Superliner III

[jis]

So a thousand pounds of lithium ion batteries would probably be sufficient to keep the heating/air conditioning running for about an hour, which probably isn't as much as would be ideal on a car pulled by a single locomotive with a non-redundant HEP source.

Airlines are charging people for a 20 lb suitcase in part because they can get away with it, but in part because the extra weight does burn more fuel. And you want Amtrak to add 13,000 lbs to the weight of its trains?

We seem to forget that such systems exist all over the world, and have done so for at least 60-70 years, nothing new, including in trains that run in Siberia. All that is needed is adapting them a bit to our circumstances. And BTW the common battery technology used was banks of lead acid batteries suspended under the cars, in the past. The more modern ones use NiMH ones. No one seem to be using LiH so far, possibly because of cost and fire hazards since at least until now the extra weight of NiMH has not been an issue.

The trick is to create multiple power load profiles and when HEP/power source is lost progressively drop to lower and lower power load profiles dropping non-critical things. Easy things that are done is resetting thermostats with a goal to maintain safety for the longest time rather than best comfort for a much shorter time etc. No one that I am aware of tries to run everything on full blast on battery power. I had a chance to see the control panel for one of these a couple of weeks back. Quite an interesting setup. Wish I had taken a picture of it.

 

[MikeM]

I forgot this in my earlier wish list, but I'd love to see "real" temperature controls in the sleeper rooms!!!! I hate baking / freezing in a premium space. I've seen this in some other posts, and really think it's a great addition.

In a sleeper vehicle it is quite hard to achieve. Think about it, you might want your room boiling hot, I might want mine freezing cold.

The way the sleepers in the UK get round it is to run the AC in 'cool' mode nearly all the time (with the addition of an internal heater bank in really cold external temperatures) and have a heater bank in each berth roof space so you add heat as you want to warm the room.

Having individual AC units for each berth would be very expensive and not the best way to go.

Ok, I'm willing to compromise. Just let me set the temprature of the whole car from my roomette, and I'll be happy! :unsure:

No, but seriously, if you could do like many offices where the temp is set cooler and then people can make it warmer using the baseboard heat if desired, then that would be nice. Failing that, do something to ensure better temperature balance in the sleepers - I've been in too many where part of the car is icy and another section is totally baking. And if the HVAC system is modular and could be easily swapped out if malfunctioning, that'd be a nice bonus. But I do agree that temp control would need to be bounded within a few degrees, it wouldn't be realistic to have one room 60 degrees and the neighboring room 80.

One final thought -- fans? Older sleepers had the rubber bladed fans in the rooms that helped compensate for some temperature imbalances? I wonder if that could be a solution that'd be cheaper than lots of high tech pneumatic baffling and temp controls?

Realistically, whatever is done needs to be basic enough that it will still work in five years after the cars have been out on the road for a while. GML does have a point about keeping things operating, particularly given the feast or famine budget cycle Amtrak gets stuck in.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

In a sleeper vehicle it is quite hard to achieve. Think about it, you might want your room boiling hot, I might want mine freezing cold.The way the sleepers in the UK get round it is to run the AC in 'cool' mode nearly all the time (with the addition of an internal heater bank in really cold external temperatures) and have a heater bank in each berth roof space so you add heat as you want to warm the room.

Having individual AC units for each berth would be very expensive and not the best way to go.

That's a ridiculous statement. Volkswagen developed a system for their Phaeton luxury sedan that allowed it to realistically vary the temperature in the four interior, undivided zones up to a total range of 10 degrees. Suggesting that you can't achieve a range from coldest to hottest of 15 degrees when you have dividing walls is ridiculous. Say a range between 64 and 79.

How to do it? Its not hard. You have two ducts, one bringing air from a central heating unit and the other bringing air from a central a/c unit. Set both of them to a relatively high operating state. At each room, have a valve that apportions air from both ducts into a duct for that room. The theromstat controls the valve and thus controls the blending of the two airs into a specific temperature which it then blows into the room.

And as for what vehicles to buy, more sleepers. Given the prices that get charged for sleeper space it would be foolish to go for anything else, I think the slumbercoach thing is not the way to go. People want a sliver of privacy plus you could probably make more money out of a coach full of roomettes than a flophouse on wheels.

I'm glad you don't bother reading my posts once you determine that there is nothing within it with which to synthesize an insult. The Slumbercoach of which I spoke consisted of an all-roomette sleeper. 21 roomettes upstairs (10 each side of the stairs, one taking up the space freed up by removing the bathroom and the turn required for bedrooms), and 7 downstairs (the four as they are, two where the Family room is now, and one taking up the space where the luggage rack currently is). The luggage rack gets moved to the other side of the vestibule, and two or three bathrooms take up the space that the H-room occupies now. 28 roomettes, total capacity of 56 passengers. Offer the rooms three ways. You can purchase a berth in one of them for, say, $40 a night. You can purchase a whole room for yourself for $80 a night. You can add the room as an upgrade for a pair of passengers for $60 a night. Irrespective of which you chose, it does not include meals and you make up your bed yourself. The car is serviced by a coach attendant the same way a coach is, with the attendant using a transdorm room.

Assuming the Superliner IIIs are modular, this "slumbercoach" would have the same modules as a regular sleeper. $80 is a reasonable price for one of the current roomettes if they don't include meals. The difference is in the way they are marketed. So in the event of a pair of bad ordered sleepers, one Slumbercoach and one deluxe sleeper could substitute, minus the family room. Its no flophouse on wheels.

 

[Chris J.]

Assuming the Superliner IIIs are modular, this "slumbercoach" would have the same modules as a regular sleeper. $80 is a reasonable price for one of the current roomettes if they don't include meals. The difference is in the way they are marketed. So in the event of a pair of bad ordered sleepers, one Slumbercoach and one deluxe sleeper could substitute, minus the family room. Its no flophouse on wheels.

Would your "slumbercoach" (i'd be tempted to call it something like "economy sleeper") include a shower or would that be something reserved for the full-fare sleeper passengers?

 

[sunchaser]

Well, lets see. First, I feel it is important to keep in mind the need for financial efficiency onboard Amtrak trains.
Augmentation:

Sleeper augmentation will be done other ways.

1) 25 standard Superliner coaches for the same reason.

Spares:

1) 6 Sleepers (LA, EMY, SEA, CHI, NOL, WAS)

2) 6 coaches

3) 6 diners

Reasons: You don't need a spare lounge- the diner can do that. You also don't need spare trans-dorms because in the pinch, you can use a standard sleeper.

Additional routes:

I am going to assume some additional routes that Amtrak has aluded to. 2 train sets would be required to comfortably turn the CONO into the City of Miami. The Desert Wind and Pioneer make sense. A North Coast Hiawatha is less sensible, but I suspect certain states would be willing to partner with the feds to make it a reality. I also say that DW and Pioneer should combine into the Desert Pioneer at Denver and produce a second frequency between Denver and Chicago. I also think that trans-dorms are a silly idea. A Baggage/Dorm/Sleeper with the rear part of the crew lounge being for baggage on these short trains makes more sense.

 

So you'd have the following consist for the Desert Pioneer: P42 (P), P42(DW), Bag/Dorm/Sleeper (DW), sleeper (DW), CCC(DW), coach (DW), Coach (DW), Coach (P), Coach (P), CCC (P), Sleeper (P), Bag/Dorm/Sleeper (P).

 

CONO: P42, P42, Bag/Dorm/Sleeper, Sleeper, Diner, Sightseer, Coach, Coach, Coach.

 

NCH: P42, P42, Bag, Trans/dorm (from other trains), sleeper, sleeper, diner, SSL, coach, coach, coach.

 

Now, the CCCs are already there, so diners would be ordered to displace the CCCs from the TE and CONO. You'd need 6 Desert Pioneer sets, 3 COM sets, and 6 NCH sets, and a spare sightseer

1) 15 Bag/dorm/sleeper

2) 27 sleeper

3) 52 coach

4) 21 diners

5) 9 Sightseer

Additional car types.

Several routes running superliners justify these two car types. The first car is an all-bedroom first-class lounge car. It would run on the SWC, CZ, GSL (Nee TE), EB, and CL. The upper level would be all bedrooms and the lower level would be a comfortable bar/lounge set up for first class passengers. 35 cars would be required to meet the need, I think.

