Long Distance (LD) fleet replacement discussion (2022 - 2024Q1)

[BBoy]

The way I see it, they should either use the same shells as the rest of their fleet for commonality (Siemens Venture) or go with the Bombardier Multilevel Coaches for the benefit of existing and proven off the shelf models, as well as these coaches being flexible enough to easily support whatever product Amtrak wants to offer. I would also use large luggage racks and eliminate the baggage cars.

The Multilevels offer the best of both worlds (IMHO) if you can navigate the elevator ADA issue. I could be wrong, but I believe you can you just install one of those seat elevators you frequently see on the home staircases of elderly people that they can sit on and ride up. Pop that on the existing staircase and you have an off the shelf solution that doesn't require special bespoke designs that end up never working well.

Power and Configuration:
It would make sense to use trainsets of 10-12 multilevel cars with an ALC-42 on each end. For the midlevel section (on the end of each car) you have a luggage rack and bathroom on each side (where there are currently folding seats on NJT) For those trains that pass on NEC territory, you would marry a multilevel EMU to each Charger (see NJT’s Multilevel EMU, another off the shelf product) so that they can use overhead power in electric territory and get a HP/acceleration boost as well. In diesel territory, 8800HP should be plenty sufficient for a 10 or 12 car set, and would be able to make comparable speed/acceleration to an NJ Transit consist on the NEC (not great, but decent for diesel). In electric territory you would get something closer to 14,000-1600HP which would match anything Amtrak currently uses outside of the Acela. I also think you could ask Bombardier to attempt to reduce the weight where possible given the recent change in FRA buff strength rules by using aluminum instead of stainless steel, which could reduce the weight. But that is not needed to make this work, it’s simply just nice to have. This makes it a very effective dual mode train set.

The trains are already rated for 110mph, they are affordable and have an established user base with NJT that helps reduce any teething issues Amtrak is concerned by.

Layout and Product Design:
For the coach product you use a typical Domestic First Class airline seating product in a 2x2 configuration and include modern airline like overhead bins. My quick math would imply you would be able to fit 96-104 passengers per coach class car (using 37-38 inch seat pitch and using the midlevel area as bathrooms and extra luggage racks)
For First class product, you use the Delta One Suite pods. My math estimate comes out to imply you fit 40-44 first class pods per multilevel coach.

For the cafe car or lounge car, you have the entire lower car level for a full kitchen if you desire, or can have massive seating areas on both levels instead depending on how you want to use them. Either way it provides great flexibility for Amtrak.

Overall, this gives you the ability to supply around 885 seats in a 10 coach configuration where 2 of them are first class seating coaches. They are affordable and can travel anywhere in the USA with room for tunnel clearance and have no shortage of speed capabilities.

Cost:
With each charger costing around $6.5M and each multilevel costing around 3.5M, you are looking at a cost of $45-50M per train set, but if you look at it on a per seat basis, it’s about $42K per seat if you use 12 coach trains, which is a pretty good price considering what it might cost when using single level coaches which much less seating capacity which would average around 60-68 passengers per car in a similar configuration (see Brightline)

While nothing is perfect, I think the above is a pretty strong solution and should make it very rare that Amtrak suffer any issues regarding capacity on their long distance trains. All of the trains would be off the shelf designs that help Amtrak avoid paying more than they need to. Let me know if you disagree, would love to hear what others think about it.

The way I see it, they should either use the same shells as the rest of their fleet for commonality (Siemens Venture) or go with the Bombardier Multilevel Coaches for the benefit of existing and proven off the shelf models, as well as these coaches being flexible enough to easily support whatever product Amtrak wants to offer. I would also use large luggage racks and eliminate the baggage cars.

The Multilevels offer the best of both worlds (IMHO) if you can navigate the elevator ADA issue. I could be wrong, but I believe you can you just install one of those seat elevators you frequently see on the home staircases of elderly people that they can sit on and ride up. Pop that on the existing staircase and you have an off the shelf solution that doesn't require special bespoke designs that end up never working well.

