# Viewliners and Superliners ... what would you change?



## fredmcain

Is anyone aware as to whether or not Amtrak plans to buy new Superliner equipment? Do they even intend to do so? I have long felt that not only is this necessary to expand any new L.D. routes such as making trains 1 and 2 daily or a new long-distance train across Montana, which appears to be at least possible, but rather much of the older equipment is just plain wearing out.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Most Railroad Buffs seem to feel that Amtrak should "Standarize" their Fleet as they order and receive New Equipment.

Going to all Single Level Equipment and Standarizing the Power equipment would be a good idea, since it would standardize parts, utilization of equipment and save money in the long run due to purchasing equipment,parts and tools in quality and standardize Training for the Employees.

Much as I love the Superliners, I agree!


----------



## lrh442

Replacement of the Superliner fleet is in Amtrak's PowerPoint presentations but the timing is, shall we say, uncertain. Amtrak has yet to even release an RFP (request for proposals) for bidders. Safe to say that replacements are a _minimum_ of 5-6 years away from beginning to trickle into service. Some speculate that Amtrak is hoping that the LD trains will go away , eliminating the need to actually order replacement equipment. Whether it's intentional or benign incompetence, that is not an impossible outcome.

I'd like to see Amtrak immediately get to work on issuing an RFP for rebuilding the existing Superliner fleet _and_ continue to plan to augment the Superliners with new equipment down the road. 

The money is there for equipment refurbishment or replacement. The will is what seems to be what's missing.


----------



## lordsigma

You can find some information on what's been addressed so far here in the most recent 5 year reports:









Amtrak Reports & Documents


Download significant reports and documents regarding Amtrak, from financial performance, environmental, operating reports to business plans.




www.amtrak.com





The reports indicate that the Superliner 1 and 2 fleet and Viewliner 1 fleet will be replaced by a new procurement - hinting at a standardized design. Though single vs. bilevel isn't directly mentioned one can see the writing on the wall that they'd likely want a streamlined fleet that will be compatible with the newer Viewliner 2 equipment (that will remain in service.) The Amfleet 2 equipment (eastern LD coaches and lounge cars) is also being considered to be part of this procurement - though there is alternatively an option within the Siemens ICT project that may also be used. As such a decision about how to deal with the Amfleet 2s - whether as part of the "LD Procrurement" or as an option for the Amfleet 1 replacement ICT order as of the writing of the report was not yet decided on. The Heartland Flyer may also be addressed as part of the LD order.


----------



## Cal

lordsigma said:


> The Amfleet 2 equipment (eastern LD coaches and lounge cars) is also being considered to be part of this procurement - though there is alternatively an option within the Siemens ICT project that may also be used.


I hope the Amfleets are involved! Seeing a fully standardized and matching consist would be welcome.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Bob Dylan said:


> Most Railroad Buffs seem to feel that Amtrak should "Standarize" their Fleet as they order and receive New Equipment.
> 
> Going to all Single Level Equipment and Standarizing the Power equipment would be a good idea, since it would standardize parts, utilization of equipment and save money in the long run due to purchasing equipment,parts and tools in quality and standardize Training for the Employees.
> 
> Much as I love the Superliners, I agree!


It shouldn’t be an issue to have an east coast standard and a west coast standard. 

I’m up here riding the Alaska Railroad and they have a large variety of equipment from different eras and they manage to keep them running and in great condition just fine. Perhaps Amtrak can take some lessons from them?


----------



## Qapla

Single level equipment seems as though it would make it easier to comply to ever increasing demands/limitations/implementation of ADA requirements


----------



## MisterUptempo

Bi-Level rolling stock is still something Amtrak is likely to look at and consider.

In the minutes of multiple NGEC meetings, the desire for the committee to put the push on updating specifications for bi-level cars has been expressed. Amtrak's desire to replace Superliners at some point in the future is given as a compelling reason to expedite the update. The fact several members of the committee are Amtrak employees might lend at least some credence to the idea that Amtrak hasn't ruled out bi-levels at this point.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Qapla said:


> Single level equipment seems as though it would make it easier to comply to ever increasing demands/limitations/implementation of ADA requirements


The platform height would be need to adjust to a single level train. That going to be a shining penny or two.


----------



## joelkfla

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> The platform height would be need to adjust to a single level train. That going to be a shining penny or two.


I don't understand. Superliners and Viewliners both load from ground level at most stations. At some of the smallest stops, Superliners load at grade crossings.


----------



## Cal

joelkfla said:


> I don't understand. Superliners and Viewliners both load from ground level at most stations. At some of the smallest stops, Superliners load at grade crossings.


Yeah, but they'd still need to pay for ramps for all the stations without high level boarding.


----------



## MARC Rider

joelkfla said:


> I don't understand. Superliners and Viewliners both load from ground level at most stations. At some of the smallest stops, Superliners load at grade crossings.


Superliners cannot be used at stations with high-level platforms, which is most of the larger stations in the eastern United States.

I think that between that and ADA requirements, double decker long-distance trains are going to be a thing of the past. Enjoy them now while you can.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

MARC Rider said:


> I think that between that and ADA requirements, double decker long-distance trains are going to be a thing of the past. Enjoy them now while you can.


I disagree 100%. Bi-Levels aren’t going anywhere.


----------



## dlagrua

I believe that Superliners will eventually be phased out because no manufacturer has the capability to make them. I see an all Viewliner fleet in 10 years.


----------



## joelkfla

MARC Rider said:


> Superliners cannot be used at stations with high-level platforms, which is most of the larger stations in the eastern United States.


OK, but the question was about replacing Superliners with single-level equipment. Since Superliners load only at ground level, there would be no need to change the platform for Viewliners or compatible cars.



Cal said:


> Yeah, but they'd still need to pay for ramps for all the stations without high level boarding.


They use portable lifts. Ramps, like those used by LRT and some commuter lines, only provide access to one door on the train. The current single-level equipment needs access to all doors.

Of course, the Ventures can be ordered with built-in lifts, and they can have roll-through access between coaches. But providing roll-thru access to sleepers and food service cars would be difficult.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

dlagrua said:


> I believe that Superliners will eventually be phased out because no manufacturer has the capability to make them. I see an all Viewliner fleet in 10 years.


There’s no reason the existing cars can’t continue after major overhauls. 

Hopefully a new manufacturer of passenger rail cars will emerge here in the USA. It’s a shame Colorado Railcar didn’t survive.


----------



## lordsigma

The easy thing would be to assume single level but one area that makes me a bit conflicted is the Auto Train for which bilevels really are ideal and is the most successful long distance train as far as revenue…but I could almost see them go with a unique product for that service so we’ll see.


----------



## John819

The real problem with bi-level cars is compliance with the ADA requirements. Specifically, there is a need under the law for wheelchair access to the dining area and to the SSL (if there is any), as these are common areas.

A "rational" plan would be to phase out the SLs first, then the VL Is, and last the Amfleets. Of course, this is Amtrak. "Don't try [to figure it out] Jake, it's Chinatown."


----------



## crescent-zephyr

John819 said:


> The real problem with bi-level cars is compliance with the ADA requirements. Specifically, there is a need under the law for wheelchair access to the dining area and to the SSL (if there is any), as these are common areas.
> 
> A "rational" plan would be to phase out the SLs first, then the VL Is, and last the Amfleets. Of course, this is Amtrak. "Don't try [to figure it out] Jake, it's Chinatown."


Again. This is not actually a problem. I’m up here riding the Alaska Railroad and their bi-levels are equipped with elevator style lifts for those with disabilities.


----------



## Caesar La Rock

The European railroads are doing fine with bi-level equipment and they too have a restrictive loading gauge. I'm not sure how they handle passengers with disabilities and wheelchairs, but they seem to have that worked out. The numbers of new bi-level equipment being acquired over there has been increasing over the last decade, and not just for commuter or regionals services anymore either (yes there is a difference between commuter and regional). If the European railroads can use a bi-level design that has worked for them for many decades, Amtrak shouldn't have an issue finding one that fits their needs.

As for the issue of high level boarding and low level boarding at stations, the German railways in the early 90s introduced a new version of the Gorlitz double decker cars. This version had doors located above the axles. This allowed these cars to be used in stations where high level boarding is necessary. So yes, the issue of low level boarding and high level boarding at stations can be addressed with bi-levels quite easily. The real question, will Amtrak invest in a new bi-level order? That's the $66 billion question there and now to go rest my head lol.


----------



## jis

Aren’t the cars with two main levels but doors qat a third intermediate level like the NJT cars called multi-levels rather than bilevels? They are even harder to make ADA compliant except for pure commuter use with no common service cars because there is no through passage through the train at a single level


----------



## John819

jis said:


> Aren’t the cars with two main levels but doors qat a third intermediate level like the NJT cars called multi-levels rather than bilevels? They are even harder to make ADA compliant except for pure commuter use with no common service cars because there is no through passage through the train at a single level


Exactly. The wheelchair passenger can easily board and has an area where he/she/they can sit. But movement beyond that area is not possible.

This is fully ADA compliant because there is no dining / sightseeing area they need access to.

And as to the elevators on the Alaska Railroad - does anyone believe that Amtrak mechanical would be up to maintaining them? Also, they take up considerable area, causing a loss of seating capacity in any car where they are located.


----------



## Qapla

John819 said:


> This is fully ADA compliant because there is no dining / sightseeing area they need access to.



They may be "currently" ADA compliant ... but those standards are subject to change and may require all areas to be accessible - not just those with "common service areas".


----------



## MARC Rider

John819 said:


> And as to the elevators on the Alaska Railroad - does anyone believe that Amtrak mechanical would be up to maintaining them? Also, they take up considerable area, causing a loss of seating capacity in any car where they are located.


They would also add considerably to the cost of the car. Thus, while a bi-level ADA-compliant car would be possible, I don't think it would be competitive in the procurement process. Add to that the ability to have equipment that could be used across all of the system would make me select single-level cars if I were in charge of the procurement. They can even build single level sightseer lounge cars, although I'd really like to see the return of the dome car, too. Plus, the use of the type of "panorama cars" seen on some of the Swiss railroads might be another nice touch for use on lines with significant scenic portions, including some corridor service, such as the Empire Service.


----------



## Cal

Qapla said:


> They may be "currently" ADA compliant ... but those standards are subject to change and may require all areas to be accessible - not just those with "common service areas".


Well if that's the case, if Amtrak doesn't fight it, I'm sure the airlines will. I don't think airlines want to remove a seat so wheelchairs can get to the back of the aircraft.


----------



## AFriendly

If engineering and cost considerations are a limiting factor, bilevel makes a lot more sense for corridors and other heavily traveled routes. In that regard the Siemens purchase is a missed opportunity in my opinion- much, much more capacity could have been added to those routes. There's a variety of bilevel commuter equipment that operates just fine on the NEC, I have difficulty seeing how those designs couldn't have been adapted for intercity use. Standardizing long distance on single-level equipment that can go anywhere in the system makes the most sense.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

It’s such a cluster for lack of better words, in every aspect. The money is there (or could be) for new cars. Amtrak desperately needs new rolling stock but Amtrak management appears to just want to kick the can down the road and hope the long distance trans disappear somehow or some way. 

The number one goal should be an immediate refurbishment of the Superliners and V1’s to give them 10 years more life. I know that refurbishments have been talked about but I’m still waiting for convection ovens that Anderson and Gardner claimed were being installed in the V2 diners/lounges 5 years ago. I personally think a solid refurbishment plan is the best outcome now. The current management isn’t of the proper mindset to make such an important order that will potentially serve Amtrak for 30 plus years.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

John819 said:


> And as to the elevators on the Alaska Railroad - does anyone believe that Amtrak mechanical would be up to maintaining them? Also, they take up considerable area, causing a loss of seating capacity in any car where they are located.


Technically, the lifts would only need to be installed on lounges and diners correct? Wheelchairs can’t fit through the diaphragms anyways I don’t think. 

Either way, there are solutions. 



Amtrakfflyer said:


> I’m still waiting for convection ovens that Anderson and Gardner claimed were being installed in the V2 diners/lounges 5 years ago.



What are they using to heat up the melas? I thought those were the airline style convection ovens.


----------



## jis

Cal said:


> Well if that's the case, if Amtrak doesn't fight it, I'm sure the airlines will. I don't think airlines want to remove a seat so wheelchairs can get to the back of the aircraft.


The airline ADA rules completely different from the rail ones and are created and managed by different outfits. What happens on rails bears little relationship to what happens on airlines.


----------



## PVD

jis said:


> The airline ADA rules completely different from the rail ones and are created and managed by different outfits. What happens on rails bears little relationship to what happens on airlines.


If I recall, it is a totally separate law....


----------



## Ryan

dlagrua said:


> I believe that Superliners will eventually be phased out because no manufacturer has the capability to make them. I see an all Viewliner fleet in 10 years.



If by "Viewliner" you really mean "single level equipment, I completely agree. If you mean an actual "viewliner", you're sadly mistaken. We'll never see another one manufactured.



Amtrakfflyer said:


> It’s such a cluster for lack of better words, in every aspect. The money is there (or could be) for new cars. Amtrak desperately needs new rolling stock but Amtrak management appears to just want to kick the can down the road and hope the long distance trans disappear somehow or some way.


There is a plan, it was linked to in the 4th post of the thread. They are executing to that plan. It's the exact opposite of a cluster.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Ryan said:


> We'll never see another one manufactured.


there is no reason viewliner cars can not be manufactured in the future.


----------



## PVD

But there is no reason they would be. Other than the shell, anything designed for today's use would be made of different components, not the least of which would be roof /ceiling mounted package ac at each end. A long in the tooth VL design brings little to the table other making a few people happy because they are hung up on common appearance of consists.


----------



## TransitTyrant

AFriendly said:


> If engineering and cost considerations are a limiting factor, bilevel makes a lot more sense for corridors and other heavily traveled routes. In that regard the Siemens purchase is a missed opportunity in my opinion- much, much more capacity could have been added to those routes. There's a variety of bilevel commuter equipment that operates just fine on the NEC, I have difficulty seeing how those designs couldn't have been adapted for intercity use. Standardizing long distance on single-level equipment that can go anywhere in the system makes the most sense.


The Bilevels for the Midwest and California failed which is why we have the Venture coaches. Currently there is no bilevel design ready for production so it makes sense that Amtrak just piggybacked off the states. The one advantage with ordering everything from Siemens is a commonality of parts which could ease maintenance in the future.


