Maglev I started posting here because I believe in passenger trains, and have gotten the impression that advocay groups are so disillusioned that they can barely support maintenance of the current Amtrak system.
Advocates cannot afford to be disilluisioned, nor stuck in the past, nor "Don Quixote". They need to be nimble, forward thinking and politically astute.
They need to be ready to push where the oppositon is the weakest and the support is the greatest. Right now, that means focusing like a laser beam on the types of services targeted by the $8B and making sure it's spent to best effect. Where states and host RRs are the most accomodating. Where the benefits will generate the best possible perceived value by the most people.
Jim McClelland opined that the LD trains aren't going anywhere, but that they were "irrelevant". I believe that is the truth. We have 40 years of history that confirm that truth. It's a waste of time and energy for the advocacy groups to pay ANY attention at all to the LD trains. Don't say they are bad and should go away - 'cause they're not. Don't say they are good and we need more LD routes- 'cause that ain't happening either. Just ignore them - completely. There's nothing to be gained either way.
If the $8B gets spent on stupid things like a few trains a day from Chicago to Iowa or Boston to Montreal or restoration of the Sunset to Orlando, then we are done. There will be no more new money for passenger trains for a LONG time.
Pick your battles pragmatically.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Paul Milenkovic Do you seriously want to advance the cause of passenger rail in the U.S. by setting up tables at model train shows, farmer's markets, and civic gatherings the way I do and put up banners and hand out literature saying that your objective is to tax people out of their cars on account of Global Warming, Peak Oil, the Farmland Crisis, and General Overreliance on the Automobile and substitute trains so people can move about at 10 percent of the level they do now, say at the level accessible to the average person today in China? I have a colleague in my local advocacy group who participates in the literature tables who advocates just that, but only privately within our board meetings but is not ready to make that the emphasis of our public outreach.
Do you seriously want to advance the cause of passenger rail in the U.S. by setting up tables at model train shows, farmer's markets, and civic gatherings the way I do and put up banners and hand out literature saying that your objective is to tax people out of their cars on account of Global Warming, Peak Oil, the Farmland Crisis, and General Overreliance on the Automobile and substitute trains so people can move about at 10 percent of the level they do now, say at the level accessible to the average person today in China? I have a colleague in my local advocacy group who participates in the literature tables who advocates just that, but only privately within our board meetings but is not ready to make that the emphasis of our public outreach.
Bingo. (again)
If you were to pitch trains to people so that "you can get rid of your car", most people would react, "but I LIKE my car."
And, if you make a car that gets twice the gas mileage, the reaction would be "Cool! Now I can afford to take twice as many trips!" or "Great! Now I can sell my house 25 miles from work and buy that acre of land 50 miles from work."
I got good results in the past using a composite of Davis and other sources.
For one, I began using a conservative A=1.1 lbs/ton based on a KCS study in 1930 referenced by William Hay. Rolling resistence, including the effective rolling up hill from bending of the rail was as much as 1.5 lbs/ton; but varried as much as 0.4 lbs/ton with rail sections varying from 84 lbs/yd to 150 lbs/yd with cars of the same weight. Furthermore, resistance increased from an unspecified fraction of a pound (Hay) for empty cars; and passenger equipment was not [tested]. Finally, the track modulus including the rail varies greatly, as much as ten times as for the rail by itself, with the ballast and subgrade formation. 1.3 lbs/ton significantly over-represents modern track with at least 12" of well-drained granite ballast under the ties. (PRR studies showed that tie load on the ballast evened out at about 22" at 80 tons/axle for Ts & Qs which begins to explain the pumping phenominon and resulting degradation.)
Hay further recommends Totten's factors for drag, especially above 60 mph. Train length and circumference is used as a whole rather than just the cross-section area=C with adjustments for streamlining factors. A P42 and NPCU at either end could be treated as blunt domes. The French tests refined Totten's approach for the TGV. It's moot to me that you used C=0.41 rather than C=0.30 for passenger cars and locomotives recommended by Davis.