Power and Configuration:
It would make sense to use trainsets of 10-12 multilevel cars with an ALC-42 on each end. For the midlevel section (on the end of each car) you have a luggage rack and bathroom on each side (where there are currently folding seats on NJT) For those trains that pass on NEC territory, you would marry a multilevel EMU to each Charger (see NJT’s Multilevel EMU, another off the shelf product) so that they can use overhead power in electric territory and get a HP/acceleration boost as well. In diesel territory, 8800HP should be plenty sufficient for a 10 or 12 car set, and would be able to make comparable speed/acceleration to an NJ Transit consist on the NEC (not great, but decent for diesel). In electric territory you would get something closer to 14,000-1600HP which would match anything Amtrak currently uses outside of the Acela. I also think you could ask Bombardier to attempt to reduce the weight where possible given the recent change in FRA buff strength rules by using aluminum instead of stainless steel, which could reduce the weight. But that is not needed to make this work, it’s simply just nice to have. This makes it a very effective dual mode train set.

The trains are already rated for 110mph, they are affordable and have an established user base with NJT that helps reduce any teething issues Amtrak is concerned by.

Layout and Product Design:
For the coach product you use a typical Domestic First Class airline seating product in a 2x2 configuration and include modern airline like overhead bins. My quick math would imply you would be able to fit 96-104 passengers per coach class car (using 37-38 inch seat pitch and using the midlevel area as bathrooms and extra luggage racks)
For First class product, you use the Delta One Suite pods. My math estimate comes out to imply you fit 40-44 first class pods per multilevel coach.

For the cafe car or lounge car, you have the entire lower car level for a full kitchen if you desire, or can have massive seating areas on both levels instead depending on how you want to use them. Either way it provides great flexibility for Amtrak.

Overall, this gives you the ability to supply around 885 seats in a 10 coach configuration where 2 of them are first class seating coaches. They are affordable and can travel anywhere in the USA with room for tunnel clearance and have no shortage of speed capabilities.

Cost:
With each charger costing around $6.5M and each multilevel costing around 3.5M, you are looking at a cost of $45-50M per train set, but if you look at it on a per seat basis, it’s about $42K per seat if you use 12 coach trains, which is a pretty good price considering what it might cost when using single level coaches which much less seating capacity which would average around 60-68 passengers per car in a similar configuration (see Brightline)

While nothing is perfect, I think the above is a pretty strong solution and should make it very rare that Amtrak suffer any issues regarding capacity on their long distance trains. All of the trains would be off the shelf designs that help Amtrak avoid paying more than they need to. Let me know if you disagree, would love to hear what others think about it.

Oh spot on brother. Especially where this would work (in my humble opinion) is for single level LD trains ( Atlantic Coast Service, Crescent, LSL, Cardinal). As long multilevels the seat pitch mirrors the Superliner coaches with plenty of room when the seat is reclined and the leg rest in use.

 

[fdaley]

I made a very wishful proposal a while ago when I suggested that if the Superliners were rehabbed it would be really cool to put Sightseer Lounge upper windows in the sleepers so that the rather unpleasant and very catastrophic upper bunk could become a highly desirable unique "Starlight Dome Bunk".

I like the idea, and a window of some kind would definitely help, but I think the physical space still would be too tight for me. I didn't think I was claustrophobic until I tried sleeping in a Superliner upper, but there's something about not being able to sit up in bed that kind of sets me on edge.

 

[Cal]

- I doubt Americans would trust 3-5 other bunkmates in a Euro style sleeping compartment. Amtrak's current system in coach of grouping passengers by destination is helpful - for example, on my recent CHI-ROC trip, the first group that would deboard in my car was Buffalo-bound passengers. So I could reasonably expect no one is going to disembark with my bag in the middle of the night. You would need organization like this for sleeping compartments, but even beyond that I don't think there's enough trust.

I definitely agree. Many are unsettled about using downstairs luggage racks and the fact that there's no locks on the doors, so I wouldn't see this as the greatest option for Amtrak to go with.

 

[Mailliw]

It's interesting how we keep arriving at around a 40 passenger occupancy for cheaper sleeping options, Nightjet settled on the same figure for their new couchette cars (28 pod berths & 3 4-berth compartments). Too bad the design would never fly in North America.

 

[Steve4031]

To me, two adults in a roomette works a lot better in the Viewliner than in the Superliner. But in either case, the second bunk is really nice for people traveling with children/teenagers/young adults. If the basic rooms are standardized to single-occupancy, there's going to need to be some provision for families that's more than a couple of family bedrooms per train.

I stand corrected. I was only really thinking about myself when I mentioned the all-roomette configuration with single occupancy. This was short-sighted on my part.

Another thought could be to have all-bedroom cars with bunks perpendicular to the window and no commode in each room. Since there is a strong possibility that Amtrak would use the Siemens car as a basis for long-distance train travel this might be a way of having the best of both worlds. There could be a long couch on one side and a seat by the window across from the couch.

 

[Anderson]

40? A Viewliner2 only holds 26 (10 roomettes, 2 bedrooms, and an accessible bedroom). And considering that for some of those rooms, Amtrak leaves fare revenue on the table when one person books the room, I would think that some sort of 40-bed lie flat budget sleeper car could be a real moneymaker.

It's 28 (a Viewliner I has 30 "slots"): You start with 14 roomette slots and 3 bedrooms, but drop one roomette for the SCA, one for the shower, and then in a Viewliner II one for the restrooms. The roomette dimensions are about the same as the roomettes in a 10-6 sleeper, which becomes a 14-4 (except for the loss of one room because of the Accessible Room's space needs). IIRC a 22 roomette car was a thing "back in the day" (so a theoretical capacity of 44, which you'd then drop down by 4 - 2 for the SCA's space and 2 for restrooms - if you deemed the shower unnecessary, or 2 for the SCA and 2 for restrooms if you needed a shower but kept the toilets in the rooms).

Edit:
(1) 40 is no accident - the 24/8 Slumbercoaches slept 40 as well (though there were some other configurations with a bit less capacity). It seems to be the "about right" number for a packed sleeping car.
(2) 22 roomette cars were also a thing (though obviously in the old configuration they'd only sleep 22, not 44).
(3) I'll just note that if you designed a longer train configuration (see my 14-car train idea), having one car's worth of "economy sleeper" space might make sense. I didn't include that because I was trying not to reinvent the wheel - I wanted to get as close to current configurations without too much fiddling so I wasn't having to mentally make sure various bits of engineering would work.

 

[cocojacoby]

Another thought could be to have all-bedroom cars with bunks perpendicular to the window and no commode in each room. Since there is a strong possibility that Amtrak would use the Siemens car as a basis for long-distance train travel this might be a way of having the best of both worlds. There could be a long couch on one side and a seat by the window across from the couch.

You realize that that would pretty much take the same space as the existing bedrooms? You would just lose the bathroom making it less desirable.

 

[Willbridge]

Edit:
(1) 40 is no accident - the 24/8 Slumbercoaches slept 40 as well (though there were some other configurations with a bit less capacity). It seems to be the "about right" number for a packed sleeping car.
(2) 22 roomette cars were also a thing (though obviously in the old configuration they'd only sleep 22, not 44).
(3) I'll just note that if you designed a longer train configuration (see my 14-car train idea), having one car's worth of "economy sleeper" space might make sense. I didn't include that because I was trying not to reinvent the wheel - I wanted to get as close to current configurations without too much fiddling so I wasn't having to mentally make sure various bits of engineering would work.