----------



## Ryan

crescent-zephyr said:


> there is no reason viewliner cars can not be manufactured in the future.


Like the nice man said above. Sure, they can be. But there's less than zero chance Amtrak pays someone to do it.


----------



## John819

The Viewliner is basically a 30 year old design; the VL II is an updated (some would say also downgraded in terms of capacity) version.

We need a new design. Fortunately, we can build on the Venture shell, so only the interior needs design.

But this will be a race between getting new equipment and the old cars falling apart.


----------



## Qapla

So as not to derail another thread - in this thread we can discuss:

In the other thread


John819 said:


> The Viewliner/Superliner is basically a 30 year old design ... We need a new design.



So, exactly what would you change or like to see?


----------



## Qapla

John819 said:


> We need a new design



Just curious ... what part needs redesigning? What would you change ...

So as not to be off-topic in this thread ... we can discuss this question here





__





Viewliners and Superliners ... what would you change?


Is anyone aware as to whether or not Amtrak plans to buy new Superliner equipment? Do they even intend to do so? I have long felt that not only is this necessary to expand any new L.D. routes such as making trains 1 and 2 daily or a new long-distance train across Montana, which appears to be...




www.amtraktrains.com






MODERATOR NOTE: two similar threads merged


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Ryan said:


> Like the nice man said above. Sure, they can be. But there's less than zero chance Amtrak pays someone to do it.


I’ve just learned that in railroading, never say never.

I could see more viewliners being built in the future - there is nothing wrong with the design. 

The USA needs a passenger rail car manufacturer like Colorado Railcar - a company that really gets it. Maybe I’ll start one in my free time! Haha.


----------



## MARC Rider

crescent-zephyr said:


> I could see more viewliners being built in the future - there is nothing wrong with the design.


[/QUOTE]

Do you mean the exterior design or what's inside? While the exterior design might be fine, I'm sure that the mechanical and electrical specs dating from the 1980s are obsolete. (Yeah, that's how old the design is. I got to have breakfast in the prototype Viewliner diner in 1988 while riding the Capitol Limited). Not to mention, as someone else has here, that the HVAC needs to be placed on the roof, like all modern passenger railcars. Which means that, yeah, it might be cool to have new single-level railcars that look like Viewliners on the outside, but in terms of what's inside, I would hope that they're a completely new design.

However, given the economics of railcar procurement, I would think that Amtrak would prefer to just buy an off-the shelf product from a reputable railcar manufacturer who has experience producing products that meet the American regulatory standards and not try to complicate things by insisting on some sort of custom product.



crescent-zephyr said:


> The USA needs a passenger rail car manufacturer like Colorado Railcar - a company that really gets it. Maybe I’ll start one in my free time! Haha.


They really "got it" so well that they went out of business.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

MARC Rider said:


> I'm sure that the mechanical and electrical specs dating from the 1980s are obsolete.


Cars that were just delivered in the last year or 2 have obsolete mechanical and electrical specs?



MARC Rider said:


> They really "got it" so well that they went out of business.



They made a great product. If they had lasted until the “buy America” I’m guessing they would have made it.


----------



## west point

All this talk of using Venture cars for sleepers ignore one factor. The framing design of the Ventures may not be the same as the present V-2 design. What that means is that the sleeper modules "MAY" not fit in Ventures. As well the framing most likely will be different which may mean window locations would not work.. If framing has to e changed means a Siemens crush test after design is finalized. Now if Siemens or another car builder will use the V-2 designs and plans then the crush test might not be needed.


----------



## daybeers

crescent-zephyr said:


> There’s no reason the existing cars can’t continue after major overhauls.


I'm not sure about that; maybe you'd get a few years out of them, but they've been falling apart for a while now.


----------



## MARC Rider

crescent-zephyr said:


> They made a great product. If they had lasted until the “buy America” I’m guessing they would have made it.


When have there never been "Buy American" provisions on procurements funded with tax dollars?

Looking at the Wikipedia article about the company, it seems that they were severely undercapitalized and thus not able to effectively compete with other American railcar manufacturers like Siemens, Stadler, Alstom, Kawasaki, etc.


----------



## MARC Rider

daybeers said:


> I'm not sure about that; maybe you'd get a few years out of them, but they've been falling apart for a while now.


The Canadian is running with cars built in the 1950s. Perhaps they've been overhauled so many times that they might not have much of their original materials in them outside of the frame and shell, but if VIA can keep 70 year old equipment running, Amtrak ought to be able to get a couple more decades out of 40 year old equipment.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

west point said:


> All this talk of using Venture cars for sleepers ignore one factor. The framing design of the Ventures may not be the same as the present V-2 design. What that means is that the sleeper modules "MAY" not fit in Ventures. As well the framing most likely will be different which may mean window locations would not work.. If framing has to e changed means a Siemens crush test after design is finalized. Now if Siemens or another car builder will use the V-2 designs and plans then the crush test might not be needed.



Siemens design railcars are a open tube design. So they can be fitted with any interior equipment required. Siemens did this to avoid the one off models. Also if your builder of railcars are looking for a excuse to avoid a crush test, you might want to find another builder.


----------



## PVD

If anyone wants a look at some of the thinking on car design read the NGEC single level car docs. And those are getting old. As to many of the interior modules, they have been mfd by Railplan, I would be shocked if they could not be built to a slightly different shape or size.


----------



## joelkfla

PVD said:


> If anyone wants a look at some of the thinking on car design read the NGEC single level car docs. And those are getting old. As to many of the interior modules, they have been mfd by Railplan, I would be shocked if they could not be built to a slightly different shape or size.


Please provide a link. All I could find via Google search were some PowerPoint slides.


----------



## Qapla

Interior of a Viewliner Coach





I have read several posts about the age of these cars and how much they need to be replaced/changed/redesigned - but exactly what needs to be "changed"?

Adding USB power would be a good move as long as they don't remove the 110v

Updating things like the A/C to heat pump and the lighting to LED I consider an "upgrade" not an actual "change" or redesign.


----------



## PVD

joelkfla said:


> Please provide a link. All I could find via Google search were some PowerPoint slides.


 I'll start looking around to see if I downloaded it and saved it on a flashdrive.


----------



## PVD

Qapla said:


> Interior of a Viewliner Coach
> View attachment 29428
> 
> View attachment 29429
> 
> 
> I have read several posts about the age of these cars and how much they need to be replaced/changed/redesigned - but exactly what needs to be "changed"?
> 
> Adding USB power would be a good move as long as they don't remove the 110v
> 
> Updating things like the A/C to heat pump and the lighting to LED I consider an "upgrade" not an actual "change" or redesign.


That is not a Viewliner. There are no Viewliner coaches.


----------



## Qapla

OK - maybe I used the wrong term for the coach car - still the question persists - exactly what needs to be "changed"

(doing a Google search for "Viewliner Coach" produced those images)


----------



## Siegmund

One big thing that has changed since 1980 is the popularity of big freight cars. Double-stack containers and auto racks have become much more common on the major freight routes. Those routes are now prepared to handle 20-foot-tall cars.

Superliners were held to being only 16 feet tall, so they'd fit almost anywhere that old vista domes would fit, and that kept them from being two full decks end to end with walk-through doors on the lower level.
If you go up to about 18 feet, two full decks is doable (and that's ~25% more usable square feet per car than a Superliner). Not necessarily saying that Amtrak _should_ commit to 18- or 19-foot-tall bilevels --- if they did, they'd run into limitations on some routes. But if they did, fulfilling the ADA requirements would be easy.

[Edited to add: the Ultra Domes running on the Alaska Railroad and Rocky Mountaineer manage two full decks at 17'5", with doors on the lower level. They also do an interesting thing where each car is "coach upstairs, dining car downstairs" -- and have one kitchen for every 2 dining rooms, and carry the food from the kitchen in one car to the dining area in the next.]

Actually, I think that fulfilling the ADA requirements in a 16-foot bilevel is quite doable, if someone put out a spec for it. One option is lifts to the top level and wider doors between cars; another is some cleverness with step-up and -down areas.

Imagine, for example, a 16-foot-tall bilevel sleeping car, with a walk-through walkway occupying the 4- to 11-foot level along the left side of the car, and another walkway at the 9-to-16 foot level along most of the right side of the car. On the lower level, you enter each non-handicapped bedroom by going down 3 steps. On the upper level, you have a sofa/bed 2 feet off the floor, above the lower level walkway. At one end of the car, you have a handicapped room downstairs, and a nice big 5-foot-tall linen closet / coffee pot storage area / crew bunk area above it.

It would look about as different from a Superliner as the old Slumbercoach and Duplex Roomette floor plans did from a standard roomette plan. But if they put an RFP out, the designs would come.


----------



## zephyr17

Qapla said:


> OK - maybe I used the wrong term for the coach car - still the question persists - exactly what needs to be "changed"
> 
> (doing a Google search for "Viewliner Coach" produced those images)


Upper picture is an Amfleet II (I am pretty sure though not positive. It's Amfleet anyway) coach.

Lower picture is the upper level of a Superliner coach.

As @PVD pointed out, there are no Viewliner coaches. There are Viewliner sleepers, diners, baggage cars, and bag/dorms.

Of course, if it's Google, it had to be right


----------



## PVD

Electrical wiring, lighting, provision for data networking and wi-fi, aisles and vestibules need redesign for ADA compliance, toilet vaccuum and retention system, HVAC is totally obsolete, anything new will be room mounted package units with newer refrigerants and compressor design, trucks and suspension....thats a pretty good list. If you are looking at an Amfleet car, you would scrap the corrugated curved tube for something that doesn't waste space....That's a good start...


----------



## Qapla

zephyr17 said:


> there are no Viewliner coaches. There are Viewliner sleepers, diners, baggage cars, and bag/dorms



Regardless of what they are called - what is the list of "redesign/changes" that are needed ... not just "upgrades, like USB power in addition to 110v - but actual "design" changes - like some sort of continuous windows down both side without posts/dividers that block the view from some seats, doors in the center of the coach - actual design changes that would require a new car to be constructed and not something that an update or refub could not achieve.


----------



## PaTrainFan

The Viewliner II in-room controls and switches are out of the 1990s. Probably 1980s. Really old school. Goodness, even the refurbished Superliner I light controls are more up to date than the Viewliner IIs.


----------



## zephyr17

Qapla said:


> Regardless of what they are called - what is the list of "redesign/changes" that are needed ... not just "upgrades, like USB power in addition to 110v - but actual "design" changes - like some sort of continuous windows down both side without posts/dividers that block the view from some seats, doors in the center of the coach - actual design changes that would require a new car to be constructed and not something that an update or refub could not achieve.





PVD said:


> Electrical wiring, lighting, provision for data networking and wi-fi, aisles and vestibules need redesign for ADA compliance, toilet vaccuum and retention system, HVAC is totally obsolete, anything new will be room mounted package units with newer refrigerants and compressor design, trucks and suspension....thats a pretty good list. If you are looking at an Amfleet car, you would scrap the corrugated curved tube for something that doesn't waste space....That's a good start...


@PVD covered it pretty well.


----------



## PVD

typo- ac should read roof mounted


----------



## Bob Dylan

crescent-zephyr said:


> I’ve just learned that in railroading, never say never.
> 
> I could see more viewliners being built in the future - there is nothing wrong with the design.
> 
> The USA needs a passenger rail car manufacturer like Colorado Railcar - a company that really gets it. Maybe I’ll start one in my free time! Haha.


Got a few Billion you want to throw away?


----------



## jis

Qapla said:


> OK - maybe I used the wrong term for the coach car - still the question persists - exactly what needs to be "changed"
> 
> (doing a Google search for "Viewliner Coach" produced those images)


Don’t believe everything you see on the internet!

Those are photos of the interior of Amfleet Coaches. There are no Viewliner Coaches!

In the sense that a Coach needs to have rows of seats, that does not change. The details of what kind of seats from which manufacturer etc. changes, and of course the Coach shell changes. It is unlikely that anyone will custom manufacture new Amfleet (or for that matter even Viewliner) shells.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

About page 3 in this category.






What features are important in a sleeper


So what features are important to you in a sleeping car? Or what features have you seen on any sleeper car that you find quite desirable? A little story why or what you found during your travels that just made your trip just a bit easier.




www.amtraktrains.com


----------



## BBoy

Cal said:


> I hope the Amfleets are involved! Seeing a fully standardized and matching consist would be welcome.


Oh .
Perhaps Viewliner 2 cafe/lounges and Viewliner 2 coaches for uniformity on LD trains into and out of NYP.


----------



## joelkfla

PaTrainFan said:


> The Viewliner II in-room controls and switches are out of the 1990s. Probably 1980s. Really old school. Goodness, even the refurbished Superliner I light controls are more up to date than the Viewliner IIs.


They're simple rocker switches. What's wrong with that?


----------



## Cal

BBoy said:


> Oh .
> Perhaps Viewliner 2 cafe/lounges and Viewliner 2 coaches for uniformity on LD trains into and out of NYP.


Never happening, but they would look SLICK.


----------



## WWW

crescent-zephyr said:


> It shouldn’t be an issue to have an east coast standard and a west coast standard.
> 
> I’m up here riding the Alaska Railroad and they have a large variety of equipment from different eras and they manage to keep them running and in great condition just fine. Perhaps Amtrak can take some lessons from them?


I’m up here riding the Alaska Railroad and they have a large variety of equipment from different eras and they manage to keep them running and in great condition just fine. Perhaps Amtrak can take some lessons from them?

Point taken but Alaska RR only needs about 4-5 to train set consists to service their system 2 Denali Star 1 Coastal Classic 1 Glacier Discovery and
1 Hurricane Summer and then there are the charter cruise trains and cars towed at the end of the Denali Star.

Amtrak needs multiple consists i.e. EB needs 4 in daily operation and 2 being cleaned serviced total 6
The CZ and SWC 6 in daily sequence with 2 in servicing for the next day - SL guessing 4 with 2 in servicing cleaning
If you don't have the spares in servicing and you await one of the active trains to arrive and turn then something is going to get delayed.
With recent accidents Montana and Missouri 2 trains sets have been taken out of the picture diminishing the turn around pool.

