Who is getting Bilevels NS Railroad?? What does NS Railroad want Bilevels cars for??
He must mean Nippon-Sharyo (N-S).
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Thanks, Schlimm; I, too, was puzzled by the reference to "NS bi-levels."
Johnny
Didn't Nippon Sharyro close it's Rochelle plant and lay off about 100 workers in 2015 after the prototype failed an 800,000 pound crash test?
How can they make up for lost time? The company is already two years behind schedule.
ATSFGuy Didn't Nippon Sharyro close it's Rochelle plant and lay off about 100 workers in 2015 after the prototype failed an 800,000 pound crash test? How can they make up for lost time? The company is already two years behind schedule.
And no they can't make up for lost time hence the termination of the contract.
Until there's official word on termination of the contract it remains in place, if I where the consortium I'd turn to Siemens and see what they could do, since they already learned how to weld stainless steel successfully for single level equipment. As for going with single level vs bi-level because of increased claims costs due to stairway injuries, I would put the fault on those injuries squarely on the passenger, therefore it would personal negligence and not have anything to do with the equipment.
There has to be a real concern here. N-S appears dead but trying to use single level cars poses many problems. The 800 pound bear is level boarding. The freight RRs cannot have level platforms on their main lines due to plate "H" clearance requirements. Building Guantlet tracks or station tracks at high level plaforms very expensive.
Siemens "brightline type" cars do not have traps and the engineering designs might be expensive and will they pass the squeeze test ?
CAF ? Only if Siemens takes over the NY plant.
Without access to the contract it is difficult to know exactly what remedy the various operating authorities may have, but it would seem that NS is in default due to their inability to design and build a railcar that will meet the minimum fed performance requirements. I fail to understand what needs to be negotiated to recognize the contract is voided by NS non-performance.
blue streak 1 Siemens "brightline type" cars do not have traps and the engineering designs might be expensive and will they pass the squeeze test ?
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
As D. Carleton mentioned, the Siemens cars had to pass the same 800,000 lb squeeze test that the N-S cars did, and did so with flying colors...there was a picture of it somewhere. I don't think it would be to much trouble for Siemens to design and build a bi-level car out of stainless steel that would successfully pass the FRA squeeze test, at least they have the experience with welding stainless steel(something N-S didn't have).
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR As D. Carleton mentioned, the Siemens cars had to pass the same 800,000 lb squeeze test that the N-S cars did, and did so with flying colors...there was a picture of it somewhere. I don't think it would be to much trouble for Siemens to design and build a bi-level car out of stainless steel that would successfully pass the FRA squeeze test, at least they have the experience with welding stainless steel(something N-S didn't have).
Yeah I think sticking with Bi-Levels for the Midwest would be more efficient one of the reasons they liked the design was the dual pair of double doors on each side of the car for fast loading and unloading. In regards to passengers falling on stairs.......pretty confident I read the Amtrak standard was to offer an elevator for physically challenged access to the second floor. And they can fix the stairway slip problem fairly easily, IMO.
Siemens Viaggio Twin Much more pleasant than gallery designs.
Reminds me of the GO Transit cars but with a straight roof profile. I prefer the GO Transit cars used on the Coaster over the Surfliner bi-levels. The landing at each end of the GO cars and Viaggio cars seem much friendlier than the Surfliner.
One not so nice aspect of the Viaggio cars is that they are narrower than US standard passenger cars.
erikem One not so nice aspect of the Viaggio cars is that they are narrower than US standard passenger cars.
Quoting CMStP&P: "....pretty confident I read the Amtrak standard was to offer an elevator for physically challenged access to the second floor."
I do not follow this. Where could this have been said? Is this referring to gaining access to the upper level of Superliner cars? There is no room in such cars for an elevator. At certain stations, Amtrak does have an elevator that is used to assist disabled passengers to get up to the lower level, and Amtrak has elevators at other stations to assist such passengers in boarding single-level cars. I took advantage of such an elevator in Charlotte and in Washington on my last trip for I temporarily had difficulty in using the steps. Thankfully, I was albe to use the stairways in the Superliners the rest of my trip.
DeggestyThere is no room in such cars for an elevator. At certain stations, Amtrak does have an elevator that is used to assist disabled passengers to get up to the lower level, and Amtrak has elevators at other stations to assist such passengers in boarding single-level cars.
Part of the issue is the progressive amendment and interpretive scope of the ADA. Amtrak at one time had platform elevators to specific doors as an ADA accommodation; subsequent policy changes made all-door 'handicapped' boarding something of a mandate.
This clearly affects second-level access to any car in the train that can't be easily reached by a mobility-impaired passenger (e.g. in a wheelchair or using a scooter) from an adjacent car. I wouldn't put it past some of the twentysomethings in government prior to the current administration to mandate vertical access in every car, which would likely mean removal of some of the salable space in the car for an elevator (mobile platform elevators or bridges apparently not being the right sort of reasonable accommodation, for highly subjective definitions of 'reason') to give the appropriate foolish consistency.
As previously noted, Amtrak is a quasi-Federal corporation, and is consequently likely subject (I only qualify this because I have no firsthand evidence) of heightened political concerns; we already have seen how often it is a target of opportunity for advocacy groups or 'large money damages' vultures or scams with respect to disabled amenities or access.
TL;DR - unless there is a published and definitive change in interpretation of the ADA with respect to Amtrak, yes, I think there would have to be internal elevators in at least some of the cars, perhaps in every one. I invite further informed discussion on this specific issue.
RME Deggesty There is no room in such cars for an elevator. At certain stations, Amtrak does have an elevator that is used to assist disabled passengers to get up to the lower level, and Amtrak has elevators at other stations to assist such passengers in boarding single-level cars. Part of the issue is the progressive amendment and interpretive scope of the ADA. Amtrak at one time had platform elevators to specific doors as an ADA accommodation; subsequent policy changes made all-door 'handicapped' boarding something of a mandate. This clearly affects second-level access to any car in the train that can't be easily reached by a mobility-impaired passenger (e.g. in a wheelchair or using a scooter) from an adjacent car. I wouldn't put it past some of the twentysomethings in government prior to the current administration to mandate vertical access in every car, which would likely mean removal of some of the salable space in the car for an elevator (mobile platform elevators or bridges apparently not being the right sort of reasonable accommodation, for highly subjective definitions of 'reason') to give the appropriate foolish consistency. As previously noted, Amtrak is a quasi-Federal corporation, and is consequently likely subject (I only qualify this because I have no firsthand evidence) of heightened political concerns; we already have seen how often it is a target of opportunity for advocacy groups or 'large money damages' vultures or scams with respect to disabled amenities or access. TL;DR - unless there is a published and definitive change in interpretation of the ADA with respect to Amtrak, yes, I think there would have to be internal elevators in at least some of the cars, perhaps in every one. I invite further informed discussion on this specific issue.
Deggesty There is no room in such cars for an elevator. At certain stations, Amtrak does have an elevator that is used to assist disabled passengers to get up to the lower level, and Amtrak has elevators at other stations to assist such passengers in boarding single-level cars.
Your conjecture seems to have derailed. I see no evidence of requiring elevator access on Superliners. Nor is it present on gallery cars on Metra.
schlimmYour conjecture seems to have derailed. I see no evidence of requiring elevator access on Superliners. Nor is it present on gallery cars on Metra.
Speaking strictly for myself, I hope it stays derailed.
Personally, I think that one mobile elevator or gantry per station completely satisfies the access "mandate" for Superliners (which are true bi-levels in which 'reasonable accommodation' cannot be provided by providing selective seating (e.g. 'wheelchair-only' or from which passengers must move to accommodate wheelchairs, as on transit buses with lifts) on an easily accessible level.) Of course that device would have to be PMed and repaired or replaced well before train time, and appropriate people on call to run it; it might well be cheaper to equip certain cars with self-contained lifts (although I doubt that would satisfy some of the usual-suspects advocacy groups that have preyed on Amtrak over these issues in the past).
Gallery cars are (and I think we have had threads about this) ill-suited to elevators, or escalators; I think there is clearly scope to equip them with the kind of hook-on 'staircase assist' devices sold for home use, and it may be only a matter of time before some militant advocacy group tumbles to this and extorts the usual sort of consent decree that would make METRA install them. But let's hope not; I certainly hope not. (And I, personally, would hope not even if confined to a chair or scooter when riding the train.)
Deggesty Quoting CMStP&P: "....pretty confident I read the Amtrak standard was to offer an elevator for physically challenged access to the second floor." I do not follow this. Where could this have been said? Is this referring to gaining access to the upper level of Superliner cars? There is no room in such cars for an elevator. At certain stations, Amtrak does have an elevator that is used to assist disabled passengers to get up to the lower level, and Amtrak has elevators at other stations to assist such passengers in boarding single-level cars. I took advantage of such an elevator in Charlotte and in Washington on my last trip for I temporarily had difficulty in using the steps. Thankfully, I was albe to use the stairways in the Superliners the rest of my trip.
Nope, not for current equipment, it was planned for the second generation bi-levels that are patterned after the Amtrak California Car bi-levels. Which I thought the new Amtrak bi-level standard was the Midwest HSR Compact Standard until all these issues at the Illinois based manufacturer. There were no plans to retrofit older cars with elevators. My guess is it would have been an elevator and a hydraulic lift type from the floor vs cable type.
The elevator idea was to comply with ADA since the second floor access was the only way to access the rest of the train while the train is in motion. I think if they kept the access on first floor, nobody cared about the elevator idea.
I am not going to dig it up for the doubting thomas' on the board but I am pretty confident if you google the new Amtrak standards spec for corridor bi-level cars it is in the text.
As for the Joe Lunchpail Metra Commuter cars, yeah they are horrible and not much different than cattle cars. I wouldn't expect anyone in Metra to lift a finger to improve those cars at all. Chicago will be stuck with that design for at least another century. The GO TRANSIT Bombardier cars are sooooo much nicer and also warmer in the winter.
RMEPersonally, I think that one mobile elevator or gantry per station completely satisfies the access "mandate" for Superliners (which are true bi-levels in which 'reasonable accommodation' cannot be provided by providing selective seating (e.g. 'wheelchair-only' or from which passengers must move to accommodate wheelchairs, as on transit buses with lifts) on an easily accessible level.)
Superliners actually fall short since the wheelchair bound passenger has no access to the dining or lounge car once the train is in motion because they put the between car access on the second vs the first floor of the Superliner trainset. Hence the special interest groups have complained. I don't think the elevator is a legal mandate yet just that Amtrak was attempting to accomodate them with second generation set of cars based in part on the Amtrak California Car concept.
CMStPnP Which I thought the new Amtrak bi-level standard was the Midwest HSR Compact Standard
Is this different from what I thought it was, the NGEC PRIIA section 305 bi-level spec?
Relevant section of ADA is 49 CFR 38 starting with section 111.
I find, to my considerable interest, that the Nippon Sharyo car apparently failed the 800K test by 2000 lb. Or put a different way, 0.25%. Someone remind me of the factor of safety implicitly included in that FRA buff standard and then tell me if this is a 'significant' failure statistically rather than statutorily... this is even less than the percentage by which, according to EMD's claims, the first-generation Chargers would miss getting to 125mph with the specification trainload.
ADA and PRIIA both appear curiously silent on the ability of 'mobility-aid' users to take their special equipment from first to second level in a moving train. Who knows the status of any actual suits to compel full access to all areas of a moving bilevel train by mobility-aid users? Because if one of those succeeds, there will have to be internal 'elevators' probably comparable to the devices covered in section 125 (lifts to give 'zero walkover height' between first-level entrances and the ground) and found in the NGEC spec and its various discussions.
Does anyone know how the lift operates on the Rocky Mountaineer Colorado Railcar double decker Ultra Dome cars? Does any one know whether the new Stadler Goldleaf dome cars that the Rocky Mountaineer is buying will still have them?
RMEIs this different from what I thought it was, the NGEC PRIIA section 305 bi-level spec? Relevant section of ADA is 49 CFR 38 starting with section 111. I find, to my considerable interest, that the Nippon Sharyo car apparently failed the 800K test by 2000 lb. Or put a different way, 0.25%. Someone remind me of the factor of safety implicitly included in that FRA buff standard and then tell me if this is a 'significant' failure statistically rather than statutorily... this is even less than the percentage by which, according to EMD's claims, the first-generation Chargers would miss getting to 125mph with the specification trainload. ADA and PRIIA both appear curiously silent on the ability of 'mobility-aid' users to take their special equipment from first to second level in a moving train. Who knows the status of any actual suits to compel full access to all areas of a moving bilevel train by mobility-aid users? Because if one of those succeeds, there will have to be internal 'elevators' probably comparable to the devices covered in section 125 (lifts to give 'zero walkover height' between first-level entrances and the ground) and found in the NGEC spec and its various discussions. Add Qu
OK I see where I got confused, there are carborne lifts at each door in the spec that fold out (or othewise deploy) and lift wheelchair passengers onto the first level.
The elevator is located in the Lounge Car and is intended to lift food service carts to the second level of the car not wheel chair bound passengers. Though it probably could be modified to do both with some modification. Interesting, the new cars face the same as the old. Noway for someone in a wheelchair to get from first to second level.
Here is the spec with blueprints:
http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/PRIIA_Bi-Level_Spec_305-001_Approved_rev%20C.1.pdf
I rode several trains equipped with California Cars two years ago on a California Rail Pass. The elevators in the Cafe cars were always locked and used as storage closets for galley supplies (cartons of straws, paper napkins, sporks, etc.).
CMStPnP As for the Joe Lunchpail Metra Commuter cars, yeah they are horrible and not much different than cattle cars. I wouldn't expect anyone in Metra to lift a finger to improve those cars at all. Chicago will be stuck with that design for at least another century. The GO TRANSIT Bombardier cars are sooooo much nicer and also warmer in the winter.
CSSHEGEWISCH CMStPnP As for the Joe Lunchpail Metra Commuter cars, yeah they are horrible and not much different than cattle cars. I wouldn't expect anyone in Metra to lift a finger to improve those cars at all. Chicago will be stuck with that design for at least another century. The GO TRANSIT Bombardier cars are sooooo much nicer and also warmer in the winter. Suburban equipment has always been designed for high capacity, compare the difference between the gallery coaches on the "Peninsula 400" (96 seats) and a standard gallery coach in Chicago, San Francisco or Montreal (156 seats). As a twice-daily Metra rider, I will vouch for the comfort of the gallery coaches as a whole. Legroom may be a bit tight but not unreasonably so and walkover seats provide enough comfort for a ride that for me is only 15 miles one way and on average, not much longer for most other riders.
Understood. Most commuters on Metra ride a longer distance than your 15 miles. On the CNW and other lines, they were an improvement over older single level equipment. However, the design is basically almost 70 years old. Perhaps if you had ridden on other double-deck suburban coaches, you would alter your opinion.
schlimm Siemens Viaggio Twin Much more pleasant than gallery designs.
But would such a car be comfortable on a 4 hour trip? This looks more commuter than intercity car.
longhorn1969 schlimm Siemens Viaggio Twin Much more pleasant than gallery designs. But would such a car be comfortable on a 4 hour trip? This looks more commuter than intercity car.
I believe the seating (type, number and arrangement) can be customized to the order. I've ridden similar cars in Germany for three hours on Regional Expresses - quite comfortable.
schlimm I believe the seating (type, number and arrangement) can be customized to the order.
I believe the seating (type, number and arrangement) can be customized to the order.
blue streak 1 schlimm I believe the seating (type, number and arrangement) can be customized to the order. Customized orders should only be delivered when there is enough of the standard layouts to carry passenger demand. Customizing unfortunately causes a decrease in utilization of an entire fleet. Look at the single level fleet. There are very few cross utilizations possible with specific baggage, coach, lounge, diner, sleepers. If diners do not all have same layout flexibility is reduced with same number of units. Then you need more terminal storage area which is restricted at some terminals
Perhaps you misunderstood. The cars are not ordered just "off the shelf." The type of seats and numbers and layout are simply part of the specs. I would assume for the midwestern higher speed service service only coaches are needed. Some cars could be a premium class. Diners, sleepers and baggage cars are not needed.
4th generation Bombardier (Siemens) double-deck on the Stralsund-Rostock line, 2008.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR at least they have the experience with welding stainless steel(something N-S didn't have).
at least they have the experience with welding stainless steel(something N-S didn't have).
Have you ever looked at a METRA or VRE gallery car?
CSSHEGEWISCH Suburban equipment has always been designed for high capacity, compare the difference between the gallery coaches on the "Peninsula 400" (96 seats) and a standard gallery coach in Chicago, San Francisco or Montreal (156 seats). As a twice-daily Metra rider, I will vouch for the comfort of the gallery coaches as a whole. Legroom may be a bit tight but not unreasonably so and walkover seats provide enough comfort for a ride that for me is only 15 miles one way and on average, not much longer for most other riders.
I agree that the METRA cars are plenty comfortable for me. I find it interesting that it's non regular riders that complain.
schlimm CSSHEGEWISCH Suburban equipment has always been designed for high capacity, compare the difference between the gallery coaches on the "Peninsula 400" (96 seats) and a standard gallery coach in Chicago, San Francisco or Montreal (156 seats). As a twice-daily Metra rider, I will vouch for the comfort of the gallery coaches as a whole. Legroom may be a bit tight but not unreasonably so and walkover seats provide enough comfort for a ride that for me is only 15 miles one way and on average, not much longer for most other riders. Understood. Most commuters on Metra ride a longer distance than your 15 miles. On the CNW and other lines, they were an improvement over older single level equipment. However, the design is basically almost 70 years old. Perhaps if you had ridden on other double-deck suburban coaches, you would alter your opinion.
i find it interesting that the Siemens web pages make no mention of a North American version of this equipment, much less one that has passed a FRA squeeze test. All the documention I found refers to UIC and TSI (Technical Specifications for Interoperability, an EU move to take power away from the UIC and vest it in the European Railway Agency -- sort of a European FRA). Please help and point me in the right direction.
Buslist GERALD L MCFARLANE JR at least they have the experience with welding stainless steel(something N-S didn't have). Have you ever looked at a METRA or VRE gallery car?
Buslist,
What does your question have to do with the fact that Siemens has experience with welding stainless steel, which they had to do for the Brightliners(in fact they use practically the same method as Budd did for their streamliners).
Buslist: Of course N-S built stainless steel gallery cars for Metra and VRE and others. But you seem to have a problem with Siemens-Bombardier multilevel designs compared to gallery cars. What is it?
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR Buslist GERALD L MCFARLANE JR at least they have the experience with welding stainless steel(something N-S didn't have). Have you ever looked at a METRA or VRE gallery car? Buslist, What does your question have to do with the fact that Siemens has experience with welding stainless steel, which they had to do for the Brightliners(in fact they use practically the same method as Budd did for their streamliners).
It has to do with your statement
"at least they have the experience with welding stainless steel(something N-S didn't have)." NS first supplied Stainless equipment to the North American market in 1982 (South Shore), seems that's quite a bit of experience.
schlimm Buslist: Of course N-S built stainless steel gallery cars for Metra and VRE and others. But you seem to have a problem with Siemens-Bombardier multilevel designs compared to gallery cars. What is it?
I'll say it one more time, sorry if as a former regular user I find the gallery design more comfortable than the other two. And of course we seem to have no North American example of the Siemens to access the potential expansion of the upper deck loading profile.
You dismiss the experience of regular (former in my case) users, CSSHEGEWISCH and, myself, that are quite satisfied with the design and tell us if we only knew better.
Buslist schlimm Buslist: Of course N-S built stainless steel gallery cars for Metra and VRE and others. But you seem to have a problem with Siemens-Bombardier multilevel designs compared to gallery cars. What is it? I'll say it one more time, sorry if as a former regular user I find the gallery design more comfortable than the other two. And of course we seem to have no North American example of the Siemens to access the potential expansion of the upper deck loading profile. You dismiss the experience of regular (former in my case) users, CSSHEGEWISCH and, myself, that are quite satisfied with the design and tell us if we only knew better.
#1 I am not dismissing your opinion, although you seem to trivialize mine ("as a former regular user"). I am also a former, regular user of Metra gallery cars, just rode last week.
#2 You give few specifics for your preference of gallery cars, other than saying they are more comfortable. I have mentioned several specific comfort factors: the ride, brighter, much more visually pleasant interiors, quieter. I would add that with two access/egress doors per car, loading and unloading is at least as rapid as on the gallery design. Additionally, the designs are used for regional trains abroad, a comparable usage to the failed N-S order here.
RME I find, to my considerable interest, that the Nippon Sharyo car apparently failed the 800K test by 2000 lb. Or put a different way, 0.25%. Someone remind me of the factor of safety implicitly included in that FRA buff standard and then tell me if this is a 'significant' failure statistically rather than statutorily... this is even less than the percentage by which, according to EMD's claims, the first-generation Chargers would miss getting to 125mph with the specification trainload.
Once again remember that the squeeze test derives from an AAR interchange spec that allowed passenger cars to be moved freely around the system in freight trains without fear of failure. The fact that this was never a requirement for operation is demonstrated by the "successful" operation of the Aero Train and Talgo etc. in the 50s. Its value was also demonstrated by the number of failures of interurban vehicles being moved on their own wheels to museums in the 60s. As far as I can tell this value was an best estimate on the part of mechanical experts of the era, with little if any testing to support it.
CSSHEGEWISCHSuburban equipment has always been designed for high capacity, compare the difference between the gallery coaches on the "Peninsula 400" (96 seats) and a standard gallery coach in Chicago, San Francisco or Montreal (156 seats). As a twice-daily Metra rider, I will vouch for the comfort of the gallery coaches as a whole. Legroom may be a bit tight but not unreasonably so and walkover seats provide enough comfort for a ride that for me is only 15 miles one way and on average, not much longer for most other riders.
Thats probably because you have never ridden the alternatives.
Seems to me the Metra cars are outdated in design when then are are more comfortable alternatives via Bombardier (with far more legroom) that offer tables, restrooms (optional), power outlets, wi-fi, have more efficient heating and AC systems, have four sets of double doors for loading and unloading, etc, etc.
It's a matter of preference and bang for the buck I guess. We are a first world country and our transportation equipment should reflect that, in my humble opinion, we shouldn't settle for second or third best. If our goal is to lure people from their automobiles we should have the most comfortable and affordable rail cars in use on the market.
schlimm4th generation Bombardier (Siemens) double-deck on the Stralsund-Rostock line, 2008.
Ridden them or cars that looked similar in the early 2000's, very nice inside and a very comfortable ride.......though the ride was on German rail tracks. Would be awesome if they were built for U.S. use. Even without them though the former GO Transit cars on TRE beat the hell out of Metra Gallery Cars any day of the week.
CMStPnP schlimm 4th generation Bombardier (Siemens) double-deck on the Stralsund-Rostock line, 2008. Even without them though the former GO Transit cars on TRE beat the hell out of Metra Gallery Cars any day of the week.
schlimm 4th generation Bombardier (Siemens) double-deck on the Stralsund-Rostock line, 2008.
Even without them though the former GO Transit cars on TRE beat the hell out of Metra Gallery Cars any day of the week.
you are entitled to your opinion but can't agree.
Have not ridden the Bombardier GOTRANSIT design commuter cars yet but have ridden the double deck TGV trains in France at 186 mph and on their track, I found them very comfortable. And while not commuter equipment, (not configured for high capacity) I would say superior to a superliner. Thought they might be equal to the California Surfliners. Routinely ride Metra's galley cars and the stairs are not user friendly. For a one hour or less ride, find them more than adequate. I think Metra should evaluate other equipment to make an inteligent decision before buying new cars. Lease a couple of various designs and allow riders and staff to evaluate them. Have looked at Boston's double decker commuter cars and their stairways are much better but they have (if I recall correctly) a 3 & 2 seating arrangement which I don't like. Thats my five cents worth.
Metra and its riders have been familiar with the gallery design since the 1950's and 1960's, depending on each line acquired the equipment. The general opinion on the equipment is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" and there seems to be no desire to try a different design. The gallery design is comfortable, airy and a snap for ticket collection. The center vestibules are double-width so entry and exit is not a problem. The stairs to the gallery level are a bit tight but aren't that different from the stairwells on Superliners or ATSF Hi-Level cars and aren't difficult for me to negotiate even at my age.
