# Should America pursuit extra-wide trains (wider than 10 ft 6 inches)



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia (May 23, 2020)

This is more of a general discussion than Amtrak-specific.

The average width of an American passenger train is 10 ft 6 inches (3.20 m). There are some wider trains like the MPXpress (10 ft 7.5 inches or 3.238 m) that have been encountered on the NEC (high-level platforms). The AAR Plate E specifies a maximum width of 10 ft 8 inches (3.251 m) and a maximum height of 15 feet 9 inches (4.8 m). However, some designs go past that height, like the Superliner family (16 ft 2 in or 4.93 m). If they can make a railcar design that's taller than AAR Plate E, maybe they can make one that's wider than that. The Russian Gauge 1-T specifies a maximum width of 11 feet 2 inches (3.4 m) but the Lastochka is even wider than that by 3 inches (at 11 feet 5 inches). 
Recently, I read this blog post and this analysis highlighting the advantages of wider trains, among them the ability to add more seats and lowering crew costs. An ideal width would be 11 feet (3.35 m). This is the width used on the Shinkansen trains. These trains have been shown to hold 2+3 seats. Having wider trains also gives more leeway for the freight trains (who constantly balk at high platforms).


----------



## Ziv (May 23, 2020)

I would not be a fan of 2+3 seats, though wider cars would make for a lot of interesting options when it comes to sleeper cars. But it seems like it would be hard to make them work with the existing infrastructure/tunnels/tracks.
I would be happier if Amtrak had the allocated money to buy 50 cars and 10 locomotives a year for the next 10 years. Just build modestly on what they have with a few more trains per day on the routes that would best support them while replacing the worst of the existing rolling stock.


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia (May 23, 2020)

Ziv said:


> I would not be a fan of 2+3 seats, though wider cars would make for a lot of interesting options when it comes to sleeper cars. But it seems like it would be hard to make them work with the existing infrastructure/tunnels/tracks.
> I would be happier if Amtrak had the allocated money to buy 50 cars and 10 locomotives a year for the next 10 years. Just build modestly on what they have with a few more trains per day on the routes that would best support them while replacing the worst of the existing rolling stock.



It's easier to do it out west (where freight trains truly rule). As for a constant order of 50 cars and 10 locomotives a year for the next 10 years, that would require higher frequencies (and new routes) to justify such a purchase, and that, in turn, would require either negotiating with the freight railroads or outright build new tracks, neither of which are easy.


----------



## cocojacoby (May 23, 2020)

Although the idea is interesting and probably impossible, I would think that any additional width just might be negated by more stringent ADA requirements such as aisles wide enough for wheelchair access throughout the train (including sleepers and dining cars). Don't know. It's still unclear to me what is considered "reasonable accommodation".

I also definitely do not want to see 3-2 seating! Talgo is promoting 3-2 seating on it's new Avril model which they consider "extra wide" at our standard 10' 6". 

I do believe that California is/was considering wider Japanese style trains and Texas Central is definitely heading in that direction selecting Japanese Shinkansen equipment for it's new high-speed rail line.


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia (May 23, 2020)

cocojacoby said:


> Although the idea is interesting and probably impossible, I would think that any additional width just might be negated by more stringent ADA requirements such as aisles wide enough for wheelchair access throughout the train (including sleepers and dining cars). Don't know. It's still unclear to me what is considered "reasonable accommodation".
> 
> I also definitely do not want to see 3-2 seating! Talgo is promoting 3-2 seating on it's new Avril model which they consider "extra wide" at our standard 10' 6".
> 
> I do believe that California is/was considering wider Japanese style trains and Texas Central is definitely heading in that direction selecting Japanese Shinkansen equipment for it's new high-speed rail line.



The Shinkansen that Texas Central is ordering certainly is going to have to be made ADA-compliant (I wonder if the Shinkansen by itself is ADA-compliant, though I would suspect it would need some changes anyway).
If California HSR does go for wider trains then that would be a good move (though I am disapponted that Caltrain went for not-so-wide KISS trains when they could have gone for a wider design like the Eurasia variant).


----------



## Ziv (May 24, 2020)

Yeah, NAC, one of my biggest wishes for Amtrak is increased frequency. Whether it is making the Cardinal and the Sunset Limited daily, or making the EB, SWC, CZ, CL, Crescent and Coast Starlight twice daily routes, I just think that more Amtrak would allow Amtrak to be better at its job. But that require two huge and expensive undertakings. Compensating the host railroads more to encourage better On Time Performance and upgrading/enlarging the rolling stock pool. 
Twice a day trains out west on all routes might not be possible due to lack of demand at first, but if there were additional sleeper cars on each train it might reduce the amount of loss for the route while encouraging more use, perhaps leading to a need for those second daily trains on the western LD routes. But it would probably require full service dining cars to keep the sleeper clientele happy. Which, conveniently, Amtrak has recently acquired.
Getting the Pioneer or the North Coast Hiawatha back would be like getting biscuits with my beer.



NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> It's easier to do it out west (where freight trains truly rule). As for a constant order of 50 cars and 10 locomotives a year for the next 10 years, that would require higher frequencies (and new routes) to justify such a purchase, and that, in turn, would require either negotiating with the freight railroads or outright build new tracks, neither of which are easy.


----------



## jiml (May 24, 2020)

The slight increase in width proposed in the OP would hardly allow for an additional seat of the current proportions, so then you're talking about smaller seats to achieve 2 + 3. This is something airlines have mastered over the years, but would remove another one of the advantages Amtrak has over them - i.e. big, roomy seats. (We presume they've already surrendered on dining.) The only place I can see this sort of seat increase work is in a high-density corridor for shorter distances, and if you're looking at the NEC the infrastructure would limit increasing car width. There really is no reason for it "out west" at all.


----------



## railiner (May 24, 2020)

Commuter trains in NYC have long had 3 and 2 seating. Certain commuter trains in India are wide enough for 3 and 3 seating. As is the Shanghai Maglev.


----------



## Qapla (May 24, 2020)

One problem with making wider trains would be their need to be able to pass each other on the existing tracks … you have to account for the actual car clearance and the additional room needed for the cars to be able to "rock" a bit. There have already been some instances of train cars hitting those on a passing train - this would become a real problem if the trains were made wider.

Busses and motorhomes on the nations highways have been held to the width standard for roads - however, over time they have found ways to make it seem as though there is more room by being creative with design. If you compare a motorhome made today with some from the 1970's you will find the newer ones seem to have much more room even though they are the same width. It all has to do with layout and space saving materials (they used to frame with wood) and good design.

There is about 124,440 square inches of space in a single level of a passenger train car - that space can be used well or wasted … depends on the design.

However, if the only goal of a designer is to see how many people he can fit in the space to achieve higher revenue at the expense of practicality and comfort - the result is never going to be well received by the paying customer.


----------



## railiner (May 24, 2020)

Qapla said:


> If you compare a motorhome made today with some from the 1970's you will find the newer ones seem to have much more room even though they are the same width. It all has to do with layout and space saving materials (they used to frame with wood) and good design.


Not to mention "slide-outs"...


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia (May 25, 2020)

Ziv said:


> Yeah, NAC, one of my biggest wishes for Amtrak is increased frequency. Whether it is making the Cardinal and the Sunset Limited daily, or making the EB, SWC, CZ, CL, Crescent and Coast Starlight twice daily routes, I just think that more Amtrak would allow Amtrak to be better at its job. But that require two huge and expensive undertakings. Compensating the host railroads more to encourage better On Time Performance and upgrading/enlarging the rolling stock pool.



Sometimes (and more often than not), the freight railroads simply can't let Amtrak run any additional trains without interfering with its own schedule, and that's where building new tracks is gonna be the best option for increased frequencies. Amtrak can build something akin to Germany's Neubaustrecke (NBS): a parallel alignment, with flyovers and flyunders to ensure that neither corridor has interference from each other's operations. It's expensive so it would work best in places where the demand warrants it, like in California, the Northeast, and the Midwest.



Ziv said:


> But it would probably require full service dining cars to keep the sleeper clientele happy. Which, conveniently, Amtrak has recently acquired.



What exactly do you mean by that?



Ziv said:


> Getting the Pioneer or the North Coast Hiawatha back would be like getting biscuits with my beer.



Since Southwest Airlines ramped up its operations between the Pacific Northwest to SLC and Boise shortly before the Pioneer was discontinued, that's gonna be incredibly difficult. Amtrak did a study and concluded that a revived Pioneer would have noticeably lower ridership than most of the LD trains. The most they can do is create daily inter-city trains (one between SLC and Boise the other between Boise and Portland or Seattle), which isn't gonna be easy because it's on UP tracks.


----------



## Ziv (May 25, 2020)

I don't know how difficult it would be for the host railroads to run another passenger train, but I figure it would require a carrot and stick approach. More compensation for each train and some form of legal enforcement if they delay Amtrak too frequently. Along with everything else in my post, it was more of a wish list rather than a call to arms.
I wasn't thinking of something as extravagant as the NBS, more in the line of looking at where the most delays due to traffic occur and sharing the expense between Amtrak and the host railroad to double or triple track that section. One of the problems with this is the increasingly long trains that the host railroads are using.
On the diner part I was talking about the relatively new VLII Diners, 68000 through 68024. They have a hot production line if they want more, too. It is incredibly slow, but they are actually delivering cars.
Yeah, both the Pioneer and the North Coast Hiawatha are dreams more than real goals, but those communities could really use the service back. I think 300 to 500 mile corridor trains make more sense than a 2200+ mile NCH. Having an 800+ mile long Pioneer that went from Seattle and Salt Lake City might work with state subsidies, but the 1300+ mile Seattle to Denver route would be better but it would be even more difficult to make it work.
Again, more of a wish list than an appraisal of what I think we will see, but it would allow Amtrak to serve more communities and to so so in a way that makes the network stronger. But the lack of long term funding and the increasing levels of freight traffic make it a difficult wish list to see delivered.
I think adding a second daily route to either the Empire Builder or the California Zephyr are the least unreasonable to work towards since they are trains that have a single frequency per day and both have ridership over 400,000 people per year and have been higher in the recent past. Start with more sleepers on existing trains and hopefully work up to a second daily train.



NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> Sometimes (and more often than not), the freight railroads simply can't let Amtrak run any additional trains without interfering with its own schedule, and that's where building new tracks is gonna be the best option for increased frequencies. Amtrak can build something akin to Germany's Neubaustrecke (NBS): a parallel alignment, with flyovers and flyunders to ensure that neither corridor has interference from each other's operations. It's expensive so it would work best in places where the demand warrants it, like in California, the Northeast, and the Midwest.
> 
> What exactly do you mean by that?
> 
> Since Southwest Airlines ramped up its operations between the Pacific Northwest to SLC and Boise shortly before the Pioneer was discontinued, that's gonna be incredibly difficult. Amtrak did a study and concluded that a revived Pioneer would have noticeably lower ridership than most of the LD trains. The most they can do is create daily inter-city trains (one between SLC and Boise the other between Boise and Portland or Seattle), which isn't gonna be easy because it's on UP tracks.


----------



## Qapla (May 25, 2020)

NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> that's where building new tracks is gonna be the best option for increased frequencies. Amtrak can build something akin to Germany's Neubaustrecke (NBS): a parallel alignment, with flyovers and flyunders to ensure that neither corridor has interference from each other's operations. It's expensive so it would work best in places where the demand warrants it, like in California, the Northeast, and the Midwest.





Ziv said:


> sharing the expense between Amtrak and the host railroad to double or triple track that section.



It is not as simple as "spending money" ... in many areas where railroads have tried to build additional/longer sidings, double track or otherwise improve the capacity of the rails, citizens have blocked their efforts with the "not in my back yard" mentality.

It doesn't make any difference how logical, convenient and/or practical such improvements are - someone will not want it and sue to keep it from happening or delay the process


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia (May 25, 2020)

Ziv said:


> I wasn't thinking of something as extravagant as the NBS, more in the line of looking at where the most delays due to traffic occur and sharing the expense between Amtrak and the host railroad to double or triple track that section. One of the problems with this is the increasingly long trains that the host railroads are using.



Whatever improvements/changes are made to the tracks they own, the freight railroads want the expenses to be beared on the state and/or Amtrak. For whatever reason, they don't want to bear any of the expenses.



Ziv said:


> On the diner part I was talking about the relatively new VLII Diners, 68000 through 68024. They have a hot production line if they want more, too. It is incredibly slow, but they are actually delivering cars.



The Viewliner IIs are intended for the East Coast. Also, Amtrak is likely never gonna work with CAF due to the incredibly delayed order of said cars.
If you want stuff like a second daily CZ or EB even possible, Amtrak is gonna have to buy brand new bilevel carriages (bilevels rule out west). Thankfully they're looking to do so to replace the Superliner I and IIs. Personally, I can see Stadler making a variant of the Rocky Mountaineer car for Amtrak services (lower it from 18 ft 1.3 in to 16 ft 2 in). One new feature is that it will have high and low floor doors like the Caltrain KISS. It comes in two varieties
* IC: These coaches are the successors to the California and Surfliner cars, and have an internal layout similar to the Caltrain KISS. 
* LD: These coaches are the successors to the Superliner I and II cars, and have an internal layout similar to the Super Dome that's currently seen on the Downeaster.



Qapla said:


> It is not as simple as "spending money" ... in many areas where railroads have tried to build additional/longer sidings, double track or otherwise improve the capacity of the rails, citizens have blocked their efforts with the "not in my back yard" mentality.
> 
> It doesn't make any difference how logical, convenient and/or practical such improvements are - someone will not want it and sue to keep it from happening or delay the process



Yet it seems they don't balk as much when an airport or freeway expands, and it seems they rather want perpetual gridlock


----------



## sttom (May 25, 2020)

So a bunch of points that I would like to make in no particular order.

3+2 seating even in a wider piece of equipment would run into the same problems as lowering the seat pitch, which would be adding not a lot of people for a general decrease in comfort. In a California car, you could maybe cram 19 extra people into it, but that's 38 people that now have a smaller seat and another person to deal with.

As for what will will be the base of the Superliners 3, there is also the Viaggio Twin which is the double deck version of the Viaggio Classic that the cars we are getting against our will is based off of. Adapting existing designs for semi custom jobs is well within Siemen's wheelhouse.

When it comes to expanding rail, how much really depends on how much you're trying to expand service. Hourly service with only 1 route likely won't require quadtracks unless you electrify at the outset, which is what a freight railroad is likely to demand like what is happening with Denver RTD. Which adds unnecessary expense.

Flyovers sound nice, but that would push rail costs into the same territory as highway construction costs. One thing rail improvements have over highways is they tend to be cheaper, especially when done at scale. Most areas that could sustain an hourly passenger service likely won't need more than triple tracking, unless there is already a high freight volume.

The only area where I could see quad tracking possibly being necessary would be between Oakland and Martinez if both the Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin were on a solid hourly schedule. That would mean a passenger trains every half hour in both directions. But even here at that frequency it's an if. I've watched the trains in the area and they're doesn't seem to be an equal number of passenger to freight trains during the day.

As for freight companies meeting resistance to expansion, that makes sense. Freight trains are noisy which ruins the character of the neighborhood. A state DoT backed passenger project could win more people over since people tend to like trains that they can ride. And if the project isn't planned locally (so this probably wouldn't work in California's current political climate) the state would face less recourse to angering some people who live in a neighborhood several miles from the track who are likely to be the ones complaining.


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia (May 25, 2020)

sttom said:


> When it comes to expanding rail, how much really depends on how much you're trying to expand service. Hourly service with only 1 route likely won't require quadtracks unless you electrify at the outset, which is what a freight railroad is likely to demand like what is happening with Denver RTD. Which adds unnecessary expense.



What exactly do the freight railroads demand concerning Denver RTD. Also the reason they went for electric was for environmental reasons.



sttom said:


> Flyovers sound nice, but that would push rail costs into the same territory as highway construction costs. One thing rail improvements have over highways is they tend to be cheaper, especially when done at scale. Most areas that could sustain an hourly passenger service likely won't need more than triple tracking, unless there is already a high freight volume.



This is the case with the BNSF Southern Transcon and the UPRR Sunset Route within SoCal (it's why the latter doesn't want any more Amtrak trains running on those tracks)



sttom said:


> The only area where I could see quad tracking possibly being necessary would be between Oakland and Martinez if both the Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin were on a solid hourly schedule. That would mean a passenger trains every half hour in both directions. But even here at that frequency it's an if. I've watched the trains in the area and they're doesn't seem to be an equal number of passenger to freight trains during the day.



Don't forget between San Jose and Oakland. There needs to be new passenger tracks because the existing alignment is rather awkward, and there's just some alignments that need to be replace period (i.e. the Cuesta Pass alignment)


----------



## sttom (May 25, 2020)

NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> What exactly do the freight railroads demand concerning Denver RTD. Also the reason they went for electric was for environmental reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The reason why Denver's commuter rail is very nearly completely grade separated from freight traffic is that freight companies don't want their trains running under power lines. Or at least that's what I've read about it. There are a lot of problems with FasTracks, there....let's just say conservative construction schedule and political cowardess are at the top of the list. 

Considering how anti rail UP tends to be and how easy it is to scare local governments into inaction in California, I'm not going to just take the railways word for it that flyovers would be necessary. Also, Denver has two flyovers around Union Station, with a slightly better reason. I would like to see third party confirmation of any claims railroads make about what would be necessary to expand passenger service. And even if one was necessary, that is an excuse for pressing further with service expansion.

I didn't mention the Oakland to San Jose portion of the Capitol because frankly it doesn't get the same amount of traffic as the line from the Port of Oakland to points East get. And it's already has an upgrade plan in the works.


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia (May 26, 2020)

sttom said:


> The reason why Denver's commuter rail is very nearly completely grade separated from freight traffic is that freight companies don't want their trains running under power lines. Or at least that's what I've read about it. There are a lot of problems with FasTracks, there....let's just say conservative construction schedule and political cowardess are at the top of the list.



It's theoretically possible to have those freights run under the wire, as shown here (https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1BbF3QiA...mp1iCK5Q/s1600/container+clear+elec+lines.jpg).



sttom said:


> Considering how anti rail UP tends to be and how easy it is to scare local governments into inaction in California, I'm not going to just take the railways word for it that flyovers would be necessary. Also, Denver has two flyovers around Union Station, with a slightly better reason.



I take it it's those two road overpasses (Also they really shouldn't have had made DUS a stub-end station since that's gonna kill a Denver-Pueblo and points south train).



sttom said:


> I didn't mention the Oakland to San Jose portion of the Capitol because frankly it doesn't get the same amount of traffic as the line from the Port of Oakland to points East get. And it's already has an upgrade plan in the works.



How much traffic does Oakland-SJ have? If it's similarly light like the Coast Subdivision then California DOT can try to buy the tracks from UP (maybe hand over Tamien-Salinas to Caltrain). And what's its upgrade plan like?


----------



## sttom (May 26, 2020)

NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> It's theoretically possible to have those freights run under the wire, as shown here (https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1BbF3QiA...mp1iCK5Q/s1600/container+clear+elec+lines.jpg).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm aware that running a freight train under a wire is possible, but it's not like our railways care to figure it out, or better yet it could have been an attempt to get the cost high enough that RTD would run out of money. And quite frankly it has. The B line to Fort Collins won't be finished until 2045 at the earliest. 

The Capitol is planned to start using the same route the Starlight uses to travel between Oakland and San Jose. From what I can tell, they use part of the Western Pacific to get between somewhere in Oakland and Fremont now. The Starlight takes the more direct path. I know the railroad is concerned about local traffic along the more direct tracks, it runs right through an industrial area. 

As for the overpasses. I'd still like to see some proof of their claimed necessity. 

A stub end station isn't really that big of a deal. Worst case scenario the engineer would have to go to the other end of a push/pull train. And from that reading of done on Denver Union Station, it wasn't really used as a through station anyways. Most trains either ended there or had to do some weird maneuver to leave.


----------



## cocojacoby (May 26, 2020)

Just a quick note to say that some Bay-Window and Wide-Cupola cabeese were 10' 10" wide.

Also remember these staggered three abreast airliner seats:


A bit better but I still don't want to see them on a train.


----------



## sttom (May 26, 2020)

I don't even get how those staggered seats are even supposed to be comfortable.


----------



## railiner (May 26, 2020)

sttom said:


> I don't even get how those staggered seats are even supposed to be comfortable.


I'm not sure about that, either, having never seen them. The only thing I could imagine, is perhaps a bit more shoulder room? Maybe...there's not really enough offset to allow overlapping...


----------



## jiml (May 27, 2020)

railiner said:


> I'm not sure about that, either, having never seen them. The only thing I could imagine, is perhaps a bit more shoulder room? Maybe...there's not really enough offset to allow overlapping...


That was the claim when they were marketed. I'm not sure whether any North American airline actually went for them. One of the concerns was rapid egress from window seats without injury in a darkened or smoke-filled airliner.


----------



## Jack Davis (Apr 28, 2021)

NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> This is more of a general discussion than Amtrak-specific.
> 
> The average width of an American passenger train is 10 ft 6 inches (3.20 m). There are some wider trains like the MPXpress (10 ft 7.5 inches or 3.238 m) that have been encountered on the NEC (high-level platforms). The AAR Plate E specifies a maximum width of 10 ft 8 inches (3.251 m) and a maximum height of 15 feet 9 inches (4.8 m). However, some designs go past that height, like the Superliner family (16 ft 2 in or 4.93 m). If they can make a railcar design that's taller than AAR Plate E, maybe they can make one that's wider than that. The Russian Gauge 1-T specifies a maximum width of 11 feet 2 inches (3.4 m) but the Lastochka is even wider than that by 3 inches (at 11 feet 5 inches).
> Recently, I read this blog post and this analysis highlighting the advantages of wider trains, among them the ability to add more seats and lowering crew costs. An ideal width would be 11 feet (3.35 m). This is the width used on the Shinkansen trains. These trains have been shown to hold 2+3 seats. Having wider trains also gives more leeway for the freight trains (who constantly balk at high platforms).


 For years now I've had the idea of extra-wide passenger train cars. Starting at the 'base' with double the track width from the current 58.5 inches to 113 inches. At first application, the left or right wheels could use the existing rail while the other wheels would run on the newly laid track. This would save on costs and a completely new right-of-way in suburban areas.
OK then, we have the 'foundation' for the new wider train. Next, find a company that could build a 'Super-Liner' sized rail car but, lighter and twice the width. Imagine a 'Super-Liner' from the side view. We've all seen them; they're huge as they are now ..... then step into this 'new wide' version. Would be similar to stepping from a Boeing 707 into a 747.
It would be easy to have "2-3-2" seating in the 'coach cars' which should leave enough room for wheelchairs to roll in either of the double aisles. Since I'm talking about the top floor here, there would be a "Lift" or elevator for the wheelchairs to get up there. The wide body would allow for that. 
The Sleeper Cars would be amazing; deluxe bedroom accommodations on BOTH sides of a wider center aisle with the smaller Roomettes downstairs? Possibly turned 90 degrees with a smaller window on the end? With the extra space, the interior designers could come up with many variations. If an upper deck was configured with Roomettes, as they are now, length wise along the outer walls, there'd be room for more in the middle, i.e. "Inside Cabins/Roomettes." Perhaps a 'real time' TV screen could be installed in there to allow the guests to see the outside scene as the train rolls along? 
I visualize this train as a cross country long haul variant with limited stops. Therefore the much bigger and well designed kitchen area could store enough food items so as not to 'run out' and disappoint 'big eaters.' Speaking of eating, the upper dining area would easily hold center tables; again a two aisle configuration.
Imagine what could be done with the Lounge Car! The seating arrangements, etc. On the lower level there could be a 'workout' room with treadmills and such in one of the cars. How about an AMTRAK Movie Theater in another with 'stadium seating' ~~ Why not? Walk in from the upper deck and the center aisle slopes down toward the big screen at the other end. 4 seats on each side of the aisle might fit? The windows would be equipped with 'blackout curtains' so the movie could be shown during the daytime as well. (If it's a popular film, that might be necessary Remember the former TWA's ad when they got their first 747's? "A ship that's a plane, the plane that's a ship." AMTRAK could say something similar to bring in the customers; "A train that's like a ship, a ship that's like a train."
With fewer stops on a dedicated line for passenger use, I would like to think this long haul train could be faster as well by using state of the art propulsion systems and aerodynamics at the front/rear of the train to cut down on 'drag.' Have you seen the current designs of the high speed trains now running in Spain? Sure they're smaller in width and height dimensions but the nose and 'rear end' (the nose going in reverse) are designed to flow through the air with minimal air resistance. Boeing and Airbus did it with their 'wide body' air frame designs so, why can't a ground hugging train do the same? A carbon fiber structure would make each car lighter, and yes, be more expensive to build but, more efficient in operation because of the lighter weight. This savings could show up on the important 'bottom line.'
If Amtrak actually went ahead with a 'wide-body' train as I have worded here with the fewer stops and a dedicated passenger right of way, I believe MANY people would be attracted to riding this fascinating and new way to travel 'cross country.' The Imagination is out there with personnel at train building companies; they just need a buyer with vision. When the Pandemic runs its course, people will be back using our country's public transportation again in droves.


----------



## Mailliw (Apr 28, 2021)

This has been proposed before. The _Breitspurbahn _would've have luxurious facilities such as saunas and swimming pools for 3 classes of passengers, crew dorms, cargo facilities for mail & automobiles, anti- aircraft guns, a kennel, and slave transport car. So basically Snowpiercer without the new ice age.


----------



## WWW (Apr 28, 2021)

Amtrak wouldn't have to go far to find the cars for this crazy nut-job idea - go to an aircraft boneyard and simply put DC9 MD80-88 MD90 aircraft
on wheels and voila mission accomplished creature comfort not withstanding as it was on those airplanes.
This covid virus is doing one good thing - keeping spacing and comfort distancing manageable !


----------



## railiner (Apr 28, 2021)

Someone's been up late watching reruns....


----------



## Jack Davis (Apr 29, 2021)

Mailliw said:


> This has been proposed before. The _Breitspurbahn _would've have luxurious facilities such as saunas and swimming pools for 3 classes of passengers, crew dorms, cargo facilities for mail & automobiles, anti- aircraft guns, a kennel, and slave transport car. So basically Snowpiercer without the new ice age.


Hi 'Mailliw' ~ I'm not sure what a "Snowpiercer without the new ice age" is but, I appreciate your thoughts anyway? As you must know, I'm new on here and I'm glad I was able to finally express my thoughts on possible newer rail equipment that has been on my mind for several years; and finally, I've 'put them out there' for other rail fans to ponder and chew on.


----------



## Jack Davis (Apr 29, 2021)

railiner said:


> Someone's been up late watching reruns....



Hey "Railiner" Thanks for bringing up "SuperTrain" which I watched when it was on TV. I recall Steve Lawrence talking about the show (he was a guest performer in one of the segments) and saying, "If there was a train like that running in America, people WOULD ride it!! I remember the rear open deck as a few of the scenes were filmed there. Except for the possible WIND getting into everything, that space would be a big draw in comfortable weather. Lol.
P.S. I just watched the episode I think you offered up (with Steve Lawrence) and what a terribly poorly written show!! All the negative characters in what is supposed to be "The Inaugural Run" of SuperTrain. It was poorly scripted & directed. It made me remember why I stopped watching it, lol. I wouldn't expect a 'wide-bodied' Amtrak train to have a swimming pool or steam room on board anyway.


----------



## Jack Davis (Apr 29, 2021)

WWW said:


> Amtrak wouldn't have to go far to find the cars for this crazy nut-job idea - go to an aircraft boneyard and simply put DC9 MD80-88 MD90 aircraft
> on wheels and voila mission accomplished creature comfort not withstanding as it was on those airplanes.
> This covid virus is doing one good thing - keeping spacing and comfort distancing manageable !


Hi "WWW" ~ I see you're an attendant (on the train?) If so, then you know how much walking you do during a typical days work. With a 20' wide 'cabin' Amtrak might need to hire 2 attendants per car to attend to all the passengers. I don't think using scraped airplane fuselages for a train body is a sound idea. I'd rather SIEMENS built them since they do build very good rail equipment now in several markets.


----------



## ehbowen (Apr 29, 2021)

Back about 45 years ago John Kneiling (_Trains_, "The Professional Iconoclast") made a proposal to increase the track gauge to 14 feet...by using existing double track! (Where it still existed, of course.) The extra wide cars would span a pair of tracks, with bogies in pairs with equalizers between to compensate for misalignment. Sidings would also have to be double-tracked, and obstacles like platforms and signal masts relocated. He figured that freight trains could be built to carry containers three abreast, and passenger trains would be wide enough that there could be "auto bays" on the lower level which could carry a half-dozen or so automobiles loaded crossways while passengers rode on the upper level. Interesting proposal, although an experienced railroad civil engineer of my acquaintance called it a pipe dream. Nothing ever happened with it, of course.


----------



## Jack Davis (Apr 29, 2021)

ehbowen said:


> Back about 45 years ago John Kneiling (_Trains_, "The Professional Iconoclast") made a proposal to increase the track gauge to 14 feet...by using existing double track! (Where it still existed, of course.) The extra wide cars would span a pair of tracks, with bogies in pairs with equalizers between to compensate for misalignment. Sidings would also have to be double-tracked, and obstacles like platforms and signal masts relocated. He figured that freight trains could be built to carry containers three abreast, and passenger trains would be wide enough that there could be "auto bays" on the lower level which could carry a half-dozen or so automobiles loaded crossways while passengers rode on the upper level. Interesting proposal, although an experienced railroad civil engineer of my acquaintance called it a pipe dream. Nothing ever happened with it, of course.


Thanks "Ehbowen" for your thoughtful words. When I was growing up, steam trains were still in operation. The Super Chief was an icon. When the El Capitan was introduced and put on public display not too far from our home, my mother took me to see it. We were seated on the upper deck when a train next to us started to move. We thought the El Cap was moving! Wasn't that the first 'Hi-Level' train? From that to the Super-Liner which is slightly larger. So, what's next? Maybe my idea for a 20' wide train body is outrageous but, in 1951 the Super-Liner would have been thought of in that same way.


----------



## ehbowen (Apr 29, 2021)

Jack Davis said:


> Thanks "Ehbowen" for your thoughtful words. When I was growing up, steam trains were still in operation. The Super Chief was an icon. When the El Capitan was introduced and put on public display not too far from our home, my mother took me to see it. We were seated on the upper deck when a train next to us started to move. We thought the El Cap was moving! Wasn't that the first 'Hi-Level' train? From that to the Super-Liner which is slightly larger. So, what's next? Maybe my idea for a 20' wide train body is outrageous but, in 1951 the Super-Liner would have been thought of in that same way.


Jack, that was before my time personally, but I understand that double-deck cars had been in use in commuter services for several years before the "Hi-Level _El Capitan"_...the first long-distance train to use the concept...was introduced. And the Santa Fe system had been built "high and wide" since the early days; it was one of the railroads which transported the 200 inch Hale Telescope mirror (in one piece, of course!) from the Corning Glass Works in New York to the Palomar Observatory in southern California. (I believe, but am not certain, that one of the others was the formerly broad-gauge Erie). Not extremely radical to plan a car profile to take advantage of those clearances. At least, not in the same league as a 20+ foot wide generation of rolling stock!


----------



## railiner (Apr 29, 2021)

Jack Davis, welcome to the AU forum! 

You'll find a lot of like-minded dreamer's here, to share your interesting proposal's with. Also an equal number of critic's. 

BTW, the 'Title's' under our names are not (necessarliy) our occupation....they are just 'honorary' titles bestowed upon us by AU, based on the number of posts we have made.


----------



## cocojacoby (Apr 29, 2021)

Jack Davis said:


> P.S. I just watched the episode I think you offered up (with Steve Lawrence) and what a terribly poorly written show!! All the negative characters in what is supposed to be "The Inaugural Run" of SuperTrain. It was poorly scripted & directed. It made me remember why I stopped watching it, lol.



I do believe it was created because of the success of the "Love Boat" show. If that nautical show was successful then let's just do it on a train. How could we fail?


----------



## WWW (Apr 29, 2021)

Jack Davis said:


> Hi "WWW" ~ I see you're an attendant (on the train?) If so, then you know how much walking you do during a typical days work. With a 20' wide 'cabin' Amtrak might need to hire 2 attendants per car to attend to all the passengers. I don't think using scraped airplane fuselages for a train body is a sound idea. I'd rather SIEMENS built them since they do build very good rail equipment now in several markets.


Jack welcome to the ole merry roundhouse of railroading "Attendant" read railiner's comment #34 in this thread.

Regarding my comment using using old retired aircraft frames for passenger carriages on any railroad tracks is
like throwing blindfolded darts at a revolving pin~anta. Something found in a bad Hollywood "B" movie.

Wide bodied train cars - tri-level coaches - a new found level of distance spacing in the tracks tunnels and bridge space
would be necessary in order to implement this fantasy.
With high speed rail these features would not make sense - travel time too short to justify its use !


----------



## jis (Apr 29, 2021)

We can't even fund development of standard gauge system with electrification, and someone actually seriously thinks that an entirely new network with a new wide gauge will be developed? Frankly people would do Maglev and Hyperloop before they'll do wide gauge. Nobody will be able to justify a railroad purely for running cruise service in this day and age. We will be lucky if the current LD network will survive in its present form.


----------



## Jack Davis (Apr 29, 2021)

WWW said:


> Jack welcome to the ole merry roundhouse of railroading "Attendant" read railiner's comment #34 in this thread.
> 
> Regarding my comment using using old retired aircraft frames for passenger carriages on any railroad tracks is
> like throwing blindfolded darts at a revolving pin~anta. Something found in a bad Hollywood "B" movie.
> ...


I like your thinking but, I may have confused some with my comments that the 'wide train' would also be 'high speed.' Not at all. If such a plan came to be, the big train would/should have its own right of way with tunnels, etc to accommodate it. The speed I'd care to see would be around 140 mph on the wide open plains of some states, less than that in other terrain. Since each car could 'hold more' passengers, the consist wouldn't have to be as long as 'single wide' trains are. 
However, before any of this might happen; Elon Musk does have his 'Vacuum Tube" transporter (which has been tested) and is calculated to 'move people from L.A. to San Francisco in about a half hour ~ give or take. If hi got into the transportation business of moving people (and he has in Las Vegas at the Convention Center) to far away places, look out!


----------



## John Bredin (Apr 30, 2021)

Jack Davis said:


> Elon Musk does have his 'Vacuum Tube" transporter (which has been tested) and is calculated to 'move people from L.A. to San Francisco in about a half hour ~ give or take. If hi got into the transportation business of moving people (and he has in Las Vegas at the Convention Center) to far away places, look out!


Musk has a dread of trains and public transportation, so all his surface transportation plans involve low-capacity capsules, electric cars, or non-electric cars on sleds rather than proper railcars where you can stand up and move around. The Hyperloop capsules would be miniscule and claustrophobic, and the passenger-carrying capacity of an intercity Hyperloop line would be a fraction of a real high-speed rail line.

In Las Vegas, Musk is literally just using Tesla sedans in the tunnel, with drivers! Even if the drivers get eliminated (if a tunnel isn't an appropriate place for driverless cars, what is?) a fleet of five-seater cars is pretty d*mned low-capacity when a convention lets out. Contrast a fleet of sedans with the peoplemovers used at airports (like AirTrain, not moving walkways), where you can walk aboard pulling your luggage behind you, stand up straight, and walk off at the end. The latter is well-designed for the rapid flow of passengers, the former is not.

Musk's plans and proposals are the precise opposite of extra-wide trains. Musk talks a lot about pods in transportation for the same reason that Covid countermeasures talk about figurative pods: other people are icky and must be avoided.


----------



## jis (Apr 30, 2021)

Some jokingly say that ideally Musk would like to run his space capsules Dragons through guideway on earth, and since it is a space capsule he needs to make the guideway a vacuum tube to simulate the space environment  Engineering reuse and modularization at its best


----------



## TrackWalker (Apr 30, 2021)

Mailliw said:


> This has been proposed before. The _Breitspurbahn _would've have luxurious facilities such as saunas and swimming pools for 3 classes of passengers, crew dorms, cargo facilities for mail & automobiles, anti- aircraft guns, a kennel, and slave transport car. So basically Snowpiercer without the new ice age.



I wondered how long it would take before both of these references would show up in a thread at AU.


----------



## Siegmund (Apr 30, 2021)

TrackWalker said:


> I wondered how long it would take before both of these references would show up in a thread at AU.



It could have been worse. We could have gone straight to the nuclear-powered Superchief, able to launch small planes from the roof, from Patrick Tilley's _Amtrak Wars_. I admit that was the first place my mind went with talk of 20-foot-wide trains (though Tilley's units ran on abandoned highways, not on super-broad-gauge rails.)


----------



## Seaboard92 (May 1, 2021)

Jack Davis said:


> Hi "WWW" ~ I see you're an attendant (on the train?) If so, then you know how much walking you do during a typical days work. With a 20' wide 'cabin' Amtrak might need to hire 2 attendants per car to attend to all the passengers. I don't think using scraped airplane fuselages for a train body is a sound idea. I'd rather SIEMENS built them since they do build very good rail equipment now in several markets.



I can answer this better as someone who has been everything from a Coach Attendant to a Sous Chef on a passenger train. 

When I worked on the Virginia Museum of Transportation trips in the onboard mechanical crew I was averaging about 19-20 miles a day according to my pedometer. Now that was more than my coach attendant days where I am at about 6 Miles in a shift. But I'm also a lot more active than the average one because I'm always interacting with my passengers, cleaning, or doing something else productive. 

Amtrak assigns one attendant for every 1.5 or 2 cars on the Silvers. So in your 20 foot cabin you could do with 1 probably. Most coach passengers don't need a lot of service. It's the sleepers that are more crew heavy. 

Now you couldn't get a 20' cabin. 

But what I would like to see is that we get the new Russian Built Bi-Level Design. Each sleeper sleeps 64 passengers, they have a large ADA style door to the outside, a large ADA style room on each car. And all around a really good design. I don't know the exact measurements though I would need to ask Jura when he wakes up.


----------



## Jack Davis (May 6, 2021)

Seaboard92 said:


> I can answer this better as someone who has been everything from a Coach Attendant to a Sous Chef on a passenger train.
> 
> When I worked on the Virginia Museum of Transportation trips in the onboard mechanical crew I was averaging about 19-20 miles a day according to my pedometer. Now that was more than my coach attendant days where I am at about 6 Miles in a shift. But I'm also a lot more active than the average one because I'm always interacting with my passengers, cleaning, or doing something else productive.
> 
> ...


Thank you "Seaboard92" for your thoughtful remarks. However, where you said, "Now you couldn't get a 20' cabin" what did you mean exactly? In my 'story' I said "In the Sleeper Cars, remarkable deluxe 'suites' on both sides of a wider center aisle in these Pullman cars." As I think about those dimensions, I'm realizing the 'suites' would probably be about the same hall to window length as they are now but, with them on both sides, they could be wider (front to rear) since there are almost twice as many in one car as before. Of course, if somebody in planning wanted to put the aisle on one side say, for half the car length to make bigger 'cabins' they would/could be roughly 17' deep. If the aisle were 3' wide (for easy passing another) that would leave about 17' to design a wonderful spacious cabin for the elite folks. Hummmmm, maybe I just answered my own question. Cheers, Jack.


----------



## Jack Davis (May 6, 2021)

jis said:


> We can't even fund development of standard gauge system with electrification, and someone actually seriously thinks that an entirely new network with a new wide gauge will be developed? Frankly people would do Maglev and Hyperloop before they'll do wide gauge. Nobody will be able to justify a railroad purely for running cruise service in this day and age. We will be lucky if the current LD network will survive in its present form.


I have to say you make some good points here knocking my wide gauge train idea. Maybe it should have been thought of in the 1940's (after WWII) for a 1950's intro when the railroads were independent, not gov't controlled.


----------



## railiner (May 6, 2021)

Jack Davis said:


> I have to say you make some good points here knocking my wide gauge train idea. Maybe it should have been thought of in the 1940's (after WWII) for a 1950's intro when the railroads were independent, not gov't controlled.


In some ways, railroads were controlled even more in the '50's by the government during the ICC era, than they are today. But anyway, in case you missed it, here is one person's explanation of why our railroads standard guage is what it is....









An Interview With the Guy Behind That Viral Railroad-Gauge Tweet Thread


“I don’t know why people get so agitated,” Holohan said about those who debunked his thread.




slate.com


----------



## coventry801 (May 23, 2021)

Ziv said:


> I don't know how difficult it would be for the host railroads to run another passenger train, but I figure it would require a carrot and stick approach. More compensation for each train and some form of legal enforcement if they delay Amtrak too frequently. Along with everything else in my post, it was more of a wish list rather than a call to arms.
> I wasn't thinking of something as extravagant as the NBS, more in the line of looking at where the most delays due to traffic occur and sharing the expense between Amtrak and the host railroad to double or triple track that section. One of the problems with this is the increasingly long trains that the host railroads are using.
> On the diner part I was talking about the relatively new VLII Diners, 68000 through 68024. They have a hot production line if they want more, too. It is incredibly slow, but they are actually delivering cars.
> Yeah, both the Pioneer and the North Coast Hiawatha are dreams more than real goals, but those communities could really use the service back. I think 300 to 500 mile corridor trains make more sense than a 2200+ mile NCH. Having an 800+ mile long Pioneer that went from Seattle and Salt Lake City might work with state subsidies, but the 1300+ mile Seattle to Denver route would be better but it would be even more difficult to make it work.
> ...



Would be great to have 2nd daily with some different branch route.

E.g. new LAX- SLC - CHI service with SLC-CHI section 12 hours opposite with CZ, New SEA - BFD - LAX- SAN service with SEA-SAC section 12 hours opposite with current CS, etc.


----------



## MIrailfan (Oct 11, 2022)

It was a failed 1979 seeries modeled after Love Boat but with a train that coukd go 200 mph and had cruise ship type amenities.


----------

