Passenger Trains > Amtrak to abandon bi-level long distance replacement fleet

...and there it is. Something I could have told them they should have done from the very beginning.

https://www.trains.com/pro/mechanical/passenger-cars/amtrak-ends-plans-for-new-bi-level-cars/?fbclid=IwQ0xDSwQNW0lleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEeCSnE1_949995cH738jmMcIJY5hRIzdUtrk2_rlYqgdtrkeRSbeFWzwNavQw_aem_c0ONczKp6rL-0iMgLDnMRg

Good.
"Problematic aspects of the order included a request for elevators in the bi-level cars"\
See if they can leverage what VIA Rail is doing, though they demand Canadian-built, as we demand American-built. 

Now get CN to replace their flawed track circuits that FRA should deem as unsafe.

 



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/26 09:34 by joemvcnj.

9900 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...and there it is. Something I could have told
> them they should have done from the very
> beginning.
>
> https://www.trains.com/pro/mechanical/passenger-ca
> rs/amtrak-ends-plans-for-new-bi-level-cars/?fbclid
> =IwQ0xDSwQNW0lleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI
> 4NTY4Mzc5AAEeCSnE1_949995cH738jmMcIJY5hRIzdUtrk2_r
> lYqgdtrkeRSbeFWzwNavQw_aem_c0ONczKp6rL-0iMgLDnMRg

Said the same - but Amtrak REALLY needs to make sure this is a buttoned up plan that can produce some really nice LD equipment. I found capacity short on the original single level design and the lounge space / dining space also a bit short on capacity for what these trains would be replacing - Superliner Bi-Level Cars across the Western part of the United States. Must retain and match capacity. Just PLEASE go in on the VIA Rail Canada order. And some members here at TO were BOASTING on how far along Amtrak was in their bilevel equipment replacement procurement project. What a bunch of nonsense. So much easier if they bounce off the VIA Rail Canada plan for economies of scale and interchangeability even. 

" Amtrak President Roger Harris said in a press release today (Feb. 26). “Thanks to support from FRA Administrator David Fink and the entire Federal Railroad Administration team, Amtrak’s long-distance fleet replacement is moving forward more effectively and efficiently than originally planned.” "

Amazing. That sure is a very weird mis-spelling of "We should have started building this stuff five years ago."

anthracite Wrote:

> Amazing. That sure is a very weird mis-spelling of
> "We should have started building this stuff five
> years ago."

When Anderson was still lurking around ? Lucky he didn't sell the Superliners to Mexico as he did several Amcoaches. So sure he was that  the SW Chief was coming he leased a bunch more Superliners to Surfliner service. 

https://media.amtrak.com/2026/02/amtrak-announces-new-and-improved-long-distance-fleet-replacement-strategy/

Posted from Android

Smart idea. Gives a lot more equipment flexibility.

Posted from Android

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Now get CN to replace their flawed track circuits
> that FRA should deem as unsafe.
>
>  

You don't understand it at all, do you?

I'm glad they're moving forward, but given the age of the Superliners, this should have been happening 20 years ago.

Stan Praisewater

jp1822 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Said the same - but Amtrak REALLY needs to make
> sure this is a buttoned up plan that can produce
> some really nice LD equipment. I found capacity
> short on the original single level design and the
> lounge space / dining space also a bit short on
> capacity for what these trains would be replacing
> - Superliner Bi-Level Cars across the Western part
> of the United States. Must retain and match
> capacity. Just PLEASE go in on the VIA Rail Canada
> order. And some members here at TO were BOASTING
> on how far along Amtrak was in their bilevel
> equipment replacement procurement project. What a
> bunch of nonsense. So much easier if they bounce
> off the VIA Rail Canada plan for economies of
> scale and interchangeability even. 

I cannot wait until you are bellyaching when LD capacity gets cut, especially in terms of dining, restrooms and sleeper services.

Hopefully the Superliner II pool will be able to hold down a premier assignment until they age out. Probably auto-train or Zephyr. 

Superliners may stay on 52/53 until the very end (or until CSX no longer limits the total consist to 50 cars). Ironic that the last stand of the Superliners could be on the east coast. 

This sucks, especially if they don't have domes... stupid

Posted from Android

ctillnc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Superliners may stay on 52/53 until the very end
> (or until CSX no longer limits the total consist
> to 50 cars). Ironic that the last stand of the
> Superliners could be on the east coast. 

Good chance that some time in the 2030's or 2040s a lackluster rider experiance will trigger a bi-level reassessment. It takes just one influential Senator to put a line in a funding bill to cancel the accessibility issues and direct Amtrak to purchase bi-level cars. Especially since bi-level is becoming the standard for commuter rail systems there will be multiple "platforms" to adapt from.

That aside I'd expect single levels to take over the Sunset Limited, Texas Eagle, CONO and Capitol Limited (pending its return), due to those routes limited scenery and ridership. This would allow NOLA to become a single level hub and install high level platforms. .

train offs maybe a result, as it is to comply with ADA a 44 seat coach becomes  a 33 seat coach-single level that is half the capacity of a superliner coach isn't it?   Great  drive up prices....costs not good, but go ahead tell us about one fleet which b/s any way you have corridor cars short distance cars, state cars----ridiculousness

Typhoon Wrote:

> You don't understand it at all, do you?

Yes I do and you do not and I don't care who you work for. 

Track circuits that cannot be relied upon to detect anything but at least a 7 car passenger train, and only Superliners at that is JUNK.  Furthermore, if they want weight give them weight. 3 locos + 5 cars ought to be satisfy them but does not further proves CN is being difficult. 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/26 11:14 by joemvcnj.

Why can't we use the Superliners Car plans now.H*** what the ADA said, we need Superliner car orders. Amtrak needs a Back-bone to the ADA people??

dan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> train offs maybe a result, as it is to comply with
> ADA a 44 seat coach becomes  a 33 seat
> coach-single level that is half the capacity of a
> superliner coach isn't it?   Great  drive up
> prices....costs not good, but go ahead tell us
> about one fleet which b/s any way you have
> corridor cars short distance cars, state
> cars----ridiculousness

Don't blame the ADA law, blame executive branch ADA related regulations that are going above and beyond what the law requires. 

I wouldn't expect this to kill any routes as East Coast single level LD trains are doing fine with their 60 seat LD coaches. The capacity constraint is platform length at the terminals and this will be first felt by the sleepers as those are the lowest density cars. This might force Amtrak to offer a lower-tier sleeping option with the lay flat pods seen on airlines or something like a slumbercoach. 

Norway has a new service with the lay flat seat option which has been extensivly reviewed. They use a 1+1 pod configuration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2o48NiCkNE

Doing a quick calculation the longest tracks at LA and Denver at 1400 feet from the buffers to the terminal interlocking signal. That's 16 and change 85 foot cars. Lets say an ideal Zephyr trainset is currently 10 cars and 2 engines. That means 4 extra single levels IF Amtrak is willing to give up ever putting a business car, DOT car or private car on those trains (unlikely). So in all liklihood you are looking at replacing a 10 car bi-level trains with a 12 or 13 car single level train. I'd predict an extra coach, an extra sleeper and 1 of dealers choice (cafe combo car, lay flat pod car, etc).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/26 11:37 by mbrotzman.

To me this is great news. I'm hoping that Amtrak will do some collaboration with VIA on this in hopes of saving a lot of time.  Yes, the cost-revenue picture probably won't look quite as good, but we've got to get something going on this. A ten-year wait for even the first cars doesn't cut it. Even half that is still bad. 

I'm not surprised that this has happened, was pretty much expecting it, and I'm fine with it

There was a solid case to be made for new bi-levels on the grounds of capacity and relative efficiency in delivering that higher capacity. Amtrak had plenty of experience with the Superliners to know that, and to know the numbers thoroughly. It was reasonable for Amtrak to have looked at a new bi-level design. But there were very real problems, mainly around accessibility.

That was solvable as I had suggested a number of times with a mixed single-level - bi-level consist, with the "accessible core" for persons with mobility needs in half of the train in single-level cars, and then a second half of bi-levels for persons with fewer or no mobility concerns. Note again that there is no legal requirement for persons with mobility needs to have access to every portion of the train, as has been misstated many times here on TO. The standard is only for equitable access to services. So if there were Coach seats, sleeper space, dining and lounge space for all passengers that met accessibility standards in the single-level portion of the train, the legal requirements would have been satisfied. And there would have been no need for those with mobility impairments to have accessed the bi-level part of the train.

But as the Trains article notes, that might have demanded two builders for two car types, or even with a single builder, two separate sets of tooling, and probably two separate production lines. That adds a lot of cost, and any builder would want a profit margin out of each production run. That higher cost, plus subsequent operational costs with a mixed fleet, could perhaps have mitigated against any capacity, efficiency, revenue and cost gains with part of the new fleet as bi-levels.

A mixed single-and-bi-level fleet would also have continued all of the issues that we all know concerning fleet availability and universality. There's a lot of cost tied up there too. Amtrak will gain efficiency by being able to use cars more freely and fluidly wherever they are needed in the LD train system. That can add efficiency in maintenance, train makeup in yards, and dispatching from initial terminals that can help service reliability, where improvement is drastically needed.

The Superliners have been great cars, and have served Amtrak well. They were an excellent design, and delivered a lot over their long service lives. But Amtrak can still deliver a quality service on the LD routes with single-level trains.

I'm guessing that in time we may learn that longtime professional railroader and former FRA administrator Ron Batory had some influence in this decision from his relatively recent appointment to the Amtrak board. Shortly after he joined the board he was publicly quoted as saying that Amtrak needed more commonality in its fleet. The Amtrak board has needed someone with his deep and broad professional experience and career nitty-gritty knowledge for a long time. Perhaps he brought that perspective and the weight of his considerable professional reputation to bear in this decision. 

jp1822 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
 And some members here at TO were BOASTING
> on how far along Amtrak was in their bilevel
> equipment replacement procurement project. What a
> bunch of nonsense. So much easier if they bounce
> off the VIA Rail Canada plan for economies of
> scale and interchangeability even. 

Since I am one of a very few (if not the only one) of TO members who in the past wrote a number of times suggesting that members take a calmer, more factual view of this Amtrak procurement process when many were pretty spun up about it (you included), I'm pretty sure you're speaking about me. Umm, no, I did not "boast" about Amtrak's process and its timeline and progress in this procurement process. In fact, I only stated (with support from actual facts) that while there had been delays, the process was continuing, and was not that badly off schedule. And asked for some patience in what would be in any case a complex process. It might be good to re-read the posts that I think you are referring to. Link: https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,5952727,5952933#msg-5952933 - page 2, bottom.

But when it became clear through an Inspector General's report that Amtrak was not proceeding as briskly along the timeline as had been thought, I also accepted that judgment, again with factual support: https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,5957699,5958075#msg-5958075  - see page 2, bottom.

Hardly "BOASTING" about Amtrak in either case. And were the caps really necessary, whether referring to me or to someone else? I've followed this topic fairly closely here on TO and elsewhere and have posted on it a number of times. I can't recall any "boasting" by anyone about Amtrak's progress in this procurement project.
  
Coordination with VIA on their purchase is probably also desirable, and hopefully doable - if relations with our friends to the north have not been so poisoned by recent politics as to allow it. But that assumes Amtrak will go with Siemens - and given many recent events that's a very big "if" (although much of that centered on motive power, not cars). But it's more important that Amtrak makes a good selection from a solid bid with a capable and competent builder than it is just to automatically piggyback onto a VIA order with Siemens.

In any case, this project is moving forward once again. That's good news. Onward.

MC



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/26 11:46 by ironmtn.

There is the accessible core concept, meaning access to all amenities. That is not the same as a wheelchair getting the run of the whole train. They do not have that at all on commuter trains, but a specific area near the door and the restroom in only certain cars.

Looks like the elevator issue was the show stopper and common sense prevailed in that they won't work in the real world.

I am also unimpressed in the way the Superliners all too easily flipped over in derailments, whereas Santa Fe hi levels stayed upright and chewed the ballast. I could say the same about current coach buses compared to the sturdier GMC PD series.

Posted from Android