"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
QUOTE: Originally posted by techguy57 Gabe- At the risk of sounding preachy, simply put it is indicative of the direction society in general has been going. We want things to be faster, better, more grand. In short we want more out of everything, regardless if it cost us more or less (although less is preferred) so long as its faster. The internet is a prime example. I can view the Trains website regardless of whether I'm using AOL or Netscape,etc but I may be paying differently for for speed, quality, and other benefits. High-speed rail is similar. People are paying to get to their destination faster than they can (legally) drive there and they can avoid the airports and airport delays. Heck, when O'Hare is averaging a delay in 30% of ALL flights in and out it's not hard to understand why people think its the next great solution. Plus how often do you hear of people who have fears of riding on trains.[;)] Personally, I'm hoping we try developing matter transfer like on Star Trek before we worry about implementing high-speed rail, but I don't think it'll happen. It would be much better and quicker to to beam home when I'm tired of being around the in-laws . [:D] Mike
QUOTE: Originally posted by donclark Obviously none of you have ridden a true TGV HSR train..... If you had, you would want nothing less in America.....Nothing less..... And as far as cost is concerned, its less per mile than any light rail system being built anywhere in America.....mostly because the bulk of the right of way is rural rather than urban..... If the Feds can spend up to $7 billion per year on intra city transit to build a couple of hundred miles of light rail, the Feds can spend as much on inter city HSR.... In my opinion the Europeans are on the right track, while we are on the wrong track......
QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper I think that Amtrak is a basis to build on. Get the money to get the equipment in decent shape and the service up to par. Your statement about Amtrak being a failure is contrary to the increases in numbers of riders. There are communities that depend on Amtrak as their only public transit connection to the outside world. During winter, for some it is the only connection, public or private. To abandon such communities right now is downright cruel.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Paul Milenkovic In all fairness to NYC and their jet-propelled RDC, I believe it was more serious than a stunt. I don't think they were ever serious about pulling the drive trains out of RDCs and sticking jet engines on the roof. From what I have read, the idea was to get a rail car going around 160 MPH by whatever means and collect some data as to what kind of forces it put on the track and whether truck hunting was a problem, and the jet engines were a "quick-and-dirty" solution to get the speed for the test. Along similar lines, the US Department of Transportation procurred a 4 car set of Budd Silverliner MU cars, put tall gearing on the traction motors, and ran them past 150 MPH. That test, probably encouraged by the data from the jet-powered RDC, was the impetus for the DOT-sponsored Metroliner service, which was meant to be a demonstration of a potential revival of rail travel. There were to be three parts to the demonstration -- the NY-DC Metroliner using electric MU cars, the NY-Boston Turbo Train, using turbine power and passive banking on the non-completely electrified line, and a DC-Florida auto train service where passengers would ride inside their autos inside specially built auto carriers with passenger trucks. Only the first two parts of the demonstration were implemented. And as a demonstration, the Metroliner was not supposed to be the last word on the NEC, but it was meant to be a partnership between US-DOT and PRR to show what was possible. What is interesting is the Budd Silverliner was tried-and-true technology from commuter service derived from the Budd Pioneer III -- this was a one-of coach car of conventional 85 foot length, Budd stainless steel construction, but it was ultra light weight (something like 65,000 lb) and it had exotic trucks (inside roller bearing, outside disk brake, something akin to the truck on a PCC street car). The Silverliners backed off on the ultra light weight but they had the inside roller bearing trucks (known as "Pioneer III" in the industry and used on commuter, rapid transit, and Amfleet cars). I am not sure what the III in Pioneer III means -- I guess the "Pioneer I" would be the original Budd Zephyr train. Of all of the "lightweight experimentals" of the 1950's (Pennsy Keystone, Talgo, Aerotrain), Pioneer III was perhaps the less exotic and the only post-streamliner car building practice to go mainstream, although Talgo after all of these years is making a bit of a comeback. Anyway, I digress. The actual Metroliner was a bit of a disaster, and if they had just stuck with the "hot-rodded" Silverliners, things may have worked out better. In addition to being up-geared, the Metroliners were up-powered -- I guess they figured they needed more acceleration to maintain schedules although the up-geared Silverliners could maintain whatever speed the operated on the NEC. Maybe it was "we need to keep up with the Japanese" in terms of how the Metroliner was speced, but the up-powering was a vicious cycle of adding power which added weight which required more power. My papa once told me (he worked for a consulting engineering firm that moved in those circles) that "the railroad" (i.e. the Pennsy) would have nothing to do with the Pioneer III trucks and speced a more conventional-style passenger truck, and I rode the Metroliner once, and the ride quality was a bit harsh. Anyway, the whole concept of the NY-DC demonstration was if the commuter MU was the streetcar, the Metroliner was supposed to be the interurban, but the whole plan was messed up in execution and the Metroliner MUs were "carbarn queens" (planes are called "hanger queens" with such problems), and Amtrak ditched the Metroliner MUs almost as soon as they got good results with the AEM-7s. How things have come full circle, I had read somewhere that Amtrak is of the opinion that the Pioneer III (Amfleet style) truck is hard on track, and for the Horizon cars, the speced a more conventional swing-hanger equalizer outside roller bearing truck in place of the Pioneer III truck used on the Comet commuter cars. I have not riden a Horizon car, but I rode a SEPTA Silverliner recently and liked it. Does anyone know the inside story on this?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.