Are Bi-Level Cars on the NEC in Amtraks future?

[dlagrua]

If anyone here has ridden the NEC on a regular basis, (especially on the portion between NYP and WAS) you have mostly likely experienced crowded conditions. On some days it is difficult to even find a seat on the regionals and even the Acelas are operating near capacity.

There is reference in Amtraks annual plan to introduce bi-level cars when possible. The bi-level NJT and MARC cars already run on the NEC ( and make the clearances) so it would appear that the next generation Amfleet coaches and Acela cars might be bi-level designs. I have concerns that bi-level coaches might not provide the same confort that we are used to but I guess anything can be designed to give the required leg room.

Anyone read anything more about this plan? Opinions?

 

[Ryan]

Bi-levels are fine in commuter service, but they won't work for the longer hauls (WAS-NYP, PHL-BOS, etc). Can you imagine spending 7 hours in a NJT bi-level (MARC's K-cars don't fit through New York)? Where is your luggage going to go? What about getting to the Cafe car from several cars away (that's a lot of stairs to climb!)?

Not going to happen.

Edit:

Here's what the plan says about bi-levels for corridor service:

A possible approach to adoption of bi-level corridor cars for Midwestservices is discussed.

Introduction of a bi-level corridor car to replace single level cars whereclearances permit

(in other words, not the NEC)

Composition: This plan assumes new single level cars will replace existing singlelevel cars, and bi-level cars will require bi-level replacements, with the exception of

Midwest service, where bi-level equipment is planned to replace single-level

equipment, as discussed further in Section 13. The potential for bi-level type

equipment on the NEC is discussed in Section 22.

22. Single Level Cars on the NECThe previous issue of the report included the general assumption that single level cars

would replace single level cars and bi-level cars would replace bi-level cars. A notable

potential exception to that was made for Midwest corridor services, where a transition

to bi-level cars was identified as a potentially beneficial step which needed further

analysis. That analysis is reflected in this updated issue of the report.

Beyond the Midwest services, the report prompted some debate about the possibility of

moving away from single level cars entirely, and adopting bi-level cars for all new

acquisitions. For the east coast services with restricted clearances that cannot

accommodate Superliner or Surfliner equipment, a different configuration of car would

be needed.

This issue has been addressed by commuter operators and the recent New Jersey

Transit (NJT) of the Bombardier Multilevel car is a prominent example. This car can

board from high and low level platforms and has upper and lower seating levels as well

as a mid level at the end of the cars.

Amtrak has previously reviewed this type of equipment for potential use in the NEC.

That analysis found that the configuration allowed little additional seating for an

Amtrak style of service. Additionally, through train access issues would be problematic.

Further work is, however, underway in some quarters and Amtrak will study the results

to see if the initial concerns have been overcome and a suitable configuration for our

customers can be developed. This topic will be covered in future updates to this plan.

In other words, don't get your hopes up.

 

[jis]

I've read it a few times and don't recall any mention of bi-levels on the corridor. Reference?

Bi-levels are fine in commuter service, but they won't work for the longer hauls (WAS-NYP, PHL-BOS, etc). Can you imagine spending 7 hours in a NJT bi-level (MARC's K-cars don't fit through New York)? Where is your luggage going to go? What about getting to the Cafe car from several cars away (that's a lot of stairs to climb!)?

Not going to happen.

I would be curious to see an exact quotation with reference stating that Amtrak plans to deploy bi-level cars on the NEC. Until I see that I do not believe they have any such plans. Why would they bother to create a single level car standard which is mostly for the NEC if they really planned to deploy some kind of bi-level instead?

 

[Ryan]

Sorry, Jis - I just went through and edited, the information you seek is just above.

 

[afigg]

I've read it a few times and don't recall any mention of bi-levels on the corridor. Reference?

