Unlikely but Possible Future Changes for Amtrak

[dlagrua]

At most, the two Lake Shore trains each day spend maybe 1 hour occupying a track. That's a half an hour for each. We're not talking all that much time in the greater scheme of things. And they use a platform that is not in high demand by Amtrak for a Regional train. NJT might be a bit happier to see the LSL go else where, but since NJT can't get anymore trains through the tunnel it really doesn't matter.

And while the NJT ML's have a luggage rack, you can't put anything larger than a thin briefcase on that rack. You cannot even fit a small overnight bag, much less a true carry-on suitcase up there.

I'll have to take a look at that "luggage" rack on the multi-levels next time I ride NJT into NYP. I thought that they would accomodate a small carry-on but I do not doubt your info. Now getting back to adding capacity to keep up with demand; if Amtrak were to add one more coach to each NEC consist that adds 60 more seats or roughly 2 years worth of growth to a NEC train. The question then becomes what does Amtrak do 5 years down the road? The muli-levels on NJT currently have 142 seats. Expand the leg room 25% and you'll still have 106 seats as opposed to 62. As for luggage; don't know how that can be addressed but some people take luggage on NJT right now. What do they do with it?

 

[George Harris]

An unreliable source states that Amtrak had a few berths on a few Amfleets in the 1980s. Cannot confirm, cannot remember exact source.

A couple of roomettes or such were added to one of the Amfleet coaches on one of the Harley Staggers specials, I forget which. This was pre Horizon and also as few of "heritage" sleepers had been converted from steamlines. I remember seeing a picture or two of them, but do not recall much of the when or how many.

 

[Texan Eagle]

As for luggage; don't know how that can be addressed but some people take luggage on NJT right now. What do they do with it?

They keep it on the mid-level near the door. I have traveled by NJT from New Brunswick to NYP with one airline-checked-bag size bags and a carry-on and a laptop bag (I was taking an international fight from JFK) and while loading and unloading all this luggage was quite an adventure, especially at NYP, but in the bi-level train itself, keeping the bags was not a problem. Right next to the doors there are few seats at the platform level that can fold up and there is a big open area there to keep bags. A potential NJT-style-Amtrak-bilevel coach can be made sacrificing those 8 or 12 seats and putting a Superliner-style luggage rack there for everyone to put their bags, and the upper and lower levels can have reclining seats with greater legroom than NJT and you would still get a decently good capacity coach. Of course, this is all wishful thinking, not gonna happen.

 

[Rob_C]

Here's my take on this...

Go with what works.

This is the interior of the Bi-level Alstom (TGV) Duplex which will fit into NYP and appears to have a fairly roomy design, with fold down luggage racks as well as ample other luggage space due to its articulated design.

It would make sense for Amtrak to order these sets at the same time California orders their sets. Here are a few color schemes, one for the NEC and one for CAL.

I've gone ahead and modeled the NEC version in miniature here:

http://youtu.be/6IgZyLyRw34

Current capacity can be done with single level, sure. But there will come a time maybe 10 or 20 years from now when this makes more sense. And Amtrak can outfit these things however they like and make them as roomy as needed for each class of service.

My 2 cents.

 

[afigg]

Now getting back to adding capacity to keep up with demand; if Amtrak were to add one more coach to each NEC consist that adds 60 more seats or roughly 2 years worth of growth to a NEC train. The question then becomes what does Amtrak do 5 years down the road? The muli-levels on NJT currently have 142 seats. Expand the leg room 25% and you'll still have 106 seats as opposed to 62.

The seating capacity of a Amfleet I coach car is 72, not 62.

 

[The Chief]

An unreliable source states that Amtrak had a few berths on a few Amfleets in the 1980s. Cannot confirm, cannot remember exact source.

A couple of roomettes or such were added to one of the Amfleet coaches on one of the Harley Staggers specials, I forget which. This was pre Horizon and also as few of "heritage" sleepers had been converted from steamlines. I remember seeing a picture or two of them, but do not recall much of the when or how many.

George, IIRC those two Amfleet coaches had the "Ampad" rooms added (after seats were removed). Car was a coach - little room (2) config.

So the Ampad wasn't a forerunner of the iPad.

