Search results

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...

Is it really that unreasonable to wonder if it's possible to have the capacity benefits of a bilevel and the accessibility of a high level car given the very generous tolerances of American loading gauge? I think it's pretty unfair to characterize that as a "former obsession."

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

Yeah, more than a bit hesitant to hear they're planning to replace much of their electric fleet with dual-mode. If it works, sure, but I can't help but fear they'll be very maintenance-intensive compared to the ACS-64s. Slightly related: I wonder if these locomotives have any commonality with...

Interesting how Siemens, by simply being in the right place at the right time, is going to standardize pretty much everything but the commuter trains and Amtrak LDs at 50" high platforms. I mean sure, not like there's any plan to rebuild the low-platform stations for level boarding at the...

Seems like that wouldn't satisfy interoperability requirements. But you seem more knowledgeable about this than I do. Would there be any issue with running foreign power in lead if they chose that route? Also, updated link: https://beta.regulations.gov/document/FRA-2010-0060-0047