# More Infrastructure Money Needed



## MrFSS (Jul 15, 2008)

U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry is taking aim at the Acela bullet train, saying the 8-year-old line meant to zip passengers between Boston and Washington is riddled with speed and safety issues that have thrown its swift mission off track.

Kerry plans to file in two weeks a $1 billion bill that will target out-of-date bridges, tunnels and tracks that prevent the train from hitting its 150-mile-per-hour maximum and getting commuters to their destinations faster.

Full story *HERE*


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 15, 2008)

A billion dollars? Whats that going to do? Study improving the tracks?


----------



## PRR 60 (Jul 15, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> A billion dollars? Whats that going to do? Study improving the tracks?


It would be more than enough to upgrade the old PRR catenary from NYC to Washington.


----------



## wayman (Jul 15, 2008)

PRR 60 said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > A billion dollars? Whats that going to do? Study improving the tracks?
> ...


Is the catenary actually a bottleneck, though? Is OTP often hurt by the age of the catenary? And how would upgrading it improve operating speeds? I thought track condition, curves, and frequent stations were more of the issue with keeping the Acela at a low average speed.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 15, 2008)

The catenary is a key factor restricting trains to 125 in some territory.


----------



## George Harris (Jul 15, 2008)

Where to begin on this:

When he says 8 year old, he has to be talking about the New haven to Boston section electrification. All else is much older. In other words, he is playing to his local constituiency. That being the case, he is not thinking about the 70 plus year old electrification south of New York where the line is much straighter but limited to 135 mph due to the condition of the overhead. In reality adding 10 to 20 mph to the top speed really saves you very little time, as so little of the system can make use of a higher maximum. There was a plan to straighten out a lot of the north end crookedness, but all affected screamed like it was the end of the world and congress was not willing to put up the money.

Hey, we have already dropped a huge bundle in the section in his backyard. It is time to be spending it elsewhere.

One billion would probably be enought to get the entire 79 mph Kansas City to Albuquerque section of the Southwest Chief route back up to its 1950's 100 mph limit. That would probably save more passenger minutes of train time than the same money could in the northeast.


----------



## wayman (Jul 15, 2008)

George Harris said:


> One billion would probably be enought to get the entire 79 mph Kansas City to Albuquerque section of the Southwest Chief route back up to its 1950's 100 mph limit. That would probably save more passenger minutes of train time than the same money could in the northeast.


If Amtrak somehow got Congressional money for this--the SWC improvement--would they have any sort of leverage with BNSF of the "hey, we're improving your track at no cost to you, so in return we want ... something" sort? And what sort of considerations or things could they ask for? Better on-time-performance doesn't seem likely, since there's no way to hold BNSF to such a promise, and after a few months it would be forgotten about. Permission to run some additional Amtrak trains there or in other parts of the BNSF system, maybe?


----------



## jackal (Jul 16, 2008)

I think it would be a better use of funds and bring more ridership to have twice-daily frequency (or more) on existing routes rather than making moderate speed improvements.

Of course, Mr. Kerry is not going to suggest putting $1 billion into the long-distance network. That wouldn't do anything for the good residents of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Maybe if he hoped to run for president again someday, but I think he's relegated to the Senate for the rest of his life.


----------



## Shotgun7 (Jul 16, 2008)

I commend the guy for fighting for a decent cause, but has he not read the moral of at least one railroad related article? When long distance trains like the LSL, Cardinal, City and Sunset Limited are functioning with shameful traits like tri-weekly service, no lounge car, not enough seats/rooms or a wannabe diner converted from a car designed to be a coach, timekeeping can't be the predominant issue here! Business is already going up, now they need to focus on accomodating that business! If he's willing to spend a billion dollars on trains, he should hold off on what already works just fine (no matter how ancient) and draw his attention towards the biggest problem, which is obviously getting more damn equipment!


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 16, 2008)

We don't want damned equipment. That would be pretty hellacious. How about some pure equipment?


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2008)

We need to spend money on Amtrak nationwide and long distance, not on the ACELA all the time!!!! Geez, the whole Pacific Surfliner trainset orders only cost around $125 million. Think what $1B could do for LA-Vegas trains, new Superliner equipment and more Amtrak commuter trains in other parts of the country.


----------



## BobWeaver (Jul 22, 2008)

Guest said:


> We need to spend money on Amtrak nationwide and long distance, not on the ACELA all the time!!!! Geez, the whole Pacific Surfliner trainset orders only cost around $125 million. Think what $1B could do for LA-Vegas trains, new Superliner equipment and more Amtrak commuter trains in other parts of the country.


Amtrak needs LD trains, not more corridor trains. LD trains are the real money makers, corridors are the money losers (although both still run in the red). However, perhaps increased short distance trains will increase publicity and interest for the rest of the Amtrak system.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 22, 2008)

Amtrak needs all sorts of increased routes and corridors. Long-distance routes can include corridors. You can even have long-distance corridors, such as the old Water-Level Route used to be. I'd imagine that even today the Water Level Route could handle a second daily train. And in any case, it runs several that run to Buffalo.

Denver to Chicago could run a corridor, especially if they managed to build a faster ROW.


----------



## VentureForth (Oct 15, 2008)

wayman said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > One billion would probably be enought to get the entire 79 mph Kansas City to Albuquerque section of the Southwest Chief route back up to its 1950's 100 mph limit. That would probably save more passenger minutes of train time than the same money could in the northeast.
> ...


Sorry to bring back this old thread, but I was just thinking about the $14 Bil over 5 year authorization and wanted to see what the best improvements with that money would be. I want to start by answering Wayman's question because it never got answered.

The State of New Mexico owns the line from Trinidad, CO to ABQ. That's roughly 30% of the route from KC to ABQ. In addition, BNSF has said they don't plan to run on that route any more. I don't suspect that there is a large amount of traffic between KC and Trinidad. SO, I think that the speed improvement that George was talking about, for 800 miles, with little freight traffic would be phenomenal. That could potentially save up to 3.5 hours off the schedule.

I really think that the only way to improve average speed on the NEC for the Acela is to straighten out the ROW as much as possible. I am not familiar enough with the alignment but keep hearing that no matter how much money you pump into it, the curves kill the speed.

Oh, I'm all for improving the overhead. It should always be in a state of good repair. There's no doubt about that.

See this catenary mess at DC.

But the NEC is _almost_ reaching the best condition its ever been in and so other routes should now be considered. The best money spent on the NEC, in my opinion, would be longer trainsets that make Acela speed (as discussed in this thread), better station platforms including gates to protect the public from highspeed passing trains, and investing in commercial retail space at stations.


----------



## PRR 60 (Oct 15, 2008)

VentureForth said:


> [See this catenary mess at DC.


There are lots of wires because there are lots of tracks and crossovers. The telephoto aspect of the image makes it look worse than it is. However, there is nothing wrong with that catenary arrangement at Washington.


----------



## AlanB (Oct 15, 2008)

That "mess" as you call it has nothing to do with Acela speeds, and more to do with the number of tracks and switches. Even if they strung all new cat there, it would still be a "mess". Can't avoid it.

The problem with the cat is that one needs to have positive tension in the high speed sections. Positive tension is virtually useless in situations like that picture of DC.

And I'd hardly say that the NEC is in the best shape ever. The power system from NY to DC is still over 100 years old now and needs major work, there are many bridges that still need replacing before they fall down, and there's probably some switches that could use updating. And that's all before we start talking about how to straighten the tracks out, something that's probably near impossible to do anyhow.


----------



## MattW (Oct 15, 2008)

I think one of the ways to improve Acela would be to improve the feeder trains into the NEC. Like the Crescent for instance, for people coming out of LAX, it and the Sunset Limited are the two trains they'd take up to the NEC mostlikely unless they just wanted to go through Chicago. If people could get to the NEC more easily, they might be more willing to change from the coach and sleeper Crescent to the business and coach Acela.

(yes, I am an Atlantan who wants a better Crescent!)


----------



## Crescent Mark (Oct 15, 2008)

Crescent upgrade would be excellent. I think the Crescent would get much better service if the State of GA actually cared about having a good station in Atlanta. If they would throw the money out to put a new station that has a MARTA line in it too, with room for the Atlanta -> Macon and other commuter lines that are coming someday, then they'd get much more publicity and riders, etc. Every time I go to that station, all I hear is a parade of complaints from riders about how small it is, how long it takes to get your luggage (took me 45 minutes in July), etc.

I think equipment upgrades for the whole system are a must, and then I'd focus on getting old routes back (Chicago -> Florida would be very good in my opinion. Nashville needs a train coming through too) and adding new ones. The NEC sounds like a mess....not really sure what to do about it.

LA -> Vegas. Add some good routes with all the new money after the equipment starts coming in.


----------



## PRR 60 (Oct 15, 2008)

Crescent Mark said:


> ...The NEC sounds like a mess....not really sure what to do about it.


Despite the public gloom and doom about the condition of the NEC, in my opinion that piece of railroad is in the best shape in its history (including pre-Amtrak). There is and always will be an on-going need for capital to support the NEC, but that is primarily to keep things up to par. The basic track structure, signalling, and yes even catenary is quite servicable. The NEC supports hundreds of trains a day with routine speeds of 125 to 135 mph, and 30 some miles of 150 mph operation. Those operations have among the better on-time records of any Amtrak service. If the NEC were failing, the operations would be failing as well. They are not.

So, the NEC is not really a mess. Like any complicated infrastructure, it needs regular doses of tender, loving care, but in general it is doing OK.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Oct 15, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> The catenary is a key factor restricting trains to 125 in some territory.


Wouldn't mind having a real high speed train between NYP and WAS... I like day trips but its almost impossible. Unless you take like a 6AM NEC out of NYP.


----------



## George Harris (Oct 15, 2008)

When the maximum speed is already the 135 mph (not 125 mph) that it is now, you do not really gain that much by raising it unless you can get rid of areas where the alignment does not permit speeds even up to that current speed limit.

Let us say that between New York and Washington in areas where the current 135 mph maximum speed could be raised it is raised so that you can now run 100 miles at say 160 mph. The total length with the increased speed limit must be well over 100 miles because at these speed a lot of length is consumed while accelerating and braking. OK, 100 miles at 160 mph instead of 135 mph saves you just under 7 minutes (calculates to 6 minutes and 56.7 seconds, but we are not really being that precise here.) If you could take the 10 more less fairly crooked miles through Baltimore where the average speed is probably more like 55 mph (it si somewhere between 50 and 60) and raise that to 135 mph, the time saving is almost as much, say 6.5 minutes (calc 6 minutes and 27.9 seconds). To get much faster, you will need to get rid of nearly all the slow areas, not just a few.

This little example is why replacing the catenary south of NY will not really make a lot of difference in end to end run time.

The Taiwan high speed is 210 miles end to end, really close to the 224 miles NY to DC. A one stop train can easily do it in 90 minutes and a five stop train in two hours flat, but over 95% of the distance is good for 186 mph. This length is continuous as all slower areas are near the ends. Doing something like this is the only way that a significantly faster run is possible.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Oct 15, 2008)

MattW said:


> I think one of the ways to improve Acela would be to improve the feeder trains into the NEC. Like the Crescent for instance, for people coming out of LAX, it and the Sunset Limited are the two trains they'd take up to the NEC mostlikely unless they just wanted to go through Chicago. If people could get to the NEC more easily, they might be more willing to change from the coach and sleeper Crescent to the business and coach Acela.(yes, I am an Atlantan who wants a better Crescent!)


If we really were serious about national energy independence, we'd have 300 km/h or faster track from Atlanta to each of DC, Florida, and St Louis. And we'd have a new railroad roughly parallel to the NEC so that people wouldn't be tempted by speed to prefer Jet-A powered transportation to electrified trains when traveling between Boston and DC.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Oct 15, 2008)

VentureForth said:


> I really think that the only way to improve average speed on the NEC for the Acela is to straighten out the ROW as much as possible. I am not familiar enough with the alignment but keep hearing that no matter how much money you pump into it, the curves kill the speed.
> [...]
> 
> But the NEC is _almost_ reaching the best condition its ever been in and so other routes should now be considered. The best money spent on the NEC, in my opinion, would be longer trainsets that make Acela speed (as discussed in this thread), better station platforms including gates to protect the public from highspeed passing trains, and investing in commercial retail space at stations.


The existing NEC is an embarassing intercity railroad when you compare its average speed to some of the trains in Europe and Japan. What it is very good for is a commuter railroad. Aside from fixing the Connecticut River bridge bottleneck and building a completely new double track railroad somewhere in less populated areas with curves that will never require a train to slow down from some reasonable speed somewhere around 200-300 MPH, I'm not really inclined to think putting more money into it is terribly worthwhile.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Oct 15, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > I really think that the only way to improve average speed on the NEC for the Acela is to straighten out the ROW as much as possible. I am not familiar enough with the alignment but keep hearing that no matter how much money you pump into it, the curves kill the speed.
> ...


I really wouldn't mind 150mph, if we ever got to 200 or 300 I would have a heart attack and start believing in miracles.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Oct 15, 2008)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> I really wouldn't mind 150mph, if we ever got to 200 or 300 I would have a heart attack and start believing in miracles.


There's relatively little cost difference in constructing 150 MPH track vs 200 MPH track vs 300 MPH track, and if you built it for 150 MPH, you almost have to start from scratch when you later decide you want to go faster. A curve built for 150 MPH is already awkwardly huge (probably roughly a 3 mile minimum radius), and if you're going through that hassle, it doesn't cost much more to just built it with a significantly larger radius to begin with. Whereas if you build it for 150 MPH the first time around, any curves will probably have to be rebuilt from scratch if you ever become interested in going faster.

Track centers are the other major issue. If you just leave a couple extra feet between the tracks the first time around, it costs very little. Moving one of the tracks over a few feet later is probably very expensive, especially if there are bridges that aren't wide enough for the tracks to be moved.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Oct 16, 2008)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > The catenary is a key factor restricting trains to 125 in some territory.
> ...


Better yet, take the 6PM pick up/drop off sleeper car and get to Washington at a reasonable hour.


----------



## ralfp (Oct 16, 2008)

I think there's a lot of opportunity for Amtrak to sell overnight trains, assuming it gets more equipment. Take NYP-Montreal. A full day train ride is crazy; you waste an entire day. A sleeper would be perfect. Same for NYP-PIT, BOS-WAS, NYP-WAS (running really slowly), etc.

Amtrak could even co-brand the sleepers with a hotel chain for marketing purposes. Have the hotel chain run the sleeper service (the unions would love that). Sell the luxury.



BobWeaver said:


> Amtrak needs LD trains, not more corridor trains. LD trains are the real money makers, corridors are the money losers (although both still run in the red). However, perhaps increased short distance trains will increase publicity and interest for the rest of the Amtrak system.


LD trains are money makers? Are you being sarcastic? I could see LD trains losing less money overall, if only because there are so few of them (passengers per day) compared to NEC trains. Per passenger the LD trains must be far worse than the NEC.

I think you have it backwards. The LD trains a political bribes (publicity) that make the short distance/NEC trains possible.



MattW said:


> I think one of the ways to improve Acela would be to improve the feeder trains into the NEC.


I imagine that the number of people on LD (or even shorter distance) feeder trains is too small to make a real difference in NEC passenger volume, even if you were to double the LD train capacity.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> There's relatively little cost difference in constructing 150 MPH track vs 200 MPH track vs 300 MPH track, and if you built it for 150 MPH, you almost have to start from scratch when you later decide you want to go faster.


Except the NEC is starting with 125-135mph track, so there's a HUGE difference between constructing 150mph track vs. 200mph track.


----------



## D.P. Roberts (Oct 16, 2008)

There's been a lot of talk about new equipment, especially with the new authorization bill. Assuming Amtrak actually gets enough money approved to build new equipment, what are they most likely to build (i.e. Superliners vs. Viewliners vs. Acela vs. Talgo, or something else altogether)? What sort of time frame would that take? Assuming they got money next year, one would think that it would take several years to set up some plans on what to build, a few more to design new cars, more to bid them, build prototypes, test them, redesign them, build them, and get them into service. So, is there any way, even in a best case scenario, that Amtrak could get new equipment within a decade or so? And without new equipment, how is Amtrak supposed to add new routes, or replace old ones? Is there any way Amtrak could add significant capacity any time soon?


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Oct 16, 2008)

ralfp said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > There's relatively little cost difference in constructing 150 MPH track vs 200 MPH track vs 300 MPH track, and if you built it for 150 MPH, you almost have to start from scratch when you later decide you want to go faster.
> ...


Not really. IIRC, when someone else did the math of taking the number of miles from BOS to WAS listed in the timetable, taking the time the Acela departs BOS, and the time it arrives WAS to figure out how many hours the trip takes, and calculating the miles per hour that way, they concluded the Acela averages 69 MPH. I think the TGV's average is somewhere above 170 MPH on at least one route.

BOS to WAS should be around 3 hours with TGV-25-years-ago quality track. With the embarrassment we call the Acela, it takes about 6.5 hours.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Oct 16, 2008)

D.P. Roberts said:


> There's been a lot of talk about new equipment, especially with the new authorization bill. Assuming Amtrak actually gets enough money approved to build new equipment, what are they most likely to build (i.e. Superliners vs. Viewliners vs. Acela vs. Talgo, or something else altogether)? What sort of time frame would that take? Assuming they got money next year, one would think that it would take several years to set up some plans on what to build, a few more to design new cars, more to bid them, build prototypes, test them, redesign them, build them, and get them into service. So, is there any way, even in a best case scenario, that Amtrak could get new equipment within a decade or so? And without new equipment, how is Amtrak supposed to add new routes, or replace old ones? Is there any way Amtrak could add significant capacity any time soon?


More Acela equipment, more Talgo trainsets, or more cars like the Superliner IIs might be the fastest things to get if Amtrak decided to order more without doing a redesign, given that all of the manufacturers are still in business. The company that built the Viewliners is defunct (as is the company that built the Amfleet cars).


----------



## ralfp (Oct 16, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Not really. IIRC, when someone else did the math of taking the number of miles from BOS to WAS listed in the timetable, taking the time the Acela departs BOS, and the time it arrives WAS to figure out how many hours the trip takes, and calculating the miles per hour that way, they concluded the Acela averages 69 MPH.


AFAIK a good fraction of the NEC miles (but not hours travel time) are 125mph+. The slow average speed is probably due to Metro-North (<100mph), the Baltimore tunnels, and a few other bottlenecks. It would be insane to spend gobs of cash going beyond 150mph if you still have a few slow sections. For example, you could increase average speed by a few MPH just by cutting the stop at NYP to a few minutes. Talking about 200mph or 300mph track is a silly fantasy.


----------



## AlanB (Oct 16, 2008)

D.P. Roberts said:


> There's been a lot of talk about new equipment, especially with the new authorization bill. Assuming Amtrak actually gets enough money approved to build new equipment, what are they most likely to build (i.e. Superliners vs. Viewliners vs. Acela vs. Talgo, or something else altogether)? What sort of time frame would that take? Assuming they got money next year, one would think that it would take several years to set up some plans on what to build, a few more to design new cars, more to bid them, build prototypes, test them, redesign them, build them, and get them into service. So, is there any way, even in a best case scenario, that Amtrak could get new equipment within a decade or so? And without new equipment, how is Amtrak supposed to add new routes, or replace old ones? Is there any way Amtrak could add significant capacity any time soon?


Assuming that Amtrak doesn't try to reinvent the wheel, kind of like they did with Acela, and simply uses already existing designs like the Superliners, I would expect that they could start seeing new rolling stock within three years. If the order is large enough, it might take a few years to deliver all of the cars.

If they reinvent the wheel, then it will be a whole lot longer.


----------



## frj1983 (Oct 16, 2008)

Shotgun7 said:


> I commend the guy for fighting for a decent cause, but has he not read the moral of at least one railroad related article? When long distance trains like the LSL, Cardinal, City and Sunset Limited are functioning with shameful traits like tri-weekly service, no lounge car, not enough seats/rooms or a wannabe diner converted from a car designed to be a coach, timekeeping can't be the predominant issue here! Business is already going up, now they need to focus on accomodating that business! If he's willing to spend a billion dollars on trains, he should hold off on what already works just fine (no matter how ancient) and draw his attention towards the biggest problem, which is obviously getting more damn equipment!


I couldn't agree with you more Shotgun7,

Equipment is Amtrak's biggest problem right now and the acquaintance I know who works in the Amtrak shops says that they're barely holding things together ( not enough personnel, not enough parts). I fear within 1-2 years we will see train off notices...not because Amtrak doesn't have enough riders, but because they don't have enough viable, safe equipment! And despite the recent Rail Safety Act and Amtrak reauthorization, I'll believe its good news when I see the monies appropriated every year!


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Oct 16, 2008)

ralfp said:


> AFAIK a good fraction of the NEC miles (but not hours travel time) are 125mph+. The slow average speed is probably due to Metro-North (<100mph), the Baltimore tunnels, and a few other bottlenecks. It would be insane to spend gobs of cash going beyond 150mph if you still have a few slow sections. For example, you could increase average speed by a few MPH just by cutting the stop at NYP to a few minutes. Talking about 200mph or 300mph track is a silly fantasy.


To use the times for train 2153 as an example: it's scheduled to depart Providence at 6:50 AM, and New Haven at 8:18 AM. That's 88 minutes. Milepost 156 - 43 is 113 miles. 88 minutes is about 1.47 hours. 113 miles divided by 1.47 hours is about a 77 MPH average. That's a lot less than 125 MPH, and it's not Metro-North, and it's not Baltimore tunnels.

That train departs Newark at 10:14 AM, and departs Philadelphia at 11:09 AM, covering the territory from milepost 241 to 322. That's 81 miles, .92 hours, 88 MPH average. Again, well less than 125 MPH, and no Metro-North or Baltimore tunnels.

Is there even one example of a place in the Acela timetable where you can take the published time at one station, the published time at the next station, and the miles of track between those two stations and calculate an average of at least 100 MPH, or even 90 MPH?


----------



## PRR 60 (Oct 16, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> ...Is there even one example of a place in the Acela timetable where you can take the published time at one station, the published time at the next station, and the miles of track between those two stations and calculate an average of at least 100 MPH, or even 90 MPH?


Acela weekday northbound Baltimore (MP 228) to Wilmington (297), miles 69

2100, 2154, 2154, 2104, 2158, etc; 41 minute schedule time = 101 mph average.

The time at WIL is departure time. Assume a 2 minute dwell, and the average speed departure BAL to arrival WIL is 106 mph.

The southbound trips are scheduled for 43 minutes. That is 96 mph. Excluding dwell its 101 mph.


----------



## George Harris (Oct 16, 2008)

ralfp said:


> LD trains are money makers? Are you being sarcastic? I could see LD trains losing less money overall, if only because there are so few of them (passengers per day) compared to NEC trains. Per passenger the LD trains must be far worse than the NEC.
> I think you have it backwards. The LD trains a political bribes (publicity) that make the short distance/NEC trains possible.
> 
> Except the NEC is starting with 125-135mph track, so there's a HUGE difference between constructing 150mph track vs. 200mph track.


For your first point: There is quite a bit of information out there to the contrary. Frankly, the northeast corridor is a sinkhole for money. As to the other corridors: They are mostly state supported and that is no accident. For the most part a fare recovey is around 50% to 60% of operating cost. Only the Los Angeles to San Diego trains have ever more than covered their costs or even come close, and with the current distribution of overhead, they are supposedly not doing that now. (I have my doubts about that.)

There may be a fairly large difference in getting an *alignment* that is good for 200 mph instead of 150 mph, but there is very little difference, in fact almost no difference between the cost of the *track* once you get to any speed much above 60 mph. Yes, the maintenance cost is higher because the tolerated defects are smaller, but maintenance cost is not really hugely higher.

The curve radius needs to be around 23,000 feet (4.35 miles) or larger for 200 mph. or 13,000 feet (2.46 miles) for 150 mph. For comparison, a one degree curve (5730 feet or 1.085 mile radius is fine for 79 mph to 90 mph.


----------



## wrjensen (Oct 20, 2008)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > The catenary is a key factor restricting trains to 125 in some territory.
> ...


One of the biggest fix is to improve the tunnels into BAL. There was a report on the MARC website to replace the tunnels costing only $500M it would not get the speeds up to 150 MPH in and out of BAL but would be a good improvement over the current 30 MPH.


