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

That assumes you have the ability to build them. Some freight companies won't let you or will force you to build a pocket track, in which case, might as well go all high-block.

Plus, MTA Maryland's trying to get away from that as it slows the stop too much: the operator has to open the door, drop a trap, flip over a bridge plate, and then let the person board. Meanwhile, compare with San Jose VTA with low-level boarding. The wheelchairs just go straight on.

eolesen wrote:

Amtrak can only offer near-level ADA boarding by using a bilevel coach with lower level boarding.

Patently false. Mini-highs are relatively cheap and don't break down, unlike crank-o-matics and onboard elevators....

Unless you read the rules about adding mini-hi platforms or want Amtrak to turn this train set procurement process into a lot of expensive station reconstruction and expansion activities.

Per Oversight Procedure 35 – ADA Review (Level Boarding and Between-Car Barriers for Commuter Rail), mini-hi platforms must be at every car entry for accessible cars, or the train must stop every car a person wishes to board at (or leave the train from) at the mini-hi, which would mean that shared platforms either become full height or Amtrak needs to plan on stopping at that station for 1/2 hour.

You can't build 8 mini-hi platforms at, say Naperville Ill, without effectively blocking Metra from using it (or causing BNSF to claim they can't use their tracks), and I can imagine a 1/2 hour stop going over really well with Metra there (an off schedule Zephyr or Chief could just totally screw up rush hour services on Metra's BNSF line), not to mention Union Pacific and Metrolink having similar objections at most stations in the LA basin on the Coast Starlight route.

After reviewing this topic with regards to ADA accommodations, I have to wonder how airlines "get away with what they do".

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2023 11:15 am After reviewing this topic with regards to ADA accommodations, I have to wonder how airlines "get away with what they do".

The rules are different. The Air Carrier Access Act (1986) governs airlines, while the ADA (1990) covers, among other things, public transportation (including private for-hire services) other than airlines.

eolesen wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 11:10 pm If the difference is only one car between bilevel and single level trainsets, that seems to blow up most of the efficiency arguments touted by some.

How so? That 9-car bilevel has 35% more floor area than the 10-car single level. That's significantly more seats, sleeper compartments, dining and lounge area for a similar number of axles, engineer, conductor, trackage fee, fuel, etc. Makes a difference.

I stand by my assessment from January that this is going to be an operational mess.

What happens when those elevators break (they will)?

You’re concerned about having to stop multiple times for one mini-high platform? Well this concept has only 2 cars where you can board with a wheelchair anyway.

Aren’t you going to need a bridge plate regardless? Amtrak has them at every high level station on the corridor today. Trivially fixable with a proper car design that has a retractable plate built into it the way every bus delivered to transit agencies for the past two decades has had.

I agree and disagree here.

I agree that you will not only need a bridge plate to get on board, and the elevators are going to break (and thus why there's two of them). If it were me, I would have elevators in as many cars that have upper-level wheelchair access and lower level boarding -- and yes, I've spec'ed it out where I have classic bus-style chair lifts that actually *lifted* people up onto the higher level of the bus.

But I'm going to disagree with you with having to stop multiple times because the design allows for travel between said "core". You'll have a lot of attendants and conductors working the elevator to get folks down and out/in and up, but they can do it. Not only that, I've seen both automated ramps and lifts break. And as I hinted above, just two? A double-overnight trip can have them break, and if they break completely, how are you going to get them down a tight set of steps?

It's partly why I took the time to design the consist for my sequel novel (the in-novel "Cougar/Puma" series of passenger train cars). The end goals were:

• Be able to remember where things were while I was writing (very important).
• Be end-to-end accessible by a wheelchair of at most 30" wide (Amtrak gives an extra inch on ether side).
• Go everywhere, coast to coast (including NYP, NYG, and BOS), but have two levels. (Thus using the Bombardier Multilevel as a base)

I didn't have room for automated ramps at low levels. However, I did make sure it had inside lifts and was able to be boarded at a high-block platform like on the NEC. Level boarding there? Only at two cars on the Cougar line, otherwise you're lifting a trap and going up stairs or the integrated lift (yes, there are integrated lifts on almost all the cars bar the baggage car). Ether way, bridge plates are cheaper.

When the Silver Star carried separate Miami and Tampa sections, but after CSX closed the S line and the Raleigh stop moved from the ex-SCL station on Peace Ave to the ex-Southern station on Cabarrus St, it needed to make two stops to fit the platform (never mind ADA concerns), and never made it through that station in under 20 minutes.

