How many ex-El Capitan cars are available?
There have been reports unconfirmed that have stated that one of the specifications required 20,000 # less weight than current cars. That is being put forward as a reason for the squeeze test failure ? NS could not design a drop level car without a center sill that would pass ?
The inability to get more cars are going to have many repurcusions including not being able to free up Horizons for expanded service, As well Horizons may have to have a level 3 mid life overhaul that was not planned before.
Sure to be speculation that Amtrak will have to go shopping for some Heritage cars such as the bi-level El Capitan cars ? Wreck repairs may have to be increased as well with the high cost repair cars ?
RME schlimm Ride quality, in toto, is more than just the quality of the suspension. The opinions of the gallery design are clearly subjective, but that tends to be in the nature of the beast. The design is old and dated. Even the most recent builds generally use the old 50s design concept. The cars were a fine replacement for the old commuter cars they replaced. The main goal was efficiency - pack the most people in an 85 foot car without using 3-2 seating. It succeeded. The old P-S cars (still some on the UP West line) actually ride better than the newer M-Ks or N-S cars. Someone suggested the weight may be a factor. The newer cars have more underbody and body noises than the P-S ones or Budds. The interiors of all are reminiscent of a cell block with rather poor seating comfort compared to some commuter bilevels elsewhere. Those are the subjective impressions of a fairly wide sample of folks, most of whom are not rail devotees. This defines the scope of the discussion quite well. The 'next step' might be to take up the modern designs that provide better "packaging" of passengers, or better ingress/egress or standee accommodation, and look both at what "best practice" in particular situations might be and also in how to construct and maintain vehicles that accomplish it. To start - where in Europe is there better equipment that could be translated into American practice (or adapted to suit American legal requirements, including a squeeze test where necessary)? What approaches to rider comfort and ride quality could or should be implemented in a modern design, especially one (as this Nippon Sharyo design was I think intended) that is meant to become a default construction standard or 'design family' for many prospective car orders over the next 35 years or so? And what design optimizations are, and aren't, necessary in making this wider approach to the design, in your opinions?
schlimm Ride quality, in toto, is more than just the quality of the suspension. The opinions of the gallery design are clearly subjective, but that tends to be in the nature of the beast. The design is old and dated. Even the most recent builds generally use the old 50s design concept. The cars were a fine replacement for the old commuter cars they replaced. The main goal was efficiency - pack the most people in an 85 foot car without using 3-2 seating. It succeeded. The old P-S cars (still some on the UP West line) actually ride better than the newer M-Ks or N-S cars. Someone suggested the weight may be a factor. The newer cars have more underbody and body noises than the P-S ones or Budds. The interiors of all are reminiscent of a cell block with rather poor seating comfort compared to some commuter bilevels elsewhere. Those are the subjective impressions of a fairly wide sample of folks, most of whom are not rail devotees.
This defines the scope of the discussion quite well.
The 'next step' might be to take up the modern designs that provide better "packaging" of passengers, or better ingress/egress or standee accommodation, and look both at what "best practice" in particular situations might be and also in how to construct and maintain vehicles that accomplish it.
To start - where in Europe is there better equipment that could be translated into American practice (or adapted to suit American legal requirements, including a squeeze test where necessary)? What approaches to rider comfort and ride quality could or should be implemented in a modern design, especially one (as this Nippon Sharyo design was I think intended) that is meant to become a default construction standard or 'design family' for many prospective car orders over the next 35 years or so? And what design optimizations are, and aren't, necessary in making this wider approach to the design, in your opinions?
It was a good start. Unfortunately, folks on here have only focused on the ride and track conditions. Those are important, of course, but so are the interiors. Track conditions have litle to do with car design.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
This seems to be turning into one of those jokes about how many people it takes to screw in light bulb. I guess it is also another stinging indictment on Politicians trying to get items built in their state vs. allowing the market to decide.
Looks like N-S might go under. That's a lot of money down the tube. Time for a proven, modern design.
Does anyone know at what point the consortium can declare NS in nonperformance of the contract and terminate the order? To an outsider it seems as if the design is so far from passsing the squeeze test that NS essentially has thrown in the towel and is hoping for a change in the standards.
The Capitol Corridor business plan states that probably no bi-levels before 2020 but as well highly likely that NS may go insolvent.
Well will change title. Nippon now laying off ~100 workers due to continuing "technical " problems
http://www.wifr.com/content/news/100-jobs-cut-from-Nippon-Sharyo-410993125.html
Riding the BNSF racetrack West from Chicago, between Western & Cicero avenues. there are about 15 deck girder street overpass bridges that create a ride issue as far as I am concerned. I have discussed this with RR track personel and have been told that these bridges are not ballasted and therefore, they have difficulties in adjusting the alignments of the ballasted track to the bridge deck track. It results in a notable side & vertical thrust as the cars enter and leave the bridges. Otherwise, the bilevel galley cars ride very well. Current speed on the racetrack is 70 mph for the passenger trains. I think it used to be higher. However, I don't think BNSF is maintaining the track to the class 5 standard as they one did. I have a memory of riding in a Twin Cities Zepher dome on the racetrack and standing in the dome aisle and not having to hang on to anything as the ride was so smooth.
I have ridden on the California cars and find their ride quite nice. But I suspect part of that is due to the quality of the track. Back in the late fifties, when I worked on the Pennsy, the track between Cincinnati and Logansport was not well maintained and the ride in the coaches was very rough but the ride in the cab of the E-8's was (partially due to the weight and I suspect the swing hanger Bloomberg trucks) was so smooth, I thought a circus acrobat could have balanced on one hand without any problems.
RMETo start - where in Europe is there better equipment that could be translated into American practice (or adapted to suit American legal requirements, including a squeeze test where necessary)?
I think the cars used on the California line from SD to Oceanside are quite pleasant. Bombardier? The design is similar to German double deckers on the interior. They rode well the two times I rode, handling the curves well, quiet, bright and comfortable seating.
The use of geotextiles was pretty much written off as a waste of time and effort as a result of research conducted by the AAR, the University of MA and AREA committee 1. In examining muddy track sections it was found that almost all the mud was from degraded ballast , almost none from the subgrade (except in some special spots). This was really brought to light when examining muddy spots on ballast deck bridges, interesting how the subgrade jumped up on the bridge.
Ride quality IMO has several components. The above mentioned itsms certainly are components. Also the track conditions.
Track conditions depend on
1. Local soil conditions. ROW that is subject to techtonic stressses will definitely cause any where from major up heavels to micro shifts.
2. Soil conditions that are sediment or sandy soil may shift constantly.
3. There can be other locations that have track built over various kinds of rock each kind will affect track differently
4. When track built may have proper to minimum sub grade work. Our subdivision has a permanent MAS of 50 MPH because it was built as a ridge runner before the civil war just laid on the ground. Surfacing is occurring as often as every 9 months. There is still improper drainage in places. Suspect that the subgrade that Downeaster has to navigate is not started below the freeze depth and that has caused some of its ride problems.
5. Present day subgrade work often is as deep as 10 ft below final planned rail elevation.
6. Then if proper subgrade work is done including fabric is installed to prevent dirt coming up thru sub and ballast. If all that is done then proper ballasting is next.
7. Timely surfacing of the track depending on how the subgrade acts thru various weather.
8. Much of the old PRR ROW needs undercutting to clean the ballast and top part of the sub grade. That is because there is no fabric protection although have seen ads for machine that can undercut and install fabric.
9. Final line of defense is scheduling surfacing before track looses its level. There are reports that the Capitol corridor is a very smooth ride. The agency contracted with UP to pay for a crew surfacing twice as often as UP would have done for just their freights.
10. So the worse the subgrade the more often the track will need surfacing.
schlimmRide quality, in toto, is more than just the quality of the suspension. The opinions of the gallery design are clearly subjective, but that tends to be in the nature of the beast. The design is old and dated. Even the most recent builds generally use the old 50s design concept. The cars were a fine replacement for the old commuter cars they replaced. The main goal was efficiency - pack the most people in an 85 foot car without using 3-2 seating. It succeeded. The old P-S cars (still some on the UP West line) actually ride better than the newer M-Ks or N-S cars. Someone suggested the weight may be a factor. The newer cars have more underbody and body noises than the P-S ones or Budds. The interiors of all are reminiscent of a cell block with rather poor seating comfort compared to some commuter bilevels elsewhere. Those are the subjective impressions of a fairly wide sample of folks, most of whom are not rail devotees.
RMEBut the recent posts are getting more and more involved with the 'quality of the ride' sort of thing: is there adequate headroom and lighting? is access to the upper or gallery level adequate? can the conductor take up the ticket without pushing past you? is the track better aligned and maintained? ... in other words, stuff that is not particularly related, and not particularly germane, to discussing how Nippon Sharyo is optimizing the design of their (hopefully) repeat-buildable car to be useful for all the prospective future markets.
Ride quality, in toto, is more than just the quality of the suspension. The opinions of the gallery design are clearly subjective, but that tends to be in the nature of the beast. The design is old and dated. Even the most recent builds generally use the old 50s design concept. The cars were a fine replacement for the old commuter cars they replaced. The main goal was efficiency - pack the most people in an 85 foot car without using 3-2 seating. It succeeded. The old P-S cars (still some on the UP West line) actually ride better than the newer M-Ks or N-S cars. Someone suggested the weight may be a factor. The newer cars have more underbody and body noises than the P-S ones or Budds. The interiors of all are reminiscent of a cell block with rather poor seating comfort compared to some commuter bilevels elsewhere. Those are the subjective impressions of a fairly wide sample of folks, most of whom are not rail devotees.
Guys, this was fun to watch until the popcorn ran out, but I think we have to set some limits on terminology before the insults (perceived or otherwise) get started.
There are two separate definitions of 'ride quality' tacitly rolled up in this conversation. I had thought that the discussion invoked the engineering definition of this, which is largely concerned with primary and secondary suspension characteristics and some of the fundamental-frequency and NVH attenuation features of the carbody. But the recent posts are getting more and more involved with the 'quality of the ride' sort of thing: is there adequate headroom and lighting? is access to the upper or gallery level adequate? can the conductor take up the ticket without pushing past you? is the track better aligned and maintained? ... in other words, stuff that is not particularly related, and not particularly germane, to discussing how Nippon Sharyo is optimizing the design of their (hopefully) repeat-buildable car to be useful for all the prospective future markets.
I found the point about "1958 design" to be particularly amusing in light of the extended Checker designation found in another thread. For many years, we all loved riding in Checkers because of the interior room, and tolerated some of the buckboard ride quality because the taxicab alternatives were worse in some very lame ways -- still are, if they are things like thinly-converted Town Cars that wallow a bit worse after every pothole. That, like the B-52, is an example of something that got functionally optimized fairly early, and needed little more than detail or materials improvement over time to remain good.
Now, when someone builds a new, lighter, more economical vehicle that has the same space advantage and longevity as a Marathon, like some of the more modern vans (or the London taxi adaptations) you can expect to see them eventually preferred over the 1958 packaging. No one, for example, thought of Checker as a style leader (even over Rambler!) very far out of the 1950s, and its tank-like approach to operating longevity became less and less optimal as the years went by (only in part for the reasons Sheldon listed).
Meanwhile, getting back on the original topic, there are plenty of cases where someone else's idea of 'optimization' wrecks some aspect of rider comfort. I happen to have thought this about the replacement of the better P-70s on Philadelphia trains a half-century ago now: those things with their velvet and bronze seats and concrete in the decks rode quietly and with minimized perceived acceleration, whereas Amfleet, with far better suspension accommodation at comparable speed, had plenty of short-period variation, usually accompanied by giggling-schoolgirl panel noise. It would have been extremely difficult at the time to get all that short-period crap out of the ride and the interior fit, and heaven knows I liked the idea of running Amfleet fast and light (that was before the unanticipated-consequence braking situation with GG1s...)
In particular, care has to be taken with loaded vs. empty suspension performance on commuter cars. All within the limitations of government spec, competitive bid, and maintenance and repair by the usual cohorts of employees and supervision, subject to all the vicissitudes of political and economic tinkering. It might be interesting (for one of the proposed tech articles) to look at whether modern low-unsprung-mass truck design has similar ride quality in actual service to, say, the best of the Fifties OSH passenger truck designs ... with or without more modern secondary suspension or bolstering. But we should be very careful to distinguish matters of interior space packaging, amenities, or access from matters that concern the vehicle dynamics.
Buslist schlimm CSSHEGEWISCH schlimm I still do not understand why Metra and the various consortia use this 60 year-old design? They are not a pleasant ride on Metra. It's a pleasant ride for me and I've been riding Metra's gallery coaches twice a day since 1980. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I suppose you think the airlines still should buy and use plane designs basically unchanged since the 1950s? When it comes to passenger comfort (and that's what this thread should be about, not some arbitrary design date) Damn straight I do. That's one of the reasons why I always chose an Aspen Convair flight on Colorado Springs, Denver flights over Rocky Mountain Dash 7s when that choice was available. Suppose you'd prefer cross country flight on a "modern" CRJ, after all they are built by Bombardier. Spent a lot of time and miles on both -100s and -700s. If you think modern is comfortable you need to go for a ride. I've said it before and I still stand by it. I've ridden bi levels in North America (California cars, El Cap cars, Bombardier commuter cars, east coast style cars [MBTA etc.]), European versions in France, Germany, Italy, Austria and Finland, Sydney commuter sets, Bi level Green Cars on JR East in the Tokyo network and on the BiLevel Shinkansens. Honestly my favorite place to ride is in the single seats on the upper level of gallery cars. Lots of personal space, no claustraphobic low ceiling, quiet seats aligned with the windows no 3-2 seating if you don't get upstairs ( not fundamental to bilevel but most seem to have it in commuter service). Did that ride last month, still as good as I remember it. The only down side is the awkward stairs to the upper level.
schlimm CSSHEGEWISCH schlimm I still do not understand why Metra and the various consortia use this 60 year-old design? They are not a pleasant ride on Metra. It's a pleasant ride for me and I've been riding Metra's gallery coaches twice a day since 1980. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I suppose you think the airlines still should buy and use plane designs basically unchanged since the 1950s?
CSSHEGEWISCH schlimm I still do not understand why Metra and the various consortia use this 60 year-old design? They are not a pleasant ride on Metra. It's a pleasant ride for me and I've been riding Metra's gallery coaches twice a day since 1980. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
schlimm I still do not understand why Metra and the various consortia use this 60 year-old design? They are not a pleasant ride on Metra.
I still do not understand why Metra and the various consortia use this 60 year-old design? They are not a pleasant ride on Metra.
I suppose you think the airlines still should buy and use plane designs basically unchanged since the 1950s?
When it comes to passenger comfort (and that's what this thread should be about, not some arbitrary design date) Damn straight I do. That's one of the reasons why I always chose an Aspen Convair flight on Colorado Springs, Denver flights over Rocky Mountain Dash 7s when that choice was available.
Suppose you'd prefer cross country flight on a "modern" CRJ, after all they are built by Bombardier. Spent a lot of time and miles on both -100s and -700s. If you think modern is comfortable you need to go for a ride.
I've said it before and I still stand by it.
I've ridden bi levels in North America (California cars, El Cap cars, Bombardier commuter cars, east coast style cars [MBTA etc.]), European versions in France, Germany, Italy, Austria and Finland, Sydney commuter sets, Bi level Green Cars on JR East in the Tokyo network and on the BiLevel Shinkansens. Honestly my favorite place to ride is in the single seats on the upper level of gallery cars. Lots of personal space, no claustraphobic low ceiling, quiet seats aligned with the windows no 3-2 seating if you don't get upstairs ( not fundamental to bilevel but most seem to have it in commuter service). Did that ride last month, still as good as I remember it. The only down side is the awkward stairs to the upper level.
My opinion is contrary. I have not ridden as widely as you, but ridden a lot of times in Germany. Friends in the US say the same or worse about Metra's cars.
I suppose you think the airlines still should buy and use plane designs basically unchanged since the 1950s? You drive a 1958 sedan still?
I've ridden C&NW, RTA and Metra bi-levels for years. The old P-S cars ride better than newer ones. But if one has not ridden bi-levels in other places, such as San Diego or abroad in Germany, etc. you really do not know what you are missing.
I agree. In fact when I take the South Shore into town, I hope for the bi levels, as they are a far nicer ride over the single level cars.
An "expensive model collector"
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
RME And don't forget to download and read the NGEC meeting minutes, too. Unintended humor: what kind of stiff-necked attitude do the 'statuary appointees' mentioned in the article have? Are they brought in just to sit there, be silent, and look decorative?
And don't forget to download and read the NGEC meeting minutes, too.
Unintended humor: what kind of stiff-necked attitude do the 'statuary appointees' mentioned in the article have? Are they brought in just to sit there, be silent, and look decorative?
Statuary appointees? At the rate this project is proceeding, they are statues.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
A synopsis of where things stand at the moment: http://ccrail.com/next-generation-bi-levels-for-midwest-corridors-a-failed-procurement-threatens-the-future-of-state-sponsored-corridor-trains/
That article indicated they were going to resume building "parts" for the multistate order. Perhaps that could be an expression of confidence that their problem with the basic design is well on the way to being solved, but I haven't seen anything that indicates they believe it has been overcome.
Unconfirmed Nippon (NS) is reported to be experiencing more delays.
CMStPnP They should pay for all costs related to delay and reimburse for any grant money lost in my view. We all hope that was written into the contract as a standard performance clause but given that government was involved it could have been left out.
They should pay for all costs related to delay and reimburse for any grant money lost in my view. We all hope that was written into the contract as a standard performance clause but given that government was involved it could have been left out.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.