# New Amtrak Cars!



## OlympianHiawatha (Feb 22, 2008)

Suppose Amtrak soon finds themselves in the position where they need to place a large order for cars (Superliner III and Viewliner II). If you had your sayso on this, what would you like to see in this new fleet? How about a new design altogether? If so, what would your ideas be for the new generation fleet?


----------



## Galls (Feb 22, 2008)

Interoperability. 2.5 level superliners. All diner, lounges, cafe cars whatever form the food service will take, should have lounge windows.

MU?


----------



## WICT106 (Feb 22, 2008)

New sleepers and coaches, both single level and Superliner. Traveling on examples of both during my last two trips between MN and FL, I can confidently assert that the entire fleet is showing the high level of miles that they are running. For some reason or other, the Viewliner sleepers really seem to be showing their mileage. Make the order at least 140 to 150 cars. The Tier two level inspections will be coming quite soon for all of these cars and I'm afraid that the bills will be enough that the opponents of passenger rail in the US will use it as yet another reason for terminating the entire service.


----------



## PerRock (Feb 22, 2008)

Personally I've always been partial to the viewliners; I've never actually been in one for any extended amount of time (got an attendant to try and "sell" one to me. There are some very nice European train cars coming out these days, and I wouldn't mind having seeing a shinkansen running around.

peter


----------



## dan72 (Feb 22, 2008)

I'd personally like to see a Superliner III sleeper that incorporates an upper bunk window much like the Viewliner, although I don't know if that would be possible or not. Even a small one would help take away the claustrophobic feeling in the top bunk.

The major change I'd like to see with the Viewliners is a public toilet and some kind of luggage stowage. Again, that last one would be difficult as space is already a premium.

I've seen pictures of a double-decker car (I think is was the Alaska Railroad) with a small platform at one end for people to stand out on. There may be safety issues here, but I would see that as a draw also.

Dan


----------



## AlanB (Feb 22, 2008)

dan72 said:


> The major change I'd like to see with the Viewliners is a public toilet and some kind of luggage stowage. Again, that last one would be difficult as space is already a premium.


Viewliners have some kind of luggage storage, it's the exclusive cubby hole above the hall accessible from inside of every room.


----------



## Galls (Feb 22, 2008)

Are LIRR C3s completely out of the question. I am 6'8" so I know about the indoor clearance of those cars but having a single type of long distance car that can be used with the regional cars if need be and go to New York makes a lot of economic sense.


----------



## dan72 (Feb 22, 2008)

AlanB said:


> dan72 said:
> 
> 
> > The major change I'd like to see with the Viewliners is a public toilet and some kind of luggage stowage. Again, that last one would be difficult as space is already a premium.
> ...


I guess what I was getting at was some kind of shelving area like some of the Amfleet coaches and the Superliners on the lower level.

The cubby hole in the Vewliners is a great innovation, but for heavier or large suitcases, it may not always work.

Dan


----------



## MStrain (Feb 22, 2008)

I'd love to see one of the old RAIL GUNS in the consiste to help with freight traffic delays!!!!!!!!!!!! :blink:

Just kidding. But I love the stainless steel motif, so perhaps getting back to the art deco designs of yesteryear with all of the modern safety and passenger conveniences. Some vistadome type stuff. Trains just were sexier back in the day.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 22, 2008)

I'd want cars that look like Viewliners to make up all the long distance single-level trains. A baggage car with a transition between P42 to Superliner would be a plus as well.


----------



## daveyb99 (Feb 22, 2008)

State of the art is key, whether Superliner III or Viewliner II.

So I ask: how much would a new car fleet cost: coach, sleeper, diner, etc.


----------



## BillVas (Feb 22, 2008)

OlympianHiawatha said:


> Suppose Amtrak soon finds themselves in the position where they need to place a large order for cars (Superliner III and Viewliner II). If you had your sayso on this, what would you like to see in this new fleet? How about a new design altogether? If so, what would your ideas be for the new generation fleet?


I would like to see on sleepers, real toilets, not those airline buckets and much more room for that purpose. Also the lighting can be improved instead of having the upper bunk blocking some of the lighting. Make the Superliner cars quieter so I dont have to hear the person next to me using the washroom. Put coffee makers back on the Viewliner cars. Also make sure if the expense is spent to make sure the reading lights really can rotate 360 degrees and really put light on a book. I will think of more later.

Billvas


----------



## gswager (Feb 22, 2008)

Add a slumbercoach cars.


----------



## PerRock (Feb 22, 2008)

how about one of these babies:







thats a friend of mines idea... (he occasionally pops in here)

I also have drawings of a vieliner dome car I "invented" I keep trying to talk my friend into making a 3D model of it....

peter


----------



## Guest_gp35_* (Feb 22, 2008)

dan72 said:


> I'd personally like to see a Superliner III sleeper that incorporates an upper bunk window much like the Viewliner, although I don't know if that would be possible or not. Even a small one would help take away the claustrophobic feeling in the top bunk.
> The major change I'd like to see with the Viewliners is a public toilet and some kind of luggage stowage. Again, that last one would be difficult as space is already a premium.
> 
> I've seen pictures of a double-decker car (I think is was the Alaska Railroad) with a small platform at one end for people to stand out on. There may be safety issues here, but I would see that as a draw also.
> ...


http://www.coloradorailcar.com/ultradome.htm


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 22, 2008)

I disagree with the slumbercoach. If you want to create Second Class accomodations, I think the wiser alternative would be sectional sleepers.


----------



## saxman (Feb 22, 2008)

I think Colorado Railcar is the way to go. Something sleek and modern is a must. The majority of people think rail travel is old fashioned and having old cars doesn't help. I remember seeing the Empire Builder pass by at top speed one morning in North Dakota from about half a mile away. I got excited because it actually looked so magnificent going that fast and since all cars were the new refurbished ones, it was very sleek and shiny. If we can just get that look all over the place!


