New Equipment

[GUEST101]

What is the Talgo lakeliner equipment. This is the first i heard of it. I like Talgo and am interested in anything that they may be doing. Any links?
Thaks

www.talgoamerica.com Just has a little information, haven't seen anything on the WI commuter yet just a friend of someone who has heard something.

 

[Tony]

Are we discussing some new company build Viewliners?

I kind-of like the current Viewliners. On LD trips, I have played around in my head with what I would do to "improve" the design. Ultimately, I come to the conclusion that there really isn't any better arrangement. Of course, I am excluding simply "new" materials.

I don't want to re-start the toilet vs no toilet debate yet again. But I do like the Viewliner's roomette much more than the Superliner's roomette because of it. Plus, of course, the second set of windows for the upper berth.

Come to think of it, the over-hallway luggage storage cubby in the Viewliner's roomette is nice too.

 

[Tony]

Well I guess you could narrow it down to just H and A, convert B to room for two more crew rooms. I don't think you all realize how much room I plan for the Conductors office though. I think they should have a work space where all the tickets (sorted by destination) can easily be laid out, room for delay reports, train orders, manifest, and of course you can't forget the grip. The space could function for both Conductors if large enough.

Why would not just one bedroom be enough room?

Replace the lower bunk/bed with a desk and chair, and the Conductor would pull down and sleep in the upper bed/bunk. I mean, it is not like the Conductor needs to sleep and work at the same time (though Amtrak might claim otherwise).

If there are two Conductors, then each gets a bedroom. leaving the third's space for a lounge/snack area (as previously suggested).

BTW, the Viewliners already have a linen closet.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Are you kidding? If he slept, he'd lose his job so fast his head would spin like a pinwheel.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Are we discussing some new company build Viewliners?
I kind-of like the current Viewliners. On LD trips, I have played around in my head with what I would do to "improve" the design. Ultimately, I come to the conclusion that there really isn't any better arrangement. Of course, I am excluding simply "new" materials.

I don't want to re-start the toilet vs no toilet debate yet again. But I do like the Viewliner's roomette much more than the Superliner's roomette because of it. Plus, of course, the second set of windows for the upper berth.

Come to think of it, the over-hallway luggage storage cubby in the Viewliner's roomette is nice too.

If you took the existing Viewliner Sleeper design and then lowered the floor at the center of the car to about the same level that the lower level on a bi-level coach is, you could probably get a third bunk into the roomettes at the center of the car, creating a Family Roomette.

But I would be very happy if Amtrak found someone who would just build 50 (or something) more Viewliner Sleepers that are pretty much identical to the current ones.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Getting back to the Viewliners, would Amtrak be more likely to get Baggage Dorms, as was ordered initially before Morrison-Knudsen went bankrupt, or would something, more like a Dorm Lounge, only with an actual, more comfortable lounge and a conductors office be more practical.

On the trains that carry a single level baggage car, does the baggage car tend to be anywhere near full? I'm curious whether there's a whole car dedicated to baggage because that much space is really needed, or because the only single level baggage cars Amtrak happens to have (not counting the cabbages, anywany) happen to be full length baggage cars.

But the Cardinal strikes me as a train where having a car with some baggage space, maybe a bit of crew lounge / office space, and dorm space for the on board service crew might end up being just about the right amount of stuff for one car.

 

[the_traveler]

Did anybody notice that most of this thread (the first 23 posts) is from January 2004 - about 4 1/2 years ago!

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Yes.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Did anybody notice that most of this thread (the first 23 posts) is from January 2004 - about 4 1/2 years ago!

I've certainly been known to go looking for old threads that are relevant to add to, rather than starting new threads, when I want to say something about a topic that hasn't been talked about recently. I often find the old discussion interesting. And it probably has the potential to save people from having to ask the questions that were answered in the old thread, and then saves other people time typing answers to those questions.

 

[AlanB]

If you took the existing Viewliner Sleeper design and then lowered the floor at the center of the car to about the same level that the lower level on a bi-level coach is, you could probably get a third bunk into the roomettes at the center of the car, creating a Family Roomette.

