Talgos mothballed?

[cirdan]

As Cirdan said, the Talgo III RD (gage-changing) equipment could form a maximum of 5 sets, but only 4 were ever diagrammed, as far as I know (and the 5 sets would have been pretty short had you formed them).

I'm not aware of any sets running in regular interior service, other than in an exceptional situation, or very late in their careers, once the night trains to Paris had both received next-generation equipment. That is not to say it never happened... I just don't recall it. They ran essentially on two trains: the "Catalan Talgo" to Geneva, and the Madrid - Paris night train. Once that was converted to a next generation set, I think that the Talgo III RD sets were cascaded to the Barcelona - Paris service, but I don't know how long they ran there.

As initially delivered, they were all day trains. The first gauge changer was at Madrid, and was hence only for testing purposes as besides the short test track, there was no standard gauge RENFE track in Madrid at the time. The next one built was at Cerbere, and this permitted the introduction of the Catalan Talgo to Geneva. In 1968, Talgo III-RD sets were used on a once daily Madrid to Cadiz express, but I understand this was a sort set that was coupled to a longer Talgo III train. Although some international test and demonstration runs began in 1967, the Catalan Talgo didn't begin proper commercial operation until 1969. Three of the matching diesel locomotives were fitted with standard gauge bogies to haul the trains on the French leg of this trip. As only two were required at any one time and the locomotives would not have been suitable for any other purposes, this reflects quite a high level of redundancy. In later years standard locomotives (with some modifications) were permited to pull the Talgos. In later years the exact route was changed several times tp permit greater use of electrified mileage.

The third gauge changer was the one at San Andreu Comtal outside Barcelona which was where the Barcelona-based talgos were maintaned. The next one was at Irun. As far as I know the sleeping cars were not added until the early 1970s, permitting the three Madid-based sets to be re-formed as night trains for use on Madrid - Paris. I guess the displaced day mid cars were transferred to the Barcelona pool. Thus ended their regular use on internal services. The sleeping cars had diagonally arranged beds which were more comfortable for taller people than the standard crossway beds of other trains. The gangway was thus sawtooth shaped which was very useful for people carrying luggage meeting others coming the other way.

Whereas the day trains continued on until 2010, the night trains were replaced at a much earlier point by the Talgo Pendular stock that is still used today. I guess the old night cars must have been scrapped with parts being used to keep the day cars running.

Today there are night trains from both Madrid and Barcelona to Paris running every night and also a thrice weekly train from Barcelona to Zurich and Milan (splitting eb route). There are also two day Talgos via Cerbere every day, one is the former Catalan Talgo (which no longer uses that name) and runs from Barcelona to Montpellier the other is the Mare Nostrum from Montpellier to Murcia/Cartagena.

 

[Blue Marble Travel]

As Cirdan said, the Talgo III RD (gage-changing) equipment could form a maximum of 5 sets, but only 4 were ever diagrammed, as far as I know (and the 5 sets would have been pretty short had you formed them).

I'm not aware of any sets running in regular interior service, other than in an exceptional situation, or very late in their careers, once the night trains to Paris had both received next-generation equipment. That is not to say it never happened... I just don't recall it. They ran essentially on two trains: the "Catalan Talgo" to Geneva, and the Madrid - Paris night train. Once that was converted to a next generation set, I think that the Talgo III RD sets were cascaded to the Barcelona - Paris service, but I don't know how long they ran there.

As initially delivered, they were all day trains. The first gauge changer was at Madrid, and was hence only for testing purposes as besides the short test track, there was no standard gauge RENFE track in Madrid at the time. The next one built was at Cerbere, and this permitted the introduction of the Catalan Talgo to Geneva. In 1968, Talgo III-RD sets were used on a once daily Madrid to Cadiz express, but I understand this was a sort set that was coupled to a longer Talgo III train. Although some international test and demonstration runs began in 1967, the Catalan Talgo didn't begin proper commercial operation until 1969. Three of the matching diesel locomotives were fitted with standard gauge bogies to haul the trains on the French leg of this trip. As only two were required at any one time and the locomotives would not have been suitable for any other purposes, this reflects quite a high level of redundancy. In later years standard locomotives (with some modifications) were permited to pull the Talgos. In later years the exact route was changed several times tp permit greater use of electrified mileage.

