Wishlist for Superliner III's

[jis]

Airlines use custom wheelchair to negotiate the narrow cabin aisles if needed.

 

[PVD]

The aisle chairs only work for those that can transfer from one chair to another, also, they need to be pushed by someone, they are not propelled by the passenger, and safety rules keep certain people out of exit rows. When airlines are certified for evacuation, mobility limited people are not included. The ADA allows some exclusions from theme park rides for safety reasons, it is not absolute.Once a passenger gets to a seat on a plane, they have no expectation of being able to move around, they may be brought to a bathroom, but assistance with personal care is not required. Evacuating a fixed structure is very different than evacuating a rail car, having different standards is entirely reasonable. There is a reduced fare for disabled passengers and companions on Amtrak, not on airlines, not all separate standards are negatives for a group. Rather than spend money on very expensive accommodations that just add cost and might not add much to the service, I would rather see them do a better job with general accessibility, station and platform access, boarding and detraining (lifts and/high level boarding where possible). It doesn't make sense to worry about moving people around a train when we can't even get them on the train smoothly in so many places.

 

[Bjartmarr]

My #1 no-brainer need is coach-class lie-flat accomodations. Any kind will do. I don't care about bottled water or leather seats or newspapers or wifi or cheese tastings or any of the other frippery that Amtrak tries to bill as value-added services, but I will pay good money to sleep flat.

Amtrak has so few advantages over other modes of travel that they need to leverage every one of them, and this one would be so easy.

I think European-style 6-berth compartments that convert to 3-3 seating is the ideal balance for LD service, but currently I bunk down on the floor of the SSL or suffer in my seat so pretty much anything would be an upgrade.

I don't know why this isn't seen as a higher priority; my guess is that the squeaky wheels are older folks who take sleepers anyways, so coach improvements just aren't seen as a high priority.

 

[neroden]

I'm going to be the wet blanket and say that Superliner IIIs are not coming any time soon. When they do come, they'll look a lot like Surfliners.

But every time I run a financial analysis, it says that Amtrak gets better payback from any one of the following:

(1) more Viewliner sleepers

(2) Viewliner coaches

(3) new locomotives (long-distance variant of Chargers)

(4) or even Viewliner observation / cafe cars (increase ability to raise prices on the trains which are already profitable -- look at how popular the dome car is)

Basically if Amtrak is considering spending money on new cars, long-distance bilevels are always going to fall to the back of the list.

 

[Blackwolf]

Indeed, I have concede that the better long-term plan would be to slowly eliminate the bi-level Long Distance equipment and go fully single-level again. The only true issue here comes down to platform heights and the staunch dislike of high-level platforms on freight lines. It IS a big issue, but Amtrak will have 20 years or more before seriously facing this particular hurdle given how things take forever even after an order becomes reality.

 

[CCC1007]

I disagree that the superliner concept is a waste, as these cars allow for much shorter trains, and thus fewer personnel and less physical plant requirements. High level platforms are not practical at every station, and many would need major changes to have it be possible to make one at that location. While a single fleet is a good idea, I just don't think we will ever be able to get back to one.

 

[Ryan]

How do shorter trains mean less staff?

 

[jis]

There is nothing inherent about single level equipment that necessitates high level platform. Indeed the tendency these days in mane places is to go with low floor single level equipment. But of course that is neither here nor there in the broader discussion.

 

[neroden]

It's actually a bit of a coincidence that the single-level trains are the more-profitable trains where money is best deployed. What's really going on is that trains going through New York City are way better off financially than trains not going through New York City. And you simply can't get a low-boarding bilevel into New York City (or Philadelphia, or Baltimore, or Boston). But the result of this coincidence is that spending on the single-level fleet is simply a better move, at least until the corridors which touch NYC, Boston, and Philly are saturated... which will take a while.

The only Amtrak-responsibility bilevel train which might financially justify a Superliner III order just for it is the Auto Train. But that's just not very many cars to order. Perhaps that's the best hope for new bilevels: if Amtrak can make a commercial case to get a loan to reequip the Auto Train with all-new bilevels using options on the corridor bilevel order (if that ever solves its crush-test problem), that would be a *few* new Superliner IIIs.

 

[norfolkwesternhenry]

It's actually a bit of a coincidence that the single-level trains are the more-profitable trains where money is best deployed. What's really going on is that trains going through New York City are way better off financially than trains not going through New York City. And you simply can't get a low-boarding bilevel into New York City (or Philadelphia, or Baltimore, or Boston). But the result of this coincidence is that spending on the single-level fleet is simply a better move, at least until the corridors which touch NYC, Boston, and Philly are saturated... which will take a while.

