RAILROAD.NET

head room problem ? Found upper berth in SLs are tight on headroom.

They are, but not much different than the headroom on the upper bunk of a top tier bed on a European 3-level bedroom. I had that one night on the way back from Narvik to Stockholm and it got HOT up there. No air moving around. And two strangers in the room so I can't move.

A new design could have vents up there for fresh air and an upper window would be really nice (a la the Viewliners) to make it much less claustrophobic.

ebtmikado wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 9:08 am Or run the entire LSL out of BOS.

I don't believe Superliners clear COVE on the B&A/NEC approach into South Station.

bostontrainguy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 4:39 pm A new design could have vents up there for fresh air and an upper window would be really nice (a la the Viewliners) to make it much less claustrophobic.

A bit. It's still a pretty low ceiling.
Honestly, I think Amtrak is better off with a single-level fleet in the East and on certain corridors (in part for the high-level platform boarding and because of the loading gauge in places like NYP) and replacing the Superliner Fleet with something similar. The extra room and height really does work well on the Western LD trains.

Like I said before get more viewliners for all eastern LD's in the future. IMOHO they are relatively spacious inside with nice windows and your only dealing with one design with common components at SSY or other servicing facilities. plus they're very friendly with high level platforms and Cat.

Keep in mind body shell issues are not so germaine to common components. It's trucks, wheel bearings, couplers, grab irons, steps, hvac stuff, light fixtures, bed latches, bed hinges, door latches, door hinges, light switches, windows, etc... I bet lunch that it would be possible to have a single level and superliner fleet with most of those things in common. I'm not saying the Viewliner and Superliner actually do have their components in common, but they could.

I look at it this way: there is a cost to acquire cars and maintain cars. There is also a platform limitation at many places. If you can fit 30% more passengers in any given type of car, sleeper, diner, or coach, why not do it? The savings are immense from eliminating double stops and having 30% more revenue over roughly the same amount of mechanical maintenance. That's a huge deal.

What is needed is for parts to be at least quick disconnect. Design major parts such as transformers, HVAC, with enough space so another part can be put in the space with common connectors. All lights for example should have 2 - 4 quick disconnects screws with a electrical cannon plug common to all rolling stock equipment.

Tadman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2020 5:41 pm Keep in mind body shell issues are not so germaine to common components. It's trucks, wheel bearings, couplers, grab irons, steps, hvac stuff, light fixtures, bed latches, bed hinges, door latches, door hinges, light switches, windows, etc... I bet lunch that it would be possible to have a single level and superliner fleet with most of those things in common. I'm not saying the Viewliner and Superliner actually do have their components in common, but they could.

I look at it this way: there is a cost to acquire cars and maintain cars. There is also a platform limitation at many places. If you can fit 30% more passengers in any given type of car, sleeper, diner, or coach, why not do it? The savings are immense from eliminating double stops and having 30% more revenue over roughly the same amount of mechanical maintenance. That's a huge deal.

Agreed, and my understanding is Amtrak has actually done a fairly good job on this. The largest component I think that is not common across all the car types are trucks, and as I understand it, that makes some sense since a lot of the differences can be due to car mass and COG.

There was a rumor that Amtrak is looking at the Siemens Bilevel product too, probably the Viaggio Twin, height is 15ft 2 inches above the rails. That solves your short distance, long distance commonality equipment problem.

frequentflyer wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 9:45 am There was a rumor that Amtrak is looking at the Siemens Bilevel product too, probably the Viaggio Twin, height is 15ft 2 inches above the rails. That solves your short distance, long distance commonality equipment problem.

From Wikipedia GG1 specs: "Height 15 ft 0 in (4.57 m) over locked-down pantographs".
And from Siemen's Viaggio Twin brochure: "Height 4600 mm" which equals 15.09186 feet.
That's tantalizing close!

Greg Moore wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2020 11:26 pmAgreed, and my understanding is Amtrak has actually done a fairly good job on this. The largest component I think that is not common across all the car types are trucks, and as I understand it, that makes some sense since a lot of the differences can be due to car mass and COG.

They've even been working on that - SL2, Viewliner, horizon are all on the same trucks. We'll never see the HST on clunky american trucks, but I'd call 80% of the fleet a win.

There's another dimesion to parts commonality - across carriers in the states. If MBTA or Metra starts using a part that perhaps only 1/3 of Amtrak uses, at least it's commercially viable for some supplier to make them and keep them in stock.

I look at my company and the parts we make - one of which is a repair part for the GEVO prime mover used in tugs and locomotives. Our costs go up so high if we do one-offs, but if we build a series, we can drop anywhere from 5-30% off the price depending on the situation.

Any objections if we close this thread and move parts commonality to another thread?

i hope so Mr okeefe. Lets start with electrifying Virginia

A Superliner might be able to fit under catenary but definitely not an auto rack, which would push the Auto Train south of Richmond if that stretch ever did get electrified.

The Avelia sets sans locomotives might make for good replacement Cascades rolling stock given that the Talgos have fallen out of favor. Articulation with conventional two axle trucks has proven to be beneficial in derailments in France, unlike the Talgos' single wheelset between cars which was cited as a factor in poor derailment performance by the FRA. Gotta make 'em low level platform compatible though...