posted
We just returned from a trip to the northeast (mostly by air). Our rail segment was a NJT Morris and Essex line train to Newark and a regional to Providence.
The NJT included the new multi-level cars that seemed like a natural for Amtrak's next generation cars.
I guess the cars are termed multilevel because the entrance has standard height doors at both ends which enter into a short section at either end that has seating designed for handicap as well as bicycles (the seats fold up). From there steps go up and down to a lower level and upper level.
NJT likes the cars because of higher seating capacity. Regular passengers (including my non-railfan son) like them because of the 2/2 seating (rather than 3/2) and quieter ride on the upper level. Why not adapt these for Amtrak to replace Amfleet and perhaps even Superliners so there is one standard for passenger cars?
While they would work well for coach seating, the limited headroom (to provide clearances suitable for the NEC) would make an upper berth problematic except for the short section at the ends of the cars. Perhaps they could be modified to make this work. Maybe the extra capacity would even eliminate the need for the upper.
We changed trains in Newark rather than New York Penn to avoid the stampede down the stairs to get a seat. It worked well. There is a new trolley ($.65) outside NJT Broad St. station that makes the ten minute trip to Newark-Penn station a fun ride. Newark Penn has been restored and has a nice waiting room (especially compared to NYP). It also has a nice deli where we bought excellent sandwiches for our ride to Providence.
Our regional ride was good. Great scenery for an enjoyable ride. The 7 car train had a business class car (really a coach) then the coaches with the full cafe with tables in the middle of the train. The train was comfortably full and was on time. The Amtrak magazine talked about planned upgrades to business class cars - very much needed.
If you have to change NEC trains in the New York area, I would recommend giving Newark a try. In our case it also allowed us to get the pick of our seats before the New York passengers boarded.
Visiting friends in Vermont I was able to explore the St. Albans area. The roundhouse and turntable are still very much in use and a real time warp. The New England Central services locomotives there and also has their dispatching office in a wonderful old Victorian style building. For me, short line railroads seem a lot more interesting than the big guys.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
FYI, the seating capacity of the multi-level is not much higher than Comets or Arrows (at most, 30 seats more or so). In fact, the cab cars have less seats than some of the single-level cars. The cars have an unusual roof profile to allow them to operate through the North River Tunnels. Maximum height is 14 feet 6 inches; most bi-levels that operate in the USA are closer to 16 feet in height, on average.
Amtrak already operates bilevels (generally) outside the NEC (by generally, I mean that Superliners do serve Washington Union Station). What advantage would there be to copying NJT's multi-levels, which have their own quirks, unless you want to slow down boarding and exiting the train? (For example, Amtrak would not adopt the eight-door configuration that NJT currently uses. The vast majority of the seats would have to be accessible via stairwells. When NJT's cars first came online, signals at NY Penn Station had to be moved because the cars were striking them. You already noted that the headroom is considerably lower than an Amfleet or other single-level car.) Now if there is any value to modifying these cars into a kind of new sleeper car, I don't know.
The "new trolley" at Newark Penn is the extension to the former Lackawanna Broad Street Station. There is the "old trolley", or Newark City Subway, which has been operating since the 1920s and runs on the bed of the defunct Morris Canal.
For an "Amfleet III", I've been leaning towards the Mafersa-built single-level (from a Budd design IINM) that originally ran on Virginia Railway Express, but presently operates on Connecticut DOT's "Shore Line East" that runs between Stamford (limited service), New Haven and New London.
Posts: 566 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
We went through the NE on our trip last week, but I didn't really notice the NJT cars -- by "multilevel," is this the same design that Southern California's Metrolink and Toronto's GO Transit use?
Posts: 2428 | From: Grayling, MI | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This topic has been addressed elsewhere in the past; there is always that 500lb gorilla that makes the scene known as ADA or Americans with Disabilities Act.
While access to the cars from a high level platform is not the issue, nor is access to a potty, the participants at the discussion suggested that access to the Snack Bar could be.
While the logical and most economical solution would be that when a passenger covered by the Act makes a reservation, simply assign a second Service Attendant to that train, and bring the covered passenger their food at their seat, but that is apparently unacceptable as that passenger has the right of access to be able to roll in their wheelchair to the Snack Bar without any barriers.
This could be a "sensitive" point, should it be progressed further, let's all be mature and respectful in the discussion,
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by irishchieftain: FYI, the seating capacity of the multi-level is not much higher than Comets or Arrows (at most, 30 seats more or so)......
I would think any additional seating over Amfleet cars would be a plus and they were certainly more comfortable, even though just a commuter car. It would seem they would be great lounge or dining cars if fitted with larger windows on the upper levels.
I can't speak to the requirements of the ADA act, but certainly the area set aside for those with disabilities is pretty large and could be made larger if there was a vestibule at only one end of the car if used in LD service. In fact this would be a good spot for the cafe service which would allow access to all.
It would be interesting to see what someone with a little imagination could design to configure for Amtrak service.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
I would think any additional seating over Amfleet cars would be a plus
At the expense of mobility within the train and overhead storage capability, as well as ADA access? Adding cars to trains is not that great of a comparative expense. The platform length at most Amtrak stations is sufficient to accommodate long trains of single-level cars.
quote:RRRICH wrote:
by "multilevel," is this the same design that Southern California's Metrolink and Toronto's GO Transit use?
No, it isn't. Those BBD bilevels have doors suited for low platforms only, and they are about 16 feet in height. Here's a comparison:
posted
As commuter trains operating in high platform territory the NJT can be said to be compliant with ADA. If you did the same thing in long distance it is doubtful. You would have the worst of both worlds. A high entrance for low platform stations and multilevels so that anyone who cannot negotiate steps is trapped in a small area at the end of the car.
The Superliners have the low level boarding so that the difference between platform and car floor is much smaller and the area accessible to a person who cannot negotiate steps is larger. Same for the Metrolink bi-levels that were shown. Also, the ceilings in the NJT cars have to be really low. At 14'-6" overall, that gives you less than 7 feet available on either level. The Metrolink cars are 15'-11" and the superliner slightly taller, either 16'-2" or 16'-3"
Single level is still the way to go for long distance cars that are used all or in part in high level platform territory.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well we know the NJT cars are ADA compliant for short haul service. So I'm not sure why the longer distance would change the requirements. Why not base the decision on what is the best use of space to maximize revenue and provide passenger comfort given the clearance restrictions in the east.
Got to give NJT credit for trying to come up with an innovative design even if it doesn't fit the mold of cars for the last 100 years.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The LIRR C3 Cars fit into the same idea too, designed to fit into the Penn Station tunnels (they can't though fit in the narrow tunnels to Flatbush Avenue and in some other places in electric territory, so the new MU cars are single level). There the extreme opposite of most commuter cars and can only platform at high-level stations. I saw a wheelchair board one the other day using a bridge plate and there were no delays to the train. It took the conductor no time at all to get it.
-------------------- Visit my trains and subways website: www.subwaynut.com (It has more then just subways!) Posts: 38 | From: Manhattan, NY/Colorado Springs, CO | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Cox (you're "out" at your website), again the issue is not that an ADA covered passenger cannot access either the LIRR or NJT equipment; it is that such a passenger cannot get to the on-board Food & Beverage facility "under their own power'. This is why the Acela equipment has noticeably wider aisles than Amfleet and there is a great amount of "wasted" space in the Cafe car.
Superliners were designed prior to the ADA; while hopefully I'm mistaken, if Amtrak is to order additional bi-level Long-Distance equipment (even trains maintained only for political expediency must still have roadworthy equipment), I would not be surprised to see some cars fitted with an elevator to enable ADA covered passengers access to the Upper Level.
Never forget this point: persons covered by ADA, with ONE exception (blindness; thanks Ike) pay taxes computed in the same manner as are those of able-bodied taxpayers. Unlike any other transportation company out there, Amtrak is directly supported by Federal level appropriations.
Finally, again let me reiterate; discussion of a subject such as ADA is sensitive (we may have readers or Members here covered by the Act) and must move forward with nothing other than maturity and respect. I can only hope that my own postings regarding such have "measured up".
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
GBN: As an officially certificated Person with a Disability, I can say that your postings on the ADA have not offended me in any way.
My disability is not one of mobility, so I have not been affected by the Superliners' lack of ADA compliance. I have, however, had conversations with those who use wheelchairs, and they have said they feel shunted "out of sight, out of mind" in the accessible bedrooms and in the lower-level coach accommodations. They would love to be able to use the lounge car and diner. But most of them (except for the most vocal disability advocates) understand that the Superliners antedate the ADA and that retrofitting them would be cost-prohibitive.
They hope for new Superliner orders with lifts and wide aisles enabling them to use the lounge and diner.
As for me, since I am profoundly deaf, I would like to see "announcement boards" in the coaches and in the sleeper rooms that would provide text messages regarding diner calls, station arrivals, reasons for long stays on sidings, and the like -- the usual train announcements in scrolling text form. I've heard some European trains have these things but have not ridden one in almost 20 years now, so have no personal experience there.
For now, a diligent sleeper attendant who lets me know about important train announcements is helpful.
Posts: 2236 | From: Evanston, Ill. and Ontonagon, Mich. | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Acela and many new commuter rail lines (The M7s and C3s of LIRR and Metro-North) have those. If the crew actually uses them (I've often ridden trains where the audio-visual systems are not turned on) is another matter. Just took a M7 transferring to a C3 out to Greenport both trains have the potential visual and automated announcements but neither train had them turned on. Everything was done manually over the PA system
-------------------- Visit my trains and subways website: www.subwaynut.com (It has more then just subways!) Posts: 38 | From: Manhattan, NY/Colorado Springs, CO | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the Acela's it is SOP to use the visual display as to the next station stop. No notice is given when arriving however and also no verbal communication tied into the signage.
As to the LIRR, speaking as someone who rides several times a week, I would say usage is approx 75% of the trains I ride have them in operation, both visually and verbally.
Posts: 332 | From: Long Island, NY USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
From this discussion it is clear that Amtrak and commuter roads have a ways to go to get to full ADA compliance. But I guess the Superliners are better than than the generation of passenger equipment I grew up with.
As a boy, I remember a long station stop at Elizabetown, KY. We were in a New York sleeper (Pullman Standard 10-6 c.1949). A passenger was boarding the car that was obviously disabled in some manner. Unable to get him in via the steps and vestibule, the emergency window in one of the rooms was removed and he was lifted in on a stretcher. I remember thinking there had to be a better way.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a NJT rider, and one who has ridden the multilevels, I actually don't like them - not even for commter service. I can just imagine the horrors if Amtrak tried to retrofit them for intercity travel etc.
The biggest problems is that there is hardly any space for luggage storage - and actually there is none on the lower level actually. And such a design has to be, in order for the trains to operate under the catenary and still offer seaing on at least two levels.
Being over 6 foot tall, I find myself constantly ducking when traversing the narrow staircases on these cars. Travelling from car to car is a chore for the NJT multilevel riders. TO avoid hitting my head or to try and get better storage space for my briefcase and backpack, sure I can sit in what is commonly called the "mezzanine section," that is the section that one sits in when you first board and then can go from there to the upper or lower level of the train - hence why they are called multilevels and not bi-levels. But when all seats are needed, you can't be expected to haul your suitcase up and down stairs and then plop the suitcase down on a seat next to you - as is often done on non-peak trains that the multilevels operte on. NEC trains don't operate with baggage cars, so the "next generation cars" that Amtrak builds needs to allow for luggage space - above where a passeger sits for the most part.
Also being over 6 foot tall - I feel cramped in the multilevels. My knees constantly hit up against the hard seat backs - they are not the softer seat backs found on the single level NJT Comet coaches. So if Amtrak were to adopt the NJT multilevel concept, they would have to remove some seating in order to get the comfortability passengers are used to on an Amfleet. And once you start removing seats on a multilevel - is it worth it, rather than just designing a single level train?
Lastly consider maintenance at present for NJT's multilevel fleet. The FRA is requiring that the multilevels be inspected DAILY. That means they have to be shuffled off to a NJT maintenance facility that has what is known as a "pit" so workers can inspect the trains full underbody from underneath (not sure if this is a tempoary measure or not). This is actually causing some operational issues for NJT.
And if the large Amfleet train sets are still to be around, Amtrak's next generation cars really need to maintain consistency of being single level so they can be interchanged with single level Amfleets if needed. Therefore, I believe the next generation cars for Amtrak should be more in line with the coaches of the Acela Express (AE) train sets. The AE train set have have even larger windows! And they can easily re-design the AE cafe to include booth seating or even more window space. One of the demonstrator train sets Amtrak borrowed in the 1990s not only had private conference rooms (private "day" compartments if you will), but a cafe that had a lot more window space. Amtrak also needs to consider what type of amenities/service they will offer and also consider this for the design of the next generation coaches. But these "next generation coaches" need to be designed so they overcome the "flaws" of the AE train sets (i.e. Acela Express train sets are deemed to be too wide etc.). Also the AE seats wear out too quickly. Many hardly have any "cushion" left in them.
I wish I could say more positive things about NJT's multilevel coaches, as NJT has really put their future in these cars by ordering so many and then exercising an option to have more built. And as mentioned I am a NJT frequent rider in the rush hour commute.
But the narrow stairs to the lower level and upper level (narrower than what one finds on Superliners), lack of overhead storage space (I have to really think about what I am bringing to work when I know I could be on a multilevel train set), limited ability to walk from car to car, and the interior height is a major issue Amtrak would have to overcome if they ever decided to use the NJT multilevels for Amtrak intercity service. NJT is actually suffering from these "Multilevel car issues" from their riders!
NJT had public involvement in designing these cars, but they must have all been 5'6" tall, not a regular commuter, and carried at best a very small briefcase.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And by the way - that mezzanine level where the "ADA" section is, typically has standin room only for NJT riders during peak rush hour.
Also, NJT found that its older ALP44's and even its ALP46's really can't handle more than 7 to 8 multilevel cars, unless they add another electric on the other end to help. Hence NJT's order for more electric motive power with greater horsepower.
Would Amtrak's AEM7's be able to pull a multilevel train?
My comments are actually quite the contrary to yours, with all due respect palmland. Yes, the ride is smoother, but I do NOT find myself comfortable on the multilevels due to my height. Sure the 2-2 seating is a great improvement for NJT riders. But as mentioned in the end, NJT didn't really gain as much capacity as they were originally hoping.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The ALP-46 has been hauling nine multi-levels by itself, of late, which may increase to the initially-cited ten cars. Trains with two motors on them had eleven cars. Remember, these selfsame ALP-46s hauled fourteen Amfleet Is during the last Amtrak Clocker runs.
AEM-7s? That depends on train length. The AEM-7AC is supposed to handle a fourteen-car train of single-levels itself, so it may indeed be able to handle nine to ten NJT multi-levels.
"Full ADA compliance" is subjective. I would presume that if the ADA had come out in the 1950s, that LIRR would have abandoned its conversion of low platforms to high in electric territory, high platforms at terminals would have been razed (don't know what the IC would have done), and the AAR would have worked a bit harder with the railcar builders to produce a compliant commuter car, possibly low-floor with no steps at the entrance. The El Capitan bilevel might have become the standard, i.e. outside the NYC area with its low clearances. But of course, hindsight is always 20/20.
Posts: 566 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
