Amtrak considering Bi-levels for NE Corridor

Your still not getting it, a 16 foot car does not fit in 14'6" clearance no matter how you move the platforms.

did you fail this :

Yeah, I was under the impression that Superliners didn't fit in the Empire Connection, and for that matter are restricted from south of Croton-on-Hudson, just as the dome cars are. If they weren't, Amtrak could consider building some sort of odd low-level platform before the main platforms and with the access through the Farley building, but that is a solution looking for a problem when Amtrak can much more easily buy single-level cars.

Tadman wrote:

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...

Well, with all due respect, I was not the one suggesting Superliners for the Northeast Corridor. And also IIRC, the California Car variant of the Superliner (with four double-leaf automatic doors and cab car variants) does not have many more seats than an Amfleet I.

Single level equipment will always be the preferred type of rolling stock for the NEC. 1) Easier and faster loading and unloading at each station 2) not as heavy, therefore allowing less wear and tear on the track and 3) the lack of adequate clearance/loading gauge at overpasses, especially in Metro-North territory.

Greg Moore wrote:make sure some of the other tunnels along the Hudson can take the Superliners!

The 2010 MN timetable is online; it seems 16 ft 6 inches will fit everywhere north of Spuyten Duyvil (tho it doesn't say how wide a 16-6 car is allowed to be at that height).

As I recall, years ago 16-6 was allowed along the West Side down to 60th St anyway-- probably 30th St.

It still won't fit in Empire tunnel or NYP so who gives a S*** if it fits north of CP12 ??
on New Haven line the norm is 14'6" max other than a few freight moves.

mtuandrew wrote:Yeah, I was under the impression that Superliners didn't fit in the Empire Connection, and for that matter are restricted from south of Croton-on-Hudson, just as the dome cars are. If they weren't, Amtrak could consider building some sort of odd low-level platform before the main platforms and with the access through the Farley building, but that is a solution looking for a problem when Amtrak can much more easily buy single-level cars.

From the window of the amfleet 2 I was in on the maple leaf, I could see the angled bit of concrete between the wall and ceiling. It was very close to the roof of the P32ACDM. No way would anything taller fit there.

So it sounds like, if we want to run bilevels on the NEC, we need to start running passenger trains from Newark up the CSX freight line on the west bank of the Hudson, rebuild the Poughkeepsie rail bridge, and then route a line across to the Springfield-New Haven connector to bypass MNRR (connect from there to New Haven and then continue to Boston). And then we worry about Baltimore.

markhb wrote:So it sounds like, if we want to run bilevels on the NEC, we need to start running passenger trains from Newark up the CSX freight line on the west bank of the Hudson, rebuild the Poughkeepsie rail bridge, and then route a line across to the Springfield-New Haven connector to bypass MNRR (connect from there to New Haven and then continue to Boston). And then we worry about Baltimore.

Well, at that point then you rebuild the line through Troy and connect to the Boston and Maine and go up through the Hoosac Tunnel.

And electrify everything!

Should be trivial!

Just a note, the B&P tunnels are going to be replaced sometime in the not terribly distant future (10-20 years is my guess) and I believe the plan is to make them tall enough for double-stack freights since Norfolk Southern has trackage rights on the NEC in this area. There is however still the issue of the Union Tunnels, the short ones just east of Baltimore Penn Station. I don't believe they are tall enough for double stacks either, but I think the word is that they can have the rail lowered to add the necessary clearance.

MrBoh wrote:Just a note, the B&P tunnels are going to be replaced sometime in the not terribly distant future (10-20 years is my guess) and I believe the plan is to make them tall enough for double-stack freights since Norfolk Southern has trackage rights on the NEC in this area. There is however still the issue of the Union Tunnels, the short ones just east of Baltimore Penn Station. I don't believe they are tall enough for double stacks either, but I think the word is that they can have the rail lowered to add the necessary clearance.

The Union Tunnels have a clearance of 17' 9". I don't know how tall they would have to be for double-stacks, but I have heard anything about them being modified.

MrBoh wrote:Just a note, the B&P tunnels are going to be replaced sometime in the not terribly distant future (10-20 years is my guess) and I believe the plan is to make them tall enough for double-stack freights since Norfolk Southern has trackage rights on the NEC in this area. There is however still the issue of the Union Tunnels, the short ones just east of Baltimore Penn Station. I don't believe they are tall enough for double stacks either, but I think the word is that they can have the rail lowered to add the necessary clearance.

That's not going to make a difference for anything except the Keystone. Which, being a shorter corridor route, could be a decent candidate for full-height bi's when the Baltimore clearances are fixed with new infrastructure. But there's just no give at NYP. The Bombardier MLV's on NJT and MARC are the tallest things you can fit in there. And they're smaller and less-comfortable than regular-dimension commuter rail bi-levels that are themselves inadequate for intercity service. Longer platforms at the intermediate stops and more singles on consists are probably what'll have to do for all Regionals and Empire trains. Anything more is expending excessive energy trying to push a brick wall with your bare hands.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:

MrBoh wrote:Just a note, the B&P tunnels are going to be replaced sometime in the not terribly distant future (10-20 years is my guess) and I believe the plan is to make them tall enough for double-stack freights since Norfolk Southern has trackage rights on the NEC in this area. There is however still the issue of the Union Tunnels, the short ones just east of Baltimore Penn Station. I don't believe they are tall enough for double stacks either, but I think the word is that they can have the rail lowered to add the necessary clearance.

That's not going to make a difference for anything except the Keystone. Which, being a shorter corridor route, could be a decent candidate for full-height bi's when the Baltimore clearances are fixed with new infrastructure. But there's just no give at NYP. The Bombardier MLV's on NJT and MARC are the tallest things you can fit in there. And they're smaller and less-comfortable than regular-dimension commuter rail bi-levels that are themselves inadequate for intercity service. Longer platforms at the intermediate stops and more singles on consists are probably what'll have to do for all Regionals and Empire trains. Anything more is expending excessive energy trying to push a brick wall with your bare hands.

Why would increased clearance in Baltimore affect the Keystones? Isn't that a NYP-Philadelphia-Harrisburg run?

B&P tunnels are plate C clearance, 15' 6" Max Height above top of rail
Union Tunnels are "C+" according to documents here
Plate F clearance is 17' Max Height above top of rail, and provides clearance for modern box cars, single level containers, and Superliners
Plate H clearance is 20' 2" Max Height above top of rail and provides clearance for double stack containers and tri-level auto carriers

A little difficult to read and not sure of the veracity of the information, but this diagram claims that 25' 2" above top of rail is required height for 25kV electrification with plate H clearance.

Just putting this info out there, I know NYP is a no-go for excess height cars for many reasons, and I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't places where bridges crossing the NEC also restrict clearance height.

Not sure what keystone service has to do with any of this.

markhb wrote:So it sounds like, if we want to run bilevels on the NEC, we need to start running passenger trains from Newark up the CSX freight line on the west bank of the Hudson, rebuild the Poughkeepsie rail bridge, and then route a line across to the Springfield-New Haven connector to bypass MNRR (connect from there to New Haven and then continue to Boston). And then we worry about Baltimore.

There was not a connection that I know of between what is now known as the River Subdivision and the Poughkeepsie Bridge. When the B&O and PRR used that bridge for trains running between Washington/Philly and Boston, they ran over the Lehigh & Hudson River RR.