewliners that cannot be addressed in a new order.

 

[jis]

And I agree with the others, you won't see NJT multi-level cars running on Amtrak anytime soon. Definately not for LD service, and I rather suspect not even in corridor service, unless they follow the idea used on the ACES cars where they build a luggage rack into the cars on each level. But that reduces the number of seats available by at least 4, maybe 6.

I agree Alan. I also think that after you are done taking care of ADA issues and baggage issues in these cars you are left with very few additional seats over single level cars, so this may not be a worthwhile exercise. Also, these MLV cars are really a royal pain for taller people and I think theya re a significant service quality reduction for them when compared to single level cars. This makes a bit of sense in the commuter situation for which they are primarily designed. Not clear that we should be foisting creation of posture problems on tall people for the gain of maybe 8 to 12 seats or so per car, specially when none of our LD or Corridor trains run anywhere near the full possible length anyway.

 

[Walt]

Sounds logical Alan since design takes money and time. I see nothing drastically wrong with the Viewliners that cannot be addressed in a new order.

I like the current Viewliner design. I have "twiddled" away the hours in my roomette, playing around with different layouts/floorplans, and I could not find a single one that was really better (of course keeping car capacity the same).

The one thing that would make Viewliners better, is simply being new. The flip side, the only thing wrong with today's Viewliners is their degradation due to less-then stellar maintenance. I mean, when a shade breaks, instead of fixing/replacing them, they install poorly fitted drapes instead. When the door lock breaks, instead of fixing/replacing it, they install poorly working cabinet clasps.

 

[Walt]

As I've mentioned elsewhere, Amtrak has kept the original Viewliner prototype sleeper and dining car at Bear and turned them into mock-ups for the next generation of Viewliner cars. I've no doubt that those designs will be the ones used for the new sleepers and diners that Amtrak is hoping to get on order soon.

Do you (or anyone) have details on the current state of those mock-ups? Or better, any pics?

The last I read, the prototype sleepers were being used just to "test" different upholstery and paint colors. I consider that to be very minimal changes to the overall sleeper design.

 

[AlanB]

The one thing that would make Viewliners better, is simply being new. The flip side, the only thing wrong with today's Viewliners is their degradation due to less-then stellar maintenance. I mean, when a shade breaks, instead of fixing/replacing them, they install poorly fitted drapes instead. When the door lock breaks, instead of fixing/replacing it, they install poorly working cabinet clasps.

Actually some of the parts used on the inside of the current Viewliners could have and should have been of better quality to start with, as that would have made a difference I believe.

And no, I have no current details about the state of the mock-ups.

 

[Long Train Runnin']

And I agree with the others, you won't see NJT multi-level cars running on Amtrak anytime soon. Definately not for LD service, and I rather suspect not even in corridor service, unless they follow the idea used on the ACES cars where they build a luggage rack into the cars on each level. But that reduces the number of seats available by at least 4, maybe 6.

I agree Alan. I also think that after you are done taking care of ADA issues and baggage issues in these cars you are left with very few additional seats over single level cars, so this may not be a worthwhile exercise. Also, these MLV cars are really a royal pain for taller people and I think theya re a significant service quality reduction for them when compared to single level cars. This makes a bit of sense in the commuter situation for which they are primarily designed. Not clear that we should be foisting creation of posture problems on tall people for the gain of maybe 8 to 12 seats or so per car, specially when none of our LD or Corridor trains run anywhere near the full possible length anyway.

I believe you to had this converstation before. :lol: I agree though, those NJT multilevel cars would never work for Amtrak, unless they were willing to give away a ton of seats. The only use I could see would be a diner where you could move the kitchen downstairs but even there it wouldn't be ideal.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I think the Viewliners are relatively new. Relative for Amtrak at least. But IMHO I really love the Talgo equipment. I'd love to see those in more places besides the Northwest. But I guess they'd all need to be high level platforms, if thats possible, I'm not sure. Seems like when I was in Spain, their Talgo's had high level entry ways.
But I think in order for Amtrak to add capacity without having to add cars would be to get the double-decker cars that the LIRR and NJT current use. I'm not sure what they're called. That way they can fit into the NY tunnels. And they could be outfitted with more comfortable "long distance" seats.

