# Long Distance (LD) fleet replacement discussion (2022-23)



## Steve4031

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


----------



## jis

Steve4031 said:


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


Amtrak has stated that they are in early stages of determining whether Superliners will be replaced by single or bilevel equipment, and there are strong camps on both sides of the argument in the design team. So it would be premature to order something specially given that no design exists for some of the car types that would be needed in the single level form that would be appropriate for induction in five to ten years.


----------



## Steve4031

jis said:


> Amtrak has statd that they are in early stages of deterining whether Superliners will be replaced by single or bilevel equipment, and there are strong camps on both sides of the argument in the design team. So it would be premature to order something specially given that no design exists for some of the car types that would be neede in the single level form that would be appropriate for induction in five to ten years.


I didn't know this. This is interesting to hear.


----------



## JWM

Single level (i.e., modified Siemens "Railjet" and "Nightjet" equipment would be easier and less expensive, but for long haul American trains they may be too confining. I have no idea who is capable of building bi-level replacements. Amtrak made an error when they bypassed Budd on the original ones in my opinion. I'd much prefer equipment like the original "California Zephyr", but it probably is not cost effective today.


----------



## jis

JWM said:


> Single level (i.e., modified Siemens "Railjet" and "Nightjet" equipment would be easier and less expensive, but for long haul American trains they may be too confining. I have no idea who is capable of building bi-level replacements. Amtrak made an error when they bypassed Budd on the original ones in my opinion. I'd much prefer equipment like the original "California Zephyr", but it probably is not cost effective today.


Almost any European manufacturer is quite capable of building sill-less bilevel cars. They do it all the time in Europe. Being able to build body shells is not the issue. Fleet planning and cost of lifetime ownership and ease of operation and maintenance which goes hand in hand are the issues.


----------



## lrh442

I think a better approach is to rebuild the existing Superliners_ and_ order additional new designs (single or bilevel). 

Amtrak originally ordered 479 SLs over two phases, of which <430 are still on the roster. So, it would take an order of 430 new cars (more if they choose a lower capacity single level design) just to maintain the status quo. If we want improved service frequencies, expanded consists, and dare I say a new/restored route or two, it's going to require hundreds more cars than that. 

Do you foresee an order of 700+ new Superliner replacements in Amtrak's future at a cost of over $3B? Under current management I sure don't, and it would be a decade or more before they all come online. But I can envision an order of several hundred new cars which would be used to augment rebuilt SLs.


----------



## jis

MODERATOR'S NOTE: There was an earlier thread in 2021 that some here might find interesting. Any further discussion along thse lines should be carried on here as that thread is locked as we are trying to consolidate all Superliner replacement discussion in a single place.





__





Hypothetical High Platform Superliner Replacements


Talking about the Siemens Venture procurements and their 48" level boarding height has got me thinking about the future of the Superliners and the Amtrak LD fleet. A similar topic was discussed in this thread, but it was derailed by the idea of making the bilevel stock able to run on the NEC...




www.amtraktrains.com





Thank you for you understanding cooperation and participation.


----------



## JWM

jis said:


> Almost any European manufacturer is quite capable of building sill-less bilevel cars. They do it all the time in Europe. Being able to build body shells is not the issue. Fleet planning and cost of lifetime ownership and ease of operation and maintenance which goes hand in hand are the issues.


You are correct as I have ridden bi-level German, Austrian and Swiss trains. TGV as well.


----------



## Ryan

Is this FY22-FY27 5 year plan the latest and greatest?


https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/businessplanning/Amtrak-Service-Asset-Line-Plans-FY22-27.pdf



This is what is says about LD Rolling Stock:


> While the refleeting of Amtrak’s long-distance network is a major priority and an excellent use of IIJA funding, a new railcar order of this magnitude for unique equipment cannot occur overnight. During FY 2022, Amtrak expects to commence preparations for acquiring a new long-distance fleet, including customer and market/supplier research, rolling stock engineering, and other steps necessary to develop the specifications for a long-distance railcar order. Market and supplier research may include a Request for Information (RFI). Once specifications have been developed, Amtrak can launch a Request for Proposals (RFP) for new equipment, receive vendor bids, negotiate with vendors, and ultimately award a contract. Amtrak will likely seek a TSSSA with any vendor to ensure that its Mechanical forces will have access to original equipment manufacturer (OEM) expertise and a ready supply of spare parts throughout the service life of the new equipment. Amtrak anticipates the award of a contract, and for new railcar construction to be well underway, by the end of the five-year horizon of these Service and Asset Line Plans.
> 
> Significant customer and marketplace research is necessary for this once-in-a-generation procurement. The bi-level Superliner fleet’s original design roots trace back to the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway’s Hi-Level railcar design from the 1950s, while single level Amfleet II is based upon the design of the original Metroliner railcars of the 1960s. The new fleet must reflect the major changes in customer preferences and rolling stock design over the past six to seven decades.
> 
> While specific delivery timelines for new equipment will be negotiated with the vendor, new railcars generally require about four years from the time of contract award until the first new unit enters service, and deliveries of hundreds of railcars from an order usually take place over the span of three to five years. Therefore, Amtrak anticipates that the first new long- distance railcars will arrive towards the end of the current decade, with deliveries continuing into the early 2030s.


----------



## rickycourtney

The other interesting consideration is accommodating passengers with disabilities. The current method of relegating people to a room downstairs and bringing them food isn't equitable access. That means that a future bi-level may need to include an elevator and wider, wheelchair-accessible aisles. Something that will need to be considered as part of the costs/benefits of bi-level equipment.


----------



## Touchdowntom9

For the sake of cost management and simplicity, I would assume that the best route would be to use the Siemens Venture car with an interior design that takes alot of ideas from the Nightjet etc. Worth noting that they have an extra foot of width to work with on these cars compared to their Euro counterparts which should help reduce some of the concerns regarding space. Having numerous types of rollingstock seems to be something Amtrak is trying to eliminate right now given their recent charger order.


----------



## Nick Farr

rickycourtney said:


> The other interesting consideration is accommodating passengers with disabilities. The current method of relegating people to a room downstairs and bringing them food isn't equitable access. That means that a future bi-level may need to include an elevator and wider, wheelchair-accessible aisles. Something that will need to be considered as part of the costs/benefits of bi-level equipment.


ADA, in this case, becomes a strong argument against bi-level trains.


----------



## GDRRiley

Nick Farr said:


> ADA, in this case, becomes a strong argument against bi-level trains.


it would be fairly easy to make some/all of the coaches/sleepers have elevators for wheelchair users. Some cars like dinning and lounge cars assuming they keep the same layout would not need them.



lrh442 said:


> I think a better approach is to rebuild the existing Superliners_ and_ order additional new designs (single or bilevel).


they are 30 and 50+ years old they just need to be replaced at this point.


lrh442 said:


> Amtrak originally ordered 479 SLs over two phases, of which <430 are still on the roster. So, it would take an order of 430 new cars (more if they choose a lower capacity single level design) just to maintain the status quo. If we want improved service frequencies, expanded consists, and dare I say a new/restored route or two, it's going to require hundreds more cars than that.
> 
> Do you foresee an order of 700+ new Superliner replacements in Amtrak's future at a cost of over $3B? Under current management I sure don't, and it would be a decade or more before they all come online. But I can envision an order of several hundred new cars which would be used to augment rebuilt SLs.


Amtrak has 4.27B for new railcars, locos and required shops for LD.
125 locos is ~1.25B with 175 being ~1.75B.
that leaves 2.5-3B for new coach. They should be under 4m a unit ideally 3m. even at that 4m each and with only 2.5B thats 625 cars with 3B that becomes 750
They also take out interest free loans to order more cars 

Its been confirmed the state of California is in talk with Amtrak to combine orders if they go bi level. VIA rail may also be interested in joining given their current fleet issues.



JWM said:


> Single level (i.e., modified Siemens "Railjet" and "Nightjet" equipment would be easier and less expensive, but for long haul American trains they may be too confining.


the price difference has to be under 50% for bi levels to make sense. as typically 2 bi levels have the same capacity as 3 single levels


JWM said:


> I have no idea who is capable of building bi-level replacements. Amtrak made an error when they bypassed Budd on the original ones in my opinion. I'd much prefer equipment like the original "California Zephyr", but it probably is not cost effective today.


Everyone of the major railcar makers can; Stalder, Siemens, Alstom, Nippon Sharyo, Hyundai Rotem, Kawasaki Railcar, ect.
the first 3 still have plants in the US are actively making railcars

budd single level cars? they ran lots of them into the 90s with some lasting till 2015


----------



## PVD

Kawasaki is most certainly also building cars here, in large numbers.


----------



## Siegmund

I would note there are factors to consider other than purchase cost and ease of maintenance. (Indeed the maintenance savings would pretty much only apply to Chicago: right now, LA is maintaining only bilevels and Miami is maintaining only single-levels, despite the fact we have 2 types in the fleet. Or 5 types, as each of Viewliner, Amfleet I, Amfleet II, Horizon have their own parts.)

