# WSDOT retiring, selling Talgo trainsets, not acquiring "Wisconsin" trainsets yet



## rickycourtney (Jul 14, 2020)

WSDOT has made it official... they are selling the Talgo Series VI trainsets and spare cars this summer.

Here's the page advertising the competitive bid process: Trainsets for sale | WSDOT

In a blog post, WSDOT made it clear that they intend to use Amtrak-owned Horizon train cars on the Cascades route until new trains are manufactured and delivered in the years ahead. (WSDOT has previously stated that they are interested in joining Amtrak's national equipment replacement contract, but has also expressed interest in the Siemens Venture trainsets.)

Also quoting this important part of the blog post:


> "In addition, the Talgo Series 8 equipment owned by the Oregon Department of Transportation will continue to operate in the corridor and Amtrak is evaluating adding other interim equipment as demand for service increases."



I asked WSDOT's spokesperson if that means the "Wisconsin" Talgo Series 8 trainsets are not coming to the Amtrak Cascades. She replied, "They are being considered by Amtrak as an option if we need more equipment than is already here. No final decisions."


----------



## cocojacoby (Jul 14, 2020)

Damn, I thought the Wisconsin Talgo saga was over. Maybe they can be tried on the Chicago - Detroit route?


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Jul 15, 2020)

So are these trainset in working condition, or just scrap? Two recent accidents, one very bad.


----------



## rickycourtney (Jul 15, 2020)

There were five Talgo Series VI trainsets: the _Mt. Hood_ and _Mt. Olympus _owned by Amtrak and the _Mt. Adams_, _Mt. Baker_ and _Mt. Rainier_ owned by Washington state.

The _Mt. Adams_ trainset (also known as the "Las Vegas" trainset) was destroyed in the 2017 derailment.

WSDOT is now selling the _Mt. Baker_ and _Mt. Rainier_ trainsets. Both are in working condition. 

What's not clear is if these trainsets will be allowed to run in the US. The FRA's waiver specifically spells out that the trainsets are to be used "in the Pacific Northwest" by Amtrak. So any other user would need to likely apply for and receive a waiver. They would also have to shoulder the liability of operating equipment that the NTSB as recommended no longer be in operation.

I think it's more likely that these trainsets will find a home in another country... or a scrap yard.


----------



## Maglev (Jul 15, 2020)

The Talgo VI trainsets had comfortable seats. The Talgo VIII have uncomfortable, slimline seats that do not rotate so half the seats face backwards. There's also that cool ceiling in the cafe on the older trainsets. Along with the Talgo trains' needing a maintenance technician on-board at all times, I question continuing to use or buying more of these. I also can't imagine anyone in the USA buying the used trainsets.

Here's a picture of the ceiling on the Talgo VI's. The Las Vegas train was originally outfitted with a starry night sky ceiling. Also, that might be the Talgo tech behind my nephew.


----------



## John Bredin (Jul 15, 2020)

rickycourtney said:


> What's not clear is if these trainsets will be allowed to run in the US. The FRA's waiver specifically spells out that the trainsets are to be used "in the Pacific Northwest" by Amtrak. So any other user would need to likely apply for and receive a waiver. They would also have to shoulder the liability of operating equipment that the NTSB as recommended no longer be in operation.


The last I heard, there was a motion before the NTSB to reconsider its (utterly unprecedented and IMHO groundless) anti-Talgo recommendation. If so, does anyone know what became of it?

This post prompted me to think about a corridor route where the Talgo trainsets' ability to go around curves a bit faster than a conventional train (IIRC, the Talgos have their own posted speed higher than for other passenger trains) could be put to good use if the Talgos got a waiver to operate elsewhere.

I would imagine the Missouri River Runner route is fairly curvy, and it's about two hours slower than driving between St. Louis and Kansas City. The usual (non-pandemic) schedule suggests the River Runner can be operated with two trainsets if it's operated separately from the Lincoln Service.



> I think it's more likely that these trainsets will find a home in another country... or a scrap yard.


The latter would be an insane waste.


----------



## Chris I (Jul 15, 2020)

This is so infuriating. WSDOT is dumping these and giving us crappy Horizon cars just so they can continue to try and deflect blame for the crash. The NTSB conclusions about the series VI trainset crash performance is baseless. No train would perform well when crashed off of and into a bridge at 60mph.

So now we get old equipment on trains that will always be late, due to slower performance on the curves. WSDOT has completely given up on Cascades, I guess.


----------



## Chris I (Jul 15, 2020)

Should we start lobbying the BC government to buy 2 of these for the Vancouver - Seattle operations? If they own the trains, WSDOT can still save face by saying the got rid of them, but they can be used to improve service on that leg of the journey.

Any other excursion operators here in the NW who might be interested? I would hate to see them get scrapped. Seems like a good deal for someone.


----------



## KnightRail (Jul 15, 2020)

Total guess, but these turning a revenue wheel again seems very unlikely. Talk about a money pit between the onboard technician, the availability of spare parts, economy of scale for operating two of a kind unique equipment, the need to have a specialized maintenance facility, the political baggage and liability, limited geographical use(not high level platform compatible), etc.


----------



## cocojacoby (Jul 15, 2020)

These aren't Colorado Rail Car products. Talgo is alive and well and very successful all around the world so I would think the parts problem can be taken out of the equation.


----------



## Chris I (Jul 15, 2020)

KnightRail said:


> Total guess, but these turning a revenue wheel again seems very unlikely. Talk about a money pit between the onboard technician, the availability of spare parts, economy of scale for operating two of a kind unique equipment, the need to have a specialized maintenance facility, the political baggage and liability, limited geographical use(not high level platform compatible), etc.



Is there an onboard technician requirement? I was on a series VI train a few years ago that lost a nut on part of the tilting mechanism south of Olympia. We stopped in Olympia because the link had come off. No Talgo employee was around when I was out on the platform talking to the conductor about repairs. They ended rocking the train back and forth as the conductor pounded the pin back in, which got us to Seattle. I don't think they are on every train, and I don't think a private operator would need to pay Talgo for technicians. These cars are "as-is" "no warranty".


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Jul 15, 2020)

I think they want a Talgo tech on each run. The job is posted a lot. Riding trains all day is not as enjoyable as some think.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Jul 15, 2020)

They would work well for a dinner train somewhere..... Especially if you gut the interiors and turn it into an all table car train. Hopefully they leave the celling of the lounge car alone though as that's a nice touch. One would also have to work on the air compressors between cars which I have heard are often quite loud. Manual operation would be a potential fix for that with slight modifications. 

And the perk of a dinner train you wouldn't have to address the horrible creaking noise going around curves. 

I've heard the Northwest Rail Museum wants a set, and I think that would be a good home for them.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Jul 15, 2020)

Air compressor between cars? One thinks your reference the door opening system. There a switch just above the door that lock it out and open. Much nicer than hearing that mechanical device operating ever 2 minutes.


----------



## 20th Century Rider (Jul 16, 2020)

For whatever it's worth, I found the Talgo trains very comfortable to ride... much more so than any other local offering. So sad to see yet another chip away at passenger service and comfort. I am very unhappy to see them go. ☹


----------



## rickycourtney (Jul 16, 2020)

Maintenance agreements are a big part of Talgo's business model.

For the last two decades, WSDOT and Amtrak have been paying Talgo fees for "maintenance" on these trainsets, which includes replacement parts, technicians on-board trains, and technicians who do some of the maintenance in the shops and supervise the work Amtrak does. Signing a maintenance agreement was also a requirement of the deal when ODOT and Wisconsin purchased their Series 8 trainsets more recently.

Now -- maintenance agreements aren't necessarily a bad thing, but Talgo's requirement that operators have one is just totally indicative of the way they do business. They want to do things one way, they think it's the best way, and they don't seem willing to change to meet the needs of the customer.

Siemens, on the other hand, offers full maintenance agreements (which Brightline has), technical support/spare parts agreements (which Amtrak has), and just basic warranty coverage.

Even if these cars are sold "as-is" with no warranty, Talgo could still require a future operator to sign a maintenance agreement to get access to spare parts, many of which are probably unique and patented items that you can't just buy from another manufacturer.


----------



## NSC1109 (Jul 16, 2020)

cocojacoby said:


> Damn, I thought the Wisconsin Talgo saga was over. Maybe they can be tried on the Chicago - Detroit route?



No. MDOT toyed with the idea years ago and didn't proceed. There's no need to now, we'll have new equipment within a year.


----------



## NSC1109 (Jul 16, 2020)

Chris I said:


> This is so infuriating. WSDOT is dumping these and giving us crappy Horizon cars just so they can continue to try and deflect blame for the crash. The NTSB conclusions about the series VI trainset crash performance is baseless. No train would perform well when crashed off of and into a bridge at 60mph.
> 
> So now we get old equipment on trains that will always be late, due to slower performance on the curves. WSDOT has completely given up on Cascades, I guess.





Chris I said:


> Is there an onboard technician requirement? I was on a series VI train a few years ago that lost a nut on part of the tilting mechanism south of Olympia. We stopped in Olympia because the link had come off. No Talgo employee was around when I was out on the platform talking to the conductor about repairs. They ended rocking the train back and forth as the conductor pounded the pin back in, which got us to Seattle. I don't think they are on every train, and I don't think a private operator would need to pay Talgo for technicians. These cars are "as-is" "no warranty".




Okay, no. Just no.

The _Horizon _cars are being refurbished right now if the project hasn't already been completed. I've ridden in both the _Talgo_ and _Horizon _cars and I enjoy the _Horizon _much more. In my opinion, the _Talgo _needs to be removed from service entirely and equipment changed over to existing units. The name of the game is fleet simplification. The airlines are doing it to save a LOT of money. My employers just cut the B777, the MD88, the MD90, the B737-700, and most of the B717s. The goal was to rid the fleet of equipment that was old or _*existed in such small numbers where the financial and operational situation did not justify operating such a small subfleet. *_

Amtrak needs to do the same thing with the _Cascades _service. Standardize the equipment with the rest of the fleet and save the money in the long run. If WSDOT wants to jump on board the Siemens order from the CALIDOT coalition or wants to use Amtrak's options, either way it would be a great alternative.

As for your quotes above...I find it quite ironic that you're complaining about "old equipment on trains that will always be late" when most, if not all, of the current equipment requires a tech to be on board for every run to rectify any issues that arise during the trip. Not saying the Amtrak-owned fleet doesn't have mechanical issues from time to time, but they don't require someone from the car shop to be on board for mechanical issues...just sayin'.


----------



## zephyr17 (Jul 17, 2020)

WashDOT is DONE with Talgo. Their stated intention is to piggyback onto the upcoming standard Amtrak corridor, Amfleet replacement, buy for long term Cascades fleet needs. For economics of scale and maintenance standardization.

Amtrak might provide WashDOT with the "Wisconsin" set(s) as a temporary replacement they owe for wrecking WashDOT's equipment. But that would be Antrak's move, not WashDOT's.

WashDOT's stated intention is not to buy Talgos.

PS. Did any of you dissing the NTSB's findings actually READ the report? The Talgo VIs were not found to be the primary cause. They were found to have contributed to injuries and fatalities due to wheel sets breaking loose. They were operating under FRA waivers because they did not meet crash standards for wheelset retention. The waiver was approved with provision for additional strapping. But that strapping was found to be at only 50% strength at the time of the crash because it was NEVER inspected, tested or replaced after initial installation. And it is well known that nylon strapping degrades over time.


----------



## Chris I (Jul 17, 2020)

zephyr17 said:


> WashDOT is DONE with Talgo. Their stated intention is to piggyback onto the upcoming standard Amtrak corridor, Amfleet replacement, buy for long term Cascades fleet needs. For economics of scale and maintenance standardization.
> 
> Amtrak might provide WashDOT with the "Wisconsin" set(s) as a temporary replacement they owe for wrecking WashDOT's equipment. But that would be Antrak's move, not WashDOT's.
> 
> ...



The NTSB report was filled with errors and baseless claims:








Talgo challenges NTSB finding in 'Cascades' accident report (updated) | Trains Magazine


Manufacturer says it was blocked in effort to participate in investigation, submit evidence




trn.trains.com





Talgo report here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/14VXFiyvqSx8DcfUNlffiQ8Ji4TueIJeD/view?usp=sharing

It includes examples of similar crashes with standard equipment where truck separation and fatalities occurred.

The biggest issue here is speed, though. The passive tilting of the Talgo trains allow them to transit between Seattle and Portland in less time. That is why people like them. The Coast Starlight, with standard equipment is scheduled for 4:15 on the segment, while Cascades is 3:30. People here like the style and comfort of the Talgos, and many are going to be dissapointed when they book their next trip and end up on 30 year-old Horizon cars with no bistro/dining, and 15-30 minutes extra travel time on every trip. I've checked the OTP for the past few days, and 500/505 have consistently been between 15 and 30min late on the PDX/SEA route. This isn't a coincidence. The equipment is slower. From what I've seen in blog posts and social media, the reaction to this equipment change is universally negative. The regular riders are not happy.

So, aside from the water route south of Tacoma, what is the advantage of the train over Bolt Bus now? I was a frequent traveler on the PDX/SEA route, and people choosing the train do so because it is a premium service. The bus is almost always cheaper, and now it will be faster. Even after Covid ends and travel recovers, this is going to be a disaster for ridership. Before the crash, Cascades had the best farebox recovery % of any state route. You might save some maintenance dollars by ditching the Talgos, but premium ridership will collapse, and we will end up paying just as much state subsidy for an inferior service. I understand the desire for standardized equipment, but I think WSDOT is going to shoot themselves in the foot here.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Jul 17, 2020)

NSC1109 said:


> The _Horizon _cars are being refurbished right now if the project hasn't already been completed. I've ridden in both the _Talgo_ and _Horizon _cars and I enjoy the _Horizon _much more. In my opinion, the _Talgo _needs to be removed from service entirely and equipment changed over to existing units. The name of the game is fleet simplification. The airlines are doing it to save a LOT of money. My employers just cut the B777, the MD88, the MD90, the B737-700, and most of the B717s. The goal was to rid the fleet of equipment that was old or _*existed in such small numbers where the financial and operational situation did not justify operating such a small subfleet. *_



I agree with you having a standardized fleet makes the most sense from an operational and financial stand point. I'm not as knowledgable on airline mechanics as I am on airline customer service, and railroad mechanics and customer service. But I do think that several of the larger Boeings share a common part pool don't they between models? 

Amtrak's fleet really is a hodgepodge of various fleets that reflect the poor management it's had at various times in the past that prevented them from having a standard fleet which like you said benefits from economies of scale on parts management. The shops where this is shown to be the worst would be Los Angeles which has one single level Amfleet/Horizon trainset, three long distance superliner sets, and the large amount of California Cars that call it home. Washington, DC being another prime example of a terminal with only one Superliner train, and the rest being Amfleet I's which don't have a large commonality between parts. 

