neroden
Engineer
The real thing killing the Superliner-style bilevels is the manufacturing failure at Sumitomo/Nippon-Sharyo, which has some complex history which I heard something about at an RPA meeting. (Apparently the way they were made in the 1970s violates EPA regulations, and the replacement method... didn't give enough strength.) But the manufacturing failure, by a reputable company which thought it could do it, means no reputable manufacturer wants to touch a contract to build them. If nobody will take on the construction contract for bilevels, Amtrak should not tilt at windmills.
Here's where the ADA comes in: fully ADA-compliant intercity bilevels, while possible (as Alaska Railroad proved), eat up a LOT of the supposedly-more-efficient space use with wide, straight staircases and a wheelchair lift. Once you've installed all of that, the space advantage of bilevels over single-levels practically disappears.
So bilevels stop making sense, unless you're doing it for pure tourism reasons (which both Alaska Railroad and Rocky Mountaineer were). I honestly think the only route which really benefits significantly from the extra viewing height is the California Zephyr; the other routes would be just as scenic viewed from Viewliner height.
Here's where the ADA comes in: fully ADA-compliant intercity bilevels, while possible (as Alaska Railroad proved), eat up a LOT of the supposedly-more-efficient space use with wide, straight staircases and a wheelchair lift. Once you've installed all of that, the space advantage of bilevels over single-levels practically disappears.
So bilevels stop making sense, unless you're doing it for pure tourism reasons (which both Alaska Railroad and Rocky Mountaineer were). I honestly think the only route which really benefits significantly from the extra viewing height is the California Zephyr; the other routes would be just as scenic viewed from Viewliner height.