Amtrak Long Distance Fleet Replacement - Superliner Replacement - Bilevel or Single Level

eolesen wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2024 10:01 am Let's not also forget that the 747 and A380 were supposed to lower operating costs by carrying more passengers per linear foot of fuselage... 40+ years of that eventually saw the industry return to single level aircraft.
Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

Not really on topic but I must refute this statement. There were regulations that apply to the number of engines of airplanes when flying on routes that have portions too far from a 2-engine plane to fly with one engine inoperative. There were longer distances for as 3 engine planes (L1011 & DC-10) then there were even regs for 4 engine planes. South pole flights 4 engine had to get special exemptions and inspections.

Now ETOPS has drastically increased the times from a suitable airport for 2 engine planes. But not Australia to South Africa and South America still require more than 2 engines.

Now engines are much more reliable and more thrust so B-777, B-787, B-797 are larger than the B-737 type planes.

Then the new Air force one is a B747 variant with engines that have a classified max thrust which I suspect will fly adequately on 2 engines inop.

Previously mothballed A380s are being returned to service by airlines that have fleets of their supposed single level replacements. While the A380s have fixed per flight costs, when there is enough passenger volume, they do more than recoup that cost. It's also important to note that US domestic air flight seems to be migrating towards smaller planes flying on more direct flights, which means that even larger single aisle aircraft are being replaced with smaller single aisle aircraft even on trans-Atlantic routes.

But either way, airplane sizes are a worthless and irrelevant comparison to trains operating without semi-permanently coupled cars -- to achieve the flexibility that Amtrak achieves by adding or removing a coach from a train to balance costs vs revenue for certain route portions and/or times of year, airlines have to replace an entire aircraft (Amtrak's inability to keep its fleet availability higher is a different and unrelated issue).

lensovet wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2024 12:49 am

eolesen wrote: ↑Mon Nov 25, 2024 11:24 pm Back on page 2 or 3, I showed how easy it was to install a mini-high for loading up wheelchairs or offering level boarding for the dozens of elderly that might be getting on in Sanderson....

You mean 500 mini-highs?

eolesen wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2024 1:57 am Cheaper than 200 Superliners.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

Every mini-high requires a specific FRA or FTA approval because mini-high platforms do not allow full length level boarding. 49 CFR 37.42 requires that if level boarding is supported, it is available for every accessible car, using either a single level platform or multiple mini-high platforms. Platforms higher than 8" ATR may be prohibited by host freight railroads absent creating additional sidings or gauntlet tracks. Platforms, even mini-highs, that block doors on commuter rail services sharing the platform may be prohibited by commuter rail operators. Those costs will quickly add up, making it likely that the cost of rebuilding or adding new platforms to provide level boarding for single level equipment will be greater than that of sticking with the existing dynamic envelope where it can be used.

To compare with airlines again, most airlines operate mixed fleets of equipment that are not all interchangeable to be able to serve different markets. Why should Amtrak not enjoy that kind of flexibility in its equipment purchases?

Arborwayfan wrote:As I understand it, the federal government banned supersonic Concorde flights over land because people didn't like the sonic booms--and people near the airports didn't like the broken windows. Seems reasonable enough to me.

There is a fear of sonic booms that never actually materialized. For an aircraft at altitude, it sounds like a car door being closed.

I believe a few mothballed 380s may have come out of storage recently for Emirates, but that seems to be due to production delays at Boeing more than a need for that many seats.

Regardless, the cost of ownership outweighed the advantages for both. And it's the same for the Superliner.

If Amtrak's long distance service is the rail equivalent to Essential Air Service, then put it on a truly equal basis. EAS uses the smallest financially viable aircraft and has to be reviewed and renewed every three or four years. It goes only to the closest regional metro hub.

You guys want to keep building oversized rail cruises for 600+ people and 1500+ mile journeys, while there is no justification for that type of expenditure for everything aside from one route (AT).

Aside from Autotrain, running day trains with coaches or maybe even FLIRTs would work just as well for the MT and ND region and probably for WV as well.

You don't need multi-day operations from Chicago to the west coast. That's an invention intended to keep the 1950's experience alive for enthusiasts.

To Randall's comment about mini-high's, your statement about "one for every car" is yet another invention of over-regulation...

It is also completely unnecessary if you equipped cars like the Ventures and Airo's with door mounted lifts.

... a conventional El Cap ran 16 cars, carried 438 people and weighed 1,069 tons. Fred Gurley's $13 million got Santa Fe a 13-car train (including the same head-end cars) that carried 130 additional people and weighed 110 tons less ...

(source)

The El Capitan was an all coach streamlined day train. I'm guessing you think the Santa Fe was wrong to run efficient day trains (1.68 tons per seat on the hi-levels vs 2.44 for single-level equipment) using bi-level equipment (notably bi-level equipment without seating on the lower level)?

You haven't shown that Superliner coaches cost Amtrak more per seat to operate than Amfleet II coaches, or that the California and Surfliner cars weren't less expensive to operate per seat than the Amfleet I and Horizon fleets they replaced. Your suggestion that Amtrak should operate a number of shorter day trains is implicitly a suggestion that Amtrak should order the most cost effective coaches for specific environments and not limit itself to a uniform fleet that can operate out of NYP station.

United Airlines 984-strong fleet, none of which are used in EAS services, is comprised of 8 broad types of aircraft in 19 different capacity/range variants -- hardly a uniform fleet. However, since you want to compare essential air services to Amtrak, it should be noted that excluding services in Alaska, aircraft in EAS services range from 137 to 9 passenger capacities. Again, the right plane for the right service might be a rough correspondence to the right coach for the right train service.

That Emirates has been repeatedly asking Airbus to produce more A380s or that Quantas is reactivating it's A380s and that all announced orders for large bodies from that airline are replacing other single level wide bodies suggests that you are making at best erroneous assertions about airline realities that are not based on reported facts.

eolesen wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2024 11:14 am
You don't need multi-day operations from Chicago to the west coast. That's an invention intended to keep the 1950's experience alive for enthusiasts.

What you are essentially advocating is using the new equipment order to restructure the network and eliminate all overnight segments by going to all coach equipment.

Congress decided against wholesale changes to the network and Amtrak is not allowed by law currently to spend money on discontinuing service. If that’s what you’re looking for then write your congress person to change the law. I wholeheartedly disagree with you but that’s the proper forum for the changes you are seeking -not for Amtrak to undermine what Congress has most recently directed them to do.

You’re probably running out of time though. The bids reportedly closed recently and Amtrak is due to select the vendor shortly. I’d imagine we’ll hear more about this at the public board meeting this Wednesday, they are planning to get the contract signed and issue a notice to proceed by summer.

I would not expect many policy differences regarding Amtrak until the IIJA is up and they move to the next FAST act reauthorization. Between now and then will likely just be battles about appropriation amounts. There are a lot bigger fish to fry before they’re going to be thinking much about that. The highway trust fund authorization expires before the IIJA so I would expect Congress to give that a lot more attention before focusing much on rail and transit.

Comparing this to the airline industry is interesting. I fly more than frequently enough, yes, hub-to-hub mostly.

The A380 "failed" because it relied on a hub and spoke design that favored lesser service with longer, higher capacity flights. Other aircraft like the A350 and B777 and B787 concentrate on the one seat ride. Side note, a 777 or 787 can do a full MTOW landing on a single engine with autoland at an ILS Cat 3 runway.

Now while I won't go ahead and extol the virtues of flying on any of the domestic carriers, even when they are bad, they tend to be good enough. Speed and frequency is what they sell. But even when they are bad, you still get certain things that Amtrak is very far away from offering. IFE systems (and even on American where they lack that on many narrow bodies), you can also watch or stream movies/TV, and have reliable WiFi (sometimes) at 30K feet.

Compare to Amtrak, no streaming, WiFi that barely works. And while Delta and UA still have a fleet of 757 and 767, they have been redone in many cases. Low cost carriers actually need newer equipment to be profitable, as they can run them longer and harder with less maintenance and operating costs.

On a recent trip on the Empire Builder, the roomette was comfortable, but, can't say it was anything like a business/first class seat on most carriers wide body fleets. That Superliner was old and worn out. Brightline has proven that Amtrak could be better, that it isn't just a US based never going to have good rail service in the US thing. But you have to think outside of the box, and it's pretty clear they can't. Or won't.

Don't get me started on Marriott. The hotel owners are the customers of Marriott, not the guests. Ask any Bonvoy "elite" about the breakfast benefit and get ready for an earful.

I used to have an Amtrak Guest Rewards card, and accumulating points is what enabled me to travel in sleeper accommodations across the country in 2013 (Williamsburg, VA - DC - Chicago - LA - San Diego and then San Diego - LA - Seattle - Chicago - DC - Williamsburg on the return). In 2015 I used points to travel to my cousin's wedding in Dallas, taking the Capitol Ltd and Texas Eagle out and then the Texas Eagle and Cardinal on the return. At sleeper prices, I couldn't really afford to do it otherwise. I no longer have a rewards card and my guest rewards balance is at zero. I guess my point is that it is experiential travel for me - something of a land cruise - and while I wish I could use the long distance services more I don't have the time or money to do so currently. At the prices Amtrak charges, service and equipment should be better and more consistent, and I do hope the new equipment order survives the new administration.

I do have a United miles card now and I hope to try out their Polaris class on an international flight one of these days.

Mr. Johnson, I'm like you. I signed up for Guest Rewards maybe fifteen years ago "just to be one of the boys". But as my desire for experiential rail travel fizzled out (again; last Amtrak ride; #52(the day Kobe Bryant was killed)), the Guest Rewards expired and I redeemed for a Darden Restaurants gift card while forfeiting some residual. If some charity could use Amtrak points, that's where those points would have gone; just as my United points go to one military welfare organization or the other (this year it was Fisher House).

Nowadays, it seems like I must go overseas to board a train. Even my Brightline joyrides are over, although I will use it to get "from here to there" in the MIA-WPB Corridor when I'm "down below". Too much crime to want to go Downtown Chicago anymore (exception: member Lordsigma12345 shows up during the day).

But alas Mr. Johnson, once you fly "with the curtain behind you", you won't want to look at it again. I'm not my "GF of sorts" who after being upgraded flying ATL-EZE (her daughter practically "lives" on Delta), was of "thank you very much" mindset. But she's back to Southwest and "all their crap". ("Oh, they're so cheap and they shower me with points").

VIA is on the search now, too, including FOUR different types of sleepers (including BERTHS!) for the Canadian and Ocean:

https://railroad.net/trains-via-rail-ca ... 77651.html

I hope they're a bit more conservative up there on rolling stock decisions. Remember in the 1990's when Alaska used the P-S streamliner template and the Koreans built them new cars? That would be great. Or buy Superliner III's from whoever builds them now.

VIA is going with single level cars. At this point the Canadian is basically a tourist land cruise train that serves a limited transportation service and it is not really usable transportation if you aren’t retired or have a job that lets you work remotely. Although they are going with more accessible trains, Canada’s accessibility laws are more lenient than the US (and are much more recent) which makes things a bit more straightforward for them.

This could serve as a potential model for single level equipment if Amtrak’s bilevel request doesn’t work out (or for dealing with single level fleet in the East if it does.)

Differences though being Amtrak’s plans would be expected to have a bit more of an emphasis on providing more coach seating as compared to maximizing the sleeper experience given they still operate daily service which is far more usable for shorter distance basic transportation. With VIA’s twice a week four night schedule for the Canadian I anticipate the primary focus is on the sleeping car experience.

I have seen some riders advocate for Amtrak following VIA’s example and shift the focus to maximizing the on board experience and have a land cruise service on a couple of the routes - even if that means reducing frequencies to make it work. Anderson essentially was for that - putting all the sleepers on the three most scenic routes and corridorizing the rest. Personally not for that myself as I think the mission is transportation but it has certainly been proposed.

Last time I was aboard #1 it was something like 20 sleepers, 3 diner, 3 dome, 2 coaches.

Interesting that their ADA is more lenient. You would think the US and Canadians would have a homogenized system to make travel better for those that need ADA and also easier for businesses to be compliant. Now you have to reinvent the wheel for Canada. In our industry we find that some regs - electrical for example - are wildly differnet while some are not. Some of the Canadian standards are directly lifted from US standards.

I spend quite a lot of time in Quebec City and it is quite eye opening how much less accessible Canada is compared to the United States. Several years ago my brother was in a wheelchair after having broken his leg and I offered to bring him around town to the various bars, breweries, and sights I hit as most of the group was skiing and I don't ski anymore and I couldn't believe how much less accessible places are. The entrance to the hotel we stay at has a stairway that leads up to the lobby with no ramp or elevator. We had to enter through a parking garage through an entrance that's normally for employees only to reach an elevator up to the upper floors. I am sure the historic aspect of many of the buildings of Quebec is a factor and it wouldn't surprise me if the laws they do have up there have all sorts of carve outs for historic buildings.

Their current laws were passed in 2019 but things are certainly not on par. The thing that's making Amtrak's LD procurement tricky is that they want to go with bilevel cars to provide the better viewing experience but still make the train fully accessible. I would imagine the workability of this concept is what's making it take so long. VIA's answer to the viewing experience is to build new domes, and mirror what they're doing now with new equipment but I'm not sure domes would fly with Amtrak.

Good for VIA, realizing that train length isn't a constraint... with some luck, there RFP will move along faster, and Amtrak might come to it senses.


Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk