Talk:Bilevel rail car

True origins & German/Austrian part completely missing
"For the Altona-Kieler Railway, double-decker coaches were delivered as early as 1868. Downstairs there was space for 50 passengers, on the upper floor 32 seats were offered. In the same year the Sjaellandske Jernbaneselskab acquired double-decker coaches in Denmark. 60 passengers could travel in the lower part of the car, 40 in the upper deck. In 1873 the State Railway Company (StEG) also introduced double-deckers in Austria. Only one year later the Austrian Nordostbahn (NOB) followed this step. In 1873, the Lower Silesian-Mark Railway ordered twelve stack cars, but the cars were not used until 1876. They were the first vehicles to be used on the Berliner Ringbahn. [...] From 1883, double-decker steam railcars became popular. Among the first railway companies to use them were the Hessische Ludwigsbahn and the Königlich Bayerische Staats-Eisenbahnen." https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppelstockwagen#Geschichte

bilevel vs. double-decker
Reading this text as it is now I must say there's more information on bilevel cars in the double decker article than here. Although I'm interested in rail transport I cannot really make head or tail of this.

So let's turn this article into something more useful. 68.22.194.255, this is a good start, but could you

(a) add that this is about trains rather than trams (if I'm not mistaken); (b) give some examples where in the world bilevel cars are being used (I have no idea); (c) take one or two photos and upload them?

All the best, --KF 08:49, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

we could do with some pics of INSIDE such a train 82.152.174.17 16:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Is bilevel a widely used term, even in the US? I noticed "double-decker" in the online LA Times today. Grusl 09:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And Bloomberg yesterday (13 Oct) referred to double-deckers at NJ Transit. Why don't we Move the thing to Double-decker train and refer to "bilevel" as "occasionally used in some parts of North America". Grusl 07:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

New Double decker train proposals for the UK.
It's not strictly true that UK railways cannot accommodate Double-decker trains. The Bulleid DD trains were not a success, but that was 60 years ago. The main problems were: Double-decker train design has come a long way in the last 60 years, and while some ingenuity would be required, it is not impossible to come up with something that would work within the existing loading gauge - see Space trains - a double deck vision This is a presentation by a design firm with a lot of experience with double deck trains. --Harry. 20:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * cramped upstairs
 * poor ventilation upstairs as the windows were not openable
 * increased time at stations for passengers getting on/off.

Relevance of the ASCII Art section
Is this section really needed? --Matteo (talk @) 06:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * At present it isn't very useful. However, if the ASCII was replaced with proper images, then it would much more so. Wongm (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed this section as per this policy since I also don't think it's useful. Byeitical (talk · contribs) 04:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Relevance of the "Gallery cars" section
This section seems quite out of place.

As far as I can tell, this concept is used on some (unstated) proportion of double-decker railway carriages in the USA, but gains a whole section to itself (I didn't do a word count, but there are plenty!), even going into detail about how the tickets are placed in a little tray for the conductor to collect. No other descriptions of double-decker carriages on this page go into anywhere near this level of detail. The section also repeats some features of the double-decker design that are covered more generally elsewhere (e.g. door height). In summary: it reads a little bit like advertising or fan-spam. Either this topic deserves its own page, or this section needs to be trimmed down to the salient points.84.146.86.134 (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

As someone who found it difficult to find information on these gallery cars, I agree. Given the history of these cars (as well as their not-so-bright future with more conventional designs imminently replacing these), this topic deserves its own page.

As far as I know, gallery cars today (2021) are only present in 3 commuter rail systems in the United States. Samuelitooooo (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Feet versus metres
This article is obviously of international scope, explicitly mentioning Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Hong Kong, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland and my country, the UK (all officially metric) alongside the USA. It also mentions Bombardier Transportation (a German subsidiary of a Canadian company), Alstom (French), Stadler Rail (Swiss), and Wagon Pars (Iranian) - all of which provide car dimensions in metric - alongside the US Colorado Railcar, Pullman and Budd. Yet nearly all of the measurements in the article are in imperial units. I appreciate that others have done the hard work writing this article, but also note the Manual of Style would recommend metric as the primary unit here. Is there a particular reason the authors have chosen to use imperial throughout? Peter Barber (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced list
The following list had no references, and in my view provided limited use (but maybe I just don't like lists). I suggest that if people want it back, they should please reference at least some of them, and use a multi-column list (such as on Starship article) to reduce the size a bit. Thanks Ingolfson (talk) 04:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Tulloch Limited double deck trailer cars
 * Comeng double deck motor cars
 * Goninan CityRail T & G double deck EMU
 * A. Goninan & Co 4D double deck EMU
 * Fiat Ferroviria, CAF, Alstom	Helsinki VR Class Sm4 double deck EMU
 * Brissonneau et Lotz Voiture État à 2 étages (double deck passenger cars)
 * GEC Alstom/ANF MI 2N double deck EMU
 * GEC Alstrom SNCF TGV Duplex passenger cars
 * Kinki Sharyo KTT passenger cars
 * Kintetsu 30000 doubecl deck vista car
 * Hitachu, Kawasaki, Kinki Sharyo, Tokyu Car 100 Series Shinkansen cars
 * 5000 series trains
 * KiHa 183 series trains
 * Keihan 8000 series trains
 * 371 series trains
 * Odakyū 20000 series RSE
 * Alstom X40 double decker EMU
 * Class Y3 DMU
 * Stadler Rail DOSTO EMU
 * Bombardier-Alstom IC 2000 passenger cars
 * Oliver Bulleid SR Class 4DD passenger cars
 * Pullman Sleeping cars
 * Pullman-Standard Superliner cars
 * Wagon Pars double decker cars
 * Changchun Rail Vehicles SYZ25B cars
 * Transmashholding double decker cars
 * Flying Ranee double decker cars
 * Adtranz/Bombardier double-deck coach
 * Series 450 passenger train
 * Bombardier/UTDC bi-level cars

Loading gauge of northeast US, compared to Chicago
The article says this of Chicago's Metra commuter trains: Chicago does not have the loading gauge problems that affect passenger rail lines in most northeastern states. Is this related to the level of entrance to the car? In the northeast raised platforms are common, thus raising the level at which passengers enter or "load." Are the Chicago platforms not raised?Dogru144 (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about the platform height in Chicago but I do know the height of platforms is not really an issue when running passenger trains. In fact, loading gauge has nothing to do with how passengers ingress and egress the vehicle; it is the maximum dimensions a carriage (or locomotive) can be along a given railway line. In the Northeastern United States the tunnels are smaller and the bridges lower, so the trains have to be physically smaller than in the Midwest for them to fit. If numbers help, then off the top of my head a carriage in the Northeast can be a maximum of 26 metres long, 4.6 metres high, and 3.5 metres wide while in the Midwest a carriage can be a maximum of 26 metres long, 4.9 metres high, and 3.10 metres wide. It is not really a problem, just an annoyance for the size-obssessed Americans, who seem to be of the mind that bigger is better and smaller is worse. 211.27.164.80 (talk) 06:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Platform heights in Chicago are low, except on Metra's Electric District, which uses EMU versions of gallery cars (called Highliners) with high-level doors which are otherwise exactly the same as other gallery cars. Same exception extends to the South Shore line, which features both high-level platforms and street-level platforms, using a unique fleet of single-deck EMUs but also using a small number of Highliners with an additional low-level door at one end of each car.

Platform height doesn't affect loading gauge. The only thing that the level of entrance affects is car design and access. I could elaborate on this, but rest assured the problem isn't the entrance height.

The response before mines gets it right. It simply has to do with the tunnels and bridges being lower. North American passenger railroad cars are mostly the same, being 85 feet (25.9 meters) long and approximately 10 feet (3.1 meters) wide. The height in the Northeast is restricted to 14 feet 6 inches (4.4 meters), although here is where you'll also see single-deck trains as wide as 10 feet 6 inches (3.2 meters). Other trains across the United States are more or less 16 feet high (4.87 meters), including the rolling stock of Amtrak, who consequently have to use a separate fleet of single-deck cars for their overnight sleeper trains, just for trains that go to New York and/or Baltimore. Samuelitooooo (talk) 08:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bilevel rail car. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/green%2Btrains%2Bknow%2Bsays/4084097/story.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150910231127/http://www.slovakrail.sk/sk/preprava-osob/slovensko/eurovlaky-zmenili-cestovanie.html to http://www.slovakrail.sk/sk/preprava-osob/slovensko/eurovlaky-zmenili-cestovanie.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

A missed opportunity for the UK rail-infrastructure as a whole.
Although HS2's proposed bi-level rolling-stock (Aeroliner300) is capable of being shunted/transported anywhere within the UK, I acknowledge that its exact interior configurations may be less suited to frequent stops. 'Defeat accepted, there. But I remain confident that the principal of interlocking of decks carries endless potential as did also Oliver Bulleid's DD4. One approach of mine would be to replace DD4's 'rising & falling'/undulating passageways with individual booths of 4 seats step-accessed from a level passageway. The sinking of seat-booths between the bogies would still accommodate prams, wheelchairs and the less ambulant above the wheel-sets. Secondly, and with reference to oversea's Gallery-Railcars, a mere swapping round of the two upper outboard seating columns with their respective inboard passageways may safely facilitate condensing the carriage's overall height. I understand that for tilting purposes. Aeroliner300 couldn't comfortably accommodate (say) three-abreast with two outer passageways. But on most non-express routes, this concept would meet the interests both of capacity and station dwell-times. Either way, the UK rail service needs to come out of its 'comfort zone'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MessVanMan (talk • contribs) 23:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Chech Republic
there are common these trains:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%8CD_Class_471 Please add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:96CD:ED16:3148:7BC3:E95A:C4CA (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

More citations template needed?
I think under the “operators section”, Template:More citations needed should be added as there are parts that have lots of citations, but parts which don’t, especially under “other countries”. Fork99 (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

MBTA section
The following: "The MBTA is the public agency responsible for operating most public transportation services in Greater Boston, Massachusetts. Earlier modes of public transportation in Boston were independently owned and operated; many were first folded into a single agency with the formation of the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) in 1947. The MTA was replaced in 1964 with the present-day MBTA, which was established as an individual department within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts before becoming a division of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) in 2009. Not as yet connected directly by commuter rail, the pair of major intermodal passenger rail stations in Boston connected to the MBTA Commuter Rail network comprise North Station, a major transportation hub located at Causeway and Nashua Streets in Boston, Massachusetts, United States, as one of the pair of inbound terminals for Amtrak and MBTA Commuter Rail trains; and South Station, the largest railroad station and intercity bus terminal in Greater Boston and New England's second-largest transportation center after Logan International Airport."

This shouldn't be in the article. How is a summary of MBTA needed. It should be replaced with a new paragraph describing MBTA's use of bilevel rail cars. SecretName101 (talk) 23:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Zero discussion of rolling stock at all. Done. Samuelitooooo (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

At second glance, MBTA is already discussed under the "Northeastern United States" section. Should this Massachusetts section be deleted entirely (there's no other bilevel cars discussed)? Samuelitooooo (talk) 12:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)