Quantcast

Would Viewliners like these be possible (Or even Useful)?

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

cocojacoby

Lead Service Attendant
Joined
May 13, 2014
Messages
399
Not as large as the new Acela ones which allow complete rotation of a wheelchair inside at the serious negative of eliminating a second restroom that is now available on the original Acela. That leaves only one restroom per car.

The new trains will carry 378 passengers compared to 304 on today’s Acelas and will have 9 cars verses 8 cars on the present trains. I believe that translates to 9 restrooms compared to 16! This may become problematic.
 

Mailliw

Service Attendant
Joined
Jun 14, 2020
Messages
144
Location
Northeast PA
Yeah. At the very least any long distance coach is going to need a 2nd non-ADA restroom. Back on topic; what's really needed is for a firm decision to be made what kind, if any, long distance network or overnight trains Amtrak is going to have. Then they can commission a study on what's needed for new sleeping cars (especially if bilevels are still worth it).
 
  • Like
Reactions: jis

Bob Dylan

Conductor
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
21,280
Location
Austin Texas
Not as large as the new Acela ones which allow complete rotation of a wheelchair inside at the serious negative of eliminating a second restroom that is now available on the original Acela. That leaves only one restroom per car.

The new trains will carry 378 passengers compared to 304 on today’s Acelas and will have 9 cars verses 8 cars on the present trains. I believe that translates to 9 restrooms compared to 16! This may become problematic.
Especially the way the " Buisnessmen" pour down the drinks in FC!! Lol
 

sttom

OBS Chief
Joined
Jan 23, 2019
Messages
625
Yeah. At the very least any long distance coach is going to need a 2nd non-ADA restroom. Back on topic; what's really needed is for a firm decision to be made what kind, if any, long distance network or overnight trains Amtrak is going to have. Then they can commission a study on what's needed for new sleeping cars (especially if bilevels are still worth it).
Bilevels are still worth having because of the capacity alone. The capacity of a Superliner is 45 compared to a Viewliner's 30. Add in a lot of stations don't have long enough platforms for the trains to get longer. The engines at my local station regularly sit in the crossing while the train is stopped. To replace the existing Superliners with Viewliners, you would need to replace 2 Superliners with at least 3 Viewliners, and you are losing the family room on top of it. That is also assuming Amtrak leadership is smart enough to argue for a roughly equivalent replacement of capacity. I would bet, should something like this come to pass, that they'd replace 1 Superliner with 1 Viewliner either because of Congress being filled with "lovely people" or because Amtrak leadership is the most competent political donations can buy.
 

Mailliw

Service Attendant
Joined
Jun 14, 2020
Messages
144
Location
Northeast PA
Here's an example of the bilevel sleeping cars Nightjet is using now. I wondwon't something like this could be viable for Amtrak. The single corridor set might enable both a ADA compartment on the intermediate level and let a wheelchair use move through the car to other car, the 4 berth compartments are perfect for families or groups, and the upper level deluxe compartments are roomier than anything Amtrak has. On the negative side no lower level boarding (Western platforms are low level), wheelchair users still have trouble accessing diners or lounges (setup doesn'twork for either cartype) ,no roommettes (but economy compartments), everyone not in an ADA compartment has to go up/down half flight of stairs, and I think these cars may be too tall except for the Auto-Train. Thoughts?
 

Mailliw

Service Attendant
Joined
Jun 14, 2020
Messages
144
Location
Northeast PA
OK, that's shorter than I thought; I was thinking they were 18/19 feet like the new Russian bilevels. So at least with regard to overhead clearance this design could replace Superliners.
 

jis

Conductor
AU Lifetime Supporter
Gathering Team Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2003
Messages
26,544
Location
Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
OK, that's shorter than I thought; I was thinking they were 18/19 feet like the new Russian bilevels. So at least with regard to overhead clearance this design could replace Superliners.
Incidentally UIC-C gauge exists to accommodate UIC Russian interchange loading gauge freight wagons.

