|
|
| FRA "preferred" replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion (1418136) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
| (1418136) | |
FRA "preferred" replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Dec 1 23:45:14 2016 That's only $2.86 billion per mile. And of course, no more electric MARC trains.AP via WRAL
|
|
|
| (1418141) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Fri Dec 2 01:12:42 2016, in response to FRA "preferred" replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Dec 1 23:45:14 2016. Nitpick about the first sentence: A theoretical train with Baltimore as a south terminal still covers most of the NEC, so I wouldn't call it a bottleneck. There are two more important constraints: #1 is the stupid Connecticut bridges, #2 is the lack of basic coaches. Solve those problems and show me frequent enough Regionals that some must do BOS - BAL, then I'll believe it's a bottleneck.The tunnel absolutely needs a replacement or expansion, but not because it's constraining service. |
|
|
| (1418142) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by The Silence on Fri Dec 2 02:25:04 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Fri Dec 2 01:12:42 2016. yes it would cover most of the NEC, but that's like arguing a run should be scored when the guy gets to third. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1418157) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Dec 2 08:55:54 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Fri Dec 2 01:12:42 2016. They're characterizing the particular speed restrictions of the B&P tunnel as a "bottleneck".And tunnels keep getting more and more expensive; that's on the overgrown executive branch and nobody else. |
|
|
| (1418158) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Fri Dec 2 08:57:11 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Fri Dec 2 01:12:42 2016. Huh? Why can't it be a legitimate constraint between Baltinore and DC, which affects all trains that traverse that stretch?? |
|
|
| (1418167) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Fri Dec 2 11:19:30 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Dec 2 08:55:54 2016. You want to go to the homeowners along Eutaw and explain that their houses are being swallowed up by the ground because you cut a few corners on the engineering and geotech? You want to shut down the Baltimore Metro for the same reason? You want to go to the job site and tell the employees one or two of them won't be going home to their children that night because you wanted to save a few dollars on construction?Those things cost more than the difference in expenditure between your ignorant estimations and the project costs given by the professionals. |
|
|
| (1418176) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Fri Dec 2 14:54:43 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by TerrApin Station on Fri Dec 2 08:57:11 2016. It is, but they didn't describe it as a bottleneck between Baltimore and DC. They mentioned the entire Corridor from Boston. I'm saying there's worse constraints affecting the rest of the corridor which are more important than this one. |
|
|
| (1418217) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Dec 2 19:09:36 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Fri Dec 2 14:54:43 2016. This one involves brick tunnel from the 1870's with unstable track and slow speeds. It needs to go away as much as the NY/NJ North River tunnels need to be thoroughly rebuilt.I don't know the best route for this, but the old tunnels need to go away ASAP. |
|
|
| (1418235) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Dec 2 20:18:33 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Joe V on Fri Dec 2 19:09:36 2016. The PRR already had plans for a replacement tunnel that never got built, IIRC. But the FRA does not look to be dusting off those plans, instead looking to reinvent the wheel as they did with the "Acela Express" mess. The FRA is also insisting that the new tunnel be able to accommodate double-stack trains.The Great Circle tunnel, which looks like it may be the version they're going with, goes through deep rock. |
|
|
| (1418237) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Fri Dec 2 20:22:32 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Dec 2 20:18:33 2016. The FRA is also insisting that the new tunnel be able to accommodate double-stack trains.I do not think that is an unreasonable request. If they can build these new gateway tunnels to the same height, perhaps we can get high-level boarding versions of the roomy Superliners for NE Amtrak travel. The only functional reason Amtrak can't go with NJT MultiLevels is the overhead racks are too small. |
|
|
