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

I know there has been lots of discussion about Superliner replacement especially about if Amtrak should go all single level on any new long-distance equipment. I have my preferences since I consider the Superliners to be very exiting cars especially with the huge double deck diners and the great sightseer lounges. I think there are lots of positives to this equipment although there is the one serious shortcoming with the low ceiling claustrophobic roomettes (kind of hard to believe Amtrak could get a toilet into the Viewliner I roomettes with only about a 3" more elbow room - some kind of magic there). I will add that the Viewliner roomettes are a great design and my favorite way to go.

And of course there is the efficiency of the bi-level design. Lots more bang for the buck than the Viewliner (I will use Viewliner II since everything will be standardized someday):

Superliner has 7 bedrooms - Viewliner has 3 = 14 pax vs 6 pax
Superliner has 14 roomettes - Viewliner has 12 = 28 pax vs. 24 pax
So Superliner sleepers can carry up to 42 adult passengers while the Viewliner II can carry up to 30.

Now on the coach side you get:
Superliner Coach - 74 pax
Amfleet II coach - 60 pax

These are huge advantages. Add to that the efficiency of having one attendant to that number of passengers per car and the Superliner has to be cheaper to run per passenger, right? It's a no brainer.

But we all know all that. So I thought I would explore what that greater efficiency means to passengers. If Amtrak is going to replace Superliners with new bi-levels or single levels, it would make sense to go with the highest design efficiency since that would mean lower operating costs and lower fares per passenger. This should be an important metric.

Now the only place to see how this actually compares is between the city pair of Chicago and Cleveland since you actually have a choice of the Superliner Capitol Limited or the single-level Lake Shore Limited on that route.

Here is what I found using a random future date:

Monday, February 13
Departure CHI - CLE

Compare Fare Types

Capitol Limited Train 30
DEPARTS 6:40 p
10% full >
6h 5m
ARRIVES
1:45 a
Tue, Feb 14
Coach from $60
Rooms from $386

Lake Shore Limited Train 448
DEPARTS 9:30p
0% full >
7h 8m
ARRIVES 5:38a
Tue, Feb 14
Coach from $48
Rooms from $209

Lake Shore Limited Train 48
DEPARTS 9:30p
10% full >
7h 8m
ARRIVES 5:38a
Tue, Feb 14
Coach from $48
Rooms from $209

So where is the cost savings that should come from the greater efficiency? I was really surprised to see these numbers.

If there is no savings from the more efficient double-deck design then there is little argument to going bi-level I guess. If the costs are the same or even cheaper to run single-level equipment then that is the way to go. Viewliner rooms are much better than Superliner rooms. A coach is a coach is a coach. There is the possibility of building a 14' 6" bi-level diner with tables above in the "Dome Dining Room" and kitchen below, and a similar lounge with "Starlight Dome Lounge" above and snack bar below. ADA seating could be built at the mid-level ends. Done right, this would at least add some excitement to the mix and dull the sting of losing the fantastic Superliners. I will add that the 42 seat Viewliner diner is not the answer although the Art Deco touch is great.

I for one will miss the mighty Superliners but if their efficiency doesn't actually add up to any advantage it is hard to justify them. Maybe I am missing something here, but the numbers are the numbers. Anybody have another perspective?

I think you are wrong to conclude that the fare differences you cite are directly related to differences in operating costs. Hopefully Amtrak marketing and IT have constructed fare formulas that maximize revenue, even if that means discounting a seat on one train and pricing outrageously high on another.

I too find the Superliners to be superior to single level for both passenger experience and likely also in operating cost. Of course they cannot go everywhere, but in the West they are perfect. I've also noted previously that Superliner trains often have to double-stop at stations where the platform isn't long enough; imagine a single level LD train making a quad stop in the middle of the night. Talk about operating inefficiency!

As others have noted, there may be an ADA issue with new bilevel rolling stock. It may take some clever engineering or lawyering to overcome this.

"mid level ends?" Are you picturing Bombardier-style commuter bilevels? Remember virtually all platforms in West LD are low level, so that's where boarding happens. IF wheelchairs are legally required to be able to traverse the entire train, it's a problem. (and not solved by having a 'mid level,' as far as I can see.)

rohr turbo wrote: ↑Sat Oct 22, 2022 5:28 pm I've also noted previously that Superliner trains often have to double-stop at stations where the platform isn't long enough; imagine a single level LD train making a quad stop in the middle of the night. Talk about operating inefficiency!

As others have noted, there may be an ADA issue with new bilevel rolling stock. It may take some clever engineering or lawyering to overcome this.

"mid level ends?" Are you picturing Bombardier-style commuter bilevels? Remember virtually all platforms in West LD are low level, so that's where boarding happens. IF wheelchairs are legally required to be able to traverse the entire train, it's a problem. (and not solved by having a 'mid level,' as far as I can see.)

Agreed. Triple stops out west are going to be ridiculous. I'm aware of the various ADA claims, but has anyone noticed that the hallways on a Superliner sleeper are very narrow. I'm sure Viewliners aren't much better. The Siemens cars have wheelchair lifts for low level platforms and I'm sure elevators could be placed in a Superliner at the cost of one upper roomette and one lower roomette, but I doubt you could make the roomettes and bedrooms any smaller to get a wider hallway for wheelchair access.