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 22, 2008)

Colorado Rail Car has had problems quality-wise in the past, especially with their DMUs.


----------



## dan72 (Feb 22, 2008)

Guest_gp35_* said:


> dan72 said:
> 
> 
> > I'd personally like to see a Superliner III sleeper that incorporates an upper bunk window much like the Viewliner, although I don't know if that would be possible or not. Even a small one would help take away the claustrophobic feeling in the top bunk.
> ...


Yep, that's exactly what I was referring to. Thanks!!

Dan


----------



## D.P. Roberts (Feb 22, 2008)

While I love the look of old cars, especially on the exterior, I think a sleek, modern look is the way to go if you want to attract new passengers (as Saxman said). I think the new Airbus Gargantutron (or whatever it is) or the new Boeing 787 "Dreamliner" are a step in that direction:

Boeing 787 Dreamliner


----------



## TVRM610 (Feb 23, 2008)

PerRock said:


> how about one of these babies:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


pretty cool idea I must say. Solves the whole crew dorm problem right there.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 23, 2008)

TVRM610 said:


> PerRock said:
> 
> 
> > how about one of these babies:
> ...


I'd suggest your friend switch the windowed position so that the windows are on the side with the vestibule door.

As for cars I'd like to see, I'll post some of them later xD


----------



## Chris J. (Feb 23, 2008)

Don't make the new cars too high-tech and complicated. It's likely any new cars will need to run for upwards of 30 years - that's a long time to keep things working. So things like TVs in the back of the seats might seem like a good idea, but 5 years on that's going to be a real headache to keep working. Design with a long service life in mind. Power sockets at all the seats is pretty much a must tho.

The new car fleets to need to have a suitable, realistic kitchen / diner car, something where they can cook and heat some quality meals. I think the days of on board prep for everything are likely to be over, but a quality dining experience should still be perfectly possible. Needs a dishwasher so proper plates and glassware can be used.

If you want to make the Viewliner IIs look 'sleek' design them to the same profile as the Genesis locos, sleepers, coaches and the dorm/baggage car someone else posted. Of course, you're then stuck with Genesis locos.

Maybe some sort of cab/coach or cab/diner car for the non-sleeper runs (eg. Downeaster), this would depend on if the savings from turning the train around made it worth it. I'd guess that turning the trains that run overnight isn't such a big deal.

A lounge-type car would be good (for both fleets) if possible, it would be a shame to lose one of the selling points of the trains. Having a bar on it might help make a bit of revenue i guess.


----------



## George Harris (Feb 23, 2008)

Colorado Railcar double deckers are also very tall. They are 18'-0" high. A Superliner is 16'-3" high. Even with large clearances on most of the railroad system, there are placed the Colorado Railcar double deckers just can't go. There are other heigh related issues, such as how high is the center of gravity? How do they do in high winds? etc. For lines that do not see double stacks or the high automobile carriers, the usual target clearance is "Plate F" which is 17'-0" high.

They also have no track record in high speed service at all. Most are in Alaska used on cruise ship related service, and probably never get over 40 to 50 mph. Don't know what the ARR speed limit is, but it can't be over 59 mph - no signals.

By the way, in the goofball, from a railroad perspective, Steven Segall movie with the train running across the wild west and on the "dark territory" having the beautiful head on collision on a high bridge: The equipment used was built for the movie by Colorado Railcar, complete with such stuff as roof hatches and other features that really do not exist on normal passenger cars. This little tidbit used to be on CRC's web site.

I would like to see updated Superliners with trucks good for 125 mph or higher under them, and coaches with large windows on the Viewliner cross section, likewise set up to be able to be runat 125 mph or faster. I see no reason to "modernize" the external appearance any further. Even the 1940's and 50's stainless steel cars still look adequately modern on the outside. We need to have about four times the current fleet size and add trains and lengthen trains accordingly.

The big money will still have to be in faster track and a lot more of it.


----------



## wayman (Feb 24, 2008)

George Harris said:


> Colorado Railcar double deckers are also very tall. They are 18'-0" high. A Superliner is 16'-3" high. Even with large clearances on most of the railroad system, there are placed the Colorado Railcar double deckers just can't go. There are other heigh related issues, such as how high is the center of gravity? How do they do in high winds? etc. For lines that do not see double stacks or the high automobile carriers, the usual target clearance is "Plate F" which is 17'-7" high.


Why did CRC pour so much into a design they can't market to, say, Amtrak? I would think if they had designed these cars to be two feet shorter, they would be in a very good position to pick up the contract for building the next west-of-Chicago fleet (be they called SuperLiner IIIs or whatever)--by having a successful, proven design that could work with and ultimately supercede the SuperLiner fleet. As it is, it sounds like Amtrak will never buy these.

Was there really no way to get the Alaska RR and cruise line contracts without building a car taller than 16'3"?


----------



## Guest_Sweet Tea_* (Feb 24, 2008)

the cruise metaphor gives me an idea:

i think a draw for families traveling with young children (and perhaps also for those passengers who would prefer to spend less time with children) would be a play area -- i'm imagining something like the lower level seating area on a superliner, with more padding and maybe some toys or books (publishers might be willing to donate the books, hoping the parents will buy them later). wouldn't need additional staff -- parents would be responsible for watching the kids there. seems to me this would present a big advantage over air travel, which is often VERY unpleasant with kids.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 24, 2008)

The design concept of the car was to offer two full floors with reasonable ceiling height on each. Bi-levels exist (metra, for one) that have two full floors, but do not have decent ceiling clearance. For the ultimate in that, check out LIRRs K3s.

Superliners offer decent ceiling clearance, but are not full floors below- they are just between the wheels. Inorder to offer what CRC is offering, you need to move up a Superliner design such that it clears the bogies on the car. Thats about two feet, which gives you 18'.


----------



## Galls (Feb 24, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> The design concept of the car was to offer two full floors with reasonable ceiling height on each. Bi-levels exist (metra, for one) that have two full floors, but do not have decent ceiling clearance. For the ultimate in that, check out LIRRs K3s.
> Superliners offer decent ceiling clearance, but are not full floors below- they are just between the wheels. Inorder to offer what CRC is offering, you need to move up a Superliner design such that it clears the bogies on the car. Thats about two feet, which gives you 18'.









I an 6'8 and actually enjoy them.

I will reiterate that I believe the next coaches should be 2.5 level design so that they can be used in tandem with non-superliner equipment.


----------



## WICT106 (Feb 24, 2008)

Galls said:


> I an 6'8 and actually enjoy them.
> I will reiterate that I believe the next coaches should be 2.5 level design so that they can be used in tandem with non-superliner equipment.


Are you suggesting that the passageways between cars be like the Chicago Northwestern double deck cars which were on the lower level ? Those were "compatible" with single level equipment.

Edit: http://www.cnwhs.org/memberphotos/displayi...um=7&pos=73

http://www.cnwhs.org/memberphotos/displayi...um=7&pos=75

http://www.cnwhs.org/memberphotos/displayi...um=7&pos=94

http://www.cnwhs.org/memberphotos/displayi...m=7&pos=115

http://www.cnwhs.org/memberphotos/displayi...bum=7&pos=3


----------



## rtabern (Feb 24, 2008)

I say replace the Horizon cars with Surfliner-type equipment on the trains between Chicago and Milwaukee, Quincy, Carbondale, and St. Louis/Kansas City. This should be done ASAP because the stairs during the winter are down-right dangerous. I've seen people slip and fall on the Hiawatha trains all the time. The stairs are actually on the outside of the train and unprotected pretty much from the elements -- meaning ice and snow accumulate on them at a very bad rate.

Maybe call it the Cornliner!


----------



## Galls (Feb 24, 2008)

WICT106 said:


> Galls said:
> 
> 
> > I an 6'8 and actually enjoy them.
> ...


Got any pictures I could look at, so I could respond.


----------



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

Perhaps the long term goal for the Northeast Corridor should be to have trains that run significantly faster than 150 MPH.


----------



## jackal (Feb 25, 2008)

George Harris said:


> They also have no track record in high speed service at all. Most are in Alaska used on cruise ship related service, and probably never get over 40 to 50 mph. Don't know what the ARR speed limit is, but it can't be over 59 mph - no signals.


You are right that the ARR's speeds are, on average, significantly lower than other areas (mostly 40 to 49, but often 15-30), but your last part of that last sentence is (almost) hogwash! We're not as backwards as you think. There is about 50 miles of CTC between south of Anchorage and north of Wasilla. Within that stretch, there is about 13 miles of 60 mph trackage. They're working on straightening the run between Anchorage and Wasilla, so that 60mph trackage will likely be extended as years go on.

Granted, you were only one mile per hour short, but don't insult us--we don't _all_ live in igloos and drive dogsleds!


----------



## Trogdor (Feb 25, 2008)

All I want from Amtrak is a decent single-level lounge car. One currently does not exist. The dinettes/cafe cars are just not very good for lounging.


----------



## frj1983 (Feb 25, 2008)

WICT106 said:


> New sleepers and coaches, both single level and Superliner. Traveling on examples of both during my last two trips between MN and FL, I can confidently assert that the entire fleet is showing the high level of miles that they are running. For some reason or other, the Viewliner sleepers really seem to be showing their mileage. Make the order at least 140 to 150 cars. The Tier two level inspections will be coming quite soon for all of these cars and I'm afraid that the bills will be enough that the opponents of passenger rail in the US will use it as yet another reason for terminating the entire service.


My worry exactly WICT106,

I rode the LSL 3 years ago and was stunned by the absolute look of "wear and tear" that the Viewliners exhibited. And I've always felt that the best way to get rid of Amtrak was just to string it along with just enough money to keep things running until the cars are no longer sustainable and then: "whoops, sorry we really don't have any capital for more cars, you'll just have to make due with what you have!" Then watch the 180 day notices come out. With so few car builders, Amtrak would have to be planning, NOW to replace their aging fleet! While it's mentioned in budgets and plans, does anyone really know if this is a priority at Amtrak?


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 25, 2008)

Its probably a huge priority. Its a matter of getting the money. They probably have as much planning and so forth done as they can. I bet that if they got the money, they'd have the cars plans out for bid within a month.


----------



## AlanB (Feb 25, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Perhaps the long term goal for the Northeast Corridor should be to have trains that run significantly faster than 150 MPH.


Actually at this point I'd be happy if the long term goal was to just get the trains to 150 MPH for most of their run. More than that will be impossible without serious funding, probably on the order of a Trillion dollars, and a whole new right of way.


----------



## wayman (Feb 25, 2008)

AlanB said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps the long term goal for the Northeast Corridor should be to have trains that run significantly faster than 150 MPH.
> ...


On a seemingly unrelated topic, there is much disgruntlement about how foreigners (inc. many Japanese) have been taking advantage of the housing market in NYC and buying up properties. But maybe Acela-supporters should get behind the Japanese investment--they might become effective lobbyists for true high-speed rail, and if it becomes in the interest of the Japanese government to support Japanese businessmen in America... hey, I can dream, right? :lol:


----------



## George Harris (Feb 25, 2008)

jackal said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > They also have no track record in high speed service at all. Most are in Alaska used on cruise ship related service, and probably never get over 40 to 50 mph. Don't know what the ARR speed limit is, but it can't be over 59 mph - no signals.
> ...


No insults intended.


----------



## PerRock (Feb 25, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> TVRM610 said:
> 
> 
> > PerRock said:
> ...


Having seen the 3ds MAX model I can vouch for it have vestibule doors on both ends. so no need to worry there.

peter


----------



## AlanB (Feb 25, 2008)

PerRock said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > TVRM610 said:
> ...


Except for the fact that Viewliners only have vestibule doors on one end. So there for it would make sense to put the rooms near the vestibule doors, not the baggage area.


----------



## jackal (Feb 25, 2008)

George Harris said:


> No insults intended.


No offense taken. I was (mostly) kidding!


----------



## gaspeamtrak (Feb 26, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Colorado Rail Car has had problems quality-wise in the past, especially with their DMUs.



Right on!!!

Nobody has said anything about Bombardier" I'm not trying to be a "homer" but the batch of SUPERLINERS they built for Amtrak are still performing pretty well?

There may have been a few teething problems.The cars are and would be built in North America providing jobs for Americans and Canadians. 

I'm sure if Amtrak gave them and order for say 200 hundred Superliners and 200 Viewliners it would be worth it for Bombardier to get this job up and running ASAP!!!???

Maybe Via would also junmp aboard and order a batch of say 300 superliners for Intercity service and get rid of that CRAP running on the Ocean between Halifax and Montreal???

They could probably negotiate a pretty good price per car for them selves???

Hopefully Via would not try and do there high and mighty act that they are so much better than Amtrak!!! Spoken by a Canadian...

Any comments???


----------



## George Harris (Feb 26, 2008)

gaspeamtrak said:


> Right on!!!Nobody has said anything about Bombardier" I'm not trying to be a "homer" but the batch of SUPERLINERS they built for Amtrak are still performing pretty well?
> 
> . . .
> 
> ...


I think a Superliner III would be a great idea, if the lessons learned from I and II are applied. You would need to get imput from passengers and crew members on likes / dislikes / could be better / don't need this / do need that before you start. Put 125 mph or better trucks under them. By for increases in routes and multiple trains per route.


----------



## frj1983 (Feb 26, 2008)

George Harris said:


> gaspeamtrak said:
> 
> 
> > Right on!!!Nobody has said anything about Bombardier" I'm not trying to be a "homer" but the batch of SUPERLINERS they built for Amtrak are still performing pretty well?
> ...


Neat idea George,

I like the idea of asking the Crew/Passengers, and I also like the idea of putting high-speed trucks under them! I second both motions!


----------



## wayman (Feb 26, 2008)

George Harris said:


> I think a Superliner III would be a great idea, if the lessons learned from I and II are applied. You would need to get imput from passengers and crew members on likes / dislikes / could be better / don't need this / do need that before you start. Put 125 mph or better trucks under them. By for increases in routes and multiple trains per route.


What does giving them 125 mph trucks accomplish? Track speeds where they're running will never go above 80, maybe 100 tops, for the lifetime of the cars (30 years?).


----------



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

George Harris said:


> I think a Superliner III would be a great idea, if the lessons learned from I and II are applied. You would need to get imput from passengers and crew members on likes / dislikes / could be better / don't need this / do need that before you start. Put 125 mph or better trucks under them. By for increases in routes and multiple trains per route.


Is the cost difference between 125mph trucks and 110mph trucks significant? Are the Superliner I/II trucks 110 MPH to match what I seem to recall the P42s are? And do the high centers of gravity of those cars have any impact on maximum speed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_trackshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_tracks[/ul] lists a formula for maximum speed around curves. If I did the math right, I think that's saying that a 90 degree turn at 200 mph with the 4" superelevaction that can be allowed with a waiver would need to be over 6 miles long, and would have a radius of over four miles. At 100 mph, I think the radius gets down to just over a mile, with a track length for a 90 degree turn of a bit more than a mile and a half.

 

I'd love for someone to tell me that I did the math wrong, but I think that's basically saying that going at full speed around curves is basically impossible given real world land availability, unless you were building a new railroad in an unpopulated area, and it's hard to economically justify building railroads where there are no people, unless perhaps the goal is to connect two areas that are well populated. Or perhaps new tunnel could have extremely gentle curves. There might be an argument for reserving rights of ways for railroads in areas that are not yet populated, though.

 

This also seems to be saying that the Acela Express trainsets can't go around a particular curve any faster than the Regionals, at least as far as the FRA is concerned, and that tilting trains probably give a more comfortable ride but not a faster one.

 

The FRA Class 8 track standard also happens to be 160 MPH and not 150, it looks like. But if you round the Boston to DC distance off to 450 miles to make the math easy, and ignore all the curves, speed restrictions, stops in the middle to let passengers on and off, waiting behind other trains, acceleration/decelleration times, etc etc etc, Boston to DC at 150 MPH would be 3 hours; at 200 MPH, 2 hours and 15 minutes. 45 minutes may not be a big enough difference to be worth bothering with, when there are areas outside the Northeast Corridor that could be upgraded.

 

New York Penn Station to DC is 226 miles. The difference between doing that whole trip at 135 MPH and doing that whole trip at 150 MPH (again, pretending there are no speed restrictions at all, etc etc etc) would be about ten minutes if I did that math right (about 100 minutes at 135 MPH, or about 90 minutes at 150 MPH) 200 MPH would get the trip down at about 68 minutes, which almost seems like a big enough improvement over 135 MPH that it might be worth doing if it were actually practical.

 

Train 2105, which stops only at NYP, Philadelphia, and Washington DC, is scheduled to be 2:35, or 155 minutes. I'm sure that not all of the 55 minutes caused by not being able to go 135 MPH the whole way can be eliminated, but I'm starting to suspect that finding areas with speed restrictions and maybe building tunnels might be more productive than replacing all the overhead wire to be able to do 150 MPH in the sections that are currently 135 MPH.

 

I'm also finding myself wondering if the construction techniques that were used for Boston's Ted Williams Tunnel would be the least impractical way to create a new right of way that can support higher speeds, burying it under the ocean floor a bit off the coast. But that's probably insanely expensive to do for hundreds of miles, and I don't know if digging up the ocean floor would be as easy as digging a channel through Boston Harbor was. Then again, I'm not sure I've seen numbers on the cost of the part of Ted Williams tunnel under the harbor, vs the cost of the tunnels under the land, and apparently the tunnel sections under the harbor went together more smoothly than the connection to the surface roads did (there were leaks initially in a part of the land tunnel).


----------



## VT Hokie (Feb 26, 2008)

OlympianHiawatha said:


> Suppose Amtrak soon finds themselves in the position where they need to place a large order for cars (Superliner III and Viewliner II). If you had your sayso on this, what would you like to see in this new fleet? How about a new design altogether? If so, what would your ideas be for the new generation fleet?


I think Super Steel Schenectady should be given a contract to built 250 new Turboliner trainsets!


----------



## George Harris (Feb 26, 2008)

Yes high speed curves do require large radii. My point on the trucks was that they be for higher speeds. I have no porblem with them being for 150 mph, 160 mph, 200 mph, or whatever.

I am not going to redo Joel Weber's math, but to have very large radius curves is not that impossible. In the first place you want an alignment that does not require a lot of changes in direction, anyway. Therefore, you are not turning 90 degrees or larger angles except very rarely. If you do it is usually only very close to a major station where all trains will be stopping, anyway.

This is my profession. It can be done. The Taiwan High Speed Railway runs 210 miles between the two largest cities on the island. Except for the northernmost 7 miles into the center of Taipei and the southernmost 2 miles into the current end station in suburban Kaohsiung, the whole line is good for 300 km/h = 186 mph. There are two curves of 5,500 meter (18,045 feet = 3.42 miles) radius. Otherwise all curves are of 6,250 meter (20,505 feet = 3.88 miles) radius or larger, up to a couple with small central angles that have a 20,000 meter (65,617 feet = 12.47 miles) radius. Yes, if you turned a complete circle at that largest number, the circle would be 25 miles across. The point is, we did not turn a complete circle at this radius. The longest curve in length, one the 6,250 meter radius ones was over five miles long.

The run time? 90 minutes for a train with one intermediate stop and two hours flat for a "local" that has five intermediate stops. And there is some slack in the schedule. The slow areas at the ends? 100 mph and 75 mph on the south end. Between 50 mph and 80 mph for most of the northern slow portions, going up to 110 to 130 mph as you approach the full speed portion.

The superelevtion? It was set based on comfort at average running speed, not speed limit, so curve in acceleration /braking zones near stations had less superelevation and more unbalanced superelevation. Here are a couple of typica open track numbers:

R = 5,500 m = 18,045 feet. SE = 135 mm = 5.31 inches. Unbal. = 58.1 mm = 2.29 inches at 300 km/h = 186 mph

R = 6,250 m = 20,505 feet. SE = 114 mm = 5.53 inches. Unbal. = 54.9 mm = 2.16 inches at 300 km/h = 186 mph

Given proper trucks, there would be no problem with a superliner on this sort of track.

Oh, yeah, spirals were very long, and had a sine formula rate of change. 550 m (1804.46 feet) long on these curves.


----------



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

I don't doubt that large radius curves are possible and not a big deal in places where the land is available.

I was more thinking of the typical issue in the United States where it's undesireable to clear buildings out of the way (which I understand isn't a political problem the Chinese engineers run into), and so the traditional railroad right of way with whatever curvature it has is used.

The tracks at the New London, CT station are roughly north-south, I think, and the bridge across the Thames River, less than a mile away, is roughly east-west, for example. Given the desire to not step on the toes of existing land owners, it's hard for me to imagine how you'd ever get the land to be able to get from the Thames River bridge to the Niantic River bridge with curves gentle enough for even 100 MPH operation. (That area comes to mind in part because I used to live less than a mile from the Niantic River.)

Looking at maps is making me realize that the ocean proper isn't so close to the Northeast Corridor, and if there were a desire to build an alternate Boston to Manhattan to DC route largely by putting tunnels under existing bodies of water, largely using very large radius curves to support 200 MPH trains, the most reasonable route that can be accomodated with current land use might be something like: take the existing Northeast Corridor out of DC to somewhere around Odenton, MD, get to the Chesapeake Bay somehow from there, go through a tunnel under the Chesapeake Bay connecting to a the tunnel continuing through the Chesapeake & Delaware Canal to the Deleware River up to Trenton, where the route could rejoin the existing Northeast Corridor, or perhaps there could be a new tunnel built under New Jersey.

From Manhattan, a new tunnel could go under Long Island Sound, and under Narragansett Bay. Attaching it to the Northeast Corridor might be easiest in Greenwich Bay.

But I bet building all of this would cost 10-50 times what Boston's Big Dig cost, and people generally seem unhappy with the price tag of the Big Dig.


----------



## George Harris (Feb 26, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> I was more thinking of the typical issue in the United States where it's undesireable to clear buildings out of the way (which I understand isn't a political problem the Chinese engineers run into), and so the traditional railroad right of way with whatever curvature it has is used.


Taiwan IS NOT China. Regardless of political pretenses, it is a country in its own right with more people than Australia and New Zealand combined.

There was much done in Taiwan in the way of environmental remediation and concern for adjancent landowners and residents such as noise barriers, shallow tunnels instead of open cuts, bridges instead of fills to avoid splitting farms and villages, etc., etc.



> The tracks at the New London, CT station are roughly north-south, I think, and the bridge across the Thames River, less than a mile away, is roughly east-west, for example. Given the desire to not step on the toes of existing land owners, it's hard for me to imagine how you'd ever get the land to be able to get from the Thames River bridge to the Niantic River bridge with curves gentle enough for even 100 MPH operation. (That area comes to mind in part because I used to live less than a mile from the Niantic River.)


 There were plans that could improve the situation significantly. In the end, my understanding is that the problem was no money.
Most of what can be done to speed up things within the existing alignment or close - there were a few curve shifts in the past - has been done. In addition to New London, there is the whole New York to New Haven section owned by Conn DOT that need wider track centers at the least plus any curve straightening you can sneak in. Then there are the 30 mph sections Philadelphia and Baltimore. These sections would cost a lot of money to improve.

About all that can be done to speed up the northeast main line without getting way into the zone of diminishing returns has been done. Let's call the basic job done and move on to other parts of the country. The entire northeast, geographically defined as north of the Ohio River and east of the Mississippi River has relatively closely spaced medium and large cities that cry out for multiple trains per day on a number of routes that would link them like beads on a string, or several intersecting strings. Then let's look south, along the gulf to Texas and on the west coast. Again, large and medium sized cities spaced for multiple trains per day.

Wellington's book on the Economic Theory of Railway Location written in the late 1800's pointed out that the New York Central, with its main line running multiple major cities would always be a higher cost operation than the Pennsylvania that had a shorter route to Chicago and much less populated territory. Yet, he also said that the NYC was the better route and would always have a greater income. Why? Because it went where the traffic was, and even if it ended up with a smaller share of New York to Chicago traffic, the traffic to from and between intermediate points would always more than make up for it.

An outstanding example of this in our pathetic one train a day long distance train system is the Empire Builder. Even though it serves a relatively lightly populated area, the people in this lightly populated area use the service because it connects the points they need to travel between. It would be interesting to find out what percentage of the EB's ridership use it more or less regularly but have never traveled to either Chicago or Seattle/Portland.


----------



## Mark (Feb 27, 2008)

How about the Hiawatha?

Its such a short stretch, (a little less than 90mi), if Amtrak or more likely the states, (IL and WI), were willing, couldn't an automatic stopping system be put in and allow 90 mph? I feel that if the Hia could shave its run down to an hour or so it would really get people out of their cars and off of I 94. After all, I believe Illinois blew a ton of cash on the PTC system and quadrant gates down state that have thus far not met expectations. They might even get an extra turn or two on the equipment by shaving that 30 or so minutes. Good idea or no?


----------



## AlanB (Feb 27, 2008)

Mark said:


> How about the Hiawatha?
> Its such a short stretch, (a little less than 90mi), if Amtrak or more likely the states, (IL and WI), were willing, couldn't an automatic stopping system be put in and allow 90 mph? I feel that if the Hia could shave its run down to an hour or so it would really get people out of their cars and off of I 94. After all, I believe Illinois blew a ton of cash on the PTC system and quadrant gates down state that have thus far not met expectations. They might even get an extra turn or two on the equipment by shaving that 30 or so minutes. Good idea or no?


Mark,

You're correct that the Hiawatha run is short and under 90 miles, 86 to be exact. And it is also true that quite a bit of money was spent on a failed PTC system south of Chicago.

The problem with speeding up the Hiawatha service is the costs involved. It's not just a matter of improving the crossings, like with quad gates, and the signaling systems. Every train that runs on any portion of that line, even if it can't operate at speeds above 79 MPH, still has to be equiped with the PTC equipment. That means that any freight trains runing on the line have to have engines with PTC equipment installed, all METRA trains that run on that corridor will need the PTC equipment installed, the engines hauling Amtrak's Empire Builder will need to be PTC compliant, as well as the engines and cab cars that currently haul the Hiawatha trains.

That's a tall order, and a very hefty expense. And you can bet that neither METRA, CN, or Amtrak is going to pay that bill. It would be up to the states of Illinois and/or Wisconson to foot that bill. And right now at least, I don't see either one of them standing in line to pay that bill.

All that said, sure it's probably a wonderful idea and I suspect that not only would it allow for an extra turn on the equipment, it would probably double ridership. I just don't see anyone stepping up to the plate to pay the bill. Perhaps if the funding bill passed by the Senate that rewards states for helping to suppor and improve Amtrak service ever sees the light of day in the House, and gets past the current president or it approved after he's gone, then maybe we start to have some chance of seeing some form of PTC on the Hiawatha route.


----------



## frj1983 (Feb 27, 2008)

AlanB said:


> Mark said:
> 
> 
> > How about the Hiawatha?
> ...


Wow,

I keep saying to myself, "if that were possible," and the schedules improved, I'd move back to Wisconsin(my home state) and commute from Milwaukee to Chicago (where my job is) everyday! As it is now, the schedule doesn't quite fit right. :blink:


----------



## Mark (Feb 27, 2008)

Alan, does this mean that the P42s, (and all the BNSF units), that run on BNSF have the Automatic Stopping equipment installed? It was mentioned in another thread that 90mph is allowed on some stretches of the SWC.

Back to the Hia: If the other trains, (metra, CP freights, etc.), are running less than 90mph do they really need the automatic stopping equipment? I would think that could be bypassed nowadays. Perhaps the system could be set to function for above 79mph running only or something like that. I don't really know I just think the Hia is not being used to its full potential paticularly if automatic stopping equipment is in use elsewhere in the country.

Thanks,

Mark


----------



## AlanB (Feb 27, 2008)

Mark said:


> Alan, does this mean that the P42s, (and all the BNSF units), that run on BNSF have the Automatic Stopping equipment installed? It was mentioned in another thread that 90mph is allowed on some stretches of the SWC.


Mark,

I'm far from an expert on this, so it is possible that the version of PTC that was installed years ago on the BNSF transcon doesn't require ATS or PTC installed on all the engines, but I do believe that the lead engine on any train must have that equipment if it's running on the transcon.



Mark said:


> Back to the Hia: If the other trains, (metra, CP freights, etc.), are running less than 90mph do they really need the automatic stopping equipment? I would think that could be bypassed nowadays. Perhaps the system could be set to function for above 79mph running only or something like that. I don't really know I just think the Hia is not being used to its full potential paticularly if automatic stopping equipment is in use elsewhere in the country.


PTC isn't just about making sure that the slower running trains can stop automatically. It's about knowing where every train is at every given minute. Therefore without the PTC equipment installed in the METRA cabs and the CN cabs, you loose the ability to properly control things and therefore cannot utilize the system to it's fullest capacity. That means no moving blocks and no high speed running, both of which increase capacity on the line.

I know that every NS and CSX train that operates on the NEC has the Amtrak version of PTC, as do all the P42's that operate on the NEC, and of course all the electric motors have it since they are running at the highest speeds. In fact IIRC, part of the fatal collision between the Colonial and some CSX locos running light in Chase Maryland, was blamed on the lack of no PTC in the CSX locos. After that collision, the rules were changed to require all locos operating on the NEC to have PTC. There were other factors that contributed to that crash, like the CSX engineer being stoned and the cab signals being disabled, but none of that would have mattered had that cab be equipped with some form of ATS (Automatic Train Stop).


----------



## VT Hokie (Feb 27, 2008)

It was Conrail, actually, not CSX involved in the 1987 Chase disaster.


----------



## AlanB (Feb 27, 2008)

VT Hokie said:


> It was Conrail, actually, not CSX involved in the 1987 Chase disaster.


You're quite right, it was Conrail. I guess I was just on a CSX roll.


----------



## George Harris (Feb 27, 2008)

AlanB said:


> VT Hokie said:
> 
> 
> > It was Conrail, actually, not CSX involved in the 1987 Chase disaster.
> ...


If you read the accident report, the two guys in the freight engines were a disaster waiting to happen. They had disabled or ignored all signals and safety devices.

1. Both were high on marijuana.

2. They ignored at least two signals

3. They ignored the cab signals in the engine

4. They had stuffed tape in the warning horn for the cab signal system

5. They were running faster than the speed limit on the track

6. They ran over a switch set against them

7. When they finally realized that they were out on the main line, they STOPPED. The track they were on was normally operated in the direction they had been moving.

Something like 8 seconds after they got stopped they were hit by the passenger train moving at something like 106 mph.

If I recall correctly, the number of deaths was only 13 despite there being something like 300 people on the train.

Take all my numbers as approximations. It has been years since I read the accident report.


----------



## wayman (Feb 27, 2008)

George Harris said:


> 1. Both were high on marijuana.2. They ignored at least two signals
> 
> 3. They ignored the cab signals in the engine
> 
> ...


I haven't read the official report on this one, but the Wikipedia account I read some while back does mention each of these, except for (I think) the second sentence of line (7). My mental image--incorrect, formed in the absence of information either way--was of the the light engines having traveled in the direction opposite the Colonial in order to enter the main line.

So my question is, if the engineers had suddenly sobered up and had a moment of realization "holy ****, we're on the main!", should their default behavior have been to accelerate rather than stop, until they had a chance to get their bearings and know whether it was safe to stop and reverse direction to get off the main? I don't know if there is a "default behavior" in this situation--it's such a ridiculous situation to get into in the first place--but I should think a 106-mph train hitting anything with its brakes not set, or better still moving in the same direction at some speed (say, 30 or 40 mph), reduces the force of impact. It becomes an elastic collision, maybe even one at an effective speed of 70 or 60 mph instead of 100+, right?

Even if there aren't rules covering this, I'd think "move in the direction of traffic flow" is the common sense course of action.... (Not that those engineers had any common sense available to them at the time. This is just a hypothetical.)


----------



## AlanB (Feb 27, 2008)

George Harris said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > VT Hokie said:
> ...


Which is why I stated that "part of the blame was laid upon the lack of PTC."

I don't think that it was ever proved who had stuffed the tape in the horn, and apparently the light bulbs had been removed from the cab signals (again no decision on who did that, be it someone else or these two guys).

Otherwise the only other correction that I would add is that there were 14 passengers killed, along with the engineer of the Amtrak train and the cafe attendant. Investigators however did note that thankfully the first few cars of the Amtrak train were not carrying the same passenger loads as the rear cars (a common phenomenon out of DC). Had those first three cars been full, odds are the death toll would have been much higher, perhaps even topping 100.


----------



## AlanB (Feb 27, 2008)

wayman said:


> I haven't read the official report on this one, but the Wikipedia account I read some while back does mention each of these, except for (I think) the second sentence of line (7). My mental image--incorrect, formed in the absence of information either way--was of the the light engines having traveled in the direction opposite the Colonial in order to enter the main line.
> So my question is, if the engineers had suddenly sobered up and had a moment of realization "holy ****, we're on the main!", should their default behavior have been to accelerate rather than stop, until they had a chance to get their bearings and know whether it was safe to stop and reverse direction to get off the main? I don't know if there is a "default behavior" in this situation--it's such a ridiculous situation to get into in the first place--but I should think a 106-mph train hitting anything with its brakes not set, or better still moving in the same direction at some speed (say, 30 or 40 mph), reduces the force of impact. It becomes an elastic collision, maybe even one at an effective speed of 70 or 60 mph instead of 100+, right?


The Conrail train was indeed moving in the same direction as the Colonial, but was supposed to have stopped at a switch prior to entering the mainline.

As for your question, although I'll certainly defer to an engineer who drives trains for a living, there was no option for them to accelerate. According to the investigation and the Conrail engineer's own statements, he finally realized that he had a red signal and that the switch was set against him, prior to actually entering the mainline. At that moment of clarity if you will, he hit the emergency brake. However, because he was speeding (going 60+), there wasn't enough time for him to stop short of the switch and the train continued onto the main.

My understanding is that once you've dumped the air, it is not possible to recharge the brakes until after the train has come to a complete stop. Even if it is possible to recharge while still moving, it would still take a minute or two to do that, by which time it would have been too late anyhow. Had his first reaction been to slam the throttles forward, rather than hitting the emergency brakes something that would I think be contrary to both training and normal human reactions, you'd still have a problems.

First, he might have derailed his train on the switch that was set against him. That still would have caused a disaster with the Colonial. Second, if he did make it over the switch, his top speed was probably no more than 70 or 80 MPH. The Colonial was bearing down on him at 130 MPH, so it would still have hit him, and quite possibly done so over the river, which might have increased casualties. On the other hand the force of the collision would have been less. Finally, the Conrail crew even if sober, would most likely not have known why they weren't being allowed onto the main. In other words, they might have been ordered to wait for a southbound train on what is normally the northbound track. It's not uncommon for this to happen, such that a faster train can pass a slower one. In that case, had the Conrail engineer fire walled his engines, he would have been driving full speed into a head on collision with a southbound train.

So, no, I do think that about the only thing he got right that day was to slam on the brakes.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 27, 2008)

What I want to know is how such a peerless doofus got to be behind the throttle of a locomotive in the first place.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Feb 27, 2008)

AlanB said:


> I'm far from an expert on this, so it is possible that the version of PTC that was installed years ago on the BNSF transcon doesn't require ATS or PTC installed on all the engines, but I do believe that the lead engine on any train must have that equipment if it's running on the transcon.
> PTC isn't just about making sure that the slower running trains can stop automatically. It's about knowing where every train is at every given minute. Therefore without the PTC equipment installed in the METRA cabs and the CN cabs, you loose the ability to properly control things and therefore cannot utilize the system to it's fullest capacity. That means no moving blocks and no high speed running, both of which increase capacity on the line.
> 
> I know that every NS and CSX train that operates on the NEC has the Amtrak version of PTC, as do all the P42's that operate on the NEC, and of course all the electric motors have it since they are running at the highest speeds. In fact IIRC, part of the fatal collision between the Colonial and some CSX locos running light in Chase Maryland, was blamed on the lack of no PTC in the CSX locos. After that collision, the rules were changed to require all locos operating on the NEC to have PTC. There were other factors that contributed to that crash, like the CSX engineer being stoned and the cab signals being disabled, but none of that would have mattered had that cab be equipped with some form of ATS (Automatic Train Stop).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cab_signalling has a paragraph about the Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System used on the Northeast Corridor, which seems to imply that it provides one way communication to the train about how fast the train can go, and seem to suggest that the Northeast Corridor does not use any sort of GPS based system. I think that means that on the Northeast Corridor, block boundaries are limited by how the wayside equipment is wired. On the other hand, I think that also means that each train recieves proper signal indications even if the equipment on other trains is malfunctioning (but, of course, to absolutely reliably prevent a collision between two trains reliably, both need to have the automatic stop functioning correctly).

How does PTC with a GPS cope with tunnels? And for that matter, how does it deal with multiple tracks along a single right of way (where GPS resolution does not tell you reliably which track you're on)?


----------



## AlanB (Feb 27, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> How does PTC with a GPS cope with tunnels? And for that matter, how does it deal with multiple tracks along a single right of way (where GPS resolution does not tell you reliably which track you're on)?


Again I'm not an expert in this type of stuff, but my understanding is that the systems that do use GPS don't rely totally on the GPS. Some systems don't even use GPS, but those that do only use GPS so that the locomotive knows where it's at. The locomotive then transmits that information via radio/cell signal to a central location. It's not the GPS system itself that figures out which train is which to control things. That's how they get around the problem of GPS not being able to tell two trains 20 feet apart from one another, or which track its on.


----------



## Barney (Mar 7, 2008)

Bring back the DOME cars!

A few years ago Marlboro had a promotion for smokers to win a trip on their proposed western train. Colorado Railcars designed, but never finished, an entire luxury train of double decker cars of various types. Among them was one with a hot tub.

The C&O back in the 50's planned to have an aquarium on one of their cars, with fish swmiing in a floor to ceiling glass bubble. It was a good idea, but all the fish died.

Oh well, you could test a few concepts first.


----------



## Barney (Mar 7, 2008)

Didn't mean to imply anything was wrong with Colorado Railcar, it was Marlboro that bailed. The smokers will have to sail with Captain Lee on the Exxon Valdez.



Green Maned Lion said:


> Colorado Rail Car has had problems quality-wise in the past, especially with their DMUs.


----------



## Barney (Mar 7, 2008)

Travelers seem to love the 24" space assigned to them on a Airbus. And our government subsidizes them to the extent of about $80 billion per year. That's not even including the extra $6 billion per airport upgrade to strengthen the tarmac and raise the boarding levels to accomodatel the new foreign-built monster.

Not to speak of the 5 foot ceilings. How about we contract with the Cornsorsium in France, and get them to build some aluminum tubes on railroad wheels. We could cram 800 passengers in each tube section, and hook about ten of them together.

Environmentally, the government and the passengers will still think they are on an airplane, and we will be much greener since the things will run at 500 mph on rails instead of polluting the air.

Oh yes, my dream coach will have only two portolets, one in the front that has a mesh curtain and a staff employee who tells coach passengers they can't use it. The other portolet will be way in the back, but you won't be able to get to it due to the drink cart blocking the aisle.



AlanB said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps the long term goal for the Northeast Corridor should be to have trains that run significantly faster than 150 MPH.
> ...


----------



## Walt (Mar 9, 2008)

BillVas said:


> Put coffee makers back on the Viewliner cars.


BTW, I just took a trip on the Silvers, and to my surprise, Amtrak has started to return back the coffee makers.


----------