| (1418238) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Dec 2 20:29:07 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Fri Dec 2 20:22:32 2016. If they can build these new gateway tunnels to the same height, perhaps we can get high-level boarding versions of the roomy Superliners for NE Amtrak travelAbsurd notion since the Superliners are low floor by definition and there are other low-clearance locations on the NEC anyhow, including inside NYP and the East River Tunnels (can't get them to Sunnyside Yard very easily, can you). And having been aboard them, they aren't all that roomy, and they are just about all restricted to 100 mph. The time to think of low-floor Northeastern passenger stock was before the high-platform-building craze, and that kicked off long before I was born. If the then-few high platforms were instead converted to low (mostly at certain terminals and major through stations), then the NEC's high-speed trains could have all been Talgos. |
|
|
| (1418263) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Dec 3 05:05:10 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Dec 2 20:29:07 2016. Obviously something newer would be faster.As for height, I've looked into it, and here are the ones of note: MBTA/MARC Kawasaki BiLevels: 15'6" LIRR C1/C3 BiLevels: 14'6" NJT/AMT MultiLevel: 14'6" Superliner: 16'2" ATSF HiLevel (Predecessor to Superliner): 15'6" Bombardier BiLevel (favorite of every commuter RR that does not need high platforms): 15'11" So, now that I think of it, the Baltimore Tunnel clearance right now wouldn't be a restriction against newer Amtrak bilevel cars. They would just have to fit the MARC profile. The ATSF HiLevels are the precedent for using cars of such height in intercity service. So assuming gateway's tunnels are built larger (which they would probably be anyway), the last hurdle is the East River, and possibly NYP itself. It's pretty annoying that one station dictates the rolling stock constraints for half the Amtrak network, even if it is the most important station east of Chicago... |
|
|
| (1418265) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Dec 3 07:23:59 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Dec 2 20:18:33 2016. They should be able to handle 16' tall Superliners and Gallery cars under catenary. |
|
|
| (1418266) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Dec 3 07:25:43 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Dec 2 20:29:07 2016. They have had need over the years to send Superliners to Wilmington and for Capitol Ltd detouring.It would also be a good option for the Cardinal, and have it terminate in Philly, rather than NY. |
|
|
| (1418267) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Dec 3 07:27:19 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Dec 3 05:05:10 2016. The LIRR cars have a boxier profile and won't clear the North River tunnels. |
|
|
| (1418271) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Steamdriven on Sat Dec 3 07:46:19 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Dec 3 05:05:10 2016. " the last hurdle is the East River, and possibly NYP itself."If New York is too cheap to build one lousy foot of clearance into their tunnels for future-proofing (to the height of a diesel locomotive, for example) they can be bypassed until/unless NYC figures out a way to fix their tunnels. The could bolt the rails into the tunnel floor + shave the tunnels, or have everyone get off and walk to the subway one stop prior. Or, New Yorkers could move to a less kleptocratic city, one which directs their efforts towards actual work rather than on running up the bill. Such a place would have built their stuff with an eye towards the future. |
|
|
| (1418274) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Dec 3 08:13:52 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Dec 3 05:05:10 2016. Obviously something newer would be fasterWhy is that obvious? It's pretty annoying that one station dictates the rolling stock constraints for half the Amtrak network Again, why? There something wrong with 14' 6" bilevel stock, since you are so focused on bilevels? |
|
|
| (1418275) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Dec 3 08:14:54 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Steamdriven on Sat Dec 3 07:46:19 2016. If New York is too cheap to build one lousy foot of clearance into their tunnels for future-proofing (to the height of a diesel locomotive, for example), they can be bypassed until/unless NYC figures out a way to fix their tunnelsNew York? What do you mean? No rail tunnel is a New York project. NYC owns none of these tunnels. Never mind there never going to be any diesel operation through them no matter the clearance. |
|
|
| (1418276) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Dec 3 08:15:54 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Joe V on Sat Dec 3 07:23:59 2016. That already happens in DC Union Station. Both kinds (VRE and MARC use gallery cars). |
|
|
| (1418280) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Dec 3 08:29:36 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Joe V on Sat Dec 3 07:25:43 2016. Philadelphia is never going to be used as a terminus for Amtrak. A reverse move for the Cardinal at DC would be troublesome, never mind just running through the other stations on the NEC, presuming that there are no other clearance problems (e.g. Union Tunnel). And I don't seem to recall low platforms at 30th Street's lower level anyhow. |
|
|
| (1418289) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by nasadowsk on Sat Dec 3 10:05:33 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Fri Dec 2 20:22:32 2016. Let the freight RRs pay for the extra cost, then. They're the ones who'll use it. |
|
|
| (1418291) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Dec 3 10:16:40 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Steamdriven on Sat Dec 3 07:46:19 2016. The North River tunnels were designed and built by the PRR 115 years ago.If you are talking about Gateway Tunnels, they will have much taller clearances. A new subsidiary of the Port Authority will be the lead agency, with participation by Amtrak and NJT. I don't know why you are blaming NYC and NYS for this. |
|
|
| (1418292) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Dec 3 10:19:25 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Dec 3 08:29:36 2016. What reverse move in DC for the Cardinal ? It would simply run straight on through like the Crescent. It could even run on diesel and avoid the loco change and expense.30th Street has Track 1 with a low level platform, which is not in service. They have run Superliner display trains to it. |
|
|
| (1418293) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Dec 3 10:20:06 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Dec 3 08:15:54 2016. Yes, but the new Balto tunnels should have the capability too. |
|
|
| (1418301) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by shiznit1987 on Sat Dec 3 11:10:14 2016, in response to FRA "preferred" replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Dec 1 23:45:14 2016. *puts on flame retardant suit*Have the NEC detour along I-895 from north of the current BWI station, run as a suspension Bridge over the Patapasco River, then rejoin the existing NEC alignment at Bayview Yard. Existing MARC service can service Baltimore Penn Station and the light rail gets extended to the BWI airport station for Baltimore-bound passengers. |
|
|
| (1418302) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Dec 3 11:19:30 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by shiznit1987 on Sat Dec 3 11:10:14 2016. Will that cost less than $4 billion? and it sounds like a good idea for a freight bypass, because I know that Amtrak sure won't be about bypassing Baltimore Penn. |
|
|
| (1418303) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Dec 3 11:23:59 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Joe V on Sat Dec 3 10:20:06 2016. The Kawasaki MARC bilevels are 15' 6" above rail. Those run through the B&P tunnels all the time. Unless all the high platforms are about to disappear, I see no need for accommodating low-platform-only cars that are six inches taller. |
|
|
| (1418304) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Steamdriven on Sat Dec 3 11:31:12 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Dec 3 08:14:54 2016. Hm, I'm not aware of how they're financed, so it's all Federal, no city/state $$? OK.I don't think it's a great stretch to consider that diesel-electric locos might run in electric only mode with a bit of adaptation... they've been doing that since the '50s, and a diesel work loco may need to move trains in case of a power issue. |
|
|
| (1418306) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Dec 3 11:41:09 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Steamdriven on Sat Dec 3 11:31:12 2016. I don't think it's a great stretch to consider that diesel-electric locos might run in electric only modeJFTR, the term "diesel-electric" does not mean dual-mode. It refers to diesel locomotives whose diesel engines power electric generators that in turn power traction motors. That is about 100 percent of revenue US diesel power, which does happen to include dual-mode locos (P32AC-DM, DM30AC and ALP-45DP). There are two other types, which are diesel-mechanical and diesel-hydraulic, not in use here since Southern Pacific retired their Krauss-Maffei diesel-hydraulics. |
|
|
| (1418312) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Dec 3 12:18:29 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Steamdriven on Sat Dec 3 11:31:12 2016. There will be Federal (either FRA or FTA), NY, NJ, and PANYNJ financing. |
|
|
| (1418313) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Dec 3 12:19:34 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Dec 3 11:23:59 2016. I don't see what difference 6" more in clearance would make. |
|
|
