VIA Rail and bilevel cars

[jis]

If Francois Rebello were to ever get his hotel train between Montreal and NYC running I think the Renaissance cars would do well (assuming the FRA granted a dispensation). Not going to happen though.

You are right. I very much doubt that FRA would allow them in the US. Even in Canada they operate under a special dispensation in specific consist formations. They do not meet general Canadian collision standards.

 

[PerRock]

That's not entirely accurate. They did test Superliners loaned by Amtrak on more than one occasion. There were also sleeper and diner versions of the Bombardier commuter cars considered. It was simply a question of money - less to rehab rolling stock they already owned. However, your statement about them running the CP cars into the ground is bang-on.

I found these pictures of proposed VIA BBLs & Superlines on the internet quite a while ago.


I don't know much more about them, but the 2nd car in the BBL pic, doesn't have your traditional BBL look.

peter

 

[jis]

View attachment 28218

I don't know much more about them, but the 2nd car in the BBL pic, doesn't have your traditional BBL look.

peter

That is because the second car is a BSL

 

[jiml]

I don't know much more about them, but the 2nd car in the BBL pic, doesn't have your traditional BBL look.

peter

That is because the second car is a BSL

As usual @jis has the right answer. The Bombardier bi-level coaches - whether commuter or the long-distance ones never built - were designed to work in mixed consists, although even the commuter ones seldom did.* IIRC the LD trains would have had single-level diners and the bi-levels would be coaches and sleepers, and all would have worked with older equipment. It's not unlike Amtrak at start-up with the Santa Fe transition coaches, followed by the Superliner ones. Even Amtrak's more recent (reduced) order of Bag-Dorms would have needed a transition coach to be practical with Superliner trains. Of course Amtrak now just puts any car first in a Superliner train, removing the access to the baggage car while moving. In most cases they don't even bother with the vinyl cover that used to go around the upper door when a non-transition car was leading.

There's also an interesting concept drawing floating around of a Bombardier bi-level lounge car, which was considered by the Ontario Government for regional services. That may still happen with the restoration of Northern Ontario service, but it will be a refurb of a GO coach rather than a new build.

*GO Transit did briefly while awaiting the arrival of bi-level cab coaches.

 

[MARC Rider]

As someone who rode "bilevel" commuter cars on a daily basis for almost 20 years and Superliner trains since 1997 at least once a year, I'm not sure why so many folks here are so hot to have bilevel long distance equipment. About the only advantage I can see is that the view from the upper level is better. However, this is only for those who get a seat or a room on the upper level. OK, also, I guess the big open luggage rack on the lower level of the Superliners is nice, but that's mainly because it's such a pain in the neck to haul a suitcase up the narrow spiral stairs. Also, if you're on the upper level and hit some rough track, the car sways around like nothing else and feels like it's about ready to tip over. (Yeah, I know, it has a very low center of gravity, and it won't tip, but it sure feels like it will.) I remember one trip on the Capitol Limited out of Chicago, we hit some rough track in Indiana while they were serving dinner, and it was like we were in a tramp steamer plowing through a storm in the North Atlantic.

Also, it seems that the need for stairs in bi-level equipment means that disabled passengers are essentially prisoners in their accommodations. That makes bi-levels essentially a non-starter in the USA because of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I don't know if Canada has similar legislation or regulations, but I would imagine that Canadians are just as interested in improving access for people with disabilities as we are south of the border.

 

[Metra Electric Rider]

As someone who rode "bilevel" commuter cars on a daily basis for almost 20 years and Superliner trains since 1997 at least once a year, I'm not sure why so many folks here are so hot to have bilevel long distance equipment. About the only advantage I can see is that the view from the upper level is better. However, this is only for those who get a seat or a room on the upper level. OK, also, I guess the big open luggage rack on the lower level of the Superliners is nice, but that's mainly because it's such a pain in the neck to haul a suitcase up the narrow spiral stairs. Also, if you're on the upper level and hit some rough track, the car sways around like nothing else and feels like it's about ready to tip over. (Yeah, I know, it has a very low center of gravity, and it won't tip, but it sure feels like it will.) I remember one trip on the Capitol Limited out of Chicago, we hit some rough track in Indiana while they were serving dinner, and it was like we were in a tramp steamer plowing through a storm in the North Atlantic.

Also, it seems that the need for stairs in bi-level equipment means that disabled passengers are essentially prisoners in their accommodations. That makes bi-levels essentially a non-starter in the USA because of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I don't know if Canada has similar legislation or regulations, but I would imagine that Canadians are just as interested in improving access for people with disabilities as we are south of the border.

I generally agree with you on this sentiment - I think that most of the bilevels in Europe on 'long-distance' routes are still not Amtrak length routes but necessitated by the density of trains on those routes. I know there are some sleepers now and I think in Japan as well, but the issues with them still stand. This last point, mainly personal to me, but being in Metra territory (and despite having ridden in Superliners) I always feel that bilevels are commuter cars.

 

[jiml]

Other than capacity, another benefit of bi-level cars is platform length, which can mean fewer stops at stations lacking longer ones. In North America the huge number of stations and their diverse ownership/control when it comes to infrastructure improvements is one thing that makes bi-level cars the cheaper alternative. We already have stations that require more than one stop with Superliners - imagine the impact of a single-level train with the same passenger capacity. The Canadian has always had this issue at smaller stations.

That said, I'm in the camp of those who think we've seen our last new bi-level long-distance coach. They will continue in commuter service and likely on some regional routes for all the obvious reasons.

 

[jis]

That said, I'm in the camp of those who think we've seen our last new bi-level long-distance coach. They will continue in commuter service and likely on some regional routes for all the obvious reasons.

Specially VIA which has never had bilevel cars, evaluated them at one time and chose to pass on them, is unlikely to suddenly get the urge to get them I suspect. One negative of bilevel cars is that they make it impossible to have any reasonable Dome cars. Sightseer Lounges are but a very poor substitute. IMHO of course.