Amtrak considering Bi-levels for NE Corridor

Jtgshu wrote:We've had this discussion in past threads, but whos to say the Multilevels would be Multilevels?

There obviously is no bigger car that can be used on the NEC. Thats it, you cannot get any more interior room out of a passenger car on the NEC than you can on Bombardier Multilevels.

However, they would be VERY roomy single level cars. Plently of room under the floor for the appliances/wiring HVAC/etc, and that might even free up MORE room in other parts of the car, as the mechanical cabinets wouldn't need to be so large in the mezzanine level of the car, as some of that might be able to be moved to under the floor down to the "lower level" and safe from the elements under there too.

Probably wouldn't happen, I can't see Amtrak using MLs in their current two story configuration, but why not as a large single level car. Might as well get every inch possible?

One thing immediately comes to mind here: Big windows/dome.

Also... You could put in amfleet style luggage shelves vs commuter style racks with tons of room underneath, remove stairs issue, hell why not add retractable gap fillers at the doors while you're at it, there would be space for it!

I think that kinda design would also be very stable, low center of gravity.

Secondarily, on the subject of the new corridor cars in that pdf link earlier in the thread: Wow, looks like the metroliner comes back as a cabbage!?

Looking at those two videos, I can see that the real problem with these cars is the luggage issue. There is no space above the seats and the stairways are way too narrow for carrying luggage. The only way this might work for a coach is by making the mezzanines into luggage storage areas. That actually would be much easier than lugging suitcases into the seating area. Imagine how much nicer it would be not to have people blocking the aisles and throwing luggage over your head. You need to get clever in ways to secure the luggage if theft might be a problem. Maybe lockers with keys?

On the other hand, I can visualize a very nice bi-level dining car with a huge kitchen downstairs OR even a long standard-width kitchen with a side aisle so passengers don't need to walk through the upper dining area. The mezzanines could have additional seating or bar/lounge waiting areas with take-out stations. To make things even a little more interesting, how about windows over the tables to create dome dining cars?

There would be enough room downstairs for a small work station and the crew wouldn't need to take up a table in the dining area and the whole upper deck could become a dome lounge at night for serving drinks under the stars. Or how about a night theater serving snacks and drinks at night? Think additional revenue.

So... if you start with a bilevel shell with no interior, put in a floor at the same height as the vestibules, and ignore the lower underfloor storage (how do you access it at a high-platform station?), it seems to me like you're left with only a small amount more room than a Viewliner shell.

I do have to admit that a glassed-in Multi would make a very cool eastern Sightseer. A tremendously heavy one, but an interesting one nonetheless.

If you were to put a floor from vestibule to vestibule, the windows would not line up.
if you were to move windows you need to redesign entire structural integity of the car.
not to mention the extra weight on a already heavy car once you put that extra floor in ..
Just sayin..

Jtgshu wrote:There obviously is no bigger car that can be used on the NEC. Thats it, you cannot get any more interior room out of a passenger car on the NEC than you can on Bombardier Multilevels.

However, they would be VERY roomy single level cars. Plently of room under the floor for the appliances/wiring HVAC/etc, and that might even free up MORE room in other parts of the car, as the mechanical cabinets wouldn't need to be so large in the mezzanine level of the car, as some of that might be able to be moved to under the floor down to the "lower level" and safe from the elements under there too.

Probably wouldn't happen, I can't see Amtrak using MLs in their current two story configuration, but why not as a large single level car. Might as well get every inch possible?

Interestingly the specs for the Next Gen single level car is:

Overall Length: 85 ft 0 in. (over pulling faces)
Overall Height: 14 ft 6 in. above top of rail
Overall Car Width: 10 ft 6 in. maximum (except at threshold)
Truck Centers: 59 ft 6 in.
Floor Height: 4 ft 3 in. above top of rail
Minimum Side Door Openings: 2 ft 10 in. clear opening

I believe the height is exactly the same as the NJT multi-levels but they are 6 inches wider. And since the Next Gen cars would not have the funky tapered ends of the NJT cars, they would actually have MORE interior space than a "single level" NJT/Bombardier multi-level that you propose.

PS. Since Amtrak would not have to negotiate the same tight tunnels/platforms as NJT in Penn Station, the cars would have straight sides and tops.

Whats the problem with bilevels on the NEC? Commuter railroads use them all the time. Mbta, Marc, and Njt all come to mind. I know for the mbta does since I've rode in one to the bruins parade. It cleared the wires just fine.

Mbta fan wrote:Whats the problem with bilevels on the NEC? Commuter railroads use them all the time. Mbta, Marc, and Njt all come to mind. I know for the mbta does since I've rode in one to the bruins parade. It cleared the wires just fine.

The cars you mention are about a foot taller than the New York rail tunnels.

Mbta fan wrote:Whats the problem with bilevels on the NEC? Commuter railroads use them all the time. Mbta, Marc, and Njt all come to mind. I know for the mbta does since I've rode in one to the bruins parade. It cleared the wires just fine.

commuters sit in same car for one or two hours and leave from same car, they hardly ever move from car to car.
On Amtrak people want to enjoy the train, including Cafe car or Dinner and are not confined to one car.
Doing so would not comply with ADA requirements givg everyone equal rights and acces.

bostontrainguy wrote:

Jtgshu wrote:There obviously is no bigger car that can be used on the NEC. Thats it, you cannot get any more interior room out of a passenger car on the NEC than you can on Bombardier Multilevels.

However, they would be VERY roomy single level cars. Plently of room under the floor for the appliances/wiring HVAC/etc, and that might even free up MORE room in other parts of the car, as the mechanical cabinets wouldn't need to be so large in the mezzanine level of the car, as some of that might be able to be moved to under the floor down to the "lower level" and safe from the elements under there too.

Probably wouldn't happen, I can't see Amtrak using MLs in their current two story configuration, but why not as a large single level car. Might as well get every inch possible?

Interestingly the specs for the Next Gen single level car is:

Overall Length: 85 ft 0 in. (over pulling faces)
Overall Height: 14 ft 6 in. above top of rail
Overall Car Width: 10 ft 6 in. maximum (except at threshold)
Truck Centers: 59 ft 6 in.
Floor Height: 4 ft 3 in. above top of rail
Minimum Side Door Openings: 2 ft 10 in. clear opening

I believe the height is exactly the same as the NJT multi-levels but they are 6 inches wider. And since the Next Gen cars would not have the funky tapered ends of the NJT cars, they would actually have MORE interior space than a "single level" NJT/Bombardier multi-level that you propose.

PS. Since Amtrak would not have to negotiate the same tight tunnels/platforms as NJT in Penn Station, the cars would have straight sides and tops.

Hmmm thats interesting. I wonder how they are able to pull off being the same height but wider. From what I was told from the Bombardier folks, the MLs are narrower from the Comet series cars because NJT wanted straight sides, and in order to make the side straight (and not have the sides stick out like on the single level comets or rounded like the Amfleets) they had to make the cars slightly narrower. Also, as i understand it, the "funky tapered ends" is so the cars can make the swings when crossing over within the station complex as well as more importantly, clear the tunnels walls when diverting and taking curves and bends in the tunnels like for example, the X tracks at A interlocking on west end of NYP.

I guess with it being a single level car, and the interior headroom not as critical, the roofline could be modified and curved more gradually instead of the sharper angles and curves on the roof of a ML?

As a side note, I could see bi-level/multilevel cars being used as coaches possibly on a Amtrak train, but it would be a mix of single level and multilevel cars. If they were put on the end and the other cars single level, it wouldn't be that bad to traverse when the train is in motion and would only be a few steps if the last car or two were Multilevel coaches. Not unbearable for wandering passengers on a long distance train

they are not wider at floor height, but at shoulder height just under windows, just like viewliner and Acela cars.
The MLV's have straight walls, the new corridor cars are again same as Acela and View Liner shells.

DutchRailnut wrote:they are not wider at floor height, but at shoulder height just under windows, just like viewliner and Acela cars.
The MLV's have straight walls, the new corridor cars are again same as Acela and View Liner shells.

gotcha makes sense now, thanks dutch!

bostontrainguy wrote:

Mbta fan wrote:Whats the problem with bilevels on the NEC? Commuter railroads use them all the time. Mbta, Marc, and Njt all come to mind. I know for the mbta does since I've rode in one to the bruins parade. It cleared the wires just fine.

The cars you mention are about a foot taller than the New York rail tunnels.

If true, how can NJT multi levels use the New York rail tunnels every day? And he did mention them.

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
TGV Duplex
Height = 4,320 mm (14 ft 2 in)
Configuration: 1 power car + 8 trailers + 1 power car , 545 seats

For comparison purposes only,
Multilevel Height = 14 ft 5 in (4.39 m)
Acela Configuration: 1 power car + 6 trailers + 1 power car, 304 seats.
Of course, adding two more business cars (65 seats each) to the train set, it would then have 434 seats.

I would suggest an extra 111 seats per same length train is significant. TGV has no problems attracting first class passengers for high speed rail trains that are 3 inches shorter than NJT multi levels...

nothing makes sense to you, but ever notice that in countries like France your on your own, if your handicapped ??

As for US multilevels, note they are not all same height, and MBTA or Marc/VRE cars do not fit in NYP.

DutchRailnut wrote:nothing makes sense to you, but ever notice that in countries like France your on your own, if your handicapped ??

As for US multilevels, note they are not all same height, and MBTA or Marc/VRE cars do not fit in NYP.

Are there any ML cars besides NJT's and LIRR's that would fit into the PRR tunnels?

DutchRailnut wrote:nothing makes sense to you, but ever notice that in countries like France your on your own, if your handicapped ??
As for US multilevels, note they are not all same height, and MBTA or Marc/VRE cars do not fit in NYP.

Maybe, but you basically on your own being stuck on the lower level in Amtrak Superliners too. I see no difference being stuck in the mid-level vs the lower level on multilevel trains, you're placed immediately next to the exit/entry gangway. Golly, the same holds true for Amtrak single level trains. Ever see a wheelchair navigate between the rows of seats in any regular coach car?
True, not all multi levels or bilevel railcars would fit in the NY tunnels. But the railcar being proposed for Amtrak to use does.