Superliner Replacement - Bilevel or Single Level from a different prospective.

electricron wrote: ↑Sun Oct 30, 2022 4:16 pm I just do not see single level sleeper cars working out west when double level cars fit without clearance issues. Why use a plate size car smaller than what you can use?

Economy of scale. Amtrak could buy a ton more Viewliner II's... But they'd have to work with the Venture sets. Do we know if they do? Plus we don't know about the Amfleet II replacements.

eolesen wrote: ↑Sun Oct 30, 2022 10:54 am I admire the persistence, but why wouldn't Amtrak go with an existing design for single levels that already accommodates the disabled and can go anywhere in the present OR FUTURE system

How do existing single levels resolve all of the issues raised here? Except for the one Viewliner H room in the sleeper next to the diner, how does anyone else in a wheelchair get to the diner? You can't. How do they get to the cafe/lounge? I don't belive they can do that either. A wheelchair passenger can't pass through an Amfleet coach or cafe or diner or sleeper, can they? I don't think so.

So now that I think about it, maybe a bilevel solution like I suggested a few posts ago maybe the best alternative. Maybe it is the better way to go and just the opposite of how we've been thinking about this. Maybe it's the only way!

P.S. Perhaps the lower level of the Lounge could also have ADA coach seating.

From my recent readings of the ADA, every newly built (or rebuilt to extend the life of the car past 10 years) passenger car must have at least one, but not more than two places reserved for passengers in wheelchairs, and every passenger in a wheelchair must be able to access food service cars and other amenities. It seems that bilevel cars are exempt from the requirement to allow wheelchair users to move between cars, but that single level cars are not exempt from that requirement.

Interestingly enough, the lower level of a bilevel lounge car must be accessible, but from the outside.

ADA Accessibility Specifications for Transportation Vehicles, Subpart F - Intercity Rail Cars and Systems

bostontrainguy wrote: ↑Sun Oct 30, 2022 5:20 pm How do existing single levels resolve all of the issues raised here? Except for the one Viewliner H room in the sleeper next to the diner, how does anyone else in a wheelchair get to the diner? You can't. How do they get to the cafe/lounge? I don't belive they can do that either. A wheelchair passenger can't pass through an Amfleet coach or cafe or diner or sleeper, can they? I don't think so.

So now that I think about it, maybe a bilevel solution like I suggested a few posts ago maybe the best alternative. Maybe it is the better way to go and just the opposite of how we've been thinking about this. Maybe it's the only way!

P.S. Perhaps the lower level of the Lounge could also have ADA coach seating.

Given Amtrak's max 30" wide wheelchair restriction, you will have a lot of redesign of the existing Superliner setup. The Amfleet coaches would also need redesign as the aisle is under that 30" rule. I'd have to overnight in a Viewliner II with a tape measure to see about "through-running" ADA compliance.

And the Siemens cars comply with the 30" accommodation if I recall.

All they are missing is a sleeper and a full diner... which exists overseas, no?

According to https://www.groundedlifetravel.com/what ... e-bedroom/ a wheelchair can move between the bedroom and the diner in a Viewliner II.

There is no ADA requirement to make the Amfleet I or II cars more accessible than they already are(n't) unless they undergo a rebuild intended to extend their life by 10 years.

Well then... problem solved.

You get supplier diversity, accessibility, and a single fleet that can go coast to coast...

And zero engineering risk of new car designs failing a crush test.

Has anyone done the math at weight per passenger and what that adds up to and what a 100 ton change would do to operating costs (i.e., fuel) for the train?

From Wikipedia:

... a conventional El Cap ran 16 cars, carried 438 people and weighed 1,069 tons. [A Hi-Level El Cap] got Santa Fe a 13-car train (including the same head-end cars) that carried 130 additional people and weighed 110 tons less ...

I know for military reconnaissance aircraft programs, the program knows what effect a 5 pound change in weight has on fuel consumption rates. I assume Amtrak has some similar metric, but this does beg the question: (using the numbers from the quote above), single level cars mean a train weight of 2.44 tons per passenger, and H-Levels have a train weight of 1.69 tons per passenger, what does changing equipment sets do to fuel consumption and the economics of running the train?

eolesen wrote: ↑Mon Oct 31, 2022 9:55 pm Well then... problem solved.

You get supplier diversity, accessibility, and a single fleet that can go coast to coast...

And zero engineering risk of new car designs failing a crush test.

I would consider that a short-term solution. As mentioned before, you got lower capacity in single level trains, so you need to have longer trains. It's not exactly 1-to-1.

That said, we can agree we can glean some specifications Amtrak needs for the Superliner replacements.

For each additional revenue car on any train the necessity for a double or even tripple stop to board passengers on short platform stations increases. That operation extendes the time for on duty T&E and OBS at end of run unless on time. As well the cost to extend platforms at multi train stations can become a factor.

Standardizing on one brand of cars means one set of spares. That lowers costs.

There is certainly cost savings from standardizing on one fleet of equipment.

However I don't believe the cost savings are anything like the cost savings from not having to have as many cars in the first place because you've got higher bi-level (or multi-level or ultra dome, etc) capacity. I don't have hard numbers to prove this, but I have formed this impression from looking over the accounts of a shop that fixes multiple fleets. In round (not very precise) numbers, cost of parts is only 1/3 of the cost of maintenance (the balance being mostly labor with some fixed costs of keeping the shop open)

It wasn't easy to find but deep diving resulted in finding that the Kawasaki double deck bilevels that fit through NYP have an interior ceiling height of 6' 5" on both levels. I don't know the interior height of the Superliners but pictures seem to show the ceiling is just above the doors which is probably pretty similar.

Since the Superliners were designed about 50 years ago I would think with more modern technology, materials and design capabilities, a new Superliner bilevel car could be designed that would fit in NYP. You would probably have to go with hi-level trap doors with built-in lifts at at least one end but it probably could be done.

"The cars had vestibules at both ends. Designed for use at high-level platforms, so the doors sit roughly 4 feet 3 inches above the rail. The interior is split into lower and upper levels, with accessible seating on the entrance level. On the upper and lower levels seating is 3–2. This dense arrangement permits a maximum capacity of 180–190 passengers. Each level measures 6 feet 5 inches from floor to ceiling. Passenger response to the 3–2 seating was poor, leading to the adoption of 2–2 seating in the C3. Info: Wiki" http://www.trainsarefun.com/lirr/C1-C3% ... 20Cars.htm

bostontrainguy wrote: ↑Sun Dec 18, 2022 12:41 pm It wasn't easy to find but deep diving resulted in finding that the Kawasaki double deck bilevels that fit through NYP have an interior ceiling height of 6' 5" on both levels. I don't know the interior height of the Superliners but pictures seem to show the ceiling is just above the doors which is probably pretty similar.

Since the Superliners were designed about 50 years ago I would think with more modern technology, materials and design capabilities, a new Superliner bilevel car could be designed that would fit in NYP. You would probably have to go with hi-level trap doors with built-in lifts at at least one end but it probably could be done.

That was my similar thinking as well: At least one pair of high-level doors that have a built-in lift up to the upper level, another pair at lower level, and a lift between upper and lower. Unfortunately, I think for safety reasons you'll need at least one conductor operate the lift.

conductorchris wrote: However I don't believe the cost savings are anything like the cost savings from not having to have as many cars in the first place because you've got higher bi-level (or multi-level or ultra dome, etc) capacity.

Sure, you might have fewer cars, but that also increases your exposure accordingly when cars are unexpectedly out of service.

Besides, other than 52/53, for the past decade and beyond, there really isn't a LD network train thats suffering from not having enough capacity.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk