Passenger Trains > "Amtrak LD Service: Why Integrated Trainsets Won’t Work"

https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/intercity/amtrak-ld-service-why-integrated-trainsets-wont-work/

That's a powerful piece of rail journalism!
I keep thinking back to 1975 and the first order of Superliners by Paul Reistrup.
There wasn't any RFP or an exhaustive study.  Additionally, I don't believe there were any grants or even an authorized funding bill.
They just ordered a proven product, albeit from a different manufacturer, that would enable the company to prosper and grow.
Maybe they did put the cart ahead of the horse with the Superliner order, because there were many changes and an extended
production timeline, similar to all the following car orders.  However, I think Reistrup and the Amtrak board at the time realized
that time was short due to a quickly aging fleet, multiple derailments, weather related equipment issues.
We need that same urgency for a new LD equipment replacement today!

It's bad enough if one car is bad-ordered and has to be setoff say in the middle of New Mexico. Can you imagine a block of 4-cars with most of the handicapped arrangements being setoff  enroute?

Goes to show Amtrak has no grasp of operational reality. 

Yes, the new Acela's are "integrated Train Sets" in the true Railroad  meaning of the word

But, I feel Amtrak is mis-using the word "Train Set" -- when they actually mean a "Fixed Consist"

For example:  the new Siemens order to replace Amfleet-1 cars on the NEC and elsewhere.consist
of individual Venture coaches--with stand alone couplers at each end--NOT a "Fixed Train Set" in any way.

But, Amtrak  led us astray by saying the NEC will have fixed train sets of 8 cars; the Albany trains will
have fixed train sets of 6 cars and battery locos., etc.

They should have said these trains will have an "identical consist".--or "Fixed Consists"
and not  referring to them as a "Fixed Train Set".

They probably think of today's SW Chief as a "Fixed Train Set" - instead of having a fixed consist.







 

There's also a huge difference in a fixed Acela consist, where redundancy in service, or parallel regional service, can accommodate passengers when a cracked window sidelines an entire trainset. That's far different than dealing with a defect on a once-per-day, multi-day train.

Posted from Android

There probably isn't any active corporate memory left at Amtrak, but the original French turbo trains, used in the Midwest, were semi-permanently coupled 5-car train-sets. To get a 6-car set, say for Thanksgiving or Christmas loads, you had to create a 4-car set by default.  It also took an fair amount of time to disconnect one car from a set and insert into another.  All this had to be done at the Brighton Park facility, in Chicago.  They make it work in Japan with bullet trains, but at the cost of having to shop a 16-car train-set when one car has a problem.  Of course, they have available replacement train-sets, and we don't.  

SamRae Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There probably isn't any active corporate memory
> left at Amtrak, but the original French turbo
> trains, used in the Midwest, were semi-permanently
> coupled 5-car train-sets. To get a 6-car set, say
> for Thanksgiving or Christmas loads, you had to
> create a 4-car set by default.  It also took an
> fair amount of time to disconnect one car from a
> set and insert into another.  All this had to be
> done at the Brighton Park facility, in Chicago. 
> They make it work in Japan with bullet trains, but
> at the cost of having to shop a 16-car train-set
> when one car has a problem.  Of course, they have
> available replacement train-sets, and we
> don't.  

The current Acela set is also limited to the length of the service facilities.  Adding an extra car to the often sold out eatly morning DC to NY and vice versa trains is a huge uproar.

Besides their lack of institutional memory, they don't seem to know present day operations of the Lake Shore Ltd, Empire Builder, Texas Eagle, and Sunset Ltd. They are not going to split/merge two 9 or 10 cars train sets. If they append individual sleepers and coaches, they are not accessible to the diner and lounge. 

Even if they go to 4-car core of coach/lounge/diner/sleeper, what happens when they have to cut one car out in Havre, MT ?
What happens when the lead couple of cars gets badly damaged at the next grade crossing wreck ? 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/23 07:14 by joemvcnj.

Railroaders of the past--and we train fans of today-- know that a "Fixed" consist in ANY sense
of the term, limits revenue and ridership growth.  A "Sold Out" Accela proves this.

Ah!, But, a fixed consist that is never touched in yards--cuts switch crew costs!

Get the picture?

Many railroads cut mail cars,  dining cars and tavern cars in and out of trains en route. For many years the Erie used the stop in Huntington IN for this purpose. Cut in a new dining car with freshly stocked breakfast, or dinner, etc.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Many railroads cut mail cars,  dining cars and
> tavern cars in and out of trains en route. For
> many years the Erie used the stop in Huntington IN
> for this purpose. Cut in a new dining car with
> freshly stocked breakfast, or dinner, etc.

Yeah, but they had the staffing in place to cover that.  And those crews could do other work for the railroad during their shift.  With Amtrak on the LDT corridors out west, you'd have a crew work a few hours a different times of the day as the trains came through.  Staffing could be a challenge with a split schedule like that, and you'd have to satisfy the bean counters that the added expenses would be covered by additional revenues.

When I rode the Zephyr a few times in 91/92, the SP would tack on an extra Superliner coach for the ride from Sparks to Oakland.  I don't remember the last time that happened.

Nathan

Nathan

mp51w Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's a powerful piece of rail journalism! .........

> We need that same urgency for a new LD equipment
> replacement today!

We need that same type of leadership too.......

>
> When I rode the Zephyr a few times in 91/92, the
> SP would tack on an extra Superliner coach for the
> ride from Sparks to Oakland.  I don't remember
> the last time that happened.
>
> Nathan
amtrak used to do that from 1971 on, pre superliner 3 regular coaches sometimes.

This fixed consists crap shows you that amtrak is corridor centric, no reasonable person would do that  to long distance trains
 

bioyans Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There's also a huge difference in a fixed Acela
> consist, where redundancy in service, or parallel
> regional service, can accommodate passengers when
> a cracked window sidelines an entire train set.
> That's far different than dealing with a defect on
> a once-per-day, multi-day train.
>
> Posted from Android

Not only that, but there is a LOT of unique emergency equipment that is on the Acela Express train sets that can be used if needed too (e.g. to transfer passengers). There's a LOT of planning that had to go into that - fixed train sets AND high level exit/entrance only. 

In reading multiple articles, not only have I seen different diagrams appear (e.g. placement of the all roomette sleeper and all bedroom sleeper has often been swapped weirdly) but I still can't ascertain if these are truly "fixed core consists" or only semi. Has Amtrak even approached the freight railroads to see if they will allow such things on their tracks? The get to deal with the mess too if a train gets "stuck" or broken down out on the road. Surprisingly, I do like some of the general design work, but the practicality of it, is a COMPLETELY different story. Is the design team back to working in a bubble? Do we have another case of the Amfleet Diner Lite design? Concerning that non-railroad experienced people may be doing some of this work when perhaps they should be talking to those that designed/overhauled the Rocky Mountaineer, VIA Rail Canada cars, and even consultants from across the pond (despite the fact that the need FRA compliance). They can't even get dumb waiters to work in Superliner Diners (and those parts are NOT totally custom made) - how do they expect to keep elevators in a bi-level set with passengers working. 

If Amtrak would maintain the fleet and overhaul the fleet regularly, maybe there'd be a bit more less breakdowns. Instead its every excuse in the book here lately......Beech Grove has done some really neat things over the years - assisting with prototype Viewliners, building out Amtrak's business fleet cars, keeping some elder cars on the road longer than life expectancy (e.g. including overhauling and outfitting AT&SF Hi-Level cars with retention tanks and new interiors), overhauling the PRR Congo cars to create specialty Adirondack cars (in the late 1990s). But Beech Grove doesn't act without getting their orders from headquarters. And right now, they should even have a "Beech Grove 2.0" setup out in the LA Yards. 

ronald321 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, the new Acela's are "integrated Train Sets"
> in the true Railroad  meaning of the word
>
> But, I feel Amtrak is mis-using the word "Train
> Set" -- when they actually mean a "Fixed Consist"
>
> For example:  the new Siemens order to replace
> Amfleet-1 cars on the NEC and elsewhere.consist
> of individual Venture coaches--with stand alone
> couplers at each end--NOT a "Fixed Train Set" in
> any way.
>
> But, Amtrak  led us astray by saying the NEC will
> have fixed train sets of 8 cars; the Albany trains
> will
> have fixed train sets of 6 cars and battery
> locos., etc.
>
> They should have said these trains will have an
> "identical consist".--or "Fixed Consists"
> and not  referring to them as a "Fixed Train
> Set".
>
> They probably think of today's SW Chief as a
> "Fixed Train Set" - instead of having a fixed
> consist.
>

joemvcnj said it perfectly just before ronald123's post
"Goes to show Amtrak has no grasp of operational reality."

WP17 

Amtrak once practiced Reliability Centered Maintenance on its Acela fleet. Widely used in the US Navy for nuclear submarines, and in the Air Force for certain equipment. Intensive maintenance, and preventive replacement of parts at risk. Specialized, dedicated service teams.

