Acela 21 (Avelia Liberty) development, testing and deployment (2018 - 1Q 2024)

[Amtrak_Carolinian_2020]

This time Set 002 is on Keystone Corridor

That’s it? That’s the horn?

 

[Green Maned Lion]

The thing to remember though is that when one has a mind set of "no fixed consist train ever" you buy yourself into the "one wheelchair spot and an ADA restroom per car" syndrome. I am not taking a position on the fixed consist thing this way or that, but just pointing out that base assumptions about the architecture of a train has consequences on what must be placed where to meet the legal requirements.

I don't disagree with you, I was just pointing out that what third rail was saying about the regulation was inaccurate. The regulation is not the specific cause of an ADA restroom per car.

 

[jis]

I don't disagree with you, I was just pointing out that what third rail was saying about the regulation was inaccurate. The regulation is not the specific cause of an ADA restroom per car.

Heh heh. I was just looking at it from Thirdrail's mind set, having known him for a while. It is quite likely that the scenario that you posited had not occurred to him as a possible way of structuring a train, that could be operated viably in the Amtrak system, never mind th Talgos and Acela Is.

 

[Thirdrail7]

The thing to remember though is that when one has a mind set of "no fixed consist train ever" you buy yourself into the "one wheelchair spot and an ADA restroom per car" syndrome. I am not taking a position on the fixed consist thing this way or that, but just pointing out that base assumptions about the architecture of a train has consequences on what must be placed where to meet the legal requirements.

Even fixed consists are an issue and I guess this is where the whole "I might know trains" thing comes into play, but from an operational point of view it is best to spread your requirements. This can ring true with fixed consists too. Let's take this point:

Actually, I know you might know trains but you aren’t good at legalese. That law requires 1) as many handicapped spaces as cars on a train, 2) no more than two spaces in any given car, and 3) an ADA restroom in each car so equipped with such a space and a restroom. That means if You have a 10 car train, you must have 10 wheelchair spaces. You can have up to 2 spaces in any given car. If a car has wheelchair accessibility and a restroom, it must have an ADA restroom.


Technically, you could in fact build a train with ten cars, 5 having two wheelchair spaces and no restroom at all, and 5 having no wheelchair access and 20 non-ADA restrooms and meet that requirement to the letter. You could certainly build a train set with 10 cars, 5 with two wheelchair spaces and an ADA restroom, and 5 with no wheelchair access and a non-ADA restroom, and not only meet the letter, but the spirit

Well, I may not be good at legalese, and I'm not a subject matter expert...but that is why they exist because there is what is written, the intent and the application. I'm pretty sure what you're saying is gibberish because it seems you didn't include the other parts of the CFR into the equation. I'm not a lawyer like you I suppose, but as the subject matters experts have indicated, the portion of § 1192.111 mentions:


(5) Restrooms complying with § 1192.123 shall be provided in single-level rail passenger coaches and food service cars adjacent to the accessible seating locations required by paragraph (d) of this section. Accessible restrooms are required in dining and lounge cars only if restrooms are provided for other passengers.

As interpreted (and it looks pretty clear without the interpretation), the above means that any accessible area will need an ADA accessible bathroom adjacent to the accessible seating area. It is not an option. It is not if you have an accessible area and IF you have a bathroom, it must be accessible. It is if you have an accessible area, you MUST have an accessible bathroom adjacent to it. Even though I'm not a subject matter expert, I'm at a loss to see how you think you could have two wheelchair spaces without an ADA accessible (or any other type of) bathroom. I guess we should just move someone that may be in a wheelchair through a few cars when and if they need to use the facilities. This doesn't make sense and I'm pretty sure that if someone in a wheelchair needed to use that bathroom and had to trek through a car or two definitely isn't "the spirit of the law" and it likely isn't the intent...especially if you put part d into the equation.

(d) Passenger coaches or food service cars shall have the number of spaces complying with § 1192.125(d)(2) and the number of spaces complying with § 1192.125(d)(3), as required by 49 CFR 37.91.

