Future Amtrak Equipment and ADA ideas

[como]

I received the survey today with a second email saying that the deadline was extended to April. There are several options but a few things stood out. All the coach options appear to have a restrooms and showers. The coach options have a cafe car and cart and beverage service. There were additional questions about willingness to pay for checked bags and meals, interest in different on board activities, and interest in tours associated with travel.

 

[Mailliw]

I haven't gotten the survey; does it have actual illustrations or diagrams of the proposals?

 

[como]

I haven't gotten the survey; does it have actual illustrations or diagrams of the proposals?

Diagrams. Small ones.

 

[west point]

Longer trains can save Amtrak some money. A 16 car train would have 13 revenue cars and 3 non revenue. a 7 car train might have a bag - dorm lounge, diner. So the short one has fewer passengers to means highe cost of non revenue cars per passenger.

Depending on topography some longer trains will need another loco. Crescent is one example. SOU RR used to put 12,000 HP on Crescent north of ATL. As well an additional locomotive reduces chances of train not completely finishing trip in case of locomotive's failure. But that would require Amtrak to double its LD fleet meaning no Amfleet retirements.

 

[TheCrescent]

Honestly, I don’t care so long as they order A LOT of sleepers. The current shortage is proving to be a huge issue. There is massive demand for sleeper trains in the US, and having more rolling stock would bring the price down.

From hotel style delux sleepers to lie flat coach; it doesn’t matter if Amtrak is only looking to replace what they currently have.

They need more cars, so that they can run longer trains and bring down the cost of the product, and serve more customers.

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.

 

[cocojacoby]

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.

Seems logical. More rooms would mean lower prices but . . .

Here is a little "study" I did on another website comparing a Superliner train and a Viewliner train based on just that concept:


I know there has been lots of discussion about Superliner replacement especially about if Amtrak should go all single level on any new long-distance equipment. I have my preferences since I consider the Superliners to be very exiting cars especially with the huge double deck diners and the great sightseer lounges. I think there are lots of positives to this equipment although there is the one serious shortcoming with the low ceiling claustrophobic roomettes (kind of hard to believe Amtrak could get a toilet into the Viewliner I roomettes with only about a 3" more elbow room - some kind of magic there). I will add that the Viewliner roomettes are a great design and my favorite way to go.

And of course there is the efficiency of the bi-level design. Lots more bang for the buck than the Viewliner (I will use Viewliner II since everything will be standardized someday):

Superliner has 7 bedrooms - Viewliner has 3 = 14 pax vs 6 pax
Superliner has 14 roomettes - Viewliner has 12 = 28 pax vs. 24 pax
So Superliner sleepers can carry up to 42 adult passengers while the Viewliner II can carry up to 30.

Now on the coach side you get:
Superliner Coach - 74 pax
Amfleet II coach - 60 pax

These are huge advantages. Add to that the efficiency of having one attendant to that number of passengers per car and the Superliner has to be cheaper to run per passenger, right? It's a no brainer.

But we all know all that. So I thought I would explore what that greater efficiency means to passengers. If Amtrak is going to replace Superliners with new bi-levels or single levels, it would make sense to go with the highest design efficiency since that would mean lower operating costs and lower fares per passenger. This should be an important metric.

Now the only place to see how this actually compares is between the city pair of Chicago and Cleveland since you actually have a choice of the Superliner Capitol Limited or the single-level Lake Shore Limited on that route.

Here is what I found using a random future date:

Monday, February 13
Departure CHI - CLE

Compare Fare Types

Capitol Limited Train 30
DEPARTS 6:40 p
10% full >
6h 5m
ARRIVES
1:45 a
Tue, Feb 14
Coach from $60
Rooms from $386

Lake Shore Limited Train 448
DEPARTS 9:30p
0% full >
7h 8m
ARRIVES 5:38a
Tue, Feb 14
Coach from $48
Rooms from $209

Lake Shore Limited Train 48
DEPARTS 9:30p
10% full >
7h 8m
ARRIVES 5:38a
Tue, Feb 14
Coach from $48
Rooms from $209

So where is the cost savings that should come from the greater efficiency? I was really surprised to see these numbers.

If there is no savings from the more efficient double-deck design then there is little argument to going bi-level I guess. If the costs are the same or even cheaper to run single-level equipment then that is the way to go. Viewliner rooms are much better than Superliner rooms. A coach is a coach is a coach. There is the possibility of building a 14' 6" bi-level diner with tables above in the "Dome Dining Room" and kitchen below, and a similar lounge with "Starlight Dome Lounge" above and snack bar below. ADA seating could be built at the mid-level ends. Done right, this would at least add some excitement to the mix and dull the sting of losing the fantastic Superliners. I will add that the 42 seat Viewliner diner is not the answer although the Art Deco touch is great.

I for one will miss the mighty Superliners but if their efficiency doesn't actually add up to any advantage it is hard to justify them. Maybe I am missing something here, but the numbers are the numbers. Anybody have another perspective?

 

[MccfamschoolMom]

Seems logical. More rooms would mean lower prices but . . .

Here is a little "study" I did on another website comparing a Superliner train and a Viewliner train based on just that concept:


I know there has been lots of discussion about Superliner replacement especially about if Amtrak should go all single level on any new long-distance equipment. I have my preferences since I consider the Superliners to be very exiting cars especially with the huge double deck diners and the great sightseer lounges. I think there are lots of positives to this equipment although there is the one serious shortcoming with the low ceiling claustrophobic roomettes (kind of hard to believe Amtrak could get a toilet into the Viewliner I roomettes with only about a 3" more elbow room - some kind of magic there). I will add that the Viewliner roomettes are a great design and my favorite way to go.

And of course there is the efficiency of the bi-level design. Lots more bang for the buck than the Viewliner (I will use Viewliner II since everything will be standardized someday):

Superliner has 7 bedrooms - Viewliner has 3 = 14 pax vs 6 pax
Superliner has 14 roomettes - Viewliner has 12 = 28 pax vs. 24 pax
So Superliner sleepers can carry up to 42 adult passengers while the Viewliner II can carry up to 30.

Now on the coach side you get:
Superliner Coach - 74 pax
Amfleet II coach - 60 pax

These are huge advantages. Add to that the efficiency of having one attendant to that number of passengers per car and the Superliner has to be cheaper to run per passenger, right? It's a no brainer.

But we all know all that. So I thought I would explore what that greater efficiency means to passengers. If Amtrak is going to replace Superliners with new bi-levels or single levels, it would make sense to go with the highest design efficiency since that would mean lower operating costs and lower fares per passenger. This should be an important metric.

Now the only place to see how this actually compares is between the city pair of Chicago and Cleveland since you actually have a choice of the Superliner Capitol Limited or the single-level Lake Shore Limited on that route.

Here is what I found using a random future date:

Monday, February 13
Departure CHI - CLE

Compare Fare Types

Capitol Limited Train 30
DEPARTS 6:40 p
10% full >
6h 5m
ARRIVES
1:45 a
Tue, Feb 14
Coach from $60
Rooms from $386

Lake Shore Limited Train 448
DEPARTS 9:30p
0% full >
7h 8m
ARRIVES 5:38a
Tue, Feb 14
Coach from $48
Rooms from $209

Lake Shore Limited Train 48
DEPARTS 9:30p
10% full >
7h 8m
ARRIVES 5:38a
Tue, Feb 14
Coach from $48
Rooms from $209

So where is the cost savings that should come from the greater efficiency? I was really surprised to see these numbers.

If there is no savings from the more efficient double-deck design then there is little argument to going bi-level I guess. If the costs are the same or even cheaper to run single-level equipment then that is the way to go. Viewliner rooms are much better than Superliner rooms. A coach is a coach is a coach. There is the possibility of building a 14' 6" bi-level diner with tables above in the "Dome Dining Room" and kitchen below, and a similar lounge with "Starlight Dome Lounge" above and snack bar below. ADA seating could be built at the mid-level ends. Done right, this would at least add some excitement to the mix and dull the sting of losing the fantastic Superliners. I will add that the 42 seat Viewliner diner is not the answer although the Art Deco touch is great.

I for one will miss the mighty Superliners but if their efficiency doesn't actually add up to any advantage it is hard to justify them. Maybe I am missing something here, but the numbers are the numbers. Anybody have another perspective?

I certainly appreciate all of the research you put into this! My only guess is that perhaps there might be economies of scale by standardizing on one type of equipment, and that possibly maintenance costs might be lower on the single-level cars? (If someone knows more about this, I'd be happy to be corrected.)

 

[crescent-zephyr]

So where is the cost savings that should come from the greater efficiency? I was really surprised to see these numbers.

