Cars to be rebuilt

[printman2000]

At the NARP meeting in California, Boardman specifically referred to them as "Baggage and baggage-dorm cars". I'd say that is pretty solid information coming from the top.

Indeed I have heard from NARP sources that they will be a mix of Bag only and Bag-Dorm cars. I have not been able to find any information about the proportions though.

News to me. Thanks

Hmmm. Just watched Boardman's speech on youtube, unless I just missed it, he referred only to baggage cars, not baggage-dorms.

I have no idea what Boardman said or not. I have it from three relatively independent sources that they are going to be a mix.

Well, no disrespect to you, but I will remain skeptical until Amtrak says something. I still cannot image them not listing them if that is what they meant. Also, Boardman specifically said baggage cars.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

The current attendant's room is sacrificed to be the facilities. If the attendant goes to the crew dorm, then no revenue rooms are lost. If the attendant remains in the sleeper, then and only then does one loose a revenue room.

If you consider roomette 12, the current attendant roomette, and a roomette in the crew dorm, you can either use these somehow for toilets, an attendant room, and a revenue room, or for an attendant room and two revenue rooms. No matter how you allocate revenue vs non-revenue, the toilets end up eating up a revenue roomette.

If it were numbered, the current attendant's room would be #14. The shower would be 13.

Therefore if the attendant moves to the crew dorm we loose no revenue rooms. If the attendant moves to roomette #12, then and only then do we loose a revenue room. Since there are no plans and never were any plans to have a revenue rooms in the dorm, it doesn't count as a lost revenue room by sending the attendant there.

Gentlemen, can I kill this silly game of semantics? POTENTIALLY an unmodified Viewliner sleeper carbody can accommodate 14 roomettes. By installing a shower you "give up" a potential room. By using a room for the attendant, you also "give up" a potential room. There is no law written in stone that the room we currently use for the attendant can't be sold for revenue purposes. If you remove the attendant to the dorm car, you can either potentially gain a 13th room, or put bathrooms in that space. So you're both right. They are giving up the potential of a room by installing bathrooms, but if you are simply moving the attendant to the baggage dorm, then the revenue capacity of the sleeper remains the same.

 

[Dutchrailnut]

Gentlemen, can I kill this silly game of semantics? POTENTIALLY an unmodified Viewliner sleeper carbody can accommodate 14 roomettes. By installing a shower you "give up" a potential room. By using a room for the attendant, you also "give up" a potential room. There is no law written in stone that the room we currently use for the attendant can't be sold for revenue purposes. If you remove the attendant to the dorm car, you can either potentially gain a 13th room, or put bathrooms in that space. So you're both right. They are giving up the potential of a room by installing bathrooms, but if you are simply moving the attendant to the baggage dorm, then the revenue capacity of the sleeper remains the same.

You also make it 10 times harder to get an attendant to do anything, once he is safely away from paying mutants.

 

[jis]

Well, no disrespect to you, but I will remain skeptical until Amtrak says something. I still cannot image them not listing them if that is what they meant. Also, Boardman specifically said baggage cars.

Indeed, you (and for that matter anyone else) don't have to believe a word that I say. Sometimes even I don;t :lol: No offense taken.

I just report what I hear and learn the best I can. That's all one can do realistically.

 

[printman2000]

Well, no disrespect to you, but I will remain skeptical until Amtrak says something. I still cannot image them not listing them if that is what they meant. Also, Boardman specifically said baggage cars.

Indeed, you (and for that matter anyone else) don't have to believe a word that I say. Sometimes even I don;t :lol: No offense taken.

I just report what I hear and learn the best I can. That's all one can do realistically.

Just to be clear, it is not that I disbelieve you and what you have heard, but without knowing sources or seeing something official from Amtrak I am just going to be skeptical.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Gentlemen, can I kill this silly game of semantics? POTENTIALLY an unmodified Viewliner sleeper carbody can accommodate 14 roomettes. By installing a shower you "give up" a potential room. By using a room for the attendant, you also "give up" a potential room. There is no law written in stone that the room we currently use for the attendant can't be sold for revenue purposes. If you remove the attendant to the dorm car, you can either potentially gain a 13th room, or put bathrooms in that space. So you're both right. They are giving up the potential of a room by installing bathrooms, but if you are simply moving the attendant to the baggage dorm, then the revenue capacity of the sleeper remains the same.

You also make it 10 times harder to get an attendant to do anything, once he is safely away from paying mutants.

I wasn't arguing for or against. Not interested. Not involved. Not curious.

I was just pointing out they were sparring over semantics rather then anything of substance.

 

[jis]

I was just pointing out they were sparring over semantics rather then anything of substance.

Thank you. This is what I have been trying to point out for a little while too!

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

but if you are simply moving the attendant to the baggage dorm, then the revenue capacity of the sleeper remains the same.

