Passenger Trains > Could CAF build new Superliners if needed?

Subject line pretty much says it all. If Amtrak approached CAF with a new Superliner order, could they build them? As most know the original cars were built by Pullman Standard, and the second generation Superliner II's were built by Bombardier. Who owns the rights or patents to this design? And since we're on the subject how many more years of service can Amtrak expect from the original Superliner I fleet?

Didn't they enter service in about 1980? That would make them 34 years of service. But wait. The Budds on the Canadian entered service in 1955 giving them currently nearly 60 years of service and going strong. So with that as a guideline, with proper maintaince and refurbishment every 10 years or so, shouldn't they last another 25 years? I guess the question is...were they as well built as the Budds to begin with?

oilcan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Subject line pretty much says it all. If Amtrak
> approached CAF with a new Superliner order, could
> they build them? As most know the original cars
> were built by Pullman Standard, and the second
> generation Superliner II's were built by
> Bombardier. Who owns the rights or patents to this
> design? And since we're on the subject how many
> more years of service can Amtrak expect from the
> original Superliner I fleet?

Those cars are so old that you can rest assured that any patents involved have all expired long ago.

But since the current new order of double deckers is being executed quite nicely by the Japanese consortium, why would Amtrak suddenly go to CAF?

Jishnu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> oilcan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Subject line pretty much says it all. If Amtrak
> > approached CAF with a new Superliner order,

> But since the current new order of double deckers
> is being executed quite nicely by the Japanese
> consortium, why would Amtrak suddenly go to CAF?


Hi Jishnu,

I had not heard about this until now. So is this Japanese company building the next generation Superliner? Can you point me toward more information on this please? Will this order include new coaches, sleeping cars, lounges and dining cars? I'd like to know more.

Thanks!
Jim

oilcan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jishnu Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > oilcan Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Subject line pretty much says it all. If
> Amtrak
> > > approached CAF with a new Superliner order,
>
> > But since the current new order of double
> deckers
> > is being executed quite nicely by the Japanese
> > consortium, why would Amtrak suddenly go to
> CAF?
>
>
> Hi Jishnu,
>
> I had not heard about this until now. So is this
> Japanese company building the next generation
> Superliner? Can you point me toward more
> information on this please? Will this order
> include new coaches, sleeping cars, lounges and
> dining cars? I'd like to know more.
>
> Thanks!
> Jim

The new cars are not "Superliners". They are double decker cars for state services and are similar to the existing California Car fleet. The cars are being made by [u]Nippon Sharyo USA.[/u]

Bombardier owns rights to the tooling, drawings, specifications, engineering information, etc. Unless a totally new design were to be brought forward, in which case they would not - could not - be called or referred to as "Superliners", the only avenue is via Bombardier, Bombardier is the sole legal and corporate successor to both Pullman Technology and Budd.

In the FWIW department all drawings for the tooling are available, and all drawings are available (though I doubt they'd be sent t another manuf. unless Amtrak, the owner of record dictated that - but, certain aspects would not be transferred).

There are drawings and specifications of the "Canadian Superliners", just as there are for the Pullman-built Santa Fe full domes. A lot of stuff that never was was fully specified, engineered and drawn.

Simple answer to the subject: NO.

Could they build something better and more up to date? Certainly. But...

*IF* this was a concern of Amtrak (and it certainly doesn't appear that it is) Amtrak *SHOULD* have had specifications and drawings at the ready. That they didn't, and wasted precious years when they could have been built is not only obvious, but is the main reason I continue to say LD trains are circling the drain - LD two level, more than 700 mile trains with sleepers - Viewliners, baggage cars and single level dorms need not apply.

A couple of questions that would be of greater importance are:
1. Does a complete set of drawings/blueprints still exist for the cars and the components that went into those cars?
2. How many of the suppliers that supplied the components to the original builds are still in business? If not, is there someone comparable that could do the work?
I view this as similar to the situation that has been faced by the military with the M1 family of main battle tanks. The "lights are being kept on" at Lima - even though the Department of Defense has said that they are set with the tanks in inventory, both to prevent the loss of the skilled labor at Lima that assembles the tanks (even though they haven't built a hull from scratch in more than a decade) AND to keep the component supply chain going - even at reduced rates until the next generation tank ramps up in 10 to 15 years.

Posted from iPhone

1. Yes, as indicated above - not only for the parts, but also for the tooling to create said parts
2. No idea, yes.

MSchwiebert Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A couple of questions that would be of greater
> importance are:
> 1. Does a complete set of drawings/blueprints
> still exist for the cars and the components that
> went into those cars?
> 2. How many of the suppliers that supplied the
> components to the original builds are still in
> business? If not, is there someone comparable that
> could do the work?
> I view this as similar to the situation that has
> been faced by the military with the M1 family of
> main battle tanks. The "lights are being kept on"
> at Lima - even though the Department of Defense
> has said that they are set with the tanks in
> inventory, both to prevent the loss of the skilled
> labor at Lima that assembles the tanks (even
> though they haven't built a hull from scratch in
> more than a decade) AND to keep the component
> supply chain going - even at reduced rates until
> the next generation tank ramps up in 10 to 15
> years.
>
> Posted from iPhone

Thanks! Your post came through while I was typing mine up.


rswebber Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1. Yes, as indicated above - not only for the
> parts, but also for the tooling to create said
> parts
> 2. No idea, yes.
>
> MSchwiebert Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > A couple of questions that would be of greater
> > importance are:
> > 1. Does a complete set of drawings/blueprints
> > still exist for the cars and the components
> that
> > went into those cars?
> > 2. How many of the suppliers that supplied the
> > components to the original builds are still in
> > business? If not, is there someone comparable
> that
> > could do the work?
> > I view this as similar to the situation that
> has
> > been faced by the military with the M1 family
> of
> > main battle tanks. The "lights are being kept
> on"
> > at Lima - even though the Department of Defense
> > has said that they are set with the tanks in
> > inventory, both to prevent the loss of the
> skilled
> > labor at Lima that assembles the tanks (even
> > though they haven't built a hull from scratch
> in
> > more than a decade) AND to keep the component
> > supply chain going - even at reduced rates
> until
> > the next generation tank ramps up in 10 to 15
> > years.
> >
> > Posted from iPhone

Could CAF build new Superliner cars? Yes, if Amtrak and Bombardier and CAF all agreed to the deal.

Would it be a smart move? Who knows? Did Bombardier keep the tooling from the Superliner orders? If they did then would they part with that? Did Amtrak actually buy the tooling? If the tooling still exists then has it been maintained? Is there a better way to do it today with new technology and materials?

John Gezelius
Tustin, CA

Would any new bi-level order have to be compliant with the bi-level standard specification?

The most economical way to get new equipment for the Western LDTs would be to keep the Viewliner production line going and gradually convert the Western trains back to single level. The fleet could be redeployed anywhere according to the demand if it is all standard. I'm expecting to hear a thousand reasons on why this would be bad, but I'd rather have a single level Western LDT (possibly pulled by a modified freight engine) than no train at all.

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The most economical way to get new equipment for
> the Western LDTs would be to keep the Viewliner
> production line going and gradually convert the
> Western trains back to single level. The fleet
> could be redeployed anywhere according to the
> demand if it is all standard. I'm expecting to
> hear a thousand reasons on why this would be bad,
> but I'd rather have a single level Western LDT
> (possibly pulled by a modified freight engine)
> than no train at all.

Would also open up the possibility for bringing back real domes with 360 view.

I wonder if the Army tank plant in Lima OH could produce these cars in its spare time? They certainly have expertise in handling metal and complicated assembly procedures.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wonder if the Army tank plant in Lima OH could
> produce these cars in its spare time? They
> certainly have expertise in handling metal and
> complicated assembly procedures.

Stainless Steel tanks anyone LOL!