 

[guest]

In reexamiing the situation; I agree that sending the LSL to Grand Central will not alleviate the Hudson Tunnel logjam but since the LSL only arrives once and departs once daily it sits at NYP for hours on end. This takes up platform space that might be used for additonal NEC runs.

One other mistaken point about the multi-levels is that they DO have a luggage rack overhead, the same as the Amfleet coaches. I occasionally ride NJT into NYP and can confirm that.

I cannot see how capacity 5 years from now can be handled w/o going to multi-lvels, w/o building new tunnels and/or w/o expanding NYP and other stations along the way. Time will tell.

Next time you ride a multi-level, try to put even a carry-on size bag onto that luggage rack. The rack is too close to the ceiling to hold luggage. A briefcase or laptop bag: yes. Suitcase: no. I like the multi-levels, but they would not work for Amtrak NEC except perhaps for Keystone service.

The multi-levels are not needed by Amtrak to provide additional capacity in the NEC. Single-level equipment will suffice for the foreseeable future.

Actually, if you check (bring a tape measure if you want to), you'll see that any bag small enough to fit into the official bag sizers will easily fit into the overhead racks on a Superliner.

 

[Ryan]

We're not talking about Superliners, they're too tall to fit on the NEC. We're talking about the shorter commuter bilevels, which don't have the luggage rack space to fit much of anything and won't be used on the NEC for Amtrak service no matter how many times the OP tries to say that it's possible.

 

[jis]

There were no coaches ever planned for the current VL order, either in the primary order or in the options. Read Amtrak's fleet plan to learn when single level coaches are scheduled to be replaced.

 

[afigg]

This is the interior of the Bi-level Alstom (TGV) Duplex which will fit into NYP and appears to have a fairly roomy design, with fold down luggage racks as well as ample other luggage space due to its articulated design.

It would make sense for Amtrak to order these sets at the same time California orders their sets. Here are a few color schemes, one for the NEC and one for CAL.

Let's make this clear. The 130 bi-level corridor cars that California and the Midwest states will be ordering will be Superliner height cars at 16 feet 2 inches tall. They will have high level connecting vestibules to match up to the existing Superliners and Surfliner cars. They will not fit into the clearances on the NEC, which is dictated not just by the tunnels to NYP, but the tunnels in Baltimore, the lowest points of drooping catenary, and I would guess a number of older overpass bridges on the NEC.

The cars used on the NEC and in the east have a maximum height of 14 ft 6 inches with a specific clearance specification for the NYP tunnels and the NEC. There are bi-level cars that meet the 14'6" clearance specs, but they are commuter cars which present all sorts of space and layout compromises for a longer range passenger rail operation. The decision is set by all indications for Amtrak to stick with single level corridor cars in the east which will provide quick on and off access at high level platforms and comfortable seating for day long and overnight travel.

Capacity expansion on the NEC and in the east can be achieved with longer train sets, more frequent service, more stations with long high level platforms to reduce dwell times; track, signal, and station upgrades to the NEC and related corridors for greater capacity, higher speeds and reduced trip times.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

There were no coaches ever planned for the current VL order, either in the primary order or in the options. Read Amtrak's fleet plan to learn when single level coaches are scheduled to be replaced.

Not this order but when the viewliners first came out back in the 80's they had planed to make VL coaches and have entire VL trains. Funding cuts prevented that and all they have are sleepers and 1 diner.

 

[dlagrua]

Here's my take on this...

Go with what works.

This is the interior of the Bi-level Alstom (TGV) Duplex which will fit into NYP and appears to have a fairly roomy design, with fold down luggage racks as well as ample other luggage space due to its articulated design.

It would make sense for Amtrak to order these sets at the same time California orders their sets. Here are a few color schemes, one for the NEC and one for CAL.

I've gone ahead and modeled the NEC version in miniature here:

http://youtu.be/6IgZyLyRw34

Current capacity can be done with single level, sure. But there will come a time maybe 10 or 20 years from now when this makes more sense. And Amtrak can outfit these things however they like and make them as roomy as needed for each class of service.

My 2 cents.

Exactly. You can only add additional coaches until you run out of platform space and in some stations like NYP there is no room to expand the station or platforms much, if at all. I see nothing wrong with the Alstom TGV's shown above and would be willing to bet the next time Amtrak is faced with a decision to buy coaches, we will see bi-levels. Why? They fit through all tunnels and are more energy and space efficient. This will lead to higher revenue. Some will disagree but if you do just read the title of this post one more time.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Since not a lot careabout Amfleet sleepers, I will give my take on the OP's suggestions.

