Why does Amtrak use GE Genesis locomotives everywhere except the west coast? Wouldn't it make more sense to use the same locomotive nationwide, since technicians would only have to be trained to service one locomotive and, likewise, only parts for one locomotive would need to be stocked?
In addition, why does Amtrak use a different livery on the west coast than they do everywhere else?
Also, why does Amtrak use (relatively) new Superliner and Talgo cars only on the west coast?
These things have puzzled me for awhile. Any insight on them would be greatly appreciated.
posted
The EMD F-59 locomotives were acquired by the local level sponsors of the West Coast and North Carolina services. Also, any government agency is wise to "spread the business around"; gotta keep everyone happy.
Regarding the livery, again talk to the local level sponsors.
While Amtrak does own several of the Talgo sets used in Washington, again this equipment was decided upon by the sponsoring agency. When the bills are being largely paid by local jurisdictions (as the Bush administration clearly wants with regards to passenger service) you dance to that piper's hornpipe. The assignment of Superliner equipment to the Washington Cascades is ostensibly a temporary measure and apparently will be reviewed once all the Talgo equipment is "back on its feet".
Regarding Superliner equipment, such is assigned to all Long Distance trains systemwide other than those operating over the Northeast Corridor.
Hope this helps.
Posts: 9977 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would add that the Superliners do operate on the Auto-Train and Capitol Limited so they're not exclusively 'out west'. They do not operate on any train (Crescent, Cardinal, Silver Service, Lake Shore) which spends any part of it's route on the Northeast Corridor where there are clearance issues. The tunnels around Baltimore or into Penn Station New York for instance.
Also, North Carolina's own 'Piedmont' uses former Kansas City Southern coaches built in the 1960's......they have HUGE windows, the best of any single-level Amtrak train (with the possible exception of the Talgos)....and these great coaches are exclusive to the Piedmont because they are owned by the NCDOT.
-------------------- David Pressley
Advocating for passenger trains since 1973!
Climbing toward 5,000 posts like the Southwest Chief ascending Raton Pass. Cautiously, not nearly as fast as in the old days, and hoping to avoid premature reroutes. Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even though the Genesis locomotives (made by GE) and the F59 locomotives (made by GM) both say "Amtrak" on them, the actual funding for these locomotives came from different sources. They were also purchased in different time frames, and the "low bid winner" may have been one or the other (that's just a guess on my part).
But here in California, the F59 locomotives that are used on the Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin trains say "Amtrak California" on them (as opposed to just, "Amtrak"). This is because they have heavy state funding, and they are run almost as a completely different company.
In the Pacific Northwest, as GBNorman pointed out, Amtrak owns a few sets of the Talgos and the state of Washington owns a set or two (Oregon does not own any). Again, the funding comes into play, and because of this, the color scheme is chosen by the person with the biggest bank account (so to speak). The Cascades service is unique to the Pacific Northwest, thus, they wanted their equipment color scheme to be unique. Their menu items in the Bistro are also different than any other Amtrak train. But the employees look the same nationwide---same uniform, same colors, same name tags.
As to your Superliner question, this is also a bit complicated. Someone who is very "into" Amtrak can probably explain this a lot better than I can, but here's my shot at it.......There are TWO versions of Superliner cars. There is the "Superliner I" which was made by Pullman before they went bankrupt, and there is the "Superliner II" made by Bombardier. To the average Joe, you can't tell the difference between a Superliner I and II. They look almost identical, except to the most discriminating eye (translation: railfan).
The interiors of these cars varies greatly. For example, the Superliner I sleeping cars that have not been refurbished are (in my opinion) disgusting. They are filthy dirty, they have chipped and broken orange formica countertops and orange and green formica doors, filthy dirty brown carpeting that runs up the walls and onto the ceiling, and extremely dirty, moldy, and disgusting restrooms----especially the floors in the deluxe bedroom showers. I have pictures I could show you but I have no idea how to post photos on this forum (and I have never seen photos posted here, so maybe it can't be done?).
On the other hand, several Superliner I's have been totally refurbished. They are very nice on the inside, clean, and have been re-engineered to make the bathrooms larger and the sinks more user-friendly. The refub I's are very nice (and they have the original style toilet flushing system that almost never fails).
The Superliner II's have never been totally refurbished like many of the I's have been. They have had things done to them over the years, but nothing as major as the re-engineering that was done to the I's. Many of the II's also have a poorly engineered and poorly maintained toilet flushing system that will fail---100% of the time---at high altitudes. Amtrak loses money every single day of every year by issuing travel vouchers to people who complain about their toilets not working in their bedroom that they paid $2,000 for. I wonder what's cheaper---continuing to issue travel vouchers every day, or just replacing the toilet flushing system with a newer design that does not fail as often?
As to your other question as to why certain equipment shows up on certain routes, well, there were times when I could have given you a solid answer. For example, when the Empire Builder was re-launched about 2 years ago, that train received all newly refurbished equipment. They had all of the Superliner I refurb cars, and Amtrak advertised this train with this new amenity. Like many things at Amtrak, the hoopla quickly fades and things go back to the way they were (which is usually lousy). Look at the Coast Starlight today. Brian Rosenwald is very unhappy to see this train in it's current condition (which is part of the reason why they will re-launch it----again----and give it another shot. Let's hope this re-launch lasts more than just a short time).
Ten years ago when the Coast Starlight was Amtrak's "premier train" (and it was heavily advertised as such), that train received all of the brand-new Superliner II equipment. Today, you will see a mish-mash of equipment on that train, although they have been trying lately to keep Superliner II sleepers on that particular route. They used to orient the sleepers so that the deluxe bedrooms always had an ocean-view along the coast, but like all things at Amtrak, it faded away.........now it's completely random whether or not the most expensive accommodations on that train will have an ocean view or not.
So to sum up the variety of Superliner equipment you see on long-distance trains, for the most part, it's just dumb luck as to what you will see. The one exception, as noted, is that they have tried to keep Superliner II sleepers on the Coast Starlight. When this train is re-launched in a few months, these sleepers will be refurbished and they have announced that this train WILL keep this sleepers. We'll see.....Amtrak is not very good at keeping these types of promises, as evidenced by the Coast Starlight, the Empire Builder cars showing up wherever Chicago decides to put them, and back when the Superliner II sleepers had state names, the Texas Eagle was supposed to have the sleepers with the state names that the train traversed. All of this was short-lived.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the detailed replies, folks---now the variations make more sense.
The fact that states who own equipment for the trains that they sponsor want this equipment used on these trains is understandable. However, IMO, rather than state sponsored trains, it's a shame that we don't have that money going toward an 80/20 federal/state funding system for passenger rail infrastructure instead. Such a funding system has existed for the interstate highways ever since construction first began on them, resulting in a nationwide highway network that is among the best in the world (although not always maintained well ). Imagine what this kind of funding system could produce for passenger rail!
Posts: 100 | From: Kernersville, NC | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tarheelman: However, IMO, rather than state sponsored trains, it's a shame that we don't have that money going toward an 80/20 federal/state funding system for passenger rail infrastructure instead. Such a funding system has existed for the interstate highways ever since construction first began on them, resulting in a nationwide highway network that is among the best in the world (although not always maintained well ). Imagine what this kind of funding system could produce for passenger rail!
Imagine indeed.
The absence of any dedicated funding source is why Amtrak must make an annual trip, hat in hand, begging at the Federal trough.
A dedicated funding source (such as a half cent of the Federal gasoline tax) so that Amtrak could effectively engage in long-range planning has been something we rail advocates have sought for probably close to thirty years now. Failure to get dedicated funding plus the absence of any type of 80/20 funding a la the highway system is the reason rail advocates speak of the playing field not being level among different modes.
Lot's of words to in effect say, you hit the nail on the head sir.
-------------------- David Pressley
Advocating for passenger trains since 1973!
Climbing toward 5,000 posts like the Southwest Chief ascending Raton Pass. Cautiously, not nearly as fast as in the old days, and hoping to avoid premature reroutes. Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
IMO, given the increasing concern about our country's dependence on foreign oil, the argument in favor of 80/20 federal/state funding for passenger rail infrastructure is very strong. Think about it---with this kind of funding program, dedicated passenger tracks designed for high speed rail could be built. Since HSR locomotives are electric, they obviously don't use any petroleum product for fuel. This fact, combined with the slightly lower fares that rail offers versus air travel, would make a high speed train an excellent alternative to flying for trips up to about 500 miles in length.
I realize that I'm preaching to the choir here, but I really feel that this argument makes a terrific case for an 80/20 federal/state funding program to benefit rail infrastructure.
Posts: 100 | From: Kernersville, NC | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, keep in mind that electricity for electric rail lines has to come from somewhere. Electric plants generate electricity using oil, coal, and nuclear (among others). Oil sustains the economy, and thus, life, here in the USA. Good or bad, this is reality.
The USA hasn't issued new licenses for nuclear power in decades. Why??? That's a political answer. But look at Europe, and specifically, France. 80% of their power comes from nuclear. Our nuclear plants are getting old. If we built more nuclear power plants, it would be clean and extremely efficient (and plentiful). If we want to stick to oil, there's a gigantic amount of it in Alaska. The solutions are there for us---but personal opinions and politics seems to trump peace.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Smitty - yes. Remember the huge three mile island nuclear accident? So far as I know nobody was injured, got sick or died. If it had been anything but nuclear no one would have even noticed. Paranoia and propoganda.
I have to simply laugh when people go on about the wonders of hydrogen powered cars. Let's see: Carry around a tank of explosive gas. And then, how do you get hydrogen? Usually by electric disassociation of water. Thermodynamics comes in: You always get less energy out of a system than you put in it, and you are right back to your original point, where are we getting the electricity.
There is still no free lunch.
"Wind farms? bird chopping boutiques. not serious quantity producers of energy.
I had better shut up now.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Smitty, you hit the nail on the head when you said that energy solutions are there for us, but personal opinions and politics are preventing us from utilizing these solutions.
As for HSR (with its electric locomotives) being one of these solutions, I forgot to mention that this is only true provided the electricity supplied to the catenary that powers these locomotives is generated either by nuclear power or by low sulfur coal. If it is, then HSR is an excellent alternative to petroleum powered cars, trucks, buses, and airplanes.
Posts: 100 | From: Kernersville, NC | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
). Imagine what this kind of funding system could produce for passenger rail!
