Future Amtrak Equipment and ADA ideas

[lrh442]

This link is to a Rail Passengers Association (RPA) hotline post about Amtrak's proposed framework to accommodate ADA requirements in its upcoming LD fleet order.
https://mailchi.mp/narprail/hotline1324The post addresses multiple myths such as the trainsets being permanently coupled, the renderings being representative of a near-final design, and Amtrak needing to complete the order by year-end.
RPA calls out Amtrak for being "horribly" late with the fleet order and calls for a sense of urgency in getting it done. They also state that refurbishing Superliners is an acceptable "stopgap measure" but question Amtrak's ability to execute on such a task.

 

[cocojacoby]

I am presenting this just for something to think about. The thread has been a bit slow lately so just some food for thought . . .

The below pics show a Superliner, a C3 bilevel and a NJT Bombardier interior. Information I have found states the C3 has a headroom of 6' 5" on each level. The Bombardier is probably similar. I can't find any information of the headroom on a Superliner but from the picture below, it's just above the height of the door so maybe 6' 7" or so?

So for a about a 2 inch difference, Amtrak probably could spec a new bilevel car that could be used throughout the system. But then again the Superliner's original architecture is 50 years old! Has there been advances in railcar construction that actually would allow the cars to be lower in height and still offer the same headroom? Smaller, more efficient and more cleverly placed duct work and lighting systems must exist since the original design. Sculptured recessed ceiling panels between the ribs over upper bunks should be possible to give a couple more inches of headroom. Sleek glass luggage racks (like Talgo) would visually open up the space above seats.

Is the platform situation insurmountable? Could some cars have step downs at the ends like transition dorms? The fact that new cars do have ample crush areas at the ends now may mean there is wasted space for a few traditional vestibules. The central "core" (diner, lounge, cafe', one coach and ADA sleeper) would remain upper-level passthrough. Some strategically placed coaches and sleepers bookending the central "core" would need to serve both platform heights and would need interior elevators too. Loading and unloading LD trains doesn't have to be as quick as regional trains and this would only be necessary in high-level territory which is a small part of the LD network.

The ability to utilize a single type of equipment throughout the system for LD trains would make things much more efficient and cost-effective of course. This is just thinking out loud kind of stuff for fun but if anyone wants to entertain the thought please do

Thanks.


View attachment 36728

 

[Amtrak25]

That is not a LIRR C-3 coach, but an NJT MLV car. The upper level over seat luggage racks are too small to be useful. The lower level has none.

There are steps to each level, so no ADA access to the food service cars.

The cars have traditional gangways at each end. They are basically "step down" at each end.

All in all not acceptable.

 

[jadebenn]

I remember considering this back in a thread I made on this site about whether high-level bi-levels in the Superliner style was possible. The conclusion I came to was "no." At least, not without ADA-non-compliant floor height changes between the boarding and central areas.*

*The closest I ever came to squaring that circle conceptually would be using a variant of the "accessible core" idea and using some kind of married-pair configuration where there would only be doors on the far end of a two-or-three car set. But that could lead to some operational difficulties with embarking and disembarking speeds...

 

[cocojacoby]

That is not a LIRR C-3 coach, but an NJT MLV car. The upper level over seat luggage racks are too small to be useful. The lower level has none.

There are steps to each level, so no ADA access to the food service cars.

The cars have traditional gangways at each end. They are basically "step down" at each end.

All in all not acceptable.

Middle photo is a C3:

http://www.trainsarefun.com/lirr/C1-C3 Bilevel/Bilevel Cars.htm

Also note that the Superliner interior height over the racks goes right up to the ceiling. In the NJT car, there is an enormous amount of space taken up by the lighting and ventilation system. Maybe that can be redesigned to open up the area. Lighting strips can be very very small nowadays and a LD coach doesn't need all that bright lighting that is desirable in a commuter car. But of course there may be structural elements in there we can't see.

 

[Amtrak25]

Middle photo is a C3:

http://www.trainsarefun.com/lirr/C1-C3 Bilevel/Bilevel Cars.htm

Also note that the Superliner interior height over the racks goes right up to the ceiling. In the NJT car, there is an enormous amount of space taken up by the lighting and ventilation system. Maybe that can be redesigned to open up the area. Lighting strips can be very very small nowadays and a LD coach doesn't need all that bright lighting that is desirable in a commuter car. But of course there may be structural elements in there we can't see.

That photo does not belong in that group. Caption is totally wrong. It is an NJT MLV car. I know quite well both types of cars. Interiors also differ. The obvious thing wrong in the photo is the paired windows on the LIRR C-3 coach, but the incorrect interior photo shows a partition-less wide glazing.

Overhead luggage racks are useless, intended for a school or laptop bag.

Whichever, interior steps rule out any use for ADA. Those passengers in commuter cars reside in the outer ends and cannot go anywhere else, and must be at the one end of only those cars that have a bathroom.

 

[jadebenn]

I think steps are "fine" on commuter service as far as the ADA is concerned because there aren't any amenities provided elsewhere on the train. The issue seems to emerge when you have said amenities and they can't access them.

 

[jis]

I think steps are "fine" on commuter service as far as the ADA is concerned because there aren't any amenities provided elsewhere on the train. The issue seems to emerge when you have said amenities and they can't access them.

This is exactly the case as I have mentioned several times in this thread. However, @cocojacoby is apparently talking of using these cars as models for long distance trains which makes the ADA issue become relevant. Afterall there are mobility challenged people who are not in wheelchairs but have difficulty climbing stairs. There is no reason at all to cause life to become more difficult for them. The business about a single fleet is just a fantasy of some which should not guide us to inconvenience more people than we absolutely must. Just IMHO of course.

 

[Amtrak25]

I think the future LD fleet should be all single level for interchangeability, avoid internal elevators, and have more high level platforms where they can be isolated from freight trains, like at Denver or St Paul, and mobility-impaired people won't encounter those vestibule steps, but Amtrak is hell-bent on bi-levels for western trains, don't know about the City of NO.

 

[cocojacoby]

Actually I was not presenting this as an argument to use these cars as Amtrak's new LD fleet. I was questioning if a totally new car could be built that would offer similar headroom to the current Superliner but be lower in height by utilizing more modern building techniques and materials than the 50 year old Superliner architecture.

And to add to some more fuel to the fire . . .

We all know Amtrak's clearance plate is 14' 6" high right? But what is the actual available headroom? The GG1 was 15' tall (with Pantographs down) and take a look at the new Viewliner baggage car below. These cars are 14' high but what about those huge vents? They look about 3/4 the height of the 18" upper bunk window so maybe another foot or so?

Just throwing it out there

 

[Amtrak25]

The vents run down the middle of the car. You can't have a flat roof that high.

The LIRR C-3 cars are not cleared for the Hudson River tunnels. For one thing, the ends of the roof would hit the portal if coming off a diverging switch, and possibly other issues of things hanging from the ceiling of the tubes. That is why the ends of the roof and slope on the top of the sides on the NJT MLV cars are sloped and beveled.

 

[jis]

Just in an attempt to ground this discussion in a bit more of reality here is the American single level passenger car static loading gauge assuming certain wheel centers and maximum diameter of curvature etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loading_gauge#/media/File:Gabarit_AAR_passager.png

This diagram still does not give the full story, but the thing to note is that the loading gauge is not a rectangle and even the specific shape gets further restricted sometimes depending on the dynamic characteristics force by the nature of the right of way and track on which it is targeted to operate. Amtrak has an official universal loading gauge that it uses for its 85' length cars with specified truck centers. Needless to say if you change the length of cars or change truck centers you have to recompute everything to fit on the same track and route.

Indian Railways did this neat exercise of moving from the old ICF Schlieren cars which are 73'2" long to the new LHB cars which are 78'9" long without changing any civil structures around the track by specifying a taper at the end of each coach to fit them within the dynamic envelope necessary to not hit any existing structure at the max specified curvature and super-elevation. If you look closely you can see the taper at the end of each coach.

But as far as those exhaust fans on the Viewliner baggage cars go, they are allowed by the Amtrak Gabarit Standard loading gauge. The old Viewliners also have a continuous lengthwise cable conduit running the length of the car along the center line. But all that does not translate into possible additional headroom across the width of the car.

 

[cocojacoby]

Yeah, I know but at least as wide as a GG1 pantograph:



And then angling down to the side wall like Amtrak proposes:

Looks possible at least.

 

[nferr]

I don't understand the obsession with running bilevel cars in the East. The Viewliner sleepers are fine, the Viewliner diners are too. So you're talking mostly about coaches, which probably will be easily modified versions of the new NEC coaches. And it shouldn't be too hard to come with a new cafe/lounge car for long distance.

 

[jis]

I don't understand the obsession with running bilevel cars in the East. The Viewliner sleepers are fine, the Viewliner diners are too. So you're talking mostly about coaches, which probably will be easily modified versions of the new NEC coaches. And it shouldn't be too hard to come with a new cafe/lounge car for long distance.

I also don't understand the obsession, but I guess it does float a few people's boat

 

[jadebenn]

If we could run bilevels in the east it'd help reduce opex. But it's pretty much a fantasy.

 

[Caesar La Rock]

It's okay to have a fleet of both single and bi-level trains, it's not something that should change. Many railroads around the world have both single and bi-level trains. This reminds me of some who argue that Amtrak should have one manufacturer for their trains, and I can't think of many railroads who have done that themselves.

 

[LMC]

I think steps are "fine" on commuter service as far as the ADA is concerned because there aren't any amenities provided elsewhere on the train. The issue seems to emerge when you have said amenities and they can't access them.

ADA compliancy provides an alternative to steps. A lift, perhaps, to get wheeled and ambulatory-assisted passengers would be a minimum. Proper seating inside the car where they can be more "lounging". door handles and bathroom space to accommodate. Dietary options for food options. these are starters. If they take federal funds, they need to be providing these options. It sounds as if they are trying -- and we should stand behind them. It is late out of the gate and hopefully, they are earnest in getting this done.

