News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 4.8K     0 

generalcanada said:
well i stand corrected. didnt know the caltrain bilevels were emus
does alstom or deuche bahn do bi-level emus?
Click to expand...
Many, many many - google it! There's examples in the previous pages of the thread, too.
The Alstom double decker trains model is "Alstom Coradia" and the previous Bombardier IP that Alstom now owns is "Bombardier TWINDEXX".
Screenshot 2022-03-07 at 17.34.37.png


Screenshot 2022-03-07 at 17.34.26.png
 
generalcanada said:
well i stand corrected. didnt know the caltrain bilevels were emus
does alstom or deuche bahn do bi-level emus?
Click to expand...
Talking about "caltrain", here's some information on Caltrain compatibility.

From link.
The Swiss rail vehicle manufacturer Stadler was recently awarded a contract for 112 bilevel EMU cars to be delivered by 2016 for the Moscow airport express, based on their modular KISS vehicle concept. A rendering is shown at right, complete with retro-Soviet hood ornament. (UPDATE 6/2013: datasheet now available). These EMUs are noteworthy because they take full advantage of the generous Russian loading gauge (the available height and width clearances), resulting in two spacious levels of passenger seating, and also because they use high platforms. This is a European EMU on steroids, and Caltrain should take notice.

In a blended HSR + Caltrain system, slowly transitioning to full grade separation over a time scale of decades, several constraints exist that will impede Caltrain's ability to add capacity to meet increasing ridership demand:

  • More trains per hour won't work. Because there are only two shared tracks, the capacity of the corridor (as measured in trains per hour) is limited. It's going to be a stretch for Caltrain to operate six trains per hour per direction with HSR in the mix, so adding more is clearly out of the question until the much-dreaded additional tracks are built.
  • Longer trains won't work. Train length is limited at stations such as Burlingame and Menlo Park, where grade crossings are found at both ends of the station platforms. Until these locations are grade-separated and new longer platforms are built, adding more cars to make longer trains is not feasible. In any case, most Caltrain platforms limit train lengths to 600 feet (or 7 standard-length cars), at least until they are rebuilt.
  • Taller trains won't work. Today's bi-level trains already take good advantage of the available height, so there is no seating capacity to be gained by growing trains any taller.
Click to expand...
stadler_moscow_aeroexpress.jpg


If more, longer, or taller trains can't satisfy increasing ridership, why not give wider trains a try? The Russian 1-T loading gauge, shown at right in comparison to the loading gauges of western Europe and Caltrain, allows trains that are almost six inches wider than ours. Going even a few inches wider than the Russian limit, with a 134-inch wide car shell, would enable five-abreast seating at the same level of comfort offered in Caltrain's existing Bombardier cars.

The Advantages of Extra-Wide EMUs

The diagram below shows a cross section of three double-deck trains: a traditional European EMU of the sort coveted by Caltrain; a Caltrain Baby Bullet car; and a hypothetical extra-wide EMU with comfortable five abreast seating, a few inches wider than the Russian model described above.
Click to expand...
russian_gauge_comparison.png

extra_wide_emu.png

Such an extra-wide EMU has several advantages.

  • More passengers per train. With five abreast seating, 15 to 20% more seating can be provided without increasing train length or train frequency. Even in those areas without seats, more floor space is available for standees.
  • More usable space. Extra width makes for more spacious and comfortable vestibules, stairs, and passageways between cars. High-traffic areas near doors, bicycle racks, restrooms, and luggage racks do not impede the flow of passengers.
  • Lower crew costs. The number of conductors required on a train is dependent on the number of cars in the train. Under the present labor agreement, there is a strong incentive to keep train lengths to six cars and to maximize passenger capacity per car. Five-abreast seating reduces the crew cost (and other operating costs) per available seat.
  • Future-proof HSR compatibility. Because the CHSRA has already settled on a single-level train architecture for its high-speed trains, it is likely that similar capacity limitations will drive the future California trains to be extra-wide, like the Japanese Shinkansen or the Russian Velaro. Converting Caltrain to a wider standard helps achieve future platform interface compatibility with HSR, which is not just a matter of height but also of width.
  • Easier conversion to high platforms. Wider trains can be fitted with both high and low doors to accommodate a platform transition period, without cutting as badly into the seat count as for a normal size train. (The Russian example is built exclusively for high platforms, but more doors could be added on the lower level.) What's more, with high platforms built further away from the tracks, those annoying freight trains get a little bit more clearance.
  • Easier vehicle packaging. From an engineering standpoint, modern EMUs are like a jigsaw puzzle where every vehicle component must find its place under multiple constraints. More width gives vehicle designers more flexibility to make everything fit, making trains more comfortable and maintainable.
There is very little downside to going wide. Caltrain's EMUs would be a captive fleet on the peninsula rail corridor, such that expanding a few inches outside the AAR Plate F loading gauge would require only minimal infrastructure modification and would not impede interoperability. Stadler has once again demonstrated that the car body shells of a modular vehicle can be tailored to any desired size, using different extruded aluminum shapes.

Caltrain should make full use of the generous clearances available on the peninsula corridor. In a blended future where HSR limits the number of peak-hour commuter trains, extra-wide EMUs with five-abreast seating are an attractive solution for giving Caltrain more rush-hour capacity.
Click to expand...
 
W. K. Lis said:
Talking about "caltrain", here's some information on Caltrain compatibility.

From link.
Click to expand...
rather than sardining more people in larger and larger honking behemoth trains, shouldn't they be focusing on improved frequency? Japan has a huge commuter network with 10x more trains and commuters yet there are almost no bi levels...
 
cplchanb said:
rather than sardining more people in larger and larger honking behemoth trains, shouldn't they be focusing on improved frequency? Japan has a huge commuter network with 10x more trains and commuters yet there are almost no bi levels...
Click to expand...
i think they go over that in the blogpost. max 6 trains per hour is the max frequency

  • More trains per hour won't work. Because there are only two shared tracks, the capacity of the corridor (as measured in trains per hour) is limited. It's going to be a stretch for Caltrain to operate six trains per hour per direction with HSR in the mix, so adding more is clearly out of the question until the much-dreaded additional tracks are built.
Click to expand...
 
cplchanb said:
I'm referring to go transit. We don't have hsr to worry about so can we afford more frequency ov mammot trains?
Click to expand...
well we will be carrying the bi-levels for a long time anyway, we are going to have lots more frequency as well, stouville is 11 trains per hour peak with GO expansion

its not an either or. you can have high frequency with bi-levels. the only thing that changes is travel times since the trains are so heavy
 
EastYorkTTCFan said:
There are people on here who think that every train should be like the TTC subway trains with multiple doors or otherwise they are bad for people to get off or on in time.
Click to expand...
Yes - rapid transit needs many doors!
generalcanada said:
pretty sure there are no bi-level EMU's which is what MX wants at least a few of.
Click to expand...
As mentioned there are lots, the hot thing these days is blended bi level and single level.
 
superelevation said:
As mentioned there are lots, the hot thing these days is blended bi level and single level.
Click to expand...
Blended 1 and 2 level trains are hot because they are the only practical option for level boarding in places where the platforms are too high for the lower level of a bilevel coach, but too low for the middle level. Most notably all the places which follow the 760mm EU standard.

We don't need the mechanical complexity of mixed-level trains in North America because our level boarding heights already match the lower level (610mm) and middle level (1220mm) of ordinary bilevel coaches.
 
Last edited:
reaperexpress said:
Blended 1 and 2 level trains are hot because they are the only practical option for level boarding in places where the platforms are too high for the lower level of a bilevel coach, but too low for the middle level. Most notably all the places which follow the 760mm EU standard.

We don't need the mechanical complexity of mixed-level trains in North America because our level boarding heights already match the lower level (610mm) and middle level (1220mm) of ordinary bilevel coaches.
Click to expand...
Not only EU
 
Dallas DART, which is LRT but functions more like a suburban service, has 2 different cabs on the same trains. The original stock requires steps to board like current GO but due to ADA requirements, had to have level boarding at the front of the trains with an disabled electric extension much like current buses. Great for the disabled but was slowing down the trains. Their solutions was to buy a multitude of "middle cars" that are specially designed to level boarding so the front disabled entry was not required.

On a RER type system I personally don't feel that all train cars have to have level boarding but roughly one-third should. There should be one at the front, one at the back, and at least one in the middle depending on the length of the train. ie one for 6 to 8 cars and two for 10 to 12..
 
ssiguy2 said:
Dallas DART, which is LRT but functions more like a suburban service, has 2 different cabs on the same trains. The original stock requires steps to board like current GO but due to ADA requirements, had to have level boarding at the front of the trains with an disabled electric extension much like current buses. Great for the disabled but was slowing down the trains. Their solutions was to buy a multitude of "middle cars" that are specially designed to level boarding so the front disabled entry was not required.

On a RER type system I personally don't feel that all train cars have to have level boarding but roughly one-third should. There should be one at the front, one at the back, and at least one in the middle depending on the length of the train. ie one for 6 to 8 cars and two for 10 to 12..
Click to expand...
I am sorry but this is a very bad idea. Level boarding for all cars and doors please.
 
^^^^ I agree but perhaps I should have been more clear. ALL trains, cars, entry/exit, and station should 100% accessible. As far as I'm concerned anything less than that {especially in a system like GO which is being essentially changed from top to bottom} is a non-starter.

What I was referring more to is having "gap cars" like Dallas DART. Dallas is going to eventually be bringing in completely accessible cars BUT they can't afford to do it right now especially because many of their trains are not that old. They can't just afford to toss their current fleet out the window just to bring it up to ADA standards. They solved this by having the "gap cars" that are 100% accessible, so that people of all abilities can use all of the trains because they all have level boarding.

This is what GO should be emulating. GO can't afford to ditch it's fleet in the name of accessibility and it doesn't have to. These new low floor "gap cars" make the system entirely accessible. As I said, all trains should have at least 2 of such trains with those with 10 or 12 car trains having at least 3.All new GO train orders should be 100% accessible but until the current fleet is eventually retired, these trains are the way to go.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top