Bi-level Long Distance (LD) fleet replacement RFP discussion H2 2024

thefirewarde · Dec 19, 2024

Green Maned Lion said:
Much like the Viewliner II options?

The ones still having teething and support issues? We definitely want more of that.

I think depending on timelines, Amtrak may need to work in parallel on Phase Four and Phase One of this procurement - getting in line right behind VIA for two routes worth of single level equipment is a good hedge against delays with the new bilevels and Viewliner II continued problems. Omit the domes if that's a sticking point but at least get coaches, sleepers, and diners.

Cal · Dec 19, 2024

toddinde said:
We also need to keep a close watch on seat design because the Ventures are bad. Yes, I know that should be self evident in a long distance car, but we’ve learned to take nothing for granted

Have you seen Amtrak's own designs? It has very specific measurements of coach seats which tells us at least something, even though it probably won't be the final product.

Tom C · Dec 19, 2024

on the long distance coaches they’re talking about a “hybrid” recline. The seat bottom would come forward like on the Ventures but the seat back would also go back in a true recline a certain amount. The amount of true recline in the premium seats would be greater.

Even Amtrak’s Airos won’t be like the state owned Ventures. If you look at the concept art it appears the Airo seats are going to be the same or at least a similar type to Brightline’s. Still doesn’t have a true recline in the seat back but the seat itself is more comfortable than the state owned Ventures.

Anderson · Sunday at 7:38 AM

Palmland said:
While I do like the idea of new bi-level cars, I think, given Amtrak's struggles with any kind of procurement project (and this is certainly a complex one), it would be better to just piggyback on the VIA single level order. That would be a design that could be used nationwide which would reduce maintenance costs and make it easy to move the fleet around (transfer cars from the west in the winter to Florida service and the reverse). No doubt it would speed up delivery significantly. Perhaps they could even get an ADA waiver to provide dome car access by one of those stair lifts for the disabled. After all, the Super Chief and Florida Special were single level trains and they were pretty nice!

This would also avoid the political problem that a split fleet causes - Amtrak can't just go out and order 200 cars right now and hope to use them throughout the system, and any given order is "somebody else's equipment".

toddinde said:
There are a host of reasons for bilevels including station platform length. The most egregious issue is the lack of a coach lounge. That has to be remedied. We also need to keep a close watch on seat design because the Ventures are bad. Yes, I know that should be self evident in a long distance car, but we’ve learned to take nothing for granted. The limited coach lounge space is, on its face, unacceptable.

I mean, at some point the combined hassle and the added cost to run shorter trains due to the quirks of the bilevel equipment means that Amtrak might be better off just planning to lengthen platforms at a number of stations, and at the rest they're already double-spotting so managing that via seat allocations might make more sense. Also, for breaking even on capacity you really only go from something like eight or nine cars to eleven or twelve - basically, an extra coach, an extra sleeper, and possibly one other service car.

Frankly, if Amtrak could throw around 1000-1500 cars [1] onto the back of the VIA order I'd say they should just go for it and write off this whole thing as a misadventure.

[1] A 3:2 ratio of Superliners to single-level equipment would put the Superliner replacement order around 720 cars. You have 180 Viewliner I/II cars and then you have 145 Amfleet IIs. Yes, some Superliners are in state service, and yes I presume the Auto Train would get its own replacements. But a straight 1:1 replacement of the fleet is essentially 1000-1100 cars. Amtrak has some explicit expansion plans they've been pressured on (e.g. Daily Cardinal, Daily Sunset, Sunset East), and there's probably unmet demand that could justify lengthening some trains by a few cars above the above numbers, so guessing at up to 400 additional cars seems realistic.

Tom C · Sunday at 8:48 AM

I think it’s important to remember that VIA has somewhat different priorities. They are essentially running the Canadian as a land cruise service that also serves a few remote stops that don’t have many other transportation options. Amtrak’s LD trains run much more frequently and provide more transportation utility. It’s one thing for Amtrak to pivot to single level if necessary, but they would likely have different requirements for interior configurations - and different accessibility laws to follow.

jis · Sunday at 10:00 AM

Tom C said:
I think it’s important to remember that VIA has somewhat different priorities. They are essentially running the Canadian as a land cruise service that also serves a few remote stops that don’t have many other transportation options. Amtrak’s LD trains run much more frequently and provide more transportation utility. It’s one thing for Amtrak to pivot to single level if necessary, but they would likely have different requirements for interior configurations - and different accessibility laws to follow.

