Where I'd cut costs... (Acela First Class)

[jis]

Viaggio is a brand name. It is not a single technical design. The low floor and bi-level Viaggios are a completely different technical thing, and have different potential issues as far as clearing buff strength and other requirements for getting certified in the US. Not saying they cannot be certified, but the process has to take place and that takes time.

Actually high level platforms and bi-level cars are two separate issues. Bi-level cars with doors only at the lower level, and for that matter even low floor single level cars are related to low level platforms for level boarding. Incidentally, today no low floor car in California has level boarding at most stations. Both single and bi-level cars exist that can operate with level boarding from high level platforms. Bi-level cars inherently have universal accessibility issues which may or may not be important.

BTW, isn't SMART HL Platform?

 

[sttom]

Viaggio is a brand name. It is not a single technical design. The low floor and bi-level Viaggios are a completely different technical thing, and have different potential issues as far as clearing buff strength and other requirements for getting certified in the US. Not saying they cannot be certified, but the process has to take place and that takes time.

Actually high level platforms and bi-level cars are two separate issues. Bi-level cars with doors only at the lower level, and for that matter even low floor single level cars are related to low level platforms for level boarding. Incidentally, today no low floor car in California has level boarding at most stations. Both single and bi-level cars exist that can operate with level boarding from high level platforms. Bi-level cars inherently have universal accessibility issues which may or may not be important.

BTW, isn't SMART HL Platform?

Brand name or not, I'm willing to bet getting an existing design certified will be a lot cheaper than trying to remodel every train station in California with high level platforms. Also, low floor cars single/bilevel would be useful around the country.

Yes SMART went with high platforms because....it looks good? I'm not sure why they did, but given Bay Area transit planning, someone thought it looked good and that mattered more than SMART design choices.

Amtrak could run the soon to be delivered high level cars between Sacramento and the North Bay. But what happens after North Novato? There will likely need to be chair lifts or high level platforms. Then what? You have 1 unstaffed station and two others?

 

[Anderson]

Reading the VTUS prospectus, it seems quite possible that they are angling to take over at least part of the Surfliner operation (the prospectus explicitly mentioned Las Vegas-Los Angeles-San Diego). IIRC, everything from Palmdale to LAUS to San Diego is agency-owned (the line up to San Luis Obispo is, of course, another story). In light of the Amtrak overhead situation, I wouldn't be shocked if they could bundle some sort of offer together that would at least purport to both improve service and reduce net costs for the route.

 

[jis]

You have 1 unstaffed station and two others?

You don't require a staffed station to make use of bridge plates or lift chairs. Of course it is always better to have a staffed station rather than an unstaffed one. And it is always better to have level boarding without requiring even a bridge plate rather than requiring to go through contortions to board.

Mind you I am not arguing for or against high or low floor cars. Just stating what is and is not required vs. desirable.

Right now from ADA perspective almost all low level platform stations do not appear to meet level boarding requirements. They all require bridge plates. It sure would be nice if the low level platforms were high enough so that a Brightline style bridge plate could be deployed from the train automatically at each door allowing for unimpeded boarding without any danger of falling through the gap, albeit a much smaller fall than from four feet high.

 

[sttom]

You don't require a staffed station to make use of bridge plates or lift chairs. Of course it is always better to have a staffed station rather than an unstaffed one. And it is always better to have level boarding without requiring even a bridge plate rather than requiring to go through contortions to board.

Mind you I am not arguing for or against high or low floor cars. Just stating what is and is not required vs. desirable.

Right now from ADA perspective almost all low level platform stations do not appear to meet level boarding requirements. They all require bridge plates. It sure would be nice if the low level platforms were high enough so that a Brightline style bridge plate could be deployed from the train automatically at each door allowing for unimpeded boarding without any danger of falling through the gap, albeit a much smaller fall than from four feet high.

My point is that high level cars would likely be more trouble than they are worth, outside of the present equipment shortage that is. Especially considering Siemens has low floor car designs that could be certified to run in the US.

As for not having level boarding, I'm really surprised that California hasn't made it a higher priority. The new platforms at the Sacramento Valley Station were build in ~2014 and they aren't even level with the train cars.

 

[Mystic River Dragon]

Keep in mind that Triley used to work on the NEC on both Acela and Regional trains. So he can give you amazing insight on this particular topic.

I'm not sure which trains have a BC attendant, but I can tell you that it's not a whole lot of them. I believe that the Carolinian has one and possibly the Palmetto. It's a car that holds 62 passengers and that's not to bad for one person to handle things. I'm not sure what they do on the trip. But I'm sure the state of NC pays for them to be on the train.

The Carolinian BC attendant comes through regularly with a cold beverage cart (and will go get you coffee if you want), offers you a pillow (maybe a blanket, too, for those going a long distance?), and will help put luggage up and take it down. I have only gone a relatively short distance on the Carolinian, but have done it (in BC) often--it is one of my favorite trains, and one thing that makes it so is the politeness and helpfulness of the BC attendant.

Going back to the original question of what I would get rid of, it is the National magazine. I don't need a bunch of trendy, edgy articles in a slick magazine, especially after they decided to cut costs by getting rid of the local newspapers on the sleepers (which people did read) and the printed timetable book (also which people did read). I've never seen anyone read the National. I much prefer the more local ones, like New York by Rail. It might be just a drop in the bucket to ditch the National, but with printing/production costs today, I think it would be a significant drop.

 

[Anderson]

There's a good chance that the National pays for itself with advertising, sadly...because I agree. I'd rather have a choice of digital papers than the magazine.

 

[Mystic River Dragon]

Actually, I meant newspapers on real paper.....people actually still read real paper, believe it or not!