All progress is change BUT not all change is progress.
any references to them passing "with flying colors"?
So will these cars ever get built or what?
Buslist GERALD L MCFARLANE JR As D. Carleton mentioned, the Siemens cars had to pass the same 800,000 lb squeeze test that the N-S cars did, and did so with flying colors...there was a picture of it somewhere. I don't think it would be to much trouble for Siemens to design and build a bi-level car out of stainless steel that would successfully pass the FRA squeeze test, at least they have the experience with welding stainless steel(something N-S didn't have). any references to them passing "with flying colors"?
D.Carleton Buslist GERALD L MCFARLANE JR As D. Carleton mentioned, the Siemens cars had to pass the same 800,000 lb squeeze test that the N-S cars did, and did so with flying colors...there was a picture of it somewhere. I don't think it would be to much trouble for Siemens to design and build a bi-level car out of stainless steel that would successfully pass the FRA squeeze test, at least they have the experience with welding stainless steel(something N-S didn't have). any references to them passing "with flying colors"? http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2016/06/09--compression-test
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2016/06/09--compression-test
these are the Brightline rolling stock. Your original post "he Siemens North American Viaggio coach is designed to go anywhere in North America. If the customer wants traps and stairs the design will accommodate them. They do meet the FRA Tier 1 crush criteria." implies that the Viaggio stock has been FRA approved. Perhaps we are confusing the 2, but nowhere can I find Siemens describing the Florida stock as part of the Viaggio family, which is bilevel.
BuslistPerhaps we are confusing the 2, but nowhere can I find Siemens describing the Florida stock as part of the Viaggio family, which is bilevel.
Perhaps we have very different understanding of what Siemens thinks they mean with the marketing name "Viaggio" and how they promote the special American variants on their pathetic excuse for a Web site.
The part of the "Viaggio family" that is bilevel is the Viaggio Twin. That is not related to the Viaggio Comfort and its American version (which I think is the thing being tested in the Newswire story) - I have not been able to find a reference to that version anywhere on the Siemens site, although they make reference at one point, in a footnote, to the Comfort design meeting European standards. For a truly tooth-hurting experience, watch the Comfort video on this page (I can't link just the video from my current excuse for a system) and try to get any meaningful technical information out of it.
I have not seen a reference to the Viaggio Twin being adapted to meet FRA requirements; I assume its European versions are far lighter, and that only on receipt of sufficient hard orders would Siemens even think about providing a beefed-up design.
I do think, reading between the lines, that the Viaggio Comfort variant that was discussed earlier here is FRA compliant, and could be equipped with traps and stairs with a little tinkering. My admittedly imperfect understanding is that the doors extend further down than the standard NEC platform edge so there would have to be some version of the automatic gap-filling bridge in the 'trap', which would in turn have to be accommodated in addition to the trap structure when the trap was folded or moved to access the stairs. I do not know whether a car so equipped could use the trap structure in the high-platform position as part of the bracing to pass the FRA test, or conversely if a car so equipped would 'fail' the test if the traps alone came out of alignment or jammed following a nominally successful test with them closed.
Buslist D.Carleton Buslist GERALD L MCFARLANE JR As D. Carleton mentioned, the Siemens cars had to pass the same 800,000 lb squeeze test that the N-S cars did, and did so with flying colors...there was a picture of it somewhere. I don't think it would be to much trouble for Siemens to design and build a bi-level car out of stainless steel that would successfully pass the FRA squeeze test, at least they have the experience with welding stainless steel(something N-S didn't have). any references to them passing "with flying colors"? http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2016/06/09--compression-test these are the Brightline rolling stock. Your original post "he Siemens North American Viaggio coach is designed to go anywhere in North America. If the customer wants traps and stairs the design will accommodate them. They do meet the FRA Tier 1 crush criteria." implies that the Viaggio stock has been FRA approved. Perhaps we are confusing the 2, but nowhere can I find Siemens describing the Florida stock as part of the Viaggio family, which is bilevel.
http://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/global/en/urban-mobility/rail-solutions/passenger-coaches/Pages/passenger-coaches.aspx
D.Carleton Buslist D.Carleton Buslist GERALD L MCFARLANE JR As D. Carleton mentioned, the Siemens cars had to pass the same 800,000 lb squeeze test that the N-S cars did, and did so with flying colors...there was a picture of it somewhere. I don't think it would be to much trouble for Siemens to design and build a bi-level car out of stainless steel that would successfully pass the FRA squeeze test, at least they have the experience with welding stainless steel(something N-S didn't have). any references to them passing "with flying colors"? http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2016/06/09--compression-test these are the Brightline rolling stock. Your original post "he Siemens North American Viaggio coach is designed to go anywhere in North America. If the customer wants traps and stairs the design will accommodate them. They do meet the FRA Tier 1 crush criteria." implies that the Viaggio stock has been FRA approved. Perhaps we are confusing the 2, but nowhere can I find Siemens describing the Florida stock as part of the Viaggio family, which is bilevel. Ah, I see. The Viaggio family encompasses a large line of passenger coaches used throughout the world. There are the bilevel coaches but also sleepers in Russia, push-pull Jetrains in Austria and EMUs in Puerto Rico. The all utilize the same basic Viaggio platform. http://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/global/en/urban-mobility/rail-solutions/passenger-coaches/Pages/passenger-coaches.aspx
Ah, I see. The Viaggio family encompasses a large line of passenger coaches used throughout the world. There are the bilevel coaches but also sleepers in Russia, push-pull Jetrains in Austria and EMUs in Puerto Rico. The all utilize the same basic Viaggio platform.
The bi-level Twins
Look at the interior photo in the link and then compare with a Metra gallery interior:
If you look at the specification sheet, you may note the the Twin only seats 130 as shown. While perhaps more comfortable than a galley car, I doubt that Metra would find the reduced capacity what it wants. As it is, the BNSF Naperville Express trains have eleven cars and can seat 139 in the cab car and 146 in the trailer cars for a seated load of 1536. See http://www.nipponsharyousa.com/products/pages/zusametra-pc1994.htm
Current platforms at Union Station would be a problem for longer trains and some suburban stations might require (if possible) longer platforms.
As the spec sheet is for Nippon Sharyo cars built in Rochelle, I wish I knew what they are doing to correct the problem with the new design. Obviously they knew how to weld and design those cars. Whether the new cars have a specified weight limitation that keeps them from adding structural elements needed to meet the crush test or something else, the silence is worrisome.
Electroliner 1935 If you look at the specification sheet, you may note the the Twin only seats 130 as shown. While perhaps more comfortable than a galley car, I doubt that Metra would find the reduced capacity what it wants. As it is, the BNSF Naperville Express trains have eleven cars and can seat 139 in the cab car and 146 in the trailer cars for a seated load of 1536. See http://www.nipponsharyousa.com/products/pages/zusametra-pc1994.htm Current platforms at Union Station would be a problem for longer trains and some suburban stations might require (if possible) longer platforms. As the spec sheet is for Nippon Sharyo cars built in Rochelle, I wish I knew what they are doing to correct the problem with the new design. Obviously they knew how to weld and design those cars. Whether the new cars have a specified weight limitation that keeps them from adding structural elements needed to meet the crush test or something else, the silence is worrisome.
I was referring to the subject of the thread, the Midwest Consortium car order for regional services. That is the usage the configuration for which the Twins is used.
It is kind of hard to to do a fair comparison of a in service picture against a drawing in a brochure.
An "expensive model collector"
n012944 It is kind of hard to to do a fair comparison of a in service picture against a drawing in a brochure.
That's how the interiors look when I've ridden them just last month, just different colors. The 2-1 seating is a First Class section; 2-2 is used in Second Class.
So what is the latest news or rumors on the midwest order? Going out for rebid? Different specs? Who built the California cars?
Do not see Siemens double decker as a suitable alternative to for all intents and purposes a Superliner Coach .
longhorn1969 So what is the latest news or rumors on the midwest order? Going out for rebid? Different specs? Who built the California cars? Do not see Siemens double decker as a suitable alternative to for all intents and purposes a Superliner Coach .
i think until the $ are figured out (what does Nippon Shario pay for default, and can the Federal grant be extended) we won't know much, can a rebid go out before the $ are secure? I would guess the revised specs. if any, would be available.
Buslist longhorn1969 So what is the latest news or rumors on the midwest order? Going out for rebid? Different specs? Who built the California cars? Do not see Siemens double decker as a suitable alternative to for all intents and purposes a Superliner Coach . i think until the $ are figured out (what does Nippon Shario pay for default, and can the Federal grant be extended) we won't know much, can a rebid go out before the $ are secure? I would guess the revised specs. if any, would be available.
The following Illinois government document "IF" true is interesting. Will leave comments to others.
https://www.illinois.gov/cpo/dot/Documents/Bi-level%20Railcar%20Procurement.pdf
As well look at the following on big page - 11 Small page 21
http://miprc.org/Portals/7/pdfs/MIPRC%20presentation%20for%20congressional%20staff_052217_final.pdf?ver=2017-06-02-161342-390
blue streak 1 The following Illinois government document "IF" true is interesting. Will leave comments to others. https://www.illinois.gov/cpo/dot/Documents/Bi-level%20Railcar%20Procurement.pdf As well look at the following on big page - 11 Small page 21 http://miprc.org/Portals/7/pdfs/MIPRC%20presentation%20for%20congressional%20staff_052217_final.pdf?ver=2017-06-02-161342-390
If true single level cars as predicted. I suppose they will be similar to Bright Line's equipment.
Seems like not much of an "If" about it. CALDOT has done so and the rest will follow with Siemens single level cars.
schlimm blue streak 1 The following Illinois government document "IF" true is interesting. Will leave comments to others. https://www.illinois.gov/cpo/dot/Documents/Bi-level%20Railcar%20Procurement.pdf As well look at the following on big page - 11 Small page 21 http://miprc.org/Portals/7/pdfs/MIPRC%20presentation%20for%20congressional%20staff_052217_final.pdf?ver=2017-06-02-161342-390 Seems like not much of an "If" about it. CALDOT has done so and the rest will follow with Siemens single level cars.
The if in my mind comes from the fact that I haven't seen word 1 in the trade press about this. It's the kind of thing they would normally be all over, unless I somehow missed it.
Caltrans represents the consortium in this transaction so others have already followed.
800,000 lb crash test? Do buses have to endure a 800,000 pound crash test? The best way to crash proof a railroad car is not to have a accident in the first place.
I find it extremely odd that the first document states it would take 5 years before production of a bi-level car from Siemens vs 24 - 34 months for a single level car. Just exactly how much trouble is it to take your single level car and double it, and even if you go with single level vs double then the order should increase from 130 cars to 260 in order to meet the same capacity. After all the cost of a single leve car should be significanly less than a bi-level car, unless they're not counting on any Federal funds and the existing appropriated State funds only cover the cost of 130 single level cars. As for this being in the trade press, I do beleive it was mentioned by Railway Age online when the announcement was made as I now recall having seen it before.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR I find it extremely odd that the first document states it would take 5 years before production of a bi-level car from Siemens vs 24 - 34 months for a single level car. Just exactly how much trouble is it to take your single level car and double it, and even if you go with single level vs double then the order should increase from 130 cars to 260 in order to meet the same capacity. After all the cost of a single leve car should be significanly less than a bi-level car, unless they're not counting on any Federal funds and the existing appropriated State funds only cover the cost of 130 single level cars. As for this being in the trade press, I do beleive it was mentioned by Railway Age online when the announcement was made as I now recall having seen it before.
Others (Buslist, RME) would know far better than I, but making a bilevel out of a single level car has rather more design and engineering involved than merely "doubling it" as you suggest. And most bilevels do not have twice the capacity of comparable single level coaches.
A couple of points, a bilevel car would be a completely new design. Siemens experience in Europe is only partly applicable, as the FRA squeeze Standards don't apply there. A North American Siemens single level car already exists as in the Bright Line stock. And no, building a bilevel car just isn't that easy, although if anyone could you would think it would be NS with all their gallery car experience.
The contract between the states and and the builder was probably for a specific number of cars, not seats. Modification to include more cars would probably require a new contract with all the red tape that implies as well as potential loss of the FRA grant.
Did a major search in Age, Progressive, IRJ etc and found nothing. In fact as late as June 29 of this year there was an article on NS's dedication to completing this order.
The Siemens single level car might be a fast expedient but it just trashes all the design and standardization guidance that Amtrak spent on the effort of a standardized car design for specific types of service. Also, throws the hoped for economies of scale of that former effort out the window as well. So I think it is a much larger setback than most would think.
The unmodified Siemens design means longer platforms, longer station dwell times, more cars to carry the same amount of passengers than bilevels, etc. Also, added........a whole new type of car to maintain to add to Amtraks growing collection of brands and types.
CMStPnPThe unmodified Siemens design means...longer station dwell times,
Why should that be?
Not necessarily longer station dwell times. Indeed, the one modification possible will probably be doors at both ends of the cars, and this should allow single-level cars to load faster than the typical bilevel.
But longer station platforms for longer trains to accomodate the same number of passengers, and higher costs because of the longer trains, and differen parts and......and....and
If platforms can't be lengthened, then more trains must be operated and costs go even higher.
daveklepper Not necessarily longer station dwell times. Indeed, the one modification possible will probably be doors at both ends of the cars, and this should allow single-level cars to load faster than the typical bilevel. But longer station platforms for longer trains to accomodate the same number of passengers, and higher costs because of the longer trains, and differen parts and......and....and If platforms can't be lengthened, then more trains must be operated and costs go even higher.
Unfortunately, vestibules at both ends only work when there is crew available to work them. Amtrak's practice is that only one or two doors will be opened for low level platforms and single level coaches.
When I was riding in Australia and New Zealand last spring, station stops were "all hands on deck". Everyone, even the cafe car attendant, worked the station stops.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
As I recall, when I rode the GM&O's Chicago-Joliet train 46 years ago, the doors were left open and the traps were left up. However, this is not a safe practice.
Deggesty As I recall, when I rode the GM&O's Chicago-Joliet train 46 years ago, the doors were left open and the traps were left up. However, this is not a safe practice.
when the Wabash train was cut back from Decatur to Orland Park, all the doors and traps were removed. I'm not sure of the situation whan N&W replaced the heavy weights with light weight equipment.
CMStPnP The Siemens single level car might be a fast expedient but it just trashes all the design and standardization guidance that Amtrak spent on the effort of a standardized car design for specific types of service. Also, throws the hoped for economies of scale of that former effort out the window as well. So I think it is a much larger setback than most would think. The unmodified Siemens design means longer platforms, longer station dwell times, more cars to carry the same amount of passengers than bilevels, etc. Also, added........a whole new type of car to maintain to add to Amtraks growing collection of brands and types.
And the bi-levels wouldn't be a new type of car?
In my discussions with the powers that be I don't think they would think it's a setback. As I posted earlier some of the states seemed to be having buyers remorse over the bi-level choice.
Your standardization worry goes out out the window if this becomes the new standard (which is quite likely). What were the proposed Bi-levels standard with?
This Viaggio Comfort will be the defacto standard, outside of Viewliner cars, what other off the shelf car do you think Amtrak is looking at to replace 400 or so Amfleet cars? Talk about economies of scale?
And frankly, with Amtrak not spending much on LD trains, would not be suprised if the former Delta now Amtrak number driven CEO, thinks it might be a good idea to replace Superliners with Viewliners.
Buslist CMStPnP The Siemens single level car might be a fast expedient but it just trashes all the design and standardization guidance that Amtrak spent on the effort of a standardized car design for specific types of service. Also, throws the hoped for economies of scale of that former effort out the window as well. So I think it is a much larger setback than most would think. The unmodified Siemens design means longer platforms, longer station dwell times, more cars to carry the same amount of passengers than bilevels, etc. Also, added........a whole new type of car to maintain to add to Amtraks growing collection of brands and types. And the bi-levels wouldn't be a new type of car? In my discussions with the powers that be I don't think they would think it's a setback. As I posted earlier some of the states seemed to be having buyers remorse over the bi-level choice. Your standardization worry goes out out the window if this becomes the new standard (which is quite likely). What were the proposed Bi-levels standard with?
I initially read that Idot document too
fast. If you look closely you will
notice that it is not yet a done deal (as in signed sealed and delivered) Caltrans has just accepted the idea, probably why no press coverage yet. And this is a subcontract by Siemens to Sumatomo, (the trading company that represents Nippon Sharyo).
This change of subcontractors (and change to single level cars?) is allowed under provision SP7.2 of the contract.
CandOforprogress2 800,000 lb crash test? Do buses have to endure a 800,000 pound crash test? The best way to crash proof a railroad car is not to have a accident in the first place.
Buses aren't governed by the FRA nor do they have in train bus and draft forces Which was the original reason for this spec. FOX (Florida Overland Express) made your argument to the FRA some 20 years ago and as I remember made little progress.
This poster has become somewhat confused about this probable change of builders.
1. Is it the need for additional capacity now one reason for the Siemens single level cars ?
1a. How soon can Siemens deliver the cars ? Maybe Siemens has already started parts procurement ? Even some construction ?
1b. What will they be called V-3s ?
2. Can traps be added to the Brightline type cars without major structural changes ?
3. Since superliners will still be operated on routes at the same time single levels are operated will there not be the ADA requirement for level boardings locations due to superlineers also operating on the route ?
4. Is this just a short term solution for the Nippon (NS) cars being delayed as the one document mentioned 2020 as starting delivery of bi level cars from NS ?
Here is a link to the Siemens Brightline passenger coaches:www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/brightline-Coach-Siemens-2.pdf
According this broschure the coaches are based on the PRIIA single level coaches with deviations required by customer.
The PRIIA bi-level specifications call for 89 seats plus 1 wheelchair parking location, the single-level specifications for 72 seat plus 1 wheelchair parking location.
blue streak 11. Is it the need for additional capacity now one reason for the Siemens single level cars ?
From what I understand NS is not able to fullfil its contract.
blue streak 11a. How soon can Siemens deliver the cars ? Maybe Siemens has already started parts procurement ? Even some construction ?
As said above start in 24 to 36 month.
blue streak 12. Can traps be added to the Brightline type cars without major structural changes ?
When I look at the Brightliner coach broschure it state on page 5: Provisions designed in the car body to mount a lower level step assembly and a trap door to allow low level boarding
blue streak 13. Since superliners will still be operated on routes at the same time single levels are operated will there not be the ADA requirement for level boardings locations due to superlineers also operating on the route ?
Again the broschure states (page 3): Fulfill Latest Standards- Standardized coach with flexibility for customer needs, complies with ADA requirementsRegards; Volker
Evidently the release of the statement has been retracted by Illinois DOT. Appears no one noticed the contents of the minutes as being confidential so we will have to wait. Can post the contents from other sites but will wait ...
VOLKER LANDWEHR Here is a link to the Siemens Brightline passenger coaches:www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/brightline-Coach-Siemens-2.pdf According this broschure the coaches are based on the PRIIA single level coaches with deviations required by customer. The PRIIA bi-level specifications call for 89 seats plus 1 wheelchair parking location, the single-level specifications for 72 seat plus 1 wheelchair parking location. ~snip~ Regards; Volker
~snip~
Regards; Volker
A 17 seat difference between single-level and bi-level is attrocious, they should've never gone with a bi-level design from the get-go unless you're looking at between 110 - 120 seats with space for one wheelchar(that's all that is needed under ADA requirements). You're looking at the difference between 11,570 seats for the bi-levels and 9,360 for single-level, that's a loss of 2,210 seating capacity, which would require an additional 31 cars...that should be easily covered by the difference in price between the bi-level and single-level, unless the Siemens single-level is the same price as the N-S bi-level.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR VOLKER LANDWEHR Here is a link to the Siemens Brightline passenger coaches:www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/brightline-Coach-Siemens-2.pdf According this broschure the coaches are based on the PRIIA single level coaches with deviations required by customer. The PRIIA bi-level specifications call for 89 seats plus 1 wheelchair parking location, the single-level specifications for 72 seat plus 1 wheelchair parking location. ~snip~ Regards; Volker A 17 seat difference between single-level and bi-level is attrocious, they should've never gone with a bi-level design from the get-go unless you're looking at between 110 - 120 seats with space for one wheelchar(that's all that is needed under ADA requirements). You're looking at the difference between 11,570 seats for the bi-levels and 9,360 for single-level, that's a loss of 2,210 seating capacity, which would require an additional 31 cars...that should be easily covered by the difference in price between the bi-level and single-level, unless the Siemens single-level is the same price and the N-S bi-level.
A 17 seat difference between single-level and bi-level is attrocious, they should've never gone with a bi-level design from the get-go unless you're looking at between 110 - 120 seats with space for one wheelchar(that's all that is needed under ADA requirements). You're looking at the difference between 11,570 seats for the bi-levels and 9,360 for single-level, that's a loss of 2,210 seating capacity, which would require an additional 31 cars...that should be easily covered by the difference in price between the bi-level and single-level, unless the Siemens single-level is the same price and the N-S bi-level.
The California bi-levels are 89 and 90 seats. I'm not sure where we'd get 120 seats into them without airline style seat pitch.
As far as I can tell from the sketchy information out there is that there will be no price difference. Siemens had bid considerably higher initially for the bi-level design. On another board someone quoted a Siemens official that the Nippon Shario bid would be impossible to build at that price. Perhaps more truth than sour grapes at the time.
BTW on that other board someone blamed the failure of the squeeze test sample car on the low weight requirement for these cars. They aren't that different from the California cars are they?
By way of comparison, the gallery bi-levels that C&NW used on the "Peninsula 400" and "Flambeau 400" had 96 seats. Gallery bi-levels in suburban service have 145 to 162 seats.
BuslistBTW on that other board someone blamed the failure of the squeeze test sample car on the low weight requirement for these cars. They aren't that different from the California cars are they?
The bi-level coach is limited to a dry weight of 150,000lbs. I don't know how this compares to the California cars.
The California cars don't have crash energy management (CEM) elements.
Here is the carbody that failed the 800,000 lbs compression test:http://trn.trains.com/~/media/images/railroad-news/news-wire/2016-and-prior/2015/09/nippon.jpg?mw=1000&mh=800
The distance between draft line and car floor together with the 800,000 lbs cause a moment that has to be carried somehow. If the floor alone is not able to carry load and moment, the side walls have to carry part of it like a monocoque. In this construction you have to fit the CEM elements without compromising the buff strength.Regards, Volker
I still say the 800,000 lb crash test is an arbitrary number that the FRA came up with, without having any solid background that it's the minimum needed for survivability. Especially since there are quite a few other factors that go into the equation, such as how well the seats remain attached to the floor, flying suitcases, debris puncturing through the walls/windows, fire, etc., etc.. That is probably one regulation that needs to be reviewed, with significat scientific studies done at different levels, from 400k up to 800k in 50k intervals, in my opinion.
In the mean time, if I was in charge of N-S I'd continue to have my engineers work on a design that would meet the existing FRA requirements, whether I had orders in place or not, because if you design it and it's on the books then the orders might just materialize.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JRI still say the 800,000 lb crash test is an arbitrary number that the FRA came up with, without having any solid background that it's the minimum needed for survivability.
The 800,000 lbs buff load requirement is much older than FRA (founded 1966).
In a thread about diesel locomotive crashworthiness ( http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/741/t/264463.aspx ) I wrote the following:
I found that the earliest requirements were PRR passenger cars with a buff load of 200.000 lbs in 1906 followed by RPO cars with 400,000lbs in 1912. It was later doubled to 800,000 lbs.
in 1939 the AAR made the 800,000 lbs a Recommended Practice for passenger cars and a Standard 1949 (S-034: Specifications for the Construction of new Passenger Eqipment Cars).
The American philosophy is to allow as little deformation as possible. The European regulations follow the path of the automobile industry using crumple zones. The FRA and the PRIIA certification follow this now but only partly by allowing/requiring CEM elements. "Partly" because they still require the 800.000 lbs buff load.
The European rules give requirements for the energy absorption limiting the actuation forces in the CEM element. The buff load is a bit higher than the CEM's actuation forces and depends on type of vehicle. For a passenger coach it is 441,000 lbs. The deceleration is limited to 5g.