| (1418314) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Dec 3 12:20:06 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Dec 3 08:13:52 2016. Obvious because the superliners were designed in the era where there was barely any diesel trackage with speeds over 100MPH. Speed simply wasn't a requirement.The MARC bilevels are 125MPH certified so we already know it's doable. The consensus about bilevels on the NEC is that the lack of overhead rack space makes it a non-starter. The extra foot seems to be the difference between 'appropriate for commuter rail' and 'appropriate for intercity rail'. I'm focused on bilevels because they increase capacity comfortably, not the airline method of shrinking the distance between seats or by configuring 3+2. If the NEC had more seats, the fares could be lower, and the Megabus/Bolt/Chinabus crowd can be captured, resulting in moar profit. |
|
|
| (1418315) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Steamdriven on Sat Dec 3 12:24:26 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Dec 3 11:41:09 2016. Right, most (99%) diesel-electrics are not configured to run from external electric supply, but it's not a great stretch to take electric power from outside the the engine instead of off the alternator. 'Optional accessories at extra cost may be required' |
|
|
| (1418328) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Dec 3 12:49:49 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Joe V on Sat Dec 3 12:19:34 2016. Might be workable on the Penn Line for MARC trains. But that's got too many high platforms now, and of course the Acela trains can't use low platforms. Not to mention, MARC's new bilevels are going to be the NJT/AMT-type MLVs, which are a foot shorter above rail than the Kawasaki cars and were probably bought in case Amtrak borrows them for Thanksgiving service. |
|
|
| (1418338) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Dec 3 14:55:08 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Steamdriven on Sat Dec 3 12:24:26 2016. wrong strategy. Any new tunnels should be configured for at least the current high and wide double stacks AND catenary. As we exit fossil fuels, more trains should be electrified, especially the heavy usage mainlines. |
|
|
| (1418339) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Dec 3 14:57:09 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Joe V on Sat Dec 3 10:19:25 2016. right. favorite parking slot for office cars decades ago. |
|
|
| (1418422) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Dec 3 22:21:00 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Dec 3 14:55:08 2016. As we exit fossil fuelsThat's not happening. And it hasn't been proven that they are actually from fossils. When was the last time you reviewed the laws of thermodynamics? |
|
|
| (1418435) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Dec 4 01:25:08 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Dec 3 12:20:06 2016. the superliners were designed in the era where there was barely any diesel trackage with speeds over 100MPHNot true. And many intercity lines under steam allowed 100+ mph. Even the first streamlined diesels were geared for well over 100 mph operation; the later ones being geared to 90 mph speeds were a reaction to the increased postwar regulation of railroads. The MARC bilevels are 125MPH certified so we already know it's doable And the 14' 6" bilevels could be certified for such speeds too. Which saves things with respect to having to scramble to increase clearances. I'm focused on bilevels because they increase capacity comfortably Do they? They increase dwell times also, even with more entrance doors, merely due to the increased time to get from one level to another. What cost difference would there be versus a longer single-level train? If the NEC had more seats, the fares could be lower, and the Megabus/Bolt/Chinabus crowd can be captured, resulting in moar profit Not with all the micromanaging FRA regulations in place. Never mind still having state-run railroads "competing" with private companies. Never going to happen without a major change in DC culture WRT the railroads. It is not a seating issue. |
|
|
| (1418448) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Dec 4 07:45:49 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Dec 3 12:20:06 2016. NJT MLV cars are comfortable ? Really ?While people don't much like 3-seaters, the MLV have more than their share of undesirable seats: - There are 32 seats set up in facing 4's, which are seldom 100% occupied despite standees, unless everyone knows each other (seldom) - There are 20 tip-up seats in the out ends (assuming no bathroom) which are narrow, short, and have low backs. With no provision for luggage, there is no way Amtrak would touch them with a 10 foot poll. It is bad enough dealing with EWR airport passengers on NJT with their suitcases, steamer trucks, and kitchen sinks, and then their navigating them on those God-damned narrow stairs while people are also trying to get off at Newark. |
|
|
