# Could Siemens Viaggio be the next sleeper car?



## JermyZP (Apr 23, 2021)

Recently Amtrak has picked Siemens as the Preferred bidder for new intercity rolling stock. I was thinking, what could be the next sleeper car if it was built by Siemens. I was thinking that on the east coast it would be the single level Viaggio set and on the west coast it would be the bi-level Viaggio set. I would love to hear other ideas.

Siemens Viaggio



Siemens Viaggio Twin(Bi-level)


----------



## jis (Apr 23, 2021)

The height of Viaggio Twin is 15'1" above TOR. If their hypothetical American cousin has to operate into NY Penn Station they will have to lose about 7" of their height which is likely quite doable. A potential 14'6" tall Viaggio Twin could be a universal car for the entire Amtrak system giving it much better fleet utilization and allocation flexibility. Of course to what extent the current style Roomettes can be fit into that height specially with the upper berth is another matter.

OTOH, it could be a great opportunity to try out lie flat seat pods possibly with high separators making it almost like a single seat roomette, fitting 36 to 40 such in the mid section, and ADA accommodation either at the lower level or at the mid level depending on where the doors are. Of course to be able to operate at both at high and low level platforms the doors will probably have to be at mid level.

Incidentally the NJTransit and MARC Bombardier/Alstom MLVs are 14'6" tall too.


----------



## frequentflyer (Apr 23, 2021)

^^^THIS^^^ If Siemens can provide a multilevel that can run up and down the east coast, it will be the defacto standard LD car going forward. For such a popular car its weird one cannot find much info or pics on the bilevel product.


----------



## blueman271 (Apr 23, 2021)

With the way all of Amtrak’s recent orders have gone, except the new Acela’s, I would expect cars ordered in 2022 to start arriving sometime in 2035. I‘m saying this tongue-in-cheek but not really.


----------



## jis (Apr 23, 2021)

frequentflyer said:


> For such a popular car its weird one cannot find much info or pics on the bilevel product.


Here is the Siemens brochure on the Twin, which is currently mostly for Commuter Push-Pull use.

Siemens Viaggio Twin

Actually to meet Amtrak loading gauge profile A the upper deck won't need to curve in as much as the UIC loading gauge requires, as long as the roofline near the ends are beveled like on the NJT Bombardier/Alstom MLVs. The beveling is required only for being able to use the Hudson Tubes from Penn Station while approaching them on the diverging tracks in A interlocking. They are not necessary anywhere else.


----------



## jiml (Apr 23, 2021)

jis said:


> The height of Viaggio Twin is 15'1" above TOR. If their hypothetical American cousin has to operate into NY Penn Station they will have to lose about 7" of their height which is likely quite doable. A potential 14'6" tall Viaggio Twin would the be a universal car for the entire Amtrak system giving it much better fleet utilization and allocation flexibility. Of course to what extent the current style Roomettes can be fit into that height specially with the upper berth is another matter.
> 
> OTOH, it could be a great opportunity to try out lie flat seat pods possibly with high separators making it almost like a single seat roomette, fitting 36 to 40 such in the mid section, and ADA accommodation either at the lower level or at the mid level depending on where the doors are. Of course to be able to operate at both at high and low level platforms the doors will probably have to be at mid level.
> 
> Incidentally the NJTransit and MARC Bombardier/Alstom MLVs are 14'6" tall too.


I think you've got it figured out with your second suggestion or incorporate both types of accommodation if the floor separating the two levels is flexible as to height. Put bedrooms or roomettes with upper berths on the lower level and configure the "upper deck" like a 747's, with lay-flat seats or single slumbercoach-style roomettes to deal with the reduced headroom.


----------



## Cal (Apr 23, 2021)

Amtrak might also want to change it a bit so it would have one door on each side.


----------



## JermyZP (Apr 23, 2021)

The train layout could be in the far Future:
SL - single level T - Twin(Bi-level)
LL - Low Level for ADA
- Engine
- Baggage
- Viaggio T OBS sleeper
- Viaggio T sleeper
- Viaggio T sleeper
- Viaggio SL dinner
- Viaggio Bar & cafe Lounge car
- Viaggio SL coach
- Viaggio SL coach
- Viaggio SL coach
- Viaggio SL coach
- Viaggio LL coach


----------



## JermyZP (Apr 23, 2021)

JermyZP said:


> The train layout could be in the far Future:
> SL - single level T - Twin(Bi-level)
> LL - Low Level for ADA
> - Engine
> ...



Siemens Viaggio Low Level car


----------



## Cal (Apr 23, 2021)

I would hope they would order more sleepers so we can have longer consists. 


And honestly, I wouldn't mind getting Viewliner coaches. Viewliner II's are still coming in so I don't see a replacement for them any time soon.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Apr 23, 2021)

Got one of those on my layout.


----------



## jiml (Apr 23, 2021)

Cal said:


> And honestly, I wouldn't mind getting Viewliner coaches. Viewliner II's are still coming in so I don't see a replacement for them any time soon.


I think that horse has left the barn and the Viewliners will be the last of their type. The key takeaway I saw in @jis' post above was the thought of a "universal car for the entire Amtrak system". The flexibility of having only one type of sleeper that could be used on any route should not be underestimated. Even a true cross-country train would be possible to/from the northeast. Once you factor in maintenance, single-source parts supply and employee familiarity it becomes a "no-brainer".


----------



## PerRock (Apr 23, 2021)

Here is a Viaggio sleeper made for Russia:










(pictures from Siemens)

peter


----------



## jiml (Apr 23, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> Got one of those on my layout.
> View attachment 21918


Nice trackwork!


----------



## jis (Apr 23, 2021)

Cal said:


> And honestly, I wouldn't mind getting Viewliner coaches. Viewliner II's are still coming in so I don't see a replacement for them any time soon.


There is really no existing Viewliner shell production line any more. The cars that are coming out now had their shells manufactured five or so years back. So you can rest completely assured that there will be no Viewliner Coach. Then again Amtrak may choose to christen their Amleet replacement Siemens cars Viewliners, who knows? Afterall it is all marketing fluff at that point. They already call the single leve LD trains Viewliner trains sometimes.


----------



## JermyZP (Apr 23, 2021)

Having a universal bi-level sleeper could one of the best things Amtrak could do. Imagine a new line going from Emeryville, CA to New York or from Los Angeles to Washington DC. In a modern, sleek, and comfortable sleeper I would be on it in a heart beat.


----------



## jiml (Apr 23, 2021)

jis said:


> Then again Amtrak may choose to christen their Amleet replacement Siemens cars Viewliners, who knows? Afterall it is all marketing fluff at that point. They already call the single leve LD trains Viewliner trains sometimes.


The new Midwest coaches look fine with Viewliner baggage cars on test trains. Coordinate the paint scheme and only railfans will be able to tell them apart.


----------



## lrh442 (Apr 23, 2021)

Regarding a "universal car for the entire Amtrak system", what would it require to lift the clearance problems in the East so that we don't have to choose between having two different regional-specific fleets versus a single fleet that is design-compromised on height?


----------



## jiml (Apr 23, 2021)

lrh442 said:


> Regarding a "universal car for the entire Amtrak system", what would it require to lift the clearance problems in the East so that we don't have to choose between having two different regional-specific fleets versus a single fleet that is design-compromised on height?


Billions of dollars, much of it to replace ancient tunnels and bridges.


----------



## jis (Apr 23, 2021)

What I have been told by several folks in the industry is that no new Superliner could be deployed today due to ADA rules. The current Superliners are grandfathered. I am not exactly sure what needs to change though, but apparently all of the problems disappear if you do not insist on multi-level. Apparently when you have commonly shared facility for the entire train like Diners and Lounges, accessibility to them from all of the train is an issue. MLVs still are OK on Commuter trains since they do not have any such shared facilities. This is my vague understanding from various conversations and may indeed not be entirely correct since I neither have nor claim to have any deep expertise in this area.

Apparently even Siemens had to bend over backwards to specifically change passenger accommodation designs, specially in the area of width of aisles, vestibules and gangways, to meet new ADA requirements. I understand that in some cases they went above and beyond what is minimally required, for example in the area of automatically deployed gap fillers etc.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Apr 23, 2021)

jiml said:


> Nice trackwork!



I disagree, that a lot of grass between the rails, with a full blown lawn between the two tracks. Drainage is key to a good track structure. I think if this was my basement empire, I would be talking to my MOW about drainage. 

Back to the OP not sure Amtrak has any plans to expand the LD trains. Just look how long and difficult it been to get a sleeper on the NightOwl. If Congress were to earmark funds, than I would expect some movement. The current management team is showing very little interest in anything outside of the NEC, and state funded trains.


----------



## Mailliw (Apr 23, 2021)

I love the idea of a bilevel (ir multilevel) car that could be used across the entire network and/or be part of a trainset w/ single-level cars, but it might require a rewrite of ADA requirements to make it worthwhile. A bilevel sleeper wouldn't have any shared facilities, but it would be hard to give passengers in wheelchairs access to other cars.


----------



## jis (Apr 23, 2021)

Mailliw said:


> I love the idea of a bilevel (ir multilevel) car that could be used across the entire network and/or be part of a trainset w/ single-level cars, but it might require a rewrite of ADA requirements to make it worthwhile. A bilevel sleeper wouldn't have any shared facilities, but it would be hard to give passengers in wheelchairs access to other cars.


Indeed! The eternal fly in the ointment of all bi/multi-level plans. Might need a lot of little elevators taking away revenue space.


----------



## JermyZP (Apr 23, 2021)

Mailliw said:


> I love the idea of a bilevel (ir multilevel) car that could be used across the entire network and/or be part of a trainset w/ single-level cars, but it might require a rewrite of ADA requirements to make it worthwhile. A bilevel sleeper wouldn't have any shared facilities, but it would be hard to give passengers in wheelchairs access to other cars.



Maybe Siemens could build a ADA ramp in the lower level car for people in a wheelchair can go from there room or seat up a ramp to the single level to go to the lounge or dinner? I know the ramp will probably take a lot of space but the lower level car will probably be only for ADA passengers only.


----------



## lordsigma (Apr 23, 2021)

jis said:


> What I have been told by several folks in the industry is that no new Superliner could be deployed today due to ADA rules. The current Superliners are grandfathered. I am not exactly sure what needs to change though, but apparently all of the problems disappear if you do not insist on multi-level. Apparently when you have commonly shared facility for the entire train like Diners and Lounges, accessibility to them from all of the train is an issue. MLVs still are OK on Commuter trains since they do not have any such shared facilities. This is my vague understanding from various conversations and may indeed not be entirely correct since I neither have nor claim to have any deep expertise in this area.
> 
> Apparently even Siemens had to bend over backwards to specifically change passenger accommodation designs, specially in the area of width of aisles, vestibules and gangways, to meet new ADA requirements. I understand that in some cases they went above and beyond what is minimally required, for example in the area of automatically deployed gap fillers etc.


That makes sense - I wonder if they'd consider rebuilding the existing Superliners as opposed to replacing them. (and if that gets around the ADA requirements.)


----------



## SubwayNut (Apr 23, 2021)

The Colorado Railcar ultra Domes, at least those used in GoldLeaf Service on the Rocky Mountaneer have elevators so passengers can get up to the domed seating on the top level. Between cars isn't considered because passengers on the Rocky Mountaineer are generally not allowed to change cars, since theirs a resturant on the lower level of every Gold Leaf car (at seat service is provided in their single level-cars)


----------



## joelkfla (Apr 23, 2021)

JermyZP said:


> Maybe Siemens could build a ADA ramp in the lower level car for people in a wheelchair can go from there room or seat up a ramp to the single level to go to the lounge or dinner? I know the ramp will probably take a lot of space but the lower level car will probably be only for ADA passengers only.


I don't think that would be practical. There are limits to the amount of incline, and the ramp needs to be wide enough to have handrails, so it might take up just about the entire car. 

It would have to be usable by passengers with canes or walkers, as well as wheelchairs. Imagine someone climbing a ramp with a walker, when the car lurches on some bad track and they go tumbling down the ramp.


----------



## JermyZP (Apr 23, 2021)

joelkfla said:


> I don't think that would be practical. There are limits to the amount of incline, and the ramp needs to be wide enough to have handrails, so it might take up just about the entire car.
> 
> It would have to be usable by passengers with canes or walkers, as well as wheelchairs. Imagine someone climbing a ramp with a walker, when the car lurches on some bad track and they go tumbling down the ramp.



An elevator is probably the best bet but the gangway between cars is not wide enough for wheelchairs to go through. If Siemens built an American LD Viaggio set, it will have to redo the dimension of entryways and gangways.


----------



## Mailliw (Apr 23, 2021)

Bilevel cars are only practical if ADA requirements accept that disabled passengers would be confined to the lower level of the car they boarded; otherwise single-level is the only way to go. It's that simple.


----------



## jis (Apr 23, 2021)

JermyZP said:


> An elevator is probably the best bet but the gangway between cars is not wide enough for wheelchairs to go through. If Siemens built an American LD Viaggio set, it will have to redo the dimension of entryways and gangways.


The Brightline cars have vestibules, entryways, aisles and gangways that are wide enough for standard wheelchairs.


----------



## railiner (Apr 23, 2021)

jis said:


> The height of Viaggio Twin is 15'1" above TOR. If their hypothetical American cousin has to operate into NY Penn Station they will have to lose about 7" of their height which is likely quite doable. A potential 14'6" tall Viaggio Twin could be a universal car for the entire Amtrak system giving it much better fleet utilization and allocation flexibility. Of course to what extent the current style Roomettes can be fit into that height specially with the upper berth is another matter.
> 
> OTOH, it could be a great opportunity to try out lie flat seat pods possibly with high separators making it almost like a single seat roomette, fitting 36 to 40 such in the mid section, and ADA accommodation either at the lower level or at the mid level depending on where the doors are. Of course to be able to operate at both at high and low level platforms the doors will probably have to be at mid level.
> 
> Incidentally the NJTransit and MARC Bombardier/Alstom MLVs are 14'6" tall too.





jiml said:


> I think you've got it figured out with your second suggestion or incorporate both types of accommodation if the floor separating the two levels is flexible as to height. Put bedrooms or roomettes with upper berths on the lower level and configure the "upper deck" like a 747's, with lay-flat seats or single slumbercoach-style roomettes to deal with the reduced headroom.


If you think the Upper Berth on a 16' 2" tall Superliner is "claustrophobic", imagine how it would be on a 14' 6" car. 
The suggestion to mix rooms with lie-flat seats in the same car....I have to give that a lot more thought....


----------



## Ryan (Apr 23, 2021)

I'm not sure about the preoccupation with bi/multilevel cars.

Single level fleet wide, no worries about elevators, ramps of any of that such nonsense. Plenty of vertical space for a not-coffin top rack.


----------



## JermyZP (Apr 23, 2021)

railiner said:


> If you think the Upper Berth on a 16' 2" tall Superliner is "claustrophobic", imagine how it would be on a 14' 6" car.
> The suggestion to mix rooms with lie-flat seats in the same car....I have to give that a lot more thought....



I have been looking at the specification sheet and there's a lot of changes that are needed. The lowest doorway height from the rails to the floor is 23.6". This would be a problem for 8" station platforms but Amtrak has portable ADA elevators at most stations. We can use this as an advantage for Viaggio Twin when redesigning it for universal use. Clearance still has to 20" from the rails for underside Equipment, this means that they could lower the lower level to 20" from Rails and lower the height of the roof in the high level only by 4" instead of 7" but still reduce the entire hight by 7". This is just hypothetical thinking.


----------



## Cal (Apr 23, 2021)

Ryan said:


> I'm not sure about the preoccupation with bi/multilevel cars.
> 
> Single level fleet wide, no worries about elevators, ramps of any of that such nonsense. Plenty of vertical space for a not-coffin top rack.


You would need to either install ramps at all western stations or raise the whole platform.


----------



## Mailliw (Apr 23, 2021)

Or have just wheelchair lifts in select cars like the new San Joaquin trainsets from Siemens.


----------



## JermyZP (Apr 23, 2021)

railiner said:


> If you think the Upper Berth on a 16' 2" tall Superliner is "claustrophobic", imagine how it would be on a 14' 6" car.
> The suggestion to mix rooms with lie-flat seats in the same car....I have to give that a lot more thought....



They could do a compartment sleeper on the second level that has seats that recline from almost lie down position to a flat sleeping position, it will be front to back instead of side to side(as shown in picture) 2 will be stacked on top of each other and will be on both sides of the car with a walkway in between.


----------



## jiml (Apr 23, 2021)

Ryan said:


> I'm not sure about the preoccupation with bi/multilevel cars.
> 
> Single level fleet wide, no worries about elevators, ramps of any of that such nonsense. Plenty of vertical space for a not-coffin top rack.


You're not wrong at all. The suggestion was a bi-level car to replace existing bi-level cars and everything subsequent was speculation based on that. I personally love single-level cars. They worked great for years and still do. The arguments that brought us bi-level cars are capacity and platform lengths. (Single-level cars = longer trains.) If people can get past that hurdle single-level works systemwide.


----------



## Mailliw (Apr 23, 2021)

Ideally Amtrak should compensate for reduced capacity in single-level cars by adding a 2nd frequency on LD routes inseat of just making the trains longer.


----------



## jiml (Apr 23, 2021)

Mailliw said:


> Ideally Amtrak should compensate for reduced capacity in single-level cars by adding a 2nd frequency on LD routes inseat of just making the trains longer.


That makes too much sense.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Apr 23, 2021)

Mailliw said:


> Ideally Amtrak should compensate for reduced capacity in single-level cars by adding a 2nd frequency on LD routes inseat of just making the trains longer.



More trains, more cost....somebody's got to pay for it.


----------



## JermyZP (Apr 23, 2021)

MikefromCrete said:


> More trains, more cost....somebody's got to pay for it.



If the bill past to have a permanent funding stream for Amtrak, this could happen.


----------



## Mailliw (Apr 23, 2021)

MikefromCrete said:


> More trains, more cost....somebody's got to pay for it.


Also more service for rural "Flyover Country".


----------



## frequentflyer (Apr 23, 2021)

I thought the new metra cars had a little elevator that brought wheel chairs to the lower level in their new multilevel cars


----------



## toddinde (Apr 24, 2021)

jiml said:


> Billions of dollars, much of it to replace ancient tunnels and bridges.


The Milwaukee Road enlarged their tunnels for trilevel autoracks while the railroad was operating, and with their own staff. We’re only talking a few inch’s. Let’s not be so pessimistic. Not sure when we American’s became the can’t be done people.


----------



## toddinde (Apr 24, 2021)

Mailliw said:


> Also more service for rural "Flyover Country".


Same people that paid for the corporate tax cuts.


----------



## JermyZP (Apr 24, 2021)

Maybe when Amtrak starts on the gateway program they would have the new tunnel under the Hudson taller to accommodate bi-level cars? We'll see


----------



## Mailliw (Apr 24, 2021)

In case anyone's interested in possible new bilevel sleeper designs here's the floorplans for the ones Nightjet uses; I think they were built by Siemens. The mezzanine level corridor arrangement might allow wheelchair access if it were made wide enough and the ADA compartment was on the same level, but everyone else would have to go up or down a half flight of stairs to get to theirs. Personally I wouldn't mind, but I don't think it would be popular.


----------



## MisterUptempo (Apr 24, 2021)

Mailliw said:


> In case anyone's interested in possible new bilevel sleeper designs here's the floorplans for the ones Nightjet uses; I think they were built by Siemens. The mezzanine level corridor arrangement might allow wheelchair access if it were made wide enough and the ADA compartment was on the same level, but everyone else would have to go up or down a half flight of stairs to get to theirs. Personally I wouldn't mind, but I don't think it would be popular.


Here is a video review of the NightJet bi-level sleeper you are describing. The reviewer is in a standard sleeper on the lower level. To get to the sleeper itself, advance to the 08:45 mark-


And here is an example of the current NightJet single-level sleeper car. This reviewer was in a deluxe sleeper cabin. Advance to the 03:05 mark to get to the review of the train-


----------



## jpakala (Apr 24, 2021)

I much prefer one floor versus two-floor sleeping cars, owing to the latter requiring navigation of a narrow, winding stairway to reach the majority of rooms and the lower ceiling height in all rooms.


----------



## cocojacoby (Apr 25, 2021)

Just for the heck of it, I tried to design a "low-level" Superliner. Let's take a Viewliner dimension car that can travel over the entire Amtrak system. It would be possible to build a "low-level" Superliner with the following restrictions:

Full height Bedrooms and Roomettes can have upper and lower beds at the ends of the cars over the trucks.

Roomettes and Bedrooms in the center section would have lower beds only. Bedrooms would have slightly wider "double beds" for up to two passengers and roomettes would have single width beds for one passenger. Aisles would run down the center of the bottom level and along one side of upper level.

Break the car into three parts and module sections as follows:
(Use the windows for approximate module location)
(Numbers in parenthesis are maximum passenger capacity):

FRONT SECTION

Section 1+2 - Double Bedroom H - w/Upper and Lower beds (2)
Section 3 - Double Bedroom A w/Upper and Lower beds (3)
Section 4 - Mezzanine area and stairways to center section. 1/3 car width for stairs up on one side + 1/3 car width for stairs down in center + shower module on one side

CENTER SECTION

Section 5 - 1 Single Roomette (1) opposite 2 toilet modules on bottom level + 1 Double Bedroom on upper level (2)
Section 6 - 2 Single Roomettes on bottom level (2) + 1 Double Bedroom on upper level (2)
Section 7 - 2 Single Roomettes on bottom level (2) + 1 Double Bedroom on upper level (2)
Section 8 - Full width Family Room on lower level with traverse bed and window seats/bed like Superliner Family Room but without upper bunks (3) + 1 Double Bed Bedroom on upper level (2) 

REAR SECTION

Section 9 - 1 Double Roomette - Upper/Lower Beds + Stairs to upper level on one side (2) 
Section 10 - 2 Double Roomettes w/Upper/Lower Beds - Center Aisle (4)
Section 11 - 2 Double Roomettes w/Upper/Lower Beds - Center Aisle (4)

So capacity would be 21 - 31? Capacity of the present Viewliner is 18 - 30. 

I know this is a rough concept but it seems to me that the idea of a "low-level" Superliner just may not make sense since you really need the extra height to max out the capacity with upper bunks. I haven't really studied this but it looks like there isn't much advantage to the idea. And you must add to the equation that the present Viewliner is a really great design.

Maybe I'm missing something but at least some fun food for thought?


it


----------



## railiner (Apr 25, 2021)

cocojacoby said:


> View attachment 21938
> 
> 
> View attachment 21939
> ...


I am having trouble visualizing your proposal, without a diagram illustrating it. Anyway, if you are going to suspend the 'lower level' of the car between the trucks, are you allowing sufficient space for the car's 'mechanical's' (fresh water tank, wastewater retention tank, air tank, batteries, etc....?


----------



## jiml (Apr 25, 2021)

cocojacoby said:


> View attachment 21938
> 
> 
> View attachment 21939
> ...


Just fit it into this:


----------



## cocojacoby (Apr 25, 2021)

That's basically the idea behind my thoughts except the lower level is deadended with a family room at the end. Just doing the visualization that I did, it did not produce the results I was looking for. I was hoping for much higher capacity.

I also looked at the existing Superliner sleeper and visualized it with the same layout but the height reduced to 14' 6". That would probably require the top bunks to be eliminated and that greatly reduces the capacity to maybe 27. You also lose the second bed in the HP and Family Rooms which would be a problem.




Now if you study the above diagram, you can see another possibility. What if Bedroom A and B were placed on the 48" level and a short stair was placed between Bedroom B & C. Now you have extra height in those rooms for upper and lower bunks and they can hold 2-3 pax.

The same thing happens at the other end of the car and Roomettes 7, 8, 9 & 10 become "Double Roomettes" and their capacity is doubled. You would need a short stair between rooms 5/6 and 7/8.

Now capacity reaches up to 33/34 but you still need to do something with the Accessible Room and the Family Room.

Of course the mechanicals all need to be cleverly rearranged and I don't know if new tech has sufficiently reduced the size since the 1970s but I'm sure there has been huge improvements there.

BTW - I am a strong avocate for your suggested bi-level becoming Amtrak's single food service car and I think I'll start a new thread about just that


----------



## Ziv (Apr 25, 2021)

I hear you about ceiling height, but bilevel sleepers seem to make more sense given the short platforms that are common here in the States. In a perfect world sleepers would be single level cars using high platforms from which a wheelchair could easily roll from platform right into the car. I have no idea how much it would cost to convert all of the US rail system to high platforms. I think "A lot!" is about as specific as I could get.
I would miss the view from upstairs in my SuperLiner roomette, though. Being just a few feet higher makes a huge difference. For me the view alone makes the stairs worthwhile.



jpakala said:


> I much prefer one floor versus two-floor sleeping cars, owing to the latter requiring navigation of a narrow, winding stairway to reach the majority of rooms and the lower ceiling height in all rooms.


----------



## Steve4031 (Apr 25, 2021)

Imho the European sleeper design could work with 2 bed compartments assuming they create seating that is comfortable for day time use and allows both passengers a seat by the window. 

iircc there are newer sleepers on the Transsiberian railroad. Maybe these have a template that Siemens could work off of.


----------



## tricia (Apr 25, 2021)

Might it be doable to have a bilevel layout with single-level beds (no upper bunk, and a lower ceiling height) on one level, double-level beds (and a higher ceiling height) on the other level?

This would add a useful accommodation type: single-bed rooms for single travelers, plus the usual 2-bunk roomettes; and whatever bedroom and H room configuration makes most sense.


----------



## cocojacoby (Apr 26, 2021)

The Viewliner is about 14' tall. The floor is about 4' above the rail so the height left for the rooms is a rather substantial estimated 10'. (Updated numbers)

In a 14' 6" bilevel, say you allow 6" for ceiling, upper floor, and lower floor thickness and another 8" for ground clearance (approx 2' 2") you are left with 12' 4" for ceiling height on both levels or 6' 2" per floor. I don't think you can do much with only 6' 2" of ceiling height.

Does anyone know the ceiling height in the Superliners or the other bi-levels? I haven't been able to find that information anywhere, but if you look at the picture below you can see that the ceiling is just a few inches above the door which is probably 6' 8" tall (standard door height).

So to roughly confirm the above figures: Superliners are 16' 2" tall - minus approx 14' for two 7' high floor levels - leaving approx 2' 2" for a 6" ceiling and two 6" floor thicknesses and 8" ground clearance.


----------



## PerRock (Apr 26, 2021)

cocojacoby said:


> Does anyone know the ceiling height in the Superliners or the other bi-levels? I haven't been able to find that information anywhere, but if you look at the picture below you can see that the ceiling is just a few inches above the door which is probably 6' 8" tall (standard door height).
> 
> So to roughly confirm the above figures: Superliners are 16' 2" tall - minus approx 14' for two 7' high floor levels - leaving approx 2' 2" for a 6" ceiling and two 6" floor thicknesses and 8" ground clearance.



I have the following scale drawing, while it doesn't say the floor-to-ceiling height, one would be able to get a close approximations to it. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwoszLS0nWxPY0ZGa1F5SEkyY0E/view?usp=sharing

peter


----------



## Ziv (Apr 26, 2021)

Sorry for a basic question but will the Gateway Project/Program and the new tunnels allow for taller trains to operate out of New York Penn Station and/or the entire NEC? Wiki says the VL'ers are 14' tall and the MetroLiners were 14'10" tall, so just how tall can an NEC car be? I know Super Liners won't fit at 16'2" but what is the current max height for the NEC? What is the name of the gauge for the NEC? F gauge? Sorry if this info was already posted, I have read most but not all the posts in this thread.
Thanks for any responses!


----------



## JermyZP (Apr 26, 2021)

Loading gauge for NEC and not for Superliner and Hi-Level cars.


----------



## frequentflyer (Apr 26, 2021)

PerRock said:


> I have the following scale drawing, while it doesn't say the floor-to-ceiling height, one would be able to get a close approximations to it. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwoszLS0nWxPY0ZGa1F5SEkyY0E/view?usp=sharing
> 
> peter


I remember that Model Railroader Superliner issue.


----------



## cocojacoby (Apr 26, 2021)

PerRock said:


> I have the following scale drawing, while it doesn't say the floor-to-ceiling height, one would be able to get a close approximations to it. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwoszLS0nWxPY0ZGa1F5SEkyY0E/view?usp=sharing
> 
> peter



Those are great. Thank you.


----------



## railiner (Apr 26, 2021)

Ziv said:


> and the MetroLiners were 14'10" tall, so just how tall can an NEC car be? I


That was over pantograph locked down. Roof of car was much lower, about 12' 8"....


----------



## jis (Apr 26, 2021)

Ziv said:


> Sorry for a basic question but will the Gateway Project/Program and the new tunnels allow for taller trains to operate out of New York Penn Station and/or the entire NEC?


No.


