# Superliner Refresh? Capitol Limited Suggestions, etc.



## Amtrakfflyer (Nov 22, 2018)

Just seeing the Superliners refreshed would do wonders for moral on the west coast trains (and the forum). We’re still waiting...


----------



## ehbowen (Nov 22, 2018)

Even the newest Superliners are old enough to buy alcohol. The older ones are nearly 40 years old...older than the oldest Heritage Fleet equipment Amtrak started with in 1971. I'd say we're past due for a major equipment order...and hopefully this time we can find a competent supplier!


----------



## Amtrakfflyer (Nov 23, 2018)

Or at least free up some Superliner equipment by using the V2 order and a few amfleets for the City of NO. Another reason the V2 order shouldn’t be canceled. Of all the trains the CNO would be the easiest to switch over. At least it would buy “some” time for the western LDTs that truly need SLs now.


----------



## cpotisch (Nov 23, 2018)

Amtrakfflyer said:


> Or at least free up some Superliner equipment by using the V2 order and a few amfleets for the City of NO. Another reason the V2 order shouldn’t be canceled. Of all the trains the CNO would be the easiest to switch over. At least it would buy “some” time for the western LDTs that truly need SLs now.


I actually think that the Capitol Limited is a better candidate for a switch to single-level equipment than the CONO, for two reasons. Firstly, the Cap is the only Superliner train serving WAS, so a switch to single-level cars would negate the need for staff in D.C. trained to work on Superliners, and secondly, if it were single-level it could possibly even be extended north to NYC. But I admit that I am _really_ dreaming with that second one.


----------



## ehbowen (Nov 23, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> I actually think that the Capitol Limited is a better candidate for a switch to single-level equipment than the CONO, for two reasons. Firstly, the Cap is the only Superliner train serving WAS, so a switch to single-level cars would negate the need for staff in D.C. trained to work on Superliners, and secondly, if it were single-level it could possibly even be extended north to NYC. But I admit that I am _really_ dreaming with that second one.


The original (B&O) _Capitol Limited_ did in fact serve Philadelphia (listening, PhillyAmtrakFan?) and New York (well, Jersey City) into the mid-1950s.


----------



## cpotisch (Nov 23, 2018)

And now that I think about it, if the Capitol ran up the NEC, it could be marketed as a sort of sister train to the Cardinal, while the Hoosier State is the shorter distance version. Like how we have the Silver Star, Silver Meteor, and Palmetto sort of branded as one thing.


----------



## railiner (Nov 23, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> I actually think that the Capitol Limited is a better candidate for a switch to single-level equipment than the CONO, for two reasons. Firstly, the Cap is the only Superliner train serving WAS, so a switch to single-level cars would negate the need for staff in D.C. trained to work on Superliners, and secondly, if it were single-level it could possibly even be extended north to NYC. But I admit that I am _really_ dreaming with that second one.


Agree...the Cap should be converted to Viewliner's, for the reason you cited, but also, more importantly, allow it to be combined with the Pennsylvanian at Pittsburgh...


----------



## west point (Nov 23, 2018)

Two quick reasons for making Capitol single level.  The first is the above reason of allowing thru cars Capitol <> Pennsylvanian. 2  ==================  Can also allow for thru connecting cars to the southbound  Meteor. That gives CHI - TOL one car guaranteed train service to Florida.


----------



## LookingGlassTie (Nov 23, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> Just so you know, almost every Amfleet I coach on the rails were refreshed months ago, so it's not really an "already" kind of thing, if that makes any sense.


Gotcha


----------



## cpotisch (Nov 23, 2018)

railiner said:


> ﻿ Agree...the Cap should be converted to Viewliner's, for the reason you cited, but also, more importantly, allow it to be combined with the Pennsylvanian at Pittsburgh...


You don't even need the Cap to be single-level to run through cars. Just put 'em behind the Trans-Dorm and you'd be all set. If memory serves, that's what they did with the old Crescent/Sunset Limited transcontinental through sleeper.


----------



## cpotisch (Nov 23, 2018)

west point said:


> Two quick reasons for making Capitol single level.  The first is the above reason of allowing thru cars Capitol <> Pennsylvanian. 2  ==================  Can also allow for thru connecting cars to the southbound  Meteor. That gives CHI - TOL one car guaranteed train service to Florida.


Superliners can run on the Meteor south of D.C, anyway, so why can't they just transfer a Trans-Dorm between the two trains and have a mixed consist south of WAS? Or don't even bother with that and just run a single level sleeper and/or coach for through-service cars. Either way, the current equipment on the Cap isn't the issue.


----------



## ehbowen (Nov 23, 2018)

Unless I miss my guess, when the _Crescent_ and _Sunset Limited_ were running a through transcontinental sleeper there were no trans-dorms; they weren't built until the Superliner IIs began arriving in 1993. Back then they used Santa Fe Hi-Levels for transition cars. While what you (cpotisch) are proposing is workable from a technical standpoint, in practice Amtrak personnel get the heebie-jeebies about letting passengers run around in and through crew space...and not without some reason.

I like the idea of converting the _Capitol Limited_ to single-level equipment and extending it from Washington to NYP *as well as* adding through cars from Pittsburgh to NYP via Harrisburg and Philadelphia. Very workable from a traffic and rail standpoint if only we had sufficient equipment and a management which was motivated to make best use of it.

Edit To Add: At the same time, truncate the _Cardinal_ to WAS-CHI and return it to Superliner equipment (unless the maintenance savings are big enough to justify keeping it single-level). A Sightseer Lounge on that route would be a big plus. Then consider the advantages of having a real dining car on the NEC between NYP and WAS during meal hours. Winner all around, IMHO.


----------



## cpotisch (Nov 23, 2018)

ehbowen said:


> Unless I miss my guess, when the _Crescent_ and _Sunset Limited_ were running a through transcontinental sleeper there were no trans-dorms; they weren't built until the Superliner IIs began arriving in 1993. Back then they used Santa Fe Hi-Levels for transition cars. While what you (cpotisch) are proposing is workable from a technical standpoint, in practice Amtrak personnel get the heebie-jeebies about letting passengers run around in and through crew space...and not without some reason.


