ryanov wrote: You're incorrect there... there are four doors on these cars.Let me clarify - when train pulls into station, there's only two doors that passengers can use for embarking/disembarking - on the NJT bi-levels. There are two doors on the "platform" side of the car - as opposed to three doors on some single level Comet and Arrow cars NJT uses. Do the Amtrak CA Cars have three doors on platform side?
Railroad Forums
Next Generation Corridor Car?
- Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman
by jp1822
by jp1822
I agree that Amtrak NEC services would best be suited for single level cars. The bi-levels have extra complexities that I don't think Amtrak would be able to deal with. Frankly, I am not sure if NJT is going to be able to deal with them appropriately - particularly on the issue of disembarking/boarding dwell time.
Plus, I think there's always going to be some sort of Amtrak difference between Eastern and Western Service - Eastern single level and Western bi-level. Amtrak should have the flexibility to add potential NEC assigned passengers cars to Eastern long distance services - as it currently does with the Amfleet equipment.
Amtrak should look "across the pond" to Europe or other countries with high speed rail networks to develop "next generation cars" and try to get them "off the shelf" without going through the whole FRA complexities as occured with Acela Express trainsets. Even David Gunn said Amtrak should have went with proven technology by buying "off the shelf" high speed trainsets in service in other parts of the world - with modifications as necessary to meet FRA needs. The Acela Express trainset went overboard.
Plus, I think there's always going to be some sort of Amtrak difference between Eastern and Western Service - Eastern single level and Western bi-level. Amtrak should have the flexibility to add potential NEC assigned passengers cars to Eastern long distance services - as it currently does with the Amfleet equipment.
Amtrak should look "across the pond" to Europe or other countries with high speed rail networks to develop "next generation cars" and try to get them "off the shelf" without going through the whole FRA complexities as occured with Acela Express trainsets. Even David Gunn said Amtrak should have went with proven technology by buying "off the shelf" high speed trainsets in service in other parts of the world - with modifications as necessary to meet FRA needs. The Acela Express trainset went overboard.
by Stephen B. Carey
I personally think these cars would make pretty good corridor cars. As much as I love the Amfleets they are getting old and tired. Provided this design is reliable, Amtrak could probably use the shell, but maybe make it a little sleeker. The California Cars are wonderful and its a shame riders in the Northeast can't have that same experience.
by JoeG
An Amtrak double decker corridor car couldn't be as roomy as a California car because of the reduced clearances on the NEC. It would have to be about the size of the NJT cars, because it would have to fit the same clearances. The LIRR double decker cars are only high level. Also, for reasons unclear to me, the East River tunnels apparently have slightly greater clearances than the Hudson tunnels, and an Amtrak car, of course, has to fit in the Hudson tunnels where a LIRR car doesn't.
by DutchRailnut
These Double Deckers would be unfit for corridor service.
A commuter pretty much stays in one car, but a Amtrak traveler wants to venture to snack/dinner/cafe car, something hard to do with doubledeckers due to stairs, you can not expect Grandma with her walker to go up and down to get a cup of Java.
In europe they have Elevators in Doubledeckers were a food attendant travels the train with food/coffe/beer/ cookies etc.
A commuter pretty much stays in one car, but a Amtrak traveler wants to venture to snack/dinner/cafe car, something hard to do with doubledeckers due to stairs, you can not expect Grandma with her walker to go up and down to get a cup of Java.
In europe they have Elevators in Doubledeckers were a food attendant travels the train with food/coffe/beer/ cookies etc.
If Conductors are in charge, why are they promoted to be Engineer???
Retired Triebfahrzeugführer. I am not a moderator.
Retired Triebfahrzeugführer. I am not a moderator.
by jp1822
DutchRailnut comments basically sums it up. I can't imagine NEC service other than single level. Could they be more slick like the Acela Express cars (versus Amfleet cars with their airline slit windows) - yes.
by wigwagfan
I find it a bit odd the comments regarding the possibility of dining/lounge/cafe services on these cars, should Amtrak use these cars elsewhere.
The California Cars (Surfliner/Capitol/San Joaquins) both have two doors, located mid-car and at platform level, with ADA accessibility on the lower level. These trains offer a cafe service in a particular car - I believe on some trains the cafe happens to be on the upper level, on other trains it is on the lower level - dependent on the specific car type and the service (the Surfliner cars are different from the cars used on the northern serices.)
Likewise, with Amtrak's Superliner fleet - the dining car is on the upper level, but the cafe/lounge service area (including snack coaches) are on the lower level. The exception would be the "bar area" of the Empire Builder's coaches, and the Pacific Parlour car, where they are on the upper level. Regardless, access to either of these cars is NOT ADA-compliant.
The only western car design I know where access to the dining/lounge areas is ADA compliant is the Talgo set, because access to the cars from the first business coach, the dining/table car, the kitchen/lounge car, and the first "regular" coach, is entirely ADA compliant. However, the Talgo wouldn't work in this situation because it is not compatible with the higher platforms, nor does it have close to enough capacity.
What I could envision (for NJ Transit use), is a Starbucks type establishment in the lower level of a car, clearly identified so that those passengers who are disabled/handicapped and would like to use the services of that establishment can occupy the coach seating in that car. Periodically, the establishment can provide "at-seat" service, or a seat call button could be used to summon someone to take an order. The selection would be limited but could occupy a minimum amount of space, generate a lot of traffic and revenue, and requires very little investment.
The California Cars (Surfliner/Capitol/San Joaquins) both have two doors, located mid-car and at platform level, with ADA accessibility on the lower level. These trains offer a cafe service in a particular car - I believe on some trains the cafe happens to be on the upper level, on other trains it is on the lower level - dependent on the specific car type and the service (the Surfliner cars are different from the cars used on the northern serices.)
Likewise, with Amtrak's Superliner fleet - the dining car is on the upper level, but the cafe/lounge service area (including snack coaches) are on the lower level. The exception would be the "bar area" of the Empire Builder's coaches, and the Pacific Parlour car, where they are on the upper level. Regardless, access to either of these cars is NOT ADA-compliant.
The only western car design I know where access to the dining/lounge areas is ADA compliant is the Talgo set, because access to the cars from the first business coach, the dining/table car, the kitchen/lounge car, and the first "regular" coach, is entirely ADA compliant. However, the Talgo wouldn't work in this situation because it is not compatible with the higher platforms, nor does it have close to enough capacity.
What I could envision (for NJ Transit use), is a Starbucks type establishment in the lower level of a car, clearly identified so that those passengers who are disabled/handicapped and would like to use the services of that establishment can occupy the coach seating in that car. Periodically, the establishment can provide "at-seat" service, or a seat call button could be used to summon someone to take an order. The selection would be limited but could occupy a minimum amount of space, generate a lot of traffic and revenue, and requires very little investment.
by SimplySam
I would hope that the next generation corridor car would be a single level car based on the viewliner or similar model. Obviously it would need doors with traps for both high and low level platforms at both ends. Coach cars would only have one row of (large) windows but the second row would give an open feel in a foodservice car. I would produce the following versions:
1a) 84 seat coach with 2-2 seats fixed toward middle for use on clockers, keystone, springfield shuttles etc.
1b) same carbody with 70 2-2 seats arranged in direction of travel. Extra room used for additional leg room, extra restroom, and luggage racks. This car would be the backbone of the fleet.
1c) same carbody as above with a mini-galley installed and set up with 2-1 seating (about 45 seats) for use as Business Class on BOS-WAS trains. (Probably the only trains that could support a full business class car.)
2a) Foodservice car with 21 2-1 business class seats and cafe with a few tables.
2b) same carbody as 2a but with 32 coach seats instead of business class. For use on BOS-WAS trains with full Business Car or on the trains with no business class.
2c) same carbody could be configured as all lounge space by removing coach/ business class seats. (I am not sure this configuration is needed on short distance trains.)
Note that this plan would entail the design and building of only 2 car types and it would be easy for example to convert a 2a business class cafe to a 2b coach cafe by simply changing the seats. (airliners are designed this way in that the first class area can be expanded/contracted based on demand.
I will note that I have not done any figuring of how many cars would be required nor what they would cost but as Amfleet rolls into its 30s I hope Amtrak is giving this some thought.
1a) 84 seat coach with 2-2 seats fixed toward middle for use on clockers, keystone, springfield shuttles etc.
1b) same carbody with 70 2-2 seats arranged in direction of travel. Extra room used for additional leg room, extra restroom, and luggage racks. This car would be the backbone of the fleet.
1c) same carbody as above with a mini-galley installed and set up with 2-1 seating (about 45 seats) for use as Business Class on BOS-WAS trains. (Probably the only trains that could support a full business class car.)
2a) Foodservice car with 21 2-1 business class seats and cafe with a few tables.
2b) same carbody as 2a but with 32 coach seats instead of business class. For use on BOS-WAS trains with full Business Car or on the trains with no business class.
2c) same carbody could be configured as all lounge space by removing coach/ business class seats. (I am not sure this configuration is needed on short distance trains.)
Note that this plan would entail the design and building of only 2 car types and it would be easy for example to convert a 2a business class cafe to a 2b coach cafe by simply changing the seats. (airliners are designed this way in that the first class area can be expanded/contracted based on demand.
I will note that I have not done any figuring of how many cars would be required nor what they would cost but as Amfleet rolls into its 30s I hope Amtrak is giving this some thought.
In Europe you can set your watch by the train.
In America you can set your calendar.
In America you can set your calendar.
by jp1822
Would love to see food service on NJT trains. Problem is - you wouldnt' be able to get to them since a LOT of trains are in standee conditions. "Stuff'em in anywhere" seems to be NJT's motto.
by NellieBly
Let me offer a few comments based on my own experience:
1) In 1992 I rode in the prototype for a double-deck TGV; these are now in service, and while headroom on the upper deck is a bit restricted, they're reasonably comfortable, and there seem to be no problems with longer load/unload times.
2) NEC clearances are more generous than TGV clearances, so if the French can come up with an acceptable double-deck HST, we should be able to as well
3) As to the capacity increase being "marginal" -- I have been on crowded NJT trains, and some people will stand rather than ride in middle seats, so they are never 100% filled. Presumably this will not happen with 100% two-by-two seats.
So, it would seem that the next-generation Acela could well be a double-decker (if not this specific design).
1) In 1992 I rode in the prototype for a double-deck TGV; these are now in service, and while headroom on the upper deck is a bit restricted, they're reasonably comfortable, and there seem to be no problems with longer load/unload times.
2) NEC clearances are more generous than TGV clearances, so if the French can come up with an acceptable double-deck HST, we should be able to as well
3) As to the capacity increase being "marginal" -- I have been on crowded NJT trains, and some people will stand rather than ride in middle seats, so they are never 100% filled. Presumably this will not happen with 100% two-by-two seats.
So, it would seem that the next-generation Acela could well be a double-decker (if not this specific design).
by Rhinecliff
NEC clearances are more generous than TGV clearancesI did not know this. If true, and I have absolutely no reason to question Ms. Bly's assertion on this point, as her knowledge of railroad technology is far, far greater than mine, I must wonder why Amtrak did not design the Acela as a double decker in the first place. Capacity on the NEC has been a known problem since A-1.