# Hypothetical High Platform Superliner Replacements



## jadebenn

Talking about the Siemens Venture procurements and their 48" level boarding height has got me thinking about the future of the Superliners and the Amtrak LD fleet.

A similar topic was discussed in this thread, but it was derailed by the idea of making the bilevel stock able to run on the NEC, which I fundamentally don't think is worth the design tradeoffs of the restricted loading gauge.

So, let me propose some alternate criteria. Is it possible to create a bilevel Superliner replacement that has high-level boarding and full inter-car accessibility from the first floor (so no steps to move between cars in order to satisfy modern ADA-compliance rules, but steps for second-floor access are fine), while fitting within the existing Superliner loading gauge (AAR Plate F, I believe).


----------



## Ryan

The obsession with foamers and multilevel cars never ceases to amaze me.

We're going to see a standardized, single-level, long distance fleet at some time during the next decade.


----------



## sttom

Their either going to figure out you can do level boarding at 25 inches or make everyone do a stair lift to 48 inches and reduce capacity. Those are your two options.


----------



## Crowbar_k

I kinda find bilevel cars to be kinda ugly imo.


----------



## jadebenn

Ryan said:


> The obsession with foamers and multilevel cars never ceases to amaze me.
> 
> We're going to see a standardized, single-level, long distance fleet at some time during the next decade.


Is it really that unreasonable to wonder if it's possible to have the capacity benefits of a bilevel _and_ the accessibility of a high level car given the _very_ generous tolerances of American loading gauge? I think it's pretty unfair to characterize that as a "former obsession."


----------



## Ryan

It's not an unreasonable thing to wonder about in the abstract as long as one recognizes that whatever hypothetical thing you come up with isn't going to be the Superliner replacement. Commonality of the fleet is what Amtrak is after, as it simplifies maintenance and operations. The LD fleet is already small. Further subdividing it by purchasing cars that can't run on the NEC is highly unlikely.


----------



## Palmland

There are many low level stations on the routes these trains will serve including points south of Richmond that are regionals to Virginia and the Carolinian and Palmetto stops. So I was glad to see this in one of the links provided:
“Automated steps will also be included to speed up boarding at stations without high level platforms, while lifts will allow passengers with reduced mobility and wheelchair users to more easily board.”

I wonder if the interior height is sufficient to permit bunk beds if a LD version is ever produced. If nothing else, I would think the Auto Train would be slated to get them. Can the Superliners survive that long?


----------



## railiner

jadebenn said:


> Talking about the Siemens Venture procurements and their 48" level boarding height has got me thinking about the future of the Superliners and the Amtrak LD fleet.
> 
> A similar topic was discussed in this thread, but it was derailed by the idea of making the bilevel stock able to run on the NEC, which I fundamentally don't think is worth the design tradeoffs of the restricted loading gauge.
> 
> So, let me propose some alternate criteria. Is it possible to create a bilevel Superliner replacement that has high-level boarding and full inter-car accessibility from the first floor (so no steps to move between cars in order to satisfy modern ADA-compliance rules, but steps for second-floor access are fine), while fitting within the existing Superliner loading gauge (AAR Plate F, I believe).


The only cars that I know of that would have that capability, are the Alaska "ultra-domes", but those are too tall to fit in places like Chicago Union Station...


----------



## jadebenn

Ryan said:


> It's not an unreasonable thing to wonder about in the abstract as long as one recognizes that whatever hypothetical thing you come up with isn't going to be the Superliner replacement. Commonality of the fleet is what Amtrak is after, as it simplifies maintenance and operations. The LD fleet is already small. Further subdividing it by purchasing cars that can't run on the NEC is highly unlikely.


How would it be a further subdivision? The Superliners already can't run on the NEC. Doesn't seem to be a deal-breaker.

Of course simplifying the fleet benefits Amtrak, but so does the doubled capacity per car of the Superliners. That's why they were ordered, and that's why they're still in service. If there were no appreciable benefits, to using the bilevel, Amtrak would've just rolled out a fleet of LD Amfleets/Horizons/Viewliners back in the day instead.

You're acting like this is some unrealistic foamer pipe dream when it is _literally_ the current state of the network. All I'm asking is if there are any clearance issues that prevent a move to 48" platform heights while maintaining a bilevel LD fleet.


----------



## Tlcooper93

Ryan said:


> The obsession with foamers and multilevel cars never ceases to amaze me.
> 
> We're going to see a standardized, single-level, long distance fleet at some time during the next decade.



while said in a pretty condescending way, he’s right.

Fleet commonality is by far more important than any benefits that duplexes provide. West coast LD consists are always pretty short (especially compared with the past). In terms of pax numbers, just adding more cars could offset any advantage superliners add.

That said, I think it’s fun to see what’s possible!


----------



## jadebenn

Well, I'm tired of debating it either way. It's totally tangential to my actual question.

So *assuming* bilevels, does the math work with the clearances available? Is it physically possible for passengers who aren't hobbits? That is the question I would like answered. I am genuinely curious if there's enough space to pull that off with high platforms and end-to-end first-floor train connectvity.



railiner said:


> The only cars that I know of that would have that capability, are the Alaska "ultra-domes", but those are too tall to fit in places like Chicago Union Station...


The clearances at CUS are probably the bottleneck, here.


----------



## jiml

Ryan said:


> The obsession with foamers and multilevel cars never ceases to amaze me.
> 
> We're going to see a standardized, single-level, long distance fleet at some time during the next decade.


I think you're right about everything except the timeframe. Suspect it will take longer.


----------



## Trogdor

railiner said:


> The only cars that I know of that would have that capability, are the Alaska "ultra-domes", but those are too tall to fit in places like Chicago Union Station...



If my reading of the specs is correct, those cars are maybe 2 feet too tall to fit within Plate F limits.


----------



## railiner

Trogdor said:


> If my reading of the specs is correct, those cars are maybe 2 feet too tall to fit within Plate F limits.


That's what I suspected. I only mentioned them because they have sufficient height to allow pass-thru on both levels, plus they have ADA lifts to enter car, and between levels...


----------



## jadebenn

railiner said:


> That's what I suspected. I only mentioned them because they have sufficient height to allow pass-thru on both levels, plus they have ADA lifts to enter car, and between levels...


I did some napkin math, and I think you could get a bilevel high-platform if you can use the whole 17 feet of plate F. But it's tight.

So, doing the basic napkin math of 17 feet minus 48 inches, then dividing the remaining height clearance by two, you get 6.5 feet. That's enough, right? Except in the real world you're going to lose some of that clearance to the floor and ceiling. Even assuming that only causes a loss of 6 inches of vertical clearance, that's more like 6.2 feet per floor. You'd need to start looking at clever ways to partially drop the ceiling, and while that's probably theoretically possible, it's dicey.

So, the alternative is if it's possible to go past plate F. The mainlines themselves shouldn't pose much of an issue; the host railroads have upgraded most of their infrastructure to run double-stacks, after all. Though it's possible there are a few tunnels along the way that haven't gotten the memo, and CUS clearances are tight...

Hm. Okay. That particular concept _could_ work, but if there's even a single blockage on the existing LD network, it's immediately not worth it. Murphy says there probably is.

Alternatively, it might be possible to maintain level floor connectivity on the second floor, and just have an "elevator" car in each train consist. Though even with a dropped floor for able-bodied passengers, you'd still have some pretty tight spaces near the vestibules...

So I really think the answer of whether or not this is practical depends on what the ultimate chokepoint is on the network, and what height said chokepoint allows. If they can get 18 feet, I think they can pull it off. Otherwise, it is very difficult for me to conceptualize a high platform bilevel that can still meet ADA accessibility requirements.


----------



## bratkinson

While it would be great to have level-boarding bilevels for LD trains, it's not going to happen any time soon, if at all.

#1 - First and foremost, as all or nearly all stations west of Chicago have low level platforms only. There would be at least a 5 year overlap from when the first high platform bilevels debut and all stations have high level boarding. That assumes Amtrak has the money to BOTH build new cars AND upgrade stations at the same time! Good luck with that! During the overlap, all stations will have to be able to handle both low- and high- level boarding until everything is done. Station dwell time will more than double during the overlap period as, perhaps, only 3-4 cars at a time would be at the right-height platform.

#2 - Car design - Take a look at the new bi-level cars on the way to California. They have BOTH low level AND high level doors! Cars on the South Shore (CSS&SB) out of Chicago have the same arrangement. Roughly 30% of the stations served by the South Shore (once off the electrified METRA line at Kensington) have high platforms. The rest are all low level. Assume that each entrance on each side 'consumes' 2 rows of seats or one roomette, thereby impacting saleable seats/rooms/revenue. One solution would be like LIRR and NJ Transit does...high level entry at car ends over the trucks with some seating then a couple stairs up or down to bi-level seating as all stations have high platforms. Additional entrances would have to be at the low level seating to accomodate low platforms for Amtrak. Articulated cars such as used by various light-rail operators have everything low level, only a couple inches above pavement level and inside steps up to the ends over the trucks. Maybe something like that would work.

One of the more fascinating solutions I found was the light rail system in Denver. Everything is low level boarding and passengers have to climb steps. However, there is a ramp up to high level at the 'front end' of the loading area designed for wheel chairs to go up. When the operator stops the car, he stops such that the entrance directly behind him is at the high platform. He/She then easily swings down a light weight platform over the car steps that is level with the ramp. The passenger rolls on, the platform swings up and is latched. The whole operation is less than 2 minutes! Perhaps that would work. The 'key' is that the operator stops with the ramp directly behind them. Try to spot a 10 car train from a locomotive cab and line it all up. Yes, Metro North and Amtrak do it daily on the New Haven line if track 3 or 4 (the outside tracks) are out of service and temporary walkways are used over the out-of-service track. But that is the same engineers/operators doing it several round trips PER DAY, not an engineer that does 2 round trips per week (10-12 hrs each way). If my experience riding Amtrak from the Windsor Locks CT station with it's 20 foot long low level platform is any measure, at least 3 engineers consistently overshoot and have to back up to spot the doors from adjacent Amfleet I cars on the platform!

#3 - The idea of being able to pass from car to car at the lower level such as bilevel METRA cars in Chicago requires that the entire lower level is above the trucks. Because of that, the lower aisle 'gallery' is actually a foot or so *above* the floor of the upper level and headroom on lower level seating is such that it is impossible for an adult to stand fully upright from the seated position. So...the only way to provide 'reasonable' headroom on both levels is to increase the height of the cars. I don't know off the top of my head how high Superliners are above the rail, but I do know that double stack containers are 20 feet 2 inches. So there should be a couple inches available for increased height.

#4 - Another issue is where to put all the 'mechanicals' for the car...HVAC, lighting controls, brake valves and reservoir(s), and even restrooms. On Superliners, most of that is tucked underneath the stairs and some above the trucks. Where will all THAT be put for ease of access from inside as well as from outside for maintenance?

Maybe the solution would be to build a 'Super Train' like the NBC show maybe 35 years ago on TV. The cars were extra wide that on what appeared to be a double track 'standard' railroad the cars spanned the outer rails of each track making them maybe 25 feet wide, perhaps?


----------



## west point

Chicago Union Station is a problem of clearances that will have to be fixed regardless of Amtrak needs. First some background,
1. One day observed a mechanic that had to fix something on the top of a superliner. Watched him as he struggled to crawl there. He was wedged between car and roof. Had this poster worried if car made any movement at all. I estimated clearance as 8 - 10 inches at that location. Other locations have no idea.
2. No matter what Amtrak should decide for taller cars the clearances will need raising. That is because the proposed HSR if built is going to use CHI US. Since the 25 kV CAT will need ~ 1 foot below the ceiling and ~ 1 foot above any passenger car. That means present Superliners cannot clear would as they probably rub the CAT. Standard clearances for 25 kV CAT is ~ 24 feet above top of rail
3. I Have not been there to study clearances but undercutting 4 feet seems problematic due to Chicago river elevations,
4. If impediments are removed for at least 2 feet above it probably is no big item to clear at least 4 feet or more.
5. If these impediment are removed then the HSR CAT can allow for a taller 2 level car ( 2 - Ft. + ) that solves all the problems listed in previous posts. 
6. Maybe Amtrak is waiting to see if clearances are going to be raised then Amtrak can consider ordering taller 2 level car(s). 
7. Of course some route modification of platform canopies will be needed. That would be for only platforms that are not presently cleared for domestic double stacks and auto carriers. That will also apply for in between station locations not cleared for double stacks and auto carriers. Plate "H" clearances at some locations is already useable for the taller cars.
8. One items in many posts forgotten is that freight lines that run by present platforms cannot have high platforms as close as Amtrak now uses. Perhaps high platforms could be service by cars having an extendable car walkway such as Brightline uses.


----------



## George Harris

Let's have a few real numbers:
Superliner: 16'-2" high
AAR Plate F: 17'-0" high This is generally the highest enclosed car except autoracks
AAR Plate H: 20'-2" high. This defines maximum for double stacks.
Autoracks are usually in the range of 19'-0 to 19'-6"
LEGAL minimum offset to platforms for tracks carrying freight trains at single level car floor elevation varies by state between usually no less than 8'-0"

If you want a car floor at high platform elevation, and then have around 7'-0" clear, the top of car would be at least 4+7+1+7+0.5 = 19'-6" above the top of rail. You may want to quibble about the need for a foot deep structure between floors and 6 inches at the top, but to have a ceiling of less than 7'-0" is not reasonable. Even if you shrunk some, you still will be above Plate F. By the way, the entire US freight system will not clear plate F anyway. 

There are bi-level cars built for high platform boarding, but for these, neither floor level is at the platform level. If you are seated in the lower level of one of these things, you will be looking at the knees of the people on the platform. 

Further, a bi-level car does not give you twice the seating of a single level car. Space is lost from both levels for the stairs between levels.

If we want to go back to single level long distance trains, then we go back to vestibules with steps and use of wheelchair lifts, either car mounted or provided on the platforms. My opinion is that car mounted is better.


