New Passenger Cars

[AlanB]

That being said, thank you for bringing me up to speed. Those ATSF Hi-Levels are what I rode on that first Amtrak trip and they will forever be my favorite cars. I didn't know that self-powered cars had been tried before but don't you think that with today's technology something better could be developed? Refer cars run all over the country- sure they fail from time to time but most of our produce gets through. I guess what I was aiming at was saving HP on the head end. I may be wrong but I thought that running the HEP draws off of the Locomotive's ability to pull. The P42DC is an astonishingly powerful unit yet most LD trains use two of them. The SWC uses three, (the same number of SDPs it used in the 70s and F40s in the 80s), most of the time. Is this for reliablility reasons? I read somewhere that Amtrak saves 1 million dollars a year by chopping one unit off of the Texas Eagle. If that's true, (and I don't know if it still only uses one but it was last year when I rode it to St Louis), then a hard look needs to be taken at the other routes.

A few thoughts not in any order. First part of the savings from dropping an engine is the fuel used. Now with your first idea, no extra fuel would be used. But if another option were choosen, that might not be true. Plus now there is the cost of batteries and maintaining them and you've got to find space to put those batteries into the cars. That could mean the loss of revenue space. I'm not positive, but for some reason I believe that the refer cars actually have a motor and therefore a small fuel tank. So if that is true, then your fuel savings wouldn't be as substantial.

Next, Amtrak often doesn't always analyze things properly. They may notice the fuel savings by dropping one engine, but not stop to notice that fuel consumption went up on the remaining units. Yes, they did save on wear and tear on that dropped unit, but it could also cost them in times of failure by not having that extra unit around. I'm not sure about the $1 M, but it certainly could be possible.

Next, one reason for more engines, isn't just the extra pulling power it's for tractive effort. If you have more wheels on the ground actually helping to pull the train along, you can climb steeper hills and do it more swiftly. Then there is the general idea of accelerating back up to track speed after a stop. Takes longer to do that with one engine vs two. That could mean slightly longer schedules.

Next, in the case of the P42, yes HEP does take away power from the prime mover (the main engine). In the case of the F59PHI locomotives, there is a seperate smaller diesel engine that provides HEP, therefore there is no drain off of the prime mover. And an extra niceity is that if the main engine fails, you can still provide HEP while waiting for rescue.

Finally, because of Amtrak's recent record of engine failures due to some maintenance cuts (not safety issues), CSX and I believe BNSF have demanded that Amtrak run with two or three engines depending on the route.

 

[AmtrakWPK]

And another thought re making electrical power for each car by something that generates power from the forward motion of that car is that nothing happens for free in physics. You save the draw of the HEP from the prime mover but then you require a lot more horsepower from that same prime mover by the drag of all those alternators on the individual cars, making it harder to pull the train. And you have added a lot more weight with all those batteries and all those alternators, and (presumably) high-capacity inverters to change that DC to 110V AC (maybe you could run high-current DC motors on the A/C systems of those cars instead of the 480V systems there now, but you still have to provide 110V for passenger equipment and so forth. All of which, of course, is mass the prime mover has to accelerate, and all of which the brake systems have to decelerate. And you have had to basically install a brand-new and fairly complex electrical system in each car. And all that extra equipment has to be PM's and replaced periodically, especially the batteries, which have a slow but inexorable downward curve in their capacity as they get older. And if we are actually talking about running HVAC systems on those cars from batteries when the train is not moving, you are probably not going to get more than a max of 10-30 minutes of run time on batteries, unless you have a LOT of batteries, and REAL BIG alternators. And batteries are HEAVY (see comment above about accel and decel requirements with large units of mass). So those cars are going to get uncomfortable real fast on routes like Sunset where UP makes them sit sometimes for hours on sidings, in the hot American SouthWest. Not good. And you have added a lot of HAZMAT to each car, all that battery acid. I think you would find that the cost of all that stuff FAR outweighs the cost of HEP, and that the end result would be a poorly performing train that has much higher costs to operate than what you have now..

 

[Sam Damon]

It would be nice if Miami Joe weighed in on the Viewliners here.

 

[Miami Joe]

Good evening, Everybody!!!!!!!

What an interesting topic!!!!! :lol:

I prefer cars built by Pullman and Budd!!!!! They were very well built for years of service and very safe if involved in an accident!

I do like the V/L design, and can only imagine if they were built by Budd!!!!! Spend the money for a decent interior, do away with the digital lighting, and a few minor changes, and they will last 40 years!!!

A few decades ago, each car generated it's own power for lighting and A/C. Was common for the car to go dark and get hot at each stop. P42 generates plenty of power for a consist. The only thing that sucks is one generator provides main and aux power. Old engines had 2 generators.

Unfortunately, the costs of materials and technology play an important part in car construction. I think plastic interiors are here to stay, and companies will push for sub-systems that may be "high tech", but fail in RR cars!!!!!

Basically, Keep it simple!!!

MJ B)

 

[George Harris]

To reinforce Miami Joe's statement: The two most important cnocepts in design of anything on the railroad are:

RUGGED and SIMPLE.

If you do that then you have reliability. I have at times spec'ed track material, and for track fastneners in particular the deisgn and fabrication can be as high tech as you want, but the finished product had better be truly rugged and above all simple to install and maintain. That is what I love about the Pandrol clip. Bang it in and it will be right. Some of these others require use of feeler gauges to set right, proper bolt tension, etc., etc. Guess what when you are out there at night and it is raining on your back, if it ain't simple it will not be done right.

George

 

[Guest]

I do like the V/L design, and can only imagine if they were built by Budd!!!!! Spend the money for a decent interior, do away with the digital lighting, and a few minor changes, and they will last 40 years!!!

If you have a chance, MJ, could you amplify these thoughts a bit? I've never ridden a Viewliners, so what's with this "digital lighting" you're mentioning? I'm curious about these things from the perspective of someone who works on them, that's all. Thanks.

 

[battalion51]

The digital lighting system is uses buttons in multiple locations that are fed through a computer system to control the lights, rather than just a traditional switch like you have in our homes, or at least that's how I understand it.

 

[Miami Joe]

Illuminator has provide lighting for RR cars for decades.

Previous systems use a simple "on-off button" for lighting.

The V/L's have a "light controller box" and a "video control box" in the ceiling for each room. There was a modification put out that the boxes needed to be grounded, but it was never done. The boxes get charged with static electricity and fail. Changing the controller fixes the problem, but the bad controller is usually good after a few hours when it slowly discharges the static electricity.

I believe a simple switch is better than digital, in this example.

MJ B)