For the NEC, the PRR used 14' 1.5'' tall MP70 duplex coaches on the LIRR into NYP. A modern version with more legroom could run on the NEC. These guys should be able to haul more than the current Amfleet I. I found some pictures and diagrams.

www.lirrhistory.com

source unknown

www.prr.railfan.net

www.prr.railfan.net

About the California idea, I think that if you can use current Superliner-based designs, keep it simple for now. Note "for now"

Never mind edits, I managed to resize diagrams.

 

[The Davy Crockett]

Since not a lot careabout Amfleet sleepers, I will give my take on the OP's suggestions.

For the NEC, the PRR used 14' 1.5'' tall MP70 duplex coaches on the LIRR into NYP. A modern version with more legroom could run on the NEC. These guys should be able to haul more than the current Amfleet I. I found some pictures and diagrams.

www.lirrhistory.com

source unknown

www.prr.railfan.net

www.prr.railfan.net

About the California idea, I think that if you can use current Superliner-based designs, keep it simple for now. Note "for now"

Never mind edits, I managed to resize diagrams.

Not to cross threads, but it kinda looks like a stock car.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

A stock car? You just need to increasse legroom and "un-commuter" it. Then, it shall be a stock a stock car no more.

 

[Trogdor]

Exactly. You can only add additional coaches until you run out of platform space and in some stations like NYP there is no room to expand the station or platforms much, if at all.

It's a good thing stations like NYP aren't maxed out as far as the length of trains they can accommodate.

The current standard Regional consist is eight cars (plus locomotive). The current Acelas are six cars plus two engines.

Just 10 years ago, Amtrak was running 13-car Clocker trains out of NYP. If those fit without problems (and since they ran like that, daily, for decades, I'd assume there weren't any problems), that means you have the ability to expand capacity by more than 50% per train before you run out of platform.

I see nothing wrong with the Alstom TGV's shown above

The TGV Duplex cars shown above don't look like they have doors that would be compatible with high-level platforms. That would certainly be "something wrong".

and would be willing to bet the next time Amtrak is faced with a decision to buy coaches, we will see bi-levels. Why? They fit through all tunnels and are more energy and space efficient. This will lead to higher revenue.

And I would be willing to bet that the next time Amtrak is faced with a decision to buy coaches for the NEC, we will see single-levels. Why? Because Amtrak has already stated that is the plan, and has already released the specifications for what the standard single-level coach car design will be.

Some will disagree but if you do just read the title of this post one more time.

Regardless of the title of this thread, I don't understand why you are absolutely convinced that the only possible way for Amtrak to move forward is to use bi-levels on the NEC, despite the fact that virtually every single response has demonstrated otherwise.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Regardless of the title of this thread, I don't understand why you are absolutely convinced that the only possible way for Amtrak to move forward is to use bi-levels on the NEC, despite the fact that virtually every single response has demonstrated otherwise.

There you go. I completely agree. The thread title is also misleading, it says nothing about the NEC or bi-levels.

 

[AlanB]

Exactly. You can only add additional coaches until you run out of platform space and in some stations like NYP there is no room to expand the station or platforms much, if at all.

It's a good thing stations like NYP aren't maxed out as far as the length of trains they can accommodate.

The current standard Regional consist is eight cars (plus locomotive). The current Acelas are six cars plus two engines.

Just 10 years ago, Amtrak was running 13-car Clocker trains out of NYP. If those fit without problems (and since they ran like that, daily, for decades, I'd assume there weren't any problems), that means you have the ability to expand capacity by more than 50% per train before you run out of platform.

Most of the tracks that Amtrak uses at NYP can accommodate 13 car trains and 6 tracks in the middle can handle 17 car trains.

 

[Ryan]

Exactly. You can only add additional coaches until you run out of platform space and in some stations like NYP there is no room to expand the station or platforms much, if at all. I see nothing wrong with the Alstom TGV's shown above and would be willing to bet the next time Amtrak is faced with a decision to buy coaches, we will see bi-levels. Why? They fit through all tunnels and are more energy and space efficient. This will lead to higher revenue. Some will disagree but if you do just read the title of this post one more time.

So you're "willing to bet" on something that is "unlikely but possible". Good plan, and I'll gladly take that bet.

Since not a lot careabout Amfleet sleepers, I will give my take on the OP's suggestions.

It isn't that we don't care, they're just outside the realm of "possible" or "future".

 

[jis]

A few point points that I would like to contribute or emphasize in this discussion...

1. I have ridden TGV Duplexes, and TGV single level, and Thalys, and Eurostar, and TGV Le Ligne de Couer, extensively. Trust me they are cramped in coach and barely not so in First Class. If the general TGV seat pitch is used on Amtrak almost everyone on this forum and many passengers will simply revolt. So seat counts will be considerably lower when Amtrak style seat pitch is put in. Additionally, there is no room for the sort of luggage that people carry onto NEC trains, so seat counts on those sets will have to be further reduced to put in on floor luggage racks. And their door floor level is lower than the standard 4' in the US, so the sets cannot be used as is unmodified, not to mention the need for Tier II buff strength too.

2. People who have actually studied the seat and luggage situation on the Bombardier MLVs, at a somewhat detailed level than the "add 25% legroom" style analysis, including issues of providing ADA compliant toilets and ADA compliant seating adjacent to them and providing 2 toilets per car and compensating for lack of overhead luggage space in the double floor area of the car, can find space for only between 85 and 90 seats.

3. Just yesterday I heard one more time from Amtrak operations people, a different group from the other source, who we have heard from earlier, that they have looked at and decided not to go for the MLVs.

4. Amtrak's most optimistic ridership projections which are based on New York area economic activity projections from NYMTC, from before the crash, can be met adequately by single level cars using longer and more frequent service for which capacity is or will be available through 2050, according to those who do these calculations as a routine matter of their profession. Since then NYMTC has been working on reducing the projections to take into account the non-recoverable loss of economic activity that has taken place in the first decade of the century which implies that the projections will actually get revised downwards from where they are now.

 

[jis]

One other mistaken point about the multi-levels is that they DO have a luggage rack overhead, the same as the Amfleet coaches. I occasionally ride NJT into NYP and can confirm that.

MLVs have small luggage racks capable of holding a thin briefcase or a thin laptop bag on the upper floor, and have no luggage racks at all in the lower floor. They have full size luggage racks on the middle floor, but in cars that have toilets the end that has the toilet does not have this rack on both sides. And none of the luggage racks are as wide as in Amfleet.

Not all cars have toilets. For Amtrak operations each car would require to have two toilets one of which is ADA compliant and accessible from an ADA compliant seat position. That will fully knock out one end of the car, assuming that the quarter point doors are eliminated to make room for the toilets at least at one end.

I cannot see how capacity 5 years from now can be handled w/o going to multi-levels, w/o building new tunnels and/or w/o expanding NYP and other stations along the way. Time will tell.

Which projection of passenger traffic are you using to come to this conclusion? Could you provide a citation? Thanks. I find the 5 year horizon particularly intriguing. What makes you think that ridership growth will be so dramatically higher in the next five compared to the last five, specially when Amtrak's focus is currently on maximizing ROI with what is currently available? This is particularly important since it is becoming quite clear that Amtrak will have to self finance additional rolling stock.

In any case there is no way that Amtrak could acquire and field new equipment involving a completely new design, within the next five years to handle the fantasy ridership that you propose to handle. Nor can it build new tunnels or tracks in 5 years. So we are basically screwed

The reality though is fortunately not quite as alarming. Fortunately with the Horizons getting released from midwest, and the 40 additional Acela cars, Amtrak will have more than adequate equipment and capacity to handle the expected and projected realistic ridership numbers.

Can you guess why the ACS 64 is spec'ed to be able to run the current Regional schedule with 18 car trains? I thought so! Or maybe not? Can you guess why each Acela is getting two additional BC cars increasing BC capacity by 50%? I thought so! Or maybe not?

Those are the things that can be done in 5 years and is more than adequate to handle the projected ridership without adding a single additional train frequency, for which there is ample track capacity available (should such be necessary) except for the morning and afternoon 2 rush hours through New York. And of course the self imposed bridge restrictions malarchy to keep the rich happy along Connecticut coast at the expense of everyone else.