----------



## Ryan

jadebenn said:


> You're acting like this is some unrealistic foamer pipe dream when it is _literally_ the current state of the network. All I'm asking is if there are any clearance issues that prevent a move to 48" platform heights while maintaining a bilevel LD fleet.


You are correct, and the current state of affairs is not sustainable. Amtrak is moving towards fleet commonality, and the LD fleet is going to follow that lead. The math above shows that what you seek is impossible.


----------



## Exvalley

Ryan said:


> Amtrak is moving towards fleet commonality


Has Amtrak taken an official position on this - or are we inferring their position?


----------



## Ryan

The former, in many of their documents and in their procurements to date.


----------



## cocojacoby

How about this:


----------



## George Harris

The Talgo picture: note the door elevation does not match a low platform either. It is probably somewhere in the range of 18 inches (or higher?) above the top of rail. this does not match either low level or high level platforms. a platform to match this elevation would foul the legal clearance requirement, so a waiver would be required and would not likely be given nor be tolerated on any of the major railroad companies..


----------



## cocojacoby

Done every day in the Pacific Northwest:





France - Alstom AGV: 1155 mm (45")
Germany - Siemens Velaro: 1210 mm (48")
Japan - Kawasaki / Nippon Sharyo / Hitachi 700 Series Shinkansen: 1250 mm (49")
Spain - Talgo 350: 755 mm (30")


----------



## Quoctama

jadebenn said:


> Talking about the Siemens Venture procurements and their 48" level boarding height has got me thinking about the future of the Superliners and the Amtrak LD fleet.
> 
> A similar topic was discussed in this thread, but it was derailed by the idea of making the bilevel stock able to run on the NEC, which I fundamentally don't think is worth the design tradeoffs of the restricted loading gauge.
> 
> So, let me propose some alternate criteria. Is it possible to create a bilevel Superliner replacement that has high-level boarding and full inter-car accessibility from the first floor (so no steps to move between cars in order to satisfy modern ADA-compliance rules, but steps for second-floor access are fine), while fitting within the existing Superliner loading gauge (AAR Plate F, I believe).


I would use the VR Lapland cars from Finland. The cars are bilevel and are designed to run on OHE (overhead electric) routes too so it fits in tunnels fairly easily. They're similar in height to the Superliner cars so transitions to engines won't look awkward. In fact these actually will match the ALC-42 super well in my opinion.

The top photo is a VR Sleeper and the bottom is a VR Coach:


----------



## Tlcooper93

Quoctama said:


> I would use the VR Lapland cars from Finland. The cars are bilevel and are designed to run on OHE (overhead electric) routes too so it fits in tunnels fairly easily. They're similar in height to the Superliner cars so transitions to engines won't look awkward. In fact these actually will match the ALC-42 super well in my opinion.
> 
> The top photo is a VR Sleeper and the bottom is a VR Coach:
> View attachment 24337
> 
> View attachment 24338




Simply Railways did a review of a night train featuring these cars. They certainly could be adequate superliner replacements assuming they could be repurposed for American railways at a reasonable price.

that said, Siemens already has such a huge presence in America that it makes sense to go with whatever they offer.


----------



## Cal

Tlcooper93 said:


> Simply Railways did a review of a night train featuring these cars. They certainly could be adequate superliner replacements assuming they could be repurposed for American railways at a reasonable price.
> 
> that said, Siemens already has such a huge presence in America that it makes sense to go with whatever they offer.


I thought that these cars are also taller than superliners? And doesn't Chicago have very little clearance as is? 

Edit: Fixed "very little more clearance"


----------



## jis

Cal said:


> I thought that these cars are also taller than superliners? And doesn't Chicago have very little more clearance?


Right. They are non starters for the US LD network at the present time.


----------



## west point

If there is a way to change the CHI clearances to taller the ability for taller Amtrak cars would certainly be improved. Since no one has ever published other western clearances that would have to be fixed then we can only speculate. 
It would not only be overhead clearances but side such a canopies.


----------



## Cal

west point said:


> If there is a way to change the CHI clearances to taller the ability for taller Amtrak cars would certainly be improved. Since no one has ever published other western clearances that would have to be fixed then we can only speculate.


I doubt they could increase the clearance at CHI, but who knows. 

I could imagine that Washington, Seattle, and maybe some tunnels could impose some issues as well.


----------



## Trogdor

west point said:


> If there is a way to change the CHI clearances to taller the ability for taller Amtrak cars would certainly be improved. Since no one has ever published other western clearances that would have to be fixed then we can only speculate.
> It would not only be overhead clearances but side such a canopies.



Sure. All you have to do is rebuild every single street and building that was built over the tracks over the last century or so. And for what purpose? So a handful of long-distance trains can have a taller sleeping car or lounge car?


----------



## John819

Anytime you want to change any physical infrastructure you are going to run into a swarm of environmentalist luddites, NIMBYs (not in my back yard), and BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody). The "official" environmental review process for anything takes at least a year, and without a doubt somebody is going to bring suit over something. These reviews, by the way, not only consider the impact on what we would call "the environment" but also any cultural or historical issues, so it may be difficult to replace an old structure simply because it is old!

I an not anti-environmental, but we need a reasonable approach.


----------



## cocojacoby

But I have yet to hear what is the actual clearance through Chicago. Does anyone have the facts?


----------



## George Harris

Trogdor said:


> Sure. All you have to do is rebuild every single street and building that was built over the tracks over the last century or so. And for what purpose? So a handful of long-distance trains can have a taller sleeping car or lounge car?


Not true. For almost all the entire US railroad system outside the northeast and a few passenger only station areas the railroad system will already clear Superliners or even higher cars. Look at the double stack container trains, autoracks, and piggybacks. These are all taller than Superliners. To give an example: The two railroad bridges across the Mississippi, the Frisco Bridge opened in 1892 and the Harahan Bridge opened in 1916 will both clear any of these high cars. The Frisco Bridge clears laterally 11'-0" each way from centerline of track. Overhead I don't know, but I do know double stack trains use it, and these go to something like 19 feet high. The Harahan was originally built to have 24 feet above top of rail, 14 feet track centers and 8 feet lateral clearance from center of track, and these are both structures over 100 years old. 

Most states have minimum railroad clearance laws or standards that give required minimum and lateral offsets to any structure adjacent to a railroad. Usually they were 8'-0" or larger laterally and 22'-0" or hlgher overhead. 9'-0" and 23'-0" are now fairly common. Most of these laws have been in effect for somewhere between 50 and 100 years. Their passing was pushed hard by the railroad operating unions on the basis of safely clearing a man on the ladder on the side of a car or standing on the roof of a boxcar. The accountant and management types were in the early days pulled kicking and screaming into accepting these dimension as they wanted to build smaller structures to save a few bucks. Their descendants are all now very glad they did not succeed. 

As to width: The Shinkansen cars which are slightly wider than US rail vehicles standard would also be able to run freely on the US system. Unfortunately they would not be able to pass the close in platforms in the northeast.


----------



## Tlcooper93

George Harris said:


> Not true. For almost all the entire US railroad system outside the northeast and a few passenger only station areas the railroad system will already clear Superliners or even higher cars. Look at the double stack container trains, autoracks, and piggybacks. These are all taller than Superliners. To give an example: The two railroad bridges across the Mississippi, the Frisco Bridge opened in 1892 and the Harahan Bridge opened in 1916 will both clear any of these high cars. The Frisco Bridge clears laterally 11'-0" each way from centerline of track. Overhead I don't know, but I do know double stack trains use it, and these go to something like 19 feet high. The Harahan was originally built to have 24 feet above top of rail, 14 feet track centers and 8 feet lateral clearance from center of track, and these are both structures over 100 years old.
> 
> As to width: The Shinkansen cars which are slightly wider than US rail vehicles standard would also be able to run freely on the US system. Unfortunately they would not be able to pass the close in platforms in the northeast.



superliners can’t really run on any useful parts of the Northeast corridor (near NYC or Boston, or even Providence).

A while back, there was a pretty thorough discussion as to how far a superliner car could get towards Boston. The consensus (after some research) was a few low bridges outside of Back Bay station, probably terminating around Boston Landing. Back Bay tunnels are quite bit lower than 16 feet 2 inches.

I’m sure the height restrictions get even trickier towards NYC.
essentially, superliners run nearly everywhere they CAN run on the US rail system.


----------



## George Harris

Tlcooper93 said:


> superliners can’t really run on any useful parts of the Northeast corridor (near NYC or Boston, or even Providence).
> 
> A while back, there was a pretty thorough discussion as to how far a superliner car could get towards Boston. The consensus (after some research) was a few low bridges outside of Back Bay station, probably terminating around Boston Landing. Back Bay tunnels are quite bit lower than 16 feet 2 inches.
> 
> I’m sure the height restrictions get even trickier towards NYC.
> essentially, superliners run nearly everywhere they CAN run on the US rail system.


Not arguing your points at all. Merely pointing out that this is a regional issue, not a national issue, primarily a result of very shortsighted management of the railroads in that part of the country both in the past and currently.


----------



## John819

So we all agree that Superliners cannot be used at NYP (or other NEC locations). In order to use them on, say, the Silvers, would be to have the trains originate in WAS, which means that NEC customers would need to change trains there.

Yes, this is a regional issue, but the region is the profit center for Amtrak.


----------



## jis

Besides multi-level cars bring a potential ADA issue too. Not insurmountable, given adequate amount of money and accommodation in the regulations of course. The current Superliners are grandfathered.


----------



## Ryan

John819 said:


> So we all agree that Superliners cannot be used at NYP (or other NEC locations). In order to use them on, say, the Silvers, would be to have the trains originate in WAS, which means that NEC customers would need to change trains there.
> 
> Yes, this is a regional issue, but the region is the profit center for Amtrak.


They tried this with the Cardinal once. Ridership sucked and rebounded once it was returned to single level and extended back to NYP.

We're going to see the next order of sleeping cars able to be used systemwide, so these cars from Finland will be a nonstarter.


----------



## Trogdor

George Harris said:


> Not true. For almost all the entire US railroad system outside the northeast and a few passenger only station areas



The comment I was responding to was specifically about Chicago Union Station, which is definitely a passenger-only station area.



> Look at the double stack container trains, autoracks, and piggybacks.



None of which operate through Chicago Union Station, so completely irrelevant.


----------



## Trogdor

cocojacoby said:


> But I have yet to hear what is the actual clearance through Chicago. Does anyone have the facts?



Asked a friend of mine who works in Metra ops. He said the clearance is plate M, which is basically Superliner height.


----------



## jis

Trogdor said:


> Asked a friend of mine who works in Metra ops. He said the clearance is plate M, which is basically Superliner height.


Right. Plate M - 16'3" tall and 10'8" wide.


----------



## Cal

jis said:


> Right. Plate M - 16'3" tall and 10'8" wide.


Not sure if this is correct, but Wikipedia shows superliners are 16'3"


----------



## George Harris

Trogdor said:


> The comment I was responding to was specifically about Chicago Union Station, which is definitely a passenger-only station area.
> 
> None of which operate through Chicago Union Station, so completely irrelevant.


Not arguing about the Chicago issue at all. What I disagreed with was your statement, "All you have to do is rebuild every single street and building that was built over the tracks over the last century or so. " That sounds like talking about a little more than Chicago. What we have here with Chicago is a last few miles problem., not a systemwide problem which it the way what you said sounded.

As to the whole issue of bi-level cars, I consider single levels better to the greatest extent practical. Lifts either vehicle mounted or on the platform gets those needing it on the train. After that all is on one level. Being stuck on a lower level because of wife's mobility issues gives me a great appreciation of that. With great effort we got to the upper level for a trip across the Sierra for the sake of both access to the dining car and better views of the snow covered mountains, Otherwise, our rides down the Central Valley were get on the lower level and I run for food, etc.


----------



## Trogdor

George Harris said:


> Not arguing about the Chicago issue at all. What I disagreed with was your statement, "All you have to do is rebuild every single street and building that was built over the tracks over the last century or so. " That sounds like talking about a little more than Chicago.



I don’t see how you could read that from my statement in response to the message I quoted, but…whatever.

I mean, obviously freights are already running plenty of taller equipment throughout the country, so “every single street and building” couldn’t reasonably apply to the entire country.


----------



## PerRock

Here is OBB's new sleeping cars made by Siemens. Based off the same basic platform as the new US Venture cars: 

OBB's wesbite with renders/mockup images: Nightjet of the future


----------



## John819

Again, the ADA access requirements are a principal factor in going for single level. The current interpretation is that wheelchair and mobility-impaired passengers must have access to "public areas", specifically the SSL and the dining car. Since bi-level access is on the upper level, you would need some sort of elevator to have full access, and that would take away space for passenger accommodations. The fact that the NEC does not allow for Superliner sized cars is an additional reason to go with a single level nationwide fleet.


----------



## jis

Cal said:


> Not sure if this is correct, but Wikipedia shows superliners are 16'3"
> 
> View attachment 24390


For reference here is the relevant AAR Appendix with the relevant diagrams...



https://my.aar.org/OTLR/Documents/Section%201/Section1AppendixA_20200826.pdf



Plate M height is 16'3". I have no idea where you managed to cut and paste the 16'2" from.


----------



## neroden

George Harris said:


> As to the whole issue of bi-level cars, I consider single levels better to the greatest extent practical. Lifts either vehicle mounted or on the platform gets those needing it on the train. After that all is on one level. Being stuck on a lower level because of wife's mobility issues gives me a great appreciation of that.


This is fundamentally why I've always thought it would be better to have single-levels to the greatest extent possible. My partner is also mobility-impaired.

Bilevels, frankly, suck for the mobility impaired. While the current regulations allow for bilevel commuter cars, where it has been considered vital to pack the maximum people in per train, they should generally be avoided.

