Viewliner II Delivery/Production

Agreed. Why blow $10,000,000 per year on dining service when you can consolidate the market that wants it onto one line.

Doesn't the Silver Starve example show that there is a market for "all-inclusive" sleeper service, with meals, and a market for sleeper service without meals?

Seems like having Slumbercoaches or some other type of discounted sleeper service (minus meals), on the same train as regular sleeping car service, would be wise.

dgvrengineer wrote:My opinion is the S. Star should not get a full diner. It seems to be doing well as is and there is a full service option for those that desire it. That is one of the advantages of multiple trains on the same or similar routes.

I'll agree on long distance corridors with multiple trains, providing different options provides their customers more choices, is a good idea. I just want to point out that New York City to Miami is the only long distance corridor with multiple trains today, and additionally that the trains on this corridor routing varies slightly along the way - especially in the Carolinas. Ideally, imho, trains with different on board amenities should be on the same exact routing the entire way.
While the Star's ridership has increased some without diners because of reduced fares, the Meteor's ridership hasn't decreased at all, it's ridership has increased about the same rate as the Star. And during the past holiday season, it was the Meteor running with extra sleepers, not the Star. The most significant statistic this past year with the diner-less Star hasn't been the slightly increased ridership, it's that significantly reduced costs with significantly reduced losses, i.e. reduced subsidies.

SouthernRailway wrote:Doesn't the Silver Starve example show that there is a market for "all-inclusive" sleeper service, with meals, and a market for sleeper service without meals?

Seems like having Slumbercoaches or some other type of discounted sleeper service (minus meals), on the same train as regular sleeping car service, would be wise.

I would agree with this, though we'd have to do it with software and services rather than a physically different coach.

A good use of V-II sleepers (and sleepers freed up by faster turns at SSYD) might be to have "business class rooms" (no food) and "first class rooms" ( if there is enough demand to keep a diner fully busy) .

I would start by adding V-II sleepers marketed as "business rooms" to every state supported NEC extension (Vermonter, all Virginia service (66/67 night rooms!), Palmetto and Carolinian), and adding business rooms to LSL, Crescent, and Meteor.

The thing is, pushing the equipment harder and trying to manipulate things too much will only benefit the short run. Long term, you are wearing out equipment that is not plentiful, nor is new. While great ideas on paper, the price you pay over a longer period of time will catch up with you in a hurry.

dgvrengineer wrote:My opinion is the S. Star should not get a full diner. It seems to be doing well as is and there is a full service option for those that desire it. That is one of the advantages of multiple trains on the same or similar routes.

You're forgetting the Tampa folks in your full service option statement. I'm not saying, though, that Tampa should be the sole reason to put a dining car back on the Star.

And in your plan--with which I don't disagree--is the Palm to have a dining car?

gokeefe wrote:I believe Mr. Norman was indicated a "million" to convert them to some kind of configuration less than a full service diner.

Sorry for the confusion, Mr. Arlington, but Mr. O'Keefe is on the mark.

I made that $1M per car estimate on the strength of that the conversion.of seventeen 380XX Diners to 370XX Cross Country Cafes was reported to have run.

On two recent trips on the Lake Shore Ltd, I was directed to quarters with plumbing in a state of disrepair. Details in a moment, but first, the question:

What's going to become of the 20th-century Viewliner fleet after delivery of the 21st-century carriages?

On the first of the two trips, the sink drooped and water spilled into the room. On the second trip, the lid was warped and resisted being raised beyond halfway, posing an inconvenience. Also, for a few hours, the flushing mechanisms were out-of-order throughout the carriage.

By the looks of it, those Viewliner carriages have been excused from the "state of good repair" regimen. They are not being kept in shape to continue gracefully in first-class service. What will be done with them? Scrap? Sell? Sink in Lake Erie as a habitat for coral? Launch a new "third-class" service? Rebuild to the new plumbing-free floor plan?

It was my impression that the Viewliner I sleepers were to be removed from service as the Viewliner II sleepers are delivered. The I's would be rehabbed, including removal of the toilets from the individual rooms, thus simplifying the plumbing. Probably not making any big repairs to the plumbing until the major rehab.

Believe the plan is to rebuild the View I sleepers to the View II sleeper design,that will do away with most of the
plumbing nightmares.
Not sure if Bear or Beech Grove is doing the rebuild,as this is a module swap out process,along with needed upgrades
to all onboard systems.

It is just speculation whether the V-1s will be rebuilt immediately. There is too much uncertainty and since V-2 sleepers do not appear to be delivered this FY 2017 we have no idea what will be the plans and more importantly funds for Amtrak capital FY 2018 funding. Suspect it could be any where from $1B to $15B. But will not even speculate how much money ? ? ? ? An unlikely funding might even be a supplemental appropriation FY 2017 ?

The View I rebuilds might start after all the View II Sleepers and Bag/Dorms are accepted and online.

Mr. Backshop, it would appear you have experience in these matters.

The MofW and Shops are the two areas of railroading that are/have the most vulnerability/opportunity for work to be contracted out. Amtrak in the past has contracted out car rebuilding back in the "W Gang's" days. However it would appear that rebuilding locomotives and cars are now done "in house".

So with the above having been noted, should Amtrak simply "do it in house", hire a "surge" of workers, then face the consequences of whacking them when the project is done, or should they have a sit-down with the Shop Crafts Chairmen and show that it just might be in their interest to contract out a V-I rebuild project.

Arlington wrote:

SouthernRailway wrote:Doesn't the Silver Starve example show that there is a market for "all-inclusive" sleeper service, with meals, and a market for sleeper service without meals?

Seems like having Slumbercoaches or some other type of discounted sleeper service (minus meals), on the same train as regular sleeping car service, would be wise.

I would agree with this, though we'd have to do it with software and services rather than a physically different coach.

A good use of V-II sleepers (and sleepers freed up by faster turns at SSYD) might be to have "business class rooms" (no food) and "first class rooms" ( if there is enough demand to keep a diner fully busy) .

I would start by adding V-II sleepers marketed as "business rooms" to every state supported NEC extension (Vermonter, all Virginia service (66/67 night rooms!), Palmetto and Carolinian), and adding business rooms to LSL, Crescent, and Meteor.

What makes you think the states would support this since they have to pay for it? After all, when they had this concept for Metroliner service (The Conference Car), it tanked miserably. Passengers didn't want to pay for it. While times have changed, I still the costs of throwing a sleeper and getting the passengers to to pay for it would be a waste.

The idea should be as SouthernRailway mentioned...bring back the second tier sleeping car (slumbercoaches) in addition to upgraded sleeping car service. Make the new cars TRUE first class.

Backshophoss wrote:The View I rebuilds might start after all the View II Sleepers and Bag/Dorms are accepted and online.

By the time the new sleepers get here, they may have to retire the old ones due to old age!