Superliner Refresh? Capitol Limited Suggestions, etc.

[Just-Thinking-51]

At one point the Auto train had electric brakes.  Not sure they were able to keep using them after a derailment.  The number of air hose can be the same, but you have another connector on the air hose for the electric part.

For the record the picture is of a tri-level car.  3 levels.

Also the CityNightLine/OOB/NightJet tri-level Cars make a nice sleeper.

 

[cpotisch]

Correct. There is no way they could change from Superliner cars on the Auto Train. The pax would revolt!   The Auto Train is the only other line of Amtrak's that is actually profitable, other than the Acela/NEC service. That and, as I believe you stated earlier, AT Superliner cars have different braking systems due to the length and weight of the train. 

 

Yes there is, if going to these cars lowers mx costs and, nets better fuel efficiency one better believe Amtrak will make the swap . It will make Autotrain's "profit" more so.

And what makes you say that single-level cars would net better fuel efficiency? The added capacity of a bi-level car generally more than compensates for the added weight, while shortening the length of the train. So I don’t think your theory is backed by any real facts.

 

[F900ElCapitan]

While I sort of approve of this idea, it requires raising the platforms at every station which has low level platforms, except those with bilevel commuter lines or freight, and the paperwork even for the stations with freight would be substantial.  Under current law, they'd have to have a plan and funding to raise all the platforms on a given line before acquiring single-level cars for it.

Why would they have to raise the platforms? Why wouldn’t they just order cars with a similar fold out stair to the AmFleet cars? The only reason I could think of would be ADA and pretty much all stations already have accommodations for that. Plus I’m sure even Amtrak could find plenty of money if those provisions needed to be modified to a different height. 

 

[frequentflyer]

And what makes you say that single-level cars would net better fuel efficiency? The added capacity of a bi-level car generally more than compensates for the added weight, while shortening the length of the train. So I don’t think your theory is backed by any real facts.

Thats why I stated "If. " And remember (maybe you don't), the Autotrain was single level (pre Amtrak  and post) before the Superliner IIs arrived, if it goes single level again it will not be the end of the world.  Per the rumor I posted the next LD cars (Siemens Twin) will stay bilevel but apparently will not be as tall and "probably" lighter than a Superliner.

On the same note of Autotrain"s profitablity, it would interesting to know the fuel costs between a pair of Genesis compare to a pair of Chargers pulling the AT long consist. I have read that the Chargers are 10%-15% more efficient depending on the route.

 

[neroden]

Why would they have to raise the platforms?

Look up the ADA regulations.   I mean, actually read them.  Platforms have to be raised to the entry height of the lowest-entry-level train which platforms at that station, unless a freight operator who runs freight by that platform totally forbids it.  (In which case you need to make a specific filing for each station.)  The rule is actually also enforced when buying new railcars.

You could sort of evade it by running one Superliner train on each route (which is kind of what California is ending up doing) but that doesn't work so well for one train a day.

 

[neroden]

Correct. There is no way they could change from Superliner cars on the Auto Train. The pax would revolt!   The Auto Train is the only other line of Amtrak's that is actually profitable, other than the Acela/NEC service.

"Actually profitable" is an unclear target, but I allege that the entire eastern network and the Coast Starlight are actually profitable in the sense that cancelling any one of the trains would cause Amtrak's overall need for subsidy to increase.

 

[cpotisch]

Thats why I stated "If. "

Generally when somebody says “if [something]”, it is implied that they believe that’s the case or have heard some argument in favor of it. Like if I were to say “Well, if Amtrak removing full service dining cars from the CL and LSL results in a $7 billion increase in revenue, it would make sense.” When I say that, most people would assume that I’m saying it for a reason and that there’s context to the claim. You know what I’m saying?

 

[F900ElCapitan]

Look up the ADA regulations.   I mean, actually read them.  Platforms have to be raised to the entry height of the lowest-entry-level train which platforms at that station, unless a freight operator who runs freight by that platform totally forbids it.  (In which case you need to make a specific filing for each station.)  The rule is actually also enforced when buying new railcars.

You could sort of evade it by running one Superliner train on each route (which is kind of what California is ending up doing) but that doesn't work so well for one train a day.

I get ADA. But, all Amtrak has to do is make the entrance accessible, just as they are doing today. In some cases there are portable lifts that can be moved to the door entrances and other platforms have ramps built into the platform (this might require an extra stop or two, but it’s doable). Then on Superliners they also carry ramps in each car. ADA is satisfied many ways today and trust me, will be complied with in the future without raising all of Amtrak’s platforms. 

 

[AutoTrDvr]

I don’t think I stated that earlier, but someone else can jump in and confirm or deny if it’s accurate.

Correct, again.  Sorry... it was zephyr17 who said it in this post of my "Predicting a Consist" thread.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

I get ADA. But, all Amtrak has to do is make the entrance accessible, just as they are doing today. In some cases there are portable lifts that can be moved to the door entrances and other platforms have ramps built into the platform (this might require an extra stop or two, but it’s doable). Then on Superliners they also carry ramps in each car. ADA is satisfied many ways today and trust me, will be complied with in the future without raising all of Amtrak’s platforms. 

The old ways of Lifts and ramps are not going to be good enough.  Full length high level platform for high level equipment is required. 

 

[Devil's Advocate]

The old ways of Lifts and ramps are not going to be good enough.  Full length high level platform for high level equipment is required. 

Not good enough in what way?  Ramps and lifts can get the job done from a physical and technical sense.  The only thing they're missing is a misguided (but legally enforceable) adherence to social vanity.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

Social Vanity?

One thinks barrier free access with out the need for someone to help you/them is the goal.

 

[neroden]

I get ADA. But, all Amtrak has to do is make the entrance accessible, just as they are doing today.

No, that is not correct.  Go back and read the "full platform length level boarding" regulation.

From GreatAmericanStations:

"A 2011 level platform rule issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) affected how platforms are to be constructed. It requires full-length, level-boarding platforms (where the platform surface is level with the floor of the train cars) in new and substantially reconstructed commuter and Amtrak stations. Where full-length, level boarding is “infeasible,” such as due to freight train operations on the track adjacent to the platform, the use of site-specific alternative methods is acceptable pending the approval of the U.S. DOT."

While the rule doesn't explicitly refer to changing the trains from ones which have level boarding to ones which don't, I think it's pretty clear that DOT would severely frown on it.  You're basically never allowed to make disabled access *worse* in a renovation, and there's consensus that lifts are worse than almost any other option.  In fact, for any line with a significant number of 15" platforms and no 48" platforms, DOT would frown on buying single-level trains.

There's a subsidiary element of the rule: if trains with two different boarding heights stop at the same platform, the platform is to use the lower of the two boarding heights.  Thiis is what California is currently relying on.  I suspect they wouldn't have even tried to get single-levels if the bilevel order hadn't failed catastrophically, or if there had been a bilevel in production which could be acquired promptly.  I suspect the multistate group is invoking "force majuere" or emergency provisions to get the single-levels from Siemens because they were already in production and the cars were needed by a date certain -- which is appropriate in this case, but isn't going to be repeated for normal procurements. Because switching from level boarding to non-level boarding by changing from a bilevel to a single-level will get you in *trouble*, and at the very least means a huge amount of site-specific paperwork.  It'll also get you a lot of customer complaints which will go to the media -- look at what happened on the San Joaquins.

This may not be an issue for trains where nearly all the stations are shared with freight and the freight operator refuses to allow level boarding even for Superliners, because they'll have to go through all the paperwork for all those stations already, and they're stuck with lifts until the freight operator relents.  Where it becomes an issue is places like the California commuter lines or the Michigan line.  Chicago Union will probably have to have both low-level and high-level platforms, but as time goes on, each line heading out will be one or the other.

(Another point: the public mood on this is getting more and more irritated; the ADA is from 1993.  If the freights don't relent, they may find legislation coming after them within 10 years.)

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Social Vanity? One thinks barrier free access with out the need for someone to help you/them is the goal.

Ramps and lifts get disabled people around barriers.  They're not perfect but I've yet to see one fail in its duty.  So why would they not be good enough for the ADA?  What reason would there be to decline such assistance and then insist upon a million dollar station upgrade other than vanity?

