Amtrak features and comfort updates

[mgkeihl]

On my trips in a roomette, I found I was more comfortable with the bed made up all the time. I used my airline carry-on sized bag as a back rest support (with the pillows) during the day. I’m short, so there was room for my cpap on the bed. I carried a power strip which provided more outlets for charging and using the cpap. I don’t know what I’d do if I had to share the tiny space. It was good to be able to lie down when I got dizzy from the train motion. In the future I will bring something I can use as cup holders to put on the little shelf next to the seat/bed.

I did this too!! No issues with attendant, they just said sure. I liked sitting cross legged looking out window. And as a light sleeper, was all set for short naps! Also I was alone in the roomette.

 

[The Quaking Widow]

Did you tell the room attendant in advance that you would like to have the bed stay made up until departure time? Was there a issue with the request?

On both to and fro, the attendants were Ok with the early set up. One asked that I let him unmake the bed about 2 hours out from the station as it was the terminus and there were lots of things to be done. On the return trip I think the suspension system on our car was worn out, awful lurching throughout. I had such trouble getting upstairs and crossing into the dining car for breakfast that I decided to take the rest of my meals in my room.

 

[danasgoodstuff]

In a roomette by myself I prefer to leave the seats up and sleep in the upper bed when I feel like it. baggage in the seat opposite and I don't really care much if I'm facing forward or not.

 

[zephyr17]

In a roomette by myself I prefer to leave the seats up and sleep in the upper bed when I feel like it. baggage in the seat opposite and I don't really care much if I'm facing forward or not.

I can see that on Viewliners, but cannot imagine willingly choosing the "coffin" on Superliners.

 

[MARC Rider]

I can see that on Viewliners, but cannot imagine willingly choosing the "coffin" on Superliners.

The existence of the "coffin," by the way is a good reason why one might want to have Amtrak pick single-level trainsets when they replace the current long-distance fleet.

For the uninitiated, the "coffin" refers to the restricted headroom and lack of access to a window that one finds in the upper berth of a Superliner Roomette.

 

[01piglet_patinas]

The existence of the "coffin," by the way is a good reason why one might want to have Amtrak pick single-level trainsets when they replace the current long-distance fleet.

For the uninitiated, the "coffin" refers to the restricted headroom and lack of access to a window that one finds in the upper berth of a Superliner Roomette.

I appreciation the clarification - I am an uninitiated person in the various lingo and acronyms.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

The existence of the "coffin," by the way is a good reason why one might want to have Amtrak pick single-level trainsets when they replace the current long-distance fleet.

For the uninitiated, the "coffin" refers to the restricted headroom and lack of access to a window that one finds in the upper berth of a Superliner Roomette.

New single level trainsets could have the same headroom and lack of windows…. Unless we get more viewliners.

Also…. New custom bi-levels could have better headroom and windows.

 

[John Santos]

New single level trainsets could have the same headroom and lack of windows…. Unless we get more viewliners.

Also…. New custom bi-levels could have better headroom and windows.

Unlikely. Any new bi-level would have the same height restrictions as the SuperLiners. (Using more modern design, they might be able to get an inch or two of additional height by making the roof and 2nd floor structure a little thinner, but they would still have to pass crash test strength standards, so it would be an enormous amount of money for very little gain.)

There is no reason why a new single-level sleeper should have less height than a ViewLiner and Amtrak should demand any proposals be at least as tall inside and have at least the same window area as the VL1 and VL2s. They might not be identical, but the ceiling height, bed length, width and accessibility (the ease of climbing into the upper bunk) would have to match or exceed the ViewLiners, if Amtrak is remotely competent.

 

[jis]

Unlikely. Any new bi-level would have the same height restrictions as the SuperLiners. (Using more modern design, they might be able to get an inch or two of additional height by making the roof and 2nd floor structure a little thinner, but they would still have to pass crash test strength standards, so it would be an enormous amount of money for very little gain.)

There is no reason why a new single-level sleeper should have less height than a ViewLiner and Amtrak should demand any proposals be at least as tall inside and have at least the same window area as the VL1 and VL2s. They might not be identical, but the ceiling height, bed length, width and accessibility (the ease of climbing into the upper bunk) would have to match or exceed the ViewLiners, if Amtrak is remotely competent.

I agree. Until they rebuild Chicago Union Station increasing vertical clearance there will be no bi-level higher than Superliners and there will be no significant increase in headroom in bi-levels operated by Amtrak.

And yes, there is absolutely no reason that new single levels would be any shorter than 14'6" which is the max allowed and which is the height of the Siemens Ventures, and also there is absolutely no reason that they could not have two rows of windows like in Viewliners. However it is not clear what good two rows of windows would do in standard Coaches where the upper level windows would be above the luggage rack mostly covered up by bags in a loaded train. They would be great in Lounges, Diners and Sleepers, and Amtrak could specify such. Viewliners are not the only cars in the world with two rows of windows.

 

[Siegmund]

Out of curiosity... is there any other place in the system that can accommodate the existing superliners, but cannot accommodate Plate F (17'0")?

On the freight system, if your route is not limited to Plate E (15'9") it will almost certainly be certified to accommodate Plate F everywhere on the main line. It seems that if there are exceptions, they are going to be passenger-only trackage like CUS.

 

[west point]

Out of curiosity... is there any other place in the system that can accommodate the existing superliners, but cannot accommodate Plate F (17'0")?

That is a very important question. What is needed is a survey probably of ETTs to determine clearances. Where double stacks operate ( that is plate "H" ) there will not be a problem on main lines. You do need a survey of stations that have station tracks to verify platforms have no problems. Canopies might be a problem with some especially any canopy that overhangs a station track.

Brought this up before but WAS 1st street tunnel has clearance problems which limit heights for any WAS - SE destination. The catenary at the station would need raising. Now Auto Train could be equipped as it also carries plate "H" auto carriers. Do not remember any impediments on the Sunset route. Then there is also a possible Coast Starlight route. With those 3 routes for higher passenger cars then if Sunset becomes daily Amtrak would need ~~ 140 cars. Number is a substantial order. As well it would give an additional 2 or more cars to be assigned to each remaining train that now operates with Superliners.

The order would be for various types of cars. IMO transition cars to Superliner cars would be called for to allow mix and match..