If Amtrak starts operating single-level cars in the West, they are going to have to deal with a couple hundred stations that have only low-level platforms; a bunch of freight railroads that don't want high-level platforms next to their freight cars; a bunch of commuter railroads that will continue to operate bilevels with low-level doors out of shared stations in WA, CA, and elsewhere. They may well decide they'd rather pay a little extra for a new bilevel design, than pay a billion dollars for station enhancements.

IMO the ADA requirements mean only that the current Superliner floor plan doesn't work. Put out an RFP saying "we want an ADA-compliant car 85 feet long and 16 feet high" and people will design one. I daresay I am not the only one who has doodled some on scratch paper just out of curiosity.


----------



## Steve4031

The venture cars can use low level platforms. They already do. One issue might be double or triple spots at some stations. The is enough padding in the schedule to accommodate that.


----------



## GDRRiley

Steve4031 said:


> The venture cars can use low level platforms. They already do. One issue might be double or triple spots at some stations. The is enough padding in the schedule to accommodate that.


They are not ideal at low level platforms
Amtrak being able to reduce the padding would be ideal


----------



## joelkfla

GDRRiley said:


> They are not ideal at low level platforms
> Amtrak being able to reduce the padding would be ideal


How are they not ideal? They have automatic stairs and optionally self-contained wheelchair lifts.


----------



## frequentflyer

Stadler could build a nice bilevel for Amtrak and have lower level vestibules.









New Carriages For Rocky Mountaineer Delivered


Without much publicity, Stadler delivered in 2018 and 2019 a batch of ten double deck cars to Rocky Mountaineer (RM), which runs luxury train services in western Canada.




www.railvolution.net


----------



## frequentflyer

And while Amtrak is at it, come up with new sleeping car products. A 21rst century Slumbercoach. Something more premium than a coach seat yet does not cost a left kidney for a First Class Bedroom. Would be a good opportunity to rethink the LD train consist. Should have more sleeping cars with its various products than coaches. Make LD trains fun again and yet civilized. And bring in more revenue per train.


----------



## Steve4031

The stadler cars could work if they could build a sleeping car version. Maybe rooms on the lower level and seats on the upper level. Not every car would need dining room tables. I think staffing levels are much higher on the Rocky Mountaineer.


----------



## Steve4031

Steve4031 said:


> The stadler cars could work if they could build a sleeping car version. Maybe rooms on the lower level and seats on the upper level. Not every car would need dining room tables. I think staffing levels are much higher on the Rocky Mountaineer.


I should add that those open air viewing areas might not fly on Amtrak.


----------



## frequentflyer

Steve4031 said:


> I should add that those open air viewing areas might not fly on Amtrak.


Of course not, but the basic car is a possibility.


----------



## Willbridge

Regarding the idea of a joint order with VIA, remember that political leadership in Canada nixed purchase of built-in-Canada Bombardier Superliners because of so much of the design work already having been done in the States. That was in spite of a successful demonstration set run on the _Panorama. _It would have been great to have compatible cars for tour operators and special events, but an actual joint purchase would get tangled up.


----------



## Caesar La Rock

Alstom is currently building Metra's replacement bi level coaches using the Coradia family. Maybe they might get to do further business with Amtrak, since they are building the Avelia Liberty. 

https://www.mytwintiers.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/89/2021/03/Exterior_Metra.png?w=3784


----------



## fengshui

I think the important thing to note about the aforementioned five-year plan is that the process will be pretty formal, with likely both Amtrak-produced RFI and RFPs published publicly. We will learn a lot about Amtrak's priorities and goals from those documents, whenever they are released.


----------



## jis

Steve4031 said:


> The stadler cars could work if they could build a sleeping car version. Maybe rooms on the lower level and seats on the upper level. Not every car would need dining room tables. I think staffing levels are much higher on the Rocky Mountaineer.


Their 18’ height however may present a challenge at Chicago Union Station.


----------



## Steve4031

jis said:


> Their 18’ height however may present a challenge at Chicago Union Station.


This is why you are a true asset to AU. Your knowledge and attention to detail always informs diplomatically. Thank you.


----------



## Maglev

I just wanted to put this picture here of what a Roomette would look like with an accessible hallway. There would not be enough room to stand between the hallway wall and the bed. Here are the "steps" in an Accessible Bedroom:


----------



## GDRRiley

jis said:


> Their 18’ height however may present a challenge at Chicago Union Station.


I believe that height means they are also an issue in some tunnels out west that haven't been increased in size.
I know for sure most of the bridges and tunnels on the Coast starlight route in central callifornia are not double stack compatible as UP has proposed the state paying to make that happen.


----------



## joelkfla

Maglev said:


> I just wanted to put this picture here of what a Roomette would look like with an accessible hallway. There would not be enough room to stand between the hallway wall and the bed. Here's the "steps" in an Accessible Bedroom:
> 
> View attachment 30407


What Accessible Bedroom is that? And what does it have to do with the width of a Roomette?


----------



## Maglev

joelkfla said:


> What Accessible Bedroom is that? And what does it have to do with the width of a Roomette?


That is a Superliner Accessible Bedroom. It has the same bed arrangement as a Roomette, but the steps are narrower due to the extra width of the hallway. In a Roomette with an accessible hallway, the whole room would only be this wide.


----------



## joelkfla

Maglev said:


> That is a Superliner Accessible Bedroom. It has the same bed arrangement as a Roomette, but the steps are narrower due to the extra width of the hallway. In a Roomette with an accessible hallway, the whole room would only be this wide.


Thx. Only been in the Superliner Accessible Room once, and I'd forgotten that the berths were set up like a Roomette, rather than a Bedroom as they are in the Viewliners.


----------



## Gemuser

frequentflyer said:


> Stadler could build a nice bilevel for Amtrak and have lower level vestibules.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Carriages For Rocky Mountaineer Delivered
> 
> 
> Without much publicity, Stadler delivered in 2018 and 2019 a batch of ten double deck cars to Rocky Mountaineer (RM), which runs luxury train services in western Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.railvolution.net





Steve4031 said:


> The stadler cars could work if they could build a sleeping car version. Maybe rooms on the lower level and seats on the upper level. Not every car would need dining room tables. I think staffing levels are much higher on the Rocky Mountaineer.


Stadler can build anything! [Railway car universe!] That is their specialty, see their web site. The end result may not satisfy the operators economic models but it would work. Reducing the height to Superliner standard should not be a major problem, budgets might be the problem


----------



## Barb Stout

frequentflyer said:


> Stadler could build a nice bilevel for Amtrak and have lower level vestibules.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Carriages For Rocky Mountaineer Delivered
> 
> 
> Without much publicity, Stadler delivered in 2018 and 2019 a batch of ten double deck cars to Rocky Mountaineer (RM), which runs luxury train services in western Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.railvolution.net


One thing that drew my attention in this article you posted is "They can be operated in a temperature range of -25 to +50 °C. " -25C is -15 F and it frequently gets that cold in Canada and parts of the US. So I'm wondering what happens to train function below -15F. And I'm assuming that the Rocky Mountaineer doesn't operate in the winter or am I wrong?


----------



## Andrew

If Amtrak goes with a bi-level coach order, I wonder if Stadler would have the capacity to quickly manufacture hundreds of cars.

Also, Hitachi is building a new factory in Maryland, so I wonder how that will fit into the equation.


----------



## Steve4031

I still think standardizing with venture cars is the key. This would eliminate concerns with clearance and could open up opportunities for different long distance run through routes. 

One interesting example imho would be a second version of the Lakeshore Limited that ran to NYP and then continues up to Boston. This provides a one seat ride from providence, New Haven and Stamford to pouts west of Albany.


----------



## jis

Gemuser said:


> Stadler can build anything! [Railway car universe!] That is their specialty, see their web site. The end result may not satisfy the operators economic models but it would work. Reducing the height to Superliner standard should not be a major problem, budgets might be the problem


It depends on where one wants the bottom floor to be. One of the distinguishing features of the Rocky Mountaineer double deckers is that the lower floor is at the standard level same as that for single level cars thus allowing for uninterrupted travel at the same level throughout the train. At 18 feet this mean that each floor has a 7' ceiling 7'+7'+4' = 18'

If you try to do the same thing with a 16' tall car one lands up with 6' ceiling heights in each floor. While 7' is marginally acceptable 6' is more or less unacceptable. This would mean that for a 16' car one would need to go with tri-level as most multi-level cars in the US are, if the vestibule has to be at the same level as for single level cars. Alternatively one would have to revert back to the Superliner configuration where the inter-car walkway is at the height of the upper level and hence incompatible with single level car vestibule height, and has all the potential ADA issues. No matter what the engineering prowess of Stadler is they cannot beat simple arithmetic I am afraid.


----------



## GDRRiley

Steve4031 said:


> I still think standardizing with venture cars is the key. This would eliminate concerns with clearance and could open up opportunities for different long distance run through routes.
> 
> One interesting example imho would be a second version of the Lakeshore Limited that ran to NYP and then continues up to Boston. This provides a one seat ride from providence, New Haven and Stamford to pouts west of Albany.


Venture cars to not need to be the standard out west. amtrak is not going to run a LA or SF to NYC train
amtrak does need more single level cars for LD but those could be just more viewliners not made by CAF.

People get all focused on standardization but realize the superliner fleet was as big or larger than the amfleet I cars. its fine to have 2-3 large fleets that cover all their needs instead of trying to get 1 family do do it.


----------



## Nick Farr

GDRRiley said:


> it would be fairly easy to make some/all of the coaches/sleepers have elevators for wheelchair users. Some cars like dinning and lounge cars assuming they keep the same layout would not need them.


If you've ever dealt with ADA compliant elevators in public transit, you will know that this is *absolutely* not the case. Even the dumb waiters in the cafe car have a lot of maintenance problems that come up--and you don't have nearly the same weight/duty/safety cycle for those.

Then you're taking away at least 1/8th of the footprint of the car to make sure there's enough clearance for the elevator on both levels and its mechanical systems. 

Further, elevators in public transit are fixed into the ground. Developing a wheelchair lift that can survive hundreds of thousands of acceleration and braking cycles and lift 300 lbs is a technical challenge that I'm not sure has been addressed in the industry.

Then, you have the issue of making sure the hallways are wide enough to accommodate wheelchairs. Because--if not, why would you have elevators?

If you're talking about one car per consist that's tied to the cafe car, then--perhaps this could work. But it's unrealistic to think you'll be able to put accessible bedrooms in each car with an elevator.

If you were to go with bi-levels and accessible bedrooms in each car, it would be much easier to have elevators at each station to provide mobility between levels.

If you look at it, the scale and the mathematics say that it's better to build more single-level standard cars across the entire network than to literally design a new bi-level car to replace the ones we have.


----------



## MARC Rider

Why the strong feelings about the desirability of bi-level cars? Before the Superliners debuted in in the mid-1970s, nearly all of the long-distance passenger train cars in the US were single level cars, with the exception of the Santa Fe Hi-level cars on the El Capitan (which were the models for the Superliners.) Some of the best rail riding experience in history was done on trains with single-level cars. So what if they have to double-spot at a few more stations? You're not riding a long-distance train to make speed records, anyway. As far as the views, they can easily either build Vista-Dome cars (which are better than bi-level Sightseer Lounges, anyway), or, if ADA rules make domes impossible, they can build single level "panorama cars" like the ones of the Glacier and Bernina Expresses in Switzerland.


----------



## railiner

If they did decide to make all long distance trains single level, for a sightseer type lounge car, they could use the type of Panorama car used by VIA Rail and Alaska RR, with glass roof panels. And to improve the experience further, they could take a page out of Disney Cruise Lines book, and have 'virtual railfan windows' on the bulkheads at each end, a video screen fed by roof mounted tv camera's showing front and rear views in real time...


----------



## Andrew

A


Steve4031 said:


> I still think standardizing with venture cars is the key. This would eliminate concerns with clearance and could open up opportunities for different long distance run through routes.
> 
> One interesting example imho would be a second version of the Lakeshore Limited that ran to NYP and then continues up to Boston. This provides a one seat ride from providence, New Haven and Stamford to pouts west of Albany.



Amtrak might order Venture Coaches for the LD trains but order bi-levels for The Auto Train.


----------



## Caesar La Rock

Amtrak may end up getting both single level and bi level equipment, which they've done before as shown in the 1990s with the Superliner IIs and Viewliner Is. Just something that can't be ruled out either.


----------



## GDRRiley

Nick Farr said:


> If you've ever dealt with ADA compliant elevators in public transit, you will know that this is *absolutely* not the case. Even the dumb waiters in the cafe car have a lot of maintenance problems that come up--and you don't have nearly the same weight/duty/safety cycle for those.
> 
> Then you're taking away at least 1/8th of the footprint of the car to make sure there's enough clearance for the elevator on both levels and its mechanical systems.
> 
> Further, elevators in public transit are fixed into the ground. Developing a wheelchair lift that can survive hundreds of thousands of acceleration and braking cycles and lift 300 lbs is a technical challenge that I'm not sure has been addressed in the industry.


there already ones made its not a new idea
this is stadlers Bi level, the wheelchair lift takes up 2 rows of seats. 




Nick Farr said:


> Then, you have the issue of making sure the hallways are wide enough to accommodate wheelchairs. Because--if not, why would you have elevators?


hallways already need to be wider for ADA and they are no wider than on a single level car


----------



## GDRRiley

Andrew said:


> Amtrak might order Venture Coaches for the LD trains but order bi-levels for The Auto Train.


auto train isn't that special they won't get custom cars just for it


railiner said:


> If they did decide to make all long distance trains single level, for a sightseer type lounge car, they could use the type of Panorama car used by VIA Rail and Alaska RR, with glass roof panels. And to improve the experience further, they could take a page out of Disney Cruise Lines book, and have 'virtual railfan windows' on the bulkheads at each end, a video screen fed by roof mounted tv camera's showing front and rear views in real time...


its far more likely if they went single level they'd bring back a big/great dome full length unit for operations outside of the NEC


----------



## lordsigma

GDRRiley said:


> auto train isn't that special they won't get custom cars just for it


Maybe maybe not. It is the highest revenue long distance train in the system and had the best revenue vs expenses in the entire Amtrak system in FY2022. I suspect it will be “in mind” when considering the long distance fleet at the least.


----------



## TheMalahat

Willbridge said:


> Regarding the idea of a joint order with VIA, remember that political leadership in Canada nixed purchase of built-in-Canada Bombardier Superliners because of so much of the design work already having been done in the States. That was in spite of a successful demonstration set run on the _Panorama. _It would have been great to have compatible cars for tour operators and special events, but an actual joint purchase would get tangled up.



That was 40 years ago.

Generally, Canada does not have buy-in-Canada provisions for all except the most-major capital projects. The Siemens order that started service last week is a far better comparison; it has no Canadian content for all intent & purpose.

Via Rail Canada currently has an open invitation for long-distance car builders to make submissions for fleet replacement; Via is ahead of Amtrak right now, but also tends to contract _much more slowly._


----------



## west point

GDRRiley said:


> I believe that height means they are also an issue in some tunnels out west that haven't been increased in size.
> I know for sure most of the bridges and tunnels on the Coast starlight route in central callifornia are not double stack compatible as UP has proposed the state paying to make that happen.


California is so passenger train orientated that a three way ( UP, CA DOT, FED GOV by of Amtrak ) paid proposal might be possible. Does anyone know which tunnels are not plat "H" and what their clearances are?


----------



## GDRRiley

west point said:


> California is so passenger train orientated that a three way ( UP, CA DOT, FED GOV by of Amtrak ) paid proposal might be possible. Does anyone know which tunnels are not plat "H" and what their clearances are?


UP wants the state to pay for it as part of the proposed coast daylight. The state hasn't ordered railcars so a coast daylight isn't happening soon

there are 5 tunnels and Bradley Bridge would need work to get SD to Oakland Plate H cleared. I belive its 3-4 ft of material would need to be removed from the roof. 

that doesn't fix moffet which is not plate H



Spoiler: map


----------



## sitzplatz17

lordsigma said:


> Maybe maybe not. It is the highest revenue long distance train in the system and had the best revenue vs expenses in the entire Amtrak system in FY2022. I suspect it will be “in mind” when considering the long distance fleet at the least.


Auto train might actually be a good candidate for the Stadler cars that Rocky Mountaineer uses since I don’t think it has any tunnels or other significant height clearances on the route? Besides, it kind of has its own captive fleet anyway.


----------



## GDRRiley

sitzplatz17 said:


> Auto train might actually be a good candidate for the Stadler cars that Rocky Mountaineer uses since I don’t think it has any tunnels or other significant height clearances on the route? Besides, it kind of has its own captive fleet anyway.


they've got roughly 10 sleepers 2 cafes/diners and 4 coaches plus 1 lounge per train
I'd bet if they did order non standard cars we'd see a fleet in the 60-70 car range allow sets to be expanded while still having a 20% spare ratio. 

For example 16 sleepers, 2 dinners, 1 cafe, 6 coach cars would require 
4 cafes 
6 diners
38 sleepers
14 coach


----------



## Steve4031

That would release superliners to be used in other parts of the system.


----------



## jis

GDRRiley said:


> they've got roughly 10 sleepers 2 cafes/diners and 4 coaches plus 1 lounge per train
> I'd bet if they did order non standard cars we'd see a fleet in the 60-70 car range allow sets to be expanded while still having a 20% spare ratio.
> 
> For example 16 sleepers, 2 dinners, 1 cafe, 6 coach cars would require
> 4 cafes
> 6 diners
> 38 sleepers
> 14 coach


They might need to beef up the HEP capacity a bit to power that many cars. But even at max possible HEP load in the Amtrak HEP system (1.2MW) the proposed train cannot be powered. The proposed train requires close to 1.3MW.

The American standard of 480v HEP severely limits the power that can be distributed using reasonable sized cables. Too bad that RIC standard of Europe which allows 1000v, 1500v or 3000v HEP standard has not been adopted in the US. I guess no one thought anyone would ever run such long passenger trains in the US.

For a very good quick reference for info on US HEP standards






HEP Trainline Configurations in North America


Various HEP systems used to transmit power from the central generator to the rest of the passenger train.



www.nwrail.com


----------



## Andrew

How many trainsets does The Auto Train use?


----------



## lordsigma

Amtrak mentioned at one point a possibility that the new ALC 42 locomotives could allow for a couple extra superliner cars in the Auto Train consist when they listed the benefits of the ALC42's - but it sounded like something they would need to study further once they had the engines to see what can be done. I doubt that many is on the horizon though. Even if the ALC 42's allow them to physically add more cars I think I heard it may also require an amendment to their agreements with CSX for the Auto Train (which is completely separate from their other agreements to CSX) to allow for more cars as I believe there is a maximum amount of passenger cars stipulated in the deal.


----------



## cirdan

Steve4031 said:


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



Whereas I acknowledge there is an argument for the interchangeability of equipment between services, I do not not think total standardization to a single type (which is what would reduce maintenance issues) is ever achievable or desirable across the fleet. Equipment has different ages and thus represents different stages of technological and manufacturing progress. This is actually a good thing IMHO as if all equipment were of the same generation it would all need to be replaced in a single push which would require a lot of money being invested in a single bang. It would also be bad for industry as skills would be lost and need to be rebuilt with inevitable mistakes and inefficiencies.


----------



## jis

lordsigma said:


> Amtrak mentioned at one point a possibility that the new ALC 42 locomotives could allow for a couple extra superliner cars in the Auto Train consist when they listed the benefits of the ALC42's - but it sounded like something they would need to study further once they had the engines to see what can be done. I doubt that many is on the horizon though. Even if the ALC 42's allow them to physically add more cars I think I heard it may also require an amendment to their agreements with CSX for the Auto Train (which is completely separate from their other agreements to CSX) to allow for more cars as I believe there is a maximum amount of passenger cars stipulated in the deal.


If they get ALC42s with 1.2MW HEP inverters then they could theoretically add upto 4 Sleepers or 5 Coaches over and above what they can already have with 1MW HEP. Beyond that they will have to change out the entire HEP system since 1.2MW is the Max capacity of the current specification and installation due to cable limitations and such.


----------



## Ryan

Andrew said:


> How many trainsets does The Auto Train use?


Just two. That's why delays cascade and are so hard to recover from (and end up with cancellations so often to get back on schedule). The operation depends on the train arriving in the morning to depart in the other direction that afternoon.


----------



## joelkfla

jis said:


> If they get ALC42s with 1.2MW HEP inverters then they could theoretically add upto 4 Sleepers or 5 Coaches over and above what they can already have with 1MW HEP. Beyond that they will have to change out the entire HEP system since 1.2MW is the Max capacity of the current specification and installation due to cable limitations and such.


Could a locomotive be inserted between the last passenger car and the auto carriers, to provide isolated HEP to the rearmost cars?


----------



## Andrew

Ryan said:


> Just two. That's why delays cascade and are so hard to recover from (and end up with cancellations so often to get back on schedule). The operation depends on the train arriving in the morning to depart in the other direction that afternoon.



So what happens if one trainset needs to be taken out of service?


----------



## Ryan

You don't take a whole trainset out of service. If there are cars that need service, they're swapped out for cars that don't need service and then serviced.


----------



## jis

joelkfla said:


> Could a locomotive be inserted between the last passenger car and the auto carriers, to provide isolated HEP to the rearmost cars?


Current FRA rules do not allow two disconnected HEP segments in the same locomotive hauled train. So no, under current rules that is not possible.

One workaround may be to use fully self contained articulated E/DMUs which can be strung together to form long trains, with each E/DMU unit having its own self contained hotel power supply that cannot be connected to adjacent units.


----------



## cirdan

joelkfla said:


> Could a locomotive be inserted between the last passenger car and the auto carriers, to provide isolated HEP to the rearmost cars?


A generator car might be more suitable for this type of thing.


----------



## jis

cirdan said:


> A generator car might be more suitable for this type of thing.


Current FRA rules would not allow HEP to be provided from multiple sources even in disconnected HEP loops in a single train. It does not matter whether it is a locmotive or a generator car providing the second source.


----------



## cirdan

jis said:


> Current FRA rules would not allow HEP to be provided from multiple sources even in disconnected HEP loops in a single train. It does not matter whether it is a locmotive or a generator car providing the second source.


What does Brightline do? Is one locomotive physically disconnected from the HEP line?


----------



## jis

cirdan said:


> What does Brightline do? Is one locomotive physically disconnected from the HEP line?


No. Only one locomotive provides HEP. The other does not, just like in a multi-unit lashup on an Amtrak train, only one locomotive provides HEP. The others do not.


----------



## lordsigma

jis said:


> If they get ALC42s with 1.2MW HEP inverters then they could theoretically add upto 4 Sleepers or 5 Coaches over and above what they can already have with 1MW HEP. Beyond that they will have to change out the entire HEP system since 1.2MW is the Max capacity of the current specification and installation due to cable limitations and such.


I believe the P42 HEP limit was 800 KW and the ALC 42 is 1000 KW. So not sure how many cars that would amount to.


----------



## jis

lordsigma said:


> I believe the P42 HEP limit was 800 KW and the ALC 42 is 1000 KW. So not sure how many cars that would amount to.


200KW will enable adding 4 - 5 Coaches, and may be one fewer Sleepers. Diners and Cafes are the big power consumers.


----------



## lordsigma

I think their current max on Auto Train is 16 Superliners and it sounds like they are going to run the max during peak season this year - Amtrak hinted that last year they missed the FY22 target of 9 sleepers on the AT due to staffing shortages and ran 8 but it sounds like this year they're aiming to do it. With 9 sleepers the train will be maxed out with 16 Superliners. Once they get ALC 42s on the Auto Train I think they'd also need to negotiate a change to their agreement with CSX to allow for more than 16 passenger cars on the Auto Train before they can add cars. Someone who I suspect knows told me that the current agreements dictate no greater than 16 passenger cars.


----------



## GDRRiley

jis said:


> They might need to beef up the HEP capacity a bit to power that many cars. But even at max possible HEP load in the Amtrak HEP system (1.2MW) the proposed train cannot be powered. The proposed train requires close to 1.3MW.
> 
> The American standard of 480v HEP severely limits the power that can be distributed using reasonable sized cables. Too bad that RIC standard of Europe which allows 1000v, 1500v or 3000v HEP standard has not been adopted in the US. I guess no one thought anyone would ever run such long passenger trains in the US.


you could move the the 575V system that gets you 1.5MW capacity. with that I'd move to a dedicated HEP car and let the 2 locos put all their effort into pulling the train.

I just didn't take into account HEP. I wonder if moving to modern heatpumps could shave some of the power requirements off the average coach/sleeper. the level of insinuation will also affect how much you need.


----------



## cirdan

jis said:


> No. Only one locomotive provides HEP. The other does not, just like in a multi-unit lashup on an Amtrak train, only one locomotive provides HEP. The others do not.


yes sure, but on a multi locomotive lashup I understand the cables are physically not connected except for the locomotive that is nearest the train. So it is quite clear which locomotive is providing HEP, and no other locomotive could, not even through accident or error.


----------



## cirdan

GDRRiley said:


> you could move the the 575V system that gets you 1.5MW capacity. with that I'd move to a dedicated HEP car and let the 2 locos put all their effort into pulling the train.
> 
> I just didn't take into account HEP. I wonder if moving to modern heatpumps could shave some of the power requirements off the average coach/sleeper. the level of insinuation will also affect how much you need.



In contrast to insulating a building and making it super energy efficient, on a moving train there is a trade off between the usefulness of measures and the extra weight they add to the train. The latter ultimately requires more pulling power and more fuel consumption which may negate much of the gains attributed to heat efficiency and recovery.


----------



## jis

cirdan said:


> yes sure, but on a multi locomotive lashup I understand the cables are physically not connected except for the locomotive that is nearest the train. So it is quite clear which locomotive is providing HEP, and no other locomotive could, not even through accident or error.


Cables are connected to both locomotives. It is just that only one can be in active HEP mode. Trying to put more than one in active mode would trip the whole system because there is no mechanism to synchronize the inverters.

In an articulated train like the Brightline ones with digital bus connecting everything together in a local internet, the two locomotive controls can even be interlocked to prevent such a thing from happening.


----------



## lordsigma

jis said:


> Cables are connected to both locomotives. It is just that only one can be in active HEP mode. Trying to put more than one in active mode would trip the whole system because there is no mechanism to synchronize the inverters.
> 
> In an articulated train like the Brightline ones with digital bus connecting everything together in a local internet, the two locomotive controls can even be interlocked to prevent such a thing from happening.


I was on the Auto Train on a trip last year where they had an HEP issue and switched the HEP between engines. I believe the normal practice is the lead unit runs as traction only providing the bulk of the traction with the second unit supplying HEP and some traction. This was the case on that train and the HEP unit tripped - the loss of load caused the prime mover to begin overheating. They then switched HEP over to the lead unit which was successful. They then attempted to reset the other unit without HEP on - thankfully it successfully began loading the traction motors with HEP off and the alarms reset and the prime mover temperature started to come down so we were able to complete the trip at nomal speeds.


----------



## lordsigma

The ALC 42 switched to a HEP inverter instead of an HEP alternator so the engine RPM can follow the traction load even in HEP mode correct?


----------



## GDRRiley

lordsigma said:


> The ALC 42 switched to a HEP inverter instead of an HEP alternator so the engine RPM can follow the traction load even in HEP mode correct?


yes. older units like P40 had to be locked to a specific RPM to make HEP. the P42 with max hep draw drops all the way down to 2500hp for traction motors


----------



## lordsigma

Amtrak has posted the RFP for the engineering services for the Long distance fleet replacement.


----------



## GDRRiley

lordsigma said:


> Amtrak has posted the RFP for the engineering services for the Long distance fleet replacement.


got a link?


----------



## Ryan

There isn't a lot of detail:


Amtrak Procurement Portal


----------



## lordsigma

GDRRiley said:


> got a link?


Ryan beat me to it. As he said not much detail it’s essentially an RFP to find an engineering firm to assist with the design and procurement process.


----------



## GDRRiley

Ryan said:


> There isn't a lot of detail:
> 
> 
> Amtrak Procurement Portal


that tells us basically nothing


----------



## Palmland

lordsigma said:


> Someone who I suspect knows told me that the current agreements dictate no greater than 16 passenger cars.


First I’ve heard of that limit although there was a 50 total car limit at one time. Not sure why CSX would care about the number of passenger cars? Hope they do get to 9 sleepers as additional capacity will keep fares lower, at least if traveling in the opposite direction of the seasonal swings. That’s something that has worked well for us.


----------



## frequentflyer

sitzplatz17 said:


> Auto train might actually be a good candidate for the Stadler cars that Rocky Mountaineer uses since I don’t think it has any tunnels or other significant height clearances on the route? Besides, it kind of has its own captive fleet anyway.


That would make sense, the auto carriers used are captive, why not the pax cars. And order enough for three full sets. For the times when a late Auto Train cannot be turned in time.


----------



## GDRRiley

frequentflyer said:


> That would make sense, the auto carriers used are captive, why not the pax cars. And order enough for three full sets. For the times when a late Auto Train cannot be turned in time.


you'd need 4 full sets if you wanted to deal with late arrivals. the thing that will improve autotrain OT performance quite a bit is if southeast HSR happens and they can run it down the S line for a section 
while I doubt amtrak will get 110 or 125mph capable autoracks being able to control dispatching would help a lot


----------



## sitzplatz17

frequentflyer said:


> That would make sense, the auto carriers used are captive, why not the pax cars. And order enough for three full sets. For the times when a late Auto Train cannot be turned in time.


Precisely, and you free up a whole bunch of Superliners for the west. Probably one of the fastest ways to increase capacity on other trains. Also would add to the “premier“ feeling of the Auto Train to have their own rolling stock. 


GDRRiley said:


> you'd need 4 full sets if you wanted to deal with late arrivals. the thing that will improve autotrain OT performance quite a bit is if southeast HSR happens and they can run it down the S line for a section
> while I doubt amtrak will get 110 or 125mph capable autoracks being able to control dispatching would help a lot


How much would SEHSR shave off? I feel like the current timings for the AT are pretty great. Maybe a slightly later departure (like 6pm?) would be good but I think the issue there is finding a slot amongst VRE and other Amtrak trains when headed SB from Lorton.

It just seems like going for an existing rolling stock type (that’s very ADA compliant) that’s on the market gives more time to procure and design a solution for the other routes, regardless of if that ends up being a bunch more single level Ventures, or some unknown future product.


----------



## GDRRiley

sitzplatz17 said:


> Precisely, and you free up a whole bunch of Superliners for the west. Probably one of the fastest ways to increase capacity on other trains. Also would add to the “premier“ feeling of the Auto Train to have their own rolling stock.


They just need to start fixing the superliners they have, whatever it takes to get beach grove fixing cars and getting more of the fleet out into service needs to happen.


sitzplatz17 said:


> How much would SEHSR shave off? I feel like the current timings for the AT are pretty great. Maybe a slightly later departure (like 6pm?) would be good but I think the issue there is finding a slot amongst VRE and other Amtrak trains when headed SB from Lorton.


less so reduce time more make a major section of it consistently fast and less likely to have delays. Unless they get autoracks that can do 110mph. That would make the Richmond to Savannah section under 5 hours vs its current 7 hours. 

They'd likely join back up at Savannah


sitzplatz17 said:


> It just seems like going for an existing rolling stock type (that’s very ADA compliant) that’s on the market gives more time to procure and design a solution for the other routes, regardless of if that ends up being a bunch more single level Ventures, or some unknown future product.


Stadler made these in Europe so to build a batch here wouldn't be a quick as the shells would get made there then set to their US plan in SLC to be finished and without a competitive bid other manufactures would be mad.


----------



## lordsigma

GDRRiley said:


> that tells us basically nothing


It's an engineering services procurement so one wouldn't expect any earth-shattering details as this engineering firm is likely to assist in developing the program. Still the mere fact that it's going out is newsworthy.


----------



## John819

lordsigma said:


> It's an engineering services procurement so one wouldn't expect any earth-shattering details as this engineering firm is likely to assist in developing the program. Still the mere fact that it's going out is newsworthy.


Yes. It means that management is going ahead with building a new LD fleet.


----------



## joelkfla

sitzplatz17 said:


> Precisely, and you free up a whole bunch of Superliners for the west. Probably one of the fastest ways to increase capacity on other trains. Also would add to the “premier“ feeling of the Auto Train to have their own rolling stock.


You're overlooking the fact that this entire thread is about replacing the Superliners. So you wouldn't be increasing capacity by freeing them up for use on lines other than the AutoTrain, you'd just be retiring them with all the rest.


----------



## GDRRiley

joelkfla said:


> You're overlooking the fact that this entire thread is about replacing the Superliners. So you wouldn't be increasing capacity by freeing them up for use on lines other than the AutoTrain, you'd just be retiring them with all the rest.


amtrak though won't have the replacment for the overall fleet for close to a decade and so if you could get some cars just for autotrain early that would free up cars till the replacements come in.


----------



## joelkfla

GDRRiley said:


> amtrak though won't have the replacment for the overall fleet for close to a decade and so if you could get some cars just for autotrain early that would free up cars till the replacements come in.


They're hoping to order replacements by end of 2024. Why would AutoTrain-specific replacements be available any sooner?


----------



## jis

joelkfla said:


> They're hoping to order replacements by end of 2024. Why would AutoTrain-specific replacements be available any sooner?


It seems to me that this Auto Train only replacement is an AU fantasy that is not grounded in any reality given what we heard from Mr. Chestler today.


----------



## GDRRiley

joelkfla said:


> They're hoping to order replacements by end of 2024. Why would AutoTrain-specific replacements be available any sooner?


If they didn't go to bid contract using a mostly off the shelf design stalder may be able to deliver them sooner. Will they do it? almost certainly not.


----------



## west point

The VIA solution of being able to use two locos for HEP enables a much longer train. Rode a VIA #2 having 28 in service revenue cars. Its HEP was powered by 2 of the three opperating F-40 locos providing that HEP. VIA System uses a cross over plan that splits load to every other car. The way the cars are wired it appears that that wiring would allow immediate connection to a regular Amtrak HEP train. If not the wiring in these special wired cars might need an extra set of transfer relays.

Essentially power comes in the right front HEP car connection to power that car and that line exits by the left rear connection. Power coming in left front car connection passes thru car to right rear without poweing that car. Each car does have a cross tie relay to connect it to left front cable if right front source fails, 

The locos can be configured to either provide power to one cross over line only and pass the other connection thru loco. If only one loco used then loco provides HEP to both sides of connections.
Now Via type locos used to pull cars on a regular Amtrak train would need no modifications.

Now would different station ground cabinets need any modifications? Have no idea how each are wired or their load capacity for the track(s) they service.


----------



## jis

west point said:


> The VIA solution of being able to use two locos for HEP enables a much longer train. Rode a VIA #2 having 28 in service revenue cars. Its HEP was powered by 2 of the three opperating F-40 locos providing that HEP. VIA System uses a cross over plan that splits load to every other car. The way the cars are wired it appears that that wiring would allow immediate connection to a regular Amtrak HEP train. If not the wiring in these special wired cars might need an extra set of transfer relays.
> 
> Essentially power comes in the right front HEP car connection to power that car and that line exits by the left rear connection. Power coming in left front car connection passes thru car to right rear without poweing that car. Each car does have a cross tie relay to connect it to left front cable if right front source fails,
> 
> The locos can be configured to either provide power to one cross over line only and pass the other connection thru loco. If only one loco used then loco provides HEP to both sides of connections.
> Now Via type locos used to pull cars on a regular Amtrak train would need no modifications.
> 
> Now would different station ground cabinets need any modifications? Have no idea how each are wired or their load capacity for the track(s) they service.


