cpotisch is correct and those skeptic geniuses on the other board need to go back and retake their geometry lessons.
I took up your challenge. Check out the PDF:
Viewliner Delta One.pdf
Last edited by a moderator:
Experience on the "Nightowl" Trains?
- Thread starter AcevedoPowers
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
I took up your challenge. Check out the PDF:
Viewliner Delta One.pdf
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Cool! [emoji4]
So the lie-flat seats net out at a capacity of 34 per car, as opposed to the 30 in a Viewliner sleeper and 36 in a hypothetical all-roomette Viewliner. It seems the only advantage of the lie-flat is the ability to sell single (non-private) berths.
The Wall Street Journal had a "The Middle Seat" column this past December which stated these modules that the "Big Three" are ostensibly installing in their wide bodied aircraft cost $100K a pop.
Fair Use:
Now to refit a small number of cars for 66-67, Regional, would be a real burden - both cost and maintenance. Know so first hand; these seats can be "tempermental".
Fair Use:
None of the three seem to be in a rush to refit their entire fleet. A United Attendant I know said to me "oh well, just more of same for the past thirty five years. Big splash rolling something out, but that is far as it goes".
Now to refit a small number of cars for 66-67, Regional, would be a real burden - both cost and maintenance. Know so first hand; these seats can be "tempermental".
Last edited by a moderator:
cpotisch
Engineer
Im just seeing an ellipses in that quote. Is there supposed to be any text there?
Last edited by a moderator:
cpotisch
Engineer
Roomettes are 3' 6" wide. The beds in a roomette are 2' 4" wide. Without making the aisle any narrower, your design just won't fit. You can't fit two berths next to each other, even if they narrow at the bottom, with that amount of space. Basically, the width of the narrow end of the bed + the width of the wide end of the bed, really can't exceed 3' 6", and unless they're ridiculously narrow, it would.cpotisch is correct and those skeptic geniuses on the other board need to go back and retake their geometry lessons.mini suite.jpg
I took up your challenge. Check out the PDF:
Viewliner Delta One.pdf
Last edited by a moderator:
cpotisch
Engineer
Yup. If memory serves, a Viewliner is about 10’8” wide, whereas a 737 is a cool 11’7” and an A320 is a hulking 13’.
The airliners might not have the advantage of their full width because of their contour, and the way the interior panels are shaped, but the net result is still wider than a VL by a good margin.
cpotisch
Engineer
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Upon further reflection here are some thoughts. I think this pod arrangement is workable. I think all the points about tapered sides etc. are mostly red herrings. What matters is the "waist level" width, which makes the current configuration work. It will allow this configuration to work too.Also in a straight single level car there can be much more baggage space since Coach like luggage racks can be kept in place, perhaps even done in the airline Sky Cabin type configuration, making the space look more open.
So if we simply look at the 12 Roomette space (the proportions remain the same if an entire car is filled with pods rather than just the current 12 modules), with the Roomette arrangement you get 24 berths, and with the pod arrangement we get 18 berths. Hence on an average a pod fare will be higher than a per berth fare in Roomettes.
The good thing is that single travelers will get a cheaper lie flat berth. The bad news is, if the proportion of people traveling is skewed towards two travelers together rather than singles, there will be some loss of revenue. But that may be manageable.
The issue of the hardware cost still remains a very potent one, as is the cost of maintaining the more complex electrical and electronics of the seat deployment mechanism. Considering how often I find glitches in the fancy airline seats in operation I think that will be a significant consideration, no matter how much we may wish to wish it away.
Now consider this. If this were to be applied to an NJT style multilevel car using only the upper and lower levels, leaving the mid level for baggage space, toilets and perhaps Handicapped space(s), with a little finagling with dimensions, I think it will be possible to fit 12 modules per level, i.e. a total of 36 pods (+ one handicapped space at the mid level). Now things start looking interesting. Of course overhead baggage racks disappear which means there has to be significant floor mounted baggage rack space at the mid-level, and the thing will appear more cramped than the open single level. This is almost always the case with bi-levels anyway. They just are more cramped because less space is available to play with. But 36 seats makes it possible to sell a seat for slightly less than double the Coach fare. That was the attraction of the Slumbercoach configuration too.
But then again, in a single level car, old fashioned sections will always trump any of these other arrangements in terms of capacity and comfort, though at the cost of not really having full freedom of what configuration you switch your seat to be in at any time of the day. Which is the one thing that motivates exploring possibilities with modern pod cabins.
