# Curtain Goes Down on US High Speed Rail



## henryj

If you get your hand on the March issue of Trains read Fred's column. It starts out like this:

"I'm going to go out on a limb - but not a long one - and declare an end to the era of high speed trains outside the Northeast Corridor, just two years after that era bagan. Yes, kaput. I am amazed how abruptly it ended, how enthusiasm and political backing for the $10.5 billion federal government program simply dissolved."

"Many aspects of this saga were handled badly. Very few grants funded entire projects. Most paid for planning or the start of ambitious plans."

We will see if Frailey is really right on this, but I have to agree the projects that were getting the publicity, Florida and California, were just boondoggles.


----------



## Ryan

What exactly about the projects (particularly the California one) do you consider to be a boondoggle?


----------



## George Harris

California is most emphatically NOT a boondoogle.

As to Frailey's points: If the curtain has gone down, might ought to tell the spectators, actors, producers, etc. That are all still working like the curtain is still up and the dirt is shortly going to start moving and the concrete pouring. Don't recall it right now, but he had another one in the not so distant past that seemed to be somewhat fact free and disconnected from reality.

Don't preach the funeral over the living.

Added: I do nto cosider Florida a boondoggle eitehr. It is a STARTER SEGMENT of what will become a much larger system. Given teh terrain, florida is easy terrain to build in for HSR.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Based on my understanding the California HSR plan has not yet died, nor is it a boondoggle by any objective measure. It's expensive but so is adding more lanes to clogged freeways and highways. If California can't afford HSR then they probably can't afford more freeways and highways either. And, unlike grumpy old Florida, new trains in California are more likely to be properly interconnected with other local and long-distance transportation and be used by the people who actually live there. Florida can be a fun vacation spot and I would like to have HSR access between Miami and Orlando, but the majority of Floridians have made it clear they don't understand passenger trains and won't use them even if they're built with 90% federal funds. So, I suggest we take all of Florida's soon to be wasted money and give it to California where it will go to better use. Maybe after we have HSR up and down the West Coast we can give Florida another chance to redeem themselves. Maybe.


----------



## Train2104

I think the only projects that will succeed are improving Acela service in the NEC and the California HSR system. The others will probably be killed some time or another, like ARC was. While I don't want them to die, I think it's inevitable. Florida and Wisconsin could use 6-7 normal Amtrak trains a day. Remember, an increase in frequency gets more riders than an increase in speed.

As for subsidies, Amtrak should be getting more to replace/add rolling stock for more routes, rather than developing HSR.


----------



## henryj

Train2104 said:


> I think the only projects that will succeed are improving Acela service in the NEC and the California HSR system. The others will probably be killed some time or another, like ARC was. While I don't want them to die, I think it's inevitable. Florida and Wisconsin could use 6-7 normal Amtrak trains a day. Remember, an increase in frequency gets more riders than an increase in speed.
> 
> As for subsidies, Amtrak should be getting more to replace/add rolling stock for more routes, rather than developing HSR.


I think those two, particularly Florida's, HSR projects were ill conceived. Many of us on here supported them because we are so desparate for any improvement in passenger rail we embrace anything we can. The money would be much better spend on improving what we have with more frequencies and little improvements in end to end times. Just getting back to the speeds and frequencies of the 1960's would be a major accomplishment. Here in Texas, just getting back to the late 1930's would be an accomplishment. lol. Can we just get a daily Sunset Limited maybe? Or a train to Colorado? Or corridor trains in the 'Texas Triangle' at any speed?

One area that may not be killed outright is the Illinois Chicago to St Louis corridor. It's not true HSR, just merely higher speed but it might just struggle on to completion.


----------



## Eric S

Train2104 said:


> Florida and Wisconsin could use 6-7 normal Amtrak trains a day. Remember, an increase in frequency gets more riders than an increase in speed.
> 
> As for subsidies, Amtrak should be getting more to replace/add rolling stock for more routes, rather than developing HSR.


Wisconsin, by way of the _Empire Builder_ and Chicago-Milwaukee _Hiawatha Service_, sees 8-9 normal Amtrak trains a day already.


----------



## Ryan

What exactly about the projects (particularly the California Florida one) do you consider to be a boondoggle ill conceived?


----------



## Trogdor

Train2104 said:


> As for subsidies, Amtrak should be getting more to replace/add rolling stock for more routes, rather than developing HSR.


Amtrak is not getting money to develop HSR.


----------



## John Bredin

> I think the only projects that will succeed are improving Acela service in the NEC and the California HSR system. The others will probably be killed some time or another, like ARC was.


I don't want to speak for anywhere else, but as an Illinoisan I'm somewhat familiar with Illinois' rail projects -- $1.2 billion in Federal grants if I recall correctly. Why would our projects be killed? Or not be a success? :angry2: 

1) Not only has the present governor strongly supported them, his otherwise very-conservative opponent in the last election supported them as well -- and still supports them as a member of the State Senate if I recall correctly. We didn't have anyone in Illinois running for office opposing rail as part of their platform, unlike Walker in Wisconsin or Kasich in Ohio.

2) An agreement for construction on the Chicago-Saint Louis route was reached months ago with the usually-reluctant Union Pacific. Track and signal work has already begun -- not planning or even engineering but steel and concrete on the ground.

