Long Distance (LD) fleet replacement RFP discussion H1 2024

[Mailliw]

Are there 2 cars with elevators or cars with 2 elevators?

 

[jis]

Are there 2 cars with elevators or cars with 2 elevators?

2 cars with elevators.

 

[west point]

I don't expect good old fashion dome cars. It's not even possible with the proposed Superliner-style bilevel design. The closest thing is the Holland America McKinley Explorer but that's possible only because you can pass through on the lower level. I was just showing that the original dome car had flat glass panels.
View attachment 36243

Those are cars that would be nice to add at WAS for southbound LD trains.

 

[joelkfla]

A letter from Mr. Gardner in re LD replacement:

https://www.railwayage.com/passenge...KtMkUEofgK6gAV82i-Auf6-tB8yOK97zIrVD1X-wI9Fkw

 

[frequentflyer]

A letter from Mr. Gardner in re LD replacement:

https://www.railwayage.com/passenge...KtMkUEofgK6gAV82i-Auf6-tB8yOK97zIrVD1X-wI9Fkw

But, but, but Mr. Gardner wants to end LD trains.......I know, I read it on the internet.

He seems (as he should) to have a good grasp on the situation.

First time I have seen this as a reason to go Bilevel from Amtrak.

1. Amtrak could acquire new equipment utilizing the Viewliner shell: Replacing the bi-level Superliners Amtrak operates primarily on Western long-distance routes with single-level Viewliner cars would not be a prudent solution even if such cars could be purchased without the considerable time required to develop new specifications and undertake a second procurement. Initial capital costs would be higher, and ongoing operating and maintenance costs would go up as well, because more cars would be needed to carry the same number of passengers. Passenger and vehicle capacity on Amtrak’s highly successful Auto Train would have to be reduced to stay within train length restrictions, negatively impacting ridership and financial performance. Single-level cars would also provide an inferior viewing experience on the scenic routes on which we operate Superliner cars, reducing ridership and revenues.

 

[cocojacoby]

No one has said it yet, but those coach seats don't look all that comfortable for a long distance train.

 

[PaTrainFan]

No one has said it yet, but those coach seats don't look all that comfortable for a long distance train.

Early concepts. A lot way to go till design and construction.

 

[jimdex]

I don't expect good old fashion dome cars. It's not even possible with the proposed Superliner-style bilevel design. The closest thing is the Holland America McKinley Explorer but that's possible only because you can pass through on the lower level. I was just showing that the original dome car had flat glass panels.
View attachment 36243

Amtrak could use a similar design with an upper-floor pass through. Take a look below at this flat-end observation car that used to run on the B&O. It worked as an observation car when placed on the end of the train, but it had a pass-through door that could be used when the car was used mid-train. Now imagine this design on the top floor of a Superliner running either at the end or the front of a future Amtrak train. This would give passengers a forward view or a backward view when placed at the front or end of a train, but still allow pass-throughs when the car is used mid-train.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

But, but, but Mr. Gardner wants to end LD trains.......I know, I read it on the internet.

Most of the immediate threat was during Anderson's tenure, but supposedly Gardner was Anderson's right hand man when Amtrak was turning the dining experience into economy meal slop at first class fares and saying the focus would be on keeping a handful of "experiential" routes while turning other routes into bus bridges and regional trains. The Southwest Chief was Anderson's first target and likely would have become the first regional bus route if Congress and the states had not stepped in to prevent it. Seeing how many domestic bus routes have been permanently retired in recent years that seems like a pretty sure way to send a long distance route into a death spiral. The Gardner as CEO era has brought us the shortest trains and highest ticket prices I've ever seen with some trains losing basic day-one amenities like lounge cars and others suddenly losing revenue cars with compartments customers booked months in advance.

He seems (as he should) to have a good grasp on the situation.

The Texas Eagle is in the worst shape I've ever seen it under Gardner so if that's a "good grasp" on LD service then I'd hate to see what a poor grasp looks like.

 

[JP1822]

Gardner makes for a great politician..... Guess Amtrak continues to be his stepping stone.... Some of his points make sense, others are completely false, and some just don't even add up. I don't want to get off topic though. I do like a LOT of the elements in the new LD Fleet designs. It's too bad that things just don't happen faster than what used to be - and I am not talking fast as 50 years ago, I'm talking as fast as pre-2015....barring the CAF Viewliner order. That was a mess!!!