| (1418476) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Dec 4 11:38:38 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Joe V on Sun Dec 4 07:45:49 2016. - There are 32 seats set up in facing 4's, which are seldom 100% occupied despite standees, unless everyone knows each other (seldom)Single level cars have batches of 5 seats in this configuration, even worse. There are 20 tip-up seats in the out ends (assuming no bathroom) which are narrow, short, and have low backs. Comet Vs have them as well, just less of them. Any new cars will have such seats as they are required for accessibility, as well as space for people to put bikes. Even when used as seats, they are fine for short distance travel between Newark and NYP (and people with luggage, for that matter). Subway-style seats for subway style service. The other ways to increase seating density is: 1. reduce the space between seats (like planes) 2. go to 3x3 seating with no dividing armrests (Shinkansen trains use this configuration) Would you prefer those methods, or simply adding a second level of the seats we have now? |
|
|
| (1418477) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Dec 4 11:47:32 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Dec 4 11:38:38 2016. You can't have 3X3 seating because Shinkansan trains are 11' feet wide.You make the trains longer. 7 & 8 car Regional Trains and 5 car Keystone trains are ridiculous. MLV cars for Amtrak are off the table, because there are no luggage racks over the seats, so forget it. |
|
|
| (1418480) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Dec 4 11:59:26 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Joe V on Sun Dec 4 11:47:32 2016. I agree on making trains longer. Empire Corridor trains are 4 cars and a cafe - ridiculous. But, what I was saying earlier is they should make an effort to allow for taller bilevels through NYP. Taller bilevels mean space for an overhead rack - everyone wins.That said, not everyone needs a luggage rack. They could mix them in with normal cars. The LIRR solved this by putting luggage areas on the ends of the C3s, and on some put an extra one on the lower level. |
|
|
| (1418482) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Dec 4 12:05:49 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Joe V on Sun Dec 4 11:47:32 2016. What's that over the seats in this photo . . . ? (That's upper level. Looks like none on lower level.) |
|
|
| (1418488) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Dec 4 12:21:44 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Dec 4 11:59:26 2016. You can't get any taller than the NJT and LIRR car, and you can't restrict any train to use only the new Gateway tunnels. Even then, they still have to get through the 4 old tunnels to Sunnyside. The C3 has a taller interior and boxier exterior than the MLV, and they won't clear the North River tunnels. They had enough trouble just clearing them for the C-3.Most Amtrak trains have stuffed luggage racks. You will have mass luggage thefts if it is all left at luggage bins at the ends of the cars. Thieves ride trains just between NYP and NWK to do that. |
|
|
| (1418489) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Dec 4 12:22:43 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Dec 4 12:05:49 2016. You can't stick anything up there thicker than a laptop briefcase.The lower level has nothing. |
|
|
| (1418491) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Dec 4 12:25:43 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Joe V on Sun Dec 4 12:22:43 2016. Either way, doesn't mean things can't be modified for larger overhead racks.But who knows if that's a dealbreaker. Trains like the TGV Duplex appear to have nothing as well.  |
|
|
| (1418493) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Dec 4 12:28:07 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Dec 4 11:38:38 2016. Shinkansen trains are 11' 1" wide; compare that to Amfleet (10' 6") or Acela (10' 4"). And most of them are 3-2 across. |
|
|
| (1418498) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Dec 4 13:07:19 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Dec 4 12:25:43 2016. It's pretty easy to wrap your skull on those things as they are. |
|
|
| (1418501) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Dec 4 13:20:07 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Dec 4 12:28:07 2016. I was thinking of these: Which are, of course, also bilevel:  |
|
|
| (1418503) | |
Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion |
|
|
Posted by Steamdriven on Sun Dec 4 13:33:55 2016, in response to Re: FRA ''preferred'' replacement Amtrak/MARC Baltimore tunnel now up to $4 billion, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Dec 4 13:20:07 2016. That thing's ugly, and the shoulders next to the cab look like air brakes - similar to what pops up off an airplane wing to slow the plane.6 across, narrow aisle and no overhead ===> sadistic misery tube. Ugly does as ugly is. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