You are correct. They used Hi-Level step-down coaches instead of Trans-Dorms. But either way, even if it is too big of an issue to run single-level cars on a bi-level train because those passengers would have to walk through the crew section, why not just run the Trans-Dorm as the through car the whole way? Put the crew in what is normal section of the Trans-Dorm, put through passengers in the revenue rooms of the Trans-Dorm, and then put Meteor-only passengers in all the other cars.


----------



## railiner (Nov 23, 2018)

Still think the Superliner's should serve only the transcons or at least only the 'western' trains.   Would allow longer consists and hopefully daily service on the Sunset, from the free'd up equipment.  I would go even further, and take the Superliner's from the Auto Train, too....


----------



## cpotisch (Nov 23, 2018)

railiner said:


> Still think the Superliner's should serve only the transcons or at least only the 'western' trains.   Would allow longer consists and hopefully daily service on the Sunset, from the free'd up equipment.  I would go even further, and take the Superliner's from the Auto Train, too....


I hear you and agree with all of that *except* for the AT. That train typically consists of 18 or so Superliners, in addition to 30+ auto racks. Even if there were enough single-level cars to outfit the Auto Train, each consist would be way too long to handle, AND Amtrak would be stuck with a bunch of oddball custom AT Superliners. There are six Deluxe Sleepers (all bedrooms on the upper-level), four Auto Train lounges (former dining cars with special booths and tables on the upper and lower levels), and one special SSL with nothing but tables on the upper-level. That last one is configured that way so that they can serve extra passengers if there are too many people for the *three* dining cars.

TLDR: Auto Train is insane and it would be difficult to change up the equipment.


----------



## west point (Nov 23, 2018)

Amtrak first needs to get enough LD single level cars to expand present single level trains to meet demand that will come with proper advertising.   Then next when it gets additional single levels convert Capitol then City of New Orleans to single level trains.  Take the Superliners from these substitutions and add them to the left over Superliner trains.  As well make the Eagle daily to LAX.  That will almost eliminate the need for Superliner maintenance at WASH except for necessary parts to ferry Auto train supers to Beech. Maybe even take the Sunset's Supers and use single levels SAS <> NOL ?  That will eliminate NOL as a Superliner maintenance base !

Our posters need to remember that the inventory of useable Supers will only decrease over time due to what ever reasons.  That sinks the Cardinal, Capitol, & CNO from eventually using them anyway !!


----------



## GBNorman (Nov 23, 2018)

ehbowen said:


> Even the newest Superliners are old enough to buy alcohol. The older ones are nearly 40 years old...older than the oldest Heritage Fleet equipment Amtrak started with in 1971.


To my knowledge, the oldest cars acquired by Amtrak were ex-NYC Diners built during '47. In fact, several of those cars joined the HEP'd "Heritage Fleet".

As built, those cars had both straight and "Banquette" tables. Of course, after Amtrak got through with "H-ing" them, the only way to know their NYC origin was a center car lightong strip.

'71-'47 sounds like twenty four years.


----------



## ehbowen (Nov 23, 2018)

I didn't have a roster of Heritage cars, so I was being conservative...the oldest which a streamlined car could possibly be (1935) would be 36 years. I'm sure that you're correct.


----------



## cpotisch (Nov 24, 2018)

ehbowen said:


> Unless I miss my guess, when the _Crescent_ and _Sunset Limited_ were running a through transcontinental sleeper there were no trans-dorms; they weren't built until the Superliner IIs began arriving in 1993. Back then they used Santa Fe Hi-Levels for transition cars. While what you (cpotisch) are proposing is workable from a technical standpoint, in practice Amtrak personnel get the heebie-jeebies about letting passengers run around in and through crew space...and not without some reason.
> 
> I like the idea of converting the _Capitol Limited_ to single-level equipment and extending it from Washington to NYP *as well as* adding through cars from Pittsburgh to NYP via Harrisburg and Philadelphia. Very workable from a traffic and rail standpoint if only we had sufficient equipment and a management which was motivated to make best use of it.
> 
> Edit To Add: At the same time, truncate the _Cardinal_ to WAS-CHI and return it to Superliner equipment (unless the maintenance savings are big enough to justify keeping it single-level). A Sightseer Lounge on that route would be a big plus. Then consider the advantages of having a real dining car on the NEC between NYP and WAS during meal hours. Winner all around, IMHO.


I disagree with the idea of having both Capitol/Pennsy through cars AND an extended Capitol to NYP. In my opinion, you really don't need that much through service from Chicago to New York. And I also think it would get pretty confusing for new passengers to understand how it's one train between Chicago and Pittsburgh but then with one of the options you're car splits off and ends up on another train, but still ends up getting to the same destination and follows the same route NYP-PHL. I just think there's too much overlap and too much nuance to it for those both to work.


----------



## railiner (Nov 24, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> I disagree with the idea of having both Capitol/Pennsy through cars AND an extended Capitol to NYP. In my opinion, you really don't need that much through service from Chicago to New York. And I also think it would get pretty confusing for new passengers to understand how it's one train between Chicago and Pittsburgh but then with one of the options you're car splits off and ends up on another train, but still ends up getting to the same destination and follows the same route NYP-PHL. I just think there's too much overlap and too much nuance to it for those both to work.


This time, I agree with you.  The Cap should end at Washington.  They would either have to wye it before or after Washington, or run backwards for the entire route from WAS to NYP...it's bad enough doing that just from Philly to New York on the Pennsylvanian.  They could run the CAP thru to points south, but for schedule reliability, I don't think that's a good idea, either...


----------



## west point (Nov 24, 2018)

railiner said:


> This time, I agree with you.  The Cap should end at Washington.  They would either have to wye it before or after Washington, or run backwards for the entire route from WAS to NYP...it's bad enough doing that just from Philly to New York on the Pennsylvanian.  They could run the CAP thru to points south, but for schedule reliability, I don't think that's a good idea, either...


You are correct/  However if a 4+ hour connection was planned then reliability of a southbound Crescent or Silver would be an attractive option.


----------



## railiner (Nov 24, 2018)

west point said:


> You are correct/  However if a 4+ hour connection was planned then reliability of a southbound Crescent or Silver would be an attractive option.