The second one is a sort of couchette car, if you will. It is a Superliner sleeper, but the upstairs bathroom, and the luggage rack (will be moved over to displace a pair of bathrooms) become roomettes, as do the bedrooms. The result is 28 roomettes in the car. The H-room becomes 2 bathrooms (so the car retains the original number of bathrooms). The rooms can be reserved in total, or can be shared with a stranger. They do not include meals, and come at a lower price. 45 such cars will be needed.

1) 35 Deluxe Sleeper Lounges,

2) 45 Slumbercoaches.

Order total:

I've added a few additional cars to the overall total.

1) 15 Bag/dorm/sleeper

2) 35 Sleepers

3) 30 Diners

4) 10 Sightseers

5) 85 Coaches

5) 35 Deluxe Sleeper Lounges,

7) 45 Slumbercoaches.

Total: 255 cars: 130 sleeper cars, 85 coaches, 40 food service cars.

GML,

I just noticed that you have removed the H bedrooms & Family bedrooms to create Deluxe Sleepers & Slumbercoaches. Would you then run the trainsets with regular sleepers, Deluxe & Slumbercoach too? Also, where would you have the SCA sleep in the Deluxe Sleeper? Would you also move the coffee station to the downstairs area?

One more question-do any of the current trains have windows that open? I know that's probably out of the question according to current safety standards, but I think it would be a nice addition.

I like the Deluxe Sleeper idea, but I would only have eight upstairs & make the bedrooms a bit bigger. This way the bottom bed could be wider, & possibly fit a very small fridge in each room-maybe behind the mirror, or where the trash currently is located.

 

[sueb]

So many of the suggestions suggest getting rid of the H rooms to put in more roomettes. So then where do the handicapped pax ride? What about some suggestions to make the so-called regular rooms and facilities more accessible to everyone? Handicapped pax now pay for facilities they can't use such as sightseer lounges and the dining car. I'd like to see some responses to my earlier (page 1) suggestion about a wheechair lift.

 

[sunchaser]

So many of the suggestions suggest getting rid of the H rooms to put in more roomettes. So then where do the handicapped pax ride? What about some suggestions to make the so-called regular rooms and facilities more accessible to everyone? Handicapped pax now pay for facilities they can't use such as sightseer lounges and the dining car. I'd like to see some responses to my earlier (page 1) suggestion about a wheechair lift.

Sue, I agree with you. There most certainly should be some way for those in wheelchairs to use the other cars. Lifts would be great, but I wonder if redesigning the hallways in the sleeper should be done too. I'm not sure if the current hallways/doorways are wide enough for a wheelchair to easily pass through. Does anyone know the current hallway width?

If the sleepers had a lift & the hallways were wide enough, that would go a long way. But I still think there should H rooms too.

 

[sueb]

Lower level hallways on Superliners are designed to fit a standard wheelchair width. I forget exactly what that is, but my son's adaptive stroller is that width and we fit thru most lower level halls on this last vacation OK. Don't know if upper level halls in sleepers are the same width, but is they are then a lift would work. Someone said somewhere that aisles in standard coach are too narrow for a standard wheelchair - that's why they have those open areas at the ends of lower level coach for wheelchairs. Can anyone confirm that?

 

[Ispolkom]

An all-roomette car just doesn't make sense.

1. You won't be able to book strangers in the same compartment. Especially not a two-person compartment. Not in this country.

2. Even if you could, you wouldn't be able to sell the upper bunks. Pullman had great difficulties selling upper bunks in sections (which led to their single-occupancy section scheme, and eventually to the single roomette), and if they couldn't sell them to a thinner, fitter America, I can't imagine Amtrak will succeed. Does Via Rail have any luck selling upper sections on the Canadian?

3. You can't remove the handicapped room, not more than ten years into the ADA. I'd bet that any new Superliner equipment will be more handicapped accessible, though I can't really imagine a wheelchair lift that would be sturdy enough to take some of the track Amtrak goes over.

4. Two roomettes wouldn't fit into the family bedroom area. It's too short, which is probably why it's the family bedroom.

5. All-roomette and all-bedroom cars are setting Amtrak up for failure. What happens when an all-roomette car is bad-ordered and all that's available is an all-bedroom? Standardization is your friend when there's a small fleet, and surely decreases production costs on a small order.