That's not how transportation is priced though. You don't pay less money for a ticket when an Airline uses a more fuel-efficient jet. The airline makes a bigger profit because of the fuel-efficient jet. The ticket price is the same for the city pairs and style of accommodation / service.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

I for one will miss the mighty Superliners but if their efficiency doesn't actually add up to any advantage it is hard to justify them. Maybe I am missing something here, but the numbers are the numbers. Anybody have another perspective?

Well you missed the total number of railcars on each train. The LSL has three sleepers, the CL has one.

Recently I had my trip cancelled enroute. The LSL cost 10k in points the Texas Eagle cost me 20k in points. The trip was cancelled in Chicago not quite 50% done but enough to prove the trains overall capacity impacts the price.

 

[Sidney]

Seems logical. More rooms would mean lower prices but . . .

Here is a little "study" I did on another website comparing a Superliner train and a Viewliner train based on just that concept:


I know there has been lots of discussion about Superliner replacement especially about if Amtrak should go all single level on any new long-distance equipment. I have my preferences since I consider the Superliners to be very exiting cars especially with the huge double deck diners and the great sightseer lounges. I think there are lots of positives to this equipment although there is the one serious shortcoming with the low ceiling claustrophobic roomettes (kind of hard to believe Amtrak could get a toilet into the Viewliner I roomettes with only about a 3" more elbow room - some kind of magic there). I will add that the Viewliner roomettes are a great design and my favorite way to go.

And of course there is the efficiency of the bi-level design. Lots more bang for the buck than the Viewliner (I will use Viewliner II since everything will be standardized someday):

Superliner has 7 bedrooms - Viewliner has 3 = 14 pax vs 6 pax
Superliner has 14 roomettes - Viewliner has 12 = 28 pax vs. 24 pax
So Superliner sleepers can carry up to 42 adult passengers while the Viewliner II can carry up to 30.

Now on the coach side you get:
Superliner Coach - 74 pax
Amfleet II coach - 60 pax

These are huge advantages. Add to that the efficiency of having one attendant to that number of passengers per car and the Superliner has to be cheaper to run per passenger, right? It's a no brainer.

But we all know all that. So I thought I would explore what that greater efficiency means to passengers. If Amtrak is going to replace Superliners with new bi-levels or single levels, it would make sense to go with the highest design efficiency since that would mean lower operating costs and lower fares per passenger. This should be an important metric.

Now the only place to see how this actually compares is between the city pair of Chicago and Cleveland since you actually have a choice of the Superliner Capitol Limited or the single-level Lake Shore Limited on that route.

Here is what I found using a random future date:

Monday, February 13
Departure CHI - CLE

Compare Fare Types

Capitol Limited Train 30
DEPARTS 6:40 p
10% full >
6h 5m
ARRIVES
1:45 a
Tue, Feb 14
Coach from $60
Rooms from $386

Lake Shore Limited Train 448
DEPARTS 9:30p
0% full >
7h 8m
ARRIVES 5:38a
Tue, Feb 14
Coach from $48
Rooms from $209

Lake Shore Limited Train 48
DEPARTS 9:30p
10% full >
7h 8m
ARRIVES 5:38a
Tue, Feb 14
Coach from $48
Rooms from $209

So where is the cost savings that should come from the greater efficiency? I was really surprised to see these numbers.

If there is no savings from the more efficient double-deck design then there is little argument to going bi-level I guess. If the costs are the same or even cheaper to run single-level equipment then that is the way to go. Viewliner rooms are much better than Superliner rooms. A coach is a coach is a coach. There is the possibility of building a 14' 6" bi-level diner with tables above in the "Dome Dining Room" and kitchen below, and a similar lounge with "Starlight Dome Lounge" above and snack bar below. ADA seating could be built at the mid-level ends. Done right, this would at least add some excitement to the mix and dull the sting of losing the fantastic Superliners. I will add that the 42 seat Viewliner diner is not the answer although the Art Deco touch is great.

I for one will miss the mighty Superliners but if their efficiency doesn't actually add up to any advantage it is hard to justify them. Maybe I am missing something here, but the numbers are the numbers. Anybody have another perspective?

I checked Feb 13 and got $379 from Chi to Cle on the Lake Shore .A whopping $729 all the way to New York. Insane.

 

[danasgoodstuff]

The Cap has a better schedule CHI - CLE than the Lakeshore, which affects demand and hence price.

 

[jis]

The Cap has a better schedule CHI - CLE than the Lakeshore, which affects demand and hence price.

