New Superliners

[mtuandrew]

Moderator Note: moved a couple posts from the Pres. Wm Flynn thread.

[Backshophoss]

If Nippon-Sharyo hadn't screwed up that crush test for the 3rd gen Surfliner. The reason for the failure was never reveled!!!!
You should be able to get Wabtec to build 3rd gen Superliners using the Super II blueprints.
The BBD MLV is a short distance commuter car with a horrid suspension!!
NOT EVERYTHING NEEDS TO FIT IN THE TUBES!!!!!
As the "Brightline based" cars become the Midwest service fleet,the Superliners return to western LD fleet.

[mtuandrew]

Hoss: I thought there really weren’t any Superliners in regional service, aside from whatever California leases and the few cars assigned to the Heartland Flyer. Am I missing some?

[Backshophoss]

The Mi services to Detroit Port Huron and Grand Rapids tend to get Superliner consists,then sometimes find their way to the shorter
Il/WI routes.
Only the Lincoln service/River runner get Horizon/Amfleet equipment on a steady basis.

[eolesen]

It is always a better idea. There is no time when single level is better.

Disagree.

Being able to use the same type of cars on all routes in/out of NYP and CUS would cut down the total number of cars needed systemwide.

Right now, with Amtrak running at less than 50% load factors across more track miles than they're running above 50%, the extra weight of the double deckers winds up burning more fuel, and probably adds to wear/tear on track because the cars are 25%+ heavier.

[electricron]

Disagree.
Being able to use the same type of cars on all routes in/out of NYP and CUS would cut down the total number of cars needed systemwide.
Right now, with Amtrak running at less than 50% load factors across more track miles than they're running above 50%, the extra weight of the double deckers winds up burning more fuel, and probably adds to wear/tear on track because the cars are 25%+ heavier.

Weight of a Superliner sleeper is 80-85 tons, of a Viewliner sleeper is around 60 tons. Note, a Superliner II sleeper weighs about 5 tons less than a Superliner I sleeper.
80/60 = 1.33 and 85/60 = 1.42
So I would suggest the weight of a Superliner is at least 33% heavier than a Viewliner.

A Superliner sleeper has 21 total rooms and roomettes, a Viewliner sleeper has 15 total rooms and roomettes,
21/15 = 1.40
For single occupancy a Superliner passenger could require less weight than a Viewliner passenger.

A Superliner sleeper max capacity is 44 , a Viewliner max capacity is 30.
44/30 = 1.46
So a passenger on a Superliner could require less weight than a passenger on a Viewliner.

So the heavier Superliner could require less weight per passenger than a Viewliner, or about the same weight depending upon which model Superliner is used in the comparison. Its' higher capacity per car basically matches its' extra weight.

We could look at coach cars as well, but without getting into too much details, let's' just look at their capacity ratio.
Superliner coach max capacity is 74 passengers, Amfleet II max capacity is 59 passengers.
74/59 = 1.25
Surfliner coach max capacity is 90 passengers, Amfleet I coach max capacity is 72 passengers.
90/72 = 1.25
So, assuming the same weight difference of 33%, the Amfleet capacity disadvantage of 25% makes it around 8% more weight efficient per passenger over a Superliner.

[bostontrainguy]

I might go along with the entire Amtrak fleet being (mostly) single-level if they do some creative industrial design and create a really great travel experience.

1 - Coaches: Pick two designs. One "Regional" with higher capacity and one "Long Distant" model. One vestibule/door for LD and two vestibules/doors for Regional. Place the windows in such a way that the LD seats get one full window and the Regionals have two seats per window so everyone gets a window. Make the seats rotational so people aren't forced to ride backwards and groups of four can create a face-to-face seating with a table at one end of the car.

2 - Sleepers: I really like the Viewliners. The rooms are cozy but comfortable and bright and airy. Bedrooms are okay the way they are but maybe eliminate the bedroom suites option. How many of these are sold? That connecting door is where a lot of the rattling occurs in the present design. I won't miss the roomette toilet and like that they are keeping the sinks. I would like to see them open the floor space by eliminating the cabinet that holds the toilet paper and come up with some type of fold down steps to eliminate the permanent steps. One of the problems with the roomettes is that two people can't comfortably even stand up in the room at the same time. Open up the floor space.

3 - Diner: A modern "Dome Diner" within the North River clearance restrictions. Dome table/lounge seating on the top level and kitchen on the bottom level. Mezzanine table seating/lounges at either end for waiting and ADA seating. Serious consideration of 24 hour service on some trains such as the Lake Shore Limited and Silver Service.

4 - Lounge (optional): Same car shell as diner but with lounge seating on the upper and lower levels. Bar/snack counter on one mezzanine end and more seating on the other. This car may be redundant since the multi-level diner/lounge may be all that is necessary for some LD trains or during the off season.

So you can standardize the low-level coaches and sleepers, but an attractive bi-level diner/lounge and a few additional tweaks will make the decision much more palatable and the journey more enjoyable in my opinion.

[Tadman]

It's not just about weight, it's about maintenance spend. Figure a passenger car needs something like $20,000/year to keep it on the road, maybe more. That's the cost to inspect and repair two 4-wheel trucks, two couplers, two air hoses, one send of air cylinders, 85' of air piping, one air conditioner, one heater, two powered end doors, one PA system, whatever the insurance bill is. Now, do you want 70 passengers or 100 passengers to defray that cost?


Also, you can have a 8 car train or 12. Platforms at most rural stations are 9 cars max. Do we double stop every few stations? NEC platforms are 8-car limit, should we have bought a bilevel acela-2?

And if maintenance on a conventional passenger coach is $20k/year, I bet a sleeper is $40k and Acela is $60k. There's just a lot more moving parts and in the case of an HST, there are very expensive parts.

As for Andrew's disabled friends, we can always come up with a group of people that will reject an idea. Always. I had blood pressure issues in the past, let's crack that egg open. Stupid inefficient business practices and late trains are now officially banned. Maybe that fixes Amtrak?

Back to the superliner - there's a reason railroads were moving to bilevel before Amtrak for long distance, regional, and commuter. It makes financia sense. ATSF, SP, CNW, CB&Q, Rock, Long Island, basically anybody that could rub a few pennies together and a few that couldnt' as well.

[eolesen]

Well, the CNW did it for medium distance (none of their routes were over 500 miles) because they anticipated being able to convert them into commuter service... and they did with most of those cars.

ATSF only did it with the El Cap, which was coach-only CHI-LAX, and arguably they needed the extra density to break even without sleepers. Plus, it's said that Budd pitched the idea, and made ATSF an offer they couldn't refuse.

I get that you want more seats to defray costs, but that model only works if you're able to actually fill those seats... Amtrak barely manages 50% on the LD network, so why would you purposely carry more seats than needed?...

There's a reason the A320/B737 remain the workhorses of the industry, and why the 747, MD11, and A380 are almost extinct.

Amtrak needs that sweet spot in the middle, and it's name is single level equipment...

[rohr turbo]

I get that you want more seats to defray costs, but that model only works if you're able to actually fill those seats... Amtrak barely manages 50% on the LD network, so why would you purposely carry more seats than needed?...

There's a reason the A320/B737 remain the workhorses of the industry, and why the 747, MD11, and A380 are almost extinct.

Amtrak needs that sweet spot in the middle, and it's name is single level equipment...

Why in the world would you suggest buying new single level equipment rather than simply running fewer coaches, if Amtrak really is running such low load factors?

As others have noted, Superliners are more efficient (weight, fuel, handling, maintenance) than single level, not to mention far more enjoyable to ride.

Your airliner analogy doesn't hold up either. 737s are not replacing A380s on any route. Overseas (LD) routes are still handled by modern efficient twin-aisle high capacity (250-450 seat) planes (787, 777, A350).

[Tadman]

Absolutely, if Amtrak can't fill seats, they shouldn't switch to single levels, they should reduce consists of bilevels. Switching to single levels would mean the costs are about the same as bilevels because you haven't really reduced the train length.

Think of it this way - if you have a freight train with thirty tri-level auto racks, and it's projected to run half-full in April, do you buy bi-level auto racks or do you run only fifteen tri-levels? Of course you run 15.

[eolesen]

The highest load factor routes are locked into using single level equipment because of the tunnel profiles on the East Coast.

Whatever Amtrak buys needs to be capable of running system-wide, vs. having what amounts to an east/west fleet today.

Utilization matters when you're talking hundreds of cars -- today you can't take a consist coming out of NYC and send it to LAX or SFO via CHI. Buying a new single level LD fleet would allow that.

[electricron]

The highest load factor routes are locked into using single level equipment because of the tunnel profiles on the East Coast.

Whatever Amtrak buys needs to be capable of running system-wide, vs. having what amounts to an east/west fleet today.

Utilization matters when you're talking hundreds of cars -- today you can't take a consist coming out of NYC and send it to LAX or SFO via CHI. Buying a new single level LD fleet would allow that.

Have you ever rode in a coach or sleeper room or roomette with a three night trip? I have! Amtrak's Texas Eagle coach and sleeper cars going all the way between Chicago and Los Angeles do so - on a thrice a week schedule. After the third night no manner the season having just one restroom clean enough to use and fully operational is lucky with the multiple restrooms available on Superliners. I can't imagine the new Viewliner sleepers with just one restroom available for all the roomettes ever surviving a three night trip - or even a two night trip. And without a shower stall for the roomettes and coaches - who could survive the odors being emitted by all the smelly passengers by the fourth day?

The reason why Superliners are better for Amtrak's very long trains is the number of restrooms in each car - plus the shower - on the lower levels of the two level fleet. To provide the same number of restrooms and a shower with the Viewliner II, they will have to loose a few more roomettes - or keep the toilet facilities in every room and roomette and loose just one roomette for a shower stall. More akin to the existing Viewliner I design instead of the new Viewliner II design removing the toilet from the roomettes. The bottom line would be each car - including the coaches - having a smaller capacity resulting in longer trains. The reason why the new Viewliner II design could work is that their longest trip takes only one night.

There's a reason why Santa Fe was considered the premiere train between Los Angeles and Chicago in the 50s and 60s - and why Amtrak chose Superliners for its' western fleet in the 70s. Those double level Hi-Liners moved those restrooms and their odors to their own level below the seats - which Superliners improved upon. Keeping everything on the same level is going to smell very ripe after a few nights - and the shortest cross country trip will take at least three nights.

[Gilbert B Norman]

Being able to use the same type of cars on all routes in/out of NYP and CUS would cut down the total number of cars needed systemwide.

I think Mr. Olesen's thought should be paramount in new equipment procurement.

The LD's should have been gone by, say, '76 (to be rid of 'em on A-Day would have been "too much cold water"), but I'm certain that the Incorporators had that date in mind.

It appeared that the "Carter Cuts" during '79 were "getting the ball rolling" with cutting "Basic System" routes (Floridian, National Limited). But alas....politics. All the '96 "Clinton Cuts", '04 "Bush Prunings", and the '05 "Sunset East Suspension", simply eliminated politically inspired additions outside the Basic System.

So if the opportunity is there to eliminate an LD, I believe that the Amtrak Board will jump, but they know that will be an uphill battle. I could not think of anything making more economic sense than the move to "scalp the Chief". I applaud the Board for trying to save taxpayers, be such at whatever level, the total cost of maintaining 350 miles of ROW solely for a "one a day". But again, we know where that went.

All told, the Board should resist the advocacy community's efforts to expand the LD's (looks like the.North Coast Limited is their current poster child), and prevent ordering new equipment such as bi-Level cars that can only be.used on select LD routes.

[bostontrainguy]

Have you ever rode in a coach or sleeper room or roomette with a three night trip? I have! Amtrak's Texas Eagle coach and sleeper cars going all the way between Chicago and Los Angeles do so - on a thrice a week schedule. After the third night no manner the season having just one restroom clean enough to use and fully operational is lucky with the multiple restrooms available on Superliners. I can't imagine the new Viewliner sleepers with just one restroom available for all the roomettes ever surviving a three night trip - or even a two night trip. And without a shower stall for the roomettes and coaches - who could survive the odors being emitted by all the smelly passengers by the fourth day?

The reason why Superliners are better for Amtrak's very long trains is the number of restrooms in each car - plus the shower - on the lower levels of the two level fleet. To provide the same number of restrooms and a shower with the Viewliner II, they will have to loose a few more roomettes - or keep the toilet facilities in every room and roomette and loose just one roomette for a shower stall. More akin to the existing Viewliner I design instead of the new Viewliner II design removing the toilet from the roomettes. The bottom line would be each car - including the coaches - having a smaller capacity resulting in longer trains. The reason why the new Viewliner II design could work is that their longest trip takes only one night.

There's a reason why Santa Fe was considered the premiere train between Los Angeles and Chicago in the 50s and 60s - and why Amtrak chose Superliners for its' western fleet in the 70s. Those double level Hi-Liners moved those restrooms and their odors to their own level below the seats - which Superliners improved upon. Keeping everything on the same level is going to smell very ripe after a few nights - and the shortest cross country trip will take at least three nights.

Really good points. Maybe we should rethink a low-profile Superliner? From what people are saying there are two major problems with a <15' bi-level. One is the overhead luggage and the other is the upper bunk situation.

Superliner III Coach:
I would think that the coach overhead luggage problem can be resolved with a requirement that checked baggage over a certain size must be checked. Use those new baggage cars. Do it trainside if necessary. Have a carry-on size limit. People are used to that. And you also could have luggage racks at the ends of the coaches like you do in Europe.

Superliner III Roomette:
The overhead bunk situation will be a challenge. I haven't ridden in a Superliner in years and the Viewliners have incredible headroom so I can't remember how tight it is in the existing SL. Can the upper bunk in the roomettes have a curved dome window to really open up and enhance the space? Will that maximize the headroom? I have also suggested in other posts to remove the permanent stairs and have fold down steps so you open up the floor space a bit. Two people can not comfortably stand up in a roomette which make it very confining.

Could the new roomettes be only for one person?

I would think the seats could be widened and the entire room becomes a very comfortable bed for two. Some clever design would be necessary of course like a small notch at the door for standing to enter the bed. Maybe a flap that can be raised or lowered when needed? Curtains a la sections??? . . . no on that one.

Superliner III Bedroom:
The lower bed in the existing bedroom is big enough for two people so I guess you could sell it as a double bed room. Also the seats in front of the window could be the same as the roomette and made into a single bed (eliminate the bedroom suite door if necessary) and the traverse upper bunk could be lowered a bit to give more head room since the bunk will only by suspended over the feet of the person lying in front of the windows.

Superliner III Diner:
Same basic configuration as the present Superliner. Headroom should be adequate on both levels. Upper level should have dome glass roof to make the space very bright and airy.

Superliner III Lounge:
Ditto to the diner.

So I guess it is all possible. Some design studies would be rather interesting to see and maybe a prototype or two could be tested. Clever industrial design just might be able to pull it off.