It worked well for Acela reliability. As the program has for the Navy and Air Force.  Later, Amtrak decided RCM wasn't necessary, and its regular maintenance protocols are adequate for the job at hand.

 

mp51w Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's a powerful piece of rail journalism!
> I keep thinking back to 1975 and the first order
> of Superliners by Paul Reistrup.
> There wasn't any RFP or an exhaustive study. 
> Additionally, I don't believe there were any
> grants or even an authorized funding bill.
> They just ordered a proven product, albeit from a
> different manufacturer, that would enable the
> company to prosper and grow.
> Maybe they did put the cart ahead of the horse
> with the Superliner order, because there were many
> changes and an extended
> production timeline, similar to all the following
> car orders.  However, I think Reistrup and the
> Amtrak board at the time realized
> that time was short due to a quickly aging fleet,
> multiple derailments, weather related equipment
> issues.
> We need that same urgency for a new LD equipment
> replacement today!

This comment is substantially incorrect.

The Superliners were completely new designs. While they were inspired by, and based in general terms on concepts which Budd and Santa Fe had developed with the El Capitan bi-level cars, the designs were completely new by Pullman-Standard. And they most certainly were not "off the shelf". The actual design had in fact never been built before. P-S and Amtrak were clearly influenced by and inspired by the Budd / Santa Fe designs, but the Superliners were not copies. There was substantial new design and construction technoque and feature sets involved.

There had to have been an RFP or other specification document from Amtrak, particularly for a new design. An acquisition by a quasi-public entity like Amtrak using public funds of that scope and expense simply does not happen without an extensive specification document of some kind.

Amtrak in fact issued an RFP document in 1973. Thirteen companies responded with proposals in 1974. The proposal from design firm Louis T. Klauder Associates was then accepted. The Klauder firm has a long history in rail passenger car design work. The design was finished later that year. Four potential builders then bid (Boeing, Rohr, Budd and Pullman-Standard). All of this happened while Amtrak's first president, Roger Lewis, held that position. Lewis and the board of that period seldom get credit for the fact that this design process was initiated and mostly completed under their watch. The order for the first 200 Amfleet cars also happened during his administration.

P-S won the contract to build the first 235 cars on April 2,1975, a month after Paul Reistrup had taken over as president on March 1, 1975. Resitrup saw the design through to completion and placing into service. But the need case, specifications and design work had all been completed before he came to Amtrak.

Yes, there needs to be urgency in this new order's work. And yes, it will probably take longer than the initial Superliner order did, or than we would like, or than Amtrak and its passengers need. But the entire environment for designing and ordering new equipment today is substantially more intricate and involved, and with very different, higher and more complex standards, than in the 1973 - 75 time period. And among those additional design complexities that barely existed then are all of the the ADA accessibility standards that Amtrak is attempting to address with the first conceptual draft of these new designs.

Be careful about nostalgically oversimplifying the design, specification and contracting process, whether for these new cars, or anything else. I've done that kind of work in a different industry, and so have others here on TO. We know from experience that no matter how much you and your clients and various stakeholders wish to streamline and simplify the work that it is almost always demanding and complex. And seldom as easy-peasy as you suggest.

MC



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/23 18:05 by ironmtn.

A separate comment on the whole thrust of this thread, based on the article in Railway Age by Jim Tilley of the Florida Coalition of Rail Passengers.

There is much concern, both in Tilley's article and in this thread, about the operational practicality of a relatively fixed new long-distance trainset design. None of those concerns are inappropriate. Dealing with bad order setouts and accident-damaged cars, or simply with cars needing to be cut out of a consist for shop time for routine maintenance and updates / upgrades, in any kind of a relatively fixed consist is a very real operational concern. No one is wrong in raising it. It is an issue that must be solved. And it must be solved in some way that avoids cancelling a scheduled train for such actions, particularly because there is not a practical means to accomplish those entirely valid and necessary ends on an individual car set-out basis.

But missing from this thread, and from Tilley's article, is an understanding and articulation of the whole reason that Amtrak is proposing this. And that is to assure, by maintaining a cohesive core with full accessibility, what it has called "equivalent facilitation" in its first public presentation of these designs. As Amtrak has stated it:

"The ADA regulations listed above require certain accessible accommodations in each individual rail car. For trains that are made up of rail cars that are regularly connected to others and disconnected, having each car be accessible is a practical rule that ensures sufficient access to accessible seating locations and other accommodations. However, while this rule ensures that each railcar is technically accessible, each individual accessible location is “isolated,” not connected to other accessible locations, without access to a redundant restroom, and without direct (or often any) access to other parts of the train, such as dining, lounge, café or observation cars. [Emphasis is mine].

