Future Amtrak Sleeper and ADA ideas

[John from RI]

Out of curiosity - I have zero expertise on this subject whatsoever - would would the additional costs look like in my made-up scenario? Obviously track storage, labor to change the cars, possible additional rolling stock. What else am I missing?

As has been noted many times on this board, Amtrak needs a product between coach and roomette. I am a bit skeptical Americans would go for the 4 to 6-person berths common in Europe. I'm not sure there's enough societal trust, and people's attitudes about shared spaces in the post-COVID world might be different, too.

You're exactly right to call for a car between a coach and a roomette. I have often thought an old fashioned open sleeper did this job well and I still like that idea. However, this couchette car also does it and would be a real improvement over what Amtrak now offers. The car would also carry more passengers than current sleeping cars and that is important. To keep fares at a minamum Amtrack should offer minamum service. Passengers get fresh lines but make their own beds. They eat in the diner but pay for their own meals. Transportation with low but profitable fares is what Amtrak should be about for most of us. Those willing to pay 1st class fares can have 1st class service.

 

[AmtrakMaineiac]

You're exactly right to call for a car between a coach and a roomette. I have often thought an old fashioned open sleeper did this job well and I still like that idea. However, this couchette car also does it and would be a real improvement over what Amtrak now offers. The car would also carry more passengers than current sleeping cars and that is important. To keep fares at a minamum Amtrack should offer minamum service. Passengers get fresh lines but make their own beds. They eat in the diner but pay for their own meals. Transportation with low but profitable fares is what Amtrak should be about for most of us. Those willing to pay 1st class fares can have 1st class service.

I wonder how the concept of sleeping in the same room with strangers would be received here in the US. Not a problem in Europe but not a concept common here in the US. Although I guess there are hostels where people sleep in the same room?

 

[Bob Dylan]

You're exactly right to call for a car between a coach and a roomette. I have often thought an old fashioned open sleeper did this job well and I still like that idea. However, this couchette car also does it and would be a real improvement over what Amtrak now offers. The car would also carry more passengers than current sleeping cars and that is important. To keep fares at a minamum Amtrack should offer minamum service. Passengers get fresh lines but make their own beds. They eat in the diner but pay for their own meals. Transportation with low but profitable fares is what Amtrak should be about for most of us. Those willing to pay 1st class fares can have 1st class service.

Slumber Coach trumps Sections by a Mile!

 

[cocojacoby]

I wonder how the concept of sleeping in the same room with strangers would be received here in the US.

Not very well.

 

[Mailliw]

I would definitely prefer berths or couchettes to sleeping in coach, but Americans are weird. Hostels are popular with younger travelers on a budget, otherwise Americans only accept shared sleeping accommodations in an open saloon with seats. Also in today's climate offering single-sex couchettes like in Europe would open up a huge can of worms for Amtrak.

 

[west point]

If you put the pass through at a mezzanine level instead of the upper level it becomes easier to mix and match single and bilevel cars. Accessibility becomes even more complex though.

That is a problem unless SL cars made taller. Now if CHI Union station can raise the roof then only those few stations that interference from a taller car will cause. The 800 # Problem is that raising roof is necessary anyway as any HSR CAT will not clear present SL cars. Last time I looked there was only 6 - 8 inches clearance.
Now there are 2 routes that can use the taller cars Auto Train could be natural. 40 - 50 cars. Sunset however a transition car would be needed to attach Eagle at SAS. There are other possibilities. Present Sunset 3 trains 36 - 40 cars. Daily 6 trains 60 - 70 cars. A nice order and would allow present AT cars to fill present gaps.

 

[uncleboots]

Major Shoutout to my Cousin Deion Sanders and the Boys at Colorado for pulling a major upset over TCU.Deion, Shillo and Shedeur are my Cousins and Freshman WR Adam Hopkins is my Step Sisters Cousin.

 

[cocojacoby]

I thought about this for a while and if you all would indulge me I would like to present an alternative concept to those interested. I think Amtrak has "overthunk" this. I am going with the bi-level design since I think it works better and is more desirable.

Amtrak is proposing using six differently designed cars for a six car semi-permanently coupled "core" trainset. I think you can do it with only 2 different car designs and a three car fixed set. Additional non-accessible coaches can be added to the front of the core and non-accessible sleepers on the rear.

This concept has four accessible bedrooms with connected bathrooms and four accessible coach seat locations. There is no passing though the dining car which is going to be problematic when servers are trying to deliver food to passengers. Wheelchair passengers will have much shorter distances to travel within the train to access any feature. Use the same color codes as Amtrak's diagrams. Train is going to the left: Non-Accessible Coaches/Car 1/Diner/Car 3/Non-Accessible Sleepers/Baggage-Dorm.