6. If you lower your prices for your all-roomette car you cannibalize part of the market that would pay full price for a sleeper compartment. Amtrak needs more revenue, not less.

I like Neil's idea of the SNCF flatter-lying seats for coach, though wonder if they'd match up with the windows. I have no problems with present-day superliner coach seats, in any case. When I get a roomette for one of my many trips between St. Paul and Minot I do so because I know coach will be crowded, not because I sleep poorly because of the seat.

EDIT: Oh, and having passengers make up their berths? Wait till the first passenger drops the upper bunk on her compartment-mate's head.

 

[MikeM]

Lower level hallways on Superliners are designed to fit a standard wheelchair width. I forget exactly what that is, but my son's adaptive stroller is that width and we fit thru most lower level halls on this last vacation OK. Don't know if upper level halls in sleepers are the same width, but is they are then a lift would work. Someone said somewhere that aisles in standard coach are too narrow for a standard wheelchair - that's why they have those open areas at the ends of lower level coach for wheelchairs. Can anyone confirm that?

From what I recall, the lower level hallways are one width to the stairs, then it narrows when you get into the economy sleeper hallway. I know the lower level rooms are the same size as upstairs, so if an adaptive wheelchair could fit in that section, you'd be ok upstairs except where the hall does the 90 degree turn around the deluxe bedrooms. This landing originally was wider, but when the second level restroom was retrofitted to the Superliner I's that space went away.

Conceptually, I worry about how you'd incorporate a lift into the stairway, even if you made the stairs a straight run, and the other issue would be if you had to evacuate the car without HEP, if the lift would work or if you trap someone in the upper level. However, the stairs could be improved with some width and improved hand holds which would help some mobility impaired passengers. Stair lighting and contrasting colors on tread would be useful. This would be particularly helpful for vision impaired passengers or those with stability concerns.

I do agree that we need to keep focus on making the cars accessible to the handicapped, having personal experience with a disabled son. The trick in this situation is trying to balance accessibility with cost and safety concerns. I do think the current placement of the handicapped room is not really optimal when a larger group is together and the handicapped person is stranded on the other side of the restroom. Then again, at least it has better windows than the lower level family bedroom, which has the ambiance of a closet with the door closed, thanks to the two small square windows.

Don't hesitate to keep raising your issue in discussions, handicap rights have always been a struggle to maintain, sadly. Hang in there!

 

[MikeM]

An all-roomette car just doesn't make sense.
5. All-roomette and all-bedroom cars are setting Amtrak up for failure. What happens when an all-roomette car is bad-ordered and all that's available is an all-bedroom? Standardization is your friend when there's a small fleet, and surely decreases production costs on a small order.

6. If you lower your prices for your all-roomette car you cannibalize part of the market that would pay full price for a sleeper compartment. Amtrak needs more revenue, not less.

I like Neil's idea of the SNCF flatter-lying seats for coach, though wonder if they'd match up with the windows. I have no problems with present-day superliner coach seats, in any case. When I get a roomette for one of my many trips between St. Paul and Minot I do so because I know coach will be crowded, not because I sleep poorly because of the seat.

EDIT: Oh, and having passengers make up their berths? Wait till the first passenger drops the upper bunk on her compartment-mate's head.

I don't necessarily think a second type of sleeper is the end of the world as we know it, if the type of car isn't a one- or two-off car. All bedroom cars are on the Auto Train and they work. But as much standardization as possible wouldn't hurt.

In lieu of the idea of pricing rooms on a seat/bunk basis, what if you looked at dusting off the slumbercoach plans? Those cars seemed to have a good following in the train community for some time, I recall lots of sad sounds when Amtrak retired the last few. Or providing a parlor style coach, which would be identical to a normal coach but with larger / flatter reclining / more spaced out seating? On a coach trip I'd pay extra to not share a row with someone and have some room to stretch out and sit my book / drink / etc on a side table. Plus if the concept tanked, you could always convert it back to a normal coach and sell the surplus seats on Ebay or something...