Discussed in section 22 (page 58) of the V2 Fleet Strategy Plan released in February, 2011. They looked at the Bombardier Multilevel used by NJ Transit. Quoting from the plan document:

"That analysis found that the configuration allowed little additional seating for an Amtrak style of service. Additionally, through train access issues would be problematic. Further work is, however, underway in some quarters and Amtrak will study the results to see if the initial concerns have been overcome and a suitable configuration for our customers can be developed. This topic will be covered in future updates to this plan."

I hope Amtrak does not go to bi-levels on the NEC and in the east. If the car can't be much over 14' high, the bi-level makes for cramped quarters and awkward access.

Oops, see I was beaten to it while writing my poat.

 

[dlagrua]

I've read it a few times and don't recall any mention of bi-levels on the corridor. Reference?

Discussed in section 22 (page 58) of the V2 Fleet Strategy Plan released in February, 2011. They looked at the Bombardier Multilevel used by NJ Transit. Quoting from the plan document:

"That analysis found that the configuration allowed little additional seating for an Amtrak style of service. Additionally, through train access issues would be problematic. Further work is, however, underway in some quarters and Amtrak will study the results to see if the initial concerns have been overcome and a suitable configuration for our customers can be developed. This topic will be covered in future updates to this plan."

I hope Amtrak does not go to bi-levels on the NEC and in the east. If the car can't be much over 14' high, the bi-level makes for cramped quarters and awkward access.

Oops, see I was beaten to it while writing my poat.

I often ride the Bombardier two level car into NYC via NJT. Its not bad for an hour trip but it is far less roomy than an Amtrak Amfeet II. If you read afiggs quote from the V2 strategy plan it would appear that the study is ongoing on the bi-levels. If the initial concerns on capacity and though train access can be overcome who knows?

I would agree with Ryan that it would be uncomfortable taking a 7 hour trip in a Bombardier two level car, but they do have baggage racks overhead.

Lets not necessarily assume that bi-levels won't happen. Amtrak needs capital expenditures on the NEC to relieve overcrowded conditions. At some stations the NEC trains already run almost end to end on the platforms. There may be room for one more coach car but then what?

It would be logical to assume that a version of an Amtrak bi-level coach might be developed but I can't see it being deployed its current design. Then again Washington makes all the decisons and are looking for cost savings. They could force the issue if they wanted to. All they need to say is that the Bombardier cars already have larger seats than on an airplane and are more comfortable. Skewed logic and false statements seem to be the norm whenever the subject of Amtrak is brought up in D.C.

Want a better Amtrak? Lets stop all the foreign wars that have killed our young people and cost the US taxpayer billions. Let immedately halt the welfare payments to the IMF that amount to about $125 billion a year to help bail out foreign countries that can't run their governemnt properly. Lets insist that US taxpayer money be spent only to serve the American public interest. Until we do this, the Amtrak struggle will continue.

 

[jis]

Amtrak first needs to have enough equipment to maximize capacity using single levels before going down the bi-level rathole. 8 car trains is 4 cars short of what they can already get with single level cars, i.e. 50% capacity enhancement right of the bat. Addition of two cars to Acelas also essentially gets a 50% capacity enhancement.

I had asked a couple of Amtrak guys this question regarding multi-levels on the NEC at TransAction in a side conversation, and their response was, yeah we study all sorts of things, but this is unlikely to happen because of many reasons, primary being lack of comfort, loading/unloading times, and weight of cars and ADA issues. The tare weight per seat turns out to be worse and the total number of additional seats comes out to be not that much, since a lot of floor space has to be left unused for seating so as to have space for adequate luggage racks, since there are no overhead luggage racks for normal sized rollaboards even. Their experience is that Amtrak passengers tend to carry a lot of luggage even on the corridor trains, and the lack of checked baggage service might have something to do with this. But there is no plan to add baggage service in general to corridor trains as of now.

That is why I believe that while theoretically one should never say never, this one is a way long shot at best. OTOH, who knows, maybe Amtrak wants to add a couple of real short distance unreserved commute cars to each train. Ya never know!

