I don't think you should count the lounge but even so they could put four ADA rooms in car #6. They need to make the lounge upper level a full-length lounge. I don't know the planned passenger count but it would appear to be pretty high.
Long Distance (LD) fleet replacement discussion (2022 - 2024Q1)
- Thread starter Steve4031
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
ascii42
Train Attendant
I counted it because along with the ADA room there are additional rooms below but if you can argue the car is "used primarily for non-revenue purposes" you are right.
Very interesting! Generally I like these plans a lot. I like the diner/lounge in addition to the diner on the single-levels. I like the upstairs cafe on the bilevels. I like having the large bedrooms and the economy bedrooms in two different cars rather than the hall bending in the middle of the car.
Some comments:
1) I hope these are the types of cars that will compose a trainset and not the exact composition of a trainset, because the number of coaches and sleepers seems a bit low if it's the latter. Well, maybe not the bilevel sleeper cars, as they've stuffed more bedrooms into the lower levels of the lounge car and accessible sleeper car and still have some bedrooms in the bilevel bag-dorm ("utility car"). Definitely the coach space in single-level seems a bit inadequate if this is a fixed trainset.
2) If these are not a fixed trainset, the yard will have to assemble trains with care to ensure an accessible car-end doesn't adjoin an inaccessible car-end; that is, an "01" coach other than at the end of a train, or a bedroom sleeper between an accessible sleeper and the diner/lounge cars.
3) Why are there non-accessible rooms in the single-level accessible sleeper and the upper level of the bilevel accessible sleeper? Unless these drawings are wholly not to scale, I see room enough for one more accessible bedroom in each case. (If the space isn't big enough for another accessible bedroom, ignore this comment.
) If it's for the sleeper attendant, their bedroom could be elsewhere (downstairs on the bilevels, adjoining bedroom car in the single-levels). The accessible bedroom in the bilevel lounge car is already in a separate car from the other accessible bedrooms, so the issue/problem of the attendant not being right next door already exists.
Some comments:
1) I hope these are the types of cars that will compose a trainset and not the exact composition of a trainset, because the number of coaches and sleepers seems a bit low if it's the latter. Well, maybe not the bilevel sleeper cars, as they've stuffed more bedrooms into the lower levels of the lounge car and accessible sleeper car and still have some bedrooms in the bilevel bag-dorm ("utility car"). Definitely the coach space in single-level seems a bit inadequate if this is a fixed trainset.
2) If these are not a fixed trainset, the yard will have to assemble trains with care to ensure an accessible car-end doesn't adjoin an inaccessible car-end; that is, an "01" coach other than at the end of a train, or a bedroom sleeper between an accessible sleeper and the diner/lounge cars.
3) Why are there non-accessible rooms in the single-level accessible sleeper and the upper level of the bilevel accessible sleeper? Unless these drawings are wholly not to scale, I see room enough for one more accessible bedroom in each case. (If the space isn't big enough for another accessible bedroom, ignore this comment.
) If it's for the sleeper attendant, their bedroom could be elsewhere (downstairs on the bilevels, adjoining bedroom car in the single-levels). The accessible bedroom in the bilevel lounge car is already in a separate car from the other accessible bedrooms, so the issue/problem of the attendant not being right next door already exists.- Joined
- Sep 15, 2017
- Messages
- 2,926
I would not conclude that. This diagram was meant to highlight the ADA features - non ADA features are not fleshed out. All I’d assume is that there’s a standard all roomette car and all bedroom car. But how that would actually play out is probably not yet determined or at least isn’t really relevant to the purposes of this meeting.
I want to add:
Although it isn't clear from the diagrams but actually just might be the case, Amtrak should go back to a separate bathroom/shower in the ADA room like in the Viewliner I, so that the rooms can be sold as a spacious double bedroom to non-ADA passengers. This would help with revenue generation and a car with four of these larger rooms can be justified.
Having an open toilet in the middle of the room, as in the newer Viewliner II, kind of kills that opportunity.
Although it isn't clear from the diagrams but actually just might be the case, Amtrak should go back to a separate bathroom/shower in the ADA room like in the Viewliner I, so that the rooms can be sold as a spacious double bedroom to non-ADA passengers. This would help with revenue generation and a car with four of these larger rooms can be justified.
Having an open toilet in the middle of the room, as in the newer Viewliner II, kind of kills that opportunity.
Last edited:
The idea is to make it much easier for those in a wheelchair or with serious mobility issues. Current ADA standards are what matters, that's why the designs have "turning ratio" carveouts. The ability to sell as non ADA is a minor or non factor.
danasgoodstuff
OBS Chief
It occurred to me that you could get workable bi-level cars that would clear the east's height restrictions if one of the two levels had no upper berths (and one did). A Superliner bedroom will sleep two in the extra width bed (I've done it. And you could have cheaper 1 person roomettes on the no bunks level. Does this make any sense? Not the I think bi-levels are necessarily all that, just trying to consider all the possibilities.
If you look at the diagrams closely, you can see that the ADA bathrooms seem to show the 60" turning circle inside the orange-colored restrooms. Since the bathrooms and bedroom are the same width that would indicate that those bathrooms are wide enough to comply with ADA turning regulations. Existing Viewliner I bathrooms are much smaller.
All I am saying is they should go back to putting a door on the bathroom/shower separating the bathroom from the rest of the room and offering privacy that maybe even the ADA passenger just might like. I would think the door could be left open if the person needed more personal assistance.
I don't agree that the inability to sell the ADA rooms to non-ADA passengers is a non-factor. Amtrak needs to generate as much revenue as possible. If the option is available by simply adding a door into the bedroom then why not?
Note the narrow ADA bedroom toilet in the Viewliner below. This new design has the restroom as wide as the room:
Last edited:
Each floor has approximately 6 1/2 feet of headroom. It really doesn't matter if the rooms have an upper bunk or not, you really can't make one level any lower to make the other one higher. There just isn't enough room to play with.
I agree with you about a wider lower bed for two vs. upper and lower berths. You can check out my earlier post about just that if you want:
https://www.amtraktrains.com/thread...lacement-discussion-2022-23.83652/post-999837
Last edited:
Mailliw
OBS Chief
I like what I see. Regarding the lounges presumably it's possible to arrange the furniture so a wheelchair user would have a path down the middle instead of off to one side. It's also interesting that the proposed configuration implies that lounges will be for sleeper passengers only.
The new design looks promising. It is interesting that they have a lounge area for sleeping cars and coach cars. The single-level design has the kitchen in one car and the seating in the other, almost like the twin-unit diners on the old Broadway Limited.
IMHO Amtrak will need to negotiate a maintenance contract to eliminate the inherent problems in the maintenance yards. Hopefully one company would get both contracts.
IMHO Amtrak will need to negotiate a maintenance contract to eliminate the inherent problems in the maintenance yards. Hopefully one company would get both contracts.
pi314
Train Attendant
As an occasional traveler and total layperson to the industry, I find this discussion very interesting.
My simplistic view of the train consists immediately becomes perplexed by the inherent constraints they impose on the traveling experience. I don't understand why more cars aren't added. Wouldn't this increase the profit margin on any given run most of the time? Couldn't the car count easily be adjusted up or down based on seasonal demand? Why wouldn't a new fleet purchase plan aggressively pursue additional revenue by enhancing the customer experience?
I would love to see the economic analyses of the total costs of running an extra car to include:
- initial purchase cost and the time it takes to pay for itself based on typical occupancy
- the personnel costs for the additional car (presumably next to zero for coach, minimal for sleepers)
- the maintenance costs over time
- any additional track fees or fuel costs to haul the thing
New cars in and of themselves won't be a magic bullet to attract new ridership. The biggest detractors of Amtrak travel are cost, frequency, and route structure. All three of those could be addressed to some degree by a much bigger fleet. I've put the kibosh on several long trips because the cost of a sleeper is pretty steep. From a passenger perspective, more availability at lower cost would mean more riders riding more often.
If you've got a locomotive and crew to man the route, wouldn't the economies of scale indicate slap some more cars on the trains? The one passenger draw that never makes it onto a balance sheet is the spacious relaxing feel of a train, and unlike an airline that has to squeeze every possible penny out of a cabin's real estate, trains have the luxury of providing much needed breathing room in a world that's always in a rush.
Not to mention, how about some dome cars like Via Rail? End lounge cars? C'mon Amtrak, have some FUN!
My simplistic view of the train consists immediately becomes perplexed by the inherent constraints they impose on the traveling experience. I don't understand why more cars aren't added. Wouldn't this increase the profit margin on any given run most of the time? Couldn't the car count easily be adjusted up or down based on seasonal demand? Why wouldn't a new fleet purchase plan aggressively pursue additional revenue by enhancing the customer experience?
I would love to see the economic analyses of the total costs of running an extra car to include:
- initial purchase cost and the time it takes to pay for itself based on typical occupancy
- the personnel costs for the additional car (presumably next to zero for coach, minimal for sleepers)
- the maintenance costs over time
- any additional track fees or fuel costs to haul the thing
New cars in and of themselves won't be a magic bullet to attract new ridership. The biggest detractors of Amtrak travel are cost, frequency, and route structure. All three of those could be addressed to some degree by a much bigger fleet. I've put the kibosh on several long trips because the cost of a sleeper is pretty steep. From a passenger perspective, more availability at lower cost would mean more riders riding more often.
If you've got a locomotive and crew to man the route, wouldn't the economies of scale indicate slap some more cars on the trains? The one passenger draw that never makes it onto a balance sheet is the spacious relaxing feel of a train, and unlike an airline that has to squeeze every possible penny out of a cabin's real estate, trains have the luxury of providing much needed breathing room in a world that's always in a rush.
Not to mention, how about some dome cars like Via Rail? End lounge cars? C'mon Amtrak, have some FUN!
Mailliw
OBS Chief
I think it's the latter. Long-distance seats meant for overnight sleeping will take up more space than corridor seating. That being said they might still be marketed as an upgrade just because of the 2:1 configuration even if they're the same size.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
A few additional comments gathered during the presentation....
1. These are conceptual drawings and the final product may look absolutely nothing like it. The primary purpose is to get approval for the concept of spreading out the accessibility features of the core 6 car semi-permanently coupled segment of the train.
2. Additional non-accessible cars may be attached to the train. But what will be guaranteed is the 6 car (or some number of cars, exact number to be determined), which will provide all the core services provided on the train equally to all riders including those requiring special accessibility features.
3. The details of additional non-accessible accommodation type is TBD. What is the subject of primary discussion is the accessibility related issues.
You can submit comments at Amtrak - Have Your Say. Only Accessibility related feedback please as this presentation is about accessibility.
1. These are conceptual drawings and the final product may look absolutely nothing like it. The primary purpose is to get approval for the concept of spreading out the accessibility features of the core 6 car semi-permanently coupled segment of the train.
2. Additional non-accessible cars may be attached to the train. But what will be guaranteed is the 6 car (or some number of cars, exact number to be determined), which will provide all the core services provided on the train equally to all riders including those requiring special accessibility features.
3. The details of additional non-accessible accommodation type is TBD. What is the subject of primary discussion is the accessibility related issues.
You can submit comments at Amtrak - Have Your Say. Only Accessibility related feedback please as this presentation is about accessibility.
Last edited:
pi314
Train Attendant
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
This presentation was about getting approval for the concept of providing all common services in an accessible way in a core set of semi-permanently coupled cars. It does not say anything about what a complete train would look like overall beyond that basic concept. A train might consist of just the core, or any number of additional cars added to the core. In particular it clearly says that there is no impediment to have additional cars so long as they do not provide any common services in an inaccessible way.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2020
- Messages
- 10
Any predictions on likely manufacturers?
At the moment Siemens and Alstom are the most likely to have the capacity needed to manufacture such an order. Stadler could also handle this order with a reasonable expansion. I'd guess the single level and bilevel go to different manufacturers.
Stadler, Alstom. Siemens has a lot on their plate already and so I'm doubtful they'll want more
Stadler would need to expand their plant but thats fairly simple for them, and get car shells made here which was in the planning if a large order came.
Well there isn't a lot more to choose from in domestic mfr than that. Unless a builder who does mostly subway like Kawasaki decided to come in. They do single level car shells here already. A Presidential pardon for CAF? lol
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
For an order this size, I am sure any of them will make an adjustment to their production facilities/lines to accommodate. Just like Siemens is setting up a new facility to be able to handle the Airo order.
The Novabus/Prevost plant in Plattsburgh becomes empty in 2025. BBD rail is right there now owned by Alstom. Would not be surprised to see NY throw in money to get someone in there.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
The management of logistics of manufacturing is upto the winning vendor. It is not upto Amtrak. Vendors already source parts from many places. They do not make them in house necessarily.
- Status
