aegrotatio Too bad Colorado Railcar was allowed to go out of business. *sniff*
Too bad Colorado Railcar was allowed to go out of business. *sniff*
All of Colorado Railcar's designs and patents are now held by a company called US Railcar, which is actively marketing the old, and some newer/updated, models.
Trouble is, no one seems much interested. If I recall correctly, they bid on the SMART DMU RFPs in Northern California, but when the bids were opened, they were the highest cost.
Electroliner 1935 schlimm There are other Metra lines. I know that and have ridden them. I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Is one rougher than another? Do the Bilevels give you an uncomfortable ride? Not that I'm aware of. I was just noting one problem on a specific Metra line, the BNSF which I routinely ride. I have also been a daily rider of the former C&NW West Line, before I moved to an area served by the BNSF line and have taken rides on the other lines as a railfan ride. I have not yet ridden the South Shore BiLevels but the single level and the older Insull cars rode well on their good track. Though one SS trip was taken during a period when Metra was upgrading their Metra Elecric line track and had just installed welded rail. But they had not yet retamped the track between Randolph St. and Kensington and the train rocked and rolled over every former joint dip until we got to SS track. Then we just glided smoothly to South Bend.
schlimm There are other Metra lines.
I know that and have ridden them. I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Is one rougher than another? Do the Bilevels give you an uncomfortable ride? Not that I'm aware of. I was just noting one problem on a specific Metra line, the BNSF which I routinely ride. I have also been a daily rider of the former C&NW West Line, before I moved to an area served by the BNSF line and have taken rides on the other lines as a railfan ride. I have not yet ridden the South Shore BiLevels but the single level and the older Insull cars rode well on their good track. Though one SS trip was taken during a period when Metra was upgrading their Metra Elecric line track and had just installed welded rail. But they had not yet retamped the track between Randolph St. and Kensington and the train rocked and rolled over every former joint dip until we got to SS track. Then we just glided smoothly to South Bend.
My experience is different. Years ago, I rode the CNW/UP West line in the old P-S 4 window (a few StL 6 window) cars. Rough, with much up and down motion, sometimes bottoming out. It is better now, but still rough when at speed in many places. These days, I would ride the MILW-West. Smooth in places, rough in some, but the cars (various manufacturers) sway and are noisy (from undercarriage and diaphragms). My point of reference for comparison is the various manufacturers' double deck cars in RB/RE services in Germany. Much smoother and quieter and the cars' interiors are much more pleasant in design, compared to the cell block cars on Metra.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
n012944 CSSHEGEWISCH I'm a twice-daily Metra rider and usually sit on the gallery level. I've not found the ride to be rough. I used to ride the MILW West line fairly often, and the CNW West line on occasion and I agree with your statement. I am now an occasional rider of the South Shore, and their bi levels are decent riders as well.
CSSHEGEWISCH I'm a twice-daily Metra rider and usually sit on the gallery level. I've not found the ride to be rough.
I'm a twice-daily Metra rider and usually sit on the gallery level. I've not found the ride to be rough.
I used to ride the MILW West line fairly often, and the CNW West line on occasion and I agree with your statement. I am now an occasional rider of the South Shore, and their bi levels are decent riders as well.
as a former every day commuter on the the UP West line never felt that the ride quality was poor, with one exception. The first order of CNW bi levels (the 6 window jobs) did not like the jointed rail in place on the eastbound track east of Elmhurst. But just when you started to worry about the ride, you hit welded rail and things settled down.
"allowed"? They went bankrupt pure and simple.
An "expensive model collector"
schlimmThere are other Metra lines.
Electroliner 1935 Though the coment on the Metra Bilevels is a little confusing. The BNSF racetrack
There are other Metra lines.
Electroliner 1935 I've discussed these bridges with the BNSF track department and they say that because the bridges are fixed and have no ballast, its hard to keep the track aligned at the transition. Also, the entrance into Union Station to the tracks 2-12 have some switches that cause some yawing that is concerning, train only doing 10-15 mph.
I've discussed these bridges with the BNSF track department and they say that because the bridges are fixed and have no ballast, its hard to keep the track aligned at the transition. Also, the entrance into Union Station to the tracks 2-12 have some switches that cause some yawing that is concerning, train only doing 10-15 mph.
So, it isn't just model train people encountering these problems?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
My experience on the RockyMountaineer was of a very upscale interior and an excellent ride altho not at high speed. My recolection was a top speed of less than 79 mph. Though the coment on the Metra Bilevels is a little confusing. The BNSF racetrack has about 15 bridges between Cicero and Western Ave that are not of the ballasted deck type so there are severe jolts as they get traversed. I use the inter-car doors to judge the magnitude of the displacement and it is quite noticeable. Trains doing 70 mph. I've discussed these bridges with the BNSF track department and they say that because the bridges are fixed and have no ballast, its hard to keep the track aligned at the transition. Also, the entrance into Union Station to the tracks 2-12 have some switches that cause some yawing that is concerning, train only doing 10-15 mph No accidents that I'm aware of but not comfortable. Ride is no different upstairs or downstairs. Do detect some ride varience in the age of the car (trucks?).
Their Spartan appearance may be due to their not being finished. Possibly more interior treatment will be added.
Be interesting based on previous comments how tall these cars will be. Superliner, Alaska's, or higher ? Maybe even auto rack high ?
Double deckers on good track designed for passenger service primarily are one thing. I've ridden those frequently in Germany. Unfortunately, most North American track is designed for heavy, lower speed freight and the ride is often rough with sway by comparison. Try riding a Metra bi-level.
I must say that, aside from the true old-fashioned dome seating, I have trouble associating the word "luxury" with these spartan-looking cars.
To me they look as if they were appointed to permit cleaning by water hose at the end of a run.
Ceertain French "Tres Grand Vitesse (Sp?)" hihg speed trains ARE double-deckers.
I have ridden the double-deck Atlstom double-deckers on Israel Railways at what appeared 80 or 90 mph, and this is routine. The are nearly identicle to the double-deckers used on regional trains in several European countries. The track is good and the ride is smooth, with no NEC-like trauma over switches. But Issrael Railways pasenger lines tracks have a high level of inspection and maintenance. They operate at those speeds in push-pull service with cabcars. The hotel power is in the cabcars, not from the locomotive.
I rode a SBB double decker passenger train this past winter. Between Zurich and Bern, I'm sure it was going at least 79mph, and was very smooth riding. I'm sure the Swiss can build an acceptable fast double decker.
RME Can someone explain to me how it is known from that article that the cars are not designed for speeds higher than 79mph? I see nothing in the material, or in Stadler's engineering capabilities, that implies that. I would cheerfully concur that the Rocky Mountaineer's operation probably does not exceed the Canadian 'moral equivalent' of 79mph, or that, should a tradeoff between high speed and high ride comfort or NVH reduction be necessary, truck and suspension design "should" be directed (for business reasons) more toward the latter. However, with nominally 125mph-capable truck designs already in North American practice, costed-down, and presumably available as close to OTS as passenger trucks could be, I'm not at all sure that significant speed capability needs to be compromised in the design even if it is not 'necessary' An argument could be made that the higher center of gravity of these cars compromises their high-speed capability. While not directly apples-to-apples comparable... what train design holds the current wheel-driven speed record?
Can someone explain to me how it is known from that article that the cars are not designed for speeds higher than 79mph? I see nothing in the material, or in Stadler's engineering capabilities, that implies that.
I would cheerfully concur that the Rocky Mountaineer's operation probably does not exceed the Canadian 'moral equivalent' of 79mph, or that, should a tradeoff between high speed and high ride comfort or NVH reduction be necessary, truck and suspension design "should" be directed (for business reasons) more toward the latter. However, with nominally 125mph-capable truck designs already in North American practice, costed-down, and presumably available as close to OTS as passenger trucks could be, I'm not at all sure that significant speed capability needs to be compromised in the design even if it is not 'necessary'
An argument could be made that the higher center of gravity of these cars compromises their high-speed capability. While not directly apples-to-apples comparable... what train design holds the current wheel-driven speed record?
Only a guess on my part because I have ridden on them several times. Rough suspension (not as smooth as a Superliner) and if your standing on the rear platform at 45-50 mph and go over a rough switch you experience zero gravity for a short period of time as your body slowly moves away from the rear of the train and out over the track........well maybe a little exaggeration on that last part but I highly recommend hanging onto something if your riding an outdoor platform on one of those cars and it is running faster than the 20-35 mph. I don't think I have ever been on one that did 79 mph but then again you could not tell because the heavy CP and CN traffic, never hit that limit and spent quite a bit of time in rail sidings.
RME's verbiage notwithstanding, Dave Klepper's comment rings true.
daveklepper Ther are, after all, tourist trains, not intended for just transportation.
Ther are, after all, tourist trains, not intended for just transportation.
True, plus Amtrak still has not standardized on a common design for a truck (boogie?) for it's passenger cars. I think even the Superliners have 2-3 different designs.....could be mistaken though.
I would like to know what the top speed is of those cars because if I had to guess it is less than 79 mph.
Possible follow-up order from VIA or Amtrak?
Just joking!
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/traction-rolling-stock/single-view/view/rocky-mountaineer-orders-luxury-dome-cars-from-stadler.html
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.