In case you missed this up above 






HEP Trainline Configurations in North America


Various HEP systems used to transmit power from the central generator to the rest of the passenger train.



www.nwrail.com


----------



## John819

It appears from this thread that the two main issues for Superliner (and Viewliner / Amfleet II) replacement are ADA compliance and HEP. These are interrelated, but clearly are solvable.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

John819 said:


> It appears from this thread that the two main issues for Superliner (and Viewliner / Amfleet II) replacement are ADA compliance and HEP. These are interrelated, but clearly are solvable.


How are ADA and HEP interrelated?


----------



## John819

AmtrakBlue said:


> Are are ADA and HEP interrelated?


If ADA compliance requires single level cars or double level cars with elevators, then there will be more cars on LD trains, which will probably require a new solution for HEP.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

GDRRiley said:


> you'd need 4 full sets if you wanted to deal with late arrivals. the thing that will improve autotrain OT performance quite a bit is if southeast HSR happens and they can run it down the S line for a section
> while I doubt amtrak will get 110 or 125mph capable autoracks being able to control dispatching would help a lot



Actually you’d need 4 full sets of passenger cars (call it 16), and four full sets of auto racks (30 each?) so 64 passenger cars plus 2 spares of each type you 75 pax cars, and 125 auto racks, versus the number they use now, plus construction of two extra sets of platforms and rack loading docks (because otherwise the late train would have to be held waiting for the spare set to depart) in order to combat lateness on the train whose audience is the least truly time sensitive of any train? 

Among most so called transit advocates I think I am among the least “wasteful spending” sensitive, but that hits my gag reflex!



John819 said:


> Yes. It means that management is going ahead with building a new LD fleet.


No, I hate to inject my cynicism here, but it means management has decided to go ahead with enough consideration of the idea of fleet replacement that they want to pay somebody to help them decide what kind of equipment they would select in that eventuality. I believe 20-25 years passed between the design of the first view liner diner and its prototype and the construction of a second car of that type. All that initially came out of that contract was a reduction of the single level sleeper fleet from ~125 cars to 50, with two major train cancellations and several superliner switchovers to accomodate that.


----------



## cirdan

GDRRiley said:


> If they didn't go to bid contract using a mostly off the shelf design stalder may be able to deliver them sooner. Will they do it? almost certainly not.


They might get the bid through sooner but then they would have to follow it up with decades of maintaining a non-standard and very tiny sub-fleet.


----------



## GDRRiley

Green Maned Lion said:


> Actually you’d need 4 full sets of passenger cars (call it 16), and four full sets of auto racks (30 each?) so 64 passenger cars plus 2 spares of each type you 75 pax cars, and 125 auto racks, versus the number they use now, plus construction of two extra sets of platforms and rack loading docks (because otherwise the late train would have to be held waiting for the spare set to depart) in order to combat lateness on the train whose audience is the least truly time sensitive of any train?
> 
> Among most so called transit advocates I think I am among the least “wasteful spending” sensitive, but that hits my gag reflex!


I agree its the most expensive way to fix an issue thats all down to dispatching.


Green Maned Lion said:


> No, I hate to inject my cynicism here, but it means management has decided to go ahead with enough consideration of the idea of fleet replacement that they want to pay somebody to help them decide what kind of equipment they would select in that eventuality. I believe 20-25 years passed between the design of the first view liner diner and its prototype and the construction of a second car of that type. All that initially came out of that contract was a reduction of the single level sleeper fleet from ~125 cars to 50, with two major train cancellations and several superliner switchovers to accomodate that.


Its on their roadmaps to have the LD fleet be replaced by the early 2030s. They need to and they've got funding for it. 
had amtrak gotten more funding in the 90s and had MK not gone under they had a plan to get 500-600 viewliner which were to become the new car for eastern LD. With MK folding the 277 options after the 50 sleepers got canned.



cirdan said:


> They might get the bid through sooner but then they would have to follow it up with decades of maintaining a non-standard and very tiny sub-fleet.


I don't think I'd call 50+ a tiny subfleet and plenty of other operators run a wide mix of fleets. The ideas of standardization hit a wall, theres very little diffrence in 4 sets of 500 cars vs 3 sets of 700. Most countires don't order all their railcars once every 50 years.


----------



## fengshui

Ryan said:


> There isn't a lot of detail:
> 
> 
> Amtrak Procurement Portal


Anyone connected to an engineering firm enough to request the RFP documents from Jessica Nesbitt? Or anyone willing to try to get them as a member of the public?


----------



## lordsigma

Green Maned Lion said:


> No, I hate to inject my cynicism here, but it means management has decided to go ahead with enough consideration of the idea of fleet replacement that they want to pay somebody to help them decide what kind of equipment they would select in that eventuality. I believe 20-25 years passed between the design of the first view liner diner and its prototype and the construction of a second car of that type. All that initially came out of that contract was a reduction of the single level sleeper fleet from ~125 cars to 50, with two major train cancellations and several superliner switchovers to accomodate that.


There is a clear laid out path between initial RFI and NTP which I think indicates a plan and congress is clear about running long distance service. I'm sure the cynical among us won't believe it until that NTP actually occurs and possibly not even until every last car is on the property and in service but this was always going to be a process no matter who is in charge. Many years have passed since the Superliners were built and times have changed so it makes sense to take the time to develop the right program.


----------



## lordsigma

fengshui said:


> Anyone connected to an engineering firm enough to request the RFP documents from Jessica Nesbitt? Or anyone willing to try to get them as a member of the public?


When the RFI to carmakers goes out you should be able to get the documents from that procurement site. The thing out now is an RFP for an engineering firm so I wouldn't expect any kind of detailed documents associated with that RFP.


----------



## jis

lordsigma said:


> When the RFI to carmakers goes out you should be able to get the documents from that procurement site. The thing out now is an RFP for an engineering firm so I wouldn't expect any kind of detailed documents associated with that RFP.


I suspect the RFI document, when it comes out later this year, will be similar to the RFI that went out for the Amfleet I replacement. It should give one a pretty good idea of what sort of LD service the company envisages for the equipment they are looking to order. I suspect they will not spefiy details of the equipment, but describe the mission that the equipment must fulfill and then ask the responders to propose how they will fulfill the requirements of the mission(s), just as they did with the Amfleet I replacement project.


----------



## joelkfla

GDRRiley said:


> Its on their roadmaps to have the LD fleet be replaced by the early 2030s. They need to and they've got funding for it.
> had amtrak gotten more funding in the 90s and had MK not gone under they had a plan to get 500-600 viewliner which were to become the new car for eastern LD. With MK folding the 277 options after the 50 sleepers got canned.


What do you mean by "MK"?


----------



## jis

joelkfla said:


> What do you mean by "MK"?


Morrison-Knudsen. Actually the company of relevance to the Viewliner order was a subsidiary of MK called MK Transit (not to be confused with another subsidiary called MK Rail, which finally landed up to become a part of Wabtec, they did the locomotives while MK Transit did transit and passenger cars)

Actually though, I am not sure if MK (more specifically MK Transit) going under had anything to do with Congress not funding any further orders. Maybe it was more the other way around? Afterall at the end of the day the whole mess landed in the laps of Alstom following a bizarre circuitous path via Amerail, and eventually Alstom acquiring the Hornell plant and associated contracts. Which is one reason I was surprised when Amtrak chose CAF and not Alstom to do the Viewliner II order. The learning curve would have been much shorter at Alstom I had assumed, but who knows?

The Civil Engineering side of MK finally landed up as part of AECOM following an even more convoluted route. Basically its footprint in Boise ID vanished in the process.


----------



## GDRRiley

joelkfla said:


> What do you mean by "MK"?


Morrison–Knudsen who became Amerail and Motive power after their attempts to build rail cars failed badly.
they made Bart C2 which were the first to be retired, very troubled first gen California cars, M6 which were late and had early issues. 
About the only thing they did well was rebuilding of existing stock be that coaches or locos


----------



## GDRRiley

jis said:


> Actually though, I am not sure if MK (more specifically MK Transit) going under had anything to do with Congress not funding any further orders. Maybe it was more the other way around?


Trying to figure out the history at that time is a real mess. 

Best info I could find from 10 years back


> Amtrak initially ordered 50 sleepers from Amerail – M-K. The conventional wisdom was that the order would greatly expand through options to several hundred cars of all different types. The plan was to equip all single-level long distance trains with 100% Viewliner consists. M-K knew the plan, so they bid the 50-car order (which required assumption of all start-up costs) at a loss. The expectation was that forthcoming options for hundreds of additional cars (with the start-up costs already paid) would then be profitable. Sadly for M-K, money issues at Amtrak derailed that plan. No options were exercised. No cars other than the initial 50 were ordered. With only 50 cars to recoup the start-up costs, M-K took a bath on the Viewliner order. That, and similar problems with other car orders, sent M-K into Chapter 11.
> 
> The impact of the M-K bankruptcy on the Viewliner order was extended deliveries and quality control issues (plus I suspect some interesting discussions on payment terms). However, all the cars ordered by Amtrak were delivered. No portion of the order went unfulfilled. M-K was acquired by engineering-construction conglomerate Washington Group, and reverted to its roots as a heavy construction contractor. I suspect the M-K CEO who thought building railcars was a neat idea was handsomely rewarded and retired comfortably.


The Viewliner I Order Meltdown


----------



## jis

GDRRiley said:


> Trying to figure out the history at that time is a real mess.
> 
> Best info I could find from 10 years back
> 
> The Viewliner I Order Meltdown


My point is that I believe that options were not exercised because Congress refused to fund any more. Even the initial order was supposed to be 100 cars, but had to be cut back to 50 because there was no money for any more. I lived through it in the rail advocacy community back then, and the whole MK thing flabbergasted me a bit.

It is true that MK Transit was the loss leader among the various divisions of MK. If they had managed to shed MK Transit early on the rest of the company may have survived. But then MK appeared to be in the Rail business more as a matter of faith than a cogent business decision as it seemed to me even back then. They never had a business case to be doing what they were trying to do IMHO.


----------



## AmtrakFlyer

lordsigma said:


> There is a clear laid out path between initial RFI and NTP which I think indicates a plan and congress is clear about running long distance service. I'm sure the cynical among us won't believe it until that NTP actually occurs and possibly not even until every last car is on the property *and in service* but this was always going to be a process no matter who is in charge. Many years have passed since the Superliners were built and times have changed so it makes sense to take the time to develop the right program.


That is a concern seeing we have some new viewliners never placed in service. Long term policy has to be longer than the current management and Congress at the time, good or bad.


----------



## jis

AmtrakFlyer said:


> That is a concern seeing we have some new viewliners never placed in service. Long term policy has to be longer than the current management and Congress at the time, good or bad.


By the nature of how Amtrak gets funded it is fantasy to think that Amtrak will have a consistent long term policy beyond a couple of years as Congress tends to zig and zag along and the policy governing the entire country is not as long terms as it ought to be. The fix for that constant problem is not to order things haphazardly either because change in policy would equally undermine haphazard orders. Might as well do it right and try to steer the ship the right way.

When the original Viewliner order was put together there was a consistent plan to order a large number of them. The original order was supposed to be 100 cars IIRC. In spite of all the good intentions Congress would not fund more than 50. So promises were made about funding a second tranche and of course things came to a nought and as it turned out the company that was given the order to satisfy all the NIH desires of the time did not really have a business case that would allow it to survive even through final delivery. At least this time around hopefully the order won't be placed with a company that had three of its paws in the grave.

A prime example of effects of Congress zigging and zagging on policy - the Mica directive on F&B came after the Viewliner II order for Diners was placed.


----------



## NES28

A major frustration is that the additional VL sleepers (VL2) have not been deployed to increase single level sleeper capacity, as was the stated plan. Per this week's RPA Amtrak webinar only now is Amtrak starting to design an overhaul/modification program for the VL1 sleepers. So we will still have a long wait for the capacity increase that we thought was being planned years ago.


----------



## jis

NES28 said:


> A major frustration is that the additional VL sleepers (VL2) have not been deployed to increase single level sleeper capacity, as was the stated plan. Per this week's RPA Amtrak webinar only now is Amtrak starting to design an overhaul/modification program for the VL1 sleepers. So we will still have a long wait for the capacity increase that we thought was being planned years ago.


Actually all VL II Sleepers have been deployed while almost an equivalent number of VL I Sleepers have been temporarily withdrawn awaiting various levels of overhaul.


----------



## NES28

jis said:


> Actually all VL II Sleepers have been deployed while almost an equivalent number of VL I Sleepers have been temporarily withdrawn awaiting various levels of overhaul.


Yes, that's my point. Amtrak has waited for years after delivery of the last VL2 sleeper to even start design of the VL1 program, allowing them to keep fares extraordinarily high, hurting riders and thrawting the will of Congress. The overhaul should have been designed before completion of delivery of the VL2s which would have allowed the work to be done by now, with all of the cars in service. Fares would be lower.


----------



## jis

NES28 said:


> Yes, that's my point. Amtrak has waited for years after delivery of the last VL2 sleeper to even start design of the VL1 program, allowing them to keep fares extraordinarily high, hurting riders and thrawting the will of Congress. The overhaul should have been designed before completion of delivery of the VL2s which would have allowed the work to be done by now, with all of the cars in service. Fares would be lower.


I don't think the so called VL1 program is anything beyond the superficial face lift that the Superliner Coaches and Sleepers are going through, which no doubt is very necessary and desirable. But if you are thinking that the VL I program will replace the current modules by VL II like modules then you may be over reading into the so called VL1 program as it stands today.


----------



## west point

jis said:


> I don't think the so called VL1 program is anything beyond the superficial face lift that the Superliner Coaches and Sleepers are going through, which no doubt is very necessary and desirable.


 It seems that any written material from Amtrak is suspect. The written garbage is such that various persons can interpret it differetly.


----------



## Ryan

west point said:


> It seems that any written material from Amtrak is suspect. The written garbage is such that various persons can interpret it differetly.


Does that make the written material suspect or the fanciful delusions of people that want to put their own meaning suspect?


----------



## jis

west point said:


> It seems that any written material from Amtrak is suspect. The written garbage is such that various persons can interpret it differetly.


That is a pretty sweeping statement. Did you have any specific written material in mind? With regard to Viewliner I refresh, nowhere has Amtrak said anything about doing anything beyond the refresh that they have talked about. OTOH, they have specifically said that the originally proposed modification of VL Is to become like VL IIs is currently off the table, and AFAIK there has been no subsequent statement rescinding the previous one.

There is a separate matter of the replacement of the entire LD fleet which in an extreme scenario may even include early retirement of all Viewliners. We do not know for sure how that will go, and a lot will depend on whether they want to go for a single all spanning single level fleet or not too. We won't know about what will happen for a couple of years as the procurement process goes through its various steps as was spelled out by Mr. Chestler.


----------



## NES28

jis said:


> That is a pretty sweeping statement. Did you have any specific written material in mind? With regard to Viewliner I refresh, nowhere has Amtrak said anything about doing anything beyond the refresh that they have talked about. OTOH, they have specifically said that the originally proposed modification of VL Is to become like VL IIs is currently off the table, and AFAIK there has been no subsequent statement rescinding the previous one.


I assume that when Mr. Chessler discussed an upcoming "design" effort he was talking about more than reupholstering


----------



## Paniolo Man

Interested in a few thoughts here.

If the Pioneer/Desert Wind were to be restored as the states of Idaho, Utah, and Nevada are requesting, would Amtrak incorporate that increased need into future passenger car orders? Or would they purchase dedicated equipment and have states operate it? 

The idea of Amtrak potentially ordering from Stadler is intriguing to me. Since the Rocky Mountaineer cars were delivered they now have a rolling stock manufacturing facility in Salt Lake City and room to grow significantly if needed. With Utah looking at regional routes and restored service on Pioneer/DW I believe that a service facility for Amtrak and/or regional service could be operated out of UTA's Warm Springs shops, UTA only uses about half of that space if I understand correctly. More track could be purchased from UP since they have shifted most work out of the North Yard. This would be ideal for hypothetical Stadler cars as they would be close to the manufacturer for heavier service and parts.


----------



## jis

Paniolo Man said:


> Interested in a few thoughts here.
> 
> If the Pioneer/Desert Wind were to be restored as the states of Idaho, Utah, and Nevada are requesting, would Amtrak incorporate that increased need into future passenger car orders? Or would they purchase dedicated equipment and have states operate it?


If things are done according to current law, since both would be traveling over distances longer than 750 miles they would rightfully be LD trains and not state supported ones, so they would be Amtrak's responsibility, not the individual state's.

If such comes to pass, most likely scenario would be Amtrak exercising options on their LD equipment order to equip such trains. Actually that is what would happen most likely irrespective of who actually pays for and runs those trains, since the price per car would probably be quite attractive if done that way compared to a separate order just for those trains.


----------



## dlagrua

In reading through this thread I would say the decision on purchasing single level or two level cars would be based on who could manufacture them. If the entire Western LD system is forced to go single level; Amtrak would lose much capacity (and revenue) on the sleeper cars. An example of this would be the Superliner with 7 bedrooms (1 H) and 14 roomettes as opposed to the Viewliners with only three bedrooms (1H) and 12 roomettes. That's a substantial difference.


----------



## Mailliw

Amtrak could make up for the loss of capacity with longer trains and/or running a 2nd section on each LD route.


----------



## Paniolo Man

dlagrua said:


> In reading through this thread I would say the decision on purchasing single level or two level cars would be based on who could manufacture them. If the entire Western LD system is forced to go single level; Amtrak would lose much capacity (and revenue) on the sleeper cars. An example of this would be the Superliner with 7 bedrooms (1 H) and 14 roomettes as opposed to the Viewliners with only three bedrooms (1H) and 12 roomettes. That's a substantial difference.



There are plenty of manufacturers that could manufacture bilevel cars. In fact an order as large as Amtrak will make (likely 400-500) would justify companies without an existing platform developing one. Alstom and Stadler are the most capable at the moment in my opinion. Amtrak orders enough equipment that they seem to drive markets more than rely on them.