> Wiki says the VL'ers are 14' tall and the MetroLiners were 14'10" tall, so just how tall can an NEC car be? I know Super Liners won't fit at 16'2" but what is the current max height for the NEC? What is the name of the gauge for the NEC? F gauge? Sorry if this info was already posted, I have read most but not all the posts in this thread.


Nominally top of roof 14'6" above TOR. lowered panto tops can be a couple inches higher as I recall.

I believe it is called AAR Passenger Loading Gauge. A good description of it is:



Wikipedia said:


> The old standard North American passenger railcar is 10 ft 6 in (3.20 m) wide by 14 ft 6 in (4.42 m) high and measures 85 ft 0 in (25.91 m) over coupler pulling faces with 59 ft 6 in (18.14 m) truck centers, or 86 ft 0 in (26.21 m) over coupler pulling faces with 60 ft 0 in (18.29 m) truck centers.





railiner said:


> That was over pantograph locked down. Roof of car was much lower, about 12' 8"....


And apparently you were not allowed to lower a pantograph within Penn Station unless the catenary power was off. There was not enough gap to extinguish a flashover in progress


----------



## cocojacoby (Apr 26, 2021)

Although the Viewliners are officially listed at 14 feet high, it looks like the baggage cars just might be a bit taller.


----------



## railiner (Apr 26, 2021)

cocojacoby said:


> Although the Viewliners are officially listed at 14 feet high, it looks like the baggage cars just might be a bit taller.
> 
> View attachment 21993


If you’re comparing the baggage car with the coach behind it...you’re comparing it with an Amfleet car...


----------



## railiner (Apr 26, 2021)

Or are you referring to those roof vents?


----------



## Cal (Apr 26, 2021)

railiner said:


> Or are you referring to those roof vents?


Roof vents I believe


----------



## cocojacoby (Apr 26, 2021)

Yes those roof vents must add like at least 6"? Don't know for sure but they look huge and right under the catenary wire too.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 26, 2021)

I mean, I have to wonder if it wouldn't be worth considering a bilevel design that didn't have two beds in (all of) the roomettes? I know that I've traveled solo a _lot_ over the years and I'm hardly alone in that respect; this even came into discussions of diner capacity vis-a-vis the Viewliner Is (the 12 roomettes/3 bedrooms generate a _theoretical_ capacity of about 30, but in practical terms it is somewhere between 18 [two to a BR, one to a roomette] and 30 [two to each]; I think I generally settled on 2/bedroom and 1.5/roomette).

Basically, if you have two-people-per-roomette rooms downstairs and one-person-per-roomette rooms upstairs (and allow anyone in an ADA case to use the lower-level rooms at any reduced rate), does that go anywhere on this problem?

(FWIW I _do_ tend towards just having a single-level fleet and calling it a day, if I'm being honest. The ADA stuff is...I won't call it stupid _per se_, but for example it grates that they had to give up something like a table-and-a-half in the diner to literally accommodate the _one_ room that a wheelchair passenger can get into. I think "grossly misapplied" is probably the right phrasing here.)


----------



## JermyZP (Apr 27, 2021)

Anderson said:


> I mean, I have to wonder if it wouldn't be worth considering a bilevel design that didn't have two beds in (all of) the roomettes? I know that I've traveled solo a _lot_ over the years and I'm hardly alone in that respect; this even came into discussions of diner capacity vis-a-vis the Viewliner Is (the 12 roomettes/3 bedrooms generate a _theoretical_ capacity of about 30, but in practical terms it is somewhere between 18 [two to a BR, one to a roomette] and 30 [two to each]; I think I generally settled on 2/bedroom and 1.5/roomette).
> 
> Basically, if you have two-people-per-roomette rooms downstairs and one-person-per-roomette rooms upstairs (and allow anyone in an ADA case to use the lower-level rooms at any reduced rate), does that go anywhere on this problem?
> 
> (FWIW I _do_ tend towards just having a single-level fleet and calling it a day, if I'm being honest. The ADA stuff is...I won't call it stupid _per se_, but for example it grates that they had to give up something like a table-and-a-half in the diner to literally accommodate the _one_ room that a wheelchair passenger can get into. I think "grossly misapplied" is probably the right phrasing here.)



I agree with you. A compartment bunk sleeper is probably going to be the future of rail travel because it will probably make tickets prices cheaper and you can fit more of them on one car. I think that ADA should have their own car with both coach and sleeper rooms accommodation with a Elevator. The layout should be
- Engine
- Baggage
- bi-level sleeper OBS
- bi-level sleeper
- bi-level sleeper
- singel level diner
- single level bar lounge
- single level coach
- single level coach
- single level coach
- single level coach
- low level ADA coach and sleeper with Elevator to single level

In this layout the ADA passengers will be able to bord at a low level stations and a single level stations. They will also be able to have a coach seat or a room and then be able to go on a Elevator to go to the dining car or lounge. The reason for single level coach is because they would be able to switch out cars with other cars from other regions, if the original cars need maintenance. What do you think?


----------



## Mailliw (Apr 27, 2021)

I like it. I'm assuming the bilevel sleeper OBS has the observation lounge on the upper level instead of solo roomettes like the other sleeper? Also a baggage dorm would be more useful that a full baggage car.


----------



## cocojacoby (Apr 27, 2021)

I'm thinking just the opposite. It's pretty simple to make a bi-level car into a two level coach (seating on both levels) or a two level diner (all sitting above and kitchen below) or a two level lounge (dome lounge upstairs and table area and food counter below). That all makes good sense and the car's space can be used very efficiently.

However a low-profile bi-level sleeper just doesn't have adequate headroom for the higher capacity desired from a double-deck Superliner type design. Add to that that the present Viewliner is a great product and the rooms are cleverly designed and a pleasure to ride in. If you are talking a bunk sleeper similar to European design with 4 - 6 traverse beds and one tiny window at the end of the room . . . count me out.

So regarding your proposal I think just the opposite is more desirable. However if all equipment is standardized and every sleeper is similar to existing Amtrak rooms but with no upper bunks, it may be worth exploring. Having all coaches, lounges and diners as single levels just doesn't make sense to me since it will require more cars to carry the same amount of people and also may require double stopping at some stations.

The future is bi-level if at all possible.


----------



## JermyZP (Apr 27, 2021)

cocojacoby said:


> I'm thinking just the opposite. It's pretty simple to make a bi-level car into a two level coach (seating on both levels) or a two level diner (all sitting above and kitchen below) or a two level lounge (dome lounge upstairs and table area and food counter below). That all makes good sense and the car's space can be used very efficiently.
> 
> However a low-profile bi-level sleeper just doesn't have adequate headroom for the higher capacity desired from a double-deck Superliner type design. Add to that that the present Viewliner is a great product and the rooms are cleverly designed and a pleasure to ride in. If you are talking a bunk sleeper similar to European design with 4 - 6 traverse beds and one tiny window at the end of the room . . . count me out.
> 
> ...



There could be a way where all the cars could be bi-level with no single-level. I think that there still should be a ADA bi-level car that has coach seats and rooms with a Elevator from the lower-level to the high-level. I have always love the bi-level fleet in Amtrak but it needs to make it accessible to everyone.


----------



## jis (Apr 27, 2021)

A largish dumb waiter in a plexiglass enclosure should suffice


----------



## Mailliw (Apr 27, 2021)

I think ADA requirements would need to be redefined to apply to trainsets, not individual cars in order for future bilevels to be worth it.


----------



## George K (Apr 27, 2021)

Do the western trains really need bilevel?

I was looking at passenger capactity:

Two Superliner Sleepers can accommodate 84 passengers, assuming two passengers per compartment. Not counting family bedroom here.

One Viewliner Sleeper can accommodate 32.

A train with three Viewliner Sleepers would be the equivalent, except that you'd have 6 bedrooms instead of 12 - allowing for differences in the family bedroom.

3 Viewliners would have 36 roomettes vs 28 for two Superliners.

Looks like adding just one car would accommodate two superliners' worth of passengers fine, and if reconfigured, you could have the same number of bedrooms while by reallocating space devoted to roomettes.

As far as dining goes:

Superliner dining car has 18 tables - theoretically accommodating 72 passengers.
Viewliner has 10 tables - for 40 passengers max.

Also looks like the kitchen in the Superliner is much larger (with almost twice the seating capacity, I'm not surprised.)

Allowing for the (relatively) minor differences in coach capacity in Viewliner (70 or 58) v Superliner (74), it looks like any long distance train could work as a single-level with the addition of one sleeper and perhaps a creative approach to the dining car(s).

Am I missing something here?


----------



## cocojacoby (Apr 27, 2021)

JermyZP said:


> There could be a way where all the cars could be bi-level with no single-level. I think that there still should be a ADA bi-level car that has coach seats and rooms with a Elevator from the lower-level to the high-level. I have always love the bi-level fleet in Amtrak but it needs to make it accessible to everyone.



What does that mean exactly? Right now the only "accessibility" is from one bedroom on the Viewliner sleeper to one table in the Viewliner diner and if you aren't in the first sleeper forget it. There is no way for a wheelchair to pass through any other car - single or double deck.

There isn't anywhere for a person in the Superliner ADA room to go even if that person in a wheelchair can take an elevator from the lower floor to the upper floor. Then what?

So just how are you going to accomplish this totally accessible goal? You can't make all the new cars 12 feet wide.


----------



## Steve4031 (Apr 27, 2021)

Simple with Amtrak’s deferred maintenance practices would be best. The sleeping car rooms need to retain the large windows like the superliners. Seats need to be more comfortable than those European compartments.


----------



## jiml (Apr 27, 2021)

George K said:


> Do the western trains really need bilevel?
> 
> I was looking at passenger capactity:
> 
> ...


