Recent content by jadebenn

I did some napkin math, and I think you could get a bilevel high-platform if you can use the whole 17 feet of plate F. But it's tight. So, doing the basic napkin math of 17 feet minus 48 inches, then dividing the remaining height clearance by two, you get 6.5 feet. That's enough, right? Except...

Well, I'm tired of debating it either way. It's totally tangential to my actual question. So assuming bilevels, does the math work with the clearances available? Is it physically possible for passengers who aren't hobbits? That is the question I would like answered. I am genuinely curious if...

How would it be a further subdivision? The Superliners already can't run on the NEC. Doesn't seem to be a deal-breaker. Of course simplifying the fleet benefits Amtrak, but so does the doubled capacity per car of the Superliners. That's why they were ordered, and that's why they're still in...

Is it really that unreasonable to wonder if it's possible to have the capacity benefits of a bilevel and the accessibility of a high level car given the very generous tolerances of American loading gauge? I think it's pretty unfair to characterize that as a "former obsession."

Talking about the Siemens Venture procurements and their 48" level boarding height has got me thinking about the future of the Superliners and the Amtrak LD fleet. A similar topic was discussed in this thread, but it was derailed by the idea of making the bilevel stock able to run on the NEC...

Yeah, more than a bit hesitant to hear they're planning to replace much of their electric fleet with dual-mode. If it works, sure, but I can't help but fear they'll be very maintenance-intensive compared to the ACS-64s. Slightly related: I wonder if these locomotives have any commonality with...

Interesting how Siemens, by simply being in the right place at the right time, is going to standardize pretty much everything but the commuter trains and Amtrak LDs at 50" high platforms. I mean sure, not like there's any plan to rebuild the low-platform stations for level boarding at the...

Seems like that wouldn't satisfy interoperability requirements. But you seem more knowledgeable about this than I do. Would there be any issue with running foreign power in lead if they chose that route? Also, updated link: https://beta.regulations.gov/document/FRA-2010-0060-0047

Yeah, I suppose it's rational. It's just a shame to see the end of one of the FEC's most unique features. What other Class II has a full ATC system with cab signalling, after all.

I don't think interoperability factors in much here. I don't see much potential for foreign power on the FEC, and SFRTA was previously planning to equip some of their fleet with both system for Downtown Link operations. But perhaps I'm not thinking "big picture" enough. Will they be tearing out...

Well I'm eating my words. Why did they go with I-ETMS when they already had an ATC installation? Maybe they wanted to reduce the costs on the new lines? That's the only reason I can think of.

Yeah. I think their study (it's in the EIS) predicted something like 20,000 a year from the Amtrak LD trains. That's a drop in the bucket when they're predicting millions of riders overall.

This is what I fear. Ridership will tank and never recover, and that'll be used to try and justify continuing the cutbacks.

What an asinine idea. The definition of penny-wise, pound foolish. The savings will be marginal, but quality of service will be severely reduced. I hope the Congresscritters block this.

Few reasons: One: Congress didn't want to hand out a monopoly by mandating a specific system. Two: The needs of the railroads are different. I mean reason two is the whole reason that I'd eat my hat if this was I-ETMS, because I-ETMS is a poor man's (or rather, cheapskate's) PTC. It works...