As I said different philosophies.Regards, Volker
From another site-
https://www.narprail.org/news/hotline/hotline-1-031-amtrak-and-metro-houston-suspend-service-officials-find-a-way-forward-for-new-equipment-for-california-and/
BuslistAnd the bi-levels wouldn't be a new type of car?
My understanding was the Midwest Corridor Cars were based on the California Surf-Liner car type with just a few modifications made to them and they largely followed the Amtrak future standard for corridor cars. Which makes the NS failure to largely apply some reverse engineering to a past car that was already built even more surprising. So not a totally new type of car.
And I am not convinced the Simens single level cars will become the new standard, time will tell. More likely they will become a stand-in expedient as a way to preserve the Federal Grant money.
longhorn1969This Viaggio Comfort will be the defacto standard, outside of Viewliner cars, what other off the shelf car do you think Amtrak is looking at to replace 400 or so Amfleet cars? Talk about economies of scale? And frankly, with Amtrak not spending much on LD trains, would not be suprised if the former Delta now Amtrak number driven CEO, thinks it might be a good idea to replace Superliners with Viewliners.
The Amfleet design is history and I don't see Amtrak going back to it. It fit a need in the 1970's and 1980's for single level car replacements. I don't see anymore of the Amfleet design being replicated. New single level cars are probably going to look more similar to Viewliners. Unless the design of the single level cars are flipped around once again and Amtrak leaps to another new design.
I don't have any idea how you come to the conclusion that now folks are going to jump to the Viaggo Comfort design just because they temporarily might have swapped out the Corridor bi-level design for the Simens single level design. No indication that Siemens switch a permanent decision yet and it looks like a decision made for expediency of getting new cars in the field faster more than one that is based on the design being desired for the Midwest.
Also, disagree that Amtrak has moved away from spending money on LD trains. I would say that Amtrak has moved away from spending money on LD trains by itself and outside of any kind of partnership. $100 Million being spent to preserve the SW Chief route is nothing to discard. Niether are Amtraks encouragment of Dallas to Kansas City service. Amtraks partial embrace of New Orleans to Orlando service (with New Orleans to Mobile service as a potential add on). If Amtrak can get a coalition of states to provide funding or add to it's own funding I would expect them to add more new to the LD equipment than what they have on order.........which isn't much.
schlimmWhy should that be?
Because right now, the unmodified Siemens cars are just end vestibule only. Would be nice if they had two sets of sliding double doors on each end but in my view that is a significant car redesign from what they are marketing now and also in my non-engineering view NOT what they are offering the Midwest Consortium. 2 large holes on either side of the carbody (for double sliding doors) would impact a compression test unless done right. Also you expose that much of the car to the outside environment your going to need more powerful HVAC on each car, etc, etc.
VOLKER LANDWEHR The bi-level coach is limited to a dry weight of 150,000lbs. I don't know how this compares to the California cars.
CMStPnPMy understanding was the Midwest Corridor Cars were based on the California Surf-Liner car type with just a few modifications made to them and they largely followed the Amtrak future standard for corridor cars. Which makes the NS failure to largely apply some reverse engineering to a past car that was already built even more surprising. So not a totally new type of car.
At first glance it is surprising but there are changes. We concentrated on the 800,000 lbs buff load that both have to carry.
The California cars were built before the APTA crashworthiness requirements were introduced in 1999. After building the Surfliners were at least three revisions of APTA rules. Last but not least the PRIIA bi-level cars are required to have pushback couplers as one of several CEM elements.
So there are enough changes to get into difficulties. And with all other requirements in the PRIIA specification the weight limit might have been to tight.
I have looked into the board meetine minutes. From the test failure to mid January 2017 the is always the same bi-level procurement update: The carshell is still re-designed. From mid January the updates are tabled.
BTW Siemens stated that there Brightline coaches are based on the PRIIA spec but heavier. That was the reason for their presentation I linked.
If you see that a Siemens Viaggio Comfort coach in Europe weighs about 102,000 lbs compared to the PRIIA limit of 104,000 lbs it might be near impossible to stay within this limit as the American crashworthiness requirements can bring up to 20,000 lbs more weight.
On the other hand a Viaggio bi.level is just 11,000 lbs heavier than the single-level compared to 46,000 in the PRIIA specs.Regards, Volker
CMStPnPBecause right now, the unmodified Siemens cars are just end vestibule only. Would be nice if they had two sets of sliding double doors on each end but in my view that is a significant car redesign from what they are marketing now and also in my non-engineering view NOT what they are offering the Midwest Consortium.
From your point of view it might be nice to have but according the specs not necessary. The bi-level specs require a door width of 52'', the single-level specs a width of 32''. The Brightline coaches have 34''. Bi-level cars require wider doors because of the more complicated passenger flows.
Here is a photo of the structure of the Brightline car. You look onto the door post.http://www.railway-technical.com/_Media/siemens-florida-ss-bodyshel_med.png
American crashworthiness requirement are much easier to achive with single-level than bi-level cars. So a larger door might be possible but not necessary and unlikely as it might cost seating capacity.Regards, Volker
So,did NS basicly use Pullman-Standard design principles in their first American cars?
gregruddSo,did NS basicly use Pullman-Standard design principles in their first American cars?
It would be interesting to find out exactly what they did to make the design fail the test. Though I don't think we will ever know. Europeans and Japanese both have a far different design philiosophy than we do when it comes to passenger carrying equipment and it is not just rail equipment, it's automobiles and passenger aircraft as well. Hence you see the bumper stickers like "If it ain't Boeing, I'm not going"......one of my favorites because the traveling public largely doesn't care.....if it is Boeing or Antonov.
CMStPnPIt would be interesting to find out exactly what they did to make the design fail the test. Though I don't think we will ever know. Europeans and Japanese both have a far different design philiosophy than we do when it comes to passenger carrying equipment
It disturbes me much more that N-S tried for over a year to find a correction to the problem.
I don't think it has to do with the different design philosophy regarding passenger rail equipment. N-S is used to handle design of CEM element for a long time. And they know stiffness requirements too. The difference is they are lower in Japan than the USA.
Sometimes you can run into problems if the owner defines too many design limits.
As Siemens stated they were not able to keep the PRIIA weight limit for the Brightline car and question if it is possible for the single-level PRIIA cars.
The difference of just 2,000 lbs as posted above between a Siemens European car and the PRIIA single-level coach weight limit seems too low. In the past it was between 10,000 and 20,000 lbs.
Perhaps similar happened with the bi-level cars.Regards, Volker
VOLKER LANDWEHRIt disturbes me much more that N-S tried for over a year to find a correction to the problem. I don't think it has to do with the different design philosophy regarding passenger rail equipment. N-S is used to handle design of CEM element for a long time. And they know stiffness requirements too. The difference is they are lower in Japan than the USA. Sometimes you can run into problems if the owner defines too many design limits. As Siemens stated they were not able to keep the PRIIA weight limit for the Brightline car and question if it is possible for the single-level PRIIA cars. The difference of just 2,000 lbs as posted above between a Siemens European car and the PRIIA single-level coach weight limit seems too low. In the past it was between 10,000 and 20,000 lbs. Perhaps similar happened with the bi-level cars. Regards, Volker
OK then. If the PRIIA standards are the issue then why not make the case to the standards body instead of just throwing in the towel on the whole deal. Seems rather strange to walk away instead of resolving the issue.
CMStPnPOK then. If the PRIIA standards are the issue then why not make the case to the standards body instead of just throwing in the towel on the whole deal. Seems rather strange to walk away instead of resolving the issue.
I agree. That was what I meant when I said it disturbes me. Maybe N-S took a commercial emergency exit trying to limit the losses.
All I wrote is still speculation. There are additional numbers I found today that fit.
In the minutes of August 2nd 2016 executive board meeting is states that the N-S bilevels are still 1,000 lbs overweight.Regards, Volker
If Nippon Sharyo is proposing the same number of single level cars as bilevel cars, shouldn't there be some adjustment for the reduced capacity? Like 15 to 20 per cent more cars since the trains would need more cars to handle the riders expected.
I think that NS were probably looking for some economies in production. John Dunn in his history on Comeng found flaws in the pre-production the Kawasaki LIRR C3 design which of course is derivative of the Comeng designed C1. So perhaps the due dilligence wasn't done by not hiring people with good experence with DD car design. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=fc5UAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA236&lpg=PA236&dq=john+dunn+kawasaki&source=bl&ots=hqNQTOD6HB&sig=iwmY6gRDNUSb-1B7uWGr2WRfE6E&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwivjIT8o57WAhVLhbwKHRUuCjQQ6AEIQjAH#v=onepage&q=john%20dunn%20kawasaki&f=false
Electroliner 1935 If Nippon Sharyo is proposing the same number of single level cars as bilevel cars, shouldn't there be some adjustment for the reduced capacity? Like 15 to 20 per cent more cars since the trains would need more cars to handle the riders expected.
That would make sense in a renegotiation in business but possibly might escape a state planner. So you might want to send in a Email on that suggestion.
The first IDOT announcment with Sumitomo's proposal of single level cars was deleted. Here is the new one: https://www.illinois.gov/cpo/dot/Documents/Railcar%20Procurement%20Subcontractor.pdf
Here is the text from IDOT:
The following is being provided as information and for transparency purposes to a procurement led by the California Department of TransportationRailcar Procurement Contract No. 75A0362The Midwest bi-level passenger railcar procurement (Contract No. 75A0362) of 130 bi-level passenger railcars is led by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in joint agreement with the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), which represents the Midwest Coalition. In order to satisfy its obligations under the Contract, Sumitomo Corporation of America (SCOA), proposed to (1) substitute Siemens Industry, Inc. (Siemens) in place of Nippon Sharyo as SCOA’s prime subcontractor and railcar manufacturer, pursuant to Section SP7.2 of the Contract and (2) manufacture 130 single-level railcars in place of 130 bi-level railcars. Caltrans/IDOT are reviewing SCOA’s proposal. By moving from bi-level to single level railcars, Caltrans/IDOT will reduce the delivery frame for the railcars from approximately 24-34 months for a single level railcar as opposed to 5 years for a bi-level railcar. In order to proceed, Caltrans/IDOT and SCOA will execute an amendment to the Contract which will accommodate the substitution of Siemens as the manufacturer of 130 single level railcars.
In order to satisfy its obligations under the Contract, Sumitomo Corporation of America (SCOA), proposed to (1) substitute Siemens Industry, Inc. (Siemens) in place of Nippon Sharyo as SCOA’s prime subcontractor and railcar manufacturer, pursuant to Section SP7.2 of the Contract and (2) manufacture 130 single-level railcars in place of 130 bi-level railcars.
Caltrans/IDOT are reviewing SCOA’s proposal. By moving from bi-level to single level railcars, Caltrans/IDOT will reduce the delivery frame for the railcars from approximately 24-34 months for a single level railcar as opposed to 5 years for a bi-level railcar. In order to proceed, Caltrans/IDOT and SCOA will execute an amendment to the Contract which will accommodate the substitution of Siemens as the manufacturer of 130 single level railcars.
What is the plan if they realize that the Siemens Brightline car cannot be changed to fulfill all contractural requirements. Weight perhap being the highest hurdle.Regards, Volker
CMStPnP Electroliner 1935 If Nippon Sharyo is proposing the same number of single level cars as bilevel cars, shouldn't there be some adjustment for the reduced capacity? Like 15 to 20 per cent more cars since the trains would need more cars to handle the riders expected. That would make sense in a renegotiation in business but possibly might escape a state planner. So you might want to send in a Email on that suggestion.
You don't think the state's legal folks have reviewed this change with a fine tooth comb? This would be espically true since it involved a competitive bid!
VOLKER LANDWEHR CMStPnP OK then. If the PRIIA standards are the issue then why not make the case to the standards body instead of just throwing in the towel on the whole deal. Seems rather strange to walk away instead of resolving the issue. I agree. That was what I meant when I said it disturbes me. Maybe N-S took a commercial emergency exit trying to limit the losses. All I wrote is still speculation. There are additional numbers I found today that fit. In the minutes of August 2nd 2016 executive board meeting is states that the N-S bilevels are still 1,000 lbs overweight.Regards, Volker
CMStPnP OK then. If the PRIIA standards are the issue then why not make the case to the standards body instead of just throwing in the towel on the whole deal. Seems rather strange to walk away instead of resolving the issue.