Mailliw said:


> Amtrak could make up for the loss of capacity with longer trains and/or running a 2nd section on each LD route.



Many platforms are already too short as it is. Plus bilevel cars offer a massive level of flexibility. Superliners can have a full width areas that don't impede movement between cars (Cafe, larger Restroom/lounge, etc). I see having a wheelchair lift as less of a hassle then re-configuring so many platforms and making car layouts less efficient.


----------



## Mailliw

Finland and Russia have some pretth cool bilevel sleepers and I agree that bilevel cars offer more flexible layouts and more space, but if the goal is to allow wheelchair users to move both from one car to another while the train is in motion that will negate alot of the extra space. Every sleeping car and coach car would need an passenger rated elevator that Amtrak would have to maintain. This would also preclude bilevel designs that have the vestibule between cars on a mezzanine between the upper and lower levels (which would be a huge advantage to you want to mix single and bilevel cars in the same trainset).


----------



## GDRRiley

Mailliw said:


> Finland and Russia have some pretth cool bilevel sleepers and I agree that bilevel cars offer more flexible layouts and more space, but if the goal is to allow wheelchair users to move both from one car to another while the train is in motion that will negate alot of the extra space. Every sleeping car and coach car would need an passenger rated elevator that Amtrak would have to maintain. This would also preclude bilevel designs that have the vestibule between cars on a mezzanine between the upper and lower levels (which would be a huge advantage to you want to mix single and bilevel cars in the same trainset).


not every car would need them if you kept the walkway on the upper floor, only a few would


----------



## Caesar La Rock

GDRRiley said:


> not every car would need them if you kept the walkway on the upper floor, only a few would



I've always wondered if a bi level design is selected, do all the cars need an elevator or just certain cars need one to meet the ADA requirements? Also something I think should be considered a possibility, is the chance that if a bi-level design is selected, that the car could be slightly longer then the current Superliners. That could allow room for an elevator to be installed. There are 89ft passenger cars running around in the US after all, something to take note of.


----------



## GDRRiley

Caesar La Rock said:


> I've always wondered if a bi level design is selected, do all the cars need an elevator or just certain cars need one to meet the ADA requirements? Also something I think should be considered a possibility, is the chance that if a bi-level design is selected, that the car could be slightly longer then the current Superliners. That could allow room for an elevator to be installed.


As long as they can walk though the top level and everything is there I don't see why that would be an issue however ADA isn't what I'd call clear. 

they could make truck centers at 64-66ft over the current 59-60ft which would allow the cars to grow to 90ft but I'm not sure they can go much longer.


----------



## Caesar La Rock

GDRRiley said:


> As long as they can walk though the top level and everything is there I don't see why that would be an issue however ADA isn't what I'd call clear.
> 
> they could make truck centers at 64-66ft over the current 59-60ft which would allow the cars to grow to 90ft but I'm not sure they can go much longer.



ADA indeed is very tricky. The door for an elevator must be 36 inches wide, the depth of the elevator car has to be 51 inches deep, and the width must be 68 inches for those of you who are curious. As for whether cars can go 90ft, I'm not sure to be honest. I assume 89 based on the fact that Rocky Mountaineer, TriMet, and TriRail (before their cars went into the witness protection) have passenger cars that are 89ft.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

I'm not familiar with ADA for transport (as in the vehicles) but my understanding of it would lead me to think/believe that each car would need an elevator/list as _all _public areas would require accessibility.


----------



## jis

Caesar La Rock said:


> ADA indeed is very tricky. The door for an elevator must be 36 inches wide, the depth of the elevator car has to be 51 inches deep, and the width must be 68 inches for those of you who are curious. As for whether cars can go 90ft, I'm not sure to be honest. I assume 89 based on the fact that Rocky Mountaineer, TriMet, and TriRail (before their cars went into the witness protection) have passenger cars that are 89ft.


All of Colorado Rails' bi-level (and single level) DMU power and trailer cars including those used by TriMet and now retired due to poor reliability at TriRail are 85' long, not 89'. IIRC the power cars were used as unpowered cab cars at TriRail before retirement.



http://www.alaskarails.org/fp/passenger/751/dmu.pdf



IIRC only the Ultra-domes used by Rocky Mountaineer and Alaska Railroad (for Cruise Lines) are 89' long and 18' tall.


----------



## Steve4031

Asides from the dumb waiters used in Superliner dining cars, I am not aware of any train car that has an elevator on it. NJT and the Long Island RR run bilevel cars with no elevators. If ADA requires the use of elevators, then IMHO bilevel equipment is a non-starter. The elevators IMHO would not function well on moving trains traveling over tracks that are not always in the best condition.


----------



## jis

Steve4031 said:


> Asides from the dumb waiters used in Superliner dining cars, I am not aware of any train car that has an elevator on it. NJT and the Long Island RR run bilevel cars with no elevators. If ADA requires the use of elevators, then IMHO bilevel equipment is a non-starter. The elevators IMHO would not function well on moving trains traveling over tracks that are not always in the best condition.


The difference is that on Commuter trains there is no shared services served out of a single car on the train. So all that you have to provide is a toilet adjacent to the seating area for the Wheelchair bound and ability to get on and off at stations and you are pretty much done.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

jis said:


> The difference is that on Commuter trains there is no shared services served out of a single car on the train. So all that you have to provide is a toilet adjacent to the seating area for the Wheelchair bound and ability to get on and off at stations and you are pretty much done.


Perfect description!


----------



## GDRRiley

Steve4031 said:


> Asides from the dumb waiters used in Superliner dining cars, I am not aware of any train car that has an elevator on it. NJT and the Long Island RR run bilevel cars with no elevators. If ADA requires the use of elevators, then IMHO bilevel equipment is a non-starter. The elevators IMHO would not function well on moving trains traveling over tracks that are not always in the best condition.


stadler has them in their Bi levels for the Rocky Mountaineer and that isn't the first deployment of them


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Steve4031 said:


> Asides from the dumb waiters used in Superliner dining cars, I am not aware of any train car that has an elevator on it.


Ultra-domes on Alaska Railroad have elevators. I saw them used this summer -worked great.


----------



## frequentflyer

Reading the last two pages of posts about how to meet the ADA requirements pretty much guarantees a single level replacement. The best we can hope for is the return of the full length dome that will be added to the Western LD trains and maybe Cap Ltd.

Lighter single level trains will then allow more single locomotive operation on LD trains. With the new locomotives computerized predictive maintenance plans, Amtrak will convince themselves its a good idea.


----------



## John819

Even with single level there are many issues in making long distance railcars fully ADA compliant. For example, the required corridor width will make the roomettes very narrow.


----------



## jis

I don’t think the final version of the new ADA regulations are quite in hand yet. I think there will be some amount of negotiation that will happen, resulting in a final practical version. Just my guess given there are so many issues floating around relative to LD equipment.


----------



## IndyLions

Let's hope jis is correct about new ADA regulations. Accessibility is important and is the law - but intercity trains should have different, common sense requirements just like the airlines do.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Steve4031 said:


> Asides from the dumb waiters used in Superliner dining cars, I am not aware of any train car that has an elevator on it. NJT and the Long Island RR run bilevel cars with no elevators. If ADA requires the use of elevators, then IMHO bilevel equipment is a non-starter. The elevators IMHO would not function well on moving trains traveling over tracks that are not always in the best condition.


Though this one doesn’t look ADA compliant as it looks like you have to step over a short “barrier”. Upon further review (on my larger screen) I see the "barrier" starts to go down just before they move the camera up where you can't see the floor.


----------



## Shanson

I'm not certain how the transitions from car to car can be made ADA compliant for wheel chairs. Those joining plates (or whatever they are called) continually move up and down, even in single-level cars.







Oh wait, the freight railroads are eager to smooth out the track to accomodate passenger service. Aren't they?? 

/irony


----------



## John Santos

Shanson said:


> I'm not certain how the transitions from car to car can be made ADA compliant for wheel chairs. Those joining plates (or whatever they are called) continually move up and down, even in single-level cars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wait, the freight railroads are eager to smooth out the track to accomodate passenger service. Aren't they??
> 
> /irony


It is important that the floors be flat, not necessarily level. (Otherwise, wheelchair ramps couldn't exist!)

On some trains, the plates pivot up and down so the end of one car is even with the beginning of the next car, even when the plates have to tilt some to do it, so there is never any step or other barrier. I'm pretty sure the Acelas do that, and I think this is true of older trains as well. The plates are constantly moving up and down, especially on hills and bumpy tracks, so rolling across them isn't trivial, but there is no insurmountable ledge.

And yes, of course, the freight railroads are always trying to improve the passenger experience! /s


----------



## jis

It is the width of the gangways that made them unusable by full width wheelchairs in some cases. That barrier is also removed by better designed gangways.


----------



## west point

My wife was given a norrow wheelchair that she has not had to use yet However, It certainly makes many concerns fade Especially if in the future she has to visit homes with doors less than 36 inches.


----------