This gets you within a pew of where you want to be on either the pulpit or lecturn side of the church; or more like getting a point for the horseshoe being within its width from the stake. We're talking about fractions of a minute without even considering diesel outputs that can vary both by 10% of the nominal rating and with outdoor temperature. I fully agree that these are approximations at best; but I think we're a lot closer than a factor of two.
I'm ill-equipped and not about to spend a few days on this. Paul Milenkovic was generous in calculating acceleration for a P42 with six Horizon coaches; and, by interpolation, comes up attaining 110 in about 3.8 minutes and 4.8 miles. Using Paul's figures, you may be right. Multiplying the total train resistance (2,120+1,470=3,590 lbs) at 74.8 mph by five with 30 heavier and taller cars is near the cusp with an estimated 21,559 lbs tractive effort.
Going back, I once calculated that a train composed of an F40 and 5 Superliners had 4,549 lbs total resistance at 75 mph (which was attained in 5.03 minutes and 4.37 miles with 1,940 hp for traction and hep). Surprising to me, a P42 seems capable of reaching at least 70 mph with 30 Superliners if it doesn't run out of track first.
My concern then and now is whether non-electrified trains can attain 150 mph in a reasonable distance between restrictions and stops. This is the limit for shared track despite divergent freight and passenger needs above 90 mph; and it doesn't make sense to go to the expense of full grade separation for anything less. Without non-electrified or dual-powered traction for higher performance trains, developing a viable high-volume grade-separated trunk line with more conventional-speed (110 mph) non-electrified lower volume branches may be impractical.
I didn't get into the fuel consumption or emissions for such speeds or other social, economic, and transportation benefits; but this has to be part of an honest discussion.
If passenger operations subject to delays from boarding and conflicting moves were not enough wild cards, consider weather-related delays such as restictions for extreme heat and cold, servere weather such as tornados, washouts from floods, water over the tracks, and water-soaked and weakened roadbeds.
oltmannd Advocates cannot afford to be disilluisioned, nor stuck in the past, nor "Don Quixote". They need to be nimble, forward thinking and politically astute. They need to be ready to push where the oppositon is the weakest and the support is the greatest. Right now, that means focusing like a laser beam on the types of services targeted by the $8B and making sure it's spent to best effect. Where states and host RRs are the most accomodating. Where the benefits will generate the best possible perceived value by the most people. Jim McClelland opined that the LD trains aren't going anywhere, but that they were "irrelevant". I believe that is the truth. We have 40 years of history that confirm that truth. It's a waste of time and energy for the advocacy groups to pay ANY attention at all to the LD trains. Don't say they are bad and should go away - 'cause they're not. Don't say they are good and we need more LD routes- 'cause that ain't happening either. Just ignore them - completely. There's nothing to be gained either way. If the $8B gets spent on stupid things like a few trains a day from Chicago to Iowa or Boston to Montreal or restoration of the Sunset to Orlando, then we are done. There will be no more new money for passenger trains for a LONG time. Pick your battles pragmatically.
Long-distance trains are relevant inasmuch as they are a piece of the same pie and share infrastructure with corridor and regional (commuter rail) services. I do agree that other needs supersede long-distance with limited resources and best serve the niche where rail passenger service can be more effective and beneficial.
Amtrak got into trouble inheriting long-distance trains and a network. What else could they do with those assets? Now we face a similar dilemma with Superliner cars that could be repaired and returned to service. What services should they go to; and how should they be configured?
I take issue on proposed Chicago - Iowa services being stupid; or by extension, the existing trains to Quincy and Carbondale, Illinois. The latter do quite well and serve needs without ending in a Saint Louis. Michigan trains from Port Huron and Grand Rapids serve similar markets. Overall, 83% of Illinois' population will be in a county with intercity rail passenger service, notwithstanding that Cook County (Chicago) comprises 41% of the total.
The $8B is a stiimulus to get the ball rolling; implying a desire for an expanded and ongoing program to continue improving services. Adding new routes augment and feed potential high speed corridors or pave the way for further improvements.
oltmannd...On the horizon, there's optimized train handling which appears to be worth another 10% and hybrid locomotives which will recycle braking energy for another big chunk of change. And that's just off the top of my head.
And that's just off the top of my head.
I'm thinking a 3,300 hp diesel or gas turbine-battery hybrid, recharging during reduced power demands as well as regenerative braking, might provide 4,400 hp for acceleration with a 25% reduction in fuel consumption.
1) We have not had 40 years experience in operating long distance trains, we've had 40 years of Amtrak which only in certain circumstances has been a rail passenger service but more often just an operator of passenger trains....
2) Another point on energey efficiencies and changes: track and roadbed dynamics have changed in many ways...welded rail is one place to start....
3) Shovel ready rail project: New York/North Jersey to Scranton, PA and on to BInghamton, Elmira, and Buffalo, NY!
4) Setting up tables at malls and special events to pitch train service is not a bad idea...especially when the media is not equipped to deal with the subject and most politicians scanlty tip a polite ear tot he subjects...
5) Especially don't try to sell the old choo choo bit, today's trains are not father's nor grandfather's six wheel troop sleeper schlepping cross the good ol' You Ess of AAY! Traffic patterns, equipment, and needs are so, so, so different than way back when!
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
henry6...3) Shovel ready rail project: New York/North Jersey to Scranton, PA and on to BInghamton, Elmira, and Buffalo, NY!
...3) Shovel ready rail project: New York/North Jersey to Scranton, PA and on to BInghamton, Elmira, and Buffalo, NY!
Seems like a reasonable route in the Illinois mode. Just curious, did Amtrak do a study and the State is ready to fund it as is the case in Illinois? $150M for Dubuque, Moline (Iowa City), and other improvements are on our Governor's desk as I write. Even this is not immediately shovel-ready.
HarveyK400My concern then and now is whether non-electrified trains can attain 150 mph in a reasonable distance between restrictions and stops. This is the limit for shared track despite divergent freight and passenger needs above 90 mph; and it doesn't make sense to go to the expense of full grade separation for anything less. Without non-electrified or dual-powered traction for higher performance trains, developing a viable high-volume grade-separated trunk line with more conventional-speed (110 mph) non-electrified lower volume branches may be impractical.
Harvey: I often wondered about the acceleration/ decel problem. At one time I wondered about a HHP class dual mode locomotive being under CAT for about 2 miles each side of a station for an 8000HP acceleration then the diesel engine taking over at 4000hp to maintain the trains speed. Then regenerative braking into power grid for stopping at next station.I was more thinking along a 110MPH ROW. Any thoughts?
HarveyK400 henry6 ...3) Shovel ready rail project: New York/North Jersey to Scranton, PA and on to BInghamton, Elmira, and Buffalo, NY! Seems like a reasonable route in the Illinois mode. Just curious, did Amtrak do a study and the State is ready to fund it as is the case in Illinois? $150M for Dubuque, Moline (Iowa City), and other improvements are on our Governor's desk as I write. Even this is not immediately shovel-ready.
henry6 ...3) Shovel ready rail project: New York/North Jersey to Scranton, PA and on to BInghamton, Elmira, and Buffalo, NY!
The Amtrak study is supposedly done...they were doing it this past Spring...so answers should be up by Fall...but that's just west of Scranton...all east of Scranton is in "go" mode.
I am waiting to hear more about why Boston to Montreal is on the HSR map, and there is a battle in Illinois over the Chicago to Dubuque routing. It seems everyone wants rail service! Let's build a national network!
Sorry, I didn't mean to criticize advocacy groups. As punishment, I'll spend a day at Saturday Market promoting a national rail network. One idea is to take three maps for display: passenger routes in @1960; Amtrak routes (past and present); and proposed HSR corridors.
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
blue streak 1Harvey: I often wondered about the acceleration/ decel problem. At one time I wondered about a HHP class dual mode locomotive being under CAT for about 2 miles each side of a station for an 8000HP acceleration then the diesel engine taking over at 4000hp to maintain the trains speed. Then regenerative braking into power grid for stopping at next station.I was more thinking along a 110MPH ROW. Any thoughts?
Refresh my memory: is the HHP a gas turbine-electric locomotive?
First, only 4,000 hp will get a 6-car train up to 110 mph quite nicely - you don't need to be pinned back in your seat. While the time to accelerate is halved with 8,000 hp, the other half of the time at cruise speed results in a net increase in energy consumption and saves only a fraction of a minute.
Given that locomotive overhead power collection and modification for traction is about a wash with batteries, the big difference is the cost of the ~8 miles of catenary and substation at each station and control point where a train is likely to be held up.
Interpreting some earlier calculations, around 8,000 hp is needed to get a 6-car train with two locomotives at each end (streamlined noses, skirts & full diaphragms) up to 150 mph in under 10 miles; and this is with reaching 110 mph in just ~2.5 miles. Part of this is due to the train covering a lot more distance at higher speeds while accelerating. The time saved at 150 mph is more significant and may warrant the higher energy consumption. The extended distance for acceleration would impact the length of catenary to the point that a dual power option also might be considered to avoid changing locomotives while reducing oil-based energy consumption for the majority of the service. It seems that a 220 mph service would offer greater benefits for comparatively little additional cost with perhaps rotating and prioritized 150 mph incremental/implementation phases.
MHSRA is looking for donors to pay for a study of ridership and of service benefits and costs, especially for energy, emissions, capital, and operating by passenger, hopefully to build documentation and support for 220 mph service. The most recent plan MHSRA plan calls for using the CN through Champaign for a 220 mph Chicago - Saint Louis Corridor while first improving and maintaining 110 mph service via Bloomington-Normal. One fly in the ointment is the UP decision to build an intermodal terminal, Global 4, south of Joliet for Texas, Gulf Coast, and Mexico traffic lanes, most likely through Thebes and East Saint Louis and discussed in a parallel thread. Faster trains to St Louis would shorten transit times to Missouri, Kansas, and Arkansas, making rail travel more attractive and building ridership. Using the CN would facilitate additional high speed services between Chicago and Paducah, Nashville, and Memphis. If you know anyone, ask them to contact the MHSRA.
The lighter weight of a comparably efficient recuperated gas turbine (discussed in an earlier thread) offsets the added weight of a hybrid locomotive's batteries and should allow a reduction in axle load for 150 mph services. I have asked before, but have yet to hear, why the current version of the X-2000 abandoned the elastomeric journal "springs" that reduced the unsprung mass and wheel-rail impact. While the benefits, including oil independence, are not as great as for electrification and 220 mph service, a significant reduction in implementation cost and improvement in operating flexibility and interoperability are achieved.
Maglev:
It might help to include in your display a composite timetable showing services in the NW or at least Seattle in 1960.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
MaglevI am waiting to hear more about why Boston to Montreal is on the HSR map, and there is a battle in Illinois over the Chicago to Dubuque routing. It seems everyone wants rail service! Let's build a national network!
I don't think the various higher-density regional intercity rail passenger corridors can be characterized as a national network.
As for Dubuque, I have a suspicion that a faction (railfans?) wanted to restore the "Blackhawk" because that was the way it was. Times and circumstances have changed; and the emerging plan is for the MDW-UP-CN route through Big Timber (Elgin, IL) that also serves the desire for a commuter service from Rockford and much earlier schedules to reach jobs in the northwest suburbs and O'Hare. The route could serve the on-line Illinois Rail Museum, and maybe share the parking lot.
Although I used to work in Rockford and live in the suburbs, the revival of the Blackhawk seems a non-starter. As I recall the plan (?), the route on the CN (old IC) won't serve O'Hare or any suburbs east of Elgin (maybe Elmhurst?). Between Elgin and Rockford, there is nothing. West of Rockford, there is only Galena as a traffic draw. A rail line to nowhere. Better to extend the commuter service on the UP (old CNW) beyond Elburn to Dekalb (Northern Illinois University).
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.