# Superliner III



## wrjensen (Jan 22, 2010)

With the talk of the trans-dorm, Snack Coach and everyone favorite the CCC I was thinking what should the new long distance bi-level should be. My thought was to basically replace the Superliner I and the PPC. Looking at the fleet many of them are rebuilt into other types of cars (See Below)

Coach/Baggage 43	18%

Sleeper 57	24%

Lounge 21	9%

Auto Train Lounge (ex-diners)	5	2%

Coach 74	31%

Snack Coach (ex-coach) 9	4%

DinerLounge (ex-dinners) 17	7%

Diner 10	4%

Total 236

H.L. Lounge(Pacific Parlour) 5

For OTOL.com

So based on what should the order include? Is there a new types of cars is need or improved version of the cars?


----------



## Big Iron (Jan 22, 2010)

wrjensen said:


> With the talk of the trans-dorm, Snack Coach and everyone favorite the CCC I was thinking what should the new long distance bi-level should be. My thought was to basically replace the Superliner I and the PPC. Looking at the fleet many of them are rebuilt into other types of cars (See Below)
> 
> Coach/Baggage 43	18%
> 
> ...


Would this be a possible improvement? Use sightseer wrap around windows for sleeping cars to allow upper bunk views ala viewliner?


----------



## pebbleworm (Jan 22, 2010)

A window for the upper bunk would be a huge improvement- not necessarily the (presumably) expensive curved glass, but at least a taller window or a double row like the Viewliners. A little more headroom in the upper would be helpful as well. One possible change would be to use a straight run of stairs to the upper level like the California bi-levels. The twisty stairs are not a defect to me, but I've heard a lot of complaints. More reliable toilets and HVAC systems are probably a given.

As far as types of cars needed I have no idea


----------



## jcl653 (Jan 22, 2010)

I've always thought there _could_ be a market for a higher-density, lower-cost couchette space. Then again, roomettes are fairly efficient as-is.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jan 22, 2010)

pebbleworm said:


> A window for the upper bunk would be a huge improvement- not necessarily the (presumably) expensive curved glass, but at least a taller window or a double row like the Viewliners. A little more headroom in the upper would be helpful as well. One possible change would be to use a straight run of stairs to the upper level like the California bi-levels. The twisty stairs are not a defect to me, but I've heard a lot of complaints. More reliable toilets and HVAC systems are probably a given.As far as types of cars needed I have no idea


These are excellent ideas, I'd add larger restrooms and shower area and utilize the CCCs for afirst class lounge similar to the PPC on the EB/CZ/SWC/the new daily train from CHI-LAX and the CL. Perhaps even converting a few of these hybrids to a true first class lounge would give BG more work!

As to cheaper sleepers (couchettes or Slumber coach etc.) how bout selling the roomettes in the Transition Dorms cheaper without meals! Also to be considered is utuilizing the oldest Superliners that havent been converted and make them into a Slumbercoach type car again without meals. These would be a big hit on the LD Western trains!


----------



## OlympianHiawatha (Jan 22, 2010)

While I will hate to see the classic PPCs go, it would be nice if some of the new generation Lounges are upscaled to give a Sleeper Lounge/Diner on all long distance Superliner trains. Of course, if the car cannot produce enough revenue to justify its existence that may not happen system wide.


----------



## sueb (Jan 22, 2010)

I agree with the idea to make the Superline styairs one straight run. Some people with mobility limitations could use the stairs who can't now. But even better, what about a single person wheelchair lift so handicapped pax on Superliners can use the dining car and the SSL facilities. It wouldn't even need to be inside the car. It could work like the lifts on tour buses and only be used when the train was at a station stop.


----------



## cpamtfan (Jan 22, 2010)

While the Surfliner type stairs would be nice, it would really deminish the number of rooms per car. And either the accesible or family room would be removed.

I'd say PPCs, etc should not be a top priority, While nice, they were just made to try to make a few extra bucks. I know that they are awesome, but I don't think they will return.

Maybe the diners could get windows similar to the Sightseers (the glass top), but keep the regular window on the bottom.

Maybe transition coaches could be built so mixed consists will appear. As well as a redesigned coach baggage/cafe/ more kiddie-arcade coaches cars to pertain to the family market. Also building cars that have bathrooms that are big enough and have a flushing system that will work on the routes they serve :lol: !

Overall these and some other improvements to the regular cars.


----------



## Big Iron (Jan 22, 2010)

cpamtfan said:


> While the Surfliner type stairs would be nice, it would really deminish the number of rooms per car. And either the accesible or family room would be removed.I'd say PPCs, etc should not be a top priority, While nice, they were just made to try to make a few extra bucks. I know that they are awesome, but I don't think they will return.
> 
> Maybe the diners could get windows similar to the Sightseers (the glass top), but keep the regular window on the bottom.
> 
> ...


I like the idea of transition coach for multi-level consists. Amtrak is not prone to this but this could make same seat connections from the east coast to the west coast through DC possible. IIRC the CL, during its single level days, had a coach that connected in DC with one of the Silvers to FLA.


----------



## wrjensen (Jan 22, 2010)

OlympianHiawatha said:


> While I will hate to see the classic PPCs go, it would be nice if some of the new generation Lounges are upscaled to give a Sleeper Lounge/Diner on all long distance Superliner trains. Of course, if the car cannot produce enough revenue to justify its existence that may not happen system wide.


I wonder if there would be a way to make some revenue with these. I have not been on the but it seem that downstairs is a wasted with the arcade/theater.

Could you build it with a lounge upstairs and sleeper downstairs? It would add some revenue from these or they could add dorm downstairs and sell more of the trans dorms rooms. Could the same car design be use as a PPC and the Autotrain lounge cars?

A type of car would be something between the dinner and the lounge/cafe? A car that would replace the CCC and/or the coach/cafe?


----------



## railiner (Jan 22, 2010)

The Superliners are used primarily on long distance routes that usually include two nights enroute. I believe more sleepers would be the first priority. There never seems to be enough of them.


----------



## pebbleworm (Jan 22, 2010)

The downstairs of the Pacific Parlor Car is a very nice space, but it is usually empty. A few months ago, my 4 year old and I were the only ones down there watching a godawful kid's movie. Why they show "family " movies while the PPC obviously caters to a much older clientele in beyond me. Maybe use the lower level as an extra fare lounge for coach passengers? A poker room open to all with drinks available upstairs? Or a wifi equipped quiet room? I like the idea of a first class lounge, but it doesn't need to be a whole car. It could be part of a sleeper, part of the crew dorm, or even part of a two class lounge car. The "kiddie car" was a nice idea, but from personal experience the kids and people with kids are going to find each other on a train trip, and in the 21st century the need for an arcade room is long past. Just a few personal observations.


----------



## sunchaser (Jan 23, 2010)

It seems Amtrak needs more baggage, diners, & superliner sleepers. If I was designing the sleepers I would make the bottom bed in the bedroom wider. I would also add flannel sheets, better pillows & blankets, & mattress toppers. The bathrooms overall could be a bit larger, too. Even though it would be nice for the upper bunk to have more height & a window, from what I understand it could be a problem with the tunnels.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 23, 2010)

Well, lets see. First, I feel it is important to keep in mind the need for financial efficiency onboard Amtrak trains.

*Augmentation:*

Sleeper augmentation will be done other ways.

1) 25 standard Superliner coaches for the same reason.

*Spares:*

1) 6 Sleepers (LA, EMY, SEA, CHI, NOL, WAS)

2) 6 coaches

3) 6 diners

Reasons: You don't need a spare lounge- the diner can do that. You also don't need spare trans-dorms because in the pinch, you can use a standard sleeper.

*Additional routes:*

_I am going to assume some additional routes that Amtrak has aluded to. 2 train sets would be required to comfortably turn the CONO into the City of Miami. The Desert Wind and Pioneer make sense. A North Coast Hiawatha is less sensible, but I suspect certain states would be willing to partner with the feds to make it a reality. I also say that DW and Pioneer should combine into the Desert Pioneer at Denver and produce a second frequency between Denver and Chicago. I also think that trans-dorms are a silly idea. A Baggage/Dorm/Sleeper with the rear part of the crew lounge being for baggage on these short trains makes more sense. _

_ _

_So you'd have the following consist for the Desert Pioneer: P42 (P), P42(DW), Bag/Dorm/Sleeper (DW), sleeper (DW), CCC(DW), coach (DW), Coach (DW), Coach (P), Coach (P), CCC (P), Sleeper (P), Bag/Dorm/Sleeper (P)._

_ _

_CONO: P42, P42, Bag/Dorm/Sleeper, Sleeper, Diner, Sightseer, Coach, Coach, Coach. _

_ _

_NCH: P42, P42, Bag, Trans/dorm (from other trains), sleeper, sleeper, diner, SSL, coach, coach, coach. _

_ _

_Now, the CCCs are already there, so diners would be ordered to displace the CCCs from the TE and CONO. You'd need 6 Desert Pioneer sets, 3 COM sets, and 6 NCH sets, and a spare sightseer_

1) 15 Bag/dorm/sleeper

2) 27 sleeper

3) 52 coach

4) 21 diners

5) 9 Sightseer

*Additional car types.*

Several routes running superliners justify these two car types. The first car is an all-bedroom first-class lounge car. It would run on the SWC, CZ, GSL (Nee TE), EB, and CL. The upper level would be all bedrooms and the lower level would be a comfortable bar/lounge set up for first class passengers. 35 cars would be required to meet the need, I think.

The second one is a sort of couchette car, if you will. It is a Superliner sleeper, but the upstairs bathroom, and the luggage rack (will be moved over to displace a pair of bathrooms) become roomettes, as do the bedrooms. The result is 28 roomettes in the car. The H-room becomes 2 bathrooms (so the car retains the original number of bathrooms). The rooms can be reserved in total, or can be shared with a stranger. They do not include meals, and come at a lower price. 45 such cars will be needed.

1) 35 Deluxe Sleeper Lounges,

2) 45 Slumbercoaches.

*Order total:*

I've added a few additional cars to the overall total.

1) 15 Bag/dorm/sleeper

2) 35 Sleepers

3) 30 Diners

4) 10 Sightseers

5) 85 Coaches

5) 35 Deluxe Sleeper Lounges,

7) 45 Slumbercoaches.

Total: 255 cars: 130 sleeper cars, 85 coaches, 40 food service cars.


----------



## Rob_C (Jan 23, 2010)

Only one revenue sleeper on the new CHI-Miami train? Seems like that route warrants at least the usual Sleeper-Sleeper-Transleeper configuration if not more.

Also if there's a route that warrants a sightseer, I would think the new Pioneer would qualify.

Rob


----------



## Ispolkom (Jan 23, 2010)

It's obvious, at least to me, that if Amtrak is going to order more Superliners, what they need first is more sleepers, built like the rebuilt Superliner 1 sleepers. Given the remarkable prices Amtrak charges (and gets) for high-bucket sleepers, that's where the demand is.

It wouldn't make sense to built economy sleepers because 1) they'd be tenements on wheels, and 2) if successful, they'd just cannibalize demand for the more lucrative real sleepers. In any case, what Amtrak has a shortage of usually is bedrooms.


----------



## Pastor Dave (Jan 23, 2010)

When traveling with my wife I always get the short straw and thus the upper berth. A window on that level would be great. As a solo traveller, I wonder what the financial ramifications would be on having some rooms in the old slumbercoach style.


----------



## F59PHI (Jan 23, 2010)

wrjensen said:


> With the talk of the trans-dorm, Snack Coach and everyone favorite the CCC I was thinking what should the new long distance bi-level should be. My thought was to basically replace the Superliner I and the PPC. Looking at the fleet many of them are rebuilt into other types of cars (See Below)
> 
> Coach/Baggage 43	18%
> 
> ...


Well- Considering Amtrak's recent reinvestment in their fleet, I think it would be rather silly to replace recently rebuilt cars at the moment. That said, a small order to boost spares and allow for expansion would be nice.

The spares which I think are really needed are Diners, Sleepers, and TransDorms. 10 each would give us the boost we need to make sure we don't end up too short.

The first thing I see is 3 sets of superliners to get the cardinal up and running as a daily superliner train to DC. (The current Card Sets can go to restoring the Broadway.) 3X (Transition-Sleeper-Diner-Lounge-Coach-CoachBaggage)

I think the cars to run the two other proposed services would also be ideal, namely the Pioneer and North Coast Limited. I also like the idea of restoring the Desert Wind with the Pioneer. The NCL would have a full length consist, 6X(Transition-Sleeper-Sleeper-Diner-Lounge-Coach-Coach-CoachBaggage) The Pioneer and Desert Wind would be combined CHI-DEN, I'd guess something like Desert Wind being a full consist consisting of Transition-Sleeper-Sleeper-Diner-Lounge-Coach-Coach-CoachBaggage, with the Pioneer tacked on the back consisting of a coach-baggage, coach, Diner/Lounge, and a sleeper or two.

Also, I'd like it if the new order had parlours in it. I'd give these first to the Coast Starlight, But I think theyd be good on the Empire Builder too, and perhaps replace the Sleeper Lounges on the Auto Train. Perhaps on the Southwest Chief too.

So overall, that would be an order of roughly: 25 Coach Baggages, 35 Coaches, 50 Sleepers, 20 Lounges, 25 Diners, 25 Transition Sleepers, and 20 Parlours. Wouldn't order any new diner lounges- Just use the ones free'd up by the new Diners on the Pioneer.


----------



## sunchaser (Jan 23, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Well, lets see. First, I feel it is important to keep in mind the need for financial efficiency onboard Amtrak trains.
> *Augmentation:*
> 
> Sleeper augmentation will be done other ways.
> ...


I like your ideas about the Deluxe Sleeper Lounges & the Slumbercoaches.

I think the Desert Wind/ Pioneer could use at least one more Deluxe Sleepers and a Slumbercoach.

But now I'm wondering if the have other old stock that could be turned into Parlor Cars for Pioneer/Desert Wind, the Empire Builder, & a couple of spares for the Coast Starlight.

Does anyone have any other Routes they think would benefit from Parlor Cars or something similar?

Also, it would be nice if there were designated places to smoke on the train-I know most of you aren't fond of this idea-I'm not sure where would be the best place though.

I know it should NOT be downstairs ANYWHERE-smoke rises.

There are certainly ways to prevent smoke seepage into other areas.


----------



## dlagrua (Jan 23, 2010)

I see that we are talking equipment here but not necessarily improvements. I would like to see the Superliner III's with ice machines in the center vestibules (the ice tray often runs out of ice especially in summer), a slightly wider bathroom, deeper matresses in the bunks, the rooms expanded but only 6" wider so that you can leave the room more easily (when the lower bunk is down), satellite TV, wifi internet access, and and assortment of soft drinks in the rooms with a small refrigerator. Also they need to redo the climate control so that it works with the window curtains closed. On our last trip the curtains completely blocked the heat as the vents are behind the curtains.


----------



## Mark (Jan 23, 2010)

Sleepers, sleepers, sleepers. That is what they need both Bi and single level fleets. All LD trains frequently sellout the sleepers and potential customers are turned away. These are the prime real estate cars that can get back much more revenue than coaches. EB could use a third Seattle and second Portand sleeper. The SWC and CZ could both probably take a third sleeper and the TE is often forced to use rooms in the Crew Dorm which also indicate a demand. On the single level side the LSL seems to sell out its NYP sleepers often but I don't know about the BOS section.


----------



## delvyrails (Jan 23, 2010)

I'll limit this discussion to physical car design.

Considering what these cars are going to cost, there should be as much flexibility in the design as possible. Possibly there could be only two basic car types: the diner and a design that is adaptable for all other uses. Modular design would be used more than ever before, and cars could be changed when they are in the shop for periodic major work with subtraction and addition of modules throughout the car's length. Some ideas:

1. One end of the non-diner car design would be adaptable for replacement of the standard end with a transition section. All Superliner transition cars now are of the sleeper type; use of coaches as transition cars may be useful in some services.

2. Have two doors in each side somewhat like the California car design. One would be standard, the other wide for handicap entrance to the lower level. Both would have stairs to the upper deck for flexibility of use. The handicap passengers have to be located on the lower level near a door because coach aisles are not wide enough to pass a standard wheelchair, and passage between cars would be hazardous because of the swaying of the cars in any case.

3. Cars would have a battery once again, this time a modern lightweight design, not the huge old lead-acid type of years ago. This would allow continuity of hotel power in emergencies and whenever the locomotive is detached from the train as for switching, etc.

4. Among the flexibile car designs would be a combination coach-sleeper, coach-intermediate, or intermediate-sleeper. By intermediate, I mean one of the many ideas proposed that would be intermediate in price between coach and sleeper. Here again, the modular concept would allow modules to be removed and added to individual cars when they are shopped to vary the mix according to the needs of the particular car or train in order to improve the load factor.

5. As another way to get better load factors, Amtrak needs to vary its consists en route and to split and join trains at junction stations. The car design would allow use of the Canadian J-train concept, i.e., tandem locomotive-and-cars units that can be operated as one train.

6. Push-pull capability for back up moves, switching, etc.

These cars will be in use for decades; so adaptability to changing needs is all-important.


----------



## DET63 (Jan 23, 2010)

Any chance of a bi-level design (either in the hypothetical Superliner 3 or similar stock) with upstairs inter-car access but a small enough loading gauge to fit into the NEC? It would be nice if there was at least the possibility of a single-seat ride from New York and/or Boston to San Francisco, Seattle, and/or Los Angeles.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 23, 2010)

Not likely - a NJT style bilevel wouldn't have the overhead space on either level to have room for luggage racks or upper berths.


