If so, one of the reasons many Eastern trains are single level is that double levels won't fit into the tunnels in and to New York City. And there is apparently no economic justification for tunnel replacement at this time.

Also, and this is just conjecture, there may be problems with double train height and the catenaries.

Viewliners dont make sense. If you somehow think they do, tell me why aren't there more Talgos and electrified routes in California.

I take that to mean that single-level cars are economically unjustified because of their lower capacity. First, note that Viewliners are just one style of single level car. There are also Amfleets, Horizon, and as you mentioned, Talgos.

Bi-level cars obviously carry more people, so there are some inherent efficiencies. But that comes at a price. The cars are less stable, they tend to sway more, and thus are not well suited to high speed services, at least not with existing equipment. And, as others pointed out, they won't fit into the tunnels in the Northeast.

The reason why there are no electrified routes in California (or anywhere outside the NEC) is that they are quite expensive to build and maintain. However, they do allow higher speeds than diesel locomotion, as well as better energy efficiency, so again you have a trade-off. California is also very sensitive to aesthetics, as many train routes pass through scenic areas. The overhead lines needed to accomodate electric trains probably wouldn't pass environmental review in many areas.

Another drawback to electrified lines is that they make it difficult to expand a route. An electric train is limited to the coverage of the wires. Diesels can be used anywhere there are tracks. So, for example, the Capitol Corridor can easily be expanded to Reno (as is planned for 2007) without spending much, or anything, for new infrastructure.

But, single level Talgos are being used very successfully in the Pacific Northwest. Much like electric trains, they are capable of speeds up to 125 MPH, much faster than bi-level cars. Eventually, it is hoped that they will be able to travel well over 100 MPH between Portland and Seattle, once the tracks are upgraded.

Single-level DMUs are being considered for the proposed Monterey-San Francisco service.

------------------
Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth.
-Mr. Toy

What happens when lightning strikes a railroad car? It must happen sometimes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kairho:
I think you are asking why all trains are not double level. Right?

If so, one of the reasons many Eastern trains are single level is that double levels won't fit into the tunnels in and to New York City. And there is apparently no economic justification for tunnel replacement at this time.

Also, and this is just conjecture, there may be problems with double train height and the catenaries.

For these reasons, you also rarely see double stacked containers in the East.

---

That's my explanation. I'm no veterinarian of course, and I've never been Wenatchee, but I do know a thing or two about impossible physics.

Dave

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Toy:
California is also very sensitive to aesthetics, as many train routes pass through scenic areas. The overhead lines needed to accomodate electric trains probably wouldn't pass environmental review in many areas.

[/B]

---

Evidently. Even local light rail lines in urban settings have difficulty [environmental restrictions] with installing catenary or trolley wire.
In Europe there are electrified main lines that run through scenic areas, so the environmental review process must be different.

MP

I see you have not come back to review the replies. Not to mention that you failed to draw the relation between Viewliners, Talgos, and electrification in California like they somehow have any bearing on each other.

Viewliners are necessary for operation in and out of the Northeast because (a) Superliners cannot use high platforms, (b) Superliners cannot fit under low clearances on the former Pennsylvania RR route between Washington and NYP as well as many other routes in the Northeast, and (c) Superliners do not mate well with other single-level equipment. There is also (d) the Superliners' rated top speed of 100 mph, which would slow a train down on a corridor that sees daily 125 mph operation.

So you see, there is indeed a point for the retention of single-level equipment. In case you do not realize it, single-level cars used to be the standard all over the USA—it was Amtrak who de-standardized the US by their taking the ATSF El Capitan design and ordering Superliners en-masse. Bad idea IMHO...

As for Talgos, they cannot operate in the Northeast either—they cannot stop at low platforms (don't remind me of the New Haven and NY Central ones that would not be ADA-compliant today). How did Talgos get into your discussion anyway when they themselves cannot mate with Viewliners?

As for electrification in California, have you ever looked at the California High-Speed Rail Authority website? They want to build electrified 200-mph corridors between places like LA, San Francisco, San Diego, et al. Or what about Caltrain's proposed electrification, which would tie into this HSR project? Electrification may have high initial build costs (and they can be overblown by consultants if the electrification between New Haven CT and Boston MA is any gauge), but overall the performance is superior and operating costs are far, far lower than dieselized operation.

Thank you for taking a stab at deciphering BahnBoy's original post. As usual, I always learn new and interesting things about railroading from reading your words.

I wonder, however, what you meant by the following:

"it was Amtrak who de-standardized the US by their taking the ATSF El Capitan design and ordering Superliners en-masse. Bad idea IMHO..."

I understand that de-standardizing things has a way of throwing a wrench in the works, however I am left wondering why you think the en-masse ordering of Superliners was such a bad idea.

To date I have taken Amtrak trains all over the country and, with the exception of the Hiawatha (which has its own special charm), I rather dread to climb aboard the single level trains. They're generally crowded. The baggage situation can be a disaster. I feel sorry for the cooks who must be working in tiny quarters. There's never enough bathrooms. The list goes on and on.

The food on the single level Talgo trains were served to me on plastic trays and lacked that gourmet touch I have become accustomed to on the Southwest Chief. And the ride on those single level trains did not compare with that "heavy Chevy" feel I have grown so attached to on the Chief.

The VIA short haul single level trains, as I recall were the absolute worst, despite their state of the art technology. The seats were as cramped as an airplane and the coffee those waitresses were serving could not have been more watered-down.

One nice thing I do recall, however about a single-level train: When Amtrak's Adirondack arrived in Montreal, I believe the platform came right up to the level of the door, so I didn't have to encounter the usual giant leap for mankind. (That's where the ergonomics ended, however. I swear I have never seen a more handicap inaccessible country than Canada. Not that I'm in a wheelchair or anything, but encountering stairway after stairway is not my idea of a good time when I'm shlepping a heavy bag with wheels.)

In conclusion, I love those old art deco Superliners and believe that the Surfliner is the logical and beautiful evolution of the beast.

Dave

Thanks in earnest for the related info, IrishChieftain.

Well, there are a number of reasons...

First one that comes to mind would be maintaining a high spare-parts inventory (which indeed comes with having at least two disparate types of car, such as Amfleets and Horizons, but even more pronounced with bilevel and single-level types that cannot mate with each other unlike, for example, BBD's commuter bilevels). Given Amtrak's low level of funding, by appearances presented to the outsider who is instructed in brief of such things, Amtrak has overstepped itself in terms of equipment variegation and should have made greater efforts at inventory consolidation.

Another is unavailability in areas of restriction. As I mentioned before, Superliners and Surfliners are useless at high platforms as well as under low clearances, while, conversely, Amfleets, Viewliners and Horizons could operate over the entire system, unencumbered by clearances and able to board and detrain passengers at both high and low platforms. Almost all trains that Amtrak's predecessors operated could also have operated into and out of the high-platformed, height-restricted Northeast. It would have been to Amtrak's greater benefit in the long run to have furthered that traditional advantage—it certainly is noteworthy that VIA Rail in Canada standardizes on single-level cars. (Talgos cannot use high platforms either, but that is yet another matter, as is the quirk concerning the Acela Express' doors being for high platforms only—both matters redound to the issue about non-standardization.)

There are also the Superliners' speed limit restrictions. (Although the Superliners' top rated speed is 100 mph, the Pacific Surfliner is apparently capable of 125 mph, but that has not been tested in daily operation unlike Amfleets on the NEC.)