Future Amtrak Equipment and ADA ideas

[JoshP]

The VIA Accessible room is 2X bigger than the Viewliner II ADA room which I find it shocking. Amtrak needs to make the bedrooms and ADA rooms bigger.

 

[Anderson]

Here are the diagrams.

 

[Anderson]

Amtrak already received more rooms by receiving Viewliner II sleeping cars and baggage/dorm cars. Yet prices have gone up significantly, at least on the Crescent.

Past experience doesn’t indicate that more rooms will result in lower prices, but maybe a change in management could result in lower prices.

Amtrak has received more sleepers.

Amtrak has not used more sleepers.

The Silver Service, for example, is still running with two sleepers on the Star and three sleepers on the Meteor, as was the case for the last...roughly decade.

 

[Ziv]

You will need additional staff at Buffalo to detach and attach cars. At present there is none such. That will be significant additional labor. In addition there will be one time cost of constructing a siding with shore power facilities for storing the cars. Also, there will be ongoing additional cost of servicing the cars stored there. That is just a SWAG. I am sure if Thirdrail7 was around he would add a few more items that I have not thought about.

I think Americans are looking for the impossible. They will either have to accept something akin to Sections, perhaps with more robust night time enclosures that can be taken down during the day time, or they will have to accept Couchettes. Absent those they will just have to live with Roomettes. Maybe something like the Duplex Slumbercoaches can be tried again as an alternative, but that is more complex internal furnishing, though could be designed as modern modules perhaps using materials available today that were not available back then. No need to try to fit a commode and sink in the individual cubbies.

I would be happy with one part of the First Class Car having Lay Flat At an Angle seating. I do not need to be perfectly flat or have a compartment of my own to sleep well. When I flew Polaris Class on United I slept like a baby. If LFAaA seating cost less than a roommate I would definitely use it.
I think there would be a market for it in US trains the same way there is on US airlines.
On edit: Rats, I just thought of a problem w this. United seating in Polaris is 1x2x1 if memory serves. On a train it would probably be 2x1 with about a 60" pitch which is not a huge issue. But the window seat person in the 2 seat side would not be able to access a bathroom during the night without waking the aisle seat person.

Channeling my inner Rosanne Rosanadana,
"Never mind."

 

[Mailliw]

I'm shocked that Amtrak is at least considering a Slumbercoach option. I can't tell from the diagram how the "enhanced" coach and new roomette differ from the current offerings. The new bedroom design looks promising and doesn't appear to occupy more space than existing bedroom (while fitting in another passenger). The two luxury options are the most I'd want to see as a "Prestige class" offering; a 2 bedroom suit w/ sitting room is just overkill. It'd probably cost well over $10K!

 

[JoshP]

I'm shocked that Amtrak is at least considering a Slumbercoach option. I can't tell from the diagram how the "enhanced" coach and new roomette differ from the current offerings. The new bedroom design looks promising and doesn't appear to occupy more space than existing bedroom (while fitting in another passenger). The two luxury options are the most I'd want to see as a "Prestige class" offering; a 2 bedroom suit w/ sitting room is just overkill. It'd probably cost well over $10K!

On VIA, the Prestige room, normally it cost over $8500CAD so it equals nearly $7k USD so yeah, ripoff.

 

[Anderson]

On VIA, the Prestige room, normally it cost over $8500CAD so it equals nearly $7k USD so yeah, ripoff.

The prices for those spaces weren't far off of that. The "Luxury for 2/Luxury for 4" spaces were in the $1800-3500 ballpark. The Prestige room was tested at like $3000-7000.

[Notably, I was traveling solo, so that put a serious damper on considering anything like that for a one-night trip.]

 

[Mailliw]

What were the price ranges for the other options?

 

[Crowbar_k]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/11/business/economy/california-economy.html
(Sorry if this is behind a paywall, I think the headline tells it all, at least for this discussion.)

"California Economy is on edge after tech layoffs and studio cutbacks"

Under these conditions, even well-off people are going to think twice before paying for deluxe service, and those less well-off are going to be economizing like anything. Under those conditions, starting a new luxury service might not be the best idea. Including coaches and looking for revenue from intermediate stops seems like the way to go to make this venture work. Though I think that this service should be run by Amtrak California. I just don't see a once-a-day luxury train as being a profitable venture, nor does it provide much transportation utility for the people of California. A Night-Owl like train would be another matter.

Yup. That's why I think the best possible option is to bring back those sleeper bunks. You, those individual beds that are in their own little cubby, stacked on top of each other, with sliding doors. The capacity would be about the same as a coach. Since passengers will be sleeping for the vast majority of the trip, I don't think seats are necessary. You can still sit down in the lounge car if you want.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

Dang you’all are make my Google images search earns it keep.

https://www.yankodesign.com/2023/04...-comfort-and-space-on-an-overnight-train/amp/

 

[jis]

Interestingly, in India in their Two-Tier Sleepers, even though the passengers who have the upper berth, do have a seat during the daytime. Yet they many still sit up in their berth and do whatever they want to do while awake. But then again I guess Indians are much more adept at sitting on flat surfaces to do whatever during the waking hours, and there fore choose to not use the seat available to them, in exchange for the privacy.

 

[Crowbar_k]

Dang you’all are make my Google images search earns it keep.

https://www.yankodesign.com/2023/04...-comfort-and-space-on-an-overnight-train/amp/

Well, looking at this diagram, I can estimate that two berths (bunked) take up about the same space as a long distance coach row. Maybe a little more. So, with this design, you can fit almost as many passengers as a coach car would, and everyone gets to sleep easier, laying flat, and get a little privacy. Not a lot, but certainly more than sleeping in an open coach, possibly with a stranger sitting next to you

Also, "innovative design"? Why did it take them that long to come up with the idea of tilting a bed 45 degrees?

 

[jis]

With a bit more innovative zigging and zagging, specially in a 14'6" tall car with essentially 10' of vertical space to play with, maybe they can actually fit a lie flat seat at each level. Just thinking aloud.

 

[jis]

My friend Carl Fowler posted the following message on Facebook forwarding a post from Ira Silverman on the subject of future Sleepers which I thought would be of interest here. So I got Carl's permission to post it here:

Form Carl Fowler (with his permission):
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ira Silverman, a retired former Amtrak and MARC executive, has very graciously shared his thoughts on the design of a new long-distance fleet for both Amtrak and VIA Rail Canada. He has also ok'd my sharing this on Facebook. He's succinctly amplified my earlier suggestions for a new fleet that could serve the entire country. This is vital if Amtrak is to be able to respond to regional demand.

This concise essay brilliantly sets out overall design parameters for a meaningful new equipment order and the concept of the US and Canadian carriers ordering a joint design could save millions and facilitate a quicker delivery. In a sense this has been the case with the US and Canadian orders currently underway for the Siemens "Venture" corridor fleets, but the orders have not truly been coordinated.

Ira Silverman's rail career was focused on passenger service--unusally for our times. He worked first for the Illinois Central (one of the last "pro-passenger private carriers) as a Financial Analyst and Assistant to the Senior Vice President, Operations; then spent 20 years (1975-1995) at Amtrak, serving as Manager, Operations Planning and Equipment, and as Route Manager Eastern Routes and Director, Route Marketing; before his work at MARC (Maryland Area Regional Commuter Rail), as Chief Transportation Officer and Manager, Transit Strategy. His experience makes him uniquely qualified to offer ideas for a new LH fleet.

One of the areas that current Amtrak management consistently fails to systematically draw upon is the expertise of retired, but long-experienced passenger rail experts, most particularly including its own former managers. Amtrak has lost an incredible amount of long-term expertise not only from normal retirements, but also from ill0considered buy-outs. I have known Ira Silverman through my involvement with NARP/RPA and Amtrak since the 1970s and have great respect for his expertise. His essay follows:
****************************************************
New Amtrak-VIA Long Distance Fleet

Both Amtrak and VIA need to acquire new long-distance cars. For the sake of economy of procurement, a joint order makes sense. VIA has more flexibility because all of its long-distance trains can accommodate bi-level/dome equipment. Amtrak has 5 long distance routes serving New York which cannot operate with bi-level equipment and presently use a different fleet of equipment. This increases the amount of protect equipment at Chicago, New Orleans, and Washington.

This proposal envisions a single fleet except for a small number of full-length dome lounges and dome sleeper lounges for VIA and present Superliner routes. Sleeping cars will have a mix of Viewliner roomettes and larger VIA-style prestige rooms. Cars should be designed with the maximum height to make upper berths as spacious as possible. Present designs have deficiencies in many details and new cars should incorporate experience with present cars. In addition the demands of the ADA community have resulted in wider aisles at the expense of seat comfort.

A new type of car will offer a railbed sleeper using lay flat seats such as found on trans-oceanic flights and the "Spirit of Queensland" train service in Australia. These cars can be used to supplement coach seating and allow higher density seating in coaches. They will attract riders who will not ride coach but cannot afford sleeping cars. This design has the best economics for a single rider versus a Viewliner roomette. Before finalizing the design, an test could be conducted with experimental cars of this type on existing long distance trains.

One advantage of a single level fleet is minimizing design compromises to accommodate ADA requirements. The full level dome lounges may have to be designed with an elevator to meet these requirements. (Note from Carl Fowler" Stadler has already done this in its fleet of new North American crash-compliant domes for the ROCKY MOUNTAINEER).

