# Why won't HSR be run by Amtrak?



## birdy (May 13, 2009)

Its becoming apparent that the new HSR lines won't be run by Amtrak. CEO of Amtrak made a speech last weekend dissing "true" HSR in favor upgraded conventional rail. Yet, administration officials are still speaking firmly of 220 MPH systems. I surmise from this that the plan is still to have true HSR, only Amtrak won't run it.

Why? It seems to me that 90% of Amtrak's problems are lack of money.


----------



## RTOlson (May 13, 2009)

I don't think high-speed rail is worked out enough to determine who the operators will be. I kinda thought Amtrak would be in line for HSR, but it's fair if it has to compete just like other companies and agencies with HSR interests.

High-speed rail is currently envisioned as a superregional transportation solution, but short of a national one. For some regional markets, Amtrak bids to contract its services as an operator. I can imagine a similar situation here.

The other thing is that being an HSR operator/builder probably won't solve Amtrak's money woes. The initial investors in HSR will probably face considerable challenges. That includes investing a huge amount of money into building an infrastructure that might not turn a profit for decades, if ever.

If high-speed rail reaches its potential, I think it will be interesting to see the future of Amtrak. Will it evolve into something newer, faster, greater? Or will it be phased out for something new?

Edit - I think Amtrak's mandate is operate a national passenger rail system. Perhaps improvements made over the entire national rail network would immediately benefit more people and create a faster overall service than proposed HSR solutions.


----------



## Steve4031 (May 13, 2009)

birdy said:


> Its becoming apparent that the new HSR lines won't be run by Amtrak. CEO of Amtrak made a speech last weekend dissing "true" HSR in favor upgraded conventional rail. Yet, administration officials are still speaking firmly of 220 MPH systems. I surmise from this that the plan is still to have true HSR, only Amtrak won't run it.
> Why? It seems to me that 90% of Amtrak's problems are lack of money.



Was this the speech in Illinois on Monday? What were the details?

Can you provide a link?

Thanks


----------



## Steve4031 (May 13, 2009)

I just found the link to this story, and answered my own questions. It was from the Chicago Tribune.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/c...0,1724722.story


----------



## VentureForth (May 13, 2009)

birdy said:


> Why? It seems to me that 90% of Amtrak's problems are lack of money.


I think 50% of Amtrak's problems are lack of money and 50% is poor management - all the way to Congress. It's like asking the USPS to operate a new parcel service.


----------



## VentureForth (May 13, 2009)

birdy said:


> Its becoming apparent that the new HSR lines won't be run by Amtrak. CEO of Amtrak made a speech last weekend dissing "true" HSR in favor upgraded conventional rail. Yet, administration officials are still speaking firmly of 220 MPH systems. I surmise from this that the plan is still to have true HSR, only Amtrak won't run it.


What is the definition of "True" HSR? May be my naitivity but I consider 180 MPH (very possible on upgraded steel wheel technology) is "High Speed". We can't manage our current system very well. What makes anyone think that we can handle a new technology like MagLev? Hey, I'm a proud American through and through, and I relish the accomplishments that Americans have made consistently throughout history. But when it comes to _operating a railroad_ - especially over long distances - we dropped out of the race in the 1960s and had a few runners up until the mid-70s.

If we could build JUST ONE 500-mile long high speed passenger rail corridor with no grade crossings and has an AVERAGE transit speed of greater than 150 MPH, then I think we've made the stepping stone advancement to the next study. There is no reason other than bureaucratic red tape that this can't happen on a - ha ha - fast track.


----------



## Dakguy201 (May 13, 2009)

I think Mr. Boardman is just being practical. You can achieve speeds of 90 to 110 mph on the freight right of ways of today with relatively minor improvements. To go much beyond that you need to purchase entirely seperate corridors, much of them in urban areas. Isn't California estimating $45 billion for just the LA/Bay area HSR segment? Even if you accept that number as realistic (I have doubts), what does that imply as the total for the 10 to 15 other corridors?

Sometimes the best is the worst enemy of the good. Amtrak has enough to do to get the corridor speeds and frequencies up without being concerned with HSR.

Just this week the Vice President seemed to make a federally funded college education for EVERY young person an administration goal. He didn't really mean that, of course; as it is we have many cities that have high school graduation rates of less than 50%. I think to say that true HSR is a goal of this administration is the same kind of a situation.


----------



## VentureForth (May 13, 2009)

I don't disagree. Let's get ALL passenger routes up to 110 first then work on dedicated 180 MPH ROWs. A billionaire once said that success can be defined in the simple story, Tortoise and the Haire. The tortoise always wins - every time you read the book.

Baby steps. Slow and steady. But NOT must-complete-$10 B-over-30-years-study kinda slow...


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (May 13, 2009)

The amount Congress gave to HSR is not nearly enough to get anything above what the NEC or Acela services offer-- if at all. IMHO if they can't get the track up to 110mph then they should just use Amtrak. Use Amfleets and the p42's and some new electro units for newly electrified track.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie (May 13, 2009)

Actually, I think it is far better that Amtrak stays out of this.

I know this will upset many here, but I seriously doubt we will have a HSR which speeds along at 220MPH as a result of this current initiative. Therefore, I think this vision will either fail, or be ridiculed for not achieving its promises fully. Something, IMHO, that would be better if Amtrak was not associated with it.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 13, 2009)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> Actually, I think it is far better that Amtrak stays out of this.
> I know this will upset many here, but I seriously doubt we will have a HSR which speeds along at 220MPH as a result of this current initiative. Therefore, I think this vision will either fail, or be ridiculed for not achieving its promises fully. Something, IMHO, that would be better if Amtrak was not associated with it.


Very insightful, a valid point. I agree.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (May 13, 2009)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> Actually, I think it is far better that Amtrak stays out of this.
> I know this will upset many here, but I seriously doubt we will have a HSR which speeds along at 220MPH as a result of this current initiative. Therefore, I think this vision will either fail, or be ridiculed for not achieving its promises fully. Something, IMHO, that would be better if Amtrak was not associated with it.


Actually that's exactly why Amtrak should get in on this... if only as a back-burner. There's no way we'll get 220mph trains here, not yet anyway. And when this plan flops (as it will) it is best left to Amtrak to run the new 110mph corridors and upgraded tracks.


----------



## volkris (May 13, 2009)

The political game will never fully fund incremental upgrades enough to get us there anytime soon.

HSR has a better chance of succeeding, I believe, if it's presented as a whole new generation of travel, on par with air and (seriously!) space flight. Divorce it from current rail as much as possible and propose a moon shot-style endeavor to get the US the newest, slickest, most high-tech HSR in the world. It doesn't have to actually BE that, just have the ring of that.

Part of that is giving the impression of leaving Amtrak behind with bus travel... hell, lump car travel in with that to make GML happy. Form a new brand to ostensibly oversee science and technology behind the new lines, and to manage the rollout and operation.

It can be actually managed by whatever individuals you want, but keep the Amtrak name far, far away.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (May 13, 2009)

volkris said:


> HSR has a better chance of succeeding, I believe, if it's presented as a whole new generation of travel, on par with air and (seriously!) space flight. Divorce it from current rail as much as possible and propose a moon shot-style endeavor to get the US the newest, slickest, most high-tech HSR in the world. It doesn't have to actually BE that, just have the ring of that.


With the concept of not actually having the best HSR in the world, just pretending, it sounds to me like you consider the existing Acela all the passenger rail improvement the US will ever need.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (May 13, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> Let's get ALL passenger routes up to 110 first then work on dedicated 180 MPH ROWs.


Does this mean that until the Acela Express manages to reach 110 MPH in revenue service in Metro North territory in the existing alignment (which is generally assumed to be impossible) you oppose constructing new HSR alignments?


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (May 13, 2009)

Dakguy201 said:


> I think Mr. Boardman is just being practical. You can achieve speeds of 90 to 110 mph on the freight right of ways of today with relatively minor improvements. To go much beyond that you need to purchase entirely seperate corridors, much of them in urban areas.


