Sunset Limited

[Neil_M]

Your vast knowledge of American travel patterns must lead you to this conclusion. Can I see your back up research?
The reason for them being dual-mode MUs is not just to allow them to run from Washington to Richmond (A big city, and arguably part of the BosWash) and on to NPN, but to give them flexibility to operate throughout the system. They do not become useless if there is catenary failure. They can be rerouted over the inland route- instead of sitting idle useless like the Acela sets did when the bridgework went on last summer. They can continue in a power outage. They can transverse off the system and provide high speed service on the Corridor without requiring travelers to transfer or wait for an engine change.

I'm not foaming. I'm being practical. If I was being a foamer, I'd be arguing against high-speed service. I personally have no use for it.

The simplest of research would show that a single journey on Acela would cost around $200-300.

You could charge that between DC and New York, in competition with the airlines, but elsewhere? Not likely...

How many trains are there to Richmond each day? 5 or 6? Hardly worth inventing the Lardbutt Express to do that (Can you show me an existing 150mph dual mode train? )

Funny how the Germans and Swiss can get those scary wires to stay alive and staying in the sky every day, surely a great nation such as the US can manage it?

Electrification, dear boy. That's what you need, better kit and more of it. Boston to DC is your one limited attempt at running a modern railway, dragging it backward with some daft ideas is why you should be limited to model trains.

As for your comment about not needing 'high speed' proves how little a grip you have on today's world. You may have all day to sit in a cave and take 8 hours to make scrambled egg, most other people don't. They want to get where they are going as quickly and as cheaply as possible.

Couchettes are for tightwads and students.

(And you don't need train names for every single train journey. Foamer.)

 

[Neil_M]

In europe, you call the concept a "couchette". I'm referring to budget sleeping car accommodations. In Europe, where people have less privacy issues than in the US, the couchette works. Here, people want their privacy. Therefore, the low-cost sleeping car accommodations should be private. I call them Slumbercoaches so that people grasp my idea, not because I am talking about ancient Budd cars.

I thought the roomette was the couchette equivalent? The fact that Amtrak overprices them is another story.

 

[jis]

In europe, you call the concept a "couchette". I'm referring to budget sleeping car accommodations. In Europe, where people have less privacy issues than in the US, the couchette works. Here, people want their privacy. Therefore, the low-cost sleeping car accommodations should be private. I call them Slumbercoaches so that people grasp my idea, not because I am talking about ancient Budd cars.

I thought the roomette was the couchette equivalent? The fact that Amtrak overprices them is another story.

Roomette is not a Couchette equivalent. You don't share the Roomette with 3 to 5 other people whom you have usually never met before this journey.

 

[Ispolkom]

In europe, you call the concept a "couchette". I'm referring to budget sleeping car accommodations. In Europe, where people have less privacy issues than in the US, the couchette works. Here, people want their privacy. Therefore, the low-cost sleeping car accommodations should be private. I call them Slumbercoaches so that people grasp my idea, not because I am talking about ancient Budd cars.

My mistake. When you called them Slumbercoaches, I thought you were talking about, well, Slumbercoaches. Especially given your well-known fondness for "ancient Budd cars."

 

[Bill Haithcoat]

Because daily service offers the traveling public more options and it adds capacity without adding any new cars to the consist. I don't think anyone on here blamed the "big bad government" or insinuated that Amtrak somehow did away with daily service, most just want improved service. Most of the territory though which the Sunset runs has only the one train three times a week as a rail option. Amtrak only has two trains left that do not run daily, the Sunset and the Cardinal. What amazes me is that no matter what the SP did to the train, people still showed up to ride it and they were never able to discontinue it. Amtrak and the UP in the last few years have again treated this train like a step child that no one cared about, but it is still sold out on many occasions. So there is obviously a 'need' there for the service. Hopefully Amtrak management will fix all the problems with the service, most of which they created and bring back the extra capacity that they, Amtrak, reduced, by transferring equipment to other trains after Katrina.

I'm not commenting on the advantages of daily service. I'm commenting on people acting like this is some kind of breaking news that the Sunset runs tri-weekly. Its ran tri-weekly for nearly 40 years now. I want every route served multiple times a day. Its just not possible right now, and historically the Sunset has been a relative poor performer, even in the dark days of the mid 90s where even the CZ and EB ran tri-weekly. If we make the Sunset daily between even JAX and LAX the equipment would have to come off of something else. We don't have spare equipment for LD trains laying around, dude.

If I ran Amtrak and its funding, they'd place an order monday morning for:

Western Long-distance

A) 140 Superliner III 14-5-1-1 sleepers

B) 100 Superliner III 26-1 roomette Slumbercoaches

C) 50 Superliner III dining cars

D) 50 Superliner III Sightseer Lounges

E) 20 Superliner III Diner/Lounge (half diner, half sightseer lounge, for less dense trains)

F) 70 Superliner III coach bags

G) 70 Superliner III Trans/dorm Slumbercoach

H) 280 Superliner III coaches

I) 100 Superliner III Parlor first class lounge cars

Creating 70 new sets, with an average of 1 Trans/dorm Slumbercoach, 1 Slumbercoach, 4 coach cars, coach/bag, lounge, diner, Parlor and 2 sleeping cars.

Eastern Long-distance

A) 100 Viewliner II 10-4-1 sleepers

B) 50 Viewliner II 24-8 Slumbercoach cars

C) 50 Viewliner II baggage cars

D) 50 Viewliner II Dorm/FirstClass Lounge cars

E) 50 Viewliner II Sightseer Lounge cars

F) 50 Viewliner II dining cars,

G) 250 Viewliner II coach cars

Thereby giving Amtrak a total of 50 single-level train sets consisting of baggage, dorm/lounge, 3 sleepers, Slumbercoach, diner, lounge, and 5 coaches.

Short-distance/High Speed

A) 250 bi-level SD coaches

B) 50 bi-level SD cafe cars

C) 60 high-speed "Metroliner II" DMU sets by TALGO for use on the Hiawatha (to MN-STP), Wolverine/Bluewater, and Lincoln/Missouri routes

D) 30 high-speed "Metroliner II" DEMU sets by TALGO for use in "Metroliner Express" service positioned where Acela was and running BOS to NPN.

In five years time:

A) The Horizons would be sold or scrapped.

B) The Amfleets would go to increasing NEC frequencies manifold for lower speed, lower cost service, will ALL trains originating in BOS and going to NPN, CLT, LYH, or Fayettesville, some via the Inland Route, and routed through the various possible routings to maximize coverage.

C) The Acelas would be consigned to Keystone service originating in BOS, with an eye to retirement by 2020.

D) All midwest routes would be operated by bi-level triains.

E) All trains but the Metroliners will have their own names, with a shared name branding- Ex. "Keystone Flyer", "Keystone Sunrise", "Keystone Sunset", or "Merchants Regional"

F) Keystone Corridor will be extended to Pittsburgh, which will be electrified.

In addtion, I'd make the following changes to long-distance:

A) Sunset Limited goes daily.

B) Cardinal goes daily

C) Silver Palm and Silver Champion trains will operate to Florida. One will use the FEC, and another will use the S line.

D) Windy City Flyer, using Amfleet II equipment, will operate over the Broadway for daytime service to Chicago.

E) Broadway Limited will be WCFs overnight equivlent

F) Commodore Vanderbilt will provide dayime service to Chicago over the Water Level Route, AMFII equipment.

G) Erie Limited and Phoebe Snow will provide day and night service respectively to Chicago via the former Erie-Lackawanna route, which will be rebuilt for higher speed.

H) National Limited will be restored via the Capitol Limited's routing to PGH, and then will run through the fastest possible routing to STL.

I) the Niagara Rainbow will provide overnight service to Detroit via Windsor.

J) Overnight service will resume to both Montreal and Toronto.

K) Spirit Of California running overnight LAX to EMY via SAC will return using Tehachapi Pass, as well as a California Limited doing it during the day.

L) Floridian restored.

M) Texas Chief restored

N) Second and third frequencies over Southwest Chief route called Chief and El Capitan respectively, leaving Chicago in the morning, noon, and evening periods.

O) If BNSF will allow it, Southwest Chief will become a premier train and will be renamed Super Chief.

P) North Coast Hiawatha restored.

Q) North Star restored.

R) SAS-SEA train.

S) 12-hour offset second frequency on Coast Starlight route.

T) City of New Orleans will be renamed Panama Limited and maintain schedule. A train that will run to Memphis during the day and arrive in NOL early in the morning will get the name City of New Orleans

U) Crescent will be renamed "Crescent Limited" and rerouted to more closely follow its old Southern route.

V) A train to be named Southerner will replace the Crescent on its current routing.

W) Gulf Breeze will be restored BHM-MOB.

X) Gulf Wind will be intended to connect with Sunset Limited and will run from NOL to MIA

Y) Gulf Coast Limited will provide a second frequency NOL-MIA with a twelve hour offset.

Lastly,

Desert Wind and Pioneer will be restored- but as seperate operating trains, providing three frequencies to Denver and two to Salt Lake City, daily. A fourth train, the Denver Zephyr will run seasonally to provide a 4th frequency to Denver

But the money isn't there for it.

Daily Daily Daily is or should be the number 1 priority. Use single deck coaches if not enough Superliners. Use single deck on the Cardinal, then usethe Cardinal Supereliners for a daily Sunset.

The Cardinal has been using single level equipment now for several years, so there is no Superliner equipment to be taken from the Cardinal. It's long gone.

Ahhh, I got my trains mixed up. It's the Capital limited with the Superliners.

Jis, I believe the Capital limited uses 3 trainsets of Superliners. 3 single deck trainset are needed. They could have used the 26 that was rusting away in NO.

Dude, you have no idea what you are talking about. Those things are short distance sets. The limitations for LD service are diners, baggages and sleepers. Amfleets or Horizons can (and have been in the past) configured for long-distance service. Coach cars are not the problem.

Also, they aren't rusting- they are made of Stainless Steel, which doesn't rust.

Neat, many good ideas. Wish we had a majic wand about now.....

I was intrigued by your re-introduction of the Commodore Vanderbilt name. Now that is a train which was greviously overshadowed by the 20th Century Limited. I take nothing from the Century but it badly overshadowed everything else...and the Commodore was a truly fine train in its own right. Few today even remember it..

From your notes about the Crescent Limited and the Southerner I gather you have a good understanding of the history of those various name changes, and you no doubt realize that today's Crescent is really yesterday's Southerner. Having said that I note that you refer to the Crescent Limited going on its old Southern route. Guess you mean via Montgomery and Mobile rather than Birmingham and Meridian. True, and that route from Atlanta to Montgomery was the Atlanta and West Point RR and from Montgomery via Mobile to NOL it was L&N.

You bring up the old Gulf Wind name. Funny about that route. I realize how interested in it we have all become due to it still not being reinstated, the Sunset that is.It is a vital link to a national system. But ---what is funny (or ironic) about it? What is funny about it is that it was never a very long train. Quite short. Usually a couple of head end cars, one coach NOL to JK, one coach Flomaton, Ala, to Jax, one diner NOL to Mobile and another one from Chattahoochie to JX, one sleeper and one sleeper observation lounge from NOL to JX. Just 4 or 5 cars.

And yet so much gets said about it today. Not knocking it, not arguing against its importance, just thinking about what a small train it actually was.

In fact, it never even arrived and or left NOL under its own power. It was always consolidated with other trains. Keeping it simple--------it was various tied to the Pan American to and/or from Cincinnati and or the Piedmont Limited to and or from NYC, WAS, and ATL. Exact details varied through the years.

 

[sunchaser]

So why bother with diesel traction when most of that route is electrified anyway? Given that route would seem to be the most revenue heavy then why bother carrying on using "high speed" trains when Boston to Washington is the route to utilise your best trains on?

Your vast knowledge of American travel patterns must lead you to this conclusion. Can I see your back up research?

The reason for them being dual-mode MUs is not just to allow them to run from Washington to Richmond (A big city, and arguably part of the BosWash) and on to NPN, but to give them flexibility to operate throughout the system. They do not become useless if there is catenary failure. They can be rerouted over the inland route- instead of sitting idle useless like the Acela sets did when the bridgework went on last summer. They can continue in a power outage. They can transverse off the system and provide high speed service on the Corridor without requiring travelers to transfer or wait for an engine change.

I'm not foaming. I'm being practical. If I was being a foamer, I'd be arguing against high-speed service. I personally have no use for it.

Your spending plan seems overall to be more of the same (and a odd obsession with 'slumbercoaches') and several steps backward.That's the trouble with getting foamers running railroads!

In europe, you call the concept a "couchette". I'm referring to budget sleeping car accommodations. In Europe, where people have less privacy issues than in the US, the couchette works. Here, people want their privacy. Therefore, the low-cost sleeping car accommodations should be private. I call them Slumbercoaches so that people grasp my idea, not because I am talking about ancient Budd cars.

Green, the Sunset has been around for over 100 years. Can the CZ and EB say that?The Sunset limited will be around long after the CZ and EB have crumble to dust....

Puh-lease. Don't insult the Sunset Limited in its glory with that statement. The train running between NOL and LAX is not the Sunset Limited. It is just a train bearing that name running on the Sunset Route. I could argue that the EB is older, since service via GN commenced prior to the Sunset Route's completion, under the name Orient Limited.

The Broadway Limited was a much more special train than the Sunset ever was. Its gone. The train deserving of that name died in 1968. Trains going by that name died in 1995. Overnight service on that route ended in 2004.

And people accuse me of foaming!

I agree 'dude', if only we could get some common sense on here it would be so refreshing.......dude. dude dude dude dude. What is a green mained lion anyway, dude.

I'm using a lot of common sense. I'd like you to give me an example- just one- where I'm not.

I'll admit that the idea of a double-decker Superliner slumbercoach is a bit terrifying, though.

If you consider the room count, you'd notice its not that kind of slumbercoach. It would actually be a de-amenitied Superliner with 20 roomettes on the upper floor, 6 roomettes on the lower floor (taking the family room), and one handicapped room. I'd kill the car attendant concept, make the beds easier to operate, and charge less money for the room, and also not include meals. A classic Slumbercoach configuration in a Superliner is beyond my mechanical comprehension.

Lastly,

Desert Wind and Pioneer will be restored- but as seperate operating trains, providing three frequencies to Denver and two to Salt Lake City, daily. A fourth train, the Denver Zephyr will run seasonally to provide a 4th frequency to Denver

But the money isn't there for it.

So, the 'Slumbercoach/roomette': Is that basically a roomette? So you wouldn't make it stay in bed configuration all the time? You mentioned de-ameniziting it, so no perks other than it makes into beds, right? Would you include a toliet/sink like in the viewliner for a superliner? I keep hearing that bedrooms/roomettes cost too much for most people, what pricing do you think would work then? I'm glad you said not the classic slumbercoach, they just look odd inside to me. I really like the idea of reinstating these two runs. It would be great to have a North/South option here.

Sunchaser

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Well-- if you did have traditional Superliners with nothing but roomettes added to the consist, you would have more roomettes to go around and therefore start the prices off in lower buckets than they are currently.

Supply and demand.

Taking away meals means that Amtrak could also justify lowering the buckets by another $30 or however much the average roomette pax eats in the diner.

Thus you end up with this wishy washy wibbly wobbly 'middle class' of sleeper.

 

[sunchaser]

Well-- if you did have traditional Superliners with nothing but roomettes added to the consist, you would have more roomettes to go around and therefore start the prices off in lower buckets than they are currently.
Supply and demand.

Taking away meals means that Amtrak could also justify lowering the buckets by another $30 or however much the average roomette pax eats in the diner.

Thus you end up with this wishy washy wibbly wobbly 'middle class' of sleeper.

So what's the solution? From what I read on this board it would have to be way lower than low bucket on a current roomette to be 'affordable'. Even if you did a modified roomette as mentioned above, I think you would still need a SlumberRoom Attendant (SRA) to provide towels, linens, pillows, clean them etc. (Assuming there are bathrooms and or a shower). And if you have an H room, you would probably still need to bring meals to them (for a fee of course) and provide assistance as well. I also think that H SlumberRoomette should have a call light for safety reasons. Maybe if they were 2 bunks per SlumberRoomette, & fixed, not convertable to seats, (except again, SlumberRoomette H), it would be better. That way, you would still pay for your coach seat, but just like a bedroom or roomette, pay extra for a bed. It would be a clearer price/amenity difference from a bedroom or roomette, not so 'wishy washy wibbly wobbly' !!

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Well-- if you did have traditional Superliners with nothing but roomettes added to the consist, you would have more roomettes to go around and therefore start the prices off in lower buckets than they are currently.
Supply and demand.

Taking away meals means that Amtrak could also justify lowering the buckets by another $30 or however much the average roomette pax eats in the diner.

Thus you end up with this wishy washy wibbly wobbly 'middle class' of sleeper.

So what's the solution? From what I read on this board it would have to be way lower than low bucket on a current roomette to be 'affordable'. Even if you did a modified roomette as mentioned above, I think you would still need a SlumberRoom Attendant (SRA) to provide towels, linens, pillows, clean them etc. (Assuming there are bathrooms and or a shower). And if you have an H room, you would probably still need to bring meals to them (for a fee of course) and provide assistance as well. I also think that H SlumberRoomette should have a call light for safety reasons. Maybe if they were 2 bunks per SlumberRoomette, & fixed, not convertable to seats, (except again, SlumberRoomette H), it would be better. That way, you would still pay for your coach seat, but just like a bedroom or roomette, pay extra for a bed. It would be a clearer price/amenity difference from a bedroom or roomette, not so 'wishy washy wibbly wobbly' !!

Right and you then defeat the whole point of having a reduced class of service if you keep offering these services back. <_<

Furthermore, as far as sleeper prices go. Everybody can shove it. Just do the inflation adjustments for prices from the 30's and 40's and you'll find that the prices are still pretty much the same, and in some cases can be LOWER.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

The simplest of research would show that a single journey on Acela would cost around $200-300.You could charge that between DC and New York, in competition with the airlines, but elsewhere? Not likely...

How many trains are there to Richmond each day? 5 or 6? Hardly worth inventing the Lardbutt Express to do that (Can you show me an existing 150mph dual mode train? )

The Metroliner II cars would be faster than the Acela for the schedule. Sometime in the past, a moron decided that Acela was to be engine hauled. I don't know what idiot decided that, but they were an idiot. While the TGV is engine hauled, the TGV doesn't run on a line where it has to accelerate and decelerate frequently. The Acela does. It should have always been a MU set up. These Metroliner IIs are. They'll be able to do much better. Anyone besides Neil here who has watched a Silverliner, Arrow, or even the NYC Subway shut down an Acela in acceleration know what I'm talking about.

As for 150mph dual modes, I can't show you that, but the new NJT dualmodes are capable of 125. I'm pretty sure I have heard of diesel MUs that can do 150. No reason why a dual-mode variation would be that difficult.

Also, there is overwhelming evidence that while only 8 round trips a day on Mondays. (I just picked a week day, since some run Mo-Th with a different train on Fridays, and so on)- that would be 16 trains, Neil- there is more than enough demand to justify more.

Funny how the Germans and Swiss can get those scary wires to stay alive and staying in the sky every day, surely a great nation such as the US can manage it? Electrification, dear boy. That's what you need, better kit and more of it. Boston to DC is your one limited attempt at running a modern railway, dragging it backward with some daft ideas is why you should be limited to model trains.

As for your comment about not needing 'high speed' proves how little a grip you have on today's world. You may have all day to sit in a cave and take 8 hours to make scrambled egg, most other people don't. They want to get where they are going as quickly and as cheaply as possible.

I'm a realist. The capital project I'm suggesting would cost, oh, $3 billion, if we scratch Pittsburgh and the E-L trains. Electrifying WAS-NPN, WAS-CLT, WAS-LYH, and WAS-Fayettesville, and NHV-SPG-BOS, plus buying the equipment needed to make it happen, would cost ten times that easily. I'm talking dreams that could happen in America. I can imagine this actually happening within the next 15 years. Electrifying all that track? I wish, but no.

Couchettes are for tightwads and students.(And you don't need train names for every single train journey. Foamer.)

Cool. Since we have tightwads and students, I thought it might be nice to offer profitable accommodations. You know, just an idea.

Names cost nothing, add a little flavor to the system, and make it easier to remember the train you are supposed to be on, as well as hearing it called. I don't know why we got rid of them.

I thought the roomette was the couchette equivalent? The fact that Amtrak overprices them is another story.

No, roomettes are first-class accommodations. They include everything the Bedroom does except for its size. In the single-levels, I'd intend to offer smaller single-person rooms, but I don't think its possible to do that with the Superliners- they simply don't have the vertical room for Duplex rooms. Maybe if we put the hallway at standard height, we could do duplex rooms such that we could fit 10 where we would have fit 8, but I'm not an engineer so I'm not going to try. Besides, you'd have to toss the ADA into tomorrow.

My mistake. When you called them Slumbercoaches, I thought you were talking about, well, Slumbercoaches. Especially given your well-known fondness for "ancient Budd cars."

As I said, this is me being realistic on a long-term plan for Amtrak, as opposed to me being a foamer.