The third gauge changer was the one at San Andreu Comtal outside Barcelona which was where the Barcelona-based talgos were maintaned. The next one was at Irun. As far as I know the sleeping cars were not added until the early 1970s, permitting the three Madid-based sets to be re-formed as night trains for use on Madrid - Paris. I guess the displaced day mid cars were transferred to the Barcelona pool. Thus ended their regular use on internal services. The sleeping cars had diagonally arranged beds which were more comfortable for taller people than the standard crossway beds of other trains. The gangway was thus sawtooth shaped which was very useful for people carrying luggage meeting others coming the other way.

Whereas the day trains continued on until 2010, the night trains were replaced at a much earlier point by the Talgo Pendular stock that is still used today. I guess the old night cars must have been scrapped with parts being used to keep the day cars running.

Today there are night trains from both Madrid and Barcelona to Paris running every night and also a thrice weekly train from Barcelona to Zurich and Milan (splitting eb route). There are also two day Talgos via Cerbere every day, one is the former Catalan Talgo (which no longer uses that name) and runs from Barcelona to Montpellier the other is the Mare Nostrum from Montpellier to Murcia/Cartagena.

Thanks! That should about cover it

One detail: the Barcelona - Montpellier daylight service is gone now. Two daily TGV's run from Paris to Figueras (through the new tunnel under the Pyrenees — the surviving Talgo service still follows the coastal route via Cerbere / Port Bou). Figueras is the temporary terminus of the standard gage line which will soon run thru to Barcelona, and join up with the standard gage AVE line on to Madrid.

In Figueras, a cross platform transfer to a broad gage shuttle train currently brings passengers into Barcelona.

These two TGV - Shuttle combinations are actually slightly faster than the surviving Talgo (the Mare Nostrum, on the coastal route), and so there are now three fast services daily.

 

[jis]

Good observation. I believe DB's entire ICE fleet is maintained from two bases, one in Munich and one in Hamburg. The trains basically run into the facility between runs or at night. The modern shops allow work to be done on different levels at the same time, so while cleaners may be deep-cleaning the seats, another crew may be inspecting the undersides of the carriages and bogies and changing parts as necessary (with bogies being able to be dropped out without having to lift or even uncouple the coach) and another crew may be on the roof servicing the pantograph and the other equipment that's up there. The electronic on board system of the train keeps accurate track of the train's performance and can even diagnose problems before they occur so the shop staff can be pre-informed of what they need to do even before the train has left service. With both shops being at major hubs, there is no need for dead mileage or long transfer periods and trains can be back in revenue earning service within hours rather than days.

I wonder if the more elaborate inspection regime in the US is a result of the relatively more horrendous tracks in more hostile climatic conditions that the trains have to operate in the US. Just wondering. Usually most such rules are written in someone's blood and are not easily put in place.

Also relatively small fleets and sparser networks makes it harder.

But in general availability in denser operations areas is around 85% to 90% while in less dense operations it is more like 80% in the US. Also I believe that there is much more skimping in regular maintenance that goes on in the US. The case in point are the HHP-8s and the Acelas, both same technology, same manufacturer, mostly same parts, and yet the Acelas which are maintained more carefully have way higher availability than the HHP-8s. And it is also only in the US that patently wrong equipment choices are made using the excuse that EMUs require more inspection than trailers pulled by locomotives. Never heard of that argument being used anywhere else. So indeed there are some perverse effects of regulations in the US.

 

[CHamilton]

Talgo to begin layoffs

Talgo Inc. announced Wednesday that it would start the process of laying off workers involved in building two trains for Wisconsin on Milwaukee's north side.
The move prompted Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett to criticize Gov. Scott Walker and his fellow Republicans, claiming their opposition to a major expansion of passenger rail was hurting the prospects of jobs for Milwaukee workers.