-----

It is possible to make a fully accessible bilevel with an internal elevator, but...



https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2020-07/Inclusive%20and%20Universal%20Accessible%20Design%20Guidelines%20for%20Next%20Gen%20Passenger%20Rail-A.pdf



"The research investigated the possible use of elevators to access the upper level on bi-level cars in response to RVAAC recommendations. Three railroads operating bi-level passenger trains with elevators were contacted; they were consistent in their responses. All three railroads have: (1) much higher staffing levels than most regular commuter or intercity passenger services; (2) elevators are operate during train movement as well as when stopped at stations; (3) are operated by trained train crew personnel; and (4) ambulatory passengers who have difficulty negotiating stairs were the most frequent users of the elevator. "
...
"The findings reported are based on the use of elevators on bi-level passenger trains operated by the Alaska Railroad, Holland America Line [also an Alaska excursion train], and Rocky Mountaineer railroad. "
...
"All three railroads:
•Operate bi-level rolling stock that was originally manufactured between the mid 1990s and 2008. Colorado Railcar, the railcar manufacturer, is no longer in business.
•Onboard elevators were manufactured by National Wheel-O-Vator. The company is no longer manufacturing elevators for passenger railcars."

So, this is the only way forward for accessible bilevels. All three railroads raised concerns with operating the elevator while the train is going at high speeds, so it's probably incompatible with high speed service.

These cars are 19 feet 9.75 inches tall, much taller than the Superliner's 16 ft. 3 inches. Their design avoids the structure problems which doomed the Sumitomo/Kinki Sharyo bilevel order by having high floors on the lower level, so they could be high-platform-boarding cars.

So this is a perfectly viable design... *if* you have AAR plate H clearance on the entire route. They couldn't get into Chicago Union Station or DC or NY or Boston, so they're unusable on most of the Amtrak system.

It's conceivable that they might be usable on the Coast Starlight, Sunset Limited, or Heartland Flyer; I haven't checked the clearances. It doesn't seem like a general-purpose solution though.


----------



## jis

Fragmenting an already relatively small fleet of cars with three different loading gauges would not be the brightest thing to do from an operational perspective though.


----------



## John819

Probably the most cost effective / speedy solution for Superliner replacement would be to have Siemens run variants of the Venture designed to replace the Amfleet I on the NEC:

A coach car along the lines of the Amfleet II;
A cafe car (perhaps just extending the run of those for the NEC);
A diner; and
A sleeper.

Optional would be some type of single level SSL and (dreaming) a slumbercoach or other premium coach service.

Since these are using the same body shell, FRA approval should not be difficult to obtain. And at the end of the day (decade) Amtrak will have almost all its equipment from a single supplier.


----------



## IndyLions

John819 said:


> Probably the most cost effective / speedy solution for Superliner replacement would be to have Siemens run variants of the Venture designed to replace the Amfleet I on the NEC:
> 
> A coach car along the lines of the Amfleet II;
> A cafe car (perhaps just extending the run of those for the NEC);
> A diner; and
> A sleeper.
> 
> Optional would be some type of single level SSL and (dreaming) a slumbercoach or other premium coach service.
> 
> Since these are using the same body shell, FRA approval should not be difficult to obtain. And at the end of the day (decade) Amtrak will have almost all its equipment from a single supplier.


Let’s hope they get their act together. Because despite cranking out the new Midwest cars pretty quickly - evidently lead in the plumbing has sidelined every single one of them with no obvious end in sight. And I don’t want to hear from any Siemens apologists - they are one of the largest corporations in the world and outsourcing is a core competency for them.

I’m not anti-Siemens - but they really screwed the pooch on this one.


----------



## jis

I am actually waiting to see how the VIA and Brightline sets come along. If they are equally screwed then we know for sure Siemens screwed the pooch. If not, and if the problem is specific to the Caltrans/IDOT order alone, then a little deeper digging will be necessary to figure out who did what to whom.


----------



## Ryan

IndyLions said:


> I’m not anti-Siemens - but they really screwed the pooch on this one.


Call me crazy, but I'm going to wait until the facts come in before I start throwing stones.


----------



## John819

No major project is without bugs. The real question is whether the manufacturer will take responsibility and fix it. And if the benchmark is the CAF fiasco, then almost anything would pass muster.


----------



## jis

John819 said:


> No major project is without bugs. The real question is whether the manufacturer will take responsibility and fix it. And if the benchmark is the CAF fiasco, then almost anything would pass muster.


I suspect it will get fixed. As for who pays what to whom to make it happen, we may or may not know the details depending on what CDA they are operating under as far as that goes. We from the outside don't even quite know who is really responsible, but of course in AU if we all did not have deeply held prejudices and opinions on the matter, it would not quite be AU now, would it?


----------



## IndyLions

Ryan said:


> Call me crazy, but I'm going to wait until the facts come in before I start throwing stones.





jis said:


> I am actually waiting to see how the VIA and Brightline sets come along. If they are equally screwed then we know for sure Siemens screwed the pooch. If not, and if the problem is specific to the Caltrans/IDOT order alone, then a little deeper digging will be necessary to figure out who did what to whom.




Fair enough - we don't with certainty know the situation nor exactly what happened yet. It's pretty frustrating - seems like building rail passenger equipment here in the states is cursed. I'd say "It's not rocket science", but it seems like rockets are being built these days with fewer issues than passenger trains...


----------



## 87YJ

Having worked with the gov, their is most likely gov employees checking everything that were purchased and installed. My guess is a sub supplier gave/got false specs. Now the "blame game" You bought it.... you approved it!


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> Fragmenting an already relatively small fleet of cars with three different loading gauges would not be the brightest thing to do from an operational perspective though.


And honestly I'm not sure any of those routes have plate H clearance anyway. CSX has printable clearance maps on the web; UP and BNSF don't. It certainly wouldn't be worth it for the Heartland Flyer.


----------



## west point

Remember airplane builders have the same sub contractor problems. Aircraft batteries for one.


----------



## jis

west point said:


> Remember airplane builders have the same sub contractor problems. Aircraft batteries for one.


Not to mention the initial 787 fuselage sections that sort of fit, if you ignored a few several inches gap in the meetup of the pressure hull sections  Of course it did get fixed.

And BTW there were zero government employees involved in that screwup.


----------



## George Harris

neroden said:


> And honestly I'm not sure any of those routes have plate H clearance anyway. CSX has printable clearance maps on the web; UP and BNSF don't. It certainly wouldn't be worth it for the Heartland Flyer.


Thought we were past this in the discussion. Outside the Northeast and "last mile" into passenger station issues, all lines of significance of virtually the entire US railroad network will clear double stacks., which means will clear any conceivable bi-level passenger car. Generally railroad clearance maps will not cover these "last mile" areas anyway.


----------



## George Harris

IndyLions said:


> . . . - evidently lead in the plumbing has sidelined every single one of them with no obvious end in sight.


Do what!?! Lead in the plumbing? This should not even be a possibility in anything built in the last 60 to 100 years.


----------



## Tlcooper93

redacted.


----------



## neroden

George Harris said:


> Do what!?! Lead in the plumbing? This should not even be a possibility in anything built in the last 60 to 100 years.


There's a known, plumbing-industry-wide problem with mislabeled "lead-free" parts from China which actually are full of lead.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

Crowbar_k said:


> I kinda find bilevel cars to be kinda ugly imo.


Poorly designed interior as well ... especially that central winding stairwell making it hard for travelers to 'shlep' even the smallest of handbags up the stairs. Many on this forum disagree and feel it's a perfect design. 


Quoctama said:


> I would use the VR Lapland cars from Finland. The cars are bilevel and are designed to run on OHE (overhead electric) routes too so it fits in tunnels fairly easily. They're similar in height to the Superliner cars so transitions to engines won't look awkward. In fact these actually will match the ALC-42 super well in my opinion.
> 
> The top photo is a VR Sleeper and the bottom is a VR Coach:
> View attachment 24337
> 
> View attachment 24338
> 
> 
> and these VR beauties are what I'd just love to see on our Amtrak tracks! With the articulation levels being center with up and down stairwells to make for smoother passage.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

jis said:


> Right. They are non starters for the US LD network at the present time.


But redesign could accommodate dimensions to fit to our tracks and bridge / tunnel dimensions.


----------



## Cal

20th Century Rider said:


> Many on this forum disagree and feel it's a perfect design.


Definitely not perfect but I've come so accustomed to superliners, I love them.


----------



## Tlcooper93

There are many legitimate complaints about Superliners.
That said, I fell in love with them the moment I saw them and am always a little in awe.


----------



## Cal

Tlcooper93 said:


> There are many legitimate complaints about Superliners.
> That said, I fell in love with them the moment I saw them and am always a little in awe.


It will be hard to say goodbye for me.


----------



## neroden

George Harris said:


> Thought we were past this in the discussion. Outside the Northeast and "last mile" into passenger station issues, all lines of significance of virtually the entire US railroad network will clear double stacks., which means will clear any conceivable bi-level passenger car. Generally railroad clearance maps will not cover these "last mile" areas anyway.


Thanks for the information; on a lot of these routes, the tunnels and bridges didn't always clear doublestacks; it was not clear to me how far the gauge modifications had gone.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Tlcooper93 said:


> There are many legitimate complaints about Superliners.
> That said, I fell in love with them the moment I saw them and am always a little in awe.


I felt the same way when I first saw the Santa Fe High Level Cars, which ended up becoming the Pacific Parlor Cars on the Starlight.( alas Long gone )


----------



## west point

IndyLions said:


> Let’s hope they get their act together. Because despite cranking out the new Midwest cars pretty quickly - evidently lead in the plumbing has sidelined every single one of them with no obvious end in sight. And I don’t want to hear from any Siemens apologists - they are one of the largest corporations in the world and outsourcing is a core competency for them.
> 
> I’m not anti-Siemens - but they really screwed the pooch on this one.



This brings up the question could Brightline cars have the lead problem ?


----------



## jis

west point said:


> This brings up the question could Brightline cars have the lead problem ?


So far they have indicated that they use very different internal fittings from the states and thus don’t have the problems the states have.


----------



## John819

There is a big advantage in having a uniform fleet (see Southwest Airlines). Between the ADA issues and the northeast clearance problem any nationwide LD fleet would probably (barring a new idea) have to be single level.

As far as the bad fittings go, it is very common for foreign suppliers to provide an initial shipment (which will be tested) of conforming goods and then when full approval is given ship defective goods. As payment has often been made before the defect is discovered, the purchaser gets stuck.


----------



## SubwayNut

Bob Dylan said:


> I felt the same way when I first saw the Santa Fe High Level Cars, which ended up becoming the Pacific Parlor Cars on the Starlight.( alas Long gone )



I have similar feelings about the Superliners, growing up in New York City I road Amtrak regularly within the Northeast, (always on the single-level fleet). A moment I'll never forget was when on my first cross-country Amtrak trip from Seattle back to New York (with a couple of stops in coach) when I was 16 and first climbing the stairs onto the upper level of my Superliner Coach in Seattle, and being amazed at the size of the railcar and being so far off the ground. I remember having similar feelings the next morning walking back to the attached in Sponkane Portland section and setting foot in the Sightseer Lounge Car for the first time while going through Western Montana/Glacier National Park.

I still remember the first double-decker railcar I road also a then brand-new LIRR C3 on the Ronkonkoma-Greenport Scoot, when I was 10.


----------



## George Harris

John819 said:


> As far as the bad fittings go, it is very common for foreign suppliers to provide an initial shipment (which will be tested) of conforming goods and then when full approval is given ship defective goods. As payment has often been made before the defect is discovered, the purchaser gets stuck.


True, very true. Generally the "look pretty" parts stay look pretty, but material quality is a different story. As an example, ask the state of California about what happened when they took "buy America" out of the specs for the new eastern half of the Bay Bridge. Yes they got Chinese steel for a lot less money, but they are having quality problems with some of it with issues that have been know in steel manufacture since the 1930's.


----------



## JWM

I stated my advanced age earlier in another thread. Look, whatever new LD equipment is coming, it won't be dome cars and such from the 1940's and 50's. I would like to see a proper dining car and a separate lounge car for coach and sleeping car passengers on LD trains. I loved the repurposed Santa Hi-Level lounges that Brian Rosenwald came up with for the Coast Starlight even though I never saw parlor spelled "parlour" before they arrived on the CS. With larger windows and perhaps sightseer lounge cars using the model of Seaboard's 5 double bedroom "sun room" on the "Silver Meteor" it would keeps costs down. All this is pure conjecture on my part. Thoughts.


----------



## Cal

JWM said:


> I stated my advanced age earlier in another thread. Look, whatever new LD equipment is coming, it won't be dome cars and such from the 1940's and 50's. I would like to see a proper dining car and a separate lounge car for coach and sleeping car passengers on LD trains. I loved the repurposed Santa Hi-Level lounges that Brian Rosenwald came up with for the Coast Starlight even though I never saw parlor spelled "parlour" before they arrived on the CS. With larger windows and perhaps sightseer lounge cars using the model of Seaboard's 5 double bedroom "sun room" on the "Silver Meteor" it would keeps costs down. All this is pure conjecture on my part. Thoughts.


I think the Eastern trains definitely should have a lounge other than the cafe car. On my Cardinal trip it just didn't feel like that great of a place to spend time in, I would much rather be in my room. I saw a great lounge concept on here, I don't remember where but it had similar seating to the lounge chairs on the SSL's. But if something like it were to be implemented (I know I'm dreaming), it would be amazing


----------



## cocojacoby

Tlcooper93 said:


> There are many legitimate complaints about Superliners.
> That said, I fell in love with them the moment I saw them and am always a little in awe.


I totally agree with you. The last Amtrak trip I took was on the Auto Train and I felt the same way. These cars, even though years old now, still look great and are really impressive to see and ride on. The Sightseer Lounge is a beautiful unique car and even though the scenery along that route is nothing special, sitting up there and taking it all in is something special.

If you catch a few of the videos on YouTube from foreign visitors, they are incredibly impressed with the Superliner and also the big city American train stations.

I hope they survive for many more years.


----------



## John819

If it were not for the ADA issue (no wheelchair access to upper level) and the inability of Superliners to access NYP, they are great. But these two issues will probably mean that the Superliner is the last double decker car that Amtrak will have.

