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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
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!
HarveyK400I'll say it again, just rebuild single-level long distance cars rather than for that small niche drive procurement.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
I'd love to see the floor plans and elevations for the Regio2N, TGV, LIRR and NJT cars.
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 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.
It's probably copyrighted on behalf of the contractor who wrote it.
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.
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
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?
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
Even 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.
schlimmActually, there are HS trains other than Talgos: in Italy, Switzerland, Germany,Japan, Denmark and others. Wiki has a long list. Frankly, I don't think tilting trains, active or passive, are what is needed here. The key is upgraded infrastructure (track and cat) as I've posted before. In China, on the HSR lines (as opposed to VHSR track - 215 mph), those tracks will host both passenger and freight at 155 mph. But I suppose that sort of speed wouldn't interest any shippers here.
The link didn't work for me; but then yahoo has a new look that is buggering my computer. I can't get Yahoo maps now either.
Paul Milenkovic How about http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19920219&CC=EP&NR=0471304A1&KC=A1 . . . European Patent EP 0471304 (A1) N Kobayashi, Y Uozumi, Pendulum Vehicle?
How about http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19920219&CC=EP&NR=0471304A1&KC=A1
. . . European Patent EP 0471304 (A1) N Kobayashi, Y Uozumi, Pendulum Vehicle?
Paul MilenkovicDo you think every single passenger train they have in Europe (or in China for that matters) is a 300 km/hr TGV train? They have a pyramid of service in those places, from the spanking new HSR trains to wheezing secondary-line trains connecting to them.
Paul MilenkovicTilting trains. Do you think they have tilting trains in Europe apart from a Talgo here and there, an odditiy even in Europe? The Europeans simply run ordinary trains around curves faster -- I guess their passengers can hack 6" of cant deficiency without stumbling around.
Actually, there are HS trains other than Talgos: in Italy, Switzerland, Germany,Japan, Denmark and others. Wiki has a long list. Frankly, I don't think tilting trains, active or passive, are what is needed here. The key is upgraded infrastructure (track and cat) as I've posted before. In China, on the HSR lines (as opposed to VHSR track - 215 mph), those tracks will host both passenger and freight at 155 mph. But I suppose that sort of speed wouldn't interest any shippers here.
oltmanndHarveyK400 Given another twenty years service, wouldn't new tilt suspension trucks be a worthwhile investment for passenger comfort? Has anybody anywhere retrofitted a conventional coach with tilt? I suppose you could do an active system between the bolster and carbody, but on Amfleet, that is where nearly all the suspension softness is. Not sure how you'd do the tilt and provide suspension....
HarveyK400 Given another twenty years service, wouldn't new tilt suspension trucks be a worthwhile investment for passenger comfort?
The arrangement of the Amfleet Pioneer-III truck is that the bolster pivots on the truck frame but is kept transverse to the carbody through the radius rods that are prominent in photos -- one end of the rod connects with a bushing to the bolster, the other end with a bushing to that bracket that hangs down. You have those big fat airsprings (or maybe coil-airbag combinations) that deflect up and down, but there is also resiliancy side-to-side to provide lateral cushioning without reverting to swing hangers.
All you do is tip those airsprings inward by some amount. Bam, instant passive "pendulum" tilt system. You could probably hire out the license holder Kawasaki Heavy Industries to bid on the rebuilds.
Active, shmactive -- passive tilt is good enough for the application. Control the side resiliancy to compensate maybe an inch or two of cant deficiency. You can't operate with that much cant deficiency anyway unless you get whole new low-axle load locomotives. Problem solved. Take that, you Amfleet haters . . .
HarveyK400That's mixed news about low level platforms at Washington, DC and probably Alexandria: good for Talgos and VRE, and bad for running Aclea (without traps) through to Richmond or Norfolk. I didn't see that this issue was considered in the Fleet Plan or that traps were assumed for a new Acela
At sometime in the future some platforms may be made high level however not all would be since freight trains are sometimes sent through there.
That's mixed news about low level platforms at Washington, DC and probably Alexandria: good for Talgos and VRE, and bad for running Aclea (without traps) through to Richmond or Norfolk. I didn't see that this issue was considered in the Fleet Plan or that traps were assumed for a new Acela.
DeggestyHarveyK400Talgos may be problematic originating from Washington - I don't know for sure whether the lower level at Washington Union and Alexandria have high level platforms.The lower level at Washington Union has low level platforms. I do not know for certain, but I doubt that the Alexandria station has high level platforms.
HarveyK400Talgos may be problematic originating from Washington - I don't know for sure whether the lower level at Washington Union and Alexandria have high level platforms.
I haven't heard of a retrofit with tilt suspension; but that doesn't mean it can't be done. It would be more complicated than offering the option of inside or outside swing hanger trucks on streamlined equipment.
I just thought that the truck would meed to be replaced; and not just adding hydraulic pistons ("rams"). Bombardier now owns the X2000 and uses a 2nd generation coil sprung hydraulic active tilting suspension "FLEXX" truck. Of course, modifications would be needed for mounting on Amfleet. I imagine the same need for modification (not the same modification) would hold true for the Acela truck; so there may be a choice.
I loved the original elastomeric primary suspension and radial steering of the 1st generation X-2000; and wonder why the change?
oltmannd Has anybody anywhere retrofitted a conventional coach with tilt? I suppose you could do an active system between the bolster and carbody, but on Amfleet, that is where nearly all the suspension softness is. Not sure how you'd do the tilt and provide suspension....
Johnny
Paul Milenkovic These Amfleet cars were assigned imported Swedish electric locomotives, later built here under license, dubbed "Toasters." These lightweight, compact, high-horsepower high-adhesion locomotives, pretty much an "off-the-shelf" purchase of what worked in Sweden, were assigned short (four-car) Amfleet trains and were operated on "Metroliner" schedules and were called "Metroliners" in the timetable. This much more reliable replacement for the original Metroliners is pretty much what "saved" Amtrak.
They were shorter then the conventional trains which typically were 8 or 9 cars. The clockers typically ran a dozen or so 90+ seat Heritage coaches (non reclining seats, rubber flooring)
I rode the Lyonnaise from Lyon to Paris in 1974 at 140 kph (87 mph) on a line designed for 120 kph (75 mph). That may have been comparable to 6" cant deficiency. Seated, the lean on curves was okay because the track was smooth as glass. Standing or moving car-to-car was very difficult. For passenger safety, the faster speeds were allowed only for all-reserved trains such as the Mistral and Lyonnaise that showed up in Don Steffee's Speed Survey.
Maybe Amfleet would work as a poor-man's tilt train; and trips of only a couple hours would not be unbearable in a seat. Horizon and bi-level cars also have outboard bolster springs; but the higher center of gravity of the latter group may restrict allowable cant deficiency more. Given another twenty years service, wouldn't new tilt suspension trucks be a worthwhile investment for passenger comfort?
The information I had was that the Cascade Talgo F59s were allowed up to 7" cant deficiency. The allowable tilt for Talgo coaches is a little fuzzy, maybe 9-10" cant deficiency. Anyone have authoritative information?
Single level cars still are more difficult to board from low level platforms.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.