HarveyK400Even when a corridor can be improved to very high speed, high cant and cant deficiency allow for a more forgiving alignment in the sense that costly deep cuts, high fills or long viaducts, and tunnels can be minimized. Tilting simply affords a more comfortable ride. Furthermore, if there is a consolidation of traffic for viable high speed improvements, odds are that through services on lower volume branches not justifying high speed investments can be improved with tilt suspension.
I found this passage on the Deutsche Bahn website regarding their ICE T service. Sounds like you had written the copy for them, Harvey!
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Why would a quasi-government agency, Amtrak, copyright a document it releases to the public? I ain't a lawyer, me, but one would think they would encourage disemination and publicity. Strange....
Hays
BNSFwatcher Why would a quasi-government agency, Amtrak, copyright a document it releases to the public? I ain't a lawyer, me, but one would think they would encourage disemination and publicity. Strange.... Hays
. . . dunno, to keep it out of the hands of Randall O'Toole?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
HarveyK400Tilting simply affords a more comfortable ride. Furthermore, if there is a consolidation of traffic for viable high speed improvements, odds are that through services on lower volume branches not justifying high speed investments can be improved with tilt suspension
Harvey that certainly is true for the lower volume routes and you can see if the route will support a rebuilding of specific routes or an entirely new route. A very good example of that is the ridership that has now shown up on the Seattle - Portland route and its extensions.
From what I could tell, it sounded like Amtrak left the B32-8WH out of it's locomotive portfolio, unless that's what they're putting in as the P32.
It's probably copyrighted on behalf of the contractor who wrote it.
I can't help but wonder if we are at the point where someone has to make a decision on basic car design. Amtrak can not increase ridership if they don't go to a bi-level design, especially in the Northeast where platform lengths are relatively short and almost impossible to lengthen (i.e., Boston South Station, New York Penn Station, etc.).
There are many examples of existing bi-level equipment traveling the Corridor, and even a couple that can navigate the tight confines of New York's tunnels.
The Superliners/California Cars are great for capacity but at 16+ feet, too high for consideration. New designs based on low-profile bi-levels should be explored. Cars could be designed with both high-level and low-level doors (although maybe the whole idea of high-level platforms should be revisited).
Amtrak could standardize most of it's fleet. This is the most efficient way to proceed.
Something along these lines maybe:
Bombardier Wins Tender for French Regional Double-Deck Train
Posted By Harry Butler On February 25, 2010 @ 1:23 pm In More News | No Comments
Posted In More News | No Comments
[1] [2] Bombardier Transportation has won a tender for new regional double-deck trains organized by the French Railways (SNCF) on behalf of the French Regions. The framework contract contemplates the design and manufacturing of 860 double-deck electrical multiple units (EMU), for a total amount of approximately 8 billion euros (US$11 billion), subject to exercising some technical options. SNCF also signed a first firm order for 80 trains, valued at approximately 800 million euros (US$1.1 billion), financed by the regions.
So far, six regions have placed orders, which they will finance: Aquitaine, Bretagne, Centre, Nord-Pas de Calais, Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur and Rhône-Alpes. Bombardier said that the first deliveries on this firm order are scheduled to take place in June 2013, and they will continue until December 2015.
Bombardier teams in Crespin, in northern France, developed a new double-deck train platform especially for this tender. It includes the following characteristics:
BostonTrainGuyI can't help but wonder if we are at the point where someone has to make a decision on basic car design. Amtrak can not increase ridership if they don't go to a bi-level design, especially in the Northeast where platform lengths are relatively short and almost impossible to lengthen (i.e., Boston South Station, New York Penn Station, etc.). There are many examples of existing bi-level equipment traveling the Corridor, and even a couple that can navigate the tight confines of New York's tunnels. The Superliners/California Cars are great for capacity but at 16+ feet, too high for consideration. New designs based on low-profile bi-levels should be explored. Cars could be designed with both high-level and low-level doors (although maybe the whole idea of high-level platforms should be revisited). Amtrak could standardize most of it's fleet. This is the most efficient way to proceed.
I think Amtrak's problem is that bi-levels would be too cramped for LD train out of Penn (Lake Shore and FL trains., predominently) and if they did bi-levels for the NEC and new Superliners for outside the NEC, that leaves a rather small pool of Eastern single level LD cars which might be hard to find manufacturing support for.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
BostonTrainGuySomething along these lines maybe: Bombardier Wins Tender for French Regional Double-Deck TrainPosted By Harry Butler On February 25, 2010 @ 1:23 pm In More News | No Comments--> Posted In More News | No Comments [1] [2] Bombardier Transportation has won a tender for new regional double-deck trains organized by the French Railways (SNCF) on behalf of the French Regions. The framework contract contemplates the design and manufacturing of 860 double-deck electrical multiple units (EMU), for a total amount of approximately 8 billion euros (US$11 billion), subject to exercising some technical options. SNCF also signed a first firm order for 80 trains, valued at approximately 800 million euros (US$1.1 billion), financed by the regions. So far, six regions have placed orders, which they will finance: Aquitaine, Bretagne, Centre, Nord-Pas de Calais, Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur and Rhône-Alpes. Bombardier said that the first deliveries on this firm order are scheduled to take place in June 2013, and they will continue until December 2015. Bombardier teams in Crespin, in northern France, developed a new double-deck train platform especially for this tender. It includes the following characteristics: modularity, to meet the regions’ differing needs in terms of suburban, regional and intercity services; wide-body cars; an articulated structure and wide connectors.
I'd love to see the floor plans and elevations for the Regio2N, TGV, LIRR and NJT cars.
blue streak 1HarveyK400Tilting simply affords a more comfortable ride. Furthermore, if there is a consolidation of traffic for viable high speed improvements, odds are that through services on lower volume branches not justifying high speed investments can be improved with tilt suspension Harvey that certainly is true for the lower volume routes and you can see if the route will support a rebuilding of specific routes or an entirely new route. A very good example of that is the ridership that has now shown up on the Seattle - Portland route and its extensions.
Faster Cascades demonstrate the attractiveness rail passenger service. The next question is how sustainable is more frequent service to begin to generate the volumes that might begin warrant high speed improvements? Now the Cascade service is faced with the question whether to invest in additional capacity and improvements to allow higher speeds for the existing route or jump into building much more costly high speed sections. Jumping to high speed improvements in the narrow view avoids the interim cost of improvements to the existing line; but that does nothing for grade separating freight tracks and reducing the time and collision costs to the public.
oltmanndI agree that, at least for the NEC, that bi-level equipment would be worth looking at. The only drawback might be overhead luggage space.I think Amtrak's problem is that bi-levels would be too cramped for LD train out of Penn (Lake Shore and FL trains., predominently) and if they did bi-levels for the NEC and new Superliners for outside the NEC, that leaves a rather small pool of Eastern single level LD cars which might be hard to find manufacturing support for.
I'll say it again, just rebuild single-level long distance cars rather than for that small niche drive procurement.
HarveyK400I'll say it again, just rebuild single-level long distance cars rather than for that small niche drive procurement.
oltmanndHarveyK400I'll say it again, just rebuild single-level long distance cars rather than for that small niche drive procurement.I second your saying it again!
Don and Harvey appear to have the right idea. The present fleet plan projects building just 2 types of car shells to save much on costs. By building a single level (viewliner type) and a California car economies of scale will be achieved. That may allow shells to cost 25% less per copy and give AMTRAK 1 additional car for each 4 built for the same money. Rebuild and refurbish the existing Amfleet coaches for both coach and Business class in the NEC.
If both types of cars are modularly designed then the modular parts can go into both sizes of cars with further economies of scale.i
When demand on the NEC gets close to train capacity (most NEC trains could add more single level cars now --the cars are just not available) then go about ordering bi-levels that will fit the tight NEC clearance if these bi-levels are financially viable
Since the only bi-levels with which I'm familiar are gallery coaches (both long-haul and suburban), I'm curious as to the lack of headroom and other space in the bi-levels used by LIRR and NJ Transit. I would think that such a bi-level would be a bit cramped for Acela service and not a whole lot better for other NEC trains.
I do agree that gallery-style bi-levels are a good fit (like VRE's cars) for tunnels and clearances, I do not agree that the platforms can handle the extra crowding. The Amtrak platforms are stupidly tiny and can hardly handle a sold-out Regional alighting at NYP from WAS.
NYP platforms (and egress routes) are horrifyingly inadequate.
CSSHEGEWISCHSince the only bi-levels with which I'm familiar are gallery coaches (both long-haul and suburban), I'm curious as to the lack of headroom and other space in the bi-levels used by LIRR and NJ Transit. I would think that such a bi-level would be a bit cramped for Acela service and not a whole lot better for other NEC trains.
Also, isn't the current state of the art for the TGV bi-level seating? If it's good enough for the French, why not us?
aegrotatio NYP platforms (and egress routes) are horrifyingly inadequate.
That is certainly a consideration. The question then becomes will the new station layout at NYP provide enough platform and egress routes. Platforms seem to be space limited and unable to be widened. Better egress means more than the 1 moving and one fixed stairway. That means more stairways must be built.
aegrotatioI do agree that gallery-style bi-levels are a good fit (like VRE's cars) for tunnels and clearances, I do not agree that the platforms can handle the extra crowding. The Amtrak platforms are stupidly tiny and can hardly handle a sold-out Regional alighting at NYP from WAS.NYP platforms (and egress routes) are horrifyingly inadequate.
Gallery cars are 15'10" high, Superliners are 16'4". I don't know if either would fit New York's tunnels. If they did, I'm sure an off-the-shelf plan would have saved some money.
oltmanndI've ridden on the NJT bilevels and they are surprisingly un-cramped. They are designed like an intermodal well car instead of std construction with a center sill like the gallery cars, so the floor of the bottom deck is only inches off the rail head, not a couple feet. The only drawback I see is that the overhead rack is not sized for carry-on luggage. It would seem cramped if it was. The solution appears to be what they did for the ACES train, that is to put a luggage area at the end of the seating area. Thanks for the first-hand report. Also, isn't the current state of the art for the TGV bi-level seating? If it's good enough for the French, why not us?Exactly! I think Amtrak is remiss in not developing bilevel second-generation trains for the NEC as a first priority. Outside the NEC, we've been left to our own priorities.
Exactly! I think Amtrak is remiss in not developing bilevel second-generation trains for the NEC as a first priority. Outside the NEC, we've been left to our own priorities.
aegrotatio I do agree that gallery-style bi-levels are a good fit (like VRE's cars) for tunnels and clearances, I do not agree that the platforms can handle the extra crowding. The Amtrak platforms are stupidly tiny and can hardly handle a sold-out Regional alighting at NYP from WAS. NYP platforms (and egress routes) are horrifyingly inadequate.
Johnny
Deggestyaegrotatio I do agree that gallery-style bi-levels are a good fit (like VRE's cars) for tunnels and clearances, I do not agree that the platforms can handle the extra crowding. The Amtrak platforms are stupidly tiny and can hardly handle a sold-out Regional alighting at NYP from WAS. NYP platforms (and egress routes) are horrifyingly inadequate. What shall we do about the plaforms in Penn Station? They were deemed adequate when the station was planned. Have the passengers increased in girth in the last 100 years (the station opened 27 Novemeber 1910). Were the designers stupid? It is true that the agency concerned about access for disabled people have had to make an exception for these platforms since they are not wide enough, in the view of the concerned agency. I have not used Penn Station many times (seven times in and out in forty-one years), so I am not qualified to speak concerning the adequacy of the egress routes
Maybe the platforms at Penn Station were inadequate then as now; and crowding then was prevalent and no one complained? Maybe the [architect] did get it wrong - happens.
Maybe the numbers of trains and passengers were fewer and less critical back then?
HarveyK400 Maybe the platforms at Penn Station were inadequate then as now; and crowding then was prevalent and no one complained? Maybe the [architect] did get it wrong - happens. Maybe the numbers of trains and passengers were fewer and less critical back then?
There are some nice pix here that show the platforms in their original condition. Look at the space around the stairs. Much better than today, and the area open to the concourse would have a much roomier feel, too. http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/GON004.htm
oltmanndMy guess is that your guesses are reasonable and the architect didn't get it wrong so much as did the best he could with the space allotted. The platforms aren't so terrible except where they have to squeeze by the stairwells. I think the addition of escalators, the walling in of the stairwells and trying to shoehorn several hundred passengers down one stairwell make matter worse. I suspect it was a much kinder and gentler place in it's original form. There are some nice pix here that show the platforms in their original condition. Look at the space around the stairs. Much better than today, and the area open to the concourse would have a much roomier feel, too. http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/GON004.htm
From what everyone is saying, more escalators are needed to intercept and disperse platform access and egress at Penn Station, then there wouldn't be such a crowd pushing past the stairs to get to the one escalator. More escalators would reduce the premium for boarding and sitting in the middle of the trains. Of course this would affect the uses of the next level or two up from the platforms. I need to re-read the Trains article a few months back.
FWIW that's a looming problem at Union Station in Chicago as well, especially the south end. In the case of stub terminals, the premium is for seats at the one end of the train. The problem could be relieved further either by removing the unused baggage and express platforms and re-spacing the tracks. A gallery level above the platform would allow a second pedestrian stream to the concourse instead of to a plaza level entrance. The baggage and express platforms also could be rebuilt as column-free passenger platforms, removing the old platforms, and re-spacing the tracks. The Metra UP Ogilvie TC and Electric District Millennium Park (Randolph St) stations have auxilliary entrances.
To address the intercity platforms at NYP, they are too skinny, but I believe this is due to the fact that passengers were not expected to lug their own luggage. Since NEC traffic often requires NO CHECKED BAGGAGE we are forced to deal with handling our own baggage at woefully inadequate paltforms. The columns and other protrusions on the platform are a real problem when alighting without redcaps. They are just too small and the columns/stairwells make them worse.
For only this reason I wish we had checked baggage on the NEC and redcaps at NYP. Oh well.
aegrotatio To address the intercity platforms at NYP, they are too skinny, but I believe this is due to the fact that passengers were not expected to lug their own luggage. Since NEC traffic often requires NO CHECKED BAGGAGE we are forced to deal with handling our own baggage at woefully inadequate paltforms. The columns and other protrusions on the platform are a real problem when alighting without redcaps. They are just too small and the columns/stairwells make them worse.For only this reason I wish we had checked baggage on the NEC and redcaps at NYP. Oh well.
HarveyK400FWIW that's a looming problem at Union Station in Chicago as well, especially the south end. In the case of stub terminals, the premium is for seats at the one end of the train. The problem could be relieved further either by removing the unused baggage and express platforms and re-spacing the tracks. A gallery level above the platform would allow a second pedestrian stream to the concourse instead of to a plaza level entrance. The baggage and express platforms also could be rebuilt as column-free passenger platforms, removing the old platforms, and re-spacing the tracks. The Metra UP Ogilvie TC and Electric District Millennium Park (Randolph St) stations have auxilliary entrances.
That sounds like a good idea. I wonder what the platform widths are at Union Station, Ogilvie TC, and Penn Station? Compared to platforms in Germany they have always seemed rather narrow, but I do not know the actual dimensions.
The LIRR platforms are wide to handle rushing commuters who need to move fast in a crowd. The intercity platforms, unfortunately shared with NJ Transit commuters, can just barely fit two people abreast between the column/stairwell and death.
This is one of the not-so-obvious reasons NJ Transit is building their own deep-level station for the ARC tunnel. NYP was not designed for commuters to crowd the intercity platforms especially now that Secaucus Junction is feeding the Northeast Corridor Line.
aegrotatioFor only this reason I wish we had checked baggage on the NEC and redcaps at NYP. Oh well
When I go to New York, on the "Empire Builder", I check my 'excess baggage' thru to ALB. If/when the "Late Shore Limited" (thanks, CSX!) arrives, I retrieve the baggage and schlepp it to CRT (no checked baggage there, either [not even an Amtrak agent], but at least they have elevators). I have never been charged by 'Red Caps' at CHI, NYP, or even LAX. Even got a motor-cart ride to the "Sunset" in LAX. Of course, a 'tip' is in order.
NYP platforms are narrow, because the PRR spent all the money on the tunnels. No such problem at NYG, which had better engineering, too. The advent of the ubiquitous "Fat Chicks" and "Double-Wides" doesn't help.
As far as the new NJT tunnels go, depth of the excavations is not a problem. Aren't the new (whenever - they have only been 'in-the-works' for twenty years) LIRR tunnels coming in under the lower level? No problem to connect NJT with NYG, except money. There are already two levels under the lower level of GCT (steam tunnels, baggageways, and the power plant), but not many know about that. I think the power plant is below sea level. That Manhattan Schist is tough, impervious stuff!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.