• Siemens Single Level Cars for CA/IL/Midwest

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

  • 328 posts
  • 1
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 22
  by mtuandrew
 
Or Alstom could have built Surfliner clones, which is only a 15-20 year old design. Is the point to take advantage of Crash Energy Management alternate compliance, or is there another truly new technology that I’ve missed? Because really, a forty year old American passenger railcar is only different from a modern one in terms of interior fittings and maybe provision for electropneumatic brakes, the only exception being the PSNY-capable Multilevels.
  by njtmnrrbuff
 
I think Nippon Sharyo tried to make their bilevel designs based off of the Surfliner cars but that plan failed very miserably and Nippon Sharyo lost the contract.
  by David Benton
 
mtuandrew wrote:Or Alstom could have built Surfliner clones, which is only a 15-20 year old design. Is the point to take advantage of Crash Energy Management alternate compliance, or is there another truly new technology that I’ve missed? Because really, a forty year old American passenger railcar is only different from a modern one in terms of interior fittings and maybe provision for electropneumatic brakes, the only exception being the PSNY-capable Multilevels.
Sandwich composite construction, should be able to design a shell that is stronger, with crash management at less weight.
Looks like we will never know what went wrong for N_S, maybe trying to adapt the old design looked easier at first, then they realised they should have gone for a new design.Seems to me maybe the design request didn't leave enough scope for using modern design methods.
  by gokeefe
 
David Benton wrote:Sandwich composite construction, should be able to design a shell that is stronger, with crash management at less weight.
My thinking as well. Too much progress in design technique and technology to accept a warmed over Superliner III.
  by dowlingm
 
I wonder how much work Stadler would have to do to adapt their design for Rocky Mountaineer to the PRIIA spec.

Unlikely to happen but I would love to see something that VIA could tack an slightly adjusted order onto for part of their LD needs west of Toronto, with displaced steel SL stock moving over to Ocean (since a low door design won't work in Montreal). Unfortunately we have to worry about the Corridor order ever being approved, never mind new LD stock.
https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/wh ... umber-two/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
  by mtuandrew
 
VIA had been shopping around for Superliners way back when, but they seem to have settled on single-level cars. If anything, they could have built a LD version of the UTDC/Hawker Siddeley (BBD) Bilevel that would have worked beautifully for everything west of Toronto.

I often wonder how different Amtrak would be had they adopted a Gallery-pattern fleet out west instead of the Hi-Level pattern. C&NW proved it was practical for coaches, and with a little tweaking a gallery car could have been a good sleeper and cafe too.
  by ziggyzack1234
 
mtuandrew wrote:
I often wonder how different Amtrak would be had they adopted a Gallery-pattern fleet out west instead of the Hi-Level pattern. C&NW proved it was practical for coaches, and with a little tweaking a gallery car could have been a good sleeper and cafe too.
I always felt that the Bombardier multi-level could be converted to a sleeper. Although you don't have the view of a Viewliner, it should be pretty comfortable. Accessibility is the one unanswered question though. This would mean you wouldn't have a flat train for those in wheelchairs, but I guess clever placement in a train can partially remedy it (perhaps stick them on the ends rather than in the middle).
  by bostontrainguy
 
mtuandrew wrote:I often wonder how different Amtrak would be had they adopted a Gallery-pattern fleet out west instead of the Hi-Level pattern. C&NW proved it was practical for coaches, and with a little tweaking a gallery car could have been a good sleeper and cafe too.
Huh? How? You don't even have a full floor on the second level.
  by mtuandrew
 
bostontrainguy wrote:Huh? How? You don't even have a full floor on the second level.
I’d have to do some interior plans, but single roomettes above double roomettes come to mind. No gain in bedrooms though.

Anyway, neither here nor there since no one is talking about Gallery cars except me :wink:
  by ApproachMedium
 
Gallery cars are sardine cans. People looking to do any kind of long distance travel or trying to enjoy their ride of more than an hour are not looking to get crammed into gallery cars. Have you ever sat on the upper level of the gallery car for more than an hour? Its cool because you can see everything but it sucks because its uncomfortable. Theres also very minimal ADA accessibility. The surfliner/superliner design confines ADA passengers to the lower level. For commuter, this is OK. For longer distance/regional travel this is not. On the real LD trains like amtrak car attendants can bring ADA passengers their food at their room or seating area no problem, but on a regional this confines these people to one location for the duration of the trip.

The open-ish plan of the Siemens trainset as well as even the Acela trainset allows for anyone to pass thru the train without obstruction. The siemens design allows for wheelchairs to travel the isles without a problem. Something you will never get with ANY bi level vehicle. Single level cars are also more stable and ride a lot better at higher speeds. Have you driven an SUV? How fast can you take it around a turn before the tires squeal? If theres any feeling of G force then its probably too fast. If there was ever a point where Supers would be allowed to travel at 110mph on daily trains service such cars would be limited to top speeds around curves to lower speeds of that of single level "B" speed equipment. The Supers/gallery cars are classified for "C" Speeds at least for the northeast corridor timetable.
  by David Benton
 
mtuandrew wrote:
bostontrainguy wrote:Huh? How? You don't even have a full floor on the second level.
I’d have to do some interior plans, but single roomettes above double roomettes come to mind. No gain in bedrooms though.

Anyway, neither here nor there since no one is talking about Gallery cars except me :wink:
If you search member "Virgil Payne" post's, I believe he played with sleeping designs for various multilevel cars .

Edit; No longer a member by the look , but he my have blogs or similar elsewhere.
  by frequentflyer
 
ApproachMedium wrote:Gallery cars are sardine cans. People looking to do any kind of long distance travel or trying to enjoy their ride of more than an hour are not looking to get crammed into gallery cars. Have you ever sat on the upper level of the gallery car for more than an hour? Its cool because you can see everything but it sucks because its uncomfortable. Theres also very minimal ADA accessibility. The surfliner/superliner design confines ADA passengers to the lower level. For commuter, this is OK. For longer distance/regional travel this is not. On the real LD trains like amtrak car attendants can bring ADA passengers their food at their room or seating area no problem, but on a regional this confines these people to one location for the duration of the trip.

The open-ish plan of the Siemens trainset as well as even the Acela trainset allows for anyone to pass thru the train without obstruction. The siemens design allows for wheelchairs to travel the isles without a problem. Something you will never get with ANY bi level vehicle. Single level cars are also more stable and ride a lot better at higher speeds. Have you driven an SUV? How fast can you take it around a turn before the tires squeal? If theres any feeling of G force then its probably too fast. If there was ever a point where Supers would be allowed to travel at 110mph on daily trains service such cars would be limited to top speeds around curves to lower speeds of that of single level "B" speed equipment. The Supers/gallery cars are classified for "C" Speeds at least for the northeast corridor timetable.
No so sure, I thought the same too until some years ago reading a thread on another forum by an engineer who explained the Superliner design. The heavy stuff (AC, and water tanks) in a Superliner is low. It was mentioned the Superliner CG is lower than Amfleet's because the point at where the body connects to the truck at wheel axle height. Pretty impressive engineering for a car designed in the 70s without the fancy CAD.
  by Tadman
 
That is a design benefit of Superliners over gallery cars - the heavy stuff is above the center doors in a Gallery, while the heavy stuff is down low in a superliner. Further, the pass-through in Superliners is upstairs, keeping the incidental stuff downstairs, like bathrooms, luggage racks, etc... I find it makes for a more habitable place for the long ride.

I'd like to see pics of the interior of a gallery car from the CNW long distance fleet, especially the chairs. On commuter gallery cars, the chairs would be rough for >2 hour rides, but the same was true for Comets. They made decent >2 hour cars with standard Amtrak seats. You could do the same with gallery cars perhaps.
  by ApproachMedium
 
Im fully aware of the Superliner design. Either way, you still have a high car. The supers are very well balanced vs the gallery and Multilevel designs but no matter what with a tall rail vehicle you have drag and ride quality issues at higher speeds. Anybody whos ridden in one of the Superliner 1 cars that still have the old German trucks on them knows you can tell when those cars are moving at speeds over 60mph, they do not respond well to American track geometry! Even at that, any time I have been in one around 70-80mph certain things can be a little more pronounced just beacuse of the geometry of where you are sitting higher up in the car.
  by EricL
 
didn't read the thread, but

unless low level-ish, high capacity boarding is provided a la metra - with quick, built-in ADA lifts - then this entire venture is useless, just cancel it right now

automatic doors on every car are absolutely necessary to enhance our service, and I've been made to understand that not only is this is not going to happen, but the number of boarding doors is actually going to be reduced!

other routes are different, but a minute here and a minute there can make a huge impact on the milwaukee service. i know that's a foreign concept on 95% of amtrak but that's how it is here
  • 1
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 22