Passenger Trains > Black roof diner

The heritage diner in the photo has a black roof. Actually, it appeared to be "off black" bordering on a very dark gray. This car has a perfectly good stainless roof and there seems to be no reason to have painted it. Is this a preview of things to come? Sort of reminds me of what Seaboard Coast Line did to their former SAL cars. Picture taken in Raleigh, 2/20/11, train 92.

---

When you see a Budd car with a painted roof, that usually means that some of the Shotwelds® have met their expiration date. After a few are patched up, a coat of good ol' fashioned trailer paint is put on to keep them from leaking (it now contains fiberglas instead of asbestos). Despite what many people think, Budd cars do not last forever, sixty years of being pounded on the rails will sooner or later start fatiguing the nugget welds; and in particular, those that had poorly executed repairs in the past (read PRR or NYC) will start cracking from the poor repairs.

p.s. Black roof paint adds 5% to the ambient heat load in the summertime; more work for the HVAC system. That's why we used silver roofcoat when needed on the Budd fleet I helped manage in the '90's.

TL

Just speculating -- even stainless roofs get dirty, and car washing doesn't extend past the roof hip in most cases. Condensation allows atmospheric junk to collect and look for all the world like grid patterns of rust, following the internal framing pattern. Dirty stainless looks dirty even if it's stainless, and maybe the thinking is that gray won't?

~ BZ

TorchLake Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When you see a Budd car with a painted roof, that
> usually means that some of the Shotwelds® have
> met their expiration date. After a few are
> patched up, a coat of good ol' fashioned trailer
> paint is put on to keep them from leaking (it now
> contains fiberglas instead of asbestos). Despite
> what many people think, Budd cars do not last
> forever, sixty years of being pounded on the rails
> will sooner or later start fatiguing the nugget
> welds; and in particular, those that had poorly
> executed repairs in the past (read PRR or NYC)
> will start cracking from the poor repairs.
>

Thank God they are not painting them black. At the very end of regular passenger service on the B&O Railroad, a few of the cars were painted with an aluminum paint (mixed with a roof treatment product) and the results were that the cars cooled much faster. When the private car company called "Railroad Passenger Cars" (RRP)in Baltimore purchased a bunch of B&O passenger cars for the Baltimore Chapter NRHS trips, they began to paint their car roofs with this aluminum paint. One of their mechanical officers told me at the time that it definitely improved the airconditiioning and allowed the car to cool much quicker. Let's face it, black or dark blue maintains heat.
JH a/k ClubCar

> p.s. Black roof paint adds 5% to the ambient heat
> load in the summertime; more work for the HVAC
> system. That's why we used silver roofcoat when
> needed on the Budd fleet I helped manage in the
> '90's.
>
> TL

Santa Fe painted a number of prewar Budd diner roofs with silver paint during shopping later in their service lives. In fact, some cars were painted partway down the side to above the windows. There was rust and weathering that just was not cost effective to fix, so out came the paint sprayers. Unfortunatly, as time went on, the paint started to chip and fade, leaving a ratty appearance.

Note that VIA's Budd car fleet roofs are NOT painted black.
They never were and never will. And if they are painted it must be a clear coat.
Als note that NYC and Southern RR Budd cars had black roofs and I think they did end up painting the roofs because they got so filthy.
Some NYC Budds had black roofs and some didn't - who knows why?

Hal

When Amfleet hits 40 , will they paint their roofs black, and exactly where do the side ends and roof begin ?

In hell. Oh, sorry, just speaking from an Amfleet passenger's perspective! :-)

Notch16 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In hell. Oh, sorry, just speaking from an Amfleet
> passenger's perspective! :-)

I've taken Amfleet a lot on the NEC (hellz, my only other experience with Amtrak equipment is Acela), and every time I take it, I remember all the moaning about them here on TO, and simply don't understand it.

Why are they so horrible???

Sure, they are not as good as Acela, or some of the equipment I've ridden in Europe, but, objectively, they are not bad!! And I think that certain railfans (the subcategory that is "foamers") should just get over it.

My first experience on Amfleet-1 outside the NEC was in 1978 on the Pioneer and the Seattle locals to the NRHS convention. The railfans hated them, but they were the only type of train that worked properly and ran on-time. I also liked the novelty of riding this lost NEC train through the Oregon Blue Mountains.

ChS7-321 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Notch16 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > In hell. Oh, sorry, just speaking from an
> Amfleet
> > passenger's perspective! :-)
>
> I've taken Amfleet a lot on the NEC (hellz, my
> only other experience with Amtrak equipment is
> Acela), and every time I take it, I remember all
> the moaning about them here on TO, and simply
> don't understand it.
>
> Why are they so horrible???
>
> Sure, they are not as good as Acela, or some of
> the equipment I've ridden in Europe, but,
> objectively, they are not bad!! And I think that
> certain railfans (the subcategory that is
> "foamers") should just get over it.

Amfleet deserves the same respect that older Budd cars get. Same Budd quality and stainless steel construction. An Amfleet at 125 MPH on the NEC is an excellent ride.

Note that the loading door and frame have been replaced. I'd say this car was in some sort of a collision or other mishap, maybe fire? Paint and putty can hide a multitude of sins, and maybe that's what's happening here? Who knows the history of this car?

Am I being called a "foamer"? Apparently. I'm not sure what that probable insult has to do with anything I'm saying in context as a regular train-rider and passengers, so back off wit dat "foamer" name-calling stuff, eh? Name-calling. Really.

I rode mile after uncomfortable mile in first-generation Amfleet, trying in vain to find a comfortable position, find a place for my forearms that wasn't touching a frigid piece of extruded aluminum trim (winter or summer), or to ever see forward or even outside. I banged my head on the overhead racks, was jerked from side to side from the inadequate lateral damping of the inside-bearing trucks, lurched to stops by the grabby, smelly brakes, and could not find a position to rest my head that wasn't constrained by the dopey little wings on the 'headrest', whose legacy we still suffer today. I'm not even mentioning the slabby seat cushions with no compliance. This gripefest has gone on long enough!

Yes, they worked perfectly as trainsets, and if I'd been working the trains, I'd have enjoyed that greatly in comparison to the patched-up and miserable 'old days'. I have not ridden in subsequent Amfleet generations, and I should have said so. But my negative comments apply equally to Superliners, which some folks find very, very nice. I should clarify my point: I hated the pinched-up, airline-style confines of Amfleet I in direct comparison to the 1950-60 era coaches they often replaced.

Are they pleasant now? In the absence of direct comparison with the 'old days', sure, probably. If that's all you know, and there's worse out there, then sure. I'd love them too. Sorry for hashing up old memories. Amfleet I was an expedient way to build equipment for a cash-strapped Amtrak. They were not designed from the ground up for the uses to which they were assigned, and they were built with airline sensibilities stemming from their late 1960s Metroliner roots as fast urban transit in direct marketing competition with jets.

"Foamer." Really, now...

~ BZ

Notch16 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I rode mile after uncomfortable mile in
> first-generation Amfleet, trying in vain to find a
> comfortable position, find a place for my forearms
> that wasn't touching a frigid piece of extruded
> aluminum trim (winter or summer), or to ever see
> forward or even outside. I banged my head on the
> overhead racks, was jerked from side to side from
> the inadequate lateral damping of the
> inside-bearing trucks, lurched to stops by the
> grabby, smelly brakes, and could not find a
> position to rest my head that wasn't constrained
> by the dopey little wings on the 'headrest', whose
> legacy we still suffer today. I'm not even
> mentioning the slabby seat cushions with no
> compliance. This gripefest has gone on long
> enough!


Sorry, not long enough! To add to Notch 16’s list…tiny, shoulder-height windows with fluorescent lighting reflecting back in your eyes. And rough, noisy ride. Noisy air conditioning. And toilet smell that permeated the whole car. And incredibly-stiffly sprung restroom doors with a tiny round handle so close to the door jamb that you skinned your knuckles opening it. And small stiffly sprung sink faucet handles with hot water that went from 70 to 150 degrees in two seconds. And stupid tubular car body design with trucks that looked like they were off a kid's wooden toy train. And...

I have ridden many types of passenger equipment. Amfleet 1 is by far the worst. I've always been amazed that the Budd company could put out such junk. Worst passenger equipment ever made!!

Bob

I don't know, guys. A lot of the problems described seem to have been fixed in subsequent rebuilts as I personally have yet to experience them. And regarding the rough ride......let's not forget that PRR only ran their trains up to 100mph, not 125.....so comparisons should be done with a grain of salt. Outside of the NEC, when the Budd cars were at their prime, railroads maintained their rails for passenger traffic.....not now.

Let's see how those old cars would have done on modern rails and at 125mph in the Northeast.

I'm not saying that they were bad......on the contrary, they were really good.....but there's a lot of factors that you people fail to take into account when you start your moaning.

'You people' and 'moaning' -- still going for the respectful diplomatic debate style, I see. Mom told me not to engage.

bnsfbob, I left something off the list! I also forgot the hard, skinned-foam center armrests (eventually removed) which straddled the brown steel frame piece that nestled between the seats like a medieval torture rack. But I digress, foamingly.

I surely don't spend any time here getting in scuffles, it doesn't pay. Let's say this: I mean no one any disrespect, and am talking about my experiences, likely experienced before some people on this forum were born. So, between that and apparently being a classifiable foamer, anyone can feel free to discount my testimony. Although I don't think I need to suggest the option for something that's already been done.

Amfleet I in the San Joaquin Valley of California over nice Santa Fe rails when brand-new and perfectly maintained was uncomfortable in every way, unless one's only criteria were 'new' and 'functional'. In that respect, they were totally absolutely freaking awesome.

And I have no doubt that many things have been improved in subsequent generations. It's not all crap now, and just because I hated Amfleet then doesn't mean I'm not open to experiencing Amfleet LXXVII now. But whenever I see them in a potential consist, no matter what the generation, you'll have to forgive me if I run the other way out of post-traumatic stress disorder.

~ A Moaning Foamer People

notch16, I will have to agree with you for the most part; again I am an older person who has had the privilege of riding quality passenger cars (heavy-weights with 6 wheel trucks and newer light-weights with 4 wheel trucks) that were built for the B&O and the C&O, along with some of the former Pennsylvania R.R. passenger cars on the Northeast Corridor. The only thing I can say is that we had quality riding cars back in the 1950's and 1960's and all of these folks who have not experienced this type of travel, I am sorry for you. Hopefully many of you younger generation will have the chance to ride an excursion train which operates these types of cars or you can go up to Canada and ride on one of the VIA trains that still operates this type of equipment. Trust me, you WILL see and feel the difference.
JH a/k ClubCar

Amcans are clearly Budd products and are nearing 40 years old. The Acela crap can't withstand the beating it's getting and the ride is getting worse after only 10 years on service. VIA mechies have mentioned that they're already starting to see the same issues Amtrak did with the old school Budds. They wear out and are wearing out. Was this diner the one that got gashed open by the box car door a short while back? The Amfleet seats are far more comfortable than any coach class airline seat or commuter rail seat and the new bathrooms don't have the same size issues of old -outside of some riders being pigs. Those who think otherwise clearly haven't traveled by cattle class in a while.

I've ridden Cali cars, Superliner I & II, Viewliners, 10-6's, AmI's and II's, Asmella, all sorts of commuter cars and still come back to the Amcans with a degree comfort. I'll take them over anything I've seen in shots of in the PC era of the late 60's.


-Tom

Have seen many Heritage Diners operating out of the NYC hub and I haven't seen a diner with its roof painted black - just Diners that need a really good cleaning! If you were to put a dirty Heritage Diner in Newark Penn Station or even Philadelphia 30th Street Station, the dim light and such is going to make the dirt look even worse and darker. I think that's what you are seeing here, only something weird with the shadowing or light. Look back at the Viewliner.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/24/11 09:38 by jp1822.

Hi guys;
What car number has this grey roof? Any one have an update on "whats left" ? In Amtrak's fleet of Heritage Diners, and Baggage cars?
400's forever