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.

 

[Anderson]

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.

I think this claim is dubious. On the one hand, I suspect the Eagle might be able to do so up on CHI-STL, where it shares the route with other corridor trains (and where, IIRC, a coach was cut out regularly a decade or two back). Further south, I'm not so sure.

As to the others - the Zephyr, in particular, is very seasonal. You could probably fill the train up close to 15 cars in summer, but you'd be back down to about six or seven in the winter. I did an analysis like a decade ago on here (good luck finding it with the search function) where I found that the Zephyr's summer ridership was like 2.5x the winter ridership. The Builder isn't as dramatic in terms of variation (there's a bit more "local utility" along the Hi-Line due to the lack of an interstate up there), but it still varies a lot. This is probably a good time to point out that the split fleet problem means that you can't move those cars to e.g. the Florida trains (where there was basically no variation - all of the variations in ridership on those trains plus the Crescent were down to service disruptions, such as the Crescent being truncated to Atlanta for part of a few weeks due to track work).

It's worth noting that, per some data from the Washington State DOT rail plan back in 2013 [1], the Builder's ridership was at a substantial historical high in 2007 (at 554k riders). The Coast Starlight actually ran somewhat higher back in the 1980s/90s (this is probably why it was picked for the PPC project - it was touching 600k/yr repeatedly). In both cases, while equipment shortages haven't helped, the main culprit behind ridership declines have been reliability breakdowns which take years to recover from.

Worth noting, too, is the fact that the Starlight hasn't run with more than three sleepers, a transdorm, the three service cars (PPC, diner, SSL), and a somewhat-variable number of coaches plus a baggage car in a long, long time. In the meantime, I think the Builder had something like three sleepers (two SEA, one PDX), four coaches (two/two I think?), two amenity cars (SSL/diner), and a baggage car (one of the coaches was a coach-bag), plus an additional coach CHI-MSP. The point of all of this is that no Superliner train has run longer than about 11 cars, and when doing so you could accommodate 500-600k riders/yr.

Pushing that out to 15 cars would (1) either seriously stress F&B capacity or (2) require an additional F&B car, and would probably imply ridership up in the ballpark of 650-800k riders per year, depending on questions of whether you add coaches vs sleepers as well as seat turnover and where your "pressure points" (that is, segments where ridership peaks out, thereby squeezing out other through-riders - the Zephyr has two (west of Reno and west of Denver) but also has an infamous "ridership crater" between Reno and SLC) end up being. With the Builder, I think there's a strong case that if you're climbing up towards 15 cars you should be having a very serious talk about making 7/8 and 27/28 into separate trains, though that's a separate discussion in some respects.

[1] https://www.aawa.us/site/assets/files/7322/2014_wsdot_state_rail_plan_2013-2035.pdf

 

[toddinde]

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.

I’m not dogmatic on the point, but the bilevels are popular. Platform lengthening is not an easy or inexpensive task. We’ve been trying to just get one in Benson. Multiple stops like we do now here, is extremely inefficient. Many stations are space constrained. We definitely need a large order. I am skeptical of the articulated concept. I also feel Amtrak needs something quickly, and something more off the shelf might be a better option. As for VIA, it’s more of a large tourist operation out of the corridors. Amtrak is transportation. They’re really vastly different operations in very different countries.

 

[toddinde]

I think this claim is dubious. On the one hand, I suspect the Eagle might be able to do so up on CHI-STL, where it shares the route with other corridor trains (and where, IIRC, a coach was cut out regularly a decade or two back). Further south, I'm not so sure.

As to the others - the Zephyr, in particular, is very seasonal. You could probably fill the train up close to 15 cars in summer, but you'd be back down to about six or seven in the winter. I did an analysis like a decade ago on here (good luck finding it with the search function) where I found that the Zephyr's summer ridership was like 2.5x the winter ridership. The Builder isn't as dramatic in terms of variation (there's a bit more "local utility" along the Hi-Line due to the lack of an interstate up there), but it still varies a lot. This is probably a good time to point out that the split fleet problem means that you can't move those cars to e.g. the Florida trains (where there was basically no variation - all of the variations in ridership on those trains plus the Crescent were down to service disruptions, such as the Crescent being truncated to Atlanta for part of a few weeks due to track work).

It's worth noting that, per some data from the Washington State DOT rail plan back in 2013 [1], the Builder's ridership was at a substantial historical high in 2007 (at 554k riders). The Coast Starlight actually ran somewhat higher back in the 1980s/90s (this is probably why it was picked for the PPC project - it was touching 600k/yr repeatedly). In both cases, while equipment shortages haven't helped, the main culprit behind ridership declines have been reliability breakdowns which take years to recover from.

Worth noting, too, is the fact that the Starlight hasn't run with more than three sleepers, a transdorm, the three service cars (PPC, diner, SSL), and a somewhat-variable number of coaches plus a baggage car in a long, long time. In the meantime, I think the Builder had something like three sleepers (two SEA, one PDX), four coaches (two/two I think?), two amenity cars (SSL/diner), and a baggage car (one of the coaches was a coach-bag), plus an additional coach CHI-MSP. The point of all of this is that no Superliner train has run longer than about 11 cars, and when doing so you could accommodate 500-600k riders/yr.

Pushing that out to 15 cars would (1) either seriously stress F&B capacity or (2) require an additional F&B car, and would probably imply ridership up in the ballpark of 650-800k riders per year, depending on questions of whether you add coaches vs sleepers as well as seat turnover and where your "pressure points" (that is, segments where ridership peaks out, thereby squeezing out other through-riders - the Zephyr has two (west of Reno and west of Denver) but also has an infamous "ridership crater" between Reno and SLC) end up being. With the Builder, I think there's a strong case that if you're climbing up towards 15 cars you should be having a very serious talk about making 7/8 and 27/28 into separate trains, though that's a separate discussion in some respects.

[1] https://www.aawa.us/site/assets/files/7322/2014_wsdot_state_rail_plan_2013-2035.pdf

The Sunset Limited is bursting at the seams from Tucson to LA. When it gets routed back through Phoenix, it’s going to be sold out every day.

 

[Siegmund]

The Coast Starlight actually ran somewhat higher back in the 1980s/90s (this is probably why it was picked for the PPC project - it was touching 600k/yr repeatedly).... Worth noting, too, is the fact that the Starlight hasn't run with more than three sleepers, a transdorm, the three service cars (PPC, diner, SSL), and a somewhat-variable number of coaches plus a baggage car in a long, long time

It was IMO limited by available equipment from back when the Superliners first arrived; I recall riding it when it carried 3 sleepers and 5 coaches and having people piled into every spare seat in the lounge car through the Bay Area, waiting for seats to open up after Sacramento. In the off-season. I don't doubt that the demand at the time could have supported a 4th or 5th sleeper, plus extra coaches in California, had they been available -- it struck me, back then, as the leading candidate for going up to twice-a-day frequency.

Pushing that out to 15 cars would (1) either seriously stress F&B capacity or (2) require an additional F&B car...

The 1980s Coast Starlight had a coach-snackbar car, with basically the same menu and the same basement layout as the lounge car, staffed and serving all day long. (As well as having the upstairs station in the lounge open for at least a few hours between lunch and dinner.)

And sometime between 1988 and 1990 the CZ/Pioneer/Desert Wind got long enough that it started carrying the Desert Wind's dining car through to Chicago.

So, yes, it was a known fact that a Superliner train of a certain length required an extra service car. Much the same as the longest single-level trains being assigned the 2-unit kitchen+diner combos rather than a 48-seat Heritage diner, back when they still had them.

 

[Harmon Shay]

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.

What is the problem with the "Viewliner core?" I'm not seeing why it couldn't be updated. Of course, elevators for domes would be a new issue. I suppose one seating section of the dome could have an elevator, in theory at least. Also, I wonder if we couldn't ease structural complication and expense by using the old SP design for domes, where passengers going from car to car simply walked up stars, through the dome section and back down on the other end.

 

[Tom C]

What is the problem with the "Viewliner core?" I'm not seeing why it couldn't be updated. Of course, elevators for domes would be a new issue. I suppose one seating section of the dome could have an elevator, in theory at least. Also, I wonder if we couldn't ease structural complication and expense by using the old SP design for domes, where passengers going from car to car simply walked up stars, through the dome section and back down on the other end.

Amtrak came up with an accessible single level long distance concept that was approved by FRA at the same time as the bilevel plan they ultimately went with. If they decided they needed to pivot to single level they’d use that as the base.

 

[railiner]

Also, I wonder if we couldn't ease structural complication and expense by using the old SP design for domes, where passengers going from car to car simply walked up stars, through the dome section and back down on the other end.

Those home-made “low profile” SP domes, rebuilt from single level cars, with a 3/4 length Budd supplied dome roof, had the disadvantage of all passengers needing to climb, pass thru, and descend each end, without the advantage of a usable space on the lower level. Besides that, the forward or rearward visibility was thru narrow “rifle slot” windows that just gave a glimpse of the sky unless you stood right close to them, and that was only possible at one end of the car.

The better ADA solution would be the Panorama type lounge…

 

[west point]

As far as a cross utilization of single levels and bi levels there is absolutely no reason some wintertime Superliner trains could be changed to single levels in the summer with the equipment moved to the very popular summer routes. The Capitols change to Floridian is a current example. There is always the proposed new routes that can use Superliner type cars.
Examples
1. DFW - MEI - ATL - with possibility of continuing to Florida.
2. Daily Sunset
3. Several proposed western trains especially North - south routes
4. CHI / Midwest - ATL - Florida
5. Heartland Flyer car to CHI
6. MSP - KCS & south
7. Restoration of Desert Wind and Pioneer which might even require different trains in high season. Another city of everywhere..