Passenger Trains > Amtrak Diner Indianapolis (Viewliner Diner)

Hello All,
Per the Amtrak yahoo group Amtrak Dining Car Indianapolis, 8400, arrived in Chicago today on Hoosier State. For those who do not know this is the rebuilt Viewliner Diner. My understanding is that it is now in service. Also the number board now bares the name Indianapolis.
Nick

Posted from iPhone



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/11 20:40 by NGotwalt.

I read about this on another forum. Something about ride testing. Also said the car was gutted and was given a new interior. Only the shell and trucks were not changed. Would love to see this cars interior!

Posted from Android

Let's see a photo, already!!

For reasons unknown the diner and the other cars that deadhead up from Beech Grove on #850 (Superliner 37014, ?10404 and Horizon Coach 53505) all returned to the Grove on #851 that evening.
Apparently the consist was not switched at all in Chicago.

Andy

Amtrak might want to use this in a place where it's needed and test it on the Cardinal...

cashblock Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Amtrak might want to use this in a place where
> it's needed and test it on the Cardinal...


At a slooooooow speed no doubt!

Video of the Viewliner Diner 8400 "Indianapolis" at Chicago, courtesy Davis Strench at "Amtrakmodeler"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz1KgJBDhXM

NOTE: this is the CORRECT URL. Those who are members of Amtrakmodeler may have first received a message
about this video clip with an erroneous URL, one from the domain "www.pornhub.com" (!!!)

Don't ask...

It's supposedly out for road testing right now, which I assume means they will keep it near to Chicago. So running it as a deadhead car on the Hoosier State does makes sense.

Then it is supposed to be deployed on the Lake Shore Limited, thus giving an extra spare Heritage Diner to be shuffled around.

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Video of the Viewliner Diner 8400 "Indianapolis"
> at Chicago, courtesy Davis Strench at
> "Amtrakmodeler"
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz1KgJBDhXM
>
> NOTE: this is the CORRECT URL. Those who are
> members of Amtrakmodeler may have first received a
> message
> about this video clip with an erroneous URL, one
> from the domain "www.pornhub.com" (!!!)
>
> Don't ask...

Be prepared for a headache! Nice subjects,BUT lousy camera work.Get a tripod!

Uncle Joe-Seffner,Fl.

CSX requires XX number of axles on train, so they have to add cars to 850-851 for CSX to accept.

CN-IC requires the same thing on City of New Orleans, but now with adding the lounge car, it solves the probelm.

Its too bad, they do not operate a Horizon food car in service on 850-851,

mundo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CSX requires XX number of axles on train, so
> they have to add cars to 850-851 for CSX to
> accept.
>
> CN-IC requires the same thing on City of New
> Orleans, but now with adding the lounge car, it
> solves the probelm.
>
> Its too bad, they do not operate a Horizon food
> car in service on 850-851,

Curious, what's the reason for a minimum-axle requirement?

gregtravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Curious, what's the reason for a minimum-axle
> requirement?


Generally, it is to make sure that crossing signals activate, that there are sufficient axles to short the circuit between the rails to be "detected". That said, I have never heard of a situation where a train anywhere near the size of the City of New Orleans might not be sufficient. Never heard of any issues with the Heartland Flyer between Fort Worth and Oklahoma City, for example, and that often only runs with three cars a locomotive on each end.

czephyr17 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> gregtravis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Curious, what's the reason for a minimum-axle
> > requirement?
>
>
> Generally, it is to make sure that crossing
> signals activate, that there are sufficient axles
> to short the circuit between the rails to be
> "detected". That said, I have never heard of a
> situation where a train anywhere near the size of
> the City of New Orleans might not be sufficient.
> Never heard of any issues with the Heartland Flyer
> between Fort Worth and Oklahoma City, for example,
> and that often only runs with three cars a
> locomotive on each end.


Generally it's drier in that part of the country, it does not cause the rust to develop as quickly on the ball of the rail, which is the primary cause if shunting problems. Also BNSF may or may not run more trains on the line to remove the rust. A general rule for minimum axles is good to ensure at least one axle further back in the train will shunt. The requirement is an arbitrary one, however dependent on season and weather conditions, it is one that will always ensure shunting.

I'm glad a serviceable car is back on the roster, especially a single level diner, which they are extremely short of.