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

[thefirewarde]

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]

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]

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]

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".

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.