Wow, I just spotted this from late December 2023:
https://media.amtrak.com/2023/12/amtrak-reaches-next-major-milestone-in-transforming-long-distance-train-service/
It's sad, but not surprising, that media.amtrak.com hasn't been properly secured and throws a warning on my browser.
Plenty of annoying commentary links to various people, and to relatively worthless fact sheets and puff pages. But I don't see a link to either the actual RFP or a sensible technical summary of some of its contents.
When someone locates that, please post a link. It's particularly strange since drafts of what would be in the RFP have been floating around for half a decade.
OvermodBut I don't see a link to either the actual RFP or a sensible technical summary of some of its contents.
That might be the future with Amtrak now that they have competitors attempting to enter the field in the United States. Perhaps that is viewed more as competitive information. I could not find it either via Google.
There may be two overlapping RFPs: one for long-distance replacement, and one for bi-level equipment and services that are part of long-distance replacement.
Amtrak is keeping the information inside its "procurement system of record" (Ariba on Demand). The contact at Amtrak is Donna Hennessy (hennesd@amtrak.com) and you need to justify why you're going to contribute to Amtrak with something you provide -- put "RFP copy only" in the subject line of your e-mail.
Overmodand one for bi-level equipment and services that are part of long-distance replacement.
I think it is a no-brainer that Amtrak is going to replace bi-levels with bi-levels. Just too expensive from an operating cost perspective to flip to single levels for the Western Long Distance trains.
Having said that I am curious if they get smarter with the interior configurations / space utlization. A lot of the space required in Superliner I & II's is no longer needed with component shrikage and newer technology for starters. Also that ridiculously narrow and winding stairway to the second level, which I am sure was done for safety reasons to prevent fall injuries......probably could use another look. I suspect that is why the stairway to the upper Vista Dome was also curved (anti-fall injury somewhat).
Really interested in what they do with the kitchen of the dining car if they retain that part.
CMStPnP Also that ridiculously narrow and winding stairway to the second level, which I am sure was done for safety reasons to prevent fall injuries......probably could use another look. I suspect that is why the stairway to the upper Vista Dome was also curved (anti-fall injury somewhat).
Also that ridiculously narrow and winding stairway to the second level, which I am sure was done for safety reasons to prevent fall injuries......probably could use another look. I suspect that is why the stairway to the upper Vista Dome was also curved (anti-fall injury somewhat).
The helical staircase on the 747 was use because people are more cautious ascending or descending on a helical staircase than a straight staircase.
Erik_MagThe helical staircase on the 747 was use because people are more cautious ascending or descending on a helical staircase than a straight staircase.
Hellical stairs also take up a whole lot less floor space on both levels. They are quite common in homes here in Mexico where houses and rooms are smaller than is typica in the US.
spsffan Erik_Mag The helical staircase on the 747 was use because people are more cautious ascending or descending on a helical staircase than a straight staircase. Hellical stairs also take up a whole lot less floor space on both levels. They are quite common in homes here in Mexico where houses and rooms are smaller than is typica in the US.
Erik_Mag The helical staircase on the 747 was use because people are more cautious ascending or descending on a helical staircase than a straight staircase.
Also common in Germany.
In home elevators? Much safer.
The thing I can't understand being absent is wheelchair elevators. For many years these have been marketed to users in private homes -- a couple of tracks built through moldings at the side of a staircase, with a platform or arms that attach to the wheelchair and lift it. A self-powered version should have no difficulty with a curving staircase like that to some Vista-Domes.
One problem with both helical and 'shaft' elevators is that they have to be much larger in 'plan' dimension if they're going to accommodate wheelchairs and mobility scooters. Here the 'best is enemy of the good' as accommodations for those who are disabled only in ability to climb stairs are not separated in ADA provisions from accommodations for full 'mobility impairment'.
Something I tinkered with 'back in the day' was a two-story elevator tower mounted on a wheeled chassis, that would be aligned with a 'second-story' door on something like a Superliner, and then engage hardpoints around that door and provide a weather seal and jacked to stability. Patrons for either the first or second story would then access the elevator platform from sides or rear as needed, and this would also replace or supplant the 'car elevators' that Amtrak now provides at some low-platform stations to reach high-platform equipment.
Again at least in theory, you could have 'tugs' with multiple places for wheelchair/scooter tiedown, and some level of weather protection or air conditioning, that could be driven to mate with the elevator framework to speed access into the train.
Some of this hinged on the idea that disabled passengers would be content to 'wait' until the train had made a scheduled stop to use the outside elevator to change floors. In practice, I'd expect certain weasel groups to abuse the inside arrangements as a "te$t ca$e" like the scooter fiasco a year or two ago.