----------



## jis (Jan 23, 2010)

delvyrails said:


> 3. Cars would have a battery once again, this time a modern lightweight design, not the huge old lead-acid type of years ago. This would allow continuity of hotel power in emergencies and whenever the locomotive is detached from the train as for switching, etc.


This should be easy to achieve since at present it seems to be a unique American thing not to have enough battery power to keep at least the lights on for a considerable amount of time. The self-generating cars in places like India actually have enough battery capacity to keep not only the lights but even AC going for a considerable amount of time, though at a more sedate rate.


----------



## Tony (Jan 23, 2010)

Here is my wish list. Some of them are repeats of points other made (just consider such an extra vote in favor).


A small lounge in the sleeper. Either upstairs, possibly with the curved panorama windows, in the center sharing the stairs area. Or downstairs like in (some) transitional sleepers. A place to socialize and a chance to look out both sides.

Toilet and sink in the roomettes, like the Viewliners. Sorry folks, but I have seen just how bad the 'public" toilets on LD trains can get. Having your own, makes you responsible for keeping it clean (or you and only you have to live with your own mess). Of course, the bedrooms would still be unique with having a shower too.

Roomettes redesigned so they have the side hall, like the current bedrooms, instead of the center hall. I think one could have a slightly larger roomette that way. Something like the small rooms offered by the defunct GrandLuxe cars.

Working individual HVAC control.


----------



## OlympianHiawatha (Jan 23, 2010)

A fantasy design I have always envisioned for a future generation Superliner is a round tail observation car with a Milwaukee Skytop Lounge type window arrangement and the upper level forming a mezzanine type terrace lounge with some kind of stairway down to the lower level lounge area.. That would give an amazing Lounge for Sleeper pax. However, I imagine the FRA would have kittens over that much glass and modern train ops don't lend too well to a dedicated tail car that would create switching and turn around hassles.


----------



## GG-1 (Jan 23, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> slightly wider bathroom, deeper matresses in the bunks, the rooms expanded but only 6" wider so that you can leave the room more easily (when the lower bunk is down), satellite TV, wifi internet access, and and


Aloha

Where do you suggest this foot of car with come from. The Aisle is narrow enough now.


----------



## sunchaser (Jan 23, 2010)

GG-1 said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > slightly wider bathroom, deeper matresses in the bunks, the rooms expanded but only 6" wider so that you can leave the room more easily (when the lower bunk is down), satellite TV, wifi internet access, and and
> ...


I think he meant changing the 6'6" x 7'6" dimensions to 7' x 7' 6". Not across the width of the car but add 6 inches to the length of the bedroom.


----------



## The Metropolitan (Jan 23, 2010)

Definitely not Parlors in my book. I'd much rather see the resources go into buying equipment that will enable Amtrak to equip new routes and attract greater ridership than to be supplementing existing ones with non revenue space that will simply make the product more enjoyable for some.

Besides, someone would have to pay for the costs involved with operating the non revenue space. Factor in the cost of the attendant, the fuel usage to haul the car, and the maintenance costs involved for what is basically a non-revenue car and you're quite likely easily looking at $2500 of added expense on a 48 hour trip. Divided by an average occupancy of 40 rooms onboard the train, we're talking over a $60 jump in all sleeper prices for such a trip.


----------



## Kramerica (Jan 24, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Several routes running superliners justify these two car types. The first car is an all-bedroom first-class lounge car. It would run on the SWC, CZ, GSL (Nee TE), EB, and CL. The upper level would be all bedrooms and the lower level would be a comfortable bar/lounge set up for first class passengers. 35 cars would be required to meet the need, I think.
> The second one is a sort of couchette car, if you will. It is a Superliner sleeper, but the upstairs bathroom, and the luggage rack (will be moved over to displace a pair of bathrooms) become roomettes, as do the bedrooms. The result is 28 roomettes in the car. The H-room becomes 2 bathrooms (so the car retains the original number of bathrooms). The rooms can be reserved in total, or can be shared with a stranger. They do not include meals, and come at a lower price. 45 such cars will be needed.
> 
> 1) 35 Deluxe Sleeper Lounges,
> ...


I LOVE those two car ideas. You'll be better serving both the high end and low end of the sleeper spectrum. Amtrak really needs to meet the needs of passengers who simply want a horizontal place to sleep. They don't care about meals or privacy. I've traveled both coach and roomette, and the only real issue I had with coach (and it was a big issue) was sleeping comfort level. I think a reasonable price point is $30-$50 per person per night for a horizontal sleeping position. Sure, having privacy and getting "free" meals was pretty nice in the roomette, but I'd have been just as happy without those things at a lower price point.



sunchaser said:


> Also, it would be nice if there were designated places to smoke on the train-I know most of you aren't fond of this idea-I'm not sure where would be the best place though. I know it should NOT be downstairs ANYWHERE-smoke rises. There are certainly ways to prevent smoke seepage into other areas.


The general movement in the US is to ban smoking in public areas. I don't see any reason to reverse that trend on Amtrak.


----------



## railiner (Jan 24, 2010)

Parlor cars have been historically first class revenue chair cars used on shorter routes, or longer routes not involving an overnight operation.

Non revenue space on long distance trains should be referred to as lounge cars, or first class lounge cars, if intended for that use.

The only cars that could offer a reasonable accommodation for smokers would be those neat bilevels operating on the Alaska RR that have a small open-air observation section.


----------



## DET63 (Jan 24, 2010)

If you can find the stairs to the penthouse suite on selected Superliner sleepers, you can go up there to take a puff.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 24, 2010)

Tony said:


> Toilet and sink in the roomettes, like the Viewliners. Sorry folks, but I have seen just how bad the 'public" toilets on LD trains can get. Having your own, makes you responsible for keeping it clean (or you and only you have to live with your own mess). Of course, the bedrooms would still be unique with having a shower too.


That won't happen, sorry. In fact the toilets have been removed from the new Viewliners that Amtrak is looking to order. So there will be no chance that they put them back in for a new order of Superliner III's.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 24, 2010)

delvyrails said:


> Considering what these cars are going to cost, there should be as much flexibility in the design as possible. Possibly there could be only two basic car types: the diner and a design that is adaptable for all other uses. Modular design would be used more than ever before, and cars could be changed when they are in the shop for periodic major work with subtraction and addition of modules throughout the car's length.


I suspect that any new Superliner III's will follow the Viewliner's example and go modular. The current Viewliners, as well as those Amtrak wants to order are all modular. Slide the room it, bolt it down, hook up power and water; repeat.



delvyrails said:


> 2. Have two doors in each side somewhat like the California car design. One would be standard, the other wide for handicap entrance to the lower level. Both would have stairs to the upper deck for flexibility of use. The handicap passengers have to be located on the lower level near a door because coach aisles are not wide enough to pass a standard wheelchair, and passage between cars would be hazardous because of the swaying of the cars in any case.


Such a design would hurt car capacity considerably, especially in the case of a sleeper. You'd probably end up with half the number of rooms you currently have with two sets of doors and two staircases. A commuter op needs more points of egress as you have to move people in and out far more quickly. That's not true for a long distance train.



delvyrails said:


> 4. Among the flexibile car designs would be a combination coach-sleeper, coach-intermediate, or intermediate-sleeper. By intermediate, I mean one of the many ideas proposed that would be intermediate in price between coach and sleeper. Here again, the modular concept would allow modules to be removed and added to individual cars when they are shopped to vary the mix according to the needs of the particular car or train in order to improve the load factor.


While modular designs are nice and offer many advantages, it's also not that simple of a matter to just roll the car into the shop and start swapping modules. One doesn't want to get into changing the layout of the car on even a semi-regular basis. It's simply not cost effective.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 24, 2010)

Mark said:


> Sleepers, sleepers, sleepers. That is what they need both Bi and single level fleets. All LD trains frequently sellout the sleepers and potential customers are turned away. These are the prime real estate cars that can get back much more revenue than coaches. EB could use a third Seattle and second Portand sleeper. The SWC and CZ could both probably take a third sleeper and the TE is often forced to use rooms in the Crew Dorm which also indicate a demand. On the single level side the LSL seems to sell out its NYP sleepers often but I don't know about the BOS section.


I agree that we need more sleepers on almost all of the current runs. However, "forced' is not the correct word to use in regard to the Crew Dorm. The car was designed for the express purpose of housing the crew on one end and allowing paying customers to use the other end. It's simply smart revenue management to sell those rooms and help to pay for the cost of that car which is needed for the crew anyhow.

Of course for many years Amtrak wasn't being smart, and they didn't sell those rooms. David Gunn saw the folly of that and made the change that allows the cars to be used as intended.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 24, 2010)

jis said:


> delvyrails said:
> 
> 
> > 3. Cars would have a battery once again, this time a modern lightweight design, not the huge old lead-acid type of years ago. This would allow continuity of hotel power in emergencies and whenever the locomotive is detached from the train as for switching, etc.
> ...


The Tesla Roadster battery pack weighs about a thousand pounds, stores about 53 kilowatt hours, and costs $36,000.

What's the average power consumption of a Superliner?


----------



## MikeM (Jan 24, 2010)

Good discussion so far. I'd like to offer a few thoughts myself while we're at it...


I would like to see some upgrades in the sleepers, mostly with the restrooms on the lower level. Maybe remove one rest room and make the remainder a bit larger so you lose some of the "I'm locked in a closet" feeling. Plus more reliable toilets, the current systems seem to be plagued with problems at altitudes.

Add more electric outlets to the sleepers, at least two or more in the economy sleepers. Many folks travel with laptops, music players, and cell phones, so access is critical.

Add Wi-Fi as a extra cost option that can be signed up for en route. This would be a nice additional revenue source I suspect if it were well managed.

Reconfigure the lower level of the superliner lounges similar to the Superliner II's, but offer a larger "store" section. Effectively turn it into a convenience store on wheels. On many long distrance trains, stock starts to run out on day two, the added variety and stock would really help things.

Also, look at some sort of computerized register / inventory management in the lounge car! Bar codes have been out for several decades, having these would help headquarters see what's selling when and adjust accordingly.

Lose the top level bar station in the lounge car -- I have never once seen it used in all my travels. Mostly it's a place to put a broom and trash cans.

Look at creating an "arcade area" in the train, maybe a lower level coach, or the lounge car. Stock with kid-friendly video games and such; could be another source of revenue.

At many airports, there are kiosks where you can rent DVD's and video players -- wonder if something like this would work on the train, managed from the lounge car? (BTW, if all these ideas were brought in, you'd need to look at staffing the lounge better!)

For multi-day trips, I'd love to see a "enhanced coach" option, which would have single seats on each side of the aisle, with enhanced leg room. Think of this as the poor man's sleeper arrangement - could get more passengers per car than sleeper, but would allow for farther reclining seats, more privacy, and room to stretch out?



Also, I do like the idea of a "mini lounge" for sleeper passengers separate from the main observation car; this could provide additional incentive for upgrades to sleeper accommodations. Maybe a combination sleeper / sightseer lounge, or crew sleeper / lounge car? If the idea of smaller diners (aka CCC cars) were desired for smaller routes like the Pioneer, maybe you could do the sightseer windows in the lounge section, and incorporate some sort of small vending / food sales area?

Be interesting to see if any changes come, or if they'll just dust off the Superliner II plans?


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 24, 2010)

Kramerica said:


> I LOVE those two car ideas. You'll be better serving both the high end and low end of the sleeper spectrum. Amtrak really needs to meet the needs of passengers who simply want a horizontal place to sleep. They don't care about meals or privacy. I've traveled both coach and roomette, and the only real issue I had with coach (and it was a big issue) was sleeping comfort level. I think a reasonable price point is $30-$50 per person per night for a horizontal sleeping position. Sure, having privacy and getting "free" meals was pretty nice in the roomette, but I'd have been just as happy without those things at a lower price point.


Simply adding another sleeping car of the same layout as the existing sleeping cars to each existing route would also reduce the price of a roomette, without creating the extra costs for Amtrak of having to deal with an additional car type.

By the time you factor in the inefficiency of an extra car type, I'm not sure the extra density of a couchette car is actually any cheaper to operate per passenger than the existing roomettes. Why spend the money on more complexity when you can spend it on more space for the most frugal overnight passengers instead?

And if there were more roomettes on each train, Amtrak might be able to offer a roomette without meals, given that a lot of the argument in favor of forcing sleeping car passengers to pay for meals is to generate enough demand for the dining car to make it practical to operate at all.

Remember that the price of a roomette is determined not by how much it costs Amtrak to run the train, but by what the highest bidders for the space in the rolling stock Amtrak happens to have are willing to pay.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 24, 2010)

MikeM said:


> [*]Lose the top level bar station in the lounge car -- I have never once seen it used in all my travels. Mostly it's a place to put a broom and trash cans.


Ride the Empire Builder during peak times and you'll see it get used.



MikeM said:


> [*]Look at creating an "arcade area" in the train, maybe a lower level coach, or the lounge car. Stock with kid-friendly video games and such; could be another source of revenue.


Amtrak has 5 such cars on the Coast Starlight for years. They've met with moderate success, so I'm not sure if adding still more would be a good idea.



MikeM said:


> [*]At many airports, there are kiosks where you can rent DVD's and video players -- wonder if something like this would work on the train, managed from the lounge car? (BTW, if all these ideas were brought in, you'd need to look at staffing the lounge better!)


There was a private company that was sort of doing this, although you couldn't rent on the trains early on. They finally did try onboard rentals on one train, shortly before the company went bankrupt. Most people have their own DVD's these days and aren't looking for last minute rentals.



MikeM said:


> [*]For multi-day trips, I'd love to see a "enhanced coach" option, which would have single seats on each side of the aisle, with enhanced leg room. Think of this as the poor man's sleeper arrangement - could get more passengers per car than sleeper, but would allow for farther reclining seats, more privacy, and room to stretch out?


Basically what they need is the business class found in the Club-Dinette cars on the single level trains.


----------



## sunchaser (Jan 24, 2010)

railiner said:


> Parlor cars have been historically first class revenue chair cars used on shorter routes, or longer routes not involving an overnight operation.Non revenue space on long distance trains should be referred to as lounge cars, or first class lounge cars, if intended for that use.
> 
> The only cars that could offer a reasonable accommodation for smokers would be those neat bilevels operating on the Alaska RR that have a small open-air observation section.


I still really enjoy having the Parlor Car. For me, being new to trains, it was nice quiet space that was like being at home.

In fact given a choice, we ate all but one of our meals in the Parlor Car, which meant that we didn't take up space in the diner on that run.

Now you're talking! But now that means another type of Car to design. It would not bother me in the least bit to go outside & smoke. Maybe put it on the very end of the train after all the coaches?


----------



## DesertRat (Jan 24, 2010)

Electronic or other type of keys for the sleeper rooms.


----------



## Neil_M (Jan 24, 2010)

DesertRat said:


> Electronic or other type of keys for the sleeper rooms.


How long would they stay working?


----------



## MikeM (Jan 24, 2010)

I forgot this in my earlier wish list, but I'd love to see "real" temperature controls in the sleeper rooms!!!! I hate baking / freezing in a premium space. I've seen this in some other posts, and really think it's a great addition.

As to the locking sleeper doors -- I'd like to see that too, although I wonder if Amtrak's maintenance forces could keep them working over time. But, with more and more people bringing ipods, computers, and dvd players on trips, it'd be a nice peace of mind option.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 24, 2010)

This page indicates that a typical Amtrak coach uses about 40 kW.

So a thousand pounds of lithium ion batteries would probably be sufficient to keep the heating/air conditioning running for about an hour, which probably isn't as much as would be ideal on a car pulled by a single locomotive with a non-redundant HEP source.

How hard would it be to build passenger cars that could carry the weight and had the space for 5000 to 10000 pounds of lithium ion batteries? That large a battery pack might be more expensive today than Amtrak would want to pay for, but 10 years into the life of the car, the cost of the battery packs may have come down a lot.

I also think Amtrak should be looking at putting diesel powered HEP generators into the cabbage conversions of the electric locomotives. For trains with a single P40/P42 running in push-pull mode, there may be some fuel savings from being able to let the prime mover in the P40/P42 run at a more efficient speed by not being stuck at the right multiple of 60 hz, the weight of the generator in the cabbage may be able to replace a concrete block, and the locomotive could take over providing HEP if the generator in the cabbage failed.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 24, 2010)

Neil_M said:


> DesertRat said:
> 
> 
> > Electronic or other type of keys for the sleeper rooms.
> ...


About a month.


----------



## DesertRat (Jan 25, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Neil_M said:
> 
> 
> > DesertRat said:
> ...


  Well! But do we know that for sure? I just read on another thread that the City Line overnight trains in Europe use them. :unsure:


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 25, 2010)

DesertRat said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Neil_M said:
> ...


They don't have Congress and the President randomly zeroing their budget.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 25, 2010)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> So a thousand pounds of lithium ion batteries would probably be sufficient to keep the heating/air conditioning running for about an hour, which probably isn't as much as would be ideal on a car pulled by a single locomotive with a non-redundant HEP source.


Airlines are charging people for a 20 lb suitcase in part because they can get away with it, but in part because the extra weight does burn more fuel. And you want Amtrak to add 13,000 lbs to the weight of its trains?



Joel N. Weber II said:


> How hard would it be to build passenger cars that could carry the weight and had the space for 5000 to 10000 pounds of lithium ion batteries? That large a battery pack might be more expensive today than Amtrak would want to pay for, but 10 years into the life of the car, the cost of the battery packs may have come down a lot.


Not hard for the Superliners, but depending on the physical size perhaps not possible for single level cars. But again, at what cost in terms of fuel consumption hauling around all that weight?



Joel N. Weber II said:


> I also think Amtrak should be looking at putting diesel powered HEP generators into the cabbage conversions of the electric locomotives. For trains with a single P40/P42 running in push-pull mode, there may be some fuel savings from being able to let the prime mover in the P40/P42 run at a more efficient speed by not being stuck at the right multiple of 60 hz, the weight of the generator in the cabbage may be able to replace a concrete block, and the locomotive could take over providing HEP if the generator in the cabbage failed.


Amtrak doesn't have enough cabagges (22) to assign to the long distance trains. Even if they did, they provide a far more valuable service in their current roles. Not to mention that in some cases, the states provided some funding for their conversion, so they aren't going to let Amtrak put ponies in there and then steal them away for the LD's.


----------



## Neil_M (Jan 25, 2010)

MikeM said:


> I forgot this in my earlier wish list, but I'd love to see "real" temperature controls in the sleeper rooms!!!! I hate baking / freezing in a premium space. I've seen this in some other posts, and really think it's a great addition.


In a sleeper vehicle it is quite hard to achieve. Think about it, you might want your room boiling hot, I might want mine freezing cold.

The way the sleepers in the UK get round it is to run the AC in 'cool' mode nearly all the time (with the addition of an internal heater bank in really cold external temperatures) and have a heater bank in each berth roof space so you add heat as you want to warm the room.

Having individual AC units for each berth would be very expensive and not the best way to go.

And as for what vehicles to buy, more sleepers. Given the prices that get charged for sleeper space it would be foolish to go for anything else, I think the slumbercoach thing is not the way to go. People want a sliver of privacy plus you could probably make more money out of a coach full of roomettes than a flophouse on wheels.

The seats in the SNCF night vehicles might be a good idea in coach though, virtually lie flat when extended and super comfortable.

In an ideal world a separate diner for sleeper passengers might be nice, and open up the existing diner to coach passengers and try to increase revenue by serving meals all day.


----------



## jis (Jan 25, 2010)

AlanB said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > So a thousand pounds of lithium ion batteries would probably be sufficient to keep the heating/air conditioning running for about an hour, which probably isn't as much as would be ideal on a car pulled by a single locomotive with a non-redundant HEP source.
> ...


We seem to forget that such systems exist all over the world, and have done so for at least 60-70 years, nothing new, including in trains that run in Siberia. All that is needed is adapting them a bit to our circumstances. And BTW the common battery technology used was banks of lead acid batteries suspended under the cars, in the past. The more modern ones use NiMH ones. No one seem to be using LiH so far, possibly because of cost and fire hazards since at least until now the extra weight of NiMH has not been an issue.

The trick is to create multiple power load profiles and when HEP/power source is lost progressively drop to lower and lower power load profiles dropping non-critical things. Easy things that are done is resetting thermostats with a goal to maintain safety for the longest time rather than best comfort for a much shorter time etc. No one that I am aware of tries to run everything on full blast on battery power. I had a chance to see the control panel for one of these a couple of weeks back. Quite an interesting setup. Wish I had taken a picture of it.


----------



## MikeM (Jan 25, 2010)

Neil_M said:


> MikeM said:
> 
> 
> > I forgot this in my earlier wish list, but I'd love to see "real" temperature controls in the sleeper rooms!!!! I hate baking / freezing in a premium space. I've seen this in some other posts, and really think it's a great addition.
> ...


Ok, I'm willing to compromise. Just let me set the temprature of the whole car from my roomette, and I'll be happy! :unsure:

No, but seriously, if you could do like many offices where the temp is set cooler and then people can make it warmer using the baseboard heat if desired, then that would be nice. Failing that, do something to ensure better temperature balance in the sleepers - I've been in too many where part of the car is icy and another section is totally baking. And if the HVAC system is modular and could be easily swapped out if malfunctioning, that'd be a nice bonus. But I do agree that temp control would need to be bounded within a few degrees, it wouldn't be realistic to have one room 60 degrees and the neighboring room 80.

One final thought -- fans? Older sleepers had the rubber bladed fans in the rooms that helped compensate for some temperature imbalances? I wonder if that could be a solution that'd be cheaper than lots of high tech pneumatic baffling and temp controls?

Realistically, whatever is done needs to be basic enough that it will still work in five years after the cars have been out on the road for a while. GML does have a point about keeping things operating, particularly given the feast or famine budget cycle Amtrak gets stuck in.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 25, 2010)

Neil_M said:


> In a sleeper vehicle it is quite hard to achieve. Think about it, you might want your room boiling hot, I might want mine freezing cold.The way the sleepers in the UK get round it is to run the AC in 'cool' mode nearly all the time (with the addition of an internal heater bank in really cold external temperatures) and have a heater bank in each berth roof space so you add heat as you want to warm the room.
> 
> Having individual AC units for each berth would be very expensive and not the best way to go.


That's a ridiculous statement. Volkswagen developed a system for their Phaeton luxury sedan that allowed it to realistically vary the temperature in the four interior, undivided zones up to a total range of 10 degrees. Suggesting that you can't achieve a range from coldest to hottest of 15 degrees when you have dividing walls is ridiculous. Say a range between 64 and 79.

How to do it? Its not hard. You have two ducts, one bringing air from a central heating unit and the other bringing air from a central a/c unit. Set both of them to a relatively high operating state. At each room, have a valve that apportions air from both ducts into a duct for that room. The theromstat controls the valve and thus controls the blending of the two airs into a specific temperature which it then blows into the room.



Neil_M said:


> And as for what vehicles to buy, more sleepers. Given the prices that get charged for sleeper space it would be foolish to go for anything else, I think the slumbercoach thing is not the way to go. People want a sliver of privacy plus you could probably make more money out of a coach full of roomettes than a flophouse on wheels.


I'm glad you don't bother reading my posts once you determine that there is nothing within it with which to synthesize an insult. The Slumbercoach of which I spoke consisted of an all-roomette sleeper. 21 roomettes upstairs (10 each side of the stairs, one taking up the space freed up by removing the bathroom and the turn required for bedrooms), and 7 downstairs (the four as they are, two where the Family room is now, and one taking up the space where the luggage rack currently is). The luggage rack gets moved to the other side of the vestibule, and two or three bathrooms take up the space that the H-room occupies now. 28 roomettes, total capacity of 56 passengers. Offer the rooms three ways. You can purchase a berth in one of them for, say, $40 a night. You can purchase a whole room for yourself for $80 a night. You can add the room as an upgrade for a pair of passengers for $60 a night. Irrespective of which you chose, it does not include meals and you make up your bed yourself. The car is serviced by a coach attendant the same way a coach is, with the attendant using a transdorm room.

Assuming the Superliner IIIs are modular, this "slumbercoach" would have the same modules as a regular sleeper. $80 is a reasonable price for one of the current roomettes if they don't include meals. The difference is in the way they are marketed. So in the event of a pair of bad ordered sleepers, one Slumbercoach and one deluxe sleeper could substitute, minus the family room. Its no flophouse on wheels.


----------



## Chris J. (Jan 25, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Assuming the Superliner IIIs are modular, this "slumbercoach" would have the same modules as a regular sleeper. $80 is a reasonable price for one of the current roomettes if they don't include meals. The difference is in the way they are marketed. So in the event of a pair of bad ordered sleepers, one Slumbercoach and one deluxe sleeper could substitute, minus the family room. Its no flophouse on wheels.


Would your "slumbercoach" (i'd be tempted to call it something like "economy sleeper") include a shower or would that be something reserved for the full-fare sleeper passengers?


----------



## sunchaser (Jan 25, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Well, lets see. First, I feel it is important to keep in mind the need for financial efficiency onboard Amtrak trains.
> *Augmentation:*
> 
> Sleeper augmentation will be done other ways.
> ...


GML,

I just noticed that you have removed the H bedrooms & Family bedrooms to create Deluxe Sleepers & Slumbercoaches. Would you then run the trainsets with regular sleepers, Deluxe & Slumbercoach too? Also, where would you have the SCA sleep in the Deluxe Sleeper? Would you also move the coffee station to the downstairs area?

One more question-do any of the current trains have windows that open? I know that's probably out of the question according to current safety standards, but I think it would be a nice addition.

I like the Deluxe Sleeper idea, but I would only have eight upstairs & make the bedrooms a bit bigger. This way the bottom bed could be wider, & possibly fit a very small fridge in each room-maybe behind the mirror, or where the trash currently is located.


----------



## sueb (Jan 25, 2010)

So many of the suggestions suggest getting rid of the H rooms to put in more roomettes. So then where do the handicapped pax ride? What about some suggestions to make the so-called regular rooms and facilities more accessible to everyone? Handicapped pax now pay for facilities they can't use such as sightseer lounges and the dining car. I'd like to see some responses to my earlier (page 1) suggestion about a wheechair lift.


----------



## sunchaser (Jan 25, 2010)

sueb said:


> So many of the suggestions suggest getting rid of the H rooms to put in more roomettes. So then where do the handicapped pax ride? What about some suggestions to make the so-called regular rooms and facilities more accessible to everyone? Handicapped pax now pay for facilities they can't use such as sightseer lounges and the dining car. I'd like to see some responses to my earlier (page 1) suggestion about a wheechair lift.


Sue, I agree with you. There most certainly should be some way for those in wheelchairs to use the other cars. Lifts would be great, but I wonder if redesigning the hallways in the sleeper should be done too. I'm not sure if the current hallways/doorways are wide enough for a wheelchair to easily pass through. Does anyone know the current hallway width?

If the sleepers had a lift & the hallways were wide enough, that would go a long way. But I still think there should H rooms too.


----------



## sueb (Jan 25, 2010)

Lower level hallways on Superliners are designed to fit a standard wheelchair width. I forget exactly what that is, but my son's adaptive stroller is that width and we fit thru most lower level halls on this last vacation OK. Don't know if upper level halls in sleepers are the same width, but is they are then a lift would work. Someone said somewhere that aisles in standard coach are too narrow for a standard wheelchair - that's why they have those open areas at the ends of lower level coach for wheelchairs. Can anyone confirm that?


----------



## Ispolkom (Jan 25, 2010)

An all-roomette car just doesn't make sense.

1. You won't be able to book strangers in the same compartment. Especially not a two-person compartment. Not in this country.

2. Even if you could, you wouldn't be able to sell the upper bunks. Pullman had great difficulties selling upper bunks in sections (which led to their single-occupancy section scheme, and eventually to the single roomette), and if they couldn't sell them to a thinner, fitter America, I can't imagine Amtrak will succeed. Does Via Rail have any luck selling upper sections on the Canadian?

3. You can't remove the handicapped room, not more than ten years into the ADA. I'd bet that any new Superliner equipment will be more handicapped accessible, though I can't really imagine a wheelchair lift that would be sturdy enough to take some of the track Amtrak goes over.

4. Two roomettes wouldn't fit into the family bedroom area. It's too short, which is probably why it's the family bedroom.

5. All-roomette and all-bedroom cars are setting Amtrak up for failure. What happens when an all-roomette car is bad-ordered and all that's available is an all-bedroom? Standardization is your friend when there's a small fleet, and surely decreases production costs on a small order.

6. If you lower your prices for your all-roomette car you cannibalize part of the market that would pay full price for a sleeper compartment. Amtrak needs more revenue, not less.

I like Neil's idea of the SNCF flatter-lying seats for coach, though wonder if they'd match up with the windows. I have no problems with present-day superliner coach seats, in any case. When I get a roomette for one of my many trips between St. Paul and Minot I do so because I know coach will be crowded, not because I sleep poorly because of the seat.

EDIT: Oh, and having passengers make up their berths? Wait till the first passenger drops the upper bunk on her compartment-mate's head.


----------



## MikeM (Jan 25, 2010)

sueb said:


> Lower level hallways on Superliners are designed to fit a standard wheelchair width. I forget exactly what that is, but my son's adaptive stroller is that width and we fit thru most lower level halls on this last vacation OK. Don't know if upper level halls in sleepers are the same width, but is they are then a lift would work. Someone said somewhere that aisles in standard coach are too narrow for a standard wheelchair - that's why they have those open areas at the ends of lower level coach for wheelchairs. Can anyone confirm that?


From what I recall, the lower level hallways are one width to the stairs, then it narrows when you get into the economy sleeper hallway. I know the lower level rooms are the same size as upstairs, so if an adaptive wheelchair could fit in that section, you'd be ok upstairs except where the hall does the 90 degree turn around the deluxe bedrooms. This landing originally was wider, but when the second level restroom was retrofitted to the Superliner I's that space went away.

Conceptually, I worry about how you'd incorporate a lift into the stairway, even if you made the stairs a straight run, and the other issue would be if you had to evacuate the car without HEP, if the lift would work or if you trap someone in the upper level. However, the stairs could be improved with some width and improved hand holds which would help some mobility impaired passengers. Stair lighting and contrasting colors on tread would be useful. This would be particularly helpful for vision impaired passengers or those with stability concerns.

I do agree that we need to keep focus on making the cars accessible to the handicapped, having personal experience with a disabled son. The trick in this situation is trying to balance accessibility with cost and safety concerns. I do think the current placement of the handicapped room is not really optimal when a larger group is together and the handicapped person is stranded on the other side of the restroom. Then again, at least it has better windows than the lower level family bedroom, which has the ambiance of a closet with the door closed, thanks to the two small square windows.

Don't hesitate to keep raising your issue in discussions, handicap rights have always been a struggle to maintain, sadly. Hang in there!


----------



## MikeM (Jan 25, 2010)

Ispolkom said:


> An all-roomette car just doesn't make sense.
> 5. All-roomette and all-bedroom cars are setting Amtrak up for failure. What happens when an all-roomette car is bad-ordered and all that's available is an all-bedroom? Standardization is your friend when there's a small fleet, and surely decreases production costs on a small order.
> 
> 6. If you lower your prices for your all-roomette car you cannibalize part of the market that would pay full price for a sleeper compartment. Amtrak needs more revenue, not less.
> ...


I don't necessarily think a second type of sleeper is the end of the world as we know it, if the type of car isn't a one- or two-off car. All bedroom cars are on the Auto Train and they work. But as much standardization as possible wouldn't hurt.

In lieu of the idea of pricing rooms on a seat/bunk basis, what if you looked at dusting off the slumbercoach plans? Those cars seemed to have a good following in the train community for some time, I recall lots of sad sounds when Amtrak retired the last few. Or providing a parlor style coach, which would be identical to a normal coach but with larger / flatter reclining / more spaced out seating? On a coach trip I'd pay extra to not share a row with someone and have some room to stretch out and sit my book / drink / etc on a side table. Plus if the concept tanked, you could always convert it back to a normal coach and sell the surplus seats on Ebay or something...


----------



## Ispolkom (Jan 25, 2010)

MikeM said:


> In lieu of the idea of pricing rooms on a seat/bunk basis, what if you looked at dusting off the slumbercoach plans? Those cars seemed to have a good following in the train community for some time, I recall lots of sad sounds when Amtrak retired the last few. Or providing a parlor style coach, which would be identical to a normal coach but with larger / flatter reclining / more spaced out seating? On a coach trip I'd pay extra to not share a row with someone and have some room to stretch out and sit my book / drink / etc on a side table. Plus if the concept tanked, you could always convert it back to a normal coach and sell the surplus seats on Ebay or something...


I enjoyed my trips in slumbercoach, but I don't think that would work in a Superliner car. Too many compartments for one sleeping car attendant, and just too claustrophobic, especially for a long, western journey. I know slumbercoaches were used on the North Coast Limited and probably other western trains back in the day, so perhaps I'm wrong. In any case, a slumbercoach design might well make sense for a single-level train, especially on the routes Amtrak eventually used them on (the Night Owl, the Crescent between New York and Atlanta, and I don't know what else). Is it worth it, though, to build at most half a dozen of them? Standardization, remember.

I like your idea of the parlor car, which might also allow aisles wide enough for wheel chairs. Two and one seating, maybe?


----------



## anir dendroica (Jan 25, 2010)

> 1) 35 Deluxe Sleeper Lounges,2) 45 Slumbercoaches.
> 
> I LOVE those two car ideas. You'll be better serving both the high end and low end of the sleeper spectrum. Amtrak really needs to meet the needs of passengers who simply want a horizontal place to sleep. They don't care about meals or privacy. I've traveled both coach and roomette, and the only real issue I had with coach (and it was a big issue) was sleeping comfort level. I think a reasonable price point is $30-$50 per person per night for a horizontal sleeping position. Sure, having privacy and getting "free" meals was pretty nice in the roomette, but I'd have been just as happy without those things at a lower price point.


I second that wholeheartedly. With a better utilization of both levels of the car, two stacked bunks on each level, and some good engineering, it should be possible to get almost as many people on a slumbercoach as on a regular coach. No need for privacy, frequent attendant visits, free meals, or any of that first class stuff. Just give me a flat, dark, somewhat soft surface to sleep on, and don't raise my ticket cost by more than $50, and I'm in! As much as I love taking the EB between Oregon and Minnesota, I might start flying more often simply because I'm tired of arriving sleep-deprived at both ends. As it is I have taken to curling up across three seats in the lounge, but that has the unfortunate problems that 1) the lights are always on, 2) some people talk all night, and 3) the lounge attendant kicks me out at 5:30 am.

Mark


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jan 25, 2010)

Slumbercoaches, as the term was used in the latter days of private railroads and the early days of Amtrak were private rooms, a bit smaller than roomettes. I rode in them a couple of times and it was quite adequate for a one-night ride. The big draw, of course, was that they cost only a bit more than regular coach. Other than their smaller size of the rooms, the cars were like the sleeping cars of their day, including an attendant. Of course, in those days, meals were not included in the price of any ticket.

What some of you are talking about seems to be open sections, once a popular (and originally the only) type of sleeping accommodation, facing seats that converted in two bunks at night with curtains providing privacy. Other people seem to be talking about coach seats that recline into almost bed-like positions.

Providing some kind of in-between accomodation between first class and coach class is an interesting idea, although somebody would have to run the math on whether it would be worthwhile to construct such cars. Like others have posted, I don't Americans would go for sharing room accommodations with strangers. I know some of our posters like to stay at hostels, but that's not a concept I would consider. I like my privacy.


----------



## wrjensen (Jan 25, 2010)

What about some like on first class of international airlines.


----------



## Neil_M (Jan 25, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Neil_M said:
> 
> 
> > In a sleeper vehicle it is quite hard to achieve. Think about it, you might want your room boiling hot, I might want mine freezing cold.The way the sleepers in the UK get round it is to run the AC in 'cool' mode nearly all the time (with the addition of an internal heater bank in really cold external temperatures) and have a heater bank in each berth roof space so you add heat as you want to warm the room.
> ...


It's not a ridiculous statement, it's based on practical experience as opposed to keyboard ****.

Simple stuff that works on a moving rail vehicle as opposed to GML fantasy world.

The system on the UK sleepers works very well and allows you to have separate berths at varying temperatures.

Your fantasy system has two systems working flat out when there is no need. An decent reliable air con module and space heaters to warm the air if you need the berth hotter is a lot more simple to maintain.

As for not reading your posts, I try not to.


----------



## AAARGH! (Jan 25, 2010)

Imagine that. GML and Neil sniping at each other. The world order is back in balance again.


----------



## Neil_M (Jan 25, 2010)

AAARGH! said:


> Imagine that. GML and Neil sniping at each other. The world order is back in balance again.


Yeah, its rubbish isn't it? I think its probably time to quit this forum while I am ahead, no point in it descending into a shouting match every time GML opens his mouth. It's just not fun for everyone else.

Catch you later people.


----------



## gaspeamtrak (Jan 25, 2010)

Neil_M said:


> AAARGH! said:
> 
> 
> > Imagine that. GML and Neil sniping at each other. The world order is back in balance again.
> ...




I just ignore him! 

These forms are getting so full of it!

I just bascially just read the stuff that interest me and don't even bother commenting any more because. Some of these people ( a few ) have have no idea how the transportation world works...while most of you do have a general idea.

I will just read what interest me and ignore all the other sniping.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 25, 2010)

Neil_M said:


> AAARGH! said:
> 
> 
> > Imagine that. GML and Neil sniping at each other. The world order is back in balance again.
> ...


You could try reading what he posts, where he described a system working as he described in the real world, not "GML fantasy world". But then it would make it hard to be so insulting.


----------



## Big Iron (Jan 25, 2010)

Ispolkom said:


> An all-roomette car just doesn't make sense.
> 1. You won't be able to book strangers in the same compartment. Especially not a two-person compartment. Not in this country.
> 
> 2. Even if you could, you wouldn't be able to sell the upper bunks. Pullman had great difficulties selling upper bunks in sections (which led to their single-occupancy section scheme, and eventually to the single roomette), and if they couldn't sell them to a thinner, fitter America, I can't imagine Amtrak will succeed. Does Via Rail have any luck selling upper sections on the Canadian?
> ...


Regarding #2, I checked the VIA site for a trip on the Hudson Bay, the sections (upper and lower) were sold out and the roomettes/bedrooms had vacancies. The Hudson Bay is not a rail cruiser and caters to a more economical crowd than does the Canadian.

Also, as far as upper bunk windows, Pullman had a sleeper that had much smaller windows for the upper bunks. Something is better than nothing, search "pullman sleeper American life" to see a picture of what I'm referring to.


----------



## anir dendroica (Jan 25, 2010)

MikefromCrete said:


> Slumbercoaches, as the term was used in the latter days of private railroads and the early days of Amtrak were private rooms, a bit smaller than roomettes. I rode in them a couple of times and it was quite adequate for a one-night ride. The big draw, of course, was that they cost only a bit more than regular coach. Other than their smaller size of the rooms, the cars were like the sleeping cars of their day, including an attendant. Of course, in those days, meals were not included in the price of any ticket. What some of you are talking about seems to be open sections, once a popular (and originally the only) type of sleeping accommodation, facing seats that converted in two bunks at night with curtains providing privacy. Other people seem to be talking about coach seats that recline into almost bed-like positions.
> 
> Providing some kind of in-between accomodation between first class and coach class is an interesting idea, although somebody would have to run the math on whether it would be worthwhile to construct such cars. Like others have posted, I don't Americans would go for sharing room accommodations with strangers. I know some of our posters like to stay at hostels, but that's not a concept I would consider. I like my privacy.



I'm thinking of something along the lines of the European "couchette" or perhaps the Chinese "hard sleeper". I don't think a double-level Superliner could fit three bunks stacked, but it should be possible to have double-stacked bunks on both the upper and lower levels. And I would follow the European convention of converting the beds to seats during the day except perhaps on short-haul overnight routes (CHI-MSP or LAX-Las Vegas maybe?). Sharing enclosed compartments with strangers could be strange, but the answer to that - in my opinion at least - is not to enclose the compartments. If it's socially acceptable to sleep among strangers in coach, why should it be any different if folks are laying down?


----------



## railiner (Jan 25, 2010)

A duplex arrangement of rooms, like the single slumbercoach rooms, would be impossible on a Superliner because the bilevel decks simply don't have sufficient height.

Only the rooms as used presently, with the beds stacked one over the other, or the as mentioned section type sleepers could be adapted, although the section bunks would be also height challenged as compared to an old standard Pullman.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 26, 2010)

Chris J. said:


> Would your "slumbercoach" (i'd be tempted to call it something like "economy sleeper") include a shower or would that be something reserved for the full-fare sleeper passengers?


Reserved for first class. Given the lack of attendance in the car, a shower is too much to clean, methinks.



sunchaser said:


> GML, I just noticed that you have removed the H bedrooms & Family bedrooms to create Deluxe Sleepers & Slumbercoaches. Would you then run the trainsets with regular sleepers, Deluxe & Slumbercoach too? Also, where would you have the SCA sleep in the Deluxe Sleeper? Would you also move the coffee station to the downstairs area?
> 
> One more question-do any of the current trains have windows that open? I know that's probably out of the question according to current safety standards, but I think it would be a nice addition.
> 
> I like the Deluxe Sleeper idea, but I would only have eight upstairs & make the bedrooms a bit bigger. This way the bottom bed could be wider, & possibly fit a very small fridge in each room-maybe behind the mirror, or where the trash currently is located.


These would run in addition to a set of standard sleepers. The trains, under my order, should have the same number of H and F rooms as they currently do.



sueb said:


> So many of the suggestions suggest getting rid of the H rooms to put in more roomettes. So then where do the handicapped pax ride? What about some suggestions to make the so-called regular rooms and facilities more accessible to everyone? Handicapped pax now pay for facilities they can't use such as sightseer lounges and the dining car. I'd like to see some responses to my earlier (page 1) suggestion about a wheechair lift.


With all due respect to handicapped people, and I do have my own disabilities so I understand to a degree, the world can't adapt to allow them to do everything. Nor can a company sacrifice 39 seats in their 76 seat coach cars, for instance, to allow wheel chairs to pass through them. Nor can a company like Amtrak sacrifice 60 square feet of every one of their cars in order to incorporate a wheelchair lift for the two or three people who ride their train and need one. On a train every cubic inch of space is precious.

Conceding, though, it might be possible and reasonable to accommodate a lift in the sightseer alone. But not in every car. Its just too much.

I would suggest that Amtrak offer transdorm rooms on a train to the marketing formula I specify. It shouldn't be too hard to determine if there is a market for my Slumbercoach car idea.


----------



## DET63 (Jan 26, 2010)

> Conceding, though, it might be possible and reasonable to accommodate a lift in the sightseer alone. But not in every car. Its just too much.


Would it be possible to include an H room in the SSL, making it somewhat of a revenue car (i.e., one for which passenger space was sold)?


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 26, 2010)

Good heavens, no. Why would we torture handicapped passengers with the drunken idiots that seem to populate SSLs at night?


----------



## DET63 (Jan 26, 2010)

Then it seems that handicapped passengers are still going to suffer a certain amount of discrimination: paying the big bucks for the H room, but not getting access to the PPC on the CS, or any other part of the train that mobility issues prevent them from using, even while fellow first-class passengers do get to use them.


----------



## sunchaser (Jan 26, 2010)

To modify the Superliner Sleepers to handle a standard wheelchair, the hallways upstairs should be a minimum of 30 inches wide.

Neither hallway is even close to that width. The car width is 9 feet, the bedrooms are 7' 6" in width, which means the hallway there is 18" wide.

The roomettes are 3'6" in width, so the hallway is 24" wide.

I'm guessing the width of the stairs is close to 18"-20" wide.


----------



## sueb (Jan 26, 2010)

My original idea for a wheelchar lift included an option to have an external lift at selected stations so handicapped pax could move to/from an H room to the SSL and/or the diner at those stops by going along the platform. This would be possible at stations where the train is there for a crew change or equipment service. The pax might have to reserve for the move to assure adequate staff, but it would be better than nothing. Planes use lifts likt this to load handicapped pax at airports that don't have jetways (like Bermuda).

Re the narrow halls on upper levels. Some wheelchair users can use a "hall chair" which is a limited use narrower type of wheelchair. I know these fit the aisles on most airliners, so they are pretty narrow. With a combination of an external lift with a "port" on the side of the train and a hall chair, Amtrak could accomodate a population who don't have as many travel options as the average person.


----------



## sunchaser (Jan 26, 2010)

sueb said:


> My original idea for a wheelchar lift included an option to have an external lift at selected stations so handicapped pax could move to/from an H room to the SSL and/or the diner at those stops by going along the platform. This would be possible at stations where the train is there for a crew change or equipment service. The pax might have to reserve for the move to assure adequate staff, but it would be better than nothing. Planes use lifts likt this to load handicapped pax at airports that don't have jetways (like Bermuda). Re the narrow halls on upper levels. Some wheelchair users can use a "hall chair" which is a limited use narrower type of wheelchair. I know these fit the aisles on most airliners, so they are pretty narrow. With a combination of an external lift with a "port" on the side of the train and a hall chair, Amtrak could accomodate a population who don't have as many travel options as the average person.



Do you mean then, that they would add a door on the side to the second floor of the SSL or Diner?

I think they would have to put a door on both sides, then, unless they always set the train so that the door would face the platform. I don't know if that would work.

I think the issue would be being able to exit those cars in an emergency.

I think a better choice would be a lift in the car, but it should have a secondary source of power in case of a power loss.

At this point, even though there is limited access, at least it is safer for someone in a wheelchair.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 26, 2010)

sunchaser said:


> I think the issue would be being able to exit those cars in an emergency.


That's a really good point that I hadn't thought of - the lift would have to be a part of the car, which I doubt will be able to be fit in there.


----------



## karl (Jan 26, 2010)

My 2 c.

As to how many of what type car I think leave that to Amtrak. They are probably have better information as to what space will be better utilized and show a better return.

Modular design is the most prudent, changes in layout can accomodate changes in service needs.

New cars.

One, a First Class Coach. 2-1 seating with extra wide full horizontal reclining seating. This would accomodate day passengers and economy minded overnighters. Pricing could be based on the "hotel" charges for a full sleeper equaling a full first class coach. Showers available!

Two, a lounge/buffet. The times I have been on the CS during the summer one (3 sleeper + 5 coach) all coach passengers were lucky to get a meal in the diner. If extra cars are available and the train goes to 4+6 extra food service would be needed, and buffet service should be cost effective.

Three, though this is not new, have enough coach/baggage available that on board crew can check baggage on the train at unattended stations.

Comments on improvements. If a handicap lift is installed provisions for manual (hand crank or hand hydraulic pump) operation for emergency use. No big deal just time consuming and sweat producing. Propane or diesel gensets on cars could be a better choice for emergency power than batteries (less expensive, lighter). If extra cars do increase train length then a cabbage/HEP genset may make sense, especially if the traction motors are retained for dynamic braking on downgrades.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 26, 2010)

sueb said:


> My original idea for a wheelchar lift included an option to have an external lift at selected stations so handicapped pax could move to/from an H room to the SSL and/or the diner at those stops by going along the platform. This would be possible at stations where the train is there for a crew change or equipment service. The pax might have to reserve for the move to assure adequate staff, but it would be better than nothing. Planes use lifts likt this to load handicapped pax at airports that don't have jetways (like Bermuda). Re the narrow halls on upper levels. Some wheelchair users can use a "hall chair" which is a limited use narrower type of wheelchair. I know these fit the aisles on most airliners, so they are pretty narrow. With a combination of an external lift with a "port" on the side of the train and a hall chair, Amtrak could accomodate a population who don't have as many travel options as the average person.


The external door wouldn't work, I don't think. I think they'd never get it past safety standards. But in the Sightseer, where space isn't truly at the premium it is elsewhere, a lift might be possible. They could be wheeled at even a normal service stop to the car, board it, and use the internal lift to get up once the train is in motion.

As for emergancies, pfui. In an emergancy, a handicapped person could simply be carried. Under normal circumstances, that would be less than ideal (to put it lightly!) but in an emergency...


----------



## AlanB (Jan 27, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> As for emergancies, pfui. In an emergancy, a handicapped person could simply be carried. Under normal circumstances, that would be less than ideal (to put it lightly!) but in an emergency...


Agreed.

Before the Towers fell on 9/11, a least a few people confined to wheelchairs were carried down the stairs and to safety. Their chairs didn't survive, but I don't think that any who were saved are complaining too much about that. Especially under those tragic circumstances were so many others, most able bodied, didn't make it.


----------



## sueb (Jan 27, 2010)

AlanB said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > As for emergancies, pfui. In an emergancy, a handicapped person could simply be carried. Under normal circumstances, that would be less than ideal (to put it lightly!) but in an emergency...
> ...


For emergencies trains could do what planes do - have a fold-up ramp made of cloth or rubber or something. You sit or lie on it and slide to the ground. That's how everyone gets off over the wing of a plane, not just people with handicaps.

I agree a port for an external lift would need to be on both sides. I had not thought of that. However, I still think it could be secure. Again, they do this on planes. If a loading port can be secure thousands of feet in the air, I think it can be designed for 120 mph on the ground. But if GML thinks a lift could fit in the SSL internally, that would be great, too. But again, it would have to be accessible from both sides of the train if you planned to wheel pax to/from it along the platform at a station.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 27, 2010)

sueb said:


> For emergencies trains could do what planes do - have a fold-up ramp made of cloth or rubber or something. You sit or lie on it and slide to the ground. That's how everyone gets off over the wing of a plane, not just people with handicaps. I agree a port for an external lift would need to be on both sides. I had not thought of that. However, I still think it could be secure. Again, they do this on planes. If a loading port can be secure thousands of feet in the air, I think it can be designed for 120 mph on the ground. But if GML thinks a lift could fit in the SSL internally, that would be great, too. But again, it would have to be accessible from both sides of the train if you planned to wheel pax to/from it along the platform at a station.


I can't imagine how that ramp would work on a train, but you might have something there.

Security has nothing to do with the safety issue I was referring to, though, Sue. It has to do with the structural integrity of the car. You are putting a pair of large openings in the upper area of the car. What that would do in a collision is possibly create a point of serious structural weakness. The car could conceivably accordian around that point. The doors in Superliners are located where they are partially because of a keystone effect provided by the rest of the cars structure.


----------



## sunchaser (Jan 27, 2010)

GML,

Does the SSL have a set of doors downstairs? When I went down there on the Zephyr, I went straight into the snack bar area & didn't look at the other end. That's the only time I've gone into the SSL, except to walk through. If there are doors, maybe a lift could be installed there.


----------



## DET63 (Jan 27, 2010)

sunchaser said:


> GML, Does the SSL have a set of doors downstairs?


Sure looks like it.







Yes, I know I'm not GML.


----------



## sunchaser (Jan 27, 2010)

No prob., I just figured he was paying attention to the thread. 

It looks like they could put a lift inside the SSL then! That would be cool.

Not that I need it, I just would hate to have someone stuck upstairs (or anywhere) in an emergency!


----------



## sueb (Jan 28, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> sueb said:
> 
> 
> > For emergencies trains could do what planes do - have a fold-up ramp made of cloth or rubber or something. You sit or lie on it and slide to the ground. That's how everyone gets off over the wing of a plane, not just people with handicaps. I agree a port for an external lift would need to be on both sides. I had not thought of that. However, I still think it could be secure. Again, they do this on planes. If a loading port can be secure thousands of feet in the air, I think it can be designed for 120 mph on the ground. But if GML thinks a lift could fit in the SSL internally, that would be great, too. But again, it would have to be accessible from both sides of the train if you planned to wheel pax to/from it along the platform at a station.
> ...


The airline escape ramps are inflatable, like life-rafts sort of. They ask people to remove shoes, especially high heels, before using them on the safety instruction cards. The ramps is rolled up in a spot under an emergency escape (push-out) window. When needed it is deployed out the window and people slide to the ground and walk away. Obviously a handicapped person might need help getting on the ramp or walking away at the bottom, but it would be an improvement over havng to be carried.


----------

