Next Generation Corridor Car?

NellieBly wrote: 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.

According to my calculator, the height of a TGV trainset tops out at about 14 1/4 feet; IIRC, this is about the height restriction on the NEC.

I found the TGV dimensions here; perhaps someone might fill us in on the NEC dimension limits?

Also, IIRC, the Japanese have built bi-level bullet trains.

Indeed, the Japanese actually have mixed single level/bilevel Shinkansens, as seen here

Sam Damon wrote:

NellieBly wrote: 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.

According to my calculator, the height of a TGV trainset tops out at about 14 1/4 feet; IIRC, this is about the height restriction on the NEC.

I found the TGV dimensions here; perhaps someone might fill us in on the NEC dimension limits?

Actually I think the TGV Duplex (the double-deck version) is a few centimetres taller.. The French catenary is around 6 metres above the top of the rail (European standard), how high above the top of the rails is the NEC catenary?

USRailFan wrote:Actually I think the TGV Duplex (the double-deck version) is a few centimetres taller.. The French catenary is around 6 metres above the top of the rail (European standard), how high above the top of the rails is the NEC catenary?

It is. I was in a hurry. Therefore, I rounded a bit. Sorry.

Ergo, according to the same site where I found out about bi-level Shinkansen trainsets, here's the calculation to English units:

Bi-level series 200 Shinkansen trainsets are 4489 mm in height = 448.9 cm

448.9 cm x 1 inch/2.54 cm x 1 foot/12 inches = 14.73 feet,

or about 14 feet 9 inches.

Don't know off the top of my head where to find the NEC catenary height, or the height of the Hudson River Tunnels.

Just a note that may help to simplify metric / imperial conversions .

1 foot = 305 mm , so ,
4489mm / 305 = 14.72 foot , of 14 foot , 9 inches .

Centimetres are not generally used in egineering dimensions , most measurements are usually in Millimetres , or metres .1000 mm =1 metre .

Sam Damon wrote:Don't know off the top of my head where to find the NEC catenary height, or the height of the Hudson River Tunnels.

I've heard 14' 9" bandied about in the NJT forum (from moderator Irish Chieftain) regarding the new bi-level cars, which were/are designed to clear the catenary and Hudson River tunnels. The NY Times article about them puts the height at 14' 6" ("At 14 feet, 6 inches high, they barely clear the tunnel under the Hudson River, which is owned by Amtrak.").

If the car is 14'6" the tubes need to be at least 16'6 high.
a clearance of 1 foot is needed beteen car and wire and wire and tunnel roof.
this is with 12.5Kv electrification for 25 Kv the airgap needs to double.

Okay, after reading all the comments I went and had a look at the NJT and LIRR bi-levels. Both are 14' 6" tall, which appears to be the same as the TGV bi-levels.

Of course, the NYP tunnels are the most restrictive clearances on the NEC. I know NS runs autoracks (which are 19' 6" tall) from Perryville to Baltimore, so catenary height must be 21' 6" everywhere except places like the Baltimore and NYP tunnels. Nevertheless, the most restrictive clearance determines the size of the equipment.

So new NEC cars can't be any taller than 14' 6", which is the height of the TGV bi-levels. But they can be *wider* -- an 85 foot passenger car can be 9' 8" wide, IIRC. Bottom line: it should be possible to build comfortable double-deck equipment for use on the NEC.

BTW, the French went to double deck cars as a way to reduce weight per passenger seat, and therefore power consumption at high speed. Also, train length was a consideration. The whole system is designed for a fixed train length. Running two trains coupled together eats up capacity, so one way to get more capacity was to carry more people per foot of train length -- hence double deck.

Bottom line: it should be possible to build comfortable double-deck equipment for use on the NEC.

BTW, the French went to double deck cars as a way to reduce weight per passenger seat, and therefore power consumption at high speed. Also, train length was a consideration. The whole system is designed for a fixed train length. Running two trains coupled together eats up capacity, so one way to get more capacity was to carry more people per foot of train length -- hence double deck.

I am really surprised to learn that double-deck TGV-type equipment could be used on the NEC. Does anyone know why Amtrak opted for single level equipement? Did Amtrak consider a double-deck design? For the reasons that Ms. Bly cites above, I would think a double-deck design would be top priority.

On a related point, back when Amtrak has talking about possible equipment for the emerging midwest corridors, I was surprised that Amtrak was seriously considering a single deck Talgo design. It would seem to me that double-deck equipment would always be favorable, especially in fixed-consist arrangements.

You can't have tilt capability with a bilevel, for one thing. Nevermind the fact that a "Tier II" compatible bilevel car would probably weigh 100 tons!

Rhinecliff wrote:I am really surprised to learn that double-deck TGV-type equipment could be used on the NEC. Does anyone know why Amtrak opted for single level equipement? Did Amtrak consider a double-deck design? For the reasons that Ms. Bly cites above, I would think a double-deck design would be top priority.

The short answer is this: lack of imagination.

Follow this bit of logic. The USA has pumped probably a trillion dollars into civil engineering and highway construction since the annoucement of the Interstate and Defense Highway System.

How much money has been pumped into civil, electrical, and mechanical engineering for railroads over that same time period? Not nearly as much.

Given that, where do you think the brainpower of the USA has gone?

That's why we in the USA don't have a double-decker Metroliner II right now, and we have an Acela that kinda works.

Actually, I believe the cost of completing the Interstate network was on the order of $125 billion, from 1956 to 1980. But your point is well taken.

Ever notice that old highway bridges and traffic lights look like railroad bridges and railroad signals, while nowadays railroad bridges look like highway bridges and signal gantries look just like the aluminum structures that hold up highway signs?

I fielded a question today from somebody calculating the costs of Hurricane Katrina. He wanted to know how much concrete it would take to rebuild CSX's Bay St. Louis bridge. I found a picture of the bridge quite quickly. It looks just like a highway bridge, with concrete piers and concrete deck slabs, except that now all the deck slabs on a 9,900 foot bridge are at the bottom of St. Louis Bay, along with the rail, ties, and ballast.

If Amtrak sells the NEC, could it be given to someone else to perhaps change those rounded-side Amfleets that have been ruling the NEC for many years for flat-sided cars? I would certainly like that, since the rounded Amfleets are now looking and feeling dull to ride now these days, I feel that the Amfleets need to be looked at closely in the NEC.

I'd also like to see that too, in terms of faster speeds between NY and BOS, although you've got to get by Metro-North first. They have their own speed limits of 74 to 89.9 mph in their NHV-CP216 area where Amtrak passes.