They sound similar to the already-in-service Talgo trains used in Cascades service.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_221
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
They are quite a bit different, riding on two trucks per car, as well as being self propelled. FRA mandated weight would probably tip the scales to push-pull diesel trains.
zkr123Would Amtrak ever invest in American versions of the Virgin Voyagers? They'd be great on the high speed routes outside the NEC.
Bombardier's JetTrain was intended to fulfill that mission in the North American market. It was intended to be, basically, the Acela cars with diesel/gas turbine power cars, instead of Acela's electric power cars.
Also, Talgo developed (primarily for European use, I believe) a "hybrid" power unit, much like the dual-mode locomotives found on and around the NEC. It could take the Acela (or similar) and "extend" the NEC beyond the catenary.
In both cases, no one seemed to be much interested
I'd have to suspect that a FRA-compliant version of this train would have many of the same issues as the SPV-2000s. The drive in these is similar to an RDC, with traction motors used instead of torque converters. Scaling up the engine power required is relatively easy in the configuration Bombardier used (as the engine is essentially a genset)... packaging an engine with the required power might not be.
I suspect this design is on the 'short list' of trains-of-interest should the FRA restrictions on buff and draft be eased, as has been proposed. They would also, I think, be suitable for corridors where any freight operations could be time-separated from passenger services to preclude the likelihood of collision.
There is also the possibility that PTC will prove suitable to safely separate passenger from freight in a common corri... hey! Stop laughing at me! Didn't your parents tell you it's impolite to point! ;0}
Overmod --
What were the issues related to the SPV-2000s? Wikipedia only says they were "unreliable". Was there more to it?
Both the Metroliners and SPVs had teething issues, which may have not been resolved with the SPVs. I think the main problem was with the diesels, as they largely had the same electrical equipment as the Metroliners.
Dragoman Overmod -- What were the issues related to the SPV-2000s? Wikipedia only says they were "unreliable". Was there more to it?
There was a LOT more to it. Budd evidently thought that scaling up an RDC simply involved a larger carbody, larger engines, shafts to conjugate the wheels in each truck. They were not right.
By the time I got to see them, the conjugation shafts were gone. This left drive only to the 'inner' axles, as on an RDC. Problem was that when accelerating at peak rate the engines would not synchronize: one would overrev and stress its transmission and shaft, then cut back and that would stress the other one. IIRC there was also driveline whip. Needless to say, the fun when the wheels started to slip was exquisite.
I had the bright idea of re-creating a 'torquemeter' arrangement inside each shaft, with the output signal fed 'wirelessly' to a receiver ring on the chassis. This could then be used to modulate something suitably fast-acting (spill valves to bypass circuits in the TC were not fast enough; TCC lockup was the wrong end) and also do coarse adjustment at the engine governors.
This was the original application for which I intended to use Ferguson clutches between conjugated axles. It would solve the problems involved with rigid gearing between suspended axles/wheels.
Electric drive to the axles, instead of hydraulic, would have been easier to control and not involved direct governor sensitivity or control-theory issues. By that time, though, it was pretty clear that nobody wanted a very large self-propelled railcar with self-contained diesel-electric transmission -- at the price Budd was charging for it.
I liked those things, and still think it's a pity economics didn't justify fixing the issues. (A bit like the T1 ;-} )
Using the Metroliner outside bolster trucks rather than the inboard bearing trucks, or even the similar Pioneer III design used on the M1s could have helped?
Was there much difference between the M1 and SPV Pioneer III?
I like them too, even as commuter cars (ironically how many a RDC ended its days, demotored into push-pull service) they have a distinctive look.
But I don't think the SPV's or RDC's were ever created for speeds over 80mph. I'm talking of DMU's that can go 125mph+
I don't think the overweght Metroliner trucks would have helped the particular drivetrain problems noted. I think they were a minus for the Metorliners and not a plus, The Metroliners rode WORSE than Anfleet I, and I made frequent trips on both. The ride quality improved when locomoitve-hauled remodelled Amfleet replaced the original mus.
NorthWestUsing the Metroliner outside bolster trucks rather than the inboard bearing trucks, or even the similar Pioneer III design used on the M1s could have helped?
In my opinion the GSC Metroliner trucks were an almost-unmitigated mistake, and ghastly at any speed even remotely close to 'design envelope'. You will note how thoroughly the design of high-speed trucks (or bogies) has gone in decidedly different directions -- there is good, good reason.
It does have to be added, though, that I think there would have been a spate of problems, perhaps very dangerous ones, if the original Pioneer-style trucks had been used. Many of the same problems Amtrak saw when testing lightweight European designs on the rather dubious-quality track and geometry in the late '60s and the '70s would have been common to the Pioneer -- and there are a few places in that design where likely stress-raisers might have produced catastrophic truck failure, imho.
I don't recall the SPV truck design being optimized for high speed. They had the typical 'transit' emphasis on low unsprung mass, but more to accommodate rough track smoothly (and cause minimal track damage) than to permit high-speed operation. Now would perhaps be a good time, however, to point out that the North American high-speed record is still held by a vehicle using... well, RDC trucks, and with drop equalizers to boot... ;-}
You can still find the metroliner trucks under cab-control cars on various Amtrak routes. They don't ride quite as well as Amfleet I trucks, but without the motors they ride OK.
My impression is that Budd did not want to use the Pioneer I truck without considerable modification, and that what would have emerged for the Metroliners if they had had their way would have been more similar to Amfleet I.
My favorite truck design remains Nystrom's CMStP&P lightweight home-built car truck.
OvermodI don't recall the SPV truck design being optimized for high speed. They had the typical 'transit' emphasis on low unsprung mass, but more to accommodate rough track smoothly (and cause minimal track damage) than to permit high-speed operation. Now would perhaps be a good time, however, to point out that the North American high-speed record is still held by a vehicle using... well, RDC trucks, and with drop equalizers to boot... ;-}
The SPV had and optional "high speed" nose and was supposed to operate up to 110 mph.
According to a friend who was in involved with them on MN, Budd "forgot" just about everything they knew making RDCs when designing the SPV 2000. There were all sorts of issues getting at equipment to do repairs/maintenance
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
The SPV was designed by aerospace and airplane engineers with all kinds of bells and whistles that operated electronically or electrically. But these gizmos were the downfall...automatic doors, etc...which would get fouled by snow, ice, dirt, dust and people for instance. And these were operated by railroads and railroad crews over track laid on land with hard bouncing and swayng and twisting and turning. Not operated in the air by stewardesses. In effect, the whole concept of the SPV was not an extension of the RDC but of the 707's and space ships of the day.
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 The SPV was designed by aerospace and airplane engineers with all kinds of bells and whistles that operated electronically or electrically. But these gizmos were the downfall...automatic doors, etc...which would get fouled by snow, ice, dirt, dust and people for instance. And these were operated by railroads and railroad crews over track laid on land with hard bouncing and swayng and twisting and turning. Not operated in the air by stewardesses. In effect, the whole concept of the SPV was not an extension of the RDC but of the 707's and space ships of the day.
Don't you mean the 747/DC-10's of the day; this was in the 1970's you know (prob. a good analogy as sadly the DC-10 had some tragic teething troubles...)
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Not being an airplane buff nor ever a rider, I just fished for some numbers that might fit....Hell, I was leaning toward DC-3 and Constellation instead of 707's!
I'm afraid I grow weary of the discussions of higher speeds on the NEC. For the corridor as it stands first the catenary south of New Haven needs to be replaced. That is happening but it will take years before it is completed. That will allow higher speeds then there are currently but there are still the curves on the Shore Line. Still, we could do a lot better. And Amtrak says the current Acela is at the end of its useful life (although I have to wonder if it could be rebuilt).
Even if all of this is done and Amtrak builds new tunnels under the Hudson between Manhattan and North Bergen it seems to be the entrance to and exit from Manhattan will always require slow speeds.
Then there is the movable bridge issue, as discussed in Trains, and Shell Interlockiing, where I have proposed a solution that I think may have been published in Passenger Train Journal.
A friend visiting Jerusalem, who occasonally takes business trips from the Boston area to NY says he has to take the very first morning Acela to assure there will not be a delay.
henry6The SPV was designed by aerospace and airplane engineers with all kinds of bells and whistles that operated electronically or electrically.
No. It was designed by the same guys who did the Amfleet cars. It's just that it had been 30 years since the RDC design and all the RDC experts were gone. The trouble was shoe-horning in all the propulsion stuff made the undercar layout and control cabinet layout different from Amfleet - and that's where the fun started.
John WR For the corridor as it stands first the catenary south of New Haven needs to be replaced. That is happening but it will take years before it is completed.
Why so long to do that? Are weapons R&D and production the only thing we can do quickly? I realize the situations differ, but see this by contrast:
http://shanghaiist.com/2014/01/15/china_to_build_high-speed_rail_to_s.php
"Constructing it will be a mammoth engineering task. It will require 154 bridges and 76 tunnels, as well as 31 train stations, just to get the line the 260 miles from Boten on the Laos-China border to Laos’ capital Vientiane. An estimated 20,000 Chinese workers will be needed to build it, with the completion date set for 2019."
Meanwhile we dither our way into becoming the #2 economy even sooner than 2025.
schlimmWhy so long to do that?
I'm not sure why you ask me (or anyone) this question, Schlimm. You have just as good a view of American government as I do. But I think that it has something to do with the idea that real Americans drive cars and trucks and only misguided elitists think rail transportation is a good idea.
Dragoman zkr123Would Amtrak ever invest in American versions of the Virgin Voyagers? They'd be great on the high speed routes outside the NEC. Bombardier's JetTrain was intended to fulfill that mission in the North American market. It was intended to be, basically, the Acela cars with diesel/gas turbine power cars, instead of Acela's electric power cars. Also, Talgo developed (primarily for European use, I believe) a "hybrid" power unit, much like the dual-mode locomotives found on and around the NEC. It could take the Acela (or similar) and "extend" the NEC beyond the catenary. In both cases, no one seemed to be much interested
Talgos,with their reduced height, cannot be used in the NEC, due to the existance of high platforms (I believed that Amtrak tested a Talgo set in the NEC in the 90s,an hauled set just like the Cascades,not a 'railcar'such as Renfe'sseries 130 or 730 hybrids). Besides,being europen trainsets,their crashworthiness is quite diferent (altough the 'american' sets might have some differences). Ah, and then, there's the 'Talgos not liking bad track' issue, they really get bouncy on track not being good
John WR schlimmWhy so long to do that? I'm not sure why you ask me (or anyone) this question, Schlimm. You have just as good a view of American government as I do. But I think that it has something to do with the idea that real Americans drive cars and trucks and only misguided elitists think rail transportation is a good idea.
schlimm John WR For the corridor as it stands first the catenary south of New Haven needs to be replaced. That is happening but it will take years before it is completed. Why so long to do that? Are weapons R&D and production the only thing we can do quickly? I realize the situations differ, but see this by contrast: http://shanghaiist.com/2014/01/15/china_to_build_high-speed_rail_to_s.php "Constructing it will be a mammoth engineering task. It will require 154 bridges and 76 tunnels, as well as 31 train stations, just to get the line the 260 miles from Boten on the Laos-China border to Laos’ capital Vientiane. An estimated 20,000 Chinese workers will be needed to build it, with the completion date set for 2019." Meanwhile we dither our way into becoming the #2 economy even sooner than 2025.
Weapons R&D/production are not subject to NIMBY court actions and to environmental impact statements. Already built up, we can't build anything anymore without stepping on somebody's toes. Magically avoid that, and you still incur government hoops.
We have simply lost the "builder" mentality.
In the present case, catenary, it's probably just a problem of capital. "Social" spending, defense and interest on the debt have soaked up all our public resources, accounting for Congress's stinginess with Amtrak, highways and other worthwhile causes.
In the absence of a change of priorities, I'd hate to see what the country looks like in 25 years.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.