“Informed sources” (several levels above rumor mill) indicate that the consortium is in the process of terminating the contract with NS (bout time). If they can get an extension on the funding they will rebid the project but for single level cars ( the states are leery of higher personal injury costs reported by CA for falls on the steps). We’ll see how this all plays out.
Who is getting Bilevels NS Railroad?? What does NS Railroad want Bilevels cars for??
He must mean Nippon-Sharyo (N-S).
Thanks, Schlimm; I, too, was puzzled by the reference to “NS bi-levels.”
Didn’t Nippon Sharyro close it’s Rochelle plant and lay off about 100 workers in 2015 after the prototype failed an 800,000 pound crash test?
How can they make up for lost time? The company is already two years behind schedule.
no they didn’t close it. They are building gallery cars for VRE and METRA.
And no they can’t make up for lost time hence the termination of the contract.
Until there’s official word on termination of the contract it remains in place, if I where the consortium I’d turn to Siemens and see what they could do, since they already learned how to weld stainless steel successfully for single level equipment. As for going with single level vs bi-level because of increased claims costs due to stairway injuries, I would put the fault on those injuries squarely on the passenger, therefore it would personal negligence and not have anything to do with the equipment.
There has to be a real concern here. N-S appears dead but trying to use single level cars poses many problems. The 800 pound bear is level boarding. The freight RRs cannot have level platforms on their main lines due to plate “H” clearance requirements. Building Guantlet tracks or station tracks at high level plaforms very expensive.
Siemens “brightline type” cars do not have traps and the engineering designs might be expensive and will they pass the squeeze test ?
CAF ? Only if Siemens takes over the NY plant.
Without access to the contract it is difficult to know exactly what remedy the various operating authorities may have, but it would seem that NS is in default due to their inability to design and build a railcar that will meet the minimum fed performance requirements. I fail to understand what needs to be negotiated to recognize the contract is voided by NS non-performance.
The Siemens North American Viaggio coach is designed to go anywhere in North America. If the customer wants traps and stairs the design will accommodate them. They do meet the FRA Tier 1 crush criteria.
As D. Carleton mentioned, the Siemens cars had to pass the same 800,000 lb squeeze test that the N-S cars did, and did so with flying colors…there was a picture of it somewhere. I don’t think it would be to much trouble for Siemens to design and build a bi-level car out of stainless steel that would successfully pass the FRA squeeze test, at least they have the experience with welding stainless steel(something N-S didn’t have).
Yeah I think sticking with Bi-Levels for the Midwest would be more efficient one of the reasons they liked the design was the dual pair of double doors on each side of the car for fast loading and unloading. In regards to passengers falling on stairs…pretty confident I read the Amtrak standard was to offer an elevator for physically challenged access to the second floor. And they can fix the stairway slip problem fairly easily, IMO.
Siemens Viaggio Twin Much more pleasant than gallery designs.
Reminds me of the GO Transit cars but with a straight roof profile. I prefer the GO Transit cars used on the Coaster over the Surfliner bi-levels. The landing at each end of the GO cars and Viaggio cars seem much friendlier than the Surfliner.
One not so nice aspect of the Viaggio cars is that they are narrower than US standard passenger cars.
The North American Viaggio is wider than its European cousin. It roughly fits in the same space as a Viewliner.
Quoting CMStP&P: “…pretty confident I read the Amtrak standard was to offer an elevator for physically challenged access to the second floor.”
I do not follow this. Where could this have been said? Is this referring to gaining access to the upper level of Superliner cars? There is no room in such cars for an elevator. At certain stations, Amtrak does have an elevator that is used to assist disabled passengers to get up to the lower level, and Amtrak has elevators at other stations to assist such passengers in boarding single-level cars. I took advantage of such an elevator in Charlotte and in Washington on my last trip for I temporarily had difficulty in using the steps. Thankfully, I was albe to use the stairways in the Superliners the rest of my trip.
Part of the issue is the progressive amendment and interpretive scope of the ADA. Amtrak at one time had platform elevators to specific doors as an ADA accommodation; subsequent policy changes made all-door ‘handicapped’ boarding something of a mandate.
This clearly affects second-level access to any car in the train that can’t be easily reached by a mobility-impaired passenger (e.g. in a wheelchair or using a scooter) from an adjacent car. I wouldn’t put it past some of the twentysomethings in government prior to the current administration to mandate vertical access in every car, which would likely mean removal of some of the salable space in the car for an elevator (mobile platform elevators or bridges apparently not being the right sort of reasonable accommodation, for highly subjective definitions of ‘reason’) to give the appropriate foolish consistency.
As previously noted, Amtrak is a quasi-Federal corporation, and is consequently likely subject (I only qualify this because I have no firsthand evidence) of heightened political concerns; we already have seen how often it is a target of opportunity for advocacy groups or ‘large money damages’ vultures or scams with respect to disabled amenities or access.
TL;DR - unless there is a published and definitive change in interpretation of the ADA with respect to Amtrak, yes, I think there would have to be internal elevators in at least some of the cars, perhaps in every one. I invite further informed discussion on this specific issue.
[quote user=“RME”]
Deggesty
There is no room in such cars for an elevator. At certain stations, Amtrak does have an elevator that is used to assist disabled passengers to get up to the lower level, and Amtrak has elevators at other stations to assist such passengers in boarding single-level cars.
Part of the issue is the progressive amendment and interpretive scope of the ADA. Amtrak at one time had platform elevators to specific doors as an ADA accommodation; subsequent policy changes made all-door ‘handicapped’ boarding something of a mandate.
This clearly affects second-level access to any car in the train that can’t be easily reached by a mobility-impaired passenger (e.g. in a wheelchair or using a scooter) from an adjacent car. I wouldn’t put it past some of the twentysomethings in government prior to the current administration to mandate vertical access in every car, which would likely mean removal of some of the salable space in the car for an elevator (mobile platform elevators or bridges apparently not being the right sort of reasonable accommodation, for highly subjective definitions of ‘reason’) to give the appropriate foolish consistency.
As previously noted, Amtrak is a quasi-Federal corporation, and is consequently likely subject (I only qualify this because I have no firsthand evidence) of heightened political concerns; we already have seen how often it is a target of opportunity for advocacy groups or ‘large money damages’ vultures or scams with respect to disabled amenities or access.
TL;DR - unless there is a published and definitive change in interpretation of the ADA with respect to Amtrak, yes, I think there would have to be internal elevators in at least some of the cars, perhaps in e
Speaking strictly for myself, I hope it stays derailed.
Personally, I think that one mobile elevator or gantry per station completely satisfies the access “mandate” for Superliners (which are true bi-levels in which ‘reasonable accommodation’ cannot be provided by providing selective seating (e.g. ‘wheelchair-only’ or from which passengers must move to accommodate wheelchairs, as on transit buses with lifts) on an easily accessible level.) Of course that device would have to be PMed and repaired or replaced well before train time, and appropriate people on call to run it; it might well be cheaper to equip certain cars with self-contained lifts (although I doubt that would satisfy some of the usual-suspects advocacy groups that have preyed on Amtrak over these issues in the past).
Gallery cars are (and I think we have had threads about this) ill-suited to elevators, or escalators; I think there is clearly scope to equip them with the kind of hook-on ‘staircase assist’ devices sold for home use, and it may be only a matter of time before some militant advocacy group tumbles to this and extorts the usual sort of consent decree that would make METRA install them. But let’s hope not; I certainly hope not. (And I, personally, would hope not even if confined to a chair or scooter when riding the train.)
Nope, not for current equipment, it was planned for the second generation bi-levels that are patterned after the Amtrak California Car bi-levels. Which I thought the new Amtrak bi-level standard was the Midwest HSR Compact Standard until all these issues at the Illinois based manufacturer. There were no plans to retrofit older cars with elevators. My guess is it would have been an elevator and a hydraulic lift type from the floor vs cable type.
The elevator idea was to comply with ADA since the second floor access was the only way to access the rest of the train while the train is in motion. I think if they kept the access on first floor, nobody cared about the elevator idea.
I am not going to dig it up for the doubting thomas’ on the board but I am pretty confi