On the New York City to Chicago (or just Gary IN, following the conventional rail ROW from Gary into downtown Chicago) as the crow flies route, are more than 10%-20% of the miles through urban areas?


----------



## volkris (May 13, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> With the concept of not actually having the best HSR in the world, just pretending, it sounds to me like you consider the existing Acela all the passenger rail improvement the US will ever need.


No, I don't think Acela is nearly shiny enough to hold up as the high tech travel method of the future. At most it and its popularity can be used as an example of success that slick bullet trains can vault past.

Anyway, my main point is that selling HSR to the public can, in my opinion, be best done not through incremental upgrades, but through the concept of a whole new program. For better or worse politics requires such theatrics, and it could be exactly the same people running the new system, but it should be presented as brand new and not just an addition to Amtrak.

The the minor point is that we don't necessarily have to be best in the world. Surely others have huge head starts, and it's not necessarily the prudent course to try to get ahead of them for the sake of getting ahead of them, especially considering different needs of different countries. No, Acela doesn't cut it. We should at least get into the same class as the others... we just don't need to insist on immediately setting the curve.


----------



## GP35 (May 13, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> birdy said:
> 
> 
> > Why? It seems to me that 90% of Amtrak's problems are lack of money.
> ...


Already.... We should just pay the French to buiild it and maybe run it.


----------



## Mark (May 13, 2009)

A few weeks ago I was on the EB returning to Chicago. I had a pretty nice attendant working my car, (the train was still running short from MSP at this point), so when I saw the opportunity I asked him how long he worked for Amtrak, etc., to break the ice. Eventually we wound up talking about the California High Speed Rail project. He was pretty adamant that it would happen and that Amtrak would be selected as the initial operator. He told me that he had heard through company circles that Amtrak and the State of California were already starting the initial negotiations. Now I know this is only hearsay but it did come from an Amtrak employee so we can take that for what its worth.


----------



## birdy (May 14, 2009)

Mark said:


> A few weeks ago I was on the EB returning to Chicago. I had a pretty nice attendant working my car, (the train was still running short from MSP at this point), so when I saw the opportunity I asked him how long he worked for Amtrak, etc., to break the ice. Eventually we wound up talking about the California High Speed Rail project. He was pretty adamant that it would happen and that Amtrak would be selected as the initial operator. He told me that he had heard through company circles that Amtrak and the State of California were already starting the initial negotiations. Now I know this is only hearsay but it did come from an Amtrak employee so we can take that for what its worth.


Well, that's good, but if so, why is Mr. Boardman so negative? I don't see why we have to restart the business plan with this thing, or somehow, someway, pretend that this is something that has to be run by a private concessionaire when it has to be built almost entirely with public money. Finding out that co-pilots of passenger jets might be paid as little as 16K per year makes unionized labor look better and better to me.

Still, I'm just amazed at the defeatist talk. Turkey now has HSR. The technology is 25 years old. We can build a 250-300 mile line anywhere outside of the coasts for the cost of our wars for a month. (I'm not expressing an anti-war sentiment here; I happen to support both of them. I'm just putting things in perspective). As a matter of fact, as I examine the recent budget proposals, the plan to raise capital gains tax to 20% for high income taxpayers would pay for a very aggressive build out, $117 billion over 10 years. Total transportation spending is only 3% of the federal budget anyway.

When did we just give up?


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 14, 2009)

Mark said:


> A few weeks ago I was on the EB returning to Chicago. I had a pretty nice attendant working my car, (the train was still running short from MSP at this point), so when I saw the opportunity I asked him how long he worked for Amtrak, etc., to break the ice. Eventually we wound up talking about the California High Speed Rail project. He was pretty adamant that it would happen and that Amtrak would be selected as the initial operator. He told me that he had heard through company circles that Amtrak and the State of California were already starting the initial negotiations. Now I know this is only hearsay but it did come from an Amtrak employee so we can take that for what its worth.


After the beating Veolia Transportation took last year from the Metrolink disaster, Amtrak is the best known and most respected contract rail operator in the country. Obviously California, who is already pretty satisfied with how they operate CalTRAIN and Amtrak California, would look to Amtrak to operate the HSR. Unless they want to go the route people go in the east for running these things- doing it on their own.


----------



## RTOlson (May 14, 2009)

^^

While Caltrans and various other agencies operating passenger rail in California contract with Amtrak, it's not all roses. There was a recent complaint and report where Caltrans alleged Amtrak was improperly using the Oakland maintenance facility paid with taxpayer dollars for third-party maintenance.

*birdy* - I don't think you're seeing people "give up" on high-speed rail. For all of its possibilities and likely advantages, there are a lot of questions about high-speed rail that need to be answered.

It could be a matter of "build it and they will ride," but I think it's going to require a little more deliberation than that.


----------



## Tony (May 14, 2009)

volkris said:


> HSR has a better chance of succeeding, I believe, if it's presented as a whole new generation of travel, on par with air and (seriously!) space flight. Divorce it from current rail as much as possible and propose a moon shot-style endeavor to get the US the newest, slickest, most high-tech HSR in the world. It doesn't have to actually BE that, just have the ring of that.


A moon shot style endeavor? You mean the tax payers pay to build a HSR, the train makes the run a just few times, and then we abandon it?

I guess the HSR could then be retired to the new Air, Space, and Rail museum in Washington.


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL (May 14, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Mark said:
> 
> 
> > A few weeks ago I was on the EB returning to Chicago. I had a pretty nice attendant working my car, (the train was still running short from MSP at this point), so when I saw the opportunity I asked him how long he worked for Amtrak, etc., to break the ice. Eventually we wound up talking about the California High Speed Rail project. He was pretty adamant that it would happen and that Amtrak would be selected as the initial operator. He told me that he had heard through company circles that Amtrak and the State of California were already starting the initial negotiations. Now I know this is only hearsay but it did come from an Amtrak employee so we can take that for what its worth.
> ...



Well as for Veolia, in Alabama that name is strongly associated with garbage pickup, since Veolia Environmental, another sub-company in Veolia Inc. has majority market share. I think its just another instance of a big company eating up smaller companies and this weakens the ability for the company to always be in the loop and on-top of all the details.

I believe HSR will be open to bidding by operating companies, If Amtrak bids the best or no one else bids Amtrak will run it. I also believe if at any point there is some sort of failure in operations the systems will be dumped on Amtrak.


----------



## birdy (May 15, 2009)

RTOlson said:


> ^^While Caltrans and various other agencies operating passenger rail in California contract with Amtrak, it's not all roses. There was a recent complaint and report where Caltrans alleged Amtrak was improperly using the Oakland maintenance facility paid with taxpayer dollars for third-party maintenance.
> 
> *birdy* - I don't think you're seeing people "give up" on high-speed rail. For all of its possibilities and likely advantages, there are a lot of questions about high-speed rail that need to be answered.
> 
> It could be a matter of "build it and they will ride," but I think it's going to require a little more deliberation than that.



Well, I respectfully disagree. The usage pattern is fairly predictable: HSR will kill off competing air traffic within about 320 miles. So you can just assume that the service will capture the passengers making those hour long 737 flights. In addition to that, you will see some informal use by affluent people for daily commuting for stations less than an hour apart. In addition to that you can expect some organic traffic growth in the mid to high single digits on average over the years. Little old half-baked Acela puts the lie to the "America is different" argument as it has captured over 60% market share.

Obviously, you want to avoid building marginal lines, but since we don't have any at all, that should be easy. If the top twenty lines would probably work, the top 8 lines would almost certainly work.


----------



## RTOlson (May 15, 2009)

Are you sure about that 60 percent market share for just Acela? I would think, and have found preliminary sources, that that percentage is for all of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor services including Regionals.

Also, 60 percent of what? I don't know what's being measured.

Yes, Acela isn't what a lot of people thought it would be, but it definitely could provide a lot of lessons for people willing to learn. If it was based on TGV technology, what's so wrong with rolling that out to other parts of the country?

We, and I include Boardman, may be talking about different levels and speeds of service.

I'm making this list to think through points that have been raised.