But if you don't put the attendant in the roomette in the baggage dorm car, then you may be able to use that roomette in the baggage dorm car for revenue passenger(s).

If #448/#449 and/or #66/#67 (maybe even and/or the Cardinal) end up with a baggage dorm car with 8-10 roomettes, not selling revenue space in the baggage dorm car would be throwing money away, just like not selling revenue roomettes in the Superliner transdorms was throwing money away in the past.

 

[AlanB]

but if you are simply moving the attendant to the baggage dorm, then the revenue capacity of the sleeper remains the same.

But if you don't put the attendant in the roomette in the baggage dorm car, then you may be able to use that roomette in the baggage dorm car for revenue passenger(s).

If #448/#449 and/or #66/#67 (maybe even and/or the Cardinal) end up with a baggage dorm car with 8-10 roomettes, not selling revenue space in the baggage dorm car would be throwing money away, just like not selling revenue roomettes in the Superliner transdorms was throwing money away in the past.

Amtrak isn't going to be selling space in the baggage/dorm. So please forget that idea, it's a non-starter.

The Superliner Trans/Dorms were specially designed to separate the crew section from the passenger section. That separation is not possible in the Viewliner bag/dorm. The passenger side has its own shower and bathroom, separate from the crew side. Other than the crew walking through the passenger section to reach the rest of the train, there is no interaction between the crew and the passengers. That's not possible in the bag/dorm.

 

[RTOlson]

I'm sorta curious to see how a bag/dorm would be laid out in a Viewliner configuration.

Would the car be divided in half across the width of the car? Would the dorm side be closer to passenger cars with a door separating the living quarters from the baggage area?

I doubt they would do this, but perhaps having the quarters in a raised position while the cargo is loaded below -- like a motorcoach

I would be interested to see how it would look. It might be ungainly from the outside -- half with windows and the other half as solid panels.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

maybe use the back half of the car for living quarters and the front half for baggage.

 

[Dutchrailnut]

maybe use the back half of the car for living quarters and the front half for baggage.

Would that not require wying car every trip ;-)

or can front half of car be quarters and rear half bagage

 

[frj1983]

maybe use the back half of the car for living quarters and the front half for baggage.

Would that not require wying car every trip ;-)

or can front half of car be quarters and rear half bagage

What if the car were split in half lengthwise? No wying needed then!

But I too would be interested in seeing the real design!

 

[Ryan]

maybe use the back half of the car for living quarters and the front half for baggage.

This. No wying needed, as it isn't a problem for the crew to walk through the baggage compartment to get to the rest of the train.

 

[VentureForth]

I'm sorta curious to see how a bag/dorm would be laid out in a Viewliner configuration.
Would the car be divided in half across the width of the car? Would the dorm side be closer to passenger cars with a door separating the living quarters from the baggage area?

I doubt they would do this, but perhaps having the quarters in a raised position while the cargo is loaded below -- like a motorcoach

I would be interested to see how it would look. It might be ungainly from the outside -- half with windows and the other half as solid panels.

For the Superliners: What's downstairs right now in the transdorm? More roomettes? I think that the entire downstairs of a dormer could be used for baggage and the entire upstairs could be used for dorms. This would far exceed the necessary space for checked bags. You wouldn't even need a transdorm because you don't have a baggage car any more.

I think you could do something similar in the Viewliners. I don't think you need the extra height for a crew dorm, so have a "single level" type sleeper with a baggage area downstairs. Downstairs would no longer be 8' high, but perhaps only 5'. I don't know what's practical, but you don't need a viewliner height bedroom, and you don't need full size bedrooms - Maybe just 8 crew rooms with beds, and desk space across an aisle. Not real practical for revenue overflow, but an idea to get rid of the baggage cars all together.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

maybe use the back half of the car for living quarters and the front half for baggage.

Would that not require wying car every trip ;-)

or can front half of car be quarters and rear half bagage

not if you have a door that allows you to walk from one end to the other. so no wying needed. you have a wall that seperates the 2 compartments but have a door that allows crew members to go from one end to the other.

 

[printman2000]

So, how many trains can actually utilize a baggage dorm? As I have seen discussed here before, some full length baggage cars can get quite full at times during a trip, so are there any routes where a bag-dorm would not work? I guess we are only talking about...

LSL

Cardinal

Crescent

Silver Meteor

Silver Star

Any of those that you think have too much baggage to use a bag-dorm?

I would assume the bag-dorms would stay on single level trains only since the Superliners have trans-dorms.

 

[AlanB]

maybe use the back half of the car for living quarters and the front half for baggage.

My understanding is that you are basically correct, it will be slightly less than half for the baggage area, slightly more for the dorm area.

 

[AlanB]

For the Superliners: What's downstairs right now in the transdorm? More roomettes? I think that the entire downstairs of a dormer could be used for baggage and the entire upstairs could be used for dorms. This would far exceed the necessary space for checked bags. You wouldn't even need a transdorm because you don't have a baggage car any more.