It is, in my view, the "isolation" for handicapped persons, and not having "access to a redundant restroom, and without direct (or often any) access to other parts of the train, such as dining, lounge, café or observation cars" that Amtrak is seeking to address by developing a proposed standard of "equivalent facilitation" (for regulatory approval - not just as a design idea). Amtrak, in my view, is trying to assure that handicapped persons have the same kind of access to all train services - coach seats, sleeping car space, lounge space, dining and cafe spaces - that non-handicapped persons do. And that they are not isolated, as now, into certain spaces set aside and equipped for them, but without the ability to move about and enjoy all of the train's features in the way that those of us who are not handicapped can do.

We absolutely must keep this in mind. There is very little or no legal wiggle room on this under the ADA law. And it is also a civic and moral obligation to treat handicapped persons in a fair and equitable manner, which allows them the same kind of opportunities when they travel as those of us who are not handicapped or disabled. Amtrak is working to satisfy the ADA requirements, as they must do. By having a fully accessible core section, with redundant restroom access, and accessible coach seats, sleeper space, and full access to lounge, dining and cafe facilities - while also being able to build a train with non-accessible cars on the end of that accessible core section - they are trying to "thread the needle" on providing good, non-isolated accessibility, and good facilities for non-handicapped persons as well.

Perhaps you have not read all of the legal underpinnings and rationale that Amtrak has. Here it is - read and study. It's not very easy to understand, and is no quick read. But even if you don't fully grasp it, I think you can better understand what Amtrak feels that it must do to satisfy the law, and why it is taking the approach that it is. Read from the "Introduction" down to "Events" at this URL: https://accessibilityfeedback-amtrak.com/#form

In the Railway Age article Jim Tilley really does not, in my opinion, show a full appreciation of this goal. His concern, like many of us, is maintaining flexibility. I agree, that's important. But I completely disagree with him that rebuilding the Superliners is the way to do it.

First, it would be expensive. Second, Amtrak would only by buying time - maybe 10-15 years - with equipment that has fundamentally just about reached the end of its economic service life. And even then would have accessible facilities that are compromises to the fuller, more equivalent facilities that Amtrak is proposing with the new cars. Yes, VIA did a rebuild of the Budd cars, and relatively successfully. But there has been widespread comment here and elsewhere, and I think correctly, that those wonderful Budd cars on the Canadian have just about reached the end of their practical service lives. Why limit the utility of a rebuilt Superliner to a 10- or maybe (with luck) 15-year horizon, perhaps with less fully accessible facilities, when Amtrak has the funding for completely new cars with a full lifetime service life horizon?

And there are practical problems. The vestibule end doors over the couplers of the Superliners are 30 inches wide. Source (the measurement is a little hard to find - my number comes from an Amtrak P-S maintenance document: file, available here: https://hvac-talk.com/vbb/attachment.php?attachmentid=842303&d=1673423822   See "Car Shell Data", pp. 1-25 and 1-26 following Figures 1-8 car disagrams - note some pages are misnumbered.. Also note: a previous incorrect URL / link for this downloadable PDF document has been corrected. Sorry for the mixup. (An interesting document in any case).

The standard for an accessible aisle or door, as in the new cars, is 32 inches or wider (I mistakenly said 36 inches in a previous post, which I have corrected - sorry). It is doubtful that the doors could be widened, as there are key framing and structural members and beefy collision posts directly adjacent. Also, the narrow stairways are 24 inches wide and are not straight. Room doors for the current non-handicapped rooms are 30 inches wide, and again might not be able to be widened.

Accessible facilities on the Superliners now are all based on lower-level spaces that are isolated, not shared with other public spaces, and lacking any pathway to the diner, lounge or cafe except via stairs, violating the "non-isolation" and "equal facilitation" standard Amtrak is trying to develop.  Maybe an elevator could be installed, but many of us have doubts about those. And the doorways, aisles, and floor plates over couplers and other features all are not to the same standard of accessibility that Amtrak is proposing for the new cars. And the Superliners probably could not be retrofitted in a way as to provide the kind of smooth transition path and flooring that is desired, and is present in the new Venture cars (and probably will also be in the new Airos).

And in the final analysis with a Superliner rebuild, wouldn't we end up at basically the same place and with the same issues of flexibility to handle repairs and bad order setouts and swaps for repairs as with the new designs - with a central core of diner - lounge - cafe that is made more accessible, and a need to provide an accessible path to it from coaches or sleepers that have been better enabled for accessibility through a costly rebuild? And won't we have the same issues of maintaining fully accessible services while handling the need for bad order and maintenance set-outs that will inevitably occur?

I think rebuilding the Superliners with greater accessibility is a non-starter. Maybe I'm wrong, and I'm open to other views - with support and reasoning, as I've tried to give.

So what do we do? I think we engage in creative advocacy, using our considerable knowledge and, for many of us, actual railroading expertise, to help Amtrak solve the very real issues of operation flexibility - issues that support and directly impinge on service reliability for all passengers. Instead of just rejecting a more fixed trainset concept, put the thinking caps on and try to solve the very real concerns that exist with that kind of consist design. In a past thread, I've tried to address a few of those factors: https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,5738848,page=1   There obviously are many more. Let's get about the work of solutions.

I don't work in the railroad industry or for Amtrak, and never have. I do not work with or for any handicapped or disabled advocacy group. I am not handicapped or disabled in any way. I'm just a regular, average Amtrak passenger. But there is a lot at stake here for Amtrak and for all of its passengers. It's our opportunity - and I believe our responsibility - to help Amtrak to get these new designs right - for all passengers. Let's accept the challenge, put the thinking caps on, do the hard work at the grindstone, and get to it.

MC



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/23 21:42 by ironmtn.

>
> This comment is substantially incorrect.
>
> The Superliners were completely new designs. While
> they were inspired by, and based in general terms
> on concepts which Budd and Santa Fe had developed
> with the El Capitan bi-level cars, the designs
> were completely new by Pullman-Standard. And they
> most certainly were not "off the shelf". The
> actual design has in fact never been built before.
> P-S and Amtrak were clearly influenced by and
> inspired by the Budd / Santa Fe designs, but the
> Superliners were not copies. There was substantial
> new design and construction technoque and feature
> sets involved.
>
> There had to have been an RFP or other
> specification document from Amtrak, particularly
> for a new design. An acquisition by a quasi-public
> entity like Amtrak using public funds of that
> scope and expense simply does not happen without
> an extensive specification document of some kind.
>
> Amtrak in fact issued an RFP document in 1973.
> Thirteen companies responded with proposals in
> 1974. The proposal from design firm Louis T.
> Klauder Associates was then accepted. The Klauder
> firm has a long history in rail passenger car
> design work. The design was finished later that
> year. Four potential builders then bid (Boeing,
> Rohr, Budd and Pullman-Standard). All of this
> happened while Amtrak's first president, Roger
> Lewis, held that position. Lewis and the board of
> that period seldom get credit for the fact that
> this design process was initiated and mostly
> completed under their watch. The order for the
> first 200 Amfleet cars also happened during his
> administration.
>
> P-S won the contract to build the first 235 cars
> on April 2,1975, a month after Paul Reistrup had
> taken over as president on March 1, 1975. Resitrup
> saw the design through to completion and placing
> into service. But the need case, specifications
> and design work had all been completed before he
> came to Amtrak.
>
> Yes, there needs to be urgency in this new order's
> work. And yes, it will probably take longer than
> the initial Superliner order did, or than we would
> like, or than Amtrak and its passengers need. But
> the entire environment for designing and ordering
> new equipment today is substantially more
> intricate and involved, and with very different,
> higher and more complex standards, than in the
> 1973 - 75 time period. And among those additional
> design complexities that barely existed then are
> all of the the ADA accessibility standards that
> Amtrak is attempting to address with the first
> conceptual draft of these new designs.
>
> Be careful about nostalgically oversimplifying the
> design, specification and contracting process,
> whether for these new cars, or anything else. I've
> done that kind of work in a different industry,
> and so have others here on TO. We know from
> experience that no matter how much you and your
> clients and various stakeholders wish to
> streamline and simplify the work that it is almost
> always demanding and complex. And seldom as
> easy-peasy as you suggest.
>
> MC
I agree it's a completely different car design, but I only meant Bi-level on a conceptual level.
I find it hard to believe Roger Lewis had the time or money for ordering new cars, when they had barely got the original inherited RR fleet refurbished!
Some members of Congress probably would not have been happy about those early RFP's either.  More power to him, but those early year budgets
were tiny and unrealistic for operating a national railroad passenger service, let alone a huge capital spending spree! 
It would be interesting to know who those 13 manufacturers were. 
In hindsight, it would have probably been quicker to go with Budd for a repeat Hi-level order.  Pullman Standard created a masterpiece with the Superliners,
but at the cost of profits,  jobs, and the heart and soul of that historic company.



 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/23 02:29 by mp51w.