Amtrak considering Bi-levels for NE Corridor

I was actually having a beer once with a engineer actually from Bombardier on the Maple Leaf into Toronto once. We were talking about trains in general, but we went on a tangent about platforms and then going into the oddity of the NEC.

He mentioned Bombardier, well going back to Hawker Sidney Canada actually who originally designed the iconic "BiLevel" cars that GO Transit wanted, actually attracted the attention of NJ Transit in the late 80s who was looking at the BiLevels and Hawker Sidney Canada went as far to create a special NEC version of the BiLevel on paper. He explained that instead of placing the stairs at the end of the cars, the stairs would be at the middle where the doors are at the normal NEC Platform height and you would instead step down from the center to the lower level and the stairs would take you up to the upper level. In this configuration, you could only go car to car via the lower level, which also was a step. Wheelchair passengers would be stationed in the center of the car.

As for France vs US standards, keep in mind that France is one of the better countries in Europe for accessibly for the disabled and as I recall, SNCF by French law is required to accomodate disabled passengers such as those in wheelchairs. I know on the TGV (one of 3 different types of trains that SNCF runs too), wheelchair passengers get seating at no extra cost in first class section of the train and they have accessible bathrooms and everything nearby. The single level trains are roll-on access and as for the TGV Duplex, the same thing applies and disabled passengers sit in the lower level. Its almost like Amtrak pretty much.

mtuandrew wrote:For "New platforms at NYP and pretty much everywhere along the Corridor" add "and throughout the NJT, Metro-North/CDOT, LIRR, SEPTA, MBTA, and possibly MARC and VRE systems." That is, unless you plan to arrange for mini-highs everywhere those systems use high-level-only equipment on the NEC, or supply them with high/low-level boarding cars. On the plus side, most NEC stations minus NYP, PHL, and a few others have low-level platforms that have simply been topped with a high-level. Dismantle the high level platform, repair the existing low-levels, and you'd be good in that regard.

No; wherever you see a high platform outside of the major city stations/terminals, it is a complete replacement of a low platform in just about all cases, especially on the NEC. The only example I have seen of a high platform actually built over a low platform is the Long Island RR's Hempstead terminal, and that's off the NEC besides.

woody wrote:

I wrote:Superliners are 16 feet tall and will always be too tall for the Northeast. They are also built for low platforms versus high ... (and) can go no faster than 100 mph IIRC (certainly nowhere near 150 mph). ...The only place they are going in the Northeast is Washington Union Station.

Also, any new tunnels under the Hudson River and East River in NYC will have clearance for 14' 6" cars and no taller. Nothing in the Gateway plan adds clearance under Penn Station proper, too.

Don't get stuck in the past. I know what exists now. I'm asking what could be if we start making long range plans. So I'm saying revise plans for the Gateway tunnels (or tubes) to add the extra clearance.

As for the speed, the Next Gen bi-levels on order for service St Louis-Chicago, Detroit-Chicago, and in California are designed for operation at speeds up to 125 mph.

However, I admit I'm stumped by the platform height problem. I'd hope that, with an all-new fleet of all-new-design cars coming, new cars could be flexible en(ough) for both high and low platforms. But I have no knowledge in this matter at all.

As for why: Why are the Next Gen Corridor cars in the Midwest going to be bi-level, replacing single-level? For greater efficiency, lower costs. Because the bi-levels will carry about 30% more seats.

Another more serious concern: In its fleet replacement plan, Amtrak says it wants to buy en(ough) new coaches and other cars over a period of years to get good prices on high-volume orders. There needs to be en(ough) cars built each year to make efficiencies in the manufacturing, spread over en(ough) years to avoid the costs of on-and-off operations at the assembly plants for all the suppliers. The prospective bidders told Amtrak that 100 cars a year (per type) was the *minimum* to keep costs low.

But if the NEC is not rebuilt to handle bi-level equipment, then Amtrak will forever be dividing its orders between two types of cars, missing out on the *maximum* efficiencies from high volume.

Worse, Amtrak will be trying to maintain two production lines of 100 cars each, while crazy critters in Congress will be trying to kill Amtrak by whatever means they can. One line building 100+ cars a year of one type would be much less vulnerable to the haters than two lines for 100 cars each. This concern could remain true 30 or even 40 years in the future, when we'll begin talking about the new designs to replace the Next Gen cars that are just now being assembled in Rochelle, IL.

First off, please lose the patronizing demeanor, especially if you're self-admittedly lacking in knowledge. Second off, the only way to be "stuck in the past" in this regard is to prefer steam heat over HEP or something like that; the Superliners' predecessors (the ATSF's El Capitan Budd-built high-level cars) date back to 1956, either way, and Superliners themselves do not "maximize" passenger-carrying capacity versus Amfleets, only having about 5-10 more seats on average (and sometimes fewer seats depending on configuration).

I already mentioned that even if the Gateway tunnels are built to a higher clearance than the original North River Tunnels (never mind the four East River tunnels), Penn Station itself is never going to be rebuilt to take a passenger car of clearance higher than 14' 6" (NYP is not open-air). There are other locations that cannot take clearances of 16 feet on the NEC, IIRC (when the Superliners visited Philadelphia 30th Street's lower level, apparently the catenary wire was depowered to prevent electric arcs).