The only Amtrak-responsibility bilevel train which might financially justify a Superliner III order just for it is the Auto Train. But that's just not very many cars to order. Perhaps that's the best hope for new bilevels: if Amtrak can make a commercial case to get a loan to reequip the Auto Train with all-new bilevels using options on the corridor bilevel order (if that ever solves its crush-test problem), that would be a *few* new Superliner IIIs.

the single level services are in a high density population area, and mist routes west of CHI, are in desolate areas, compared to the east

 

[norfolkwesternhenry]

How do shorter trains mean less staff?

one SCA can handle a Superliner Sleeper, but they staff one SCA to each Viewliner, even though the Superliners carry more people per car

 

[norfolkwesternhenry]

I disagree that the superliner concept is a waste, as these cars allow for much shorter trains, and thus fewer personnel and less physical plant requirements. High level platforms are not practical at every station, and many would need major changes to have it be possible to make one at that location. While a single fleet is a good idea, I just don't think we will ever be able to get back to one.

agreed, every platform west of Chicago would need to be replaced, and lengthened, which is not Viable in some places, so multiple stops would need to be made, Superliners also offer a better view of the rockies, where a LD amfleet cafe just doesn't cut it, it's dingy, dirty, dark, and not a nice place to be overall

 

[norfolkwesternhenry]

Superliners also ride better, better lounge cars, a proper diner, bathrooms separated from the seating areas, I could go on and on, no toilets in the roomettes...

 

[Ryan]

What exactly do you mean by a proper diner?

You are aware that the new Viewliner sleepers don't have a toilet in them, no?

It's pretty talented to be able to make a triple post where very nearly every single statement is wrong.

How do shorter trains mean less staff?

one SCA can handle a Superliner Sleeper, but they staff one SCA to each Viewliner, even though the Superliners carry more people per car

Can you conceive of a world where an attendant works more then one car?

I disagree that the superliner concept is a waste, as these cars allow for much shorter trains, and thus fewer personnel and less physical plant requirements. High level platforms are not practical at every station, and many would need major changes to have it be possible to make one at that location. While a single fleet is a good idea, I just don't think we will ever be able to get back to one.

agreed, every platform west of Chicago would need to be replaced, and lengthened, which is not Viable in some places, so multiple stops would need to be made, Superliners also offer a better view of the rockies, where a LD amfleet cafe just doesn't cut it, it's dingy, dirty, dark, and not a nice place to be overall

Is every platform east of Chicago a high level platform? Of course not.

Is it written down somewhere that the single level lounge of the future has to be an Amfleet? Of course not. Use your imagination a little bit.

 

[A Voice]

agreed, every platform west of Chicago would need to be replaced, and lengthened, which is not Viable in some places, so multiple stops would need to be made, Superliners also offer a better view of the rockies, where a LD amfleet cafe just doesn't cut it, it's dingy, dirty, dark, and not a nice place to be overall

You are aware, I presume, that prior to the initial Superliner deliveries in the late 1970's, practically every long-distance train west of Chicago was a low-level train. Even after that, a few trains have been a mix of Superliner and low-level cars.

Superliners also ride better, better lounge cars, a proper diner, bathrooms separated from the seating areas, I could go on and on, no toilets in the roomettes...

Exactly how is a low level Heritage or Viewliner diner not a "proper diner"? You cannot compare Amfleet dinette cars to actual dining cars.

 

[Maglev]

agreed, every platform west of Chicago would need to be replaced, and lengthened, which is not Viable in some places, so multiple stops would need to be made, Superliners also offer a better view of the rockies, where a LD amfleet cafe just doesn't cut it, it's dingy, dirty, dark, and not a nice place to be overall

You are aware, I presume, that prior to the initial Superliner deliveries in the late 1970's, practically every long-distance train west of Chicago was a low-level train. Even after that, a few trains have been a mix of Superliner and low-level cars.

Superliners also ride better, better lounge cars, a proper diner, bathrooms separated from the seating areas, I could go on and on, no toilets in the roomettes...

Exactly how is a low level Heritage or Viewliner diner not a "proper diner"? You cannot compare Amfleet dinette cars to actual dining cars.

Prior to the initial Superliner order, several trains west of Chicago were equipped with ex-Santa Fe Hi-Level cars. During this period, there were through sleepers from the East, so some of the trains were a mix of single- and double-level equipment.