In addition, any car except for the dome cars can operate anywhere in the system. This would allow cars from western long-distance trains to be operated on Florida trains in the winter.

One feature that could be incorporated would be articulating two or three coaches or sleepers in a unit.

Greater attention has to be paid to details of cars: reading lights, reduced lighting at night in coaches as well as improved noise and air flow at body end doors. The availability of USB and electrical outlets are also important.
And in coaches seat design is critical and has already proven to be a problem in new Midwest cars. (Note from Carl Fowler: Readers know my preference for the famous "Sleepy Hollow" seats originally from the Heywood-Wakefield company--but the Santa Fe had a top challenger used on its El Capitan--the "Travel-ease" seat from the Dwight Austin Company. This had more geared parts than the SH seat, but boasted adjustable head, leg and foot-rests).

• Single level coach. 64-68 seats per car.
• Single level Tourist class car. 40 seats identical to airline transatlantic first/business class or Spirit of Queensland in Australia.
• Full length dome lounge like GN/ATSF. Food unit and bar on lower level. The car is used as lounge and food car for coach. A second car in a consist is used as a first class lounge on present Superliner and VIA routes. As demand dictates, only one car can operate for both coach and first class in off peak.
• For Amtrak single level routes, a single level lounge with Superliner lounge style windows replaces full length dome lounge.
• 48 seat dining car (Note from Carl Fowler: Should be open to all passengers).
• Sleeping car containing Viewliner Roomettes and Prestige Bedrooms. Mix of rooms to be determined.
• Single sleeping car containing all Viewliner Roomettes for peak season and lighter demand trains.
• Park Car dome lounge for Superliner and VIA trains. Also contains prestige rooms as current car and serves as sleeper lounge
• For Amtrak single level routes an identical car without a dome

Ira Silverman
4/4/13

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

[dlagrua]

I like the old Slumbercoach design but I dislike the diagonal sleeper design. With the Slumbercoach you had a seat during the day and a bed during the evening. They were small but had a toilet, sink, and mirror, Both sides of the sleeper car were occupied. The downside was the steps to the upper room . To make room in the aisle for those steps, the room and beds had to be quite narrow but it was an efficient cost effective design. For the handicapped or for those wanting more room there were four bedrooms at the end of the car. Some of these retired cars are at the Illinois Railroad Museum where you can go inside to see how these duplex sleepers were organized. They were great for single travelers.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

This proposal envisions a single fleet except for a small number of full-length dome lounges and dome sleeper lounges for VIA and present Superliner routes. Sleeping cars will have a mix of Viewliner roomettes and larger VIA-style prestige rooms. Cars should be designed with the maximum height to make upper berths as spacious as possible. Present designs have deficiencies in many details and new cars should incorporate experience with present cars. In addition the demands of the ADA community have resulted in wider aisles at the expense of seat comfort.

A new type of car will offer a railbed sleeper using lay flat seats such as found on trans-oceanic flights and the "Spirit of Queensland" train service in Australia. These cars can be used to supplement coach seating and allow higher density seating in coaches. They will attract riders who will not ride coach but cannot afford sleeping cars. This design has the best economics for a single rider versus a Viewliner roomette. Before finalizing the design, an test could be conducted with experimental cars of this type on existing long distance trains.

One advantage of a single level fleet is minimizing design compromises to accommodate ADA requirements. The full level dome lounges may have to be designed with an elevator to meet these requirements. (Note from Carl Fowler" Stadler has already done this in its fleet of new North American crash-compliant domes for the ROCKY MOUNTAINEER).

In addition, any car except for the dome cars can operate anywhere in the system. This would allow cars from western long-distance trains to be operated on Florida trains in the winter.

One point that I do think makes sense is to have all of the new equipment be compatible so you can mix equipment. On the Alaska Railroad you see a variety of single and bi-level equipment but they all mix together because they all use the same height diaphragms. Being able to mix single and bi-level equipment would certainly be a plus.

But I think bi-level coaches and sleepers should absolutely be purchased and used for western routes. I would think VIA would be interested in this as well.

 

[ehbowen]

In the other thread (Return of the Lark) it was mentioned that at one point Budd had drawn up plans for a Hi-Level sleeping car. Here's the floor plan, from Dubin's More Classic Trains:

 

[Mailliw]

I think the diagonal pods would be an excellent couchette option for night trains, but they'd only be suitable for the overnight Northeast Regionals right now. Personally I wouldn't mind traveling during daytime in them, but I don't think they'd be popular (unless of course we get overnight only routes).
Lie-flat seating in a 2:1 layout is most likely to win public acceptance and has the easiest accessibility requirements.
Regarding bilevels in Canada I know they'd work on the Canadian, but what about the Ocean? Are there any clearance issues there? Also aren't passengers on the Rocky Mountioneer expected to stay in the same car? To put bilevel or dome cars in between single-level cars in the trainset the passageway needs to be between the upper and lower levels (instead of on the upper like Superliners) which complicates wheelchair movement between cars. Each bilevel would need 2 lifts instead of 1 elevator.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

Also aren't passengers on the Rocky Mountioneer expected to stay in the same car? To put bilevel or dome cars in between single-level cars in the trainset the passageway needs to be between the upper and lower levels (instead of on the upper like Superliners) which complicates wheelchair movement between cars. Each bilevel would need 2 lifts instead of 1 elevator.

Alaska Railroad uses the same type of equipment and passengers are free to move from car to car. All of the diaphragms are on the lower level so all passengers pass through on the lower level from car to car. All of the bi-level cars have a lift (with the exception of the heritage domes of course).

 

[Chris I]

That diagonal concept looks fantastic. Future long-distance trains should have that for business class, providing a cheaper option below the full Roomette/Bedroom level. I would never personally consider coach for anything over 10 hours, or anything overnight, but I would pay 2-3x more for that option in a second.

 

[jis]

Alaska Railroad uses the same type of equipment and passengers are free to move from car to car. All of the diaphragms are on the lower level so all passengers pass through on the lower level from car to car. All of the bi-level cars have a lift (with the exception of the heritage domes of course).

Alaska Railroad uses 18' tall bilevels with 4' above rail lower level. As has been discussed many times, those would not fit in among other places, Chicago Union Station.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

Alaska Railroad uses 18' tall bilevels with 4' above rail lower level. As has been discussed many times, those would not fit in among other places, Chicago Union Station.

Yes, you are correct. I'm not sure if they could operate on the Canadian either. But I was replying to a question about the Rocky Mountaineer which DOES operate the Ultra domes.

Ira's proposal suggests that a bi-level car with lift COULD exist that can operate on current routes. It references the Santa Fe Super Dome with a lift similar to what the Ultra domes have.

I disagree with Ira's proposal that a single fleet is needed... the amount of extra protect cars has to be pretty small in the grand scheme of things - we are talking about an entire national fleet. But I do think the idea that cars can be mixed and interchanged (Single level / bi-level the way Alaska RR does it) is a good idea that needs to be looked into.

In the end I highly doubt that 2 government groups will be able to agree on a fleet for 2 very different LD needs and I completely disagree with Amtrak operating Prestige level service - but we shall see what happens!

 

[John Bredin]

I think the diagonal pods would be an excellent couchette option for night trains, but they'd only be suitable for the overnight Northeast Regionals right now. Personally I wouldn't mind traveling during daytime in them, but I don't think they'd be popular (unless of course we get overnight only routes).

I agree these aren't for true long-distance trains with significant daylight travel, absent a lot of lounge seating. But overnight-only routes should be a thing; Amtrak has plenty of corridors that are long enough to support night corridor trains, with some full sleepers, some comfortable coach seats, and mostly these diagonal pods. Get on in one city fairly late in the evening (like after a ballgame, concert, or show and dinner), make a stop or two in the suburbs, then run overnight to another city (with maybe a suburban stop or two) where you arrive at a decent but pre-9am hour. Maybe, like the Caledonian Sleeper, charge for dinner or a snack (late departure = probably ate dinner) but include breakfast for non-coach passengers. To paraphrase a Twitter post I saw (regarding the Lark proposal): annihilate distance with sleep, making travel times that are less attractive for corridor service (6-9 hours) into a feature instead of a bug.

 

[MARC Rider]

Alaska Railroad uses 18' tall bilevels with 4' above rail lower level. As has been discussed many times, those would not fit in among other places, Chicago Union Station.

Has anyone ever used any of these bi-levels as sleeping cars? Even with the 18' tall cars, I am skeptical that there will be decent headroom for upper berths. After my recent experience trying to get into and out of an upper berth in a Superliner sleeper, I have come to the conclusion that I just can't get into and out of the bunk. I have no problems with the upper berths in the Viewliners (except that the mattresses seem to be made of concrete.)

 

[crescent-zephyr]

Has anyone ever used any of these bi-levels as sleeping cars? Even with the 18' tall cars, I am skeptical that there will be decent headroom for upper berths. After my recent experience trying to get into and out of an upper berth in a Superliner sleeper, I have come to the conclusion that I just can't get into and out of the bunk. I have no problems with the upper berths in the Viewliners (except that the mattresses seem to be made of concrete.)

Colorado Railcar did have plans for Ultra Dome Sleepers, I'm not sure if any prototypes were built or not.