# Wishlist for Superliner III's



## norfolkwesternhenry

What are some things you would want on Superliner III's, should they ever be built. Here is my list:

1. better electrics in sleepers

2. wider staircases

3. acces ability to high and low level platforms

4. more glass in the dining car (windows)

5. handle 125 MPH

6. slumber coach cars

7. double windows in the roomettes

8. no toilets in the roomette!!!

9. more headroom in the upper bunk

10. bigger shower stall

11. more controllable water faucets

12. room for me!!


----------



## A Voice

In addition or in place of wider stairs, I would suggest seriously exploring if some sort of elevator could be practical in a bi-level passenger car. Given the numbers of senior passengers are others who cannot handle or just don't do well on stairs, this seems a natural addition.

I know a steam elevator was at least mentioned in the development of the original Superliners back in the 1970's, but of course the continued use of steam was a non-starter. Surely an electric elevator should be possible.


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry

13. elevator for wheelchairs


----------



## railiner

The 'Ultradome' bilevels the cruise lines operate on the Alaska RR have lifts. Unfortunately, those cars are too tall to be used on some Amtrak Superliner routes


----------



## CCC1007

railiner said:


> The 'Ultradome' bilevels the cruise lines operate on the Alaska RR have lifts. Unfortunately, those cars are too tall to be used on some Amtrak Superliner routes


Could you please specify what locations are too tight of clearance for two additional feet of railcar?


----------



## west point

Chicago is a location that cannot take taller cars.


----------



## railiner

west point said:


> Chicago is a location that cannot take taller cars.


Exactly, and that eliminates several routes. There may be some others...


----------



## PVD

There are small elevators that could fill the bill on the market already, but any kind of mechanical or electrical failure could leave a vulnerable person trapped for a long time in many areas. Not sure that would fly. You would still need the stairs for safety, so you would be taking space away from something else. No reason to get wheelchairs to the upper level in the sleepers, they won't fit in the aisles.


----------



## Dave Van

Some good ideas......

Mine......REAL temp control!!! Our $1200 bedroom on the SWC last week was too warm.


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> west point said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chicago is a location that cannot take taller cars.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, and that eliminates several routes. There may be some others...
Click to expand...

That is quite an understated fact. It eliminates everything except the west coast service, The Sunset Ltd. and the Auto Train. Such cars may thrive on a few short haul tourist operations. It is very unlikely that they will see the light of the day anywhere on the national network.

BTW, where exactly are these hypothetical cars going to run at 125mph?


----------



## PVD

Many of the points are valid, but considering the era in which the existing cars were designed, should/would be incorporated as a matter of course in anything designed today, and are not wishlist, they are completely reasonable. Better HVAC, improved lighting and communications (incl data, cars with more receptacles, and second row windows for the uppers in sleepers would be non controversial and expected. Other list items may not be practical (that doesn't mean not desirable) given the dimensions that need to be met, or economic realities.


----------



## keelhauled

I'd settle for just them showing up in my lifetime, really.


----------



## CraigDK

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> What are some things you would want on Superliner III's, should they ever be built. Here is my list:
> 
> 1. better electrics in sleepers
> 
> 2. wider staircases
> 
> 3. acces ability to high and low level platforms
> 
> 4. more glass in the dining car (windows)
> 
> 5. handle 125 MPH
> 
> 6. slumber coach cars
> 
> 7. double windows in the roomettes
> 
> 8. no toilets in the roomette!!!
> 
> 9. more headroom in the upper bunk
> 
> 10. bigger shower stall
> 
> 11. more controllable water faucets
> 
> 12. room for me!!
> 
> 13. elevator for wheelchairs


1. I am not exactly sure what you mean by better electrics. If that's more outlets, possibly, probably.

2. I would suspect they would probably have staircases similar to the California/Surfliners/California-Midwest Cars, my understanding (with no personal experience with them) is they are a better arrangement (although I don't know if they are wider).

3. I wouldn't count on that happening. I don't think there are many stations that this would be useful and it would require a third (intermediate) level that would limit the floor space on the upper and lower levels.

4. Possible.

5. Likely, though I wouldn't expect them to reach that speed in operation.

6. Not a big fan of the idea, its possible but I would not expect it.

7. Possible, but unlikely.

8. I doubt they will consider toilets in the roomettes again.

9. No idea if that is possible or not.

10. See number 9.

11. Possible

12. That is a question I cannot answer.

13. I agree with some of the other opinions offered above on the possibility of elevators.


----------



## jis

Superliners already do not have toilets in roomettes, so why are we even talking about it as an improvement?


----------



## Seaboard92

The doors for high level and low level boarding I strongly doubt is feasible. The only way I could see that would be to have it three or four steps up from the bottom door in the stairwell. But then the stairs into the car would take up too much space in the car. And I know I would hate to go up and then down again. Plus the clearance would be low. The commuter cars that facilitate both are actually trilevel cars. With an upper and lower level connected by a mezzanine level.


----------



## west point

My wish list ? Simple -- About 300 - 400 new superliner cars to supplement the present cars.


----------



## Alexandria Nick

PVD said:


> There are small elevators that could fill the bill on the market already, but any kind of mechanical or electrical failure could leave a vulnerable person trapped for a long time in many areas. Not sure that would fly. You would still need the stairs for safety, so you would be taking space away from something else. No reason to get wheelchairs to the upper level in the sleepers, they won't fit in the aisles.


In a hypothetical, couldn't you mount the lift where the luggage racks are on the lower level? Then trade space on the lower level (given that you'd need less space, as the necessity to accommodate people with mobility issues on the lower has then gone down) for luggage racks? Or only install elevators in coach-baggage cars? Elevator goes where the rack was and then there's racks in the coach baggage area instead of "big open room?"


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Instead of Superliners, I'd rather have bi-level cars that fit through the New York tunnels so we can have one common car for all LD travel while allowing for two level seating like the current Superliners.


----------



## Eric S

The multilevel cars that are used in the northeast are rather unsuited for intercity service where passengers often pass from car to car through the train. They work for commuter service, but not really for intercity service.

Also, I don't really understand the fascination with having a single car that is used nationwide. Clearances (and platform heights) aren't uniform nationwide, so why does the car type need to be uniform? Insisting on such would seem to result in a lower-quality car type for all.


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry

jis said:


> Superliners already do not have toilets in roomettes, so why are we even talking about it as an improvement?


 Viewliners do, and I am not a fan, so I don't want that spreading.


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry

jis said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> west point said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chicago is a location that cannot take taller cars.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, and that eliminates several routes. There may be some others...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is quite an understated fact. It eliminates everything except the west coast service, The Sunset Ltd. and the Auto Train. Such cars may thrive on a few short haul tourist operations. It is very unlikely that they will see the light of the day anywhere on the national network.
> BTW, where exactly are these hypothetical cars going to run at 125mph?
Click to expand...

 maybe on the corridors with LD SC-44's pulling them, for ex: TE, EB, Card (?), CS, CZ, SWC, CL, , all run on corridor track, or achieve >79 MPH and use superliners. Aparently, the current Superliners can only handle 100, even when on 110 MPH track and enigines that can do 110.


----------



## Eric S

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Superliners already do not have toilets in roomettes, so why are we even talking about it as an improvement?
> 
> 
> 
> Viewliners do, and I am not a fan, so I don't want that spreading.
Click to expand...

Viewliner 1s do; Viewliner 2s will not. That certainly suggests the trend is moving away from toilets in roomettes, not toward it.


----------



## west point

Chicago clearances are so tight that there is question whether it will allow future HSR service to clear the 25Kv CAT for superliners ?


----------



## seat38a

Alexandria Nick said:


> PVD said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are small elevators that could fill the bill on the market already, but any kind of mechanical or electrical failure could leave a vulnerable person trapped for a long time in many areas. Not sure that would fly. You would still need the stairs for safety, so you would be taking space away from something else. No reason to get wheelchairs to the upper level in the sleepers, they won't fit in the aisles.
> 
> 
> 
> In a hypothetical, couldn't you mount the lift where the luggage racks are on the lower level? Then trade space on the lower level (given that you'd need less space, as the necessity to accommodate people with mobility issues on the lower has then gone down) for luggage racks? Or only install elevators in coach-baggage cars? Elevator goes where the rack was and then there's racks in the coach baggage area instead of "big open room?"
Click to expand...