Fleet simplification makes sense from a business stand point, and it makes it far easier for the operations department. I wouldn't be surprised to see the superliners be replaced by single level equipment for this exact purpose.


----------



## rickycourtney (Jul 17, 2020)

A few quick thoughts:

Talgo, who had a lot to lose in the ruling, _claims _that the report was filled with errors and baseless claims. The NTSB has rejected that claim.
The Coast Starlight has significantly more planned station dwell time as it accepts Amtrak Express shipments at Tacoma, Centralia, and Vancouver. If it's a pallet load, it can take a few minutes to load with a forklift.
Once the Pt. Defiance Bypass is in service, it removes one of the curviest parts of the route, which is where the Talgo's speed difference comes into play. That bypass will also cut travel times down.
Add those two points up and non-tilting equipment will only add a little time to the Cascades (presumably less than the 15-30 minutes Chris cited).
Talgo is the ONLY manufacturer making passive tilt trains in North America.
Brand new trainsets from Siemens or whoever Amtrak chooses will feel just as premium, if not more premium, than the aging 22-year-old Talgo Series VI trainsets.


----------



## NSC1109 (Jul 17, 2020)

Chris I said:


> The NTSB report was filled with errors and baseless claims:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



7/10: 505 delayed 25m into EUG, no cause given.
7/11: 500 delayed 30m due to congestion south of Centralia.
7/11: 505 delayed 55m due to mechanical issues between PDX and ORC.
7/12: 505 delayed 25m, likely due to the cancellation of 500 same-day, which was due to mechanical issues. 
7/13: 505 delayed 30m due to rail congestion/speed restrictions 
7/14: 505 delayed 2h10m due to trespass incident @ TAC
7/15: 505 delayed 30m, no cause given
7/16: 505 delayed 30m due to mechanical issues @ TUK

In the last week, 505 has been delayed every single day. Most of the delays are due to mechanical defects. Two delays were given no explanation, potentially supporting what you have to say regarding the lack of tilting tech. 

Say what you want about the _Horizon _subfleet, but they don't break that often even in the middle of a Midwestern winter. 




Seaboard92 said:


> I agree with you having a standardized fleet makes the most sense from an operational and financial stand point. I'm not as knowledgable on airline mechanics as I am on airline customer service, and railroad mechanics and customer service. But I do think that several of the larger Boeings share a common part pool don't they between models?
> 
> Amtrak's fleet really is a hodgepodge of various fleets that reflect the poor management it's had at various times in the past that prevented them from having a standard fleet which like you said benefits from economies of scale on parts management. The shops where this is shown to be the worst would be Los Angeles which has one single level Amfleet/Horizon trainset, three long distance superliner sets, and the large amount of California Cars that call it home. Washington, DC being another prime example of a terminal with only one Superliner train, and the rest being Amfleet I's which don't have a large commonality between parts.
> 
> Fleet simplification makes sense from a business stand point, and it makes it far easier for the operations department. I wouldn't be surprised to see the superliners be replaced by single level equipment for this exact purpose.



I'm currently in ACS myself but operations is where my heart is at. Most aircraft variants have part and type rating commonality in order to ensure the greatest amount of efficiency possible from both a cost and labor standpoint. For example: 

The B737-700, -800, and -900ER are all one type rating (meaning a B737 Next Gen-rated pilot can fly all three variants). Same goes for the A319, A320, and A321, the B757/767-300ER. I believe the B767-400ER and B777-200/300 are on the same type rating as well. 

Generally speaking, those variants are _mechanically _the same aircraft. As a result, you can keep the spare-parts sets and labor pools as small as possible. It's a neat little system. 

If Amtrak were to proceed with this approach, they would save boatloads of cash in the long run. They would be able to: 
-Retire most, if not all, of the old equipment
-Simplify car shops
-Simplify parts stores and training
-Simplify crew training

From a customer service/experience standpoint:
-Provide an updated, modern, and uniform service nationwide
-Use saved funds to help pare down other expenses or to take on large capital projects such as ROW acquisition from Porter to Chicago, overhaul food and beverage service, or even start new services in underserved areas like the _Front Range_. 

I would bet that Siemens is going to get the Amfleet/Superliner replacement order, and I truly hope they go back to single level. I've seen the interior of the new cars and I am extremely impressed with what they're producing, and I personally think they're a shoo-in for the job.


----------



## Maglev (Jul 17, 2020)

I think these are the things that determine a premium service: How comfortable are the seats? It's easy to beat the Talgo VIII's. Are the trains on time? An extra 15 minutes won't make that much of a difference on a 3.5 hour trip but just being on time is important. Are there decent foods and beverages in the cafe? The menu was acceptable in the past, but reductions in demand may necessitate lower quality. Is there a pleasant boarding process? The elimination of assigned seats (I think in October, 2019) creates a free-for-all rush to get good seats. Are the trains and stations clean? I once saw the Talgo tech refilling the paper towels in a bathroom on the train.

Washington and Oregon can have a good transportation corridor if attention is paid to details.


----------



## Chris I (Jul 17, 2020)

Maglev said:


> I think these are the things that determine a premium service: How comfortable are the seats? It's easy to beat the Talgo VIII's. Are the trains on time? An extra 15 minutes won't make that much of a difference on a 3.5 hour trip but just being on time is important. Are there decent foods and beverages in the cafe? The menu was acceptable in the past, but reductions in demand may necessitate lower quality. Is there a pleasant boarding process? The elimination of assigned seats (I think in October, 2019) creates a free-for-all rush to get good seats. Are the trains and stations clean? I once saw the Talgo tech refilling the paper towels in a bathroom on the train.
> 
> Washington and Oregon can have a good transportation corridor if attention is paid to details.



15 minutes matters when you have a competing service on the same route with similar travel times (Bolt Bus). In the last week, the delays on the route are 30+min from the Talgo times, and I have a hard time believing that mechanical issues are the cause every day. And say what you want about the Talgo food offerings, but the Horizons have nothing. Might as well take the bus.

How many years until new Siemens cars are plying this route? How much ridership will be lost in the interim? For a fair comparison, we need to compare Talgo and Siemens current offerings. We can't compare 20 year-old Talgo VI trains to the new Brigtline trains, for example.

My main argument here is that WSDOT is being shortsighted in retiring the Series VI trains before new equipment is available. I think future ridership numbers will show this (again, once Covid is over).


----------



## Chris I (Jul 17, 2020)

rickycourtney said:


> A few quick thoughts:
> 
> Talgo, who had a lot to lose in the ruling, _claims _that the report was filled with errors and baseless claims. The NTSB has rejected that claim.
> The Coast Starlight has significantly more planned station dwell time as it accepts Amtrak Express shipments at Tacoma, Centralia, and Vancouver. If it's a pallet load, it can take a few minutes to load with a forklift.
> ...


Fair points, but WSDOT actions are still ridiculous here. Let's review the facts:

-WSDOT and Sound Transit develop a new route
-WSDOT and Amtrak fail to properly train drivers and launch service before PTC is implemented
-The very first train crashes into a bridge at 60mph and 3 people die
-NTSB concludes that primary fault is in the development of the route and training issues
-NTSB states that survivability of Talgo VI is subpar

WSDOT actions after crash:
- Return trains to old route, finish PTC implementation
- Get ride of series VI cars
- ???

Problem solved, right? Should we trust WSDOT to develop any kind of passenger rail in the future?


----------



## NSC1109 (Jul 17, 2020)

Chris I said:


> 15 minutes matters when you have a competing service on the same route with similar travel times (Bolt Bus). In the last week, the delays on the route are 30+min from the Talgo times, and I have a hard time believing that mechanical issues are the cause every day. And say what you want about the Talgo food offerings, but the Horizons have nothing. Might as well take the bus.
> 
> How many years until new Siemens cars are plying this route? How much ridership will be lost in the interim? For a fair comparison, we need to compare Talgo and Siemens current offerings. We can't compare 20 year-old Talgo VI trains to the new Brigtline trains, for example.
> 
> My main argument here is that WSDOT is being shortsighted in retiring the Series VI trains before new equipment is available. I think future ridership numbers will show this (again, once Covid is over).






That is a _Horizon-_type Café Car frequently used on the Chicago Hub services. I’m sure Amtrak will make a few available for the _Cascades _once the Siemens cars come online out here. So, yes, the _Horizon_ cars do have something. As for the delays, those are entered by the Conductors. Talk to the Seattle and Portland crew bases if you want details.

As for the Siemens cars, it will be a while before the come online if WSDOT waits for Amtrak to issue the order. If they were to use available options from the CALIDOT order, then they’d probably be online sooner. But they’d need to move fast. 



Chris I said:


> Fair points, but WSDOT actions are still ridiculous here. Let's review the facts:
> 
> -WSDOT and Sound Transit develop a new route
> -WSDOT and Amtrak fail to properly train drivers and launch service before PTC is implemented
> ...



WSDOT has no say in how Amtrak trains their personnel. There is no denying that Amtrak project management seriously screwed up, and the RFE himself had reservations about sending one of his Engineers out alone over a new territory in a brand new and unfamiliar locomotive. You can say the buck stops with WSDOT, and I do believe they hold a significant portion of the blame here, but Amtrak employee training failures are solely Amtrak’s fault.


----------



## John Bredin (Jul 17, 2020)

zephyr17 said:


> PS. Did any of you dissing the NTSB's findings actually READ the report? The Talgo VIs were not found to be the primary cause. They were found to have contributed to injuries and fatalities due to wheel sets breaking loose. They were operating under FRA waivers because they did not meet crash standards for wheelset retention. The waiver was approved with provision for additional strapping. But that strapping was found to be at only 50% strength at the time of the crash because it was NEVER inspected, tested or replaced after initial installation. And it is well known that nylon strapping degrades over time.


I looked at the report now and my opinion of it regarding the Talgo trainsets hasn't changed.

The thing I heard was unprecedented was the NTSB recommending that an entire class or model of transport be taken out of service absolutely and permanently, not just until a specified problem is fixed. The report recommends in relevant part:


NTSB said:


> To the Washington State Department of Transportation:
> Discontinue the use of the Talgo Series VI trainsets as soon as possible and replace them with passenger railroad equipment that meet all current United States safety requirements. (R-19-017)



If compliance with the waiver was a problem, then it would make sense to recommend "grounding" the Talgos until they are in compliance and/or recommend that FRA robustly enforce the conditions on the Talgo waiver/grandfathering. As the report states:


NTSB said:


> In the case of the Talgo Series VI, the analysis and risk assessments were completed, mitigating strategies were implemented, and the grandfather application was approved but no consideration was undertaken for continued monitoring of the existing risk or risks that might develop with aging of the mitigation measures.
> 
> There are no regulatory factors in the grandfathering provision that allow the FRA to continuously monitor the grandfathered system that was required to contain several mitigating modifications. However, nothing prohibited the FRA from monitoring under its existing authority.



*But* that's not what the NTSB ended up recommending, because they've taken the position that anything other than the FRA strength requirement is unsafe.


NTSB said:


> Contributing to the severity of the accident was the Federal Railroad Administration’s decision to permit railcars that did not meet regulatory strength requirements to be used in revenue passenger service, resulting in (1) the loss of survivable space and (2) the failed articulated railcar-to-railcar connections that enabled secondary collisions with the surrounding environment causing severe damage to railcar-body structures which then failed to provide occupant protection resulting in passenger ejections, injuries, and fatalities.


 Another excerpt:


NTSB said:


> Since 1999 in the United States, crashworthiness requirements that include the end-strength of 800,000 pounds, corner and collision posts, and other structural minimums have been mandatory. The benefit of having these required structural features on all railcars has improved safety for passengers, specifically when there has been an accident and the railcars depart the tracks into adjacent track or other environmental features that can lead to catastrophic failure. Based on the failed articulated connections, the lack of United States-compliant structural protections of the Talgo Series VI railcar-body, and the demonstrated behavior of the trainset in a derailment, the NTSB concludes that the Talgo Series VI trainset is structurally vulnerable if it is involved in a high-energy derailment or collision due to its lack of crashworthiness protections and is at risk to severe and catastrophic loss of survivable space.


 Thus, one of the recommendations in the report, directed to the FRA, is:


NTSB said:


> Remove the grandfathering provision within Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations 238.203(d) and require all railcars comply with the applicable current safety standards. (R-19-012)


49 CFR §238.203 is the static end strength rule generally requiring 800,000 lbs. buff strength. 

So the controversial part of the NTSB report and recommendations are the conclusions that (1) only good old American 800,000 pound buff strength will do, and (2) thus, the Talgos gotta go.


----------



## NSC1109 (Jul 17, 2020)

John Bredin said:


> I looked at the report now and my opinion of it regarding the Talgo trainsets hasn't changed.
> 
> The thing I heard was unprecedented was the NTSB recommending that an entire class or model of transport be taken out of service absolutely and permanently, not just until a specified problem is fixed. The report recommends in relevant part:
> 
> ...



I’d hardly call it controversial. The NTSB found that the Talgo VIs didn’t comply with the 800,000lbs buff strength and grandfathering it in led to three people being killed that may not have if the cars had the strength required by law. They did their job, simple as that.


----------



## Chris I (Jul 17, 2020)

NSC1109 said:


> I’d hardly call it controversial. The NTSB found that the Talgo VIs didn’t comply with the 800,000lbs buff strength and grandfathering it in led to three people being killed that may not have if the cars had the strength required by law. They did their job, simple as that.


It is, and has been controversial for many years. The US approach to rail safety has basically been: trains are going to crash, so let's build them like tanks. In the developed world, the approach is to install safety systems that ensure the trains don't crash in the first place. We are finally getting there with PTC. Allowing lighter trains to travel on tracks with a system like PTC is much safer. FRA/NTSB conclusions in this case come from an outdated perspective on railroad safety.









Federal Regulators Will Let U.S. Railroads Run Faster, More Efficient Trains


Why are American trains so expensive and yet so slow? One factor that rail advocates often point to is the Federal Railroad Administration and its rail safety regulations — rules that are fin…




usa.streetsblog.org





For me, the 2013 Spuyten Duyville crash is evidence enough that the NTSB applied a different safety standard when evaluating the Talgo crash:








December 2013 Spuyten Duyvil derailment - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





The trains left the rails at a similar speed, and 4 people died. Nearly all of the cars tipped over, while the Talgo train mostly stayed upright and coupled. Why did the NTSB not call for all of those cars to be removed from service?


----------



## Chris I (Jul 17, 2020)

NSC1109 said:


> View attachment 18150
> 
> 
> That is a _Horizon-_type Café Car frequently used on the Chicago Hub services. I’m sure Amtrak will make a few available for the _Cascades _once the Siemens cars come online out here. So, yes, the _Horizon_ cars do have something. As for the delays, those are entered by the Conductors. Talk to the Seattle and Portland crew bases if you want details.
> ...


WSDOT made the decision to upgrade a stretch of track to 80mph, but keep the 30mph bridge. That's placing a lot on Amtrak and their engineers for the southbound runs. It was one of the holes in the swiss cheese that lined up on that day.


----------



## NSC1109 (Jul 17, 2020)

Chris I said:


> It is, and has been controversial for many years. The US approach to rail safety has basically been: trains are going to crash, so let's build them like tanks. In the developed world, the approach is to install safety systems that ensure the trains don't crash in the first place. We are finally getting there with PTC. Allowing lighter trains to travel on tracks with a system like PTC is much safer. FRA/NTSB conclusions in this case come from an outdated perspective on railroad safety.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



“Many years”? It’s been three. Chill.


The NTSB has been the ones pushing for a PTC system for years, but it isn’t the catch-all a lot of folks think it is. Incidents still happen. We’re not just talking about train vs train, we’re talking about train vs concrete mixer. Train vs propane tanker. Grade crossings are still a thing. Some derailments happen so fast that you can’t get the train to stop in time. It’s these particular issues where we’re still wanting to have rail cars that don’t destroy themselves in a collision or a derailment. The NTSB folks are pretty smart people. They know what they’re doing. If you disagree, that’s your right. But I for one don’t want to be in some lightweight D/EMU from Europe when I still have millions of pounds of freight trains on the same tracks. I’d rather have a regulatory agency who’s proactive about keeping me, my family, my friends, and my coworkers safe in an incident.




Chris I said:


> WSDOT made the decision to upgrade a stretch of track to 80mph, but keep the 30mph bridge. That's placing a lot on Amtrak and their engineers for the southbound runs. It was one of the holes in the swiss cheese that lined up on that day.



It costs $1 million per mile to lay track. Probably a good $10-20 mil for a new bridge. Add another 5-6 hundred thousand for the signaling. And that’s IF replacing the bridge and realigning the ROW was feasible, which it may not have been, based on what I’m seeing on the satellite view. I doubt WSDOT would’ve had the money for it. Certainly Amtrak didn’t.

The engineer lost awareness due to his unfamiliarity with a new locomotive and inadequate training on a new route. Did Amtrak and WSDOT/Sounder rush? Yes. But this isn’t because they decided to just not replace a bridge.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jul 17, 2020)

Regarding different types of equipment. There is something special in marketing a unique type of train set. Amtrak does this with Acela.

I always enjoyed my rides on the Talgo equipment. Another end of an era.


----------



## Chris I (Jul 17, 2020)

NSC1109 said:


> “Many years”? It’s been three. Chill.
> 
> 
> The NTSB has been the ones pushing for a PTC system for years, but it isn’t the catch-all a lot of folks think it is. Incidents still happen. We’re not just talking about train vs train, we’re talking about train vs concrete mixer. Train vs propane tanker. Grade crossings are still a thing. Some derailments happen so fast that you can’t get the train to stop in time. It’s these particular issues where we’re still wanting to have rail cars that don’t destroy themselves in a collision or a derailment. The NTSB folks are pretty smart people. They know what they’re doing. If you disagree, that’s your right. But I for one don’t want to be in some lightweight D/EMU from Europe when I still have millions of pounds of freight trains on the same tracks. I’d rather have a regulatory agency who’s proactive about keeping me, my family, my friends, and my coworkers safe in an incident.
> ...


It goes back much longer than 3 years, and keep in mind that the Talgos still have a big, heavy engine up front, and a FRA-compliant cabbage car on the back. Cascades trains have had encounters with vehicles at grade crossings, and have never had a death because of it.

More info on the NTSB report problems here:








The NTSB Wants American Trains to Be Less Safe


In 2017, an Amtrak Cascades train derailed outside Seattle. The train driver sped on a curve and the heavy locomotive derailed, dragging the trains with it, as had happened in 2013 in New York and …




pedestrianobservations.com





The Talgo data supports the conclusion that the train would not have derailed at all, had it not been for the cant deficiency problems with the lead engine. The safest train is a train that doesn't derail in the first place, and trains are safer than driving because they don't crash as often. Thinking your heavy car is going to protect you is a false sense of security.

Do you agree with the NTSB conclusion in previous crashes that all train riders should wear seatbelts?


----------



## zephyr17 (Jul 17, 2020)

Just to be clear:

Talgo's contention that the train derailed because of engine cant deficiencies, not just hitting a 30 mph curve at 80, due to the engineer losing situational awareness, is somewhat absurd. Newtonian physics has something to say about that, called inertia.

That strikes me as hand waving by a party with financial interest to distract from the wheelset retention issue, which is what the NTSB called them on. Note the NTSB was completely silent on any contribution the Talgo car design had in the physics of the derailment itself, because the Talgo design did not contribute to that.

The FRA safety regs are specifically about performance in a "high energy event" to minimize casualties in such an event. The Nisqually wreck was such "high energy event" anticipated by those regs. The wheelsets came loose, becoming missiles, they didn't conform to FRA regs and the mitigation required by the waiver were 50% understrength. So they were likely out of compliance with both the reg AND the waiver. And the wheelsets came loose, becoming missles, the very thing the reg was intended to prevent.

So, to summarize:
1. The Talgo VI's were not in compliance with FRA regulations and required a waiver.
2. The mitigation required under the waiver was understrength and likely out of compliance with the waiver due to inadequate (non existent) inspection and maintenance.
3. The occurrence the reg was intended to prevent, wheelset separation in event of a high energy event (bad, high speed crash), happened.
4. The NTSB's investigation called that out.
5. The parties that the NTSB seriously called out, ripping them a new one in bureaucrat-ese, were Sound Transit, Amtrak, and WasDOT for their collectively abysmal safety culture.

You may argue that FRA regs may be too stringent. However, there is no question that the reg concerned wheelset retention, the Talgos were out of compliance with it, and some of the wheelsets in the crash, were, in fact, not retained.

Finally, the NTSB has no regulatory authority. It is up to others to act on its recommendations. WashDOT decided to.

I will put my trust in the NTSB's highly professional investigations over a party with direct financial and reputational interests. I have read many NTSB reports, on both air and rail crashes. I like them because of their manifest methodical professionalism.

If Talgo actually succeeds in the NTSB reconsidering and changing its findings, I will look at it at that time.

I am sure you will let us know if that actually happens, Chris.


----------



## NSC1109 (Jul 17, 2020)

Chris I said:


> It goes back much longer than 3 years, and keep in mind that the Talgos still have a big, heavy engine up front, and a FRA-compliant cabbage car on the back. Cascades trains have had encounters with vehicles at grade crossings, and have never had a death because of it.
> 
> More info on the NTSB report problems here:
> 
> ...



The train was doing 80 in a 30. Saying it wouldn’t have derailed under such conditions is absurd. Talgo has a financial stake in the investigation and they don’t like the fact that their design was out of compliance with FRA regs.

And no. I don’t agree with seatbelts on trains for the same reason I don’t agree with it on school buses: if something happens and you have to evacuate, you have to do so quickly. Your seatbelt jams, good luck to you.


----------



## Mailliw (Jul 17, 2020)

NSC1109 said:


> ...I would bet that Siemens is going to get the Amfleet/Superliner replacement order, and I truly hope they go back to single level. I've seen the interior of the new cars and I am extremely impressed with what they're producing, and I personally think they're a shoo-in for the job.


I also think Siemens is well placed and I'd love to see what their sleeping cars would look like. The ones they made for the Russians look fantastic.


----------



## Chris I (Jul 17, 2020)

zephyr17 said:


> Just to be clear:
> 
> Talgo's contention that the train derailed because of engine cant deficiencies, not just hitting a 30 mph curve at 80, due to the engineer losing situational awareness, is somewhat absurd. Newtonian physics has something to say about that, called inertia.
> 
> ...



The operator applied the brakes just before the curve, and they estimate that it was going 60mph when it hit the curve. See my other link above where it talks about cant deficiency. 60mph on that curve is absolutely possible for a light train with low center of gravity. 

I read the NTSB report, and it is very light on data. The Talgo report is full of it, including dynamic crash models. Maybe it's my bias as an engineer in the aerospace industry, but I found the Talgo report to be more technically accurate and believable, given the photo evidence of the crash site. The NTSB does not have to respond to Talgo's report, and I don't think they ever will. For WSDOT, who is primarily interested in saving face, retiring the equipment is a no-brainer.

Since the NTSB is infallible in your eyes, are you going to follow their recommendations to wear seatbelts at all times on trains?









Buses and Trains Lack Safety Features That Are Standard Elsewhere (Published 2019)


The number of people killed in train and bus accidents is relatively low. But the nation’s top safety board says a few simple measures could cut the figures even more.




www.nytimes.com





“Current safety standards for locomotive cabs and rail passenger cars are inadequate,” the N.T.S.B. said in February when it unveiled its “most wanted” list of safety improvements for trains. “Protecting passengers and crews from injury requires keeping rail car windows intact and maintaining their structural integrity during an accident, and includes occupant restraint systems, such as seatbelts, to mitigate the severity of passenger injuries.”


----------



## zephyr17 (Jul 17, 2020)

That the wheelsets came loose and became missles is irrefutable, because it happened, one of them smashing into a car on I 5. That the FRA regs were intended to prevent or reduce such an occurrence is also irrefutable, as is the fact that the Talgo VI's were out of compliance with that reg.

The NTSB found no fault with Talgo in the derailment itself. Where they found issues were in crashworthiness of the Talgos, which they found deficient. Crashes happen. Period. If crashworthiness of a vehicle were not a consideration, we'd still have wooden bodied cars without anticlimbers telescoping into each other.

So arguing factors leading up to the derailment itself strike me as distracting handwaving with regard to Talgo. Since the issues raised with Talgo are exclusively regarding performance once a crash occurred.

What I primarily respect about the NTSB is their analysis of all accident factors and the mechanics of an given accident. I don't always agree with their recommendations as some strike me as overly conservative, although never without some foundation. I don't agree with the seatbelt one. Even PTC struck me as overly conservative. But I will take their accident analyses every time.


----------



## rickycourtney (Jul 17, 2020)

For WSDOT, retiring the equipment does allow them to save face. It also probably comes highly recommended by the state's legal counsel. (If there was a future accident, these NTSB findings would almost certainly be part of any legal action.)

But there's another reason why this may be a good move for WSDOT... it allows them to get out of their maintenance contract with Talgo. 

WSDOT is likely now paying next to nothing for the equipment as Amtrak is probably providing the Horizon trainsets for free (as part of their commitment to WSDOT after the crash).


----------



## Seaboard92 (Jul 17, 2020)

NSC1109 said:


> I'm currently in ACS myself but operations is where my heart is at. Most aircraft variants have part and type rating commonality in order to ensure the greatest amount of efficiency possible from both a cost and labor standpoint.
> 
> If Amtrak were to proceed with this approach, they would save boatloads of cash in the long run. They would be able to:
> -Retire most, if not all, of the old equipment
> ...



I agree with you completely a standard fleet makes the most sense. While a sleeping car, diner, lounge, and a coach are all different types of cars and in a way are a subfleet. They can be built to a standard design that shares parts just like the jets you mentioned. For the most part railroad passenger cars do follow a standard design of 85 ft long by 10 ft wide. And I would argue that despite Budd building 1,000s of cars to different specifications that there is a large amount of common parts between the various cars. 

Personally I've ridden the Siemens RailJets in Austria and I was beyond impressed. That would be a good design for Amtrak to copy which is basically what the new cars Amtrak is getting are based on. I believe Siemens is working on a sleeping car variant for the ÖBB NightJet service as well that I look forward to trying. Like you said it would simplify the parts stores and training, the equipment needed in the car shops which could reduce the demand on Beech Grove as a facility. 

My idea for new service is more of a novel concept but entering into codeshare arrangements with the airlines to handle the regional feeder airports that are within a two hour train journey of a hub. I'm currently writing an academic level study on that using CLT as my case study. Extending the Piedmont to Greenville, SC and running north to Raleigh as it already does. Doing that you could reduce the need for regional jets on the CLT-GSP, and CLT-GSO markets. As an airline person I would be interested in your opinion on that actually. 



Chris I said:


> For me, the 2013 Spuyten Duyville crash is evidence enough that the NTSB applied a different safety standard when evaluating the Talgo crash:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



First off Wikipedia is really not a great source to base any actual findings off of. I could go edit that page right now and change every detail on it to fit whatever agenda I wanted to. Now something more scholarly like the actual NTSB report, or a peer reviewed journal I would give in and say that has a better chance of being true. Wikipedia is a great tool to find out quick information but it should never be cited in an academic argument. 

Secondly you need to know more about railroad mechanical to truly grasp the reason the cars on the Metro North Accident failed as they did. The cars in that wreck were and still are equipped with AAR Type H Tightlock couplers. That design while it is designed to limit telescoping in an accident isn't an absolute. And you must remember that each car is it's own unit it rides on it's own trucks, with it's own 26C brake system on each individual car. Whereas the Talgo is a fully articulated trainset that has a drawbar between the cars, and two cars ride on one truck in the case of the Talgos one single wheel. 

A drawbar can and will snap under extreme pressure which in this accident it did. But at the speed the train hit the curve the natural mode for the train is to stay linear hence once the train came off the track it stayed linear and stayed straight until it hit an obstruction like a tree, or landed on the ground after the sixteen to twenty foot drop, which can change the trajectory of the flying projectile that is the railcar. At that point the force is strong enough it can and did break the drawbars between the cars. The talgo unlike the Metro North Shoreliner is a single unit whereas Metro North was built of individual cars and counting the locomotive was eight units long. 

So it isn't really a fair comparison to compare the two accidents while they share some similarities in the human element, and they both involved speed restricted curves. A better accident would be to look at another articulated trainset. 



NSC1109 said:


> And no. I don’t agree with seatbelts on trains for the same reason I don’t agree with it on school buses: if something happens and you have to evacuate, you have to do so quickly. Your seatbelt jams, good luck to you.



That is the same reason I fully support sliding compartment doors over the older style bedrooms with the traditional door. Recently on the Conway Scenic Railroad in Conway, NH they have outfitted a COVID social distancing car which looks similar to an European compartment car. The only issue is the doors aren't sliding that in the case of an emergency and people evacuate the doors would all open and prevent a speedy evacuation. Seat belts while common in planes and cars have a distinct safety rational that isn't present on board a train. In any form of public transit a speedy evacuation is one of the most important components.


----------



## west point (Jul 17, 2020)

Some of the delays occurr due to segments south of Tacoma that are not 2 MT. As well north of Tacoma there are not enough segments that are now 3 main tracks. Sounder trains can cause some delays north of Tacoma.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Jul 17, 2020)

Mailliw said:


> I also think Siemens is well placed and I'd love to see what their sleeping cars would look like. The ones they made for the Russians look fantastic.



The ones they built for the Russians are fantastic looking. But then again I think Russian interior design on a lot of their trains is nothing short of amazing for public transit. 

For those who don't know much about Russian trains here are some links for you to take a look at. 






Paris to Moscow by train from €245 | THE PARIS-MOSCOW EXPRESS


A guide to the Paris-Moscow Express train, with train times, fares, how to buy tickets and photos of what the train is like.



www.seat61.com





The equipment on the Trans-European-Express is found on many other RZD services as well, the Red Arrow uses the VIP cars, and sleepers from the TEE for the Mockba-Санкт-Петербург route. I also believe the Россия has just been upgraded with them as well. I saw a Russian Railways post announcing that that train is now running daily between Mockba-Владивосток where it used to run every other day. Now it runs on a 24 hour slower card but has newer equipment. The trains former equipment has been handed down to a new unnamed Firmney train that runs on the old schedule, on the old days. 

Then you have the private owned "Grand Express" on the Mockba-Санкт-Петербург which is all but on the same level as the VSOE. The pictures on their site are incredible. 






Гранд Экспресс Тур — Главная


Туроператор железнодорожных туров. Туры по России на поездах. Круизные путешествия в Крым, экскурсионные поезда по Центральной России. Путешествия по железной дороге.




www.grandexpress.ru





Take a look at that train. I read the dining car menu for that train and its comparable to VIA Rail. 

Fun fact the Mockba-Санкт-Петербург is the most competitive sleeper market in the world. With 12 different sleeping car trains running per day and three operators.


----------



## cocojacoby (Jul 18, 2020)

But ironically Russia just went with Talgo on their latest train project, right?



https://www.talgo.com/en/projects/russia/strizh/


----------



## tgstubbs1 (Jul 18, 2020)

NSC1109 said:


> WSDOT has no say in how Amtrak trains their personnel. There is no denying that Amtrak project management seriously screwed up, and the RFE himself had reservations about sending one of his Engineers out alone over a new territory in a brand new and unfamiliar locomotive. You can say the buck stops with WSDOT, and I do believe they hold a significant portion of the blame here, but Amtrak employee training failures are solely Amtrak’s fault.



I'm curious about what kind of navigation instrumentation is present in the cab? Is there a map with points marked?

I would think speed warnings could be incorporated into GPS systems, like the school crossing warnings I get on my Garmin GPS.


----------



## Barb Stout (Jul 18, 2020)

zephyr17 said:


> What I primarily respect about the NTSB is their analysis of all accident factors and the mechanics of an given accident. I don't always agree with their recommendations as some strike me as overly conservative, although never without some foundation. I don't agree with the seatbelt one. Even PTC struck me as overly conservative. But I will take their accident analyses every time.


I am curious why you don't agree with the seatbelt mandate. I have physical problems with the shoulder harness aspect of it; that is why I ask. (And also a big reason why I take the train instead of driving when traveling long distances.) If you want, you can answer via "conversation" or private message or whatever it's called on here.


----------



## Trogdor (Jul 18, 2020)

tgstubbs1 said:


> I'm curious about what kind of navigation instrumentation is present in the cab? Is there a map with points marked?
> 
> I would think speed warnings could be incorporated into GPS systems, like the school crossing warnings I get on my Garmin GPS.



There is no “navigation” system inside a locomotive. There is a GPS component to PTC, but you can’t strictly rely on GPS because it may not be accurate enough to identify which track you are on, and speed restrictions in many cases are track-specific (track 1 may be 70 mph, track 2 may be 60 mph, and the siding may be 20 mph in the same area).

Positive train control combines that with other information to know where you are, including which track you’re on, and that gives the engineer a heads-up about speed restrictions, including warnings if they are approaching a penalty brake application, which will apply if they go past the programmed braking curve for that particular consist type (which is designed to ensure they are at or below a given speed by the time they reach the point where the restriction applies).

Of course, that’s part of the controversy over this incident, leading to Amtrak’s decision not to return to the new routing until PTC was enabled on that segment. Had PTC been active on that stretch, the train would have gone into a penalty brake application and slowed way down (possibly to a stop) before reaching the curve.


----------



## NSC1109 (Jul 18, 2020)

tgstubbs1 said:


> I'm curious about what kind of navigation instrumentation is present in the cab? Is there a map with points marked?
> 
> I would think speed warnings could be incorporated into GPS systems, like the school crossing warnings I get on my Garmin GPS.



As stated by Trogdor, there isn’t really a true “navigation” system. After all, you can only go where the tracks go. However, the locomotive, in theory, should know roughly where it is along the line so it can comply with the correct signal aspect and not one 60 miles away.

I do believe there is something similar to what you are describing available in the Siemens cab if I’m remembering correctly. However, we must also remember that this particular engineer was new to the SC-44. I believe the official report states he had about 60 seconds to familiarize himself with the engine before departure from SEA. That really isn’t enough time to learn how to pull up a screen on one of the displays if it isn’t there already.


----------



## siberianmo (Jul 18, 2020)

For my 2-cents worth on the subject of Talgo to Horizon, it saddens me. 

My trips aboard Cascades have been from Seattle to Vancouver, BC with returns to Portland, OR for connection with the Empire Builder. 
Always in business class and always glued to the window on the seaside of the car, I was never disappointed nor critical of this or that when it came to the equipment. For me, it was a joy to experience something new and different.

Horizon equipment has been in use for a long time in Missouri - between St. Louis and Kansas City. My preference has always been business class - especially when they put the car at the end of the consist (another story for another time!) Anyway, it would be interesting to envision Talgo along that route. 

The curves along the route are not anything I would think to be prohibitive for Talgo to handle; having traveled it for years - sometimes over a dozen round trips a year. Anyway . . . 

I recall the FlexLiner demonstration trips back in 1997 - I was fortunate to ride it in Jefferson City (event for politicians) and then again with my daughter for a round trip to Kansas City from Kirkwood, MO. 

Missouri's Department of Transportation (MODoT) did not "go" for those train sets then and I doubt they will even offer a glance in the direction of Talgo now. If Amtrak is to continue within this state - Horizon most probably will continue for the Missouri River Runner, if that is our treasury can continue supporting nearly empty trains!

Very interesting thread . . .


----------



## NSC1109 (Jul 18, 2020)

siberianmo said:


> Missouri's Department of Transportation (MODoT) did not "go" for those train sets then and I doubt they will even offer a glance in the direction of Talgo now. If Amtrak is to continue within this state - Horizon most probably will continue for the Missouri River Runner, if that is our treasury can continue supporting nearly empty trains!
> 
> Very interesting thread . . .



The Missouri River Runner will be receiving the Siemens coaches once they are delivered.


----------



## siberianmo (Jul 18, 2020)

I like your optimism. 

Cheers!


----------



## tgstubbs1 (Jul 18, 2020)

Trogdor said:


> There is no “navigation” system inside a locomotive. There is a GPS component to PTC, but you can’t strictly rely on GPS because it may not be accurate enough to identify which track you are on, and speed restrictions in many cases are track-specific (track 1 may be 70 mph, track 2 may be 60 mph, and the siding may be 20 mph in the same area).
> 
> Positive train control combines that with other information to know where you are, including which track you’re on, and that gives the engineer a heads-up about speed restrictions, including warnings if they are approaching a penalty brake application, which will apply if they go past the programmed braking curve for that particular consist type (which is designed to ensure they are at or below a given speed by the time they reach the point where the restriction applies).
> 
> Of course, that’s part of the controversy over this incident, leading to Amtrak’s decision not to return to the new routing until PTC was enabled on that segment. Had PTC been active on that stretch, the train would have gone into a penalty brake application and slowed way down (possibly to a stop) before reaching the curve.


I think any kind of GPS might help if someone is "situationally un-aware".


----------



## Trogdor (Jul 18, 2020)

tgstubbs1 said:


> I think any kind of GPS might help if someone is "situationally un-aware".



Locomotives aren’t designed around the idea that the engineer is “situationally unaware,” as you put it. And, of course, engineers are prohibited from using their own electronic devices while in the cab of the locomotive.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Jul 19, 2020)

Some Conductor in some areas had a program on there phone, that would help them to keep track of slow orders, and where they were at. Had to stop using it after cell phone were banned. I recall.


----------



## sttom (Jul 20, 2020)

NSC1109 said:


> I would bet that Siemens is going to get the Amfleet/Superliner replacement order, and I truly hope they go back to single level. I've seen the interior of the new cars and I am extremely impressed with what they're producing, and I personally think they're a shoo-in for the job.



To replace the Superliners with a similar single level capacity, the replacement would have to be 2 Superliners to 3 single level cars. I doubt that Congress would give Amtrak the money to do a 1 to 1 replacement of capacity and would probably do a 1 to 1 for physical equipment. 

As I mentioned on other threads, Siemens does make the Viaggio Twin and Viaggio Classic. The Twin is a bilevel (US Multi level) rail car that is about as tall as the old Santa Fe Hi level cars. Since Siemens is big into customization, it would make sense that they would pitch a modified Viaggio Twin as a replacement for the Superliners instead of the Viaggio Classic that they normally sell for overnight services in Europe. A modified Twin could be built since the regulations are changing and likely have more common parts with the Viaggio Classic being built now and likely in future orders for other states like Washington and New York. 

The main barrier to Amtrak having a standardized fleet are the bidding rules and the Viewliners. The Federal government loves its lowest bidder rules and someone could undercut Siemens and get the order and we could be waiting nearly a decade for equipment to show up like what happened with CAF and the current order of Viewliners. Also, the Viewliners themselves are a barrier since they will be around for a few years and would also be subject to the same lowest bidder rules once they come up for replacement. 

Siemens Viaggio Twin


https://assets.new.siemens.com/siemens/assets/api/uuid:5b572a098bbbd1b4d0ca43f04d2c729793034b5e/version:1521630977/viaggio-twin-sbb-english.pdf


----------



## Mailliw (Jul 20, 2020)

Bilevel cars are better for capacity of course, but there are other factors. Being able to standardize the long distance is one, but a bigger issue is Accessibility. Currently disabled Superliner passengers are confined to the lower level of their car, the Viaggio Comforts give end to end acess for the whole trainset. It would be hard (but not impossible) to pull that off with bilevels.That's a hugh deal, and I think it may be worth the tradeoff.


----------



## cocojacoby (Jul 21, 2020)

Here's something really interesting for you. Looking at the Viaggio Twin specs, it is only 15.15 feet high. The GG1 is listed as 15.0 feet high over locked-down pantagraphs and they of course fit through NYP. That is enticingly close. What is the possibility that a low-profile Superliner could be made or the tracks lowered by an inch through NYP (steel ties)?

One suggestion . . . add Viewliner upper berth windows to make the upper berths less claustrophobic.


----------



## sttom (Jul 21, 2020)

Mailliw said:


> Bilevel cars are better for capacity of course, but there are other factors. Being able to standardize the long distance is one, but a bigger issue is Accessibility. Currently disabled Superliner passengers are confined to the lower level of their car, the Viaggio Comforts give end to end acess for the whole trainset. It would be hard (but not impossible) to pull that off with bilevels.That's a hugh deal, and I think it may be worth the tradeoff.


Sharing a shell isn't really required if all the parts that need to be replaced are the same. I personally wouldn't say the trade off of capacity would be worth it and it might not even be worth it from a cost standpoint. Longer trains are heavier trains which means increased fuel consumption which might not be worth it. And if the trains are the same length, you'd be getting less revenue which definitely isn't attractive. My question, which Amtrak doesn't like disclosing to the public, is do the Accessible Rooms on the Superliners sell well enough where available? If they sell well enough, they don't necessarily need to be that accommodating. Also, the Viaggio Twin is ~20 inches longer than the existing Superliners, which would mean more room for a chair lift if Amtrak did decide to be accommodating. 



cocojacoby said:


> Here's something really interesting for you. Looking at the Viaggio Twin specs, it is only 15.15 feet high. The GG1 is listed as 15.0 feet high over locked-down pantagraphs and they of course fit through NYP. That is enticingly close. What is the possibility that a low-profile Superliner could be made or the tracks lowered by an inch through NYP (steel ties)?
> 
> One suggestion . . . add Viewliner upper berth windows to make the upper berths less claustrophobic.


The problem with the existing Viaggio Twin design is it is what we would call a multi level, which would mean walking up and down stairs a bunch of times if you were to go between cars. Which is fine in Europe since most overnight trains are designed and planned so the riders don't have to move between cars. From what I've seen from travel videos on YouTube, some railways actually lock the doors between cars since there isn't a lounge or dining car to go to on some overnight trains in Europe.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Jul 21, 2020)

cocojacoby said:


> Here's something really interesting for you. Looking at the Viaggio Twin specs, it is only 15.15 feet high. The GG1 is listed as 15.0 feet high over locked-down pantagraphs and they of course fit through NYP. That is enticingly close. What is the possibility that a low-profile Superliner could be made or the tracks lowered by an inch through NYP (steel ties)?
> 
> One suggestion . . . add Viewliner upper berth windows to make the upper berths less claustrophobic.



There are other considerations on clearance too not all single level cars will clear New York Penn. For instance my friend Mr. Menzies his private car the San Marino can't operate in and out of Penn Station due to clearance. And it is a single level heavyweight office car. Items on the bottom of the car also impact clearance, especially in areas where there are third rails. Penn Station New York is one of such places, as well as Grand Central.


----------



## KnightRail (Jul 21, 2020)

rickycourtney said:


> I asked WSDOT's spokesperson if that means the "Wisconsin" Talgo Series 8 trainsets are not coming to the Amtrak Cascades. She replied, "They are being considered by Amtrak as an option if we need more equipment than is already here. No final decisions."



Not sure if there is a misunderstanding in that correspondence like she thought you were asking and responded about short term COVID service recovery instead of long term service plans but it seems work is underway already reconfiguring the two current ODOT Series 8 sets. There are pictures and video(which if shareable would be shared) of The Mt Jefferson cab car and baggage car being lifted in the air by two cranes along with commentary stating that those units are being swapped between the sets. Also the diner and an additional seat car are being removed from the two current sets to then be incorporated with the ex-Wisconsin cars that are said to be coming out in August(to be confirmed). Basically the two Series 8 sets will be transformed and grow to become five Series 8 sets when completed. This will utilize all five of the cab cars that were built 7910, 7911, 7950, 7951, & 7952.
Two OR sets minus two cars each, plus two WI sets minus a few cars each, plus the spare WI cars plus the cars subtracted from the four sets equals five. Confused yet? Then just stay tuned.


----------



## rickycourtney (Jul 22, 2020)

I don’t think there was any misunderstanding.

To my knowledge, Amtrak has proposed renting the former Wisconsin sets from Talgo as part of its compensation to WSDOT for the loss of the Series VI set that was wrecked in part due to Amtrak’s negligence.

That doesn’t mean WSDOT has agreed to Amtrak’s plan. WSDOT could still negotiating with Amtrak on the details of the arrangement.

But there’s a reason why this thread title ends with a “yet.”

Ultimately, I think WSDOT and Amtrak will come to an agreement that sees the Series 8 sets coming to the Pacific Northwest.

I also think it’s going to be a temporary arrangement. I don’t believe Amtrak or WSDOT will purchase the Series 8 trainsets from Talgo. I get the feeling that WSDOT wants to be done with the Talgo maintenance agreements.

WSDOT has cash and grants in hand to buy new railcars. They’ve made it clear that they want to get on Amtrak’s (seemingly delayed) order for the Amfleet replacement. Talgo is unlikely to win that order. I’ve also heard rumors that they’ve looked into buying Siemens Venture trainsets similar to those being built for California, the Midwest and VIA’s Corridor.


----------



## KnightRail (Jul 22, 2020)

Short-term looks like Horizon equipment, mid-term Series 8 Talgos, long-term likely new equipment. Discussing short to mid-term: It’s obviously beyond talk, proposal, and negotiation if the two ODOT sets are being altered and cars are being removed. It also took more than hope and a prayer for the ex-Wisconsin equipment to be moved out of Beech Grove and sent off for modification. The players appear to be holding their playing cards close for now and that’s their prerogative. Some agreement must be signed between ODOT, WSDOT, AMTK, and TALGO that initiated musical cars amongst trainsets. ODOT clearly has stronger leverage now since they are the state who owns the only in service Cascades Talgo equipment. How do they feel having purchased two Talgo Series 8 sets that are only eight years old? Not a good look for ODOT to write off new equipment they were given grant money to purchase. ODOT must want to see successful Talgo utilization if willing to give up cars from their owned sets. Would like to see an ODOT statement on the matter.


----------



## rickycourtney (Jul 22, 2020)

The ownership of the Cascades equipment has been somewhat strange with the states owning five of the trainsets and Amtrak owning two trainsets. 

These three additional Series 8 trainsets are only enough to replace Amtrak's two Series VI trainsets and the one WSDOT Series VI trainset that was wrecked. WSDOT didn't need to agree to this plan, just Talgo, ODOT and Amtrak. Also, if ODOT is smart, they put a provision in the contract that when Amtrak's rental agreement with Talgo is over, the cars they "borrowed" will be returned.

I suspect the discussions around how much WSDOT will pay Amtrak for rental fees on these trainsets (which must be fun with Amtrak's opaque accounting). I also suspect that with service gutted... WSDOT isn't interested in paying anything at the moment.

WSDOT has about 75 million to spend on new trainsets. At current market prices, that's enough to buy three trainsets, a one-for-one replacement of WSDOT's Series VI trainsets.

So, theoretically, ODOT could continue to use the Talgo Series 8 trainsets, while WSDOT operates newer and very different trainsets. I'm sure the folks in Salem aren't happy with Olympia's decision.


----------



## Chris I (Jul 22, 2020)

I hope that they can make the Wisconsin cars work in the mid-term future. 5 Talgo sets would at least allow them to operate the pre-Covid schedules. If the Bypass is used and schedule/reliability improve as expected, I think an adjustment of the schedule could be done to add 2 more round trips and better utilize the equipment. At a minimum, it makes sense to focus the Talgos on SEA-PDX and then SEA-VAC, and then use Horizons between PDX-EUG.


----------



## rickycourtney (Jul 22, 2020)

Chris I said:


> I hope that they can make the Wisconsin cars work in the mid-term future. 5 Talgo sets would at least allow them to operate the pre-Covid schedules. If the Bypass is used and schedule/reliability improve as expected, I think an adjustment of the schedule could be done to add 2 more round trips and better utilize the equipment. At a minimum, it makes sense to focus the Talgos on SEA-PDX and then SEA-VAC, and then use Horizons between PDX-EUG.


Except that ODOT will balk at the idea of their Series 8 trains being used only in the VAC-SEA-PDX part of the corridor and not on the section of the line they pay for.


----------



## Chris I (Jul 23, 2020)

rickycourtney said:


> Except that ODOT will balk at the idea of their Series 8 trains being used only in the VAC-SEA-PDX part of the corridor and not on the section of the line they pay for.


I agree, but it's time to make some tough choices. Ridership south of Portland has always been dismal. With University of Oregon going online this year, I think it is going to continue to stay very low. Using a 2 carriage Horizon trainset would probably serve the line. It's too bad we don't have any spare DMUs laying around. A line like this in Europe would probably have 4x per day DMU service.


----------



## NSC1109 (Jul 23, 2020)

rickycourtney said:


> I don’t think there was any misunderstanding.
> 
> To my knowledge, Amtrak has proposed renting the former Wisconsin sets from Talgo as part of its compensation to WSDOT for the loss of the Series VI set that was wrecked in part due to Amtrak’s negligence.
> 
> ...



Amtrak was supposed to turn a profit this year and they lost a crap ton of money due to COVID. They’re laying off staff, cutting train frequencies, and doing everything they can to reduce expenses.

It’s truly not a mystery why the order is delayed. It’s not happening any time soon.


----------



## NSC1109 (Jul 23, 2020)

Chris I said:


> I hope that they can make the Wisconsin cars work in the mid-term future. 5 Talgo sets would at least allow them to operate the pre-Covid schedules. If the Bypass is used and schedule/reliability improve as expected, I think an adjustment of the schedule could be done to add 2 more round trips and better utilize the equipment. At a minimum, it makes sense to focus the Talgos on SEA-PDX and then SEA-VAC, and then use Horizons between PDX-EUG.



The cars will be based in SEA because that’s where the MRO base is. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. 507 lays over in EUG but there is nothing done there beyond general servicing. PDX has no maintenance facility beyond general servicing.





Chris I said:


> I agree, but it's time to make some tough choices. Ridership south of Portland has always been dismal. With University of Oregon going online this year, I think it is going to continue to stay very low. Using a 2 carriage Horizon trainset would probably serve the line. It's too bad we don't have any spare DMUs laying around. A line like this in Europe would probably have 4x per day DMU service.



The US doesn’t have DMUs running next to freight trains because of the dangers involved with the lightweight cars plus lack of coupler strength. PTC won’t stop everything, either.

Even then, I think you’d be hard-pressed to find a two-car train serving only PDX-EUG.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Jul 24, 2020)

DMU are in use in multi states. Oregon is/was one of them.

You can buy new or rebuild use.









Home - Stadler


. Stadler baut seit über 75 Jahren Schienenfahrzeuge. Für Kunden, die sich auf Zuverlässigkeit, Präzision und einen erstklassigen Service verlassen können...



www.stadlerrail.com


----------



## NSC1109 (Jul 25, 2020)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> DMU are in use in multi states. Oregon is/was one of them.
> 
> You can buy new or rebuild use.
> 
> ...



They may be in use, but only because they’re classified as Light Rail or they are kept away from freight trains. You cannot share a tracks with a DMU and freight. FRA doesn’t allow it.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Jul 25, 2020)

NSC1109 said:


> They may be in use, but only because they’re classified as Light Rail or they are kept away from freight trains. You cannot share a tracks with a DMU and freight. FRA doesn’t allow it.



Actually the West Side Express is a DMU service that shares 95 percent of it's routes with the shortline Portland & Western. The Colorado Railcar DMU's they are using are not overly reliable to the point that they have two Budd RDCs in service to augment schedules when the other cars are down. Recently they just bought three more Budd RDCs for the route as well. Now generally I haven't seen freight when the WES is running but it wouldn't surprise me if there was some mixing.


----------



## cocojacoby (Jul 25, 2020)

NSC1109 said:


> They may be in use, but only because they’re classified as Light Rail or they are kept away from freight trains. You cannot share a tracks with a DMU and freight. FRA doesn’t allow it.



Sorry but not true. The Colorado Railcar DMU is certified for such use.

US Railcar is the company who bought the assets and patents from them:





__





US Railcar


USA Recovery Group provides asset management and special services to help m.



www.usrailcar.com


----------



## NSC1109 (Jul 25, 2020)

cocojacoby said:


> Sorry but not true. The Colorado Railcar DMU is certified for such use.
> 
> US Railcar is the company who bought the assets and patents from them:
> 
> ...



Then it’s the only car for such use.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Jul 25, 2020)

I believe the River Line DMU's that New Jersey Transit operates also share a line with freight service. But the freight service scheduled times are never in conflict with the DMUs. DMUs by day freight by night. And I believe those are on a waiver too.


----------



## KnightRail (Jul 27, 2020)

Within the past couple days _Mt. Jefferson returned to service. Previously the set consisted of:_
7910-7562-[7560-7810]-7310-7700-7204-7701-7201-7704-7202-7707-7110
Now the set is:
7910–7707-7202-7704-7201-7701-7204-7700-7310-7562-7110
The end cars(cab and baggage) changed positions and cars 7560 & 7810 were removed.


----------



## rickycourtney (Jul 27, 2020)

Wait, why did they remove a "dining" car and a business class car? Did Talgo need to be reminded what they look like to make more?


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Jul 27, 2020)

rickycourtney said:


> Wait, why did they remove a "dining" car and a business class car? Did Talgo need to be reminded what they look like to make more?


They are shortening the consists so when combined with removed cars from the Wisconsin sets an entire new set can be formed.


----------



## rickycourtney (Jul 27, 2020)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> They are shortening the consists so when combined with removed cars from the Wisconsin sets an entire new set can be formed.


Yeah, but you’d presumably want to remove coach cars for that.


----------



## rickycourtney (Jul 27, 2020)

Sorry in advance -- this is a technical explanation.

The ODOT Series 8 trainsets are 13 cars long: a cab, two business class cars with a bathroom and wheelchair lift, a dining (table) car, a bistro car, four coach cars, three coach cars with a bathroom and wheelchair lift, and a baggage car.

The layout is like this:
Cab - Business(WC) - Business(WC) - Dining - Bistro - Coach - Coach(WC) - Coach - Coach(WC) - Coach - Coach(WC) - Coach - Baggage

The Wisconsin Series 8 trainsets are 14 cars long: a cab, six coach cars, five coach cars with a bathroom and wheelchair lift, a bistro car, and an end car with coach seating and bike storage. Plus the spare cab, bistro and end cars.

The layout is like this:
Cab - Coach - Coach(WC) - Coach - Coach(WC) - Coach - Coach(WC) - Coach - Bistro - Coach - Coach(WC) - Coach - Coach(WC) - Bike/Coach

If the plan is to keep the business class product (and keep it consistent) six of the Coach(WC) cars will need to be converted into Business(WC) cars (should be a
"simple" as swapping out the seats).
If the plan is to keep offering checked baggage service, the three end cars will need to be converted into Baggage cars (this will be a bit harder to do).

After that -- if they pull one Coach(WC) car per ODOT set, and one Coach(WC) car and two Coach cars per Wisconsin set they'll be able to make up five trainsets of 12 cars:
Cab - Business(WC) - Business(WC) - Bistro - Coach - Coach(WC) - Coach - Coach(WC) - Coach - Coach - Baggage/Coach

The dining cars would remain on the ODOT sets, but those are non-revenue seats, so that doesn't matter as much.

That's just one possible re-configuration of the trainsets, but it's the one that seems most logical to me. It's a loss of 29 seats per train but the gain of an entire trainset and a consistent number of revenue seats across all five trainsets.


----------



## KnightRail (Jul 29, 2020)

rickycourtney said:


> The dining cars would remain on the ODOT sets, but those are non-revenue seats, so that doesn't matter as much.



It is crystal clear that the non-revenue dining(table) cars are NOT remaining in the ODOT sets. They were already removed. That’s not an idea or a plan. It already happened. Crews with cranes already worked through the night with the cars flying through the air completing this. Sets will now have one(1) business class car and no table cars. The new ODOT configurations are final:
Cab
Coach
Coach(WC)
Coach
Coach(WC)
Coach
Coach(WC)
Coach
Bistro
Business(WC)
Baggage

The two removed business class cars will give the two exWI sets each one business class car. The dining(table) cars are prime candidates for easy reconfiguration. Tables out, seats in, with one likely becoming the business class car for the third set being built out from the spare cars and the other table car becoming another coach or baggage car. All five Talgo Series 8 sets will be configured as similar as possible when this project is completed.


----------



## Willbridge (Jul 29, 2020)

Maglev said:


> I think these are the things that determine a premium service: How comfortable are the seats? It's easy to beat the Talgo VIII's. Are the trains on time? An extra 15 minutes won't make that much of a difference on a 3.5 hour trip but just being on time is important. Are there decent foods and beverages in the cafe? The menu was acceptable in the past, but reductions in demand may necessitate lower quality. Is there a pleasant boarding process? The elimination of assigned seats (I think in October, 2019) creates a free-for-all rush to get good seats. Are the trains and stations clean? I once saw the Talgo tech refilling the paper towels in a bathroom on the train.
> 
> Washington and Oregon can have a good transportation corridor if attention is paid to details.


The fastest pre-Amtrak running time was 3:45, with the Amtrak stops plus Chehalis. The NP was working on a 3:30 schedule but dropped that after Menk became president. The 3:45 time was well-adhered to, possibly because they had an RPO contract (I was at either Vancouver or Portland to meet newspaper shipments on Pool Train 408 on many days).


----------



## Willbridge (Jul 29, 2020)

Seaboard92 said:


> The ones they built for the Russians are fantastic looking. But then again I think Russian interior design on a lot of their trains is nothing short of amazing for public transit.
> 
> For those who don't know much about Russian trains here are some links for you to take a look at.
> 
> ...


I read the dining car menu on the secondary _Tomich _in 2010 and it looked great, but a lot of items were out of stock on a three night trip between Moscow and Tomsk.


----------



## Willbridge (Jul 29, 2020)

Seaboard92 said:


> Actually the West Side Express is a DMU service that shares 95 percent of it's routes with the shortline Portland & Western. The Colorado Railcar DMU's they are using are not overly reliable to the point that they have two Budd RDCs in service to augment schedules when the other cars are down. Recently they just bought three more Budd RDCs for the route as well. Now generally I haven't seen freight when the WES is running but it wouldn't surprise me if there was some mixing.



In my 2019 visit a freight came through Tigard right after the last commuter train of the evening. BTW, if one is visiting WES, the mid-route Tigard station is the best place for handy coffee and cakes and meets. It also has frequent direct bus service to and from downtown Portland, including a segment on the former Red Electric right-of-way.


----------



## Willbridge (Jul 29, 2020)

Seaboard92 said:


> I believe the River Line DMU's that New Jersey Transit operates also share a line with freight service. But the freight service scheduled times are never in conflict with the DMUs. DMUs by day freight by night. And I believe those are on a waiver too.


Right. The transit industry term is "temporal separation". NJT fits in some odd schedule quirks to work around the freight hours.


----------



## rickycourtney (Jul 29, 2020)

KnightRail said:


> It is crystal clear that the non-revenue dining(table) cars are NOT remaining in the ODOT sets. They were already removed. That’s not an idea or a plan. It already happened. Crews with cranes already worked through the night with the cars flying through the air completing this. Sets will now have one(1) business class car and no table cars. The new ODOT configurations are final:
> Cab
> Coach
> Coach(WC)
> ...


Do the dining (table) cars have vestibules? I've forgotten. That would require It would require A LOT of reconfiguration to add boarding doors. In that case, converting one of the Coach(WC) cars will be far easier. Furthermore, it's workable to have a door-less coach in the middle of a train.