Single level equipment means either high level platforms, mini-hi platforms, or portable elevators at stations. Since high level platforms and multiple mini-hi platforms are a no-go where platforms are shared with VRE, Tri-Rail, Metra, Sounder, Metrolink, ACE, California Car equipped Amtrak trains, Coaster, and maybe some services I forgot, and at those shared stations, Amtrak generally doesn't get much time to have multiple train stops, Amtrak will either need to bilevel equipment, extend a number of platforms served by long distance services to allow for longer trains than currently used, cut back the stations it serves with long distance services, or cut back on the number of passengers carried by long distance trains.

FWIW, the minimum platform length for long distance services is 550'.

One mini high per station is good enough. Follow the intent of the law, not the letter.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

I never said you have to stop multiple times, that was an operational restriction added by Randall above. My point was that I don’t understand why you need to stop every train car at a single mini-high platform if this proposed train set has a grand total of two accessible cars in the first place. Why does putting in one mini-high now necessitate Amtrak making a separate stop for every single car in the train? That makes no sense.

Similarly it makes no sense to require multiple mini-highs. ADA requires accessibility, but it does not require that absolutely 100% of every facility be 100% accessible. That’s why public restrooms have one ADA stall instead of having every single stall be accessible. By the same token, a single mini-high which allows boarding into one car, together with an accessible path from that car to all accommodation types on the train, would suffice. And that’s not just the intent of the law, that is the letter of the law.

Combine the mini-high with a station-side elevated platform (which can be serviced and replaced in case of malfunction much more easily than inside a moving train car and probably have less moving parts too) and you can claim even more space back on the train.

Mini-highs are good for single-level trainsets... but there's a problem: Freight traffic.

No freight company is going to want a mini-high that's close enough to be hit by normal freight cargo. They're not even going to consider mini-highs at stations along their tracks. It's too high of a risk and too expensive. It's a non-starter unless the train goes into a pocket track, and by that time you might as well have full high-block boarding (see Greenbelt MARC train station, which is on CSX lines, for an example).

And that's for single-level equipment that ends up in NYP or BOS!

The best you can do there (and I didn't see it on the rough designs) is to have an integrated lift system at one end, so such folk can get from high to low.

Now for Chicago/New Orleans west, you got bilevels. Less cars, but more footprint and thus more capacity... but you don't have high-block boarding because it's all freight lines (and I repeat the above). So for near-level boarding you gotta have the ADA folks board and be lifted inside, be lifted outside and boarded that way, or board and berthed at a low-level cabin.

There's a lot of history to overcome here. Keep that in mind.

Amtrak, "go for broke"; follow Schickelgruber's lead:

https://youtu.be/zkuEP5iMRiM?feature=shared

At the DB Rail Museum in Nurenberg, which is roundly opposite the Hbf, these plans are displayed. I hardly had time on my day trip last month from Salzburg to do this museum the justice it deserves.

eolesen wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2023 6:14 am

Amtrak can only offer near-level ADA boarding by using a bilevel coach with lower level boarding.

Patently false. Mini-highs are relatively cheap and don't break down, unlike crank-o-matics and onboard elevators....

NJT has abandoned the mini-high concept completely, instead building all new high level stations. However
Metro-North built a mini-high platform at Port Jervis for one car only.

MBTA seems to be going toward all new high level stations.

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2023 8:27 am Mini-highs are good for single-level trainsets... but there's a problem: Freight traffic.

No freight company is going to want a mini-high that's close enough to be hit by normal freight cargo. They're not even going to consider mini-highs at stations along their tracks. It's too high of a risk and too expensive. It's a non-starter unless the train goes into a pocket track, and by that time you might as well have full high-block boarding (see Greenbelt MARC train station, which is on CSX lines, for an example).

And that's for single-level equipment that ends up in NYP or BOS!

The best you can do there (and I didn't see it on the rough designs) is to have an integrated lift system at one end, so such folk can get from high to low.

Now for Chicago/New Orleans west, you got bilevels. Less cars, but more footprint and thus more capacity... but you don't have high-block boarding because it's all freight lines (and I repeat the above). So for near-level boarding you gotta have the ADA folks board and be lifted inside, be lifted outside and boarded that way, or board and berthed at a low-level cabin.

There's a lot of history to overcome here. Keep that in mind.

Doesn't brightline/FEC use retractable steps to high level level platforms?

Yes it does, Mr. Scratchy. All five of Brightline's present stations are on straightaways, but there are still "mind the gap" plates as part of each car's vestibule (just as there are on any Siemens equipment I've ridden overseas).

To another looming matter. It's time to play "Shutdown Chicken" again.

So far as I'm concerned, I know of a quick $5B that could be saved; that would be to eliminate any funding to replace the existing A-II and Superliner fleets resulting an orderly phase out of the LD System; say, three routes a year replacing them with "ease the pain" Ambusses.

Speaker McCarthy and Leader Schumer would have "safe" intercity passenger rail in their respective jurisdictions. What else matters?