Rolling stock dimensions

Greetings, all...

I'm working on a small design project regarding high-speed trainsets, and I need to know some critical dimensions for passenger railcars on mainline railroads. I've tried Google and the FRA website, but to no avail.
The stuff I'm particularly interested in right now:

1) The maximum length between truck centers. This dimension on the Metra Highliners is 59'-6", and 18.7M (61'-4") on TGV trailers. For articulated railcars, this dimension would be the same as the overall length of the railcar.

2) The minimum clearance of the underside of the car body above the rail height. On Amtrak's Superliner coaches and on the LIRR bilevels, this seems to be a fairly small distance (a foot or less), but I'm curious to know if there's an absolute minimum clearance.

3) The typical dimensions of passenger coaches in the US seems to be 85'-0" long by 10'-0" wide. I assume this is correct?

If anybody knows these numbers, or if you know of resources on the web that have this info, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Thanks!

I believe that there are some sleeping cars in Sweden of about 89 ft length, and this, together with truck centres would have to be coordinated with track radii and other factors as a total system. You may have noticed that newer streetcar systems (aka light rail) can be custom designed for tyhe needs of the street in a city as long as all these dimensions are compatible, even with different track gauges. Looking at our Australian systems, some, like in Sydney, have short articulated segments so that they snake through sharp corners. Others like in Adelaide approach toward long as suburban coaches, so you can pretty much design your system to suit.

With high speed rail, assuming you're not mixing freight or slower passenger traffic, you can also design a system as you want it to be and not limit yourself to any pre-emption. Most high speed systems would be dedicated and as long as you make it all compatible, it is only the economics which would be limiting. The Japanese bullet trains I undestand are broader in gauge and wider in interior. At the speeds we're talking there, the track radii would have to be broader due to ergodynamic standing passenger stability (lateral acceleration maximum of 10% of the accelleration due to gravity), much more so than the technical limitations of the trans and tracks, so lengths and truck spacings can be greater than normal train cars. Greater superelevation and tilt-train technology can tighten radii to a point where passenger stability can be achieved, but again this is simply the holistic design process where the "see-saw" of constraints and performance as the Laws of Nature being the fixed constant at the fulcrum gives you a wide range of options for dimensins as long as it all is compatible with themselves, and with the surrounding environment.

If you are looking for current widths and lengths as your guide, you will limit yourself to missing out on what can be achieved, unless it is a consideration that the high-speed system must blen into the existing, either as mixed traffic or a through service beyond the high speed to run into the existing conventional system.

One other factor to consider, whatever your standards and criteria be within the realm of its compatibility, do not focus on "absolute minimums" or "absolute maximums". You need contingencies, you need redundancies, and comfortable clearances or you WILL be in trouble operationally, no matter what the minimum/maximum standards are set,even within your compatibility.

Also, remember again the ergodynamic standing passenger stability situation. Unless you can design the whole system compatibly, there's no point in putting money into overperformance by the train. It's like a car whose manufacturers promote that their speedometer can show 200mph. But where can you actually drive a car at that speed. Keep the formula 1 racing cars on the race track, not on the road, and keep the high speed trains to be compatible with the track in accordance with ergodynamic passenger stability principles. When designing the total system for the intended performance as a transport, not ego display, service, tend to put more money and high into the track rather to the train itself.

I may not have answered your very specific questins, but if I can get you thinking about the intent of the whole system , there is a lot more flexibility than just what has been done before/

Vytautas B. Radzivanas
Perth, Western Austraia