Recent content by jadebenn

A single-level design? Well, I suppose that rules out any talk of coordination with Amtrak's new order.

We can only hope that the GOP Senators - being more supportive of the LD services than the NEC - stay the course. But I completely understand the pessimism.

What's the current status of RGP advocacy?

Do you have a source for this quote? I'd really love to see the context.

A common fleet also means there's zero redundancy if some issue affects a common part.

Aren't you overlooking the supremacy clause here? I'm fairly certain the feds can and do exercise eminent domain even when state law contravenes it. As a federally-chartered US agency, Amtrak can tap into federal authority on such matters if its statutory powers allow it. Condescending, much?

Geez, the Hunts really do own Dallas.

Most likely the FOIA will be redacted for reasons of "commercial sensitivity" or somesuch. But, won't know if we don't try, now will we?

If we could run bilevels in the east it'd help reduce opex. But it's pretty much a fantasy.

I think steps are "fine" on commuter service as far as the ADA is concerned because there aren't any amenities provided elsewhere on the train. The issue seems to emerge when you have said amenities and they can't access them.

I remember considering this back in a thread I made on this site about whether high-level bi-levels in the Superliner style was possible. The conclusion I came to was "no." At least, not without ADA-non-compliant floor height changes between the boarding and central areas.* *The closest I ever...

New article from Bloomberg that sheds some insight into Amtrak's gameplan here: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-21/texas-high-speed-rail-plan-lurches-back-to-life-with-amtrak-s-help Pay-walled, unfortunately, but there are ways... Anyway, from Byford's comments here it sounds...

I did some napkin math, and I think you could get a bilevel high-platform if you can use the whole 17 feet of plate F. But it's tight. So, doing the basic napkin math of 17 feet minus 48 inches, then dividing the remaining height clearance by two, you get 6.5 feet. That's enough, right? Except...

Well, I'm tired of debating it either way. It's totally tangential to my actual question. So assuming bilevels, does the math work with the clearances available? Is it physically possible for passengers who aren't hobbits? That is the question I would like answered. I am genuinely curious if...

How would it be a further subdivision? The Superliners already can't run on the NEC. Doesn't seem to be a deal-breaker. Of course simplifying the fleet benefits Amtrak, but so does the doubled capacity per car of the Superliners. That's why they were ordered, and that's why they're still in...