I was wondering, since we all seem to be in a high speed rail phase right now. I though I'd ask this question.
Is the Acela, the only high speed train in the world that tilts?
If that is the case then, it may be easier to accomplish high speed rail speeds on tighter rail curves in the US. I know that the High Speed rail plans in the east are going to be using more conventional diesel power and Northeast regional type trains, but in coming decades if high speed catches on, the Acela train sets will be better equipped to tight curves. Course then the Aclea train sets should be built to accommodate coach class cars.
BT CPSO 266I was wondering, since we all seem to be in a high speed rail phase right now. I though I'd ask this question. Is the Acela, the only high speed train in the world that tilts?If that is the case then, it may be easier to accomplish high speed rail speeds on tighter rail curves in the US. I know that the High Speed rail plans in the east are going to be using more conventional diesel power and Northeast regional type trains, but in coming decades if high speed catches on, the Acela train sets will be better equipped to tight curves. Course then the Aclea train sets should be built to accommodate coach class cars.
Someone else may have better information. Off the top, I believe Japan has some, there is the Fiat Pendolino, and there are recent high speed Talgos that I recall were tested up to 250 mph. The TGV does not claim tilt technology; but the secondary spring is anchored above the car center of gravity and may afford some degree of passive tilt. The X-2000 was tested here at ~150 mph; but may be limited in Sweden as here running on existing 19th Century lines. The Turbo Train derived from the 1956 Pullman Train-X reached 170 mph in a test on the NEC in 1967 before going into service at much lower speeds between Boston and New York. It seems that the trip time was close to the Acela.
What I don't understand is the reluctance to recycle Amfleet, making necessary modifications to comply with current regulations and fit with tilting suspension since original trucks must be replaced after a time while the stainless steel bodies are timeless. That would be fine for any route using the NEC.
BT CPSO 266I was wondering, since we all seem to be in a high speed rail phase right now. I though I'd ask this question. Is the Acela, the only high speed train in the world that tilts?
German Rail (DB) has 71 ICE-T (distributed electric power, 5-7 cars) train sets, which can be combined to make up trains of 5-15 cars, and the 19 diesel-electric ICE-TD train sets, which are now used only on Berlin-Hamburg-Copenhagen service.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
HarveyK400What I don't understand is the reluctance to recycle Amfleet, making necessary modifications to comply with current regulations and fit with tilting suspension since original trucks must be replaced after a time while the stainless steel bodies are timeless. That would be fine for any route using the NEC.
I wonder also why not recycle for NEC service? However, I do not think the cars were well-accepted in the Midwest. Perhaps it is the small, slit-like windows?
Carbody tilting is a fairly old and mature technology. It is a system designed primarily for passenger comfort, not safety. By countering lateral forces experienced when traveling through curves at higher than "traditional" speeds for the particular track structure and degree of curvature, a tilting train can travel faster while maintaining passenger comfort.
There are basically two kinds of tilting systems, passive and active. Passive systems allow carbodies to swing out in reaction to lateral forces encountered in curves. Thus, they are reactive systems. They do not anticipate curvature and, of course, are limited mechanically in how far they may swing. The best known passive systems are incorporated in the Spanish Talgo trains which in fact are described by their manufacturer as being equipped with "pendulare" or pendulum suspension systems.
More complex are the active suspension systems such as those on Acela, the Swedish X2000, Italian Pendolino, and a host of other trains around the world. Active systems sense that a train is entering a curve and, using computer technology, determine the train speed and angle of the curve, then send a signal to each coach in the train telling it when and how far to tilt. (The less successful early Canadian LRC system used individual coach sensing systems rather that an integrated train system, causing sometimes unreliable activation or non-activation of tilting.) Active systems most often use hydraulics to move the tilting mechanisms on each side of each truck.
Active tilting tests with the X2000 showed that speed advantages in curves of 25-30% safely could be achieved compared to non-tilting trains. The tilting advantages are most often realized on older traditional alignments not designed for high speed travel. Interestingly, however, the latest generation of Japanese Shinkansen trains are incorporating tilting capabilities.
The well-publicized tilt-related problems with Acela stem from having manufactured a train reportedly about 3" wider than it should have been. The additional width limits how far the carbodies can swing out and still remain within the clearance envelope on the Northeast Corridor. As a result of limited tilt, the train's potential speed in curves was never fully realized. This would seem to have contributed to Amtrak's inability to achieve the Congressionally-mandated three-hour trip time between Boston and New York.
X2000
schlimmHarveyK400What I don't understand is the reluctance to recycle Amfleet, making necessary modifications to comply with current regulations and fit with tilting suspension since original trucks must be replaced after a time while the stainless steel bodies are timeless. That would be fine for any route using the NEC. I wonder also why not recycle for NEC service? However, I do not think the cars were well-accepted in the Midwest. Perhaps it is the small, slit-like windows?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I thought one person wrote that there was a finite limit for truck life. While if as you say the fatigue life may be restored, the life and cost of replacing the body still would allow the economic change to active tilt components.
Would the width of the Amfleet car pose the same tilt limitation as with the Acela; or is this moot south of New York? Regionals with upgraded Amfleet would share tilt performace, if not the acceleration, of Acela and realize faster schedules to keep out of the way of a narrower, faster second-generation Acela.
Would a narrower Acela noticeably affect the elbo room for 2+2 seating and train capacity?
If new narrow-body Acelas are acquired; more Amfleet would be displaced and available for expanded services in addition to those displaced for higher capacity bilevels. I wonder if Amfleet could be converted to tilt sleepers? Or Heritage cars (I would guess plumbing and wiring would need to be replaced along with most components)?
Both the Lake Shore and Cardinal would remain Amfleet since both I presume go into Penn Station. Tilt would help speed up these and Empire Corridor trains.
The Capitol terminates in Washington and could use Superliners; but an option might be tilting Amfleet coaches and sleepers and Viewliner lounges rebuilt from coaches and sleepers at Beech Grove.
Tilt Amfleet and Viewliners also would benefit the Crescent, Star, Meteor, Palmetto, and Carolinian.
oltmanndThe Amfleet trucks really don't ever need replacing, they just need periodic rebuilding. You can always restore clearances and "reset" the fatigue life by soaking in an oven. Good as new! I don't think modifying for tilt would be too simple. Something like that would have to be structurally integrated into the carbody design from the start. Amfleet would be perfect of the CCC start up. Nearly all the LD trains with the exception of the Capitol, that have ever traversed the state of Ohio have used Amfleet coaches.
The UAC Turbo was more a descendent of the Talgo than of the X2000.
Tilt is strictly for passenger comfort and if you have a choice between improving the track or tilt, go for the former. Tests run from 1978 to 1981 by the FRA, Amtrack and Coneg showed that an RTL Turboliner without tilt could do the Boston-NYC trip within 10 minutes of a tilt train time with perfectly acceptable passenger comfort. At that time, tilt had to be effective on all cars of a train or none. While failure rates per car were low, this made tltless operation probable on 10% of all trips so schedules could not be set for tilt operation. I've ridden all of the tilt trains except the Shinkansen and agree that it's neat engineering accompishment. I was particularly impressed by the Pendolino.
schlimm HarveyK400What I don't understand is the reluctance to recycle Amfleet, making necessary modifications to comply with current regulations and fit with tilting suspension since original trucks must be replaced after a time while the stainless steel bodies are timeless. That would be fine for any route using the NEC. I wonder also why not recycle for NEC service? However, I do not think the cars were well-accepted in the Midwest. Perhaps it is the small, slit-like windows?
Midwesterners don't like Amfleet?
Perhaps they'd prefer the 3-2 seating the Japanese would think to be acceptable or the cramped interior the French seem to favor. http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/fr/electric/emu/TGV/Duplex/cab+interior/TGV_DuplexDASYe_2nd_Class.jpg
How deeply do you want these guys involved in this?
HarveyK400Tilt Amfleet and Viewliners also would benefit the Crescent, Star, Meteor, Palmetto, and Carolinian.
oltmanndPerhaps they'd prefer the 3-2 seating the Japanese would think to be acceptable or the cramped interior the French seem to favor. http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/fr/electric/emu/TGV/Duplex/cab+interior/TGV_DuplexDASYe_2nd_Class.jpg How deeply do you want these guys involved in this?
Apparently you've never ridden the German ICE trains. They use 2-2 seating and are very comfortable, even in 2nd class.
There must have been some reason why the Amfleet cars were initially replaced by Horizon stock in California before they went to double-deck.
oltmanndHarveyK400Tilt Amfleet and Viewliners also would benefit the Crescent, Star, Meteor, Palmetto, and Carolinian. Not so much the Silver Service trains, but definitely trains running in the curvy Piedmont. But tilt on an LD train isn't going to improve the market positon of these trains, is it. How many more Atlanta to Philly riders would you get if the train took 13 hours instead of 16?
Not so much the Silver Service trains, but definitely trains running in the curvy Piedmont. But tilt on an LD train isn't going to improve the market positon of these trains, is it. How many more Atlanta to Philly riders would you get if the train took 13 hours instead of 16?
12:50
I was thinking more about convenient hours for arrivals and departures for overnight trains; but there is more to it.
HarveyK400 Saving time means not having to leave as early or arriving sooner. Either way, there is time for other things at one or both ends.
This also means a better on time performance. That translates into a better schedule for maintenance both periodic and unplanned. One example is the good on time performance of Auto Train.
Hi,
Switzerland's ICN trains also tilt....and M O V E real good.
I've ridden them many times. Comfort level is high.
Same for ICE-3 in Germany.
Cheers
CG-RiderHi, Switzerland's ICN trains also tilt....and M O V E real good. I've ridden them many times. Comfort level is high. Same for ICE-3 in Germany. Cheers
I believe both are built by Siemens (ICE 3-T). They also have up to date catenary and electrical systems applicable to other locations. One of the many ongoing problems with the NEC is an out of date catenary. Siemens has a US subsidiary, employing 60,000 American workers, which may get involved in HSR here.
The political urban legend concerning Acela's tilting continues to perplex me. The New York Times is to blame for it. Acela is a collection of compromises and tilting is only one factor out of a whole host of them. In relation to other factors, such as pantograph/catenary contact, signalling, traffic congestion, curves, old bridges, ancient crossovers, Metro-North "no tilt zone," the restricted tilt has relatively little to do with how fast the trip could have been. They weren't "built too wide." The designers realized they could make a more comfortable train because that extra 2.5 inches of tilt would have had relatively little benefit.
Interesting perspective; but wider bodies and less tilt would lead to speeds that would not achieve the Congressional mandate as we've been given to understand.
aegrotatio The political urban legend concerning Acela's tilting continues to perplex me. The New York Times is to blame for it. Acela is a collection of compromises and tilting is only one factor out of a whole host of them. In relation to other factors, such as pantograph/catenary contact, signalling, traffic congestion, curves, old bridges, ancient crossovers, Metro-North "no tilt zone," the restricted tilt has relatively little to do with how fast the trip could have been. They weren't "built too wide." The designers realized they could make a more comfortable train because that extra 2.5 inches of tilt would have had relatively little benefit.
Some where, some time, "Amtrak" and the builder,"BAC" ("Bombardier/Alstom Consortium") should have realized that to meet the United States Crash Rating the side walls had to be made heavier as well as reinforcing the vestibules. Too wide to use the planned "tilt" over the old New Haven main line. This added weight also lead to one of the reason for early Disc Brake Rotor failure. Check the "Canton Viaduct" between Boston and Providence. Until Amtrak, the tracks were so close that two New Haven trains could not pass each other on it at one time.
Don U. TCA 73-5735
i'm surprised there's been no mention of canada's LRC trains, which tilted very noticeably on the curves, and were nice cars, maintenance headaches aside. -big duke
bigduke76 i'm surprised there's been no mention of canada's LRC trains, which tilted very noticeably on the curves, and were nice cars, maintenance headaches aside. -big duke
Acela cars were derived from the Canadian Bombardier LRC cars, not TGVs.
All the Amfleet "Sardine Cans" should be given, gratis, to mid-western states, especially Illinois, and be replaced by new 'Viewliner' cars. I love the 'Viewliners'. I did ride an Amfleet coach, on the "Lake Shore Limited", one December, back when I was poor. Horrible ride, only saved by a nice young lady from Notre Dame, who shared my seat and ($7 Amtrak) blanket. I bought the blanket -- it was cold! That was interesting. She called me "Sir", all the way to her Syracuse de-training.
Hays
BNSFwatcherAll the Amfleet "Sardine Cans" should be given, gratis, to mid-western states, especially Illinois, and be replaced by new 'Viewliner' cars.
Why the Midwest, especially Illinois? Perhaps they'd be better in Montana!
schlimmbigduke76 i'm surprised there's been no mention of canada's LRC trains, which tilted very noticeably on the curves, and were nice cars, maintenance headaches aside. -big duke Acela cars were derived from the Canadian Bombardier LRC cars, not TGVs.
Thank you for considering the Midwest worthy only of making do with hand-me-downs so you can get Viewliners. The last new equipment we saw were the Horizons developed primarily for NEC use. Maybe your state could fund gauntlet tracks and high level platforms in Illinois so we can use Amfleet?
BNSFwatcherAll the Amfleet "Sardine Cans" should be given, gratis, to mid-western states, especially Illinois, and be replaced by new 'Viewliner' cars. I love the 'Viewliners'. I did ride an Amfleet coach, on the "Lake Shore Limited", one December, back when I was poor. Horrible ride, only saved by a nice young lady from Notre Dame, who shared my seat and ($7 Amtrak) blanket. I bought the blanket -- it was cold! That was interesting. She called me "Sir", all the way to her Syracuse de-training. Hays
HarveyK400Maybe your state could fund gauntlet tracks and high level platforms in Illinois so we can use Amfleet?
HarveyK400 Thank you for considering the Midwest worthy only of making do with hand-me-downs so you can get Viewliners. The last new equipment we saw were the Horizons developed primarily for NEC use. Maybe your state could fund gauntlet tracks and high level platforms in Illinois so we can use Amfleet?
Harvey K400---
The following AMTRAK report on fleet plans states on pg 41 that certain agencys do not want bi-level equipment because of perceived passenger reluctance to accept the bi-levels instead of single levels. If you get bi-levels then you do not have to worry.
. http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer/Page/1241245669222/1237608345018
Edit:: This is AMTRAK reports. Go half way down page to Comprehensive Business Plans: Click on Fleet Strategy Plan
The report states also that bi-levels would cost less per pass seat both for acquisition and operating costs. The costs of shorter platforms was also mentioned. The bi-levels in the report says AMTRAK is looking at are the California cars which are already qualified for 125 MPH where as Superliners only are qualified to 110 MPH PGS 90 - 99. Report also states agencys will need to come up with the per seat cost differences above their mandated match.
I personally believe a very large bi-level fleet really drives down unit repair costs.
The only agencys that I know of that are ready to purchase fleets are the CHI agencys and maybe North Carolina. Sounds like maybe the midwest needs to rethink their fleet plans. th
You like steep, narrow steps? Fine! Take the Amfleet yourself. I'll take a Talgo.
oltmanndHarveyK400Maybe your state could fund gauntlet tracks and high level platforms in Illinois so we can use Amfleet??? Amfleet can operate on low level platforms. The vestibules on both ends have traps.
Since the Midwest, particularly Illinois, has made an investment in the State-funded services for years, it would seem we should get some new equipment suitable for our region for a change, instead of more discards from the NE.
Couldn't find link for fleet plans.
Talgos, for lack of any other low floor tilting train, would be beneficial to some degree on all Midwest routes. Ironically, the one place where bi-levels may be needed is for Hiawatha service where Wisconsin has ordered two Talgos and is set to order two more for the extension to Madison.
I can only speculate that a comparison was made between an Amfleet-type and Superliner type car. Why a bi-level would be poorly received is a mystery until I can see the report.
blue streak 1HarveyK400 Thank you for considering the Midwest worthy only of making do with hand-me-downs so you can get Viewliners. The last new equipment we saw were the Horizons developed primarily for NEC use. Maybe your state could fund gauntlet tracks and high level platforms in Illinois so we can use Amfleet? Harvey K400--- The following AMTRAK report on fleet plans states on pg 41 that certain agencys do not want bi-level equipment because of perceived passenger reluctance to accept the bi-levels instead of single levels. If you get bi-levels then you do not have to worry. . http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer/Page/1241245669222/1237608345018 The report states also that bi-levels would cost less per pass seat both for acquisition and operating costs. The costs of shorter platforms was also mentioned. The bi-levels in the report says AMTRAK is looking at are the California cars which are already qualified for 125 MPH where as Superliners only are qualified to 110 MPH PGS 90 - 99. Report also states agencys will need to come up with the per seat cost differences above their mandated match. I personally believe a very large bi-level fleet really drives down unit repair costs. The only agencys that I know of that are ready to purchase fleets are the CHI agencys and maybe North Carolina. Sounds like maybe the midwest needs to rethink their fleet plans. th
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.