3) The Chicago-St. Louis work builds upon improvements already made to Illinois-sponsored Amtrak service on that route and others, including additional frequencies. Those improvements have already resulted in double and triple-digit percentage increases in ridership since 2006 when the added trains began running.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: we need *all* kinds of passenger rail, including commuter, regional corridors, true HSR, and long-distance. It bothers me greatly that the emerging corridors in the stimulus "HSR" program -- the projects other than California and Florida -- are being slammed by passenger rail supporters from both sides: the gee-whizzers who want to build only true HSR, and the gradualism-only folks who think HSR will suck all the oxygen out of the room and oppose anything with an HSR label even if it's actually a very gradualist project.


----------



## Train2104

CHI-STL is improved Amtrak service. That I support. By HSR in my last post I meant special/tilting trains, not all rail improvement projects.


----------



## Trogdor

Train2104 said:


> CHI-STL is improved Amtrak service. That I support. By HSR in my last post I meant special/tilting trains, not all rail improvement projects.


So, therefore, you must be against the Amtrak Cascades service, because those use special tilting trains.


----------



## Eric S

John Bredin said:


> I've said this before and I'll say it again: we need *all* kinds of passenger rail, including commuter, regional corridors, true HSR, and long-distance. It bothers me greatly that the emerging corridors in the stimulus "HSR" program -- the projects other than California and Florida -- are being slammed by passenger rail supporters from both sides: the gee-whizzers who want to build only true HSR, and the gradualism-only folks who think HSR will suck all the oxygen out of the room and oppose anything with an HSR label even if it's actually a very gradualist project.


Agreed. Well put.


----------



## Train2104

Trogdor said:


> Train2104 said:
> 
> 
> 
> CHI-STL is improved Amtrak service. That I support. By HSR in my last post I meant special/tilting trains, not all rail improvement projects.
> 
> 
> 
> So, therefore, you must be against the Amtrak Cascades service, because those use special tilting trains.
Click to expand...

IIRC, Cascades only goes 79MPH. We can do that with regular Amtrak equipment.


----------



## Ryan

But it can roll faster through the curves than regular Amtrak equipment, so it can have faster trip times.


----------



## George Harris

Train2104 said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Train2104 said:
> 
> 
> 
> CHI-STL is improved Amtrak service. That I support. By HSR in my last post I meant special/tilting trains, not all rail improvement projects.
> 
> 
> 
> So, therefore, you must be against the Amtrak Cascades service, because those use special tilting trains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IIRC, Cascades only goes 79MPH. We can do that with regular Amtrak equipment.
Click to expand...

The 79 mph is a regulation imposed by the nature of regulation relating to the signal system, not the equipment. It would take a lot of money to make the signal changes necessary to permit faster speeds, and with the multiple curves on the route would not really make much difference in run time. This service is not really a good example for either side of the arguement.


----------



## WICT106

Eric S said:


> Train2104 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Florida and Wisconsin could use 6-7 normal Amtrak trains a day. Remember, an increase in frequency gets more riders than an increase in speed.
> 
> As for subsidies, Amtrak should be getting more to replace/add rolling stock for more routes, rather than developing HSR.
> 
> 
> 
> Wisconsin, by way of the _Empire Builder_ and Chicago-Milwaukee _Hiawatha Service_, sees 8-9 normal Amtrak trains a day already.
Click to expand...

You mean, SE Wisconsin get eight trains per day. The rest of Wisconsin gets only once-per-day-each-way with the Empire Builder, and, thanks to some very wrongheaded opposition, politics, and lying, Madison still has no passenger service.

Folks here have been comparing us to Mississippi -- at least MS has passenger train service to its State Capitol. Same with Alabama, GA, and Arkansas. :angry2: :angry2: :angry2:


----------



## MattW

When the PTC comes online, are the tracks that the Cascades use capable of supporting 80+ mph operation? Or will PTC not necessarily allow 80+ running even on segments capable of it?


----------



## jis

Train2104 said:


> CHI-STL is improved Amtrak service. That I support. By HSR in my last post I meant special/tilting trains, not all rail improvement projects.


What on earth does "_special tilting trains_" have to do with HSR. Very few of the real HSRs in the world, and certainly very few if any, of the fastest ones, use "_special tilting trains_" All that tilting gizmo just makes the train heavier. Better to just build a straighter ROW when you are building a new HSR line.


----------



## jis

MattW said:


> When the PTC comes online, are the tracks that the Cascades use capable of supporting 80+ mph operation? Or will PTC not necessarily allow 80+ running even on segments capable of it?


It also depends on the design of the PTC. Afterall a signaling/control system is designed for operating a railroad at some design speed, and not just any arbitrary speed.


----------



## George Harris

WICT106 said:


> Folks here have been comparing us to Mississippi -- at least MS has passenger train service to its State Capitol. Same with Alabama, GA, and Arkansas. :angry2: :angry2: :angry2:


Alabama? Montgomery is the capital of Alabama, not Birmingham.

Comparing Wisconsin to Mississippi? Sir, you have a long way to go to hope to be as good as Mississippi, in many ways.


----------



## WICT106

George Harris said:


> WICT106 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Folks here have been comparing us to Mississippi -- at least MS has passenger train service to its State Capitol. Same with Alabama, GA, and Arkansas. :angry2: :angry2: :angry2:
> 
> 
> 
> Alabama? Montgomery is the capital of Alabama, not Birmingham.
> 
> Comparing Wisconsin to Mississippi? Sir, you have a long way to go to hope to be as good as Mississippi, in many ways.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected regarding the Capital of Alabama. You have reiterated the other points I was making, in that WI has made a mistake in rejecting the funds for the Rail service improvement. Walker has stirred up some opposition in his adamant rejection and obstinacy on the topic. All I can do is redouble some of my efforts, and get even more involved in rail advocacy. Walker won't be Governor forever.


