Current Superliners are Plate H, 20' 2" high. For a 6' 6" high ceiling that leaves only 8 inches for space above the rail, and four floor/ceilings. That's not nearly enough and 6' 6" is probably the bare minimum you could get away with.
Yes, I see, too tight for 6'6". It would almost have to be backed down to 6' or less for 3 levels I suppose.
Current Superliners are not Plate H. They are 16’ tall, not 20+’.
Superliners are a smidge smaller than Plate F. Plate F is the smallest one they clear.
There's no lounge car for coach passengers on the single-level long-distance trains, and that's been so for years. It's not like the scenic parts of America are entirely west of Chicago and New Orleans. (Did Amtrak have lounges on single-level-LDs before Viewliners? Did the pre-Amtrak railroads have lounges for coach passengers? Honest questions for both, not merely rhetorical.)
I definitely don't have comprehensive knowledge of the world's passenger trains, but a combo cafe-coach or cafe-business car doesn't strike me as either rare, radical, or anti-passenger.Uneconomic to have a separate fleet for just three trains. Non-starter. Appears Plate F is a limiting factor.
I agree about separate fleets for most LD trains being a very bad idea, but is it really just those three trains? Would larger cars work on some or all the Chicago trains? (Not RM size, but something larger than the Superliners?)
Yes but a very small number of tables not capable of holding many passengers.
Some did have separate lounges for coach passengers, like the Travelers Rest Buffet Lounge on the North Coast Limited and the Ranch Car on the Empire Builder. When those cars were operated only seasonally during the latter years of railroad operation, other arrangements were made for coach passengers. On the Empire Builder, they were restricted to the lower level of the Great Dome lounge while the upper level was for sleeping car passengers only. On the North Coast Limited, some dining car tables were set aside for coach lounge space.There's no lounge car for coach passengers on the single-level long-distance trains, and that's been so for years. It's not like the scenic parts of America are entirely west of Chicago and New Orleans. (Did Amtrak have lounges on single-level-LDs before Viewliners? Did the pre-Amtrak railroads have lounges for coach passengers? Honest questions for both, not merely rhetorical.)
And on State-sponsored routes, business-class passengers who've paid a premium fare may not be in high-traffic if the biz-cafe is on the end of the train, but they get the (in my experience, moderate) noise and "lots of smelly food" (oddly enough, food usually has a good aroma to me). I've been in biz-class on the Lincoln Service, and it's not the third-world hell you're making out a half-cafe to be.
Where are you getting "loss of tables" from? The drawings I've seen have an area of "cafe seats" in the cafe car, separate from the "coach seats" in the same car. If you're putting a lot of weight on the word "seats" to mean not-tables, the drawing of the diner car uses the phrase "diner seats" and I doubt Amtrak intends passengers to eat meals in their laps.
And why not have skylights or overhead windows in the coaches? As a substitute for a lounge car, no, I agree with you. But just as some people want to go to a lounge to socialize, others may want to have a better view of the scenery without leaving their own seat and entering a more social space. Don't the Swiss run scenic trains with overhead windows in coaches and lounges? (Again, an honest question, not a rhetorical one, I'm not sure.)
You seem to be lumping in the apparent loss of the Sightseer Lounge with other unrelated (IMHO) issues. There could be overhead windows for views in cars with sociable lounge seating and regular coach seating. A car with lounge above and cafe below wasn't handed down by the gods. There's no reason a replacement bilevel set couldn't have an upper-level lounge with coach seating, sleeper rooms, or even baggage on the first floor.
If the object is to complain to Amtrak in hopes of revising their not set-in-stone plans, focusing on the actual problem with the plan (no lounge for coach passengers) seems more productive than insisting that Amtrak hates passengers unless we get the Sightseer Lounge with cafe on the ground level or if it dares to put food service and coach seats in the same car.
The original California Zephyr was similar. There were 3 dome coaches, but the dome level in the Coffee Shop car was restricted to sleeper passengers, as was the entire sleeper-dome-lounge-observation car.
I’d take that type of shade, as was found in the Heritage fleet, anytime, over those flimsy curtains used currently. They do a far superior job of blocking the bright sun, and I believe they might be more sanitary and simpler to keep clean…
If I have understood things correctly the coach lounge will not be going away on the SWC, the EB, the Zephyr and other trains west of Chicago?There's no lounge car for coach passengers on the single-level long-distance trains, and that's been so for years. It's not like the scenic parts of America are entirely west of Chicago and New Orleans. (Did Amtrak have lounges on single-level-LDs before Viewliners? Did the pre-Amtrak railroads have lounges for coach passengers? Honest questions for both, not merely rhetorical.)
And on State-sponsored routes, business-class passengers who've paid a premium fare may not be in high-traffic if the biz-cafe is on the end of the train, but they get the (in my experience, moderate) noise and "lots of smelly food" (oddly enough, food usually has a good aroma to me). I've been in biz-class on the Lincoln Service, and it's not the third-world hell you're making out a half-cafe to be.
Where are you getting "loss of tables" from? The drawings I've seen have an area of "cafe seats" in the cafe car, separate from the "coach seats" in the same car. If you're putting a lot of weight on the word "seats" to mean not-tables, the drawing of the diner car uses the phrase "diner seats" and I doubt Amtrak intends passengers to eat meals in their laps.
And why not have skylights or overhead windows in the coaches? As a substitute for a lounge car, no, I agree with you. But just as some people want to go to a lounge to socialize, others may want to have a better view of the scenery without leaving their own seat and entering a more social space. Don't the Swiss run scenic trains with overhead windows in coaches and lounges? (Again, an honest question, not a rhetorical one, I'm not sure.)
You seem to be lumping in the apparent loss of the Sightseer Lounge with other unrelated (IMHO) issues. There could be overhead windows for views in cars with sociable lounge seating and regular coach seating. A car with lounge above and cafe below wasn't handed down by the gods. There's no reason a replacement bilevel set couldn't have an upper-level lounge with coach seating, sleeper rooms, or even baggage on the first floor.
If the object is to complain to Amtrak in hopes of revising their not set-in-stone plans, focusing on the actual problem with the plan (no lounge for coach passengers) seems more productive than insisting that Amtrak hates passengers unless we get the Sightseer Lounge with cafe on the ground level or if it dares to put food service and coach seats in the same car.
There is no dedicated couch lounge on any of these trains, and there never has been. All of these trains have a Sightseer lounge open to all passengers.
Yes, I realize that coach passengers can use open lounge. I have ridden these trains for 30 years. I understood the issue to be that on some trains coach passengers will no longer have access to any sightseer car. So back to square one: will the routes I mentioned above still have access to a sightseer lounge if they travel in coach. Again i realize there never was a dedicated coach lounge. Are present sightseer privileges going away for coach passengers on Western routes?
Not that I know of. Where did you hear this? That seems very unlikely, because the lounge is also the food service car for most coach passengers.
Almost all "name" trains back in the day had separate lounge facilities of some sort for sleeper passengers. It was the rule then, not the exception. Pullman passengers could generally use the coach lounge, but not vice versa.
All this is speculation about what might happen in the ‘30s after equipment delivered for a new order that is yet to be placed is deployed. It is based on some interpretation of the RFP document which was obtained through FOIA in a redacted form and posted here and discussed in Trains Mag and was also presented at RPA.
On the charts I've seen the AAR clearance plates go from F to H without a G. Apparently there is a German G plate, but that wouldn't apply to North America.
