NOTE: This article by RailPAC's Dr. Adrian Herzog first appeared in the October, 1986 RailPAC "Review." It set the stage for the selection of the bilevel car as the standard commuter car of the future in California. These cars, now manufactured by UTDC successor Bombardier, are used by Metrolink, The Coaster, and the Altamont Commuter Express; and have been selected for use on Caltrain's "baby bullet express" trains. They also are in use on Florida's Tri-Rail and Seattle's Sounder, as well as their original use on Toronto's GO Transit lines.

UTDC Car Brochure (1990)

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR A WESTERN
CORRIDOR SERVICE CAR

by Adrian D. Herzog, PhD

Introduction

The Surface Transportation Systems Institute (STSI) has been conducting a number of equipment reviews in an effort to define a series of cars that could meet a range of daytime corridor and suburban service operations in a variety of settings. One major consideration has been the need to define a car that would perform suburban services for some part of each week, while being available for other services on week-ends and off-peak periods. The practice of providing a separate type of car, usually the 'Gallery Car' in Chicago and a few other places, or single level commuter cars in many places, has proven to be a costly experience. STSI has begun to consider if, especially in new areas where commuter services have never been a major factor, a corridor-suburban fleet of cars wouldn't prove to be more effective overall.

Background

The opportunity to develop a high density, bi-level family of coaches is emerging. The attractiveness of cars having 130 seats for a standard coach while providing for cars configured for business or 'custom class' use at the other extreme, is found in its ability to do many jobs. It is a ubiquitous vehicle that can be afforded by Amtrak and a series of other public agencies. The concept of buying a series of cars for use by several agencies is scarcely new. The concept of deliberately designing the car for maximum performance in a range of corridor and suburban settings is new, replacing single purpose cars.

While generally seeking to define a day coach that is at least as comfortable as the present Amfleet cars are, it is important to note that the car could have occasion to be used overnight on some runs. It is useful to assure that the car would be compatible with low-level sleepers and perhaps food service cars of several types.

In related considerations, STSI believes that any new family of cars must, per force, contribute to moving Amtrak away from operating subsidies while permitting suburban services to achieve high fare-box recoveries, approaching 80- 100% of direct costs.

Amfleet is good - but not always

Amtrak currently operates Amfleet on its Northeast Corridor, Empire Corridor, Chicago Hub routes, Southwest Corridor, Golden Empire Route - San Joaquins and several other long and intermediate distance trains. Amtrak has the chance to operate several other corridors in various regions of the country including the Pacific Northwest, Texas and some Southeastern localities.

The Amfleet equipment was designed based on specific criteria developed for the Northeast Corridor (NEC). This criteria included a continued reliance on high level platforms, a desirable convention but largely NEC limited. In the NEC, the Amfleet loading and unloading characteristics are excellent. In intermediate and long haul service, the use of conventional doors and steps is minimally acceptable. In corridor service, even if platforms are 8 inches above top of rail, (or 8" ATR), there are dwell time consequences for schedule planning and enroute timekeeping.

Amfleet constraints are also reflected in seating capacities. The single level car restricts seating to only 84 passengers per car, thus limiting the passenger mile productivity of the vehicle when compared to a bi-level model taking full advantage of western railroad clearances. If Amtrak is to become self-sufficient, then every economy of scale that can be identified and exploited must be. The single level car with its lower level of capacity also necessitates longer trains with added tare weight per seat that cannot be justified as a function of revenue productivity and trip distance.

Western Car Criteria

The basic design features of a Western corridor-suburban car are conditioned by the desirability of a common family for use on a variety of corridors as well as in suburban Service.

The basic considerations are:

• Bi-level to maximize seating capacity and hence the revenue generating capacity.
• Seating arranged so that the car can operate in either direction, thus eliminating the need to turn trains or seats. Time saving and cost control at terminal points are thus achieved.
• Doors need to be 'Quarter-door' type, low level with ease of platform access, level with 8" ATR platforms (or nearly so) and generally designed to permit rapid boarding and detraining.
• Fleet should include a standard coach configuration as well as a custom class coach that could include a self-contained food service module.
• Food service facilities should be so designed that they minimize crowding of train aisles (while improving sales revenue).
• Simple, accessible and easy maintenance must be integral to car design.
• Cars must be capable of push-pull operation, including a cab-control type coach.
• The vehicle should be based on proven off-the-shelf components.

Interpreting the basics

Given the basic considerations, what can be done to rapidly develop specifications and move the car to production and service? There is every reason to believe that by utilizing the Urban Transportation Development Corporation (UTDC) bi-level car basic design, short design turn-arounds can be achieved and production based on proven components speeded. The basic hull configuration of the UTDC built car is bi-level with large automatic train doors at two spacious lower deck vestibules. Using 84 seat Amfleet seating standards, this hull can accommodate 130 seats in a standard coach and 120 seats in a cab-control coach. For custom class service based on 60 seat Amfleet comfort standards, a 96 seat car can be designed.

Several food service design options are possible. These range in scope from a simple lower deck 'Amcafe' to a basic 'Amdinette' with simple table seating. In addition to the food service capability, the car could accommodate between 80 to l00 coach seats depending upon the type of food service selected. For longer distance services such as on the Golden Empire Route or Chicago to St. Louis and Kansas City, the coach seats could be replaced by a bar and lounge area.

The basic UTDC car used in traditional commuter type service with a 162 seat commuter configuration grosses approximately 48 tons. If heavier insulation, additional restroom facilities, (for corridor and intercity service) and reclining seat interiors are fitted, the car should gross approximately 55 tons. Table I is a comparison of an Amfleet coach and Amfleet custom car with the proposed family of new cars called here Corridorliners.

Table I COMPARATIVE EQUIPMENT

Car Type	Seats	Class	Body Type	Wt	Wt/Seat
Amfleet	84	Coach	Stainless	50 Tons	1190#/seat
Amfleet	60	Custom	Stainless	50 Tons	1667#/seat
Amfleet	52	Cafe	Stainless	50 Tons	1923#/seat
Corliner	130	Coach	Aluminum	55 Tons	846#/seat
Corliner	120	Cab/Coach	Aluminum	55 Tons	917#/seat
Corliner	96	Custom	Aluminum	55 Tons	1145#/seat
Corliner	80	Cafe/Bar	Aluminum	55 Tons	1375#/seat
Heritage	48	Custom	Stainless	65 Tons	2703#/seat

The value of a seat

For a cost effective rail transportation system, cars need to be designed to maximize seat miles (revenue) while minimizing gross weight per seat (operating cost). The tare weight matters considerably. Table I clearly shows a vast range in gross weight per seat of various North American passenger cars. The Heritage Fleet (pre-Amtrak but nicely restored and rebuilt) cars clearly show the lack of cost effective design philosophy by producing a car weighing 2708 lbs per seat. This compares to similar levels of comfort for custom coach design requiring only 1145 lbs per seat in the proposed 96 seat Corridorliner car. Based solely on weight differences, the operating costs per seat mile are 236% greater for the Heritage fleet car than for the Corridorliner, which experiences no loss of passenger comfort. The slightly higher density 130 seat car design provides for excellent daytime comfort levels at only 846 Ibs per seat. Thus, it is 320% more economical to operate a full coach Corridorliner than to use a Heritage coach.

Applications

High capacity cars based on UTDC hulls have many uses. They can be used to operate short, light weight trains having excellent acceleration and deceleration characteristics needed for multi-stop suburban services. The high horsepower per train ton ratio required for such services in non-electrified Western territories, is provided by a 3000 hp F-40PE coupled to two 130 seat coaches and one 120 seat cab-control car. They can also be utilized to maximize the seating potential of locomotive-hauled trains limited in length due to grades and curvature. That has great significance on the Southwest Corridor where the present F-40's are limited to not-more-than 7 cars per unit. A family of F-60 locomotives previously described by STSI and published in the July 1985 Quarterly Review (Vol II, No.2) would have 4000 hp and be capable of hauling 10 cars with one unit. The impacts of higher capacity cars range well beyond simple discussions of how many can be hauled.

Tables II and III allow comparative data between Corridorliners and Amfleet to be examined. The train configurations depicted are divided into two classes, high horsepower at 10 hp per ton power ratios for multiple stop suburban service and 6 hp per ton corridor/ intercity trains that could be commonly found in California type services. The operating cost per seat mile is closely related to the horsepower per seat assigned to a given service.

TABLE II CORRIDORLINER CONSIST COMPARISON

Power Type	HP	130 Car	96 Car	80 Car	Lounge Cafe	Cab Car Control	Capacity (Pax)	Train WT	HP/ Ton	Seats/ Ton	HP/ Seat
F-40	3000	2	0	0	0	1	380	285T	10.52	1.33	7.89
F-40	3000	4	2	1	0	0	792	505T	5.94	1.56	3.79
F-40	3000	3	2	1	1	0	662	505T	5.94	1.31	4.53
F-60	4000	3	0	0	0	1	510	340T	11.76	1.50	7.84
P-60	4000	5	3	2	0	0	1098	670T	5.97	1.64	1.64
F-60	4000	5	3	1	I	0	1018	670T	5.97	1.52	3.93

TABLE III AMFLEET CONSIST COMPARISON

Power Type	HP	84 Car	60 Car	52 Cafe	Lounge AmfleetII	Capacity (Pax)	Train WT	HP/ Ton	Seats/ Ton	HP/ Seat
F-40	3000	3	0	0	0	252	270T	11.11	0.93	11.90
F-40	3000	4	2	1	0	508	470T	6.38	1.08	5.91
F-40	3000	3	2	1	1	424	470T	6.38	0.90	7.07
F-60	4000	4	0	0	0	336	320T	12.50	1.05	11.90
F-60	4000	5	3	2	0	704	620T	6.45	1.14	5.68
F-60	4000	4	3	1	1	620	620T	6.45	1.00	6.45

In suburban service, Amfleet requires 11.9 hp per seat while Corridorliners require 7.9 hp per seat. Costs for an Amfleet suburban train are therefore 50% greater than for a comparable Corridorliner on a seat mile basis. In corridor service, an F-40 powered 7 car Amfleet train requires 5.91 hp per seat while a comparable F-40 with Corridorliner cars uses only 3.79 hp per seat. Using F-60 power and 10 car consists in corridor service, the Amfleet train requires 5.68 hp per seat while the Corridorliner requires 3.64. Costs in corridor service are, therefore 55% greater for Amfleet. In intercity services, similar economies apply.

Conclusion

The opportunity for Amtrak to participate more fully with local authorities providing rail services has improved dramatically during the past year. There is every good reason to think that Amtrak can add new revenues to its income stream while working with local agencies to provide service. The question is, can it be done efficiently and does it have to be done using old techniques? The answer seems to be clear. A considerable new opportunity awaits rail service consumers. It includes reasonable rates, a common level of good service, and modern, effective equipment deployed by Amtrak and local agencies.

The economics of the UTDC type car, configured for corridor-suburban service, appear highly favorable, especially in areas never before experiencing suburban type services. A major effort is needed now to get on with ordering this new family of cars. STSI still has some investigative work to complete as to funding sources and legislative means to this end. Future commentary will describe funding when it is better understood and documented.

(c) STSI, 1986

• UTDC Brochure (1990)