When I take the VRE Gallery Car stairway it feels so constrained and dangerous.
When I take the Auto Train Superliner stairway it feels even more constrained and dangerous.
Why have bi-level cars if the platforms are long enough, anyway?
The Viewliners were the right answer. Too bad the idea was eventually abandoned and will never be made anymore.
Let's see, a six-car train of gallery bi-levels can seat 936 passengers, an eight-car single level train can seat 840 passengers. Do the math. Eight-car trains of gallery bi-levels are not unusual during rush hour in Chicago.
aegrotatio When I take the VRE Gallery Car stairway it feels so constrained and dangerous. When I take the Auto Train Superliner stairway it feels even more constrained and dangerous.
I can't recall ever feeling like the stairs on either car were dangerous.
An "expensive model collector"
[quote user="CSSHEGEWISCH"]
[/quote
Some on UP West are >8. But the gallery cars are not a pleasant experience for most commuters: poor ride, noisy, the ambience of a prison cell block.
I've been a daily rider of gallery bi-levels since 1980 haven't found anything to complain about in that time. It's unrealistic to expect them to have the ambience of a Superliner coach, they're designed to move a lot of people at once in reasonable comfort, not luxury.
aegrotatioWhy have bi-level cars if the platforms are long enough, anyway?
The more passengers you can carry on a single car the less the cost to the owner providing the service. Which was the original reason Chicago came up with the cattle.......I mean gallery car. The stairways I believe are engineered to be constrained because if your in the stairway during a sudden lurch of the train you can catch yourself and not roll or fall down the entire flight of stairs. Most Chicago railroads at the time wanted something cheap to operate, cheap to buy, and cheap with the union contract at the time (C&NW had a nick name where C stood for "Cheap", at the time I believe). They did not care too much about future ridership or attracting lots of people to the service because when they placed the order the hand writing was on the wall the service would not last or be their problem much longer. Hence you have the specific compromise of the gallery car. Also, I might point out in addition that C&NW bought gallery cars as replacements for their long distance trains not to be altruistic or because they liked carrying passengers but rather it was part of a larger agreement with several state DOT's to abandon a lot of their single level car 400 series trains. Specifically Wisconsin DOT had such an agreement with C&NW, abandon the 400 across the state since the Milwaukee Road was doing better business but they had to keep the trains to Green Bay and elsewhere that had no direct competition and re-equip them with new equipment. The Milwaukee Lakefront C&NW Depot was sold with a leaseback to C&NW in the 1950's.
Soo Line I would suspect was able to dump it's Laker based on similar arguments in part that C&NW or MILW was a better service to retain I would speculate. Not really sure about Soo.
Amtrak should expand the use of bi-levels to more routes that can take them. Single level car trainsets seem to translate into higher Amtrak operating subsidy I would think given the economies of scale scenario of cost per passenger to provide rail passenger service.
The bi-level "Flambeau 400" and "Peninsula 400" were placed in service in 1958 to persuade the Wisconsin PUC to allow discontinuance of 21 local runs within the state. 14 discontinuances were granted. The discontinuance of the "Twin Cities 400" and "Rochester 400" didn't come until 1962.
CSSHEGEWISCH I've been a daily rider of gallery bi-levels since 1980 haven't found anything to complain about in that time. It's unrealistic to expect them to have the ambience of a Superliner coach, they're designed to move a lot of people at once in reasonable comfort, not luxury.
I know you are ok with them, but a lot of people would agree with me.
I started riding them when the various old, single-level coaches were starting to phase out in the mid to late 50s..In summer, airconditioning on the new bilevels was a huge improvement over open windows and smoke and cinder dust blowing in from the retiring steam engines. I also recall riding the streamline Kate Shelly once in the late 60s. A much better ride than LD bilevels such as on the Chicago to Green Bay trains.
Bilevels started to be used on the Burlington and then NorthWestern , beginning in the early to mid 50s. I doubt they anticipated the RTA, which started 50 years ago in 1974.
I haven't had any experience on the gallery cars, but do find the GO Transit design (NCTD Coaster) to be reasonably pleasant. Like them better than the new Bi-level cars.
Erik_MagI haven't had any experience on the gallery cars, but do find the GO Transit design (NCTD Coaster) to be reasonably pleasant
They are nice but there are some more European contenders I think that could do a better job with the gallery car if they would enter the North American Market.
I like Mercedes city busses as well instead of the crap we end up with in our major cities. Mercedes bus is only in Mexico and has not sold to Canada or United States yet.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.