Jishnu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lackawanna484 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I wonder if the Army tank plant in Lima OH
> could
> > produce these cars in its spare time? They
> > certainly have expertise in handling metal and
> > complicated assembly procedures.
>
> Stainless Steel tanks anyone LOL!

Yes

I initially thought of them as a sub-assembler for the long backlog of 1232 tank cars. It's a skill set they have, and the capability of moving lots of steel. Trinity and Greebrier etc are backed up considerably right now on oil tank and grain hopper orders.

As I recall, the Super II's, which included the state-named sleeping car series, did not come on line until around 1992 or so. The Super I's were late 1980's, as Amtrak finished up conversions from steam heat to head-end power.

There were massive delays and cost over-runs, labor union problems, etc.

The 40 year re-building will have to be accomplished by 2030 or so, but if that takes place, there could be service out of these cars until 2070. There is more life left in them than any of the readers of this post.

CAF apparently reverse-engineered the viewliners from scratch, at least that has been the story we have been fed so far. It would not seem unlikely that they, or some other fabricator, could do the same thing with the Supers. China knocks-off just about everything from photos and by looking at prototypes. Or, Chinese government spies will steal the drawings if they still exist. So there is no question that the Communists could easily duplicate a Superliner.

Sadly, a bunch of the Supers have been wrecked, rebuilt, and wrecked again. There are numerous web-sites on the internet listing the status of Amtrak's Superliners on a car-by-car basis.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/22/14 06:57 by NewRiverGeorge.

NewRiverGeorge Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The 40 year re-building will have to be
> accomplished by 2030 or so, but if that takes
> place, there could be service out of these cars
> until 2070. There is more life left in them than
> any of the readers of this post.

LOL! That is a memorable line.

> CAF apparently reverse-engineered the viewliners
> from scratch, at least that has been the story we
> have been fed so far. It would not seem unlikely
> that they, or some other fabricator, could do the
> same thing with the Supers. China knocks-off just
> about everything from photos and by looking at
> prototypes. Or, Chinese government spies will
> steal the drawings if they still exist. So there
> is no question that the Communists could easily
> duplicate a Superliner.

Anything can be done, but at what cost? Of course there is more to reverse engineering a railroad passenger car than a coffee maker. One comes with a lot more risks (that it is structurally sound) and potential liability. The Chinese did not prove so great in adapting train control systems.

If by chance the LDT network survives and in our wildest dreams actually has a few new routes added, the reasonable approach would be to rebuild Superliner's as long as doing so is economically feasible. Any shortage of capacity as the Superliner fleet size decreases would be picked up by adding to the single level fleet. I think most of us would agree what trains to pick if we had to convert a few to single level.

The one train that would have to remain Superliner would be the AutoTrain because of train length constraints.

CAF Did not reverse-engineer the Viewliners. They did engineer the tooling to build them, as that varies for each car builder. Amtrak bought the Viewliner design from Budd and has all the drawings and a legal right to share them with carbuilders they choose to build them. The Superliner, not so, that is a proprietary design of Pullman-Standard and Bombardier owns that design. As a practical matter, Amtrak has the drawings of the Superliners needed to maintain them, they don't have the thousands of manufacturing and tooling drawings that Bombardier created to build them, and that is what Bombardier owns

As for converting the western trains back to single level, the train lengths would be unmanageable, and make the current situation of short platforms that require 2 stops even worse. Don't look for that to be happening.

SilverPeakRail Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As for converting the western trains back to
> single level, the train lengths would be
> unmanageable, and make the current situation of
> short platforms that require 2 stops even worse.
> Don't look for that to be happening.

Would you say the average capacity of a Superliner car is about a third more than that of a single level car? Obviously as the Superliner fleet shrinks, you would chose what route to convert next on operational factors such as platform size. When you get into buying new Superliners at a cost exceeding $10 million apiece, the poor economics of LDTs might become impossibly worse. Building longer platforms or allowing for double stops in the schedule might not be such a bad tradeoff after all.