New Amtrak Cars!

[Guest_Sweet Tea_*]

the cruise metaphor gives me an idea:

i think a draw for families traveling with young children (and perhaps also for those passengers who would prefer to spend less time with children) would be a play area -- i'm imagining something like the lower level seating area on a superliner, with more padding and maybe some toys or books (publishers might be willing to donate the books, hoping the parents will buy them later). wouldn't need additional staff -- parents would be responsible for watching the kids there. seems to me this would present a big advantage over air travel, which is often VERY unpleasant with kids.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

The design concept of the car was to offer two full floors with reasonable ceiling height on each. Bi-levels exist (metra, for one) that have two full floors, but do not have decent ceiling clearance. For the ultimate in that, check out LIRRs K3s.

Superliners offer decent ceiling clearance, but are not full floors below- they are just between the wheels. Inorder to offer what CRC is offering, you need to move up a Superliner design such that it clears the bogies on the car. Thats about two feet, which gives you 18'.

 

[Galls]

The design concept of the car was to offer two full floors with reasonable ceiling height on each. Bi-levels exist (metra, for one) that have two full floors, but do not have decent ceiling clearance. For the ultimate in that, check out LIRRs K3s.
Superliners offer decent ceiling clearance, but are not full floors below- they are just between the wheels. Inorder to offer what CRC is offering, you need to move up a Superliner design such that it clears the bogies on the car. Thats about two feet, which gives you 18'.

I an 6'8 and actually enjoy them.

I will reiterate that I believe the next coaches should be 2.5 level design so that they can be used in tandem with non-superliner equipment.

 

[WICT106]

I an 6'8 and actually enjoy them.
I will reiterate that I believe the next coaches should be 2.5 level design so that they can be used in tandem with non-superliner equipment.

Are you suggesting that the passageways between cars be like the Chicago Northwestern double deck cars which were on the lower level ? Those were "compatible" with single level equipment.

Edit: http://www.cnwhs.org/memberphotos/displayi...um=7&pos=73

http://www.cnwhs.org/memberphotos/displayi...um=7&pos=75

http://www.cnwhs.org/memberphotos/displayi...um=7&pos=94

http://www.cnwhs.org/memberphotos/displayi...m=7&pos=115

http://www.cnwhs.org/memberphotos/displayi...bum=7&pos=3

 

[rtabern]

I say replace the Horizon cars with Surfliner-type equipment on the trains between Chicago and Milwaukee, Quincy, Carbondale, and St. Louis/Kansas City. This should be done ASAP because the stairs during the winter are down-right dangerous. I've seen people slip and fall on the Hiawatha trains all the time. The stairs are actually on the outside of the train and unprotected pretty much from the elements -- meaning ice and snow accumulate on them at a very bad rate.

Maybe call it the Cornliner!

 

[Galls]

I an 6'8 and actually enjoy them.
I will reiterate that I believe the next coaches should be 2.5 level design so that they can be used in tandem with non-superliner equipment.

Are you suggesting that the passageways between cars be like the Chicago Northwestern double deck cars which were on the lower level ? Those were "compatible" with single level equipment.

Got any pictures I could look at, so I could respond.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Perhaps the long term goal for the Northeast Corridor should be to have trains that run significantly faster than 150 MPH.

 

[jackal]

They also have no track record in high speed service at all. Most are in Alaska used on cruise ship related service, and probably never get over 40 to 50 mph. Don't know what the ARR speed limit is, but it can't be over 59 mph - no signals.

You are right that the ARR's speeds are, on average, significantly lower than other areas (mostly 40 to 49, but often 15-30), but your last part of that last sentence is (almost) hogwash! We're not as backwards as you think. There is about 50 miles of CTC between south of Anchorage and north of Wasilla. Within that stretch, there is about 13 miles of 60 mph trackage. They're working on straightening the run between Anchorage and Wasilla, so that 60mph trackage will likely be extended as years go on.

Granted, you were only one mile per hour short, but don't insult us--we don't all live in igloos and drive dogsleds!

 

[Trogdor]

All I want from Amtrak is a decent single-level lounge car. One currently does not exist. The dinettes/cafe cars are just not very good for lounging.

 

[frj1983]

New sleepers and coaches, both single level and Superliner. Traveling on examples of both during my last two trips between MN and FL, I can confidently assert that the entire fleet is showing the high level of miles that they are running. For some reason or other, the Viewliner sleepers really seem to be showing their mileage. Make the order at least 140 to 150 cars. The Tier two level inspections will be coming quite soon for all of these cars and I'm afraid that the bills will be enough that the opponents of passenger rail in the US will use it as yet another reason for terminating the entire service.

My worry exactly WICT106,

I rode the LSL 3 years ago and was stunned by the absolute look of "wear and tear" that the Viewliners exhibited. And I've always felt that the best way to get rid of Amtrak was just to string it along with just enough money to keep things running until the cars are no longer sustainable and then: "whoops, sorry we really don't have any capital for more cars, you'll just have to make due with what you have!" Then watch the 180 day notices come out. With so few car builders, Amtrak would have to be planning, NOW to replace their aging fleet! While it's mentioned in budgets and plans, does anyone really know if this is a priority at Amtrak?

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Its probably a huge priority. Its a matter of getting the money. They probably have as much planning and so forth done as they can. I bet that if they got the money, they'd have the cars plans out for bid within a month.

 

[AlanB]

Perhaps the long term goal for the Northeast Corridor should be to have trains that run significantly faster than 150 MPH.

Actually at this point I'd be happy if the long term goal was to just get the trains to 150 MPH for most of their run. More than that will be impossible without serious funding, probably on the order of a Trillion dollars, and a whole new right of way.

 

[wayman]

Perhaps the long term goal for the Northeast Corridor should be to have trains that run significantly faster than 150 MPH.

Actually at this point I'd be happy if the long term goal was to just get the trains to 150 MPH for most of their run. More than that will be impossible without serious funding, probably on the order of a Trillion dollars, and a whole new right of way.

On a seemingly unrelated topic, there is much disgruntlement about how foreigners (inc. many Japanese) have been taking advantage of the housing market in NYC and buying up properties. But maybe Acela-supporters should get behind the Japanese investment--they might become effective lobbyists for true high-speed rail, and if it becomes in the interest of the Japanese government to support Japanese businessmen in America... hey, I can dream, right? :lol:

 

[George Harris]

They also have no track record in high speed service at all. Most are in Alaska used on cruise ship related service, and probably never get over 40 to 50 mph. Don't know what the ARR speed limit is, but it can't be over 59 mph - no signals.

You are right that the ARR's speeds are, on average, significantly lower than other areas (mostly 40 to 49, but often 15-30), but your last part of that last sentence is (almost) hogwash! We're not as backwards as you think. There is about 50 miles of CTC between south of Anchorage and north of Wasilla. Within that stretch, there is about 13 miles of 60 mph trackage. They're working on straightening the run between Anchorage and Wasilla, so that 60mph trackage will likely be extended as years go on.

Granted, you were only one mile per hour short, but don't insult us--we don't all live in igloos and drive dogsleds!

No insults intended.

 

[PerRock]

how about one of these babies:

thats a friend of mines idea... (he occasionally pops in here)

I also have drawings of a vieliner dome car I "invented" I keep trying to talk my friend into making a 3D model of it....

peter

pretty cool idea I must say. Solves the whole crew dorm problem right there.

I'd suggest your friend switch the windowed position so that the windows are on the side with the vestibule door.

As for cars I'd like to see, I'll post some of them later xD

Having seen the 3ds MAX model I can vouch for it have vestibule doors on both ends. so no need to worry there.

peter

 

[AlanB]

how about one of these babies:
thats a friend of mines idea... (he occasionally pops in here)

I also have drawings of a vieliner dome car I "invented" I keep trying to talk my friend into making a 3D model of it....

peter

pretty cool idea I must say. Solves the whole crew dorm problem right there.

I'd suggest your friend switch the windowed position so that the windows are on the side with the vestibule door.

As for cars I'd like to see, I'll post some of them later xD

Having seen the 3ds MAX model I can vouch for it have vestibule doors on both ends. so no need to worry there.

peter

Except for the fact that Viewliners only have vestibule doors on one end. So there for it would make sense to put the rooms near the vestibule doors, not the baggage area.

 

[jackal]

No insults intended.

No offense taken. I was (mostly) kidding!

 

[gaspeamtrak]

Colorado Rail Car has had problems quality-wise in the past, especially with their DMUs.

Right on!!!

Nobody has said anything about Bombardier" I'm not trying to be a "homer" but the batch of SUPERLINERS they built for Amtrak are still performing pretty well?

There may have been a few teething problems.The cars are and would be built in North America providing jobs for Americans and Canadians.

I'm sure if Amtrak gave them and order for say 200 hundred Superliners and 200 Viewliners it would be worth it for Bombardier to get this job up and running ASAP!!!???

Maybe Via would also junmp aboard and order a batch of say 300 superliners for Intercity service and get rid of that CRAP running on the Ocean between Halifax and Montreal???

They could probably negotiate a pretty good price per car for them selves???

Hopefully Via would not try and do there high and mighty act that they are so much better than Amtrak!!! Spoken by a Canadian...

Any comments???

 

[George Harris]

Right on!!!Nobody has said anything about Bombardier" I'm not trying to be a "homer" but the batch of SUPERLINERS they built for Amtrak are still performing pretty well?