You bring up the old Gulf Wind name. Funny about that route. I realize how interested in it we have all become due to it still not being reinstated, the Sunset that is.It is a vital link to a national system. But ---what is funny (or ironic) about it? What is funny about it is that it was never a very long train. Quite short. Usually a couple of head end cars, one coach NOL to JK, one coach Flomaton, Ala, to Jax, one diner NOL to Mobile and another one from Chattahoochie to JX, one sleeper and one sleeper observation lounge from NOL to JX. Just 4 or 5 cars.
And yet so much gets said about it today. Not knocking it, not arguing against its importance, just thinking about what a small train it actually was.

In fact, it never even arrived and or left NOL under its own power. It was always consolidated with other trains. Keeping it simple--------it was various tied to the Pan American to and/or from Cincinnati and or the Piedmont Limited to and or from NYC, WAS, and ATL. Exact details varied through the years.

I know. People insist that we need to complete the southern transcon route, and I agree with them. I don't think running the Sunset as a single train is viable, due to the possibility of colossal cascading lateness. That's my solution to it. We need a fuller, better connected system.

So, the 'Slumbercoach/roomette': Is that basically a roomette? So you wouldn't make it stay in bed configuration all the time? You mentioned de-ameniziting it, so no perks other than it makes into beds, right? Would you include a toliet/sink like in the viewliner for a superliner? I keep hearing that bedrooms/roomettes cost too much for most people, what pricing do you think would work then? I'm glad you said not the classic slumbercoach, they just look odd inside to me. I really like the idea of reinstating these two runs. It would be great to have a North/South option here.Sunchaser

I'm talking concepts, not designs. I'm not a car engineer. XD

So what's the solution? From what I read on this board it would have to be way lower than low bucket on a current roomette to be 'affordable'. Even if you did a modified roomette as mentioned above, I think you would still need a SlumberRoom Attendant (SRA) to provide towels, linens, pillows, clean them etc. (Assuming there are bathrooms and or a shower). And if you have an H room, you would probably still need to bring meals to them (for a fee of course) and provide assistance as well. I also think that H SlumberRoomette should have a call light for safety reasons. Maybe if they were 2 bunks per SlumberRoomette, & fixed, not convertable to seats, (except again, SlumberRoomette H), it would be better. That way, you would still pay for your coach seat, but just like a bedroom or roomette, pay extra for a bed. It would be a clearer price/amenity difference from a bedroom or roomette, not so 'wishy washy wibbly wobbly' !!

You'd need to have a coach attendant check the car. Personally, I'd rather have two more roomettes than the H-room. But I know the ADA-pill bearers would scream their heads off. If I could get that, it would be a 28 roomette sleeper. I'd prefer it that way. We could offer handicapped people a reduction off a regular sleeper if they don't want the first-class service package.

 

[Neil_M]

The Metroliner II cars would be faster than the Acela for the schedule. Sometime in the past, a moron decided that Acela was to be engine hauled. I don't know what idiot decided that, but they were an idiot. While the TGV is engine hauled, the TGV doesn't run on a line where it has to accelerate and decelerate frequently. The Acela does. It should have always been a MU set up. These Metroliner IIs are. They'll be able to do much better. Anyone besides Neil here who has watched a Silverliner, Arrow, or even the NYC Subway shut down an Acela in acceleration know what I'm talking about.
As for 150mph dual modes, I can't show you that, but the new NJT dualmodes are capable of 125. I'm pretty sure I have heard of diesel MUs that can do 150. No reason why a dual-mode variation would be that difficult.

TGV 'engine hauled'? What the hell are you on about? 2 power cars surrounding 8 or 10 coaches and 12000hp to play with. Capable of coupling to another TGV set, so how is that not an MU set up?

Have you ever been on one of the newer TGV sets? If you need acceleration that you have it in bucket loads but have you never heard about gearing on motors and the like? Granted from a standing start a subway train maybe well out accelerate a High Speed train, but for how long for? And would that subway train get to 200mph? Hmmmm.....

As for high speed diesel units forget it, if you want to do proper high speed you electrify, the size of engine you would need to tow around dead when under the wires is just utter dead weight most of the time and the fuel you would need to run with do keep up with the days work is just totally silly.

150mph diesel mu's? You must have dreamt it. We have 125mph units and it is just not the way to go.

Do yourself a favour. Get your butt over here and travel through France, Switzerland and Germany, Spain even. Watch and learn.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

They are not MUs because they have power cars to run them. The power cars are locomotives. A EMU/DMU/DEMU has traction motors for each car. They inherently accelerate faster.

 

[Neil_M]

They are not MUs because they have power cars to run them. The power cars are locomotives. A EMU/DMU/DEMU has traction motors for each car. They inherently accelerate faster.

Yeah, ok. Whatever you say. Its just not worth the effort.

 

[jis]

They are not MUs because they have power cars to run them. The power cars are locomotives. A EMU/DMU/DEMU has traction motors for each car. They inherently accelerate faster.

That is certainly an interpretation of MU, but is not necessarily shared by many others and perhaps even most others in the field. TGVs can certainly be operated in formations where multiple units are coupled together and controlled from the front unit, and hence by at least one commonly used definition they are MU. There is nothing that says that an EMU must have motors in each car. Indeed more often than not they don't. In many US examples they do happen to do so, but most EMUs on what used to be Network South-East in the UK had one or two powered cars in four car units. And yet they have always been considered to be EMUs. As an example of a 3 car EMU unit with a single power car per unit see British Railway Class 311.

In general the issue of how many cars are powered per unit is orthogonal to whether the unit can be operated in a multiple unit configuration. There can be trains which have all cars powered but are not MUs because they cannot be operated in conjunction with other similar units as a single train with a single controlling cab. OTOH there can be trains that have a few power cars and many trailer cars in a unit, which can be connected up as MU and controlled from a single cab, and those are legitimately MUs.

 

[Neil_M]

They are not MUs because they have power cars to run them. The power cars are locomotives. A EMU/DMU/DEMU has traction motors for each car. They inherently accelerate faster.

That is certainly an interpretation of MU, but is not necessarily shared by many others and perhaps even most others in the field. TGVs can certainly be operated in formations where multiple units are coupled together and controlled from the front unit, and hence by at least one commonly used definition they are MU. There is nothing that says that an EMU must have motors in each car. Indeed more often than not they don't. In many US examples they do happen to do so, but most EMUs on what used to be Network South-East in the UK had one or two powered cars in four car units. And yet they have always been considered to be EMUs. As an example of a 3 car EMU unit with a single power car per unit see British Railway Class 311.

In general the issue of how many cars are powered per unit is orthogonal to whether the unit can be operated in a multiple unit configuration. There can be trains which have all cars powered but are not MUs because they cannot be operated in conjunction with other similar units as a single train with a single controlling cab. OTOH there can be trains that have a few power cars and many trailer cars in a unit, which can be connected up as MU and controlled from a single cab, and those are legitimately MUs.

Thank you. That's what I was just too tired to type last night.

Just as a point of interest, the TGV Duplex which is "locomotive" hauled according to some, actually has more HP than the ICE3 which has its motors spread along the train.

I think GML needs to investigate the modern railway more thoroughly rather than ponder how to fit 60 hard up students in a mobile flophouse!

 

[jis]

As for 150mph dual modes, I can't show you that, but the new NJT dualmodes are capable of 125. I'm pretty sure I have heard of diesel MUs that can do 150. No reason why a dual-mode variation would be that difficult.

NJT dual modes are spec-ed to do 125mph in electric mode for sure. I have no clue whether they will actually achieve that feat in diesel mode. There certainly is not one inch of track where they will need to achieve that feat in diesel mode anywhere on NJT. Maxing out at 80mph will be enough for NJT's (and AMT's) purposes in diesel mode. As to what they "are" capable of, who knows? They don't quite exist yet. Things sometimes meet their specs and sometimes they don't. We'll see. Though, I have less difficulty imagining that they will be able to meet 125mph capability in E-mode than in D-mode. Again as I said, lets wait and see how they come out actually.

I would like to see a concrete cite of a commercially operating 150mph diesel driven train. Honestly I'd like to know.

 

[PRR 60]

The Transwa Prospector diesel MU's in Western Australia are capable of 200kph (120mph), but operate at a maximum speed of 160kph (100mph). The cars are used on the Perth to Kalgoorlie line. As for 150mph? I doubt it.

 

[Neil_M]

I would like to see a concrete cite of a commercially operating 150mph diesel driven train. Honestly I'd like to know.

The answer to that is very, very simple.....

(One of our HST diesel trains did 150/160ish on a test train a few years back, but I cant think of a single diesel train that goes over 125 in daily service.)

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Thank you. That's what I was just too tired to type last night.Just as a point of interest, the TGV Duplex which is "locomotive" hauled according to some, actually has more HP than the ICE3 which has its motors spread along the train.

I think GML needs to investigate the modern railway more thoroughly rather than ponder how to fit 60 hard up students in a mobile flophouse!

Pfui, you're arguing semantics.

In my definition of a DMU/EMU, they have traction motors in each car. That design, inherrently:

1) provides for better acceleration

2) does not reduce performance when you increase train length

3) provides for much better traction on slippery rails.

Time and time again, we watch ALP-44 and ALP-46 trains run behind on NJT during the fall and winter, while the Arrows remain on schedule. You get better acceleration when the traction is spread out through the whole train. Hey, Mr. Harris, wanna back me up on this point?

 

[Neil_M]

Pfui, you're arguing semantics.
In my definition of a DMU/EMU, they have traction motors in each car.

Semantics.

German ICE3. 8 cars, 4 of which have motors. Capable of being coupled in service to another unit in a multiple unit formation.

According to you, fountain of all railway knowledge, it is not an EMU. The manufacturer, Siemens, seem to think it is.

http://references.transportation.siemens.c...;div=7&l=en

Class 450. Another Siemens product, 4 car commuter train running out of London. 2 cars have motors and is capable of being run in multiple with up to 8 more cars.

Yet again the manufacturer seems to think it is a multiple unit

http://www.transportation.siemens.com/ts/e...iro/concept.htm

You think otherwise.

Class 423 now out of service British Rail EMU, motors only on one coach, capable of being run in multiple with up to 8 other cars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_423

Multiple unit, but not according to you.

Sometimes, even though you seem not to accept it, you are wrong.

Reassess your definitions.

 

[Neil_M]

That design, inherrently:
1) provides for better acceleration

2) does not reduce performance when you increase train length

3) provides for much better traction on slippery rails.

So please explain to me how 2 TGV sets, not multiple units according to you, loose acceleration and have reduced performance when coupled together?

Even better, where is your 150mph DMU?

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I think the principle is that the force needed to accelerate the train a given amount is proportional to the weight of the train, and the force the traction motor can apply is proportional to the weight on the wheels the traction motor is powering, and therefore, the fraction of the total weight of the train sitting on powered axles is a significant factor in how fast the train can accelerate without the wheels slipping. (This assumes the traction motors can deliver enough force to make the wheels slip and that there's enough electricity feeding the traction motors to make that possible.)

When you couple two TGV sets together, you're adding traction power at the same rate you're adding to the mass of the train.

 

[Neil_M]

When you couple two TGV sets together, you're adding traction power at the same rate you're adding to the mass of the train.

Probably as close a definition of "Multiple unit" as you could possibly need.....

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

As for 150mph dual modes, I can't show you that, but the new NJT dualmodes are capable of 125. I'm pretty sure I have heard of diesel MUs that can do 150. No reason why a dual-mode variation would be that difficult.

NJT dual modes are spec-ed to do 125mph in electric mode for sure. I have no clue whether they will actually achieve that feat in diesel mode. There certainly is not one inch of track where they will need to achieve that feat in diesel mode anywhere on NJT. Maxing out at 80mph will be enough for NJT's (and AMT's) purposes in diesel mode. As to what they "are" capable of, who knows? They don't quite exist yet. Things sometimes meet their specs and sometimes they don't. We'll see. Though, I have less difficulty imagining that they will be able to meet 125mph capability in E-mode than in D-mode. Again as I said, lets wait and see how they come out actually.

I bet with a short enough trainset they would work just fine at 125 MPH in diesel mode, since they should be using the same traction motors either way, and the only difference is somewhat less current available in diesel mode.

Alternatively, I bet if you take a trainset that can comfortably run at 125 MPH in electric mode with a single dual mode locomotive and add a second dual mode locomotive to it, that will run quite comfortably at 125 MPH in diesel mode, since IIRC the horsepower difference between diesel vs electric mode is less than 2:1, and the extra weight of the second locomotive probably won't make a huge difference in the total weight of the train.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

How many trains are there to Richmond each day? 5 or 6?

There's potential for a lot more than 5 or 6 if we could get the speed up to something like 250-350 MPH. Washington Union Station to the Atlanta Airport via Richmond, Greensboro, Charlotte, and Greenville is apparently 647 highway miles. A train making various stops in the DC area and the Atlanta area and running express in between might well be gotten under 3 hours.