Here is a brief summary of the main bits of Russian Loading Gauge quoted from the Wikipedia:
The main static profile T allows for a maximum width of 3,750 mm (12 ft 3.6 in) rising to a maximum height of 5,300 mm (17 ft 4.7 in). The profile Tc allows that width only at a height of 3,000 mm (9 ft 10.1 in), requiring a maximum of 3,400 mm (11 ft 1.9 in) below 1,270 mm (50.0 in), which matches with the standard for train platforms (with a height of 1,100 mm [43.3 in]). The profile Tpr has the same lower frame requirement but reduces the maximum upper body width to 3,500 mm (11 ft 5.8 in). The more universal profile 1-T has the complete body at a maximum width of 3,400 mm (11 ft 1.9 in) still rising to a height of 5,300 mm (17 ft 4.7 in).[57] Exceptions shall be double-stacking, maximum height shall be 6,150 mm (20 ft 2.1 in) or 6,400 mm (21 ft 0 in).
So in general, in addition to UIC-C, 17'4.7" (taller than Superliner), 20'2.1" (more or less the same as US Plate H and K) and 21', taller than anything in the US.

Incidentally, India has a loading gauge of 23'3.5" for its double stack special clearance Dedicated Freight Corridor tracks with catenary contact wire at 28'4.5". The pantographs on those high power electric engines are a sight to behold.
 
Last edited:

sttom

OBS Chief
Joined
Jan 23, 2019
Messages
625
Here's an example of the bilevel sleeping cars Nightjet is using now. I wondwon't something like this could be viable for Amtrak. The single corridor set might enable both a ADA compartment on the intermediate level and let a wheelchair use move through the car to other car, the 4 berth compartments are perfect for families or groups, and the upper level deluxe compartments are roomier than anything Amtrak has. On the negative side no lower level boarding (Western platforms are low level), wheelchair users still have trouble accessing diners or lounges (setup doesn'twork for either cartype) ,no roommettes (but economy compartments), everyone not in an ADA compartment has to go up/down half flight of stairs, and I think these cars may be too tall except for the Auto-Train. Thoughts?
A European Bilevel is a US Multilevel which means a OBB's "bilevel" sleepers are more like NJT's Multilevels than they are like Superliners. The problem with using Multilevels as sleeping cars in the US is that you will need to go up and down two flights of stairs per car you travel through to get to the lounge or dining car. In a Superliner, you will need to deal with at least 1 flight of stairs to get to the lounge and at most 2. Having 2 sets of steps per care will annoy a lot of people. Sleeping equipment on a lot of European railways, OBB included are designed to only be used for over night trips and under the assumption that once you board the train you have no reason to leave your car until you get off under normal operation.

As for height, I know the Viaggio Twins are about 7 inches taller than the NJT Multilevel cars. Are the Multilevels at the maximum height the tunnels into New York can handle or could they accomodate cars that are 7 inches taller?
 

Attachments

jis

Conductor
AU Lifetime Supporter
Gathering Team Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2003
Messages
26,544
Location
Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
Nope 14’6” is it for NYP. That is how tall the multilevels are. Also they have to have beveled end to clear the entry into North River Tubes from the NYP bathtub on any of the diverging tracks.
 

jiml

Conductor
Joined
Feb 27, 2019
Messages
2,297
Location
Somewhere in Southern Ontario
A European Bilevel is a US Multilevel which means a OBB's "bilevel" sleepers are more like NJT's Multilevels than they are like Superliners. The problem with using Multilevels as sleeping cars in the US is that you will need to go up and down two flights of stairs per car you travel through to get to the lounge or dining car. In a Superliner, you will need to deal with at least 1 flight of stairs to get to the lounge and at most 2. Having 2 sets of steps per care will annoy a lot of people. Sleeping equipment on a lot of European railways, OBB included are designed to only be used for over night trips and under the assumption that once you board the train you have no reason to leave your car until you get off under normal operation.
It's important to note that the flights of stairs on the European cars are half the number of steps of Superliners and don't usually curve around tight corners. They're more like those on NA commuter cars. That said, there might certainly be more of them enroute to the food service car (if the train has one).
 

Mailliw

Service Attendant
Joined
Jun 14, 2020
Messages
144
Location
Northeast PA
Nightjet's bilevel sleeping cars were originally built for CityNightLine, which did have bistro cars. However I think only the sleeping cars were bilevels; if the connection is on the mezzanine you can connect them directly to single levels.
 

joelkfla

Lead Service Attendant
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Messages
310
I thought I saw a YouTube of a sleeper that had a mid-level corridor, and steps up or down to a foyer at each group of 4 rooms (2 upper + 2 lower), but I can't remember where it was or find it again.

If I'm remembering correctly, passengers would be able to pass thru the car with no stairs involved.
 
Top