# Bombardier BiLevel cars over longer distances



## jamesontheroad (Jul 25, 2010)

I've always found the bold shape and simple design of the Bombardier BiLevel coach very striking. I've only used them a few times, mostly on AMT services in and out of Montréal.

I was wondering, however, why their design is considered to be limited to commuter lines. Apart from the interior fixtures and fittings, which could presumably be custom designed, is there any technical reason why these vehicles couldn't form the basis for a high capacity regional or longer distance train? Would a new bogie design be needed, or (with better interiors) would they be comfortable on a 5 to 6 hour daytime trip as they are?

Thanks!


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 25, 2010)

jamesbrownontheroad said:


> I've always found the bold shape and simple design of the Bombardier BiLevel coach very striking. I've only used them a few times, mostly on AMT services in and out of Montréal.
> 
> I was wondering, however, why their design is considered to be limited to commuter lines. Apart from the interior fixtures and fittings, which could presumably be custom designed, is there any technical reason why these vehicles couldn't form the basis for a high capacity regional or longer distance train? Would a new bogie design be needed, or (with better interiors) would they be comfortable on a 5 to 6 hour daytime trip as they are?
> 
> Thanks!


Just thinkig out loud...

I guess they could be used for coaches. However, they would not work with any of Amtraks current bi level equipment since the end doors would not match up. It would also means a lot of up and down stairs to get from one car to the next. You also need a lot more restroom space for LD trains so the lowest level of these cars would probably have to be dedicated to that. Once you do that, there is really no reason to have the tri-level cars.

For sleepers, I see no way to use them.


----------



## jamesontheroad (Jul 25, 2010)

printman2000 said:


> I guess they could be used for coaches. However, they would not work with any of Amtraks current bi level equipment since the end doors would not match up. It would also means a lot of up and down stairs to get from one car to the next. You also need a lot more restroom space for LD trains so the lowest level of these cars would probably have to be dedicated to that. Once you do that, there is really no reason to have the tri-level cars.


Thanks. Was just re-acquainting myself with the Northstar (see my query here) and was thinking that if the Becker / St. Cloud / Rice extension is approved, funded and built, you're not that far off Brainerd (although IIRC the final trackage might be missing for that to happen). I was just wondering at what point do the tried and trusted efficiencies of Bombardier BiLevel coaches and MP36 locomotives start to make sense for intra-state regional or intercity passenger rail.

If Northstar is eventually covering ~ 130 miles between Rice and the Twin Cities, then perhaps Northstar could operate the proposed Northern Lights Express (155 miles) more efficiently and more quickly than Amtrak could.


----------



## evan E (Jul 25, 2010)

I think they should have the bombadier cars on commuter lines.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 25, 2010)

The other issue is that there's no room on either level for meaningful overhead luggage racks. You can devote space at the ends to this, but again, but the time you allocate restroom and luggage space, you're running out of space.


----------



## Trogdor (Jul 25, 2010)

Another issue with the Bombardier design is that the connections to adjacent cars are on a middle level. On commuter runs, there is generally little to no reason for a passenger to pass from car to car. However, on longer runs, with food-service and/or lounge cars, passengers go between cars quite frequently. It may get annoying, to say the least, if a passenger has to go up and down and up and down and up and down and up and down to get from his/her seat to the cafe, then do the same, while carrying food, on the way back.

Walking between cars on a moving train is hard enough. Having to climb stairs is difficult for a number of passengers (particularly the elderly and those with limited mobility). Having to do so multiple times just to get to another car...maybe not so popular.


----------



## battalion51 (Jul 25, 2010)

As previously mentioned the lack of overhead space could prove to be a bit problematic. However, if they made a small rack available (like on MARC/MBTA Kawasaki Bi-Levels) they could be great for trains in and out of Chicago. The only other hurdle I can think of is the fact that the cars are limited to 79 MPH, which given the aspirations for high speed service could be a challenge.


----------



## Rob_C (Jul 25, 2010)

Are the newer MARC Kawasaki's also limited to 79?

Rob


----------



## Ryan (Jul 25, 2010)

Nope, they're rated the same as the old ones.


----------



## battalion51 (Jul 25, 2010)

I know the "newer" MARC Kawasakis were acquired from VRE when they divested their fleet to go to an all Gallery car fleet. IIRC the MARC and VRE Kawasakis were ordered together on the same order with the cars only having a few differences between them (namely the mars light vs. ditch lights).


----------

