Superliner Equipment Status

The writing is on the wall as far as the LD fleet replacement. Amtrak has basically stated it wants a common fleet to replace the Superliners and viewliner 1s. The VL2 equipment would be retained. While they have stated that bi vs single level has not yet been determined I would suspect it’s going to be single level based on the fact they’re including Viewliner 1s. This order will include coach, sleeper, dining, and lounge cars. One corridor train - the heartland flyer - is being considered to be included in this order. The Amfleet 2 replacement may be included in this order - or may also be an execution of an option that was included in the Siemens ICT program - this has not yet been determined.

This whole SL availability is nuts. Someone in the administration or Congress must require Amtrak to list evey single passenger car. That includes present condition of each and how soon any out of service cars can be returned to service. Especially the amount of time that it will take to return to roadworth and passenger worthy status. If say 10 cars can be roadworthy quickly then move them to be axel count cars, If the preset axel cars can be returned to passenger worthy quicker then move present axel cars to revenue..

Note: This applies to single level cars as well.

west point wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 8:41 pm. If say 10 cars can be roadworthy quickly then move them to be axel count cars, If the preset axel cars can be returned to passenger worthy quicker then move present axel cars to revenue..

I don’t know about other runs, but the axle count cars on the KC-StL turn are V-II Bags. Ne seats there…

rohr turbo wrote: ↑Thu Jul 07, 2022 9:15 pm Many western Superliner trains have to make double-stops at stations where the platform is not long enough. So some are advocating going single level and then what? triple or quadruple stop?? Or tell passengers at 3 am to make their way forward 5 cars with luggage to disembark? That's nuts. Superliners are roomy, comfortable, efficient (passengers per car, etc.) and great for scenery. Replace them with new double-level cars!

I don't see the logic of a uniform lowest-common-denominator fleet. All the Amtrak equipment liveried for Downeaster, or NE Regional, or Midwest belies their desire or need for interchangeability on even the existing single-level routes. Even the airlines don't have fleets of a single model. Different routes demand different configurations and many companies have long ago figured out fleet management.

They could make the coach nearest the sleepers for intermediate passengers , which should cover most small station stops. Most small station passengers would be travelling long distance , i think the number travelling from one small station to another would be small , specially for stops in the middle of the night.

rohr turbo wrote: ↑Thu Jul 07, 2022 9:15 pm I don't see the logic of a uniform lowest-common-denominator fleet. All the Amtrak equipment liveried for Downeaster, or NE Regional, or Midwest belies their desire or need for interchangeability on even the existing single-level routes. Even the airlines don't have fleets of a single model. Different routes demand different configurations and many companies have long ago figured out fleet management.

Airlines are moving the way of having more standardized fleets. Frontier and Spirit have standardized on A320 derivatives and Southwest and WestJet only have B737 (except for a few B787 WestJet ordered to fly to Europe). Even the legacy airlines are taking the standardization approach or trying to standardize more out of hubs.

For Amtrak would it make sense to consider bilevel cars with a 14 ft 6 in height?

rcthompson04 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 13, 2022 10:50 am Southwest and WestJet only have B737

More than half Southwest's fleet is 737-700 and those can't fly to Hawaii, have different capacity than newer versions, etc. So even if 737s look similar, it is not a completely interchangeable single-model fleet.

I think Amtrak has already standardized pretty well and is getting good economies of scale. Western LD all bilevel. Eastern LD basically all single level. Plus corridor versions of both. I don't see a problem with consolidating to two 'shells' (single and bi level) and then having different buildouts for each (LD coach, corridor coach, sleeper, etc.)

Agreed, I find this fascination with "must standardize on single-level" to be taking standardization to an extreme.
You can have two shells and still have a LOT of standardization between them. The shell is honestly, the least important part in the long run.
Stuff like "all seats the same", "limited variation on types of lights and bulbs", "same size mattresses" etc. Even if you can "same size windows".

Order bi-level equipment and you can be sure there will be washroom walls in Atlanta, Ft. Worth, Jacksonville, and Omaha hearing "we're going to be stuck with those trains for another thirty years".

I am on today's Southwest Chief (#3) and it has 2 P42's, Viewliner baggage, 2 sleepers, Diner, Lounge, 3 coaches. A little on the short side and limited availability for the 1% who find value in the experience of train travel.

A significant factor with respect to substantial refurbishment or new bilevel passenger cars is the need to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). These include full access, elevators in cars, etc. See this extensive paper issued by the FRA two years ago: https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot ... Rail-A.pdf

rohr turbo wrote: ↑Wed Jul 13, 2022 11:54 am More than half Southwest's fleet is 737-700 and those can't fly to Hawaii, have different capacity than newer versions, etc. So even if 737s look similar, it is not a completely interchangeable single-model fleet.

It's true they have variants with different mission capabilities, but from a facilities standpoint... every 737 they fly will fit into one of Southwest's hangars, and every 737 will fit onto the gates they lease.

rohr turbo wrote: ↑Wed Jul 13, 2022 11:54 am I think Amtrak has already standardized pretty well and is getting good economies of scale. Western LD all bilevel. Eastern LD basically all single level. Plus corridor versions of both. I don't see a problem with consolidating to two 'shells' (single and bi level) and then having different buildouts for each (LD coach, corridor coach, sleeper, etc.)

Other than nostalgia for Superdomes and Superliners, I see no real financial benefit from having separate fleets for west of the Eastern Time Zone...

If anything, you're adding complexity (elevators) for ADA accessibility that doesn't need to be there with single level equipment.

Autotrain is the only train left today where demand exceeding capacity might be a recurring factor.

Arguably, even that could be run single level by replacing the 6 Superliner sleepers with 9 Viewliner sleepers and the 4 coaches with 6 Siemens coaches. It's adding five cars. If that's now too long to platform, drop a couple of the revenue cars and related autoracks (which seem to run 2 for every passenger car). Better yet, run a second section.

That would mean running two trains, but not for the price of one. You'd need to be fairly confident that ridership would grow to fill any additional capacity and that the host railroad would graciously accede to allotting track space for a second section.

I'm a fan of keeping bilevel equipment for the longer western routes. On another forum, I spit-balled the concept of married pairs of Superliner replacements with doors in between the pairs at both the lower and upper level and one of the pair has a ramp to the upper level and/or an elevator. On the ramp, you could also have an outside entry door at the height of a high platform thereby allowing the cars to easily board passengers at both station platform types. On the ends of the married pairs, you would have the usual high level pass through doors for access to the rest of the train.

The bilevel concept is ideal for comfort, quiet, capacity and roominess needed for a multiday trip.

Superliner stairways are not suitable in today's equal mobility world. When I rode, the lower level seating was full. Not of people that you say would have trouble with the stairs at first glance, but I realised over the course of a multi day trip, chose to sit There for that reason .

I was looking at what other countries do for trains of similar distances. It looks like bilevels are a bit unusual. Australia and Canada seem to be okay using single level sets on their cross country trains.