I don't know, but I'm not the equipment expert either.

Sounds logical Alan since design takes money and time. I see nothing drastically wrong with the Viewliners that cannot be addressed in a new order.

I like the current Viewliner design. I have "twiddled" away the hours in my roomette, playing around with different layouts/floorplans, and I could not find a single one that was really better (of course keeping car capacity the same).

The one thing that would make Viewliners better, is simply being new. The flip side, the only thing wrong with today's Viewliners is their degradation due to less-then stellar maintenance. I mean, when a shade breaks, instead of fixing/replacing them, they install poorly fitted drapes instead. When the door lock breaks, instead conicidental of fixing/replacing it, they install poorly working cabinet clasps.

Morrison-Knudson had no business building long-distance rail cars. The Viewliners were junk the day the left the factory. It is not coincidental that M-K stopped building railcars.

 

[BuzzKillington]

I think the Viewliners are relatively new. Relative for Amtrak at least. But IMHO I really love the Talgo equipment. I'd love to see those in more places besides the Northwest. But I guess they'd all need to be high level platforms, if thats possible, I'm not sure. Seems like when I was in Spain, their Talgo's had high level entry ways.
But I think in order for Amtrak to add capacity without having to add cars would be to get the double-decker cars that the LIRR and NJT current use. I'm not sure what they're called. That way they can fit into the NY tunnels. And they could be outfitted with more comfortable "long distance" seats.

I don't know, but I'm not the equipment expert either.

Sounds logical Alan since design takes money and time. I see nothing drastically wrong with the Viewliners that cannot be addressed in a new order.

I like the current Viewliner design. I have "twiddled" away the hours in my roomette, playing around with different layouts/floorplans, and I could not find a single one that was really better (of course keeping car capacity the same).

The one thing that would make Viewliners better, is simply being new. The flip side, the only thing wrong with today's Viewliners is their degradation due to less-then stellar maintenance. I mean, when a shade breaks, instead of fixing/replacing them, they install poorly fitted drapes instead. When the door lock breaks, instead conicidental of fixing/replacing it, they install poorly working cabinet clasps.

Morrison-Knudson had no business building long-distance rail cars. The Viewliners were junk the day the left the factory. It is not coincidental that M-K stopped building railcars.

The Viewliners are great cars, but youre right, they just need to be better maintained. The only time I've ridden in them, I tried to use the shower, but there was a large garbage can in them. I'm guessing that meant they werent functional... it was the same thing in the next car down. I tried calling the attendant to help me but either he wasnt paying attention or the call button wasnt working either.

 

[AlanB]

The only time I've ridden in them, I tried to use the shower, but there was a large garbage can in them. I'm guessing that meant they werent functional... it was the same thing in the next car down. I tried calling the attendant to help me but either he wasnt paying attention or the call button wasnt working either.

No, more than likely the attendant just had no other place to park the garbage can. The shower by default often becomes the storage area and you just need to find the attendant and get him/her to move things elsewhere.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

The only time I've ridden in them, I tried to use the shower, but there was a large garbage can in them. I'm guessing that meant they werent functional... it was the same thing in the next car down. I tried calling the attendant to help me but either he wasnt paying attention or the call button wasnt working either.

No, more than likely the attendant just had no other place to park the garbage can. The shower by default often becomes the storage area and you just need to find the attendant and get him/her to move things elsewhere.

then make the cars with built in trash cans so they don't take up the shower stalls.

 

[Larry H.]

The only time I've ridden in them, I tried to use the shower, but there was a large garbage can in them. I'm guessing that meant they werent functional... it was the same thing in the next car down. I tried calling the attendant to help me but either he wasnt paying attention or the call button wasnt working either.

