New Superliners

In regard to the Rocky Mountaineer cars the Superliners that Amtrak uses *just* fit into Chicago Union station. I believe they also just clear the canopies at LAUPT. The Rocky Mountaineer cars would probably not fit at either location. The nice thing about the Superliners is they are a clear just about anywhere out west. And as you can see on the Capital Limited, Auto Train and Cardinal they also work on a few eastern routes.

bdawe wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 10:45 am

Tadman wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 9:42 am

That is a good question and I suspect the real questions is "are they taller than double stack?". If not, then they can go anywhere out west within reason.

I had no idea. If the gangway is upper level between cars, you could conceivably get away with 1-2 elevators per train rather than every car.

RE clearance, is Amtrak wholly doublestack cleared out west? is the Ex-Rio Grande and Moffat tunnel so cleared? What about terminal station tracks?

RE accessibility - the gangway is lower level. Part of the reason that they are so high is that they are essentially super-gallery cars, with high floors and a whole extra level on top, rather than the partial lower level depressed between the trucks that you see on Superliners or BBD Bilevels (I think the older ones might actually be just converted gallery cars). As such, they have a lot of steps that would take a lot of the low-platform benefits of superliner-type equipment away

Furthermore, the Rocky Mountaineer cars are run on a landcruise, and they don't ever get up past probably 50 mph, and probably never take much of any curve at speed. Instead they're limited to the speed of the nearest coal train. I'd be curious what sort of cant deficiency they're comfortable to ride at on the upper deck

Pullman showed their engineering mettle when they designed the Superliner. The Superliner actually has a low CG with alot of its weight down low, the car actually connects to the truck at the mid wheel level. Everytime I see those Alaska cruise type cars, or even the new ones Stadler built, I wander how well would they ride rough track at 79 mph.

bostontrainguy wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 10:30 am

frequentflyer wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 9:00 amThe Superliner actually has a low CG with alot of its weight down low, the car actually connects to the truck at the mid wheel level. Everytime I see those Alaska cruise type cars, or even the new ones Stadler built, I wander how well would they ride rough track at 79 mph.

The Ultradomes actually may have a lower CG than the Superliners. All of the mechanicals and tanks are below the bottom floor between the trucks. The Superliners have mechanicals and tanks well above the bottom floor over the trucks.

I don't know the specs but they probably are pretty similar at least. I have ridden in the Ultradomes in Alaska and didn't notice any excessive sway. Of course we didn't go over 60 mph. The new Stadler version has a top speed of 110 mph.

Curious if any of that P-S engineering work was inspired by Budd's work on the Hi-Level. Also, there's two different trucks under the Superliner, the SL1 Waggon-Work truck and the SL2 truck that looks like the rest of the fleet. I have so little time in Hi-levels that I have no idea if they ride better/worse than a Pullman or BBD Superliner, and I've never tried to compare BBD and P-S Superliner rides, either.

I've always found gallery car rides to be half decent excepting the new Metra 1200 / South Shore 300. Those ride like a bounce house, but they also sit on different (powered) trucks.

the Parlour Cars ride rougher than the Superliners in my experience, but I don't know how much of that is to be chalked up to the design or just to the fact that they're simply old. I have similar thoughts about VIA's Budd HEP fleet

bostontrainguy wrote: ↑Sat May 02, 2020 1:59 pm From Amtrak's 5 year plan:

• Results of the Superliner Life Extension Study. The results of this study will better
inform us as to whether replacement or rebuild of this fleet is the most costeffective solution.

https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/proj ... Y21-25.pdf

I’m willing to bet the results are “the Superliner I and II fleet is uneconomical to rebuild and will be life-limited to 2030, therefore we will release an RFI for new long-distance equipment to be used on high-clearance routes” regardless of whether the equipment is actually uneconomical to rebuild. I also expect that said RFI will not require bilevel equipment, and that Amtrak will eventually select something NYP-sized whether bilevel or not.

Agree. LD’s simply don’t see the loads to justify the extra weight and drag of bi-levels, and having one fleet for the system opens up new options for thru-fleeting that aren’t possible to NYC today.

eolesen wrote: ↑Sat May 02, 2020 5:47 pm Agree. LD’s simply don’t see the loads to justify the extra weight and drag of bi-levels, and having one fleet for the system opens up new options for thru-fleeting that aren’t possible to NYC today.

I don't think the bilevels are extra weight and drag per passenger mile than the single levels?

Per passenger mile the Superliners carry more weight because they’re rarely operating above a 50% load...

The Vaggio shell is going to weigh less, and the lower profile will have less drag without the air dam between the baggage car and the first car.

To make it clear, I don’t necessarily agree that 100% single level is the best option for Amtrak.

The distinct advantage is nationwide fleet utilization and compatibility, which won’t be fully realized until probably 2035 at earliest. (I expect Auto Train will keep Superliners longer than any other Amtrak train.) Maximum speed of 125 mph is another factor; S-I and S-II don’t have that and won’t even after rebuild, though Alstom’s Surfliners and Cali Cars are certified for that speed from what I’ve read.

The disadvantages are increased train weight, increased wheel-rail and wheel bearing friction (a much bigger load than than aerodynamic drag), more car inspections needed, and decreased sleeper capacity. Viewliners have 12 roomettes, 2 bedrooms and an accessible room; Superliners boast 14 roomettes, 5 bedrooms, an accessible room and a family room. I fear that sleepers will be even more expensive with a single-level fleet.

Platform height is a football that will be kicked around for a while, so I’m not counting that right now.

mtuandrew wrote: ↑Sat May 02, 2020 11:04 pm To make it clear, I don’t necessarily agree that 100% single level is the best option for Amtrak.

The distinct advantage is nationwide fleet utilization and compatibility, which won’t be fully realized until probably 2035 at earliest. (I expect Auto Train will keep Superliners longer than any other Amtrak train.) Maximum speed of 125 mph is another factor; S-I and S-II don’t have that and won’t even after rebuild, though Alstom’s Surfliners and Cali Cars are certified for that speed from what I’ve read.

The disadvantages are increased train weight, increased wheel-rail and wheel bearing friction (a much bigger load than than aerodynamic drag), more car inspections needed, and decreased sleeper capacity. Viewliners have 12 roomettes, 2 bedrooms and an accessible room; Superliners boast 14 roomettes, 5 bedrooms, an accessible room and a family room. I fear that sleepers will be even more expensive with a single-level fleet.

Platform height is a football that will be kicked around for a while, so I’m not counting that right now.

The last point is I think a major one. Since most Amtrak station platforms out west are on active freight tracks you're NOT going to see high level platforms out west. In fact most of the major stations that Amtrak serves are also served by commuter authorities using low level boarding equipment. Equipping cars with elevators like the Siemens cars being built for California and the mid-west just opens a HUGE can of worms maintenance wise. Just one elevator out of service means that whole car is out of service. If you don't believe me just look at the mess ConnDot had with the bathrooms on the MBB cars. I believe Superliners do carry a deployable ramp on the car just for loading wheelchairs ... simple and plain with no moving parts. The ADA issue will play into this big time.

Capacity is another issue you touched on. Lower capacity in sleepers and coaches and the need for a separate dorm car for the crew. An all single level fleet would mean more cars to maintain with less capacity on each car. Since you have the extra clearance out west it makes no sense not to make use of it.

A single level train requires a longer platform for the same passenger capacity of a train or a double stop. Hopefully once a big order for passenger cars will mean longer trains for more passengers. Longer platforms are not cheap. Someone needs to figure how many additional feet of platforms will be needed for single level trains and their cost per foot. lets see 15 intermediate stops.

The rest of the world seems to make do with single level cars for long distance.

Yes, some trains might need an extra car or two. Today, you have huge layovers for the bilevels by nature of scheduling. I think that balances out if a trainset arriving from New York can flow into an Empire Builder or Zephyr.