# Would Viewliners like these be possible (Or even Useful)?



## JohannFarley

Hello all,

I'm sure some of you will be saying to yourselves "oh great, another Viewliner thread from fantasy land," but because I've been stuck inside, I figured I'd try to draw out the Viewliners that I envision from time to time, and how they'd be used.

So my main idea was that different Viewliners could be used to take all Amfleets out of LD service, so they could be used to bolster the corridor fleet (although I'm sure by time these were delivered the Amfleets would be replaced already.

Anyway, here are a few of my ideas, in my order of most to least likely to be used. (

Firstly, a Viewliner Coach. This is essentially a carbon copy of an Amfleet II, but in Viewliner form.


A Viewliner Cafe Car, with the layout changed up to a more open design.



A Lounge-Sleeper combo. This is the design I like the least out of all of them, could definitely use tweaking but I;m not sure where. Maybe no Roomettes?



A Coach-Dorm car. The only thing I wasn't sure about was whether a sleeper needed an ADA bedroom or if one like this could be made.



Lastly, a Viewliner Observation-Dorm-Lounge. I just had fun with this one, let me know what you think.



Let me know what you guys think, of anything I've gotten wrong. Please excuse the art and car design, I'm neither an artist or an engineer.

Based on diagrams from here: Amtrak Car Diagrams @ CraigMashburn.com


----------



## Qapla

OK, I'll play along ... but, I'll leave the outside design to you




Since there are two H-rooms in the Bedroom Sleeper I saw no reason to make the shower Accessible. Also, since all rooms have a toilet, I did not make a public restroom

In the Roomette Sleeper, I did include an Accessible Restroom - since all the roomettes have a toilet, no public non-accessible restroom.


----------



## PVD

A few thoughts.. what would be the purpose of the accessible restroom in the roomette car ? the only accessible room has it's own...the car lacks a coffee/beverage station & storage In the bedroom car, there is no provision for an attendant or bev station


----------



## PerRock

I don't have drawings off-hand but have over the years been playing around with a Viewliner dome design.

peter


----------



## JohannFarley

A dome car would certainly be interesting. Are dome cars short enough to enter NYP?


----------



## Qapla

PVD said:


> what would be the purpose of the accessible restroom in the roomette car



I do not need a wheel chair - but I have a handicap placard because I have problems walking. The added space in the accessible restroom is much better for me to use when I ride the train. I'm sure I am not the only one.



PVD said:


> the car lacks a coffee/beverage station & storage In the bedroom car



I will agree, there needs to be a beverage station. There is a storage closet at each end of the bedroom car.

I didn't claim to have made the ultimate design ... I was just offering something up in the spirit of the thread


----------



## jiml

JohannFarley said:


> A dome car would certainly be interesting. Are dome cars short enough to enter NYP?


What you've done closely resembles Eastern observation cars used in the past. A physical dome is probably unnecessary and a "wraparound" glass roof like Superliner lounges would probably mess up the Viewliner design template too much to be practical.


----------



## JohannFarley

jiml said:


> What you've done closely resembles Eastern observation cars used in the past. A physical dome is probably unnecessary and a "wraparound" glass roof like Superliner lounges would probably mess up the Viewliner design template too much to be practical.



I figured this would be more practical than a dome since it doesnt require space to be taken up by stairs, and ensures the whole car stays wheelchair accessible.


----------



## PVD

My mom was somewhat mobility limited post a broken hip. Interestingly she hated wheelchair accessible bathrooms because they often had very low toilets to allow transfer, it was impossible for her to get up...


----------



## jis

PVD said:


> A few thoughts.. what would be the purpose of the accessible restroom in the roomette car ? the only accessible room has it's own...the car lacks a coffee/beverage station & storage In the bedroom car, there is no provision for an attendant or bev station


If I understood Thirdrail correctly, according to him a Roomette Car would not meet the current ADA regulations as understood by the Amtrak folks?

On the general subject of whether these cars would be useful, of course they would be, but practically Amtrak would have to have more trains and a larger fleet to make so many types of cars unique to Amtrak cost effective to maintain and operate. The other choice may be to team up with VIA and perhaps a few Eurasian operators to enhance the number of cars needed to distribute development cost over larger numbers to keep unit prices in check.

Also, I don't think any more Viewliner Cars will ever be built. Any new single elvel cars will use some existing mass produced shell, and most of them either are designed to allow window cutouts at waist level and at an upper level or should be easy to modify to allow such, so that will possibly not be a huge show stopper for getting two rows of windows if so desired. But again, we need a system that requires a hundred or more of each type, not just 25.


----------



## JohannFarley

Yeah I assume as well the Viewliner II's will be the last ones made. Again, this was just another trip through fantasy land out of lockdown boredom.


----------



## Qapla

PVD said:


> she hated wheelchair accessible bathrooms because they often had very low toilets to allow transfer, it was impossible for her to get up



Hmmm .... That's the opposite of what I have found in ADA restrooms - they all have the taller toilet



> A comfort *height toilet* is sometimes known as an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) *toilet* because the *height* matches that used for ADA-compliant *toilets*, 17 to 19 inches from floor to seat. This is like the *height* of a chair. The *height* of a *standard toilet* is about 15 inches from floor to seat


----------



## jis

JohannFarley said:


> Yeah I assume as well the Viewliner II's will be the last ones made. Again, this was just another trip through fantasy land out of lockdown boredom.


Don't get me wrong. I think if we can figure out a way of using larger numbers of these it would be practical and good. Another concept that has been talked about in these forums is that of using airline Business/First Class style lie-flat recliner seats. Cocojoyboy here has some ideas about that.

As I pointed out, these are not dependent on the Viewliner design specifically. They can be built using almost any of the other standard shells available from various manufacturers in the world.


----------



## JohannFarley

jis said:


> Don't get me wrong. I think if we can figure out a way of using larger numbers of these it would be practical and good. Another concept that has been talked about in these forums is that of using airline Business/First Class style lie-flat recliner seats. Cocojoyboy here has some ideas about that.
> 
> As I pointed out, these are not dependent on the Viewliner design specifically. They can be built using almost any of the other standard shells available from various manufacturers in the world.



Yeah that's true. My main point really (at least I think), is that standardization of the LD fleet would be a good thing, and I also think that keeping the LD and Corridor fleets branded separately (as in the new Phase III for LD and Phase IV for the Corridor) would be good as well as it prevents the Rainbow consists we are getting on LD single level trains these days. Having multiple schemes on a single train (to me at least) shows a little bit of disorder.

But who knows, I'm probably overthinking this.


----------



## PVD

Part of the problem for her was the distance to the wall allowing for the chair made it hard to reach something for support.. At home she could use a heght extender ar a frame from a commode with the "bucket" and seat removed


----------



## PVD

Kicking around ideas and having some fun is a good thing for all of us. The drawings are damn good.


----------



## JohannFarley

PVD said:


> Kicking around ideas and having some fun is a good thing for all of us. The drawings are damn good.



Thanks! Can't take full credit though, I just cleaned up the drawings from the site I linked in the original post.


----------



## jiml

I'm looking forward to someday riding @Seaboard92 's private dinner train and hearing a voice next to me "Look Grandpa, isn't that one of those Viewliner diners Amtrak sold off after the Pandemic of 2020?" They'll look great with the other "vintage" cars in the train.


----------



## cocojacoby

JohannFarley said:


> Firstly, a Viewliner Coach. This is essentially a carbon copy of an Amfleet II, but in Viewliner form.
> View attachment 17605



This is a hotly discussed matter on another site. The new Acela II has reduced the total number of restrooms to only one per car because they decided to have "full rotation" ADA bathrooms which are huge and take up all available space. This is a concern shown in focus groups Amtrak has conducted.

Your design allows two, possible three restrooms in the same space. The new Stadler Ultradomes built for the Rockymountaineer has the type you have shown and are currently used on today's Amfleet.

I don't know the answer. Everyone has a different opinion on what the law requires. The more restrooms the better in my opinion.


----------



## cocojacoby

JohannFarley said:


> A dome car would certainly be interesting. Are dome cars short enough to enter NYP?



You know what I would love to see?

A Viewliner Diner Lounge as follows:

A bilevel design that can fit through NYP (similar to the size of the LIRR and NJT bilevels)

The top deck is a Dome Lounge for everyone.

The lower level has a food service/kitchen in the center that serves out of both ends. One end of the car is a Sleeper Dining area and the other end is a Coach Dining area. Some seating is on the lower level and some can be on the mezzanine.

Eliminate the door and vestibule.

Now you can satisfy Amtrak's goal of having a single food service car for an entire LD train. I can't see it working in any other way (i.e., making the Viewliner II diners into a single food car for an entire train).


----------



## cocojacoby

This is something I have been pushing for a long time too. A Delta One business class sleeper between coach and Sleeper Service. A Viewliner version would be awesome.

Here are my Viewliner conversion drawings.

Top is existing. Bottom is with Delta One seating.


----------



## MARC Rider

cocojacoby said:


> This is something I have been pushing for a long time too. A Delta One business class sleeper between coach and Sleeper Service. A Viewliner version would be awesome.
> 
> Here are my Viewliner conversion drawings.
> 
> Top is existing. Bottom is with Delta One seating.
> View attachment 17621
> View attachment 17622


This design yields 36 of these lie flat seats vs. the sleeper car capacity of 30 seats (4 bedroom and one ADA room.) I'm not sure this slight increase in capacity will allow them to charge sufficiently reduced fares to make the lack of privacy attractive. Also, is the double sized restroom module large enough to contain an ADA compliant toilet?


----------



## Trogdor

MARC Rider said:


> This design yields 36 of these lie flat seats vs. the sleeper car capacity of 30 seats (4 bedroom and one ADA room.) I'm not sure this slight increase in capacity will allow them to charge sufficiently reduced fares to make the lack of privacy attractive. Also, is the double sized restroom module large enough to contain an ADA compliant toilet?



A sleeper has a capacity of 30 only if you put two people in every room. This effectively doubles the cost of accommodating a solo traveler.


----------



## NS VIA Fan

JohannFarley said:


> A dome car would certainly be interesting. Are dome cars short enough to enter NYP?



Add a little more glass to the roof-line and I think you've got it!

Below are cars CN acquired from 'The Milwaukee Road' that were originally used on the _Olympian Hiawatha_


----------



## railiner

You can call these double windowed Viewliner, or other designs like the old Silver Meteor Sun Lounges with glass tops "domes" if you wish, but to me, a true dome must have 360° visibility. The only "domes" low enough for the NEC that approached that requirement, were the former United Aircraft Turbo Trains.


----------



## gmo1515

I know a gentleman that works at an administration level position at Amtrak and I mentioned to him how after riding in the Viewliner dining cars how well that carbody would lend itself to a lounge-type car with double row of windows in an open space. He said there was a sleeper lounge design that unfortunately never made it past the “paper” stage which took a lot of inspiration from the Seaboard sun lounge cars with bedrooms at one end.

the problem with any type of boat tail design is operational inflexibility. Any car design with rear windows would more than likely have to incorporate the ability to be used mid-train if required. The most practical design would likely be like a sun lounge design with some windows cut in on either side of the diaphragm. If you look at the private car Hollywood Beach it appears that is exactly what they did.

