Amtrak Ohio: Cincinnati - Columbus - Dayton - Cleveland (and maybe Detroit and Chicago)

You have a valid point. But looking at world HSR trainset designs, not many have low floors. Talgo trainsets, because of their unique wheel design, is it. All those standard height trainsets with traditional bogeys have high floors over the bogeys.

Another reason the Talgo trainsets could be very popular in America, not having to build high station platforms everywhere. But I believe California HSR would build dedicated high platforms for HSR if required.
I believe Amtrak would too.

Nasadowsk wrote:Nobody in their right mind would buy a Cor-Ten steel, cast trucked, heavyweight design in this day and age.

I'm not about to jump in the tank for the CRC DMU but here are some numbers to ponder:

RDC-1 weight: 120,000 lbs.
DMU (single level): 148,000 lbs.

Possibly the closest vehicle out there that comes close to meeting US specs is the VLocity 160 in Australia.

Weight: 159,000 lbs.

Just how light can one make a US FRA compliant DMU?

Somewhere between 120,000 and 148,000 lbs. FYI, the weight of the supposedly light weight Stadler GTW 2/6 (CapMetro) is 140,000 lbs. That's for the 2/6 model GTW that's 134 ft long. If it were 85 ft long, its proportional weight would be approximately 89,000 lbs.

For comparison purposes only:
The MPXpress MP-36PH diesel locomotive most transit agencies are buying new today weighs 285,000 to 295,000 lbs.
A Bombardier BiLevel weighs 118,000 lbs. A Superliner weighs 148,000 lbs.
A US Railcar DMU (CRC design) single level weighs 148,000 lbs.
A Budd RDC-1 weighs 120,000 lbs.

Just for the fun of the exercise:
A two unit Stadler GTW 2/6 train can seat 216 passengers (108 per unit including flip-up seats), weighing 280,000 lbs., averaging 1300 lbs. per passenger per train.
A two car Bombardier BiLevel trains can seat 298 passengers (136 cab and 162 trailer), weighing 521,000 lbs. including locomotive, averaging 1,700 lbs. per passenger per train.
A two unit US Railcar DMU train (TriMet) can seat 154 passengers ( 74 dmu and 80 trailer), weighing 296,000 lbs., averaging 1900 lbs. per passenger per train.
A two car Budd RDC train (TRE) can seat 192 passengers (96 each), weighing 240,000 lbs., averaging 1250 lbs. per passenger per train.

On the lightweight scale, the old, reliable Budd RDCs wins. Surprisingly, the US Railcar DMU loses.

Ohio should not be looking at commuter cars for 3C service. The US Railcar seating plans used for comparison have a 32" seat pitch, typical for a commuter application. But for longer rides, passengers need more room to spread out. Amfleet I cars have a seat pitch of about 37" and Superliners are 51" seatback to seatback. The Talgos on Amtrak's Cascades service have a seat pitch of 39". Ohio should be looking for cars with a seat pitch of 37" to 42" considering the duration of the trip. And of course, business class should be offered with considerably more room.

Train customers expect to have more room than airline passengers. That's one of the reasons they take the train. If Ohio gets cramped commuter cars, they will soon be disappointed.

Looks like Governor Strickland jumped the gun a little. The Cleveland Plain Dealer quotes him as saying Ohio will get $400 million for the Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati route.
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf ... hio_w.html

Or perhaps "Dewey Beats Truman" ... we'll find out soon enough.

The seat pitch is something that can be customized with orders I would assume.

I'm curious if seat pitch and spacing is an issue the common traveler notices. Most people I know assume a seat is a seat, be it on Metra, Amtrak, Southwest, Greyhound, or Cathay Pacific. They are surprised when I explain an Amtrak superliner seat is much larger than SWA airline coach. I think seat pitch and spacing is a concept known to experienced travelers, railfans, and American Airlines advertising folks. In other words, I bet Sumitomo gallery coaches would be just as well suited to this service as gee-whiz trainsets off fantasy island.

justalurker66 wrote:Or perhaps "Dewey Beats Truman" ... we'll find out soon enough.

Confirmed!
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... d-columbus
Length 250 miles
"The corridor will connect 12 economically-distressed counties."

Though the 39mph average is disputed, and will probably be raised, I have to be disappointed with the 79mph limit, a consequence of sharing track with heavy freight and funding limitations on infrastructure improvement. Though I may not agree with the underlying ideological reason for their criticism of this plan, I have to share Republican doubts about it. As proposed, I reckon speeds will not be much improved over 1950's passenger train speeds. You need to break the 100mph barrier to be competitive, IMO. I guess something is better than nothing (maybe...) but what will result is a rail system even the Bulgarians or the Kazakhs would be ashamed of (to paraphrase a certain post-apocalyptic blogger/author).

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf ... _supp.html

Hopefully, the idea is to just get something out there for now which the public can use while spending as little as possible, with the thought of upgrades such as electrification or adding tracks to come down the road. If the prevailing line of thought is this is the best we can ever do, period, then yes, I'm really disappointed as well. While 39 mph can be competitive with driving in areas of traffic congestion, you probably need to get average speeds at least to 80 mph to compete with free-flowing highways. That can be done with 100-110 mph running, provided stops are widely spaced. The reality of needing higher average speeds, coupled with frequent enough service to actually make the train attractive, points away from the current model of sharing tracks with freights. Sooner or later, if we as a nation want to embrace rail travel, we need to accept that reality, and fund it accordingly.

I ran across this today: pictures of the locomotive bought for the last attempt at 3C

http://railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=54509&nseq=2
http://railpictures.net/showphotos.php? ... for%20Ohio

Picture was taken on the former CR / PC / PRR Panhandle Line.

IIRC, this was an OC unit repainted for the promotional tour.

Do you have a link?

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.p ... 003&nseq=1

Somewhere s/b a picture of #381 out of cincy on a dinner train? A nose plate seems to be missing from the picture.

The blue band would look fine pulling a set of California cars!

New study commissioned: 3C Plus Plus

The state has signed a $7.8 million contract with AECOM for the engineering firm to study four new routes building off of the 79 mph 3C route.

1. Upgrade 3C to 110 mph.
2. Detroit-Toledo-Cleveland 110 mph service.
3. Cleveland-Pittsburgh 110 mph service.
4. Toledo-Columbus 110 mph service.
http://www.wfmj.com/Global/story.asp?S=12814010