Can't do that, as the undercarage is where the water tanks, waste tanks, AC units, and other vital parts are mounted. If you drop the floor, then you'd loose the space to put the above things and that would create some issues.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I imagine you could work out a simple solution to that problem.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

If you took the existing Viewliner Sleeper design and then lowered the floor at the center of the car to about the same level that the lower level on a bi-level coach is, you could probably get a third bunk into the roomettes at the center of the car, creating a Family Roomette.

Can't do that, as the undercarage is where the water tanks, waste tanks, AC units, and other vital parts are mounted. If you drop the floor, then you'd loose the space to put the above things and that would create some issues.

Interesting. I hadn't notice that when boarding a Viewliner, but the pictures I find on the web do seem to confirm what you're saying.

This page includes a photograph of a Viewliner Diner prototype, which seems to suggest that perhaps one Viewliner Diner did get built. What happened to it?

 

[jackal]

Well I guess you could narrow it down to just H and A, convert B to room for two more crew rooms. I don't think you all realize how much room I plan for the Conductors office though. I think they should have a work space where all the tickets (sorted by destination) can easily be laid out, room for delay reports, train orders, manifest, and of course you can't forget the grip. The space could function for both Conductors if large enough.

Why would not just one bedroom be enough room?

Replace the lower bunk/bed with a desk and chair, and the Conductor would pull down and sleep in the upper bed/bunk. I mean, it is not like the Conductor needs to sleep and work at the same time (though Amtrak might claim otherwise).

If there are two Conductors, then each gets a bedroom. leaving the third's space for a lounge/snack area (as previously suggested).

BTW, the Viewliners already have a linen closet.

T&E crews (conductors and engineers) change throughout the train's run. They are limited by federal law to a 12-hour shift, and Amtrak seems to schedule crew changes about every 6-8 hours. Per federal law, deadheading (sleeping on the train) does not count as rest time, so they do not get rooms on the train for sleeping. They work their shift, get off, and then either stay at a hotel (at the away terminal) or go home (at their home terminal).

OBS staff (car attendants, diner attendants, etc.) work the entire run from initial terminal to end terminal. Maybe these are whom you are thinking of.

Did anybody notice that most of this thread (the first 23 posts) is from January 2004 - about 4 1/2 years ago!

I've certainly been known to go looking for old threads that are relevant to add to, rather than starting new threads, when I want to say something about a topic that hasn't been talked about recently. I often find the old discussion interesting. And it probably has the potential to save people from having to ask the questions that were answered in the old thread, and then saves other people time typing answers to those questions.

I think that's a perfectly good thing to do. It's funny--on some boards, you post a question and the instant response is, "Did you clock the search button, you dummy?" and on other boards it's, "Don't bring dead topics back!" I don't think you can have it both ways...

 

[Walt]

But I would be very happy if Amtrak found someone who would just build 50 (or something) more Viewliner Sleepers that are pretty much identical to the current ones.

Me too!!!!

Plus, with a few spare Viewliner cars in the fleet, I assume Amtrak could actually start maintaining, cleaning, and "freshening" their current original Viewliners.

 

[Walt]

Per federal law, deadheading (sleeping on the train) does not count as rest time, so they do not get rooms on the train for sleeping. They work their shift, get off, and then either stay at a hotel (at the away terminal) or go home (at their home terminal).

You are correct, of course, then why was there proposal here to convert a Viewliner-turned-dorm's bedrooms A, B, and H into some kind of a grand suite for the Conductor(s)? I'm confused. :unsure:

 

[the_traveler]

Getting back to the Viewliners, would Amtrak be more likely to get Baggage Dorms, as was ordered initially before Morrison-Knudsen went bankrupt, or would something, more like a Dorm Lounge, only with an actual, more comfortable lounge and a conductors office be more practical.

On the trains that carry a single level baggage car, does the baggage car tend to be anywhere near full? I'm curious whether there's a whole car dedicated to baggage because that much space is really needed, or because the only single level baggage cars Amtrak happens to have (not counting the cabbages, anywany) happen to be full length baggage cars.

But the Cardinal strikes me as a train where having a car with some baggage space, maybe a bit of crew lounge / office space, and dorm space for the on board service crew might end up being just about the right amount of stuff for one car.

I like that idea. And it would also make sense on a Superliner train. Don't the transition cars go from double level to single level? :huh: So why couldn't the baggage/crew car work - and then you would have more rooms that could be SOLD to paying passengers? :huh: (That would also mean MORE REVENUE for Amtrak! )

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Getting back to the Viewliners, would Amtrak be more likely to get Baggage Dorms, as was ordered initially before Morrison-Knudsen went bankrupt, or would something, more like a Dorm Lounge, only with an actual, more comfortable lounge and a conductors office be more practical.

On the trains that carry a single level baggage car, does the baggage car tend to be anywhere near full? I'm curious whether there's a whole car dedicated to baggage because that much space is really needed, or because the only single level baggage cars Amtrak happens to have (not counting the cabbages, anywany) happen to be full length baggage cars.

But the Cardinal strikes me as a train where having a car with some baggage space, maybe a bit of crew lounge / office space, and dorm space for the on board service crew might end up being just about the right amount of stuff for one car.

I like that idea. And it would also make sense on a Superliner train. Don't the transition cars go from double level to single level? :huh: So why couldn't the baggage/crew car work - and then you would have more rooms that could be SOLD to paying passengers? :huh: (That would also mean MORE REVENUE for Amtrak! )

Somewhere I've seen it said that when building new cars for use in places where there's sufficient clearance for bi-level cars, the bi-level cars are more cost effective. (Probably in terms of construction costs for car per square foot of usable space, probably also in terms of maintenance cost per square foot of usable space, and probably also in terms of operating cost per square foot of usable space.) So I think building new single level crew dorm / baggage cars for the Superliner routes would be a non-optimal use of money. If you want more rooms to sell to paying passengers, I think building Superliner III sleepers is probably a better approach.

And some of the Superliner trains have been solving the problem of having baggage cars with coach-baggage cars. If anything, enough of those should be built to get the single level baggage cars off the Superliner routes. But I'm not sure if the operating / maintenance expenses go down by enough to justify building coach-baggage cars instead of plain coaches for the Superliner trains where Amtrak already happens to have usable single level Heritage baggage cars that presumably would become unused.

 

[Chessie Hokie]

Somewhere I've seen it said that when building new cars for use in places where there's sufficient clearance for bi-level cars, the bi-level cars are more cost effective.

Hmmm...I wonder how much the spike in fuel prices has changed that equation? A Superliner weighs in at about 67 tons. I don't have a figure for the Viewliner (anybody?), but I would guess it is probably 20-25% lighter. More weight certainly means more fuel consumption and less weight would mean less fuel consumption.

When the railroads shifted from the old heavyweight cars to lightweight streamliners in the mid 20th Century, one of the benefit's was the ability to pull longer trains with the same locomotives...lowering per passenger costs. Of course the greater capacaity of a Superliner versus a Viewliner could very well be the trump card if the percentage of capacity increase is greater than the weight difference percentage...but I'll leave that number crunching fun to someone else! :huh:

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Chessie, think about this. A Viewliner can hold 30 pax whilst a Superliner sleeper can hold 46. That means that 2 Superliner sleepers hold 92 pax whilst you need 3 Viewliners to hold 90. So if we assume the middle of your figure (22.5%) than we can assume that the Viewliner weighs 48.57 tons. So to carry 90 people in sleepers we can do so with 145.71 tons of Viewliner or 134 tons of Superliner.

Likewise with coaches, 75 people fit into a Superliner coach whilst 59 fit into an Amfleet II. Its not quite the same ratio there, but you still need 4 Amfleet coaches to do the work of 3 Superliners.

 

[VT Hokie]

Super Steel Schenectady!

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Somewhere I've seen it said that when building new cars for use in places where there's sufficient clearance for bi-level cars, the bi-level cars are more cost effective.

Hmmm...I wonder how much the spike in fuel prices has changed that equation? A Superliner weighs in at about 67 tons. I don't have a figure for the Viewliner (anybody?), but I would guess it is probably 20-25% lighter. More weight certainly means more fuel consumption and less weight would mean less fuel consumption.

What if we put each passenger in their own 2 ton automobile? Two tons is less than 67 tons, right?

 

[Chessie Hokie]

Chessie, think about this. A Viewliner can hold 30 pax whilst a Superliner sleeper can hold 46. That means that 2 Superliner sleepers hold 92 pax whilst you need 3 Viewliners to hold 90. So if we assume the middle of your figure (22.5%) than we can assume that the Viewliner weighs 48.57 tons. So to carry 90 people in sleepers we can do so with 145.71 tons of Viewliner or 134 tons of Superliner.
Likewise with coaches, 75 people fit into a Superliner coach whilst 59 fit into an Amfleet II. Its not quite the same ratio there, but you still need 4 Amfleet coaches to do the work of 3 Superliners.

Thanks for doing the math on this, GML...as I replied I had just returned from a long drive from beautiful Southwest Virginia (alas, no Amtrak service) where I accompanied one of my kids for a two-day marathon college orientation session and was just too zombied out to put forth any effort on even modestly shallow thinking. I had actually gotten out the Viewliner and Superliner diagrams to count spaces, but then decided that a nap was a better idea!

Still, after posting my initial thought, the more I thought about it the more I came to suspect that the Superliner would probably come out on top. Your figures show that to be the case. Also, besides just the weight difference, I suppose a few extra axels of an additional Viewliner would add a bit more rolling resistance, requiring a teensy bit more fuel. And while a new Superliner would likely cost more than a new Viewliner, I would assume that three Viewliners would still cost more than two Superliners.

Still, it would be nice to know the actual weight of a Viewliner...

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I think paying too much attention to the weight would be dumb. You could probably save a small amount of weight by shrinking the windows considerably and removing the toilets from the roomettes on the Viewliner, but the typical sleeping car passenger travels for a comfortable experience, not to save a few dollars. In the long run, when we have catenary power on all the sleeper routes, a sleeper passenger who consumes X BTUs of domestic energy may be better than an automobile driver who burns half as many BTUs of imported gasoline (if sleepers were even that inefficient, which I kind of doubt). You don't want to be making an argument to rich travelers that they should ride in a Suburban instead of a Viewliner II.

 

[AlanB]

If you took the existing Viewliner Sleeper design and then lowered the floor at the center of the car to about the same level that the lower level on a bi-level coach is, you could probably get a third bunk into the roomettes at the center of the car, creating a Family Roomette.

Can't do that, as the undercarage is where the water tanks, waste tanks, AC units, and other vital parts are mounted. If you drop the floor, then you'd loose the space to put the above things and that would create some issues.

Interesting. I hadn't notice that when boarding a Viewliner, but the pictures I find on the web do seem to confirm what you're saying.

This page includes a photograph of a Viewliner Diner prototype, which seems to suggest that perhaps one Viewliner Diner did get built. What happened to it?

It was a prototype built by Amtrak. When Amtrak cut back the original Viewliner order from 100 to 50 sleepers, any chance of diners went right out the window. And that was probably a good thing, as the prototype was a disaster. The crews hated that car as things were not well laid out at all. And the repairs on it weren't very easy to perform either. The car, last I knew, is still on Amtrak property but it hasn't been used in years.

 

[Tony]

I think paying too much attention to the weight would be dumb. You could probably save a small amount of weight by shrinking the windows considerably and removing the toilets from the roomettes on the Viewliner, but the typical sleeping car passenger travels for a comfortable experience, not to save a few dollars.

You hit upon exactly what I was thinking while reading the Viewliner vs. Superliner comparison; where's comfort and convenience in the equation?

For example, how many total toilets are there in three Viewliner cars? And in two Superliner cars?

And the extra "comfort" for the top bunk passenger in a Viewliner because of the higher ceiling and the extra band of windows up there? What would it take to add both of these, into a modified Superliner design?

The convenience of the Viewliner's luggage storage cubby? What would it take to add an in-compartment storage area for luggage into a modified Superliner roomette?