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
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.
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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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.
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.
Siemens Viaggio Twin Much more pleasant than gallery designs.
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.
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.
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).
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"?
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"?
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.