Would be smart for Amtrak to add an order for single-level long distant coaches, dining cars, lounge cars, and sleeping cars. Haveing standardized equipment system-wide would solve many maintenance issues.
Amtrak has stated that they are in early stages of determining whether Superliners will be replaced by single or bilevel equipment, and there are strong camps on both sides of the argument in the design team. So it would be premature to order something specially given that no design exists for some of the car types that would be needed in the single level form that would be appropriate for induction in five to ten years.Would be smart for Amtrak to add an order for single-level long distant coaches, dining cars, lounge cars, and sleeping cars. Haveing standardized equipment system-wide would solve many maintenance issues.
I didn't know this. This is interesting to hear.Amtrak has statd that they are in early stages of deterining whether Superliners will be replaced by single or bilevel equipment, and there are strong camps on both sides of the argument in the design team. So it would be premature to order something specially given that no design exists for some of the car types that would be neede in the single level form that would be appropriate for induction in five to ten years.
Almost any European manufacturer is quite capable of building sill-less bilevel cars. They do it all the time in Europe. Being able to build body shells is not the issue. Fleet planning and cost of lifetime ownership and ease of operation and maintenance which goes hand in hand are the issues.Single level (i.e., modified Siemens "Railjet" and "Nightjet" equipment would be easier and less expensive, but for long haul American trains they may be too confining. I have no idea who is capable of building bi-level replacements. Amtrak made an error when they bypassed Budd on the original ones in my opinion. I'd much prefer equipment like the original "California Zephyr", but it probably is not cost effective today.
You are correct as I have ridden bi-level German, Austrian and Swiss trains. TGV as well.Almost any European manufacturer is quite capable of building sill-less bilevel cars. They do it all the time in Europe. Being able to build body shells is not the issue. Fleet planning and cost of lifetime ownership and ease of operation and maintenance which goes hand in hand are the issues.
While the refleeting of Amtrak’s long-distance network is a major priority and an excellent use of IIJA funding, a new railcar order of this magnitude for unique equipment cannot occur overnight. During FY 2022, Amtrak expects to commence preparations for acquiring a new long-distance fleet, including customer and market/supplier research, rolling stock engineering, and other steps necessary to develop the specifications for a long-distance railcar order. Market and supplier research may include a Request for Information (RFI). Once specifications have been developed, Amtrak can launch a Request for Proposals (RFP) for new equipment, receive vendor bids, negotiate with vendors, and ultimately award a contract. Amtrak will likely seek a TSSSA with any vendor to ensure that its Mechanical forces will have access to original equipment manufacturer (OEM) expertise and a ready supply of spare parts throughout the service life of the new equipment. Amtrak anticipates the award of a contract, and for new railcar construction to be well underway, by the end of the five-year horizon of these Service and Asset Line Plans.
Significant customer and marketplace research is necessary for this once-in-a-generation procurement. The bi-level Superliner fleet’s original design roots trace back to the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway’s Hi-Level railcar design from the 1950s, while single level Amfleet II is based upon the design of the original Metroliner railcars of the 1960s. The new fleet must reflect the major changes in customer preferences and rolling stock design over the past six to seven decades.
While specific delivery timelines for new equipment will be negotiated with the vendor, new railcars generally require about four years from the time of contract award until the first new unit enters service, and deliveries of hundreds of railcars from an order usually take place over the span of three to five years. Therefore, Amtrak anticipates that the first new long- distance railcars will arrive towards the end of the current decade, with deliveries continuing into the early 2030s.
ADA, in this case, becomes a strong argument against bi-level trains.The other interesting consideration is accommodating passengers with disabilities. The current method of relegating people to a room downstairs and bringing them food isn't equitable access. That means that a future bi-level may need to include an elevator and wider, wheelchair-accessible aisles. Something that will need to be considered as part of the costs/benefits of bi-level equipment.
it would be fairly easy to make some/all of the coaches/sleepers have elevators for wheelchair users. Some cars like dinning and lounge cars assuming they keep the same layout would not need them.ADA, in this case, becomes a strong argument against bi-level trains.
they are 30 and 50+ years old they just need to be replaced at this point.I think a better approach is to rebuild the existing Superliners and order additional new designs (single or bilevel).
Amtrak has 4.27B for new railcars, locos and required shops for LD.Amtrak originally ordered 479 SLs over two phases, of which <430 are still on the roster. So, it would take an order of 430 new cars (more if they choose a lower capacity single level design) just to maintain the status quo. If we want improved service frequencies, expanded consists, and dare I say a new/restored route or two, it's going to require hundreds more cars than that.
Do you foresee an order of 700+ new Superliner replacements in Amtrak's future at a cost of over $3B? Under current management I sure don't, and it would be a decade or more before they all come online. But I can envision an order of several hundred new cars which would be used to augment rebuilt SLs.
the price difference has to be under 50% for bi levels to make sense. as typically 2 bi levels have the same capacity as 3 single levelsSingle level (i.e., modified Siemens "Railjet" and "Nightjet" equipment would be easier and less expensive, but for long haul American trains they may be too confining.
Everyone of the major railcar makers can; Stalder, Siemens, Alstom, Nippon Sharyo, Hyundai Rotem, Kawasaki Railcar, ect.I have no idea who is capable of building bi-level replacements. Amtrak made an error when they bypassed Budd on the original ones in my opinion. I'd much prefer equipment like the original "California Zephyr", but it probably is not cost effective today.
They are not ideal at low level platformsThe venture cars can use low level platforms. They already do. One issue might be double or triple spots at some stations. The is enough padding in the schedule to accommodate that.
How are they not ideal? They have automatic stairs and optionally self-contained wheelchair lifts.They are not ideal at low level platforms
Amtrak being able to reduce the padding would be ideal
I should add that those open air viewing areas might not fly on Amtrak.The stadler cars could work if they could build a sleeping car version. Maybe rooms on the lower level and seats on the upper level. Not every car would need dining room tables. I think staffing levels are much higher on the Rocky Mountaineer.
Of course not, but the basic car is a possibility.I should add that those open air viewing areas might not fly on Amtrak.
Enter your email address to join: