# How logical would...



## Shawn Ryu (Oct 14, 2010)

Since California is closer to getting a high speed rail, one must assume they must electrify the entire corridor.

Made me curious, if Amtrak somehow wants to use the electric catenary for their other CA routes, can the Superliners/Surfliners be logically pulled by current Amtrak electric locomotives?


----------



## George Harris (Oct 14, 2010)

No reason they can't be. Just don't know where you think this will apply. The high speed will be on dedicated track. There was a scheme years ago to electrify Los Angeles to San Diego. It died a fairly quick death because the people living near the coast complained about the "visual pollution" that the overhead wire would be.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Oct 14, 2010)

George Harris said:


> No reason they can't be. Just don't know where you think this will apply. The high speed will be on dedicated track. There was a scheme years ago to electrify Los Angeles to San Diego. It died a fairly quick death because the people living near the coast complained about the "visual pollution" that the overhead wire would be.


Maybe San Joaquin route or Capital Corridor. I think those are fairly busy lines.

Maybe once US high speed rail becomes more and more prominent and there are more high speed rail services, more tracks can be electrified. I mean I know the high speed trains are most likely going to be on a seperate tracks but while they are at it, they can electrify the rails parallel to the new high speed tracks. If that happens Superliner need to be able to be pulled by electric locomotive. I just cant see AEM or HHP pulling Superliners.


----------



## Eric S (Oct 14, 2010)

Shawn Ryu said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > No reason they can't be. Just don't know where you think this will apply. The high speed will be on dedicated track. There was a scheme years ago to electrify Los Angeles to San Diego. It died a fairly quick death because the people living near the coast complained about the "visual pollution" that the overhead wire would be.
> ...


You "can't see" an AEM7 or HHP pulling Superliners because you don't believe it is possible, or just because you have never seen it and think it would look odd?

For the sake of discussion, let's assume the Capitol Corridor was electrified. Even then, it would seem reasonable to assume that the _California Zephyr_ and _Coast Starlight_ would still use diesels, rather than switching to electrics for a relatively short distance. _Capitol Corridor_ trains, I suppose, would be electric in that case, but who knows what sort of equipment would be used at that point? California Cars (or their successors) pulled by some sort of electric locomotive? EMUs?


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Oct 15, 2010)

Eric S said:


> Shawn Ryu said:
> 
> 
> > George Harris said:
> ...


It would look odd. I cant say its impossible, because if one engine is too weak then they can use 2 or 3 engines.


----------



## Ryan (Oct 15, 2010)

Considering that the AEM-7 and HHP-8 have almost twice as much power as a P-42, the amount of power available isn't an issue. You'd have to make sure that the catenary was high enough to clear Superliners but not too high that the Pantograph couldn't reach (which is certainly possible).


----------



## PerRock (Oct 15, 2010)

To help one visulize Supers being pulled by AEM-7s & HHP-8s here are some screen captures from Trainz I took of just that.









Click on picture to enlarge.

peter


----------



## Ryan (Oct 15, 2010)

Nice work! The AEM-7 doesn't look bad because of the baggage car, and really the HHP-8 doesn't look all that different than MARC's HHP-8's pulling the Bilevels (they are about 2 feet shorter than a SL, though):







http://railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=150529&nseq=7


----------



## MattW (Oct 15, 2010)

Ryan said:


> Considering that the AEM-7 and HHP-8 have almost twice as much power as a P-42, the amount of power available isn't an issue. You'd have to make sure that the catenary was high enough to clear Superliners but not too high that the Pantograph couldn't reach (which is certainly possible).


The Superliners from the Capitol Limited negotiate the catenary at WAS just fine because from what I understand of the station layout, they have to negotiate under the catenary to get to the low level platforms (which also have catenary). In other words, they don't have a separate special wire-free track at WAS just for the CL's Superliners to use.


----------



## Ryan (Oct 15, 2010)

After traveling through WAS daily for over 3 years, I'm well aware of that. That's why I said that it's "certainly possible". I just mentioned it because it would have to be a design consideration whenever the line was constructed/electrified.

The Cap could use tracks 7 or 8 which are low platform and not under the wire, but they never do since they're in the portion of the station that MARC uses.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Oct 15, 2010)

Ryan said:


> After traveling through WAS daily for over 3 years, I'm well aware of that. That's why I said that it's "certainly possible". I just mentioned it because it would have to be a design consideration whenever the line was constructed/electrified.
> 
> The Cap could use tracks 7 or 8 which are low platform and not under the wire, but they never do since they're in the portion of the station that MARC uses.


Well how tall is the Superliner? Some sources have it as around 19ft and some as 16ft.

How tall is AEM?


----------



## PerRock (Oct 15, 2010)

According to my Technical drawings; the Superliner Is are 16' 1.5" tall. I'm not sure about the AEM-7s.

peter


----------



## MattW (Oct 15, 2010)

Ryan said:


> After traveling through WAS daily for over 3 years, I'm well aware of that. That's why I said that it's "certainly possible". I just mentioned it because it would have to be a design consideration whenever the line was constructed/electrified.
> 
> The Cap could use tracks 7 or 8 which are low platform and not under the wire, but they never do since they're in the portion of the station that MARC uses.


I apologize Ryan, I misunderstood where you were coming from.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Oct 15, 2010)

MattW said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Considering that the AEM-7 and HHP-8 have almost twice as much power as a P-42, the amount of power available isn't an issue. You'd have to make sure that the catenary was high enough to clear Superliners but not too high that the Pantograph couldn't reach (which is certainly possible).
> ...


Why does the low platform need catenary? Only VRE and Cap Lim. would use it and both only need diesel engines.


----------



## George Harris (Oct 15, 2010)

There is no reach problem for the pantographs. The wire on the Pennsylvania Railroad electrification varied in height from around 15 feet all the way up to 22 feet in territory where EMU's operated and 23 feet where they did not. In other words, the GG1's and other electric locomtives designed and built 80 plus years ago could handle a wide range of catenary heights, so it can still be done. If currently used technology supposedly can't do it, then resurect the way it was done in the past. Note the reach of teh pantograph in Ryan's picture.

The passenger train loco assignments are always based on the power needs, not like freight, where low priority trains are powered with engines having just enough weight to meet the adhesion requirements needed to get up the steepest grade on the route without stalling.

I do not even understand the "can't see an electric loco pulling superliners. Tnat is the ultimate non-issue. According to wiki, they are cleared to run 100 mph, so there is no real issue there on any of the California lines.

i think it would make good sense to eelctrify the line used by the Capitol Corridor and CZ from San Jose to at least Reno. San Jose to Sacramento for the sake of the Capitol Corridor, the remainder for the sake of freight going over the Sierra.


----------



## MattW (Oct 15, 2010)

Shawn Ryu said:


> MattW said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan said:
> ...


They're also used by the Crescent, Silvers, Carolinian, Palmetto, Cardinal and Regionals that come from the south. These particular tracks that connect with the Capitol tunnels all have low level platforms as I understand it. Those all perform an engine change from diesel to electric so there has to be catenary to support a run around maneuver in both directions.


----------



## Ryan (Oct 15, 2010)

MattW said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > After traveling through WAS daily for over 3 years, I'm well aware of that. That's why I said that it's "certainly possible". I just mentioned it because it would have to be a design consideration whenever the line was constructed/electrified.
> ...


No worries - sometimes I forget that everyone can't read my mind. 



PerRock said:


> According to my Technical drawings; the Superliner Is are 16' 1.5" tall. I'm not sure about the AEM-7s.
> 
> peter


The K cars are 15'6" - I thought for sure that there was more than 6 inches of difference.

The AEM-7 isn't all that much shorter than the K-cars:








> There is no reach problem for the pantographs. The wire on the Pennsylvania Railroad electrification varied in height from around 15 feet all the way up to 22 feet in territory where EMU's operated and 23 feet where they did not. In other words, the GG1's and other electric locomtives designed and built 80 plus years ago could handle a wide range of catenary heights, so it can still be done. If currently used technology supposedly can't do it, then resurect the way it was done in the past. Note the reach of teh pantograph in Ryan's picture.


I was trying to remember the range of the heights of the catenary - I thought that some of it was as low as 15', which obviously wouldn't fit Superliners or the K-cars.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Oct 17, 2010)

The max height of car on east part NEC is 14.6, due to viaducts/bridges/tunnels etc.

Are the tunnels bigger, sure, but for Catenary a air clearance is needed of about 1 foot from train to wire and 1 foot from wire to structures, for 12.5 Kv.

For 25 Kv the clearance needs to be near 2 foot for each.

as for pantograph height, yes 22 foot is doable, but only in stations/yards , or slow speed stretches.

the higher the speed it also increases movement of pantograph from side to side (sway) the higher you extend the pantograph the greater the sway.

You will see common practice to lower catenary height in curves and in higher speed stretches unless its extreemly straight.


----------



## jis (Oct 17, 2010)

The catenary in the Channel Tunnel is around 22' high AFAIR. The max speed allowed is 100mph.


----------



## Ryan (Oct 17, 2010)

I'm not sure what the relevance of bridges and viaducts on the NEC are for any potential electrified line in California. I'm sure that the height of the cars would be taken into account during the design phase.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Oct 17, 2010)

Ryan said:


> I'm not sure what the relevance of bridges and viaducts on the NEC are for any potential electrified line in California. I'm sure that the height of the cars would be taken into account during the design phase.


only relevance is that even if California electrifies they need to consider existing bridges and viaducts or project price will go thru the roof.

As for 22' height of wire in Canal tunnel, great but there is no wind in tunnel, the railbed is not being disturbed by weather influences or blast irregularities.

also the tunnel is fairly straight, can't compare Catenary in a tunnel with outside conditions.


----------



## jis (Oct 17, 2010)

Well the 22' high cat stretches several miles outside the tunnel at each end too with the same speed limit


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Oct 17, 2010)

been there done that, and yes its almost straight.


----------



## DET63 (Oct 20, 2010)

The main problem with running Superliners under catenary is, of course, what happens to passengers who find the secret penthouse stairway and head up on top to satisfy their nic fits. :giggle:


----------



## George Harris (Oct 20, 2010)

DET63 said:


> The main problem with running Superliners under catenary is, of course, what happens to passengers who find the secret penthouse stairway and head up on top to satisfy their nic fits. :giggle:


Then it will be their body smoking, not the tobacco.


----------



## DET63 (Oct 22, 2010)

At least they won't have any trouble finding a lighter.


----------



## jis (Oct 22, 2010)

DET63 said:


> The main problem with running Superliners under catenary is, of course, what happens to passengers who find the secret penthouse stairway and head up on top to satisfy their nic fits. :giggle:


Fear not.... the secret penthouse shall lead straight to heaven


----------



## Nexis4Jersey (Oct 23, 2010)

Wouldn't the Catenary have to be higher , Superliners are like Double Stack Freight Trains.


----------



## Ryan (Oct 23, 2010)

Did you read any of the thread? Superliners fit under most of the catenary on the NEC - it's the bridges and tunnels that cause problems.


----------



## Nexis4Jersey (Oct 23, 2010)

Ryan said:


> Did you read any of the thread? Superliners fit under most of the catenary on the NEC - it's the bridges and tunnels that cause problems.


I skimmed the thread.....next time i'll read the whole thing....


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Oct 23, 2010)

So what areas are the catenaries too low? New York- New Haven area?


----------



## MattW (Oct 23, 2010)

This is going slightly off-topic, but it is related. Is there any place where SEPTA couldn't run multi level equipment? Granted, NJT technically runs MLVs into NYP and MARC into Baltimore Penn through the tunnels, but I'm wondering if there are any height restrictions on the SEPTA system.


----------



## George Harris (Oct 23, 2010)

Nexis4Jersey said:


> Wouldn't the Catenary have to be higher , Superliners are like Double Stack Freight Trains.


No where close.

Superliners are 16 feet 2 inches high.

"Plate H" - the limiting dimension for double stacks is 20 feet 2 inches high


----------



## Nexis4Jersey (Oct 24, 2010)

MattW said:


> This is going slightly off-topic, but it is related. Is there any place where SEPTA couldn't run multi level equipment? Granted, NJT technically runs MLVs into NYP and MARC into Baltimore Penn through the tunnels, but I'm wondering if there are any height restrictions on the SEPTA system.


I think its the Center City Tunnels that cause the problem. I heard some of the newer trains can't fit through there , thanks to Septa's stupidity....


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Oct 24, 2010)

MattW said:


> This is going slightly off-topic, but it is related. Is there any place where SEPTA couldn't run multi level equipment? Granted, NJT technically runs MLVs into NYP and MARC into Baltimore Penn through the tunnels, but I'm wondering if there are any height restrictions on the SEPTA system.


Yes because while the 30th Street Station (the SEPTA platform) isnt underground, I believe the Suburban Station is. Therefore they do have height limits.


----------

