Long Distance (LD) Capacity Limitations

Greg Moore wrote: ↑Sat Apr 15, 2023 11:44 pm People keep bringing this up and it's been debunked a number of times.
There's no requirement that 100% of every car needs to be wheelchair accessible. It's simply not practical For example, regardless if you are single-level or bilevel, in sleeper cars, you will never have practical wheelchair access along the length of the car without basically eliminating 1/2 the bedrooms.

I would dispute that. Take the maximum PIIRA rail car dimension spec. I can give you a rough plan that only takes out two Roomettes out of a Superliner style car.

The law has allowed and will continue to allow limited wheelchair access to sleepers, single-level or bilevel.
I will note even in coach cars, only fairly narrow wheelchairs will work.

The ADA asks for reasonable and feasible accommodation. Currently on the Superliners, this is "keep them at low level and serve them food in room."

Remember, the ADA was enacted in 1990. The Superliner I's were build early in the 1970's and the II's in the 1980's before entering service, and likely needed retrofitting to get to their current state.

Likely, the new single/Bi level will be a completely new design. Remember, maximum wheelchair size allowed by Amtrak is 2.5 feet wide!

Gilbert B Norman wrote:Mr. Olesen, don't airlines just routinely upgrade to First those passengers who are morbidly obese?

I once knew a gal, who somehow hung on to age 55 and had to be at 5'5" 350lb plus, who was routinely upgraded flying on United.

Well, I may be overweight but not obese in this life, and with United my "go to airline", the only way I have to keep that curtain Aft of me is to pay for it.

I'm sure it does still happen from time to time, but routinely? Not with 85-90% load factors being our new normal. More often than not, those seats are already spoken for.




Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

Greg Moore wrote:People keep bringing this up and it's been debunked a number of times.
There's no requirement that 100% of every car needs to be wheelchair accessible.

Nobody is saying that.

But any and every new build will require equivalent accessibility. That means handicapped persons MUST be able to access the Dining Car just like any other passenger. Handicapped persons MUST be able to access the Sightseer Lounge car just like any other passenger. Not some kind of hokey-backwaters accomodation "we'll transfer you at a station". Unless you seal off all the cars and only allow ALL passengers to change cars at station platforms.

The airline example is not relevant as there is little to no reason why a passenger would need to explicitly go to the back of the plane; and the seats aren't any better back there. Everything that a rear-seat airline passenger has access to, so does a front-seat airline passenger. But a wheelchair bound passenger in the lower level of a Superliner in no unquestionable logic has the same, equal access to the train's advertised amenities that an able-bodied person does. They do not enjoy the same access to the Sightseer car, which Amtrak HEAVILY markets as a product available to "all passengers". They do not enjoy the same access to the Dining Car, which Amtrak also heavily advertises. And these riders also get no financial compensation for the lack of access.

Lets hit the lawbooks first, shall we? Here's the full text

Section 12162, subsection a.2 on new intercity cars past 1990 says:

• Two wheelchair parking spots per train coach car
• One spot for wheelchair parking in dining car

Transferring between one car to another via wheelchair is implied (but should of been explicitly mentioned).

So, Mr. Moore, apparently there *IS* a requirement for new equipment. On old equipment, it's "reasonable accommodations." The current fleet of Superliners and Viewliner I's qualifies as "old equipment".

30 inches max width. Get out your draw programs, people. I've already done mine.

wigwagfan wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2023 10:52 pm

Greg Moore wrote:People keep bringing this up and it's been debunked a number of times.
There's no requirement that 100% of every car needs to be wheelchair accessible.

Nobody is saying that.

But any and every new build will require equivalent accessibility.

The requirements for which are listed in 49 CFR 38 subpart F ...

wigwagfan wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2023 10:52 pm That means handicapped persons MUST be able to access the Dining Car just like any other passenger. Handicapped persons MUST be able to access the Sightseer Lounge car just like any other passenger. Not some kind of hokey-backwaters accomodation "we'll transfer you at a station". Unless you seal off all the cars and only allow ALL passengers to change cars at station platforms.

... which requires nothing of the sort.

I am not a lawyer, let alone a lawyer specializing in the Americans with Disabilities Act. I can, however, read the Code of Federal Regulations and see what is, and is not, included therein. 47 CFR 38 is titled "Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Specifications for Transportation Vehicles"; subpart F (linked above) contains the specifics for "Intercity Rail Cars and Systems". And subpart F includes some very specific requirements for bi-level lounge and dining cars:

Bi-level dining cars (49 CFR 38.111(a)(3) are required to meet the requirements of sections 38.113(a)(2) (end-of-car doorways at least 32 inches wide), 38.115(b) (sufficient handrails and stanchions), 38.117(a) (slip-resistant flooring) and 38.121(a) (public address systems).

Bi-level lounge cars (49 CFR 38.111(a)(4)) have to have lower-level boarding doors at least 32 inches wide (section 38.113), at least one accessible bathroom (section 38.123), and at least one wheelchair-accessible seat (sections 38.125(d)(2) and (3)).

There are no specific requirements listed in section 38.111(a) for bi-level coaches or sleepers. (General requirements for sleeper cars are listed in section 38.111(a)(6).)

I see nothing in subpart F that requires bi-level cars to provide internal lifts, ramps, or any other form of wheelchair-accessible transfer between lower and upper levels.

Let's move on.

ATL needs some Surburban stations. If it had the number of trains that its demographic demanded it would have them at Atlanta airport, Austell, Marietta, somewhere between Doraville -Buford near the Southeast RR museum, Near Stone mountain. Ga Dot has already built more that one underpass of SOU RR for 4 tracks wide.

It does not matter what we think. What matters is what Amtrak’s and FRA’s lawyers think. They’ll tell the engineers writing the requirement.

Pardon me if I bring up older discussions and information.

It was brought up that up to about 1966 there was extra equipment to handle increases in volume due to holidays, special events. Last gasp was I believe the airline slowdowns and strike of that summer which I was in the middle of.

After that, it seemed that the rail industry [especially the PRR and the NYC as they raced into merger] got rid of that excess capacity for all the various reasons.

Since Amtrak can not operate extra movements on most of its routes, it would be not prudent to have extra equipment beyond rolling stock required to do maintenance rotations. Outside of Amtrak's NEC, there is little chance of arranging extra movements in a timely fashion to satisfy demand other than long anticipated events, and even on the NEC that may be very difficult.

urr304 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 24, 2023 9:16 am Since Amtrak can not operate extra movements on most of its routes, it would be not prudent to have extra equipment beyond rolling stock required to do maintenance rotations. Outside of Amtrak's NEC, there is little chance of arranging extra movements in a timely fashion to satisfy demand other than long anticipated events, and even on the NEC that may be very difficult.

In past years, the NEC during holidays had to ask NJ Transit and MARC for spare equipment, making up "Holiday special" consists. Usually, MARC would fill this role as Amtrak was operating the equipment on the NEC between DC and Perryville, MD anyway... and you'd see MARC equipment in NYP.

Lately, it hasn't had to do that... namely because lack of conductor and engineer staff.

I remember Amtrak using MBTA cars for extra holiday capacity between Boston and New Haven, too.