What is ACE Commuter?

[Texan Eagle]

***? The Bi-Levels are old! I better look for more old pics on Railpictures.

If Wikipedia is to be believed, these Bombardier bilevel cars first came in service in 1976, so yeah, quite old.

It's amazing that even after 35 years, so many commuter agencies across the US and Canada still prefer this design. The designers must have done something very right!

 

[Blackwolf]

***? The Bi-Levels are old! I better look for more old pics on Railpictures.

If Wikipedia is to be believed, these Bombardier bilevel cars first came in service in 1976, so yeah, quite old.

It's amazing that even after 35 years, so many commuter agencies across the US and Canada still prefer this design. The designers must have done something very right!

I think its a combination of high capacity and low maintenance. The HVAC, electrical and auxiliary equipment are located in pods mounted above the ends of the cars (in that transition area between the two levels to one) and are accessed through hatches in the roof. Really easy to get to, and swap components out if needed. Not to mention, its all shielded from the elements! About the only thing that is (now) killing this funky car design is the crashworthiness. After Chatsworth, and combined with the data from the Glendale disaster, Metrolink in LA has pretty much mothballed their entire Bombardier fleet. Not that they ever failed to meet FRA requirements, of course.

I've long wondered if, when the original Superliners were being designed, they could not have incorporated a layout similar to the Bombardier bi-levels at one end of a transition car. It would have made Superliners so much more streamlined than the rectangular boxes we have today!

 

[VentureForth]

***? The Bi-Levels are old! I better look for more old pics on Railpictures.

If Wikipedia is to be believed, these Bombardier bilevel cars first came in service in 1976, so yeah, quite old.

It's amazing that even after 35 years, so many commuter agencies across the US and Canada still prefer this design. The designers must have done something very right!

The older (c. 1976 design) were riveted bodies. The newer ones are welded and have quite a smoother finish. The Trinity Railway Express uses both; as they were all refurbished at the same time, though, the paint and interior are just as nice. One is just bumpy and the other is smooth. Interesting that the Wiki article doesn't touch on this, yet otherwise pretty informative. There is no mistaking when you are close to them.

I totally dig seeing photos of GO Transit's 10 car trains with a single locomotive, then seeing the TRE with almost no grade run 4 coaches with two locos sometimes. The Railrunner ran with two often, even with three coaches because the new MRCs kept breaking down. Now they probably need two for the climb from Bernalillo to Santa Fe.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

***? The Bi-Levels are old! I better look for more old pics on Railpictures.

If Wikipedia is to be believed, these Bombardier bilevel cars first came in service in 1976, so yeah, quite old.

It's amazing that even after 35 years, so many commuter agencies across the US and Canada still prefer this design. The designers must have done something very right!

I think its a combination of high capacity and low maintenance. The HVAC, electrical and auxiliary equipment are located in pods mounted above the ends of the cars (in that transition area between the two levels to one) and are accessed through hatches in the roof. Really easy to get to, and swap components out if needed. Not to mention, its all shielded from the elements! About the only thing that is (now) killing this funky car design is the crashworthiness. After Chatsworth, and combined with the data from the Glendale disaster, Metrolink in LA has pretty much mothballed their entire Bombardier fleet. Not that they ever failed to meet FRA requirements, of course.

I've long wondered if, when the original Superliners were being designed, they could not have incorporated a layout similar to the Bombardier bi-levels at one end of a transition car. It would have made Superliners so much more streamlined than the rectangular boxes we have today!

Metrolink dosen't even use Bi-Levels anymore?! It seems they still use them a lot but I haven't been to LAx recently. What else do they have?

 

[johnny.menhennet]

Metrolink does not use any bilevel cab cars, and the second car behind the cab is always another Rotem car. The first car behind the engine is always Rotem as well, and the rest of the consists are slowly dropping one Bombardier at a time as the new ones come in.

 

[MattW]

They aren't the Bombardier BiLevels, but they are double-decker (bi-level) cars.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Due to virtually no experience with these cars, I don't know any difference between the Bombardier ones and the other ones.

 

[roadman3313]

Just like most people here wouldn't know the difference between an MCI and a Van Hool (or Prevost or Volvo) as a bus is just a bus, right?