Jason P



JohannFarley said:


> Hello all,
> 
> I'm sure some of you will be saying to yourselves "oh great, another Viewliner thread from fantasy land," but because I've been stuck inside, I figured I'd try to draw out the Viewliners that I envision from time to time, and how they'd be used.
> 
> So my main idea was that different Viewliners could be used to take all Amfleets out of LD service, so they could be used to bolster the corridor fleet (although I'm sure by time these were delivered the Amfleets would be replaced already.
> 
> Anyway, here are a few of my ideas, in my order of most to least likely to be used. (
> 
> Firstly, a Viewliner Coach. This is essentially a carbon copy of an Amfleet II, but in Viewliner form.
> View attachment 17605
> 
> A Viewliner Cafe Car, with the layout changed up to a more open design.
> View attachment 17606
> 
> 
> A Lounge-Sleeper combo. This is the design I like the least out of all of them, could definitely use tweaking but I;m not sure where. Maybe no Roomettes?
> View attachment 17607
> 
> 
> A Coach-Dorm car. The only thing I wasn't sure about was whether a sleeper needed an ADA bedroom or if one like this could be made.
> View attachment 17608
> 
> 
> Lastly, a Viewliner Observation-Dorm-Lounge. I just had fun with this one, let me know what you think.
> View attachment 17609
> 
> 
> Let me know what you guys think, of anything I've gotten wrong. Please excuse the art and car design, I'm neither an artist or an engineer.
> 
> Based on diagrams from here: Amtrak Car Diagrams @ CraigMashburn.com


----------



## PerRock

Here is a quick throw-together of my Viewliner dome idea.


----------



## jis

PerRock said:


> View attachment 17623
> 
> 
> Here is a quick throw-together of my Viewliner dome idea.


Strictly speaking that is not a dome though. It is basically a thing like the Amtrak Superliner Sightseer Lounge (partial wrap around windows) squeezed into a multi-level car that fits 14'6" height.


----------



## cocojacoby

MARC Rider said:


> This design yields 36 of these lie flat seats vs. the sleeper car capacity of 30 seats (4 bedroom and one ADA room.) I'm not sure this slight increase in capacity will allow them to charge sufficiently reduced fares to make the lack of privacy attractive. Also, is the double sized restroom module large enough to contain an ADA compliant toilet?



I doubt every room is at full double occupancy on most Viewliners. 

That's what Amtrak is doing with the new Viewliners but of course they have an ADA room. So maybe a single ADA restroom would be the way to go.


----------



## cocojacoby

railiner said:


> You can call these double windowed Viewliner, or other designs like the old Silver Meteor Sun Lounges with glass tops "domes" if you wish, but to me, a true dome must have 360° visibility. The only "domes" low enough for the NEC that approached that requirement, were the former United Aircraft Turbo Trains.



Got to compromise a bit. The Dome Lounge/Diner combo would be very efficient and pleasant enough. The only train that could give you what you want is probably the Talgo and that's probably not happening since the floor is too low for high level platforms.

I understand what you are saying but unless you grab the first row or two most people are left with a side-wards view anyway.

This pic is of the Sightseer Lounge on a recent Auto Train trip I took. The car is still a very pleasant place to be. Not great scenery but very bright and attractive car.


----------



## railiner

cocojacoby said:


> Got to compromise a bit. The Dome Lounge/Diner combo would be very efficient and pleasant enough. The only train that could give you what you want is probably the Talgo and that's probably not happening since the floor is too low for high level platforms.
> 
> I understand what you are saying but unless you grab the first row or two most people are left with a side-wards view anyway.


I usually try to do just that...grab the front "railfan seat"
Even so, in a short dome with only six rows, since the seatbacks are low for sightseeing, I find that even in the back row, you can get a pretty good view out the front, and certainly out the back...


----------



## JohannFarley

gmo1515 said:


> I know a gentleman that works at an administration level position at Amtrak and I mentioned to him how after riding in the Viewliner dining cars how well that carbody would lend itself to a lounge-type car with double row of windows in an open space. He said there was a sleeper lounge design that unfortunately never made it past the “paper” stage which took a lot of inspiration from the Seaboard sun lounge cars with bedrooms at one end.
> 
> the problem with any type of boat tail design is operational inflexibility. Any car design with rear windows would more than likely have to incorporate the ability to be used mid-train if required. The most practical design would likely be like a sun lounge design with some windows cut in on either side of the diaphragm. If you look at the private car Hollywood Beach it appears that is exactly what they did.
> 
> Jason P



I feel like you could easily add a door to the end of my design like this:


That could easily allow it to be used mid train if necessary.


----------



## railiner

There were also some square-ended observation lounges, that did have windows on the ends on either side of the door. They blended in better aesthetically if placed mid train...
An example without a diaphragm.




__





USA TRAINS ALUMINUM PASSENGER CARS






www.usatrains.com


----------



## JohannFarley

railiner said:


> There were also some square-ended observation lounges, that did have windows on the ends on either side of the door. They blended in better aesthetically if placed mid train...
> An example without a diaphragm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> USA TRAINS ALUMINUM PASSENGER CARS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.usatrains.com



Those would definitely be more aesthetically appealing for mid train use. I've just always been a big fan of the round end cars. I feel like the cap off a train so well.


----------



## railiner

JohannFarley said:


> Those would definitely be more aesthetically appealing for mid train use. I've just always been a big fan of the round end cars. I feel like the cap off a train so well.


Agreed!
Just like I miss cabooses on freight trains....seems like just a 'cut of cars' without....


----------



## NS VIA Fan

railiner said:


> There were also some square-ended observation lounges, that did have windows on the ends on either side of the door. They blended in better aesthetically if placed mid train...
> An example without a diaphragm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> USA TRAINS ALUMINUM PASSENGER CARS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.usatrains.com



And one with a diaphragm on the _Denver Zephyr_


----------



## railiner

That 1956 version of the DZ, I believe was one of the very last _complete_ long-distance streamliner's built...
In any event, its obs was in marked contrast to the 1948 boat-tail on the CZ...


----------



## Dakota 400

NS VIA Fan said:


> Add a little more glass to the roof-line and I think you've got it!
> 
> Below are cars CN acquired from 'The Milwaukee Road' that were originally used on the _Olympian Hiawatha_



I am fairly certain such cars were also used on the Morning Hiawatha and Afternoon Hiawatha between Chicago and Minneapolis/St. Paul.


----------



## NS VIA Fan

Dakota 400 said:


> I am fairly certain such cars were also used on the Morning Hiawatha and Afternoon Hiawatha between Chicago and Minneapolis/St. Paul.



Yes....but the cars on the Milwaukee's Morning and Afternoon Hiawathas were Parlour Cars.



My photos above were Sleeping Cars. The glass area was a bit more extensive than the Parlour Cars.


----------



## sttom

MARC Rider said:


> This design yields 36 of these lie flat seats vs. the sleeper car capacity of 30 seats (4 bedroom and one ADA room.) I'm not sure this slight increase in capacity will allow them to charge sufficiently reduced fares to make the lack of privacy attractive. Also, is the double sized restroom module large enough to contain an ADA compliant toilet?



Looking over the prices in the fare bucket thread, the coach to roomette prices don't really seem to have anything to do with how much space they take up. The approximate amount of space the roomettes in a Viewliner take up is about 10 rows of seats. Making the ratio of space approximately 3 to 1.


LSL NYLSL BCRESSTARMETCARDCoach$90$96$139$130$130$90Roomette$383$391$466$404$479$383Ratio4.34.13.43.13.74.3Roomette "Space" Price$288$307$445$416$416$288Bedroom$614$623$649$689$852$614

The rough math shows that current low bucket prices are generally beyond the approximate rule based on space. But since there is little transparency on how fares are set, we can't know for sure what the charge for food is and what the charge for the accommodation is. 

Also, there is no rule that a lie flat seat would have to have the same mark up as a roomette. Even the base bedroom rate isn't two times what a roomette is. So there is precedent that the various accommodation options have to generate equal revenue based on space, since based on current pricing that doesn't seem to happen.


----------



## dlagrua

If Amtrak is trying to sustain a minimalist long distance service they are moving in the wrong direction. The airlines offer a far better solution for price and shortness of trip. Amtrak can only compete by going back to advertising it as a comfortable full sleeper service, full of amenities and it must be affordable. Sleepers bring in the highest revenue but a coast to coat fare should not cost $2000 to $3000. There is no reason that Amtrak long distance service cannot be both profitable and affordable but it would require far more sleepers and a congress willing to fund it..


----------



## Dakota 400

NS VIA Fan said:


> Yes....but the cars on the Milwaukee's Morning and Afternoon Hiawathas were Parlour Cars.
> 
> 
> 
> My photos above were Sleeping Cars. The glass area was a bit more extensive than the Parlour Cars.




I have added to my knowledge about rail travel this afternoon thanks to you. I appreciate it! I did not know that there were two versions. I did some googling and found more information as well as some good photos of the interior of the cars as well as there floor plan. I remember seeing the car during my rail trips in the late '50's and recognized how unique the car was. 

For some reason, I recall that one of the Hiawathas derailed en route to/from the Twin Cities. Gospel singer Mahalia Jackson was on that train and was a passenger in the Skytop Lounge car. Having seen the car, that news piqued my interest then--and, I guess has helped that memory stick.


----------



## cocojacoby

These cars are really special.

I just happened to be passing through Washington Union Station one day in the 80's and Cedar Rapids was at the bumper post. My wife and I got a private tour. That was so great.

And then I was playing a really cool game about a year ago called Obduction. I was climbing inside this tower and really had no idea what this tower was. It's the upright structure in the center of this pic:









Steam Community :: Screenshot


Steam Community: Obduction.




steamcommunity.com





Then I soon suddenly realized what it was! Was I surprised:









Steam Community :: Screenshot :: Hello? The elevator for your schoolbus seems to be out of order.


Steam Community: Obduction. Hello? The elevator for your schoolbus seems to be out of order.




steamcommunity.com





Note that the poster thought it was a school bus!


----------



## toddinde

NS VIA Fan said:


> Yes....but the cars on the Milwaukee's Morning and Afternoon Hiawathas were Parlour Cars.
> 
> 
> 
> My photos above were Sleeping Cars. The glass area was a bit more extensive than the Parlour Cars.



Yes. The Skytop sleepers were built for the Olympian Hiawatha for service between Chicago and Seattle/Tacoma. There were six, with eight bedrooms. I always thought it strange they didn’t have a bar or buffet of any kind. I later learned that if a car operated by the Pullman Company had a bar, Pullman had to operate it and got the revenue. Thus a bar in the Skytop would have competed with the Milwaukee’s Tip Top Tap and after 1952, the Super Dome. The four Skytop Parlors were built in the Milwaukee Road’s Milwaukee Shops for the Morning and Afternoon Hiawathas. They had one drawing room, a parlor section, and a smaller lounge area at the rear. They were removed from service in January 1970, when the Afternoon Hiawatha was discontinued. Straight parlors continued on the Morning Hiawatha until Amtrak. I saw the Skytop sleepers awaiting disposition in Winnipeg in 1977. I’m glad some survived. Probably more information than anyone wanted, but the Milwaukee Road was the best, and these cars were beautiful.


----------



## NS VIA Fan

toddinde said:


> Yes. The Skytop sleepers were built for the Olympian Hiawatha for service between Chicago and Seattle/Tacoma. There were six, with eight bedrooms. I always thought it strange they didn’t have a bar or buffet of any kind......



