# Superliner 3 and plate H



## CCC1007 (Jan 15, 2016)

Some friends of mine and I have been speculating about what Amtrak will do to increase capacity on the superliner routes, and one of them suggested increasing the profile of the next order to fill plate H. The only problem that might preclude this is compatibility with superliner 1's and 2's. These cars would have to be in their own pool, and only on specific routes.

For those people who are wondering, plate H is what double stack intermodal trains are designated as.

Are there any routes that currently use superliners that can't host plate H cars?


----------



## niemi24s (Jan 15, 2016)

You mean a Plate H Superliner have 3 levels?


----------



## CCC1007 (Jan 15, 2016)

No, he proposed that having the extra height would be almost like having two viewliners, one on top of the other.


----------



## Karl1459 (Jan 15, 2016)

Not going to happen.

Amtrak and various states have agreed on a standardized bi-level design that is modular so as to be easily outfitted for corridor, LD coach, and LD sleeper. http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/33998-specifications-for-new-bi-level-cars-released/. Nippon-Sharyo has a contract for a bunch of corridor versions for Illinois and other states. There are safety issues with going taller, even railroad cars can get blown over with high wind, and with high enough winds predicted Amtrak (and hosts) will stop Superliners in their tracks (pun intended).


That is even if capacity could be gained by going up a little.

What Amtrak needs is more cars to be able to adjust consist to passenger load$... Then more locomotives to pull the extra cars$$... Then more trains when the consist get too long for the station infrastructure and HEP designs$$$... And more crews$$$$...

edit to add video url


----------



## PerRock (Jan 15, 2016)

Also adding a little bit of height (I presume so you can get an extra row of windows in there) isn't going to do anything to increase the capacity of the car. About the only thing it'll do is give top-berth sleeping car passengers a window while they're asleep.

peter


----------



## PVD (Jan 15, 2016)

Wouldn't there be overhead the clearance issues in/approaching certain (major) stations?


----------



## PerRock (Jan 15, 2016)

PVD said:


> Wouldn't there be overhead the clearance issues in/approaching certain (major) stations?


It would depend on which plate each station is built for. Superliners already don't fit into NYP so if one is making them bigger you don't really have to worry about that station. Most stations in the US aren't covered so height isn't really an issue. The only major station where you might have an issue is Chicago, I'm not certain which plate Chicago is built for.

peter


----------



## BuffaloBoy (Jan 15, 2016)

I would definitely not like the ride on the top level of a superliner any higher than they already are. The side to side sway on certain segments would be tremendously increased and probably uncomfortable.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Jan 15, 2016)

Chicago would not clear a plate H.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 15, 2016)

Why do you believe that expanding to Plate H will increase capacity?


----------



## CCC1007 (Jan 15, 2016)

He was thinking that by putting more mechanical equipment lower, that would increase the area available for passengers.


----------



## west point (Jan 15, 2016)

Last time checked CHI a Superliner only just clears the roof. Suspect if there is ever HSR electrified that there will not be enough clearance from CAT to SL.

There are already some passenger cars higher than SLs. The Rocky mountaineer ? and definitely Alaska RR's Colorado railcar double decks.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 15, 2016)

CCC1007 said:


> He was thinking that by putting more mechanical equipment lower, that would increase the area available for passengers.


I'd love to see a picture of how that would work. 

You'd essentially have to put the floor of the bottom floor over the trucks (essentially, put a second story on a Viewliner).

Since double stacks have to sit down between the trucks, I don't think that it would be pulled off. Maybe?


----------



## PVD (Jan 16, 2016)

What about the platform where the CL pulls into WAS? Other than the Auto Train or a Pacific Coast/California train, what uses Superliners that doesn't go through or connect with something from Chicago?


----------



## jis (Jan 16, 2016)

PVD said:


> What about the platform where the CL pulls into WAS? Other than the Auto Train or a Pacific Coast/California train, what uses Superliners that doesn't go through or connect with something from Chicago?


Washington will not clear Plate H. It barely clears Superliners. Remember, there is catenary to consider in Washington too. 
Plate H passenger cars for Amtrak just won't happen for many reasons, some mentioned in this thread already.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 16, 2016)

So you're saying that if they convert the Cap back to a single level train, we can have Plate H Superliners?  h34r:


----------



## PVD (Jan 16, 2016)

Almost all of them (Superliners) go through Chicago. Without weighing in on the practicality discussion, it would be a niche application at best. The AutoTrain has a dedicated pool, that probably will not change any time soon.


----------



## jis (Jan 16, 2016)

Except in certain scenic rides applications the gains in going to plate H passenger stock are so minimal that it is very difficult to justify yet another fragmentation of the fleet.


----------



## neroden (Jan 16, 2016)

Hmm. The only advantage I can see to raising the height of Superliners is getting more vertical space in the upper bunk of the sleepers.

It's been established that Chicago and Washington have height restrictions which prevent increasing the height significantly.... but would it be possible to square off the top more? This would benefit the upper bunk of the sleepers.

The old clearance plates were based around round-roofed tunnels. Chicago's a rectangular roof restriction and I believe so is Washington. So maybe those upper bunks could become a little more spacious?


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jan 17, 2016)

PVD said:


> Almost all of them (Superliners) go through Chicago. Without weighing in on the practicality discussion, it would be a niche application at best. The AutoTrain has a dedicated pool, that probably will not change any time soon.


However, even the Auto train cars cycle to Beech Grove on occasion. They would need to go through to Chicago or Washington to accomplish this.


----------



## blondninja (Jan 29, 2016)

I would be happy with just a new order for super liner sleepers. The mock up of the new Viewliner I went in at the train day event was super nice!


----------



## RPC (Jan 29, 2016)

The only advantage I can see to this idea is that it would make a "Slumbercoach" Superliner possible, i.e. a group of upper/lower single rooms over the existing Superliner sleeper "basement." It would be nice to have the option of a single bed sleeper compartment back. That said, I agree with the replies above that it would have very limited use on Amtrak's existing routes.


----------



## PeeweeTM (Jan 29, 2016)

Containers are about 2.5 meters wide. If you want plate H cars, you get narrow ones...


----------



## 41bridge (Feb 10, 2016)

Double stacks and auto racks (19'0" ) don't go thru Pittsburgh station. They are all routed via Mon Line on the south side and the Port Perry Branch to bypass the Amtrak route thru the Pittsburgh station. Cars as described could not be used on the Capitol Ltd. or Pennsylvanian.


----------



## west point (Feb 10, 2016)

Yes there are too many stations to list that cannot meet "H" clearances either side or top.


----------



## Alexandria Nick (Feb 11, 2016)

PeeweeTM said:


> Containers are about 2.5 meters wide. If you want plate H cars, you get narrow ones...


Yes, but the well car carrying those containers isn't that narrow.

Plate K is as tall as H, but wide all the way up. Its for the really big autoracks.


----------



## neroden (Feb 13, 2016)

41bridge said:


> Double stacks and auto racks (19'0" ) don't go thru Pittsburgh station. They are all routed via Mon Line on the south side and the Port Perry Branch to bypass the Amtrak route thru the Pittsburgh station. Cars as described could not be used on the Capitol Ltd. or Pennsylvanian.


That should make it easier to put high platforms in at Pittsburgh. (Mental note filed.)


----------



## jis (Feb 13, 2016)

First we will need to convert the Cap back to single level though.


----------



## PeeweeTM (Feb 14, 2016)

Thanks Alexandria Nick! You made me search some more.

I looked in Wikipedia's 'Loading Gauge' page and found some drawings in references 30 and 35.

Plate K makes sence for a passenger car. Plate H not so much, I guess.


----------