*5 mph* - Examples of speeds through some populated areas due to congestion and poor maintenance.

*79 mph* -- Current speed limit (in most parts) -- if we're lucky. It's very often much, much slower.

*110-125 mph* -- Approx. current top speeds of NEC. The speed of 110 mpg mentioned by Boardman as being possible if we modernized the existing rail network.

If we build a new network for high-speed rail (or upgrading parts of the current network), we could go much faster.

*150 mph* - Top speed of current Acela trains.

*150-200 mph* - Approx. speed range mentioned in current HSR proposals.

*217 mph* - Current top speed of deployed global HSR technology.

*220 mph* - Advertised top speed of the project by the California High-Speed Rail Authority.

I don't exactly know what to think about the numbers I just put out. Both goals seem daunting -- upgrading the national network to 110 mph or building a few HSR corridors at 150-200 mph. I also don't know which one would have the best measure of success versus investment.


----------



## Neil_M (May 15, 2009)

Given the long lead time to build, commission and open a new high speed line, probably up to 10 years or so, Amtrak should concentrate on improving what is there now, extra cars, more locos, modest speed improvements, increasing service frequency and improving the quality of its existing product, rather than worrying about something still a long way down the line


----------



## gswager (May 15, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> Given the long lead time to build, commission and open a new high speed line, probably up to 10 years or so, Amtrak should concentrate on improving what is there now, extra cars, more locos, modest speed improvements, increasing service frequency and improving the quality of its existing product, rather than worrying about something still a long way down the line


I agree that Amtrak should focus on existing system. Let others, such as state/fed, to work on new or expanding technology or major improvements because it's very time consuming. I applaud for NE corridor which is still on-going process by Amtrak. In my opinion, I think CA may come up next. I've heard about Michigan, but haven't heard anything about it (probably the range is short).

Weird part that CA has two planning projects- HSR and Caltrains' electricification. Hopefully the improving economy will increase the tax revenue to make these happens.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 15, 2009)

RTOlson said:


> If it was based on TGV technology, what's so wrong with rolling that out to other parts of the country?


Because the Acelas are junk and Bombardier should be roast at the stake for building them that way. God forbid more Acelas are built.


----------



## RTOlson (May 16, 2009)

I know Acelas have their faults. I was referring to the possibility of learning from Acela's mistakes and successes and redeploying the underlying technology after making appropriate changes.


----------



## Neil_M (May 16, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> RTOlson said:
> 
> 
> > If it was based on TGV technology, what's so wrong with rolling that out to other parts of the country?
> ...


So go on then, use your vast experience of operating rolling stock to explain why they are junk and what you would do differently, god forbid.

Or is it that they aren't Budd cars? (yawn)


----------



## RTOlson (May 16, 2009)

Although I'm sure *GML* can provide many reasons why Acelas were "junk," I can personally think of a couple stated reasons off the top of my head:

- The train can't operate as efficiently as initially planned because of the more limited tilt of its articulation frame. (IIRC)

- That brake cracks debacle where they had to pull all the Acelas from service until they could fix the problem.

- Cracks also appeared in another part of the system shortly after it was introduced. Wikipedia (grain of salt) says the cracks were on the brackets connecting "dampers (shocks) to the powerunit carbodies."

And, as this Boston Globe article points out, Amtrak briefly reintroduced Metroliners when Acela was sidetracked. It performed nearly as well and cost less to operate although downsides included that it was older cars and lacked as many amenities.

For what it's worth, if Amtrak were to somehow deploy trains that can operate 100+ mph across the country, I'd rather see TGV-Acela style designs than Metroliners.


----------



## Neil_M (May 16, 2009)

RTOlson said:


> - The train can't operate as efficiently as initially planned because of the more limited tilt of its articulation frame. (IIRC)- That brake cracks debacle where they had to pull all the Acelas from service until they could fix the problem.
> 
> - Cracks also appeared in another part of the system shortly after it was introduced. Wikipedia (grain of salt) says the cracks were on the brackets connecting "dampers (shocks) to the powerunit carbodies."


Cracks in brake discs and damper brackets are hardly the end of the world or 'junk' as some less enlightened persons might claim. Even the German ICE is not without its problems, just recently problems with wheelsets grounded a fair proportion of the fleet.

It seems almost normal for newer stuff to have issues like that at some point in its lifespan.


----------



## AlanB (May 16, 2009)

RTOlson said:


> - The train can't operate as efficiently as initially planned because of the more limited tilt of its articulation frame. (IIRC)


That's not the fault of the train nor is it a mechanical issue. The train is fully capable of tilting to the originally designed maximum tilt with a bit of reprogramming on the computers. The train cannot however tilt to the maximum design, because some genius forgot how close the track centers are on the NEC and they made the train a bit wider than originally planned. Therefore, were Amtrak to set things up to allow Acela to tilt to the maximum, it could and probably would tilt right into another train causing some major problems.



RTOlson said:


> And, as this Boston Globe article points out, Amtrak briefly reintroduced Metroliners when Acela was sidetracked. It performed nearly as well and cost less to operate although downsides included that it was older cars and lacked as many amenities.


I see nothing in that article that says it costs Amtrak less to operate the Acela. All references were that it costs passenger less to ride the Metroliner, since Amtrak dropped prices to keep ridership.


----------



## RTOlson (May 16, 2009)

^^

I misread the context in the article. Probably just one pratfall of trying to hastily do Internet research.

Thanks.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 16, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> RTOlson said:
> 
> 
> > - The train can't operate as efficiently as initially planned because of the more limited tilt of its articulation frame. (IIRC)- That brake cracks debacle where they had to pull all the Acelas from service until they could fix the problem.
> ...


The main problem with them is the low quality of weldwork and the fact that the construction is essentially under specified for the trains colossal weight. As a result, joints and panels flex more than then they should and the metal on several sets are already showing noticeable fatigue.

The problem lays in a pretty basic flaw. I'm sure Mr. Harris could explain this better, but the way Bombardier attempted to meet American crash standards was a weight-inefficient method, and the cars weigh a hell of a lot more than they need to. Ipso facto, its a flawed design.

Its what happens when you take the then 20 year old Light-Rapid-Comfortable technology and car body, combine it with some TGV technology, and then multiply metallic thickness to increase collision strength, then call it a modern solution to High-Speed Rail and get your government to offer Amtrak financing it couldn't refuse. Amtrak and many people within have long said they should have gone with the X2000 rather then Bombardier.


----------



## AlanB (May 17, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> The main problem with them is the low quality of weldwork and the fact that the construction is essentially under specified for the trains colossal weight. As a result, joints and panels flex more than then they should and the metal on several sets are already showing noticeable fatigue.
> The problem lays in a pretty basic flaw. I'm sure Mr. Harris could explain this better, but the way Bombardier attempted to meet American crash standards was a weight-inefficient method, and the cars weigh a hell of a lot more than they need to. Ipso facto, its a flawed design.
> 
> Its what happens when you take the then 20 year old Light-Rapid-Comfortable technology and car body, combine it with some TGV technology, and then multiply metallic thickness to increase collision strength, then call it a modern solution to High-Speed Rail and get your government to offer Amtrak financing it couldn't refuse. Amtrak and many people within have long said they should have gone with the X2000 rather then Bombardier.


I can't speak to welding work and other things like that, since I don't have the specs and haven't seen the work.

But let's be careful not to lay all the blame at Bombardier's feet either, and please I'm not suggesting that you were. Amtrak had considerable input into the design of Acela and they and they alone are responsible for some of the design problems with Acela. This is why Amtrak settled with Bombardier out of court after both made some posturing noises, because Amtrak knew that some of the problems would indeed be proved to be Amtrak's fault.


----------



## Neil_M (May 17, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Neil_M said:
> 
> 
> > RTOlson said:
> ...


Maybe then you need to have crash standards that are realistic,trying to build trains in the future that will travel at up to 200 mph is going to be very hard if everything is built like a tank.

Best way to survive a collision is not have one in the first place.....

Poor weldwork? Where were the Acelas built then?


