Jump to content
Ryan

New LD Locomotive Order Placed

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, dgvrengineer said:

Seems like have access on both levels would be an easy way to satisfy ADA issues with the current Superliners.  Disabled people would not have to go up steps to access lounge or diner.  

Access on both levels would NOT be an “easy way” to satisfy ADA issues with Superliners. Superliners have low floors, so the trucks at each end completely prohibit going between cars on the lower level. This is also why the lower level on Superliners and Superliner derivatives are only a little over half the length of the whole car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, cpotisch said:

Access on both levels would NOT be an “easy way” to satisfy ADA issues with Superliners. Superliners have low floors, so the trucks at each end completely prohibit going between cars on the lower level. This is also why the lower level on Superliners and Superliner derivatives are only a little over half the length of the whole car.

 

12 hours ago, dgvrengineer said:

Seems like have access on both levels would be an easy way to satisfy ADA issues with the current Superliners.  Disabled people would not have to go up steps to access lounge or diner.  

As long as you have to have the flexibility to change out individual cars to adjust capacity or sideline bad-order units, and you have to maintain compatibility with the standard freight locomotive coupler height for a potential rescue situation, and you have to fit it all within the standard North American loading gauge plates...you're not going to be able to have access on both levels. Besides, the diner kitchen has got to go somewhere....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ehbowen said:

 

As long as you have to have the flexibility to change out individual cars to adjust capacity or sideline bad-order units, and you have to maintain compatibility with the standard freight locomotive coupler height for a potential rescue situation, and you have to fit it all within the standard North American loading gauge plates...you're not going to be able to have access on both levels. Besides, the diner kitchen has got to go somewhere....

None of those issues are showstopper, unless there is some reason for sticking with 16' tall, like Superliners, which is not really anything to do with standard American loading gauge.

American loading gauge allow cars to be 20' tall. That allows for two 8' tall floors (a little taller than standard Superliners), the lower floor being 4' above top of rail. Such a car would allow vestibules at both levels, standard AAR couplers at standard height. Kitchen is not a problem. A solution was worked out a century back for single level Diners.

Now of course boarding would have to be using high level platform to meet ADA requirements. But that is a separate issue.

And of course, there may be issues with clearance at some passenger facilities for anything taller than 16' too. Passenger facilities have odd restrictions in many places.

Incidentally Alska Railroad at one point did have such cars with vestibule at both levels I am told by railiner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jis said:

Incidentally Alska Railroad at one point did have such cars with vestibule at both levels I am told by railiner.

While the "Ultra-Domes", ran over the ARR, the cars were actually owned by Princess Cruise Lines.   These cars were rebuilt from former Southern Pacific, PS 'gallery' commuter cars, and were built to operate as "pairs".  One car had the two dining room's on the lower level, the other car had the galley.  One car had full seating on the upper level, the other car had half seats, then a small gift shop, followed by an open-sided observation deck.   Later designs built from scratch,

made these cars individual, self sustaining units, for greater consist flexibility. These cars also have a wheelchair lift between decks.

Back in the eighties, Princess sent their first pair on a nationwide tour for the press and the travel industry, before placing them in service.   I got to tour them, when they visited Denver Union Station.  Before they were parked on the "Uncle Sam Spur", off Track One for the display, the DUT Ry Co. had to cut off the edges of the platform shed extending over the track..

Being duly impressed, I got the 'bug' to book my first cruise on Princess, a couple of years later...:cool:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ultradomes are kind of amazing.  It would depend on route clearances, but it would be pretty awesome to have a high-floor-boarding, walk-through-on-both-levels, bilevel train.

 

The level boarding issue is still severe.  I do think high platforms should probably be standard everywhere, but that's going to take a long time and a lot of work.

Edited by neroden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Finnish Talgos do not use the tilting Talgo suspension system. They are more conventional, actually they are not even branded as Talgo anymore. It was a turnkey contract or something like that apparently. Talgo does manufacture rail equipment that is not classic Talgo Pendular too apparently.

I was more concerned with the lack of an axle in the Talgo suspension allowing two level passage. If you had a permanent trainset then only the ends might need standard couplers. https://www.serina.es/empresas/aecientificos/talgo/Foto8gran.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From drawings I saw there is no two level access on VR cars no longer Talgo but Transtec. it shows machinery space at ends on lower level.

 and car rides on conventional trucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From drawings I saw there is no two level access on VR cars no longer Talgo but Transtec. it shows machinery space at ends on lower level.
 and car rides on conventional trucks.

Good to know. Yeah I knew they ride on conventional trucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some variety of double deckers built by Talgo in regular service on VR. I don’t know if they are these ones.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, there are 16 long distance routes. In both directions, that's 32 trains. The average long distance train has two locomotives. So, 32 trains times two locomotives equals 64 locomotives in service, so the remaining 11 would be kept as backup locomotives. Would that be enough or would Amtrak need more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to check that math.  In fact, someone has already done it for you in this thread, I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, CSXfoamer1997 said:

See, there are 16 long distance routes. In both directions, that's 32 trains. The average long distance train has two locomotives. So, 32 trains times two locomotives equals 64 locomotives in service, so the remaining 11 would be kept as backup locomotives. Would that be enough or would Amtrak need more?

Don't be surprised if you see more single unit LD trains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only way a bi level car could have access on 2 levels is ---------- .  If the wheel arrangement is such that each  wheel only has a short axel such as a few Talgos have.

That is clearly incorrect, since you can build a bilevel on a base floor 4’ above rail, riding on standard trucks, with two 8’ high floors within a 20’ tall standard loading gauge in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is so however a bi level that tall could only operate the Sunset and Coast starlight routes.  And Auto train which would be a very good route to use.  Only problem how to get that high of a car to Beech ? Cannot clear CHI or WASH CAT and 1st street tunnel.

Edited by west point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't specify that the car had to be usable in certain stations.

Regardless, fanciful conversations about cars that will never be ordered is quite a ways off of the topic of locomotives that have actually been ordered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, CSXfoamer1997 said:

See, there are 16 long distance routes. In both directions, that's 32 trains. The average long distance train has two locomotives. So, 32 trains times two locomotives equals 64 locomotives in service, so the remaining 11 would be kept as backup locomotives. Would that be enough or would Amtrak need more?

Nope, not even close. Let me put it this way. The Lake Shore Limited (New York section) is 20 hours end-to-end, making it one of the shortest long distance routes, yet it needs three consists. Here’s why.

This is the “life” of a Lake Shore Limited consist:

Day 1: Departs New York

Day 2: Arrives Chicago, then departs it that evening:

Day 3: Arrives New York

Day 4: Once again departs New York

You see, because the LSL runs daily, and each consist takes three days to make a complete “cycle”, the train needs a total of three consists.

 

Here’s another example. The Silver Meteor is a still-relatively-modest 26 hours, and uses a whopping FOUR consists:

Day 1: Departs New York

Day 2: Arrives Miami

Day 3: Departs Miami

Day 4: Arrives New York

Day 5: Again departs New York

The Meteor runs daily, and it takes four days for a consist to make a complete cycle, so the route needs four consists.

 

Now think about the fact that the western trains can be up to two nights and 50+ hours, and I think you can get a sense of the sheer number of consists (and therefore locomotives) needed for all the LD routes. :)

Edited by cpotisch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2018 at 2:06 AM, CSXfoamer1997 said:

See, there are 16 long distance routes. In both directions, that's 32 trains. The average long distance train has two locomotives. So, 32 trains times two locomotives equals 64 locomotives in service, so the remaining 11 would be kept as backup locomotives. Would that be enough or would Amtrak need more?

And BTW, there are actually only 14 long distance routes. Still, the fact that the vast majority of them have WAY more than 2 consists more than makes up for this. :help:

Edited by cpotisch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I count 15   AT CZ CS CR CL CARD CONO EB LSL PALM SM SS SWC SL TE... (Includes AT and Palm)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, PVD said:

I count 15   AT CZ CS CR CL CARD CONO EB LSL PALM SM SS SWC SL TE... (Includes AT and Palm)

There are 16.

1. Coast Starlight

2. Empire Builder

3. California Zephyr

4. Southwest Chief

5. Texas Eagle

6. City Of New Orleans

7. Sunset Limited

8. Crescent

9. Carolinian

10. Palmetto

11. Silver Meteor

12. Silver Star

13. Lake Shore Limited

14. Capitol Limited

15. Cardinal

16. Auto Train

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carolinian is not an LD train. It is a state supported train.

So there are 15, not 16.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, PVD said:

I count 15   AT CZ CS CR CL CARD CONO EB LSL PALM SM SS SWC SL TE... (Includes AT and Palm)

Whoops, forgot about the AT. I don’t count the Palmetto as a true long distance train because it doesn’t have sleepers or a dining car. I guess we are talking about diesel locomotives for the national network, so maybe it should be counted, but still, under that logic (that any non-state supported route which uses diesel counts as an LD train), then you would also have to count the Springfield Regionals and Pennsylvanian...

Edited by cpotisch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×