Incidentally, the Kawasaki-built MARC bilevels that operate on the Penn Line (Northeast Corridor) are 15' 6½" tall and operate at 125 mph in trains. However, they will always be operating on their own segment of the NEC and not anywhere near New York City.

I believe the MARC bilevels are just a tad too tall to go into the tunnels anyway. Anything that would fit into NYP would have to be sub-14' 6" (that's the high of the C3's, IIRC; NJT's bilevels measure in at 14' 5")

amtrakowitz wrote: I already mentioned that even if the Gateway tunnels are built to a higher clearance than the original North River Tunnels (never mind the four East River tunnels), Penn Station itself is never going to be rebuilt to take a passenger car of clearance higher than 14' 6" (NYP is not open-air). There are other locations that cannot take clearances of 16 feet on the NEC, IIRC (when the Superliners visited Philadelphia 30th Street's lower level, apparently the catenary wire was depowered to prevent electric arcs).

Incidentally, the Kawasaki-built MARC bilevels that operate on the Penn Line (Northeast Corridor) are 15' 6½" tall and operate at 125 mph in trains. However, they will always be operating on their own segment of the NEC and not anywhere near New York City.

Yeah, NYP is probably the largest single problem. You MIGHT be able to get the tunnels bigger (and a few inches larger than the current ones probably would help for future versions of the NJT cars (at the very least help with the aesthetics

But with NYP....

Well sure you could lower the floors.. but then you have to lower the platforms.

Could raise the ceiling... right after you left up MSG a few feet.

For those who haven't been in NYP, look at the clearances now with the catenery. It's TIGHT.

But in any case, even simply adding 2 more tunnels will make a HUGE difference in capacity. Let's get that done before we worry about a few extra % for Superliners.

Superliners themselves do not "maximize" passenger-carrying capacity versus Amfleets, only having about 5-10 more seats

That's not a fair comparison. The SL's are set up for the longest possible distance rides with very low density. The A1's are set up with a density for 2-4 hour rides, with something like 74 seats. It's a better comparison to look at the Superliner versus legacy lightweight cars, which had something like 48 seats when set up for long distance service. Now you're looking at almost a 50% increase in seating capacity while keeping the same amount of wheels, axles, draft gear, etc...

You also have the issue of the east river tunnels, which i believe are also very short, but not as short as the ones under the hudson. They cannot fit superliners either. So, unless gateway adds new taller tunnels to sunnyside, there is no reason to make the hudson tunnels any larger.. Plus taller equals takes up more space and also equals more material for the casing and larger TBM's which means more money. Also, heavier tunnels will settle more in the river sediment (see PATH study on sediment shift).

I do not see amtrak doing well with anything other than amfleet coaches for NEC trains, as there are all ready commuter agencies working to connect boston with NYC and PHL to DC for people making shorter and possibly more frequent trips. There is a list of reasons amtrak did not take over these operations from conrail in the 1978-1983 transition period.

For around the NYC area is it the tunnels that are the problem or is it the station itself?

SEPTAR2Newark wrote:For around the NYC area is it the tunnels that are the problem or is it the station itself?

"yes"

i.e. both are serious problems.

Greg Moore wrote:

SEPTAR2Newark wrote:For around the NYC area is it the tunnels that are the problem or is it the station itself?

"yes"

i.e. both are serious problems.

No, they still work. Bilevels for the NEC are a solution in search of a problem.

lirr42 wrote:I believe the MARC bilevels are just a tad too tall to go into the tunnels anyway. Anything that would fit into NYP would have to be sub-14' 6" (that's the high of the C3's, IIRC; NJT's bilevels measure in at 14' 5")

That is correct. The MARC II cars (15' 6.5") are basically a newer vesion of the MBTA Kawasaki bilevels and were chosen because they could fit into the B&P Tunnel (15' 9"). For the past five or so years MARC has run a few ancient gallery cars from Chicago's Metra system to increase capacity, but they were banned from the Penn (NEC) Line because they were too tall (15' 10.5") for the B&P tunnel (that and the fact that they can only use low platforms and can only travel up to 80mph).

I believe the main reason that the LIRR Kawasaki C3's don't fit into the North River tunnels is because of their limited lateral roof clearance (a side effect of their boxy shape).


IMHO I don't think bilevels will ever be used the length of the NEC in the foreseeable future for a number of reasons:

1. To fix the clearance issue not only would Amtrak have to add to /replace the B&P tunnel, North River Tunnels, and East River Tunnels, but accommodations would have to be made in Penn Station itself as others have mentioned.

2. The alternative, purchasing bilevels with adequate clearance such as the Bombardier "Multilevels," would create a severe limitation of luggage space. The NJT multilevels have no baggage space on the lower level, and even the racks on the MARC bilevels barely accommodate a briefcase/small backpack.

3. Just going by the designs of the current commuter bilevels used in the Northeast (the Superliners don't have this problem) it would be difficult/impossible for the disabled/elderly to walk through the train to the cafe car. That isn't a problem for commuter lines since they have no cafes but would be for Regionals.

It would probably be more practical for Amtrak to just keep running longer trains until they get to about 10 cars per train. After that they could run more frequent service, which would be possible if the entire NEC NYP-WAS was expanded to at 4+ tracks. Upgrades and speed improvements over certain segments, such as those going on in NJ, would also help.

Perhaps an amfleet 2 style design with amfleet 1 standard density seating could help? I mean the next gen single level cars design could include a modified layout where it is more akin to a "trailer" vs the current "all included" amfleet design where bathrooms and storage areas take up large spaces towards the car ends... You could in theory fit like 16- 20 seats per car more that way...

realtype wrote: IMHO I don't think bilevels will ever be used the length of the NEC in the foreseeable future for a number of reasons:

1. To fix the clearance issue not only would Amtrak have to add to /replace the B&P tunnel, North River Tunnels, and East River Tunnels, but accommodations would have to be made in Penn Station itself as others have mentioned.

While everyone is throwing around tunnels, you might as well mention the Empire tunnel. This is because whatever Amtrak purchases for Eastern operations should eventually cycle through the Empire Service.

realtype wrote: 2. The alternative, purchasing bilevels with adequate clearance such as the Bombardier "Multilevels," would create a severe limitation of luggage space. The NJT multilevels have no baggage space on the lower level, and even the racks on the MARC bilevels barely accommodate a briefcase/small backpack.

3. Just going by the designs of the current commuter bilevels used in the Northeast (the Superliners don't have this problem) it would be difficult/impossible for the disabled/elderly to walk through the train to the cafe car. That isn't a problem for commuter lines since they have no cafes but would be for Regionals.

It would probably be more practical for Amtrak to just keep running longer trains until they get to about 10 cars per train. After that they could run more frequent service, which would be possible if the entire NEC NYP-WAS was expanded to at 4+ tracks. Upgrades and speed improvements over certain segments, such as those going on in NJ, would also help.

Everything you said (which mimics what many others have alluded to) is spot on. I would take it a step further and say with the ACS-64s in the picture, you could comfortably run 14 car trains. Amtrak routinely operated 12-21 car trains in the 90s. A lot of infrastructure work has occurred since then.

ThirdRail7 wrote:

realtype wrote: IMHO I don't think bilevels will ever be used the length of the NEC in the foreseeable future for a number of reasons:

1. To fix the clearance issue not only would Amtrak have to add to /replace the B&P tunnel, North River Tunnels, and East River Tunnels, but accommodations would have to be made in Penn Station itself as others have mentioned.

While everyone is throwing around tunnels, you might as well mention the Empire tunnel. This is because whatever Amtrak purchases for Eastern operations should eventually cycle through the Empire Service.

And of course make sure some of the other tunnels along the Hudson can take the Superliners!

At least Albany could handle the height. (The high platform would be a problem, but you could in theory board them north of the new platforms on the old platforms. But that would really delay things.

But again.. for what worth?

At least for the Empire Service, let's worry about 6 and 7 car trains on a regular basis, and adding at least one more daily trip before we worry about upgrading THAT particular line to Superliners. (I realize what Thirdrail7 is suggesting is slightly different and he's not suggesting a need there, it's more, "without Amfleets going through the NEC, the Empire Service becomes the odd duck.")

Forget about Superliners through New York Penn.

There is still the huge problem of high-level platforms in Penn Station and that is certainly not going to change any time soon. The Superliners can only board at low-level platforms, so to get them into New York you would first have to demolish the high-level platforms at NYP (plus a whole lot of other NEC stations...)

There is not, nor will there ever be, any low-level platforms in New York Penn. There is not a single inch of space to put a new low-level platform just for Superliners and demolishing the existing high-level ones would be a nightmare with staircases, support columns for MSG, escalators, elevators for ADA access, signage which would now be too high for people to see, and much more. Not to mention you now have all those people four feet closer to moving trains buzzing around, 750 volts of pure electricity with the third rails, and more. Loading times would be far longer, and wheelchair access would be even more of a pain with wheelchair lifts and all. Not to mention the LIRR would throw a fit, with their high-level only equipment...

Plus with people that much closer to the tracks pedestrian strikes would skyrocket. NYP has more trains buzzing about in all sorts of directions than just about any other low-level platform station. You would definatly see LIRR and NJT commuters camping out downstairs on one of the platforms until their train track is posted, then making a mad dash through the tracks downstairs to get to the right platform (bumping into the lovely third rail and any passing trains on their way).

So it just ain't gonna happen anytime soon. Sorry.

Okay, some blue sky options.

Is it possible to have a couple of height adjustable platforms for a select track? Say the Empire Connection had a special track under the new Monihan Station that had a platform that could rise up and meet any height train floor. Then Amfleet, European high-speed trainsets and Superliner Lake Shore Limiteds could all use it. Think a floating boat dock for trains.

Yes there are other considerations like servicing the Superliners, but it's an idea that might remedy the problem of various floor-height trains that are now readily available. I'm sure it's possible.

Check out this moving platform concept:

http://vimeo.com/25407213