After the Skytop Sleepers went to CN they got a bar (but the seating wasn't as comfortable!!)


----------



## jiml

NS VIA Fan said:


> After the Skytop Sleepers went to CN they got a bar (but the seating wasn't as comfortable!!)


Have these all been scrapped or did some go to a museum somewhere (if you know)?


----------



## LookingGlassTie

I kinda like the idea of a Coach-Dorm car as an option for lower passenger demand, depending on the time of year and such. Right now, some routes run with partially filled coaches and partially filled sleepers. I think that the C-D cars could be used when demand is lower and separate coach and sleeper cars could be used when demand is higher. Or perhaps all three car types can be used in a consist when demand is REALLY high.

The question I have is: how does running full vs. partially occupied cars affect Amtrak's costs?


----------



## PerRock

jiml said:


> Have these all been scrapped or did some go to a museum somewhere (if you know)?


Friends of the 261 have a Skytop dome "Cedar Rapids": Cedar Rapids

peter


----------



## Dakota 400

toddinde said:


> I later learned that if a car operated by the Pullman Company had a bar, Pullman had to operate it and got the revenue.



I never knew that. I remember on a PRR overnight train between Columbus, Ohio and Chicago there was a Pullman with Sections in the front of the car and a small lounge at the rear of the car. An attendant took beverage orders. I thought at the time that he was a PRR employee and what we paid for a beverage would go to the railroad.


----------



## toddinde

Dakota 400 said:


> I never knew that. I remember on a PRR overnight train between Columbus, Ohio and Chicago there was a Pullman with Sections in the front of the car and a small lounge at the rear of the car. An attendant took beverage orders. I thought at the time that he was a PRR employee and what we paid for a beverage would go to the railroad.


I’ll see if I can find a reference for that.


----------



## railiner

toddinde said:


> I’ll see if I can find a reference for that.


That would be interesting to me, as well...
Researching such info would seem to be difficult. I recall reading the "equipment and services" section of various timetables, and it was not always clear who operated parlor's and lounges. Sometimes there would be a reference: : "Pullman Operated", or "Railroad Operated", but not always....


----------



## JohannFarley

So I just took out my Pennsy Car Plans Book from 1969 to get some further ideas, and I took a picture of several of the interesting designs I saw.



Firstly, the 10-6 sleeper we are all used to, the basis for the regular sleeper:



Then, the full roomette car that has been thrown around as an idea:



Here is one of their Cafe cars with only half table seating. 



Here is a coffee shop car. Don't know how this would be relevant, just thought it was interesting.



Here is a lounge-coach with a bar:



Here is a special lounge with a nursery, game tables, a bar/buffet, a newsreel room, and a reading room:



And here is a lounge-sleeper with a little buffet.


----------



## railiner

Yes...there was no shortage of interesting and innovative designs, in the "streamliner era".
That 'recreation car' with the nursery and newsreeel theater, It was used on the all-coach New York - St. Louis streamliner, "The Jeffersonian"...









PRR's "Jeffersonian" (Train): Schedule, Timetable, Route


The Jeffersonian was the PRR's premier, all-coach train between New York and St. Louis established in the early 1940s. It was an early victim of cutbacks and canceled in 1953.




www.american-rails.com


----------



## Seaboard92

jiml said:


> Have these all been scrapped or did some go to a museum somewhere (if you know)?



Here is the disposition of all of the Milwaukee Road Skytops. 

Pullman Standard (8 Double Bedroom/ Lounge)
No. 12 "Adler Creek" Scrapped 1977

No.14 " Arrow Creek" recently scrapped in the 2010s in Buffalo, NY

No. 15 "Coffee Creek" owned by Ed Ellis pending restoration. Knowing his finances this car will probably come available again soon. 

No. 16 "Gold Creek" recently scrapped in the 2010s in Buffalo, NY

No. 17 "Marble Creek" Scrapped 1990s

No. 17 "Spanish Creek" Scrapped 1977 

Milwaukee Road Built Cars (1 Drawing Room/ Parlor)

No. 186 "Cedar Rapids" currently owned by the "Friends of the 261" in Saint Paul, MN. The car is currently Amtrak certified and regularly used on excursions. 

No. 187 "Coon Rapids" currently owned by John Larkin. It is currently stored inside the P&H Warehouse in Enscanaba, MI. Also in this warehouse are the only remaining Baldwin Shark diesels, a super dome, and more goodies from what I've been told. Do not try and access the rail yard or warehouse Mr. Larkin does not like railfans, and will not hesitate to call the police on you. 

No. 188 "Dell Rapids" currently on display at the Daytona Beach Museum of Arts & Sciences Daytona Beach, FL. 

No. 189 "Priest Rapids" Scrapped by the Milwaukee Road in 1970

If anyone is interested I'm cataloging all of the remaining Budd cars, American cars surviving in Mexico, Pullman cars, AC&F, CC&F, and St. Louis Car Company equipment around today. I would be happy to post a link in an appropriate place on AU if there is interest.


----------



## jiml

Seaboard92 said:


> Here is the disposition of all of the Milwaukee Road Skytops.
> 
> Pullman Standard (8 Double Bedroom/ Lounge)
> No. 12 "Adler Creek" Scrapped 1977
> 
> No.14 " Arrow Creek" recently scrapped in the 2010s in Buffalo, NY
> 
> No. 15 "Coffee Creek" owned by Ed Ellis pending restoration. Knowing his finances this car will probably come available again soon.
> 
> No. 16 "Gold Creek" recently scrapped in the 2010s in Buffalo, NY
> 
> No. 17 "Marble Creek" Scrapped 1990s
> 
> No. 17 "Spanish Creek" Scrapped 1977
> 
> Milwaukee Road Built Cars (1 Drawing Room/ Parlor)
> 
> No. 186 "Cedar Rapids" currently owned by the "Friends of the 261" in Saint Paul, MN. The car is currently Amtrak certified and regularly used on excursions.
> 
> No. 187 "Coon Rapids" currently owned by John Larkin. It is currently stored inside the P&H Warehouse in Enscanaba, MI. Also in this warehouse are the only remaining Baldwin Shark diesels, a super dome, and more goodies from what I've been told. Do not try and access the rail yard or warehouse Mr. Larkin does not like railfans, and will not hesitate to call the police on you.
> 
> No. 188 "Dell Rapids" currently on display at the Daytona Beach Museum of Arts & Sciences Daytona Beach, FL.
> 
> No. 189 "Priest Rapids" Scrapped by the Milwaukee Road in 1970
> 
> If anyone is interested I'm cataloging all of the remaining Budd cars, American cars surviving in Mexico, Pullman cars, AC&F, CC&F, and St. Louis Car Company equipment around today. I would be happy to post a link in an appropriate place on AU if there is interest.


Great list. Do you know which of the ones you've listed were transferred to CN? And yes, I for one would be very interested in your list.


----------



## Seaboard92

jiml said:


> Great list. Do you know which of the ones you've listed were transferred to CN? And yes, I for one would be very interested in your list.


All of the Pullman-Standard cars were sold to CN, which would be No. 12-18. It should be noted too one of the Tip Top Tap Lounge's has been preserved in Peubla, Mexico.


----------



## Mailliw

MARC Rider said:


> This design yields 36 of these lie flat seats vs. the sleeper car capacity of 30 seats (4 bedroom and one ADA room.) I'm not sure this slight increase in capacity will allow them to charge sufficiently reduced fares to make the lack of privacy attractive. Also, is the double sized restroom module large enough to contain an ADA compliant toilet?



As far as privacy is concerned couldn't you just extend the partitions up to the ceiling and have a sliding/accordion dour or curtain? Then you'd basically have a 21st century version of the Slumbercoach.


----------



## railiner

There was an experimental, 'advanced' design open section Pullman car that did have something like that...sliding panels instead of the curtains...


----------



## TheCrescent

A Viewliner sleeper-lounge or diner-lounge would be great. Most of the car could be sleeping car rooms or dining car tables/kitchen (if that's ever used again) and there could be a small seating area with comfortable chairs. Being in a room for 14 hours on the Crescent is better than being in coach on the Crescent, but a small space to lounge in and grab a drink would be great.


----------



## Dakota 400

TheCrescent said:


> a room for 14 hours on the Crescent is better than being in coach on the Crescent, but a small space to lounge in and grab a drink would be great.



I agree. Being confined to a Roomette, even a Bedroom, after awhile would become boring.


----------



## Mailliw

Huh, apparently there is a Viewliner used for track inspections that looks like it could also make a nice observation lounge.


----------



## railiner

Mailliw said:


> Huh, apparently there is a Viewliner used for track inspections that looks like it could also make a nice observation lounge.


Nice shot. I remember taking passengers down to that car, when it was numbered 2301, as one of the pair used as 'Executive Sleepers' on the Night Owl...


----------



## Seaboard92

Mailliw said:


> Huh, apparently there is a Viewliner used for track inspections that looks like it could also make a nice observation lounge.
> 
> View attachment 17865



While it makes a good observation car albeit not as good as BNSF's made out of a full dome. There is one large problem with it, that it can not run in the middle of the consist, it's position is always fixed. You'll note even in the streamliner era several railroads had square end observations with diaphragms to allow passage between cars if it operated mid train. It was not uncommon for the Seaboard Silver Meteor to have two observations in one train, one a mid train car, and then a round end on the end. This allowed the Seaboard to split the train in Florida.


----------



## railiner

Then there was the Reading "Crusader", which had a round end obs at each end of the five car streamliner, so it didn't have to be turned...


----------



## Whambo

sttom said:


> Looking over the prices in the fare bucket thread, the coach to roomette prices don't really seem to have anything to do with how much space they take up. The approximate amount of space the roomettes in a Viewliner take up is about 10 rows of seats. Making the ratio of space approximately 3 to 1.
> 
> 
> LSL NYLSL BCRESSTARMETCARDCoach$90$96$139$130$130$90Roomette$383$391$466$404$479$383Ratio4.34.13.43.13.74.3Roomette "Space" Price$288$307$445$416$416$288Bedroom$614$623$649$689$852$614
> 
> The rough math shows that current low bucket prices are generally beyond the approximate rule based on space. But since there is little transparency on how fares are set, we can't know for sure what the charge for food is and what the charge for the accommodation is.
> 
> Also, there is no rule that a lie flat seat would have to have the same mark up as a roomette. Even the base bedroom rate isn't two times what a roomette is. So there is precedent that the various accommodation options have to generate equal revenue based on space, since based on current pricing that doesn't seem to happen.



Instead of using the above method, here is a comparison of revenue per car type. I am using the cheapest available fares on the LSL, NY section.
Notes:
I am not counting handicap fares or capacity.
Fares are from AMTK website.


*Car type**Capacity**Fare**Total Revenue*Amfleet II Coach59 seats$90$5,310Viewliner I Sleeper
(1 pax per roomette)
(2 pax per bedroom)12 roomettes
2 bedrooms$394
$877$6,482Viewliner I Sleeper
(2 pax per roomette)
(2 pax per bedroom)12 roomettes
2 bedrooms$538
$877$8,210Viewliner (Fictional)
Airline-style36 lay-flats$250
(mid-way between coach and roomette)$9,000

By my calculations the lay-flat seating car can be a viable option in terms of the maximum revenue it can generate. As others have already concluded, it all depends on what the passenger wants.

I personally prefer the idea of having a private space to myself, but it would make more financial sense for a single traveller to purchase the airline style seating. If travelling in pairs, I would assume most people would be comfortable paying an extra ~$50 to get the roomette.


----------



## jis

Just a random thought. Referring to the diagrams that were posted above, a 20 bay section or even 20 Roomette, may be even more lucrative, revenue wise. The beds in it would certainly be way more spacious than in a 36 lay flat layout.


----------



## Mailliw

Agreed. An all roomette car could be pretty versatile; they could even be used on non overnight routes as first class day rooms. You'd still need to include an ADA bedroom though.


----------



## jis

Mailliw said:


> Agreed. An all roomette car could be pretty versatile; they could even be used on non overnight routes as first class day rooms. You'd still need to include an ADA bedroom though.


I suspect one has to sacrifice 4 Roomettes or Section bays to get an ADA Bedroom with attached toilet. In effect one has to sacrifice 6 beds net.


----------



## Mailliw

For an all roomette car I wonder if it would be possible to make one of the bathrooms ADA complaint and just have an "accessible roomette" (eg a wheelchair space in a private alcove w/ a door) next to it?


----------



## joelkfla

Mailliw said:


> For an all roomette car I wonder if it would be possible to make one of the bathrooms ADA complaint and just have an "accessible roomette" (eg a wheelchair space in a private alcove w/ a door) next to it?


I don't know whether that would be legal, but it would be less compassionate, and probably prompt an uproar from the physically challenged community advocates.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

JohannFarley said:


> Hello all,
> 
> I'm sure some of you will be saying to yourselves "oh great, another Viewliner thread from fantasy land," but because I've been stuck inside, I figured I'd try to draw out the Viewliners that I envision from time to time, and how they'd be used.
> 
> So my main idea was that different Viewliners could be used to take all Amfleets out of LD service, so they could be used to bolster the corridor fleet (although I'm sure by time these were delivered the Amfleets would be replaced already.
> 
> Anyway, here are a few of my ideas, in my order of most to least likely to be used. (
> 
> Firstly, a Viewliner Coach. This is essentially a carbon copy of an Amfleet II, but in Viewliner form.
> View attachment 17605
> 
> A Viewliner Cafe Car, with the layout changed up to a more open design.
> View attachment 17606
> 
> 
> A Lounge-Sleeper combo. This is the design I like the least out of all of them, could definitely use tweaking but I;m not sure where. Maybe no Roomettes?
> View attachment 17607
> 
> 
> A Coach-Dorm car. The only thing I wasn't sure about was whether a sleeper needed an ADA bedroom or if one like this could be made.
> View attachment 17608
> 
> 
> Lastly, a Viewliner Observation-Dorm-Lounge. I just had fun with this one, let me know what you think.
> View attachment 17609
> 
> 
> Let me know what you guys think, of anything I've gotten wrong. Please excuse the art and car design, I'm neither an artist or an engineer.
> 
> Based on diagrams from here: Amtrak Car Diagrams @ CraigMashburn.com



Missing something! Windows that crack open in the roomettes and bedrooms. But it would be understandable that this would not work in coach seating... albeit there it would be better with controlled ventilation outlets as on the planes.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

NS VIA Fan said:


> Add a little more glass to the roof-line and I think you've got it!
> 
> Below are cars CN acquired from 'The Milwaukee Road' that were originally used on the _Olympian Hiawatha_


Yes yes yes! Would like to see Amtrak do something more creative with end cars.

And why is it that we're always looking backwards when it comes to passenger car design evolution? Newer designs are complete disasters... if not extremely uncomfortable.

Hey! And have you seen how passengers must struggle to get luggage up and down those stairwells in the superliners? In my opinion the superliners have inferior design.


----------



## joelkfla

20th Century Rider said:


> Hey! And have you seen how passengers must struggle to get luggage up and down those stairwells in the superliners? In my opinion the superliners have inferior design.


How about this solution: dumbwaiter capable of handling carry-on size bags, with doors at floor level. Passengers leave their carry-on at bottom landing, and the SCA shoves it in and sends it up to where passengers can pull it out. Those who insist on bringing full-size luggage into their room are on their own!


----------



## 20th Century Rider

joelkfla said:


> How about this solution: dumbwaiter capable of handling carry-on size bags, with doors at floor level. Passengers leave their carry-on at bottom landing, and the SCA shoves it in and sends it up to where passengers can pull it out. Those who insist on bringing full-size luggage into their room are on their own!



The design of European and Japanese double trains feature easy up and down stairs at entrance points making boarding with luggage far easier.


----------



## tgstubbs1

Does Amtrak need to have ADA bathrooms on each car, or is it sufficient to have adequate facilities on a certain percentage of cars?


----------



## MARC Rider

20th Century Rider said:


> The design of European and Japanese double trains feature easy up and down stairs at entrance points making boarding with luggage far easier.
> 
> View attachment 20086


Well, sure, there are similar stairs on the MARC bi-levels (or tri-levels, I guess), but those are commuter cars, and a lot of revenue space will have to be sacrificed for the stairs.
I'm starting to find it a little hard to haul up luggage to the upper floors, and I quite often use the luggage racks on the lower level. And people with real disabilities have the Handicapped room on the lower level, or even a lower level roomette, so there really isn't a need to have accessible stairs on the Superliners.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

tgstubbs1 said:


> Does Amtrak need to have ADA bathrooms on each car, or is it sufficient to have adequate facilities on a certain percentage of cars?



I kind-a think that would depend upon general ADA rules and standards... as well as density of passengers in each car. Ingress and egress,,, and emergency exit are all a part of ADA design... simply a matter of having coach designers comply with such... as I believe most already do.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

If the economies of design permit single level coach development, single level is always better. Any and all struggle with getting luggage up and down those tight stairwells in the Superliners; and while ADA compliant for lower level access, single level design for long distance is just easier. 

BTW... as Europe plans to expand it's overnight long haul rail program, they do have two level coaches... but the stairwells are split level from a single entrance point so one only needs half of the stairs; and this while conserving precious space.


----------



## jiml

20th Century Rider said:


> The design of European and Japanese double trains feature easy up and down stairs at entrance points making boarding with luggage far easier.
> 
> View attachment 20086


Easier to do on a coach as shown, more difficult in a "compartment" car such as a sleeper without sacrificing revenue space. Several years ago VIA looked at a proposal for modifying the then Hawker-Siddeley (now Bombardier) commuter cars that are seen all over North America into sleepers and diners. They have the type of stairs shown. There wasn't enough space left over to make it economically feasible IIRC. Drawings were out in the public domain at the time and may be in some history books.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

jiml said:


> Easier to do on a coach as shown, more difficult in a "compartment" car such as a sleeper without sacrificing revenue space. Several years ago VIA looked at a proposal for modifying the then Hawker-Siddeley (now Bombardier) commuter cars that are seen all over North America into sleepers and diners. They have the type of stairs shown. There wasn't enough space left over to make it economically feasible IIRC. Drawings were out in the public domain at the time and may be in some history books.


The Japanese bi-level sleepers accomplish this with the split level stairwell at each end but I couldn't find a photo to show it. Did see it on a YouTube blog account.

Where there's a design challenge innovation can be impressive.


----------



## neroden

tgstubbs1 said:


> Does Amtrak need to have ADA bathrooms on each car, or is it sufficient to have adequate facilities on a certain percentage of cars?


Every car with a bathroom must have an ADA bathroom. It's legal to have cars with no bathrooms at all.


----------



## neroden

The design I'd like to see is a single-level Viewliner "observation-cafe". Take your cafe design, add a glass roof, and open some space up to lounge chairs, basically. 

Some design points: Viewliners generally only have a single vestibule with exterior doors, and a cafe certainly doesn't need two. It could be designed with zero bathrooms, given that the coaches and sleepers will all have bathrooms. This opens up some space. I'd have this layout:

vestibule - tables - cafe service - lounge - end windows (with door to possible next car). Double windows and glass roof panels at the tables, double windows on the passageway side of the cafe, double windows and glass roof at the lounge end.

So: this would replace the Amfleet and Horizon cafes, act as an attractive observation car, be better when placed as an end car but still perfectly usable as a middle-of-train car, and would provide overflow seating for overbooking. Does what it needs to do.


----------



## Barb Stout

20th Century Rider said:


> Yes yes yes! Would like to see Amtrak do something more creative with end cars.
> 
> And why is it that we're always looking backwards when it comes to passenger car design evolution? Newer designs are complete disasters... if not extremely uncomfortable.
> 
> Hey! And have you seen how passengers must struggle to get luggage up and down those stairwells in the superliners? In my opinion the superliners have inferior design.
> 
> 
> View attachment 20081


I'm remembering a luggage rack at the bottom of those steep steps. Am I wrong?


----------



## Dakota 400

MARC Rider said:


> I'm starting to find it a little hard to haul up luggage to the upper floors,



I am not "starting to find" doing so. It IS very difficult for me to do so. That's the reason I book a Roomette on the lower level of the sleeper. Those stairs prevent me from spending more money at the Bar in the SSL car. Trying to negotiate those stairs holding a drink on a moving train....


----------



## sttom

jis said:


> I suspect one has to sacrifice 4 Roomettes or Section bays to get an ADA Bedroom with attached toilet. In effect one has to sacrifice 6 beds net.


How many rooms and/or sections that would need to be sacrificed for ADA compliance would depend on whether or not a "section" qualifies as a room or as a seat. The rules for each are slightly different. A room must have an ensuite ADA bathroom, whereas a seat just needs to be next to an ADA compliant bathroom. As for which one a "section" would qualify as would need legal consultation seeing as how we don't have any in regular service anymore in the US built after ADA. 

Based on the attached picture, I'd imagine you'd lose at least 4 beds to convert the seat into a bedroom reducing the bed capacity from 36 to 32. And my best guess is you could get 30 lie flat seats in a single level car. Losing 2 more beds to be in vouge may be worth it over cramming a few extra people into the train. Considering 2 people would only lose about 6% of potential revenue, not factoring in fare buckets. 



tgstubbs1 said:


> Does Amtrak need to have ADA bathrooms on each car, or is it sufficient to have adequate facilities on a certain percentage of cars?


All cars that have bathrooms must have an accessible bathroom. And I believe all cars with revenue space must have at least 1 spot for a wheel chair.


----------



## Barb Stout

20th Century Rider said:


> Yes yes yes! Would like to see Amtrak do something more creative with end cars.
> 
> And why is it that we're always looking backwards when it comes to passenger car design evolution? Newer designs are complete disasters... if not extremely uncomfortable.
> 
> Hey! And have you seen how passengers must struggle to get luggage up and down those stairwells in the superliners? In my opinion the superliners have inferior design.
> 
> 
> View attachment 20081


However, these stairs on the Superliner have exercise potential. My sister would go bonkers if she couldn't exercise her legs during those long train trips. Both she and I (and I have seen other people doing this also) do various "circuits" of walking down cars and going up and down the steps to get the blood and air going/flowing.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

Barb Stout said:


> However, these stairs on the Superliner have exercise potential. My sister would go bonkers if she couldn't exercise her legs during those long train trips. Both she and I (and I have seen other people doing this also) do various "circuits" of walking down cars and going up and down the steps to get the blood and air going/flowing.


Definitely a good point... a chance to get the blood flowing on those long trips!


----------



## jpakala

My wife & I do not care for rooms without lavatory & toilet facilities and enclosed ones unless traveling alone in the Pullman roomettes or duplex roomettes or duplex rooms of years past (or today's privately operated special cars).


----------



## WWW

Ya just what you need in creature comforts S-P-I-R-I-A-L staircases or something out of a mad movie made in the Winchester
Mansion - 13 steps leading to the ceiling !
Elevators were installed in the Alaska RR bi-level cars although no sleeping accommodations - I don't know about how the
Rocky Mountaineer cars are made up - probably something on the same order.
Sleeping accommodations can be on both the lower level and upper levels of bi-level cars.
The observation and dining (if any #@&%*) can be like the Alaskan - Rocky Mt cars.

But if sacrificing a couple of sleeper roomettes for an elevator - sobeit that is the price of doing business -
if business is that great ADD more cars to the consist - quit being so darn cheap !
I have this feeling that Amtrak was destined to be like the the USPS a NOT FOR PROFIT organization !
Build it and they will come - building RR cars has to be fare less expensive than those tubular air machines -
There is a host of the 737 max tubular frames that could be converted (ya sick joke I know).


----------



## Willbridge

Mailliw said:


> Agreed. An all roomette car could be pretty versatile; they could even be used on non overnight routes as first class day rooms. You'd still need to include an ADA bedroom though.


The CN turned over 13 "I"-series all-roomette cars to VIA Rail. They had 24 roomettes. At Edmonton I only saw them being used as dorms. I think that all-roomette cars were primarily used on business-oriented routes. When single-type sleepers have been built the need has usually been for more bedrooms (UP and Superliners, for example).


----------



## Willbridge

neroden said:


> The design I'd like to see is a single-level Viewliner "observation-cafe". Take your cafe design, add a glass roof, and open some space up to lounge chairs, basically.
> 
> Some design points: Viewliners generally only have a single vestibule with exterior doors, and a cafe certainly doesn't need two. It could be designed with zero bathrooms, given that the coaches and sleepers will all have bathrooms. This opens up some space. I'd have this layout:
> 
> vestibule - tables - cafe service - lounge - end windows (with door to possible next car). Double windows and glass roof panels at the tables, double windows on the passageway side of the cafe, double windows and glass roof at the lounge end.
> 
> So: this would replace the Amfleet and Horizon cafes, act as an attractive observation car, be better when placed as an end car but still perfectly usable as a middle-of-train car, and would provide overflow seating for overbooking. Does what it needs to do.


This car would be fine as a division between classes. When I was a weekend regular on the _Del Monte_ (Fort Ord<>San Francisco) they always had the parlor-lounge positioned at the end of the train so that coach passengers could pick up snacks and beverages without entering the parlor section.


----------



## Seaboard92

neroden said:


> The design I'd like to see is a single-level Viewliner "observation-cafe". Take your cafe design, add a glass roof, and open some space up to lounge chairs, basically.
> 
> Some design points: Viewliners generally only have a single vestibule with exterior doors, and a cafe certainly doesn't need two. It could be designed with zero bathrooms, given that the coaches and sleepers will all have bathrooms. This opens up some space. I'd have this layout:
> 
> vestibule - tables - cafe service - lounge - end windows (with door to possible next car). Double windows and glass roof panels at the tables, double windows on the passageway side of the cafe, double windows and glass roof at the lounge end.
> 
> So: this would replace the Amfleet and Horizon cafes, act as an attractive observation car, be better when placed as an end car but still perfectly usable as a middle-of-train car, and would provide overflow seating for overbooking. Does what it needs to do.



I love that idea the Seaboard Airline and Atlantic Coastline both had midtrain observation cars on their flagships when the train would split they would be observations. It's not unheard of and I believe several have been preserved. I know my friend John Owen has one of them. 

For everyone commenting about a luggage elevator that also is not quite unheard of but not in a bi-level car. The Southern Pacific on some of their flagships like the Shasta Daylight had a door on the outside of each coach where one could load your baggage from the platform that the porter could then hit a button which would raise that shelf and start a new one. I don't know exactly how it worked but it was a very cool concept. I'm not really sure what of theirs has been preserved. 

Now the Russians have built new bilevel sleepers and they are building a ton of those cars right now. I believe they have over 350 Double Deckers already and still more in production as we speak. Theres are significantly different than ours however. 

The Hallway for the cars is on one side on the lower floor and the opposite on the upper. To access the rooms on the lower floor one must go down four steps, or the upper floor you go up 7 steps. The cars also look a full foot taller than the Superliners based on looking at them vs the standard Russian passenger car. Each first class sleeper (SV) sleeps 30 in 15 rooms, while the second class sleeper sleeps 64 in 16 rooms. The passage between cars is on the middle floor where the vestibule is. I would love to see the actual dimensions of the cars. Currently they are operating on 12 different lines mostly on one or two night out cardings out of Moskva and St. Petersburg. They look like very good cars and they are popular with the traveling public. Best of all they are compatible with the rest of the cars in the system due to the passages being at the same level so they could be mixed with other equipment. Except Russia isn't like us they tend to run one type of equipment on a train not the three different types Amtrak runs on the Silver Meteor (Viewliner I, Viewliner II, Amfleet II).


----------



## 20th Century Rider

Seaboard92 said:


> I love that idea the Seaboard Airline and Atlantic Coastline both had midtrain observation cars on their flagships when the train would split they would be observations. It's not unheard of and I believe several have been preserved. I know my friend John Owen has one of them.
> 
> For everyone commenting about a luggage elevator that also is not quite unheard of but not in a bi-level car. The Southern Pacific on some of their flagships like the Shasta Daylight had a door on the outside of each coach where one could load your baggage from the platform that the porter could then hit a button which would raise that shelf and start a new one. I don't know exactly how it worked but it was a very cool concept. I'm not really sure what of theirs has been preserved.
> 
> Now the Russians have built new bilevel sleepers and they are building a ton of those cars right now. I believe they have over 350 Double Deckers already and still more in production as we speak. Theres are significantly different than ours however.
> 
> The Hallway for the cars is on one side on the lower floor and the opposite on the upper. To access the rooms on the lower floor one must go down four steps, or the upper floor you go up 7 steps. The cars also look a full foot taller than the Superliners based on looking at them vs the standard Russian passenger car. Each first class sleeper (SV) sleeps 30 in 15 rooms, while the second class sleeper sleeps 64 in 16 rooms. The passage between cars is on the middle floor where the vestibule is. I would love to see the actual dimensions of the cars. Currently they are operating on 12 different lines mostly on one or two night out cardings out of Moskva and St. Petersburg. They look like very good cars and they are popular with the traveling public. Best of all they are compatible with the rest of the cars in the system due to the passages being at the same level so they could be mixed with other equipment. Except Russia isn't like us they tend to run one type of equipment on a train not the three different types Amtrak runs on the Silver Meteor (Viewliner I, Viewliner II, Amfleet II).



They seem huge... and class level is determined by number of beds in a room... but apparently have no facilities in the rooms. Vestibules and passage between cars is at a compatible level with single level cars and stairs to up or down to upper/lower levels.


----------



## cocojacoby

Rooms don't look very comfortable. Seat backs are really upright and it doesn't look like there is enough room to recline. You also only get one small window to look out. Viewliner rooms are much better.


----------



## jis

20th Century Rider said:


> They seem huge... and class level is determined by number of beds in a room... but apparently have no facilities in the rooms. Vestibules and passage between cars is at a compatible level with single level cars and stairs to up or down to upper/lower levels.


They will be a bit of an ADA nightmare though if brought as is to the US.


----------



## railiner

The Alaska Ultra Domes are unique, in that they are tall enough to allow passage from car to car on both levels, although I believe only the original, Princess Tours version actually allows that.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

jis said:


> They will be a bit of an ADA nightmare though if brought as is to the US.



I doubt they will bring this design here... beyond 3rd world comfort... certainly not as nice as the trains in Morocco!


----------



## MARC Rider

Willbridge said:


> This car would be fine as a division between classes. When I was a weekend regular on the _Del Monte_ (Fort Ord<>San Francisco) they always had the parlor-lounge positioned at the end of the train so that coach passengers could pick up snacks and beverages without entering the parlor section.


That's how they handle the business class cars on 65/66/67 and the Vermonter when they're using the split club business class car.


----------



## sttom

WWW said:


> But if sacrificing a couple of sleeper roomettes for an elevator - sobeit that is the price of doing business -
> if business is that great ADD more cars to the consist - quit being so darn cheap !
> I have this feeling that Amtrak was destined to be like the the USPS a NOT FOR PROFIT organization !
> Build it and they will come - building RR cars has to be fare less expensive than those tubular air machines -
> There is a host of the 737 max tubular frames that could be converted (ya sick joke I know).


Sacrificing a couple of rooms for an elevator and just adding extra cars may or may not be a good idea. If the aisles can't be made wide enough for someone in a wheel chair to travel around the train, having the elevator would be a waste of space since that would be the only place they could go. If wheelchairs could be accommodated, then my question would be do the modifications sacrifice any existing comfort in a noticeable way? As for the cost, adding cars could mean adding engines which adds costs that may or may not be covered by the extra riders. Just because something isn't meant to make a profit, doesn't mean they should run up their costs without thinking something through. 



20th Century Rider said:


> They seem huge... and class level is determined by number of beds in a room... but apparently have no facilities in the rooms. Vestibules and passage between cars is at a compatible level with single level cars and stairs to up or down to upper/lower levels.
> 
> 
> View attachment 20100



I'd have a problem with using multilevel sleeper cars in the US because there is an expectation that you will move around the train at some point during your trip. On most European trains, what night trains they have left generally run at times where the only think you should be doing is sleeping since the run times are like 10pm to 7am. I've also seen a few trip reports on YouTube and some companies actually lock the doors between cars so only the crew can travel between cars. If you're on OBB for instance, their trains don't usually have a dining car, so there is no real reason for you to leave your car once you've found it.


----------



## Mailliw

cocojacoby said:


> Rooms don't look very comfortable. Seat backs are really upright and it doesn't look like there is enough room to recline. You also only get one small window to look out. Viewliner rooms are much better.
> 
> View attachment 20103


They're utilitarian, but versatile; they sleep up to four people, you can buy a berth in a shared compartment, and the same compartment can ve sold as either 2nd Class 4 berth or 1st Class 2 berth. Granted ADA compliance is a problem.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

sttom said:


> Sacrificing a couple of rooms for an elevator and just adding extra cars may or may not be a good idea. If the aisles can't be made wide enough for someone in a wheel chair to travel around the train, having the elevator would be a waste of space since that would be the only place they could go. If wheelchairs could be accommodated, then my question would be do the modifications sacrifice any existing comfort in a noticeable way? As for the cost, adding cars could mean adding engines which adds costs that may or may not be covered by the extra riders. Just because something isn't meant to make a profit, doesn't mean they should run up their costs without thinking something through.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd have a problem with using multilevel sleeper cars in the US because there is an expectation that you will move around the train at some point during your trip. On most European trains, what night trains they have left generally run at times where the only think you should be doing is sleeping since the run times are like 10pm to 7am. I've also seen a few trip reports on YouTube and some companies actually lock the doors between cars so only the crew can travel between cars. If you're on OBB for instance, their trains don't usually have a dining car, so there is no real reason for you to leave your car once you've found it.