"Last year, under Gov. Walker's leadership, the state of Wisconsin lost more jobs than any other state in the country," said Barrett, who announced last week he would run as a Democrat in an attempt to unseat Walker in a June recall election. "Unfortunately, we are dealing with real lives and real jobs here."

As many as 35 jobs would be lost at Talgo's Milwaukee facility June 3 because of a decision by the state to decline federal funding for passenger rail that would have prompted Talgo to build more trains for Wisconsin. Barrett said a decision by Republican lawmakers last month could put another 30 maintenance jobs at risk.

 

[gswager]

One time, I saw a mechanic on board on Cascades on a returning trip from PDX to SEA during 2011 AU Gathering.

 

[Blue Marble Travel]

Good observation. I believe DB's entire ICE fleet is maintained from two bases, one in Munich and one in Hamburg. The trains basically run into the facility between runs or at night. The modern shops allow work to be done on different levels at the same time, so while cleaners may be deep-cleaning the seats, another crew may be inspecting the undersides of the carriages and bogies and changing parts as necessary (with bogies being able to be dropped out without having to lift or even uncouple the coach) and another crew may be on the roof servicing the pantograph and the other equipment that's up there. The electronic on board system of the train keeps accurate track of the train's performance and can even diagnose problems before they occur so the shop staff can be pre-informed of what they need to do even before the train has left service. With both shops being at major hubs, there is no need for dead mileage or long transfer periods and trains can be back in revenue earning service within hours rather than days.

I wonder if the more elaborate inspection regime in the US is a result of the relatively more horrendous tracks in more hostile climatic conditions that the trains have to operate in the US. Just wondering. Usually most such rules are written in someone's blood and are not easily put in place.

Track could play a part, though RENFE was no one's reference for good track 30 years ago. Indeed, the development of Talgo technology was largely a response to the need to go fast a couple of times a day over bad track, without shaking either the track or the passengers into pieces. Don't get me wrong: 10 mph slow orders were rare. But "rough spots" could last for 100 kilometers.

Climate probably less so: the Madrid service, at least, faces blistering heat at some seasons. Think "Sunset Limited." Just getting the trains cooled when they come in from the yard is a challenge. But, of course, "long-distance" in this context is 14 hours, not 48. And then that fancy mechanic has 10 hours to put the thing back together for its return run.

 

[Blue Marble Travel]

Good observation. I believe DB's entire ICE fleet is maintained from two bases, one in Munich and one in Hamburg. The trains basically run into the facility between runs or at night. The modern shops allow work to be done on different levels at the same time, so while cleaners may be deep-cleaning the seats, another crew may be inspecting the undersides of the carriages and bogies and changing parts as necessary (with bogies being able to be dropped out without having to lift or even uncouple the coach) and another crew may be on the roof servicing the pantograph and the other equipment that's up there. The electronic on board system of the train keeps accurate track of the train's performance and can even diagnose problems before they occur so the shop staff can be pre-informed of what they need to do even before the train has left service. With both shops being at major hubs, there is no need for dead mileage or long transfer periods and trains can be back in revenue earning service within hours rather than days.

... And it is also only in the US that patently wrong equipment choices are made using the excuse that EMUs require more inspection than trailers pulled by locomotives. Never heard of that argument being used anywhere else. So indeed there are some perverse effects of regulations in the US.

Another place where perverse effects of regulation show up is in train weight. I think that track damage increases geometrically with some straightforward combination of speed and axle load. US axle loads are high (Acela at 26 tons per axle, TGV at 17), because the FRA requires that equipment perform well in a wreck, so US railcars are built to be tanks.

This makes sense where trains encounter road vehicles on railway crossings. Less so on the NE Corridor, where a lighter-weight Acela (the only train operating at full line speed) would presumably save Amtrak a great deal in maintenance costs. Will the rare wreck be more serious? Yes. But in the mean time, you will have saved countless lives by transferring people from road to rail by offering cheaper fares, made possible because you don't have to rebuild the railroad every time a train goes by.

 

[WICT106]

Milwaukee Journal: "Talgo to begin layoffs." Even after the $ 810 million was rejected, the stupid, ideological decision by Walker continues to haunt us in WI. AS do the opponents, calling it "choo-choo."

