Oregon buys 2 Talgo trainsets

Per Talgo supplied pdf
http://www.coaststarlight.net/railpac/2 ... n%20CA.pdf

Wisconsin train-set = 14 cars (1 of which they call a "caper") = 11 with wheelchair space = 6 with wheelchair lifts
Oregon train-set = 13 cars ( 1 of which they call a "caper") = 9 with wheelchair space = 6 with wheelchair lifts

Eric , the big problem i see with superliners and ada issues in the future , is that the wheelchair bound passenger is confined to the lower level of the car they board .that is presumably acceptable now , but will it always be ??? .
The second , and perhaps bigger issue , is the aging population , an increasing obesity problem , and a general expectation that people of all ages can continue to enjoy access to all forms of transportation / amentities . ( and why shouldnt they ) . I'm not sure superliner stairs are going to considered as suitable for a large portion of the travelling population in the future . i'm sure there are issues now , does grandma have to stay downstairs while the rest of the family visit the dining / sightseer car ???

The current Talgos have areas that are ADA accessible: Business Class, Dining Car, Bistro and one coach with 2+1 seating that allows wheelchair movement through the aisle. The rest of the train is coaches with 2+2 seating and it is not wheelchair accessible. The design of the WI/OR Series 8 disperses the wheelchairs throughout the train, with clear access to the restroom facilities; but the aisles are not wide enough for wheelchair passage to the bistro/dining cars, which could create a problem with ADA compliance.

Here's a design drawing of the new OR Talgo, provided by ODOT: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/RAIL/docs/Pa ... Trains.pdf

What are the ADA regulations for "Intercity Trains"?
It's all in the following link...
http://www.access-board.gov/transit/htm ... e.htm#IRCG
Briefly,
Subpart F. Intercity Rail Cars and Systems
§1192.111 General.
(a) New, used and remanufactured intercity rail cars, to be considered accessible by regulations issued by the Department of Transportation in 49 CFR part 37, shall comply with this subpart to the extent required for each type of car as specified below.
(1) Single-level rail passenger coaches and food service cars (other than single-level dining cars) shall comply with §§1192.113 through 1192.123. Compliance with §1192.125 shall be required only to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of paragraph (d) of this section.
(2) Single-level dining and lounge cars shall have at least one connecting doorway complying with §1192.113(a)(2), connected to a car accessible to persons using wheelchairs or mobility aids, and at least one space complying with §1192.125(d)(2) and (3), to provide table service to a person who wishes to remain in his or her wheelchair, and space to fold and store a wheelchair for a person who wishes to transfer to an existing seat.
(3) Bi-level dining cars shall comply with §§1192.113(a)(2), 1192.115(b), 1192.117(a), and 1192.121.
(4) Bi-level lounge cars shall have doors on the lower level, on each side of the car from which passengers board, complying with §1192.113, a restroom complying with §1192.123, and at least one space complying with §1192.125(d)(2) and (3) to provide table service to a person who wishes to remain in his or her wheelchair and space to fold and store a wheelchair for a person who wishes to transfer to an existing seat.
(5) Restrooms complying with §1192.123 shall be provided in single-level rail passenger coaches and food service cars adjacent to the accessible seating locations required by paragraph (d) of this section. Accessible restrooms are required in dining and lounge cars only if restrooms are provided for other passengers.
(6) Sleeper cars shall comply with §§1192.113(b) through (d), 1192.115 through 1192.121, and 1192.125, and have at least one compartment which can be entered and used by a person using a wheelchair or mobility aid and complying with §1192.127.
(b)(1) If physically and operationally practicable, intercity rail cars shall comply with §1192.113(d) for level boarding. (2) Where level boarding is not structurally or operationally practicable, intercity rail cars shall comply with §1192.125.
(c) If portions of the car are modified in a way that affects or could affect accessibility, each such portion shall comply, to the extent practicable, with the applicable provisions of this subpart. This provision does not require that inaccessible cars be retrofitted with lifts, ramps or other boarding devices.
(d) Passenger coaches or food service cars shall have the number of spaces complying with §1192.125(d)(2) and the number of spaces complying with §1192.125(d)(3), as required by 49 CFR 37.91.
(e) Existing cars retrofitted to meet the seating requirements of 49 CFR 37.91 shall comply with §§1192.113(e), 1192.123, 1192.125(d) and shall have at least one door on each side from which passengers board complying with §1192.113(d). Existing cars designed and manufactured to be accessible in accordance with Department of Transportation regulations implementing section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 that were in effect before October 7, 1991, shall comply with §1192.125(a).

§1192.125 Mobility aid accessibility.
(a)(1) General. All intercity rail cars, other than level entry cars, required to be accessible by §1192.111(a) and (e) of this subpart shall provide a level-change mechanism or boarding device (e.g., lift, ramp or bridge plate) complying with either paragraph (b) or (c); of this section and sufficient clearances to permit a wheelchair or other mobility aid user to reach a seating location complying with paragraph (d) of this section.
(2) Exception. If portable or platform lifts, ramps or bridge plates meeting the applicable requirements of this section are provided on station platforms or other stops, or mini-high platforms complying with §1192.113(d) are provided, at stations or stops required to be accessible by 49 CFR part 37, the car is not required to be equipped with a car-borne device.
(b) Car Lift. (1) Design load. The design load of the lift shall be at least 600 pounds. Working parts, such as cables, pulleys, and shafts, which can be expected to wear, and upon which the lift depends for support of the load, shall have a safety factor of at least six, based on the ultimate strength of the material. Nonworking parts, such as platform, frame, and attachment hardware which would not be expected to wear, shall have a safety factor of at least three, based on the ultimate strength of the material.
(c) Car ramp or bridge plate. (1) Design load. Ramps or bridge plates 30 inches or longer shall support a load of 600 pounds, placed at the centroid of the ramp or bridge plate distributed over an area of 26 inches by 26 inches, with a safety factor of at least 3 based on the ultimate strength of the material. Ramps or bridge plates shorter than 30 inches shall support a load of 300 pounds.
(d) Seating. (1) Requirements. All intercity rail cars required to be accessible by §1192.111(a) and (e) of this subpart shall provide at least one, but not more than two, mobility aid seating location(s) complying with paragraph (d)(2) of this section; and at least one, but not more than two, seating location(s) complying with paragraph (d)(3) of this section which adjoin or overlap an accessible route with a minimum clear width of 32 inches.
(2) Wheelchair or mobility aid spaces. Spaces for persons who wish to remain in their wheelchairs or mobility aids shall have a minimum clear floor area 48 inches by 30 inches. Such space may have fold-down or removable seats for use when not occupied by a wheelchair or mobility aid user. (See Fig. 2)
(3) Other spaces. Spaces for individuals who wish to transfer shall include a regular coach seat or dining car booth or table seat and space to fold and store the passenger's wheelchair.

Nowhere will you read that ADA requires full wheelchair access to the entire train.
They rules only require wheelchair access
(1) to get on and off the train
(2) from the boarding area to a wheelchair space
(3) from the wheelchair space to ADA restroom.

David Benton wrote:Eric , the big problem i see with superliners and ada issues

I agree that the Superliner car is not desirable anymore from an ADA standpoint, but the assumption that the Talgo trainset is the only option certainly merits review.

There's no reason why Oregon couldn't just buy four Amfleet coaches and two rebuilt P40s. Each coach can seat up to 84, so just two Amfleet cars seat 168 passengers. The average loading of a Portland-Eugene train is about 80 passengers. Since the run between Portland-Eugene is just over two hours, a snack-cart service would suffice (just like the Hiawathas) for the run instead of using a dedicated cafe/lounge car that costs extra to maintain and operate. The two NPCUs that Oregon already owns could be converted into cabbages to provide a baggage car and bicycle storage area.

Cost of the P40/coach train: about $5 million. Cost of the Talgos? Over $30 million. Level of service? Identical. But when there's "free money" to be had, egh, why be frugal.

wigwagfan wrote:

David Benton wrote:Eric , the big problem i see with superliners and ada issues

I agree that the Superliner car is not desirable anymore from an ADA standpoint, but the assumption that the Talgo trainset is the only option certainly merits review.

There's no reason why Oregon couldn't just buy four Amfleet coaches and two rebuilt P40s. Each coach can seat up to 84, so just two Amfleet cars seat 168 passengers. The average loading of a Portland-Eugene train is about 80 passengers. Since the run between Portland-Eugene is just over two hours, a snack-cart service would suffice (just like the Hiawathas) for the run instead of using a dedicated cafe/lounge car that costs extra to maintain and operate. The two NPCUs that Oregon already owns could be converted into cabbages to provide a baggage car and bicycle storage area.

Cost of the P40/coach train: about $5 million. Cost of the Talgos? Over $30 million. Level of service? Identical. But when there's "free money" to be had, egh, why be frugal.

There are a few arguments that can be made against your points.
(1) There are no Amfleet cars available for ODOT to buy. There's no way ODOT can buy just 4 new Amfleet cars at regular prices, they would have to pay custom prices.
(2) ODOT trains will probably run the entire Cascade route in rotation with Amtrak and WDOT trains. No specific train-sets heads to Vancouver, B.C. and no specific train-sets will head to Eugene, Oregon. When Amtrak substitutes in an Amfleet train for a Talgo train, they can't meet the schedule that the Talgo trains meet.
(3) There's no way just two Amfleet coach cars in an ODOT train can provide the added first class and bistro car services passengers expect on the Cascade trains. Neither can they provide the same number of wheelchair spaces and bicycle spaces.

electricron wrote:(1) There are no Amfleet cars available for ODOT to buy. There's no way ODOT can buy just 4 new Amfleet cars at regular prices, they would have to pay custom prices.

My understanding is that there are quite a few Amfleet cars not in use, in storage, that could be made available to ODOT for purchase/lease. Even if, we use the argument that they aren't available, we can follow the lead of the state of North Carolina and several commuter agencies and buy other stock and have it remanufactured. I can see any number of cars available on Ozark Mountain's website of cars that are perfectly OK right now for use (but quite rightfully could use a thorough rebuilding).

electricron wrote:(2) ODOT trains will probably run the entire Cascade route in rotation with Amtrak and WDOT trains. No specific train-sets heads to Vancouver, B.C. and no specific train-sets will head to Eugene, Oregon. When Amtrak substitutes in an Amfleet train for a Talgo train, they can't meet the schedule that the Talgo trains meet.

But today, only one train - that's 500/509 - actually runs through; travellers on train 504 must detrain at Portland and board train 506 which is a different trainset on a different track, and a 40 minute layover. And as I've demonstrated in the past, if Amtrak Cascades/WSDOT eliminated the Portland-Eugene segment, Amtrak/WSDOT could run SEVEN daily Portland-Seattle round-trips, without any new equipment but by using the existing equipment fleet.

electricron wrote:(3) There's no way just two Amfleet coach cars in an ODOT train can provide the added first class and bistro car services passengers expect on the Cascade trains. Neither can they provide the same number of wheelchair spaces and bicycle spaces.

It is not of the government's concern to provide "first class" service, so frankly it can go away - besides, how many business class passengers use the Portland-Eugene segment? The few times I've ridden south of Portland the Bistro was empty (but consistently full to the north), especially given the schedule of the train to the south being well before breakfast hours, or well after dinner hours. Someone pushing a coffee cart can provide a near-identical level of service, at lower cost, without the need to maintain, staff, and stock a full Bistro and Table car.

