Passenger Trains > Why not a taller super-duper-liner?

Now that height restrictions have been raised on many lines how about building a passenger car that matches the height of a loaded double stack container car. This might improve the bottom line of long distance trains by allowing for two full length levels carrying more passengers per car than the current Superliner.

Todd Clark
Canyon Country, CA
Trainorders.com

Not a bad idea if the a next generation of Superliners come to pass. Would you suggest more height for just two levels and passage way on both levels or perhaps passageway for just the lower level?

I remember some bi-level sleepers that Colorado Rail Car Company had showcased where basically there was a super deluxe room on either ends of the upper level of the sleeper. Passengers had the width for such space. I guess these would be similar to the handicap and family rooms that one currently has on the lower level of a Superliner.

I don't know you'd still have to have storage for mechanical somewhere on the Superliners, not sure where they would put those. And I would imagine they would still have to provide access to both levels of the Superliner, per car, due to entrance/exit level issues. But getting more height on the upper level of the sleeping car bunks would certainly be a positive.

Although many routes have had their clearances increased, not all have been improved and many of the stations Amtrak uses have restrictive clearance canopies. The best reason for staying within Amtrak's existing bi-level clearance envelope is that it's known for certain that all routes where Superliners are used have adequate clearance for Superliners. Once you get outside that envelope, the operator (presumably Amtrak) would have to obtain permission from the host railroad to operate a taller car, which would involve a detailed clearance analysis to make sure that there are no restrictions. I don't know about you, but I can imagine what the UP would say if Amtrak asked permission to run taller cars. Plus, Chicago Union Station has some of the most restrictive clearances on the Amtrak system off-NEC. And, taller cars would not be functionally compatible with the existing fleet of Superliners/Surfliners/California Cars, as you couldn't pass from one to the other due to different floor heights. I think we're pretty lucky that we have a standard like the Superliners, thanks to the Santa Fe and the original high-levels.

While many of the main lines have had clearances improved or already had the clearance to accommodate double stacks, passenger lines have many locations where the clearances aren't so good. It doesn't do any good to have equipment that can run down a main and not get into stations. It would also be pretty expensive to fix the clearance for very little benefit. Rader Rail and then Colorado tried to do that and failed with their ultra domes. Amtrak Superliners are the height they are because of the restrictions for the passenger facilities they needed to get into. Particularly Chicago Union Station. Increasing clearance there is very problematic. Taller cars would also have trouble in LAUPT, San Jose, NOUPT, Washington Union, the tunnels on the peninsula line, and Toledo to name a few.

Why not? Top-heaviness comes to mind... I'm quite sure those Ultra-domes have a pretty high center of gravity. Superliners aren't all that great, either.

Todd.Are you talking something along the line of those Alaska Railroad double decker type cars?

These cars were on display in Santa Clara, CA when the Caltrain mainlines were shut down for construction, these cars were about as tall as they get. Now just picture this in stainless steel, would be interesting.

Frank

---

Might work for a low speed tourist operation, but I wouldn't want to be cruising at 79 or 90 mph in that top heavy thing, swaying back and forth on less than perfect track.

Design it to have a low center of gravity then. It's like a Land Rover, everyone looks at it's tall roof and says, "How can you take that top-heavy thing offroad, it'll tip over everywhere!" Well, most don't know its designed so that over 60% of its weight is distributed below the head of the motor allowing it to take crazy angles without tipping. It's all about the design.


hsr_fan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Might work for a low speed tourist operation, but
> I wouldn't want to be cruising at 79 or 90 mph in
> that top heavy thing, swaying back and forth on
> less than perfect track.

We could get a bit more height, but would that translate into capacity? Passenger cars don't "cube out" like a grain car or tank car. Even if it was taller, how many more seats could be put it? A/C and plumbing needs come to mind. Unless a third deck can be had then the extra height is a solution looking for a problem. Add to that the station compatibility issues and it would seem that it isn't practical at this point.

John Gezelius
Tustin, CA

Los Angeles would not be able to handle them, the sheds there are fairly tight clearance with a Superliner. The Rader domes in the picture at Santa Clara were displayed in L.A. on the release tracks in L A with gang plank placed over the platform tracks, because of shed clearance.

Superliners and Hilevels have a low center of gravity with most of the car weight over the trucks,
The air conditioners, water tanks, and other equipment are all there.

calzephyr48 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why not? Top-heaviness comes to mind... I'm
> quite sure those Ultra-domes have a pretty high
> center of gravity. Superliners aren't all that
> great, either.


Yeh, the water would splash out of the hot-tubs when the train rounds a curve....

Dave

Yes, I was thinking along the lines of the Colorado Railcar Alaska cars. I toured one a number of years ago and I was impressed with the layout and capacity.

Todd Clark
Canyon Country, CA
Trainorders.com

webmaster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, I was thinking along the lines of the
> Colorado Railcar Alaska cars. I toured one a
> number of years ago and I was impressed with the
> layout and capacity.


I would love to see these cars used as an observation car
on many of the Superliner Runs. That is one thing Amtrak needs
to look at bringing back. Something that can ad to that experience
of a train ride.

webmaster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, I was thinking along the lines of the
> Colorado Railcar Alaska cars. I toured one a
> number of years ago and I was impressed with the
> layout and capacity.


The thing about the Superliners is the low floor permits ADA boarding at most of Amtrak's platforms. The Ultradome cars have the low floor above the trucks, thus there would be stairs for boarding and mini-highs or lifts would be needed for ADA passengers. Then as others have stated there are issues with the higher center of gravity, at the very least it will cause a rougher ride for those on the upper level at high speeds then there currently is in a Superliner.

The Ultradomes had to take a roundabout route to get to Alaska due to height clearances, and they needed special clearance from the host RRs to be moved. I don't think the mainlines are ready for them yet if they're still considered high/wide loads.

More realistically I'd like to see Amtrak purchase some of the CRC-style single-level domes for East coast routes rather then using Amfleet cafes for Lounges.

hsr_fan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Might work for a low speed tourist operation, but
> I wouldn't want to be cruising at 79 or 90 mph in
> that top heavy thing, swaying back and forth on
> less than perfect track.

They didn't sway back and forth when they were SP Commute Cars going up and down the peninsula.

PHall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> They didn't sway back and forth when they were SP
> Commute Cars going up and down the peninsula.


Back then you had more than 2 men per 100 miles of of track for maintenance.

And then let us discuss those awful steps on the present superliner cars. Clearly they were designed by a fiend from hell, with no thought of someone who might have to get a baby or small child up/down them, or a bulky bag, or someone with a troublesome knee, or....
I am a devoted Amtrak passenger, but I have grown to loathe superliner steps, and to long for the days of Amfleet or Heritage Fleet cars. The steps are a ghastly design that needs to be changed if or when Amtrak gets some new equipment in the West.

Passageway on the lower level would require steps up over the trucks.

I have a solution to all of this!

Bring back the single level BUDD cars, run em' 16+ cars long with 2 or 3 P42s!

ADA problem? Not an issue now!
Dome car? CRC type single level dome of course!
High level platforms!? Nope, new technology my friend!

Ahem, now back to our regularly scheduled program...giggity.