I am a bit puzzled. Could you please explain why arriving at 1:45am is better than arriving at 5:38am?

 

[Devil's Advocate]

If there is no savings from the more efficient double-deck design then there is little argument to going bi-level I guess. If the costs are the same or even cheaper to run single-level equipment then that is the way to go. Viewliner rooms are much better than Superliner rooms. A coach is a coach is a coach.

How many ADA-compliant single level cars will it take to replace the capacity of a full-length Superliner train from the Boardman era? How many platforms can handle such a train? It's gonna be really amusing when the "one car to rule them all" club tries to explain how they intend to keep the Auto Train.

 

[cocojacoby]

The Cap has a better schedule CHI - CLE than the Lakeshore, which affects demand and hence price.

Interesting question. Does the schedule matter to ticket prices? Well a quick check on the westbound trains, which run about an hour part (sometimes right on each others markers) shows this:
Departure
CLE
CHI
Compare Fare Types

29Capitol Limited
DEPARTS
2:59a
10% full >
6h 46m
ARRIVES
8:45a

Coach from
$60

Rooms from
$386

449Lake Shore Limited
DEPARTS
4:03a
10% full >
7h 9m
ARRIVES
10:12a

Coach from
$48

Rooms from
$343

49Lake Shore Limited
DEPARTS
4:03a
10% full >
7h 9m
ARRIVES
10:12a

Coach from
$48

Rooms from
$343

 

[jis]

How many ADA-compliant single level cars will it take to replace the capacity of a full-length Superliner train from the Boardman era? How many platforms can handle such a train? It's gonna be really amusing when the "one car to rule them all" club tries to explain how they intend to keep the Auto Train.

Then again, Amtrak operated the Auto Train with single level equipment for 12 years before it got Superliners for it. So it is not like it cannot be done with the infrastructure at Lorton and Sanford.

Personally I am quite ambivalent about the this single level vs. bi-level debate.

 

[cocojacoby]

Then again, Amtrak operated the Auto Train with single level equipment for 12 years before it got Superliners for it. So it is not like it cannot be done with the infrastructure at Lorton and Sanford.

Personally I am quite ambivalent about the this single level vs. bi-level debate.

Ah, but that brings up the wonderful potential of running it north to New Jersey which would be great for a lot of people. Amtrak might need some new low-profile auto-carriers of course. On the other hand, CSX might just have cleared their entire route from Florida to New Jersey for double stacks before anything like this happens.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Then again, Amtrak operated the Auto Train with single level equipment for 12 years before it got Superliners for it. So it is not like it cannot be done with the infrastructure at Lorton and Sanford.

I think that most if not all Superliner trains will continue to operate in one form or another. They will simply lose capacity relative to a full (active + retired) Superliner fleet replacement. Buying 20-25% more single-level cars looks easy on the surface, and if that was the only consideration the savings of maintaining a unified fleet would probably cancel out the additional costs at worst, but that's not where it actually ends. In order to satisfy Amtrak, the ADA, the hosts, and the unions they'll need to add more OBS staff, lengthen station platforms (or lose stops), and run more trains just to replace what we already had before. IMO these factors counteract the benefit of converting to a unified platform.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

If all cars have to be fully ADA accessible I don't know what sleeping cars will have to look like. Apparently, Amtrak couldn't simply order more ViewlinerII's if they wanted to?

If not all cars have to be fully ADA accessible then nothing needs to radically change in future designs. I think the Amtrak sleeping cars are some of the best-designed, and most practical sleeping cars out there, they just need to be refurbished and well-maintained.

 

[John Bredin]

In order to satisfy Amtrak, the ADA, the hosts, and the unions they'll need to add more OBS staff, lengthen station platforms (or lose stops), and run more trains just to replace what we already had before. IMO these factors counteract the benefit of converting to a unified platform.

Running more trains and adding OBS staff are both things Amtrak should be doing anyway, one fleet or two. Extending platforms doesn't strike me as a heavy expense in most instances; I'm sure there are stations that are hemmed-in or have other complications, but pouring a few extra square feet of concrete slab is something all but the poorest of local governments do routinely.

If not all cars have to be fully ADA accessible then nothing needs to radically change in future designs. I think the Amtrak sleeping cars are some of the best-designed, and most practical sleeping cars out there, they just need to be refurbished and well-maintained.

