Amtrak considering Bi-levels for NE Corridor

I'm not sure most of the platforms on the NEC are as long as some claim. The BWI platforms were just extended and I think they're good now for 12 cars max? (been awhile since I walked them).

That said, 12 cars, I can certainly see. 22, not so much.

When I lived in the NY metro area,just about all of the "new" passenger equipment had some version of the Pioneer III truck,
good for 100-125 mph.(M-1 thru M-4,SPV-2000's,Comets)
The Horizen cars used a "older" truck design at Amtrak's request. Didn't think it was good for 125 mph!
The LIRR C-1's created a design that is now used by most of the east coast commuter operators..
The BBD "sausage" style Bi-levels use a Pioneer III truck variant(don't fit,too tall for NEC).
It's just a thought.

I agree about the comfort issue. With the seats in the current multilevels plus their seeming lack of vertical give over bad spots... I would not want to ride in one for more than 80-90 minutes.

The next-generation Multilevels for MARC are supposed to be good for 125 mph, iirc. Not sure why the current generation aren't - I remember thirdhand something to do with neither AMT nor NJT wanting to certify them at the higher speed? - but cruiser or one of the other NJT denizens would have to answer that. Either way, Amtrak crews will have a good deal of experience working with the Bombardier equipment as operators of the MARC system.

It's typical for Amtrak to initially certify equipment at 90mph over segments of track, then upgrade their certification to their engineered spec at a later date. I don't believe that the cars ever tested below PHL so the blanket 90mph initial order applies. (recent case: septa silverliner V's) ...

Don't know how well the NJT bi-levels ride but I thought I read they were pretty good. I also don't know what would be necessary to bring them up to 125mph. What I do know is that in the same report Amtrak states that the change to a bi-level design would not result in a big improvement in capacity, yet further down it has diagrams showing maximum capacity for Amfleet I at 70 passengers and the Surfliner coaches at 90 although it looks like 96 is certainly doable. That's a huge 35% benefit! Figure in less equipment to do the same job and the resulting reduction in maintenance costs, it certainly is worth studying further.

Now I know the California car isn't the same as the NJT car, and I know there isn't much room for overhead luggage in the NJTs, but I do think the basic idea should be explored further.

mtuandrew wrote:The next-generation Multilevels for MARC are supposed to be good for 125 mph, iirc. Not sure why the current generation aren't - I remember thirdhand something to do with neither AMT nor NJT wanting to certify them at the higher speed? - but cruiser or one of the other NJT denizens would have to answer that. Either way, Amtrak crews will have a good deal of experience working with the Bombardier equipment as operators of the MARC system.

Yes, the current MLs are supposed to be good for 125mph. But with anything else, there were bugs and they needed to be worked out and the speeds on them have not been raised (as of yet at least). The ML2s are supposed to be good for 125 from the factory I believe. (then again, so were the ML1s, but whatever)

They were run out in Colorado at 136mph with an ALP44, and from what I was told, there were no problems and they performed very well at that speed.

I believe even the NJT Comet 5s are still restricted to 90mph outside of Philly-SSYD. Probably another case of "oh we forgot to change the timetable" - just like the tracks at Hudson - (I had to thirdrail7 )

I don't think bi-levels would be appropriate for Amtrak on the NEC for a number of reasons:

1. Clearance issues would force any bilevels to give up interior space. NJT's Bombardier "Multilevels" have zero luggage space on the lower level because of it. MARC's Kawasaki bilevels, (which have clearance through the Baltimore tunnels) have luggage racks on both levels but the only thing that they can hold are briefcases and small backpacks.
2. Longer trains make way more sense. All of the major stations between NYP and can accommodate up to 12 cars.
3. Passengers in some cars would have to climb and go down a number of stairs to get to the cafe car. Personally I wouldn't care but I'm sure some would.

Bombardier bi-level
Kawasaki bi-level

The thing taking up space on the lower level is the HVAC registers by the ceiling and the bulkhead that the lights are built into. That might be able to be modified to fit a rack. Seat spacing could be increased and under-seat stowage could become an option. Also in most amtrak trains i've been in all the big luggage stays at one end in racks or the wheelchair area. That is very much workable with multilevels as the mezzanine level is quite spacious with the folding seats. As for up and down stairs, anyone with disabilities should be located where they can access bathroom, and cafe cars could be fitted with wheelchairs etc in mind, that's the only issue i see.

Amtrak could work with NJT's MLV design, but they would have to address seat comfort, under-seat storage & room to access it, and ADA compliance with cafe. A more soothing color scheme & lighting wouldn't hurt either.

That's my take on it.

realtype wrote:I don't think bi-levels would be appropriate for Amtrak on the NEC for a number of reasons:
1. Clearance issues would force any bilevels to give up interior space. NJT's Bombardier "Multilevels" have zero luggage space on the lower level because of it. MARC's Kawasaki bilevels, (which have clearance through the Baltimore tunnels) have luggage racks on both levels but the only thing that they can hold are briefcases and small backpacks.
2. Longer trains make way more sense. All of the major stations between NYP and can accommodate up to 12 cars.
3. Passengers in some cars would have to climb and go down a number of stairs to get to the cafe car. Personally I wouldn't care but I'm sure some would.

Bombardier bi-level
Kawasaki bi-level

!. You don't have to use overhead baggage racks. Larger vertical baggage racks could be used instead.
2. Do all the station platforms on the NEC really accommodate 12 car trains?
3. Already happening everywhere Amtrak runs Superliners today, and it's not a problem with them. Are you suggesting NEC customers aren't as nimble as the rest of the country?

bostontrainguy wrote:Don't know how well the NJT bi-levels ride but I thought I read they were pretty good. I also don't know what would be necessary to bring them up to 125mph. What I do know is that in the same report Amtrak states that the change to a bi-level design would not result in a big improvement in capacity, yet further down it has diagrams showing maximum capacity for Amfleet I at 70 passengers and the Surfliner coaches at 90 although it looks like 96 is certainly doable. That's a huge 35% benefit! Figure in less equipment to do the same job and the resulting reduction in maintenance costs, it certainly is worth studying further.

Now I know the California car isn't the same as the NJT car, and I know there isn't much room for overhead luggage in the NJTs, but I do think the basic idea should be explored further.

As someone who has ridden both the NJT bilevels and the LIRR bilevels with luggage for a weekend (including golf clubs), I can tell you that I highly doubt any passenger accustomed to the current Amfleet and Acela equipment on the corridor is going to be happy with luggage stowage or headroom.

A further consideration-- passengers are walking both within and between cars on the Corridor trains a lot more than they are on any commuter run: to go to the bathroom, to position themselves for stops where not all doors open, or (most frequently) to go to/from the Cafe car. Negotiating the stairs at either end of three NJT-style bilevels with, say, two cups of coffee and two muffins, while the train is at speed, does not sound like something most people would enjoy...

Ridgefielder wrote: A further consideration-- passengers are walking both within and between cars on the Corridor trains a lot more than they are on any commuter run: to go to the bathroom, to position themselves for stops where not all doors open, or (most frequently) to go to/from the Cafe car. Negotiating the stairs at either end of three NJT-style bilevels with, say, two cups of coffee and two muffins, while the train is at speed, does not sound like something most people would enjoy...

How's that any different than the situation with California and Surfliner cars?

Paulus Magnus wrote:How's that any different than the situation with California and Surfliner cars?

On the Surfliner based equipment, the gantries between cars are on the upper level. Once you climb up to the upper level, you can go between all the cars without climbing more stairs. Then you'll climb down a full set of stairs if you desire to exit the train.
With the Bombardier;s bilevels and multi-levels proposed for the NEC, you must climb or descend a half set of stairs twice between each and every car. So there is a difference.

Quite a difference, Paul The Great.

First, the California cars are the same dimension as are Superliners; NJT and LIRR bi-levels have a considerably lower profile in order to fit into Penn. Secondly, as Ron immediately notes, the Food Service area is on the Upper Level.

While I'm certain that Amtrak considered the feasability of bi-levels having an NJT/LIRR profile, I believe that such has been dismissed and that the A-III's (they'll of course have a new fleet name) will be single level.

I wondered when someone would bring up the Superliner example! There's your soothing color scheme. In theory, you could also extend the amount of room between seats and put luggage racks every few seats.

Still, it's an expensive way to expand capacity, and the only reasons Amtrak should consider it now are if a) they get a heck of a deal, compared to their in-house design or b) Congress limits the number of cars they can get without limiting their capacity. Both of those are unlikely, with the CAF production line in full swing and the likely funding source being a RRIF loan.