FRA passenger Car Standards & Weight

[schlimm]

aegrotatio

 What about the Talgo equipment on Amtrak Cascades, the lightweight Turboliner and Turbotrain sets, and others?  I thought they were more lightweight.  Even more lightweight trains were used before Amtrak/Conrail and were considered failures partially due to "ride quality" among other things.

 

 

I think the Turbos had engine problems.  I've heard the Talgos are ok, though I've never ridden one. However, the "ride quality" complaints of lighter weight coaches has always  seemed misplaced.  At the risk of upsetting some folks, I'll contend again that poor roadbed has more to do with ride.  I'm sure you know that from your experience with really comfortable trains in Europe.

[HarveyK400]

The few references I found to weights of Talgo units are vague or embedded in a published weight for a whole train.

One mentioned the Talgo car shell (what's included?) weighing 13 metric tonnes.  Another stated an axle load under 17 metric tonnes.   Seats alone would account 3-4 tonnes in addition to the weights of running gear, toilet, HVAC, lighting, doors, insulation and interior furnishings.  The Cascade intermediate units are approximately 42 feet long; and it's safe to assume the finished light weight is under 17 metric tonnes, or 37,600 pounds.  Two such units, of equivalent length of an 85-foot car, would weigh less than 75,200 pounds, a weight/length saving of about 30%.  The weight per seat is somewhat less favorable. 

The length being close to half an 85-foot car is intriguing because of the inherent compatibility of door openings of various types of passenger equipment with enclosed, or at least fenced, platforms/boarding locations.  A train of California or Toronto-type cars could line up with at least one set of doors per car.  

In order to stay under the 17 tonne limit, the proposed full double deck Talgo 22 intermediate units are only about 32 feet long, an estimate based on seat spacing.

I am