----------



## DET63

The Cascades corridor does not have high-speed trains, for at least two reasons:


Curvature and rail crossings necessitate lower speeds.
At least between Portland and Seattle, there is also a lot of freight traffic.

For these two reasons alone, trains are limited to speeds below 80 mph, in some cases _much_ lower. A parallel high-speed railway line would have to be built to significantly improve speeds there.

That said, however, the Talgo trains are able to operate a few mph faster than conventional passenger trains using Superliner equipment, thanks in part to their tilting capabilities, I'm sure.

Here's a video of one where the track speed limit for passenger trains appears to be 55 mph (I don't see a Talgo train speed limit at the end of the video, which would be posted on a sign with a number prefixed by a T).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M26PUohPJQI&feature=player_detailpage


----------



## Ryan

Of course the sign that I caught was on a straightaway, but in the curves the Talgo speed limit was usually 10 MPH or so higher than the Passenger or Freight limits.





Talgo Speed Limit by Ryan Stavely, on Flickr


----------



## AlanB

DET63 said:


> The Cascades corridor does not have high-speed trains, for at least two reasons:
> 
> 
> Curvature and rail crossings necessitate lower speeds.
> At least between Portland and Seattle, there is also a lot of freight traffic.
> 
> For these two reasons alone, trains are limited to speeds below 80 mph, in some cases _much_ lower. A parallel high-speed railway line would have to be built to significantly improve speeds there.


Curves most definitely have an impact on the speeds, but RR crossings have no impact on the speeds. Acela goes through crossings at speeds faster than 79 MPH. Yes, above a certain speed one needs Quad Gates or a center island to stop people from going around the gates, but in general crossings don't require that trains slow down for them.


----------



## jis

AlanB said:


> DET63 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Cascades corridor does not have high-speed trains, for at least two reasons:
> 
> 
> Curvature and rail crossings necessitate lower speeds.
> At least between Portland and Seattle, there is also a lot of freight traffic.
> 
> For these two reasons alone, trains are limited to speeds below 80 mph, in some cases _much_ lower. A parallel high-speed railway line would have to be built to significantly improve speeds there.
> 
> 
> 
> Curves most definitely have an impact on the speeds, but RR crossings have no impact on the speeds. Acela goes through crossings at speeds faster than 79 MPH. Yes, above a certain speed one needs Quad Gates or a center island to stop people from going around the gates, but in general crossings don't require that trains slow down for them.
Click to expand...

There is at least one crossing on the Keystone corridor which is slated for elimination at which trains do pass by at 100mph. There are a couple of those on the New York - Albany line too.


----------



## Trogdor

AlanB said:


> DET63 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Cascades corridor does not have high-speed trains, for at least two reasons:
> 
> 
> Curvature and rail crossings necessitate lower speeds.
> At least between Portland and Seattle, there is also a lot of freight traffic.
> 
> For these two reasons alone, trains are limited to speeds below 80 mph, in some cases _much_ lower. A parallel high-speed railway line would have to be built to significantly improve speeds there.
> 
> 
> 
> Curves most definitely have an impact on the speeds, but RR crossings have no impact on the speeds. Acela goes through crossings at speeds faster than 79 MPH. Yes, above a certain speed one needs Quad Gates or a center island to stop people from going around the gates, but in general crossings don't require that trains slow down for them.
Click to expand...

Depends. If there are no gates, the speed is limited to 79 mph. Right now on the Amtrak Michigan Line, they are installing gates at certain crossings, to allow speeds of 95 mph+. Trains must slow down to 79 for those. I think requirements for quad gates start at 110, but I'm not 100% sure about that.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

If all it takes to reduce a train to 79MPH is a random crossing without gates then how on earth would a rural route like the Sunset limited ever exceed the current speed?


----------



## Trogdor

daxomni said:


> If all it takes to reduce a train to 79MPH is a random crossing without gates then how on earth would a rural route like the Sunset limited ever exceed the current speed?


1) Close the crossings.

2) I don't think anyone is proposing the Sunset Limited go above 79 mph.


----------



## jis

Trogdor said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DET63 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Cascades corridor does not have high-speed trains, for at least two reasons:
> 
> 
> Curvature and rail crossings necessitate lower speeds.
> At least between Portland and Seattle, there is also a lot of freight traffic.
> 
> For these two reasons alone, trains are limited to speeds below 80 mph, in some cases _much_ lower. A parallel high-speed railway line would have to be built to significantly improve speeds there.
> 
> 
> 
> Curves most definitely have an impact on the speeds, but RR crossings have no impact on the speeds. Acela goes through crossings at speeds faster than 79 MPH. Yes, above a certain speed one needs Quad Gates or a center island to stop people from going around the gates, but in general crossings don't require that trains slow down for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Depends. If there are no gates, the speed is limited to 79 mph. Right now on the Amtrak Michigan Line, they are installing gates at certain crossings, to allow speeds of 95 mph+. Trains must slow down to 79 for those. I think requirements for quad gates start at 110, but I'm not 100% sure about that.
Click to expand...

