• 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

  • 5033 posts
  • 1
  • 332
  • 333
  • 334
  • 335
  • 336
  by Greg Moore
 
Saw a comment elsewhere (not entirely sure where) commenting the NY section would be running Viewliner IIs and the Boston Section would run Viewliner Is.

As I type that, I suppose that makes some sense, the Boston section can exchange with the 67/68 more easily and the NY section with the Silver Service trains.
  by jp1822
 
CNJGeep wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 5:10 pm 97 (5) had diner Albany and a V1 being bracketed between 2 V2s
Should we be on guard to watch the retirement of the Viewliner I Sleepers?

Would they have any life as providing private compartment space for any non-LD train?

Not sure if I see Amtrak trying to fulfill Boardman's vision of augmenting the current eastern LD train sets with additional Viewliners to meet demand.

I am a bit surprised that Amtrak doesn't look to convert the Capitol Limited train set to a single level LD train set, as a way to fill out the Viewliner sleepers and get spare Superliner cars. This would allow the Pennsylvanian a more smooth transition between the two train sets IF a through sleeper and coaches were ever to be swapped between the two at Pittsburgh, as originally envisioned.
  by Greg Moore
 
I highly doubt we'll see retirement of any V1s in the next 3-7 years. I htink this administration is showing a commitment to Amtrak and we'll see continued if not expanded service.

This may not mean more overnight routes, but may certainly see more sleepers available on select trains.
  by lordsigma12345
 
I could see the capitol limited go to single level especially if they decide to rebuild instead of replace the Superliners.
  by jp1822
 
Greg Moore wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 8:15 am I highly doubt we'll see retirement of any V1s in the next 3-7 years. I htink this administration is showing a commitment to Amtrak and we'll see continued if not expanded service.

This may not mean more overnight routes, but may certainly see more sleepers available on select trains.
I would agree - I can't imagine any new Amtrak overnight routes, just augmenting existing LD single level trains. I'll give Amtrak the benefit of the doubt that they have a staff shortage and that's the reason why we are seeing Viewliners parked right now and not out in service - not enough sleeper car attendants. However, not sure how creative Amtrak's been in trying to alleviate the problem, but won't go there. Lets just hope there's a plan for their future operation.

Sleeper demand has been running high all summer and is continuing into the Fall. Many LD trains could have benefitted from extra sleepers this past summer. Amtrak has been very mum about how they plan to deploy the 75 Viewliner sleepers they have (Viewliner I and Viewliner IIs). And I realize there's a reserve they put on the fleet. Likewise, over 50% of the new Viewliner II diners remain parked (only 11 in assignment out of 25 and 1 prototye). My criticism of Amtrak's utilization of the Viewliner fleet is nothing new. It's always been baffling.
  by trainviews
 
STrRedWolf wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 7:22 am Let us think of the worse case scenario. Just pulling this out of thin air, 10 car train, using 2 engines to pull it:
  • Baggage
  • Staff Sleeper
  • Sleeper 1
  • Sleeper 2
  • Sleeper 3
  • Sleeper 4
  • Diner
  • Cafe
  • Coach
  • Coach
Assume every bed is full. For a single Viewliner sleeper: 12 roomettes at 2 people, one bedroom at 2 people, one bedroom suite at 4 people, and an accessible bedroom at 2 people. That's 24+2+4+2, or 32 people per car. 4 cars, 128 people.

Now assume two full travel bags and a carry-on per person. A "full travel bag" here would be is 27x21x14 inches. So we got 256 bags to put into the baggage car.

A Viewliner is 85.33 feet by 10.5 feet by 14 feet from the outside. We can safely assume inside is more like 84 feet by 10 feet by 10 feet. A 2.5 foot path is needed, as well as the doors which look like five feet wide. That's 74 feet by 7.5 feet by 10 feet.

You need 1176 cubic feet of space for that luggage. You got 5550 feet.

Yeah, you don't need a full baggage car. Even half that, you can have racks for skis.
And what about the checked baggage of the coach passengers?
  by Railjunkie
 
trainviews wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 9:43 pm
STrRedWolf wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 7:22 am Let us think of the worse case scenario. Just pulling this out of thin air, 10 car train, using 2 engines to pull it:
  • Baggage
  • Staff Sleeper
  • Sleeper 1
  • Sleeper 2
  • Sleeper 3
  • Sleeper 4
  • Diner
  • Cafe
  • Coach
  • Coach
Assume every bed is full. For a single Viewliner sleeper: 12 roomettes at 2 people, one bedroom at 2 people, one bedroom suite at 4 people, and an accessible bedroom at 2 people. That's 24+2+4+2, or 32 people per car. 4 cars, 128 people.

Now assume two full travel bags and a carry-on per person. A "full travel bag" here would be is 27x21x14 inches. So we got 256 bags to put into the baggage car.

A Viewliner is 85.33 feet by 10.5 feet by 14 feet from the outside. We can safely assume inside is more like 84 feet by 10 feet by 10 feet. A 2.5 foot path is needed, as well as the doors which look like five feet wide. That's 74 feet by 7.5 feet by 10 feet.

You need 1176 cubic feet of space for that luggage. You got 5550 feet.

Yeah, you don't need a full baggage car. Even half that, you can have racks for skis.
And what about the checked baggage of the coach passengers?
A 2.5ft walking path on a moving train inside a baggage car is an accident waiting to happen. Myself when I was in uniform preferred about a 4ft path that way there was not much chance of getting a toe caught in a strap or under a shifted bag. Those old heritage cars didn't ride the best plus they didn't have all the nice fold down racks like the viewliners. So I guess that throws off your square footage a bit.

I will agree the cars are under utilized I don't see anywhere near the bags that were handled even in the late 90s. It wasn't uncommon to handle 40 to 60 bags at some of the bigger stops, some days more some days less.
  by STrRedWolf
 
Railjunkie wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:34 am A 2.5ft walking path on a moving train inside a baggage car is an accident waiting to happen. Myself when I was in uniform preferred about a 4ft path that way there was not much chance of getting a toe caught in a strap or under a shifted bag. Those old heritage cars didn't ride the best plus they didn't have all the nice fold down racks like the viewliners. So I guess that throws off your square footage a bit.

I will agree the cars are under utilized I don't see anywhere near the bags that were handled even in the late 90s. It wasn't uncommon to handle 40 to 60 bags at some of the bigger stops, some days more some days less.
74x6x10 is 4440 cubic feet, and you still only need 1176 cubic feet.

"But what about the coach passengers?" Okay, lets add those in. 30 people per coach, 2 checked bags, 2 coaches. Another 120 bags. To make the math easier we can round that up to 128... and calculate another half of the original estimate.

4440 cubic feet, and you only need 1764 cubic feet.

This is where I ask Railjunkie if he's ever seen a baggage car more than half full.
  by jp1822
 
The only train where I did see a FULL baggage car - the Canadian. And it was over 24 cars long, but there was still space! And we all know that the train at that length was mostly sleeper car passengers and they were restricted as to what could be brought inside the rooms.

The baggage cars were supposed to do more than just bags being transported by passengers, but that never materialized. Even prior to Amtrak, private railroads had dormitories inside the baggage cars, and then regular baggage cars..........
  by jp1822
 
STrRedWolf wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:46 pm
Railjunkie wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:34 am A 2.5ft walking path on a moving train inside a baggage car is an accident waiting to happen. Myself when I was in uniform preferred about a 4ft path that way there was not much chance of getting a toe caught in a strap or under a shifted bag. Those old heritage cars didn't ride the best plus they didn't have all the nice fold down racks like the viewliners. So I guess that throws off your square footage a bit.

I will agree the cars are under utilized I don't see anywhere near the bags that were handled even in the late 90s. It wasn't uncommon to handle 40 to 60 bags at some of the bigger stops, some days more some days less.
74x6x10 is 4440 cubic feet, and you still only need 1176 cubic feet.

"But what about the coach passengers?" Okay, lets add those in. 30 people per coach, 2 checked bags, 2 coaches. Another 120 bags. To make the math easier we can round that up to 128... and calculate another half of the original estimate.

4440 cubic feet, and you only need 1764 cubic feet.

This is where I ask Railjunkie if he's ever seen a baggage car more than half full.
Great analysis - Amtrak could have used you when deciding if they needed FULL baggage cars or half baggage and half dorm cars.....They should have NEVER ordered more than 20 baggage cars. 20 baggage cars would have been enough to equip a north-south train on the West Coast, north-south train on the East Coast and a cross-country east-west train........
  by nomis
 
The biggest issue we face today is the change order that reduced the amount of Bag-Dorms from 25 to 10. That reduction makes a Bag-Dorm a hot commodity, where it could of been a standard on every single level LD train.
  by bostontrainguy
 
nomis wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 8:15 am The biggest issue we face today is the change order that reduced the amount of Bag-Dorms from 25 to 10. That reduction makes a Bag-Dorm a hot commodity, where it could of been a standard on every single level LD train.
Yeah that still makes me scratch my head. I thought Amtrak was smart and had a contract coming with the US Postal Service because at the time there was a report that sending mail by train would save millions of dollars. The bag/dorm idea is brilliant. Obviously Amtrak isn't with that bonehead decision.
  by electricron
 
nomis wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 8:15 am The biggest issue we face today is the change order that reduced the amount of Bag-Dorms from 25 to 10. That reduction makes a Bag-Dorm a hot commodity, where it could of been a standard on every single level LD train.
Why do you think decreasing the number of bag-dorm cars by 15 while increasing the number of bag cars by 15 is an issue?
Number of bag-dorm cars before the Viewliner 2 order was ZERO, although there were 17 25XX series Crew Dorms.
Number of bag cars before the Viewliner 2 order was 36 17XX series, 45 12XX series, and 13 11XX series, totaling 94
Ultimate Viewliner 2 order was 10 bag-dorm cars and 70 bag cars.

So, the 70 Viewliner 2 baggage cars did not replace all the existing 94 baggage cars (just 74%) , nor did the 10 Baggage-Dorm cars replace all the existing 17 Dorm cars (just 59%).
But, if all 25 Baggage-Dorm cars had been built as originally planned, there would have been a 47% increase in Dorm cars. That would also mean just 55 baggage cars would have been built, with 58% being replaced vs the 74%.

Second guessing Amtrak a decade after making a decision is easy to do, where were you when that decision was made?
  by Alex M
 
Concerning the Viewliner I sleepers: From what I have read these were to be overhauled once the VII cars were delivered. Is this still the plan? If so, would Beech Grove do the work or will they be sent to CAF for rebuilding?
  by Gilbert B Norman
 
Mr. Alex M, at one time, that was the plan, but however needed, it appears to be "shelved".

Possibly, should traffic return to '19 levels, that project could move forth. Even if I have not been near a V-I since '06, my observations at that time certainly suggested the need for a "top to bottom".

But I guess the "couple" of V-I's that got reliveried to Phase III (I observed one during '18 at Danville VA on a "very late" #20) will have to suffice.
  • 1
  • 332
  • 333
  • 334
  • 335
  • 336