 

[A Voice]

agreed, every platform west of Chicago would need to be replaced, and lengthened, which is not Viable in some places, so multiple stops would need to be made, Superliners also offer a better view of the rockies, where a LD amfleet cafe just doesn't cut it, it's dingy, dirty, dark, and not a nice place to be overall

You are aware, I presume, that prior to the initial Superliner deliveries in the late 1970's, practically every long-distance train west of Chicago was a low-level train. Even after that, a few trains have been a mix of Superliner and low-level cars.

Superliners also ride better, better lounge cars, a proper diner, bathrooms separated from the seating areas, I could go on and on, no toilets in the roomettes...

Exactly how is a low level Heritage or Viewliner diner not a "proper diner"? You cannot compare Amfleet dinette cars to actual dining cars.

Prior to the initial Superliner order, several trains west of Chicago were equipped with ex-Santa Fe Hi-Level cars. During this period, there were through sleepers from the East, so some of the trains were a mix of single- and double-level equipment.

The western trains equipped with Hi-level cars were necessarily a mix with low-level equipment, as no Hi-level sleeping cars (or baggage cars) were ever built. And there were only enough (six) Hi-level diners and lounges for one train.

I've seen pictures of trains of the period with a otherwise complete low-level consist, save for two or three Hi-levels (pretty obviously a transition car and a coach). .

 

[Maglev]

On a trip in 1977, I rode three different western trains equipped with Hi-Level coaches: The Lone Star, The Sunset Limited, and The Southwest Limited. I think all these trains had Hi-Level lounges, although I did not eat in the dining car and do not know if it was bi-level. The transition cars, as I remember, were mostly single-level with a stairway up at one end.

I think until the Superliner II's, there were no Superliner transition cars.

 

[ScouseAndy]

to me as long as the scenic routes had a dome (or even 2) to replace the sight seeing lounges then quite frankly from my brief experience Id actually prefer single level cars as in my opinion they have less sway in the sleepers/roomettes on the higher levels and my understanding is the roomettes have better headroom on the top bunk compared high level coaches?

It would give Amtrak so much more freedom if they had a more uniformed coaching stock considering the low volume of coaches they have compared to European carriers

Just my 2 cents of course

 

[Maglev]

From what I have seen, the trend worldwide is towards bi-level passenger (and freight) cars. What is needed is improved tunnel clearances to accommodate bi-levels, but clearance is actually the least pressing issue regarding the replacement of eastern tunnels.

 

[jis]

Prior to the initial Superliner order, several trains west of Chicago were equipped with ex-Santa Fe Hi-Level cars. During this period, there were through sleepers from the East, so some of the trains were a mix of single- and double-level equipment.

Not several. Mostly exactly three - ex-Texas Chief - Lone Star and ex-El Capitan - Southwest Limited, and Sunset Limited. The transition cars were Hi-level Coaches with stairs at one end.

Where exactly do you see the trend worldwide towards bi-level long distance trains?

 

[Maglev]

New TGV's in France are bi-level.

 

[jis]

TGVs are not LD trains. I am talking of LD trains with Sleepers. Yes there are some. But predominantly LD trains are single level in the world today.

The TGV Duplex would actually fit in the NEC loading gauge through the NYC tunnels and can be operated on the NEC with a little tweak to deal with the slightly lower boarding floor than the 4' platforms. It has apparently been decided by Amtrak and Alstom to not go that route with the Acela II order.

 

[Maglev]

Prior to the initial Superliner order, several trains west of Chicago were equipped with ex-Santa Fe Hi-Level cars. During this period, there were through sleepers from the East, so some of the trains were a mix of single- and double-level equipment.

Not several. Mostly exactly three - ex-Texas Chief - Lone Star and ex-El Capitan - Southwest Limited, and Sunset Limited. The transition cars were Hi-level Coaches with stairs at one end.

Where exactly do you see the trend worldwide towards bi-level long distance trains?

Regarding the transition cars--I didn't go down the stairs between cars. I seem to remember a single-level car before the Hi-Levels with a "fairing" or sloping roof at one end. Were these the diners?

In general, the world-wide trend for trains with sleepers is for them to be a thing of the past. But I think bi-level is the way of the future--Santa Fe saw this many years ago, and now intermodal freight and commuter passenger is increasingly bi-level.

 

[jis]

Santa Fe never built a single bi-level Sleeper though. You are entitled to your opinions, but the facts do not necessarily support them. The fact that you think long distance trains are a historical artifact in the world itself shows that you are disconnected with realities in many parts of the world.