Quad gates is upto 110. Beyond 110 you basically require impenetrable barriers like they have at airport secure area entrances. I am not aware of any grade crossing in this country where speeds higher than 110mph is allowed. The low end of speed for quad gate depends on various factors. For example when a locality requests quiet zone corridor status quad gates may be required for almost any speed. Montclair NJ is getting quad gates for quiet zone where the track speed limit is 50mph.


----------



## Anderson

Trogdor said:


> daxomni said:
> 
> 
> 
> If all it takes to reduce a train to 79MPH is a random crossing without gates then how on earth would a rural route like the Sunset limited ever exceed the current speed?
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Close the crossings.
> 
> 2) I don't think anyone is proposing the Sunset Limited go above 79 mph.
Click to expand...

Well, for the one rural route that cracks 79 MPH...what of the SW Chief?


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Anderson said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daxomni said:
> 
> 
> 
> If all it takes to reduce a train to 79MPH is a random crossing without gates then how on earth would a rural route like the Sunset limited ever exceed the current speed?
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Close the crossings.
> 
> 2) I don't think anyone is proposing the Sunset Limited go above 79 mph.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, for the one rural route that cracks 79 MPH...what of the SW Chief?
Click to expand...

Good question. Does the SWC have to slow down every time it approaches an unprotected crossing? As for why this matters, if routes like the Sunset Limited can't ever hope to compete with the speed of personal vehicles then the long term viability of the route will remain in jeopardy, both in terms of dissuading potential ridership and giving anti-rail politicians yet another ready-made excuse to mock the passenger rail service in the media. I can tell you point-blank that ELP-SAS is about nine hours by car or around 30% longer at _twelve hours_ via the Sunset Limited. ELP-AUS is about the same nine hours by car or a whopping _twentyfour hours_ via the Texas Eagle. I know Amtrak has their hands tied until and unless they can find _several hundred million dollars_ in free money to hand over to the Union Pacific bridge troll company, but if these times can't be improved then I think the Sunset Limited and the western half of the Texas Eagle are pretty much doomed.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

The Sunset Limiteds inability to compete with cars has more to do with Union Pacifics mishandling of the train (remember, 12 HOURS of padding was added to the schedule, and it remains there today) than anything approaching things like speed limits and grade crossings.


----------



## George Harris

daxomni said:


> Good question. Does the SWC have to slow down every time it approaches an unprotected crossing?


No



> ELP-AUS is about the same nine hours by car or a whopping _twentyfour hours_ via the Texas Eagle.


Much of that time is spent sitting in San Antonio. Also, the Austin - San Antonio time is very long due to the back up moves involved in reaching the station which is located on the ex Southern Pacific line, which does not and never did have a direct route to Austin. The direct Austin - San Antonio routes are ex Missoui Pacific (International Great Northern) and ex Missouri-kansas-Texas.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

George Harris said:


> No.


So at what speed do unprotected crossings actually come into play then?



George Harris said:


> Much of that time is spent sitting in San Antonio.


Is that supposed to make it _less_ frustrating for potential customers or _less_ ripe for political disparagement?


----------



## PRR 60

daxomni said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> So at what speed do unprotected crossings actually come into play then?
Click to expand...

From the FRA:



> The FRA’s goal for high-speed grade crossings is to achieve an acceptable level of grade crossing risk. Regulatory requirements for high-speed grade crossings are:
> - For 110 mph or less: Grade crossings are permitted. States and railroads cooperate to determine the needed warning devices, including passive crossbucks, flashing lights, two quadrant gates (close only 'entering' lanes of road), long gate arms, median barriers, and various combinations. Lights and/or gates are activated by circuits wired to the track (track circuits).
> 
> - For 110-125 mph: FRA permits crossings only if an "impenetrable barrier" blocks highway traffic when train approaches.
> 
> - Above 125 mph, no crossings will be permitted.


FRA


----------



## Anderson

1) Is there any definition of "impenetrable barrier"? I mean...a semi doing 50 can easily blow through Jersey barriers.

2) On a lot of routes, 110 MPH is sufficient. You'll get average speeds that are slower, but there are plenty of routes where going faster needs electrification because of the limitations of diesel (turbines only being even theoretically viable if you were to run a long-distance few-or-no-stops Limited).


----------



## George Harris

Anderson said:


> . . . there are plenty of routes where going faster needs electrification because of the limitations of diesel (turbines only being even theoretically viable if you were to run a long-distance few-or-no-stops Limited).


This is not correct. The British "125" as in 125 mph diesel trainsets being an example that immediately comes to mind. These things have been running for years, apparently quite successfully. The 125 mph maximum does not mean the practical limit for diesel powered trains, but for the service conditions under which these trains are operated.

Turbines have been tried and successfully proven to be unreliable fuel hogs. How many times do we have to repeat the same mistakes?

A diesel locomotive does not have to be near as heavy as a standard American freight engine. The weight is beneficial for lugging capacity not needed in higher speed passenger service.

We should not be placing imaginary barriers, as in misconceptions concerning the limits of currently in place technology, in the way of increasing speeds.


----------



## jis

Anderson said:


> 1) Is there any definition of "impenetrable barrier"? I mean...a semi doing 50 can easily blow through Jersey barriers.
> 
> 2) On a lot of routes, 110 MPH is sufficient. You'll get average speeds that are slower, but there are plenty of routes where going faster needs electrification because of the limitations of diesel (turbines only being even theoretically viable if you were to run a long-distance few-or-no-stops Limited).





George Harris said:


> This is not correct. The British "125" as in 125 mph diesel trainsets being an example that immediately comes to mind. These things have been running for years, apparently quite successfully. The 125 mph maximum does not mean the practical limit for diesel powered trains, but for the service conditions under which these trains are operated.
> 
> We should not be placing imaginary barriers, as in misconceptions concerning the limits of currently in place technology, in the way of increasing speeds.


George is absolutely correct. The Brits have been successfully running diesel trains at 125 mph for a while. The diesel _InterCity _125s in UK have been running since the late 70s to early 80s at 125 mph. Each set consists of two _Class 43_ power heads originally powered by _Paxman Valenta_ prime movers, and a variable number of _Mark 3_ cars. Recently the _Class 43_s have been re-engined with more powerful 2250bhp (1678kW) MTU 16V 4000 engines, and are still going strong after all these years.

In addition there are now the Bombardier _Voyager _DMUs _Class 220_, _Super Voyager Class 221_ (operated by Virgin), and _Meridian Class 222_ (operated by several other TOCs) which run at 125mph using underfloor 750hp _Cummins _engines. And there is Alstom's diesel electric version of the _Coradia _(_Class 175_ and _Class 180_ _Adelente_) which also run at 125 mph.

Bombardier and Virgin are working on a plan to convert the _Voyagers _into DEMUs by adding a "_pantograph car_" to each set which will carry a pantograph and a main transformer to feed traction power to the train so that they can operate off the catenary in electrified sections and use their diesel engines in non-electrified territory.

There is absolutely no reason that a diesel train set or locomotive could not be built that could run at 125 mph or even 140mph. The top speed attained by the _InterCity _125s is 148mph during trial runs. So this whole business about theoretically impossible is just not so.

BTW, and impenetrable barrier that would apparently be acceptable would be like those that rise up from the road as found at entry points into the protected areas of airport, except they have to rise higher above the road possibly. Properly designed and engineered there is no semi that can get across those. Only the top bit of the semi might make it through if it tried very very hard, and managed to detach itself from the bottom. But I would imagine that anyone would have to be insane to basically run themselves into a brightly lit steel wall.

In any case by the time all is said and done it is probably cheaper to build an overpass, so I don't expect to see these contraptions used at grade crossing anytime soon.


----------



## Anderson

I stand corrected on the diesels; with that said, I was under the distinct impression (raised in one of the discussions about the MW HSR projects) that diesel burnout was a major problem once you crossed a certain ballpark speed, at least with extant models. It's not that you _can't_ run a diesel at those speeds...it's that doing so starts burning out the engines at a fast enough pace to add significantly to the cost. To be fair, the discussion may have been referring to a set of models in particular, but I know you can run engines faster and faster...it's just that the cost from having to replace parts starts to skyrocket sooner or later, and it becomes far less cost-effective.

As to the turbines, my reference was specifically to the fuel hog issue: As I understand it, the problem is that 2/3 of the fuel consumption happens whether the engine is in park or at full speed...hence the reference to it being used _only _on extremely limited stop routes (of which we really don't have any...this would be an old "20th Century Limited" sort of schedule, with very few (if any) intermediate stops) as the only way to make it workable.

Edit:

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/35615-express-trains-fewer-stops/page__p__265428__hl__turbines__fromsearch__1#entry265428

This is where it came up: GML referred to 110MPH being a practical limit. Now, obviously BR's experience with the Intercity125 knocks that out of the water (though to be perfectly honest, I thought that more of BR's stuff had been electrified, at least on the ECML...and yes, I know the WCML isn't electrified), but that also does seem to be near the top end. The fact that an engine got up to a very high speed in testing does not mean that such operation is practical on a day-to-day basis.


----------



## jis

Anderson said:


> http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/35615-express-trains-fewer-stops/page__p__265428__hl__turbines__fromsearch__1#entry265428
> 
> This is where it came up: GML referred to 110MPH being a practical limit. Now, obviously BR's experience with the Intercity125 knocks that out of the water (though to be perfectly honest, I thought that more of BR's stuff had been electrified, at least on the ECML...and yes, I know the WCML isn't electrified), but that also does seem to be near the top end. The fact that an engine got up to a very high speed in testing does not mean that such operation is practical on a day-to-day basis.


Actaully WCML is also electrified all the way from London Euston to Glasgow Central, and additionally several branches and alternate routing in the Midlands. The equipment used there is electric Alstom Pendolions (Class 390) which use a Fiat Tilt system, capable of 140mph, but currently limited to 125mph due to track and signaling issues. Incidentally the Bombardier _Super Voyager_ DMUs are also equipped with tilt capability.

The _InterCity 125_s are used mostly on the Great Western, Cross Country and through London to Scotland day trains. The _Caledonian Sleepers_ to Scotland are still a loco hauled train. I agree that a specific trains which is designed for daily operation at 125 mph may be able to run at 145 mph, but does not mean that it is suitable for daily operation at that speed.