----------



## jis (May 17, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> The main problem with them is the low quality of weldwork and the fact that the construction is essentially under specified for the trains colossal weight. As a result, joints and panels flex more than then they should and the metal on several sets are already showing noticeable fatigue.


Could you perhaps provide some cites to documentation about this? I would really like to learn more about this. I have heard this claim thrown around blithely by everyone ranging all the way upto Gunn, but mostly by implications and innuendos. I would really like to get a handle on this from a technical perspective if I could.

Please note that I am not challenging your claim or anything like that. I would genuinely like to learn more about it so that I can talk about this from a more informed position. So even if you can't provide a technical cite please do not feel slighted.

Thanks for your help and indulgence.


----------



## Dakguy201 (May 17, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> Maybe then you need to have crash standards that are realistic,trying to build trains in the future that will travel at up to 200 mph is going to be very hard if everything is built like a tank.Best way to survive a collision is not have one in the first place.....
> 
> Poor weldwork? Where were the Acelas built then?


The Acelas are a product of a Bombardier-Alstrom joint venture. Initial assembly was at LaPocatiere, Canada with the final production work occuring at Barre, Vt.


----------



## Neil_M (May 17, 2009)

jis said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > The main problem with them is the low quality of weldwork and the fact that the construction is essentially under specified for the trains colossal weight. As a result, joints and panels flex more than then they should and the metal on several sets are already showing noticeable fatigue.
> ...


A technical cite? From GML? Sheesh dude, you ask too much.

Budd cars ate my burger. :lol:


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (May 17, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> Maybe then you need to have crash standards that are realistic,trying to build trains in the future that will travel at up to 200 mph is going to be very hard if everything is built like a tank.


Is it? I thought the way the physics equations work out, the force you need to accelerate a given mass forward is going to be proportional to the mass, and the force you can apply before the wheels slip is going to be proportional to the weight on the powered wheels, and so if you don't care what the electric bill is and can build sufficiently powerful traction motors and don't run into problems with needing an excessively heavy main transformer and the fraction of the train's weight on the powered axles is constant as you vary the weight of the train, you can add arbitrary amounts of weight to the train without really affecting the maximum speed.

And then there's also the question of how much extra weight is really needed.



Neil_M said:


> Best way to survive a collision is not have one in the first place.....


While avoiding collisions is certainly an excellent goal, I'm not sure it's wise to be so confident that they won't ever happen that you end up skimping on crashworthiness. I'm reminded of things like the Titanic, or the US Navy's SUBSAFE program.

It is not clear that any existing or proposed passenger train in the US that would cover more than 50 miles in a one seat ride isn't sharing track with freight at some point along its route. And better rolling stock seems to be a lot easier to come up with than raising the standards for track along an entire route.


----------



## Neil_M (May 17, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Neil_M said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe then you need to have crash standards that are realistic,trying to build trains in the future that will travel at up to 200 mph is going to be very hard if everything is built like a tank.
> ...


The Acela weighs 566 tonnes for 6 cars and 2 power cars, a TGV Duplex weighs 380 tonnes for 8 double decker trailers and 2 power cars. Given that SNCF have always strived for a 17.5 tonne axle loading for high speed running, something will have to give in order to run at 186mph or faster in the US. A higher axle load just means you beat the track up faster.

Sure you can build the train as heavy as you want, but that defeats the object of the exercise really doesn't it?

I remain entirely unconvinced by crashworthiness values, building bigger and heavier trains to be 'safer' is an exercise in futility if there isn't even the signalling there to stop the trains crashing in the first place. A look at the mess of the front coach in the Chatsworth crash shows just how pointless it is, no doubt that car had reached some sort of nominal crashworthiness and the loco telescoping into it showed just how 'safe' that was.

The best crashworthiness is not to have one in the first place. I will never be convinced of anything different.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (May 17, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> The Acela weighs 566 tonnes for 6 cars and 2 power cars, a TGV Duplex weighs 380 tonnes for 8 double decker trailers and 2 power cars. Given that SNCF have always strived for a 17.5 tonne axle loading for high speed running, something will have to give in order to run at 186mph or faster in the US. A higher axle load just means you beat the track up faster.


It sounds like the Acela's weight per passenger is roughly double the TGV's. While a factor of two probably increases the maintenance cost if the track is similarily constructed, it doesn't sound like a catostrophic increase to me. Hasn't the Chunnel survived to some extent in spite of what some might consider excessive safety regulation?



Neil_M said:


> I remain entirely unconvinced by crashworthiness values, building bigger and heavier trains to be 'safer' is an exercise in futility if there isn't even the signalling there to stop the trains crashing in the first place. A look at the mess of the front coach in the Chatsworth crash shows just how pointless it is, no doubt that car had reached some sort of nominal crashworthiness and the loco telescoping into it showed just how 'safe' that was.


IIRC, the Chatsworth equipment was built to older, less rigorous crashworthiness standards, possibly even than what would be used for brand new 88 MPH commuter coaches being ordered today.

Not everyone on board that train was killed, so while the crashworthiness of that train may not have been a complete success, it wasn't a complete failure, either.



Neil_M said:


> The best crashworthiness is not to have one in the first place.


Certainly, but until you have solid data that proves that you've gotten this right, it's probably unwise to assume you have. In the case of the 1987 Maryland collision, I believe the cab signaling equipment was available, merely not being maintained correctly in the cab of the freight locomotive. Is there any technique for supervising a group of tens of thousands of maintenance workers to ensure that that sort of sloppiness will never, ever, ever happen again?


----------



## Neil_M (May 17, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Certainly, but until you have solid data that proves that you've gotten this right, it's probably unwise to assume you have. In the case of the 1987 Maryland collision, I believe the cab signaling equipment was available, merely not being maintained correctly in the cab of the freight locomotive. Is there any technique for supervising a group of tens of thousands of maintenance workers to ensure that that sort of sloppiness will never, ever, ever happen again?


Is that any excuse not to have any form of cab signalling or even no signalling at all?

Better to train staff and maintain properly, especially in litigation happy America?

Every crash is different in its happening and aftermath, surely its better to design to not have a crash rather than try to mitigate its effects after the impact? Data or no data surely you must see that that's a more sensible approach?

That's the way most other railways try to work, rather than trying to build rail borne dodgem cars to bounce off each other.


----------



## jis (May 17, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> The Acela weighs 566 tonnes for 6 cars and 2 power cars, a TGV Duplex weighs 380 tonnes for 8 double decker trailers and 2 power cars. Given that SNCF have always strived for a 17.5 tonnes axle loading for high speed running, something will have to give in order to run at 186mph or faster in the US. A higher axle load just means you beat the track up faster.


I agree with the basic point you are making, but thought that I would bring up an issue looking a little deeper behind those numbers.

So Acelas have 566 tonnes carried on 32 axles giving an average axle load of around 17.7 tonnes, whereas the TGV Dupleix has 2x4 + 8x2 + 2 = 26 axles carrying 380 tonnes giving an average axle load of around 14.6 tonnes per axle. Notice that the real problem with Acela is that the power heads are too heavy for 4 axles. The trailers are heavy too, but not extraordinarily so. If some sort of crash management system were allowed that allows the power heads to deform way more to absorb the collision than they are allowed now, they could potentially be considerably lighter. The issue is not necessarily about passenger safety or even driver safety, but how much a portion of the train that is normally not carrying any living being is allowed to deform to save the rest of the train. Not taking that fully into consideration in rule setting would appear to be one of the fundamental failing of the FRA at present.

Weight per passenger is a somewhat meaningless number since that depends on how densely passengers are packed into a car. The seat pitch in TGVs, specially in second class is way way smaller than on Acleas, and Acela first class is outright luxurious compared to TGV first class. I am also not sure if the jump seats by the door are actually counted as passengers in the passenger count for TGVs.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 17, 2009)

I do not have the documentation. I have seen and read some, and I have had my cousin, who works at Ivy City, explain it to me at some length, but I don't have any publicly available documentation I can cite.

If anyone else does, please post it.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (May 17, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> Is that any excuse not to have any form of cab signalling or even no signalling at all?


Maybe we should ban the operation of vehicles by amateurs that have no cab signaling (by which I'm thinking of automobiles) if professionals operating with no cab signaling can't even get it right?

I also don't think I was really trying to say that crashworthiness is a substitute for better signaling and/or employee training. Just that I think relaxing crashworthiness standards before we have solid data showing we have actually improved signaling and/or employee training is a poor idea.



Neil_M said:


> Better to train staff and maintain properly


Those are certainly also good ideas.



Neil_M said:


> Every crash is different in its happening and aftermath, surely its better to design to not have a crash rather than try to mitigate its effects after the impact? Data or no data surely you must see that that's a more sensible approach?That's the way most other railways try to work, rather than trying to build rail borne dodgem cars to bounce off each other.


For a start, we'd need to fully grade separate all passenger train ROWs. The only Amtrak routes that have no grade crossings with automobiles are probably the NEC trains that only operate NYP to WAS, and those equipment pools do need to go through grade crossings in eastern Connecticut and some of that equipment also goes through grade crossings in other places.


----------



## jis (May 17, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I do not have the documentation. I have seen and read some, and I have had my cousin, who works at Ivy City, explain it to me at some length, but I don't have any publicly available documentation I can cite.


Thanks GML.


----------



## birdy (May 17, 2009)

"For a start, we'd need to fully grade separate all passenger train ROWs. The only Amtrak routes that have no grade crossings with automobiles are probably the NEC trains that only operate NYP to WAS, and those equipment pools do need to go through grade crossings in eastern Connecticut and some of that equipment also goes through grade crossings in other places."

You got that right. The inherent unsafety of at-grade crossings is just huge. The grade separation of true HSR is probably the sum and substance of its superior safety record.

I don't pretend to understand the "inside baseball" of the problems of Acela deployment that you-all discuss. Just the observation that there is a hidden and in many cases continuing cost of "making do" I'm not saying that we should abandon everything but true HSR. I am saying that running lots of souped up diesels through at grade crossings at 110 mph is going to have consequences that need to be taken into account.


----------



## AlanB (May 17, 2009)

birdy said:


> I don't pretend to understand the "inside baseball" of the problems of Acela deployment that you-all discuss. Just the observation that there is a hidden and in many cases continuing cost of "making do" I'm not saying that we should abandon everything but true HSR. I am saying that running lots of souped up diesels through at grade crossings at 110 mph is going to have consequences that need to be taken into account.


Amtrak doesn't need souped up diesels to go 110 MPH. The entire fleet of P42 engines, the current work horse for Amtrak, are all capable of running at 110 without any modifications.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 18, 2009)

birdy said:


> I am saying that running lots of souped up diesels through at grade crossings at 110 mph is going to have consequences that need to be taken into account.


Sure. Evolution will pick up the pace a bit as the fools stupid enough to not stop for trains at grade crossing removed from the gene pool and the people who do stop are naturally selected to continue procreating the human race.


----------



## Neil_M (May 18, 2009)

birdy said:


> "For a start, we'd need to fully grade separate all passenger train ROWs. The only Amtrak routes that have no grade crossings with automobiles are probably the NEC trains that only operate NYP to WAS, and those equipment pools do need to go through grade crossings in eastern Connecticut and some of that equipment also goes through grade crossings in other places."
> You got that right. The inherent unsafety of at-grade crossings is just huge. The grade separation of true HSR is probably the sum and substance of its superior safety record.
> 
> I don't pretend to understand the "inside baseball" of the problems of Acela deployment that you-all discuss. Just the observation that there is a hidden and in many cases continuing cost of "making do" I'm not saying that we should abandon everything but true HSR. I am saying that running lots of souped up diesels through at grade crossings at 110 mph is going to have consequences that need to be taken into account.


There is always going to be a cost if you want to run faster, maybe full barriers rather than half barriers might go some way to reduce the amount of idiots who want to adorn the front of a P42.


----------



## Neil_M (May 18, 2009)

jis said:


> Weight per passenger is a somewhat meaningless number since that depends on how densely passengers are packed into a car. The seat pitch in TGVs, specially in second class is way way smaller than on Acleas, and Acela first class is outright luxurious compared to TGV first class. I am also not sure if the jump seats by the door are actually counted as passengers in the passenger count for TGVs.


Bit of a difference though, isn't there? TGV Duplex is designed as a high speed people mover which it does very well, 545 seats compared to the Acela's 300. Seat spacing is all very well, but if you can stretch your legs out on a TGV in any class, then anymore spacing than that is just wasting space really. Its all very well giving an illusion of luxury by pitching the seats about 30 yards apart, but there is also a need to maximise revenue.


----------



## VentureForth (May 18, 2009)

What's the advantage of a loco pulled set (ie: Acela/TGV) over an EMU (ie: Shinkansen)? How many passenger coaches are on the TGV? Shinkansen has 16, with a capacity of 1,324 passengers in two classes.

As I've mentioned already here before, Amtrak's focus needs to be on how to properly run a steel-wheel system, maximizing revenue on the Acela by running longer trainsets as opposed to more trains. Of course, being a contiguous trainset, this is not easily done. It can be done, but with great stress, anxiety and taxing on the maintenance infrastructure. It wouldn't be a bad idea, I don't suppose, if they would just mount two trainsets together with the inability to walk through the entire trainset. Of course, there aren't any spares to effectively do that. There should never be any sold out Acela trains (or trains less than 80% capacity) except on holidays.

Amtrak needs to find a new builder for the NEC equipment and find them fast. They should look into Kawasaki, in my humble opinion. Of course, they could probably never afford them...

As for FRA standards, there is a limit to which you can design a solid body before the contents flying around in a collision are worse than the structural damage to the lead loco. The first priority is to reduce the potential for accidents. The Shinkansen would probably never pass FRA impact standards, but have had less fatalities than on the NEC.

By the way, Herzog is a pretty reputable management and operations company. They've done a great job with the TRE and the NM Railrunner. But NONE of today's commuter operators, including Amtrak, are equipped to handle true HSR.


----------



## jis (May 18, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> Bit of a difference though, isn't there? TGV Duplex is designed as a high speed people mover which it does very well, 545 seats compared to the Acela's 300. Seat spacing is all very well, but if you can stretch your legs out on a TGV in any class, then anymore spacing than that is just wasting space really. Its all very well giving an illusion of luxury by pitching the seats about 30 yards apart, but there is also a need to maximise revenue.


In my experience I could not stretch my legs in TGV second class. TGV seats are anything but comfortable. But your point is taken that if something is meant to be a high speed subway, the seats need not be much better than they are, and yes, TGVs move people very well.


----------



## VentureForth (May 18, 2009)

Hee hee - just found out how much Kawasaki charges JR for a 16-car trainset: JP¥5 Billion or US$52.2 MIL.

How much did the Bombardier sets cost?


----------



## AlanB (May 18, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> birdy said:
> 
> 
> > "For a start, we'd need to fully grade separate all passenger train ROWs. The only Amtrak routes that have no grade crossings with automobiles are probably the NEC trains that only operate NYP to WAS, and those equipment pools do need to go through grade crossings in eastern Connecticut and some of that equipment also goes through grade crossings in other places."
> ...


IIRC, US track regs require Quad gates for speeds over 90 MPH. Over 125 MPH no grade crossings are permitted.


----------



## AlanB (May 18, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> What's the advantage of a loco pulled set (ie: Acela/TGV) over an EMU (ie: Shinkansen)? How many passenger coaches are on the TGV? Shinkansen has 16, with a capacity of 1,324 passengers in two classes.


Fewer parts to replace and repair. Especially here in the US, EMU is considered a locomotive and therefore has higher and more frequent inspection requirements than does trailer coaches.



VentureForth said:


> As I've mentioned already here before, Amtrak's focus needs to be on how to properly run a steel-wheel system, maximizing revenue on the Acela by running longer trainsets as opposed to more trains. Of course, being a contiguous trainset, this is not easily done. It can be done, but with great stress, anxiety and taxing on the maintenance infrastructure. It wouldn't be a bad idea, I don't suppose, if they would just mount two trainsets together with the inability to walk through the entire trainset. Of course, there aren't any spares to effectively do that. There should never be any sold out Acela trains (or trains less than 80% capacity) except on holidays.


You can forget linking to Acela sets together. In addition to a myriad of other problems, the deal breaker is the fact that two sets linked together would have a top speed of 25 MPH. Limitations with how the couplers were built into the nose cone prevent operation at higher speeds than 25 MPH.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 18, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> Hee hee - just found out how much Kawasaki charges JR for a 16-car trainset: JP¥5 Billion or US$52.2 MIL.
> How much did the Bombardier sets cost?


Probably a lot more. Amtrak's sets required full engineering and development to be paid for, even if they really are modernized electrically powered LRCs. Also, Amtrak ordered a tiny quantity. Our government, in its infinite wisdom, likes to cost Amtrak fortunes in unnecessary tooling costs. It would be cheaper to replace the entire NEC fleet in one shot then to build two sets of new cars, 20 trainsets each, 10 years apart. (Which, by the way, would not replace the entire fleet- it would perhaps replace half of it.)


----------



## George Harris (May 18, 2009)

Japanese N700 eight car trainset: seating capacity 662. Thati is 100 per full coach with 3+2 seating and 68 for the business class at 2+2 seating. The 3+2 is not really that tight. These cars are 11'-1" wide, which is about one foot wider than a standard American coach. This level would get you 1324 people in a 16 car train. Actually more, if it is a true 16 and not a double 8 car set.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (May 18, 2009)

AlanB said:


> IIRC, US track regs require Quad gates for speeds over 90 MPH. Over 125 MPH no grade crossings are permitted.


I'd thought that, given sufficiently good barriers, 110 MPH through a grade crossing is legal, and 111 MPH through a grade crossing isn't ever legal in the US.

I'm skeptical that large numbers of 110 MPH grade crossings will produce a safety record that will allow them to remain legal, though.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (May 18, 2009)

AlanB said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > What's the advantage of a loco pulled set (ie: Acela/TGV) over an EMU (ie: Shinkansen)? How many passenger coaches are on the TGV? Shinkansen has 16, with a capacity of 1,324 passengers in two classes.
> ...


However, with the semi permanently coupled nature of the Acela, the trailers end up in the shop for the inspections whenever the locomotives do. So while there might be some impact on the labor cost, I'm not sure if there'd really be a huge impact on the number of days the passenger cars spend in the shop each year.

And if you're talking about new HSR alignments, the cost of building the track probably makes even inefficient trainset maintenance look like a small cost.



AlanB said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > As I've mentioned already here before, Amtrak's focus needs to be on how to properly run a steel-wheel system, maximizing revenue on the Acela by running longer trainsets as opposed to more trains. Of course, being a contiguous trainset, this is not easily done. It can be done, but with great stress, anxiety and taxing on the maintenance infrastructure. It wouldn't be a bad idea, I don't suppose, if they would just mount two trainsets together with the inability to walk through the entire trainset. Of course, there aren't any spares to effectively do that. There should never be any sold out Acela trains (or trains less than 80% capacity) except on holidays.
> ...


But if 20 more Acela trainsets were built, they could probably be built with a modification to address this issue, and it might even be possible to retrofit that modification to the older Acela trainsets. Or, give each new Acela trainset one old Acela power car, and each old Acela trainset one new power car, and then every Acela trainset will have a new power car capable of coupling to another Acela trainset on one end. Yes, if you do that you'll have to feed trainsets through a wye or loop on occasion to get the coupleable end in the right place, but conveniently all of the major yards where you're most likely to want to do this do have a wye or loop.


----------



## AlanB (May 18, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > IIRC, US track regs require Quad gates for speeds over 90 MPH. Over 125 MPH no grade crossings are permitted.
> ...





> The FRA’s rail safety regulations require that crossings be separated or closed where trains operate at speeds above 125 mph (49 CFR213.347(a)). Additionally, if train operation is projected at FRA track class 7 (111 – 125mph) an application must be made to the FRA for approval of the type of warning/barrier system.


On the NEC however for some reason, the maximum is 95 MPH. After that, the crossing must be closed if they want a higher speed.


----------



## AlanB (May 18, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > VentureForth said:
> ...


Yes, but they still spend far less time in the shop than if they were EMU's. It's far easier for Amtrak to inspect 2 power cars over the course of the weekend, than it is to inspect 6 EMU's.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (May 18, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Yes, but they still spend far less time in the shop than if they were EMU's. It's far easier for Amtrak to inspect 2 power cars over the course of the weekend, than it is to inspect 6 EMU's.


If you have a set of 6 semi permanently coupled EMUs, what prevents building the shop so that you can have 6 crews, one per EMU, working in parallel?


----------



## AlanB (May 19, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, but they still spend far less time in the shop than if they were EMU's. It's far easier for Amtrak to inspect 2 power cars over the course of the weekend, than it is to inspect 6 EMU's.
> ...


Nothing.

But it does cost a whole lot more, since you've got a lot more parts that now need replacing and of course you now need 6 crews. And of course with 6 EMU's the odds of any one motor failing and taking the whole set out of service is far greater than the odds one of the two power cars failing and taking the set out of service.

And the upfront costs for six EMU's is far higher than two power cars and 6 trailers.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 19, 2009)

Ok Alan, but then explain to me why the Arrows are the oldest running cars on NJTransit's system. Why SEPTA uses EMUs almost exclusively, and LIRR and Metro-North use them substantially.

If MTA can make EMUs work, why can't Amtrak?


----------



## AlanB (May 19, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Ok Alan, but then explain to me why the Arrows are the oldest running cars on NJTransit's system. Why SEPTA uses EMUs almost exclusively, and LIRR and Metro-North use them substantially.
> If MTA can make EMUs work, why can't Amtrak?


It's not a matter of getting them to work, it's a matter of the right tool for the right job. In the case of commuter ops, despite NJT's past contentions that now seem to be changing, EMU's are perfect for the quick accelerations/decelerations that are needed with stops on average 2 to 5 miles apart.

You don't need all that distributed power, extra weight, and extra cost in an Acela replacement.

At least in my opinion and I'm far from an expert on this.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 19, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Ok Alan, but then explain to me why the Arrows are the oldest running cars on NJTransit's system. Why SEPTA uses EMUs almost exclusively, and LIRR and Metro-North use them substantially.
> ...


I disagree. The accelerative advantage would be particularly useful around the curvier sections of the NEC.


----------



## AlanB (May 19, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


Except for the fact that one wants to eliminate curves for high speed ops, which is what this topic is about.


----------



## Neil_M (May 19, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


Thats just one advantage. Having power cars in the style of Acela and TGV allows you to swop those power cars out if you have a problem, same as removing a defective locomotive.

If you have a fault on an EMU the whole train stays on shed if there is a problem.

The power cars and coaches have vastly different maintenance regimes, obviously, as the power cars have all the traction equipment.

I bet Amtrak doesn't have any spare Acela power cars though... Although if the trailer cars are being refurbished then there's 2 spare straight away.


----------



## VentureForth (May 19, 2009)

That's sorta true, but if one car on a 16-car trainset loses power, or faults, it can still run until it can be taken out of service. That's the beauty of having spares (whether spare power on a single train or spare trainsets). The added benefit of spare trainsets is that they're great for cycling equipment for maintenance AND they can be used for peak operating times.

As it is, the whole train has to go in for service at the same time anyway - whether it's an EMU or not. And an advantage of an EMU over a loco is that the parts are smaller and less expensive per each (maybe not per trainset, but the trades would have to be considered).

Obviously the Japanese think they're doing it right and don't plan to change things, and the French think they're doing it right and don't plan to change things.

SO, I think that the most important change that needs to take place in updating the Acelas is the ability to manipulate train length. Whether they are loco pulled or an EMU is really not as important as getting rid of the proprietary coupling and inability to add/remove cars as necessary. Also, perhaps a trailer mounted with a power pickup could serve for HEP instead of relying on the power unit itself.


