Jump to content




Help Support AmtrakTrains.com by donating using the link above or becoming a Supporting Member.

Photo

Sumitomo/Siemens Contract for 137 Cars (former bi-levels)


  • Please log in to reply
1088 replies to this topic

#1081 railiner

railiner

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,797 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queens, NY
  • Interests:All public transportation....land, sea, and air

Posted 10 May 2018 - 11:23 PM

 

I haven't been following this long thread except here and there... so please pardon me for asking...if the planned design failed, why couldn't they just 'dust off' the last bi-level California Car, or Superliner design, and build more of those, instead of 3 more years to engineer an all new, untested design? :unsure:

The California cars currently in service don’t meet the specifications laid out by the consortium of states.

 

What are the differences, and couldn't they be modified somewhat without a drastic re-engineering?


metroblue?

okay on the blue!

#1082 CCC1007

CCC1007

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,605 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 May 2018 - 11:52 PM

 

I haven't been following this long thread except here and there... so please pardon me for asking...if the planned design failed, why couldn't they just 'dust off' the last bi-level California Car, or Superliner design, and build more of those, instead of 3 more years to engineer an all new, untested design? :unsure:

The California cars currently in service don’t meet the specifications laid out by the consortium of states.
 
What are the differences, and couldn't they be modified somewhat without a drastic re-engineering?
Its my understanding that they would need to loose 9 tons, be fully ADA compliant, both down and up stairs, and retain the shape of the passenger compartment in the event of an end on crash.

#1083 railiner

railiner

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,797 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queens, NY
  • Interests:All public transportation....land, sea, and air

Posted 11 May 2018 - 12:25 AM

Isn't ADA accessability to the lower level seating and restrooms sufficient in the present cars?   And it seems unrealistic to expect to lose that much weight and not sacrifice strength....


metroblue?

okay on the blue!

#1084 CCC1007

CCC1007

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,605 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 May 2018 - 12:26 AM

Isn't ADA accessability to the lower level seating and restrooms sufficient in the present cars?   And it seems unrealistic to expect to lose that much weight and not sacrifice strength....

Again, just my understanding of the situation that led up to the structural failure only one ton short of passing...

#1085 Ziv

Ziv

    OBS Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 434 posts

Posted 11 May 2018 - 07:22 AM

ADA requirements trump most other aspects of design now. Unless your cars are grandfathered in and as the years go by, fewer and fewer of them will be.

And, yes, common sense would tend to indicate that decreasing weight by 9 tons would make meeting the buff test standard very difficult without spending more money on advanced design or more expensive materials. But if the acquisition board doesn't know what they are doing they can demand anything they want and then blame the supplier when the supplier tries their best and falls short. If each car weighs 9 tons less then the acceleration figures would have made a noticeable change in scheduled times for routes with a lot of stops, but lighter generally means less robust or more expensive.

Flip side of the coin, Nippon Sharyo knew the bid was going to be very tough to deliver and made it anyway.

 

Isn't ADA accessability to the lower level seating and restrooms sufficient in the present cars?   And it seems unrealistic to expect to lose that much weight and not sacrifice strength....



#1086 Metra Electric Rider

Metra Electric Rider

    Conductor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 608 posts

Posted 17 May 2018 - 04:29 PM

As I understand it the older bi-level designs in addition to not meeting crush tests and ADA requirements (which are, in and of themselves, separate items), the old designs were licensed as it was and weren't able to be relicensed (as in getting a license to produce a copyright design) - and out of date of course.


SJ - Norra Stambanan, Nordvästra stambanan, Södra stambanan, Dalabanan

NSB- Bergensbanen, Kongsvingerbanen, Rørosbanen, Dovrebanen, Flåmsbana, Roa–Hønefossbanen

Amtrak - Floridian, San Francisco Zephyr, Southwest Limited, Illini, State House


#1087 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Gathering Team Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 17 May 2018 - 04:38 PM

The old design does meet the crush test standard for trailer cars since that has not changed in over 50 years. So your understanding is at least partly wrong.

#1088 railiner

railiner

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,797 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queens, NY
  • Interests:All public transportation....land, sea, and air

Posted 18 May 2018 - 12:19 AM

And doesn't Bombardier hold the old Budd and Pullman Standard design right's?


metroblue?

okay on the blue!

#1089 bcanedy

bcanedy

    Train Attendant

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • 11 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rancho Santa Margarita, CA

Posted 18 May 2018 - 12:34 AM

And doesn't Bombardier hold the old Budd and Pullman Standard design right's?

You’re thinking of the Superliner plans. The California Cars were built by Morrison-Knudsen / Amerail for the first generation and Alstom for the second generation. I’m not sure who owns those designs, but the Nippon-Sharyo cars would have been the third generation of California Cars.
  • cpotisch likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users