In my opinion, accessibility for a carrier that wants to attract passengers should be broader than the requirements of the ADA where feasible. Even if the law requires only minimal accessibility (you can get between the door and your accessible room to board and deboard, but your meals must be brought to you), I'm sure there's people who'd like to eat sociably in the dining car or pick their own snacks and drinks in the cafe.

I don't think every car needs to be accessible, but it's desireable for every passenger to be able to fully use the amenities, which generally means access to the diner & cafe. If Amtrak ran all-roomette sleeper cars with a center aisle and all-bedroom (including the accessible bedrooms) sleeper cars with an accessible-width side aisle, the latter cars could be placed next to the diner and cafe for access. I admit I don't know if it's feasible with clearances and other considerations to have a sleeper car wide enough to have an *accessible* aisle on one side.

 

[Mailliw]

Alot of people with disabilities (wheelchair user or not) prefer train travel because it's more comfortable and dignified that alternatives like air or bus travel. It's very important that Amtrak be ad accommodating as practical. It seems like the biggest challenge is allowing wheelchair users passage through sleeping cars w/ both roomettes and bedrooms; if sleeping cars were either all bedroom or all roomette problem solved and the train is accessible end-to-end (assuming single-level). The stumbling block is the ADA; either requirements need to change so only every other sleeper needs an ADA bedroom or a waiver given to all roomette cars provided they're paired with all an bedroom car w/ 2 ADA bedrooms.

 

[jis]

Alot of people with disabilities (wheelchair user or not) prefer train travel because it's more comfortable and dignified that alternatives like air or bus travel. It's very important that Amtrak be ad accommodating as practical. It seems like the biggest challenge is allowing wheelchair users passage through sleeping cars w/ both roomettes and bedrooms; if sleeping cars were either all bedroom or all roomette problem solved and the train is accessible end-to-end (assuming single-level). The stumbling block is the ADA; either requirements need to change so only every other sleeper needs an ADA bedroom or a waiver given to all roomette cars provided they're paired with all an bedroom car w/ 2 ADA bedrooms.

Or you could do something incredibly clever like put a coffe service and linen closet area where the row of bedrooms end and roomettes begin so as to allow a smooth curvature 40" wide passage transitioning from the side of the car to the middle. There are ways of working around this by thinking a bit out of the box from the boxy standard found on American Sleepers these days

 

[joelkfla]

I admit I don't know if it's feasible with clearances and other considerations to have a sleeper car wide enough to have an *accessible* aisle on one side.

Viewliners are 10.5' wide. ADA aisle width is 3'. I find it hard to believe that a bedroom module couldn't be designed to fit in the remaining 7' or so, although it might need to be a bit longer than existing bedrooms.

Roomettes, I'm not so sure about. Current aisle width is 2'. Finding 6" to take away from Roomette width could be difficult.

 

[jis]

Viewliners are 10.5' wide. ADA aisle width is 3'. I find it hard to believe that a bedroom module couldn't be designed to fit in the remaining 7' or so, although it might need to be a bit longer than existing bedrooms.

Roomettes, I'm not so sure about. Current aisle width is 2'. Finding 6" to take away from Roomette width could be difficult.

As long as the Roomettes start looking more like Delta One pods with full height walls it can be done. You don't really need the sink in the Roomette. 42" is wide enough to oput in a 26"-30" wide lie flat seat and associated work area etc., plus storage above the corridror. It will be a little less lavish than the current Roomette, and with Delta One style staggered placement of the seat capacity would work out to be close to the same.

 

[John Bredin]

Viewliners are 10.5' wide. ADA aisle width is 3'. I find it hard to believe that a bedroom module couldn't be designed to fit in the remaining 7' or so, although it might need to be a bit longer than existing bedrooms.

Roomettes, I'm not so sure about. Current aisle width is 2'. Finding 6" to take away from Roomette width could be difficult.

I don't think roomettes need to be accessible -- there's no accessible roomettes now -- so long as accessible bedrooms are priced as roomettes to avoid price discrimination. I'm pretty sure that's what Amtrak does now, and we're merely contemplating how to have all accessible bedrooms have access to the diner & cafe cars.

 

[joelkfla]

I don't think roomettes need to be accessible -- there's no accessible roomettes now -- so long as accessible bedrooms are priced as roomettes to avoid price discrimination. I'm pretty sure that's what Amtrak does now, and we're merely contemplating how to have all accessible bedrooms have access to the diner & cafe cars.

True. I didn't pick up that you were saying to put the bedroom cars between the diner and the Roomette cars.