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

With all the talk of bilevel EMUs, has anyone stopped to consider:

1. The highliners are much taller than the LIRR C-3 cars are.
2. They run on 1.5kv DC, thus do not have a transformer/tap changer/protective gear for 25kv opperation.
3. Because they run on 1.5kv, the roof gear isn't clearenced for 25KV operation.
4. They're not great cars to begin with.

NJ-ARP will continue to advance concerns about bilevels based on New Jersey Transit's own numbers and data.

We're more than willing to entertain the "speculation" of others as to why slower, heavier, locomotive-hauled bilevel equipment can perform in a time-sensitive environment without degradation of service.

But when NJ-ARP crunches NJT's own numbers -- be it seating capacity or locomotive performance -- we see real problems. We've outlined them publicly. And, as we've noted ad nauseam, bilevels operate successfully in lots of places -- but none in the United States with multiple major on-off station stops in rapid succession the way NJT will face on the NEC.

If that's "pure speculation" -- emphasis on the adjective -- NJ-ARP thanks our critic(s), who seem quite free to offer upbeat "speculation" of their own -- rightly so, given this forum's intended purpose.

Here's one more thing. Metra appears able to provide gallery car service using reversible seats. Why can't oh-so-cutting-edge NJT do the same? Why must NJT take one step forward (seating design) and simultaneously step back (fixed seats)? (Buzzer) Service downgrade -- and a loss of choice for those (few or not) who desire flexibility, a standard set by Metra, and so far one it has adhered to vigorously.

From a commuter perspective, I would certainly prefer more MU trains (ones that are not speed restricted due to poor rebuild decisions). Without question, with their middle doors and fast acceleration, they are the best suited trains for handling the NEC.

DJB makes some very good points, some Ive wondered myself. How is a 10 car bilevel set better than a 12 car MU or single level set? Answer, other than 2 cars less operating (easier with platform spotting) and 2 cars less of wear on the cars and the intrastructure, there isn't any benefit. And I don't think that NJT will be using 10 car bilevel sets or 12 car push pull sets. At least with our current comets, the reliability isn't there yet, although its getting better. With 12 comets, you're almost GUARANTEED to have a door problem (or problems) or PA's that aren't working, doors that didn't open at all, etc. Think of twice the troubles had on a six car set. (Sometimes some equipment has no trouble, and everythign works, but thats not frequently the case - there is always SOMETHING)

Ive been told that Morrisville yard will be expanded solely for the use of the bilevels, and that they will mainly be used on the NJT take over of the clockers. Do I believe that? No, not really. As with anything else NJT does, they will do whatever makes the least amount of sense, probably splitting them up and I can see it now, a C2, C3, C2, Blievel, C4, C5, C2, Bilevel cab. What a nightmare........

But I share DJB's view in that the "dollar per seat" for the designing of these bilevels, that the justification isn't really there, there isn't an increase in total capacity than the largest train we can run now (12 MU's) So at the peak rush hour crunch travelers, even if all the trains were the new bilevels, there would be no net gain in seats. Why wasn't the money that was spent on bilevels put into improving an already existing design, my preference being of the C4's. Order more of them, and save millions of dollars in design and construction costs.

Im not surprised with the fixed seats either. Also, don't be surprised if the trains seem to be dirtyier too, especially later on during the day and night. NJT has been "tweeking" with the coach cleaners, and they are gettign fewer and farther inbetween. The resurfacing of fixed seats means that they are no longer needed to flip seats on those trains. (not that there are enough now to flip the seats and clean now on all the trains)

Fixed seats are less flexible obviously, but does cut down on arguments with people putting their feet on the seats, flipping them and taking up lots of room on a crowded train (if you two don't flip that seat back, im gonna have to charge you for the four seats you are wasting......). I do prefer the flippable seats, but those fixed seats look pretty comfy...