 

[Ispolkom]

In lieu of the idea of pricing rooms on a seat/bunk basis, what if you looked at dusting off the slumbercoach plans? Those cars seemed to have a good following in the train community for some time, I recall lots of sad sounds when Amtrak retired the last few. Or providing a parlor style coach, which would be identical to a normal coach but with larger / flatter reclining / more spaced out seating? On a coach trip I'd pay extra to not share a row with someone and have some room to stretch out and sit my book / drink / etc on a side table. Plus if the concept tanked, you could always convert it back to a normal coach and sell the surplus seats on Ebay or something...

I enjoyed my trips in slumbercoach, but I don't think that would work in a Superliner car. Too many compartments for one sleeping car attendant, and just too claustrophobic, especially for a long, western journey. I know slumbercoaches were used on the North Coast Limited and probably other western trains back in the day, so perhaps I'm wrong. In any case, a slumbercoach design might well make sense for a single-level train, especially on the routes Amtrak eventually used them on (the Night Owl, the Crescent between New York and Atlanta, and I don't know what else). Is it worth it, though, to build at most half a dozen of them? Standardization, remember.

I like your idea of the parlor car, which might also allow aisles wide enough for wheel chairs. Two and one seating, maybe?

 

[anir dendroica]

1) 35 Deluxe Sleeper Lounges,2) 45 Slumbercoaches.

I LOVE those two car ideas. You'll be better serving both the high end and low end of the sleeper spectrum. Amtrak really needs to meet the needs of passengers who simply want a horizontal place to sleep. They don't care about meals or privacy. I've traveled both coach and roomette, and the only real issue I had with coach (and it was a big issue) was sleeping comfort level. I think a reasonable price point is $30-$50 per person per night for a horizontal sleeping position. Sure, having privacy and getting "free" meals was pretty nice in the roomette, but I'd have been just as happy without those things at a lower price point.

I second that wholeheartedly. With a better utilization of both levels of the car, two stacked bunks on each level, and some good engineering, it should be possible to get almost as many people on a slumbercoach as on a regular coach. No need for privacy, frequent attendant visits, free meals, or any of that first class stuff. Just give me a flat, dark, somewhat soft surface to sleep on, and don't raise my ticket cost by more than $50, and I'm in! As much as I love taking the EB between Oregon and Minnesota, I might start flying more often simply because I'm tired of arriving sleep-deprived at both ends. As it is I have taken to curling up across three seats in the lounge, but that has the unfortunate problems that 1) the lights are always on, 2) some people talk all night, and 3) the lounge attendant kicks me out at 5:30 am.

Mark

 

[MikefromCrete]

Slumbercoaches, as the term was used in the latter days of private railroads and the early days of Amtrak were private rooms, a bit smaller than roomettes. I rode in them a couple of times and it was quite adequate for a one-night ride. The big draw, of course, was that they cost only a bit more than regular coach. Other than their smaller size of the rooms, the cars were like the sleeping cars of their day, including an attendant. Of course, in those days, meals were not included in the price of any ticket.

What some of you are talking about seems to be open sections, once a popular (and originally the only) type of sleeping accommodation, facing seats that converted in two bunks at night with curtains providing privacy. Other people seem to be talking about coach seats that recline into almost bed-like positions.

Providing some kind of in-between accomodation between first class and coach class is an interesting idea, although somebody would have to run the math on whether it would be worthwhile to construct such cars. Like others have posted, I don't Americans would go for sharing room accommodations with strangers. I know some of our posters like to stay at hostels, but that's not a concept I would consider. I like my privacy.

 

[wrjensen]

What about some like on first class of international airlines.

 

[Neil_M]

In a sleeper vehicle it is quite hard to achieve. Think about it, you might want your room boiling hot, I might want mine freezing cold.The way the sleepers in the UK get round it is to run the AC in 'cool' mode nearly all the time (with the addition of an internal heater bank in really cold external temperatures) and have a heater bank in each berth roof space so you add heat as you want to warm the room.

Having individual AC units for each berth would be very expensive and not the best way to go.

That's a ridiculous statement. Volkswagen developed a system for their Phaeton luxury sedan that allowed it to realistically vary the temperature in the four interior, undivided zones up to a total range of 10 degrees. Suggesting that you can't achieve a range from coldest to hottest of 15 degrees when you have dividing walls is ridiculous. Say a range between 64 and 79.

How to do it? Its not hard. You have two ducts, one bringing air from a central heating unit and the other bringing air from a central a/c unit. Set both of them to a relatively high operating state. At each room, have a valve that apportions air from both ducts into a duct for that room. The theromstat controls the valve and thus controls the blending of the two airs into a specific temperature which it then blows into the room.

It's not a ridiculous statement, it's based on practical experience as opposed to keyboard ****.

Simple stuff that works on a moving rail vehicle as opposed to GML fantasy world.

The system on the UK sleepers works very well and allows you to have separate berths at varying temperatures.

Your fantasy system has two systems working flat out when there is no need. An decent reliable air con module and space heaters to warm the air if you need the berth hotter is a lot more simple to maintain.

As for not reading your posts, I try not to.

 

[AAARGH!]

Imagine that. GML and Neil sniping at each other. The world order is back in balance again.

 

[Neil_M]

Imagine that. GML and Neil sniping at each other. The world order is back in balance again.

Yeah, its rubbish isn't it? I think its probably time to quit this forum while I am ahead, no point in it descending into a shouting match every time GML opens his mouth. It's just not fun for everyone else.

Catch you later people.

 

[gaspeamtrak]

Imagine that. GML and Neil sniping at each other. The world order is back in balance again.

Yeah, its rubbish isn't it? I think its probably time to quit this forum while I am ahead, no point in it descending into a shouting match every time GML opens his mouth. It's just not fun for everyone else.

Catch you later people.

I just ignore him!

These forms are getting so full of it!

I just bascially just read the stuff that interest me and don't even bother commenting any more because. Some of these people ( a few ) have have no idea how the transportation world works...while most of you do have a general idea.

I will just read what interest me and ignore all the other sniping.

 

[Ryan]

Imagine that. GML and Neil sniping at each other. The world order is back in balance again.

Yeah, its rubbish isn't it? I think its probably time to quit this forum while I am ahead, no point in it descending into a shouting match every time GML opens his mouth. It's just not fun for everyone else.

Catch you later people.

You could try reading what he posts, where he described a system working as he described in the real world, not "GML fantasy world". But then it would make it hard to be so insulting.

 

[Big Iron]

An all-roomette car just doesn't make sense.
1. You won't be able to book strangers in the same compartment. Especially not a two-person compartment. Not in this country.

2. Even if you could, you wouldn't be able to sell the upper bunks. Pullman had great difficulties selling upper bunks in sections (which led to their single-occupancy section scheme, and eventually to the single roomette), and if they couldn't sell them to a thinner, fitter America, I can't imagine Amtrak will succeed. Does Via Rail have any luck selling upper sections on the Canadian?

3. You can't remove the handicapped room, not more than ten years into the ADA. I'd bet that any new Superliner equipment will be more handicapped accessible, though I can't really imagine a wheelchair lift that would be sturdy enough to take some of the track Amtrak goes over.

4. Two roomettes wouldn't fit into the family bedroom area. It's too short, which is probably why it's the family bedroom.

5. All-roomette and all-bedroom cars are setting Amtrak up for failure. What happens when an all-roomette car is bad-ordered and all that's available is an all-bedroom? Standardization is your friend when there's a small fleet, and surely decreases production costs on a small order.

6. If you lower your prices for your all-roomette car you cannibalize part of the market that would pay full price for a sleeper compartment. Amtrak needs more revenue, not less.

I like Neil's idea of the SNCF flatter-lying seats for coach, though wonder if they'd match up with the windows. I have no problems with present-day superliner coach seats, in any case. When I get a roomette for one of my many trips between St. Paul and Minot I do so because I know coach will be crowded, not because I sleep poorly because of the seat.

EDIT: Oh, and having passengers make up their berths? Wait till the first passenger drops the upper bunk on her compartment-mate's head.

Regarding #2, I checked the VIA site for a trip on the Hudson Bay, the sections (upper and lower) were sold out and the roomettes/bedrooms had vacancies. The Hudson Bay is not a rail cruiser and caters to a more economical crowd than does the Canadian.

Also, as far as upper bunk windows, Pullman had a sleeper that had much smaller windows for the upper bunks. Something is better than nothing, search "pullman sleeper American life" to see a picture of what I'm referring to.

 

[anir dendroica]

Slumbercoaches, as the term was used in the latter days of private railroads and the early days of Amtrak were private rooms, a bit smaller than roomettes. I rode in them a couple of times and it was quite adequate for a one-night ride. The big draw, of course, was that they cost only a bit more than regular coach. Other than their smaller size of the rooms, the cars were like the sleeping cars of their day, including an attendant. Of course, in those days, meals were not included in the price of any ticket. What some of you are talking about seems to be open sections, once a popular (and originally the only) type of sleeping accommodation, facing seats that converted in two bunks at night with curtains providing privacy. Other people seem to be talking about coach seats that recline into almost bed-like positions.

Providing some kind of in-between accomodation between first class and coach class is an interesting idea, although somebody would have to run the math on whether it would be worthwhile to construct such cars. Like others have posted, I don't Americans would go for sharing room accommodations with strangers. I know some of our posters like to stay at hostels, but that's not a concept I would consider. I like my privacy.

I'm thinking of something along the lines of the European "couchette" or perhaps the Chinese "hard sleeper". I don't think a double-level Superliner could fit three bunks stacked, but it should be possible to have double-stacked bunks on both the upper and lower levels. And I would follow the European convention of converting the beds to seats during the day except perhaps on short-haul overnight routes (CHI-MSP or LAX-Las Vegas maybe?). Sharing enclosed compartments with strangers could be strange, but the answer to that - in my opinion at least - is not to enclose the compartments. If it's socially acceptable to sleep among strangers in coach, why should it be any different if folks are laying down?

 

[railiner]

A duplex arrangement of rooms, like the single slumbercoach rooms, would be impossible on a Superliner because the bilevel decks simply don't have sufficient height.

Only the rooms as used presently, with the beds stacked one over the other, or the as mentioned section type sleepers could be adapted, although the section bunks would be also height challenged as compared to an old standard Pullman.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Would your "slumbercoach" (i'd be tempted to call it something like "economy sleeper") include a shower or would that be something reserved for the full-fare sleeper passengers?

Reserved for first class. Given the lack of attendance in the car, a shower is too much to clean, methinks.

GML, I just noticed that you have removed the H bedrooms & Family bedrooms to create Deluxe Sleepers & Slumbercoaches. Would you then run the trainsets with regular sleepers, Deluxe & Slumbercoach too? Also, where would you have the SCA sleep in the Deluxe Sleeper? Would you also move the coffee station to the downstairs area?

One more question-do any of the current trains have windows that open? I know that's probably out of the question according to current safety standards, but I think it would be a nice addition.

I like the Deluxe Sleeper idea, but I would only have eight upstairs & make the bedrooms a bit bigger. This way the bottom bed could be wider, & possibly fit a very small fridge in each room-maybe behind the mirror, or where the trash currently is located.

These would run in addition to a set of standard sleepers. The trains, under my order, should have the same number of H and F rooms as they currently do.

So many of the suggestions suggest getting rid of the H rooms to put in more roomettes. So then where do the handicapped pax ride? What about some suggestions to make the so-called regular rooms and facilities more accessible to everyone? Handicapped pax now pay for facilities they can't use such as sightseer lounges and the dining car. I'd like to see some responses to my earlier (page 1) suggestion about a wheechair lift.

With all due respect to handicapped people, and I do have my own disabilities so I understand to a degree, the world can't adapt to allow them to do everything. Nor can a company sacrifice 39 seats in their 76 seat coach cars, for instance, to allow wheel chairs to pass through them. Nor can a company like Amtrak sacrifice 60 square feet of every one of their cars in order to incorporate a wheelchair lift for the two or three people who ride their train and need one. On a train every cubic inch of space is precious.

Conceding, though, it might be possible and reasonable to accommodate a lift in the sightseer alone. But not in every car. Its just too much.

I would suggest that Amtrak offer transdorm rooms on a train to the marketing formula I specify. It shouldn't be too hard to determine if there is a market for my Slumbercoach car idea.

 

[DET63]

Conceding, though, it might be possible and reasonable to accommodate a lift in the sightseer alone. But not in every car. Its just too much.

Would it be possible to include an H room in the SSL, making it somewhat of a revenue car (i.e., one for which passenger space was sold)?