 

[jpakala]

I remember when, as Trains magazine decades ago casually put it, first-class-only lounges are expected and required. There were many exceptions such as for one-sleeper trains which often had no diner either. Some used "lunchroom style" station stops (Brookings, SD on the C&NW and Fort Dodge, IA on the IC were two) and/or their route or at least destination was a branch line. Often the lounge was half of a 6-bedroom sleeper, or years earlier one with sections at one end, but the trains were not multi-day long distance ones, but usually connected one large city with another, mainly overnight in the East or the Midwest.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I don't want to get off topic though. I do like a LOT of the elements in the new LD Fleet designs. It's too bad that things just don't happen faster than what used to be - and I am not talking fast as 50 years ago, I'm talking as fast as pre-2015....barring the CAF Viewliner order. That was a mess!!!

The initial specifications look good, at least insomuch as I can comprehend what I'm seeing, but I do not expect to see them in use while I'm still here. I do hope they can purchase the next fleet in a manner that sustains the manufacturing pipeline over the life of the design. As commercial trucking, construction, and farm equipment foul crossing after crossing Amtrak will need a way to replace destroyed rolling stock at reasonable cost and delay over the decades of expected use.

 

[Harmon Shay]

I'm trying to imagine what a coach car without overhead racks would be like. The picture immediately above is beautiful but I don't see a scrap of luggage. I wonder (genuinely) if people could adapt to putting their larger objects and/or coats in a shelf at the end.

I still want one in my sleeping car!

Also, I really envy the tall windows *and* how they reach down so you can see every detail passing by.

It seems to me that the way the upper windows in the picture are positioned, farther in from the outer wall, you could have at least limited overhead luggage racks. I had never thought of that.

 

[Harmon Shay]

In regard to the car supply pipeline, it seems to me that the Superliner IIs should be able to go on a while longer than the Superliner Is, along with all of the long-distance cars now operating in the East. So this order could replace the Superliner Is roughly car for car, leaving Superliner IIs still available for expansion. So there would be as many as four possible orders over time, the first to replace Superliner 1s, the second to replace Amfleet II coaches and lounge cars, the third to replace Superliner IIs, and eventually a fourth to replace Viewliner I sleepers, a lot of expense spread out a lot better.

 

[jpakala]

I wish (non-full-length) dome cars would be built. (In full-length only the seats toward the front allow good forward viewing and often not even that because the height or angle isn't adequate.) Despite any non-dome car's design, there's only side-viewing. That can mean either limited viewing, owing to embankments, walls, trees, underpasses, etc., or, unpleasant views such as junkyards, trash dumps, closed-up buildings, and messy back yards.

 

[JermyZP]

I wish (non-full-length) dome cars would be built. (In full-length only the seats toward the front allow good forward viewing and often not even that because the height or angle isn't adequate.) Despite any non-dome car's design, there's only side-viewing. That can mean either limited viewing, owing to embankments, walls, trees, underpasses, etc., or, unpleasant views such as junkyards, trash dumps, closed-up buildings, and messy back yards.

They could go down the route of designing dome cars for the replacement of Amfleets and Viewliners. I think Amtrak is dead set on the design of the new bi-level cars and even if contractors provide a option of dome cars for bi-level cars Amtrak would probably reject it because of cost.

 

[jpakala]

Let's hope single-level does get dome cars. I wish Amtrak never had entertained the idea of bi-levels because the upper berths are so cramped and at least in roomettes they're more claustrophobia-inducing and have such minimal luggage space. For coach travel they are nice, although for all passengers the stairways can be a challenge unless there's little or nothing to tote (such as going a short distance for a short stay). It seems that with the transition-car emergence there could be a single-level dome car even on a bi-level train. After all, currently the Superliners are the trains going through the largest spectacular scenery areas.

 

[GDRRiley]

Let's hope single-level does get dome cars. I wish Amtrak never had entertained the idea of bi-levels because the upper berths are so cramped and at least in roomettes they're more claustrophobia-inducing and have such minimal luggage space. For coach travel they are nice, although for all passengers the stairways can be a challenge unless there's little or nothing to tote (such as going a short distance for a short stay). It seems that with the transition-car emergence there could be a single-level dome car even on a bi-level train. After all, currently the Superliners are the trains going through the largest spectacular scenery areas.

Key tunnels on the east coast can't fit dome cars. the closest thing would be a sun lounge or the CR single level dome.

 

[west point]

Key tunnels on the east coast can't fit dome cars. the closest thing would be a sun lounge or the CR single level dome.

But why not add some at WAS for trains south of WAS which has the clearances. That includes the Cardinal and any new services that O & D on the NEC?

 

[Willbridge]

Amtrak could use a similar design with an upper-floor pass through. Take a look below at this flat-end observation car that used to run on the B&O. It worked as an observation car when placed on the end of the train, but it had a pass-through door that could be used when the car was used mid-train. Now imagine this design on the top floor of a Superliner running either at the end or the front of a future Amtrak train. This would give passengers a forward view or a backward view when placed at the front or end of a train, but still allow pass-throughs when the car is used mid-train.

UP favored that style of lounge. In the mid-60's when UP dropped running a tail-end lounge on the City of Portland, they moved it to the center of the train, between coaches and the diner.

Train 106 departs Portland for Chicago.

 

[joelkfla]

Let's hope single-level does get dome cars. I wish Amtrak never had entertained the idea of bi-levels because the upper berths are so cramped and at least in roomettes they're more claustrophobia-inducing and have such minimal luggage space. For coach travel they are nice, although for all passengers the stairways can be a challenge unless there's little or nothing to tote (such as going a short distance for a short stay). It seems that with the transition-car emergence there could be a single-level dome car even on a bi-level train. After all, currently the Superliners are the trains going through the largest spectacular scenery areas.

I assume any dome, being a passenger amenity, would need to be ADA-accessible. That means it would need either an elevator or a long ramp (degree of slope is limited.) Unless it were at the end of the accessible "core", it would need elevators or ramps at both ends of the dome to allow pass through. If it were behind a transition car, then the transition car would also need an elevator or accessible ramp.

I'm afraid the days of domes on American railroads are past.

 

[Stephen Levine]

I took this picture from the Denver Zephyr's Chuckwagon short dome in August of 1968 as the train entered Aurora, IL. I miss these types of dome cars.

 

[PaTrainFan]

I took this picture from the Denver Zephyr's Chuckwagon short dome in August of 1968 as the train entered Aurora, IL. I miss these types of dome cars.
View attachment 36257

This is why I am determined to take one last trip on The Canadian before those go away in a few years. Given what happened last year with the use of the buffer cars, even temporarily, I fear they could be lost sooner than later.

 

[frequentflyer]

Most of the immediate threat was during Anderson's tenure, but supposedly Gardner was Anderson's right hand man when Amtrak was turning the dining experience into economy meal slop at first class fares and saying the focus would be on keeping a handful of "experiential" routes while turning other routes into bus bridges and regional trains. The Southwest Chief was Anderson's first target and likely would have become the first regional bus route if Congress and the states had not stepped in to prevent it. Seeing how many domestic bus routes have been permanently retired in recent years that seems like a pretty sure way to send a long distance route into a death spiral. The Gardner as CEO era has brought us the shortest trains and highest ticket prices I've ever seen with some trains losing basic day-one amenities like lounge cars and others suddenly losing revenue cars with compartments customers booked months in advance.



The Texas Eagle is in the worst shape I've ever seen it under Gardner so if that's a "good grasp" on LD service then I'd hate to see what a poor grasp looks like.

That may be all true but we are also not playing the political shell game he is playing either with funding. Amtrak, rightly or wrongly is a political beast. Where common sense economic planning goes out the window as soon as a congressman's aide is calling you.

Even Amtrak's greatest CEO Graham Claytor had to play the political games.

 

[frequentflyer]

I remember when, as Trains magazine decades ago casually put it, first-class-only lounges are expected and required. There were many exceptions such as for one-sleeper trains which often had no diner either. Some used "lunchroom style" station stops (Brookings, SD on the C&NW and Fort Dodge, IA on the IC were two) and/or their route or at least destination was a branch line. Often the lounge was half of a 6-bedroom sleeper, or years earlier one with sections at one end, but the trains were not multi-day long distance ones, but usually connected one large city with another, mainly overnight in the East or the Midwest.

And that is the point I appreciated the most in that interview, one cannot design LD equipment based on decades-old tradition. The market today would not appreciate the "good ole days". Their needs and expectations are different.

Glad Gardner referenced the Canadian's equipment, eventually and probably sooner than anyone here thinks, it will be parked. As much as the Budd equipment brings back fond memories for some, it is out of place in today's market. VIA wants to park the Budd equipment, Via wants new equipment but cannot afford it, presently. VIA will be watching to see what Amtrak orders and would not be surprised if they check under the seat cushion for some loose change to