I think that 22-roomette sleepers were common on Eastern roads that had a lot of business travel. In turn, the UP (and others?) had some 11-bedroom cars used on the City trains (except for the City of St. Louis).

 

[Anderson]

I think that 22-roomette sleepers were common on Eastern roads that had a lot of business travel. In turn, the UP (and others?) had some 11-bedroom cars used on the City trains (except for the City of St. Louis).

I think the eastern railroads also had more open sections.

 

[Crowbar_k]

Here's something Nightjet is testing out. Though I think a bed-only setup like this would really only work for a route that's overnight only (such as 66/67 or a theoretical LA-SF route).

More info here: Inside Austria’s next-gen Nightjet sleeper trains - Runway Girl

 

[cocojacoby]

I like the idea, and a window of some kind would definitely help, but I think the physical space still would be too tight for me. I didn't think I was claustrophobic until I tried sleeping in a Superliner upper, but there's something about not being able to sit up in bed that kind of sets me on edge.

If you look at the photo below you will see that this not only would provide visual openess it would actually add several inches of additional headroom. Probably not going to provide sit-up room but a lot better than the way it is now.

 

[Ziv]

Here's something Nightjet is testing out. Though I think a bed-only setup like this would really only work for a route that's overnight only (such as 66/67 or a theoretical LA-SF route).

More info here: Inside Austria’s next-gen Nightjet sleeper trains - Runway Girl

That sleeper looks a lot like the new Russian train I saw being touted last year. I remember that the marketing material had the Russian girl reaching up like she was going to get into the top bunk wearing a mini skirt and killer high heels. It was a still photo not a video...

 

[John819]

Just remember that there are two "non-negotiable" restraints on the new car designs - ADA compliance and crumple zone protection. Those will result in a loss of considerable passenger space. So, I doubt that sleeper capacity will increase.

 

[Crowbar_k]

The viewliners are post-ada

 

[vap0rtranz]

The whole problem in US has to do a bit with American exceptionalism, and well one has got to pay for things that one insists they must have

As an American, I take exception to that comment!

Another point is cleanliness. German & Swiss trains were spotless when I lived in Germany. American trains (Amtrak, Metra in Chicago, etc.) look & start to smell like a squatters backyard ... train bathrooms look like a child played with toilet paper.

Will the newly designed cars have robot vacuums?

Rosie from the Jetsons would do wonders for our trains.

 

[dlagrua]

There is a lot of talk about increasing sleeper capacity on the new LD cars and I understand the constraints but this is easily solved by adding more sleeper cars. IMO, the entire network will standardize on single level sleepers. This may make the most economic sense with the exception that some station platforms will need to be modified.

 

[Crowbar_k]

In my opinion, the bedrooms need to be ripped out out and replaced with more roomettes. They have the same capacity as a roomette, but take up so much more space. And let's be honest, the only people buying the bedrooms are enthusiasts with a lot of money and time.

 

[AmtrakBlue]

In my opinion, the bedrooms need to be ripped out out and replaced with more roomettes. They have the same capacity as a roomette, but take up so much more space. And let's be honest, the only people buying the bedrooms are enthusiasts with a lot of money and time.

Obviously you don't know much about the passengers who prefer bedrooms. Many people book the bedrooms for comfort. They prefer having an ensuite bathroom, they prefer to sleep laying with their sides, not their head or feet, facing forward and I'm sure there are other reasons they'll spend the extra money even if it's not in their budget.

 

[cocojacoby]

The viewliners are post-ada

Post ADA but pre crumble-zone? The Viewliners original design had the two last roomettes right up against the rear bulkhead. The Viewliner II has the bathrooms and shower back there. We have had many discussions on the new Amtrak Venture cars and how the crumple zones take up a lot of space and will not allow anything passenger related there . . . even most-of-the-time unoccupied bathrooms. So these regulations are going to seriously reduce capacity even more unless we get creative.

It would be possible to retain a full 85' of occupiable space if the car was designed with tapered ends like the European car below. The car body would be longer of course but the tapering will comply with passenger car clearance requirements.

 

[jis]

Post ADA but pre crumble-zone? The Viewliners original design had the two last roomettes right up against the rear bulkhead. The Viewliner II has the bathrooms and shower back there. We have had many discussions on the new Amtrak Venture cars and how the crumple zones take up a lot of space and will not allow anything passenger related there . . . even most-of-the-time unoccupied bathrooms. So these regulations are going to seriously reduce capacity even more unless we get creative.

It would be possible to retain a full 85' of occupiable space if the car was designed with tapered ends like the European car below. The car body would be longer of course but the tapering will comply with passenger car clearance requirements.

View attachment 31201

Actually the crumple zones take up no additional space in case of cars with vestibules at both ends. They just take up the space of the vestibule, or actually theoretically it could be slightly less if there is no vestibule. But for convenience car builder just build cars as if they have two vestibules and confine the safety cage to the rest of the car. They can always put baggage racks or such in the second vestibule space if it is not used as a vestibule. So it is mostly a wash.

Viewliners actually are notoriously tight for space, both baggage and service items like Linens, and Pillows. They probably need to shed the end vestibule space for service storage anyway. The VL IIs already lose a Roomette for use as a closet as things stand.

 

[jimdex]

I think the eastern railroads also had more open sections.

I recall hearing that the B&O operated open sections later than most other railroads because its principal trains ran to Washington, and the government wouldn't compensate traveling federal employees for the full price of a roomette.

 

[jis]

https://transportationtodaynews.com/news/29512-manufacturers-submit-ideas-for-replacing-amtrak-cars/

 

[MARC Rider]

Another point is cleanliness. German & Swiss trains were spotless when I lived in Germany. American trains (Amtrak, Metra in Chicago, etc.) look & start to smell like a squatters backyard ... train bathrooms look like a child played with toilet paper.

In the early 2010s I rode coach from Baltimore to Tampa on the Silver Star. At the time, they had a set-up where somebody (I guess it was the coach attendant) cleaned the restrooms on a very regular basis (like every couple of hours.) I was eerie how clean the restrooms were. About 5 years later I rode the Silver Meteor down to Miami in a sleeper but went into a coach restroom and found the conditions unspeakable. The worst, though, was a 2010 ride on the Vermonter on a Sunday in summer heading south. The train was standing room only from White River Junction to New Haven, and after we left New York, you could smell the reek of the restroom from the other end of the coach. I wondered why they didn't have someone assigned to swab out the restrooms when the train was sitting in New Haven during the engine change.

 

[rs9]

In the early 2010s I rode coach from Baltimore to Tampa on the Silver Star. At the time, they had a set-up where somebody (I guess it was the coach attendant) cleaned the restrooms on a very regular basis (like every couple of hours.) I was eerie how clean the restrooms were. About 5 years later I rode the Silver Meteor down to Miami in a sleeper but went into a coach restroom and found the conditions unspeakable. The worst, though, was a 2010 ride on the Vermonter on a Sunday in summer heading south. The train was standing room only from White River Junction to New Haven, and after we left New York, you could smell the reek of the restroom from the other end of the coach. I wondered why they didn't have someone assigned to swab out the restrooms when the train was sitting in New Haven during the engine change.

Hopefully one very easy solution here is what's been implemented on the Siemens Venture coaches for Amtrak Midwest - the bathrooms are in a vestibule that is separated from the coach by a sliding glass door.

My experience on the Lake Shore Limited - and I've had a conversation with one crew about this - is that the crew have absolutely zero interest in cleaning bathrooms. This might not be right, but the vestibule concept would provide at least some tangible progress.

 

[jis]

It is a bit of a problem when a Coach attendant refuses to do the job for which they are being paid, and there is no one to supervise them, unfortunately. Ideally they should not require supervision to do the few tasks assigned to them, but it is what it is.