http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/business/global/08rail.html?hp
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
OK, I understand there's some high tech components involved that may require some special expertise, but there's also plenty of fine American civil engineers here in the U.S. capable of designing and building track alignments and bridges to whatever design speed you want--and we here in America need the work!
I'm an 18-year highway project engineer licensed in two states (PA and MD)--easily capable of doing railroad design. Anybody need American civil engineers for rail work--contact me.
John
No use reinventing the wheel from the hub out...some hardware (and software for that matter) along with experience may be cheaper from where high speed rail is practiced.
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.
It's a shame we have apparently become incapable of doing hi-tech for ourselves, but I guess that's the situation with our engineering and manufacture for the requisite designs and equipment.
Whether we want to admit it or not, we are not number one in high speed passenger rail. I don't understand why they just be consultants in the matter.
Engineering is different from some other American work professions because engineering consultants don't just merely give an opinion and then leave the matter up to the "client".
To be an engineering "consultant" is to do and be held legally responsible for most of the design work, unless one is the oversight consultant, in which case one is responsible for checking that the work is being done correctly. There are also project management engineering consultants that are responsible for keeping the project on schedule to hit all the important milestones and submission dates (but not getting too involved in the technical details).
So in fact those Chinese consultants will be providing most of the technical expertise (reads like nearly all) and doing much of the design work themselves--or training Americans to do some of it--assuming some qualified/talented Americans are available.
Respectfully submitted--
schlimm It's a shame we have apparently become incapable of doing hi-tech for ourselves, but I guess that's the situation with our engineering and manufacture for the requisite designs and equipment.
Tell that to Boeing and Lockheed Martin....General Electric got out of the HSR market in North America because there was simply not enough business....
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
carnej1 schlimm It's a shame we have apparently become incapable of doing hi-tech for ourselves, but I guess that's the situation with our engineering and manufacture for the requisite designs and equipment. Tell that to Boeing and Lockheed Martin....General Electric got out of the HSR market in North America because there was simply not enough business....
Some say some of the shortcomings of Metroliners and the UA Turbo train were because they were designed by dismisse aerospace engineers. Nonetheless, there are no HSR or even standard passenger car manufacturers in the US because there had been no market...virtually everything not Heritage here has been designed and otherwise manufactured by off shore companies often with just final assembly or hardware assembly done here.
henry6Some say some of the shortcomings of Metroliners and the UA Turbo train were because they were designed by dismisse aerospace engineers. Nonetheless, there are no HSR or even standard passenger car manufacturers in the US because there had been no market...virtually everything not Heritage here has been designed and otherwise manufactured by off shore companies often with just final assembly or hardware assembly done here.
Not just passenger cars, but apparently up-to-date catenary designs for electrified services probably will be derived from off-shore products, if not directly imported.
The shortcoming of the Metroliner is that the gummint got involved.
The Budd Company, they tell me, started out as an automotive supplier that moved into the railroad passenger car business with their Shotweld process for joining stainless steel. As far as I am concerned, they were eminently successful at what they did, much as GM, again, an automotive company, was successful with the Diesel-electric locomotive.
The Budd Company, in fact, had an off-the-shelf product for this application, namely, the Silverliner MU car. The idea was to get high-speed service, you would "up-gear" a Silverliner. The original US-DOT "test article" was such a modified Silverliner, setting a 150 MPH + speed record somewhere in New Jersey.
But you see, there was this national pride thing going on, the Japanese (add an element of post WW-II jingoism) were besting us with their 150 MPH train, so our train had to be designed fo 160, never mind that it would never operate over 125 MPH. I know of this because my Poppa was working for the GARD engineering research division of GATX and was involved in all of this.
So to meet the 160 MPH top speed and something like 1 MPH/s acceleration (0-120 in two minutes), they had to up-power as well as up-gear the Silverliner. Adding power added weight, requiring in turn even more power. The goll' durned thing was overspeced and overweight. And then the Pennsylvania Railroad got into the act, requiring subsitution of conventional (and with the weight and suspension tuning harsh riding) pedestal trucks for the Budd Pioneer III design (Silverliner, Amfleet).
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings."
The Metroliners had numerous reliability problems, including snow in the electrical system, requiring updates. It is easy to blame it all on the government, etc., but the fact remains, we couldn't do a proper HSR then, and still haven't 40+ years later.
Paul Milenkovic The shortcoming of the Metroliner is that the gummint got involved. The Budd Company, they tell me, started out as an automotive supplier that moved into the railroad passenger car business with their Shotweld process for joining stainless steel. As far as I am concerned, they were eminently successful at what they did, much as GM, again, an automotive company, was successful with the Diesel-electric locomotive. The Budd Company, in fact, had an off-the-shelf product for this application, namely, the Silverliner MU car. The idea was to get high-speed service, you would "up-gear" a Silverliner. The original US-DOT "test article" was such a modified Silverliner, setting a 150 MPH + speed record somewhere in New Jersey. But you see, there was this national pride thing going on, the Japanese (add an element of post WW-II jingoism) were besting us with their 150 MPH train, so our train had to be designed fo 160, never mind that it would never operate over 125 MPH. I know of this because my Poppa was working for the GARD engineering research division of GATX and was involved in all of this. So to meet the 160 MPH top speed and something like 1 MPH/s acceleration (0-120 in two minutes), they had to up-power as well as up-gear the Silverliner. Adding power added weight, requiring in turn even more power. The goll' durned thing was overspeced and overweight. And then the Pennsylvania Railroad got into the act, requiring subsitution of conventional (and with the weight and suspension tuning harsh riding) pedestal trucks for the Budd Pioneer III design (Silverliner, Amfleet).
At that time, too, Paul, there was as slow down in aerospace so displaced engineers were hired to do the Metroliner work. Yes, the govn't got involved, but to employ these areospace engineers was one of the reasons they felt they should and could albeit it was to aid and abet those damned railroads! I remember reading a statement somwhere, maybe Time or elsewhere in the news, that it was felt the government had to do something to help the unemployed aerospace people rather than to help the railroads much less HSR at the time.
schlimm "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,But in ourselves, that we are underlings." The Metroliners had numerous reliability problems, including snow in the electrical system, requiring updates. It is easy to blame it all on the government, etc., but the fact remains, we couldn't do a proper HSR then, and still haven't 40+ years later.
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,But in ourselves, that we are underlings."
OK, I won't blame the government, I will blame the advocacy community.
We, the U.S., more properly the Budd Company had a perfectly workable high-horsepower MU car -- the Silverliner, and this equipment had been demonstrated to be high-speed capable with minor modifications. But no, we couldn't be content with 120 MPH operation as that would not be "proper HSR", instead, we had to triple the HP and boost the weight by 50 percent to get the carbarn queen known as the Metroliner. We had to spec it for 160 MPH operation because we wanted bragging rights over people different from us in a distant land, even though as stated elsewhere the overhead wire wouldn't allow operation over 125 MPH.
Yes, through advances in electric technology, we got Metroliner-level HP from the AEM-7 locomotive, pulling good ol' FRA-standard compliant USA-made "Metroshells" (the Amfleet), essentially the Metroliner design without the propulsion equipment and with the original truck design intended for them. This came about on account of a change in management (the Paul Reistrup Amtrak), and this change quietly "saved Amtrak" by bringing about a workable corridor service. And yes, the locomotives came (initially) from Sweden, and I guess this sticks in a person's craw that someone outside our borders may have expertise in something that we have use for on this shores, and this craw-stickage continues with the idea that engineers in China would have anything to contribute over here.
Then we reverted to the bad experience of the Metroliner with Acela -- overpowered and overweight and not saving appreciable time in the schedule, but again giving bragging rights of a 150 MPH train (over that stretch north of NYC).
The NEC corridor provides frequent and faster-than-plane city-center-to-city-center service, some with those Acela trains, most with Amfleet cars (Metroliners) and high-HP electric locomotives, but we need to hang our heads in shame that we don't have "proper HSR." Yes in shame I say, even though it is this misplaced sense of national honor that leads us to these failed "leaps" rather than incremental improvements.
Paul: Sorry, but perhaps my sarcasm escaped you? I only think it is too bad the US is incapable of building a viable HSR over a 40 year period. Wow! A 45 mph top speed gain in 40 years! What a leap. That would seem to be the worst sort of incrementalism. The fault is in our dependence on domestic ROW engineering in the NEC that has gained very little for an enormous expenditure. No wonder California is turning to China/GE!