If you really want to stuff as many people as possible with lie flat space and more or less shared seating, there is nothing to beat the standard Indian Railways AC 3 Tier Sleepers. But who wants to go that far?
Note: Photo Credit: http://www.trainman.in
So if we simply look at the 12 Roomette space (the proportions remain the same if an entire car is filled with pods rather than just the current 12 modules), with the Roomette arrangement you get 24 berths, and with the pod arrangement we get 18 berths. Hence on an average a pod fare will be higher than a per berth fare in Roomettes.
The good thing is that single travelers will get a cheaper lie flat berth. The bad news is, if the proportion of people traveling is skewed towards two travelers together rather than singles, there will be some loss of revenue. But that may be manageable.
The issue of the hardware cost still remains a very potent one, as is the cost of maintaining the more complex electrical and electronics of the seat deployment mechanism. Considering how often I find glitches in the fancy airline seats in operation I think that will be a significant consideration, no matter how much we may wish to wish it away.
Now consider this. If this were to be applied to an NJT style multilevel car using only the upper and lower levels, leaving the mid level for baggage space, toilets and perhaps Handicapped space(s), with a little finagling with dimensions, I think it will be possible to fit 12 modules per level, i.e. a total of 36 pods (+ one handicapped space at the mid level). Now things start looking interesting. Of course overhead baggage racks disappear which means there has to be significant floor mounted baggage rack space at the mid-level, and the thing will appear more cramped than the open single level. This is almost always the case with bi-levels anyway. They just are more cramped because less space is available to play with. But 36 seats makes it possible to sell a seat for slightly less than double the Coach fare. That was the attraction of the Slumbercoach configuration too.
But then again, in a single level car, old fashioned sections will always trump any of these other arrangements in terms of capacity and comfort, though at the cost of not really having full freedom of what configuration you switch your seat to be in at any time of the day. Which is the one thing that motivates exploring possibilities with modern pod cabins.
If you really want to stuff as many people as possible with lie flat space and more or less shared seating, there is nothing to beat the standard Indian Railways AC 3 Tier Sleepers. But who wants to go that far?
Note: Photo Credit: http://www.trainman.in
Last edited by a moderator:
Nobody thinks this idea has any merit? It sounds like it would be cheaper to construct, and simpler to maintain, doesn't it? Not to mention, larger beds...I would like to see them experiment with some Horizon cars (since they have straight sides), and outfit them with old-fashioned "open sections". Strictly economy...no shower's, or other frills.
I figure you could put about 21 of them in a car, sleeping a max of 42 berths. And a modern design could use sliding panels for each berth instead of curtains.
This would be good on a one nighter trip, not so sure about 2 or more nights....
It really wouldn't be all that different than a Viewliner equipped with all roomettes, except for one big difference....each berth could be sold separately...
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Here is a brochure about the Viaggio Classic Sleepers that Siemens has delivered to the RZD (Rossiyskie zheleznye dorogi - Russian Railway)
https://www.siemens.com/content/dam/webassetpool/mam/tag-siemens-com/smdb/mobility/rail/rolling-stock/passenger-coaches/viaggio-classic/rzd-russland/brochures/viaggio-classic-rzd-english.pdf
These in this configuration will not work in the US since Americans cannot deal with shared sleeping quarters, unless it is shaped like a airplane Business Class Cabin apparently.
So we can either have 16 Roomettes (32 berths) or 16 Sections (32 berths) or 10/12 Roomettes + a couple of Bedrooms + maybe an H Room, or 24 pods.
Bottom line the only usable thing from the current Viaggio Classic Sleepers in the US market would be the Common Facilities and the car shell. The Sleeping Accommodation Modules will have to be done special for the US, which is quite understandable.
https://www.siemens.com/content/dam/webassetpool/mam/tag-siemens-com/smdb/mobility/rail/rolling-stock/passenger-coaches/viaggio-classic/rzd-russland/brochures/viaggio-classic-rzd-english.pdf
These in this configuration will not work in the US since Americans cannot deal with shared sleeping quarters, unless it is shaped like a airplane Business Class Cabin apparently.
So we can either have 16 Roomettes (32 berths) or 16 Sections (32 berths) or 10/12 Roomettes + a couple of Bedrooms + maybe an H Room, or 24 pods.
Bottom line the only usable thing from the current Viaggio Classic Sleepers in the US market would be the Common Facilities and the car shell. The Sleeping Accommodation Modules will have to be done special for the US, which is quite understandable.
cpotisch
Engineer
What makes you say that the beds are bigger?Nobody thinks this idea has any merit? It sounds like it would be cheaper to construct, and simpler to maintain, doesn't it? Not to mention, larger beds...I would like to see them experiment with some Horizon cars (since they have straight sides), and outfit them with old-fashioned "open sections". Strictly economy...no shower's, or other frills.
I figure you could put about 21 of them in a car, sleeping a max of 42 berths. And a modern design could use sliding panels for each berth instead of curtains.
This would be good on a one nighter trip, not so sure about 2 or more nights....
It really wouldn't be all that different than a Viewliner equipped with all roomettes, except for one big difference....each berth could be sold separately...
The only airline offering long haul B/C flat bed or suite wider than a roomette lower is Singapore. For the most part, a roomette lower is as wide or wider than most (not all) long haul first class offerings. Some airlines offer more than one FC product, with the suite priced way up, and only available in small numbers.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
The Section beds are indeed way wider than the Roomette beds. They are pretty much close to 3' or a bit more wide for their entire length. I think that is what makes him say thatWhat makes you say that the beds are bigger?Nobody thinks this idea has any merit? It sounds like it would be cheaper to construct, and simpler to maintain, doesn't it? Not to mention, larger beds...I would like to see them experiment with some Horizon cars (since they have straight sides), and outfit them with old-fashioned "open sections". Strictly economy...no shower's, or other frills.
I figure you could put about 21 of them in a car, sleeping a max of 42 berths. And a modern design could use sliding panels for each berth instead of curtains.
This would be good on a one nighter trip, not so sure about 2 or more nights....
It really wouldn't be all that different than a Viewliner equipped with all roomettes, except for one big difference....each berth could be sold separately...
Last edited by a moderator:
cpotisch
Engineer
My bad, I thought he was talking about the lay flat seat idea, not open sections. In that case, I 100% would support bringing back sections. What if they literally just took out the aisle walls of a Superliner or Viewliner sleeper, put curtains in for each bunk, and sold tickets for each berth? That way they wouldn't lose capacity, they wouldn't have to make too many major modifications, and single passengers could get a pretty economical sleeper option.The Section beds are indeed way wider than the Roomette beds. They are pretty much close to 3' or a bit more wide for their entire length. I think that is what makes him say thatWhat makes you say that the beds are bigger?Nobody thinks this idea has any merit? It sounds like it would be cheaper to construct, and simpler to maintain, doesn't it? Not to mention, larger beds...I would like to see them experiment with some Horizon cars (since they have straight sides), and outfit them with old-fashioned "open sections". Strictly economy...no shower's, or other frills.
I figure you could put about 21 of them in a car, sleeping a max of 42 berths. And a modern design could use sliding panels for each berth instead of curtains.
This would be good on a one nighter trip, not so sure about 2 or more nights....
It really wouldn't be all that different than a Viewliner equipped with all roomettes, except for one big difference....each berth could be sold separately...
Good point, I was thinking compared to planes....The present lowers on bedrooms are even wider....
I'm not all that sure about that. A single passenger would have to buy the entire section to get complete privacy or else would have to share the compartment with one or two other people (e.g., a couple).My bad, I thought he was talking about the lay flat seat idea, not open sections. In that case, I 100% would support bringing back sections. What if they literally just took out the aisle walls of a Superliner or Viewliner sleeper, put curtains in for each bunk, and sold tickets for each berth? That way they wouldn't lose capacity, they wouldn't have to make too many major modifications, and single passengers could get a pretty economical sleeper option.The Section beds are indeed way wider than the Roomette beds. They are pretty much close to 3' or a bit more wide for their entire length. I think that is what makes him say thatWhat makes you say that the beds are bigger?Nobody thinks this idea has any merit? It sounds like it would be cheaper to construct, and simpler to maintain, doesn't it? Not to mention, larger beds...I would like to see them experiment with some Horizon cars (since they have straight sides), and outfit them with old-fashioned "open sections". Strictly economy...no shower's, or other frills.
I figure you could put about 21 of them in a car, sleeping a max of 42 berths. And a modern design could use sliding panels for each berth instead of curtains.
This would be good on a one nighter trip, not so sure about 2 or more nights....
It really wouldn't be all that different than a Viewliner equipped with all roomettes, except for one big difference....each berth could be sold separately...
I have ridden in a section through eastern Canada many many years ago. I remember it being kind of an awkward situation. If you wanted to buy the entire section you could for complete privacy. If you were a couple traveling with another couple it would be great. If you were a single person you could buy the top or the bottom bunk. The bottom bunk costs more than the top bunk. You would have to share the seats with another person or couple who slept in the other bunk.
It was a unique experience I must say. But from all of the things I have read, the bottom line is that the section was never a popular option.
cpotisch
Engineer
The way sections work, by definition, is that it is somewhat public. An open section on the Canadian can sort of be described as a bunch of roomettes open to the rest of the car. Most people wouldn't feel comfortable occupying an enclosed room or roomette with a stranger, but when it's open to the whole car, with privacy curtains in each bunk, a stranger can occupy the other bunk without either person feeling too uncomfortable about it. The main advance of having lie flat seats like in your design, would be that individual people could have their own bed, rather than paying for a whole room. That's really the same advantage as the open section, which I'm pretty sure sells incredibly well on the Canadian.I'm not all that sure about that. A single passenger would have to buy the entire section to get complete privacy or else would have to share the compartment with one or two other people (e.g., a couple).My bad, I thought he was talking about the lay flat seat idea, not open sections. In that case, I 100% would support bringing back sections. What if they literally just took out the aisle walls of a Superliner or Viewliner sleeper, put curtains in for each bunk, and sold tickets for each berth? That way they wouldn't lose capacity, they wouldn't have to make too many major modifications, and single passengers could get a pretty economical sleeper option.The Section beds are indeed way wider than the Roomette beds. They are pretty much close to 3' or a bit more wide for their entire length. I think that is what makes him say thatWhat makes you say that the beds are bigger?Nobody thinks this idea has any merit? It sounds like it would be cheaper to construct, and simpler to maintain, doesn't it? Not to mention, larger beds...I would like to see them experiment with some Horizon cars (since they have straight sides), and outfit them with old-fashioned "open sections". Strictly economy...no shower's, or other frills.
I figure you could put about 21 of them in a car, sleeping a max of 42 berths. And a modern design could use sliding panels for each berth instead of curtains.
This would be good on a one nighter trip, not so sure about 2 or more nights....
It really wouldn't be all that different than a Viewliner equipped with all roomettes, except for one big difference....each berth could be sold separately...
I have ridden in a section through eastern Canada many many years ago. I remember it being kind of an awkward situation. If you wanted to buy the entire section you could for complete privacy. If you were a couple traveling with another couple it would be great. If you were a single person you could buy the top or the bottom bunk. The bottom bunk costs more than the top bunk. You would have to share the seats with another person or couple who slept in the other bunk.
It was a unique experience I must say. But from all of the things I have read, the bottom line is that the section was never a popular option.
MikefromCrete
Engineer
The railroads and Pullman gave up on sections in the 1950's. They were replaced by roomettes which allowed much more privacy. Americans paying big bucks for sleepers want privacy, so no European-style shared rooms or open sections.
cpotisch
Engineer
But that was 60 years ago, when the demographics and budgets were different. Back then, many planes had full private berths. Of course, prices were also pretty astronomical. I think that today, there are some people who would be willing to pay more than coach, but less than a roomette, to get the comfort of a room, even if it doesn't offer nearly as much privacy. And remember that the Canadian offers sections, and they sell out frequently. Yes, Canada is a different country and culture, but it's right next door and plenty of Americans ride it. My point is, I wouldn't be so sure that a cheaper sleeper option that the modern American public would completely reject a cheaper, open sleeper option.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2016
- Messages
- 845
Agree. The majority of Americans are relatively modest. We don't like restrooms without doors on the toilet stalls, either. It's not a big leap from that to European or Canadian sleeping berths shared with strangers, sometimes open to the other pax passing by.
OMG. Just had a thought. What if a transgender citizen wanted to share an open section with the likes of Mike Pence or Mike Huckabee?
cpotisch
Engineer
Well, Mike(s) probably wouldn't know, in which case it wouldn't make any difference. And if they did know, Mike would have a miserable ride ahead of them, which is possibly even better.OMG. Just had a thought. What if a transgender citizen wanted to share an open section with the likes of Mike Pence or Mike Huckabee?
Yep, Ignorance is Bliss as the old saying goes, but Bigotory is Forever!
Both those guys are a disgrace to the American way! YMMV
Both those guys are a disgrace to the American way! YMMV
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Superliner trains' removal and restoration of cars 2024- Latest: F900ElCapitan
-
-