Uh huh! And if you're in a roomette and must get up in the middle of the night... you must go to the very overused upstairs WC which frequently clogs up and needs to be shut down... or circumnavigate that tight stairwell to use the downstairs facilities... for a very unpleasant midnight trek.


----------



## sttom

ADA really isn't a thing outside of the US. Access to things like trains, hotels and what not really is a crap shoot in Europe. From personal experience, the trains in Poland are weird. All their high level platforms seem to be built to the same height across the country, but all of the equipment that would have been built around the same time as them is 1 step about the platform. I don't understand why you would build either the platforms or the cars in such a way that they weren't at least close to level with each other. On the way back from that trip, I was in Ireland for a day and the tub in the hotel room was a I'm guessing a meter step into it. I'm young and reasonably able bodied and I even found this difficult and a bit rage inducing. I can't imagine being someone my dad's age who isn't disabled, but not as flexible or fit as he used to be trying to climb in that thing without falling.


----------



## sttom

20th Century Rider said:


> Uh huh! And if you're in a roomette and must get up in the middle of the night... you must go to the very overused upstairs WC which frequently clogs up and needs to be shut down... or circumnavigate that tight stairwell to use the downstairs facilities... for a very unpleasant midnight trek.
> 
> View attachment 20106


Adding an elevator won't solve the problem of overused and undermaintained plumbing. The Superliner cars are running on plumbing and climate controls that are all years passed their expected life span and that's before maintenance is factored in. And cramming more people into a multilevel car that was probably designed for only a 1 night trip is going to make the problem of overused plumbing worse as the cars age and wear and tear take their toll. Not to mention all the people that will have to put up with going up and down 3 to 5 sets of stairs just to go to the Cafe or Dining Cars. So subjecting more people to the problem you're getting at isn't a solution and if anything would probably turn people off Amtrak at the same rate as the Lean Cuisine meals they are serving at the moment.


----------



## Mailliw

Good point about what kind of trips the sleeping cars are designed for. The longer the trip the bigger the demand for more hotel-like amenities. And older passengers may have a greater desire for ensuite facilities or a say a lower berth two adults can share. Personally I think having all roomette (VII style) and all bedroom cars (in lieu of or in addition cars w/ both) is worthwhile. ADA requirements are stumbling block to a all roomette cars. Maybe the solution is to operate the sleepers in married pairs like some of the Amtrak Midwest coaches? Would that count as a single large sleeping car? If not what if the all bedroom car had 2 ADA rooms?


----------



## sttom

Mailliw said:


> Good point about what kind of trips the sleeping cars are designed for. The longer the trip the bigger the demand for more hotel-like amenities. And older passengers may have a greater desire for ensuite facilities or a say a lower berth two adults can share. Personally I think having all roomette (VII style) and all bedroom cars (in lieu of or in addition cars w/ both) is worthwhile. ADA requirements are stumbling block to a all roomette cars. Maybe the solution is to operate the sleepers in married pairs like some of the Amtrak Midwest coaches? Would that count as a single large sleeping car? If not what if the all bedroom car had 2 ADA rooms?



A Superliner would be easier to add ADA rooms to a Superliner since if the whole upper level consists of Bedrooms instead of Roomettes, the lower level probably could be converted to all ADA rooms, but that doesn't take away from each car needing at least 1 ADA spot. An all Roomette/Section single level car could be done, the question is would a Section count as a seat or as a room. If its a room, then you would need an ADA room. This would still mean 32 people could ride in this car outside of the ADA room. This is the number of passengers the first incarnation of the Slumber Coach could hold and the maximum a Tourist Sleeper could hold. 

Cars in the past were married together. The Southern Pacific did so for its Daylight equipment and even had a Triple Section Diner. The caveat I would say to that is I doubt disability advocates would allow a married pair car, one with an ADA room and one in an all Roomette/Section arrangement. The reason they would go after this is why should able bodied people get a discount sleeper and disabled people don't? I would agree with them on this. This problem is easier to solve if a Section is categorized as a seat instead of a room or if they used lie flat seats instead. But this is all a hypothetical until Amtrak is run by people who's first 2 requirements aren't political connections and a recent head injury. 

I would doubt they could put 2 ADA rooms in 1 single level car without adding a second door. I've heard from others that navigating the single level trains is next to impossible since the halls aren't that wide. 

It would make sense for Amtrak to have some version of a Tourist Sleeper/Slumber Coach, Deluxe Sleepers and some of the existing ones to make up the difference in capacity. The problem is Amtrak leadership doesn't really care to make things work well, most of them are there because of political connections which is a poor way to run anything.


----------



## Seaboard92

I really think our ADA Act has some flaws inside of it which negates the true meaning of it because it becomes a cumbersome stumbling block for future development. I honestly think it is a bit ridiculous that you can't sell the extra roomettes in the Bag/Dorm on the Cardinal where only two of the rooms are occupied one by a coach attendant, and one by the LSA. That leaves multiple rooms you are dragging a long for no real reason. I am in complete support of ADA we should do things to help those most disadvantaged but I think we need to have some common sense as well. I think as long as each train offers some form of an ADA space it should be acceptable. 

Is the ADA H Room in the Superliner really that great if you are in need of it. To reach the diner you still have to climb that steep rectangular staircase, and it is 50/50 on if the attendant is willing to bring the meals or items to the room at times. I've had several of them who have asked my grandmother who is 87 years old what her handicap is when she requests a meal brought to the H Room. 

Why are the transdorms able to be sold with ADA as I don't believe they have a H Room but I haven't also spent much time on the lower level in one of those.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Seaboard92 said:


> I really think our ADA Act has some flaws inside of it which negates the true meaning of it because it becomes a cumbersome stumbling block for future development. I honestly think it is a bit ridiculous that you can't sell the extra roomettes in the Bag/Dorm on the Cardinal where only two of the rooms are occupied one by a coach attendant, and one by the LSA. That leaves multiple rooms you are dragging a long for no real reason. I am in complete support of ADA we should do things to help those most disadvantaged but I think we need to have some common sense as well. I think as long as each train offers some form of an ADA space it should be acceptable.
> 
> Is the ADA H Room in the Superliner really that great if you are in need of it. To reach the diner you still have to climb that steep rectangular staircase, and it is 50/50 on if the attendant is willing to bring the meals or items to the room at times. I've had several of them who have asked my grandmother who is 87 years old what her handicap is when she requests a meal brought to the H Room.
> 
> Why are the transdorms able to be sold with ADA as I don't believe they have a H Room but I haven't also spent much time on the lower level in one of those.


Some Superliner Transdorms do have an H Room. The Crew usually uses it.


----------



## Seaboard92

Bob Dylan said:


> Some Superliner Transdorms do have an H Room. The Crew usually uses it.



Wouldn't that be an ADA violation to have the space and not list it for someone needing the space?


----------



## Bob Dylan

Seaboard92 said:


> Wouldn't that be an ADA violation to have the space and not list it for someone needing the space?


Its not offered for Sale since the downstairs is " Off Limits" to Passengers, even those in Revenue Roomettes in the Transdorm.


----------



## sttom

Dealing with the H Room on any train and getting food brought to it can be solved at the corporate level. If you are in it, it should be pretty obvious that you will need extra help and room service would be part of that. This is one of the times where having more competent leadership would make a difference and you don't really need Congress to get involved to deal with quality control. 

Having experience countries where disability access is not what it is the US, I can understand why we have the ADA, but I do think it goes a bit too far sometimes. But, there needs to be a much more solid standard of what "reasonable accommodations" are with respects to transit. For example, if the only way for access to be improved and quality not be sacrificed would be to make wider trains, then that won't be seen as reasonable to the railroads since loading gauge is a thing. I was once an advocate, and the thing that always annoyed me about other advocates is they forget that other aspects of the world will but up against them.


----------



## Mailliw

Is it really impossible to have an ADA width corridor in a sleeping car? As it a wheelchair user is confinement to their room even in viewliner (unless it's the 1 sleeper adjacent to the diner).


----------



## west point

Our group all likes the taller Russian cars . They would allow for the upper berth of roomettes to have a window like the View liners. However the problem of CHI union station not able to clear anything taller than a Superliner remains. That just precludes at this time anything taller than a Superliner. There might be a few locations that would need clearance for the Princess type car but maybe in 30 - 40 years?

Of course the taller cars could be assigned to Auto Train but getting them to other locations at present is impossible at WASH.


----------



## PVD

Bringing a meal to a sleeper passenger is not discretionary, it is part of the service offering for any sleeper passenger mobility limited or not. Asking someone what their disability is that prevents them from climbing stairs is a serious offense, and might be one of the few things that Amtrak would be forced to act on.


----------



## PVD

Mailliw said:


> Is it really impossible to have an ADA width corridor in a sleeping car? As it a wheelchair user is confinement to their room even in viewliner (unless it's the 1 sleeper adjacent to the diner).


Any width added to the corridor is width subtracted from the roomettes on either side of the aisle


----------



## John Santos

Are the corridors in the sleepers narrower than the aisles in planes? The airlines have wheelchairs that fit in the aisles. Couldn't *all *the bedrooms be made available to disabled people who require wheelchairs simply by providing them with a folding airplane-style wheelchair and storing their regular wheelchair in the baggage car or baggage area?


----------



## sttom

Mailliw said:


> Is it really impossible to have an ADA width corridor in a sleeping car? As it a wheelchair user is confinement to their room even in viewliner (unless it's the 1 sleeper adjacent to the diner).


Possible in a theoretical sense, yes. In a practical sense, no. The aisles are approximately 36 inches in width and the average wheelchairs fall between 30 and 34 inches which leaves a small margin of error to get them through the halls. The other problem is getting them around corners which would mean a longer or car, or more likely the sacrifice of a roomette to allow a wheelchair to turn. If Amtrak could provide a wheel chair that could fit through the aisles, that might be an acceptable compromise, emphasis on might. With how ADA is, only the Roomettes immediately next to the bathrooms would be considered ADA compliant if the bathrooms are as well. ADA is far more holistic than "can a wheelchair fit".


----------



## Qapla

Not all people fit in the same size chair ... one size does not fit all so, even with 36" hallways, some people in chairs would not fit down them.

One of the problems with ADA is that some think it should apply to "everywhere", So, while having an ADA car on a train with ALL rooms ADA would be acceptable to many ADA proponents ... they would object to car without ADA rooms even though the train itself would have more than sufficient ADA facilities - after all, some ADA person might want to ride in that non-ADA car and it wouldn't be fair if there are no ADA facilities in that car.


----------



## Mailliw

sttom said:


> Possible in a theoretical sense, yes. In a practical sense, no. The aisles are approximately 36 inches in width and the average wheelchairs fall between 30 and 34 inches which leaves a small margin of error to get them through the halls. The other problem is getting them around corners which would mean a longer or car, or more likely the sacrifice of a roomette to allow a wheelchair to turn. If Amtrak could provide a wheel chair that could fit through the aisles, that might be an acceptable compromise, emphasis on might. With how ADA is, only the Roomettes immediately next to the bathrooms would be considered ADA compliant if the bathrooms are as well. ADA is far more holistic than "can a wheelchair fit".


Thanks. Technical design isn't my strong suit and I don't know how to make graphics myself. Eyeballing the photos of the Venture coaches with their ADA aisles it sure seems like a roomette won't take up more width than 2 seats or a bedroom more than 4 seats run together. I forgot about needing turn the wheelchair. As far as Amtrak wheelchairs there is precedent for than, airlines have special narrow aisle wheelchairs for disabled passengers. Come to think of it, I've never even heard of an ADA toilet on a plane.


----------



## jiml

Mailliw said:


> Come to think of it, I've never even heard of an ADA toilet on a plane.


That's a really good point.


----------



## jis

Mailliw said:


> Come to think of it, I've never even heard of an ADA toilet on a plane.


At least on all new 777s, 787s and A380/350s there is at least one "ADA" toilet which is essentially double size with additional holding rails to help a mobility challenged person move around. These are usually on international or high end domestic flights. I have never seen one of these on a smaller domestic plane.


----------



## sttom

Mailliw said:


> Thanks. Technical design isn't my strong suit and I don't know how to make graphics myself. Eyeballing the photos of the Venture coaches with their ADA aisles it sure seems like a roomette won't take up more width than 2 seats or a bedroom more than 4 seats run together. I forgot about needing turn the wheelchair. As far as Amtrak wheelchairs there is precedent for than, airlines have special narrow aisle wheelchairs for disabled passengers. Come to think of it, I've never even heard of an ADA toilet on a plane.



The width of the seats on Amtrak is 23 inches, so for 2 seats, the width is 46 inches on one side of the train. The width of a Roomette is 42 inches, I am not sure if that width includes the walls are not. If it doesn't, I'd imagine they would add at least 2 inches on each side. Which means that the aisle is closer to 32 inches which would make the margins tighter. Until I can see a Venture coach in the wild or at least the measurements of seat width, they probably are going to have the same internal space use. 32 inch aisles can fit a wheelchair, but that's if you are using a standard wheelchair. Once you start factoring bigger people into the mix, you get more problems. This is part of why I think Congress needs to have firmer rules as to what makes something ADA compliant passed through the legislative process.


----------



## Trogdor

jis said:


> At least on all new 777s, 787s and A380/350s there is at least one "ADA" toilet which is essentially double size with additional holding rails to help a mobility challenged person move around. These are usually on international or high end domestic flights. I have never seen one of these on a smaller domestic plane.



And to be extremely pedantic, ADA does not apply to airlines. Instead, there is a different law called the "Air Carrier Access Act."


----------



## PVD

ACAA permits use of "transfer chairs", and the accessible lav on many planes is basically the same, except that the door swings out instead of in to allow for interior movement. Requirement is based on size and age of an aircraft...


----------



## jis

Trogdor said:


> And to be extremely pedantic, ADA does not apply to airlines. Instead, there is a different law called the "Air Carrier Access Act."


Yeah, that's why I put the ADA within quotes. Actually the regulation derived from the Act is 14 CFR Part 382

The specific section pertaining to lavatory accommodation is 382.21 (3) which applies only to aircraft with more than one aisle and specifically says:



> Aircraft with more than one aisle in which lavatories are provided shall include at least one accessible lavatory. This lavatory shall permit a qualified individual with a disability to enter, maneuver within as necessary to use all lavatory facilities, and leave, by means of the aircraft’s on-board wheelchair. The accessible lavatory shall afford privacy to persons using the on-board wheelchair equivalent to that afforded ambulatory users. The lavatory shall provide door locks, accessible call buttons, grab bars, faucets and other controls, and dispensers usable by qualified individuals with a disability, including wheelchair users and persons with manual impairments



I tend to use that one if it is open as it provides much more space and is really convenient for changing the outfit that I am wearing, something that I find desirable on a 16 hour flight. The ones on the United 789s and 77Ws are really nice. I am sure they are similar on other airlines too.


----------



## LookingGlassTie

I support the "spirit" of the ADA. However, the intricate regulations and stipulations contained in it can get sticky in many situations.

As a disabled person myself (legally blind), I'm more concerned about whether there's a good-faith effort being made to accommodate disabled people. It makes no sense to me to get worked up because, say, a doorway is a couple of inches too narrow or a grab bar in a bathroom is an inch too high. Or even if a a door has a knob instead of a handle. But those are the kind of "check the box" type items that the ADA requires. Even those who have made genuine attempts to make their businesses/facilities accessible have been "dinged" for such minute violations. And I don't feel that that is right.

Sorry to "derail" the thread!  

Just my $0.02.


----------



## Exvalley

Mailliw said:


> Come to think of it, I've never even heard of an ADA toilet on a plane.


Here is an example of an aircraft with an accessible toilet.




__





SeatGuru Seat Map Air Transat


For your next Air Transat flight, use this seating chart to get the most comfortable seats, legroom, and recline on .




www.seatguru.com


----------



## cocojacoby

Not as large as the new Acela ones which allow complete rotation of a wheelchair inside at the serious negative of eliminating a second restroom that is now available on the original Acela. That leaves only one restroom per car.

The new trains will carry 378 passengers compared to 304 on today’s Acelas and will have 9 cars verses 8 cars on the present trains. I believe that translates to 9 restrooms compared to 16! This may become problematic.


----------



## Mailliw

Yeah. At the very least any long distance coach is going to need a 2nd non-ADA restroom. Back on topic; what's really needed is for a firm decision to be made what kind, if any, long distance network or overnight trains Amtrak is going to have. Then they can commission a study on what's needed for new sleeping cars (especially if bilevels are still worth it).


----------



## Bob Dylan

cocojacoby said:


> Not as large as the new Acela ones which allow complete rotation of a wheelchair inside at the serious negative of eliminating a second restroom that is now available on the original Acela. That leaves only one restroom per car.
> 
> The new trains will carry 378 passengers compared to 304 on today’s Acelas and will have 9 cars verses 8 cars on the present trains. I believe that translates to 9 restrooms compared to 16! This may become problematic.


Especially the way the " Buisnessmen" pour down the drinks in FC!! Lol


----------



## sttom

Mailliw said:


> Yeah. At the very least any long distance coach is going to need a 2nd non-ADA restroom. Back on topic; what's really needed is for a firm decision to be made what kind, if any, long distance network or overnight trains Amtrak is going to have. Then they can commission a study on what's needed for new sleeping cars (especially if bilevels are still worth it).


Bilevels are still worth having because of the capacity alone. The capacity of a Superliner is 45 compared to a Viewliner's 30. Add in a lot of stations don't have long enough platforms for the trains to get longer. The engines at my local station regularly sit in the crossing while the train is stopped. To replace the existing Superliners with Viewliners, you would need to replace 2 Superliners with at least 3 Viewliners, and you are losing the family room on top of it. That is also assuming Amtrak leadership is smart enough to argue for a roughly equivalent replacement of capacity. I would bet, should something like this come to pass, that they'd replace 1 Superliner with 1 Viewliner either because of Congress being filled with "lovely people" or because Amtrak leadership is the most competent political donations can buy.


----------



## Mailliw

Here's an example of the bilevel sleeping cars Nightjet is using now. I wondwon't something like this could be viable for Amtrak. The single corridor set might enable both a ADA compartment on the intermediate level and let a wheelchair use move through the car to other car, the 4 berth compartments are perfect for families or groups, and the upper level deluxe compartments are roomier than anything Amtrak has. On the negative side no lower level boarding (Western platforms are low level), wheelchair users still have trouble accessing diners or lounges (setup doesn'twork for either cartype) ,no roommettes (but economy compartments), everyone not in an ADA compartment has to go up/down half flight of stairs, and I think these cars may be too tall except for the Auto-Train. Thoughts?


----------



## jis

Indeed, AFAICT they are UIC-C loading gauge, which means they are 15'3" tall. Too tall for the NEC.


----------



## Mailliw

OK, that's shorter than I thought; I was thinking they were 18/19 feet like the new Russian bilevels. So at least with regard to overhead clearance this design could replace Superliners.


----------



## jis

Mailliw said:


> OK, that's shorter than I thought; I was thinking they were 18/19 feet like the new Russian bilevels. So at least with regard to overhead clearance this design could replace Superliners.


Incidentally UIC-C gauge exists to accommodate UIC Russian interchange loading gauge freight wagons.

Here is a brief summary of the main bits of Russian Loading Gauge quoted from the Wikipedia:


> The main static profile T allows for a maximum width of 3,750 mm (12 ft 3.6 in) rising to a maximum height of 5,300 mm (17 ft 4.7 in). The profile Tc allows that width only at a height of 3,000 mm (9 ft 10.1 in), requiring a maximum of 3,400 mm (11 ft 1.9 in) below 1,270 mm (50.0 in), which matches with the standard for train platforms (with a height of 1,100 mm [43.3 in]). The profile Tpr has the same lower frame requirement but reduces the maximum upper body width to 3,500 mm (11 ft 5.8 in). The more universal profile 1-T has the complete body at a maximum width of 3,400 mm (11 ft 1.9 in) still rising to a height of 5,300 mm (17 ft 4.7 in).[57] Exceptions shall be double-stacking, maximum height shall be 6,150 mm (20 ft 2.1 in) or 6,400 mm (21 ft 0 in).



So in general, in addition to UIC-C, 17'4.7" (taller than Superliner), 20'2.1" (more or less the same as US Plate H and K) and 21', taller than anything in the US.

Incidentally, India has a loading gauge of 23'3.5" for its double stack special clearance Dedicated Freight Corridor tracks with catenary contact wire at 28'4.5". The pantographs on those high power electric engines are a sight to behold.


----------



## sttom

Mailliw said:


> Here's an example of the bilevel sleeping cars Nightjet is using now. I wondwon't something like this could be viable for Amtrak. The single corridor set might enable both a ADA compartment on the intermediate level and let a wheelchair use move through the car to other car, the 4 berth compartments are perfect for families or groups, and the upper level deluxe compartments are roomier than anything Amtrak has. On the negative side no lower level boarding (Western platforms are low level), wheelchair users still have trouble accessing diners or lounges (setup doesn'twork for either cartype) ,no roommettes (but economy compartments), everyone not in an ADA compartment has to go up/down half flight of stairs, and I think these cars may be too tall except for the Auto-Train. Thoughts?


A European Bilevel is a US Multilevel which means a OBB's "bilevel" sleepers are more like NJT's Multilevels than they are like Superliners. The problem with using Multilevels as sleeping cars in the US is that you will need to go up and down two flights of stairs per car you travel through to get to the lounge or dining car. In a Superliner, you will need to deal with at least 1 flight of stairs to get to the lounge and at most 2. Having 2 sets of steps per care will annoy a lot of people. Sleeping equipment on a lot of European railways, OBB included are designed to only be used for over night trips and under the assumption that once you board the train you have no reason to leave your car until you get off under normal operation. 

As for height, I know the Viaggio Twins are about 7 inches taller than the NJT Multilevel cars. Are the Multilevels at the maximum height the tunnels into New York can handle or could they accomodate cars that are 7 inches taller?


----------



## jis

Nope 14’6” is it for NYP. That is how tall the multilevels are. Also they have to have beveled end to clear the entry into North River Tubes from the NYP bathtub on any of the diverging tracks.