So here we go:

Car 1 and Car 3 are a "Multipurpose" car that can be fitted with coach seating, table seating or lounge seating upstairs and two accessible bedrooms downstairs. The same car is flipped and used as bookends to the core.

Car 2 is a full diner with a full-width kitchen downstairs and table seating upstairs. The four tables at the two ends have convertible tables that allow accessible wheelchair use as needed.

CAR 1 - MULTIPUPOSE CAR OUTFITTED WITH COACH SEATS
Cafe Counter
Two Accessible First Class Bedrooms with Attached Bathrooms
Two Assessible Wheelchair Coach Spaces with Fold Out Tables
Fully Assessible Public Restroom


CAR 2 - FULL LENGTH DINER
Convertible tables at both ends for wheelchair access.


CAR 3 - MULTIPURPOSE CAR FLIPPED IN OPPOSITE DIRECTION OUTFITTED WITH LOUNGE TABLES OR LOUNGE SEATING
Cafe Counter
Two Accessible First Class Bedrooms with Attached Bathrooms
Two Assessible Wheelchair Coach Spaces with Fold Out Tables
Fully Assessible Public Restroom


Seems so much simpler than Amtrak's solution. Feedback appreciated. Let me know if I missed something. Thanks.

 

[cocojacoby]

Feel free to send them feed back at the email address provided above in my post. But be considerate and provide only Accessibility related feedback, as this activity is about accessibility and not about general LD train design.

Is there an email address for this? The link above will allow for text but not images. Note that the feedback time has been extended to September 8th.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

I thought about this for a while and if you all would indulge me I would like to present an alternative concept to those interested. I think Amtrak has "overthunk" this. I am going with the bi-level design since I think it works better and is more desirable.

Amtrak is proposing using six differently designed cars for a six car semi-permanently coupled "core" trainset. I think you can do it with only 2 different car designs and a three car fixed set. Additional non-accessible coaches can be added to the front of the core and non-accessible sleepers on the rear.

This concept has four accessible bedrooms with connected bathrooms and four accessible coach seat locations. There is no passing though the dining car which is going to be problematic when servers are trying to deliver food to passengers. Wheelchair passengers will have much shorter distances to travel within the train to access any feature.

So here we go:

Car 1 and Car 3 is a "Multipurpose" car that can be fitted with coach seating, table seating or lounge seating upstairs and two accessible bedrooms downstairs. The same car is flipped and used as bookends to the core.

Car 2 is a full diner with a full-width kitchen downstairs and table seating upstairs. The four tables at the two ends have convertible tables that allow accessible wheelchair use as needed.

CAR 1 - MULTIPUPOSE CAR OUTFITTED WITH COACH SEATS
Cafe Counter
Two Accessible First Class Bedrooms with Attached Bathrooms
Two Assessible Wheelchair Coach Spaces with Fold Out Tables
Fully Assessible Public Restroom
View attachment 33721

CAR 2 - FULL LEGTH DINER
Convertible tables at both ends for wheelchair access.
View attachment 33722

CAR 3 - MULTIPURPOSE CAR FLIPPED IN OPPOSITE DIRECTION OUTFITTED WITH LOUNGE TABLES OR LOUNGE SEATING
Cafe Counter
Two Accessible First Class Bedrooms with Attached Bathrooms
Two Assessible Wheelchair Coach Spaces with Fold Out Tables
Fully Assessible Public Restroom
View attachment 33723

Feedback appreciated. Let me know if I missed something. Thanks.

I appreciate the drawings.
One size does not fit all.

The big issue is the bed in the bedrooms on the lower level. Seem too small for anyone. In your drawing the couch/bed is top to bottom. We’re you plan a queen size bed to tilt down from the wall “Murphy Bed”?


The bed probably going to need to be left to right. Which in this case removes one bedroom for use. I would stick to the current full width room, just make it longer. Add the ability to get two wheel chairs with two lower bunks. Then add a couple full size Pullman berths. Then you could sell it both as an accessibility room or a family room. At the very least you can book a couple that both have mobility issues.

 

[jis]

Is there an email address for this? The link above will allow for text but not images. Note that the feedback time has been extended to September 8th.

Not that I am aware of.

 

[west point]

IMO Amtrak should consider building taller 2 level train sets similar to the tourist train sets out west. As of now the Starlight, Sunset, & Auto train operate on routes that are all plate "H" clearances. The taller cars would mitigate any of the second level head roominess especially sleeper upper levels and have upper level windows. For number of cars and 20% spares you would need ===== AT - 49, Starlight - 77 / 80, Sunset if daily 86. or 43. Various Totals = up to 211. Probably start with one full set on AT of 20 cars. With AT's speed limit of 70 the suspension can be proved out for the higher speeds of say 110 MPH.