Someone made a similar suggestion a couple of pages back and I agreed with him/her. The majority of participants seem to feel that going from bi-levels to singles would be a step back - hence the wide ranging discussion on potential options. The only downside to longer trains is platform length/multiple stops - all solvable with more frequencies.


----------



## jis (Apr 27, 2021)

jiml said:


> Someone made a similar suggestion a couple of pages back and I agreed with him/her. The majority of participants seem to feel that going from bi-levels to singles would be a step back - hence the wide ranging discussion on potential options. The only downside to longer trains is platform length/multiple stops - all solvable with more frequencies.


Multiple stops isn’t exactly a show stopper either, in the leisurely LD schedules


----------



## jiml (Apr 27, 2021)

jis said:


> Multiple stops isn’t exactly a show stopper either, in the leisurely LD schedules


I agree, but that and capacity seem to be fuel of the Superliner replacement argument.


----------



## Steve4031 (Apr 27, 2021)

Multiple spots occur on the empire builder routinely. Columbus is one example. I’m sure there others. Multiple spots occurred routinely in 1970s. Hardly the worst thing.


----------



## Cal (Apr 27, 2021)

George K said:


> Do the western trains really need bilevel?


Really, no train needs bilevel, so no. However there are bonuses to have bi-level.


----------



## sttom (Apr 27, 2021)

At this point, if Amtrak were to do an RFP for long distance cars, the options still are Siemens, Stadler or Alstom. Frankly, they'll probably be the only option for most North American fleet orders.

If Amtrak were to order new long distance cars, their sleeper offerings would need to be revisited. If you off the superliners for single level equipment, you lose the family room, so it would need to be replaced. I would have the regular sleepers replaced with modernized 10-6 sleepers. Meaning 1 person roomettes and double bedrooms with one of the doubles being modified to be an ADA room. Assuming it's a single level car. If a bilevel car could be built, the upper level could be a 10-6 with the ADA rooms on the bottom level. 

Either way, I do think having a separate car for the bedrooms. Add in some four person family bedrooms and it would be fine. I know OBB couchette cars have 10 rooms and sell them to families. A 5 Bedroom - 5 Family room cars would allow them to offer more room types for different travelers. Before Amtrak, trains could have up to 5 accomodation types. Amtrak effectively having 3 is low given what was historically available. 

As for a new generation of Bilevels and ADA, the question of them is would putting in an elevator make sense? I remember reading the report on them and concerns they had about them were finding manufacturers (they admitted they're weren't any in the US at this time), can they be operated without the help of someone on the crew (none of the ones in operation are used without the crew) and the differences between tourist and non tourist operations. That being said, it might not be feasible to do so in all or even most cars. My question would be then, what is the reasonable accommodation going to be? Is having 1 car with an elevator and accessible accomodations good so long as passengers can get to the lounge and diner? Is it ok to say have 2 lounges each with elevators and do the passenger shuffle on a platform while the train is stopped? If neither option is sufficient, then either no elevators or no bilevels or both. 

As for needing them, no we don't need them. But there are advantages such as capacity and viewing the scenery that bilevels have a distinct advantage with. Even if Amtrak were to go all single level, I doubt they would ditch having something like Sightseer Lounge. And if it has a viewing deck, the discussion about an elevator will come back into play. Setting rules by trainset could work, but how do you define a trainset? Would all the cars have to be married together somehow to be considered a trainset or would Amtrak of whichever operator have to publish what a standard consist is and where the accessible accomodations are? That is another whole can of worms. And then there is the safety factor, when is it safe for someone with limited mobility to move around a train? I mentioned this the last time it came up, but my grandpa didn't get around as well as he used to when he was in his 80s and he refused to use the stairs on Amtrak while the train was moving. It's different for different people, but safety needs to be taken into account. As it stands people in wheel chairs really can't move around much on long distance trains. Which I would suspect would bring up other safety issues that may not even occur to us.


----------



## Mailliw (Apr 27, 2021)

A 2nd frequency on long distance trains, say a 6-12 hr offset, would be a boon to all those "flyover" communities serviced by only one train in the middle of the night.


----------



## JermyZP (Apr 27, 2021)

cocojacoby said:


> What does that mean exactly? Right now the only "accessibility" is from one bedroom on the Viewliner sleeper to one table in the Viewliner diner and if you aren't in the first sleeper forget it. There is no way for a wheelchair to pass through any other car - single or double deck.
> 
> There isn't anywhere for a person in the Superliner ADA room to go even if that person in a wheelchair can take an elevator from the lower floor to the upper floor. Then what?
> 
> So just how are you going to accomplish this totally accessible goal? You can't make all the new cars 12 feet wide.



This was just an idea for siemens American version of viaggio bi-level cars and not for Superliner cars. I was talking about having ADA coach and sleeper car next to the lounge and dining cars. so they won't have to go through coach cars or other sleeper cars. The siemens viaggio cars have gangways and not doors between cars. There are still problems with my idea but I know that the engineers at siemens could figure it out better than me.


----------



## Mailliw (Apr 27, 2021)

How essential are family bedrooms if 2 regular bedrooms can be combined into a suite? Conversely if you have a dedicated 4 berth room (like couchettes or Russian kupe) would the regular bedrooms still need to be combined? How often do bedrooms actually get combined into suites?


----------



## Cal (Apr 27, 2021)

Mailliw said:


> How essential are family bedrooms if 2 regular bedrooms can be combined into a suite? Conversely if you have a dedicated 4 berth room (like couchettes or Russian kupe) would the regular bedrooms still need to be combined? How often do bedrooms actually get combined into suites?


Bedrooms can be pretty pricey, however. So the FB would be better for families


----------



## cocojacoby (Apr 27, 2021)

sttom said:


> And then there is the safety factor, when is it safe for someone with limited mobility to move around a train? I mentioned this the last time it came up, but my grandpa didn't get around as well as he used to when he was in his 80s and he refused to use the stairs on Amtrak while the train was moving. It's different for different people, but safety needs to be taken into account. As it stands people in wheel chairs really can't move around much on long distance trains. Which I would suspect would bring up other safety issues that may not even occur to us.



That is something that has occurred to me too. What are the safety implications of a person in a wheel chair coming through a train? A wheelchair would completely block the aisle. What happens to passengers going the other way with luggage or drinks in hand? What if there is an emergency evacuation? You have to admit that there are passenger convenience and safety considerations that need to be addressed.


----------



## Mailliw (Apr 27, 2021)

Both the Venture trainsets and the Avelia Liberty trainsets are designed with wide enough aisles and connections to allow wheelchair users to safely move throughout the train. Designing a sleeping car allowing requires some creativity, but it's possible. Doing the same with bilevel trainsets just isn't practical.


----------



## PaTrainFan (Apr 27, 2021)

Let's be realistic. Yes, more frequencies would be a dream for us railfans. But does anyone sincerely believe Amtrak has the wherewithal for additional long distance trains on most routes? Not a chance this will happen. Barring radical change in philosophy, management is committed to the shorter distance corridor concept. Their "ConnectUS" plan verifies that.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Apr 27, 2021)

PaTrainFan said:


> Let's be realistic. Yes, more frequencies would be a dream for us railfans. But does anyone sincerely believe Amtrak has the wherewithal for additional long distance trains on most routes? Not a chance this will happen. Barring radical change in philosophy, management is committed to the shorter distance corridor concept. Their "ConnectUS" plan verifies that.



In addition, you need the cooperation of the freight railroads. Look at how hard CSX is fighting Amtrak on adding two roundtrip trains from Mobile to New Orleans. Think CSX will just OK to a second train on the Lake Shore Limited?


----------



## PaTrainFan (Apr 27, 2021)

MikefromCrete said:


> In addition, you need the cooperation of the freight railroads. Look at how hard CSX is fighting Amtrak on adding two roundtrip trains from Mobile to New Orleans. Think CSX will just OK to a second train on the Lake Shore Limited?



Which is why some of Amtrak's thinking is a pipe dream for even the shorter routes. I suspect the rest of the freight carriers are watching the Mobile fight with great interest, viewing it as a test case.


----------



## sttom (Apr 28, 2021)

Mailliw said:


> Both the Venture trainsets and the Avelia Liberty trainsets are designed with wide enough aisles and connections to allow wheelchair users to safely move throughout the train. Designing a sleeping car allowing requires some creativity, but it's possible. Doing the same with bilevel trainsets just isn't practical.



Moving between the cars isn't the problem with the superliners, it's moving between the levels. If the federal government is going to set regulations that require unrestricted and unassisted access to all public parts of a train, future single level cars will be effected by the same rules. And my best guess is that to accommodate the turning radius of a wheel chair, the Viewliners or whatever their replacement will be called will likely lose a bedroom to accommodate that turn radius. So going all single level isn't going to avoid ADA regulations because the single level cars aren't all access either if your in a wheel chair. Assuming the regulations change in the next couple of years, this will effect future single level cars as well. And frankly, a Superliner can better absorb the capacity loss than a Viewliner. But this is all based on ADA regulations changing to make public transit harder to provide. And of having access to both levels is going to be required there is a good chance this rule will be applied to other forms of transportation like planes, busses and ferries. Planes aren't a huge problem since the A380 and 747 passenger models aren't going to be built much longer so they aren't really a problem. But bus operations, they're likely going to be next. And no offense to activists, but they're usually blind to other issues. I was one at one point. As well meaning as some disability advocates are, I seriously doubt most of them are familiar with transit operations enough to know that what they might want might slowly kill some forms of transit. Amtrak's response to more intrusive regulations on its accomodations could be to not have sleeping compartments anymore and go to an all lie flat seat arrangement just for the sake of capacity and be ADA compliant.


----------



## cocojacoby (Apr 28, 2021)

sttom said:


> If the federal government is going to set regulations that require unrestricted and unassisted access to all public parts of a train, future single level cars will be effected by the same rules. And my best guess is that to accommodate the turning radius of a wheel chair, the Viewliners or whatever their replacement will be called will likely lose a bedroom to accommodate that turn radius.



