Rotem Cars Discussion (new bi-level cars)

[concordgirl]

Do what? People will do anything. That's life lol
Idk, maybe they are confused and think they are on the T hahahaha

[Diverging Route]

Unless you only wanted to use it at low-level platforms, putting a door in the middle of a bilevel car would substantially reduce capacity, as you'd need a whole extra sublevel between the two main seating levels. The conductors probably wouldn't like that either, since it means two more sets of stairs to go up and down while collecting tickets.

Excellent point. But I'm sure there's a design that can mitigate these issues. For example, keeping the mid-level height at both ends, but putting in double-width doors that allow two to enter/leave at the same time. Sure, this will cause the loss of a few seats, but it would be worth it. And I would also think that a different system could be used for the traps, so that the conductors don't have the decades old spring-loaded metal hulks they now have to deal with. For example, the MUNI Breada trolleys in San Francisco have motorized steps, that have ample audio and visual warnings when raising/lowering. And they're fun to ride I'm not saying this is the exact answer, but some simple engineering could result in significant improvements -- especially since a new vendor is involved.

[concordgirl]

That is an excellent point. As long as we're spending the money, why not take a little time to explore creative solutions to longtime problems? That would help the train crew AND ease the passengers' daily commute.

Is the MBTA, with Rotem, actually considering new things like that, or are they pretty much just going ahead with the status quo?

[Veristek]

One problem with the three doors scheme is that we would have to make a second set of stairs in the bi-levels like someone mentioned earlier... like this (crude ASCII drawing):

--<===><===>--

- represents the vestibules and the standard 2 doors we have.
< > represents the stairwells up and down.
= represents the two levels of the K cars we have.

See the problem? Doing that would mean taking like 10 - 15 feet from the middle of each K car to make room for the second set of staircases. This means like 10 pairs of seatings would have to be removed from BOTH levels in the K car. Thats like 20 - 30 people less per car. The "T" needs all the capacity it can get.

Think ahead- 10 years from now, I'm sure a lot more people will be using the CR due to even higher gas prices. That means we'll need every last bit of seating and room we can get on the K cars. If we butcher the new K cars into the "three door" scheme, we might as well order single levels anyway since they'll have just slightly less seating capacity as the butchered K cars, not double as bi-levels are supposed to do.

[sery2831]

No, the new center door would be on the lower level only.

[Veristek]

No, the new center door would be on the lower level only.

Ohh, makes sense. Didn't think of it that way before. Although it'd look funny with the old K cars with the 2 door scheme and the new K cars with 3 doors.

[octr202]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the NJT Comet VI Bi-level coach pretty much address these issues, in about as close a manner as you can come? It has two doors on each end of the car (on the mid-level), so yes, at low level stops you still only have one door at each end, but at high level stops you have four doors on the platform. Plus it has long doors for trainlined doors at low level stops.

Comet VI car (not my photo)

[Veristek]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the NJT Comet VI Bi-level coach pretty much address these issues, in about as close a manner as you can come? It has two doors on each end of the car (on the mid-level), so yes, at low level stops you still only have one door at each end, but at high level stops you have four doors on the platform. Plus it has long doors for trainlined doors at low level stops.

Comet VI car (not my photo)

I wouldn't mind having THOSE cars as the new K cars. They kinda look sci-fi with the sloped roofs and everything.

[concordgirl]

No, the new center door would be on the lower level only.

Yep Similar issue to that simpsons episode where someone invented the world's first two-story outhouse. Neither would work out very well.

Apologies if this has already been answered, but how would the train crew change their current routine with the center door?

[jamesinclair]

Unless you only wanted to use it at low-level platforms, putting a door in the middle of a bilevel car would substantially reduce capacity, as you'd need a whole extra sublevel between the two main seating levels. The conductors probably wouldn't like that either, since it means two more sets of stairs to go up and down while collecting tickets.

It wouldnt reduce capacity. It would ADD capacity. Remember standing costumers use less room than sitting ones. BART is even removing 6 seats from each car to add more standing room.

Heavily used trains in europe are bi-level with three doors, and yes, that means more stairs (and it also means more handicap space)

Example:



And before anyone comes in and complains about the lack of traps for low-platform boarding, I know. This is an example. Only an example.

Edit: This one here appears to to allow for low level boarding. Link because it's very large:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... _22596.JPG

[sery2831]

Those cars in that picture appear to have low level doors too. The issue I have with the standee room is that works for short haul routes. But people do not want to stand all the way to Fitchburg or Rockport! They pay good money for a comfortable seat not a handle. Plus fare collection as we have it now makes having standee passengers a pain in the you know what!

[MBTA3247]

Unless you only wanted to use it at low-level platforms, putting a door in the middle of a bilevel car would substantially reduce capacity, as you'd need a whole extra sublevel between the two main seating levels. The conductors probably wouldn't like that either, since it means two more sets of stairs to go up and down while collecting tickets.

It wouldnt reduce capacity. It would ADD capacity. Remember standing costumers use less room than sitting ones. BART is even removing 6 seats from each car to add more standing room.

Heavily used trains in europe are bi-level with three doors, and yes, that means more stairs (and it also means more handicap space)

BART runs a subway, where the goal is to cram as many people on as possible and people aren't riding for very long anyway, so the lack of comfort is acceptable. sery2831 already mentioned the issues involved with standees on long trips. So I'll stick to my position that removing seats to put in a door reduces the capacity of the car.

As to your example, that's the first bi-level train I've ever seen with a door in the middle. I am by no means an expert on foreign trains, but I think I've seen enough to safely claim that such cars are quite rare. A search of Wikipedia of some of the other major European railroads reveals no other cars of similar layout.

[jamesinclair]

Some Bart trips can be over an hour. MUNI is what is used for short subway trips, BART is commuter rail that is built like a subway.

As for other trains, I havent found any pictures, but Ive been on one in Switzerland. The problem with Switzerland is that there are dozens of car models. They have a system which doesnt understand the concept of a standard. Think of their system as cambridge, brookline, worcester, etc all purchasing their own cars. It's hard to find pictures of the one I was in.

Nobody likes standing for a long time. But people who get on at these far away stops will find seats because theyre the first. As the train fills up, the trip is shorter.

When I went to Paris and rode the RER, I had to take a 45 minute trip, and it was standing room only. At 6am. Reverse commute. Even in the developed world, it's not unheard of.

As for fare collection, standing room is hard now because the aisles are so narrow. By shifting the standees to larger empty spaces, movement actually becomes easier. Of course, in 50 years, when commuter rail gets as busy as the paris RER, we'll have to think of a different fare collection system (they use fare gates + inspectors to check that the ticket is valid for the right zones).

[concordgirl]

Those cars in that picture appear to have low level doors too. The issue I have with the standee room is that works for short haul routes. But people do not want to stand all the way to Fitchburg or Rockport! They pay good money for a comfortable seat not a handle. Plus fare collection as we have it now makes having standee passengers a pain in the you know what!

Agreed. When I read that suggestion I was like, "Oh NO, now the commuter rail is gonna feel like riding the T!" Ugh. People like the commuter rail not just bc it's convenient and practical, but bc frankly it is a helluva lot nicer than riding the freakin green line. Nuff said!

And yes the conductors would appreciate not being forced to part the seas of people just to squeeze down the aisle!

[RailBus63]

Instead of modifying cars with one more low-level door - which is an inherently inefficient design - why not push for the construction of high-level platforms at the busiest stations?