oltmannd schlimm The NEC cannot handle bi-levels without changes in vertical clearances. And unless the new tunnels are built... Somebody needs to tell NJT that... These things run into NYP everyday! I've even ridden them in and out of there a few times. Nothing terrible happened... So, the big question is "why aren't cars like these in Amtrak's plans?" ...at least for NYP to WAS service. It would buy some time for infrastructure changes to accommodate longer trains. FWIW, several of these were fitted with nice reclining leather seats and lounge areas for use in the short-lived Atlantic City Express Service (ACES - clever, huh?) that ran NYP to Atlantic City (with an electric locomotive on one end and a diesel on the other.
schlimm The NEC cannot handle bi-levels without changes in vertical clearances. And unless the new tunnels are built...
The NEC cannot handle bi-levels without changes in vertical clearances. And unless the new tunnels are built...
Somebody needs to tell NJT that...
These things run into NYP everyday! I've even ridden them in and out of there a few times. Nothing terrible happened...
So, the big question is "why aren't cars like these in Amtrak's plans?" ...at least for NYP to WAS service. It would buy some time for infrastructure changes to accommodate longer trains.
FWIW, several of these were fitted with nice reclining leather seats and lounge areas for use in the short-lived Atlantic City Express Service (ACES - clever, huh?) that ran NYP to Atlantic City (with an electric locomotive on one end and a diesel on the other.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
daveklepper I agree. I think these bilevels modified with reclining seats would make great NE Regional Direct cars for NY-Boston service (and Portland, ME - Newport News, Norfolk, and Caronlina service for that matter once the essential Boston tunnel gets built). I also think that LIRR should buy bilevel mu cars. Perfectly practical, more comfortable than 3-2 seating in M-9's or M-7'sm and more capacity.
I agree. I think these bilevels modified with reclining seats would make great NE Regional Direct cars for NY-Boston service (and Portland, ME - Newport News, Norfolk, and Caronlina service for that matter once the essential Boston tunnel gets built). I also think that LIRR should buy bilevel mu cars. Perfectly practical, more comfortable than 3-2 seating in M-9's or M-7'sm and more capacity.
Unfortunately Bi Levels are not what they're crapped up to be. There is not that much greater number of seats per car, a single standard car would probably be cheaper per seat to buy and even operate. But where the BiLevels are at their worst is the steps up and or down which train personnel have to walk adds a fatigue factor to the employees. Hitting steps at speed four times per car between stops takes its toll on the legs and bodies. And, they do have 3-2 seating. I have ridden both LIRR and NJT's Bi's and am not impressed. NJT's may have a little more room per seat and bigger windows while LIRR seem to ride better. A two and two single level coach seems to be more utilitarian and comfortable and one car can pick up three or four Bi Levels extra capacity so the question of economics is great while the physical movements and health of crews is brought into question.
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.
Bombardier double deck cars:
In Israel -- http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/products-services/rail-vehicles/commuter-and-regional-trains/double-deck-coaches.html 142 seated, top speed 87mph
Bombardier MultiLevels with NJT:
http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/products-services/rail-vehicles/commuter-and-regional-trains/double-deck-coaches.html 142 seated, top speed 100mph
Bombardier Bi-level in US:
http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/products-services/rail-vehicles/commuter-and-regional-trains/double-deck-coaches.html 162 seats (2-2)
Kawasaki M-8 cars: married pairs, single level, 3-2 seating, 101and 110 seated, (average 105.5 per car). top speed 100 mph.
The capacity for two level cars is between 35% and 54% greater than the single level (3-2) cars, and with more spacious 2-2 seating. So for an 8 car, multi level train, an 11 to 13 car single level train would be required for the same capacity (actually 12-14 cars since they a pairs). The advantages for multi-level seem obvious. And ticket collecters in many US (including NJ) and foreign metro areas seem to be able to cope. Metro North and LIRR should be capable as well.
The train of though here seems to have become a little bit garbled.
Regarding New Jersey Transit's double decker cars. NJT cars were special ordered to fit the North River Tunnels. They are working well as they enable current trains to carry more people in an out of Manhattan and that is what much of NJT is all about. However, NJT operates within the state of New Jersey. Amtrak's Northeast Corridor runs from Boston to Washington, 455 miles, and some trains to to Newport News. So what is good for NJT is not necessarily good for Amtrak. At the very least Amtrak would have to buy a lot more new cars and find the money to do that. Amtrak riders often have pretty much all the carry on baggage they can carry on in the NEC. NJT double deckers have very limited luggage space. This is sufficient for their commuter service; I don't know that it would be sufficient for Amtrak.