The Superliner cars are a nice concept but having two different types of rail stock is just not practical - best to have all single level
to mix and match with any train east north south or west - yes the Superliners maybe people pleasing but not to everyone.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

WWW said:


> I’m up here riding the Alaska Railroad and they have a large variety of equipment from different eras and they manage to keep them running and in great condition just fine. Perhaps Amtrak can take some lessons from them?
> 
> Point taken but Alaska RR only needs about 4-5 to train set consists to service their system 2 Denali Star 1 Coastal Classic 1 Glacier Discovery and
> 1 Hurricane Summer and then there are the charter cruise trains and cars towed at the end of the Denali Star.
> 
> Amtrak needs multiple consists i.e. EB needs 4 in daily operation and 2 being cleaned serviced total 6
> The CZ and SWC 6 in daily sequence with 2 in servicing for the next day - SL guessing 4 with 2 in servicing cleaning
> If you don't have the spares in servicing and you await one of the active trains to arrive and turn then something is going to get delayed.
> With recent accidents Montana and Missouri 2 trains sets have been taken out of the picture diminishing the turn around pool.
> 
> The Superliner cars are a nice concept but having two different types of rail stock is just not practical - best to have all single level
> to mix and match with any train east north south or west - yes the Superliners maybe people pleasing but not to everyone.


Honestly… you made no point. Yes obviously Amtrak needs more cars than Alaska railroad. You just do whatever Alaska railroad is doing and multiply it. 

By your logic Amtrak shouldn’t be investing in new Acela since that equipment isn’t compatible. 

I’m not trying to be argumentative. I just don’t see your logic at all and Amtrak has continued to order a variety of equipment from different manufacturers.


----------



## west point

IMO the ability to buy cars taller than Superliners comes down to one big modification. That would be to somehow modify CHI union station to allow taller cars. How ?? have no idea. Of course there probably are stations that may need overhead clearances raised especially sheds or overhanging canopys but one route at a time. But getting clearances for taller cars thru CHI may be impossible.

Do any of our posters know of stations that might need raising overhead clearances?

EDIT: Just remembered that if HSR is ever to go thru CHI US clearances will need to be raised as Superliners cannot clear the CAT.


----------



## Cal

west point said:


> IMO the ability to buy cars taller than Superliners comes down to one big modification. That would be to somehow modify CHI union station to allow taller cars. How ?? have no idea. Of course there probably are stations that may need overhead clearances raised especially sheds or overhanging canopys but one route at a time. But getting clearances for taller cars thru CHI may be impossible.
> 
> Do any of our posters know of stations that might need raising overhead clearances?


I'm sure some tunnels would need raised clearance, I know the rocky mountaineer bi-levels can't make it through some tunnels in Colorado.


----------



## MisterUptempo

west point said:


> IMO the ability to buy cars taller than Superliners comes down to one big modification. That would be to somehow modify CHI union station to allow taller cars. How ?? have no idea. Of course there probably are stations that may need overhead clearances raised especially sheds or overhanging canopys but one route at a time. But getting clearances for taller cars thru CHI may be impossible.
> 
> Do any of our posters know of stations that might need raising overhead clearances?
> 
> EDIT: Just remembered that if HSR is ever to go thru CHI US clearances will need to be raised as Superliners cannot clear the CAT.


Regarding HSR through Chicago Union Station, there is a long-term plan to build four tracks, served by two island platforms, in a deep tunnel under Canal Street for HSR. The HSR trains would diverge from the CUS lead tracks around Taylor St., under Canal, through CUS, turning west near Kinzie St. and emerging from the tunnel somewhere near Racine St.

There had been an idea to locate HSR tracks under Clinton, as part of the proposed West Loop Transportation Center. The WLTC was supposed to be four subterranean levels; one for pedestrians to walk between Ogilvie Station and CUS, one for CTA and intercity bus, one for a 2-track CTA L station, and one for a 2-track HSR station. Thankfully the idea was dumped; it was too expensive and Amtrak was unhappy with only two tracks as well as the grading required for trains to get down to that level.

It was then decided that Amtrak would take Canal if they chose (it's wider than Clinton and would allow four tracks) for HSR, and the CTA would get Clinton if they wanted to run a subway into the West Loop.

I personally haven't seen any proposals on how to accommodate catenary in the train sheds at CUS. Lowering the rails could be a problem, especially if Amtrak uses the basement-level steam tunnels to access the converted mail platforms in the future. Also, considering that the tracks are right along the river, I'm not sure having lowered tracks below water level is a great idea.

Superliners are 16 feet 2 inches. Gallery cars are 15 feet 10 & 13/32 inches.

The application by Amtrak, Metra, CDOT, IDOT, and MDOT for a MEGA grant includes money to perform NEPA and engineering/design work for a new ventilation system in both train sheds. Performing this work would finally address the issue of concrete falling from the train shed ceilings. Whether a redesign would allow for even slightly higher ceiling heights (which might allow catenary _and _Superliners/Gallery cars), I don't know.

Edit - to shift a line of text elsewhere


----------



## WWW

Overall consider taking 1 Superliner car and reducing the size to a single level - what you are creating is almost 2 cars of space albeit
closer maybe to 1 and a half. Take 8 Superliners making something like a 12 car consist of single level.
Fine well and good but that lengthens the train requiring more platform space and more cars need more personnel increasing the
labor pool. The answer is not aways this simple.
A Fleet of single level cars would be easier to maintain no matter the route west east north south (so call one size fits all).
Doubling the size (length) of a passenger train may present station platform problems but certainly would not be a factor in pulling
over or switching around a freight train on a siding. We don't run mile long passenger trains in this country !
Just some thoughts on the margin to consider - while I like the SSL on the Superliners one could still be constructed as a single level
i.e. like the RockyMountaineer equipment used in the USA Colorado-Utah.


----------



## Mailliw

If ADA requirements could be adjusted to count a married pair of sleeping cars as one car you could could have an all-roomette floorplan in one with shared bathrooms and an all bedroom layout in the other. The H-room would be in the bedroom car and the SCA would occupy a roomette. Assuming 10 bedrooms and 20 roomettes this gives each pair 59 revenue births. Also I'd either replace all the curtains with blackout blinds, or use thicker curtains.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Let’s not forget that the passenger have to walk further on a single level railcar to access services. The Portland sleeper is know for its request for in room meals. Something about the amount of walking to get to the food service cars.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Let’s not forget that the passenger have to walk further on a single level railcar to access services. The Portland sleeper is know for its request for in room meals. Something about the amount of walking to get to the food service cars.


Same for the Boston Sleeper on the LSL ( when it Runs!!) and the #421/#422 Sleeper on the Sunset between LAX and SAS.


----------



## WWW

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Let’s not forget that the passenger have to walk further on a single level railcar to access services. The Portland sleeper is know for its request for in room meals. Something about the amount of walking to get to the food service cars.


You are of course referencing the EB which has 4 cars to Seattle (one of which is that diner) and 4 cars to Portland (one of which is the SSL) -
The split occurs at Spokane and I believe that there is limited dining services between Spokane and Portland or Seattle.

As for the other l-o-n-g distance trains the CZ and SWC put the dining car in the middle ***
*** there still is the problem with the diner ONLY being available to sleepers presently an issue that needs to be addressed -
Another thing to be addressed if the single level coach cars are going to have observation abilities the overhead bins for small luggage items
is going to be a problem.

This is going to be a real serious design issue with the replacement equipment as well as the ADC handicap accessibility


----------



## zephyr17

I am actually pretty dumbfounded with the reaction to 12 car single level trains. That was a pretty normal train length back in the day, 8-12 cars being very common. It isn't that long.

I am of the opinion that if Amtrak does make a long distance car order, it will be single level. The contortions required to make bilevels fully ADA compliant are just too much, and the discussion here does not make me any more confident of it. In any case, Amtrak will almost certainly apply the KISS principle and keeping it simple points towards single level, single fleet.

With that said, I do think there should be dedicated lounge space that is not a table car. Wraparound windows are not a function of height. Something akin to the Seaboard Air Line's Sun Lounges could servce as a model. I know I am dreaming wildly, but I actually think in terms of non-revenue cars, a single level long distance train should have a diner, lounge, and cafe as separate cars. That is very analagous to pre-Amtrak operations, where name trains tended to have both diners and coffee shop/counter service cars as well as lounge cars.

While I think coach passengers should have access to the diner, I don't really consider that terribly germane to the equipment discussion. Running a diner versus who has access to it are two different things. At this point, I still think the restriction is more of a function of the staffing shortages and am still hopeful it is temporary.

We are seeing the result ADA requirements in the Venture cars, with narrower seats with wider aisles. I do not know if they will pass a wheelchair, but they are ADA compliant. They have to be, they are not grandfathered as virtually all current Amtrak equipment is. I imagine in a new generation of sleeping cars, we will likewise see wider aisles. In sleepers, that may force all accommodations to be transverse to direction of travel with a side aisle as required aisle width may preclude reasonable sleeper accommodations being available on either side of a center aisle.

Dining cars are toward the center of trains that don't split. The Builder, even a full pre-COVID consist Builder, is not the longest walk to the diner from a sleeper. That honor goes to the Boston sleeper on the Lake Shore.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

zephyr17 said:


> At this point, I still think the restriction is more of a function of the staffing shortages and am still hopeful it is temporary.


Aren’t the diners fully staffed? I saw 2 servers and a LSA on the starlights.


----------



## zephyr17

crescent-zephyr said:


> Aren’t the diners fully staffed? I saw 2 servers and a LSA on the starlights.


I think with a train the size of the Starlight, even today, it would require 3 servers if coach passengers were allowed. Also, bear in mind that the Starlight allows Business Class passengers in the diner.

In my trip in November, the Builder and the Chief both had just an LSA and one server.

In any case, access to the diner and dining car equipment are two separate things.


----------



## joelkfla

zephyr17 said:


> We are seeing the result ADA requirements in the Venture cars, with narrower seats with wider aisles. I do not know if they will pass a wheelchair, but they are ADA compliant.


They are wide enough for a wheelchair, at least on the Brightline version. I believe they are even designed to allow wheelchairs to roll between cars.


----------



## zephyr17

joelkfla said:


> They are wide enough for a wheelchair, at least on the Brightline version. I believe they are even designed to allow wheelchairs to roll between cars.


Thanks, I'd expect to see the same on any future car orders.


----------



## Cal

WWW said:


> Another thing to be addressed if the single level coach cars are going to have observation abilities the overhead bins for small luggage items
> is going to be a problem.


I don't see a conflict here. The Ventures have enough room to store small luggage items, and if there was going to be an observation car I would think that it would be a separate car. Where's the conflict?


----------



## railiner

zephyr17 said:


> With that said, I do think there should be dedicated lounge space that is not a table car. Wraparound windows are not a function of height. Something akin to the Seaboard Air Line's Sun Lounges could servce as a model. I know I am dreaming wildly, but I actually think in terms of non-revenue cars, a single level long distance train should have a diner, lounge, and cafe as separate cars. That is very analagous to pre-Amtrak operations, where name trains tended to have both diners and coffee shop/counter service cars as well as lounge cars.


Like these? Although, without 360 degree viewing, I would not quite call them a "dome"...








Single-Level Dome - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## John819

Remember that the ADA only "requires" access to common spaces such as food service cars and observation cars, and "reasonable" access to other cars.

My proposal would be to have core unit consisting of (a) a fully ADA compliant coach, (b) a fully ADA compliant cafe car, (c) a fully ADA compliant observation car, (d) a fully ADA compliant dining car, and (e) a fully ADA compliant sleeper car. The core unit would have open gangways to allow for wheelchair access. Additional coach cars and/or sleeper cars could then be added to the core.


----------



## zephyr17

railiner said:


> Like these? Although, without 360 degree viewing, I would not quite call them a "dome"...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Single-Level Dome - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


Those are Panorama cars, and yeah, something like that, but configured as lounges. VIA's Panorama's are configured with fairly tight coach style seating even though, at least on the Canadian, they are non-revenue cars and serve Sleeper Plus and Prestige passengers as additional sightseeing space in addition to the domes.

And, yeah, they aren't domes.


----------



## MARC Rider

zephyr17 said:


> Those are Panorama cars, and yeah, something like that, but configured as lounges. VIA's Panorama's are configured with fairly tight coach style seating even though, at least on the Canadian, they are non-revenue cars and serve Sleeper Plus and Prestige passengers as additional sightseeing space in addition to the domes.
> 
> And, yeah, they aren't domes.


Neither are the Amtrak Sightseer Lounges.
Domes would be nice, but these look perfectly good.


----------



## zephyr17

MARC Rider said:


> Neither are the Amtrak Sightseer Lounges.
> Domes would be nice, but these look perfectly good.


I know and I cringe whenever I hear people call Sightseers domes.

I agree that they are perfectly good shells for single level lounges (however, IIRC they were Colorado Rail Car products, so there's that). The interiors would need to be configured as lounges, though. VIA's have cramped and uncomfortable coach style seating even though they are operated a non-rev sightseeing cars for sleeper passengers.


----------



## MARC Rider

How about the panoramic coaches used by the Swiss on the Glacier Express?


----------



## zephyr17

John819 said:


> Remember that the ADA only "requires" access to common spaces such as food service cars and observation cars, and "reasonable" access to other cars.
> 
> My proposal would be to have core unit consisting of (a) a fully ADA compliant coach, (b) a fully ADA compliant cafe car, (c) a fully ADA compliant observation car, (d) a fully ADA compliant dining car, and (e) a fully ADA compliant sleeper car. The core unit would have open gangways to allow for wheelchair access. Additional coach cars and/or sleeper cars could then be added to the core.


Having different car configurations, ADA compliant and non-compliant, would complicate consist building and multiple subtypes would add expense. While what you propose would be ADA compliant, it creates needless complications and expense and Amtrak is unlikely to do it (assuming they do anything at all for LD equipment acquisition).


----------



## railiner

MARC Rider said:


> How about the panoramic coaches used by the Swiss on the Glacier Express?
> 
> View attachment 29449
> 
> 
> View attachment 29450


Those only have one seat on each side of the aisle? Must be a bit narrow, or they are intended for a higher fare class?


----------



## railiner

zephyr17 said:


> Having different car configurations, ADA compliant and non-compliant, would complicate consist building and multiple subtypes would add expense. While what you propose would be ADA compliant, it creates needless complications and expense and Amtrak is unlikely to do it (assuming they do anything at all for LD equipment acquisition).


Correct me if I got it wrong, but my understanding of ADA rules require each car on a train as being accessible in itself. Having just a section of a train accessible, even if it offered all the various functions (sleeper, diner, lounge, and coach would not be acceptable, if other cars on the same train were not accessible…. Not sure…


----------



## zephyr17

railiner said:


> Those only have one seat on each side of the aisle? Must be a bit narrow, or they are intended for a higher fare class?


It's a narrow gauge train.


----------



## zephyr17

I 


railiner said:


> Correct me if I got it wrong, but my understanding of ADA rules require each car on a train as being accessible in itself. Having just a section of a train accessible, even if it offered all the various functions (sleeper, diner, lounge, and coach would not be acceptable, if other cars on the same train were not accessible…. Not sure…


I don't know either, but was responding to @John819 assertion that as long as all amenities were accessible, the whole train didn't have to be.


----------



## MisterUptempo

railiner said:


> Correct me if I got it wrong, but my understanding of ADA rules require each car on a train as being accessible in itself. Having just a section of a train accessible, even if it offered all the various functions (sleeper, diner, lounge, and coach would not be acceptable, if other cars on the same train were not accessible…. Not sure…


I believe that is correct, certainly as far as new intercity rolling stock is concerned. Every car must be accessible, with its own section for mobility devices, with the ability for anyone in such a device to access every car in the consist. That does not necessarily mean all access to every square inch of the train. In a consist with bi-level or multi-level cars, there is no guarantee one would have unfettered access to every level.

I believe in the case of commuter rolling stock, there is no guarantee to be able to roll from one end of the train to the other, just that every car has ADA entries and seating areas. The new multi-level Coradia cars Metra is purchasing from Alstom provides for low floor entry, with ADA seating on that lowest level and appears to have no provided ADA access to the mid and upper levels at all.

In Europe, multiple units usually designate only one or two areas for mobility devices within the entire trainset, and almost always immediately adjacent to an accessible restroom.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

The brand new viewliner II cars can’t accommodate wheelchairs past the accessible rooms. 

Perhaps only new superliner diners and lounges would need lifts?


----------



## MisterUptempo

crescent-zephyr said:


> The brand new viewliner II cars can’t accommodate wheelchairs past the accessible rooms.
> 
> Perhaps only new superliner diners and lounges would need lifts?


Then, I'm just wondering, if there is a consist of multiple VLII sleeper cars, how does someone in a mobility device get to the diner from their car? I'm not doubting you, just curious as to how that would work. Does the food just get sent to the room? Unfortunate if true. 

My experience with Amtrak has all been on corridor and NEC only. No long distance/sleeper to speak of.


----------



## joelkfla

MisterUptempo said:


> Then, I'm just wondering, if there is a consist of multiple VLII sleeper cars, how does someone in a mobility device get to the diner from their car? I'm not doubting you, just curious as to how that would work. Does the food just get sent to the room? Unfortunate if true.
> 
> My experience with Amtrak has all been on corridor and NEC only. No long distance/sleeper to speak of.


The wheelchair table in the diner is at the rear of the car. The H-room is at the front of the sleeper. It should be possible for a wheelchair to move from the H-room in the first sleeper into the wheelchair area in the diner.

I don't think there is wheelchair access to the diner from additional sleepers. I'm pretty sure the corridor is too narrow and the corners too tight for a wheelchair to pass. Chair-bound occupants would need to have the SCA deliver their food for consumption in their room, the same as in Superliners.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

The option is to move from sleeper to diner at station stops. This can also happen on superliners if the passenger wishes to visit the cafe.


----------



## MARC Rider

zephyr17 said:


> Having different car configurations, ADA compliant and non-compliant, would complicate consist building and multiple subtypes would add expense. While what you propose would be ADA compliant, it creates needless complications and expense and Amtrak is unlikely to do it (assuming they do anything at all for LD equipment acquisition).


o


railiner said:


> Those only have one seat on each side of the aisle? Must be a bit narrow, or they are intended for a higher fare class?


This is, indeed their upper class service, but it should also be kept in mind that the Glacier Express runs on a narrow gauge (1 meter) track, so, of course, the cars are not as wide as standard gauge.


----------



## Willbridge

zephyr17 said:


> I am actually pretty dumbfounded with the reaction to 12 car single level trains. That was a pretty normal train length back in the day, 8-12 cars being very common. It isn't that long.


It may have been from the 1941 _Guide _reprint, I calculated from the equipment listings that the standard ideal Pennsy train was 13 cars, including a baggage car.

Looking at long-distance trains of some other old schedules one finds that there usually was a cafe-lounge or coffee shop car in the middle of the coach section and a lounge or sleeper-lounge at the end of the first class section. This would have cut down on the walking (x-ref the classic CPR _Canadian_). 

Of course, that does require more intelligence in loading procedures so that where platforms are long enough the passengers are organized -- not always the case with Amtrak. Waiting for stray passengers to run a half-dozen car lengths delays departures.


----------



## west point

Willbridge said:


> It may have been from the 1941 _Guide _reprint, I calculated from the equipment listings that the standard ideal Pennsy train was 13 cars, including a baggage car.


Were most heavy weight cars just 60 feet long instesd of today's 80+feet long? Today's cars just have 2 aels per truck as the old ones had 3 axels per car But then the REX, some RPOs and storage mail were even shorter.

Mayb the number was more what one loco could pull on flatter track and the helpers on steepe locations?


----------



## zephyr17

west point said:


> Were most heavy weight cars just 60 feet long instesd of today's 80+feet long? Today's cars just have 2 aels per truck as the old ones had 3 axels per car But then the REX, some RPOs and storage mail were even shorter.
> 
> Mayb the number was more what one loco could pull on flatter track and the helpers on steepe locations?


Most heavyweights in the latev19th and 20th century were 80'.

60' cars were more 19th century.


----------



## Caesar La Rock

west point said:


> Were most heavy weight cars just 60 feet long instesd of today's 80+feet long? Today's cars just have 2 aels per truck as the old ones had 3 axels per car But then the REX, some RPOs and storage mail were even shorter.
> 
> Mayb the number was more what one loco could pull on flatter track and the helpers on steepe locations?


Most were around 80ft long or a little more or less then that. I know Pullman standard weights (what they called heavyweights back then) were of a standard length of about 82ft long. 60ft cars were more of the Harriman lines style, although one can argue that the Harriman passenger cars were the early generation of lightweights more then true heavyweights. That's another story though.


----------



## NES28

When long passenger trains were the norm the railroads (especially the Pennsylvania) posted "Location Number" signs along the platforms to facilitate passengers being where they needed to be to board their assigned car before the train came into the station. And they wouldn't even think about checking tickets as people board, as Amtrak now seems to do pretty regularly now. Sad how the focus on minimizing station dwell time has been lost.


----------



## Willbridge

NES28 said:


> When long passenger trains were the norm the railroads (especially the Pennsylvania) posted "Location Number" signs along the platforms to facilitate passengers being where they needed to be to board their assigned car before the train came into the station. And they wouldn't even think about checking tickets as people board, as Amtrak now seems to do pretty regularly now. Sad how the focus on minimizing station dwell time has been lost.


Some Amtrak stations are equipped with location numbers, but it would be interesting to know where they are being used. And, of course, they're common in other countries.


----------



## MARC Rider

Willbridge said:


> Some Amtrak stations are equipped with location numbers, but it would be interesting to know where they are being used. And, of course, they're common in other countries.


