Interesting video…
1 Like
I watched this with the sound off and was amused by the ‘bile level trains’…
I’d have preferred an explicit discussion of the difference between ‘high level’ equipment, which I think Superliners are more like,and ‘bilevel’ for higher capacity. I have thought for many years that a version of the former that is compliant with Eastern clearances would be possible (for example within the loading gage of the bilevel commuter equipment currently operating through the North River Tunnels without incident).
1 Like
The analysis seems falsely biased by not including true bile levels as in Europe and East coast and California commuter trains., Look at French and German developments. Who is GreatTrainSpeeds?
He actually has at least one picture of a California cab car in that congeries of Internet pictures.
The problem with ‘true bilevels’, aside from the easy-to-solve-but-difficult-to-legislate ADA elevator and access concerns, is the comment he made about ‘corridor-style’ (which I took to mean NEC-style) single-level cars. Duplicating the number of accommodations even on a chair car in some bilevel shell is not that likely to increase passengers on a given LD train in proportion. I’m not sure he has worked through how you have bilevel vestibules with zero ‘walkover height’ without making the equipment AutoMax-level top heavy – or how you deal with low-level and high-level platform access by ‘the disabled’ on the same train even if you have aisles that accommodate scooters and wheelchairs.
I actually have a model I built somewhere of a motorized ‘jetway’ that could be directed to an upper-level access portal in a train with ‘through’ high-level cars… it could also be used the same way as those airport buses with bodies that could be raised like a SkyChef truck. You’d be able to drive the active part on the road if needed to get to a particular station that had been, say, targeted by that idiot scooter group that “wanted to ride together” so they could board at the same time, in ‘lifts’ if there were more of them than in the docking body…
Doesn’t that imply he thinks true bi-levels, as opposed to Supers that are mostly upper level seating, are strictly for commuter use?
I just wonder why we always have to be different than the rest of the world. We are so far behind in trains it’s sad. As a percent of market share Amtrak has lost about 2/3rds of its market share since 1971. Find out what works elsewhere.
2 Likes
As I said, he hasn’t distinguished between high-level and bilevel equipment. All he would have to do is look at his pictures of Superliners to understand that they are high-level, with only token accommodations at ground level.
That doesn’t stop him from extending the financial analysis to a full two decks of sleepers, apparently ignoring the balance and clearance problems if the lower deck is at Continental-platform height throughout to clear the trucks for zero walkover height. He also doesn’t mention how much boarding of LD trains is strictly from low or ground-level platforms – as at Memphis, where everyone boards in the possum belly and has to go upstairs.
I thought at least some of the RFPs for “bilevel” replacement actually did involve bilevel rather than high-level shells. One of the alternatives I thought worth considering was to provide ‘hostel’ or tourist-style bunks on the low-ceiling ‘lower level’ of a high-level coach.
Couchettes? Such could attract young folks such as students.
Reminder that the C&NW did have true bi-level long-distance coaches. And they were used by Amtrak
As per Amtrak’s Monthly Performance Report for September 2025, the average load factor for the most popular western long-distance trains, i.e. Empire Builder, California Zephyr, Southwest Chief, Texas Eagle, Sunset Limited, and Coast Starlight, was 54.9%. The Coast Starlight had the highest average load factor at 64.5%; the lowest was the Sunset Limited at 41.2%. Load factors vary throughout the year, with the highest probably occurring during the summer and major holidays.
An average load factor of 54.9% suggests the long-distance trains are carrying many unsold seats during much of the year. Would single level cars be overwhelmed with the current or anticipated average load factors?
One possible advantage of single level cars is they can be moved between routes with different seasonal travel patterns, i.e. move cars from the Florida trains to the western trains during the summer and vice versa during the winter.
Would the incremental revenues generated by running more than one train a day on any of the long-distance routes offset the incremental expenses? This is a question cost accountants and marketing folks should analyze.
Irrespective of whether Amtrak goes for high-level or single-level cars for its long-distance trains, it should configure them for two classes of service, i.e. economy class and business class. The business class cars should be equipped with pods similar to those on overseas flights. Also, traditional dining cars should be replaced with lounge cars offering enhanced menus that appeal to the majority of riders. Traditional sleepers and diners are labor intensive. And labor is Amtrak’s single biggest operating expense. In FY25 it accounted for 65.7% of operating expenses and 75.7% of revenues.
