Nostalgia & History > Amtrak & UP Smooth-sided cars?

In a thread below, it's mentioned by 'gyralite' that Amtrak refused to buy UP's smooth-sided cars. I guess the comment refers mainly to domes, sleepers, and perhaps some other 'special' cars, since I know Amtrak got some UP coaches at least. Most of UP's domes subsequently went to Auto-Train. I always assumed it was probably a matter of UP's asking price, since their equipment certainly seemed to be in superior condition upon the start of Amtrak. (PC roach-coaches, anyone?) Does anyone have any more info on why Amtrak passed on most of UP's passenger equipment?

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?11,2201714

davew833 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In a thread below, it's mentioned by 'gyralite'
> that Amtrak refused to buy UP's smooth-sided cars.
> I guess the comment refers mainly to domes,
> sleepers, and perhaps some other 'special' cars,
> since I know Amtrak got some UP coaches at least.
> Most of UP's domes subsequently went to
> Auto-Train. I always assumed it was probably a
> matter of UP's asking price, since their equipment
> certainly seemed to be in superior condition upon
> the start of Amtrak. (PC roach-coaches, anyone?)
> Does anyone have any more info on why Amtrak
> passed on most of UP's passenger equipment?
>
> http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?11,
> 2201714

davew,

Yes and no. I believe that the "prices" for equipment were determined independently. Also, Amtrak was trying to go with an all stainless fleet, preferably Budd but they took in a number of Pullman and ACF stainless sided cars as well. The initial fleet was about 1300 cars. Amtrak found out within a year that this was not enough and was leasing cars from just about everywhere. They ended up buying a second trance of cars, about 400 to 500 about 2 years after start up. The UP was quick to vend their cars as has been noted. One of the supposed reasons that Amtrak was not as interested in the UP cars were that they, in many cases, were aluminum and steel which required a fair amount of maintenance to keep them from becoming batteries, one of the reasons that UP's fleet always tended to look good was the amount of maintenance the cars received. Again, Amtrak was not supposed to last beyond the initial seven years and the carriers and the government was hoping it would just fade away.

J.

On the advice of their rolling stock consultant, whose name I have mercifully forgotten, the NRPC incoporators strongly preferred stainless steel equipment at the outset. The entire 447-car ATSF stainless steel fleet was acquired, even though some of those cars were already over 30 years old and in poor condition. The newer UP non-stainless cars, especially those built by ACF of aluminum on steel underframes, were rejected despite being in good repair.

The consultant believed that after rebuilding, the stainless steel equipment would give longer service than carbon steel and aluminum/steel cars (the latter as previouly noted corrode quickly from the "battery effect"). Given the almost exclusive adoption of stainless steel for new commuter, Amtrak and heavy rail transit equipment in this country, it seems the consultant was right after all, though to experienced train riders in 1971 and 1972 it did not always seem so.

As an off-topic side note, I believe it was the same consultant who specified stainless steel side panels on the F40C locomotives built for suburban service on the Milwaukee Road around the same time (though purchased and owned by the two mass transit districts representing the north [GLCMTD] and west line [NWSMTD] suburbs respectively prior to the formation of the Chicago RTA).

ATSF cars couldn't hold up on the Texas heat, so SP cars were sent there. Different AC systems didn't help either.