blue streak 1 Before any bi-level order a full scale mock up must be built and tried out. Can be wooden but different platform configurations and the inside as well needs study. Give me a mock up study that passes and then I will support your bi-level
Before any bi-level order a full scale mock up must be built and tried out. Can be wooden but different platform configurations and the inside as well needs study. Give me a mock up study that passes and then I will support your bi-level
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Commuter BiLevels are not suitable for LD or intercity train travel. Even the NJT and LIRR BiLevels are a bit tiresome on the 80 to 100 mile runs. Intercity needs more leg room, bigger windows, more comfortable atmosphere, etc. than what commuter Bi's offer. Both, however, do fit into NYP which is a plus for starters, but definitely not for riding long distances at higher speeds. This can be proven to oneself very easily out of NYP. We've NJT'd into NYP then Amtraked to Poughkeepsie and MNRR'd back to the city. Comparisons of single level equipment of intercity and commuter are quite apparent in ride quality, comfort, noise, atmosphere, etc. especially comparative on the Amtrak/MNRR Hudson Line.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Using either the LIRR or NJT bi-level shell as a starting point could work, especially when you consider that C&NW used the gallery shell for 10 coaches, a coach-parlor and a straight parlor to re-equip the Peninsula and Flambeau 400's in 1958. By comparison, a gallery in suburban service seats 156 while the medium-haul coaches for the 400's seated 96. I would assume that something similar could be done for the NEC.
The shell, as equipped now, fits the tunnels and the platforms at NYP. However, not just the seating has to be changed but also the suspension. Fewer seats is less weight means higher car on current suspension. But also the suspension is not intercity or long distance quality. There is, in effect, a lot of extra room at each end of a BiLevel which is different between the NJT and LIRR models and so either has to be lengthened or shortened a a use applied to the space. And that is only the beginning....
henry6The shell, as equipped now, fits the tunnels and the platforms at NYP. However, not just the seating has to be changed but also the suspension. Fewer seats is less weight means higher car on current suspension. But also the suspension is not intercity or long distance quality. There is, in effect, a lot of extra room at each end of a BiLevel which is different between the NJT and LIRR models and so either has to be lengthened or shortened a a use applied to the space. And that is only the beginning....
Yes. The shell. The interior arrangement is simple stuff. Slightly bigger windows is simple stuff on a new order. Minor changes to spring rates is simple stuff, but you might even need a new truck with supporting carbody work for 125 mph operation. That would be the biggest change.
In any event, start with a shell - borrow one from NJT - and mock up an interior. Figure out seating pitch and width. Figure out luggage arrangement. etc. etc. Then create a working prototype. Then run it around a bit. Finalize the details, and order some!
Check the math on your worry about springs.... A car weighs about 60 tons. The seats probably weigh <80# per person. The passengers probably weigh about 170 on average. 140 seats and people is 17.5 tons. Spring travel is no more than 4". Empty, the car will sit with the springs slightly more than 1/2 compressed. Net deflection change from car with no seats in it at all to one with 140 people and seats is <1". Clearance requires 6". You don't need to mess with the springs.
For the next generation Acela, this is the way to go, the Alstom Euroduplex:
http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/alstom-euroduplex-france-high-speed/
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm For the next generation Acela, this is the way to go, the Alstom Euroduplex: http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/alstom-euroduplex-france-high-speed/
Sold. Lets get one over here to test.
Acela expensive ? Our posters need to check fares especially between WASH - NYP. Sometimes the Acela business class is slightly lower in cost than regional business class at the same departure times. Have found that very interesting. Wonder if that is an effort to fill Acela to make it look better ?
blue streak 1 Acela expensive ? Our posters need to check fares especially between WASH - NYP. Sometimes the Acela business class is slightly lower in cost than regional business class at the same departure times. Have found that very interesting. Wonder if that is an effort to fill Acela to make it look better ?
It's yield management pricing.
As far as filling seats on Acela over Regionals, that may be an issue of which train is more likely to get reserved, vs people deciding on the spot of the moment to board.
One could also argue that it's smarter to leave a seat open on a Regional than on Acela, since the Regional stops in more places, potentially increasing the chance that seat will be sold for at least part of the distance.
Schlimm,
Do you also suggest that we lower one platform at all stations where the Acela Duplex stops so people can get on and off the train?
John
Platform heights can be changed and certainly cheaper and easier than lengthening them.. Most other countries and the rest of the US use mid-level or low-level platforms. Condidering passenger car designs are foreign, perhaps we need to standardize.
Indeed, platform heights are not sacred. The regional train system in southern Sweden went through and rebuilt the platforms on 50 train stations a couple of years ago when they were about the get a new generation of trains that required a new platform height (lower than the old).
Europe has also had an abundance of platform heights, from some asphalt that is just level with the top of the rail to high platforms at 38" high.
Nothing is sacred. As long as you have enough money.
henry6 Nothing is sacred. As long as you have enough money.
Connecting back to Schlimm's comment, it's often cheaper to lower/raise a platform than to build a longer one, since building a longer one may bump up against available track length and other issues with space.
It can also be cheaper to modify platforms than to massively redesign new equipment.
Somewhere, somehow, equipment and platforms have to match and there is a cost involved in that.
There is absolutely zero problem in modifying the typical French or German double-decker high-speed or commuter car to meet standard 48-50-inch high platform heights in the USA and to be able to couple and train with standard single-level coaches. The clearance considerations and design limitations are in the double-floor or main part of the car. The end part where the doors are (with steps up and down into the main sections) can be raised or lowered a foot or two feet as required. In design and before construction of course, not as a modification afterward. The high-level-platform single-level ends' doorways could then be equipped with traditional traps and steps for use at stations still equipped with low-level platforms. This would be very rare in the future in the NEC. In general, one single-level car would be included in the consist to cater to the handicapped.
A modification for use in the west, if required, would be to add a third vestibule in the center of some cars for direct access from low-level platforms to the lower level of the car, especially for the handicapped. Then, for trains serving only low-level platform stations, this car would replace the single-level car. To make up for the loss of seats, one of the two end vestibules would be replaced by seating and windows.
The consensus appears to be:
1. Amtrak needs more capacity on its Northeast Corridor trains.
2. Most or all of the present equipment is due for replacement.
3. Bilevel cars are available for this kind of service and in fact are used for it in Europe.
4. It would require cars designed to use high and low level platforms or modification of some existing platforms. Both can be accomplished.
5. Bilevel cars would enable Amtrak to increase passenger revenues on Northeast Corridor tracks and stations it now uses with minimum expense involved.
The one remaining question is whether or not Amtrak will adopt this innovation.
Let's hope their reasoning leads to the same conclusion. One more advantage of using a modified TGV Euroduplex is that it is the same manufacturer as Acela.
There has to be a formula to determine when a bi level car meets and then exceeds a single level car for both passenger capacity vs. economics. Add net ten seats adds to the passenger capacity but does the extra weight cost more in fuel and maintenance? Is it more work for the attendant and/or train crew so that an additional person has to be assigned? And don't be fooled by bilevel or double decker...it is not double the capacity but may only boost capacity by a third--lower seats have to be removed at both ends in order to accommodate access stairs up and down and so upper seated in is reduced even more.. If you have a 2x2 seating and 30 per side to accommodate 120 people in a single level car, you may have to reduce it to 25 per side or 100 people on the lower level and maybe only 20 per side for 40 people on the upper for a net gain of only 20 people. Thus you might need 6 bilevels to eliminate one single level cars. I'm just guessing numbers here, admittedly, but I don't think I'm too far off.
With single-level seating in an 80-foot coach, you cannot practically get more than about 80 seats with decent rest rooms and only one, not two, end vestibules, for a medium-distance, non-commuter, service. Reduce that to about 56 seats for overnight long distance travel. With the European style double-decker, you can increase that to about 132 and 84 seats.
daveklepper With single-level seating in an 80-foot coach, you cannot practically get more than about 80 seats with decent rest rooms and only one, not two, end vestibules, for a medium-distance, non-commuter, service. Reduce that to about 56 seats for overnight long distance travel. With the European style double-decker, you can increase that to about 132 and 84 seats.
Objections, objections. First of all Acela service. Acela was built by Alstom-Bombardier consortium, so why would the TGV Euroduplex built by Alstom have power compatibility problems? The question is about the use of a double deck replacement for the current Acelas, not for NEC Regionals. The gain of extra seats is not 10 seats per car, It would be far more. The Acela 8 car trainset is 665 feet 8.75 inches long and 304 seats. The Euroduplex (TGV 2N2 is 656 feet long and seats 509, a capacity gain of 68% for a train that can use existing NEC platforms. The specs are there to examine. I plan to ride a TGV duplex this May for first hand experience.
As far as NEC regionals go, double deck designs make sense there, too, if capacity is an issue. Someone wonders about comfort, etc. of a double deck vs single level car, although he has no experience on European double deck cars and the Bombardier cars out of San Diego which some of the rest of us have. My impression of them was that they were very pleasant, certainly far better than the MNRR EMU's with 3-2 seating..
The California/Midwest bi-levels are configured for 89 revenue seats and 1 wheelchair position in a full coach.
Amfleet II seats 59 + 1 wheelchair.
Bi-level increases capacity by 50%. That's all in LD configuration.
Blue Streak, my memory of El Cap and Superliner coaches and my frequent rides on European style and clearances Israeli double deck equipment tells me that El Cap and Superliner seating and restrooms would fit very well without more than four or six seats lost overall. And I think that is the kind of equipment that makes most economic sense for the NEC, both for Acela and regional. I really think it a mistake to buy more single-level equipment for these services. I feel the same way about the LIRR mu equipment.
But still won't fit into GCT. No reason, though that LIRR and MN have to have the same equipment. Or even the same LIRR equipment to go to Penn, GCT, and Brooklyn.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.