California Cars

[Amtrak_Titan]

 Since Amtrak ridership is increasing, and if Amtrak and other angencies was to purchase new cars. Do you think they would purchase the California car? I think North Carolina Dot should purchase California cars, to replace the single level equipment they have. What parts of the Amtrak system should the California Cars be running on?

[passengerfan]

First off I would think that NJ Transit would find the cars quite expensive and they would not fit through the Hudson River tunnels. These cars were specially built for Amtrak California and really suit that purpose. I could understand them being used on other Amtrak lines but they would not suit the Northeast Corridor as the Superliners do not either.

Al - in - Stockton

[al-in-chgo]

First off I would think that NJ Transit would find the cars quite expensive and they would not fit through the Hudson River tunnels. These cars were specially built for Amtrak California and really suit that purpose. I could understand them being used on other Amtrak lines but they would not suit the Northeast Corridor as the Superliners do not either.

Al - in - Stockton

 

No, but NJT is successfully introducing double-deckers (by Breda, I think) on some of its routes.  The generation is called "Comet VI." 

 

[HarveyK400]

NJDoT has different problems where the essentially tri-level car is a more appropriate solution.

Back to the California car.  The plans were carried in Model Railroader a few years back; and a quick seach revealed that I couldn't find the article very quick.  If anyone has this article more readily available, I would be grateful for an e-mail.

What I remember was being struck by the apparent waste of large open areas, especially on the lower level.  Standees? Bicycles? Baby strollers?  Maybe a few more seats could be added.

Another question was whether there was need for two sets of double doors like the Toronto car.

As I recall, the California car had a lift device between the lower and upper levels.  A lift allows passengers with mobility devices access through the train.

Most Virginia and Carolina trains go north to New York City.  The Northeast Corridor has high-level platforms, so this must be accommodated for ADA accessibility.  Conversely south of Washington, DC, there are fewer trains and lower volume stations where a high-level platform would be costly; but more significantly, pose clearance and trackwork problems for freight trains - platform gaunlet tracks and sidings introduce a derailment hazard according to the railroads.  The significance of this hazard is questionable.  One solution may be to change trains in Washignton, DC. 

All in all, the California car would be a candidate for the Midwest and elswhere outside the Northeast Corridor.  The California car offers high capacity where the length of platform becomes an issue.  Othside the Northeast Corridor, there are few short-distance intercity trains that exceed 6 cars.

I personally would like to see TALGOs in the Midwest, given that the Xplorer and Turbotrain are no longer in production.  TALGOs would be compatible with the low level platforms used for Amtrak Superliners and Metra gallery cars.  Even along the relatively straight 284-mile Chicago-St. Louis Corridor, 10-15 minutes and energy for recovering speed can be saved.  The occasional 1-degree curve limits conventional equipment to 80mph (with superelevation for 50mph freight trains); but the Cascade TALGOs would be allowed 110mph which is an immediate objective.

Many corridors are not blessed with such long tangents or easy curves.  The CN line to Dubuque, IA, proposed for restored passenger service through Northwest Illinois is particularly bad.  The NEC istself is limited by frequent curves, predominently 1-degree on the xPennsy, 2-degree on the xNew Haven.

For what it's worth, I think the X-2000 was the best-riding train ever; but this is a train for high-level platforms.

 

[MP57313]

What I remember was being struck by the apparent waste of large open areas, especially on the lower level.  Standees? Bicycles? Baby strollers?  Maybe a few more seats could be added. {snip} As I recall, the California car had a lift device between the lower and upper levels.  A lift allows passengers with mobility devices access through the train.

Yesterday (National Train Day) I rode the lower level of a California car...the space is rather wide and was used for standees.  As for a lift device - I have not seen one on the cars used on the Pacific Surfliner; I don't recall if the Capitol Corridor or San Joaquin cars have them either.  The way things are now, the mobility-impaired use the lower level seats; the rest of us climb the stairs to ride on the upper level.  There are slightly elevated trackside-platforms available for those in wheelchairs to use for boarding, but I rarely see them used (I rarely see wheelchair travelers).

[passengerfan]

The San Joaquin California cars have no means for wheelchairs to get to the upper level. Here in Stockton passengers of those trains to and from the bay area that load at the old Santa Fe depot often board on San Joaquin St, itself as the train blocks it anyway. A car attendant uses a ramp they have stored to board wheelchair passengers.

[gardendance]

A car attendant uses a ramp they have stored to board wheelchair passengers.

NJ Transit or Amtrak also have 'bridge plates' in lockable cabinets on the station platforms. I finally saw a conductor use one at Hamilton station. Trenton-NYC local train arrived, wheelchair passenger waiting on platform, conductor dragged the plate out of the platform cabinet and plopped it over the several inch gap between high level platform and car, wheelchair passenger passenger rolled over the plate into the train, conductor put plate back into cabinet, and did not lock the cabinet.

 I was surprised at how quickly 1 conductor was able, and willing, to drag that hefty metal plate a good 10-15 feet each way. I'm assuming it's aluminum. I guess I could have weighed it myself since Mr. conductor didn't lock the cabinet afterwards.

[blue streak 1]

There is much discussion of clearances and accessibility to passenger cars. The solution though expensive would help the freight RRs, commuter agencies and AMTRAK.California has instituted the solution at the Oakland colisieum stop and that station has a separate track to the station platform. I observed an AMTRAK northbound train pull into the east side early and then a southbound UP freight then proceeded south on the east track of the double track line. AMTRAK pulled out on time after the freight passed and everything was fluid which would not otherwise happened. One problem with the collsieum platform. It is not long enough to have put a longer train their with out fouling either interlocking (bad planning).

[Wdlgln005]

THere's no question Amtrak need some new cars. IIRC the California cars are similar to superliner coaches with added doors for passenger access. I'd like to see them in Midwest Corridor services where the added capacity is needed. They can serve as daytime Superliners.

[al-in-chgo]

THere's no question Amtrak need some new cars. IIRC the California cars are similar to superliner coaches with added doors for passenger access. I'd like to see them in Midwest Corridor services where the added capacity is needed. They can serve as daytime Superliners.

Midwesterners "of a certain age" pre-Amtrak can tell you about intercity travel on some of the 400-series of trains on the old CNW up to Green Bay WI and the area.  The cars were bi-lev but "gallery style," as are all the bi-levs Metra currently uses (unless someone just switched the new Metra-Electric suburban cars that run south to Homewood and beyond).

Speaking of which, are "double-deckers" demonstrably better than "galleries" in the number of passengers and the equipment (bikes, folks in wheelchairs, strollers) that can be held? 

I must say I rode a Breda-built double-decker from Trenton to Newark while on a trip back east in October 2007.  Though double- (incl. the entryway, some purists might argue for "triple") decker, ceiling height wasn't nearly as claustrophobic as I had feared.  Downright pleasant, in fact.  If they can do that on NJT with all its bridges and tunnels and the multiplicity of private lines that form the NJT heritage, they can certainly do it on Amtrak Chgo - Milw. 

Maybe METRA can sell AMTRAK some of its old bi-levs "for a dollar."   lol.       - a.s.

[passengerfan]

Actually Al I think Metra should seriously look at what I call the GO cars as they were the first to have them and now they are with commuter agencies all over North America. I guess you could best describe them as kind of a tri-level. they have seating on the lower level then they have seating over the trucks kind of a mid level and finally complete upper level seating as well. Here in California ACE and the Southern California Agencies have all adopted these cars for service. Only the Peninsula commuter trains still use Gallery cars here.

By the way I am going to find shelter in some nice A/C equipped building here as our temperature for this date is expected to reach 103. I have yet to try my new camera so will find a building with A/C to try it out overloooking the RR tracks.

Al - in - Stockton 

[HarveyK400]

There are pro's and con's on what to do for equipment.  As for the Chicago area, the only type of car that would not be considered for Metra is the NJT/MTA tri-level for high-level platforms.

The Metra gallery car works hand-in-glove with fare collection and open-access boarding areas.  There is nowhere to go to evade inspection.  The California bi-level and GOTransit tri-level afford the opportunity to sneak by the collector.

The bi-level and tri-level cars have about 40' of an easily accessible lower level "well" between the trucks.  The lower floor height makes boarding from low-level platforms easier and faster.   

Once on board, the gallery and bi-level make walking through the train easier.

The proto-type Metra New Highliners are reversed with an upper level cab and no end vestibule.  This adds a few more seats.  A trap and open steps are under half the center vestibule for low level boarding - possibly for use on the South Shore - even though there are no low level platforms on the Electric District.  An order for more cars is pending with a state transportation and education capital bill. 

The original St.Louis Car Co. carbon steel Highliners are as much as 36 years old; but they appear to be in good shape - not like the former CNW cars that were 40 years old before being retired.  With agressive CTA express bus competition and low fares, ridership continues to erode in the City.  Furthermore, the City wants the CTA to extend the Red Line along the Metra Electric, so two questions may be just how many cars should be ordered, and whether the South Chicago branch should be abandonned along with closing most stations.