• Amtrak considering Bi-levels for NE Corridor

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

  by 25Hz
 
ThirdRail7 wrote:
bostontrainguy wrote: I'm just curious. What NEC trains operates with domes and diners?
The dome concept was mentioned earlier by putting windows in the roof of a multi-level car. (I was lucky enough once to ride a dome on the NEC from NYP to Boston and it was a treat!)

As far as the diners go . . . Lake Shore Limited, Silver Star, Silver Meteor, Crescent . . . other possibilities like the Cardinal and Adirondack.
I see. None of these are NEC trains, so I must have misunderstood the concept of this thread. I thought you were looking for Bi-levels for "corridor" trains. I didn't realize you were suggesting bi-levels for long distance trains that "operate" over the corridor.

In either case, it is still a disaster in the making.
The crescent, silver meteor, silver star, palmetto, carolinian all run between NYP and WAS on the corridor.
  by bostontrainguy
 
Since Amtrak is sensibly going with "California/Superliner" bi-level cars everywhere it can, what is left is everything else and everything else means New York City 14' 6" high cars of some type. The envelop specifications can apply for all types of cars and of course standardizing means saving money. So what is being discussed is two car types. The first is the 16' 2" bi-level with upper-level pass through and low-level doors. The second is a 14' 6" car that can be either similar to the multi-level NJT car, or to a single-level Acela/Viewliner car shell (both with high-level platform/trap doors).

These lower height car shells can be used for all configurations and anywhere on the system for corridor trains and long distance routes. They aren't corridor trains per se, they are trains that run on the corridor.
  by 25Hz
 
If the NJT multilevels were modified to have all the equipment below a mezzanine height floor, keeping the ceiling height of the upper level, in the lack of a floor high up with seats and ducts and lights etc needing to be supported could in theory reduce the structural needs of the shell walls. This could reduce weight by quite a bit i suspect. Does this make any sense? Might be worth looking into to see the weight savings.

How cool would it be to see that configuration with big tall picture windows & windows on the ceiling....
  by bostontrainguy
 
25Hz wrote:If the NJT multilevels were modified to have all the equipment below a mezzanine height floor, keeping the ceiling height of the upper level, in the lack of a floor high up with seats and ducts and lights etc needing to be supported could in theory reduce the structural needs of the shell walls. This could reduce weight by quite a bit i suspect. Does this make any sense? Might be worth looking into to see the weight savings.

How cool would it be to see that configuration with big tall picture windows & windows on the ceiling....
A train of Viewliner profile cars at 14' 6" high would look look much better, be more streamlined, and also more fuel efficient. You don't need those funky faceted ends on the NJT cars. Also don't forget you will lose 6 inches of width with the NJT cars compared with the Viewliner profiles.

The only function I would like to see for these cars is as diners which I've mentioned before. In that configuration it works very well. If I could render, I would play around with a Viewliner shell with a dropped floor between the trucks for a kitchen. The upper part would be 10' 6" wide and the dropped section would be 10' wide below platform height. It might look a bit weird . . . I can't even visualize it, but I like the idea!
  by Gilbert B Norman
 
25Hz wrote:How cool would it be to see that configuration with big tall picture windows & windows on the ceiling....
Here is the "sensation" noted by Mr. Hertz.

http://trainweb.org/DOMEmain/picSPinterior.jpg

Interior photo of SP 36XX Dome Lounge
  by electricron
 
Gilbert B Norman wrote:
25Hz wrote:How cool would it be to see that configuration with big tall picture windows & windows on the ceiling....
Here is the "sensation" noted by Mr. Hertz.

http://trainweb.org/DOMEmain/picSPinterior.jpg

Interior photo of SP 36XX Dome Lounge
Interesting photo. Here's a few photos of modern day ultradome built by Colorado Railcar.
http://canada.subwaynut.com/via_rail_ca ... sper21.jpg
http://www.trainweb.org/ultradomes/othe ... _level.jpg
Four of these single level "ultra domes" exist, one in ARR and three in VIA livery. These could run to NYP without any problems.
  by Greg Moore
 
BTW, from reading this thread, it appears to me not everyone is on the same page as to "levels". (Most I think understand the differences but from reading it appears that some may not be.)

From what I understand, it comes down to the placement of the doors between cars, is it at the "standard" height of single-level cars, or at the higher height of the Superliner cars. This can make a big difference in how easy it is to get between cars on the train and as a result really makes a difference in functionality for folks.

With any of the bilevel/multi-level cars I'm available on the NEC, they're all have passageways to the next car at the standard height. This, among other things allows them to run in the same train as single-level cars without issue. HOWEVER, it means that while the door is at the level and some of the seats (and I think in all cases at least one vestibule), the majority of the seating requires you to go up or down. So to simply walk from one end of the car, you have to either go down, walk between some seats and go back up, or go up, walk between some seats, and then go back down. So if you want to move the length of say a 6 car train, you're going up and down 6 times. This is why a cafe car, or other car where passengers may want to move to is problematic for some passengers.

On the other hand, with Superliner, Surfliner/California Cars, they all have the passageway between cars at the upper-level. Once you're on the upper-level, you can go from car to car w/o having to ascend or descend any stairs what-so-ever. So, in theory, you can board at the lower-level and while still in the station and the train is not moving, ascend to the upper level, and stay there for the length of your trip. And in fact, I would say, especially for something like the Superliner configuration, I could easily see a Superliner III, incorporating a wheelchair left in say the cafe car, so that passengers could embark/disembark in one car, and have some freedom to move about the train (assuming they can navigate the narrowness). This simply isn't possible with the other form of bi/multi-levels since you'd need TWO in every car.

Like I say, I think most people in this thread realize the differences, but I was getting the feeling from reading some comments that some folks may not.

So I apologize for stating the obvious to anyone who already knew. ;-)

(oh so to put in my two cents, since you'll never likely have enough clearance on the NEC to have a car-type where you can have the passage strictly on the upper level and avoiding 2 sets of stairs in every car, it's unlikely you'll see any form of bilevel on the NEC).
  by Backshophoss
 
On that VIA car,belive the skirting would foul 3rd rail in Penn Station.
Better idea would be to alter the concept to work with a V-II shell(V-II "sky" lounge)
along the lines of Superliner II lounge structure for the glass panels.
  by Greg Moore
 
electricron wrote:
Gilbert B Norman wrote:
25Hz wrote:How cool would it be to see that configuration with big tall picture windows & windows on the ceiling....
Here is the "sensation" noted by Mr. Hertz.

http://trainweb.org/DOMEmain/picSPinterior.jpg

Interior photo of SP 36XX Dome Lounge
Interesting photo. Here's a few photos of modern day ultradome built by Colorado Railcar.
http://canada.subwaynut.com/via_rail_ca ... sper21.jpg
http://www.trainweb.org/ultradomes/othe ... _level.jpg
Four of these single level "ultra domes" exist, one in ARR and three in VIA livery. These could run to NYP without any problems.
Note, my understanding is Colorado Railcar reserved the term "Ultradome" for their 18' tall bilevels (that as far as I can tell had the car-to-car passage on the lower level).
  by Backshophoss
 
The "superliner" look-a-likes were built on former SP Gallery cars used on the current Caltrain between SFO and San Jose.
The cars were ment for the stillborn "Marlboro" train,then used on ARR for the Cruise lines.
  by markhb
 
the "Ultradome" photos answered a question I'd been wondering about, namely, would it be at all interesting or worthwhile to create a "dome," or, rather, glass-roofed, car of the same height as the standard Amfleets. Apparently the answer is "yes," although I still wonder how those cars would handle any snow load.

To whoever posted the tunnel clearances upthread, or anyone else who knows, what about the Prudential Center tunnel clearances heading to BBY and BOS? Are they high enough that bilevels are a non-issue, or do they present restrictions as well? (I've never hung around BOS looking to see which consists were heading to Worcester, so I don't know for sure if the T runs bilevels on that line or not.)
  by 25Hz
 
markhb wrote:although I still wonder how those cars would handle any snow load.
They are a lot stronger than you might think. FRA part something or other glazing is specified to resist a 22 cal round and a cinder block at such a speed. I think some snow would be a non-issue.

As far as the colorado railcar domes & not fitting w/ the 3rd rail, that's why i was suggesting using the MLV's as they all ready have all he proper dimensions.
  by bostontrainguy
 
markhb wrote:the "Ultradome" photos answered a question I'd been wondering about, namely, would it be at all interesting or worthwhile to create a "dome," or, rather, glass-roofed, car of the same height as the standard Amfleets. Apparently the answer is "yes," although I still wonder how those cars would handle any snow load.

To whoever posted the tunnel clearances upthread, or anyone else who knows, what about the Prudential Center tunnel clearances heading to BBY and BOS? Are they high enough that bilevels are a non-issue, or do they present restrictions as well? (I've never hung around BOS looking to see which consists were heading to Worcester, so I don't know for sure if the T runs bilevels on that line or not.)
Yes, the MBTA multi-levels do use the Prudential tunnel. I don't know the exact clearance but it's been discussed before that somewhere east of Beacon Park there is a restriction (there is TOFC clearance to Beacon Park). Otherwise when Amtrak ran Superliners on the Lake Shore Limited they could have come all the way to Boston! That would have been awesome to see (don't forget that Back Bay has low-level platforms).
  by realtype
 
The Colorado Railcar/US Railcar equipment is really only suitable for excursion trains. I doubt they'll sustain the wear and tear of heavy Amtrak usage. Not to mention at 18" the ugly behemoths probably wouldn't fit in anything anywhere on the NEC, and the 90mph top speed is a joke. For Amtrak service I would suggest the horrible Rotem products before these.
  by DutchRailnut
 
Since Colorado Railcar is gone/belly up etc why even mention them
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 13