If NS wanted a change their discussion would be with the contracting agency not the "standards" body. My lawyer would never let me refer to some other document in a procurement, I needed to specify the value. I suspect the contract for the cars incorporates the values from the PRIIA document. This was an issue a few years ago when a couple of FRA safety standards included references to AAR interchange rules. FRA lawyers insisted the rules be changed to incorporate the values ( which were stated in the AAR document). Volker can confirm but it's my understand that the EU is requiring the same thing for the new TSIs. UIC documents cannot be included by reference.
As to why they would walk away, perhaps they realized what the Siemens official stated at the time of the bidding "nobody can build that car at that price" so even if they got the car to pass they might still be selling $1 loaves of bread for $0.75.
One has to wonder when a bid comes in so far under the budgeted amount, poor calculations on one or the other's part, or a deliberate underbid by the winner to get the work in hopes of some future return, but this difference is just so large.
I don't know the practice in the rail equipment industry.
In the construction industry it was common to reference to standards. Usually it read state of the art and latest standards. That led to discussions when the standards were changed during the procurement process.
I read of EMU procurements in Germany where the delivery was delayed for month as new regulations had to be implemented even during construction of the vehicles.Regards, Volker
Looks like Siemens is not able to comply with the specifications. The minutes of the Executive Board meeting of October 24th 2017 contain a document change request (DCR) for a weight change: http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305%20Exec%20Brd%20minutes%20-10-24-17%20DRAFT.doc
Here in Italics a copy from the minutes:
9.
Document Management Update – single level car DCRs – Tammy Krause, Amtrak – and the NGEC Revision Control Coordinator (RCC):
Tammy Krause reported that Caltrans has submitted a DCR on weight change and that it has been distributed to the NGEC Technical subcommittee. Comments have been coming in – some are favorable to the change, and one or two are not. One person commented that the specs should never be changed, and that is contrary to the intent of the NGEC specifications which are living documents.
Tammy is planning on holding a conference call with Technical subcommittee members to go over the comments received. Once this is complete she will assemble the comments and ask that Steve Hewitt send them out to all subcommittee members. It is Tammy’s intent to ask for a vote to consider the DCR on the net Technical subcommittee call – 11-2-17. From there it goes to the Board and the Review Panel.
Steve Hewitt explained the process, and added that he had heard from Larry Salci, who has agreed and is prepared to conduct the technical review of the change to ensure compliance with the requirements document, and make a recommendation to the Review Panel – which will then convey its recommendation to the Executive Board for its consideration of the DCR. Larry also confirmed to Steve Hewitt that the review of the DCR for compliance with the requirements document should not happen until the DCR has been approved by the Technical subcommittee.
Steve noted that the Review Panel members and Larry have been provided with the DCR, and will await any further changes and/or approval by the subcommittee before taking action.
That leaves the question if a weight change would heve helped N-S with the bi-level cars? Somewhere in the minutes of Technical Committee a design fault was stated as reason for the buff load test failure.Regards, Volker
My opinion is that there are too many cooks in the kitchen or there are one or two moles trying to hamper passenger rail progress. Getting multi state DOT institutions to agree on things is difficult, especially if nobody wants to take responsibility of adding a thousand pounds or more to the PRIIA specs. More weight would have solved the buff force and moment (torque) loading failure.
On the other hand, the equipment bay walls are a structurally weak design as shown in Volker's link on 9/1/17. Here we have three large floor to ceiling openings with somewhat slender vertical members in between. There appears to be distortion in the third opening and further on, beyond the door, the center buckling with a vertical member detaching from the upper floor. The Superliner has smaller openings, more area between openings and no nearby door, all of which can contribute more wall strength, which combined with the floor above forms a truss to better combat the forces. The other bi-levels, such as the Viaggio Twin, the gallery cars, and the Colorado bi-level, have seats (not equipment bay) in this area. Below the windows there is room for an excellent truss to strengthen the floor. In fact, Colorado Railcar even used diagonal members like you see on bridges. Unfortunately, none of these other bi-levels meet the PRIIA spec of connecting to the upper level of the Superliner.
I think that N-S tried its' best to resolve the problem, but a gummed up mess in the DOTs stopped us from having beautiful bi-levels.
The draft minutes of the Technical Subcommittee's meeting of 11/2/2017 show the discussion about the weight DCR. The Siemens proposal was changed and voted unanimously. Minutes: http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305%20tech%20sc%20minutes%2011-2-17%20draft.doc
There are other committees that have to agree before it is finally accepted.
The weight are changed as follows:- coach: 104,000 lbs to 126.200 lbs- cab/baggage: 108,000 lbs to 137,200 lbs- cafe/lounge: 111,000 lbs to 132,000 lbs
There is no weight buffer for further design changes.Regards, Volker
OK, I don't want to be a pest for asking this, but I've ridden VRE and NJ Transit trains, and I'm puzzled as to the definition of NJ Transit "Bilevel cars" vs. VRE "Gallery cars."
I know there's a difference, but I don't know what it is. The VRE cars fit into Washington DC Union Station but don't go north of it (yet). The "upper" level is two single-seat aisles separated by a gap (where you can see the lower level and VRE has rules in which they ask you not to drip wet umbrellas or dirty shoes to down below) and have a luggage rack. I wasn't in the NJ Transit car to notice much difference but the NJ Transit cars fit into shorter tunnels than the VRE cars do.
The VRE cars have impossibly narrow stairs to the "upper" level that I don't remember on the NJ Transit cars.
What's the difference?
The gallery part is the open space between the single aisles on the second level. The NJT cars have a true second level with a full floor and full seating.
Thanks, I always wondered why the VRE cars don't have a full upper level. I guess it was probably for cost reasons. Along with scolding passengers for dripping and shaking dirt on the lower level passengers, they also cry poor about eight-car train passenger loads and the lack of layover storage in the carriage yard. I guess the extra passengers afforded by true bilevel cars didn't seem worth it.
Done deal. http://www.dot.ca.gov/paffairs/pr/2017/prs/17pr117.html
Look like clones of Brightline Cars, complete with ADA wide aisles (and accompanying narrow seats. Amtrak 23", Brightline 19", Airline 17")
oltmannd "...and accompanying narrow seats."
But Tamie said they were going to be "spacious".
Didn't occur to me to ask for what category of rail rider they were spacious for. Dyspeptic inmates of an orphanage for dwarfs (seated two by two)?
I'm a bit surprised. The minutes of the Executive Board meeting of 11-07-2017 state that the final ruling by the Executive Board will happen on 11-21-2017http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305%20Exec%20Brd%20minutes%20-11-7-17%20DRAFT.doc
See chapters 5 to 7.Regards, Volker
VOLKER LANDWEHRI'm a bit surprised. The minutes of the Executive Board meeting of 11-07-2017 state that the final ruling by the Executive Board will happen on 11-21-2017
Curiouser and curiouser, the technical committee approval of the weight reduction was made 11-02-2017 (to continue in that date format) and that may be the action used as a basis for Tamie McGowen's press release - note the indication in section 5, provided below, that 'all subcommittee voting members' were 'in agreement for the DCR as amended' and would hence be justified in going forward UNLESS the DCR as amended fails in some way to accord with the requirements document - that is the thing that all the subsequent check-and-review is concerned with. (You can check with her directly about this issue at (916) 657-5060, but I think it would make sense to go ahead and issue the release based on what's expected to happen; note the e-mail addresses for the individual review-panel members should you want to consult them directly)
Here is the relevant section of the draft minutes:
5.
Status: Single level car DCR 003-155 on Weight change - Tammy Krause, Amtrak – NGEC Revision Control Coordinator:
Tammy Krause reported that on 11-2-17, on the Technical subcommittee call, the Single Level Car Specification DCR on weight change was approved as amended. While the weight change is not as much as originally requested, a compromise was reached and the DCR was approved with all subcommittee voting members in agreement for the DCR as amended. The next step is for the Review Panel to review the DCR against the requirements document to ensure compliance. Larry Salci was tasked with preparing a report with recommendations for Review Panel consideration. Once the Panel receives the report it will meet to discuss and consider it. If approved, it is taken to the Executive Board for its consideration, and ultimately, its adoption.
Tammy also provided 3 documents related DCR 003-155 as an FYI to the Executive Board:
6.
Single Level Car Specification Review Panel to review Weight Change DCR – timeline - Larry Salci:
Larry Salci reported that he expects to complete the report with recommendations later today (11-7-17) and will be sending it to Steve Hewitt on 11-8-17 for distribution to the Single Level Car Specification Review Panel members for their review.
Steve Hewitt reviewed who the members of the panel are.
You might be right that they proceeded because the final rule might predictable.
Then I would have expected a remark like "to place the order on condition of final approval by the Excecutive Board" or so in the minutes.
Instead:7.
Scheduling the Review Panel Meeting - Eric Curtit, Missouri DOT – NGEC Chair:
Eric Curtit and Steve Hewitt will set a date and time for the Review Panel to meet to consider the report and recommendations. It is anticipated that it will take place early next week. (week of 11-12-17)
The goal is to bring this forward to the Executive Board for its consideration on 11-21-17.
All of the Technical Subcommitee member voted for the DCR as amended. The Excecutive Board forwarded the DCR to the Review Panel. It stays curious.
Calling from Germany is cost prohibite, I think. Regards, Volker
VOLKER LANDWEHRThe Executive [note English sp.] Board forwarded the DCR to the Review Panel. It stays curious.
The reason it's not particularly curious to me is that they clearly disclose that all the subsequent 'review' by the Panel is only to confirm (perhaps largely for CYA reasons) that the decided final proposal is "i's dotted and t's crossed" fully in accord with the basic 'requirements document'. Now, it would be a very poor DCR indeed if a Structural or Technical WG hadn't conducted all its review and engineering with an eye toward the design requirements, and therefore no surprise that a pro forma review and signing-off is only a last step of no particular operational importance (or that a change mandated by a last-minute discovery of some error would be somewhat unlikely!)
This organization is not like the one in France which blithely arranged for an entire order of cars to be designed and built too wide to fit French platforms.
Looks like NS will not be building any more bi-levels for US carriers.
https://www.railjournal.com/index.php/north-america/nippon-sharyo-to-close-us-plant.html?channel=000
blue streak 1blue streak 1 wrote the following post 16 hours ago: Looks like NS will not be building any more bi-levels for US carriers. https://www.railjournal.com/index.php/north-america/nippon-sharyo-to-close-us-plant.html?channel=000
I think at some point California, New York, Midwest, Amtrak and the Commutter agencies need to get together and support two car builders to include having their base of operations in one state and all the orders comming out of one or two plants. This political BS of everyone has to have a rail passenger car builder in their own home state and cars built to their specific specs is incredibly wasteful of capital in my opinion. Lets have a national standard and stick with it instead of flipping all over the place. You can have multiple versions of the same car shell we don't need to keep building and re-engineering from the ground up each time.
CMStPnP blue streak 1 blue streak 1 wrote the following post 16 hours ago: Looks like NS will not be building any more bi-levels for US carriers. https://www.railjournal.com/index.php/north-america/nippon-sharyo-to-close-us-plant.html?channel=000 I think at some point California, New York, Midwest, Amtrak and the Commutter agencies need to get together and support two car builders to include having their base of operations in one state and all the orders comming out of one or two plants. This political BS of everyone has to have a rail passenger car builder in their own home state and cars built to their specific specs is incredibly wasteful of capital in my opinion. Lets have a national standard and stick with it instead of flipping all over the place. You can have multiple versions of the same car shell we don't need to keep building and re-engineering from the ground up each time.
blue streak 1 blue streak 1 wrote the following post 16 hours ago: Looks like NS will not be building any more bi-levels for US carriers. https://www.railjournal.com/index.php/north-america/nippon-sharyo-to-close-us-plant.html?channel=000
Much too logical to be given any weight in today's political world of passenger railroading; where the essence of it is political, not passenger or railroading.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
1. I sure hope no more junk from N-S.
2. I hope this is the end of reiterations of the gallery car design from 1950.
3. CMStPnP is right. Consolidation of designs and builders is a must.
charlie hebdo1. I sure hope no more junk from N-S. 2. I hope this is the end of reiterations of the gallery car design from 1950. 3. CMStPnP is right. Consolidation of designs and builders is a must.
Like CAF is a paragon of railcar manufacture......
BaltACD charlie hebdo 1. I sure hope no more junk from N-S. 2. I hope this is the end of reiterations of the gallery car design from 1950. 3. CMStPnP is right. Consolidation of designs and builders is a must. Like CAF is a paragon of railcar manufacture......
charlie hebdo 1. I sure hope no more junk from N-S. 2. I hope this is the end of reiterations of the gallery car design from 1950. 3. CMStPnP is right. Consolidation of designs and builders is a must.
Even worse, at least for the Viewliner 2 order.
1. They're only shutting down their U.S. plant, not going out of business entirely...could still source from Japan or co-produce with an existing supplier
2. Just because you don't like the design doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it, it is the basis for the Superliners(along with the ATSF El Capitan, which need replacement)
3. Not going to happen in an international marketplace, and we're just one teeny tiny pie in that international marketplace.
It's also time for the FRA to revise their collision standard...perhaps to more align with the rest of the world(and don't give me that BS about freight being separate from passenger in Europe, it's not, so that doesn't hold water).
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR2. Just because you don't like the design doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it, it is the basis for the Superliners(along with the ATSF El Capitan, which need replacement)
AFAIK, neither the El Capitan cars nor their descendents, the Superliners, trace lineage to gallery cars, other than being bilevels. I don't like them because they are a poor design based on the need for conductors checking tickets. That need has changed. The cars built after the P-S and Budd cars are noisy (could be called Thunderboxes); all the cars going back to those of Budd, P-S and St. Louis have rather unpleasant interiors looking like a mobile cell block compared to other bilevel designs.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JRIt's also time for the FRA to revise their collision standard...perhaps to more align with the rest of the world(and don't give me that BS about freight being separate from passenger in Europe, it's not, so that doesn't hold water).
European freight is not 15K feet long and 20K tons.
BaltACDEuropean freight is not 15K feet long and 20K tons.
Source: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/9505
PDF-page 26: Superior crashworthiness performance of CEM equipment has been demonstrated with full-scale impact tests. In the train-to-train test of conventional equipment, the colliding cab car was crushed by approximately 22 feet (ft) and overrode the locomotive, eliminating the space for the engineer‘s seat and for approximately 47 passenger seats [15]. During the train-to-train test of CEM equipment, the front of the cab car was crushed by approximately 3 ft, and the crush was propagated back to all of the unoccupied ends of the trailing passenger cars. The controlled deformation of the cab car prevented override. All of the space for the passengers and crew remained intact [16]. The impact speed for both train-to-train tests was 30 mph.
So even when colliding with another passenger train the current Tier 1 standard provides only crew and passenger safety up to 20 mph. No mentioning of 20 Ktons trains.Regards, Volker
FRA is doing the right thing, given United States railway operating practices....
My 18 months living in Germany and some trips back to Europe since then. I never once sat on a Passenger train that passed a Freight train or vice versa. I used to live near Osterholtz, Germany midway up the Bremen to Bremerhaven line, while your correct that freights and passenger used the same rails at times, they were never comingled like they are in the United States.
Meaning, the line would be clear of passenger trains before they sent a freight train through. The Germans were real careful of that with their dispatching.
So unless something has changed or DB rail operations have changed I don't think what you say is exactly correct. It's nothing like the operation in the United States. Large class I's cannot afford to clear the line for passenger like they did in Germany.......freight trains in the United States are too slow and too large.
Same was done in Italy as well as Switzerland via my observation.
Additionally, in Germany they had so many redundant and parallel lines they could easily flip one to freight for an hour or a few hours and still maintain a fluid network getting both the freight train and the passenger train to their desination on time. Also, not like the United States where the parallel lines have largely been abandoned as wasteful (even though they might help network fluidity). In the United States frieght has to fight against passenger repeately because the railroads are too cheap to maintain a sgnificant long distance parallel rail line if it is not at least heavily used. Can't have two moderately used rail lines side by side in the United States. Nope, you have to shift all the traffic over to one rail line and abandon the other. I don't think you have that same philosophy in Europe.
Also, remember the ore trains from Bremerhaven flying through Osterholtz with their ore jennies doing at least 70 mph or better. Lol, try that in the United States and watch the old ore jennies litterly fly apart in front of your eyes or go flying off the tracks. They just do not maintain freight cars in the United States to the same standards as Europe does, in my opinion. Nor do they exercise the run them until they fall off the tracks philosophy.
American freight train speeds are so slow sometimes I have to chuckle. You should see how slow the freights are pulling in and out of the BNSF yard in Kansas City......completely ridiculous and DB would never stand for that waste of capital, labor and time........... for what? To preserve old railroad infrastructure past it's prime? Nope, DB would modernize the yard and or the approach tracks and those frieght trains would roll in and roll out of that yard a lot faster than they do.
I still chuckle over the Empire Builder crawling out of Milwaukee West on the former Milwaukee Tracks in the Mennominee River valley of Milwaukee.......all the way to the stadium it crawls. Good lord people there hasn't been any decent yard activity on that line since like 12-15 years ago. Get with CP and get those stupid yard speed limits lifted as well as install CTC through the damn passenger station. To me it just looks like a waste of time, labor and is highly inefficient on the part of Amtrak to tolerate that BS because CP doesn't want to take any initiative to change it. Whats the cost to fix that BS? Maybe $5-10 million, however it would probably have a short payback period in saved time / labor costs. No reason the speed limit in the valley can't be 65 mph or better right up to the passenger station.
CMStPnPFRA is doing the right thing, given United States railway operating practices....
You are right, in the sense that FRA allows to ask for a waiver regarding standard Tier 1 crashworthiness standards and use the Appendix G to (49 CFR) Part 238—Alternative Requirements for Evaluating the Crashworthiness and Occupant Protection Performance of a Tier I Passenger Trainset. (see my post above).
The Tier 1 standard and Appendix G are designed to lead to the same safety levels.
In a Notice of proposed rulemaking FRA writes that the Appendix G leads to results close to the European standards with only minor adjustments needed.
CMStPnPMeaning, the line would be clear of passenger trains before they sent a freight train through. The Germans were real careful of that with their dispatching.
The passenger trains have absolute priority in Germany. The passenger trains run according their schedule and freight trains are fitted in between when ever possible.
DB tries to run freight trains at about the average passenger train speed to minimize interference. There are meets, overtakings, and crossings. As we have a lot of pssenger trains many freight trains run at night when passenger traffic is lighter. A much larger difference is that DB has ATS safety systems (PZB and LZB) since 1930 (LZB since mid 1990s). So hopefully PTC will help to keep trains separated.
The style of operation is different but doesn't play a role in crashworthiness.
The American rules require to make a vehicle as rigid as suitable, an approach the automobile industry let behind in the 1960s. And as I have shown above the results are not as good as most here think, they are worse than CEM standards.Regards, Volker
VOLKER LANDWEHRDB tries to run freight trains at about the average passenger train speed to minimize interference. There are meets, overtakings, and crossings. As we have a lot of pssenger trains many freight trains run at night when passenger traffic is lighter. A much larger difference is that DB has ATS safety systems (PZB and LZB) since 1930 (LZB since mid 1990s). So hopefully PTC will help to keep trains separated. The style of operation is different but doesn't play a role in crashworthiness.
Even did a quick scan of YOUTUBE videos of Germany and Austria. I only found one video with a Freight Train and Passenger train on what looked like on the same line at the same time passing each other in Dresden. The others it is either the lines are far apart and probably different lines or it is one freight after another blocked together, then one passenger train after another blocked together with directional running. I still do not see them intermixed like in the U.S.
Here are some examples:
Cologne to Mainz (left side of River Rhein): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT1qCzB01Achttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6NT_trPaYA
Hamburg to Bremen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnaRgNDMDu8
Hamburg to Hannover: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peP5ZkvU514
They are run as I described before. You will not see ICE trains and freight trains on single track lines.
As I said before, it doesn't matter for crashworthiness as neither the Tier 1 standard trains nor the European standard train will "survive" a 50 mph crash with a 2,000 tons freight train. They are not designed for it.
With single track there might be more chances for accidents but could have been solved long ago with ATS systems.
The FRA has introduced 49 CFR Part 238 Appendix G as the realized that CEM design provides much better survival chances than the traditional design, even the American kind of operation.Regards, Volker
charlie hebdo GERALD L MCFARLANE JR 2. Just because you don't like the design doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it, it is the basis for the Superliners(along with the ATSF El Capitan, which need replacement) AFAIK, neither the El Capitan cars nor their descendents, the Superliners, trace lineage to gallery cars, other than being bilevels. I don't like them because they are a poor design based on the need for conductors checking tickets. That need has changed. The cars built after the P-S and Budd cars are noisy (could be called Thunderboxes); all the cars going back to those of Budd, P-S and St. Louis have rather unpleasant interiors looking like a mobile cell block compared to other bilevel designs.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR 2. Just because you don't like the design doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it, it is the basis for the Superliners(along with the ATSF El Capitan, which need replacement)
CSSHEGEWISCH charlie hebdo GERALD L MCFARLANE JR 2. Just because you don't like the design doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it, it is the basis for the Superliners(along with the ATSF El Capitan, which need replacement) AFAIK, neither the El Capitan cars nor their descendents, the Superliners, trace lineage to gallery cars, other than being bilevels. I don't like them because they are a poor design based on the need for conductors checking tickets. That need has changed. The cars built after the P-S and Budd cars are noisy (could be called Thunderboxes); all the cars going back to those of Budd, P-S and St. Louis have rather unpleasant interiors looking like a mobile cell block compared to other bilevel designs. What is the problem with the gallery design beyond the fact that it dates back to 1950?? The need for train crews to check tickets has not gone away in the Chicago area due to a variety of factors including terms in labor contracts and a less than enthusiastic response from commuters to ticket vending machines. The interiors may be rather utilitarian (this IS suburban equipment) but they are hardly unpleasant.
1. Tickets can be checked by collectors capable of climbing stairs. Typically on rush hour Metra trains, they come by only once or twice.
2. The interiors are dismal because of design, not decoration, and the newer cars are noisier than even the old P-S cars still running. Perhaps you wouldn't know this if you've never experienced other double decker designs?
Volker.
Enjoyable and interesting. On the first video, we're some passenger trains diesel? In the second, what cargo is carried in the reddish orange cars that looked like they could be coiled steel or coal hoppers?
Thanks
CSSHEGEWISCHThe need for train crews to check tickets has not gone away in the Chicago area due to a variety of factors including terms in labor contracts and a less than enthusiastic response from commuters to ticket vending machines.
Has Chicago ever really tried an honor system like they have in Dallas? I just find it hard to believe the people in Chicago are less capable than the folks in Dallas and I think someone is sticking it to the taxpayer with a human employment program that is wasteful.
The Dallas refurbished GO Transit style cars are far better than the Chicago Gallery Cars, more roomy, Digital readout on next stop, mostly carpet and formica on the inside vs bare steel. For one they are a lot less drafty in the Winter at least on the upper two levels. I don't think the commutters in Chicago have ever been given a choice over the cattle cars they have in use now. I am sure METRA is full of excuses and justifications though since they have a self interest to stay top heavy with people.
I think if you subbed in Chicago Gallery Cars in Toronto for the GO Transit cars ridership would drop heavily.
charlie hebdo1. Tickets can be checked by collectors capable of climbing stairs. Typically on rush hour Metra trains, they come by only once or twice.
Actually no they only need to spot check for tickets, enforced by a steep fine if the passenger does not have a ticket. I've been on more than one Milwaukee West District Train where I never even saw a Conductor and I boarded out farther West than Schamburg, IL. Chicago METRA needs more than anyone else a very deep personell cut, too many people doing jobs that should have been automated or eliminated a long time ago.
VOLKER LANDWEHRAs I said before, it doesn't matter for crashworthiness as neither the Tier 1 standard trains nor the European standard train will "survive" a 50 mph crash with a 2,000 tons freight train. They are not designed for it.