However managing to screw up ADA requirements in a single level design would take a special talent, not that that might not be present.

Mailliw · Sunday at 10:10 AM

VIA is gojng with the same accesible core concept as trsk. The only cars from the VIA order that would be really be out of place on Amtrak are the section sleepers and dome cars.

Tom C · Sunday at 10:21 AM

I could see cooperation on single level for the basic design and big picture items, but there would be differences in interiors, accommodation types, programming, etc. I don’t see Amtrak doing berths as an example. It wouldn’t be a carbon copy.

Anderson · Sunday at 4:31 PM

Mailliw said:
VIA is gojng with the same accesible core concept as trsk. The only cars from the VIA order that would be really be out of place on Amtrak are the section sleepers and dome cars.

Tom C said:
I could see cooperation on single level for the basic design and big picture items, but there would be differences in interiors, accommodation types, programming, etc. I don’t see Amtrak doing berths as an example. It wouldn’t be a carbon copy.

I mean, you could exclude the berth car (or swap out a roomette car design), and the dome could also be subbed for a reworked dining car to act as a lounge (sub a bar/kitchenette for the full kitchen?), but the point is that the underlying car could probably be the same down to the plumbing, at which point the differences are smaller than more than a few PV overhauls.

The domes would be an odd fit vs what Amtrak has done, but if you could find a way to have folks pass through step-free downstairs (I think that's the biggest issue if there are any facilities on the "other" side of the train) and get one of those "elevator seats" alongside the stairs that a lot of folks have in their houses and get that waivered through, you'd be good.

I'll be honest - given the popularity in Europe of couchettes, I'm not 100% convinced that the berth car would be totally without a business case. I think it would be touchier in the US, but at the same time I don't see it as a complete non-starter. It's really no less private than most of your airline lie-flats.

But at the same time, what's the difference between a berth car (for via) and a roomette car (for Amtrak)? Doors? Depending on the exact dimensions, etc., it might literally be cheaper for Amtrak to just piggyback on the order and deal with that modification at Beech Grove, or to just order a bunch of shells to deal with in-house for your roomette sleepers. I'm not saying this is a good idea, I'm just saying that (1) it might net out in their favor and (2) it would almost certainly be less troubled than trying to foist ADA compliance onto bilevel long-distance equipment.

joelkfla · Sunday at 5:57 PM

Anderson said:
The domes would be an odd fit vs what Amtrak has done, but if you could find a way to have folks pass through step-free downstairs (I think that's the biggest issue if there are any facilities on the "other" side of the train) and get one of those "elevator seats" alongside the stairs that a lot of folks have in their houses and get that waivered through, you'd be good.

Can't do that. Need to transport the passenger seated in their wheeled mobility device.

There are stair-climbing wheelchair lifts on the market, but I don't know whether they could operate reliably on a bouncing, swaying train, or whether they're even certified for use on a moving vehicle.

railiner · Sunday at 10:24 PM

joelkfla said:
Can't do that. Need to transport the passenger seated in their wheeled mobility device.

There are stair-climbing wheelchair lifts on the market, but I don't know whether they could operate reliably on a bouncing, swaying train, or whether they're even certified for use on a moving vehicle.

Again, the answer is a “Panorama” type lounge car…visibility comparable to a Sightseer Lounge, with full ADA compliance.

Green Maned Lion · Monday at 9:40 AM

Anderson said:
This would also avoid the political problem that a split fleet causes - Amtrak can't just go out and order 200 cars right now and hope to use them throughout the system, and any given order is "somebody else's equipment".

I mean, at some point the combined hassle and the added cost to run shorter trains due to the quirks of the bilevel equipment means that Amtrak might be better off just planning to lengthen platforms at a number of stations, and at the rest they're already double-spotting so managing that via seat allocations might make more sense. Also, for breaking even on capacity you really only go from something like eight or nine cars to eleven or twelve - basically, an extra coach, an extra sleeper, and possibly one other service car.

Frankly, if Amtrak could throw around 1000-1500 cars [1] onto the back of the VIA order I'd say they should just go for it and write off this whole thing as a misadventure.

