Passenger Trains > Who owns IP to the Colorado Railcar bi-level car design?

I asked this question, but it got lost in the "Amtrak to abandon bi-level long distance replacement fleet" thread.

So, given the problems Amtrak had with their Superliner replacements -- how much investigation, if any, went into working with the CRC bi-level design?

I'm looking for informed discussion on the issue.  I seem to recall they are in regular service on the Rocky Mountaineer, and somewhere else.

(BTW, if you're with the Rocky Mountaineer marketing staff, thank you for purchasing airtime with my employer, which helps pay the salary of my day job.  Thanks again!)

their cars are too high for many places, and in daily service would have a few problems with those nice windows, think a company in ohio got the intelectual proerty, look it up later if i can

dan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> their cars are too high for many places, and in
> daily service would have a few problems with those
> nice windows, think a company in ohio got the
> intelectual proerty, look it up later if i can

How High are they compared to autoracks and double stacks?

My info is that the Rock Mountaineer cars are just over 18 feet tall. Auto racks are 19 feet. (Some special ones are 20 feet)

Superliners are something like 16 feet 2 inches tall.

 

restricted_speed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My info is that the Rock Mountaineer cars are just
> over 18 feet tall. Auto racks are 19 feet. (Some
> special ones are 20 feet)
>
> Superliners are something like 16 feet 2 inches
> tall.

May be too high for some passenger terminals.

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> restricted_speed Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > My info is that the Rock Mountaineer cars are
> just
> > over 18 feet tall. Auto racks are 19 feet.
> (Some
> > special ones are 20 feet)
> >
> > Superliners are something like 16 feet 2 inches
> > tall.
>
> May be too high for some passenger terminals.

I would think Anyone could build a rail car to a specific height and length?

Jerry Martin
Los Angeles, CA
Central Coast Railroad Festival

GP25 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ts1457 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > restricted_speed Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > My info is that the Rock Mountaineer cars are
> > just
> > > over 18 feet tall. Auto racks are 19 feet.
> > (Some
> > > special ones are 20 feet)
> > >
> > > Superliners are something like 16 feet 2
> inches
> > > tall.
> >
> > May be too high for some passenger terminals.
>
> I would think Anyone could build a rail car to a
> specific height and length?

Which is a completely different subject than what is being discussed.

dan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> their cars are too high for many places, 

Oh, yes.  I forgot about that.  Thanks for the reminder.  I "get it" now.

Your original question concerned the elevators on the cars. Yes, they are making them work, and from what I understand from several people who have taken those trains, they are reliable. But it is a very different kind of operation than Amtrak.

An elevator installed installed on an Amtrak bi-level car would be subject to a daily schedule, year 'round, on a much longer route, and with shorter turnaround times at each end than the excursion-style trips on which the cars with elevators operate.

The Southwest Chief, for example, is about 2265 miles one-way, or 4530 miles round-trip. Since it's daily and 2 1/4 days each way, figure roughly three roundtrips per week, or about 13,590 miles per week. The Empire Builder at 2200 miles one-way is about the same total. The California Zephyr, at about 2435 miles one-way or 4870 miles roundtrip, will clock in the highest of the western LD trains, doing about 14,610 miles per week. The Sunset at 1995 miles is the shortest (3990 roundtrip), and since it's only three times per week, probably does two roundtrips per week, or 7980 miles.

By comparison, the cars with elevators that operate on the Alaska Railroad's Denali Star and Coastal Classic trains are only seasonal, mid-May through mid-September, and two to three times a week. Their mileage is much shorter, 358 miles one-way (716 roundtrip) for the Denali Star, and 114 miles one-way (228 roundtrip) for the Coastal Classic. At three roundtrips a week, that's 2148 miles for the Star, and 684 miles for the Classic. In other words, what three of the four Amtrak western trains (Builder, CZ, Chief) do in one round-trip is a total week's work for the Alaska cars. For only five months out of the year. While the Amtrak cars are doing their mileage year 'round.

While the mileages are greater, it's similar for the Rocky Mountaineer in Canada, and re-named Canyon Spirit here in the US. Also seasonal, also a few trips per week in season, not a daily trip year 'round. The Rocky Mountaineer ranges from 285 to 311 miles depending on route, and the Canyon Spirit 369 miles. I won't do all the totals for these, but you can see the pattern - much shorter mileage, only several trips per week, and only seasonally for about five months out of the year. As compared to Amtrak service that is much longer mileage - one round trip about equals what these special services do in a week. And Amtrak does it every day on three of the four western LD routes, year 'round.

These special services have the luxury of longer turnaround times, and plenty of shop time in their off-seasons. Amtrak trains often have turnaround times of just hours before they are headed back the other way, and there's no off-season for maintenance. Amtrak has to take cars out of service or rob Peter on one route to pay Paul on another when the cars need to go to Beech Grove for heavy maintenance. All of the special services listed get to do that by default every fall and winter when the cars go out of service.