With a four+ hour layover....I can't see the point of running it 'thru'...better to spend that time touring around a bit, or even in the station lounge, IMHO


----------



## cpotisch (Nov 24, 2018)

railiner said:


> With a four+ hour layover....I can't see the point of running it 'thru'...better to spend that time touring around a bit, or even in the station lounge, IMHO


I agree. Well there is a seven hour or so layover in San Antonio with the Sunset Limited/Texas Eagle through cars, and that still works pretty well, so I’m not really sure that a several hour layover necessarily doesn’t work when it comes to through service. I think that there would be a big market for a one seat/room ride from Florida to Chicago, even if there were a long stop in WAS. Passengers could leave their stuff in their room or at their seat, hop off, walk around, see some of the sites, etc, and not have any of the hassle of a connection. The benefit of through cars or through service is not really speed, but rather convenience. Point is, I don’t think a super fast connection is really necessary for the purpose this would serve.


----------



## west point (Nov 24, 2018)

Florida to CHI thru car service ?  Once again some are worrying only about end points.  Capitol has many stops along the route that once had Florida service. all the way to major cities such as Pittsburgh.  Detroit and adjoining persons certainly could drive to TOL.  And LSL persons from BUF, CLE could connect at TOL.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Nov 24, 2018)

Amtrakfflyer said:


> Just seeing the Superliners refreshed would do wonders for moral on the west coast trains (and the forum). We’re still waiting...


It's on the agenda for this fiscal year.


----------



## cpotisch (Nov 25, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> Amtrakfflyer said:
> 
> 
> > Just seeing the Superliners refreshed﻿ would do﻿ wonders for moral on the west coast trains (and the forum). We’re still waiting...﻿﻿
> ...


For all Superliners or just the cars that have yet to be refurbished (or you can’t say)?


----------



## jis (Nov 25, 2018)

Hopefully they’ll start with the IIs which have never been refurbished, and then move onto the Is.


----------



## Pere Flyer (Nov 25, 2018)

On Heartland Flyer No. 822 today, I noticed ribbed plastic paneling on the interior of the Superliner coach that I was seated in. (I *strongly* prefer it to the shoddy tan carpet material in most other SL’ers. I’m sure maintenance/OBS prefers it, too, since it’s easier to clean.) When was that replacement done? Is it the fabled Superliner II refresh I’ve heard about but never seen before?/monthly_2018_11/IMG_2795.thumb.JPG.c29dcbd89fcc8f2b195fdbeea539c0a2.JPG/monthly_2018_11/IMG_2796.thumb.JPG.a188a35777e718cd0cb2277a0f87b4ab.JPG


----------



## frequentflyer (Dec 13, 2018)

There was post here stating that Amtrak management has decided long term all cars including LD equipment will be single level.

Of course Amtrak needs funding for new equipment for this to happen but I gotta think from a fiscal reason, not passenger one, brand new Siemen cars with maintenance included is cheaper than refurbishing 20-40 year old Superliners with out of production parts that need to be fabricated.

A Siemens Viaggaro equiped California Zephyr will not offer the same experience as a Superliner but it "should" be cheaper to operate. Not saying I am looking forward to this but I can see this being the future.


----------



## PVD (Dec 13, 2018)

A cosmetic refresh such as that which was done on the AM-1 cars can make an enormous difference in a customers's perception without undertaking a true refurb which would include much more mechanical work. Not a substitute if the cars are going to be around an extended period of time, but needed regardless.


----------



## Anthony V (Dec 13, 2018)

frequentflyer said:


> There was post here stating that Amtrak management has decided long term all cars including LD equipment will be single level.
> 
> Of course Amtrak needs funding for new equipment for this to happen but I gotta think from a fiscal reason, not passenger one, brand new Siemen cars with maintenance included is cheaper than refurbishing 20-40 year old Superliners with out of production parts that need to be fabricated.
> 
> A Siemens Viaggaro equiped California Zephyr will not offer the same experience as a Superliner but it "should" be cheaper to operate. Not saying I am looking forward to this but I can see this being the future.


If they're going to go single level, they need to include dome (both regular and full versions) and observation cars in the order, as well as slumbercoaches!


----------



## railiner (Dec 13, 2018)

Anthony V said:


> If they're going to go single level, they need to include dome (both regular and full versions) and observation cars in the order, as well as slumbercoaches!


Maybe some domes cars low enough to get thru the Eastern tunnels?   That would be nice....


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 14, 2018)

Anthony V said:


> If they're going to go single level, they need to include dome (both regular and full versions) and observation cars in the order, as well as slumbercoaches!


Observation cars maybe, but I really doubt Amtrak would be willing to bring back slumbercoaches and full dome cars in a new single-level order. I think we’ll be lucky to keep the status quo, let alone get back all the amenities, services, and accommodations that were offered 50 years ago.


----------



## frequentflyer (Dec 17, 2018)

Anthony V said:


> If they're going to go single level, they need to include dome (both regular and full versions) and observation cars in the order, as well as slumbercoaches!


With diners seemingly going away, the next gen LD equipment ( cough.....Siemens.....cough) will at most have a car with windows going up to the ceiling (ala Superliner lounge car) and would be a food/lounge car or whatever name marketing professionals will come up. That is how I see it.


----------



## MikeM (Dec 17, 2018)

I would be happy if they did a single level observation car with more single / double swivel seating like the upper level of the superliner observation cars, with fewer tables and oversized windows.  A dome would be a dream, but I don't see current management wanting to sink the engineering expense into developing these as a specialty car, so we probably should be realistic in our expectations.  What I would love to see, though, is more of a self serve "convenience store" marketplace that would have more depth in stocking food and snacks, along with some other merchandise like blankets, pillows, etc.  Big problem is that with a single level, that eats into passenger seating.


----------



## ehbowen (Dec 17, 2018)

"Self serve" on a train = shoplifter's paradise.

That said, I agree that the current Amlounge configuration which puts the serving area in the center of the car is far from optimum. If I were doing a lounge redesign I'd put the cafe area at one end of the car, with a bigger stock storage space behind it, a few booths with tables immediately adjoining, and the far end of the car with swivel chairs and small tables set up to facilitate observation and conversation.


----------



## railiner (Dec 18, 2018)

Those single level 'dome' cars on VIA and ARR would work nicely for that....


----------



## frequentflyer (Dec 21, 2018)

Don't know if allowed to post link, but on Trainsorder, someone is stating -

"_*What I’ve been told is that there is a coming order for a new Viaggio USA Bilevel LD car with the new weight/crash reqs being changed. The design has probably already been sent to Amtrak and so far there’s a lot of enthusiasm. *_The new design is supposed to be a complete replacement for the Superliner series, capable of 100MPH but *not* designed for push-pull service. This is why they aren’t being used for the Capital corridor service which is more time pressing. "

The poster is Zorz. Take it for what its worth.


----------



## frequentflyer (Dec 21, 2018)

To add, the poster has stated it may be the Siemens Twin bilevel car to replace the Supers. The Siemens Twin is 14.7 ft above the rails tall.


----------



## dgvrengineer (Dec 22, 2018)

Regardless which is chosen (Siemens or Viaggio) I'll bet there won't be dinning cars.  Probably only diner/lounge type configuration.


----------



## jis (Dec 22, 2018)

dgvrengineer said:


> Regardless which is chosen (Siemens or Viaggio) I'll bet there won't be dinning cars.  Probably only diner/lounge type configuration.


Viaggio is a Siemens brand. The Twins being talked about is the ViaggioTwin which looks like this (from Siemens Marketing material):









frequentflyer said:


> To add, the poster has stated it may be the Siemens Twin bilevel car to replace the Supers. The Siemens Twin is 14.7 ft above the rails tall.


It would be quite a miracle if they are able to fit double berth Roomettes and Bedrooms in the upper deck of a Viaggio Twin. A single berth Roomettes would fit nicely, as would airline style First Class Pods

Of course if Amtrak were to give Siemens a specification of whatever I am sure they could fabricate such a thing and setup a production line to manufacture a few hundred of those. But if it turns out to be too Amtrak specific with no possibility of other major orders from across the world, it will just become a turnkey project and will cost an arm and a leg.

The beauty of the single level Viaggio cars and the SC-44s is that they are part of an off the shelf design usage with minor modifications, and their major development cost is amortized among thousands of units, with only the slight tweak costs specifically borne by Amtrak or other customers


----------



## frequentflyer (Dec 22, 2018)

Maybe a modern slumbercoach like room for the tight upper level.


----------



## MikeM (Dec 22, 2018)

OK, I just have to say it.. That car is plain ugly compared to other Amtrak rolling stock, with possible exception of horizon coaches.  Let's hope some thought goes into esthetics as well as cost...


----------



## neroden (Dec 23, 2018)

frequentflyer said:


> There was post here stating that Amtrak management has decided long term all cars including LD equipment will be single level.


While I sort of approve of this idea, it requires raising the platforms at every station which has low level platforms, except those with bilevel commuter lines or freight, and the paperwork even for the stations with freight would be substantial.  Under current law, they'd have to have a plan and funding to raise all the platforms on a given line before acquiring single-level cars for it.

I think it makes no sense in the short term.  They don't have the budget.  Converting the Capitol Limited to single-level does make sense, given that it shares almost all of its territory with single-level trains which ought to have high platforms.



frequentflyer said:


> Don't know if allowed to post link, but on Trainsorder, someone is stating -
> 
> "_*What I’ve been told is that there is a coming order for a new Viaggio USA Bilevel LD car with the new weight/crash reqs being changed. The design has probably already been sent to Amtrak and so far there’s a lot of enthusiasm. *_The new design is supposed to be a complete replacement for the Superliner series, capable of 100MPH but *not* designed for push-pull service. This is why they aren’t being used for the Capital corridor service which is more time pressing. "
> 
> The poster is Zorz. Take it for what its worth.


The push-pull comment makes no sense.  The alterations necessary for push-pull service are minimal (pass through the correct electronic data line) and I think Amtrak would just request it as a required alteration period.

Whether the entry is at the right height and whether they meet ADA requirements are substantial questions.  They also look short.


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 23, 2018)

MikeM said:


> OK, I just have to say it.. That car is plain ugly compared to other Amtrak rolling stock, with possible exception of horizon coaches.  Let's hope some thought goes into esthetics as well as cost...


This!!!!!!!!!!!! It looks like a poorly put-together toy. :unsure:


----------



## Pere Flyer (Dec 23, 2018)

I suspect the color scheme in the promotional materials is intended to show the most contrast between exterior components. If acquired by Amtrak, the cars would have an Amtrak-style livery designed for aesthetics rather than showcasing the doors, body, roof, etc.


----------



## AutoTrDvr (Dec 24, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> I hear you and agree with all of that *except* for the AT. That train typically consists of 18 or so Superliners, in addition to 30+ auto racks. Even if there were enough single-level cars to outfit the Auto Train, each consist would be way too long to handle, AND Amtrak would be stuck with a bunch of oddball custom AT Superliners. There are six Deluxe Sleepers (all bedrooms on the upper-level), four Auto Train lounges (former dining cars with special booths and tables on the upper and lower levels), and one special SSL with nothing but tables on the upper-level. That last one is configured that way so that they can serve extra passengers if there are too many people for the *three* dining cars.
> 
> TLDR: Auto Train is insane and it would be difficult to change up the equipment.


Correct. There is no way they could change from Superliner cars on the Auto Train. The pax would revolt!   The Auto Train is the only other line of Amtrak's that is actually profitable, other than the Acela/NEC service. That and, as I believe you stated earlier, AT Superliner cars have different braking systems due to the length and weight of the train.


----------



## frequentflyer (Dec 24, 2018)

AutoTrDvr said:


> Correct. There is no way they could change from Superliner cars on the Auto Train. The pax would revolt!   The Auto Train is the only other line of Amtrak's that is actually profitable, other than the Acela/NEC service. That and, as I believe you stated earlier, AT Superliner cars have different braking systems due to the length and weight of the train.


Yes there is, if going to these cars lowers mx costs and, nets better fuel efficiency one better believe Amtrak will make the swap . It will make Autotrain's "profit" more so.


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 24, 2018)

Pere Flyer said:


> I suspect the color scheme in the promotional materials is intended to show the most contrast between exterior components. If acquired by Amtrak, the cars would have an Amtrak-style livery designed for aesthetics rather than showcasing the doors, body, roof, etc.


The livery in that photo isn’t the main issue for me; it’s the car itself. Just looks...ungainly.


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 24, 2018)

AutoTrDvr said:


> That and, as I believe you stated earlier, AT Superliner cars have different braking systems due to the length and weight of the train.


I don’t think I stated that earlier, but someone else can jump in and confirm or deny if it’s accurate.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Dec 24, 2018)

At one point the Auto train had electric brakes.  Not sure they were able to keep using them after a derailment.  The number of air hose can be the same, but you have another connector on the air hose for the electric part.

*For the record the picture is of a tri-level car.  3 levels.*

Also the CityNightLine/OOB/NightJet tri-level Cars make a nice sleeper.


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 24, 2018)

frequentflyer said:


> AutoTrDvr said:
> 
> 
> > Correct. There is no way they could change from Superliner cars on the Auto Train. The pax would revolt!   The Auto Train is the only other line of Amtrak's that is actually profitable, other than the Acela/NEC service. That and, as I believe you stated earlier, AT Superliner cars have different braking systems due to the length and weight of the train.
> ...


And what makes you say that single-level cars would net better fuel efficiency? The added capacity of a bi-level car generally more than compensates for the added weight, while shortening the length of the train. So I don’t think your theory is backed by any real facts.


----------



## F900ElCapitan (Dec 24, 2018)

neroden said:


> While﻿ I sort of approve of this idea, it requires raising the platforms at every station which has low level platforms, except those wi﻿th bilevel commuter lines or freight, and the paperwork even for the stations with freight would be substantial.  Under current law, they'd have to have a plan and funding to raise all the platforms on a given line before acquiring single-level cars for it.﻿﻿


Why would they have to raise the platforms? Why wouldn’t they just order cars with a similar fold out stair to the AmFleet cars? The only reason I could think of would be ADA and pretty much all stations already have accommodations for that. Plus I’m sure even Amtrak could find plenty of money if those provisions needed to be modified to a different height.


----------



## frequentflyer (Dec 24, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> And what makes you say that single-level cars would net better fuel efficiency? The added capacity of a bi-level car generally more than compensates for the added weight, while shortening the length of the train. So I don’t think your theory is backed by any real facts.


Thats why I stated "If. " And remember (maybe you don't), the Autotrain was single level (pre Amtrak  and post) before the Superliner IIs arrived, if it goes single level again it will not be the end of the world.  Per the rumor I posted the next LD cars (Siemens Twin) will stay bilevel but apparently will not be as tall and "probably" lighter than a Superliner.

On the same note of Autotrain"s profitablity, it would interesting to know the fuel costs between a pair of Genesis compare to a pair of Chargers pulling the AT long consist. I have read that the Chargers are 10%-15% more efficient depending on the route.


----------



## neroden (Dec 24, 2018)

F900ElCapitan said:


> Why would they have to raise the platforms?


Look up the ADA regulations.   I mean, actually read them.  Platforms have to be raised to the entry height of the lowest-entry-level train which platforms at that station, unless a freight operator who runs freight by that platform totally forbids it.  (In which case you need to make a specific filing for each station.)  The rule is actually also enforced when buying new railcars.

You could sort of evade it by running one Superliner train on each route (which is kind of what California is ending up doing) but that doesn't work so well for one train a day.


----------



## neroden (Dec 24, 2018)

AutoTrDvr said:


> Correct. There is no way they could change from Superliner cars on the Auto Train. The pax would revolt!   The Auto Train is the only other line of Amtrak's that is actually profitable, other than the Acela/NEC service.


"Actually profitable" is an unclear target, but I allege that the entire eastern network and the Coast Starlight are actually profitable in the sense that cancelling any one of the trains would cause Amtrak's overall need for subsidy to increase.


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 24, 2018)

frequentflyer said:


> Thats why I stated "If. "


Generally when somebody says “if [something]”, it is implied that they believe that’s the case or have heard some argument in favor of it. Like if I were to say “Well, _if _Amtrak removing full service dining cars from the CL and LSL results in a $7 billion increase in revenue, it would make sense.” When I say that, most people would assume that I’m saying it for a reason and that there’s context to the claim. You know what I’m saying?


----------



## F900ElCapitan (Dec 24, 2018)

neroden said:


> Look up the ADA regulations.   I mean, actually read them.  Platforms have to be raised to the entry height of the lowest-entry-level train which platforms at that station, unless a freight operator who runs freight by that platform totally forbids it.  (In which case you need to make a specific filing for each station.)  The rule is actually also enforced when buying new railcars.
> 
> You could sort of evade it by running one Superliner train on each route (which is kind of what California is ending up doing) but that doesn't work so well for one train a day.


I get ADA. But, all Amtrak has to do is make the entrance accessible, just as they are doing today. In some cases there are portable lifts that can be moved to the door entrances and other platforms have ramps built into the platform (this might require an extra stop or two, but it’s doable). Then on Superliners they also carry ramps in each car. ADA is satisfied many ways today and trust me, will be complied with in the future without raising all of Amtrak’s platforms.


----------



## AutoTrDvr (Dec 25, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> I don’t think I stated that earlier, but someone else can jump in and confirm or deny if it’s accurate.


Correct, again.  Sorry... it was zephyr17 who said it in this post of my "Predicting a Consist" thread.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Dec 25, 2018)

F900ElCapitan said:


> I get ADA. But, all Amtrak has to do is make the entrance accessible, just as they are doing today. In some cases there are portable lifts that can be moved to the door entrances and other platforms have ramps built into the platform (this might require an extra stop or two, but it’s doable). Then on Superliners they also carry ramps in each car. ADA is satisfied many ways today and trust me, will be complied with in the future without raising all of Amtrak’s platforms.


The old ways of Lifts and ramps are not going to be good enough.  Full length high level platform for high level equipment is required.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Dec 25, 2018)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> The old ways of Lifts and ramps are not going to be good enough.  Full length high level platform for high level equipment is required.


Not good enough in what way?  Ramps and lifts can get the job done from a physical and technical sense.  The only thing they're missing is a misguided (but legally enforceable) adherence to social vanity.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Dec 25, 2018)

Social Vanity?

