Railroad Forums 

  • New Superliners

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

 #1474163  by bostontrainguy
 
From the RPA website:

Speaking of new equipment, Amtrak is ready to move any day now with a Request for Proposals (RFP) to replace the diesel locomotive fleet, and the plan is to move quickly to award the contract and begin getting locomotives built and into service . . . . Next up will be identifying ways to replace the Superliner Is and IIs which are now reaching the end of their reasonable service lives. Anderson acknowledged that while he had talked in November at the RPA meeting about possibly re-fitting these cars, it has since emerged that they are simply too old and have too many serious concerns--including the need for all new frames--that the answer really is replacement rather than refurbishment.

The original Superliner design is over 40 years old. Just wondering if with new technology, systems, and some clever engineering you can build a new Superliner III that would be able to travel the entire system? That would be a maximum height of 15' 8" I believe. The car would be equipped with low and high platform doors.

It would seem that you would have at least seven feet per level to work with (based on a 1.5' TOR bottom floor height). That doesn't sound impossible to accomplish.

It would be so much more cost-efficient to operate one type high-capacity long distance car over the entire Amtrak map. Better modual construction would allow more flexible car layouts where Amtrak could experiment with new concepts and make quicker changes to interior configurations.

Don't know if it could be done, but the efficiency of the bi-level design makes it worth investigating I would think. I know the existing Superliners are a bit tight, especially when compared to the Viewliners, but most of the Viewliners openness was accomplished by rearranging the systems in a completely different way.

https://www.railpassengers.org/happenin ... line-1068/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 #1474168  by Bob Roberts
 
STrRedWolf wrote:It won't fit in the Hudson/East River tunnels. Max height is 14' 6", which MARC IV/NJ Transit Multilevel II's (Bombardier MultiLevel Coaches) can do. Anything bigger than that means it can't go into NYP.
Does Gateway plan for a larger tunnel height? East River tunnels aside, are the Hudson tunnels the only limiting factor?
 #1474170  by bostontrainguy
 
STrRedWolf wrote:It won't fit in the Hudson/East River tunnels. Max height is 14' 6", which MARC IV/NJ Transit Multilevel II's (Bombardier MultiLevel Coaches) can do. Anything bigger than that means it can't go into NYP.
You are right of course. I should have said 14' 8". That would limit it to 6.5 feet per floor.
 #1474173  by frequentflyer
 
I like the idea of one LD car for the whole system and it would be lighter too. What’s the interior height of the present Superliner ? 6’5 is a little tight but larger windows will make it feel roomy.
 #1474174  by STrRedWolf
 
Bob Roberts wrote:
STrRedWolf wrote:It won't fit in the Hudson/East River tunnels. Max height is 14' 6", which MARC IV/NJ Transit Multilevel II's (Bombardier MultiLevel Coaches) can do. Anything bigger than that means it can't go into NYP.
Does Gateway plan for a larger tunnel height? East River tunnels aside, are the Hudson tunnels the only limiting factor?
Gateway has a 25' 2" inside diameter tunnel. A 15' 6" tall train will fit in it with a few feet of clearance for caternary, even if it's shifted to one side, if the train is to PRIIA spec.
 #1474192  by DutchRailnut
 
first off all rest of north end of NEC only has 14'6" clearance (to catenary)
second any superliners would not be capable of loading unloading at high level platforms .
 #1474194  by bostontrainguy
 
DutchRailnut wrote:first off all rest of north end of NEC only has 14'6" clearance (to catenary)
second any superliners would not be capable of loading unloading at high level platforms .
Can't be. Most of the commuter agencies are running bi-levels that are around 15' 6" high (e.g., Kawasaki). Also any new Superliner design could have doors at different platform heights.
 #1474198  by Noel Weaver
 
This might all be academic, maybe there will not be any trains left to run any superliners on whether they are old or new, lets wait and see what happens down the road.
Noel Weaver
 #1474205  by Backshophoss
 
Nippon-Sharyo in Rochelle IL would have been the builder of choise for the 3rd gen Superliner fleet if that "Crush test" on the proposed Surfliner cars/
Midwest state owned fleet had not failed
The MLV-II is a BBD design that runs on the NEC now,But is not favored by Amtrak after the Hippo(HHP-8)and Acela I lawsuits.
Also BBD has internal problems that delays product out of the Factory,NYCTA told them to take a hike after the last delivery
to the Subway.
 #1474207  by John_Perkowski
 
I'm honestly not sure of the future for the western LD runs and the Crescent.

218+51+1 is still the political formula, but I don't see the LD states being essential to that anymore. Amtrak California and Amteak Illinois bring lots of votes to the equation.

I think the superliners are probably good for another 20 years serving as coaches supporting the 400-700 mile market (Chicago to DC). excess sleepers can be rebuilt to coaches, excess diners as coaches above with baggage space below.
 #1474216  by trainbrain
 
They just bought a bunch of new Viewliners for service in and out of Penn. There's no reason to have the Superliner replacement fit in there. Amtrak looked at one point looked at going to bi-level cars for the NEC but decided against it. The only current design that can fit everywhere it needs to is Bombardier's Multilevel. While great for commuter service, there are two things that they didn't like with regard to using an NEC compatible bi-level design for intercity service.

One is that there isn't enough room for luggage. Only the upper level has racks and they aren't tall enough to fit most suitcases. There's no way to add them on the lower level. By the time you removed enough seats to add luggage towers you'd may as well have just gotten single levels with properly sized racks and seats along the entire length of the car.

The other reason is ease or lack thereof when it comes to moving about the train. In commuter service one rarely needs to move between cars because there is no café car and you aren't on the train for very long so you stay in your seat. On that design, you have to go up and down each and every time you pass through a car. The current Superliners are designed with the passages between cars on the upper level so that this isn't a problem, but anything that can use high level platforms must have those mid levels at either end which are at the height of single level cars. The only place in the entire country with high level platforms on mainline rail is the Northeast.

I think that by "entire system" they meant anything non-NEC since the majority of the LD trains don't go to Penn.
 #1474225  by R36 Combine Coach
 
trainbrain wrote:One is that there isn't enough room for luggage. Only the upper level has racks and they aren't tall enough to fit most suitcases. There's no way to add them on the lower level. By the time you removed enough seats to add luggage towers you'd may as well have just gotten single levels with properly sized racks and seats along the entire length of the car.
EWR passengers often complain about the Multilevels.
 #1474227  by mtuandrew
 
CRRC has a spiffy new 14’ 6” multilevel coming soon to a SEPTA near you. I’d look at it and the BBD Multilevel for both LD and regional if I were at Amtrak.

Also, who’s to say they don’t go fully single-level? Weight per passenger isn’t that much more.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 20