That would be the implication, at least for a substantial part of the cost, yes.
Your guess is as good as mine, and mine is probably not worth the paper it is written on. Insufficient information so far. I don't even know for sure who the bidders are since the bids are not in or at least not publicized.
Skylight will have shades controlled by the conductor. Probably all open or closed in the entire car.
I think I see what you're saying now. But that may depend on how you define "core." it seems to me that the actual core of the train is entire string of semi-permanently-coupled cars that would run on a given route every day. From a capacity standpoint, at least, I don't think it would matter whether the lounge space on that core was in one car in the middle of the core, or in portions of two cars at either end of the core.
It wouldn't. But any end window may or may not be covered by an adjacent car if the train has added capacity outside of the core.
The front one would always be substantially covered by the 14.5' tall locomotive. It is only the rear one that we are talking about here.
That's probably true, too. But as we're talking at least ten years down the road, we don't know exactly what locomotives will be pulling these new trains. And I've noticed that whenever I've been in a Superliner coach on the front of a train, people will walk up to the front window to get a peak over the engines. The other advantage to having windows on both ends of the train is that you don't have to worry about turning the train at the end of each run,
IIJA is a five year program I believe. Maybe this project gets ongoing grants as needed, then after five years Congress & the President must continue to fund it? (There would be a contract with Siemens/etc. though.) Or, an IIJA grant this year for the full $7b can be banked by the FRA/Amtrak? The former seems more likely, but I'm talking out my hat, other than reading a lot of newspapers over the years.
It is almost certain that it will be ALC-42s that will be pulling them upto 2040 or so since no additional acquisition is planned or budgeted for in the long term plans yet. 2040 is just 16 years away. And even if there are other locomotives, none will be substantially shorter than 14.5' tall.
Not this year, but they can be banked in equal proportions over the 5 years, since they remain available until spent with no limit on when they are spent.
The FY24-29 Five Year Plan, page 44, states an intent to have a separate acquisition cycle for single level long distance equipment.
The current RFP is for acquiring bi-level cars. How can anyone respond to it with a partial single level proposal and expect to be taken seriously?
Indeed. If they simply bothered to bring all the single level Sleepers on line they could augment the Sleeper count on the four main trains with some getting two more and others one more. Or alternatively convert the Cap into single level.
It’s impossible to know the full programmatic details from a technical specification. What if they reveal that the premium coach seats (which many overnight passengers will likely spring for) have access? And what if they just allow access with a purchase of a beverage from the “first class bar?” I think panicking over this before we even see any of the final details is way premature. These details can all be sorted out - and as previously pointed out they are trying to make this as flexible as possible with making it possible to use H couplers instead if the envisioned semi permanent coupled configuration doesn’t work out. I also like the idea behind the first class bar - it should be open to everyone in some form (even if it means through a purchase - but if executed right I think it would be a net positive.) There may be some things that require some advocacy to correct - but the superliners are tired and should not completely inform the new fleet. I appreciate that they’re willing to include some new concepts to provide a more upscale experience to premium passengers who pay a lot of money. Coach passengers should be included - even if it’s in a premium manner - but let’s see what they have in mind before condemning it
Exactly. Reading between the lines it seems the future of the Viewliner 1 sleepers is the primary decision point. I kind of get the impression (somewhat an educated guess) that there’s two options on the table - one would be an option execution on the Airo order for replacing Amfleet II along with a life extension of the Viewliners Is or a procurement similar to the bilevel one that would include the full program and replace both Viewliner I and Amfleet II and be compatible with Viewliner Ii.
The problem with that is the overhead baggage racks would block the view…and they are needed much more than skylight windows…
There are transparent luggage racks. I know the luggage would block most of the view however.
I think Talgo deserves another chance but probably has a bad taste in their mouths and won't. What about CRRC? They have always seemed eager to grow their business here.
CRRC seems unlikely for an Amtrak order.
CRRC is too risky at present and I would be amazed if Amtrak deals with them at all...
The sleeper inventory is woefully inadequate. To compare revenue let us take a May 15 trip WASH - MIA. A planned AM-2 is 60 pass. Fare $157 = $9420: roomette fare 11- $571 = $6291. Bedrooms 5 - #1450 = $ 7259 . Added together - $13541; Now any extra passengers are at the coach fares so if we take 15 additional sleeper passengers at $157 = $2355 for a total revenue of ~~~ $15896 for each sleeper.