----------



## AlanB (May 19, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> I bet Amtrak doesn't have any spare Acela power cars though... Although if the trailer cars are being refurbished then there's 2 spare straight away.


Just as an FYI Neil, the power cars are being given a bit of an overhall too. I'm not sure just how much work is being done, but for at least part of the time that the trainset is out of service, the power cars are in Wilmington for work.


----------



## AlanB (May 19, 2009)

One other thought against EMU's here is that I believe that the FRA Tier II crash regs forbid it. That's part of the reason that Acela has two power cars. The power car, and apparently the poor enginer along with it, is considered the crumple zone to protect the passenger cars. Not much point in running an empty EMU on the ends of each train.


----------



## VentureForth (May 19, 2009)

Valid point, but then the next logical argument comes back to whether the FRA Tier II crash regs are entirely necessary. Again, Shinkansen 16-coach trainset probably weighs about the same as an Acela set (maybe not that light, but it gets the point across), and has had 1 fatality (if that?) that was caused by operations in 40 years...

As for running an empty EMU, Pacific Surfliner runs empty cab cars all the time - to "protect the driver from passengers".


----------



## AlanB (May 19, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> Valid point, but then the next logical argument comes back to whether the FRA Tier II crash regs are entirely necessary. Again, Shinkansen 16-coach trainset probably weighs about the same as an Acela set (maybe not that light, but it gets the point across), and has had 1 fatality (if that?) that was caused by operations in 40 years...
> As for running an empty EMU, Pacific Surfliner runs empty cab cars all the time - to "protect the driver from passengers".


Well I won't debate if the FRA has gone too far. I know that many do believe that, but at least for the moment I don't see any hope of changing those regs.

As for the Pacific Surfliner, a cab car is not an EMU. Yes, it has engine controls, but without an engine it's not going anywhere. There are no "motors" to speak of. I'm not sure how FRA regs treat cabs cars with respect to inspections, perhaps Dutch or someone else knows if they fall under car inspection prototcols, engine inspection protocols, or perhaps even some special category.


----------



## VentureForth (May 19, 2009)

I know that. My correlation was the wasted space for passengers... Your point was that it would be wasteful to run a light trainset with an empty end unit. I was agreeing, noting that the PSL often runs with an empty cab car for reasons seemingly not as logical.


----------



## AlanB (May 19, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> I know that. My correlation was the wasted space for passengers... Your point was that it would be wasteful to run a light trainset with an empty end unit. I was agreeing, noting that the PSL often runs with an empty cab car for reasons seemingly not as logical.


The PSL running an empty cab car is part logical, part not. It was an outgrowth out of the older Metrolink accident where the train running cab forward hit the car parked on the tracks. Neither Metrolink cars nor Amtrak's Surfliner cars meet Tier II safety standards, one reason that in the recent Metrolink crash with the freight train, that the engine was shoved so far back into the first passenger car.

The less logical reason is that despite all of the above, for the speeds involved on the Surfliner, the FRA still consider the car safe. But they seem to be trying to not use the car unless needed in part I suspect to try to be safer, in part because the crew likes to have some place to hang out with no passengers around.


----------



## George Harris (May 19, 2009)

Empty cab cars? Maybe on the PSL, but certainly not on the California trains in general. Caltrain down the peninsula certainly runs with people in the cab car, at least up until this past week, which was the last time I was in one. The "Amtrak California" trains down the valley still were running with passengers in the cab car, at least in early April, which was the last time I rode one down the Valley.

To run with the cab cars empty goes beyond paranoia to rediculously silly paranoia.

EMU's make as much or more sense at high speed than in commuter service. Since adhesion drops with speed, as speeds get high, particularly in the 150 mph plus range, the axle loads on power units has to be fairly high, at least high in terms of this sort of equipment, not coal train high, in order to accelerated reasonably, or even simply maintain speed on wet rails.


----------



## jis (May 19, 2009)

AlanB said:


> One other thought against EMU's here is that I believe that the FRA Tier II crash regs forbid it. That's part of the reason that Acela has two power cars. The power car, and apparently the poor enginer along with it, is considered the crumple zone to protect the passenger cars. Not much point in running an empty EMU on the ends of each train.


First of all I am wondering whether we are again confusing EMU and distributed power, something that happens often in the US because EMUs as found on the NEC also use extremely distributed power, unlike in many parts of the world. For example standard EMU units in what used to be Network Southeast in the UK used to be one power car and three trailers. Strictly speaking if two Acelas could operate in tandem like 2 TGV units do all the time in France, they would be operating as EMU.

Setting that aside for the moment, there is another minor point involving the FRA and a bit of Physics/Engineering.

For high speed operations it is a very bad idea to have a large number of pantographs touching the catenary within a short interval, such as the length of a train. In order to avoid such most HSRs use a few pantos (even as few as one sometimes) and a high tension cable running the length of the train to supply power to wherever the power units are. The TGVs have this. The Shinkansen models have this. The Eurostars have this. This sort of high tension bus is in violation of FRA regs, and require a waiver. This is what the EMUs like Arrow IIIs operate under.

Now one can fix FRA, but one cannot change the issues governed by physics/engineering regarding mechanical behavior of pantographs that touch the wire too close together. So even under the best of circumstances do not expect to see a panto on every other car reaching up 8 feet to touch the cat, like you see on the Arrows, and do expect to not have extremely distributed power. BTW the 2 power units for 6 cars as in Acela is not that far removed from the norm of power distribution on high speed train sets.


----------



## photoeditor (May 19, 2009)

I think the crash standards in this country are a clear barrier to high-speed rail development. They are, frankly, arbitrary.

The thing that I'm curious about is why in particular they seem to have gotten in the way of monoque car designs. British Rail's Mk III cars from the 1970s and 1980s used in the InterCity 125 diesel sets and on locomotive-hauled electric trains have an impressive crash-worthiness record, in contrast to earlier British designs; the Mk IV from the early 1990s used in the InterCity 225 electric sets better yet, and apparently further crash-worthiness improvements were incorporated in the Pendolino EMUs used on the West Coast Main Line. The one serious accident to date involving a Pendolino, a 95mph derailment due to poor trackwork at Grayrigg in Cumbria, saw cars thrown all over the place, slammed into bridge abutments and many other things, but only one fatality and very few serious injuries, because the cars were not ripped apart like the LA Metrolink crash.

What all these designs have in common from the Mk III on is a monoque design. It's the same principle as a P42, except applied to the vehicles the passengers are actually riding in. Yet none of these cars, as far as I know, would be Tier II legal in the United States, not even the Pendolino. That is quite simply ludicrous. Tier II was directly responsible for losing all other bidders besides Bombardier, and for the absurd weight of the Acela. I have no doubt that the Pendolino at least ought to be a safe design for the US.

The FRA's regulations seem to be almost entirely about input, and not about outcomes. That's a recipe for a very heavy car that isn't necessarily as good as it could be.

There are also some very strange features of the Acela that aggravate the problem. The cars are very long, as long as a Superliner and conventional locomotive-hauled stock in Europe, but significantly longer than typical for high-speed stock like Pendolino and TGV cars, imposing an extra structural burden. Despite the fact that the train cars are permanently coupled there was no move to have shared trucks between cars which would have reduced weight and improved ride (perhaps the car bodies were too heavy for this?). And the windows on the Acela are huge, reducing the integrity of the body.


----------



## Neil_M (May 19, 2009)

jis said:


> In order to avoid such most HSRs use a few pantos (even as few as one sometimes) and a high tension cable running the length of the train to supply power to wherever the power units are. The TGVs have this. The Shinkansen models have this. The Eurostars have this. This sort of high tension bus is in violation of FRA regs, and require a waiver.


Eurostars do not have the HT cable linking the power cars. They run with 2 pans up, one each end. The power cars are far enough apart to avoid issues with catenary oscillation and the tunnel fire regs don't permit it. The 2 half units should be able to split and leave the damaged part behind. An over head bus line would make that difficult


----------



## jis (May 19, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > In order to avoid such most HSRs use a few pantos (even as few as one sometimes) and a high tension cable running the length of the train to supply power to wherever the power units are. The TGVs have this. The Shinkansen models have this. The Eurostars have this. This sort of high tension bus is in violation of FRA regs, and require a waiver.
> ...


You are correct. My bad. It is the TGVs that operate only with one pan using the HT bus to provide power to the other power-head. The Shinkansens sets have ht bus spanning portion of the train that is supplied from each pan. the N700s I believe have 2 pans if I remember right.


----------



## Neil_M (May 19, 2009)

jis said:


> Neil_M said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


They do, but on the LGV and 25Kv routes only. On the older 1500V DC electrified routes then it's both pans up.


----------



## jis (May 19, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> They do, but on the LGV and 25Kv routes only. On the older 1500V DC electrified routes then it's both pans up.


Yep, I believe they actually need both up to collect enough current at the lower voltage to provide the power needed. I think I recall having read somewhere that their performance would be noticeably compromised if they operated with a single pan in DC territory.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (May 19, 2009)

photoeditor said:


> I think the crash standards in this country are a clear barrier to high-speed rail development.


I'm not sure I agree. Buying 150 MPH trainsets, even with the current crash standards, seems to be a lot easier than coming up with a decent amount of track that supports 150 MPH running for any reasonable length of time.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (May 19, 2009)

jis said:


> For high speed operations it is a very bad idea to have a large number of pantographs touching the catenary within a short interval, such as the length of a train. In order to avoid such most HSRs use a few pantos (even as few as one sometimes) and a high tension cable running the length of the train to supply power to wherever the power units are. The TGVs have this. The Shinkansen models have this. The Eurostars have this. This sort of high tension bus is in violation of FRA regs, and require a waiver. This is what the EMUs like Arrow IIIs operate under.


One could imagine a trainset in which the car at one end had a cab, pantograph, main transformer, and baggage space, followed by some mix of powered and unpowered passenger cars, with another cab at the far end.

It's possible to distribute power at 700V or 1000V or so between the cars; I'm under the impression that that's roughly the voltage the freight railroads use for slugs.

The cables probably aren't small at that voltage; and I doubt a slug is going to be rated at more than 1000 or 2000 horsepower when a typical diesel prime mover is around 4000 horsepower, and I suspect this means that in passenger service, the amperage will need to be several times what is found in the cable to a slug for this to be useful.

My other question is whether the wattage of the main transformer is limited by the weight that can be accomodated in a single car (and, would eliminating 25 hz territory help with the weight any?).


----------



## VentureForth (May 20, 2009)

jis said:


> Neil_M said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


I think that the original 0 Series Shinkansen had a pantograph every other car on their 16-car trainset. I don't know how many the 100-series had (but it was fewer), but yes, since about the 300-series (c.1998+) they have run 16-carriage trainsets with two pantos. It's another advantage of having a dedicated ROW with consistent power throughout the service route.


----------



## VentureForth (May 20, 2009)

HERE is a very interesting blast from a not-so-long ago proposal by Bombardiar (aka Canadair) to provide Amtrak with a JetTrain that could run on existing tracks with an AEM-7-ish jet-engine powered locomotive. The accompanying trainset would be a full tilting set.

The idea behind this venture was to be able to use high speed equipment on trackage that was limited to 79 MPH, yet not have to replace it as track speeds could be improved up to 153 MPH (or replaced with new trunk lines).

It was proposed simultaneously with the Acela trainset. Evidently, Amtrak's harsh relationship with Bombardier, coupled with Florida infighting (first application was to be between Tampa and Orlando), and of course FRA budget cuts on rail travel over the last decade, completely killed this program. The link above is a shadow of Canadair's literature, as Bombardier has no reference to any of this information.

By the way, the prototype loco only cost the US Gov $13 Mil. Bombardier covered the other $13 Mil.

Whatta shameful waste.


----------



## jis (May 20, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> By the way, the prototype loco only cost the US Gov $13 Mil. Bombardier covered the other $13 Mil.
> Whatta shameful waste.


Yep, and being a gas-turbine thing it would also cost an arm and a leg to operate. Good thing we stopped at wasting just $13 million.


----------



## VentureForth (May 20, 2009)

Yes, the jets only are efficient above 65% of its power rating. However, a low speed diesel generator can supplement/replace the turbine power when necessary. Really, the latest PWC turbojet engines sip fuel for their power output.

At any rate, I think they beat the Colorado Railcar idea...


----------



## George Harris (May 20, 2009)

Gas turbines have had more than one trip to the table, and always with the same result: Too complex, too finicky, too expensive to maintain, fuel hogs. Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. To try turbine power again would fit this definition.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 21, 2009)

George Harris said:


> Gas turbines have had more than one trip to the table, and always with the same result: Too complex, too finicky, too expensive to maintain, fuel hogs. Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. To try turbine power again would fit this definition.


And Boardman still wants the RTL-IIIs running on the Empire Corridor.

I've had some pretty vicious arguments with people about why they should stay shelved- and I'm including a variety of people that really should know better.


----------



## volkris (May 21, 2009)

George Harris said:


> Gas turbines have had more than one trip to the table, and always with the same result: Too complex, too finicky, too expensive to maintain, fuel hogs. Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. To try turbine power again would fit this definition.


Gas turbine design continues to evolve and improve. I personally work with smaller turbine applications, but I've seen first hand enormous progress made in the past decade as the things have become more efficient, more powerful, and much more reliable. I don't think it's at all unbelievable for a company to claim a new generation of gas turbine engine.

That doesn't mean gas turbines are appropriate to this application, just that it's not really trying the same thing over and over again.

And to nit pick, insanity has never been defined that way by anyone who knew what he was talking about  It's funny how some lines wedge themselves in the cultural psyche.


----------



## RTOlson (May 21, 2009)

I just saw the first part of the "Supertrain" TV pilot. With that knowledge, I declare that America's new high-speed train should be "atom powered." That's the only way we can get across the country in 36 hours.

http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009/05/08...ress-to-terror/

BTW, I don't know what it is, but I've seen more "Supertrain" references in the past week than I have ... well, ever.


----------



## GG-1 (May 21, 2009)

RTOlson said:


> I just saw the first part of the "Supertrain" TV pilot. With that knowledge, I declare that America's new high-speed train should be "atom powered." That's the only way we can get across the country in 36 hours.
> BTW, I don't know what it is, but I've seen more "Supertrain" references in the past week than I have ... well, ever.


Aloha

And probably saw more that it was viewed when it was a current series. I can't remember what were the circumstances but I received an invitation to bid on buying the model used in filming.


----------



## VentureForth (May 21, 2009)

volkris said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > Gas turbines have had more than one trip to the table, and always with the same result: Too complex, too finicky, too expensive to maintain, fuel hogs. Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. To try turbine power again would fit this definition.
> ...


I'll have to agree with Volkris here... Pratt & Whitney Canada over the last 10 years has developed some extremely high output, low fuel consumption turbines. In addition, a smaller diesel generator for yard speeds could be incorporated to reduce fuel consumption.

Keep in mind that the Bombardier JetTrain is 1990's/2000's technology as opposed to the 1960's/70's technologies of the TurboTrain.

Quite frankly, I think we're MUCH closer to a non-electrified high speed steel wheel (150 MPH) solution than we are to a maglev solution. And I think it can be done for a fraction of the cost.


----------



## George Harris (May 21, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> Quite frankly, I think we're MUCH closer to a non-electrified high speed steel wheel (150 MPH) solution than we are to a maglev solution. And I think it can be done for a fraction of the cost.


I will agree with this on the basis that while non-electrified high speed may be like a trip to Saturn or Neptune, successful Maglev would be like a trip to the next Galaxy.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 21, 2009)

I'd say that Mr. Harris is right.

Also, if you are going to build a high-speed rail network, with the frequency the track grading implies, the cost of electrification is more than justified.


----------