----------



## George Harris (Oct 21, 2008)

wrjensen said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


"Fixing" the tunnels will do almost nothing for you. It is the series of curves that is the problem. Not much more speed can be squeezed out of the current alignment. What is needed is a new alignment across the city, approximately on the one that US 40 takes across town (Mulburry Street, East Street, Orleans Street, Pulaski Highway.)


----------



## x-press (Oct 21, 2008)

George Harris said:


> The curve radius needs to be around 23,000 feet (4.35 miles) or larger for 200 mph. or 13,000 feet (2.46 miles) for 150 mph. For comparison, a one degree curve (5730 feet or 1.085 mile radius is fine for 79 mph to 90 mph.


What underbalance are you using, George? Using a fairly routine 5" superelevation (I believe they can go higher than that, but I'd have to check my criteria), for 200mph I'm getting an underbalance of less than two inches. Even a heritage baggage car is good for at least three.

They would have to be big ol' curves, though, no doubt about that.


----------



## bmorechris (Oct 21, 2008)

Here is a link to an FRA study done on passenger and freight routes through Baltimore that discusses replacement of the B&P tunnels.

Part 1 - Challenges

Part 2 - Alternatives

It discusses the current preferred solution to the B&P tunnel as replacing it with a "great circle tunnel" that will allow higher speeds west of Penn Station. It also discusses the alignment Mr. Harris describes, basically a straight shot through the city, but deems it cost prohibitive.

Page 52 of part 1 has a graphic of the optimal speed achieved by the Acela between BWI and Perryville and shows the lower speeds both east and west of Penn Station.


----------



## wayman (Oct 21, 2008)

AlanB said:


> Assuming that Amtrak doesn't try to reinvent the wheel, kind of like they did with Acela, and simply uses already existing designs like the Superliners, I would expect that they could start seeing new rolling stock within three years. If the order is large enough, it might take a few years to deliver all of the cars.
> If they reinvent the wheel, then it will be a whole lot longer.


New Superliners are relatively easy because the design is already done and well-proven and the manufacturer is still in business ... but a key element not mentioned is that "the intellectual property of the design is still clearly owned". Amfleets are fabulous designs, and for that matter so are Heritage Diners, but Budd is long out-of-business. In theory, those designs could be given to another manufacturer and little modification would be needed to start cranking out new cars on those designs, right? But what about the added intellectual property wrinkle? With Budd out of business, who inherited/bought their intellectual property?

Moreover, with long-distance passenger rail being a government-run/sponsored entity, would it be in Amtrak/Congress/public interest for the government to claim ownership of those designs and simplify the red tape for Amtrak to produce new quality single-level cars quickly?


----------



## frj1983 (Oct 22, 2008)

wayman said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Assuming that Amtrak doesn't try to reinvent the wheel, kind of like they did with Acela, and simply uses already existing designs like the Superliners, I would expect that they could start seeing new rolling stock within three years. If the order is large enough, it might take a few years to deliver all of the cars.
> ...


According to a few Internet sites, Budd became part of ThyssenKrupp Budd and sold it's rail patents to Bombardier. So if this is to be believed, not only does Bombardier have the Superliner patents but also the Amfleet patents as well.


----------



## wrjensen (Oct 22, 2008)

Would it be logic for Amtrak (I know Amtrak is not know for logic) to try and replace the HERITAGE cars first. Maybe the could order 25 Dinners versions of the Viewliner. This could do two thing in once get rid of the older cars which I would guess are require the most maintenance and take advantage of improvements in food service prep in the last 30 years (I do know if there is really any). They could include this with a order for new Viewliner sleeper.


----------



## ralfp (Oct 22, 2008)

wrjensen said:


> Would it be logic for Amtrak (I know Amtrak is not know for logic) to try and replace the HERITAGE cars first. Maybe the could order 25 Dinners versions of the Viewliner.


For something as low volume as a dining car Amtrak should be able to buy from a European manufacturer (no silly buy American requirement).


----------



## George Harris (Oct 22, 2008)

ralfp said:


> wrjensen said:
> 
> 
> > Would it be logic for Amtrak (I know Amtrak is not know for logic) to try and replace the HERITAGE cars first. Maybe the could order 25 Dinners versions of the Viewliner.
> ...


Not going to happen. These cars don't come anywhere close to US crashworthiness standards.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Oct 22, 2008)

wrjensen said:


> Would it be logic for Amtrak (I know Amtrak is not know for logic) to try and replace the HERITAGE cars first. Maybe the could order 25 Dinners versions of the Viewliner. This could do two thing in once get rid of the older cars which I would guess are require the most maintenance and take advantage of improvements in food service prep in the last 30 years (I do know if there is really any). They could include this with a order for new Viewliner sleeper.


The problem with the Viewliners are twofold. First of all, the basic car design is crap. I mean its awful. Secondly, the Viewliners were built by MorrisonKnudson, which took the design after Budd stopped building railcars. MK is outta business.

More could be built, but... why? They'd be better off building all new single level sleepers off an Amfleet-type design, or heritage type design, and consigning the Viewliners to the scrapheap- where they belong.


----------



## Chris J. (Oct 22, 2008)

George Harris said:


> ralfp said:
> 
> 
> > wrjensen said:
> ...


Was anyhing special done to the talgo sets to make them meet US standards?


----------



## George Harris (Oct 22, 2008)

Chris J. said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > ralfp said:
> ...


My understanding is that they got a wavier from the FRA on a few / several / a lot of the requirements. Supposedly some visits by the Spanish ambassador to various heads of agencies was part of the process. Effectively these things are a string of soda cans between two bricks.


----------



## George Harris (Oct 22, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> The problem with the Viewliners are twofold. First of all, the basic car design is crap. I mean its awful. Secondly, the Viewliners were built by MorrisonKnudson, which took the design after Budd stopped building railcars. MK is outta business.


Since I have never been in one, I have to ask: What is it, or what is the list of items that make the Viewliner design unredeemable?


----------



## George Harris (Oct 22, 2008)

bmorechris said:


> Here is a link to an FRA study done on passenger and freight routes through Baltimore that discusses replacement of the B&P tunnels.
> Part 1 - Challenges
> 
> Part 2 - Alternatives
> ...


Thanks much. I will plow through this thing. Usually these things are written by one of several consultant, and I see no name for any on this. Most surprising if DOT actually did one themselves.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Oct 22, 2008)

George Harris said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with the Viewliners are twofold. First of all, the basic car design is crap. I mean its awful. Secondly, the Viewliners were built by MorrisonKnudson, which took the design after Budd stopped building railcars. MK is outta business.
> ...


I guess the basic shell is ok enough, if you assembled it properly (Which M-K didn't.). And, of course, the fairly standard trucks aren't much of a problem. Everything else is over-complicated, messy, proprietarily designed, difficult to maintain, with a good deal of plain old thoughtlessness.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Oct 22, 2008)

ralfp said:


> For something as low volume as a dining car Amtrak should be able to buy from a European manufacturer (no silly buy American requirement).


I think our goal should be to minimize the total number of dollars we ship out of the country, and if we have to choose between un-Americian rail cars and un-American petroleum, we're probably better off with the former.

But there's still the crashworthiness issue.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Oct 22, 2008)

frj1983 said:


> According to a few Internet sites, Budd became part of ThyssenKrupp Budd and sold it's rail patents to Bombardier. So if this is to be believed, not only does Bombardier have the Superliner patents but also the Amfleet patents as well.


Patents last a bit less than 20 years. I believe that means that any patents on the Amfleet and Superliner I equipment, at least, have expired.


----------



## Galls (Oct 22, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> frj1983 said:
> 
> 
> > According to a few Internet sites, Budd became part of ThyssenKrupp Budd and sold it's rail patents to Bombardier. So if this is to be believed, not only does Bombardier have the Superliner patents but also the Amfleet patents as well.
> ...


Patents and Copyright on design are two very very different things. One can last forever.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Oct 22, 2008)

Galls said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > frj1983 said:
> ...


Yes, they are different. But frj1983 brought up patents, not copyright.

I don't remember if copyright can apply to the plans for a train car. I suspect it doesn't.

Whether copyright should be allowed to last forever is an interesting question. IIRC, the Constitution says copyright is supposed to last for a limited amount of time for the purpose of encouraging the creation of works. There is an argument that extending copyright after a work has been created does nothing to encourage that work to be created, and thus such extensions may not be constitutional, but IIRC there was some court case that didn't buy this particular argument.


----------



## Galls (Oct 22, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Galls said:
> 
> 
> > Joel N. Weber II said:
> ...


It is either trademark or copyright, but one lasts for the entire life of its creator +70 years and designs are copyrighted.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Oct 23, 2008)

Galls said:


> It is either trademark or copyright, but one lasts for the entire life of its creator +70 years and designs are copyrighted.


Trademarks are pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. The most a trademark might let Bombardier do is prevent some other company from calling the car an Amfleet or a Superliner. But a trademark by itself would not prevent another company from building an identical car and calling it something else.

I'm pretty sure there are a bunch of examples of places where copyright is not an issue in manufacturing individual parts for an automobile or airplane. Beyond that, I don't know much about whether designs really are subject to copyright.


----------



## ralfp (Oct 23, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> I think our goal should be to minimize the total number of dollars we ship out of the country, and if we have to choose between un-Americian rail cars and un-American petroleum, we're probably better off with the former.


Given how our rail car isolationism has given us a proven track record of building world-class passenger rail cars at a profit... sorry... it's one thing if you're talking about a large order to amortize the NRE costs, but wasting gobs of cash just to meet a made-here requirement for a few dozen cars is silly.

A effective made-in-America requirement needs to be part of a larger plan to create/strengthen a viable industry in this country. Forcing Amtrak (or another RR) to spend $10s of millions more for a few rail cars (made up number, correct me if it's wrong) is insane.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> But there's still the crashworthiness issue.


Is this real? (I honestly don't know, but I'm skeptical). How much better do FRA cars actually perform in real-world situations? If it's better, how much does each life saved cost? At some point (7 to low 8 figures) the you start throwing away money.


----------



## George Harris (Oct 23, 2008)

ralfp said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > But there's still the crashworthiness issue.
> ...


It is very real. Look at the pictures of the Metrolink wreck and you see one very crumpled up car, to approximately 1/3 of its volume. Same is true for most crashes of American equipment. You see dented and crumpled cars. Look at the pictures of the ICE cars at the Eschede, Germany wreck, and you will see that a number of the cars turned into piles of componenets because they literally unzipped along their seams. The costs and difficulties are not near what the Euro car manufacturers would have you believe from thier propoganda.


----------



## ralfp (Oct 23, 2008)

George Harris said:


> It is very real. Look at the pictures of the Metrolink wreck and you see one very crumpled up car, to approximately 1/3 of its volume. Same is true for most crashes of American equipment. You see dented and crumpled cars. Look at the pictures of the ICE cars at the Eschede, Germany wreck, and you will see that a number of the cars turned into piles of componenets because they literally unzipped along their seams. The costs and difficulties are not near what the Euro car manufacturers would have you believe from thier propoganda.


What propaganda? (serious question). If they're claiming their designs are safe enough, are they wrong?

I'm not claiming that cars designed to FRA standards are not safer (or are safer), just questioning the safety ROI.

The FRA Acela Express, for example, weighs 1.9 tons/passenger (reference), versus 1.1 tons/passenger (ICE1), 1ton/passenger (TGV Réseau), and 0.7 - 1.1 ton/passenger (ICE3 and variants) (from Wikipedia and TGVweb). That's pretty bad, especially for use on tracks that require a lot of acceleration and deceleration.

I'm pretty ignorant about train design, but I don't understand how one can compare the Metrolink and Eschede incidents. In the Eschede incident the damage was from a falling bridge and the momentum of the train crushing itself (reference). Would the Metrolink train (or AE) have done any better with a bridge falling on it, or being crushed by itself at over 100mph (more mass -> more momentum and energy)? The AE's greater mass (for a given # of pax) might do a better job of knocking the bridge down, but also of crushing itself, thereby defeating the purpose of the added weight. Increase the weight and the forces increase. I don't see how a train designed to FRA standards would have done any better. The issue was the defective wheel design.

High weight also increases infrastructure costs (reference and another reference). It increases wear on tracks and increases construction costs (lower maximum grade). I will accept that FRA standards might save lives in some accidents. What I find difficult to accept that the overall cost, including the expense of custom-built trains, higher infrastructure cost, lower average speed, is worth it (though I don't know the true cost, or the estimated # of lives saved).

Instead of building tanks on tracks, why not spend the money on better signaling systems?


----------



## access bob (Oct 23, 2008)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > The catenary is a key factor restricting trains to 125 in some territory.
> ...



I worked on the NECIP and the number one item to increase total overall speed in the NEC would be to repair/replace B&P tunnel. fixing that one spot could knock up to 15-20 minutes or so off the total WAS-NYC run, next slow point is Susquehanna bridge slow speed zone.

Bob

(PS - B&P tunnel is the old Baltimore and Potomac RR tunnel under West Baltimore. it is tightly constrained and has only two tracks and very tight clearances, speeds are usually restricted to the 20-30mph range. also if a freight has a high wide car they must use the gauntlet track in the center and it effectively blocks the entire tunnel, The tunnel is actually a series of tunnels and totals aboout 3 miles from CP Fulton to Penn Station, Baltimore, this is the #1 bottleneck on the NEC, estimated repair costs are in the 3 billion dollar range)


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Oct 23, 2008)

access bob said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...



Yeah that makes more sense- overall the quality of the NEC rails seemed good- it was the tunnels in and out of NYC that seemed to blow everything to hell.

I've never gone north of NYP- but from what I've seen, the trains are always on time or thereabout, and I'm sitting (standing) in Penn watching the master table flicker as its about 10 minutes until arrival from Boston... then five... then BAM 20 minute delay.


----------



## George Harris (Oct 23, 2008)

ralfp said:


> I'm pretty ignorant about train design, but I don't understand how one can compare the Metrolink and Eschede incidents. In the Eschede incident the damage was from a falling bridge and the momentum of the train crushing itself


You missed my point. My point was that several of the cars involved in Eschede CAME APART ON IMPACT. If you look at pictures of the accident you will see separate sides, tops and floors/undercarriages. A car that will do this under any circumstances does not meet US safety requirements for crashworthiness. The result of these instant disassemblies was a considerable increase in loss of life. As to the vehicle weight issue, I would not hold up the Acela as best practice for compliance with FRA requirements or anything close. In fact, the whole power cars plus unpowered coaches set up is the wrong answer for high speeds, as adhesion decreases with speed and the need for applied power increase with speed, so that you need heavier and heavier power cars as speed increases to keep the adhesion / power need curves from crossing, and additional weight is the WRONG ANSWER. An EMU set with the same passenger capacity could achieve the crashworthiness strength and be much lighter even if nothing else changed.


----------



## zoltan (Oct 23, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Amtrak needs all sorts of increased routes and corridors. Long-distance routes can include corridors. You can even have long-distance corridors, such as the old Water-Level Route used to be. I'd imagine that even today the Water Level Route could handle a second daily train. And in any case, it runs several that run to Buffalo.
> Denver to Chicago could run a corridor, especially if they managed to build a faster ROW.


One thing I'd like to see is a proper corridor service developed around the very populous regions currently served completely inadequately by the Piedmont, Carolinan and Crescent. With four extra trains every day, one could run a local service every two hours, serving a few more places, between Raleigh and Greensboro, and a daytime service linking New York and Atlanta, leaving New York about 7am and arriving in Atlanta around midnight.


----------



## George Harris (Oct 23, 2008)

x-press said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > The curve radius needs to be around 23,000 feet (4.35 miles) or larger for 200 mph. or 13,000 feet (2.46 miles) for 150 mph. For comparison, a one degree curve (5730 feet or 1.085 mile radius is fine for 79 mph to 90 mph.
> ...


Yes, at 23,000 feet radius, 200 mph, the combined SE plus unbalance would be 6.96 inches. However, . . .

For the sake of rail wear, comfort and particularly comfort over a wider range of speed, you really want to keep the superelevation to 4 inches or less and the unbalance to 3 inches or less. Where the space is available, you should be playing with 3 inches and 2 inches if you can, but that is in the luxury realm a lot of the times.

When thinking of curves in degrees turned per 100 feet of length, speed in mph and super in inches,

the SE, combined actual and unbalance = 0.0007 V^2 / Degree of curve

When doing it in radius measured in feet, speed mph and super in inches, the forumla is:

SE, again combined = 4.0 V^2 / R

For those playing in the metric world, meters, km/h and SE in mm,

SE, again combined = 11.8 V^2 / R

To get radius, you churn this around to, in feet, mph, inches, so you get:

Radius = 4.0 V^2 / SE

or

Radius (meters) = 11.8 V^2 / SE (millimeters)

plugging 200 mph and 7 inches into this gets 22,857 feet, so round this to 23,000 feet

at 150 mph, and 7 inches, get 12,857 feet, call it 13,000 feet.

You can really go safely as far as 6 inches of superelevation and 4 inches of unbalance, but rail life on curves like this goes through the floor, and if the train ever has to stop, the passengers slide off onto the floor, so the best thing is to work with 4 and 3 or less and keep the higher numbers in your back pocket in case of emergency. Some systems allow the superelevation to go up to 180 mm = really close to 7 inches.

At these high values, you can run 200 mph around a 16,000 feet radius curve, but it is far better not to. In fact, the current European standards say at these high speeds unbalance shall be no less than 80 mm, which is just over 3 inches.


----------



## ralfp (Oct 23, 2008)

George Harris said:


> You missed my point. My point was that several of the cars involved in Eschede CAME APART ON IMPACT. If you look at pictures of the accident you will see separate sides, tops and floors/undercarriages. A car that will do this under any circumstances does not meet US safety requirements for crashworthiness.


My point was really more of the general idea that FRA standards are probably excessive. Perhaps the ICE1 car design is flawed, but would a FRA compliant car do that much better at 125mph (w/o any engine to pad it)? Probably so, but how much? Have there been any crash tests to provide data for the FRA standards, and does the FRA provide cost justification behind them? (not a rhetorical question)

It seems clear to me that having safety standards that are so different from the rest of the world results in significant cost increases. Increasing costs so much may very well decrease safety, by making rail travel more expensive, driving more people to cars. This would either be because of high fares or reduced availability (subsidies don't go as far).

When the car in question is a low capacity and low purchase volume car like a diner/lounge/mess hall (for which I originally suggested a foreign purchase), the cost per life saved gets even higher.


----------



## jis (Oct 24, 2008)

frj1983 said:


> According to a few Internet sites, Budd became part of ThyssenKrupp Budd and sold it's rail patents to Bombardier. So if this is to be believed, not only does Bombardier have the Superliner patents but also the Amfleet patents as well.


Besides, since it has been way more than 17 or 20 years since those Patents were granted. they have all expired anyway 

I think it is the associated trade secrets, which don;t expire, that are the issue, and yes Bombardier owns them.


----------



## jis (Oct 24, 2008)

George Harris said:


> ralfp said:
> 
> 
> > I'm pretty ignorant about train design, but I don't understand how one can compare the Metrolink and Eschede incidents. In the Eschede incident the damage was from a falling bridge and the momentum of the train crushing itself
> ...


So then the result or the Metrolink crash applying your criteria would suggest that the Hawker-Siddley designed bilevels used by Metrolink and a host of other commuter operations in the US also do not meet the crashworthiness requirements of US then? Afterall the first car did open up like a tin can, didn't it? Inquiring minds want to know. Per your criteria then a car is supposed to maintain structural integrity even if a whole bridge collapses onto it? Could you please point to somewhere in the FRA regulations which says anything like that? Thanks.


----------



## George Harris (Oct 24, 2008)

jis said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > ralfp said:
> ...


I am going to try this one more time, and this is the last as far as I am concerned:

The Metrolink car was crumpled and crushed. It did not come apart into various component pieces.

Some of the ICE coaches were crushed, but others simply came apart. You can see separate sides, tops and undercarriage parts for several cars in the picture of the aftermath of that accident. You do not see any of this in the Metrolink accident or any other accident involving American passenger equipment built since before the 1920's. That is the difference.

There were other issues at Eschede:

1. Use of two-part wheels - the wheel tread portion came apart and part came up throught the coach floor. The train ran for several miles this way. This type of wheel had never been used in other than low speed light rail cars anywhere else.

2. The overpass had no crash wall combining/protecting the columsn at the bottom and no pier cap combining the columns at the top, so that the entire support system was very weak against lateral impact.


----------



## D.P. Roberts (Oct 24, 2008)

So let's take it as a given that older, heavier cars are safer. But are these differences _necessary_? I recently read that Amtrak passengers die at a rate of .88 deaths per billion passenger miles. Airline passenger deaths are about the same (.87 deaths per billion passenger mile). The automobile passenger death rate is 11.7 deaths per billion passenger mile, or about 15 times worse than traveling by air or train.

So let's say Amtrak decides to build newer, lighter, cheaper cars. These cars allow Amtrak to grow its network more quickly, spend less on fuel, reduce passenger costs, etc., but they're only half as safe as the older-style cars. This would mean that traveling by train would be only 7 or 8 times more safe than traveling by car. Would that be worth it? Personally, I think so.


----------



## PRR 60 (Oct 24, 2008)

The ICE accident at Eschede is not a very good example for proving or disproving the value of the FRA crash worthiness standards. Having a bridge superstructure collapse on a train operating in excess of 100mph is, fortunately, an exceeding rare occurrence. The nature, location, and force of that impact would have destroyed any rail car, including FRA-compliant cars.

The reason there has not been vehicle destruction of the nature seen at Eschede in the US is because we have never had something like that happen here, thank goodness. Certainly the Metrolink accident, as horrible as it was, does not approximate the wreck at Eschede. Metrolink is the kind of impact that FRA anticipates in setting its crash wothiness standards. Eschede is not.


----------



## access bob (Oct 24, 2008)

D.P. Roberts said:


> So let's take it as a given that older, heavier cars are safer. But are these differences _necessary_? I recently read that Amtrak passengers die at a rate of .88 deaths per billion passenger miles. Airline passenger deaths are about the same (.87 deaths per billion passenger mile). The automobile passenger death rate is 11.7 deaths per billion passenger mile, or about 15 times worse than traveling by air or train.
> So let's say Amtrak decides to build newer, lighter, cheaper cars. These cars allow Amtrak to grow its network more quickly, spend less on fuel, reduce passenger costs, etc., but they're only half as safe as the older-style cars. This would mean that traveling by train would be only 7 or 8 times more safe than traveling by car. Would that be worth it? Personally, I think so.


I think the value to each individual personally is if you or a loved one is in that .87 per biilliion that didn't need to die????

American Passenger cars are designed to absorb crashes by essentially zig zagging but not being destroyed, in almost every crash especially with passenger cars that have tightlock couplers you might see the engine and first car severly damaged but rarely do you see such damage on the following cars (unless they topple over, fall off a bridge etc) mostly they will be zig zagged up the right of way, and in fact in the Metrolink accident the freight train did just that.

personally (as an engineer, not train driving type) I have always had some concern about cars without center sills such as the metrolink car and others. But the FRA rules while very onerous do produce some of the safest railroading in the world.

I do not think that the rules are unduly burdensome, I also believe that very little changes need to be made at this time.

IMO

Bob


----------



## ralfp (Oct 24, 2008)

access bob said:


> I think the value to each individual personally is if you or a loved one is in that .87 per biilliion that didn't need to die????


Sentiments like that, while perhaps heartfelt, only serve to lessen overall safety. A life may be priceless, but lives have a monetary value, and statistical safety must be evaluated in a cold-hearted manner.

The nation (government, industry, and individuals) has finite resources to spend on safety; the money must be spent where it's most effective. Doing otherwise results in suboptimal spending on safety, effectively killing people. Designers and regulators must put a finite value on human life (I think low single digit millions is the current going rate). If I gave you the opportunity as a regulator to save 10 lives at $1billion of other peoples' money, each (through changes in safety standards), would you do it? I hope not. I would hope that the $10billion would be spent on things that would save more than 10 lives.


----------



## Shawn (Oct 24, 2008)

How about we all just agree that comparing the German accident to the Metrolink crash wasn't a good comparison and move on??

You are looking at different speeds, different circumstances and completely different impacts...

Deal?


----------



## George Harris (Oct 24, 2008)

Shawn said:


> How about we all just agree that comparing the German accident to the Metrolink crash wasn't a good comparison and move on??
> You are looking at different speeds, different circumstances and completely different impacts...
> 
> Deal?


More than happy to. Everybody is getting tied up on the difference in speed / the presence of the bridge, etc. The whole point is that on impact the current eurocars *will come apart.* Even at Chase, MD, which was comparable in speed the cars did not come apart. There was probably almost no difference in mass of the object hit between three stopped diesels at Chase and a two lane overpass at Eschede.


----------



## D.P. Roberts (Oct 24, 2008)

ralfp said:


> access bob said:
> 
> 
> > I think the value to each individual personally is if you or a loved one is in that .87 per biilliion that didn't need to die????
> ...


QFT. Any change to the safety standard that costs more than about $5 to $6 million per life saved (which is the last figure I've heard) is not worth doing, while every cost cutting measure that saves more than $6 million for every additional person who dies is actually a good idea. Yes, it is true that the net loss in savings means nothing to the family of the person who died. But as ralfp stated, statistics are cold facts. Emotions are irrational, and often conflicting, even when they appear not to be.

The irrationality of value vs. human life can be easily illustrated, especially for those of you who have children. How much would you pay to save the life of your child? Would you pay $100,000? Any loving parent would say yes to that in a heartbeat. Would you pay a million dollars? Yes, if you had it. So if someone sticks a gun to your head and says "give me either a million dollars or your child", everyone would give up the million dollars. This proves that the value of a child is worth more than a million dollars.

But if you turn that situation around - if someone says to you "I'll give you either a million dollars or a child" - almost everybody would take the money, thus proving that the life of a child is worth less than a million dollars. You can see the truth in this every day - even though children are "priceless" and worth more than any amount of money, every couple eventually decides to stop having them.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Oct 24, 2008)

I'd say that the Bombardier Bi-levels are probably the least safe of currently running US passenger equipment, the Talgos possibly excepted- although they atleast have full size standard engine bodies at both ends. They are also, to my limited knowledge, the only one besides CRC's junk that isn't built out of stainless steel.


----------



## ralfp (Oct 24, 2008)

D.P. Roberts said:


> But if you turn that situation around - if someone says to you "I'll give you either a million dollars or a child" - almost everybody would take the money, thus proving that the life of a child is worth less than a million dollars. You can see the truth in this every day - even though children are "priceless" and worth more than any amount of money, every couple eventually decides to stop having them.


I think the following analogies are better: "I'll give you either a million dollars or save a random child's life." or "Give me a million dollars or I'll kill a random child."



Green Maned Lion said:


> I'd say that the Bombardier Bi-levels are probably the least safe of currently running US passenger equipment, the Talgos possibly excepted- although they atleast have full size standard engine bodies at both ends. They are also, to my limited knowledge, the only one besides CRC's junk that isn't built out of stainless steel.


What evidence do you have for the Bi-levels being the 2nd least safe cars? (not that I'm saying you're wrong)

Why is stainless steel safer than other materials? I would think that carbon composites, if well built, are safer. For example, a train built of carbon composite would be lighter for a given structural strength, thus having less kinetic energy when hitting a fixed object (wall, stopped freight train). Of course it's probably easier to design a decent structure with steel, if only because more people are comfortable with it.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Oct 24, 2008)

I was referring to Stainless vs. Carbon steel. Carbon steel rusts. Stainless doesn't.

I have no basis. But they ARE known for telescoping, where as, say, the Amfleet is not.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Oct 24, 2008)

D.P. Roberts said:


> So let's take it as a given that older, heavier cars are safer. But are these differences _necessary_? I recently read that Amtrak passengers die at a rate of .88 deaths per billion passenger miles. Airline passenger deaths are about the same (.87 deaths per billion passenger mile). The automobile passenger death rate is 11.7 deaths per billion passenger mile, or about 15 times worse than traveling by air or train.
> So let's say Amtrak decides to build newer, lighter, cheaper cars. These cars allow Amtrak to grow its network more quickly, spend less on fuel, reduce passenger costs, etc., but they're only half as safe as the older-style cars. This would mean that traveling by train would be only 7 or 8 times more safe than traveling by car. Would that be worth it? Personally, I think so.


Let's say those lighter, cheaper cars save 1% in Amtrak's total operating and capital expenses. (Remember, they aren't going to lower salaries much of any, they aren't going to substantially lower the cost of food service, they aren't going to substantially lower the cost of having sufficient passenger track that's sufficiently straight with sufficiently safe grade crossings or grade separations; and my guess is that we're really only talking about lowering the cost of each car by about 10% if you only want to double the deaths in a Metrolink text message crash.) So 1% more people can benefit from a better death rate, but that better death rate is suddenly only half as good.

I also really don't believe that the way the political processes work is that some fixed amount of money is choosen, and then that money goes as far as it does and that's that. Observe that, for example, the Big Dig actually got completed (perhaps with fewer lanes in the Ted Williams tunnel than would have been ideal to leave open the option of converting some lanes to rail later, and admittedly with no commuter rail / Amtrak tracks under I-93, at least not yet).

Also, if 10% is saved on the cost of building the cars, and 100 people die in the next Metrolink text message accident, is there going to be an FRA mandate to throw away all the cars, at great expense, and buy the stronger ones that should have been bought in the first place?

I seem to recall that in the general aviation world, there was a huge issue that a handful of companies were doing simulated dogfights and watching their planes fall apart (oddly enough, these planes only seemed to fall apart if they happened to be in the hands of these simulated dogfighting companies), and the FAA wanted to permanently ground every single aircraft of that model.

I do wonder if PTC is really a cost effective reaction to the Metrolink crash, though.


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL (Oct 24, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> I do wonder if PTC is really a cost effective reaction to the Metrolink crash, though.


Absolutely. PTC was coming anyway, the mandate just sped up the process by shaving a good decade or so off the implementation time. Most railroads intend to use PTC as a replacement for the current signal system. Essentially they plan to pull down signals and send all of that information directly into the cab, negating the use of signals is going to save money on its own. The better fuel economy from engineers knowing whats going on in detail down the line, not just when they get within sight of a signal. Then later on most railroads intend to do away with blocks entirely and run trains much closer together reducing congestion. But the most noticeable difference will be in liability no more crashes that result in deaths, expensive lawsuits, damaged equipment, destroyed cargo, downtime, and of course bad hits to PR and company image. And for us Amtrak fiends faster running times, better timetable adherence, etc.

Based on what's been said on this forum, FRA's website, AAR's website, STB's website and the talk of railroaders, Amtrak will no longer be limited to 79mph. The estimated changes will be 80mph if non-signaled crossings are in the area, 90 if all crossings have lights, 100 if all crossings have gates, 110 if crossings have quad gates, 125 if grade is separated. So this mean's Amtrak will run 110mph nationwide on diesel powered trains. Of course FRA track class will have to be taken into affect, but the talk of the town is that the FRA and STB are going to encourage freight railroads to use the savings from PTC to upgrade tracks to allow at least 90mph from Amtrak preferably 110mph, of course this only applies to where track class is the limiting factor. Assuming everyone cooperates, time can be cut from all Amtrak schedules or in the least trains will be more punctual.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Oct 25, 2008)

Crescent ATN & TCL said:


> Essentially they plan to pull down signals and send all of that information directly into the cab, negating the use of signals is going to save money on its own. The better fuel economy from engineers knowing whats going on in detail down the line, not just when they get within sight of a signal. Then later on most railroads intend to do away with blocks entirely and run trains much closer together reducing congestion. But the most noticeable difference will be in liability no more crashes that result in deaths, expensive lawsuits, damaged equipment, destroyed cargo, downtime, and of course bad hits to PR and company image.


It will be interesting to see if it really works that way.

I remember reading at some point in the past about how transistors are considered unreliable, because they can fail in either direction, and the use of mechanical relays in railroad signaling systems is carefully planned so that gravity will pull a failed relay in the direction that results in no collision. I have yet to see an explaination of how PTC doesn't throw all of this concern about transistor reliability out the window.

