The following thoughts from me are not specifically about the Auto Train but about the whole idea of using Sections, and using IR 3AC as a model for such.
Well, looking at India Rail, the best comparison would be a 3AC configuration which seats and sleeps 78. It's 3 + 1 across seating, three berths high on one side perpendicular to the sides, three high on the other side parallel to the wall. This leaves a pretty narrow aisle, but the kicker is that this is on a broad gauge train as opposed to standard gauge. I suppose the average rider could look at a 3AC India Rail and shout "Not on MY Amtrak", but perhaps it can be designed with a bit more American flair. Whatever that means... A more appropriate level of comfort would be two across, two high. This could have as much many as 48 - 54 in a single section car.
Indian sized berths would be inadequate in the US. AC3 would be a formula for failure in the US, and even more so in Superliners. There simply isn't enough height available to make it work. As for berth length, they work fine in a country where average height of users is considerably less than in the US. IR AC2 may work, but forget about the aisle side thing. In general berth in semi-cubes makes the whole thing much more claustrophobic in my opinion.
BTW, Indian LD train cars are no wider than American ones. Only the track gauge is wider in India. Not the loading gauge for standard passenger stock.
My suspicion is that realistically getting any more capacity than one could get with a roomette only car (4 berths per window row) would be difficult. That is what the classic Sections had anyway, as do the Sections on the Canadian. So count something like 32 berths (8 rows x 4) on a Viewliner, leaving room for common facilities using 1 or two rows, and they could be arranged either as roomettes or as open sections, the latter allowing for individual berth sale as opposed to sale of an entire roomette. So the up-charge for a section berth would be about half that for the roomette, and potentially it would earn a bit more than a roomette car since a transport charge is guaranteed per berth, which is not the case in roomettes for those rooms sold to singles.
I find some of the discussion on this thread amusing. The Autotrain is one of Amtraks most successful routes and one of the highest revenue producers in the system. Why would Amtrak want to change this? The only change that might make sense is the addition of additional sleepers and/or coaches to expand capacity when needed. I believe that the A/T may now also be at maxiumum operating capacity and adding any additional cars would require upgrading the power grid system or adding more head end power.
Agreed
As for the "three high berth" sleeper system used on Indias railroads. Have you seen pictures of them?? You'd have to be as thin as a sardine to fit in those bunks and then how would you comply with federal RR safety requirements???? Not going to happen.
I agree. It is unrealistic to use the Indian Railways 3AC as an example for anything other than coffins IMHO.
And specially on Superliners they are completely unrealistic. How do you fit three berths vertically in less than 8'?
To AlanB's point, go with the 2AC 2-Tier scheme which holds 54. Capacity is reduced by 11, cost could be increased by 20%, it looks like revenue could easily be increased by 20%.
The berths will be narrower than the Coach seats, and the quality of daytime seating sucks. Keep dreaming.
Frankly, I'd go for an Amtrak LD Coach seat over those berths and daytime seats anyday. More realistic capacity is 32 or 36 depending on how much space is taken away for common facilities, using a classic Section layout. It is unrealistic to believe that any sleeping facility that is smaller than the classic Sections will work.
