Superliners actually fall short since the wheelchair bound passenger has no access to the dining or lounge car once the train is in motion because they put the between car access on the second vs the first floor of the Superliner trainset. Hence the special interest groups have complained. I don’t think the elevator is a legal mandate yet just that Amtrak was attempting to accomodate them with second generation set of cars based in part on the Amtrak California Car concept.
Is this different from what I thought it was, the NGEC PRIIA section 305 bi-level spec?
Relevant section of ADA is 49 CFR 38 starting with section 111.
I find, to my considerable interest, that the Nippon Sharyo car apparently failed the 800K test by 2000 lb. Or put a different way, 0.25%. Someone remind me of the factor of safety implicitly included in that FRA buff standard and then tell me if this is a ‘significant’ failure statistically rather than statutorily… this is even less than the percentage by which, according to EMD’s claims, the first-generation Chargers would miss getting to 125mph with the specification trainload.
ADA and PRIIA both appear curiously silent on the ability of ‘mobility-aid’ users to take their special equipment from first to second level in a moving train. Who knows the status of any actual suits to compel full access to all areas of a moving bilevel train by mobility-aid users? Because if one of those succeeds, there will have to be internal ‘elevators’ probably comparable to the devices covered in section 125 (lifts to give ‘zero walkover height’ between first-level entrances and the ground) and found in the NGEC spec and its various discussions.
Does anyone know how the lift operates on the Rocky Mountaineer Colorado Railcar double decker Ultra Dome cars? Does any one know whether the new Stadler Goldleaf dome cars that the Rocky Mountaineer is buying will still have them?
OK I see where I got confused, there are carborne lifts at each door in the spec that fold out (or othewise deploy) and lift wheelchair passengers onto the first level.
The elevator is located in the Lounge Car and is intended to lift food service carts to the second level of the car not wheel chair bound passengers. Though it probably could be modified to do both with some modification. Interesting, the new cars face the same as the old. Noway for someone in a wheelchair to get from first to second level.
Here is the spec with blueprints:
I rode several trains equipped with California Cars two years ago on a California Rail Pass. The elevators in the Cafe cars were always locked and used as storage closets for galley supplies (cartons of straws, paper napkins, sporks, etc.).
Suburban equipment has always been designed for high capacity, compare the difference between the gallery coaches on the “Peninsula 400” (96 seats) and a standard gallery coach in Chicago, San Francisco or Montreal (156 seats). As a twice-daily Metra rider, I will vouch for the comfort of the gallery coaches as a whole. Legroom may be a bit tight but not unreasonably so and walkover seats provide enough comfort for a ride that for me is only 15 miles one way and on average, not much longer for most other riders.
Understood. Most commuters on Metra ride a longer distance than your 15 miles. On the CNW and other lines, they were an improvement over older single level equipment. However, the design is basically almost 70 years old. Perhaps if you had ridden on other double-deck suburban coaches, you would alter your opinion.
But would such a car be comfortable on a 4 hour trip? This looks more commuter than intercity car.
I believe the seating (type, number and arrangement) can be customized to the order. I’ve ridden similar cars in Germany for three hours on Regional Expresses - quite comfortable.
Customized orders should only be delivered when there is enough of the standard layouts to carry passenger demand. Customizing unfortunately causes a decrease in utilization of an entire fleet. Look at the single level fleet. There are very few cross utilizations possible with specific baggage, coach, lounge, diner, sleepers.
If diners do not all have same layout flexibility is reduced with same number of units.
Then you need more terminal storage area which is restricted at some terminals
Perhaps you misunderstood. The cars are not ordered just “off the shelf.” The type of seats and numbers and layout are simply part of the specs. I would assume for the midwestern higher speed service service only coaches are needed. Some cars could be a premium class. Diners, sleepers and baggage cars are not needed.
4th generation Bombardier (Siemens) double-deck on the Stralsund-Rostock line, 2008.
Have you ever looked at a METRA or VRE gallery car?
I agree that the METRA cars are plenty comfortable for me. I find it interesting that it’s non regular riders that complain.
As I have posted before I have ridden multilevel commuter equipment around the world and my opinion has not changed.
i find it interesting that the Siemens web pages make no mention of a North American version of this equipment, much less one that has passed a FRA squeeze test. All the documention I found refers to UIC and TSI (Technical Specifications for Interoperability, an EU move to take power away from the UIC and vest it in the European Railway Agency – sort of a European FRA). Please help and point me in the right direction.
Buslist,
What does your question have to do with the fact that Siemens has experience with welding stainless steel, which they had to do for the Brightliners(in fact they use practically the same method as Budd did for their streamliners).
Buslist: Of course N-S built stainless steel gallery cars for Metra and VRE and others. But you seem to have a problem with Siemens-Bombardier multilevel designs compared to gallery cars. What is it?
It has to do with your statement
“at least they have the experience with welding stainless steel(something N-S didn’t have).” NS first supplied Stainless equipment to the North American market in 1982 (South Shore), seems that’s quite a bit of experience.
I’ll say it one more time, sorry if as a former regular user I find the gallery design more comfortable than the other two. And of course we seem to have no North American example of the Siemens to access the potential expansion of the upper deck loading profile.
You dismiss the experience of regular (former in my case) users, CSSHEGEWISCH and, myself, that are quite satisfied with the design and tell us if we only knew better.