The ODOT configuration (which I don't doubt is the current configuration) leaves seven cars unused... so they almost certainly will need to be reconfigured.


----------



## rickycourtney (Jul 30, 2020)

I found that Amtrak published a new FY20-FY25 Asset Line Plan document with a section called "Amtrak Cascades Talgo VI Retirement and Interim Fleet Solution " which puts Amtrak's plan in black and white...

On May 21, 2019, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued its findings regarding the December 18, 2017 accident involving Train 501 at DuPont, WA. The NTSB recommended that the FRA remove the car design waiver which allows the Talgo VI fleet to operate on Amtrak Cascades.​​Subsequently, we developed a plan with our Washington state partner to retire Talgo VI equipment, used on all but two trainset assignments for the Amtrak Cascades service. This plan includes substituting non-Talgo VI equipment on Amtrak Cascades service until new equipment arrives to permanently replace the retired Talgo VI trainsets.​​In the short term, we are reviewing locations where more efficient utilization of Horizon and/or Amfleet equipment may free up railcars for use on Amtrak Cascades. Additionally, we are reviewing the feasibility of leasing additional equipment, such as unused, newer Talgo 8 trainsets (which do not require the car design waivers in question), to supplement cars shifted from other corridors. In the longer term, Washington State is likely to participate in Amtrak’s Amfleet I replacement / Intercity Trainset order of equipment. Between now and the likely delivery of new equipment, additional Horizon and Amfleet equipment will be shifted from service in the Midwest and California thanks to the procurement of 137 new Siemens single level cars by our state partners, increasing the availability of other Amtrak fleet types which can be used for substitutions.​
So, no matter what happens with the Talgo 8 trainsets... they're a short/medium-term plan.


----------



## NSC1109 (Jul 30, 2020)

rickycourtney said:


> I found that Amtrak published a new FY20-FY25 Asset Line Plan document with a section called "Amtrak Cascades Talgo VI Retirement and Interim Fleet Solution " which puts Amtrak's plan in black and white...
> 
> On May 21, 2019, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued its findings regarding the December 18, 2017 accident involving Train 501 at DuPont, WA. The NTSB recommended that the FRA remove the car design waiver which allows the Talgo VI fleet to operate on Amtrak Cascades.​​Subsequently, we developed a plan with our Washington state partner to retire Talgo VI equipment, used on all but two trainset assignments for the Amtrak Cascades service. This plan includes substituting non-Talgo VI equipment on Amtrak Cascades service until new equipment arrives to permanently replace the retired Talgo VI trainsets.​​In the short term, we are reviewing locations where more efficient utilization of Horizon and/or Amfleet equipment may free up railcars for use on Amtrak Cascades. Additionally, we are reviewing the feasibility of leasing additional equipment, such as unused, newer Talgo 8 trainsets (which do not require the car design waivers in question), to supplement cars shifted from other corridors. In the longer term, Washington State is likely to participate in Amtrak’s Amfleet I replacement / Intercity Trainset order of equipment. Between now and the likely delivery of new equipment, additional Horizon and Amfleet equipment will be shifted from service in the Midwest and California thanks to the procurement of 137 new Siemens single level cars by our state partners, increasing the availability of other Amtrak fleet types which can be used for substitutions.​
> So, no matter what happens with the Talgo 8 trainsets... they're a short/medium-term plan.



Say goodbye to the Talgos, then. The PacNW is finally going to come in line with the rest of the network.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jul 30, 2020)

NSC1109 said:


> Say goodbye to the Talgos, then. The PacNW is finally going to come in line with the rest of the network.



That’s a downgrade for cascades service imho.


----------



## rickycourtney (Jul 30, 2020)

Now hearing (from Trainorders) that BNSF will allow Amtrak to operate the Horizon trainsets at the same speed as the Talgo trainsets. If true, that removes one of the big "selling points" of the Talgo trainsets. The ride won't be as comfortable (more centrifugal force through curves) but will be just as fast.

Presumably, if the Horizon trainsets can travel at the same speeds as the Talgo trainsets... nearly any other single-level trainset would also be allowed to travel at the same speeds.

I would guess that the Superliners would be more unstable at the higher speeds.


----------



## NSC1109 (Jul 30, 2020)

rickycourtney said:


> Now hearing (from Trainorders) that BNSF will allow Amtrak to operate the Horizon trainsets at the same speed as the Talgo trainsets. If true, that removes one of the big "selling points" of the Talgo trainsets. The ride won't be as comfortable (more centrifugal force through curves) but will be just as fast.
> 
> Presumably, if the Horizon trainsets can travel at the same speeds as the Talgo trainsets... nearly any other single-level trainset would also be allowed to travel at the same speeds.
> 
> I would guess that the Superliners would be more unstable at the higher speeds.



That is correct. Superliners are limited to 100mph. Horizons can do up to 110 easy.


----------



## Willbridge (Jul 30, 2020)

As I mentioned earlier in this thread that some of the last Pool schedules did Portland<>Seattle in 3:45 with the Chehalis stops, but no Tukwila. I checked and the timetable dated October 25, 1970 showed three trains running that fast. One of them, BN196 (NP407), also showed a conditional stop at Puyallup.

The NP was studying a 3:30 schedule to go along with their installation of double-track CTC and then Menk took over. I don't know if that included deleting any stops, but of course it was via the Point Defiance line. The Pool schedules had assumed a certain amount of heavyweights in the consists, but by 1968 I only recall them using lightweight cars, even on excursions.


----------



## Chris I (Aug 3, 2020)

Willbridge said:


> As I mentioned earlier in this thread that some of the last Pool schedules did Portland<>Seattle in 3:45 with the Chehalis stops, but no Tukwila. I checked and the timetable dated October 25, 1970 showed three trains running that fast. One of them, BN196 (NP407), also showed a conditional stop at Puyallup.
> 
> The NP was studying a 3:30 schedule to go along with their installation of double-track CTC and then Menk took over. I don't know if that included deleting any stops, but of course it was via the Point Defiance line. The Pool schedules had assumed a certain amount of heavyweights in the consists, but by 1968 I only recall them using lightweight cars, even on excursions.



And I've been on Talgo VI trips that were just slightly over 3:00 on the corridor. We got lucky with no freight delays, and a light passenger load made for shorter stops. I would be surprised if standard equipment could make this time and keep the passengers comfortable. The Talgos sit lower and the passive tilt really helps to erase the lateral forces. I've never had issues with items sliding laterally off of tables, for example. I can't imagine that would be the same in a Horizon car going 60mph along the water route south of Tacoma.


----------



## zephyr17 (Aug 6, 2020)

NSC1109 said:


> That is correct. Superliners are limited to 100mph. Horizons can do up to 110 easy.


Which doesn't apply here, the entire line is restricted to 79mph maximum. The Talgos were allowed higher speeds through curves, but still 79 or below.


----------



## NSC1109 (Aug 6, 2020)

zephyr17 said:


> Which doesn't apply here, the entire line is restricted to 79mph maximum. The Talgos were allowed higher speeds through curves, but still 79 or below.


 
I wasn’t saying that the Horizons can do 110 everywhere. I said that they are able to handle higher speeds. There shouldn’t be any issues with the Horizons moving that quickly through the curves.


----------



## Chris I (Aug 7, 2020)

NSC1109 said:


> I wasn’t saying that the Horizons can do 110 everywhere. I said that they are able to handle higher speeds. There shouldn’t be any issues with the Horizons moving that quickly through the curves.


Have you ridden the Cascades route? The passenger comfort issues with running conventional equipment through curves at high-speeds are well-documented, which is why tilting trains are used on routes like this all over the world:








Tilting train - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## rickycourtney (Aug 7, 2020)

Chris I said:


> Have you ridden the Cascades route? The passenger comfort issues with running conventional equipment through curves at high-speeds are well-documented, which is why tilting trains are used on routes like this all over the world


I have been on the Cascades several times. 110 is not possible. 

However, Amtrak, WSDOT, and BNSF think there are no safety issues with allowing the Horizon trainsets to travel at the exact same speeds as the Talgo trainsets.

That pokes a bunch of holes in the arguments for the *need* to have tilting trainsets to go faster in the Cascades corridor.

Now, passengers might be slightly more uncomfortable during the curves... but that's something that I think needs a lot more study in this corridor before a definitive statement could be made. I would venture to guess that it's no more uncomfortable than doing full speed over rough track. Amtrak does plenty of that all over the nation.


----------



## Chris I (Aug 7, 2020)

rickycourtney said:


> I have been on the Cascades several times. 110 is not possible.
> 
> However, Amtrak, WSDOT, and BNSF think there are no safety issues with allowing the Horizon trainsets to travel at the exact same speeds as the Talgo trainsets.
> 
> ...


I never said 110 was possible on the corridor. Not sure why that was brought up at all (must have been somehow who doesn't know the route).

I still have yet to see any information on the Horizons running at the same speeds, aside from comments on this forum. We do have hard data from the past few weeks showing that 500/505 were chronically late (OTP approaching 0%) while running Horizons. Until I see otherwise, I don't buy that a trainset with Horizons can do SEA-PDX and keep the schedule. 

This is also what we have seen in the past, when they have supplemented old Amtrak equipment during holiday periods. These extra trains were scheduled for 4:15 on the corridor vs. the 3:30 of the Talgos:








Extra Helpings of Amtrak Cascades Trains between Seattle and Portland for Thanksgiving - Amtrak Media


Amtrak Cascades will once again provide holiday travelers with more options for getting to destinations in the Pacific Northwest this Thanksgiving season.



media.amtrak.com





I think people who aren't from the region don't fully understand this line. This is not your standard state-run barebones service. We have business class on the Talgos, and people pay a premium over bus options with similar run times, or they take a slight time penalty over flying to ride in comfort. If you decrease comfort/quality and/or increase travel time, it is going to really hurt ridership. What would happen to ridership on Acela if Amtrak substituted NE Regional equipment on all of the runs?


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 7, 2020)

Chris I said:


> Have you ridden the Cascades route? The passenger comfort issues with running conventional equipment through curves at high-speeds are well-documented, which is why tilting trains are used on routes like this all over the world:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How many curves are there on the route where this would be an issue?

Maybe they should just electrify the route and use the old Acela trainsets when they're retired?


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Aug 7, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> How many curves are there on the route where this would be an issue?
> 
> Maybe they should just electrify the route and use the old Acela trainsets when they're retired?


Sounds like a plan (a great plan)!


----------



## jis (Aug 7, 2020)

Metra Electric Rider said:


> Sounds like a plan (a great plan)!


Sounds like using a cannon to try to kill a fly


----------



## rickycourtney (Aug 7, 2020)

Chris I said:


> I never said 110 was possible on the corridor. Not sure why that was brought up at all (must have been somehow who doesn't know the route).
> 
> I still have yet to see any information on the Horizons running at the same speeds, aside from comments on this forum. We do have hard data from the past few weeks showing that 500/505 were chronically late (OTP approaching 0%) while running Horizons. Until I see otherwise, I don't buy that a trainset with Horizons can do SEA-PDX and keep the schedule.
> 
> ...



I don't have a copy of it, but BNSF has issued a "general track bulletin" (recent orders not printed in a timetable) that permits Amtrak Cascades trains operating with Horizon/Amfleet equipment can observe posted Talgo speeds and operate with PTC in Tilt train mode. Maybe an Amtrak/BNSF insider can post it?

This is a very good thing.

Why?

*WSDOT has made it clear... they are done with Talgo.

Period. End of story.*

When WSDOT buys new trainsets they plan to join the Amtrak order which will almost certainly not have a passive tilting feature.

New trainsets that can observe posted Talgo speeds without passive tilting will offer quality and can maintain travel times (heck, with trainlined doors they could probably go faster). Putting the Point Defiance Bypass into service will make an even bigger difference in making travel times more attractive.

We will have to see if the lack of passive tilting will make a difference in comfort so noticeable that it drives passengers away. I doubt it.


----------



## jis (Aug 7, 2020)

Indeed, tilting trains are mostly a comfort thing. There are no basic safety issues involved if operated without tilt. That is a basic safety requirement that must be met by all of them.


----------



## cocojacoby (Aug 7, 2020)

I was involved in the NEC high-speed rail tests in the 80s. Yes Amfleet could run as fast as the Talgo and the LRC but it was rather uncomfortable.

I recall on one part of the test when we were standing (we stood and sat at different times) there was a sharp pain in my ankle as the Amfleet rounded a curve. There was no pain with the Talgo.


----------



## jis (Aug 7, 2020)

Always remember that an Amfleet consist pulled by an AEM-7 made it around the Elezabeth S-Curve at 100mph due to an operator error, without derailing, due to an operator error.


----------



## zephyr17 (Aug 7, 2020)

The Talgo tilting was always a matter of passenger comfort, not safety.

There are many, many curves on the line with higher (not by a lot, usually 5 mph or less) speed restrictions for Talgos. There are always sets of 3 speed boards on the line, T, P, and F


----------



## Chris I (Aug 7, 2020)

cocojacoby said:


> I was involved in the NEC high-speed rail tests in the 80s. Yes Amfleet could run as fast as the Talgo and the LRC but it was rather uncomfortable.
> 
> I recall on one part of the test when we were standing (we stood and sat at different times) there was a sharp pain in my ankle as the Amfleet rounded a curve. There was no pain with the Talgo.


This is my point. WSDOT knows nothing about train service, which is why I'm not shocked that they would think standard equipment would be equivalent on this route. This is just another mistake in the series of mistakes they've made here, and ridership will suffer. Moving to the Bypass route will mitigate it somewhat, but we still have many sections where it is going to degrade service. Look at the section between Vancouver, WA, and Chehalis, WA.


----------



## zephyr17 (Aug 7, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> How many curves are there on the route where this would be an issue?
> 
> Maybe they should just electrify the route and use the old Acela trainsets when they're retired?


It is a very curvy route. Most of the curves have marginally higher speed restrictions posted for Talgos.

The Talgos were purchased primarily because of the passive tilting in curves in the first place, due to the curviness of the line.

Doubt BNSF would cooperate on electrification. It is a primary line with very heavy freight traffic.


----------



## railiner (Aug 7, 2020)

jis said:


> Indeed, tilting trains are mostly a comfort thing. There are no basic safety issues involved if operated without tilt. That is a basic safety requirement that must be met by all of them.


It could be a safety defect if it tilts too much, IIRC...weren't the Acela's 'banned' from using tilt on the MNRR portion of the NEC for awhile, because of tight clearance?


http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/PRIIA%20305%20DocSpec%20and%20other%20NGEC%20Documents/305%20PRIIA%20Tilt%20presentation.pdf


----------



## Steve4031 (Aug 7, 2020)

I’m planning a ride in the evening trip from Portland to Eugene. Is this service operated by Talgo equipment?


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Aug 7, 2020)

Sadly you find out when the train arrives.


----------



## Chris I (Aug 7, 2020)

Steve4031 said:


> I’m planning a ride in the evening trip from Portland to Eugene. Is this service operated by Talgo equipment?


From recent videos posted on YouTube, it looks like they've been using a 10-car Talgo consist the past few days. Hard to say, though. We know the Horizons are here now.


----------



## Steve4031 (Aug 8, 2020)

Ouch. That would be painful to seee those pull into Portland on Thursday 8/20. Think I would cancel and return to Chicago a day earlier.


----------



## Barb Stout (Aug 8, 2020)

Does the passenger comfort problem with non-tilting trains have to do with car/sea/sickness or something else? Like being a passenger (a certain kind of passenger) in an automobile going fast on curvy roads?


----------



## jis (Aug 8, 2020)

railiner said:


> It could be a safety defect if it tilts too much, IIRC...weren't the Acela's 'banned' from using tilt on the MNRR portion of the NEC for awhile, because of tight clearance?
> 
> 
> http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/PRIIA%20305%20DocSpec%20and%20other%20NGEC%20Documents/305%20PRIIA%20Tilt%20presentation.pdf


Actually that was more political than technical. There never was a problem except MNRR throwing its weight around. Nothing changed except getting a firm political kick in the butts of MNRR to get them to allow the tilt. No track centers were changed and no curves were modified or anything like that.


----------



## zephyr17 (Aug 8, 2020)

Barb Stout said:


> Does the passenger comfort problem with non-tilting trains have to do with car/sea/sickness or something else? Like being a passenger (a certain kind of passenger) in an automobile going fast on curvy roads?


Centripetal force. Passengers feel pushed to the outside, as well as laptops, drinks, cups of Ivar's Clam Chowder, etc.

Tilting banks the car body, offsetting that.


----------



## cocojacoby (Aug 8, 2020)

Barb Stout said:


> Does the passenger comfort problem with non-tilting trains have to do with car/sea/sickness or something else? Like being a passenger (a certain kind of passenger) in an automobile going fast on curvy roads?



Here is one giant pet peeve of mine. Amtrak has decided that half of the new Acela II seats are going to face backwards. On the curvy NEC in New England that is going to be a problem for many people who are susceptible to motion sickness.


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 8, 2020)

railiner said:


> It could be a safety defect if it tilts too much, IIRC...weren't the Acela's 'banned' from using tilt on the MNRR portion of the NEC for awhile, because of tight clearance?
> 
> 
> http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/PRIIA%20305%20DocSpec%20and%20other%20NGEC%20Documents/305%20PRIIA%20Tilt%20presentation.pdf


Heck, in the Metro-North section of the NEC, the Acelas go so slowly anyway, they don't need to tilt.


----------



## jis (Aug 8, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> Heck, in the Metro-North section of the NEC, the Acelas go so slowly anyway, they don't need to tilt.


Nevertheless they do tilt.  They tilt (proportionately) at speeds over 40mph or something like that.


----------



## railiner (Aug 8, 2020)

zephyr17 said:


> Centripetal force. Passengers feel pushed to the outside, as well as laptops, drinks, cups of Ivar's Clam Chowder, etc.
> 
> Tilting banks the car body, offsetting that.


What the tilting does, is change the forces from pushing people and objects to the side, instead pushing them more straight down towards the floor. 
So, instead of being forced to the side, you just feel 'heavier'....


----------



## Steve4031 (Aug 8, 2020)

cocojacoby said:


> Here is one giant pet peeve of mine. Amtrak has decided that half of the new Acela II seats are going to face backwards. On the curvy NEC in New England that is going to be a problem for many people who are susceptible to motion sickness.



This is not an issue in other parts of world.


----------



## NSC1109 (Aug 9, 2020)

Chris I said:


> Have you ridden the Cascades route? The passenger comfort issues with running conventional equipment through curves at high-speeds are well-documented, which is why tilting trains are used on routes like this all over the world:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, I have ridden the route three times. Once on Talgo equipment from Vancouver to Seattle, once on Superliner equipment from LA to Seattle, and the last on the _Builder_ to Chicago.

Not once did I hear about anyone being uncomfortable nor was I uncomfortable. It was a smooth ride and a beautiful trip.


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 9, 2020)

I wonder how much minor increases or decreases in speed over small parts of the route really affect total travel time. For example, when I read about the plans for the new B&P Tunnel in Baltimore, it was stated that in the current tunnel, the speeds were restricted to 35 mph. In the new tunnel, they will be able to go 50 mph. The will cut the transit time by 2 minutes. That means that BAL-WAS will now be 28 minutes on the Acela, 40 minutes on the Regional, and 58 minutes on a MARC local. Obviously, they're not doing this for the increased speed, they need to do it before the tunnel (built in the 1870s) collapses on a train or something.

The relevant question about the Cascade service and the elimination of the Talgos, is how much longer is the total travel time increased because the trains have to run around curves more slowly? How many curves? How much more slowly? If non-tilting equipment can go around curves at the same speed as the Talgos, what's the ride like when going around the curves?


----------



## zephyr17 (Aug 9, 2020)

NSC1109 said:


> Yes, I have ridden the route three times. Once on Talgo equipment from Vancouver to Seattle, once on Superliner equipment from LA to Seattle, and the last on the _Builder_ to Chicago.
> 
> Not once did I hear about anyone being uncomfortable nor was I uncomfortable. It was a smooth ride and a beautiful trip.


Superliners run at slower speeds through curves than the Talgos are allowed.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Aug 10, 2020)

If passenger comfort doesn’t matter why do we have padded seats? Can save lots of money by putting in those plastic bus / subway seats. Don’t worry the seats aren’t any less safe! And it’s not a problem in other parts of the world!


----------



## Chris I (Aug 10, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> I wonder how much minor increases or decreases in speed over small parts of the route really affect total travel time. For example, when I read about the plans for the new B&P Tunnel in Baltimore, it was stated that in the current tunnel, the speeds were restricted to 35 mph. In the new tunnel, they will be able to go 50 mph. The will cut the transit time by 2 minutes. That means that BAL-WAS will now be 28 minutes on the Acela, 40 minutes on the Regional, and 58 minutes on a MARC local. Obviously, they're not doing this for the increased speed, they need to do it before the tunnel (built in the 1870s) collapses on a train or something.
> 
> The relevant question about the Cascade service and the elimination of the Talgos, is how much longer is the total travel time increased because the trains have to run around curves more slowly? How many curves? How much more slowly? If non-tilting equipment can go around curves at the same speed as the Talgos, what's the ride like when going around the curves?



Conventional equipment takes about 25 minutes longer on this corridor. Pretty significant when the run time is 3:30 on the Talgo. 4 hour run time is not competitive with alternatives on the corridor (Bolt Bus, Flying with public transit to/from the airport on both ends).


----------



## jis (Aug 10, 2020)

Of course we have no way of knowing if both timing have the same amount of recovery time, or one is tighter than the other. For example on the NEC, the Acelas do get a much tighter schedule than the Regionals which also stop at more places. They do have to try real hard to differentiate the two in running time and use every possible trick to achieve that.


----------



## rickycourtney (Aug 10, 2020)

Chris I said:


> Conventional equipment takes about 25 minutes longer on this corridor. Pretty significant when the run time is 3:30 on the Talgo. 4 hour run time is not competitive with alternatives on the corridor (Bolt Bus, Flying with public transit to/from the airport on both ends).


Again, for the record, with the speed limit restriction lifted -- that's not the reason for the slowdown. The current Horizon equipment, which requires doors to be manually opened and closed, could be causing a slowdown. 

Non-tilting equipment, with trainlined automatic doors, should be able to keep the same schedule as the Talgos.

But you're right, a 3:30 run time is PAINFUL when you consider that with no traffic, the BoltBus can make the trip in about 2:45.

The predictable 3:10 that was supposedly possible with the Point Defiance Bypass is better -- but frankly, WSDOT and Amtrak still need to work to tighten that up more. Station stops need to be shorter.

This gets me to an important, unmentioned point, the Talgo Series VI trains lacked fully trainlined automatic doors. Conductors could not stand at one control panel and open/close doors on one side of the trainset. That was the reason given for need to have the quirky assigned seating system. It was also a problem that Talgo was unable or unwilling to fix.


----------



## cocojacoby (Aug 10, 2020)

rickycourtney said:


> Non-tilting equipment, with trainlined automatic doors, should be able to keep the same schedule as the Talgos.


Well if that is the case than the Talgos could probably run even faster than they do.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Aug 10, 2020)

The Talgo's also have conductor operated doors. They frequently make announcement not all doors will open. We will be opening between cars blah and blah. Now in Seattle and Portland they open all doors, but only as they walk the train and do them.


----------



## Chris I (Aug 11, 2020)

rickycourtney said:


> Again, for the record, with the speed limit restriction lifted -- that's not the reason for the slowdown. The current Horizon equipment, which requires doors to be manually opened and closed, could be causing a slowdown.
> 
> Non-tilting equipment, with trainlined automatic doors, should be able to keep the same schedule as the Talgos.
> 
> ...



And the Talgo VIII have automatic doors?


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 12, 2020)

rickycourtney said:


> Non-tilting equipment, with trainlined automatic doors, should be able to keep the same schedule as the Talgos.



Sounds like a job for Amfleet 1's, though, come to think of it, I don't think the automatic doors work on low platforms.


----------



## daybeers (Aug 12, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> Sounds like a job for Amfleet 1's, though, come to think of it, I don't think the automatic doors work on low platforms.


Correct, the traps have to be deployed by a crew member. Not that hard to do, but the crew has to do it. So there needs to be a member at each door that's open.


----------



## Maglev (Aug 12, 2020)

On the British higher-speed trains I rode (Intercity 125's), the doors were manually opened by the passengers and opened outwards! Those waiting on the platform had to be mindful of impatient travelers opening the door of a moving train! But all the platforms were high-level, so there was no deploying of traps.

Somebody commented about removing padding on the seats to save weight, and it should be noted that was done on the Talgo VIII's. The seats are much less comfortable than the VI's. Comfort on the curves also applies to the human body.


----------



## Steve4031 (Aug 12, 2020)

Maglev said:


> On the British higher-speed trains I rode (Intercity 125's), the doors were manually opened by the passengers and opened outwards! Those waiting on the platform had to be mindful of impatient travelers opening the door of a moving train! But all the platforms were high-level, so there was no deploying of traps.
> 
> Somebody commented about removing padding on the seats to save weight, and it should be noted that was done on the Talgo VIII's. The seats are much less comfortable than the VI's. Comfort on the curves also applies to the human body.



The interesting thing about those cars in Britain is there is a mechanism to prevent those doors from opening when the train is operating above a certain speed. I remember inquiring about this when I observed the doors being opened while the train was in motion and arriving into a station. I was amazed by this entire process when I first visited in 1988. Additionally, I was a bit hesitant to open the door at all the first time I was first in line to get off because I was used to the Amtrak procedure of crew members only operating doors. Someone waited about 30 seconds and then opened the door and off we went. LOL.


----------



## rickycourtney (Aug 12, 2020)

Steve4031 said:


> The interesting thing about those cars in Britain is there is a mechanism to prevent those doors from opening when the train is operating above a certain speed. I remember inquiring about this when I observed the doors being opened while the train was in motion and arriving into a station. I was amazed by this entire process when I first visited in 1988. Additionally, I was a bit hesitant to open the door at all the first time I was first in line to get off because I was used to the Amtrak procedure of crew members only operating doors. Someone waited about 30 seconds and then opened the door and off we went. LOL.


Reminds me a bit of the old-school Paris Métro rolling stock. The doors only open when passengers pull up on a latch. You could pull the latch as the train was entering the station, and when the train slowed below a certain speed (pretty slow) the doors would fly open. A little more risky than the way today's doors work, but still very low risk.

The new Siemens Venture cars are both high-platform and have trainlined automatic doors. That's accomplished by having a step that deploys as the door opens, so a step box is not needed.


----------



## Steve4031 (Aug 12, 2020)

rickycourtney said:


> Reminds me a bit of the old-school Paris Métro rolling stock. The doors only open when passengers pull up on a latch. You could pull the latch as the train was entering the station, and when the train slowed below a certain speed (pretty slow) the doors would fly open. A little more risky than the way today's doors work, but still very low risk.
> 
> The new Siemens Venture cars are both high-platform and have trainlined automatic doors. That's accomplished by having a step that deploys as the door opens, so a step box is not needed.




This was an excellent video. It illustrates how those steps work. Should be easier than a horizon coach.


----------



## jrud (Aug 12, 2020)

Steve4031 said:


> This was an excellent video. It illustrates how those steps work. Should be easier than a horizon coach.


Also note that the 1B cars (end cars with two doors per side) are deploying the gap filler for high level boarding on the end nearest the NPCU/loco. This would not normally be done at a low level platform. The doors on the 1A cars (one door per side) and the second door on the 1Bs are for low level boarding with steps.


----------



## rickycourtney (Aug 12, 2020)

jrud said:


> Also note that the 1B cars (end cars with two doors per side) are deploying the gap filler for high level boarding on the end nearest the NPCU/loco. This would not normally be done at a low level platform. The doors on the 1A cars (one door per side) and the second door on the 1Bs are for low level boarding with steps.


Right, which will give passengers who use wheelchairs or don’t feel comfortable using stairs step free access to the train, without having to have the conductor deploy a lift, ramp or bridge plate. Big improvement for accessibility.


----------



## coleman (Aug 13, 2020)

I lived in Wisconsin when Governor Scott Walker decided to scrap the proposed train line even though we had a grant from the federal government to build the train route and every other state awarded a grant used them.

It's sad to think about how amazing the train line would have been. To be able to travel from Madison - Milwaukee - Chicago would have been a major benefit to residents of Wisconsin and growing the economy.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 13, 2020)

coleman said:


> I lived in Wisconsin when Governor Scott Walker decided to scrap the proposed train line even though we had a grant from the federal government to build the train route and every other state awarded a grant used them.
> 
> It's sad to think about how amazing the train line would have been. To be able to travel from Madison - Milwaukee - Chicago would have been a major benefit to residents of Wisconsin and growing the economy.


As Barrak Obama said: "Elections have consequences!"


----------



## jrud (Aug 13, 2020)

rickycourtney said:


> Right, which will give passengers who use wheelchairs or don’t feel comfortable using stairs step free access to the train, without having to have the conductor deploy a lift, ramp or bridge plate. Big improvement for accessibility.


Just to clarify, gap fillers are for high level platforms or low level platforms with a ramp or lift to take wheelchairs to the higher level. They can’t directly replace wheelchair lifts at a door for low platforms. California will have high level boarding at more stations over time.


----------



## rickycourtney (Aug 14, 2020)

jrud said:


> Just to clarify, gap fillers are for high level platforms or low level platforms with a ramp or lift to take wheelchairs to the higher level. They can’t directly replace wheelchair lifts at a door for low platforms. California will have high level boarding at more stations over time.


The plan is to add two “mini-high” platforms on all of the low platforms used by these San Joaquins trains. The two high platform doors with gap fillers will align with these mini-high platforms... the other doors will have steps to the low platform. No ramps or lifts required.


----------



## jrud (Aug 14, 2020)

rickycourtney said:


> The plan is to add two “mini-high” platforms on all of the low platforms used by these San Joaquins trains. The two high platform doors with gap fillers will align with these mini-high platforms... the other doors will have steps to the low platform. No ramps or lifts required.


The last I saw (https://sjjpa.com/wp-content/uploads/SJJPA-Board-Meeting-May-31-2019-Presentation-2.pdf) there were technical questions that needed working out before the mini-high platforms could be built. Are the plans and schedule Now complete? I also wondered if the wheelchair lifts would go away when all the mini-high and totally high platforms where done.


----------



## NSC1109 (Aug 14, 2020)

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305%20Activities%20Reports/2020/August/305%20activities%20report%20-%20monthly%207-31-20.pdf



July NGEC minutes appear to confirm that WSDOT will be tacking on to the Amtrak AMF I replacement order. They’re hopeful for an announcement by the end of summer.


----------



## neroden (Aug 15, 2020)

I'm starting to suspect that the state add-ons to the order will actually be executed before Amtrak's own order.


----------



## TrackWalker (Feb 28, 2021)

Anything new information about equipment to replace the two sets of Talgos are on their way south to the scrapper today?


----------



## Chris I (Apr 19, 2021)

Amtrak Cascades will be adding back 2 additional round trips starting May 24th, giving us 3x daily between PDX and SEA. I believe they are adding an additional trip to Eugene, as well, giving EUG-PDX 2x daily.

Does anyone know the equipment plan? 2x Talgo VIII with Horizon consists making up the difference? What is the status of the Point Defiance Bypass?


----------



## cocojacoby (Apr 19, 2021)

And where are the orphaned Wisconsin sets now?


----------



## rickycourtney (Apr 19, 2021)

Chris I said:


> What is the status of the Point Defiance Bypass?


The plan is to return to the bypass sometime this summer or fall. Details here: Rail - Tacoma - Bypass of Point Defiance - Complete December 2017


cocojacoby said:


> And where are the orphaned Wisconsin sets now?


Last I heard they were back at Talgo's facility in Wisconsin. As of now, there's no plan to use them on the Cascades. WSDOT has actively resisted Amtrak's plan to lease them.

With the Siemens Venture sets about to go into service -- and COVID slashing schedules -- there should be some Horizon/Amfleet sets sitting around.


----------



## Anthony V (Oct 4, 2021)

rickycourtney said:


> The plan is to return to the bypass sometime this summer or fall. Details here: Rail - Tacoma - Bypass of Point Defiance - Complete December 2017
> 
> Last I heard they were back at Talgo's facility in Wisconsin. As of now, there's no plan to use them on the Cascades. WSDOT has actively resisted Amtrak's plan to lease them.
> 
> With the Siemens Venture sets about to go into service -- and COVID slashing schedules -- there should be some Horizon/Amfleet sets sitting around.


Why is WSDOT so opposed to buying the Wisconsin sets? I don't know why they wouldn't, but do they not meet modern crash safety standards? IMO, that is the only valid reason for them not to buy them. They could easily be renovated to meet WSDOT service standards, and re-liveried into the Cascades paint scheme. It is such a waste to let the perfectly-good WI Talgo sets continue to sit unused, when they could fill WSDOT's needs better than Venture coaches would.


----------



## zephyr17 (Oct 4, 2021)

Anthony V said:


> Why is WSDOT so opposed to buying the Wisconsin sets? I don't know why they wouldn't, but do they not meet modern crash safety standards? IMO, that is the only valid reason for them not to buy them. They could easily be renovated to meet WSDOT service standards, and re-liveried into the Cascades paint scheme. It is such a waste to let the perfectly-good WI Talgo sets continue to sit unused, when they could fill WSDOT's needs better than Venture coaches would.


Talgo 8s are fully FRA compliant and the two Oregon-owned Talgo 8 sets remain in Cascades service.

Washington DOT doesn't want to deal with Talgo at all any more, primarily because of the required maintenance contracts. They already had kind of had it with them even prior to the Nisqually wreck. They also want to take advantage of the economics of scale in maintenance by having standard Amtrak corridor cars, the Ventures, instead of one-offs, which the Talgos are in the larger Amtrak ecosystem.

Talgo's apparent obstinance and unwillingness to negotiate more on those maintenance contracts pretty much cost them their North American market entirely. Washington was their lead North American customer, and they pissed off their lead customer. Now they lost their foothold in North America and are likely toast here for the foreseeable future.

It comes down to $$$. Washington DOT expects their long term cost of ownership will be significantly less with the Ventures, although they could probably get those Wisconsin sets at fire sale prices at this point.


----------



## John Bredin (Oct 4, 2021)

So any speculation on who'll take the Wisconsin sets? Amtrak, to run one of the corridor development plan routes, once they can get one going? North Carolina, with its expansion plans and willingness to use non-standard equipment? 

It would be an irony of ironies if they ended up back in Wisconsin for the expanded Hiawatha service, as Wisconsin has agreed to pony up for (IIRC) two new trainsets, but I would imagine Wisconsin will merely add onto the California/Midwest trainset order.


----------



## zephyr17 (Oct 4, 2021)

I think there is a distinct possibility they may never go into service.


----------



## Cal (Oct 4, 2021)

zephyr17 said:


> I think there is a distinct possibility they may never go into service.


Wouldn't surprise me. It's a shame, I'll probably never be able to take a ride on them. Maybe they'll be able to go to some operator similar to Brightline (if one pops up).


----------



## JWM (Oct 5, 2021)

Supposedly the advantage of the Talgos was their ability to tilt on curves thereby enabling higher speeds. The technology is now old and the equipment not very cost effective as you can't add or subtract cars as I recall. They are Spanish designed and usually operated on non high speed lines by RENFE in Spain. The new Venture train sets are the future for short and medium distance Amtrak service. The Eugene-Vancouver route is notoriously full of curves and, frankly, needs a total redo to be truly viable.


----------



## cocojacoby (Oct 5, 2021)

JWM said:


> The technology is now old and the equipment not very cost effective . . .


Talgo is very successful selling that "old" technology around the world.


----------



## jis (Oct 5, 2021)

John Bredin said:


> So any speculation on who'll take the Wisconsin sets? Amtrak, to run one of the corridor development plan routes, once they can get one going?


Very very unlikely. Unlikely enough to almost state, "it won't".


> North Carolina, with its expansion plans and willingness to use non-standard equipment?


North Carolina is moving away from non-standard equipment to standard Amtrak corridor equipment. They have stated so a few times now. So they will pretty much be some variant of the Amfleet I replacements train sets based on Venture and Charger.


> It would be an irony of ironies if they ended up back in Wisconsin for the expanded Hiawatha service, as Wisconsin has agreed to pony up for (IIRC) two new trainsets, but I would imagine Wisconsin will merely add onto the California/Midwest trainset order.


Wisconsin will most likely simply go with add-on order. Why on earth would they wish to take on the additional cost of setting up a separate infrastructure for maintaining two odd ball sets? Does not make any business sense at all.


----------



## Cal (Oct 5, 2021)

JWM said:


> Supposedly the advantage of the Talgos was their ability to tilt on curves thereby enabling higher speeds. The technology is now old and the equipment not very cost effective as you can't add or subtract cars as I recall. They are Spanish designed and usually operated on non high speed lines by RENFE in Spain. The new Venture train sets are the future for short and medium distance Amtrak service. The Eugene-Vancouver route is notoriously full of curves and, frankly, needs a total redo to be truly viable.


The route looks fairly straight to me: of course there are points that could be better but overall it looks pretty good


----------



## cirdan (Oct 5, 2021)

cocojacoby said:


> Talgo is very successful selling that "old" technology around the world.



Talgo doesn't really sell equipment but they sell it as part of a broader service and maintenance contract.

A Talgo train is very different to maintain than any conventional type of train and requires totally different facilities and skills. Talgo's business model relies on keeping things that way and on locking in customers. This is a business model that may suit many customers who want to operate trains as a service and are happy if somebody else handles the maintenance side of things. But if Talgo does not display very clearly that they are dedicated to remaining in the North American market long-term, nobody will want their trains any more, whether new or second hand. Probably not even if given away for free.


----------



## cirdan (Oct 5, 2021)

JWM said:


> They are Spanish designed and usually operated on non high speed lines by RENFE in Spain.



True. But the non high speed system in Spain does include quite a few bits of running at 125mph. Which outside of Spain would probably count as high speed, or at least higher speed.


----------



## TrackWalker (Oct 5, 2021)

Did the original streamliners and electromotive locomotives operate with mechanical personnel from the manufacturers?


----------



## zephyr17 (Oct 5, 2021)

JWM said:


> Supposedly the advantage of the Talgos was their ability to tilt on curves thereby enabling higher speeds. The technology is now old and the equipment not very cost effective as you can't add or subtract cars as I recall. They are Spanish designed and usually operated on non high speed lines by RENFE in Spain. The new Venture train sets are the future for short and medium distance Amtrak service. The Eugene-Vancouver route is notoriously full of curves and, frankly, needs a total redo to be truly viable.


There is talk now about building a new high speed rail corridor. Serious discussions only really just started, so that is decades away.

BNSF and UP aren't going to redo their route for passenger trains. They have taken money to add capacity, double tracking near Golden Shores in Seattle, triple tracking around Kalama, siding near Oregon City, etc. The route even as it stands is very viable, it had very good ridership prior to the pandemic and was at least closing on being the leading passenger carrier SEA-PDX.

The tilt feature was for passenger comfort, not operating safety. The Horizon car temporary replacements have been certified by BNSF to operate at Talgo speeds. I imagine the Ventures will be as well. The main difference is the passengers will feel more centripetal force pushing them to the outside of curves than in the Talgos. The speed restriction difference was typically only 2-3 mph and only on curves. I don't think I know of any place where the difference was more than 5 mph.


----------



## zephyr17 (Oct 5, 2021)

Cal said:


> The route looks fairly straight to me: of course there are points that could be better but overall it looks pretty good


Parts of it are very curvy, particularly between Mt. Vernon and Bellingham. But I would never want it straightened and moved away from the Sound there.

It also has stretches of very straight track as well, particularly around Tangent, OR, which got its name from the long tangent there.


----------



## TrackWalker (Oct 5, 2021)

zephyr17 said:


> ...The speed restriction difference was typically only 2-3 mph and only on curves. I don't think I know of any place where the difference was more than 5 mph.


----------



## zephyr17 (Oct 5, 2021)

TrackWalker said:


> View attachment 24743


Well, I haven't looked at all speed boards on the route.


----------



## Willbridge (Oct 5, 2021)

zephyr17 said:


> Parts of it are very curvy, particularly between Mt. Vernon and Bellingham. But I would never want it straightened and moved away from the Sound there.
> 
> It also has stretches of very straight track as well, particularly around Tangent, OR, which got its name from the long tangent there.


The segment through Tangent used to be the only place in Oregon that made it into the _Trains _magazine annual speed survey. The _Shasta Daylight _was the train that did it. Then the UP was rebuilt around Boardman for the Columbia dam projects and the SP began strangling the passenger service and Tangent lost the title.

One of the multimodal projects that ODOT identified early on is to redo the Willamette River crossing south of Tangent near Harrisburg. The SP and the Oregon Electric and old US99E all make abrupt turns to line up with bridges. The Talgos have to slow down there as does everything else.


----------



## Mark P (Oct 5, 2021)

Taking the Cascades train from PDX to SEA in December...I see there are three Cascades trains that day (500, 504, 508) and one Coast Starlight (14). Is there any way to know which of the Cascades trains will be Talgo and which will be Horizon? I have a business class upgrade to use and I like the business car on the Talgo because of the 1x2 seating. Do the Horizon cars even have a distinct business class or is it just a dedicated car?


----------



## NSC1109 (Oct 5, 2021)

Mark P said:


> Taking the Cascades train from PDX to SEA in December...I see there are three Cascades trains that day (500, 504, 508) and one Coast Starlight (14). Is there any way to know which of the Cascades trains will be Talgo and which will be Horizon? I have a business class upgrade to use and I like the business car on the Talgo because of the 1x2 seating. Do the Horizon cars even have a distinct business class or is it just a dedicated car?



I believe there used to be a business class car in the Horizon fleet but I’m not sure if they’re still around. Haven’t seen any in Michigan for quite some time. Biz always is in the Amfleet Cafe car.

No, there is no way to know ahead of time if you’re the average consumer. If you do a little research in the days leading up to the trip to see what cars are used, that might be able to give you some sort of hint. The only way I know of that would for sure tell you is knowing someone at Amtrak you could ask and even then they probably won’t know until a couple days before because of equipment availability, etc.


----------



## Cal (Oct 5, 2021)

Mark P said:


> Taking the Cascades train from PDX to SEA in December...I see there are three Cascades trains that day (500, 504, 508) and one Coast Starlight (14). Is there any way to know which of the Cascades trains will be Talgo and which will be Horizon? I have a business class upgrade to use and I like the business car on the Talgo because of the 1x2 seating. Do the Horizon cars even have a distinct business class or is it just a dedicated car?


Maybe @Triley can help.


----------



## cocojacoby (Oct 5, 2021)

TrackWalker said:


> View attachment 24743


What is the difference between the angled and horizontal sign placement?


----------



## TrackWalker (Oct 5, 2021)

BNSF Standards-
Angled signs are the two mile advance warning.
Horizontal signs are the current speed for that location.


----------



## cocojacoby (Oct 5, 2021)

Thanks!


----------



## Triley (Oct 6, 2021)

Mark P said:


> Taking the Cascades train from PDX to SEA in December...I see there are three Cascades trains that day (500, 504, 508) and one Coast Starlight (14). Is there any way to know which of the Cascades trains will be Talgo and which will be Horizon? I have a business class upgrade to use and I like the business car on the Talgo because of the 1x2 seating. Do the Horizon cars even have a distinct business class or is it just a dedicated car?





NSC1109 said:


> I believe there used to be a business class car in the Horizon fleet but I’m not sure if they’re still around. Haven’t seen any in Michigan for quite some time. Biz always is in the Amfleet Cafe car.



The Horizons are running with the split business class/Cafes as well. Seating is _extremely_ limited however. It is 1x2 seating, but there are only 4 single seaters, and 5 doubles.

As of right now, only one Talgo set is in service, and is currently running 503/508 every day. Once the other Talgo set gets repaired and is back in service, then both 503/508 and 505/500 will likely be the trains running with Talgos....until a daily train resumes running to Canada. That train is expected to be Talgo, and I'm honestly not sure what the other one will be, at this time. 505/500 makes most sense due to higher ridership, but they prefer to have the Talgos back in Seattle every night.

In summary? We just don't know what trains will be running Talgo, as it depends on when Canada service resumes, as well as repairs to the other Series 8 set are complete.


----------