According to Amtrak’s 2025 Daily Long-Distance Service Study, slightly over 80 percent of long-distance train riders are in coach. They traveled an average of 446 miles compared to just over 1,000 miles for sleeping car passengers. Many if not most future business (sleeper) class passengers probably would be just as happy in pods as a room, since they are likely to be on the train just one night. The pods would look familiar to many of them.
1 Like
On C&NW those bi-levels were fairly short distance day trains (coaches only). The Flambeau 400, Chicago to Ashland, WI was the longest, 452 miles. The dining car on the Flambeau was single level with a false roof to match bi-levels coaches.
Other parts of the world are willing to invest. In the United States it is impossible to think of money in any other terms than the most important factor governing any decision. Of course, profit isn’t everything. Quality of life is important too and this is why long distance rail still hangs on. Many Americans appreciate “the experience” and quality of life.
1 Like
In part the bi-levels were the result of WisDOT pushing C&NW to do better with passenger service.
The problem with the frequent analysis of Amtrak service looking at load factors and costs is what is left out of the analysis ,
A few examples:
- Station location.
- Schedule convienence.
- Lack of frequency…meaning one frequency bears the entire fixed costs of the route.
I suspect there are not a whole lot of CONUS one frequency airline routes that are more than marginally profitable if they are profitable at all. The airlines make up for that with frequency (lowering the fixed costs of each flight) as well as the many connections and of course they are able to offer convenient schedules because they are faster and can use the same plane twice or more over the distance of a long distance Amtrak train. So the low load factor in my view is actually not that low given it is a single frequency service operated on a slow schedule that might not be convenient to all areas served. Add two more LD trains on the same route and I suspect the coach load factor might increase higher and same goes for the sleeping car rooms. The fixed costs of running each of the three trains should be somewhat lower due to apportionment vs running the single train by itself.
I don’t think the load factor has anything to do with the equipment rather I suspect less cars behind the locomotive and less fuel burned as well as potentially less crew required (per boarded passenger) for bi-level trains vs single level for equal or greater train capacity. If Amtrak does order replacement bi-levels I hope they spec out modular interiors that can be changed as well as consolidate car types on a single bi-level vs having all bi-levels dedicated to a single purpose.
I think the country can fix most of the clearance restrictions and remove most of the limitation here and I think that should be the long-term direction. The tunnels under the river to NYC might be a problem to work around.
Government shouldn’t be subsidizing “experiences”. The limited transportation budget should go towards moving the most people in the most popular corridors. With Spirit, Frontier and Allegiant, Amtrak can’t even use the “cheaper option” argument.
3 Likes
Wisconsin agreed to cutting off some money-losing NorthWestern services (keeping Milwaukee Road competing ones) in exchange for upgrades on the more lucrative routes like Chicago-Milwaukee-Green Bay.
Frequency of service might well increase patronage from some intermediate cities but with several trains per 2-night LD route, the load factor will decrease.
Another improvement might be scheduled departure/arrival times. For example, the Cardinal: new leaves DC near noon, arrives Cincy at ~2:20 am, Chicago late morning. 10:25 am. A lot more boarding would be possible in Cincy if it left DC 3 hours earlier. Better still, have a Cincy-Indy-Chicsgo corridor with desirable times. As Backstop and others have said many times the mission of Amtrak is to serve the most people with transportation, not some “experience.” Those who want a Rocky Mountaineer level of service on US Western LD service should be prepared to spend a lot more on private land cruise lines. But those operations have failed to continue. US taxpayers should not be subsidizing sleeping car passengers ~$600 per ride.
These were just commuter cars with longer distance seating (coach, parlor, lounge style). They’d be just about impossible to be satisfactorily useful for today’s travelers with wheelchairs, luggage, bikes, strollers, etc. Even Metra is abandoning the gallery cars after feedback from users. The on order Alstom Coradia cars will be true bilevels like in Europe, Long Island, NJT, LA Metrolink, Caltrain.