That being said, there is also a big advantage if the entire fleet were to use the same type of equipment. Whether using the Siemens Venture as a base or a new design, you could create a series of long distance cars - coaches (both standard and business class), food service cars, sightseeing/observation cars, sleepers, and baggage cars that would use the same shell and undercarriage. This would be a long term process, replacing equipment as it wore out, rather than all at once.


----------



## 87YJ

Idea.. After flying into Narita airport outside Tokyo a few times. There you take the shuttle train in & out from Tokyo to the airport (think around 45min). Why not do the same for the big east cities for the superliners. With the web of trains in and around and under the cities that the people are use to using anyway. Or do people back east just have to have service @ a location they have used their whole life? Asking as a non-city person.
That would just leave the lifts for the wheelchairs. As a design Eng. that problem could be overcome. How do I know.. My wife has ben a para for over 55 years and I have made her life a dream. A train is a piece of cake in the world I lived in as the cars are old and a new piece of paper(screen) to draw on gives you the room to design. I have seen how the ADA works one set of rules for us and another for those.. 
I know someone will bring up the crash testing, with the design power we have today in the computer world there is no reason to fail, unless you have poor engineering personnel.


----------



## Ryan

It’s not even clear what you’re asking or that you even understand what you’re asking. Do you genuinely think that you can get Superliners along existing Amtrak routes to within 45 minutes of every major city along the route and subsequently asking everyone wanting to go to those cities to get off the train and transfer to another train for a ride into their final destination?

The first assumption is untrue. The second request is ridiculous. In service of something completely not worth doing? Yeah, no. That isn’t going to happen.


----------



## Tlcooper93

Ryan said:


> It’s not even clear what you’re asking or that you even understand what you’re asking. Do you genuinely think that you can get Superliners along existing Amtrak routes to within 45 minutes of every major city along the route and subsequently asking everyone wanting to go to those cities to get off the train and transfer to another train for a ride into their final destination?
> 
> The first assumption is untrue. The second request is ridiculous. In service of something completely not worth doing? Yeah, no. That isn’t going to happen.


Yeah, but.... double decker=double the fun.


----------



## 87YJ

Guess I miss spoke Just getting people to and from the big LD hubs. Cities are still spreading, so make the LD stations way outside the city so you can double deck everywhere if wanted. Train travel needs to leave the 1900's


----------



## Cal

87YJ said:


> Cities are still spreading, so make the LD stations way outside the city so you can double deck everywhere if wanted. Train travel needs to leave the 1900's


I feel it would be more practical to add one (or more) stops on the outskirts of the city and suburbs instead of not serving downtown. Similar to Boston and Boston Back Bay.


----------



## 87YJ

It's not stopping downtown service, City folk travel all the time on the transit(rail). Its just a idea.  That would allow more SL's to maybe roam the east. JMHO


----------



## sttom

John819 said:


> If it were not for the ADA issue (no wheelchair access to upper level) and the inability of Superliners to access NYP, they are great. But these two issues will probably mean that the Superliner is the last double decker car that Amtrak will have.
> 
> That being said, there is also a big advantage if the entire fleet were to use the same type of equipment. Whether using the Siemens Venture as a base or a new design, you could create a series of long distance cars - coaches (both standard and business class), food service cars, sightseeing/observation cars, sleepers, and baggage cars that would use the same shell and undercarriage. This would be a long term process, replacing equipment as it wore out, rather than all at once.



I've mentioned this a few times, but the whole "non standard equipment" thing is only a problem if you have 3 cars that are different in a fleet of 500 than two different types in a fleet of several hundred cars. Airlines operate hundreds of planes of various types from primarily two manufacturers and they aren't going under due to having "non standard aircraft" which in their case would be whatever aircraft type isn't the plurality.

As for ADA, there still hasn't been hard rules about whether or not ADA is actually going to change, just that they are studying a change. And if ADA kills the Superliners, a single level replacement would also be affected by the changes. Beyond requiring a chair lift, if a person in a wheelchair is required to have full, independent and unobstructed access to the whole train, sleeping cars might be on the chopping block in general. Since there is only so much you can do with the internal arrangement of a rail car before a sleeper couldn't be built. For example, you would need to eliminate the bedrooms in a Viewliner and make the roomettes narrower to fit a standard sized wheelchair, let alone a wide one.

Superliners could be saved, but it will depend on what the "reasonable accommodations" are. Would having 2 sightseer lounges per trainset with them having chair lifts be reasonable even if you have to plan on having passengers with disability to the shuffle between cars when the train is stopped? As mentioned previously, I was concerned about my non disabled grandpa walking around on trains as he got older. Then there is also the issue with platform heights. Is a platform level with Superliners good or are we just going to be stuck with dealing with NEC rules everywhere, nevermind the disruption that will bring to people and transit systems outside of the NEC? Like with SMART near me, the platform heights will limit the lines expansion beyond its current boundaries or for intercity trains to ever share a line with it. The more this goes on, the more I think ADA needs a rethink because while I feel for people who need it, we shouldn't push it so far that it becomes impossible to have certain forms of transportation. I know on here, people have pointed out that carting you to your seat in a wheel chair is a good enough accommodation for an airline. And I know for sure Southwest's bathrooms are barely large enough for me to stand in it let alone fit a wheelchair.


----------



## Trogdor

87YJ said:


> Guess I miss spoke Just getting people to and from the big LD hubs. Cities are still spreading, so make the LD stations way outside the city so you can double deck everywhere if wanted. Train travel needs to leave the 1900's



Your understanding of transportation and urban planning should also leave the 1900s. City centers are actually getting stronger, after a period of decline in the second half of the 20th century. Bringing people into the center of town vs. dumping them at the outskirts is one of the key advantages of rail vs. air travel. Also, as to your Tokyo example, that’s actually one of the reasons why Narita airport has been losing favor to Haneda for international service in recent years.


----------



## Tlcooper93

Trogdor said:


> Your understanding of transportation and urban planning should also leave the 1900s. City centers are actually getting stronger, after a period of decline in the second half of the 20th century. Bringing people into the center of town vs. dumping them at the outskirts is one of the key advantages of rail vs. air travel. Also, as to your Tokyo example, that’s actually one of the reasons why Narita airport has been losing favor to Haneda for international service in recent years.



One of the biggest problems with Amtrak west coast is that people are getting dropped off at non city centers.

Amtrak stations outside the NE corridor (with a few exceptions) suck. You have to Uber, find a friend, or straight up walk it.


----------



## 87YJ

Tlcooper93 said:


> One of the biggest problems with Amtrak west coast is that people are getting dropped off at non city centers.



Understand! MRC serving PHX. BUT! Having a light rail line to MRC would serve a lightly used SL(6 stop a week) and serve town that is growing like wildfire(MRC) The only road to PHX is 4 lane and very heavy traffic. Running the train into PHX would only make the travel of the SL longer for the passengers. The same happens in the east when stopping in every downtown station on your way. JMHO


----------



## Tlcooper93

87YJ said:


> Understand! MRC serving PHX. BUT! Having a light rail line to MRC would serve a lightly used SL(6 stop a week) and serve town that is growing like wildfire(MRC) The only road to PHX is 4 lane and very heavy traffic. Running the train into PHX would only make the travel of the SL longer for the passengers. The same happens in the east when stopping in every downtown station on your way. JMHO



This isn’t true.
if every city has as central a station as any NE Corridor station (or the train stations they used to have before taking them down), more people would take the train. This isn’t a prediction, it’s a fact. The NE corridor has European level ridership. There is no corridor anywhere else in the country that comes even close.

people should have both options. A centrally located station to provide true downtown service, along with an earlier stop perhaps at the very end point of a metro network with park and ride options for suburban passengers.

sacrificing this for a cool double decker car isn’t worth it.


----------



## Ryan

Tlcooper93 said:


> sacrificing this for a cool double decker car isn’t worth it.


Concur! It's not even all that cool. Literally the only advantage that it brings to the table is maybe avoiding a handful of double spots at stations with short platforms.

It's a terrible solution in search of a problem.


----------



## cocojacoby

87YJ said:


> Guess I miss spoke Just getting people to and from the big LD hubs. Cities are still spreading, so make the LD stations way outside the city so you can double deck everywhere if wanted. Train travel needs to leave the 1900's


Okay but this is an interesting thought. If I was going to Chicago by Amtrak, I can see going to say a new Riverside Amtrak station and parking there or being dropped off just like I would at Logan (albeit with a lot less stress and expense). I know you lose the connection ability in downtown Boston but maybe they could run a CR out just prior to departure. Perhaps the new West Station could be used as Boston's LD terminal?

Actually it's kind of what you got at the other end of some routes. Amtrak Miami for example is nowhere near downtown Miami. West Station would be better than that.

New Auto Train type terminals could be located along major highways which included service capabilities. You actually might find a new type of passenger with this concept. One who just never considered Amtrak for LD travel before.

Of course this does nothing for NEC use.


----------



## Tlcooper93

cocojacoby said:


> Okay but this is an interesting thought. If I was going to Chicago by Amtrak, I can see going to say a new Riverside Amtrak station and parking there or being dropped off just like I would at Logan (albeit with a lot less stress and expense). I know you lose the connection ability in downtown Boston but maybe they could run a CR out just prior to departure. Perhaps the new West Station could be used as Boston's LD terminal?
> 
> Actually it's kind of what you got at the other end of some routes. Amtrak Miami for example is nowhere near downtown Miami. West Station would be better than that.
> 
> New Auto Train type terminals could be located along major highways which included service capabilities. You actually might find a new type of passenger with this concept. One who just never considered Amtrak for LD travel before.
> 
> Of course this does nothing for NEC use.


This is essentially Route 128 for the NEC.
It’s a shame the orange line doesn’t go all the way there (as it was planned to).

Framingham for LSL is the closest for this.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

John819 said:


> Anytime you want to change any physical infrastructure you are going to run into a swarm of environmentalist luddites, NIMBYs (not in my back yard), and BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody).


Luddites? Most environmentalists I know are big fans of deploying the newest passenger rail solutions using the latest power generation technologies. Abusing environmental laws to attack new passenger rail in an arbitrary and cynical maner does _not_ make the plaintiff an environmentalist.



Ryan said:


> Concur! It's not even all that cool. Literally the only advantage that it brings to the table is maybe avoiding a handful of double spots at stations with short platforms. It's a terrible solution in search of a problem.


The advantage of using Superliners is that they can provide more seats and rooms within the length of train that Amtrak is likely to actually run. The NEC is already serviced by a single level fleet so no issue there but the ADA sledgehammer is so overpowered it risks disqualifying anything but single level cars.


----------



## Ziv

I have to admit that one of the things I like best about the SL'ers are the views from up top. An additional 8'ish feet of elevation makes the view just a bit more impressive. 
There are quite a few other, more important, factors that will go into choosing the eventual replacement for the SL'ers, so I am not too sanguine about being able to enjoy that enhanced view for more than the next 5 or 10 years though. I imagine the SL'ers will be gone by 2030-35, replaced by single level cars. I will miss the big old beasts.



Ryan said:


> Concur! It's not even all that cool. Literally the only advantage that it brings to the table is maybe avoiding a handful of double spots at stations with short platforms.
> 
> It's a terrible solution in search of a problem.


----------



## Ryan

Devil's Advocate said:


> The advantage of using Superliners is that they can provide more seats and rooms within the length of train that Amtrak is likely to actually run. The NEC is already serviced by a single level fleet so no issue there but the ADA sledgehammer is so overpowered it will risks disqualifying anything but single level cars.


My (perhaps foolish) assumption is that when a Superliner train is equipment swapped for a hypothetical single-level-equipped train, that the number of seats would remain constant, not the number of cars.

Edit to add: Not sure that it's a relevant data point, since management has turned over multiple times since then, but would be interested in the consist of the Cardinal as it went single level to Superliner and back again. Also probably not a great data point since the Card is such a red headed stepchild of a train, but as far as I know it's the only example we've got. Capitol Limited went single level to Superliner, but that was even longer ago.


----------



## sttom

Tlcooper93 said:


> One of the biggest problems with Amtrak west coast is that people are getting dropped off at non city centers.



Some stations aren't in downtown areas. Which can be a problem. I know on the San Joaquin this is true for some towns, but many others are located in vibrant parts of their respective cities, even if they aren't in downtown that doesn't mean they are in a field surrounded by cows. San Jose's station isn't "in" downtown, but it has a light rail connection that is two stops from the CBD and it has housing near it. Just because a station isn't in the geographic center of a place doesn't mean a station is useless. If door to door convenience was the only determining factor in travel, we'd always drive unless we have to cross an ocean. Airports have massive last mile problems and we still fly. A station being in the outer edge of downtown or a lesser one being in a slight inconvenient location isn't going to detract from the usefulness of a potential corridor.

Also, for a single level replacement for the Superliners to have roughly the same capacity, the ratio is 2 Superliners to 3 Viewliners minus the family bedroom.


----------



## Tlcooper93

sttom said:


> Some stations aren't in downtown areas. Which can be a problem. I know on the San Joaquin this is true for some towns, but many others are located in vibrant parts of their respective cities, even if they aren't in downtown that doesn't mean they are in a field surrounded by cows. San Jose's station isn't "in" downtown, but it has a light rail connection that is two stops from the CBD and it has housing near it. Just because a station isn't in the geographic center of a place doesn't mean a station is useless. If door to door convenience was the only determining factor in travel, we'd always drive unless we have to cross an ocean. Airports have massive last mile problems and we still fly. A station being in the outer edge of downtown or a lesser one being in a slight inconvenient location isn't going to detract from the usefulness of a potential corridor.
> 
> Also, for a single level replacement for the Superliners to have roughly the same capacity, the ratio is 2 Superliners to 3 Viewliners minus the family bedroom.



I would consider a "vibrant part of the city" to be the equal of downtown (and was more or less considering this to be self-evident in my post). The point I was making is that there are many trains where you are neither dropped off in downtown nor "vibrant" locations. Silver Service, Texas Eagle and California Zephyr are especially guilty of this.

This is a double shame because 70 years ago, nearly all of the US had great station infrastructure optimally located in most cities. Cleveland is the saddest example of this. What a beautiful station that could have had potential to be a major intercity and metro hub, all rolled in to one to bring back Cleveland's glory days. Instead, we get a dumb lakefront station.


----------



## 87YJ

I just wanted to see people think outside the box. Done!


----------



## cocojacoby

Tlcooper93 said:


> This is essentially Route 128 for the NEC.
> It’s a shame the orange line doesn’t go all the way there (as it was planned to).
> 
> Framingham for LSL is the closest for this.


I couldn't use 128 as an example since Superliners can't get there.


----------



## Tlcooper93

cocojacoby said:


> I couldn't use 128 as an example since Superliners can't get there.


Ahh I see. Now I understand your post more correctly.


----------



## Cal

cocojacoby said:


> I couldn't use 128 as an example since Superliners can't get there.


What about Rockville, MD?

Note I live in Socal, I don't know if this is a good example. Just looks to be of a similar distance


----------



## Nick Farr

Devil's Advocate said:


> The advantage of using Superliners is that they can provide more seats and rooms within the length of train that Amtrak is likely to actually run.



Amtrak can and should run longer trains. That isn't really an advantage.

The disadvantages (in summary):
* Higher center of gravity means it costs a lot more to build a new car to the same safety specs as a single-level car.
* Accessibility concerns onboard
* Having to rebuild rail infrastructure from platforms, tunnels, etc.
* Lack of standardization across the Amtrak network
* Lack of ability to eventually electrify under current clearances

There's really no good reason to entertain dual level carriages outside of the commuter rail segments they're already deployed on.


----------



## Nick Farr

sttom said:


> I've mentioned this a few times, but the whole "non standard equipment" thing is only a problem if you have 3 cars that are different in a fleet of 500 than two different types in a fleet of several hundred cars.



Amtrak is not an airline. Amtrak crews go way deeper into the rolling stock than airlines go into their aircraft. Amtrak rebuilds of cars from manufacturers no longer in business because there's no alternative, where airlines generally avoid anything beyond routine maintenance and rely on the manufacturer where possible.

Every different platform means you'll have at least 5 different kinds of cars for specialty use. Different diners, lounges, baggage, sleeper, coach, first class, etc. cars. Each car having their own weird quirky issues and antiquated systems sucks up more time/energy from an already thinly stretched maintenance system.

Adopting a common standard across the entire network would allow for greater flexibility, substitution, service possibilities and maintenance.

Right now we're at the point where SL routes don't get a SSL because there just aren't any available. I do hope they eventually get some kind of suitable single-level sightseer, but that alone is not reason enough to keep running dual-level trains.


----------



## Tlcooper93

Nick Farr said:


> Amtrak can and should run longer trains. That isn't really an advantage.
> 
> The disadvantages (in summary):
> * Higher center of gravity means it costs a lot more to build a new car to the same safety specs as a single-level car.
> * Accessibility concerns onboard
> * Having to rebuild rail infrastructure from platforms, tunnels, etc.
> * Lack of standardization across the Amtrak network
> * Lack of ability to eventually electrify under current clearances
> 
> There's really no good reason to entertain dual level carriages outside of the commuter rail segments they're already deployed on.


Pretty much every point he listed, especially accessibility concerns, is a game changer.

I love superliners. I always will. There is not reason however, why their replacement should be anything like them, especially in number of floors.


----------



## Cal

Nick Farr said:


> * Having to rebuild rail infrastructure from platforms, tunnels, etc.


We're talking about replacements for the superliners, there wouldn't need to be any rebuilding of tunnels or platforms. Unless they also replace Viewliners but I don't think that's what we were suggesting 


Nick Farr said:


> * Lack of ability to eventually electrify under current clearances


Superliners have ran under the wires on the Keystone service, and under the wires at WAS.


----------



## Cal

Nick Farr said:


> * Lack of standardization across the Amtrak network


and while this is true, I don't think it's a game changer. It would help, but it's not a monumental difference.


----------



## Nick Farr

Tlcooper93 said:


> I love superliners. I always will. There is not reason however, why their replacement should be anything like them, especially in number of floors.



Same here, I will always treasure my Superliner memories...and those yet to come! But there's a reason their replacement platform proposal died.


----------



## Nick Farr

Cal said:


> We're talking about replacements for the superliners, there wouldn't need to be any rebuilding of tunnels or platforms.



So you're totally fine building a new platform that's locked into the same stations/routes currently served with no hope of expanding further.

There's something to be said for a national standard for long distance passenger rail platforms, if you're going to rebuild them anyway.


----------



## Nick Farr

In case it wasn't already mentioned, new Bi-Level cars were attempted but didn't go forward:









Next Generation Bi-Level Passenger Rail Car - Wikipedia







en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## 87YJ

Seams the best that standardization across the country will be the best for Amtrak. Hard to say what kick back money will give us for cars. Hope for the best. thanks to all for letting me stir things a bit, let me know who to listen to and......... Well you know.


----------



## Cal

Nick Farr said:


> So you're totally fine building a new platform that's locked into the same stations/routes currently served with no hope of expanding further.


How would new bilevel cars prevent/hinder building platforms at new routes and expanding platforms? What am I missing here?


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Nick Farr said:


> Amtrak can and should run longer trains. That isn't really an advantage.


Amtrak can do all sorts of things but where I travel they have repeatedly shrunk trains rather than extend them.



Nick Farr said:


> * Higher center of gravity means it costs a lot more to build a new car to the same safety specs as a single-level car.


Dual levels can be similar or cheaper in terms of per-seat costs and that's why they are still being used today.



Nick Farr said:


> * Accessibility concerns onboard


If the B748 and A380 can maintain ADA compliance then so should dual level long haul trains.



Nick Farr said:


> * Having to rebuild rail infrastructure from platforms, tunnels, etc.


Why would anyone need to rebuild the infrastructure that already supports Superliners today?



Nick Farr said:


> * Lack of ability to eventually electrify under current clearances


Superliners can run under catenary now and there are no serious plans to electrify Superliner routes.



Nick Farr said:


> * Lack of standardization across the Amtrak network


This must be the primary rant since the rest of these concerns fall apart unless we make this a requirement.


----------



## Cal

Devil's Advocate said:


> If the B748 and A380 can maintain ADA compliance then so should dual level long haul trains.


To be fair, most of the 747s and a380’s deck is on the lower deck, not requiring stairs. And you can board directly to the upper deck (although I don’t know if this is a normal practice for 747s) However the aisles are tight.


----------



## sttom

Nick Farr said:


> Amtrak can and should run longer trains. That isn't really an advantage.
> 
> The disadvantages (in summary):
> * Higher center of gravity means it costs a lot more to build a new car to the same safety specs as a single-level car.
> * Accessibility concerns onboard
> * Having to rebuild rail infrastructure from platforms, tunnels, etc.
> * Lack of standardization across the Amtrak network
> * Lack of ability to eventually electrify under current clearances
> 
> There's really no good reason to entertain dual level carriages outside of the commuter rail segments they're already deployed on.


There are accessibility concerns with the Viewliners too. Currently only the Accessible Room next to the diner can access it. If unobstructed access comes down the pike, sleepers are going to get axed at some point since the aisles on either type of sleeper can't clear a wheelchair.

Requiring the rest of the country to have 4 foot high platforms to accommodate level boarding is a cost that most of the country is going to have to bear. Which is highly unlikely to be funded by the federal government. And our legal system takes issue with unfunded mandates. 

Just because something looked different, doesn't mean it shares no components. Plenty of different car models have part commonality, like aircraft and other things. 

Capacity is still a major issue with forcing us to switch to single level cars that you haven't addressed. A 12 car Superliner train would need at least 18 Viewliners to have approximately the same capacity. 

On distributing cars, I'm under no illusions that if Amtrak could do that, that Western routes would benefit from that. If Superliners could run into Penn Station, we all know the Eastern trains would get first dibs on equipment, not the Starlight or Eagle. 

As for ADA and airlines, why should airlines not be required to have an ADA bathroom when someone can be subjected to a 9 hour domestic flight, but a train with a 2 hour end to end run time has to be fully accessible, regardless of amenities? That is going to be the stark contrast our ground transportation and air transportation might be if the new rules are found to be viable. And that's before we get to who's paying to raise the platform at my local station 3 feet to comply with NEC based requirements? 

Also, Siemens cites being able to build rolling stock to 4 platform heights, one of which is 25 inches over the rails or the height of a Superliners door. And Gen 3 of the California cars were cancelled due to our antiquated crash safety standards, not anything to do with fleet commonality or ADA. 

Electrification? I'm 27 and I doubt I'll see any major electrification projects outside the Northeast in the next 20 years. And it's not like we can't build the wires and pantographs taller. We have the knowledge to hang wires.


----------



## jis

Cal said:


> To be fair, most of the 747s and a380’s deck is on the lower deck, not requiring stairs. And you can board directly to the upper deck (although I don’t know if this is a normal practice for 747s) However the aisles are tight.


Also regulations are created by humans in regulatory bodies. The aviation ADA regulations are very different from the FRA ones.


----------



## 87YJ

ADA Question:
Airlines do not allow power chairs(very heavy)! so a folding or light non folder chair gets put under in baggage. You transfer to a very narrow aisle chair that will go down the aisle to get to your seat. 
Do they use transfer/aisle chairs on the single level Viewliners to go between cars?


----------



## Tlcooper93

87YJ said:


> ADA Question:
> Airlines do not allow power chairs(very heavy)! so a folding or light non folder chair gets put under in baggage. You transfer to a very narrow aisle chair that will go down the aisle to get to your seat.
> Do they use transfer/aisle chairs on the single level Viewliners to go between cars?



actually heavier wheelchairs do get stowed in luggage. Sometimes at the gate.
As heavy as those chairs get, it really doesn’t matter too much with someone as large as a B767...


----------



## Nick Farr

sttom said:


> There are accessibility concerns with the Viewliners too. Currently only the Accessible Room next to the diner can access it. If unobstructed access comes down the pike, sleepers are going to get axed at some point since the aisles on either type of sleeper can't clear a wheelchair.



This is a reasonable accommodation. All the ADA requires is a reasonable accommodation. 



sttom said:


> Requiring the rest of the country to have 4 foot high platforms to accommodate level boarding is a cost that most of the country is going to have to bear.



You're saying that like Amtrak has no ability or agency to control modifications at the stations and platforms they stop at. I don't think this is the case. 

Further, the height of platforms has nothing to do with whether or not bi-level cars are feasible or desirable. They are not. Stations have bridge plates for boarding off the platform and they go up and down. Even if you aren't in a wheelchair, there are a host of difficulties presented by a full set of narrow or steep stairs that are not presented by aisles across a wide range of disabilities. 



sttom said:


> Capacity is still a major issue with forcing us to switch to single level cars that you haven't addressed. A 12 car Superliner train would need at least 18 Viewliners to have approximately the same capacity.



The capacity issue you're talking about is theoretical and can be fixed by adding cars. The capacity issue we're facing _is that we don't have enough rail cars available_. The replacement bi-level for the Superliner failed safety tests and was abandoned. In the time it takes to reboot a bi-level car program, you've lost the ability to serve entire routes.



sttom said:


> As for ADA and airlines, why should airlines not be required to have an ADA bathroom when someone can be subjected to a 9 hour domestic flight, but a train with a 2 hour end to end run time has to be fully accessible, regardless of amenities?



First off, the longest domestic flight in CONUS is 6 hours 40 minutes. It isn't until you get to Hawaii that you have a 9 hour flight.

Airlines have attendants that are trained on how to make that bathroom work that are on every flight that are available to assist in that situation. They have to be there because wheelchair-bound passengers almost always need to be buckled into a regular airline seat for safety purposes.

Amtrak can't have an attendant on call and has the ability to allow wheelchair passengers to safely ride in their chairs. Given that circumstance, a self-service bathroom is the ADA option. Also, it doesn't cost that much extra to make space on a rail car for an ADA bathroom when you're ordering new equipment. I don't even believe airlines have that as a logical design option on aircraft,



sttom said:


> Also, Siemens cites being able to build rolling stock to 4 platform heights, one of which is 25 inches over the rails or the height of a Superliners door. And Gen 3 of the California cars were cancelled due to our antiquated crash safety standards, not anything to do with fleet commonality or ADA.



They were cancelled because they couldn't be built to the same safety standards that apply to single-level trains.



sttom said:


> Electrification? I'm 27 and I doubt I'll see any major electrification projects outside the Northeast in the next 20 years. And it's not like we can't build the wires and pantographs taller. We have the knowledge to hang wires.



So which one is it? There's going to be no electrification or you simply change the electrification standard because you want to have a bi-level train that's less safe, is restricted to serving a portion of the country, less accessible all in the name of...higher passenger density?


----------



## neroden

Tlcooper93 said:


> This isn’t true.
> if every city has as central a station as any NE Corridor station (or the train stations they used to have before taking them down), more people would take the train. This isn’t a prediction, it’s a fact. The NE corridor has European level ridership. There is no corridor anywhere else in the country that comes even close.


Well, San Diego to LA comes close, but again, it's a string of well-located downtown stations with frequent service. Chicago doesn't have any one good corridor, but Chicago itself has great ridership, because, again, well-located downtown station.


----------



## neroden

Nick Farr said:


> Amtrak can and should run longer trains. That isn't really an advantage.


The fundamental capacity advantage of trains comes from the ability to make trains long, so yes, agreed, Amtrak can, should, and must run longer trains. Trains scale up by getting llllooonnngggeeerrr. That's how it works! There are a few stations which definitely need platform lengthening, but a lot fewer than you might think; less than 10, I'd say.


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> Also regulations are created by humans in regulatory bodies. The aviation ADA regulations are very different from the FRA ones.


