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

[Paniolo Man]

I'm convinced that even when new bilevel rolling stock is rolling around the country there will still be a significant amount of bellyaching about how single-level would have been better. The RFP concepts are good cars, my only complaint is the elimination of the SSL for coach passengers.

 

[jis]

All of this speculation about single level is fine, but until it is formally changed the RFP at present under consideration is for bilevels, until someone formally changes it.

 

[Anderson]

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.

Yeah, the ADA is a thorn in everyone's side.

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.

I mean, swapping bedrooms for lounge space on one end of the car seems to be easy enough to spec out. The point here is that it seems clear that a compatible design can be done under US standards.

As to the point about the RFP - yes, that's true, and Amtrak seems to have gotten a bunch of refusals to bid/non-interest in bidding and one "We might be able to do that" that's still facing technical issues, so I feel like the current state of the RFP should be considered in doubt.

[I do feel like the bidding issues should be enough for Amtrak to be able to get an ADA waiver for at least dual-level access, but single-level just feels like the path of least resistance here.]

 

[jis]

Current FRA ADA rules allow building new low level platforms on tracks that regularly carry freight in addition to passenger trains. This rule was changed sometime back from the original more uncompromising rule about high level platforms always. Since then low level platforms have been extended at a few places. Apparently what FRA has done instead is strengthened rules for the provision of wheelchair lifts at select train doors going forward. Of course one still has to make a case showing that it involves an unreasonable cost to provide high level platform on a separate track or gauntlet track for the number of trains that are planned for use of the facility.

So for example if a station has to be built on a single track railroad that carries multiple freight trains a day for use by a single passenger train a day it is acceptable to use a low level platform with adequate facility on the train to handle wheelchair bound and/or otherwise mobility impaired passengers. But if you are building a new station for use by a dozen passenger trains a day on a track that has one freight train a day you might have to plan for high level platform with gauntlet track for the freight - just as an example of the considerations that have to be balanced to arrive at an acceptable decision.

 

[railiner]

Current FRA ADA rules allow building new low level platforms on tracks that regularly carry freight in addition to passenger trains. This rule was changed sometime back from the original more uncompromising rule about high level platforms always. Since then low level platforms have been extended at a few places. Apparently what FRA has done instead is strengthened rules for the provision of wheelchair lifts at select train doors going forward. Of course one still has to make a case showing that it involves an unreasonable cost to provide high level platform on a separate track or gauntlet track for the number of trains that are planned for use of the facility.

So for example if a station has to be built on a single track railroad that carries multiple freight trains a day for use by a single passenger train a day it is acceptable to use a low level platform with adequate facility on the train to handle wheelchair bound and/or otherwise mobility impaired passengers. But if you are building a new station for use by a dozen passenger trains a day on a track that has one freight train a day you might have to plan for high level platform with gauntlet track for the freight - just as an example of the considerations that have to be balanced to arrive at an acceptable decision.

What is the clearance issue about freight trains and high level platforms? How much offset is required by the 'gauntlet' track to satisfy that clearance?
Instead of building the gauntlet tracks thru the station, couldn't they just have the high platform with a larger gap, and have bridge plates deploy from each train door, either manual or powered? Which method would be more economical?

 

[user535733]

Reference: FRA's 2022 ADA Platform Construction Guidance

One example of high-platform freight clearance requirements: STRACNET, page 38

- The line is designated by the Department of Defense (DoD) as a Strategic Rail Corridor
Network (STRACNET) route, which requires appropriate clearance capability for oversize
DoD cargo. STRACNET is an interconnected and continuous rail line network consisting
of over 36,000 miles of track serving over 120 defense installations. High-level platforms
on the mainline of STRACNET routes have an additional offset of 18 to 20 inches for a
total offset of 7 feet and 1 inch to 7 feet and 3 inches off centerline of the track.

 

[west point]

STRACNET clearance are there for oversized DOD cargos so regular gauntlet tracks need to be further offset. The only route that can really handle longer trains than posted would be the City of Everywhere thru Wyoming. That IMO just says it is Superliner style trains all routes west.

If enough Superliner cars were now available now the CZ, Starlight, and EB could probably sell 15 Superliner passenger car trains. Probably also the Eagle as it had 10 one day this past week. The SWC and CNO probably not. The Sunset needs daily service to tell but once west of SAS then it with the Eagle probably yes.