 

[cocojacoby]

I don't understand the obsession with running bilevel cars in the East. The Viewliner sleepers are fine, the Viewliner diners are too. So you're talking mostly about coaches, which probably will be easily modified versions of the new NEC coaches. And it shouldn't be too hard to come with a new cafe/lounge car for long distance.

It's a capacity and experience thing. Superliners are way more efficient and have much more revenue space that helps the bottom line and should lower costs and prices. The Superliner diners and lounges are fantastic cars. This is "experiential" train travel. Superliners are impressive even 50 years later.

As far as eastern LD trains, the Viewliner diner is not fine. It has inadequate capacity to serve a full train especially with the reduction in seating due to the ADA open space and don't get me started on the crew taking up space and the two trash boxes bumping around in that open area. As an exclusive "First Class Lounge" it works and it is a very nice space if the crew allows you to hang around. But is that the intent? Should coach passengers be excluded and stuck with microwave cafe food? Maybe with the prices sleeper passengers pay it is. They should get free quality snacks and Happy Hour drink prices and make it a real First Class experience.

As far as the sleepers go, I actually prefer the Viewliner sleeping rooms to the claustrophobic Superliners. Amtrak did a great job designing those rooms. But again capacity is much much lower in a Viewliner than a Superliner train overall but in this case the Viewliner experience gets the nod.

Perhaps a combination would work best for the eastern LDs? Viewliner sleepers and new Viewliner coaches bookending a bilevel core consisting of 14' 6" high full-length bilevel diner, bilevel lounge, and a bilevel cafe. ADA access would be possible with elevators. The bilevel core cars would have adequate headroom on both levels and have skylight roofs to make them feel even more spacious.

I think that would work best for the eastern LDs but that's just my dream a this point.

 

[jis]

It is actually quite interesting that even though Santa Fe had designs for bi-level Sleepers they never saw the pressing need and hence never got around to convert the all Sleeper Super Chief to bi-level. They only converted the all Coach El Capitan to bi-level. And following from that many mixed trains had single level Sleepers and bi-level Coaches connected by a Transition Coach.

As for efficient packing in Sleepers, nothing beats the Three-Tier AC Sleepers on Indian Railways which can pack 72 berths in a 78' single level LHB car with four end of ca toilets, 2 Indian style and 2 Western style.

Slightly less densely packed 2 Tier AC Sleepers which have facilities slightly better than the old Sections in the US pack 54 in the same space with four end of ca toilets, 2 Indian style and 2 Western style..

The First AC with compartments but with shared facilities, no ensuite rooms) has room for only 24 - 4x2 berth and 4x4 berth compartments in 78' car with four end of ca toilets, 1 Indian style and 2 Western style and one Shower Room..

See: https://erail.in/info/classes/1500

 

[MccfamschoolMom]

nothing beats the Three-Tier AC Sleepers on Indian Railways

Those sound like the berth sleepers I've seen in old movies, which might have been 3-tier at times!

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I think steps are "fine" on commuter service as far as the ADA is concerned because there aren't any amenities provided elsewhere on the train. The issue seems to emerge when you have said amenities and they can't access them.

What I find confusing about this is that Amtrak already provides at-room and at-seat meal service for disabled passengers, and in my experience you actually get more ancillary items when you have a meal brought to you, so what is the missing amenity in this context?

I think the future LD fleet should be all single level for interchangeability, avoid internal elevators, and have more high level platforms where they can be isolated from freight trains, like at Denver or St Paul, and mobility-impaired people won't encounter those vestibule steps, but Amtrak is hell-bent on bi-levels for western trains, don't know about the City of NO.

Do people advocating for an all single level fleet really think Amtrak is going to expand all Western trains by 50% over the dual level length and double/triple-spot just to carry the same number of passengers? Because I do not think they will and it seems that Gardner has no problem with tiny stub trains.

 

[TrimetWESFan1003]

If there was a DMU version of the Venture cab car design, they could be used on the Hartford Line and Valley Flyer trains so the 2 car trains used on those lines wouldn't need to use a seperate engine to pull only 2 cars.

 

[jis]

Trains like the Heartland Flyer will most likely get Cascades-like Diesel Airos eventually, unless they become more reasonably innovative and get a FLIRT or something like that. Texas has already gone that route on a few routes around Dallas so it might happen.

 

[Amtrak25]

What I find confusing about this is that Amtrak already provides at-room and at-seat meal service for disabled passengers, and in my experience you actually get more ancillary items when you have a meal brought to you, so what is the missing amenity in this context?

Because it violates ADA law.

Do people advocating for an all single level fleet really think Amtrak is going to expand all Western trains by 50% over the dual level length and double/triple-spot just to carry the same number of passengers? Because I do not think they will and it seems that Gardner has no problem with tiny stub trains.

Quite an exaggeration. Superliner coaches have 74 seats. Amfleet-2 have
60. 4 single levels will still have 18 more seats than 3 bi-levels. That's one more coach per consist and perhaps 3 sleepers instead of 2. With 2 food service and a baggage car, train grows from 8 to 10 cars, which is 25%, not 50%..