I am having trouble visualizing your proposal, without a diagram illustrating it. Anyway, if you are going to suspend the 'lower level' of the car between the trucks, are you allowing sufficient space for the car's 'mechanical's' (fresh water tank, wastewater retention tank, air tank, batteries, etc....?
Could Siemens Viaggio/Ventures be the next sleeper car?
- Thread starter JermyZP
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
That's basically the idea behind my thoughts except the lower level is deadended with a family room at the end. Just doing the visualization that I did, it did not produce the results I was looking for. I was hoping for much higher capacity.
I also looked at the existing Superliner sleeper and visualized it with the same layout but the height reduced to 14' 6". That would probably require the top bunks to be eliminated and that greatly reduces the capacity to maybe 27. You also lose the second bed in the HP and Family Rooms which would be a problem.
Now if you study the above diagram, you can see another possibility. What if Bedroom A and B were placed on the 48" level and a short stair was placed between Bedroom B & C. Now you have extra height in those rooms for upper and lower bunks and they can hold 2-3 pax.
The same thing happens at the other end of the car and Roomettes 7, 8, 9 & 10 become "Double Roomettes" and their capacity is doubled. You would need a short stair between rooms 5/6 and 7/8.
Now capacity reaches up to 33/34 but you still need to do something with the Accessible Room and the Family Room.
Of course the mechanicals all need to be cleverly rearranged and I don't know if new tech has sufficiently reduced the size since the 1970s but I'm sure there has been huge improvements there.
BTW - I am a strong avocate for your suggested bi-level becoming Amtrak's single food service car and I think I'll start a new thread about just that
I also looked at the existing Superliner sleeper and visualized it with the same layout but the height reduced to 14' 6". That would probably require the top bunks to be eliminated and that greatly reduces the capacity to maybe 27. You also lose the second bed in the HP and Family Rooms which would be a problem.
Now if you study the above diagram, you can see another possibility. What if Bedroom A and B were placed on the 48" level and a short stair was placed between Bedroom B & C. Now you have extra height in those rooms for upper and lower bunks and they can hold 2-3 pax.
The same thing happens at the other end of the car and Roomettes 7, 8, 9 & 10 become "Double Roomettes" and their capacity is doubled. You would need a short stair between rooms 5/6 and 7/8.
Now capacity reaches up to 33/34 but you still need to do something with the Accessible Room and the Family Room.
Of course the mechanicals all need to be cleverly rearranged and I don't know if new tech has sufficiently reduced the size since the 1970s but I'm sure there has been huge improvements there.
BTW - I am a strong avocate for your suggested bi-level becoming Amtrak's single food service car and I think I'll start a new thread about just that
Last edited:
Ziv
Conductor
I hear you about ceiling height, but bilevel sleepers seem to make more sense given the short platforms that are common here in the States. In a perfect world sleepers would be single level cars using high platforms from which a wheelchair could easily roll from platform right into the car. I have no idea how much it would cost to convert all of the US rail system to high platforms. I think "A lot!" is about as specific as I could get.
I would miss the view from upstairs in my SuperLiner roomette, though. Being just a few feet higher makes a huge difference. For me the view alone makes the stairs worthwhile.
I would miss the view from upstairs in my SuperLiner roomette, though. Being just a few feet higher makes a huge difference. For me the view alone makes the stairs worthwhile.
Imho the European sleeper design could work with 2 bed compartments assuming they create seating that is comfortable for day time use and allows both passengers a seat by the window.
iircc there are newer sleepers on the Transsiberian railroad. Maybe these have a template that Siemens could work off of.
iircc there are newer sleepers on the Transsiberian railroad. Maybe these have a template that Siemens could work off of.
tricia
Conductor
Might it be doable to have a bilevel layout with single-level beds (no upper bunk, and a lower ceiling height) on one level, double-level beds (and a higher ceiling height) on the other level?
This would add a useful accommodation type: single-bed rooms for single travelers, plus the usual 2-bunk roomettes; and whatever bedroom and H room configuration makes most sense.
