• Viewliner II Delivery/Production

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

  • 4831 posts
  • 1
  • 290
  • 291
  • 292
  • 293
  • 294
  • 323
  by gregorygrice
 
For anyone who wants to keep track of the numbers, the 3 that went west were 68005, 68013 & 69004. (2 diners, 1 bag dorm)
  by David Benton
 
Gilbert B Norman wrote: Sun Jul 14, 2019 8:09 am Mr. Benton, it would appear that Bear has the equipment and institutional expertise to work on the Amfleets, and in short "busy enough".

What surprises me is that if Amtrak is planning to convert V-IID's to a Cafe' configuration prior to assigning them to, say, The Cardinal, and even in due course, the Star, I'm quite surprised that there hadn't been a "leak" from some "flappy trap" at One Mass.

Now the irony of it all is that as soon as they start to convert these cars, down comes the edict to restore full-service dining to the Single Level LD's.

We follow Amtrak affairs closely around here. One must wonder what kind of folly such as immediately suggested goes on at other Federal Agencies - and with the price tag "Doubled in Spades".
Mr Norman , I thought I recalled photos of the Viewliner module mockups at Bear. so thought they may have some experience with them .
  by Gilbert B Norman
 
I have a feeling any inferences, mine included, that the movement of V-II's West on 29 was for rebuilding at Beech should be put to rest. The 125mph certification for Corridor operation would appear more likely. If they are observed on either #3 or #5, they in all likelihood are off to Pueblo for DOT's "blessing".
  by gregorygrice
 
They were sent for some kind of test train so this is more likely. Though I thought they did this already on the NEC a few years ago.
  by Backshophoss
 
That move west to the AAR test center in Avondale Co make sense,wonder if CAF will send a View II sleeper west from the Factory,
via Albany soon?
  by Matt Johnson
 
gregorygrice wrote: Sun Jul 14, 2019 8:07 pm
They were sent for some kind of test train so this is more likely. Though I thought they did this already on the NEC a few years ago.
Indeed, but that was 5 years ago now if you can believe it! Maybe they need to be retested with whatever mods were made to the design.

Safe to say this is probably the only HHP-8 hauled push-pull Viewliner II train you'll ever see!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fK31PcyFPY
  by Railjunkie
 
Elmira special signs up Albany 0700 this AM. Picking up 2 cars.
  by Tadman
 
mcgrath618 wrote: Sat Jul 13, 2019 12:30 am I mean to be fair, A day happened about 30 years before I was born. I'm allowed to dissent what Amtrak is doing.
ryanov wrote: Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:10 pm Sure, but if you want to be taken seriously, you should probably make yourself aware of the fact that Amtrak was started precisely to allow the railroads to exit the passenger business because none of them wanted it or could make money at it. I wasn’t alive for A-day either, but that doesn’t mean I don’t know why it happened.
Doesn't it? If you knew a bit more than the one-liner history of A-day, it does indeed mean you don't know why it happened.

Amtrak wasn't started just to take over passenger trains. At the time, the railroads were fully regulated by both the federal government and state governments. Service could not be stopped, a railroad had to apply to the feds (or state if local) to stop service, and there was little chance the agency would let the railroad stop service. At the same time, said agencies set the rates for such services.

Let that sink in for a minute. They wouldn't let the railroads stop services, nor increase fare to cover costs adequately. State agencies did the same thing, except the same states set property taxes as well. The DL&W was a typically sad example. The state of New Jersey would not let them discontinue or modify commuter service, would not let them raise rates to cover costs, and set property taxes on Hoboken Terminal at obscene rates.

The railroads didn't want out of the passenger business, they wanted out from under the regulatory bodies.

Still don't believe me?

After perhaps half the ton-miles capacity of the US rail network went bankrupt in the mid-1970's, we established Conrail as a government system to keep freight moving. If one has read any of the books analyzing PC's failure or Rush Loving's book on Conrail (and if one hasn't, I can't imagine how one knows enough to keep discussing at this point), one would know that Conrail was an epic political disaster for five years until deregulation.

Bringing us back to the "doesn't mean I don't know why it happened" assertion. Understanding the regulatory atmosphere and the context for leaving is far more important to A-day than just "the railroads didn't want passenger service coz it lost money". Very few railroads were willing to risk the continued exposure to the regulatory environment that continued passenger train operation would entail. Amtrak was a compact between government and railroads that essentially absolved those railroad from ever again having to run a passenger train.
  by Tadman
 
ryanov wrote: Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:35 pm Wonder where all of these incredible entrepreneurs who could save the railroad were on A-day and shortly before.
They were staying the heck out of an over-regulated industry and attempting to make money somewhere a bit less risky.

I know the son of a 1970's class I CEO. He was my neighbor for years. He wanted nothing to do with that business given the regulatory climate when he came of age. I wouldn't either. Neither would Brightline.

The entrepreneurs in passenger rail today (1) don't have the regulatory requirements of 1971; (2) don't follow the business model of 1971, which was the business model of 1921 because it was so hard to evolve due to said regulatory environment.
  by Gilbert B Norman
 
Railjunkie wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:17 am Elmira special signs up Albany 0700 this AM. Picking up 2 cars.
Just think, if these two cars are both Bag-dorms, there will be five on the property. That would be enough for a line and protects on The Cardinal.

But oh; isn't it more fun for powers that be @ One Mass to "come on down" and play tinker toys with them. Who needs to have six more rooms available for sale?
  by Railjunkie
 
Im not sure what they were going to pick up, should have looked at the job. Ill find out later tonight when I go back to work. Of course the move could have been scrubbed as we have a bit of a conductor shortage with vacations and such.
  by ANDY117
 
Car numbers are 69005 and 69006.
  by CNJGeep
 
Diner "Atlanta" is tucked behind the engine on the NY-PHL portion of 43 (25)
  by R36 Combine Coach
 
The baggage-dorm cars made me bring up something relevant: why not a combine coach (last used on the Superliner I series "coach-baggages") in 1979)? I could see a single level combine at a different configuration for coach and baggage split, which could be 65/35, 70/30 or 75/25. A single level combine could be handy for certain Eastern routes that once had baggage/express service (Vermonter, Ethan Allen, Adirondack) and also overnight Regional, without the need for a separate baggage car. Even 448/449 could benefit, as well as another through BOS-Virginia train (allowing Boston to have a second baggage/express train in addition to the overnighter). Low density routes would be ideal for such a vehicle (the Hoosier if it were to return could use a single combine, for example).

The reason why an Amfleet combine was never built in the 1970s might have been due to a large loading door compromising the fuselage shell.

VIA still has a few RDC combines.
  by Bob Roberts
 
NCDOT's vending / lounge / baggage combines (made from retrofitted heritage gear) work very well on the Piedmonts and have plenty of room for bikes. I think the crew likes them since its easier for one of them to get into the baggage compartment than it is on a separate car.
  • 1
  • 290
  • 291
  • 292
  • 293
  • 294
  • 323