. . .

Hopefully Via would not try and do there high and mighty act that they are so much better than Amtrak!!! Spoken by a Canadian...

Any comments???

I think a Superliner III would be a great idea, if the lessons learned from I and II are applied. You would need to get imput from passengers and crew members on likes / dislikes / could be better / don't need this / do need that before you start. Put 125 mph or better trucks under them. By for increases in routes and multiple trains per route.

 

[frj1983]

Right on!!!Nobody has said anything about Bombardier" I'm not trying to be a "homer" but the batch of SUPERLINERS they built for Amtrak are still performing pretty well?

. . .

Hopefully Via would not try and do there high and mighty act that they are so much better than Amtrak!!! Spoken by a Canadian...

Any comments???

I think a Superliner III would be a great idea, if the lessons learned from I and II are applied. You would need to get imput from passengers and crew members on likes / dislikes / could be better / don't need this / do need that before you start. Put 125 mph or better trucks under them. By for increases in routes and multiple trains per route.

Neat idea George,

I like the idea of asking the Crew/Passengers, and I also like the idea of putting high-speed trucks under them! I second both motions!

 

[wayman]

I think a Superliner III would be a great idea, if the lessons learned from I and II are applied. You would need to get imput from passengers and crew members on likes / dislikes / could be better / don't need this / do need that before you start. Put 125 mph or better trucks under them. By for increases in routes and multiple trains per route.

What does giving them 125 mph trucks accomplish? Track speeds where they're running will never go above 80, maybe 100 tops, for the lifetime of the cars (30 years?).

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I think a Superliner III would be a great idea, if the lessons learned from I and II are applied. You would need to get imput from passengers and crew members on likes / dislikes / could be better / don't need this / do need that before you start. Put 125 mph or better trucks under them. By for increases in routes and multiple trains per route.

Is the cost difference between 125mph trucks and 110mph trucks significant? Are the Superliner I/II trucks 110 MPH to match what I seem to recall the P42s are? And do the high centers of gravity of those cars have any impact on maximum speed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_trackshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_tracks[/ul] lists a formula for maximum speed around curves. If I did the math right, I think that's saying that a 90 degree turn at 200 mph with the 4" superelevaction that can be allowed with a waiver would need to be over 6 miles long, and would have a radius of over four miles. At 100 mph, I think the radius gets down to just over a mile, with a track length for a 90 degree turn of a bit more than a mile and a half.

 

I'd love for someone to tell me that I did the math wrong, but I think that's basically saying that going at full speed around curves is basically impossible given real world land availability, unless you were building a new railroad in an unpopulated area, and it's hard to economically justify building railroads where there are no people, unless perhaps the goal is to connect two areas that are well populated. Or perhaps new tunnel could have extremely gentle curves. There might be an argument for reserving rights of ways for railroads in areas that are not yet populated, though.

 

This also seems to be saying that the Acela Express trainsets can't go around a particular curve any faster than the Regionals, at least as far as the FRA is concerned, and that tilting trains probably give a more comfortable ride but not a faster one.

 

The FRA Class 8 track standard also happens to be 160 MPH and not 150, it looks like. But if you round the Boston to DC distance off to 450 miles to make the math easy, and ignore all the curves, speed restrictions, stops in the middle to let passengers on and off, waiting behind other trains, acceleration/decelleration times, etc etc etc, Boston to DC at 150 MPH would be 3 hours; at 200 MPH, 2 hours and 15 minutes. 45 minutes may not be a big enough difference to be worth bothering with, when there are areas outside the Northeast Corridor that could be upgraded.

 

New York Penn Station to DC is 226 miles. The difference between doing that whole trip at 135 MPH and doing that whole trip at 150 MPH (again, pretending there are no speed restrictions at all, etc etc etc) would be about ten minutes if I did that math right (about 100 minutes at 135 MPH, or about 90 minutes at 150 MPH) 200 MPH would get the trip down at about 68 minutes, which almost seems like a big enough improvement over 135 MPH that it might be worth doing if it were actually practical.

 

Train 2105, which stops only at NYP, Philadelphia, and Washington DC, is scheduled to be 2:35, or 155 minutes. I'm sure that not all of the 55 minutes caused by not being able to go 135 MPH the whole way can be eliminated, but I'm starting to suspect that finding areas with speed restrictions and maybe building tunnels might be more productive than replacing all the overhead wire to be able to do 150 MPH in the sections that are currently 135 MPH.

 

I'm also finding myself wondering if the construction techniques that were used for Boston's Ted Williams Tunnel would be the least impractical way to create a new right of way that can support higher speeds, burying it under the ocean floor a bit off the coast. But that's probably insanely expensive to do for hundreds of miles, and I don't know if digging up the ocean floor would be as easy as digging a channel through Boston Harbor was. Then again, I'm not sure I've seen numbers on the cost of the part of Ted Williams tunnel under the harbor, vs the cost of the tunnels under the land, and apparently the tunnel sections under the harbor went together more smoothly than the connection to the surface roads did (there were leaks initially in a part of the land tunnel).

 

[VT Hokie]

Suppose Amtrak soon finds themselves in the position where they need to place a large order for cars (Superliner III and Viewliner II). If you had your sayso on this, what would you like to see in this new fleet? How about a new design altogether? If so, what would your ideas be for the new generation fleet?

I think Super Steel Schenectady should be given a contract to built 250 new Turboliner trainsets!

 

[George Harris]

Yes high speed curves do require large radii. My point on the trucks was that they be for higher speeds. I have no porblem with them being for 150 mph, 160 mph, 200 mph, or whatever.

I am not going to redo Joel Weber's math, but to have very large radius curves is not that impossible. In the first place you want an alignment that does not require a lot of changes in direction, anyway. Therefore, you are not turning 90 degrees or larger angles except very rarely. If you do it is usually only very close to a major station where all trains will be stopping, anyway.

This is my profession. It can be done. The Taiwan High Speed Railway runs 210 miles between the two largest cities on the island. Except for the northernmost 7 miles into the center of Taipei and the southernmost 2 miles into the current end station in suburban Kaohsiung, the whole line is good for 300 km/h = 186 mph. There are two curves of 5,500 meter (18,045 feet = 3.42 miles) radius. Otherwise all curves are of 6,250 meter (20,505 feet = 3.88 miles) radius or larger, up to a couple with small central angles that have a 20,000 meter (65,617 feet = 12.47 miles) radius. Yes, if you turned a complete circle at that largest number, the circle would be 25 miles across. The point is, we did not turn a complete circle at this radius. The longest curve in length, one the 6,250 meter radius ones was over five miles long.

The run time? 90 minutes for a train with one intermediate stop and two hours flat for a "local" that has five intermediate stops. And there is some slack in the schedule. The slow areas at the ends? 100 mph and 75 mph on the south end. Between 50 mph and 80 mph for most of the northern slow portions, going up to 110 to 130 mph as you approach the full speed portion.

The superelevtion? It was set based on comfort at average running speed, not speed limit, so curve in acceleration /braking zones near stations had less superelevation and more unbalanced superelevation. Here are a couple of typica open track numbers:

R = 5,500 m = 18,045 feet. SE = 135 mm = 5.31 inches. Unbal. = 58.1 mm = 2.29 inches at 300 km/h = 186 mph

R = 6,250 m = 20,505 feet. SE = 114 mm = 5.53 inches. Unbal. = 54.9 mm = 2.16 inches at 300 km/h = 186 mph

Given proper trucks, there would be no problem with a superliner on this sort of track.

Oh, yeah, spirals were very long, and had a sine formula rate of change. 550 m (1804.46 feet) long on these curves.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I don't doubt that large radius curves are possible and not a big deal in places where the land is available.

I was more thinking of the typical issue in the United States where it's undesireable to clear buildings out of the way (which I understand isn't a political problem the Chinese engineers run into), and so the traditional railroad right of way with whatever curvature it has is used.

The tracks at the New London, CT station are roughly north-south, I think, and the bridge across the Thames River, less than a mile away, is roughly east-west, for example. Given the desire to not step on the toes of existing land owners, it's hard for me to imagine how you'd ever get the land to be able to get from the Thames River bridge to the Niantic River bridge with curves gentle enough for even 100 MPH operation. (That area comes to mind in part because I used to live less than a mile from the Niantic River.)

Looking at maps is making me realize that the ocean proper isn't so close to the Northeast Corridor, and if there were a desire to build an alternate Boston to Manhattan to DC route largely by putting tunnels under existing bodies of water, largely using very large radius curves to support 200 MPH trains, the most reasonable route that can be accomodated with current land use might be something like: take the existing Northeast Corridor out of DC to somewhere around Odenton, MD, get to the Chesapeake Bay somehow from there, go through a tunnel under the Chesapeake Bay connecting to a the tunnel continuing through the Chesapeake & Delaware Canal to the Deleware River up to Trenton, where the route could rejoin the existing Northeast Corridor, or perhaps there could be a new tunnel built under New Jersey.

From Manhattan, a new tunnel could go under Long Island Sound, and under Narragansett Bay. Attaching it to the Northeast Corridor might be easiest in Greenwich Bay.

But I bet building all of this would cost 10-50 times what Boston's Big Dig cost, and people generally seem unhappy with the price tag of the Big Dig.