No, more than likely the attendant just had no other place to park the garbage can. The shower by default often becomes the storage area and you just need to find the attendant and get him/her to move things elsewhere.

then make the cars with built in trash cans so they don't take up the shower stalls.

Amen... I have always hated the trash boxes stuck everywhere, how unprofessional can you get. You used to be able to pass people in the area at the top of the stairs in the superliner sleepers till they ended up loaded with trash containers.

 

[sechs]

I really love the Talgo equipment. I'd love to see those in more places besides the Northwest..

If only the FRA would let them run Talgos!

 

[AlanB]

The only time I've ridden in them, I tried to use the shower, but there was a large garbage can in them. I'm guessing that meant they werent functional... it was the same thing in the next car down. I tried calling the attendant to help me but either he wasnt paying attention or the call button wasnt working either.

No, more than likely the attendant just had no other place to park the garbage can. The shower by default often becomes the storage area and you just need to find the attendant and get him/her to move things elsewhere.

then make the cars with built in trash cans so they don't take up the shower stalls.

They do have built in trash cans in the Viewliners.

Usually the crew only drags out the big bags (it's not really a can) when the train is near the end of its run and they have to collect all the trash from the little cans.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

specially when none of our LD or Corridor trains run anywhere near the full possible length anyway.

Don't the Acela trainsets run at the full length the maintenance facilities can support?

 

[PetalumaLoco]

The only time I've ridden in them, I tried to use the shower, but there was a large garbage can in them. I'm guessing that meant they werent functional... it was the same thing in the next car down. I tried calling the attendant to help me but either he wasnt paying attention or the call button wasnt working either.

No, more than likely the attendant just had no other place to park the garbage can. The shower by default often becomes the storage area and you just need to find the attendant and get him/her to move things elsewhere.

then make the cars with built in trash cans so they don't take up the shower stalls.

They do have built in trash cans in the Viewliners.

Usually the crew only drags out the big bags (it's not really a can) when the train is near the end of its run and they have to collect all the trash from the little cans.

I was using it to set my suitcase on in the CZ downstairs. Quite handy.

 

[AlanB]

specially when none of our LD or Corridor trains run anywhere near the full possible length anyway.

Don't the Acela trainsets run at the full length the maintenance facilities can support?

Yes.

 

[PRR 60]

specially when none of our LD or Corridor trains run anywhere near the full possible length anyway.

Don't the Acela trainsets run at the full length the maintenance facilities can support?

Yes. The trainsets could be longer from a power and performance standpoint, but Amtrak only designed the maintenance buildings and associated trackwork to accommodate the six-car sets.

 

[jis]

specially when none of our LD or Corridor trains run anywhere near the full possible length anyway.

Don't the Acela trainsets run at the full length the maintenance facilities can support?

Yes. The trainsets could be longer from a power and performance standpoint, but Amtrak only designed the maintenance buildings and associated trackwork to accommodate the six-car sets.

OTOH, not being able to lengthen maintenance building by two car lengths has got to be one of the lamest excuses for not doing something that makes sense - if that is the excuse being provided that is. I have no idea if that is the case.

 

[Crescent ATN & TCL]

By now, if the Amtrak management actually rides these things or listen to the passengers and train crew, they should be able to come up with a revised viewliner interior design that fixes most of whatever deficiencies there are in the current design. It would then make sense to, with the new order for sleepers, also order dinning cars and new coaches to be built with the same body shell.
The suspension on these things should be designed to perform well at 150 mph or faster so that when, and hopefully not if, high speed tracks and alignments become available the equipment can take full advatage of the speed possibilities.

Like HokieNav says, skip thinking about the Claustro-coaches for long distance service.

Per FRA regulations there can be no boarding stairs on trains that travel over 125mph, this is the main reason the Acela is high-level platforms only.