Lose a bedroom? How about half the roomettes since a wider aisle probably eliminates them on one side? Also since the bedrooms will have to be narrower they will probably have to be longer and may take up the room of 1 1/2 bedrooms. So reduce them by 50%?

So honestly this just isn't practical. You may be pricing bedrooms out of the reach of almost everyone since the operational cost per room will be very high.

Maybe Amtrak can ask for an exception. Maybe Amtrak can go with narrower wheelchairs like the airlines use. Common sense needs to apply here.


----------



## jiml (Apr 28, 2021)

sttom said:


> Moving between the cars isn't the problem with the superliners, it's moving between the levels. If the federal government is going to set regulations that require unrestricted and unassisted access to all public parts of a train, future single level cars will be effected by the same rules. And my best guess is that to accommodate the turning radius of a wheel chair, the Viewliners or whatever their replacement will be called will likely lose a bedroom to accommodate that turn radius. So going all single level isn't going to avoid ADA regulations because the single level cars aren't all access either if your in a wheel chair. Assuming the regulations change in the next couple of years, this will effect future single level cars as well. And frankly, a Superliner can better absorb the capacity loss than a Viewliner. But this is all based on ADA regulations changing to make public transit harder to provide. And of having access to both levels is going to be required there is a good chance this rule will be applied to other forms of transportation like planes, busses and ferries. Planes aren't a huge problem since the A380 and 747 passenger models aren't going to be built much longer so they aren't really a problem. But bus operations, they're likely going to be next. And no offense to activists, but they're usually blind to other issues. I was one at one point. As well meaning as some disability advocates are, I seriously doubt most of them are familiar with transit operations enough to know that what they might want might slowly kill some forms of transit. Amtrak's response to more intrusive regulations on its accomodations could be to not have sleeping compartments anymore and go to an all lie flat seat arrangement just for the sake of capacity and be ADA compliant.


At least when it comes to buses most communities offer alternative "mobility" transit, since not every bus on every route can be accessible - at least in the short term. What always fascinated me is how planes are virtually exempt from the requirements placed on Amtrak. Simply saying that planes can't be designed to the same standards being forced on passenger railways shouldn't carry weight for much longer if trends continue. When airlines are told that they must widen doors on their next generation of aircraft, reserve the first two rows of FC for wheelchairs or eliminate one seat in each row to widen the aisle, it will no longer be only Amtrak getting the attention.


----------



## sttom (Apr 28, 2021)

cocojacoby said:


> Lose a bedroom?



Losing 1 bedroom in a Viewliner is more what I see as the minimum that would be lost should a rule like this get implemented. More than likely both with narrower roomettes. The other option I could see are European style double rooms that are perpendicular to the window being modified to fit. What is more likely I fear is Amtrak just ditching compartments all together. A lie flat seat is a seat after all. And seats even now have a much lower threshold for being ADA compliant that compartments. I can see this going 3 ways. 1) the regulations are found to be largely unfeasible and aren't implemented and disability advocates make noise. 2) they are implemented and Amtrak ditches sleepers entirely in it's next fleet order. Or 3) they comply with single level cars with crap amenities and less capacity system wide. As much as I would love to see the western long distance trains run 3x daily, I doubt it will happen.


----------



## cocojacoby (Apr 28, 2021)

Okay, I'm just throwing this out there:

Retrofit or build new Superliner diners and sightseer lounge cars as follows:

Sightseer Car:

1 - Replace lower lounge with two HP bedrooms. There already is an accessible toilet right there or completely remove lounge and toilet and replace with two fully equipped HP bedrooms.

2 - Add lift to upper level (maybe instead of stairs?)

3 - Can all of the swivel chairs be turned to allow for passage of a wheelchair? If not install narrower tables or seats at one end of the car to provide accessibility to the end door that faces the dinner.

4 - Add wheelchair space somewhere in the lounge.

Diner Car:

1- Make both end tables at one end accessible utilizing flip down seats so that they can be used by everyone if possible.






Now a wheelchair passenger has full access to all of the passenger related amenities. Leave the coaches and sleepers alone except now you can add one or two (depending on the number of sleepers) sellable family rooms to every consist. There really is no need to have accessibility through the entire train.

Amtrak may have to ask for a waiver but this seems to provide equal and enhanced access to the most important features of the train. It doesn't cause a loss of room revenue but in fact adds to the bottom line. The Sightseer now actually generates room revenue and the H bedroom in the sleepers can be sold as a second family room.

BTW - On a recent Auto Train trip, I never saw anyone using that lower lounge.

Please tell me if I am missing something.


----------



## mlanoue (Apr 28, 2021)

How were the bi-level cars that Illinois/California originally ordered a decade ago designed to comply with the ADA? They had cafe cars, I believe. Was there an elevator somewhere? I know they didn't pass the crush tests, but the design must have received an OK on the accessibility didn't it?


----------



## Mailliw (Apr 28, 2021)

There are signs that Amtrak management is realizing that putting all their eggs on the regional corridors may not be the best idea. They've not been having much luck partnering with states, and then there's the proposal to drop the 750 mile rule down to 500 miles. The later implies interest in creating new long distance routes. Granted this could mean more daylight LDs like the Palmetto, but it could also lead to night trains (leave after dinner, arrive before breakfast or lunch) between city pairs. Sleeping cars are actually quite lucrative and help subsidize passengers in economy so they aren't going away unless the LDs themselves go away.


----------



## neroden (Apr 28, 2021)

jiml said:


> Someone made a similar suggestion a couple of pages back and I agreed with him/her. The majority of participants seem to feel that going from bi-levels to singles would be a step back - hence the wide ranging discussion on potential options. The only downside to longer trains is platform length/multiple stops - all solvable with more frequencies.


Honestly most of the platforms in the system are older, date from longer single-level trains, and are longer than the trains anyway. The exceptions are usually either former "halts" or much newer, are too short for the trains which already exist and should be lengthened in any case! The number of platforms where adding one car would make a difference to how many times the train has to stop is quite limited, though my "home station" of Syracuse NY is one of them.


----------



## Anthony V (Apr 28, 2021)

Mailliw said:


> There are signs that Amtrak management is realizing that putting all their eggs on the regional corridors may not be the best idea. They've not been having much luck partnering with states, and then there's the proposal to drop the 750 mile rule down to 500 miles. The later implies interest in creating new long distance routes. Granted this could mean more daylight LDs like the Palmetto, but it could also lead to night trains (leave after dinner, arrive before breakfast or lunch) between city pairs. Sleeping cars are actually quite lucrative and help subsidize passengers in economy so they aren't going away unless the LDs themselves go away.


According to Passenger Rail Oklahoma chairman Evan Stair, any new route, even those over 750 miles long, would have to be state funded, making the cutoff mileage irrelevant when it comes to adding new long distance routes. This could be why Amtrak is focusing on shorter corridors instead of LD trains. Shorter corridors don't pass through as many states as a new LD route would, making it easier to get all affected states onboard with the proposal.


----------



## neroden (Apr 28, 2021)

PaTrainFan said:


> Which is why some of Amtrak's thinking is a pipe dream for even the shorter routes. I suspect the rest of the freight carriers are watching the Mobile fight with great interest, viewing it as a test case.


When the freight railroad criminals lose spectacularly and are ordered to provide service -- which is what is going to happen if they don't back down soon -- their managements' reactions should be interesting. Will they continue to act like spoiled toddlers and find themselves fined, or even have Congress seize the tracks from them? Or will they start behaving like grownups?


----------



## neroden (Apr 28, 2021)

Anthony V said:


> According to Passenger Rail Oklahoma chairman Evan Stair, any new route, even those over 750 miles long, would have to be state funded, making the cutoff mileage irrelevant when it comes to adding new long distance routes. This could be why Amtrak is focusing on shorter corridors instead of LD trains. Shorter corridors don't pass through as many states as a new LD route would, making it easier to get all affected states onboard with the proposal.


This may have an impact for Oklahoma, but it doesn't matter for trains like the Lynchburg route which are, in terms of avoidable costs, *profitable*; you don't require state funding if the state funding required is $0 or negative. There is a lot of this stuff in the East, concealed by Amtrak's phony "allocation" accounting.


----------



## nferr (Apr 29, 2021)

Mailliw said:


> How essential are family bedrooms if 2 regular bedrooms can be combined into a suite? Conversely if you have a dedicated 4 berth room (like couchettes or Russian kupe) would the regular bedrooms still need to be combined? How often do bedrooms actually get combined into suites?



There's no family bedrooms on the Viewliners, so no, they're not what I would call essential.


----------



## jiml (Apr 29, 2021)

nferr said:


> There's no family bedrooms on the Viewliners, so no, they're not what I would call essential.


Other than peak seasons where kids are out of school and travelling with their parents, Family Bedrooms are often both available and reasonably-priced, making them just another decent-sized bedroom with a view out both sides. Sometimes they're not much more than a roomette:


----------



## cocojacoby (Apr 29, 2021)

nferr said:


> There's no family bedrooms on the Viewliners, so no, they're not what I would call essential.



I took my kids to Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon on Amtrak. The family room was very much appreciated on the California Zephyr and Southwest Chief. On the Lake Shore Limited to/from Boston I had to pay much more money for two roomettes.


----------



## Cal (Apr 29, 2021)

jiml said:


> Other than peak seasons where kids are out of school and travelling with their parents, Family Bedrooms are often both available and reasonably-priced, making them just another decent-sized bedroom with a view out both sides. Sometimes they're not much more than a roomette:



Speaking of Jeb Brooks, he is releasing a California Zephyr video in the coming weeks. I'm excited


----------



## Palmetto (Apr 29, 2021)

I think he has become an Amtrak fan.


----------



## Steve4031 (Apr 29, 2021)

An interesting thought about those couchette cars. Those rooms accommodate 4 individuals. Imho Amtrak could sell them as family rooms for groups of 3 or more. Then maybe two weeks before departure open them up for sale for 2 passengers.


----------



## jiml (Apr 29, 2021)

Steve4031 said:


> An interesting thought about those couchette cars. Those rooms accommodate 4 individuals. Imho Amtrak could sell them as family rooms for groups of 3 or more. Then maybe two weeks before departure open them up for sale for 2 passengers.


If sold to 2 people that would be a solution for us older folk who prefer 2 lower bunks and currently have to buy 2 roomettes.


----------



## Mailliw (Apr 29, 2021)

This is why I'm fond of the 4- Berlin couchette/Russian kupe setup, it's extremely versatile. An affordable option for families or small groups, a some premium option for couples, and individual berths can be sold to budget travelers. I just don't see Amtrak going for the concept or the new pod couchettes since they lack daytime configuration. ☹


----------



## jiml (Apr 29, 2021)

The other problem is they're just not that comfortable. You're talking about 1 1/2 inches of foam covered with vinyl on a steel shelf. These are not mattresses by North American standards. The quality of bedding supplied increases with the class of service (and the cost) depending on the railroad in question and some do provide a supplementary mattress pad. I've seen one up close and frankly think I prefer a comfy reclining Amtrak/VIA coach seat for actually sleeping and a lay-flat airplane seat is heaven by comparison. Then again, I'm not that young anymore.


----------



## sttom (Apr 29, 2021)

Offering a 4 person room similar to a couchette doesn't mean a 1 for 1 carbon copy. It could be spruced up in the design phase. Which could be a more efficient use of space or at least give next gen Viewliners a family room.


----------



## jiml (Apr 29, 2021)

sttom said:


> Offering a 4 person room similar to a couchette doesn't mean a 1 for 1 carbon copy. It could be spruced up in the design phase. Which could be a more efficient use of space or at least give next gen Viewliners a family room.


I agree, but suspect some are basing an endorsement of couchettes entirely on capacity without regard for comfort. Others have done a better job of explaining why shared sleeping space behind a closed door isn't going fly in litigious North America, but as budget family rooms they make sense. As mentioned above, the lack of daytime configuration would have to be addressed.


----------



## Mailliw (Apr 29, 2021)

It's fun to consider different design options, but realistically the only viable options for "budget" sleeping accommodation in the US are; roomettes, modernized Slumbercoaches, or a premium seated coach like the coaches on the Ocean or Caledonian Sleeper.


----------



## jis (Apr 29, 2021)

I also doubt that there will be any significant investment made in innovating much in the area of Sleepers in the US by the likes of Amtrak as it looks for now.


----------



## Steve4031 (Apr 29, 2021)

jiml said:


> I agree, but suspect some are basing an endorsement of couchettes entirely on capacity without regard for comfort. Others have done a better job of explaining why shared sleeping space behind a closed door isn't going fly in litigious North America, but as budget family rooms they make sense. As mentioned above, the lack of daytime configuration would have to be addressed.



The 2 lower bunks could fold up into seats. The key is that the seats have to be comfortable and the beds have to be comfortable.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 29, 2021)

Mailliw said:


> There are signs that Amtrak management is realizing that putting all their eggs on the regional corridors may not be the best idea. They've not been having much luck partnering with states, and then there's the proposal to drop the 750 mile rule down to 500 miles. The later implies interest in creating new long distance routes. Granted this could mean more daylight LDs like the Palmetto, but it could also lead to night trains (leave after dinner, arrive before breakfast or lunch) between city pairs. Sleeping cars are actually quite lucrative and help subsidize passengers in economy so they aren't going away unless the LDs themselves go away.


I tend to agree. There are a number of routes that can be covered under 500 miles that aren't under 750 miles:
-CHI-STL-KCY (currently two corridors, but if you "merge" them on some runs they become covered)
-Dallas/Fort Worth-Kansas City (a version of the _Heartland Flyer _extension where you don't terminate at Newton in the middle of the night)
_-_San Diego-San Francisco/Oakland/Sacramento (a version of the _Coast Daylight_)
-The _Carolinian _as-is
-The _Vermonter _as-is
-Some/most of the Virginia Regionals as-is
-Chicago-Memphis (this has explicitly been mooted as a possible extension of the Illini/Saluki)
-Nashville-Savannah is notably "on the bubble" here (extending to Jacksonville would solve any issue)
-ATL-NOL would depend on routing choices, but it _looks _like both the current routing and routing via Montgomery/Mobile should make it

A few others come up short as-is, but some extensions would push them over the edge:
-CLT-WAS is short (ATL-WAS qualifies, as does CLT-NYP [per earlier]).
-CHI-OMA via Des Moines is short, but Chicago-Lincoln should qualify.
-CHI-MSP is short, but CHI-MSP-Duluth would be long enough.

In general it feels like there are quite a few places where Amtrak could leverage a 500+ mile route to fund capex in exchange for an operating deal with a state for some shorter runs (i.e. "Send the second CHI-MSP train to Duluth while Minnesota agrees to let Amtrak run the additional trains on that route".

So I would say that this definitely opens some doors to Amtrak seriously negotiating with states to kick in substantial support to some longer routes and thereby "move" some expenses off of the states' books.


----------



## JermyZP (Apr 30, 2021)

In a Amtrak report and 5 year plan, that came out recently, it stated multiple plans that Amtrak wishes to take on if they received the full amount of funds they requested. One of these plans are to allocate funds for the start of replacing existing long distance equipment, including Superliners and Amfleets IIs. This can only happen if Amtrak receives the full funding that they requested from congress. The chances for new Siemens Viaggio sleepers have gotten a lot better.


----------



## Cal (Apr 30, 2021)

We have a thread here


----------



## west point (May 1, 2021)

If Amtrak owns the plans for V-2s wonder who could build more sleepers to that design. The problem for any sleeper may be the design and parts for each room ? It has been rumored that the interiors were a problem that CAF slowed the deliveries of the sleepers ? We have to hope that no matter who builds more sleepers that there will not be more parts problems. Parts may be very unique. + the lack of computer chips may be a problem ?


----------



## neroden (May 1, 2021)

west point said:


> If Amtrak owns the plans for V-2s wonder who could build more sleepers to that design. The problem for any sleeper may be the design and parts for each room ? It has been rumored that the interiors were a problem that CAF slowed the deliveries of the sleepers ? We have to hope that no matter who builds more sleepers that there will not be more parts problems. Parts may be very unique. + the lack of computer chips may be a problem ?



No, the interiors (by Railplan) were ready ahead of the rest of the cars. There was a problem with the suspension (IIRC) due to the major supplier going bankrupt and closing their factory mid-production. There was also a major problem with CAF being unable to hire or train qualified stainless steel or aluminum welders in Elmira, NY (which does not surprise me). Buy America caused a lot of problems, in fact.


----------



## jis (May 1, 2021)

neroden said:


> No, the interiors (by Railplan) were ready ahead of the rest of the cars. There was a problem with the suspension (IIRC) due to the major supplier going bankrupt and closing their factory mid-production. There was also a major problem with CAF being unable to hire or train qualified stainless steel or aluminum welders in Elmira, NY (which does not surprise me). Buy America caused a lot of problems, in fact.


Not suspension per se, but the entire truck assembly, because the producer of the forged trucks GSI went out of business mid stream, and a substitute source for the forged trucks had to be found and brought upto speed. Initially it was Columbia Casting that supplied the balance of the trucks. Later AmstedRail stepped into the breach.


----------



## sttom (May 2, 2021)

jiml said:


> I agree, but suspect some are basing an endorsement of couchettes entirely on capacity without regard for comfort. Others have done a better job of explaining why shared sleeping space behind a closed door isn't going fly in litigious North America, but as budget family rooms they make sense. As mentioned above, the lack of daytime configuration would have to be addressed.


They do have a daytime setting. With some extra padding on the seats and it will be fine. As for an open sleeper of some variety, I never really got the "people will sue them into oblivion" argument. People sleep in coach all the time and there isn't a weekly law suit. I would say they are cramped for 4 people, god help the people that do the 6 person rooms, and that would be a deal breaker for me when Sections could have a similar capacity and you're only sharing space with 1 other person vs up to 3 or 5 others.


----------



## jiml (May 3, 2021)

sttom said:


> They do have a daytime setting. With some extra padding on the seats and it will be fine. As for an open sleeper of some variety, I never really got the "people will sue them into oblivion" argument. People sleep in coach all the time and there isn't a weekly law suit. I would say they are cramped for 4 people, god help the people that do the 6 person rooms, and that would be a deal breaker for me when Sections could have a similar capacity and you're only sharing space with 1 other person vs up to 3 or 5 others.
> View attachment 22128


Those actually don't look that bad - much "plusher" than the couchette car I toured in Germany. The daytime comment was in response to Post #113, regarding the couchettes with no daytime set-up. You're spot-on regarding the capacity concerns.


----------



## Steve4031 (May 3, 2021)

There have been issues on airplanes with where passengers have been groped or molested. In some cases the airlines handled it well, others, not so well. I am surprised nothing has ever been reported as happening on an Amtrak train. Putting strangers together in a room is just ensuring that an incident would happen.


----------



## Cal (May 3, 2021)

Steve4031 said:


> There have been issues on airplanes with where passengers have been groped or molested. In some cases the airlines handled it well, others, not so well. I am surprised nothing has ever been reported as happening on an Amtrak train. Putting strangers together in a room is just ensuring that an incident would happen.


How common is this on airlines? What about in European sleepers?


----------



## jiml (May 4, 2021)

I've edited my post above to remove the reference to potential problems with shared sleeping space. It's probably better if we stick to technical discussion of Siemens as a potential sleeping car vendor. In the unlikely event that accommodation different from the North American norm happens, there will be plenty of opportunity to talk about the implications then.