See, a fascinating thing about this is that people in the United States realized as early as the Miller anticlimber patents that the object was not, and ever could be, absorbing the crash energy of a head-to-head impact entirely with "CEM" composed of crumple zones. That's good as far as it goes, but 'crash energy management' is not just a euphemism: for any substantial impact, the 'answer' essentially lies in controlled derailment rather than pool-cueing; in keeping consists flexibly joined (to the greatest extent possible) with CEM attenuation inherent in the sections between vehicles but not tending to allow them to 'twist' apart, with reasonable precautions against the kind of tear-open accident we saw in the early M8 sideswipe.
In part this involves careful attention to the area around the tracks, so that unlike Eischeide (or Amtrak 188) there aren't any little posts to bring tons of concrete down on your heads in a direction that can't provide effective 'CEM', or towers to open you up like a beer can, but instead features that might help keep your consist relatively upright and out of trouble as it spalls off momentum...
Electroliner 1935Enjoyable and interesting. On the first video, we're some passenger trains diesel?
You are right, there were a few DMUs. You need not use the catenary to run on electrified lines. Using DMUs can mean the train leaves the electrified line somewhere and continues on a not electrified secondary line.
It is not unusual to watch diesel powered freight trains under catenary. In the beginning it was done to avoid a traction change when going on a non electrified line. In the mean time there are diesel runs unter catenary for the full length of the run.
Not very ecological, but with about 150 railroad companies with the open access the market leads to such solution.
Electroliner 1935In the second, what cargo is carried in the reddish orange cars that looked like they could be coiled steel or coal hoppers?
Here I need your help. In the second video (Cologne-Mainz) it didn't find anything fitting. In the third video (Hamburg-Bremen) there is a train at 1:47. Cars 3 to 6 are low side gondolas loaded with small containers, the next seven are high side gondolas for everything except iron ore followed by three sliding-wall waggons: https://www.waggonbau-niesky.com/assets/components/phpthumbof/cache/2x2_sww_h%28f%29irrs_gr.a09da5de33354e2ff430fe7655e980de.jpg
The are followed by a gondola and a number of tank cars and then three sliding-wall waggons again separated by a gondola.
In the forth video (Hamburg-Hannover) you find Germany's heaviest freight train at 2:09. It is an iron ore train from the Port of Hamburg to Peine-Salzgitter weighing 6,300 tons. Usually it has two Class 151 locomotives as traction. The train is too heavy for the screw type coupling. Ore cars and locomotives are equipped with UIC-AK 69e automatic couplers.Regards, Volker
OvermodSee, a fascinating thing about this is that people in the United States realized as early as the Miller anticlimber patents that the object was not, and ever could be, absorbing the crash energy of a head-to-head impact entirely with "CEM" composed of crumple zones.
That has never been pursued, neither in the USA nor in Europe. In the USA they investigated late what equipment according to Tier 1 standard can withstand. The result for two equal trains of locomotive and five cars (IIRC) was a crash at max. 18 mph.
In Europe more than 900 accident reports were evaluated and a standard developed that covers 90% of the accidents. Result are the following scenarios: http://voith.com/corp-de/m_vt_statische_verteilung_der_aufprallkraefte_d_460x220.jpg
I have often said that there is no crashworthiness design that can survive the crash energy of medium/high speed collissions.
Overmod the 'answer' essentially lies in controlled derailment rather than pool-cueing; in keeping consists flexibly joined (to the greatest extent possible) with CEM attenuation inherent in the sections between vehicles but not tending to allow them to 'twist' apart, with reasonable precautions against the kind of tear-open accident we saw in the early M8 sideswipe.
Sounds quite good, theoretically. I don't think that this is technically practicable. I don't see a way to control this. There is not just the danger of crushing but also the secondary impact. And our head reacts far more sensible on a side impact than a front impact.
Overmodn part this involves careful attention to the area around the tracks, so that unlike Eischeide (or Amtrak 188) there aren't any little posts to bring tons of concrete down on your heads in a direction that can't provide effective 'CEM'
As most track already exists it is too late for these considerations. And Eschede was a very untypical derailment. Cause for the accident was a broken wheel rim that got caught in a switch. http://archiv.rhein-zeitung.de/on/99/05/20/topnews/eschede4_.jpg
There is a rubber layer between wheel rim and wheel disk. This kind of wheel doesn't exist anymore.Regards, Volker
CMStPnP CSSHEGEWISCH The need for train crews to check tickets has not gone away in the Chicago area due to a variety of factors including terms in labor contracts and a less than enthusiastic response from commuters to ticket vending machines. Has Chicago ever really tried an honor system like they have in Dallas? I just find it hard to believe the people in Chicago are less capable than the folks in Dallas and I think someone is sticking it to the taxpayer with a human employment program that is wasteful. The Dallas refurbished GO Transit style cars are far better than the Chicago Gallery Cars, more roomy, Digital readout on next stop, mostly carpet and formica on the inside vs bare steel. For one they are a lot less drafty in the Winter at least on the upper two levels. I don't think the commutters in Chicago have ever been given a choice over the cattle cars they have in use now. I am sure METRA is full of excuses and justifications though since they have a self interest to stay top heavy with people. I think if you subbed in Chicago Gallery Cars in Toronto for the GO Transit cars ridership would drop heavily. charlie hebdo 1. Tickets can be checked by collectors capable of climbing stairs. Typically on rush hour Metra trains, they come by only once or twice. Actually no they only need to spot check for tickets, enforced by a steep fine if the passenger does not have a ticket. I've been on more than one Milwaukee West District Train where I never even saw a Conductor and I boarded out farther West than Schamburg, IL. Chicago METRA needs more than anyone else a very deep personell cut, too many people doing jobs that should have been automated or eliminated a long time ago.
CSSHEGEWISCH The need for train crews to check tickets has not gone away in the Chicago area due to a variety of factors including terms in labor contracts and a less than enthusiastic response from commuters to ticket vending machines.
charlie hebdo 1. Tickets can be checked by collectors capable of climbing stairs. Typically on rush hour Metra trains, they come by only once or twice.
I agree.
You will see collectors on Metra trains, both mid-day and rush hour, at least on the MIL District-West and UP-West lines.. If you are a regular, or even semi-regular, you recognize them and vice versa, even knowing names.
Metra seems to be looking into a change away from the gallery cars, at least considering this:
https://www.midwesthsr.org/great-news-metra-asks-modern-car-designs?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=2077c35d-6dcb-4621-b8b2-44dd0b850ca3
charlie hebdoI agree. You will see collectors on Metra trains, both mid-day and rush hour, at least on the MIL District-West and UP-West lines.. If you are a regular, or even semi-regular, you recognize them and vice versa, even knowing names. Metra seems to be looking into a change away from the gallery cars, at least considering this: https://www.midwesthsr.org/great-news-metra-asks-modern-car-designs?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=2077c35d-6dcb-4621-b8b2-44dd0b850ca3
Also, Metra doesn't always have to buy things brand spanking new all the time. The Rock Island service out of LaSalle Street station is a good candidate for used and rehabbed equipment..........not a lot of frequencies or miles per day, IMHO.
Dallas bought it's TRE cars used from Toronto, I have not seen any mechanical problems or malfunctioning equipment yet. They are running just fine. Same with the used locomotives. It's a low mileage run as well so they can get away with it. Some of METRA's runs are low mileage like the former RI service out of LaSalle Street Station. Geez buy some used equipment for a change and save some money.......Chicago.
CMStPnP charlie hebdo I agree. You will see collectors on Metra trains, both mid-day and rush hour, at least on the MIL District-West and UP-West lines.. If you are a regular, or even semi-regular, you recognize them and vice versa, even knowing names. Metra seems to be looking into a change away from the gallery cars, at least considering this: https://www.midwesthsr.org/great-news-metra-asks-modern-car-designs?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=2077c35d-6dcb-4621-b8b2-44dd0b850ca3 Also, Metra doesn't always have to buy things brand spanking new all the time. The Rock Island service out of LaSalle Street station is a good candidate for used and rehabbed equipment..........not a lot of frequencies or miles per day, IMHO. Dallas bought it's TRE cars used from Toronto, I have not seen any mechanical problems or malfunctioning equipment yet. They are running just fine. Same with the used locomotives. It's a low mileage run as well so they can get away with it. Some of METRA's runs are low mileage like the former RI service out of LaSalle Street Station. Geez buy some used equipment for a change and save some money.......Chicago.
charlie hebdo I agree. You will see collectors on Metra trains, both mid-day and rush hour, at least on the MIL District-West and UP-West lines.. If you are a regular, or even semi-regular, you recognize them and vice versa, even knowing names. Metra seems to be looking into a change away from the gallery cars, at least considering this: https://www.midwesthsr.org/great-news-metra-asks-modern-car-designs?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=2077c35d-6dcb-4621-b8b2-44dd0b850ca3
Used equipment being brought into an existing fleet bring along with it a whole host of mechanical challenges - as there may be very little parts interchange between existing and used equipment, thus having to expand the spare parts inventory to support the used equipment - with the understanding that there may not be spares available and that is why the original owner is getting rid of the equipment. There is much more to used equipment than just a low purchase price.
CMStPnP Geez buy some used equipment for a change and save some money.......Chicago.
Geez buy some used equipment for a change and save some money.......Chicago.
If you had bothered to check some facts, which is a strech for you, you would see that Metra has purchased used equipment.
https://metrarail.com/about-metra/newsroom/metra-moves-buy-newer-engines
https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/new-vre-cars-to-be-in-use-soon/article_ab19d3b2-fc1a-529a-bb52-16b4899b856d.html
"The Operations Board agreed at its Friday meeting to sell six of the old legacy cars to Metra in Chicago for a total of $3,000"
n012944 https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/new-vre-cars-to-be-in-use-soon/article_ab19d3b2-fc1a-529a-bb52-16b4899b856d.html "The Operations Board agreed at its Friday meeting to sell six of the old legacy cars to Metra in Chicago for a total of $3,000"
WOW! $500 a rail car they must be some splendid reliable rolling history!
BaltACD n012944 https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/new-vre-cars-to-be-in-use-soon/article_ab19d3b2-fc1a-529a-bb52-16b4899b856d.html "The Operations Board agreed at its Friday meeting to sell six of the old legacy cars to Metra in Chicago for a total of $3,000" WOW! $500 a rail car they must be some splendid reliable rolling history!
I think they started on Metra or on one of its predecessor lines.
CMStPnPDallas bought it's TRE cars used from Toronto, I have not seen any mechanical problems or malfunctioning equipment yet
The Bombardier cars are much nicer inside than gallery car designs.
TRE can equip its fleet with used cars more easily than Metra. since TRE carries only 8200 passengers weekdays in 17 coaches. Metra carries 292,000 on weekdays, requiring a fleet of ~900 bilevel gallery cars + 340 electric lines bilevels.
n012944If you had bothered to check some facts, which is a strech for you, you would see that Metra has purchased used equipment. https://metrarail.com/about-metra/newsroom/metra-moves-buy-newer-engines https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/new-vre-cars-to-be-in-use-soon/article_ab19d3b2-fc1a-529a-bb52-16b4899b856d.html "The Operations Board agreed at its Friday meeting to sell six of the old legacy cars to Metra in Chicago for a total of $3,000"
Thats pretty funny. I think had slightly larger purchases in mind.
charlie hebdoThe Bombardier cars are much nicer inside than gallery car designs. TRE can equip its fleet with used cars more easily than Metra. since TRE carries only 8200 passengers weekdays in 17 coaches. Metra carries 292,000 on weekdays, requiring a fleet of ~900 bilevel gallery cars + 340 electric lines bilevels.
They can't buy used from Toronto? Other cities use them as well. They don't have to replace all of the old cattle cars. Just one line as a trial would be nice or even a few trainsets on one line so Chicago riders can see what they have been missing. It would be like introducing Western made cars to the Eastern Warsaw Pact countries.........or a more current analogy, replacing a family's Chinese made "LAND WIND" with a British made "LAND ROVER".
https://autoweek.com/article/car-news/land-rover-sues-chinese-evoque-copycat
Chicago riders just have to experience the difference to demand more from their allegedly "public servants".
Canadian Dollar relative to the U.S. Dollar is falling like a rock under Tredeau, heck just wait 6-8 more months and a new Bombardier car will be half price.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.