Regarding NJ Governor Chris Christie's veto of the new North River tunnels. The tunnels had been planned for many years and had wide bipartisan support. They were not a perfect solution; particularly they did not connect New York Penn Station with Grand Central Terminal. But New Jersey is strongly dependent on people who work in Manhattan. In coming years our rail system will become increasingly inadequate to get out workers into the city and this lack of transportation is what will really loose us hugh amounts of money. At present all routes are saturated. Governor Christie has many critics of his decision to suddenly stop everything because it will do increasing harm to the New Jersey economy. The Governor claimed to be concerned about cost over runs for which New Jersey would have the sole responsibility. Later information showed that his concerns were not supported by the facts. As things look now Amtrak may build its own tunnels. That would to some extent provide greater access for New Jersey Transit trains but how much greater access is ot at all clear.
Finally, if Amtrak is going to build new tunnels it might be wise to defer the questions about new passenger car designs until those tunnels are built.
No one suggested Amtrak should adopt the NJT cars out of the box to replace Acela, though Dave suggested something similar to them for NEC regional trains. Obviously the interiors would need some reconfiguration for luggage, etc. Years ago, the C&NW used an adaptation of its P-S gallery commuter cars for its LD routes. As far as Acela is concerned, why not look at the double decker French TGV's?
The crucial thing is the loading gauge in the North River tunnels. I've been digging around on the net without finding much detail so far. If I am right, the NJT bi-levels are 14'6", which is lower than the Bombardier bi-levels used in other cities (15'11"), and Superliners (16'2").
However, the French TGV Duplex is 14'2" and bi-level, which suggests that the standard European loading gauge fits in the tunnels. I haven't had a chance to ride the TGV Duplex, but have ridden plenty of bi-level trains in Germany and see no reason why bi-levels can't be fitted for the kind of travel duration we are looking at on the NEC, including providing needed luggage space.
BTW, in 2004 I stumbled upon a test of bi-levels on the NEC that NJT was conducting in revenue service. No idea what the actual car tested was, but recall it very distinctly reminding me of European bi-levels. Rode it from New York Penn out to Metropark I believe. Silly me didn't get any pictures. Does anyone here know what cars were tested before NJT ordered the bi-levels that are in use now?
Alstom, Bombardie, and possibly Siemens all build a fairly standard bilevel used in lots of European serivces, and first introduce into Israel about 2002 and now providing about 50% of the passengers sservice and well-liked.
John WRFinally, if Amtrak is going to build new tunnels it might be wise to defer the questions about new passenger car designs until those tunnels are built.
You can have new pass cars much sooner than you can have new tunnels. Anything that fits now will fit in the new tunnels as well, so why wait? You need the capacity ASAP, right?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
schlimm Bombardier double deck cars: In Israel -- http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/products-services/rail-vehicles/commuter-and-regional-trains/double-deck-coaches.html 142 seated, top speed 87mph Bombardier MultiLevels with NJT: http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/products-services/rail-vehicles/commuter-and-regional-trains/double-deck-coaches.html 142 seated, top speed 100mph Bombardier Bi-level in US: http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/products-services/rail-vehicles/commuter-and-regional-trains/double-deck-coaches.html 162 seats (2-2) Kawasaki M-8 cars: married pairs, single level, 3-2 seating, 101and 110 seated, (average 105.5 per car). top speed 100 mph. The capacity for two level cars is between 35% and 54% greater than the single level (3-2) cars, and with more spacious 2-2 seating. So for an 8 car, multi level train, an 11 to 13 car single level train would be required for the same capacity (actually 12-14 cars since they a pairs). The advantages for multi-level seem obvious. And ticket collecters in many US (including NJ) and foreign metro areas seem to be able to cope. Metro North and LIRR should be capable as well.
I wouldn't worry too much about the 100 mph top speeds. There's reason they couldn't be fitted/tested/maintained for higher speeds.
oltmannd John WRFinally, if Amtrak is going to build new tunnels it might be wise to defer the questions about new passenger car designs until those tunnels are built. You can have new pass cars much sooner than you can have new tunnels. Anything that fits now will fit in the new tunnels as well, so why wait? You need the capacity ASAP, right?
Besides, new tunnels under the Hudson aren't to replace the existing tunnels, so the old profile constraints will be with us for the foreseeable future. Waiting for new tunnels to actually be built and put into use implies that the current rolling stock will need to last for another 20 years, which seems to be stretching it.
The good thing about train cars is also that not all have to be replaced at one time. So if Amtrak were to add more capacity by adding bi-levels, then those cars could be used at times and in relations on the NEC where the need for additional capacity is the greatest and eventually the entire fleet could be replaced.
Passenger cars are absolutely not a way to get into Manhattan during the rush hour, Don. The reason is that the streets are now so full there is no room for additional cars. And the same is true of buses. Right now at times buses actually have to wait to get into the Port Authority Bus Terminal because it is full. Either we get some kind of rail tunnels or we have nothing at all.
Ideally we would have the tunnels now. Right now there are trains that could be going into Manhattan but are not because we do not have space in the tunnels. But nothing in this world happens instantly. When Governor Christie took office in January, 2010 the project had actually begun. He halted it. Right now the delay is almost 4 years. And at present Amtrak is still making studies. The unnecessary delay will certainly cost New Jersey money and deny us the economic expansion we might have had.
John
CJtrainguyBesides, new tunnels under the Hudson aren't to replace the existing tunnels, so the old profile constraints will be with us for the foreseeable future.
I don't follow your point here, CJ. I would think you are right and if NJT had new tunnels they would also want new rail cars that could fit the old tunnels when they buy more. But I am only a layman and I find some of NJT's decisions hard to understand so I don't know that they will do that. We would have to wait and see.
My point was that it is not clear to me that Amtrak would want to use double decker cars for the same reasons NJT does and finds that they work well.
John WR CJtrainguyBesides, new tunnels under the Hudson aren't to replace the existing tunnels, so the old profile constraints will be with us for the foreseeable future. I don't follow your point here, CJ. I would think you are right and if NJT had new tunnels they would also want new rail cars that could fit the old tunnels when they buy more. But I am only a layman and I find some of NJT's decisions hard to understand so I don't know that they will do that. We would have to wait and see. My point was that it is not clear to me that Amtrak would want to use double decker cars for the same reasons NJT does and finds that they work well. John
My point was that if the new tracks feed into the same station system as the existing tracks, they need to be used interchangeably, so it would not be desirable to have a large number of trains running in the area t hat won't fit into some of the tunnels. And new tunnels under Hudson do not change the fact that the tunnels under East River are still the old profile. I don't see any Amtrak trains not needing to be able to either get to Sunnyside Yard or continue on north.
Whether Amtrak will choose to get bi-levels that fit into the tunnels or not all depends. Much of the discussion here has been focused on that other countries are successfully using bi-levels that would fit into the tunnels in corridor and LD trains. It can be done. Amtrak may choose to stick with single level cars for other reasons.
John WR Finally, if Amtrak is going to build new tunnels it might be wise to defer the questions about new passenger car designs until those tunnels are built. oltmannd You can have new pass cars much sooner than you can have new tunnels. Anything that fits now will fit in the new tunnels as well, so why wait? You need the capacity ASAP, right? John WR Passenger cars are absolutely not a way to get into Manhattan during the rush hour, Don. The reason is that the streets are now so full there is no room for additional cars. And the same is true of buses. Right now at times buses actually have to wait to get into the Port Authority Bus Terminal because it is full. Either we get some kind of rail tunnels or we have nothing at all. John I believe don oltmann was referring to new passenger railroad cars, not new automobiles.
John WR Passenger cars are absolutely not a way to get into Manhattan during the rush hour, Don. The reason is that the streets are now so full there is no room for additional cars. And the same is true of buses. Right now at times buses actually have to wait to get into the Port Authority Bus Terminal because it is full. Either we get some kind of rail tunnels or we have nothing at all. John
CJtrainguy My point was that if the new tracks feed into the same station system as the existing tracks, they need to be used interchangeably, so it would not be desirable to have a large number of trains running in the area t hat won't fit into some of the tunnels. And new tunnels under Hudson do not change the fact that the tunnels under East River are still the old profile. I don't see any Amtrak trains not needing to be able to either get to Sunnyside Yard or continue on north. Whether Amtrak will choose to get bi-levels that fit into the tunnels or not all depends. Much of the discussion here has been focused on that other countries are successfully using bi-levels that would fit into the tunnels in corridor and LD trains. It can be done. Amtrak may choose to stick with single level cars for other reasons.
Blue Streak 1:
All good points, showing this is not a decision that is as easy as one-two-three.
Couple comments:
Without having access to clearance maps, I believe that any railroad vehicle that is no larger than the NJT bi-levels will clear its way from Washington DC to Boston, with no or minor adjustments in tight spots.
I would expect new tunnels to be built to today's standards, meaning the ability to get at least Superliners through under wire, and preferably doublestacks.
Good bi-level EMUs are in operation in Europe and have been for some time. No need to wait for them to be designed. Any bi-level cars or EMU used by Amtrak would of course have seating suitable for longer rides, luggage space, restrooms and so on.
If any point in the system has a limit on the number of trains, it becomes all the more important to maximize the capacity per train, which is where bi-levels help.
blue streak 110 . Amtrak may want to wait for a good design of bi-level EMUs are available. They are important for acceleration. ?
The French two-level TGV Duplex is a proven design in service since 1995, has excellent acceleration and set a speed record of 357 mph, though top speed is usually 200 mph, 656 feet long, with 508 seats. By comparison, the Acelas are 665 feet long with capacity for 304. Similar length, yet holding 66% more passengers. It is used in intercity service in France, not suburban transit. Why re-invent the wheel?
I agree, and that is what Amtrak should buy!
Schlimm,
I don't know enough about individual alternative rail cars to discuss them intelligently.
From my layman's point of view it is not clear to me that single level cars are insufficient for Amtrak's Northeast Corridor trains. Perhaps they are. Do you know of a reason why they are?
PS. On second thought current Acelas do operate at full capacity so you are right. Double decking them would increase the number of riders on existing trains. As far as I know the Northeast Regional trains ae not at capacity.
There are times when NE regionals are at capacity, particularly on late afternoon departures. There are also times when Acelas are not at capacity. I believe double deck cars would be of tremendous benefit in both services.
Dave,
From New York I always ride a morning train which departs about 9:00 am so I wasn't aware of teh crowding on the afternoon trains.
Now all we have to do is to get Congress to spring for all new trains in the Northeast Corridor. Actually while Amfleet cars are plenty comfortable I have never liked the lets fool 'em and make them thing they're in an airplane design. I am not ashamed of riding trains.
I hope Amtrak buys equipment that you will like.
Thank you for your good wishes, Dave.
I would be happy to see Amtrak use double decker cars if they would work. However, I wonder if they would be suitable for a line where some stations have high level platforms.
In NJT's double deckers the vestibule is at the same height as high level platforms. It has a few seats along with wheel chair securements and a place for bicycles. To get to the main seating area you have to go up or down a short but steep flight of stairs. It is hard for me to see that working for Amtrak although it works well on NJT.
But I am not a rail car designer. We can send people to the moon so perhaps there are people who know how to design a double decker rail passenger car that will work for everyone.
Does not the basic design of the LIRR car permit it to be used in a train with single-level cars? So there could be one single-level car in every consist, with seats reserved for elderly and handicapped. This would also be the location of the snackbar. What would there be not to like in an LIRR-design double-decker wiht confortable reclining seats and decent restrooms?
I did once ride the Penninular 400 from Miwaukee to De Pere and found the gallery car equipped with relcining seats perfectly comfortable. The diner was a really crazy design, a single level diner wih a false high roof (never mind the extra weight) to match the gallery cars' roof hight! (I had flown from Boston to Midway, taxi to Roosevelt Rd., Electroliner to Milwaukee, and trolleybus to the on-the-lake C&NW station. A business trip, no less!)
Double-deck and split-level designs have the vestibule on the platform level, so a single level car would be compatible. The French TGV-duplexes seem to be working very well, AFAIK, although I have not ridden one yet.
I surfed around and found some pictures of TGV duplexes (double decker cars). They seem large and comfortable. One video showed two young guys walk through the station with their bags, get on a second class car and put their good sized bags on the overhead luggage rack with no difficulty and then sit down for the ride. There was only one issue when it comes to the US: The information I found was that in France all of the platforms are low and the lower deck is even with the platform. I don't know how that could be adapted to US high platforms.
John WR There was only one issue when it comes to the US: The information I found was that in France all of the platforms are low and the lower deck is even with the platform. I don't know how that could be adapted to US high platforms. John
There was only one issue when it comes to the US: The information I found was that in France all of the platforms are low and the lower deck is even with the platform. I don't know how that could be adapted to US high platforms.
The European Union standards for platform heights for HST call for either 500mm (19.7") or 760mm (30") high platforms. The TGV Duplex is built to work with both platform heights. Using it with US high platforms would call for some re-design to move the doors to where they can be higher, probably closer to the end and there would be steps involved for access both to lower and upper floors. So making them similar to how you enter NJT's bi-levels.
Some German bi-level cars have low doors that are level with the floor in the lower section, others have doors higher, at the same level as a single level train car. That's really just a spec/design issue and should not be a deal breaker. A number of modern European rail vehicles can be delivered with either low entrances or high entrances, depending on where they are going to be used.
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 ordering the Acela trains, Amtrak tested a variety of European high speed trains in the US. Same was true before ordering the AEM-7 engines. I see no reason why Amtrak wouldn't do some testing again before ordering the next generation of equipment.
In addition, mockups of particular features can be extremely helpful.
John WR Thank you for your good wishes, Dave. I would be happy to see Amtrak use double decker cars if they would work. However, I wonder if they would be suitable for a line where some stations have high level platforms. In NJT's double deckers the vestibule is at the same height as high level platforms. It has a few seats along with wheel chair securements and a place for bicycles. To get to the main seating area you have to go up or down a short but steep flight of stairs. It is hard for me to see that working for Amtrak although it works well on NJT. But I am not a rail car designer. We can send people to the moon so perhaps there are people who know how to design a double decker rail passenger car that will work for everyone. John
The NJT cars also have traps in the vestibules for low level platforms. In fact. you probably wouldn' t need the other high level platform doors at all for Amtrak service. A vestibule at both ends would be enough.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.