----------



## Steve4031 (May 4, 2021)

Here are examples:








Flight and Fight


Flight and Fight: When Will Airlines Start Taking Sexual Assault Seriously?




www.marieclaire.com












Airlines grapple with increased reports of in-flight harassment


Reports of unruly in-flight behavior and assaults are common, but no national system exists to track incidents.




www.cbsnews.com




The flight attendants get it too.








Passengers aren't the only ones who suffer sexual abuse. So do flight attendants


For 115,000 flight attendants working for U.S. airlines — and I am one of them — passenger safety is a top priority and the point of our job.




www.latimes.com





I did a google search for harassment of Amtrak passengers. The first thing that came up was the practice of searching random passengers for drugs. But no incidents of passengers bothering other passengers. 

I personally witnessed a passenger on 306 paying too much attention to the LSA on Saturday. I told her she had a supportive witness in me. She stated she appreciated my support and that she was ok. I could tell she really did appreciate the support.


----------



## Cal (May 4, 2021)

Steve4031 said:


> Here are examples:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Anything on European sleepers with shared rooms?


----------



## Steve4031 (May 4, 2021)

I did not look. When I traveled on Eurail passes in the 1990s the guidebooks warned of thieves boarding trains and spraying something in the air to knock out sleeping passengers and go through a couchette car steeling belongings. There were consistent warnings to take steps to protect your belongings. 

I had one uncomfortable experience in a compartment on a day train traveling between Milan and Marseilles. I was buy myself on a very uncrowded train. I was sitting in a compartment for 6 enjoying the ride along the riviera. At one point a guy entered the compartment and started a conversation with me. I was annoyed and not enthusiastic. He had a bottle of alcohol and kept insisting that I drink some with him. I said no because I didn't want any. He became more assertive saying his feelings were hurt, blah blah blah. I told him he needed to leave me alone. He refused to leave. I put my hand on the emergency brake which was in the compartment and threatened to pull it and blame him. I told him to get his a** out of there. He got up and left and I locked the door. I was freaked out. As I thought about it, I realized he probably wanted me to drink it because it had drugs that would knock me out. Then he could steal from me.


----------



## jis (May 4, 2021)

In my experience problems like those tend to be more in southern Europe than in the north, and they tend to increase as one goes further east. It has been this way for a long time. Nothing new there.


----------



## tricia (May 4, 2021)

Steve4031 said:


> Here are examples:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Decades ago, the Former Guy assaulted a woman on an airplane--she said it was like being groped by an octopus. She'd been upgraded to a first-class seat next to him, and left in a hurry. Years later, at a charity event, he recognized her and said "You're the xxxx from the airplane!" I heard her recounting all this on a radio program last year, and from other stories told by the host and by callers in to the program, such assaults apparently at least used to be fairly common. The saddest thing about this story is that first class was close to full that day, and absolutely no one said or did anything to help her.


----------



## Steve4031 (May 4, 2021)

Agreed. I offered my assistance to the female LSA on 306. She new she at least had a witness if there was a he said she said situation. I don't think he ever touched her. But he kept talking with her. That is wrong too. Unless the employee has initiated additional conversation, it is best to be respectful and leave them alone.


----------



## JermyZP (May 4, 2021)

To go with the topic of this thread. Simply Railway has posted a tweet about what the new bi-level from Siemens would look like if Amtrak orders in the future.


----------



## jis (May 5, 2021)

Technically such a thing could not possibly be based on Siemens Venture since the Siemens Ventures have a center sill and Superliner-like cars cannot have a center sill.


----------



## frequentflyer (May 5, 2021)

What was wrong with slumbercoaches? It would be a compelling product.


----------



## Mailliw (May 6, 2021)

I think Slumbercoaches simply came onto the scene to late to make a difference, but it was a mistake for Amtrak to abandon the concept entirely. A modernized version is probably the best option for a budget sleeper if it can be made to work with modern safety and ADA requirements. Also the in-room toilets would need to go; having them next to the head of the bed is even worse than VI roomettes.


----------



## cocojacoby (May 6, 2021)

frequentflyer said:


> What was wrong with slumbercoaches? It would be a compelling product.



Just out of curiosity I looked for some Slumbercoach floorplans and found this site named "Pullman Digital Library". Lot's of interesting info here including several sleeping car floorplans.

_"The digital selection includes images of 1,299 Pullman car drawings"_ 

My experience in a Slumbercoach was on the Southern in the 70s and I recall that most of the rooms were singles and there were a handful of double rooms which my girlfriend, our 2 cats and I took back and forth to college in Atlanta. I found it interesting that the version below (Slumbercoach #6006) is mostly double rooms. Also note that each double room is 6' 6" long which pretty much matches today's Viewliner rooms.

Looking at the diagram, building this today would require the loss of probably four rooms because of the need for the accessible room and also the loss of two more rooms for the shower and two toilet modules. That would be pretty close to the capacity of a Viewliner if all rooms were doubles. On the other hand if the car only had single rooms I think you are even worse off because even though the rooms are shorter (at 4') they of course would only hold one person. So figuring roughly 52 feet of linear space for the rooms, you are talking around 26 passengers max using single rooms (13 rooms each side) or 32 passengers max for double rooms (8 rooms per side).

I am doing this all quickly in my head but I think that's kind of how it would work. But check out the site for some very cool information:



[URLunfurl="true"]https://collections.carli.illinois.edu/digital/collection/nby_pullman/search/searchterm/pullman cars - drawings!Pullman Cars - Drawings/field/subjec!subjec/mode/exact!exact/conn/and!and/order/nosort/ad/asc[/URL]


----------



## jpakala (May 9, 2021)

When (this was around mid-1960s) from Pittsburgh to Chicago the Baltimore & Ohio sometimes substituted a 16 duplex roomette 4 bedroom car for the 24 single & 8 double room Slumbercoach, I loved it.


----------



## Ryan (May 9, 2021)

jis said:


> Technically such a thing could not possibly be based on Siemens Venture since the Siemens Ventures have a center sill and Superliner-like cars cannot have a center sill.


Why let things like "facts" and "physics" get in the way of some good speculation?


----------



## cocojacoby (May 14, 2021)

JermyZP said:


> Loading gauge for NEC and not for Superliner and Hi-Level cars.
> View attachment 21992



So what would happen if Amtrak alters the Penn Station infrastructure and removed all of the catenary and added third-rail shoes to their engines? Combine that with replacing the ballast/wood tie substructure with low-profile panel tracks. What would the absolute maximum height be then? Is an extra 1' 6" (16' 2" - 14' 8") possible for a newly designed Superliner that could travel the entire system?

Of course this is just theoretical. Does anyone know if the loading gauge is different in the East River tunnels? What if the new Gateway tunnels are built this way? Just thinking about it.


----------



## cocojacoby (May 17, 2021)

While I am fantasizing about such things, what if Amtrak switched yards with LIRR and all those deadhead moves to Sunnyside are eliminated. Does this make any sense for both agencies? If not a total swap maybe enough room to store Amtrak's LD equipment at West Side/Hudson Yards.

The new Gateway Tunnels and some platform tracks get the clearance revision above and the new Superliners never have to pass through the East River Tunnels to Sunnyside. Throw in the West Side Connection for the LSL and you have a very different landscape.

There of course are other things to consider (like other clearances such as the Baltimore Tunnel but that is being replaced) and the new Superliner design would need high/low doors, but it's fun to imagine the possibilities.

Thanks for the indulgence.


----------



## jis (May 17, 2021)

cocojacoby said:


> While I am fantasizing about such things, what if Amtrak switched yards with LIRR and all those deadhead moves to Sunnyside are eliminated. Does this make any sense for both agencies? If not a total swap maybe enough room to store Amtrak's LD equipment at West Side/Hudson Yards.


No it makes no sense operationally. At present all LIRR trains and trains terminating at Penn station coming from the south and Empire Corridor can operate run through to their respective yards without having to reverse directions which is a huge operational efficiency advantage, that gets completely destroyed. It also massively increases conflict moves in A interlocking which is already the worst conflict point even without these additional yard moves that will result. In general a horrible idea.


----------



## chrsjrcj (May 17, 2021)

I'm surprised there has been no discussion regarding Stadler making a bilevel Superliner replacement, with what they're doing for Caltrain. I wonder what the height (or I guess loading gauge?) of the Caltrain KISS coach trailer is vs a Superliner.


----------



## Ziv (May 17, 2021)

I think most KISS are 4.595m (15’1”) though Sweden’s are 4.7m (15’5”) 
The Superliners are 4.93m (16’2”) if memory serves. I wonder what a KISS sleeper would look and feel like with around 4” less height on each of the two levels. It would be nice to get a nearly “off the shelf” rail car but converting a KISS commuter rail car to a sleeper would be a big job. The inward curve of the upper level windows would be GREAT on the western routes! Keep those mountain tops in sight more often. 


chrsjrcj said:


> I'm surprised there has been no discussion regarding Stadler making a bilevel Superliner replacement, with what they're doing for Caltrain. I wonder what the height (or I guess loading gauge?) of the Caltrain KISS coach trailer is vs a Superliner.


----------



## west point (May 17, 2021)

Was the former Pacific Parlor car about 4 shorter.? Remember always had to watch step when going from PP car to regular Superliner or would stumble.


----------



## jiml (May 18, 2021)

west point said:


> Was the former Pacific Parlor car about 4 shorter.? Remember always had to watch step when going from PP car to regular Superliner or would stumble.


There was definitely a step involved when the ex-Santa Fe cars were mixed with Superliners. In this shot of the International in Michigan you can clearly see the roofline difference between the 3 Hi-level coaches and the Superliner bringing up the rear:


----------