 

[Green Maned Lion]

When did they decline it?

 

[cirdan]

And it is also only in the US that patently wrong equipment choices are made using the excuse that EMUs require more inspection than trailers pulled by locomotives. Never heard of that argument being used anywhere else. So indeed there are some perverse effects of regulations in the US.

No. That's not just the US. Patently stupid decisions are taken everywhere.

Whereas RIC compatibility rules meant that 30 years ago virtually any passenger car could cross virtually any border in Europe and interoperate into other countries and be compatible with the equipment they had there, including being able to couple up, use the same cable connectors, diaphragms etc, today there is a mass of incompatible systems and trains that are not only restricted to one country but often one route. And if for once a train is ordered that can run in two countries (just two, not all of them as they used to) it is trumpeted as being something totally ahead of its time and a massive price tag is justified.

As recently as the 1980s British rail was ordering diesel railbuses of the 14x classes. They are basically bus bodies mounted on four-wheel freightcar underframes. Yes, four-wheels, no bogies. And no air suspension, all springs and metal. And they were used on branch lines some of which ahd poor track.

The list goes on. So many decisons have been taken that in hindsight come across as insanity.

 

[Blue Marble Travel]

When did they decline it?

Current WI Governor Walker ran, among other things, on a platform of halting the upgrading of rail lines from Chicago to Madison via Milwaukee to 110 mph speeds. The project was well-advanced, with decisions on things like the location of the Madison station (and associated redevelopment of two downtown blocks, creation of a multi-modal tranport hub) mostly in hand. A majority of funding had been secured with a Federal stimulus rail grant of $810 million (out of a total of $8 billion pledged around the country). It was supposed to be the first segment of an eventual route to Minneapolis / St. Paul. Wisconsin had further obligated $47 million to the construction of two Talgo train sets (with an option for two more), and Talgo had set up a North American headquarters in "pro rail" Wisconsin, now slated for closure. That is the origin of this thread: what will happen to those now-constructed trains?

When Walker won the election (November 2010), the Democratic Governer James Doyle suspended the design and engineering work on the line (decision announced on November 4th), since he felt it likely that any funds spent would have to be reimbursed to the Feds in case the project was, indeed, canceled.

True to his promise, Walker quickly confirmed his intent to US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. The grant was withdrawn in December, and the funds (along with another $400 million from an Ohio project canceled in similar circumstances) were re-distributed to other states, notably California and Washington State. A big chunk also went to Florida, but which had also elected a Republican governor, and he soon canceled his state's project. The bulk of those funds wound up in Illinois, for use on the Chicago - St. Louis line.

Walker now faces a recall election this June.

But all is not lost: the original high speed rail project has been replaced with a much more efficient one, as this Madison, WI, report shows:

http://www.theonion.com/video/obama-replaces-costly-highspeed-rail-plan-with-hig,18473/

 

[PRR 60]

When did they decline it?

Current WI Governor Walker ran, among other things, on a platform of halting the upgrading of rail lines from Chicago to Madison via Milwaukee to 110 mph speeds. The project was well-advanced, with decisions on things like the location of the Madison station (and associated redevelopment of two downtown blocks, creation of a multi-modal tranport hub) mostly in hand. A majority of funding had been secured with a Federal stimulus rail grant of $810 million (out of a total of $8 billion pledged around the country). It was supposed to be the first segment of an eventual route to Minneapolis / St. Paul. Wisconsin had further obligated $47 million to the construction of two Talgo train sets (with an option for two more), and Talgo had set up a North American headquarters in "pro rail" Wisconsin, now slated for closure. That is the origin of this thread: what will happen to those now-constructed trains?

When Walker won the election (November 2010), the Democratic Governer James Doyle suspended the design and engineering work on the line (decision announced on November 4th), since he felt it likely that any funds spent would have to be reimbursed to the Feds in case the project was, indeed, canceled.

True to his promise, Walker quickly confirmed his intent to US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. The grant was withdrawn in December, and the funds (along with another $400 million from an Ohio project canceled in similar circumstances) were re-distributed to other states, notably California and Washington State. A big chunk also went to Florida, but which had also elected a Republican governor, and he soon canceled his state's project. The bulk of those funds wound up in Illinois, for use on the Chicago - St. Louis line.

Walker now faces a recall election this June.

But all is not lost: the original high speed rail project has been replaced with a much more efficient one, as this Madison, WI, report shows:

http://www.theonion.com/video/obama-replaces-costly-highspeed-rail-plan-with-hig,18473/

The $810 million grant would not have resulted in 110mph service on either the Chicago - Milwaukee or the Milwaukee - Madison routes. The grant was primarily to establish 79mph service between Milwaukee and Madison plus some ancillary improvements to the Chicago line. Speed improvements for 110mph would have required additional funding in the future.

 

[Blue Marble Travel]

When did they decline it?

Current WI Governor Walker ran, among other things, on a platform of halting the upgrading of rail lines from Chicago to Madison via Milwaukee to 110 mph speeds. The project was well-advanced, with decisions on things like the location of the Madison station (and associated redevelopment of two downtown blocks, creation of a multi-modal tranport hub) mostly in hand. A majority of funding had been secured with a Federal stimulus rail grant of $810 million (out of a total of $8 billion pledged around the country). It was supposed to be the first segment of an eventual route to Minneapolis / St. Paul. Wisconsin had further obligated $47 million to the construction of two Talgo train sets (with an option for two more), and Talgo had set up a North American headquarters in "pro rail" Wisconsin, now slated for closure. That is the origin of this thread: what will happen to those now-constructed trains?

When Walker won the election (November 2010), the Democratic Governer James Doyle suspended the design and engineering work on the line (decision announced on November 4th), since he felt it likely that any funds spent would have to be reimbursed to the Feds in case the project was, indeed, canceled.

True to his promise, Walker quickly confirmed his intent to US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. The grant was withdrawn in December, and the funds (along with another $400 million from an Ohio project canceled in similar circumstances) were re-distributed to other states, notably California and Washington State. A big chunk also went to Florida, but which had also elected a Republican governor, and he soon canceled his state's project. The bulk of those funds wound up in Illinois, for use on the Chicago - St. Louis line.

Walker now faces a recall election this June.

But all is not lost: the original high speed rail project has been replaced with a much more efficient one, as this Madison, WI, report shows:

http://www.theonion....with-hig,18473/

The $810 million grant would not have resulted in 110mph service on either the Chicago - Milwaukee or the Milwaukee - Madison routes. The grant was primarily to establish 79mph service between Milwaukee and Madison plus some ancillary improvements to the Chicago line. Speed improvements for 110mph would have required additional funding in the future.

Not my understanding... it seems from the plans that there were to be significant sections at 110 mph, and that they were funded within the $810 million envelope. That is not to say that trains were at 110 mph within 50 yards of CHI Union Station: it looks like the 110 mph sections were located between a point a few miles north of Glenview, and Milwaukee Airport (roughly), and for a similar length on the Milwaukee - Madison line. The funding also covered the renovation of the Milwaukee station, subsequently half paid for with other federal money, and half with state money.

 

[Trogdor]

I'm going off of memory, but other than a few minor things (like platform lengthening at MKA) that did not impact the speed, the $810 million was not for any work south/east of MKE. I'm almost 100% certain that there was not going to be any higher-than-79 running CHI-MKE with that money.

MKE-MSN, not sure. I think it's possible there could have been some 110 in those funds.

 

[Blue Marble Travel]

I'm going off of memory, but other than a few minor things (like platform lengthening at MKA) that did not impact the speed, the $810 million was not for any work south/east of MKE. I'm almost 100% certain that there was not going to be any higher-than-79 running CHI-MKE with that money.

MKE-MSN, not sure. I think it's possible there could have been some 110 in those funds.

Yes, that's correct, my bad. I'm looking at a study for the whole corridor, not the work that was associated with the funding. I'll poke around and see what I can find on MKE - Madison.

 

[PRR 60]

I'm going off of memory, but other than a few minor things (like platform lengthening at MKA) that did not impact the speed, the $810 million was not for any work south/east of MKE. I'm almost 100% certain that there was not going to be any higher-than-79 running CHI-MKE with that money.

MKE-MSN, not sure. I think it's possible there could have been some 110 in those funds.

Yes, that's correct, my bad. I'm looking at a study for the whole corridor, not the work that was associated with the funding. I'll poke around and see what I can find on MKE - Madison.

The initial operation of MKE-Madison would have been at 79mph maximum. Upon the completion of PTC (estimated for 2016), the speed would have been increased to 110mph maximum. The work on the Chicago segment was to provide the "building blocks" for future 110mph operation, would would not have permitted 110 without additional work.

So, yes, you are correct. The Madison service would have been at 110mph after an initial period at 79.

HSIPR Application

 

[Blue Marble Travel]

When did they decline it?

Current WI Governor Walker ran, among other things, on a platform of halting the upgrading of rail lines from Chicago to Madison via Milwaukee to 110 mph speeds. The project was well-advanced, with decisions on things like the location of the Madison station (and associated redevelopment of two downtown blocks, creation of a multi-modal tranport hub) mostly in hand. A majority of funding had been secured with a Federal stimulus rail grant of $810 million (out of a total of $8 billion pledged around the country). It was supposed to be the first segment of an eventual route to Minneapolis / St. Paul. Wisconsin had further obligated $47 million to the construction of two Talgo train sets (with an option for two more), and Talgo had set up a North American headquarters in "pro rail" Wisconsin, now slated for closure. That is the origin of this thread: what will happen to those now-constructed trains?

When Walker won the election (November 2010), the Democratic Governer James Doyle suspended the design and engineering work on the line (decision announced on November 4th), since he felt it likely that any funds spent would have to be reimbursed to the Feds in case the project was, indeed, canceled.

True to his promise, Walker quickly confirmed his intent to US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. The grant was withdrawn in December, and the funds (along with another $400 million from an Ohio project canceled in similar circumstances) were re-distributed to other states, notably California and Washington State. A big chunk also went to Florida, but which had also elected a Republican governor, and he soon canceled his state's project. The bulk of those funds wound up in Illinois, for use on the Chicago - St. Louis line.

Walker now faces a recall election this June.

But all is not lost: the original high speed rail project has been replaced with a much more efficient one, as this Madison, WI, report shows:

http://www.theonion....with-hig,18473/

The $810 million grant would not have resulted in 110mph service on either the Chicago - Milwaukee or the Milwaukee - Madison routes. The grant was primarily to establish 79mph service between Milwaukee and Madison plus some ancillary improvements to the Chicago line. Speed improvements for 110mph would have required additional funding in the future.

OK, I have the grant request, and the fed grant, in front of me. The $810 million did include 110 mph running between Milwaukee and Madison, but not between Chicago and Milwaukee.

The confusion may come from this: initial running (from 2013, so next year) would have been at 79 mph until PTC could be installed and tested. PTC testing was to happen in 2015, for implimentation in 2016. But all of the work was funded in the $810 million grant. Travel time would have been as low as 1'5" between Milwaukee and Madison, down from 1'23" in the initial (79 mph) service.

 

[PacificStarlight]

A random thought.... Washington State could try to negotiate with BNSF to run a TALGO service from Seattle to Spokane, perhaps over Stampede Pass in the meantime?

I brought up that point a few months ago on a different thread. I think it would be great.

 

[RampWidget]

Talgo technology, which is brilliant, makes sense in 3 places:

...

bad track (independent wheel suspension makes the trains less subject to a rough ride)

I guess it depends on the track. Back when the Cascades had a bunch of jointed rail north of the US/Canada border, the Talgo ride was absolutely horrible on otherwise normal jointed rail (the trains weren't even going very fast through there).

Paradoxically, they do better at higher speeds. On the Madrid - Paris overnight service, the worst section of the ride is the slowest, from Burgos to San Sebastian (roughly). The ride is much smoother on the higher-speed (but less well-maintained) line south of Burgos.

Also, if the joints in the rail are perfectly opposite, the independent suspension loses its advantage.

This reply may be a bit off topic, but your mention of jointed rail reminded me of something. Staggered rail joints in connection with certain other conditions can contribute to harmonic rocking (aka harmonic roll) in high center of gravity freight cars and lead to derailments. That's one reason to try to keep them (joints) opposite one another. I'm sure the Talgos' independent suspension makes a big difference over turnouts & crossings, at any rate.

 

[Blue Marble Travel]

Talgo technology, which is brilliant, makes sense in 3 places:

...

bad track (independent wheel suspension makes the trains less subject to a rough ride)

I guess it depends on the track. Back when the Cascades had a bunch of jointed rail north of the US/Canada border, the Talgo ride was absolutely horrible on otherwise normal jointed rail (the trains weren't even going very fast through there).

Paradoxically, they do better at higher speeds. On the Madrid - Paris overnight service, the worst section of the ride is the slowest, from Burgos to San Sebastian (roughly). The ride is much smoother on the higher-speed (but less well-maintained) line south of Burgos.

Also, if the joints in the rail are perfectly opposite, the independent suspension loses its advantage.

This reply may be a bit off topic, but your mention of jointed rail reminded me of something. Staggered rail joints in connection with certain other conditions can contribute to harmonic rocking (aka harmonic roll) in high center of gravity freight cars and lead to derailments. That's one reason to try to keep them (joints) opposite one another. I'm sure the Talgos' independent suspension makes a big difference over turnouts & crossings, at any rate.

Huh, that's interesting. Now that you say it, it's a phenomenon I think I have witnessed on badly maintained, freight-only, track.

Do you happen to know if it is a phenomenon that is accentuated by any particular speed? I suppose I could try to Google that.... I haven't been on the Vancouver train in years, but way back when, I remember thinking that it was almost boat-like on the Canadian side of the border. I have no idea whether the rail joints are (were?) staggered or opposite on that stretch.

This wouldn't be as much of an issue in Europe, where high-center-of-gravity anything doesn't come into play much.

 

[jis]

Staggered jointed rail seems to be mostly an American practice. I don't recall having come across them anywhere outside the Western Hemisphere.

 

[CHamilton]

[Wisconsin] kills maintenance contract with Talgo

State officials have canceled a $116 million maintenance contract with a Spanish-owned train manufacturer, escalating a political and legal dispute over two brand-new trains that already have cost the state $71.8 million.

In a letter terminating the contract, a state lawyer also claimed that the costs of testing the trains are rising and that federal officials have found the trains don't meet standards for accessibility to the disabled.

A spokeswoman for the manufacturer, Talgo Inc., denied the allegations and warned the cancellation could lead to legal action.

 

[Blackwolf]

The mess only gets worse. Is it wrong for me to root for Talgo on this upcoming legal battle? And I VERY highly doubt the two train sets would not meet ADA requirements, considering the amount of work that goes into building something as complex as a Talgo rail car. Sounds like nothing but a Red Herring for a Wisconsin slime ball- Er, lawyer to cite accessibility for the reason to cancel the contract.

The terrible fact is it's the citizens of Wisconsin who will be paying for the damages when Talgo wins the court case, then counter-sues for millions more.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

So they cook the number to make the Talgo train operatoral cost look bad. Now there adding ADA on to it.

Wow there try hard to kill it, however there only delaying it.

Sad how trains are so hated in today world.

Sitting back, eating popcorn, LMAO at Wisconsin.

 

[WICT106]

So they cook the number to make the Talgo train operatoral cost look bad. Now there adding ADA on to it.

Wow there try hard to kill it, however there only delaying it.

Sad how trains are so hated in today world.

Sitting back, eating popcorn, LMAO at Wisconsin.

Don't laugh too hard -- because folks from this end of the political spectrum will be coming for your trains next. In WI, they managed to kill a service extension "in the cradle," so to speak. The next step will be to terminate the existing service. Note that we in WI are still having to deal with folks who think of this as a MSN - MKE train, and not an extension of existing service. :angry2: :angry2: :angry2: