With Metra ordering 500 new cars to replace all of the their huge gallery car fleet, the question comes up of what happens to all of those soon to be retired gallery cars? Sadly the oldest PS and Budd cars (well over 50 years) will likely be scrapped (hopefully IRM gets one), but what about the many, many newer NS gallery cars? It would seem they are too new to be scrapped. What is the future of gallery cars? With Caltrain replacing their whole gallery car fleet with new EMU’s, that would leave VRE as the last major operator of those cars. Is there a need for maybe over 500 unneeded gallery cars?
The newest ones might be rebuilt, reseated, for regional service to replace the oldest cars used in California, North Carolina and Virgina reginal services.
The last Chicago and Northwestern 400 trains show a possible pattern.
The “Peninsula 400” and “Flambeau 400” had long-distance 96-seat gallery coaches and some other cars that were specifically designed for the service. They were not upgrades from suburban coaches.
NC has grants for new cars and locomotives. We won’t be taking any worn out gallery cars.
IMO the cars should be held in storage preferrability in dry area. That is in case there is a demand for rail capacity for some reason that we cannot even predict.
Designed for 400 service, primarily with different interior configurations (fewer, more comfortable seats for coaches and parlor cars) but the same basic design as the 1958 P-S suburban order.
You mean like these:
https://railpictures.net/photo/610802/
https://railpictures.net/photo/67852/
https://railpictures.net/photo/611412/
A comment on the third photo, TPHX = Tom Payne Holdings, some of you will probably recognize that name (the man himself passed away a couple years ago).
In Canada he is best known for his career owning and operating the Central Western Railway in Alberta, which was Canada’s first modern shortline. Of course he later became rather infamous for other reasons.
You mean the conversion of 2100?
Yeah, that business. At least the engine’s in better hands now.
CSS: The C&NW 400 gallery cars were designed specifically for 400 service but were also designed specifically for easy conversion to commuter coaches.
But Amtrak did use them for a time. Don’t know whether lease or purchase, and what happened when they were replaced by French Turbos.
And did not one of the luxury tour operators, possibly Rocky Mountain, have commuter galery cars rebuilt for sight-seing and meal sevice?
Amtrak purchased the cars and initially used them on various short-haul runs out of Chicago. Eventually, they wound up on the Valparaiso suburban locals when Amtrak took over that service from Conrail.
I think that was one of the Alaska operators, RMR’s dome cars have all been built new, either by Colorado Railcar or in Europe.
The new MUs for CalTrain are the European-style muli-level variety and will rerplacde gallery cars:
Caltrain MU train enroute to Colorado. Photo – Lester Clark/Caltrain
The prototype has a
Eight motors for seven MU cars?? Sounds grossly underpowered to me even if some of the cars are trailers.
I assume there are two motors in each motor car, with this configuration:
Cab-motor
trailer
blind motor
trailer
blind motor
trailer
Cab-motor
Assuming each motor is 320HP, 2560HP total should be adequate.
I believe these are the motors in the KISS train sets:
https://tsa.at/references/stadler_rail_kiss_traction_motor
The six-car sets are ‘top and tail’ powered; all axles in the two cab cars are motored, with the four cars between being trailers.
Article in Railway Age from 2016 discussing the Caltrain project (explaining the acronyms for both KISS and FLIRT) is here:
https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/intercity/for-caltrain-16-kisses-from-stadler-but-no-flirts/
500 Kw =670.5 HP and Eight provides approx 5300 HP, more than enouigh!
Why is it so that internationally, worldwide, the design of every new car is so un-railway-like (railroad), so trivial, so hackneyed, so potty? Is there a secret coalition of railway or step-in non-railway designers to make every new train so repellent, so rebarbative or abhorrent for – yes, for what reason? for what aim? Is there a secret contest to produce the train with the least flair, with absolutely no style, no attraction? The most boring and uninspired design seems to be the most celebrated?
This is a wide spread trend that involves other things, too: cars, houses — In Munich the new underground or subway has a spectacular light effect that makes the most of telling (screaming at) people “YES, get in now !! (wide green light at door sides) / STOP!!! stay out !!!” (light changes to red) but the interior light is terrible on skin and makes everybody look like they are zombies! How can they do that to the public and get payed for it, too!?
SARA 05003
Aesthetics can be expensive. The Stadtler cars, being designed for mass transit, are going to look more utilitarian and straightforward than long-haul equipment. What, specifically, do you want?