• 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

  • 4854 posts
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 324
  by spacecadet
 
DutchRailnut wrote:They are, the Acela and Viewliner car are basicly same shape, and you won't see much different as the shape maximizes the useable interior space.
All due respect, the Viewliners and Acela cars are about as similar looking as Superliners and the LIRR's C3's, or NJT's Arrow and Comet V's. The only thing similar about their appearance to me is that they have a bulge around the seat belt. If this is what the new Viewliners are going to look like, it's not going to look like a matched consist.

I realize running matched consists is not Amtrak's #1 priority, but I also don't see why they *wouldn't* want to do it if it costs them nothing. Seems like it'd make for some good postcards, at least - help a bit with marketing. And I can't think of a good reason why they would "not require" the same basic design as the current Viewliners. Why not require it? They're not going to gain anything by changing contouring or other purely aesthetic features.
  by DutchRailnut
 
Yup I really think Amtrak is worried about making the rail fans pictures pretty.
lets wait and see, there is nothing we can do to change Amtraks order, or to change CAF's engineering.
  by JimBoylan
 
Amtrak might copy past practice. The Horizon cars used a competing body shape, but had many of the familiar Budd or Amfleet accessories inside to cut down on the inventory problem.
  by spacecadet
 
DutchRailnut wrote:Yup I really think Amtrak is worried about making the rail fans pictures pretty.
I guess you didn't read the part where I said "it might help a bit with marketing, and would cost them nothing". How many east coast LD trains do you currently see in Amtrak's marketing materials? Not many.

It just seems lazy to "not require" a standardized design. It's like they're saying "whatever, make it look how you want" to the builder. That's a pretty stupid mentality for any business. This is their public image they're talking about.
lets wait and see, there is nothing we can do to change Amtraks order, or to change CAF's engineering.
I agree on "let's wait and see", but I don't agree that there being "nothing we can do" means we shouldn't discuss it. There's nothing we can do about anything related to Amtrak here, but we still have a forum to talk about these things.
  by Matt Johnson
 
I've always noted the similar carbody shape between the Viewliners and the Acela cars (the Viewliners almost look like tilt coaches with their shape). So, I guess the only real question is whether the Viewliner II's have the fluting or not. Personally, I don't really care one way or another, I'm just glad Amtrak is finally getting those desperately needed cars!
  by DutchRailnut
 
Nice thing about fluting, if its not just decorative it can really streghten the body so less internal bracing is neccesary or thinner walls can be used, givving more room inside.
the Acela cars and M-7 and M-8 commuter cars all have same carbody with smooth sides, I guess Amtrak will let CAF have leeway on how exterior will look or how windows are placed etc but body shape will defenitively stay about 95% same as Acela/Viewliner cars but with 2 foot high windows for egress by stretcher.
  by Irishiron
 
Just curious as to whether anyone has any updated information on the viewliner ii, amfleet iii acquisitions, and capstone iii's status. thanks!!
  by Champlain Division
 
Anyone ever notice how the Bombardier Acela and LRC coaches have very similar profiles?
  by AgentSkelly
 
Champlain Division wrote:Anyone ever notice how the Bombardier Acela and LRC coaches have very similar profiles?
Probably because of the LRC heritage leading to later in life, Bombardier....
  by DutchRailnut
 
actually that body shape came from LIRR and MNCR M-1 and M-3 build by the Budd company
  by Pacific 2-3-1
 
Bombardier designed and built, even before the Acela trainsets and MTA M-7 cars, some smooth-sided stainless steel EMU's AVEC <<BULGE>> for Montreal's 25 kv AC former CN suburban line.

This line had formerly been 3000 v DC.
  by elocklin
 
Does anyone know what these new "Viewliner Like" cars are going to look like? I hope they're not exactly like the MK's cars. Not only were they too light, but the interior design should've been more like the 10-6's with one big window instead of two smaller windows and NO windows towards the aisle. I just returned on a trip from NY to Charlotte and had one of the worst night's sleep I've ever had on a train. We were coupled directly behind the baggage car. (Since when do they put first class cars directly behind the locomotive? - - - that's insane!). The shoddy job of attaching curtains, across windows that should never have been there in the first place, were barely held shut because some service personnel can't tell which side of the Velcro piece matches which one is on the curtain. (Loops won't hold loops and hooks wont hold hooks). Well, I do look forward optimistically towards these new cars anyway.

Ed Locklin at mp367.
  by electricron
 
I happen to love the window for the top bunk. But I will agree with what you stated about the curtains. It's hard to believe passengers can't figure out how to use the velcro fasteners properly, but Amtrak should repair them faster.
  by jp1822
 
As built for production, the Viewliners did not have the flimsy "curtains" that velcro together and are parallel to the aisle of the train. As built, the Viewliner roomette or bedroom could be much more darker at night than its counter part - a Superliner roomette or bedroom. I like the number of windows on the Viewiner sleeper - looking toward the aisle and looking outside. It brings in more natural light to the room and makes it look bigger! What's missing in the "as built" are basically hard core pull down shades that completely covered the glass. They didn't need the flimsy curtains and they were never part of the plan - at first. However, Amtrak found hat it was easier to maintain the curtains than it was to maintain the shades, so guess what Amtrak continued with. Even after the curtains were installed, you could still do a little "trick or two" to get the shades to come down. Amtrak basically put braces in so the shades couldn't be pulled down after the curtains went up. And originally they were just gray curtains - that kept out hardly any light (I often draped the windows with towells) - but then finally blue curtains were installed, which were better, but not as good as the shades.

The Viewliners were on the back of the train for a period of time in 2010, but customers complained about the "swaying and slack" that was endured during the night. My preference too would be sleepers at the rear for all trains. Amtrak made a poor design choice by makeing the Superliner Trans/Dorm Sleeper the "step-down car." They needed crew bunks and revenue sleeping space in these cars, but all in all would a coach have been better (i.e. Superliner II) - or perhaps both!
  by Gilbert B Norman
 
While several postings here have questioned the need for 55 Baggage cars in the order and suggesting that those 55 "shells' could better be used as revenue cars (Sleepers and Lounges, anyone?), those 55 are roundly the number needed to replace all Heritage Baggage cars in service and to add same to Superliner trains not having Baggage cars at present (I think that means 1-2; I know it means 21-22; 58-59). Presumably Amtrak would find the $$$ to convert 310XX Coach Baggage cars to Coaches with seating capacity equal to an existing 34XXX resulting, of course, in additional available seats (hopefully remove the Baggage doors and cut windows in the replacement sheet metal rather than the likely "sorry 'bout that"),

Lest we forget, the #310XX's were delivered with a higher non-leg rest Upper Level seating density, but were been converted to leg-rests and same pitch as are the #34XXX.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 324