Replace NE Regional Amfleets with Italian Pendolinos?

Matt Johnson wrote:I'm a bird-in-hand kind of guy, as well as a fan of the Viewliners, so I hope they can keep the Viewliner production line open and make further use of the platform.

The Talgos are neat, and I'm glad they've found a niche here, but trying to adapt them to the NEC strikes me as trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Not worth the effort.

Exactly, especially since Amtrak has two birds in hand with both the designs and the cars operating on their system. Hopefully they have plans set up for cafe/lounge (Sightseer? ), coach, and cab car units too.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Talgo go for this contract with three- or five-car sets to replace single or double coaches, but it's unlikely they'd get it. Even for commuter service, their double-decker design is about 7 inches too tall for the North River Tunnels (4.6m vs. 4.42m, 15' 1" vs. 14' 6".) They'd only be suited for MARC or MBTA service.

mtuandrew wrote: They'd only be suited for MARC or MBTA service.

Looks like the threshold for the doors are approximately at the same height as the axles. At stations with high platforms the leap down from the platform would be tricky for the athletic among us. As long as they don't bang their head into the top of the door frame. Clambering up to them would be interesting too.

Adirondacker wrote:

mtuandrew wrote: They'd only be suited for MARC or MBTA service.

Looks like the threshold for the doors are approximately at the same height as the axles. At stations with high platforms the leap down from the platform would be tricky for the athletic among us. As long as they don't bang their head into the top of the door frame. Clambering up to them would be interesting too.

Hmm... Tough to see how you could make that ADA-compliant.

Ridgefielder wrote:

Adirondacker wrote:

mtuandrew wrote: They'd only be suited for MARC or MBTA service.

Looks like the threshold for the doors are approximately at the same height as the axles. At stations with high platforms the leap down from the platform would be tricky for the athletic among us. As long as they don't bang their head into the top of the door frame. Clambering up to them would be interesting too.

Hmm... Tough to see how you could make that ADA-compliant.

Indeed, unless Talgo redesigned them to have a high-platform door like the Multilevels. By that point, you're talking millions more per set than the in-production Multi IIs anyway.

mtuandrew wrote:Indeed, unless Talgo redesigned them to have a high-platform door like the Multilevels. By that point, you're talking millions more per set than the in-production Multi IIs anyway.

Really? The double decker Talgo proves the passive tilt technology could work on a taller train.
Here's another train vendor providing both low and high floor cars of the same model. It doesn't look like they spend a small fortune changing the modular design.
Stadler FLIRT high floor

Stadler FLIRT 3 low floor

Extra doors can be added as well.

You guys are making mountains out of moll hills.

Modifying a design isn't always as expensive as some of you suggest it will be.

Stadler can easily move the floor up or down because the auxiliary equipment is immediately behind the cab and above the ceiling. Most of Talgo auxiliary equipment is located between the cars, or above the ceiling. Therefore changing the floor height isn't going to be difficult to accomplish. Unlike Viewliners and Amfleets where the auxiliary equipment is located under the floor.

THat cars "high" door is nowhere near as high as american high platform cars.

ApproachMedium wrote:THat cars "high" door is nowhere near as high as american high platform cars.

Never-the-less, they are two different heights. The low floor most likely is 600 mm (23.6 inches), the high floor 1120 mm (44 inches). Do you really believe the extra 6 inches to reach 50 would be too difficult to overcome? 6 inch larger diameter wheels would solve that problem easily.

I'm thinking Talgo could probably come up with a "kneeling bus" concept in reverse. Would the lower height, (and therefore lower center of gravity) allow faster cornering speeds, regardless of passive tilt abilities ?

I don't think either of the technical proposals in the above two posts are practical. 12" larger diameter wheels (necessary to get a 6" higher floor) is probably a significant change to all systems and dynamics of the train. And a hydraulic 'lifiting up' of the train at every station stop seems like a very Rube Goldberg solution. Much as I respect the off-the-shelf technology other countries have developed and are willing to sell, sometimes it simply cannot be adapted to a differently configured transportation infrastructure.

Suddenly our "off the shelf solution" has all sorts of hacks.