[1] A 3:2 ratio of Superliners to single-level equipment would put the Superliner replacement order around 720 cars. You have 180 Viewliner I/II cars and then you have 145 Amfleet IIs. Yes, some Superliners are in state service, and yes I presume the Auto Train would get its own replacements. But a straight 1:1 replacement of the fleet is essentially 1000-1100 cars. Amtrak has some explicit expansion plans they've been pressured on (e.g. Daily Cardinal, Daily Sunset, Sunset East), and there's probably unmet demand that could justify lengthening some trains by a few cars above the above numbers, so guessing at up to 400 additional cars seems realistic.

Amtrak can not lengthen any platforms to accommodate single level trains, I don't think. In order to lengthen a low level platform for the purpose of accommodating single level trains, they would have to convert that platform to high level, which is in itself expensive. Additionally, the gauge issues of a high level platform might also require, as per the demands of the freight railroad, the construction of a siding track for that platform so that it doesn't interfere with the loading gauge of freight trains. That would cost a fortune in itself, and might also result in the need to relocate or eliminate the station building.

ADA is a thorn in everyones side, the way it is implemented.

cocojacoby · Monday at 10:33 AM

railiner said:
Again, the answer is a “Panorama” type lounge car…visibility comparable to a Sightseer Lounge, with full ADA compliance.

Yeah. Although we all love the traditional dome car and the ability to see over the front and rear of the train, a "Panorama" lounge car would hold a lot more people and satisfy the sightseeing urge for most passengers except the diehards in the front couple of rows in a real dome I guess.

For some dreamers . . . a new 14' 6" dome car would work when coupled to new LD cars built to Amfeet dimensions which are only 12' 8" high and would provide almost the same viewing ability as existing dome cars (approx. 2' 8" height above the roof), but new coaches are bigger and top off at about 14 feet.

Steve4031 · Monday at 10:41 AM

The sunlounges used on the new York to Florida trains might be an example to follow.

railiner · Monday at 10:59 AM

Steve4031 said:
The sunlounges used on the new York to Florida trains might be an example to follow.

Except they weren’t full lounges. They also contained five double bedrooms.
They would be nice though, as a “first class” lounge, as in their SAL role.

sportbiker · Monday at 8:59 PM

Amtrak can't "just" piggyback onto a VIA order because there is no VIA order. VIA is at the very beginning of their own process. The drawings they released are their version of the Amtrak RFP: it's a wish list that may or may not come to pass. The whole order may or may not come to pass. If it did, the form is likely to change just as Amtrak's order is likely to change from the RFP.

Cal · Monday at 10:30 PM

sportbiker said:
Amtrak can't "just" piggyback onto a VIA order because there is no VIA order. VIA is at the very beginning of their own process. The drawings they released are their version of the Amtrak RFP: it's a wish list that may or may not come to pass. The whole order may or may not come to pass. If it did, the form is likely to change just as Amtrak's order is likely to change from the RFP.

Well VIA is further ahead for single level fleet, since Amtrak hasn't done anything regarding those. So if they end up getting an order placed with set specifications, wouldn't it be possible for Amtrak to just order those (assuming they were good with what they had)?

west point · Monday at 11:28 PM

There is a real practical limit that may affect the need for bilevel cars instead of all single level cars. Use the 3 single levels for 2 bi-levels. The limitation at many stations cannot be more than about 15 passenger cars + 1 baggage + 2 or 3 locos. Stations that will limit to these lengths or less are CHI, MSP, SEA. SJC, STL, KCS, SAS, DEN, SLC. Maybe LAX & NOL

The above stations are not like Lorton and Sanford that has almost unlimited space to split and combine. Amtrak cannot take the 10 - 15 minutes to combine, connect up HEP and other lines, & do a brake test hoping everything works for longer trains.

Therefore, bi levels may add 40 - 50% more passenger capacity of trains to these limiting locations. It is not like VIA's terminal capacity which ran a 28 single level car train I was on. It was a very long walk.

GDRRiley · Tuesday at 5:02 AM

Cal said:
Well VIA is further ahead for single level fleet, since Amtrak hasn't done anything regarding those. So if they end up getting an order placed with set specifications, wouldn't it be possible for Amtrak to just order those (assuming they were good with what they had)?

Amtrak has a design for the single level fleet they can find another manufacture for if they really wanted them. they own the viewliner design and given its a box they could make a lounge, coach car or a higher density sleeper car if they wanted. So far other than a coach car which is needed to replace the amfleet II the rest of the single level fleet looks young compared to the bi level fleet.

FortCalhoun · Tuesday at 10:00 AM

The original vista dome on the Burlington did not have a depressed section under the dome. The car was converted from an existing coach. The area under the dome had aisles adjacent to the windows (the area under the dome seats) with normal headroom. The area under the aisle in the dome had low headroom and was used for seats. A similar arrangement could be used by Amtrak

Amtrak25 · Tuesday at 11:14 AM

FortCalhoun said:
The original vista dome on the Burlington did not have a depressed section under the dome. The car was converted from an existing coach. The area under the dome had aisles adjacent to the windows (the area under the dome seats) with normal headroom. The area under the aisle in the dome had low headroom and was used for seats. A similar arrangement could be used by Amtrak

But the ADA passengers could not get up into the dome itself. US laws are more stringent than Canada's.

I still think they should scrap the whole bi-level RFP and do what Canada is doing, sans domes, simplify the sleeper berth arrangment. The elevators won't work any better than their toilet systems. Get something like Seaboard's Sun Lounges (without bedrooms) and stop this nonsense of denying coach passengers lounge space.

Amtrak25 · Tuesday at 11:20 AM

west point said:
There is a real practical limit that may affect the need for bilevel cars instead of all single level cars. Use the 3 single levels for 2 bi-levels. The limitation at many stations cannot be more than about 15 passenger cars + 1 baggage + 2 or 3 locos. Stations that will limit to these lengths or less are CHI, MSP, SEA. SJC, STL, KCS, SAS, DEN, SLC. Maybe LAX & NOL

Amfleet-2 has 60 seats. Superliners have 77. That is not 3 for 2. More like 5 for 4. The only reason they want to go bi-level is Autotrain, yet that train ran for decades with Heritage and Amfleet-2 cars since the original private Autotrain.

Until Tom Downs came along, Amtrak ran many 14 - 16 car trains, such as the Zephyr and Florida trains.

cocojacoby · Tuesday at 12:05 PM

Amtrak25 said:
Amfleet-2 has 60 seats. Superliners have 77. That is not 3 for 2. More like 5 for 4. The only reason they want to go bi-level is Autotrain, yet that train ran for decades with Heritage and Amfleet-2 cars since the original private Autotrain.

Until Tom Downs came along, Amtrak ran many 14 - 16 car trains, such as the Zephyr and Florida trains.

Yes but the new Viewliner II has 1 ADA room, 2 bedrooms, and 11 roomettes (12 if they were smart enough to order more dorm/baggage cars).

The Superliners have 1 ADA room, 6 bedrooms (includes 1 family room) and 14 roomettes.

That's a huge difference in capacity and revenue.

railiner · Tuesday at 12:17 PM

Amtrak25 said:
But the ADA passengers could not get up into the dome itself. US laws are more stringent than Canada's

If they ran a dome car together with a fully accessible Panorama type lounge car, that should satisfy the ADA as a “reasonable accommodation”, as handicapped passengers would also be able to enjoy the sightseeing aspect of the lounge car.

jis · Tuesday at 2:13 PM

GDRRiley said:
Amtrak has a design for the single level fleet they can find another manufacture for if they really wanted them. they own the viewliner design and given its a box they could make a lounge, coach car or a higher density sleeper car if they wanted. So far other than a coach car which is needed to replace the amfleet II the rest of the single level fleet looks young compared to the bi level fleet.

Egads I hope they don't even think of doing that. The Vierwliner core design is way out of date and is inherently more expensive to maintain than any modern car.

Bi-level Long Distance (LD) fleet replacement RFP discussion H2 2024

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

Service Attendant

Engineer

Train Attendant

Engineer

Train Attendant

Permanent Way Inspector

OBS Chief

Train Attendant

Engineer

Engineer

Engineer

Engineer

OBS Chief

Engineer

Engineer

Lead Service Attendant

Engineer

Engineer

OBS Chief

Conductor

Conductor

OBS Chief

Engineer

Permanent Way Inspector

Join the conversation!

Join today and get all the highlights of this community direct to your inbox. It's FREE!