Incidentally, did you know that a TGV Duplex would fit through the NYC tunnels? But boy those are cramped cars too! Very cozy if you like that sort of thing

 

[PRR 60]

...Incidentally, did you know that a TGV Duplex would fit through the NYC tunnels? But boy those are cramped cars too! Very cozy if you like that sort of thing

I wonder if that considers only vertical clearance or both vertical clearance and the top corner clearance to the circular tunnel shell? The corner clearance issue is why the NJT multilevels have the chamfered roof.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

Doesn't the comfort level of bi-level cars have more to do with seat configurations?

Also, it should be possible to run bi-level cars along with standard AmFleets. Put the people who are on the train for a shorter hop on the bi-levels and the longer distance people on the standard Amfleet.

 

[jis]

...Incidentally, did you know that a TGV Duplex would fit through the NYC tunnels? But boy those are cramped cars too! Very cozy if you like that sort of thing

I wonder if that considers only vertical clearance or both vertical clearance and the top corner clearance to the circular tunnel shell? The corner clearance issue is why the NJT multilevels have the chamfered roof.

The TGVs because they are articulated, do not have the outward swing of the end of the cars relative to the pivot center of each truck. Also they are already much more tapered at the roof line to fit their loading gauge. So I would be very surprised if they need any additional adjustment.

Incidentally the only place where the tapering is needed to deal with the top corner issue, is at the New York end of the tunnel for trains to safely take a diverging route to one of the side tracks. If a train is running straight down the main into the tunnel or out of it, there is no need for the tapering. The tunnels themselves are big enough to clear an LIRR C3 without tapering.

Doesn't the comfort level of bi-level cars have more to do with seat configurations?

Yes, and also the relative lack of headroom is a significant consideration.

Also, it should be possible to run bi-level cars along with standard AmFleets. Put the people who are on the train for a shorter hop on the bi-levels and the longer distance people on the standard Amfleet.

Possible, but who is going to direct the mobs? Remember, NEC Corridor trains do not have too many ushers running around the platform, and ideally, there should be no need for any.

Afterall, Amtrak seems to be unable to even assign individuals to specific cars on a corridor train and make it work. If they could, then they could make part of the train unreserved, as is standard practice in Europe and Asia. But that appears to be unimplementable in this country for whatever reason.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

While I understand that the NEC is a good bit more crowded than Pittsburgh (or Frankfurt).

What I've seen done is designated cars for certain points on the route. In Pittsburgh they tell you "Stand here if you are going no further than Harrisburg, stand here if you are going no further than Philadelphia, stand here if you are going no further than NYC" and so on.

 

[George Harris]

If anyone here has ridden the NEC on a regular basis, (especially on the portion between NYP and WAS) you have mostly likely experienced crowded conditions. On some days it is difficult to even find a seat on the regionals and even the Acelas are operating near capacity.

Easiest solution: Longer trains. There is plenty of platform space for that. 12 cars or more are the norm for high speed trains in lots of places. Single levels are far easier and quicker to load and unload than bi-levels, which is the way to go for places like the NEC where stops are, for some, less than 30 minutes apart.

 

[MattW]

The only way I see "Amtrak" (note the quotes) using BiLevel equipment on the corridor is by possibly codesharing with a commuter rail operator operating their bilevel equipment on shorter distance express segments such as WAS-BWI-BAL for MARC or maybe WIL-PHL for SEPTA or TRE-NWK-NYP for NJT. But then you begin running into problems such as service expectations. When I board an Amtrak train, I expect a given level of service (cafe car for starters) which a commuter operator might not be able to provide. And then practically you also have the issue of 125mph-capable equipment which I believe only MARC has at the moment.

 

[Todd in Baltimore]

Given that Amtrak is unlikely to gain new right of way any time soon, maximizing the existing corridor has to be a long term goal. Bi Levels could be part of that equation, I would not dismiss them out of hand for amtrak.