Aviation isn't subject to the ADA, it's subject to a much narrower law, the Air Carrier Access Act. This has been a problem and there are moves afoot to make it subject to the ADA. (This wouldn't change much physically but might stop airlines from destroying wheelchairs which are sent as checked luggage -- something they currently do routinely and do not pay appropriate compensation for.)


----------



## Trogdor

Devil's Advocate said:


> If the B748 and A380 can maintain ADA compliance then so should dual level long haul trains.



They do not. ADA does not apply to airlines.

The ACAA (Air Carrier Access Act) is what applies to airlines, and has different sets of rules depending on number of seats and number of aisles on the plane. Whether or not the 747 or A380 complies with ACAA is irrelevant with respect to whether a modern bi-level long-distance railcar would be compliant with ADA.


----------



## Trogdor

Cal said:


> To be fair, most of the 747s and a380’s deck is on the lower deck, not requiring stairs. And you can board directly to the upper deck (although I don’t know if this is a normal practice for 747s) However the aisles are tight.



Off topic, but you cannot board a 747 from the upper deck. The upper deck door is an emergency exit only.


----------



## neroden

Trogdor said:


> Off topic, but you cannot board a 747 from the upper deck. The upper deck door is an emergency exit only.


I am old enough to have watched direct upper-deck boarding of a 747 at some foreign airport. It does seem to be something which is not done in normal practice nowadays, or ever in the US.


----------



## Trogdor

neroden said:


> I am old enough to have watched direct upper-deck boarding of a 747 at some foreign airport. It does seem to be something which is not done in normal practice nowadays, or ever in the US.



The upper deck door of a 747 has a giant exit slide in the way, and also pops open vertically:









Aviation Photo #0167836: Boeing 747-430 - Lufthansa


Being parked in Lufthansa's hangar No.5 . I was standing on cherry picker between engine Nos.1 and 2 when taking this shot . - Photo taken at Frankfurt am Main (Rhein-Main AB) (FRA / EDDF / FRF) in Germany on May 13, 2001.




www.airliners.net


----------



## 87YJ

Trying to connect 747 boarding, help me out.


----------



## neroden

Trogdor said:


> The upper deck door of a 747 has a giant exit slide in the way, and also pops open vertically:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aviation Photo #0167836: Boeing 747-430 - Lufthansa
> 
> 
> Being parked in Lufthansa's hangar No.5 . I was standing on cherry picker between engine Nos.1 and 2 when taking this shot . - Photo taken at Frankfurt am Main (Rhein-Main AB) (FRA / EDDF / FRF) in Germany on May 13, 2001.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.airliners.net


I don't know what was going on at that airport where I saw it, but yep, it was open and had the exit slide shoved out of the way and a rather poorly-matched-up jetway. Something to do with keeping VIPs separate from the general public, probably; I think the upper deck had been isolated from the rest of the plane for some VIP or something. Don't remember which foreign airline it was. ***Obviously*** not standard procedure.

(I only remember it because I noticed that it was weird.)


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Nick Farr said:


> They were cancelled because they couldn't be built to the same safety standards that apply to single-level trains.


One bungled project with expiring funds does not prove dual level designs cannot meet relevant safety standards.



Nick Farr said:


> There's going to be no electrification or you simply change the electrification standard because you want to have a bi-level train that's less safe, is restricted to serving a portion of the country, less accessible all in the name of...higher passenger density?


It is extremely unlikely we'll see substantial electrification across the the national network and if such electrification did take place it would create no special problem with Superliner sized hardware in the future.



Trogdor said:


> They do not. ADA does not apply to airlines. The ACAA (Air Carrier Access Act) is what applies to airlines, and has different sets of rules depending on number of seats and number of aisles on the plane. Whether or not the 747 or A380 complies with ACAA is irrelevant with respect to whether a modern bi-level long-distance railcar would be compliant with ADA.


That really chaps my hide. I do not want trains adopting tiny airline lavatories but I also think both industries should have similar requirements. I realize that is not currently the case but that is what I would support.


----------



## sttom

Nick Farr said:


> This is a reasonable accommodation. All the ADA requires is a reasonable accommodation.
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying that like Amtrak has no ability or agency to control modifications at the stations and platforms they stop at. I don't think this is the case.
> 
> Further, the height of platforms has nothing to do with whether or not bi-level cars are feasible or desirable. They are not. Stations have bridge plates for boarding off the platform and they go up and down. Even if you aren't in a wheelchair, there are a host of difficulties presented by a full set of narrow or steep stairs that are not presented by aisles across a wide range of disabilities.
> 
> 
> 
> The capacity issue you're talking about is theoretical and can be fixed by adding cars. The capacity issue we're facing _is that we don't have enough rail cars available_. The replacement bi-level for the Superliner failed safety tests and was abandoned. In the time it takes to reboot a bi-level car program, you've lost the ability to serve entire routes.
> 
> 
> 
> First off, the longest domestic flight in CONUS is 6 hours 40 minutes. It isn't until you get to Hawaii that you have a 9 hour flight.
> 
> Airlines have attendants that are trained on how to make that bathroom work that are on every flight that are available to assist in that situation. They have to be there because wheelchair-bound passengers almost always need to be buckled into a regular airline seat for safety purposes.
> 
> Amtrak can't have an attendant on call and has the ability to allow wheelchair passengers to safely ride in their chairs. Given that circumstance, a self-service bathroom is the ADA option. Also, it doesn't cost that much extra to make space on a rail car for an ADA bathroom when you're ordering new equipment. I don't even believe airlines have that as a logical design option on aircraft,
> 
> 
> 
> They were cancelled because they couldn't be built to the same safety standards that apply to single-level trains.
> 
> 
> 
> So which one is it? There's going to be no electrification or you simply change the electrification standard because you want to have a bi-level train that's less safe, is restricted to serving a portion of the country, less accessible all in the name of...higher passenger density?



Bombardier and Alstom have built what they classify as bilevel cars and are built to similar dimensions as the old Santa Fe hilevels that meet the modern requirements. The Cal3s failing is more likely down to incompetence, not building compliant rolling stock being against the laws of physics.

Platform heights can be a problem because it will either mean taller bilevel cars to not have a dip like a multilevel car or an ADA nightmare dealing with stairs on the end of each car. 

If having one out of how ever many ADA rooms be next to the dining car is good enough, then an accommodation can be made for Superliners. 

On electrification, it's not hard to see that we aren't going to be doing any large scale electrification in this county. Even if we did start, the railways aren't going to give up double stack container trains for it. Double stack trains can be 18 feet tall and bilevel passenger cars are around 16 feet. Just to accommodate the minimum clearance of a double stack is enough for a Superliner or similar car. Not to mention multilevels run on the NEC without problems at 14.5 feet. Not to mention they use similar cars in Europe where they have a lot of electrification and more sensible safety regulations than we did until recently. 

So a new bilevel car can be built to modern safety standards, run under wire, have level boarding, and carry more people in fewer cars. Running longer trains also isn't the only solution, running more would do way more for Amtrak than running a longer one that will hold up traffic in many places that will get on people's nerves.


----------



## Cal

sttom said:


> Bombardier and Alstom have built what they classify as bilevel cars and are built to similar dimensions as the old Santa Fe hilevels that meet the modern requirements. The Cal3s failing is more likely down to incompetence, not building compliant rolling stock being against the laws of physics.
> 
> Platform heights can be a problem because it will either mean taller bilevel cars to not have a dip like a multilevel car or an ADA nightmare dealing with stairs on the end of each car.
> 
> If having one out of how ever many ADA rooms be next to the dining car is good enough, then an accommodation can be made for Superliners.
> 
> On electrification, it's not hard to see that we aren't going to be doing any large scale electrification in this county. Even if we did start, the railways aren't going to give up double stack container trains for it. Double stack trains can be 18 feet tall and bilevel passenger cars are around 16 feet. Just to accommodate the minimum clearance of a double stack is enough for a Superliner or similar car. Not to mention multilevels run on the NEC without problems at 14.5 feet. Not to mention they use similar cars in Europe where they have a lot of electrification and more sensible safety regulations than we did until recently.
> 
> So a new bilevel car can be built to modern safety standards, run under wire, have level boarding, and carry more people in fewer cars. Running longer trains also isn't the only solution, running more would do way more for Amtrak than running a longer one that will hold up traffic in many places that will get on people's nerves.





Devil's Advocate said:


> One bungled project with expiring funds does not prove dual level designs cannot meet relevant safety standards.
> 
> 
> It is extremely unlikely we'll see substantial electrification across the the national network and if such electrification did take place it would create no special problem with Superliner sized hardware in the future.


Ditto, ditto, ditto! The biggest problem bi-levels face is not meeting ADA requirements which is definitely a valid point, and I find it likely that the superliner replacements will be single-level. 

However, bi-level replacements would not cause as many problems as you are suggesting.


----------



## Ryan

Fleet commonality remains a stated goal of Amtrak’s fleet strategy.

LD equipment is already a small part of the overall fleet.

They aren’t going to further fragment that small part by purchasing LD equipment that can’t go everywhere LD trains go.

Everything else is just meaningless arm flappery and pointless hot air.

Ride ‘em while you got ‘em.


----------



## John819

You could build a double level car that is ADA compliant. But it is much less costly to build single level cars.

The downside with the single level cars is that the trains must be longer. But the operating crew (as distinguished from the OBS crew) requirements are the same for five cars or for ten cars. The most probably downside is that two stops may be needed at a number of stations for passengers to get on and off; this is already the case in La Plata MO for example.


----------



## Bob Dylan

neroden said:


> I am old enough to have watched direct upper-deck boarding of a 747 at some foreign airport. It does seem to be something which is not done in normal practice nowadays, or ever in the US.


I've boarded up top on a 747 before, but as was said, not in the US.


----------



## Trogdor

Bob Dylan said:


> I've boarded up top on a 747 before, but as was said, not in the US.



How did they move the exit slide out of the way and fold the swing open door down? Everything I've read says the 747 is not certified for top-level boarding.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Trogdor said:


> How did they move the exit slide out of the way and fold the swing open door down? Everything I've read says the 747 is not certified for top-level boarding.


Honestly I'm not sure, it's been so long and it was a Foriegn Carrier not going to the US, perhaps the configuration was different and/ or it was Certified under a different Countries Rules??


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Ryan said:


> Fleet commonality remains a stated goal of Amtrak’s fleet strategy. LD equipment is already a small part of the overall fleet. They aren’t going to further fragment that small part by purchasing LD equipment that can’t go everywhere LD trains go.


If Amtrak truly cared about fleet commonality they would not have created five single level sub-fleets.



Ryan said:


> Everything else is just meaningless arm flappery and pointless hot air.






John819 said:


> You could build a double level car that is ADA compliant. But it is much less costly to build single level cars.


Fair point. If the ADA sledgehammer was not threatening dual level viability for generations I'd have a lot more confidence in a third Superliner fleet.


----------



## basketmaker

Tlcooper93 said:


> actually heavier wheelchairs do get stowed in luggage. Sometimes at the gate.
> As heavy as those chairs get, it really doesn’t matter too much with someone as large as a B767...


That is if the flight is a B767 or other widebody. But not so much on a regional jet or commuter carrier.


----------



## Tlcooper93

basketmaker said:


> That is if the flight is a B767 or other widebody. But not so much on a regional jet or commuter carrier.



you are over estimating the amount of influence that an electric wheelchair would have on the weight and balance of any given commercial aircraft.

It matters far less than the shape + size.
I was in a Pilatus PC-12 (a very small 9 seater used for charters most often) the other day flying with a Tradewinds captain. He basically told me that as long as you can shut the door, the plane can more or less takeoff.

Not saying this is true for an ERJ or CRJ (anything bigger than that won’t be a problem) but the anecdote puts perspective on your claim. The weight matters a lot more with regard to fuel than anything else. A 737 800 has a useful load of about 71,000 lbs with a fuel capacity of around 26,000 lbs. a 100 lbs wheelchair is not much.

If an airline refuses ones chair, it probably has to do with size impeding ability to properly stow the chair and not the weight.


----------



## basketmaker

Tlcooper93 said:


> you are over estimating the amount of influence that an electric wheelchair would have on the weight and balance of any given commercial aircraft.
> 
> It matters far less than the shape + size.
> I was in a Pilatus PC-12 (a very small 9 seater used for charters most often) the other day flying with a Tradewinds captain. He basically told me that as long as you can shut the door, the plane can more or less takeoff.
> 
> Not saying this is true for an ERJ or CRJ (anything bigger than that won’t be a problem) but the anecdote puts perspective on your claim. The weight matters a lot more with regard to fuel than anything else. A 737 800 has a useful load of about 70,000 lbs with a fuel capacity of around 26,000 lbs. a 100 lbs wheelchair is not much.
> 
> If an airline refuses ones chair, it probably has to do with size impeding ability to properly stow the chair and not the weight.


No not just weight. You're very correct size matters. I have done weight & balance on many small airline aircraft up to DC-3s. Some with baggage doors big enough and some that aren't. I have also assisted (lifted up and over the wing and into the cabin) challenged passengers on small(er) aircraft i.e. Piper Aztecs, Cherokees and DC-3s. As an airline (PBA) station manager with just me in the station it was to do all I could to help the passenger. This was before ADA. You are right on the PC-12 is a stout bird! I remember one of Denver's local TV traffic reporters flew one around the world.


----------



## Tlcooper93

basketmaker said:


> No not just weight. You're very correct size matters. I have done weight & balance on many small airline aircraft up to DC-3s. Some with baggage doors big enough and some that aren't. I have also assisted (lifted up and over the wing and into the cabin) challenged passengers on small(er) aircraft i.e. Piper Aztecs, Cherokees and DC-3s. As an airline (PBA) station manager with just me in the station it was to do all I could to help the passenger. This was before ADA. You are right on the PC-12 is a stout bird! I remember one of Denver's local TV traffic reporters flew one around the world.


Fair enough! Now, I truly know nothing about electric wheelchairs, nor plan to do any research. Maybe there are some truly gargantuan ones that would effect a CRJ cog.