The California cars do have a gallery elevators for the cafe car. At some point, the idea was that the elevator would be also used for transporting disabled passengers to the second level, but due to evacuation rules this was scrapped from what I saw in a video once of a tour of the Oakland yard. Another words, if your in a wheelchair and come upstairs, how is this person going to be evacuated in an emergency from the second level.

Larger stairs are already used on the corridor trains so those could probably just moved to the new cars.


----------



## cirdan

PVD said:


> There are small elevators that could fill the bill on the market already, but any kind of mechanical or electrical failure could leave a vulnerable person trapped for a long time in many areas. Not sure that would fly. You would still need the stairs for safety, so you would be taking space away from something else. No reason to get wheelchairs to the upper level in the sleepers, they won't fit in the aisles.


How about using talgo technology to create a bi-level train where you can walk end to end on both levels?

Talgo did actually present a concept prototype in the earyl 2000s showing this was possible, but there was no follow-up.


----------



## cirdan

west point said:


> Chicago clearances are so tight that there is question whether it will allow future HSR service to clear the 25Kv CAT for superliners ?


From what I've read on another thread, so much concrete is falling from the ceiling that clearences are getting higher all the time.


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry

cirdan said:


> west point said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chicago clearances are so tight that there is question whether it will allow future HSR service to clear the 25Kv CAT for superliners ?
> 
> 
> 
> From what I've read on another thread, so much concrete is falling from the ceiling that clearences are getting higher all the time.
Click to expand...

untill everything above falls into a big pile, and once it's cleared away, and then you have infinite clearance :giggle:


----------



## jis

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> cirdan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> west point said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chicago clearances are so tight that there is question whether it will allow future HSR service to clear the 25Kv CAT for superliners ?
> 
> 
> 
> From what I've read on another thread, so much concrete is falling from the ceiling that clearences are getting higher all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> untill everything above falls into a big pile, and once it's cleared away, and then you have infinite clearance :giggle:
Click to expand...

OTOH, it is possible that nothing will get cleared away and they will just go and build a 12 lane highway and a biiiig bus station instead. Never wish for such odd things. You never know what the unintended consequences could be.


----------



## railiner

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Superliners already do not have toilets in roomettes, so why are we even talking about it as an improvement?
> 
> 
> 
> Viewliners do, and I am not a fan, so I don't want that spreading.
Click to expand...

I believe that in another thread I read that the next-gen Viewliner roomettes would not have toilets...


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> norfolkwesternhenry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Superliners already do not have toilets in roomettes, so why are we even talking about it as an improvement?
> 
> 
> 
> Viewliners do, and I am not a fan, so I don't want that spreading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe that in another thread I read that the next-gen Viewliner roomettes would not have toilets...
Click to expand...

That is correct. This toilet in roomette thing is just a red herring IMHO. They won't happen in any new cars. Not in Superliners and not in Viewliners. That is already a 100% certainty.

Might as well throw into the wishlist that we do not want steam ejector air conditioning systems either.


----------



## railiner

I'll see your steam ejector air conditioning, and raise you prest-o-log galley ovens


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry

what about a wood burning pizza oven? Or coal burning?


----------



## CCC1007

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> what about a wood burning pizza oven? Or coal burning?


Bad idea


----------



## Maglev

How about seats that covert to lie-flat beds in a 1 X 1 herringbone arrangement for Business Class or Slumbercoach? I am not sure how the overall density would be compared to roomettes, which of course can accommodate two (well, sort of in a Superliner...). Something along the lines of what international airlines are doing for business class.


----------



## railiner

Maglev said:


> How about seats that covert to lie-flat beds in a 1 X 1 herringbone arrangement for Business Class or Slumbercoach? I am not sure how the overall density would be compared to roomettes, which of course can accommodate two (well, sort of in a Superliner...). Something along the lines of what international airlines are doing for business class.


Thought about that, and I believe that you would have more accommodations with upper and lower berths, as in Roomettes, as you are utilizing the height of the cabin to double up the number, while the lie-flat seats would not.
In addition, some people might not like sitting at an angle, (whether toward the aisle or window), the herringbone layout would necessitate...


----------



## ScouseAndy

We once drew up a BR Mk3 train carriage with Japanese style sleeper pods running across the coach with a side corridor whilst at Uni. Using a standard sized Sleeper pod (2m x 1m x 1.25m) , we worked out that you get could have 17 rows stacked 3 high giving you a capacity of 51 per carriage each compared with the max capacity of 26 of a UK BR MK3 sleeper. For US trains this could certainly be increased considerably or allowing more space per pod.

At the time we didn't think that the traveling public was ready for such a concept and market research backed us up. Whether that has changed I don't know but I would love my concept to take off, as it would potentially half the cost of sleeper travel


----------



## jis

Indian Railways manage to fit in 72 berths in their open section 3 tier sleepers. Those are 65' ICF (Schlieren designed derived) cars. American cars are 85' long.


----------



## railiner

Slumbercoaches accommodated up to 40, in the 24 single/8 double configuration...

If they had ever made a Slumbercoach with all doubles, I figure it could hold about 24 doubles, for a total of 48 berth's...


----------



## jis

An all Roomette Viewliner could theoretically hold 60 or so, no?


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> An all Roomette Viewliner could theoretically hold 60 or so, no?


I don't think so....that would mean 15 on each side of the aisle...think about the 22 Roomette Pullmans...those are about the same length as a Viewliner Roomette, and there were 11 on each side of the aisle, plus a public restroom, a porters berth, and linen and equipment lockers, not to mention a vestibule at one end...


----------



## jis

Yeah my bad. double counting. It would be 30 or so, not 60 or so.

The way IR does it in 3 Tier (open section) Sleepers is by having 9 modules of 6 + 2 berths. 6 on the compartment side and two along the other wall opposite the compartment (the berths that Eddy has been riding in India) for 72 or so. In the 2 Tier (open section) Sleepers they have 4 + 2 per module and 9 of those for 54 berths or thereabouts. In AC 1st Class they have 5 4 berth compartments and two 2 berth ones for a total of 24 AFAIR.

The non-AC Sleeper is pretty much the same as the AC 3-Tier Sleeper in layout. At one point they tried to put three berth along the wall and the passengers rose in revolt. I don't know if they still have them around.


----------



## railiner

The Heritage dorms, such as found in the galley car, of a twin-unit diner, as well as baggage dorms, also had berth's stacked three-high...of course the steward had a private room within


----------



## A Voice

railiner said:


> Slumbercoaches accommodated up to 40, in the 24 single/8 double configuration...
> 
> If they had ever made a Slumbercoach with all doubles, I figure it could hold about 24 doubles, for a total of 48 berth's...





jis said:


> An all Roomette Viewliner could theoretically hold 60 or so, no?


An all-Roomette Superliner should have room for about 26 rooms and still retain the special bedroom, for a total of 54 berths. This seems far more practical than trying to shoehorn passengers in unfamiliar accommodations. Such an economy Superliner sleeper would have just five fewer seats, potentially, than a single level long-distance coach (Amfleet II).


----------



## railiner

Such a car would be even more remarkable, if you would compare it with some of the lowest density transcontinental chair cars of the streamlined era...

The Union Pacific cars carried only 44 leg rest seats, plus a crew seat. It did have very large seperate dressing rooms containing sofas, sinks, and toilet rooms at each end.

The Milwaukee Road, built some streamline chair cars in its own shops, that only carried 40 legrest seats, with huge lounges at each end, for its Olympian Hiawatha...

The only cars seating less than those, were first class parlor cars...

Now contrast those, with early C&NW gallery commuter cars crammed with 169 seats...or LIRR MU's with 132 seats...


----------



## Chessie

I like the idea of open sections (with curtains). A person can book an individual berth, either upper or lower. Same number of pax as a all roomette car but more flexible.


----------



## jis

AFAIR it is the 2-Tier Sleepers on IR that have curtains. The 3-Tier Sleepers do not. And you do pay a significant premium for the pleasure of having a little extra space between your nose and the berth or the roof above you, and the curtains.