But one needs to realize that the issue is not how fast the diesel prime mover is running but how much power is needed to get upto whatever the design speed is and stay there, and whether that can be delivered from the prime mover which weighs within reasonable limits, while it is operating within its design range. The high speed diesel trains generally do not use the classical diesel prime mover like the EMD 710. They use light weight higher speed engines, and in DMUs they use essentially large truck engines. The Paxman Valenta I understand was originally designed for use as a marine engine on medium crafts.Technically all these power units resemble what are called Genset engines these days, rather than classic freight or passenger diesel electrics,

The point being made is we are quite far from the technical limits of what can be done with diesel. There are other issues like rate of acceleration, weight, efficiency etc. that starts gravitating against the use of diesel as the max speed increases. That is the reason that I believe there is no large general operation of diesel above 125mph AFAIK.

But then again the original point being discussed was if diesel service is possible at 125mph as a practical proposition, and the answer is an emphatic yes though it is also true that FRA pigheadedness in the US may make trains too heavy to require more power to operate them than elsewhere in the world. For example, 750hp per car would most likely be insufficient for US operations at 125 mph. But a train with two dual genset powerheads each delivering ~4200 hp each, a-la what is in the ALP45-DP with proper gearing, should be quite capable of doing a decent job with a 6 car set like the Acela as a Tier I set which would be lighter than the Acelas are. Specially more so if the HEP load was offloaded to a pony engine thus leaving the entire power of the prime movers available for traction use.

It also looks like all that is being said in this thread was already mentioned in the other thread, though with less information on specific examples.


----------



## Anderson

I think there's one other question to seriously consider, and it's not an unrealistic one: How much less life do lightweight cars have versus heavier cars? I'm comparing the lifetimes of some of the cars in the Heritage fleet (some of which have been in service for over sixty years, though I don't know what the maintenance costs look like for them) and the mention that heavier cars tend to be more long-lived, with possible lifetimes for lighter stuff. How are the lifetimes on the European fleet?


----------



## jis

Anderson said:


> I think there's one other question to seriously consider, and it's not an unrealistic one: How much less life do lightweight cars have versus heavier cars? I'm comparing the lifetimes of some of the cars in the Heritage fleet (some of which have been in service for over sixty years, though I don't know what the maintenance costs look like for them) and the mention that heavier cars tend to be more long-lived, with possible lifetimes for lighter stuff. How are the lifetimes on the European fleet?


I am not sure that weight has a lot to do with longevity. Quality of construction and materials has more to do with it. Also the conditions under which they are operated and how well they are maintained also matter. I don't know if there is a general number representing longevity of European cars in a meaningful way. They like us have some duds and some spectacular successes.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

The Acelas are generally considered to be in worse shape than the Amfleet IIs among Amtrak's service people. Despite the fact that the Acelas are extremely heavy, and, really, because of it.


----------



## Anderson

Green Maned Lion said:


> The Acelas are generally considered to be in worse shape than the Amfleet IIs among Amtrak's service people. Despite the fact that the Acelas are extremely heavy, and, really, because of it.


Ok, again I stand corrected (I really am an outsider to a lot of this stuff). I was under the impression, probably mistaken, that the construction techniques that shifted from the old heavyweight designs to newer, lighter designs involved changes to the design that caused trouble with longevity for the cars in question. Of course, just a general decline in quality can always be looked at as a possible cause (as seems to be the case rather frequently, quality and time have an annoying inverse relationship on so many things).


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Anderson said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Acelas are generally considered to be in worse shape than the Amfleet IIs among Amtrak's service people. Despite the fact that the Acelas are extremely heavy, and, really, because of it.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, again I stand corrected (I really am an outsider to a lot of this stuff). I was under the impression, probably mistaken, that the construction techniques that shifted from the old heavyweight designs to newer, lighter designs involved changes to the design that caused trouble with longevity for the cars in question. Of course, just a general decline in quality can always be looked at as a possible cause (as seems to be the case rather frequently, quality and time have an annoying inverse relationship on so many things).
Click to expand...

First of all, the idea that all older cars were high quality is mistaken. There is a reason that of the many thousands of cars Amtrak inherited, almost all of the cars not built by Edward G. Budd Company of Philadelphia were retired within a few years. By the early 90s, only a very small handful of St. Louis Car Company, AC&F, and Pullman-Standard cars were still in service.

Edward G. Budd created a mechanism called shot-welding for building things out of stainless steel. The cars built by Budd were very expensive by the standards of other rail cars of the day. Budd built cars well, under the competition that slowly allowed them to dismantle the Pullman system. Budd continued to build cars well, and Budd body shells have remained in service for a very long period of time. Budd went out of business almost 25 years ago, yet Amtrak's fleet remains predominantly Budd (All heritage cars, as well as the Amfleets and the AEM-7 engine cowlings).

715 Budd-built cars, 277 Bombardier, 254 Pullman-Standard, 120 Alstom-Bombardier, 116 Morrison-Knudson, 67 Talgo, 61 Alstom, and 9 St. Louis Car Company.

Newer cars, built as government-contract cars by a limited number of manufacturers who compete almost entirely on price are a different ballgame.


----------



## George Harris

Green Maned Lion said:


> Newer cars, built as government-contract cars by a limited number of manufacturers who compete almost entirely on price are a different ballgame.


The thing that happens to a lot of good designs in this grossly misnamed process called "value engineering" The VE concept is to reduce the cost without reducing the value of the finished product. The reality is drive down the cost as far as possible without rendering the product useless. A reduced product life expectancy is analyzed on a present worth basis which means for a long lived product a few extra years has very little present worth.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Actually, the idea is to reduce the cost, increase the profit, and reduce the lifespan so the suckers have the buy again soon. But I digress. I am way too cynical for my 26 years.


----------



## leemell

Green Maned Lion said:


> Actually, the idea is to reduce the cost, increase the profit, and reduce the lifespan so the suckers have the buy again soon. But I digress. I am way too cynical for my 26 years.


Despite your engineer status, you are clearly no engineer. George Harris is and I was until I retired. There are an enormous number of trade-offs made during design, and nearly all affect each other in some way. The design space is so large there frequently is no definitive way to find the optimal solution. Many times design requirement changes will impact the finished product in very unexpected ways. And yes, without profit, there will be no product.

Reducing the design life of a product is sometimes a desirable thing, how many people would still use the Motorola "brick" if it was still viable? Any remaning life was wasted cost in design and build.


----------



## Anderson

> 715 Budd-built cars, 277 Bombardier, 254 Pullman-Standard, 120 Alstom-Bombardier, 116 Morrison-Knudson, 67 Talgo, 61 Alstom, and 9 St. Louis Car Company.


Is this the current fleet makeup?

Also, with respect to "Value Engineering", I guess the question then is "What specs is Amtrak putting out for their bids?"


----------



## Green Maned Lion

leemell said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the idea is to reduce the cost, increase the profit, and reduce the lifespan so the suckers have the buy again soon. But I digress. I am way too cynical for my 26 years.
> 
> 
> 
> Despite your engineer status, you are clearly no engineer. George Harris is and I was until I retired. There are an enormous number of trade-offs made during design, and nearly all affect each other in some way. The design space is so large there frequently is no definitive way to find the optimal solution. Many times design requirement changes will impact the finished product in very unexpected ways. And yes, without profit, there will be no product.
> 
> Reducing the design life of a product is sometimes a desirable thing, how many people would still use the Motorola "brick" if it was still viable? Any remaning life was wasted cost in design and build.
Click to expand...

I do engineer things, but not as complicated as anything you two do/did. Regardless, a cellular phone is a disposable product with a short life span- but that being said, if my old Motorola Teletac worked with the 3G system, I'd use it, believe me.



Anderson said:


> 715 Budd-built cars, 277 Bombardier, 254 Pullman-Standard, 120 Alstom-Bombardier, 116 Morrison-Knudson, 67 Talgo, 61 Alstom, and 9 St. Louis Car Company.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this the current fleet makeup?
> 
> Also, with respect to "Value Engineering", I guess the question then is "What specs is Amtrak putting out for their bids?"
Click to expand...

Yes, that is the current fleet makeup, give or take a few cars.


----------



## George Harris

Proper value engineering is to change standards and components that do not reduce the worth of the project. For most things of any size, you cannot write a cookbook that gives you the exact recipe to be followed. It is more like you have a cabinet full of ingredients and you have to come up with the best meal you can achieve using what you have on hand. Maybe to come out good you need to use a little more of this one and a little less of another one, and the proportions developed by judgment. This requires both experience and a "feel" for what you are doing. Generally the first part of VE is to see if the designer is using a proper balance between requirements than cannot all be met. Also, it is good to look to see if there are any requirements in the spec that are simply unnecessary.

An example: In another project there was a spec for an electrical component that included a unit weight limit in addition to the usual electrical and mechanical performance requirement. The question why was asked. No realistic why was found. What was found was that the weight limit excluded some of the potential suppliers that otherwise had a perfectly good product for the required use. This limit dissapeared from the next issue of the specification.

One common, and reasonable, act is to defer work on or provision of items that will not be needed until some future date. This should be done only where it does not result in more than minimal increase in difficulty and cost of providing the item when it does become necessary.

A not so good idea: WMATA decided to reduce the size of parking lots in the outlying stations to save initial cost. This had a negative impact on ridership, and resulted in the stations being regarded as bad neighbors because of their streets becoming cluttered with cars left all day by WMATA riders. Several years later most of the lots became multi-story parking garages. If this had been in the original plan it would have made the decision seem almost reasonable.

A good idea: The minimum median width on a four lane (two each way) interstate highway is supposed to be 64 feet. Why? So when traffic demands, an additional lane can be placed on each side without the need to reconstruct overpasses. Thus provision for a 50% increase in capacity is built in at the cost of an additional 24 feet of right of way.


----------



## Anderson

GML,

What Pullman-Standard cars are still in use? This is a slight change of topic, but I'm just wondering where I can find a list/suggestions of where they are..


----------



## jis

Anderson said:


> GML,
> 
> What Pullman-Standard cars are still in use? This is a slight change of topic, but I'm just wondering where I can find a list/suggestions of where they are..


The Superliner Is for one! I suppose that is why one of them is named George Pullman!


----------



## Green Maned Lion

The Superliner I cars were the last passenger cars built by Pullman-Standard. The last Superliner built was a sleeper, and it was named George M. Pullman to commemorate that. No pre-Amtrak Pullman cars remain in service owned by Amtrak. They were retired in 1993 when the last two Amtrak Pullman cars, a pair of all-bedroom sleepers, were removed from the Auto Train when it went Superliner.

Aside from Amtrak's personal ownership, North Carolina Department Of Transportation owns the following Pullman Standard 66-seat coaches: 400001 _Cardinal_, 400002 _Dogwood_, 400003 _Honey Bee_, 400004 _Long Leaf Pine_, and 400005 _Scotch Bonnet_. They were built for Kansas City Southern in 1965. Since KCS terminated passenger service in 1969, and the cars never saw service since, they were practically brand new when NCDOT put them into service in the mid-90s.

