On many levels, a better train (S/L article on bilevels)

I don't know who spread the 125 mph rumor but according Amtrak timetable page 286
MARC III series 7800-7825, 7870-7876, 7890-7896 and control cars 7845-7754 Push-Pull service
Wasington to Philadelpia 100 mph max
all other routes 90 mph
so don't believe people without documentation.

Huh, my mistake. Could that be for push mode only, or is that the limit regardless? Either way, it's still too bad that NJ Transit couldn't order those off the shelf, instead of requiring a custom design.

the speed is for both ways.
the Kawasaki Bi-levels have only two doors compared to NJT ones having four doors for high platforms. they seat about same amount.

Man those Kawasakis look HEAVY. NJ-ARP may have a point I could see a set of those battleships on the RVL packed with commuters and a poor overworked F-40 trying to get em up to 80 mph between stations. There goes that schedule. I would imagine those Railworld leasers may be utilized in double heading some hotter RVL and NJCL diesel expresses, ideally as trailing units, if the double deckers run over the whole NJT system.

Zeke wrote:Man those Kawasakis look HEAVY. NJ-ARP may have a point I could see a set of those battleships on the RVL packed with commuters and a poor overworked F-40 trying to get em up to 80 mph between stations. There goes that schedule. I would imagine those Railworld leasers may be utilized in double heading some hotter RVL and NJCL diesel expresses, ideally as trailing units, if the double deckers run over the whole NJT system.

The F40s could handle a certain amount of them. (My guess is around 3-4). But it is yet to be seen whether these units are used on the RVL. But if they are, and if NJT is smart they'll only be with the PL42ACs which can handle a pretty big multilevel set. One could say the the PL42AC is the "ALP-46" of diesels.

Dutch...no, i am quite familiar with the difference btwn bi-lev's and gallery cars...

...believe it or not, if the comet v's are any indication, it is entirely possible that non-waterproof floors could be an oversight...

having a mysterious substance leak on the pax's downstairs is an experience akin to the strange but true defects that plague c5's...

...i know that this is not a c5 thread but the cars are terrible, poorly engineered, and the bane of my commute...after two years of operation i still cringe when i hear the PA tones (it is a signal to plug my ears)...

...these cars aesthetically are quite attractive...and immediately raised my expectations when i saw them....but quite frankly....i love MU's more than ever

(1) identical consists (by necessity)
(2) cold air conditioning
(3) PA's that don't promote hearing loss
(4) predictable vestibule doors

but i am going to go out on a limb.....

...i predict that the new bi-levels will be one of the best engineered pieces of rolling stock to hit njt property...hopefully someone is thinking beyond aesthetics....will the cars stand the test of time and use....they need to check out some R145's....njt surely receives a daily barrage of correspondence about the deplorable condition of 2 year old equipment...their hands are tied....you can't take em out of service...and you only have a limited amount of time to make repairs...which for some defects, requires re-engineering a mechanism

..so my guess is, they will make up for c5's with the bi-levels...

electrokeystone wrote:but quite frankly....i love MU's more than ever

(1) identical consists (by necessity)
(2) cold air conditioning
(3) PA's that don't promote hearing loss
(4) predictable vestibule doors

I think arrow(3) just found a new friend.

...i predict that the new bi-levels will be one of the best engineered pieces of rolling stock to hit njt property...hopefully someone is thinking beyond aesthetics....

I'm hoping and thinking this will be the case too.

DutchRailnut wrote:Me to or commuter comfort ??? with NJT taking over clocker service they need to give a reasonable comfort level compared to Amtrak.
So to order cars with 2 -2 seating in single level configuration and ADA compliant the car would only hold 70 passengers.

Lets see now, in order to run 4 or 5 "clockers" that will only run between Trenton and New York, we suddenly have to provide commuters more comfort, and to do so we have to buy 100 (+ another 140 or so options to exercise later) cars, with 2 - 2 seating, but in vertically more cramped environments, which will take longer to load and unload. OK. Got it

I think arrow(3) just found a new friend.

Yea that's funny. I agree with all his points (of course)..not to mention their reliability (maybe not single cars as much as the train as a whole), their fast doors, and their acceleration. Well, I did get my arrow advertisement in on a thread that has nothing to do with them! Thanks

Is it definite that they won't run to Philly anymore?

You know, in those bi-level cars, the lower level will put passengers as close to the ground as a Talgo does, if not closer!

Since the lower level is low, why don't they put in center doors down there, finally we would have low-level center doors then. For high level stops, the two double-doors near the ends of the cars (in the middle level) would open.

So if a person in wheel chair gets on at lower level how is he getting off at high level ?? hop up those stairs?? plus you would end up having two vestibule areas one of which would be in middle of seat area.

arrow wrote:Since the lower level is low, why don't they put in center doors down there, finally we would have low-level center doors then. For high level stops, the two double-doors near the ends of the cars (in the middle level) would open.

Let's not get into this again....does anyone else recall the 200+ post thread on the old RR.net regarding the door placement on the bilevels?

I agree that there should have been low level only doors on the bottom floor of the bilevels and high level doors (perhaps with traps making them low level capable) at the ends. It would have the design process a lot easier. Some argued though that since NJT is pushing for all high level platforms, this would not work. As I see it though, these bilevels would be the interim solution until the whole system is high level only and then NJT can focus on high level only equipment.

I feel that NJT's main focus with these cars is the NEC. There are many other lines where having low level only/high level only doors would work rather well. As already noted, these cars are not the ideal solution for the NEC, but would work well on the Hoboken Division and the RVL. My feeling is that NJT should have put the focus on those lines (by putting in low level doors) and save the single level center door equipment for the NEC.

DutchRailnut wrote:I don't know who spread the 125 mph rumor but according Amtrak timetable page 286
MARC III series 7800-7825, 7870-7876, 7890-7896 and control cars 7845-7754 Push-Pull service
Wasington to Philadelpia 100 mph max
all other routes 90 mph
so don't believe people without documentation.

In this weeks Amtrak Bulletin order, ( i think it was in last weeks too) the max speeds for the above mentioned MARC equipment has been changed to 125, and it is noted to make a change in the timetable.

Ok thanks is that in both push and pull mode ???