You do have a point about wheelchair spaces (generally difficult on high-level cars but hardly impossible; lifts are easily installed) and bicycle access (quite simple: if there is demand, just add a combination car - half the car with baggage/bicycle space, half the car with additional coach seating). So then you get two full 80 seat cars, one car with 40 seats, you still have 200 seats for a train that averages 75. Or just run a combination car and a coach car, you still have 120 seats for a train that averages 75. If people are picky about the bistro car, they can connect to a Talgo trainset north of Portland and get the experience they want. This is supposed to be able transportation, not about catering to people's selfish, particular tastes - and two Amfleet cars (or whatever cars are available) provide just that. If they want "first class" service, a Bistro car - it is hardly the government's role to cater to those demands, and those selective passengers can pay a full fare for their exclusive desires.

There's no denying that PDX to EUG doesn't have huge ridership and that the current service levels could be maintained with a couple of doodlebugs rolling back and forth through the Willamette Valley. WA (and Amtrak) own the equipment, so WA and Amtrak write the schedules and OR gets lousy service. But with the OR purchase of new equipment, ODOT gets to sit at the table when the schedules are written and I hope that ODOT will demand schedules that will work for the citizens of OR. I would expect that OR would want an early morning departure south from Portland--currently the earliest southbound departure is at 225pm. There also is a need for an early northbound train from Portland. Currently the first northbound train from Portland to Seattle arrives at noon and the last departure southbound from Seattle to Portland is a 530pm. I think OR will also want a midday roundtrip through the Willamette Valley. Those additional frequencies will create many more travel options for PDX area passengers, which should boost ridership significantly. And with more ridership, more seats will be needed and higher service levels will be expected. It's true that there isn't any constitutional requirement that a bistro car be subsidized for rail passengers, but we know that users of the interstate highway system don't pay the full cost of that high speed transportation option either. What right do citizens have to a 70 mph interstate freeway system when there are existing county and state roads?

If OR wants to be cheap, they could lease a WES vehicle for a midday roundtrip PDX<>EUG (I assume there's a rail connection from Beaverton to Union Station) and see what ridership develops, but I'd be very surprised if ODOT's plan to provide more service at better times with comfortable trains doesn't result in huge ridership gains in Oregon.

It's true that there isn't any constitutional requirement that a bistro car be subsidized for rail passengers, but we know that users of the interstate highway system don't pay the full cost of that high speed transportation option either. What right do citizens have to a 70 mph interstate freeway system when there are existing county and state roads?

That's a flat out absurd comparison.

Every person who drives on the Interstate Highway system - or any other road, for that matter gets equal service, whether you drive a Lamborghini, a Bentley, a Rolls Royce, a BMW - or a Hyundai or Geo or Mazda or Kia or Chevy. You get the same freeway access, the same speed, the same priority. Those who choose to buy the more expensive car are free to at their own expense, but on the road they are treated no differently than the lesser expensive autos. Likewise, anyone can CHOOSE to drive on Interstate 5, or they can CHOOSE to drive on Oregon 99E - but both are equally available for their use; there's no such thing as "Lexus Lanes" in Oregon. (And they can CHOOSE to carpool, use Greyhound, or any other bus or transit system, including the one-class Amtrak Thruway Bus).

On Amtrak, there are "classes". As in "first class", "business class", "sleeper class", "coach class". The last time I checked, government was supposed to treat all citizens equally. If someone feels they are too good for the regular coach seating, they are welcome to pay for what they want - but why should I be subsidizing their choice?

My point is that driving, like riding a train, is subsidized by the government. It's currently usually faster and more convenient to travel long distances via a government subsidized freeway, and the citizens have chosen to build and subsidize those freeways, but that's a luxury that we may not be able to afford in the future. In fact, it may be more economical to build high speed rail corriors than expand the existing and subsidized freeway systems in order to meet future mobility demands.

Vincent wrote:My point is that driving, like riding a train, is subsidized by the government. It's currently usually faster and more convenient to travel long distances via a government subsidized freeway, and the citizens have chosen to build and subsidize those freeways, but that's a luxury that we may not be able to afford in the future. In fact, it may be more economical to build high speed rail corriors than expand the existing and subsidized freeway systems in order to meet future mobility demands.

