re the B-52, "Forty More Years"

I know, this doesn't sound like an Amtrak comment, but let me continue and I'll connect the dots:

A couple months ago, the Air Force announced that the B-52 fleet would remain in service for at least 40 more years; as their name indicates, the B-52's are vintage 1952 - that means that they will be a hundred years old by the time they are finally taken out of service (if indeed they are retired).

Today the news reports on the Washington DC Metro collision, have already put the blame on the 15-year old cars. And of course, Amtrak's fleet is mostly older than 15 years.

Many times on this forum, the age of the Amtrak fleet has been looked upon as a problem, but who exactly determines that? After all, a passenger rail car is just a metal box , , , does it just disintegrate after so many years? The B-52's metal airframe is still intact and apparently still strong enough to do the job!

Sure there are parts and systems of Amtrak cars that have to be replaced now and then, but that's also true of the B-52. Why is a heritage car automatically too old? , , , Sure some of it's details are outdated and parts get worn out, but the car itself, , , is it really too old? Virtually everthing Amtrak has, save for maybe a handful of baggage cars, are younger than a B-52. So by the B-52 standard, isn't Amtrak in good shape in this regard?

Would the casualty count in that D.C. Metro crash have been any less, if two brand new trains had collided?

So how old does a passenger rail car have to be, to be too old?

(Thread title edited (spelling) 7-30-09 1033PM CDT

I think the big difference between a B-52 and a passenger rail car is the amount of use and level of maintenance. AB-52, I suspect has spent less time in the air and received better maintenance than most rail cars.

Eric

Military bombers, rapid transit cars, and rail passenger cars are five different things. Comparing apples to aardvarks.

Mr Vondrak wrote:

Military bombers, rapid transit cars, and rail passenger cars are five different things. Comparing apples to aardvarks.

I have to take issue, to some degree. Rail equipment and jet aircraft, whether military or civilian, have more in common than meets the eye at first. Both are extremely expensive, and both industries have been concentrating and evolving toward global standards. Both are highly visible to their clientele, but the public often has only limited knowledge of both the economic and technical constraints which limit their adaptability.

As we're all coming to realize, the quantum shifts in the price of our industialized economies' principal feedstock, in the dispersal of technologies which allow major industrial activties to relocale across international boundaries, and in the basic rules of international finance, have all combined to put many more issues "on the table" than was once the case. A major "shakeout" in a lot of venues is just getting underway.

Planned obsolescence by manufaturers force consumers to update to newer products, be it autos or aircraft. Builders will not stay in buisness if they don't sell new equipment, so they 'phase out' older designs even though they worked. In some cases improved performance, lighter, more efficient vehichles are the stated goals. Light weight equipment may not be as crash worthy as older, heavier cars. FTA standards for transit cars don't seem to be up to FRA collision standards for passenger trains. If so the telescoping of one car into the other might not have happened.
Parts availability and maintenance determine how long existing equipment can operate. The best shop in the world can't work miracles without parts to maintain older cars. FRA safety mandates also drive older equipment out of use.

The issue with "heritage cars" isn't necessarily that they're too old to keep running, but rather that the economics of continuing to maintain and operate them become less attractive than the economics of replacing them. Almost any vehicle can be kept running given the right amount of time and money, but in each case the operator has to decide what makes the most business sense. Case in point are the different paths Amtrak and VIA Rail took in replacing their streamlined steam heated equipment. The cost of a comprehensive mid-life rebuild can be a surprisingly large percentage of the cost of a new rail car, and when complete you still have a car with far less capacity than a new one and higher operating costs due to age and lack of effeciency. In VIA's case they were willing to make the trade-off for a variety of reasons, including limited capital funding, availability of a homogenious fleet of well-maintained cars, and relatively simple network requiring far fewer cars to operate. As far as long-range bombers go, I think the differences between them and rail equipment are far too great to make a valid comparison.

The B-52's are huge aircraft, with lots of room to work on them. Fairly easy to swap old engines for brand new ones, or even upgraded ones. Lots of parts that can be replaced when they are worn out etc. Locomotives on the other hand are not so well maintained with a bevy of replaceable parts. Otherwise, the GG-1's would still be on the NEC etc. I had a chance to tour a B-52 and by standing on tip toe, I was able to touch the top of one of the landing gear tires. You don't run your fingers over the tire tread, or you will get cut. The tire is wire mesh reinforced. How would you like to have EIGHT high performance jet engines at your command ? I have known several B-52 pilots and they liked the bird, and felt comfortable flying it. One even likened it to driving a very large bus.

While the origins of the B-52 extend to the early 1950s, the current B-52 fleet consists entirely of 'H' models. The B-52H first flew in 1961 and production ended in 1962.

Therefore, the B-52 fleet is only slightly older than a large chunk of SEPTA's Silverliner fleet. Not sure what the oldest equipment in Amtrak's fleet, but it sure does peeve me that there's a knee jerk reaction to replace the Metro fleet when I'm riding to work most days on Kennedy-era train cars.

The difference to Amtrak is that the airforce has enough bombers to rotate a few out every year for overhauls. Amtrak is so bereft of funding that the yards have a "get what roll on a train" mentality often. When that is the operating philosophy, a "what rolls" car may be 20 miles away from being in the shop, but is put on a train anyway. The air force will not send up a bomber that is 20 miles away from serious hanger work.

Having worked with folks in both the Army and Air Force Depot Systems, the big difference is life cycle maintenance budgeting.

Whether we talk a big airplane (B-52, C-5, the former C-141, the F-4)... or we talk a tank or a howitzer, DOD has infrastructure to fully tear down and rebuild their equipment, time and again. More importantly, they Armed Forces have the funding to do it.

I've seen the B-52/KC-135/E-3 line at Tinker AFB. It's essentially a Boeing factory. They can tear the airframe down to its most basic structural members. They have the scanners to evaluate each member for structural integrity.

When those B-52s finally get retired around 2040, the odds are there will be no part left on them from the day they came off the line.

ATSF was pretty darn good about rebuilding engines. For that matter, I've seen some of the early 9300s of the BNSF. They're going through life cycle rebuild now. If a railroad decides to maintain the level of investment that the Santa Fe did at Cleburne, San Bernardino, or Topeka, they can keep equipment going virtually forever.

Of course, the USG does not have to account for capital depreciation, and doesn't have to set a basis value on its property, and doesn't have to recalculate the basis at rebuild.

John_Perkowski wrote:
ATSF was pretty darn good about rebuilding engines. For that matter, I've seen some of the early 9300s of the BNSF. They're going through life cycle rebuild now. If a railroad decides to maintain the level of investment that the Santa Fe did at Cleburne, San Bernardino, or Topeka, they can keep equipment going virtually forever.

These days, it seems that NS is the ATSF of the 00's. The 5600 series GP38-2s that they have built/rebuilt at Juniata are basically entirely new locomotives. I wouldn't be surprised if they are around for another 40 years!