Not sure exactly what you mean by "fault is in our dependence on domestic ROW engineering in the NEC". The problem is not with the domestic engineers--we can only do as directed by our clients.
The facts are that, due to the abuses of the past, where for example state DOT's, etc. realigned streams and rivers at a whim to build highways, today in America the environmental process vastly hinders construction of any large public project. They don't have quite the same kinds of environmental restrictions in other developing countries. It can take 20 years now in America to get a big design project through the environmental process to achieve a "record of decision" that allows preliminary design to proceed.
In Pennsylvania, at least 21 other state and federal agencies must approve new highway construction projects. Seems ridiculous--but is sadly true.
Also, the eminent domain law in Pennsylvania was specifically changed to forbid the acquisition of ANY right-of-way (R/W) that will not be built upon within one year. This is a major handicap to PennDOT. They need to widen and reconstruct I-83 around the state capitol of Harrisburg at a construction cost of more than $1 billion. However, they cannot buy any additional R/W till they are essentially ready to build. Every day that R/W is being further developed and will become even more expensive to buy in the future. (Note: The concept of "ultimate R/W" was ruled unconstitutional many years ago--any plans showing such are pretty much null and void, depending upon the date filed.)
I would imagine the eminent domain laws, as recently revised, will also hinder future rail realignments along the NEC.
A HSR project will have to have full government buy-in, and a fast track environmental process, regardless of what state it would be located.
schlimm Paul: Sorry, but perhaps my sarcasm escaped you? I only think it is too bad the US is incapable of building a viable HSR over a 40 year period. Wow! A 45 mph top speed gain in 40 years! What a leap. That would seem to be the worst sort of incrementalism. The fault is in our dependence on domestic ROW engineering in the NEC that has gained very little for an enormous expenditure. No wonder California is turning to China/GE!
Not leaps of technology but failed leaps, which burned through money that could have been used for incremental improvements in more places. To the extent that the advocacy community invokes "shame", "US is incapable of building", and yes, sarcasm regarding US technological leadership or lack thereof, this drives projects towards "specsmanship" (Metroliner, Acela) rather than quiet, incremental, and successful efforts (AEM-7, running Amfleet on same schedules as tilt trains) towards achievable goals developing the necessary experience and expertise over time.
This is sad. I am not surprised of course, for years this nation has laughed at the idea of HSR and now we are not laughing so hard. Alternative energy is another area we need outside help in. I will try not to get political here.
While attempting to keep politics per se out of this, I have wondered many times through the years how the negative public perception of HSR has been colored by the railroad bankruptcies of the 1970's?
For better or for worse, the average American thinks railroads are all but dead. This was never displayed more vividly than in some of the rather laughable editorials about Warren Buffet's purchase of BNSF that seemed to liken the U.S. rail industry to a glorified tourist railroad enterprise or full scale toy trains.
The average American has literally no idea that today's rail movements virtually equal or exceed even the glory years traffic of WWII (and have exceeded in some recent months).
And how much of the negative HSR perception is also a result of the typical selfish American attitude that "I want to drive my own car where I want to when I want to."?
Plus, as (unfortunately) a highway design engineer, I can readily attest to the fact that American transportation policy and funding is and has been for many years controlled by engineers who only ever built highways (and that's all they really know how to do), who perceive railroads as little more than toys under a Christmas tree--most certainly at the end of the line behind air, river, and ocean-going traffic (all of which comes behind highway in the pecking order).
It's not all their fault--it's just that highways are all they ever knew or were trained to design--and nothing else is as important in their own minds.
UP 4-12-2 And how much of the negative HSR perception is also a result of the typical selfish American attitude that "I want to drive my own car where I want to when I want to."? John
So driving a car is selfish but using commerical transport, e.g. trains, planes, buses, etc. is not. How come?
UP 4-12-2While attempting to keep politics per se out of this, I have wondered many times through the years how the negative public perception of HSR has been colored by the railroad bankruptcies of the 1970's? For better or for worse, the average American thinks railroads are all but dead. This was never displayed more vividly than in some of the rather laughable editorials about Warren Buffet's purchase of BNSF that seemed to liken the U.S. rail industry to a glorified tourist railroad enterprise or full scale toy trains. The average American has literally no idea that today's rail movements virtually equal or exceed even the glory years traffic of WWII (and have exceeded in some recent months). And how much of the negative HSR perception is also a result of the typical selfish American attitude that "I want to drive my own car where I want to when I want to."? Plus, as (unfortunately) a highway design engineer, I can readily attest to the fact that American transportation policy and funding is and has been for many years controlled by engineers who only ever built highways (and that's all they really know how to do), who perceive railroads as little more than toys under a Christmas tree--most certainly at the end of the line behind air, river, and ocean-going traffic (all of which comes behind highway in the pecking order). It's not all their fault--it's just that highways are all they ever knew or were trained to design--and nothing else is as important in their own minds. John
There is a critical point here, the public.
My biggest concern is having Americans looking at rail as a transportation option. There is a new generation of Americans that are being raised thinking roads and airlines are the only way to move goods and people; and if we have a congestion problem, just build them bigger. All I here is "railroads"; they are to slow, and if the freight ends up on a truck anyway, why us rail?
Passenger rail is the same. They can not get around the concept it is for intercity travel between cities, neglecting the overall benefit for the country. What it comes down to is the ignorance to learn and innovate.
BT CPSO 266My biggest concern is having Americans looking at rail as a transportation option. There is a new generation of Americans that are being raised thinking roads and airlines are the only way to move goods and people; and if we have a congestion problem, just build them bigger. All I here is "railroads"; they are to slow, and if the freight ends up on a truck anyway, why us rail? Passenger rail is the same.
Passenger rail is the same.
That has been my observation as well. Much of the public sees rail transportation as quaint, obsolete and irrelevant. Most young people laugh if you suggest seeking a career with the rails. Because of the past 40+ years' history, most Americans are fairly ignorant of what a modern rail system could do. So dismissing HSR etc. as rejected by the public, based on polls, although true, ignores the possibility that if educated, the public may well change its mind about rail improvements.
Sam1 UP 4-12-2 And how much of the negative HSR perception is also a result of the typical selfish American attitude that "I want to drive my own car where I want to when I want to."? John So driving a car is selfish but using commerical transport, e.g. trains, planes, buses, etc. is not. How come?
Its not the act of driving the car so much as it is the attitude which promulgates the anti public transportation attitude in not allowing such service to be initiated or maintained. What so often happends, especially in commuter zones, is that when the driver needs the train, i.e. car problems, snow or other bad weather problem, etc., the train is either late, overcrowded, or possibley non existant, he will complain and rail against the system he doesn't want to support to begin with!
henry6Its not the act of driving the car so much as it is the attitude which promulgates the anti public transportation attitude in not allowing such service to be initiated or maintained. What so often happends, especially in commuter zones, is that when the driver needs the train, i.e. car problems, snow or other bad weather problem, etc., the train is either late, overcrowded, or possibley non existant, he will complain and rail against the system he doesn't want to support to begin with!
All too true! I rode the Metra Milw West line into downtown Chicago and back today (Sunday). Certainly better than driving, especially with I 290 torn up again. The train was almost full. But the equipment and the ride, old, in disrepair and rough. One would think one was riding some old train in some backward country. I seriously am beginning to wonder how things have gotten so bad?
I think one of the fundamental differences between American public transportation and European public transportation is that Europeans do not have the typical American mindset that "I have to be there now" but are actually willing to wait a little bit. (Then again you can set your watch by some of their trains).
Yes, Americans actually are selfish. More than one design professional in the U.S. has argued--for years--that HSR cannot work here because:
A. Americans are selfish and you can't get them out of their car/personal fiefdom.
B. We do not have the population densities in many areas of the U.S. for HSR to be viable.
My personal opinion is that B is changing--but the question facing transportation design professionals (whether they be bus, airline, or rail) is how do we get the American out of their car? The only answer some have offered is let the highways reach gridlock for 10 hours per day, and then the commuters will be willing to get out of their car.