----------



## Alexandria Nick

seat38a said:


> Alexandria Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PVD said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are small elevators that could fill the bill on the market already, but any kind of mechanical or electrical failure could leave a vulnerable person trapped for a long time in many areas. Not sure that would fly. You would still need the stairs for safety, so you would be taking space away from something else. No reason to get wheelchairs to the upper level in the sleepers, they won't fit in the aisles.
> 
> 
> 
> In a hypothetical, couldn't you mount the lift where the luggage racks are on the lower level? Then trade space on the lower level (given that you'd need less space, as the necessity to accommodate people with mobility issues on the lower has then gone down) for luggage racks? Or only install elevators in coach-baggage cars? Elevator goes where the rack was and then there's racks in the coach baggage area instead of "big open room?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The California cars do have a gallery elevators for the cafe car. At some point, the idea was that the elevator would be also used for transporting disabled passengers to the second level, but due to evacuation rules this was scrapped from what I saw in a video once of a tour of the Oakland yard. Another words, if your in a wheelchair and come upstairs, how is this person going to be evacuated in an emergency from the second level.
> 
> Larger stairs are already used on the corridor trains so those could probably just moved to the new cars.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty good point. Sounds a lot like the problem with flying wing airliners: how do you evacuate something with seating like a movie theater in under a minute? You can't!


----------



## jis

But just because someone normally needs to use a wheelchair does not prevent them from flying merely because of the difficulty in evacuating them, does it?


----------



## A Voice

PVD said:


> There are small elevators that could fill the bill on the market already, but any kind of mechanical or electrical failure could leave a vulnerable person trapped for a long time in many areas. Not sure that would fly. You would still need the stairs for safety, so you would be taking space away from something else. No reason to get wheelchairs to the upper level in the sleepers, they won't fit in the aisles.





jis said:


> But just because someone normally needs to use a wheelchair does not prevent them from flying merely because of the difficulty in evacuating them, does it?


Nor does it keep persons who need wheelchairs or any mobility device out of upper floors in multi-story buildings, off theme park rides, or many other places where evacuation - or merely routine exiting - becomes problematic if the elevator is unavailable for any reason. Why would a passenger car be held to a different standard?

Further, it is not only persons in wheelchairs who would benefit from an elevator - including in the sleepers with narrow aisles. Many people may have difficulty with stairs but do not use a wheelchair; They may have a cane or rollator or other device, or still be fully ambulatory, but just can't do the stairs. The elevator would be useful to many passengers even if wheelchairs can't navigate the upper level (though that begs the question: Could a custom wheelchair or transport chair be designed to fit the aisles and vestibules of a Superliner?) since once someone us up there, they have access to the diner and lounge with everyone else and aren't confined to the lower level of one car.


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry

A Voice said:


> PVD said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are small elevators that could fill the bill on the market already, but any kind of mechanical or electrical failure could leave a vulnerable person trapped for a long time in many areas. Not sure that would fly. You would still need the stairs for safety, so you would be taking space away from something else. No reason to get wheelchairs to the upper level in the sleepers, they won't fit in the aisles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> But just because someone normally needs to use a wheelchair does not prevent them from flying merely because of the difficulty in evacuating them, does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nor does it keep persons who need wheelchairs or any mobility device out of upper floors in multi-story buildings, off theme park rides, or many other places where evacuation - or merely routine exiting - becomes problematic if the elevator is unavailable for any reason. Why would a passenger car be held to a different standard?
> 
> Further, it is not only persons in wheelchairs who would benefit from an elevator - including in the sleepers with narrow aisles. Many people may have difficulty with stairs but do not use a wheelchair; They may have a cane or rollator or other device, or still be fully ambulatory, but just can't do the stairs. The elevator would be useful to many passengers even if wheelchairs can't navigate the upper level (though that begs the question: Could a custom wheelchair or transport chair be designed to fit the aisles and vestibules of a Superliner?) since once someone us up there, they have access to the diner and lounge with everyone else and aren't confined to the lower level of one car.
Click to expand...

 Amtrak could "rent" them out for the duration of the ride, and then store them in the crew car or baggage car.


----------



## jis

Airlines use custom wheelchair to negotiate the narrow cabin aisles if needed.


----------



## PVD

The aisle chairs only work for those that can transfer from one chair to another, also, they need to be pushed by someone, they are not propelled by the passenger, and safety rules keep certain people out of exit rows. When airlines are certified for evacuation, mobility limited people are not included. The ADA allows some exclusions from theme park rides for safety reasons, it is not absolute.Once a passenger gets to a seat on a plane, they have no expectation of being able to move around, they may be brought to a bathroom, but assistance with personal care is not required. Evacuating a fixed structure is very different than evacuating a rail car, having different standards is entirely reasonable. There is a reduced fare for disabled passengers and companions on Amtrak, not on airlines, not all separate standards are negatives for a group. Rather than spend money on very expensive accommodations that just add cost and might not add much to the service, I would rather see them do a better job with general accessibility, station and platform access, boarding and detraining (lifts and/high level boarding where possible). It doesn't make sense to worry about moving people around a train when we can't even get them on the train smoothly in so many places.


----------



## Bjartmarr

My #1 no-brainer need is coach-class lie-flat accomodations. Any kind will do. I don't care about bottled water or leather seats or newspapers or wifi or cheese tastings or any of the other frippery that Amtrak tries to bill as value-added services, but I will pay good money to sleep flat.

Amtrak has so few advantages over other modes of travel that they need to leverage every one of them, and this one would be so easy.

I think European-style 6-berth compartments that convert to 3-3 seating is the ideal balance for LD service, but currently I bunk down on the floor of the SSL or suffer in my seat so pretty much anything would be an upgrade.

I don't know why this isn't seen as a higher priority; my guess is that the squeaky wheels are older folks who take sleepers anyways, so coach improvements just aren't seen as a high priority.


----------



## neroden

I'm going to be the wet blanket and say that Superliner IIIs are not coming any time soon. When they do come, they'll look a lot like Surfliners.

But every time I run a financial analysis, it says that Amtrak gets better payback from any one of the following:

(1) more Viewliner sleepers

(2) Viewliner coaches

(3) new locomotives (long-distance variant of Chargers)

(4) or even Viewliner observation / cafe cars (increase ability to raise prices on the trains which are already profitable -- look at how popular the dome car is)

Basically if Amtrak is considering spending money on new cars, long-distance bilevels are always going to fall to the back of the list.


----------



## Blackwolf

Indeed, I have concede that the better long-term plan would be to slowly eliminate the bi-level Long Distance equipment and go fully single-level again. The only true issue here comes down to platform heights and the staunch dislike of high-level platforms on freight lines. It IS a big issue, but Amtrak will have 20 years or more before seriously facing this particular hurdle given how things take forever even after an order becomes reality.


----------



## CCC1007

I disagree that the superliner concept is a waste, as these cars allow for much shorter trains, and thus fewer personnel and less physical plant requirements. High level platforms are not practical at every station, and many would need major changes to have it be possible to make one at that location. While a single fleet is a good idea, I just don't think we will ever be able to get back to one.


----------



## Ryan

How do shorter trains mean less staff?


----------



## jis

There is nothing inherent about single level equipment that necessitates high level platform. Indeed the tendency these days in mane places is to go with low floor single level equipment. But of course that is neither here nor there in the broader discussion.


----------



## neroden

It's actually a bit of a coincidence that the single-level trains are the more-profitable trains where money is best deployed. What's really going on is that trains going through New York City are way better off financially than trains not going through New York City. And you simply can't get a low-boarding bilevel into New York City (or Philadelphia, or Baltimore, or Boston). But the result of this coincidence is that spending on the single-level fleet is simply a better move, at least until the corridors which touch NYC, Boston, and Philly are saturated... which will take a while.

The only Amtrak-responsibility bilevel train which might financially justify a Superliner III order just for it is the Auto Train. But that's just not very many cars to order. Perhaps that's the best hope for new bilevels: if Amtrak can make a commercial case to get a loan to reequip the Auto Train with all-new bilevels using options on the corridor bilevel order (if that ever solves its crush-test problem), that would be a *few* new Superliner IIIs.


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry

neroden said:


> It's actually a bit of a coincidence that the single-level trains are the more-profitable trains where money is best deployed. What's really going on is that trains going through New York City are way better off financially than trains not going through New York City. And you simply can't get a low-boarding bilevel into New York City (or Philadelphia, or Baltimore, or Boston). But the result of this coincidence is that spending on the single-level fleet is simply a better move, at least until the corridors which touch NYC, Boston, and Philly are saturated... which will take a while.
> 
> The only Amtrak-responsibility bilevel train which might financially justify a Superliner III order just for it is the Auto Train. But that's just not very many cars to order. Perhaps that's the best hope for new bilevels: if Amtrak can make a commercial case to get a loan to reequip the Auto Train with all-new bilevels using options on the corridor bilevel order (if that ever solves its crush-test problem), that would be a *few* new Superliner IIIs.


 the single level services are in a high density population area, and mist routes west of CHI, are in desolate areas, compared to the east


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry

Ryan said:


> How do shorter trains mean less staff?


 one SCA can handle a Superliner Sleeper, but they staff one SCA to each Viewliner, even though the Superliners carry more people per car


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry

CCC1007 said:


> I disagree that the superliner concept is a waste, as these cars allow for much shorter trains, and thus fewer personnel and less physical plant requirements. High level platforms are not practical at every station, and many would need major changes to have it be possible to make one at that location. While a single fleet is a good idea, I just don't think we will ever be able to get back to one.


 agreed, every platform west of Chicago would need to be replaced, and lengthened, which is not Viable in some places, so multiple stops would need to be made, Superliners also offer a better view of the rockies, where a LD amfleet cafe just doesn't cut it, it's dingy, dirty, dark, and not a nice place to be overall


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry

Superliners also ride better, better lounge cars, a proper diner, bathrooms separated from the seating areas, I could go on and on, no toilets in the roomettes...


----------



## Ryan

What exactly do you mean by a proper diner?

You are aware that the new Viewliner sleepers don't have a toilet in them, no?

It's pretty talented to be able to make a triple post where very nearly every single statement is wrong.



norfolkwesternhenry said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do shorter trains mean less staff?
> 
> 
> 
> one SCA can handle a Superliner Sleeper, but they staff one SCA to each Viewliner, even though the Superliners carry more people per car
Click to expand...

Can you conceive of a world where an attendant works more then one car?



norfolkwesternhenry said:


> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree that the superliner concept is a waste, as these cars allow for much shorter trains, and thus fewer personnel and less physical plant requirements. High level platforms are not practical at every station, and many would need major changes to have it be possible to make one at that location. While a single fleet is a good idea, I just don't think we will ever be able to get back to one.
> 
> 
> 
> agreed, every platform west of Chicago would need to be replaced, and lengthened, which is not Viable in some places, so multiple stops would need to be made, Superliners also offer a better view of the rockies, where a LD amfleet cafe just doesn't cut it, it's dingy, dirty, dark, and not a nice place to be overall
Click to expand...

Is every platform east of Chicago a high level platform? Of course not.

Is it written down somewhere that the single level lounge of the future has to be an Amfleet? Of course not. Use your imagination a little bit.


----------



## A Voice

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> agreed, every platform west of Chicago would need to be replaced, and lengthened, which is not Viable in some places, so multiple stops would need to be made, Superliners also offer a better view of the rockies, where a LD amfleet cafe just doesn't cut it, it's dingy, dirty, dark, and not a nice place to be overall


You are aware, I presume, that prior to the initial Superliner deliveries in the late 1970's, practically every long-distance train west of Chicago was a low-level train. Even after that, a few trains have been a mix of Superliner and low-level cars.



norfolkwesternhenry said:


> Superliners also ride better, better lounge cars, a proper diner, bathrooms separated from the seating areas, I could go on and on, no toilets in the roomettes...


Exactly how is a low level Heritage or Viewliner diner not a "proper diner"? You cannot compare Amfleet dinette cars to actual dining cars.


----------



## Maglev

A Voice said:


> norfolkwesternhenry said:
> 
> 
> 
> agreed, every platform west of Chicago would need to be replaced, and lengthened, which is not Viable in some places, so multiple stops would need to be made, Superliners also offer a better view of the rockies, where a LD amfleet cafe just doesn't cut it, it's dingy, dirty, dark, and not a nice place to be overall
> 
> 
> 
> You are aware, I presume, that prior to the initial Superliner deliveries in the late 1970's, practically every long-distance train west of Chicago was a low-level train. Even after that, a few trains have been a mix of Superliner and low-level cars.
> 
> 
> 
> norfolkwesternhenry said:
> 
> 
> 
> Superliners also ride better, better lounge cars, a proper diner, bathrooms separated from the seating areas, I could go on and on, no toilets in the roomettes...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly how is a low level Heritage or Viewliner diner not a "proper diner"? You cannot compare Amfleet dinette cars to actual dining cars.
Click to expand...

Prior to the initial Superliner order, several trains west of Chicago were equipped with ex-Santa Fe Hi-Level cars. During this period, there were through sleepers from the East, so some of the trains were a mix of single- and double-level equipment.


----------



## A Voice

Maglev said:


> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norfolkwesternhenry said:
> 
> 
> 
> agreed, every platform west of Chicago would need to be replaced, and lengthened, which is not Viable in some places, so multiple stops would need to be made, Superliners also offer a better view of the rockies, where a LD amfleet cafe just doesn't cut it, it's dingy, dirty, dark, and not a nice place to be overall
> 
> 
> 
> You are aware, I presume, that prior to the initial Superliner deliveries in the late 1970's, practically every long-distance train west of Chicago was a low-level train. Even after that, a few trains have been a mix of Superliner and low-level cars.
> 
> 
> 
> norfolkwesternhenry said:
> 
> 
> 
> Superliners also ride better, better lounge cars, a proper diner, bathrooms separated from the seating areas, I could go on and on, no toilets in the roomettes...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly how is a low level Heritage or Viewliner diner not a "proper diner"? You cannot compare Amfleet dinette cars to actual dining cars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prior to the initial Superliner order, several trains west of Chicago were equipped with ex-Santa Fe Hi-Level cars. During this period, there were through sleepers from the East, so some of the trains were a mix of single- and double-level equipment.
Click to expand...

The western trains equipped with Hi-level cars were necessarily a mix with low-level equipment, as no Hi-level sleeping cars (or baggage cars) were ever built. And there were only enough (six) Hi-level diners and lounges for one train.

I've seen pictures of trains of the period with a otherwise complete low-level consist, save for two or three Hi-levels (pretty obviously a transition car and a coach). .


----------



## Maglev

On a trip in 1977, I rode three different western trains equipped with Hi-Level coaches: _The Lone Star, The Sunset Limited, _and _ The Southwest Limited. _I think all these trains had Hi-Level lounges, although I did not eat in the dining car and do not know if it was bi-level. The transition cars, as I remember, were mostly single-level with a stairway up at one end.

I think until the Superliner II's, there were no Superliner transition cars.


----------



## ScouseAndy

to me as long as the scenic routes had a dome (or even 2) to replace the sight seeing lounges then quite frankly from my brief experience Id actually prefer single level cars as in my opinion they have less sway in the sleepers/roomettes on the higher levels and my understanding is the roomettes have better headroom on the top bunk compared high level coaches?

It would give Amtrak so much more freedom if they had a more uniformed coaching stock considering the low volume of coaches they have compared to European carriers

Just my 2 cents of course


----------



## Maglev

From what I have seen, the trend worldwide is towards bi-level passenger (and freight) cars. What is needed is improved tunnel clearances to accommodate bi-levels, but clearance is actually the least pressing issue regarding the replacement of eastern tunnels.


----------



## jis

Maglev said:


> Prior to the initial Superliner order, several trains west of Chicago were equipped with ex-Santa Fe Hi-Level cars. During this period, there were through sleepers from the East, so some of the trains were a mix of single- and double-level equipment.


Not several. Mostly exactly three - ex-Texas Chief - Lone Star and ex-El Capitan - Southwest Limited, and Sunset Limited. The transition cars were Hi-level Coaches with stairs at one end.

Where exactly do you see the trend worldwide towards bi-level long distance trains?


----------



## Maglev

New TGV's in France are bi-level.


----------



## jis

TGVs are not LD trains. I am talking of LD trains with Sleepers. Yes there are some. But predominantly LD trains are single level in the world today.

The TGV Duplex would actually fit in the NEC loading gauge through the NYC tunnels and can be operated on the NEC with a little tweak to deal with the slightly lower boarding floor than the 4' platforms. It has apparently been decided by Amtrak and Alstom to not go that route with the Acela II order.


----------



## Maglev

jis said:


> Maglev said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prior to the initial Superliner order, several trains west of Chicago were equipped with ex-Santa Fe Hi-Level cars. During this period, there were through sleepers from the East, so some of the trains were a mix of single- and double-level equipment.
> 
> 
> 
> Not several. Mostly exactly three - ex-Texas Chief - Lone Star and ex-El Capitan - Southwest Limited, and Sunset Limited. The transition cars were Hi-level Coaches with stairs at one end.
> 
> Where exactly do you see the trend worldwide towards bi-level long distance trains?
Click to expand...

Regarding the transition cars--I didn't go down the stairs between cars. I seem to remember a single-level car before the Hi-Levels with a "fairing" or sloping roof at one end. Were these the diners?

In general, the world-wide trend for trains with sleepers is for them to be a thing of the past. But I think bi-level is the way of the future--Santa Fe saw this many years ago, and now intermodal freight and commuter passenger is increasingly bi-level.


----------



## jis

Santa Fe never built a single bi-level Sleeper though. You are entitled to your opinions, but the facts do not necessarily support them. The fact that you think long distance trains are a historical artifact in the world itself shows that you are disconnected with realities in many parts of the world.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Some of you that are Youngsters MAY live long enough to see Superliner III Cars but if I was a betting man I'd take the Under on this. 

In a few years the Superliner I and IIs will be known as Heritage Cars since they'll be over 40 years old, and still have Miles and Miles to go before they Sleep.


----------



## west point

Lets look at the financials of single vs. bi-levels.

1. What is the cost per available seat for each kind ?

2. Same for sleepers although would need to factor in average load for each kind of accommodation, ( speculative Ex 1.63 passengers per roomette > ).

3. Diner Table and lounge seat costs.

4. Would single level train need two diners ?

5. car weight per passenger

6. Number of car HEP limits for single and bi.


----------



## neroden

Bilevels create substantial ADA-compliance issues. It's a lot easier with single-levels.

Jis is right that the overall worldwide trend in passenger trains is to low-floor single-levels (driven by the needs of wheelchair access in trams and streetcars initially), but high-floor single-levels are a close second place.

You get *slightly* more seats out of a bilevel, but not many, because you lose a lot of space to the stairs. You lose even more in a high-floor-boarding bilevel (which are really trilevel...)


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

Has there ever been a commuter bi-level (similar to NJT or LIRR) with high level and low level doors? If such a car could be built in LD configuration that would be ideal. It could operate over the whole system yet be bi-level (or tri-level technically). It would also allow operation with current or future single level cars.


----------



## A Voice

You would still have vertical clearance issues in the Northeast; The bi-level design NJT utilizes is necessarily shorter than a Superliner and would not be suitable for long-distance service. Further, low-level passages between cars combined with entry points at both low and mid-level (and stairs between, with accessibility issues) would take up too much space. The cost paid in reduced capacity is just too great.


----------



## Ryan

The fascination with trying to solve all of these problems so that multilevel cars can be used everywhere never ceases to amaze me. The solution is simple, and is as old as the railroad itself. Just keep using single level cars that don't have these problems.


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry

Ryan said:


> What exactly do you mean by a proper diner?
> 
> You are aware that the new Viewliner sleepers don't have a toilet in them, no?
> 
> It's pretty talented to be able to make a triple post where very nearly every single statement is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> norfolkwesternhenry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do shorter trains mean less staff?
> 
> 
> 
> one SCA can handle a Superliner Sleeper, but they staff one SCA to each Viewliner, even though the Superliners carry more people per car
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you conceive of a world where an attendant works more then one car?
> 
> 
> 
> norfolkwesternhenry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree that the superliner concept is a waste, as these cars allow for much shorter trains, and thus fewer personnel and less physical plant requirements. High level platforms are not practical at every station, and many would need major changes to have it be possible to make one at that location. While a single fleet is a good idea, I just don't think we will ever be able to get back to one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> agreed, every platform west of Chicago would need to be replaced, and lengthened, which is not Viable in some places, so multiple stops would need to be made, Superliners also offer a better view of the rockies, where a LD amfleet cafe just doesn't cut it, it's dingy, dirty, dark, and not a nice place to be overall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is every platform east of Chicago a high level platform? Of course not.
> 
> Is it written down somewhere that the single level lounge of the future has to be an Amfleet? Of course not. Use your imagination a little bit.
Click to expand...

When I say a proper diner, as the heritage diners are being phased out, I believe the Viewliner Diners have not arrived yet, so they have to use diner-lites. I do admit that the CONO has a CCC, which apparently sucks, but for all other routes, there is a proper kitchen, Chef, and booth seating. There was a topic about one attendant staffing two Viewliners a little while back. I am aware that the new Viewliners will not ave toilets in the rooms, but the old ones will certainly not be retired, and I don't know if Amtrak will have the money to renovate them, and fit a proper bathroom. I know that Amfleets are not the future of single level lounge cars, but for right now, I don't like the lounge areas, coaches are alright, but they feel a little smaller and less well kept, where a coach seat on the upper level is quieter, bigger seats, and they are completely separated from (in my experience at least) much cleaner bathrooms.


----------



## railiner

Maglev said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maglev said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prior to the initial Superliner order, several trains west of Chicago were equipped with ex-Santa Fe Hi-Level cars. During this period, there were through sleepers from the East, so some of the trains were a mix of single- and double-level equipment.
> 
> 
> 
> Not several. Mostly exactly three - ex-Texas Chief - Lone Star and ex-El Capitan - Southwest Limited, and Sunset Limited. The transition cars were Hi-level Coaches with stairs at one end.
> Where exactly do you see the trend worldwide towards bi-level long distance trains?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regarding the transition cars--I didn't go down the stairs between cars. I seem to remember a single-level car before the Hi-Levels with a "fairing" or sloping roof at one end. Were these the diners?
> In general, the world-wide trend for trains with sleepers is for them to be a thing of the past. But I think bi-level is the way of the future--Santa Fe saw this many years ago, and now intermodal freight and commuter passenger is increasingly bi-level.
Click to expand...

The Hi-Level transition cars were all chair cars originally (Amtrak later modified them into coach-dorms)....they had the stairs at one end to transition access to single level cars.

The single level cars with the "fairing" at one end had no steps...the fairing was strictly cosmetic to make the transition appear streamlined....and these cars were all baggage cars....


----------



## CSXfoamer1997

They shall include diaphragm walkways on both decks of the car, and they should also include elevators in each car for wheelchair passengers.


----------



## jis

And a Jacuzzi too


----------



## neroden

Amtrak should be able to budget to retrofit the Viewliner Is. They have to order 50 bathroom modules, one for each car. This is not a huge expenditure. Then they have to cycle them through Beech Grove, pop out a roomette module, pop in a toilet module, screw the old toilets shut, and reconnect the plumbing. This is within the scope of a Level III overhaul for sure and probably of a Level II overhaul; it can be done incrementally.


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly do you mean by a proper diner?
> 
> You are aware that the new Viewliner sleepers don't have a toilet in them, no?
> 
> It's pretty talented to be able to make a triple post where very nearly every single statement is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> norfolkwesternhenry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do shorter trains mean less staff?
> 
> 
> 
> one SCA can handle a Superliner Sleeper, but they staff one SCA to each Viewliner, even though the Superliners carry more people per car
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you conceive of a world where an attendant works more then one car?
> 
> 
> 
> norfolkwesternhenry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree that the superliner concept is a waste, as these cars allow for much shorter trains, and thus fewer personnel and less physical plant requirements. High level platforms are not practical at every station, and many would need major changes to have it be possible to make one at that location. While a single fleet is a good idea, I just don't think we will ever be able to get back to one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> agreed, every platform west of Chicago would need to be replaced, and lengthened, which is not Viable in some places, so multiple stops would need to be made, Superliners also offer a better view of the rockies, where a LD amfleet cafe just doesn't cut it, it's dingy, dirty, dark, and not a nice place to be overall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is every platform east of Chicago a high level platform? Of course not.
> Is it written down somewhere that the single level lounge of the future has to be an Amfleet? Of course not. Use your imagination a little bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When I say a proper diner, as the heritage diners are being phased out, I believe the Viewliner Diners have not arrived yet, so they have to use diner-lites. I do admit that the CONO has a CCC, which apparently sucks, but for all other routes, there is a proper kitchen, Chef, and booth seating. There was a topic about one attendant staffing two Viewliners a little while back. I am aware that the new Viewliners will not ave toilets in the rooms, but the old ones will certainly not be retired, and I don't know if Amtrak will have the money to renovate them, and fit a proper bathroom. I know that Amfleets are not the future of single level lounge cars, but for right now, I don't like the lounge areas, coaches are alright, but they feel a little smaller and less well kept, where a coach seat on the upper level is quieter, bigger seats, and they are completely separated from (in my experience at least) much cleaner bathrooms.
Click to expand...

 also, I wouldn't mind a single level train if it had domes. When I was on the Canadian, on Via rail, I spent most of my time in the dome, or park car lounge, and that was the best single train ride I've ever had


----------



## CCC1007

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> norfolkwesternhenry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly do you mean by a proper diner?
> 
> You are aware that the new Viewliner sleepers don't have a toilet in them, no?
> 
> It's pretty talented to be able to make a triple post where very nearly every single statement is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> norfolkwesternhenry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do shorter trains mean less staff?
> 
> 
> 
> one SCA can handle a Superliner Sleeper, but they staff one SCA to each Viewliner, even though the Superliners carry more people per car
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you conceive of a world where an attendant works more then one car?
> 
> 
> 
> norfolkwesternhenry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree that the superliner concept is a waste, as these cars allow for much shorter trains, and thus fewer personnel and less physical plant requirements. High level platforms are not practical at every station, and many would need major changes to have it be possible to make one at that location. While a single fleet is a good idea, I just don't think we will ever be able to get back to one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> agreed, every platform west of Chicago would need to be replaced, and lengthened, which is not Viable in some places, so multiple stops would need to be made, Superliners also offer a better view of the rockies, where a LD amfleet cafe just doesn't cut it, it's dingy, dirty, dark, and not a nice place to be overall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is every platform east of Chicago a high level platform? Of course not.
> Is it written down somewhere that the single level lounge of the future has to be an Amfleet? Of course not. Use your imagination a little bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When I say a proper diner, as the heritage diners are being phased out, I believe the Viewliner Diners have not arrived yet, so they have to use diner-lites. I do admit that the CONO has a CCC, which apparently sucks, but for all other routes, there is a proper kitchen, Chef, and booth seating. There was a topic about one attendant staffing two Viewliners a little while back. I am aware that the new Viewliners will not ave toilets in the rooms, but the old ones will certainly not be retired, and I don't know if Amtrak will have the money to renovate them, and fit a proper bathroom. I know that Amfleets are not the future of single level lounge cars, but for right now, I don't like the lounge areas, coaches are alright, but they feel a little smaller and less well kept, where a coach seat on the upper level is quieter, bigger seats, and they are completely separated from (in my experience at least) much cleaner bathrooms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> also, I wouldn't mind a single level train if it had domes. When I was on the Canadian, on Via rail, I spent most of my time in the dome, or park car lounge, and that was the best single train ride I've ever had
Click to expand...

Due to clearance issues in NYP, and in Baltimore, the best you can hope for is something like the panorama cars that VIA adds between Edmonton and Vancouver.


----------



## Palmetto

And the Panorama cars serve the purpose for scenery viewing as far as non railfans are concerned. The classic domes are popular with railfans, allowing them to see ahead and watch the signals, AFAICT.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997

I think they should replace the dining car with a buffet car. Have the car like a buffet restaurant where you can pick a variety of food.


----------



## jphjaxfl

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> I think they should replace the dining car with a buffet car. Have the car like a buffet restaurant where you can pick a variety of food.


The New York-Florida trains had buffet restaurants in the late 1980s as a cost saving feature. The double unit dining cars were used/ Passengers didn't care for this option and it probably drove more passengers away. Someone else may remember how long the buffets lasted, but not more than 2-3 years.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> They shall include diaphragm walkways on both decks of the car, and they should also include elevators in each car for wheelchair passengers.


You just insisted upon two expensive and inefficient solutions for the exact same problem. #YouShallReconsider



norfolkwesternhenry said:


> also, I wouldn't mind a single level train if it had domes. When I was on the Canadian, on Via rail, I spent most of my time in the dome, or park car lounge, and that was the best single train ride I've ever had


True domes are one of the unique benefits that only rail travel can provide. I'd certainly pay more to reserve a guaranteed seat in a true dome car if such an option existed. I'd imagine that up-selling reserved dome experiences to people willing to pay extra would have a better chance of covering operational costs than peddling overpriced pantry foods and second rate Pepsi drinks.



CCC1007 said:


> Due to clearance issues in NYP, and in Baltimore, the best you can hope for is something like the panorama cars that VIA adds between Edmonton and Vancouver.


1. Superliners don't need to worry about NYP or Baltimore.

2. Even if they did a dome could be removed and attached just as easily as any other car.

3. Hypothetically even dual levels could support a dome on routes that allow Plate H or K.

4. I wouldn't pay one red cent for the option to sit inside one of VIA's silly "panorama" cars.

5. If there's not enough of a benefit to charge a premium then what is the point of having it?



CSXfoamer1997 said:


> I think they should replace the dining car with a buffet car. Have the car like a buffet restaurant where you can pick a variety of food.


The word "buffet" can have many meanings. For instance, it could mean stale or gooey or overcooked or even fossilized. I've experienced buffet meals of all types from $10 USD to $200 SGD and every price between. None of them was worth the money.


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry

Devil said:


> CSXfoamer1997 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They shall include diaphragm walkways on both decks of the car, and they should also include elevators in each car for wheelchair passengers.
> 
> 
> 
> You just insisted upon two expensive and inefficient solutions for the exact same problem. #YouShallReconsider
> 
> 
> 
> norfolkwesternhenry said:
> 
> 
> 
> also, I wouldn't mind a single level train if it had domes. When I was on the Canadian, on Via rail, I spent most of my time in the dome, or park car lounge, and that was the best single train ride I've ever had
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True domes are one of the unique benefits that only rail travel can provide. I'd certainly pay more to reserve a guaranteed seat in a true dome car if such an option existed. I'd imagine that up-selling reserved dome experiences to people willing to pay extra would have a better chance of covering operational costs than peddling overpriced pantry foods and second rate Pepsi drinks.
> 
> 
> 
> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to clearance issues in NYP, and in Baltimore, the best you can hope for is something like the panorama cars that VIA adds between Edmonton and Vancouver.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Superliners don't need to worry about NYP or Baltimore.
> 2. Even if they did a dome could be removed and attached just as easily as any other car.
> 
> 3. Hypothetically even dual levels could support a dome on routes that allow Plate H or K.
> 
> 4. I wouldn't pay one red cent for the option to sit inside one of VIA's silly "panorama" cars.
> 
> 5. If there's not enough of a benefit to charge a premium then what is the point of having it?
> 
> 
> 
> CSXfoamer1997 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think they should replace the dining car with a buffet car. Have the car like a buffet restaurant where you can pick a variety of food.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word "buffet" can have many meanings. For instance, it could mean stale or gooey or overcooked or even fossilized. I've experienced buffet meals of all types from $10 USD to $200 SGD and every price between. None of them was worth the money.
Click to expand...

1. I have actually been in the Panorama car, although it wasn't as good as a traditional dome, apart from the high seat backs which prevented me from seeing ahead, and the lack of tables and booth seating, it was just fine to me, better than an Amfleet cafe car by a country mile.

