If you were CEO

[Amfleet]

90 is the typical capacity of a single level commuter coach with 2-3 seating. The most seats in a single level coach for Amtrak is about 80 and those cars are mainly used on Northeast Corridor trains only.

Alan is correct that there is only 59 (some 55) seats in an Amfleet II Coach, the type used on the Lake Shore Limited, as well as the Three Rivers and Cardinal.

A single level lounge holds about 50 compared to 70 on a Superliner and a single level diner only holds about 45 (depending on interior layout) where as a Superliner holds 72. As for the sleepers a Viewliner holds 30, Superliner 44.

 

[tubaallen]

Alright...I stand corrected ....so maybe you're right then, Amfleet....just another reason to stick with superliners.

 

[Viewliner]

Alright...I stand corrected ....so maybe you're right then, Amfleet....just another reason to stick with superliners.

I guess so too, but future orders could use the Viewliner Style windows, and possibly the ability to board at high level platforms (For if the NEC could one day fit them).

 

[tubaallen]

I don't know how practical the viewline windows would be, but you're right, maybe the high-level boarding would work well. They would have to totally reconfigure the car though. And actually, (as I was typing this) I just realized....even that may not make that much sense...because then we would lose seating capacity....having to add high-level vestibules. Unless you just replaced the low-level vestibule with the high-level one and added the trap???? I don't know....

 

[AlanB]

They would have to totally reconfigure the car though. And actually, (as I was typing this) I just realized....even that may not make that much sense...because then we would lose seating capacity....having to add high-level vestibules. Unless you just replaced the low-level vestibule with the high-level one and added the trap???? I don't know....

Tubaallen,

You are correct they would have to totally reconfigure the car to accommodate high-level platforms. That reconfiguration would indeed reduce seating and bedroom capacity. The only way to make this work would be to follow what many of the commuter RR's are doing with their cars.

They place the entrances at the ends of the cars, at mid-level. You then go up for the upper level or down for the lower level. If you didn't put this at both ends of the cars, then you would always have to make sure that you put the two high ends back to back. This reduces flexibility in building your consist.

This however is the only way to make it work. It's simply not possible to take the existing Superliner plan and make it work. I've seen what happens when a NJT train with a low-level platform only car pulls into a high-level platform. You would need to be about 10 inches tall to enter through the door, and even then you would fall down into the trap.

If you tried to raise the doorframe and put in steps to go up from the existing Superliner door, you would need to cut into the upper floor in order to make this work. So I don't think that you're going to see Superliners on the east coast any time soon.

 

[Amfleet]

I think we have already gone trough this, but it is unpractical for the Superliner to have a second window. This is because of the fact that the Viewliner is taller (inside) and has a more square shape than the Superliner. If you've ever been in a Superliner you'll se what I mean about the height.

As for making Superliners to stop at a high-level the "mid-way" vestibule would take away from interior space. To be realistic it would be impossible to raise the height in Penn Station and 30th Street Philly, plus you would have to replace both the Hudson River tunnels and the tunnels into Baltimore. I don't see all of these four happening within my life time.

 

[AlanB]

I think we have already gone trough this, but it is unpractical for the Superliner to have a second window. This is because of the fact that the Viewliner is taller (inside) and has a more square shape than the Superliner. If you've ever been in a Superliner you'll se what I mean about the height.

Amfleet,

On this I disagree, I've slept in that top bunk on a Superliner. There is no reason that a small window can't be put in there. Maybe it won't be quite as large as the Viewliner upper level windows, but if there is room for me then there has to be room for the window. This would be true on both levels of the car.

As for making Superliners to stop at a high-level the "mid-way" vestibule would take away from interior space. To be realistic it would be impossible to raise the height in Penn Station and 30th Street Philly, plus you would have to replace both the Hudson River tunnels and the tunnels into Baltimore. I don't see all of these four happening within my life time.

Well I don't know about the Baltimore tunnels, but you will most likely see a taller Hudson River tunnel. NJT is going to have no choice but to help build at least one, if not two, additional tunnels under the Hudson. At the moment they have already commisioned a study for this. Best guess would be sometime around 2020 for completion, which would only make you around 34 or so.

You forgot however, the East River tunnels into Penn.

 

[tubaallen]

Ah, this is true too...I completely forgot about the tunnels. No superliner will make it eastward for that reason either.

 

[Viewliner]

Without those you can't get to Sunnyside, also the catenary may be too low in some areas.

 

[AlanB]

Without those you can't get to Sunnyside, also the catenary may be too low in some areas.

Well catenary is relatively easy to raise. Granted it does take money, but it's far easier to raise catenary than to raise a tunnel.

 

[Viewliner]

Yes, more importantly, without sunnyside you'll have no place for maintenece/cleaning/storage of them. Does Penn itself have the height for it?

 

[Amfleet]

On this I disagree, I've slept in that top bunk on a Superliner. There is no reason that a small window can't be put in there. Maybe it won't be quite as large as the Viewliner upper level windows, but if there is room for me then there has to be room for the window. This would be true on both levels of the car.