It's as apples-to-oranges as anything. There's just no reasonable standard of comparability at all.

All of that impinges on an elevator's probable service reliability in a big way. With short turnarounds, will they be able to be serviced in that time, or even get routine maintenance? A lot of us who have seen Amtrak maintenance (Chicago Mechanical especially) seriously question that. And in a bi-level car with accommodations for mobility-impaired passengers on an upper level, an elevator is a fail-safe system. It MUST work - always.  Can Amtrak realistically support that? Its many maintenance and service reliability problems now and in recent years suggest that is a highly questionable proposition.

The wear-and-tear on those elevator systems just by the car rolling along will be considerable. Probably a fair amount of up-down use, and consequent wear. But also the wear on the tolerancing of the elevator caused by the car just rolling down the track. Passenger cars, like all railcars, are subject to tremendous longitudinal forces, and also torsional forces. A carbody is a tube that is constantly twisting to small degrees as tracking forces act upon it. That can affect the tight tolerances needed for an elevator to operate on its track. Yes, all of that can be engineered, and certainly is - and the cars in the services mentioned clearly do so. But in use cases that are a mere fraction of those on an Amtrak bi-level car.

All of these are reasons why many of us in past discussions never believed in the elevator idea. And why I suggested a mixed-configuration train, with "accessible core" functions for mobility-impaired persons in a single-level portion of the train along with common shared services for all passengers (dining and lounge), then allowing bi-level cars to be used for those without mobility needs. But that solution has its own set of operational and economic problems.

Swiss carbuilder Stadler, which is becoming a significant player in North America, and has an excellent reputation in Europe, built 10 Gold Leaf bi-levels with elevators for the Rocky Mountaineer. To answer the specific question in this thread, they may own or have license to the bi-level design used on the Rocky Mountaineer. By all accounts I've seen, they are excellent cars, and successful designs. And while we have no way to know, I'd guess that they also were a builder who submitted a request to bid to Amtrak. If so, it would be fascinating to know how they looked at Amtrak's request for an elevator in a bi-level design. Were they with their actual experience in such a design as skeptical as some of us on the outside looking in? And if so, or not, for what reasons? Outside of a FOIA request years from now when the whole process is completed and the cars are on the road (it's almost certainly all confidential commercial information until then), we may never know. 

But until then, I definitely maintain my strong skepticism of the feasibility of elevators on an Amtrak bi-level long-distance car for all of the reasons I mentioned. Of course, anyone is free to counter or correct any of my points above, or to reach a different conclusion.

Sorry you had to ask about these cars a second time. I meant to write this response to your original query, and apologize for the delay. Hope it helps to answer your questions.

MC

https://trainweb.us/web_lurker/RaderRailcar/

http://trainweb.org/ultradomes/photos.html

this pic shows how much higher they are, and the top of elevator



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/26 14:32 by dan.

---

They’re too tall for Chicago Union Station.

Thank you for the detailed reply, MC.  I had completely forgotten about the height difference in any event, which makes the design a total show-stopper for Amtrak use.

I also thought someone had bought the rights to the original Colorado Railcar designs.  Of course, their DMU was quite a different animal, and totally outside this discussion.  At least someone tried.

There's no doubt that elevators for cars on an "Amtrak LD train" would be challenging - to operate, to maintain, to keep in good repair. That's concerned me and others on TO also since day 1. But I also believe there are other challenges that  led Amtrak to reverse their favor on procuring next generation LD bi-level equipment. Elevators work for the tourist lines listed, and its been proven. Speeds, frequency of operation, having a good maintenance program - all important. Yet I would also argue that on a trip basis - I bet the tourist railroads would use the elevator more often due to their clientele.

The elevator has not been a proven model on Amtrak's services (a 60+ mph moving train) cause it's never been tried or even tested. It's too bad that it couldn't be tested in some fashion, but that in itself could be risky. I think there are multiple issues at play with Amtrak's recent decision to go with a single level LD next generation procurement. CRC did have some interesting train cars delivered and in development. Sadly, their market couldn't be broadened quick enough, including a proposal they pitched with Amtrak for equipping the Vermonter with what would have been some neat equipment from New Haven to St. Albans.    

iron mountain -it wasn't stadler that got the Intellectual property when Colo railcar shut down, unless it  was bought and resold.  Their ip property may have mainly centred around the drive for the DMU's.  they did have a proprietary bent glass sandwich property, but others did some of that too.  for Amtrak service you would have to have multiple cars with elevators or  multiples in a car till reliability can be ascertained..  the car bodies may have not been that much of a difference, except taller.  Radar railcar started with SP commuter.  Colo railcar was paying their top two people 150k a month, wish they had  a lower overhead !  hated to see them fold, stadler cars are big money!




 

Here's a pic of the elevator on the upper level.

Tom Loftus
Omaha, NE

---

I know a retired Amtrak employee Guy Williams. Who had said about the challenges.
If you heard about the stories of the dumbwaiters on the Superliner Dining cars.
That alone should say something.

Many of the shop crews had a heck of a time keeping those dumbwaiters working.
And trying to use a larger size verison of a dumbwaiter on a train. Would be a nightmare for sure.

I wonder what would happen if a train. For reason lost head end power to the cars. 
Or even if the train derails, gets in to a wreck. Those elevators would be useless.
If one of thes events happens on board the train.

jp1822 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There's no doubt that elevators for cars on an
> "Amtrak LD train" would be challenging - to
> operate, to maintain, to keep in good repair.
> That's concerned me and others on TO also since
> day 1. But I also believe there are other
> challenges that  led Amtrak to reverse their
> favor on procuring next generation LD bi-level
> equipment. Elevators work for the tourist lines
> listed, and its been proven. Speeds, frequency of
> operation, having a good maintenance program - all
> important. Yet I would also argue that on a trip
> basis - I bet the tourist railroads would use the
> elevator more often due to their clientele.
>
> The elevator has not been a proven model on
> Amtrak's services (a 60+ mph moving train) cause
> it's never been tried or even tested. It's too bad
> that it couldn't be tested in some fashion, but
> that in itself could be risky. I think there are
> multiple issues at play with Amtrak's recent
> decision to go with a single level LD next
> generation procurement. CRC did have some
> interesting train cars delivered and in
> development. Sadly, their market couldn't be
> broadened quick enough, including a proposal they
> pitched with Amtrak for equipping the Vermonter
> with what would have been some neat equipment from
> New Haven to St. Albans.    

Jerry Martin
Los Angeles, CA
Central Coast Railroad Festival

GP25 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know a retired Amtrak employee Guy Williams. Who
> had said about the challenges.
> If you heard about the stories of the dumbwaiters
> on the Superliner Dining cars.
> That alone should say something.
>
> Many of the shop crews had a heck of a time
> keeping those dumbwaiters working.
> And trying to use a larger size verison of a
> dumbwaiter on a train. Would be a nightmare for
> sure.
>
> I wonder what would happen if a train. For reason
> lost head end power to the cars. 
> Or even if the train derails, gets in to a wreck.
> Those elevators would be useless.
> If one of thes events happens on board the train.
>
> jp1822 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There's no doubt that elevators for cars on an
> > "Amtrak LD train" would be challenging - to
> > operate, to maintain, to keep in good repair.
> > That's concerned me and others on TO also since
> > day 1. But I also believe there are other
> > challenges that  led Amtrak to reverse their
> > favor on procuring next generation LD bi-level
> > equipment. Elevators work for the tourist lines
> > listed, and its been proven. Speeds, frequency
> of
> > operation, having a good maintenance program -
> all
> > important. Yet I would also argue that on a
> trip
> > basis - I bet the tourist railroads would use
> the
> > elevator more often due to their clientele.
> >
> > The elevator has not been a proven model on
> > Amtrak's services (a 60+ mph moving train)
> cause
> > it's never been tried or even tested. It's too
> bad
> > that it couldn't be tested in some fashion, but
> > that in itself could be risky. I think there
> are
> > multiple issues at play with Amtrak's recent
> > decision to go with a single level LD next
> > generation procurement. CRC did have some
> > interesting train cars delivered and in
> > development. Sadly, their market couldn't be
> > broadened quick enough, including a proposal
> they
> > pitched with Amtrak for equipping the Vermonter
> > with what would have been some neat equipment
> from
> > New Haven to St. Albans.    

There were at least four trips I took on the Superliner Empire Builder last year where the Superliner's Diner Dumb Waiter failed during the trip or at some point on day 2 of the trip. All too familiar on what trouble that can cause - and the inconvenience to the staff. I do applaud the Empire Builder dining staff for pushing through the broken dumb waiter issue - not always the case. Keep reading below. There had been a plan to send all the Superliner Diners that needed to be "fixed" out to LA and have the 8th Street LA Yard crew do the work specifically on the troubled Superliner Diners. Not sure if that was ever done or not. That being said, since late September to present, I've not been onboard a Superliner Diner with a Dumb Waiter issue. All have worked. 

I am not sure if that is comparable though - Dumb Waiter to a regular elevator that's largely exposed to lift passengers. I simply just don't know. Above my pay grade and you are talking about a 1970s or 1990s design versus a 21st century design that's carrying more than just food. However, on other levels - I see an issue - particularly when the train is "at max speed" and the elevator may need to be operated. Seems a bit more complicated than it needs to be. Room "H" in the Viewliner or Superliner always seemed to work well for me when it was required at a period in my life..... 

I do have one really bad experience - upon boarding the CA Zephyr at Denver........CA Zephyr Superliner Diner was bad-ordered after dinner was finished on first night westbound out of Chicago. The ONLY issue was that the dumb waiter had broke.....again, the brokenness on the Empire Builder train set happened and the staff took turns bringing up meals in bulk via stairs. Diner closed and meals were brought onboard at various stops (e.g. Denver, Glenwood Springs, Salt Lake City, Reno etc.). I bailed in Reno for that trip to get to Sacramento. Nightmare with being late and food issues.

GP25 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know a retired Amtrak employee Guy Williams. Who had said about the challenges.
> If you heard about the stories of the dumbwaiters on the Superliner Dining cars.
> That alone should say something.
>
> Many of the shop crews had a heck of a time keeping those dumbwaiters working.
> And trying to use a larger size verison of a dumbwaiter on a train. Would be a nightmare for sure.
>

Fair comments.

That said, it sounds to me like an engineering problem not sufficiently worked out.  With relentless application of logic... one could build dumbwaiters which function in intercity passenger rail use.  The question remains:  How much time and money do you have to solve the problem, let alone the managerial will to tackle it?

during covid amtrak got rid of the people that could fix the dumb waiters?

dan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> iron mountain -it wasn't stadler that got the
> Intellectual property when Colo railcar shut down,
> unless it  was bought and resold.  Their ip
> property may have mainly centred around the drive
> for the DMU's.  they did have a proprietary bent
> glass sandwich property, but others did some of
> that too.  for Amtrak service you would have to
> have multiple cars with elevators or  multiples
> in a car till reliability can be ascertained.. 
> the car bodies may have not been that much of a
> difference, except taller.  Radar railcar started
> with SP commuter.  Colo railcar was paying their
> top two people 150k a month, wish they had  a
> lower overhead !  hated to see them fold, stadler
> cars are big money!
>

Sorry for a belated response.

Well, I didn't flatly say that Stadler "got the intellectual property" when Colorado Rail Car shut down. My exact words were, " they may own or have license to the bi-level design used on the Rocky Mountaineer." (added emphasis mine for this post). To use any part of the CRC design, whether the intellectual property for it had passed to another entity or not, would require some form of licensing at the least, or partial or full acquisition at the most.  Any use without some licensing or transfer of rights would be illegal, and would subject to Stadler to serious consequences. They're a good company, and as a somewhat conservative Swiss firm, and part of that nation's generally very careful business culture, I very much doubt they'd take such risk. Especially when they are trying to build their reputation and market penetration here in North America. Which so far they seem to be doing well.

The design of those Gold Leaf bi-levels is wonderful. I hope to travel on them some day on one of the excursion services on which they operate. Railfan friends and other friends who are just general travelers have done so, and they had nothing but glowing reviews. But the design is not one that would fit Amtrak's needs well overall, the height problem and elevator issue (even if not a problem in current service) notwithstanding.

But...aspects of the design could inspire a design better suited to Amtrak's needs - which might even include an elevator or seated-lift (like the home stair lifts seen in TV ads) just for a dome or dome-like lounge seating area in one car. They would be a challenge too for reliability, but would not need to be an absolutely vital service element for every car as they would need to be on a full-service bi-level Coach, Sleeper or Dining car for all passengers. I agree that the technology has almost certainly advanced since the dining car dumbwaiters on the Superliners. Probably not enough to count on a lift in every car for a true bi-level train, but enough for one single service area for a non-essential amenity such as a dome or dome-like space.

Having such a lift for a dome would , I think, be a good-faith accommodation for mobility-impaired passengers to be able to use the dome space like any passenger, which should pass ADA muster. And if it didn't work, it would not create an impossible situation for disabled persons to move back to the lower level in every car as a full bi-level train would.  Difficult, yes, and challenging for crew, perhaps with external assistance at a subsequent stop. But not as difficult as for a lift or elevator on every bi-level car for every type of accommodation on the train. 

And yes, this is a quiet hope that a dome or dome-like car could be part of the new otherwise all single-level consist. I don't think any of us would object to that. But is it possible? We'll just have to wait and see. VIA seems to think so, but then Canadian accessibility standards (like those in Europe) are different than here in the U.S. We'll just have to see for Amtrak's new cars. And if the answer ultimately is "no", and VIA proceeds with its now-conceptual domes, well then we'll just have to keep going up to our neighbors to the north to get our dome-riding fix in regular scheduled service. To date, nobody I know seems to mind that very much at all. And VIA seems glad to accommodate - and to take our money, too.

MC