Passenger Trains > new caltrans cars sb thru Palmer lake 30 min ago

a friend spotted them, to the test center, single level siemens cars, from  the california order

https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,4876858

Video By Gary Adler

You must be a registered subscriber to watch videos. Join Today!

No thirty axles.

dry climate

Look a little like LRC cars, but there is no relationship.

A true step BACKWARDS for California--we have double decker cars on:

--CALTRAIN
--CAPITOL CORRIDOR
--COASTER
--SURF LINER
--SAN JOAQUINS
--ACE EXPRESS
--METROLINK

....and now we go backwards to single level cars that limit capacity, bike racks, food service, etc.  Can't believe the engineers couldn't figure this out, or why they couldn't buy more cars from BOMBARDIER or ROTEM or ALSTOM.  Really dumb.

 Hey, I'm a bit behind in the times. Is Amtrak / Caltrans et al, ordering more of these cars for the corridor? I prefer bilevel cars myself. What is the purpose/ beneft of ordering/ using single level if any? TIA AIA KFC

JAmtrak Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>  Hey, I'm a bit behind in the times. Is Amtrak /
> Caltrans et al, ordering more of these cars for
> the corridor? I prefer bilevel cars myself. What
> is the purpose/ beneft of ordering/ using single
> level if any? TIA AIA KFC

There are old threads about the original bi-level prototype failing the crush test. So the states involved in the order changed things up and went with the proven Siemens single level cars. I would have preferred the bi-level cars, so it will be interesting to see how things work out.

Nathan

Posted from iPhone

Creates an eclectic mix of equipment for sure! I never though California would go back to single level, especially after altering various platforms and such for the bi-levels, which still can support low level, but not the other way around if they try high level platforms. They look like they would be good for the NEC as next generation cars!

should have rehabbed old bilevel cars, think it was the cab cars that failed, just go dpu, till a suitable cab car can be developed



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/07/19 11:20 by dan.

After the Rotem cars flunked. they had to react fast. Sort of like when Claytor piggy-backed on an NJT order of Comet/Horizon cars. 

coach Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A true step BACKWARDS for California--we have
> double decker cars on:
>
> --CALTRAIN
> --CAPITOL CORRIDOR
> --COASTER
> --SURF LINER
> --SAN JOAQUINS
> --ACE EXPRESS
> --METROLINK
>
> ....and now we go backwards to single level cars
> that limit capacity, bike racks, food service,
> etc.  Can't believe the engineers couldn't figure
> this out, or why they couldn't buy more cars from
> BOMBARDIER or ROTEM or ALSTOM.  Really dumb.

Wah Wah Wah cry cry cry.

YOU KNOW EXACTLY why these cars were purchased.

There is currently NO builder of multi-level cars IN THE UNITED STATES that are able to meet the requirements as stipulated by the federal backed funding available for a car purchase.

You want to complain to someone, complain to the US Congress.

dan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> a friend spotted them, to the test center, single
> level siemens cars, from  the california order
>
> https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,
> 4876858
>
> Video By Gary Adler

Thanks for posting!

Interesting that they have ADA traps on one end and regular lowering steps on the others.

Can’t wait to see a cab car come out as well.

Posted from iPhone

jp1822 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Creates an eclectic mix of equipment for sure! I
> never though California would go back to single
> level, especially after altering various platforms
> and such for the bi-levels, which still can
> support low level, but not the other way around if
> they try high level platforms. They look like they
> would be good for the NEC as next generation cars!

Skinny is they will be the next gen NEC cars. They’re the preferred option apparently due to being well proven and able to handle higher speeds, as well as being very modular.

Apparently they’re designed to also be able to have doors besides at the ends of the cars, for both baggage entrances as well as mid-length passenger doors of various sizes. Pretty flexible design.

Posted from iPhone

I know why they are purchased, still agree with the 'step backwards' though. It's 2019 and someone can't figure out crash worthiness of a passenger car. And my guess is the bigger issue, pay for that crash value. 

Mike ONeill
Parker, CO

mcdeo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know why they are purchased, still agree with
> the 'step backwards' though. It's 2019 and someone
> can't figure out crash worthiness of a passenger
> car. And my guess is the bigger issue, pay for
> that crash value. 

Your statement clarifies you do NOT know why they were purchased. The federal money used to buy them was set to expire and required a US based manufacture. Change either of those requirements and the purchase would have been multilevel cars as desired. 

The multilevel cars purchased by Southern California Metrolink meet the crash worthiness requirements but are not from a US based manufacture.