Siemens Venture Single Level Cars for CA/IL/Midwest

From what operating crews have said here, the door gradually becomes a problem when it leaks, is loose, or encounters large debris. That said, the Metroliners are 50 year old cars, it’s expected that they won’t be perfect anymore and that’s why Amtrak made the change. They have spare trainsets and motors if a Keystone set gets bad-ordered; that’s the opposite of Metra operating practice, as well as many other commuter lines around the country and world.

Matt Johnson wrote:Note that Amtrak is giving up the walk-through ability on the Metroliner cabs by replacing the door with a bolted on steel plate in order to better seal the cab. These new Siemens cab cars will undoubtedly offer superior crash protection in addition to better cab ergonomics.

I completely agree. This appears to be a major change for the better. Amtrak's operating practices both now and in the future don't appear to support the trade off of flexibility over safety.

Matt Johnson wrote:Seems like the cab car might've made sense for Brightline vs two 4400 hp locomotives for 4 coaches! In any case, I think that's probably a preview of what will eventually replace the Budd Metroliner cab cars.

IIRC the Brightline Chargers are rated at just 4000hp. Once they add additional cars to each train, two units may be needed to keep the trains moving quickly. I also heard that for now, with just four cars per train, only the leading unit will provide traction (the rear unit will still be online).

BandA wrote:And with locomotives on both ends, Brightline grade crossing incidents will most likely be resolved in favor of the train. Also cab cars require the controls of a locomotive. I think they require more safety inspections than a coach, so might as well make locomotives instead of cab cars. And cab cars might not be allowed to have passengers in their "crumple zones"

I don't believe the FRA standards allow anyone (crew or passengers) to occupy the "crumple zones". The crumple zone on the SC-44 is at the very front of the unit, and is separated from the space occupied by the crew using collision posts and other structural elements. The collision post requirements for passenger cars are different from locos though, so I'd imagine Siemens will have to modify the cab's internal structure.

I assume they make the cabs as safe as possible, but obviously the engineer is not as protected as a passenger in the coach.

Aboard Brightline's inaugural run: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZhKezB2jic" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The coaches look very well done and very Acela-like. (I think these are semi-permanently coupled with drawbar type couplers like the Acela sets.) I realize the state order will likely differ slightly but I expect that the cars will be similarly nice.

The vestibules and diaphragms may make it look that way but I believe these are conventionally coupled cars.

I don't believe so, because of this photograph. I can't find the higher res version right now, but if you look carefully at the Brightline locomotive, you'll see an Acela-type drawbar coupler. I hope the conventional single levels maintain the Brightline's sliding door/roomy vestibule design even with conventional couplers, though they'll need end doors as well.

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/rail-uk/ ... 0910893670" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Did we ever settle whether the Corridor Viaggios will have platform extenders like the Brightline cars do? Seems essential to substituting high-level cars for low-level cars on clearance routes, so any high-level platforms can be outside the dynamic envelope.

I didn't realize this was in the works. Looks like maybe we could have a capable new bi-level manufacturer in the near future.

http://planphilly.com/articles/2017/03/ ... uth-philly" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The very near future: http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/ro ... -test.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Apparently CRRC had no trouble with the same crush test that crushed Nippon Sharyo.

Wonder how feasible it would be to add lower doors to one of these NEC-capable bilevels.

Leave it to the Chinese I guess. I like the simple clean look of these cars. None of the funky roof shapes of the other manufacturers.

The CRRC bi-level is a clone design based on the MBTA Rotems with a twist of NJT MLV-II design.

I’m surprised it doesn’t look more like these Australian CRRC coaches: http://www.crrcgc.cc/en/g5185/s12951/t262648.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think they look like the offspring of gallery cars and LIRR C3s, with a hint of Comet. I like them too, though the marker lights above the cab make them look angry - maybe because they’ll be stuck in Philadelphia their whole lives

Looks like they have low level doors too, but not in the right place for boarding at the lower level.

With exception of the cab cars,low level doors reportedly have flippable trap/stairs.
Door layout follows the ML-II placement. Cab cars will have 1 set of low level doors/traps at the B end of the car.