You don't need wheelchair access the entire length of the train according to current rules.
What you do need though is the ability for at least one sleeper car to get to the diner, which with a Viewliner is currently possible. With a Superliner, the bedroom would be accessible at the one end, but no easy way to get a wheelchair using passenger to that room.

You also apparently need access to the lounge and coach. I think this is more easily addressable and honestly could probably just lose some room in the lounge for a small elevator.

For me it's all about utility. Amtrak's largest point of sale doesn't permit access for bilevel equipment... which creates less efficiency for equipment utilization and routing. You can't borrow a sleeper or couch to make up for a bad ordered car heading to NYP...

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

eolesen wrote: ↑Sun Oct 23, 2022 7:39 am It's all about utility. Amtrak's largest point of sale doesn't permit access for bilevel equipment... which creates less efficiency for equipment utilization and routing. You can't borrow a sleeper or coach to make up for a bad ordered car heading to NYP...

Could a NJT/MARC/AMT-EXO/SEPTA Multilevel be modified into the next gen Superliner?

The major issue is station infrastructure. Can NYP be modified to accommodate a two level car? If yes, what’s the cost?

Can the NE, with all its high level platforms, be lowered to accommodate the entrance on a bi level car maximizing headroom for all passengers?

A secondary question is car utilization. What is the weight per passenger of a Superliner? What is the weight per passenger, for the same headcount, for single level cars? Is the delta significant for the current generation of locomotives?

These are all engineering questions Amtrak planners must consider.

eolesen wrote: ↑Sun Oct 23, 2022 7:39 am For me it's all about utility. Amtrak's largest point of sale doesn't permit access for bilevel equipment... which creates less efficiency for equipment utilization and routing. You can't borrow a sleeper or couch to make up for a bad ordered car heading to NYP...

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

Your scenario only applies to two trains, I think: a bad ordered LSL car in Chicago or Crescent car in New Orleans. And even then you COULD substitute Superliners as far as Albany on LSL (as has been done) and Washington on Crescent.

Most of the network sees only one LD car type, so whatever percentage is necessary for 'protect' can be populated with whichever fleet applies.

This seems a weak (IMO) argument to "dumb-down" the fleet everywhere, with its degradation of user experience and operational efficiency for the entire West.

While many factors might point the logical move towards single level equipment there is a compelling issue that points towards bilevel. And that is the Auto Train - Amtrak's highest revenue producing long distance train. Bilevels are very beneficial to that train as they allow you to stick more passengers in the allowed consist. I cannot imagine the Auto Train not being front and center in the thought process for any superliner replacement. Two months ago I'd have told you that I think Amtrak's going to go single level. However I just attended a rail passenger's association meeting and this topic came up. After attending this meeting I'm not so sure - to be clear no decision has been made but I now do not think Amtrak going bilevel, if a way is found to make it feasible, is out of the question. Expect to see a request for information going out to the car making industry on this program. What vendor responses come back will likely help guide this decision.

I was on an Auto Train this summer any my car (a sleeper) wasn't even 1/2 full and the car ahead of us was empty. Amtrak is making revenue not by filling trains, but by being expensive.

Amtrak does not understand the concept of sections. Full stop.

Auto train could easily be two sections.

Colonel Sir, could it be more a case that Chessie does not understand "sections"?

John_Perkowski wrote:Amtrak does not understand the concept of sections. Full stop.

Auto train could easily be two sections.

I've brought it up before here. Always gets shouted down by the people who've only known Superliners...

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

John_Perkowski wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 8:28 am Amtrak does not understand the concept of sections. Full stop.

Auto train could easily be two sections.

It takes a long time to make up the Auto Train as it is. There really is no room for a second section to be assembled especially with the involved auto loading process.

A completely separate train to New Jersey, maybe leaving earlier in the day, would be great. I am in Florida now and so many people here say that the drive to Virginia is boring but the easiest part of the journey. It's the drive north of Lorton that they want to avoid so they will not take the Auto Train for that reason. CSX clearance maps do not show autorack service through Philadelphia yet but I believe they are working on it.

Maybe experiment with single-level equipment via the NEC? Are there any low-profile two-level autoracks sitting around? And to add to the fun, how about a "Dog-Park" car. You get those Northeast - Florida pet owners and you got a loyal customer for life.

bostontrainguy wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 11:10 am It takes a long time to make up the Auto Train as it is. There really is no room for a second section to be assembled especially with the involved auto loading process.

Yeah, that's not what a second section means. The train moves in two pieces, normally with the second section leaving within 20-60 minutes of the first.

It would be possible to have the first section leave with the autoracks, and a second section moving with passenger cars only. You could even spread the time out intentionally to differentiate between the premium service (sleeper) and economy service (coach) and split up the autoracks.

Either way... the limit of 53 cars could be broken with a second section. The platforms at Sanford and Lorton could handle a few more passenger cars with a little creativity.