Talk:Bilevel rail car

message: 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)
thread_title:  bilevel vs. double-decker 

message: 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:
* cramped upstairs
* poor ventilation upstairs as the windows were not openable
* increased time at stations for passengers getting on/off.
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)
thread_title:  New Double decker train proposals for the UK. 

message: Is this section really needed?
--Matteo (talk @) 06:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Relevance of the ASCII Art section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Relevance of the "Gallery cars" section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Feet versus metres 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unreferenced list 

message: 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)
thread_title: Loading gauge of northeast US, compared to Chicago

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A missed opportunity for the UK rail-infrastructure as a whole. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chech Republic 

message: 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)
thread_title:  More citations template needed? 

message: The following: 
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)
thread_title:  MBTA section