Metro- North considering Double Deckers

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I found their discussion of fitting double level cars in/out of Manhattan interesting, as I think it also addresses a similar problem that Amtrak faces if they wanted to ever use double level Superliners for its LD trains in/out of Manhattan.
 
I found their discussion of fitting double level cars in/out of Manhattan interesting, as I think it also addresses a similar problem that Amtrak faces if they wanted to ever use double level Superliners for its LD trains in/out of Manhattan.
Superliners are far higher than these commuter cars, and for ADA compliant long distance trains these Commuter cars are not compliant.
 
I found their discussion of fitting double level cars in/out of Manhattan interesting, as I think it also addresses a similar problem that Amtrak faces if they wanted to ever use double level Superliners for its LD trains in/out of Manhattan.
You can rest assured that Amtrak will never use Superliners into Manhattan. Not in our lifetimes at least.

OTOH, Amtrak could at some point decide to adapt the NJT style multi-levels for use on their trains. These cars are no more ADA non-compliant than the Superliners and Surfliners. The mobility challenged folks would remain confined to the portion of the car that is at platform level, and they will need to make sure that each area designated for mobility challenged folks has an ADA compliant Restroom. This is how the Superliners, Surfliners and indeed even the Viewliner Sleepers satisfy ADA requirements.
 
I would NOT want the NJT multi-levels on an Amtrak long-distance, or even Amtrak corridor trains! They're good for commuter service, but thinking back to the Kawasaki bi-levels I rode on MARC, which are still bigger than the NJT stock, I would not want them as Amtrak stock. They're too small for the overhead luggage rack really, and tall people have to duck more. That said, I would like to see a Superliner design with a mid-deck at 48 inches though so Superliner routes can serve high-level platforms, and platforms can start to be standardized to 48" away from freight lines.
 
That said, I would like to see a Superliner design with a mid-deck at 48 inches though so Superliner routes can serve high-level platforms, and platforms can start to be standardized to 48" away from freight lines.
Why bother? They seem to be doing just fine as they are. A door at 48" will require everyone to have to climb some stairs. It will destroy the through upper level connections between cars. Indeed, it will most likely force everyone to have to climb some stairs even to get from one car to another. Seems like a lose-lose proposition to me.
 
That said, I would like to see a Superliner design with a mid-deck at 48 inches though so Superliner routes can serve high-level platforms, and platforms can start to be standardized to 48" away from freight lines.
Why bother? They seem to be doing just fine as they are. A door at 48" will require everyone to have to climb some stairs. It will destroy the through upper level connections between cars. Indeed, it will most likely force everyone to have to climb some stairs even to get from one car to another. Seems like a lose-lose proposition to me.
Because it would be neat to have Superliner on Lake Shore Limited and Carolinian and Silver Meteor.
 
Because it would be neat to have Superliner on Lake Shore Limited and Carolinian and Silver Meteor.
No amount of dreaming and wishful thinking will ever get Superliners into New York.

So we will destroy the single level walk that one can take the entire length of a Superliner train at the upper level to put in doors at 48" so that they can run on these trains which will then have to stop going to New York? What kind of logic is that?
 
The logic behind my opinion isn't so much putting Superliners on the Crescent, Silvers, LSL or other NYP trains, as much as it is for new/revived and expanded capacity without expanded trains on existing non-NYP routes such as the Downeaster while being able to serve the already-existing high level platforms. It'll also make things easier at low-level platforms as you now have a rise of maybe 10 inches from platform to floor vs the 40 inch rise you do now thus making handicapped access easier (ramps maybe instead of lifts?) as well as access easier overall.

From what I understand, the Superliner would be America's standard railcar if it weren't for those pesky NYP height restrictions (and some other stuff, but the single level fleet exists mostly because of NYP's restrictions). For instance, if a train was started CHI-JAX via ATL, it'd most likely be a Superliner train and Atlanta could build a station with 48 inch platforms to allow level boarding to both the Crescent and this new hypothetical train if it used the tri-level Superliner idea.

But ultimately, I know Amtrak would not use a tri-level Superliner because the ramp would take up too much room even if it spiraled up/down to the middle-level.
 
From what I understand, the Superliner would be America's standard railcar if it weren't for those pesky NYP height restrictions (and some other stuff, but the single level fleet exists mostly because of NYP's restrictions). For instance, if a train was started CHI-JAX via ATL, it'd most likely be a Superliner train and Atlanta could build a station with 48 inch platforms to allow level boarding to both the Crescent and this new hypothetical train if it used the tri-level Superliner idea.
My bet is that Atlanta will never build 48" platforms, thus making this a non-issue for that train. For the (very) few places (e.g. Syracuse NY or Schenectady NY comes to mind) where this might be an issue, a much much cheaper and less disruptive solution is to to have half length of the platform low and other half high, if they do want to provide some high level platform space.
 
Can Double Decker be self powered? I know Catenary ones can , like in Japan. Ive never heard of Double Decker 3rd Rail EMU's.
Can 30th Street Station support Superliners? I am guessing nit but if so then Silver Meteor can start at Newark instead of NYP and Lake Shore limited at Poughkeepsie.
 
Can 30th Street Station support Superliners? I am guessing nit but if so then Silver Meteor can start at Newark instead of NYP and Lake Shore limited at Poughkeepsie.
30th St has one platform that can, at the far end, but only under special operating procedures. But Newark Penn Station cannot. In any case moving the New York terminal for these trains from New York Penn to somewhere outside New York City will have significant adverse effect on ridership, and will take away one of the primary attractions of train service, which is direct connectivity to downtown. One does not take that away from the city that is the largest O/D for Amtrak, even on the LDs that serve that city. The second problem will be servicing of the equipment since neither will be able to get to the New York area maintenance base at Sunnyside. On the whole a non-starter of an idea I'd say.
 
Can Double Decker be self powered? I know Catenary ones can , like in Japan. Ive never heard of Double Decker 3rd Rail EMU's.
Since a catenary one can, there is no reason that a third rail one could not if someone wanted such. Most double-deckers EMUs however have some equipment cabinets in what could be passenger space at least in one or two cars in a four car unit, typically in the end cars where the driving cab is.
 
Can Double Decker be self powered? I know Catenary ones can , like in Japan. Ive never heard of Double Decker 3rd Rail EMU's.
Can 30th Street Station support Superliners? I am guessing nit but if so then Silver Meteor can start at Newark instead of NYP and Lake Shore limited at Poughkeepsie.
Superliners will not fit through tunnels south of Baltimore, either, so all your long-distance trains would have to start in WAS.

This discussion seems to come up every few months (though, I swear, the last time we had this was much more recently than this). Really, there's nothing wrong with having two types/sizes of equipment in the LD fleet. There's nothing wrong with having single-level LD cars in the Amtrak system. The cost of changing infrastructure would be too great to allow standardizing. Any compromised car design would be a step back from either type of car that's out there now.

There's nothing "special" about a Superliner, other than its capacity. You can get the same capacity by adding cars. The current set of LD trains are nowhere near their maximum length. Current single-level LD trains, except for the Lake Shore, generally run with a baggage, two sleepers, two food cars, and four coaches (the Silver Meteor often runs with a third sleeper, and the Cardinal is much shorter). A couple decades ago, these trains ran 15-20 cars long.

It would be far, far easier to add a few cars to the train to get the capacity you want, than to invent a new long-distance car design that requires everybody to walk up and down stairs when moving from car to car (I know I said this already, in another thread very recently on this forum) just so that the train can serve high-level platforms. The "tri-level" type commuter car design already isn't designed with baggage storage (or enough restroom tank capacity) in mind. I've never been in the new NJT cars, but I'd imagine they're even shorter than the Bombardier-type coaches, meaning even less room for overhead luggage racks and such.

Turning those types of cars into long-distance passenger equipment really sounds more like a solution looking for a problem than anything else.

Update. Here's where the subject was discussed last time: http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/33449-bombardier-bilevel-cars-over-longer-distances/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bi-level rail cars for Metro-North Railroad will most likely never become a reality. The MTA has already spent a lot of money on the future M9 rail cars for both the LIRR and Metro-North(EMU's similar to the M7 cars). Plus, non-powered coaches do not fit into the MTA's plan of further electrification of the Hudson line. Running full bi-level rail cars into GCT will require very low ceilings for each level, and would be more cramped than the single level cars currently used. If bi-level cars were to be purchased, more dual mode locomotives able to operate in GCT wold have to be purchased and there currently aren't enough GE [toaster] Genesis P32ACDM's to warrant that type of purchase.
 
Running full bi-level rail cars into GCT will require very low ceilings for each level, and would be more cramped than the single level cars currently used.
I have been meaning to ask someone that knows .... What is the max loading gauge height allowed through the Park Ave. tunnels into GCT?

Since the P32s are nominally either 14'6" or 14'8" depending on which source you believe, I presume at least 14'6" does fit into GCT, Since many dozens of P32 moves happen into and out of GCT each day.

The NJT and LIRR multi-level vehicles, are likely to be the prototypical ones for anything that MNRR might get, and they are 14'6" tall. So barring any additional corner striking issues as in case of the LIRR MLVs trying to get into the North River Tunnels, it would seem that these MLVs would fit into GCT.

And yes, in one way they are more cramped and in another way they are less cramped. The ceiling height is lower but the seating is 2-2 instead of 3-2.

Of course full bilevels like Superliners won't work too well at all. The only known full bilevel that fit in that loading gauge are the Talgo bilevels with vestibules at both levels, for which Talgo apparently holds a patent. But they won't work very well with high platforms.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MNCR is considering double deckers as replacement for M-3's

These Double Deckers would be for Harlem & Hudson electrified zone only.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/nyregion/16double.html?_r=2
Somebody, it may have been Joe Clift or George Hikalis- I'm positive it was someone from RRWG, told me that MNCR was not interested in letting any cars taller than 14' 4" through the Park Ave tunnels and that while the Genesis is 14'6" tall at its very peak, it can generally fit into tighter loading gauges than its height indicates because of its roof curvature.

The NJT Multilevels are so cramped they are almost inadvisably so. My understanding, however, is that MNCR is primarily interested in single level cars and that orders of cars will likely involve piggy backing on the "Amfleet III" order, for lack of another name. The only reason I could think of for them to want bi-levels is to buy MLVs for WOH services and modify their Comet V HVAC to allow EOH usage for them. HOWEVER, there is really no pressing need to retire the Shoreliners, and if they develop a need for more cars, NJT is getting 100 completely unneeded MLVs soon, so they will probably retire the Comet IIs. Which are basically Shoreliners.
 
Problem with MNCR and park avenue tunnel is its at capacity, and only way to maintain or expand service is to go up.

Specially due to reverse commuting and loss of storage at GCT due to ESA now trains have to go out to Highbridge yard.

This extra outbound traffic has saturated the tunnels.

The 142 M-3 cars will be replaced by 130 Doubledecker cars, once design is finished, this will maintain current seats and expand about 10% the replacement of M-3's
 
Problem with MNCR and park avenue tunnel is its at capacity, and only way to maintain or expand service is to go up.

Specially due to reverse commuting and loss of storage at GCT due to ESA now trains have to go out to Highbridge yard.

This extra outbound traffic has saturated the tunnels.

The 142 M-3 cars will be replaced by 130 Doubledecker cars, once design is finished, this will maintain current seats and expand about 10% the replacement of M-3's
Is there anyway to double Capacity , it seems this region is headed for a Capacity Crisis. I think were going to have to build a New station and approach system for Metro North into GCT...
 
Problem with MNCR and park avenue tunnel is its at capacity, and only way to maintain or expand service is to go up.

Specially due to reverse commuting and loss of storage at GCT due to ESA now trains have to go out to Highbridge yard.

This extra outbound traffic has saturated the tunnels.

The 142 M-3 cars will be replaced by 130 Doubledecker cars, once design is finished, this will maintain current seats and expand about 10% the replacement of M-3's
Is there anyway to double Capacity , it seems this region is headed for a Capacity Crisis. I think were going to have to build a New station and approach system for Metro North into GCT...
I suspect that the bigger issue isn't the number of tracks in the tunnel, it's the interlocking at Grand Central.

Bring a train into track 27 for example, the only way to get it back out is to cross it over 3/4ths of the interlocking essentially shutting down the station for a minute while it moves across the interlocking. You can't have other trains moving south in the tunnel with a train crossing over every track on its way to the north bound track(s) and you can't have other trains already in the station leaving as again, that train crossing over is blocking every switch and track.

One of the biggest ways to help ease the pain at GCT is to get Eastside Access finished and then start routing at least a few Hudson and New Haven line trains into NYP taking over some of the current LIRR slots from LIRR trains diverted to GCT via Eastside Access. Of course that also has it's own technical issues and problems that will need to be dealt with.
 
Back
Top