First off the bi-levels NJ Transit has now were, to quote staff 15 years ago, impossible. While the current generation is heavy and has inadequate overhead storage, Bombardier need look no further that their own commuter plane division that has managed to reprofile bins in even their smallest commuter jets to accomondate standard roller bags (again, said to be impossible a few years back.) Since the profile of a rail car is squared off compared to an airplane bins, on the double deck portion of the car the bins would like take bags wheels first, making for reasonable storage per seat.

Also these are bi-level cars, not true double deckers. There is a substantive area over the boogies with much higher ceilings. Overhead pivot bins as found on the latest boeing and upcoming Bombardier CSeries jets could easily be sized to take a large bag.

Doors are actually an advantage of these cars. An additional set on the lower level would allow the cars to operate outside the NEC.

As for ADA requirements there are many approaches. wheelchairs could be limited to the intermediate levels and external lifts used on stations outside the NEC. A better solultion I feel would be a combination of wide gangways between cars and interal elevators. One has to think beyond Amtrak's comparitively old rolling stock to those in Europe. Even without acticulating cars, sealed gangways in Denmark and Germany are wide enough and stable enough to allow wheelcars to cross safely. This means having one elevator per car allows wheelchair passengers access to doors on both the intermediate and the lower level of the one car for easy and dignified access and egress while meeting ADA requirments.

All these features: upper decks, elevators, modern aircraft inspired interiors (think 787 and 737 "sky interiors", not 1960's 727) etc. have an incredible marketing potential.

Now all that said a reconfigured and updated interior of a single level car could have vastly improved seating capacity. Thinner seats, better seating configurations, slightly reduced seat pitch, smaller lavitories: basically hand the design to an aircraft interior designer and let them optimize the car. Also major stations including NY Penn, Phili, boston, baltimore, washinton, and others have existing extra long platforms. Trains could be configured longer with cars at one end (or both) opening at limited stops. I know this confuses some riders, however again this could be an opportunity. Car opening at fewer stops have less need for circulation. the cross section of an amfleet car is wide enough to have 2+3 seating. While the middle seat is a horror, a dense seating car could be sold at reduced prices, maybe in response to the low-cost bus service in the NEC.

 

[Trogdor]

I think I can pretty much guarantee that you will not see on-board elevators on cars in the Northeast, or anywhere else on the Amtrak system, for a long time.

It's tough enough keeping the dumbwaiters in the Superliner dining cars operational, and they only have to carry tiny plates of food.

 

[jis]

One closely kept secret about the NJT MLVs is they are prone to derail at slow speed on sharp curves and apparently there is no easy fix in sight as of now. They are currently banned from several tracks at Hoboken for this reason and have also derailed at least once in A Interlocking at NYP.

 

[amamba]

the cross section of an amfleet car is wide enough to have 2+3 seating. While the middle seat is a horror, a dense seating car could be sold at reduced prices, maybe in response to the low-cost bus service in the NEC.

This is a personal nitemare that I have. I LOATHE plane travel because of the dreaded middle seat. I will also share that for years i commuted on the MBTA to boston on the commuter rail and had a fear of the middle seat. 3-2 seating is a terrible idea on the train.

NO ONE WANTS TO SIT IN A MIDDLE SEAT. Not to mention that the biggest issue is that as americans get larger, frankly squeezing three people on one side is just uncomfortable for everyone, because there is a good chance that 1 out of the 3 people will be overweight. Me included!

 

[Ryan]

All these features: upper decks, elevators, modern aircraft inspired interiors (think 787 and 737 "sky interiors", not 1960's 727) etc. have an incredible marketing potential.

Absolutely not. The attractiveness of the train is that it's so much better than an airplane. "Like an airplane" is a negative, not a positive.

the cross section of an amfleet car is wide enough to have 2+3 seating. While the middle seat is a horror, a dense seating car could be sold at reduced prices, maybe in response to the low-cost bus service in the NEC.

This is a personal nitemare that I have. I LOATHE plane travel because of the dreaded middle seat. I will also share that for years i commuted on the MBTA to boston on the commuter rail and had a fear of the middle seat. 3-2 seating is a terrible idea on the train.

NO ONE WANTS TO SIT IN A MIDDLE SEAT. Not to mention that the biggest issue is that as americans get larger, frankly squeezing three people on one side is just uncomfortable for everyone, because there is a good chance that 1 out of the 3 people will be overweight. Me included!

Like I was saying...

The single level MARC commuter cars have 2x3 seating, and most of the time the middle seat goes empty while people stand because nobody wants to sit in the things. Other commuter cars have them, but there's no way they make it onto Amtrak.

 

[Ryan]

One closely kept secret about the NJT MLVs is they are prone to derail at slow speed on sharp curves and apparently there is no easy fix in sight as of now. They are currently banned from several tracks at Hoboken for this reason and have also derailed at least once in A Interlocking at NYP.

That's awesome, I'm so glad that MARC just bought a pile of them!

(not!)

 

[jis]

It is possible that the new cars will have a fix. The problem is with the design of the truck pivot apparently. NJT has also ordered another 100 of these cars. Meanwhile apparently the ALP-45DPs have also exhibited certain propensity to derail, which leaves one scratching ones head....

 

[AlanB]

It is possible that the new cars will have a fix. The problem is with the design of the truck pivot apparently. NJT has also ordered another 100 of these cars. Meanwhile apparently the ALP-45DPs have also exhibited certain propensity to derail, which leaves one scratching ones head....

..... And hanging on for dear life!

 

[trainviews]

Looking a bit more into the future - do anyone know if the new tunnels of the Gateway project, whenever they are to be built, are planned for higher clearance fit for Superliners?

Has Amtrak stated anything on problems of having different clearances in´the old and new tunnels limiting flexibility?

And are there any other problem points on the NEC? (B&O tunnels?)

 

[jis]

Looking a bit more into the future - do anyone know if the new tunnels of the Gateway project, whenever they are to be built, are planned for higher clearance fit for Superliners?

They are not specifically designed for Superliner clearance though they will be larger than the current ones to address certain fire and safety issues.

It won't do any good to have larger clearance in the tunnels since (a) nothing in NYP is large enough for Superliners and there is no plan to waste money on that, and (b) all platforms in NYP are high level and Superliners cannot use those. In short there is zero chance that Superliners will ever operate out of what we know as New York Penn Station.

 

[AlanB]

Looking a bit more into the future - do anyone know if the new tunnels of the Gateway project, whenever they are to be built, are planned for higher clearance fit for Superliners?

They are not specifically designed for Superliner clearance though they will be larger than the current ones to address certain fire and safety issues.

It won't do any good to have larger clearance in the tunnels since (a) nothing in NYP is large enough for Superliners and there is no plan to waste money on that, and (b) all platforms in NYP are high level and Superliners cannot use those. In short there is zero chance that Superliners will ever operate out of what we know as New York Penn Station.

Not only that, but even if they were to waste money on NYP to try an accommodate Superliners, they'd still have the very big problem of not being able to get the train to Sunnyside for servicing, since Superliners won't fit through the East River tunnels either.

So I agree with Jishnu, we'll never see Superliners in New York's Penn Station.

 

[dlagrua]

I agree that we will never see Superliners traveling to NYP but I do not rule out that increased capacity bi-level Amtrak coaches based on the NJT design will one day appear. Amtrak would have to have the new cars constructed with Amfleet II seating, more legroom and a bathroom would need to be added. The NJT bi-levels already have a baggage rack overhead so that should not be a problem. If you examine the current scenerios for increased capacity, they are for longer trains and more frequent operation, both of which are currently not possible. As Amtrak continues to grow they will need to do something to expand capacity on the NEC.