New Superliners

Member Virgil Payne had a design on here many years ago . I think it involved having the corridors on opposite sides. I.e The bed was above the low level corridor on the top level . the sleepers also overlapped longitudinally,in a manner similar to slumbercoachs.

David Benton wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2019 9:35 pm Member Virgil Payne had a design on here many years ago . I think it involved having the corridors on opposite sides. I.e The bed was above the low level corridor on the top level . the sleepers also overlapped longitudinally,in a manner similar to slumbercoachs.

That’s clever and I like the idea. Would be nice if I could do any CAD modeling, it’s hard for me to picture that setup in 2D plans.

Backshophoss wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2019 8:53 pm With Nippon-Sharyo retreating back to Japan after the Lost Face" crush test failure for the 3rd gen Surfliner,that leaves the original plans
by Pullman under BBD Control
Amtrak no longer considers BBD as a Vendor/Supplier after the Hippo/Acela I lawsuit,would BBD be willing to license Kawasaki
the rights to build the 3rd gen Superliners?

Does the Bombardier design even handle the 800,000 lb crush requirement? Keep in mind Alstom built the Surfliners starting in 2000 which is a similar sized shell. I don't know if the coaches can handle 800,000 lb crush, but the cab car design should. IIRC cab cars and EMUs had to be 800,000 buff strength, but that requirement wasn't extended to mid-train coaches until 1999, just when the Surfliner order was placed.

I think it’s safe to say that if the contract had been rebid rather than Sumitomo being allowed to select a new subcontractor, we would have bilevel Midwest/California cars on which to base the Superliner III.

Tadman wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 4:30 pmSupposedly Budd proposed a sleeper Hi-level to Santa Fe at one point. It had two-floor suites and stairs in each room, weighed quite a bit, and didn't sleep any more people per car than the normal Santa Fe sleeper (10/6?) so it was not ordered.

Yup I mentioned that a few posts back The six single bedrooms (single Roomette? Not sure how to parse that) aren’t impressive in number, but I have to think the eight Vista bedrooms would have been a treat to riders.

If you could amp up those numbers to eight double bedrooms, eight double roomettes, and eight single roomettes or sleeper chairs, you’d have a case to make for a NYP-capable bilevel sleeper.

mtuandrew wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 7:52 am

David Benton wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2019 9:35 pm Member Virgil Payne had a design on here many years ago . I think it involved having the corridors on opposite sides. I.e The bed was above the low level corridor on the top level . the sleepers also overlapped longitudinally,in a manner similar to slumbercoachs.

That’s clever and I like the idea. Would be nice if I could do any CAD modeling, it’s hard for me to picture that setup in 2D plans.

Hard to visualise all right. And while it provides more private roomettes , I'd imagine they would be even more claustrophobic than the current ones.
What it could do though , is allow for 2 levels of Railbeds(seats that convert to beds), allowing 2 plus one whilst still retaining capacity, and allowing an open feeling .

Believe the Super II's did meet that requirement,they were built after the Surf II build.

Not only would multilevel LD be NEC capable but it would make for a high capacity NEC coach car too. One product nationwide, one inventory of parts, something an Amtrak mx could only dream about.

On a similar note,t here was a rumor posted on TrainOrders that Amtrak was seriously looking at a Siemens bilevel product. Not much info on the web about it.

David Benton wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 7:34 pm

mtuandrew wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 7:52 am

David Benton wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2019 9:35 pm Member Virgil Payne had a design on here many years ago . I think it involved having the corridors on opposite sides. I.e The bed was above the low level corridor on the top level . the sleepers also overlapped longitudinally,in a manner similar to slumbercoachs.

That’s clever and I like the idea. Would be nice if I could do any CAD modeling, it’s hard for me to picture that setup in 2D plans.

Hard to visualise all right. And while it provides more private roomettes , I'd imagine they would be even more claustrophobic than the current ones.
What it could do though , is allow for 2 levels of Railbeds(seats that convert to beds), allowing 2 plus one whilst still retaining capacity, and allowing an open feeling .

This will help you understand the concept. Interestingly it didn't take full advantage of the car being bi-level since the bottom floor is actually at standard 48" height. Sorry that I can't get it rotated correctly.

https://assets.new.siemens.com/siemens/ ... 010150.pdf

Siemens has something in its product catalog already, and Stadler has proven, bring them a plan and they will build it.

The Siemens Viaggio Duo works for out west and anywhere not NYC, but it’s still about 7 inches too tall for the North River Tunnels. (4600 mm = 15.09 ft)

EDIT: and if Amtrak does do another Superliner order, Alstom is the heavy-hitter favorite in my book due to their work on the Surfliners and California Cars. Not Siemens.

I think a Superliner III ship has sailed. Not expecting anymore, the replacements will be something different.

Tadman wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:56 pm Guys, more groupthink about "doubledeckers bad".

You forget there are plenty of foreign and domestic double deckers, and a vast majority are in corridor and commuter service. You get 30-50% more butts in seats per wheelset, coupler, AC compressor, etc... set of problems.

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

I have mobility-impaired friends who strongly
disagree with you.

One Mass may believe it’s worth trying to get ADA exemptions for bilevel North Tunnel-capable equipment. The capacity boost is undeniable, though the capital cost per seat may not work out as well as we think. I’ve even been tossing around a concept for a sleeper MultiLevel - that’s an idea for another thread - but Amtrak could convert all of its LD trains to 14’ 6” multilevel and have one standard of passenger equipment nationwide if it chose. But just because the majority of passengers are able-bodied, doesn’t mean we can forget those who are disabled (temporarily or permanently.)