----------



## basketmaker

Tlcooper93 said:


> Fair enough! Now, I truly know nothing about electric wheelchairs, nor plan to do any research. Maybe there are some truly gargantuan ones that would effect a CRJ cog.


Really other than size (actually fitting) and weight for CG purposes. I think that batteries could be an issue (haz-mat) depending on what type. I have no idea what is or isn't allowed these days. Partner periodically uses an everyday wheelchair but he/we haven't traveled in a few years so I haven't looked into either.


----------



## 87YJ

I know the weight of power chairs, lets just say no way to pick it up. And no safe way you can pick it up even with your friends help. Baggage handlers are limited to what they can pickup. Again my wife has one "I KNOW" 

Enough on powerchairs as they should never be operational on any train. Controls can stick and people will get hurt. 

Sounds like the forum is saying the viewliner wins out on the superliner. It's OK, as someone posted "enjoy them while you can"


----------



## Ryan

The only thing less likely than a new Superliner order is a new Viewliner order. That procurement was a dumpster fire.

I think what you meant to say is that single level equipment will likely replace the Superliners. That I believe to be fairly likely.


----------



## 87YJ

Ryan: Yes


----------



## toddinde

Devil's Advocate said:


> If Amtrak truly cared about fleet commonality they would not have created five single level sub-fleets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair point. If the ADA sledgehammer was not threatening dual level viability for generations I'd have a lot more confidence in a third Superliner fleet.



There is a You Tube video with Roger Harris on this subject. There are serious supply chain questions of whether we can build a bilevel car in this country now. It’s hard to believe we could almost effortlessly build the Superliners in the ‘70s (I saw them under construction at Pullman), and we can’t now, but that the state of US manufacturing in 2021.


----------



## jis

toddinde said:


> There is a You Tube video with Roger Harris on this subject. There are serious supply chain questions of whether we can build a bilevel car in this country now. It’s hard to believe we could almost effortlessly build the Superliners in the ‘70s (I saw them under construction at Pullman), and we can’t now, but that the state of US manufacturing in 2021.


Isuspect given enough money we can re-setup the necessary infrastructure to build bilevel LD cars again, but the question is whether the amount of money needed to setup the infrastructure for a relatively small order of cars can be spent better in getting many more cars from a supply chain that is in place. 

Ultimately it boils down to deciding whether we want to get maximum bang for the buck to setup an as large a passenger system as we can using the resources that we have, or we will spend money on getting a much smaller but fancier system. The rest of the minor decisions about car layouts come after this core decision is made.


----------



## Mailliw

Is it really that hard to design a sleeping car that wheelchair users could pass through? Especially if an airline style transfer chair qualifies as a reasonable accommodation?


----------



## 87YJ

Mailliw: I agree but few understand or have seen a aisle chair. How they can fold up and be left in the ADA room or stored.  

Plus they would pass through car to car or down narrow halls.


----------



## Cal

John819 said:


> But the operating crew (as distinguished from the OBS crew) requirements are the same for five cars or for ten cars.


If there's more revenue cars than another conductor is needed. I believe it's one conductor per 3 revenue cars?


----------



## neroden

Mailliw said:


> Is it really that hard to design a sleeping car that wheelchair users could pass through? Especially if an airline style transfer chair qualifies as a reasonable accommodation?


For a single-level car? It's possible, though you lose some space due to having to remove sharp turns from the hallway. 

For a bilevel car? You end up using up so much space with lifts that the density advantages of bilevel cars disappear.


----------



## sttom

Mailliw said:


> Is it really that hard to design a sleeping car that wheelchair users could pass through? Especially if an airline style transfer chair qualifies as a reasonable accommodation?



It really depends on if the regulations change and/or what qualifies as a reasonable accommodation. As it stands now, getting a wheelchair through isn't possible and apparently it's reasonable that only 1 sleeper on a Viewliner trains to have wheelchair accessible to the diner. Having read through the current regulations and the proposed changes that are being studied, The logical conclusions are 1) no enclosed rooms for any equipment built once the changes go into effect 2) enclosed rooms that possibly lack amenities are are smaller to make the hallways wider or 3) having to move wheelchair bound passenger between cars outside of the train while it's stopped. Given that the turn radius inside rooms could also change as well, will mess with the space needed to even have an accessible room he ADA compliant. 

So it really matter what changes are made, should their be changed. If they only change to a paradigm of access to all part of the train for wheelchair riders without assistance from the train crew, then not only are bilevel (and probably multilevels) done for, but so would enclosed rooms. Which would mean all of us having sections and lie flat seats since the regulations for seats only state that a reserved spot for disabled rider be within so many feet on an ADA compliant bathroom with the same amenities as as a non ADA bathroom. 

If Amtrak were allowed to move passengers between their accomodations and the diner outside of the train on long distance services, new Superliners could be built. The change being that the bar space in the SSL become the chair lift and each train probably being required to have 2. The other kicker with this is requiring 48 inch high platforms for level boarding which paired with unassisted access would also do in any other rolling stock besides single level equipment. 

Which is also to say that this is up in the air. We don't know what, if any changes could happen as of writing this. And until then, this is all speculation. But yes it's difficult to have wheelchairs navigate Sleepers and proposed changes could throw a monkey wrench into future orders.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

sttom said:


> Having read through the current regulations and the proposed changes that are being studied, The logical conclusions are 1) no enclosed rooms for any equipment built once the changes go into effect 2) enclosed rooms that possibly lack amenities [and] are smaller to make the hallways wider or 3) having to move wheelchair bound passenger between cars outside of the train while it's stopped. Given that the turn radius inside rooms could also change as well, will mess with the space needed to even have an accessible room [be] ADA compliant.


Sounds like we might be going back to curtained sectionals at private bedroom prices by the time all disputes are settled.


----------



## Cal

Devil's Advocate said:


> As much as we complain about pricing and mismanagement in the end it might be the ADA that finally nails the LD coffin shut.


Clearly, this is what Amtrak has been planning all along to get rid of it's LD trains.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Cal said:


> Clearly, this is what Amtrak has been planning all along to get rid of it's LD trains.


Members who distrust Amtrak management can point to specific examples like the targeting of the Southwest Chief for permanent bus downgrades, the flexible "contemporary meals" fiasco, a clumsy website that loses functionality while blocking third party workarounds, and some of the shortest consists on record. The return to daily trains and traditional dining is courtesy of Congress so I guess the pro-management argument revolves around the switch to Coke and new bedding? The problem with the ADA is that "reasonable accommodation" keeps changing with no obvious limit to how far it can reach.


----------



## sttom

Devil's Advocate said:


> Members who distrust Amtrak management can point to specific examples like the targeting of the Southwest Chief for permanent bus downgrades, the flexible "contemporary meals" fiasco, a clumsy website that loses functionality while blocking third party workarounds, and some of the shortest consists on record. The return to daily trains and traditional dining is courtesy of Congress so I guess the pro-management argument revolves around the switch to Coke and new bedding?


In all honesty though, if ADA is used to make LD trains less attractive, it won't really be on Amtrak management for that. Having run in activist circles, the people most willing to ask for changes like the ones being considered are the ones the least likely to be convinced that they are overstepping on anything. And as someone who is able bodied, I appreciate ADA, what I don't appreciate is the imposition of rules that leave a yes or no question when we aren't dealing with chemical contamination issues and the feds won't be paying for compliance. If the feds want to make Penn Station the model of ADA compliance, so be it, but they really should be on the hook to pay for the difference between a low level platform, rolling stock and associated facilities. But as it is, we're going to get rules and funding as usual, which is one part of the issue I have with these issues. Especially if the logical consequences is no enclosed sleepers. I may want the option of a section, but as stated on many other issues pertaining to changing Amtrak, I don't want something at the expense of what exists now. And if we get dumb rules it's going to be because no one will make a good case as to why the disability activists that will take the time to go to DC and sit through the appropriate meetings are wrong and will actually hurt the riders they are claiming to care about.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

sttom said:


> In all honesty though, if ADA is used to make LD trains less attractive, it won't really be on Amtrak management for that.


I agree in principle but other than Amtrak management who is in a position to defend against unreasonable demands? One aspect that seems to get lost in the debate is how the history of Amtrak's long distance network is a story of repeatedly losing ground rather than gaining it. It may be a much slower death than originally predicted but it's still dying nonetheless. The long distance network has been losing ground for decades and unless this trend can be reversed it will eventually lose everything.


----------



## neroden

I'm not seeing any opposition to private rooms from actual disability advocacy groups, who seem to like the rooms.
By contrast, disability advocacy groups really would like high platforms everywhere.


----------



## MARC Rider

neroden said:


> I'm not seeing any opposition to private rooms from actual disability advocacy groups, who seem to like the rooms.
> By contrast, disability advocacy groups really would like high platforms everywhere.


Do the disability advocacy groups recognize the technical issues that might make it difficult to both have private rooms on trains and also make the entire train accessible to wheelchairs? I've found that sometimes activists get a wee bit too enthusiastic for their cause and start demanding things that aren't practical.


----------



## neroden

Disability advocacy groups tend to be *extremely* sensitive to technical feasibility, as those in wheelchairs have to navigate it constantly.


----------



## MARC Rider

neroden said:


> Disability advocacy groups tend to be *extremely* sensitive to technical feasibility, as those in wheelchairs have to navigate it constantly.


I was thinking about "technical feasibility" in the other direction -- If the discussion here has any accuracy, it may be technically feasible to design a sleeping car in which a person in a wheelchair can pass through, but the resulting product may be not be a viable sleeping car. (Not private rooms, limited capacity, etc.)


----------



## Mailliw

A single-level all-bedroom sleeping car should be possible since wheelchairs would have a straight path from vestibule to vestibule w/o having to turn midway. Roomettes would go away, but that might not be so bad if open section cars with an wheelchair seat next to an ADA bathroom were allowed.


----------



## Cal

neroden said:


> By contrast, disability advocacy groups really would like high platforms everywhere.


Well, you can have a platform that is the same height to the superliner door for a similar boarding experience as you get on the east coast.


----------



## MARC Rider

Mailliw said:


> A single-level all-bedroom sleeping car should be possible since wheelchairs would have a straight path from vestibule to vestibule w/o having to turn midway. Roomettes would go away, but that might not be so bad if open section cars with an wheelchair seat next to an ADA bathroom were allowed.


Actually, it's an all-roomette sleeping car that would be wheelchair-friendly, because there's a corridor up the middle of the car where the roomettes are. Of course, the corridor would have to be made a bit wider to accommodate wheelchairs, so the roomettes will be a bit smaller. Bedrooms take up most of the width of the car, so the corridor has to be on one side of the car, which means there has to be a dogleg in the corridor to connect to the vestibule and passageway between the cars, which might be very difficult to make large enough for a wheelchair to be able to negotiate the turns.


----------



## MARC Rider

Cal said:


> Well, you can have a platform that is the same height to the superliner door for a similar boarding experience as you get on the east coast.





Here is the platform at Dallas.


----------



## Cal

MARC Rider said:


> View attachment 24851
> 
> 
> Here is the platform at Dallas.


Isn't that a little bit lower?


----------



## MARC Rider

Cal said:


> Isn't that a little bit lower?


The high platform at tracks 17 - 20 at Washington Union Station is also a bit lower relative to the Amfleet door entrances. The one at Dallas looks similar relative to the Superliner entrances.


----------



## Cal

MARC Rider said:


> The high platform at tracks 17 - 20 at Washington Union Station is also a bit lower relative to the Amfleet door entrances. The one at Dallas looks similar relative to the Superliner entrances.


Either way, it is possible so you don't need single-level cars to make platforms that allow for easier boarding. Why most platforms are usually build below that level is beyond me.


----------



## Mailliw

MARC Rider said:


> Actually, it's an all-roomette sleeping car that would be wheelchair-friendly, because there's a corridor up the middle of the car where the roomettes are. Of course, the corridor would have to be made a bit wider to accommodate wheelchairs, so the roomettes will be a bit smaller. Bedrooms take up most of the width of the car, so the corridor has to be on one side of the car, which means there has to be a dogleg in the corridor to connect to the vestibule and passageway between the cars, which might be very difficult to make large enough for a wheelchair to be able to negotiate the turns.


An all-roomette car would definitely be easier to move a wheelchair through, but presumably you'd still have to fit an ensuite ADA bedroom in. 
A really interesting possibility would be married pair sleeping cars. If each pair only needed 1 ADA bedroom then 1 could be all bedroom while the other all roomette.


----------



## John819

An all-roomette car would definitely be easier to move a wheelchair through, but presumably you'd still have to fit an ensuite ADA bedroom in.
A really interesting possibility would be married pair sleeping cars. If each pair only needed 1 ADA bedroom then 1 could be all bedroom while the other all roomette. 

If you turned the bedroom orientation 90 degrees, you could have one car of the pair with accessible bedrooms and a wide hallway and the other car with all roomettes. You just would need to put the bedroom car next to the dining car.


----------



## cocojacoby

I posted this idea on another thread back in April. I feel it could be a very different solution to this Superliner/ADA problem:

--------------------------------

Okay, I'm just throwing this out there:

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

Sightseer Car:

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

2 - Add lift to upper level.

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

4 - Add wheelchair space somewhere in the lounge.

Diner Car:

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















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

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

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


----------



## 20th Century Rider

I do like the idea of a new set of wheels for Amtrak that will bring consistency and access to the entire Amtrak system... with the capability of moving cars to where they need to be... including standardized sleepers [roomette / bedroom / handicapped / and 
big windows cars for dining and lounging. Really... if Amtrak is looking to be more efficient this is the way to go.

Same idea as SW having an all 737 fleet.

But I'm just dreaming... first things first... funding!