There is an editorial today in the Star Ledger.....hopefully NJT did learn something from the C5 debockle......

http://www.nj.com/opinion/ledger/editor ... 083270.xml

I do prefer the flippable seats, but those fixed seats look pretty comfy...

Without a doubt! I'll give up the flippable seats anyday for those nice fixed seats!

for those flippable seats, the end of those may be because of new FRA rules:

[Page 553-554]

TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION

CHAPTER II--FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

PART 238--PASSENGER EQUIPMENT SAFETY STANDARDS--Table of Contents

Subpart C--Specific Requirements for Tier I Passenger Equipment

Sec. 238.233 Interior fittings and surfaces.

(a) Each seat in a passenger car shall--
(1) Be securely fastened to the car body so as to withstand an
individually applied acceleration of 4g acting in the lateral direction
and 4g acting in the upward vertical direction on the deadweight of the
seat or seats, if held in tandem; and
(2) Have an attachment to the car body of an ultimate strength
capable of resisting simultaneously:
(i) The longitudinal inertial force of 8g acting on the mass of the
seat; and
(ii) The load associated with the impact into the seatback of an
unrestrained 95th-percentile adult male initially seated behind the
seat, when the floor to which the seat is attached decelerates with a
triangular crash pulse having a peak of 8g and a duration of 250
milliseconds.
(b) Overhead storage racks in a passenger car shall provide
longitudinal and lateral restraint for stowed articles. Overhead storage
racks shall be attached to the car body with sufficient strength to
resist loads due to the following individually applied accelerations
acting on the mass of the luggage stowed as determined by the railroad:
(1) Longitudinal: 8g;
(2) Vertical: 4g; and
(3) Lateral: 4g.
(c) Other interior fittings within a passenger car shall be attached
to the car body with sufficient strength to withstand the following
individually applied accelerations acting on the mass of the fitting:
(1) Longitudinal: 8g;
(2) Vertical: 4g; and
(3) Lateral: 4g.
(d) To the extent possible, all interior fittings in a passenger
car, except seats, shall be recessed or flush-mounted.

[[Page 554]]

(e) Sharp edges and corners in a locomotive cab and a passenger car
shall be either avoided or padded to mitigate the consequences of an
impact with such surfaces.
(f) Each seat provided for a crewmember regularly assigned to occupy
the cab of a locomotive and each floor-mounted seat in the cab shall be
secured to the car body with an attachment having an ultimate strength
capable of withstanding the loads due to the following individually
applied accelerations acting on the combined mass of the seat and a
95th-percentile adult male occupying it:
(1) Longitudinal: 8g;
(2) Lateral: 4g; and
(3) Vertical: 4g.
(g) If, for purposes of showing compliance with the requirements of
this section, the strength of a seat attachment is to be demonstrated
through sled testing, the seat structure and seat attachment to the sled
that is used in such testing must be representative of the actual seat
structure in, and seat attachment to, the rail vehicle subject to the
requirements of this section. If the attachment strength of any other
interior fitting is to be demonstrated through sled testing, for
purposes of showing compliance with the requirements of this section,
such testing shall be conducted in a similar manner.

Irish Chieftain wrote:

Mr. Bowen wrote:We do argue that the current "solution" offered by NJ Transit is fraught with risks and shortcomings -- one of which is NJT's own derisive dismissal of (more) EMU equipment

In light of the purchasing patterns of LIRR, Metro-North and even SEPTA regarding EMUs, NJT's stance in this regard is an error.

It seems to me that bi-levels become essential only after one has maxed out on single level train lengths and all possible slots to run trains in, on a particular route. It primarily is suppposed to increase capacity for the same train length. This is the reason that bi-levels were introduced in Paris RER for example. It is not clear that this situation is obtained in NJT yet. So it would appear that there is a bit of "me too"-ism at work in NJT's current decision.

Absent these conditions getting bi-levels potentially reduces the cost of maintenance since theoretically fewer units have to be maintained for the same capacity. However, given the choice of lower density seating in the bi-levels so that they barely provide any additional seating capacity per car than a single level Comet (even V), it is not clear that this argument holds good in this case either.

Also, the decision to get bi-levels is somewhat orthogonal to the decision not to get EMU's. Afterall, the Paris RERs (many of the C and D specially) are bi-level EMUs, and such beasts do exist. One could argue that they are not available off the shelf for USA, but so is true of the NJT and LIRR bi-levels. They were designed and built as special cases.

Irish Chieftain wrote:

DRN wrote:NJ-ARP is treating this as if its first Bi-Levels in USA or in world, in fact NJT is a Johnny come lately

Regarding this, let it be noted that NJT is getting bilevels while Metro-North is not, i.e. at present (nor have I heard of any plans to do so) unless it be WOH equipment. LIRR has a long history with bilevels itself, both with trailer equipment and bilevel MU equipment. (SEPTA has no plans to acquire bilevels either that I know of...)

As I said, I think there is a bit of "me too"-ism in NJT's bi-level decision. Perhaps it is the case that Port Authority is more impressed with bi-levels than single levels thus enabling NJT to fund the purchase of this bunch with PA money or some such, who knows?

Actually it'd appear to make a lot of sense if NJT piggybacked on either the SEPTA order or even the MNCR M-8 order (minus the DC gear) to get a bunch of good EMU sets. Eventually they will get around to getting EMUs and DMUs after they figure out that this is the trend in most of major railroading countries in the world for commuter transport, and in some even for long-distance transport (e.g. Virgin Voyagers and Pendolinos in the UK).

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.
The Bi-Levels are 2-2 seating and hold 130 passengers or nearly double of what the 2-2 single level would hold.
On these boards and all others we hear nothing else than organisations like NJ-ARP critisize the commuter agency even when they come up with a solution for their much bitched about 3-2 seating.
a train for minimum 1000 comuters would be :
10 x Comet V
15 x single level 70 seater
8 x Bi-level
If you just try to figure these number against what it cost per car per year in maintenance alone your head would spin.

DutchRailnut repeats the erroneous assertion that NJ-ARP criticizes any and all New Jersey Transit decisions and moves without exception. This is a reckless charge that is, in two words, simply untrue.

As we've noted, NJ-ARP is more than willing to ponder information from any and all who support bilevels -- be it physical or political.

And we're well aware that bilevels are in operation within the United States, let alone Europe -- in fact, our previous posts allude to same. But we note our question -- multiple on/off stations -- has so far not been addressed directly.

By contrast, we're pleased to note that others here have applied the "sauce for the gander" principle when it comes to exalted Europe. Should NJT slavishly follow Europe's lead when it comes to bilevels, but not EMUs? If so, why the discrepancy?

"sauce for the gander"

That's a keeper there Doug !

LOL !

DRN wrote:with NJT taking over clocker service they need to give a reasonable comfort level compared to Amtrak

For a service that will merely be yet another Trenton Express? Certainly not.

..ahhhh


I can see the first bug now.....someone will forget about the following scenario......John commuter (or Jane) sits on the top level and spills his or her beverage purchased in lovely Madison Penn Station hopefully they have water proof floors..../...and now instead of avoiding PA speakers I avoid the lower level.....

...worth a thought since waterproof roofs didn't come standard with the C5's...

Here is my favorite part of the editorial:

Bathrooms will be twice as large, with more toilet paper and better exhaust systems.

Now, how do the new cars ensure that there will be more toilet paper? Perhaps, NJ-ARP can comment on this amazing development? Frankly, I would sit in a non-reversible middle seat of a bi-level with only one exit door for the rest of my commuting life if NJT found a way to never run out of toilent paper--kind of like the perpetual motion machine.

electrokeystone I think you got Gallery cars confused with Bi-levels. the Bi-Levels have a continous floor on upper level.

It's a shame the existing Kawasaki bilevels won't meed NYP clearance reqiurements, necessitating a new design. These things are rated for 125 mph too!

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=65120