One thinks barrier free access with out the need for someone to help you/them is the goal.


----------



## neroden (Dec 25, 2018)

F900ElCapitan said:


> I get ADA. But, all Amtrak has to do is make the entrance accessible, just as they are doing today.


No, that is not correct.  Go back and read the "full platform length level boarding" regulation.

From GreatAmericanStations:

"A 2011 level platform rule issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) affected how platforms are to be constructed. It requires full-length, level-boarding platforms (where the platform surface is level with the floor of the train cars) in new and substantially reconstructed commuter and Amtrak stations. Where full-length, level boarding is “infeasible,” such as due to freight train operations on the track adjacent to the platform, the use of site-specific alternative methods is acceptable pending the approval of the U.S. DOT."

While the rule doesn't explicitly refer to changing the trains from ones which have level boarding to ones which don't, I think it's pretty clear that DOT would severely frown on it.  You're basically never allowed to make disabled access *worse* in a renovation, and there's consensus that lifts are worse than almost any other option.  In fact, for any line with a significant number of 15" platforms and no 48" platforms, DOT would frown on buying single-level trains.

There's a subsidiary element of the rule: if trains with two different boarding heights stop at the same platform, the platform is to use the lower of the two boarding heights.  Thiis is what California is currently relying on.  I suspect they wouldn't have even tried to get single-levels if the bilevel order hadn't failed catastrophically, or if there had been a bilevel in production which could be acquired promptly.  I suspect the multistate group is invoking "force majuere" or emergency provisions to get the single-levels from Siemens because they were already in production and the cars were needed by a date certain -- which is appropriate in this case, but isn't going to be repeated for normal procurements. Because switching from level boarding to non-level boarding by changing from a bilevel to a single-level will get you in *trouble*, and at the very least means a huge amount of site-specific paperwork.  It'll also get you a lot of customer complaints which will go to the media -- look at what happened on the San Joaquins.

This may not be an issue for trains where nearly all the stations are shared with freight and the freight operator refuses to allow level boarding even for Superliners, because they'll have to go through all the paperwork for all those stations already, and they're stuck with lifts until the freight operator relents.  Where it becomes an issue is places like the California commuter lines or the Michigan line.  Chicago Union will probably have to have both low-level and high-level platforms, but as time goes on, each line heading out will be one or the other.

(Another point: the public mood on this is getting more and more irritated; the ADA is from 1993.  If the freights don't relent, they may find legislation coming after them within 10 years.)


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Dec 25, 2018)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Social Vanity? One thinks barrier free access with out the need for someone to help you/them is the goal.


Ramps and lifts get disabled people around barriers.  They're not perfect but I've yet to see one fail in its duty.  So why would they not be good enough for the ADA?  What reason would there be to decline such assistance and then insist upon a million dollar station upgrade other than vanity?


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Dec 26, 2018)

Devil said:


> Ramps and lifts get disabled people around barriers.  They're not perfect but I've yet to see one fail in its duty.  So why would they not be good enough for the ADA?  What reason would there be to decline such assistance and then insist upon a million dollar station upgrade other than vanity?


I don’t think it’s vanity to want to be able to board as others do without the need to find assistance and wait, and wait, for that assistance. And maybe in some cases worry that the assistance won’t show up or the equipment won’t work or if it’s locked up they can’t get it unlocked. I witnessed the case of it taking time for an employee to find the right key to unlocked where the ramp was.


----------



## railiner (Dec 26, 2018)

AmtrakBlue said:


> I don’t think it’s vanity to want to be able to board as others do without the need to find assistance and wait, and wait, for that assistance. And maybe in some cases worry that the assistance won’t show up or the equipment won’t work or if it’s locked up they can’t get it unlocked. I witnessed the case of it taking time for an employee to find the right key to unlocked where the ramp was.


I agree with what you are saying in the situation's you cited.

I think a better example of "ADA vanity", was the requirement that every single intercity bus in public service, be equipped with a wheelchair lift, and space for a couple of wheelchairs, instead of the operator providing on demand ADA vehicles, that would even provide door to door service withing a reasonable distance from any bus stop or terminal.

The equipping of intercity coaches with those lifts is very expensive, the lifts themselves are sometimes troublesome,  the boarding takes lengthy preparation, moving the seats to make room for wheelchair(s), operating the lift, securing them, etc....and all in front of  an 'audience' of other passenger's watching and waiting, so they can board.   Besides the expense of the lifts, there is the lost revenue from four to six unusable seats.     So busline owner's proposed instead, providing "on demand" door to door mobility service, anytime the ADA passenger desired to go, and at the same fare as the bus would cost.   The ADA refused this alternative.   It seems they were determined to push their constituents "in the face" of able passenger's, just because they could.   

I don't know about anyone else, but if some bus company told me that they could not accommodate me for some reason or other on their buses, but instead offered me door to door taxi service whenever I desired, for just the regular fare, that would be a no-brainer decision...  JMHO..


----------



## VTTrain (Dec 26, 2018)

Two things can be true at the same time:

1) It can be reasonable for a person with a disability to want the same barrier-free access that non-disabled persons enjoy.  (e.g. raising the platforms at all stations rather than relying on lifts)

2) It can cost a ton of money to fully give that access - money that is arguably better spent elsewhere, especially when funds are in short supply.


----------



## frequentflyer (Dec 26, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> Generally when somebody says “if [something]”, it is implied that they believe that’s the case or have heard some argument in favor of it. Like if I were to say “Well, _if _Amtrak removing full service dining cars from the CL and LSL results in a $7 billion increase in revenue, it would make sense.” When I say that, most people would assume that I’m saying it for a reason and that there’s context to the claim. You know what I’m saying?


Superliner I and II weigh between 75 to 79 tons

Siemens Viaggio Twin bilevel - 69 tons

Siemens Viaggio Comfort single level -61 tons

That difference over 18 cars may make a difference to the two locomotives up front, there is your "if".

And there is still the matter of lower maintenance costs associated with newer equipment. A re equipped Autotrain with Charger locomotives and slightly lighter pax cars, should be more efficient and profitable despite the CAPEX hit.


----------



## jis (Dec 26, 2018)

I still believe that Viaggio Twins cannot have the same capacity that a Superliner has (specially for Sleepers), and Super-sizing a Viaggio Twin to Superliner size will make it weigh almost as much as a Superliner.

Ideally something like the Talgo/Transtech Oy built double deckers used in Finland, with gangways at both levels would fit the bill better. But of course it is quite unlikely to be used in the US. It would most likely be better than Superliners, and would be very nonstandard.

Here is what they look like (Wikiperdia (C))


----------



## frequentflyer (Dec 26, 2018)

jis said:


> I still believe that Viaggio Twins cannot have the same capacity that a Superliner has (specially for Sleepers), and Super-sizing a Viaggio Twin to Superliner size will make it weigh almost as much as a Superliner.
> 
> Ideally something like the Talgo/Transtech Oy built double deckers used in Finland, with gangways at both levels would fit the bill better. But of course it is quite unlikely to be used in the US. It would most likely be better than Superliners, and would be very nonstandard.
> 
> Here is what they look like (Wikiperdia (C))


To the Pullman's Superliner credit, there is nothing on the market that has the capacity of a Superliner sleeper. Amtrak in its infinite wisdom is looking at stock that has already proven itself. The only way Amtrak comes close is to make the sleeping rooms smaller which seems to be the trend throughout the transportation industries ( ie Cruise ships rooms, airline seats). Maybe its time to re imagine the "sleeper room" for the 21rst century. Would not surprise me to see Amtrak follow the European  sleeper model. If the Euro model like the hotels rooms I am looking at in Paris, they will be smaller.

On a side note, did not know that Diners are the heaviest cars in consists. I wander if that had a small factor in the Diner purge of late.


----------



## VTTrain (Dec 26, 2018)

It does not have the same capacity of the Superliner Sleeper, but I am a big fan of the double decker deluxe Nightjet sleeper cars.  

Here is a link to the layout (Deluxe car is on the bottom): https://www.dropbox.com/s/bq5vgchmfm52xb6/Double-deck-sleeper.pdf?dl=0 

Here is a good video showing the deluxe sleeper:


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Dec 26, 2018)

railiner said:


> I agree with what you are saying in the situation's you cited.
> 
> I think a better example of "ADA vanity", was the requirement that every single intercity bus in public service, be equipped with a wheelchair lift, and space for a couple of wheelchairs, instead of the operator providing on demand ADA vehicles, that would even provide door to door service withing a reasonable distance from any bus stop or terminal.
> 
> ...


"On demand" can take forever...  I know, my husband used these buses.  How can that be better - when you have to schedule a bus and then wait for one to be available. And the bus company cannot give an exact time because they don't know how long it might take to get passengers on or off the bus before they get to your place.   I like it that our public buses are accessible.


----------



## railiner (Dec 26, 2018)

AmtrakBlue said:


> "On demand" can take forever...  I know, my husband used these buses.  How can that be better - when you have to schedule a bus and then wait for one to be available. And the bus company cannot give an exact time because they don't know how long it might take to get passengers on or off the bus before they get to your place.   I like it that our public buses are accessible.


I think you are referring to what we call in NYC, "Access-A-Ride",  Paratransit, which accommodates those who cannot use accessible _local _public transportation.   I know they do not have a very good reputation for reliability here, so I would see your point.

I am talking about intercity service, which would be administered differently.   And like I said, it would offer express, door to door service.  With no need to inconveniently transfer to local services at either end.   And it would go when you want to go, not when the next schedule might be...


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 26, 2018)

railiner said:


> I﻿ t﻿hink﻿ you are referring to what we call in NY﻿C, "Access-A-Ride",  Paratransit, which accommodates those who cannot use accessible _local _public transportation.   I know they do not have a v﻿ery good reputation f﻿or reliability h﻿ere, so I wo﻿uld s﻿ee yo﻿ur point.﻿﻿﻿﻿


The drivers are also notorious for being...insane. Here in Brooklyn, they run red lights, cut off pedestrians, and swear at people they find to be in their way. I appreciate that this service exists, but I do not appreciate the behavior of many of the people operating it.


----------



## neroden (Dec 28, 2018)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Ramps and lifts get disabled people around barriers.  They're not perfect but I've yet to see one fail in its duty.


I've seen the employees fail in their duty.  'Nuff said.

There's a reason the disabled community is demanding tools which do not require employee intervention.  It's great to have employees for assistance, but...


----------



## neroden (Dec 28, 2018)

railiner said:


> I agree with what you are saying in the situation's you cited.
> 
> I think a better example of "ADA vanity", was the requirement that every single intercity bus in public service, be equipped with a wheelchair lift, and space for a couple of wheelchairs, instead of the operator providing on demand ADA vehicles, that would even provide door to door service withing a reasonable distance from any bus stop or terminal.


The actual requirement was that all buses should have space for wheelchairs. Initially, far too many fools used lifts; after a while, nearly every local bus switched to using low-floor boarding, which they should have done in the first place.  There were actually special provisions made to allow "over the road coaches" to comply differently from everyone else, and they're still using lifts -- I guess they don't mind boarding extremely slowly, and they really wanted that luggage compartment, and they figured a higher ride was preferable.

It *still* happens that an old intercity bus will show up, or one with a broken wheelchair lift.  Does the operator get another bus to replace it?  No, that would typically take six hours or more.  Having every "over the road coach" have a wheelchair lift is really a *minimum* to make it possible for intercity buses to be usable by people in wheelchairs.  Intercity buses sort of suck to start with.

Do you *seriously* think the bus operator is *really* going to be able to provide a custom, door-to-door wheelchair-accessible van trip from Ithaca NY to Bismarck ND?  It was a joke, a fake proposal.  There's a reason it was flatly rejected by the people who wrote the ADA.

"Separate but equal" has a history of ending up unequal and simply not working.  This has happened with paratransit in every single city.  New York being the extreme example, with Access-a-Ride being a disaster.  We had to wait for Andy Byford before the MTA got serious about complying with the ADA, and they're on the hook for billions of dollars in station renovations because they renovated stations illegally, without adding elevators.

Amtrak has suprisingly good lifts, but the lifts are a kludge.  Wheelchair users don't like them, Amtrak employees don't like them, they slow everything down.  Bridgeplates are much more reasonable, but you have to get the boarding height right.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Dec 28, 2018)

neroden said:


> I've seen the employees fail in their duty.  'Nuff said. There's a reason the disabled community is demanding tools which do not require employee intervention.  It's great to have employees for assistance, but...


There is nothing in the ADA that would prevent the loss of any station that currently provides ramps or lifts and would be cheaper to close than to upgrade.  That's what happens when sledgehammer logic meats the law of unintended consequences. 'Nuff said.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Dec 28, 2018)

Devil said:


> There is nothing in the ADA that would prevent the loss of any station that currently provides ramps or lifts and would be cheaper to close than to upgrade.  That's what happens when sledgehammer logic meats the law of unintended consequences. 'Nuff said.


At least everyone would have equal non access to those closed stations.


----------



## jis (Dec 28, 2018)

Or the many possible lines of service that will not be considered due to the cost too. There is a happy medium there somewhere but our excessively confrontational society is probably incapable of rationally arriving at such.


----------



## Anderson (Dec 29, 2018)

neroden said:


> The actual requirement was that all buses should have space for wheelchairs. Initially, far too many fools used lifts; after a while, nearly every local bus switched to using low-floor boarding, which they should have done in the first place.  There were actually special provisions made to allow "over the road coaches" to comply differently from everyone else, and they're still using lifts -- I guess they don't mind boarding extremely slowly, and they really wanted that luggage compartment, and they figured a higher ride was preferable.
> 
> It *still* happens that an old intercity bus will show up, or one with a broken wheelchair lift.  Does the operator get another bus to replace it?  No, that would typically take six hours or more.  Having every "over the road coach" have a wheelchair lift is really a *minimum* to make it possible for intercity buses to be usable by people in wheelchairs.  Intercity buses sort of suck to start with.
> 
> ...


The problem is that in some cases (way too many, I suspect) the choice has been seen as being between "illegal renovations" and "no renovations".  I've raised this as an issue with the ADA before, but it is _very_ possible to envision that some of those illegally-renovated stations simply wouldn't have gotten worked on.

(And of course, there's also the WMATA approach: Include the elevators but regularly have a bunch of them out of service because of upkeep backlogs...)


----------



## jis (Dec 29, 2018)

Analog of regulations that as an unintended consequence limited most of the US to 79mph?


----------



## neroden (Dec 29, 2018)

Devil's Advocate said:


> There is nothing in the ADA that would prevent the loss of any station that currently provides ramps or lifts and would be cheaper to close than to upgrade.  That's what happens when sledgehammer logic meats the law of unintended consequences. 'Nuff said.




The most basic element of the ADA law requires Amtrak  to *not make things worse for disabled people than the existing state* during changes.  So, don't replace level-boarding stations with ones which require lifts.  Think they can manage that much?  If not, seriously, that's mismanagement -- shut it down.

No transit agency in the country is allowed to replace rolling stock which *has* level boarding with rolling stock which *does not have* level boarding.  Amtrak will be held to the same standard.  And it should be.

Conclusion: Amtrak is going to be buying some more bilevels.


----------



## neroden (Dec 29, 2018)

jis said:


> Analog of regulations that as an unintended consequence limited most of the US to 79mph?


Those regulations -- the forerunner of the PTC regulations -- suffered from being too *weak*; the 79-mph loophole shouldn't have existed.  In 2008, Congress finally issued a much stronger set of PTC regulations, and this time, they're being obeyed.


----------



## neroden (Dec 29, 2018)

Anderson said:


> The problem is that in some cases (way too many, I suspect) the choice has been seen as being between "illegal renovations" and "no renovations".  I've raised this as an issue with the ADA before, but it is _very_ possible to envision that some of those illegally-renovated stations simply wouldn't have gotten worked on.




Which is just fine.  NYC Transit has openly discriminated against disabled people for too long.  No renovations would have been better than bigoted, discriminatory, illegal renovations.  I hope they're forced to divert most of their budget to re-renovating the illegally renovated stations.  They need to learn a lesson.

Amtrak has behaved better than *that*, and has generally complied with the provisions of the law relating to adding accessibility when doing upgrades.  They've failed to budget for the legally-required upgrade to *all* intercity rail stations, but that isn't surprising and is more excusable.  Amtrak's ADA problems are more out of ignorance and incompetence than out of malice.  NYC's problems are malice.  This only started to change with Byford, very recently, and the change still hasn't made it into the rest of NYC Transit culture.

Interestingly, Boston and Philadelphia *started out* as obstructionist as NYC, but changed attitudes after a while.  Philadelphia's City Hall subway renovation is possibly the most complicated wheelchair-access project in the US, and is taking years and spectacular amounts of money, but they're doing it a bit at a time.  By contrast, NYC didn't even do the EASY stations -- elevated stations where it's trivial to drop an elevator shaft to a *vacant lot* by the street.  It was malicious.


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 30, 2018)

neroden said:


> No﻿ transit agency in the country is allowed to replace rolling stock which *has﻿* level boarding with rolling stock which *does not have* level boarding.  Amtrak﻿ will be held to the same standard.  And it should be.


Here’s my question: Does a traditional low level platform + a Superliner really count as level boarding? The floor of the SLs are still a solid foot or more above the platforms, so plenty of disabled people can’t make it into a Superliner without a lift.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Jan 1, 2019)

cpotisch said:


> Here’s my question: Does a traditional low level platform + a Superliner really count as level boarding? The floor of the SLs are still a solid foot or more above the platforms, so plenty of disabled people can’t make it into a Superliner without a lift.


Your example is a station platform that is not compliant with the ADA. Also Superliners use ramps not lifts.


----------



## jis (Jan 1, 2019)

I have been wondering how many of the stations that are served by Superliners are actually compliant with the ADA level boarding requirement. This is not a rhetorical but a serious wondering.


----------



## cpotisch (Jan 1, 2019)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> > Here’s my question: Does a traditional low level platform + a Superliner really count as level boarding? The floor of the SLs are still a solid foot or more above the platforms, so plenty of disabled people can’t make it into a Superliner without a lift.
> ...


I’m pretty sure I’d heard the crew mention a lift multiple times when I was on the TE and there was a very old lady in our sleeper trying to get on and off.


----------