Pullman-Standards Carbon Steel cars were junk. Which is why most of them were removed from service.


----------



## Anderson

GML,

Thanks for the info. Now I'm wondering which of the Piedmonts those are on. I may have to make a trip down to NC just to say that I rode on a pre-Amtrak Pullman and be able to confuse the hell out of some people!


----------



## George Harris

Anderson said:


> GML,
> 
> Thanks for the info. Now I'm wondering which of the Piedmonts those are on. I may have to make a trip down to NC just to say that I rode on a pre-Amtrak Pullman and be able to confuse the hell out of some people!


Go the NCDOT web site for rail: www.bytrain.org

According to that, they can be found on trains 73, 74, 75, 76.

For the list of equipment and its origins, go to www.bytrain.org/passenger/pdf/dotrailequipment.pdf

According to this, they have 5 coaches built for KCS in 1965 by Pullman-Standard, 3 coaches bbuilt for Union Pacific in 1964 by St. Louis Car, and 3 cars, one combine and two lounges in car bodies built for the US Army in 1953 by St. Louis Car.

When KCS bought these cars, they stated that they had no intention of going out of the passenger business, ever. When the Post Office pulled all mail off trains a few years later, it so changed the financial picture that they requested and were permitted to discontinue all passenger trains.


----------



## Spokker

Well, an anti-CHSRA group is claiming that the cost of the California project is $63 billion, up from $43 billion, and that the CHSRA is covering it up. I don't know what's going on and there is not yet a counterargument against the claim.

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/02/10/10greenwire-calif-gauges-private-sector-interest-in-high-s-46780.html



> Adding to the pushback were new cost estimates released yesterday by a watchdog group called Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design that pegs the entire project's cost at $65 billion. That is up from a $43 billion estimate the authority released in 2009.
> Nadia Naik, co-founder of the Palo Alto-based group, explained her organization had been hoping to see updated numbers from the authority, but when she lost confidence that those numbers would appear anytime soon, the group decided to release its own estimate.
> 
> "Our figures are based on the authority's documents and [American Recovery and Reinvestment Act] applications and were calculated over two months ago," she said. "The 2009 $43 billion figure was outdated the day it was released, because it [priced] the project as it existed circa 2005."


The highest cost I am willing to defend with a straight face is about $100 million per mile on average, give or take a few million. That would put the entire project, phase 1 and 2, at around $80 billion. This is in line with what the Taiwanese paid for their system. European systems tend to be cheaper, but there is track sharing there.


----------



## Anderson

George,

Thanks for the info. Those are the Piedmonts. I'll try and get down there at some point for the experience...now, why do I need to go to Charlotte, again? 

Spokker,

I've got a bad feeling about that, in no small part because I've seen too many projects miraculously miss price estimates. Isn't this at least part of the NJ tunnel disaster, too? A nasty underestimate blew back in everyone's face?


----------



## jis

Anderson said:


> I've got a bad feeling about that, in no small part because I've seen too many projects miraculously miss price estimates. Isn't this at least part of the NJ tunnel disaster, too? A nasty underestimate blew back in everyone's face?


It was a contributory and proximate cause, but not necessarily the main cause IMHO. The project developed progressively into a wrongheaded thing with progressively lower and lower return on investment for higher and higher cost.

Actually some of us consider the New Jersey case to be a tunnel redemption rather than a tunnel disaster. Yes there was a huge risk involved. But the more recent developments would suggest we might get an overall better setup and better return for the money. The thing is that the basic need has not gone away, and something will get built. The question is how to make it the best thing that serves the most rather than a monument to ones ego.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Anderson said:


> George,
> 
> Thanks for the info. Those are the Piedmonts. I'll try and get down there at some point for the experience...now, why do I need to go to Charlotte, again?
> 
> Spokker,
> 
> I've got a bad feeling about that, in no small part because I've seen too many projects miraculously miss price estimates. Isn't this at least part of the NJ tunnel disaster, too? A nasty underestimate blew back in everyone's face?


Cost was Christie's excuse to cancel a unbelievably bad monument to George Warrington's Universe sized ego.


----------



## George Harris

Spokker said:


> Well, an anti-CHSRA group is claiming that the cost of the California project is $63 billion, up from $43 billion, and that the CHSRA is covering it up. I don't know what's going on and there is not yet a counterargument against the claim.
> 
> . . . . . . .
> 
> The highest cost I am willing to defend with a straight face is about $100 million per mile on average, give or take a few million. That would put the entire project, phase 1 and 2, at around $80 billion. This is in line with what the Taiwanese paid for their system. European systems tend to be cheaper, but there is track sharing there.


1. Note the description of the group as being anti-CHSR. They have a conclusion. Now all they need is to come up with sensible sounding reasons to support it. That is, if it supports their desired outcome, they use it. If it does not support their desired outcome, they ignore it or attempt to discredit it. Therefore, there is not way that their cost estimate can be considered as being unprejudiced.

2. There are two points concerning the Taiwanese system. First, the percentage of the line on structures or in tunnels is far higher than whzt will happen in California. However, to counter this, there were not the multitudinous studies made due to the agitating of the opposition, and labor costs were much lower than they will be in California.


----------