I have to disagree. Take a look at the picture bellow of a Superliner II Sleeper. Putting the lower level aside, where can you see the additon of a second window? Remember the sides begin to curve in on the upper-level.

 

[Viewliner]

I guess you could make it like a Sightseer Lounge then to solve that problem, with curtains of course. The bottom line is the upper bunk could use a window.

 

[AlanB]

I have to disagree. Take a look at the picture bellow of a Superliner II Sleeper. Putting the lower level aside, where can you see the additon of a second window? Remember the sides begin to curve in on the upper-level.

Go look at a picture of a Superliner Sightseer Lounge. Notice how it's windows curve at the top into the roof. You can do the same here too. Remember that upper level window is below the upper bunk in the room. If people are able to fit in that upper level bunk, then there has to be room for a window, even if it has to be curved. Kinda like a skylight.

 

[gswager]

Other reason for not putting window on upper bunk. Probably allowed to have her/his kid on upper bunk to sleep without looking out the windows for monster. h34r: :lol:

 

[Bill Haithcoat]

A few pages back this post was talking about speed. I have clocked the Crescent with heritage equpment at 120 mp making up time between DC and NYC. It was New Year's eve 1984. I was in Times Square that night. I remember it all quite well. I do not know what our locomotive was, but I do know were we were making one milepost every 30 seconds. I have been told that is not possible---I did witness it myself. Period. Possible or not.

 

[AlanB]

A few pages back this post was talking about speed. I have clocked the Crescent with heritage equpment at 120 mp making up time between DC and NYC. It was New Year's eve 1984. I was in Times Square that night. I remember it all quite well. I do not know what our locomotive was, but I do know were we were making one milepost every 30 seconds. I have been told that is not possible---I did witness it myself. Period. Possible or not.

Bill I can't speak to whether the Heritage equipment can handle that speed, although I suspect that the equipment probably could have been pushed to that speed.

At that time, 1984, the AEM electrics were out. So if your train had one of those, it could have hit 125 MPH the engine's max speed. If you were being pulled by an E60, then max speed would have been 90 MPH.

So I would say that most likely, your train did indeed get one of the new AEM7's and you weren't dreaming.

 

[Bill Haithcoat]

Thanks for for elaborating on that...as you read, I have been told that I was wrong. I remember it like this: I was not particularly thinking about speed......but I became conscious of sort of a roar underneath the train, like a tornado....that made me set up and take notice. I was thrilled!! And I was not even anticipating such a thing!! One of my more cherished memories, it is. I do not know much about locomotives.....but I can tell time!!! Again, thanks.

 

[AlanB]

Bill,

Just to add to you timing the mile posts, I had the pleasure of meeting the engineer on my recent trip. The engineer for the City of NOL came to greet the passengers in the first class area. He was a real class act and a major positive for Amtrak. All the passengers were quite impressed when he came in to talk with us.

In any event, one of the things that he told us is that he periodically checks the speedometer of the locomotive by doing exactly what you were doing that night on the Crescent.

 

[Bill Haithcoat]

Glad to hear of an engineer doing that....I have never witnessed such a thing. Seems like so many things are going so positively for Amtrak these days---hope they continue.

As to the speed, I have been 125 on a Metroliner, but that was expected--unlike the Crescent's performance.

Guess you will put that engineer episode in your trip report...am looking forward to it.

 

[AlanB]

Guess you will put that engineer episode in your trip report...am looking forward to it.

Yep, now that AppleFest 2003 is over, I can spend a little time to finish my trip report.

I had reached New Orleans on my trip report, when I had to stop writing and finish helping to get the route guides ready for AppleFest 2003.

 

[Viewliner]

Pretty Interesting. It would be nice if every engineer would do that.

Alan, I'm looking forward to reading your trip report.

 

[AlanB]

Pretty Interesting. It would be nice if every engineer would do that.

Actually, it would be really hard for an engineer to do that in most every other First Class lounge. In NOL, there is only max of three trains per day that depart from there. So you know that every one waiting in the lounge, is going to be on your train.

Unlike say NY, where people could be waiting for 5 different trains all leaving within an hours time. Although I guess that he could just address the entire crowd, even if they weren't on his particular train.

 

[Amfleet]

I have to disagree. Take a look at the picture bellow of a Superliner II Sleeper. Putting the lower level aside, where can you see the additon of a second window? Remember the sides begin to curve in on the upper-level.

Go look at a picture of a Superliner Sightseer Lounge. Notice how it's windows curve at the top into the roof. You can do the same here too. Remember that upper level window is below the upper bunk in the room. If people are able to fit in that upper level bunk, then there has to be room for a window, even if it has to be curved. Kinda like a skylight.

OK, but that means when the upper bunk is folded up the window is covered thus not providing natural daylight, one of the main features of a Viewliner. Aslo, what about the lowerlevel.

 

[Larry]

Let some of the fat go!! All those supervisors and VP's. Do we really need 'em all? h34r: