Would it be possible to make the coaches wider? Maybe not the downstairs of a superliner, but maybe the upstair adding 12-18 inches to both sides. How much wider can be added?
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Maximum dimensions of railroad equipment were set forth by promulgations of the Association of American Railroads. Those dimensions call for a maximum width of 10'6" and all roads accepted that for probably the past 100 years.
Until Amtrak.
Somebody at Amtrak decided that the Acela Express equipment could exceed those dimensions and which resulted in cars being some 4" inched wider, or 11'0". This was done so that the asiles could be wider without a reduction in seat width.
In short, an accomodation to "the fattening of America".
This equipment largely operates over ROW owned by Amtrak, but for the segment, namely New Rochelle NY-New Haven CT owned by other rail passenger agencies, the tilt leveling systems must be disabled.
If Amtrak were to design equipment again deliberately exceeding the AAR guidelines, they could well be confronted with any Class One declining to accept that equipment in interchange. In short, best keep to the 10'6' limitation.
But I think, Mr. GP-35, that was a perfectly legitimate inquiry and made to the Forum in good faith.
Posted by Geoff M (Member # 153) on :
Wider bodyshape around the elbow area of a sitting passenger is quite common on tilting trains, Mr. Norman. It results in a kind of egg-shaped profile of the cross section of a car body. It's certainly not something Amtrak have "invented" - and quite frankly, I doubt that the Acelas will ever be used outside the NE corridor anyway.
It is true that on some parts of the NEC, the maximum permissable tilt is reduced from 6.5 degrees to 4.2 degress to meet the constraints of the AAR plate C clearance standards (note: there is not one, but several AAR standards). In fact, even if the Acela was a maximum of 10'8 wide (not 10'6 as you state), it would still be restricted on numerous routes.
Geoff M.
Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
I'm asking could it be done, an extra 18" on both sides, without major changes to the rail infrastructure?
Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
WAIT...I assume you were saying a superliner is 10'6". Anyone knows the dimension of a Superliner?
Posted by PaulB (Member # 4258) on :
Well next time I'm on a surfliner with a superliner coach, I'll bring a tape measure Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
A superliner looks about 8'6" wide. I was wondering why they aren't using the full 10'6". I was watching a show on the Vietnam Passenger train. They used a Narrow gauge but the train inside was comparable to that of standard gauge. Maybe it was a standard gauge train put on narrow gauge trucks. So I was wondering why standard gauge coaches couldn't be made wider? maybe the same ratio to the Vietnamese train. The extra room would add tons of comfort.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
The AAR plates ALL have a maximum width of 10'-8". There are height and top shape differences between the various plates. This also has length and truck center factors in it. Except for the effects of the long wheelbase, a Superliner fits within Plate F. The plates require a reduction in width due to long truck centers based on the following statement which is included in Plate C:
"When truck centers exceed 48'-3" car width shall be reduced to compensate for the increased swingout at center and/or ends of car on a 13 degree curve so that the extreme width of car shall not project beyond the center of track more than the base car.
Maximum car widths for various truck centers are shown on Plate C-1."
Plate C-1 is hard to read, but by calculation, the dimension is 9'-11 3/4". based on a length of 85'0" over couplers and truck centers of 59'-6".
I do not have Superliner dimensions at my fingertips, but I am sure somebody on here does. For conventional streamlined equipment, I have dimensions of some, and they are 9'-10" over body, 10'-5" maximum. Body length is 85'-0" over couplers, and 82'-4" over the body itself. Therefore, these cars fit within the limts of Plate C and C-1.
Even if the Superliners are 10'-6" wide, tehy would exceed Plate C-1 only slightly. As a practical matter, this is not significant on main tracks where the overhangs are very small. For curves of 3 degrees, the effective width of a 10'-6" passenger car and a 10'-8" freight car are identical, so for flatter curves the widest vehicles remain the freight cars.
Since bus width is limited to 8'-6" and they manage four across seating, admittedly with a very narrow aisle, I can see no reason for having to go beyond 10'-6" to get good four abreast seating. For the Acela designers to think first that they had to go wider to fit what was needed and second that they could go wider without causing problems makes one wonder whether their ignorance exceeded their arrogance or their arrogance exceeded their ignorance.
In a word, to answer the original question. No. If they were made wider, they would have to be treated as excess dimension shipments. which menas all kinds or constraints on operation. Nor is there any need to make them wider.
George
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
To add to my above:
There is nothing within the laws of physics preventing the coaches from being wider on the track gauge that we have. The Japanese Shinkansen cars are wider. They are 3380 mm which is 11'-1" wide. Thye are also fairly low, only 3650 mm = 12 feet, well 11'-11 3/4" high over the body, with the pantograph and the noise shields around it being somewhat higher. There is no reason that they could not be higher at that width, just they are not.
The reason that wider is not practical has nothing to do with track gauge. It has to do with the clearances to all the things in the railroad that are near the track. For example, with the exact same track gauge, British railway coaches can be no more than 9 feet wide, and their hieght is also severly limited due to the track spacingm, platforms, tunnels, bridges, etc.
George
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
quote:Originally posted by gp35: I was watching a show on the Vietnam Passenger train. They used a Narrow gauge but the train inside was comparable to that of standard gauge. Maybe it was a standard gauge train put on narrow gauge trucks.
From one who has "been there done that" (as part of a "365 and a wake up' all expenses paid vacation from "the world' that started during July 1967), be assured that Vietnam narrow gauge railcars are hardly the width of North American counterparts.
Posted by abefroman329 (Member # 3986) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman:
In short, an accomodation to "the fattening of America".
More likely it was related to at-seat service (I believe they're even doing trolley service) and "the fattening of luggage." I can't imagine such a concession to passenger dimensions, especially given the typical clientele onboard Acela.
Posted by Geoff M (Member # 153) on :
Gp35, just to make it abundantly clear why you can't make cars wider: it will HIT things. Signals, bridge supports, tunnel mouths are all a minimum distance from the track (structure gauge). Trains have to fit within the loading gauge which is smaller than the structure gauge. Add to that tilt, curvature, wind pressure at high speeds, and you get more complex envelopes rather than a simple loading gauge cross section.
For someone who has been to Thailand/Malaysia/Singapore far more recently (paid for out of my own hard-earned cash) which have very similar loading gauges to Vietnam, yes the carriages do appear to be quite wide. Agreed not as wide as US cars, but certainly wide and comfortable enough for 4-abreast with a wide enough aisle. Somewhere in the region of 8.5-9 feet wide, so proportionally wider than US cars relative to the track gauge.
Geoff M.
Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
quote: Nor is there any need to make them wider.
George
Can a wheelchair fit anywhere besides that one little corner down stairs? NO. With attitudes like yours the disabled will stay below in their little corner away from the eyes of the able body riders.
Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geoff M: Gp35, just to make it abundantly clear why you can't make cars wider: it will HIT things. Signals, bridge supports, tunnel mouths are all a minimum distance from the track (structure gauge). Trains have to fit within the loading gauge which is smaller than the structure gauge. Add to that tilt, curvature, wind pressure at high speeds, and you get more complex envelopes rather than a simple loading gauge cross section.
Geoff M.
I wasn't talking about doubling the width. 18 inches on both sides. Does signals come within 18" of the train currently? From my view it looks like a train can be widen 4' before it strikes a signal.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr GP-35--
You are proposing a railcar 13' 6" wide as you wish to add 18" to each side, or a total of 36" 3ft additional width.
Sounds like something from the flopped 1979 TV series called "Supertrain".
Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Mr GP-35--
You are proposing a railcar 13' 6" wide as you wish to add 18" to each side, or a total of 36" 3ft additional width.
Sounds like something from the flopped 1979 TV series called "Supertrain".
lol...That was a roomy train on that show. No, first tell me I'm wrong when I say the superliner is not 10'6" or 10'8". I think it's closer to 8'6", then 3' would make it 11'6". Right?
Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
Ok look at this. Lower adult berth is 6'3" + width of kids berth 2'3" + thickness of walls guessing 2" on each side = 9'
[/qb][/QUOTE]I wasn't talking about doubling the width. 18 inches on both sides. Does signals come within 18" of the train currently? From my view it looks like a train can be widen 4' before it strikes a signal. [/QB][/QUOTE]
You're not allowing for what bus drivers know as 'tail swing'. The ends of the cars beyond the wheel trucks swing further out on curves. The other side of the car......particularly longer cars like those used in passenger service....also drifts further outside the track alignment when curving.
It's not just signals......it's things like bridges, tunnels, trainsheds on station platforms....that wider cars would tend to bump into. Going wider would require rebuilding most of the entire infrastructure. If this were not the case somebody might have tried it before now.
Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
David I thought about all those things;bridges, tunnels, trainshed, and ends up coaches. Try this David, hold your hands 18" apart. Now tell me what bridge would get hit? trainshed? tunnel? and as far as ends, the part over the truck to the end can be designed narrow again. The next time you are near a train, imagine if it could work. Remember, I am only talking about the upstairs part of the superliners.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Mr. gp35:
I really do not know how to explain it any better than I already have, but I will try.
Safety says you do not fill the allowed space to the last inch. The current maximum dimensions of equipment are well settled for many good reasons and they include
1. Safe space for people 2. Allowance for vehicle wobble 3. Allowance for track movement 4. And lots more factors small and big.
Having done this sort of stuff, I will try a brief explanation:
Start with the outline of the maximum vehicle you intend to handle. This is usually called the static outline.
Take this static outline, raise it by all tolerances you can have upward plus bounce in case of unevenness in track, overinflated air bag suspension if you anticipate ever having any. Take the static outline and go down as much as all tolerances, wheel wear, rail wear, deflated springs, will get you. Take this static outline and move it sideways to the limit of tolerance, add to this rail side wear, wheel flange wear, misalignment in track, etc. Then take this position and add the maximum roll you are lakely to have in operation plus effect of broken spring, or one side deflated air spring, etc. Do these sideways moves for the vehicle raised as much as likely to happen and lowered as much as likely to happen. When you connect the dots of all these maximum movements, what you have not got is the Dynamic Outline. (For the English, this is called the Kinematic Envelope.) This is your absolute minimum distance to anything near the tracks ON STRAIGHT TRACKS. To this should be added the "Throw" you willl have on your most common curves, otherwise you must increase offsets and track centers on every curve. Generally to this you add some minimum dimension to actually set your absolute minimum. This is particularly necessary for track centers, as the swingout of the vehicle ends, and to a lesser extent the middle, begins in advance of the start of the curve. Normally a safety zone must be added to this distance on at least one side of the tracks.
When you take the Dynamic Outline, add the minimum constant you feel should be there, safety zones, and construction tolerances for the structure plus some small allowance for things attached to the structure, you then get the minimum clearance to any structure.
All these together are why the current standard is that tracks carrying these 10'-8" wide vehicles should be built no closer than 14'-0" center to center, and some railroads want more, and that the current standard minimum offset to a structure is 9'-0". In the past smaller numbers were used, and due to the age and longevity of railroad tracks and structures, there are lots of tracks out there at 13'-0" centers, some at less in the northeast, particularly, and a lot of bridges and tunnels are at 8'-0" offset from center, and in a lot of cases less, again particularly in the northeast, some to as low as 6'-6". On thesse close ones, they really have to pay close attention to track tolerances to avoid scrapes.
So, to sum it up, even though it may look like there is a lot of space, there really is not. The space you see as empty space needs to be there.
George
Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
No this, no that, rules, can't be done, regulations, not needed, won't work, impossible, bad idea, keep it the way it is, don't change, excuse here, excuse there, NO NO NO....Some of you guys would make great Amtrak board members.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
OK, YOU do the design, You take responsibility for the results. You write the safety case. You be the one that has to explain why you designed things the way you did when something goes wrong. We are dealing with realities not wishes. I tried to draw you as clear a picture as I could of the realities. I should not have bothered. This appears to have been an exercise of casting pearls before swine.
Regardless of what you may believe or wish or your opinions, reality is still reality. Not likeing it does not change it. In fact it has no effect on it what so ever.
George
Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
Ok, lets say the 10'8" is the max. Then go with 10'8". That would add 10"-12" on both sides of the superliner. A great designer could do amazing designs with that extra room.
Posted by Geoff M (Member # 153) on :
I *think* Superliners are 10'2 wide. The theoretical maximum is another 6" but that isn't taking into account length and overhang - both of which are subjects already discussed, so I won't waste my fingers any more.
Presumably you're the sort of person that drives 1" behind the car in front because otherwise road space would be wasted, and who needs all that safety zone and thinking time anyway?
Geoff M.
Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
NOWAY is the superliner 10'2"....
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
quote:Originally posted by gp35: David I thought about all those things;bridges, tunnels, trainshed, and ends up coaches. Try this David, hold your hands 18" apart. Now tell me what bridge would get hit? trainshed? tunnel? and as far as ends, the part over the truck to the end can be designed narrow again. The next time you are near a train, imagine if it could work. Remember, I am only talking about the upstairs part of the superliners.
A superliner consist 18 inches wider would demolish the wooden canopy over the platform at Ottumwa, IA. The cement canopy over the platform at Burlington, IA would do serious damage to the first 18 inch wider superliner that pulls into the station. The clearance is simply not there because existing trackside infrastructure was designed to the existing width standards.
As for a spot on the Amtrak board, there is a lack of both common sense and vision there BUT neither of those qualities would be exhibited by calling for wider trains.
Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
Burlington has plenty of room. Good grief I said 18" , not 18'.
Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
Ok, I found it. 85 ft long X 9 ft wide. Which mean the superliner could be widen by 20 inches...10 inches on each side to meet the 10'8" limit.
Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
Now ask yourself, 1.would 10" wider make a roomette more comfortable? 2. 20" wider in a lounge walk way? 3. 20" in the washroom;coach and room. 4. 20" in the dinner. 5. maybe larger rooms 6. more suitcase space.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
I am not sure why I am bothering, as there is nothing as inpenetrable as a closed mind. However to try to explain it as simple as possible:
Maximum car widths for various truck centers are shown on Plate C-1, which for a Superliner car of 59.5 foot truck centers is 9'-11 3/4".
When you look at the reference to the Amtrak web site given by gp35 it gives the inside dimension of the Superliner's family room as 5'-2" x 9'-5". Considering the orientation of the family room, the 9'-5" has to be the inside width of the Superliner. This leaves only 3 3/8 inches each side for the car walls if the car is to fit within the restrictions of Plate C & C-1. This seems to be about as thin as practical, so it could well be that the outside of the Superlines is already slightly wider than the Plate C.
gp35, what is the source of your 9 foot width dimension? You obviously can not fit a 9'-5" long room set crosswise to the car within a 9'-0" external dimension.
I am not even going to try to reexplain why it is not practical to make the Superliners wider. I think what I put in earlier is sufficient. Would you really want to drive main highways with 9 foot wide lanes at high speeds? That was the standard lane width in the 1920's, but by the 30's the lane width was increased to 10 feet, and by the 40's it became 12 feet on main highways. Truck widths grew to 8'-6" over the same time and have not gotten any wider since.
No, the current relationship between car widths and location of facilities adjacent to them is not a bunch of mindless rules. It is the practical outcome of dealing with the whole picture by many people over a period of many years. This situation has had a lot of minds applied to it, mostly of people that worked in the situation and had to live with the results of what they did.
George
Posted by Geoff M (Member # 153) on :
quote:Originally posted by gp35: NOWAY is the superliner 10'2"....
Pray tell, how DO you fit 9'5 bedroom width into a car 9' wide?
A 20" wider dinner would be too much for my appetite.
Geoff M.
Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
9'0", 10'2", The only way to now is to measure myself. 10' would seem wide enough, but the coaches don't feel or look 10'.
Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
Ok, this picture puts the superliner width at about 10'2". However I still believe 10" could be added at the upper deck without needing major infrastructure changes. Those few inches could mean the difference between someone bumping your lounge seat everytime someone pass by. It could also open the door to the aging baby-boom population and disabled stuck in that one coach throughout the trip. But it will never happen. Amtrak is fighting to stay alive, not considering ideas outside the box.
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
quote:Originally posted by gp35: Judging by these pictures, you are wrong on both.
Burlington has plenty of room. Good grief I said 18" , not 18'.
These are very nice pictures and I refer to this website often when planning rail trips into stations I am not familiar with.
What these pictures do not show is a passenger train sitting in these stations.
What these pictures also do not show is the view from my roomette window in April as we sat in the Ottumwa station. (or the view from the ground several summers earlier when I actually got off the train in Ottumwa and was trackside when it pulled out)That trainshed was easily within 18 inches of my face.
Have you been to Ottumwa at train time? Wider train here equals bad idea.
The funny thing is that this debate is really moot as I doubt there will be any new Amtrak equipment until after January 2009 anyway. I would imagine that you agree with me on this point.
Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
Everything we say here is moot. This is why it's ok to dream a little. Point taking on the Ottumwa station. However If I was Amtrak dictator, that station will need to change to accept my wider coaches...lol.
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
quote:Originally posted by gp35: Everything we say here is moot. This is why it's ok to dream a little. Point taking on the Ottumwa station. However If I was Amtrak dictator, that station will need to change to accept my wider coaches...lol.
Maybe you'll get your wider coaches about the same time we get passenger trains back to Asheville, NC. I'm still on the losing end of a bet I made with a travel agent 24 years ago!
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