That's the really absurd part, that in the US in 2010 it's actually faster to take an automobile on a long distance trip, as opposed to a train. And it is more economical to use HSR as opposed to freeways, both in terms of resources and time. The US just hasn't caught on to that fact yet. The Interstate Highway System was a one-shot deal, built at a time when construction costs were very long, with no real provisions made for long-term maintenance. At this point it will cost much more to maintain than it will generate in economic activity.

wigwagfan, you clearly live in a state without toll roads. We do have different "classes" of road, at different cost, in this country.

I forgot to mention platform heights at most of the train stations west of the Appalachian Mountains. They're relatively short, less than 18 inches high. With ADA in effect today, Amfleet cars require platforms 48-51 inches high, or the installation of mini-high platforms or wheelchair lifts. Even the new Talgo trains use wheelchair lifts instead of higher platforms.

In that aspect, Superliners and Talgo trains need much shorter platforms than Amfleet trains.

jtr1962 wrote:

Vincent wrote:My point is that driving, like riding a train, is subsidized by the government. It's currently usually faster and more convenient to travel long distances via a government subsidized freeway, and the citizens have chosen to build and subsidize those freeways, but that's a luxury that we may not be able to afford in the future. In fact, it may be more economical to build high speed rail corriors than expand the existing and subsidized freeway systems in order to meet future mobility demands.

That's the really absurd part, that in the US in 2010 it's actually faster to take an automobile on a long distance trip, as opposed to a train.

Why is it absurd? Outside of the Northeast, rail travel has a very small percentage of the overall travel market. Of course, comparing the travel time of a long distance train with automotive travel, assuming that the driver actually sleeps at night, is a far more valid comparison - in the same way that comparing sleeper fare with automobile travel costs AND food/lodging costs yields a far more favorable comparison for passenger rail.

jtr1962 wrote: And it is more economical to use HSR as opposed to freeways, both in terms of resources and time.

This is just not true. It's pretty obvious that the cost per mile of a HSR ticket will be far in excess of driving, perhaps even in excess of flying. All you need to do is look at the Acela, which has the economic advantage of operating on pre-existing rail infrastructure. Does anyone in their right mind really believe that HSR fares, with the same (or greater) per mile as the Acela, will generate significant ridership. The reality is that HSR makes absolutely no economic sense outside of the same handful of Northeastern urban centers that are already the core of Amtrak patronage.

jtr1962 wrote: The US just hasn't caught on to that fact yet.

The problem with that line of thinking is that your "fact" isn't a ''fact" as much a HSR fantasy.

jtr1962 wrote:The Interstate Highway System was a one-shot deal, built at a time when construction costs were very long, with no real provisions made for long-term maintenance. At this point it will cost much more to maintain than it will generate in economic activity.

Again, that is just not true. The facts don't backup the anti-automotive propaganda.

What most people fail to appreciate is that the United States was very late in building its Interstate Highway System - which is precisely why so many states embarked on "Turnpike" and "Freeway" systems before the Eisenhower administration realized how antiquated the American highway system had become. Germany, for instance, started planning the autobahns during the Weimar period.

The reality is that there is a far greater economic justification for the Interstate Highway System than HSR.

It's a mistake for HSR proponents to adopt this sort of flimsy anti-automotive stance, since it's quite clear that the vast majority of Americans can't make do without their personal automobiles, but hardly notice intercity passenger rail unless they live in a handful of urban centers.

It's a mistake for HSR proponents to adopt this sort of flimsy anti-automotive stance, since it's quite clear that the vast majority of Americans can't make do without their personal automobiles, but hardly notice intercity passenger rail unless they live in a handful of urban centers.

Oil price.
Dependence on China and Saudi.
There is a difference between what people want and what they can have or can afford.