V-Bags; Could They.....

......be converted to "something else"?

I guess I would like to see "best outcome" of the entire V-II procurement fiasco, resulting in cars Amtrak will need over their remaining service life.

While the advocacy community is "up in arms" in that every V-II Diner that gets converted to an all-purpose Food & Beverage car, watching their "dreams" of traditional full-service dining being restored, there remain a good number of the seventy Baggage cars for which "best use" will be for axle counts.

So my open-ended question is what kind of car configuration - Sleeper, Food Service, or Coach, could the excess cars be reasonably and practically converted so as to generate revenue for Amtrak?

Enquiring mind is "curious".

The only thing that Amtrak needs is coaches and maybe replacements for Amfleet food service cars; perhaps those, if it's possible to transform the V-Bags into them?

Could they be? Maybe, but I don't think it would be practical and even worse, a bad idea.
For one thing, the doors for loading are in awkward places for passengers and my guess is you can't easily move them. So they're out as coaches or sleepers.
I believe they have heaters in the panels on the floors/walls, but no AC. So you'd have to change them. Same with plumbing.

Finally, I think it's a bad idea since I think if anything, Amtrak needs MORE baggage options.
For example, if I want to put something in a baggage car for points south of Albany, I have to bring it down the day before to get it on the LSL, or haul it with me via coach to NYP. It would be VERY desirable to have one of the earlier southbound trains to have a baggage car.

If anything, I would suggest Amtrak consider MORE bag/dorms and sell the dorm end as day rooms or convert into a higherscale business class on day trains.

The advantage of more bag/dorms is that they can be swapped from day trains to overnights as demand needs.

Probably an expensive proposition since they don't have any HVAC system.

They were built with swirl vents on the roof,very basic heaters and lights.
Leave then as is ,Baggage cars are needed big time.,

This is going where I expected it to.

While likely not the most "botched" procurement in Amtrak's 49 years, when considering the SDP-40's and E-60's, the V-II's are "up there". The worst is that Amtrak "owns" this fiasco more than the other two noted.

Both locomotives noted much can be laid at EMD's and GE's feet. They convinced a fledgling 3yo Amtrak that a freight
locomotive doesn't care what it's pulling, so why should you? That EMD "half stepped" their way out of the SDP-40 by taking 110 of them in trade for a like number of F-40's under to this day undisclosed terms certainly suggests a degree of culpability.

Now I don't think CAF represents "Angels on High"; the question must be raised if they were a "responsible" bidder (sure seems like a lot of Amtrak procurement is from that Southern Tier of NY). But who knows or could ever talk about the parade of Change Orders landing on the banks of the Chemung River, as "Who's on First" skits were enacted first at 60 and then One Mass?

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 4:37 pm Now I don't think CAF represents "Angels on High"; the question must be raised if they were a "responsible" bidder (sure seems like a lot of Amtrak procurement is from that Southern Tier of NY). But who knows or could ever talk about the parade of Change Orders landing on the banks of the Chemung River, as "Who's on First" skits were enacted first at 60 and then One Mass?

I think it could have been a hell of a lot worse. You do have to at least admit that CAF didn't fold up the tent and walk away.

Could Amtrak expand its less-than-carload shipping business and put the baggage cars to better use?

SouthernRailway wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 5:59 pmCould Amtrak expand its less-than-carload shipping business and put the baggage cars to better use?

That's what Gunn ended, but using only baggage cars and no more boxcars or Roadrailers would eliminated the switching issues Gunn cited. There are still some contract shippers with decent numbers of pallets each week.

However only selected stations can handle heavy loads (500 lb pallets, contract volume shippers up to 8000 lb). Most stations lack forklifts and can handle items up to 50 lb (package express only).

Considering that every LD train should have a baggage car up front, if for no other reason than to reduce the horn noise as well as diesel exhaust issues in the passenger cars, that would likely leave about 20 or so 'available'. It would also help eliminate that black diesel soot/smudge off whatever Superliners happened to be directly behind the locomotives. (Would YOU board an airplane that had black soot all over the front of the fuselage?) Then subtract from that any wreck damaged cars awaiting possible repair and those that need scheduled maintenance and inspections. Now we're down to maybe a big handful that could be best suited being stored at ends of LD routes as 'reserve' in the event of an unexpected substitution needed.

I don't think anyone expects that the VII or VI fleet will have a life expectancy beyond 40 years or so, although many of the HEP'ed Heritage Fleet cars ran more than 60 years. Along the way, there will certainly be some wreck damaged cars where the cost of repairs outweighs the benefits, or, Amtrak simply doesn't have the money to repair them and stores them in Beech Grove waiting for the money that will likely never come. Also, how many spare parts can CAF be expected to produce? So, in my opinion, keeping the 20 or so extra cars as axle count cars isn't too bad of an idea. But then, 20+ years from now, what will they do when they number of axle count cars is reduced by attrition and there aren't more VII baggage cars available?

Now if there were some way to convince CSX to enforce an axle count for train 448/449 to force a baggage car ahead of the sleeper...

R36 Combine Coach wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 8:21 pm

SouthernRailway wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 5:59 pmCould Amtrak expand its less-than-carload shipping business and put the baggage cars to better use?

That's what Gunn ended, but using only baggage cars and no more boxcars or Roadrailers would eliminated the switching issues Gunn cited. There are still some contract shippers with decent numbers of pallets each week.

However only selected stations can handle heavy loads (500 lb pallets, contract volume shippers up to 8000 lb). Most stations lack forklifts and can handle items up to 50 lb (package express only).

Helpful to know; thanks.

Since Amtrak has so many extra baggage cars, and since some long-distance routes have one train a day only and could use more, could Amtrak at least break even if it added a few new trains: baggage cars only except a passenger coach or two? Wouldn’t that solve two problems (new cars sitting around without earning revenue and lack of sufficient train frequencies)? Would the stations that can handle large packages allow enough business for this or would they not?

I note that the Crescent goes right by a major train-to-truck transfer site in upstate SC, off I-85. Perhaps a stop there could be added?

bratkinson wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 8:58 pm Considering that every LD train should have a baggage car up front, if for no other reason than to reduce the horn noise as well as diesel exhaust issues in the passenger cars . . .

Baggage cars were moved to the rear years ago to eliminate fishtailing and give the sleepers a better ride.

Maybe they should resurrect the combine for trains like the Palmetto and the Carolinian as well as other corridor service ones.

Fifty five Baggs were sufficient to cover all Baggage lines when the cars were ordered back in '10(?). However, since then, 21-22, 29-30, 58-59 representing nine cars, have all dropped Baggage lines, meaning the service is discontinued or they are making use of the #31XXX Coach Baggage cars. This means that with seventy cars on hand, there are twenty five or more cars "unassigned" other than axle count and tool cars.

Amtrak would of course like to discontinue Baggage service on more routes, as well as more LD trains themselves. Further, if not already, they should be making best use of the Coach Baggage cars, such as permanently eliminating the Bagg line on 3-4, Chief, which is what they have done for the COVID duration.

The Superliner I's are nearing the "end of the line", and I doubt if any further orders for bi-level cars. The replacement cars for the LD's will be single level (I'm again thinking of the State operated Australian LD's) and readily convertible to short distance cars as Amtrak seeks opportunities to discontinue LD routes.

While the immediate thought is likely hostile to the interests of some around here, post-COVID, with Amtrak being badly "in the hole" and "long time if ever" previous passenger levels returning, the squeeze will be on to cut costs - and not just the "five and dime" stuff that "flex Dining" represents.

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 4:37 pm

Both locomotives noted much can be laid at EMD's and GE's feet. They convinced a fledgling 3yo Amtrak that a freight
locomotive doesn't care what it's pulling, so why should you? That EMD "half stepped" their way out of the SDP-40

The SDP40f is not an EMD failure. Very similar equipment pulled trains on Santa Fe, Great Northern, Metra, Seaboard, and Southern Pacific (and Korean National Railways) without a problem.

Credit for this one to Steve Patterson:


And credit for this one to Drew Jacksich, who has an amazing collection:


And this one is from the FB Group "Electro Motive Builders Photos"