(Much less who made the models like the D4500's {102DL-3's} we have at work)

I don't want to use anyone's copyrighted images here but the Hyundai-Rotem cars are meant to be more protective in the event of a crash. The "cab car" front looks more like the front of a P42 than the flat front of the cab car. The coach cars look similar in exterior design minus the cab portion.

http://upload.wikime...tem_Cab_Car.jpg

 

[Ryan]

Images on wikimedia commons are nearly 100% free for use, including that particular image. Here are the license terms, which require you only to provide attribution if you use the pictures (incidentally, this is the same license I post my pictures under, I don't care if they get used, as long as I get credit):

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/deed.en



2010-12-06 10.10.37 by plattypus1, on Flickr

 

[The Davy Crockett]

I'm used to seeing them attached to sleek-looking locomotives and not wide-nose ones.

How about this?

NICE, NICE, NICE. Is this your work? And if so,do you know when (and where in the Toronto area) this very nice picture was taken?

 

[Ryan]

Guildwood, ON, 1980:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=392962&nseq=0

 

[The Davy Crockett]

Guildwood, ON, 1980:

http://www.railpictu...d=392962&nseq=0

Thanks Ryan! :hi:

 

[battalion51]

The Bombardier design has proven to be a workhorse in a number markets that have done new commuter service. Dallas, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, Seattle, Miami just to name a few. Miami is about to switch their 15-20 year old fleet out for the Hyundai's with new Brookville locomotives. Meanwhile Orlando just ordered Bombardier's with MPI locomotives. Its all about who has the best deal for the contract that's put out to bid. The Bombardier design won't go anywhere as long as GO and other agencies keep placing orders.

 

[BCL]

The way I see it, the Bombardier designs is sleek and modern looking even if it does come from the 70s. The complete paint job helps. A GMC motorhome looks really modern even though it's an old design.

A lot of the steel raircar designs almost have that retro futuristic look like the aluminum shell Airstream trailer RVs. I look at Caltrain rail sets passing each other, and the BiLevels look way more modern than the Nippon Sharyos.

 

[sechs]

I believe this same Commission is looking into more oversight over the San Joaquin Amtrak route

This is a done deal. A joint powers authority will be formed this year to take over management of the San Joaquins from Caltrans.

 

[sechs]

The first time I saw Amtrak offers connection on ACE, I was surprised too. If they can do this with ACE, they should consider offering through connections from SJC to San Francisco on Caltrain too.

The existing connections to/from Emeryville and Oakland make more sense. They are dedicated, guaranteed, and more useful.

About the ACE itself- it seems to me like a terribly inefficient way of running business if you are going to use four trainsets for only one trip per day and keep all of them sitting in the sidings all day long. They do things like this and then say California is in so much debt

And what are they supposed to do with them? Send them back to Stockton? Even with Amtrak thruway subsidy, the mid-day ACE round trip never managed to make any financial sense. It's literally cheaper to let them sit.

Could they not have managed to do some interlining agreement with Caltrain to mix and match Caltrain equipment, plus maybe one or two trainsets from ACE added to the inventory to mix and match and run the four ACE services using a common pool of equipment instead of purchasing four full sets and using them in super inefficient manner?

This is a lot more complicated than you make it sound. And that's not even taking politicking into account.

 

[sechs]

What I find odd about this is, this ACE train with a daily ridership of 3,700, divided among eight runs per day so ~450 passengers per train, runs with six bi-level cars. Each of these cars can accommodate 140 passengers so this train has capacity of around 840... so, basically the train runs 50% empty! On the other hand, Caltrain with daily ridership of 48,000 runs with 5 Bombarider bi-level cars.

You statistics are a little misleading.
That 3700 number is from 2008, divided among the six trains running at the time is >600 passengers per run. I haven't checked recently, but ACE trains generally run with four or five cars, not six. Using your math, that's only ~20% empty for a five-car train.

On the other hand, Caltrain weekday ridership was 42,354 in February 2012, and runs 92 trains each weekday. That's a dismal-looking ~460 passengers per train.

 

[Texan Eagle]

About the ACE itself- it seems to me like a terribly inefficient way of running business if you are going to use four trainsets for only one trip per day and keep all of them sitting in the sidings all day long. They do things like this and then say California is in so much debt

And what are they supposed to do with them? Send them back to Stockton? Even with Amtrak thruway subsidy, the mid-day ACE round trip never managed to make any financial sense. It's literally cheaper to let them sit.

