Amtrak should be asking itself a $7 billion question about the future of its long-distance trains. Should it spend that Bipartisan Infrastructure Law windfall on nearly 600 new bilevel cars that would replace aging Superliner equipment — and continue with a problematic procurement process? Or would that money be better spent on a national single-level fleet?
There’s a strong case to be made for a systemwide equipment standard.
Make a reservation for a Southwest flight and you know you’ll be taking off in a Boeing 737. It’s the only aircraft Southwest flies, and with good reason: The simplification and savings that comes from standardization.
Railroads have long embraced standardization, going back to the days of E.H. Harriman, who insisted that Union Pacific and Southern Pacific settle on standard designs for locomotives and rolling stock, as well as their operating practices.
Amtrak, in contrast, runs an alphabet soup of equipment — Acela, Amfleet, Horizon, Superliner, Venture, Viewliner — each requiring its own parts inventory, maintenance skills, and training for onboard personnel. Plus, Superliners can’t roam the entire network because of tight clearances in the Northeast.
The NextGen Acela has begun to replace the original fast fleet. Airo trainsets are due to start taking over state-supported routes next year. And Amtrak is seeking proposals for successors to Superliners and some of its single-level equipment.
Settling on a common long-distance and corridor train would streamline parts inventories and simplify maintenance and training. It would save a bundle in maintenance-related costs, too, which is no small thing for a railroad facing intensifying political pressure to turn an operational profit.
Operationally, a single fleet would give Amtrak the ability to easily substitute equipment on any conventional speed train in the network, potentially putting an end to equipment shortages.
There’s no indication Amtrak is rethinking its plan to replace Superliners on its six Western long-distance trains plus the Auto Train, Capitol Limited, and City of New Orleans. The process has stalled, however, partly because carbuilders have balked at Amtrak’s request to equip the cars with elevators that would make them compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
An Amtrak Inspector General report also points out that by seeking an all-new bilevel design, Amtrak risks spiraling cost increases and lengthy delivery delays that could affect its ability to maintain Superliner-equipped long-distance service.
The Superliner pause offers Amtrak the opportunity to rethink its approach.
Right now Siemens Mobility seems to be the only manufacturer ready to deliver conventional, diesel-hauled single-level equipment that meets U.S. safety standards and can use high and low platforms. Its Venture/Airo shells are modular, allowing interiors to be configured as sleepers, diners, or lounges — all designs that Siemens has produced for European operators.
The lone supplier situation would complicate the bidding process. But let’s face it. The North American passenger market is too small to be truly competitive. One by one the historic big three passenger car manufacturers — Budd, Pullman Standard, and American Car & Foundry — exited the market. Among the reasons they couldn’t survive: Because Amtrak has no steady, predictable source funding for equipment purchases, orders come along only once every few decades.
An Amtrak bilevel order would be another one-off. And that means higher engineering, tooling, and production costs. After delivery winds down, there would be no incentive for the manufacturer to maintain a production line or keep making parts.
Tacking single-level long-distance equipment on to current and future Airo and Venture orders for state-supported service — and linking up with VIA Rail Canada for single-level long-distance equipment — would boost production volumes and provide Amtrak with more bargaining power. It also would sidestep bilevel accessibility headaches.
While boarding the Borealis in Milwaukee last month I was reminded how tricky it can be to lug a just carry-on bag and a small backpack up a Superliner’s narrow, twisting stairway. Fortunately, I’m nimble. I could only imagine how formidable the challenge would be for a senior citizen or someone with mobility issues. Single-level equipment wins a practicality contest, hands down.
Adopting a systemwide single-level fleet would not be without its drawbacks. Western trains would have to be longer to accommodate the same number of passengers that Superliners carry. This would complicate some station stops, perhaps enough to require longer schedules.
Superliners offer passengers a unique vantage point. I still remember my first trip on the Southwest Chief out of Chicago and how the Superliner perspective high above the Santa Fe rails gave me the sensation of flying across the Prairie State. You don’t get that on single-level equipment.
But the advantages of a common fleet would almost certainly outweigh these tradeoffs, particularly since it would make Amtrak operations more flexible, efficient, and resilient.
You can reach Bill Stephens at bill.stephens@firecrown.com and follow him on LinkedIn and X @bybillstephens
— To report news or errors, contact trainsnewswire@firecrown.com.
