Siemens Caltrans/IDOT Venture design, engineering, testing and delivery (2012-1Q 2024)

Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm frankly surprised (and a bit confused) as to why North Carolina would go with a bi-level design at all, given the rest of the fleet (and Amtrak equipment serving the state) is entirely low-level, and the need to engineer fairly extensive modifications to the current design. It is not like single level designs don't exist; Both CAF and Siemens have current production models.

Access to adjacent (low-level) cars could possibly (and perhaps most easily) just be transition cars similar to the Amtrak Superliner II approach, but the need to preserve both high and low-level boarding seems cumbersome, at best. You're going to lose some interior capacity with a mezzanine level and necessary access to upper and lower levels.
 
It sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. You have to redesign an already iffy carbody to safely accommodate more holes cut in the side of it, and it hasn't even proven it's workable in its original design. Plus all this engineering work is spread out over five cars, meaning the individual price per car is likely to be astronomical.
 
Wouldn't it be a lot easier for NC to buy Bombardier Multilevels, instead of trying to cobble what's essentially a Surfliner car into a multilevel?! The Multilevels can run on the NEC and thus could be used on the Carolinian as well as Peidmonts. Having the seating on a Multilevel in a more comfortable configuration than the existing commuter configuration has to be a helluva lot easier than making a transition Surfliner.
 
I am not really sure what North Carolina is thinking. It sounds like a plan to end up with a few white elephants.

Maybe they realize they need new equipment and thought this was the easiest way to achieve it...
 
John Bredin said:
Wouldn't it be a lot easier for NC to buy Bombardier Multilevels, instead of trying to cobble what's essentially a Surfliner car into a multilevel?! The Multilevels can run on the NEC and thus could be used on the Carolinian as well as Peidmonts. Having the seating on a Multilevel in a more comfortable configuration than the existing commuter configuration has to be a helluva lot easier than making a transition Surfliner.
Click to expand...
The Bombardier Multilevels wouldn't provide any real advantage to NC over the existing single level equipment. The low-level door just opens up to a set of steps up to the normal floor height of the intermediate level. From posts here and elsewhere, it sounds like they're looking at these for the true low-platform capability.
 
afigg said:
Allan Paul, NCDOT, announced that they have received federal funds to acquire 5 bi-level cars. NCDOT would like to use the NGECs Bi-Level Car Specification and modify it as needed for our spec. The Bi-Level cars are going to be used with their single level fleet, so it will be necessary to match the two vehicle types up. The intent is to use the NGEC specification and cut and paste to transpose slightly to the NCDOT car.

Allan noted that NCDOT would keep the NGEC apprised of the changes they make and make those changes available to all.

Asked about their intent regarding access to the Bi-level (high/low level boarding), Allan explained that they are building high-level platform boarding from 8 above the platform and 48 above the top of the rail. They will create a high-level platform with an interior elevator for transition inside the car. This will accommodate either high-level or low-level boarding. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, there will be access between cars.

Mario Bergeron asked if the configuration is more multi-level with high-level side doors with the ability to go u and down inside the car or Bi-level with low-level entry to the car.

Allan responded that it could be considered multi-level, but the entry would be roll on roll off at mid-level (mezzanine). There would be a transition from the upper-level to the lower-level with the exit at the low-level.

Mario asked is it a vehicle that will need because of the funding will need to have 305?

Allan said that it was not necessary but NCDOT intends to use the 305 spec as much as possible.

Eric Curtit congratulated Allan and NCDOT on this great opportunity, and added you are a member (of the NGEC) they are your specs too.

Allan again committed to keeping the NGEC posted on its progress. He noted that they plan to work on the spec after the first of the year, with the intent to go out for bid in June or July with a delivery date of late 2019 or early 2020.
Click to expand...
Oh-kay. It would be fascinating to see this design. Obviously it requires an elevator from the lower level to the upper. But I don't know how the hell they're getting a third level in. The standard method is the one used in Bombardier Multilevels, but it means two height transitions to get from one end of a car to the other, which is horrible. And two elevators in each car, each with three different stops (upper, middle, lower). Yeesh. Not a sane design...

OK, so I'm trying to imagine a Surfliner-based design. Here's one. Keep the aisle at high-level all the way through. But remove some of the seats on one side, over the wheelsets, and replace them with a cutout section which is high-boarding, with the exterior high-boarding door. On one side of that section, have the staircase up to the upper level. On the other side (past the wheelsets), have the elevator up to the upper level and down to the lower level. Put this on the opposite end of the car on the other side.

OK, to see what I'm talking about, look at the Surfliner design:

http://www.craigmashburn.com/amtrakcardiagrams.html

Suppose, on the side opposite the stairs, there was another set of stairs leading to a 48-inch-boarding mezzannine, and an elevator going to all three levels. You lose probably 12 seats (6 pairs) on the upper level, and maybe some on the lower level. Repeat on the other side to get the 48" boarding door out the other side, lose another 12 seats. You could remove one of the top-to-bottom staircases to recover some of the seating.

I may be pessimistic. It may be possible to fit the elevator - mezzanine - staircase combo in 3 pairs of seats.

It would be an OK design. Two elevators per car, each with three levels, They'd be roll-through for boarding or deboarding at the middle level, roll-in-roll-out for going from upper level to lower level.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
afigg said:
Some rather interesting items in the November 8 minutes of the NGEC executive board with regards to the N-S bi-level contract.

Status Update:

Caltrans, IDOT and Sumitomo are working on a contract extension to go beyond the ARRA funding deadline
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
These are the two states which have state-funded cars in addition to the ARRA-funded cars. IIRC, California has quite a lot of state-funded cars, Illinois has a few.
We'll see whether they manage to keep the federal funding, but both states will be buying cars regardless...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This sounds like a extremely complicated effort to retrofit the Surfliner design into something it isn't. The elevator will be a total disaster. It probably won't work half the time and will really slow down loading and unloading. NC would be better going with a single level car like the Brightliner.
 
North Carolina should indeed pursue a single-level car, probably of a model currently or soon to be in production (which gives at least three possibilities), but an elevator actually is a feature which should be incorporated into future bi-level car designs. I fail to see how it would be either a "total disaster" or a safety issue (emergency evacuation is already often an EMS matter, even with single-level equipment). Rather, the simple inclusion of an elevator opens up a world of possibilities for the mobility impaired passenger (access to any lounge or cafe or diner, etc.), not nearly all of whom are in wheelchairs (many just can't routinely handle stairs).

Again, this Frankenstein's monster of a bi-level design sounds like a poor choice; Perhaps sanity will prevail during the process of modifying the existing design and plans will change. If they can produce an efficient, effective car I'll gladly stand corrected, but this has "design by committee" written all over it.
 
The access issue between cars goes away with a single level car. If an elevator goes out with a passenger in it, you have an enroute emergency. If an elevator goes out you are talking about bad ordering cars which drastically affects capacity for everyone, not just the mobility limited. I favor improving access by keeping things simple, that promotes lower operating costs and higher availability.
 
PVD said:
The access issue between cars goes away with a single level car. If an elevator goes out with a passenger in it, you have an enroute emergency. If an elevator goes out you are talking about bad ordering cars which drastically affects capacity for everyone, not just the mobility limited. I favor improving access by keeping things simple, that promotes lower operating costs and higher availability.
Click to expand...
Back in my Bell Labs days we were taught to come up with designs that minimized the number of parts and specially moving part. The story line was "every part that is not there in the system will never fail". So yes, I do agree with you.

And good luck with meeting the weight limits of NGEC, which is hard to live within these additional Christmas Tree decorations thrown in. We would have the danger of having cars with wonderful elevators that fold u onto themselves at the least of a bump. :p
 
A Voice said:
North Carolina should indeed pursue a single-level car, probably of a model currently or soon to be in production (which gives at least three possibilities), but an elevator actually is a feature which should be incorporated into future bi-level car designs. I fail to see how it would be either a "total disaster" or a safety issue (emergency evacuation is already often an EMS matter, even with single-level equipment). Rather, the simple inclusion of an elevator opens up a world of possibilities for the mobility impaired passenger (access to any lounge or cafe or diner, etc.), not nearly all of whom are in wheelchairs (many just can't routinely handle stairs).

Again, this Frankenstein's monster of a bi-level design sounds like a poor choice; Perhaps sanity will prevail during the process of modifying the existing design and plans will change. If they can produce an efficient, effective car I'll gladly stand corrected, but this has "design by committee" written all over it.
Click to expand...
An elevator on a moving train will be out of service more than it is working.
 
To clarify my earlier point, yes, an emergency evacuation is an EMS event, but a passenger stuck in an elevator, where nothing else is wrong, now creates an emergency where none previously existed. It is never a good idea to solve a small problem by creating the potential of much more serious ones.
 
PVD said:
The access issue between cars goes away with a single level car. If an elevator goes out with a passenger in it, you have an enroute emergency. If an elevator goes out you are talking about bad ordering cars which drastically affects capacity for everyone, not just the mobility limited. I favor improving access by keeping things simple, that promotes lower operating costs and higher availability.
Click to expand...

MikefromCrete said:
A Voice said:
North Carolina should indeed pursue a single-level car, probably of a model currently or soon to be in production (which gives at least three possibilities), but an elevator actually is a feature which should be incorporated into future bi-level car designs. I fail to see how it would be either a "total disaster" or a safety issue (emergency evacuation is already often an EMS matter, even with single-level equipment). Rather, the simple inclusion of an elevator opens up a world of possibilities for the mobility impaired passenger (access to any lounge or cafe or diner, etc.), not nearly all of whom are in wheelchairs (many just can't routinely handle stairs).

Again, this Frankenstein's monster of a bi-level design sounds like a poor choice; Perhaps sanity will prevail during the process of modifying the existing design and plans will change. If they can produce an efficient, effective car I'll gladly stand corrected, but this has "design by committee" written all over it.
Click to expand...
An elevator on a moving train will be out of service more than it is working.
Click to expand...
Why?

What is it about an elevator on a train which will make it so much less reliable than elevators or wheelchair lifts in essentially any other application? Further, how do you know this before it has even been designed, much less implemented? What other railroad equipment do you have experience with which has elevators which have proved so unreliable?

Elevators or wheelchair lifts seem to work just fine in everything from buildings, to cruise ships, buses, and vans; I don't understand why it is you think the train is so different.

Regardless, should an elevator fail, it would hardly be an emergency. Presumably there would be a way to manually (at least) lower the "lift" should a person be trapped inside or on the upper deck. The approach that it is just one more item which is subject to breakdown is correct, but even existing features - such as powered doors - sometimes malfunction without it being a big deal (you just push the door open...).

Again, why is an elevator on a train so very different from any other technology, and how do you know that already?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A wheelchair lift is already in action on several cars in the North American fleet, such as the rocky mountaineer
 
One of the primary reasons for the proliferation of low floor buses in transit is to avoid the mechanical complexity and propensity for failure of electric/hydraulic lifts.

Of course you can design manual fallback into a small elevator, but a 600 lb ADA chair requirement plus a companion weight is not such a small weight, and to safely provide the ability to lower a stuck passenger (yes, that could be an emergency) will tie up multiple crew members, and likely add to dwell time and enroute delays.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A big difference would be operating while underway, not relevant in a bus, and very different in a ship.
 
The large cruise ships have quite a few elevators. Those are full sized passenger elevators, and the ships have enough of them that if one breaks down, the ship stays in service. Some of them carry trained personnel to handle service and maintenance issues enroute, turnarounds are too tight to just do maintenance work in port.
 
There are a lot of elevator designs which are... simpler... than the most modern elevator designs. Elevators can be highly reliable. Public transit elevators tend to fail due to abuse (weather, urination) and a train elevator is a much more controlled environment.
 
So wouldn't Amtrak likely replace the old Superliner coaches with this new Nippon coach at some point?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top