"Extra doors" - means less seating area
"larger wheels" - definitely means a change in dynamics
"unkneeling" - even more complicated things to break down
"moving the doors" yeah, the equipment may not be an issue, but remember the US has fairly unique crash-worthiness laws, so any major changes like this will have to be reviewed for their impact (pun intended) on impacts on the train.

I'm sure I missed some "easy" modifications that people suggested.

OR, we could go with something like.. oh, I don't know... a Viewliner shell for Amfleet II replacements (since current designs only have one vestibule) and then develop one with 2 vestibules for an Amfleet I replacement.

Sure, doesn't have passive tilt, but Amtrak owns the design and could place an order tomorrow.

Greg Moore wrote:Suddenly our "off the shelf solution" has all sorts of hacks.

"Extra doors" - means less seating area
"larger wheels" - definitely means a change in dynamics
"unkneeling" - even more complicated things to break down
"moving the doors" yeah, the equipment may not be an issue, but remember the US has fairly unique crash-worthiness laws, so any major changes like this will have to be reviewed for their impact (pun intended) on impacts on the train.

I'm sure I missed some "easy" modifications that people suggested.

OR, we could go with something like.. oh, I don't know... a Viewliner shell for Amfleet II replacements (since current designs only have one vestibule) and then develop one with 2 vestibules for an Amfleet I replacement.

Sure, doesn't have passive tilt, but Amtrak owns the design and could place an order tomorrow.

I agree with this. And 12 inch larger wheels? Are you kidding me? The smallest thing running on US heavy rail is 28 inch diameter wheels, the largest thing on a passenger car is 36 inch and freight 38. Changing the wheel diameter by 12 inches changes the braking, the center of gravity, tons of things. The last thing you want in a passenger car is higher center of gravity because that creates an unbalanced ride. Anyone whos ridden the upper level of NJT multilevels knows this "swaying" feeling you get going thru the tight turnouts in NY Penn.

Like the cycle of tides, the Talgo foam shall spread across this beach once more.

electricron wrote:

ApproachMedium wrote:THat cars "high" door is nowhere near as high as american high platform cars.

Never-the-less, they are two different heights. The low floor most likely is 600 mm (23.6 inches), the high floor 1120 mm (44 inches). Do you really believe the extra 6 inches to reach 50 would be too difficult to overcome? 6 inch larger diameter wheels would solve that problem easily.

... trains in Europe don't have to comply with ADA regulations.

The standards in the EU are 550 mm or 760 mm. Except where they use a different one.

From WIkipedia on FLIRT trains

"Standard floor height is 57 cm (22.4 in), but 78 cm (30.7 in) high floors are also available for platform heights of 76 cm (29.9 in)."

Depending on how you want to round "48 inches" the platforms, thousands of them spread across the Northeast and a few other places east of the Rockies, is 1200 mm. Most people wouldn't want to vault the 18 inches/half a meter from the train to platform or vice versa.

Too bad Wikipedia doesn't have width information. They are too narrow for the NEC. Though I suppose having the train far away from the platform would make the vault more interesting.

Apparently FLIRTs don't tilt either.

rohr turbo wrote:I don't think either of the technical proposals in the above two posts are practical. 12" larger diameter wheels (necessary to get a 6" higher floor) is probably a significant change to all systems and dynamics of the train. And a hydraulic 'lifiting up' of the train at every station stop seems like a very Rube Goldberg solution. Much as I respect the off-the-shelf technology other countries have developed and are willing to sell, sometimes it simply cannot be adapted to a differently configured transportation infrastructure.

A Citroen DS on rails! What could go wrong?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCUbNntd35o" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Backshophoss wrote:Wasn't Talgo reduced to a "shell" operation after vacating the factory in Milwaukee?
It will take time to restaff and find a location to build new trainsets
Fixed trainsets for the next gen Acelas makes sense,but not for regional services,however the Viewliner body shell is
already a proven design,can be used for the next gen coach/food service cars with little reenginering of
Amfleet style seating and Food service setup to fit the body shell.

tilting trains is hardly new or unproven technology. if they are gonig to buy a backwards car like the viewliner they better plan to offer lower prices


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... to_001.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;