As interpreted, each car will have an accessible area....meaning you'd need an accessible restroom as described in 1192.123 There is a reason why the regulation makes sure they can't cram all the ADA into one car. This regulation (intended for intercity travel) recognizes that Amtrak has variable consists and it would be easy to have something occur to an accessible piece of equipment and you end up with a non-complying consist.

Even a fixed consist can suffer this problem. What if there is an incident and they need to remove the accessible cars from the consist for a prolonged period of time? Remember the 5 car Acela set that ran around for roughly 6 months?

To tie this into the original conversation, (which the people that we're discussing this in context seemed to understand), I was speaking in the context of the post. I was specifically referring to what I believed and still believe was a question regarding why do you need to eliminate bathrooms. My response was ADA restrooms take room and they wanted to create space.

The follow-up question as I understood it was why do you need to make every car the same and couldn't you make an ADA equipped bathroom in every other car instead of every car which I took to mean you'd have a regular restroom in one car and the next car would have an ADA restroom. Well, the answer to that is no, since if you're putting a restroom in a car, it must be ADA accessible. This is not absurd since this whole exchange was initiated by the reduction in the number of restrooms

Which is exactly the regulation I quoted.

My quote for the ADA was to show that each train must ADA accessible seats....which, again if you read in the context of the quotes, was being questioned.

I'm sorry you're two months late to the party but during the actual exchange, I answered what I believed to be the intent of his posts.

Feel free to follow up with the law department though.
.
PS: Welcome back.

 

[PerRock]

That’s it? That’s the horn?

European train gets European-style horn I guess.

peter

 

[cocojacoby]

The new Ultra Domes built by Stadler for the Rocky Mountaineer have a narrower profile ADA restroom similar to existing Amfleet cars. You can put two regular bathrooms across the aisle and have three bathrooms in the space of one Acela II bathroom.

Why would new Amtrak passenger cars need to go with a restroom that allows full rotation if new Rocky Mountaineer's do not? Is it an actual requirement or no? Anyone know?

 

[west point]

About that horn. Maybe that should be on all the new Acella-2s. That way persons hearing the horn would know a high speed train was approaching.. Maybe a certain Senator would not have nearly been hit ?

 

[railiner]

The new Ultra Domes built by Stadler for the Rocky Mountaineer have a narrower profile ADA restroom similar to existing Amfleet cars. You can put two regular bathrooms across the aisle and have three bathrooms in the space of one Acela II bathroom.

Why would new Amtrak passenger cars need to go with a restroom that allows full rotation if new Rocky Mountaineer's do not? Is it an actual requirement or no? Anyone know?View attachment 17604

Not sure if "ADA" specs apply to Rocky Mountaineer...isn't that a Canadian train?

 

[jis]

Not sure if "ADA" specs apply to Rocky Mountaineer...isn't that a Canadian train?

Yeah, Rocky Mountaineer has to abide by whatever the Canadian regulations says about such things and not what the US regulations says about such things. It is though not unusual for many US people to forget that there is a world outside the US where US regulations do not apply.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

The solution is simplicity itself! We will just threaten and cajole other countries into simply accepting US regulations. You know, as opposed to the US accepting a variety of common best practices regulations that are more commonly incorporated across various countries than they are incorporated across various US states.

 

[jiml]

Not sure if "ADA" specs apply to Rocky Mountaineer...isn't that a Canadian train?

I haven't researched it, but I'd bet the specs are fairly close in both countries. Those RM cars have run in the US (to Seattle).

 

[jis]

I haven't researched it, but I'd bet the specs are fairly close in both countries. Those RM cars have run in the US (to Seattle).

They are close but not the same. Though not about disabled people, but one glaring example of difference is in signaling , control and safety requirements. Trackage on which 100mph is allowed in Canada contain many segments where even 79mph would not be allowed in the US. The Renn Fleet would not have been allowed in the US without going through a long drawn out exception process.

 

[jiml]

They are close but not the same. Though not about disabled people, but one glaring example of difference is in signaling , control and safety requirements.

I was thinking only of disability requirements. You're correct of course.

The Renn Fleet would not have been allowed in the US without going through a long drawn out exception process.

Shame too, since I'll be surprised if those Ren sleepers and diners return to service on VIA after all this and they're not that old. They have no replacements for the coaches and VIA1 versions, so they're likely to hang around a bit longer.

 

[jrud]

About that horn. Maybe that should be on all the new Acella-2s. That way persons hearing the horn would know a high speed train was approaching.. Maybe a certain Senator would not have nearly been hit ?

I think that this was posted earlier, but note the horns.

https://images.app.goo.gl/HnQdnCz964kKQQ9P7

 

[Acela150]

Friday afternoon I was able to catch the return trip from Lancaster at Overbrook.

Yesterday the trainset went to DC. I've heard two different things regarding the trip to DC. One version is for a media event and the other being it's going to Ivy City for Employee Familiarization, etc. Personally I'm more towards the media event story as it comes from a former employee who is reliable.

I'd post some photos, but the files are way to large.

 

[AmtrakBlue]

Friday afternoon I was able to catch the return trip from Lancaster at Overbrook.

Yesterday the trainset went to DC. I've heard two different things regarding the trip to DC. One version is for a media event and the other being it's going to Ivy City for Employee Familiarization, etc. Personally I'm more towards the media event story as it comes from a former employee who is reliable.

I'd post some photos, but the files are way to large.

Just heard it will be heading back north this afternoon. Timing is iffy due to the trespasser strike earlier in MD

 

[Metra Electric Rider]

Somewhat relevant to this (although I can't find the link now), I was recently looking up something in the ADA and noticed that there was a call for comment on proposed rules for transit vehicles - rail specifically iirc. If I can find it I will update and post it.

 

[Acela150]

Update from the NGEC who had meetings in May. Nothing new that we don't already know. Although they mention that their are some PTC issues that are being worked out on TS 2 in Philly.

Speaking on TS 2 in Philly. Does anyone know if the TS is fully outfitted? Or will it need to go back and have the interiors installed?

 

[Thirdrail7]

It is not fully outfitted.

 

[Acela150]

It is not fully outfitted.

Roger that. Thanks.

 

[Acela150]

Update from the NGEC. The transit in Philly tested at 125 MPH. But has been sidelined for now with PTC issues, which for something new isn't all to surprising.

 

[west point]

- Amtrak Equipment Procurement Update – as of 6-16-20:
On the Acela: The first Trainset is at Pueblo at TTCI for testing. It has reached speeds up to 165 mph on the test track. The second Trainset has done a few early runs out of Philly a couple of times and has reached 125 mph. There are still a few PTC issues that are being worked on.
On the Charger Locomotives: The locomotive continues to be under construction with little impact from the COVID 19 pandemic. It remains on schedule for February-March (2021) delivery of the first test locomotive on the NEC.
On the Intercity Trainset Procurement: This procurement is proceeding, but it is at a stage where it remains in the “cone of silence”.
procurement Update – as of 6-16-20:
On the Acela: The first Trainset is at Pueblo at TTCI for testing. It has reached speeds up to 165 mph on the test track. The second Trainset has done a few early runs out of Philly a couple of times and has reached 125 mph. There are still a few PTC issues that are being worked on.
On the Charger Locomotives: The locomotive continues to be under construction with little impact from the COVID 19 pandemic. It remains on schedule for February-March (2021) delivery of the first test locomotive on the NEC.
On the Intercity Trainset Procurement: This procurement is proceeding, but it is at a stage where it remains in the “cone of silence”.

 

[EchoSierra]

What more do they have to test on the NEC for the Chargers? I thought they already tested them on the NEC when they borrowed the one from IDOT a few years ago.

 

[brianpmcdonnell17]

What more do they have to test on the NEC for the Chargers? I thought they already tested them on the NEC when they borrowed the one from IDOT a few years ago.

The locomotives designed for LD service are slightly different from the current corridor locomotives.

 

[Acela150]

What more do they have to test on the NEC for the Chargers? I thought they already tested them on the NEC when they borrowed the one from IDOT a few years ago.

The Charger that tested on the NEC did not have ACSES or Cab Signals for NEC running. The Chargers that are being built for Amtrak will have multiple PTC systems ACSES, ITMS, etc. All of these will need to be tested and debugged before Revenue service can begin.