Minimum number of cars for these train's routes of about 100. Just think how the displaced Superliners would become available for other trains if these cars were put into service 1st. Then regular SLs could be built. + the 40 or so being rebuilt in 2024 will fill in.

Now these cars cannot be used for any CHI trains yet. The height clearances at CHI Union station and a few canopies at other stations will need mitigation. CHI needs to have height clearances raised to allow for the CAT necessary for HrSR and HSR that is coming so the 80 -100 Superliners freeded up would help until CHI height clearances are finally fixed.

Finally there are many future routes that could use these cars. Obvious one is DFW - ATL with possible extension of that route to Florida.

 

[AFriendly]

My friend Carl Fowler posted the following message on Facebook forwarding a post from Ira Silverman on the subject of future Sleepers which I thought would be of interest here. So I got Carl's permission to post it here:

Form Carl Fowler (with his permission):
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ira Silverman, a retired former Amtrak and MARC executive, has very graciously shared his thoughts on the design of a new long-distance fleet for both Amtrak and VIA Rail Canada. He has also ok'd my sharing this on Facebook. He's succinctly amplified my earlier suggestions for a new fleet that could serve the entire country. This is vital if Amtrak is to be able to respond to regional demand.

This concise essay brilliantly sets out overall design parameters for a meaningful new equipment order and the concept of the US and Canadian carriers ordering a joint design could save millions and facilitate a quicker delivery. In a sense this has been the case with the US and Canadian orders currently underway for the Siemens "Venture" corridor fleets, but the orders have not truly been coordinated.

Ira Silverman's rail career was focused on passenger service--unusally for our times. He worked first for the Illinois Central (one of the last "pro-passenger private carriers) as a Financial Analyst and Assistant to the Senior Vice President, Operations; then spent 20 years (1975-1995) at Amtrak, serving as Manager, Operations Planning and Equipment, and as Route Manager Eastern Routes and Director, Route Marketing; before his work at MARC (Maryland Area Regional Commuter Rail), as Chief Transportation Officer and Manager, Transit Strategy. His experience makes him uniquely qualified to offer ideas for a new LH fleet.

One of the areas that current Amtrak management consistently fails to systematically draw upon is the expertise of retired, but long-experienced passenger rail experts, most particularly including its own former managers. Amtrak has lost an incredible amount of long-term expertise not only from normal retirements, but also from ill0considered buy-outs. I have known Ira Silverman through my involvement with NARP/RPA and Amtrak since the 1970s and have great respect for his expertise. His essay follows:
****************************************************
New Amtrak-VIA Long Distance Fleet

Both Amtrak and VIA need to acquire new long-distance cars. For the sake of economy of procurement, a joint order makes sense. VIA has more flexibility because all of its long-distance trains can accommodate bi-level/dome equipment. Amtrak has 5 long distance routes serving New York which cannot operate with bi-level equipment and presently use a different fleet of equipment. This increases the amount of protect equipment at Chicago, New Orleans, and Washington.

This proposal envisions a single fleet except for a small number of full-length dome lounges and dome sleeper lounges for VIA and present Superliner routes. Sleeping cars will have a mix of Viewliner roomettes and larger VIA-style prestige rooms. Cars should be designed with the maximum height to make upper berths as spacious as possible. Present designs have deficiencies in many details and new cars should incorporate experience with present cars. In addition the demands of the ADA community have resulted in wider aisles at the expense of seat comfort.

A new type of car will offer a railbed sleeper using lay flat seats such as found on trans-oceanic flights and the "Spirit of Queensland" train service in Australia. These cars can be used to supplement coach seating and allow higher density seating in coaches. They will attract riders who will not ride coach but cannot afford sleeping cars. This design has the best economics for a single rider versus a Viewliner roomette. Before finalizing the design, an test could be conducted with experimental cars of this type on existing long distance trains.

One advantage of a single level fleet is minimizing design compromises to accommodate ADA requirements. The full level dome lounges may have to be designed with an elevator to meet these requirements. (Note from Carl Fowler" Stadler has already done this in its fleet of new North American crash-compliant domes for the ROCKY MOUNTAINEER).

In addition, any car except for the dome cars can operate anywhere in the system. This would allow cars from western long-distance trains to be operated on Florida trains in the winter.

One feature that could be incorporated would be articulating two or three coaches or sleepers in a unit.

