Railfans have nicknames for everything, but the nickname "Amcan" for the Amfleet coaches is perhaps both a description of their barrel-like shape and that some complain that they are less spacious than alternative passenger equipment. Amfleet is derivative of the original Metroliner MU cars having the barrel shape and low ceiling -- perhaps as a concession to aerodynamics, perhaps as a styling feature to make the cabin more airliner like as a marketing feature from a time when airline travel was considered exciting and glamorous. Adding to the confined feeling are the narrow windows, a concession to the cultural and social history of the U.S. where the throwing of rocks at trains had become commonplace.
One feature of Amfleet, however, is that they are ten and a half feet wide.
For whatever knocks people have on Talgo ride quality, whether it is the single axles, rough track near Seattle, or other factors, I have not heard much criticism about their lack of spaciousness. Talgo coaches, however, conform to a European Continent loading gauge and are only 9.65 feet wide on the outside. This also true of the new Talgo 8 being manufactured in Milwaukee -- see http://www.talgoamerica.com/series8-passengerCars.aspx
England has an even narrower loading gauge, and I have read complaints about the cars they brought over into Canada and also about the seating arrangements in the Pendolino trains they have in England.
The United Aircraft Turbo Train, a very Talgo-like train from the early 1970's, was 10'6" wide, and the extra width (over the 10' 0" of lightweight streamline coaches) was one of their selling points. There is anecdotal evidence that in the mid 1990's when the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative got underway as a plan, that Turbo Train inventor Alan Cripe was pitching a Turbo Train II -- his Fastracker DMT (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1215/is_n11_v194/ai_14555964/pg_11/) that he designed shortly before his passing.
The Fastracker DMT would have been a full 11' wide, using the short train cars without overhang to advantage to gain some width within the loading gauge restrictions. That extra width could have had some possibilities -- besides the obvious of 5-across seating (I understand that they have some extra-width trains in Japan where they are doing 6-across as they have such large traffic levels for their trains), one could go to a 4-across twin aisle arrangement.
One argument advanced in favor of passenger trains is that they can provide for more passenger room than alternative modes, as buses and airliners are rather cramped. On the other hand, the Talgos are intended for short daytime trips is corridor service. Is three inches less elbow room per seat a concern?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Talgo has overnight sleeper versions too.
Have a link to any pics of this concept?
Paul MilenkovicOne feature of Amfleet, however, is that they are ten and a half feet wide. For whatever knocks people have on Talgo ride quality, whether it is the single axles, rough track near Seattle, or other factors, I have not heard much criticism about their lack of spaciousness. Talgo coaches, however, conform to a European Continent loading gauge and are only 9.65 feet wide on the outside. This also true of the new Talgo 8 being manufactured in Milwaukee -- see http://www.talgoamerica.com/series8-passengerCars.aspx
Siemens Velaro for China (HSR) has a car width of 10' 8" and 3-2 seating. 601 seats in an 8 car train.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.