New Superliners

How about boarding on both levels, ala Supertrain?

Backshophoss wrote:That car has only the lower level "Pass Thru" from the construction pics in the article,this is a 2nd gen car,as at least a few of the original build are
in service,already
Rapido did a custom run of the 1st gen car in HO,only available from the Rocky Mountaineer store at their facility in Vancouver,or on board the train.

I have ridden the Princess Cruise Line version of these in Alaska. What I do remember is that the cars were arranged in a certain way so that you had to go up and down to pass through at different levels. For instance the open platform was at the rear lower level. Going forward you would have to go up and pass through the upper level to get to the diner because you had to walk over the kitchen to come back down into the dining room which were both located on the lower level of the first car.

I don't see why both levels couldn't have pass throughs.

P.S. The Alaska Railroad has a unique version with the open platform on the upper level which I think is a better choice if you are going to have an observation platform.

DutchRailnut wrote:those are old cars and largely grandfathered on rules, any new cars must comply with later regulations.

But the new cars aren't any different than the old cars in this sense, so obviously the rules don't require it.

bostontrainguy wrote:This is the floorplan of the new Stadler Rocky Mountaineer "Ultradomes". You can see that there is a lift between levels. There is a wheel chair accessible table in the dining room on the lower level and an ADA restroom. I don't see a place for a wheelchair on the upper level so I guess the person just stays in the chair on the lift.

There doesn't appear to be outside access to the lift, so a portable platform lift must be used to board the open platform at the rear.

Of course there aren't any sleeper versions of this architecture although Colorado Railcar did have a mock-up that never hit the rails.

This product would make an incredible long distance Amtrak car and it could have the unique feature of having two pass-throughs - one on each level. That would make it the most efficient use of space ever in a railcar literally doubling the capacity of any existing single-level equipment.

Stadler-Rail_Goldleaf-carriage_Floorplan.png

Interestingly, the wheelchair person is going to throw off their dining arrangements. There are exactly enough dining room seats to have two dinner seatings - 72 coach seats / 36 dining room seats.

Here's the full article:

http://railcolornews.com/2018/02/25/ca- ... untaineer/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://wwwstadlerrailcom-live-01e96f7. ... m0816e.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Would make a nice Superliner replacement, however its 18 ft tall, might be some clearance issues. Like that bridge south of CUS that the Superliners barely clear.

One of the most impressive features of the Superliner is its low center of gravity, all the heavy stuff (AC, water tanks) are down low. The point where the car attaches to the bogie is low too. I worry how top heavy that 18 ft car (even with Stadler expertise) would be crusing at 79 mph on less than stellar track.

frequentflyer wrote:Would make a nice Superliner replacement, however its 18 ft tall, might be some clearance issues. Like that bridge south of CUS that the Superliners barely clear.

One of the most impressive features of the Superliner is its low center of gravity, all the heavy stuff (AC, water tanks) are down low. The point where the car attaches to the bogie is low too. I worry how top heavy that 18 ft car (even with Stadler expertise) would be crusing at 79 mph on less than stellar track.

Are you suggesting that Alaska RR has great tracks everywhere with no less than stellar track sections, or Canadian Pacific RR? Just about all the freight RR mainlines in the western USA allow double stack containers, so the 18 feet tall car clearance shouldn’t be much of a problem on the mainlines. Where there is not sufficent clearance on specific tracks entering passenger yards and stations, they can solved it by replacing the offending bridges and viaducts. There shouldn’t be that many that will need fixing.

Amtrak wouldn’t need many with ultradomes glass enclosures built, only needing to replace the sightseerer lounges with ultradomes. The rest can be just standard double level cars with steel roofs. They even could change the configuration of the dinning car with their push to eliminate kitchens or galleys, placing the table car on one level and the dorms on the other level, putting most of the non revenue spaces into just one car.

But, and an important point to remember, compatibility between the old Superliners and these taller cars, or with new single level cars, will be ugly. The only Superliner cars they could match vestibules with will be the transistion dorm sleepers.

electricron wrote:But, and an important point to remember, compatibility between the old Superliners and these taller cars, or with new single level cars, will be ugly. The only Superliner cars they could match vestibules with will be the transistion dorm sleepers.

I'm thinking a total replacement here. The old Superliners could be used for regional services.

frequentflyer wrote: One of the most impressive features of the Superliner is its low center of gravity, all the heavy stuff (AC, water tanks) are down low. The point where the car attaches to the bogie is low too. I worry how top heavy that 18 ft car (even with Stadler expertise) would be crusing at 79 mph on less than stellar track.

Actually I think these might just be equally well balanced or even better. Remember that all of the heavy mechanicals and holding tanks are located below the bottom floor. Maybe even a lower center of gravity since much of the Superliner stuff is actually above the bottom floor over the wheels. When I rode them in Alaska I do not remember any sway at all although the maximum speed up there was 59 mph.

RE: "Amtrak wouldn’t need many"

That statement should stand alone . . . "Amtrak wouldn't need many". Can a few raised clearances be justified if Amtrak could run half the equipment? Example: If one Ultradome sleeper could substitute for two sleepers, one coach for every two coaches, a single two-story diner/lounge for a dining car and a lounge car, one good modern locomotive instead of two pulling shorter consists . . . what would the savings be? How much lower would the initial procurement cost be? Cut the maintenance in half maybe too? Worth considering I guess.

electricron wrote:

frequentflyer wrote:Would make a nice Superliner replacement, however its 18 ft tall, might be some clearance issues. Like that bridge south of CUS that the Superliners barely clear.

One of the most impressive features of the Superliner is its low center of gravity, all the heavy stuff (AC, water tanks) are down low. The point where the car attaches to the bogie is low too. I worry how top heavy that 18 ft car (even with Stadler expertise) would be crusing at 79 mph on less than stellar track.

Are you suggesting that Alaska RR has great tracks everywhere with no less than stellar track sections, or Canadian Pacific RR? Just about all the freight RR mainlines in the western USA allow double stack containers, so the 18 feet tall car clearance shouldn’t be much of a problem on the mainlines. Where there is not sufficent clearance on specific tracks entering passenger yards and stations, they can solved it by replacing the offending bridges and viaducts. There shouldn’t be that many that will need fixing.

Amtrak wouldn’t need many with ultradomes glass enclosures built, only needing to replace the sightseerer lounges with ultradomes. The rest can be just standard double level cars with steel roofs. They even could change the configuration of the dinning car with their push to eliminate kitchens or galleys, placing the table car on one level and the dorms on the other level, putting most of the non revenue spaces into just one car.

But, and an important point to remember, compatibility between the old Superliners and these taller cars, or with new single level cars, will be ugly. The only Superliner cars they could match vestibules with will be the transistion dorm sleepers.

Ok, so its probably not an issue, but how many of these of Alaska cruises and tour trains are doing 79 let alone 90 ?

I take back my concern over 18 ft height. After seeing how much clearance there is under Roosevelt bridge leaving CUS.

bostontrainguy wrote:

electricron wrote:But, and an important point to remember, compatibility between the old Superliners and these taller cars, or with new single level cars, will be ugly. The only Superliner cars they could match vestibules with will be the transistion dorm sleepers.

I'm thinking a total replacement here. The old Superliners could be used for regional services.

frequentflyer wrote: One of the most impressive features of the Superliner is its low center of gravity, all the heavy stuff (AC, water tanks) are down low. The point where the car attaches to the bogie is low too. I worry how top heavy that 18 ft car (even with Stadler expertise) would be crusing at 79 mph on less than stellar track.

Actually I think these might just be equally well balanced or even better. Remember that all of the heavy mechanicals and holding tanks are located below the bottom floor. Maybe even a lower center of gravity since much of the Superliner stuff is actually above the bottom floor over the wheels. When I rode them in Alaska I do not remember any sway at all although the maximum speed up there was 59 mph.

RE: Amtrak wouldn’t need many

Don't know what you exactly meant here, but that statement should stand alone . . . "Amtrak wouldn't need many". Can a few raised clearances be justified if Amtrak could run half the equipment? Example: If one Ultradome sleeper could substitute for two sleepers, one coach for every two coaches, a single two-story diner/lounge for a dining car and a lounge car, one good modern locomotive instead of two pulling shorter consists . . . what would the savings be? Cut the maintenance in half maybe too? Worth considering I guess.

1. I bet the old Supers will meet the torch, though maybe states like NC which seems to be buying older cars would be interested.

2. Interesting info on where the heavy stuff is on these cars. If Amtrak went this route, larger water tanks can be engineered. Most likely access would be on the upper level, but other than coach, I do not see how these cars would have higher capacity say in sleeper car. These tourist cars are just taller than a Superliner, not longer I believe.

3. Though Sadler is building them based on an older design, do they have to meet the FRA's latest crash tests?

4. I like your creativity and thinking outside the box. Hope Amtrak is thinking the same too.

Are the Stadler cars high platform? I remember the CRC cars being pretty much a super-gallery car with a 48” floor, and that negates the purpose of the western 8” platform standard.

Those double-floor Talgo coaches look like a really neat solution to the accessibility question, while still fitting the current Superliner profile. I wonder if Amtrak could substitute married triples of them for each single Superliner car rather than mess with a full articulated trainset.

frequentflyer wrote: Most likely access would be on the upper level, but other than coach, I do not see how these cars would have higher capacity say in sleeper car. These tourist cars are just taller than a Superliner, not longer I believe.

Can you imagine two sleepers stacked on top of one another? Try to visualize this: Now realistically, the bottom floor will lose that mid bathroom for the vestibule. On each level there will be the loss of one roomette for a dual toilet module and across the hall one roomette would become a shower/changing room. The two bedrooms on the lower level next to the vestibule would become the ADA accessible room with toilet (hopefully back inside an enclosed separate room to make the room more desirable for non-ADA passengers). That would leave 9 bedrooms and 16 roomettes for a maximum capacity of 50 passengers per car.

In contrast the NEW Viewliners (and rebuilt ones) will have maximum capacity of 30 passengers (delete two roomettes for the NEW dual bathroom module & shower module).

Superliners have a maximum capacity of 40 passengers (plus a couple of children in the family room).

The above figures are calculated with Amtrak's new plans to use call buttons and have attendants in dorm cars and the necessity of new toilet modules due to loss of in-room toilets in the new Viewliners.

Maybe the upper-level bedrooms of these Ultradome sleepers could have dome windows and be sold at a premium fare as Deluxe Sleepers?

frequentflyer wrote:
Ok, so its probably not an issue, but how many of these of Alaska cruises and tour trains are doing 79 let alone 90 ?

I take back my concern over 18 ft height. After seeing how much clearance there is under Roosevelt bridge leaving CUS.

From my time on the ride Anchorage to Seward, we probably hit 55mph a few times in the flatlands and crossed the mountains around 30mph. It's not a fast operation by any means.

mtuandrew wrote:Are the Stadler cars high platform? I remember the CRC cars being pretty much a super-gallery car with a 48” floor, and that negates the purpose of the western 8” platform standard.

Those double-floor Talgo coaches look like a really neat solution to the accessibility question, while still fitting the current Superliner profile. I wonder if Amtrak could substitute married triples of them for each single Superliner car rather than mess with a full articulated trainset.

Yes, these would need high-level platforms and portable lifts if needed. But certainly a newly designed car could have a built-in lift of some kind and satisfy ADA requirements.

Funny you mentioned married triples. That's exactly how Talgo built the prototype:

bostontrainguy wrote:

mtuandrew wrote:Are the Stadler cars high platform? I remember the CRC cars being pretty much a super-gallery car with a 48” floor, and that negates the purpose of the western 8” platform standard.

Those double-floor Talgo coaches look like a really neat solution to the accessibility question, while still fitting the current Superliner profile. I wonder if Amtrak could substitute married triples of them for each single Superliner car rather than mess with a full articulated trainset.

Yes, these would need high-level platforms and portable lifts if needed. But certainly a newly designed car could have a built-in lift of some kind and satisfy ADA requirements.

Funny you mentioned married triples. That's exactly how Talgo built the prototype:

Talgo22.jpg

Where did you get the pic from? A prototype for what? I did not see it on Talgo's website.

frequentflyer wrote:Where did you get the pic from? A prototype for what? I did not see it on Talgo's website.

The Talgo 22. Just Google it.
http://www.ferropedia.es/mediawiki/index.php/Talgo_22" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wonder whether Patentes Talgo SA or Transtech OY (the former Talgo OY, now part of the Škoda Group) owns the design to the Talgo 22.

EDIT: according to Talgo GmbH the design is still Talgo-owned. http://www.talgo.de/talgo22.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; page in German

I like the looks of that coach set though, maybe Mr. Anderson can work something out with them. We could use a quantum leap in American passenger rail cars.