Newer automobiles and airplanes also have designs that absolutely rely on transistors, but I'm not sure how good the data is on how safe this really is. There may be an occasional accident that's really a transistor/computer failure that's blamed on pilot/driver error. In the railroad case, since the PTC system is supposed to make it impossible for the engineer to screw up, any collision between trains would be proof that the system isn't actually 100% reliable.


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL (Oct 25, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Crescent ATN & TCL said:
> 
> 
> > Essentially they plan to pull down signals and send all of that information directly into the cab, negating the use of signals is going to save money on its own. The better fuel economy from engineers knowing whats going on in detail down the line, not just when they get within sight of a signal. Then later on most railroads intend to do away with blocks entirely and run trains much closer together reducing congestion. But the most noticeable difference will be in liability no more crashes that result in deaths, expensive lawsuits, damaged equipment, destroyed cargo, downtime, and of course bad hits to PR and company image.
> ...


Well the PTC system's proposed work like defect detectors do now, they relay the information audibly through the radio channels as well as inaudibly to the dispatchers. So radio interference should probably be the biggest concern. The system will be able to detect a failure because it will use GPS to determine where the next PTC antenna will be and if it receives no signal or an unexpected signal it reverts to a 0mph speed limit and instigates a full emergency application. Alerting the dispatcher in the process to send what are now signal maintainers (soon to become PTC maintainers instead) to assess the situation and fix the problem.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Oct 26, 2008)

Crescent ATN & TCL said:


> Well the PTC system's proposed work like defect detectors do now, they relay the information audibly through the radio channels as well as inaudibly to the dispatchers. So radio interference should probably be the biggest concern. The system will be able to detect a failure because it will use GPS to determine where the next PTC antenna will be and if it receives no signal or an unexpected signal it reverts to a 0mph speed limit and instigates a full emergency application. Alerting the dispatcher in the process to send what are now signal maintainers (soon to become PTC maintainers instead) to assess the situation and fix the problem.


And is the system designed so that if the computer in the locomotive dies in the middle of the trip, the train can't possibly keep rolling?


----------



## AlanB (Oct 26, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Crescent ATN & TCL said:
> 
> 
> > Well the PTC system's proposed work like defect detectors do now, they relay the information audibly through the radio channels as well as inaudibly to the dispatchers. So radio interference should probably be the biggest concern. The system will be able to detect a failure because it will use GPS to determine where the next PTC antenna will be and if it receives no signal or an unexpected signal it reverts to a 0mph speed limit and instigates a full emergency application. Alerting the dispatcher in the process to send what are now signal maintainers (soon to become PTC maintainers instead) to assess the situation and fix the problem.
> ...


I would hope not.

I could see the train being temporarily brought to a halt by a computer failure. But it should still be possible to restart the locomotives and get the train moving again, at a reduced speed of course, rather than just leaving everyone stranded in the middle of nowhere.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Oct 26, 2008)

AlanB said:


> I could see the train being temporarily brought to a halt by a computer failure. But it should still be possible to restart the locomotives and get the train moving again, at a reduced speed of course, rather than just leaving everyone stranded in the middle of nowhere.


I was actually worrying more about the case where the computer stops thinking, and the train keeps going at 80 MPH or whatever, with the now-dead computer not paying any attention to the need to stop the train for some train up ahead.

It may turn out that with enough redundancy, this isn't an issue. If you had two computers, one of which handles fuel injection, and the other which supervises and has the ability to cut power to the computer that handles fuel injection, and both process the PTC data stream, that might be safe enough as long as there's no safety critical software bug in software that's running on both computers. Or you could imagine a system where one computer controls fuel injection to some cylinders and another computer handles fuel injection to other cylinders, but I think there is some risk that on half the cylinders, a diesel might start to run rough but not actually stop.


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL (Oct 27, 2008)

AlanB said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > Crescent ATN & TCL said:
> ...


The dispatcher would simply override the system for a loco failure to allow for 15mph to rearrange equipment to get an operable loco in the lead.

As for a computer failure, when it fails to communicate with the dispatcher and other computer systems when its expected to the engineer would be told to come to a stop by a dispatcher until it can be checked out.


----------



## ralfp (Oct 27, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Newer automobiles and airplanes also have designs that absolutely rely on transistors, but I'm not sure how good the data is on how safe this really is. There may be an occasional accident that's really a transistor/computer failure that's blamed on pilot/driver error.


Chance of transistor failure -> zero (for all intents and purposes)

Chance of IC failure -> very low

Chance of software failure -> low (for embedded safety-related software)

Chance of sensor failure -> moderate

Chance of human failure -> high

Add redundancy and/or validity checks to the sensors (like on cars) and you've got a likelihood of failure that's almost entirely determined by the operator.

For example: How often do "drive by wire" throttles, or any other safety related car electronics, fail catastrophically? Basically never. How often do drivers slam on the gas instead of the brakes? Often.


----------



## access bob (Oct 27, 2008)

ralfp said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > Newer automobiles and airplanes also have designs that absolutely rely on transistors, but I'm not sure how good the data is on how safe this really is. There may be an occasional accident that's really a transistor/computer failure that's blamed on pilot/driver error.
> ...



as long as they aren't running windoze ;P

Bob


----------



## ralfp (Oct 27, 2008)

access bob said:


> ralfp said:
> 
> 
> > Chance of software failure -> low (for embedded safety-related software)
> ...


Then it would not be safety-related. If it were, the designer should be shot... out of a cannon into the sun.

Occasionally you see incidents like the Therac 25. One of the lessons was that you must design with an expectation that your system, both hardware and software, will fail. The trick is not so much to prevent all failures, which is essentially impossible, as that would require predicting all failure mechanisms, but to fail gracefully. This requires hardware interlocks, output sanity checks, redundant systems, etc. Humans are part of the failure chain, and unexpected human behavior often triggers failures (as was the case in the Therac 25 incidents).


----------



## George Harris (Oct 27, 2008)

Crescent ATN & TCL said:


> Based on what's been said on this forum, FRA's website, AAR's website, STB's website and the talk of railroaders, Amtrak will no longer be limited to 79mph. The estimated changes will be 80mph if non-signaled crossings are in the area, 90 if all crossings have lights, 100 if all crossings have gates, 110 if crossings have quad gates, 125 if grade is separated. So this mean's Amtrak will run 110mph nationwide on diesel powered trains. Of course FRA track class will have to be taken into affect, but the talk of the town is that the FRA and STB are going to encourage freight railroads to use the savings from PTC to upgrade tracks to allow at least 90mph from Amtrak preferably 110mph, of course this only applies to where track class is the limiting factor. Assuming everyone cooperates, time can be cut from all Amtrak schedules or in the least trains will be more punctual.


Only in fantasyland. Most likely most of the 79 mph will go to 80 mph and that will be that. Why? Simply because 80 mph is the break point in the track safety standards for Class 4. To go faster reprresents quite a bit more expense in the maintenance and inspection category, not to mention more problems with passenger trains catching up with freight trains. For lines like Chicago to St. Louis which has very little freight, this might be partly true IF public agencies will fund the track upgrades. We have also not gotten around to straightening out the curves that right now require less than 79 mph.


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL (Oct 28, 2008)

George Harris said:


> Crescent ATN & TCL said:
> 
> 
> > Based on what's been said on this forum, FRA's website, AAR's website, STB's website and the talk of railroaders, Amtrak will no longer be limited to 79mph. The estimated changes will be 80mph if non-signaled crossings are in the area, 90 if all crossings have lights, 100 if all crossings have gates, 110 if crossings have quad gates, 125 if grade is separated. So this mean's Amtrak will run 110mph nationwide on diesel powered trains. Of course FRA track class will have to be taken into affect, but the talk of the town is that the FRA and STB are going to encourage freight railroads to use the savings from PTC to upgrade tracks to allow at least 90mph from Amtrak preferably 110mph, of course this only applies to where track class is the limiting factor. Assuming everyone cooperates, time can be cut from all Amtrak schedules or in the least trains will be more punctual.
> ...


According to NS signal maintainers almost all of the mainline tracks in the NS system are Class 5-Class 6. They claim NS took advantage of the better conditions and cash flow in the industry over the last decade to upgrade the track beyond what is necessary so that at a point when money is harder to come by track can be neglected with little affect to running times, and reliability. Not to mention they say its cheaper to maintain an excessively strong infrastructure than a weaker one that takes more damage in a shorter period of time.


----------