 

[AmtrakBlue]

Ramps and lifts get disabled people around barriers.  They're not perfect but I've yet to see one fail in its duty.  So why would they not be good enough for the ADA?  What reason would there be to decline such assistance and then insist upon a million dollar station upgrade other than vanity?

I don’t think it’s vanity to want to be able to board as others do without the need to find assistance and wait, and wait, for that assistance. And maybe in some cases worry that the assistance won’t show up or the equipment won’t work or if it’s locked up they can’t get it unlocked. I witnessed the case of it taking time for an employee to find the right key to unlocked where the ramp was.

 

[railiner]

I don’t think it’s vanity to want to be able to board as others do without the need to find assistance and wait, and wait, for that assistance. And maybe in some cases worry that the assistance won’t show up or the equipment won’t work or if it’s locked up they can’t get it unlocked. I witnessed the case of it taking time for an employee to find the right key to unlocked where the ramp was.

I agree with what you are saying in the situation's you cited.

I think a better example of "ADA vanity", was the requirement that every single intercity bus in public service, be equipped with a wheelchair lift, and space for a couple of wheelchairs, instead of the operator providing on demand ADA vehicles, that would even provide door to door service withing a reasonable distance from any bus stop or terminal.

The equipping of intercity coaches with those lifts is very expensive, the lifts themselves are sometimes troublesome,  the boarding takes lengthy preparation, moving the seats to make room for wheelchair(s), operating the lift, securing them, etc....and all in front of  an 'audience' of other passenger's watching and waiting, so they can board.   Besides the expense of the lifts, there is the lost revenue from four to six unusable seats.     So busline owner's proposed instead, providing "on demand" door to door mobility service, anytime the ADA passenger desired to go, and at the same fare as the bus would cost.   The ADA refused this alternative.   It seems they were determined to push their constituents "in the face" of able passenger's, just because they could.   

I don't know about anyone else, but if some bus company told me that they could not accommodate me for some reason or other on their buses, but instead offered me door to door taxi service whenever I desired, for just the regular fare, that would be a no-brainer decision...  JMHO..

 

[VTTrain]

Two things can be true at the same time:

1) It can be reasonable for a person with a disability to want the same barrier-free access that non-disabled persons enjoy.  (e.g. raising the platforms at all stations rather than relying on lifts)

2) It can cost a ton of money to fully give that access - money that is arguably better spent elsewhere, especially when funds are in short supply.

 

[frequentflyer]

Generally when somebody says “if [something]”, it is implied that they believe that’s the case or have heard some argument in favor of it. Like if I were to say “Well, if Amtrak removing full service dining cars from the CL and LSL results in a $7 billion increase in revenue, it would make sense.” When I say that, most people would assume that I’m saying it for a reason and that there’s context to the claim. You know what I’m saying?

Superliner I and II weigh between 75 to 79 tons

Siemens Viaggio Twin bilevel - 69 tons

Siemens Viaggio Comfort single level -61 tons

That difference over 18 cars may make a difference to the two locomotives up front, there is your "if".

And there is still the matter of lower maintenance costs associated with newer equipment. A re equipped Autotrain with Charger locomotives and slightly lighter pax cars, should be more efficient and profitable despite the CAPEX hit.

 

[jis]

I still believe that Viaggio Twins cannot have the same capacity that a Superliner has (specially for Sleepers), and Super-sizing a Viaggio Twin to Superliner size will make it weigh almost as much as a Superliner.

Ideally something like the Talgo/Transtech Oy built double deckers used in Finland, with gangways at both levels would fit the bill better. But of course it is quite unlikely to be used in the US. It would most likely be better than Superliners, and would be very nonstandard.

Here is what they look like (Wikiperdia (C))

 

[frequentflyer]

I still believe that Viaggio Twins cannot have the same capacity that a Superliner has (specially for Sleepers), and Super-sizing a Viaggio Twin to Superliner size will make it weigh almost as much as a Superliner.

Ideally something like the Talgo/Transtech Oy built double deckers used in Finland, with gangways at both levels would fit the bill better. But of course it is quite unlikely to be used in the US. It would most likely be better than Superliners, and would be very nonstandard.

Here is what they look like (Wikiperdia (C))

To the Pullman's Superliner credit, there is nothing on the market that has the capacity of a Superliner sleeper. Amtrak in its infinite wisdom is looking at stock that has already proven itself. The only way Amtrak comes close is to make the sleeping rooms smaller which seems to be the trend throughout the transportation industries ( ie Cruise ships rooms, airline seats). Maybe its time to re imagine the "sleeper room" for the 21rst century. Would not surprise me to see Amtrak follow the European  sleeper model. If the Euro model like the hotels rooms I am looking at in Paris, they will be smaller.

On a side note, did not know that Diners are the heaviest cars in consists. I wander if that had a small factor in the Diner purge of late.

 

[VTTrain]

It does not have the same capacity of the Superliner Sleeper, but I am a big fan of the double decker deluxe Nightjet sleeper cars.  

Here is a link to the layout (Deluxe car is on the bottom): https://www.dropbox.com/s/bq5vgchmfm52xb6/Double-deck-sleeper.pdf?dl=0 

Here is a good video showing the deluxe sleeper:  

 

[AmtrakBlue]

I agree with what you are saying in the situation's you cited.

I think a better example of "ADA vanity", was the requirement that every single intercity bus in public service, be equipped with a wheelchair lift, and space for a couple of wheelchairs, instead of the operator providing on demand ADA vehicles, that would even provide door to door service withing a reasonable distance from any bus stop or terminal.

The equipping of intercity coaches with those lifts is very expensive, the lifts themselves are sometimes troublesome,  the boarding takes lengthy preparation, moving the seats to make room for wheelchair(s), operating the lift, securing them, etc....and all in front of  an 'audience' of other passenger's watching and waiting, so they can board.   Besides the expense of the lifts, there is the lost revenue from four to six unusable seats.     So busline owner's proposed instead, providing "on demand" door to door mobility service, anytime the ADA passenger desired to go, and at the same fare as the bus would cost.   The ADA refused this alternative.   It seems they were determined to push their constituents "in the face" of able passenger's, just because they could.   

I don't know about anyone else, but if some bus company told me that they could not accommodate me for some reason or other on their buses, but instead offered me door to door taxi service whenever I desired, for just the regular fare, that would be a no-brainer decision...  JMHO..

"On demand" can take forever...  I know, my husband used these buses.  How can that be better - when you have to schedule a bus and then wait for one to be available. And the bus company cannot give an exact time because they don't know how long it might take to get passengers on or off the bus before they get to your place.   I like it that our public buses are accessible.  

 

[railiner]

"On demand" can take forever...  I know, my husband used these buses.  How can that be better - when you have to schedule a bus and then wait for one to be available. And the bus company cannot give an exact time because they don't know how long it might take to get passengers on or off the bus before they get to your place.   I like it that our public buses are accessible.  

I think you are referring to what we call in NYC, "Access-A-Ride",  Paratransit, which accommodates those who cannot use accessible local public transportation.   I know they do not have a very good reputation for reliability here, so I would see your point.

I am talking about intercity service, which would be administered differently.   And like I said, it would offer express, door to door service.  With no need to inconveniently transfer to local services at either end.   And it would go when you want to go, not when the next schedule might be...

 

[cpotisch]

I think you are referring to what we call in NYC, "Access-A-Ride",  Paratransit, which accommodates those who cannot use accessible local public transportation.   I know they do not have a very good reputation for reliability here, so I would see your point.

The drivers are also notorious for being...insane. Here in Brooklyn, they run red lights, cut off pedestrians, and swear at people they find to be in their way. I appreciate that this service exists, but I do not appreciate the behavior of many of the people operating it.

 

[neroden]

Ramps and lifts get disabled people around barriers.  They're not perfect but I've yet to see one fail in its duty.

I've seen the employees fail in their duty.  'Nuff said.

There's a reason the disabled community is demanding tools which do not require employee intervention.  It's great to have employees for assistance, but...