Greater attention has to be paid to details of cars: reading lights, reduced lighting at night in coaches as well as improved noise and air flow at body end doors. The availability of USB and electrical outlets are also important.
And in coaches seat design is critical and has already proven to be a problem in new Midwest cars. (Note from Carl Fowler: Readers know my preference for the famous "Sleepy Hollow" seats originally from the Heywood-Wakefield company--but the Santa Fe had a top challenger used on its El Capitan--the "Travel-ease" seat from the Dwight Austin Company. This had more geared parts than the SH seat, but boasted adjustable head, leg and foot-rests).

• Single level coach. 64-68 seats per car.
• Single level Tourist class car. 40 seats identical to airline transatlantic first/business class or Spirit of Queensland in Australia.
• Full length dome lounge like GN/ATSF. Food unit and bar on lower level. The car is used as lounge and food car for coach. A second car in a consist is used as a first class lounge on present Superliner and VIA routes. As demand dictates, only one car can operate for both coach and first class in off peak.
• For Amtrak single level routes, a single level lounge with Superliner lounge style windows replaces full length dome lounge.
• 48 seat dining car (Note from Carl Fowler: Should be open to all passengers).
• Sleeping car containing Viewliner Roomettes and Prestige Bedrooms. Mix of rooms to be determined.
• Single sleeping car containing all Viewliner Roomettes for peak season and lighter demand trains.
• Park Car dome lounge for Superliner and VIA trains. Also contains prestige rooms as current car and serves as sleeper lounge
• For Amtrak single level routes an identical car without a dome

Ira Silverman
4/4/13

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

This is the way. The Amfleet replacement should have been bilevel (a TGV Duplex isn't as tall as NJT's Bombardier MultiLevels, so yes, it can be done). Its not worth the trouble for long distance.

 

[TransitTyrant]

This is the way. The Amfleet replacement should have been bilevel (a TGV Duplex isn't as tall as NJT's Bombardier MultiLevels, so yes, it can be done). Its not worth the trouble for long distance.

The TGV Duplex isn’t compatible with the NECs high level platforms and NJT Bilevels would require a redesign for longer distance trips. That would reduce their capacity pretty significantly to the point you’re only adding a few more seats for another one trainset used on only one region. Creating one single level car like the Venture/Airo reduces costs long term.

 

[AFriendly]

I'm curious how it reduces costs long term, exactly. Shorter trains = smaller onboard staff requirements, easier to load and unload at stations, lower cost-per-seat maintenance needs. There are established and clear reasons why railroads around the world pursue bilevel rolling stock on higher-density routes first. At some point, we need to stop doing things the way PRR decided to do them back in the 1930s, even if it costs a bit more up front. On the topic of the Bombardier MultiLevels, a restroom-equipped car without a cab has 132 seats for commuters in 2+2 rows of seats: how many seats do we need to lose? Even if you take away 32 of them, you are still carrying as many passengers in 4 cars as you'd need 6 Airo cars to carry.

 

[TransitTyrant]

I'm curious how it reduces costs long term, exactly. Shorter trains = smaller onboard staff requirements, easier to load and unload at stations, lower cost-per-seat maintenance needs. There are established and clear reasons why railroads around the world pursue bilevel rolling stock on higher-density routes first. At some point, we need to stop doing things the way PRR decided to do them back in the 1930s, even if it costs a bit more up front. On the topic of the Bombardier MultiLevels, a restroom-equipped car without a cab has 132 seats for commuters in 2+2 rows of seats: how many seats do we need to lose? Even if you take away 32 of them, you are still carrying as many passengers in 4 cars as you'd need 6 Airo cars to carry.

Having a unified fleet of short distance corridor equipment would save money on maintenance costs. It also increases flexibility. A 4 car train requires the same crew size as a 6 car train.

 

[AmtrakMaineiac]

I'm curious how it reduces costs long term, exactly. Shorter trains = smaller onboard staff requirements, easier to load and unload at stations, lower cost-per-seat maintenance needs. There are established and clear reasons why railroads around the world pursue bilevel rolling stock on higher-density routes first. At some point, we need to stop doing things the way PRR decided to do them back in the 1930s, even if it costs a bit more up front. On the topic of the Bombardier MultiLevels, a restroom-equipped car without a cab has 132 seats for commuters in 2+2 rows of seats: how many seats do we need to lose? Even if you take away 32 of them, you are still carrying as many passengers in 4 cars as you'd need 6 Airo cars to carry.

I don't see how you save on onboard staff since you are still handling the same number of people that are now on 2 levels of fewer cars vs. one level of more cars. It may work better in Europe as they tend to have less onboard staff and do not micromanage passenger seating as we do on LD trains in the US.

 

[user 29618]

I would definitely prefer berths or couchettes to sleeping in coach, but Americans are weird. Hostels are popular with younger travelers on a budget, otherwise Americans only accept shared sleeping accommodations in an open saloon with seats. Also in today's climate offering single-sex couchettes like in Europe would open up a huge can of worms for Amtrak.

A can of worms indeed.
But also, I'm seeing a logical disconnect in this whole discussion.
Amtrak coach fares only beat airline prices on short (2-4hr trips). Nobody on a budget is going to pay extra to sleep in a bed for just 2 or 3 hours.
For longer trips that might justify paying extra for sleeping accomodations, airline prices are about 1/10 the price of a train seat, and sometimes 1/30 the price of a roomette. Budget oriented travellers are going to take that into account, and avoid trains. Saving the money for a room at the destination.
Or to put it another way, other than a few people who are deathly afraid to fly, there's no market for a cheaper sleeper on a train.

 

[Mailliw]

Not everyone who chooses a train over a plane does so to save money or because they're "afraid to fly". They may have conditions that make them unable to fly at all, or unable to fly without extreme hassle, anxiety, and or loss of dignity. They may be avoiding racial profiling, or scrutiny over their gender identity. There are also those of us do so for environmental reasons.

 

[Ziv]

Not very well.

If your choice is a seat vs a bed in a couchette or "hard sleeper" car/room you share with others vs a Roomette, the couchette/"hard sleeper" might be something people would want to upgrade to if the price is less than a Roomette?
I think it would be a self selecting group that chose to opt for a couchette or a "hard sleeper" car, but that group would be a relatively large one. Traveling overnight in a coach car is a pain, literally. Couchettes or hard sleepers make it much more pleasant. Much.

 

[user 29618]

Not everyone who chooses a train over a plane does so to save money or because they're "afraid to fly". They may have conditions that make them unable to fly at all, or unable to fly without extreme hassle, anxiety, and or loss of dignity. They may be avoiding racial profiling, or scrutiny over their gender identity. There are also those of us do so for environmental reasons.

Seems like most of those conditions, other than fear of flying, would make a person less likely to want to share bunks in an open car.

 

[Ziv]

Seems like most of those conditions, other than fear of flying, would make a person less likely to want to share bunks in an open car.

Irv, I do not think that travelers who use couchette or hard sleeper options abroad lose any dignity, or feel that they are being subjected to any hassle or face any anxiety in sleeping in a railcar. Amtrak coach passengers sleep in the same state of a semi-public area, but they do so very uncomfortably while couchette/hard sleeper passengers overseas can sleep much more comfortably.
I think Amtrak has painted itself into a corner by claiming that Americans are different/(spoiled?) and did so simply to protect a position that Amtrak management assumed out of inertia, rather than experience. The crux of the matter is that a couchette/hard sleeper option does not have to appeal to all Amtrak passengers, just to enough to fill one (or two?) cars per LD train. By giving passengers a choice between the higher cost of a roomette and the reduced comfort of coach, Amtrak can gain more passengers at a higher price point than coach, while losing a small portion of the roomette traffic. The important part is to structure pricing to gain passengers willing to upgrade from coach to couchette, not to scavenge passengers downgrading from roomette to couchette. Proper bucket pricing could do just that.

 

[Bob Dylan]

I'm still hoping someone in AmManagement will consider ordering some Slumber Coaches for the LD Trains!

Still the Best Deal Railroads have ever offered Overnight Passengers!

 

[lrh442]

...other than a few people who are deathly afraid to fly, there's no market for a cheaper sleeper on a train.

There are multiple reasons why Amtrak probably won't, and possibly shouldn't, pursue this market. But I do think the market exists and could be pursued economically (note I didn't say "profitably").

Context: Kansas City to LA, your price points are $142 for coach and $1K+ for a roomette. There is a huge price point gap in their product offering. What makes you think that no one would be interested in an economy accommodation (duplex/slumbercoach or lay-flat bed) for say, $300?

 

[cocojacoby]

Context: Kansas City to LA, your price points are $142 for coach and $1K+ for a roomette. There is a huge price point gap in their product offering. What makes you think that no one would be interested in an economy accommodation (duplex/slumbercoach or lay-flat bed) for say, $300?

Yup about the same situation between Florida and NYC/Boston. There has to be a middle ground here. My wife most recently rode coach to Boston and I most recently took the Auto Train in coach. We just couldn't justify the cost and would have loved a lie-flat Delta One type accommodation.