----------



## jiml

sttom said:


> A European Bilevel is a US Multilevel which means a OBB's "bilevel" sleepers are more like NJT's Multilevels than they are like Superliners. The problem with using Multilevels as sleeping cars in the US is that you will need to go up and down two flights of stairs per car you travel through to get to the lounge or dining car. In a Superliner, you will need to deal with at least 1 flight of stairs to get to the lounge and at most 2. Having 2 sets of steps per care will annoy a lot of people. Sleeping equipment on a lot of European railways, OBB included are designed to only be used for over night trips and under the assumption that once you board the train you have no reason to leave your car until you get off under normal operation.


It's important to note that the flights of stairs on the European cars are half the number of steps of Superliners and don't usually curve around tight corners. They're more like those on NA commuter cars. That said, there might certainly be more of them enroute to the food service car (if the train has one).


----------



## Mailliw

Nightjet's bilevel sleeping cars were originally built for CityNightLine, which did have bistro cars. However I think only the sleeping cars were bilevels; if the connection is on the mezzanine you can connect them directly to single levels.


----------



## joelkfla

I thought I saw a YouTube of a sleeper that had a mid-level corridor, and steps up or down to a foyer at each group of 4 rooms (2 upper + 2 lower), but I can't remember where it was or find it again.

If I'm remembering correctly, passengers would be able to pass thru the car with no stairs involved.


----------



## toddinde

jiml said:


> Great list. Do you know which of the ones you've listed were transferred to CN? And yes, I for one would be very interested in your list.


All the 8 bedroom lounges were transferred. There were six. The Olympian Hiawatha had six train sets as opposed to five for the competing roads (NP and GN). That’s because the Milwaukee didn’t keep enough cars in the west to put together a makeup train in the event of a late Olympian from the east. The four Skytop Parlors were built in the Milwaukee Road shops in Milwaukee (the sleepers were Pullman built). They remained in Milwaukee Road ownership for the two Twin Cities Hiawatha (Morning and Afternoon Hiawathas). In 1970, the Afternoon Hiawatha was discontinued, and the Skytops were removed from service. A straight parlor remained on the Morning Hiawatha which was a fine train right up to Amtrak day when it was replaced by Amtrak’s rerouted Empire Builder. One Skytop parlor had been burned and scraped leaving three. The remaining three were slowly sold off by the Road. I saw the CN Skytop sleepers in 1977 in Winnipeg sitting in a yard. Some were later emasculated for a restaurant. I believe at least one is undergoing restoration. I know, more info than you asked for, and maybe didn’t answer your question, but maybe you’ll find it interesting.


----------



## Willbridge

toddinde said:


> All the 8 bedroom lounges were transferred. There were six. The Olympian Hiawatha had six train sets as opposed to five for the competing roads (NP and GN). That’s because the Milwaukee didn’t keep enough cars in the west to put together a makeup train in the event of a late Olympian from the east. The four Skytop Parlors were built in the Milwaukee Road shops in Milwaukee (the sleepers were Pullman built). They remained in Milwaukee Road ownership for the two Twin Cities Hiawatha (Morning and Afternoon Hiawathas). In 1970, the Afternoon Hiawatha was discontinued, and the Skytops were removed from service. A straight parlor remained on the Morning Hiawatha which was a fine train right up to Amtrak day when it was replaced by Amtrak’s rerouted Empire Builder. One Skytop parlor had been burned and scraped leaving three. The remaining three were slowly sold off by the Road. I saw the CN Skytop sleepers in 1977 in Winnipeg sitting in a yard. Some were later emasculated for a restaurant. I believe at least one is undergoing restoration. I know, more info than you asked for, and maybe didn’t answer your question, but maybe you’ll find it interesting.


I remember seeing Skytop CN cars sidetracked at Vancouver, BC in the 1970's due to leaking water and the problem of heating them. Numerous windows were fogged up. Of course, I wondered if that was endemic or due to poor maintenance.

My 98-year old father remembers riding Tacoma to Seattle with the train reversed. He would head for the Skytop lounge and watch the electric locomotive at work. Lounge passengers had a good view of the catenary.

Christmas season 1977 and no Skytop on VIA/CN.


----------



## west point

This poster really wants to see taller than Superliner bilevels. However, that means somehow getting taller overhead clearances at CHI union station. There may be some other stations needing some clearance improvements especially side clearances?


----------



## jis

We'll be darned lucky to see even current height Superliners in the next round of car orders for LD trains, is what I have been hearing from a few people in the know.


----------



## Tlcooper93

MARC Rider said:


> This design yields 36 of these lie flat seats vs. the sleeper car capacity of 30 seats (4 bedroom and one ADA room.) I'm not sure this slight increase in capacity will allow them to charge sufficiently reduced fares to make the lack of privacy attractive. Also, is the double sized restroom module large enough to contain an ADA compliant toilet?


The same crowd who pays up for train accommodations probably would prefer complete privacy (me). I wager I’m not the only one, especially in long distance. There is definitely a difference in feeling from an ULH flight to a LD train. Privacy matters, and if it doesn’t for some people, I probably wouldn’t wanna be seated near them anyways. 

The only place I can imagine Delta one style working is the NEC, with a plausible LSL if that train ever gets its act together and shortens trip time. 

On the subject of Viewliners, this whole thread continues to highlight the sad truth:
Amtrak desperately needs more sleepers and varied cars, and only ordering 25 VLII sleepers is a massively short-sighted move.


----------



## cocojacoby

west point said:


> This poster really wants to see taller than Superliner bilevels. However, that means somehow getting taller overhead clearances at CHI union station. There may be some other stations needing some clearance improvements especially side clearances?



Using something like the Ultradome would be the maximum in efficiency. It would be like stacking two Viewliners together. You could even have walk throughs on both levels. But as mentioned it might not be easily done.


----------



## Exvalley

Tlcooper93 said:


> The same crowd who pays up for train accommodations probably would prefer complete privacy (me). I wager I’m not the only one, especially in long distance. There is definitely a difference in feeling from an ULH flight to a LD train. Privacy matters, and if it doesn’t for some people, I probably wouldn’t wanna be seated near them anyways.



I agree with you that privacy is one of the best features of a sleeper car.

However, I can think of one situation in which a lie-flat seat would be appealing to me - a trip of shorter duration than a full overnight.

For example, if I was traveling from 8:00 PM to 1:30 AM I would prefer a lie-flat seat if it was cheaper than a roomette. 

I'm not sure that I would pay extra for a lie-flat seat during the daytime. The long distance coach seats have plenty of room as it is.


----------



## Ryan

jis said:


> We'll be darned lucky to see even current height Superliners in the next round of car orders for LD trains, is what I have been hearing from a few people in the know.


In other words, a consolidated LD car order consisting of single level cars? That would be great.


----------



## John819

As has been explained on other threads, because the dining car, the observation car, and the cafe car are "public" the ADA requires that wheelchair passengers be able to access these areas. To do this with double level cars, you would need to install a lift from the lower level to the upper level in each car, costing a significant amount of space and a high cost. For safety reasons, this might require the train attendant's assistance to operate.

It is more likely that Amtrak, if it and LD travel still exist, will go for a nationwide fleet of single level cars (probably based on the Siemens Venture).


----------



## joelkfla

John819 said:


> As has been explained on other threads, because the dining car, the observation car, and the cafe car are "public" the ADA requires that wheelchair passengers be able to access these areas. To do this with double level cars, you would need to install a lift from the lower level to the upper level in each car, costing a significant amount of space and a high cost. For safety reasons, this might require the train attendant's assistance to operate.


Not necessarily. There are bi-level cars in Japan (and maybe in Europe) that have the corridor at boarding level, with stairs up and down to each group of cabins. The accessible room is at the end of the car at boarding level.


----------



## Qapla

joelkfla said:


> There are bi-level cars in Japan (and maybe in Europe)



Yes, but this is the US ... Even if there were bi-level cars with bi-level boarding so wheelchairs could load onto either level, thus allowing wheelchairs to access all "public" areas - there would be someone who would bring a lawsuit because the wheelchair cannot move from the lower level to the upper level (or the upper to the lower) while the train is moving


----------



## joelkfla

Qapla said:


> Yes, but this is the US ... Even if there were bi-level cars with bi-level boarding so wheelchairs could load onto either level, thus allowing wheelchairs to access all "public" areas - there would be someone who would bring a lawsuit because the wheelchair cannot move from the lower level to the upper level (0r the upper to the lower) while the train is moving


I was thinking of diners and lounges being single level. Coaches could be single level, or they could be bi-level with one coach adjacent to the diner/lounge having several wheelchair accessible spaces.


----------



## John819

joelkfla said:


> Not necessarily. There are bi-level cars in Japan (and maybe in Europe) that have the corridor at boarding level, with stairs up and down to each group of cabins. The accessible room is at the end of the car at boarding level.


This could possibly work, but there will be the inevitable lawsuits.


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> We'll be darned lucky to see even current height Superliners in the next round of car orders for LD trains, is what I have been hearing from a few people in the know.



As an Easterner, I'm frankly comfortable with having single-levels everywhere so they can fit through the tight tunnels to NYC. 

But for goodness' sake, Amtrak could still order some glasstop lounges! Just because you can't fit an extra-tall dome or Superliner-style car doesn't mean you cant have a cool lounge with windows all over. It's a worthwhile thing to do.

Advocates really should make a push for some single-level glasstop lounge/cafes. If you don't want to deal with the expensive curved glass, take something similar to a Viewliner II design with the upper windows, and add glass panels in the ceiling (retaining the beams between the ceiling and the walls).


----------



## toddinde

Tlcooper93 said:


> The same crowd who pays up for train accommodations probably would prefer complete privacy (me). I wager I’m not the only one, especially in long distance. There is definitely a difference in feeling from an ULH flight to a LD train. Privacy matters, and if it doesn’t for some people, I probably wouldn’t wanna be seated near them anyways.
> 
> The only place I can imagine Delta one style working is the NEC, with a plausible LSL if that train ever gets its act together and shortens trip time.
> 
> On the subject of Viewliners, this whole thread continues to highlight the sad truth:
> Amtrak desperately needs more sleepers and varied cars, and only ordering 25 VLII sleepers is a massively short-sighted move.


I too am not convinced of a large market for lie flat, business class type seating except maybe as you identify. Maybe the longer east coast routes like the Palmetto or Maple Leaf to make it kind of a parlor car offering.


----------



## toddinde

Mailliw said:


> Yeah. At the very least any long distance coach is going to need a 2nd non-ADA restroom. Back on topic; what's really needed is for a firm decision to be made what kind, if any, long distance network or overnight trains Amtrak is going to have. Then they can commission a study on what's needed for new sleeping cars (especially if bilevels are still worth it).


Congress already decided that in the most recent legislation. The current long distance network and a mandated study of the routes lost since Amtrak was established. So there are going to be long distance trains and Amtrak will need new equipment. They can skip the first part, and get down to determining what the new long distance fleet will look like.


----------



## toddinde

jis said:


> We'll be darned lucky to see even current height Superliners in the next round of car orders for LD trains, is what I have been hearing from a few people in the know.


There are several problems with a new Superliner order. First, the industrial base to support it may not exist. Second, there are ADA challenges, though these are not insurmountable by any means. The third is the desire to perhaps have cars that could operate systemwide. I really don't know what is going on at Amtrak these days, and I am not sure they have the management team in place to move forward on these kind of things.


----------