We have bus systems doing poorly because they refuse to run buses on 10 minute headways (i.e. 10 minutes apart). Studies in PA have shown that 30 minutes between buses in the suburbs around Harrisburg is simply too long--most people simply refuse to wait that long. So the bus system requires heavy financial subsidies. (I was not the consultant on that project, but Gannett Fleming told them they needed to run the buses at 10 minute headways for the system to be financially viable).
The above posts also made some very good points regarding the negative attitudes toward HSR in America.
The plain truth that most of the pro-highway establishment now realizes in America is:
A. The air quality standards will prohibit us from adding additional lanes to many highways in the future--especially around cities like Philadelphia.
B. The cost of right-of-way will prohibit us from adding additional lanes in the future.
C. Even when we are able to add lanes, we cannot financially afford to add them fast enough to keep up with traffic increases.
That's why so much is being invested in "smart transportation". Eventually, your car's computer (or perhaps a next generation Garmin) will analyze the current traffic conditions and seek out the most efficient/fastest route.
The primary thing holding Amtrak back is their one train a day philosophy. I guarantee if you suddenly doubled the amount of equipment they had, they would double the number of cities being served by one train a day. That is just not convenient to the average traveler.
Fast, frequent and on time is the key to transportation success.
This weekend I saw three different angry travelers, one in DC and two in Baltimore who were trying to resolve their stranding in those cities. Each one yelling at the ticket agents that "the people who sold me my ticket didn't tell me that MARC doesn't run on weekends and no one else serves my destination."
I rode 4 Amtrak trains in the last week. All 4 were full. Two of them had passengers, carry on bags and all, who spent the entire trip at a table in the café car. I actually hear a car attendant given that instruction via radio when he could not find them seats.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Americans have been taught they are "free" to do as they please, when they please, and how they please. The oil/highway lobby, perhaps not specifically, have capitalized on that so that it is difficult for Americans to understand "free" in relation to travel in anyother terms than the automotible's on demand freedom of travel.
As for Amtrak's philosophy of one train a day services. Remember Amtrak was not born to be a passenger rail service for the public but as a bail out for private enterprise freight railroads by ridding them of the cost burden of passenger trains. Couple that with Congressional and other political interventions, and you get what you got. But today's economic and enviromental climates within the political and business communities has changed somewhat in that underutilized freight lines are open for passenger use (read: added income for private enterprise); land and air consumption and congestion leads to more need for rail usage and private enterprise rail can't shoulder the full cost so is turning to governments for help; cost of fuel, traffic congestion, and physical condition of highway infrastructure has the public thinking passenger train again.
Those in the transportation "know" that railroads and other transportation companies have to sit down with governments and each other to work out a viable, economical, enviromentally safe, and effecient transportation system for both people and freight.
Phoebe VetI rode 4 Amtrak trains in the last week. All 4 were full.
Phoebe: If you could provide me with the trains, dates, and segments that were full it could be very interesting. Sounds as if there is still not enough equipment to cover demand. The ridership figures for March were very interesting especially the Carolinian.
Do you have any idea that the reason they were oversold was because of a shortened consist?
GE provides a "Buy American" front for the Chinese engineering work and gets a percentage for it while not having to invest in the home-grown expertise such as UP 4-12-2 or to reinvent HSR. China undoubtedly has more experience in the more sophisticated aspects of HSR having studied and adopted the best available Asian and European technologies in developing their HSR program.
UP 4-12-2...Studies in PA have shown that 30 minutes between buses in the suburbs around Harrisburg is simply too long--most people simply refuse to wait that long. So the bus system requires heavy financial subsidies. (I was not the consultant on that project, but Gannett Fleming told them they needed to run the buses at 10 minute headways for the system to be financially viable). The above posts also made some very good points regarding the negative attitudes toward HSR in America. John
The 10 minute rule sounds about right; but does this explain nearly-full Metra weekend trains? Of course, one has to wonder if more frequent trains would do as well as 2-hr service or hourly on weekdays.
That leads to another question for the Chicagoland region and elsewhere served by a high-capacity radial suburban rail networks: would circumferential express bus routes connecting with local bus routes and parking at Metra stations enhance travel opportunities? For instance, a person in Riverside might take the BNSF to Downers Grove to get to Woodfield or Joliet faster than by going though Downtown. Would hourly or half-hour service be acceptable? It certainly would cost less than taking Metra downtown and back out!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.