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

[Paniolo Man]

I'm still believing Stadler has the best shot at this. They have a new facility with room to grow, an adaptable design, and international reputability. I can't wait to hear about the companies interested in bidding.

 

[AmtrakBlue]

https://media.amtrak.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/ATK-23-015-RFI-for-LD-Trains-1.pdf

 

[cassie225]

Amtrak always promises but never follows thru. Where are all those view liner cars with red interior built so long ago/ I believe by Siemens?

 

[Eric S]

Amtrak always promises but never follows thru. Where are all those view liner cars with red interior built so long ago/ I believe by Siemens?

I think you might be mixing things up a bit. Siemens never built any Viewliners. Amtrak itself built a few prototypes in the late 1980s. Morrison-Knudsen/Amerail built the 50 Viewliner I sleeping cars in the mid 1990s. And CAF USA built the 130 Viewliner II cars of various types throughout the 2010s (did it drag into the 2020s?).

 

[Mailliw]

So, my thinking has been that the LD trains should be standardized into one or two "types" (something in the 9-11 car range and something in the 13-16 car range for the respective types [1]). This would allow the LD order to "simply" be a bunch of trainsets.

Now, this leads to a complication with the two "split" trains (the LSL and the EB). My thinking is that both should simply be made into two trains (one going to each endpoint) so as not to have to deal with splitting trains. I'd add the proposed North Coast Hiawatha, Sunset East service, and a daily Cardinal/Sunset to the plan - all four have had consistent political pressure to do happen, and in most cases the studies seem to say that the numbers work. IIRC this would come to something like 66-70 sets plus spares (so probably about 80-85 sets, ignoring the Auto Train both as sui generis for now and as something that could be run with displaced Superliners for another decade or two if need be).

[1] My thinking is roughly as follows:
Short: 1 bag, 3-4 coaches, 2 food service cars, 3 sleepers
Long: 1 bag, 4-6 coaches, 2 food service cars, 1 sleeper-lounge*, 4-5 sleepers, 1 dorm
*I'm thinking that this would have 1-2 premium bedrooms and the rest of the space would be a lounge which could partly be used for dining overflow. Allowing for coach pax "buying in", a single single-level diner starts to "max out" around three sleepers, but having a half-dozen tables a la the PPC would move this threshold up by about two sleepers (two full seatings in there would correspond to 48 pax).

Good ideas, but I think Amtrak would get more use out of bag-dorms than full baggage cars. Especially if they improve luggage storage in the new sleeping cars over the Superliners.

 

[cocojacoby]

Good ideas, but I think Amtrak would get more use out of bag-dorms than full baggage cars. Especially if they improve luggage storage in the new sleeping cars over the Superliners.

I thought that the baggage/dorm was a fantastic idea. Initially thought that maybe Amtrak was preparing for a contract with the USPS since the idea to ship mail by train was being tossed around back then, but now I can't understand why Amtrak changed them to full baggage cars.

 

[jis]

I thought that the baggage/dorm was a fantastic idea. Initially thought that maybe Amtrak was preparing for a contract with the USPS since the idea to ship mail by train was being tossed around back then, but now I can't understand why Amtrak changed them to full baggage cars.

It had to do with the Heritage Baggage Cars coming up for one of their periodic major strip down and rebuild overhauls, which Amtrak was unwilling to spend money on. At that time they still believed that each train needed to have a baggage car and they knew that because of issue with Roomette modules that would take while to resolve they were not going to get any Baggage Dorms for a while. So they converted a bunch to plain Baggage cars which is all that was being delivered back then. It was in the long run a bad decision caused by the borderline disastrously poor execution of the CAF order.

Since then of course they have stripped many trains of their baggage cars. If they had done so back then they may not have had to change the order. But all this was pre-Andersonian aggressive attack on LD services.

 

[Brian Battuello]

So, my thinking has been that the LD trains should be standardized into one or two "types" (something in the 9-11 car range and something in the 13-16 car range for the respective types [1]). This would allow the LD order to "simply" be a bunch of trainsets.

Now, this leads to a complication with the two "split" trains (the LSL and the EB). My thinking is that both should simply be made into two trains (one going to each endpoint) so as not to have to deal with splitting trains. I'd add the proposed North Coast Hiawatha, Sunset East service, and a daily Cardinal/Sunset to the plan - all four have had consistent political pressure to do happen, and in most cases the studies seem to say that the numbers work. IIRC this would come to something like 66-70 sets plus spares (so probably about 80-85 sets, ignoring the Auto Train both as sui generis for now and as something that could be run with displaced Superliners for another decade or two if need be).

[1] My thinking is roughly as follows:
Short: 1 bag, 3-4 coaches, 2 food service cars, 3 sleepers
Long: 1 bag, 4-6 coaches, 2 food service cars, 1 sleeper-lounge*, 4-5 sleepers, 1 dorm
*I'm thinking that this would have 1-2 premium bedrooms and the rest of the space would be a lounge which could partly be used for dining overflow. Allowing for coach pax "buying in", a single single-level diner starts to "max out" around three sleepers, but having a half-dozen tables a la the PPC would move this threshold up by about two sleepers (two full seatings in there would correspond to 48 pax).

Overall, I really like this concept. But no sightseer lounge? Both coach and sleeper folks need a place to escape to for a while, other than the diner. The SSL is pretty full most days, so if the long distance lounge had any less space, or was used for dining, would be pretty crowded.

I'm greedy. Even with a room, I spend most of my daytime in the SSL.

 

[JermyZP]

In the concepts from manufactories, I would like to see a car that is Baggage/Dorm/Cab Car. It would make the train sets easy to be maneuverable at a dead end station.

 

[joelkfla]

I was a bit surprised to see the VL II's included. I suppose they will be the last to be phased out, so they'll at least get 15-20 years of service out of them.

 

[jis]

I was a bit surprised to see the VL II's included. I suppose they will be the last to be phased out, so they'll at least get 15-20 years of service out of them.

I hope they will not forget to include Linen Closets in the new Sleeping Cars, like they managed to do in the VL IIs.

 

[John Webb]

Here's my 2 cents: Yes, it seems that based on recent experience in the US and Europe elevators can be used on multilevel cars. Not every car needs to have an elevator. As long as aisles are wide enough and there is the ability to move wheelchairs between cars it is doable. There should be 2 elevator equipped cars on every train to provide a back up in case of mechanical failure. Also as a back up, elevators need to be equipped with a manually operated crank system.

Additionally the new cars should be designed to mate with the present Superliner cars. Yes, Superliners are not ADA compliant but that is the world we live in.

Amtrak needs to not fall into the mentality of (also based on experience) of junking the Superliner fleet as soon as new equipment becomes available. Superliners should be kept around to allow for protection and expansion of service.

 

[Steve4031]

I enjoy the superliners. But unless there is a process where the HVAC systems can be modernized and the toilets modernized, and the interiors refurbished by replacing carpet, wall paneling, curtains, and everything that is needed to create a uniform, clean, functional car, the superliners have a limited life span.

I believe standardization is the key. There are European style dome cars that could be built to fit in with the single-level fleet.

 

[rs9]

So, my thinking has been that the LD trains should be standardized into one or two "types" (something in the 9-11 car range and something in the 13-16 car range for the respective types [1]). This would allow the LD order to "simply" be a bunch of trainsets.

Now, this leads to a complication with the two "split" trains (the LSL and the EB). My thinking is that both should simply be made into two trains (one going to each endpoint) so as not to have to deal with splitting trains. I'd add the proposed North Coast Hiawatha, Sunset East service, and a daily Cardinal/Sunset to the plan - all four have had consistent political pressure to do happen, and in most cases the studies seem to say that the numbers work. IIRC this would come to something like 66-70 sets plus spares (so probably about 80-85 sets, ignoring the Auto Train both as sui generis for now and as something that could be run with displaced Superliners for another decade or two if need be).

[1] My thinking is roughly as follows:
Short: 1 bag, 3-4 coaches, 2 food service cars, 3 sleepers
Long: 1 bag, 4-6 coaches, 2 food service cars, 1 sleeper-lounge*, 4-5 sleepers, 1 dorm
*I'm thinking that this would have 1-2 premium bedrooms and the rest of the space would be a lounge which could partly be used for dining overflow. Allowing for coach pax "buying in", a single single-level diner starts to "max out" around three sleepers, but having a half-dozen tables a la the PPC would move this threshold up by about two sleepers (two full seatings in there would correspond to 48 pax).

There's no reason at this point not to add a true business class service to long distance trains (something between coach and sleeper).

While I'm not opposed to more service, as a LSL passenger, the split in Albany actually can be a bit of a nice break to get off the train and get some fresh air. It certainly adds travel time, though.

 

[John819]

There are definite advantages to having a uniform LD fleet, which would have to be single level. And having unit trains (semi-permanent couplings and open gangways) is a way of dealing with ADA issues.

I also fully endorse the idea of having a business class as an intermediate class between coach and sleeper (dining car access perhaps), and an SSL should be included.

 

[jis]

If this procurement is handled like the other recent rolling stock procurements then Amtrak in the RFP will give a list of requirements and ask the vendors to propose their solutions to meet those requirements. It would be nice to see what requirements Amtrak includes in the RFP as a starter. and then of course in due course we will see what the selected solution is. We may or may not get to see the proposals submitted by the vendors since they may be protected by confidentiality agreements.

 

[GDRRiley]

I enjoy the superliners. But unless there is a process where the HVAC systems can be modernized and the toilets modernized, and the interiors refurbished by replacing carpet, wall paneling, curtains, and everything that is needed to create a uniform, clean, functional car, the superliners have a limited life span.

the HVAC can be modernized thats fairly simple. California is finish it up on all their cars. The rest all combined bassicly means a gut and start over which will be 1/2 the cost of a new car

I believe standardization is the key. There are European style dome cars that could be built to fit in with the single-level fleet.

To a point yes but you don't gain much from having 2 600 car fleets vs 3 400 car fleets.

 

[cocojacoby]

I enjoy the superliners. But unless there is a process where the HVAC systems can be modernized and the toilets modernized, and the interiors refurbished by replacing carpet, wall paneling, curtains, and everything that is needed to create a uniform, clean, functional car, the superliners have a limited life span.

But how are they structurally? I visited the Bombardier factory in Barre while they were being built and the whole idea of the modular system was that the car could be easily reconfigured by exchanging modules when they were going to be rebuilt.

I am always impressed when I see a Superliner train today and see how good they still look after all these years (albeit realizing wear and tear is inside). The concept is still good and a total rebuilding might be a reasonable option. I would think that would be quicker, cheaper and avoid any new ADA requirements.

 

[jis]

No major car manufacturer builds cars these days that are not modular. Yes boutique shops build boutique cars that are not, but manufacturers that build thousands of cars with multiple different interior layouts, just from a cost containment point of view are going to build modular designs. This includes not just layout of furnishings and cubicles but also things like modular HVAC and power distribution and waste management systems too.

I am also almost certain that Amtrak will specify modular structure and design as a requirement in the RFP, so there is that too. I am certain that no proposal using a non-modular design will be accepted.

 

[joelkfla]

Additionally the new cars should be designed to mate with the present Superliner cars. Yes, Superliners are not ADA compliant but that is the world we live in.

Seems unlikely considering the impracticality of connecting a single-level car to the upper level of a bilevel car.

 

[rs9]

Seems unlikely considering the impracticality of connecting a single-level car to the upper level of a bilevel car.

It seems it would need to be the other way around - superliners would need to be modified to connect to a single level car.

 

[Mailliw]

Either you'd need dedicated cars like the Transition Dorm, or the bilevel cars need to have the walk through on a mezzanine level. And if you do the latter every car would need it's own elevator stair lift to be fully accessible.

 

[rs9]

Seat width in coach for long distance trains is going to be an interesting issue for Amtrak to address (or not address). Perhaps someone with available schematics can address - are the Siemens Venture coaches in the Midwest representative of maximum seat width for 2 x 2 seating with full ADA compliance?

Those seats just don't seem feasible for an overnight journey (forgetting any recline issues) - but I'm not sure Amtrak is really concerned about comfort in coach, unfortunately. On the flip side, it doesn't seem likely that a 2 x 1 coach car would be economically feasible unless Amtrak had reserved seating and charged a premium for the single row of seats.

 

[jis]

Seat width in coach for long distance trains is going to be an interesting issue for Amtrak to address (or not address). Perhaps someone with available schematics can address - are the Siemens Venture coaches in the Midwest representative of maximum seat width for 2 x 2 seating with full ADA compliance?

Those seats just don't seem feasible for an overnight journey (forgetting any recline issues) - but I'm not sure Amtrak is really concerned about comfort in coach, unfortunately. On the flip side, it doesn't seem likely that a 2 x 1 coach car would be economically feasible unless Amtrak had reserved seating and charged a premium for the single row of seats.

If one assumes that the usable internal floor space in a typical car with external width of 10'6" is 10' then indeed after you set aside 36" ADA required aisle width you are left with 84" which divided 4 ways is 21" which would be the width of each seat in a 2x2 configuration. OTOH, while Brightline has its 2x1 seats 23" wide, in principle in a 2x1 arrangement one could get a seat upto 28" wide without breaking the ADA36" aisle requirement.

 

[jiml]

It seems it would need to be the other way around - superliners would need to be modified to connect to a single level car.

They had them, as did Santa Fe previously. The trans-dorms were simply the latest version.