2. Amtrak should provide complimentary second rate pepsi drinks for dome/sleeper passengers

3. why don't Superliners need to worry about WAS & BLI? I know WAS can accomodates Superliners just fine, but what about the B & P tunnel immediately located next to BLI

4. Buffet cars have promise, just not on Amtrak, they would work right outside my house much better

5. High and low level diaphrams probably wouldn't work, since single level cars are much higher up than the lower level of superliners, so they would only be compatible with other superliners, and I'm not sure if they would be too tall to fit two on top of each other.

6. Aloha airlines went one better than dome seating, open top on one flight, it seems the passengers didn't like it very much!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243


----------



## bmjhagen9426

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> Aloha airlines went one better than dome seating, open top on one flight, it seems the passengers didn't like it very much!
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243


The passengers on Aloha Airlines 243 not only disliked what had happened, but also were in the valley of the shadow of death, and one flight attendant known as C. B. was sucked out and the ocean never gave up her body. That flight ended up being diverted with an emergency landing, which was a miracle landing, with all but one (that poor flight attendant) occupants surviving.

And might I ask, how is that doomed Aloha airlines flight relavent to dome sitting? That open ceiling on planes is abnormal occurence.


----------



## railiner

I don't care much for buffet (the "take-all-you-want", type) restaurants on land; and like the idea even less on a moving train...

First of all, there is gross waste of food. Secondly, elderly passengers would have a difficult time carrying trays on a fast-moving train, especially over rough areas of tracks, although waiter assistance could solve that problem....

Not to mention the unsanitary actions of some children and even some adults in handling foods....(can you say norovirus outbreak?).

As for domes being a "unique benefit that only rail travel can provide"....the old Greyhound "Scenicruiser" (GM PD-4501), built in the mid fifties, sure came close....


----------



## TylerP42

railiner said:


> I don't care much for buffet (the "take-all-you-want", type) restaurants on land; and like the idea even less on a moving train...
> 
> First of all, there is gross waste of food. Secondly, elderly passengers would have a difficult time carrying trays on a fast-moving train, especially over rough areas of tracks, although waiter assistance could solve that problem....
> 
> Not to mention the unsanitary actions of some children and even some adults in handling foods....(can you say norovirus outbreak?).
> 
> As for domes being a "unique benefit that only rail travel can provide"....the old Greyhound "Scenicruiser" (GM PD-4501), built in the mid fifties, sure came close....


I agree. Buffets on a train sound like a disaster. I can already see silverware and plates on the ground from the train rocking and shaking things.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997

TylerP42 said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care much for buffet (the "take-all-you-want", type) restaurants on land; and like the idea even less on a moving train...
> 
> First of all, there is gross waste of food. Secondly, elderly passengers would have a difficult time carrying trays on a fast-moving train, especially over rough areas of tracks, although waiter assistance could solve that problem....
> 
> Not to mention the unsanitary actions of some children and even some adults in handling foods....(can you say norovirus outbreak?).
> 
> As for domes being a "unique benefit that only rail travel can provide"....the old Greyhound "Scenicruiser" (GM PD-4501), built in the mid fifties, sure came close....
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. Buffets on a train sound like a disaster. I can already see silverware and plates on the ground from the train rocking and shaking things.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute... You say silverware and plates end up on the floor. But why haven't I heard of that kind of incident on a dining car?


----------



## TylerP42

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> TylerP42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care much for buffet (the "take-all-you-want", type) restaurants on land; and like the idea even less on a moving train...
> 
> First of all, there is gross waste of food. Secondly, elderly passengers would have a difficult time carrying trays on a fast-moving train, especially over rough areas of tracks, although waiter assistance could solve that problem....
> 
> Not to mention the unsanitary actions of some children and even some adults in handling foods....(can you say norovirus outbreak?).
> 
> As for domes being a "unique benefit that only rail travel can provide"....the old Greyhound "Scenicruiser" (GM PD-4501), built in the mid fifties, sure came close....
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. Buffets on a train sound like a disaster. I can already see silverware and plates on the ground from the train rocking and shaking things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait a minute... You say silverware and plates end up on the floor. But why haven't I heard of that kind of incident on a dining car?
Click to expand...

Ever seen a buffet?

They stack plates and silverware for easy pickup.

And actually; I have had my drink tip over in the dining car before.


----------



## Maglev

Wasn't or isn't there a buffet on _Auto Train_? And I seem to remember a buffet of sorts in the "Pacific Parlor Car."


----------



## jis

There have been buffets on trains. Some of the kids here are too young to know about such things. They think that anything that they have not seen, never existed, and are too lazy to google it. That's all.  

I just googled "Auto Train Buffet" and looky what I found:


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> TylerP42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care much for buffet (the "take-all-you-want", type) restaurants on land; and like the idea even less on a moving train...
> 
> First of all, there is gross waste of food. Secondly, elderly passengers would have a difficult time carrying trays on a fast-moving train, especially over rough areas of tracks, although waiter assistance could solve that problem....
> 
> Not to mention the unsanitary actions of some children and even some adults in handling foods....(can you say norovirus outbreak?).
> 
> As for domes being a "unique benefit that only rail travel can provide"....the old Greyhound "Scenicruiser" (GM PD-4501), built in the mid fifties, sure came close....
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. Buffets on a train sound like a disaster. I can already see silverware and plates on the ground from the train rocking and shaking things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait a minute... You say silverware and plates end up on the floor. But why haven't I heard of that kind of incident on a dining car?
Click to expand...

dining cars have silverware secured, where in a buffet, the silverware on a buffet is stacked perilousy tall, and I have been in a stationary buffet and a stack of plates tipped over, so imagine on a buffet car rocketing down the NEC at 125 mph, it would be quite the mess!


----------



## jis

Why on earth would you think that a Buffet Car would operate like the stationary buffets that you have been to? What would prevent plates and silverware in buffet cars from being properly secured, other than utter idiocy of their operators. I actually have no problem imagining a buffet car rocketing down wherever at 125mph, since I have actually carried a tray of food in a ICE rocketing down at 300kph. Time to stop being unimaginative and think of solutions that can work instead of figuring out limited ideas that don't. Or are you really incapable of such?


----------



## MARC Rider

So, anyone traveled on the Auto Train recently? How's the buffet and how does it compare to amtrak dining car chow?


----------



## MARC Rider

MARC Rider said:


> So, anyone traveled on the Auto Train recently? How's the buffet and how does it compare to amtrak dining car chow?


I should research before I post. Apparently the auto train currently has regular dining cars, the buffet was back during the last century. It does appear they have seperately diners for coach and sleeper pax, though there doesn't seem to be any difference in the menus, except for the chicken entree and that the coach lasagna isn't baked.


----------



## A Voice

jis said:


> There have been buffets on trains. Some of the kids here are too young to know about such things. They think that anything that they have not seen, never existed, and are too lazy to google it. That's all.
> 
> I just googled "Auto Train Buffet" and looky what I found:


Isn't that technically a cafeteria (where the server plates your food) instead of a buffet (where you serve your self)? Or are the terms used interchangeably in some parts of the country?

Just for the sake of argument, a cafeteria setup might work very well in an Amtrak dining car, though so could a true buffet. I've actually experienced one on a steam excursion years ago. Somehow, they must have obtained special permission not to stack the plates and silverware where they'd fall over. Seemed to work just fine.


----------



## jis

On the business of Cafeteria vs. Buffet, Amtrak called this service "Buffet Service". I don't know the exact nuances of those two terms to comment intelligently on the matter.


----------



## Anderson

I think pretty high on my wish list at this point is lie-flat seats. I got to experience them on JetBlue over Thanksgiving and I'm looking forward to doing the same in Australia over Christmas (on the Spirit of Queensland).

Serious question: How does the width of an Amtrak coach vary vis-a-vis various narrowbody planes? My best guess is that it's about on par with a Boeing 717, but I can't find reliable information on the _internal_ width of a Superliner (only external) or the Acela...and I'm also coming up short on what the loading gauge limits actually are, since it seems that (among other failings) the Amfleets left about half a foot of space "on the table":
Width (per Wikipedia):
Amfleet: 9'11" (119")
California Car: 10" (120")
Surfliner: 10" (120")
Horizon: 10" (120")
Superliner: 10'2" (122")
Acela: 10'4.5"-10'5" (124.5-125")


----------



## jphjaxfl

A Voice said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been buffets on trains. Some of the kids here are too young to know about such things. They think that anything that they have not seen, never existed, and are too lazy to google it. That's all.
> 
> I just googled "Auto Train Buffet" and looky what I found:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that technically a cafeteria (where the server plates your food) instead of a buffet (where you serve your self)? Or are the terms used interchangeably in some parts of the country?
> 
> Just for the sake of argument, a cafeteria setup might work very well in an Amtrak dining car, though so could a true buffet. I've actually experienced one on a steam excursion years ago. Somehow, they must have obtained special permission not to stack the plates and silverware where they'd fall over. Seemed to work just fine.
Click to expand...

That looks very similar to the buffet or cafeteria that they had on the Silver Service in the late 80s. The staff controlled the plates and there was a staff person at the end of the food line who would take your tray to a table for you. The food was "ok" but not as good as a fresh meal served at your table. The food was not as good at a later seating due to being prepared before the service started. They had the double unit dining cars to make it work with 1 of the cars being an all table car. Fortunately, it didn't last long - but it would be better than no dining car at all on the Silver Star.


----------



## Anderson

Yeah...I have a friend who took Amtrak back then and that food service made him swear Amtrak off. Why do I get a feeling we're all unusually habituated to what happens on the train?


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry

jis said:


> Why on earth would you think that a Buffet Car would operate like the stationary buffets that you have been to? What would prevent plates and silverware in buffet cars from being properly secured, other than utter idiocy of their operators. I actually have no problem imagining a buffet car rocketing down wherever at 125mph, since I have actually carried a tray of food in a ICE rocketing down at 300kph. Time to stop being unimaginative and think of solutions that can work instead of figuring out limited ideas that don't. Or are you really incapable of such?


I can imagine proper security of plates and silverware, but I can also imagine improper use, leading to a messy and potentially expensive collapse of plate. The NEC is very rough, at least in an Amfeet car, the Acela wasn't bad, but it has hydraulics if I remember correctly, Germany's ICE probably runs on very well laid tracks, that are highly maintained, and with excellent suspension. Also, remember I'm only 14, what 14 year olds do is imagine the worst possible problem, and how it happens.


----------



## jis

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why on earth would you think that a Buffet Car would operate like the stationary buffets that you have been to? What would prevent plates and silverware in buffet cars from being properly secured, other than utter idiocy of their operators. I actually have no problem imagining a buffet car rocketing down wherever at 125mph, since I have actually carried a tray of food in a ICE rocketing down at 300kph. Time to stop being unimaginative and think of solutions that can work instead of figuring out limited ideas that don't. Or are you really incapable of such?
> 
> 
> 
> I can imagine proper security of plates and silverware, but I can also imagine improper use, leading to a messy and potentially expensive collapse of plate. The NEC is very rough, at least in an Amfeet car, the Acela wasn't bad, but it has hydraulics if I remember correctly, Germany's ICE probably runs on very well laid tracks, that are highly maintained, and with excellent suspension. Also, remember I'm only 14, what 14 year olds do is imagine the worst possible problem, and how it happens.
Click to expand...

I was 14 once, and I certainly did not obsess about worst possible outcomes back then. I was a very optimistic person and also a realist then and continue to be so now.  So I do not accept the generalization about 14 year olds at all. It may be just a subset of 14 year olds who are doomsday fantasizers 

If you must imagine bad things why stop at just plates spilling over? think of the immense possibilities of someone bringing an explosive device to the line waiting for food in the buffet. LOL!


----------



## PVD

It is more difficult to maintain food safety standards at a buffet line.


----------



## A Voice

PVD said:


> It is more difficult to maintain food safety standards at a buffet line.


Again, however, buffets work just fine at restaurants all over the nation; Why would one aboard a train have bigger problems with food safety? At least which cannot be overcome - before anyone says anything - by doing things a bit differently sometimes simply because you're on a moving train.

Food safety would also be enhanced with a cafeteria line, as seen on _Auto Train_ previously, as opposed to an actual serve-yourself buffet line.


----------



## A Voice

Anderson said:


> I think pretty high on my wish list at this point is lie-flat seats. I got to experience them on JetBlue over Thanksgiving and I'm looking forward to doing the same in Australia over Christmas (on the Spirit of Queensland).
> 
> Serious question: How does the width of an Amtrak coach vary vis-a-vis various narrowbody planes? My best guess is that it's about on par with a Boeing 717, but I can't find reliable information on the _internal_ width of a Superliner (only external) or the Acela...and I'm also coming up short on what the loading gauge limits actually are, since it seems that (among other failings) the Amfleets left about half a foot of space "on the table":
> 
> Width (per Wikipedia):
> 
> Amfleet: 9'11" (119")
> 
> California Car: 10" (120")
> 
> Surfliner: 10" (120")
> 
> Horizon: 10" (120")
> 
> Superliner: 10'2" (122")
> 
> Acela: 10'4.5"-10'5" (124.5-125")


Lie-flat seats in coach would indeed be nice (so would 2-1 seating, especially for single persons and those of us who are a bit, uh, fat) but I'm wondering if it is a practical idea. You are going to lose a great deal of seating capacity in a coach with lie-flat seats, so much in fact that you might do just as well with a modern Slumbercoach or all-Roomette car. Further, even on a long-distance train many of the passengers are not onboard overnight (or all night) for sleeping; Even for a 12-15 or more hour day trip, such accommodations are unneeded.


----------



## jis

For railroad applications the old tried and tested Sections is a better more cost effective idea involving way less maintenance hog mechanisms involved in airline style lie flat seats, with better utilization of space, and actually more effective space and comfort for passengers. This is specially true on single level high ceiling cars like the Viewliners. On double deck low ceiling cars there is a slightly better case to be made for airline style lie flat seats. but still they will be way more expensive to maintain than simple upper berths.


----------



## PVD

It is more difficult for restaurants to maintain those standards at a buffet also. That is not unique to Amtrak. Amtrak however is subject to FDA standards and inspections, most restaurants are subject to inspection by their local jurisdictions and in most areas of the country it can be somewhat lax. It is more difficult to maintain different holding temps required for a buffet than in centralized storage. I sort of like buffets (as a customer), but they aren't easy to run properly as a business.


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry

If Amtrak wants to have high quality food, buffets are not the way to go, traditional cooked to order food made by an experienced chef is the way to go for high quality, buffet food in my experience is more about quantity than quality, where Amtrak should aim for quality, but not at ridiculous prices


----------



## Devil's Advocate

jis said:


> I just googled "Auto Train Buffet" and looky what I found:


Those faces. They look like creepy animatronic mannequins from the new Delos Eightiesworld.


----------



## nferr

I ate in the buffet cars on the Silver Service. The trains were much longer then, so the buffet service kept things moving. The food was pretty poor IMO.


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry

If Amtrak wants to compete with air travel, everything that can be better than a plane, should be used to the max, so bigger coach seats, maybe slumber coach of sorts, (for those who want lie flat seating), excellent cooked to order food, luxuries like alcohol, a very well kept lounge car, and overall better staffing than planes. And speed improvements through the plains, like the EB through North Dakota and eastern Montana, the CZ through Nebraska, most of the plains route is 79 mph, and quite a rough ride, especially in the winter, if Amtrak fine tuned their springs, and suspension, and the railways fine tuned their track, then it would be a lot smoother and faster. My family usually drives, because the train is to rough, and doesn't go where they want to... yet


----------



## jis

Amtrak mainly competes with road everywhere. It is a serious competition for air only in corridors with travel times around three to four hours. In longer distance O/D pairs its penetration is minuscule.


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry

jis said:


> Amtrak mainly competes with road everywhere. It is a serious competition for air only in corridors with travel times around three to four hours. In longer distance O/D pairs its penetration is minuscule.


 true


----------



## Devil's Advocate

jis said:


> Amtrak mainly competes with road everywhere. It is a serious competition for air only in corridors with travel times around three to four hours. In longer distance O/D pairs its penetration is minuscule.


Amtrak can't even compete with roads in TX. Our highways will typically beat the train by several hours in every direction. In some directions a car can beat Amtrak by days. That being said, if you can't fly, or drive, or ride a bus, and you can afford to wait for days before departure, then by golly Amtrak has you covered!


----------