Baltimore and Philadelphia have long had location numbers. They're not used much now, as most of the trains, it's pretty much coach, except "business class is the last car of the train." I think for the long-distance trains like the Silvers, the sleepers are to the rear, coaches are to the front. And the Acela now has assigned seats and car numbers, with the locations pasted on to the platform. They also tend to load the fastest.


----------



## joelkfla

MARC Rider said:


> Baltimore and Philadelphia have long had location numbers. They're not used much now, as most of the trains, it's pretty much coach, except "business class is the last car of the train." I think for the long-distance trains like the Silvers, the sleepers are to the rear, coaches are to the front. And the Acela now has assigned seats and car numbers, with the locations pasted on to the platform. They also tend to load the fastest.


Kissimmee has them. I was told which number to go to to wait for a sleeper. But the SuperStar is longer than the platform, so some cars board from a platform extension that is signed "No Trespassing." In that case, I was told to go to the end of the regular platform and wait to be escorted by the station attendant.

IIRC, Orlando also has them, but they queue passengers up in one line for sleepers and another for coach. The station agent just sends passengers to the number where the queue starts.


----------



## jis

joelkfla said:


> IIRC, Orlando also has them, but they queue passengers up in one line for sleepers and another for coach. The station agent just sends passengers to the number where the queue starts.


Each time I boarded Sleeper from Orlando I was sent to a location letter. No lines for Sleepers those times. Coach had a long line.


----------



## GDRRiley

The state of california is working with amtrak to potential join the order for new LD cars if they are bi level to replace the California and Surfliner cars.
they can raise the cars height to 17ft and set the floors at 25in as thats the standard for low platforms. The issue is they'd need to not use Janney couplers as the standard height is too tall to work with a 25in floor


crescent-zephyr said:


> There’s no reason the existing cars can’t continue after major overhauls.
> 
> Hopefully a new manufacturer of passenger rail cars will emerge here in the USA. It’s a shame Colorado Railcar didn’t survive.


They fleet is dwindiling so unless they rebuild all wrecked cars they aren't going to be able to expand and good luck getting anyone to make more without an insane markup. If congress pushes them to expand service to restore old routes or more often (please 2RT a day leaving 12 hours apart, 7 days a week on all routes) they'll need way more equipment then they have, right now with ~400 cars in usable condition they can barley operate what they have. Their shop is back up right now but they can't even spare 8-10 cars california gave back to them at the start of 2020.

Colorado Railcar made some very meh DMUs. I've not even riden on one of their coaches but stadler just made a very simiar design for Rocky Mountaineer.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

GDRRiley said:


> Colorado Railcar made some very meh DMUs. I've not even riden on one of their coaches but stadler just made a very simiar design for Rocky Mountaineer.


What as meh about them? I’ve ridden the DMU’s in both New Jersey and Austin, TX. 

The bi-level coaches on the Alaska Railroad are amazing. 

I’ll look up the stadler cars… I wasn’t aware of them.


----------



## GDRRiley

crescent-zephyr said:


> What as meh about them? I’ve ridden the DMU’s in both New Jersey and Austin, TX.
> 
> The bi-level coaches on the Alaska Railroad are amazing.
> 
> I’ll look up the stadler cars… I wasn’t aware of them.


nether of of those are Colorado Railcar. They had major reliabitly issues which is why of the ~10 that have been sold only 4 are still being used buy WES and I think the alaskin RR.
Yeah its under their custom cars, just built 10.


----------



## Cal

GDRRiley said:


> The state of california is working with amtrak to potential join the order for new LD cars if they are bi level to replace the California and Surfliner cars.
> they can raise the cars height to 17ft and set the floors at 25in as thats the standard for low platforms. The issue is they'd need to not use Janney couplers as the standard height is too tall to work with a 25in floor


Source? If true, this is great news. While I would love to see California get the ventures, I would also love it even more for us to get new bilevels.


----------



## GDRRiley

Cal said:


> Source? If true, this is great news. While I would love to see California get the ventures, I would also love it even more for us to get new bilevels.



This talks a lot about both the challenges and the plans next update could come in October


----------



## Jack Davis

Cal said:


> Source? If true, this is great news. While I would love to see California get the ventures, I would also love it even more for us to get new bilevels.


I wrote a 'piece' on here a few months ago supporting 'Wide Body' cars ~ twice as wide as the current fleet. But, I doubt if the powers that be will move in that direction. I suggested Siemens Corp as a viable builder, got a nice letter from AMTRAK headquarters indicating the many 'problems' with going in that direction and the fact that that idea isn't new. But, it seems like the 'fleet' isn't big enough to handle the projected needs so, some passenger cars need to be built by a reliable builder. Nice ones.


----------



## railiner

I would like to see the return of slide down window shades as used in Heritage era cars, and elimination of those curtains.


----------



## dlagrua

IMO, there is not much on the Viewliners and Superliners that you can change. With the talk of Amtrak going with a standardized car design in the future, all single level equipment is probably coming. Siemens already has some nice rail cars and all that is needed are some alterations. Their sleepers would require an H room at the end of the car near the door (like the Viewliners) and that might be all that is needed. Meanwhile Amtrak needs to get Beechgrove running at a good pace to get Superliner equipment back on the rails. Right now we see reservations being cancelled due to a shortage of equipment.


----------



## jpakala

I think that regardless of anything else, sleeping cars should have the room ceiling heights and standard bed widths that they always did from Pullman, Budd, etc.


----------



## west point

As posted else where remember all passenger trains must have some number of exits with traps. That is so if train is stopped on a right of way and exit / evacuation is necessary passengers have some way to get off train.


----------



## joelkfla

west point said:


> As posted else where remember all passenger trains must have some number of exits with traps. That is so if train is stopped on a right of way and exit / evacuation is necessary passengers have some way to get off train.


The current Acela trainsets have portable folding stairs for evacuation. Is that illegal on new equipment?

From 8/15/22 Service Standards Manual:
6. Acela-Folding Stairs​a) Locate Folding Stairs.​• There are two (2) folding stairs, one (1) located on each end of the trainset, in a storage compartment under the vestibule of the first car adjacent to the power car. A small gray decal showing an icon of stair steps and the wording “Folding Stairs” is located above the storage compartment door.​


----------



## jis

west point said:


> As posted else where remember all passenger trains must have some number of exits with traps. That is so if train is stopped on a right of way and exit / evacuation is necessary passengers have some way to get off train.


There has to be a way for passengers to get off the train. That does not imply there has to be traps. Of course it would be nice if there were such. Tier III buff strength standards makes such possible. Tier II made such quite difficult since there was no way to break a side sill without failing the buff strength test. Hence Acelas don't have traps but have portable step ladders.


----------



## Barb Stout

What is a trap, what does it look like? I tried googling it, but didn't get anything useful to me, just stuff like the guy whose shirt got trapped in a train door and he was dragged to death.


----------



## joelkfla

Barb Stout said:


> What is a trap, what does it look like? I tried googling it, but didn't get anything useful to me, just stuff like the guy whose shirt got trapped in a train door and he was dragged to death.


It's short for trap door. Just a square sheet of heavy gauge metal on a hinge. When it's flat, it covers the stairs and forms the floor to the door. When it's lifted up to the side, the stairs are exposed. It usually also has a handrail attached to the bottom side.



Trap closed on the left; trap open on the right.


----------