----------



## 20th Century Rider

cocojacoby said:


> I posted this idea on another thread back in April. I feel it could be a very different solution to this Superliner/ADA problem:
> 
> --------------------------------
> 
> Okay, I'm just throwing this out there:
> 
> Retrofit or build new Superliner diners and sightseer lounge cars as follows:
> 
> Sightseer Car:
> 
> 1 - Replace lower lounge with two HP bedrooms. There already is an accessible toilet right there or completely remove lounge and toilet and replace with two fully equipped HP bedrooms.
> 
> 2 - Add lift to upper level.
> 
> 3 - Can all of the swivel chairs be turned to allow for passage of a wheelchair? If not install narrower tables or seats at one end of the car to provide accessibility to the end door that faces the dinner.
> 
> 4 - Add wheelchair space somewhere in the lounge.
> 
> Diner Car:
> 
> 1- Make both end tables at one end accessible utilizing flip down seats so that they can be used by everyone if possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now a wheelchair passenger has full access to all of the passenger related amenities. Leave the coaches and sleepers alone except now you can add one or two (depending on the number of sleepers) sellable family rooms to every consist. There really is no need to have accessibility through the entire train.
> 
> Amtrak may have to ask for a waiver but this seems to provide equal and enhanced access to the most important features of the train. It doesn't cause a loss of room revenue but in fact adds to the bottom line. The Sightseer now actually generates room revenue and the H bedroom in the sleepers can be sold as a second family room.
> 
> BTW - On a recent Auto Train trip, I never saw anyone using that lower lounge.


But I'm struggling with the Superliners idea because Handicapped can't be well accommodated and building a lift would require funding / take up passenger space... and wouldn't be economically inefficient.


----------



## cocojacoby

I'm kind of lost with your comment. ADA passengers would be much better accommodated. They would have access to the diner and the lounge which they do not have now.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

cocojacoby said:


> I'm kind of lost with your comment. ADA passengers would be much better accommodated. They would have access to the diner and the lounge which they do not have now.


I'm for single level cars... eliminating the need for a lift that takes more space and could break down. The dining car also needs to use a lift to get food from the kitchen below. ADA passengers would be better served on single level cars.

I'm for single level cars for many other reasons as well. The folks on the bottom level [referred to by Amtrak staff and customers as the 'dungeon'] has four roomettes that are by the stairwell, luggage racks, and entrance door... making for a noisy area... and lower level gets a disadvantaged view. The H room is at the far end preceeded by all the bathrooms... so H room gets that noise and 'aroma' also has a lower level view. The family room is at the opposite end and is either facing forward or backward. With the lower limited view.

And there's more issues... only one WC upstairs for the roomette passengers... which seems to always be breaking down, so they have to navigate that narrow stairwell to use the WC's downstairs.

This is just my humble opinion... and I've been riding Amtrak for years as well as trains around the world. As we explore these opinions... Japan has just removed its only double decker Shinkansen from service not to be replaced.

But there's always a possibility that a new design will make us all happy... meanwhile... we all want the best possible rail experience for ourselves and other customers.


----------



## neroden

Cal said:


> Either way, it is possible so you don't need single-level cars to make platforms that allow for easier boarding. Why most platforms are usually build below that level is beyond me.


It's obstructionism by freight railroads which make questionable claims about the "need" for lower platforms to allow for malfunctioning freight equipment with bits hanging off it. :-( Seriously.


----------



## sttom

The issue I have with the ADA changes beyond the hopefully unintended consequence of not having enclosed anymore is that issue around level boarding. Siemens can build single level cars where the entry is at the same height as a Superliner, along with basically every major manufacturer having something in their lineup having the same floor height. I want level boarding, but writing regulations that 1) most of the country is going to have a hell of a time building to assuming the railroads go for it (or are bribed into it) 2) has the consequence of making every agency have to choose essentially the same equipment. Setting the level boarding standard be set to the height of the Superliners would leave Amtrak and any other operator the flexibility to choose between single or bilevel equipment. Cause with the changes that could come through, even multilevels could be on the chopping block. And that is before we even talk reasonable accommodations.

As far as fleet commonality goes, again having 2 system wide types of cars isn't going to be the end of the world. Amtrak could do something radical like design its own cars or any other such radical thing to ensure part commonality to the greatest extent possible even if different companies make the cars. Car companies do this all the time, a Civic and a CRV aren't 100% different vehicles. So my issue isn't with single level cars, its the writing of laws that makes the choice "single level to these precise standards or no trains". Especially when hell practically has to freeze for the federal government to even fund a rail project let alone pay the difference between what they want to require and what the cheapest practical alternative is.


----------



## 87YJ

I wonder how many of you have had hands on a wheelchair, Knowing the difference between a power, ridged & folding. I have for 35+ years. Way too many widths as some people pack on the pounds. The chairs can be over 40" wide needing a wide hallway. 
So there will be fewer rooms and higher prices to ride. I see no way to shrink a roomette and not be standing on the bed.  
As I posted earlier a airline Isle chair is the only simple option that the gov. will go along with and not cost a lot of money, giving Amtrak another reason to raise prices with the bucket thing they do...
How I know , My wife is a paraplegic.


----------



## Cal

20th Century Rider said:


> building a lift would require funding / take up passenger space


The upstairs bar can be used for it.


----------



## Cal

20th Century Rider said:


> The folks on the bottom level [referred to by Amtrak staff and customers as the 'dungeon'] has four roomettes that are by the stairwell, luggage racks, and entrance door... making for a noisy area... and lower level gets a disadvantaged view.


I've been on the lower roomettes quite a bit, never have had the issue with the noise. There was one partially noisy family one time, but I generally found it more cute to see a little girl loving the train ride than annoying. In fact, the bedrooms upstairs with the slim dividers are lot noisier; it's very easy to hear someone's phone call in your room. 

The disadvantaged view isn't a deal breaker to me (Although I haven't been on the CZ) as the SSL is always open. And I love just looking down at the other track(s) and watching them speed by, especially when going fairly fast. 

The restroom issue could probably be resolved if Amtrak was better with it's maintenance (and the passengers treating it well)


----------



## Ryan

sttom said:


> Amtrak could do something radical like design its own cars or any other such radical thing to ensure part commonality to the greatest extent possible even if different companies make the cars.


There is zero percent chance of that happening. It word for cars because you're building millions of them. It works far less for a handful of railcars. No need to reinvent the wheel with a world filled with perfectly acceptable rolling stock.


----------



## John819

For commonality you could just settle on one design (single level). The Venture, which is being added to the system on various regionals (including the plans for the NEC) would be a great starting point.

For the ADA issue, you could have a "core" on each LD train of a lounge / observation car, a diner, and an ADA accessible sleeper. Then add coaches and sleepers to the core. The only problem you would have is with the EB and the LSL which split.


----------



## cocojacoby

John819 said:


> For commonality you could just settle on one design (single level). The Venture, which is being added to the system on various regionals (including the plans for the NEC) would be a great starting point.
> 
> For the ADA issue, you could have a "core" on each LD train of a lounge / observation car, a diner, and an ADA accessible sleeper. Then add coaches and sleepers to the core. The only problem you would have is with the EB and the LSL which split.



How does Amtrak crew assignments work now? Does each Viewliner have an attendant? Losing that one roomette to the double bathroom module makes it rather inefficient compared to a Superliner if that's the case.

Maybe Amtrak should go with semi-permanent open-vestibule sleeper couple pairs?. That way one attendant can take car of two sleeper cars. And could a "drawbar/open vestibule pair" be considered one car for ADA terminology? How about two piece articulated open vestibule cars attached on one truck? Could that be considered one car requiring one ADA room?

Using coupled pairs of coaches and sleepers may make a big difference in efficiency and may justify going all single level. Although I do like the Superliners, the Viewliner sleepers have a much better room design with a more open comfortable feel. 

As far as the "core" goes. That again could be a coupled pair with a lounge and diner semi-permanently attached. However I think you have to consider that the Viewliner diner is just too small to satisfy the needs of a full LD train. Amtrak's wish of going to a single "food service" car with the Viewliner is just ridiculous.

You have to think outside of the box here and this just might be the place you go bi-level. A typical bi-level NEC Plate car could have a full width kitchen on the bottom level and seating on the top level in the "dome" and also at both vestibule ends (with an ADA table at one end for coach passengers and one at the other end for sleeper passengers). Maybe the car could be used as a lounge when not serving meals or even better a 24-hour "bistro" for light snacks and drinks around the clock.

If business is really good, Amtrak could couple two of these together and have separate diner and lounge cars. Two of these on the LSL and EB would work out just fine. Now add a baggage dorm of course to max out the revenue numbers and you got a pretty efficient fleet.

P.S. I do have to say . . . . PLEASE Amtrak, whatever you decide, make sure that the seats can rotate forward on any new LD train!


----------



## neroden

John819 said:


> For commonality you could just settle on one design (single level). The Venture, which is being added to the system on various regionals (including the plans for the NEC) would be a great starting point.
> 
> For the ADA issue, you could have a "core" on each LD train of a lounge / observation car, a diner, and an ADA accessible sleeper. Then add coaches and sleepers to the core. The only problem you would have is with the EB and the LSL which split.


Cue my long-standing suggestion of separate Boston and NY trains; there's enough demand.


----------



## cocojacoby

neroden said:


> Cue my long-standing suggestion of separate Boston and NY trains; there's enough demand.


Is there? I'd seriously love to believe that but the Boston section has always been really short. If the demand was great I would think it would have more cars.

And I will add my long-standing suggestion that it should run through Canada and Detroit. Yup, I expect the same border crossing comments but also please consider that the Capitol Limited and the Lake Shore leave Cleveland for Chicago 45 minutes apart around 3 o'clock in the morning.

I'm guessing this is the only place in the country where you actually have a choice of riding in a Superliner train or a low-level LD train between the same major city pair?


----------



## neroden

cocojacoby said:


> Is there? I'd seriously love to believe that but the Boston section has always been really short. If the demand was great I would think it would have more cars.



Well, caveat, I think that demand is suppressed by it not running on time. 
And the timetable for the Boston section isn't good at the moment, either.

My belief is that there is enough demand on the Lake Shore route for one Boston train and two New York trains, on three different schedules, *if* the problems with CSX and NS delaying trains can be overcome.


----------



## PerRock

cocojacoby said:


> P.S. I do have to say . . . . PLEASE Amtrak, whatever you decide, make sure that the seats can rotate forward on any new LD train!


All coach and business class seats on long distance trains can be rotated around to face forward. However a lot of times the yard crews turning the trains don't flip the seats, and most on board crews don't want you doing it yourself. (It's the little silver foot pedal on the aisle end of your seat pair that unlocks the rotation)


----------



## cocojacoby

PerRock said:


> All coach and business class seats on long distance trains can be rotated around to face forward. However a lot of times the yard crews turning the trains don't flip the seats, and most on board crews don't want you doing it yourself. (It's the little silver foot pedal on the aisle end of your seat pair that unlocks the rotation)



I said that because I believe all of the new equipment Amtrak has recently ordered has fixed seats. That means half of the passengers are forced to ride backwards on all of the new Siemen's Venture equipment I have seen so far.



https://assets.new.siemens.com/siemens/assets/api/uuid:27f1e78e-c414-4f33-b032-e46fbcddb86e/venture-trainset-single-page-lores.pdf


----------



## joelkfla

cocojacoby said:


> I said that because I believe all of the new equipment Amtrak has recently ordered has fixed seats. That means half of the passengers are forced to ride backwards on all of the new Siemen's Venture equipment I have seen so far.
> 
> 
> 
> https://assets.new.siemens.com/siemens/assets/api/uuid:27f1e78e-c414-4f33-b032-e46fbcddb86e/venture-trainset-single-page-lores.pdf


Does anybody still make reversible railroad seating?


----------



## Cal

cocojacoby said:


> That means half of the passengers are forced to ride backwards on all of the new Siemen's Venture equipment I have seen so far.


I don't see much of a problem with that, that's how it is on the Surfline.


----------



## John Bredin

I thought fixed seats were a new-ish safety requirement.


----------



## cocojacoby

Is it possible to wye or loop all LD trains at their terminal service areas? The ones I am familiar with (NYP, BOS, WAS, TAMPA, MIAMI) are all doable. In that way Amtrak can make "fixed" consists all with fixed forward facing seating.


----------



## jis

cocojacoby said:


> Is it possible to wye or loop all LD trains at their terminal service areas? The ones I am familiar with (NYP, BOS, WAS, TAMPA, MIAMI) are all doable. In that way Amtrak can make "fixed" consists all with fixed forward facing seating.


AFAIK they all already are.

The newly ordered Amtrak Regional train sets (Amfleet I replacements) will not necessarily be turned around. They are designed to run in either direction with power at one end and a cab car at the other end. However they still will get turned around in places like New York where there is no easy/non-disruptive way to get a train into Sunnyside Yard without turning it around. But they probably will not be turned around in Boston or Washington, just as the Acelas are not, today.

As for what happens with LD trains, we will know only when they get around to order the next generation equipment for them, which is probably at lest a few years away.

In places with intensive frequent (almost Regional level) LD service, the trains are not turned around. Their dwell times at end points are not as leisurely as Amtrak's since they use their equipment much more intensively.


----------



## Cal

jis said:


> But they probably will not be turned around in Boston or Washington, just as the Acelas are not, today.


My Acela was, to my extreme surprised, turned at Boston. This resulted in me sitting on the same side on the way back as I was sitting on the trip there.


----------



## west point

Do not know much about passenger trains. However the Freights turn equipment so that wear is the same on both sides of each truck. Do not know if Amtrak tracks direction of each piece of running stock for this even running..


----------



## GiantsFan

Just look at france and their double deck TGV… it’s pretty much taken over the fleet because of the capacity advantage, and because platforms can only grow so much. They even run them in pairs!

Personally I’m a bit disappointed the third gen hi-level didn’t work out


----------



## jis

MODERATOR'S NOTE: Please continue this discussion in the new thread:






Superliner replacement discussion (2022-23)


Would be smart for Amtrak to add an order for single-level long distant coaches, dining cars, lounge cars, and sleeping cars. Haveing standardized equipment system-wide would solve many maintenance issues.




www.amtraktrains.com





where we are trying to consolidate all Superliner replacement discussions.

Thank you for your understanding, cooperation and participation


----------

