New Midwest/California Bi-Level Discussion

And the M-1s were under 100,000 lbs per car. And EMUs. With 750VDC traction, i.e. heavy resistor grids, contactors, cables, etc.

And they ran just fine in service and lasted a long time...

I've been thinking about the changes to this order ...

One implication appears to be that Siemens (and others) will have another opportunity to design and/or bid on Amtrak's next generation bi-level cars.

This time however it will be within a greatly changed context from when the RFP went out several years ago. Amtrak's ridership is much higher and new routes and patterns of travel demand are emerging. Probably the biggest change of all would be questions surrounding the FRA's regulatory changes that permit lighter weight design in certain situations.

I have to wonder if some light weight designs not previously eligible could be considered in the future due to PTC deployment.

One thing that keeps coming back to mind - is it so crazy to gradually nationalize the NEC platform height?

48" platforms were a thing that could only be found on the NEC, Metra Electric, Montreal, and Quebec City, but that has changed. There is little, if any, level boarding in low-floor country, making existing platforms sub-optimal for all passenger service. Recently, NEC-height commuter systems have sprouted up in Denver, in Sonoma and Marin County, and the Toronto Airport express. Caltrain (by far the largest mainline passenger operator in the state) is planning on high platforms in conjunction with CHSR, whose reach across the state will exceed most all the rest of the state's operators should it ever get off the ground.

Chicago, the largest low-platform commuter operation, does not use any low floor trains, while much of the country is directly connected to NEC passenger service.

Perhaps, combined with train-mounted gap filler to accommodate freight clearances and a long timeline, it makes sense to not plan on etching the two-platform height standard into stone

If you look at what the FRA did in Roanoke and Springfield I think there's plenty of reason to believe that we will be seeing more high level platforms in a lot of places that don't currently have them.

Rest of the world ca. 1978: "ok, high-floor cars for our regional service." Amtrak: "but Superliners!"

Rest of the world ca. 2017: "ok, low-floor cars for our regional service." Amtrak: "but Brightliners!"

Lets see what Siemens will do with the deign mod for low platforms,options might include a built in wheel chair lift/
extendable ramp to a "mini -high" type platform.

If N-S could make the gallery cars ADA compliant with a floor level lift, then surely Siemens or anyone could.

High level platforms work great for the Northeast, but how many of those high level lines regularly see freight?

Running freight thru a high level platform station just seems a lot more prone to causing damage or injury to me, and just about every commuter line and corridor line in the Midwest also has to handle freight.

eolesen wrote:Running freight thru a high level platform station just seems a lot more prone to causing damage or injury to me, and just about every commuter line and corridor line in the Midwest also has to handle freight.

This can be solved with gantlet tracks, but of course there is usually still freight carrier resistance to the idea.

If ADA accessibility were actually as big a problem as its being made out to be, then Sumitomo could have went with Talgo instead of Siemens.

Backshophoss wrote:Lets see what Siemens will do with the deign mod for low platforms,options might include a built in wheel chair lift/
extendable ramp to a "mini -high" type platform.

Can't recall where I saw it demonstrated, but the Brightline cars come equipped with extendable car-to-platform ramps. Think they are designed to span at least an 18" (1/2m) gap.

Exactly. Which is why you don't have to worry about close clearances.

Adding traps weakens the car body. Brightline is a continuous shell/floorpan design. That car may need a lot of redesign to comply with the same standards that sank Nippon Shrayo. It may be back to the drawing board here too.

bostontrainguy wrote:Adding traps weakens the car body. Brightline is a continuous shell/floorpan design.

No, there is a gap at the doorways. It was designed into the shell to make the car useable anywhere in North America.

Since the Siemens "Viaggio USA" coaches won't seat as many passengers as the bilevels does anyone think there would be a chance of any option cars to make up for loss of seating being piggybacked onto the 130 base order? Or would the original "up to 300+ cars including options" clause in the N-S contract apply to Siemens? And that of course before the possibility of Amtrak saying "Y'know what? I'll have what they're having!"

Do the Viaggio pax cars and Charger locomotives share the same truck?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/sjrailfan ... /lightbox/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.flickr.com/photos/sjrailfan ... /lightbox/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;