No, not send back to Stockton. Use them more efficiently, which brings us to this-

Could they not have managed to do some interlining agreement with Caltrain to mix and match Caltrain equipment, plus maybe one or two trainsets from ACE added to the inventory to mix and match and run the four ACE services using a common pool of equipment instead of purchasing four full sets and using them in super inefficient manner?

This is a lot more complicated than you make it sound. And that's not even taking politicking into account.

I never said it is simple. But it is not rocket science either. Don't tell me a country that can send a robot to the Mars does not have the intelligence to devise efficient schedules for using a dozen trainsets running a few services each per day. Countries around the world manage much more complicated train set rotation than a simple ACE-Caltrain rake sharing I suggested. This is the thing with American public transit- the moment you suggest something that's out of their comfortably dumb zone, they will go "NOOOOOOOOOO! So complicated.. never possible ever" about it. If I was employed to do this, give me a day's time and I can give you an efficient ACE+Caltrain schedule that can make use of all available resources rather than keeping trains sitting for 8 hours a day and then complain there can't be enough services because there is no equipment. Yes the problem will be political, since none of the transit agencies can stand each other, leave aside co-operating and sharing resources.

 

[sechs]

I never said it is simple. But it is not rocket science either. Don't tell me a country that can send a robot to the Mars does not have the intelligence to devise efficient schedules for using a dozen trainsets running a few services each per day. Countries around the world manage much more complicated train set rotation than a simple ACE-Caltrain rake sharing I suggested. This is the thing with American public transit- the moment you suggest something that's out of their comfortably dumb zone, they will go "NOOOOOOOOOO! So complicated.. never possible ever" about it. If I was employed to do this, give me a day's time and I can give you an efficient ACE+Caltrain schedule that can make use of all available resources rather than keeping trains sitting for 8 hours a day and then complain there can't be enough services because there is no equipment. Yes the problem will be political, since none of the transit agencies can stand each other, leave aside co-operating and sharing resources.

You're ranting and not proving anything. Sure, given time and money, anything is possible. I don't see you volunteering either.

 

[Trogdor]

I never said it is simple. But it is not rocket science either. Don't tell me a country that can send a robot to the Mars does not have the intelligence to devise efficient schedules for using a dozen trainsets running a few services each per day. Countries around the world manage much more complicated train set rotation than a simple ACE-Caltrain rake sharing I suggested. This is the thing with American public transit- the moment you suggest something that's out of their comfortably dumb zone, they will go "NOOOOOOOOOO! So complicated.. never possible ever" about it. If I was employed to do this, give me a day's time and I can give you an efficient ACE+Caltrain schedule that can make use of all available resources rather than keeping trains sitting for 8 hours a day and then complain there can't be enough services because there is no equipment. Yes the problem will be political, since none of the transit agencies can stand each other, leave aside co-operating and sharing resources.

So, the ACE equipment would be available for extra service during the midday, which is the same time that Caltrain already has extra equipment sitting around because of lower demand.

All you've done is swapped one equipment set sitting around during the day waiting for the PM rush for another equipment set sitting around during the day waiting for the PM rush.

 

[Texan Eagle]

You statistics are a little misleading.

That 3700 number is from 2008, divided among the six trains running at the time is >600 passengers per run. I haven't checked recently, but ACE trains generally run with four or five cars, not six. Using your math, that's only ~20% empty for a five-car train.

On the other hand, Caltrain weekday ridership was 42,354 in February 2012, and runs 92 trains each weekday. That's a dismal-looking ~460 passengers per train.

Look at the photo shared at the start of this thread. It shows six car ACE train, that's what I was looking at when I said six car trains. All the photos on ACE Wikipedia page are also showing six car trains. If they are running four or five car trains, good for them.

This document shows ACE annual ridership for 2011 as 718,226. Dividing this by 260 weekdays in a year gives 2,762 riders per day. Dividing them by 6 trains gives ~460 riders per train. Four car Bombardier set can seat around 540 passengers, so if they all were four car trains, this is good use of resources. However if they were six car trains like shown in all the photos floating around, it is a lot of excess capacity.

The same document says Caltrain carried ~12 million passengers during the same period. It does not separate weekday and weekend so I will believe your figure of ~460 riders per train. Caltrain operates a few five car Bombardier trains that can seat ~675 passengers but most of the services are on five car Nippon Gallery cars that seat ~550-600 passengers based on my back of the envelope calculation based on visual memory of those train interiors.

 

[Texan Eagle]

So, the ACE equipment would be available for extra service during the midday, which is the same time that Caltrain already has extra equipment sitting around because of lower demand.

Not mid-day. The first two ACE trains arrive SJC at 6.32am and 7.47am, well in time to use them for additional Caltrain services. For example, these are the morning departures for Caltrain out of SJC during peak commute hours-

6:20, 6:45, 6:50, 6:57, 7:03, 7:18, 7:45, 7:50, 7:55, 8:03, 8:20, 8:40 (bold indicates Baby Bullet express services)

The first ACE train set can now be used as a new service inserted between the 7.18am limited and 7.45am Bullet since there is a nice big 27 minute gap between trains. Similarly the second ACE train can be used for an additional service between the 8.03am Bullet and 8.20am limited, or between 8.20am and 8.40am limiteds.

This is a very simple example, with proper resources in hand, one can come up with an even more streamlined schedule that can help commuters across both corridors, but it requires one thing that's very difficult to get- co-operation between different transit agencies.

 

[AlanB]

You statistics are a little misleading.

That 3700 number is from 2008, divided among the six trains running at the time is >600 passengers per run. I haven't checked recently, but ACE trains generally run with four or five cars, not six. Using your math, that's only ~20% empty for a five-car train.

On the other hand, Caltrain weekday ridership was 42,354 in February 2012, and runs 92 trains each weekday. That's a dismal-looking ~460 passengers per train.

This document shows ACE annual ridership for 2011 as 718,226. Dividing this by 260 weekdays in a year gives 2,762 riders per day. Dividing them by 6 trains gives ~460 riders per train. Four car Bombardier set can seat around 540 passengers, so if they all were four car trains, this is good use of resources. However if they were six car trains like shown in all the photos floating around, it is a lot of excess capacity.

The same document says Caltrain carried ~12 million passengers during the same period. It does not separate weekday and weekend so I will believe your figure of ~460 riders per train. Caltrain operates a few five car Bombardier trains that can seat ~675 passengers but most of the services are on five car Nippon Gallery cars that seat ~550-600 passengers based on my back of the envelope calculation based on visual memory of those train interiors.

According to the National Transit Database, charged with tracking all public transit agencies in the US, ACE saw an average weekday ridership of 2,851 people per day in 2011.

And according to the reports from APTA, as of the third quarter of 2012, that number had climbed to 3,300.

http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/Ridership/2012-q3-ridership-APTA.pdf

Page #5, and it's listed under Stockton.

 

[conductor_sac]

This subject has brought up some interesting ideas and discussion. I too agree that in the bay area alone there are far too many rail carriers and that this could be mannaged under on agency and eleminate the redundant funding from the state to multiple agencies to provide the same service. For instance the the new Maintance facility currently being built in Stockton, the existing facility in SJC and the Maintainence yard in Oakland are all built from tax dollars and all provide the same thing. Would it not make more sense to have on large yard for servicing all 3 equipment pools...ACE and Caltrain equipment is identical this would eliminate excessive overhead, and by having the Capitol Corridor turned to more of a reginal service and extending the runs to SLO to meet with the Surfliner for a cross platform transfer CalTrain could than run the 'mass transit' service into sac. I just see lots of political waste and independent fifedoms that could be elimnated and service improvements over all.

 

[Bob Dylan]

The Real Mission of any Government Agency, Bureau etc., Once Established, is to Increase it's Budget, Grow the Staffing and Stake out More Turf without being Accountable for Anything! Name One Government Program that has Ever been Totally Eliminated? There have been Consolidations (ie Homeland security)but this always results in Huge Increases in Budget and Staffing! And We pick up the Tab!

*

*Disclaimer: I am a Retired Government Employee, both Federal and State! Of Course, My Agencies and Programs were the Exceptions that Proved the Rule! :giggle: