Amtrak considering Bi-levels for NE Corridor

Think it's a good idea: in addition to the additional capacity, people seem to like them.... the upper level more than the lower level, but people do like them!

I thought the Bombardier bilevels that New Jersey Transit and AMT are using would be a good choice, or perhaps something like the C3 cars LIRR is using. A couple of modifications would need to be taken into consideration

Since the bilevels don't have room for any significant overhead luggage space, the luggage racks would need to be on the mezzanines, close to the entrance. Makes more sense anyhow, because then you wouldn't have people hauling suitcases through the coach and lugging it over your head. Luggage theft does not seem to be a huge problem in Amtrak travel.

Half the doors would need traps, for low level platforms. Since the cars typically have 4 doors (2 at either end). One end could have traps, the other end could be without. NJ transit cars have 8 doors, 4 with traps, but that might be overkill for Amtrak.

Perhaps the cafe counter could be on the mezzanine level of one or two of the cars. The restrooms would also likely be on the mezzanine level; this could either be two at one end or one at each end: one ADA, standard

In keeping with the ADA requirement, the ADA seating would need to be on the mezzanine, near the ADA restroom. It would also need to be in the next car from the cafe car, if the cafe was also on the mezzanine. And if the "trap on each end" idea would fly, the ADA seating would need to be in the end of the car with the trap, for low level boarding.

I can picture it now, though. Nice new bilevels, set up with an Amtrak interior, digital ticket collection, cashless cafe car. Nice bright LED screens with stops posted and announced. High speed wifi. Perhaps a few more four-seaters, maybe with a table.

That'd be sweet!

DutchRailnut wrote:NYP is still only 14'6" for equipment so why are we discussing freight clearances, lets stick with subject.

Looks to me like Amtrak will rebuilding the entire NEC, or at least
all the tunnels and stations. So why not plan the rebuilds to allow real
bi-levels some great day in the future?

Lessee, new facilities at Union Station in D.C., a $10 billion megaplan.
New tunnels under Baltimore, planning already underway. Gateway into
Penn Station, two new tunnels, why build them too small for the Next Gen
of Superliners? And as for Penn Station itself, Penn Station South, with
at least six new tracks iirc (I'd add more under the block to the south),
why not build them to accommodate Superliners too? Like Amtrak's plan
for HSR, it would take about 30 years to complete, but why not start now?

Woody wrote:
Looks to me like Amtrak will rebuilding the entire NEC, or at least
all the tunnels and stations. So why not plan the rebuilds to allow real
bi-levels some great day in the future?

Why?

Woody wrote:

DutchRailnut wrote:NYP is still only 14'6" for equipment so why are we discussing freight clearances, let's stick with subject.

Looks to me like Amtrak will rebuilding the entire NEC, or at least all the tunnels and stations. So why not plan the rebuilds to allow real bi-levels some great day in the future?

Lessee, new facilities at Union Station in D.C., a $10 billion megaplan. New tunnels under Baltimore, planning already underway. Gateway into Penn Station, two new tunnels, why build them too small for the Next Gen of Superliners? And as for Penn Station itself, Penn Station South, with at least six new tracks iirc (I'd add more under the block to the south), why not build them to accommodate Superliners too? Like Amtrak's plan for HSR, it would take about 30 years to complete, but why not start now?

Superliners are 16 feet tall and will always be too tall for the Northeast. They are also built for low platforms versus high, and can go no faster than 100 mph IIRC (certainly nowhere near 150 mph). The only place they are going in the Northeast is Washington Union Station.

Also, any new tunnels under the Hudson River and East River in NYC will have clearance for 14' 6" cars and no taller. Nothing in the Gateway plan adds clearance under Penn Station proper, too.

electricron wrote: The French use multilevel HSR TGV train sets and apparently don't have problems with first class passengers using them, dining or drinking. Maybe Amtrak could learn a lesson from them on how to serve passengers onboard their trains better. Every excuse I've read so far doesn't add up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCF_TGV_Duplex

the wikipedia article's photo shows a car that boards low level platform to train low level, and nothing for high level platform. All the NEC multilevels board to the mezzanine, and use traps to handle low and high platforms.

Building new tunnels and structures to match an existing 14'6" clearance is extremely short-sighted. At the level of Nationales de Mexico electrifying in the 1980s with insufficient clearance for intermodal, or building BART's trans-bay tunnel too small for 80MPH operation. A 15'6" tunnel will cost about 15% more.

The French double-deck TGVs have stairs up and down at each end lobby, with access between cars at floor height for a single car Platforms are at the standard European height of a couple of steps down from the car floor. Trips are relatively short and tend to stay on high-speed lines, so there isn't as much emphasis on on-train service as in Germany.

jbvb wrote:Building new tunnels and structures to match an existing 14'6" clearance is extremely short-sighted. At the level of Nationales de Mexico electrifying in the 1980s with insufficient clearance for intermodal, or building BART's trans-bay tunnel too small for 80MPH operation. A 15'6" tunnel will cost about 15% more.

How do you figure that?

jbvb wrote: The French double-deck TGVs have stairs up and down at each end lobby, with access between cars at floor height for a single car Platforms are at the standard European height of a couple of steps down from the car floor. Trips are relatively short and tend to stay on high-speed lines, so there isn't as much emphasis on on-train service as in Germany.

Note that it's not just "enlarge the tunnels under the North River"

It's (and I'm sure I'm leaving stuff out)
Enlarge/Replace Baltimore tunnels
Raise catenary the length of the NEC
Tunnels under the North River
New Platforms at NYP (and pretty much every other station along the NEC).
New tunnels under the East River.
A whole slew of work at Sunnyside and other yards.

And all that has to happen before you can run Superliner height trains.

We're what, a decade into DISCUSSING the ARC/Gateway/Whatever new tunnels under the North River is called today. It would easily be 50-60 years before all the above could happen.

Now, if it were cheap enough, I might agree with "build larger tunnels" but that's a very hard sell in these economic times and it's for a payoff that's easily DECADES in the future.

Hell, it might be cheaper to take your "15%" more (which I am highly confident is wrong) and invest it until you can do the rest of the work and then pay for it with your money earned.

Oh and another thought dawned on me. You can't necessarily go DEEPER under the North River (since that means steeper grade in/out of NYP. So you have to raise the roof, and I believe the Army Corp of Engineers may have some concerns there.

For "New platforms at NYP and pretty much everywhere along the Corridor" add "and throughout the NJT, Metro-North/CDOT, LIRR, SEPTA, MBTA, and possibly MARC and VRE systems." That is, unless you plan to arrange for mini-highs everywhere those systems use high-level-only equipment on the NEC, or supply them with high/low-level boarding cars. On the plus side, most NEC stations minus NYP, PHL, and a few others have low-level platforms that have simply been topped with a high-level. Dismantle the high level platform, repair the existing low-levels, and you'd be good in that regard.

Greg Moore wrote:Oh and another thought dawned on me. You can't necessarily go DEEPER under the North River (since that means steeper grade in/out of NYP. So you have to raise the roof, and I believe the Army Corp of Engineers may have some concerns there.

The North River tunnels are, quite literally, tubes. Except for the stretch under Bergen Hill on the Jersey side, they are not cut through bedrock. Instead, the steel and concrete tube floats free in the mud beneath the bed of the river. The tubes actually flex up and down a few tenths-of-an-inch every day in response to the tides. So-- there's no raising the roof or lowering the floor. What you get is what you have, and you need to accept it as a design constraint.

mtuandrew wrote:For "New platforms at NYP and pretty much everywhere along the Corridor" add "and throughout the NJT, Metro-North/CDOT, LIRR, SEPTA, MBTA, and possibly MARC and VRE systems." That is, unless you plan to arrange for mini-highs everywhere those systems use high-level-only equipment on the NEC, or supply them with high/low-level boarding cars. On the plus side, most NEC stations minus NYP, PHL, and a few others have low-level platforms that have simply been topped with a high-level. Dismantle the high level platform, repair the existing low-levels, and you'd be good in that regard.

Well VRE is all low-level. MARC is a mixture.

But if you go all low or mid-level, you have to make sure you retain ADA compliance.

Ridgefielder wrote:

Greg Moore wrote:Oh and another thought dawned on me. You can't necessarily go DEEPER under the North River (since that means steeper grade in/out of NYP. So you have to raise the roof, and I believe the Army Corp of Engineers may have some concerns there.

The North River tunnels are, quite literally, tubes. Except for the stretch under Bergen Hill on the Jersey side, they are not cut through bedrock. Instead, the steel and concrete tube floats free in the mud beneath the bed of the river. The tubes actually flex up and down a few tenths-of-an-inch every day in response to the tides. So-- there's no raising the roof or lowering the floor. What you get is what you have, and you need to accept it as a design constraint.

Well, think he was talking about the new tunnels being larger.

But yes, that was what I was getting at, was you can't raise the roof since the ACE will want to make sure that the tides don't uncover it, or other scourring causes problems. And they want to make sure they maintain a minimum draft for ships.

And a foot may not sound like much for a new tunnel, but it's enough of a difference to take note of.
(perhaps if you did a rectangular tunnel, you might get the gauge in, but I don't know enough to say.)

Regardless, I think you and I are in agreement it's not nearly as simply as "build a bigger tunnel".

Even if new tunnels are bigger you still won't run double deckers east of NYP, only NJT type multilevels would fit the MNCR max height of 14'6".
and we already discussed over and over again what drawbacks those have for intercity travel.

amtrakowitz wrote:

Woody wrote:

DutchRailnut wrote:NYP is still only 14'6" for equipment so why are we discussing freight clearances, let's stick with subject.

Looks to me like Amtrak will be rebuilding the entire NEC, or at least all the tunnels and stations. So why not plan the rebuilds to allow real bi-levels some great day in the future? ...

Superliners are 16 feet tall and will always be too tall for the Northeast.
They are also built for low platforms versus high ...
... can go no faster than 100 mph IIRC (certainly nowhere near 150 mph). ...

Also, any new tunnels under the Hudson River and East River in NYC will have
clearance for 14' 6" cars and no taller. Nothing in the Gateway plan adds
clearance under Penn Station proper, too.

Don't get stuck in the past. I know what exists now. I'm asking what
could be if we start making long range plans. So I'm saying revise plans
for the Gateway tunnels (or tubes) to add the extra clearance.

As for the speed, the Next Gen bi-levels on order for service
St Louis-Chicago, Detroit-Chicago, and in California are designed
for operation at speeds up to 125 mph.

However, I admit I'm stumped by the platform height problem.
I'd hope that, with an all-new fleet of all-new-design cars coming,
new cars could be flexible enuff for both high and low platforms.
But I have no knowledge in this matter at all.

As for why: Why are the Next Gen Corridor cars in the Midwest
going to be bi-level, replacing single-level? For greater efficiency,
lower costs. Because the bi-levels will carry about 30% more seats.

Another more serious concern: In its fleet replacement plan, Amtrak
says it wants to buy enuff new coaches and other cars over a period
of years to get good prices on high-volume orders. There needs to be
enuff cars built each year to make efficiencies in the manufacturing,
spread over enuff years to avoid the costs of on-and-off operations
at the assembly plants for all the suppliers. The prospective bidders
told Amtrak that 100 cars a year (per type) was the *minimum* to
keep costs low.

But if the NEC is not rebuilt to handle bi-level equipment, then
Amtrak will forever be dividing its orders between two types of
cars, missing out on the *maximum* efficiencies from high volume.

Worse, Amtrak will be trying to maintain two production lines of
100 cars each, while crazy critters in Congress will be trying to
kill Amtrak by whatever means they can. One line building 100+
cars a year of one type would be much less vulnerable to the haters
than two lines for 100 cars each. This concern could remain true
30 or even 40 years in the future, when we'll begin talking about
the new designs to replace the Next Gen cars that are just now
being assembled in Rochelle, IL.

DutchRailNut, I have a hunch that the NEC east of NYC will also
be substantially rebuilt over the next 30 years as well. South Station
in Boston? So why not rebuild all the NEC to allow Next Gen bi-level
cars to run there? Would that mean another tunnel pair under the
East River? As I understand it, that could happen sooner or later
under some scenarios.
.

Woody wrote:Another more serious concern: In its fleet replacement plan, Amtrak
says it wants to buy enuff new coaches and other cars over a period
of years to get good prices on high-volume orders. There needs to be
enuff cars built each year to make efficiencies in the manufacturing,
spread over enuff years to avoid the costs of on-and-off operations
at the assembly plants for all the suppliers. The prospective bidders
told Amtrak that 100 cars a year (per type) was the *minimum* to
keep costs low.

But if the NEC is not rebuilt to handle bi-level equipment, then
Amtrak will forever be dividing its orders between two types of
cars, missing out on the *maximum* efficiencies from high volume.

Worse, Amtrak will be trying to maintain two production lines of
100 cars each, while crazy critters in Congress will be trying to
kill Amtrak by whatever means they can. One line building 100+
cars a year of one type would be much less vulnerable to the haters
than two lines for 100 cars each. This concern could remain true
30 or even 40 years in the future, when we'll begin talking about
the new designs to replace the Next Gen cars that are just now
being assembled in Rochelle, IL.

DutchRailNut, I have a hunch that the NEC east of NYC will also
be substantially rebuilt over the next 30 years as well. South Station
in Boston? So why not rebuild all the NEC to allow Next Gen bi-level
cars to run there? Would that mean another tunnel pair under the
East River? As I understand it, that could happen sooner or later
under some scenarios.
.

Do you realize how many hundreds of billions of dollars it would cost to rebuild the Baltimore tunnels, the North River and East River tubes, Penn Station itself, and the hundreds of overhead structures of various kinds (catenary, bridges, etc.) on the Corridor? You're talking about figures that are orders of magnitude larger than any savings from a consolidated car order.

The loading gauge is different in the East. That's just a fact that has to be lived with.

Ridgefielder wrote:

Woody wrote:
... I have a hunch that the NEC east of NYC will also
be substantially rebuilt over the next 30 years as well. South Station
in Boston? So why not rebuild all the NEC to allow Next Gen bi-level
cars to run there?

Do you realize how many hundreds of billions of dollars it would cost to rebuild the Baltimore tunnels, the North River and East River tubes, Penn Station itself, and the hundreds of overhead structures of various kinds (catenary, bridges, etc.) on the Corridor? You're talking about figures that are orders of magnitude larger than any savings from a consolidated car order.

The loading gauge is different in the East. That's just a fact that has to be lived with.

I realize that Amtrak has in fact proposed rebuilding
"the Baltimore tunnels, the North River [ ] tubes,
Penn Station itself, and the hundreds of overhead
structures of various kinds (catenary, bridges, etc.)
on the Corridor" in order to bring HSR to the route.
Amtrak's cost estimate for the rebuilding was
roughly $150 billion.

You're assuming that nothing will be rebuilt, so if
anything is rebuilt the whole cost would be due to
adding bi-levels?

I disagree. I'm expecting that *everything* will be rebuilt,
over time. And since even the TGVs now run with bi-level cars,
why couldn't we one day want to see bi-level Acelas IIIs?

So I'm asking, How much *extra* would it cost to rebuild
the NEC to also handle bi-levels?

One post above suggested 15% more for a larger tunnel
(or tube). Say 20% more than Amtrak's guesstimate for
rebuilding the NEC, makes the "extra" cost $30 billion.
That's a lot of money, no doubt. But don't tell me that
the tunnels in Baltimore would have to be rebuilt to
allow bi-levels, since they're going to rebuilt anyway
to allow faster single-levels.