This would add a useful accommodation type: single-bed rooms for single travelers, plus the usual 2-bunk roomettes; and whatever bedroom and H room configuration makes most sense.
The Viewliner is about 14' tall. The floor is about 4' above the rail so the height left for the rooms is a rather substantial estimated 10'. (Updated numbers)
In a 14' 6" bilevel, say you allow 6" for ceiling, upper floor, and lower floor thickness and another 8" for ground clearance (approx 2' 2") you are left with 12' 4" for ceiling height on both levels or 6' 2" per floor. I don't think you can do much with only 6' 2" of ceiling height.
Does anyone know the ceiling height in the Superliners or the other bi-levels? I haven't been able to find that information anywhere, but if you look at the picture below you can see that the ceiling is just a few inches above the door which is probably 6' 8" tall (standard door height).
So to roughly confirm the above figures: Superliners are 16' 2" tall - minus approx 14' for two 7' high floor levels - leaving approx 2' 2" for a 6" ceiling and two 6" floor thicknesses and 8" ground clearance.
In a 14' 6" bilevel, say you allow 6" for ceiling, upper floor, and lower floor thickness and another 8" for ground clearance (approx 2' 2") you are left with 12' 4" for ceiling height on both levels or 6' 2" per floor. I don't think you can do much with only 6' 2" of ceiling height.
Does anyone know the ceiling height in the Superliners or the other bi-levels? I haven't been able to find that information anywhere, but if you look at the picture below you can see that the ceiling is just a few inches above the door which is probably 6' 8" tall (standard door height).
So to roughly confirm the above figures: Superliners are 16' 2" tall - minus approx 14' for two 7' high floor levels - leaving approx 2' 2" for a 6" ceiling and two 6" floor thicknesses and 8" ground clearance.
Last edited:
PerRock
Engineer
I have the following scale drawing, while it doesn't say the floor-to-ceiling height, one would be able to get a close approximations to it. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwoszLS0nWxPY0ZGa1F5SEkyY0E/view?usp=sharing
peter
Ziv
Conductor
Sorry for a basic question but will the Gateway Project/Program and the new tunnels allow for taller trains to operate out of New York Penn Station and/or the entire NEC? Wiki says the VL'ers are 14' tall and the MetroLiners were 14'10" tall, so just how tall can an NEC car be? I know Super Liners won't fit at 16'2" but what is the current max height for the NEC? What is the name of the gauge for the NEC? F gauge? Sorry if this info was already posted, I have read most but not all the posts in this thread.
Thanks for any responses!
Thanks for any responses!
frequentflyer
Conductor
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2008
- Messages
- 1,214
I remember that Model Railroader Superliner issue.
Those are great. Thank you.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
No.
Nominally top of roof 14'6" above TOR. lowered panto tops can be a couple inches higher as I recall.
I believe it is called AAR Passenger Loading Gauge. A good description of it is:
Wikipedia said:
And apparently you were not allowed to lower a pantograph within Penn Station unless the catenary power was off. There was not enough gap to extinguish a flashover in progress
Last edited:
Although the Viewliners are officially listed at 14 feet high, it looks like the baggage cars just might be a bit taller.
If you’re comparing the baggage car with the coach behind it...you’re comparing it with an Amfleet car...
Roof vents I believe
Yes those roof vents must add like at least 6"? Don't know for sure but they look huge and right under the catenary wire too.
I mean, I have to wonder if it wouldn't be worth considering a bilevel design that didn't have two beds in (all of) the roomettes? I know that I've traveled solo a lot over the years and I'm hardly alone in that respect; this even came into discussions of diner capacity vis-a-vis the Viewliner Is (the 12 roomettes/3 bedrooms generate a theoretical capacity of about 30, but in practical terms it is somewhere between 18 [two to a BR, one to a roomette] and 30 [two to each]; I think I generally settled on 2/bedroom and 1.5/roomette).
Basically, if you have two-people-per-roomette rooms downstairs and one-person-per-roomette rooms upstairs (and allow anyone in an ADA case to use the lower-level rooms at any reduced rate), does that go anywhere on this problem?
(FWIW I do tend towards just having a single-level fleet and calling it a day, if I'm being honest. The ADA stuff is...I won't call it stupid per se, but for example it grates that they had to give up something like a table-and-a-half in the diner to literally accommodate the one room that a wheelchair passenger can get into. I think "grossly misapplied" is probably the right phrasing here.)
Basically, if you have two-people-per-roomette rooms downstairs and one-person-per-roomette rooms upstairs (and allow anyone in an ADA case to use the lower-level rooms at any reduced rate), does that go anywhere on this problem?
(FWIW I do tend towards just having a single-level fleet and calling it a day, if I'm being honest. The ADA stuff is...I won't call it stupid per se, but for example it grates that they had to give up something like a table-and-a-half in the diner to literally accommodate the one room that a wheelchair passenger can get into. I think "grossly misapplied" is probably the right phrasing here.)
I agree with you. A compartment bunk sleeper is probably going to be the future of rail travel because it will probably make tickets prices cheaper and you can fit more of them on one car. I think that ADA should have their own car with both coach and sleeper rooms accommodation with a Elevator. The layout should be
- Engine
- Baggage
- bi-level sleeper OBS
- bi-level sleeper
- bi-level sleeper
- singel level diner
- single level bar lounge
- single level coach
- single level coach
- single level coach
- single level coach
- low level ADA coach and sleeper with Elevator to single level
In this layout the ADA passengers will be able to bord at a low level stations and a single level stations. They will also be able to have a coach seat or a room and then be able to go on a Elevator to go to the dining car or lounge. The reason for single level coach is because they would be able to switch out cars with other cars from other regions, if the original cars need maintenance. What do you think?
Mailliw
OBS Chief
I like it. I'm assuming the bilevel sleeper OBS has the observation lounge on the upper level instead of solo roomettes like the other sleeper? Also a baggage dorm would be more useful that a full baggage car.
I'm thinking just the opposite. It's pretty simple to make a bi-level car into a two level coach (seating on both levels) or a two level diner (all sitting above and kitchen below) or a two level lounge (dome lounge upstairs and table area and food counter below). That all makes good sense and the car's space can be used very efficiently.
However a low-profile bi-level sleeper just doesn't have adequate headroom for the higher capacity desired from a double-deck Superliner type design. Add to that that the present Viewliner is a great product and the rooms are cleverly designed and a pleasure to ride in. If you are talking a bunk sleeper similar to European design with 4 - 6 traverse beds and one tiny window at the end of the room . . . count me out.
So regarding your proposal I think just the opposite is more desirable. However if all equipment is standardized and every sleeper is similar to existing Amtrak rooms but with no upper bunks, it may be worth exploring. Having all coaches, lounges and diners as single levels just doesn't make sense to me since it will require more cars to carry the same amount of people and also may require double stopping at some stations.
The future is bi-level if at all possible.
However a low-profile bi-level sleeper just doesn't have adequate headroom for the higher capacity desired from a double-deck Superliner type design. Add to that that the present Viewliner is a great product and the rooms are cleverly designed and a pleasure to ride in. If you are talking a bunk sleeper similar to European design with 4 - 6 traverse beds and one tiny window at the end of the room . . . count me out.
So regarding your proposal I think just the opposite is more desirable. However if all equipment is standardized and every sleeper is similar to existing Amtrak rooms but with no upper bunks, it may be worth exploring. Having all coaches, lounges and diners as single levels just doesn't make sense to me since it will require more cars to carry the same amount of people and also may require double stopping at some stations.
The future is bi-level if at all possible.
Last edited:
There could be a way where all the cars could be bi-level with no single-level. I think that there still should be a ADA bi-level car that has coach seats and rooms with a Elevator from the lower-level to the high-level. I have always love the bi-level fleet in Amtrak but it needs to make it accessible to everyone.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
A largish dumb waiter in a plexiglass enclosure should suffice 