On most, but not all, of the Trans/Dorms you have a handicapped room, the normal amount of toilets, luggage rack, and a lounge for the crew. There are no roomettes downstairs and no family room. On a few odd cars, the passenger showers are downstairs and the handicapped room is gone. The lounge remains.

I think you could do something similar in the Viewliners. I don't think you need the extra height for a crew dorm, so have a "single level" type sleeper with a baggage area downstairs. Downstairs would no longer be 8' high, but perhaps only 5'. I don't know what's practical, but you don't need a viewliner height bedroom, and you don't need full size bedrooms - Maybe just 8 crew rooms with beds, and desk space across an aisle. Not real practical for revenue overflow, but an idea to get rid of the baggage cars all together.

You don't have enough room to put baggage downstairs in a single level car.

 

[AlanB]

So, how many trains can actually utilize a baggage dorm? As I have seen discussed here before, some full length baggage cars can get quite full at times during a trip, so are there any routes where a bag-dorm would not work? I guess we are only talking about...
LSL

Cardinal

Crescent

Silver Meteor

Silver Star

Any of those that you think have too much baggage to use a bag-dorm?

I would assume the bag-dorms would stay on single level trains only since the Superliners have trans-dorms.

While I stress that nothing is ever official until it's done, one rumor is that that all trains will get the new bag/dorms and that the Trans/Dorms will be converted to revenue cars.

On the other hand, if the rumor that only half the cars will be bag/dorms and the other half will be bags only, then there won't be enough bag/dorms to do the other rumor. That is unless the split is not quite 50/50.

 

[printman2000]

So, how many trains can actually utilize a baggage dorm? As I have seen discussed here before, some full length baggage cars can get quite full at times during a trip, so are there any routes where a bag-dorm would not work? I guess we are only talking about...
LSL

Cardinal

Crescent

Silver Meteor

Silver Star

Any of those that you think have too much baggage to use a bag-dorm?

I would assume the bag-dorms would stay on single level trains only since the Superliners have trans-dorms.

While I stress that nothing is ever official until it's done, one rumor is that that all trains will get the new bag/dorms and that the Trans/Dorms will be converted to revenue cars.

On the other hand, if the rumor that only half the cars will be bag/dorms and the other half will be bags only, then there won't be enough bag/dorms to do the other rumor. That is unless the split is not quite 50/50.

So what about actual baggage space? I seriously doubt all LD trains can give up half of their baggage space.

 

[AlanB]

So what about actual baggage space? I seriously doubt all LD trains can give up half of their baggage space.

I quite honestly don't know, except to say that perhaps the crew will have to be more organized. After all the current cars don't have luggage racks in them, so things are just piled on the floor. Pile too high, things tip over. The new cars will have racks to help keep things organized and to utilize more of the vertical space in the car.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

maybe use the back half of the car for living quarters and the front half for baggage.

Would that not require wying car every trip ;-)

or can front half of car be quarters and rear half bagage

What if the car were split in half lengthwise? No wying needed then!

But I too would be interested in seeing the real design!

Transdorms have to be wyed every trip. Are wyes harder to come by on the right coast than the left coast?

Splitting in half lengthwise introduces the question of how you deal with some stops having the platform on one side of the train and other stops having the platform on the other side of the train. Now, maybe you could have some gaps between the roomettes on one side where there can be baggage doors, so it's not completely unsolvable, but I suspect it's a good argument for putting the baggage in the front half of the car instead of in the left half of the car.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

While I stress that nothing is ever official until it's done, one rumor is that that all trains will get the new bag/dorms and that the Trans/Dorms will be converted to revenue cars.
On the other hand, if the rumor that only half the cars will be bag/dorms and the other half will be bags only, then there won't be enough bag/dorms to do the other rumor. That is unless the split is not quite 50/50.

If it turns out that putting shelves in the baggage half of a bag-dorm car makes a single bag-dorm car sufficient for every long distance route that doesn't split the train, is there any reason at all to build baggage-only cars?

Also, could Amtrak write the contract so that they have the option of whether the last N cars are going to be baggage or baggage-dorm, and don't have to decide until after they've inflicted the first baggage-dorm car on whichever long distance train tends to have the most baggage and found out how well it does or doesn't work?

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I quite honestly don't know, except to say that perhaps the crew will have to be more organized. After all the current cars don't have luggage racks in them, so things are just piled on the floor. Pile too high, things tip over. The new cars will have racks to help keep things organized and to utilize more of the vertical space in the car.

Has Amtrak considered retrofitting an existing baggage car with racks in one half of the car, and asking the crew to try to keep all of the baggage in the half of the car with racks to see how well this might work? (For such an experiment, picking a baggage car with a door configuration close to what they're considering for the Viewliners would probably be best.)